620N92001
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research
and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
E PA 620/N-92/001
February 1993
MONITOR
/An Interagency Program to monitor the nation's ecological resources
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
A note from Dr. Edward A. Martinko, Director of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP).
"With this issue we are establishing a different format for the 'Monitor.' We begin with an overview
perspective of the program. In upcoming issues we will focus on specific aspects of the program. Each
issue will have a feature article—such as the Monitoring Forest Ecosystems article in this issue—which will
provide a forum for reporting significant activities and demonstration project results from major ecosystem
resource groups. We will also present highlights of what is happening in selected EMAP resource and
coordination areas, as well as EPA Regions and States."
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is an innovative
research, monitoring, and assessment effort designed to report on the condition of our
Nation's ecosystems. EMAP objectives are to (1) estimate the current status, trends, and
changes in selected existing and newly-developed indicators of the condition of the
Nation's ecological resources on a regional basis with known confidence; (2) estimate the
distribution and extent of the Nation's ecological resources; (3) seek associations between
selected indicators of natural and anthropogenic stresses and indicators of the condition
of ecological resources; and (4) provide annual statistical summaries and periodic
assessments of the Nation's ecological resources.
Managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Develop-
ment (ORD), EMAP is a response to the EPA Science Advisory Board's recommendation to
monitor ecological status and trends and to characterize environmental problems. As
stated by the National Research Council's EMAP Committee in their June 1992 review,
"No other program is attempting to assess the status and trends of the full range of the
Nation's ecological resources in a statistically rigorous fashion. The Committee views this
national overview as the main potential contribution of EMAP."
EMAP is unique in many aspects, while drawing on the successes of other monitoring
programs: (1) its scale is national and regional across all ecological resources; (2) it is a
long-term program; (3) EMAP uses a probability-based sampling scheme that permits the
estimation of resource condition with known confidence; (4) EMAP emphasizes biologi-
cal indicators; and (5) EMAP relies on a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality
of all program aspects—review comments are met with concrete actions.
EMAP's peer-review process has already resulted in several changes, including (1)
establishing more stringent evaluation criteria for moving from the pilot to the demonstra-
tion phase, (2) experimenting with alternative sampling strategies, and (3) refining and
continuous testing of ecological indicators. EMAP today is already different from and
stronger than when it was initiated three years ago because of its peer-review process.
EMAP is assessing the condition of
ecological resources—wetlands, surface
waters, the Great Lakes, agroecosystems,
arid ecosystems, forests, and estuaries.
The program is currently in the pilot and
demonstration phase for these resource
areas. When fully implemented, EMAP
will provide comparable, high-quality data
on the condition of our Nation's ecological
resources.
EMAP requires active collaboration and
partnerships with other EPA offices, Federal
agencies, States, and a wide range of
cooperating institutions. In addition, EMAP
has actively solicited participation of
the Nation's best scientists in the academic
community and professional organizations.
EMAP strives to support environmental
decisionmaking and to complement
existing monitoring efforts that are
conducted by EPA and other agencies to
meet statutory requirements. The program
will generate new ecological monitoring
and assessment information, which will be
combined with data from other monitoring
programs to provide a comprehensive view
of the effectiveness of our environmental
policies. In addition, as it accumulates
data from all sources over time, EMAP will
provide support for regional comparative
risk assessments and strategic planning.
Inside Highlights
Monitoring Forest Ecosystems
Regional/State Participation _
Current Activities
Major Reports
.2
.6
_7
8
SM-X5
-------
EMAP; Monitoring the Nation's Forest Ecosystems
Introduction
Forests cover approximately one-third of
the United States (see Figure 1) and are an
important part of the U.S. ecology,
culture, and economy. Forests provide
recreation and serve essential ecosystem
functions by supplying food and habitat
for wildlife, protecting watersheds, and
improving air quality. Public concern that
forest ecosystems remain viable has
prompted scientists, regulators, and
resource managers to take a closer look at
the current condition of our Nation's
forests and to evaluate the potential risks
posed by air pollution, global climate
change, insects, disease, and other stressors.
