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 25
2
NAWQA: Cycle 1 and Cycle 2
Since its beginning, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been one
of the primary federal agencies responsible for assessing the quantity and
quality of the nation's surface water and groundwater. In the early 1980s
USGS performed and published an assessment of the nation's water, titled
The National Water Summary 1983--Hydrologic Events and Issues (USGS,
1984). After the completion of this document and related congressional
testimony in the mid-1980s, USGS scientists concluded that their ability
to say something meaningful about the quality of the nation's waters was
limited. Indeed, the USGS resources to assess national water quality were
the National Stream Quality Accounting Network1 (NASQAN) and the
Hydrologic Benchmark Network,2 which, while nationwide, were sparse
and were conducting routine monitoring rather than data analysis. Further-
more, NASQAN and the Hydrologic Benchmark Network reflected water-
quality sampling approaches from the early 1970s and 1960s, respectively,
and thus did not provide data appropriate to address national water-quality
questions of the mid-1980s.
Stimulated by the aforementioned events, the USGS contemplated and
envisioned a national water-quality assessment program. Key pieces of this
original vision included sampling hydrologeologically meaningful units
of study or study units, using multiple scales of investigation to achieve
a national picture by piecing together information from the study units,
integrated teams of scientists performing the water-quality assessment, a
1 See http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/.
2 See http://ny.cf.er.usgs.gov/hbn/.
25
OCR for page 26
26 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
punctuated rotational sampling design, and assessment using established
methods (Box 2-1).
Shortly after the NRC's Water Science and Technology Board (WSTB)
endorsed the original concept of the National Water-Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program (Chapter 1), it convened a colloquium in 1986 to ar-
ticulate the necessary elements for a national water-quality assessment pro-
gram (NRC, 1987). Colloquium participants endorsed the program concept
and also raised new issues for consideration such as whether and how to
interface with state regulators, which contaminants would be selected for
monitoring, and the need to explore surface water and groundwater inter-
actions. For example, the original study unit concept consisted of 123 sepa-
rate surface water and groundwater units: 69 surface water-dominated and
BOX 2-1
The Original Vision for the NAWQA Program
The USGS vision for NAWQA included selecting study units, or hydrologically
meaningful pieces of geography (Winter, 2001), in which to monitor water quality.
The study units were building blocks for multiple scales of water quality investiga-
tion; they served not only as the base level but also as tools for "scaling up" to the
bigger, national picture. Consistency between study units would allow the program
to make comparable statements about the nation's water quality.
Data collection and data analysis for the water quality assessment in each
study unit were to be done by a team working together in an integrated group. This
team of scientists was to make measurements, understand what these measure-
ments meant, and make a statement about water quality in a given study unit. It
was thought that sampling and assessment should follow a punctuated, rotational
system of study with intense data collection for approximately 3 years followed by
a period of analysis and publication, a time of minimal monitoring, and a return to
the area to repeat the cycle.
NAWQA was envisioned to be a network for data collection defined by geology,
hydrology, and land use, rather than a grid or a random sampling strategy. In this
way, NAWQA could capture snapshots of both the entire system and "indicator"
sites. The design had a strong prejudice toward collecting data in places where
USGS had high-quality streamflow data records, in the belief that surface water-
quality data are meaningless without considering flow and long-term history. Fi-
nally, use of known tools and understanding of processes to monitor the nation's
water quality were critical components of the original vision. NAWQA would not
deploy untested methods and approaches for analyzing water quality unless on
a limited scale. Rather, research and development of methods in other USGS
programs would feed the program's activities and assist the program in achieving
the goal of assessing the nation's water quality.
SOURCE: R. M. Hirsch, personal communication, May 13, 2009.
OCR for page 27
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 27
54 groundwater dominated (NRC, 1990). However, as the pilot program
progressed, it became apparent to both the National Research Council
(NRC) committee and USGS that the separate approach had the potential
for missing important surface water-groundwater linkages that could have
profound effects on the water quality of both systems. Consequently, the
decision was made to consolidate groundwater and surface water study
units, although most of the study units were either groundwater or surface
water dominated.
