Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
For decades, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been the primary
federal entity responsible for scientific understanding of the nation's surface
water and groundwater. As part of this effort, the National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program assesses the historical and current water-
quality conditions and future water-quality scenarios in representative river
basins and aquifers across the country. The program was implemented in
1991, primarily in recognition of the importance of understanding the na-
tion's water quality and in response to the conclusion by USGS scientists
that their ability to provide information about the nation's water quality
at that time was limited. NAWQA objectives are achieved through a de-
sign that stresses long-term, standardized collection and interpretation of
physical, chemical, and biological data. Water-quality data collection and
assessments in river basins and aquifers coupled with regional and national
syntheses are the hallmark of the NAWQA program.
Now, the USGS is planning for the third decade of water-quality as-
sessment (Cycle 3, 2013-2023) and approached the National Research
Council's (NRC's) Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB) for per-
spective on past accomplishments as well as current and future design and
scope of the program. The NRC responded by forming the Committee on
Preparing for the Third Decade (Cycle 3) of the National Water Quality As-
sessment (NAWQA) Program, appointed under the auspices of the NRC's
standing Committee on USGS Water Resource Research. The committee's
charge, as laid out in the statement of task, calls for a review of both past
accomplishments of the NAWQA program as well as recommendations to
improve the design and scientific scope of the program as it moves into its
1
OCR for page 2
2 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
third decade of water-quality assessments. (For the full statement of task,
see Box 1-2 in Chapter 1.)
Once the study was under way, the USGS NAWQA Cycle 3 Planning
Team asked the committee to give priority to the portion of the task ask-
ing for input on scientific priorities for the third decade (Cycle 3) of the
NAWQA program. These scientific priorities were expressed in two USGS
planning documents, the Design of Cycle 3 of the National Water Quality
Assessment Program, 20132023: Part 1: Framework of Water-Quality
Issues and Potential Approaches or the "Science Framework" and the
Design of Cycle 3 of the National Water Quality Assessment Program,
2013-2023: Part 2: Science Plan for Improved Water-Quality Information
and Management or the "Science Plan." The committee responded with
two letter reports (Appendixes A and B).1 This report, the committee's fi-
nal report, expands upon the advice in the letter reports and addresses the
statement of task in its entirety. The report reflects on NAWQA's history
and accomplishments (Chapters 2 and 3), outlines a way forward for the
program that includes additional feedback on scientific priorities and the
Science Plan (Chapter 4), and links this to cooperative, collaborative, and
coordinated efforts in the future (Chapter 5).
HISTORY AND ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
The first decade (Cycle 1, 1991-2001) of the NAWQA program fo-
cused on a baseline assessment, i.e., the status of the nation's water-quality
conditions. The original program design provided information on water
resources by investigating and comparing hydrologically meaningful pieces
of geography or study units across the nation. The second decade (Cycle 2,
2001 to the present) focused on identifying trends in water quality, build-
ing on the Cycle 1 status activities. During Cycle 2, the program enhanced
modeling efforts to extrapolate water quality conditions across the country
and expanded communication efforts to disseminate products. In 2004, the
program shifted away from the study unit design, restructuring the program
design around 8 Major River Basins and 19 Principal Aquifers. This transi-
tion is explained in part by the increased emphasis on trend work in Cycle 2
but also by funding decline. This transition is consistent with an overall
decline in the number of monitoring sites since 1991 because of planned
changes in the design and funding decline (Table S-1).
1 Both the Science Plan and the Science Framework evolved throughout the committee pro-
cess, responding to continued development from NAWQA leadership, input from stakeholders,
and advice from this committee. In the first letter report the committee reviewed the Science
Framework version from the fall of 2009. In its second letter report the committee reviewed
the Science Plan version from November 2010. The Science Framework is available at http://
pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1296.
OCR for page 3
SUMMARY 3
TABLE S-1 The Evolution of NAWQA Program Status and Trends
Networks
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
1991-2001 2002-2004 2004-2007 2007-2012
Number of surface 505 145 84 113
water sampling sites
Number of aquatic 416 125 75 58 (6 sites are
ecology sitesa ecology only)
Number of 272 networks; 137 networks;
groundwater 6,307 wells 3,698 wells
networksb and wells
a The ecology sites are included in the total number of sampling sites.
b A groundwater network is a group of sampling wells.
