U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
March 1992
EPA600/M-91-051
®ERrV EMAP • Monitor
ENVIRONMENTAL • MONITORING « AND . ASSESSMENT . PROGRAM
An interagency program to monitor the condition of the nation's ecological resources
An Overview of the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program
Design of a Comprehensive
Monitoring Program
The following overview is reprinted in each issue of the
Monitor to familiarize new readers with EMAP.
Both the incidence and scale of reported environmental
problems have increased over the past two decades. The
public is increasingly concerned that the resources upon
which they rely for recreation, quality of life, and
economic livelihood remain sustainable. Scientists are
increasingly concerned that the impact of pollutants now
extends well beyond the local scale: global climate
change, acidic deposition, ozone depletion, nonpoint
source pollutant and sediment discharges to waterways,
and habitat alteration threaten our ecosystems on
regional and global scales. Years of scientific study have
not only heightened our environmental awareness, but
also have convinced us that the ecological processes that
determine how our ecosystems respond to both natural
and anthropogenic disturbances are extremely complex.
Unfortunately, the status of our environment is currently
not well documented, making it impossible" to assess
quantitatively where and at what rate degradation may
be occurring. While we believe that our policies and
programs are protecting the quality of our environment,
we cannot prove it with currently available data.
We cannot, for example, determine whether reported
problems are increasing across extensive areas of the
country, or simply reflect a more informed and vocal
public or a locally visible pollution issue. Nor can we
determine whether collective human impacts are a more
plausible explanation for such problems than are natural
causes such as drought. Finally, we are unable to fully
determine whether the policies and programs we now
have in place to restore our damaged resources, or to
protect those perceived to be threatened, are effective.
Clearly, we need a national baseline against which future
changes in the condition of our resources can be
measured and the overall effectiveness of our
environmental policies can be evaluated with
confidence.
In 1988, the U ^Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Science Advisory Board recommended
See Overview p. 2
Q
EMAP's objectives call for monitoring the condition of
the nation's ecological resources and providing estimates
of status, extent, changes, and trends with known
confidence (Messeretal. 1991). These objectives can be
met only through a statistically designed monitoring
network using probability-based sampling of explicitly
defined resource populations.
Although an ecological survey as comprehensive as
EMAP has never occurred, national or regional
probability-based surveys of particular ecological
resources are not new. Previous surveys used several
different approaches for their design. Some were one-
time surveys that were concerned solely with assessing
current resource characteristics, while others were
continuous monitoring programs (some are still ongoing)
that also investigated changes or trends in resource
characteristics. A number of features desirable to EMAP,
including the following, arise from analyzing the diverse
approaches used in these surveys:
The surveys were designed to estimate the
characteristics of an ecological resource population
at a point in time or assess trends in the population
over time.
Q The surveys ensured that samples were spatially
distributed over the geographic extent of the
resource.
Q The probability-based samples were obtained in
stages (i.e., by taking an initial sample, then
structuring a subsample based on information and
questions that derived from the initial sampling
phase). .
Q The change detection surveys either resurveyed the
population or were explicitly designed to
incorporate repeat visits.
EMAP focuses on the population attributes of ecological
resources. The EMAP sampling design builds on the
experience gained from previous surveys, incorporates
all of the above features, and uses a systematic grid (the
See Design p. 3
Inside Features
Design of a Comprehensive Monitoring Program • Current Activities
and Presentations • Recent and Upcoming Events
• Publications
-1-
Pripted on Recycled Paper
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Overview (continued from p. 1)
implementing a program to monitor ecological status and
trends that would identify emerging environmental
problems before they reach crisis proportions. The next
year, EPA refined the focus of its environmental
protection efforts by calling for an active confirmation
that its programs are truly maintaining or improving
environmental quality. The Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP) is part of the Office of
Research and Development's (ORD) response to both the
Science Advisory Board's recommendation and the
Agency's call for "managing for results." EMAP's goal is
to monitor the condition of the nation's ecological
resources. EMAP data will enable us to evaluate the
cumulative success of current policies and programs and
identify emerging problems before they become
widespread or irreversible.
EMAP represents the foundation for ORD's Ecological
Risk Assessment Program. When fully implemented in
cooperation with other agencies that share resource
monitoring responsibilities, this coordinated research and
monitoring effort will provide the information needed to
document the current condition of our ecological
resources, further the understanding of why that
condition exists, and predict what it may be in the future
under various management alternatives. Such
Information will enable EPA to take proactive steps that
will minimize future risk or to revise current efforts that
fail short of their intended results. '.
The concept of EMAP was developed in 1987. Since
then, several key questions have been formulated that
will guide the Program toward meeting its goal: What is
the current extent of our ecological resources, and how
are they distributed geographically? What proportions of
the resources are currently in acceptable ecological
condition? What proportions are degrading or
improving, in what regions, and at what rates? Are these
changes correlated with patterns and trends in
environmental stresses? And, finally, are adversely
affected resources improving in response to cumulative
efforts associated with control and mitigation programs?
These questions pose a challenge that cannot be met
without a long-term commitment to environmental
monitoring on national and regional scales. Furthermore,
this challenge cannot be met efficiently without drawing
on the experience and expertise within other federal
agencies and organizations that share responsibility for
maintaining environmental quality or sustaining our
resources.
The EMAP approach to monitoring ensures broad
geographic coverage; enables quantitative and unbiased
estimates of ecological status and trends; facilitates
analysis of associations among measurements of habitat
condition, pollutant sources and exposure, and biological
condition (Indicators); and allows sufficient flexibility to
accommodate sampling of multiple types of resources
and Identification of emerging environmental issues.
EMAP Objectives
Q Estimate the current status, extent, changes, and trends
in indicators of the condition of the nation's ecological
. resources on a regional basis with known confidence.
Q Monitor indicators of pollutant exposure and habitat
condition and seek associations between human-induced
stresses and ecological condition.
Q Provide periodic statistical summaries and interpretive
reports on ecological status and trends to resource
managers and the public.
To ensure efficient execution of this approach, EMAP
planning and field demonstration projects have involved
other organizations within EPA, including the Program
and Regional Offices, other federal agencies, and some of
the country's finest institutions and universities. Current
collaborative efforts are described in the Current
Activities section of this issue. As specific plans for
implementation are formulated, EMAP will also need to
enlist the assistance of State agencies located within the
particular areas targeted for monitoring. The
development of monitoring plans, which undergo
rigorous technical review by national stcientific
organizations, is also occurring in concert with many
university cooperators.
Several long-term, coordinated monitoring efforts will be
implemented by EMAP over the next five years. These
programs, which will operate on regional scales over
periods of years to decades, will collect data from many
ecological resource categories: arid ecosystems,
agricultural ecosystems, forests, lakes and streams, the
Great Lakes, inland and coastal wetlands, estuaries, and
coastal waters. Field crews will measure biological,
chemical, and physical variables and processes on
statistically selected sampling sites for resource classes,
such as sage-brush-dominated shrubland, orchard
cropland, oak hickory forests, small lakes, emergent
estuarine wetlands, or large estuaries. Some of these
measurements will also be made by using remote sensing
techniques. Data on atmospheric deposition and
exposure to other air pollutants will be; obtained. Finally,
maps, aerial photography, and satellite imagery will be
used to describe broad regional patterns of the landscape
in areas where sampling is being conducted.
. Organizationally, EMAP has four major elements:
Resource Monitoring, Coordination, Integration, and
Developmental Research.
Q Resource Monitoring
Resource monitoring focuses on collection and
interpretation of field data on the ecological
condition of the eight resource categories mentioned
earlier. Activities to date are provided in the Current
Activities section.
Q Integration
Integration activities include several functions that
facilitate the acquisition, management, and
interpretation of monitoring data. The Air and
Deposition and Landscape Characterization Groups
provide data that assist all Resource Groups in
-2-
-------
EMAP • 'Monitor
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Resource Monitoring 1
Agroecosystems §"
Arid Ecosystems
Forests
Near Coastal
Great lakes
Coastal Waters
Surface Wafers
Integration Activities
Air and Deposition
Landscape Characterization
Information Management
Integration and Assessment
Developmental Research
Environmental Statistics
Ecological Indicator
Development
Landscape Ecology
Ecological Risk
Characterization
interpreting observations on resource condition.
EMAP-lnformation Management facilitates the
storage of information and its dissemination to and
from the Program as well as among the Resource
Croups, Coordination Groups, and the other
Integration Groups. The Integration and Assessment
Group oversees the acquisition of data from other
monitoring networks that cut across or are relevant to
two or more Resource Groups. This Group also
ensures that the scientific information collected
during various EMAP field activities is translated into
a form that can be used to answer management
questions regarding regional-scale problems.
