developing relations among - us epa

29

Upload: others

Post on 17-Oct-2021

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Developing relations among - US EPA
Page 2: Developing relations among - US EPA

Developing relations among human activities, stressors, and stream ecosystem responsesfor integrated regional, multi-

stressor modelsR. Jan Stevenson1, M. J. Wiley2

D. Hyndman1, B. Pijanowski3, P. Seelbach2

1Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 2Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

3Purdue University, West Lafayette, INProject Period: 5/1/2003-4/30/2006

Project Cost: $748,527evenson et al

Page 3: Developing relations among - US EPA

Goals• Relate patterns of human activity to

commonly co–varying stressors: nutrients, temperature, sediment load, DO, and hydrologic alterations.

• Relate those stressors to valued fisheries capital and ecological integrity of stream ecosystems.

Page 4: Developing relations among - US EPA

Natural Ecosystems Are ComplexSeptic

Systems Silviculture LivestockGrazing IrrigationCrop & Lawn

Fertilizers Construction

Organic/Part PNCPO4NOxNH3 Heat Sediments Hydrologic

Variability

NitrifyingBacteria

PeriphyticMicroalgae

BenthicMacroalgae

OtherBacteria

BenthicInvertebrates Fish

DissolvedOxygen

Sewers &Treatment

Herb BufferStrips

TreeCanopy

LivestockFences

Ret. Basins& Wetlands Other BMPs

Light

Stevenson et al.

Page 5: Developing relations among - US EPA

Natural Ecosystems Are Complexbut can be Organized for Management

SepticSystems Silviculture Livestock

Grazing IrrigationCrop & LawnFertilizers Construction

Organic/Part PNCPO4NOxNH3 Heat Sediments Hydrologic

Variability

NitrifyingBacteria

PeriphyticMicroalgae

BenthicMacroalgae

OtherBacteria

BenthicInvertebrates Fish

DissolvedOxygen

Sewers &Treatment

Herb BufferStrips

TreeCanopy

LivestockFences

Ret. Basins& Wetlands Other BMPs

Light

Hum

an A

ctiv

ities

Stre

ssor

sEn

dpoi

nts

Ecosystem ServicesValued Ecological Attributes – Management Targets

TroutBassALU

Page 6: Developing relations among - US EPA

Complicating Issues>Opportunities

• Non-linearity and thresholds: – graded responses may be rare in complex systems. – thresholds complicate management choices.

• Complex causation: – multiple actions simultaneously shape biological responses. – issues of direct and indirect causation (effects)

• Scale and dynamics: – Potential stressors operate at different spatial and dynamic

scales– Scales complicate the diagnosis of stressor-response

relationships• obscure causal dependencies through time lags, ghosts of past

events, and misidentification of natural spatial/temporal variability.

Page 7: Developing relations among - US EPA

Approaches1. Building on other

assessment & modeling by team (MI, IN, KY, OH, IL, WI)

2. Multi-scale approach:1. reach scale vs watershed2. regional vs intensive site

3. Modeling1. empirical (statistical) models2. process-based (mechanistic)

models using existing platforms and an integrated modeling system

Page 8: Developing relations among - US EPA

Where We Are Working

(New Data)1. Early morning DO surveys2. Reach metabolism models

3. Watershed LULC (MRW & all MI)4. Watershed modeling

Page 9: Developing relations among - US EPA

Regional, Reach Scale Statistical Models

• E.g. DO = f (TP), DO = f (TP, stream gradient)• Early morning, baseflow sampling

– 2004, 74 sites– 2005, 98 sites

• Endpoint: dissolved oxygen minima• Stressors

– Direct: water column algae, benthic algae– Indirect: nutrients, temperature, land use, hydrologic

features• Classification variables: e.g. watershed gradient• Used in MDEQ Nutrient Criteria Development

Page 10: Developing relations among - US EPA

Comparison of DO = f(TP) for surveys without and with early morning sampling

constraint

10 1000

5

10

15

20

25

10 1000

5

10

15

20

25

DO

(ppm

)

TP(ppb)