USGS was authorized by Congress to establish a pilot program in 1986
with seven pilot study units representing a diversity of hydrologic environ-
ments and water-quality conditions, four of which were surface water dom-
inated (the upper Illinois River basin in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana; the
Kentucky River basin in Kentucky; the lower Kansas River basin in Kansas
and Nebraska; and the Yakima River basin in Washington) and three of
which were groundwater dominated (the Delmarva Peninsula in Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia; the Carson basin in Western Nevada and Eastern
California; and the Central Oklahoma aquifer in central Oklahoma) (NRC,
1990). USGS requested the NRC to undertake a 2-year evaluation of the
pilot studies in 1987, and the NRC responded with A Review of the USGS
National Water Quality Assessment Pilot Program (NRC, 1990). This
NRC committee was invited to assist in the evolution and refinement of the
NAWQA design as it moved toward full-scale implementation, deliberating
on several NAWQA planning documents, issuing an interim report, and
visiting the seven pilot study units. The NRC committee was supportive of
the NAWQA effort (Box 2-2).
The success of the pilot effort led to NAWQA's full-scale implemen-
tation in 1991 with the program goals of status, trends over time, and
understanding as cornerstones of the program mission--cornerstones that
have not changed through the evolution of the program. At the time of its
BOX 2-2
Perspective from NRC (1990)
"The [NRC] committee is convinced that there is a genuine need for a long-term,
large spatial scale national assessment of water quality in the United States.
Human health and environmental health are inextricably linked to our nation's
water quality. . . . The [NRC] committee is convinced that a national scale, long
term water quality assessment is in the best interest of the country."
SOURCE: NRC, 1990.
OCR for page 28
28 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
conception, NAWQA was the largest water resources program ever under-
taken by USGS (R. J. Gilliom and R. M. Hirsch, personal communication,
May 13, 2009).
CYCLE 1 OVERVIEW
In the first decade of water-quality monitoring (Cycle 1, 1991-2001)
NAWQA set out to (1) accumulate high-quality, multidisciplinary, water-
quality data and (2) generate a national synthesis of those data focusing
on analysis of the highest-priority issues that cuts across the geography
and answers the question, "How is the nation's water quality changing?"
The program demonstrated considerable progress toward a national water-
quality assessment in Cycle 1. For thoroughness and to place this report
in context, the committee notes key components of Cycle 1 here. (For a
detailed review of Cycle 1 see NRC [2002].)
The Study Unit Concept
The Cycle 1 study units accounted for 60 to 70 percent of the nation's
water use and population served by public water supplies and covered
about one-half of the land area of the United States. A broad suite of physi-
cal, chemical, and biological constituents was selected based on relevance
to water-quality issues and existing analytical methods including measure-
ments of:
· streamflow,
· pH,
· temperature,
· dissolved oxygen,
· specific conductance,
· major ions,
· nutrients,
· trace elements,
· organic carbon,
· pesticides, and
· volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (NRC, 2002).
Also, descriptions of biological communities were made based on different
taxonomic groups and habitat conditions (NRC, 2002). A suite of surface
water reference sites, a sampling site selected for relatively undisturbed
conditions, was built into the surface water network design. At the end of
Cycle 1, monitoring at 51 study units plus a study of the High Plains Aqui-
fer in the central United States were completed. (The geographic scope of
OCR for page 29
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 29
the original design was 59 study units, which was adjusted to 51 to account
for fiscal restrictions.) The High Plains Aquifer study was a pilot study for a
regional approach to a groundwater assessment in the southern High Plains
and was added near the end of Cycle 1.
In three groups over time, the study units were phased in during Cycle
1: study units 1-20 in 1991, study units 21-36 in 1994, and study units
37-51 in 1997 (Figure 2-1). At the onset, each study unit had a 2-year
startup phase with time for planning and analysis of existing data, which
was a major effort. At the same time, each study unit was developing li-
aison committees with local stakeholders, which became critical to guide
how each study unit analysis was carried out and how the results were
used to enhance water management. Within each study unit, an integrated
group of scientists addressed the three primary objectives by (1) making
measurements, (2) evaluating these measurements to understand water
quality, and (3) making statements about what is learned and known about
a particular study unit. After the 2 year startup, each study unit entered a 3
year intensive data-collection stage. This was followed by a period of data
analysis and completion of major reports and then low-level monitoring
FIGURE 2-1 Cycle 1 study units (51 plus the High Plains Aquifer) SOURCE: R. J.
Gilliom, personal communication, May 17, 2010.
Figure 2-1
bitmapped
OCR for page 30
30 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
and assessment activities. Following a short period of retrospective analysis,
each study unit would ramp back up and enter the intensive data-collection
phase again--10 years after the previous data-collection phase (Figure 2-2).