Activities to date for the Air and Deposition,
Landscape Characterization, and Integration and
Assessment Groups are provided in the Current
Activities section. Activities for the Information
Mangement Group will be highlighted in future
issues of the Monitor.
Coordination
Several coordination activities support EMAP's
resource monitoring efforts, .including network design
and statistical analysis; indicator selection, testing,
and evaluation; logistics; and quality assurance. A
principal function of the Coordination Groups is to
ensure that data collection activities by the Resource
Groups are conducted in standardized ways. For
example, the Coordination Groups provide
complementary network designs and statistical
procedures for analyzing data, consistent field and
laboratory methods, and c
quality control protocols
quality assurance and
Critical coordination functions for maintaining a
nationwide program such as EMAP include
technology transfer activities and liaison with the
international community, other agencies, States, and
EPA Regions. The activities of the Statistics and
Design Resource Group are highlighted in the feature
article of this issue of the Monitor, and summaries of
progress to date for the other active groups are
provided in the Current Activities section.
Developmental Research
An active program is essential to ensure that EMAP
can respond and adapt to new issues; capitalize on
improved scientific understanding; and incorporate
advances in methods development, data analysis,
and reporting techniques, while simultaneously
retaining continuity in the long-term data sets it
develops. All major groups within EMAP conduct
research that is relevant to their specific resource or
coordination and integration responsibilities.
Additionally, EMAP has identified four major areas of
research that are cross-cutting and is currently
establishing or contributing to research programs for
these areas: environmental statistics, ecological
indicator development, landscape ecology, and
ecological risk characterization. These programs are
an integral part of ORD's Ecological Risk Assessment
Program and will be discussed in further detail in
future issues of the Monitor as their plans are
refined. •
Design (continued from p. 1)
EMAP grid) to ensure random selection and appropriate
sampling distribution (Overton etal. 1991). EMAP's
major sampling design components are the EMAP grid, a
two-tier sampling approach, and a rotating sampling
schedule. The following sections discuss these
components in further detail.
The EMAP Grid
The EMAP design for sampling dictates the following grid
requirements:
Realization of the grid on a single planar surface for
the entire United States
Q
Q Equal area sampling using regular placement of
sampling locations
Q Hierarchical structure.
EMAP achieves these requirements by using a
randomized systematic triangular grid system.
The EMAP grid-based design emphasizes the geographic
distribution of ecological resources. Since EMAP
monitors ecological resources on a national scale, a
regular grid covering the conterminous United States as
well as Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean is necessary.
-3-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
The uniformity of spatial coverage provided by a grid
ensures that each ecological resource can be sampled in
proportion to its geographic presence in the United States
ana that all ecological resources can be included in the
monitoring program—thereby establishing a mechanism
for sampling such diverse ecological resources as lakes,
streams, wetlands, forests, grasslands, estuaries,
agricultural ecosystems, and the Great Lakes.
A triangular grid can be conceptualized as a set of points,
which, if connected, would form a series of adjacent
equilateral triangles. EMAP has selected a two-tiered
sampling structure, which is explained in detail in the
following section. The first tier is based on a linear point
to point distance that is approximately 27 km, yielding a
base density of about one grid point per 635 km-' (see
Figure 1). This base density results in approximately
12,600 grid points in the conterminous United States.
The grid's placement is determined by a formal
randomization to ensure strict adherence to requirements
for probability sampling.
figure 1. EMAP grid structure with illustration of 3-,4-
and 7-fold grid enhancements
In the second tier, the EMAP design achieves comprehen-
sive coverage of ecological resources through the use of
sampling frames based on grid points and samples of
hexagonal areas centered at the grid points, each having
an area of 40 km2.
EMAP anticipates the need to increase or decrease the
base density to satisfy specific sampling requirements.
For example, landscape processes may be appropriately
described on a larger scale than specified by the base
density, whereas some naturally rare or diminishing
ecological resources may need an enhanced grid density
to obtain an adequate sample size. The natural ,
variability for indicators of ecological condition are
Incorporated in the design through enhancement of the
grid to meet sample size requirements. It may also be
appropriate to use an enhanced grid to achieve higher
spatial resolution in geographic areas of particular
Interest. The triangular grid system establishes a
hierarchical relationship among grids of various densities
that cover the same area (i.e., grids are arranged so that
grid points from lower density grids are subsets of higher
density grids). Specific multiple factors, e.g., 3-, 4-, and
7-fotd, are available to increase or decrease the base grid
density and maintain the sampling design requirements.
The Two-Tier Sampling Structure
The probability-based sample of an ecological resource Is
obtained in two stages: a Tier 1 sample followed by a
Tier 2 sample. The Tier 1 sample is used, in conjunction
with other information, to estimate resiource extent and
distribution (i.e., number of lakes, total area of lakes,
acreage of forest, etc.) and select the Tier 2 sample. The
Tier 2 sample allows detailed data to be obtained on
indicators of resource condition. Usually the Tier 2
sample is a subsample of the Tier 1 sample, but it
occasionally covers the entire Tier 1 sampling area.
Indicator assessment imposes different sampling
requirements for different resources; therefore, the Tier 2
sample is selected independently for each resource class,
which generally requires field measurements. For some
specific indicators, however, information may be
obtained by analyzing high resolution remote sensing
data.
The characteristics of the ecological resource and the
availability of information on the geographic location of
the resource—referred to as the frame.' material—
determine how the EMAP grid is used to implement the
sampling design. Each resource group currently uses a
combination of frame materials, including existing maps
and data bases, possibly supplemented by aerial
photography or videography, to locate resource
occurrences at or within a 40 km2 hexagon. For
example, the Surface Waters Resource Group is using a
digitized version of the US. Geological Survey .
1:100,000-scale maps as well as the River Reach File
maintained by the EPA to locate lakes and streams within
40 km2 hexagons; the Forests Resource Group is using
existing forest maps to classify the landscape at each grid
point; and the Wetlands Resource Group is using maps
produced by the National Wetlands Inventory to identify
wetlands for sampling.
Complete land use/land cover classification of the area
within the 40 km2 hexagons was proposed as an
alternative approach for EMAP frame development Such
an approach has a number of advantages: (1) it forces
reconciliation of all frame*materials used by the resource
groups, (2) it results in the classification of all ecological
resources for 1/16th of the samplirjg area (each grid point
represents a 635 km2 area; 40 krrrhexagons are
approximately 1/16th of that area), and (3) it establishes a
sampling frame structure that enable! a quick-design
response for new environmental issues. Implementation
of this approach on a national scale is restricted by the
limitations of existing scientific methodologies for
integrating diverse characterization materials. EMAP will
continue to investigate alternatives for long-term frame
development
The Temporal Sampling Schedule
EMAP is designed to describe current status and detect
trends in a set of ecological indicators throughout a
resource population. These two objectives have
conflicting design criteria: status is generally best
assessed by sampling as much of the resource as possible
at a given time, while trends are generally best detected
by repeated sampling of the same resource locations at
regular time intervals, e.g., at the same time during every
year. Meeting both objectives requires a sampling design
compromise.
-4-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
EMAP's design addresses both objectives by rotating
through a 4-year sequence. During the first year, one
quarter of the total grid points (schematically represented
by"+" in Figure 2) are Tier 1 points and potential Tier 2
sites for that year; during the next year, sites designated
as "second-year ("+") are available for sampling, and so
Figure 2. EMAP's temporal sampling schedule.
on. In this manner, all grid points are covered during a
4-year period. A second monitoring cycle begins in the
fifth year by revisiting the first year ("*") sites; the process
can continue indefinitely.
The temporal sampling schedule and design has several
advantages. Each year's sample provides, in itself, both
national and regional estimates of condition, with
uniform spatial coverage from year to year. Annual
estimates of population parameters are provided for every
geographic region and every identifiable population, no
matter how dispersed. Revisiting sites on a 4-year cycle
provides sufficient time for recovery from measurement
stress and allows time for subtle trends to be expressed.
The,design is well adapted for delecting persistent,
gradual change in diffuse subpopulations and for
representing ecological indicators accurately.
Application
The EMAP design is currently being implemented by the
seven resource groups (Agroecosystems, Arid Ecosystems,
Forests, Near Coastal, Great Lakes, Surface Waters, and
Wetlands). Implementation activities include
identification of ecological resource populations of
primary interest, investigation or potential frame
materials, and selection of Tier 1 and Tier 2 sample sites.
All resource groups have completed a preliminary design,
based on the EMAP grid, that is described in their
research plans. Actual demonstration studies have been
conducted by the Near Coastal Resource Group for
estuaries in the Virginian and Louisianian Provinces and
by the Forests Resource Group for forests in the
Southeastern States and New England. Other resource
groups are currently implementing the design in regional
demonstration studies (as highlighted in the Current
Activities section of the Monitor), The following activities
conducted by the Surface Waters and Forests Resource
Groups illustrate design implementation in greater detail.