EMAP is addressing these concerns
through a long-term, interagency monitor-
ing effort—the Forest Health Monitoring
Program—that is designed to estimate the
current status and extent of forest
resources and to identify associations
between stressors (natural and human
induced) and the ecological condition of
the Nation's forests. Information is
provided to resource managers, scientists,
and the public through periodic statistical
summaries and interpretive reports.
Ultimately, these data will be integrated
with monitoring data from other ecologi-
cal resources to generate assessments of
overall environmental condition.
The Forest Health Monitoring Program is
jointly managed and cofunded by EPA
(EMAP) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (Forest Service). Substantial
support is provided by other cooperating
Federal and State agencies. Teams of
scientists and technical experts from these
agencies are responsible for planning and
implementing tasks in major program
areas such as design and statistics,
indicator development, logistics, informa-
tion management, quality assurance, and
assessment. Other interagency teams,
called Regional Technical Committees,
coordinate and support field activities in
four mega-regions: North, South,
Intermountain, and West Coast. This
team approach to planning and manage-
ment is intended to take advantage of
each agency's expertise.
Activities
During the past 3 years, the Forest Health
Monitoring program has been concerned
primarily with two major types of
activities:
• Pilot and demonstration studies to
develop and test field data collection
methods and procedures and
potential forest ecosystem indicators
(current forest indicators are high-
lighted in the information box on
page 5), and
Figure 1. Forests cover about 1.1 million square miles of the United States.
Detection Monitoring (a demonstra-
tion of regional-scale monitoring) to
collect data for assessing and
identifying trends in forest condition.
Forest Health Monitoring
Participants:
• U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture (Forest Service, Soil
Conservation Service)
• U.S. Department of the
Interior (Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, National
Park Service)
• U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EMAP)
• Tennessee Valley Authority
• National Association of State
Foresters
• States (Alabama, California,
Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, Georgia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Rhode
Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia)
• Universities (Duke Univer-
sity, Michigan Technological
University, North Carolina
State University, Oregon
State University, Pennsylva-
nia State University, Univer-
sity of Arkansas, University of
Massachusetts, University of
Nevada at Las Vegas, Univer-
sity of Tennessee, Virginia
Polytechnical Institute)
-------
Pilot and Demonstration Studies
The first pilot study of the EMAP sampling
and plot design for forests was conducted
in 1990. Prior to this study, critical, but
untested, factors for evaluating indicator
techniques had been questioned by some
scientists and technical experts. There-
fore, positive results, such as indications .
that the design was more than adequate
tor most of the measurements tested, were
an extremely important first step in
moving the program forward. The study
also resulted in recommendations for
improving sampling and logistics proce-
dures. Several 1991 pilot studies,
conducted in Georgia, California, and
Colorado, focused on indicator develop-
ment and the applicability of indicators
and measurement procedures to different
geographical regions.
Two demonstration projects and one pilot
study are being conducted in 1992 to
further develop and evaluate forest
indicators. In Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia, the South-
east Regional Demonstration will test the
regional assessment potential of a broad
suite of indicators in the loblolly/shortleaf
pine forest ecosystem. The second
demonstration project in the Southern
Appalachian Man and Biosphere
(SAMAB) Reserve—one of 300 interna-
tional research sites that are part of the
United Nations' Man and Biosphere
program—will provide an opportunity to
evaluate indicators in a second type of
forest ecosystem (principally oak-hickory)
in the southern Appalachian Mountains.
The pilot study in Colorado and California
is testing a similar suite of indicators in
Western forests. In addition to these field
activities, seven small-scale field research
projects are being funded to develop and
test indicators.
Detection Monitoring
Detection monitoring in 1990 included
the establishment of more than 200
permanent plots in six New England
States and collection of first-year growth,
crown classification, and tree damage
information. Data analysis further
confirmed the effectiveness of Forest
Health Monitoring sampling techniques
used on the EMAP sampling frame:
comparisons with data from intensive
forest inventories conducted by the Forest
Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis
program, indicate that the sampling
techniques provide an accurate represen-
tation of New England forests in terms of
species composition and forest stand
characteristics.
