EPA
United States Office of Research and EPA/620/R-98/001
Environmental Protection Development October 1997
Agency Washington, DC 20460
Environmental
Monitoring and
Assessment
Program
(EMAP)
Research
Strategy
-------
-------
October 1997
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
(EMAP)
Research Strategy
October 1997
EMAP Strategy Page 1
-------
October 1997
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program Research Strategy - Overview
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) has evaluated its progress
since 1989 and the recommendations of 20 peer reviews. The program retains its goal to
Monitor the condition of the Nation's ecological resources to evaluate the cumulative success of
current policies and programs and to identify emerging problems before they become
widespread or irreversible. The strategy for EMAP is based on three principles. First,
pursue all tiers in the monitoring framework (i.e., Index Sites, Geographic Surveys and
Landscape Monitoring). Second, focus the next three years on the research and demonstration
necessary to provide the scientific credibility for the monitoring network. Third, based on the
knowledge of the science necessary for success, build the national network from the bottom
up, starting with effective existing networks and add to them where gaps exist. The later
means that EMAP itself will not be the entire national monitoring network but will
contribute components to it. The exact components that EMAP will implement long term
will ultimately depend on the success of the CENR framework and decisions at the
Administrator and Assistant Administrator level within EPA.
1. EMAP will establish a national network of index sites with the National Park Service to
serve as Outdoor Laboratories. This was part of the original EMAP vision and has now
been added back to the program's efforts.
2. EMAP will build upon the strengths that it developed in monitoring ecological resources
such as estuaries, streams, and terrestrial systems. These efforts will be focused on
specific geographic regions of the country rather than occurring independently in different
regions of the country. If the budget does not permit all regions to be done at once, a
rotational approach will be adopted
3. EMAP will continue its interagency efforts to complete and repeat through time a national
landcover database.
4. EMAP will place a high priority on research to ensure that monitoring which continues is
based on strong science. The high priority research areas will be:
• ecological indicators
• monitoring design
• integration and synthesis of environmental data
By addressing these scientific uncertainties in a credible manner, EMAP will make important
contributions toward the goal of providing the information necessary for protecting our
ecological resources.
Page 2 EMAP Strategy
-------
October 1997
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program Research Strategy
Health is the capacity of the land for self-renewal (Aldo Leopold, 1966) As part
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mission and the Office of Research and
Development's (ORD) Strategic Plan, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP) represents a major element of ORD's effort to understand and protect that
capacity. Policies and programs that promote the preservation of ecosystem integrity and
sustainable use of natural resources must be formulated from our scientific knowledge of the
environment. While the benefits of our understanding of the environment will only be
realized through control and stewardship programs at many levels of government, the Council
of State Governments recently reported that most state and local agencies do not have the
information needed to launch meaningful environmental protection programs.
EMAP: "Monitoring to
keep a finger on the
pulse of the Nation's
environment"
The missing information creates uncertainties in three
areas. The first is the gap in our knowledge of the
mechanisms that control ecosystem structure and
function and assessing the role of human actions in
altering them. The second is a sound framework
embracing approaches to monitor important ecosystem
characteristics and the human perturbations that alter them over space and time. The third is
the collective scientific, societal and political will to implement these monitoring approaches
and utilize the information that they generate. ORD has chosen to focus a portion of its
research to improve ecosystem risk assessment on the first two of these three factors in the
belief that this will result in better information for managing and protecting our natural
heritage.
This strategy outlines the origins of EMAP, an evaluation of progress, sets our compass
heading and provides a rationale for that course. The EMAP Research Plan will describe how
rapidly we can move along this course and how soon we can arrive at our long-term goal.
L National Monitoring Needs
Recent calls for improvements in monitoring date back to the late 1970's. A long series of
reports from the National Research Council (NRC 1977), the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO 1981), the U.S. EPA's Office of Water (OW) and Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (OPPE), state, federal, and university aquatic biologists (USEPA 1987), and again
by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO 1986) have recommended the need for
significant advances in the way EPA and other federal agencies monitor the state of our
environment.
In 1988, the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board's (SAB) report Future Risk: Research
Strategies for the 1990s (U.S. EPA 1988) was the stimulus for many of the changes in EPA
EMAP Strategy Page 3
-------
October 1997
research. The report concluded that EPA needed more research on relating the effects of
cumulative, regional, and long-term anthropogenic disturbances to ecosystem responses.
Increased research was also needed to develop ecological indicators, protocols for monitoring,
and to analyze and quantify uncertainty in assessments resulting from monitoring data. The
goals of such research were improved detection of ecosystem status and trends, and greater
predictive capability. The authors recognized that great benefit could be derived from the
identification of trends in environmental quality before they begin to cause serious ecological
or human health problems. They recommended that EPA take steps to enhance its ability to
anticipate environmental problems before public fears are aroused, and before costly, after-
the-fact clean-up actions are required. They also recommended that EPA broaden its data-
gathering and assessment efforts. Embodied in their recommendation was the perspective that
monitoring programs can be valuable for their ability to paint a picture of present conditions
and if continued, they can help describe what has happened to the quality of an ecosystem
over time. Their recommendations urged EPA to begin monitoring a far broader range of
environmental characteristics and contaminants than it has in the past.
