National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 3 Program-Wide Components
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

4—
Resource Components

This chapter considers the various EMAP resources. In some cases, resources have been reviewed in earlier reports on surface waters, estuaries, and forests; for those, the executive summaries of the earlier reports are reproduced along with any new information. Brief, new reviews are provided here of the agroecosystem and Great Lakes. One of the program's originally planned resource groups, wetlands, has been eliminated, and insufficient information is available on the rangelands (formerly arid lands) resource group for review.

Agroecosystems

The activities of the Agroecosystems Resource Group of EMAP are reported in five documents: (1) Agroecosystem Research Plan, Heck et al., 1991a; (2) Agroecosystem Monitoring and Research Strategy, Heck et al., 1991b; (3) Agroecosystems 1992 Pilot Project Plan, Heck et al., 1992; (4) Agroecosystem Pilot Field Program - 1993, Campbell et al., 1993; and (5) Agroecosystem Pilot Field Program Report - 1992, Campbell et al., 1994. The monitoring phase of the Agroecosystem component of EMAP is scheduled to begin in 1998. To date the program has been largely concerned with research on biological indicators, establishment of relationships with the National Agricultural Sta-

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

tistical Survey of the United States Department of Agriculture that will collaborate with EMAP and collect the majority of the field data, and refinement of the logistics of data generation from sample collection to data analysis and reporting.

The objectives of the Agroecosystem component of EMAP are the same as those of the other resource components, i.e., the determination of the distribution and extent of agroecosystems, assessment of status and trends, association between changes in status and stressors, and preparation of periodic reports. While this consistency is necessary and appropriate, the application of the EMAP approach and protocol to highly managed agricultural ecosystems is problematic. Nearly all past agricultural research has focused on management of agricultural commodities. Practically nothing is known about the other biological components of agroecosystems. Gathering such information is problematic as the intensive management of agroecosystems can overwhelm measures that would be meaningful in other ecosystems. For example, the application of nitrogen fertilizer causes extreme short-term changes in soil chemistry and microbial community structure and metabolism. It is difficult to avoid these effects completely in a sampling protocol because nitrogen fertilization practices vary with crop, agroclimatic zone and individual farmers. Development of meaningful indicators that are relatively free of influence by agricultural managers is an extraordinary challenge, but it is necessary given the frequency of sample collection.

The strategy of the Agroecosystem component involves monitoring of indicators that are clustered around three assessment questions and collection of samples and data by the National Agricultural Statistical Survey. The assessment questions are expressed differently in several of the documents produced by the resource group but are reasonably consistent in intent. They include:

  • sustainability of production potential for commodities;
  • quality of air, water and soil; and
  • maintenance of biological diversity.
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

A fourth and implied assessment question involves the impact of agroecosystems and their management on adjacent and downstream ecosystems. These assessment questions seem appropriate and comprehensive. However, the development of quantifiable indicators for such questions is difficult.

The measurement of physical and chemical properties of air, water, and soil and the identification of trends in such measurements are straightforward. However, integration of these properties into a measure of quality and establishment of acceptable levels of quality is far from straightforward. The assessment of the sustainability of production potential is limited by the current state of the art to monitoring of crop yields. The relationship of yield to ecosystem condition is unclear. During the past decade, yields of wheat and rice agroecosystems in southern Asia have declined. Whether or not this decline represents a compromise of the sustainability of production is as yet undetermined, despite considerable research efforts to identify the cause of such declines. EMAP's attempts to assess the value of production efficiency as a measure of sustainability are admirable, but they are still in the research stage.

Because yield data are already available, EMAP's greatest contribution to monitoring agroecosystems is the development of indicators of overall ecosystem status. Appropriate indicators of biodiversity within agroecosystems are not yet perfected. EMAP's exploration of the potential of using trophic groups of nematodes as indicators of soil health and diversity is founded on good theoretical grounds, but experimental testing of the theory is still under way. The recent addition of hedgerows and pest-management parameters will expand the number of habitats sampled, and thereby likely improve overall estimates of system diversity. The challenge for EMAP is to ascertain the set of taxonomic divisions and habitats that will reflect the system diversity.

Because of the regional variability in the nature and distribution of agroecosystems, EMAP should test the adequacy of the sampling grid. In the Southeast and Midwest, agroecosystems are relatively uniform in distribution because the landscape is

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

relatively uniform, and rainfall is generally adequate for growing crops. The base grid will likely sample such regions very well. In the arid regions of the West, and especially in central California, agroecosystem distribution is very patchy because agroecosystems are clumped around sources of irrigation water. High-volume crops such as fruits and vegetables are generally grown in these areas with high yield and economic return. In the Northeast, agroecosystems are typically patchy because of the topography. Agroecosystems with patchy distribution are less likely to be sampled adequately by the base grid.

EMAP intends to collaborate with the National Agricultural Statistical Survey in the collection of data. Essentially, EMAP will augment the sampling grid and data requirements of the survey, which has been ongoing for years. The partnership will capitalize on the experience and expertise of the United States Department of Agriculture while contributing the ecological experience and perspective of EPA and EMAP. The ecosystem components that are not commodities and the influences of agroecosystems on adjacent and downstream ecosystems are concerns that EMAP will add to the survey. EMAP should be commended for forging this partnership to increase the utility and cost-effectiveness of the efforts of both agencies.

The 1992 pilot program of the EMAP Agroecosystem group was conducted in North Carolina by a new partnership between EMAP and the Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS). This partnership represents an attempt to modify the NASS survey of U.S. agricultural lands to be compatible with the sampling and data needs of EMAP. The pilot was conducted as the first attempt to perform field operations, collect and prepare samples and field data, transport samples to various laboratories for analysis, and to manage and analyze resulting data. In essence it was a true operational pilot study.

In most respects the pilot was a qualified success. Data-collection was incomplete for several reasons, including failures by the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) to adequately

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

adapt, and problems in quality control. None of these failures is surprising in a first trial. However, it is essential to resolve these issues before implementing the EMAP monitoring program across a greater area.

