United States Science Advisory Board EPA-SAB-EPEC-97-009
Environmental Washington, DC September 1997
Protection Agency
AN SAB REPORT:
EVALUATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING AND
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
(EMAP) RESEARCH
STRATEGY AND
RESEARCH PLAN
PREPARED BY THE
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND
EFFECTS COMMITTEE
-------
September 30, 1997
EPA-SAB-EPEC-97-009
Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Science Advisory Board (SAB) Report: Evaluation of the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Research Strategy and
Research Plan
Dear Ms. Browner:
The Science Advisory Board's (SAB) Environmental Processes and Effects Committee
(EPEC) reviewed the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Research
Strategy and Research Plan on May 14, 1997. The Committee was impressed with the excellent
advances in the state-of-the-science that have been made in several areas. In particular, the
Committee applauds advances by EMAP in the critical area of landscape characterization
Committee's perception of the current EMAP was bimodal. On the one hand, there was serious
concern based on presentations made to EPEC that many of the advances made in EMAP's
initial phase on important issues like development of ecological indicators and the
implementation of pilot studies were being lost in the transition to Phase 2; in essence, that
EMAP is stuck in a cycle of periodic reinvention.
Overall, while the Committee felt there are many strengths to the program, it believes that
EMAP is still trying to do too many things simultaneously, rather than doing a few things well.
The Committee believes that EPA needs to focus EMAP, and suggests the use of regional pilot
studies and intensive research sites to provide the mechanism for that focus. EPEC strongly
recommends that, following appropriate revisions, the program move ahead with implementation.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this document, and look forward to the response
from the AA, Office of Research and Development (ORD) concerning the issues we have raised.
Sincerely,
/signed/
Dr. Genevieve Matanoski, Chair
Executive Committee
Science Advisory Board
/signed/
Dr. Mark A. Harwell, Chair
Environmental Processes and Effects
Committee
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the Science Advisory
Board, a public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to
the Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Board is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related
to problems facing the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the
Agency and, hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the
Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) met on May 14, 1997 to review the Environment Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) Research Strategy and Research Plan. The
Committee's perception of the current EMAP was bimodal. On the one hand, there was
serious concern based on presentations made to EPEC that many of the advances
made in EMAP's initial phase on important issues like development of ecological
indicators and the implementation of pilot studies were being lost in the transition to
Phase 2; in essence, that EMAP is stuck in a cycle of periodic reinvention. On the
other hand, the Committee was impressed with the excellent advances in the state-of-
the-science that have been made in several areas, despite the recent period of
institutional turmoil. In particular, the Committee applauds advances by EMAP in the
critical area of landscape characterization. In summary, while the Committee felt there
are many strengths to the program, it believes that EMAP is still trying to do too many
things simultaneously, rather than doing a few things well. EPA needs to focus EMAP.
The Committee's suggests the use of regional pilot studies and intensive research sites
to provide the mechanism for that focus. EPEC strongly recommends that, following
appropriate revisions, the program move ahead with implementation.
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND EFFECTS COMMITTEE
CHAIR
Dr. Mark A. Harwell, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University
of Miami, Miami, FL
VICE CHAIR
Dr. Alan W. Maki, Exxon Company, USA, Houston, TX
MEMBERS
Dr. William Adams, Kennecott Utah Copper Corp, Magna, UT
Dr. Steven M. Bartell, SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN
Dr. Kenneth W. Cummins, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm
Beach, FL
Dr. Virginia Dale, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, TN
Dr. Carol Johnston, Natural Resources Research Institute, Duluth, MN
Dr. Frederick K. Pfaender, Carolina Federation for Environmental Programs, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Dr. William H. Smith, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University,
New Haven, CT
Dr. Terry F. Young, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, CA
CONSULTANTS
Dr. Kenneth L. Dickson, Institute of Applied Sciences, University of North Texas,
Denton, TX
Dr. Peter Kareiva, Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Dr. J. Walter Milon, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Ms. Stephanie Sanzone, Designated Federal Official, US EPA, Science Advisory Board
(1400), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Wanda R. Fields, Staff Secretary, US EPA, Science Advisory Board (1400), 401 M
-------
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2. INTRODUCTION 4
3. GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
3.1 Building on Past EMAP Successes 6
3.2 Linking EMAP with Other Agency Efforts 7
3.3 The Need for Conceptual Models 8
4. RESPONSES TO CHARGE QUESTIONS 10
4.1 EMAP's Relation to National Monitoring Efforts and EPA Program Offices
10
4.2 Development of Ecological Indicators 11
4.3 Index Sites 12
4.4 Geographic Demonstration Pilot Studies 15
5. LITERATURE CITED R -1
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) met on May 14, 1997 to review the Environment Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) Research Strategy and Research Plan. The review was
requested by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) whose charge to the
SAB asked:
a) Does the EMAP strategy support the [Office of Science and Technology
Policy's Committee on Environment and Natural Resources] CENR
National Monitoring Framework and EPA Program Offices?
