Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program
(EMAP)
REPORT TO CONGRESS
March 15,1992
-------
Table of Contents
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 1
I. Introduction 1
II. Overview of EMAP Objectives 1
III. Accomplishments 3
A. Research 3
Agroecosystems : 3
Arid Ecosystems 4
Forests 4
Landscape Characterization 4
Indicators 4
Integration and Assessment 5
B. Monitoring 5
Agroecosystems 7
Arid Ecosystems 7
Near Coastal 7
Forest 8
Great Lakes 8
Surface Waters 8
Wetlands 9
C. lnter-/lntra-agency and State Coordination 10
Appendix A
Federal Agencies Participating in EMAP
Appendix B
Examples of Interagency Cooperation
Appendix C
State Participation in EMAP
Appendix D
EMAP FY1991 DELIVERABLES
EMAP FY1992 DELIVERABLES
Appendix E
New England Forest Health Monitoring (FY90) Report
-------
EMAP
REPORT TO CONGRESS
/. Introduction
This document reports on the specific objectives, activities, and major
accomplishments of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP),
as required by Congress in the EPA FY92 appropriations. This report includes:
documentation on EMAP's progress in research and monitoring, accomplishments in
inter-/intra-agency coordination, and the role of the Office of Water and the states in
EMAP design and implementation. In addition, this report focuses on how EMAP will
supplement, but not duplicate the work of states and other federal programs including
mechanisms to avoid duplication and ensure cost-effective resource use, through the
use of existing monitoring networks where possible.
Appendices to this report include a list of Federal agencies currently participating
in EMAP, several examples of multiple-agency interaction in specific EMAP projects, a
list of States participating in EMAP with a brief characterization of their current function,
and a list of products, or "Deliverable*" produced by EMAP for FY 1991 and planned for
FY 1992.
//. Overview of EMAP Objectives
EMAP represents a new direction
for the Environmental Protection
Agency. It is a high priority Agency
initiative, responding specifically to the
EPA Science Advisory Board's 1988
recommendation to monitor ecological
status and trends. EMAP is a research,
monitoring, and assessment program to
determine the condition of our Nation's
ecological resources. EMAP provides
data to help evaluate the success of
current environmental policies and to
identify emerging problems before they
become widespread or irreversible. The
principal goal of the program is to
provide decision makers with sound data
on which to base environmental risk
management decisions.
EMAP reports on the status and
trends in indicators of the condition of
ecological resources on a regional and
national basis. In addition, EMAP data
provides the basis for the determination
of associations between human-induced
stresses and ecological condition. Using a
probabilistic sampling design and
ecological indicators, EMAP is assessing
the condition of the Nation's ecological
resources (defined within EMAP as:
wetlands, surface waters, Great Lakes,
agroecosystems, arid ecosystems, forests,
and near coastal environments). The
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Page 2
program is presently in the pilot and
demonstration phase. EMAP will provide
comparable, high quality data and
assessments on the status of our nation's
ecological resources. EPA is working with
its Regional Offices, States, and other
Federal Agencies in implementing this
program.
EMAP has been designed to
determine the condition of our
ecological resources and provide a
"National Ecological Report Card." It has
three main strategic objectives:
1. Provide periodic evaluations of the
current status, extent, changes, and
trends in indicators of the condition
of the nation's ecological resources
on a regional basis, with known
statistical confidence.
2. Monitor indicators of pollutant
exposure and habitat condition and
seek associations between human-
induced stresses and ecological
condition.
3. Provide annual monitoring data,
statistical summaries, and inter-
pretive reports on ecological status
and trends at the regional and
national level to resource managers
and the public.
EMAP is designed to help answer
the following questions:
• What is the current status and
geographic extent of ecological
resources?
• What resources are degrading or
improving, where, and at what
rate?
• To what levels of stress/pollution
are the resources exposed, and in
what regions?
• What are the possible reasons for
degrading or improving conditions?
• What resources are at current or
future risk?
• Are affected resources responding
to control and regulatory programs?
EMAP is progressing through stages
of sampling design, resource mapping,
indicator development, building inter-
agency coordination, and embarking on
field pilots and demonstration projects
to test monitoring and analysis method-
ology. These activities are organized by
the seven major resource groups, with
implementation schedules determined
for each group by available EPA
resources, commitments with coop-
erating institutions, and the ability to
integrate the results with other EMAP
activities. Pilot and demonstration
projects began in the summer of 1990,
and demonstration projects were fully
implemented in the summer of 1991 for
specific regions for forests and near
coastal ecosystems. As well as expanding
its field research into additional resource
categories and geographic areas, EMAP
will increase emphasis on information
management and the integration and
assessment of monitoring data.
EMAP takes a holistic perspective
of the environment to address basic
questions about ecological conditions.
This represents a major technical and
administrative transformation (a "new
way of doing business") in environmental
protection by recognizing the impor-
tance of long-term monitoring to detect
trends, observe chronic disorders, and
examine subtle responses to both stress
and mitigation. EMAP takes a multiple
resource approach because species and
ecological resources do not act in isola-
tion, rather they interact with one
another through complex associations.
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Page 3
The EMAP approach provides an
integrated perspective, with seven broad
resource categories — forests, wetlands,
arid ecosystems, surface waters,
agroecosystems, Great Lakes, and near
coastal waters. The program also
incorporates air and deposition
monitoring and landscape
characterization to derive integrated
assessments of resource condition across
all resource groups. In addition, on-going
research plays an important role in the
program in defining now to measure
ecosystem conditions on these scales.
EMAP is also a new way of doing
business for EPA because of our insis-
tence that EMAP must be integrated
with the efforts of other EPA Offices,
Federal agencies, States and geographic
initiatives such as the Chesapeake Bay,
Great Lakes, or Gulf of Mexico. EPA ex-
ercises leadership in the overall Program
for coordination and integration of the
large-scale reporting and integrated
assessments to be produced by EMAP. It
is, however, critical that the program be
as decentralized and dispersed as possi-
ble, including participation by agencies
and institutions outside of EPA.
Finally, EMAP is dedicated to mak-
ing its monitoring data and methodolo-
gies available to the public to the
maximum extent feasible. This means
that once methods and data have been
properly qualified and validated, EMAP is
expending considerable effort to ensure
that all potential data users are fully in-
formed of the content, significance and
access methods to the data. For the case
of data which has to be collected for
EMAP, each EMAP ecosystem resource
group is committed to producing prop-
erly qualified monitoring data sets within
nine months of field collection.
///. Accomplishments
A. Research: Indicators, Integration and Assessment
EMAP conducts applied research in
ecological sciences that feeds into the
monitoring and assessment aspects of
the program. Research plays a funda-
mental role in EMAP in defining how to
measure and assess ecological condition.
The research program utilizes the
inhouse staff, scientists from other agen-
cies, and the academic community to
advance the state of science. EMAP's re-
search program includes environmental
statistics, ecological indicator develop-
ment, landscape ecology, and ecological
risk characterization. Although active
research areas encompass a wide variety
of topics, two specific areas are critical to
the program's success: (1) indicators and
(2) integration and assessment. Recent
activities in these areas have been
selected for this report as examples of
research activities in EMAP.
Agroecosystems
Indicator research for soil and
water quality are of high interest to the
EMAP-Agroecosystem group.
