EPA/620/R-94/016
February 1994
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
Assessment Framework
by
Kent W. Thornton
FTN Associates, Ltd.
Little Rock, AR 72211
Gary E. Saul
FTN Associates, Ltd.
Austin, TX 78735
D. Eric Hyatt
EMAP Center
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Contract #68-DO-0093
Work Assignment Manager
Laura E. Jackson
EMAP Center (MD-75)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EMAP Center
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Office Of Research And Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Assessment Framework
Abstract
The assessment framework proposed in this report provides a common approach for planning and
conducting a wide variety of ecological assessments within EMAP. The framework also demonstrates how
EMAP complements EPA's assessment approach proposed in the Risk Assessment Forum's (RAF)
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (RAF 1992). EMAP assessments can contribute directly to the
problem formulation phase of the EPA-RAF Framework by identifying and quantifying factors that might
contribute to the condition of ecological resources. EMAP assessments also will provide information needed
to conduct ecological risk assessments that verify model predictions and the cumulative effectiveness of
environmental protection and management decisions.
EMAP uses a retrospective or effects-oriented approach to assessment There are three phases in
EMAP assessments: problem formulation, analysis, and interpretation and communication. These three
phases emphasize (1) formulating and refining assessment questions and issues with EMAP users, (2)
identifying indicators of condition, (3) developing conceptual models, (4) analyzing data on ecological
resources using weight of evidence and process of elimination approaches to infer factors contributing to
observed trends in ecological effects, and (5) interpreting and effectively communicating assessment results
in a policy-relevant context for users. There are five basic assessment products: quality-assured data, annual
statistical summaries, ecological resource assessments, assessment tools, and guidance.
Because it will take a number of years before all resources in all regions of the country will be
routinely monitored, the ability of the program to conduct ecological resource assessments will depend on
implementing its research, monitoring, and assessment activities in planned phases. Initial assessments will
focus on data to determine extent, geographic coverage, and condition for individual ecological resources.
Single region, single resource assessments will be conducted before assessments encompass multiple regions
or national levels. Assessments of multiple ecological resources in a single region will be conducted as other
resources start monitoring in that region.
Key words:
USEPA-EMAP, ecology-decision making, ecology-risk assessment, ecology-measurement,
environmental monitoring—risk assessment, environmental policy, environmental risk assessment, indicators
(biology), landscape assessment, risk assessment, risk communication, risk management, statistics.
Preferred citation:
EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program). 1994. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program Assessment Framework. EPA/620/R-94/XXX. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EMAP Center.
Notice:
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract #68-DO-0093 to Versar Inc. (FTN Associates, Ltd.) and Contract #68-C8-
0006 to ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc. It has been subject to the Agency's peer and
administrative review. It has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Preface
Over the past several years, there has been an increased emphasis on comparative ecological risk
assessment within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other agencies, and the scientific
community. Also, there have been questions raised on the role of the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) in comparative ecological risk assessment and its relationship with EPA's
Risk Assessment Forum. This report describes a framework, and its basic elements, for conducting
assessments within EMAP as well as the relation of EMAP assessments to EPA's Risk Assessment Forum,
This document about EMAP's assessment framework is intended primarily for scientific administrators and
managers who require assessment information for making decisions related to environmental protection and
management; further, it provides a scientific explanation - i.e., a "definition" — of ecological assessment
in the context of the EMAP program, and should not be interpreted as a strategic planning document, or
any other form of planning or policy document.
Requests for additional information on EMAP should be directed to: EMAP Director, Office of
Modeling, Monitoring Systems and Quality Assurance, Mail Code 8205, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
in
-------
Assessment Framework
Acknowledgements
This Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) report was prepared under the
direction of the EMAP Technical Coordinator for Assessment and Reporting. Preparation of this document
was initiated by Daniel A. Vallero (Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory [AREAL],
Research Triangle Park, NC) and is currently under the direction of D. Eric Hyatt (EMAP Center, Research
Triangle Park, NC).
The principal authors were Kent W. Thornton (FTN Associates, Ltd., Little Rock, AR), Gary E.
Saul (FTN Associates, Ltd., Austin, TX), and D. Eric Hyatt (EMAP Center, Research Triangle Park, NC)
with contributions from Daniel A. Vallero (AREAL, Research Triangle Park, NC) and Lisa Gandy (FTN
Associates, Ltd., Little Rock, AR). The final draft Assessment Framework was peer reviewed by Richard
C. Bishop (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI), Virginia H. Dale (Oak Ridge National
Laboratories, Oak Ridge, TN), and David J. Rapport (University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ONT, Canada); it was
edited by Cynthia B. Chapman (Senior Technical Editor, ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.,
Corvallis, OR). Additional comments were provided by Daniel H. McKenzie (Acting Deputy Director,
EMAP, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR), Sidney Draggan (Associate Director, EMAP-
HQ, Washington, DC), and Marjorie M. Holland (Chief, EMAP-Integration and Assessment Team, EMAP
Center, Research Triangle Park, NC).
A previous version of EMAP's Assessment Framework was reviewed by Joan Baker (Watershed
Response Program Leader, EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR), Laura Jackson
(Scientist, EMAP Center, Research Triangle Park, NC), Linda Kirkland (Acting Technical Coordinator,
EMAP-QA, Washington, DC), Richard Latimer (Acting Assistant Technical Director, EMAP-Estuaries,
Narragansett, RI), Anthony R. Olsen (Technical Coordinator, EMAP-Design and Statistics, Corvallis, OR),
and Jugrid Schultz (EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC). The contributions
of these individuals are gratefully acknowledged.
IV
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Contents
Abstract • ii
Preface ; • iii
Acknowledgements iv
1 — Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Assessment Defined 1
Ecological Risk Assessment Framework 2
Effects-Oriented Risk Assessment 4
Assessment Summary 5
Document Organization 5
2 — Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 7
Rationale 7
Goal and Objectives 7
Program Structure 8
Assessment Products 9
Evolving Process • • 10
3 — Assessment Framework 11
Assessment Questions 12
EMAP Users and Their Assessment Perspectives 12
Policy-relevant Questions 12
Indicators 15
Conceptual Models 16
Data Analysis 18
Quality Assurance/Quality Control 19
Geographic coverage and extent 19
Diagnosis 20
Weight of Evidence 20
Process of Elimination 23
Interpretation and Communication 24
Interpretation 24
Classification of Condition 24
Assumptions and Uncertainties 25
Communication 25
Assessment Products 27
Quality-Assured Data 27
Annual Statistical Summary Reports 27
Ecological Resource Assessment Reports 28
Assessment Tools and Guidelines 28
4 — Evolving Program and Process 30
Glossary 31
References 39
Index 43
-------
Assessment Framework
Figures
Figure 1. Framework for ecological risk assessment . 3
Figure 2. EMAP's effects-oriented strategy compared to a stressor-oriented approach
for ecological assessments 4
Figure 3. Relations of EMAP assessment to RAF's risk assessment framework.
EMAP assessments contribute primarily to problem formulation,
with more limited contributions to other phases 6
Figure 4. EMAP structure 9
Figure 5. Framework for EMAP assessments 11
Figure 6. Major elements in the assessment questions and issues phase of
EMAP's assessment framework 12
Figure 7. Conceptual model for estuarine resources 16
Figure 8. EMAP-Arid Ecosystems conceptual model 17
Figure 9. Major elements in the data analysis phase of EMAP's assessment framework 18
Figure 10. Spatial display of major forest types in the conterminous United States 19
Figure 11. Association of median wet sulfate deposition and median surface water
sulfate concentrations in National Surface Waters Survey subregions 21
Figure 12. Process of elimination of possible sources of acidity to acidic lakes and streams 23
Figure 13. Percent of population influenced by dominant source of acidity 24
Figure 14. Major elements in the interpretation and communication phase of
EMAP's assessment framework 25
Figure 15. Ranges of subnominal, marginal, and nominal conditions that
might be delineated along a condition continuum 26
Figure 16. One method of aggregating measures of resource condition among
different subregions (standard Federal region; EPA, USDA, or
Forest Service region; or biogeographical province) 28
Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Assessment definitions 1
Comparison of stress-oriented and effects-oriented risk assessment approaches 5
Examples of different perspectives and different underlying data needs
to answer an assessment question 13
Examples of policy-relevant questions to be addressed in EMAP 14
Examples of policy-relevant questions that are not appropriate for EMAP 15
Hill's (1965) criteria adapted for evaluating the likelihood, of probable cause from
associations in ecological assessments 22
Example of weight of evidence approach for relating acidic deposition to surface
water acidification 22
Suggestions for how EMAP could establish preliminary nominal-subnominal
categories 27
Actions suggested by lessons learned in communicating between decision makers
and scientists through the global climate program 29
vi
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Introduction
Purpose
This document presents a framework for conducting
assessments in the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP). The framework describes basic elements of
the assessment process and provides a common foundation for
conducting assessments within EMAP. Because of its general
nature, the framework should be adaptable to a diverse set of
assessment questions and needs. Consequently, this document
is written to assist science administrators and resource
managers in understanding the EMAP assessment process.
Assessment Defined
Assessment connotes different definitions and processes,
depending on the discipline, agency, and audience (Table 1).
Many Federal and State environmental assessments are based
on legislative or regulatory requirements that dictate explicit
purposes and approaches. In general, these assessments are
site specific and range from addressing specific problems (e.g.,
the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility,
Compensation, and Liability \ Act [CERCLA] Natural
Resources Damage Assessments) to broadly identifying or
disclosing all potential environmental impacts (e.g., the
Table 1. Assessment definitions.
Source
Definition of Assessment
EMAP
NEPA (1969)
Deuel and D'Aloia (1989)
Streets (1989)
NAPAP (1991)
Webster (Ninth ed. 1991)
Cowling (1992)
Suter (1993)
Assessment is the interpretation and evaluation of EMAP results for the purpose
of answering policy-relevant questions about ecological resources including:
(1) determination of the fraction of the population that meets a socially-defined
value and/or (2) associations among indicators of ecological condition and
stressors.
Assessment is the evaluation of the consequences of an action including short-term,
long-term, direct, indirect, cumulative, and irreversible, irretrievable effects for the
purposes of avoiding to the fullest extent practicable undesirable consequences for the
environment.
Assessment is a comprehensive multifaceted investigation that includes data
acquisition, evaluation, conclusions, and recommendations.
Assessment is the translation of scientific results into answers for policy-relevant
questions and issues within a decision framework.
Assessment is an interdisciplinary activity wherein findings from diverse disciplines are
coordinated to produce a better understanding of the cumulative impacts of a stressor
(i.e., acidic deposition).
Assessment is the act of determining the importance, size and value of something.
Assessment is a process by which scientific and technological evidence is marshalled
for the purposes of predicting the outcomes of alternative courses of action.
Assessment is the combination of analysis with policy-related activities such as
identification of issues and comparison of risks and benefits.
-------
Assessment Framework
National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] Environmental
Assessments/Environmental Impact Statements). Just as users
must understand the specific framework and elements of an
environmental assessment, assessors must understand from the
outset what the user needs from the assessment.
Regardless of the definition, requirements, or approaches of
assessment, several features are common to almost every
environmental assessment First, there is a link with policy or
regulatory questions and issues. Second, mere is a value-added
perspective to assessments, ranging from a formal, quantitative
cost/benefit analysis of all alternatives to a qualitative
improvement in our understanding of potential impacts or
effects. Finally, assessments synthesize and interpret scientific
information and present it in an understandable format for the
intended audience. Over the past decade, environmental
assessments have evolved from analyzing and comparing solely
ecological effects from stressors to a wider consideration of the
risks to human and ecological health associated with these
stressors. A stressor is any physical, chemical, or biological
entity or process that can induce adverse effects on individuals,
populations, communities, or ecosystems (RAF 1992, xiv).
Risk assessment is defined as the process of assigning
magnitudes and probabilities to the adverse effects of human
activities or natural catastrophes (Suter 1993). Guidelines for
conducting risk assessments on human health have been issued
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1976,
1986) and are being revised continually. Ecological risk
assessment, however, is just emerging as a process for
comparing and evaluating the effects of multiple stressors on
ecological resources.
EPA has embarked on a process to focus its efforts on the
environmental problems that pose the greatest risks rather than
those that receive the greatest public attention (Roberts 1990).
This process involves conducting comparative ecological risk
assessments so that the highest priority risks can be identified
and addressed. The concept of comparative risk was initially
proposed in Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment
of Environmental Problems (EPA 1987), which indicated the
greatest risks to the environment were not posed by site-
specific problems such as toxic waste dump sites, but by
regional and global scale problems (e.g., nonpoint source
pollution, habitat alteration, loss of biodiversity, or global
climate change). EPA's Science Advisory Board endorsed and
expanded the call for comparative ecological risk assessment,
recommending that EPA: 1) plan, implement, and sustain a
long-term monitoring and research program; 2) report on the
status and trends in environmental quality; 3) target its
environmental protection efforts on the basis of opportunities
for the greatest risk reduction; 4) improve the data and
analytical methods that support the assessment, comparison,
and reduction of different environmental risks; and 5) increase
its efforts to integrate environmental considerations into
broader aspects of public policy as fundamentally as economic
considerations are included in policy analysis (SAB 1988,
1990). EPA has established a Risk Assessment Forum (EPA-
RAF) that is charting a strategic direction and developing
specific guidance for conducting ecological risk assessments.
The Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (RAF 1992)
presents a basic structure and starting principles for conducting
EPA's ecological risk assessments. The Framework initiates
a process in which long-term guidelines for ecological risk
assessment can be organized (RAF 1992).
Ecological Risk Assessment Framework
EPA defines ecological risk assessment as "the process that
evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may
occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more
stressors" (RAF 1992, 37). A risk is not considered to exist
unless (1) the identified stressor(s) has (have) the inherent
ability to cause adverse ecological effect(s) and (2) the stressor
co-occurs with or contacts an ecological component for a
sufficient time and at sufficient intensity to elicit the identified
effect(s). Ecological risk assessment may evaluate one or
several stressors or ecological components.
In its Framework, EPA's Risk Assessment Forum describes
a flexible structure for its ecological risk assessment with three
sequential phases, namely, 1) problem formulation, 2)
analysis, and 3) risk characterization (Figure 1).
Problem formulation is a planning and scoping
phase that links the regulatory or management goals to
the risk assessment. It results in a conceptual model that
identifies the environmental values to be protected (the
assessment endpoints), the data needed, and the analyses
to be used.
The Analysis phase develops and links profiles of
environmental exposure and profiles of ecological effects
to stressors. "The exposure profile characterizes the
ecosystems in which the stressor may occur as well as
the biota that may be exposed. It also describes the
magnitude and spatial/temporal pattern of exposure. The
ecological effects profile summarizes data on the effects
of the stressor and relates them to the assessment
endpoints" (RAF 1992, xiv).
"Risk characterization integrates the exposure and
effects profiles" (RAF 1992, xiv). By comparing individual
exposure and effects values, comparing the distributions of
exposure and effects, or using simulation models, risks can
be expressed either as qualitative or quantitative estimates.
Results of risk characterization describe relations between
the risks and social values or assessment endpoints; discuss
ecological significance of the effects; estimate the overall
confidence or uncertainty in the assessment; and suggest
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Ecological Risk Assessment
Discussion Between the
Risk Assessor and Risk
Manager
(Results)
Risk Management
Figure 1. Framework for ecological risk assessment (RAF 1992, 4).
effective approaches for communicating these risks to the user
and the risk manager.