The pilot failed to establish the suitability of its indices and measures as indicators of ecological condition. While some of the indices and measures have potential, their values are not yet documented. The report of the pilot recognized its limitations and failures, but few details were offered about correcting the deficiencies in future activities. It is unlikely that the lessons of the 1992 pilot were used to modify the 1993 pilot, as the report of the 1992 study was published in 1994, well after the second pilot was completed.

The Pilot Field Program of 1993 was conducted in Nebraska. It had four major objectives as follows: (1) empirically establish the range and variance in indicator values within the State of Nebraska; (2) to compare the efficiency and precision of the EMAP hexagonal design and the NASS rotational panel design; (3) refine plans for logistics and data handling; and (4) develop and evaluate additional indicators of soil quality and landscape structure. Also included within the first objective was a subobjective to assess the ability of indicators to reflect condition. These are generally worthwhile objectives, and the plans for implementing them seem sound.

Only the subobjective of assessing the ability of an indicator to reflect ecosystem condition seems questionable. The establishment of the correlation between indicators and ecosystem condition is a great challenge faced by EMAP across all resource groups. It is particularly challenging to the Agroecosystem group because there is so little ecological knowledge available on agroecosystems. The challenge will only be met by persistent research and empirical evaluation of indicators.

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

Conclusion

The Agroecosystem resource group is subject to most of the same concerns that have been expressed about other resource groups. The utility of indicators, especially the biological indicators, is largely undocumented and requires empirical research over several years to provide such documentation. The intensity of the base grid may be too coarse to adequately sample adequately agroecosystems that have patchy distributions. Questions concerning data management, coordination with other resource groups, and interagency cooperation are virtually identical to those in other resource groups. Most problematic is the appropriateness of the EMAP approach, primarily intended for natural systems, for monitoring intensively managed agroecosystems.

The Agroecosystem program is at an immature stage of development relative to other resource programs. This is not surprising as the focus of past agricultural research has been on management of a few species and particularly on factors affecting their yields. Ecological sustainability, and its relationship to biotic components, and the functional linkages among such components are relatively new concerns for to agricultural scientists. Efforts are under way at several institutions to develop methods for assessing agricultural sustainability. EMAP would be well served to become familiar with such efforts and to incorporate them in its deliberations and plans. Examples include the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension-Agriculture Compatible with Environment (SARE-ACE) and Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (SANREM) programs at the University of Georgia, work at the Leopold Center of lowa State University, and the Agroecology program at the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

Estuaries

(Modified from NRC, 1994a, Executive Summary)

The goals of the 1990 Virginian Province demonstration project were to identify which indicators and design attributes are most effective for assessing the ecological condition of estuarine resources on a regional scale with limited financial resources. Significant progress was made in many areas.

The grid-sampling scheme was successfully modified to represent better discrete systems such as small estuaries and large rivers without compromising the acquisition of unbiased samples. A complex field-sampling program was successfully mounted with a well-coordinated plan for quality assurance of data acquisition, analysis, and management. Initial steps were taken toward the development of a group of indicators of ecological condition. Subsequent efforts have been made to involve regional managers by having them cooperate in future sampling and in the evaluation of the applicability of data collected. The activities and results of the first year of sampling (1990) have been issued in a well-written synthesis report describing the process of indicator development and containing an initial interpretation of the data obtained (Weisberg, et al., 1992). Based on the material in this report, EMAP has made a good first step in getting the estuaries section of EMAP started.

Although there have been many positive accomplishments, there are a number of areas needing significant work. A more explicit conceptual model must be developed to drive indicator development and set priorities. Continued work also is needed to develop meaningful indicators that assess basic ecological condition (status and functioning).

The combination of the EMAP probability-based sampling design and the realities of national coverage with a limited budget severely limit the type and number of indicator measurements that can be made. The review panel of the Estuarine Research Federation doubts that the indices generated by EMAP will have the power to detect the amount of environmental change expect-

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

ed. Environmental change can occur at various rates. For example, the EMAP design standard is the ability to detect a 20 percent change occurring over a decade. The published information on changes in various indicators shows, however, that some changes occur in estuaries at a much slower rate than this (Stanley, 1993). As a result, it may take several decades for a 20 percent change to occur, therefore, it would take decades to be able to detect changes with the current EMAP sampling design. By contrast, changes in ecosystems can be quite sudden and catastrophic, perhaps too fast to be adequately captured by EMAP's sampling scheme. It is time for this issue to be clearly analyzed by EMAP using extant data sets or similar proxy data. According to the letter from Dr. Martinko (Appendix A), these studies are currently being carried out on Virginian Province data sets. Future (1995-1996) analyses are planned on existing data sets from the Louisianian Province.

Large programs such as the estuaries component of EMAP usually pay insufficient attention to analyzing exactly what they have learned in their pilot and demonstration projects. There is a temptation to think that the next challenge is to carry out pilot projects on new provinces, one after another. However, as pointed out by the Estuarine Research Federation review committee, the real challenge is in obtaining the best possible set of indicators of ecological condition. Therefore, EMAP personnel should stop and evaluate the estuaries part of EMAP in detail before going on or adding additional provinces. This evaluation should occur as soon as possible after the Virginian Province demonstration completes its first four-year cycle and should include a comparison of the EMAP information with other published information on indicators of condition of estuarine resources with different design attributes. This evaluation has begun (See Appendix A).

