Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable

1. Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program – the Western Incarnation. EMAP-West Roger Blair, Technical Director, EMAP-W

2. 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

3. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program ORD and Regional/State Partnerships Other Federal Agencies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

4. Information How can it be used? How do we get it?

8. Landon Over Roosevelt by a Landslide! Literary Digest Predicts Outcome from Club Members! Powerful Information Can Shape History...

9. 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!!!! …but it has to be representative!

10. 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

11. Old Questions Continue to Plague EPA and its Promulgation of the CWA • “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

12. Importance of Indicators & Survey DesignDelaware Stream Reporting Traditional 305(b) Report Chemical Evidence Aggregation of Existing Data New Report Chemical Evidence Probability Survey New Report Biological Evidence Probability Survey

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

14. 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

15. 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?

16. 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

17. Oregon Coho Salmon Coastal Survey

18. 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%.

19. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - EMAP • Develop and demonstrate the tools • Tools: • Bioindicators • Sampling Design • In the Western Pilot, EMAP tackling both problems together.

20. STATES IN EMAP-W

23. The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment:Ecological Condition of Small Streams

24. The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Northern Apps Western Apps Central Apps Valley and Ridge Blue Ridge

25. 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)

26. EMAP Tools: Probability Surveys

27. 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

28. North-Central Appalachians Western Appalachians Ridge and Blue Ridge Valleys MAHA Results: Fish Index of Biotic IntegrityRegional Patterns

29. MAHA Results: Stressor Ranking

30. 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

31. 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

32. Indicator Approach IndicatorCriteria 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)?

33. RIPARIAN • Producer: woody plants • 1° Consumer: birds • 2° Consumer: birds • Decomposers WATER COLUMN • Producer: macrophytes • 1° Consumer: fish • 2° Consumers: herptiles, fish • Decomposers BENTHIC • Producer: algae • 1° Consumer: benthos • 2° Consumer: benthos, herptiles, fish • Decomposers: microbes Indicator ApproachWhat we can measure? ATMOSPHERE STREAM, LAKE, WETLAND USE LANDUSE Stressor Sources Movement of Materials WATER TABLE

34. 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Indicator ApproachHow do we measure? Fish Species Richness (% of Maximum) Stream Length (Channel Width Units)

35. Indicator ApproachHow responsive is it?

36. Indicator Approach Variability is it? Signal:Noise Ratio (ratio of between-site variance/within-site variance)

37. 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”)

38. Why reference condition? • For Establishing Basis for: • CWA objectives • Determining “good” vs.”bad” condition • For Ecosystem Management: provide target (direction) for improving ecosystem condition

39. ? ? Current distribution (no reference remaining) Current distribution (some reference remnant remaining) Indicator ApproachReference Condition: Where are we now? Historical distribution

40. Indicator ApproachReference Condition: Threshold delineation

41. 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

42. Potential additional indicators • Riparian condition • Toxics including fish tissue, sediment chemistry, water column chemistry, biomarkers

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

49. 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