During these two decades of water-quality monitoring, NAWQA docu-
mented that although most water in the United States is fit for many uses,
contamination from point and nonpoint sources affected the surface water
and groundwater in every study unit, particularly in agricultural and urban
areas. Contamination consists of a mixture of nutrients, pesticides, volatile
organic compounds, and their breakdown products, which are often just as
prevalent as the parent compounds. For example, NAWQA reported that
more than half of shallow groundwater samples in urban and agricultural
areas contain one or more pesticide compounds. By comparison, pesticides
were present in approximately one-third of samples from undeveloped or
mixed land use areas. NAWQA also identified improvements in the nation's
water quality. For example, after a 2001 federally-mandated phaseout of
the organophosphate insecticides diazinon and chlorpyrifos in urban set-
tings, the concentrations of these compounds in northeastern and Midwest-
ern streams decreased after 2002.
NAWQA applied models to support inferences from recent and his-
torical data, project the future water-quality outcome of present and hypo-
thetical actions, and provide the basis for assessing contamination in places
where less than optimal or limited field data were available. For example,
the SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes (SPARROW)
model was used to assess how large-scale changes in land use may affect
future nutrient loading from the Mississippi River basin to the Gulf of
Mexico. All told, SPARROW models were implemented for six of the eight
OCR for page 4
4 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
major U.S. river basins,2 providing an important resource for assessing wa-
ter quality at the basin scale and evaluating water management strategies.
In assessing the ecological condition of the nation's surface waters,
NAWQA showed that aquatic organisms (algae, macroinvertebrates, and
fishes) seldom exhibit similar degrees of alteration in response to different
land uses, implying that assessments based on only one type of organism
misjudge the extent and severity of impairment. Furthermore, hydrologic
alteration and land use change are the major drivers of alterations in eco-
logical condition.
NAWQA distributed and communicated water-quality data through its
data warehouse,3 which makes program data widely available online with
sufficient nodes to approximate national coverage and, in some cases, with
sufficient regional coverage to assess changes in water quality over time in
major watersheds. NAWQA produced approximately 1,900 publications as
of January 2012, a publication every 4.2 days on average, a value which,
while not an indicator of quality, provides a sense of the quantity of work
produced over the history of the program. NAWQA regularly cooperated
and coordinated efforts with other programs in the USGS, agencies within
the Department of the Interior, and other federal, state, and local agencies.
Decision-making, regulatory, and advisory bodies from the federal govern-
ment (for example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), lo-
cal councils, and state legislatures in more than 30 states used NAWQA's
science to the benefit of public health and water resource management.
NAWQA studies enabled improvements in areas such as source water
protection, quality assurance, quality control, sampling design, sampling
methods, analytical protocols, and interpretation frameworks for the water
resources issues that states and local governments confront.
The committee concludes that in Cycles 1 and 2, NAWQA provided a
successful national assessment of U.S. water quality, in accordance with the
mission of a national water-quality assessment program. A more detailed
record of representative accomplishments, in no particular order, is pre-
sented in Box S-1. NAWQA is well positioned to continue collection and
interpretation of water-quality data at a variety of scales, from single rivers
and watersheds to larger basins and aquifer systems, and to translate this
information to an assessment of the status, trends, and understanding of
the nation's water quality. Chapters 2 and 3 of the report reflect further on
NAWQA's history and accomplishments.
Despite this record of accomplishment, NAWQA faces many challenges
as it moves into Cycle 3 (2013-2023):
2 SPARROW models were implemented for all regions except for California and the South-
west. Models for these regions will be implemented in the future.
3 See http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.
OCR for page 5
SUMMARY 5
· How does NAWQA remain a national program in the face of re-
source decline?
· How should NAWQA balance new status activities against the
need to maintain long-term trend networks and understanding studies?
· How can NAWQA use ancillary data4 and maintain a high level of
quality?