b) Does the intramural EMAP program on ecological indicator development,
coordinated with the [ORD Science To Achieve Results] STAR
solicitations, respond to this research need?
c) Does the development of Index Sites as outdoor laboratories in the
national parks ([National Park Service] NPS and [US Geological Survey]
USGS) and selected estuaries ([National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration] NOAA) add this dimension to the EMAP?
d) Do the focused geographic demonstration pilot studies (initially in the
Mid-Atlantic region) combine these elements?
The Committee's perception of the current EMAP was bimodal. On the one
hand, there was serious concern based on presentations made to EPEC that many of
the advances made in EMAP's initial phase on important issues like development of
ecological indicators and the implementation of pilot studies were being lost in the
transition to Phase 2; in essence, that EMAP is stuck in a cycle of periodic reinvention.
On the other hand, the Committee was impressed with the excellent advances in
the state-of-the-science that have been made in several areas, despite the recent
period of institutional turmoil. In particular, the Committee applauds advances by
EMAP in the critical area of landscape characterization.
The Committee noted a major disconnect between the EMAP strategy and the
establishment of environmental goals and endpoints. The Committee strongly
recommends that EMAP take direct cognizance of the EPA Environmental Goals
Project, and that it engage the Program Offices and the Regional Offices in identifying
the environmental goals for which environmental monitoring and assessment are
essential to evaluate progress.
-------
While EMAP's current focus on indicator development appears to be focused on
effects indicators, it is imperative to develop both effect indicators and stressor
indicators to meet the component of EMAP's goal that relates to "identifying emerging
problems before they become widespread."
The Committee recommends that the next EMAP-supported STAR solicitation
focus on landscape, terrestrial, and coastal indicator development, as well as new
methodologies for doing integration and assessment. The Committee also
recommends that the EMAP research program contain a strategic component for the
development of the next generation of indicators. Specifically, research to develop
"real-time" biosensors of the status of ecosystems should be initiated.
The Committee also recommends that future solicitations under the STAR
Program on EMAP-related issues be closely coordinated with EMAP to ensure the
optimal balance between soliciting innovative research ideas and soliciting scientific
advances that will have direct near-term utility to the EMAP Program. One important
mechanism for identifying critical research areas is for EMAP to develop explicit
conceptual models, following the problem formulation component of EPA's ecological
risk assessment framework. Further, the Committee recommends that EMAP consider
the advances made in risk ranking, such as through the ongoing SAB Integrated Risk
Project (IRP), as a means of prioritizing stressors and, thereby, indicators for
monitoring and assessment.
Finally, the Committee recommends that EMAP take close cognizance of the
new developments on biocriteria in its indicator development activities. The Committee
noted that ecological effects indicators are primarily appropriate at landscape-,
ecosystem-, community-, and in some cases population-levels, but indicators at lower
levels (e.g., individual, molecular) have never been demonstrated to be useful to
describe ecological effects. Bioindicators are sometimes appropriate to describe
exposure to stressors, but ecological effects are not directly or necessarily indirectly
linked to lower scales of organization. Consequently, the Committee recommends that
ecological effects indicator development concentrate on population- and higher-level
scales. The Committee also recommends that indicators include both biotic and abiotic
measures.
The Committee has a number of concerns about the EMAP collaboration with
the National Park Service (NPS) in establishing the initial set of Index Sites. First,
there is serious concern that NPS lost much of its scientific expertise when the National
Biological Survey (now the USGS Biological Resources Division) was formed. Second,
in general there are severe limitations on destructive sampling in national parks, which
would significantly diminish the Agency's ability to acquire critical information on the
ecological systems in the parks. EPA's use of the existing NPS Index Sites, if they are
to be continued, should be limited to monitoring of selected stressors, rather than
-------
monitoring for effects.
