Transcript SELECTION OF WATER QUALITY

SELECTION OF WATER QUALITY
MONITORING SITES
and
CSU’s STARMAP
by
N. Scott Urquhart
Department of Statistics
Colorado State University
Director of STARMAP
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 1
EPA’s CURRENT GUIDANCE for 305b

States and territories are encouraged to use
probabilistic designs for water quality assessments
and to include reports of these assessments with
their Integrated Reports.

December 11, 2002
SOURCE: The Total Maximun Load (TMDL)
Program, Office of Water, November 19,
2001. Memorandum concerning “2002
Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment Report Guidance”
NWQMC
PAGE # 2
STARMAP FUNDING

EPA

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

NOT FUNDED BY OFFICE OF WATER

ROUTINE (REQUIRED) DISCLAIMER:

December 11, 2002
The work reported here today was developed under the
STAR Research Assistance Agreement CR-829095
awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to Colorado State University. This presentation has
not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed
here are solely those of presenter and the STARMAP,
the Program he represents. EPA does not endorse any
products or commercial services mentioned in this
presentation.
NWQMC
PAGE # 3
HOW SHOULD WATER QUALITY
MONITORING SITES BE SELECTED?

Depends on OBJECTIVES

Evaluating the effect of a known point source


Trying to find unidentified point source



December 11, 2002
Evaluate quality above and below point source
Start from known presence of “pollutant”
Work upstream checking concentration of “pollutant”
in each branch.
Characterizing all waters in some domain

Like for Clean Water Act 305b reporting

Select sites randomly

Increasingly being done by states

Endorsed by EPA’s Office of water

More generally, variable probability is possible
NWQMC
PAGE # 4
STATES ARE BEGINNING TO USE
PROBABILITY-BASED SITE SELECTION
States adopting EMAP designs
States evaluating EMAP designs
States considering EMAP designs
Courtesy of Steve Paulsen, EPA
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 5
QUICK ILLUSTRATION

To investigate flow status of stream traces
identified as intermittent:


December 11, 2002
Sampling frame: USGS/EPA National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
100 sites in each state the 12 states in
EPA Regions 8, 9, & 10.
NWQMC
PAGE # 6
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 7
IMPORTANCE OF EMAP-TYPE DESIGNS
Condition of a State’s streams using
different designs
Fully
Supporting
13%
Not
Supporting
13%
STATE A
Not
Supporting
87%
Fully
Supporting
87%
Probability Survey
Traditional Targeted Monitoring
Not
Supporting
5%
Not
Supporting
25%
STATE B
Fully
Supporting
95%
Fully
Supporting
75%
Probability Survey
Traditional Targeted Monitoring
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 8
NORTH EAST LAKES STUDIES

EMAP NORTHEAST LAKES PILOT



PROBABILITY SAMPLE OF ALL LAKES IN THE
NORTHEASTERN US
SECCHI TRANSPARENCY EVALUATED (AMONG
MANY RESPONSES)
GREAT AMERICAN “DIP-IN” LAKES


December 11, 2002
5,000 PARTICIPANTS IN VARIOUS LAKE
MONITORING PROGRAMS (US-WIDE)
VOLUNTEERS WERE ASKED TO EVALUATE
SECCHI TRANSPARENCY IN “THEIR” LAKES
BETWEEN 7/1/95 AND 7/9/95 (AND AGAIN IN
1996)
NWQMC
PAGE # 9
NORTH EAST LAKES STUDIES - II

ONE INFORMATION SOURCE

SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVENESS: A MUST FOR
RELIABLE REGIONAL LAKE CONDITION
ESTIMATES OF LAKE CONDITION

December 11, 2002
by S.A. Peterson, N. S. Urquhart, and E. B. Welsh
Environmental Science and Technology 33: 1559 - 1565.
(1999)
NWQMC
PAGE # 10
SIZE OF NORTH EAST LAKES STUDIES

