WPCU:
2 1 B Z F A Donald F. Boesch Donald F. Boesch X A \ P PDefault Para @6 opDefault Paragraph Font (< *<wgt
.Ew w # XN \ P XP# # A \ P P# footer
@6 opfooter < zw<
=(<
*<wgt
.E. $ (# ` hp x (# 2
F c d S g page number @6 oppage number w<
=(<
*<wgt
.Ew w # XN \ P XP# # A \ P P# header
@6 opheader < zw<
=(<
*<wgt
.E. $ (# ` hp x (# 1, 2, 3,
@6 op Numbers < zw<
=(<
*<wgt
.E
. gt
@6 op Triangle zw<
=(<
*<wgt
.E 2 g P
d
d 1 " gt
@6 op Small Circle <
=(<
*<wgt
.E
" A, B, t
@6 op Uppercase Letters <
*<wgt
.E . a, b, c,
@6 op Lowercase Letters <
*<wgt
.E . # A \ P P# 2 r 0 5f A \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XA \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XA \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T A \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T x 2 P P, r A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r p 6 A @ G i l l S a n s E x t r a B o l d R e g u l a r x 2 P P, r A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P XP, r A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r Xi 2 P
P, r A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r [ \ P P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r x 2 P P, r A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r h \ P
P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XA \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XA \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T [ \ P P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T X[ \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T X[ \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T X[ \ P P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T &G \ P ! &P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T &[ \ P " P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P # XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T X&G \ P $ &P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T &[ \ P % P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P & XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T X[ \ P ' P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P ( XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T X[ \ P ) P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P * XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XA \ P + P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P , XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XA \ P - P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P . XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T X[ \ P / P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P 0 XP \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XXN \ P 1 XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P 2 XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P 3 XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P 4 XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P 5 XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P 6 XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P 7 XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P 8 XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P 9 XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P : P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P ; XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P < P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P = XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P > XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P ? XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P @ XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P A XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P B XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P C P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P D XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P E P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P F XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P G P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P H XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P I XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XA \ P J P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T XN \ P K XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P L XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XA \ P M P \ ` * T i m e s N e w R o m a n T T K 2 P N P+ z A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XN \ P O XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P P XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P Q XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXN \ P R XP( 9 Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P S P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P T XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P U P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P V XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XA \ P W P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P X XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r X[ \ P Y P' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XN \ P Z XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXZ 2 P [ XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P \ P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P ] P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T XZ 2 P ^ XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P _ P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P ` P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T XZ 2 P a XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P b P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T XZ 2 P c XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P d P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P e P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T XZ 2 P f XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P g P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T XZ 2 P h XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P i P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P j P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T XZ 2 P k XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P l P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P m P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T i 2 P n P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P o P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T XN \ P p XP' O Z 6 T i m e s N e w R o m a n R e g u l a r XXZ 2 P q XP,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r Xi 2 P r P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r < 2 P s P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P t XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P u P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T XZ 2 P v XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P w P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P x P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T XZ 2 P y XP- > A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r Xi 2 P z P- > A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r < 2 P { P- > A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P | XP,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r Xi 2 P } P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r < 2 P ~ P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P XP,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r X< 2 P P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P XP- A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XX x P 7XP. x A p` U n i v e r s X` x P 7P. x A p` U n i v e r s < 2 P P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P XP- A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XX x P 7XP. x A p` U n i v e r s X` x P 7P. x A p` U n i v e r s < 2 P P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P XP,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r Xi 2 P P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r < 2 P P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P XP,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XXZ 2 P XP, r A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r X< 2 P P, r A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P XP, r A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r X< 2 P P, r A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r XZ 2 P XP xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T Xi 2 P P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P P xz A ` " A r i a l N a r r o w T T < 2 P P,
A Z " A r i a l R e g u l a r 2 Ir Qr 3| J = = | p d U UUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqq
p K K 1 ** '0' x'LJ' &߀&π&.À% %?%%%%%%%? ? ߀ ߀ `߀ ߀ǀ?π߀ǀ ???? ? Ͽ
??
? ?
?
?ǀ < ?????
?
`c0`b01 `g83
0π ??g ??߀>߀ππɀ π??πππ ππ?πn πoπππ߀O߀OπOǀcπqπ9π OOO߀πππ ߀ ߀?π ߀π߀߀;߀ ߀߀??? ??߀C? b???߀wwp`b D ! D #F1`b0?