Early Morning7-22:00

R2 = 0.056p = 0.007β = -1.014

R2 = 0.102p < 0.001β = -0.865

Page 11: Developing relations among - US EPA

Thresholds, Nutrient Criteria & % Use Support

10 100TP (ppb)

0

5

10

15

DO

(pp m

)

0 5 10 15 20 25TP (ppb)

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Frac

tion

of D

ata

0 5 10 15 20 25TP (ppb)

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

Frac

tion

of D

ata

2004+2005 Early Morning DO Survey2005 7-22:00 Survey

Potential covarying factors: gradient, flow, GW input

Page 12: Developing relations among - US EPA

Indirect indicators of nutrient availability often better than direct measures

(2004 survey data only)

10 100TP (ppb)

0

5

10

15

0 20 40 60 80 100% Ag Land Use

0

5

10

15

DO

(ppm

)

R2 = 0.028p = 0.115

R2 = 0.260p < 0.001

Page 13: Developing relations among - US EPA

Interpretation of Indirect RelationshipsSeptic

Systems Silviculture LivestockGrazing IrrigationCrop & Lawn

Fertilizers Construction

Organic/Part PNCPO4NOxNH3 Heat Sediments Hydrologic

Variability

NitrifyingBacteria

PeriphyticMicroalgae

BenthicMacroalgae

OtherBacteria

BenthicInvertebrates Fish

DissolvedOxygen

Sewers &Treatment

Herb BufferStrips

TreeCanopy

LivestockFences

Ret. Basins& Wetlands Other BMPs

Light

Why indirect relations more

precise?1. Other factors

regulate DO, too1. flow, 2. GW flow,3. org matter,4. temp…

2. P does not regulate BOD in low gradient streams

3. TP ≠ PO44. ……..

Page 14: Developing relations among - US EPA

Chl a/Nutrient Model Improves with Diatom Inferred TSI

10 100Total P (µg/L)

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

Ben

thi c

Chl

a (µ

g/c m

2 )

2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5MAIA TSI

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

R2=0.270P<0.001

R2=0.053P=0.007

Page 15: Developing relations among - US EPA

Site-Intensive, Reach ScaleProcess Based Modeling

1. Refine processed based models

2. Test hypothesis that cause-effect relations in regional, statistical models are plausible

• Crane Creek– > Severe DO

problems

Page 16: Developing relations among - US EPA

Anthropogenic stressorsNatural drivers

Climatechange

UrbanizationAgricultureChannel

modifications

NutrientsBOD

NBOD

Climate

LandscapeStructure

Biologicalmetabolism

HydrologyHEC-HMS or Gauge records

Channel hydraulicsHEC-RAS or acoustic doppler

MRI_DOHSAMCumulative DO and Hydraulic Stress

Assessment Model

Coupling Reach-specific modeling to explore Multi-stressor dynamics

Page 17: Developing relations among - US EPA

High resolution oxygen and flow monitoring

at Crane Creek

In collaboration with USGS & USFWS, high resolution data arebeing generated in Crane Creek (a watershed of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge) using a combination of (2) fixed station, telemetered YSI 6000 sondes; short-term mobile platforms with recording doppler sonar units (Sontek PC-ADP, ADP, and shallow-water Argonaut units) and YSI 600 series sondes; and an array of digital water level recorders.

http://www.wqdata.com/

Page 18: Developing relations among - US EPA

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1800123456789

101112

12

0

O2j

SATj

daz 24⋅10 hourj

0.01 0.1 10.01

0.1

1

10

100100

.01

SortO2i

1.01 exceedFreqi0.01 0.1 1

1 .10 3

0.01

0.1

1

10

100max shear( )

.001

SortSheari

1.01 exceedFreqi

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1800

0.5

1max depth( ) 1.5⋅

0

diffcoefj

1

ddepth floor hourj( )speed floor hourj( )

daz 24⋅10 hourj

Exceedence frequencies forDissolved oxygen and bed mobilizationStress summary: as % of period

Scour_stress = 56.8O2 stress = 2.5Combined = 59.1Simultaneous = <.1

MRI_DOHSAMcumulative DO & Hydraulic Stress

AssessmentModel

{under development}

8 day simulation for Crane Creek Outlet channel using observed flow temp, depth and velocity data from an up-looking doppler sensor.

