environmental monitoring

EnvironmentalMonitoring

L1641_Frame_FM Page 2 Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:21 PM

CRC PR ESSBoca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.

EnvironmentalMonitoringEdited by

G. Bruce Wiersma

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted materialis quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonableefforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannotassume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.

Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronicor mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage orretrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, forcreating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLCfor such copying.

Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.

Trademark Notice:

Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and areused only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe.

Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com

2004 by CRC Press LLC Lewis Publishers is an imprint of CRC Press LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government worksInternational Standard Book Number 1-56670-641-6

Library of Congress Card Number 2003065879Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

Printed on acid-free paper

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Environmental monitoring / edited by G. Bruce Wiersma. p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-56670-641-6 (alk. paper) 1. Environmental monitoring. I. Wiersma, G. B.

QH541.15.M64E584 2004 363.73'63dc22 2003065879

L1641 disclaimer.fm Page 1 Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:19 PM

Preface

When I first entered the field of environmental monitoring 33 years ago as a newemployee of a then very new U.S. federal agency called the Environmental ProtectionAgency, our efforts were concentrated on primarily chasing pollutant residues in theenvironment. Eight years later when I founded the international journal

Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment

that was still certainly the case. However, over the intervening years, while the importance of tracking and assess-

ing chemical residues in the environment still remains, the concept of environmentalmonitoring has broadened to monitoring and assessment of the endpoints of envi-ronmental pollution. Environmental monitoring systems now look far beyond onlymeasuring chemical residues in the environment to identifying and measuring thebiological endpoints that more directly reflect the effect of human action rather thanjust the signature of human action.

The scope of environmental monitoring systems now encompasses landscape-scale monitoring networks, multimedia approaches, and far more biological indica-tors of environmental impact than were ever employed 20 or more years ago. In myopinion all these trends and changes are for the good and in the right direction.

Techniques and approaches are rapidly changing as well as the conceptual thinkingused to design monitoring networks. For example, geostatistics were not widely applied20 years ago, but they are commonly used today. Single media sampling programsused to be the norm 20 or more years ago, but today it is far easier to find monitoringprograms that are multimedia in nature than are single mediaas witnessed by themakeup of this book. I found it much easier to recruit authors dealing with ecologicalmonitoring indicators, geostatistics, multimedia assessment programs, etc. than to iden-tify authors who were working in the more traditional areas of air-, soil-, and water-sampling programs.

It was my intent, while thinking about the development of this book, to try to pulltogether a collection of articles that would represent the latest thinking in the rapidlychanging field of environmental monitoring. I reviewed the current literature (withinthe last 5 years) for papers that I thought represented the latest thinking in monitoringtechnology. I then contacted these authors and asked them if they would be interestedin writing a new paper based upon their current research and thinking. I also believedthat the book needed a few chapters on major monitoring networks to show both thepractical application aspects under field conditions as well as to provide some descrip-tion of how current environmental monitoring systems are designed and operated.

I have been extremely gratified by the positive and enthusiastic response that Ihave received from the authors I contacted. My original letters of inquiry went outto over 50 authors, and 45 of them responded positively. Eventually that numberwas pared down to the 32 chapters that make up this book. I want to thank all theauthors for their contributions.

L1641_C00 Page 5 Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:20 PM

About the Editor

Dr. Wiersma has been involved with environmental monitoring activities for almost35 years. He began his career with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wherehe managed all the agencys national pesticides monitoring programs for 4 years.He then transferred to the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory of theUSEPA in Las Vegas, Nevada where he worked on the development of advancedmonitoring techniques for the next 6 years.

In 1980 Dr. Wiersma transferred to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.There he helped set up their environmental sciences, geosciences, and biotechnologygroups, eventually establishing and directing the Center for Environmental Moni-toring and Assessment. In 1990 Dr. Wiersma became Dean of the College of ForestResources at the University of Maine and currently is Dean of the College of NaturalSciences, Forestry and Agriculture and Professor of Forest Resources. His currentresearch interest is focused on studying the impacts of atmospheric deposition onnorthern forests. One recent Ph.D. study was on the efficacy of the U.S. ForestServices forest health monitoring indicators.

He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences/National ResearchCouncil Committee on a Systems Assessment of Marine Environmental Monitoringthat resulted in the publication in 1990 of the book

Managing Troubled Waters: TheRole of Marine Environmental Monitoring,

and was Chair of the National Academyof Sciences/ National Research Council Committee Study on Environmental Data-base Interfaces that resulted in the publication in 1995 of the book

Finding the Forestin the Trees: The Challenge of Combining Diverse Environmental Data

.

Dr. Wiersma has written more than 130 scientific papers and has been themanaging editor of the international peer-reviewed journal

Environmental Monitor-ing and Assessment

for 25 years.


Contributors

Debra Bailey

agroscopeFAL ReckenholzSwiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and AgricultureZurich, Switzerland

Roger Blair

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryCorvallis, Oregon

David Bolgrien

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryDuluth, Minnesota

M. Patricia Bradley

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentEnvironmental Science CenterMeade, Maryland

Barbara Brown

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryNorragansett, Rhode IslandThamas BrydgesBrampton, OntarioCanada

Giorgio Brunialti

DIPTERISUniversity of GenovaGenova, Italy


Dale A. Bruns

Pennsylvania GIS ConsortiumCollege of Science and EngineeringWilkes UniversityWilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

Joanna Burger

Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences InstituteConsortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation,

and Division of Life SciencesRutgers UniversityPiscataway, New Jersey

Janet M. Carey

School of BotanyUniversity of MelbourneVictoria, Australia

Vincent Carignan

Institut des sciences de lenvironnementUniversit due Qubec MontralMontral, Qubec, Canada

Charissa J. Chou

Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichland, Washington

Mary C. Christman

Biometrics ProgramDepartment of Animal and Avian SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland

William D. Constant

Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, Louisiana

Susan M. Cormier

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Exposure Research LaboratoryCincinnati, Ohio


Joseph Dlugosz

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryDuluth, Minnesota

Janet D. Eckhoff

National Park ServiceWilsons Creek National BattlefieldRepublic, Missouri

J. Alexander Elvir

College of Natural Science, Forestry and AgricultureUniversity of Maine, Orono

Marco Ferretti

LINNAEAFirenze, Italy

Paolo Giordani

DIPTERISUniversity of GenovaGenova, Italy

Michael Gochfeld

Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences InstituteConsortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation,

and Division of Life SciencesRutgers UniversityPiscataway, New Jersey

James T. Gunter

University of OklahomaNorman, Oklahoma

Richard Haeuber

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, D.C.

Stephen Hale

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryNarragansett, Rhode Island


David Michael Hamby

Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health PhysicsOregon State UniversityCorvallis, Oregon

Steven Hedtke

National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina

Daniel Heggem

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Exposure Research LaboratoryLas Vegas, Nevada

Felix Herzog

agroscopeFAL ReckenholzSwiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and AgricultureZurich, Switzerland

Paul F. Hudak

Department of Geography and Environmental Science ProgramUniversity of North TexasDenton, Texas

Laura Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina

K. Bruce Jones

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Exposure Research LaboratoryResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina

Romualdas Juknys

Department of Environmental SciencesVytautas Magnum UniversityKaunas, Lithuania


I. Kalikhman

Yigal Allon Kinneret Limnological LaboratoryIsrael Oceanographic and Limnological Research Ltd.Haifa, Israel

Albert Khler

Worms, Germany

Michael Kolian

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyClean Air MarketsWashington, D.C.

Frederick W. Kutz

Consultant in Environmental ScienceColumbia, Maryland

Mandy M.J. Lane

Center for Ecology & HydrologyNatural Environmental Research CouncilCumbria, United Kingdom

Barbara Levinson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and DevelopmentNational Center for Environmental ResearchWashington, D.C.

Yu-Pin Lin

Department of Landscape ArchitectureChinese Culture UniversityTaipei, Taiwan

Rick Linthurst

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and DevelopmentOffice of Inspector GeneralWashington, D.C.

Michael E. McDonald



Jay J. Messer

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Exposure Research LaboratoryResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina

Jaroslav Mohapl

WaterlooCanada

Karen R. Obenshain

Keller and Heckman LLPWashington, D.C.