EMAP NORTHEAST LAKES PILOT


GREAT AMERICAN “DIP-IN” LAKES


312 LAKES SAMPLED
422 LAKES REPORTED FOR NORTHEAST
POINT: THESE TWO DATA SETS ARE OF
FAIRLY SIMILAR SIZE
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 11
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 12
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 13
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 14
SECCHI DEPTH IN LAKES EVALUATED
BY BOTH
EMAP and “DIP-IN”
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 15
ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE
DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION OF SECCHI
DEPTH, EMAP AND “DIP-IN”
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 16
CONCLUSIONS

THE SHORTCOMINGS OF A CONVENIENCE
COLLECTION OF SITES CANNOT BE
OVERCOME BY EITHER


ABSENCE OF A PLAN TO “BIAS” THE
SITUATIONS EXAMINED, or
LARGE DATA SETS

December 11, 2002
==> SEVERELY LIMITS THE BREADTH OF ANY
INFERENCES WHICH CAN BE DRAWN FROM
RESAMPLING STUDIES

BOOTSTRAPPING

JACKKNIFING
NWQMC
PAGE # 17
A PROGRAM IN
STATISTICAL SURVEY
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
FOR AQUATIC RESOURCES
STARMAP: THE PROGRAM AT
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
SPACE-TIME AQUATIC RESOURCES
MODELING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 18
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND
for
STARMAP


Probability-based surveys of aquatic
resources have a role and will be implemented
Important associated questions
How should we combine

Probability survey data with

Data from purposefully picked sites?
How can we incorporate remotely sensed
information (satellite) with ground data?

Role of landscape data (GIS) is?



How can we make accurate predictions of water
quality at unvisited sites, using all of above?
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 19
STARMAP’S MAJOR OBJECTIVES

TO ADVANCE THE SCIENCE OF
STATISTICS TO ADDRESS SUCH
QUESTIONS


TECHNIQUES OF HIERARCHICAL SURVEY
DESIGN AND ALLIED TECHNIQUES

SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL MODELING

BAYESIAN METHODOLOGY
TO DEVELOP AND EXTEND THE
EXPERTISE ON DESIGN AND
ANALYSIS TO THE STATES AND
TRIBES
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 20
STARMAP’S VISION

PERSPECTIVE:

A SEARCHING ANALYSIS OF A REAL,
MODERATELY COMPLEX, DATA SET ALMOST
ALWAYS GENERATES QUESTIONS WHOSE
ANSWER CALLS FOR AN EXTENSION OF
EXISTING STATISTICAL THEORY OR
METHODOLOGY.
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 21
STARMAP PROJECTS




COMBINING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
SETS - JENNIFER HOETING
LOCAL ESTIMATION - JAY BREIDT
INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT - DAVE
THEOBALD (CSU’S Natural Resources
Ecology Lab)
OUTREACH - SCOTT URQUHART

December 11, 2002
This is why I am here
NWQMC
PAGE # 22
COORDINATION - EXTERNAL TO CSU/OSU
CONTINUED

COLLABORATOR COMMUNITIES

SUB-STATE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES

EPA PERSONNEL

REGIONS 8, 9 & 10

HEADQUARTERS
» OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
» OFFICE OF WATER
» TRIBAL SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL

EPA LABS
» …..
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 23
COORDINATION - EXTERNAL TO CSU/OSU
CONTINUED 2

COLLABORATOR COMMUNITIES

EPA PERSONNEL

…

EPA LABS
» WESTERN ECOLOGY LAB - CORVALLIS
» MIDWESTERN ECOLOGY LAB - DULUTH, MN
» EASTERN ECOLOGY LAB
» ECOSYSTEMS RESEARCH DIVISION
» LAS VEGAS LAB - LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY

STATE PERSONNEL
» MAINLY AT OSU, SO FAR
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 24
A CROSS-PROJECT THRUST


FLOW AND FLOW STATUS
EPA DIRECTIVES TO STATES AND
TRIBES


PROBABILITY SAMPLING
OBSTACLES TO ACCURATE
PROBABILITY-BASED SAMPLING
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 25
FLOW AND FLOW STATUS



FLOW - AN INDICATOR OF BASE FLOW
QUANTITY
FLOW STATUS

PERENNIAL

NON-PERENNIAL
CLIENT: STATE AND TRIBAL WATER
QUALITY AGENCIES

December 11, 2002
REPORTING UNDER 305b OF CLEAN
WATER ACT
NWQMC
PAGE # 26
A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR PROBABILITYBASED SAMPLING OF WATER BODIES

PROBABILITY-BASED SELECTION OF SITES
RELIES ON A “FRAME” OR LIST OF POTENTIAL
SITES


THE NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET
(NHD) - BASED ON “BLUE LINES” ON USGS
MAPS IS THE ONLY PRACTICALLY AVAILABLE
FRAME MATERIALS
MAJOR PROBLEM = FRAME ERRORS
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 27
FRAME ERRORS
TO BE DOCUMENTED SHORTLY

WATER BODY SIZE


IMPORTANCE OF SIZE WILL BE ADDRESSED
SHORTLY
FLOW STATUS -- re PERENNIAL

IDENTIFIED AS PERENNIAL, BUT NOT


December 11, 2002
WASTES EFFORT OF FIELD CREWS
IDENTIFIED AS NON-PERENNIAL, BUT REALLY
IS PERENNIAL

MISSED RESOURCE

INACCURATE ASSESSMENT
NWQMC
PAGE # 28
EMAP-West Stream/river Length
(km ± 95% CI)
from Peck, et al (2002) - EMAP symposium
Frame Source
RF3 Coded
Perennial
RF3 Frame Evaluated
Evaluated
Size
“Perennial” Non-perennial
656,706
501,060
15,590
128,328
12,709
1,628,980
112,537
21,278
1,469,277
63,515
613,597
26,378
1,597,605
64,774
(Perennial Survey)
RF3 Coded
Non-perennial
(Non-perennial Survey)
Total
December 11, 2002
2,285,686
NWQMC
PAGE # 29
EMAP-West Stream/river Length
(km ± 95% CI)
from Peck, et al (2002) - EMAP symposium
Frame Source
RF3 Coded
Perennial
RF3 Frame Evaluated
Evaluated
Size
“Perennial” Non-perennial
656,706
501,060
15,590
128,328
12,709
1,628,980
112,537
21,278
1,469,277
63,515
613,597
26,378
1,597,605
64,774
(Perennial Survey)
RF3 Coded
Non-perennial
(Non-perennial Survey)
Total
December 11, 2002
2,285,686
NWQMC
PAGE # 30
EMAP-West Stream/river Length
(km ± 95% CI)
from Peck, et al (2002) - EMAP symposium
Frame Source
RF3 Coded
Perennial
RF3 Frame Evaluated
Evaluated
Size
“Perennial” Non-perennial
656,706
501,060
15,590
128,328
12,709
1,628,980
112,537
21,278
1,469,277
63,515
613,597
26,378
1,597,605
64,774
(Perennial Survey)
RF3 Coded
Non-perennial
(Non-perennial Survey)
Total
December 11, 2002
2,285,686
NWQMC
PAGE # 31
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
QUESTIONS and/or COMMENTS ARE WELCOME
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 32
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 33
FUNDING SOURCE

ALL OF THE WORK REPORTED HERE TODAY was
developed under the STAR Research Assistance Agreement CR829095 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to Colorado State University, or CR-829096 awarded to
Oregon State University. These presentations have not been
formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed here are solely
those of authors and the respective Programs. EPA does not
endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in these
presentations.
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 34
THIS TALK