· How can NAWQA maintain focus amidst numerous and compet-
ing stakeholder demands?
The following sections of this summary correspond to Chapters 4 and 5
of the report, and reflect the committee's advice on a path forward, includ-
ing specific recommendations in bold.
A WAY FORWARD
The reason for the continuation of the NAWQA program today echoes
that which originally motivated the creation of the program: the need to
characterize water quality at a national scale. This need persists despite the
program's 20-year record of success because of the complex water-related
issues facing the nation. Over the past two decades, NAWQA has evolved
from a program emphasizing water-quality data collection and trend assess-
ment to one having the potential to forecast contaminant occurrence and
aquatic degradation trends under multiple scenarios at nationally signifi-
cant scales. Although many other successful efforts assess water quality at
the local and regional level, NAWQA's unique niche is that it is a national
program, taking on work that other entities cannot do alone because of,
for example, jurisdictional boundaries or available resources. Water-quality
monitoring in Cycle 3 is important not only to NAWQA, the USGS, the
Department of the Interior, or other agencies, but also to the nation. The
federal government needs NAWQA in order to answer the question "Is the
nation's water quality getting better or worse?" This is particularly true
given that observational networks to measure various water-quality char-
acteristics in the United Status have been on the decline for a number of
years. Without measurement, there is no basis on which to evaluate whether
policies are effective, no foundation on which to build water management
decisions, and no vantage point from which to foresee and forestall water
resource challenges. The need for a national water-quality assessment is as
important, if not more so today, as when NAWQA was established.
A tipping point for NAWQA is a point where, once crossed, the pro-
gram as currently organized, scaled, and operated can no longer provide
4 Ancillary data are water-quality data collected by other USGS programs, and national,
regional, or local efforts on the same water-quality constituents monitored by NAWQA.
OCR for page 6
6 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
BOX S-1
Accomplishments of the NAWQA Program
National assessment of chemicals in the nation's surface water: NAWQA has
provided a national picture of surface water quality.
National assessment of chemicals in the nation's groundwater: This picture ex-
tends to the quality of the nation's groundwater, giving the scientific and regula-
tory communities and the public an understanding of the nation's water quality.
Specific to groundwater, NAWQA has demonstrated the utility of groundwater age
determination in water-quality studies, especially mixing of old and young waters.
Incorporation of biological indicators of water quality into assessments: NAWQA
has integrated measures of indicator organisms into water-quality monitoring and
has examined relationships among biological, chemical, hydrological, and land-
use parameters using uniform methods at a national scale.
National synthesis reports: These reports synthesize robust data sets using de-
scriptive statistics to draw broad conclusions for the nation to help answer the
question that led to the program's development--what is the state of the nation's
water-quality?
Continuity and consistency in study methods and design: NAWQA uses stan-
dardized sampling regimes, network design, and analytical techniques to enable
cross-site comparisons, as well as intensive site-specific and constituent-specific
sampling to meet local and regional stakeholder needs, and national water-quality
assessments.
a national assessment of water quality. Restoration of resources will not
reverse this inability to achieve the program's core mission, once the tip-
ping point is crossed. Scaling the program up to what it once was would be
inhibited by the break in the long-term monitoring record and the erosion
of programmatic infrastructure. However, there may be other scales, modes
or organization, and scientific effort that would still allow water-quality
monitoring to be achieved. Yet this water-quality monitoring would lack a
key feature of the program--national scale--or the ability to say something
meaningful about the nation's water quality as a whole.
The committee cannot quantify an exact tipping point for NAWQA.
Metrics for identifying when the tipping point is crossed, perhaps built
into the network design, would be required. However, the committee can
reflect on how to assess proximity to the tipping point through the critical
OCR for page 7
SUMMARY 7
Development and use of robust extrapolation and inference-based techniques:
NAWQA has done an exemplary job of developing and applying robust extrapola-
tion and inference-based models (e.g., SPARROW and the Watershed Regression
for Pesticides or WARP models that are statistical, geospatial, and/or process-
based and that support inferences from recent and historical data and projections
of the outcome of proposed actions).