Anthony Olsen


Robert V. ONeill

TN and AssociatesOak Ridge, Tennessee

Sharon L. Osowski

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCompliance Assurance and Enforcement DivisionOffice of Planning and CoordinationDallas, Texas

John Paul


Steven Paulsen



James L. Regens

University of OklahomaInstitute for Science and Public PolicyNorman, Oklahoma

Susannah Clare Rennie

Center for Ecology and HydrologyCEH MerlewoodCumbria, United Kingdom

Kurt Riitters

Forest Health MonitoringUSDA Forest ServiceSouthern Research StationResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina

Dirk J. Roux

CSIR EnvironmentekPretoria, South Africa

Estelle Russek-Cohen

Biometrics ProgramDepartment of Animal and Avian SciencesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland

Elizabeth R. Smith

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Health Research LaboratoryResearch Triangle Park, North Carolina

John Stoddard


Kevin Summers

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and DevelopmentNational Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryGulf Breeze, Florida


Borys M. Tkacz

Forest Health MonitoringUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, D.C.

Curtis Travis

QuestKnoxville, Tennessee

Azamet K. Tynybekov

International Science CenterBishkek, Kyrghyzy Republic

Kalliat T. Valsaraj

Gordon A. and Mary Cain Department of Chemical EngineeringLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge, Louisiana

Gilman Vieth

International QSAR Foundation for Reducing Animal TestingDuluth, Minnesota

Tona G. Verburg

University of TechnologyInterfaculty Reactor InstituteDepartment of RadiochemistryDelft, The Netherlands

Marc-Andr Villard

Department de biologieUniversite de MonctonMoncton, Nouveau-Brunswick, Canada

John William Watkins

Center for Ecology and HydrologyNatural Environmental Research CouncilCumbria, United Kingdom

Chris Whipple

Environ Corp.Emeryville, California

Gregory J. White

Ecological and Cultural ResourcesIdaho National Engineering and Environmental LaboratoryIdaho Falls, Idaho


James D. Wickham

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Health Research LaboratoryLas Vegas, Nevada

G. Bruce Wiersma

College of Natural Sciences, Forestry and AgricultureUniversity of Maine Orono, MaineDirector, Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment StationOrono, Maine

Hubert Th. Wolterbeek

University of TechnologyInterfaculty Reactor InstituteDepartment of RadiochemistryDelft, The Netherlands

Sren Wulff

Department of Forest Resource Management and GeomaticsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUme, Sweden


Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Conceptual Basis of Environmental Monitoring Systems: A Geospatial Perspective...........................................................................................1

D.A. Bruns and G.B. Wiersma

Chapter 2

Integrated Data Management for Environmental Monitoring Programs................37

A.M.J. Lane, S.C. Rennie, and J.W. Watkins

Chapter 3

Using Multimedia Risk Models in Environmental Monitoring..............................63

C. Travis, K.R. Obenshain, J.T. Gunter, J.L. Regens, and C. Whipple

Chapter 4

Basic Concepts and Applications of Environmental Monitoring ...........................83

T. Brydges

Chapter 5

Assessment of Changes in Pollutant Concentrations ...........................................111

J. Mohapl

Chapter 6

Atmospheric Monitoring .......................................................................................201

A. Khler

Chapter 7

Opportunities and Challenges in Surface Water Quality Monitoring ..................217

S.M. Cormier and J.J. Messer

Chapter 8

Groundwater Monitoring: Statistical Methods for Testing Special Background Conditions ............................................................................239

C.J. Chou

Chapter 9

Well Pattern, Setback, and Flow Rate Considerations for Groundwater Monitoring Networks at Landfills...................................................257

P.F. Hudak


Chapter 10

Selection of Ecological Indicators for Monitoring Terrestrial Systems.................................................................................................263

G.J. White

Chapter 11

Efficacy of Forest Health Monitoring Indicators to Evince Impacts on a Chemically Manipulated Watershed...............................283

G.B. Wiersma, J.A. Elvir, and J. Eckhoff

Chapter 12

Landscape Monitoring ...........................................................................................307

D. Bailey and F. Herzog

Chapter 13

Nonsampling Errors in Ocular AssessmentsSwedish Experiences of Observer Influences on Forest Damage Assessments ......................................337

S. Wulff

Chapter 14

Tree-Ring Analysis for Environmental Monitoring and Assessment of Anthropogenic Changes .........................................................347

R. Juknys

Chapter 15

Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium in Soils along the Shore of Lake Issyk-Kyol in the Kyrghyz Republic.....................................................................371

D.M. Hamby and A.K. Tynybekov

Chapter 16

Monitoring and Assessment of the Fate and Transport of Contaminants at a Superfund Site ....................................................................379

K.T. Valsaraj and W.D. Constant

Chapter 17

Statistical Methods for Environmental Monitoring and Assessment ...................391

E. Russek-Cohen and M.C. Christman

Chapter 18

Geostatistical Approach for Optimally Adjusting a Monitoring Network ...........407

Y.-P. Lin


Chapter 19

The Variability of Estimates of Variance: How It Can Affect Power Analysisin Monitoring Design ............................................................................................427

J.M. Carey

Chapter 20

Discriminating between the Good and the Bad: Quality Assurance Is Central in Biomonitoring Studies .....................................................................443

G. Brunialti, P. Giordani, and M. Ferretti

Chapter 21

Patchy Distribution Fields: Acoustic Survey Design and Reconstruction Adequacy..................................................................................465

I. Kalikhman

Chapter 22

Monitoring, Assessment, and Environmental Policy ............................................499J.J. Messer

Chapter 23Development of Watershed-Based Assessment Tools Using Monitoring Data..........................................................................................517S.L. Osowski

Chapter 24Bioindicators for Assessing Human and Ecological Health.................................541J. Burger and M. Gochfeld

Chapter 25Biological Indicators in Environmental Monitoring Programs: Can We Increase Their Effectiveness? ..................................................................567V. Carignan and M.-A. Villard

Chapter 26Judging Survey Quality in Biomonitoring ............................................................583H.Th. Wolterbeek and T.G. Verburg

Chapter 27Major Monitoring Networks: A Foundation to Preserve, Protect, and Restore ............................................................................................................605M.P. Bradley and F.W. Kutz


Chapter 28From Monitoring Design to Operational Program: Facilitating the Transition under Resource-Limited Conditions..............................................631D.J. Roux

Chapter 29The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.......................................................................................649M. McDonald, R. Blair, D. Bolgrien, B. Brown,J. Dlugosz, S. Hale, S. Hedtke, D. Heggem, L. Jackson, K. Jones, B. Levinson, R. Linthurst, J. Messer, A. Olsen, J. Paul, S. Paulsen, J. Stoddard,K. Summers, and G. Veith

Chapter 30The U.S. Forest Health Monitoring Program .......................................................669K. Riitters and B. Tkacz

Chapter 31Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet)Air-QualityAssessment and Accountability.............................................................................685R. Haeuber and M. Kolian

Chapter 32EPAs Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program: Using Monitoring Data and Model Results to Target Actions.............................719E.R. Smith, R.V. ONeill, J.D. Wickham, and K.B. Jones

Index......................................................................................................................733


1

1-56670-641-6/04/$0.00+$1.50 2004 by CRC Press LLC

Conceptual Basis of Environmental Monitoring Systems: A Geospatial Perspective

D.A. Bruns and G.B. Wiersma

CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................21.2 General Monitoring Design Concepts from

NRC Reports ....................................................................................................31.3 Overview of Specific Conceptual Monitoring

Design Components .........................................................................................71.4 Conceptual Monitoring Design Components ..................................................9

1.4.1 Conceptual Framework as Heuristic Tool .........................................101.4.2 Evaluation of SourceReceptor

Relationships ......................................................................................131.4.3 Multimedia Monitoring......................................................................141.4.4 Ecosystem Endpoints .........................................................................141.4.5 Data Integration..................................................................................181.4.6 Landscape and Watershed Spatial

Scaling................................................................................................211.5 Synthesis and Future Directions in Monitoring

Design.............................................................................................................241.5.1 EPA BASINS .....................................................................................251.5.2 SWAT .................................................................................................261.5.3 CITYgreen Regional Analysis ...........................................................261.5.4 ATtILA ...............................................................................................271.5.5 Metadata Tools and Web-Based GIS.................................................271.5.6 Homeland Security.............................................................................27

1.6 Conclusion......................................................................................................28Acknowledgments....................................................................................................29References................................................................................................................30

1

L1641_Frame_C01.fm Page 1 Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:55 PM

2

Environmental Monitoring

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The importance of and need for integrated environmental monitoring systems is wellestablished. The U.S. National Science Foundations (NSF) Long-Term EcologicalResearch (LTER) Program has 18 sites in the U.S., each with a study area whichgenerally collects long-term descriptive measurements of air, water, soil, and biota,including data on forest or grassland stands, population and community inventories,and watershedstream channel characteristics and habitats (e.g., Franklin et al.