Having said this, the Committee strongly supports the concept of Index Sites for
intensive monitoring and stressor-effects assessments, particularly when site selection
for comprehensive monitoring maximizes the utility of, and interaction with, strong
existing monitoring programs. A key recommendation from the Committee is that the
selection of locations for intensive monitoring should be primarily science based and
directed by suitability for hypothesis testing.
In summary, while there are many strengths to the program the Committee
believes that EMAP is still trying to do too many things simultaneously, rather than
doing a few things well. The message is focus, focus, focus, and the use of regional
pilot studies and intensive research sites provides the mechanism for that focus. We
strongly recommend that, following appropriate revisions, the program move ahead with
implementation.
-------
2. INTRODUCTION
The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) of the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) met on May 14, 1997 to review the Environment Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) Research Strategy and Research Plan. The review was
requested by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) with the following
specific charge issues:
a) Previous peer reviews recommended that EMAP develop a close working
relation with EPA Program Offices and other federal monitoring efforts.
Does the EMAP strategy support the [Office of Science and Technology
Policy's Committee on Environment and Natural Resources] CENR
National Monitoring Framework and EPA Program Offices?
b) Previous peer reviews recommended that EMAP initiate a focused
research program on indicator development. Does the intramural EMAP
program on ecological indicator development, coordinated with the [ORD
Science To Achieve Results] STAR solicitations, respond to this research
need?
c) Previous peer reviews recommended that the EMAP design be modified
to include a set of nonrandomly selected sentinel sites with intensive data
collection. Does the development of Index Sites as outdoor laboratories
in the national parks ([National Park Service] NPS and [US Geological
Survey] USGS) and selected estuaries ([National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration] NOAA) add this dimension to the EMAP?
d) Previous peer reviews recommended that EMAP combine effects-oriented
and stressor-oriented monitoring approaches. Do the focused geographic
demonstration pilot studies (initially in the Mid-Atlantic region) combine
these elements?
The Committee's comments are based on review of the March 1997 drafts of the
EMAP Research Strategy and the EMAP Research Plan, and presentations made
during the review meeting by EMAP programmatic and scientific leaders. Since the
inception of EMAP, EPEC or its subcommittees have reviewed and commented on
various aspects of the program (see, for example, SAB 1991a,b; 1992; 1994; and
1995). In 1995, the Committee was briefed on the transition of EMAP from an
independent EPA program to a component of a federally coordinated, multi-agency
program. This multi-agency effort to coordinate and integrate federal monitoring efforts
was conducted under the auspices of the interagency Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources (CENR) and was a priority of then-EPA Assistant Administrator for
-------
Research and Development Robert Huggett. The current review, however, represents
the Committee's first opportunity to provide formal comments on the restructured EMAP
following its significant transformation two years ago and as it enters a second major
phase of development.
-------
3. GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Building on Past EMAP Successes
The Committee's perception of the current EMAP was bimodal. On the one
hand, there was serious concern based on presentations made to EPEC that many of
the advances made in EMAP's initial phase on important issues like development of
ecological indicators and the implementation of pilot studies were being lost in the
transition to Phase 2; in essence, that EMAP is stuck in a cycle of periodic reinvention.
For example, EMAP representatives stated that a substantial cooperative agreement
has been established with the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study on
the issue of ecological indicators, yet the Committee noted that a major workshop on
indicators convened by EMAP in Phase I resulted in a two-volume book and a
peer-reviewed EPA report on ecological indicators. Those products, along with many
other reports and peer-reviewed publications engendered by EMAP, either by EPA or
academic scientists, constituted a significant advance in the definition and
implementation of ecological indicators. Consequently, the Committee is concerned
that little value will be added by another panel covering much the same ground.
In order to take advantage of the distinguished panel assembled by the NRC,
the Committee recommends that EMAP work with the NRC to redirect its cooperative
agreement to an activity that will add more value. Possible emphases include: 1)
reviewing and advising the larger CENR program; 2) assessing the research needed to
make major advances in the field of landscape ecology and its applicability to national
environmental monitoring and assessment; or 3) focusing attention on terrestrial
bioindicators and landscape indicators. The main point is to avoid spending effort on
indicators that have already been reviewed over and over, and that are in use and
widely accepted (as is the case with many aquatic indicators). In any event, the
Agency should give careful consideration to schedule and timing, so that the NRC is
reviewing relevant and up-to-date material that might be used by EPA, instead of
producing a report that comes out after EPA has already adopted a particular suite of
indicators.
