Monitoring Ecological Condition at Regional Scales: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Albany, NY, U.S.A., 8–11 April, 1997

592 Pages·1998·16.7 MB·English

by  Donald Pryor

MONITORING ECOLOGICAL CONDITION AT REGIONAL SCALES
MONITORING ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
AT REGIONAL SCALES
Proceedings of the Third Symposium on
the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
Albany, NY, U.S.A., 8-11 April, 1997
Edited by
Shabeg Sandhu
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S.A.
Laura Jackson
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, U.S.A.
Kay Austin
National Center for Environmental Assessment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Jeffrey Hyland
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
Charleston, SC, U.S.A.
Brian Melzian
Atlantic Ecology Division,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narrangansett, Rl, U.S.A.
Kevin Summers
GulfE cology Division
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GulfB reeze, FL, U.S.A.
Technical Editors
Frederick de Serres and Paul Celmer
Technology Planning and Management Corporation
Reprinted from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 51, Nos. 1-2, 1998
Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V.
A C.I.P. Catalogue for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN 978-94-010-6089-9 ISBN 978-94-011-4976-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-4976-1
Printed on acid-free paper
All rights reserved
@1998 Springer Science+B usiness Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1998
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MONITORING ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
AT REGIONAL SCALES
Proceedings of the Third Symposium on
the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
Albany, NY, U.S.A., April 8-11, 1997
G. VEITH I Preface 1
D. PRYOR, R. BIERBAUM and J. MELILLO I Environmental Monitoring and
Research Initiative: A Priority Activity for the Committee on Environ-
mental and Natural Resources 3-14
S.L. LASKOWSKI and F.W. KUTZ I Environmental Data in Decision Making
in EPA Regional Offices 15-21
W.S. FISHER I Development and Validation of Ecological Indicators: An ORD
Approach 23-28
R.S. STEMBERGER and E.K. MILLER I A Zooplankton-N:P-Ratio Indicator
for Lakes 29-51
F.B. TAUB and C.D. WISEMAN I Implications of Seasonal and Regional
Abundance Patterns of Daphnia on Surface Water Monitoring and
Assessment 53-60
c.o. YODER and E.T. RANKIN / The Role of Biological Indicators in a State
Water Quality Management Process 61-88
N. ROTH, M. SOUTHERLAND, J. CHAILLOU, R. KLAUDA, P. KAZYAK,
S. STRANKO, S. WEISBERG, L. HALL, JR. and R. MORGAN II I
Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Development of a Fish Index of
Biotic Integrity 89-106
R.J. STEVENSON I Diatom Indicators of Stream and Wetland Stressors in a
Risk Management Framework 107-118
D.H. WARDROP and R.P. BROOKS I The Occurrence and Impact of Sedi-
mentation in Central Pennsylvania Wetlands 119-130
R.P. BROOKS, T.J. O'CONNELL, D.H. WARDROP and L.E. JACKSON I
Towards a Regional Index of Biological Integrity: The Example of
Forested Riparian Ecosystems 131-143
T.J. O'CONNELL, L.E. JACKSON and R.P. BROOKS I A Bird Community
Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands 145-156.
W.E. SHARPE and M.C. DEMCHIK I Acid Runoff Caused Fish Loss as an
Early Warning of Forest Decline 157-162
M.G. GLENN, S.L. WEBB and M.S. COLE I Forest Integrity at Anthropogenic
Edges: Air Pollution Disrupts Bioindicators 163-169
D.J. RAPPORT, W.G. WHITFORD and M. HILDEN I Common Patterns of
Ecosystem Breakdown under Stress 171-178
W.G. WHITFORD, A.G. DE SOYZA, J.W. VAN ZEE, J.E. HERRICK and
K.M. HAVSTAD I Vegetation, Soil, and Animal Indicators of Range-
land Health 179-200
M.S. NASH, W.G. WHITFORD, J. VAN ZEE and K. HAVSTAD I Moni-
toring Changes in Stressed Ecosystems Using Spatial Patterns of Ant
Communities 201-210
J.H. LANDSBERG, B.A. BLAKESLEY, R.O. REESE, G. McRAE and P.R.