The Surface Waters Resource Group's selection of the
Tier 2 sample for lakes in the Northeastern United States
demonstrates one application of the two-stage process.
First, the Tier 1 sample is identified by locating all the
lakes-within a 40 km2 hexagon surrounding each grid
point (see Figure 3). Second, the Tier 2 sample is
selected from the lakes identified at Tier 1, ensuring that
the Tier 2 sample is well distributed over the region.
Figure 4 shows a randomly drawn hypothetical Tier 2
sample. Although the EMAP systematic grid is used in
the selection of the samples, both the Tier 1 and Tier 2
samples reflect the spatial distribution of lakes in the
Northeastern United States.
Another example is the sample selection for the New
England forest resource. The Tier 1 sample consists of
field plots associated with the 263 grid points located in
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, and Connecticut Based on U.S. Forest Service
Forest Inventory and Analysis reports and field visits, 206
of the Tier 1 sample plots were classified as forested. For
this particular sampling effort, the Tier 2 sample includes
all 206 forested plots. Hence, both the Tier 1 and Tier 2
samples have the systematic grid pattern. If a smaller
sample was appropriate for Tier 2, a random subsample
of the 206 Tier 1 forested grid points would be taken
while constrained to preserve the spatial distribution of
the subsample over the forested region.
Summary
The EMAP design for a comprehensive ecological
monitoring program is a two-tiered sample structure
based on a randomized regular triangular grid. The
sample is selected according to strict probability
protocols so that estimates of ecological condition have
known, quantifiable precision. The adherence to
probability sampling ensures that design-based estimators
are available for population description and also allows
the use of model-based estimators. The design can
accommodate multiple spatial scales, both for sampling
and reporting purposes, and can be used for a diversity of
ecological resources. The design is inherently capable of
adapting to new ecological perspectives, the emergence
of new environmental issues, and changes in resource
emphasis. •
References and Further Reading
Messer, J.J., R. A. Linthurst, and W. S. Overton. 1991.
"An EPA Program for Monitoring Ecological Status and
.Trends." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
17;67-78. '
Overton, W. S., D. White, and D. L. Stevens, Jr. In
Press. Design Report for EMAP. EPA 600/3-91/053. U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
White, D., A. J. Kimerling, and W. S. Overton. In press.
"Cartographic and Geometric Components of a Global :
Sampling Design for Environmental Monitoring."
Cartography and Geographic Information Systems.
-5-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Numbers represent the total quantity
of lakes identified within a 40 km2
hexagon surrounding each grid point.
Figure 3. Tier 1 sample, hexagon capture rates for lakes In the Northeastern U.S.
Dots represent hypothetical sampling
locations that are randomly selected
using information obtained in the Tier 1
sample.
| Sample Siz.e=253
Figure 4. Hypothetical Tier 2 sample of lakes In the Northeastern U.S.
-6-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Current Activities
EMAPproduced a 15-minute video titled 'America's
Ecological Report Card.* The video provides an overview
of the EMAP goals and objectives and a brief introduction
to the program's current and planned wonV. The video
will be available from the U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161, in March/April 1992. (To
order, call 800-336-4700/703-487-4650 and cite
publication number PB92-780865. The cost is not
available at this time.)
EMAP Regional Activities
A number of successful interactions between EMAP and
the EPA Regions have occurred. One EMAP goal is to
formalize these relationships by targeting specific
activities for Regional Involvement. EMAP
implementation is a dynamic process, with the roles of
ORD, the Regions, and the States changing over time.
Additionally, the interests and capabilities of each Region
vary and will influence the areas of active participation.
Several efforts were initiated to develop a results oriented
yet flexible plan for interaction and cooperation.
Earlier this year each Regional Office designated an
EMAP Coordinator. In all the Regions, the designated
Coordinator was from the Environmental Services
Division (ESD)—a number of Regions chose their ESD
Director for this position. A document describing the
role of the EMAP Regional Coordinator will be finalized
in upcoming months.
In May, 1991, the first EMAP ORD/Regional
Coordination Workshop was held in Atlanta, GA (Region
IV). Over 70 people attended the workshop, including
representatives from the Regions, the States, and the
National Governor's Association. The meeting focused
on cooperative efforts for initial and long-term
implementation of the program.
A Draft EMAP Regional Strategy document—developed
for long-term implementation of EMAP—was distributed
for comment in September. A final Regional Strategy will
be produced once all input has been received. The
strategy is expected to facilitate Regional participation in
EMAP. Already several notable, short-term cooperative
activities between EMAP and the Regions are underway:
Q EPA Regions I and II are participating in the
Northeast Lakes Pilot Study.
Q A workgroup is being formed to define the roles of
Regions I, II, and III in implementing future
monitoring activities in the Virginian (mid-Atlantic)
Province.
Q ' Region IV and several State universities are
participating in the implementation of monitoring
activities in the Carolinian (southeast) Province.
Q Regions IV and VI and several State universities are
participating in the Louisianian (Gulf of Mexico)
Province Demonstration Project
Agroecosystems
The EMAP-Agroecosystems Research Plan was completed
and underwent peer review in March 1991. The Plan
was well received, and interaction with the peer review
panel was excellent While supportive of the approach
and progress of the EMAP-Agroecosystems Resource
Group, the panel expressed concern in several principal
areas: (1) greater use of bioindicators, (2) sampling frame
options, and (3) development of a productivity index.
These concerns are being addressed as the
Agroecosystems Resource Group precedes toward the
1992 pilot study.
The 1992 pilot study will be conducted in North Carolina
in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and
Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Indicators are being
developed to address five assessment endpoints: crop
productivity, soil quality, water quality, agricultural
chemical use, and land use. A final draft of the survey
questionnaire for use in interviewing farmers and
operators was submitted to NASS for review and to the
Office of Manangement and Budget for approval. The
Pilot Plan, which is currently being finalized, wi|l contain
implementation details, including specific questions to be
addressed; samples to be collected; statistical sampling
techniques; analytical techniques (for soil and water
samples); logistics; quality assurance and quality control;
external data required; data management and analysis
techniques; graphs, tables, and maps to be produced; and
required interactions with other EMAP groups, NASS, and
other agencies. The EPA laboratory in Athens, Georgia,
has assumed responsibility for developing indicators
relating to water quality for the 1992 pilot. Athens lab
personnel will continue to have a vital role in
agroecosystems program planning and implementation.
The Agroecosystems Resource Group is working closely
with the North Carolina representatives of the USDA Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) and NASS to develop
procedures for determining the soil mapping unit at
EMAP-Agroecosystems sample sites using county maps,
published soil survey maps, and NASS aerial
photographs. The SCS provided a complete list of data
elements in the North Carolina State Soil Survey
Database, which EMAP-Agroecosystems is evaluating for
use in soil quality indicators. NASS also has been
working closely with the Agroecosystems Resource
Group to develop ARC/INFO (a geographic information
system) coverages of agricultural land use intensity in
North Carolina. The EMAP-Landscape Characterization
group is cooperating with the Agroecosystems Resource
Group in acquiring existing land use and land cover data
for the Albemarle-Pamlico watershed (North Carolina
and Virginia). These data will be used to develop
indicators of the ecological condition of agricultural
landscapes.
Several indicator development projects are ongoing. The
soils from the December 1990 nematode pilot study were
analyzed. Indices that have potential for interpreting
-7-
-------
EMAP* Monitor
nematode community patterns as an indicator of soil
health are being evaluated. The study will be continued
and expanded this fall, in cooperation with researchers
from Oregon State University. In addition to nematodes,
the samples will also be analyzed for total and active soil
bacteria and fungi. Work also began on developing a
standardized measure of crop yield across crops and
regions. Standardized yield will be used as a primary
measure of crop productivity in the pilot and will
eventually be used as a component in a crop productivity
index.
Work on statistical, logistical, and information
management issues continues. Comparisons of the cost
and efficiency of two alternative sampling frames are
ongoing. Sample locations (50 from the EMAP hexagon
frame and 50 from the NASS rotational panel design)
were selected by the Agroecosystems Resource Group
statisticians for use in the 1992 pilot. A sampling
protocol for collecting soil samples within fields is being
developed, as well as a logistics plan for transporting and
tracking the soil to the analytic laboratory. The
Agroecosystems Resource Group is now equipped with a
fully functional ARC/INFO system, and a full-time
Information Manager began work in September.