Information dissemination: NAWQA's communication activities have grown in
scope and sophistication as the program has evolved. The program now uses
multiple media and appealing graphics to communicate its information products
and tools, and it has a wealth of publicly available water-quality data in its data
warehouse.
NAWQA science informing policy and management decisions: The program has
translated and interpreted its high-quality, nationally consistent data with sophisti-
cated tools so that policy and decision makers can use the program's science to
inform efficient decision-making.
Collaboration and cooperation: NAWQA continues to cooperate, coordinate, and
collaborate within its own agency as well as with other federal, state, and local
agencies in designing and carrying out its programs with a commitment to en-
hancing its usefulness by making its data and programs relevant to others with
interests in water-quality.
Linkages and integration across media, disciplines, and multiple scales: NAWQA
has been successful in multidisciplinary research at regional and national scales,
collecting and interpreting geographic, hydrologic, biologic, geologic, and climatic
data from a range of environmental media (e.g., groundwater, sediments, soils,
surface waters, and biota) to help resolve water-quality questions.
question, how much could uncertainty increase in NAWQA outputs before
relevant national conclusions could no longer be drawn, and the program
suffered irreparable harm? Similarly, does NAWQA have adequate water-
quality monitoring data to support its water-quality models?
A successful national water-quality assessment in Cycle 3 would be a
national-scale water-quality surveillance program that evaluates and fore-
casts how changing land use conditions and climate variability may affect
water quality in different settings, and that informs water policy and deci-
sion makers as they evaluate policy options impacting the nation's water
resources. The continuity of national water-quality measurements in space
and time is fundamental to this success. First and foremost, NAWQA's
primary focus should be on continuing the monitoring needed to support
the national status and trends assessments of the nation's water quality.
OCR for page 8
8 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
Interruption of the long-term status and trends dataset will limit all other
program efforts. Efforts in Cycle 3 that reach beyond the focus of basic
monitoring are important (discussed below), but these other goals can only
be accomplished if the basic data collection continues.
Measurements provide a snapshot of conditions for only one point
in time and are not alone sufficient to forecast future conditions or to
understand water quality in unsampled areas. Models are a tool to under-
standing unsampled areas, constructing scenarios for assessing the impacts
of climate and land use change, or forecasting the likely consequences of
different policy options. A focus of NAWQA efforts in Cycle 3, second
only to basic monitoring activities, should be the support of NAWQA
modeling initiatives. For example, the committee supports the planned use
of the S
PARROW model in Cycle 3, expanding the types of contaminants
modeled and making the SPARROW model available for public use.
Assessment of the Science Plan
The Science Plan for Cycle 3 is a comprehensive assessment of the na-
tion's needs for understanding status and trends in surface and groundwater
quality and developing a portfolio of multiscale models to forecast changes
in water quality in response to changes in demographics, land use, and
climate. The Science Plan provides a forward-thinking vision for NAWQA
science in the next decade of assessing the nation's aquatic resources:
Science-based strategies can protect and improve water quality for people
and ecosystems even as population and threats to water quality continue
to grow, demand for water increases, and climate changes.
The Science Plan builds on the existing two decades of data, experience,
and NAWQA products. The overall scope of the Science Plan is broad; thus,
the committee recommends that no other issue(s) should be considered for
addition to the NAWQA program in Cycle 3. NAWQA has identified the
major water-quality issues facing the nation in the Science Plan.
The Science Plan proposes an expansion of current monitoring net-
works, similar to the number of sites at the beginning of Cycle 1, and
expanding understanding and modeling activities. The Science Plan is struc-
tured around four goals, each of which relate to the underlying program
principles of status and trends (Goal 1), understanding (Goals 2 and 3), and
modeling (Goal 4). The four goals in the Science Plan are consistent with
the guiding vision, and contribute to meeting the vision in a synergistic,
interconnected, and balanced manner (although not communicated equally
well). Then, the Science Plan lists 20 objectives under the four goals that
outline the scientific work planned to achieve each goal (Box S-2).
