1 The National Rivers and Streams Survey – An Overview and Results.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EMAP Efforts in SF Bay Overview of EMAP Western Pilot Overview of Coastal component Activities in SF Bay (FY 2000) Relationship to other SF Bay efforts.
Advertisements

Information Needs for the Integrated F&W Program (ESA and Power Act) Jim Geiselman - BPA.
Strengthening the State- Tribal-Federal Partnership to Assess the Condition of Nations Waters.
Water Resources Monitoring Strategy for Wisconsin: Building on Experience Mike Staggs, WDNR Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection Acknowledgements:
1 Europe’s water – an indicator-based assessment Niels Thyssen.
Prioritization Workgroup Summary. Workgroup Topics Nutrient results What is a watershed? What is a TMDL? Prioritization methods Basin framework and management.
Step 1: Valley Segment Classification Our first step will be to assign environmental parameters to stream valley segments using a series of GIS tools developed.
Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment
Tonnie Cummings National Park Service, Pacific West Region National Tribal Forum on Air Quality May 14, 2014.
Lec 12: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP’s)
Summary of Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for States, Tribes, Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable.
Minnesota’s Depressional Wetland Condition Assessment (a.k.a. ‘Status & Trends of Wetland Quality in Minnesota’) John Genet 6 th Annual Minnesota Wetlands.
The relationship between riparian areas and biological diversity A comparison of streams in eastern Colorado and southwestern Virginia By Ann Widmer
PAGE # 1 Presented by Stacey Hancock Advised by Scott Urquhart Colorado State University Developing Learning Materials for Surface Water Monitoring.
Analyzing Stream Condition Using EMAP Algae Data By Nick Paretti ARIZONA PHYCOLOGY ECOL 475.
Water Quality Monitoring The Role of the Clean Water Act.
Alabama’s Water Quality Assessment and Listing Methodology ADEM QA Workshop February 13, 2006.
Metric (Family Level) Standard Best Value (95 th or 5 th percentile) Worst Possible Value Expected Response to Degradation Total Taxa180 EPT Taxa120 %EPT91.90.
California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program SWAMP Today Emilie L. Reyes November 29, 2007.
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment National Water Quality Monitoring Council Meeting August 20, 2003.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys National Coastal Condition Assessment – 2010 Sarah Lehmann.
ORD’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Sound Science for Measuring Ecological Condition
Spatial Survey Designs Anthony (Tony) R. Olsen USEPA NHEERL Western Ecology Division Corvallis, Oregon (541) Web Page:
US EPA Update Advisory Committee on Water Information Michael Shapiro, Ph.D. Deputy Assistant Administrator U.S. EPA Office of Water.
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Mid-Atlantic States
WRIA 8 Status and Trends Monitoring ( ) Hans B. Berge, Dan Lantz, Scott Stolnack, and Curtis DeGasperi King County Department of Natural Resources.
CRITICAL TECHNICAL ELEMENTS FOR A BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAM Michael T. Barbour, Tetra Tech Chris O. Yoder, MBI.
Water Quality Data, Maps, and Graphs Over the Web · Chemical concentrations in water, sediment, and aquatic organism tissues.
Draft Stormwater Monitoring and Assessment Strategy for the Puget Sound Region: Volume 1 Scientific Framework November 18, 2009 Jim Simmonds and Karen.
1 Survey of the Nation’s Lakes Presentation at NALMS’ 25 th Annual International Symposium Nov. 10, 2005.
PNAMP Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring Management Question: Are the Primary Habitat Factors Limiting the Status of the Salmon and Steelhead Populations.
REGIONAL COORDINATION High Level Indicators Draft “white paper” to recommend a core set indicators that can be shared among all types of monitoring Protocol.
Benefits of the Redesigned RMP to Regional Board Decision Making Karen Taberski Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region.
Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay Donna Marie Bilkovic*, Carl H. Hershner, Kirk J. Havens,
The Importance of Healthy Riparian Areas and their Current Status in Wisconsin Tim Asplund, Buzz Sorge (WI DNR) Advanced Lake Leaders – Green Lake Sept.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys Wadeable Streams Assessment Overview November, 2007.
South Carolina Surface Water Monitoring: Different Designs for Different Objectives Presented by David Chestnut.
ORSANCO Biological Programs Extra-curricular Updates EMAP-GRE ORBFHP NRSA.
Adem.alabama.gov ADEM’s Monitoring Summary Reports Alabama – Tombigbee CWP Stakeholders Meeting Montgomery, Alabama 3 February 2010 Lisa Huff – ADEM Field.
Salmon-Safe: Peer-reviewed standards for the management of urban parks and natural areas Carrie Foss WSU Puyallup.
1 Defining Least-Impacted Reference Condition for the National Wadeable Streams Assessment Alan Alan Herlihy (Oregon State University), John Stoddard (U.S.
Opportunities for Collaboration on Water- Quality Issues in the Mississippi River Basin Herb Buxton, Office of Water Quality.
National Monitoring Conference May 7-11, 2006
Establishing the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management On the Upper Mississippi River Dr. Ken Lubinski, USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center.
SPARROW: A Model Designed for Use With Monitoring Networks Richard A. Smith, Gregory E. Schwarz, and Richard B. Alexander US Geological Survey, Reston,
Case Study Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highland Region McCormick et al
A Collaborative Approach to Assessing Watershed Conditions in Coastal National Parks Kristen Keteles, Cliff McCreedy, Jim Tilmant and Mark Flora.
Iowa Rivers Information System Inventory, Modeling, and Evaluation of Basin, In-Stream Habitat, and Fishery Resource Relationships Kevin Kane, Iowa State.
Water Quality Monitoring in Michigan, : A Decade of Program Evolution By: Gerald Saalfeld, MI Department of Environmental Quality.
1 Collaboration on EMAP Stream Condition Assessments in EPA Region 8 Thomas R. Johnson and Karl A. Hermann EPA Region 8.
The National Monitoring Network: Monitoring & Management of Alabama Rivers Fred Leslie Alabama Dept of Environmental Management National Monitoring Conference.
Watershed Monitoring *Background Watershed Stewardship Plan-2004 Gap Projects IRWMP-Dec Policies SFEI study-2007 Joint TC/WC meeting-June 2010 *Proposed.
Think about answering the questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Before your volunteers begin collecting data.
Using Regional Models to Assess the Relative Effects of Stressors Lester L. Yuan National Center for Environmental Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection.
For EBTJV meeting October 26, 2010 Executive Order Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Aquatic Resource Monitoring Overview Anthony (Tony) R. Olsen USEPA NHEERL Western Ecology Division Corvallis, Oregon (541)
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project Plenary Meeting February 2, 2009 Handout #5.
EVALUATING STREAM COMPENSATION PERFORMANCE: Overcoming the Data Deficit Through Standardized Study Design Kenton L. Sena (EPA VSFS Intern), Joe Morgan,
Tim Asplund, Buzz Sorge (WI DNR)
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Mid-Atlantic States
Shirley Birosik Environmental Specialist
Cara Cowan Watts Graduate Student Biosystems Engineering
Middle Fork Project Overview of 2008 Technical Study Plan Implementation April 21, 2008.
Des Plaines River Watershed Workgroup Midwest Biodiversity Institute
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Aquatic Ecosystem and Biodiversity Report Card Assess and rate the ecological condition of creeks and rivers across Adelaide.
ADEQ Approaches to the Assessment Methodology
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Mid-Atlantic States
National Aquatic Resource Surveys – Findings and Applications
IBI’s: An Introduction
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Mid-Atlantic States
Presentation transcript:

