Update on Development of Expected Conditions for Colorado

1
Update on Development of Expected Conditions for
Colorado

• August 14, 2006
• Chris Theel, WQCD

2
Development of Expected Conditions for Colorado

• Refinement of ALUCs
• Integrating tiered ALUC approach
• Bldg supportive narrative and/or numeric criteria
• Integrating ALUCs criteria into WQ Stds

3
Development of Expected Conditions for Colorado

• Refinement of ALUCs

4
Steps for Developing Programmatic Bioassessment
and Biocriteria

• Build ecological classifications ?
• Develop a timetable game plan ?
• Determine reference criteria reference sites ?
• Metric evaluation and index development ?
• Refinement of designated uses (beginning stages)
• TALU biocriteria development
• Implement operational monitoring and assessment
  program WQ Stds

5
Why is a change needed?

• Colorados ALUCs are too generalized and outdated
• Many streams are misclassified or do not fit into
  any one category
• Determinations of nonattainment in these waters
  have been difficult and open to alternative
  interpretations in front of the WQCC

6
What do we hope to accomplish by refining ALUCs?

• Unique and consistent differences among aquatic
  communities inhabiting different waters w/ the
  same designated use are not being captured
• Biological data can be used to separate one class
  into two or more sub-classifications

7
Types of Aquatic Life Sub-Classes

• Attainable habitat
• Example Cold vs. Warm (CO)
• Community structure composition
• Special designations to protect unique
  sensitive species, communities or habitats
• Example greenback cutthroat or tail waters

8
Usage of Biological Data to Refine

• Biological data will simply not generate a
  sub-classification
• Sub-classes are objectively predetermined and
  tested by linear discriminant analysis
• Output obtains the maximum discrimination among
  the defined classes

9
Biological DataWhat data will be used to refine
Colorados aquatic life use classifications?

• Macroinvertebrate
• Multimetric Indexes (MMI scores)
• Multivariate predictive model (O/E scores)
• Fish
• MMIs (index scores)
• Aquatic GAP
• Will NOT be utilized to refine useswill be used
  to build supportive biocriteria around Uses

10
Biological Data cont.What is the status of
Colorados bioassessment tools?

• Macroinvertebrate MMIs
• WQCD seeking additional reference sites in plains
  and xeric bioregions to improve discrimination
  between ref and stressed sites
• Anticipate recalibration of this tool in late
  2006
• Ready for use in early 2007
• Macroinvertebrate Multivariate Predictive Model
  (O/E)
• Provides us with an expected
• Ready for use nowmust continue updating
  predictor variables

11
Biological Data cont.

• Fish MMIs
• Will be calibrated and validated during
  development of Colorados chapter of EPAs EMAP
  report (ongoing)
• MMIs developed for plains and xeric bioregions
• No MMI for mountain bioregionno metrics worked
• Anticipate full availability in late 2006 or
  early 2007
• Aquatic GAP
• Peer reviewed by CDOW staff
• Anticipate full availability in spring 2007

12
Recent ProgressBreaking down the current
Aquatic Life Use Classifications

• Identify and understand ALUC distributions by
  bioregion
• Applied discriminant analysis to current ALUCs
  using suite of human disturbance variables, such
  as land use, road density, diversions, dam
  proximity, etc.
• Some critical findings and observations made

13
ALUC Distribution by Bioregion( of total stream
miles per bioregion)
Xerics
Mountains
Plains
Stream Miles Statewide 104,432
14
ALUC Distribution Observationsin Mountain
Bioregion

• 84 of stream miles designated as Cold
• 11 of stream miles designated as Warm
• Remaining 5 or 2400 stream miles have no
  designated use (either stream or ditch)

15
ALUC Distribution Observationsin Xeric Bioregion

• 30 of stream mi. designated as Cold
• 57 of stream mi. designated as Warm
• 13 or 3500 stream mi. have no ALUC
• High of stream miles designated Cold in a
  bioregion widely considered to have warm water
  habitat

16
ALUC Distribution Observationsin Plains Bioregion

• 82 of stream miles designated as Warm
• 2 of stream miles designated as Cold
• Remaining 16 or 5800 stream miles have no
  designated use (either stream or ditch)
• Cold segments either in Republican basin or
  adjacent to foothills

17
Critical Findings and Observationsby Bioregion

• Mountain bioregion observations
• Xeric bioregion observations
• Plains bioregion observations

