U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
January 1991
EPA-600/M-90/022
&EPA EMAP ^Monitor
ENVIRONMENTAL-MONITORING-AND'ASSESSMENT'PROGRAM
An interagency program to monitor the condition of the nation's ecological resources
An Overview of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Both the incidence and scale of reported environmental
problems have increased over the past two decades.
The public is increasingly concerned that the resources
upon which they rely for recreation, quality of life, and
economic livelihood remain sustainable. Scientists are
increasingly concerned that the impact of pollutants
now extends well beyond the local scale: global cli-
mate change, acidic deposition, ozone depletion, non-
point source pollutant and sediment discharges to wa-
terways, and habitat alteration threaten our ecosystems
on regional and global scales. Years of scientific study
have not only heightened our environmental aware-
ness, but also have convinced us that the ecological
processes that determine how our ecosystems respond
to both natural and anthropogenic disturbances are ex-
tremely complex. Unfortunately, the current status of
our environment is currently not well documented,
making it impossible to assess quantitatively where and
at what rate degradation may be occurring. While we
believe that our policies and programs are protecting
the quality of our environment, we cannot prove it with
currently available data.
We cannot, for example, determine whether reported
problems are increasing across extensive areas of the
country, or simply reflect a more informed and vocal
public or a locally visible pollution issue. Nor can we
determine whether collective human impacts are a
more plausible explanation for such problems than are
natural causes such as drought Finally, we are unable
to determine whether the policies and programs we
now have in place to restore our damaged resources, or
to protect those perceived to be threatened, are effec-
tive. Clearly, we need a national baseline against
which future changes in the condition of our resources
can be measured and the overall effectiveness of our
environmental policies can be evaluated with confi-
dence.
In 1988, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Science Advisory Board recommended imple-
menting a program to monitor ecological status and
trends that would identify emerging environmental
problems before they reach crisis proportions. The next
year, EPA refined the focus of its environmental protec-
tion efforts by calling for an active confirmation that its
programs are truly maintaining or improving environ-
mental quality. The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) is part of the Office of
Research and Development's (ORD) response to both
the Science Advisory Board's recommendation and the
Agency's call for "managing for results." EMAP's goal
is to monitor the condition of the nation's ecological re-
sources. EMAP data will enable us to evaluate the suc-
cess of current policies and programs and identify
emerging problems before they become widespread or
irreversible.
EMAP represents the foundation for ORD's Ecological
Risk Assessment Program. When fully implemented in
cooperation with other agencies that share resource
monitoring responsibilities, this coordinated research
and monitoring effort will provide the information
needed to document the current condition of our eco-
logical resources, understand why that condition exists,
and predict what it may be in the future under various
management alternatives. Such information will enable
EPA to take proactive steps that will minimize future
risk or to revise current efforts that fall short of their in-
tended results.
The concept of EMAP was developed in 1987. Since
then, several key questions have been formulated that
will guide the Program toward meeting its goal: What
is the current extent of our ecological resources, and
how are they distributed geographically? What propor-
tions of the resources are currently in acceptable eco-
logical condition? What proportions are degrading or
improving, in what regions, and at what rates? Are
these changes correlated with patterns and trends in
environmental stresses? And, finally, are adversely af-
fected resources improving in response to control and
mitigation programs?
These questions pose a challenge that cannot be met
without a long-term commitment to environmental
Inside Stories
Mid-Atlantic Estuaries Sampling • Current Activities • Publications
and Presentations • Recent and Upcoming Events
-1-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
monitoring on national and regional scales. Further-
more, this challenge cannot be met efficiently without
drawing on the experience and expertise within other
federal agencies and organizations that share responsi-
bility for maintaining environmental quality or sustain-
ing our resources.
The EMAP approach to monitoring ensures broad geo-
graphic coverage; enables quantitative and unbiased
estimates of ecological status and trends; facilitates
analysis of associations among measurements of habitat
condition, pollutant sources and exposure, and biologi-
cal condition (indicators); and allows sufficient flexibil-
ity to accommodate sampling of multiple types of re-
sources and identification of emerging environmental
issues.
EMAP Objectives
Q Estimate the current status, extent, changes,
and trends in indicators of the condition of the
nation's ecological resources on a regional basis
with known confidence.
Q Monitor indicators of pollutant exposure and
habitat condition and seek associations between
human-induced stresses and ecological
condition.
Q Provide periodic statistical summaries and
interpretive reports on ecological status and
trends to resource managers and the public.
To ensure efficient execution of this approach, EMAP
planning and field demonstration projects have in-
volved other organizations within EPA, including the
Program and Regional Offices, as well as other federal
agencies. Current collaborative efforts are described in
the Current Activities section of this issue. As specific
plans for implementation are formulated, EMAP will
also need to enlist the assistance of state agencies lo-
cated within the particular areas targeted for monitor-
ing. The development of monitoring plans, which un-
dergo rigorous technical review by national scientific
organizations, is also occurring in concert with many
university cooperators.
Several long-term, coordinated monitoring efforts will
be implemented by EMAP over the next five years.
These programs, which will operate on regional scales
over periods of years to decades, will collect data from
many resource categories: arid lands, agricultural sys-
tems, forests, lakes and streams, the Great Lakes, inland
and coastal wetlands, estuaries, and coastal waters.
Field crews will measure biological, chemical, and
physical variables and processes on statistically se-
lected sampling sites for resource classes, such as sage-
brush-dominated shrubland, orchard cropland, oak-
hickory forests, small lakes, emergent estuarine wet-
lands, or large estuaries. Some of these measurements
will also be made by using remote sensing techniques.
Data on atmospheric deposition and exposure to other
air pollutants will be obtained. Finally, maps, aerial
photography, and satellite imagery will be used to
describe broad regional patterns of the landscape in
areas where sampling is being conducted.
Organizationally, EMAP has four major elements:
Resource Monitoring, Coordination, Integration, and
Developmental Research.
Q Resource Monitoring
Resource monitoring focuses on collection and in-
terpretation of field data on the ecological condition
of the eight resource categories mentioned earlier.
The activities of the Estuaries Resource Group are
highlighted in the feature article of this first issue of
the Monitor, and summaries of progress to date for
the other active groups follow the feature article.
Q Integration
Integration activities include several functions that
facilitate the acquisition, management, and interpre-
tation of monitoring data. The Air and Deposition
and Landscape Characterization Groups provide
data that assist all Resource Groups in interpreting
observations on resource condition. EMAP-lnforma-
tion Management facilitates the storage of informa-
tion and its dissemination to and from the Program
as well as among the Resource Groups, Coordina-
tion Groups, and the other Integration Groups. The
Integration and Assessment Group oversees the ac-
quisition of data from other monitoring networks
that cut across or are relevant to two or more Re-
source Groups. This Group also ensures that the
scientific information collected during various
EMAP field activities is translated into a form that
can be used to answer management questions re-
garding regional-scale problems. Activities to date
are provided in the Current Activities section.
Q Coordination
Several coordination activities support EMAP's re-
source monitoring efforts, including network design
and statistical analysis; indicator selection, testing,
and evaluation; logistics; and quality assurance. A
principal function of the Coordination Groups is to
ensure that data collection activities by the Resource
Groups are conducted in standardized ways. For
example, the Coordination Groups provide comple-
mentary network designs and statistical procedures
for analyzing data, consistent field and laboratory
methods, and quality assurance and quality control
protocols. Activities to date for each of these
Groups are summarized in the Current Activities
section.
Other coordination functions include technology
transfer activities and liaison with the international
community, other agencies, states, and EPA Regions.
These activities will be highlighted in future issues
of the Monitor.
Q Developmental Research
An active research program is essential to ensure
that EMAP can respond and adapt to new issues;
-2-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Resource Monitoring
Agroecosystems
Arid Lends
fcresb
Estviries
Great lakes
Coastal Waters
Surface Waters
Wdlrnk
1,
Integration Activities
Air end Deposition
landscape Characterization
Information Management
ju gc/ncn
J,
Coordination Activities
Statistics ana Design
Initiators
logistics
Total Quality Management
Technology Transfer
International Actwities
\
Developmental Research
EnDiromntntal Statistics
Ecflfogf erf ItidicfftoT
Ucudofttncnt
Ltods&pe Ecology
— , , . _, .
Chmctenzstion
capitalize on improved scientific understanding;
and incorporate advances in methods development,
data analysis, and reporting techniques, while si-
multaneously retaining continuity in the long-term
data sets it develops. All major groups within EMAP
conduct research that is relevant to their specific re-
source or coordination and integration responsibili-
ties. Additionally, EMAP has identified four major
areas of research that are cross-cutting and is cur-
rently establishing research programs for these ar-
eas: environmental statistics, ecological indicator
development, landscape ecology, and ecological
risk characterization. These programs are an inte-
gral part of ORD's Ecological Risk Assessment Pro-
gram and will be discussed in further detail in future
issues of the Monitor as their plans are refined.
Although the agenda for EMAP is ambitious, the Pro-
gram represents the type of monitoring program that is
needed for the 1990s and beyond. As a developing
program, the ideas, approaches, and strategic plans
must be subjected to critical review, evaluated using
existing and new data, tested in regional demonstration
projects, and periodically reevaluated before they are
adopted as standard operating procedures. Periodic
review and evaluation of performance of standard op-
erating procedures will determine whether refinements
are necessary. The Program will make maximum use of
existing information to avoid duplication and will capi-
talize on the experience of past efforts, both the suc-
cesses and failures. Above all, EMAP data, plans, and
reports will be presented for critical review by the sci-
entific community and representatives from government
agencies whose missions complement EMAP's. Com-
ment and input on EMAP's priorities will be actively
solicited from business groups, citizen groups, and
other public interest groups. Only through a broad-
based, open forum can we ensure that the products
from EMAP will have a significant influence on the set-
ting of this nation's environmental policies.
EMAP managers currently are working with the
National Academy of Sciences to define the scope
and production schedule for an interim report on the
Program by the Academy. EPA's Science Advisory
Board, working closely with the Academy, will review
the Program in the context of its ability to bring im-
proved science to the EPA decision-making process.
Additionally, all senior EMAP scientists who have re-
sponsibility for major program elements have been
charged with ensuring the scientific merit of their ap-
proaches through active review by special technical
panels, such as members of the American Statistical As-
sociation, the Ecological Society of America, the Estuar-
ine Research Federation, and other scientific societies
and scientists with specialty expertise.
The Estuaries Resource Group has completed a dem-
onstration project in the Mid-Atlantic region (see the
Feature Article in this issue), and plans are well under
way for a similar project along the Gulf Coast to be
conducted next summer. The Forests Resource Group
has completed pilot projects for indicators in both the
Northeast and the Southeast The Surface Waters Re-
source Group is planning for a regional lake demon-
stration project in the Northeast next year, and the
Wetlands Resource Group is planning to conduct a pi-
lot study on selected coastal wetlands along the coast
of Louisiana next summer.
In the upcoming year, all Resource Groups will have
prepared plans that describe their proposed activities
over the next five years. Strategic plans for network de-
sign, indicator development, and landscape characteri-
zation, and for the overall Program direction through
1995, are scheduled for completion in early 1991. A
document that details the relationship of EMAP to the
risk characterization process is also targeted for com-
pletion in the first half of 1991. Full implementation of
monitoring in all resources is being targeted for 1995.
-3-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
The 1990 Demonstration Project for Estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic
In 1990, EMAP initiated a demonstration project in the
Mid-Atlantic region (from Cape Cod southward to the
mouth of the Chesapeake Bay) to evaluate the utility of
regional-scale monitoring data for assessing the ecolog-
ical condition of the nation's estuaries. Elements of this
demonstration project included (1) testing and evaluat-
ing the degree to which proposed indicators of ecolog-
ical condition could help distinguish polluted from un-
polluted environments, (2) constructing a data set that
provides the information required to evaluate alterna-
tive sampling designs for assessing estuarine condition
on regional scales, (3) identifying and resolving logisti-
cal problems associated with conducting a regional
sampling program in estuaries, and (4) completing an
interpretive assessment of the present status of the estu-
aries of the Mid-Atlantic region.
tuaries tend to serve as repositories for the many pollu-
tants released into the nation's waters and into the at-
mosphere. The ecological condition of estuaries is thus
strongly influenced by human activities throughout the
entire watershed, particularly land use and the release
of pollutants to the environment As a result, the over-
all environmental quality of the watersheds should be
reflected by measurements of the ecological condition
of estuaries.
