United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/620/R-93/012
October 1993
V>EPA I Program Guide
!!!====={£ m ==:
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
-------
EPA/620/R-93/012
October 1993
Environmental Monitoring And
Assessment Program Guide
Edited by
Kent W. Thornton
FTN Associates, Ltd.
Little Rock, AR
D. Eric Hyatt
EMAP Research and Assessment Center
Research Triangle Park, NC
Cynthia B. Chapman, ELS
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
Corvallis, OR
EMAP Research and Assessment 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
-------
October 1993 The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Abstract
The Program Guide for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) describes
an interagency, interdisciplinary program that will contribute to decisions on environmental protection and
management by integrating research, monitoring, and assessment. EMAP's strategies are based on social
values and policy-relevant questions as well as rigorous science. EMAP will estimate the current status,
trends, and changes in indicators of the condition of the Nation's ecological resources at regional scales of
resolution with known confidence. EMAP will estimate the geographic coverage and extent of the Nation's
ecological resources with known confidence. EMAP seeks to understand associations between selected
indicators of natural or human-induced stresses and ecological condition. EMAP will provide annual
statistical summaries and periodic assessments of the Nation's ecological resources.
Key words:
environmental monitoring, indicators (biology), ecological indicators, ecological assessment,
ecological risk assessment, environmental assessment, environmental policy, environmental indicators,
human ecology, United States-ecology, USEPA-EMAP
Preferred citation:
Thornton, K.W., DE. Hyatt, and C.B. Chapman, eds. 1993. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program Guide. EPA/620/R-93/D12, Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program,
EMAP Research and Assessment Center.
Notice:
The information in this document has been funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under contract #68-DO-0093 to Versar Inc., contract #68-C8-0006 to ManTech Environmental
Technology Inc., and interagency agreement #DW89934790 to Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. It
has been subject to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication
as an EPA document
u
-------
Program Guide October 1993
Preface
This Program Guide describes the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)--its
goals, objectives, approaches, and important elements~in mostly nontechnical language. The document
addresses a cross-section of readers from academic scientists to Federal resource managers to decision
makers responsible for environmental protection and management. The goals, objectives, and approaches
of many large Federal programs are difficult to understand because the scale and magnitude of the problems
being addressed requires complex solutions. This difficulty increases when a program spans multiple
agencies and disciplines and when these groups adapt terms to fit their unique meanings. This Program
Guide evolved from discussions with individuals who made the details of EMAP clear as viewed from many
different professional perspectives and agencies, including Federal, State, and academic scientists and
engineers; EPA Program and Regional Office personnel; administrative staff in other agencies;
Congressional staff members; the EPA Science Advisory Board; and the National Research Council's
Committee to Review the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. Their contributions and
efforts improved this Program Guide.
Requests for additional information on EMAP should be directed to: EMAP Director, Office of
Modeling, Monitoring Systems and Quality Assurance, RD-680, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M. Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
in
-------
October 1993 The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Acknowledgements
While many EPA staff, cooperators, and consultants reviewed and contributed to the document,
the following individuals made substantial contributions: Daniel A. Vallero, Atmospheric Research and
Exposure Laboratory, EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC; Judith Lear, ManTech Environmental Technology,
Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC; Gary E. Saul, FTN Associates, Ltd., Little Rock, AR; Peter Van Voris,
Battelle Laboratories, Washington, B.C.; Andy Plymale, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
WA; and EPA personnel Harold Kibby, Carol Finch, Anthony Olsen, and Peter Principe. The Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program Guide also benefitted greatly from reviews by the EPA Science
Advisory Board. Contributions from these individuals are gratefully acknowledged.
IV
-------
Program Guide October 1993
Contents
Abstract ii
Preface iii
Acknowledgements iv
Contents v
Figures vi
Tables vi
1 — Introduction 1
2 — History 2
3 — Ecological Risk Assessment Managing For Results 3
4 — EMAP: Monitoring For Results 4
Goals and Objectives 4
Values and Questions 5
5 — EMAP's Integrated Approach 8
Ecological Indicators 8
Types of Indicators 8
Indicator Strategy 9
Sampling Design 9
Resource Monitoring 11
Agroecosystems 11
And Ecosystems 11
Estuaries 12
Forests 12
Great Lakes 13
Surface Waters 14
Wetlands 14
Landscape Ecology 16
Assessment 16
Ecological Risk Assessment and EMAP 17
Cross-cutting Activities 18
Integration and Assessment 18
Program Coordination 19
Implementation 19
Pilot and Demonstration Projects 19
Estuaries Demonstration Project 20
Planning 20
Review 20
Design 20
Sampling and Analysis 20
Regional Implementation 20
6 — Reporting Results 22
Data .. . 22
Annual Statistical Summaries 22
Assessments 22
7 — Measures Of Success 23
8 — Interagency Cooperation and Partnerships 24
9 — Remaining Challenges 25
Glossary , -_- 26
-------
October 1993 The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
References 32
Index 34
Figures
Rgure 1. Conceptual model of EMAP indicator development and implementation strategy 9
Figure 2. Baseline EMAP grid for the United States 10
Figure 3. Distribution of agroecosystems in the United States 11
Figure 4. Aggregated arid ecoregions of the United States 12
Figure 5. Biogeographical provinces of estuaries 13
Figure 6. Forest vegetation of the United States , 13
Figure 7. The Great Lakes 14
Figure 8. Surface waters 15
Figure 9. Distribution of wetlands in the United States 15
Figure 10. Example of a landscape mosaic 16
Figure 11. Complexity of activities on the assessment continuum 17
Figure 12. Framework for ecological risk assessment 17
Figure 13. Proposed regional implementation of EMAP 21
Tables
Table 1. Examples of policy-relevant questions to be addressed in EMAP 6
Table 2. Examples of policy-relevant questions that are not appropriate for EMAP 7
VI
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
1 — Introduction
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) is an interdisciplinary, interagency program being
designed and initiated through the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and
Development. The program's objectives require that EMAP be
an interagency program in which EPA is but one of the
participants. The scale of this research, monitoring, and
assessment program and its associated supporting data and
infrastructure require ongoing, active participation and
involvement by many Federal agencies, such as the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and
Forest Service; the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park
Service, and Geological Survey; the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; and others. (EMAP's
collaborative efforts with these agencies are described in the
Resource Monitoring Section.)
EMAP demonstrates EPA's ongoing efforts to change the
way it does business: to inject science more prominently into
the decision-making process and to focus its resources on those
problems that pose the greatest risk to the environment. It has
already begun to make scientific contributions to the decision-
making process. These contributions will continue to accrue
with time. EMAP addresses the large scale, longer-term
environmental problems occurring at regional and national
scales, and it thereby complements the local scale, shorter term
monitoring programs within State and local agencies. EMAP
should be viewed as an integral part of our environmental
protection and management activities in the 21st century, not
as a short-term solution to current problems.
This document describes EMAP in nontechnical language
explaining why the program continues to be implemented, what
constitutes its goals and objectives, and how EMAP's
approaches differ from, yet complement, existing monitoring
programs. This report also discusses the role of EMAP in
ecological risk assessment, and it highlights scientific
advancements needed to achieve EMAP's goals and objectives.
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
2 — History
ERA'S mission is to protect human health and the
environment, as an integrated whole, from the adverse effects
of pollutants and other environmental stresses. Traditionally,
EPA emphasized risks to human health and focused on
environmental problems at the local scale: the individual point
source of pollution, a single landfill, a stream reach, or a lake.
Historically, potential effects were evaluated using a chemical-
by-chemical approach, examining how individual chemicals
affected specific biological species or threaten human health.
To fulfill its mission, EPA must take a long-range view of the
environment and its capacity to sustain ecosystems and their
species, including the human species. In the two decades since
Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act and
the President established EPA, the Nation has witnessed steady
environmental progress. Many of the issues that motivated the
creation of the Agency in 1970 have been addressed:
discharges of raw sewage and toxic chemicals into lakes,
rivers, and estuaries; high emissions of lead from automobiles;
irresponsible disposal of hazardous wastes in garbage dumps;
severe threats from DDT to the bald eagle and other birds of
prey; and high emissions of SO2 and NOX.
Since the first Earth Day in 1970, however, more insidious
and troublesome problems have become evident; we can no
longer frequently associate current environmental problems
with an easily identified, single pollution source. We know that
individual chemicals and organisms do not exist in isolation
but interact with other physical, chemical, and biological
factors to produce ecosystem responses. We have begun to
recognize and measure the cumulative effects of years of local
and regional pollutant exposure. Continuing, persistent, and
cumulative effects of pollution have become evident not only
at the local scale but also can be measured or estimated on
regional, continental, and global scales. Moreover, the yearly
costs of averting harm and repairing existing damage to the
environment are growing rapidly. By the end of this decade,
such costs are expected to exceed 3% of the Nation's gross
national product.
Mindful of these costs, the Nation must address these
emerging environmental threats in order to preserve the
ecological resources on which we depend. Limited financial
resources, however, dictate that we set priorities. It has become
important to identify the most serious environmental risks, that
is, to use available information as well as new research data to
distinguish chemical and nonchemical stresses that might
produce adverse ecological effects. As a result, Federal
agencies, Congress, and the public need accurate data to
determine which risks pose the greatest threats. In addition,
once we undertake corrective or preventive actions to reduce
an environmental risk, we then need to monitor our efforts and
confirm that we are achieving the intended results.
In 1987, EPA examined existing and future environmental
problems facing the Agency and evaluated the risks these
problems posed to the environment. Unfinished Business: A
Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems indicated
the highest risks to the environment were not posed by local
problems-such as sewage discharge into a single stream-but
by regional and global problems such as nonpoint source
pollution, habitat alteration, global climate change (EPA 1987).
In a 1988 report, its Science Advisory Board (SAB)
recommended that EPA reshape its strategy for addressing
environmental problems in the next decade and beyond and
"plan, implement and sustain a long-term monitoring and
research program" (SAB 1988,5). Several specific
recommendations suggested EPA ought to (1) implement a
monitoring program to report on status and trends in
environmental quality; (2) explicitly develop and use
monitoring systems to identify emerging environmental
problems and recommend actions to address them; (3) place
greater emphasis on the development and use of ecological
indicators; and (4) expand Agency efforts to prevent or reduce
environmental risk. SAB's direction was clean EPA should
focus additional attention on ecological risk assessment,
monitoring, and management.
Shortly after William Reilly became EPA Administrator, he
asked the Science Advisory Board to review Unfinished
Business and the issue of comparative ecological risk
assessment In September 1990, SAB published Future Risk:
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection,
and it recommended that EPA "attach as much importance to
reducing ecological risk as it does to reducing human health
risk; improve the data and. . .analytical methodologies that
support the assessment, comparison and reduction of different
environmental risks; [and].. .target its environmental protection
efforts on the basis of opportunities for the greatest risk
reduction" (SAB 1990, 6).