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

Indicators

  1. The estuaries component of EMAP should include indicators of ecosystem function. These indicators are difficult to monitor when studies are made only once a year, but can be estimated to some extent indirectly. Lack of such indicators should be addressed as soon as possible. An example of such an indirect approach is that algal biomass can be used as a surrogate for primary production. Also, remote sensing provides one possibility for chlorophyll measurements on a regional scale.
  2. Another measure of important coastal habitat, submerged aquatic vegetation, was missing in the Virginian Province demonstration project. Inclusion of submerged aquatic vegetation in the sampling scheme for all estuaries demonstration projects should be considered.
  3. Insufficient effort has been devoted to fish sampling to make the data obtained useful. A relatively short trawl done once does not collect enough fish for meaningful determination of population characteristics, contaminant body burdens, or incidence of gross pathology. If quantitative information on these indices is desirable, arrangements should be made with other agencies with the experience and personnel on hand for more comprehensive collection and analysis of data. If the level of planning and effort allocated by EMAP for these activities cannot be significantly increased, fish sampling program should be eliminated.
  4. In support of new indicators development, areas of research that should be looked at include the analysis of long-term data sets from various sites to examine indicator variability and its causes and the use of molecular probes to look for the presence of enzymes indicating pollutant exposure or changes in ecosystem function (e.g., nitrogen fixation).
  5. No use has yet been made of a number of historical data sets in the Virginian Province that have data comparable to those being collected by EMAP. Out of 18 studies investigated, eight were found to contain information important to EMAP and in
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
  • particular to EMAP-Estuaries. This material should be analyzed in detail to provide valuable information on spatial and temporal variability and the power of certain indicators to detect trends within a given period. It is past time for this work to have been completed. (This recommendation is addressed in Appendix A.

Advice, Consultation, and Scientific Review

EPA has sought advice from a wide variety of scientists in developing EMAP, but the effectiveness of the present mechanisms for incorporating scientific expertise into the design and execution of resource group activities are not what they should be. Working groups, which have been used by most of the resource groups, provide peer review but are not necessarily efficient or adequate for ensuring that activities are based on the best scientific approach. Continuing oversight and review by groups of scientists from outside of EPA, built into the program at the highest levels, should be implemented for EMAP Center planning, for indicator development strategy, for landscape characterization, and for all resource groups.

Update

There has been progress since the last report dealing with estuaries was written. Some of the progress has been responsive to the report. Much of the recent progress in the development of indicators and sampling methods has not yet appeared in documents available for review, and so the following evaluation of progress may not be complete.

Two big issues face EMAP-Estuaries (and the other resource components)—indicator development, and the time and space scales at which interpretation of the measurements will be meaningful. EMAP-Estuaries appears to have made some progress with respect to indicators, but the information available does not

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

indicate whether the program will be able to adequately assess trends in the condition of the nation's estuaries.

Indicators

EMAP officials report that a revised conceptual model for indicator development will be released later in 1994. It should be based on ecological relationships and on how disturbances of the ecosystem would be reflected in the various indicators to be measured. For instance, excess nutrients would lead to hypoxia that could be measured by increases in the extent of areas with low dissolved oxygen. Thus far, it is not clear from EMAP's response to the previous report, which called for explicit conceptual models, that this is the type of model being developed.

Detecting Trends

The fish-sampling program is fundamentally flawed. It is not clear how a supportable program could be undertaken without a large increase in investment of resources for adequate development of indicators. The type of extensive sampling that supported the development of an approach for measuring dissolved oxygen would have to support the development of any indicator based on measurements of fish collected.

It is still not clear that the EMAP sampling design and indicators will have the power to detect the kinds of environmental changes anticipated at the appropriate scales. This is because of the high degree of spatial and temporal variability in estuarine systems and because rates of change are expected to be slow. Stanley (1993) was forced to lump data into 10-year increments and into three major river sectors to detect change, even with monthly sampling at many sites for more than a decade. EMAP is primarily concerned with changes in the areal extent of indicator distributions. However, based on the known spatial and tem-

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

poral heterogeneity, it is probably not possible to predict whether trends in areal extent of indicator distributions will actually be observed over a 10-year period. Complete analysis of the 4-year data set already in hand for the Virginian Province will provide the first real indication of whether the design criteria will be met and how meaningful the information might be.

In their response to the National Research Council review of EMAP-Estuaries, EMAP scientists have indicated their conclusion (see Appendix B: letter from G. Foley to NRC committee, May 9, 1994), based on analysis of the Virginian and Louisianan demonstration projects, that EMAP-Estuaries indicators have the potential to detect a change of 1 to 2 percent per year over a 10-year period. However, there has been no convincing evidence that linear, decadal changes of 1 to 2 percent per year will occur at the scale of standard federal regions.

EMAP has reported plans to devote additional effort to examine the effects of multiple design modifications to EMAP's ability to detect different types of trends. Step function should be included in these examinations. EMAP also has undertaken a four-year assessment of the Virginian Province demonstration project. These are good efforts, and the results should be published as soon as possible. Four-years of sampling have now been completed in two estuarine regions: Virginia and Louisiana. Careful analysis of these two efforts should be the cornerstone for further testing of indicators and development in all the estuarine regions. Taking time out from field sampling for careful analysis of information obtained to date is critical to strengthening the program.

Forests (Executive Summary, from NRC 1994a)

EMAP's Forest Health Monitoring Program (EMAP-Forests) proposes to collect data on environmental factors that influence forest growth, as well as additional response variables of the trees such as soil nutrients and canopy structure. If this is implemented, the resulting data sets will be valuable for ecologists and

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

foresters seeking to understand basic ecological patterns and for policy makers who require information for the evaluation of future environmental impacts on the nation's forests.

The multi-agency partnership of EPA, the Forest Service, state forestry agencies, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Bureau of Land Management is exactly the type of cooperation that EPA sees as vital to EMAP's national monitoring effort. Many of the positive features of the program derive from the previously established U.S. Forest Service Health Monitoring Program. What follows is a summary of specific recommendations.

Lack of a Theoretical Basis

Elements of a theoretical basis for EMAP-Forests included hierarchy theory, sampling theory, epidemiological theory, and the stand-development theory of Oliver and Larson (1990). However, the logical basis by which these theories explain the responses of forests to stress, and the subsequent responses of surface waters to changes in forests and by which the theories for indicator development and sampling protocols is not clear. Heavy reliance appears to be placed on a purely epidemiological model. Epidemiological models describe how diseases spread through populations. Such models appear to have little utility in predicting how nutrient cycles, nutrient losses, or biodiversity of ecosystems change in response to stress. Therefore, EMAP personnel should continue development of a theoretical basis for EMAP-Forests from which predictions can be made of general types of forest response to different types of stress. The theory should at least encompass productivity and diversity.

