United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478 Research and Development EPA/600/S4-917013 September 1992 Project Summary Agroecosystem Monitoring and Research Strategy: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Walter W. Heck, C. Lee Campbell, Robert P. Breckenridge, Gerald E. Byers, Alva L. Finkner, George R. Hess, Julie R. Meyer, Thomas J. Moser, Steven L Peck, John O. Rawlings and Charles N. Smith To project, manage, and use agro- ecosystem resources effectively, the condition of these resources must be known. Concern about the documented and potential effects of anthropogenic stressors in the environment, chang- ing conservation and land use pro- grams, and use of agricultural chemi- cals has been a major reason for the development of the EPA-Environmen- tal Monitoring and Assessment Pro- gram (EMAP)/the Agroecosystem com- ponent. In addition to the anthropo- genic stressors, the program is con- cerned with how these may affect a host of naturally occurring stressors. The Agroecosystem component of EMAP is developing an ecologically based monitoring initiative to determine status and trends in land use and agro- ecosystem health. The Agroecosystem Resource Group (ARG) has identified over 100 possible indicators, has cho- sen 16 high priority indicators and is developing details on five of these for use in a 1992 pilot study. The Techni- cal Director for the ARG is with the Agricultural Research Service of the USDA and the ARG is both a multidiscipline and multiagency group. The purpose of this document is to present a "Monitoring and Research Strategy" for the agroecosystems of the U.S. It should serve as an overview for other State and Federal agencies interested in participating. Monitoring issues such as design, indicator selec- tion and development, analysis, infor- mation management, and assessment are covered in the Strategy. This Project Summary was developed by EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV, to announce key findings of the research project that is fully documented in a separate report of the same title (see Project Report ordering information at back). This document is both a conceptual strategy and an implementation plan for monitoring the ecological condition of agroecosystems in the United States. It represents the combined effort of the Agroecosystem Resource Group (ARG). The plan is viewed by the ARG as a living document that will serve as a basis for discussion of goals, objectives, concepts, and approaches. The agroecosystem monitoring program described in this document is one compo- nent of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), a national program administered by the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Of- fice of Research and Development (ORD). In response to recommendations by the EPA Science Advisory Board, Congress and the public, EPA is designing EMAP in cooperation with other agencies and or- ganizations. EMAP is organized into seven resource categories to facilitate interagency cooperation and to make the best use of scientific expertise. Interdisciplinary groups of scientists, called "Resource Groups", are responsible for developing strategies for the collection, analysis and integration /TV Printed on Recycled Paper ------- Inputs Outputs Management practices: Tillage Chemicals Irrigation Natural environment: Precipitation Temperature Humidity Soil processes Pests Beneficials Crops and livestock Non-crop vegetation Abiotic resources (soil, water, air) Agroecosystem Non-point source loading: Agri-chemicals Sediments Salts Methane Animal wastes Figure 1. A conceptual model of agroecosystems. of data from each of the ecological re- sources. In addition, seven crosscutting coordination groups have been established to assist the resource groups and to en- sure total quality management, consistency and integration of activities across the pro- gram. For EMAP, agroecosystems are defined as land used for crops, pasture and live- stock; the adjacent uncultivated land that supports other vegetation (hedgerows, woodlots, etc.) and wildlife; and the asso- ciated atmosphere, underlying soils, groundwater, and drainage networks (first and second order streams, ponds, and irrigation drainage networks). A simplified conceptual model (Figure 1) of an agro- ecosystem shows both natural and an- thropogenic inputs and both desirable and undesirable outputs. The conceptual model and the definition of agroecosystems illus- trate how the Agroecosystem program is being designed as a holistic approach that considers all constituent components of agroecosystems. Agroecosystems have more impact on our daily lives than any of the other ter- restrial ecosystems, because they provide us with food and fiber and influence the quality of our environment. Farmers have the stewardship of more of the global en- vironment than any other group; in the United States, crop land accounts for ap- proximately 443 million acres, nearly 20%, of the total U.S. land area. Although agricultural systems are often viewed as relatively simple, they are far more complex than they may appear ini- tially. The periodic and chronic