# Presentation: 515484

## SELECTION OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING SITESandCSU’s STARMAP

**by****N. Scott Urquhart**
**Department of Statistics**
**Colorado State University**
**Director of STARMAP**

## EPA’s CURRENT GUIDANCE for 305b

**States and territories are encouraged to use probabilistic designs for water quality assessments and to include reports of these assessments with their Integrated Reports. **** **
**SOURCE: The Total Maximun Load (TMDL) ****	****Program, Office of Water, November 19,****	****2001.  Memorandum concerning “2002****	****Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and****	****Assessment Report Guidance”**

## STARMAP FUNDING

** ****EPA  **
** ****OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT**
** ****NOT FUNDED BY OFFICE OF WATER**
** ****ROUTINE (REQUIRED) DISCLAIMER:**
**  ****The work reported here today was developed under the STAR Research Assistance Agreement CR-829095 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Colorado State University. This presentation has not been formally reviewed by EPA.  The views expressed here are solely those of presenter and the STARMAP, the Program he represents. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this presentation.**

## HOW SHOULD WATER QUALITY MONITORING SITES BE SELECTED?

** ****Depends on *****OBJECTIVES ***
** ****Evaluating the effect of a known point source**
** ****Evaluate quality above and below point source**
** ****Trying to find unidentified point source**
** ****Start from known presence of “pollutant”**
** ****Work upstream checking concentration of “pollutant”****	****in each branch.**
** ****Characterizing all waters in some domain **
** ****Like for Clean Water Act 305b reporting**
** ****Select sites randomly **
** ****Increasingly being done by states  **
** ****Endorsed by EPA’s Office of water**
** ****More generally, variable probability is possible**

**STATES ARE BEGINNING TO USE PROBABILITY-BASED SITE SELECTION**

**States adopting EMAP designs**

**States evaluating EMAP designs **

**States considering EMAP designs **

**Courtesy of Steve Paulsen, EPA**

## QUICK ILLUSTRATION

** ****To investigate flow status of stream traces****	****identified as intermittent:**** **
** ****Sampling frame:  USGS/EPA National****	****  Hydrography Dataset (NHD)**** **
** ****100 sites in each state the 12 states in****	**** EPA Regions 8, 9, & 10.**

## Slide 7

## IMPORTANCE OF EMAP-TYPE DESIGNS

**IMPORTANCE OF EMAP-TYPE DESIGNS**

- Condition of a State’s streams using
-                  different designs

## NORTH EAST LAKES STUDIES

**EMAP NORTHEAST LAKES PILOT**
**PROBABILITY SAMPLE OF ALL LAKES IN THE NORTHEASTERN US **
**SECCHI TRANSPARENCY EVALUATED (AMONG MANY RESPONSES)**
** ****GREAT AMERICAN “DIP-IN” LAKES**
**5,000 PARTICIPANTS IN VARIOUS LAKE MONITORING PROGRAMS (US-WIDE)**
**VOLUNTEERS  WERE ASKED TO EVALUATE SECCHI TRANSPARENCY IN “THEIR” LAKES BETWEEN 7/1/95 AND 7/9/95 (AND AGAIN IN 1996)**

## NORTH EAST LAKES STUDIES - II

**ONE INFORMATION SOURCE**
**SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVENESS:  A MUST FOR RELIABLE REGIONAL LAKE CONDITION ESTIMATES OF LAKE CONDITION**** **
** ****by S.A. Peterson, N. S. Urquhart, and E. B. Welsh*** Environmental Science and Technology ***33:** 1559 - 1565.  (1999)

## SIZE OF NORTH EAST LAKES STUDIES

**EMAP NORTHEAST LAKES PILOT**
**312 LAKES SAMPLED **** **
** ****GREAT AMERICAN “DIP-IN” LAKES**
**422 LAKES REPORTED FOR NORTHEAST**** **
**POINT:  THESE TWO DATA SETS ARE OF FAIRLY SIMILAR SIZE**

## Slide 12

## Slide 13

## Slide 14

## SECCHI DEPTH IN LAKES EVALUATED BY BOTH EMAP and “DIP-IN”

**SECCHI DEPTH IN LAKES EVALUATED BY BOTH ****EMAP and “DIP-IN”**

## ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION OF SECCHI DEPTH, EMAP AND “DIP-IN”

## CONCLUSIONS

**THE SHORTCOMINGS OF A CONVENIENCE COLLECTION OF SITES CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY EITHER**
**ABSENCE OF A PLAN TO “BIAS” THE****	****SITUATIONS EXAMINED, or**
**LARGE DATA SETS**
** ****==>  SEVERELY LIMITS THE BREADTH OF ANY**** ****	****INFERENCES WHICH CAN BE DRAWN FROM ****	****RESAMPLING STUDIES**
**BOOTSTRAPPING**
**JACKKNIFING**