Specifically being evaluated are indices
for interpreting nematode community
patterns as an indicator of soil health are
being evaluated. A survey was recently
conducted in soils of soybean, alfalfa, and
pasture fields across the coastal plains,
piedmont, and mountain regions of
North Carolina. The research included
participation from academic institutions
and laboratories on several aspects of the
project:
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Page 4
extracting nematodes from
soil samples;
enumerating total and
active fungi, total and
active bacteria, and nema-
todes in soil by trophic
group;
^ the soil for
chemical and physical
properties; and
• analyzing soil texture.
Results from the research effects
will be applied to field monitoring
activities in the FY92 North Carolina
pilot.
Arid Ecosystems
EMAP-Arid Ecosystems recently
completed a study (with the EMAP-
Landscape Characterization group) of
the effectiveness of remote sensing for
change detection using multidate,
multisensor, and multispectral data. The
study concluded that changes in land
cover can be detected using aerial
photographs and multispectral scanners.
A final draft report, "Change Detection
of Landscapes Using Remote Sensing,"
was completed from the research.
Additional research is being initiated to
evaluate the applicability of remote
sensing to determine the cause of
change.
Forests
EMAP-Forests research produced a
final draft of the Forest Health
Monitoring Laboratory Methods Manual.
The manual is a six-part document
which provides step-by-step methods for
soil preparation and analysis, foliar
preparation and analysis, and root
patnogen/mycorrhizae analysis. The
methods were developed and refined
during previous field studies and will be
applied nation-wide in the continuing
National Forest Health Monitoring
activities.
Landscape Characterization
The EMAP-Landscape
Characterization group completed
research comparing environmental
photographic interpretation methods.
The Digital Video Plotter (DVP), a low-
cost, desktop stereoplotter with
potential for high-efficiency generation
of digital aerial photographic
interpretation data was evaluated against
traditional methods. The research
revealed that the DVP is more accurate
and time efficient than the Zoom
Transfer Scope and manual digitizing
methods. A final report on the study was
published, "EMAP-LC Land Use and
Land Cover Mapping with a Desktop
Analytical Stereoplotter."
Indicators
The Indicators Group has
completed two important documents:
"The Indicator Development Strategy for
the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program" (EPA/600/3-
91/023) and Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program: Ecological
Indicators (EPA/600/3-90/060). The
Indicator development strategy includes:
• a vision of how a fully functional
EMAP indicator development
project would operate;
• a framework for determining
indicator development needs;
• criteria and protocols for selecting,
evaluating, and re-evaluating
indicators;
• procedures for coordinating
indicator-related activities among
resource groups; and
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Page 5
• an organization, communication,
and coordination plan.
Integration and Assessment
The Integration and Assessment
Group is charged with ensuring that
EMAP data collected from the field can
be translated for use in answering policy-
relevant and managerial questions on
regional scales. During the first quarter of
FY92, the EPA Science Advisory Board
met to review the progress of EMAP
integration and assessment activities.
Most recently, the Integration and
Assessment Group has begun to study
approaches that would lead to the
development of an assessment
framework to illustrate the relationships
between assessment objectives,
assessment end points, conceptual
models, data analysis, and integration
and interpretation of EMAP data.
Initially, the approach for development
of the framework encompasses several
EMAP components (e.g., design,
indicators, landscape characterization).
In addition, the Integration and
Assessment Group joined with several
other EMAP groups to create a pilot of
the EMAP Information Management
System, which will document and
facilitate the transfer of data obtained
from the 1990 Near Coastal
Demonstration Project and the 1990
Forest 20/20 Pilot Study. Integration
and Assessment also began research to
identify and develop appropriate assess-
ment tools.
B. Monitoring
This section describes accomplish-
ments in EMAP's field implementation.
Currently, most of the resource groups
are in the pilot and demonstration
phases of development. EMAP has
adopted a four-step process to prepare
for full implementation (See the
diagram below). Pilot and demonstration
projects are used to field test EMAP's
methods, design, and indicators. These
projects not only serve as developmental
steps to reach implementation, they also
provide data that can be used to assess
the condition of ecological resources in
the area under study.
EMAP's field activities were initi-
ated in FY90 with Near Coastal and
Forest Demonstration Projects. The
Near Coastal Demonstration project was
conducted at 217 sampling stations in
estuaries throughout the Virginian
Province (Cape Cod to the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay). The New England
Forest Health Monitoring Project was
also initiated during the summer of 1990
at over 200 sites in the six New England
states.
In FY91 EMAP continued these
efforts and expanded field efforts to
cover other areas of the country. In
addition to the Near Coastal and Forest
projects, sampling began in Wetlands
and Surface Waters. In FY92, these
efforts will continue and pilots will be
conducted in Arid Ecosystems, Great
Lakes, and Agroecosystems. This year all
seven EMAP ecosystem groups will
conduct field studies.
There are a number of specific
mechanisms employed throughout the
EMAP development process which help
to avoid duplication of efforts between
EMAP and other monitoring efforts.
These include:
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Page 6
Written Memoranda of Understanding
(see Appendix A) with cooperating
groups;
Long Planning Cycles, which provide
multiple opportunities to learn
about other related groups and
activities;
Focus on Methods, which are being
studied and adopted by related
programs;
National-Level Peer Reviews involving
the best informed and most broadly
experienced scientists in their fields;
Joint Recruitment and Staffing of
projects with other agencies; and
High Profile and Aggressive Outreach
activities.
Research on
Indicators
EMAP Implementation Process
Pilot ^ Demonstration -
Implementation
The Near Coastal resource group
has been a priority program for the de-
velopment of EMAP monitoring pro-
cesses, in part because of the impor-
tance of coastal areas to the Agency's
risk-based management initiatives, and
in part because of the opportunity to in-
tegrate EMAP activities with established
resource management and monitoring
activities involving other agencies and
geographic targeting in areas such as the
Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.
EMAP-NC is also a good example of the
incorporation of other organizations in
EMAP.
The EMAP-Near Coastal program is
jointly planned and directed by EPA and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), which has great
experience and demonstrated leader-
ship in coastal and estuarine studies.
(See Appendix B). For FY 1991, the
value 01 NOAA's contribution to the
program is estimated to be nearly $1
million, and this will increase
substantially for FY1992. EMAP-Near
Coastal has an on-going process to
identify and assess the feasibility of new
organizational formats which include a
"joint office" to be used to execute
federal near coastal research, monitoring
and assessment activities in the future.
The involvement of others in the
planning and development of EMAP is
costly. In the experience of senior EMAP
managers, it takes a minimum of three
or four detailed briefings simply to pro-
vide knowledgeable scientists with a
clear vision of the scope and potential of
EMAP monitoring. The EMAP-Near
Coastal program has expended a great
deal of effort to support the develop-
ment of a users network for the Virginian
Province, incorporating specialists from
the State and local level, regional groups
such as the Chesapeake Bay Program,
EPA Regional Offices (i.e., Regions I, II,
and III) and their divisional leaders
(especially Water and Environmental
Services Divisions), and EPA's headquar-
ters Office of Water staff. Similar efforts
are going on in the Gulf Coast areas
involvedin the Louisianian Province
demonstration which began in 1991.
And this process is not complete. It will
be a continuous part of the EMAP
agenda.
Described below and in the
following pages are the monitoring
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
accomplishments made for each
ecosystem during FY91 and plans for
FY92. Included in the descriptions are
the geographic locations of the field
studies and EMAP's partners in
conducting the monitoring activities.
Descriptions of interagency and state
participation are presented in Section C.