Toward these ends, the SAB recommended that EPA undertake research on techniques that
can be used to help anticipate environmental problems, and make a more concerted effort to be
aware of and interact with the research efforts of other Federal agencies concerned with the
anticipation of environmental problems. EPA was urged to evaluate environmental trends and
assess other predictors of potential environmental problems before they become acute.
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, known as EMAP, was created in
response to these recommendations. Taking the "pulse" of the nation's ecological resources
and producing an "environmental report card" became the driving focus for EMAP.
Developing the tools necessary for measuring the condition of many types of ecological
resources and the designs for detecting both spatial and
temporal trends is not a challenge to be taken lightly.
EMAP embraced these basic scientific needs with an
emphasis on developing indicators of ecological
condition and new monitoring designs for major classes
of natural resources such as forests, wetlands, deserts,
agricultural systems, and surface waters. The
recommendations that spawned EMAP fit well with
the emerging vision of ecological risk assessment
within EPA and the importance of high quality
information from monitoring in the risk assessment The Strategy Charts Our Course
paradigm.
IL EMAP - The Early Years
EMAP's initial vision was to Monitor the condition of the Nation's ecological resources to
evaluate the cumulative success of current policies and programs and to identify emerging
problems before they become widespread or irreversible (Messer et al. 1991). This goal was
established to ensure that we would eventually be able to answer very simple questions: What
have we accomplished with our collective efforts to restore and protect our ecological
Page 4 EMAP Strategy
-------
October 1997
resources? How do we know our programs, in aggregate, are or have been successful? Can we
provide data to confidently verify the answers? Is the aggregate of our regulatory decisions
protecting our ecological resources? This goal was further expressed in four operational
objectives:
1) Estimate current status, trends, and changes in selected indicators of the Nation's
ecological resources on a regional basis with known confidence;
2) Estimate the geographic coverage and extent of the Nation's ecological resources with
known confidence;
3) Seek associations between selected indicators of natural and anthropogenic stresses and
indicators of the condition of ecological resources;
4) Provide annual statistical summaries and periodic assessments of the Nation's ecological
resources.
The program outlined a four-tier approach to this
monitoring. The foundation of this tiered approach was
national landcover characterization based on remote
sensing. The second level incorporated national and
regional estimates of status and trends for important
indicators of condition and exposure. A subregional
focus for geographic areas that were of special concern
formed the third tier. Finally, a tier of sites spread
across the U.S. for intensive monitoring and research.
This tiered approach incorporated concepts of both
temporal and spatial scales and of the importance of
different monitoring approaches: wall-to-wall coverage
(census), statistically valid subsampling (probability-
based surveys) and temporally intensive studies of a
single or small collection of sites. Both indicators of
stressors (e.g., metals in deposition, UV-B, tissue
contamination, habitat alteration) and indicators of
condition (e.g., external anomalies, fish index of biotic
integrity, forest crown dieback) were incorporated into
the overall approach.
In practice, however, the early years of EMAP focused
Risk Assessment Faradigm oniy on developing and demonstrating the remote
sensing and survey tiers. Operating under common
approaches to indicators and design, individual components of the program (arid lands,
agroecosystems, estuaries, forests, Laurentian Great Lakes, surface waters, wetlands) began to
develop and evaluate the approaches in different portions of the country. These studies
explored the range of useful indicators, the natural and anthropogenic variability and its
influence on status and trends information, and the range and applicability of probability
surveys for monitoring that resource. EMAP recognized early on that full implementation of
this framework or even the landscape and resource survey tier could only be achieved if the
budget was to grow to $100,000,000 per year and if other federal agencies became active
Ecological Risk Assessment
Risk Mana
Cement
EMAP Strategy
Page5
-------
October 1997
partners, bringing their own resources to the effort. However, national demonstration or
implementation was not achieved for any of the resource areas despite significant interagency
partnering in many of the components, largely due to declining budgets rather than technical
issues.
During this initial phase, EMAP and its components underwent 20 separate peer reviews of
individual components of the program and a program-wide review by a panel under contract
between EPA and the National Research Council (NRC). This panel published 4 individual
reports. The EPA Science Advisory Board also reviewed several aspects of EMAP paying
particular attention to the development of indicators and the integration and assessment
activities within the program. ORD spent 1995 evaluating the results of these initial studies
and reviewing the aggregate of peer reviews which had taken place. 1996 was spent
developing this revised strategy and research plan that is founded on the same EMAP goals,
many of which are now shared by other agencies (see CENR discussion).