EPA-RAF's Framework "also recognizes several additional
activities that are integral to, but separate from, the risk
assessment process" (RAF 1992, xv). First, early discussions
between the risk assessor and the risk manager ensure that the
assessment will provide information relevant to the decision
making process, that the assessment addresses all relevant
ecological concerns, and that the manager has a full and
complete understanding of the conclusions, assumptions,
limitations, and uncertainties associated with the assessment.
Next, data acquisition, verification, and monitoring studies
provide the information required for analysis, for validation of
the results of a specific assessment and the overall Framework
approach, and for improving the assessment process.
The general risk assessment paradigm (NRC 1983), the
ecological risk assessment Framework (RAF 1992), and most
of the procedures and tools developed for risk assessment are
applicable for both retrospective and predictive assessments,
but have been used primarily for predictive assessments
(Suter 1993). Predictive assessments usually are stress-
oriented, focusing on a particular stressor and then estimating
future risks to the assessment endpoints (formal expressions of
EMAP's condition indicators) from this stressor.
-------
Assessment Framework
Other assessment approaches, such as epidemiological or
effects-oriented assessments, begin with an observed effect and
subsequently identify stressors that might have contributed to
this effect; EMAP's assessment strategy follows this effects-
oriented approach. EMAP's strategy complements the EPA-
RAF Framework by contributing to problem formulation and
providing corroborative information to the analysis and risk
characterization phases.
Effects-Oriented Risk Assessment
Ths Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (RAF 1992)
discusses a broad approach for conducting ecological risk
assessments, and it starts with a characterization of the stressor,
then describes exposure pathways from the sources of the
stressor to the associated ecological effects (Figure 2). While
this approach is equally applicable for both predictive and
retrospective analyses, it typically emphasizes prospective
analyses using simulation models to predict exposure and
stressor-effects profiles. Such predictive approaches are
dependent upon cause-effect relationships between stressors
and ecological effects.
A complementary approach to conducting ecological
assessments is the strategy being developed in EMAP, a
retrospective approach like that used in environmental
epidemiology (NRC1991) and the emerging area of ecosystem
health (Costanza et al. 1992, Rapport 1992). Effects are
observed rather than the stressors (Figure 2). Effects-oriented
approaches emphasize association, weight of evidence, and
process of elimination analyses to identify possible factors
contributing to the observed ecological effects. Although
epidemiologic methods can include predictive analyses, its
initial emphasis—as well as EMAP's strategy—are based on
retrospective analyses. Both these approaches—retrospective
and predictive—were used in assessing the effects of acidic
deposition on aquatic ecosystems in the National Acid
Precipitation Program (NAPAP 1991), illustrating how these
two approaches complement each other (Thornton 1993). Both
approaches represent scientifically valid approaches for
assessing ecological effects. In general, the predictive stress-
oriented approach is used—and better understood—than the
retrospective effects-oriented approach in conducting
environmental assessments (Suter 1993). Effects-oriented
strategies, however, will become increasingly important as
Bfects-
Orfented
Approach
(EMAP)
Strew-
Oriented
Approach
r
\.
Figure 2. EMAP's effects-oriented strategy compared to a stressor-oriented approach for
ecological assessments.
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
assessments of larger scale problems are conducted because it
will become increasingly more difficult to establish specific
cause-effect relationships between a stressor and an effect.
Effects-oriented approaches can help eliminate possible
stressors and pathways, and assist in identifying probable
sources of stress and pathways for predictive ecological risk
assessments. Comparing the characteristics of these two
assessment approaches, a user can better understand how
information from each approach contributes to ecological
assessment (Table 2).
This document, EMAP's Assessment Framework, provides
a broad outline of how EMAP contributes to ecological
assessment and how it builds on the interrelationships of
assessment, monitoring, and research studies being conducted
in EMAP. The results of EMAP's assessment framework will
complement studies being conducted in EPA's Risk
Assessment Forum and elsewhere.
Table 2. Comparison of stress-oriented and effects-oriented risk assessment
approaches.
Predictive, Stress-Oriented
Retrospective, Effects-Oriented
Critical Questions
Stressor/Problem Oriented
Individual Sites/Systems
Link Stressor to Possible Responses
Exposure Characterization
Stressor-Effect Characterization
ProspecfrVe/Retrospective
Simulation Models/Causal Relationships
Cause-Effect
Critical Questions
Effects Oriented
Target Populations
Link Condition to Possible Stressors
Effect/Exposure Associations
Effect/Stressor Associations
/fefrospecf/Vs/Prospective
Weight of Evidence/Process of Elimination
Association
Assessment Summary
Ecological risk assessment, clearly, is in its infancy.
Currently, we do not have effective methods and programs, at
regional and national scales, to monitor ecological conditions,
measure and detect ecological trends, perform comparative
ecological risk assessments, and effectively communicate the
results to decision makers. EMAP is designed to contribute to
the research and assessment activities of EPA's Risk
Assessment Forum and provide essential monitoring
information for comparative ecological risk assessments
(Figure 3).
For example, EMAP assessments will contribute directly to
the Problem Formulation phase of ecological risk assessment
through activities focused on question formulation, resource
characterization, and conceptual model development. In
addition, EMAP can contribute to the Analysis and Risk
Characterization phases by providing information which
characterizes resource condition; analyses which examine
associations among indicators of condition and stressors; data
sets for model development, data verification or confirmation,
and estimates of uncertainty. Because data acquisition and
monitoring of the Nation's ecological resources is an integral
part of EMAP, the Program serves a separate but extremely
important role for EPA-RAF's ecological risk assessment
program by providing quality assured data for performing
large-scale risk assessments.
Document Organization
EMAP's Assessment Framework, describes the structure and
strategy EMAP will use in ecological assessments.
The information in section 2—Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program explains the rationale for EMAP,
its goal and objectives, program structure, and assessment
products. Because EMAP's assessment framework is part of
the process for achieving EMAP's goal and objectives, it is
important for users of program information to understand what
the program aims to accomplish and why.
Section 3 — the Assessment Framework explains the three
phases for conducting assessments in EMAP: problem
formulation, data analysis, and interpretation and
communication. These phases emphasize (1) formulating and
refining assessment questions and issues with EMAP users, (2)
identifying indicators of condition, (3) developing conceptual
models, (4) analyzing ecological resources data using effects-
oriented strategies to answer the questions, and (5) interpreting
and effectively communicating assessment results in a policy-
relevant context for clients and other users.
The concluding section 4 — Evolving Program and
Process discusses the implementation of EMAP and the
evolving assessment process.
A list of references and glossary of terms complete EMAP's
Assessment Framework.
-------
Assessment Framework
Environmental
Monitoring
Assessment
ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT
Problem
Formulation
*- Analysis
Risk
Characterization
1
Risk
Management
Figure 3. Relations of EMAP assessment to RAF's risk assessment
framework. EMAP assessments contribute primarily to problem
formulation, with more limited contributions to other phases.
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
2 — Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
This section presents the rationale for EMAP, the Program's
goal and objectives, a brief description of EMAP's structure,
and approaches for keeping EMAP assessments relevant
Additional information on EMAP can be obtained by writing
to the address listed in the Preface.
Rationale
EMAP evolved from discussions about the basic elements
needed in a Federal monitoring and assessment program to
contribute to decision making on environmental protection and
management Seven elements summarized these discussions:
1) A focus on social values and policy-relevant questions;
2) Approaches that assess and translate scientific results into
information useful for decision makers and the public;
3) Ecological indicators of condition for monitoring key
ecological resources rather than individual pollutants or
stressors;
4) Periodic estimates, with known confidence, of the status
and trends in indicators of ecological condition;
5) An integrated approach to monitoring that includes all
ecological resources;
6) National implementation with regional scales of resolution,
rather than an individual site or local area orientation; and
7) An interagency, interdisciplinary program in which all
participating agencies are cooperative partners in the
research, monitoring, and assessment efforts.
Decisions on environmental protection and management require
that the important societal values associated with our ecological
resources and the related policy questions be identified and
clearly stated.
The possible uses of the data to support decisions must be
considered throughout the assessment process, not only after
the data are collected but also initially to determine what
information is needed. Then, through the design of a
scientifically rigorous monitoring network, appropriate
indicators are selected and monitored to provide the types of
information required to address these questions. Measuring
these indicators within a network of probability samples, rather
than from sites selected using subjective criteria, permits
estimates of the status and trends in ecological indicators of
condition on a regional and national basis with known
confidence. Existing State and Federal monitoring networks
typically focus on a specific resource or medium, which often
results in "question-specific" designs. Aggregating data from
these designs to address regional, multi-resource issues is
difficult if not impossible; therefore, a critical need exists for
a complementary, integrated program mat monitors all
ecological resources. Emerging regional and national
environmental problems require monitoring networks designed
to provide information at these scales. Finally, cooperative and
collaborative Interagency, interdisciplinary programs are
required to address these complex issues.
The technology and methods required to design a cost-
effective, nationwide monitoring program of the scope of
EMAP are available, but they have never been fully tested.
Existing programs provide valuable information, but many
were designed for other purposes such as compliance
monitoring, single-resource management, or problem-specific
monitoring. Although many monitoring programs measure
specific elements of environmental quality, reviews have
repeatedly found these programs to be inadequate (GAO 1988,
NRC 1990). By designing and implementing EMAP, EPA has
set in motion an ecological research, monitoring, and
assessment program with a regional and national scope. These
basic programmatic elements are reflected in EMAP's goal and
objectives.
Goal and Objectives
EMAP's goal is to monitor and assess the condition of the
Nation's ecological resources to contribute to decisions on
environmental protection and management To accomplish this
goal, EMAP works to attain four objectives:
1) Estimate the current status, trends, and changes in
selected indicators of the condition of the Nation's
ecological resources on a regional basis with known
confidence.
EMAP will use selected indicators to monitor and assess
the condition of the Nation's ecological resources.
Indicators are characteristics of the environment both
biotic (biological) and abiotic (non-living), that can
provide quantitative information on the condition of
ecological resources. EMAP emphasizes biological
indicators in contrast to the traditional approach of
-------
Assessment Framework
monitoring chemical and physical indicators. Currently,
the Nation's ecological resources are grouped by EMAP
into the following categories: agroecosystems, arid
ecosystems, estuaries, forests, the Great Lakes, surface
waters (both lakes and streams), and wetlands. EMAP will
monitor and assess these resources at the scale of the
landscape, so landscape indicators also are important
Status of each resource will be described through the
distribution of scores for condition indicators for a
specified time with relation to the reference condition
associated with specific social values or desired uses.
Trends will be described by the changes in the distribution
of scores for indicators of condition over multiple time
periods. Change is the difference in the distribution of
measurements of condition indicators between two time
periods. Because the design has an underlying statistical
basis, the proportion of resources in a given
condition—for instance, the proportion of lakes that are
eutrophic—can be estimated with known confidence.
2) Estimate the geographic coverage and extent of the
Nation's ecological resources with known confidence.
Determining the national geographic coverage of multiple
ecological resources has been a high priority among
agencies and within scientific communities for several
years. In conjunction with other agencies, EMAP will
provide information on geographic coverage for the
Nation's ecological resources as spatial displays at specific
scales of resolution, for example, at the scale of satellite
Thematic Mapper images with 30 m resolution. EMAP
will estimate the extent or amount of a resource, for
example, the acres of forest, miles of streams, or numbers
of lakes. Each of these estimates will be presented with
known confidence. Also, EMAP will monitor and assess
changes and trends in geographic coverage and extent
3) Seek associations among selected indicators of natural
and anthropogenic stresses and indicators of condition of
ecological resources.
EMAP will seek associations or relationships among
selected indicators of natural and anthropogenic (human-
induced) stresses and ecological condition to identify
factors that might be contributing to the condition which
the ecological indicators express. Any stressors proposed
for EMAP are selected to aid in interpreting the indicators
of ecological condition. When monitoring a stressor,
EMAP requires that an explicit relationship exist between
the selected indicator of stress and the indicator of
condition or that there be a testable hypothesis regarding
this relationship.
4) Provide annual statistical summaries and periodic
assessments of the Nation's ecological resources.
EMAP information will be made readily available to all
individuals, organizations, and agencies mat are interested
in the condition of our ecological resources. Annual
statistical summaries will be prepared for each ecological
resource and distributed in a timely fashion. EMAP
results will be interpreted or translated into answers for
specific questions from users and decision makers. These
assessments will be conducted on both a periodic and ad
hoc basis, as described in the remainder of this document
These objectives support EMAP's goal and seek to provide
scientific information useful to decision makers.
Program Structure
To achieve its programmatic objectives, EMAP has
developed an organizational structure in which research,
monitoring, and assessment activities are coordinated and
integrated throughout the Program (Figure 4).
EMAP will monitor all of the aforementioned major
categories of ecological resources and determine the patterns
of these ecological resources on the landscape. An interagency
resource group is responsible for each ecological resource as
well as one for landscapes. For these eight resource categories
(including landscapes), EMAP will monitor selected indicators
of ecological condition and will collect and compile data on
selected stressor indicators (including atmospheric deposition).
The program will integrate its monitoring of indicators within
and across resources, such as forests, surface waters, and
wetlands, so that changes in indicators of ecological condition
and landscape patterns can be detected over time. This large-
scale integration represents one of the greatest technical
challenges to the program.
The scope and complexity of EMAP require extensive
coordination if the Program is to be successful and fully
integrate data into its assessments. Consequently, EMAP
places a high priority on coordination at both the technical and
administrative levels. Cross-cutting groups (Figure 4) are
responsible for ensuring there is consistent compatible and
comparable approaches among resource groups for design and
statistical analyses, indicator development information
management, assessment and reporting, landscape
characterization, development of methods, logistics, and quality
assurance. Also, EMAP coordinates its research, monitoring,
and assessment activities among a variety of other agencies
and programs.
The concept of assessing monitoring information in a policy-
relevant context represents a central theme underlying all
EMAP activities. Assessment in EMAP is the process of
interpreting and evaluating EMAP results for the purpose of
answering policy-relevant questions about ecological resources
including determination of the fraction of the resource
population that meets socially-defined values and associations
among indicators of ecological condition and selected stressors.
In turn, assessment results can describe where refinements in
monitoring are required. One of the primary lessons learned
from the 10-year National Acid Precipitation Assessment
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
Resource Monitoring
Landscapes
Agroecosystems
Arid Ecosystems
Estuaries
Forests
Great Lakes
Surface Waters
Wetlands
Integration and Assessment
Figure 4. EMAP structure.
Assessment and Reporting
Design and Statistics
Indicator Development
Information Management
Landscape Characterization
Logistics and Methods
Quality Assurance
Program Coordination
Atmospheric and
Deposition Data
International Activities
Regional EMAP
(R-EMAP)
EPA Risk Assessment
Forum (EPA-RAF)
Program (NAPAP) was that monitoring and research require a
continuous emphasis on assessment (ORB 1991). This
emphasis on assessment is reflected in the development of this
EMAP assessment framework.
Assessment Products
EMAP activities will produce verified, aggregated resource
data; annual statistical summaries; assessments; and assessment
tools. EMAP will produce two basic types of ecological
assessment reports: pre-planned, periodic Status of the
Ecological Resource reports and special topic assessments.
The principal differences between these two assessments is that
assessments for a Status of the Ecological Resource report
have been planned as part of the programmatic design, based
primarily on information being collected in EMAP, and
scheduled for periodic production. This assessment focus has
ensured that monitoring information will be available a priori
to address identified assessment questions. Special topic
assessments will likely address a specific environmental issue
or set of specific policy-relevant questions that are not planned
into the program design and that make greater use of auxiliary
data. Either of these assessments can be done at any of four
levels—single resource, single region; single resource, multiple
regions; multiple resources, single region; and multiple
resources, multiple regions. Assessment reports will be
produced as collaborative efforts with partner agencies, by
other agencies using EMAP data, by EMAP resource groups
and by EMAP's Assessment and Reporting cross-cutting group.