Agroecosystems
The EMAP Agroecosystem
Research Plans were completed and
peer reviewed in 1991 and plans for a
pilot study in North Carolina began.
Plans for a Joint Pilot Study in 1992 with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture are
currently being finalized. The objective
of the study is to evaluate indicators of
agroecosystem condition.
Participating Agencies:
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
- Agricultural Research Service
- National Agricultural Statistics
Service
- Soil Conservation Service
• U.S. Department of Energy
- Idaho National Engineering Lab
• North Carolina Department of
Environmental Health and Natural
Resources
Arid Ecosystems
The Arid Ecosystem Resource
Group completed its strategic Monitor-
ing Plan in 1991. The strategic plan
includes collecting synoptic data to
monitor and assess long-term trends of
arid ecosystem condition throughout the
western United States. The San Pedro
Watershed characterization study {joint
study with EMAP Landscape Characteri-
zation) was conducted in southeastern
Arizona to determine arid ecosystem
condition associated with sustained
Page?
water sources. In 1992, an indicator pilot
test will be conducted in the Colorado
Plateau area (Utah, Colorado, Arizona,
New Mexico).
Participating Agencies:
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
- Forest Service
- Soil Conservation Service
• U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
• U.S. Department of Energy
Idaho National Engineering Lab
• Desert Research Institute, Reno,
Nevada
• Commonwealth Sciences and
Industrial Research Organization,
Australia
Near Coastal
In 1991, sampling continued in the
mid-Atlantic estuaries from Cape Cod
south to the mouth of the Chesapeake
Bay. Samples collected included fish,
sediment, benthos, and water quality. In
1991, a demonstration project was also
conducted in the Gulf of Mexico estuar-
ies extending from north of Tampa Bay
west to the Mexican border. Sampling
and monitoring activities will continue in
1992 in the estuaries of the mid-Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico.
Participating Agencies:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
- National Status and Trends
Program
- Strategic Assessment Program
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Page 8
- National Marine Fisheries
Service
• Delaware River Basin Commission
• Chesapeake Bay Agreement States
• EPA Gulf of Mexico Program and
Gulf States
Forests
In 1991, the Forest Resource
Group and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service continued
the New England Forest Health
Monitoring and expanded monitoring to
the mid-Atlantic states. The South-
eastern Demonstration project also
began in 1991. Monitoring was primarily
based on visual symptoms and growth
efficiency. Also, pilot studies in Georgia,
California, and Colorado were
conducted in 1991. Activities for 1992
include full monitoring implementation
in the northeast, demonstration projects
in the southeast, pilot programs in the
western states, and joint reporting with
the USDA Forest Service. Also for 1992,
additional biological and ecological
indicators are being added to the forest
sampling suite, as a result of EPA
research conducted during prior year
demonstrations.
Participating Agencies:
• Department of Agriculture
- Forest Service
- Soil Conservation Service
• Department of the Interior
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- National Park Service
- Bureau of Land Management
• Tennessee Valley Authority
• State Foresters
Great Lakes
The Great Lakes Resource Group is
developing a program plan that uses a
phased approach to integrate existing
monitoring efforts for that area and
supplement these efforts with pilot
studies. The plan will be completed in
1992. An EMAP pilot study in Lake
Michigan is planned for 1992 and will
initially focus on fish and sediments.
Participating Agencies:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
• EPA Great Lakes National Program
Office
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• International joint Commission
Surface Waters
In 1991, a Northeastern Lakes Pilot
Study (New York, New Jersey, and New
England) was conducted on 114 lakes.
Some of the monitoring activities fulfilled
mandates of the Clean Air Act
Amendments. In support of the study,
documents prepared included the
Research and Monitoring Strategy,
Implementation Plan, Field Operations and
Training Manual, Quality Assurance Plan,
and Methods Manual. In 1992, a
demonstration project in the Lakes of the
Northeast and a pilot project in the upper
Midwest Lakes are planned.
Participating Agencies:
• Department of the Interior
- Geological Survey
- Fish and Wildlife Service
• Several States
-------
EMAP Senate Report Page 9
March 15, 1992
Wetlands
Field activities for the EMAP
Wetlands program began in 1991 by
conducting a pilot project in the
southeast (Gulf coast) to evaluate
indicators. The Wetlands Resource
Croup conducted this pilot study in the
coastal salt marshes of Louisiana. A
design evaluation pilot study is also being
conducted using data from four states. In
FY92, there are plans to continue work
in the salt marshes and for a midwestern
pilot study in the prairie pothole region.
Participating Agencies:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S. Forest Service
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Page 10
C. lnter-/lntra-agency and State Coordination
This section and the attached Appen-
dices present an up-to-date summary of
EMAP's inter-/intra-agency relationships,
including the status of memoranda of
understanding with other agencies and
examples of interagency cooperation. Also
presented in this section are examples of
states' participation in the program. EMAP is
truly an interagency program, including the
Nation's best scientists from over ten
agencies in the federal government. The
active participation of personnel from other
ecological research and monitoring pro-
grams provides a critical mass of expertise.
Additionally, the close interaction among
programs minimizes duplication of effort.
This value-added approach links existing
efforts for a more cost-effective program to
assess ecosystem condition.
Although EMAP's broad scope, eco-
logical focus, and statistically-based design
distinguish it from most existing programs, it
is not a substitute for on-going efforts.
Rather, EMAP complements and supple-
ments research and monitoring efforts
throughout EPA, other federal agencies,
and the states. Within EPA, EMAP is
working closely with the Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, the Gulf of Mexico Program
and the Clean Air Status and Trends
Network (CASTNET). Furthermore, EMAP's
utility to other monitoring and research
programs is illustrated by its relationships
with programs of the Federal government,
states, and private groups. Some of these
programs include: the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program's
(NADP's) National Trends Network, the
USDA Forest Service's Forest Health
Monitoring Program, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's National Wetlands
Inventory, NOAA's National Status &
Trends Program, monitoring under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement by
Canada and EPA's Great Lakes National
Program Office, the Global Change
program, and NSF's Long-Term Ecological
Research Program. There are dozens of
other domestic databases being studied for
incorporation in EMAP, in addition to a
number of international systems, such as the
Global Environmental Monitoring System of
the United Nations Environment
Programme.
With specific reference to EPA's Office
of Water and EMAP, it is important to
highlight the complementary aspects that
each office brings to the monitoring picture.
The Office of Water, working primarily with
States, compiles a biennial report to
Congress titled the "National Water Quality
Inventory" (also known as the Section 305
(b) Report, as required by the Clean Water
Act). These reports aggregate State
information, add additional data from other
federal agencies, and present a combined
biennial picture of water quality in the fifty
States. These reports cannot be compared
from year to year because the water quality
standards are set by states and vary among
them and over time. The reasons for this are
that water quality sampling techniques are
neither consistent among states nor
consistent over time, and further incon-
sistencies derive from the fact not all states
follow the EPA 305 (b) guidelines in
reporting their water quality. The moni-
toring that the states report is usually done
for the purposes of developing and assessing
programs, demonstrating their success in
meeting proposed use criteria for State
waters, and identifying emerging problems.
EMAP provides a multi-region scope,
methods, and monitoring approach that can
describe water quality status and trends.
EMAP will provide the first statistically
consistent multi-regional monitoring
coverage, and will also provide scientific
work to develop appropriate indicators and
monitoring methods. EMAP has
Memoranda of Understanding with USGS,
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Page 11
NOAA, FWS and other federal agencies to
ensure that methods and research are
compatible.