ID, Review of Progress
In synthesizing the results of the 20 peer reviews, several themes emerged. Common
questions or concerns across several or more reviews were:
• EMAP's success will be diminished if it does not develop reliable, scientifically defensible
indicators for measuring change. The development of indicators of ecological health or
integrity appears to be particularly challenging.
• The EMAP sampling program may operate at too coarse a scale in space and time to
reflect information needs for management decisions. This concern reflects what some have
called "the tyranny of numbers." Information is needed for management decisions at
multiple scales, from the EPA Administrator to the local lake manager. Clearly, if national
assessments for the Administrator can be aggregated from the local level data, then all
scales are represented.
• EMAP's success will be diminished if the retrospective or prospective monitoring approach
does not match the assessment needs and the needs of policy makers. This concern reflects
the continuous balancing act between measuring stressors and their effects. We believe it
is not an issue of one versus the other, but a balance of both.
Key recommendations emerging from the National Research Council review include:
• EMAP should consider design changes such as the inclusion of a set of nonrandomly
selected sentinel sites with intensive data collection. If EMAP does not adopt these design
changes itself, then it should become extremely closely and explicitly coordinated with a
program that has these features.
• EMAP should consider further combining effects-oriented and sir essor-oriented monitoring
approaches.
• EMAP should undertake more analyses of variability and its relationship to sampling
design and power to describe status and detect trends, similar to the analyses conducted
with the lakes data.
Page 6 EMAP Strategy
-------
October 1997
• EMAP should initiate a major,
focused research program on
indicator development. Indicator
development is at the heart of the
EMAP program. The difficulty
and importance of indicator
development requires that EPA
attract the highest quality
researchers in the environmental
sciences to this program. The
program should include a
combination of internal research
(by EMAP scientists) and external
research involving open
announcements of funding
availability with peer-reviewed
grants.
• EMAP should provide program-
wide guidance for numerous
evaluation issues: indicator
selection strategy, approaches to
integration and assessment, the
primary scale for summarizing
and reporting data, impact of
variability on design.
• EMAP should continue in its
efforts to develop close working
relationships with the EPA
Program Offices and other
Federal Monitoring efforts.
IV. EMAP - The Next Steps
The goal of EMAP remains the same: Monitor the condition of the Nation's ecological
resources to evaluate the cumulative success of current policies and programs and to identify
emerging problems before they become widespread or irreversible. The strategy for EMAP
will be centered on three principals. First, all tiers in the monitoring framework must be
pursued (i.e., Index Sites, Geographic Surveys and Landscape Monitoring). Second, focus the
next three years on the research and demonstration necessary to provide the scientific
credibility for the monitoring network. Third, based on the knowledge of the science
necessary for success, build the national
network from the bottom up starting
with those existing networks and add
where gaps exist. The latter means that
EMAP itself will not be the entire
CENR National Framework
Under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council,
the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR)
formed the Environmental Monitoring Team. The Environmental
Monitoring Team took the crucial step of bringing federal agencies
together to shape a national framework for integration and
coordination of environmental monitoring and related research. The
Team published Integrating the Nation's Environmental
Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed
Framework (CENR 1996). The framework calls for all environmental
agencies to merge efforts in forming a national monitoring and
research network which will link remote sensing, regional surveys,
and intensive, multi-resource monitoring areas such as the Long-
Term Ecological Research program (LTER) of the National Science
Foundation (NSF). Also, this framework unites the respective
agencies in an effort to achieve a common national goal: that of
understanding and managing our ecological systems for their
sustained use (e.g., ensuring their continued and sustained vitality,
diversity, and abilities to provide important resources, services for
humans, and habitat) and enjoyment (e.g., recreational opportunities
and cultural values).
Three areas of emphasis for the CENR:
• National Environmental Report Card by the year 2001 - A
challenge laid down by Vice President Gore.
• National Network of Index Sites - Pilot the concept.
• Regional Mid-Atlantic Pilot - Examine the Framework
concepts.
EMAP itself does not strive to be the entire
national monitoring network but will contribute
components to the Federal Monitoring
Framework
EMAP Strategy
Page?
-------
October 1997
national monitoring network but will contribute components to it. The exact components
that EMAP will implement long term will ultimately depend on the success of the CENR
framework and decisions at the Administrator and Assistant Administrator level within EPA.
Below we outline the three monitoring approaches that EMAP will pursue: Index Sites,
Geographic Regions and Landcover. In addition, the key research areas that must be addressed
by EMAP are outlined.
A.
Index Sites
National and Regiona
Resource Surveys
Inventories and Remote Sensing Programs
The dominant approach to integrated ecological
studies historically has been to study individual
systems intensively. One limitation of past work
has been the short period of intensive study;
many limited to the 3-year period of a single
government grant. Individual studies of greater
duration have resulted from the perseverance and
creativity of a few individual investigators. The
research of Likens and Bormann at Hubbard
Brook (Likens et al. 1977), Goldman's studies at
Lake Tahoe (Goldman 1988), and Reeling's Three Tiers of Monitoring in the EMAP and
. , • -, ^r, • . A; T fn lu CENR Strategy
tracking of CO2 increases at Mauna Loa (Earth
Systems Sciences Committee 1988 ) are among the well known examples of dedication to long-
term studies and how these long-term data records document changing conditions and
stimulate many new hypotheses.