1

).Originally, these observational data were intended to serve as the environmentalcontext for basic ecosystem research conducted on an experimental basis to addressthe pattern and control of primary production and organic matter accumulation, nutrientcycling, population dynamics, and the pattern and frequency of site disturbance.

In a somewhat similar fashion, but focused on atmospheric pollutants,

2

the U.S.National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) established a nationalnetwork for long-term monitoring of wet and dry deposition of sulfates, nitrates,and acid rain. In addition, NAPAP-sponsored ecological surveys (e.g., fish, inver-tebrates, forest conditions, and stream and lake water chemistry) were often collectedfor critically sensitive regions and ecosystems but on a much more geographicallylimited scope than for atmospheric components. Another more recent program forintegrated environmental monitoring, building in part on past and ongoing LTER-and NAPAP-related activities, is the NSFs currently proposed National EcologicalObservatory Network (NEON; see www.nsf.gov/bio/neon/start.htm).

The U.S. EPA also maintains an integrated monitoring network with a researchagenda focused on developing tools to monitor and assess the status and trends ofnational ecological resources. This program, known as the Environmental Monitor-ing and Assessment Program (EMAP), encompasses a comprehensive scope ofecosystems (forests, streams, lakes, arid lands, etc.

3

) and spatial scales (from localpopulations of plants and animals to watersheds and landscapes

4

). EMAP usually holdsan annual technical symposium on ecological research on environmental monitoring.For example, in 1997, EMAP addressed Monitoring Ecological Condition atRegional Scales and published the symposium proceedings in Volume 51 (Numbers1 and 2, 1998) of the international journal

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

.

The broadest and perhaps most compelling need for better and more integrateddesign principles for monitoring is based on the numerous and complex problemsassociated with global environmental change. This includes worldwide concern withclimate change,

5,6

loss of biotic diversity,

7

nutrient (especially nitrogen via atmo-spheric deposition) enrichment to natural ecosystems,

8

and the rapid pace and impactof land-use change on a global basis.

9,10

The necessity for a comprehensive global monitoring system was recognized inearly publications of the International GeosphereBiosphere Program (IGBP) and inlater global change program proposals and overviews.

1114

In particular, geo-biosphereobservatories were proposed for representative biomes worldwide and would be thefocus of coordinated physical, chemical and biological monitoring.

12,15,16

Brunset al.

1719

reviewed the concept of biosphere observatories and evaluated variousaspects of monitoring programs for remote wilderness ecosystems and a geospatialwatershed site for a designated American Heritage River in the context of global envi-ronmental change. These sites represent a broad spectrum of ecological conditions


Conceptual Basis of Environmental Monitoring Systems

3

originally identified in the IGBP. Remote sites, especially at higher elevations, may bevery sensitive to global factors like climate change, while the Heritage River watershedsite is heavily impacted by regional scale industrial metabolism.

12

The latter mayprovide an important test-bed for evaluation of geospatial technologies (see text belowand References 19 and 20) and related spatial scales of land use change that might beapplied later to more remote monitoring sites as part of long-term networks.

A conceptual basis for the design of integrated monitoring systems and associatednetworks has received growing attention in the last two decades as part of scientificresearch to address these environmental problems from a local to global perspective.Early and ongoing efforts include those of Wiersma, Bruns, and colleagues

1727

most of whom focused on conceptual design issues or monitoring approachesemployed and exemplified at specific sites. Others have conducted similar work inrelation to global environmental monitoring and research programs.

14,28,29

In addition,two major reports

30,31

sponsored by the National Research Council (NRC) cover abroad range of environmental monitoring issues, including consideration of compre-hensive design principles. The former deals with marine monitoring and the latterreport is focused on case studies to address the challenge of combining diverse,multimedia environmental data; this latter report reviewed aspects of the LTERprogram (at the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest site), the NAPAP (Aquatic Pro-cesses and Effects), the Department of Energys (DOE) CO

2

Program, and the firstInternational Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project (ISLSCP) among others.

In this context of national and international global change programs, and therange of complex environmental problems from a global perspective, our objectivein this chapter is to delineate and develop basic components of a conceptual approachto designing integrated environmental monitoring systems. First, general conceptsfrom the National Research Council reports are reviewed to illustrate a broad per-spective on monitoring design. Second, we highlight aspects of our previous andongoing research on environmental monitoring and assessment with a particularfocus on six components in the design of a systems approach to environmentalmonitoring. These are more specific but have evolved in the context of general ideasthat emerge from the NRC reports. In particular, we use examples from our remote(wilderness) site research in Wyoming and Chile contrasted with an ongoing GISwatershed assessment of an American Heritage River in northeastern Pennsylvania.These examples are intended to facilitate illustration of design concepts and datafusion methods as exemplified in the NRC reports.

30,31

Third, we provide a generalsynthesis and overview of current general ideas and future directions and issues inenvironmental monitoring design. Finally, we wish to acknowledge the varied agen-cies and sponsors (see end of chapter) of our past and ongoing environmentalresearch projects on which these conceptual design components are based.

1.2 GENERAL MONITORING DESIGN CONCEPTS FROM NRC REPORTS

The design of an integrated environmental monitoring strategy starts with identifyingresources as risk in order to initiate development of a conceptual model.

30

This processof strategic planning is an iterative process whereby the model may be refined,


4


elaborated, or enhanced based on practical and technical considerations, availableresources, and defined monitoring objectives. This broad strategic approach (Figure 1.1a)usually will culminate in the development of testable questions that feed into thespecifics of a detailed sampling and measurement design with a focus on parameterselection, quantifying data variability, and setting up a sampling scheme. This is alsoan iterative process (Figure 1.1b) with feedback to reframe questions and refinetechnical components of monitoring design. Data quality and statistical models foranalyses also are identified as key components of this strategy.

Boesch et al. provide important insight into the use of conceptual models inmonitoring design

30

and indicate that the term is sometimes misunderstood. A con-ceptual model typically begins as a qualitative description of causal links in thesystem, based on best available technical knowledge. Such a model may refer todescriptions of causes and effects that define how environmental changes may occur.For example, in monitoring toxic effects of point sources of pollutants, a conceptualmodel would identify critical sources of contamination inputs to the ecosystem anddefine which ecological receptors or endpoints (e.g., a particular species, a physicalecosystem compartment, or a target organ system) are likely to be impacted, mod-ified, or changed. As a monitoring system is better defined, a more quantitativemodel or a suite of models based on different approaches (e.g., kinetic vs. numericalvs. statistical) may be used effectively to address complementary aspects of moni-toring objectives.

Defining boundaries, addressing predictions and uncertainty, and evaluating thedegree of natural variability are also broad concerns in the development of a mon-itoring strategy and sampling design.

30

For example, in monitoring pollutant impactsto streams and rivers, watershed boundaries may need to be established sinceupstream sources of contamination may be transported downstream during stormevents, which may add uncertainty in the timing and movement of materials withinthe natural seasonal or annual patterns in the hydrologic cycle. For these reasons, amonitoring program should be flexible and maintain a continuous process of eval-uating and refining the sampling scheme on an iterative basis.

Both NRC reports

30,31

highlight the need to address issues of spatial and temporalscales. Most monitoring parameters will vary on space and time scales, and no oneset of boundaries will be adequate for all parameters. Also, it is expected that eventsthat occur over large areas will most likely happen over long time periods, and bothwill contribute to natural variability in monitoring parametersa condition con-founding data interpretation.