8 `c8F3
?߀ ? ?
? π
7 ? ߇π? 0
? 8 0 ? _? O ? ? ? ? Ap ? ?
8? ??
?
߀ ǀ
߀
?߀
π
>o߀
~C? ~C??
>?
?
>
?
>
? À 0À ǀ `ǀ `_ ǀs`
? 3A` p
? ? ? ? π ! π π ! ߀ ?߀ ?߀
??
?x??
?π
?x0?
π8<?8 ?<N ?f
g
@
7
3
?
w#
c g G π ? ߀ ?߀ ?8? π ?p? x? >
>?
>? ? p| ?`| `x# ߀|? ߀ π ǀ ߀ O ? π ?
? ? p ? | ?x ` ;y d?~o ?? ?? ? ?Æ? ??? ??~ cǀ ? ? ?? |
ǀ |
?
?
?
@
"
> 0 ! ?
x] À q ? $ $& % $? " ? ߀ π
@F03f1 1 03 b1w?GG
3?
?
??'
8A
߀ππɀ π??πππ ππ?πn πoπππ߀O߀OπOǀcπqπ9π OOO߀πππ ߀ ߀?π ߀π߀߀;߀ ߀߀??? ??߀C? b???߀wwp`b D ! D #F1`b0?
8 `c8F3
?߀ ? ?
? π
7 ? ߇π? 0
? 8 0 ? _? O ? ? ? ? Ap ? ?
8? ??
?
߀ ǀ
߀
?߀
π
>o߀
~C? ~C??
>?
?
>
?
>
? À 0À ǀ `ǀ `_ ǀs`
? 3A` p
? ? ? ? π ! π π ! ߀ ?߀ ?߀
??
?x??
?π
?x0?
π8<?8 ?<N ?f
g
@
7
3
?
w#
c g G π ? ߀ ?߀ ?8? π ?p? x? >
>?
>? ? p| ?`| `x# ߀|? ߀ π ǀ ߀ O ? π ?
? ? p ? | ?x ` ;y d?~o ?? ?? ? ?Æ? ??? ??~ cǀ ? ? ?? |
ǀ |
?
?
?
@
"
> 0 ! ?
x] À q ? $ $& % $? " ? ߀ π
@F03f1 1 03 b1w?GG
3?
?
??'
8A
3 4 5 & "J_ & "J - - J" & TNPP .
- - - C g
J"( Z ' @ @ ` ? ? g # ? b0 ?? ? ? ? ? ? x g ? 8 @ ?1 ? ć ? ? ? ! ? ? ? ? ? ? 0? @ | ?< ? ? ( ? ? ??"? ǿ?"? ? ? ? " @ ? ? ? | | ?? ? ? c ~ ?? ? ?? ?Æ? ? ? ? ? ~o ? ;y d? ` ?x ? | p ?
? ? O ? ? | # `x ?`| ? p| >? >? > x? ?p? ?8? ? ? G g c ?w# 3 7 @ g ?f <N 8 ? 8<? ??x0? ??x?? ? ? ? ! ! ? ? ? ? p ?3A` s` `_ ` 0 ? > ? ?> >? ~C?? ~C? >o ? ?? ? ?? 8? ?? Ap ? ? O _? ? 0 ?8 0 ? ? ߇ 7 ?? ? ? 8 `c8F3 D ! D #F1`b0? p`b w w b??? C? ?? ? ? ? ; ? O O O 9 q c O O O o n ? ? ? > ? ? g ? ? 0 `b01 `g83 ?`c0 ? ?? ? ? < ? ? ? ? ?? Ͽ ? ? ? ?? ? ` ? ? ? . LJ x 0 '
&
TNPP - - '
&
& r. @ "Arial - .
2
8 PA
2
0 PA
&
& V @ "Arial - .
2
NY
2
NY
&
& G @ "Arial - .
2
h WV
2
` WV
&
& Fn @ "Arial _ - .
2
VA
2
VA
&
& VG~ @ "Arial - .
2
( NC
2
NC
&
& => @ "Arial _ - .
2
NJ `
2
NJ `
&
& @ "Arial - .
2
h DL j
2
` DL j
&
& % "Arial _ - .
2
@
Albemarle-U G G k G + G + "Arial - .
2
Pamlico SoundsU H j @ G $ U G H G G @
&
& "Arial _ - .
