Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byShayne Grave Modified over 2 years ago

1
Predicting the likelihood of water quality impaired stream reaches using landscape scale data and a hierarchical methodology Erin Peterson Geosciences Department Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado

2
**Space-Time Aquatic Resources Modeling and Analysis Program**

The work reported here was developed under STAR Research Assistance Agreements CR awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Colorado State University. This presentation has not been formally reviewed by EPA. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this presentation.

3
**Overview Introduction Background Objective Methodology**

~ Introduction Background Objective Methodology Expected Results Products

4
**The Clean Water Act (CWA) 1972**

Requires states and tribes to identify water quality impaired stream segments Create a priority ranking of those segments Calculate the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each impaired segment based upon chemical and physical water quality standards (P.L , 1972)

5
**Bioassessments using Benthic Macroinvertebrates (BMI)**

Identify water quality impaired segments using BMI data BMI are sensitive to hydrologic, chemical, and physical degradation at all life stages Integrative approach: Species structure, species abundance, or functional group composition reflects background, point, and non-point source pollution Episodic events Measure spatial and temporal changes in the hydrologic, chemical, and physical properties of the stream segment using one sample

6
**Electrofishing during EMAP sampling (Theobald, 2003)**

Too many streams ~ 35,000 miles of streams in Colorado Limited personnel CO WQ Control Division has ~ 100 employees Cost of sampling is high Rapid assessment is difficult Bioassessments do not provide information about the specific source of degradation Difficult to extrapolate local data to derive a regional estimate of watershed health Too much natural variability found in streams Lawsuits filed by environmental groups demanding that the requirements of the CWA be met The Problem Electrofishing during EMAP sampling (Theobald, 2003)

7
**Hierarchical Stream Structure**

Figure taken directly from Frissell and others (1986).

8
**Hierarchical Processes and Models**

Complex biological processes Hierarchical in nature Need to be modeled and analyzed at multiple scales to more fully comprehend the causal factors associated with stream degradation Complex hierarchical models Need reach scale inputs for the models Usually collected as field samples Need to know them everywhere Landscape Reach BMI

9
Objective Develop a spatial model that can be used to predict reach scale characteristics Potential Uses: Input into a hierarchical classification model Substrate type Used to identify water quality impaired stream segments Heavy metal concentration

10
**How is this different than other spatial models?**

How is this different than other models used to predict reach scale characteristics? Spatially explicit: Represents the hydrologic relationships between sample points Hydrologic connectivity, flow direction, and flow volume GIS and remotely sensed data, rather than field samples, as inputs Free data, national coverage, easily accessible How is this different than other spatial models? Flow dependent hydrologic distance Asymmetric kriging method for stream networks Developed by Jay Ver Hoef and others (In Progress) Spatial AICC Method Developed by Hoeting and others (In Press)

11
**Methodology Select dataset Conceptual model development**

Spatial analysis to derive explanatory variables, hydrologic distances, and kriging weights Exploratory analysis to determine whether spatial autocorrelation exists in the data Model Development & Selection

12
Dataset Selection Colorado Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Distance between sample points is too great Mean = km 4 pairs had distance < 7 km Collected during different years Spatial neighbors, but not temporal neighbors Sample sites are not connected by flow 16 sites had upstream neighbors 1 site had > 1 upstream neighbor Water chemistry datasets collected from stream networks with spatially dependent sample points are difficult to find!

13
**What is a reasonable neighborhood?**

How close do sample points need to be? Does distance differ for different reach attributes? Heavy Metals vs. Substrate vs. Bug IBI? What is the correct distance measure for each reach attribute? Euclidean distance? Symmetrical hydrologic distance? Asymmetrical hydrologic distance? Something else?

14
**Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) Data**

Collected by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources in 1995, 1996, 1997 955 sites in 17 basins All sites within a basin collected in same year Stratified random sampling design Variety of data collected Chemical, BMI, fish, aquatic plants, amphibians and reptiles, and physical habitat data 6 chemical variables collected pH, acid neutralizing capacity, water temperature, conductance, sulfate, nitrate-nitrogen, and dissolved organic carbon

15
**Evaluate each chemical variable**

405 of the 898 sites had upstream neighbors 1396 neighboring pairs 10.06 km, the minimum was 0.05 km, and the maximum was km 431 sites had hydrologic distance < 3 km Evaluate each chemical variable Determine which distance measure is most appropriate Euclidean distance Hydrologic distance Asymmetric hydrologic distance Determine within what distance spatial autocorrelation occurs

16
**Teck Cominco Alaska Incorporated Red Dog Mine Data**

54 sample points collected in 1979 Pre-mining zinc concentrations (ppm) in stream sediments Most points within 500 meters of neighboring points Zinc values range from 5ppm to 1150 ppm