The Office of Water has been
discussing with EMAP ways to better inte-
grate the programs of both offices in the
areas of clean water goals. The major
components of these discussions include
the role of the States in monitoring with a
focus on monitoring coverage and effective
use of Federal and State resources, how
EMAP information can be integrated into
the 305 (b) Report, overall information
management, analysis and reporting, and
issuance of joint guidance to the Regions on
monitoring. Also under discussion are the
overall role of the Office of Research and
Development in providing research support
for developing indicators, methods, quality
assurance, and the broader ecological risk
assessment framework and ecological
research foundation, and the appropriate
uses of geographic targeting, watershed
approaches and EMAP pilot projects.
One way to ensure active cooperation
with another agency is to use its money and
manpower for a joint activity, EMAP has
been and will continue to be aggressive in
seeking direct contributions to further the
Program. The following charts list an
estimate of those contributions of in-kind
services to EMAP from outside Agencies.
[Significant aid has also been provided by
EPA regulatory Program and Regional
Offices, but these are also harder to
quantify, since they are usually in the form of
staff support and joint task groups.]
Administration
Administration
TVA
Contributions to EMAP from Other Agencies
1992
\gency Program Component Funding
lautics and Space
nic and Atmospheric
ural Service
ervice
of Land Mgt.
d Wildlife Service
al Park Service
Landscape Characterization
EMAP-Near Coastal/NOAA National Status and Trends
Forest sampling in Souther Appalachians
Agroecosystems
EMAP Forests/USDA FS National Forest Health Monitoring
Indicator development and monitoring on BLM lands
EMAP Landscape Characterization/ FWS National Wetlands
Inventory
Monitoring and Tier IV research on NPS lands
$800,000
$1,000,000
$ 1000,000
$136,000
$3,500,000
$ 175,000
$ 500,000
$ 125,000
Proposed
1993 Funding
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$ 200,000
$136,000
$13,000,000
$ 350,000
$ 650,000
$ 150,000
!ndian Nations
US DOE (Oak Ridge Lab/Idaho
National Engineering Lab
Sampling in the western U.S.
Sample Design, Indicators, Landscape Characterization
TOTAL
$ 50,000
$150,000
$6,686,000
$ 75,000
$200,000
$17,061,000
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Page 12
EMAP's commitment to a well
coordinated program that includes
participation from other agencies and states
cannot be overemphasized. In addition to
the EMAP-oriented activities described
above and in the Appendices, EPA is
sponsoring a study by the National Academy
of Sciences/National Research Council
(NAS/NRC) to improve coordination of
ecological research nationwide. This study is
examining ways to improve research and
training in the federal government, including
the prospects for new mechanisms such as
the National Institutes for the Environment.
EMAP has met with the NAS/NRC
committee twice in the last four months to
provide input to their deliberations.
EMAP has also commissioned the
NAS/NRC to a three-year review of the
statistical sampling methodology and other
aspects of the Program. The review began in
FY 1991 and is currently scheduled to
conclude with a final report in FY 1993.
EMAP has had several meetings with the
NAS/NRC, and in the fall of 1991 other
agencies presented to the NRC their
involvement in the Program. EPA expects a
letter report from the NRC on this subject
sometime in late 1992.
In discussing the results of EMAP Pilot
and Demonstration projects with scientists
working in long-standing monitoring
programs (such as the Chesapeake Bay
Program, which has had a major scientific
component for over 12 years), it is important
to note the extent to which one year of
EMAP-Near Coastal's area-wide basic
estuarine indicators, reported with known
statistical confidence, are providing the
scientists working on the Chesapeake with
new insights into the Bay's environment.
Results from long-standing monitoring
activities (e.g., dissolved oxygen) are being
reinterpreted in light of demonstration
project results. It is not the position of EMAP
to speak for other agencies, but where
EMAP results have received a full-blown
demonstration, it is likely that — were EMAP
to cease to exist — similar large-scale
monitoring would soon be implemented by
other agencies (but not, unfortunately, with a
unified design, capable of integrating the
overall results into a still larger tapestry).
EMAP is a large, complex program. It is
important to understand trie extent of the
innovations which are embedded in its
design, and to appreciate how this influences
the issue of EMAP supplementing, and being
supplemented by, other monitoring
programs. EMAP provides ecologically and
regionally broad generalizations about
environmental conditions, with known
statistical confidence. The Program innovates
in: scale and breadth of ecological
integration, statistical measures and
applications, field and laboratory
methodologies, and the speed of release of
monitoring data (i.e., nine months from
collection to release of properly
documented and quality assured data).
Fundamentally new science applications are
being developed in remote sensing and
landscape characterization.
Given these features, it is accurate to
say both that EMAP supplements all
scientifically valid environmental monitoring
activity in tne United States today, and that
all monitoring in the US supplements EMAP.
More important, however, is the rapid rate of
adoption of EMAP innovations by other
monitoring programs, and the integrated
development of joint monitoring actions.
Appendix B and Appendix C give a quick
summary of some of the most advanced of
these joint development activities, but these
are really only indications of the levels of
collaboration which are going on across the
spectrum of environmental scientific activity.
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Appendix
Appendix A
Federal Agencies Participating in EMAP
Interagency Agreements and
Memoranda of Understanding
(completed as of 2/1/92)
Cooperating Agency EMAP Component
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
(NASA)
National Oceanic & and Atmospheric (NOAA)
NOAA
US Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Agricultural Research Service
USDA,
National Agricultural Statistics Service
USDA Forest Service,
NE Forest Experiment Station
USDA Forest Service,
Pacific NW Forest Experiment Station
USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station
USDA Forest Service,
SE Forest Experiment Station
USDA
Soil Conservation Service
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Bureau of Land Management
DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Wetlands Inventory
DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands
Inventory
DOI, Geological Survey (USGS),
Water Division
DOI, USGS. National Mapoine Division
DOE,
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
DOE,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council
American Statistical Association
Estuarine Research Federation
Landscape Characterization
Near Coastal
Great Lakes
Agroecosystems and Indicators
Agroecosystems
Forests and Quality Management
Forests and Indicators
Forests, Landscape Characterization, and
Design and Statistics
Forests, Indicators, and
Quality Management
Forests and
Landscape Characterization
Arid Lands and
Indicators
Near Coastal
Wetlands and
Landscape Characterization
Surface Waters (Lakes)
Landscape Characterization
Design, Indicators
Agra- and Arid Ecosystems
Design, Indicators and
Landscape Characterization
Design and Statistics, and
Integration and Assessment
Design and Statistics
Near Coastal
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Appendix
Appendix B
Examples of Interagency Cooperation
within the EMAP Framework
Forest Ecosystems — Field Demonstration Phase
USDA Forest Service
EPA
USDA,
Soil Conservation Service
overall administrative
lead for forest
ecosystems
lead for field monitoring
lead for State interface
co-reporting
responsibilities
lead for eco-indicators
lead for quality
assurance
lead for information
management
lead for design and
statistics
co-reporting
responsibilities
• soil chemistry
• soil productivity
* State Foresters in the New England States have been extensively involved in the
implementation of EMAP-Forests through the USDA Forest Service.
