1. National Aquatic Resource Surveys – Findings and Applications
Coastal Waters
Lakes
Rivers and Streams
Wetlands
Sarah Lehmann, US EPA
With thanks to all of the EPA, State, Tribal and other partners who make NARS happen

2. States and Tribes do not have data needed to make decisions
Is Water Quality Getting Better? “I think so but I can’t prove it.” William Reilly - EPA Administrator
States and Tribes do not have data needed to make decisions
Support implementation of comprehensive state/tribal water quality monitoring strategies
Data inadequate for statistically-valid characterization of water quality condition in U.S
Collaborate to produce statistically-valid assessments of the nation’s waters
Critiques of water monitoring from the 1990s and the early 2000s reported that:
Use multiple monitoring tools: predictive tools, statistical survey designs, targeted monitoring designs, and other innovative approaches
Go over
Some background information on NARS
A few example results from the surveys

3. Implementing a new approach for filling the information gap/
Implementing a new approach for filling the information gap
Technical foundation for current efforts to monitor aquatic systems under the National Aquatic Resource Surveys
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program initiated in 1989 by ORD: Develop/Demonstrate tools to monitor:
Status
Trends
Relative importance of stressors

4. NARS Objectives
Assess the biological/recreational condition and changes over time of the nation’s waters
Rank stressors based on the relative associations between indicators of condition and indicators of stress
Build/enhance state and tribal monitoring and assessment capacity

5. Cooperative – EPA, states, tribes and other federal agencies work together to design, implement and leverage NARS
Continental - national assessments for the lower 48 with comparable projects in AK, HI and territories covering all surface water resource types (coastal waters, lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands)
Cost-effective – statistically representative survey for national status and trends supports strategic investments in priority areas and issues (use probabilistic site selection)
Consistent - methods and indicators to assess physical, chemical and biological integrity plus indicators relevant to human health
Complementary - One monitoring design does not fit all water quality management needs. NARS complements data from local and state scales offering insights on our collective progress toward clean water goals and providing context to inform priorities for regional and local action and supporting other new monitoring technologies.
NARS is the only water quality monitoring program in the U.S. that embodies all of the following elements
Randomized design to report on condition of each resource nationally and regionally
1,000 sites in lower 48
Standard field and lab protocols
National QA and data management
Nationally consistent and regionally relevant data interpretation and peer-reviewed reports

6. Example Survey Indicators and Measures
Biological indicators:
Benthic macroinvertebrates
Plants
Fish community
Recreational/public health indicators:
Fish tissue
Pathogens
Microcystins
Key stressors:
Nutrient enrichment
Excess sediment
Degraded habitat
Research indicators:
eDNA
Algal toxins (e.g., NCCA 2015)
Contaminants of emerging concern

7. What is the biological condition of our waters?
Good biological conditions exist in ~50% or less of the nation’s waters
Coastal waters, rivers and streams based on benthic macroinvertebrates; wetlands based on plants.

8. Rivers & Streams – Benthic Macroinvertebrate MMI

9. Wetlands – Vegetation MMI
Other states had fewer sites ….
n = 49
n = 40
n = 47

10. What stressors are impacting our waters
What stressors are impacting our waters? Nutrients and degraded habitat are problems across the country
Excessive levels of phosphorus are reported in 58% of rivers and streams, 40% of lakes and 21% of coastal waters.
Too much phosphorus contributes to algal blooms, low levels of dissolved oxygen and can harm public health and aquatic life.
Habitat degradation is widespread. 27% of wetland area was found to have high levels of vegetation removal, while 28% of lakes and 24% of river and stream miles are in poor condition based on riparian vegetation cover.
Loss of vegetation along shorelines can contribute to runoff of sediment, pollutants and trash.

11. Probability: Shows significant change across the country (deterioriation) Without probability surveys, we could miss this change
Interested to see whether this change continues with 2017 and 2018/19 or if we see things revert or stay the same.
Stoddard, et al. (National Aquatic Resource Surveys data)

12. Lakes – Riparian Vegetation

13. Coastal – Sediment Quality Index

14. What is the impact of these stressors?
Excess nutrients and poor habitat increase the likelihood of degraded biological condition
Poor biological condition is:
almost twice as likely in wetlands when vegetation removal is extensive or high level of compacted soil are present.
1.5 to 2 times as likely when habitat is poor or nutrients are high in lakes.
more than 1.5 times as likely in rivers and streams with high levels of phosphorus or nitrogen.
NARS analysis shows that if we reduced the levels of these stressors we could see biological condition improve in 20 to 35% of our waters
NRSA: Potential Impact of Reducing Phosphorus (draft)