Why Start with Estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic
Region?
The Mid-Atlantic region was selected as the testing
ground for EMAP's estuaries program because there is a
general public perception that estuaries in this area are
Why Study Estuaries?
Estuaries include the many tidal wetlands, submerged
aquatic vegetation communities, inlets, bays, and la-
goons that connect the nation's rivers to the coastal wa-
ters of the continental shelf. These ecosystems provide
critical spawning and nursery habitat for fishery re-
sources, and the areas close to estuaries have become
attractive to the U.S. population for settlement Census
experts predict that about 75% of the U.S. population
will reside within 50 miles of estuaries by the year
2000. Much of the wastewater from homes, busi-
nesses, and industries in coastal areas is treated and
then directly discharged into estuaries. Additionally,
most discharges into the nation's rivers that drain wa-
tersheds far from the coastline eventually reach these
systems.
Estuaries are not simple transport "pipelines/ but rather
are complex transition zones with physical and chemi-
cal features that concentrate and retain pollutants. Es-
-Estuarine Ecosystems-
Apkukml
Systems
Freshwater
Wetlands
Atmospheric
Deposition
and dinule
Estuaries are complex ecosystems that are linked
to both coastal and inland ecosystems as well
as to gmundwater and the atmosphere.
• submerged aquatic vegetation
Mid-Atlantic Region
Demonstration Project
. Northern Extent
of Sampling
Southern Extent
of Sampling
Over 200 estuarine locations were sampled
within the area extending from Cape Cod
southward to Chesapeake Bay.
rapidly deteriorating. Additionally, many of the estuar-
ies in this region have been intensively investigated by
scientists, and a considerable amount of information
was available for use in designing the demonstration
project Finally, many management decisions for this
region are forthcoming, including development of a
restoration plan for the New York Harbor complex and
development and evaluation of management plans and
•A-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
actions for many large estuaries, including Delaware
Bay, Chesapeake Bay, and Long Island Sound. Devel-
opment of these plans presents an opportunity to
demonstrate how EMAP data can assist in the formula-
tion of environmental programs and policies.
What Is the Purpose of the 1990 Demonstration
Project?
The demonstration project will provide data for use in
evaluating the utility of the EMAP sampling design and
approach for estuaries. It also provides the information
we need to develop a technically credible and cost-
effective sampling program that can be implemented
across the nation over the long term. In particular, the
project will demonstrate the value of regional-scale
monitoring data collected in a standardized way for
conducting assessments of the ecological condition of
our estuaries.
Participants in the Demonstra-
tion Project
Scientific Community: Scientists from many
marine research organizations provided guidance,
expert opinion, and review comments on the de-
sign of the demonstration project. This past
spring, a committee selected by the Estuarine Re-
search Federation performed a scientific review of
the Program Plan. This committee will continue
to serve as technical advisors to EMAP-Estuaries
this winter when data analysis and assessment ac-
tivities begin.
Other Agencies: The National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration (NOAA) worked closely
with EPA to plan the demonstration project and to
ensure it did not duplicate their activities. This
cooperation has contributed in part to an agree-
ment between NOAA's National Ocean Service
and EPA's Office of Research and Development to
coordinate their research and monitoring efforts
aimed at assessing the impacts of human activities
on marine and estuarine ecosystems. The com-
bined results of both agencies' programs will serve
the nation's interest more than either agencies'
program alone. It is intended that this agreement
will lead to the establishment of a joint
NOAA/EPA program for monitoring the status
and trends of near coastal environmental quality
and ecological condition.
ORD Laboratories: Several ORD Laboratories
have also played critical roles in the design and
execution of the Project: the Environmental
Research Laboratories in Narragansett, RI, and
Gulf Breeze, FL; the Environmental Monitoring
Support Laboratory in Cincinnati, OH; and the
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
in Las Vegas, NV.
How Were Sampling Sites Selected?
The estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic region were assigned
to the following classes, which have similar physical
features and are expected to respond to environmental
stresses in a similar manner:
Q large estuaries (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay and Long
Island Sound);
Q large tidal rivers (e.g., the Potomac and Delaware
Rivers); and
Q small estuaries, bays, and tidal creeks and rivers
(e.g., Barnegat Bay and the Elizabeth River).
Sampling sites within each estuarine class were selected
using a statistical procedure, which permits the propor-
tion of the estuaries (or estuarine area) in poor ecologi-
cal condition to be estimated quantitatively. This pro-
cedure also permits the uncertainty of these estimates to
be calculated.
What Did We Measure?
Monitoring every aspect of estuarine condition of inter-
est or concern to the public and scientists is prohibi-
tively costly. Therefore, selected measurements of the
condition of the estuaries were taken during mid-
summer, when water temperatures are highest and
pollution problems typically exert the greatest impact
on estuarine organisms. These measurements, or indi-
cators, included
Q the kinds and abundance of fish,
Q the incidence of fish gross pathology,
Q the kinds and abundance of organisms living in the
sediments (where pollutants concentrate),
Q measures of water quality (such as the concentration
of dissolved oxygen in the water),
Q concentrations of contaminants in sediments, and
G the toxicity of sediments to sensitive organisms.
A qualitative description of the appearance of each es-
tuary was also made. Additionally, data on environ-
mental stresses, which will be used to evaluate associa-
tions between human activity and estuarine condition,
are being obtained from the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological
Survey, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the
U.S. Census Bureau. This information includes esti-
mates of point and nonpoint source pollutant loadings,
land use data, climate, and changes in population den-
sity and distribution in Mid-Atlantic coastal areas.
How Are We Assured of the Quality of the Data?
Many organizations and individuals collected and pro-
cessed samples. To ensure consistency in sample col-
lection and processing, field crews were intensively
trained to use and maintain sampling equipment In
addition, quality control checks of both field and labo-
ratory operations were performed. A joint NOAA/EPA
quality assurance program was implemented to maxi-
mize comparability of collected data with that from the
NOAA National Status & Trends Program.
-5-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
How Will the Data Be Analyzed?
The measurements taken this summer will be examined
in a variety of ways so that the current status of Mid-At-
lantic estuaries with respect to (1) suitability for human
use and (2) health of biological communities can be
documented. Measurements taken next summer and in
subsequent years will enable us to document whether
these attributes are getting better or worse and, if they
are changing, at what rates.
The analysis approach begins by examining the "big
picture' (i.e., all of the data on the sampled estuaries
throughout the Mid-Atlantic region). Then, subsets of
the estuaries having unhealthy or deteriorating condi-
tions will be evaluated to determine if their condition
can be associated with exposure to pollution stress or
other human disturbances. Estuaries having healthy or
improving conditions will also be evaluated to deter-
mine if this improvement can be associated with pollu-
tion abatement programs or other management prac-
tices.
For many analyses, the data will be integrated to pro-
duce estuarine condition indices that will enable scien-
tists to make statements about status and trends that are
understandable to non-scientists and useful to policy-
makers. Such indices will be similar conceptually to
the national air quality index or the Dow Jones stock
market average.
What Are the Current Activities of the Demon-
stration Project?
Information from over 200 sampling sites that were vis-
ited this past summer is presently being analyzed. With
assistance from the Estuarine Research Federation tech-
nical advisory committee, EMAP scientists are prepar-
ing an assessment that is scheduled to be available for
review by the fall of 1991. The final assessment report
is expected to be completed by the end of 1991.
What Are Our Future Plans?
In 1991, estuarine sampling will continue in the Mid-
Atlantic region, and a demonstration project will begin
in the estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico in an area extend-
ing from north of Tampa Bay to the Mexican border.
Progress reports on these activities will be available in
1992. During the summer of 1992, we expect to begin
sampling estuaries in the South Atlantic.
Current Activities
Agro ecosystems
Plans are under way for a joint pilot study to be con-
ducted in North Carolina in FY92 by the Agroecosys-
tems Resource Group and the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture's (USDA) Agricultural Research Service and Na-
tional Agricultural Statistical Survey (NASS). Data on
five agroecosystem indicators (crop productivity, soil
productivity, irrigation water quality and quantity, agri-
cultural chemical usage, and land use) will be collected
by NASS field samplers in conjunction with their rou-
tine, annual surveys. Data on temperature, total rain-
fall, rainfall during the growing season, and catastroph-
ic events (hail, hurricanes, flooding) will be obtained
from the National Weather Service. The pilot study
serves two principal purposes: (1) to test and evaluate
these indicators and several others that are in the de-
velopmental phase and (2) to compare the EMAP statis-
tical approach for sample site selection with the ap-
proach used by NASS. Coupled with these pilot study
evaluations is an ongoing analysis of existing data bases
on agroecosystems, including the Soil Conservation
Service's National Resources Inventory and SOILS-5
data.
Several indicator development projects are also under
way in cooperation with scientists from North Carolina
State University (NCSU) in Raleigh and various federal
agencies. Specialists in weed ecology and nematode
ecology are assisting EMAP-Agroecosystems in the de-
velopment of a pest density indicator. Other university
scientists are cooperating on the development of an
indicator that will be used to assess chemical and sed-
iment exports from agroecosystems. This Group also
hosted a workshop, led by a scientist from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, on the habitat linear classification
system. This field-based methodology for measuring
horizontal distribution of vegetation shows promise as
an indicator for wildlife habitat suitability. Finally,
economists from the USDA Economic Research Service
and the NCSU Department of Economics and Business
have offered to provide guidance on the development
of a productivity indicator that would be used to quan-
tify net production in agricultural systems. This indica-
tor would account for non-market factors, such as the
environmental impacts of crop production.
The results of the pilot study and indicator development
projects will be used to implement a long-term monitor-
ing effort to determine the "health" of our nation's
agroecosystems. A healthy agroecosystem is defined
within EMAP as one that balances sustainable crop and
livestock production with maintenance of air, water,
and soil integrity, and assures wildlife and vegetation
diversity in associated noncrop habitats. The approach
for monitoring agroecosystems is scheduled for review
by a scientific panel in 1991.
-6-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Arid Lands
The Arid Lands Resource Group is developing an inte-
grated, long-term monitoring effort to assess the ecolog-
ical condition of deserts, grasslands, chaparral wood-
lands, prairies, and pinyon-juniper communities. To
facilitate designing this effort, this Group is laying the
groundwork for a pilot study currently planned for FY92
in the West (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and
Nevada). This study, which will focus on riparian
ecosystems (those occurring in predominantly arid
landscapes, but associated with a sustained source of
water, such as a river), is being closely coordinated
with the Bureau of Land Management, other federal
agencies, EMAP-Surface Waters, and EMAP-Wetlands.
The results of the study will be used to select the most
efficient option from a number of trial approaches for
site selection, field sampling, quality assurance, data
management, indicator measurements, and others for
full-scale national implementation of EMAP-Arid Lands
by the latter 1990s.
A principal accomplishment of a planning workshop,
held in mid-1990, was to produce a working definition
of an "arid ecosystem." Arid ecosystems are those for
which potential evaporation exceeds precipitation, an-
nual precipitation ranges from approximately 5 cm
(2 in) to 60 cm (24 in), and daily and seasonal tempera-
tures vary from -40 °C (-40°F) to 50 °C (122°F); in ad-
dition to these physical factors, the definition also in-
cludes vegetation type and other biological factors.
This workshop included representatives from the USDA
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and EPA; four
universities were also represented: Nevada-Las Vegas,
Oregon State, Arizona State, and Utah State.
Two major issues of primary concern to the USDA For-
est Service and the Bureau of Land Management, land
use/grazing and the effects of global climate change,
are being considered by this Group. The Natural Re-
source Ecology Laboratory of Colorado State University
is providing data for modeling global climate change
and its effects on grassland ecosystems; the National
Park Service is also exchanging information on global
change monitoring and research.
A spatial and temporal evaluation of the use of remote
sensing data for regional assessment of arid lands is
being conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization in Australia. Various
applications bf remote sensing technology will also be
researched under a Memorandum of Understanding be-
tween the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration and the Desert Research Institute (the organiza-
tion that has the technical lead for developing EMAP-
Arid Lands). As part of the Memorandum of Under-
standing, the Cooperative Institute for Aerospace
Science and Terrestrial Applications was established.