These reports will evaluate the status and trends in the
ecological condition of resources and will suggest possible
factors contributing to this condition.
EMAP can contribute to formulating hypotheses about the
causes of ecological resource condition for investigation by
other programs conducting cause-effect studies (Figure 3).
Also, EMAP's assessment activities will contribute information
to support the efforts of other offices and agencies: assisting
development of biocriteria by EPA's Office of Water,
developing ecological indicators to assist resource management
agencies, evaluating environmental and spatial statistical
methods in the scientific community, and providing other
assessment tools, particularly regional assessment tools, as the
process evolves. Because the diversity of potential assessments
that may be conducted within EMAP is large, EMAP's
Assessment Framework emphasizes the entire assessment
process.
-------
Assessment Framework
Evolving Process
The EMAP assessment process is evolving; it will provide
policy-relevant information on important environmental issues,
will stimulate new ideas and raise new questions about the
status of and trends in conditions of the Nation's ecological
resources, and will identify by association factors that might be
contributing to these conditions. The lessons learned
conducting assessments, not only in EMAP but also in other
programs, will provide new ideas and new approaches. Based
on a review of other national programs, e.g., National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (Cowling 1992, NAPAP
1991, ORB 1991, NRC 1986) and the Global Climate Change
Program (SPA 1992), several elements were identified that can
improve the EMAP assessment process and its probability of
success:
• Open process. An open and inclusive process must be
followed in conducting large-scale assessments for
subsequent decisions to be accepted by primary users,
interested parties and the public. The concerns and
issues of all parties must be heard and addressed, even
if their suggestions and recommendations are not
included in the assessment
• Review and oversight Both scientific and policy
reviews are critical to ensure each assessment is based
not only on sound, scientifically defensible approaches
and information but also addresses important policy-
relevant questions and issues.
• Social, economic and policy perspectives and values.
Decisions typically are made on socioeconomic or
policy values, rather than scientific values or ecological
indicators. Ecological indicators must be linked or
related to the values or variables on which decisions
will be made.
• Interagency cooperation and collaboration. To address
large-scale environmental issues in an effective and
economical manner, collaborative interagency studies
should be conducted. Each agency can contribute critical
information to addressing questions and issues related to
different social perspectives.
• Interdisciplinary teams. Interdisciplinary teams for
assessments must include contributions from social
scientists, economists, policy analysts, and
administrators in addition to natural scientists and
engineers. Scientists, professional communicators,
policy analysts, and decision makers each play a key
role in the assessment process, particularly for large-
scale environmental problems and issues (Cowling
1992).
• Multiple methods. Weight of evidence methods and
explicit uncertainty analyses are an integral part of the
assessment process. Multiple methods, models, and
technologies must be used in order to corroborate findings.
Research should reduce those uncertainties that contribute
to answering policy-relevant questions.
• Conflict resolution procedures. Different perspectives
among natural, social and behavioral scientists, agencies,
and societal groups will result in conflicts over the
interpretation, certainty and translation of scientific and
technological information for decision makers. Conflict
resolution procedures need to be established before
conflicts arise. These procedures might include
minority reports, arbitration, or similar strategies.
Each of these elements is being evaluated to determine how
to appropriately include them in the EMAP assessment process.
Many of these elements were incorporated in the initial
Program design, for example, interagency collaboration, and
interdisciplinary teams. These evaluations are part of the
iterative and evolving assessment process.
10
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
3 — Assessment Framework
There are three phases and two direct
outputs from the EMAP assessment
process (Figure 5). Assessment
questions, data analysis, and
interpretation and communication
constitute the phases of EMAP's
assessment framework. The outputs
include policy relevant information
and research and development tools
and results.
In the assessment questions phase,
the users' assessment questions and
issues are identified and validated,
appropriate indicators of condition (i.e.,
assessment endpoints) are selected, links
among indicators of condition and
potential stressors are conceptualized,
and data needs are determined. In data
analysis, the relevant data needed for
the assessment are acquired,
summarized, integrated, and analyzed
using association analyses, weight of
evidence, and process of elimination
methods. During interpretation and
communication, results from the data
analysis phase are interpreted in the
context of the users' values and
perspectives, then policy relevant
information is communicated in a
format that is understandable and that
addresses the assessment questions. In
addition, lessons learned from
conducting the assessment can be
incorporated in the Program to help
EMAP maintain its policy relevance and
responsiveness. These lessons or new
tools might include revised analytical
approaches or procedures, new
indicators, new linkages in conceptual
models, or possible modifications to the
monitoring design (Research and
Development in Figure S).
EMAP Assessment Framework
ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
AND
ISSUES
DATA ANALYSIS
INTERPRETATION
AND
COMMUNICATION
Ecological |
Risk |
_ Assessment I
L I
Figure 5. Framework for EMAP assessments.
11
-------
Assessment Framework
One of EMAP's unique attributes is that the
assessment process is inexorably coupled with
monitoring information. This assessment focus ensures
that monitoring information will be available a priori
to address identified assessment questions.
Assessment Questions
The most important phase of the assessment process
is identifying the client's questions and determining
what information is needed to make informed
decisions about environmental protection and
management (Figure 6).
EMAP Users and Their Assessment Perspectives
Addressing environmental issues involves more than
finding purely technical solutions (Bardwell 1991).
Environmental questions and issues reflect political,
societal, regulatory, and management values and
expectations as much as, if not more than, scientific
and technical information (Ehrlich 1980, Sampson and
Hair 1990, Schnaiberg 1980, Waide et al. 1992).
Contributing to decision-making processes requires that
assessment information addresses questions based on
these underlying expectations and perspectives.
EMAP users bring a variety of perspectives to
ecological assessments ranging from:
• Social perspectives, which incorporate the broadest
spectrum of environmental goals and values desired
by contemporary society and expressed through the
legislative process.
• Administrative perspectives, which include
manage-ment and regulatory agencies and their
legislative mandates to protect and manage both
specific ecological resources and the total
environment
VALUES
•Social
* Administrative
• Scientific
POLICY-RELEVANT
QUESTIONS
Figure 6. Major elements in the assessment questions
and issues phase of EMAP's assessment framework.
* Scientific perspectives, which include basic scientific
principles and knowledge of ecological structure and
function as well as causal understanding of ecological
responses to human disturbances and natural variability
(Figure 6).
Identifying social values is a critical first step in the EMAP
assessment process because it provides the link to the user.
Each of EMAP's resource groups has identified an initial set
of values for their respective resources. This is an on-going
and iterative process which reflects the changing values of
society, changes in the administrative procedures to ensure
these values are being attained, and advances in scientific
understanding of how ecosystems function and how selected
condition indicators relate to environmental values.
Policy-relevant Questions
The next step in the assessment process identifies questions
based on the underlying perspective and background of the
user. Social and administrative policy perspectives must be
incorporated in the assessment questions and process (Cowling
1992).
Posner (1973) states that the initial representation of a
question is the single most crucial factor governing the
likelihood of a satisfactory answer to the question; whether the
question is answered, and how long it takes to provide the
answer, depends a great deal on the initial statement of the
question.
12
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
The implications and frustrations of inadequate initial
question formulation can be significant Bardwell (1991) cites
a study that indicates about 90% of real world problem solving
is spent
1) solving the wrong problem,
2) stating the question so it can not be answered,
3) solving a solution,
4) stating questions too genetically, or
5) trying to get agreement on the answer before there is
agreement on the question.
An example of how these different perspectives might be
expressed in formulating assessment questions is illustrated in
Table 3.
A question of direct interest to the fishing sector of society
might be, "Is it safe to eat the fish we catch?" Because EMAP
addresses questions related to resource populations at multiple
sites, this initial question must be rephrased as, "What
proportion of the lakes in the region have catchable fish that
are not safe to eat." The rephrased question also reflects how
it is generally easier to define the range of unacceptable
conditions than acceptable conditions.
From a regulatory perspective, however, there is not a
straightforward answer to this general social question; the
answer depends on the specific contaminant, the particular fish
species, the criteria established (if any) for that particular
species, and other factors. This question might have to be
rephrased: "What proportion of the lakes in the region have
Table 3. Examples of different perspectives and different underlying data needs to answer an
assessment question.
Perspective
Assessment Question
Social
1. Is it safe to eat the fish I catch?
1 a. EMAP Question: "What proportion of lakes have catchable fish that are safe to eat in the
Region? [Subnominal criteria typically are easier to establish than nominal criteria, so the
question becomes".. .are riot safe to eat".]
Scientific
Administrative 2. What is the risk to humans from consuming various quantities of fish flesh with different
contaminant concentration?
3. What is the type and condition of the consumer (i.e., pregnant woman, adult male, child
under 12 yr)?
4. What is the risk to human health from fish with different gross external pathologies?
5. What different risk factors exist for different fish species?
6. What are the cumulative effects of consuming contaminated fish?
7. What proportion of lakes have catchable fish with edible tissue contaminant concentrations
that exceed FDA Action Levels?
8. What proportion of lakes have catchable fish with edible tissue with detectable contaminant
concentrations?
9. What proportion of lakes have gamefish populations with contaminated flesh?
10. What additional contaminant/pathological criteria or standards exist in addition to FDA
Action Levels?
11. What are possible sources of contamination?
12. What are the associations between tissue contamination concentrations and sediment
concentrations? aqueous concentrations?
13. What are the associations between concentrations in food sources (i.e., prey species) and
tissue concentrations, indicating possible pathways for exposure?
14. What are the appropriate criteria for assessing acute, chronic, and cumulative human
physiological responses?
15. What proportion of lakes have the catchable fish with gross external pathologies or
contaminated fish flesh?
16. What are the characteristics of lakes that contain a high proportion of catchable fish with
gross external pathobgies or contaminated fish flesh?
13
-------
Assessment Framework
legally harvestable largemouth bass with methyl mercury
concentrations exceeding 1 mg/kg in the edible tissue?"
Scientifically, additional information is required on the
bioaccumulation and biomagnification of this contaminant, by
fish species, over time, the depuration rate of the chemical in
the fish species and humans, the acute and chronic toxicity of
the chemical, the status of the human species (e.g., pregnant
female versus adult male), the quantity of fish flesh consumed,
and similar information before an informative answer can be
provided to the relatively simple, initial question, "Is it safe to
eat the fish we catch?"
Formulating the policy-relevant assessment questions is
particularly important in EMAP because the national scope and
regional scale of resolution represents a different perspective
from that underlying most research studies as well as local and
State monitoring programs. Examples of broad assessment
questions that EMAP might address are presented in Table 4.
It is equally important to identify the types of questions and
issues that EMAP will not address. EMAP is neither designed
to provide site-specific, compliance-oriented monitoring nor to
provide information on specific, local-scale issues. It is not
intended to provide substantial information about any
individual sampling site, such as a specific lake, wetland, forest
stand, or agroecosystem. Questions and issues at the local
scale can be addressed more effectively by existing or site-
specific monitoring networks. EMAP is not designed to
determine if any particular ecological effect is caused by a
specific pollutant; EMAP will not be able to describe the
dynamics of any particular ecological process, such as nutrient
cycling. EMAP will not, and is not intended to, replace
existing compliance-oriented or resource-management
monitoring programs, but it will supplement and add value to
the information being obtained from these programs by
assessing large-scale patterns and trends in ecological
condition. Some of the questions EMAP will not address are
listed in Table 5.
Table 4. Examples of policy-relevant questions to be addressed in EMAP.
Question
Reason Appropriate for EMAP
What proportion of estuarine area in large estuaries, tidal
rivers, and small estuaries has fish with gross pathologies?
What proportion of the Nation's lakes are eutrophic,
mesotrophic, and olkjotrophic?
What proportion of wetlands have less than the expected
number and composition of native plant species?
How is the area and geographic coverage of forest cover
types In the U.S. changing?
What proportion of forests have vegetative structure and
functions to sustain forest biodiversity?
What proportion of the surficial sediments in the Great Lakes'
harbors and embayments are toxic to aquatic organisms?
What proportion of the southeastern U.S. has fragmented or
simplified landscapes?
What proportion of ark) ecosystems are experiencing
desertification? What anthropogenic stressors are associated
with desertification of arid ecosystems?
EMAP focuses on biological indicators with societal value.
EMAP produces regional and national population estimates
for lake trophic state estimates, not for individual lakes.
EMAP targets ecosystem properties like community
structure.
EMAP estimates the extent and geographic coverage of the
Nation's ecological resources.
EMAP focuses on national environmental issues such as
biodiversity and sustainability.
EMAP's condition indicators include both biotic and selected
abiotic measures.
EMAP also addresses interactions among ecological
resources on the landscape.
EMAP assesses the cumulative effects of multiple stressors
and identifies possible factors that might contribute to
condition.
14
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Table 5. Examples of policy-relevant questions that are not appropriate for EMAP.
Question
Reason Not Appropriate for EMAP
What proportion of lakes in New Jersey are hypereutrophic?
What proportion of degraded wetlands are caused
specifically by inappropriate agricultural management
practices?
EMAP is not a State level program, but the design is flexible
and can be enhanced for State level resolution.
EMAP is not a cause-effect program. Associations might
provide strong inference but do not establish causality..
What is the trophic state of Lake Tahoe?
What proportion of improved grassland condition can be
associated with the implementation of the Conservation
Reserve Agricultural Program?
EMAP reports on populations of resources, not on individual
systems or entities.
EMAP addresses the cumulative influence of national and
regional policies, not the effectiveness of individual
regulations or policies.
What proportion of degraded estuaries in the Virginian
Province are associated with storm event loadings?
EMAP uses an index sampling concept to describe ecological
condition. It is not designed for short-frequency, episodic
events but rather for detecting longer term trends in
ecological condition.
EMAP's strategy for formulating assessment questions
reflects different user perspectives: the first step in this strategy
is to identify a tentative list of assessment questions that are
considered to have policy-relevance based on the selected
values for a resource. Then, EMAP scientists and
administrators meet with decision makers and resource
managers in Federal agencies, Congressional staff, and
representatives of environmental organizations to solicit their
review and comment The revised questions are used to
identify additional indicators for testing and evaluation.
Formulating these questions is an ongoing and iterative
process between EMAP scientists and users of EMAP's
information, continually evolving as additional issues and new
users are identified.
Indicators
Li the literature, indicators are defined as characteristics of
the environment that provide quantitative information on the
condition of ecological resources, the magnitude of stress, or
the exposure of a biological component to stress (Hunsaker and
Carpenter 1990, Olsen 1992). Condition of an ecological
resource is determined by the interaction of all physical,
chemical, and biological components in the system. Because
it is impossible to measure all components, EMAP's strategy
is to emphasize indicators that represent the condition of
ecological resources relative to social values. EMAP selects,
develops, and evaluates indicators mat (1) describe the overall
condition of ecological resources, (2) permit the detection of
changes and trends in condition, and (3) provide preliminary
diagnosis of factors (e.g., human-induced versus natural
stressors) that might contribute to observed conditions.
EMAP defines two general types of ecological indicators:
condition and stressor. A condition indicator is any
characteristic of the environment that provides quantitative
information on the state of ecological resources and is
conceptually tied to a value. Condition indicators may be
classified as biotic or abiotic measures of condition, and in
EMAP they are conceptually equivalent to measurement
endpoints (Suter 1989, 1990, 1993; Kelly and Harwell 1990;
Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990; Olsen 1992). EMAP will
estimate the regional distribution of scores or measures for
each of these indicators within and among ecological resource
categories.
