Environmental Monitoring - Part 1 ppsx

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryDuluth, Minnesota Janet D.. Environmental Protection Agenc

Trang 1

Environmental Monitoring

Trang 2

CRC PR E S S

Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C

Environmental Monitoring

Edited by

G Bruce Wiersma

Trang 3

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources Reprinted material

is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated A wide variety of references are listed Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assume 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, electronic

or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval 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, for creating new works, or for resale Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC for such copying.

Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431 used only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe.

No claim to original U.S Government works International Standard Book Number 1-56670-641-6 Library of Congress Card Number 2003065879 Printed 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

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

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are

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

Trang 4

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 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

assess-The scope of environmental monitoring systems now encompasses 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 applied

landscape-20 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 media—as 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 interested

in 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 out

to 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

Trang 5

About the Editor

Dr Wiersma has been involved with environmental monitoring activities for almost

35 years He began his career with the U.S Environmental Protection Agency where

he managed all the agency’s 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 ForestService’s 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: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring, and was Chair of the National Academy

of Sciences/ National Research Council Committee Study on Environmental base Interfaces that resulted in the publication in 1995 of the book Finding the Forest

Data-in the Trees: The Challenge of CombData-inData-ing 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

L1641_C00 Page 7 Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:21 PM

Trang 6

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 Island

Thamas BrydgesBrampton, OntarioCanada

Giorgio Brunialti

DIPTERISUniversity of GenovaGenova, ItalyL1641_Frame_FM Page 9 Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:21 PM

Trang 7

Dale A Bruns

Pennsylvania GIS Consortium

College of Science and Engineering

Institut des sciences de l’environnement

Université due Québec à Montréal

Montréal, Québec, Canada

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Susan M Cormier

U.S Environmental Protection Agency

National Exposure Research Laboratory

Cincinnati, Ohio

L1641_Frame_FM Page 10 Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:21 PM

Trang 8

Joseph Dlugosz

Office of Research and Development

National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryDuluth, Minnesota

Janet D Eckhoff

National Park Service

Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield

Republic, Missouri

J Alexander Elvir

College of Natural Science, Forestry and Agriculture

University of Maine, Orono

National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryNarragansett, Rhode Island

Trang 9

David Michael Hamby

Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Health PhysicsOregon State University

Las Vegas, Nevada

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

K Bruce Jones

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

Romualdas Juknys

Department of Environmental Sciences

Vytautas Magnum University

Kaunas, Lithuania

Trang 10

I Kalikhman

Yigal Allon Kinneret Limnological Laboratory

Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research Ltd

Haifa, Israel

Albert Köhler

Worms, Germany

Michael Kolian

Clean Air Markets

Center for Ecology & Hydrology

Natural Environmental Research Council

Cumbria, United Kingdom

Barbara Levinson

National Center for Environmental Research

Washington, D.C

Yu-Pin Lin

Department of Landscape Architecture

Chinese Culture University

Taipei, Taiwan

Rick Linthurst

Office of Inspector General

Washington, D.C

Michael E McDonald

Trang 11

Jay J Messer

National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryCorvallis, Oregon

Robert V O’Neill

TN and Associates

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Sharon L Osowski

Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division

Office of Planning and Coordination

Dallas, Texas

John Paul

Steven Paulsen

Trang 12

James L Regens

University of Oklahoma

Institute for Science and Public Policy

Norman, Oklahoma

Susannah Clare Rennie

Center for Ecology and Hydrology

CEH Merlewood

Kurt Riitters

Forest Health Monitoring

USDA Forest Service

Southern Research Station

National Health Research Laboratory

John Stoddard

Kevin Summers

National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryGulf Breeze, Florida