STARMAP

OBJECTIVES AND VISION

PROJECTS

COORDINATION
A CROSS-PROJECT THRUST

DEVELOP MODELS & METHODS TO
SUPPORT

December 11, 2002
STATE & TRIBAL USE OF PROBABILITY-BASED SITE
SELECTION
NWQMC
PAGE # 35
STARMAP’S VISION
CONTINUED

SUCH RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
WILL BECOME PROBLEMS
ATTACKED BY

December 11, 2002
IN ORDER OF COMPLEXITY

MASTERS STUDENTS

DOCTORAL STUDENTS

POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWS

AFFILIATED FACULTY SUPERVISORS
NWQMC
PAGE # 36
STARMAP’S VISION
CONTINUED - 2



THE IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE
QUESTIONS REQUIRES
A STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN

THE STATISTICIAN AND

THE (SUBJECT MATTER) SCIENTIST
STARMAP WILL FOSTER SUCH
RELATIONSHIPS
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 37
STARMAP’S FUNDING ALLOCATION
(ALL 12-MONTH BASIS)

DIRECTOR - 0.60 FTE

FACULTY - 0.75 FTE

GRADUATE STUDENTS - 3 FTE

POST DOCTORAL FELLOWS - 2 FTE

STAFF 1.00 FTE - 2 YEARS, ONLY


AMPLE FUNDS FOR COLLABORATION
& PROFESSIONAL TRAVEL
SUBCONTRACTORS ( $185K
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
$120K)
PAGE # 38
COORDINATION

MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY OF BOTH
PROGRAM DIRECTORS

CSU/OSU - EACH DIRECTOR IS FUNDED ON
THE OTHERS’ ADMIN BUDGET



December 11, 2002
INTERCHANGE VISITS

EX: STEVENS & GITELMAN AT CSU IN JANUARY

THESE JOINT CONFERENCES
FREQUENT E-MAILS & PHONE TALKS
DIRECTORS HAVE VISITED
SUBCONTRACTORS
NWQMC
PAGE # 39
COORDINATION - AT CSU

FREQUENT COMMUNICATION
AMONG ALL PI’S




December 11, 2002
SEVERAL JOINT PLANNING MEETINGS
LAST FALL
SEMINAR LAST SPRING
BACK AND FORTH WITH LANDSCAPE
ECOLOGY
INTERACTION WITH AQUATIC
BIOLOGISTS

POFF & BLEDSOE AT CSU

STAR MEETING IN DENVER NEXT WEEK
NWQMC
PAGE # 40
COORDINATION - EXTERNAL TO CSU/OSU

COLLABORATOR COMMUNITIES

ESTUARINE & GREAT LAKES INDICATOR
DEVELOPMENT (EaGLes)

ATTEND “ALL HANDS MEETINGS”


PRESENT INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PROGRAMS
EMAP - PERSONAL CONTACT

SOURCE OF NEW PROBLEMS

EX: ACID RAIN REPORT TO CONGRESS - TREND
AT PROBABILITY & “HAND-PICKED” SITES
» OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROJECTS 1 & 2
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 41
COMMENTS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER BODY SIZES - SO WHAT

FOR “USE” AREA IS IMPORTANT

RECREATION

REARING HABITAT - SHRIMP TO GEESE


DOMESTIC & INDUSTRIAL WATER
USERS - EVEN VOLUME
FOR PRESERVATION OF
“BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY”
NUMBERS ARE VERY IMPORTANT
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 42
COMMENTS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER BODY SIZES - SO WHAT II

PROBABILITY-BASED SAMPLING HAS TO
BALANCE NUMBER AGAINST SIZE



REGARDLESS OF WATER BODY TYPE
THIS PRECLUDES SIMPLE RANDOM
SAMPLING
CONSEQUENCE: VARIABLE
PROBABILITY/VARIABLE DENSITY
SAMPLING HAS TO BE USED
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 43
PREREQUISITE FOR ACCURATE SITE
SELECTION