OCR for page 9
SUMMARY 9
These 20 specific objectives that are described in the Science Plan are not
necessarily equal in their contribution to meeting the central or core prin-
ciples of the Science Plan or to meeting the overall program mission. These
objectives also differ in the effort and resources they will require, the clarity
of how they are presented, how well they are justified, and the consequences
of pursuing them with higher or lower priority. In an ideal world, the Cycle
3 Science Plan would be implemented in full. All 20 objectives have scientific
merit. However, given the current federal fiscal climate and the scale of the
Science Plan, full-scale implementation of the Science Plan is unlikely.5
As directed by the statement of task and to be sensitive to available
funding, the committee considered the relative importance of the different
scientific objectives within the Science Plan and in terms of trade-offs that
implementing one versus the other would represent. The committee cat-
egorized the 20 objectives as "essential," "not essential," and those need-
ing "further justification." An objective is essential if it contributes to, for
example, monitoring status and trends of surface and groundwater quality
and relevant aquatic ecosystem indicators or modeling capabilities and fore-
casting consequences of future scenarios.6 An objective that is not essential
provides important benefits to the nation and there would be consequences
if it were not accomplished, but it is not essential to NAWQA's achievement
of its core mission as a national water-quality program. In some cases, these
objectives are being addressed by other entities. The Science Plan does not
provide sufficient justification of the value to the nation of any objective
that needs "further justification."
Objectives corresponding to basic monitoring (i.e., status and trends
assessment) and modeling are essential. Basic monitoring activities are the
fundamental underpinnings of all program activities (Goal 1). Studies that
contribute to modeling that will enable assessments of future scenarios
and to estimate water-quality conditions in unsampled waters are critical
(Goal 4). Thus, generally speaking, Goal 1 (Objectives 1a, 1d, 1e, 1f, and
1g) and Goal 4 (Objectives 4a and 4b) of the Science Plan are essential.
However, it is important to note that embedded within these essential goals
are monitoring activities where the committee advises caution because
of limited funding. For example, national-scale sediment monitoring is a
valuable scientific pursuit. Yet caution is advised given the magnitude of
resources likely required to pursue sediment monitoring at the scale and
detail proposed in the Science Plan (part of Objective 1e). Similarly, Objec-
5 This supposition is derived from conversations with NAWQA leadership and a set of fiscal
scenarios crafted in the Science Framework. These scenarios estimate low, moderate, and high
funding levels (compared to fiscal year 2009 levels) and correlate to activities the program
could pursue in Cycle 3.
6 The term "essential" is further defined in Chapter 4.
OCR for page 10
10 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
BOX S-2
NAWQA Cycle 3 Science Plan Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Assess the current quality of the Nation's freshwater resources and
how water quality is changing over time.
(a) Determine the distributions and trends of contaminants in current and
future sources of drinking water from streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
(b)Determine mercury trends in fish tissue.
(c)Determine the distributions and trends in microbial contaminants in streams
and rivers used for recreation.
(d)Determine the distributions and trends of contaminants of concern in aqui-
fers needed for domestic and public supplies of drinking water.
(e)Determine the distributions and trends for contaminants, nutrients, sedi-
ment, and streamflow alteration that may degrade stream ecosystems.
(f) Determine contaminant, nutrient, and sediment loads to coastal estuaries
and other receiving waters.
(g)Determine trends in biological condition in relation to trends and changes
in contaminants, nutrients, sediment, and streamflow alteration.
Goal 2: Evaluate how human activities and natural factors, such as land
use and climate change, are affecting the quality of surface water and
groundwater.
(a)Determine how hydrologic systems--including water budgets, flow paths,
travel times, and streamflow alterations--are affected by land use, water use,
climate, and natural factors.
(b)Determine how sources, transport, and fluxes of contaminants, nutrients,
and sediment are affected by land use, hydrologic system characteristics, climate,
and natural factors.
(c)Determine how nutrient transport through streams and rivers is affected by
stream ecosystem processes.
(d)Apply understanding of how land use, climate, and natural factors affect
water quality to determine the susceptibility of surface-water and groundwater
resources to degradation.
(e)Evaluate how the effectiveness of current and historic management prac-
tices and policy is related to hydrologic systems, sources, transport, and transfor-
mation processes.
tive 1a includes lakes and reservoirs. Again, while scientifically valuable,
the committee encourages caution when pursuing an objective that has not
been traditionally part of NAWQA's design.