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

Select a Set of Indicators

It is essential that EMAP-Forests choose sets of indicators with a consistent theoretical basis across all regions as soon as possible and then conduct the staff work necessary to establish sampling methods and convey these to field crews. The next step is to develop the process for interpreting the results derived from field studies. Priority should be given to the evaluation of measurements that integrate limiting factors over the growing season, such as nutrient availability as measured by adsorption in resin bags, and that can be performed quickly using standardized procedures.

Revise Sampling Design

The current design of four-year plot rotations should be replaced or augmented by a design in which some plots are revisited every year. Revisiting a site only once every four-years prevents EMAP from making site-specific estimates of changes in these frequencies. This is unfortunate in the case of known cyclical events. An augmented sampling scheme that would permit some plots to be revisited every year would maximize temporal coverage. Some plots could be sampled on a rotating basis to maximize spatial coverage. This is essentially the recommendation also reached by the statistical sampling design team.

Information-Management System

EMAP-Forests should develop a comprehensive information-management plan that outlines user requirements, examines long-term implementation of hardware and software, and fits in with the overall plan for the information-management system.

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

Publish Study Results

EPA should encourage publication of study results in peer reviewed science journals to gain credibility in the scientific community and to ensure accessibility of information.

Delay Full Implementation Until Results of Demonstration Projects are Evaluated

For all the reasons described above, the EMAP-Forests program should not be fully implemented until the results of demonstration projects have been thoroughly evaluated and a realistic estimate of the program's costs to EPA and other agencies is available.

Great Lakes

The Great Lakes are one of the three main aquatic resource groups within EMAP. In contrast to Surface Waters and Coastal Waters, the Great Lakes were added as a resource group after the program was started. Of the aquatic resource groups, it is the least defined and developed, and relatively little field or pilot-level activity has been directed toward it. EMAP has offered the following documents for review: (1) a draft strategy document prepared for the Great Lakes component of EMAP (EPA, 1992a), (2) a review of that document (EPA, 1992b) and a response to the review (EPA, 1992c); and (3) a status report for pilot field activities conducted in 1992 (EPA, 1994b). This section briefly reviews the nature of the draft strategy document and 1992 pilot studies, comments on the merits and completeness of this work, and raises some questions about the overall Great Lakes program.

The 1992 draft strategy document for EMAP-Great Lakes (EPA, 1992a) is scientifically credible and provides a detailed analysis on several aspects of the proposed Great Lakes program. The authors demonstrated good familiarity with the literature regarding Great Lakes biota in relation to possible indicators to be measured for EMAP-Great Lakes. The report also has clear de-

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

scriptions of sample design considerations relative to some of the four resource classes in the Great Lakes that EMAP intends to monitor and statistical methods to be used in data analysis. The peer review report on this document (EPA, 1992b) was thorough and thoughtful. It raised several philosophical concerns about the approach described in the strategy document and had many specific technical questions, especially about indicator selection and data analysis. Some of these concerns are similar to those that other reviewers have raised about other components of EMAP. The peer reviewers were especially concerned about limited attention that had been paid to the sampling design for the most variable, productive areas of the Great Lakes, (like harbors, embayments and wetlands. It also expressed concern that the overall EMAP design drives the entire program, and that the design unjustifiably influences the selection of indicators (e.g., only those indicators that can conform to such a design will be selected) (EPA, 1992b). The authors of the draft strategy document responded to each comment and criticism of the peer review panel in a separate report (EPA, 1992c). In general, the responses indicate that the authors understood and considered the comment or criticism, and in many cases they indicated that further studies were planned or underway that would address the issue. Overall, however, it appears that work of the peer review panel—its comments and recommendations—had little influence on the plans of EMAP for its Great Lakes program and that no significant changes were made in the strategy document as a result of the peer review.

According to EPA (1992a) and EPA (1994b), EMAP's objectives for the Great Lakes are essentially the same as those for the overall program and for other resource groups (see Introduction). The primary environmental values EMAP has identified for the Great Lakes (i.e., its assessment end points) are biological integrity and trophic condition. (It should be noted that the Fiscal Year 1992 status report is not entirely consistent with regard to the former end point; the executive summary refers to ''biotic integrity," but Section 1 of the text uses the term "biological integrity"; these are not necessarily exactly the same concepts.) The draft strategy document and 1992 status report mention several other end points that are acknowledged as important designated uses

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

for the Great Lakes both in the past and in the present: fishing, swimming, navigation, drinking water supply, and habitat for aquatic life. Furthermore, the reports concede that "not all the societal concerns about the conditions of the Great Lakes fall neatly under the biotic umbrella." Why the program chose to define its interests regarding conditions in the Great Lakes so narrowly is puzzling, and a more comprehensive monitoring and assessment program with a broader array of assessment end points would be more appropriate and better suited to the agency's overall mandates than the narrow program it proposes.

EMAP has delineated four resource classes within the Great Lakes that it regards as amenable to assessment within the EMAP sampling grid: (1) coastal wetlands, (2) harbors and bays, (3) nearshore regions, and (4) offshore regions. The 1992 pilot studies focused on the offshore zone and to a lesser extent on the nearshore zone in the two uppermost lakes, Superior and Michigan. Spring cruises were conducted on both lakes, and two additional cruises (summer and fall) were conducted on Lake Michigan. These cruises were designed to address the following issues:

  • (1)  

    the adequacy of the base EMAP sampling grid to assess trophic conditions in offshore areas and comparability among trophic state data collected by EMAP (at grid sites and data collected under other Great Lakes sampling programs);

  • (2)  

    the appropriate index periods in which to assess trophic conditions in the lakes and collect benthic invertebrate indicator organisms;

  • (3)  

    the definition of nominal conditions for sediment indicators in nearshore areas;

  • (4)  

    evaluation of the use of diatoms as representatives of Great lakes phytoplankton populations;

  • (5)  

    investigation of the use of sediment cores for historical trend analysis of diatom populations; and

  • (6)  

    evaluation of the use of sediment traps to collect integrated samples for estimates of annual diatom populations.