## A PROGRAM INSTATISTICAL SURVEY DESIGN AND ANALYSIS FOR AQUATIC RESOURCES

**STARMAP:  THE PROGRAM AT **
**COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY**

**SPACE-TIME AQUATIC RESOURCES **
**MODELING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM**

## SUMMARY OF BACKGROUNDfor STARMAP

** ****Probability-based surveys of aquatic resources have a role and will be implemented**
** ****Important associated questions**
** ****How should we combine **
** ****Probability survey data with **
** ****Data from purposefully picked sites?**
** ****How can we incorporate remotely sensed****	****	****information (satellite) with ground data?**
** ****Role of landscape data (GIS) is?**
** ****How can we make accurate predictions of water quality at unvisited sites, using all of above?**

## STARMAP’S MAJOR OBJECTIVES

-  **TO ADVANCE THE SCIENCE OF****	****STATISTICS TO ADDRESS SUCH****	****QUESTIONS**** **
** ****TECHNIQUES OF HIERARCHICAL SURVEY****	****DESIGN AND ALLIED TECHNIQUES**
** ****SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL MODELING**
** ****BAYESIAN METHODOLOGY**
**TO DEVEL****OP AND EXTEND THE****	****EXPERTISE ON DESIGN AND****	****ANALYSIS TO THE STATES AND****	****TRIBES**

## STARMAP’S VISION

**PERSPECTIVE:**
**A SEARCHING ANALYSIS OF A REAL,****	****MODERATELY COMPLEX, DATA SET ALMOST**** ALWAYS GENERATES QUESTIONS WHOSE**** ANSWER CALLS FOR AN EXTENSION OF**** EXISTING STATISTICAL THEORY OR****	****METHODOLOGY.  **

## STARMAP PROJECTS

** ****COMBINING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA****	****SETS - JENNIFER HOETING**
** ****LOCAL ESTIMATION - JAY BREIDT**
**INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT - DAVE****	****THEOBALD (CSU’S Natural Resources****	****Ecology Lab) **
** ****OUTREACH - SCOTT URQUHART**
** ****This is why I am here**

## COORDINATION - EXTERNAL TO CSU/OSUCONTINUED

** ****COLLABORATOR COMMUNITIES**
** ****SUB-STATE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES**
** ****EPA PERSONNEL**
** ****REGIONS 8, 9 & 10**
** ****HEADQUARTERS**
** ****OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT**
** ****OFFICE OF WATER**
** ****TRIBAL SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL**
** ****EPA LABS**
**...****..**

## COORDINATION - EXTERNAL TO CSU/OSUCONTINUED 2

** ****COLLABORATOR COMMUNITIES**
**EPA PERSONNEL**
** ...**
** ****EPA LABS**
** ****WESTERN ECOLOGY LAB - CORVALLIS**
** ****MIDWESTERN ECOLOGY LAB - DULUTH, MN**
** ****EASTERN ECOLOGY LAB**
** ****ECOSYSTEMS RESEARCH DIVISION**
** ****LAS VEGAS LAB - LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY**
** ****STATE PERSONNEL**
** ****MAINLY AT OSU, SO FAR**

## A CROSS-PROJECT THRUST

** ****FLOW AND FLOW STATUS **
** ****EPA DIRECTIVES TO STATES AND****	****TRIBES **
** ****PROBABILITY SAMPLING**
** ****OBSTACLES TO ACCURATE****	****PROBABILITY-BASED SAMPLING**

## FLOW AND FLOW STATUS

** ****FLOW - AN INDICATOR OF BASE FLOW**** QUANTITY**
** ****FLOW STATUS**
** ****PERENNIAL**
** ****NON-PERENNIAL**
**CLIENT: STATE AND TRIBAL WATER****	****QUALITY AGENCIES**
** ****REPORTING UNDER 305b OF CLEAN****	****WATER ACT**

## A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR PROBABILITY-BASED SAMPLING OF WATER BODIES

** ****PROBABILITY-BASED SELECTION OF SITES RELIES ON A “FRAME” OR LIST OF POTENTIAL SITES**** **
** ****THE NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET**** (NHD) - BASED ON “BLUE LINES” ON USGS**** MAPS IS THE ONLY PRACTICALLY AVAILABLE**** FRAME MATERIALS**** **
** ****MAJOR PROBLEM = FRAME ERRORS**