Arid Ecosystems
Arfd ecosystems are important ecological resources-^
comprising nearly 40 percent of the contiguous United
States. The Arid Ecosystems Resource Group is charged
with developing an integrated, long-term monitoring
effort to assess the condition of these resources. In
response to this objective, the Arid Ecosystems Resource
Group completed its Strategic Monitoring Plan which
underwent peer review in March 1991. The research
plan addresses the major components of EMAP for arid
ecosystems including approach and rationale, design,
indicators, data analysis, logistics, quality assurance,
Information management, and integration and
assessment The Arid Resource Group plans to collect
synoptic (full landscape coverage) data using remote
sensing techniques and to verify the data through field
sampling. The synoptic information, when combined
with indicators from selected field measurements and
Incorporated with historical and retrospective information
(e.g., tree ring chronology, pack rat midden data), will
collectively determine assessment of long-term trends of
arid ecosystem condition.
The Arid Ecosystems Resource Group is evaluating and
selecting a suite of indicators for a pilot test in 1992. The
relationship of indicators to conceptual models and
ecosystem condition are being used in the selection
process. This approach should help to improve
understanding of how the indicators relate not only to
ecosystem structure and function but also to assessment
endpoints. It also should provide a framework for
incorporating ancillary information from other agencies
and data sets that can be useful in assessing trends in arid
ecosystems. The indicator evaluation work is a joint effort
between the U.S. EPA, the Desert Research Institute, the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, the Bureau of
Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S.
Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
several State agencies and private conservation
organizations.
The San Pedro Watershed characterization study is being
conducted in southeastern Arizona in cooperation with
EMAP-Landscape Characterization. The purpose of the
study is to develop a multistage remote sensing database
for determining spatial extent and composition of upland
and riparian ecosystems (those occurring in
predominantly arid landscapes, but associated with a
sustained source of water, such as a river) via the Brown,
et al. hierarchical classification system for biotic
communities of North America. Currently, information
on species composition and distribution, foliage density,
current land use, and other ecological attributes are being
acquired for these environments. The project
encompasses multistage landscape analysis, classification
testing, and indicator evaluation. EMAP-Arid will
incorporate these techniques into its overall strategy for
the monitoring and assessment of arid ecosystems
throughout the western United States.
Forests
The Forests Resource Group's Research Strategy was peer
reviewed in March. The review team was impressed with
the strategy, current status, and future plans and stated
that the experience gained in U.S. EPA programs
connected with the National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program provided a solid foundation for
EMAP. The review team recommended growth/
mensuration, visual damage survey, soil chemistry, and
foliar (leaf) chemistry as indicators "ready for operational
.use" in field monitoring and encouraged further
development of an index of tree canopy conditions.
Based on the reviewers' comments, a decision was made
to use the four recommended indicators, as well as
several other experimental indicators, in the FY91
Southeastern Demonstration Project. Other strategic
documents developed for FY91 monitoring efforts include
a methods manual and QA project plan.
The Forests Resource Group is working closely with the
U.S. Forest Service to implement a long-term monitoring
effort to assess the condition of U.S. forests. Their first
cooperative field effort, the 20/20 study, was conducted
during the summer of 1990. Data for five indicators—
growth efficiency; vertical vegetation structure (related to
wildlife habitat); visual damage indicators of air
pollution, injury, disease and insect pests; soil
productivity; and chemical analysis erf foliage—were
collected at 20 forest sites in New England hardwood
areas and 20 forest sites in Virginia loblolly pine areas.
The processing of data that were collected during this
study continues.
Additionally, the second year of monitoring in the
Northeast and the first year of monitoring in the Southeast
were completed. Monitoring was conducted in Maine,
New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia,
Georgia, and Alabama. The Southeastern Demonstration
Project, which began in July 1991, measured a set of
-8-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
indicators (similar to those tested in the 1990 New-
England and Virginia studies) in loblolly pine forests. A
second set of indicators related to wildlife habitat
structure, chemical contaminants, and microbial biomass
was measured in a subset of sampling sites to evaluate
their feasibility for long-term forest monitoring in EMAP.
Additionally, the landscape characterization activities for
this demonstration project utilized aerial photography
and ground sampling to test the following new indicators:
photosynthetically active radiation, (which provides a
measure of how efficiently trees are converting sunlight
into chlorophyll) and vertical vegetation measurements
(which are used to assess wildlife habitat conditions). A
global positioning system also was evaluated, which uses
information from satellites to find precise geographic
locations. Field efforts for the Southeastern
Demonstration Project were conducted by the U.S. Forest
Service, the USDA Soil Conservation Service, the
Tennessee Valley Authority, and the southeastern States'
forestry agencies.
California and Colorado were the first western States to
participate in the Forest Health Monitoring Tier 2
Detection Program. Planning in the western U.S.
proceeded separately from the efforts in the eastern U.S.
due to major differences in tree species and soil types.
The methods and design, however, closely resemble
those that are proposed or recently utilized fn other
Forests Resource Group efforts. Indicators for mosses,
lichens (small plants composed of specific fungi and
algae living in symbiosis), and mycorrhizae (growths—
most frequently found in poor soil—occurring as a result
of a symbiotic relationship between certain fungi and the
roots of plants and trees) were added for monitoring in
the West. Field training for this effort was held at the
Blodgett Experimental Forest during July 1991. Sampling
activities were completed in August 1991.
Near Coastal
In 1990, EMAP initiated a demonstration project in the
mid-Atlantic region (from Cape Cod south to the mouth
of the Chesapeake Bay) to evaluate the utility of regional-
scale monitoring data for assessing the ecological
condition of the nation's estuaries. Information from over
200 sampling sites that were visited during the 1990
Demonstration Project is being analyzed. EMAP
scientists are preparing an assessment report that is
scheduled for completion and peer review by Winter-
Spring 1992. In conjunction with the Demonstration
Project, a design workshop was held in May, 1991, to
review the statistical design used by EMAP-Near Coastal.
A written report was prepared summarizing the
workshop's activities and recommendations, which will
be incorporated into the assessment report.
Preliminary results from the 1990 Demonstration Project
suggest that a number of benthic (bottom-dwelling)
indicators were found to discriminate successfully
between healthy and degraded sites. The most effective
of these were measures of: (1) species richness, (2) the
relative abundance of pollution-tolerant and pollution-
sensitive species, (3) estimates of the biomass of
pollution-sensitive and pollution-tolerant trophic groups,
and (4) estimates of the presence of larger, long-lived
organisms. Based on these measures, about 19% of the
estuarine area of the Virginian Province fails to support
benthic populations.
Sediment bioassays using standard methods and sensitive
indigenous species indicate that about 8% of the benthic
area of the Virginian Province is toxic to test biota. The
threat of toxic sediments is highest in small estuarine
systems, where 30% of the benthic area exhibits toxic
sediments. Fish with visible pathological disorders were
found throughout the Virginian Province, although not in
significant numbers. Nine of every 1,000 fish caught had
pathological disorders of types likely to have been
induced by exposure to microbial or chemical
contamination. Prior to the 1990 Demonstration Project
an estimate of the extent of low dissolved oxygen waters
for the Province did not exist Data collected during mid-
summer 1990 indicate that at least 10% of the Province
had dissolved oxygen concentrations below a critical
threshold of 2 mg/l. The second year of monitoring in the
mid-Atlantic estuaries is underway.
The Near Coastal Resource Group's new initiative for
1991 was a demonstration project in the estuaries of the
Louisianian (Gulf of Mexico) Province. Sample locations
in these estuaries were selected from an area extending
from north of Tampa Bay west to the Mexican border.
Results from the EMAP-Near Coastal peer review panel
report on the Louisianian Province Demonstration Project
Plan were positive. The final coordination and planning
of the Louisianian Province submersed aquatic vegetation
project occurred in May and defined the roles of the
participating agencies. The plans proceeded as
scheduled, but overflights were postponed until late
summer due to the unusual weather conditions
experienced in northwest Florida this spring.
In preparation for this summer's sampling activities in the
Virginian and Louisianian Provinces, crews from both
provinces completed training and certification. Training
for the Virginia Province crews placed less emphasis on
classroom presentation than previous training exercises
and more emphasis on hands-on activities. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National
Marine Fisheries Service personnel provided training
assistance in field procedures, photo identification, and
fish pathology. Results from the training were positive,
and interest in the standardized protocols was expressed
by the EPA, Gulf of Mexico Program and other Agency
program offices, and several Gulf States resource and
water quality agencies. Decisions were reached on the
indicators that were used, as well as the location and site
maintenance responsibilities for Hydrolab (continuous
dissolved oxygen recording units) deployments during
summer sampling activities.
-9-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Great Lakes
1 [
Surface Waters;
In an effort to provide greater exposure of the EMAP
program, an overview of EMAP and EMAP-Great Lakes
was presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the
International Association on Great Lakes Research. Panel
discussion members included representatives of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the EMAP-Great Lakes
Resource Group, the University of Michigan, and
Environment Canada.
