The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) initiated discussions on water-monitoring activities in April 1991; the identification of pervasive problems associated with monitoring resulted in formation of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). The ITFM, which was mandated by an Office of Management and Budget directive to strengthen coordination for water information nationwide, began work in January 1992. It comprises 20 representatives of Federal, State, and interstate governmental groups. In addition, approximately 150 Federal and State staff sit on the following task groups: Intergovernmental Framework, Data Management and Information Sharing, Data Collection Methods, Environmental Indicators, and Assessment and Reporting. This document represents one of the work products of the Environmental Indicators Task Group (Task Group) and describes the selection criteria table (attached) and some of the supporting rationale.
This Task Group used guidelines gathered from the monitoring programs of eight Federal and State agencies or groups to establish a set of criteria that can be used to select biological, chemical, and physical indicators that will provide information appropriate for addressing objectives of particular programs. These criteria are organized into three broad categories--scientific validity (technical considerations), practical considerations, and programmatic considerations. The list of selection criteria includes those currently in use by the following offices or programs: USEPA, Office of Water; USEPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; USEPA, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program; USEPA Region 2, Lake Ontario Stewardship; U.S. Department of Interior (USDOI) , USGS; USDOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service; Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; and New York Bight Project.
We intend these criteria to be useful to any program in which indicators for describing environmental quality or measuring program success must be selected.
The task group decided that it should focus on indicators for which techniques, protocols, or equipment were either available or in advanced stages of development, rather than concentrate on potential measures; the group felt that concentrating on potential measures would be unrealistic considering the 1- to 3-year time limitation. It was decided to focus on attainable goals, and with the diverse experience and backgrounds represented on the group membership, there would be an abundance of information to compile to understand what is currently available.
For discussion purposes, these criteria have been divided into three categories--scientific validity (technical considerations) practical considerations, and programmatic considerations. Although discussed separately, these categories are not entirely separate entities, but rather portions of characteristics that provide some guidance in the indicator-selection process.
Measurements of environmental indicators should produce data that are valid and quantitative or qualitative and allow for comparisons on temporal and spatial levels. This is particularly important for comparisons with the reference condition. Interpretation of measurements must accurately discern between natural variability and the effects induced by anthropogenic stressors. This requires a level of sensitivity and resolution sufficient to detect ecological perturbations and to indicate not only the presence of a problem, but to provide early warning signs of an impending impact. The methodology should be reproducible and provide the same level of sensitivity regardless of geographic location. It also should have a wide geographic range of application and a set of reference-condition data that can be used for comparisons.
A cost-effective procedure should supply a large amount of information in comparison to cost and effort. Of significant importance is the acknowledgment that not every quantitative characteristic needs to be measured unless it is required to answer the specific questions. It may be more important to have a range of qualitative and quantitative data from a large number of sites than it is to have a small number of quantitative parameter measurements from a small number of sites. Cost effectiveness may be dependent on the availability of experienced personnel and the ability to find or detect the indicating parameters at all locations. State-of-the-art technology is useless in a biomonitoring program if experienced personnel are in short supply or the data cannot be collected at all the stations. Equally important is the ability to collect the data with limited impact to the environment. Some collection procedures (for example, using rotenone to collect fish) are very effective, but minor miscalculations can cause significant environmental damage. These methodologies should be replaced with less destructive procedures.
Another important consideration is the ease with which the information obtained can be communicated to the public. Although it is essential to present information for decisionmakers, scientists, or other specialized audiences, information for the general public needs to be responsive to public interests and summarized for clarity.
Return to
ITFM Report Appendixes Table of Contents