This institute potentially affords a direct mechanism for
joint research between the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration and EMAP-Arid Lands on ap-
plying remote sensing technology to facilitate research
on terrestrial ecology.
Forests
The Forests Resource Group is working closely with the
USDA Forest Service to implement a long-term irrtera-
gency monitoring effort to assess the condition of U.S.
forests. This joint effort resulted in the completion of
two indicator evaluation projects - one on northeastern
hardwoods in New England and one on southeastern
loblolly pine in Virginia. For each project, data were
collected at 20 forest sites for five indicators: growth
efficiency, vertical vegetation structure (related to
wildlife habitat), visual symptoms of air pollution on
tree canopies, soil productivity, and nutrient concentra-
tions in foliage. In addition to identifying logistical or
design problems in data collection, these pilot studies
served two purposes: (1) as feasibility studies, they
helped evaluate whether multiple indicators can be
sampled in a survey mode, and (2) the studies helped
determine variability for each indicator. Some prelimi-
nary results are expected in early 1991.
In a second study in New England, the USDA Forest
Service, New England state agencies, and EMAP-Forests
jointly conducted a field survey to compare the EMAP
approach for selecting sampling sites with the approach
used by the Forest Service in its Forest Inventory Analy-
sis Program. Preliminary results indicate that the per-
centages of major forest classes in New England were
comparable using both site selection techniques. Preci-
sion of estimates for the visual symptoms indicator was
also comparable at regional geographic scales.
Looking ahead to 1991, this Group has plans to con-
tinue providing support to the USDA Forest Service in
the expansion of their monitoring network in the
Northeast and to implement a demonstration project in
the Southeast. Additional sampling sites in Maryland,
Delaware, and New jersey will be selected; visual
symptoms, growth efficiency, and soil productivity will
be measured at these sites as well as the sites sampled
in 1990 in the New England states. Testing of other
indicators is planned on a subset of sampling sites.
EMAP-Forests plans to continue providing planning
support (design, indicator development) and assistance
with implementation (quality assurance, information
management, and logistics) and reporting. Activities re-
lated to reporting will be coordinated closely with three
EMAP Groups: Integration and Assessment, Air and
Deposition, and Landscape Characterization.
The southeastern demonstration project would focus on
measurements of a set of indicators (similar to those
tested in the New England and Virginia studies) in one
class of forests, loblolly pine. A second set of
indicators related to wildlife, habitat structure, chemical
contaminants, and microbial biomass would be
measured on a subset of sampling sites to evaluate their
feasibility for long-term forest monitoring in EMAP.
Field efforts for this demonstration project would be
conducted by the USDA Forest Service, the USDA Soil
Conservation Service, and southeastern state forestry
agencies.
-7-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Great Lakes
EMAP-Great Lakes is the most recently formed Re-
source Group. This Group is working closely with the
Surveillance Branch of EPA's Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office to determine whether existing monitoring
efforts for the Great Lakes can be integrated with EMAP.
Elements that are essential for EMAP but are not being
addressed in existing monitoring efforts will be identi-
fied, and plans for supplementing the existing networks
will be formulated. A program plan that describes
these activities and a phased approach for evaluating
indicators and design options through pilot studies is
expected to be available by late 1991. Pilot studies are
being planned for one of the lower Great Lakes and
one of the upper Great Lakes. Full implementation in
all fives lakes is targeted for the mid-1990s.
Preliminary discussions are under way regarding the
use of the EMAP approach as a tool for monitoring the
current distribution and ecological impact of the zebra
mussel in the Great Lakes. This activity would be co-
ordinated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, the Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, and the Ontario Ministry of the Envi-
ronment
Surface Waters
Several activities are under way in preparation for a
summer 1991 EMAP-Surface Waters pilot study on
lakes in the northeastern United States. During recent
months, a principal activity has been the identification
of lakes in EPA Region 1 (Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecti-
cut) and Region 2 (New York and New jersey) for po-
tential sampling during the pilot. Development of lake
access information also has begun for approximately
300 lakes in these two regions.
Discussions are ongoing with EPA's Office of Water
and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, re-
garding the potential role of EMAP-Surface Waters in
filling some of the informational needs of these Offices.
The proposed application of biocriteria being devel-
oped by the Office of Water and the indicator strategy
being developed by the Surface Waters Resource
Group present compatible and complementary ap-
proaches for assessing surface water condition. Other
organizations are also cooperating with EMAP-Surface
Waters. As an example, in a Sierra Nevada survey, re-
searchers from the California Air Resources Board are
using sites selected using the EMAP grid for sampling of
fish, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians.
Current indicator development activities include evalu-
ating methods for relating EMAP-Surface Waters mea-
surements with fishability, fish contamination, trophic
status, species composition, physical and chemical
habitat, sediment toxicity, and other issues of public
concern. The effect of various sources of statistical
sampling error in indicators is being analyzed using
existing lake data bases. Spatial and temporal variabil-
ity of lake trophic status, the index of biotic integrity,
and other indicators are being examined within and
among lakes, among years, and among several alterna-
tive sampling periods (June through September); vari-
ability analyses include how analytical error and field
measurement error might affect estimates of ecological
condition or EMAP's ability to detect trends in lakes.
Similar analyses using existing data sets for streams are
also being conducted. Based on data from midwestern
streams, results obtained using a macroinvertebrate in-
dex differed considerably from those obtained using an
index of biotic integrity. Possible reasons for these dif-
ferences include (1) water quality is assessed in differ-
ent ways, (2) the indices respond differently to stressors,
and (3) the indices differ in sensitivity and applicability.
The practical application of the EMAP design for select-
ing stream sampling sites was the subject of a stream
design pilot project, conducted in Oregon by the Sur-
face Waters Resource Group. The objectives of this in-
vestigation were to (1) produce a sample data set using
simulated hexagonal areas around points of the EMAP
sampling grid, (2) evaluate 1:250,000-scale topo-
graphic maps of the same areas in terms of the stream
orders represented, (3) develop protocols for collecting
geographic data, (4) estimate time requirements for this
method, and (5) identify replicability issues for this site
selection process. The results of this study are currently
being reviewed in light of future efforts to develop sam-
pling frames for streams in regions to be surveyed by
EMAP.
Progress made to date on these indicator evaluations
and design-related analyses, as well as the approach
proposed by EMAP-Surface Waters to implement a na-
tional monitoring effort in lakes and streams, was re-
cently presented to a peer review panel. Panel mem-
bers included scientists from several universities (North
Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Cornell, and Oklahoma
State); the American Statistical Association; several fed-
eral agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, the U.S. Geological Survey, and EPA's Office of
Water; the private sector; and Oak Ridge National Lab-
oratory. The National Research Plan for EMAP-Surface
Waters is currently being revised to incorporate the
panel's comments and is expected to be available for
public distribution in the first quarter of 1991. It is an-
ticipated that some of the panel members will continue
as-long-term scientific advisors to this Group.
Wetlands
A principal focus of the Wetlands Resource Group has
been the development of a National Research Plan for
monitoring wetlands that will serve as the basis of full-
scale implementation of a national-scale monitoring ef-
fort in wetlands, anticipated to begin first in the mid-
western and southeastern United States with subse-
quent expansion to other U.S. regions. A peer review
of this plan was conducted in late November 1990.
Scientists with expertise in wetland ecology and statis-
tical sampling served as panel members; six universities
participated: Duke, Louisiana State, New Mexico State,
-8-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
EaA Carolina, Ohio State, and Syracuse. As for EMAP-
Surface Waters, the plan is currently undergoing revi-
sion and is anticipated to be available for distribution in
early 1991.
EPA's Office of Water has expressed interest in the use
of this Group's indicator information to evaluate the
adequacy of current water quality criteria for protecting
salt marsh wetland health in the Southeast and the
Gulf. EMAP-Wetlands has also been interacting with
EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection, which is inter-
ested in indicators of wetland health and integrity.
EMAP's ability to provide information on three of this
Office's principal objectives is being explored: (1) up-
date the physical inventory of wetlands more fre-
quently, (2) assess the functional integrity of wetlands,
and (3) assess the landscape integrity of wetlands. This
Group also recently provided information to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service on the need for assessing wet-
land functional integrity; the information included a
statement of how a baseline (like that proposed for
EMAP-Wetlands) could be used to measure the success
of the "no net loss" policy and how establishment of
long-term research sites could enhance our understand-
ing of wetland processes, including how such pro-
cesses are affected by environmental stresses.
The Wetlands Resource Group also is currently plan-
ning for an indicator evaluation pilot study in the
coastal marshes of Louisiana and a design evaluation
pilot using data from four states in 1991. The indicator
evaluation project will compare hydrology, vegetation
associations, composition and abundance of wetland
species, and other indicators of ecological condition in
20 wetlands considered by coastal wetland experts to
be in acceptable condition and 20 wetlands considered
to be in unacceptable condition. The coast of Louisi-
ana was selected for this evaluation because there is
considerable public concern over the effect of ongoing
management practices that are apparently resulting in
coastline subsidence and, subsequently, alteration of
wetland habitat Planning for this pilot involves EMAP-
Estuaries and experts on Louisiana wetlands; discus-
sions have also begun with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the state of Louisiana, EPA Regions 4 and 6,
and the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program Office.
This Group is also interacting extensively with staff of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland
Inventory and EMAP-Landscape Characterization to
conduct the design evaluation pilot The design pilot
will address EMAP-Wetlands classification and statisti-
cal sampling^association rules. Data sources for the
study include digitized wetland inventory data bases for
the state of Illinois and portions of Washington, North
Dakota, and South Dakota.
Air and Deposition
information on levels of deposition and environmental
effects information called for under the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA). To assist with this consolidation,
this Group has been providing quality assurance sup-
port and partial funding to help maintain the National
Acid Deposition Program's (NADP) National Trends
Network. A principal function of this Group's current
activities is the evaluation of existing network capabili-
ties to provide air quality and deposition data for de-
termining exposure levels to ecological resources lo-
cated in nonurban environments. Data from the NADP
networks, the Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition Pro-
gram, and other networks are being incorporated into a
master data base to facilitate analyses on spatial and
temporal trends that will lead to identification of where
(1) additional monitoring sites are needed, (2) redun-
dant sites occur, and (3) topographic features indicate a
need for special network design. Ultimately, the goal is
to enhance established nonurban air and precipitation
quality networks for national trends assessments.
EMAP-Air and Deposition recently became part of a
multiagency working group, which will plan for imple-
mentation of the combined, cooperative EMAP/CAAA
network. Eight work groups have been organized, each
of which is responsible for producing an activities plan
that will enable field installation of the network to be-
gin by September 1991. Several federal agencies, also
slated to become permanent members of the work
groups, participated in a November 1990 meeting that
included the U.S. Geological Survey, the USDA Forest
Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration, the National Park Service, and EPA. State
agencies from California, Wisconsin, Michigan, New
York, and Vermont were also represented, and Cana-
dian participants included representatives from Envi-
ronment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Envi-
ronment
Landscape Characterization
One goal of the Air and Deposition Group is to pro-
duce a framework for consolidating existing air quality
and deposition monitoring networks and new EMAP
monitoring programs into a cooperative network set
that can respond efficiently to both EMAP needs for
The principal function of the Landscape Characteriza-
tion Group is to provide spatial data on landscape pat-
terns and composition that will aid in (1) the develop-
ment of sampling frames for use by the EMAP Resource
Groups in selecting sites for monitoring and (2) the in-
terpretation of observed ecological condition of re-
sources (e.g., forests, wetlands, lakes, and streams). To
refine characterization methods and evaluate standard
operating procedures, this Group has completed data
collection efforts for a pilot study in Maryland. A data
base has been developed that includes spatial informa-
tion on land use, land cover, roads, hydrography
(distribution of surface waters), contour, and soils.
Field verification and accuracy assessment of the pilot
data are ongoing.
This Group has worked closely with the Wetlands Re-
source Group and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
National Wetlands Inventory in planning and coordi-
nating interagency activities for EMAP. Technical is-
sues that have been discussed include wetland classifi-
cation, indicator development, statistical design, and
sampling frame development. In cooperation with the
-9-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Agroecosystems Resource Croup, EMAP-Landscape
Characterization is providing aerial photographs from
the Maryland pilot study to the National Agricultural
Statistical Service (NASS) for use in evaluating how the
NASS approach might be adapted to aid in the sam-
pling efforts for agroecosystems. Cooperation with the
U.S. Geological Survey's National Aerial Photography
Program, which acquires new color-infrared aerial
photography for most of the United States every five
years, is currently being explored.