Trang 13

Borys M Tkacz

Forest Health Monitoring

USDA Forest Service

International Science Center

Bishkek, Kyrghyzy Republic

Moncton, Nouveau-Brunswick, Canada

John William Watkins

Center for Ecology and Hydrology

Natural Environmental Research Council

Chris Whipple

Environ Corp

Emeryville, California

Gregory J White

Ecological and Cultural Resources

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Idaho Falls, Idaho

Trang 14

James D Wickham

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

Søren Wulff

Department of Forest Resource Management and GeomaticsSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Umeå, SwedenL1641_C00 Page 17 Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:22 PM

Trang 15

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

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

Trang 16

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 Assessments—Swedish 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

Trang 17

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

Development of Watershed-Based Assessment Tools

Using Monitoring Data 517

S.L Osowski

Chapter 24

Bioindicators for Assessing Human and Ecological Health 541

J Burger and M Gochfeld

Chapter 25

Biological Indicators in Environmental Monitoring Programs:

Can We Increase Their Effectiveness? 567

V Carignan and M.-A Villard

Chapter 26

Judging Survey Quality in Biomonitoring 583

H.Th Wolterbeek and T.G Verburg

Chapter 27

Major Monitoring Networks: A Foundation to Preserve, Protect,

and Restore 605

M.P Bradley and F.W Kutz

Trang 18

Chapter 28

From Monitoring Design to Operational Program: Facilitating

the Transition under Resource-Limited Conditions 631

D.J Roux

Chapter 29

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring

and Assessment Program 649

M 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 30

The U.S Forest Health Monitoring Program 669

K Riitters and B Tkacz

Chapter 31

Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet)—Air-Quality

Assessment and Accountability 685

R Haeuber and M Kolian

Chapter 32

EPA’s Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program:

Using Monitoring Data and Model Results to Target Actions 719

E.R Smith, R.V O’Neill,

J.D Wickham, and K.B Jones

Trang 19

Conceptual Basis

of Environmental Monitoring Systems:

A Geospatial Perspective

D.A Bruns and G.B Wiersma

CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction 2

1.2 General Monitoring Design Concepts from NRC Reports 3

1.3 Overview of Specific Conceptual Monitoring Design Components 7

1.4 Conceptual Monitoring Design Components 9

1.4.1 Conceptual Framework as Heuristic Tool 10

1.4.2 Evaluation of Source–Receptor Relationships 13

1.4.3 Multimedia Monitoring 14

1.4.4 Ecosystem Endpoints 14

1.4.5 Data Integration 18

1.4.6 Landscape and Watershed Spatial Scaling 21

1.5 Synthesis and Future Directions in Monitoring Design 24

1.5.1 EPA BASINS 25

1.5.2 SWAT 26

1.5.3 CITYgreen Regional Analysis 26

1.5.4 ATtILA 27

1.5.5 Metadata Tools and Web-Based GIS 27

1.5.6 Homeland Security 27

1.6 Conclusion 28

Acknowledgments 29

References 30 1

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

Trang 20

2 Environmental Monitoring

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The importance of and need for integrated environmental monitoring systems is wellestablished The U.S National Science Foundation’s (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 watershed–stream 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 NSF’s currently proposed National EcologicalThe 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 landscapes4) EMAP usually holds

an 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 (Numbers

1 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 impact

of land-use change on a global basis.9,10The necessity for a comprehensive global monitoring system was recognized inearly publications of the International Geosphere–Biosphere Program (IGBP) and inlater global change program proposals and overviews.11–14 In particular, “geo-biosphereobservatories” were proposed for representative biomes worldwide and would be thefocus of coordinated physical, chemical and biological monitoring.12,15,16 Bruns

et al.17–19 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 conditionsL1641_Frame_C01.fm Page 2 Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:55 PM

Observatory Network (NEON; see www.nsf.gov/bio/neon/start.htm)