AN ACCURATE FRAME

SPATIALLY (REGIONAL) CONSISTENCY


CRITICAL FOR CREDIBILITY AMONG
WATER RESOURCE MANAGERS
THE NEED:GOOD PREDICTORS OF

WATER BODY SIZE

PERENNIAL STATUS
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 44
PREDICTION OF WATERBODY SIZE

INITIAL EFFORT - STREAMS - MAHA

OVERCOMES LIMITATIONS OF



STRAHLER ORDER
REGIONAL INCONSISTENCIES DUE TO
VARIABLE DENSITY OF “BLUE LINES”
ON USGS MAPS (SEE MAP ON THE WALL)
INITIAL EFFORT: GET WATERSHED

AREA

PREDICTOR CHARACTERISTICS

GAUGED FLOW (PERHAPS ONLY “BASE FLOW”)

December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 45
PREDICTION OF PERENNIAL STATUS

IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE DATA

EMAP WESTERN PILOT STUDY

SURVEY OF TRACES LABELED “NON-PERENNIAL”



STARMAP NOW COMPILING ASSOCIATED
LANDSCAPE INFORMATION
SITE EVALUATION FROM SITES SELECTED ON
TRACES LABELED “PERENNIAL”

December 11, 2002
100 PER WESTERN STATE; DATA NOW AT CSU
ON GOING WORK IN EMAP-WEST
NWQMC
PAGE # 46
PREDICTION OF PERENNIAL STATUS:
OTHER POTENTIAL DATA SOURCES

MAIA - ORIGINAL SAMPLING
INCLUDED ALL TRACES



REGARDLESS OF PERENNIAL CLASS
OTHER SURVEYS

REGION 7

VARIOUS STATES
OTHER SURVEYS POSSIBLE IF
METHODOLOGY WORKS
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 47
EXPECTED OUTPUTS




MODELS TO INCORPORATE INTO
SITE SELECTION PROGRAMS
MORE GENERALLY, STATISTICAL
METHODS TO SUPPORT THOSE
MODELS
A RANGE OF GIS TOOLS USEFUL
FOR AQUATIC MONITORING
CONTINUED
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 48
EXPECTED OUTPUTS

...

AN EXPERIENCE BASE

FUTURE GENERATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
STATISTICIANS

December 11, 2002
ORIENTED TOWARD AQUATIC SCIENCES
NWQMC
PAGE # 49
QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 50
NEXT SPEAKER

JENNIFER HOETING


December 11, 2002
LEADER OF PROJECT 1
COMBINING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
SETS
NWQMC
PAGE # 51
DISTRIBUTION OF LAKE SIZES IN THE
CONTERMINOUS US
PROPORTION OF LAKES (#)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 50
50 to 500
500 to 5000
>5000
LAKE SIZE CLASS
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 52
DISTRIBUTION OF AREA OF LAKES IN THE
CONTERMINOUS US BY LAKE SIZE
PROPORTION OF LAKES (AREA)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 50
50 to 500
500 to 5000
>5000
LAKE SIZE CLASS
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 53
CONTRAST OF THE DISTRIBUTIONS OF AREA
AND NUMBER OF LAKES IN THE CONTERMINOUS
US BY LAKE SIZE
PROPORTION OF LAKES
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 50
50 to 500
500 to 5000
>5000
LAKE SIZE CLASS
December 11, 2002
NWQMC
PAGE # 54
COMMENTS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF
WATER BODY SIZES

INFORMATION PROVIDED APPLIES TO
ALL LAKES IN THE “LOWER 48”


A SIMILAR DISTRIBUTION OCCURS IN
ALL PARTS OF THE US
OTHER KINDS OF WATER BODIES

December 11, 2002
SAME KIND OF PATTERN

STREAMS & RIVERS

WETLANDS

ESTUARIES
NWQMC
PAGE # 55