Transcript Drivers for Monitoring

Strengthening the StateTribal-Federal Partnership
to Assess the Condition of
Nation’s Waters
Session Outline
 Discussion
on Building our Partnership for
National Aquatic Resource Surveys


Administrative challenges
Technical challenges
 Updates



on Surveys
Wetlands
Lakes
Rivers and Streams
Background

Independent reviews highlight monitoring limitations



ASIWPCA report on “Water Quality Monitoring
Programs” states



Incomplete data for full range of needs
Inability to support statistically-valid characterization of nation’s
waters
Monitoring is fundamental to water quality programs, yet first to
be cut
Funding shortfall exceeds $100 million
EPA Monitoring Initiative

Increase to base 106 grant targeted to fill key monitoring gaps
• $10 million for enhancing state monitoring programs
• $8.5 million for collaboration on statistical surveys
Goals of State-Tribal-EPA Surveys

Establish baseline, track status and trends of the
condition of the Nation’s waters




Extent of nation’s waters supporting CWA goals for health
aquatic communities and human use
Distribution and relative risk of key stressors
Integrated at national, regional, and finer scales
Support state and tribal implementation of statistical
surveys moving toward consistent indicators
 Support expansion of state and tribal
bioassessment programs to all resource types
Basic Components of Surveys

Randomized design to report on conditions at
national, regional, and state (optional) scale



Spatially distributed network
Representative of the range of conditions across the
target population (e.g., lakes, wetlands, rivers, etc.)
Standard field and lab protocols for core
indicators, including biology and key stressors
 National QA program and data management
 Nationally consistent and regionally relevant data
interpretation and reports
Implementation of Surveys
 Short-term



Rotate through water resources
Use standardized design
Use standardized methods
 Long-term



strategy
vision
State-scale surveys roll into national surveys
More flexibility in methods, implementation,
schedule, with appropriate rigor
Develop vision and roadmap for getting there
Administrative Challenges

Increase state and tribal implementation of field
and lab work
 Increase speed of transfer of lab results
 Examine options for schedule and site allocation



Address peaks and valleys of 5 year cycle
Options for small states, dry states receiving fewer
sample sites
Increase addition of statistical survey design to
state monitoring programs to reduce need for
national layer
 And…
Technical Challenges

Interpreting biological data
 Integrating multiple methods
 Transferring analytical tools and techniques
 Expand use of nationally consistent data sets to
support additional protection and management
objectives



Use covariables collected with biological data to
explore stressor/condition relationships
Add attributes from GIS coverage
And…
Support State and Tribal
Bioassessment Programs





Raise visibility (public, congress, managers) of
biological indicators across all water resource
types
Promote use of multiple assemblages for all
water resource types
Increase focus on reference condition, e.g.
regional gaps and effect of regional variability
Promote method performance criteria and
comparability
Explore applications of BCG/GSG framework
Biological Indicators

Lakes (2007) – zooplankton, phytoplankton,
sediment diatoms, macroinvertebrates

Rivers and streams (2008/9) – fish,
macroinvertebrates, periphyton, phytoplankton

Coastal (2010) – macroinvertebrates and possibly
others

Wetlands (2011) – vegetation and algae (likely
soft algae and diatoms)
Interpreting Biological Data
MMI Example


Apply EPA Bioassessment/biocriteria guidance
Develop MMI for each ecoregion

For each ecoregion, find the best metric in each of 6 metric
classes
•
•
•
•
•


Good range
Relationship to natural gradient
Repeatability
Responsiveness
Uniqueness (not redundant)
Score metrics separately for each ecoregion, sum metrics and
scale total to 100 to create MMI
Look for disturbance signal in reference sites in each
ecoregion and adjust thresholds for ecoregion MMI
Diversity
Richness
METRIC
Ephemeroptera Richness
EPT Richness
Total Taxa Richness
% Individuals in Top 5 Taxa
Feeding
CPL
UMW



NPL

SPL
WMT
XER













% Individuals in Top 3 Taxa



% Individuals as EPT



% Taxa as Non-Insects


% Taxa as Chironomidae
Scraper Richness




Shredder Richness

% Taxa as Burrowers
% Taxa as Clingers















% Taxa as Tolerants
% Taxa as PTV 8-10


Intolerant Richness
% Taxa as PTV 0-5.9
Metrics
Used in
Ecoregion
MMIs

% Individuals as Non-Insects
Clinger Richness
Tolerance
TPL
List of Metrics
% Taxa as Ephemeroptera
Habit
SAP

Shannon Diversity
% Taxa as EPT
Composition
NAP





Key to
Ecoregions:
Advance Methods Comparability
 Advance
and organize comparability studies
to develop technically defensible approaches
for integrating multiple methods




Improve ability to combine raw data or metrics
collected in different programs
Track status and trends in nation’s waters from
multiple datasets
Analyze stressor condition relationships
Facilitate data sharing across regions and
jurisdictions
River and Stream Methods Comparability







WSA States, e.g., Iowa, Oklahoma, Missouri,
Tennessee, Virginia and others
New England evaluation of field methods and
BCG approach
Region 5 projects looking at fish methods and
habitat
State of the Science review of literature
Comparability Guidance Document
Low gradient macroinvertebrate study via NRSA.
Fish method comparability study with NRSA
Expand Use of Survey Data

State and Tribal Programs



Nutrient Management



Improve ability to apply across broad spatial scales by
accounting for geophysical variability
Improve use attainment tools
Reference Sites



Comparability Studies
Cross-resource interactions
Building reference network with sites from random draw
Share reference sites across jurisdictional boundaries
Climate Change and Aquatic Resources


Joint Partnership to establish and maintain “sentinel” reference
sites
Indicator Development
Suggestions to Address Challenges
and Build Capacity

Approaches for expanding the dialogue among states, tribes and
EPA




Survey discussions at regional and national meetings
Conference call/webinar for info sharing and training
Support and share regional and state issue analysis to expand feedback
and awareness
Topics of interest


Approaches used by states/tribes to incorporate statistical surveys into
state monitoring and assessment programs and to implement national
surveys
Tools and approaches for setting thresholds
• Screening reference sites and developing thresholds
• Non-reference based approaches
• Using the Biological Condition Gradient (BCG)



Comparability of national/state/tribal methods and assessment results
Use of survey data for multiple objectives
Indicator and methodological issues