The Index Site concept can be found in the monitoring programs of many agencies including
the earliest designs of EMAP. EMAP now adds the concept of index sites back into our
research, monitoring and assessment efforts. Our intent is to pilot a national network in
collaboration with other federal partners that can be used to monitor long-term changes in
atmospherically mediated stresses and their effects. The results of this network are not
intended to be extrapolated to all locations in the U.S. but rather to provide a range of
latitudinal, longitudinal and elevation gradients in locations with minimal impact from other
anthropogenic stresses so that the potentially weak signals of atmospheric problems can be
teased from the background noise. One major importance of this tier is the dynamic linkage
created between the other tiers. Index sites can monitor trends requiring technology not
readily portable and can establish cause-effect linkages within important environmental
processes. Concomitantly, the other tiers can be used to determine how representative the
research results of index sites are at larger scales. However, consensus on how best to define
an index site and how to locate such sites in a network is still quite elusive. Because these
questions are not likely to be resolved without research, EMAP will establish an effort to
evaluate designs for index sites with respect to specific hypotheses and to evaluate the
multiple options for linking survey networks with networks of intensive sites.
Strategically, the Intensive Site Network meets the following criteria:
PageS
EMAP Strategy
-------
October 1997
• The selected sites are of interest to multiple Federal agencies and at least one agency is
interested in participating in the development of the network;
• The selected sites exist in all major ecosystem types;
• The sites have long-term accessibility (i.e., no potential for property rights issues); and,
• The sites have some degree of environmental monitoring and/or ecological effects research
already in place.
A National Park Network of "Outdoor Laboratories". The National Park system has the
potential to provide for all terrestrial ecosystem types and many of the goals and objectives of
the NFS Inventory & Monitoring Program are similar to those of EMAP. The National Park
Service's Air Monitoring Division and Inventory and Monitoring Program and EMAP will
co-develop a 10-15 site terrestrial intensive monitoring/research network. Both agencies will
contribute funds and efforts toward this development with the intent to invite other federal
agencies to participate in the longer term. In 1996, EPA and NFS created a formal interagency
agreement to create DISPro, the Demonstration of Intensive Sites Project. This project
represents an inter-agency effort between EPA/ORD and DOI/NPS to develop a
demonstration of an intensive site network of monitoring and research locations throughout
the United States utilizing the Nation's parklands as "outdoor laboratories". Twelve parks
were selected to establish this demonstration. All 12 parks are readily accessible, have a
history of monitoring environmental information,
and represent a broad, sometimes unique,
spectrum of ecological communities. Through this
network, EMAP and the Park Service are
examining whether a "network" of sites existing
within the parks can be used to address monitoring
issues for global-scale environmental stressors (e.g., air deposition) as well as locale-specific
stressors (e.g., air deposition, water-borne) and coordinated with cause-effect, issue-based
research related to these environmental stressors. The intent of the program is to initiate a
consistent air monitoring program at each site to be followed by consistent monitoring within
other media. The network will also initiate research projects at all of the sites to examine the
effects of environmental stressors of importance at each of the sites.
DISPro:
A Network of Outdoor
Laboratories through Our
National Parks
Effects research during this period will be based on known stressors at the sites. For example,
the Everglades site offers the opportunity to examine the flux of materials and nutrients from
Everglades canals into Florida Bay, to examine the role of humic materials in the complexation
and transport of mercury through the canals, to investigate the effects of increased nitrogen
and phosphorus from the canals on primary and secondary productivity in Florida Bay, and
to investigate the cause of black band disease in corals in the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary. At the Great Smoky Mountain site, opportunities exist to validate forest stand
models of ozone effects using new forest stand micro-meteorological and dosimetry
equipment, as well as mechanistic studies of the effects of atmospheric nitrogen deposition in
watersheds which would expand the representativeness of findings with similar studies at the
Sequoia, Acadia, and Rocky Mountain sites. EPA proposes to initiate extramural and/or
cooperative (with other CENR-member agencies) research examining the effects of increased
UV-B exposure on the reproductive success of amphibians and reptiles (Big Bend, Everglades,
EMAP Strategy Page 9
-------
October 1997
Sequoia), UV-B exposure on coral community structure (Virgin Islands), and UV-B exposure
on plankton community structure and productivity (Everglades, Virgin Islands).
B. Regional-Scale Geographic Assessments
The geographic studies in EMAP are intended to describe the status and trends in the
condition of ecological resources within a region and evaluate the likely causes of effects that
are observed. This is consistent with the regional and national survey tier in the CENR
framework. These geographic studies will result in "State of the Region" assessments.