The proposed approach for landscape characterization
was reviewed in June 1990 by scientists from the U.S.
Geological Survey; the USDA Forest Service; the Na-
tional Park Service; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Ames Research Center; EPA's Science
Advisory Board, Office of Water, and Region 3; and
several universities, including the University of North
Carolina, Utah State University, Southern Illinois Uni-
versity, and the University of Wisconsin. In response to
this review, the Landscape Characterization Group
plans to design and implement several pilot studies in
FY91 aimed at refining characterization methods and
demonstrating the overall approach, especially through
the use of historical remote sensing data. Study areas
are being selected based on known ecological prob-
lems and in areas where coordination with EPA Re-
gions and Program Offices and other federal, state, and
local programs can be maximized. The primary pilot
study is being designed for implementation within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. This area was selected for
a two-year study (FY91 and FY92) because of concern
over nonpoint-source pollution, apparently related to
increased population growth along the coast, and be-
cause habitat alteration is reportedly widespread in the
watershed.
I Information Management
The Information Management Group was established to
plan, develop, and implement a comprehensive, auto-
mated, information management system for EMAP and
to ensure that the information management systems de-
veloped by the various EMAP Groups are compatible
and are conducive to efficient data transfer. Initial
work has included the preparation of (1) the Informa-
tion Management Program Plan, which highlights
strategies and activities for information management
proposed for the next few years; (2) an Information
Management Committee Charter, which describes the
program organization and personnel responsibilities;
(3) an EMAP Information Center concept paper and
functional statement; and (4) a conceptual design for
the Geographic Information System (CIS), which pre-
sents design objectives and approaches for the CIS
component of the EMAP Information Management Sys-
tem. In addition, a document on data confidentiality
has also been prepared, focusing on issues related to
the transfer and use of environmental data originating
within and outside EPA.
More recently, this Group has been working with EPA's
Office of Administration and Resources Management
(OARM) and Office of Information Resources Manage-
ment (OIRM) to ensure that EMAP information man-
agement plans are consistent with Agency policy. This
Group is also coordinating efforts with the Resource
Groups to develop their specific information manage-
ment plans and ADP (automated data processing)
plans. The focus of these coordination activities has
been to assist EMAP-Estuaries and EMAP-Forests, both
of which conducted field projects in 1990.
The Information Management Group has met with
other agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion, to discuss potential exchange of data and collabo-
ration on EMAP information management requirements.
This Group is also interacting on GIS-based systems
and data catalogs with the Gulf of Mexico Program
(EPA Regions 4 and 6 and the states bordering the Gulf
of Mexico). Personnel from Australia's Commonwealth
Science and Industrial Research Organization briefed
EMAP-lnformation Management on CIS, data base
management for ecosystems, and remote sensing opera-
tions.
Integration and Assessment
The Integration and Assessment Group has two primary
functions: to provide the means for (1) addressing sci-
entific questions through the process of combining
EMAP data collected by the various Resource Groups
or combining these data with data from other sources
and (2) addressing policy-relevant questions, which rely
on synthesizing and translating the resultant scientific
information. A multiyear operating plan, including the
objectives, measures of success, and tasks needed to
achieve integrated EMAP products, is being prepared.
Principal activities for FY91 are to (1) identify critical
clients and information needs, (2) examine existing and
needed tools and procedures, and (3) develop concep-
tual approaches for feeding EMAP information into
ecological risk characterization and risk assessment
studies based on a recommendation by the EPA
Science Advisory Board's Ecological Processes and
Effects Committee.
This Group participated with the Estuaries Resource
Group in preparing an Example Interpretive Assessment
Report and provided guidance to several other Re-
source Groups for preparing Example Annual Statistical
Summaries. The aim of the example assessment is to
demonstrate to potential users of EMAP assessments
how data can be displayed to show current status and
trends in indicators of ecological condition, associa-
tions among indicators, and possible factors contribut-
ing to this condition for a specific ecological resource.
The example summaries illustrate the types of data,
analysis approaches, and presentation formats for re-
ports currently planned to be published annually by
each Resource Group. The Example Assessment for
Estuaries was recently reviewed by scientists from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
EPA Region 3, and EPA's Office of Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation; the document is expected to be com-
-10-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
pleted in January 1991. Example statistical summaries
for Agroecosystems, Forests, Surface Waters/Wetlands,
and Arid Lands should be completed by early 1991.
Statistics and Design
The Statistics and Design Group provides the coordina-
tion and technical support required to ensure that
sampling designs implemented by the Resource Groups
are consistent with the overall EMAP design. This
Group's initial emphasis has been on the preparation of
an EMAP design document, which describes the overall
EMAP sampling design, addresses the design's flexibil-
ity for application to particular resource categories, and
discusses approaches for site selection. This Group as-
sists the Resource Groups with the preparation of the
design sections of the individual research plans, plan-
ning for pilot and demonstration field studies, and
evaluation of these studies in order to refine their de-
signs.
This Group is examining several issues regarding spatial
statistics, including how to handle incomplete or inac-
curate spatial data and how to incorporate statistical
analysis into GIS. The practical application of statistics
to enhance our ability to identify and quantitatively
assess the urgency and magnitude of environmental
problems is currently being explored by the Statistics
and Design Group and Oregon State University.
Members of this Group are also interacting with a panel
of the American Statistical Association to institute a
comprehensive program for review of all statistics and
design activities and establish a process for peer review
of statistical components of the Resource Groups' re-
search plans.
Indicators
Members of the Indicators Group have worked with all
EMAP Resource Groups to produce two key EMAP
documents: the Ecological Indicators Report for the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
and the Draft Indicators Development Strategy for
EMAP. The first, published in September 1990, details
the approach proposed for (1) describing ecological
condition, (2) defining a common indicator selection
strategy to facilitate integration among EMAP resource
categories, and (3) seeking expert advice and identify-
ing regional data to begin characterizing the spatial and
temporal variability of proposed indicators.
The second document, scheduled for completion in
February 1991, is a research strategy for the application
of indicators in EMAP. This document includes (1) a
vision of how a fully functional EMAP indicator devel-
opment project would operate; (2) a framework for de-
termining indicator development needs; (3) criteria and
protocols for selecting, evaluating, and Devaluating
indicators; (4) procedures for coordination of indicator-
related activities among Resource Groups; and (5) an
organization/ communication/coordination plan.
To obtain as much current information as possible on
ecological indicators, an International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators was held in Fort Lauderdale, FL,
on October 16-19,1990. This symposium was jointly
sponsored by EPA's Office of Research and Develop-
ment, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, the U.S. Department of Interior's Minerals Man-
agement Service, and the USDA Agricultural Research
Service. Over 250 scientists, administrators, and policy
makers participated, including individuals from the
United States, Canada, Central America, South Amer-
ica, Australia, Western Europe, the Soviet Union, and
South Africa. The agenda highlighted the technical and
human resources available for international indicator
development and monitoring efforts, identified science
and policy issues that must be addressed for effectively
using indicator information to monitor status and trends
in the environment, and placed environmental chal-
lenges in a global context A proceedings of the sym-
posium is planned for publication by Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers, Ltd., in late 1991.
Logistics
The long-term objective of the Logistics Group is to
provide guidance and support to the Resource Groups
on field operations and to enhance and economize
EMAP field monitoring efforts through integrated team
approaches. To help achieve this objective, a logistics
guidance document, providing standard formats,
checklists, and review processes, was completed in
July 1990. This document provides general information
to each Resource Group for logistics planning and en-
sures that a level of consistency in logistics approaches
among the Groups will be maintained.
A principal activity of this Group in 1990 was to assist
in the development of the logistics plans for the demon-
stration project in estuaries of the Mid-Atlantic region
and, in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service, for
the two forest pilot studies in New England and the
Southeast The Logistics Group is also assisting EMAP-
Surface Waters in preparing for the 1991 pilot study on
northeastern lakes. One important aspect of these ac-
tivities is determining land ownership and site access,
once site selection is finalized.
The Logistics Group, EMAP staff from EPA's Office of
Modeling, Monitoring Systems, and Quality Assurance,
and representatives from the EPA Regions are currently
undertaking a joint effort to define the role for the
Regional Offices in EMAP field operations.
Total Quality Management
The Total Quality Management Group is providing
guidance, support, oversight, and planning assistance
to the Resource Groups on quality assurance and qual-
ity control protocols for EMAP monitoring and assess-
ment activities. This Group has focused much of its
effort to date on preparing documentation critical to
-11-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Program-wide quality assurance aspects. Of highest
priority has been the development of the EMAP Quality
Assurance Program Plan, which serves as the key guid-
ance document for Resource Groups as they prepare
their specific quality assurance project plans. Because
EMAP is an interagency, interdisciplinary program of
national scale, the Quality Assurance Program Plan
presents an integrated strategy for guiding and coordi-
nating quality assurance activities across resource cate-
gories, regions, and monitoring programs.
In addition to assuring compliance to the EMAP Quality
Assurance Program Plan, the Total Quality Manage-
ment Group provides guidance and support for specific
data collection and analysis activities of the Resource
Groups. This Group is assisting EMAP-Surface Waters
in drafting data quality objectives and helped prepare a
laboratory methods manual and quality assurance pro-
ject plan for the Mid-Atlantic demonstration project for
estuaries; a quality assurance audit also was conducted
for this demonstration project
Completed Publications and Reports
Balough, M.E., and R.S. Lunetta. In press. Evaluation
of remote sensing for the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program's landscape characterization. In:
Technical Papers, Geographic Information Systems/
Land Information Systems Annual Conference, CIS/US
'90. November 5-10,1990, Anaheim, CA.
Barrows, E.H. 1990. Analysis and integration of eco-
logical monitoring data. Pages 276-286. In: R.C.
Ward, J.C. Loftis, and G.B. McBride, eds. Proceedings
of the International Symposium on the Design of Water
Quality Information Systems, Colorado Water Re-
sources Research Institute Information Series No. 61,
Colorado State University. June 7-9,1989, Ft. Collins,
CO.
Bromberg, S.M. 1990. Identifying ecological indica-
tors: An environmental monitoring and assessment pro-
gram. J. Air PolluL Control Assoc. 40:976-978.
Daly, C. 1990. Estimation of wet deposition to surface
water systems for the TIME project: A geographical ap-
proach. Pages 436-446. In: R.C. Ward, J.C. Loftis, and
G.B. McBride, eds. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on the Design of Water Quality Information
Systems, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute
Information Series No. 61, Colorado State University.
June 7-9,1989, FL Collins, CO.
Ford, J., T. Young, and J. Stoddard. In press. Long-
term monitoring for aquatic effects of acidic deposition:
An approach to regionalizing information from existing
monitoring sites. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual
Meeting of the International Cooperative Programme on
Assessment and Monitoring of River and Lake
Acidification. October 17-19,1989, Freiburg, FRG.
Gosselink, J.G., G.P. Shaffer, L.C. Lee, D.M. Burdick,
D.L Childers, N.C. Leibowhz, S.C. Hamilton,
R. Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and
J.M. Visser. In press. Can we manage cumulative im-
pacts? Landscape conservation in a forested wetland
watershed. Bioscience.
Hazard, J.W., and B.E Law. 1989. Forest survey
methods used in the USDA Forest Service. EPA/600/3-
89-065. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 55 pp.
Hermann, 1C, M.J. Hewitt, and D.J. Norton. In press.
Using existing sampling frames in a comprehensive na-
tional monitoring program. In: Technical Papers, Geo-
graphic Information Systems/Land Information Systems
Annual Conference, CIS/LIS '90. November 5-10,
1990, Anaheim, CA.
Hewitt, M.J. 1990. EMAP CIS conceptual design.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
Hoenicke, R., M.A. Stapanian, L.J. Arent, and
R.C. Metcalf. In press. Consequences of pH measure-
ment errors. Freshwat Biol.
Hughes, R.M. 1989. Ecoregional biological criteria.
