1 Defining Least-Impacted Reference Condition for the National Wadeable Streams Assessment Alan Alan Herlihy (Oregon State University), John Stoddard (U.S.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable EPAs Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program – the Western Incarnation. EMAP-West Roger Blair, Technical Director,
Advertisements

EMAP Efforts in SF Bay Overview of EMAP Western Pilot Overview of Coastal component Activities in SF Bay (FY 2000) Relationship to other SF Bay efforts.
Strengthening the State- Tribal-Federal Partnership to Assess the Condition of Nations Waters.
Framework for the Ecological Assessment of Impacted Sediments at Mining Sites in Region 7 By Jason Gunter (R7 Life Scientist) and.
Dan McKenzie ORD Western Ecology Division Corvallis, Oregon Sept. 10, 2004 Dan McKenzie ORD Western Ecology Division Corvallis, Oregon Sept. 10, 2004 Increasing.
O/E: a standardized way to make site-specific assessments of biological condition Chuck Hawkins Western Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater.
Periphyton Data from National-Scale Assessments Can Inform Nutrient Criteria Development for Southeastern States R. Jan Stevenson Michigan State University.
Monty Porter - Streams/Rivers Monitoring Coordinator Jason Childress – Biological Team Leader Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) Water Quality Programs.
Evaluation of Volunteer Data – The Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program Review Daniel V. Obrecht Anthony P. Thorpe John R. Jones Department of Fisheries.
Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment
Assessment of Ecological Condition in Coastal Waters Impacted by Hurricane Katrina.
Working with Citizen Scientists: Rogue Basin (Oregon) Watershed Councils Stream Biomonitoring Study Michael Mulvey Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Mid-Atlantic Wetland Monitoring Work Group (MAWWG) A Regional Wetland Monitoring Workgroup Regina Poeske Wetland Monitoring Coordinator EPA Region III.
Minnesota’s Depressional Wetland Condition Assessment (a.k.a. ‘Status & Trends of Wetland Quality in Minnesota’) John Genet 6 th Annual Minnesota Wetlands.
Final stuff: n Lab practical –Coleoptera, Hemiptera n Final exam: Fri May 2:15 –Assessment with Invertebrates n Lecture material (IDEM protocol) n.
Missouri Nutrient Criteria Plan Mark Osborn October 20, 2005.
Analyzing Stream Condition Using EMAP Algae Data By Nick Paretti ARIZONA PHYCOLOGY ECOL 475.
"Developing statistically-valid and -defensible frameworks to assess status and trends of ecosystem condition at national scales" "Developing statistically-valid.
“Habitat Assessment Using the QHEI “ Edward T. Rankin June 6 City of Columbus, Level 3 Training Course Columbus, Ohio Senior ResearchScientist
Metric (Family Level) Standard Best Value (95 th or 5 th percentile) Worst Possible Value Expected Response to Degradation Total Taxa180 EPT Taxa120 %EPT91.90.
Levels of Dissolved Solids Associated With Aquatic Life Effects in Virginia’s Central Appalachian Coalfield Streams Tony Timpano Stephen Schoenholtz, David.
US EPA Region IV Surface Coal Mining Field Activities Adventures in Mountain Top Mining / Valley Fill Chris Decker.
ORD’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Sound Science for Measuring Ecological Condition
Should There Be An Aquatic Life Water Quality Criterion for Conductivity? WV Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium Morgantown, WV March 29, 2011 Presented.
To what extent is there excess sediment in the Middle Truckee River that impairs aquatic life use? Application of benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessment.
Water Quality Associated with Urban Runoff: Sources, Emerging Issues and Management Approaches Martha Sutula and Eric Stein Biogeochemistry and Biology.
Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Tools Aquatic Life/Nutrient Workgroup August 11, 2008.
Draft Multimetric Indices for Colorado. Data Preparation Established reference and stressed criteria Identified reference and stressed sites Classified.
Site Classification for Re-calibration of the Alabama Index of Stream Macroinvertebrate Condition Ben Jessup and Jen Stamp Tetra Tech, Inc. SWPBA November.
Comparability of Biological Assessments Derived from Predictive Models of Increasing Geographic Scope Peter Ode California Department of Fish and Game.
EXPECTED CONDITION Introduction to Some Basic Concepts for the Development of Colorado’s Conceptual Model.
Effects of Nutrient Enrichment on Rivers and Streams Ohio EPA 2006.