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
3 — Ecological Risk Assessment: Managing For Results
Based on the Science Advisory Board's advice, EPA has
embarked on a process that will fundamentally change the
way it does business; it is attempting to focus its attention on
environmental problems that pose the greatest risks rather
than those that have received the greatest public attention
(Roberts 1990). The underlying EPA theme for the future is
"Manage for Results." This process involves conducting
comparative ecological risk assessments so that the highest
priority risks can be identified and addressed.
Ecological risk assessment evaluates the likelihood that
adverse effects might occur as a result of exposure to one or
more stressors, which are agents causing changes to
ecosystems (RAF 1992). Biological, chemical, or physical
components of the ecosystem might be affected.
Historically, the Agency's risk assessment program
focused primarily on evaluating risks to human health. While
there are similarities to human health risk assessments,
ecological risk assessments differ significantly in the scale
of effects and in the variety of stressors. EPA, through its
Risk Assessment Forum, recently developed a Framework
for Ecological Risk Assessment that describes the basic
elements of an approach for evaluating scientific information
on the adverse effects of stressors on the environment (RAF
1992).
To provide the information needed to "Manage for
Results" and contribute to comparative ecological risk
assessment, however, requires a different approach to
ecological monitoring.
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
4 — EMAP: Monitoring For Results
To "Manage for Results" requires EPA to "Monitor for
Results." EMAP evolved from discussions about basic
elements needed in a monitoring program to contribute to
decision making on environmental protection and
management These elements included
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.
7) An interagency, interdisciplinary program in which
ah* participating agencies are cooperative partners in
the research, monitoring, and assessment efforts.
To contribute effectively to decisions on environmental
protection and management requires that the important social
values associated with our ecological resources and the
related policy questions be identified and clearly stated.
Then, through the establishment of an assessment framework
designed to be scientifically rigorous, appropriate indicators
are selected and monitored to provide the types of
information required to address these questions. Measuring
these indicators within a network of random 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 a "question-specific" design. 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 that 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,
an ecological research, monitoring, and assessment program
has been set in motion with a regional and national scope,
which is integrated and scientifically-based, to address
important questions about our environment.
Goals and Objectives
EMAP's goal is to monitor and assess the condition of
the Nation's ecological resources, thereby contributing 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 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 and abiotic, that can
provide quantitative information on the condition of
ecological resources. EMAP emphasizes biological
indicators in contrast to the traditional approach of
monitoring chemical and physical indicators.
Currently, the Nation's ecological resources are
defined by the following categories: agroeco-
systems, arid ecosystems, estuaries, forests, the
Great Lakes, surface waters (both lakes and
streams), and wetlands. EMAP also will monitor
and assess these resources on the landscape so
Landscape Ecology is important. Status describes
the distribution of scores for condition indicators
with relation to the reference condition associated
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
with specific social values or desired uses for a
specified time. Trends describes the changes in the
distribution of scores for condition indicators for
multiple time periods. Changes are differences in
the distribution of measurements of condition
indicators between two tune 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.
National geographic coverage of multiple ecological
resources has been a high priority among agencies
and within the scientific community for several
years. In conjunction with other agencies, EMAP
will provide the geographic coverage for the
Nation's ecological resources as spatial displays at
specific scales of resolution, for example, satellite
Thematic Mapper images. EMAP will estimate the
extent or amount of a resource, such as acres of
forest, miles of streams, or numbers of lakes. Each
of these estimates will be presented with known
confidence. EMAP also will monitor and assess
changes and trends in geographic coverage and
extent.
3) Seek associations between selected indicators of
natural and anthropogenic stresses and indicators
of condition of ecological resources.
EMAP will seek associations or relationships
between selected indicators of natural as well as
anthropogenic (human-induced) stresses and
ecological condition to identify factors that might
be contributing to the condition which the
ecological indicators express. The stressors
proposed for EMAP are selected to aid in
interpreting the indicators of ecological condition.
To monitor a stressor, EMAP requires that an
explicit relationship exist between the selected
indicator of stress and the indicator of condition or
that there is a testable hypothesis regarding this
relationship.
4) Provide annual statistical summaries and periodic
assessments of the Nation's ecological resources.
EMAP's information will be made readily and
quickly available to those individuals, organizations
and agencies that 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. In
addition, periodic assessments will provide a more
detailed interpretation or translation of the results
into answers for specific questions from users and
decision makers.
These objectives support EMAP's goal and seek to
provide scientific information useful to decision makers. In
turn, decisions regarding environmental protection and
management require that the important social values
associated with our ecological resources and related policy
questions be identified and clearly stated.
Values and Questions
There are three general perspectives on values that relate
to ecological resources:
1) Social, which incorporates the broadest spectrum of
environmental goals and values desired for our
ecological resources and expressed through the
legislative process;
2) Administrative, which includes the management-
regulatory agencies and their legislative mandates to
protect and manage both specific ecological
resources and the total environment; and
3) Scientific, which incorporates scientific questions,
principles, and knowledge of ecological structure
and function with an understanding of ecological
responses to human disturbances.
The decision-making process requires that available
information address values and questions based on these
perspectives. EMAP's results should provide useful
information to legislative, administrative, scientific, and
public users. To serve this diverse group, EMAP must
continually focus on environmental values and questions
important to them. EMAP will not establish environmental
policy, regulatory, or management strategies, but it must
provide information in a format that can contribute to
forming and evaluating these strategies. This interactive
process requires continuous feedback with users to provide
scientific information and procedures useful in answering
their questions.
Identifying values and the associated questions relevant to
these perspectives is an important first step in the EMAP
process because it provides a direct link to the user. Values
desired for ecological resources typically fall into three
categories:
1) Sustainability—maintaining the desired uses of
these resources over time.
2) Productivity—net accumulation of plant and
animal matter, for example, food, timber, natural
production.
3) Aesthetics—retaining the natural beauty of the
landscape.
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Overall, several policy-related questions have guided the
EMAP design, implementation, and assessment activities that
relate to these values. These questions also illustrate the
scale and level of resolution at which EMAP information
will be used:
1) What is the current extent of our Nation's
ecological resources, and what is their geographic
coverage?
2) What proportion of the resources are currently in
acceptable (i.e., nominal), marginal, or unacceptable
(i.e., subnominal) ecological condition?
3) What proportion of the resources are degrading or
improving, in what regions, and at what rates?
4) Are these trends associated with patterns and trends
in environmental stresses?
5) Are adversely affected resources improving in
response to the cumulative effectiveness of control
and mitigation programs?
EMAP is designed to address questions that relate to
attributes of a population (in a statistical sense) of an
ecological resource. The EMAP focus is not on individual
lakes or streams or forest stands in a region but rather on
characteristics of interest for the total number of lakes, miles
of streams, and acres of forest in a region. This focus is
compatible with the scale at which Federal programs
typically operate. Federal agencies are responsible for
protecting and managing ecological resources, such as forests
(U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service), wetlands
(Fish and Wildlife Service), and surface waters (EPA) at
regional and national scales. In addition, national decisions
are made on the extent and magnitude of an environmental
problem across ecological resources not on a single lake or
stream or grassland.
The effect of acid rain on aquatic resources illustrates the
importance of knowing the condition of a population of lakes
nd streams at regional and national scales. One of the
important questions addressed in the initial phases of the
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program was "What
proportion of lakes and streams are currently acidic and what
proportion are at risk because of acidic deposition?" Early
estimates of the magnitude of the problem were based on
anecdotal information concerning a few acidic lakes; this
limited information had special interest groups polarized at
both extremes, considering the acid rain problem either a
major environmental catastrophe or a trivial issue. Then,
EPA's National Surface Water Survey (Linthurst et al. 1986,
Landers et al. 1987, Kaufmann etal. 1988) provided
estimates, with known confidence, of the proportion of the
target population of lakes and streams in selected U.S.
regions that were chronically acidic or that were potentially
at risk from acidic deposition. Estimates revealed that, while
there were no acidic lakes in the West, almost one-quarter of
the lakes (23% ± 4%) in some sub-regions in the East were
acidic and about 40% (38% ± 4%) of the lakes in this same
subregion were sensitive to acidic deposition (Linthurst et al.
1986). These resource population estimates contributed to
legislative decisions on acidic deposition and assisted in
putting the acid rain issue in perspective.
Formulating 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
assessment questions that EMAP might address are presented
in Table 1.
Table 1. 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 oligotrophic?
What proportion of wetlands have less than the expected number
and composition of native plant species?
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?
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 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.
What proportion of arid ecosystems are experiencing desertification? EMAP assesses the cumulative effects of multiple stressors.
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
Information collected, analyzed, and presented as part of
EMAP will have similar relevance to regional and national
policy issues. Many of the policy-relevant questions will be
specific to a resource, but many questions-such as
biodiversity-encompass environmental problems and issues
that cross ecological resources and media.
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.
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 this scale can
be addressed more effectively by existing or locally designed
monitoring networks. EMAP is not a cause-effect, process-
oriented program. It is not designed to determine if any
particular ecological effect is caused by a specific pollutant or
to describe the dynamics of any particular ecological process,
such as nutrient cycling. Based on the assessment of patterns
and trends in ecological condition, however, EMAP will
generate hypotheses that can be tested in other research efforts.
EMAP will not replace, and does not intend to supplant,
existing monitoring programs that focus on compliance or
resource management; EMAP will supplement and add value
to the information being obtained from these programs. Typical
questions EMAP will not address are listed in Table 2.
To provide information related to social values and answer
policy-relevant questions requires a different approach to
ecological monitoring and assessment, an approach that builds
on and complements existing monitoring programs.
Table 2. 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 (the
northeastern and mid-Atlantic regions) 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.
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
5 — EMAP's Integrated Approach
EMAP will compare the status and trends in ecological
condition among multiple ecological resources and assess the
cumulative effects of environmental stresses on these
resources. EMAP will assess these effects by integrating
measurements within and across different classes of ecological
resources, for example, bottomland hardwoods, small estuaries,
rivers, deserts. Integration refers to 1) combining, Unking, and
analyzing data from all relevant ecological resources, media,
and monitoring networks; 2) ensuring the quality of these data
at an acceptable level; and 3) using these data in ecological
assessments to develop a holistic perspective of the condition
of the Nation's ecological resources and possible factors
contributing to this condition. In addition, EMAP has
developed an integrated strategy for its monitoring and
coordinating components.
All resource groups within EMAP are using compatible
sampling designs, conducting annual field surveys, and
interacting with other agencies that conduct monitoring
programs. Further, EMAP has coordinated activities to ensure
that resource groups follow consistent, compatible, and
comparable strategies for indicator development, information
management, quality assurance, methods development,
logistics, and assessment and reporting. Finally, the concept of
adding value or assessing the information in a policy-relevant
context represents a central theme underlying all EMAP
activities. Certain unique characteristics make EMAP an
integrated program.