The program emphasizes the development and evaluation of
biological condition indicators because they incorporate and
express the cumulative effects of the complex interactions
among physical, chemical and biological components of
ecosystems.
Stressor indicators are characteristics of the environment that
are suspected to elicit a change in the condition of an
ecological resource, and they include both natural and
anthropogenic stressors. The stressor indicators proposed for
EMAP are selected to aid in interpreting the indicators of
condition. EMAP requires an explicit relationship between the
selected stressor indicator and the indicator of condition—or a
testable hypothesis regarding this relationship—to monitor a
stressor indicator. EMAP will seek associations among
indicators of ecological condition and stressor indicators to
help identify the factors that might be contributing to the
observed condition. These associations can provide insight and
direction for other regulatory, management, or research
programs in establishing causal relationships.
15
-------
Assessment Framework
Conceptual Models
Conceptual models help the assessment process because
they:
1) identify links among values, indicators of condition or
stress, and potentially important ecological pathways and
processes;
2) guide association analyses among indicators; and
3) indicate factors that might be contributing to the status
and trends in ecological condition (Olsen 1992).
One model for the estuarine resources (Figure 7) illustrates
how values, indicators and stressors can be schematically
linked; it also indicates potential pathways for transport, uptake
and exposure of chemical stressors, as well as potential
pathways for physical and biological stressors to affect desired
uses or values of estuarine resources.
EMAP's Arid Ecosystems resource group has developed a
conceptual model to illustrate relationships among external
forces, resource class indicators, measurements, and values
(Figure 8). To move through this model, start with the
external components (layer 1) which drive the arid ecosystem.
The broad indicator classes (layer 2) respond to these drivers
and interact with each other via major indicator components or
process (layer 3). Layer 4 contains measurement parameters
that reflect indicator components; these are used to assess
resource status. The current resource status then can be
evaluated from a trend perspective (layer S) by coupling it to
retrospective indicators and long-term, historical data.
Ultimately, resource status and trend data are integrated to
address societal values and issues (layer 6). These two
examples demonstrate the usefulness of different types of
conceptual models.
STRESSORS INDICATORS VALUES
1 CHrnnlA 1 >
Habitat
• Salinity
• Temperature
1 ~ J • Depth
: /
i /
1 / /
i / /
i ' /
1 !/ s
Anlhropogmlc f*
* f.pok>K.n IXniJty
• Un* UK "
• MaiMojmMtt PracBcM
• FwiB Fu.1 U»
V VX
\ 'N,
\
X
(Harvesting
___ . • Sediment
**" "^ '
Pools S" / X /
\ r^
Pathogens I. \S 1 Hi h TrepMe lewis m
Tissue Levels 1 Subenjonhm Orgonltm Population 0.1,^,. |nt~,rf(y
• Wafer — . n,h ' • Btoot
• Sediment -i "n j- * Sh.i
• Water - . . nu. -, // !
• Sediment , Oth«r 1 // 1
1 /j/
Nutrients 1' /0
• Water fi / / '
• Sediment ' j^^^ r7 ~T 1
wmlool • PoHnlogy • Sl»
• 6m* • Dhnrtlr - . ,.„„,„„„
le • B.prorfurtlon • DIomoM ^ ^
• Olh»r • Olhir • Abundanei
f V L J
/\
/ \
SolW» |
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Chemistry
Socio-Economie
Soil Chemistry, Uaf 4 Utter
Chemistry, Nutrient Transport /£\
C, N, P Son Interactions.
Methane Production,
Loaf & Utter NSf.
So3 Salinity
uesenmcauan / &*
Water Resources / P
Index of layer categories
1 - External Driver Components
2 - Broad Resource Indicator Classes
3 - Major Indicator Components and Processes
4 - Assessment Endpoints
5 - Resource Trend Analyses
6 - Ecological Risk Assessment
Figure 8. EMAP-Arid Ecosystems conceptual model.
Conceptual models are particularly helpful in describing
relationships at large spatial scales. Different processes
operate at different temporal and spatial scales (O'Neill et al.
1986), so the indicators and postulated associations are likely
to be different at larger scales than at the local scale.
For example, Sala et al. (1988) evaluated the association
among soil indicators and net primary productivity for
grasslands throughout the Midwest and Great Plains. At any
individual site, net primary productivity was a function of
several variables, including soil texture, moisture holding
capacity, soil nitrogen concentrations, precipitation, and solar
insolation. The relative contribution of individual variables
influencing net primary productivity also varied among sites.
However, at the regional scale of the Midwest or the Great
Plains, annual precipitation alone accounted for 90% of the
variability (i.e., r2 = 0.90) in net primary productivity.
Conceptual models permit these links to be hypothesized and
tested as EMAP data become available. In addition,
conceptual models document links with other ecological
resources and assist in identifying common or comparable
indicators that might assist in interpreting regional patterns in
17
-------
Assessment Framework
ecological condition among resources. The data analyses
conducted within EMAP assessments should evaluate the
strength of the relationships and hypothesized links identified
in the conceptual models for the ecological resource.
Data Analysis
The data analysis phase in EMAP's assessment framework
can be partitioned into three distinct, interactive segments.
These segments directly relate to three of EMAP objectives,
namely, estimating geographic coverage and extent, estimating
condition, and diagnosing those factors that might be
influencing the condition of ecological resources and resource
classes (Figure 9).
These analyses depend on and support EMAP's resource
monitoring and research activities. Moreover, EMAP's data
analyses contribute directly to the problem formulation
activities of EPA's Risk Assessment Forum. For example,
EMAP's analysis of a resource's geographic coverage and
extent will assist RAF in characterizing ecological resources.
GEOGRAPHIC
COVERAGE
AND
EXTENT
INTERPRETATION AND COMMUNICATION
Figure 9. Major elements in the data analysis phase of EMAP's
assessment framework.
18
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Similarly, EMAP's analyses of condition indicators can be
used by RAF to determine ecological effects. Finally,
association analyses can contribute to exposure and ecological
effects characterization in EPA-RAF.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
All data used in EMAP assessments will undergo rigorous
quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) analyses,
approvals, and documentation during resource monitoring and
research activities. Protocols for QA/QC have been established
for the Program and implemented within certain EMAP
components. Quality assured data are primary assessment
products derived from routine monitoring that will be available
directly to EMAP users and clients.
Geographic coverage and extent
As EMAP periodically determines national geographic
coverage and estimates extent of ecological resources, it will
provide a basis for examining current condition, future
changes, and trends in ecological resources. EMAP will
provide information, such as spatial displays of forest cover
types (Figure 10) at specific scales (e.g., satellite Thematic
Mapper images at 30 m resolution), and estimate with known
confidence the extent of such ecological resources as hectares
of large estuaries, kilometers of streams, or number of lakes.
As evidenced by U.S. Census Bureau data, the knowledge of
geographic coverage, the extent of resources, and the change
in coverage and extent carries significant policy-relevant
information for decision makers and resource managers. In
addition, these data contribute to the diagnosis of factors
influencing resource condition.
Condition
The probability-based sampling design employed throughout
EMAP provides a basis for estimating the current condition of
ecological resources. Descriptive statistics (e.g., means,
medians, standard deviations, quantiles, and cumulative
distribution functions) will be used to characterize the
distribution and central tendencies of indicators of condition.
Status will be portrayed through cumulative distributions and
visual displays of spatial patterns. Measurements of indicators
of condition over time provides data to examine changes in
status and detect trends in resource condition. One essential
feature of this approach is the ability to estimate the
cumulative proportion of a resource class with a condition
indicator score less than or equal to some specified threshold
score that can be related to achieving some societal value (e.g.,
nominal-marginal-subnominal condition—see section on
Interpretation and Communication).
Figure 10.
1965).
Spatial display of forest vegetation in the conterminous United States (Powells
19
-------
Assessment Framework
The complexity of ecological resources requires that
indicators be considered in concert rather than individually.
Although EMAP has selected a few individual indicators, the
program has based its indicator selection on combinations, or
suites, of indicators of ecological condition. One approach to
using suites of indicators is the development of indices. For
example, the Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr 1987,1991; Karr
et al. 1986) incorporates an array of biological measurements
from the study of entire fish communities (e.g., total number
of species, number of individuals, and proportion of top
carnivores) to produce an index of condition of fish
communities at a sampling site.
Properly developed indices of ecosystem condition should be
compared more easily across regions than the measurements
from which they are derived (Hughes 1989). The underlying
model or aggregation process, however, can be controversial
and mathematically complex, and the results tend to be
extremely dependent on the model, the indicators and the
aggregation procedures used (Westman 1985). Also, the
formation of indices reduces multivariate measures of
ecosystem condition to a more limited set of metrics.
Although reduction in the number of indicators typically loses
specific information, indices are one option for integrating or
summarizing measures of ecosystem condition.
Diagnosis
EMAP uses retrospective approaches to systematically
examine data in its effects-oriented analyses to identify factors
which might be contributing to the current status or trends in
ecological resource condition. This strategy is analogous to
diagnosis in the branch of medicine called environmental
epidemiology (NRC1991) and the emerging area of ecosystem
health (Costanza et al. 1992, Rapport 1992). EMAP's
conceptual models propose links among condition indicators
and stressors, and initial association analyses will focus on
these links. Association analyses, in the broadest context,
describe a range of exploratory and multivariate statistical
procedures that will be applied to EMAP's data, ancillary data,
and auxiliary data.
Ancillary information includes data collected from studies
within EMAP but not used directly in the computation of an
indicator. Ancillary data can help characterize parameters and
assist in the interpretation of data sets; time, stage of tide, and
watershed characteristics are examples of ancillary data.
Auxiliary data are derived from a source other than EMAP,
that is, from field studies or other monitoring or sampling
programs. The sampling methods and quality assurance
protocols of auxiliary data must be evaluated before the data
are used, and it is always important to establish the population
represented by auxiliary data. Auxiliary data might include
climatic data, flow or discharge data, and census information
on population demographics.
Association analyses will range from simple bivariate plots
(Figure 11) among indicators to more computationally
extensive multivariate techniques. Land cover and land use
information as well as landscape indicators (e.g., fractal
indices, connectivity) will be used in conjunction with specific
indicators of condition and stressors to help identify factors
contributing to the condition of ecological resources at regional
and national scales.
These association analyses will be evaluated both over space
and over time. Spatial associations among atmospheric sulfate
deposition and lake sulfate concentrations at the subregional
scale (Figure 11), for example, were used to infer that
atmospheric deposition of sulfate was influencing the acidity
of lakes in various regions of-the United States (Baker et al.
1990). Association analyses conducted at the Great Plains
regional scale found a strong spatial relationship between total
annual precipitation and net primary productivity even though
the association was not that strong at any individual site (Sala
et al. 1988).
The temporal associations among indicators also will be
investigated because the associations among stressor and
condition indicators might be displaced in time. For example,
there is a strong relationship between land use changes and the
loss of productivity in arid ecosystems through time (i.e.,
desertification) (Reining 1978, UNEP 1992).
Association analyses, however, are not causal. EMAP is not
designed to establish cause and effect relationships. The
design, however, does not diminish the power for explaining
and interpreting factors that might be contributing to the
condition of ecological resources. Association analyses are
part of the weight-of-evidence strategy that will be used to
conduct EMAP assessments and contribute hypotheses for
testing in other programs.
Weight of Evidence
A weight of evidence approach uses multiple statistical and
other analytical techniques, ancillary and auxiliary information,
scientific literature, and both probability and non-probability
based field observations to reach assessment conclusions.
While each of these approaches might provide only
circumstantial evidence supporting a conclusion, multiple lines
of evidence strengthen the conclusion (NR(f 1991).
Establishing causal relations for large-scale phenomena
requires a weight of evidence approach because it is difficult,
if not impossible, to conduct cause-effect experiments at
regional or subregional scales of resolution. However,
Mosteller and Tukey (1977) state that if twd of three
criteria—consistency, responsiveness, and mechanism—are
satisfied, then causation can be implied. Consistency implies
that the relationship between variables is consistent across
20
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
300-
NLS Subregions
Wet SO42" deposition (kg/ha/yr)
Figure 11. Association of median wet sulfate deposition and median surface water sulfate
concentrations in National Surface Waters Survey subregions (after Baker et al. 1990).
populations, in both direction and amount (NRC 1986).
Responsiveness involves experimentally manipulating a system
by changing one variable and observing the expected change
in the response variable. Mechanism implies a step-by-step
path from the cause to the effect with links established
between each step (NRC 1986). Based on the Mosteller and
Tukey (1977) criteria, the NRC (1986) inferred that in eastern
North America, a causal relationship existed between
anthropogenic sources of SO2 and the presence of sulfate
aerosols, reduced visibility and wet deposition of sulfate.
Similarly, Hill (1965) suggested, and Rothman (1986)
corroborated, a set of nine criteria for inferring causality (Table
6).
A weight of evidence approach was used to demonstrate the
effects of acidic deposition on aquatic ecosystems in the
United State (Table 7). In the early 1980's there was
anecdotal information that acidic deposition contributed to
surface water acidification, but groups were polarized at
opposite ends of a continuum, considering the acidic deposition
problem either a trivial issue or a major environmental
catastrophe. As aquatic research and surveys were conducted
during the 1980s, additional information accumulated mat
provided additional weight to support the hypothesis that acidic
deposition resulted in surface water acidification and negatively
impacted aquatic ecosystems. In 1984, a NRC Panel agreed on
the processes affecting surface water acidification (NRC 1984).
In 1986, the NRC stated national surface water surveys
estimated the population of acidic lakes and lakes sensitive to
acidic deposition in selected eastern subregions (Linthurst et al.
1986). In 1987, subregions in the eastern United States in
which acidic lakes were located were determined to be in
steady state with sulfate deposition, which was consistent with
the watershed processes assumed to control surface water
acidification (Rochelle and Church 1987). In 1988, a linear
relationship between wet sulfate deposition and surface water
sulfate concentrations was demonstrated for lakes in the eastern
United States on a subregional basis (Sullivan et al. 1988)
(Figure 11). The relationship was consistent with predictions
and measurements of prevailing wind directions and subregions
with the highest sulfate deposition from the Ohio Valley to the
Atlantic Ocean (NADP 1988). In 1989, paleolimnological
studies in acidic lakes within these same eastern subregions
determined a temporal change in diatom species that reflected
21
-------
Assessment Framework
Table 6. Hill's (1965) criteria adapted for evaluating the likelihood of probable cause from
associations in ecological assessments (after RAF 1992, Suter 1993).
Hill's Criteria*
Associations
Strength
Consistency
Specificity
Temporality
Biological Gradient
Plausibility
Coherence
Experimental Evidence
Analogy
A high magnitude of effect is associated with exposure to the stressor, e.g., a large proportion of the
population responding in the exposed area relative to the reference area.
The association of observed effect and stressor is repeatedly observed under different stressor
circumstances.
The more specific the effect, the more likely it is to be diagnostic of the stressor. Also, the more specific
the stressor, the easier it is to associate with an effect.
The stressor always precedes the effect in time.
The effect should increase or decrease with corresponding changes in the stressor.
The association is consistent with our current understanding of physical, chemical and biological
principles and the characteristics of the stressor and effect.
The hypothesis or postulated relationship between stressor and effect is consistent with available
evidence.
Changes in effects following changes in the stressor, observed through experimental manipulation or
through recovery of the population following abatement of the stressor.