The Great Lakes Resource Group is developing a
program plan that integrates existing Great Lakes
monitoring efforts and supplements these efforts with
pilot studies that utilize a phased approach for evaluating
indicators and design options. Integration endeavors
include coordinating Great Lakes, Surface Waters, and
Wetlands Resource Group pilot studies. Preliminary
discussions include the Wetlands Resource Group's input
into the Great Lakes research plan, co-location of
sampling stations, and selection of common indicators.
The program plan is due for completion in March 1992.
Recent integration efforts also involved coordinating the
Great Lakes programs with groups in the U.S., Canada,
and Soviet Union.
Q Discussions are underway to involve the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
the EMAP-Great Lakes program. Although not
directly involved in monitoring activities, NOAA's
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
conducts process research in the Great Lakes. A
cooperative effort is planned during the 1992 EMAP
pilot study in Lake Michigan.
Q Efforts to coordinate a Great Lakes sediment
evaluation program with Environment Canada are
underway, and will focus on developing sediment
contamination indicators and evaluating sediment
toxicity, benthic community structure, and the
relationship between sediment toxicity/ benthic
community structure.
Q During a meeting on joint ecological studies with a
delegation from the Soviet Union, it was decided
that initial research efforts will focus on zebra
mussels. The zebra mussel, a mollusc species native
to Europe, arrived in the Great Lakes region through
discharges of ballast water from European ships.
Since arriving, zebra mussels have caused damage to
industrial pipelines and have raised questions
regarding long-term impact to fisheries. The ability of
EMAP to assist in assessing the current distribution
and ecological impact of the zebra mussel in the
Great Lakes is being investigated.
During the first half of 1991, the Surface Waters Resource
Group focused its efforts on preparing for the 1991
summer Northeastern Lakes Pilot Study. Using.the EMAP
two-tiered sampling approach, a set of 65 lakes was
selected. Twenty-nine additional lakes were selected
specifically for Temporally Integrated Monitoring of
Ecosystems [(TIME) a Clean Air Act monitoring program]
using an enhanced grid. A set of 20 additional lakes was
identified for field testing of indicators;.
In support of the pilot study, several important documents
were prepared, including the Research and Monitoring
Strategy, the Northeastern Pilot Project Implementation
Plan, a field operations and training manual, a Quality
Assurance Plan, and a methods manual. In an effort to
obtain explicit logistics and stressor information, site
questionnaires were prepared for each of the lakes.
Information obtained from the questionnaires should
supplement data obtained from spatial databases, such as
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Northeast National
Resource Inventory, which is being reviewed to identify
approaches for characterizing and evaluating the spatial
extent of various stressors to lakes and streams.
The Northeastern Lakes Pilot Study field crew training
conducted in June 1991 stressed hands-on training with a
few classroom sessions to reinforce field work. EMAP-
Surface Waters intends to use the Global Positioning
System in conjunction with sonar for development of
bathymetric maps, and physical habitat characterization
work.
Significant progress was made on the development of the
indicators using fish. These range from an indicator of
biotic integrity based on fish assemblage data, to
pathology and tissue residue. Information was gathered
on the EPA priority pollutants that have been monitored
during the Near Coastal Resource Group's field activities,
the EPA National Bioaccumulation Survey, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program. In conjunction with the
northeastern monitoring effort, the University of Maine
completed a pilot test on the 20 indicator lakes to
evaluate the feasibility of a riparian bird survey.
In a related effort, a work group composed of
representatives of EPA headquarters and regional offices,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Ohio River Valtey Water Sanitation
Commission, and several other State agencies is
developing consistent Federal guidelines for monitoring
fish tissue contaminant levels to help States determine 'the
need for fish consumption advisories. Draft guidance for
the States is anticipated by the end of FY91. EMAP-
Surface Waters will reevaluate the fish tissue contaminant
indicator pending results of the guidance.
Future activities of the Surface Waters Resource Group
include finding a comparable sediment toxicity indicator
for the Surface Waters, Great Lakes, and Estuaries
Resource Groups; continuing long-term monitoring;
proceeding with the TIME project in the mid-Appalachian
region beginning in FY92; and developing a national lake
frame from the Office of Water's River Reach File 3 (a
-10-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
database of hydrographic information for the surface
waters of the continental U.S.)
Wetlands
The Wetlands Resource Group is conducting an indicator
evaluation pilot study in the coastal marshes of Louisiana
and a design evaluation pilot study using data from four
States. The indicator evaluation project will compare
hydrology, vegetation associations, composition and
abundance of wetland species, and other indicators of
ecological condition in 20 wetlands considered by
coastal wetland experts to be in acceptable condition
and 20 wetlands considered to be in unacceptable
condition.
Significant planning progress was made for the pilot
project at an indicators workshop with representatives
from Federal, State, and public interest groups. The
discussion topics included EMAP's proposed suite of
indicators of salt marsh condition, site selection criteria,
and indicator evaluation. Recent accomplishments
include finalizing the sampling design and approach for
hydrology evaluation, discussing site selection protocols,
and developing a Quality Assurance Plan for the study.
EMAP coordinated planning with .the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and Utah State
University to obtain satellite data and videography to
compare with field data from the Louisiana Pilot Study.
Staff from the U.S. Corps of Engineers' (COE) Waterways
Experiment Station will visit the field sample sites to
determine whether one of these sites might meet their
needs as a reference site. Field activities and training
began in September, 1991.
The EMAP-Wetlands 5-year strategy, "The Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program: Research Plan for
Monitoring Wetland Ecosystems," is available for
distribution (EPA 600/3-91/010). In May, 1991, a
planning workshop was held to discuss collaboration
between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS),
National Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends Program
and the EMAP-Wetlands Status and Trends Program. A
summary report, outlining proposed areas of cooperation,
rationale, time lines, and strategies for accomplishing
tasks, was prepared. One potential cooperative effort
being discussed by EMAP-Wetlands and the Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center of the U.S. FWS is a
collaborative midwestem pilot study in the prairie
pothole region of the U.S. Another potential cooperative
effort being discussed by EMAP-Wetlands is a
southeastern pilot study of bottomland hardwood
wetlands. Discussions are with the U.S. Forest Service,
the Southeast Consortium for Forested Wetland Research,
EMAP-Forests, and EPA Region IV.
EPA is in the process of formalizing an agreement with
COE for cooperative wetlands research in the areas of
indicator development, functional wetlands
classification, and change detection (condition and
extent). The agencies initiated discussions regarding
long-term monitoring of the Cache River Basin Study Site
in Arkansas. Research being conducted at the site by the
U.S. Geological Survey and COE is designed to provide
detailed process level information necessary for the
development of quantitative models that assess the
biological functions of bottomland hardwoods. Because
of the relatively pristine condition of the site and
available background data, EMAP-Wetlands is
considering the site as a potential reference bottomland
hardwood wetland.
Air and Deposition
The combined air and deposition monitoring and
ecological effects monitoring mandated under the Clean
Air Act Amendments are being coordinated through a
work group process identified as CASTNET (Clean Air
Status and Trends Network). Nearly all work being done
by EMAP Air and Deposition has been subsumed by the
CASTNET process. CASTNET is divided into eight work
groups: four monitoring groups—total deposition, aquatic
and terrestrial effects, visibility/acid aerosols, and air
toxics/great waters—and four work groups that provide
infrastructure. Like EMAP, CASTNET is an
interagency/intergovernmental/international operation,
with participation by EPA, other Federal agencies,
universities, State agencies, and Canadian environmental
agencies. CASTNET's goals include (1) determining the
status and trends of air pollutant levels and their
environmental effects, (2) developing a scientific
database to better understand causality for policy
considerations, and (3) assessing how effectively the
Clean Air Act goals are being met.
EMAP will be performing all of the ecological effects
monitoring and assessment as required by the Clean Air
Act As part of EMAP-Surface Waters, TIME (Temporally
Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems) will sample for
chronic aquatic effects on an annual basis, and LTM
(Jong-term monitoring) will sample for episodic effects 4
to 18 times per year. CASTNET will integrate the
ecological effects work being done by EMAP into the air
and deposition monitoring done within the network to
provide Clean Air Act assessments. All of CASTNET's air
and deposition monitoring to meet Clean Air Act
Amendment objectives must also be sufficient to meet
EMAP program objectives for its other national programs
and ecosystems.
The draft CASTNET Technical Design Considerations
document is scheduled for the ORD peer review process
in FY92. The first phase of siting (10-15 sites) will occur
during the second and third quarters of FY92, the same
time at which the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee
review will be sought for the complete network design.
The final design document and plan, with all technical
protocols and quality assurance regulations, is scheduled
for completion by the end of FY92.