FORSTCHEN I Parasites ofFish as Indicators of Environmental Stress 211-232
G. McRAE, D.K. CAMP, W.G. LYONS and T.L. DIX I Relating Benthic
Infaunal Community Structure to Environmental Variables in Estuaries
Using Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling and Similarity Analysis 233-246
A.H. RINGWOOD and C.J. KEPPLER I Seed Clam Growth: An Alterna-
tive Sediment Bioassay Developed During EMAP in the Carolinian
Province 247-257
W.R. DAVIS, A.EJ. DRAXLER, J.E PAUL and J.J. VITALIANO I Benthic
Biological Processes and EH as a Basis for a Benthic Index 259-268
J.E PAUL, C.J. STROBEL, B.D. MELZIAN, J.A. K1DDON, J.S. LATIMER,
D.E. CAMPBELL and D.J. COBB I State of the Estuaries in the Mid-
Atlantic Region of the United States 269-284
K.S. PRICE I A Framework for a Delaware Inland Bays Environmental
Classification 285-298
R. KLAUDA, P. KAZYAK, S. STRANKO, M. SOUTHERLAND, N. ROTH
and J. CHAILLOU I Maryland Biological Stream Survey: A State
Agency Program to Assess the Impact of Anthropogenic Stresses on
Stream Habitat Quality and Biota 299-316
A.S. HELLKAMP, S.R. SHAFER, C.L. CAMPBELL, J.M. BAY, D.A. FIS
CUS, G.R. HESS, B.E McQUAID, MJ. MUNSTER, G.L. OLSON,
S.L. PECK, K.N. EASTERLING, K. SIDIK and M.B. TOOLEY I
Assessment of the Condition of Agricultural Lands in Five Mid-Atlantic
States 317-324
L.E. JACKSON and M.P. GANT I An Interactive, Spatial Inventory of Envi-
ronmental Data in the Mid-Atlantic Region 325-329
J.L. HYLAND, T.R. SNOafS and W.L. BALTHIS / Sediment Quality of
u.s.
Estuaries in the Southeastern 331-343
J. WHITE and G. MERRITT / Evaluation of R-EMAP Techniques for the
Measurement of Ecological Integrity of Streams in Washington State's
Coast Range Ecoregion 345-355
R.K. HALL, P. HUSBY, G. WOLINSKY, O. HANSEN and M. MARES /
Site Access and Sample Frame Issues for R-EMAP Central Valley,
California, Stream Assessment 357-367
J.K. SUMMERS and K.E. TONNESSEN / Linking Monitoring and Effects
Research: EMAP's Intensive Site Network Program 369-380
V.D. ENGLE and J.K. SUMMERS / Determining the Causes of Benthic
Condition 381-397
J.L. STODDARD, C.T. DRISCOLL, J.S. KAHL and J.H. KELLOGG / A
Regional Analysis of Lake Acidification Trends for the Northeastern
U.S., 1982-1994 399-413
J.E. VOGELMANN, T.L. SOHL, P.V. CAMPBELL and D.M. SHAW / Region-
al Land Cover Characterization Using Landsat Thematic Mapper Data
and Ancillary Data Sources 415-428
S.S. HALE, M.M. HUGHES, J.E PAUL, R.S. McASKILL, S.A. REGO, D.R.
BENDER, N.J. DODGE, T.L. RICHTER and J.L. COPELAND / Man-
aging Scientific Data: The EMAP Approach 429-440
D. COOK, C. CRUZ-NEIRA, B.D. KOHLMEYER, U. LECHNER, N. LEWIN,
L. NELSON, A. OLSEN, S. PIERSON and J. SYMANZIK / Exploring
Environmental Data in a Highly Immersive VIrtual Reality Environment 441-450
C.c. HOUSE, J.J. GOEBEL, H.T. SCHREUDER, P.H. GEISSLER, W.R.
WILLIAMS and A.R. OLSEN / Prototyping a Vision for Inter-Agency
Terrestrial Inventory and Monitoring: A Statistical Perspective 451-463
N.M. BELFIORE and S.L. ANDERSON / Genetic Patterns as a Tool for
Monitoring and Assessment of Environmental Impacts: The Example
of Genetic Ecotoxicology 465-479
R.N. SILBIGER, S.A. CHRIST, A.C. LEONARD, M. GARG, D.L. LAT
TIER, S. DAWES, P. DIMSOSKI, E McCORMICK, T. WESSENDARP,
D.A. GORDON, A.C. RafH, M.K. SMITH and G.P. TafH / Prelim
inary Studies on the Population Genetics of the Central Stoneroller
(Campostoma anomalum) from the Great Miami River Basin, Ohio 481-495
N.A. MAZNIK / Genetic Impact of Low-Dose Radiation on Human and Non-
Human Biota in Chernobyl, Ukraine 497-506
J.D. YOUNT / Human Carrying Capacity as an Indicator of Regional
Sustainability 507-509
M. WACKERNAGEL and J.D. YOUNT / The Ecological Footprint: An Indi-
cator of Progress toward Regional Sustainability 511-529
D.E. CAMPBELL! Emergy Analysis of Human Carrying Capacity and Region-
al Sustainability: An Example Using the State of Maine 531-569
J.-Y. KO, c.A.S. HALL and L.G. LOPEZ-LEMUS / Resource Use Rates and
Efficiency as Indicators of Regional Sustainability: An Examination of
Five Countries 571-593
T. BRYDGES and A. LUMB / Canada's Ecological Monitoring and Assessment
Network: Where We Are At And Where We Are Going 595-603
"This document has been reviewed in accordance with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use."