2
Chesapeake Bay\ H G @ G G G H @ G # V G @
&
& _ "Arial - .
2
p Delaware Bay\ H G ] G + G # V G @
&
& - - "System - p - - - ' -
$ 939
&
& px - - - p pp - - ' -
$ p L
&
& @H - - - @ @0 - - ' -
$ @c
&
&
& TNPP
&
- - ^&w&
H H 1 ! ! ! ! ! ' ! ! ! ! @ !@
!`
!?
!π
!
?
g
#
?
b0 ǀ ?? ? ? ? ? ? x ǀ g ? 8 @ À ? 1ǀ? ǀ
ć?߀
?߀
? ! ǀ
ǀ?
π?
π?
?
?
?
0?
@
| ?
<
? ? ( ǀ ߀ ?π π π ? ?π ?"?ǿπ ?"?π ?π ? ?
"
@
?
?
?
ǀ |
|
?? ? ? ǀ c~ ??? ???Æ? ? ? ??~o ? ;y d? ` ?x ? | p ?
? π ? O ? ߀ ǀπ ? ߀ ߀|# `x ?`| ? p|
>?
>? > x? ?p? π ߀ ?8?߀ ? ? π G g
c
?
w#
3
7
@
g?f<N 8 ?
π8<?
?π
?x0??
?x??
?߀ ߀ ?߀ ?π π ! π ! ? ? ? ?
p ? 3A`
ǀs` `_ ǀ `ǀ 0À À
? >
?
?
>
>? ~C??
~C?
π
>o߀
?߀ ǀ
߀
߀ ??
? ? ?
8? ? ? Ap ? ? O _? ? 0
? 8 0 π? ? ߇
7 π ?
?߀ ?
?
8 `c8F3 D ! D #F1`b0?p`b ww߀ b???߀C???? ??߀߀߀ ߀;߀π߀π ߀? ߀π ππ߀OOOπ π9πqcOǀOπO߀߀ππππoπn ?πππ ππ??π ɀππ߀>߀?? g?? π
0`b01 `g83 ?
`c0
????? < ?ǀ ?
? ?
??
Ͽ ????? ǀǀ?π߀ ߀ `߀ ߀ ߀ ? %?%%%%%%%?% &.À&π&߀' 'LJ' x'0* *1 V A / n45 # 2 P P#
PAV A " v {45 # 2 P P#
PAV A 45 # 2 P P#
NYV A 45 # 2 P P#
NYV A ) 65 # 2 P P#
WVV A 6 65 # 2 P P#
WVV A q
65 # 2 P P#
VAV A ~
65 # 2 P P#
VAV A e
45 # 2 P P#
NCV A W
+ 65 # 2 P P#
NCV A _65 # 2 P P#
NJV A Q(45 # 2 P P#
NJV A ) 65 # 2 P P#
DLV A 6 65 # 2 P P#
DL^ I x # k\ 2 P kP#
Albemarle-b M D # k\ 2 P kP#
Pamlico Soundsb M # k\ 2 P kP#
Chesapeake Bay` K
# k\ 2 P kP#
Delaware Bay
BiB
a
3
v v9 ` hp x (# # x 2 P P# 1 1 y
p d d MIDATL.TIF
y
# p #
INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
AND RESEARCH
v IN THE MIDATLANTIC REGION# x 2 P P#
Proceedings of a Workshop# XZ 2 P XP#
N # i 2 P
P# Y
College Park, Maryland
April 1012, 1996
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
National Science and Technology Council
# [ \ P P# N ` hp x (# # x 2 P P# y
p d d MIDATL.TIF
y
# h \ P
P#
INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING AND RESEARCH
v IN THE MIDATLANTIC REGION
T Proceedings of a Workshop# XN \ P XP#
T N # [ \ P P# Y
College Park, Maryland
April 1012, 1996
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
National Science and Technology Council
N T October, 1996
T Contents
# XN \ P XP# '! Executive SummaryZ!!G v
1.''
IntroductionZ!!G 1
2.''
Workshop Scope and StrategyZ!!G 3
3.''
Utility of the CENR Framework in the MidAtlantic RegionZ!!G 5
4.''
Reference Issues for the MidAtlantic RegionZ!!G 7
5.''
Opportunities and NeedsZ4!!F 11
''
The AtmosphereZ4!!F 11
''
Terrestrial EnvironmentsZ4!!F 13
''
Aquatic EnvironmentsZ4!!F 16
''
Coastal EnvironmentsZ4!!F 19
''
Regional SynthesisZ4!!F 23
6.''
Functional ImplementationZ4!!F 27
''
Integration and Coordination of Monitoring ProgramsZ4!!F 27
''
Integration of Research and MonitoringZ4!!F 29
''
Information and Data ManagementZ4!!F 31
''
Assessment and Information TransferZ4!!F 33
''
Regional Pilot ImplementationZ4!!F 35
7.''
ReferencesZ4!!F 39
Appendix 1. Workshop ParticipantsZ4!!F 41
Appendix 2. Chairs and Rapporteurs for Topical Breakout GroupsZ4!!F 45
Appendix 3. Explanation of Abbreviations and Acronyms Used Z4!!F 47
Appendix 4. Major Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and ProgramsZ4!!F 49
# [ \ P P#
` hp x (# ' Executive Summary# XN \ P XP#
''
The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) of the National Science and
Technology Council is developing a National Environmental Monitoring and Research Framework.
At the invitation of the President s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) approximately
110 individuals, including representatives of state environment and natural resource agencies and
regional commissions, university scientists, representatives of nongovernmental organizations and
corporations, and federal agency program managers, met on April 1012, 1996 to determine whether
and how best to implement a Regional Pilot in the MidAtlantic area under this Framework.
Workshop participants were charged to identify: (1) the key resource management issues in the region
around which to integrate environmental monitoring and research; (2) monitoring and supporting
research needed to provide information relevant to resolving these issues; and (3) next steps for
implementing an integrated regional framework by using, modifying, and building on existing federal
and nonfederal programs.
''
For the purposes of the Regional Pilot, the MidAtlantic region includes the states of
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia (Federal Region III), the Delaware
Bay, Chesapeake Bay and AlbemarlePamlico Sound complex and their watersheds (which adds
portions of New York, New Jersey and North Carolina), and the coastal ocean extending to the edge
of the continental shelf. It is also recognized that the direct influence of atmospheric sources and
processes in this region extends to an even larger airshed which requires monitoring.
''
In general, participants representing organizations within the region strongly support the goal
of integrated environmental monitoring and research as articulated in the CENR National Framework.
Participants believe that significant value would be added by better integration of monitoring
programs and of monitoring and research within the region. This is particularly so because many of
the environmental problems faced in the MidAtlantic region involve interactions of atmospheric
changes, land use and cover, and aquatic and coastal habitats and resources.
''
Participants found that the National Framework can be improved by more attention to linkages
with the users of monitoring information, including: responsiveness to decisionmakers information
needs; interpretation of results; integration of environmental and resource data with social and
economic considerations in assessments; dissemination of information to decisionmakers and the
public; and anticipatory prediction. In addition, in order to effect integration of monitoring programs,
there is a need for driving hypotheses and models; more inclusion of monitoring of conditions that
directly affect human health and wellbeing; development of methods that link spacebased and sitebased measurements; and more aggressive inclusion of nonfederal participants than is reflected in
the working draft Framework. Finally, the integration between research and monitoring must
progress and address such difficult issues as quality control of research and monitoring performed
within all sectors, detectability of change, and the development of human resources needed for
effectively integrated monitoring and assessment over the long term.
''
Reference Issues were identified as representative of the kinds of environmental and natural
resource issues which are at present and for the foreseeable future, subject to protection, management
and restoration activities in the region. In the view of the regional participants, if the implementation of the MidAtlantic Regional Framework does not produce information which can improve the
effectiveness of protection and management activities which address these issues, it will not be
perceived as relevant, not produce incentives for adaptation of existing monitoring programs, and
ultimately not be embraced and sustained. The Reference Issues identified are Changes in Land Use
and Cover, Nutrient Overenrichment, Water Resources for Human Use, Atmospheric Condition and
Deposition, Stream and Wetland Habitat Protection and Restoration, Coastal Fisheries Resources,
and Environmental Quality and Human Health in Urban Areas.
