Monitoring Ecological Condition at Regional Scales

Proceedings of the Third Symposium on the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Albany, NY, U.S.A., 8–11 April, 1997

  • Shabeg Sandhu
  • Laura Jackson
  • Kay Austin
  • Jeffrey Hyland
  • Brian Melzian
  • Kevin Summers

Table of contents

  1. Front Matter
    Pages i-x
  2. Stanley L. Laskowski, Frederick W. Kutz
    Pages 15-21
  3. Richard S. Stemberger, Eric K. Miller
    Pages 29-51
  4. N. Roth, M. Southerland, J. Chaillou, R. Klauda, P. Kazyak, S. Stranko et al.
    Pages 89-106
  5. Denice H. Wardrop, Robert P. Brooks
    Pages 119-130
  6. Robert P. Brooks, Timothy J. O’Connell, Denice H. Wardrop, Laura E. Jackson
    Pages 131-143
  7. T. J. O’Connell, L. E. Jackson, R. P. Brooks
    Pages 145-156
  8. William E. Sharpe, Michael C. Demchik
    Pages 157-162
  9. Marian G. Glenn, Sara L. Webb, Mariette S. Cole
    Pages 163-169
  10. David J. Rapport, Walter G. Whitford, Mikael Hildén
    Pages 171-178
  11. Walter G. Whitford, Amrita G. De Soyza, Justin W. Van Zee, Jeffery E. Herrick, Kris M. Havstad
    Pages 179-200
  12. Maliha S. Nash, Walter G. Whitford, Justin Van Zee, Kris Havstad
    Pages 201-210
  13. J. H. Landsberg, B. A. Blakesley, R. O. Reese, G. Mcrae, P. R. Forstchen
    Pages 211-232

About this book

Introduction

The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program was created by EPA to develop the capability for tracking the changing conditions of our natural resources and to give environmental policy the advantages ofa sound scientific understanding of trends. Former EPA Administrators recognized early that contemporary monitoring programs could not even quantify simple unknowns like the number of lakes suffering from acid rain, let along determine if national control policies were benefiting these lakes. Today, adding to acidification impacts are truly complex problems such as determining the effects of climate change, of increases in ultraviolet light, toxic chemicals, eutrophication and critical habitat loss. Also today, the Government Performance and Results Act seeks to have agencies develop performance standards based on results rather than simply on levels of programmatic activities. The charge to EMAP of ecosystems is, therefore, the same today as it was a with respect to measuring the condition decade ago. We welcome the increasing urgency for sound scientific monitoring methods and data by efforts to protect and improve the environment. Systematic nationwide monitoring of natural resources is more than anyone program can accomplish, however. In an era of declining budgets, it is crucial that monitoring programs at all levels of government coordinate and share environmental data. EMAP resources are dwarfed by the more than $500 million spent on federal monitoring activities each year.

Keywords

Ecology Fauna Plankton classification development ecoregion ecosystem ecosystems environment environmental protection vegetation wetland

Editors and affiliations

  • Shabeg Sandhu
    • 1
  • Laura Jackson
    • 1
  • Kay Austin
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Hyland
    • 3
  • Brian Melzian
    • 4
  • Kevin Summers
    • 5
  1. 1.National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSA
  2. 2.National Center for Environmental AssessmentU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSA
  3. 3.National Oceanographic and Atmospheric AdministrationCharlestonUSA
  4. 4.Atlantic Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNarrangansettUSA
  5. 5.Gulf Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyGulf BreezeUSA

Bibliographic information

  • DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4976-1
  • Copyright Information Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998
  • Publisher Name Springer, Dordrecht
  • eBook Packages Springer Book Archive
  • Print ISBN 978-94-010-6089-9
  • Online ISBN 978-94-011-4976-1
  • About this book