ANALYSIS OF OCC PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DATA TOWARD DETERMINATION OF HIGH QUALITY SITES

1
ANALYSIS OF OCC PHYSICOCHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
DATA TOWARD DETERMINATION OF HIGH QUALITY SITES

• Stacey Day and Greg Kloxin
• Oklahoma Conservation Commission
• Water Quality Division

National NPS Monitoring Conference

September 15, 2008
2
Determination of High Quality Sites

• Reference site generalities
• OCC method for reference site selection
• Results
• Future plans

3
What is a Reference Site?

• Site which is unimpaired or minimally impaired
  and is representative of the expected biological
  integrity of other sites on the same waterbody or
  nearby waterbodies
• Sets the curve for other streams
• Good reference sites will
• represent a population of waterbodies
• reflect minimally or least disturbed conditions
• transcend political boundaries
• be politically reasonable

4

• In developing and adjusting biocriteria,
• managers must strike a balance
• between the
• ideal restoration of the water resource
• and the fact that
• human activity affects the environment.
• from Biological Criteria Technical Guidance for
  Streams and Small Rivers, EPA 1996

5
Reference Site Basics

• Reference conditions have been determined for a
  broad range of spatial scales
• site specificupstream/downstream of point source
  or paired watersheds
• regionalecoregions most common

6
(No Transcript)
7
Ecoregions

• The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards use
  ecoregions as the spatial framework for
  biocriteria in the state.
• regions of relative homogeneity in ecological
  systems or in relationships between organisms and
  their environments (Omernik 1987)
• Delineated from coincidental patterns of
  superimposed resource maps including land use,
  natural vegetation, physical geography, and soils

8
Ecoregions of Oklahoma (promulgated biocriteria)
9
WHO, WHAT?
Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC) is charged
by state statute with monitoring NPS impacts to
wadeable streams Over fifteen years of
monitoring has produced a robust database of
physical, chemical, and biological data for
wadeable streams across the state Biological
data collection (fish, macroinvertebrate, and
instream habitat) is unique strength of the
programOCC trains other state agencies and
tribes
10
AND WHY?
With the development of biological monitoring
programs, the need for a list of sites of known
biological integrity has become increasingly
important. As a first step, the OCC has
developed a list of high quality sites derived
from analysis of its own physical, chemical, and
biological data. Disclaimers This is not an
official Oklahoma reference streams list, and
OCC is not positing recommendations implied or
otherwise with respect to its use. The resulting
list is not exhaustive of HQ streams, just those
sampled by OCC (wadeable streams rivers).
11
METHODS

• Queried database for all sites possessing
  substantial and concurrent WQ, instream habitat,
  fish, and benthic macroinvertebrate data
• Used the screening process developed for previous
  projects for which final reports have been
  approved by EPA Region VI
• Final data compilation used comprises 394 total
  sites representing all Level III Ecoregions
  statewide
• Most data used in metaanalysis derived via
  Rotating Basin and Data Gaps projects conducted
  over past seven years however, some sites with
  data originating from 1994

12
OCC Sites evaluated for HQ Candidacy
13
Determining High Quality

• Developed a sortable scoring matrix in EXCEL
  allowing integration of the four data types
  fish, macroinvertebrates, water quality, and
  habitat
• Final scoring matrix comprised rank scores for
  all 4 categories
• Biotic categories were weighted more heavily in
  final rank
• Top 10 of sites in each ecoregion were HQ

14
Water Quality Assessment

• WQ Sampling
• five week intervals
• (10 events/year)
• in-situ parameters DO, pH,
• temp, turbidity, sp. conductance,
• alkalinity, inst. discharge
• analytes nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, TKN, TP,
  oP, sulfate, chloride, hardness, TSS, bacteria
• descriptive stats generated for each parameter by
  site and ecoregion for seasonal base flow samples

15
Water Quality Assessment

• WQ parameters narrowed down to those with known
  or hypothesized biological responses (from
  literature)
• Descriptive stats determined by ecoregion
• (e.g., quartiles, medians) and used as screen
• Ranking based on frequency of exceedence (FOE) of
  the screening value by sites for each parameter
• Rank classes determined based upon range and
  natural breaks of FOE exhibited (e.g., 0-9
  received rank 1, 10-19 received rank 2, etc.)