Trang 21

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 belowapplied 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 colleagues17–27—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 reports30,31 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 Energy’s (DOE) CO2 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 objective

in this chapter is to delineate and develop basic components of a conceptual approach

to 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

Trang 22

elaborated, or enhanced based on practical and technical considerations, availableusually 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 alsotechnical 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 design30 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 numerical

vs statistical) may be used effectively to address complementary aspects of toring objectives

moni-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 impacts

to 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 reports30,31 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 parameters—a 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.31–33 Rosswall et al and Quattorchi and Goodchildcover various ecological scaling issues for terrestrial ecosystems and biomes,34,35and Boesch et al summarize a range of space and time scales30 for various marine

resources, and defined monitoring objectives This broad strategic approach (Figure 1.1a)

an iterative process (Figure 1.1b) with feedback to reframe questions and refine

Trang 23

FIGURE 1.1A Designing and implementing monitoring programs: iterative flow diagram for

defining 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 the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.)

Identify Resources at Risk

Develop Conceptual Model

Have Appropriate Resources Been Selected?

Determine Appropriate Boundaries

Are Selected Boundaries Adequate?

Predict Responses and/or Changes

Are Predictions Reasonable?

Develop Testable Questions

Yes

Trang 24

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 of Changes

Select What to Measure

Develop Monitoring Design

Specify Statistical Models

Can Predicted Responses Be Seen?

Define Data Quality Objectives

Develop Sampling Design

Is Design Adequate?

Reframe Questions

Refine Technical

Design

Quantify Variability

Identify Logistical Constraints

Conduct Power Tests and Optimizations

Yes

Yes No

No

Trang 25

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 to

“ensure 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 Analysis36 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 Keith37 for a variety of multimedia environmental sampling methods.And finally, metadata (i.e., data about data) has emerged as a QC/QA component

to 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 perspective17,18,38 that emphasizesclose coupling of terrestrial–aquatic linkages within ecosystems

27 especially

at 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 as

an “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

Figure 1.2 summarizes these overall components of our approach,

Trang 26

Our overall monitoring design concept (Figure 1.2) also served as a basis for

evaluating historical monitoring data from seven DOE National Environmental

Research Parks This conceptual assessment highlighted the need and opportunity

inherent 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 assessment27

facilitated start up of the GIS watershed research program and GIS Center in the

GeoEnvironmental Sciences and Engineering Department at Wilkes University.20 In

addition, this general conceptual monitoring approach was used for: a regional land

use 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,

a GIS Environmental Master Plan for the Upper Susquehanna–Lackawanna River.40

for remote wilderness ecosystem study sites This heuristic tool22,41 highlights the

atmospheric pathway for anthropogenic impacts to remote ecosystems and indicates

the multimedia nature of our monitoring efforts based on field tested protocols

evaluated 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 at

global baseline sites, Environ Monit Assess., 17, 3, 1991 With permission from Kluwer

Academic Publishers.)

Figure 1.3 provides additional overall conceptualization of our monitoring design

see www.epa.gov/rivers/98rivers/), a National Spatial Data Infrastructure Community

Demonstration Project (www.fgdc.gov/nsdi) and recipient of a U.S government Vice

Presidential “Hammer Award” (www.pagis.org/CurrentWatershedHammer.htm), and

Particulates (metals, sulfates, nitrates)

Growth rates Decomposition rates

Major ions Nutrients 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 communities Plankton communitiesIntegrated Ecosystem and Pollutant Measurements

Sites:

Trang 27

The NRC report by Wiersma et al.31 significantly broadened our general ceptual approach to integrated environmental monitoring systems This report’s focus

con-on combining diverse (including multimedia) envircon-onmental data sets and the 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 components19 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

exten-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, degree

of 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,25,27freshwater 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 design for 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 With permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers.)