30

Wiersma et al. identify spatial and temporal scales asone of the most apparent barriers to effective integration and analysis of monitoringdata.

31

For example, geophysical and ecological processes may vary at differentscales, and both can be examined from a variety of scales. No simple solution toscale effects has yet to emerge for monitoring design although a hierarchicalapproach to ecosystems and the use of appropriate information technologies likegeographic information systems (GIS) and satellite remote sensing appear to bemaking progress on these issues.

3133

Rosswall et al. and Quattorchi and Goodchildcover various ecological scaling issues for terrestrial ecosystems and biomes,

34,35

and Boesch et al. summarize a range of space and time scales

30

for various marine



5

FIGURE 1.1A

Designing and implementing monitoring programs: iterative flow diagram fordefining a monitoring study strategy. (From Boesch, D.F. et al.,

Managing Troubled Waters:The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring,

National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.,1990. Reprinted with permission from the National Academy of Sciences. Courtesy of theNational Academies Press, Washington, D.C.)

Identify Resources at Risk

Develop Conceptual Model

HaveAppropriate Resources

Been Selected?

Determine AppropriateBoundaries

Are SelectedBoundaries Adequate?

Predict Responses and/orChanges

Are PredictionsReasonable?

Develop Testable Questions

Modify Resources

Adjust Boundaries

Refine Model

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes


6


impacts ranging from power plants, outfalls, and marinas to fishing, dredging, andnatural events like storms and El Nio events.

Another general but key aspect in the overall planning for monitoring designrelates to data quality assurance.

30,31

Boesch et al. highlight two aspects of quality

FIGURE 1.1B

Designing and implementing monitoring programs: iterative flow diagram fordeveloping an environmental measurement design. (From Boesch, D.F. et al.,

ManagingTroubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring,

National Academies Press,Washington, D.C., 1990. Reprinted with permission from the National Academy of Sciences.Courtesy of the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.)

Develop Testable Questions

Identify Meaningful Levels ofChanges

Select What to Measure

Develop Monitoring Design

Specify Statistical Models

Can PredictedResponses Be Seen?

Define Data QualityObjectives

Develop Sampling Design

Is Design Adequate?

ReframeQuestions

Refine TechnicalDesign

Quantify Variability

Identify LogisticalConstraints

Conduct PowerTests and

Optimizations

Yes

Yes

No

No



7

assurance in the design of monitoring programs:

30

quality control (QC) and qualityassurance (QA). QC might be viewed as strategic in nature since it is intended toensure that the data collected are of adequate quality given study objectives andthe specific hypotheses to be tested.

30

QA is somewhat more tactical and dealswith the everyday aspects of documenting sample analysis quality by repetitivemeasurements, internal test samples, use of standards and reference materials, andaudits; specifically, sample accuracy and precision needs to be assessed, applied todata analysis and interpretation, and documented for reference. Standard Methodsfor the Examination of Water and Wastewater Analysis

36

is a well-known referencesource for QA and QC procedures in microbiological and chemical laboratoryanalyses. In addition, QA/QC concepts and procedures are well addressed anddocumented in Keith

37

for a variety of multimedia environmental sampling methods.And finally, metadata (i.e., data about data) has emerged as a QC/QA componentto monitoring programs during the last decade, given the emergence of relationaldatabases and GIS for regular applications in environmental monitoring and assess-ment.

31

Later chapters in this book deal with detailed aspects of QA/QC and metadataand related data management tools are briefly addressed subsequently in this chapterunder Data Integration.

1.3 OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC CONCEPTUAL MONITORING DESIGN COMPONENTS

Conceptual components of our approach to environmental monitoring design (andapplication) have been detailed in papers by Wiersma and colleagues.

21,23,27

Thesecomponents at that time included (1) application of a conceptual framework as aheuristic tool, (2) evaluation of source-receptor relationships, (3) multimedia sam-pling of air, water, soil, and biota as key component pathways through environmentalsystems, and (4) use of key ecosystem indicators to detect anthropogenic impactsand influences. This conceptual approach was intended to help identify criticalenvironmental compartments (e.g., air, water, soil) of primary concern, to delineatepotential pollutant pathways, and to focus on key ecosystem receptors sensitive togeneral or specific contaminant or anthropogenic affects. Also implicit in this mon-itoring design is a watershed or drainage basin perspective

17,18,38

that emphasizesclose coupling of terrestrialaquatic linkages within ecosystems.

Figure 1.2 summarizes these overall components of our approach,

27

especiallyat our remote monitoring sites in Chile, Wyoming, and the Arctic Circle (Noataksite). Remote sites were utilized for baseline monitoring and testing of design criteriaand parameters. These sites were less impacted by local or regional sources ofpollution or land use change and were expected to be more indicative of baselineconditions (in the context of natural variation and cycles) that might best serve asan early warning signal of background global environmental change.

18

In addition,field logistics were pronounced and rigorous at these remote sites for any type ofpermanent or portable monitoring devices and instrumentation. These conditionsserved as a good test of the practical limits and expectations of our monitoring designcomponents.


8


Our overall monitoring design concept (Figure 1.2) also served as a basis forevaluating historical monitoring data from seven DOE National EnvironmentalResearch Parks. This conceptual assessment highlighted the need and opportunityinherent in geospatial technologies and data like Geographic Information Systems(GIS), satellite remote sensing imagery (RS), and digital aerial photography. In con-junction with the report by Wiersma et al.,

31

this DOE monitoring design assessment

27

facilitated start up of the GIS watershed research program and GIS Center in theGeoEnvironmental Sciences and Engineering Department at Wilkes University.

20

Inaddition, this general conceptual monitoring approach was used for: a regional landuse plan for 16,000 acres of abandoned mine lands,

19,20,39

a successful community-based proposal to designate a regional watershed as an American Heritage River (AHR,see www.epa.gov/rivers/98rivers/), a National Spatial Data Infrastructure CommunityDemonstration Project (www.fgdc.gov/nsdi) and recipient of a U.S. government VicePresidential Hammer Award (www.pagis.org/CurrentWatershedHammer.htm), anda GIS Environmental Master Plan for the Upper SusquehannaLackawanna River.

40

Figure 1.3 provides additional overall conceptualization of our monitoring designfor remote wilderness ecosystem study sites. This heuristic tool

22,41

highlights theatmospheric pathway for anthropogenic impacts to remote ecosystems and indicatesthe multimedia nature of our monitoring efforts based on field tested protocolsevaluated in our remote site research program.

25,27

Details of this conceptual com-ponent of our monitoring design are provided below.

FIGURE 1.2

Conceptual design for global baseline monitoring of remote, wilderness eco-systems. (From Bruns, D.A., Wiersma, G.B., and Rykiel, E.J., Jr., Ecosystem monitoring atglobal baseline sites,

Environ. Monit. Assess

., 17, 3, 1991. With permission from KluwerAcademic Publishers.)

Air quality

Aquatic ecology

Water quality

Forest ecologyOxides of nitrogen and sulfurParticulates (metals, sulfates, nitrates)

Growth ratesDecomposition rates

Major ionsNutrients and metals

Torres del Paine NP, Chile (United Nations)Wind River Mountains, WY (Forest Service)Noatak National Preserve, AL (International Man and Biosphere Program)DOE Research Parks: Historical Data Analysis/Monitoring Design

Benthic communitiesPlankton communities

Integrated Ecosystem and Pollutant Measurements

Sites:



9

The NRC report by Wiersma et al.

31

significantly broadened our general con-ceptual approach to integrated environmental monitoring systems. This reports focuson combining diverse (including multimedia) environmental data sets and the exten-sive geographic spatial extent of two of the case studies (the ISLSCP example notedabove, and use of remote sensing for drought early warning in the Sahel region ofAfrica) resulted in adding two additional components

19

to our design concepts: dataintegration with geospatial tools like GIS and remote sensing, and a landscape spatialscaling component, based in part again on GIS, but especially in the context of ahierarchical approach to ecosystems.

42

1.4 CONCEPTUAL MONITORING DESIGN COMPONENTS

We have tested and evaluated different aspects of our monitoring design conceptsdepending on a range of criteria, including study site location and proximity, degreeof local and regional pollutant sources and land use perturbations, funding agencyand mission, duration and scope of the study (funding limitations), and issues ofdegree of spatial and temporal scaling. Our work at the Wyoming and Chile siteshas been profiled and described in several contexts: global baseline monitoring,

25,27

freshwater ecosystems and global warming,

18

and testing and evaluation of agency(U.S. Forest Service) wilderness monitoring protocols for energy developmentassessment.

17,19

These are both remote, wilderness monitoring sites with the Torresdel Paine Biosphere Reserve in southern Chile being one of the cleanest (and leastdisturbed globally), remote study areas from an atmospheric pathway; in contrast,

FIGURE 1.3

Systems diagram and heuristic tool for conceptualization of monitoring designfor sensitive wilderness ecosystems. (From Bruns, D.A., Wiersma, G.B., and Rykiel, E.J., Jr.,Ecosystem monitoring at global baseline sites,

Environ. Monit. Assess

., 17, 3, 1991. Withpermission from Kluwer Academic Publishers.)

Atmosphere

Soil Micro-,Macro-

Flora/Fauna

Vegetation

Litter /Humus

Mineral Soil

Deeper Soil

TerrestrialFauna Groundwater

Sediment

AquaticMicro-Macro-Flora/Fauna

SurfaceWater

Wet

Dry

Wet

DryDry

Wet

Short- andLong-RangeSources


10


the Wyoming site was downwind of significant ongoing and potential atmosphericemissions (oxides of sulfur and nitrogen) from regional energy development.

Numerous multimedia parameters were measured and evaluated at the Wyomingsite, especially from a sampling protocol perspective. Details of this work anddescriptions of the study site are provided in Bruns et al.

17,19

who focus on fiveevaluation criteria for monitoring design and implementation: ecosystem conceptualbasis, data variability, uncertainty, usability, and cost-effectiveness. This study sitegives the best perspective and detail on a wide range of monitoring parameters inour remote site work and serves as one of three (there is another remote site insouthern Chile; for details on site conditions, see References 18, 25, and 27) exam-ples of our conceptual approach to monitoring design.

The third study site for a basis of contrast and comparison to our remote sitesis in northeastern Pennsylvania. This represents a 2000-square-mile portion of awatershed designated in 1998 by President Clinton as one of 14 American HeritageRivers. A GIS watershed approach was employed for research in monitoring andassessment with geospatial tools to address environmental impacts from urban storm-water runoff, combined sewer overflows, acid mine drainage, impacts from aban-doned mining lands, and regional suburbanization and land use change. Cleanupand reclamation costs for mining alone approach $2 billion, based on Congressionalhearings in 2000.

40

As noted above, this site provides more perspective on geospatialtools and scaling issues vs. our earlier monitoring work at remote sites.

1.4.1 C

ONCEPTUAL

F

RAMEWORK

AS

H

EURISTIC

T

OOL

This component is generally considered as the starting point in monitoring design.It is not intended as a static or stand-alone element in the monitoring program. Asa simple box-and-arrow diagram, it serves as an interdisciplinary approach toexamine and identify key aspects of the monitoring program being designed. Basi-cally, principal investigators and their technical teams, along with responsible pro-gram managers and agencies, often across disciplines and/or institutions, can takethis simple approach to focus discussion and design on answering key questions: Isthe study area of concern being potentially impacted by air or water pollutionsources? What are the relative contributions of point vs. nonpoint sources of waterpollution? What are the primary pollutant pathways and critical ecosystem compo-nents at risk? How are critical linkages between ecosystem components addressedand measured? What is the relative importance of general impacts like land usechange vs. media specific impacts like air, water, or subsurface (e.g., landfills)contamination sources?

Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 as noted above illustrate the atmospheric route asprimary disturbance and pollutant pathway to remote ecosystems such as those atour Wyoming and Chile study sites. In these cases, wilderness or national parkstatus prevent immediate land use perturbations but atmospheric pollutants, eitheras a potential global background signal (e.g., particulates associated with arctichaze) or from regional point sources like coal-fired power plants,

27

might be trans-ported long distances and may affect remote ecosystems via wet and dry depositionprocesses.

43,44



11

As expected at remote monitoring sites, field logistics and/or regulatory restric-tions on available sources of electricity or weather protection may prohibit a numberof instrument approaches to monitoring methods and techniques. Figure 1.3 showsshaded components (soil, water, vegetation, and aquatic community) of the monitoringprogram that are easily measured with simple field sampling devices and procedures.Forest survey methods, soil sampling trowels, and aquatic kick nets allow for rapidfield assessments and sampling as field restrictions or time limits may dictate. Wehave also used this approach successfully in even more remote sites like the NoatakBiosphere Reserve in the Arctic Circle of Alaska

18,27

and in a mountainous cloudforest ecosystem of Fan Jing Shan Biosphere Reserve in south central China.

19

Atthe Wyoming remote monitoring site, metals in vegetation (terrestrial mosses),aquatic macroinvertebrates, and stream (water chemistry) alkalinity all scored high-est across our five evaluation criteria noted above.

19

Figure 1.4 shows a similar systems diagram developed for the northeasternPennsylvania study site with a major focus on regional mining impacts. The easternanthracite (coal) fields of Pennsylvania cover a general area of about 3600 mi

2

, withabout 2000 mi

2

directly within the SusquehannaLackawanna (US-L) watershedstudy area.

40

The watershed covers about an 11-county area with over 190 localforms of government or agencies and supports a regional population base of over500,000 people. Due to the broad spatial extent of these impacts and complex set

FIGURE 1.4

A GIS watershed systems approach to monitoring and assessment of regionalmining impacts in Northeastern Pennsylvania. (From Bruns, D.A., Sweet, T., and Toothill,B.,

Upper SusquehannaLackawanna River Watershed, Section 206, Ecosystem RestorationReport

,

Phase I GIS Environmental Master Plan

,

Final Report to U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Baltimore District, MD, 2001.

Atmosphere

Mining

Vegetation

Culm andWaste Piles

Mineral Soil

Mine Pool

BirchLocustsAspen

Groundwater

Iron Oxides

AquaticMicro-Macro-Flora/Fauna

AMD inStreams


12


of environmental conditions, we have employed a major geospatial (GIS based)technological approach to monitoring and assessment at this site.

40,45

However, evenhere, the basic box-and-arrow diagram served a number of useful applications.

First, we assembled an interdisciplinary team of almost 20 members from variousinstitutions and state and federal agencies. Hydrologists, geochemists, river ecologists,GIS technicians, plant ecologists, soil scientists, and engineers were represented fora one-day workshop on which these concepts and components were proposed,discussed, evaluated and agreed upon as a GIS watershed approach to regionalmonitoring and assessment.

Second, the general elements implicit in this conceptual framework allowed forscaling from local, site-specific and stream-reach applications (e.g., well-suited tolocal watershed groups) to broader watershed and landscape spatial scales (e.g., seethe U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) GIS Mid-Atlantic IntegratedAssessment over a five-state region

4

). Our watershed monitoring research with federalsponsorship (e.g., EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]) facilitated ouruse of GIS, RS, aerial photography, and the Global Positioning System (GPS)allof which are not generally available to local watershed groups or local branches ofrelevant agencies. Therefore, we avoided duplication of field measurements at a locallevel and instead focused on a watershed (and sub-catchment) approach with GIS.We were able to coordinate with local groups in public meetings and technicalapproaches due to a common conceptual design of the environmental system.

Third, a systems diagram of this nature also facilitated data analyses among keycomponents, the pollutant sources, and the affected elements of the watershed andlandscape. For example, the diagram in Figure 1.4 was used in setting out ourstatistical approach for prioritizing watershed indicators of potential use and iden-tifying stream monitoring parameters for ranking of damaged ecosystems.

40

Thisalso allowed us to incorporate land use and land cover databases derived fromsatellite imagery and integrate it with point samples of water (chemistry) qualityand stream community biodiversity via statistical analysis (Figure 1.5).

FIGURE 1.5

Statistical analysis of stream biodiversity vs. watershed area in mining land use.



13

And fourth, both our EPA- and USDA-sponsored GIS research projects main-tained a public outreach and environmental education component. The basic systemsdiagram shown in Figure 1.4 successfully enhanced our educational component inthis regard, both with other technical participants, and, especially, with the public.These outreach and education activities involved various public meetings for dis-cussion, input, and coordination, in addition to posting of information, data, GISanalysis, and environmental concepts at our Website (www.pagis.org) for GISresearch on the US-L watershed. Also, we participated in environmental educationactivities as part of public community riverfront park activities and high schoolstudent visits to campus for briefings on GIS, watershed analyses, and geospatialdata applications.

1.4.2 E

VALUATION

OF

S

OURCE

R

ECEPTOR

R

ELATIONSHIPS

This element in the conceptual design of a monitoring program is also implicit inthe diagrams of Figure 1.2 to Figure 1.4. However, this component also mandatesan interdisciplinary approach to environmental monitoring since soil scientists, forestecologists, and stream ecologists may not have typical expertise in various techniquesof water, air, and soil pollution monitoring. Likewise, environmental engineersinvolved with the design of air and water pollution control and monitoring technol-ogies may lack the needed ecological expertise for identifying and measuring theresponse of critically sensitive ecosystem receptors or endpoints. Our work at remotesites in Wyoming and Chile benefited from a technical team approach since ourresearch was sponsored during our employment with a DOE national laboratorywhere the necessary interdisciplinary mix of expertise was readily available tosupport work on remote site monitoring (e.g., see References 25 and 46.) Forexample, we had ready access to various scientists and staff with expertise in soils,forestry, river ecology, geology, air pollution, analytical chemistry, and generalenvironmental science and engineering through various technical programs andorganizations at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.

For the Pennsylvania GIS watershed project, similar concerns and issues wereaddressed. In this case, expertise in mining, engineering, geochemistry, hydrology,GIS, and stream ecology was derived through public and state and federal agencyoutreach during the public sector portion of the long-term project. However, theultimate selection of key pollutant sources and critical ecosystem receptors needs tobe well focused, since both remote site and watershed approaches often end with longlists of parameters for potential implementation in a monitoring program. In thissituation, logistics, financial resources, and funding limitations require a subset ofmeasurements that will allow assessment of the more important relationships. In somesituations, peer-review by an outside panel,

47

case study reports,

31

or actual testing andevaluation of a range of parameters

17,19

may help to resolve differences or professionalpreferences and result in a more cost-effective but focused set of monitoring param-eters. More examples are discussed below for the other design components.

Finally, it should be noted that data provided in Figure 1.5 represent one exampleof the successful selection of a key source of pollution with a sensitive ecologicalendpoint. In this case, the extent of mining disturbed lands within a watershed (or


14


subwatersheds or sampling catchments) represented a major source of pollutant (andland use) impactbut derived from satellite imagery and ground-truthed with GPS.

45

Disturbed mining lands are devoid of natural vegetation and soil horizons and aresusceptible to extreme amounts of sediment loading to streams and rivers where aquatichabitats are destroyed due to sedimentation processes (see literature review

40

). In addi-tion, atmospheric exposure of pyritic mining wastes can generate a considerable amountof acid mine drainage to streams via the hydrologic cycle, so additional geochemicalimpacts are evident due to the eco-toxicity of high acidity and mobilized heavy metalslike Cu and Zn from waste materials. Part of our research in this GIS watershed studywas to determine what water chemistry and stream biotic variables would be bestassociated with regional mining impacts. The biodiversity of stream macro-invertebrates

40

was one of the better indicators in this regard as shown in Figure 1.5.As noted previously, stream macroinvertebrate parameters scored well over the fivemonitoring evaluation criteria employed for the Wyoming remote study site.

17,19

1.4.3 M

ULTIMEDIA

M

ONITORING

The rationale for monitoring various environmental media encompassing air, water,soil, and biota is based on several factors. First, the physical and chemical propertiesof pollutants demonstrate a wide range of fate and transport mechanisms withdifferent pathways and effects upon ecological receptors. This is supported both bymultimedia modeling approaches

48

and general estimation methods in ecotoxicologyand environmental chemistry.

49,50

Second, focused population and community studieson the fate of metals and organic contaminants relative to bioaccumulation andtrophic-food web transfer pathways

49,50

also indicate a need to approach monitoringdesign from a multimedia perspective. And third, larger-scale watershed and regionallandscape investigations of particular pollutants like acid rain effects on freshwaterecosystems

51

and air pollution impacts to forests

52

should reinforce this designcomponent if resource managers are to understand the fate and effects of pollutantsin a holistic ecosystem framework.

Methods of sampling and analysis on a multimedia basis are well established

53

and detailed elsewhere in this volume. Our research on multimedia monitoring designhas emphasized the testing and evaluation of methods for use in remote, wildernessecosystems.

25,27

Table 1.1 lists monitoring parameters of various physical, chemical,and biological characteristics of a high-elevation ecosystem in Wyoming from amultimedia standpoint, and includes a cataloging of appropriate methods for useunder potentially harsh field conditions. As indicated above, we have developedevaluation criteria for assessing the overall utility of these methods and the readeris referred to other reports and publications for more detailed consideration.17,19,46

1.4.4 ECOSYSTEM ENDPOINTS

The search for key ecosystem parameters for environmental monitoring and assessmenthas received considerable attention over the past two decades. Earlier studies, morealigned with environmental toxicology research or assessment of sewage pollution instreams, focused on population inventories or surveys of indicator species. Indicator


Conceptual Basis of Environmental Monitoring Systems 15

species may include those that are either tolerant (e.g., tubificids or bloodwormsthrive at low levels of oxygen due to organic loading of aquatic systems) or intolerant(e.g., various species of mayflies and stoneflies that require more pristine conditionsof stream habitat and associated chemical constituencies) of pollutant concentrationsor habitat disruptions.50 However, Cairns62 has cautioned against reliance on singleindicator species since their known response is often in relation to very particular kindsof pollutants and may not warrant objective assessment of general or varied contam-inant impacts. In this context, Schindler63 has suggested that some individual species,like the crustacean Mysis relicta, may represent unique keystone species withinaquatic food webs (i.e., occupying specialized niches) and are susceptible to a varietyof stresses. In this case, a monitoring program would be more effective with the

TABLE 1.1Integrated Multimedia Monitoring Parameters at the Wind Rivers Study Site

Measurement Method (Previously Evaluated)

Abiotic Measurements

SO4, NO3, HNO3, NH3, NO2, SO2 (atm) Transition flow reactor (filter pack) EPA54Source-term particle analysis Scanning electron microscopy with energy

dispersive x-ray analysisOzone UV PhotometryMeteorological parameters Standard sensors; plus dry depostion methods of

Bruce Hicks/Oak Ridge National Laboratory Trace metals (atm) Low and high volume samplingTrace metals (in water, litter, soil, vegetation) Ecological sampling at study site25,55Trace metals in snow Snow cores before runoff (later analysis with

Standard Methods36)Soil (organic matter, exchange bases, and acidity, pH, extractable sulfate)

U.S. Forest Response Program47,56

NO3, PO4, SO4 (water) National Surface Water Survey57Lake/streams water chemistry (cations and anions) National Surface Water Survey57

Biotic MeasurementsLake chlorophyll a, zooplankton, benthic algae,

fishes, benthic macroinvertebratesU.S. Forest Service Wilderness Guidelines47 and Standard Methods36

Stream ecosystem analysis (macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups, periphyton, decomposition, benthic organic matter)

River Continuum Concept38,5860

Terrestrial (forest) ecosystem (productivity, needle retention, needle populations, litter decomposition, litterfall, foliage elemental composition, community structure)

Dr. Jerry Franklin; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service methods61

Source: From Bruns, D.A., Wiersma, G.B., and Rykiel, E.J., Jr., Ecosystem monitoring at global baselinesites, Environ. Monit. Assess., 17, 3, 1991. With permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers.


16 Environmental Monitoring

inclusion of such a species, assuming resource managers have access to previousknowledge and available data for decision support in the design process.

At present, ecological measurement and assessment methods encompass a hier-archical framework to ecosystem management. This seems due to the maturation ofecotoxicology as a science64 along with further developments of environmentalmonitoring principles. For example, ecotoxicology texts50 generally cover pollutanteffects on individual organisms, populations, and communities, and ecosystem struc-ture and function, and in some cases use an explicit hierarchical treatment to basicand applied concepts. In addition, resource managers are now responsible for andconcerned about whole ecosystemsand the monitoring programs need to supportthese assessment objectives. Thus, scientists are being called upon to address mul-tiple stresses on ecosystems.65 In this context, a hierarchical approach represents thebest available conceptual framework for dealing with complexities of both ecosys-tems and associated impacts of pollutants and physical disturbance to environmentalsystems such as changing land use.

Allen and Starr66 and ONeill et al.67 originally developed the basic concepts ofa hierarchical approach to understanding ecosystems. In its basic form, differentlevels of biological organization were recognized in a hierarchical fashion, withincreasing degrees of ecological complexity. This hierarchy for either aquatic orterrestrial systems, from lowest to highest, included the following levels of biologicalorganization: individual organisms (e.g., plants or wildlife), populations, communi-ties, and ecosystems. The widespread use and availability of geospatial tools anddata, like geographic information systems (GIS) and satellite remote sensing imag-ery, has facilitated further development of the hierarchical ecosystem concept thatextends the scope of watershed and landscape spatial (and temporal) scales.19,31,33However, these aspects are covered below in the next two components in the con-ceptual design of monitoring systems.

A review of the ecological assessment literature (Table 1.2) indicated the use ofa range of parameters across these various levels of ecological complexity.68 Suchmeasurements encompass biomass for a population (e.g., trout), biodiversity (e.g.,stream macroinvertebrates) as an indicator of community structure, and nutrientcycling (e.g., water chemistry) as an integrator of ecosystem function. In general,the most common parameters have included trophic relationships, species diversity,succession (temporal changes in composition), energy flow, and nutrient cycling.Some investigators51,63 have indicated that functional responses of ecosystems maybe more robust than structural changes due to functional redundancy and variationin pollutant sensitivity among species; for this reason, individual species and com-munity level monitoring has been recommended for detecting ecological impacts.

Our approach to ecosystem monitoring17,19,25,27 has been to include both structuraland functional parameters for terrestrial and aquatic habitats and environments ona watershed basis (see Table 1.1 and Figure 1.2, Figure 1.3, and Figure 1.4 above).At present, few studies and monitoring programs have produced long-term data onboth structure and function,63 and more research is needed before definitive guide-lines can be set. Also, we have observed extreme impacts from land use change,like regional mining and urban stormwater runoff; while structural changes in thesecases are more easily measured in the early stages of impact, we expect that in these



extreme cases, functional changes are needed to define the total system collapse thatwarrants immediate attention to ecosystem restoration and pollution mitigation. Also,our experiences in remote site monitoring concurrently for aquatic (streams andlakes) vs. terrestrial (forests) systems suggests that functional measures like forestproductivity, litterfall, and leaf decay rates will better reflect short-term impacts ofatmospheric than compositional changes, given the long life cycle of most treespecies vs. short-lived aquatic species.

TABLE 1.2Ecological Parameters: Recommendations for Monitoring and Assessment of Baseline Conditions and Human Impacts

Author(s)

Parameter69 70 71 72 73 74 75 67 76 77 78 79 80

Abundance(biomass)

+ + + + +(a) +

Reproduction + + + + +(a)Behavior + + +

Community StructureTrophic relationships

+ + + + + + +(a) + + + +

Species diversity + + + + + + + + +Succession/change in composition

+ + + + + + +(a) + + +

Size relationships

+ +

Ecosystem FunctionEnergy flow + + + + + + + (a) + +

+(t)Nutrient cycling + + + + + + +(a) (a) + + +Decomposition/respiration

+ + + + + +(a) (a) + + +

Biomass/nutrient pools

+ + + + +

Notes: (a) = aquatic ecosystem; (t) = terrestrial ecosystem; + = good potential for monitoring and assess-ment; and = robust; not indicative of early impacts or stresses. Plus signs reflect generally positive viewof a particular parameter as a key indicator of impact or at least its potential utility to detect anthropogenicperturbations. A negative sign means that an author has found this parameter to be a poor indicator ofecological impact; these parameters were found to be too robust and were not very sensitive to impacts.

Source: Bruns, D.A. et al., An ecosystem approach to ecological characterization in the NEPA process,in Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, Hildebrand, S.G. and Cannon, J.B., Eds., LewisPublishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1993, 103. With permission.



General reviews of the monitoring literature63,68,71,74,76 indicate that a number ofimportant ecological impacts can be measured and assessed only at the ecosystemlevel. In addition, measuring many different parameters is not necessarily the optimalstrategy for designing and implementing a monitoring program. In most cases, aselected subset of parameters can be defined from a conceptual basis and principlesas outlined above, viewed in conjunction with knowledge of the published literature.

1.4.5 DATA INTEGRATION

This is one of the major challenges to implementing a well-designed monitoringprogram and cuts across all of the other components of our systems approach.Generally, this aspect of a monitoring program and its practical utility in the realworld will be limited to the extent that these other components are ignored, relegatedto a minor role, or inadequately developed or addressed. A conceptual model orframework with clearly identified sources of pollution, their pathways, and likelyenvironmental endpoints provides the broad overview and context within which datasets will be processed, summarized, and evaluated (i.e., data fusion; see Wiersmaet al.31). This framework will provide an initial set of testable hypotheses for trendanalysis and the inference of potential effects on ecosystems from point pollutionsources and/or more diffuse impacts from nonpoint sources that may include chang-ing land use over larger environmental extents and spatial scales. Actually collectingmultimedia data and measuring key sensitive ecosystem endpoints are needed ifresource managers are to manage, protect, and sustain environmental systems in aholistic fashion.

The NRC report by Wiersma et al.31 provides a comprehensive review of issuesassociated with fusing diverse sets of environmental data. The authors review a seriesof case studies that encompass predicting droughts in the Sahel, atmospheric depo-sition in the U.S., the U.S. CO2 program, ISLSCP (noted above), and marine fisheries.Numerous recommendations are provided, based on practical problems encounteredfrom specific case study programs. These include organizational, data characteristics,and technological impediments to data fusion efforts. In this chapter, we focus onthe challenge of data integration with a selected view toward aspects of data char-acteristics and geospatial technologies identified in Wiersma et al.31 Organizationalchallenges, like agency mission, infrastructure, and coordination, are equally impor-tant but beyond the technical scope of this publication. The reader is referred to theoriginal NRC report for more detailed information and insight into organizationalfactors in environmental monitoring design.

Geospatial technologies like GIS are emerging as the major approach to datafusion efforts, ranging from enterprise GIS in the business world to the geoda-tabase model in environmental management systems (www.esri.com and see Ref-erence 81). The NRC report recommended using GIS and related technologies, likethe GPS and satellite remote sensing imagery, in environmental monitoring andmanagement programs to facilitate data acquisition (at various scales, see textbelow), data processing and analysis, and data dissemination to resource managers,political leaders, and the public. Concurrent with the NRC panel proceedings and



publication, an applied GIS watershed research program19,20,45,82 was being plannedand implemented for the US-Lnationally designated in 1998 as 1 of 14 AmericanHeritage Rivers. Four geospatial technologies were incorporated into this evolvingprogram based in part on recommendations of the NRC report and geospatial datainventories at DOE national laboratories.27 These aspects are highlighted here to dem-onstrate one approach to data fusion efforts in the spirit of the NRC report.

Figure 1.6 showcases how GIS is used to organize and integrate diverse envi-ronmental data sets to help solve environmental problems associated with past andon-going practices in land use. In particular, there is a $2-billion land reclamationand ecosystem restoration problem from over 100 years of regional coal mining. Inaddition, this watershed of 2000 square miles covers 196 local governments whereurban stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) have resulted in a$200 to 400 million aquatic pollution cleanup issue.19,20,40

Sampling of stream and river sites was of high priority given the nature of theseenvironmental impacts to aquatic chemistry, habitats, and ecological communities (Fig-ure 1.4 and Figure 1.6). GPS was used to locate each site and delineate point sourcefeatures (mine water outfalls or CSOs) of pollution. Although field sampling techniqueswere low-tech based on standard methods, all ecological data of this type were easilyintegrated into a relational data base as part of the GIS for the watershed. In addition,sampling sites integrated into the GIS allowed for delineation and digitization of sam-pling site subcatchments for data analysis and integration from a comparative watershedperspective. For example, Figure 1.6 also shows the utility of GIS in visualizing dataon a comparative basis between two watersheds (GIS graphic charts in lower left offigure). The subwatershed in a rural setting with no mining had high-stream macroin-vertebrate biodiversity (clean water species), low acidity, and land cover mostly inforests and grassland meadows and minimal development vs. a mining watershed withmore than 30% of land cover as mining disturbed areas, and with only pollution-tolerantaquatic species and high acidity in surface water streams.

In our Heritage River study area and region, satellite imagery (the Mid-Resolu-tion Land Characteristics or MRLC, e.g., see Reference 83) was processed for landcover to facilitate watershed characterization for relating land use practices andproblems to ecological conditions along environmental gradients within the water-sheds.40 Figure 1.5 and Figure 1.6 demonstrate one approach we used to data fusionby statistically relating stream biodiversity measures to mining land use (SPOTimagery shown in middle inset of Figure 1.6) within 18 delineated subwatersheds:(1) we used GPS to identify and locate point sampling sites on stream segments,(2) we digitized subwatersheds above each sampling point with a GIS data set ofelevation contour lines, and (3) we processed SPOT imagery for land cover and landuse84,85 and conducted extensive ground-truthing of classified imagery with GPS.20,45

Land use impacts to ecological systems are generally viewed to be as wide-spread and prevalent worldwide to warrant a higher risk to ecosystems than globalwarming.810 Satellite imagery also allows for a range of landscape4 and watershedindicators33 to be calculated for environmental monitoring and assessment at abroader spatial scale (see next section). Vogelmann et al.86 surveyed data users ofLandsat Thematic Mapper data (known as the National Land Cover Data set, or NLCD)from the early 1990s and found 19 different categories of application including land



FIG

UR

E 1.

6In

tegr

ated

use

of g

eosp

atia

l tec

hnol

ogie

s fo

r env

ironm

enta

l mon

itorin

g on

the

herit

age

ri ver

wat

ersh

ed: G

IS, G

PS, r

emot

ese

nsin

g im

ager

y, an

d or

thoi

mag

ery.



cover change assessment, hydrologic-watershed modeling, environmental impactstatements, water quality and runoff studies, and wildlife habitat assessments.

In addition to the integrated use of GIS, GPS, and remote sensing imagery inour PA Heritage River watershed research project (Figure 1.6), we have employeddigital aerial photography as the fourth geospatial data source and technology.20,40,84Also known as orthoimagery, these data have been identified by the U.S. FederalGeographic Data Committee (FGDC)87 as one the fundamental framework geo-data sets for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure in the U.S. In this context, wesurveyed 196 different local governments and regional state and federal agencyoffices within the 2000-square-mile watershed of the USL River and found 10 of11 counties lacking in local scale orthoimagery needed for tax assessment, land useand planning, emergency management, environmental cleanup, land and deedsrecords, ecological protection and monitoring, and floodplain management (see GISwatershed plan40). Falkner88 provides an overview to methods and applications ofaerial mapping from orthoimagery. Applications include mapping of geographicallyextensive wetlands,89 cartographic support to management of state aquaticresources,90 and floodplain management.40

A final element to data integration is the importance of QA and QC for the datasources themselves, along with metadata on all aspects of data development, processingand integration, and analysis.31 Methods of multimedia field sampling and laboratoryanalysis (see references in Table 1.1) generally deal with adequate and establishedstandard procedures of accuracy and precision (see also Reference 37 for generalQA/QC issues). In contrast, geospatial metadata methods are still in various stages ofdevelopment. GPS is generally accepted for most environmental applications in fieldmapping and is now commonly used for on-board aerial photography88 and lateraerotriangulation and accuracy calculations that require positional data as a replace-ment to conventional ground control surveys. In turn, either GPS91 or accurate, geo-referenced orthoimagery83,86 may be used in accuracy assessments of remote senseddata classified for land use and land cover. Bruns and Yang45 used GPS to conductregional accuracy assessments on four such databases used in landscapewatershedanalyses and reviewed general methods of accuracy assessment.92,93

1.4.6 LANDSCAPE AND WATERSHED SPATIAL SCALING

The scope and extent of environmental contaminants in ecosystems, their potentialfor long-range transport through complex pathways, and their impact beyond simplylocal conditions, all dictate that environmental monitoring programs address pollu-tion sources and effects from geographically extensive landscape and watershedperspectives. Although we have only recently added this final component to ourconceptual design for monitoring systems,19 there has been well over a decade ofecological research that serves as a foundation for successful inclusion of thiselement in monitoring programs. The success of this approach is supported fromseveral standpoints.

As indicated above, landscape ecology has been well developed and investigated aspart of a hierarchical perspective to ecosystem analysis.42,66,67,94,95 Landscape parametersand indicators include dominance and diversity indices, shape metrics, fragmentation



indices, and scale metrics, and are routinely incorporated into natural resource man-agement texts on GIS and the emerging field of landscape ecotoxicology.96 In a similarfashion, a hierarchical approach to spatial scales in environmental analysis42 has beendeveloped for both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, usually on an integrated basisrelative to either a landscape or watershed context. Hunsaker and Levine97 used GISand remote sensing of land use in a hierarchy of 47 watersheds to assess water qualityin the Wabash River System in Illinois. In this study, water quality monitoring siteswere linked to their respective watershed segment in the hierarchy to address issuesof terrestrial processes in the landscape and evaluate their relevance to environmentalmanagement practices. This GIS and hierarchical approach facilitated identification ofwater quality conditions at several spatial scales and provided resource managers withtools to enhance decision support and data maintenance.

ONeill et al.33 recommended the use of GIS and remote sensing data, alongwith recent developments in landscape ecology, to assess biotic diversity, watershedintegrity, and landscape stability. These authors presented GIS watershed integrityresults for the lower 48 states on the basis of 16 U.S. Geological Survey WaterResource Regions. In general, GIS and remote sensing imagery have strongly facil-itated a hierarchical approach to spatial scale and watershed analysis. This has beendue, in part, to the better availability of geospatial data and technology, but this alsois based on the relevancy of these regional environmental assessments for broadgeographic extents.33,97

A spatial hierarchy to watersheds has been employed in four other examplesrelevant to design principles for environmental monitoring. In the first example,Preston and Brakebill98 developed a spatially referenced regression model of water-shed attributes to assess nitrogen loading in the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed.These investigators used the EPA River Reach File to generate a spatial networkcomposed of 1408 stream reaches and watershed segments for their regional analysis.From their GIS visual maps of the watershed, point sources of high nitrogen loadingcould be associated with specific urbanized areas of the Bay watershed and allowedthe authors to acknowledge and identify large sewage-treatment plants as dischargepoints to stream reaches.

In the second example, an Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (15federal agencies of the U.S.) recently developed a guidance manual for use in streamrestoration99 based on a hierarchical approach to watersheds at multiple scales. Thisteam recognized ecosystems at five different spatial scales from regional landscape tolocal stream reach, and stated that watershed units can be delineated at each of thesescalesdepending on the focus of the analysis and availability of data. Spatial scalesof watershed ecosystems from the stream restoration guidance manual (Figure 1.7)were used in the GIS watershed master plan40 and served as the basis for our regionalheritage river designation and approach to the first steps of assessing environmentalconditions in the US-L watershed. The illustration of spatial scale shown in Figure1.7 is based on an example of ecosystem hierarchy in the overall Chesapeake Baywatershed. This hierarchy was employed in our study design and tributary analysis ofthe US-L watershed40 that ranged from a regional landscape watershed to a local streamreach along a linear segment of stream or river corridor (see text below).



FIGURE 1.7 Ecosystems at multiple scales and used as the basis for regional to local GISwatershed analysis40 for the Upper SusquehannaLackawanna American Heritage River.(Modified from the Interagency Stream Restoration Manual, Interagency Team, Stream Res-toration Guidance Manual, Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Prac-tices, Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) (15 federal agenciesof the U.S. government), GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs ISBN-0-934213-59-3, Washington,D.C., 1998.)



The third example is the EPA EMAP ecol

environmental monitoring

Documents