This fixed site design with periodic rotational sampling allowed
NAWQA to collect data at regular snapshots in time and document trends.
Sampling a total of 505 stream sites and more than 6,000 groundwater
wells, each study unit assessment resulted in many individual publications.
At the end of 2001, more than 1,000 NAWQA publications were available
(NRC, 2002). Also, the study units effectively bridged the environmental
system because of a tailored sampling strategy in each study unit (ground-
water and/or surface water; the water column and/or bed sediment; pes-
ticides and/or nutrients) and a diverse team of scientists working on each
assessment. The similar design of each study unit investigation and the use
of standard methods made it possible to compare results between different
study units, thus enabling multiple scales of investigation or regional and
national assessments. These regional and national assessments, referred to
as "national syntheses," aggregated water-quality information and also
allowed for analysis of important national issues such as, for example,
non-point source pollution.
FIGURE 2-2The phase in and cycling of NAWQA study units. SOURCE: R. J.
Gilliom, personal communication, May 17, 2010.
Figure 2-2
Bitmapped
OCR for page 31
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 31
National Synthesis
NAWQA phased in national synthesis assessments during Cycle 1, con-
ducted by national synthesis teams. These included pesticides and nutrients
in 1991, VOCs in 1994, and trace elements and ecology in 1997. Criteria
for the selection of these topics considered a combination of understanding
stakeholder priorities, capturing appropriate scale (i.e., topics should affect
a large area or many small areas), representing persistent and recurring is-
sues, importance to the study units that were in place, and complementing
other national synthesis topics. NRC (2002) commended NAWQA for its
groundbreaking work in these areas during Cycle 1.
Environmental Framework
NAWQA activities were developed with an "environmental framework"
or a broader context through which the data were related to the bigger,
envi ronmental picture. This framework, composed of "common natural and
human-related factors, such as geology and land use," was used "to com-
pare and contrast findings on water quality within and among study units
in relation to causative factors and, ultimately, to develop inferences about
water quality in areas that have not been sampled" (Gilliom et al., 1995).
The environmental framework was reflected in the entire program design
from sampling type to the interdisciplinary staffing structure. Application of
the environmental framework assisted the program in, for example, choos-
ing a drainage basin to study or a set of indicator sites. The environmental
framework concept was and is today a touchstone for program efforts.
CYCLE 2
The second cycle of water-quality monitoring (Cycle 2) began in 2002
and extends to the end of fiscal year (FY) 2012, slightly past the duration
of this committee's review. Per the original design, NAWQA implemented
a shift toward trends and understanding as the program moved out of
Cycle 1. NAWQA integrated a number of new components as a result of
evaluations from the Cycle 2 National Implementation Team (NIT), input
from NAWQA personnel who were the primary drivers of the original
design, and recommendations from the 2002 NRC report.3 NAWQA inves-
tigated select new contaminants and addressed many complexities involved
with their environmental occurrence such as seasonal variations, degrada-
tion products, and chemical mixtures. These new activities were pursued
3Approximately 80 percent of the 2002 NRC recommendations were implemented by
NAWQA, and those that were not were omitted largely because of funding restrictions.
OCR for page 32
32 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
through program components such as Topical Studies and the Source Water
Quality Assessment, discussed in the following pages. However, because of
limited funding NAWQA was unable to pursue the following recommen-
dations from the NRC report (2002): sample lakes and reservoirs that are
important sources of water supply; enhance sediment monitoring, enhance
interpretation, and make sediment a topic of a national synthesis team; and
add pharmaceuticals, high production volume chemicals, and waterborne
pathogens and microbial indicator organisms to the list of contaminants
monitored in Cycle 2. The program also continued to assess the current
water quality of the nation through standardized data collection, in concert
with the goal of assessing long-term water-quality trends. Planned activities
were grouped into 12 themes:4
1.resources
2.drinking water sources
3.contaminants
4.trends in status
5.response to agricultural management
6.response to urbanization
7.sources of contaminants
8.transport to and within groundwater
9.transport to and within streams
10.groundwater and surface water interactions
11.effects on aquatic biota
12.extrapolation
Each theme correlated to NAWQA's goal of status (themes 1-3), trends
(themes 4-6), and understanding (themes 7-12).