EMAP geographic studies will focus on characterizing both the ecological quality of the region
and the important environmental stresses at multiple scales and are based on assessment
questions of importance to that region. The assessments will provide a picture of comparative
risk for the region. Monitoring and assessment will take place in four "resource" categories
(terrestrial, inland aquatic, estuarine, landscape) and then integrated across the four
components for the region. These studies build on the strengths from past EMAP research
utilizing important concepts of probability surveys developed in earlier studies.
Geographic Monitoring for
Environmental Report Cards
Several features will be added to these efforts
that are enhancements to past work. Previously,
EMAP studies were designed specifically to
address regional scale assessments. In future geographic studies, we will partner with others
in an effort to build the regional assessments from the bottom up, that is, aggregate local data
where possible for the broader regional assessments. In the mid-Atlantic area, for example, at
least two states already utilize probability survey concepts for they're state-wide monitoring
networks. For that portion of the region, they provide a data source that does not need to be
duplicated and can be used in the assessment process. Additional monitoring need only fill in
portions of the region where similar studies are not taking place. The other addition will be a
focus on integrating temporally intensive studies into the assessment with spatially extensive
data. Bringing the best of both approaches should enhance the quality of any resulting
assessment.
Conceptually, it would be preferable to have geographic studies performed concurrently
across the country. For the foreseeable future however, the EMAP resources alone will be
sufficient for only one to two large geographic studies at a time. As the CENR framework
begins to spread across federal and state agencies, it may be possible to collectively reach a
point where several similar studies are in progress. Toward this end, EMAP will continue to
sponsor smaller geographic studies in each of the 10 EPA Regions. These studies will utilize
design concepts and indicators developed by EMAP to address more localized assessment
questions that are of interest to the EPA Regions and their partners. The first regional scale
geographic study in EMAP will be conducted in the mid-Atlantic geographic region. The mid-
Atlantic region of the eastern United States is defined by the land and near-coastal area that
includes all of Standard Federal Region III and parts of Regions II and IV. States completely
covered are: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia. Also included
are parts of New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina. The communities in the mid-
Atlantic are diverse in size, type, values, economic and cultural influences. They include the
Page 10 EMAP Strategy
-------
October 1997
fishing and crabbing communities of Delaware, eastern Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina;
the farm communities of central Pennsylvania and western Maryland; the coal-mining
communities of West Virginia and western Pennsylvania; and the major metropolitan areas of
Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and Norfolk. The mid-Atlantic has also been
selected by the CENR as the first demonstration of the multi-tiered monitoring framework.
The EMAP and CENR effort will be well coordinated.
C. National Landcover Monitoring
Remote-sensing provides the information base of our multi-tier effort. This important tool
ensures that we will have consistent and high quality analysis of how our national landscape is
being used. Repeated analysis of satellite imagery over time will provide the ability to
monitor the single largest anthropogenic impact on earth, changes in land-use and land-cover
brought about by human activity (Vitousek 1994). This perspective is also essential for
interpreting changes seen in specific ecological resources such as streams and wetlands in
different regions of the country. In addition to describing changes in land use, satellite imagery
provides the data necessary for integrating information about ecological patterns and processes
at multiple scales. The field of landscape ecology is a discipline that potentially provides a
unique and integrative view of ecological systems. It seeks to understand how the patterns of
spatial heterogeneity reflect important changes in ecological functions at multiple levels of
biological organization (Pickett and Cadenasso 1995).
Remote sensing also offers great promise for reducing the cost of monitoring or, at a minimum,
provide the broad spatial context within which other monitoring is interpreted. Because the
infrastructure for remote sensing is largely in other federal agencies, EMAP will develop
research partnerships with these agencies as an end-user that seeks to define the science
applications as they relate to ecological condition. In this spirit, there are several research
areas in which EPA can have a major impact and for which EMAP can provide necessary
leadership. The EMAP contribution to research on the remote sensing tier will be limited to
the field of landscape characterization and ecology.
EMAP and MRLC mil provide
National Landcover Data
In 1993, EMAP initiated a partnership with other
federal programs to deliver processed imagery from
across the coterminous United States, at a fraction
of the cost to individual agencies. In addition to
EMAP, partners in the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium include
the NBS Gap Analysis Program, the NOAA Coast Watch Change Analysis Program, the
USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program, and the USGS EROS Data Center.
The goal of the MRLC is to produce a national land cover data base by late 1999 (MRLC,
1996). The data base will be produced mainly from the nominal 1992 Landsat TM coverage
purchased earlier by consortium members. The national land cover data base will consist of
four components: 1) the land cover legend; 2) the spatial and digital format of the data base; 3)
the data layers contained in the national land cover data base; and 4) the supporting
documentation. Although the immediate goal is to produce a national 30m land cover data
base from the 1992 Landsat TM data set, the MRLC Consortium is committed to an ongoing,
EMAP Strategy Page 11
-------
October 1997
cyclic land cover characterization activity. Parallel with the effort to produce the national land
cover product from the 1992 Landsat TM data set, planning is beginning for sequential
national land cover classifications.