distur- bances that are an inherent part of agri- cultural management place agroeco- systems among the most rapidly changing landscapes on earth. A healthy agro- ecosystem balances sustainable crop and livestock production with maintenance of air, water and soil integrity and supports populations of wildlife and vegetation in associated non-crop habitats. The degra- dation of any one component influences the other components in the agroeco- system and in adjacent, linked ecosys- tems. The mission for the ARG is to develop and implement a program to monitor and evaluate the long-term status and trends of the nation's agricultural resources from an ecological perspective through an inte- grated, interagency program. The objec- tives of the Agroecosystem program par- allel the overall EMAP program objectives, but focus more specifically on agroecological resources. When fully implemented, the program will meet the following objectives: 1) estimate the cur- rent status, extent, changes and trends in indicators of agroecosystem condition on a regional basis with known confidence; 2) monitor indicators of pollutant exposure and habitat quality and seek associations between anthropogenic stresses and agroecosystem condition; and 3) provide periodic statistical summaries and inter- pretive reports on agroecosystem condi- tion to the public, the scientific commu- nity, and to policy-makers. Assessment endpoints that encompass the concept of agroecosystem health will be developed to focus the interpretation of indicator data. Assessment endpoints are a quantitative or quantifiable expres- sion of the environmental value, such as agroecosystem health, to be monitored and assessed. Good assessment end- points have social and biological relevance, an unambiguous operational definition, are accessible to prediction and measurement, and are susceptible to the environmental stressors of concern. Assessment end- points are long-term societal values that will not change over time, even when spe- cific stressors or specific issues do change. After careful consideration of important scientific, social, economic and environ- mental issues concerning agriculture, agroecosystems, and their associated sur- roundings, three assessment endpoints were identified that summarize the es- sence of the issues. These are: 1) sus- tainability of commodity production; 2) con- tamination of natural resources; and 3) quality of agricultural landscapes. Al- though members of the ARG agree on the basic issues addressed, they are still de- bating the terminology and organization of these endpoints. Sustainability of commodity production refers to the capacity of a particular agro- ecosystem to maintain a level of crop or livestock productivity that provides for ba- sic human food and fiber needs, and an economically viable livelihood for farmers without polluting or seriously depleting soil, water, wildlife, fossil fuel or other re- sources. Continual removal of biomass from agricultural fields necessitates inputs or adjustments to maintain productivity; however, long-term sustainability of agro- ecosystems can be masked in the short- term by management practices. Inputs, outputs, socioeconomic factors, and the use of natural resources will be consid- ered in the assessment of agronomic sustainability. Contamination is defined as the pres- ence of anthropogenically-related stressors that have direct or indirect effects on the sustainability, productivity, structure or function of the agroecosystem. Contami- nants can be found in the air, soil, water, and biota of agroecosystems, and may include air pollutants, agricultural chemi- cals, animal and municipal wastes, water pollutants, and genetically-altered organ- isms. Contaminants can also be trans- ------- ported from agroecosystems. On a re- gional and national scale, managed agri- cultural systems contribute to nonpoint source pollution through loss of agricul- tural chemicals and sediments carried to streams and rivers. On a local level, man-- aged agricultural systems can be pollution point sources, such as pesticide drift from aerial spraying, that can impact immedi- ately adjacent areas. The quality of agricultural landscapes refers to the various ways in which the landscape matrix is modified or employed for agricultural and non-agricultural pur- poses over time. Agricultural land use pat- terns exert a major influence on ecologi- cal processes. For example, landscape heterogeneity may affect soil erosion, wa- ter quality, crop-pest interactions, ecologi- cal diversity and the spread of diseases. A vital characteristic of landscape modifi- cation is the extent to which the surround- ing landscape can support populations of non-crop vegetation and wildlife. An as- sessment of agroecosystem health and the development of sustainable agricul- tural systems must consider landscape level processes over time and the cou- pling of natural and agricultural compo- nents of the landscape. The Agroecosystem program is de- signed to evaluate the health or condition of U.S. agroecosystems. The program is designed to complement existing monitor- ing efforts such as those carried out