Goals 2 and 3 represent the planned extension of Cycle 3 into "under-
standing" water-quality status and trends, per the original program design
(Cycle 1, status; Cycle 2, assessment; Cycle 3, understanding). Many Objec-
tives in Goals 2 and 3 are considered "essential" (2a, 2b, 2d, and 2e; 3b,
OCR for page 11
SUMMARY 11
Goal 3: Determine the relative effects, mechanisms of activity, and manage-
ment implications of multiple stressors in aquatic ecosystems.
(a)Determine the effects of contaminants on degradation of stream ecosys-
tems, which contaminants have the greatest effects in different environmental
settings and seasons, and evaluate which measures of contaminant exposure are
the most useful for assessing potential effects.
(b)Determine the levels of nutrient enrichment that initiate ecological impair-
ment, what ecological properties are affected, and which environmental indicators
best identify the effects of nutrient enrichment on aquatic ecosystems.
(c)Determine how changes to suspended and depositional sediment impair
stream ecosystems, which ecological properties are affected, and what measures
are most appropriate to identify impairment.
(d)Determine the effects of streamflow alteration on stream ecosystems and
the physical and chemical mechanisms by which streamflow alteration causes
degradation.
(e)Evaluate the relative influences of multiple stressors on stream ecosystems
in different regions that are under varying land uses and management practices.
Goal 4: Predict the effects of human activities, climate change, and manage-
ment strategies on future water quality and ecosystem condition.
(a)Evaluate the suitability of existing water-quality models and enhance as
necessary for predicting the effects of changes in climate and land use on water
quality and ecosystem conditions.
(b)Develop decision-support tools for managers, policy makers, and scientists
to evaluate the effects of changes in climate and human activities on water quality
and ecosystems at watershed, state, regional, and national scales.
(c)Predict the physical and chemical water-quality and ecosystem condi-
tions expected to result from future changes in climate and land use for selected
watersheds.
SOURCE: Design of Cycle 3 of the National Water Quality Assessment Program, 2013-2023:
Part 2: Science Plan for Improved Water-Quality Information and Management
3c, and 3d) because of their scientific importance but also partly because
the scientific activities described in these objectives are intimately linked
with one another (i.e., one cannot proceed without the other). Basic status
and trends monitoring is critical to the proposed understanding studies.
Thus, this assessment should also be considered within the committee's
overarching recommendation to, first and foremost, maintain status and
trends assessment of water quality (i.e., Goal 1).
OCR for page 12
12 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
The committee questions the role of status and trends of microbial
contaminants (Objective 1c) in the core vision for NAWQA and considers
this objective "not essential." Assessing the status and trends of microbial
contaminants at the scale proposed in the Science Plan is a formidable task.
The committee questions whether the program has the capacity to proceed
with this objective; this could be a resource-intensive effort, and it is inap-
propriate to proceed at the expense of core efforts, given limited funding.
However, the essence of this goal is a human health issue, the result of
which would establish the quality of recreational waters. In addition to the
obvious scientific benefits, assessing microbial contaminants can be a highly
visible activity for the program, clearly demonstrating program impact.
An examination of the costs and benefits of obtaining these data when
determining whether to pursue this objective is important; collaborative
opportunities exist (for example, states and/or the USGS Energy Minerals
and Environmental Health Mission Area).
Objective 2c, intended to determine how nutrient transport through
streams and rivers is affected by stream ecosystem processes, is a relatively
specific objective. This is an important but not essential objective in the
committee's view, in part because of potential collaborative opportuni-
ties. The committee also considers Objective 3a, effects of contaminants
on stream ecosystems, to be a not essential objective for NAWQA. That
streams are subjected to multiple stressors is an issue of national impor-
tance, but the level of effort required to adequately address this problem
could consume a significant amount of the program's resources. Objective
3e, multiple stressors in different regions, is scientifically worthwhile. Yet
the committee is concerned with the proposed scale at which these studies
will be conducted and how this scale contributes to a national program.