Atmosphere

Soil Micro-, Macro- Flora/Fauna

Vegetation

Litter / Humus

Surface Water

Wet Dry

DryWe t

Short- and

Long-Range

Sources

Trang 28

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 in

ples of our conceptual approach to monitoring design

The third study site for a basis of contrast and comparison to our remote sites

is 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 As

a 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?

primary disturbance and pollutant pathway to remote ecosystems such as those atour Wyoming and Chile study sites In these cases, “wilderness” or “national park”status prevent immediate land use perturbations but atmospheric pollutants, either

as 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

Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3 as noted above illustrate the atmospheric route asour 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-

Trang 29

As expected at remote monitoring sites, field logistics and/or regulatory tions on available sources of electricity or weather protection may prohibit a numbershaded 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 Alaska18,27 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

restric-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 mi2, withabout 2000 mi2 directly within the Susquehanna–Lackawanna (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 regional mining impacts in Northeastern Pennsylvania (From Bruns, D.A., Sweet, T., and Toothill,

Engineers, Baltimore District, MD, 2001.

of instrument approaches to monitoring methods and techniques Figure 1.3 shows

Atmosphere

Mining

Vegetation

Culm and Waste Piles

Mineral Soil

Mine Pool

Birch Locusts Aspen

Groundwater

Iron Oxides

Aquatic Micro-Macro- Flora/Fauna AMD in Streams

Trang 30

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 for

a 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 Agency’s (EPA) GIS Mid-Atlantic IntegratedAssessment over a five-state region4) 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)—all

of 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 andstatistical 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.

landscape For example, the diagram in Figure 1.4 was used in setting out our

Trang 31

And fourth, both our EPA- and USDA-sponsored GIS research projects

main-tained a public outreach and environmental education component The basic systems

this 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, GIS

research on the US-L watershed Also, we participated in environmental education

activities as part of public community riverfront park activities and high school

student visits to campus for briefings on GIS, watershed analyses, and geospatial

data 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 in

an interdisciplinary approach to environmental monitoring since soil scientists, forest

ecologists, and stream ecologists may not have typical expertise in various techniques

of water, air, and soil pollution monitoring Likewise, environmental engineers

involved with the design of air and water pollution control and monitoring

technol-ogies may lack the needed ecological expertise for identifying and measuring the

response of critically sensitive ecosystem receptors or endpoints Our work at remote

sites in Wyoming and Chile benefited from a technical team approach since our

research was sponsored during our employment with a DOE national laboratory

where the necessary interdisciplinary mix of expertise was readily available to

example, we had ready access to various scientists and staff with expertise in soils,

forestry, river ecology, geology, air pollution, analytical chemistry, and general

environmental science and engineering through various technical programs and

organizations at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

For the Pennsylvania GIS watershed project, similar concerns and issues were

addressed In this case, expertise in mining, engineering, geochemistry, hydrology,

GIS, and stream ecology was derived through public and state and federal agency

outreach during the public sector portion of the long-term project However, the

ultimate selection of key pollutant sources and critical ecosystem receptors needs to

be well focused, since both remote site and watershed approaches often end with long

lists of parameters for potential implementation in a monitoring program In this

situation, logistics, financial resources, and funding limitations require a subset of

measurements that will allow assessment of the more important relationships In some

situations, peer-review by an outside panel,47 case study reports,31 or actual testing and

evaluation of a range of parameters17,19 may help to resolve differences or professional

preferences and result in a more cost-effective but focused set of monitoring

param-eters More examples are discussed below for the other design components

of the successful selection of a key source of pollution with a sensitive ecological

endpoint In this case, the extent of mining disturbed lands within a watershed (or

diagram shown in Figure 1.4 successfully enhanced our educational component in

Finally, it should be noted that data provided in Figure 1.5 represent one example

support work on remote site monitoring (e.g., see References 25 and 46.) For

the diagrams of Figure 1.2 to Figure 1.4 However, this component also mandates

l

Trang 32

subwatersheds or “sampling” catchments) represented a major source of pollutant (and

land use) impact—but derived from satellite imagery and ground-truthed with GPS.45