''
Workshop participants identified important contributing elements for the Regional Pilot and key
gaps in breakout sessions organized by environmental media: the atmosphere and terrestrial, aquatic
and coastal environments. They then considered steps toward implementing the Regional Pilot with
respect to information and data management, integration of existing monitoring programs, integration
of research and monitoring, assessment, and organizational requirements. Implementation of the
MidAtlantic Pilot will require highlevel and longterm commitment and participation among federal
and state agencies through an Executive Committee and steadfast attention to execution by a Program
Coordination/Implementation Committee. In addition, an Executive Secretary and support office will
be required. However, to be successful the MidAtlantic Pilot must take advantage of ongoing
management and assessment activities which include monitoring or heavily use monitoring results,
such as the MidAtlantic Integrated Assessment, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Ozone Transport
Commission, National Estuary Program, and the MidAtlantic Highlands Coordinating Council.
''
In discussion of the implementation of the MidAtlantic Pilot among all participants at the
conclusion of the Workshop, the central importance of additional assessment was stressed, both in
the sense of more indepth appraisal of what needs to be known to support wise environmental
management and in the sense of determining our ability to truly integrate existing regional programs.
It was the widely held view of Workshop participants that assessment, i.e. the marshalling of scientific
evidence to determine the nature and relationship of environmental problems and predict outcomes
of actions, be given primacy in the implementation of integrated monitoring within the region. One
of the key Workshop recommendations is that a core assessment be initiated immediately, prior to
major structural reorganizations or commitments which are difficult to reverse. This assessment
should include an inventory of environmental data and information currently available and provide
direction for the Regional Pilot and the National Frameworks on a regular basis in support of their
incremental implementation and result in a comprehensive assessment in approximately two years.
That assessment will provide longterm guidance for sustained integrated monitoring.
''
A key need in these assessments and for underpinning the integration of various programs is in
the area of scaling. It was the consensus of the Workshop that the Regional Pilot should address the
entire region, but it is clear that some subregions are being and will be monitored much more
intensively and at different time scales. Thus, our ability to extrapolate and interpolate information
across space and time scales will be critical to the success of regional monitoring"as it will be for
national monitoring.
''
Finally, it was pointed out that there are regional issues and existing assessment programs which
should serve as a strong foundation for regional monitoring in the MidAtlantic, such as the MidAtlantic Highlands Assessment and the Chesapeake Bay Program. These programs address the issues
of air quality, atmospheric sources, land use and cover, and water quality in an integrated way and thereby provide an inherent comparative advantage for the region.
# [ \ P P# 1. Introduction# XN \ P XP#
'` hp x (# ''
Monitoring of the environment is conducted for various resources"soil, water, air, plants and
animals"for a wide variety of purposes, on a broad range of scales, and by an extensive array of
organizations. The combined experience of scientists and resource managers has made it clear that
ecosystems are not simply composed of independent resources but that these resources interact on
a range of spatial and temporal scales. Yet, current environmental monitoring programs, while often
effective in tracking specific components of ecosystems are found by resource managers to be
inadequate and inefficient in providing critical information on how these different components interact
(NSTC, 1996). This has led to efforts to establish and implement a national environmental
monitoring strategy which, to this point, have been unsuccessful in providing the needed
comprehensiveness and integration. Ambitious national environmental programs such as the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) have failed to integrate monitoring
across resources and take advantage of other existing national and regional monitoring activities. On
the other hand, efforts to coordinate existing programs have not yet succeeded in achieving
intercomparability, functionally integrating resources, or filling critical gaps.
''
Shortly after its formation in 1993, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
convened national experts outside of government to recommend priorities for federal environmental
science programs (NSTC, 1995a). That led to followup activities by the Council s Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), including one to determine how to reach the national
goal for ecosystem science (NSTC, 1995b) to understand, predict and manage our ecological systems
for sustained use and enjoyment. It specifically recommended: a focused research and monitoring
program that improves the information base needed to conduct regional, national, and international
syntheses. To act on this recommendation, CENR convened a team of federal scientists and
program managers, the Environmental Monitoring Team, to develop a national framework for
integration and coordination of environmental monitoring and related research through collaboration
and building upon existing networks and programs. The Environmental Monitoring Team produced
a proposed Framework for integrating the Nation s major environmental monitoring and research
networks and programs to allow understanding, assessment, evaluation, and forecasting of the
Nation s renewable natural resources at national and regional scales (NSTC, 1996).