In Cycle 1, NAWQA focused 80 percent of program resources on the
status effort, continuing to establish the nation's baseline water-quality
condition. This was reduced to 20 percent of available resources in Cycle 2,
although NAWQA did enhance the status activities with the Source Water
Quality Assessments, an examination of the drinking water in communi-
ties across the United States, corresponding to status theme 2 (Delzer and
Hamilton, 2007). The program placed an increased emphasis on trends (40
percent of program resources) and understanding (40 percent of program
resources) through planned topical studies with a source, fate, and trans-
port perspective (Figure 2-3).
This shift in design at the onset of Cycle 2 along with several years of
flat funding required beginning Cycle 2 with 42 study units, instead of the
4 Items 1 and 3 (resources and contaminants) were not pursued in Cycle 2 because of limited
funding.
OCR for page 33
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 33
100
90 Cycle 1
80 Cycle 2
% Program Resources
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Status Trends Understanding
FIGURE 2-3Shift from status (Cycle 1) to trends and understanding (Cycle 2).
SOURCE: G. Rowe, personal communication, May 13, 2009.
Figure 2-3
51 monitored in Cycle 1 (Figure 2-4). NAWQA conducted a detailed analy-
sis to determine which study units should be discontinued or consolidated
and which were the most representative study units. Discontinued study
units include those in Hawaii (the Oahu Study Unit), Alaska (the Cook
Inlet Basin Study Unit), and the Lower Susquehanna basin in Pennsylvania
(the Lower Susquehanna River Basin Study Unit). For example, the decision
was made to discontinue the Hawaii study unit because of low population
density relative to water use in comparison with other study units. Low
population density or low water use criteria drove the discontinuance of
most of the other study units as well.
As Cycle 2 progressed, perhaps the most notable design change began
in 2004. The program transitioned away from the study unit focus and
moved to a larger-scale regional design for status and trends assessment
because of limited resources. The regional design retained a core of status
and trends monitoring still conducted within the study units, but de-
emphasized the role of more detailed study unit investigations and their
individual teams and liaison committees. Status and trends data analysis
and modeling, as well as program products, were shifted to teams orga-
nized by 8 Major River Basins (MRBs) and 19 Principal Aquifers (PAs)
(Figures 2-5 and 2-6).
The MRB and PA regions are similar in concept to the role of study
units as the building blocks of Cycle 1, but on a larger scale that collectively
includes the conterminous United States, albeit at lower resolution. Cor-
OCR for page 34
NAWQA study units are reduced and consolidated
34 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
for the second cycle of assessment
1991 to 2001
PUGT
CCPT NROK
YAKI
WILL REDN
NECB
CONN
WMIC
YELL UMIS
HDSN
USNK
CHEY
DELR
GRSL ALMN
SACR NPLT EIWA LINJ
CNBR UIRB LERI LSUS
NVBR
LIRB POTO
SPLT MIAM
UCOL KANS WHIT DLMV
SANJ KANA
NVBR UARK KNTY
ALBE
MARK OZRK
CACI UTEN
LTEN SANT
SANA
CAZB RIOG MISE
SHPL MOBL
TRIN
ACFB
Study Units--
GAFL Assessment schedule
ACAD 199195
OAHU SCTX 199498
SOFL
19972001
Not scheduled
COOK High Plains Regional Ground Water Study,
1999-2004
Study units in the second cycle
In the second cycle of studies,
the NAWQA Program will focus on
42 of the Nation's most important
2001 to 2012
river-basin and aquifer systems.
The geographic scope of the origi-
nal design (59 study units) has
PUGT
been adjusted to accommodate
budget reductions. A systematic CCYK NROK
process was used to eliminate 13 WILL REDN NECB
CONN
study units and combine 8 into WMIC
UMIS
4 study units. Geographic areas YELL HDSN
USNK
were selected to represent a wide CHEY
DELR
range of important hydrologic GRSL
NPLT EIWA
ALMN
LSUS
LINJ
SACR CNBR LERI
environments and priority eco- NVBR
UIRB
logical resources; critical contami- UCOL
SPLT LIRB WHMI
SANJ KANS
nant sources, including agricultural, NVBR UARK KNTY
KANA PODL
urban, and natural sources; and MARK OZRK
ALBE
a high percentage of population CACI TENN
served by municipal water supply SOCA
RIOG MISE
SANT
CAZB
and irrigated agriculture. The 59 SHPL
MOBL
TRIN
original study units covered about ACFB
65 percent of water used for drink- GAFL
ing and irrigation; the reduced set ACAD
of 42 study units still accounts SCTX
SOFL
for more than 60 percent of those OAHU
Study Units--
water uses. This adjusted national Assessment schedule
study design supports the goal Scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2001
COOK
of extrapolating directly measured Scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2004
water-quality conditions to unmon- Scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2007
itored, comparable areas in other Discontinued
parts of the Nation. High Plains Regional Ground Water Study, 19992004
Two study units combined
FIGURE 2-4 The planned reduction and consolidation of study units at the onset
of Cycle 2. Discontinued study units are shown in yellow. See Gilliom et al. (2001)
for study unit designation. SOURCE: Gilliom et al., 2001.