A large number of narrowly defined questions were addressed within the context of the above six issues. In general, analysis of

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

the data appears to have been done in a professional and competent manner. However, the overall significance of some of these analyses in the context of designing and implementing EMAP-Great Lakes is not always clear. A few of the conclusions reached by the authors seem difficult to explain based on data presented in the report, but a detailed evaluation of the basis for conclusions about narrow scientific issues is beyond the scope of this report. In summary, the status report is a satisfactory compendium of the field work undertaken in 1992 and follow-up analyses done on the data, but it does not provide much insight into why the particular work was done (i.e., how it fits into the overall strategy to design a Great Lakes monitoring and assessment program).

The primary sampling data to which the EMAP trophic state data were compared in Lake Michigan are those obtained by EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) under the Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan (GLISP). This plan is a bilateral arrangement between the United States and Canada under the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which has produced a long-term record of trophic state and toxic contaminant data for fixed stations at offshore sites in the Great Lakes. In brief, the 1992 pilot sampling program found that EMAP and GLNPO-GLISP yield highly comparable results for major ions and trophic state parameters (nutrients, chlorophyll a) in Lake Michigan. Statistically significant differences in mean values were found for a few parameters, but the absolute differences in the mean values were very small (e.g., for nitrate, 0.274±0.02 mg N/L [EMAP] versus 0.287±0.011 mg N/L [GLNPO-GLISP]). That the two programs yield essentially the same results indicates that laboratory accuracy and precision are very good for both programs, but aside from this useful operational finding, the results are not surprising.

The programs had comparable numbers of sampling stations (12 for EMAP, 11 for GLNPO-GLISP) and both achieved broad coverage of the lake's offshore region. The EMAP stations were uniformly spaced on a grid established by a randomly selected starting point. According to EPA (1994b), the GLNPO-GLISP sites were not selected on a probabilistic basis, but the exact basis for their selection is unclear. However, it is obvious from Figure 2b

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

in EPA (1994b) that broad, relatively uniform coverage of the offshore region was sought. It is unlikely that the exact locations of the GLNPO-GLISP sites were based on specific information about the sites; to this extent the selection probably was random (within the constraint of adequate geographic coverage). Thus, there appears to be little need to restrict sampling to the arbitrarily selected EMAP grid points within a large, relatively homogeneous water body like Lake Michigan. EMAP should be able to use the historical database and the existing sampling program of EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) under the Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan (GLISP) to assess offshore trophic conditions in Lake Michigan.

Several similar types of comparisons were made between trophic state data collected by EMAP on Lake Superior in spring of 1992 and various data collected by Environment Canada. Interpretation of the comparisons was complicated by temporal differences in sample collection and geographic distribution of sampling sites. In general, however, differences between EMAP results and other data sets were quite small, even when differences in mean values were statistically significant.

A limited analysis of the appropriate index period for sampling trophic status was described using Environment Canada's data for spring and fall 1992 in Lake Superior and past data from GLNPO-GLISP for Lake Michigan. It is unclear why EMAP did not collect trophic state data seasonally on Lake Michigan in 1992 during the summer and fall cruises mentioned in the status report. The report concludes that spring is a better index period in which to measure trophic state because nutrient levels decline in summer (as a result of primary production). Although this is undoubtedly true, few limnologists would agree that trophic state should be measured based on one sampling time per year. The year-to-year variance in chlorophyll a, as well as in nutrient levels, probably is higher in a spring index period because of interannual differences in the onset of spring warming and suitable growth conditions for algae. Moreover, if sampling is conducted early in spring, chlorophyll a levels may be quite low and unrepresentative of conditions during the maximum growth period for algae.

A considerable effort was made in the pilot study report at attempting to define a depth contour to separate nearshore and

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

offshore sites. According to the authors, values of 85 m and 149 m have been used as the delineating depths in Lakes Michigan and Superior, respectively. Water chemistry data were not conclusive in confirming this contour for either lake. The authors also used past data on the depth distribution of the benthic invertebrate Diporeia to evaluate the nearshore and offshore depth cutoff. Diporeia is an amphipod crustacean that is the dominant benthic species in Lake Michigan at depths greater than 30 m. The authors conclude that the Diporeia data do not contradict the selection of an 85-m contour for Lake Michigan, but there is no support for this conclusion in the reported data (cf. figures 8 and 9 of EPA, 1994b).

Studies also were undertaken in 1992 to evaluate sampling gear and the index period for sampling benthic invertebrates. A Ponar dredge was found to be more reliable than a box corer, especially for sediment with a high sand content. Results for total abundance of benthic invertebrates, abundance of Diporeia, and species richness were found to be similar during the three seasons (spring, summer, fall), and for logistical reasons, EMAP selected summer as the index period for benthic sampling.

Initial work was undertaken on the development of a benthic index using statistical analyses of historical data, but no conclusive results were presented. The report also described EMAP's thinking with regard to diatom-based indicators for biological integrity and trophic condition. EMAP proposes to use a paleolimnological approach in which diatom stratigraphy in long sediment cores will be used to infer background conditions for various lake regions. Present and future conditions will be determined by analyzing diatoms in surface sediment samples or in seston collected in seston traps (a decision on which sampling approach to use has not been made), and results will be compared with the indices derived from the sediment studies. This is an interesting and innovative approach for a monitoring and assessment program, but this somewhat complicated and indirect approach may not be necessary, given the long and rich history of diatom studies on the Great Lakes.

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

Conclusions

The Great Lakes are by far the largest reservoir of fresh water in North America and collectively constitute about 20 percent of the total global reservoir of fresh water. The lakes are important as a water supply and recreational resource for over tens of millions of people in the eastern United States and Canada, and their economic importance is difficult to overestimate. Nonetheless, it is not clear that EMAP should invest a significant portion of its limited financial and human resources to developing its own program on the Great Lakes. The basis for this conclusion in part lies in the fact that substantial monitoring efforts are already under way, and have been for several decades, by U.S. and Canadian agencies on open-water regions of the lakes, and many state and local agencies conduct monitoring programs in nearshore areas and various harbors and bays. Although current monitoring programs may be inadequate and may need better coordination, it seems that a more efficient approach would be to build on existing monitoring efforts, especially those of EPA's GLNPO, NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, the National Biological Survey, and Environment Canada's programs, than to create yet another program. With only a modest investment of funds and personnel, EMAP could serve an important role in stimulating these existing programs, with their in-house expertise and physical facilities, to expand and coordinate their monitoring and assessment efforts.