PREFACE
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program was created by EPA to develop
the capability for tracking the changing conditions of our natural resources and to give
environmental policy the advantages ofa sound scientific understanding of trends. Former EPA
Administrators recognized early that contemporary monitoring programs could not even quantify
simple unknowns like the number of lakes suffering from acid rain, let along determine if
national control policies were benefiting these lakes. Today, adding to acidification impacts are
truly complex problems such as determining the effects of climate change, of increases in
ultraviolet light, toxic chemicals, eutrophication and critical habitat loss. Also today, the
Government Performance and Results Act seeks to have agencies develop performance standards
based on results rather than simply on levels of programmatic activities. The charge to EMAP
with respect to measuring the condition of ecosystems is, therefore, the same today as it was a
decade ago. We welcome the increasing urgency for sound scientific monitoring methods and
data by efforts to protect and improve the environment.
Systematic nationwide monitoring of natural resources is more than anyone program can
accomplish, however. In an era of declining budgets, it is crucial that monitoring programs at all
levels of government coordinate and share environmental data. EMAP resources are dwarfed by
the more than $500 million spent on federal monitoring activities each year. Fortunately, the
CENR has taken the initiative to forge a national monitoring framework among federal agencies
and to coordinate the advancement of the science of environmental monitoring. The original
goals ofEMAP are now those of the CENR National Framework and EMAP has pledged its full
support of the CENR activities to put the Framework into practice.
EMAP has been the subject of more than 20 peer reviews, a fact which seems to me to be
unprecedented for a monitoring program. In 1995, the EPA Office of Research and
Development demonstrated the importance of peer review by reshaping the EMAP strategy in
accordance with those peer reviews. The EMAP strategy is to develop methods for measuring
the integrity of ecosystems as well as methods to detect trends in these measures. Working
through the CENR initiatives, EMAP will support the evaluation of large scale, multi-resource
assessments such as the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. Through.the EPA grants programs,
almost $12 million each year will be targeted to stimulate the development of new ecological and
landscape indicators for monitoring.
This third EMAP Symposium brings together scientists and managers to discuss the
changes in EMAP and recent advances in monitoring science during the creation of a national
agenda for monitoring. The symposium illustrates that trends in acid rain effects are still an
important objective to EMAP and that monitoring designs can now include acidification as one
of many stressors on our environment. By the time of the fourth EMAP Symposium, there will
be proof-of-concept for regional-scale assessments from the CENR Mid-Atlantic pilot study. I
hope that this proceedings demonstrated that EMAP continues to promote new concepts in
monitoring and invite you to plan to join us in the next meeting in 1999.
Gilman Veith
Associate Laboratory Director for Ecology
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND RESEARCH INITIATIVE:
A PRIORITY ACTIVITY FOR THE COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DONALD PRYOR, ROSINA BIERBAUM, and JERRY MELILLO
National Science and Technology Council
Al)stract: The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) has recognized a high priority need
to integrate and coordinate federal agencies' efforts in order to enable a comprehensive evaluation of our nation's
environmental resources and ecological systems. The federal government spends about $640 million per year
collecting data about our forests, agricultural and rangelands, lakes, rivers, estuaries, and coastal marine systems.
These efforts have significantly aided the progress in preserving and protecting the environment in recent decades
but are not sufficiently coordinated to provide us a truly comprehensive status report or full understanding of the
causes and effects of environmental change. This paper describes the Committee on.Environment and Natural
Resources and its functions, provides a status report on the Environmental Monitoring and Research Initiative,
and offers some perspectives on the factors that will make the initiative and its contributing programs a success.
In particular, the paper discusses the potential relationship with the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP).
1. Introduction
Reinventing our national environmental monitoring and research programs is, in the words
of the Vice President, "one of the most significant efforts underway in our government
today." The federal government conducts monitoring activities at more than 15,000 sites
nationwide. The information we have derived from these sites has been a major factor in
the environmental progress we have made over the past 25 years. However, the efforts are
not sufficiently coordinated to provide us a truly comprehensive status report nor designed
to enable full understanding of the causes and effects of environmental change.
The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) has made it a high
priority to integrate and coordinate agencies' efforts in order to enable a comprehensive
evaluation of our nation's environmental resources and ecological systems. It is important
to ask how each federal monitoring activity can fit into this integrated picture. A particular
question for this meeting is how the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) might fit in.
2. CENR and the Environmental Monitoring Team
The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources is one of nine standing committees
of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), the first cabinet-level science
and technology entity. CENR's primary function is to coordinate environmental and
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51: 3-14, 1998.
o
1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers.