sustainable rangeland roundtable epas environmental monitoring and assessment program – the...

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