In 1991, detection monitoring continued
in New England and was initiated in six
other eastern States. The plot network
was expanded to 925 plots. Approxi-
mately 25,000 trees representing 106
species were tallied, and detailed growth
and crown classification measurements
were collected for 14,296 trees.
Detection monitoring activities in 1992
include revisiting established plots in 12
Eastern States and establishing additional
plots in two Western States, California and
Colorado. Data on site condition, growth,
regeneration, crown classification,
damage, and mortality will be collected.
In the six New England States, detection
monitoring has expanded to include soil
classification and physiochemistry
sampling on one-quarter of the forested
plots.
Preliminary Results
In 1990 and 1991, only a limited number
of indicators were measured; data are still
being analyzed and peer-reviewed. Data
from several years are needed to make
interpretations and to identify trends in
the growth and condition of various
species and forest types. Therefore,
Figure 2. Forest Health Monitoring field activities 1990-1992.
-------
Figure 3. A field crew member
places a tree core into a holder.
Tree cores are used to measure
radial growth and for chemical
analysis.
Crown
density = 70%
Crown
density = 55%
Crown
density = 20%
Figure 4. Estimated crown density
ratings for different types of tree
crowns.
overall estimates of forest condition are
not yet possible; however, some prelimi-
nary results are presented below.
Data collected in 1990 from the six New
England States of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, and Vermont indicated the
following:
• Approximately 10% of the forested
plots in New England showed
symptoms of ozone injury on ozone
sensitive bioindicator plants.
• Approximately 5% of all trees
showed greater than 20% crown
dieback.
• Approximately 13% of American
Beech Forests showed symptoms of
significant crown dieback;
natural causes are suspected.
Data collected in 1991 from the same six
New England States and from six addi-
tional States: Alabama, Delaware,
Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, and
Virginia indicated the following:
• Approximately 69% of the trees
evaluated in 1991 were tree from
injury. Of the trees that were injured,
open wounds, closed wounds, and
crooks accounted tor the majority of
the damage. The primary known cause
of open wounds was logging; disease
was the most frequent cause of closed
wounds. Crooks were usually
attributed to weather and growth
suppression by surrounding trees.
• The majority of tree populations were
in nominal (good-to-optimal)
condition based on an integrated
measure of five crown variables—
density, ratio, transparency, dieback,
and diameter.
• More than 25% of the population of eight
species fell into the subnominal class (of
concern to poor) for crown density; likely
a result of natural competition.
Although initial results primarily focus on
tree condition, crown condition and tree
damage measurements have significant
implications for determining habitat
condition for multiple species and
processes, and over the next several years
will be integrated with information from
additional indicators to provide a more
comprehensive assessment of forest
health.
Looking to the Future
Preparation of the first national statistical
summary from 1991 detection monitoring
data from the northeast and southeast,
and expansion of vital assessment and
reporting functions are among Forest
Health Monitoring's 1992 goals. Activities
in several other areas are crucial to the
expansion of forest monitoring and to the
production of high-quality data-
information management, quality
assurance, logistics, and design and
statistics activities will continue to receive
high priority in 1992.
As forest ecosystem monitoring continues
to expand nationwide, it will provide
increasingly comprehensive and valuable
information for assessing and interpreting
long-term trends in forest condition.
Although full implementation is still
several years away, the Forest Health
Monitoring program is well on its way to
accomplishing its goals.
For more information, contact Sam Alexander,
EMAP Forest Health Monitoring Technical Director,
at (919) 549-4020.
"EPA has been very impressed
with the quality, commitment,
and cooperation received from
the U.S. Forest Service. We look
forward to a long and prosper-
ous relationship."
— Dr. Ed Martinko
Director, EMAP
-------
Forest Ecosystem
Indicators
An indicator is a measurement that
can be used to assess the status and
trends of environmental quality, that
is, to assess the ability of the environ-
ment to support a desired human or
ecological condition.
Forest indicators can be measured to
quantify
• The degree of ecological/
biological response
• The magnitude of stress on
the forest
• Various habitat characteristics
• The degree of exposure to
stressors.
This page highlights the current
Forest Health Monitoring indicators.