responding to the study unit redesign, monitoring for specific conductance
and temperature ceased, and pesticide monitoring at reference sites was
discontinued. Also, the role of study unit liaison committees was reduced,
which in turn reduced the degree of local stakeholder input to NAWQA
(see Chapter 5 for further discussion).
OCR for page 35
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 35
FIGURE 2-5 Eight large geographical regions or Major River Basins that were the
basis of NAWQA's status and trends assessment in the latter portion of Cycle 2
(2006-2012). SOURCE: Crawford et al., 2006.
Figure 205
Bitmapped
NAWQA expanded efforts toward modeling in Cycle 2, to allow the
program to extrapolate water-quality conditions across the country in ar-
eas not sampled by the program. This began in 2002 with an assessment
of nutrient conditions in six large regions across the country using the
SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed Attributes (SPARROW)
model (Smith et al., 2003). Later, mid-Cycle 2, the shift from study units
to MRBs and PAs was considered an opportune time to begin developing
planned regional-scale water-quality models. For example, a regional-scale
SPARROW model was developed for the southeastern United States (Hoos
and McMahon, 2009).
NAWQA increased efforts to communicate and disseminate its prod-
ucts and information. NAWQA moved from dissemination through paper
reports in Cycle 1 to a multimedia in Cycle 2. Communication strategies
were created for each major report, and more web-based dissemination
and decision-support tools were initiated to reach a variety of audiences.
Components of the enhanced communication effort included5:
5 NAWQA leadership, personal communication, May 9, 2009.
OCR for page 42
42 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
NAWQA's Source Water Quality Assessments (SWQA) examined drink-
ing water quality of community water systems across the United States by
comparing compounds in raw ambient water collected at a supply well or
surface-water intake prior to treatment (i.e., "source water") to compounds
in the finished water supplied to the community (Delzer and Hamilton,
2007). The assessment focused on 280 unregulated organic compounds
with a focus on VOCs and pesticides. Carter et al. (2007) provide infor-
mation on the design and analytical methods used in the SWQA. While
a diverse group of compounds were present in source water, the major-
ity of the compounds assessed were present only at low concentrations
(<< 1 ppb). Compounds detected in source water were often in finished
water, although compounds detected in finished water were below human-
health benchmarks if one existed. Mixtures of compounds were commonly
detected in both. Capstone products were released in 2008 and 2009
(Hopple et al., 2009; Kingsbury et al., 2008).
Understanding Activities
The understanding component of NAWQA was carried out in Cycle
2 through five hypothesis-driven topical studies. The conceptual approach
of these studies was to understand contaminant source, fate and transport,
and impacts on humans and aquatic ecosystems. NAWQA took a mass
balance approach to the studies, understanding that a mass balance of
water and a mass balance of constituents go hand in hand (i.e., scientists
should understand how water is flowing through the system in order to
eventually understand the effects of contaminants). NAWQA integrated
the use of models into a few of the topical studies. With each topical study,
NAWQA adhered to the concept of a national program with a focus on a
national understanding of water-quality problems. In each of the five topi-
cal studies, NAWQA probed multiple locations, scales, and gradients (i.e.,
multiple climate, landscape settings, hydrology, crops, land use settings, and
atmospheric deposition settings). The topical studies were nested within the
study units of Cycle 1, using knowledge gained in Cycle 1:
· Topical Study 1: Agrochemical Sources, Transport, and Fate10
· Topical Study 2: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in Stream Ecosystems11
· Topical Study 3: Mercury Cycling in Stream Ecosystems12
10 See http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3098/.
11 See http://wa.water.usgs.gov/neet/.
12 See http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/mercury/.
OCR for page 43
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 43
· Topical Study 4: Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems13
· Topical Study 5: Contaminant Transport and Public Supply Wells14
The topical studies produced a variety of interesting findings, published
in methods papers, comprehensive journal article series, and USGS reports.