## FRAME ERRORSTO BE DOCUMENTED SHORTLY

** ****WATER BODY SIZE**
** ****IMPORTANCE OF SIZE WILL BE ADDRESSED****	****SHORTLY**
** ****FLOW STATUS -- re PERENNIAL**
** ****IDENTIFIED AS PERENNIAL, BUT NOT**
** ****WASTES EFFORT OF FIELD CREWS**
** ****IDENTIFIED AS NON-PERENNIAL, BUT REALLY**** IS PERENNIAL **
** ****MISSED RESOURCE**
** ****INACCURATE ASSESSMENT**

## EMAP-West Stream/river Length(km ± 95% CI)from Peck, et al (2002) - EMAP symposium

## EMAP-West Stream/river Length(km ± 95% CI)from Peck, et al (2002) - EMAP symposium

## EMAP-West Stream/river Length(km ± 95% CI)from Peck, et al (2002) - EMAP symposium

## THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

**QUESTIONS and/or COMMENTS ARE WELCOME**

## FUNDING SOURCE

** ****ALL OF THE WORK REPORTED HERE TODAY**** ****was developed under the STAR Research Assistance Agreement CR-829095 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Colorado State University, or CR-829096**** ****awarded to Oregon State University.  These presentations have not been formally reviewed by EPA.  The views expressed here are solely those of authors and the respective Programs. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in these presentations.**

## THIS TALK

** ****STARMAP**
** ****OBJECTIVES AND  VISION**
** ****PROJECTS**
** ****COORDINATION**
** ****A CROSS-PROJECT THRUST**
** ****DEVELOP MODELS & METHODS TO****	****SUPPORT**
** ****STATE & TRIBAL USE OF PROBABILITY-BASED SITE SELECTION**

## STARMAP’S VISIONCONTINUED

**SUCH RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES****	****WILL BECOME PROBLEMS****	****ATTACKED BY**
-  **IN ORDER OF COMPLEXITY**
** ****MASTERS STUDENTS**
** ****DOCTORAL STUDENTS**
** ****POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWS**
** ****AF****FILIATED FACULTY SUPERVISORS**

## STARMAP’S VISIONCONTINUED - 2

**THE IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE****	****QUESTIONS REQUIRES **
**A STRONG WORKING RELATIONSHIP****	****BETWEEN**
**THE STATISTICIAN AND **
**THE (SUBJECT MATTER) SCIENTIST**
-  **STARMAP WILL FOSTER SUCH****	****RELATIONSHIPS**

## STARMAP’S FUNDING ALLOCATION(ALL 12-MONTH BASIS)

** ****DIRECTOR - 0.60 FTE**
** ****FACULTY - 0.75 FTE**
** ****GRADUATE STUDENTS - 3 FTE **
** ****POST DOCTORAL FELLOWS - 2 FTE**
** ****STAFF 1.00 FTE - 2 YEARS, ONLY**
** ****AMPLE FUNDS FOR COLLABORATION****	****& PROFESSIONAL TRAVEL**
** ****SUBCONTRACTORS ( $185K   $120K)**

## COORDINATION

** ****MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY OF BOTH****	****PROGRAM DIRECTORS**
** ****CSU/OSU - EACH DIRECTOR IS FUNDED ON THE OTHERS’ ADMIN BUDGET**
** ****INTERCHANGE VISITS**
** ****EX:  STEVENS & GITELMAN AT CSU IN JANUARY**
** ****THESE JOINT CONFERENCES**
** ****FREQUENT E-MAILS & PHONE TALKS**
** ****DIRECTORS HAVE VISITED****	****	****SUBCONTRACTORS**

## COORDINATION - AT CSU

** ****FREQUENT COMMUNICATION****	****AMONG ALL PI’S**
** ****SEVERAL JOINT PLANNING MEETINGS****	****  LAST FALL**
** ****SEMINAR LAST SPRING**
** ****BACK AND FORTH WITH LANDSCAPE****	****  ECOLOGY**
** ****INTERACTION WITH AQUATIC****	****  BIOLOGISTS****	**** **
** ****POFF & BLEDSOE AT CSU**
** ****STAR MEETING IN DENVER NEXT WEEK**

## COORDINATION - EXTERNAL TO CSU/OSU

**COLLABORATOR COMMUNITIES**
** ****ESTUARINE & GREAT LAKES INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT (EaGLes)**
** ****ATTEND “ALL HANDS MEETINGS”**
** ****PRESENT INFORMATION ABOUT OUR PROGRAMS**
** ****EMAP - PERSONAL CONTACT**
** ****SOURCE OF NEW PROBLEMS **
** ****EX:  ACID RAIN REPORT TO CONGRESS - TREND****	****AT PROBABILITY & “HAND-PICKED” SITES**
** ****OPPORTUNITIES FOR PROJECTS 1 & 2**