The Committee emphasizes that nothing here is meant as criticism of the NRC
EMAP indicators panel or of the important advisory contributions that NRC
panels in general can provide to the Agency. To the contrary, review and
advice by the NRC constitute an essential component in achieving the policy
goal of the Agency to base its decisions on sound science; the previous NRC
review of EMAP (NRC 1995) is a case in point. The Committee urges EMAP to
use the NRC strategically.
Other issues, such as the apparent termination of the ecological resource teams
-------
and their pilot studies, led the Committee to conclude that institutional instability in the
-------
EMAP Program has caused not only a lack of progress over the past two years, but
even regression and loss of much that had been gained previously.
On the other hand, the Committee was impressed with the excellent advances in
the state-of-the-science that have been made in several areas, despite the recent
period of institutional turmoil. In particular, the Committee applauds advances by
EMAP in the critical area of landscape characterization, including: the continued
development of the thematic mapper landscape database for the U.S.; the development
of methodologies to communicate landscape-level characterizations to the scientific
community, as well as to decision-makers and the general public; advances in
developing landscape-level indicators that are synthetic and represent changes of
significance to society; and the institution of a Multi-Spectral Scanner (MSS) database
on spectral changes associated with changing landcover type. Similarly, the Mid-
Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) activity exemplifies precisely the tremendous
value of integrating databases and indicators across resource types; MAIA is
characterizing a specific region in a way that directly supports decision-makers, in this
case as represented by a representative from EPA's Region III Office. This pilot study
demonstrates the utility of a real-world application in facilitating the integration and
assessment mission of EMAP that EPEC has frequently emphasized requires focused
attention. And the MAIA pilot illustrates how far existing and anticipated databases can
be taken in informing the public and decision-makers about the health of their
environment, answering questions that they might otherwise not have contemplated.
In summary, the Committee believes that EMAP is still trying to do too many
things simultaneously, rather than doing a few things well. The message is focus,
focus, focus, and the use of regional pilot studies and intensive research sites provides
the mechanism for that focus. We strongly recommend that, following appropriate
revisions, the program move ahead with implementation.
3.2 Linking EMAP with Other Agency Efforts
The Committee noted a major disconnect between the EMAP strategy and the
establishment of environmental goals and endpoints. The EMAP plan currently
envisions development of indicators and selection of Index Sites as occurring prior to
interactions with managers and the public on the identification of goals. This approach
is directly contrary to the concept of balance between the scientific investigations and
the deliberations of society articulated by the recent NRC panel on risk characterization
(Stern and Fineberg, 1996), as well as EPA's own policies relating to community-based
environmental protection and planning for ecological risk assessment. The Committee
strongly recommends that EMAP take direct cognizance of the EPA Environmental
Goals Project, and that it engage the Program Offices and the Regional Offices in
identifying the environmental goals for which environmental monitoring and assessment
are essential to evaluate progress. That environmental monitoring must be goal-driven
8
-------
is a fundamental precept that is essential to the success of EMAP. This cannot be
stated in stronger terms.
In addition, the Committee conducted a review of the Office of Water's Index of
Watershed Indicators (IWI) Program the day following the EMAP review. As a
consequence, EPEC recommends that closer ties between these two programs be
developed, including, among other things, IWI use of EMAP databases and expertise in
its indicator development, and EMAP use of the IWI linkages to the states and its
success in graphical outputs and use of the Internet. If done properly, these two
programs can be mutually supportive and demonstrate the best of collaboration
between a research activity and a practical application designed to improve the
availability and understanding of environmental information for decision-makers and
the public.
Further suggestions for coordination opportunities with EPA Program Offices
and Regions are contained in section 4.1.
3.3 The Need for Conceptual Models
The goal of EMAP is to "monitor the condition of the Nation's ecological
resources to evaluate the cumulative success of current policies and programs, and to
identify emerging problems before they become widespread" (EPA, 1997). A critical
element of meeting this goal is to develop effects and stressor indicators that provide
explicit information about the condition of the Nation's resources. EMAP has
developed a number of indicators of ecological condition and has evaluated their
efficiency through a variety of demonstration studies. In addition, EMAP has engaged
the ecological research community in developing indicators via funding of an Indicator
Initiative through EPA's extramural grants program (the Exploratory Research
Program). The Committee commends these efforts and encourages the Agency to
continue this research focus. In addition, EMAP has fostered the development of
criteria to evaluate the efficacy of candidate effects indicators via establishment of an
advisory committee, the Committee to Evaluate Indicators for Monitoring Aquatic and
Terrestrial Environments. All of these efforts are meritorious and, considering the
central role of indicators to accomplishing EMAP's goal, seem reasonable and prudent.