Disturbed mining lands are devoid of natural vegetation and soil horizons and are

susceptible to extreme amounts of sediment loading to streams and rivers where aquatic

habitats are destroyed due to sedimentation processes (see literature review40) In

addi-tion, atmospheric exposure of pyritic mining wastes can generate a considerable amount

of acid mine drainage to streams via the hydrologic cycle, so additional geochemical

impacts are evident due to the eco-toxicity of high acidity and mobilized heavy metals

like Cu and Zn from waste materials Part of our research in this GIS watershed study

was to determine what water chemistry and stream biotic variables would be best

associated with regional mining impacts The biodiversity of stream

macro-invertebrates40

As noted previously, stream macroinvertebrate parameters scored well over the five

monitoring 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 properties

of pollutants demonstrate a wide range of fate and transport mechanisms with

different pathways and effects upon ecological receptors This is supported both by

multimedia modeling approaches48 and general estimation methods in ecotoxicology

and environmental chemistry.49,50 Second, focused population and community studies

on the fate of metals and organic contaminants relative to bioaccumulation and

trophic-food web transfer pathways49,50 also indicate a need to approach monitoring

design from a multimedia perspective And third, larger-scale watershed and regional

landscape investigations of particular pollutants like acid rain effects on freshwater

ecosystems51 and air pollution impacts to forests52 should reinforce this design

component if resource managers are to understand the fate and effects of pollutants

in a holistic ecosystem framework

Methods of sampling and analysis on a multimedia basis are well established53

and detailed elsewhere in this volume Our research on multimedia monitoring design

has emphasized the testing and evaluation of methods for use in remote, wilderness

ecosystems.25,27

and biological characteristics of a high-elevation ecosystem in Wyoming from a

multimedia standpoint, and includes a cataloging of appropriate methods for use

under potentially harsh field conditions As indicated above, we have developed

evaluation criteria for assessing the overall utility of these methods and the reader

is referred to other reports and publications for more detailed consideration.17,19,46

1.4.4 E COSYSTEM E NDPOINTS

The search for key ecosystem parameters for environmental monitoring and assessment

has received considerable attention over the past two decades Earlier studies, more

aligned with environmental toxicology research or assessment of sewage pollution in

streams, focused on population inventories or surveys of “indicator” species Indicator

Table 1.1 lists monitoring parameters of various physical, chemical, was one of the better indicators in this regard as shown in Figure 1.5

Trang 33

species may include those that are either tolerant (e.g., tubificids or “bloodworms”thrive 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 conditions

of stream habitat and associated chemical constituencies) of pollutant concentrations

or habitat disruptions.50 However, Cairns62 has cautioned against reliance on singleindicator species since their known response is often in relation to very particular kinds

of pollutants and may not warrant objective assessment of general or varied inant impacts In this context, Schindler63 has suggested that some individual species,

contam-like the crustacean Mysis relicta, may represent unique keystone species within

aquatic food webs (i.e., occupying specialized niches) and are susceptible to a variety

of stresses In this case, a monitoring program would be more effective with the

TABLE 1.1

Integrated Multimedia Monitoring Parameters at the Wind

Rivers Study Site

Meteorological parameters Standard sensors; plus dry depostion methods of

Bruce Hicks/Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Trace metals (in water, litter, soil, vegetation) Ecological sampling at study site 25,55

Trace metals in snow Snow cores before runoff (later analysis with

Standard Methods 36 ) Soil (organic matter, exchange bases, and acidity,

pH, extractable sulfate)

U.S Forest Response Program 47,56

NO3, PO4, SO4 (water) National Surface Water Survey 57

Lake/streams water chemistry (cations and anions) National Surface Water Survey 57

Biotic Measurements

Lake chlorophyll a, zooplankton, benthic algae,

fishes, benthic macroinvertebrates

U.S Forest Service Wilderness Guidelines 47 and Standard Methods 36

Stream ecosystem analysis (macroinvertebrate

functional feeding groups, periphyton,

decomposition, benthic organic matter)

River Continuum Concept 38,58–60

Terrestrial (forest) ecosystem ˇ (productivity,

needle retention, needle populations, litter

decomposition, litterfall, foliage elemental

composition, community structure)