Effects of Human Activity on Water Quality Studies on the Upper Paint Creek Watershed By Emily Daniels Mary Estock and Ashley Hooper.
CALIFORNIA’S BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROGRAM April 5, 2005 Jim Harrington WPCL Bioassessment Laboratory.
ARROW: system for the evaluation of the status of waters in the Czech Republic Jiří Jarkovský 1) Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University,
1 The National Rivers and Streams Survey – An Overview and Results.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Quantifying tolerance indicator values for common stream fish species of the United States Michael.
Mercury Concentrations in Stream Fish Throughout 12 Western States in the USA Alan Herlihy and Robert Hughes Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife, Oregon State.
Central Plains Center for BioAssessment Debbie Baker An overview of our projects. Sept
Colorado EDAS Enhancement and Index Development 2004 Tetra Tech, Inc. and Utah State University.
Final stuff: n Lab practical: Apr 29 n Final exam: due Fri May 2:15.
Benthic Community Assessment Tool Development Ananda Ranasinghe (Ana) Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) Sediment.
Focus on the Headwaters The Shenandoah Watershed Study / The Virginia Trout Stream Sensitivity Study Rick Webb Department of Environmental Sciences University.
Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay Donna Marie Bilkovic*, Carl H. Hershner, Kirk J. Havens,
National Aquatic Resource Surveys Wadeable Streams Assessment Overview November, 2007.
1 National Stream and River Assessment Monitoring Design Anthony R. Olsen 1, David V. Peck 1, Steven G. Paulsen 1, John L. Stoddard 1, and Susan Holdsworth.
Biologically based urban response models for the South Atlantic gulf and Tennessee River basins T.F. Cuffney, E.M. Giddings, and M.B. Gregory North Carolina.
STORET 1001 and the State of Utah Monitoring Strategy Today you will see: –What kind of attributes are available in STORET –How results, stations, and.
Response of benthic algae communities to nutrient enrichment in agricultural streams: Implications for establishing nutrient criteria R.W. Black 1, P.W.
Ranking Stressors: Prevalence & Relative Risk Based on work by John Van Sickle US EPA NHEERL Western Ecology Division.
National Monitoring Conference May 7-11, 2006
Case Study Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highland Region McCormick et al
BENTHIC INDICATORS FOR THE SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED LANDSCAPE OF THE MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL PLAINS Ben Jessup – Tetra Tech, Inc. Valerie Alley – Mississippi.
A Tool to Evaluate the Health of Streams and Rivers within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman 1, Claire Buchanan 2, Adam Griggs 2, Andrea Nagel.
1 Collaboration on EMAP Stream Condition Assessments in EPA Region 8 Thomas R. Johnson and Karl A. Hermann EPA Region 8.
Think about answering the questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Before your volunteers begin collecting data.
Using Regional Models to Assess the Relative Effects of Stressors Lester L. Yuan National Center for Environmental Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection.
Wadeable Stream Assessment Comparability Study: Interim Results Mark Southerland, Jon Vølstad, Ed Weber, Beth Franks, and Laura Gabanski May 10, 2006.
Aquatic Resource Monitoring Overview Anthony (Tony) R. Olsen USEPA NHEERL Western Ecology Division Corvallis, Oregon (541)
National Water Quality Monitoring Conference Session E4 April 29, 2014 Jonathan Witt & Britta Bierwagen, ORD/USEPA Jen Stamp & Anna Hamilton, Tetra Tech,
Current And Future Perspectives On The Evaluation, Development And Application Of Benthic Multimetric Indices For Neotropical Savanna Streams Déborah Silva.
COMPARING BIOINDICATORS TO MEASURE THE EFFICACY OF RESTORATION IN MIDDLE FORK JOHN DAY RIVER, OR Robin M. Henderson & James R. Pratt.
New York City and Other G. P. Patil. New York City Water Distribution Network.
Aquatic, Watershed, and Earth Resources
Des Plaines River Watershed Workgroup Midwest Biodiversity Institute
Debra S. Baker and Donald G. Huggins
Combinations (= multimetrics)
MSDGC Integrated Prioritization System (IPS)
IBI’s: An Introduction
Defining Reference Conditions Setting Class Boundaries
Presentation transcript:

1 Defining Least-Impacted Reference Condition for the National Wadeable Streams Assessment Alan Alan Herlihy (Oregon State University), John Stoddard (U.S. EPA, NHEERL-WED), Chuck Hawkins (Utah State University), and Susan Holdsworth (U.S. EPA, OW)