by USDA/National Agricultural Statistics Ser- vice (MASS), USDA/Soil Conservation Ser- vice (SCS)-National Resources Inventory (NRI), USDA/Economics Research Ser- vice (ERS) and the USDC Bureau of the Census by adding an essential ecological dimension to current data collection, com- pilation and interpretation. The program will utilize existing monitoring data where possible and will provide new data on trends in the condition of crop and non- crop resources which will be interpretable from environmental, ecological, agricultural or agroecological viewpoints. The EMAP program has established a four-tier approach to ecological monitor- ing. Tier 1 emphasizes landscape charac- terization and estimates of extent of re- source and land use; Tier 2 provides esti- mates of condition and trends; Tier 3 con- centrates on detailed diagnostics; and Tier 4 represents research sites established to answer specific cause-effect questions. The Agroecosystem program currently fo- cuses primarily on Tier 2 with some activi- ties at Tier 1. Tier 2 involves field sam- pling to provide measurements of status and trends in indicators of agroecosystem condition on a regional basis. The planned data collection approach is through a cooperative program with the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) under which MASS enumerators collect all or most of the Agroecosystem indicator data. The Agroecosystem pro- gram will cooperate with NASS in one of two ways for Tier 2 sampling. NASS cur- rently samples over 16,000 segments an- nually in the June Enumerative Survey (JES) and has been involved in agricul- tural surveys since 1954. The first, the Hexagon Plan, uses the NASS primary sampling unit (PSU) located at the cen- troid of the EMAP hexagons. Using the NASS stratification, approximately 3,200 hexagons would be selected at random to achieve optimum allocation. The selected segment, identified by the centroid, would then be used for the duration of EMAP. The second plan, the Rotational Panel Plan, takes advantage of the NASS sample and uses approximately 20% (approx. 3,200) of the segments used in the NASS JES sample. The NASS sample has five interpenetrating replicates of the total sample, designed such that each repli- cate rotates out of the sample after five years. Initial investigation seems to indi- cate that the RPP may have advantages over the Hexagon Plan. This is currently being explored theoretically and will be tested during the pilot. Field sampling protocols for obtaining indicator data at the field level from the sample segment are being developed in close cooperation with NASS. Among the statistical issues involved are selecting the field, choosing the sampling points and determining the appropriate sampling den- sity within the field. Field sampling tech- niques will be evaluated during a 1992 pilot, as well as sampling protocols, the effectiveness of the training manuals for NASS, and interaction with the NASS enu- merators. Throughout the survey process, the ARG will be alert to the kinds of errors' that may occur and will take steps to con- trol, minimize and measure them. Initial analyses of the monitoring data will be directed toward the routine sum- marization of indicator values that measure ecosystem health. Interpretive analyses will be aimed at understanding the correlation structure among the indi- cators, regional spatial patterns and con- cordance of spatial patterns for stressor and response indicators, time trends, and the development of health indices for the agroecosystem. In addition to the indica- tor variables themselves, extensive infor- mation will be collected on ancillary data to facilitate interpretation of indicators. The Agroecosystem program will ob- tain, store, manipulate, integrate and ana- lyze data. These data will come from many sources, including joint Agroecosystem- NASS collection efforts, from other EMAP Resource Groups, other government agen- cies, cooperating non-government agen- cies, and academic institutions. The infor- mation collected and created by the pro- gram will be available, at some level, to researchers in these same agencies and institutions. Researchers must know what data are available, where they are located, and how they can be accessed. Informa- tion about methods used to collect data, including details about data quality, must be available. To ensure that data are of the highest quality, carefully designed pro- cedures for the movement and manipula- tion of data, from field collection through analysis, are planned as an information management effort. Because the data are to be widely available, there must be a policy and mechanism which protects the privacy of the individual respondents. Thus, confidentiality of data, and consequently data security, are critical issues for the ARG. The Agroecosystem program objec- tives require that data be collected from individual growers and operators. From the standpoint of information man- agement, working with NASS is the best approach because: 1) the relationship of NASS with the agricultural community will facilitate data collection; 2) NASS provides confidentiality of data to