Due, in part, to an underestimation of the amount of work associated with
these efforts, some topical studies progressed further than others during
Cycle 2. For example, the mercury study (Topical Study 3) documented
methylmercury concentrations across the United States and observed that
the highest levels of methylmercury in fish are found in the southeastern
United States and in mined areas in the western United States (Scudder et
al., 2009). (Methylmercury is the most toxic form of mercury in the en-
vironment and is readily taken up by aquatic organisms.) NAWQA noted
that major urban centers are experiencing a significant increase in mercury
deposition. Finally, because of biogeochemical properties of methylmercury,
concentrations of the contaminant in streams are driven by wetland density
and dissolved organic carbon concentration (Figure 2-9).
Monitoring . . . to Monitoring and Modeling . . . to the User
In Cycle 2, NAWQA moved from monitoring to monitoring and model-
ing water quality of the nation's groundwater, surface water, and ecology
at all scales (i.e., using deterministic models at smaller scales and statistical
regression at large scales). The NAWQA Cycle 2 modeling approach is
to use monitoring data and stream network to probe water quality from
the regional and national to the local scales. Modeling efforts amplify the
program goals through (1) extrapolation of water-quality conditions to
unmonitored areas to facilitate a "national assessment" and (2) forecast-
ing of conditions and simulation of the effects of changes in influencing
factors (test scenarios). As Cycle 2 draws to a close, the modeling efforts
are improving understanding of the factors (sources, transport, etc.) that
influence water quality.
The goal of one of NAWQA's first exercises in modeling was to predict
groundwater vulnerability to nitrate contamination at the national scale.
The program showed this vulnerability based on monitoring data, fertilizer
data, and soil characteristics, which were integrated into a model called
GWAVA (Ground-WAter Vulnerability Assessment). In the southeastern
United States NAWQA reported lower concentrations of nitrogen where de-
nitrification is promoted compared to the central plains (Nebraska), where
the United States has high fertilizer use, gravel and sand, fast transport, and
13 See http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/urban/.
14 See http://oh.water.usgs.gov/tanc/NAWQATANC.htm.
OCR for page 44
44 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
FIGURE 2-9 Increasing concentrations of mean methylmercury in U.S. streams with
increased wetland density and mean dissolved organic carbon. Once deposited in
wetlands, mercury is converted to methylmercury. Dissolved organic carbon binds
strongly to mercury keeping mercury in the aquatic zone and available for uptake
by organisms. SOURCE: USGS, 2009a.
lack of denitification (Nolan and Hitt, 2006). EPA uses this information to
help prioritize monitoring and better assess its regulatory efforts.
During Cycle 2 NAWQA developed empirical models to probe hydro-
logic alteration nationwide as well as the connection between hydrologic
alteration and the structure of macroinvertebrates and fish assemblages.
NAWQA successfully modeled ecologically important flow metrics under a
"natural" or "minimally disturbed" flow regime using geospatial data and
a reference condition approach. This opened the possibility of quantifica-
tion of hydrologic alteration across the United States (Figure 2-10). Using
geospatial models and NAWQA data, Carlisle et al. (2011) demonstrated
that diminished magnitude of flows was the best predictor of impairment
of macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages nationally. NAWQA integrated
macroinvertebrate data (collected by NAWQA and the EPA Wadeable
Stream Assessment15) to expand the scope of a model assessment of biologi-
cal condition in streams in the western United States (Carlisle and Hawkins,
2008). These studies are the foundational material for a USGS Circular
summarizing findings on aquatic communities across the United States
prepared by the Ecological National Synthesis Project, planned for 2012.
15 See http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/streamsurvey/index.cfm.
OCR for page 45
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 45
FIGURE 2-10Alteration of minimum and maximum streamflow magnitudes at
2,888 sites monitored from 1980 to 2007. "Inflated" condition indicates that ob-
served average magnitudes exceeded expected reference magnitudes. "Diminished"
condition indicates that observed average magnitudes were less than expected
reference magnitudes. SOURCE: Reprinted, with permission, from Carlisle et al.,
2011. © 2011 by Ecological Society of America.