Pages 147-151. In: Water Quality Standards for the
21 st Century. Proceedings of a National Conference,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Hughes, R.M. 1990. What can biological monitoring
tell us about the environ mental health of aquatic
ecosystems? Pages 447-460. In: R.C. Ward, J.C.
Loftis, and G.B. McBride, eds. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on the Design of Water
Quality Information Systems, Colorado Water
Resources Research Institute Information Series No. 61,
Colorado State University. June 7-9,1989, Ft. Collins,
CO.
Hughes, R.M., T.R. Whittier, CM. Rohm, and
D.P. Larsen. 1990. A regional framework for establish-
ing recovery criteria. Environ. Manage. 14:673-684.
Hunsaker, C, and D. Carpenter, eds. 1990.
Ecological indicators for the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program. EPA/600/3-90/060. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Atmospheric
Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 154 pp. plus
9 Appendices.
Hunsaker, C, D. Carpenter, and J. Messer. 1990.
Ecological indicators for regional monitoring. Ecol.
Soc. Am. Bull. 71:165-172.
-12-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Jones, K.B. In press. The Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program: An ecological monitoring
program for the 1990's and beyond. In: Technical Pa-
pers, Geographic Information Systems/Land Information
Systems Annual Conference, GIS/LIS '90. November 5-
10,1990, Anaheim, CA.
Kutz, F.W., and R.A. Linthurst. 1990. A systems-level
approach to environmental assessment Toxicol. Envi-
ron. Chem. 28:105-114.
Lazorchak, J., C. Palmer, and J. Lawrence, eds. 1990.
Proceedings of the Third Annual Ecological Quality As-
surance Workshop, Canada Centre for Inland Waters.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Monitoring Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, and
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
18pp.
Lazorchak, J. 1989. Biomonitoring techniques and
analyses. Pages 25-29. In: J. Bunting, J.C. Emerick,
and D.J. Cooper, eds. Summary of Findings-Technical
Workshop on Water Quality of the Upper Arkansas
River Basin, Colorado, Colorado School of Mines.
February 13-14, Golden, CO.
Loftis, J.C., and C.H. Taylor. 1989. Detecting acid
precipitation impacts on lake water quality. Environ.
Manage. 13:529-539.
Loftis, J.C., and C.H. Taylor. 1990. Testing for trends
in water quality data. Pages 461 -467. In: R.C. Ward,
J.C. Loftis, and G.B. McBride, eds. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on the Design of Water Qual-
ity Information Systems, Colorado Water Resources Re-
search Institute Information Series No. 61, Colorado
State University. June 7-9,1989, FL Collins, CO.
Loftis, J.C, R.C. Ward, R.D. Phillips, and C.H. Taylor.
1989. An evaluation of trend detection techniques for
use in water quality monitoring programs. EPA/600/3-
89/037. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Mace, T.M. In press. Multistage remote sensing for a
national environmental monitoring program database.
In: Technical Papers, Geographic Information Sys-
tems/Land Information Systems Annual Conference,
GIS/LIS '90. November 5-10,1990, Anaheim, CA.
McMullen, D. 1990. Data quality objectives for the
Surface Water Initiative: A status report. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring
Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Messer, J. 1989. Keeping a closer watch on ecological
risks. EPA Journal 15:34-36.
Messer, J. 1990. Why monitor? Pages 16-21. In:
R.C. Ward, J.C. Loftis, and G.B. McBride, eds.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on the
Design of Water Quality Information Systems, Colorado
Water Resources Research Institute Information Series
No. 61, Colorado State University. June 7-9,1989, FL
Collins, CO.
Messer, J., R. Linthurst, and W.S. Overton. In press.
EPA program for monitoring ecological status and
trends. Environ. Monitor. Assess.
Messer, J.J., R.A. Linthurst, and C. Riordan. 1989. A
national program for environmental monitoring and
assessment Pages 211-215. In: R.D. Nobel, J.L.
Martin, and K.S. Jensen, eds. Air Pollution Effects on
Vegetation, including Forest Ecosystems. Proceedings
of the 2nd U.S./U.S.S.R. Symposium, September 13-25.
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station, Broom a 11, PA.
Metcalf, R.C., and D.V. Peck. In press. Difficulties in
deducing temporal changes in precipitation chemistry
from snow and ice cores: The spatial variability prob-
lem. Nordic Hydro).
Metcalf, R.C., and R.W. Cerlach. 1990. Comment on
acidification of Adirondack lakes. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 24:384-385.
Metcalf, R.C., D.V. Peck, and L.J. Arent 1990. Effect
of KCI additions on pH measurements of dilute sul-
phuric acid standards. Analyst 115:855-905.
Metcalf, R.C., G.D. Merrht, M.A. Stapanian, J.R.
Baker, and K.M. Peres. In press. Chemistry of selected
lakes and streams in Great Basin National Park,
Nevada, during winter and spring 1989. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
Miah, MJ. In press. Step function technique for esti-
mating data uncertainty in experimental results.
J. Chemometrics.
Muchoney, D.M., D.E. Kisner, K.K. Stout, and
D.J. Norton. 1990. EMAP land cover/land use classifi-
cation for landscape characterization. Interim Report
No. TS-PIC-90384. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center, Warrenton, VA.
Norton, D.J., and E.T. Slonecker. 1990. Landscape
characterization: The ecological geography of EMAP.
Geogr. Infer. Syst 1:32-42.
Norton, D.J., and E.T. Slonecker. In press. The Envi-
ronmental Monitoring and Assessment Program's land-
scape characterization data base: New opportunities in
spatial analysis. In: Technical Papers, Geographic In-
formation Systems/Land Information Systems Annual
Conference, GIS/LIS '90. November 5-10,1990, Ana-
heim, CA.
Norton, D.J., D.M. Muchoney, and ET. Slonecker.
1990. Ecological monitoring using remote sensing-sup-
ported CIS. Pages 306-315. In: Technical Papers,
56th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Pho-
togrammetry and Remote Sensing. March 18-23, Den-
ver, CO.
Oberdorff, T., and R.M. Hughes. In press. Modifica-
tion of an index of biotic integrity based on fish assem-
-13-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
blages to characterize rivers of the Seine Basin, France.
Hydrobiologia,
Paul, J.F., A.F. Holland, K.F. Scott, D.A. Flemer, and
EJ*. Meier. 1989. An ecological status and trends pro-
gram: EPA's approach to monitoring condition of the
nation's ecosystems. Pages 579-582. In: Proceedings
of the Oceans '89 Conference. September 18-21, Seat-
tie, WA.
Peck, D.V., and R.C Metcatf. In press. Dilute, neutral
pH standard of known conductivity and acid neutraliz-
ing capacity. Analyst
Pollack, A.K., and J. Ford. 1990. The TIME project:
An overview. Pages 413-424. In: R.C. Ward, J.C.
Loftis, and G.B. McBride, eds. Proceedings of the In-
ternational Symposium on the Design of Water Quality
Information Systems, Colorado Water Resources Re-
search Institute Information Series No. 61, Colorado
State University. June 7-9,1989, Ft Collins, CO.
Pollard, J.E., K.M. Peres, T.C. Chaing, R. Valente,
C Strobel, and J. Rosen. In press. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program, Near Coastal
Demonstration Project quality assurance project plan.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Monitoring Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Pollard, J.E., and D.T. Heggem. In press. Quality as-
surance sample design for large and small environmen-
tal water quality surveys: A look at the past and future.
j. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality As-
surance.
Rfitters, 1C, K. Hermann, and R. Van Remortel. 1990.
Forest Task Group annual statistical summary: A hypo-
thetical example. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assess-
ment Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Riitters, K.H., and J.E. Barnard. 1990. Criteria for
evaluating indicators of forest health. Pages 443-452.
In: G. Lund, ed. Proceedings of the Conference on
Global Natural Resource Monitoring and Assessments:
Preparing for the 21st Century, International Union of
Forestry Research Organizations and the United Na-
tions Food and Agricultural Organization. September
24-30,1989, Venice, Italy.
Roose, D.V. 1990. Interim Report EMAP Ten
Hexagon Pilot Project data dictionary. Report No. TS-
PIC-90383. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, En-
vironmental Photographic Interpretation Center, War-
renton, VA.
Saul, G., K. Thornton, and R. Linthurst In press. Envi-
ronmental monitoring and assessment: A national pri-
ority. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ORNL Life Sciences
Symposium: The Scientific Challenges of NEPA -
Future Directions Based on 20 Years of Experience.
October 24-27,1989, Knoxville, TN.
Schumacher, B.A., ICC. Shines, J.V. Burton, and
M.L. Papp. 1990. Comparison of three methods for
soil homogenization. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J.
54(4):1187-1190.
Slagle, R., L. Blume, B. Schumacher, M. Papp, W. Cole,
and S. Baxter. In press. Use of a laboratory data entry
and verification system as a quality assurance tool ap-
plied to a regional soil characterization study, j. Ac-
countability in Research: Policies and Quality Assur-
ance.
Stapanian, M.A., and R.C. Metcalf. 1990. State-of-the-
art pH electrode quality control for measurements of
acidic, low ionic strength waters, j. Chem. Educ.
67:623-626.
Taylor, C.H., and j.C. Loftis. 1990. Testing for trends
in lake and groundwater quality time series. Water Re-
sour. Bull. 25:715-726.
U.S. EPA. 1990. EMAP Information Management
Committee charter. EPA/600/X-90/132. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 8 pp.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program guidelines for preparing logistics
plans. EPA/600/X-90/161. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Labo-
ratory, Las Vegas, NV. 99 pp.
U.S. EPA. In press. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program, Near Coastal program plan for
1990: Estuaries. EPA/600/4-90/033. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Narragansett, Rl.
Whittier, T. 1990. Determining regional conditions.
In: Proceedings of the Water Quality Data Assessment
Workshop, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
gion 6. November 13-16,1989, San Antonio, TX.
8pp.
Whittier, T. 1990. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) Overview. In: Proceed-
ings of the Water Quality Data Assessment Workshop,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6.
November 13-16,1989, San Antonio, TX. 5 pp.
Young, T.C., and J. Ford. 1990. Site selection proce-
dures for Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosys-
tems (TIME). Pages 425-435. In: R.C. Ward,
j.C. Loftis, and G.B. McBride, eds. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on the Design of Water Qual-
ity Information Systems, Colorado Water Resources Re-
search Institute Information Series No. 61, Colorado
State University. June 7-9,1989, Ft Collins, CO.
Young, T.C. In press. A chemical model for assessing
lake sensitivity and response to acid or base inputs.
Water Resour. Res.
-14-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Completed Briefings, Presentations, and Posters
Adamus, P. 1989. Waters ignored by the ambient monitoring
programs: A national review of biomonitoring in wetlands.
Presented at the National Symposium on Water Quality
Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water. October 16-19, Ft. Collins, CO.
Adamus, P.R. 1990. Variability in inland wetland community
structure: Results of EPA's analysis of available literature.
Presented at the International Symposium on Ecological
Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals
Management Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research
Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Balough, M.E., and R.S. Lunetta. 1990. Evaluation of remote
sensing for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program's landscape characterization. Presented at the
Geographic Information Systems/Land Information Systems
Annual Conference, CIS/US '90. November 5-10, Anaheim,
CA.
Barnard, J. 1990. Forest health (USCS and EMAP): Brief
overview, indicators of health and how they will be used.
Presented at the Symposium on The Future of Environmental
Monitoring: EMAP and NADP, the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program and National Acid Deposition
Program. October 29-30, San Antonio, TX.
Bretthauer, E.W. 1990. Protecting the environment: Are-
search strategy for the 90's - An indicator of change in EPA.
Presented at the International Symposium on Ecological
Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals
Management Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research
Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Byers, C.E., B.L. Conkling, R.D. Van Remortel, M.J. Miah, and
M.L. Papp. 1990. Variability in some chemical characteristics
of soils under various forest cover types. II. Southern
Appalachian Region. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Soil Science Society of America. October 21-26, San Antonio,
TX.
Campbell, C.L 1990. Agricultural health (USDA and EMAP):
Brief overview, indicators of health and how they will be used.
Presented at the Symposium on The Future of Environmental
Monitoring: EMAP and NADP, the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program and National Acid Deposition
Program. October 29-30, San Antonio, TX.
Charles, D., and S. Dixit 1990. Diatoms as ecological indica-
tors: How they can be used in surface water monitoring pro-
grams. Presented,at the 11th International Symposium on
Living and Fossil Diatoms. August 12-17, San Francisco, CA.