Similar stressors are associated with similar effects. . ___^
'Not aH these criteria need to be satisfied, but each additional criteria that is satisfied adds to the strength of the inference that there
is probable cause. Negative evidence does not rule out a causal relationship but likely indicates incomplete knowledge of the
association between the stressor and the effect (Rothman 1986).
Table 7. Example of weight of evidence approach for relating acidic deposition to surface water
acidification.
Year
Evidence
1984 Watershed processes controlling surface water acidification elucidated.
1986 Anthropogenic sources of SO2 are causally related to wet deposition of sulfate.
1986 Surface water surveys identified acidic and sensitive lakes in selected subregions of the eastern United States.
1988 Wet sulfate deposition is linearly related to surface water sulfate concentrations in eastern lakes.
1988 Sulfate deposition gradients correspond with prevailing wind directions based on predicted and observed measures.
1988 No western lakes are acidic, corresponding with low sulfate deposition.
1989 PateoKmnological evidence correlates changes in diatom assemblages and pH with changes in surface water acidification.
1989 Historical changes in surface water acidification correspond with historical changes in emissions and coal combustion.
1989 Watershed models predict similar distributions of acidic and sensitive lakes based on historical deposition patterns.
1990 Laboratory, arjd field experiments indicate .surface water acidification (pH changes, associated aluminum and metal changes) i
associated with toss of 'sensitive fish species arid changes in community structure.
22
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
declining surface water pH in lakes and corresponded with
temporal increases in regional emissions over the same time
period (Charles et al. 1989). Watershed models predicted
similar distributions of acidic and sensitive lakes in the
surveyed regions based on historical deposition patterns and
indicated that if acidic deposition continued, additional lakes
and streams in selected subregions might become acidic in the
future (Church et al. 1989). Laboratory and field experiments
indicated that the changes in aquatic community
structure—loss of fish species sensitive to pH, changes in
aluminum and other metal concentrations—were consistent
with observations made on lakes receiving acidic depositions
(Schindler 1988, Baker et al. 1990). Similar changes were not
occurring in the western lakes where sulfate deposition was
significantly lower; no acidic lakes were found during a
western lakes survey (Landers et al. 1987).
By 1990, there was sufficient evidence to support the
statement that acidic deposition had contributed to surface
water acidification in some eastern aquatic systems, sensitive
fish species had been lost, and this condition would continue
unless emissions decreased (NAPAP1991). While each of the
individual pieces of information was not sufficient to support
these conclusions, the weight of evidence clearly supported the
conclusions and satisfied the Mosteller-Tukey criteria and
many of Hill's criteria. Weight-of-evidence methods are
complemented by process-of-elimination procedures.
Process of Elimination
This method reduces the number of factors that might be
contributing to an observed change in a condition indicator by
associating stressors common to many indicators. Process of
elimination provides insight and possible direction for other
programs, offices, or agencies in determining the underlying
causal factors. Establishing criteria for distinguishing among
possible stressors is an initial step.
Continuing the acidic deposition example, a process of
elimination approach was used to identify the dominant
source(s) of acidity contributing to the target population of
acidic lakes and streams in the eastern United States. Acidic
deposition was one source of acidity, but there also were other
acidic sources that might have contributed to acidic ecosystems
such as acid mine drainage, watershed sulfur sources, or
organic acids. Criteria were established to distinguish each of
the possible sources and determine what proportion of the
target population of acidic lakes and streams was likely acidic
because of this source (Baker et al. 1990). For example,
streams that had sulfate concentrations > 2000 ueq/1 or specific
conductivity values > 500 uS/cm were assumed to be
' significantly influenced by acid mine drainage (Figure 12). If
sulfate concentrations exceeded two times the expected value
based on atmospheric deposition and evapoconcentration, then
watershed sources of sulfate were assumed to significantly
influence surface water acidity. If organic acid concentrations
National
Surface
Water
Survey
Figure 12. Process of elimination of possible
sources of acidity to acidic lakes and streams.
exceeded the sum of sea-salt corrected sulfate plus nitrate, then
organic acidity was assumed to influence surface water acidity.
Chloride acidity also was considered (Baker et al. 1990).
Initially, there were 1,132 lakes and 4,768 stream reaches that
were estimated to be acidic (Baker et al. 1990). Through the
process of elimination, about 3% of the acidic lakes were
assumed to be influenced by watershed sources, 22% of the
acidic lakes were influenced by organic acids, with about 75%
of the acidic lakes being influenced by acidic deposition
(Figure 13). For the acidic stream reaches, the process of
elimination combined with weight of evidence, indicated about
26% and 27% of the acidic stream reaches were assumed to be
influenced by acid mine drainage and organic acids,
respectively, with about 47% of the stream reaches influenced
by acidic deposition (Figure 13, Baker et al. 1990). The
process of elimination, combined with the weight of evidence,
indicated that acidic deposition was a likely factor in the
number of acidic lakes and streams in the eastern United States.
23
-------
Assessment Framework
The assumptions and uncertainties inherent in the
association analyses also are documented in the Data Analysis
phase. This information contributes to the interpretation of
assessment results. Furthermore, users of the information need
to understand how these assumptions and uncertainties can
influence or support conclusions across resources or regions.
The next phase in EMAP's assessment framework addresses
how these assessment results are communicated to the users of
the information.
Interpretation and Communication
EMAP's success will be measured by the contributions of
Program information to decisions on environmental
management and protection at regional and national scales.
For assessment results and conclusions to be used, they must
be communicated and understood by the client or user,
including full disclosure of the assumptions and uncertainties
and their implications for the assessment conclusions
(Figure 14). Assessments must provide information that relates
to the status, trends, changes, and possible factors affecting
those resource attributes valued by users of the information.
The first step in this process is to interpret the analysis results.
Interpretation
Scientifically defensible interpretation involves experience
and judgement Judgement is used to answer assessment
questions in relation to social values, desired resource uses,
and other criteria. EMAP is developing an approach to
delineate nominal, marginal, and subnominal categories for the
condition of ecological resources. These categories and criteria
provide a basis for incorporating different societal perspectives
and values in the assessment process.
Classification of Condition
Nominal, marginal, and subnominal conditions are defined
and illustrated in Figure 15 as:
S Nominal condition means the social value (e.g., desired
use) is being achieved when compared with specific
criteria.
S Subnominal condition means the social value is NOT being
achieved when compared with specific criteria.
S Marginal condition exists when the nominal and
subnominal criteria are NOT coincident.
Typically, identification of the extremes or ends of the
condition continuum is relatively straightforward, and general
consensus can be achieved among individual scientists or
agencies. There is general agreement, for example, that rivers
with no fish and no dissolved oxygen, matted with sewage-
Acidic
Streams
3%
Deposition Dominated
Organic Dominated
Watershed Sulfate
Dominated
Acid Mine Drainage
Note: Acidic lakes are 4% of the NSWS lake population, and acidic
streams are 8% of the NSWS stream population.
Figure 13. Percent of population influenced
by dominant source of acidity.
related fungus, and that catch fire regularly are subnominal
systems; conversely, relatively pristine areas, minimally
impacted by humans, with rich species diversity, that are
aesthetically pleasing, with abundant wildlife are acknowledged
as nominal systems. It is in the intermediate portions of this
continuum, not the extremes, that the assessment of resource
condition becomes more difficult
A number of approaches, strategies, and methods for
developing nominal, marginal, subnominal ranges to use in
EMAP's assessments have been initiated (Table 8), but clearly
this is an on-going and evolving process. These approaches
must integrate the natural variability in ecological systems as
well as the variability in societal values into these nominal-
subnominal ranges.
In addition to providing ways for incorporating social
values in the interpretation of assessment results, establishing
a nominal-subnominal continuum also provides a strategy to
normalize information across resource groups or across regions
within a resource group. For example, there might be different
nominal/subnominal categories and classification criteria for
different subregions within a region (Figure 16). The nominal-
subnominal strategy permits the proportion of the resource in
each of the three subregions that is classified as subnominal
(marginal or nominal) to be aggregated into an estimate of
subnominal condition for the larger administrative region.
Similarly, estimates of subnominal resource condition in these
regions can be aggregated for national estimates. EMAP
scientists also are testing the nominal/subnominal strategy to
see if it provides a method for aggregating data across resource
groups. For example, the area (hectares) of wetlands, surface
waters, forests, arid ecosystems, or other ecological resources
in subnominal condition in a subregion, region, or at the
national scale can be estimated based on this strategy. While
procedures for combining or associating these estimates are
still being developed, the general approach does permit
24
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
comparisons based on social values to be included in
interpretations of assessment results together with the attendant
assumptions and uncertainties.
Assumptions and Uncertainties
A complete discussion of assumptions and uncertainties is
beyond the scope of EMAP's Assessment Framework, these
topics are developed in Finkel (1990), Rolling (1978), Suter
(1990), and Bartell et al. (1992). Uncertainty analysis identifies
and quantifies (if possible) the uncertainties encountered in
conducting an ecological assessment, provides an evaluation of
the overall impact of those uncertainties on the interpretations
and conclusions derived from the assessment, and (when
feasible) provides information to reduce uncertainty.
In its Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA's
Risk Assessment Forum lists four primary sources of
uncertainty in ecological risk assessments: incomplete or
flawed conceptual model formulation, incomplete information
and data, natural variability (stochasticity), and introduced
errors (RAF 1992).
, Incomplete knowledge is the source of uncertainty that can
not be quantified; it is one of the greatest concerns in decision-
making. This source of uncertainty includes lack of knowledge,
which can only be reduced through research and investigation.
It also includes assumptions, inferences about non-measured
species or systems, incomplete conceptual model structures and
similar sources of uncertainty. Weight of evidence approaches
can minimize but not eliminate this uncertainty.
Stochastic uncertainty can be described and quantified but
can not be reduced because it is inherent in the system being
assessed (Suter 1993).
Analytical error includes measurement, sampling, analysis,
model input, parameter and similar sources of error. These
sources can be quantified through QA/QC programs and
stochastic modeling methods. This is the source of error that
can be reduced through proper analytical procedures.
EMAP has integrated a research component in the
program to continually work toward reducing uncertainty due
to incomplete information and data. In addition, data from
EMAP's monitoring activities undergo strict QA/QC to
quantify natural variability, reduce analytical error, and check
assumptions.'
Communication
The purpose of environmental risk communication is to
provide people with the uncertainties, assumptions, facts, and
interpretations they need to make informed judgements about
risks to the environment (Morgan et al. 1992). Only then can
INTERPRETATION
AND
CONCLUSIONS
COMMUNICATION
•Data
•Statistical Summaries
Figure 14. Major elements in the interpretation
and communication phase of EMAP's assessment
framework.
assessment results contribute to environmental management
decisions. Moreover, communication between decision makers
and researchers is the most important element in keeping
research and assessment relevant to policy needs (SPA 1992).
Rubin et al. (1992) suggest that NAPAP's failure to
influence recent environmental legislation resulted from lack of
communication: findings were not reported in a timely fashion
and results and conclusions were not understandable to policy
makers. In a study conducted as part of EPA's Global Climate
Change Program, workshops were held separately with
25
-------
Assessment Framework
Extinct.
Depleted
Pristine,
Flourishing
Range of Possible Resource Conditions
Marginal
Conditions
Nominal
Conditions
Range at Upper Limit
of Subnominal Conditions
Range at Lower Limit
of Nominal Conditions
\ \
Ecological Indicator Score
.o
1
Q. QJ
o
E
I I
Ecological Indicator Score
Figure 15. Ranges of subnominal, marginal, and nominal conditions
that might be delineated along a condition continuum.
decision makers and scientists to evaluate the needs and
expectations each group had of the other (SPA 1992). Both
groups discovered many useful communication lessons by
conducting this exercise (Table 9). These lessons will be used
as a primer for improving communication between EMAP and
its information users.
The results of EMAP assessments will be tailored to
client's needs, contain important information relevant to the
assessment issues, and be understandable and useable. The
forms and media by which these results are to be most
effectively communicated will differ according to the target
audience. Complex scientific reports providing 'Significant
detail on the analytical methods and copious presentations of
data and results may meet the needs of the scientific
community, but they may not be satisfactory for presenting
information to other users. Spatial displays, photographs, line
art, conceptual models, graphics, and other visuals also can
effectively present relationships or interpretations of data. The
use of decision support systems such as computerized data
summaries and interactive graphic presentations can help
decision makers quickly examine management alternatives.
The use of focus groups, user networks, and extensive client
interactions are other ways to fine-tune assessment results to
meet clients' needs.
26
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program,
Table 8. Suggestions for how EMAP could establish preliminary nominal-subnominal
categories.
Type
Suggestion
Approaches 1. Adopt documented desired uses, societal perspectives, and social values for different resource
classes.
2. Use public meetings, hearings, focus groups, special interest groups and other outreaching
activities to determine what the public considers to be nominal and subnominal condition.
Strategies 3. Use retrospective analyses and paleoecotogical analyses to define a nominal background or
baseline condition that can be compared with current and future conditions.
4. Conduct specific experimental research directed at determining nominal/subnominal scores and
ranges.
5. Set priorities for indicators based on their relative position in the indicator development scheme;
criteria might establish priorities by how indicators respond to change. Scientists currently are
close to achieving consensus on the nominal/subnominal continuum for some indicators, but others
are still in the research stage.
Methods 6. Use Delphi procedures to refine the range and scores for subnominal and nominal classes.
7. Test hypotheses where a priori expected values are compared with actual measured indicator
scores in "good" and 'bad* systems.
8. Evaluate temporal (e.g., succession) and spatial (geographic location and landscape position)
processes that might influence the nominal/subnominal scores and ranges.
9. Assess the literature for consensus in the professions.
10. Collate scores and ranges in peer review papers.
11. Conduct additional workshops, to review state-of-the-art research in environmental indicators
Assessment Products
EMAP will produce four basic assessment products
(Figure 14):
• Quality-assured data.
• Annual statistical summaries.
• Ecological resource assessments.
• Assessment tools and guidance.
Quality-Assured Data
Many clients and users want access to the data being
collected by EMAP. Hie demand for data in EPA's STORET
and USGS WATSTORE information management systems
attests to the interest users have in performing their own
assessments. EMAP's policy is to ensure the integrity, utility,
and accountability of its data so that decision makers can have
confidence in the summaries and assessments based on those
data. EMAP data will be verified and validated prior to its
release to the user community. The data will not be the
individual site data but rather aggregated data to maintain data
confidentiality requirements. One of the early products from
EMAP will be this aggregated data.
Annual Statistical Summary Reports
EMAP's annual statistical summaries will contain such
descriptive statistics as means, medians, distributions, ranges,
and standard deviations for indicators monitored within the
sampling frame. EMAP expects these reports to be similar to
annual summaries prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
National Agriculture Statistics Surveys, and USGS Water Data
Summaries; these data summaries have proved to be
exceptionally useful even without substantial interpretation of
the results. The status of ecological resource condition can be
assessed by including the pertinent nominal/subnominal
criteria.
Statistical summaries will be prepared for standard Federal
regions. Additional summaries might be provided for regions
based on biogeographic or political designations appropriate for
a specific resource category (e.g., Great Basin biographic
region for arid ecosystems or USDA Forest Service Northeast
Region for forests). The format will be refined as monitoring
results for other resource groups become available and are
presented to the users. Annual statistical summaries will be
produced within one year following the date of the last field
sampling to ensure that EMAP results are provided to the users
in a timely manner.