Ecological Indicators
To assess status, changes, and trends in the condition and
extent of the Nation's ecological resources, EMAP will
monitor ecological indicators (Bromberg 1990, Hunsaker and
Carpenter 1990, Hunsaker et al. 1990). Indicators are defined
as any characteristic of the environment that can provide
quantitative information on the condition of ecological
resources, magnitude of stress, exposure of a biological
component to stress, or the amount of change in condition.
Ecological principles state that ecosystem responses and
condition are determined by the interaction of all the physical,
chemical, and biological components in the system. Because it
is impossible to measure all these components, EMAP's
strategy will be to emphasize indicators of ecological structure,
composition, and function that represent the condition of
ecological resources relative to social values. Through rigorous
scientific research, EMAP is selecting, developing, and
evaluating indicators that describe the overall condition of
ecological resources; permit the detection of changes and
trends in mis condition; and provide preliminary diagnosis of
possible factors that might contribute to the observed condition,
such as human-induced versus natural stressors. The program
emphasizes the development and evaluation of biological
indicators.
The challenge is to determine which ecological indicators to
monitor. One approach for selecting these indicators starts with
those attributes valued by society and determines which
indicators might be associated with these values. EMAP is also
part of a collaborative effort with EPA Program and Regional
Offices, the Risk Assessment Forum, and other agencies to
identify and associate indicators that can contribute to
ecological risk assessment.
Types of Indicators
EMAP defines two general types of ecological indicators,
condition and stressor indicators. A condition indicator is any
characteristic of the environment that provides quantitative
estimates on the state of ecological resources and is
conceptually tied to a value. There are two types of condition
indicators: biotic and abiotic. Condition indicators relate to
EMAP's first and second objectives: estimating the status,
trends, and changes in ecological condition as well as
estimating the extent of ecological resources. EMAP will
estimate the regional distribution of quantitative values for
each of these indicators within and among ecological resource
categories. All estimates will be accompanied with specified
levels of confidence so the user knows the certainty of the
estimates.
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 human-
induced stressors. Selected stressor indicators will be monitored
in EMAP only when a relationship between specific condition
and stressor indicators are known, or a if testable hypothesis
can be formulated. Monitoring selected stressor and condition
indicators addresses the third EMAP objective of seeking
associations between selected indicators of stress and
ecological condition. These associations can provide insight
and lead to the formulation of hypotheses regarding factors that
might be contributing to the observed condition. These
associations can provide direction for other regulatory,
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
management, or research programs in establishing causal
relationships.
Indicator Strategy
Identifying values and policy-relevant, assessment questions
represents the first step in the ongoing process of selecting
indicators and developing strategies for their evaluation and
use (Figure 1). As they are identified, indicators must be
conceptually related or linked with the social value and must
also provide information to address assessment questions.
Before an indicator can be implemented, however, it must be
explicitly linked with the value. The next step in the EMAP
indicator strategy was, and is, evaluating the literature on
important condition indicators for various ecological resources.
Identify Values
U
Develop Key Assessment Questions
Ji
Identify Existing Indicators or Develop New Indicators
J!
Consider Relevant Stressors
U
Develop Conceptual Models/Evaluate Existing Models
II
Evaluate Condition Indicators
H
Implement Priority Indicators and Reassess on
Periodic Basis
Figure 1. Conceptual model of EMAP indicator development
and implementation strategy.
To identify initial, specific indicators at the start of the
program, scientists, engineers, and public policy analysts
evaluated candidate indicators that had been proposed for
monitoring over the last three decades (Hunsaker and
Carpenter 1990). Draft criteria for indicator selection were
formulated and reviewed, and a final set of criteria was
developed. Each resource group judged its candidate indicators
against these criteria to identify a set of indicators for further
testing and evaluation. Comments from peer reviewers and
from EPA's Science Advisory Board were used to refine the
indicator sets and the EMAP indicator development strategy;
part of considering condition indicators also included
identifying associated stressors. The same process is to be
followed when proposing new indicators to measure.
Then, conceptual models of the relationships among the
condition indicators, values, and possible stressor indicators are
developed for each of the ecological resources. These
conceptual models are useful not only in screening existing
indicators but also in identifying additional indicators for
development and evaluation.
Selected indicators are analyzed by each resource group in
pilot and demonstration projects, refined if necessary, and
evaluated for monitoring at regional and national scales. EMAP
has interacted closely with EPA Program and Regional Offices
and other agencies in evaluating existing data on potential
indicators currently being used by these agencies as well as
indicators proposed for other uses, such as biocriteria.
The complexity of ecological resources requires that
indicators be considered in concert, rather than individually.
Although EMAP has selected some individual indicators, the
program has based its indicator selection on combinations--
suites of indicators—that provide complementary information
on the condition of ecological resources. For example, the
Index of Biotic Integrity (Karr 1991) incorporates an array of
biological measurements from the study of entire fish
communities (e.g., total number of species, number of
individuals, proportion of top carnivores, etc.) to produce an
indicator of condition of fish communities at a sampling site.
Such suites of related indicators provide greater interpretive
power than that provided by analyzing a myriad of individual
indicator measurements.
To provide reliable estimates of ecological condition at
regional and national scales with known confidence, indicator
measurements must be made within an appropriate statistical
sampling design.
Sampling Design
The statistical approach being implemented in EMAP is
similar in concept to other Federal statistical programs or
surveys, such as those conducted by the Census Bureau,
Energy Information Agency, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and
National Agriculture Statistics Service. A principal difference
is that these programs focus on producing estimates of
characteristics for human populations, business establishments,
or agricultural enterprises rather than ecological resource
populations. In contrast, EMAP focuses on producing estimates
of attributes from ecological resource populations such as
prairie pot-hole wetlands, the Great Lakes, grasslands in the
Great Basin, or forest lands in the United States.
Although an ecological survey as comprehensive as EMAP
has never been undertaken, national or regional statistical (i.e.,
probability-based) surveys of particular ecological resources
have been and are being conducted. For example, the Fish and
Wildlife Service conducts a statistical survey~The National
Wetlands Inventory-every 10 years to estimate the extent of
the Nation's wetlands. The Forest Health Monitoring Program
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service estimates
the condition of timber in selected forests throughout the
United States.
To address EMAP's objectives, regional populations of all
major ecological resources in the United States are emphasized,
not individual ecosystems. The design must permit estimates
of the condition, geographic coverage, and extent for regional
populations of ecological resources. The design must permit
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
population estimates to be provided with known confidence--
statistically defensible, quantitative statements of uncertainty
must accompany the estimates. EMAP requires these estimates
not only for a specific point in time (current status) but also
repeated over time (trends). The design must enable
associations (empirical relationships) to be investigated
between condition indicators and stressor indicators for the
ecological resource.
To achieve its objectives, EMAP uses a probability-based
sampling design over time and space to develop a cost-
effective monitoring program (Overton et al. 1990). EMAP's
sampling design uses a number of features that have been
tested in other probability-based environmental surveys:
The EMAP grid emphasizes geographic coverage and
ensures that each ecological resource can be sampled in
proportion to its geographic presence. It does not require or
assume that ecological resources are distributed systematically.
Because different ecological resources are not necessarily
distributed similarly, sampling requirements for selected
indicators may differ for different resources or resource
classes. The power and flexibility of the EMAP design,
however, accommodates the use of different sampling
strategies among and within ecological resource types to
estimate status, changes, and trends in indicators of ecological
condition of the Nation's resources. Sections below describe
each ecological resource category to provide specific
information on the target populations of each ecological
Figure 2. Baseline EMAP grid for the United States.
• Samples are spatially distributed over the geographic
distribution and extent of the resource.
* Visits to survey sites over several years are repeated,
with provisions not to visit every site every year.
• Scientific and cost advantages are derived from
selecting probability-based samples in two stages, that
is, by taking an initial sample, then selecting a
subsample from the initial sample.
Building on the experience gained from previous surveys,
EMAP's sampling design incorporates all of these features,
ensuring sample coverage in both time and space. EMAP's
design uses a specific pattern for repeated sampling of sites
over time and a systematic grid structure as a basis for
distributing the sample sites over space. These two basic
procedures are implemented jointly, not independently, to
further enhance the cost-effectiveness of the selected approach
(Overton et al. 1990). A systematic grid superimposed over the
entire United States (Rgure 2) is the basic structure used to
implement the sampling design over time and space.
resource category included in EMAP and the general sampling
strategies used. Because the scope of EMAP is national, the
number of samples required annually to estimate condition
with known confidence for any particular resource group may
be prohibitively expensive to obtain. EMAP's sampling design
accommodates economy with a strategy of sampling
approximately one-quarter of all monitoring sites annually;
therefore, in four years, EMAP will have collected samples at
all the sites selected at a national scale. Then, the program
will repeat sampling in year 5 at sites first visited in year 1.
There are several advantages to a design which can
accommodate this type of sampling schedule through time.
Each year's sample provides, in itself, both national and
regional estimates of condition, with uniform spatial coverage.
Revisiting sites on a 4-year cycle provides sufficient time for
recovery from possible measurement stress. Sampling
approximately one-quarter of all sites each year makes the
EMAP approach cost-effective without compromising power
10
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
to detect changes in condition. The design is well adapted for
detecting persistent, gradual change on diverse subpopulations
and for representing patterns in indicators of ecological
condition.
Resource Monitoring
EMAP will monitor all the major categories of ecological
resources:
1) Agroecosystems,
2) Arid Ecosystems,
3) Estuaries,
4) Forests,
5) The Great Lakes,
6) Surface Waters, and
7) Wetlands.
It will also conduct research on the interaction of these
resources on the landscape (Landscape Ecology). EMAP's
eight resource groups are named after these resource categories
(including Landscape Ecology).
For these resource categories, EMAP will monitor selected
indicators of ecological condition and will collect and compile
data on selected stressor indicators, including climate and
atmospheric deposition. The program will integrate its
monitoring of indicators within and across resources, such as
forests, surface waters, and wetlands, so that researchers can
detect changes in indicators of ecological condition at large
spatial scales over time. Large-scale integration represents one
of the greatest technical challenges in EMAP. The following
sections describe each resource category and its target
population in EMAP. Since definitions of resources vary
among sources, areas of extent overlap, and EMAP's national
data sets are not yet assembled, the numbers cited below need
to be considered with their limitations kept in mind.
Agroecosystems
An agroecosystem is a dynamic association of crops,
pastures, livestock, other flora and fauna, soils, water, and the
atmosphere. Agroecosystems are contained within larger
landscapes, which include uncultivated land, drainage
networks, rural communities, and wildlife.
The target population includes all agricultural lands and
adjoining natural areas in the United States, an area that
comprises between 43% (USDA 1992, 355) and 46.0% (CIA
1992, 358) of total terrestrial acres in the 50 States (Figure 3).
The sampling frame for agroecosystems will incorporate
sampling units currently used by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service.