At this stage in the development or evolution of EMAP, however, it is critical to
articulate clearly a conceptual model relating stressor indicators to effects indicators in
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems as a means of focusing future research on indicators
development that will most effectively decrease uncertainty.
The EPA ecological risk assessment process has been advanced recently
through the use of conceptual models. These models are explicit graphical
representations of how societal drivers lead to environmental stressors, how these
stressors affect the key ecological endpoints of ecological systems at risk, and, finally,
-------
how these ecological endpoints are characterized by specific measures or indicators of
condition and trend. The Committee strongly recommends that EMAP use the
conceptual model construct developed in EPA, as illustrated by the OW/ORD
watershed ecorisk case studies, as a focusing mechanism for the selection of specific
indicators relating to specific environmental stressors or conditions. As one example of
this, conceptual models should be developed for each regional pilot study, identifying
the major anthropogenic and natural stressors, the major ecological system types, and
the specific suite of ecological endpoints that relate to the environmental goals
established for the region.
A clear conceptual model could help in assessing the appropriateness of the
current suite of indicators, identify gaps in the available indicators, and by so doing
channel the Indicator Research Program in directions that will best assist EMAP in
meeting its goal. While EMAP's current focus on indicator development appears to be
focused on effects indicators, it is imperative to develop both effect indicators and
stressor indicators to meet the component of EMAP's goal that relates to "identifying
emerging problems before they become widespread." Monitoring status and trends in
stressors can provide early warning of emerging problems, rather than waiting until
ecological effects become apparent. Thus the conceptual models should attempt to
identify the major stressors effecting the ecological integrity of ecosystems (biological
integrity).
10
-------
4. RESPONSES TO CHARGE QUESTIONS
4.1 EMAP's Relation to National Monitoring Efforts and EPA Program Offices
Charge Question 1: Does the EMAP strategy support the CENR National
Monitoring Framework and EPA Program Offices?
The EPA staff presented an overview of the CENR framework and provided
copies to EPEC of the March 1997 draft of the CENR framework document (CENR,
1997). The Committee finds that the EMAP Research Strategy and Research Plan do
support the CENR framework. This is not surprising, since much of the framework
appears to have been derived from, or at least is consistent with, the EMAP Program in
Phase I as well as Phase II. The Committee believes that EMAP can become a central
component of the CENR activity, thereby significantly leveraging the resources EPA
invests in EMAP. One example is EMAP's role in organizing the Multi-Resource
Landscape Characterization effort (MRLC), which involves voluntary coordination by a
number of federal agencies interested in satellite imagery-based mapping of the entire
U.S. This and other facilitating roles of EMAP in the CENR process are critical, and the
Committee encourages their continuation.
However, the support of EMAP to the EPA Program Offices is less clear. It is
obvious that the methodologies and products generated by EMAP should be of
considerable utility to the Program Offices, but information was not presented to the
Committee on how much support actually occurs, or what the role of the Program
Offices has been in developing the new EMAP strategy. The Committee noted several
specific areas in which EMAP support to the Agency would be useful: for example,
EMAP should have a major influence on the present revisions to the Clean Water Act
section 305(b) water quality reporting program, implemented by the Office of Water
(OW), EPA Regional Offices, and the states. Other obvious linkages should exist
between EMAP and the Agency's community-based environmental protection
initiatives, the development of non-point source regulations, watershed assessments
(including the Office of Water's Index of Watershed Indicators), and assessments of the
efficacy of regulations on regional air quality. However, EMAP's measurement agenda
must not be too tightly tied to the needs of the moment, as the Committee also notes
that one of the most important ways in which a successful EMAP can support EPA
Program Offices is by identifying emergent problems that these offices have not yet
identified.
Previous peer reviews by EPEC and others have noted the greater success
EMAP has had in coordinating and supporting inter-agency activities than in supporting
intra-agency programs. This may still be the case; we would like to hear from the
Program Offices on their perspectives on the utility of the new EMAP program. In any
11
-------
event, the Committee recommends that EMAP redouble its efforts to provide scientific
support to EPA Program Offices and Regions. The MAIA pilot demonstrates how
useful that partnership can be.
4.2 Development of Ecological Indicators
Charge Question 2: Does the intramural EMAP program on ecological indicator
development, coordinated with the STAR solicitations, respond to [the need to
initiate a focused research program on indicator development]?