2 Why do we want to select and sample reference streams? Are necessary for the interpretation of national monitoring data Are necessary for the interpretation of national monitoring data Provide benchmark for evaluation of ecological condition (e.g. biotic integrity) Provide benchmark for evaluation of ecological condition (e.g. biotic integrity)

3 What is Reference Condition? Minimally Disturbed Condition – site condition in the absence of significant human disturbance (e.g., “natural,” “pristine” or “undisturbed”) Least Disturbed Condition –found in conjunction with the best available physical, chemical and biological habitat conditions given today’s state of the landscape - defined by a set of explicit criteria to which all reference sites must adhere

4 How are reference sites chosen? Often chosen by best professional judgment (BPJ) Often chosen by best professional judgment (BPJ) BPJ sites have varying and unknown quality BPJ sites have varying and unknown quality Alternative: Filter survey data for physical-chemical stressors to identify best sites Alternative: Filter survey data for physical-chemical stressors to identify best sites

5 Mid-Atlantic Highlands EMAP Stream Example Screen all sites and remove those with: Screen all sites and remove those with: Sulfate > 400 µeq/L (~20 mg/L) Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC)< 50µeq/L (~ 2.5 mg/L CaCO 3 or pH ~6) Total phosphorus > 20 µg/L Total nitrogen > 750 µg/L Chloride > 100 µeq/L (~3.5 mg/L) Mean RBP habitat score < 15

6 Expected stream sulfate from deposition in this region is µeq/L Bimodal sulfate histogram in Plateau. Mining not common in Ridge & Valley (except for Anthracite Belt) Sites with SO 4 >400 µeq/L classified as non-reference

7 Contrary Creek, Virginia pH=3, SO 4 =5,000 µeq/L

8 Montgomery Creek, PA pH=5.1, SO 4 =175 µeq/L

9

10 Filtering produced a set of Reference Sites with higher EPT Richness scores than BPJ Advantages of Filtered Sites Fewer poor biological condition sites Have a much more rigorous definition of “reference”

11 Wadeable Stream Assessment Sample EMAP-West Summer Summer Western States 12 Western States 841 Probability Sites 841 Probability Sites Hand-Picked Sites sampled by EMAP protocols Hand-Picked Sites sampled by EMAP protocols State BPJ Sites State BPJ Sites Corvallis GIS/Field Screen Corvallis GIS/Field Screen STAR Grant Ref Sites STAR Grant Ref Sites WSA Summer Eastern & Central States 541 Probability Sites Hand-Picked Sites Sampled by EMAP Protocols State BPJ Sites

12 Reference Site Data for Assessment WEMAP Filtered all sites collected with EMAP protocols Filtered all sites collected with EMAP protocols Probability, BPJ, GIS Probability, BPJ, GIS Four Approaches - Delphi Four Approaches - Delphi STAR Grant Sites STAR Grant Sites Pristine Pristine Good Good Low Low Dropped in MT ecoregions Dropped in MT ecoregions WSA Filtered all sites collected with EMAP protocols Probability, BPJ Needed more reference sites, augmented with existing, State Data NAWQA data Earlier Filtered EMAP and REMAP data

13 9 Aggregate Level III Ecoregions used to set filtering criteria

14 WSA Reference Exclusion Criteria Variable S. Appalachians Southern Plains Total P (µg/L) > 20 > 150 Total N (µg/L) > 750 > 4,500 Sulfate (µeq/L) > Chloride (µeq/L) > 200 > 1,000 ANC (µeq/L) < 50 Mean RBP Habitat Score < 15 < 12.5 Turbidity (NTU) > 5 > 50 Riparian Disturbance > 2 > 2 % Fine Sediment > 25 > 90

15 Filtered

16 Filtered

17 Filtered

18 Number of Reference Sites Used in WSA EMAP/WSA Filtered External Augment Total Western States East/Central States Total3341,2911,625

19 Number of Reference Sites by Ecoregion

20 Reference Sites Used to Score Benthic IBI metrics Score Benthic IBI metrics Set Good, Fair, Poor condition categories for Set Good, Fair, Poor condition categories for Biotic Integrity Biotic Integrity Nutrients Nutrients Physical Habitat Physical Habitat Predictive (O/E) modeling Predictive (O/E) modeling Required dropping state augment data Required dropping state augment data