EMAPW

1
Overview of EMAP-West Uses of Aquatic Survey
Data
STAR Meeting August 2003
2
Importance of Indicators Survey Design
3
Old Questions Continue to Plague EPA and its
Promulgation of the CWA

• GAO found that the Water Quality Inventory does
  not accurately portray water quality conditions
  nationwide. Consequently, the information in the
  Inventory cannot be meaningfully compared
  nationwide.

Water Quality Key EPA and State Decisions
Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data
GAO/RCED-00-54 March, 2000
4
EMAP Objectives

• Estimate current status of and trends in selected
  indicators of condition on a regional basis with
  known confidence
• Estimate geographic coverage and extent
• Seek associations between indicators and stresses
• Provide the tools to allow annual statistical
  summaries and periodic assessments

5
EMAP-West Additional Uses of Data

• Establish a framework for designated uses
• Used in developing data sets critical to defining
  quantitative biocriteria
• Provide data for models to inform the
  listing/delisting process in 303d

6
EMAP-West Surface Waters Tools

• Sample Survey Design
• Spatially-balanced probability design
• Results extrapolated to target population with
  known confidence
• Ecological Indicators
• Biological Indicators
• Direct measures of ecological condition
• Societal value
• Stressor Indicators
• Associations with ecological condition
• Relative importance
• Reference Condition
• Consistent approach to setting expectations for
  all indicators

7
Primary Candidate Sampling Sites 2001-4
EPA Regions 8, 9 and 10 with intensive areas sho
wn
8
(No Transcript)
9
EMAP-West Tools Biological Indicators

• Fish Community Structure (IBI)
• Macroinvertebrate Community Structure (IBI)
• Periphyton Community Structure
• Physical Habitat (in-stream and near- stream)
• Ambient Chemistry (nutrients, major ions)
• Fish Tissue (mercury, some organic
  contaminants)
• Watershed Characteristics

10
Indicator Approach
Indicator Criteria

• What can we (realistically) measure in a sample
  survey?
• How can we best measure it?
• How responsive is it?
• How variable is it?
• Can we score it?

11
Indicator Approach
Indicator Criteria

• What can we (realistically) measure in a sample
  survey?
• How can we best measure it?
• How responsive is it?
• How variable is it?
• Can we score it?

12
Indicator Approach
Indicator Criteria

• What can we (realistically) measure in a sample
  survey?
• How can we best measure it?
• How responsive is it?
• How variable is it?
• Can we score it?

13
Indicator Approach
Indicator Criteria

• What can we (realistically) measure in a sample
  survey?
• How can we best measure it?
• How responsive is it?
• How variable is it?
• Can we score it?

14
Indicator ApproachHow variable is it?
SignalNoise Ratio (ratio of between-site
variance/within-site variance)
15
Indicator Approach
Indicator Criteria

• What can we (realistically) measure in a sample
  survey?
• How can we best measure it?
• How responsive is it?
• How variable is it?
• Can we score it?

16
MAHA Results Fish Index of Biotic
IntegrityRegional Patterns
17
MAHA Results Stressor Ranking
18
Tiered Aquatic Life Uses Conceptual Framework

Objective Identify common pattern of biological
response to human disturbance
natural
1. Encompass range of possible conditions
Biological Condition
2. Articulate scientifically defensible benchmark
s

Human Disturbance
High
Low
19
Definitions of Reference Condition
For EMAP-W we recognize that multiple definitions
exist, and that these 3 are especially pertinent

• Minimally Disturbed Condition - condition of
  streams in the absence of significant human
  disturbance (e.g., natural, pristine or
  undisturbed)
• Least Disturbed Condition the best available
  physical, chemical and biological habitat
  conditions given todays state of the landscape -
  defined by a set of explicit criteria to which
  all reference sites must adhere
• Best Attainable Condition this condition is
  equivalent to the ecological condition of
  (hypothetical) least disturbed sites where the
  best possible management practices are in use