EMAP's Agroecosystems Resource Group plans to collect
data through surveys of growers and by field sampling of
cropland to include annual crops, pastures, woody perennial
crops, adjacent natural areas, and farm ponds. (Uncultivated
rangeland, however, will be studied by Arid Ecosystems.)
EMAP performs agroecosystems monitoring in close
cooperation with several U.S. Department of Agriculture
agencies, such as Agricultural Research Service, National
Agricultural Statistics Service, and Soil Conservation Service.
Arid Ecosystems
EMAP defines arid ecosystems as terrestrial systems
characterized by a climate regime where the potential
evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation, annual precipitation
ranges from less than 5 to 60 cm, and air temperatures range
from -40 to 50°C. The vegetation is dominated by woody
shrubs, grasses, cacti and leaf succulents, and drought resistant
trees.
The target population for arid ecosystem sampling includes
the arid, semi-arid, and subhumid regions of the conterminous
United States. Arid ecosystems include desert scrub, prairies,
Land in Farms: 1987
Dot = 100,000 acns
w
Figure 3. Distribution of agroecosystems in the United States (Bureau of the Census 1987).
11
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
grasslands, chaparral, open woodland, alpine tundra, arctic
desert, and riparian communities but excludes intensively
managed agriculture such as irrigated farmlands.
Many individuals think of arid ecosystems only as deserts.
As noted above, however, arid ecosystems include a diverse set
of resource classes. Arid ecosystems once comprised nearly
40% of the United States (Figure 4). As with wetlands, arid
ecosystems have been converted into other land uses such as
agriculture, especially in the subhumid region. Arid
ecosystems are now estimated to comprise approximately 25%
of the land in the United States (CIA 1992, 358). Although
there has been a decline in the proportion of arid ecosystems,
they still comprise a significant portion of the landscape,
particularly in the West, where almost 65% of the area is
under state and federal management
Estuaries
EMAP defines estuaries to be semi-enclosed bodies of water
where freshwater mixes with the seawater. Estuaries include
fjords, bays, inlets, sounds, lagoons, and tidal rivers. The outer
boundary is the coastal waters, and the inland boundary for
estuaries is the limit of tidal influence.
The target populations for these resources are all of the
Nation's estuarine waters (Figure 5). EMAP has adopted the
same seven coastal regions, or biogeographical provinces used
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Terrell 1979).
EMAP's Estuaries Resource Group is developing the
estuarine monitoring strategy cooperatively with National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. EMAP has divided
estuaries into the following classes: large estuaries, large tidal
rivers, and small estuarine systems (including bays, inlets, and
Arid
Semi-Arid
Subhumid Plains
Figure 4. Aggregated arid ecoregions of United States (Omernik and Gallant 1990 [map 1989]).
In monitoring arid ecosystems, EMAP will use a
hierarchical biogeographic classification system (Brown et al.
1979) that allows interpretations at multiple levels of biological
organization. EMAP's Arid Ecosystems Resource Group plans
to collect data using both sample-based and remotely sensed
information, for example, satellite imagery, as part of their
indicator research and monitoring strategy. Arid ecosystems are
predominately managed by State and Federal agencies; the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and EPA
cooperate in the research development, monitoring, and
assessment of arid ecosystems.
tidal creeks and rivers). Large estuaries, such as Chesapeake
Bay, will be sampled from an augmented EMAP grid, large
tidal rivers, such as the Mississippi River, from systematic
grids, and small estuarine systems from a list of all possible
small estuarine systems.
Forests
Forest land is defined as land with at least 10% of its
surface area covered 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).
12
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
Columbian
Califorman
Acadian
Virginian
Carolinian
West Indian
Figure 5. Biogeographical provinces of estuaries (adapted from EMAP 1990).
The target population for EMAP's forest sampling design is
all of the forested land in the United States (Figure 6). Forests
currently cover between 29% (CIA 1992, 358; CEQ 1989, 73)
and 32% (USDA 1992, 458) of the total U.S. land area.
Cooperatively with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
specifically the Forest Service's National Forest Health
Monitoring Program, FJMAP's Forests Resource Group will
monitor indicators of forest resource condition on all forested
sample sites defined on the EMAP systematic grid.
Great Lakes
The Great Lakes resource comprises 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
(Figure 7).
Figure 6. Forest vegetation of the United States (Powells 1965).
13
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Canada
United States
United States
Figure 7. The Great Lakes.
Although the lakes are interconnected, EMAP will consider
each as an independent unit for sampling purposes. The EMAP
grid will identify sample locations within a lake. Resource
classes within a lake include offshore areas, nearshore areas,
harbors and embayments, and contiguous wetlands. Sample
sites for offshore areas will be identified by the EMAP grid;
near-shore areas from an augmented EMAP grid; harbors,
embayments, and wetlands randomly selected from a list of all
these areas.
EMAP's Great Lakes Resource Group works with the
international community, the Canadian government, as well as
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, EPA
Regions, and the surrounding States in the design and testing
of the Great Lakes monitoring program.
Surface Waters
Inland surface waters consist of all the Nation's lakes (other
than the Great Lakes), reservoirs, rivers, and streams. Lakes
are distinguished from wetlands by depth and by size. A lake
is defined as a standing body of water greater than 1 hectare
(about 2.5 acres) 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. Streams (and rivers) will be identified from
stream traces on maps and confirmed by field visits. Streams
are operationally defined as any first or higher order stream
that is represented as a blue line on a U.S. Geological Survey
1:100,000 topographic map.
The target population for Surface Waters resources consists
of all inland lakes (excluding the Great Lakes) and streams in
the United States (Figure 8). Lakes and streams constitute
different resource categories. Initially, lakes and streams will
be subdivided into a portion of the population to be selected
from the EMAP grid (for example, lakes < 500 hectare) and
into another portion that will be selected from a list of all lakes
or streams greater than a certain size (for example, lakes > 500
hectare). Certain lake and stream characteristics, such as
geographic location, elevation, size, length, and ecoregion, will
be used to help classify the resource category. Samples will be
obtained for each lake and stream class to estimate ecological
condition.
EMAP's Surface Waters Resource Group is interacting with
the U.S. Geological Survey to interface EMAP with the U.S.
Geological Survey surface water monitoring networks and the
EPA Office of Water, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
State monitoring programs.
Wetlands
EMAP will use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
National Wetlands Inventory definition of wetlands (from
Cowardin et al. 1979): Wetlands are 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) the
land predominantly supports aquatic plants at least periodically;
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. Wetlands are
characterized and distinguished by soil, hydrology, salinity,
vegetation, and other factors. The variety of common names
for wetlands-marshes, swamps, potholes, bogs, fens, and
pocosins-attest to the diversity of wetland types. In wetlands,
water saturation is the dominant factor determining the nature
of the soil and the types of plant and animal communities
living in the soil and on its surface.
14
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
Figure 8. Surface Waters. .Density of points reflects the relative density of lakes and reservoirs across the
conterminous United States.
The target population for wetland sampling includes all
vegetated emergent wetlands in the United States greater than
one-half hectare (a little larger than 1 acre) (Figure 9). The
EMAP grid will be adequate to determine regional and national
wetlands condition, define trends, and estimate the extent of
common wetland resources. Regional estimates of the rare
wetland resources, however, will require a sampling frame with
finer resolution (Ernst et al. 1993). These sampling units
could be derived by increasing (augmenting) the EMAP grid
density or by listing all the rare wetlands in a region and
sampling from this list frame.
EMAP's Wetlands Resource Group cooperates with the Fish
and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory to design
and implement this EMAP component.
Figure 9. Distribution of wetlands in the United States (adapted from Dahl 1991).
15
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Landscape Ecology
A landscape is defined as a heterogeneous land area
composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems that is
repeated in a similar form throughout the area (Figure 10). Just
as individual physical and chemical elements in ecosystems do
not exist in isolation, ecosystems interact and influence the
condition of adjacent systems. Landscape patterns reflect
ecological processes operating within and among ecological
resources. EMAP's Landscape Ecology Group will study of the
distribution patterns of communities and ecosystems and the
ecological processes that affect those patterns and changes in
pattern and process over time.
condition of resources at a particular time or during a
particular period. The first two EMAP objectives incorporate
this level of complexity.
2) Detection of change—The next level is the capability
to detect changes and trends in selected indicators of
condition and extent. The first two EMAP objectives
incorporate detection of change.
3) Evaluation of the significance of change in
condition—Going beyond the statistical significance
in condition of the previous level are issues of
significance with regard to values. Evaluating the
Figure 10. Example of a landscape mosaic near Millersburg, Ohio.
(Forman and Godron 1986 [photo courtesy of USDA Soil Conservation Service]).
Assessment
Assessment is the process of interpreting and evaluating
EMAP results for the purpose of answering policy-relevant
questions about ecological resources. It includes determining
the fraction of the population that meets a socially defined
value or relating associations among indicators of condition
and stressors. Rigorous science is necessary to the decision
making process, but it is not sufficient. One of the primary
lessons learned from the 10-year National Acid Precipitation
Assessment Program was that applying the scientific process
to decision making requires a continuous emphasis on
assessment (CEQ 1991).
Assessment, however, includes several different levels of
scientific capabilities along a continuum of increasing
complexity (Figure 11). EMAP contributes directly to the first
four levels in the continuum and indirectly to the latter three
levels.
1) Current status—This first step involves measuring
selected indicators to describe the status in ecological
significance of status and trends in resource condition
is the primary function of the assessment component
of EMAP. The fourth EMAP objective focuses on
adding value and significance to changes in condition.
4) Association of change/stress—The fourth level of
complexity is establishing statistical associations
between spatial/temporal patterns in selected
indicators of stressors and condition. The third EMAP
objective emphasizes association of change/stress.
5) Establishment of Causality—Establishing cause-and-
effect relationships between specific changes in
ecological indicators and particular anthropogenic
stresses is a fifth level of complexity. These analyses
include assessing interactions among multiple
anthropogenic stresses and natural variability. EMAP
is not a program to determine cause and effect, but it
should be able to associate the ecological conditions
with possible stressors to guide and direct other
research in determining the causes of these responses.
16
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
\
¥
\
Assessment
Figure 11. Complexity of activities on the assessment
continuum.
6) Predictive Capability—Each of the previous levels
retrospectively utilize historical and current
monitoring data to establish change and association.
Predictive capability is intrinsically prospective and
requires the development of predictive tools that go
beyond monitoring and retrospective assessment.
EMAP will estimate past and present trends in
resource condition and provide information against
which to compare predictions of ecological conditions.
It is not an anticipatory program and will not predict
future trends.
7) Ecological Risk Assessment—This is a much broader
set of activities that includes problem formulation,
ecological effects and exposure characterization, and
risk characterization (RAF 1992). Ecological risk
assessment represents one of the fundamental ways
EPA is attempting to change the way it does business.
