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

-------