17
Red Dog Mine Data

18
**Conceptual Model Development**

Compile potential explanatory variables for reach scale habitat conditions Based on ecological knowledge and the literature Evaluate explanatory variables to determine whether information could be extracted or calculated using a GIS Data Source Explanatory Variable USGS NHD hydrologic distances, catchment areas, flow direction, Strahler stream order DEM catchment area, slope and aspect of catchment, σ of elevation in catchment STATSGO or SSURGO permeability, erosion factor, geologic unit, particle size, calcium carbonate PRISM mean annual or monthly precipitation NLCD or LANDSAT vegetative cover, landuse

19
**Applying Spatial Statistical Models to Stream Networks**

Distance measures for kriging along stream networks Must represent the biological or ecological nature of the dependent variable A B C Distances and relationships are represented differently depending on the distance measure

20
**Applying Spatial Statistical Models to Stream Networks**

Distance measures for kriging along stream networks Must represent the biological or ecological nature of the dependent variable A B C Distances and relationships are represented differently depending on the distance measure

21
**Applying Spatial Statistical Models to Stream Networks**

Distance measures for kriging along stream networks Must represent the biological or ecological nature of the dependent variable A B C Distances and relationships are represented differently depending on the distance measure

22
**Applying Spatial Statistical Models to Stream Networks**

Distance measures for kriging along stream networks Must represent the biological or ecological nature of the dependent variable A B C Distances and relationships are represented differently depending on the distance measure

23
**Applying Spatial Statistical Models to Stream Networks**

Distance measures for kriging along stream networks Must represent the biological or ecological nature of the dependent variable A B C Distances and relationships are represented differently depending on the distance measure Challenge: Spatial Linear Model Spatial autocovariance models developed for Euclidean distance may not be valid for stream distances

24
**GIS Data for Asymmetric Kriging**

Hydrologic distance matrix Hydrologic distance between sample points Incidence matrix Weighted by catchment area Surrogate for flow volume Maintains flow dependent neighborhoods Covariate representing distance from basin outlet Observations

25
GIS Tools Automated tools needed to extract data about hydrologic relationships between sample points did not exist! Calculate hydrologic distance from point to point Calculate hydrologic contributing areas (HCAs) for each stream segment Accumulating HCAs: Calculate digitally derived catchment attributes from HCAs Calculate proportional influence of one point on another Represent flow dependent relationships Convert GIS data to a format compatible with statistics software

26
**Asymmetric Kriging for Stream Networks**

Developed by Jay Ver Hoef, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Ver Hoef et al., In Progress) Spatial statistical models for stream networks Moving average models Incorporate flow and use hydrologic distance Represents discontinuity at confluences Important for pollution monitoring Flow

27
**Progress to Date Select dataset Conceptual model development**

Spatial analysis to derive explanatory variables, hydrologic distances, and kriging weights Exploratory analysis to determine whether spatial autocorrelation exists in the data Model Development & Selection

28
**Model Development & Selection**

Input data: explanatory variables and sample points We will explore methods of cross validation Model Selection The Spatial Corrected Akaike Information Criterion (AICC) will be used to evaluate models (Hoeting et al., In Press) Advantage: does not ignore spatial correlation in the selection of explanatory variables Euclidean distance in the spatial linear model will be replaced with a covariance based on flow and stream distance (Ver Hoef et al., In Progress) Make changes to the conceptual model if necessary

29
**Expected Results A geostatistical model :**

Predict a specific reach scale condition at points that were not sampled Provide a better understanding of the relationship between the landscape and reach scale conditions Give insight into potential sources of water quality degradation Develop landscape indicators Crucial for the rapid and cost efficient monitoring of large areas Better understanding of spatial autocorrelation in stream networks: What is the distance within which it occurs How does that differ between chemical variables

30
**Products Map of the study area Methodology**

Shows the likelihood of water quality impairment for each stream segment Based on water quality standards or relative condition (low, medium, high) Future sampling efforts can be concentrated in areas with a higher probability of impairment Methodology Illustrates how States and Tribes can complete spatial analysis using GIS data and field data GIS tools will be available

31
Questions?

32
**Proportional Influence**

Proportional influence: influence of each neighboring sample site on a downstream sample site Weighted by cumulative catchment area: Surrogate for flow Calculate influence of each upstream segment on segment directly downstream A C B 1.0 0.6749 0.3251 0.5612 0.4312 0.1982 0.8018 Edge proportional influence Sample point Stream network Proportional influence of one point on another = Product of edge proportional Influences in downstream path AC = * * 1.0 BC = * * 1.0 Output: weighted incidence matrix

33
**Applying Spatial Statistical Models to Stream Networks**

Distance measures for kriging along stream networks Must represent the biological or ecological nature of the dependent variable Euclidean distance Is this an appropriate measure of distance? Continuous landscape variables: geology Symmetrical hydrologic distance Hydrologic connectivity Flow direction is not important Fish movement? Flow dependent hydrologic distance Hydrologic distance between two points Takes flow direction into consideration Downstream: Longitudinal transport of sediment in the stream Upstream: Spawning

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google