The process to identify site locations during all phases of
siting will involve making a preliminary identification
based on a particular need (i.e., to improve spatial or
temporal resolution, to reduce interpolation errors, or to
provide ecosystem-specific and critical ecoregion
monitoring). After a potential site location has been
determined, maps of existing sites (wet, dry, ozone,
visibility, air toxic) will be overlayed to discover if there
are existing sites that could be used in their current state,
or augmented and upgraded, to fulfill the need for
monitoring in that area. Frequent communications with
EPA Regional Offices and State agencies are expected.
-11-
-------
EMAP* Monitor
Landscape Characterization
The principal function of the Landscape Characterization
Group is to map ecological resources and compile spatial
data on the primary physical anthropogenic and biotic
characteristics of the environment to aid in (1) developing
sampling frames for use by the EMAP resource groups in
selecting sites for monitoring, and (2) interpreting
observed ecological condition of resources (e.g., forests,
wetlands, lakes, and streams). In support of this goal, the
Landscape Characterization Group initiated the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Characterization Project, the
Landscape Characterization Accuracy Assessment, the
Illinois Wetlands Frame Pilot, and several other strategic
endeavors.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Characterization Project
Is a cooperative effort with the EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Program Office. The project, initiated in February 1991,
is the first large-area demonstration of EMAP's Landscape
Characterization multistaged approach for generating
landscape characterization data and will provide an
opportunity for integrating the spatial data with terrestrial
(EMAP-Forests) and aquatic (EMAP-Near Coastal)
indicators of environmental condition. The project's
progress includes:
Q Completing a mosaic of Landsat Thematic Mapper
(TM) scenes that cover the entire Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Q Initiating automated image processing of 1990
baseline TM imagery to classify land cover within '
the watershed.
Q Acquiring U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) data for the watershed
(FY91-92).
The Landscape Characterization Group designed and is
testing a three-part accuracy assessment of land use and
land cover interpretations made from data obtained
during the Ten Hexagon Pilot Project The Ten Hexagon
Pilot Project, initiated in FY90, demonstrated the use of
color infrared aerial photography and Landsat TM data
for detailed, ecological mapping over ten 40 km2
hexagons that were located in three different
physiographic regions in the eastern United States. The
three assessment methods—field verification, aerial
photography, and digital airborne videography—will
allow the group to gather sufficient reference points for
determining the accuracy of the mapped data. In
addition, the utility and cost-effectiveness of each
accuracy assessment method will be evaluated.
Recent progress in the Illinois Wetlands Frame Pilot
study—an initiative designed to provide data for trial
applications of different sampling protocols—includes the
processing of digital wetland data. Processing has been
facilitated by the development of a Geographic
Information System (CIS) program that aggregates NWI
wetland classification categories into EMAP-Wetlands
categories. The program includes a search routine that
scans the area near a wetland to determine an
appropriate locational category (e.g., next to a river, lake,
or isolated basin). The CIS program will be applied to
two additional study areas that represent a variety of
wetland environments in Washington and the Prairie
Pothole region.
Another pilot project is underway to evaluate the
sensitivity of the Tier 1 -grid (see page 1 feature article) for
detecting and estimating different measures and
indicators of landscape composition and pattern. The
results of this effort will improve EMAP's understanding
of the landscape characteristics that EMAP can effectively
estimate given its statistical design.
During the next few months, the Landscajae Characterization
Group will revise its characterization strategy and 3-year
agenda. The aim of this effort will be to maintain EMAP-
Landscape Characterization objectives while increasing
reliance on hierarchy in terms of remote sensing
techniques, mapping scales, and classification details.
Integration and Assessment
The Integration and Assessment Group is charged with
ensuring that EMAP data collected from the field can be
translated for use in answering policy-relevent and
managerial questions on a regional scale.
Several projects are in progress. A final draft of the
"Integration and Assessment in EMAP: Critical Functions
for Achieving EMAP's Mission" document was
completed. After undergoing review by EMAP Technical
Directors, Technical Coordinators, arid Steering
Committee members, the document was reviewed by a
newly-formed mentor group composed of scientists and
policy analysts. The final document will be available in
FY92. Development of the Group's Example Integrated
Assessment Project also is proceeding; several ecoregions
were aggregated for this project. An example Integrated
Assessment Report is being developed for this effort and
will serve as a guideline for interpreting and evaluating
policy-relevant information on a regional scale. Its focus
will be to present appropriate integrated reporting units
and a conceptual outline for the final Assessment Report
Another Integration and Assessment Group effort is a
draft of the EMAP Glossary, which is being reviewed by
the Steering Committee and Technical Directors. The
Glossary will ensure that consistent definitions are used
throughout EMAP.
Most recently, the Group began preparing an assessment
framework document to illustrate the relationships
between assessment objectives, assessment endpoints,
conceptual models, data analysis, and integration and
interpretation of EMAP data. Several EMAP components
(e.g., design, indicators, landscape characterization) are
specifically addressed in the framework document In
addition, the Integration and Assessment Group joined
with several other EMAP groups to create a pilot of the
EMAP Information System, which will document and
facilitate the transfer of data obtained from the 1990 Near
Coastal Demonstration Project and the 1990 Forest 20/20
Pilot Study. With the help of the mentor group,
Integration and Assessment also began the process of
identifying and developing appropriate assessment tools.
-12-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Indicators
Logistics
The Indicators Group completed two important
documents during the first half of 1991: The Indicator
Development Strategy for the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program" (EPA/600/3-91/023) and an
"Analysis of Selected Extant Data for Birds in New
England." The development strategy includes (1) a vision
of how a fully functional EMAP indicator development
project would operate; (2) a framework for determining
indicator development needs; (3) criteria and protocols
for selecting, evaluating, and reevaluating indicators; (4)
procedures for coordinating indicator-related activities
among resource groups; and (5) an organization,
communication, and coordination plan.
The second report serves as a first year (1990) summary
report for the New England Bird Biodiversity Project.
This initial report, now in review, suggests that micro-
habitat (within a 3 ha circular area) and macro-habitat
(within a 50 ha circular area) are equally useful for
predicting the presence of common bird species breeding
in New England. Report results also suggest that
common New England bird species that exhibit similar
foraging behavior and habitat use typically have similar
population trends. Both results support the idea of trends
in bird biodiversity. To confirm these initial results,
additional indicators research is being pursued in a 1991
and 1992 cooperative agreement with the University of
Maine and cooperating scientists at the EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL-Las Vegas),
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center in
Warrenton, VA; Environmental Research Laboratory-
Corvallis, OR; U.S. Forest Service, FL Collins, CO; and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. This research
will involve, in part, analyses of habitat and landscape
features at different spatial scales (e.g., from along
Breeding Bird Survey routes to New England region) in
relation to temporal trends in bird species richness,
abundance, and diversity.
In a related project, validation of landscape indicators
and biodiversity, scientists at the University of Maine will
address two fundamental needs of EMAP—detection of a
real population response to environmental stress given
inherent natural variability and detection of large
temporal and spatial variation from population processes.
This project will involve a thorough analysis of existing
data on bird abundance and agricultural statistics to
identify bird bioindicators that reflect changes in land use
and habitat quality due to agriculture.
During the next few months, the Indicators Group will
discuss indicator issues with the staff of all EMAP groups,
as well as interested groups outside of EMAP, to
formulate and prioritize required activities and to further
develop indicator strategies. To provide an effective
communication tool, ensure consistency, and assist with
presentations and reviews, a database that traces the
history and status of all EMAP indicators through time
also will be developed. When completed, the database
can serve as a prototype for the more complex database
proposed in the Indicator Development Strategy
document.
The long-term objective of the Logistics Group is to
provide guidance and support to the resource groups on
field operations by enhancing and stream lining EMAP
field monitoring efforts through integrated team
approaches. To help achieve this objective, standardized
logistics plans are being developed for all resource
groups implementing field activities. Resource groups
that implemented field activities this summer are Near
Coastal, Surface Waters, Wetlands and'Forests.
Each of the EMAP Resource Groups has a designated
logistics coordinator. The coordinators convene
bimonthly to discuss logistics issues. These meetings
have been effective in addressing logistics problems as
they occur. In upcoming months, the Logistics Group
will work toward resolving issues related to standardizing
the operational procedures associated with
communications, bar codes, Global Positioning Systems,
and logistics documents.
Total Quality Management
In keeping with the objective of the Total Quality
Management Group to provide guidance, support,
oversight, and planning assistance to the resource groups
on quality assurance and quality control protocols for
EMAP monitoring and assessment activities, some
portions of the EMAP Quality Assurance Program Plan
(QAPP) are being revised. This will ensure that the QAPP
will continue to present an integrated strategy for
guidance and coordinating quality assurance activities
across resource categories, regions, and monitoring
programs.
