ord’s environmental monitoring and assessment program (emap)
DESCRIPTION
ORD’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Sound Science for Measuring Ecological Condition. www.epa.gov/emap. Key EPA Monitoring Questions. What are the current conditions of our ecosystems? Where are the conditions improving or declining? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
ORD’s Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP)
Sound Science for Measuring Ecological Condition
www.epa.gov/emap
Key EPA Monitoring Questions
• What are the current conditions of our ecosystems?
• Where are the conditions improving or declining?
• What stresses are associated with declines?
• Are our management programs and policies working?
What’s at Stake?• >$1B/y spent on monitoring
• Condition of estuaries, coastlines, streams, rivers, wetlands and lakes are still unknown.
• Effectiveness of protection and restoration programs and policies are often unknown
GOALS of EMAP• Develop the scientific basis for consistent,
unbiased, cost-effective measurement of the condition of the Nation’s aquatic ecosystems– Status– Trends
• Build state and tribal capacity for monitoring condition and transfer our technology
• Make data generally available to all stakeholders (STORET)
No additionalSampling (continue to Monitor as part of 5-year cycle)
Condition
Waterbody has high Probability of Impairment
305(b)Reports
WaterbodyImpairment Confirmed
303(d) List
TMDL Development
States conductProbability survey With suite of indicators
Remediation
Intensive sampling to confirm impairment
State of theEnvironmentReports
Associated Stressors
Point Source
Non-pointSource
Likelihood Criteria
Dose - Response
Comparison of # of Expected 303(d)Sites to known sites
< or >=
Accept State 303(d) list
Probability of ImpairmentAssessmentModels
Waterbody has low Probability of Impairment
De-list
WaterbodyNot impaired
Diagnosis
Integrated Integrated Monitoring Monitoring
Waterbody has Moderate Probability of impairment
Standards
Science Behind the Scenes
Population Identification
Variable Density Approaches
Frame Development
Spatial Balance
Panel Rotation
Variance Estimation
Status (Trends)
Index Construction
Index Calibration
Index Regionalization
Reference Condition
Ecoregion Framework
IndicatorsDesigns
=10%
23%
37%31%
10%15%
32%
43%
15%
28%
44%14%
35%
3%
32%
30%
Assessments
Partnerships
Analysis
Data
Field Sampling
Training
+
CWA: Resource Monitoring Needs
National Implementation
National Demonstration
Regional Demonstration
R-EMAP/Small Scale Tests
Impl
emen
tatio
n
Lan
d c
ove
r/u
se
Ind
icat
ors
Des
ign
Cla
ssif
icat
ion
Str
ata
Ref
eren
ceC
on
dit
ion
s
Nat
ion
ally
Co
nsi
sten
tD
esig
n
Science Barriers
CoastalCoastal
StreamsStreams
Large RiversLarge Rivers
Great LakesGreat Lakes
LakesLakes
WetlandsWetlands
Res
ou
rce
Are
as
EMAP Extramural Research Areas
• Coastal Initiative – 60% to State Co-ops• Western Pilot – 60% to State Co-ops • GRI – 60% to State and other Co-ops • R-EMAP – 100% to EPA Regions • STAR – 100% to Academic Research Institutions
STAR GrantsWestern Pilot
R-EMAPCoastal Initiative
GRI
EMAP Design Approach• Probabilistic Design Framework – Randomized statistical designs
that allow interpretation of monitoring data with known uncertainty, extrapolation to the entire population of interest with a small sample size, and the ability to statistically aggregate similar data to larger geographic areas
• Classification - meaningful groupings within resource types and/or ecosystem types to allow better statistical design and analysis
• Biological Indicators - Direct measures of aquatic ecosystem condition, integrates stressors, and the public can relate to them
– Streams, rivers, estuaries, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands
Probabilistic Survey Design Advantages• Representative and allows inference to system of interest• Adaptable to resource characteristics• Adjusts sample sizes to meet precision requirements • Adaptable to temporal and spatial scales of interest• Unbiased• Cost-effective
FullySupporting
87%
Not Supporting
13%
Traditional Targeted Monitoring
FullySupporting
13%
Not Supporting
87%
Probability Survey
Fully Supporting
95%
NotSupport
ing5%
Fully Supporting
75%
Not Supporting
25%
Delaware
Nebraska
Traditional Targeted Monitoring Probability Survey
Condition of streams
EMAP Uses Biological Indicators• Historic Aquatic Indicators – Measured
physical/chemical characteristics and related them to the biological condition of an aquatic system
• Aquatic Biological Indicators – Direct measure of condition of aquatic ecosystem, integrates stressors, and the public can relate
• Eutrophication of NE US lakes – 4219 mostly problem lakes sampled by states for 305(b)
– 2756 non-random lakes censused (Rohm et al. 1995)
– 344 lakes with EMAP probability design (11,076 lakes total)
• Alabama reduced the cost of estuarine monitoring by ~33%, and can now report on all estuarine waters
Effectiveness of Design%
Im
pair
ed L
akes
Sam
plin
g co
sts
Fish IBI
17%
17%
36%
31%
Proportion of Stream Length
(InsufficientData)
Good
Fair
Poor
% of Stream Length0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Riparian Habitat
Sedimentation
Mine Drainage
Acidic Deposition
Tissue Contamination
Phosphorus
Acid Mine Drainage
24%
25%
14%
11%
10%
5%
1%Nitrogen
5%
Potential Stressors
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Introduced Fish 34%
Stream Conditions in MAHA
Degraded 30 ± 6%
Undegraded70 ± 6%
Degraded18 ± 8%
Undegraded82 ± 8%
Louisianian Province Virginian Province
Metals 42%
Toxicity 4%Contaminants 28%
Low D.O.