## COMMENTS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER BODY SIZES - SO WHAT

** ****FOR “USE” AREA IS IMPORTANT**
** ****RECREATION**
** ****REARING HABITAT - SHRIMP TO GEESE**
** ****DOMESTIC & INDUSTRIAL WATER****	****	****USERS - EVEN VOLUME**
** ****FOR PRESERVATION OF****	****“BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY”****	****NUMBERS ARE VERY IMPORTANT**

## COMMENTS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER BODY SIZES - SO WHAT II

** ****PROBABILITY-BASED SAMPLING HAS TO BALANCE NUMBER AGAINST SIZE**
** ****REGARDLESS OF WATER BODY TYPE**
** ****THIS PRECLUDES SIMPLE RANDOM****	****	****SAMPLING**
** ****CONSEQUENCE:  VARIABLE ****	****PROBABILITY/VARIABLE DENSITY****	****SAMPLING HAS TO BE USED **

## PREREQUISITE FOR ACCURATE SITE SELECTION

** ****AN ACCURATE FRAME **
** ****SPATIALLY (REGIONAL) CONSISTENCY**
** ****CRITICAL FOR CREDIBILITY AMONG****	****	****WATER RESOURCE MANAGERS**
** ****THE NEED:GOOD PREDICTORS OF **
** ****WATER BODY SIZE**
** ****PERENNIAL STATUS**

## PREDICTION OF WATERBODY SIZE

** ****INITIAL EFFORT - STREAMS - MAHA**
** ****OVERCOMES LIMITATIONS OF **
** ****STRAHLER ORDER**
** ****REGIONAL INCONSISTENCIES DUE TO****	****VARIABLE DENSITY OF “BLUE LINES”****	****ON USGS MAPS (SEE MAP ON THE WALL)**
** ****INITIAL EFFORT:  GET WATERSHED **
** ****AREA **
** ****PREDICTOR CHARACTERISTICS**
** ****GAUGED FLOW (PERHAPS ONLY “BASE FLOW”)**
** **

## PREDICTION OF PERENNIAL STATUS

** ****IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE DATA****	**
** ****EMAP WESTERN PILOT STUDY**
** ****SURVEY OF TRACES LABELED “NON-PERENNIAL”**
** ****100 PER WESTERN STATE; DATA NOW AT CSU**
** ****STARMAP NOW COMPILING ASSOCIATED ****	****	****LANDSCAPE INFORMATION**
** ****SITE EVALUATION FROM SITES SELECTED ON TRACES LABELED “PERENNIAL”**
** ****ON GOING WORK IN EMAP-WEST**

## PREDICTION OF PERENNIAL STATUS:OTHER POTENTIAL DATA SOURCES

** ****MAIA - ORIGINAL SAMPLING****	****INCLUDED ALL TRACES **
**REGARDLESS OF PERENNIAL CLASS**
** ****OTHER SURVEYS**
** ****REGION 7**
** ****VARIOUS STATES **
** ****OTHER SURVEYS POSSIBLE IF****	****METHODOLOGY WORKS**

## EXPECTED OUTPUTS

** ****MODELS TO INCORPORATE INTO****	****SITE SELECTION PROGRAMS**
** ****MORE GENERALLY, STATISTICAL ****	****METHODS TO SUPPORT THOSE****	****MODELS**
** ****A RANGE OF GIS TOOLS USEFUL****	****FOR AQUATIC MONITORING**
** ****CONTINUED**

## EXPECTED OUTPUTS

** ****...**
** ****AN EXPERIENCE BASE **
**FUTURE GENERATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICIANS**
** ****ORIENTED TOWARD AQUATIC SCIENCES**

## QUESTIONS ARE WELCOME

## NEXT SPEAKER

** ****JENNIFER HOETING **
** ****LEADER OF PROJECT 1**
** **_**[COMBINING ENVIRONMENTAL DATA_x000b_		SETS](file:///CSU%20Project%201.ppt#SELECTION OF WATER QUALITY MONITORING SITES and CSU’s STARMAP)**_

## Slide 52

## Slide 53

## Slide 54

## COMMENTS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF WATER BODY SIZES

** ****INFORMATION PROVIDED APPLIES TO ALL LAKES IN THE “LOWER 48”**
** ****A SIMILAR DISTRIBUTION OCCURS IN ****	****	****ALL PARTS OF THE US**
** ****OTHER KINDS OF WATER BODIES**
** ****SAME KIND OF PATTERN**
** ****STREAMS & RIVERS**
** ****WETLANDS**
** ****ESTUARIES**