Near Coastal Estuaries — Field Demonstration Phase
EPA
NOAA
States: Delaware River
Basin Commission
overall administrative
lead for estuaries
lead for field monitoring
for the Virginian and
Louisianian Provinces
lead for design and
statistics
lead for eco-indicators
co-reporting
responsibilities
• lead for field monitoring
for the Carolinian
Province
• lead for characterizing
sediments in the
Virginian Province
• lead for contaminant
methodologies
• co-reporting
responsibilities and
computer display
enhanced field data
collection
-------
EMAP Senate Report
March 15, 1992
Appendix
Agroecosystems — Planning Phase
USDA, Agricultural
Research Service
EPA
USDA, National
Agricultural Statistics
Service
• overall administrative
lead
• co-reporting
responsibilities
lead for eco-indicators,
quality assurance, and
information
management
co-responsible for
design and statistics
co-reporting
responsibilities
lead for field monitoring
co-responsible for
design and statistics
Arid Ecosystems — Planning Phase"
EPA
BLM
Others
• co-responsible for
planning and
implementation
• Indicator selection
• Classification system
development
• Pi lot Study in 1992
• co-reporting
responsibilities
• co-responsible for
planning and
implementation
• Indicator selection
• Classification system
development
• Pi lot Study in 1992
• co-reporting
responsibilities
DOE, DOD, US Park
Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service,
USDA Soil Conservation
Service and Forest
Service, and other
resource and land
management agencies
will participate in
monitoring
*EPA and BLM are jointly operating this resource area. There may be separate
activities during the implementation phase.
-------
EMAP Senate Report Appendix
March 15, 1992
Appendix C
STATE PARTICIPATION IN EMAP
Alabama
• Participating in field studies with EMAP-Forests/USDA-Forest Service in
Forest Health Monitoring Program.
California
• Conducted a survey offish and amphibians in streams of the Sierra Nevada
using the EMAP sampling design. As a result of this project, the EMAP
design is now widely used in the State's ecological monitoring.
• Participated in the Forest Health Monitoring Program.
Colorado
• Participated in the Forest Health Monitoring Program.
Connecticut
• Participating in field studies of the New England forests with EMAP and the
USDA FS Forest Health Monitoring Program.
• Participating in the Near Coastal activities for the Virginian Province.
Delaware
• Participating in the Near Coastal activities for the Virginian Province.
• Participating in field studies in the Forest Health Monitoring Program.
Florida
• Used the EMAP-Near Coastal design to review and enhance theTampa
Bay Monitoring Program under the National Estuary Program.
• Participating in EMAP-Near Coastal activities in Louisianian Province.
Maine
• Participating in field studies of the New England forests with EMAP and the
USDA FS Forest Health Monitoring Program.
• Provided assistance in planning/implementation of FY91 Northeast Lake
Pilot.
-------
EMAP Senate Report Appendix
March 15, 1992
Maryland
• Participating in field studies with EMAP-Forests/USDA Forest Service in
Forest Health Monitoring Program.
• Participating in the Near Coastal activities for the Virginian Province.
Massachusetts
• Participating in field studies of the New England forests with EMAP and the
USDA FS Forest Health Monitoring Program.
New Hampshire
• Participating in field studies of the New England forests with EMAP and the
USDA FS Forest Health Monitoring Program.
• Assisted in monitoring logistics for FY91 Northeast Lake Pilot.
New Jersey
• Participating in the Near Coastal activities for the Virginian Province.
• Participating in field studies with EMAP and the USDA Forest Service
Forest Health Monitoring Program.
New York
• Participating in sampling and analysis activities in the Northeastern Lakes
Pilot Study.
• Participating in the Near Coastal activities for the Virginian Province.
North Carolina
• Participating in agroecosystem pilot project in 1992.
• Participating in Southeastern regional demonstration of Forest Health
Monitoring.
Ohio
• Provided EMAP with state monitoring data for indicator development use
in surface waters.
-------
EMAP Senate Report Appendix
March 15, 1992
Pennsylvania
• Working with EMAP Landscape Characterization personnel in
characterizing land use/land cover in the state, in collaboration with the
Chesapeake Bay Association, Pennsylvania has funded EMAP to conduct
landscape characterization for the entire state in addition to those areas of
the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Rhode Island
• Participating in field studies of the New England forests with EMAP and the
USDA FS Forest Health Monitoring Program.
• Participating in the Near Coastal activities for the Virginian Province.
South Carolina
• Participating in FY92 Southeastern regional demonstration of Forest
Health Monitoring Program indicators work.
• Participating in Near Coastal activities for Carolinian Province.
Vermont
• Participating in field studies of the New England forests with EMAP and the
USDA FS Forest Health Monitoring Program.
• Provided onsite logistics support for Northeast Lake Pilot.
Virginia
• Participating in the Near Coastal activities for the Virginian Province.
• Participated in 1990 Forest Health Monitoring field tests.
• Participating in Chesapeake Bay Watershed Landscape Characterization
Project.
• Participating in FY92 Southeast regional demonstration of Forest Health
Monitoring Program.
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
• Cooperative work with ASIWPCA's state water monitoring task force.
• Discussions are currently underway on establishment of a State/EPA Work
Croup on EMAP that will include participation of EPA Regions.
-------
EMAP Senate Report Appendix
March 15, 1992
Delaware River Basin Commission
• Participating in the Near Coastal activities in the Virginian Province.
• Conducting sampling in the Delaware estuary on an intensified EMAP grid.
National Association of State Foresters
• Participates as the third partner in the national interagency Forest Health
Monitoring Program along with EPA (EMAP) and the Forest Service.
Coordinates State implementation. Reviews technical proposals. Supports
budget requests. Implements field studies.
National Governors Association
• Serving as a liaison on ORD technology transfer issues for the state
environmental agencies. This year they have chosen to focus on EMAP and
the role states can play in EMAP to clarify what EMAP can do for the states.
NGA is planning a workshop for Spring '92 to facilitate further collaborative
efforts. The EPA Regions are actively involved in this effort.
Southeastern States Forestry Agencies
• Conducted field monitoring activities in forests as part of the Southeastern
demonstration project.