EMAP contributes to formulating problems and
translating scientific information to address these
problems within EPA's framework for ecological risk
assessment
To understand how EMAP contributes to ecological risk
assessments, we must be familiar with the EPA's Framework
for Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological Risk Assessment and EMAP
Recently, through the Risk Assessment Forum, EPA
developed a framework for ecological risk assessment that
describes the basic elements of an approach to evaluate
scientific information on the adverse effects of stressors on the
environment (RAF 1992). The framework consists of three
major phases, namely, problem formulation, analysis, and risk
characterization (Figure 12).
Problem formulation, a planning and goal-setting process,
establishes the scope, objectives, and focus of the risk
assessment Its end product a conceptual model, identifies the
social, societal, or ecological values to be protected, the data
needed, and the analyses to be used (RAF 1992).
The analysis phase develops profiles of the ecological
exposure and ecological effects that result from a stressor.
Exposure profiles characterize the ecosystems in which the
stressor might occur as well as the biological organisms that
might be exposed. It also describes the magnitude and patterns
of exposure through time and across space. An ecological
effects profile summarizes data on the effects of the stressor
and relates them to the assessment endpoints (RAF 1992).
The risk characterization phase integrates the exposure and
effects profiles to estimate ecological risk from the stressor.
Risks can be estimated using a variety of techniques, for
example, comparing individual exposure and effects values,
comparing the distribution of exposure and effects, or using
simulation models. The expression of risk as a qualitative or
quantitative estimate depends on available data; risk
characterization describes ecological risk in terms of the values
to be protected, discusses the ecological significance of the
characterization, describes ecological risk in terms of the
values effects, and summarizes the overall confidence in the
assessment
Environmental
Monitoring
and
Assessment
ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT
— I~N
— \s
— ^
Problem J
Formulation \
Analysis 1
Ri
Charact<
' 1
srization •
Risk
Management
Rgure 12. framework for ecological risk assessment.
17
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
These results form the basis for subsequent risk
management Risk management then evaluates alternative
policy and management practices, their costs, and benefits, in
reducing this risk.
EMAP contributes primarily to problem formulation in this
framework for ecological risk assessment. EMAP has selected
and will continue to choose ecological indicators that can be
directly related to social and societal values. EMAP's
monitoring approach will permit it to determine the annual
status of ecological resources at regional scales of resolution
across the United States. It will monitor changes and trends in
the condition and extent of these ecological resources so that
regional-scale, environmental problems and improvements can
be detected over time. It will contribute to comparative
ecological risk assessment by providing comparable
information on the condition of multiple ecological resources
in a region, such as forests, lakes, streams, wetlands,
grasslands, estuaries, and croplands. EMAP integrates its
activities with other efforts; it will continue contributing to
future activities that assess ecological risk. EMAP represents
a fundamental change in environmental monitoring and
assessment
Cross-cutting Activities
The scope and complexity of EMAP require extensive
coordination across the program if it is to be fully integrated
and successful. Consequently, EMAP places a high priority on
coordination at both the technical and administrative levels.
Integration and Assessment
Seven cross-cutting groups-each lead by a technical
coordinator (TC) who organizes the group's functions across
resource groups-ensure that EMAP scientists can go to the
field and collect consistent and compatible data to answer
important policy-relevant questions. Design and Statistics,
Indicator Development, Landscape Characterization,
Information Management Assessment and Reporting, Logistics
and Methods, and Quality Assurance are the cross-cutting
groups.
The Design and Statistics Group is responsible for the
strategic development of a national monitoring network design,
coordinating and evaluating the implementation of the strategy,
and conducting required environmental statistics research. This
cross-cutting group assists the resource groups in developing
their specific resource designs and statistical methods to
achieve required consistency and compatibility across EMAP.
(Sections beginning on page 10 above provide information on
the EMAP sampling design.)
The Indicator Development Group is responsible for
preparing a strategy for indicator development, developing
procedures for ensuring there are consistent and comparable
indicators among resource groups, and conducting research on
ecological indicator methodologies to support EMAP. The
Indicator Development Group assists resource groups in
•selecting, testing, and evaluating the indicators proposed for
monitoring in their respective groups. This group also reviews
and approves the indicator development plans of each resource
group prior to field implementation, ensures consistency across
the program, and coordinates with other EPA offices, other
agencies, and the scientific and international communities to
advance ecological monitoring.
The Landscape Characterization Group is responsible for
developing and implementing a geographic reference database,
developing a land-use/land cover classification system, and
generating land-use/land cover information for use throughout
the program. Landscape characterization will provide
information on the geographic coverage and extent of the
Nation's ecological resources at specific scales of resolution,
for instance, through Satellite Thematic Mapper images.
The Information Management Group is responsible for
providing the capability to manage EMAP information from
field sampling through the delivery of products to the user. The
intent is for EMAP to deliver quality information in an
accessible form to users quickly and easily. This cross-cutting
group provides direction and guidance on developing an
information management infrastructure which will enable
EMAP to achieve its long-term objectives. The group provides
the hardware, software, documentation support, and system
designs tailored to the needs of the EMAP resource and cross-
cutting groups. The Information Management Group also will
ensure EMAP data are available for access by external EMAP
users and that EMAP can access other data sources.
The primary responsibility to facilitate communication
between environmental decision makers, the public, and EMAP
rests with the Assessment and Reporting Group. It will ensure
that where appropriate, assessments are conducted consistently
across the program, and information is provided in a format
that meets the needs of its users. The Assessment and
Reporting Group also will be involved in developing
assessment techniques, strategies for determining resource
condition (i.e., nominal, marginal, or subnominal) and methods
to accomplish multi-resource assessments.
The Logistics and Methods technical coordinator provides
guidance for planning and implementing field sampling
programs, including the procurement maintenance, and
replacement of material and personnel. The roles of the TC for
logistics are to assist the resource groups in developing their
specific logistics plans, to identify common elements among
resource groups for greater efficiency and cost effectiveness in
field implementation, to coordinate logistics and
implementation activities with resource groups ensuring
continuity and comparability among groups, and to assist with
guidance for all phases of field implementation (from pre-field
planning through sample tracking to public relations). In order
to coordinate methods, this technical coordinator helps
guarantee that needed information is generated through the use
18
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
of the most effective and appropriate biological, chemical and
physical methods. This TC also provides guidance and
direction to ensure the methods used by the resource groups
are consistent across the program and produce comparable
data, ensuring continuity in results as new methods are
incorporated in the program.
EMAP's Quality Assurance (QA) technical coordinator
provides guidance and direction for EMAP's QA activities.
The QA Coordinator develops EMAP's QA program plan, key
QA data policies and procedures, and QA guidance; provides
training to assist resource groups in developing QA project
plans; and reviews and recommends approval of QA plans
prior to pilot, demonstration and full implementation field
work. In addition, the QA Coordinator cooperates with other
agencies on QA issues; provides recommendations to assist in
eliminating weaknesses related to environmental data collection
methods; and conducts independent, follow-up audits and
reviews.
Program Coordination
EMAP's program coordinating activities include five
components: R-EMAP (Regional-EMAP), International
Activities, Arctic Contaminants Research Program, Air and
Climate, and EMAP Central Operations. Moreover, EMAP
personnel collaborate with EPA's Risk Assessment Forum for
ecological risk assessments, EPA's Science Advisory Board for
internal peer review, and the National Academy of Science,
National Research Council for external peer review.
Implementation
Because of scientific, logistical, and funding constraints,
EMAP is being implemented in phases that occur both within
and among ecological resources and among geographic regions.
As a result, implementation generally progresses through four
phases: a pilot project, then a demonstration project, then
regional implementation, and finally national implementation.
Pilot and Demonstration Projects
Pilot projects have two purposes. First, they test and
evaluate whether EMAP indicators are applicable and feasible
for determining current status and detecting changes among
resource types. Pilot projects also help evaluate field and
laboratory methods, identify logistical problems, and note other
design considerations. Each resource group typically begins its
field activities with a pilot project focused on the highest
priority resource class, using a limited number of indicators.
To proceed from the pilot phase to the demonstration project,
the resource group must satisfy five criteria:
1) The indicators being measured are appropriately
related to the ecological values.
2) The assessment questions relate indicator information
to values.
3) The overall sampling approach is logistically and
economically feasible.
4) The sampling design is acceptable within the EMAP
design framework.
5) The indicator variance components have been
quantified.
The demonstration project evaluates the regional
applicability of the sampling design, evaluates a full suite of
proposed indicators, focuses on assessment questions, and
estimates resource condition with known confidence at the
regional scale. Upon completion of the demonstration project,
but prior to moving ahead to full implementation, the resource
groups must ensure the project satisfies the following seven
criteria:
1) Relationships or linkages between ecological values
and the indicators selected to monitor ecological
condition are documented.
2) Assessment questions have been developed and
reviewed by users who have regulatory/management,
policy and social perspectives.
3) An approved quality assurance/quality control
program exists, and the selected indicators can satisfy
the program's data quality objectives.
4) The design permits quantitative statistical estimates of
ecological resource condition to be made with
confidence intervals.
5) Preliminary criteria have been established, through
peer review, for nominal (acceptable), subnominal
(unacceptable) or marginal ranges of resource
condition.
6) Annual statistical summaries can be prepared in a
timely manner following the completion of field
sampling.
7) All approvals are in place with the cross-cutting
groups.
The steps and criteria in this process, along with rigorous peer
review, constitute EMAP's strategy for ensuring that the
program moves forward on a scientifically sound basis.
A critical part of this process is for each resource group to
document the lessons learned during the pilot and
demonstration projects, not just for the implementing resource
group, but also for the benefit of other resource groups. For
example, some of the field and laboratory methodologies as
well as certain logistical and sampling protocols for soil
indicators will be as applicable for Arid Ecosystems and
Agroecosystems as they are for the Forest Resource Group,
which first evaluated them as part of its pilot and
demonstration projects. An example of how the planning and
analysis of a resource group demonstration project was
conducted is provided through a brief description of the
Estuaries Demonstration Project in the Mid-Atlantic Region
(Virginian Province).
19
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Estuaries Demonstration Project
In 1990, the Estuaries Resource Group initiated a
demonstration project in the Virginian Biogeographic Province
(from Cape Code southward to the mouth of the Chesapeake
Bay; see Figure 5) to evaluate the utility of regional-scale
monitoring for assessing the ecological condition of the
Nation's estuaries. The Virginian Province was selected for
several reasons: there is a general public perception that
estuaries in this area are rapidly deteriorating; a considerable
amount of information based on intensive studies of estuaries
in this area exists; and management and regulatory decisions
are being considered for the region. The main objectives of the
demonstration project were 1) testing and evaluating the degree
to which proposed indicators of ecological condition could
distinguish polluted from unpolluted environments, 2)
constructing a data set that would provide the information
required to evaluate the alternative sampling designs for
assessing estuarine condition on regional scales, 3) identifying
and resolving logistical problems associated with conducting a
regional sampling program in estuaries, and 4) completing an
statistical summary of the present status of the estuaries in the
Virginian Province.