A Quality Assurance Management System Review was
performed this spring on EMAP pilot studies conducted in
1990 by a team composed of the EMAP Qual ity
Assurance Technical Coordinator and Quality Assurance
Officers from the Office of Modeling, Monitoring
Systems, and Quality Assurance and the Office of
Environmental Processes and Effects Research. The
purpose of this review was to evaluate EMAP's structure
for its ability to facilitate the integration of quality
assurance into program activities. The findings will
provide EMAP management with information on the
effectiveness of the current quality assurance program.
Approximately 75 persons representing government
agencies, universities, and industry attended the 4th
Ecological Quality Assurance Workshop from February
26 to 28,1991, in Cincinnati, OH. A variety of topics
related to biological field monitoring programs were
addressed. Planning began for the 5th Ecological Quality
Assurance Workshop, which will be held in Toronto
during fall 1992. EPA and various Canadian
environmental groups tentatively agreed to co-sponsor
the workshop.
-13-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
In addition to assuring compliance with the EMAP
Quality Assurance Program Plan^the Total Quality
Management Group provides guidance and support for
specific data collection and analysis activities of the
resource groups. In response to this objective, Quality
Assurance Project Plans from the Surface Waters and the
Forests Resource Groups were reviewed and comments
were forwarded to the respective quality assurance
directors. The Total Quality Management Group will
review other resource group quality assurance plans as
they become available.
Completed Pubiicationsand Reports
Peer Reviewed Publications
Larsen, D.P., D.L. Stevens, A.R. Selle, and S.G. Paulsen.
1991. "Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program - Surface Waters: A Northeast Lakes Pilot."
Lake and Reservoir Management 7(1 ):1 -11.
Lefohn, A.S., and D.S. Shadwick. 1991. "Ozone, Sulfur
Dioxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide Trends at Rural Sites
Located In the United States." Atmos. Environ. 25:491 -
501.
Loftis, J.C., C.H. Taylor, and P.L. Chapman. 1991.
Multivariate Tests for Trend in Water Quality. Water
Resources Research 27:1419-1429.
Messer, J.J., R.A. Linthurst, and W.S. Oyerton. 1991.
"An EPA Program for Monitoring Ecological Status and
Trends." EPA-600/J-91/073. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Atmospheric Research and Exposure
Assessment Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. In:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 17:67-78.
Other Publications and Reports
Balogh, M.E, and R.S. Lunetta. 1991. Evaluation of
Remote Sensing for the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program's Landscape Characterization. In:
Technical Papers, Geographic Information Systems/Land
Information Systems Annual Conference, GIS/LIS '90.
November 5-10,1990, Anaheim, CA.
Hermann, K., M.J. Hewitt, and D.J. Norton. 1991.
Using Existing Sampling Frames in a Comprehensive
National Monitoring Program. In: Technical Papers,
Geographic Information Systems/Land Information
Systems Annual Conference, GIS/LIS '90. November 5-
10,1990, Anaheim, CA.
Hughes, R.M., T.R. Whittier, S.A. Thcile, J.E. Pollard, and
D.V. Peck. 1991. Lake and Stream Indicators for the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
EPA/600/D-91/095. In: Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Ecological Indicators. October 1990, Ft
Lauderdale, FL. 56pp.
Jones, K.B. 1991. The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program: An Ecological Monitoring Program
for the 1990's-and Beyond. In: Technical Papers,
Geographic Information Systems/Land Information
Systems Annual Conference, GIS/LIS '90,2:669-681.
November 5-10,1990, Anaheim, CA.
Knapp, CM., D.R. Marmorek, J.P. Baker, K.W.
Thornton, and J.M. Klopatek. 1991. Indicator
Development Strategy for the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program. EPA/600/3-91/023. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 94pp.
Letbowitz, N.C., L. Squires, and J. Baker. 1991.
Research Plan for Monitoring Wetland Ecosystems. EPA
GOO/3-91/010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Mace,T.M. 1991. Multistage Remote Sensing for a
National Environmental Monitoring Program Database.
In: Technical Papers, Geographic Information
Systems/Land Information Systems Annual Conference,
GIS/LIS '90, 2:691 -700. November 5-10,1990,
Anaheim, CA.
Mouat, D.A., C.A. Fox, and M.R. Rose. 1991. Ecological
Indicator Strategy for Monitoring Arid Ecosystems. In:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators, Elsevier Publisher. October 16-19,
1990, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Norton, D.J., and E.T. Slonecker. 1991. The
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program's
Landscape Characterization Database: New
Opportunities for Spatial Analysis. In: Technical Papers,
Geographic Information Systems/Land Information
Systems Annual Conference, GIS/LIS "90, 2:682-690.
November 5-10,1990, Anaheim, CA,
Paul, J.F., A.F. Holland, K.J. Scott, and D.A. Flemer.
1991. Ecological Status and Trends Program: EPA's
Program for Monitoring the Condition of the Nation's
Ecosystems. EPA/600/D-90/221. In: Proceedings of
Oceans '89, an International Conference Addressing
Methods for Understanding Global Oceans, 2:579-582.
September 18-21,1989, Seattle, WA.
Paul, J.F., A.F. Holland, J.K. Summer!!}, S.C. Schimmel,
and K.J. Scott 1991. EPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program: An Ecological Status and
Trends Program. In: D. Chapman, F. Bishay, E, Power, K.
Hall, L. Harding, D. McLeay, M. Nassichuck, and W.
Knapp, eds. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual
Aquatic Toxicity Workshop, Canadian Technical Report
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1774,1:80-99,
February 1991. November 5-7,1990, Vancouver, British
Columbia.
Paulsen, S.G., D.P. Larsen, P.R. Kaufmann, T.R. Whittier,
and J.R. Baker. 1991. EMAP-Surface Waters Monitoring
and Research Strategy. Fiscal Year 1991. EPA/600/3-
91/022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
194pp.
-14-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Completed Briefings, Presentations, and Posters
Black, P. 1991. Data Quality Objectives for the
National Pesticide Survey: Evaluation and Results.
Presented at the Fourth Ecological Quality Assurance
Workshop. February 26-28, Cincinnati, OH.
Cantillo, A. 1991. NOAA National Status and Trends
Program Quality Assurance Program. Presented at the
Fourth Ecological Quality Assurance Workshop.
February 26-28, Cincinnati, OH.
Carpenter, D. 1991. tPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program: A Tool for Comparative Risk.
Presented at the EPA Comparative Ecological Risk
Assessment Workshop. April 17-19, Santa Fe, NM.
CopelandJ., and C. Smith. 1991. The EMAP-Coastal
1990 Demonstration Project Applications of CIS: Poster
presentation at the Eleventh Annual Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI) User Conference. May
20-24, Palm Springs, CA.
El-Shaarawi, A. 1991. Use of Statistical Tools in
Evaluating and Tracking QC in Ecological Field
Monitoring Programs. Presented at the Fourth Ecological
Quality Assurance Workshop. February 26-28,
Cincinnati, OH.
FlueckJ. 1991. Use of Statistical Tools in Evaluating
and Tracking QC in Ecological Field Monitoring
Programs: USA. Presented at the Fourth Ecological
Quality Assurance Workshop. February 26-28,
Cincinnati, OH.
Franson, S. 1991. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program: An Opportunity for Collaborative
Global Change Research and Monitoring. Presented at
the Bureau of Land Management Global Change
Research Workshop. June 17-21, Loveland, CO.
Heck,W. 1991. Overview of NCLAN. Presented to the
Ecological Risk Assessment Case Studies Peer Review
Panel at EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Forum. June
3^5, Dallas, TX.
Hyatt, E 1991. Overview of the NAPAP Case Study.
Presented at EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment Forum.
June 3-5, Dallas, TX.
Kepner, B. 1991. EMAP: Biodiversity Monitoring in
Arid Landscapes. Presented at the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management Fish and Wildlife 2000 Program
Management Workshop. April 22-26, Phoenix, AZ.
Jackson, L. 1991. EMAP—An Interdisciplinary Approach
to Evaluating Ecological Health. Presented at the annual
meeting of the International Society for Conservation
Biology. June 19, Madison, Wl.
Jaworski, N. 1991. EMAP's Concept and Design as it
Applies to Monitoring in the Arctic Region and The Use
of EMAP in the Antarctic. Presented at the First
International Ocean Pollution Symposium. April 22, May
1, Mayaguez, PR.
Jones, B. 1991. Summary of FY90 Terrestrial Field
Activities and Lessons Learned in Information
Management Presented at an information management
meeting. June 3-6, Las Vegas, NV.
Larsen, P. 1991. EMAP-Surface Waters Overview.
Presented at the USGS NAWQA-Rio Grande Meeting.
May 21. B
McMullen, D. 1991. The Use of Data Quality
Objectives in Planning Environmental Monitoring
Programs. Presented at the North American
Benthological Society Meeting. May 23-24, Santa Fe,
NM.
