How Probability Survey Data Can Help Integrate 305(b) and 303(d)Monitoring and Assessment of State Waters

Abstract

Section 305(b) of the United States' Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to assess the overall quality of waters in the states, while Section 303(d) requires states to develop a list of the specific waters in their state not attaining water quality standards (a.k.a impaired waters). An integrated, efficient and cost-effective process is needed to acquire and assess the data needed to meet both these mandates. A subset of presentations at the 2002 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Symposium provided information on how probability data, tools and methods could be used by states and other entities to aid in development of their overall assessment of condition and list of impaired waters. Discussion identified some of the technical and institutional problems that hinder the use of EMAP methods and data in the analysis to identify impaired waters as well as development needs to overcome these problems.

Development and validation of a macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity (IBI) for assessing urban impacts to Northern California freshwater wetlands

“…The U.S. EPA (1998EPA ( , 2002a has also established guidelines to assist states with developing locally relevant lentic monitoring programs. Such field protocols and corresponding biological indicators are designed to assist with Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) listings of impairment, CWA 305(b) National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress, as well as CWA 401 certifications (Brown et al 2005).…”

Quantifying sample biases of inland lake sampling programs in relation to lake surface area and land use/cover

“…Probability sampling, where every unit (e.g., lake) has a known and nonzero probability of selection, provides a representative sample of the target population and allows for statistically valid extrapolations to the entire population of interest (e.g., all lakes in the Northeast USA, Olsen et al 1999;Brown et al 2005). The advantages of PB sampling have been recognized and subsequently adopted in recent times by several state and federal management agencies to meet a variety of natural resource management needs (McDonald 2000;Hayes et al 2003), including the fulfillment of CWA mandates.…”

Development and application of a landscape-based lake typology for the Muskoka River Watershed, Ontario, Canada

“…The WFD requires lake typologies to be developed for each EU member state (REFCOND, 2003). A landscape-based approach allows statistical-based sampling designs for monitoring programs and less biased extrapolations of ecological status (Brown et al, 2005;Wang et al, 2010). The use of lake typologies with both abiotic and biotic measures of aquatic ecosystem health ensures an increased accuracy in the assessment of ecological status (REFCOND, 2003;WG 2.7, 2003).…”

“…A landscape-based approach provides a cost-effective and statistical basis for strategic lake monitoring and management (Wang et al, 2010). Quantifying human pressures for all watersheds can serve as a screening tool to identify unsampled lakes that may be at risk of not meeting management objectives (Brown et al, 2005;IMPRESS, 2003;Wang et al, 2010).…”

“…The recent evolution of lake monitoring and management has resulted in some examples of cost-effective monitoring programs that consider the health of the entire aquatic ecosystem (Brown et al, 2005;Hering et al, 2010;Solimini et al, 2009). Historically, lake monitoring and management has taken a single stressor approach that has been conducted at local spatial scales, with the use of chemical indicators (Apitz et al, 2006;Hughes et al, 2000;Whittier et al, 2002).…”