individual farm operators; 3) NASS has a fully developed infrastructure for the collection of agricul- tural data, including strict quality controls; and 4) NASS has developed the com- puter resources to organize, analyze, and quickly report on large volumes of data. The database developed from the Agroecosystem program will provide es- sential data for conducting ecological risk assessments. Such assessments estimate the effects of both anthropogenic and natu- ral activities on ecological resources and allow the significance of those effects to be interpreted with quantified uncertainty estimates. The primary role of the Agro- ecosystem program in the overall risk as- sessment process is to identify and quan- tify agroecological hazard related to the assessment endpoints which can then be used in risk assessment. Hazards will be identified within agroecosystems through the use of indicators of ecosystem condi- tion. Overall risk assessment will be facili- tated through effective information ex- changes and monitoring linkages with other ecosystem resource groups. The ARG will communicate findings on condition and status and trends through at least four types of informational out- puts. Annual statistical summaries and il- lustrative maps will be published within nine months after the collection of the last sample information for each year. Inter- pretative reports will be produced at ir- ------- Table 1. Implementation Schedule and Budget Needs for 1991-1995 Year/Stage No. of States No. of sites 1990 Planning 1991 Final planning/ field research 1992 Southern pilot 1993-Sourthern Regional 200(100) Demonstration -North Central Pilot 1994-Southern Implementation •North Central Regional Demonstration -Western Pilot 1995-Southern Full Implementation -North Central Implementation -Western Regional Demonstration -Northeastern Pilot 8 1 8 4 1 13 9 3 1 400 100 400 200 100 400 300 200 100 Estimated Cost (budgeted) $millions $0.45 0.40 1.3(0.80) 2.4 (2.40) 5.5 (4.16) 7.0 (6.2) Table 2. Long- Term Strategy: Technical and Administrative Personnel Needs " 91 92(approved) 93 94-Est. Technical Director Deputy TD (EPA) Associate TD Scientific Staff Research Associates Statisticians Information Managers QA/QC Staff Logistics Staff Technicians Support Staff Total 1.0 0.5 .35 1.25 1.75 2.0 0.5 - - 1.5 1.0 9.85 1.0 1.0 .35 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.0 - - 1.0 1.5 10.65 1.0 1.0 .35 4.0 6.0 3.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 3.0 3.0 21.85 95-Est. 1.0 1.0 .35 7.0 5.0 5.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 10.0 4.0 37.85 1.0 1.0 .35 9.0 8.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 18.0 7.0 56.35 regular intervals. Research papers will also be prepared periodically. Summary implementation schedule and budget needs for 1991 through 1995 are shown in Table 1; minimal personnel needs to accomplish the planned implementa- tion are shown in Table 2. The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under interagency agreement DW129- 34170 with the U.S. Department of Agri- culture, Agricultural Research Service, Contract No. 68-CO-0049 to Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company, Con- tract No. 68-C8-0006 to ManTech Envi- ronmental Technology, Inc., Corvallis, OR and Contract No. 68-DO-0106 to Man- Tech Environmental Technology, Inc., Re- search Triangle Park, NC. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and ad- ministrative review, and it has been ap- proved for publication as an EPA docu- ment. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This does not include staff of the NASS who actually carry out the surveys. •U.S. Government Printing Office: 1992—648-080/60136 ------- ------- ------- ------- Walter W. Heck is with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh, NC. C. Lee Campbell, Alva L. Finkner, George Hess, Steven L. Peck, and John O. Rawlings are with North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, Robert P. Breckenridge is with the Idaho National Engineering Lab, Idaho Falls, ID. Gerald E. Byers is with Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co., Las Vegas NV. Julie R. Meyer is with ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC. Tom Moser is with ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., Corvallis, OR. Charles N. Smith is with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA Ann M. Pitchford is the EPA Project Officer (see below). The complete report, entitled "Agroecosystem Monitoring and Research Strategy: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, "(Order No. PB93-100071/AS; Cost: $35.00, subject to change) will be available only from: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA22161 Telephone: 703-487-4650 The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at: Environmental Monitring Systems Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478 United States Environmental Protection Agency Center for Environmental Research Information Cincinnati, OH 45268 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 BULK RATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO. G-35 EPA/600/S4-91/013 ------- |