Ozone
Concentrations
Song Bird Populations
Air Pollution
Bioindicator
Plants
Atmospheric Deposition
Climate
Air Pollution Bioindicator Plants
Visual Symptoms (Canopy)
Foliar Nutrients & Coptaminants
Tree Growth I
"*•>*»»».
PhotqsynthSl
Fire Occurence
Flora and Fauna
Linear Habitat Classification
Patch Size/Pattern/Connectivity
Soil Nutrients & Contaminants
Soil Classification
Forest Health Monitoring Indicators
Environmental Value > Assessment Endpoint
Ecological Integrity
Extent
Aesthetics
Sustainability
Productivity
Biodiversity
Extent
Aesthetics
Indicator Category
Vegetative Quality
Nutrient Cycling Balance
Soil Productivity
Contaminants
Vegetative Quality
Soil Productivity
Vegetative Quality
Biodiversity
Vegetative Quality
Landscape Characterization
Vegetative Quality
Biodiversity
-------
Highlights of Regional and State Participation in EMAP
The following provides selected informa-
tion on regional and State participation in
EMAP. Activities from other States and
EPA Regions will be featured in upcoming
issues of the "Monitor."
R-EMAP
During the Third Quarter of FY92, a new
intra-agency program, the Regional
Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program (R-EMAP) was developed
as a partnership between EMAP, EPA's
Regional Offices, and States to promote
the use of EMAP technology, methods,
and concepts in regional, State, and local
monitoring efforts. The objectives of
R-EMAP are
• To evaluate and improve EMAP
concepts for State and local use
• To assess the applicability of EMAP
indicators and the EMAP approach at
differing spatial scales
• To demonstrate the utility of EMAP
for resolving issues of importance to
EPA Regions and States.
R-EMAP proposals have been developed
by the Regional offices for studies with a
limited geographic scale and time frame.
Several of these proposals involve cross-
cutting resource assessments. R-EMAP
projects are being designed with the goal
of providing useful information for
decision makers within a 1 to 2-year
period. Projects will largely address risk-
based issues identified in Regional
Strategic Plans.
Projects being considered for FY 1993
funding by R-EMAP include
• Conditions of fisheries in the Great
Plains
• Surface water indicators for streams
• Biological assessment of streams and
wetlands in western watersheds
• Mercury contamination in high-value
lakes
• Sediment toxicity and benthic
invertebrate structures in highly
stressed harbors
• Characterization of toxics problems
in the Gulf of Mexico
• Assessment of aquatic and riparian
ecosystems in irrigated deserts.
R-EMAP activities will aid in demonstrat-
ing the applicability of the EMAP
approach, not only for national and
regional assessments, but also for smaller
scale, short-term applications. Ultimately,
R-EMAP activities and projects will result
in mutually beneficial changes to both
State and EMAP monitoring activities.
For more information, contact Rick Linthurst at
(919)541-4909.
California, Colorado, and
Maryland Contribute to
Monitoring Forest Ecosystems
The California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection and the Colorado Depart-
ment of Forestry have been instrumental
in the EMAP Western Forests Pilot Project.
California has provided advice, site
access, and logistical support (including
providing vehicles for field crews and
helicopter support.) Both Colorado and
California are involved in joint field
monitoring activities with EMAP, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
the Soil Conservation Service, and the
Bureau of Land Management.
According to Sam Alexander, the EMAP
Forest Health Monitoring Technical
Director, the State of Maryland also has
been "very proactive and responsive to
Forest Health Monitoring activities."
During 1991 and 1992, Maryland assisted
in locating and establishing sampling
plots, obtaining owner-access permission,
and providing field crews for data
collection.
For more information, contact lesse Rios of the
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection at (916) 653-9476; Mike Shoemaker,
Colorado Forest Health Monitoring Coordinator, at
(303) 491-6303; or Greene tones, Director, Region
III Environmental Services Division, at (215) 597-
4532.
Maryland Undergoes Landscape
Characterization
The EMAP-Landscape Characterization
task group produced a series of detailed
digital maps of land use in Maryland's
Chesapeake Bay watershed. The water-
shed, which comprises 60% of the State,
also was included in the four sample
hexagons that were selected to test the
landscape characterization methods. The
State expects to be able to use the
characterization data for strategic
environmental planning and natural
resource management.