-------
EMAP Senate Report Appendix
March 15, 1992
Appendix D
EMAP FY1991 DELIVERABLES
Program Wide
• Program Plan for EMAP
• EMAP QA Program Plan
• Data User's Guide to the USEPA Long-Term Monitoring Project: QA Plan
and Data Dictionary
Near Coastal
• Example Interpretive Assessment for Estuaries
• Final Research Plan for EMAP-Near Coastal
• Implementation Plan for Virginian Province FY91 Demonstration
• 1991 Lousianian Province Demonstration (Field Activities Report)
Forests
• Annual Statistical Summary for New England Forests (FY90 Results)
• Report on EMAP-Forest 20/20 Pilot Project in Northeastern U.S. (FY90
Results)
• EMAP-Forests Monitoring and Research Strategy
• Forest Indicator Pilot Plan - FY91 Activities
• FY91 Forest Health Monitoring Western Pilot Operations Report
Surface Waters
• Strategy for EMAP Surface Water Monitoring
• Plan for FY91 Northeast Lake Pilot
• Association of Surface Water Impairment with Probable Cause
Wetlands
• Research Plan for Monitoring Wetlands (Gulf Coast Pilot)
Great Lakes
• Draft Plan for Great Lakes Pilot
Agroecosystem
• National Monitoring Plan for Agroecosystems
• EMAP Agroecosystem Indicator Evaluation (Proceedings of Symposium)
-------
EMAP Senate Report Appendix
March 15, 1992
Arid Ecosystems
• National Monitoring Plan for Arid Ecosystem
• Example Annual Statistical Summary for Arid Ecosystems
Integration and Assessment
• Integration and Assessment Conceptual Plan
Landscape Characterization
• Landscape Characterization 10-Hexagon Pilot Report
• EMAP-Landscape Characterization Concept (Journal Article)
• Landscape Characterization Data for Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Design and Statistics
• EMAP Statistics and Design Research Plan
• Spatial Analysis of Existing Monitoring Data
Logistics
• EMAP Logistics: Six-Year Options and Alternatives Plan
Information Management
• EMAP Information Management Standards Document
• Results of Initial Information Management Transfer Tests
• Information Management Hardware/Software Needs
• Initial Information Transfer Guidance Document
• Initial Data Catalogue/Index System Design Plan
• EMAP Data Confidentiality Report
• Information Management Mission Needs Analysis (EEI-1 Document)
• Information Management - Geographic Information System (CIS)
Conceptual Plan
-------
EMAP Senate Report Appendix
March 15, 1992
EXPECTED EMAP FY1992 DELIVERABLES
Program Wide
• EMAP Implementation Plan
• EMAP Strategic Plan
• Regional Implementation Strategy
• Indicator Development Strategy
• Bioscience Article on EMAP ("Long-term Ecological Monitoring: A Top-
Down Approach")
Near Coastal
• Report on FY90 Near Coastal Demonstration in Virginian Province
• Annual Statistical Summary for Louisianian Province (FY91)
• Annual Statistical Summary for Virginian Province (FY91)
• Assessment Report on 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration Project
• Implementation Plan for FY92 Virginian Province
• Implementation Plan for FY92 Louisianian Province
• Proceedings of the Gulf Breeze Symposium on Marine and Estuarine
Disease Research
• Annual Report of Activities of Marine Diagnostic Center, Including Support
for Indicator Development in EMAP-Near Coastal
• Review Article on Bioindicators for Marine Systems: Individuals,
Populations, and Communities
Forests
• Plan for FY92 Field Activities
• Annual Statistical Summary for New England Forest Health Monitoring
(FY91)
• Annual Statistical Summary for Southeastern Forest Health Monitoring
(FY91)
• National Forest Health Monitoring (Joint Memoranda of Agreement with
USDA-Forest Service)
Surface Waters
• Evaluation Report on FY91 Northeast Lake Pilot Study
• Comparison of Sampling Designs for Ecological Monitoring
-------
EMAP Senate Report Appendix
March 15, 1992
Wetlands
• Preliminary Data for FY91 Gulf Coast Salt Marsh Pilot Study
• Response of Prairie Wetland Vegetation to Flooding
Great Lakes
• EMAP - Great Lakes Research Plan
• Implementation Plan for 1992 Great Lakes Pilot
Agroecosystem
• Plan for Agroecosystem Pilot for North Carolina
• Overview of Agroecosystem Program (Journal Article)
• Comparison of Periodic Survey Designs Employing Multi-Stage Sampling
(Journal Article)
• Sustainable Agriculture (Proceedings of Symposium)
• Enumerators Manual
Arid Ecosystem
• Report on Results of Joint Arid/Landscape Characterization Pilot in
Southwest
• Arid Ecosystem Indicator Study Plan
• Workshop on Arid Ecosystem Indicators
• Dry Lands Risk (Symposium Proceedings)
Integration and Assessment
• Regional Ecosystem Assessment Prototype Report
• EMAP Integration Strategy
• EMAP Client Strategy
• Pilot Indices Document for EMAP
Landscape Characterization
• Report on Results of Joint EMAP - Arid/Landscape Characterization Pilot in
Southwest
• Landscape Characterization Strategic Plan
• Landscape Characterization Research Plan
• Landscape Characterization 10-Hexagon Methods Refinement
• QA/QC Program Plan for Landscape Characterization
• Sampling Frame for Gulf Coast Wetlands
-------
EMAP Senate Report Appendix
March 15, 1992
• Surface Waters Sampling Frame
• Results of LUDA Simulation Study
Information Management
• Information Management Preliminary Design and Options (EEI-2
Document)
• Information Program 5-Year Management Plan
• CIS Resource Manual
Design and Statistics
• EMAP Sampling Design Perspective (Journal Article)
• Status Estimation for EMAP: Procedures and Algorithms
• Analysis of Trends with Rotating Designs
-------
United Stales
Deoartmtnt ol
Agriculture
Forwt S«rvtc«
Environmental
Protection Agency
NittonalAMoelatton
of State FoTMters
Summary Report
Forest Health Monitoring
New England
1990
Fortst H«alth Monitoring: A Partntrshlp Bttwttn
PorMtS«ivie»
-------
Acknowledgment*
Forest Health Monitoring is truly a cooperative effort Besides the
numerous individuals that formed the Area and Station partnership, many
other individuals of numerous agencies worked to make the program a
success. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided portable data
recorders and technical support for the equipment The Stata Foresters from
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode
Island gave their critical support to the program and provided the services of
their staffs to help develop the program mnd collect the field data. Forestry
Canada helped with critical decisions and their Acid Rain National Early
Warning System (ARNEWS) was one model we studied in the design of
Forest Health Monitoring. Without the support and participation of all, it is
unlikely that Forest Health Monitoring in 1990 would have been the success
it proved to be.
-------
Summary Report
Forest Health Monitoring
New England
1990
Robert T. Brooks,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Amherst, Massachusetts
Margaret Miller-Weeks,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Durham, New Hampshire
William Burkman,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Radnor, Pennsylvania
Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters
and
USDA, Forest Service
•
Northeastern Area
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station
in cooperation with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Forestry Canada
May 1991
NE-INF-94-91
-------
Forest Health Monitoring
New England
England
Forest Resource
The six-state New England region is estimated to be over 80 percent
forested. With a total land area of more than 40 million acres,
forestland compromises over 32 million acres. The predominance of
forestland occurs throughout New England, with Maine most
extensively forested (89 percent) and forestland in southern New
England exceeding 60 percent of total land area.
Over 85 percent of New England forests are classified as one of four
major forest-type groups: White Pine, Spruce-Fir, Oak-Hickory, and
Northern Hardwoods. Across New England, 82 tree species have been
recorded on forest survey plots. The most common conifers are balsam
fir and red spruce and the most common hardwood species is red
maple.
The New England forest is maturing, with 46 percent presently
classified as sawtimber-sized stands (trees generally larger than 10 or
11 inches in diameter) and presumably containing the oldest trees.
The area of sawtimber-sized stands increased 36 percent from the
surveys of the 1970's. Concurrently, smaller poletimber-sized stands
(trees 5 to 10 or 11 inches in diameter) and seedling-sapling-sized
stands (trees less than 5 inches in diameter) decreased, respectively, 8
and 51 percent in area.
The forests of New England have been, and continue to be, exposed to
a broad range of stressors, both natural and human-caused. Natural
stressors include weather extremes, forest insects, and pathogens.
Human-caused stressors include land-use change, sir pollution (for
example, ozone), and acidic deposition. A new bat unsubstantiated
concern is global climate change due to generation of gases that create
a "greenhouse effect."
The predominance of forests in New England, their importance for
natation, water, and wood products, and the increased awareness of
stress upon forest ecosystems have resulted in a demand to address
concerns about forest "health" and human influences.