D. Monitoring Research
The fourth major emphasis for EMAP is research on the tools necessary for effective
monitoring. The primary thrusts of this research are: 1) Indicator Development, 2)
Monitoring Network Design, and 3) Integration. Our strategic direction for each is outlined
below.
1. Ecological Indicators
The reviews of EMAP and our own evaluations, agree that development of effective indicators
of ecological condition are central to the goal of EMAP. In general terms, we are concerned
about whether or not our human activities are having an adverse effect on the ability of
ecosystems to sustain themselves (functionally and structurally) and to provide a variety of
goods and services into the future. Have our actions somehow limited the options available to
future generations by impacting certain ecological processes or systems? The scientific
community has variously described this attribute of ecological systems as sustainability
(Lubchenco et al. 1991), integrity (Karr 1991) or health (Steedman 1994).
EMAP research must contribute to developing an understanding of the conceptual basis for
defining sustainability and integrity for single ecological resources and complexes of ecological
resources. What mechanistic model(s) will provide a foundation for monitoring? What
ecological units of organization (e.g., watersheds, ecoregions or landscapes) best describe
sustainability and integrity? Can individual ecological resources such as lakes, streams,
forests, or rangelands exhibit sustainability and integrity or are these concepts applicable only
to complexes of ecological resource types? These are critical information gaps which research
in EMAP can help to fill.
Developing scientifically
rigorous, ecologically
meaningful and policy
relevant indicators is
paramount to EMAP's
success
We have long marked our progress in environmental
protection by administrative measures such as the changes
in the number of permits issued. We have also tracked the
occurrence of individual contaminants in the environment
and occasionally their presence in biota. However, the
range of chemicals continues to expand and we have a
limited ability to track them all. Our perturbations of the
environment have extended beyond the simple addition of
traditional chemicals to exotic chemicals such as endocrine disrupters, disruption of physical
habitat, alteration of hydrologic patterns, introduction of non-indigenous biota and widespread
alteration of the landscape. The primary question we face is: To what extent do these
disturbances actually alter sustainability and integrity of our ecological resources and how can
we measure this? To achieve this will require that we develop and understand new indicators
that allow us to detect and track changes in integrity and sustainability
Page 12 EMAP Strategy
-------
October 1997
Toward this end, research in EMAP, conducted both through an investigator driven grants
program and the in-house EPA expertise, will focus considerable effort on the area of indicator
development. EMAP will promote research to improve ecological indicators by coordinating
an intramural indicator research program and by developing RFAs to stimulate academic
research on new indicators using the EMAP funds in the ORD grants program.
2. Monitoring Network Designs
Improved network design is a major research issue. Monitoring designs most often are
directed at rather narrowly defined problems and are seldom explicit in terms of quantifying
bias, predictive power, or value to a concept for holistic risk assessment. In the U.S., there are
dozens of intensive study sites and hundreds of specialized monitoring sites nationwide with
no unifying scientific concept to integrate data. Monitoring data often cannot be aggregated to
answer larger questions.
Sound statistical
designs are critical to
the success of
monitoring programs in
detecting trends
That individual monitoring programs have not been
optimized in design will not come as a surprise to scientists
in most agencies and universities. Experts in design have
often seen the science of monitoring yield to pragmatic
judgment, with the result that the data may answer a narrow
question but cannot be applied to larger, more difficult
monitoring questions.
The CENR Monitoring and Research Framework began the process of describing what an
integrated, multi-agency monitoring effort should entail. However, there is a great deal that the
initial framework document did not outline such as the details that are necessary for further
progress to be made by the participating agencies. EMAP will address EPA's perspective on
these framework details. Examples of such issues are the specific nature of the status and
trends questions that are importance to EPA Program Offices and Regions, the function of the
proposed tiers in addressing these assessment questions, and the minimum ecological resource
coverage needed from EPA's perspective.
In addition to the interest in a more integrated approach to monitoring ecosystems, we know
that there is a need for and interest in better approaches to monitoring individual ecological
resources such as estuaries, forests and riverine systems. Better ecological indicators of these
resources are necessary but not sufficient. Improved designs must be developed if we are to
effectively determine status and detect trends in the quality of these resources. Evaluating the
work done to date and the comments of the more than 20 reviews conducted of EMAP, we
will propose improvements to the approaches outlined earlier by EMAP.
EMAP will consolidate the intramural expertise in ORD and stimulate an effort aimed at
improving multi-tier designs and engaging design specialists in all agencies for their essential
participation. Success in this research will be measured by the ability of new designs to
adjust individual monitoring programs to answer regional-scale assessment questions without
any of these programs losing their ability to address their respective original objectives.