OCR for page 46
46 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
The SPARROW16 model is NAWQA's most popular and visible regres-
sion model.17 The SPARROW model is a watershed based model designed
to predict patterns in water quality, concentration, and amount of constitu-
ents, across spatial extents ranging from entire regions of the United States
to smaller watersheds. The model is perhaps best known for contributing to
understanding of key parameters that affect hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico
by determining nutrient load to the Gulf and pinpointing which watersheds
or which of the 31 state drainage basins are the greatest contributors.
Specifically, the SPARROW effort highlighted that nine states18 making
up one-third of the Mississippi River drainage area contribute 75 percent
of the nitrogen and phosphorus to the Gulf (Alexander et al., 2008). This
study also filled gaps in the understanding on the sources of phosphorus
in the Gulf; phosphorus associated with animal manure contributes almost
as much phosphorus as cultivated crops (37 versus 43 percent) (Alexander
et al., 2008).
Currently NAWQA is in the process of developing fine-scale, regional
water-quality models in each MRB. Nutrients are the focus of these mod-
eling efforts, except in the arid southwest, where dissolved solids are of
greater importance. To do this, NAWQA is using local ancillary data and
refining the SPARROW model to reflect the unique environmental condi-
tions and smaller scale of each MRB. At this time, models have been devel-
oped for six of the eight MRBs. Regional models for the remaining basins,
California and the Southwest, are planned for the future. The preliminary
findings from this effort show the promise of future regional SPARROW
modeling of water-quality conditions in the United States. The October
2011 issue of the Journal of American Water Resources Association pro-
vides a featured collection of articles on the regional SPARROW effort.19
NAWQA is exploring uncertainty in all the modeling efforts, i.e., as-
sociating uncertainty with all the estimates the program produces. For
example, Robertson et al. (2009) examined approximately 800 watersheds
in the Mississippi River basin and assigned a ranking that indicated whether
nutrient yields from the basin were among the highest delivering of nutri-
ents contributing to hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Figure 2-11,
top). This involved a robust statistical procedure applied to the results from
a previous application of SPARROW to identify the top 150 watersheds.
Once identified, scientists incorporated information on confidence intervals
16 See http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/.
17 Development of SPARROW was initiated by the Branch Systems Analysis working on
new and emerging technical issues and techniques used within the former Water Resources
Division. The branch was dissolved in the late 1990s because of funding shortfalls, and the
individuals developing SPARROW joined NAWQA and continued their work.
18 Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi.
19 See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jawr.2011.47.issue-5/issuetoc.
OCR for page 47
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 47
FIGURE 2-11Map showing Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus (as delivered
incremental yield) from the top 150 contributing watersheds (top). Map showing
the certainty of placement within the top 150 contributing watersheds for Total
Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus (bottom). SOURCE: Reprinted, with permission,
from Robertson et al. 2009. © 2009Figure 2-11
by John Wiley & Sons.
Bitmapped
of these model predictions estimating the probability that these watersheds
are among those that have the highest nutrient yields to the Gulf (Figure
2-11, bottom). This was a SPARROW spin-off project and was EPA driven.
This information has important management implications for the Midwest
and is being used by EPA to target non-point source pollution in those
watersheds.
NAWQA is offering the use of monitoring and modeling tools to the
user, an effort that will extend into Cycle 3. Although these efforts are
still in their infancy, they represent a significant step forward for NAWQA
and the user community. For example, the Watershed Regression for Pes-
ticides models, referred to as WARP models, predict specific concentration
statistics for a given pesticide in the United States. These models establish
linkages between pesticides measured at NAWQA surface water sampling
sites to variety of factors (pesticide use, soil characteristics, hydrology, and
OCR for page 48
48 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
climate) that affect pesticides in streams. One of the first completed WARP
models was for the pesticide atrazine (Larson and Gilliom, 2001), which
was improved during Cycle 2 (Larson et al., 2004). Today, the atrazine
WARP model and associated data are available for public use on the web.20
The user can visit a website and see estimates of atrazine concentrations in
an area or basin along with the error and uncertainty associated with that
estimate. NAWQA scientists are planning to bring other pesticide data to
the web in a similar fashion.
Another example of bringing modeling and monitoring activities to
the user, the SPARROW Decision Support System provides online ac-
cess to SPARROW models that can be used to predict long-term average
water-quality conditions and source contributions by stream reach and
catchment and to evaluate management source-reduction scenarios (Booth
et al., 2011).21 (For additional information see Box 4-1.) Also, USGS and
EPA are working together to provide interested parties with a web service
to assist in integrating large water-quality databases.22 Users can go into
the USGS website and retrieve data from the National Water Information
System, which includes water-quality data from NAWQA, in a common
format and go to the state EPA data (STORET) and retrieve data formatted
in the same way.
