Dan McKenzie

ORD Western Ecology Division

Corvallis, Oregon

Sept. 10, 2004

Dan McKenzie

ORD Western Ecology Division

Corvallis, Oregon

Sept. 10, 2004

Increasing the Role of Statistic in Water Quality Management Decisions

Increasing the Role of Statistic in Water Quality Management Decisions

Outline• Clean Water Act Requirements• Past – Before EMAP• Present – Transition (Implementation)• Future – Opportunities (Needs)

Clean Water Act(CWA)

• Objective: “restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”

• Section 303(c) – State Water Quality Standards, Designated Uses & Criteria

• Section 305(b) – Report Condition of Nation’s waters

• Section 303(d) – List of Impaired waters and Restoration Plans

Past CWA Reports

• EPA Reports to Congress (2 yrs)• 305(b): State Data – Inconsistent

(Designated Uses, Criteria, Indicators, Methods)

• 303(d): State’s Assessed Waters (Selected Sites, Listing Criteria)

• All Reviews Identified Major Shortcomings

Florida – SummaryThe state has approximately 50,000 miles of streams, 3,000 square miles of lakes, and 4,000 square miles of estuaries.For this report, water quality was summarized by determining the degree of attainment for designated use for the state’s different water body types. FDEP assessed 9,016 miles of rivers and streams, 1,302,976 acres of lakes, and 3,658 square miles of estuaries. Of the assessed miles, 29 percent of total river miles, 20 percent of total lake areas, and 69 percent of total estuarine areas clearly attain their designated use (Figure 1).

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

(EMAP)

• Estimate Current Status, Trends and Changes – Regional Basis – Known Confidence

• Estimate Geographic Coverage and Extent – Known Confidence

• Seek Associations – Indicators of Stresses and Condition

• Statistical Summaries & Assessments

EMAP’s Original Guiding Figure

NominalUnknownAcidityToxicityEutrophicationHabitat

Status & Association Questions

Extentof

Resource

(number, length, area)

Status

ConditionGoodFairPoor

Associations

10%

23%

37%31%

Valleys

North-Central Appalachians

Ridge and Blue Ridge

Geographic TargetingWhere does Fish IBI suggest problems?

35%

3%

32%

30%

Western Appalachians

(InsufficientData)

15%

28%

44%14%

10%15%

32%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Introduced Fish 34%

% of Stream Length

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Riparian Habitat

Sedimentation

Mine Drainage

Acidic Deposition

Tissue Contamination

Phosphorus

Acid Mine Drainage

24%

25%

14%

11%

10%

5%

1%

Nitrogen

5%

Relative Ranking of Stressors

17%

17%

36%

31%

Proportion of Stream Length

(InsufficientData)

Good

FairPoor

Fish Index of Biotic Integrity

EMAP Probability SurveyExample Results (complex)

4

2002 State Report Included: Basin - % Stream Impairment

<25%25-4950-74>74No Est.

75

67

37

2027

23

28

10

CWA 305(b) -- Status

• States Implementing Probability Surveys Streams (30+ States) Estuaries (Coastal States)

• EPA Office of Water Probability Survey or Census Integration of 305(b) and 303(d) Conducting National Stream Survey

• Aquatic Resources Monitoring www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm

Target Population Condition & Stressors (status)

Where do I need to do follow up monitoring?

(2) Estimated Status [Probabilities]•Spatially Explicit Estimation•Aggregation•Classification•Modeling

305(b)Report

NAS “planning”list

303(d) Assessment Process303(d) Assessment Process

(1) EMAP Design(probability survey)

(3) Targeted Surveys

waterbody attaining some uses, no threatened uses

waterbody has high probability of impairment

Attainment-Impairment

Insufficient, No Information

waterbody attaining all uses

Integrated Monitoring – Part 1

Found Sites

Impaired waterbody

Example: Extending EMAP StatusEstimated IBI Condition at Reach Scale

Good

Fair

Poor

Extending EMAP Associations Stressors Associated with IBI Status

at Reach Scale

NominalUnknownAcidityToxicityEutrophicationRiparian Habitat

Potential Areas for Target Surveys

High Prob. Non-ImpairmentRiparian Habitat AssociationsAcidic AssociationsEutrophication AssociationsToxicity & Eutrophication Associations

Potential Target Survey Design

Target Population: Stream Reaches within Area Associated with Acidic Stressors

Survey Design: Weighted by Estimated IBI Condition (Good, Fair, Poor)

waterbody attaining some uses, no threatened uses

(3) Targeted Surveys Results: Combining intensified survey designs, gradient sampling, site-specific designs as appropriate

Waterbody impairment confirmed

303(d) List

TMDL development

303(d) Assessment Process303(d) Assessment Process

Management Action

Is there an existing TMDL, or impairment not caused bypollutant?

Other Plans Expected to Achieve Attainment?

(4) Probability survey designs to establish attainment

How to delist?

Attainment-Impairment waterbody attaining all uses

Integrated Monitoring – Part 2

?

Key Concepts & Elements

• 303(d) Requires Site Scale Information

• Observations, Estimates, Forecasts

• Objective Basis to Categorize all Waters, Assign Priorities

• Known Confidence – Uncertainty

• Sequential Processes

Information sources• Probability Survey Results

• Existing Non-Probability Stations Fixed Station (Intensive, Few Sites) Traditional Monitoring Program

(Extensive, Few Observations)

• Special Study & Research Areas

• Complete Coverage (LuLc, etc.)

Potential Strategies

• Sequential Estimation Approaches (WQ, Stressors, IBI)

• Endpoint Estimation (IBI)

• Estimate Probability of Condition (Good, Fair, Poor)

Some Challenges

• Cause and Effect Relationships

• What to Fix/Change to Restore or Protect

• Assignment of Sources

• Impairment Decisions (10% Obs. Exceed Criteria)

• De-Listing Criteria

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

• Original Focus: Point Sources

• Issues Shifted to Non-Point Sources

• Multiple Sources & Stressors

• ~10,000 TMDLs Completed

• Substantial Workload

• Implementation, Effectiveness (?)

FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS OF A STREAM ECOSYSTEM

WATERTABLE

WATERTABLE

ATMOSPHEREATMOSPHERE

LAND USELAND USE

STREAM USESTREAM USERIPARIANRIPARIAN

• Producer: woody plants• 1° Consumer: birds• 2° Consumer: birds• Decomposers

• Producer: woody plants• 1° Consumer: birds• 2° Consumer: birds• Decomposers

BENTHICBENTHIC

• Producer: algae• 1° Consumer: benthos• 2° Consumer: benthos,

herptiles, fish• Decomposers: microbes

• Producer: algae• 1° Consumer: benthos• 2° Consumer: benthos,

herptiles, fish• Decomposers: microbes

WATER COLUMNWATER COLUMN

• Producer: macrophytes• 1° Consumer: fish• 2° Consumers: herptiles, fish• Decomposers

• Producer: macrophytes• 1° Consumer: fish• 2° Consumers: herptiles, fish• Decomposers

Stressor Sources

Movement of Materials

RELEVANCE TO ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION

CONCEPTUAL MODEL: WADEABLE STREAMS

HUMAN USESConsumption

Waste ReceptorRecreation/Aestethics

Harvesting

HUMAN USESConsumption

Waste ReceptorRecreation/Aestethics

Harvesting

HABITATINTEGRITY

HABITATINTEGRITY BIOTIC

INTEGRITY

BIOTICINTEGRITY

ANTHROPOGENICSTRESSORSAgriculture

ManufacturingMining

Forestry PracticesPopulation Density

Road DensityChannelization

Dams

ANTHROPOGENICSTRESSORSAgriculture

ManufacturingMining

Forestry PracticesPopulation Density

Road DensityChannelization

Dams

ANTHROPOGENICSTRESSORS

Angling PressureStocking

AgricultureManufacturing

MiningRiparian Alterations

Invasion of non-native spp.

ANTHROPOGENICSTRESSORS

Angling PressureStocking

AgricultureManufacturing

MiningRiparian Alterations

Invasion of non-native spp.

ABIOTIC CHARACTERISTICSABIOTIC CHARACTERISTICS BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

WATER QUALITY• Temperature• Turbidity• Nutrients• Organic/inorganic

Chemicals• Toxics• pH

WATER QUALITY• Temperature• Turbidity• Nutrients• Organic/inorganic

Chemicals• Toxics• pH

HABITAT QUALITY• Substrate type• Depth and Velocity• Volume• Flow regime• Habitat

heterogeneity• Instream Cover

HABITAT QUALITY• Substrate type• Depth and Velocity• Volume• Flow regime• Habitat

heterogeneity• Instream Cover

RELEVANCE TO ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION

CONCEPTUAL RELATIONSHIP: STRESSORS vs. RICHNESS, ABUNDANCE, AND HABITAT METRICS

Stressor

SO4SO4

NO3 NO3

PopulationRoadsLivestockRow CropsLogging Dams

PopulationRoadsLivestockRow CropsLogging Dams

ChemicalsIchthyocidesStocking

ChemicalsIchthyocidesStocking

pH MetalspH Metals

Nutrients Nutrients

Exposure Measurements

Riparian ModificationsRiparian Modifications

Turbidity, Sedimentation Turbidity, Sedimentation

Response Metrics

Temp

O2

Instream Fish CoverInstream Fish Cover

Family, Spp. RichnessFamily, Spp. Richness

Long-lived spp.Long-lived spp.

Non-indigenous spp.Non-indigenous spp.

Sensitive spp.Sensitive spp.

Benthic spp.Benthic spp.

AbundanceAbundance

Water Column spp.Water Column spp.

Tolerant spp.Tolerant spp.

RELEVANCE TO ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION

Opportunities

• Incorporation of Conceptual Model Information

• Objective Evidence on Causes – Sources

• Multiple Stressors• Epidemiological Tools?• Forecast Restoration –

Effort/Change, Time Sequences

Summary

• Major Improvements Occurring

• Significant Short Term Contributions Possible

• Longer Term Opportunities Require Innovation and Creativity

• Statistical Foundation Critical