sustainable rangeland roundtable epas environmental monitoring and assessment program – the...
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable
EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program – the Western
Incarnation. EMAP-West
Roger Blair, Technical Director, EMAP-W
Agenda
• Informational• Describe EPA’s research on monitoring aquatic
system - EMAP• State/Regional focus• Design (statistical basis) and analysis• Indicators of condition• Reference condition
• Explore Relationship to SSR • Similarities of objectives-regional basis?• Opportunities for collaboration
ORD and Regional/State PartnershipsORD and Regional/State Partnerships
Other Federal AgenciesOther Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
Information
How can it be used?How do we get it?
Landon Over Roosevelt by a Landslide!
Powerful Information Can Shape History...
Literary Digest Predicts Outcome from Club
Members!
…but it has to be representative!Roosevelt New President!
Gallup Predicts Election True Outcome and
Literary Digest Error with New Technique!
New Technique Uses 50,000 People Rather than 2,000,000!!!!
Impetus for EMAP
“What do you mean you don’t know how many acid lakes there are?”
• William Ruckelshaus - EPA Administrator - early 1980s
“Good News - Based on my years in the environmental movement, I think the Agency does an exemplary job of protecting the nation’s public health and quality of the environment.”
“Bad News - I can’t prove it.”• William Reilly - EPA Administrator - 1989
• “GAO found that the Water Quality Inventory does not accurately portray water quality conditions nationwide. Consequently, the information in the Inventory cannot be meaningfully compared nationwide. “
Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data GAO/RCED-00-54 March, 2000
Old Questions Continue to Plague EPA and its Promulgation of the CWA
Importance of Indicators & Survey DesignDelaware Stream Reporting
Fully Supporting
24%
Not Supporting
76%
Traditional 305(b) ReportChemical Evidence
Aggregation of Existing Data
New ReportChemical EvidenceProbability Survey
Not Supporting
87%
Fully Supporting
13%
New ReportBiological EvidenceProbability Survey
Fully Supporting
87%
Not Supporting
13%
Importance of Monitoring Survey DesignOregon Coastal Coho Salmon
• Historic long term monitoring of spawning suggests minimal problem
• Historic survey biased• Salmon populations
continue to decline• Survey results more
accurately reflect populations
• State program modified based on probability design
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Es
tim
ate
d F
ish
pe
r M
ile
Traditional
Probability
Questions About Our Missions
• Are We Making Progress?• Are we meeting GPRA goals?
• Where Can We Make a Difference? (Resource Allocation) • Strategic Planning• Restoration/Ecosystem Targeting -
Community Based Protection• Ranking of Stressors
Similar Questions Can Be Asked of Any Resouce
• What is the status of rangeland resources? • Can we make statements of condition on a
regional basis? With known confidence?
• Can we rank stressors by showing associations with condition – again on a regional basis? • Targeting restoration $.
• Are stakeholders brought into discussions that are based on statistically sound data?
EMAP Objectives
• Estimate current status of and trends in selected indicators of condition …on a regional basis with known confidence
• Estimate geographic coverage and extent• Seek associations between indicators and
stresses• Provide (the tools to allow) annual statistical
summaries and periodic assessments
Oregon Coho Salmon Coastal Survey
Reading the Cumulative Distribution Function
20 or fewer spawning coho are found in about 82% of the stream length with a 95% confidence interval of about 76% to 90%.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - EMAP
• Develop and demonstrate the tools
• Tools:• Bioindicators• Sampling Design
• In the Western Pilot, EMAP tackling both problems together.
STATES IN EMAP-W
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment:Ecological Condition of Small Streams
Northern Apps
Central Apps
Western Apps
Valley and Ridge
Blue Ridge
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands
Goals of EMAP Surface Waters in MAHA
• Provide an unbiased assessment of the ecological condition of streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands
• estimate the condition of biological assemblages (e.g., fish and stream insects) in representative small streams
• produce a relative ranking of the major stressors that affect stream bio-integrity in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands
• describe the associations between ecological condition and stressor measurements (a first step toward determining cause and effect)
EMAP Tools: Probability Surveys
EMAP Tools: Biological Indicators
Fish Community Structure (IBI) Macroinvertebrate Community Structure (IBI) Periphyton Community Structure Physical Habitat (in-stream and near-stream) Ambient Chemistry (nutrients, major ions) Fish Tissue (mercury, some organic contaminants) Sediment Toxicity Tests Sediment Metabolism Watershed Characteristics
MAHA Results: Fish Index of Biotic IntegrityRegional Patterns
26%
20%
54%
Western Appalachians
30%
33%37%
Valleys
19%
39%42%
North-Central Appalachians
26%
37%37%
Ridge and Blue Ridge
MAHA Results: Stressor Ranking
% of Stream Length
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Introduced Fish
Riparian Habitat
Sedimentation
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Tissue Contamination
Nutrients
Acid Mine Drainage
34%
24%
17%
14%
10%
10%
5%
1%
EMAP-WEST
• Objectives• Assess the condition of estuaries and
inland waters and landscape characteristics
• Rank the relative importance of stressors on these resources
• Build partnerships with States and Tribes for more effective monitoring and assessment
EMAP-WESTSurface Waters Objectives
• Develop monitoring tools to produce unbiased estimates of the ecological condition of surface waters across a 12-state area in the West
• Demonstrate those tools in a large scale assessment
• Determine the relative risk to potential stressors
Indicator Approach
What can we (realistically) measure in a sample survey?
