Modeling Support

1

• Modeling Support
• for Monitoring Design
• Using Land Use Data to Evaluate
• Multiple-Objective Monitoring Designs
• John W. Hunt
• University of California, Davis
• Department of Environmental Toxicology
• Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory at Granite
  Canyon

2
Californias Surface Water Ambient Monitoring
ProgramStatewide Assessment Framework(Stressors)
3

• SWAMPers Val Connor, Emilie Reyes,
  Karen Worcester, Dave Paradies, Karen Taberski,
  Tom Suk, Rusty Fairey, Max Puckett, Cassandra
  Lamerdin, Bev van Buuren, Terry Flemming, Rainer
  Hoenicke
• UC Davis Brian Anderson, Bryn
  Phillips, Ron Tjeerdema
• UC Santa Cruz Brent Haddad, Brian
  Fulfrost, Karen Holl, Carol Shennan, Russ Flegal

4
(No Transcript)
5
Nutrients
Metals
Industrial
Sediment
Pesticides
Pathogens
6
(No Transcript)
7
Complexity Precipitation Hydrology Terrain Soils
Vegetation Land Cover Land Management
8
California NPS Program Plan 28 State Agencies

• State Water Resources Control Board
• 9 Regional Water Quality Control Bds
• CALFED Bay-Delta Program
• California Coastal Commission
• Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
• SF Bay Conservation and Development Commission
• State Coastal Conservancy
• State Lands Commission
• California Integrated Waste Management Board
• US Environmental Protection Agency Region 9

• California Departments of
• Boating and Waterways
• Conservation
• Fish and Game
• Food and Agriculture
• Forestry and Fire Protection
• Health Services
• Parks and Recreation
• Pesticide Regulation
• Toxic Substances Control
• Transportation
• Water Resources
• Bond Fund Grantees

SWAMP
9

• All of these agencies use
• water quality information to make
• resource management decisions.
• Monitoring to meet multiple objectives

10
Water Quality Information

• Decision What? Who? How? When?
• Assessment questions
• Ecological attributes
• Spatial and temporal scales
• Indicators and benchmarks
• Data quality and level of uncertainty
• Monitoring objectives
• Monitoring designs
• Sampling plans

11
Assessment Questions and Legal (Public) Mandates

• Beneficial use benchmarks (CWA 303c)
• Standards attainment ( 305b)
• Impaired water body listing ( 303d)
• Cause source identification ( 303d, 305b)
• Management implementation ( 303, 314, 319)
• Program effectiveness ( 303, 305, 402, 314, 319)
• Basin planning activities (California Water Code)

12
Assessment Questions

• Status of waterways (SWRCB)
• Trends over time (SWRCB)
• Causes of impairment (Reg Bds)
• Sources of stressors (Reg Bds)
• Program evaluation (All)

13
Assessment Questions

• Status of waterways (statewide)
• Trends over time (statewide)
• Causes of impairment (local)
• Sources of stressors (watershed)
• Program evaluation (All)

14
Assessment Questions

• Status of waterways (probabilistic)
• Trends over time (fixed site)
• Causes of impairment (gradient)
• Sources of stressors (tributary network)
• Program evaluation (All, over time)

15
(No Transcript)
16
Hierarchies based on Process Rates
Landscape
Slow
Ecosystem
Community
Time
Population
Species
Organism
Fast
Small
Large
Space
17
Hierarchies based on Process Rates
Landscape
Slow
Ecosystem
Flow of Inference
Community
Time
Population
Species
Organism
Fast
Small
Large
Space
18
Hierarchies based on Process Rates
Hydrologic Region
Slow
Watershed
Flow of Inference
River
Time
Tributary
Stormdrain
Furrow
Fast
Small
Large
Space
19
Integrate regional data into statewide assessments

• Status and Trends probabilistic sampling
• stratification, clustering, proportional,
  spatially balanced
• Regional Cause and Source gradients and networks
  
• arrayed around probability sites from statewide
  design
• Design criteria for regional assessments?

20
Aggregate Up
21
Testing Candidate Designs against Expected Values
from Models
22
Testing Candidate Designs against Expected Values
from Models

• EPA BASINS software system
• SWAT predicts pollutant yields from land use
• WinHSPF water concentrations from NPS loadings
• PLOAD annual average NPS loads per chemical
• QUAL2E pollutant transport within stream
  channels.

23
Testing Candidate Designs against Expected Values
from Models

• EPA BASINS software system
• SWAT predicts pollutant yields from land use
• WinHSPF water concentrations from NPS loadings
• PLOAD annual average NPS loads per chemical
• QUAL2E pollutant transport within stream
  channels.

• Georeferenced
• Calibration
• Validation

24
Target Stressors

• Copper in streambed sediment
• Chlordanes in streambed sediment
• Nitrate in stream water
• Diazinon in water and sediment

25
Target Stressors

• Copper in streambed sediment
• Chlordanes in streambed sediment
• Nitrate in stream water
• Diazinon in water and sediment

• frequently on 303d lists throughout the state
• commonly measured in monitoring programs
• range of physico-chemical properties
• multiple source activities
• previous water quality modeling studies.

26
Fill the Reach File 3 stream segments with
expected stressor concentrations.
27
Fill the Reach File 3 stream segments with
expected stressor concentrations.
Virtual sampling Apply iterations of monitoring
designs
m
28
Fill the Reach File 3 stream segments with
expected stressor concentrations.
Virtual sampling Apply iterations of monitoring
designs
m
29
Fill the Reach File 3 stream segments with
expected stressor concentrations.
Virtual sampling Apply iterations of monitoring
designs
m
30
Monitoring Design Evaluation

• Compare known impairment (model derived) with
  observed impairment (from virtual sampling)
• What proportion of known standards exceedences
  were observed?
• What proportion of known tributary pathways
  were discovered?

31
Intended Benefits of this Approach

• Process to consolidate disparate types of data
  land use layers with water quality measurements
• Maps to target future monitoring
• Evaluation of potential monitoring designs.

32
Pilot Study Land Use Pesticide
Application Water Quality In-stream pesticides
and toxicity Central Coast
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)