Dr Jerry Franklin; U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service methods 61

Source: From Bruns, D.A., Wiersma, G.B., and Rykiel, E.J., Jr., Ecosystem monitoring at global baseline

sites, Environ Monit Assess., 17, 3, 1991 With permission from Kluwer Academic Publishers

Trang 34

hier-Allen and Starr66 and O’Neill et al.67 originally developed the basic concepts of

a 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 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 may

be more robust than structural changes due to “functional redundancy” and variation

in pollutant sensitivity among species; for this reason, individual species and 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 on

com-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

A review of the ecological assessment literature (Table 1.2) indicated the use of

a watershed basis (see Table 1.1 and Figure 1.2, Figure 1.3, and Figure 1.4 above)

Trang 35

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 1.2

Ecological Parameters: Recommendations for Monitoring and Assessment

of Baseline Conditions and Human 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., Lewis

Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1993, 103 With permission

Trang 36

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 principles

as outlined above, viewed in conjunction with knowledge of the published literature

1.4.5 D ATA I NTEGRATION

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, relegated

to 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 data

sets will be processed, summarized, and evaluated (i.e., “data fusion”; see Wiersma

et 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 series

of case studies that encompass predicting droughts in the Sahel, atmospheric 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

depo-Geospatial technologies like GIS are emerging as the major approach to datafusion efforts, ranging from “enterprise GIS” in the business world to the “geoda-

the 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

erence 81) The NRC report recommended using GIS and related technologies, liketabase” model in environmental management systems (www.esri.com and see Ref-

l

Trang 37

publication, an applied GIS watershed research program19,20,45,82 was being plannedand implemented for the US-L—nationally 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

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 these

were “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 data

on 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 cover to facilitate watershed characterization for relating land use practices andproblems to ecological conditions along environmental gradients within the water-sheds.40

Mid-Resolu-by 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.20,45Land 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.8–10 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

Figure 1.6 showcases how GIS is used to organize and integrate diverse

envi-environmental impacts to aquatic chemistry, habitats, and ecological communities (

Fig-features (mine water outfalls or CSOs) of pollution Although field sampling techniques

ure 1.4 and Figure 1.6) GPS was used to locate each site and delineate point source

Figure 1.5 and Figure 1.6 demonstrate one approach we used to data fusiontion Land Characteristics or MRLC, e.g., see Reference 83) was processed for land

Trang 38

Conceptual Basis of Environmental Monitoring Systems

FIGURE 1.6 Integrated use of geospatial technologies for environmental monitoring on the heritage river watershed: GIS, GPS, remote

sensing imagery, and orthoimagery.

Trang 39

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 indigital 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 US–L River and found 10 of

11 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 laboratory

QA/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 landscape–watershedanalyses and reviewed general methods of accuracy assessment.92,93

1.4.6 L ANDSCAPE AND W ATERSHED S PATIAL S CALING

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

analysis (see references in Table 1.1) generally deal with adequate and establishedour PA Heritage River watershed research project (Figure 1.6), we have employed

standard procedures of accuracy and precision (see also Reference 37 for general

Trang 40

indices, and scale metrics, and are routinely incorporated into natural resource 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 quality

man-in the Wabash River System man-in Illman-inois In this study, water quality monitorman-ing siteswere linked to their respective watershed segment in the hierarchy to address issues

of 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

O’Neill 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 also

is 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 thesescales—depending on the focus of the analysis and availability of data Spatial scaleswere 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)

of watershed ecosystems from the stream restoration guidance manual (Figure 1.7)

Tiêu đề	Environmental Monitoring
Trường học	CRC Press LLC
Chuyên ngành	Environmental Monitoring
Thể loại	Báo cáo thực tập hoặc tài liệu khái quát về môn học
Năm xuất bản	2004
Thành phố	Boca Raton

Định dạng
Số trang	126
Dung lượng	2,23 MB