EMAP Strategy Page 13
-------
October 1997
3. Integration
The science of integration is sufficiently complex and difficult that most monitoring programs
have ignored this issue. The sciences of landscape ecology and spatial analysis have yet to
develop a systematic approach that integrates data to assess condition at regional scales. Over
the course of the next several years, EMAP will bring these integration issues associated with
regional-scale assessment to the forefront of research.
The most significant aspect of the CENR framework is that remote sensing, regional surveys,
and integrated site-specific monitoring are proposed to be conducted in a coordinated fashion,
allowing the full range of integration that has so far been impossible. All three types of
monitoring identified are essential for an integrated environmental monitoring capability.
While key elements of the CENR framework can be put into place now, additional research
will be required before complete implementation is possible. Within each of the three tiers
described, research must be conducted at appropriate scales to improve survey and monitoring
methods, to understand our ability to detect and interpret meaningful changes that are
observed, and to link these results to the development of descriptive or predictive models.
Research on our ability to determine cause and effect must integrate information on processes
that occur across the range of scales from large regions to individual sites. EMAP will focus
on these research questions. The research necessary to effectively implement the framework
can be captured in four general questions discussed below.
The proposed CENR framework provides an opportunity and challenge in integrating
information from multiple ecological resources, taken at multiple spatial scales and over
varying temporal scales to describe the sustainability and integrity of our ecological resources.
The first challenge in integration will be integrating the results of the research outlined above to
provide a final suite of indicators and sampling design for each of the tiers in the framework.
For example, the definition of the fundamental measurement units for each resource will have a
major impact on how or if a statistical survey can be developed for the second tier and how
large an area will be necessary for the intensive study site tier. Our research must evaluate
multiple design options for each tier to determine the appropriate blend of activities.
A second level of integration will be in the synthesis of information in a tier, both within and
among ecological resources. For example, currently data are collected in streams for three taxa:
fish, macroinvertebrates and periphyton. Each taxon tells a particular story about the
integrity and sustainability of that aquatic resource. How are the results from those three taxa
synthesized to characterize the integrity of that system? In addition, data are likely to be
collected on stressors at the regional, watershed, riparian, and waterbody scales. How are
these data best synthesized to develop a picture of the relative magnitude of different stresses
to aquatic systems within a region? Finally, if biodiversity represents one key attribute of
regional sustainability, how can diversity information be aggregated across ecological resources
as different as forests, rivers, wetlands and estuaries? Is simple aggregation of taxa richness
sufficient or is a more quantitative approach required? These are all integration issues that
EMAP will address in a series of regional pilot studies.
Integrating sampling designs is a third level on which EMAP will conduct research. An
Page 14 EMAP Strategy
-------
October 1997
example will illustrate the concept. For acidic deposition, EMAP has been using a
combination of intensive study sites and regional surveys. The regional probability based
survey of lakes in the northeast provides information on the proportion of lakes which are
acidic during a summer index period. Because of the number of lakes visited, it is not possible
to also sample each of them during the spring snowmelt when episodic acidification occurs. A
set of intensively studied sites, fewer in number however, is visited multiple times during the
year. These sites can be evaluated for episodic acidification during spring snowmelt. Data
from these sites have been used to develop models relating spring episodes to summer
chemistry. These models are then applied back to the survey data allowing the estimation of
the regional extent of episodic acidification. This integration of information generated from
two different sampling designs allows the emergence of information that cannot be obtained
from either effort independently. EMAP will evaluate other environmental stresses and
assess the type of design integration between surveys and intensive studies necessary to fully
evaluate sustainability and integrity at multiple spatial scales and how these ecosystem
attributes are affected by various environmental stresses.
Root and Schneider (1995) describe a similar integration of information from different study
approaches, but the studies were run consecutively rather than concurrently. They describe
the limitations of conducting only scale-up studies or only scale-down studies. They propose
as an alternative, strategic cyclical scaling (SCS). In this paradigm, large-scale associations are
used to focus small-scale investigations to ensure that tested causal mechanisms are generating
the large-scale relations. The process is a continuous cycling between strategically designed
large- and small-scale studies, with each successive investigation building on previous insights
obtained from all scales. This paradigm offers an alternative for the implementation of the
multi-tier framework to the current proposal of the CENR. As part of the research on scale
and design options, EMAP will evaluate a number of ecological scenarios and apply both the
SCS paradigm and the current CENR paradigm to determine the relative merits of each under
different environmental conditions.
Integrating within and among tiers: To a certain extent, the types of monitoring proposed in
the framework are not new. But what could be unique in the implementation of this
framework is the integration of the monitoring approaches for a more complete answer to
questions facing the U.S. in environmental management and regulation. At least three
conceptual approaches exist for integrating the tiers and these are not necessarily mutually
exclusive. The most straightforward would be to design the tiers independently for specific
functions and then use the remote sensing tier and the probability survey tier to evaluate what
portion of the ecological resources are similar or represented by the index site tier. A second
approach would be to design the survey tier and index tier together around specific
environmental problems like nutrient enrichment or habitat alteration. The third approach
would be to have no fixed probability surveys or index sites but to cycle between them,
modifying the next effort based on the information derived from the proceeding effort. In
addition to evaluating these options conceptually, we will use the mid-Atlantic geographic
initiative to demonstrate the options proposed.