Charles, D.F., J.P. Baker, J.M. Klopatek, CM. Knapp, D.R.
Marmorek, and K.W. Thornton. 1990. A research strategy to
develop ecological indicators for the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program. Poster presentation at
the International Symposium for Ecological Indicators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management
Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October
16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Cline, C.P., A.L Gallant, M.M.P. Huso, j.G. Wyant, and W.H.
Bechtold. 1990. Vegetation profile as an ecological indicator
of forest condition: A landscape approach. Presented at the
International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management
Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October
16-19, R. Lauderdale, FL.
Conkling, B.L, R.D. Van Remortel, M.L Papp, and M.J. Miah.
1990. Variability in some chemical characteristics of soils un-
der various forest cover types. I. Northern Appalachian
Region. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Soil Science
Society of America. October 21 -26, San Antonio, TX.
Daly, C 1989. Estimation of wet deposition to surface water
systems for the TIME project: A geographical approach.
Presented at the International Symposium on the Design of
Water Quality Information Systems, Colorado State University.
June 7-9, Ft. Collins, CO.
Dixit, S.S., B.F. Gumming, A.S. Dixit, J.P. Smol, and
J.C Kingston. 1990. Algal microfossils in lake sediments pro-
vide high resolution temporal assessment of recent environ-
mental change. Presented at the International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI
Minerals Management Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural
Research Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Ford, J., T. Young, and J. Stoddard. 1989. Long-term moni-
toring for aquatic effects of acidic deposition: An approach to
regionalizing information from existing monitoring sites.
Presented at the 5th Annual Meeting of the International
Cooperative Programme on Assessment and Monitoring of
River and Lake Acidification. October 17-19, Freiburg, FRC.
Fox,C 1990. Arid Lands (EMAP): Brief overview, indicators
of health and how they will be used. Presented at the
Symposium on The Future of Environmental Monitoring:
EMAP and NADP, the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program and National Acid Deposition Program.
October 29-30, San Antonio, TX.
Frithsen, J.B., and A.F. Holland. 1990. Benthic communities
as indicators of ecosystem condition. Presented at the
International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management
Service, and U.S.D j\. Agricultural Research Service. October
16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Frithsen, J.B., J. Gerritsen, S. Weisberg, M. Fabrizio,
E. Barrows, and G. Saul. 1990. EMAP analysis and interpreta-
tion strategy: A near coastal example. Presented at the 11th
Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry. November 11-15, Washington, DC
Gibson,). 1989. Global chemical monitoring needs for the
1990s. Presented at the National Acid Deposition Program
Technical Committee Meeting. October 23-26, Provincetown,
MA.
Herlihy, A.T., LA. Baker, and P.R. Kaufmann. 1990. Controls
and speciation of aluminum in acidic surface waters of the
United States. Presented at the International Conference on
Acidic Deposition: Its Nature and Impacts, Royal Society of
Edinburgh. September 16-21, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hermann, K., M.J. Hewitt, and DJ. Norton. 1990. Using ex-
isting sampling frames in a comprehensive national monitoring
program. Presented at the Geographic Information Systems/
-15-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Land Information Systems Annual Conference, GIS/LIS '90.
November 5-10, Anaheim, CA.
Holland, A.F. 1990. Recent data from the Near Coastal
Demonstration Project. Presented to the Association of
Ecosystem Research Centers. November 20, Washington, DC.
Holland, D., and T. Olsen. 1990. Wet deposition spatial and
temporal patterns in North America. Presented at the Second
International Environmetrics Conference: Statistical Methods
for the Environmental Sciences, International Environmetrics
Society. September 27-29, Como, Italy.
Holland, A.F.J.F. Paul, and K.J. Scott 1989. EPA's approach
to monitoring condition of the nation's near coastal waters.
Presented at the Atlantic Estuarine Research Society/Southeast
Estuarine Research Society Joint Meeting. April 7-8, Beaufort,
NC.
Hughes, RJvi. 1989. Biological integrity. Poster presentation
at the National Symposium on Water Quality Assessment, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. October
16-19, Ft. Collins, CO.
Hughes, R-M. 1989. Regional use of a fish assemblage index
for water resource assessments. Presented at the 10th Annual
Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. October 28 - November 2, Toronto, Ontario.
Hughes, fLM. 1989. What can biological monitoring tell us
about the environmental health of aquatic ecosystems?
Presented at the International Symposium on the Design of
Water Quality Information Systems, Colorado State University.
June 7-9, Ft. Collins, CO.
Hughes, R.M. 1990. Ecoregions and biological integrity of
fish communities. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. February
8, Welches, OR.
Hughes, R.M. 1990. Regional reference sites and biological
criteria. Presented at the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board
Ecoregion Research Review. April 16, Corvallis, OR.
Hughes, RJVt., and T. Oberdorff. 1990. Use of a fish index to
assess the health of rivers in the Seine Basin. Presented at the
National Museum of Natural History. June 21, Paris, France.
Hughes, RM., D.P. Larsen, T. Whittier, and S.G. Paulsen.
1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Filling national data gaps and identifying additional needs.
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries
Society. August 30, Pittsburgh, PA.
Hughes, RA*., and R. Noss. 1990. Inland resources: Issues,
status, and options in biodiversity. Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. August 28,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Hughes, RM., T.R. Whittier, C.B. Collins, S.S. Dixit,
S. Hedtke, P. Kaufmann, W. Kinney, D.P. Larsen,
J. Lazorchak, D. McMidlen, S. Paulsen, J. Pollard, and S.A.
Thiete. 1990. Ecological condition and diagnostic indicators
for EMAP lakes. Presented at the International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI
Minerals Management Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural
Research Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Hunsaker,C. 1990. Ecological indicators. Presented to the
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers. November 20,
Washington, DC.
Humaker, C, and D. Carpenter. 1990. Indicators of regional
ecological health. Presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the
Ecological Society of America. July 29 - August 2, Snowbird,
UT.
Hunsaker, C.T., D.A. Levine, S.P. Timmins, R.V. O'Neill, and
B.L Jackson. 1990. Landscape characterization for assessing
regional water quality. Presented at the International
Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management Service, and
U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October 16-19, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL.
Jones, B. 1990. A landscape characterization approach to de-
termine ecosystem status and trends. Presented to the
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers. July 26,
Snowbird, UT.
Jones, B., R. Linthurst, J. Messer, D. McKenzie, and J. Paul.
1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Conceptual overview. Presented at the 11th Annual Meeting
of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
November 11-15, Washington, DC.
Jones, K.B. 1989. Biological indicators and monitoring in ri-
parian ecosystems. Presented at an interagency workshop,
New Mexico State University. January 9-10, Las Cruces, NM.
Jones, K.B. 1989. The fragmented landscape: The need for a
large-scale ecological assessment program. Presented at the
Conference on Global Natural Resource Monitoring and
Assessments: Preparing for the 21 st Century, International
Union of Forestry Research Organizations and the United
Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. September 24-
30, Venice, Italy.
Jones, K.B. 1990. Agency roles in conserving biological di-
versity. Presented at the Conference for Maintaining
Biodiversity, U.S. Bureau of Land Management. March 7-9,
Phoenix, AZ.
Jones, K.B. 1990. Landscape characterization and ecological
monitoring. Presented at the Fifth International Congress of
Ecology. August 23-30, Yokohama, Japan.
Jones, K.B. 1990. The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Presented at the National Resources
Inventory Workshop, USDA Soil Conservation Service. June
21.
Jones, K.B. 1990. The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program: An ecological monitoring program for
the 1990's and beyond. Presented at the Fifth International
Congress of Ecology. August 23-30, Yokohama, Japan.
Jones, K.B. 1990. The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program: An ecological monitoring program for
the 1990's and beyond. Presented at the Geographic
Information Systems/Land Information Systems Annual
Conference, GIS/LIS '90. November 5-10, Anaheim, CA.
Kaufmann, P.R., A.T. Herlihy, and L.A. Baker. 1990. Sources
of acidity in lakes and streams of the United States. Presented
at the International Conference on Acidic Deposition: Its
Nature and Impacts, Royal Society of Edinburgh. September
16-21, Glasgow, Scotland.
Klopatek, J.M. 1990. Cryptogamic crusts as indicators of dis-
turbance in semiarid landscapes. Presented at the
International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management
Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October
16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
-16-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Larsen, D.P., and S.C. Paulsen. 1990. A systematic grid de-
sign for estimation of status and trends in the condition of
lakes. Presented at the North American Lake Management
Society National Meeting. November 6-9, Springfield, MA.
Larsen, D.P., T. Selle, D. Stevens, and S.G. Paulsen. 1990.
EMAP-Surface Waters lake pilot. Presented at the North
American Lake Management Society National Meeting.
November 6-9, Springfield, MA.
Law, B. 1990. Forest health monitoring. Presented to the
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers. July 26,
Snowbird, UT.
Law, B.E., and K.H. Riitters. 1990. First-year experiences and
recommendations from the EMAP-Forests Monitoring Program.
Poster presentation at the International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI
Minerals Management Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural
Research Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Lazorchak, J. 1989. Biomonitoring techniques and analyses.
Presented at the Technical Workshop on Water Quality of the
Upper Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, Colorado School of
Mines and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8.
February 13-14, Golden, CO.
Leibowitz, N. 1990. EMAP-Wetlands: Monitoring status and
trends in wetland condition. Presented at the 11th Annual
Meeting of the Society of Wetlands Scientists. June 4-8,
Breckenridge, CO.
Leibowitz, N.C., and B. Wilen. 1990. Interagency monitoring
of wetlands status and trends. Presented at the 11th Annual
Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. November 11-15, Washington, DC.
Linthurst, R.A. 1988. EPA's environmental monitoring and
assessment program. Presented at the National Acid
Deposition Program Technical Committee Meeting. October
24-27, Champaign, IL.
Linthurst, R.A. 1989. The scientific challenges of the future:
Future directions based on 20 years of experience. Presented
at the 9th Life Sciences Symposium, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. October 24-27, Knoxville, TN.
Linthurst, R.A. 1990. An approach to ecological monitoring.
Presented at the Symposium on The Future of Environmental
Monitoring: EMAP and NADP, the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program and National Acid Deposition
Program. October 29-30, San Antonio, TX.
Linthurst, R.A. 1990. An overview of the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program. Presented to the
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers. November 20,
Washington, DC.
Linthurst, R.A. 199t). Evolving priorities for research in sup-
port of coastal management: The view of agency scientific
personnel. Presented at the Coastal Society Twelfth
International Conference, Our Coastal Experience: Assessing
the Past, Confronting the Future. October 21 -24, San Antonio,
TX.
Linthurst, R.A., K.W. Thornton, J.J. Messer, and L Jackson.
1990. Integrated monitoring for ecological condition: What
are the real possibilities? Presented at the International
Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management Service, and
U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October 16-19, Ft.
Lauderdale, FL.
Loftis, J.C., and C.H. Taylor. 1989. Testing for trends in water
quality data. Presented at the International Symposium on the
Design of Water Quality Information Systems, Colorado State
University. June 7-9, Ft. Collins, CO.
Mace, T.M. 1990. Multistage remote sensing for a national
environmental monitoring program database. Presented at the
Geographic Information Systems/Land Information Systems
Annual Conference, GIS/LIS '90. November 5-10, Anaheim,
CA.
McKenzie, D. 1990. EMAP overview. Presented at the Third
Annual Ecological Quality Assurance Workshop, Canada
Centre for Inland Waters. April 24-26, Burlington, Ontario,
Canada.
McKenzie, D. 1990. EMAP overview. Presented at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Statistics Conference. March
26-29, Williamsburg, VA.
McKenzie, D.H. 1990. Synthesizing indicator needs of scien-
tific, policy, and regulatory communities. Presented at the
International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management
Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October
16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
McMullen, D. 1990. Using data quality objectives to plan
environmental research. Presented at the Second International
Environmetrics Conference: Statistical Methods for the
Environmental Sciences, International Environmetrics Society.
September 27-29, Como, Italy.
Meier, E.P., D.A. Reiner, and J.F. Paul. 1989. An ecological
status and trends program, near coastal component. Presented
at the Gulf Estuarine Research Society Meeting. Louisiana
Universities Marine Consortium. April 7-8, Cocodrie, LA.