Planning
A team of scientists was assembled from within EPA, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
scientific community, and the private sector to design and
conduct the demonstration project. Small workshops were used
to formulate estuarine design options, to characterize estuaries
within the Virginian Province, to identify and screen potential
indicators for measurement during the demonstration project,
and to identify potential logistical problems. Different teams
were organized to pursue different activities, such as compiling
existing data sets for testing different design options through
simulated sampling; evaluating indicator variance and
analytical methodology; evaluating and assessing the
information management requirements of the project; and
preparing research, field, and laboratory methods including
training, quality assurance/quality control, information
management, and logistical plans.
Review
The Estuaries Demonstration Project Plan was peer-
reviewed by a committee of scientists selected by the Estuarine
Research Federation. This committee was asked to continue to
serve as technical advisors through data analyses and
assessment activities. Each of the other planning documents
was peer-reviewed by committees consisting of three to four
scientists. In addition, an example of an interpretive assessment
was prepared so that, before the data were collected,
researchers understood how the information might be analyzed,
presented, and interpreted. This approach resulted in
consideration of a benthic index for summarizing some of the
information, improving the data management and analysis plan,
and clearly identifying policy-relevant questions to be
addressed in the demonstration project.
Design
The estuaries in the Virginian Province region were divided
into three classes:
1) Large estuaries (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Long Island
Sound).
2) Large tidal rivers (e.g., Potomac River, Delaware
River).
3) Small estuarine systems, including bays, and tidal
creeks and rivers (e.g., Barnegat Bay, Elizabeth
River).
The estuaries assigned to each class have similar physical
features and were expected to respond similarly to
environmental stresses.
Sampling sites within each estuarine class were selected
using a statistical procedure that permitted researchers to
quantitatively estimate the proportion of the estuarine area in
poor ecological condition. An augmented EMAP grid served
for the large estuaries, while a spine-and-rib design (a linear
analog of the grid) was used for the large tidal rivers. The
small estuarine systems were sampled from a list frame, where
the estuaries were organized by groups in a list and randomly
selected in a manner to preserve the spatial distribution of
small estuaries throughout the Province. These procedures
illustrated the flexibility of the design, and they also permitted
the uncertainty of these estimates to be calculated. In addition,
embedded in the demonstration project were a number of
special studies, such as evaluation of the index sampling
period, comparison of continuous dissolved oxygen
measurements over the index period, and indicator evaluation
at subjectively selected good and poor sites.
Sampling and Analysis
The Virginian Province Demonstration Project was
conducted during the summer of 1990, and over 95% of all
anticipated samples were collected and analyzed. Data were
analyzed during 1991 and were used to prepare a
Demonstration Project Report, which was scientifically
reviewed by a committee selected by the Estuarine Research
Federation. Certain significant results were reported by the
Virginian Province Demonstration Project:
1) Less than 0.1% ± 2% of all commercially important fish
collected showed obvious signs of external abnormalities.
2) Approximately 21% ± 7% of the area in the province had
bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations below 5 ppm.
3) Small estuarine systems had a higher proportion of toxic
sediments (32% ± 18%) than large estuaries (2% ± 3%).
4) About 14% ± 5% of the Virginian Province area had
observable trash on the surface or bottom.
In addition, the researchers formulated a benthic index that
appears to discriminate between sites considered by
professional judgment to be in either good or poor condition.
This index and these results will be evaluated further, using
results from 1991 sampling activities in the same Province and
comparison with the 1991 Louisianan Province Demonstration
Project A summary of the lessons learned in the
demonstration project, included in the Demonstration Report,
will benefit not only future estuarine monitoring activities but
also other EMAP resource group monitoring activities.
Regional Implementation
Because EMAP is implementing ecological resource
monitoring in a series of phases, it will take several years for
the program to be fully implemented in all regions of the
country and in all resource classes within a resource category.
20
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
The proposed regional priorities for implementation are shown
by resource and standard Federal regions in Figure 13. The
first region listed under each resource group represents the first
region being considered for implementation, the next region is
second and so forth. As noted earlier, each resource group will
conduct a pilot study and demonstration project prior to
implementing the monitoring program in each of the regions.
The names assigned to various regions generally differ among
resource groups to conform with the current or accepted
regional designations of the other cooperating Federal agencies.
Once EMAP is fully implemented, sociopolitical regions will
become arbitrary designations that can be partitioned as
necessary to respond to specific assessment questions from
users of EMAP's information.
Figure 13. Proposed implementation of EMAP by standard Federal regions (1-10) (OMB 1974).
Agroeco systems
Southeast (4)
Mid-Central (7)
Mid-Atlantic (3)
North Central (5)
South Central (6)
West (8,9,10)
Northeast (1,2)
Arid Ecosystems
Mogollan (6, 8, 9)
Great Basin (8, 9,10)
Sonoran (9)
Mohavian (8, 9)
Rains (6. 7, 8)
Chihuahuan (9)
Califomian (9)
Forests
Northeast/North Central (1,2,3,5)
Southeast/Southwest (4, 6)
Rocky Mountain/
Intermountain (7, 8)
Pacific Northwest/
Pacific Southwest (9,10)
Great Lakes
Lake Michigan (5)
Lake Ontario (2)
Lake Superior (5)
Lake Huron (5)
Lake Erie (2, 3, 5)
Near-Coastal Waters and Estuaries
Virginian (1,2, 3)
Louisianian (4, 6)
Carolinian (4)
Acadian (1)
West Indian (4)
Califomian (9)
Columbian (9,10)
Surface Waters
Northeast Lakes (1,2)
Mid-Atlantic Streams (3)
Midwest Lakes (5, 7, 8)
Western Streams (6, 8, 9,10)
Western Lakes (6, 8, 9,10)
Southwest/West Streams (6, 8, 9, 10)
Southeast/Mid-Atlantic Lakes (3, 4, 6)
Midwest Streams (5, 7, 8)
Southeast Streams (4, 6)
Northeast Streams (1, 2)
Wetlands
Coastal - Gulf (6)
Emergent - Midwest (5, 7, 8)
Forested - Southeast (4)
Coastal - Atlantic (1, 2, 3,4)
Emergent - Northwest (8,10)
Forested-Northeast (1,2)
Coastal - Pacific (9,10)
Landscapes
To be determined.
21
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
6 — Reporting Results
For EMAP to contribute to the decision-making process,
program results must be readily accessible, available in a
timely manner, relevant to the assessment questions, and
presented in an understandable and usable format for its
audiences. EMAP must reach a variety of users: Congress,
environmental groups, news media, as well as the scientific
community and other groups. These audiences will include
many individuals who may not fully understand ecology,
sampling statistics, and other disciplines needed to interpret the
scientific or technical details of EMAP's results. Consequently,
the ways or devices by which these results can be most
effectively communicated will differ according to the target
audience. Complex scientific reports provide significant detail
about analytical methods as well as copious presentations of
data and results to meet the needs of the scientific community.
Such technical detail may not be satisfactory to present
information to other EMAP users. EMAP will involve
communication specialists and adopt or develop techniques that
convey useful information to targeted audiences. Decisions
about appropriate media will be based on the accessibility and
usability of those media for the targeted audience. EMAP will
use focus groups to critique proposed presentation material for
clarity, accuracy, and conciseness. Focus groups will be
composed of members representing the scientific community,
environmental decision-makers, policy-makers, and the public.
In general, EMAP will produce three types of products--
verified, aggregated data; annual statistical summaries; and
ecological assessments.
Data
Many users desire access to the data being collected by
EMAP, either the individual, verified sample data or the data
aggregated by specified units. The demand for data in the EPA
STORET and USGS WATSTORE information management
systems attests to the interest many users have in performing
their own assessments. Currently, no information database
includes regional and national ecological data on multiple
ecological resources. Consequently, data are likely to be one of
the earlier products from EMAP; moreover, these products will
continue to be used over time.
Annual Statistical Summaries
EMAP resource groups will produce annual statistical
summaries on selected indicators of condition. These
summaries will contain descriptive statistics such as means,
medians, distributions, ranges, and standard deviations for the
various indicators monitored within the sampling frame or for
selected indices computed from these data. These statistical
summaries are anticipated to be similar to the annual
summaries prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics
Survey, and the USGS Water Data Summaries. The summaries
will be prepared based on the standard Federal regions, and
also can be prepared for biogeographic regions appropriate for
the ecological resource.
Assessments
EMAP will produce regional, multi-regional, or national
assessments that will address the condition of a particular
resource, the condition of selected resources, and the condition
of all resources that occur in a region. EMAP's design permits
assessments on biogeographic regions-geographic areas
characterized by specific plant formations and associated
fauna—or on large political regions such as the standard
Federal regions.
EMAP will produce two basic types of ecological
assessments: periodic condition of ecological resource reports
and special topic assessments to answer new questions or
concerns of users. The principle difference between these
assessments is that assessments for the condition of the
ecological resource are designed as part of EMAP, whereas
special topic assessments address specific issues raised by the
user. Both assessments will assist in the continual
improvement and evolution of the monitoring and research
activities in EMAP. Condition of the ecological resource
reports may be done at the resource-specific level, across
multiple resources, or at the landscape level. Assessment
reports will be produced as collaborative efforts with partner
agencies, by other agencies using EMAP data, and by EMAP
staff. These reports will assess ecological resource condition
and suggest possible factors contributing to this condition, as
well as evaluate the cumulative effectiveness of regulations and
policies in protecting the environment.
22
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
7 — Measures Of Success
Success in EMAP occurs whenever the program's
information contributes to decisions on national and regional
environmental management and protection. The following
factors will be evaluated to determine if EMAP is successfully
contributing to these decisions:
1) Ecological Condition—EMAP will estimate the
condition of ecological resources at regional scales by
focusing principally on biotic indicators. EMAP will
also monitor selected abiotic and stressor indicators to
provide preliminary assessments of possible factors
contributing to both degrading and improving
ecological condition. The biotic indicators must be
related to those values or variables used in the
decision-making process.
2) Quantitative Estimates—A focus on data quality
objectives in monitoring indicators and assessing
ecological condition dictates that EMAP will produce
quantitative estimates with known confidence
intervals.
3) Timeliness—EMAP's monitoring data will be
released to the public in a timely manner. Assessment
reports will be distributed to the public periodically,
and a limited number of "rapid-response" reports will
be produced for users with special needs.
4) Peer-Review—The science and policy peer-review
process by organizations, such as the EPA Science
Advisory Board and the National Research Council at
the programmatic level and advisory groups at the
resource group level, ensures that EMAP information
follows established science and policy principles.
5) Quality—EMAP's quality control process guarantees
that the monitoring data are of the highest quality and
that the assessments represent the most rigorous
interpretations based on the data available at the tune.
EMAP upholds the highest information quality
standards.
6) Outreach—The EMAP assessment framework
requires that EMAP continually seek feedback from
users to ensure that the program is meeting their
changing needs.