Based on the draft strategy document and the 1992 Great Lakes status report, it is not clear that EMAP's vision for a long-term monitoring and assessment program on the Great Lakes is sufficiently forward-looking and comprehensive to address the interests and concerns of policy and decision makers and managers of the Great Lakes ecosystems. The two assessment end points EMAP has selected for the Great Lakes, biotic integrity and trophic condition, encompass only a subset of the major issues of concern about these lakes.

Finally, the grid-based approach that EMAP used in its 1992 pilot studies on Lakes Michigan and Superior is not an efficient or appropriate approach for sampling in large bodies of water like the Great Lakes. For the relatively homogeneous open-water region,

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

EMAP demonstrated that the existing network of sampling stations is adequate to characterize the resource, and it makes sense to continue long-term monitoring at these sites rather than start a database at new sites based on an arbitrary grid. EMAP did not conduct a comprehensive water-column sampling in nearshore regions in its 1992 field studies, but based on prior information, it concluded that higher spatial heterogeneity in this region would require an enhancement of the grid (increased density of sampling sites) to adequately characterize the resource (e.g., estimate the portion of nearshore waters with acceptable trophic state). However, the spatial variability of water quality is not random in the Great Lakes or in any other large water body. Just as important, a large volume of previous studies, as well as basic land use, demographic, and geographic data, is available to direct sampling efforts.

For example, if EMAP wishes to know the extent to which the Milwaukee urban area influences nutrient concentrations and related biological response variables in the nearshore region of western Lake Michigan, it would be most inefficient to approach the problem as though it knew nothing about the direction of the sources of influence and therefore set up a random sampling program throughout the region. Instead, it makes sense to recognize that the nutrients are coming from a rather narrow zone along the western shore where the Milwaukee urban area is located. Any reasonable aquatic scientist would approach this problem by gathering information on the sources of influence (major rivers, streams, sewage, and stormwater outfalls) and then setting up a sampling scheme that used this information. Most likely, that would involve sampling in linear transects away from the source area(s).

EMAP states that it is not interested in characterizing local problems, and understandably so. Thus it may not wish to develop an intense enough monitoring network or set of transects to characterize the zone of Milwaukee's influence with an accuracy that would answer all the questions that local and state water-quality managers and policy makers may have. Nonetheless, the issue is relevant to EMAP's stated interests regarding the Great Lakes. EMAP wishes to characterize the nearshore region with known confidence. Conditions in that region are not distributed

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

randomly but with known spatial biases. It makes sense to use available information and design a monitoring program accordingly.

Probabilistic sampling has a role in EMAP—perhaps even in a Great Lakes monitoring program. However, complete reliance on random site selection is unnecessary and inefficient. In the above example, a random component could enter the site selection process in terms of a list frame of the onshore sources (rivers, sewage outfalls, cities) above a certain magnitude that are likely to affect the nearshore region. Financial and other limitations will not allow detailed transects to be sampled on all possible source areas, and selection of those to be monitored would be done randomly.

Surface Waters

(Executive Summary, from NRC, 1994b)

This third report reviews the EMAP-Surface Waters monitoring component in the context of the larger program. This report pays particular attention to the strengths and weaknesses of the overall program, as they affect EMAP-Surface Waters. These program-wide issues fall into three major classes: assessment end points; indicators; and design. This report includes a review of the Lakes Pilot Project and on early information available on the streams program.

The EMAP-Surface Waters group should be commended for its investigation into the critical ways different sources of variation will affect EMAP's ability to detect status and trends. The EMAP-Surface Waters Implementation pilot was reasonably organized, and logistical aspects of the operation were well planned. Execution of the field portion of the regional assessment of the pilot was successful and valuable experience was gained in the site selection process and in evaluating the logistical aspects of the program.

Although the pilot project was wisely question-driven, some of the questions are unclear or inadequate. In general, the pilot study could be substantially improved, not just because it failed to address some of the questions and goals it set for itself, but

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

also because those goals and questions are a very incomplete list of the fundamental issues that need to be addressed before the surface waters program is ready for full implementation. In particular, issues of coordination among resource groups, relationships between indicators and specific stressors, and ability to make inferences on scales ranging from single lakes to entire regions were not addressed. Not every issue can be addressed in a single pilot study, but there appears to be no overall plan to address these issues sequentially in subsequent pilot studies. In addition, oversight and involvement of senior scientists from a central management team at EMAP Center might have enhanced the scientific rigor of the pilot study, improved the design, analysis and reporting phases of the pilot study, and produced more useful models for the full program.

Background and Objectives

The Surface Waters component of EMAP has responsibility for achieving EMAP goals for the nation's lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers. Surface Waters is one of eight EMAP resource groups. The other resource groups are: forests, estuaries, agroecosystems, arid lands, the Great Lakes, wetlands, and landscape ecology. EMAP-Surface Waters' initial efforts emphasized lakes and reservoirs, and this portion of the program is more fully developed than the program for rivers and streams. For lakes and reservoirs a pilot project was conducted from 1991 to 1993 in the northeast area of the United States. A stream pilot project was conducted in the mid-Appalachian area in 1993.

EMAP-Surface Waters differs from most other surface water monitoring approaches in that it is statistically designed to infer information from a sample of lakes to the entire population of lakes on regional and national scales.

Objectives of EMAP-Surface Waters parallel those of the general EMAP program. The objectives of the Surface Waters Component (from D. McKenzie, EMAP Program Officer, verbal communication, February 24, 1994) are to:

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
  • estimate the current status, trends, and changes in selected indicators of condition of the nation's lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers on a regional basis with known confidence;
  • estimate the extent (number and surface area of lakes and reservoirs, miles of rivers and streams) of the nation's lakes, reservoirs, streams and rivers with known confidence;
  • seek associations between selected indicators of natural and anthropogenic stresses and indicators of the condition of ecological resources; and
  • provide annual statistical summaries and periodic assessments on the condition of the nation's lakes, reservoirs, streams and rivers.