For more information, contact Greene /ones,
Director, Region III Environmental Services
Division, at (215) 597-4532.
New York Provides Crews to
EMAP-Surface Waters
The colleges of Environmental Sciences
and Forestry at the State University of
New York (SUNY) provided field crews,
via a cooperative agreement with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, for the North-
eastern Lakes Pilot Study (see also
"Surface Waters," page 9).
For more information, contact Barbara Metzger,
Director, Region II Environmental Services Division,
at (2011321-6754.
-------
EMAP-Estuaries Benefits from
New York and Rhode Island
Involvement
In support of EMAP-Estuaries Virginian
Province activities in Long Island Sound,
the New York/New Jersey Estuary Program
contributed to indicator selection and
design. EPA Region II has proposed that
a Benthic Index, which was developed for
the Virginian Province area, be applied on
a broader scale along the New York and
New Jersey coasts.
The estuaries of Rhode Island also are
being monitored as part of the EMAP-
Estuaries Virginian Province Demonstra-
tion Project. Research sites in Rhode
Island are located in Block Island Sound
and Narragansett Bay.
The University of Rhode Island is the lead
for a consortium of academic institutions
involved in a cooperative agreement with
EPA to conduct research, sampling, and
analysis for the EMAP-Estuaries program
in the Virginian Province. Other institu-
tions taking part in this agreement include
Rutgers University, the University of
Maryland, and the Academy of Natural
History in Philadelphia, PA. Cooperative
agreements are mutually beneficial: they
provide EPA with access to expertise from
the academic community and the
academic institution with support for
graduate students, access to EMAP data,
and involvement in research that comple-
ments ongoing projects.
EMAP also has a cooperative agreement
with the State's Rhode Island Geographic
Information System (RIGIS). RIGIS houses
State-level multiple resource monitoring
and demographic data. Both EMAP and
the State have benefited from shared data
and techniques.
Current Activity Highlights
The following provides selected informa-
tion on current activities of the EMAP
resource, integration, and coordination
groups. Further information on activities
of these groups will be featured in
upcoming issues of the "Monitor."
Integration and Assessment
In addition to internal EMAP responsibili-
ties, the Integration and Assessment Team
is involved in the Ecosystem Valuation
Forum, a major initiative sponsored by the
EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation and facilitated by the World
Wildlife Fund and the Conservation
Foundation. The objectives of this
program are
• To bring together nationally
renowned academicians to provide
input on how national environmental
decisions are made
• To help transfer information about
EPA's ecological/economic
approaches to the national academic
community
• To assist the Agency in developing
better methods for valuing the goods
and services provided by ecosystems.
During 1992 and 1993, one of the
Forum's anticipated primary activities will
be a case study for EMAP. The assessment
component of EMAP-lntegration and
Assessment is seen as both a large, early
contributor and a beneficiary of this
initiative.
Arid Ecosystems
The EMAP-Arid Ecosystems Team is
comprised of representatives of the U.S.
EPA (EMAP), the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (Forest Service, Soil Conserva-
tion Service), the U. S. Department of of
Interior (National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Manage-
ment), the Grand Canyon Trust, and the
Navajo Natural Heritage Program. This
summer the Team is conducting its first
pilot study in the Southeast Utah portion
of the Colorado Plateau (see Figure 5).
The objectives of the study are (1) to
evaluate the applicability of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Gap Analysis
Program (GAP) data to EMAP; (2) to
evaluate logistical, quality assurance, and
information management and transfer
issues; and (3) to evaluate and identify
appropriate plot design protocols for
selected pilot study indicators. Vegeta-
tion, spectral properties, and soils
indicators are being tested in two
biomes—conifer woodland and scrub
desert.
The EMAP-Arid Ecosystems Pilot Study
results will be shared with the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, Committee
on the Challenges of Modern Society
Program, which is evaluating ecosystem
degradation associated with desertifica-
tion.
Figure 5. The Colorado Plateau,
Location of the EMAP-Arid
Ecosystems Pilot Study.