The Committee was not provided with copies of the Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) request for applications (RFAs) that EMAP supported relating to indicator
development, nor was information presented on the nature of the proposals received or
those selected for funding, so EPEC cannot reach a conclusion on how well the STAR
solicitations addressed the need for indicator development. However, several
individuals on EPEC expressed concerns that, based on RFAs they had seen, the
requests might not lead to research sufficiently focused to be of value to the EMAP
Program in the near-term.
The Committee also noted that, in general, a great deal of research has been
done over the past decade or so on the development and application of indicators of
freshwater aquatic systems, but very little comparable research has been done on
terrestrial, estuarine, or marine indicators. Further, landscape-level indicators continue
to require substantial development. Consequently, the Committee recommends that
the next EMAP-supported STAR solicitation focus on landscape, terrestrial, and coastal
indicator development, as well as new methodologies for doing integration and
assessment.
The Committee also recognizes the need for development of the next generation
of indicators and recommends that the EMAP research program contain a strategic
component for such development. Specifically, research to develop "real-time"
biosensors of the status of ecosystems should be initiated. Currently we assess
ecosystem health after-the-fact, typically by examining predominantly species-level
abundance data. One limitation of this approach is that it does not characterize rapid
responses to episodic stressors, making it difficult to sample and thus identify cause(s)
of effects. By comparison, real-time biosensors could provide rapid and continuous
information about ecosystem status. With advances in telemetry, computing power,
microelectronics, and molecular biology, it should be possible to develop effective
real-time monitoring systems for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The Agency's
Indicator Research Program should lead the way in this important area.
The Committee recommends that future solicitations under the STAR Program
12
-------
on EMAP-related issues be closely coordinated with EMAP to ensure the optimal
balance between soliciting innovative research ideas and soliciting scientific advances
that will have direct near-term utility to the EMAP Program. As discussed in section
3.3, one important mechanism for identifying critical research areas is for EMAP to
develop explicit conceptual models, following the problem formulation component of
EPA's ecological risk assessment framework.
Further, the Committee recommends that EMAP consider the advances made in
risk ranking, such as through the ongoing SAB Integrated Risk Project (IRP),as a
means of prioritizing stressors and, thereby, indicators for monitoring and assessment.
The presentation to the Committee by the Region III representative makes a good case
for this, as the ranking of stressors by Region III closely parallels the IRP findings; even
greater linkage would result if the risk ranking methodologies were directly applied in
the EMAP pilot studies.
Finally, the Committee recently conducted two reviews of biocriteria documents
prepared by the Office of Water. The Committee recommends that EMAP take close
cognizance of the new developments on biocriteria in its indicator development
activities. The Committee noted that ecological effects indicators are primarily
appropriate at landscape-, ecosystem-, community-, and in some cases
population-levels, but indicators at lower levels (e.g., individual, molecular) have never
been demonstrated to be useful to describe ecological effects. Bioindicators are
sometimes appropriate to describe exposure to stressors, but ecological effects are not
directly or necessarily indirectly linked to lower scales of organization. Consequently,
the Committee recommends that ecological effects indicator development concentrate
on population- and higher-level scales. The Committee also recommends that
indicators include both biotic and abiotic measures.
4.3 Index Sites
Charge Question 3: Does the development of Index Sites as outdoor
laboratories in the national parks (NPS and USGS) and selected estuaries (
NOAA) add this dimension to the EMAP [to include a set of nonrandomly
selected sentinel sites with intensive data collection]?
The Committee has a number of concerns about the EMAP collaboration with
the National Park Service (NPS) in establishing the initial set of Index Sites. First,
there is serious concern that NPS lost much of its scientific expertise when the National
Biological Survey (now the USGS Biological Resources Division) was formed.
Consequently, the value added of NPS scientists doing on-the-ground monitoring and
assessments is questioned. In contrast, the development of a joint program with NOAA
on selected estuaries, which apparently has not yet materialized, offers the promise of
tremendous additional scientific expertise, databases, and assessment experience.
13
-------
Second, in general there are severe limitations on destructive sampling in national
parks, which would significantly diminish the Agency's ability to acquire critical
information on the ecological systems in the parks.