20
Reference Conditionestimating distribution of
sites in reference condition
60
Historical
Distribution
50
40
Percent of Sites
30
20
10
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Biological Index Score
21
Reference Conditionestimating distribution of
sites in reference condition
60
Current
Historical
Distribution
Distribution
50
40
Percent of Sites
30
20
10
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Biological Index Score
22
Reference Conditionestimating distribution of
sites in reference condition
60
50
40
Percent of Sites
30
20
10
0
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Biological Index Score
23
States conduct probability survey with standard
suite of indicators
Integrated Monitoring
Condition
Associated Stressors
Comparison of of Expected 303(d) Sites to
known sites
305(b) Reports
Non-point Source
Point Source
lt or gt

State of the Environment Reports
Likelihood Criteria
Dose - Response
Probability of Impairment Assessment Models
Accept State 303(d) list
Standards
303(d) List
Waterbody has low Probability of Impairment
Waterbody has Moderate Probability of impairment
Waterbody has high Probability of Impairment
Diagnosis
Intensive sampling to confirm impairment
De-list
TMDL Development
No additional Intensive Sampling
Waterbody Impairment Confirmed
Waterbody Not impaired
Remediation
24
States conduct probability survey with standard
suite of indicators
Integrated Monitoring
Condition
Associated Stressors
305(b) Reports
Comparison of of Expected 303(d) Sites to
known sites
Non-point Source
Point Source
lt or gt

State of the Environment Reports
Likelihood Criteria
Dose - Response
Accept State 303(d) list
Probability of Impairment Assessment Models
Standards
303(d) List
Waterbody has low Probability of Impairment
Waterbody has Moderate Probability of impairment
Waterbody has high Probability of Impairment
Diagnosis
Intensive sampling to confirm impairment
De-list
TMDL Development
No additional Intensive Sampling
Waterbody Impairment Confirmed
Waterbody Not impaired
Remediation
25
States conduct probability survey with standard
suite of indicators
Integrated Monitoring
Condition
Associated Stressors
305(b) Reports
Comparison of no. expected 303(d) sites to
listed sites
Non-point Source
Point Source
lt or gt
State of the Environment Reports

Likelihood Criteria
Dose - Response
Accept state 303(d) list
Prob. of impair. based on assessment models
Standards
303(d) List
Waterbody low prob. of impair.
Waterbody moderate prob. impair.
Waterbody high prob. impair.
Diagnosis
Intensive sampling to evaluate impairment
TMDL Development
De-list
No additional intensive sampling
Waterbody impair. confirmed
Waterbody not impaired
Remediation
26
States conduct probability survey with standard
suite of indicators
Integrated Monitoring
Condition
Associated Stressors
305(b) Reports
Comparison of no. expected 303(d) sites to
listed sites
Non-point Source
Point Source
lt or gt
State of the Environment Reports

Likelihood Criteria
Dose - Response
Accept state 303(d) list
Prob. of impair. based on assessment models
Standards
303(d) List
Waterbody low prob. of impair.
Waterbody high prob. impair.
Waterbody moderate prob. impair.
Diagnosis
Intensive sampling to evaluate impairment
TMDL Development
De-list
No additional intensive sampling
Waterbody impair. confirmed
Waterbody not impaired
Remediation
27
States conduct probability survey with standard
suite of indicators
Integrated Monitoring
Condition
Associated Stressors
305(b) Reports
Comparison of no. expected 303(d) sites to
listed sites
Non-point Source
Point Source
lt or gt
State of the Environment Reports

Likelihood Criteria
Dose - Response
Accept state 303(d) list
Prob. of impair. based on assessment models
Standards
303(d) List
Waterbody low prob. of impair.
Waterbody high prob. impair.
Waterbody moderate prob. impair.
Diagnosis
Intensive sampling to evaluate impairment
TMDL Development
De-list
No additional intensive sampling
Waterbody impair. confirmed
Waterbody not impaired
Remediation
28
(No Transcript)
29
What is EMAP West?
A demonstration of indicators and designs for
measuring environmental progress

• partnerships between EPA/States/Tribes
• unbiased estimates of condition of ecological
  resources - streams and rivers
• comparative ranking of stressors
• tools for biocriteria
• supporting framework for 303d process