Messer,). 1989. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Presented at the Southern Regional
Meeting, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and
Stream Improvement. June 12-13, Asheville, NC.
Messer, J. 1989. Why monitor? Presented at the Inter-
national Symposium on the Design of Water Quality In-
formation Systems, Colorado State University. June 7-9, Ft
Collins, CO.
Messer,). 1990. EMAP overview. Presented at a Workshop
on Environmental Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4. January 10, Atlanta, GA.
Messer, J.,R. Linthurst, and W.S. Overton. 1989. An EPA
program for monitoring ecological status and trends.
Presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American Institute
for Biological Sciences: Monitoring for Global Change,
Ecological Society of America. August 6-10, Toronto, Ontario.
Messer, J.J. 1990. Ecological indicators in monitoring and
risk assessment. Presented at the International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI
Minerals Management Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural
Research Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Messer, J.J. 1990. Review needs and schedules for the Envi-
ronmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. Presented to
the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board.
October 25, Washington, DC.
Messer, J.J., R.A. Linthurst, and C Riordan. 1988. A national
program for environmental monitoring and assessment.
-17-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Presented at the 2nd U.S.-U.S.S.R. Symposium on Air Pollution
Effects on Vegetation. September 13-25, Catlinburg, TN.
Meyer, J.R., CL. Campbell, T.J. Moser, C.R. Hess,
).O. Rawlings, S. Peck, and W.W. Heck. 1990. Indicators of
the ecological status of agroeoosystems. Presented at the
International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management
Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October
16-19, Ft. Lauderdale,FL
Miah, M.J., G.E. Byers, R.D. Van Remortel, M.L Papp, and
B.A. Schumacher. 1990. Estimation of detection limits by
using a linear calibration curve. Presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Soil Science Society of America. October 21-
26, San Antonio, TX.
Moser, T. 1990. Effects and measurements of airborne toxic
chemicals, with emphasis on organic contaminants. Presented
at the Symposium on The Future of Environmental Monitoring:
EMAP and NADP, the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program and National Acid Deposition Program.
October 29-30, San Antonio, TX.
Mouat, D.A., CA. Fox, and M.R. Rose. 1990. Ecological indi-
cator strategy for monitoring arid ecosystems. Presented at the
International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management
Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October
16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
NeiUon, R.P. 1990. Continental scale biome responses to cli-
matic change. Presented at the International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI
Minerals Management Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural
Research Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Newell, A.D. 1990. Sulfate and nitrate trends in the U.S. EPA
Long-Term Monitoring Project Presented at the International
Conference on Acidic Deposition: Its Nature and Impacts,
Royal Society of Edinburgh. September 16-21, Glasgow,
Scotland.
Newell, A.D., D.J. Blick, and R. Hjort 1990. Testing for
trends when there is a change in methods. Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Society of Limnology and
Oceanography. June 10-15, Williamsburg, VA.
Norton, D.J. 1989. Landscape Characterization: A baseline
for national ecological monitoring. Presented to the Bureau of
Land Management. December, Washington, DC.
Norton, D.J. 1990. Landscape Characterization: A baseline
for national ecological monitoring. Presented to the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October, Washington,
DC.
Norton, D.J. 1990. Landscape Characterization: A baseline
for national ecological monitoring. Presented to the Nature
Conservancy. December, Washington, DC.
Norton, D.J. 1990. Landscape Characterization: A baseline
for national ecological monitoring. Presented to the U.S.D A.
National Resources Inventory Program. Washington, DC.
Norton, D.J. 1990. Landscape Characterization: A baseline
for national ecological monitoring. Presented to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. December, Washington, DC.
Norton, D.J. 1989. Landscape Characterization: Concepts,
methods, and program plans. Presented at a meeting of the
Multimedia Sciences Committee, U.S Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Norton, D.J. 1990. Landscape characterization and temporal
considerations in the U.S. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP). Presented at the Regional
Meeting of the American Society for Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing. July 18, Reston, VA.
Norton, D.J. 1990. Landscape Characterization: Concept,
overview, and international perspectives. Presented to the
Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research
Organization. September 4, Canberra, Australia.
Norton, D.J. 1990. Landscape Characterization update.
Presented to the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory
Board. October 25, Washington, DC.
Norton, D.J., and E.T. Slonecker. 1990. EMAP landscape
characterization and common exposure settings. Presented at
the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAQ Annual Meeting. November 11-15, Washington, DC.
Norton, D.J., and E.T. Slonecker. 1990. The Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program's landscape characteriza-
tion data base: New opportunities in spatial analysis.
Presented at the Geographic Information Systems/Land
Information Systems Annual Conference, GIS/LIS '90.
November 5-10, Anaheim, CA.
Norton, D.J., DM. Muchoney, and E.T. Slonecker. 1990.
Ecological monitoring using remote sensing-supported CIS.
Presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the American Society
of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. March 18-23,
Denver, CO.
Olson, G.L, and R.P. Breckenridge. 1990. Assessing agroe-
cosystem sustainability: An integrated approach. Presented at
the International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management
Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October
16-19, Ft. Lauderdale,FL.
O'Neill, R.V., and D.J. Norton. 1990. Landscape characteri-
zation and ecological monitoring. Presented to the
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers. November 20,
Washington, DC.
Overton, S. 1989. A strategy for use of found samples in a
rigorous monitoring design. Presented at the International
Symposium on the Design of Water Quality Information
Systems, Colorado State University. June 7-9, Ft Collins, CO.
Overton, W.S. 1990. Statistical design. Presented to the
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers. November 20,
Washington, DC.
Overton, W.S.,D.L Stevens, and D. White. 1990. The EMAP
design perspective: A prescription for environmental monitor-
ing. Presented at the Second International Environmetrics
Conference: Statistical Methods for the Environmental
Sciences, International Environmetrics Society. September 27-
29, Como, Italy.
Papp, M. 1989. EMAP-Forests. Presented at the Third Annual
Integrated Monitoring Workshop, International Joint
Commission. November 15-17, Victoria, British Columbia.
PauLJ.F. 1988. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Presented at the Sixteenth Annual
Middle Atlantic Bight Physical Oceanography and Me-
teorology Workshop. November 3-4, Cambridge, MA.
-.18-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Paul, J.F. 1989. An ecological status and trends program:
EPA's approach to monitoring condition of the nation's near
coastal waters. Presented at the Spring Meeting of Southern
Association of Marine Laboratories, Belle W. Baruch Institute
for Marine Biology and Coastal Research. April 18-20,
Georgetown, SC.
Paul, J.F. 1989. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Presented at the Fifth National Park
Service Environmental Roundtable. November 7-9, Lake
Geneva, Wl.
Paul, J.F. 1990. EMAP-Near Coastal. Presented at a
Workshop on Coastal Ocean Physics, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Global Climate Change Program. January
8-9, Galveston, TX.
Paul, J.F. 1990. EMAP-Near Coastal. Presented at the 62nd
Annual Meeting of the Eastern Branch of the Ecological Society
of America. September 30 - October 3, Baltimore, MD.
Paul, J.F. 1990. Quality assurance aspects of EPA's Near
Coastal Ecological Status and Trends Program. Presented at
the Third Annual Ecological Quality Assurance Workshop,
Canada Centre for Inland Waters. April 24-26, Burlington,
Ontario.
Paul, J.F., A.F. Holland, and K.J. Scott 1989. EPA's approach
to monitoring condition of the nation's near coastal waters.
Presented at the Pacific Estuarine Research Society Meeting.
April 28-29, Astoria, WA.
Paul, J.F., A.F. Holland, J.K. Summers, and K.J. Scott 1989.
EPA's approach to monitoring condition of near coastal ecosys-
tems. Presented at the 10th Biennial International Estuarine
Research Conference. October 8-12, Baltimore, MD.
Paul, J.F., A.F. Holland, J.K. Summers, and S.C. Schimmel.
1990. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program: An ecological status and trends program. Presented
at the 17th Annual Aquatic Toxicity Workshop. November 5-
7, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Paul, J.F., A.F. Holland, K.J. Scott, D.A. Flemer, and E.P.
Meier. 1989. An ecological status and trends program - EPA's
approach to monitoring condition of the nation's ecosystems.
Presented at the Oceans '89 Conference. September 18-21,
Seattle, WA.
Paul, J.F., A.F. Holland, S.C. Schimmel, J.K. Summers, and K.J.
Scott 1989. EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, an ecological status and trends program. Presented
at a Workshop sponsored by National Ocean Pollution Policy
Board Work Group on Habitat Modification, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Research Center. December 5-6, Slidell, LA.
Paul J.F., and A. Robertson. 1990. EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program: An ecological status and
trends program. ^Presented to the NOAA National Marine
Fisheries Laboratory. September 27, Beaufort, NC.
Paul, J.F., K.J. Scott, A.F. Holland, and E.P. Meier. 1989.
Ecological status and trends program - EPA's approach to
monitoring condition of the nation's ecosystems. Presented at
the 32nd Annual Conference on Great Lakes Research. May
30 - June 2, Madison, Wl.
Paulsen, S.G. 1989. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program: The Surface Water project. Presented at
the National Symposium on Water Quality Assessment, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. October
16-19, Ft. Collins, CO.
Paulsen, S.G. 1990. EMAP: Surface Water program.
Presented at the American Society of Civil Engineers meeting.
April, Houston, TX.
Paulsen, S. 1990. EMAP-Surface Waters. Presented to the As-
sociation of Ecosystem Research Centers. July 26, Snowbird,
UT.
Paulsen, S. 1990. Surface Waters Health (EMAP): Brief
overview, indicators of health and how they will be used.
Presented at the Symposium on The Future of Environmental
Monitoring: EMAP and NADP, the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program and National Acid Deposition
Program. October 29-30, San Antonio, TX.
Paulsen, S., and P. Larsen. 1990. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program: Design and implementation of the
surface water component. Presented at the 75th Annual
Meeting of the Ecological Society of America. July 29 - August
2, Snowbird, UT.
Paulsen, S., and R. Novitzki. 1990. EMAP Overview.
Presented at the All Scientists Meeting for the National Science
Foundation's Long-term Ecological Research Network.
September 29, Estes Park, CO.
Paulsen, S., C. Chen, C. Palmer, and D. Heggem. 1989. The
contribution of measurement error to total error in analysis of
data from an aquatic survey. Presented at the First
International Conference on Environmetrics, International
Environmetrics Society. April 4-7, Cairo, Egypt
Paulsen, S.C., D.L Larsen, R. Hughes, W.L Kinney, and J.E.
Pollard. 1990. Application of a national systematic grid to
analyze status and trends in conditions of inland aquatic sys-
tems. Presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. November 11-15,
Washington, DC.
Pollack, A.K., and J. Ford. 1989. The TIME project: The role
of a data analysis plan in monitoring network design.
Presented at the International Symposium on the Design of
Water Quality Information Systems, Colorado State University.
June 7-9, Ft. Collins, CO.
Pollard, J., and D. Heggem. 1989. Quality assurance sample
design for large and small environmental water quality surveys:
A look at the past and future. Presented at the First
International Conference on Environmetrics, International
Environmetrics Society. April 4-7, Cairo, Egypt.
Pollard, J., and W. Kinney. 1989. Macroinvertebrate sam-
pling methods. Presented at the National Symposium on
Water Quality Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water. October 16-19, Ft. Collins, CO.
Pollard, J.E., and D.V. Peck. 1990. Biological quality assur-
ance for ecological monitoring: Can we use chemistry as a
template? Presented at the Third Annual Ecological Quality
Assurance Workshop, Canada Centre for Inland Waters. April
24-26, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
Preston, E 1990. Overview of EMAP-Wetlands interagency
interactions. Presented at the Forested Wetlands Workshop,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. July
9-11,Vicksburg,MS.
Ranasinghe, J.A., and A.F. Holland. 1990. Benthos as indica-
tors of low summer dissolved oxygen in Chesapeake Bay.
Poster presentation at the International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOt
Minerals Management Service, and U.S.D A. Agricultural
Research Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
-19-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Remold, R.)v and R.A. Linthurst. 1989. Development of rea-
sonable condition indicators for our nation's coast. Presented
at the 10th Biennial International Estuarine Research
Federation Conference. October 8-12, Baltimore, MD.