How can we best measure it?
How responsive is it?
How variable is it?
How do we score it (reference condition)?
Indicator Criteria
RIPARIANRIPARIAN
• Producer: woody plants• 1° Consumer: birds• 2° Consumer: birds• Decomposers
• Producer: woody plants• 1° Consumer: birds• 2° Consumer: birds• Decomposers
BENTHICBENTHIC
• Producer: algae• 1° Consumer: benthos• 2° Consumer: benthos,
herptiles, fish• Decomposers: microbes
• Producer: algae• 1° Consumer: benthos• 2° Consumer: benthos,
herptiles, fish• Decomposers: microbes
WATER COLUMNWATER COLUMN
• Producer: macrophytes• 1° Consumer: fish• 2° Consumers: herptiles, fish• Decomposers
• Producer: macrophytes• 1° Consumer: fish• 2° Consumers: herptiles, fish• Decomposers
Stressor SourcesMovement of Materials
Indicator ApproachWhat we can measure?
LAND USELAND USE
ATMOSPHEREATMOSPHERE
STREAM, LAKE, WETLAND USESTREAM, LAKE, WETLAND USE
WATERTABLE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 800
20
40
60
80
100
Stream Length (Channel Width Units)
Fish Species
Richness
(% of Maximum)
Indicator ApproachHow do we measure?
Indicator ApproachHow responsive is it?
Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams
Watershed Condition ClassPristine <-------------------------------------------> Degraded
1 2 3 4 5
Fis
h IB
I Sco
re
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Indicator Approach
Variability is it?
0 10 20 30
Mean Substrate dia.
% Canopy Density
Residual Pool Area
% Sand + Fines
Bed Stability
Riparian Agriculture
% Undercut Bank (visual)
% Pool Habitat (visual)
"RBP" Habitat Score
Signal:Noise Ratio(ratio of between-site variance/within-site variance)
Reference Condition Definitions
• Reference Condition: the status of the resource under minimal contemporary human influence
• Reference Sites:least-disturbed sites (“reference sites”)most-disturbed sites (“test sites”)
Why reference condition?
• For Establishing Basis for:• CWA objectives• Determining “good” vs.”bad” condition
• For Ecosystem Management: provide target (direction) for improving ecosystem condition
Indicator Score
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Num
be
r o
f str
ea
ms
0
10
20
30
40
Indicator ApproachReference Condition: Where are we now?
Historical distribution
Indicator Score
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Num
ber
of s
trea
ms
0
10
20
30
40
Current Distribution
Reference Distribution
Current distribution(some reference remnant remaining)
?
Indicator Score
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Num
ber
of s
trea
ms
0
10
20
30
40
Historical DistributionCurrent Distribution
Current distribution(no reference remaining)
?
Col 4 vs Col 5
Indicator Score
30 35 40 45 50
Num
ber
of s
trea
ms
0
5
10
15
20
25
Lower 25th Percentile for
Reference Distribution
Reference Distribution
Indicator ApproachReference Condition: Threshold delineation
Core Indicators
• Fish assemblages
• Macroinvertebrate assemblages
• Periphyton assemblages
• Quantitative physical habitat
• Water chemistry - all major ions, pH, total N and P, suspended solids, Se, Zn
• Watershed stressors
• Riparian condition
• Toxics including fish tissue, sediment chemistry, water column chemistry, biomarkers
Potential additional indicators
Design and Analysis
• Develop sample survey designs for aquatic systems • Establish rigor in how an assessment
question is asked; e.g., the explicit definition of a stream
• Define target population
Survey Design Research
• Spatially-balanced survey design: RTS• Applies to Discrete, linear, extensive resources• Solves problem of having sample reflect spatial pattern
of resource• Enhancements allow
• Unequal probability weighting• Multiple densities• Nested subsampling• Explicit stratification• Panels for surveys over time• Oversamples
• Better precision: 0-40% better than SRS
Aquatic Sample Frames
• National Hydrologic Database is primary source for sample frames: lakes, streams
• Constructing sample frames for lakes, streams/rivers, and coastal systems
• Needed to get consistency across the US
• Frames are not perfect
Data Management
• Full and open sharing of data
• Sustainable and continuously updated system that support environmental assessments
• Consistent data bases ready to accept data from coastal, surface water and landscape components across the country
• STORET to be archival system
Landscapes
• Data gathered “wall-to-wall” as opposed to sampling• Based on Multi-Resource Land Classification
(MRLC) data• Will focus on relationship of landscape
pattern to water quality
What is next
• Determine level of interest in potential cooperators• A range of options
• None or just allowing sampling on property• Coordinating existing monitoring efforts• Intensification of sampling grid
• Sampling – 2000 to 03
• Analysis and reporting 2004
Path of the sun at Winter Solstice
Path of the sunAt summer solstice
Direct Light Below the Canopy June 21
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
04:20 05:00 05:40 06:20 07:00 07:40 08:20 09:00 09:40 10:20 11:00 11:40 12:20 13:00 13:40 14:20 15:00 15:40 16:20 17:00 17:40 18:20 19:00 19:40
Time of Day
(MJ
per m
2)Direct light below canopy – June 21
Time of Day