-------
Estuaries
1990 Virginian Province
Demonstration Project
Report
1991 Virginian Province
Annual Statistical Summary
1991 Louisianian Province
Annual Statistical Summary
1991 Louisianian Province
Demonstration Project
Report
For more information, contact Dick Latimer at
(401) 782-3077.
Surface Waters
1991 Northeastern Lakes
Pilot Study
For more information, contact Steve Paulsen
at (503) 754-4428.
Forests
1991 New England/
Southeast Annual Statistical
Summary
For more information, contact Sam Alexander
at (919) 549-4020.
Statistics and Design
EMAP's 4-year rotating sampling
schedule, a design component that
attempts to resolve conflicts inherent in
the assessment of "current" status and
"long-term" trends, has been a subject of
recent evaluation by the EMAP-Statisitics
and Design Team. The theoretical
efficiency of the 4-year rotating sampling
schedule (e.g., the EMAP design) was
compared to an alternate strategy that
prescribes visiting a group of sites for
several consecutive years with partial
replacement of sites each year (e.g. the
National Agricultural Statistical Survey
design). The research concluded that the
EMAP 4-year rotating sampling schedule
was the most appropriate method for
resolving these two conflicting design
criteria. In a related endeavor, the EMAP-
Agroecosystems team is field testing the
two sampling methods (see
Agroecosystems). EMAP-Statistics and
Design will continue its efforts to evaluate
and improve design efficiency—ultimately
maximizing results while streamlining
costs.
for more information on EMAP-Statistics and
Design activities, contact Tony Olsen at (503) 754-
4790.
Agroecosystems
The EMAP-Agroecosystems Team is
conducting a pilot study in North Carolina
to evaluate indicators of agroecosystem
condition and to compare two design
options for monitoring agroecosystems:
the EMAP hexagon design and the
National Agricultural Statistics Survey
(NASS) design. Fifty-one hexagons from
the EMAP grid and 65 NASS sample units
were selected for use in the 1992 pilot
program. The five principal indicators
being tested in the pilot are crop produc-
tivity, soil quality, agricultural chemical
use, land use, and pond and well-water
quality.
For more information on EMAP-Agroecosystems
activities, contact George Hess at (919) 515-3311.
Information Management/
Communications
The EMAP-Geographic Information Systems
(GjS) Team, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy's Division
of Science and Research, and EPA Region II are
cooperatively identifying pilot data access
opportunities at the regional, State and county
levels. The goals of this project are to develop
mechanisms that allow EMAP to benefit from
State-developed CIS data and to determine
methods for identifying and developing
mutually beneficial data sets. This project will
involve the transfer of select data sets from New
Jersey (at both the State and county levels) as
well as from Region II. These data will be
incorporated into the EMAP-GIS Interface,
which will serve as the access platform.
The EMAP video titled "America's Ecological
Report Card" (EPA Report No. 600/V-92/001/
OMMSQA-DC 66) can be obtained by
contacting the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161. The NTIS No. is PB92-
780865. The cost is $35.00 per copy.
For more information on EMAP-GIS activities,
contact Denice Shaw at (703) 341-7510.
"We are aggressively devel-
oping a Statewide, quality
database which I think
could benefit EMAP...
/ am particularly interested
in exploring a mechanism
whereby data developed at
the State and local level can
be incorporated into the
national framework of
EMAP."
— Henry L. Garie,
Assistant Director,
New Jersey Department
of Environmental
Protection and Energy.
-------
Wetlands
The EMAP-Wetlands Program initiated two
pilot projects. One, a cooperative effort
with Louisiana State University, is a study
of the performance of key saltmarsh
indicators for assessing the condition of
Gulf Coast wetland communities. Data
depicting the following indicators was
collected last summer and currently is
being analyzed: biomass, percent cover,
species density, stem length, stem
diameter, percent organic, salinity, redox
potential and pH, sulfide, hydraulic
conductivity, cesium 137, tidal hydrogra-
phy, and chemical constituents. Analysis
of this information will be used to select
indicators for phase two of the project
(next summer).