(Sitters, K.H., and J.E. Barnard. 1989. Criteria for evaluating
indicators of forest health. Presented at the Conference on
Global Natural Resource Monitoring and Assessments:
Preparing for the 21st Century, International Union of Forestry
Research Organizations and the United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization. September 24-30, Venice, Italy.
Schimmd, S.C, CJ. Strobe), RM. Valente, J.S. Rosen, K.
Summers, and A.F. Holland. 1990. EMAP Near Coastal (NC)
Demonstration Project: Approach, goals, and preliminary re-
sults. Presented at the 11 th Annual Meeting of the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. November 11-15,
Washington, DC.
Schhnmd, S.C, J.F. Paul, A.F. Holland, K.J. Scott, and T.P.
O'Connor. 1989. EMAP, an ecological status and trends pro-
gram: Near coastal component. Poster presentation at the
Gulf of Maine Symposium, December 10-12, Portland, ME.
Schumacher, B.A., and P.W. Shaffer. 1990. ON and C:S ra-
tios of forested soils in the eastern United States. Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Soil Science Society of America.
October 21 -26, San Antonio, TX.
Scott, J.,J. Messer, and S.Weisberg. 1990. EMAP indicator
strategy: Application to near coastal ecosystems. Presented at
the 11 th Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. November 11-15, Washington,
DC.
Scott, K.J., A.F. Holland, and J.F. Paul. 1989. EPA's approach
to monitoring condition of the nation's near coastal waters.
Presented at the Northeast Estuarine Research Society Meeting.
May 29-30, Durham, NH.
Scott, K.J., J.F. Paul, J.K. Summers, A.F. Holland, and T.P.
O'Connor. 1989. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program for near coastal waters. Poster presentation at the 2nd
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection Technology Transfer
Workshop, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December
3-5, New Orleans, LA.
Scott, K.J., J.F. Paul, J.K. Summers, A.F. Holland, and T.P.
O'Connor. 1989. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program for Near Coastal Waters. Poster presentation at the
10th Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. October 29 - November 2,
Toronto, Ontario.
Sbgle, R., L Blume, B. Schumacher, M. Papp, W. Cole, and S.
Baxter. 1989. Use of a laboratory data entry and verification
system as a quality assurance tool applied to a regional soil
characterization study. Presented at the First International
Environmetrics Conference, International Environmetrics
Society. April 4-7, Cairo, Egypt.
Slonecker, E.T. 1990. Landscape Characterization overview.
Presetted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Regional Scientists. July, Warrenton, VA.
Stoddard,J.L 1989. Reconstruction of past and current
episodes for historic hydrologic and chemical data, Catskill
Mountains, New York. Presented at the American
Geophysical Union Meeting. December 4-8, San Francisco,
CA.
Sioddard,J.L 1990. Regional importance of nitrate in the
acidification of surface waters of the United States. Presented
at the International Conference on Acidic Deposition: Its
Nature and Impacts, Royal Society of Edinburgh. September
16-21, Glasgow, Scotland.
Summers, K. 1990. EMAP-Near Coastal. Presented to the As-
sociation of Ecosystem Research Centers. July 26, Snowbird,
UT.
Summers, J.K.J.R. Clark, and J.M. Macauley. 1990. The use
of dissolved oxygen concentration as an indicator of ecological
condition in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Poster presentation at
the International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals Management
Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service. October
16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Summers, J.K., T. Heitmuller, A.F. Holland, and J.F. Paul.
1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program:
Plans for monitoring in the Gulf of Mexico in 1991. Presented
at the Coastal Society Twelfth International Conference, Our
Coastal Experience: Assessing the Past, Confronting the
Future. October 21 -24, San Antonio, TX.
van der Valk, A.G., and L Squires. 1990. Responses of vege-
tation to flooding in northern prairie wetlands: An experimen-
tal study. Presented at the International Symposium on
Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI
Minerals Management Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural
Research Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Van Remortel, R.D., and A.C. Neale. 1990. Quantitative veri-
fication techniques applied to soil and aquatic data from
acidic deposition surveys of the United States. Presented at
the International Conference on Acidic Deposition: Its Nature
and Impacts, Royal Society of Edinburgh. September 16-21,
Glasgow, Scotland.
Weisberg, S.B., A.F. Holland,]. Kou, D. Breitburg, and R.
Diaz. 1990. Temporal variability in dissolved oxygen content
and its effects on the representativeness of point in time mea-
surements. Poster presentation at the International Symposium
on Ecological Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. DOI Minerals Management Service, and U.S.D.A.
Agricultural Research Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale,
FL.
White, D. 1989. Spatial data models and spatial analysis
methods. Presented at the 1989 Great Lakes CIS Workshop,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National
Program Office, and U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Division. October 11, Southgate, Ml.
White, D., J. Kimerling, S. Overton, and D. McKenzie. 1990.
Cartographic and geometric components of a global sampling
design for environmental monitoring. Poster presentation at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Statistics
Conference. March 26-29, Williamsburg, VA.
White, D., S. Overton, D. McKenzie, W. Tobler, Z. Chen, G.
Dutton, M. Goodchild, Y. Shiren, H. Lukatda, and J.
Kimerling. 1989. Alternative geometries for global sampling
designs for environmental monitoring. Poster and presentation
at the Conference on Global Natural Resource Monitoring and
Assessments: Preparing for the 21 st Century, International
Union of Forestry Research Organizations and the United
Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. September 24-
30, Venice, Italy.
Whittier, T. 1989. An ecoregional framework for assessing
water quality. Poster presentation at the Water Quality Data
Assessment Workshop, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6. November 13-16, San Antonio, TX.
-20-
-------
EMAP 9 Monitor
Whittier, T. 1989. Biological criteria and monitoring.
Poster presentation at the Water Quality Data Assessment
Workshop, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6.
November 13-16, San Antonio, TX.
Whittier, T. 1989. Determining regional conditions. Pre-
sented at the Water Quality Data Assessment Workshop, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. November 13-
16, San Antonio, TX.
Whittier, T. 1989. EMAP-Surface Waters. Presented at the
Water Quality Data Assessment Workshop, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Region 6. November 13-16, San Anto-
nio, TX.
Whittier, T.R. 1990. Ecoregional biological criteria for pro-
tecting aquatic life in Ohio's streams. Poster presentation at
the International Symposium on Aquatic Ecosystem Health.
July 23-26, Waterloo, Ontario.
Whittier, T.R., and E.T. Rankin. 1990. Regional and temporal
patterns of three biological indices of stream condition.
Presented at the International Symposium on Ecological
Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals
Management Service, and U.S.DA. Agricultural Research
Service. October 16-19, Ft Lauderdale, FL
Whittier, T.R., and S.C. Pauben. 1990. The Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): A long-term,
broad-scale ecological health assessment. Presented at the
International Symposium on Aquatic Ecosystem Health. July
23-26, Waterloo, Ontario.
Wyant, J.G., and R.M. Harber-Stang. 1990. Application of
ecological theory to the selection of indicators for forests.
Presented at the International Symposium on Ecological
Indicators, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. DOI Minerals
Management Service, and U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research
Service. October 16-19, Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Young, T.C, and J. Ford 1989. Site selection procedures for
Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME).
Presented at the International Symposium on the Design of
Water Quality Information Systems, Colorado State University.
June 7-9, Ft. Collins, CO.
Steering Committee
RickKutz
Office of Modeling, Monitoring
Systems, and Quality Assurance
U.S. EPA (RD-680)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Tom Dixon
Office of Modeling, Monitoring
Systems, and Quality Assurance
U.S. EPA (RD-680)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Bruce Jones 4
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Exposure Assessment Division
U.S. EPA
944 E. Harmon Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89109
Dan McKenzie
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. EPA
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
John Paul
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. EPA
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Jim Vickery
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory
U.S. EPA (MD-75)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-21-
-------
EMAP • Monitor
Recent and Upcoming Events
EMAP Forests Workshop. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program and USDA
Forest Service, December 3-6,1990, Rodeway Inn
Foothills, Denver, CO. Contact; Craig Palmer
(702) 798-2186 (By invitation only).
Fall Meeting. American Geophysical Union,
December 3-7,1990, Civic Center, San Francisco,
CA. Contact: John Stoddard (503) 757-4666 or
FJS 420-4666.
interagency Meeting of Experts on Monitoring of
Natural Terrestrial Ecosystems. United Nations
Environment Programme, December 3-7,1990,
University of Maine, Bangor, ME. Contact: Jay
Messer (919) 541-0150 or FTS 629-0150.
Gulf of Mexico Symposium. U .S. EPA Gu If of
Mexico Program Office, December 3-5,1990,
Clarion Hotel, New Orleans, LA. Contact: Doug
Lipka (601) 688-3726 or FTS 494-3726.
Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium Symposium.
Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium,
December 4-6,1990, Lord Baltimore Hotel,
Baltimore, MD. Contact: Joseph A. Mihursky
(301) 326-6700.
NOAA National Status & Trends Program Quality
Assurance and Annual Meeting. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, December 10-13,
1990, Battelle Pacific Northwest Marine
Laboratory, Squim, WA. Contact: Andrew
Robertson (301) 443-8933 or FTS 443-8933 (By
invitation only).
Water Quality Standards for the 21 st Century.
US. EPA Office of Water, December 10-13,1990,
Hyatt Regency-Crystal City, Arlington, VA.
Contact: Bob Hughes (503) 757-4666 or FTS 420-
4666.
Pesticides in Natural Systems, How Can Their
Effects Be Monitored? U.S. EPA Region 10 and
Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis,
December 11 -12,1990, LaSells Stewart Center,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Contact:
Mike Marsh (206) 442-2876 or FTS 339-2876.
Task Force on Monitoring. Bureau of Land
Management, December 11 -13,1990, Hotel
Westcourt, Phoenix, AZ. Contact Bill Kepner
(702) 798-2193 or FTS 545-2193 (By invitation
only).
EMAP-Wetlands Field Pilot Study Workshop.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, December 17-18,1990 (hotel to be de-
termined). Contact; Dick Novitzki (503) 757-4666
or FTS 420-4666.
Winter Conference on Environmental Statistics.
American Statistical Association, January 3-5,
1991, New Orleans, LA. Contact TonyOlsen
(503) 757-4666 or FTS 420-4666.
NOPPB Working Group Workshop. National
Ocean Pollution Policy Board/Marine Ecosystem
Monitoring Workgroup, January 8-10,1991,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze,
FL. Contact: Sari Karaly (301) 673-5243 or FTS
673-5243 (By invitation only).
Quarterly Executive Meeting for EMAP
Information Management Committee.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, January 8-10,1991, Houston, TX.
Contact Eugene Meier (702) 798-2237 or FTS
545-2237 (By invitation only).
Seventh International Conference on Interactive
Information and Processing Systems for
Meteorology, Oceanography, and Hydrology.
American Meteorological Society, January 13-19,
1991, New Orleans, LA. Contact Eugene Meier
(702) 798-2237 or FTS 545-2237.
Water Users' Group Meeting. U.S. Geological
Survey, January 14-18,1991, New Orleans, LA.
Contact: Nancy Lopez (703) 648-5015 or FTS 959-
5015 (By invitation only).
4th Annual Ecological Quality Assurance
Workshop. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program, February 26-28,1991,
Andrew Breidenbach Environmental Research
Center, Cincinnati, OH. Contact: Bob Craves
(513) 569-7325 or FTS 684-7325.
Pollution Prevention Conference. Chemical
Manufacturer's Association, April 3-5,1991,
Sheraton Washington Hotel, Washington, DC.
Contact John Koutsandreas (202) 382-5784 or FTS
382-5784.
For more information, please contact Tom Dixon in EPA's Office of Modeling,
Monitoring, and Quality Assurance, (202) 382-7238 or FTS 382-7238.
-22-
-------
The EMAP Monitor is prepared by the Office
of Modeling, Monitoring Systems, and Qual-
ity Assurance and the Office of Environmen-
tal Processes and Effects Research, within
EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The EMAP Monitor is intended to inform in-
terested agencies and individuals of current
activities and findings from the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program. If you
currently do not receive the Monitor and
would like to be added to the distribution list
(or know of others who may be interested),
please fill in the box (or boxes).
Return to Tom Dixon, EMAP Monitor, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (RD-680),
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Name:
Affiliation:
Address:
Name:
Affiliation:
Address:
Name:
Affiliation:
Address:
------- |