15. Tracking Change Across the State with Statistical Survey
Effectiveness
Tracking Change Across the State with Statistical Survey
Percent of Stream Miles meeting Biological Expectations in Virginia
Effectiveness: are we doing enough across the landscape to make a difference in the state
VA Example:
From Using Probabilistic Monitoring to Assess the Effectiveness of Stream Management Efforts; Willis, Hill, Jones, Dail; VA DEQ
From Using Probabilistic Monitoring to Assess the Effectiveness of Stream Management Efforts; Willis, Hill, Jones, Dail; VA DEQ

16. VT DEC: NLA results support recommendations for changes in shoreland protection legislation
“It was the findings of NLA07, and specifically the overdraw results from VT, as compared to regional and national conditions that provided the first major scientific piece of information that caught our legislature’s attention” Neil Kamman, VTDEC
Data from the NLA 2007 showed Vermont lagging behind other states in the ecoregion and nation in protecting lakeshores.
A Vermont-based study, in conjunction with NLA 2007, showed that replacing native shoreline vegetation with lawns dramatically reduced the quality of littoral habitat;
A comparison between Vermont’s and Maine’s littoral habitat quality, undertaken along with the NLA 2012, demonstrated the effectiveness of Maine’s shoreland protection measures.
After a statewide educational effort during the summer of 2013 (dubbed a “traveling road show”), the Shoreland Protection Act became law on July 1, 2014.

17. Developing sediment thresholds for water quality standards assessments in New Mexico
New Mexico used NRSA methods and data, along with other data, to develop and propose numeric translators for New Mexico’s narrative sedimentation water quality narrative standard.
This translator is used for integrated report (305(b)/303(d)) decisions.
index of relative bed stability
The State of New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) associates imbalanced suspended and bedded sediment supply with effects to aquatic life uses through narrative or comparative standards (New Mexico Administrative Code ). The degrees to which certain sediment quantities are unnatural and detrimental to associated aquatic life were loosely defined.
In the late 1990s, the NMED developed a sedimentation/siltation assessment protocol for the purpose of identifying sedimentation (i.e., stream bottom deposit) impairments to aquatic life uses. Prior to development of this protocol, the state CWA §303(d) list determination was generally qualitative. The protocol was developed to determine whether or not an impairment was occurring due to excessive sedimentation and provide enough information to develop subsequent total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) in rapid fashion.  Some issues with the protocol surfaced regarding the origin and appropriateness of the percent fines cutoff of 20% within a riffle habitat, identification of a representative riffle, identification of a specific reference site for comparison vs. identification of a reference condition, and the use of a full benthic macroinvertebrate rapid bioassessment protocol index or the New Mexico Stream Condition  Index neither of which were developed to specifically identify potential impacts on benthic macroinvertebrates due to excessive sedimentation.
In 2008, NMED in cooperation with EPA Region 6, EPA Office of Research and Development Western Ecology Laboratory and Tetra Tech Corporation embarked on a stepwise development approach, as described in Framework for Developing Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABS) Water Quality Criteria, USEPA 2006, with the goal to propose numeric translators for New Mexico’s narrative sedimentation water quality narrative standard, NMAC , in lieu of actual water quality criteria. This project was made possible in large part due to the development of the EMAP monitoring and assessment methods (now incorporated in the National Rivers and Streams Assessment [NRSA]), data from the NRSA, and from the earlier EMAP-West project, among other datasets from the state.
A final report was completed 2010 titled Sediment in New Mexico Streams: Existing Conditions and Potential Benchmarks with a complementary assessment protocol document. Exit A subsequent manuscript was prepared, accepted and published in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association, December 2014, titled Bedded Sediment Conditions and Macroinvertebrate Responses in New Mexico Streams: A First Step in Establishing Sediment Criteria.

18. NARS 2.0 – Enhancements and Exploration of Alternative Implementation Strategies
Data Delivery
State/EPA workgroup initiated: draft data tracking tool for partners developed and shared
Work progressing to facilitate transfer of current NARS data into WQX
Communication and Outreach
State/EPA workgroup initiated: landowner communication tools
Methods and Indicators
State/EPA workgroup initiated: Review of Survey Technical Support Documents
Methods alignment discussions initiated
Training
Developing and planning to pilot new approaches (videos, voice over PPTs/webinars) to help shorten on-site training
Design Implementation Proposal
to show progress on sample processing, initial data QC, and delivery of preliminary (draft) datasets to state, tribal and EPA partners.  The current timeframes in the draft tool are actual dates; they are used to show how to tool would display progress. 
TSD - to support improvements in NARS documentation of analytical processes

19. For more information Me: lehmann.sarah@epa.gov; 202 566-1379
NARS website: aquatic-resource-surveys
NARS data: aquatic-resource-surveys/data-national-aquatic- resource-surveys
Dashboard is hyperlinked.

20. Questions?
Outreach Materials