The second indicator evaluation pilot
project, a cooperative effort with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, is designed to
evaluate the performance of various
indicators of prairie pothole condition in
the upper midwestern States. Common to
both projects is the attempt to identify and
collect data for individual and group
indicators that, in conjunction with
rigorous statistical analyses, will deter-
mine regional resource condition.
For more information on EMAP-Wetlands activities,
contact Spencer Peterson at (503) 754-
4457.
Great Lakes
The field season for EMAP-Great Lakes
officially began during April and May
1992 with activities in Lakes Michigan
and Superior. Using the EPA Research
Vessel, Lake Guardian, as the sampling
platform, the EPA Great Lakes National
Program Office collected samples for
indicators of trophic status in the offshore
water for both lakes. Twelve EMAP grid
locations were sampled in Lake Michigan
and twenty-five in Lake Superior for
response, exposure, and habitat indica-
tors. Analysis of chemical parameters is
near completion; biological samples are
expected to take several months to
process. In an effort to coordinate with
EMAP, the Canadian Centre for Inland
Waters expanded their regular sampling
schedule for the Upper Lakes Surveillance
Program to include nine EMAP offshore
base grid locations in Lake Superior.
For more information on EMAP-Great Lakes
activities, contact Steve Hedtke at (218) 720-56/0.
Surface Waters
The 1991 EMAP Surface Waters North-
eastern Lakes Pilot Study demonstrated
the approach and design for selecting and
sampling a representative set of lakes to
be used in describing lake condition. The
first pilot focused on indicators related to
trophic condition. Additional biological
indicators (fish, macro-invertebrates,
riparian birds, etc.) were evaluated
and added to the 1992 Lake
Pilot. Several academic
organizations have been
involved in the Northeastern
Lakes Pilot effort:
• The col leges
of Environmental
Sciences and
Forestry at the State
University of New
York, Syracuse
provided field crews
via a cooperative
agreement with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. [The
1992 Northeastern lakes Pilot was
conducted as a cooperative effort
between EPA (ORD, Regions I and II)
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service].
• The Harvard Museum of comparative
zoology verified fish specimens from
the 1991 Lake Pilot; the specimens
will be incorporated into the
museum's collection of archives. This
cooperative effort continued during
the 1992 Lake Pilot and will be
expanded to other museums in future
pilot projects.
• Dartmouth college evaluated
zooplankton samples from the 1991
Northeastern Lakes Pilot in order to
determine the suitability of this group
of animals to serve as indicators of
biological integrity in lakes. Analyses
confirm that results of previous
investigations can be generalized to
broader groups of lakes and that
zooplankton show strong promise as
indicators of lake condition.
In conjunction with the 1991 Northeast-
ern Lakes Pilot, the University of Maine
conducted an evaluation of the feasibility
of a riparian bird indicator for lakes. The
study found a strong correlation between
the number of bird species and lake size
and temperature (warm or cold water
fisheries). In addition, the lakes with
moderate levels of human
settlement could be distin-
guished from more intensively
developed lakes based on the
bird assemblages. Riparian
bird data continues to be
collected in the 1992 pilot.
For more information on
EMAP-Surface Waters
activities, contact
Steve Paulsen at
1503) 754-4428.
-------
Estuaries
The EMAP-Estuaries Team is in the
process of defining a new level of
interagency cooperation with the
establishment of the National Atmos-
pheric and Oceanic Administration
(NOAA)/EPA Joint Office of Coastal and
Marine Environmental Quality Monitor-
ing. The joint office is charged with two
specific tasks for the coming year:
• Producing a joint NOAA/EPA report
on the distribution and effects of
toxic contaminants in the Virginian
Province (an area from Cape Cod to
the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay),
and
• Designing an implementation plan
for monitoring the estuaries of the
Carolinian Province (an area from
Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral).
This partnership—actually an extension
of the cooperation that began at the start
of the EMAP-Estuaries Program—will
serve as a model for future EMAP
collaborations.
Cooperation is also evident in regional
demonstration projects. In 1990, EMAP-
Estuaries initiated its first demonstration
project—sampling 217 stations through-
out the estuaries of the Virginian Province.
These efforts continued in 1991 and
demonstration efforts were expanded to
the estuaries of the Louisianian Province
(an area in the Gulf of Mexico from
northern Florida to the Mexican border).