1 The National Rivers and Streams Survey – An Overview and Results

Presentation Outline Background NRSA Approach Results Next Steps 2

What is NARS? Series of surveys implemented by EPA and our state and tribal partners Assess all surface waters within the 48 contiguous states Cost effective, nationally consistent, regionally relevant means of tracking status and trends Builds from almost 20 years of research and pilots 3 Coastal Streams and Rivers Wetlands Lakes

Purpose of the National Aquatic Resource Surveys Assessing biological and recreational condition using indicators of condition and stress Documenting associations between indicators of condition and indicators of stress Building/enhancing state monitoring and assessment capacity 4

Fills critical water quality data gaps – Statistical design provides national and regional conclusions on the health of broad population of waters, and changes over time, without sampling every water – Core indicators provide nationally consistent assessment relevant to Clean Water Act goals Delivers data and reports that address nationally important policy questions –NARS data and results support important agency priorities (e.g., nutrients in the Mississippi River Basin) Complements states’ and other targeted, site- specific assessments Why is NARS Important? 5

NARS Approach: National Consistency 6 Statistically representative design -- Allows reporting on condition of each resource nationally and on a regional basis with documented confidence Standard field and lab protocols -- All indicators evaluated for credibility, to address national and state-identified needs National quality assurance and data management -- All partners use EPA-developed quality assurance project plan Nationally consistent and regionally relevant data interpretation and peer-reviewed reports -- Informal and formal peer review

Accomplishments Nationally consistent and scientifically defensible reports Linking results to policy issues Advancements in monitoring methods and expanding monitoring of more waterbody types Advancing and fostering analyses – Biological indicator development – Relative risk and attributable risk analyses 7

Draft National Rivers and Stream Assessment NRSA 2008/09 Overview and Key Findings 8

National Rivers and Streams Assessment is the latest National Aquatic Resource Survey First nationally-consistent, statistically representative assessment of the nation’s rivers and streams – Biological and habitat condition – Major stressors – Key human health indicators – Change in stream condition The 1,942 sites sampled – plus 234 hand-selected reference sites and 200 re-sample visits – describe the condition of perennial stream and river miles across the lower 48 states 9

10 NRSA 2008/09: Design of the Survey All streams and rivers within the 48 contiguous states that have flowing water during the study index period – Includes major rivers (including Great Rivers) and small streams – Includes run-of-the-river ponds and pools with less than 7 day residence time – Must have > 50% of the reach length with standing water The target population excludes: – Tidal rivers and streams up to head of salt – Slow moving reservoirs

Statistical Distribution of Sample Sites Represents 1,194,000 million miles of rivers and streams 11

In the Field: Index Period: Late May to end of September Sites Sampled: Over 2,300 sites sampled Field Crews: States, Tribes, EPA, USGS, NPS 12 In the Field: Index Period: Late May to end of September Field Crews: States, Tribes, EPA, Contractors, USGS, NPS Standard methods and indicators

Benthic macroinvertebrates Physical habitat Recreational Indicators Fish community and fish tissue Water quality Algal community 13

Draft NRSA Report for Public Comment includes: Biological Integrity  Benthic Macroinvertebrates  Fish Community Assemblage  Periphyton Assemblage Habitat Quality  Excess Sedimentation  Riparian Disturbance  Human Influence  In-stream fish habitat Chemical stressors Nutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorous) DO Salinity Change in stream condition Compared to 2004 streams report Human Health – Enterococci – Fish Tissue: Mercury EcoRegion Summaries 14 Highlights include: Urban Waters for Fish Tissue PCBs and PFCs State Example for NRSA Importance of nutrients

Determining Thresholds: Setting the Bar Reference Condition: Least disturbed condition – Represents ‘best of what’s left’ in an altered landscape Baseline for evaluation of survey data – Set good/fair/poor condition categories for most indicators Rock Bridge Fork, KY Telegraph Creek, FL 15

Determining Thresholds: Setting the Bar For the NRSA, two types of thresholds were used to determine condition: Regionally reference-based thresholds Fixed percentile defines good/fair and fair/poor Applied to bioindicators, habitat indicators and major stressors National consistent thresholds Screening thresholds developed by EPA that are protective of human health Applied to human health indicators Good Fair Poor Example Stressors 75% 95% 16

Biological Condition of the Nation’s Rivers and Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrates Multi Metric Index (MMI) combines 6 measures of community integrity. – Primary Biological Condition Indicator – Widely used by States and academics – Integrates stressors over long periods of time Regionally based MMI’s and condition categories Other Biological Condition Indicators: Fish Assemblage and Periphyton 17

18 Key Findings – Biological Condition 55% of our nation’s river and stream miles are in poor biological condition, 23% are in fair condition, and 21% are in good condition. Rivers and streams that are in fair or poor biological condition can lead to loss of fishing and recreational opportunities. Compared to a 2004 stream assessment, 7% fewer stream miles are in good biological condition. 55% of our nation’s river and stream miles are in poor biological condition, 23% are in fair condition, and 21% are in good condition. Rivers and streams that are in fair or poor biological condition can lead to loss of fishing and recreational opportunities. Compared to a 2004 stream assessment, 7% fewer stream miles are in good biological condition.