EMAP Strategy Page 15
-------
October 1997
V. EMAP Management
The organizational home of EMAP is within the National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory. EMAP itself however is an ORD-wide program with implementation
responsibilities and strategic guidance from all of the ORD Laboratories and National Centers.
The EMAP Director is advised by a Steering Committee made up of the Associate Directors
for Ecology from each of the National Laboratories and Centers (National Health and
Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory (NHEERL), National
Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL),
National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA), National Risk
Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL), and the National Center for
Environmental Research and Quality
Assurance (NCERQA). The EMAP
Director is then responsible for
developing further detailed directions
and implementation through working
groups operated by the Laboratory
research divisions.
EMAP Steering Committee
NHEERL
NERL
NCEA
NRMRL
NCERQA
( Ecological!
V Indicator^
EMAP Organizational Structure
The Future
The important scientific uncertainties described above and our long-term goal shape the
strategic direction of EMAP. ORD will direct its EMAP resources to address the primary
scientific barriers that all monitoring organizations face together in attempting to implement
the CENR framework. ORD bring the results of that research to CENR for consideration in
implementing the framework. ORD is prepared to play a leadership role in advancing the
science of ecological risk assessment by making EMAP an intramural research program as well
as by engaging the academic community through the ORD investigator-initiated grants (STAR)
program. Moreover, we expect EMAP to stimulate new approaches to monitoring in EPA
regional and program offices and the state and local agencies with whom they work through a
regional program (REMAP) of smaller community-based projects in each region. By
addressing these scientific uncertainties in a credible manner, EMAP will make important
strides toward the goal of providing the information necessary for protecting our ecological
resources.
V. REFERENCES
Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources. 1996. Integrating the Nation's
Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed Framework.
White House National Science and Technology Council. Washington, D.C.
Page 16
EMAP Strategy
-------
October 1997
Earth System Sciences Committee, NASA. 1988. Earth System Science: A Program for
Global Change. Prepared by the NASA Advisory Council. Washington, DC. 20546.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office), 1981. Better Monitoring Techniques Are Needed to
Assess the Quality of Rivers and Streams. Volume 1. U.S. General Accounting Office,
Washington, D.C.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office), 1986. The Nation's Water: Key Unanswered
Questions About the Quality of Rivers and Streams. U.S. General Accounting Office,
Washington, D.C.
Goldman, C.R. 1988. Primary Productivity, Nutrients, and Transparency during the Early
Onset of Eutrophication in Ultra-Oligotrphic Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 33: 1321-1333.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological Integrity: A Long-neglected Aspect of Water Resource
Management. Ecol. Appl. 1:66-84.
Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County Almanac. With other essays on conservation from Round
River. Oxford University Press, New York, 295 pp.
Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, R.S. Pierce, J.S. Eaton, and N.M Johnson. 1977.
Biogeochemistry of a Forested System. Springer-Verlag. New York, pp 146.
Lubchenco, I, A. M. Olson, L. B. Brubaker, S. R. Carpenter, M. M. Holland, S. P. Hubbell,
S. A. Levin, J. A. MacMahon, P. A. Matson, J. M. Melillo, H.A. Mooney, C. H. Peterson,
H. R. Pulliam, L. A. Real, P. J. Regal and P. G. Risser. 1991. The Sustainable Biosphere
Initiative: an ecological research agenda. Ecology 72:371-412.
Messer, J.J., R.A. Linthurst, and W.S. Overton. 1991. An EPA program for monitoring
ecological status and trends. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 17:67-78.
MRLC. 1996. Implementation Strategy for an MRLC National 30m Land Cover Data Base.
MRLC, June 26. Mimeo.
National Research Council. 1977. Environmental monitoring. Volume IV. National Academy
of Sciences. Washington, DC. 153 p
Pickett, S.T.A. and M.L. Cadenasso. 1995. Landscape Ecology: Spatial Heterogeneity in
Ecological Systems. Science. 269: 331-334.
Root, T.L. and S.H. Schneider. 1995. Ecology and Climate: Research Strategies and
Implications. Science. 269: 334-341.
Steedman, R.J. 1994. Ecosystem Health as a Management Goal. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 13:
605-610.
EMAP Strategy Page 17
-------
October 1997
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Report of the National Workshop on Instream
Biological Monitoring and Criteria. Corvallis, OR.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Future Risk: Research Strategies for the
1990s. Science Advisory Board. SAB-EC-88-040. U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.
Vitousek, P.M. 1994. Beyond Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change. Ecology: 79:
1861-1876.
Page 18 EMAP Strategy
------- |