CURRENT STATUS
Using the FY2011 appropriations for USGS as the metric, NAWQA's
budget of $62.9 million was approximately one-third of the appropriation
for water-related programs at USGS (the former Water Resources Discipline
area). Although the allocation of the budget evolves with programmatic
design, in FY2010 the majority of NAWQA's budget was used for program
activities (for example, status and trends networks) versus program man-
agement or support of broader USGS efforts (Figure 2-12). The appropria-
tions in actual or nominal dollars for NAWQA have been flat since the
late 1990s or declining when adjusted for inflation (Figure 2-13). This has
been consistent with the overall budget and staffing trends of water-related
programs at USGS over the past 16 years, which are flat or declining (NRC,
2009).
NAWQA is visible to the public via the data and interpretive delivery
systems the program strives to make publicly available, and the program
has a record of scientific achievement since its inception (NRC, 1990, 2002,
2009, 2010, 2011a; USGS, 2010). NAWQA has produced approximately
20 See http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/warp/.
21 See http://cida.usgs.gov/sparrow/.
22 See http://qwwebservices.usgs.gov/.
OCR for page 49
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 49
All Status and
Trends 35.7%
FIGURE 2-12 NAWQA funding by category in FY2009. Total appropriation for
FY2010 was approximately $66.5 million. "Science Support" represents funds
allocated for Bureau Science support (approximately 5 percent), the National Re-
Figure 2-12
search Program (approximately 34 percent), and Water Mission Area Technical
Bitmapped
support (approximately 61 percent). The last supports the Office of Water Qual-
ity, the National Water Quality Laboratory including the Methods Research and
Development Program, which develops new analytical methods, and the Branch
of Quality Systems. "Technical Support" represents funds allocated to support the
Hydrologic Systems Team, which provides modeling support to all components and
includes the national SPARROW team and Data Synthesis Team, which provides
data management support for NAWQA including the Data Warehouse and BioData
database. "Management and Communication" represents funds allocated to sup-
port the NAWQA National Leadership Team and its support staff and NAWQA
Communications staff. SOURCE: NAWQA National Leadership Team, personal
communication, May 13, 2009.
1,900 reports during its 20-year history, 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. (M.
Larsen, personal communication, May 13, 2009). If released products are
the metric (those already released and to be released), NAWQA has mined
approximately one-third of the Cycle 1 data (NAWQA leadership, personal
OCR for page 50
50 PREPARING FOR THE THIRD DECADE OF THE NAWQA PROGRAM
FIGURE 2-13 NAWQA appropriations history in nominal or non-inflation adjusted
U.S. dollars (USD) and constant 1986 USD. Inflation was calculated using the Con-
sumer Price Index inflation factor, and base year is an average across 1982-1984 and
indexed at 100. SOURCE: FY appropriationsFigure 2-13
from NAWQA leadership, personal
communication, August 2011. Bitmapped
Quality of info 56 40 4
Clarity 48 46 5
Level of technical
49 45 5
detail
Usefulness 37 51 13
Overall quality 47 49 4
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percentages
Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied
FIGURE 2-14 A Customer Satisfaction Survey, conducted in 2010, indicates user
satisfaction with NAWQA information. SOURCE: USGS, personal communication.
Figure 2-14
OCR for page 51
NAWQA: CYCLE 1 AND CYCLE 2 51
communication, May 9, 2009), a value that, although not an indicator of
quality, provides a sense of the quantity of work produced over the history
of the program. A Customer Satisfaction Survey, conducted in 2010,23 indi-
cates that the majority of NAWQA users are either satisfied or very satisfied
with NAWQA information (Figure 2-14).
The Statement of Task charges the committee to conduct an assess-
ment of NAWQA's accomplishments. In response, the committee notes 10
representative accomplishments of NAWQA in Chapter 3 to answer the
Statement of Task.
23 The 2010 NAWQA Customer Satisfaction Survey, referenced several times in this report,
was conducted by the USGS Office of Budget, Planning, and Integration. It was conducted in
July and August of 2010 and consisted of a random sample of 500 persons from the NAWQA
stakeholder database. The response rate to the survey was 37 percent.
OCR for page 52