Biological Condition Varies Across the Country 19

Water Chemical Stressors Compared to ecoregional reference thresholds Parameters reported: – Total Nitrogen – Total Phosphorus – Salinity – Acidification 20

Physical Habitat: Crews measure hundreds of aspects of the stream and river physical habitat to assess its condition. Quantitative measure of stream habitat condition. Riparian Disturbance Excess Sedimentation In-stream Fish Habitat Riparian Vegetative Cover 21

Key Findings from the NRSA – Major Stressors Nutrients and poor habitat continue to be widespread problems Nutrients: – 40% of the nation’s river and stream miles have high levels of phosphorus – 27% have high levels of nitrogen Habitat: – Poor quality vegetative cover is widespread in 24% of rivers/streams – High levels of human disturbance near river and streambanks occur at 20% of the nation’s river and stream miles 22

23

Conditions vary regionally: Total phosphorus 24

– Biology and phosphorus: Fewer stream miles in good condition 7% fewer stream miles in good biological condition 19% fewer stream miles in good condition for phosphorus. – Nitrogen and habitat: More stream miles in good condition 9% more stream miles in good condition for nitrogen 17% more stream miles in good condition for in-stream fish habitat 12% more stream miles in good condition for human disturbance 25 Key Findings from the NRSA – Change in Streams Compared to a 2004 streams study, detectable changes occurred in streams. The direction of change varied for different stressors. Determining why and identifying trends will take more years of data.

Key Findings in the NRSA – Human Health Two indicators that show potential risk to human health -- enterococci bacteria and mercury in fish tissue -- are widespread in rivers and streams. In 9% of river and stream miles, enterococci exceed thresholds protective of human health. Over 13,000 miles of rivers are found to have mercury in fish tissue at levels that exceed thresholds protective of human health. 26

Stressor Extent and Resulting Risk: Relating Stressors to Biological Condition NRSA evaluated stressors against biological condition, to assess which are most important. Examination of the relationship between three indicators provides: – Relative Extent – What is the proportion of stressors in poor condition? – Relative Risk – When stressors indicate poor condition, what is the increased proportion of river and stream miles with poor biological condition? – Attributable Risk – What percent of river and streams miles that are in poor biological condition should move to good/fair if this stressor is eliminated? 27

Stressors of the NRSA: Extent, Relative Risk, and Attributable Risk RE- Total Phosphorous: Most widespread stressor across the U.S. RR- Poor biology is 50% more likely when high levels of phosphorus present. AR –IF phosphorous levels were reduced to “low,” 10% of river and stream miles would move into the good condition class for biologic condition. 28

Regional Assessments Northern Appalachians Southern Appalachians Upper Midwest Coastal Plains Temperate Plains Southern Plains Northern Plains Western Mountains Xeric West 29

Next Steps for the NRSA Complete analysis and publications on supplemental indicators and new approaches – Additional fish tissue data – Random Forest Model for the Macroinvertebrate MMI Invite others to download the data sets for exploration and analysis Work with States and other Clean Water Act programs to analyze data in their programmatic context Present results at several upcoming meetings with Regions, States, and academics Initiate next round of sampling for the 2013/2014 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 30

National Rivers and Streams Assessment Report Intro and DesignNational FindingsEcoregional Findings Change over TimeFuture Actions – NRSA in 2013/14 Human Health Indicators 31

Upcoming Milestones- NARS National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008/09 – 1 st draft report on all flowing waters out for public review until May 9 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013/14 – Field season beginning in May for 2 nd NRSA National Wetlands Condition Assessment 2010 – Complete data QA and conduct data analysis and peer review – Release 1 st National Wetland Condition Report National Coastal Condition Assessment 2011 – Complete data QA and conduct data analysis and peer review – Release NCCA V report National Lakes Assessment 2012 – Complete lab work and data QA in preparation for 2 nd national lakes assessment – Conduct data analysis and peer review – Release 2 nd National Lakes Assessment 32

Questions? 33