Meier, G. 1991. Information Management for the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
Presented at the Seventh International Conference on
Interactive Information and Processing Systems for
Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology. January
13-19, New Orleans, LA.
Mouat, D. 1991. Integration of Remote Sensing with
Retrospective Indicators for the Assessment of Global
Change. Presented at the International Union of
Geological Sciences Meeting. May 3, Boulder, CO.
Neary, A. 1991. Planning Approaches in Canadian
Terrestrial Field Monitoring Studies. Presented at the
Fourth Ecological Quality Assurance Workshop.
February 26-28, Cincinnati, OH.
Overton, W.S., and H.I. Jager. 1991. Regionally
Balanced Kriging for Environmental Survey Data.
Presented at the Environmental Statistics Winter
Conference, American Statistical Association. January 3-
5, New Orleans, LA.
Palmer, C. 1991. Alternative Planning Approaches to
Designing Field Ecological Studies. Presented at the
Fourth Ecological Quality Assurance Workshop.
February 26-28, Cincinnati, OH.
Palmer, C. 1991. Quality Assurance for Ecological
Research. Presented at the Second International
Conference on Research Policies and Quality Assurance.
May 6-7, Rome, Italy.
Paul, J.F. 1991. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program for Marine Systems. Presented at the
National Ocean Pollution Policy Board Meeting.
February 5, Washington, DC.
Paul, J.F. 1991. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program for Marine Systems. Presented at the
National Ocean Pollution Policy Board Marine
Ecosystem Monitoring Workgroup Workshop. January 8-
10, Gulf Breeze, FL. X
Paulsen, S. 1991. Overview of EMAP. Presented to the
coordinating committee for the National Science
Foundation Long-Term Ecological Research Network.
April 21 -22, Seattle, WA.
-15-
-------
EMAP « Monitor
Peck,D. 1991. Quality Assurance for Ecological
Monitoring—Can We Use Chemistry as a Template.
Presented at the North American Benthological Society
Meeting. May 22-24, Santa Fe, NM.
Robson, D.S., D.G. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson. 1991.
Random Point Sampling from a Randomized Grid.
Presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Statistical
Society of Canada. June 3-6, Toronto, Canada.
Sclle, T. 1991. A CIS Procedure to Create a National
Lakes Frame for Environmental Monitoring. Presented at
the Eleventh Annual Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRI) Conference. May 20-24, Palm Springs,
CA.
Stevens, D.L, Jr. 1991. A Continuous Universe
Generalization of Horvitz-Thompson Estimation.
Presented at the IMS-WNAR Western Regional Meeting.
July 1 -3, Santa Barbara, CA.
Stoddard, J.L. 1991. Long-Term Changes in Watershed
Nitrogen Retention: Its Causes and Aquatic
Consequences. Presented at a Special Symposium on
Environmental Chemistry of Lakes and Reservoirs,
American Chemical Society. April 15-19, Atlanta, GA.
Stribling, S. 1991. Application of QA Concepts from the
Third Ecological Workshop to a Long-Term Aquatic Field
Assessment Pilot Study. Presented at the Fourth
Ecological Quality Assurance Workshop. February 26-
28, Cincinnati, OH.
Turgeon, D., and J. Paul. 1991. NOAA/EPA Federal
Marine Monitoring Program. Presented at the Minerals
Management Service Marine Monitoring Workshop. June
18-19, Anchorage, AK.
White, D. 1991. Visualizing Quality Begins with
Epistemology. Presented at the NCGIA Workshop on
Visualization of Spatial Data Quality. June 8-12, Castine,
ME.
-16-
-------
EMA.P • Monitor
Recent and Upcomim
Neotropical Bird Conservation Program Meeting.
September 3-5,1991, Arlington, VA. Contact: Dan
McKenzie (503) 754-4625 or FTS: 430-4625.
EMAP-Statistics and Design Workshop. September 4-6,
1991, Portland, OR. -Contact: Tony Olsen (503) 754-
4790 or FTS: 430-4790.
Water Systems Modernization Symposium. September
10-12,1991, Dallas, TX. Contact: Dan McKenzie (503)
754-4625 or FTS: 430-4625.
Arid/Global Indicators Workshop. September 15-17,
1991, Logan, UT. Contact: Bruce Jones (702) 798-2671
or FTS: 545-2671/Bill Kepner (702) 798-2193 or FTS:
545-2193.
FY91 Full Information Management Committee
Meeting. September 22-26,1991, New Orleans, LA.
Contact: Gene Meier (702) 798-2237 or FTS: 545-
2237.
EMAP Technical Director/Technical Coordinator
Meeting. September 23-27,1991, New Orleans, LA.
Contact: Tom Dixon (202) 260-7238 or FTS: 260-7238.
EMAP-Near Coastal Seminar Series: "EMAP-Near
Coastal Demonstration Project Planning, Training and
Implementation" and "Overview of Results of the 1990
Demonstration Project," September 4,1991;
"Optimizing Benthic Sampling Procedures," September
17,1991; "EMAP-Near Coastal Information
Management" and "EMAP-Near Coastal Quality
Assurance," October 1,1991; "1991 Virginian Province
Sampling Effort," October 15,1991; "1990 Virginian
Province Benthic Community Response," October 29,
1991; and "1990 and 1991 Sediment Toxicity Results,"
November 21,1991. Environmental Research
Laboratory, Narragansett, Rl. Contact: Dick Latlmer
(401) 782-3077 or FTS: 838-6077.
Arid/Global Carbon Flux Meeting. Desert Research
Institute, October 2-3,1991. Reno, NV. Contact: Tim
Ball (702) 673-7323.
NATO Conference on Desertification. October 10-12,
1991, Lisbon, Portugal. Contact: Bill Kepner (702) 798-
2193 or FTS: 545-2193.
National Research Council Meeting. October 21-22,
1991. Contact: Dan McKenzie (503) 754-4625 or FTS:
430-4625.
Soil Science Society of America Meeting. October 27-
November 1,1991, Denver, CO. Contact: Sam
Alexander (919) 549-4020.
EMAP-Arid Indicators Meeting. October 28-30,1991,
Logan, UT. Contact: Bob Breckinridge (208) 526-0757
or FTS: 583-0757.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
12th Annual Meeting. November 3-7,1991, Seattle,
WA. Contact: J. Lazorchak (513) 569-8114 or FTS:
684-8114/Mark Smith (513) 527-8350 or FTS: 778-
8350.
American Statistical Association Meeting. November 4-
6,1991, San Francisco, CA. Contact: Tony Olsen (503)
754-4790 or FTS: 430-4790.
Biennial Estuarine Research Federation Meeting.
November 11 -15,1991, San Francisco, CA. Contact:
Bor Orth (804) 642-7332.
Annual NOAA Status and Trends Program QA and
Science Meeting. December 10-12,1991, Beaufort, NC.
Contact Dick latimer (401) 782-3077 or FTS: 838-
6077.,
Mapping and Classification ForumvUSGS, National
Mapping Division; EPA, Office of Information Resource
Management, and EMAP-Landscape Characterization
Resource Group. February 25-26,1992, Reston, VA.
Contact: Doug Norton (703) 349-8970 or FTS: 557-
3110.
For more information, please contact Carol Finch in EPA's Office of Modeling,
Monitoring Systems, and Quality Assurance, (202) 260-9463 or FTS: 260-9463
-17-
•&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE;
- 64»-»S»/4On«
-------
-------
EMAP • Monitor
The EMAP Monitor is prepared by the Office
of Modeling, Monitoring Systems, and Qual-
ity Assurance and the Office of Environmen-
tal Processes and Effects Research, within
EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The EMAP Monitor is intended to inform in-
terested agencies and individuals of current
activities and findings from the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program. If you
currently do not receive the Monitor and
Name:
Affiliation:
Address:
Please check the appropriate box below:
Q I am interested in receiving the EMAP Monitor.
Please add my name to the distribution list.
Q I am no longer interested in receiving the EMAP
Monitor. Please remove my name from the
distribution list.
Ql Please note my change of address.
would like to be added to the distribution list
(or know of others who may be interested),
please fill in the box (or boxes). Please also
use the box to inform us of any change of
address.
Return to Dorothy Williams, EMAP Monitor,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (G-72),
26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati,
OH 45268.
Name:
Affiliation:
Address:
Please check the appropriate box below:
Ql I am interested in receiving the EMAP Monitor.
Please add my name to the distribution list.
Q 1 am no longer interested in receiving the EMAP
Monitor. Please remove my name from the
distribution list.
Ql Please note my change of address.
-------
*8
II
?s
5*
> m c
I
I
lis
£la
o
M (D
Ii
0)
g.
m
w
H
> 00
O C
m r~
m
(0
------- |