27
-------
Assessment Framework
25
S
Index Of
Biotic Integrity
Federal Region
. .so
I
s
Index Of
Biotic Integrity
90
20
S
Index Of
Biotic Integrity
70
X% = [0.4[#Lakes(A)]+0.8[#Lakes(B)]+0.3[#Lakes(C)]]
Regional No. of Lakes
Figure 16. One method of aggregating measures of resource condition among
different subregions (standard Federal region; EPA, USDA, or Forest Service
region; or biogeographic province).
Ecological Resource Assessment Reports
EMAP will produce two general types of assessment
reports: preplanned assessments, called Status of the Ecological
Resource reports, and special request assessments that address
new issues and concerns of EMAP's information users. The
principle difference between these assessments is that
assessments for status of an ecological resource are planned to
be based primarily on EMAP data, produced on a periodic
basis (e.g., every 4-5 years), and focused on the regional and
national condition of ecological resources. EMAP expects
special assessments to address specific issues or problems that
arise on an ad hoc basis. Both typos of assessments will
assist in the continual improvement and evolution of the
monitoring and research activities in EMAP. Status of the
ecological resource reports will be prepared for individual
resources and for multiple resources both within and across
administrative or biogeographic reporting regions. These
reports will assess ecological resource condition and suggest
possible factors contributing to this condition; they will also
evaluate the cumulative effectiveness of regulations and
policies in managing and protecting the environment
Assessment Tools and Guidelines
As EMAP develops its assessment capabilities, the
techniques and guidelines developed in the process will be of
value to environmental managers and other research and
28
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Table 9. Actions suggested by lessons learned in communicating between decision
makers and scientists through the global climate program (SPA 1992).
Action
Lesson Learned
Supply interim information.
Tie assessment to important
policy time frames.
Provide useful information
before reliable predictions.
Know decisions are not
either/or.
Place comparative risk in
relative context
Address urgent need for
education.
Manage uncertainty.
Know research does not
always provide the answer.
Develop an ongoing
assessment process for
research.
Decision makers need interim information on relevant findings, in addition to
periodic assessments. Decisions dp not conform to the dates for assessment
• reports. Interim information is required for informed decisions driven by short-time
frames.
Assessments should be keyed to important dates such as international policy
discussions, reauthorization of environmental legislation (e.g., Clean Water Act
Amendments, Wetland Protection Act Amendments), policy formulation and other
decision making activities.
Assessments can provide useful information even if the "penultimate" model
predictions of the effects of stressors are not yet available. Existing information
can be synthesized and integrated with results from simple empirical models,
statistical analyses and similar analytical approaches to provide useful, interim
information for decision makers.
Decision makers' choices are not simply either to pursue research or to implement
management alternatives. The challenge is to define the appropriate levels of
each over time. Researchers need to provide a broad array of information to
address the complex and interacting decisions. Decision makers, for their part,
need to recognize the long time scales involved in research and, thus, the
importance of continuity of funding and program goals.
Assessing change in a relative risk context is difficult, but extremely important
A concerted effort is needed to educate decision makers on the facts and
uncertainties of any environmental issue. Considering that public concern is often
the impetus for formulating policy, scientists need to communicate technical
information to the public more effectively, as well as more frequently. In addition,
scientists need to learn more about the decision making process and the types of
information most useful for policy. Frequent two-way communication between
decision makers and researchers is fundamental if research is to play an effective
role in the decision making process.
There are more ways to manage uncertainties than simply trying to reduce them.
For example, building resilient institutions and methodologies would provide a
flexible response to any future change albeit at potentially significant costs.
Contingency plans could allow decision makers to prepare for possible climate
outcomes through R&D technologies, without needing to employ them.
Decision makers need to realize that additional research actually could increase
the amount of uncertainty in some areas. Researchers should inquire about how
much certainty decision makers are requiring to take a specific action. To this
end, uncertainties that do not matter for decision making should be so identified.
To improve communication and better inform decision makers, research efforts
should include an iterative assessment process. These assessments would not
only help identify the relevant questions, but also serve to structure the research
results and, thus, facilitate clearer communication between the two communities.
Furthermore, the assessment process would provide valuable input to the
planning of policy-relevant research.
monitoring programs. EMAP's strategy emphasizes
monitoring ecological indicators with state-of-the-art
technology to provide a new generation of ecological
monitoring methods that may be applied in other programs.
The monitoring design provides agencies an opportunity to
evaluate problems at finer or smaller scales man the regional
resolution of EMAP by enhancing the monitoring grid.
Regional and other large-scale tools developed to integrate
monitoring data across landscapes and resources will be
invaluable to other large-scale monitoring programs.
Guidelines developed to guide the aggregation, analysis and
interpretation of ecological resource assessments will help
EMAP evolve and maintain its policy relevance. Peer-
reviewed scientific articles, technical presentations, and reports
written by EMAP scientists, partners, or interested individuals
also will help advance assessment technology.
29
-------
Assessment Framework
4 — Evolving Program and Process
Currently, EMAP is demonstrating the capability of a
network to monitor the Nation's ecological resources; however,
it will take a number of years before routine monitoring of all
resources in all regions of the country will be fully
implemented. As a result, the ability of the Program to
conduct ecological resource assessments will correspond to the
phased implementation of its research and monitoring
activities. Initial assessments will focus on determining extent,
geographic coverage, and condition for individual ecological
resources. Single region, single resource assessments will be
conducted before assessments encompassing multiple regions
or national levels. Assessments of multiple ecological resources
in a single region will be conducted as other resources start
monitoring in that region.
The assessment framework proposed in this report
provides a common strategy for planning and conducting a
wide variety of ecological assessments within EMAP. The
framework also demonstrates how EMAP complements the
assessment approach proposed in EPA's Ecological Risk
Assessment Framework (RAF 1992). EMAP assessments can
contribute directly to the problem formulation phase of EPA-
RAF's proposed ecological risk assessment framework by
identifying and quantifying factors which might be contributing
to condition of ecological resources. Other EMAP products
(e.g., ecological resource condition and stressor data) will
provide significant information needed to conduct ecological
risk assessments that verify model predictions and the
cumulative effectiveness of environmental protection
regulations and environmental management decisions.
30
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Glossary
abiotic: Nonliving characteristic of the environment; the
physical and chemical components that relate to the state
of ecological resources. (Term added 1993. See related:
biotic, condition indicator, indicator.)
acid deposition: "A complex chemical and atmospheric
phenomenon that occurs when emissions of sulfur and
nitrogen compounds and other substances are transformed
by chemical processes in the atmosphere, often far from
the original sources, and then deposited on earth in either
a wet or dry form. The wet forms, popularly called "acid
rain," can fall as rain, snow, or fog. The dry forms are
acidic gases or participates" (EPA 1992, 1).
agroecosystem: A dynamic association of crops, pastures,
livestock, other flora and fauna, atmosphere, soils and
water. Agroecosystems are contained within larger
landscapes that include uncultivated land, drainage
networks, rural communities, and wildlife.
ancillary data: Data collected from studies within EMAP but
not used directly in the computation of an indicator.
Ancillary data can help characterize parameters and assist
in the interpretation of data sets; time, stage of tide, and
weather conditions are examples of ancillary data. (Term
added 1993. See related auxiliary data.)
annual statistical summary: A document that presents a
brief and comprehensive report of EMAP data collected
on a single EMAP resource for a specific year. Annual
statistical summaries may include cumulative
distributions, estimates of the extent of nominal or
subnominal condition, comparisons among regions, or
comparisons of data over time.
arid ecosystems: Terrestrial systems characterized by a
climate regime where the potential evapotranspiration
exceeds precipitation, annual precipitation ranges from less
than 5 cm to not more than 60 cm, and daily and seasonal
temperatures range from -40*C to 50*C. The vegetation
is dominated by woody perennials, succulents, and drought
resistant trees.
assessment: Interpretation and evaluation of EMAP results for
the purpose of answering policy-relevant questions about
ecological resources, including (1) determination of the
fraction of the population that meets a socially defined
value and (2) association among indicators of ecological
condition and stressors.
assessment endpoint: Formal expressions of the actual
environmental value that is to be protected (Suter 1990).
Risk Assessment Forum defines this as an "explicit
expression of the environmental value that is to be
protected" (RAF 1992, 37). Operationally in EMAP, an
assessment endpoint is the range, proportion, or
percentage of a resource that is known with confidence to
be in a specified condition (See related: condition
indicator, nominal, measurement endpoint,
subnominal.)
attribute: Any property, quality, or characteristic of a
sampling unit. The indicators and other measures used
to characterize a sampling site or resource unit are
representations of the attributes of that unit or site. A
characteristic of a map feature (point, line, or polygon)
described by numbers or text; for example attributes of
a tree, represented by a point, might include height and
species. (See related: continuous, discrete resource.)
auxiliary data: Data derived from a source other than EMAP,
that is, from an experiment or from another monitoring or
sampling program, either Federal or State. The sampling
methods and quality assurance protocols of auxiliary data
must be evaluated before the data are used. It is always
important to establish the population represented by
auxiliary data. (Preferred term 1993; replaces "non-
EMAP data" and "found data," deleted in 1993; see
related: ancillary data.)
31
-------
Assessment Framework
bias: In a sampling context, the difference between the
conceptual weighted average value of an estimator over all
possible samples and the true value of the quantity being
estimated. An estimator is said to be unbiased if that
difference is zero. The "systematic or persistent distortion
of a measurement process which deprives the result of
representativeness (i.e., the expected sample measurement
is different than the sample's true value. A data quality
indicator" (QAMS 1993, 3).
biodiversity: The variety and variability among living
organisms and the ecosystems in which they occur.
Biodiversity includes the numbers of different items and
their relative frequencies; these items are organized at
many levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the
biochemical structures that are the molecular basis of
heredity. Thus, biodiversity encompasses expressions of
the relative abundances of different ecosystems, species,
and genes (OTA 1987).
biotic: Of or pertaining to living organisms. (See related:
abiotic, indicator, condition indicator, stressor
indicator. In 1993, biotic condition indicator replaced
"response indicator.")
cdf. Cumulative distribution function. (See:
distribution).
cumulative
change: As used in EMAP, the difference in the distribution
of measurements of condition indicators between two
time periods. (See related: status, trends.)
characterization: Determination of the attributes of resource
units, populations, or sampling units. A prominent use
in EMAP is characterization of 40-hexes.
classification: The process of assigning a resource unit to one
of a set of classes defined by values of specified
attributes. For example, forest sites will be classified into
the designated forest types, depending on the species
composition of the forest Systematic arrangement of
objects into groups or categories according to established
criteria
community: "All of the populations occupying a given area
(Odum 1959, 6); Odum's definition was adapted by the
Risk Assessment Forum to read: "an assemblage of
populations of different species within a specified location
in space and time" (RAF 1992, 37). "In ecology, a group
of interacting populations in time and space. Sometimes
a particular subgrouping may be specified, such as the fish
community in a lake or the soil arthropod community in
a forest" (EPA 1993, 6).
comparability: The degree to which different methods, data
sets and/or decisions agree or can be represented as
similar; a data quality indicator" (QAMS 1993, 6).
completeness: The amount of valid data obtained compared
to the planned amount, and [it is] usually expressed as a
percentage; a data quality indicator" (QAMS 1993, 6).
conceptual model: A "conceptual model describes a series
of working hypotheses of how the stressor might affect
ecological components. The conceptual model also
describes the ecosystem potentially at risk, the relationship
between measurement [endpoints] and assessment
endpoints, and exposure scenarios" (RAF 1992, 37).
condition: The distribution of scores describing resource
attributes without respect to any societal value or desired
use, that is, a state of being. (New term 1993.)
condition indicator: A characteristic of the environment that
provides quantitative estimates of the state of ecological
resources and is conceptually tied to a value. (New Term
1993; replaces environmental indicator. See related:
indicator, abiotic, biotic, stressor indicator.)
continuous: A characteristic of an attribute that is
conceptualized as a surface over some region. Examples
are certain attributes of a resource, such as chemical
stressor indicators measured in estuaries.
cross-cutting group: A group of scientific and administrative
personnel headed by a technical coordinator and charged
with addressing specific cross-program, integrative issues
in EMAP. These groups are named Assessment and
Reporting, Design and Statistics, Indicator Development,
Information Management, Landscape Characterization,
Logistics and Methods, and Quality Assurance. (See
related resource group.)
cumulative distribution: A means of representing the
variation of some attribute by giving running totals of the
resource with attribute values less than or equal to a
specified series of values. For example, a cumulative
areal distribution of lakes would give, for any value a of
area, the total area covered by lakes with individual area
less than or equal to a. A cumulative frequency
distribution for lake area would give the total number of
lakes with area less than or equal to a. The cumulative
distribution function (cdf) of some specified attribute of
a population is the function F(x) that gives the proportion
of the population with value of the attribute less than or
32
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
equal to x, for any choice of x. For example, if the
attribute was lake area in hectares, F(a) would give the
proportion of lakes with area less than or equal to a ha.
(In some cases, the word "cumulative" may be omitted in
discussions of the edf, and the cdf is called the
distribution function.)
uo
our
F(x)
04-
0.2-
2.5 cm), greater than 260 km2, and with an aspect ratio of
greater than 20. Small estuaries and small tidal rivers are
33
-------
Assessment Framework
those systems whose surface areas fell between 2.6 km2
and 260 km2. (See related: wetlands.)
H
forest: Land with at least 10% of its surface area stocked by
trees of any size or formerly having had such trees as
cover and not currently built-up or developed for
agricultural use (USDAFS 1989).
fragmented: Being divided or convoluted into distinct parts,
rather than entire. In EMAP, the spatial fragmentation of
resources and the spatiaVtemporal fragmentation of
resource attributes affect the precision of certain
population statistics, so that attention must be given to
this state. (See related: entire.)
frame: A representation of a population, used to implement
a sampling strategy as, for example, (1) a list frame,
containing the identity of all the units in the
population—for instance, a list of all the lakes in the
United States between 10 and 2000 ha—or (2) an area
frame that consists of explicit descriptions of a partition of
the areal.extent of an areal universe—like the NASS
frame. (See related: sampling unit.)
geographic information system (GIS): A collection of
computer hardware, software, and geographic data
designed to capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze,
and display geographically referenced data.
Great Lakes: Li EMAP, the resource that encompasses
the five Great Lakes—Superior, Michigan, Huron,
Erie, and Ontario, including river mouths up to the
maximum extent of lake influence; wetlands
contiguous to the lakes; and the connecting channels,
Lake St. Clair and the upper portion of the St
Lawrence Seaway.
grid: A data structure commonly used to represent map
features. A cellular-based data structure composed of
cells or pixels arranged in rows and columns (also called
a "raster").
grid, triangular (EMAP): A lattice of points in exact
equilateral triangular structure on a plane. The EMAP
grid points are 27.1 km apart.
habitat: "The place where a population (e.g., human, animal,
plant, microorganism) lives and its surroundings, both
living and non-living" (EPA 1992, 14).
index: Mathematical aggregation of indicators or metrics.
indicator: Any expression of the environment that
quantitatively estimates the condition of ecological
resources, the magnitude of stress, the exposure of a
biological component to stress, or the amount of change
in condition (after Hunsaker and Carpenter 1990, Olsen
1992). "Any expression of the environment" includes
abiotic and biotic characteristics that can provide
quantitative information on ecological resources. (Revised
definition 1993, 1994. Preferred term for environmental
indicator, deleted 1993.) "In biology, an organism, species,
or community whose characteristics show the presence of
specific environmental conditions, good or bad" (EPA
1992, 15). (See related: condition indicator, stressor
indicator, biotic, abiotic.)
indicator development: The process through which an
indicator is identified, tested, and implemented. A
candidate indicator is identified and reviewed by peers
before it is selected for further evaluation as a research
indicator. Existing data are analyzed, simulation studies
are performed with realistic scenarios, and limited field
tests are conducted to evaluate the research indicator. In
the past, this research indicator was called a
"probationary core indicator" or a "development
indicator" as it was evaluated in regional demonstration
projects. An indicator is considered a core indicator
when it is selected for long-term, ecological monitoring as
a result of its acceptable performance, demonstrated ability
to satisfy the data quality objectives.
integration: The formation, coordination, or blending of units
or components into a functioning or unified whole. In
EMAP, integration refers to a coordinated approach to
environmental monitoring, research, and assessment, both
among EMAP resource groups and with other
environmental monitoring programs. Integration in
EMAP also refers to the technical processes involved in
normalizing and combining data for interpretation and
assessment.