Assessment End Points

EMAP-Surface Waters has designated three assessment end points for the lakes portion of their program: biological integrity; trophic condition; fishability.

The choice of assessment end points provides the foundation for the EMAP Lakes Program. This first step, therefore, is of critical importance. The EMAP-Surface Waters' current selection of end points needs further definition and improvement. Of the three end points, biological integrity is the most problematic. As used by EMAP-Surface Waters, this term is vague and all-inclusive, conceptually subsuming the content of the other end points and all other more specific environmental problems in lakes. Such a broadly defined term may be useful in summarizing diverse data or in addressing the multiple issues related to environmental quality, but it is not specific enough to be a useful end point upon which to design data monitoring activities. Therefore, EMAP-Surface Waters (and other EMAP resource groups) should use the term "appropriate biological diversity" instead of "biological integrity" as an assessment end point, as discussed in Chapter 2. This term is based on objective evaluations and depends on measurable, quantifiable reference systems, and its use should lead to the development of objective, quantifiable indicators.

The other two assessment end points for EMAP-Surface Waters are trophic condition and fishability. In theory, each could be

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

defined in reasonably unambiguous ways and straightforward means can be developed to measure them quantitatively. Nonetheless, further efforts are needed to refine the definitions and measurement strategies for both end points.

In addition, although EMAP's financial resources will be limited, it is imprudent to exclude drinking water from consideration as a societal value in its surface water assessment program. The EPA and the revised Clean Water Act both express and affirm the concept of holistic watershed planning and management. Also many impoundments and natural lakes are used both for recreation and for drinking water supplies. This is an example where close cooperation with EPA's Office of Water 305b program could be very beneficial.

Indicators

Once the major assessment end points have been decided, the next critical task is to determine what measurements are necessary to assess these end points. When the problem has been stated, a conceptual model of how the particular system works with respect to the problem should then be stated explicitly. Examination of the conceptual model leads to the selection of potential indicators, which are tested in the field. The indicators are selected on the basis of known or suspected cause-effect relationships that are identified in the conceptual model. Until March 1994, EMAP provided no satisfactory program-wide guidelines for indicator selection strategy, and each resource group was left to fend for itself with little or no guidance from EMAP-Center. As a result, use of conceptual models to drive indicator selection is not well developed in EMAP.

The conceptual model implicit in the EMAP-Surface Waters strategy document underestimates the complexity of freshwater ecosystems. There is no consideration of factors like biogeography, seasonal shifts in community structure with secondary nutrient depletion, competition, predation, or hydrologic factors.

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

Therefore, explicit conceptual models of the ecological systems being monitored should be used to guide indicator development.

EPA's peer review panel was concerned about heavy reliance on indices with unknown properties. Use of indices to describe complex ecosystems has some advantages but also some important disadvantages. The major advantage is the ability of an index to condense many parameters into a single number, which at first glance may be easier to understand. A major disadvantage is that the statistical properties of the index are often not well understood; moreover the indices are often nonlinear; that is, a change from 1 to 2 is not the same as a change from 2 to 3.

Rather than relying upon a univariate index with unknown statistical properties, it is possible to use the multi-response vector of the original parameters and apply multivariate statistical techniques for analysis (e.g., logistic regression, clustering and pattern-recognition algorithms, neural network analysis), or exploratory data techniques involving better visualization of multi-dimensional data (Becker et al. 1987, Cleveland and McGill 1988). Nonparametric multivariate procedures also exist (as in Zimmerman et al. 1985) for testing whether groups of multivariate data points are significantly different from each other (e.g. comparing disturbed to undisturbed areas). EMAP-Surface Waters should continue its efforts to develop indices using a number of different approaches including multivariate statistical and exploratory data analyses. In addition, appropriate new statistical methods should be incorporated as they become available.

Sampling Design

The design for the Surface Waters component follows the overall EMAP design. The scheme for lakes is better developed than that for streams, which have not received detailed consideration to date. About 3,200 lakes will be selected using a probability-based sampling scheme. A different subset of 800 of them will be sampled each year so that every lake is sampled once every four-years. Lakes will be stratified into size classes so that large lakes (which are relatively rare compared to small lakes) are represented in the sample. The random selection of the lakes will

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

occur in a way that maintains uniform spatial coverage nationally. There are several areas of concern regarding the general EMAP sampling design.

A watershed perspective is lacking in the sampling design. Because surface water systems are linked with their watersheds, the lack of a watershed perspective will severely limit the identification of likely causes of detected changes in the EMAP lakes. Without this watershed perspective, landscape characterization data cannot be used to evaluate the status of individual aquatic resource units. Thus, a greater emphasis should be given to concomitant measures of watershed characteristics. Remotely sensed data on land use and cover could be used to great advantage. Representatives of EMAP have recently indicated (May 1994, conference call with surface water panel members) that they will be using a watershed approach for their data gathering, and the committee encourages this approach.

Another concern is that the sampling design may not be sensitive enough to detect a change in condition unless the change is very large in magnitude and affects most lakes and streams in a region. There are many types of lakes and streams in many types of landscapes and each one has different sensitivities to a particular stress. It is not clear that enough sensitive lakes and streams will be included in the sample to detect a change due to a particular stress. Because lakes and streams will be sampled during one 9-week period, some measurements may not be made at the biologically most meaningful time, thus decreasing the sensitivity of the measurement.

In addition, the sampling design may have difficulty detecting changes in biological measurements over time. Variances of biological populations (and therefore community measurements) among lakes and within lakes over the course of a year are large.

EMAP-Surface Waters has been a leader in performing tests of statistical power to detect changes or differences with real limnological data collected by various state agencies. Power studies to date have examined primarily physical and chemical variables since these data were relatively available. Similar tests with published or simulated biological (population and community

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

level) data should be vigorously pursued, because EPA indicates that these data will be important in formulating indicators similar to Karr's Index of Biological Integrity (Karr, 1992).