Habitat 14%
Unknown10% Unknown
39%
Contaminants 10%Both2%
Low DissolvedOxygen 49%
Condition
Stressors Associated with Degraded Condition
Estuarine Conditions
0
10
20
30
40
50
1991-93 1997-98
% a
rea
wit
h im
pair
ed b
enth
os
Statistical Change DetectionChange in Percent Area of Chesapeake Bay with Impaired Benthic Community
*
EMAP National Demonstrations
• Estuaries – All 24 marine coastal states monitoring with core EMAP design and indicators
• Streams – Mid-Atlantic States and 12 Western States
• Great Rivers – Mississippi River Basin
No additionalSampling (continue to Monitor as part of 5-year cycle)
Condition
Waterbody has high Probability of Impairment
305(b)Reports
WaterbodyImpairment Confirmed
303(d) List
TMDL Development
States conductProbability survey With suite of indicators
Remediation
Intensive sampling to confirm impairment
State of theEnvironmentReports
Associated Stressors
Point Source
Non-pointSource
Thresholds of Impairment
Dose - Response
Comparison of # of Expected 303(d)Sites to known sites
< or >=
Accept State 303(d) list
Probability of ImpairmentAssessmentModels (2 levels)
Waterbody has low Probability of Impairment
De-list
WaterbodyNot impaired
Diagnosis
Integrated Monitoring Integrated Monitoring and Assessmentand Assessment
Waterbody has Moderate Probability of impairment
Standards
1
2
3 5 8
4
6,79,10
101010
10
10
10
Example of Integrated Monitoring and Assessment with Maryland Biological Stream Survey Data
MBSS probability survey for benthic IBI and fish IBI measures of stream condition (impairment for BIBI < 3, FIBI < 3), chemical and physical measurements taken, land cover data available
Analysis:cumulative distribution functions (cdfs)conditional probabilitiesconditional cdfs
1
Condition of Streams in Maryland
54% of 1st order stream miles are impaired (BIBI < 3)
40% of 2nd order stream miles are impaired (BIBI < 3)
47% of 1st order stream miles are impaired (FIBI < 3)
24% of 2nd order stream miles are impaired (FIBI < 3)
Benthic IBI
Fra
ctio
n o
f Str
ea
m M
iles
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
stream order = 1
Benthic IBI
Fra
ctio
n o
f Str
ea
m M
iles
1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
stream order = 2
Fish IBI
Fra
ctio
n o
f Str
ea
m M
iles
1 2 3 4
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
stream order = 1
Fish IBI
Fra
ctio
n o
f Str
ea
m M
iles
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
stream order = 2
2
3
4
Associated Stressors 5
MBSS-derived thresholds of impairment:• pH < 5• ANC < 200 μeq/l• Nitrate-nitrogen > 2 mg/l• DO < 5 ppm• Sulfate > 24 mg/l• DOC > 8.0 ppm
Conditional probability thresholds of impairment:
1st order steams: DO < 5, DO > 12 pH < 6, pH > 8
NO3 < 5, <15SO4 < 40-50Temp <5, temp > 25Hilsenoff <1, Hilsenhoff > 6
2nd order steams: DO < 3, DO > 11 pH < 5, pH > 8.5
NO3 < ?SO4 < 75Temp <10, temp > 28Hilsenoff <2,
Thresholds of Impairment 6
7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Fines (< 2mm) in Substrate
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
ba
bil
ity o
f B
en
thic
Im
pa
ct
in S
tre
am
s
Percent Fines in Substrate
British Columbia
Conditional value
7
8800 stream miles stream miles in MD66% 1st order - 580817% 2nd order
Impaired Streams in Maryland
7304 miles in 1st and 2nd order streams
3725 miles of 1st and 2nd order streams should be on 303(d) List based on benthic impairment
8
Agriculture on >3% Slopes
Probability of Impairment Models
URBAN
be
nth
ic ib
i
0 20 40 60 80
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
stream order 1
URBAN
be
nth
ic ib
i
0 20 40 60 80
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
stream order 2
URBAN
fish
ibi
0 20 40 60 80
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
stream order 1
URBAN
fish
ibi
0 20 40 60 80
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
stream order 2
Combine condition information with land cover data to predict probability of impairment
9
Data to Drive Modeling
Spatial Models for Probability of Impairment
10
Probability of Stream Benthic Probability of Stream Benthic Impairment for Exceeding Levels of Impairment for Exceeding Levels of
Catchment UrbanizationCatchment Urbanization
0 20 40 60 80
Urban = Percent of Catchment Area Urbanized
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pro
babi
lity
of B
enth
ic Im
pairm
ent w
hen
Urb
an E
xcee
ded
Maryland Biological Stream Survey 1995-97 2nd order streams
10