''
The guiding principles for the Framework require it to be driven by policy needs (effectively
addressing environmental issues of present and future concern), scientific understanding (based on
sound scientific and statistical methods), and interagency cooperation (involving appropriate federal,
state, tribal, private and international organizations). In addition it should be built using successful
keystone monitoring and research programs and must be costeffective, continuous, interoperable,
adaptive and accessible (NSTC, 1996). The CENR Framework envisions a hierarchical structure for
integrating monitoring that: (1) characterizes specific properties of large regions by continuous
measurement (e.g. remote sensing); (2) characterizes specific properties of large regions by sampling;
and (3) focuses on the properties and processes of specific locations.
''
As a critical step toward implementing the Framework as a National Integrated Environmental
Monitoring Program the CENR Environmental Monitoring Team recommended convening a workshop to develop an implementation plan for the Framework in a pilot region. It reasoned that
I c # A \ P P# # XN \ P XP# '` hp x (# # A \ P P# X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: XP# A major challenge to the implementation of integrated environmental monitoring, whether it be
for the nation, a region, or even locally, is the adaptation, linkage and coordination of the component
elements (across agency lines, media and scales). It is helpful, then, to examine some examples where
there has been deliberate integration of monitoring programs and monitoring needs as potentially
useful models. Those considered during the Workshop include NARSTONortheast and SOS for air
monitoring, the Interagency Task Force for Monitoring of Water Quality (ITFM) for water
monitoring, and MultiResolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) for land cover. Obstacles to greater
and more effective coordination and integration of monitoring programs include personalities, money
(lack of or too much), management barriers and inflexibility, insularity of the technical communities,
statutory constraints, and lack of commitment or dependability.
Several dimensions of integration are relevant and need to be articulated in the interest of clear
communication:
Ecosystem integration involves the conceptual linkage and coordination of monitoring of
different media and resources within an ecosystem. Examples include relating measurements of water
quality, concentrations of toxicants and living resources or measurements of atmospheric deposition,
soil chemistry, stream transport and ecosystem responses. Ecosystem integration requires (a) the
availability of relevant scalable data; (b) models that extend to the full range of ecosystem questions;
and (c) technology that matches the resource base and the data needs.
Spatial integration involves the linkage of measurements made at different spatial scales and
comparisons among different ecosystems and regions. It requires (a) measurement and research
programs conducted at intercomparable scales; (b) interpolation techniques to integrate scalar data;
# XN \ P ? XP# (c)# XN \ P @ XP# data management capabilities to manage multiscale data; and (d) conceptual understanding of
scalar ecological processes. Therefore, an effective monitoring framework must integrate data from
a broad range of ecosystem scales.
Temporal integration involves linkage of measurements made over different time scales and
must take into account the different characteristic time scales of variation among ecosystem
properties and processes and among different ecosystem types. Using stream flow as an example, how does one integrate measurements of shortterm events, mean monthly flows, interannual
variations, and longterm hydrologic and climatic trends, any of which may be the most important
depending on the question asked. Temporal integration requires: (a) data management techniques
for appropriate archives; (b) clear articulation of issues of concern; (c) periodic and timely
production of information; (d) longterm commitment; and (e) measurement and research programs
bridging temporal scales at common sites or areas. .
In addition, other essential dimensions of integration must be addressed, including:
'4
<DL !T$ institutional issues affecting communications, missions, authorities, and resources;
data and information, including management, access, standards, and archiving; and
quality assurance and quality control.
''
Finally, the following steps must be undertaken towards the goal of program integration:
1, 2, 3, . Identify and clearly articulate the issues and needs, including consideration of which
methods and measurements are mandated versus which can be adjusted slightly. This
step also implies that deliberate discussions are occurring between programs that have
identified a common opportunity.
# XN \ P A XP# 1, 2, 3, . # XN \ P B XP# Analyze and evaluate existing programs and data resources.
1, 2, 3, . Identify the gaps, overlaps and specific opportunities for integration.
1, 2, 3, . Design the required monitoring.
''
Within the above steps, effective communication systems need to be in place; stakeholders and
partners need to be involved and educated; resources for effective coordination (people, and funding)
need to be committed to the effort; mechanisms must be instituted to support integration; and both
topdown and bottomup independent reviews should be periodically conducted.
''
An important opportunity exists for the MidAtlantic Pilot to work synergistically with the
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) toward the integration and coordination of monitoring programs.