Forest Health
Monitoring:
New England
The public's concern for the "health and productivity of forests in
certain regions of the United States* resulted in federal legislation
mandating "such surveys as are necessary to monitor long-term
trends in the health and productivity of domestic forest ecosystems"
(Public Law 100-521). This mandate was implemented in the six New
England states in 1990 with the cooperative efforts of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the six New England
state foresters. Subsequent legislation (Public Law 101-624)
encouraged the USDA Forest Service to work in partnership with
state foresters or equivalent state officials to "monitor forest health."
-------
Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) is intended to be a long term effort
with a major emphasis to detect unexpected changes from established
baseline forest conditions. Specific objectives of FHM are to: 1)
characterize forest conditions, 2) characterize the major potential
forest stressors, 3) quantify changes in forest conditions, and 4)
analyze the relationships between changes in forest conditions and
potential forest stresses.
Forest conditions will be described by the measurement and reporting
of data from several "health" indicators. Five indicator groups have
been measured: growth, foliage symptomatology, soil chemistry, foliar
chemistry, and landscape characterization. Individual measurements
may support one or more indicators. Measurements will be made and
indicators characterized on a periodic basis; annually for those that
change frequently (for example, foliar symptomatology) and on a 4
year or greater cycle for those that change less frequently (for
example, soil chemistry).
FHM is based on the annual remeasurement of an extensive network
of permanent locations, selected to correspond to a systematic
sampling grid developed by the USEPA for their Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program. la New England* this sampling
design yields 263 sample locations on all lands, forest and nonforest.
Each location consists of a cluster of four plots. All trees, including
seedlings and saplinp, are located, marked, and measured. On, or
adjacent to the FHM location, openings in the forest are searched for
indicator plant species known to be sensitive to ozone, sulfur dioxide,
and hydrogen fluoride* At each location, data are collected on the
geographic and topograpnic position and physiographic description of
the location; tree spades, diameter, crown position, crown condition,
and damage; other vegetation; and foliar symptoms on indicator
plants. Data quality standards an specified in the field data
collection manual and explained during field crew training. These
standards were monitored by the remeasurement of a subset of
locations and trees.
1990 Results Sample Distribution
The 263 FHM locations in New England represent the forest resource
as reported by the most recent forest surveys. The distribution of th«
forested plots does not differ significantly from that expected of
previous forest surveys for land use, fortst-type group, or stand-size
class.
-------
Number of New England Forest Health Monitoring Locations,
by Major Forest-type Group and State or Region
Forest-type
Group
E. White Pine
Spruce-Fir
Oak-Hickory
Northern
hardwoods
Other groups
All groups
Nonforest
AU plots
Maine
18
48
2
37
13
118
19
137
New
Hampshire
7
1
2
19
4
33
4
37
Vermont
4
7
0
10
3
24
11
35
Southern
New
England1
5
0
14
5
7
31
23
... M
Total
New
England
34
56
18
71
27
206
57
263
JMB. and ftnod* Wind.
A total of 63 species 14 conifers and 49 hardwoods, were tallied. This
is less than the 76 species, 16 conifers and 60 hardwoods, tallied on
the extensive forest survey plots. While the distribution of trees by
species is not significantly different from that expected, the numbers
of balsam fir and white pine show large deviations from expected
values.
-------
Number of Trees on New England Forest Health Monitoring Plots,'
by Major Species and Tree Class
Species
Balsam Fir
Red Spruce
E. White Pine
N. White-Cedar
E. Hemlock
Other conifers
Seedlings.
saplings
3,378
665
218
309
293
223
Mature
Live
646
711
716
358
426
148
trees
Dead
228
63
71
32
11
30
All
Classes ..
4,252
1,439
1,005
699
730
401
All conifer*
5,086 3,005
435
8,526
Red Maple
Sugar Maple
Yellow Birch
Paper Birch
American Beech
White Ash
N. Red Oak
Other hardwood
All hardwood
All species
1,618
1.543
388
664
505
565
264
2,650
8,197
13,283
1,031
487
272
338
264
175
188
721
3,478
&481
49
29
34
39
21
8
3
117
300
735
2,698
2,059
694
1,041
790
748
455
3,488
11,973
20,499
The less-than-expected number of balsam fir trees is probably a result
of mortality caused by eastern spruce budworm and increased cutting
in response to budworm infestation. White pine was sampled at
greatar-than-expected levels in both the white pine and northern
hardwoods forest-type groups and at less than expected levels in
spruce-fir and oak-hickory forest-type groups. While there is no full
explanation for these results, gypsy moth defoliation of white pine and
accelerated mortality of the species since the last extensive forest
surveys must be considered as one possible cause.
The distribution of standing-dead trees by species is comparable
between FHM and that expected from previous forest surveys. The
distribution of trees by diameter class in the FHM sample differs
significantly from that expected of earlier forest surveys for both
conifer and hardwood species. The difference is found in an
-und«nampie" of conifers 3.0 to 8.9 inches in diameter and an
"ovarsample" of hardwood saplings-
-------
Tree Crown Ratings
Each sampled tree was rated for three (hardwood) or four (conifer)
crown characteristics: crown dieback, foliage transparency and
discoloration, and needle retention. The ratings are reported only
for upper-canopy trees (trees with crowns directly exposed to the
atmosphere) though the data were collected for all-live trees.
Across all forested plots, upper-canopy trees account for 69 percent
of all sampled trees 5.0-inches or larger in diameter.
Crown dieback
Crown dieback is defined as branch mortality beginning at the
outside tip of the branch and proceeding inward toward the
trunk This pattern of mortality is an indicator of premature
branch death. Dead branches in the lower crown are assumed
to have died of suppression or natural senescence due to tree
growth and are not included in this measurement.
Ninety-six percent of all upper-canopy trees were tallied as
having none-to-light crown dieback Over all the plots,
hardwood species generally had greater crown dieback than
conifers. More than 13 percent of the American beech sample
was recorded with greater than 20-percent crown dieback
Without further diagnosis, the cause of these symptoms cannot
be specified, but the occurrence of the beech bark disease
complex is a possible reason. The symptoms are compatible
with this disease and the complex is well established in New
England.
Distribution of Open Grown, Dominant, and Codominant Trees
on FHM Plotsy by Percent down Dtebsc* Class for Major Species
Ptfoent Crown Oietaek Class
None UgM Moderate Swre
(0-5%) (6*20%) (21-50%) (5U%)
Ptmm ft Mfi^ptotf MM
Balsam Tat
Red Spruce
E. White Pine
N. White-Cedar
E. Hemlock
Rtd Maple
Sugar Maple
YtllewBiith
Paper Birch
American Beech
White Ash
N. Red Oak
91.4
92.7
92.4
82.8
93.0
67.2
87.0
' 77.9
68.6
54.7
71.3
50.0
12
6.0
6.6
12.1
3.5
26.5
10.1
18.8
27.0
32.1
25.0
49.4
1.1
1.1
0.8
4.0
2.9
4.4
2.4
1.4
3.1
7.5
1.5
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.7
1.9
0.5
1.9
1.4
5.7
2.2
06
'OMi Mm 304 torwttd FHM pto»
5
-------
Foliage transparency
Foliage transparency is defined as the amount of skylight
visible through the foliated portion of a tree crown and
accounts for foliage reductions due to insect damage,
pathogens, or environmental stress. The degree of foliage
transparency differs by species and depends on branching and
leafing patterns. Foliage transparency serves as an estimator
of defoliation.