Monitoring continues this summer in both
geographic provinces. Virginian Province
activities are being facilitated by a
consortium of academic institutions (see
"Rhode Island," page 7) involved in
research, sampling, and analysis for the
project. Several academic organizations
also are supporting Lousianian Province
1992 activities:
• Texas A&M University is providing
field crew support and contaminant
analyses for sediments,
• The Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
is providing field crew support and
benthic sample processing, and
• The University of Mississippi is
providing field crew support and fish
tissue contaminant analysis.
In a related endeavor the Louisianian
Province Team presently is working with
the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program's Toxics
and Pesticides Subcommittee to develop a
monitoring plan based on the EMAP
design that allows assessment of State and
local issues.
Several reports that provide more detailed
information on these two demonstration
projects are highlighted in the information
box on page 8. One information product,
the EMAP-Estuaries Geographic Informa-
tion System (CIS) poster, which illustrates
how CIS technology was used in the 1990
Virginian Province Demonstration Project,
received high profile as one of six EPA
CIS presentations exhibited at the
Conference on the Environment (the Earth
Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (figure 6
highlights one-ofthe information panels
from this poster).
For more information on EMAP-Estuaries activities,
contact Dick Latimer at (401) 782-3077
Figure 6. Adapted from the EMAP-Estuaries CIS Poster.
Salinity
Contours were created with mean bottom
salinity values measured during the 1990
Demonstration Project. Salinity values will
be used in the post stratification of results
for many analyses such as benthic biology
and distribution offish biota.
EMAP collects and integrates a variety of
new and existing data for analysis and
assessment.
New Jersey
Delaware
D
D
m
f
Q
D
f
•
S,i Unity
^ p
> 5 —
> 10 —
> 14 —
> 18 —
>22 —
>26
" !>!>'
<= 2 "
<= 5 _
= 10 "
= 14
= 18 .
= 22 "
= 26
-
Oh,!oh,,l,nc
Mcsohaliilr
Pdlvhalinc'
-------
Opportunities for Environmental Scientists in a Multi-disciplinary Research Program
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking scientists with strong leadership abilities and expertise in ecological research,
monitoring, and assessment to join the national Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). EMAP is an innovative,
multi-agency program designed to estimate status and trends in the condition of our Nation's ecological resources. Exemplary scientists
of all levels are needed to support EMAP's technical center in the Research Triangle Park area of central North Carolina. Applicants
should possess technical proficiency in terrestrial, freshwater, marine, and/or landscape ecology; experience with multiple-resource
integration and assessment is also desirable.
EMAP-Center provides a stimulating research environment with many opportunities for scientists:
• Access to area research universities and science facilities
• Interaction with the national and international scientific community
• Availability of funds and research support that allow senior scientists to remain active in their research fields
• Leadership role in an innovative ecological research, monitoring, and assessment program.
To request more information, please write
Edward A. Martinko, Director
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (RD-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
The EMAP Monitor is prepared by EMAP staff in EPA's Office of Research and Development. The EMAP Monitor is intended to inform
interested agencies and individuals of current activities and findings from the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
If you currently do not receive the Monitor and would like to be added to the distribution list (or know of others who might be inter-
ested), please complete the form below. Please also use the form to inform us of any change of address. Return to Dorothy Williams,
EMAP Monitor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (G-72), 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268.
Name:
Affiliation:
Address:
Please check the appropriate box:
Q I am interested in receiving the EMAP Monitor.
Please add my name to the distribution list.
Q I am no longer interested in receiving the EMAP
Monitor. Please remove my name from the
distribution list.
Q Please note my change of address.
Name:
Affiliation:
Address:
Please check the appropriate box:
am nterese n recevng e onor.
Please add my name to the distribution list.
I am no longer interested in receiving the EMAP
Monitor. Please remove my name from the
distribution list.
Please note my change of address.
-------
United States EPA 620/N-92/001 BULK RATE
Environmental Protection Office of Research and Development POSTAGE & FEES PAID
Agency (RD-680) EPA
Washington, D.C 20460 PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
------- |