7) Communication—Through the latest communication
techniques, EMAP will produce visually appealing,
readable documents and electronic databases that
effectively record and convey its information. This
will be an iterative, evolving process of improving
communication with EMAP users.
From its inception, EMAP has emphasized the importance of
making its products responsive to the information needs of its
users.
23
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
8 — Interagency Cooperation and Partnerships
EMAP collaborates with the Nation's best scientists from
over 12 Federal agencies, 20 States, and 40 universities in
research, monitoring, and assessment activities.
Moreover, EMAP will use existing data wherever possible.
Data and related assistance are already being obtained from the
Bureau of Land Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Geological Survey, Forest Service, Agricultural Research
Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Soil
Conservation Service, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Interacting with these agencies will increase
the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of EMAP and will
strengthen relationships and interactions among agencies.
As EMAP seeks to gather and assess information at regional
and national scales regarding the condition of ecological
resources, it will be able to derive important benefits,
opportunities, challenges, and issues from contacts with local,
State, and regional agencies, and other Federal programs.
These opportunities and challenges permeate all levels of
EMAP's research, monitoring, and assessment. In an effort to
document and enhance these cooperative efforts and its
multiagency nature, EMAP has secured numerous memoranda
of understanding with other agencies. EMAP will continue
these outreach efforts and will extend them to other agencies
and programs.
24
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
9 — Remaining Challenges
Although EMAP has made great strides toward
implementing regional and national networks for monitoring
the Nation's ecological resources, many challenges remain.
Some will require the development of new scientific
methodologies, for example, spatial statistics techniques to
detect regional trends, tools to analyze landscape patterns, and
methods to develop indicators that better characterize structural
and functional ecological attributes. The development of
indices that integrate economic, ecological, and social
perspectives into easily understood measures of the ecological
condition will require considerable research and testing. Issues,
such as how to efficiently sample multiple resource categories
within a selected sample area and how to accommodate site
confidentiality issues associated with sampling specific sites,
will require extensive evaluation and interagency cooperation.
A critical challenge is developing a strategy and methods to
incorporate social, societal, resource management, and
scientific perspectives in the assessment process in order to
develop criteria that distinguish good (nominal), marginal, or
poor (subnominal) ecological condition for various resources.
EMAP continues to collaborate with the Risk Assessment
Forum to develop approaches for comparing the risk to
ecological resources within and among regions.
Communication poses an ongoing challenge. Rubin et al.
(1992) suggest that the failure of NAPAP to influence recent
environmental legislation was because findings were not
reported in a timely fashion and because results and
conclusions were not understandable to policy makers.
Consequently, EMAP will further emphasize communication
by supporting professional interactions within the scientific
community to maintain technical competence and by
encouraging professional exchanges among managers and
decision making communities to maintain policy relevance.
25
-------
October 1993
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. (See related: biotic, condition
indicator, indicator.)
acid rain: 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 particulates.
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. (New
term 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 frequency
distributions, estimates of the extent of nominal or
subnominal condition, comparisons among regions, or
comparisons of data over time.
area frame: A sampling frame obtained by dividing a region
into well-defined, identifiable subregions that in aggregate
comprise the total area of the region of interest. The
subregions are sampling units defined on maps or other
cartographic materials. (See related: frame.)
arid ecosystems: Terrestrial systems characterized by a
climate regime where the potential evapotranspiration
exceeds precipitation, annual precipitation is not less than 5 cm
and 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.
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. (See
related: continuous.)
auxiliary data: Data derived from a source other than EMAP,
that is, from the literature 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.)
baseline grid: The fixed position of the EMAP grid as
established by the position of the hexagon overlaying the
United States. This is distinguished from the sampling grid,
which is shifted a random direction and distance from the
baseline grid.
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
26
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
the relative abundances of different ecosystems, species, and
genes (OTA 1987).
biogeographic province: Geographic areas characterized by
specific plant formations and associated fauna.
biotic: Of or pertaining to living organisms. (New term 1993.
See related: indicator, condition indicator, abiotic
condition indicator, stressor indicator. Biotic condition
indicator replaces: "response indicator.")
10-,
M
00
2ODJQ
X
400.0
Cumulative distribution function
changes: As used in EMAP, the difference in the distribution
of measurements of condition indicators between two time
periods.
condition indicator: A characteristic of the environment that
provides quantitative estimates on the state of ecological
resources and is conceptually tied to a value. (New term
1993; replaces environmental indicator. See related:
indicator, abiotic condition indicator, biotic condition
indicator, stressor indicator.)
confidence interval: An interval defined by two values,
called confidence limits, calculated from sample data using
a procedure which ensures that the unknown true value of
the quantity of interest falls between such calculated values
in a specified percentage of samples. Commonly, the
specified percentage is 95%; the resulting confidence
interval is then called a 95% confidence interval. A one-
sided confidence interval is defined by a single calculated
value called an upper (or lower) confidence limit.
continuous: A characteristic of an attribute that is
conceptualized as a surface over some region. Such
attributes are measured at points and represented by fitted
surfaces or contours.
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, such as Landscape Characterization, Design and
Statistics, Indicator Development, Information Management,
Assessment and Reporting, Logistics, Methods, and Quality
Assurance.
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 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 cdf, and the cdf is called the distribution
function.)
data quality objective (DQO): Quantitative and qualitative
statement of the level of uncertainty one is willing to accept
with regard to a given variable being measured. A data
quality objective may include goals for accuracy,
precision, and limits of detection. It may also include
goals for completeness, comparability, and
representativeness. Data quality objectives are established
before sampling is begun and may influence the level of
effort required to select a sample.
demonstration project: A field research project designed to
provide preliminary estimates of a resource condition for
a single indicator over a standard Federal region for one or
more resource classes. Separate demonstration projects
are defined for each indicator of condition; in a
demonstration project, quality data objectives are stated
for preliminary statistical estimates.
distribution function (See cumulative distribution.)
domain: The areal extent of a resource; the region occupied
by a resource.
27
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
ecology: The relationship of living things to one another and
their environment, or the study of such relationships.
ecological risk assessment: 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).
ecoregion: A geographic area which is relatively homogeneous
with respect to ecological systems (Omernik 1987).
ecosystem: The interacting system of a biological community
and its non-living environmental surroundings.
ecosystem function: Energy flow and material cycling
processes within an ecosystem.
ecosystem structure: Spatial and temporal patterns of
organisms in an ecological system.
environment: The sum of all external conditions affecting the
life, development, and survival of an organism. (See related:
habitat.)
environmental value (See: value.)
estuary: Regions of interaction between rivers and
nearshore ocean waters, where tidal action and river flow
mix fresh and salt water. Such areas include bays,
mouths of rivers, salt marshes, and lagoons. These
brackish water ecosystems shelter and feed marine life,
birds, and wildlife. (See related: wetlands.)
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).
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: In 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.
H
habitat: The place where a population (e.g., human, animal,
plant, microorganism) lives and its surroundings, both living
and non-living.
inclusion probability: The probability of including a specific
sampling unit within a sample.
index: Mathematical aggregation of indicators or metrics.
index period: The period of the year when measurement of
an indicator yields meaningful information.
index sample (See: sample.)
indicator: Characteristics of the environment, both abiotic
and biotic, that can provide quantitative information on
ecological resources. EMAP emphasizes biological
indicators in contrast to the traditional approach of
monitoring chemical and physical indicators. (Revised
definition 1993. Preferred term for environmental indicator,
deleted 1993.)
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. An
indicator is considered a core indicator when it is selected
for long-term, ecological monitoring as a result of its
28
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
acceptable performance and demonstrated ability to satisfy
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, and
the coordination of monitoring efforts, 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.
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.
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 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).
list frame (See frame.)
marginal condition: The state that exists when nominal
and subnominal criteria are not contiguous.
measurement: A quantifiable attribute that is tied to an
indicator.
monitoring: In EMAP, the periodic collection of data that is
used to determine the condition of ecological resources.
nominal: Referring to the state of having desirable or
acceptable ecological condition.
pilot project: A sampling effort conducted over a small area
usually during a single index period. Pilot projects are
used to evaluate indicators, sampling design, methods, and
logistics. (See related: demonstration project.)
population: 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 an extensive
resources, about which inferences are desired or made. In
ecology, the term population refers generally to a group of
individuals of the same species residing in close proximity
to each other such that the individuals share a common gene
pool.
population estimation: Classic survey estimation of
population parameters. Such estimates will not reflect
spatial configuration except through identification of the
population, or of subpopulations, which may be defined
by spatial attributes.
population units: The entities that make up a target
population. The units can be defined in many ways,
depending on the survey objectives and the type of
measurement to be made. Typically, definitions of
environmental units include (1) an explicit statement of the
characteristics each population unit must possess in order
to be considered a member of the target population and a
(2) specification of location in space and time.
precision: The degree to which replicate measurements of the
same attribute agree or are exact (See related: accuracy.)
probability sample: A sample chosen in such a manner that
the probabilities of including the selected units in the
sample are known, and all population units have a positive
probability of selection. This implies that the target
population is represented by the sample and that the target
population is explicitly defined.
29
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
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)
In EMAP, quality assurance consists of multiple
steps to ensure that all data quality objectives are achieved
(See related: quality assessment, 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).
QA/QC: quality assurance/quality control: "A system of
procedures, checks, audits, and corrective actions to ensure
that all EPA research design and performance, environ-
mental 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 the 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 is used more broadly in EMAP. (Term added
1993.)
reference site: One of a population of bench mark or control
sampling locations that, collectively, represent an ecoregion
or other large biogeographic area; the sites, as a whole,
represent the best ecological conditions that can be reason-
ably attained, given the prevailing topography, soil, geology,
potential vegetation, and general land use of the region.
region: Any explicitly defined geographic area. In the EMAP
objectives, region refers to the ten standard Federal regions
(OMB 1974).
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. Seven such categories currently are
identified within EMAP: estuaries, Great Lakes, inland
surface waters, wetlands, forests, arid ecosystems, and
agroecosystems. EMAP also considers landscape ecology
a resource. These categories define the organizational
structure of monitoring groups in EMAP and are the
resources addressed by EMAP assessments. A resource
can be characterized as belonging to one of two types,
discrete and extensive, that pose different problems of
sampling and representation.
resource assessment (See: assessment.)
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 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 hi EMAP: Estuaries,
Great Lakes, Inland Surface Waters, Wetlands, Forests, Arid
Ecosystems, Agroecosystems, and Landscape Ecology.
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.
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.
risk characterization: Determination of the nature of a given
risk and quantifying of the potential for adverse change to
the environment from that risk. Characterization is
accompanied by a statement of uncertainty.
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.
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. (See related: probability sample.)
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
30
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
artificial units constructed for the sole purpose of the
sampling design.
spatial statistics: Statistical methodology and theory that
accounts for spatial aspects of a spatially distributed data
set. Conventional population estimation does not normally
account for spatial attributes, except perhaps for spatial
identity of subpopulations.
status: The distribution of scores for condition indicators
with relation to the reference condition associated with
specific social values or desired uses for a specified time
period. (Term added 1993. See related: condition, trends.)