The Committee also has serious concerns about the location of the Index Sites
selected. The initial set of Index Sites seems to have derived more from the existence
of a set of NPS sites searching for a mission, rather than from selection of a suite of
sites selected for their potential to answer questions about specific hypotheses and
stressor-effects relationships. For example, use of the Everglades and Virgin Island
National Parks as sites for assessing the effects of increases in UV-B radiation is very
unlikely to provide useful results for two reasons. First, UV-B levels are quite high at
those low latitudes, and are not expected to change as dramatically as UV-B levels at
higher latitudes. Secondly, monitoring for UV-B effects without specific hypotheses to
be tested and rigorous controls to be established simply cannot distinguish any
UV-B-caused effects signal from all the other, usually much more consequential,
natural and anthropogenic changes occurring at the sites. For example, changes in
phytoplankton density and species are a frequent occurrence, and it will be very hard, if
not impossible, to attribute specific changes in phytoplankton community structure to
changes in UV-B. This is just a single example of the difficulties that will arise with the
current sampling strategy with respect to characterizing causality of observed
ecological effects. These, and other examples that could be discussed, suggest that
EPA's use of the existing NPS Index Sites, if they are to be continued, should be limited
to monitoring of selected stressors, rather than monitoring for effects.
Further, the Committee recommends that EMAP not invest significant funds in
the NPS sites; for example, EMAP representatives noted the stated request by the
Virgin Islands National Park for EMAP funds to rebuild its air monitoring system,
destroyed by a recent hurricane. While this would be a policy issue for the Agency to
decide, the Committee does not believe this is an appropriate allocation of the limited
funding resources for science in EMAP.
The proposed selection of Index Sites appears largely driven by a single set of
stressors, i.e., those associated with atmospheric deposition. This set of stressors is
important, but consideration must also be given to other stressor groups. The SAB's
Reducing f?/s/cand other risk ranking processes should inform the selection of the
stressors of focus for Index Sites. Further, the Committee recommends that site
selection emphasizing a particular stressor be done in close concert with the cognizant
EPA Program Office; for example, selection of Index Sites to monitor for stress and
effects associated with atmospheric deposition or UV-B should be coordinated with
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. Current gaps in rural air pollution monitoring as well
as available data concerning rural air monitoring should be systematically reviewed. A
very desirable characteristic of air pollution monitoring sites would be the ability to
14
-------
establish a gradient of deposition or exposure that would facilitate effects-hypothesis
testing.
Finally, the Committee noted the difficulty of monitoring for ecological effects in
the absence of controlled experimentation. For example, it is a fact that many variables
can influence an ecological effects indicator, and this will lead to an inability to interpret
cause-and-effect relationships unless there are carefully controlled conditions. It is
clear that confounding effects will be a major problem in interpreting monitoring data
from the current set of Index Sites. As noted in previous reviews, the Committee wishes
to emphasize in the strongest possible terms that monitoring to demonstrate
cause-and-effect relationships between anthropogenic stressors and ecological effects
is unlikely to succeed unless the monitoring is coupled with carefully designed
experimental manipulations.
Having said this, the Committee strongly supports the concept of Index Sites for
intensive monitoring and stressor-effects assessments, particularly when site selection
for comprehensive monitoring maximizes the utility of, and interaction with, strong
existing monitoring programs. Index sites as envisioned in the revised EMAP can
serve a variety of roles in developing our understanding of ecological resources.
Monitoring stressors and ecological effects at sites that are representative of different
ecosystems and different stressors can provide information on stressor-response
relationships. Conversely, choosing sites remote from anthropogenic stressors can
produce baseline "reference information" against which to compare impacted sites. A
key recommendation from the Committee is that the selection of locations for intensive
monitoring should be primarily science based and directed by suitability for hypothesis
testing.
Appropriate candidate Index Sites for EMAP would include the NOAA
sanctuaries and estuarine reserves, the NSF-sponsored Long Term Ecological
Research (LTER) and Land Margin Ecological Research (LMER) sites, the DOE and
DOD ecological research sites, and the US Forest Service network of forest sites. The
criteria for selection of Index Sites should include the availability of a historical
database, the existence of considerable expertise and experience with the site and its
response to stressors, location along stressor gradients, the leveraging with
value-added resources from the collaborating institution, and geographical and
ecosystem type representativeness.
The Committee offers the following specific comments on the Index Site
selection criteria in the EMAP Research Strategy:
EMAP Criterion 1: sites should be of interest to multiple federal agencies
Sites should NOT be restricted to federal lands. Consideration should also be
15
-------
extended to sites of interest to other institutions, such as states, universities, the Nature
Conservancy, or other protected land stewards.