Up to this point, the extensive monitoring efforts used within the region have been implemented and
interpreted in a fragmented manner. For example, the CBP Implementation Committee is embarking
on a strategic plan for monitoring with a key emphasis on achieving more effective integration of
monitoring of estuarine water quality, living resources, riverine fluxes, land use/cover and
atmospheric deposition. The CBP has the advantage, not only of very extensive monitoring efforts,
but also managementoriented models which integrate among the environmental media which can be
used in assessing critical monitoring needs and linkages. The CBP effort could help to significantly
advance the integration of monitoring throughout the region. Conversely, the MidAtlantic Pilot
could stimulate and assist the strategic integration of CBP monitoring activities and those of other
regional assessments such as the MidAtlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) and the MidAtlantic
Highlands Integrated Assessment (MAHA). # [ \ P C P# Integration of Research and Monitoring# XN \ P D XP#
''
Implementation of the Environmental Monitoring and Research Framework should advance
research to understand ecosystem processes relevant to environmental change in the following ways:
'4
<DL !T$ 1, 2, 3, . Current programs have scale problems. Most studies are less than two years long, consider
only one or two species as indicators, and are limited in spatial scale. Studies that address
multiple species are usually limited to relatively small spatial scales. There is a need to be able
to integrate and extend results over a range of scales, small to large, shortterm to longterm,
and limited to inclusive. Several opportunities are provided in the Integrated Framework.
The nested watershed concept of Index Sites provides a useful way to relate intensive
research in a small watershed to larger scale processes. Longer term or more spatially
extensive data from monitoring programs can provide critical background for interpreting the
results of shorter term or more localized research.
1, 2, 3, . Some current monitoring programs are longterm but they need better ways of disseminating
data to users, more systematization of units (interoperability), and ways to move new
technologies into operational monitoring programs (flexibility and adaptability to emerging
technologies). Time is needed to plan and test new methods against the old and then assess
the appropriateness of bringing them on line. For example, incorporation of new methods
throughout the LTER network requires about 22 years to come to consensus and
implement new methods.
1, 2, 3, . Data and information management and access have to be considered in light of the revolution
in information technology. Who will interpret and publish data and how will results be
communicated to both the user audience and the general public? Should raw data be
published to allow users to analyze and interpret them? How should research data be handled
versus monitoring data? What distinctions should be made between communal (basic
monitoring data, available immediately) and proprietary (individual researchers data,
maximum holding time 2 years) data?
1, 2, 3, . The Framework provides mechanisms and impetus for multidisciplinary research and crosspollination among working in different disciplines and environmental media.
'4
<DL !T$ ''
Research can also contribute to the Integrated Framework by improving the effectiveness of
monitoring and interpretation of monitoring results. Focal points for research which can improve
monitoring include the following:
'4
<DL !T$ formulation of testable hypotheses based on management questions for monitoring program
design;
determining the key parameters to be measured and frequency of measurement;
development of new technologies for use in monitoring;
scale integration; relating structural (e.g. population abundance, biomass, species composition) and functional
(production, biogeochemical rates, etc.) characteristics of ecosystems;
optimal design of monitoring;
methods for dealing with extreme or infrequent events; and
manipulative experiments to understand the responses of populations, communities or
ecosystems;
statistical and other tools for trend detection.
'4
<DL !T$ ''
A challenging requirement for research integration into the Framework relates to the need to
consider social and economic processes in environmental assessments posing the following
requirements:
4
<DL !T$ development of more effective communications between natural and social scientists;
data management systems to serve both natural and social scientists;
more research on the economic, social and cultural aspects of the Reference Issues;
research on the design of environmental assessments which incorporate socioeconomics with
natural sciences;
methods to develop valuation methods to estimate costs of impairing environmental systems;
and
workshops to introduce social scientists to the Framework process.