34
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
lake: Li EMAP, a standing body of water greater than 1
hectare (about 2.5 acre) that has at least 1000 m2 (about
0.25 acre) of open water and is at least 1 meter (about 3
feet) deep at its deepest point (See related: surface
waters, wetlands.)
landscape: The set of traits, patterns, and structure of a
specific geographic area, including its biological
composition, its physical environment, and its
anthropogenic patterns. An area where interacting
ecosystems are grouped and repeated in similar form. In
EMAP, Landscapes is the name of a resource group.
landscape characterization: Documentation of the traits and
patterns of the essential elements of the landscape,
including attributes of the physical environment,
biological composition, and anthropogenic patterns. In
EMAP, landscape characterization emphasizes the process
of describing land use or land cover, but it also includes
gathering data on attributes such as elevation,
demographics, soils, physiographic regions, and others.
landscape ecology: The study of distribution patterns of
communities and ecosystems, the ecological processes that
affect those patterns, and changes in pattern and process
over time (Forman and Godron 1986).
M
marginal condition: The state that exists when the nominal
and subnominal criteria are not contiguous.
measurement: A quantifiable attribute that is tied to an
indicator.
measurement endpoint: A measurable ecological
characteristic that is related to the valued characteristic
chosen as the assessment endpoint (Suter 1990). RAF
added to Suter: "Measurement endpoints are often
expressed as the statistical or arithmetic summaries of the
observations that comprise [sic] the measurement" (RAF
1992, 38). (See related: assessment endpoint.)
modeling: "Development of a mathematical or physical
representation of a system or theory that accounts for all
or some of its known properties. Models are often used
to test the effect of changes of components on the overall
performance of the system" (EPA 1992,18).
monitoring: Li EMAP, the periodic collection of data that is
used to determine the condition of ecological resources.
"Periodic or continuous surveillance or testing .to
determine the level of compliance with statutory
requirements and/or pollutant levels in various media (air,
soil, water) or in humans, plants, and animals" (EPA 1993,
18).
N
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): The National
Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NRC)
performs level 2 peer review to determine if EMAP
projects have overall scientific merit and integrate both
internally and with other government-sponsored
monitoring programs. Two commissions of the NRC—the
Commission on Geosciences, Environment, andResources
(specifically, its Water Science and Technology Board)
and the Commission on Life Sciences—jointly organized
the Committee to Review EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program in 1991. This
NAS/NRC committee holds about 12 meetings and
produces two or three reports every two years; its primary
purpose is to consider the scientific and technical aspects
of EMAP as designed as well as considering ways to
increase EMAP's usefulness in monitoring conditions and
trends in six representative types of ecosystems. The
Committee also reviews me overall design objectives of
the program, the indicator strategies, data collection
methods, data analysis interpretation, and communication
plans. Preparation for NAS/NRC reviews is coordinated
by the Director of OMMSQA, EPA-ORD, who is also
responsible for funding.
nominal: Referring to the state of having desirable or
acceptable ecological condition: The quantified standard
established for a condition indicator to represent the
desirable or acceptable condition is called a nominal
assessment endpoint. (See related: assessment endpoint,
marginal, subnominal.)
NRC (National Research Council, see National Academy of
Sciences.)
o
Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems, and Quality
Assurance (OMMSQA): The office within EPA's Office
of Research and Development responsible for EMAP
management within the Agency.
35
-------
Assessment Framework
parameter: "Any quantity such as a mean or a standard
deviation characterizing a population. Commonly misused
for 'variable,' 'characteristic,' or 'property'" (QAMS
1993,15).
pattern: In EMAP, the location, distribution, and composition
of structural landscape components within a particular
geographic area or in a spatial context.
peer review: In EMAP, peer review means written, critical
response provided by scientists and other technically
qualified participants in the process. EMAP documents
are subject to formal peer review procedures at laboratory
and program levels. In EMAP, Level 1 peer reviews are
performed by EPA's Science Advisory Board, level 2 by
the NAS National Research Council, level 3 by specialist
panel peer reviews, and level 4 by internal EPA
respondents. (See related: National Academy of
Sciences, Science Advisory Board.)
population: "A group of interbreeding organisms occupying
a particular space; the number of humans or other living
creatures in a designated area" (EPA 1992,22 after Odum
[1953] 1959,6). In statistics and sampling design, the total
universe addressed in a sampling effort; an assemblage of
units of a particular resource, or any subset of extensive
resources, about which inferences are desired or made.
RAF defines population to be "an aggregate of
individuals of a species within a specified location in
space and time" (RAF 1992, 38).
precision: The degree to which replicate measurements of the
same attribute agree or are exact "The degree to which
a set of observations or measurements of the same
property, usually obtained under similar conditions,
conform to themselves; a data quality indicator" (QAMS
1993,16). (See related: accuracy, bias.)
quality assurance (QA): "An integrated system of activities
involving planning, quality control, quality assessment,
reporting and quality improvement to ensure that a product
or service meets defined standards of quality with a stated
level of confidence" (QAMS 1993, 17).
Li EMAP, quality assurance consists of multiple
steps taken to ensure that all data quality objectives are
achieved. (See related: data quality objectives, quality
control.)
quality control (QC): "The overall system of technical
activities whose purpose is to measure and control the
quality of a product or service so that it meets the needs
of users. The aim is to provide quality that is satisfactory,
adequate, dependable, and economical" (QAMS 1993,17).
In EMAP, quality control consists of specific steps
taken during the data collection process to ensure that
equipment and procedures are operating as intended and
that they will allow data quality objectives to be
achieved. (See related: data quality objectives, quality
assessment, quality assurance, QA/QC.)
QA/QC: Quality Assurance/Quality Control. "A system of
procedures, checks, audits, and corrective actions to ensure
that all EPA research design and performance,
environmental monitoring and sampling, and other
technical and reporting activities are of the highest
achievable quality" (EPA 1992, 23).
reference condition: The set of attributes of ecological
resources that assist in identifying the location of a
portion of the resource population along a condition
continuum from worst possible condition to the best
possible condition given the prevailing topography, soil,
geology, potential vegetation, and general land use of the
region. Reference condition typically refers to the best
resource condition, but it is used more broadly in EMAP
(Term added in 1993).
region: Any explicitly defined geographic area. In the EMAP
objectives, region refers to the ten standard Federal
regions (OMB 1974).
relation: The concept of function, correlation, or association
between or among attributes, which may be qualitative as
well as quantitative.
representativeness: "The degree to which data accurately and
precisely represent the frequency distribution of a specific
variable in the population; a data quality indicator"
(QAMS 2993, 20).
resource: In EMAP, an ecological entity that is identified as
a target of sampling and is a group of general, broad
ecosystem types or ecological entities sharing certain basic
characteristics. Eight such categories currently are
identified within EMAP: estuaries, Great Lakes, surface
waters, wetlands, forests, arid ecosystems, agroecosystems,
and landscapes. These eight categories define the
organizational structure of resource monitoring
groups—called resource groups—in EMAP and are the
resources addressed by EMAP assessments. A resource
36
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
can be characterized as belonging to one of two types,
discrete and extensive, that pose different problems of
sampling and representation.
resource class: A subdivision of a resource; examples
include small lakes, oak-hickory forests, emergent
estuarine wetlands, field cropland, small estuaries, and
sagebrush dominated desert scrub.
resource domain: The areal extent of a resource; the region
occupied by a resource.
resource group: A group of scientific and administrative
personnel, headed by a technical director, responsible for
research, monitoring, and assessments for a given EMAP
resource. There are eight such groups in EMAP:
Estuaries, Great Lakes, Surface Waters, Wetlands, Forests,
Arid Ecosystems, Agroecosystems, and Landscapes. (See
related cross-cutting group.)
resource unit: A unit of a discrete resource, for example, a
lake. A population of such a resource will be an explicit
set of resource units.
risk: "A measure of the probability that damage to life,
health, property, and/or the environment will occur as a
result of a given hazard" (EPA 1992, 25). In statistics,
"the expected loss due to the use of a given decision
procedure" (QAMS 1993, 20).
risk assessment: "Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of
the risk posed to human health and/or the environment by
the actual or potential presence and/or use of specific
pollutants" (EPA 1992, 25).
risk characterization: Determination of the nature of a given
risk and quantifying of the potential for adverse change to
the environment from that risk. "A phase of ecological
risk assessment that integrates the results of the exposure
and ecological effects analyses to evaluate the likelihood
of adverse ecological effects associated with exposure to
a stressor. The ecological significance of the adverse
effects is discussed, including consideration of the types
and magnitudes of the effects, their spatial and temporal
patterns, and the likelihood of recovery" (RAF 1992,38).
risk communication: "The exchange of information about
environmental risks among risk assessors, risk managers,
the general public, news media, special interest groups,
and others" (EPA 1992, 25).
risk management: "The process of evaluating and selecting
alternative regulatory and non-regulatory responses to risk.
The selection process necessarily requires the
consideration of scientific, legal, economic, and behavioral
factors" (EPA 1992, 25).
sample: A subset of the units from a frame. A sample may
also be a subset of resource units from a population or
a set of sampling units.
sampling strategy: A sampling design, together with a plan
of analysis and estimation. The design consists of a
frame, either explicit or implicit, together with a protocol
for selection of sampling units.
sampling unit: An entity that is subject to selection and
characterization under a sampling design. A sample
consists of a set of sampling units or sites that will be
characterized. Sampling units are defined by the frame;
they may correspond to resource units, or they may be
artificial units constructed for the sole purpose of the
sampling design.
Science Advisory Board (SAB): A peer review panel internal
to EPA. The Ecological Effects Committee of the SAB
conducts reviews of EMAP's overall program and the
conceptual framework for integrating EMAP with the
Ecological Risk Assessment program. Preparation for SAB
reviews is coordinated by the Director of the Office of
Modeling, Monitoring systems, and Quality Assurance
(OMMSQA); the Assistant Administrator for ORD is
responsible for funding. SAB review is considered level
1 peer review.
status: The distribution of scores for condition indicators
with relation to the reference condition associated with
specific social values or desired uses for a specific time
period. (See related: change, condition, trends.)
stressor: "Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that
can induce an adverse response" (RAF 1992, 38).
stressor indicator: A characteristic of the environment that
is suspected to elicit a change in the state of an ecological
resource, and they include both natural and human-
induced stressors. Selected stressor indicators will be
monitored in EMAP only when a relationship between
specific condition and stressor indicators is known, or a
testable hypothesis can be formulated. (See related:
indicator, condition indicator.)
subnominal: Having undesirable or unacceptable ecological
condition. The quantified standard established for a
condition indicator to represent unacceptable or
undesirable ecological condition is called the subnominal
assessment endpoint. (See related: assessment endpoint,
marginal, nominal.)
surface waters: The inland surface waters consisting of all
the Nation's lakes (other than the Great Lakes), rivers,
and streams. Lakes are distinguished from wetlands by
depth and by size. Streams (and rivers) will be identified
37
-------
Assessment Framework
from stream traces on maps and confirmed in field visits.
Streams are operationally defined as any first or higher
order stream that is represented as a blue line on a USGS
1:100,000 topographic map.
"All water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers,
lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, impoundments, seas,
estuaries, etc.) and all springs, wells, or other collectors
directly influenced by surface water" (EPA 1992, 28).
(See related: lake, wetlands.)
target population: A specific resource set that is the object
of target of investigation.
technical coordinator (TC): The individual responsible for
directing the activities of an individual cross-cutting
group.
technical director (TD): The individual responsible for
directing the activities of an individual resource group.
total quality management (TQM): A system that is
implemented in every aspect of an organization with the
focus of providing quality; that is, highly valued products.
The system provides a framework for planning,
documentation, communication, etc. and strongly
emphasizes a client-oriented perspective. "The process
whereby an entire organization, led by senior management,
commits to focusing on quality as a first priority in every
activity. TQM implementation creates a culture in which
everyone in the organization shares the responsibility for
continuously improving the quality of products and
services in order to satisfy the customer" (QAMS 1993,
26).
trends: The change in the distribution of scores for condition
indicators over multiple time periods. (See related:
change, status.)
value: A characteristic of the environment that is desired. In
the past, the term "environmental value" was defined to
mean characteristic of the environment that contributes to
the quality of life provided to an area's inhabitants, for
example, the ability of an area to provide desired functions
such as food, clean water and air, aesthetic experience,
recreation, and desired animal and plant species.
Biodiversity, sustainability, and aesthetics are examples of
environmental values (Suter 1990). A quantity's
magnitude.
w
watershed: "The terrestrial area of the landscape contributing
to flow at a given stream location. The land area that
drains into a stream" (EPA 1992, 31).
v. WMnlWd
N Boundfcy
_ Drecflon of
— BuneH
\ _^
Watershed
u
universe: The total entity of interest in a sampling program,
often together with some structural features. The EMAP
universe is the entire United States, together with
adjoining waters. (See related: population.)
wetlands: Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic
systems where the water table is usually at or near the
surface or where shallow water covers the land and where
at least one of the following attributes holds: (1) at least
periodically, the land supports aquatic plants
predominantly; (2) undrained hydric soils are the
predominant substrate; and (3) at some time during the
growing season, the substrate is saturated with water or
covered by shallow water (Cowardin et al. 1979). An area
that is saturated by surface or ground water with
vegetation adapted for life under those soil conditions, as
swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and estuaries (EPA 1992,
31).
38
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
References
Baker, L.A., P.R. Kaufinann, A.T. Herlihy, and J.M. Eilers.
1990. Current Status of Surface Water Acid-Base
Chemistry. National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program Acidic Deposition: State of Science and
Technology. Report 9. Washington, DC: Office of the
Director, National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program.
Bartell, S.M., R.H. Gardner, and R.V. O'Neill. 1992.
Ecological Risk Estimation. Ann Arbor, MI: Lewis
Publishers.
Bardwell, L.V. 1991. Problem-framing: A perspective on
environmental problem-solving. Environmental Management
15:603-612.
T
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1990.
Environmental Quality. Twentieth Annual Report.
Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President
Charles, D.F., R.W. Battarbee, L Renberg, H. van Dam, and
JP. Smol. 1989. Paleoecological analysis of lake
acidification trends in North America and Europe using
diatoms and chrysophytes. In Acid Precipitation, 207-276.
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Church, M.R., K.W. Thornton, P.W. Shaffer, D.L. Stevens,
BP. Rochelle, R.G. Holdren, M.G. Johnson, JJ. Lee, R.S.
Turner, D.L. Cassell, D.A. Lammers, W.G. Campbell, C.I.
Liff, C.C. Brandt, L.H. Liegel, G.D. Bishop, D.C.
Mortenson, and S.M. Pierson. 1989. Future Effects of Long-
Term Sulfur Deposition on Surface Water Chemistry in the
Northeast and Southern Blue Ridge Province (Results of
the Direct/Delayed Response Project). EPA600389061 a, b,
c, d. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory.
Costanza, R., E.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell (eds). 1992.
Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental
Management. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Cowling, E.B. 1992. The performance and legacy of NAPAP.
Ecological Applications 2:111-116.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. FSW/OSB-79/31. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Deuel, JJC., and J. D'Aloia, Jr. 1989. Defining our vocabulary.
Environmental Auditor 1: 33-38.
Ehrlich, P. 1980. An ecologist standing up among seated social
scientists. The Co-Evolution Quarterly. Fall: 24-35.
EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program).
1990. Near Coastal Program Plan for 1990: Estuaries,
A.F. Holland and J.F. Paul, eds. EPA600490033
(PB93116176). Naragansett, RI: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Research Laboratory.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1976.
Guidance for conducting cancer assessments. 41 Federal
Register 21402.
. 1986. Guidelines for conducting human health risk
assessments 51 Federal Register 33992-34054.
. 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment
of Environmental Problems. Overview Report.
EPA230287025A [5 report set: PC-E19, OPB88-127030J
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
. 1992. Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations
And Acronyms. EPA175B92001. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Communications,
Education, And Public Affairs.
. 1993. Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations
And Acronyms. EPA175B93001. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Communications,
Education, And Public Affairs.
Finkel, A. 1990. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
39
-------
Assessment Framework
Powells, H.A. 1965. Silvics of Forest Trees of the United
States. Agricultural Handbook No. 271. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
GAO (United States General Accounting Office). 1988.
Environmental Protection Agency. Protecting Human
Health and the Environment. GAO/RCED-880-101.
Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
Hill, A.B. 1965. The environment and disease: Association
or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine
58:295-300.
Holling, C.S., ed. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment
and Management. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Hughes, RJM. 1989. Ecoregional biological criteria In Water
Quality Standards for the 21st Century, 147-151.
Proceedings of a National Conference, March 1-3, 1989,
Dallas, TX. Washington, DC: t. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Hunsaker, C.T., and DJ3. Carpenter, eds. 1990. Ecological
Indicators for the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. EPA 600390060. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect
of water resource management Ecological Applications
l(l):66-84.
. 1987. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish
communities. Fisheries 6(6):21-27.
. 1981. Biological monitoring and environmental
assessment A conceptual framework. Environmental
Management ll(2):249-256.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, PJL. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and IJ.
Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological Integrity In Running
Waters: A Method and Its Rationale. Special Publication 5.
Champaign, IL: Illinois Natural History Survey.
Kelly, J.R., and MA. Harwell. 1990. Indicators of ecosystem
recovery. In Recovery of Lotic Communities and
Ecosystems Following Disturbances: Theory and
Application, ed. JJX Yount and GJ. Niemi, 527-546.
Special analytical series of Environmental Management
14(5): 515-572.
Landers, DJL, J.M. Eilers, D.F. Brakke, W.S. Overton, P.E.
Keller, M.E. Silverstein, R.D. Schonbrod, R.E. Croe, R.A.
Linthurst, J.M. Omernik, S.A. Teagure, and EJ?. Meier.
1987. Characteristics of Lakes in the Western United
States. Volume I: Population Descriptions and Physico-
Chemical Relationships. EPA600386054a. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development.
Linthurst, R.A., D.H. Landers, J.M. Eilers, P.E. Kellar, D.F.
Brakke, W.S. Overton, E.P. Meier, and R.E. Crow. 1986.
Characteristics of Lakes in the Eastern United States.
Volume I: Population Descriptions and Physico-Chemical
Relationships. EPA600486007a. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development.
Morgan, M.G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom, L. Lave, and C.J.
Atman. 1992. Communicating risk to the public.
Environmental Science and Technology 26(11): 2048-2056.
Mosteller, F., and J. W. Tukey. 1977. Data Analysis and
Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
NADP (National Atmospheric Deposition Program). 1988.
NADP/NTN Annual Data Summary: Precipitation
Chemistry in the United States for 1987. Fort Collins, CO:
NADP Coordinator's Office, Natural Resource Ecology
Laboratory, Colorado State University.
NAPAP (National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program).
1991.1990 Integrated Assessment Report. Washington, DC:
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Office of
the Director.
NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act). 1969.42 U.S.C.
4321 et. seq.
Norton, B.G. 1991. Ecological health and sustainable resource
management In Ecological Economics: The Science and
Management of Sustainability, ed. R. Costanza, 102-117.
New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in
the Federal Government: Managing the Process.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
. 1984. Acid Deposition: Processes of Lake
Acidification. Washington, DC: National Research Council,
Panel on Processes of Lake Acidification, Environmental
Studies Board, Commission on Physical Sciences,
Mathematics, and Resources. (Available from NTIS as
PB84-216175, 11 p.)
. 1986. Acid Deposition Long-Term
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Trends.
40
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
National Research Council (NRC) continued.
. 1990. Managing Troubled Waters: Role of Marine
Environmental Monitoring. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
. 1991. Environmental Epidemiology: Public Health and
Hazardous Wastes. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Odum, EP. 1959. Fundamentals of Ecology. 2nd Edition.
Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Co.
Olsen, A.R., ed. 1992. The Indicator Development Strategy for
the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
EPA600391023. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory.
OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 1974. Standard
Federal Regions. Circular A-105. Washington, DC: Office
of Management and Budget. (April 4, 1974)
O'Neill, R.V., D.L. DeAngelis, J.B. Waide, and T.FJL Allen.
1986. A Hierarchical Concept of Ecosystems. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment). 1987. Technologies
to Maintain Biological Diversity. OTA-F-330 (contains
OTA-F-331). Washington, DC: U.S Congress, Office of
Technology Assessment. (Available from NITS as
PB87204494.)
ORB (Oversight Review Board). 1991. The Experience and
Legacy of NAPAP. Washington, DC: National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program.
QAMS (Quality Management Assurance Staff). 1993. Glossary
of Quality Assurance Terms. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development
Posner, M.L 1973. Cognition: An Introduction. Glenview, IL:
Scott Foresman Publication.
RAF (Risk Assessment Forum). 1992. Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA630R92001. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Assessment Forum.
Rapport, D. J. 1992. Environmental assessment at the
ecosystem level: A perspective. Journal of Aquatic
Ecosystem Health 1:15-24.
Reining, P., ed. 1978. Handbook on Desertification Indicators.
Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Roberts, L. 1990. Counting on science at EPA. Science
249:616-618.
Rochelle, B.R., and M.R. Church. 1987. Regional patterns of
sulfur retention in watersheds of the eastern U.S. Water,
Air, Soil Pollution 36:61-73.
Rothman, KJ. 1986. Modern Epidemiology. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown and Company.
Rubin, E. S., L. B. Lave, and M. G. Morgan. 1992. Keeping
climate research relevant Issues in Science and
Technology Winter 1991-92:47-55.
Sampson, R.N., and D. Hair. 1990. Natural Resources for the
21st Century. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Sala, O.E., WJ. Parton, L.A. Joyce, and W.K. Lauenroth.
1988. Primary production of the central grassland region
of the United States. Ecology 69:40-45.
SAB (Science Advisory Board). 1988. Future Risk: Research
Strategies of the 1990's. SAB-EC-88-040. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
—. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies
for Environmental Protection. SAB-EC-90-021.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Schindler, D.W. 1988. The effects of acid rain on freshwater
ecosystems. Science 239:149-157.
Schnaiberg, A. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to
Scarcity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
SPA (Science and Policy Associates). 1992. Report of
Findings: Joint Climate Project to Address Decision
Maker's Uncertainties. TR-100772. Pleasant Hill, CA:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
Streets, D.G. 1989. Integrated assessment: Missing link in
the acid rain debate? Environmental Management
13(4):393-399.
Sullivan, TJ., J.M. Eilers, MH. Church, D J. Blick, Jr., K.N.
Eshleman, D.H. Landers, and M.S. DeHaan. 1988.
Atmospheric wet sulphate deposition and lakewater
chemistry. Nature 331:607-609.
Suter, G.W. 1989. Ecological endpoints. In Ecological
Assessments of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and
Laboratory Reference Document, eds. W. Warren-Hicks,
B.R. Parkhurst and S.S. Baker, Jr., 2-1 through 2-28.
EPA600389013. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk
assessments. Environmental Management 14:9-23.
41
-------
Assessment Framework
Suter continued.
. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Ann Arbor, MI:
Lewis Publishers.
Suter, G.W., L.W. Barnthouse, and R.V. O'Neill. 1987.
Treatment of risk in environmental impact assessment.
Environmental Management 11:295-303.
Thornton, K.W. 1993. Effects of acidic deposition on aquatic
ecosystems—a regional problem. In A Review of Ecological
Assessment Case Studies from a Risk Assessment
Perspective, W. Van der Schalie, R. Landy, and C. Menzie,
eds., n.p. EPA630R925. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum.
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). 1992.
World Atlas of Desertification. London: Edward Arnold.
USDAFS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service).
1989. Interim Resource Inventory Glossary. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Waide, J.B., K.W. Thornton, G.E. Saul, and CM. Knapp.
l992.Nominal/subnominal classification: Issues associated
with classifying and assessing the condition of ecological
resources in the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program. [EPA in review.] Corvallis, OR: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory.
Webster, M. 1991. Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.
Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Westman, WJB. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment and
Environmental Planning. New York, NY: Academic Press.
42
-------
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Index
abiotic 7, 14,15,31,32,34
accuracy 33, 36
acid deposition 31,40
agroecosystem 14, 31
ancillary data 20, 31
annual statistical summary 27, 31
area frame 34
arid ecosystem 16
assessment ii, iii, iv, 1-16, 18-20,24-37, 39-42
assessment endpoint 31, 35, 37
attribute 31-33,35,36
auxiliary data 9,20,31
bias 32,33,36
biodiversity 2, 14, 32, 38
biogeographic province 28
biotic 7, 14, 15, 20, 31, 32, 34,40
candidate indicator 34
c# 32, 33
changes 7, 8, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22-24, 35
characterization 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 19, 32, 35, 37
classification 24, 32, 39,42
community iii, 9,14, 22, 23, 26, 27, 32-34
comparability 32, 33
completeness 32, 33
conceptual model 2, 5, 16, 17, 25, 32
condition ii, 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-16, 18-20, 23, 24, 26-28,
30-32, 34-38,42
condition indicator 15, 19, 23, 31, 32, 34,35, 37
continuous 9,31-33,35
cross-cutting group 9, 32, 37, 38
cumulative distribution 19, 32, 33
data quality 32-34, 36
data quality indicators 33
data quality objective (DQO) 33
discrete 31,33,37
domain 33,37
environmental assessment 2, 33,40, 41
estuary 33
forest 8, 14, 19, 27, 28, 32, 34,40,42
fragmented 14,33,34
frame 27,34,37
geographic information system (GIS) 34
Great Lakes 8, 9, 14, 34, 36, 37
grid 29,34
grid, triangular 34
habitat 2, 33, 34
index 15,20,34,43
indicator 8, 9, 15,16,19,20,23,27, 31, 32, 34-37,41
indicator development 8, 9, 27, 32, 34,41
integration iv, 8, 9, 34
lake 14, 15, 20, 32-35, 37-40
landscape ii, 8, 9, 14, 20, 27, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39
landscape characterization 8, 9, 32, 35
landscape ecology 35, 39
marginal condition 24, 35
measurement ii, 15,16, 25, 31, 32, 35
measurement endpoint 31, 35
modeling iii, 25, 35, 37
monitoring ii, iii, iv, 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 18-20, 25,
27-31, 34-37, 39-42
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 35, 36
National Research Council (NRC) 3, 4, 7, 10, 20, 21,
35, 36,40,41
nominal 13, 19, 24,26,27, 31, 35, 37, 42
Ecological Effects Committee (See Science Advisory
Board.)
ecological health (ecosystem health) 2, (4, 20)
ecological risk assessment ii, iii, 2-5,25,30,33, 37,41,
42
ecology ii, 32, 33, 35, 39-42
ecosystem 4,14,16, 20, 32, 33, 36, 39-41
entire 9,20, 33, 34, 38
environment 1, 2, 7, 12, 15, 25, 28, 31-35, 37-41
Office of Modeling, Monitoring Systems, and Quality
Assurance (OMMSQA) 35, 37
parameter 25, 36
pattern 2,35,36
peer review 27, 35-37
population 1, 8, 14, 20-24, 31-34, 36-38, 40
precision 33, 34, 36
43
-------
Assessment Framework
QA/QC 19,25,36
quality assessment 36
quality assurance (QA) iii, 8, 9, 19, 20, 25, 31, 32,
35-37,41
quality control (QC) 19, 25, 36
recovery 22,37,40
reference condition 8, 36, 37
region ii, 9, 13, 24, 27,28, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37,41
relation iii, 8,24, 36,37
representativeness 32, 33, 36
resource ii, 1, 5,7-9,12-16,18-20, 24, 27-38,40,42
resource class 16,19, 37
resource domain 37
resource group 8,16, 24, 32, 35, 37, 38
resource unit 31,32,37
risk ii, iii, 2-6, 9, 13, 18, 25,29-33, 37, 39-42
risk assessment ii, iii, 2-6, 9, 18,25, 30-33, 37, 40-42
risk characterization 2,4, 5, 37
risk communication ii, 25, 37
risk management ii, 37, 39
sample 32,33,37
sampling strategy 34, 37
sampling unit 31,34,37
Science Advisory Board (SAB) 2, 36, 37,41
status 2,7-10,14, 16, 19,20, 24, 27, 28, 32, 37-39
stressor 1, 37
stressor indicator 15, 32, 34, 37
subnominal 19, 24, 26,27, 31, 35, 37,42
surface waters 8,9,21,24,35-37
target population 23, 38
technical coordinator (TC) iv, 32, 38
technical director (TD) iv, 37, 38
total quality management (TQM) 38
trends ii, 2, 5,7-10,14-16, 19, 20, 24, 32, 35, 37-40
universe 34,36,38
value 1, 2,14,15, 19, 23, 24, 28, 31, 32, 38
watershed iv, 20-23, 38
wetlands 8, 9,14,15, 24, 33-39
44
-------
For Additional Information
To be put on the distribution list for EMAPs Monitor, a newsletter, send your name,
affiliation, and mailing address to:
Dorothy Williams
EMAP Monitor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (G-72)
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
For more Information on EMAP databases or information systems contact:
Technical Coordinator
EMAP-lnformation Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mail Code 8205)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 10460
(202) 260-3255
FAX: (202) 260-4346
For more Information on EMAP assessments and reports contact:
Technical Coordinator
EMAP-Assessment and Reporting
EMAP Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-75)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919)541-0673
To order EPA brochures, posters, magazines, and non-technical reports, contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Information Access Branch- Public Information Center (PIC)
401 M Street, SW PM-211B
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7751
FAX: (202) 260-6257
(Have the "EPA" number or title or subject of inquiry ready when ordering.)
To order EPA technical reports, Including EMAP technical reports or videos, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
NTIS QuikService (703) 487-4650 and ask for PR-846/827
Orders: (800) 553-NTIS
(Have the "PB" number ready when ordering.)
Numbers for EMAP publications can be located through the Government Printing
Office and NTIS bibliographic databases as well as In the EPA Publications
Bibliography.
45
•if U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1994 - 5SO-OOI/S0395
-------
------- |