EMAP Criterion 2: selected sites should represent all major ecosystem
types
The Committee emphasizes the importance of establishing Index Sites in each
of the primary ecological resource groups The Committee found the current list of
resource categories too aggregated and recommends that all of the major categories of
ecological resources that were identified in the original EMAP program be retained.
This would mean, for instance, separating agricultural resources from semi-arid,
forests, and other system types currently aggregated into a terrestrial category.
Further, the Committee recommends that EMAP explicitly reconstitute the resource
groups, which were described by one EMAP presenter as having been disbanded but
still functional.
Separation of ecological resource groups, however, should NOT ignore the
important interaction of ecosystem types. For example, the linkage of upland forests,
river systems, and estuarine areas is critically important at the landscape scale.
EMAP Criterion 3: Sites should have long-term accessibility
While long-term accessibility is critical, long-term ability to sample freely and,
perhaps, manipulate system components is equally important for hypothesis testing of
cause-effects relationships. As a result, the selection of National Park sites may be
undesirable because of the NPS's restrictions on destructive sampling and the changes
in park operational policy that may be associated with changes in individual park
administrators.
EMAP Criterion 4: EMAP monitoring should link with existing monitoring
and/or ecological effects research
Clearly, these linkages are valuable, particularly when leveraging and
cooperation can advance or expand the total monitoring/research output. Again,
however, we express reservation about the selection of National Park sites because the
Department of Interior has greatly reduced or eliminated research and monitoring
efforts in national parks.
4.4 Geographic Demonstration Pilot Studies
Charge Question 4: Does the focused geographic demonstration pilot studies
(initially in the Mid-Atlantic region) combine these elements [effects-oriented and
stressor-oriented monitoring approaches]?
16
-------
The Committee finds the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) pilot to be a
major success in advancing the mission of EMAP in a way that demonstrates its utility,
focuses integration and assessment activities, and builds upon extensive existing
databases and expertise. Both effects-oriented and stressor-oriented monitoring
approaches are well-combined and have already yielded interesting relationships that
were not anticipated by traditional CWA 305(b) reporting methods. It is clear to the
Committee that EPA Region III has developed productive partnerships with state and
other federal agencies that have leveraged data acquisition efforts and that serve as an
excellent example for future geographic pilot studies. The work performed by the
Landscape Ecology and Landscape Characterization groups within the MAIA region
has provided important landscape-scale stressor data, and has greatly contributed to
the success of the demonstration pilot study. The Committee was positive about the
changes made in the Landscape Ecology program since its last presentation.
While the Committee noted with approval the use of the MAIA study for the
purpose of integration and assessment activities, EPEC continues to recommend that
integration and assessment across resource types and across spatial scales be
maintained as an explicit task of the EMAP Program, drawing on the experiences of the
resource groups and using the regional studies as much as possible, but also working
more theoretically, including through the extramural program, to develop the necessary
methodologies.
Given the productivity and achievement of MAIA and the Landscape Ecology
Programs, the Committee recommends that MAIA be continued through more
monitoring and assessment activities, with investment of additional funds and effort. In
addition, given the maturity and success of the research in the MAIA region, the
Committee recommends that EMAP initiate a second regional pilot study as soon as
possible and allocate the resources commensurate with the importance and payoff of
these regional assessments.
17
-------
5. LITERATURE CITED
CENR (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources). 1997. Integrating the
Nation's Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A
Proposed Framework. Prepared by the Environmental Monitoring Team,
CENR, National Science and Technology Council. Washington, DC
National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Science Advisory Board. (EPA-SAB-EPEC-91-001). Evaluation of the Ecological
Indicators Report for EMAP.
Science Advisory Board. (EPA-SAB-EPEC-91-011). Evaluation of the Program Plan for
EMAP.
Science Advisory Board. (EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-92-008). Review of the EMAP Program
Plan and Concepts for Integration and Assessment.
Science Advisory Board. (EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-94-004). Review of the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program's Draft Risk Assessment Framework.
Science Advisory Board. (EPA-SAB-EPEC-LTR-95-002). SAB Review of the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Landscape Component.
Stern, P.C. and H.V. Fineberg (Eds). 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in
a Democratic Society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 249p.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
Research Strategy 1997. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC
(January 1977). 15p.
R-1
-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Administrator
Deputy Administrator
Assistant Administrators
EPA Regional Administrators
EPA Laboratory Directors
EPA Headquarters Library
EPA Regional Libraries
EPA Laboratory Libraries
Library of Congress
National Technical Information Service
Office of Technology Assessment
Congressional Research Service
------- |