'4
<DL !T$ ''
The Framework calls for the increased use of remote sensing and insitu observing systems in
regional monitoring. This presents opportunities for advancing research as well:
'4
<DL !T$ joint sponsorship of shared capabilities and products (for example, federal agencies have
benefited by sharing in the acquisition and use of remote sensing imagery);
greater involvement of the international community;
calibration, ground truth, and sensor development;
development of spatially explicit models based on remote sensing products;
spatial and temporal scaling;
research on data and information management required to handle remote sensing data on real
time basis;
introduction of other remote sensing tools, including groundpenetrating radar and seismic
and conductivity methods, etc.; and
increased access to supercomputer facilities. '4
<DL !T$ ''
The Framework includes the operation of Index Sites, where more intense, longterm monitoring
and research activities will be focused. Considerations for the selection and support of these Index
Sites include the following:
` hp x (#% fully open competition based on proposals as has been done for LMER and LTER sites may
not provide appropriate distribution of sites geographically or by habitat;
sites representative of range of different land uses, e.g. pristine, agricultural, urban/suburban
etc., should be included;
longterm support for sites should be assured and this may require multiagency and multiinstitutional participation;
site visitation committees are needed to periodically review and evaluate individual site
programs;
a management structure for the site network to provide leadership, services, information
management, and quality assurance;
site selection criteria should include stratification (ecosystem type, use, ecoregions, etc.),
goals and site characteristics (representativeness, external influences, etc.);
some criteria for selecting coastal Index Sites are different that those for terrestrial sites; and
sites should contribute to regional assessment of environmental change.
# [ \ P E P# '
<DL !T$ Information and Data Management# XN \ P F XP#
''
This breakout group believed strongly that the objectives of the MidAtlantic Pilot needed to be
defined prior to the design of the appropriate supporting data management activities. Specifically,
data management should provide a service to the Pilot's issueoriented program(s) and be an integral
part of each issue's planning from the beginning.
''
As a general principle, it was recommended that the objective be to provide the best possible
integrated products, including both remote and in situ observations as appropriate, even though this
might mean that the data on which these products were based might not be openly available due to
their restricted or proprietary nature.
''
A possible immediate activity could be an inventory of environmental data and information
currently available for the Mid-Atlantic region. Several breakout groups deliberating on Opportunities
and Needs recommended such stocktaking for several reasons, including helping decide, after
extensive assessments, whether any modifications to the existing observing system were needed,
providing the best possible basis for follow-on specific issue assessments and helping with the
development of regional environmental baselines.
''
The actions recommended for such a possible initial Pilot activity were the development and
dissemination via the Internet, CDs, and paper copy of (1) a catalogue of existing regional
environment related documents, including earlier assessments; and (2) an index of the existing regional environmental data, whether current or historical. For each data set, an attempt would be
made to obtain its high level descriptors listed below. (The list is limited to 10 descriptors so as to
not discourage possible contributors.)
1. Content
2. Intended use
3. Location/extent and collection date
4. Spatial and temporal scale
5. Quality estimate
6. Format
7. Source of origin
8. Point of contact
9. Availability
10. Media of availability
''
Also, there was consensus that the Pilot should have specific assessment issues (e.g. the
Reference Issues) identified to focus its efforts. While the objective of the Integrated Monitoring
Framework requires functional unity and comparability of the databases, it is likely that the various
constituent programs of the Mid Atlantic Pilot will have somewhat different data formats and
requirements. Data managers from those constituent programs should be included in a coordination
group to provide focused data management activities that would include:
1. Data and information acquisition
2. Establishment of a GIS interface
3. Metadata documentation
4. Data assessment and product generation
5. Data distribution and user access
6. Results/products distribution
''
At the Workshop State and regional managers and monitoring program directors stressed that
specific and important assessment products should be produced within the first two years of the MidAtlantic Pilot for it to find application and retain participation. Coupling this time constraint with the
limited resources available for the Pilot makes it doubly clear that at least the initial list of Pilot
assessment issues needs to constrained.
''
It was recognized that the integrated assessment products in particular must be in forms,
including hard copy, that can not only be used with confidence by a broad user community but be generally recognized as better than such products that now exist. Included in this broad user
community that must be "sold" on the Pilot's importance are the general public, educators, and policy
makers at all levels as well as researchers.
''
Finally, it was recommended that to be successful the data management program required for
the Pilot be guided by a team with federal, state, regional, and NGO representation, with operational
support provided from the federal agencies. The support team would be responsible for implementing
the data management backbone for this Pilot.
# [ \ P G P# Assessment and Information Transfer# XN \ P H XP#
# XN \ P I XP# ''
This breakout group examined how can we best integrate information across scales to allow
informed, scientifically rigorous management decisions for the MidAtlantic Region. What
characteristics of the assessment process will ensure success?
d d d d 1 d d d d 1 !<< { << # A \ P J P# # XN \ P K XP# '
<DL !T$ # XN \ P L XP# '
<DL !T$ X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: