Upload
sylvie
View
20
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Increasing the Role of Statistic in Water Quality Management Decisions. Dan McKenzie ORD Western Ecology Division Corvallis, Oregon Sept. 10, 2004. Outline. Clean Water Act Requirements Past – Before EMAP Present – Transition (Implementation) Future – Opportunities (Needs). - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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