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 are known, or a testable hypothesis
can be formulated.
subnominal: Having undesirable or unacceptable ecological
condition. (See related: nominal.)
subpopulation: Any subset of a population, usually having
a specific attribute that distinguishes its members from the
rest of the population, for example, lakes from a specified
population that are above 1000 m in elevation.
Subpopulations are important entities in the EMAP plan.
Any defined subpopulation is subject to characterization
via estimation of subpopulation attributes and comparison
to other subpopulations. It is this focus that imposes the
greatest restrictions on the EMAP design and establishes the
primary directions of the EMAP analyses.
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. A lake is defined as 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. Streams (and rivers)
will be identified 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.
systematic sample: A sampling design that utilizes regular
spacing between the sample points, in one sense or another.
The EMAP design selects samples via the systematic grid.
Spatial arrangement of the selected resource units is not
always strictly systematic, but the systematic grid is an
important aspect of the design.
target population: A specific resource set that is the object
or 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.
trends: The changes in the distribution of scores for
condition indicators over multiple time periods.
value: 1) 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).
2) A quantity's magnitude.
variance: A measure of the variability or precision of a set of
observations.
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).
31
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
References
Bromberg, S.M. 1990. Identifying ecological indicators: An
environmental monitoring and assessment program. Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association 40:976-978.
Brown, D.E., C.H. Lowe, and C.P. Pase. 1979. A digitized
classification system for the biotic communities of North
America, with community (series) and association examples
for the Southwest. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy
of Science 14:1-16.
Bureau of the Census. 1987. Census of Agriculture,
Geographic Area Series. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce. (Available from GPO, #AC87-
- . 1992. Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 112th ed.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. (Available
from GPO, ISBN 0-16-038081-2.)
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1989.
Environmental Trends. Supt. Docs. PrEx 14.2:T 72.
Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
(Available from GPO, #041-011-00084-0.)
. 1991. Experience and Legacy of NAPAP: Report of
the Oversight Review Board of the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program. PB92128230XSP.
Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
(Available from NTIS, #PB92-128248 and PB92-100346)
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). 1992. The World Factbook
1992. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. FSW/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Dahl, Thomas E. 1991. Wetland Resources of the United States
[National Wetlands Inventory map]. 1: 3,168,000; 37.5 x
60.0 in; colored. St. Petersburg, FL: U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
EPA. 1987. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment
of Environmental Problems. Vol. 1, 2. Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
. 1992. Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbrevia-
tions, and Acronyms. EPA175B92001. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Communications,
Education, and Public Affairs.
EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program).
1990. Near Coastal Program Plan for 1990: Estuaries.
EPA600490033. Narragansett, RI: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
Ernst, T.L., N.C. Leibowitz, D. Roose, S. Stehman, and N.S.
Urquhart. 1993. Comparison of EMAP sampling frame to
National Wetlands Inventory data for Illinois, Washington,
and the Prairie Pothole Region. Journal of Environmental
Management (submitted).
Powells, H.A. 1965. Si7vi"cs of Forest Trees of the United
States. Agricultural Handbook No. 271. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Forman, R.T.T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
GAO. 1988. Environmental Protection Agency: Protecting
Human Health and the Environment Through Improved
Management, GAO/RCED-88-101. Washington, DC: U.S.
General Accounting Office.
Hunsaker, C.T., D. Carpenter, and J.J. Messer. 1990.
Ecological indicators for regional monitoring. Ecological
Society of America Bulletin 71:165-172.
Hunsaker, C.T., and D£. Carpenter, eds. 1990. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program: Ecological
Indicators. EPA600390060. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect
of water resource management. Ecological Applications
1:66-84.
Kaufmann, P.R., A.T. Herlihy, J.W. Bwood, M.E. Mitch, W.S.
Overton, M.R. Sale, JJ. Messer, K.A. Cougan, D.V. Peck,
K.H. Reckhow, A.J. Kinney, SJ. Christie, D.D. Brown,
C.A. Hagley, and H.I. Jager. 1988. Chemical
Characteristics of Streams in the Mid-Atlantic and
Southeastern United States. Volume 1: Population
Descriptions and Physico-Chemical Relationships.
EPA600388021a. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Landers, D.H., J.M. Eilers, D.F. Brakke, W.S. Overton, P.E.
Kellar, MJE. Silverstein, R.D. Schonbrod, R.E. Crowe, R.A.
Linthurst, J.M. Omernik, S.A. Teague, and E.P. Meier.
1987. Characteristics of Lakes in the Western United States.
Volume 1: Population Descriptions and Physico-Chemical
32
-------
Program Guide
October 1993
Relationships. EPA600386054a. Washington, DC:
Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S.
Linthurst, R.A., D.H. Landers, J.M. Eilers, P.E. Kellar, DP.
Brakke, W.S. Overton, E.P. Meier, and R.E. Crowe. 1986.
Characteristics of Lakes in the Eastern United States.
Volume 1. Population Descriptions and Physico-Chemical
Relationships. EPA600486007a. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Managing Troubled
Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 1974. Standard
Federal Regions. OMB Circular A-105. [April 4]
Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United
States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
77(1): 118-125.
Omernik, J.M., and A.L. Gallant. 1990. Defining regions for
evaluating environmental resources. In Proceedings of the
Global Natural Resources Monitoring and Assessment
Symposium: Preparing for the 21st Century, 936-947.
Venice, Italy. (September 24-30, 1989)
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 NTIS as
PB87204494).
Overton, W.S., D. White, and Dl. Stevens, Jr. 1990. Design
Report for EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program). EPA600391053. Corvallis, OR: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection
Laboratory.
QAMS (Quality Assurance Management Staff). 1993. Glossary
of Quality Assurance Terms. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development
RAF (Risk Assessment Forum). 1992. Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA630R92001. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Roberts, L. 1990. Counting on Science at EPA. Science
249:616-618.
Rubin, E.S., L.B. Lave, and M.G. Morgan. 1992. Keeping
climate research relevant. Issues in Science and Technology.
Winter 1991-1992:47-55.
SAB (Science Advisory Board). 1988. Future Risk: Research
Strategies of the 1990s. 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.
Suter, G.W. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk
assessments. Environmental Management 14(l):9-23.
Terrell, T.T. 1979. Physical Regionalization of Coastal
Ecosystems of the United States and Its Territories.
FWS/OBS-79/80. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1992. Agricultural
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
USDAFS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service).
1989. Interim Resource Inventory Glossary. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33
-------
October 1993
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Index
abiotic 4, 6, 8, 23, 26-28
accuracy 22,27,29
agroecosystem 7, 11, 26
ancillary data 26
annual statistical summary 26
area frame 26, 28
arid ecosystem 11
assessment ii, iii, vi, 1-9, 12, 16-30, 32, 33
attribute 26, 27, 29, 31
auxiliary data 26
baseline grid 26
biodiversity 6, 7, 26, 31
biogeographic province 20, 27
biotic 4, 6, 8, 9, 23, 26-28, 32
candidate indicator 28
cdf 27
changes ii, 3-5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 27, 29
characterization 17, 18, 27, 29-31
classification 12, 18, 32
comparability 18, 27
completeness 27
condition ii, 4-11, 13-20, 22-29, 31
condition indicator 8, 26, 27
confidence interval 27
continuous 5, 16, 20, 26, 27
cross-cutting group 18, 19, 27
cumulative distribution 27
data quality 19, 23, 27, 29, 30
data quality objective (DQO) 27
demonstration project 19-21, 27, 29
discrete 30
domain 27
ecological risk assessment ii, vi, 1-3, 8, 17, 18, 28, 33
ecology ii, 4, 11, 16, 22, 28-30, 32
ecoregion 14, 28, 30
ecosystem 2. \ 6, 8, 11, 28- 30
ecosystem function 28
ecosystem structure 28
entire 9, 10
environment 1-5, 8, 17, 22, 26-32
estuary 28
forest vi, 1, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, 19, 24, 28, 32, 33
fragmented 6
frame 11, 15, 20, 22, 26, 28-30, 32
geographic information system (GIS) 28
Great Lakes vi, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 21, 28, 30, 31
grid vi, 10,12-15, 20, 26, 31
habitat 2, 28
inclusion probability 28
index 7,9,20,28,29,34
index period 20,28,29
index sample 28
indicator vi, 5, 8, 9, 12, 18-20, 26-29, 31
indicator development vi, 8, 9, 18, 27, 28
integration 8, 11, 18,29
landscape vi, 4-6, 11, 16, 18, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32
landscape characterization 18, 27, 29
landscape ecology 4, 11, 16, 29, 30, 32
marginal condition 29
measurement 10, 20, 28, 29
modeling iii
monitoring ii, iii, 1-4, 6-14, 17, 18, 20-26, 28-30, 32,
33
National Research Council (NRC) iii, 4, 19, 23, 33
nominal 6, 18, 19, 25, 26, 29, 31
pattern 10, 16, 29
peer review 19
pilot project 19,29
population 6, 10, 11, 13-16, 26-31, 33
population estimation 29, 30
population units 29
precision 27, 29, 31
probability sample 29, 30
QA/QC 30
quality assessment 30
quality assurance (QA) iii, 8, 18-20, 26, 27, 30, 33
quality control (QC) 19, 20, 23, 30
reference condition 30, 31
reference site 30
region 6, 15, 18-22, 26, 27, 30, 32
representativeness 27
34
-------
Program Guide October 1993
research project 27
resource iii, 1, 4-23, 25-33
resource class 19, 30
resource group 9-15, 18-21, 23, 30, 31
resource groups 8, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29
resource unit 26
risk ii, vi, 1-3, 6, 8, 17-19, 25, 28, 30, 33
risk assessment ii, vi, 1-3, 8, 17-19, 25, 28, 30, 33
risk characterization 17, 30
risk management 18, 30
sample 10, 12-14, 18, 22, 25, 27-31
sampling strategy 28, 30
sampling unit 26, 28, 30
Science Advisory Board (SAB) iii, iv, 2, 3, 9, 19, 23,
33
spatial statistics 25, 30
status ii, 2, 4, 8,10, 16,18-20, 31
stressor indicator 27, 31
subnominal 6,18, 19, 25, 26, 29, 31
subpopulation 31
surface waters vi, 4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 21, 30, 31
systematic sample 31
target population 6, 11, 13-15, 29, 31
technical coordinator (TC) 18, 19, 27, 31
technical director (TO) 30, 31
total quality management (TQM) 31
trends ii, 2, 4-8, 10,15-18, 25, 31, 32
universe 28,29
value 6-9,16, 26-28, 31
variance 19, 20, 31
wetlands vi, 4, 6, 7,9,11,13-15, 18, 21, 28, 30-32
AU.S. GOVERNMENT HUNTING OFFICE: I»W - 5SMMI1/WM7
35
------- |