![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Present Results for Decision-Making
From the EPA Watershed Academy
It is important to present the results of bioassessments in a manner in which the results are clear, compelling, and meaningful. This can only be done by making sure that the monitoring design chosen matches the needs of management and decision makers. This page shows some examples for you to consider and how to get more information. The examples shown do not represent the depth of these state programs, and we encourage you to explore their websites to learn more.
More about using bioindicators
Ohio EPA Example
Figure 1
Scioto River Graph
This format has long been a very compelling approach for not only showing the influence of pollution sources through a 40-mile stretch of river, but also showing the change that occurred over 12 years. This graphic keeps the reader aware of the water quality standards for this reach and shows the results relative to those standards
Florida DEP Example
Florida DEP's
Bioassessment Program
has also explored different ways to present their results. One unique
effort are their EcoSummaries, which presents a one-page summary
of a site containing a brief description, picture, water quality rating,
and a link to get more detailed information. This provides the basic information
for readers and keeps them from being overwhelmed with too much information
too soon.
Maryland DNR Example
Maryland DNR's Biological
Stream Surveylooks at a wide variety of issues in the state using a random sample
site selection design. The graph on the left shows the statewide
relationship with native brook trout abundance and impervious surface.
This information should be a clear indication that if brook trout, a native
species, is desired, urban and suburban development should be more carefully
monitored (at a minimum). The second chart illustrates the relationship
of habitat with fish community health in the lower Potomac River basin.
This has direct implications for assessing whether point and/or non-point
source controls are adequate.
Figure 2
Figure 2: The relationship of the fish IBI with instream habitat score - in general, the higher the habitat score, the higher the IBI.
There are many national, regional, state, and local government programs that struggle with how to convey the information to their management, and the interested public. Keep in mind that there are many ways to present the information, but a"picture" is worth a thousand words... as long as you have the detailed information to support it.
For a more detailed look at presenting biological data and information, please visit
- Chapter 10 of the Revision to Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic, Macroinvertebrates, and Fish.
- Graphs Reveal Biological Response by Karr and Chu (1997)
Reference
Karr, J.R. and E. W. Chu. 1997. Biological Monitoring and Assessment: Using Multimetric Indexes Effectively (PDF). (EPA-235-R97-001 December 1997) (155 pp, 7.5M, About PDF)