18
Critical Findings and Observationsin Mountains

• Warm I II segments in the mnts had a high
  probability of classifying correctly (gt90) when
  hydro mod metrics were used as predictor
  variables
• Cold I II segments in the mnts had an extremely
  low probability of classifying correctly (6.7)
  when hydro mod metrics used as predictor
  variablesCold II 0.0 probability
• Cold I class groups well in mountain bioregion

Proximity of site below dam, of diversions
u/s
19
Critical Findings and Observationsin Xerics

• Cold II segments in the xeric had a high
  probability of classifying correctly (95.7) when
  hydro mod metrics were used as predictor
  variablesi.e. it was designated Cold II because
  of modified habitat
• Warm II segments in the xeric had a zero
  probability of classifying correctly (0.0) when
  hydro mod metrics were used as predictor
  variables

Proximity of site below dam, of diversions
u/s
20
Critical Findings and Observationsin Plains

• Cold I II segments in the plains had a high
  probability of classifying correctly (89.9) when
  7 human disturbance metrics were used as
  predictor variables
• Only Cold I segments in the plains had a high
  probability of classifying correctly (81.8) when
  hydro mod metrics alone were used as predictor
  variablesCold II segments did not

Proximity of site below dam, of diversions
u/s
21
Common Denominators

• Hydrological modifications are greatly
  influencing how ALUCs were and are currently
  being assigned
• Areas of misclassifications typically seen at
  interfaces between bioregionstransition areas
  from cold water habitat to warm water habitat
• Inadequate ALUC coverage, too many gaps
• Temperature is a strong driver on the
  distribution of macroinvertebrate (and fish)
  communities across Colorado

22
Final Analysis

• Final and formal discriminant analysis nearing
  completion
• Predict that this analysis may not discriminate
  (or separate) the four classes with respect to
  non-biological variables
• Will provide statistical validation that
  misclassifications are widespread and refinement
  is necessary

23
Next Steps

• Recon more candidate reference sites in plains
  and xeric bioregions (ongoing)
• Recalibrate and validate macroinvertebrate MMIs
  w/ additional ref sites (late 2006)
• Further develop and test fish MMIs thru EMAP
  project (next 5 months)

24
Next Steps cont.

• Once first 3 bioassessment tools coalesce, start
  refinement process (winter 06-07)
• Integrate refined uses into TALU structure (early
  2007)
• Once all 4 tools coalesce, build biocriteria to
  support those new, refined uses (spring/summer
  2007)

25
Workgroup Involvement From Here on In

• Review and approve all calibrated biological
  assessment tools
• Why? If the workgroup supports use of this
  biological data then outcome of refined ALUCs and
  MMI/OE output scores (that will be used to
  develop biocriteria) cannot be called into
  question later down the road

26
Workgroup Involvement cont.

• Review outcome of discriminant analysis, provide
  technical comments and give final approval to
  statistically sound refined ALUCs
• Why? Provide finality to refined ALUCs making the
  building of biocriteria around those ALUCs much
  easier

27
Workgroup Involvement cont.

• Actively engage in the building of biological
  criteria (thresholds)
• This is the true building of expected
  conditions
• Support biocriteria with safety factors,
  antidegradation and goal setting features, etc.

28
Trouble Shooting

• Fish dataall we have to go on right now is fish
  data from EPAs EMAP project
• Is this enough to refine uses? Probably not!
• It is inevitable that we will eventually need
  some fish data from CDOW to help refine
  Colorados ALUCs (by late 2006)
• Must address how Aquatic GAP can be of use when
  biocriteria building commences in spring of 2007

29
Summary

• Once biocriteria development is complete and has
  workgroup stamp of approval on it, the WQCD
  will
• Package Expected Condition for 2008 Issues
  Scoping Hearing
• Finalize supporting guidance docs
• Figure out how all this will be integrated
  programmatically within WQCD

30
Contact Information

• Chris Theel
• Colorado Department of Public Health Env
• Water Quality Control Division
• Monitoring Unit
• christopher.theel_at_state.co.us
• 303-692-3558

31
Candidate Ref Sites in Xerics
Black Sulphur Creek at Cty Rd 26
32
Candidate Ref Sites in Xerics
Yellow Creek below conf with Barcus Creek
33
Candidate Ref Sites in Xerics
South Fork White River at Oak Ridge SWA