Objective 4c (predictions for specific watersheds) depends on the success
of the modeling efforts in Objective 4a but also could depend heavily on
partnering efforts. Thus, because of the potential collaborative opportuni-
ties, the committee considers this objective "not essential."
Determining mercury trends in fish tissue (Objective 1b) needs "further
justification" before implementation in Cycle 3, particularly given the scale
proposed in the Science Plan. The Science Plan proposes national status and
trends monitoring of mercury in fish tissue, expanded from the regional
topical study of mercury in fish tissue in Cycle 2. However, consideration
of trade-offs is important when evaluating whether the program should
pursue this objective. If NAWQA does not pursue national status and trends
monitoring of mercury, then other entities (states, other federal agencies,
or academia) might provide data, in some cases significantly more data,
than would NAWQA. However, further understanding of water-column
chemistry and mercury in stream dynamics is a valuable scientific pursuit.
Also, NAWQA's Cycle 2 topical study on mercury in fish tissue received
OCR for page 13
SUMMARY 13
significant public interest. By choosing not to pursue the larger scale status
and trends assessment of mercury proposed in Objective 1b, the associated
public visibility would not be realized.
Although the Implementation Plan for Cycle 3 was not yet prepared
at the time of this review, the Science Plan contained preliminary discus-
sion of how to implement the scientific agenda. The Science Plan proposes
increased coverage of the NAWQA sampling network to an extent that is
similar to that of the original design, coupled with intensive yearly sampling
schedules (as opposed to intensive sampling every 2 to 4 years). Although
the sense of the committee is that increasing the sampling network is im-
portant, some analysis of what would be gained by different numbers and
combinations of sites is important. NAWQA should determine the number
of sampling locations and frequency using a similar process that was used in
Cycle 2, adapted to the objectives for Cycle 3, with particular consideration
of the certainty required for Cycle 3 modeling efforts.
Communication and Program Impact
NAWQA has used a wide array of approaches to communicate find-
ings, from press releases to congressional briefings, peer-reviewed publica-
tions, and the program website. These efforts are an accomplishment, yet
communication challenges and opportunities do exist. For example, using
tools to bring water-quality data to the public, such as the data warehouse,
is an accomplishment of the NAWQA program. Yet the data warehouse, in
the committee's judgment, is not user friendly. Furthermore, ensuring that
data interpretation, synthesis, and publication of NAWQA data take place
in a timely manner is critical. The committee acknowledges the difficulty of
this task given the sheer size of the datasets that NAWQA scientists publish,
the intense yet valuable USGS peer-review process, and resource constraints.
Timely interpretation, synthesis, and release of NAWQA results is critical.
NAWQA data used in these results should continue to be delivered to the
public via an improved public database.
NAWQA informally measures success and feedback through monitor-
ing the number of website hits, the number of requests for products at the
time of release, attendance at briefings during product launches, and collect-
ing information on media coverage. The website homepage contains a link
to a document titled The National Water-Quality Assessment Program--
Science to Policy and Management, which catalogues how stakeholders
use NAWQA information and contains personal testimony from a variety
of users about the program. NAWQA has conducted three surveys probing
OCR for page 14
14 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
satisfaction of customers with specific products and the program at large.7
However, this tracking of program impact is sporadic and lacks a structured
approach and cataloging system. Ultimately, tracking impact will allow
NAWQA to demonstrate significance and the return on the nation's invest-
ment. A unified strategy for the timely preparation, release, and subsequent
tracking of the impact of NAWQA information and products is needed.
Coordination, Cooperation, and Collaboration
The comprehensive nature of the Science Plan makes it clear that
NAWQA is committed to being a cooperative, collaborative, and coordi-
nated federal program. This commitment continues and builds on a history
of success in these endeavors within USGS, with the Department of the
Interior, and with other federal, state, and local agencies. The Science Plan
for Cycle 3 is a plan for addressing national water quality needs that delib-
erately goes beyond what NAWQA can accomplish, providing a framework
for other agencies to identify objectives to be met as part of addressing the
nation's water quality issues. Thus, although NAWQA will be a cornerstone
to implementing the Science Plan, the plan cannot be fully realized without
involvement of other groups and agencies and a focus on real collaborative,
financial, and intellectual efforts. This will require an expanded approach to
involve potential partners and collaborators directly, when appropriate, in
the development of science and implementation work plans, explicitly out-
lining roles, responsibilities, and accountability. The committee recognizes
that these efforts are not as simple as they sound and indeed can be costly
and time-consuming with attempts to maintain communications among
different parties. Difficulties can often arise from overlap or differences in
missions that require management time to reconcile. Keeping these poten-
tial costs in mind, there is value in NAWQA's ability to leverage greater
resources and expertise from external partners to meet the nation's needs
for water-quality assessment and understanding.
NAWQA's scope and success have made it a visible and respected focal
point within USGS. During the course of the committee's deliberations, and
during the time the draft NAWQA Science Plan was under development,
USGS reorganized into six mission areas: Ecosystems; Climate and Land-
Use Change; Energy and Minerals, and Environmental Health; Natural
Hazards; Core Science Systems; and Water. The realignment also created
a new Office of Science Quality and Integrity tasked with monitoring and
7 The first Customer Satisfaction Survey was in 2000, probing the usefulness of a specific
report, The Quality of Our Nation's Waters--Nutrients and Pesticides, Circular 1291. The
second and third surveys were more general in format, and were conducted in 2004 and 2010,
respectively.
OCR for page 15
SUMMARY 15
enhancing the quality of USGS science. Although a separate and distinct
mission area, water is also a cross-cutting topic important to other themes.
NAWQA data and products can fit within most if not all of these mission
areas, and opportunities for collaboration should abound from overlap-
ping interests. NAWQA leaders should seek further opportunities for co-
operation, coordination, and collaboration within the USGS and make a
systematic effort to communicate its capabilities and potential value to the
relevant programs and offices within the USGS through the Science Plan.
NAWQA has worked to establish cooperative relationships and co-
ordinated efforts with external partners including other federal agencies
and state and local authorities. NAWQA's efforts have become important
to other agencies, and these relationships have strengthened NAWQA and
USGS as a whole. NAWQA should maintain its interface with the other
federal agencies and stakeholder groups and work toward leveraging col-
laborative resources to meet the needs of the national Science Plan. For
example, in May 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and USGS announced the signing
of a Memorandum of Understanding "to form an innovative partnership
to address America's growing water resources challenges." NAWQA data
and collaboration have contributed to the continuing efforts of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one of NAWQA's most critical
partners, to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and provided insight on
unregulated chemicals under consideration for addition to the Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL).8 This is an example of working toward real collab-
orative approaches, as urged in this report.
To meet the national needs outlined in the Cycle 3 Science Plan,
NAWQA will need to emphasize collaboration in two modes: as a leader
that partners with other USGS and external programs, and as a follower
with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private
sector. As part of this approach NAWQA would need to:
· focus on core mission areas where it has unique capabilities, for the
program's own implementation efforts;
· leverage resources with other agencies to achieve more of the objec-
tives of the Cycle 3 Science Plan;
· foster higher levels of involvement and investment by other agen-
cies; and
· help others design their own mission-critical programs to meet
identified national objectives of the Cycle 3 Science Plan without NAWQA's
direct involvement; and
8 EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is charged with developing a list of
contaminants every 5 years that may require regulation, the CCL.
OCR for page 16
16 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
· explore incentives, for example, access to NAWQA technical assis-
tance, which will enable more sharing of effort for data collection, analysis,
and technological innovation across the entire program.
To operate in this more expansive mode, NAWQA should consider en-
gaging partners and collaborators more directly in the development of mu-
tual science plans, seamless exchanges of data and information, and joint
implementation of work plans that identify shared responsibilities and ac-
countability. The Cycle 3 Science Plan is a forward-thinking comprehensive
water-quality strategy. Because it was authored during a climate of strained
federal resources, this is an opportune time for NAWQA to bring together
the federal agencies involved in water-quality monitoring and research and,
using the Science Plan as a starting point, to develop a collaborative water-
quality strategy for the nation.