16
WQ Assessment continued
17
Example WQ Ranking
Rank of 1 is the best
18
Example WQ Scoring
Rank of 1 is best
19
Habitat Assessment

• Instream and riparian assessment (modified RBP)
  conducted concurrent with fish collections
• Data collected every 20 m (400 m total)
• 11 components used for score

• instream cover
• pool bottom substrate
• pool variability
• canopy cover
• percent rocky runs and
• rocky riffles
• flow at base elevation

• channel alteration
• channel sinuosity
• bank stability
• vegetative stability
• dominant streamside vegetation

20
Habitat Assessment

• Habitat data metrics and total habitat scores
  calculated in Access database
• Rank classes determined by breaks in total
  habitat scores for each ecoregion

21
Example Habitat Ranking
Rank of 1 is the best
22
Fish Assessment

• Fish collections obtained via
• seining and electroshocking
• over 400 m reach
• 15 metrics calculated representing taxonomic
  composition, trophic composition, and condition
  and abundance of the fish assemblage
• (modified version of Karrs Index of Biotic
  Integrity)
• Distilled to seven metrics based on general
  ability to separate good from poor sites
• Descriptive stats determined by ecoregion
• (e.g., quartiles, medians) and used as screen
  for ranking process

23
Fish Assessment continued
Screening value for both good and poor
24
Example Fish Ranking
Rank of 1 is best
25
Macroinvertebrate Assessment

• Benthic macros collected annually for both winter
  and summer index periods in all available
  habitats
• (riffle, vegetation, wood)
• Data were compiled and collated by year, season,
  and habitat type
• 25 total metrics explored distilled to seven
  metrics based on general ability to separate
  good from poor sites
• Descriptive stats determined by ecoregion for
  each season specific sample type (e.g., summer
  riffle) and used as screen for ranking process

26
Macroinvertebrate Assessment
Ranks assigned for good and poor and averaged
like fish assessment
27
Final Scoring and Reference Selection

• Final ranks for WQ, habitat, fish, and
  macroinvertebrates were assembled into a sortable
  matrix in EXCEL
• Categorical ranks were weighted and summed to
  produce a Final Rank score
• fish and bugs 30 each
• WQ and habitat 20 each
• Each ecoregion sorted in ascending order by
  Final Rank and the top 10 (arbitrary) of sites
  designated HQ
• In instances of a particular Level IV dominance,
  that subregion was represented separately from
  the other sites in the respective Level III

28
RESULTS

• WATER QUALITY
• Most parameters tended toward greater variability
  and less quality in the plains
• Parameters which vary proportionally with
  sediment loads (e.g., TP, TSS) exhibit markedly
  higher ranges and maxima in the plains vs. the
  eastern ecoregions

29
(No Transcript)
30

• HABITAT
• Ozark Highlands and Boston Mts in the
  northeastern corner of the state possess the
  highest quality streams in the state, and it is
  the quality and uniqueness of their habitat that
  sets them apart
• Explored similarity of ecoregions by habitat
  using cluster analysis

31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33

• FISH
• 115 total species collected across state
• Eastern ecoregions possessed most diverse and
  sensitive communities
• Explored relative similarity of metrics among
  ecoregions using cluster analysis indicates six
  distinct groupings at 75 similarity

34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36

• MACROINVERTEBRATE
• 2,631 events resulting in 462 total taxa
• Transition to plains ecoregions of the west
  results in less diverse and proportionally more
  tolerant benthic communities
• Cluster analysis showed similar agglomeration to
  that for fish

37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39

• SCORING AND STREAM SELECTION
• 58 high quality sites selected statewide
  representing all but two Level III ecoregions
  (due to lack of representation)
• The scoring matrix allows exploration of
• best of, worst of scenarios to better
  characterize habitat-biota and WQ-biota
  relationships
• Therefore, Habitat limited" and WQ limited
  streams were also chosen

40
(No Transcript)
41
To Do List

• Incorporate new data (lower half of the state
  didnt have RB data) and repeat process
• More robust metric evaluation
• Use multivariate statistical techniques to
  determine principal parameters explaining
  inter-ecological differences
• Include current landuse info as part of selection
  process
• Devise statewide criteria for macroinvertebrates
  and update fish criteria to include all ecoregions

42
Greg Kloxin Oklahoma Conservation
Commission Water Quality Division 2800 N. Lincoln
Blvd., Suite 160 Oklahoma City, OK
73105 Phone [phone] greg.kloxin_at_conservation
.ok.gov
43
(No Transcript)