Almost 96 percent of all exposed tree crowns were recorded
with "normal" foliage transparency levels. Of the major forest
species, severe foliage transparency symptoms (greater than
1 percent of the sample trees) wen reported only for yellow
birch, American beech, and northern red oak
Distribution of Open Grown, Dominant, and Codomlnant Trsts on FHM
Plots,1 by Percent Foliage Transparency Class tor Major Species
Foliage Transpsnjncy Oats
Norms! Modertfe Sever*
SpttiM (0-30%) (31-50%) (5U%)
Balsam Fir
Red Spruce
E. White Pine
N. White-Cedar
E. Hemlock
RadMaplo
Sugar Maple
Yellow Birch
Paper Birch
American Beech
White Ash
N.RadOak
(*
99.7
99.8
95.5
91.9
97.9
95.6
98.9
96.2
92.8
86.8
94.9
90.4
*t**ttt*tipi*n
0.3
0.2
4.5
7.6
2.1
3.5
0.8
1.9
6.5
6.9
5.1
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.9
0.3
1.9
0.7
6.3
0.0
4.8
'Otti tan 204 fcrwM FHM pM
At this time then is no record to deUrmine •normal" levels of
foliage transparency for any species other than sugar maple.
This survey will develop the date to establish sptcits-spacific
foliag* transparency standards from which to identify
abnormal conditions. Presently, w* can ****•"«* thos* trt*
records with high Itvils of nttagt transparency (that is, thin
«'frt»mf) for other indications of health problems (for example,
other crown ratings, other signs and symptoms).
-------
Foliage discoloration
Foliage is considered discolored when the overall appearance is
noticeably yellow, red, or brown. More than 50 percent of a leaf
or needle must be discolored for discoloration to be tallied. The
occurrence of trace amounts of discoloration is expected for any
tree. Results from the 1990 field season provide no indication
of health concerns expressed as early or abnormal
discoloration.
Needle retention
Needle retention is defined as the number of years needles are
retained by a conifer and indicates tree vigor. Needle retention
is measured as the year of oldest needle-year class with more
than 25 percent of the needles present The longer the tree
retains needles, the more vigorous its growth is expected. The
results of needle retention provide no indication of forest health
concerns as expressed by this symptom.
Signs and Symptom*
Signs and symptoms, indicative of previous injury, disease, or
insects are recorded to provide an explanation of adverse growth
effects or mortality. The occurrence of a sign or symptom was
recorded only when rg***™* *nd whtn ^7 to result "*the
eventual decline and death of the tree. A list of common signs and
symptoms had been provided and their occurrence was recorded
when observed. Results from 1990 suggest no unexplainable
forest health concerns.
Indicator Plants
Exposure to oxone, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride, the
atmospheric gas pollutants, can cause recognizable foliar
symptoms on certain plant species. These plant! can serve as
-bioindicators" of the pollutants. At and adjacent to each FHM
plot, forest openings were searched for the presence of bioindicator
plant species. Foliar symptoms were recorded when observed.
The presence of one or more indicator plant species, for one or
more of the air pollutants, was recorded on 192 locations. Oxone
symptoms were recorded on 18 locations and sulfur dioxide
symptomi on 6 locations; and no hydrogen fluoride symptoms were
observed.
-------
Status of Major
Forest Insects
and Pathogens
in New England
in 1990
This summary reviews the major forest insect and pathogen problems
and declines of 1990 in the New England states. The information was
compiled from state pest condition reports and surveys of the USDA
Forest Service, Northeastern Area State & Private Forestry, Durham
Field Office Forest Health Protection.
The major hardwood pests are defoliators. The New England oak —
and at times white pine and hemlock — resource is still affected by
extensive gypsy moth defoliation. In 1990, over 700,000 acres of
defoliation were reported in the New England Defoliation increased
over the previous year's level, particularly in Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. In many areas
significant larval mortality occurred due to fungal infection; however,
populations remain high or continue to expand in these states. Very
low populations and no significant defoliation have been reported from
Rhode Island in the last 2 yean.
Other hardwood defoliators such as the eastern tent caterpillar, forest
tent caterpillar, and the oak leaf tier were at low levels in most of the
region. The incidence of pear thrips also was at a lower level than in
recent years in most areas, however the insect caused increased
damage in Vermont. Populations of the saddled proniMpt increased
in Vermont and Massachusetts and caused defoliation in scattered
The major conifer pests include defoliators and stem and twig insects.
Spruce budwonn populations continue at very low levels in northern
New England. Hie hemlock looper infestation in Maine is expanding,
and the insect ciut+d |y*H*f5i iMHiti*4"" *a VM^mmt. Damage from
the hemlock woolly adelgid and red pine tdelgid was noted in
and Rhode Island. These insects are expanding into
Massachusetts and the hemlock woolly adelgid was found at one site
in Vermont The spruce beetle is causing mortality oflarger spruce in
northern Maine, and the area of infestation is increasing in size and
intensity. This insect also is causing spruce mortality at other sites in
northern New England. The balsam woolly adelfid is causing damage
to balsam fir crowns at scattered sites in northern New England
One of the more significant diseases in the region is beech bark
disease. Damage from the disease can be found throughout the
region, but the amount of tree crown dieback and mortality varies.
Cytotpon *«"V«» on spruce and diplodia tip blight on pine has caused
damage in several localized areas. European larch canker and
scleroderris canker are still under quarantine in several states,
however the incidence of these diseases is currently static. Several
foliar diseasee were reported this year. The most significant was
anthracnoae, which caused damage on maple and other hardwoods in
Vermont, Massachusetts, f*H Rhode Wind Dutch t***1 disease is
-------
common throughout the region, as a new, more virulent strain is
spreading. Reports of localized drought effects and winter injury on
conifers were reported in some of the states. In Maine a disease
known as StillwelTs syndrome, associated with Annillaria root
disease, continues to cause low levels of mortality in balsam fir stands
over an extensive area previously defoliated by the spruce budworm..
Several diebacks on various species were reported. Ash dieback,
commonly associated with ash yellows, caused mortality in Maine,
Vermont, and Massachusetts. Larch mortality, usually in association
with the eastern larch beetle is occurring in Vermont and Maine.
Birch dieback is reported from Vermont and especially Maine, where
several areas in the western and eastern parts of the state are
affected. Dieback of maple is reported throughout the region, but in
most cases less than 10 percent of the crown is affected and losses are
insignificant Spruce dieback continues to be reported, with the
problem most noticeable at the higher elevations.
Summary The objectives of the 1990 FHM field season were the establishment of
the permanent plot network and the collection of 1* year crown rating
and growth data. The FHM plot sample corresponds very closely to
New England forest resource characteristics as reported by previous
forest surveys. Hie distribution of locations and tree species are not
significantly different from expectations. Such deviations between
samples as were found can be explained from known changes since the
last extensive survey in the New England forest
The summary of crown ratings data from open grown, dominant, and
trees indicates no pattern of major decline in any species.
For many species, these data represent the first such measurement
tad in exact interpretation is difficult The full value of the data, as
well as diameter measurements, will be realised with plot
remeasuremente in succeeding years. This year's data will establish
the frttt1*"* against which to identify changes in subsequent years.
U-lOOVSRHMfNT WANTING C*F1CHH1-50«.M2
SI 7*1
------- |