Loading parameters BOD = 8 ppm, NH4=.2 ppm

d84 4 ppm

Specified stress thresholds:O2 : 4 ppmIncipient Bed mobilization : ratio of ave. shear to D84critical shear/5

Page 19: Developing relations among - US EPA

Open/bare

Forest

Urban

Temperature Wetlands Water

Agriculture

-0.8

0

0.8

R

DO = f (% LULC)

Regional, Watershed Scale

Statistical Models

0.00

0.25

0.50

SRP TP

R

Total Sourceshed Riparian Buffer• Endpoints & Stressors

= f (land use/cover, natural landscape features)

• Refine inference models for watershed contamination based on flow-path weighted “routes of exposure/transport”

Page 20: Developing relations among - US EPA

Flow-path Weighted LULC Watershed Characterizations

Value of cell represents distance of center point of DEM cell (at 26m) from Sample point if water flows through the DEM

Page 21: Developing relations among - US EPA

The amount of uses aggregated by flow length distances in km for total sourceshed in Cedar Creek

Flow Path-dependent Distances

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52

distance (in km)

coun

t

urbanagshrubfor

Page 22: Developing relations among - US EPA

Watershed Scale, & Intensive

Processed-Based Models

• Endpoints & Stressors • = f (land use/cover, natural

landscape features)• Refine inference models for

watershed contamination based on flow-path weighted “routes of exposure/transport”

Cedar Creek example

Page 23: Developing relations among - US EPA

Cedar Creek (GW influenced watershed)

Q(cfs) Conductivity (uS) NOx-N (pbb) TP (pbb)0.0 824 101 1201.0 670 102 901.1 521 522 121

15.9 278 197 5318.4 293 209 4324.4 293 156 4824.5 300 150 10

- Spatially & temporally intensive water chemistry and biological sampling

Page 24: Developing relations among - US EPA

Groundwater Modeling:Simulate Transient Fluxes to SW

• MODFLOW• Inputs:

– Land Use– Regional Geology– NEXRAD Precipitation– NOAA Snow Depth– MODIS LAI– DEM– Solar radiation– Streamflow (transducer)

Page 25: Developing relations among - US EPA

Upper Cedar Creek

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

1/1/2003 1/1/2004

Q, m

3/d

Actual StreamflowExtracted BaseflowSimulated Baseflow

MODFLOW simulates the groundwater component of streamflow well

Lower Cedar Creek

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

1/1/2003 1/1/2004

Q, m

3/d

Actual StreamflowExtracted BaseflowSimulated Baseflow

Page 26: Developing relations among - US EPA

Nitrate Transport Simulation (MT3D)

• Used GW model fluxes

• Nitrate sources– Atmosphere– Agricultural lands– CAFOs– Septic systems

• Nitrate fluxes exported to stream ecohydrology model

NO3, mg/L

Page 27: Developing relations among - US EPA

Simulating Water Chemistry and Biological Response in Cedar Creek

• Using nitrate & GW fluxes to Cedar Creek calculated in transport model

• QUAL2K

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

0 5 10 15 20Distance Downstream (km)

Wat

er T

empe

ratu

re (°

C)

Simulated Water TemperatureObserved Water Temperature

4

6

8

10

12

0 5 10 15 20

Distance Downstream (km)

Dis

solv

ed O

xyge

n (m

g/L)

0

40

80

120

160

Simulated Dissolved Oxygen

Observed Dissolved Oxygen

Simulated Dissolved Oxygen Saturation

Observed Chlorophyll

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0 5 10 15 20

Distance Downstream (km)

Nitr

ate

+ N

itrite

(ugN

/L)

Observed Nitrate

Simulated Nitrate

Page 28: Developing relations among - US EPA

Next Steps• Model refinements & Synthesis

– Watershed & reach scale– Empirical & processed-based (including P)

• Test models with biological endpoints– Small-scale and regional approach

Page 29: Developing relations among - US EPA

Integrated Assessment/Management FrameworkEcological

Assessment

RiskModeling

Criteria Development

Land Transformation

TMDL OptionsVulnerability

Analysis

StressorIdentification

Supporting USEPA, regions, and states