It is not clear how useful the trends that EMAP may detect will be, and whether EMAP will be able to relate such trends to specific stressors is uncertain. Because of the four-year revisitation rate, the current design essentially does not allow for site-specific inferences to be made. Although it is not an explicit goal of EMAP to make site-specific inferences, there is value in making site-specific inferences from well-chosen sites. This would augment the basic EMAP design and the added value could be achieved at small additional cost. Therefore, a substantial number of sites should be sampled annually. Some of these sites might be selected because they are known or suspected to be sensitive indicator lakes for selected stressors.

Additional power tests should be performed to examine the ability of the current design to detect status and trends for quantiles in the tails of distributions (e.g., lower and upper 10th percentiles).

Lake Pilot Project

The surface water component of EMAP began its first year pilot study during the summer of 1991. Pilot activities included a regional sampling effort (EPA Region 1), a set of more focused indicator development studies, and an analysis of the effects of different types and magnitudes of variability on the ability to detect regional trends.

The regional assessment portion of the pilot study represents the first application of the general EMAP design to surface water ecosystems. The EMAP-Surface Waters implementation pilot was reasonably organized, and logistical aspects of the operation were well planned.

Field execution of the regional assessment portion of the pilot was successful. Valuable experience was gained in the site selection process and in evaluating the logistical aspects of the program. However, a substantial portion of the data was not analyzed in time to meet deadlines for the pilot study report. This

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

suggests that a larger investment in data analysis will be necessary if a larger scale implementation is to be completed in a timely fashion.

The design of the indicator development study was not as good as that of the regional assessment portion of the pilot. The scope of this portion of the pilot was too ambitious given the financial resources available. The response of lakes to catchment disturbance, or even the ability of certain indicators to detect the response, is unlikely to be discerned without a much larger set of lakes selected specifically to address this question. With only four to six lakes per class it was unreasonable to expect to be able to see a strong signal between disturbance and the response variables.

Field sampling for the indicator portion of the pilot appeared to go smoothly. Useful variance estimates and time and cost estimates were obtained for many of the assemblage indicators. However, there appear to be major difficulties with the analyses of the indicator assemblage data. They include:

  • lack of planning and coordination;
  • lack of statistically sound hypothesis evaluation; and
  • lack of any quantitative comparison between the various indicator variables measured.

Streams

EMAP-Surface Waters also began to conduct a pilot program on streams in the summer of 1993. It is difficult to evaluate this pilot study, because of the scarcity of documentation.

The sampling strategy to be used in the stream survey needs further development. Based on the limited information now available, it was premature to embark on a stream pilot study at this time. The currently conceived sampling strategy appears inadequate to characterize stream quality either chemically or biologically. Not everything can be planned in advance, and there still is room for the trial-and-error approach in developing large-scale

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

programs like EMAP. Nonetheless, the scale of financial and human resources required even for a pilot-level survey is sufficiently great that EPA must not only minimize the risk of error, but also maximize the likelihood that it will successfully address the critical issues necessary for planning a full-scale stream survey. EMAP is not presently in this position.

EMAP should decide what its overall objectives are for assessing the status of the nation's rivers and streams. These objectives—and a strategy to achieve them—need to be developed within the context of existing federal monitoring programs. This should occur before EMAP proceeds with the development of stream pilot studies. The currently conceived sampling strategy is not appropriate to characterize stream quality either chemically or biologically.

It is unclear to what extent there has been substantive involvement of the scientific community in the planning done to date for the streams pilot. Therefore, EMAP-Surface Waters' scientists should spend time developing a substantive planning document and continue their dialogue with stream scientists in other branches of EPA, in other water-related federal agencies (U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.) and in the academic community to better evaluate how the stream phase of EMAP should be designed.

Intra-Agency Cooperation

Much routine water quality sampling done by state pollution control agencies on surface waters nationwide is funded through EPA's Office of Water under Section 305b of the Clean Water Act. Closer collaboration between the 305b program and EMAP has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of both programs while reducing the overall cost of federal monitoring programs for surface water quality.

Therefore, EMAP-Surface Waters and the EPA Office of Water should work together to insure that data collected under the 305b program can be useful not just for compliance monitoring (the primary focus of current programs in most states), but also to assess temporal and geographic trends in water quality.

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

Oversight And Coordination Among EMAP Resource Groups

Coordination among resource groups is especially important for the Surface Waters component of EMAP. Surface waters are affected by processes occurring within the terrestrial ecosystems in their watersheds. Currently, the Surface Waters group is analyzing riparian vegetation. However, it is not clear that the classification system being used is the same as that used by terrestrially-focused resource groups. Without a closer interaction with the terrestrial components of EMAP, an opportunity for comprehensive understanding of how and why lakes may be changing is likely to be missed.

EMAP-Center Organization

There is a continuing lack of a clearly defined procedure for defining and prioritizing the assessment questions that can and will be addressed by the program. These questions are critically important, because they will drive the sampling strategies and clarify the goals of EMAP-Surface Waters and the other resource groups.

A procedure should be developed to identify the most important assessment questions from a policy perspective, but at the same time ensure that it is scientifically feasible to address the questions. One possible approach is to formalize a planning structure that would be composed of guidance panels associated with each resource group. A central planning committee, composed of representatives from each of the thematic panels would then make the hard decisions about resource allocation and attempt to optimize efficiency and coordination between groups. Some aspects of such a planning structure already exist within EMAP. However, it is critical that the guidance panels also include representatives of EMAP clients, i.e., policy makers and the larger scientific community. Most panel members should be external to EMAP and to EPA and they should be leaders in their areas of

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×

expertise. These panels should not duplicate the advisory and planning functions of the current peer review panels or of EPA's Science Advisory Board.

Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"4 Resource Components." National Research Council. 1995. Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4931.
×
Page 98
Next: References »
Review of EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Overall Evaluation Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $48.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This is the fourth and final volume reviewing EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). After 4 years of review, the authoring committee retains its belief that EMAP's goals are laudable. However, because achieving the goals of this ambitious program will require that EMAP successfully meet the difficult scientific, practical, and management challenges, the committee continues to question whether and how well all these goals can be achieved. This final overall review reiterates that general assessment.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!