Update on Development of Expected Conditions for

Colorado

August 14, 2006

Chris Theel, WQCD

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

Development of Expected Conditions for Colorado

• Refinement of ALUCs

Steps for Developing Programmatic

Bioassessment and Biocriteria 1.1. Build ecological classifications Build ecological classifications 2.2. Develop a timetable; game plan Develop a timetable; game plan 3.3. Determine reference criteria & reference sites Determine reference criteria & reference sites 4.4. Metric evaluation and index development Metric evaluation and index development 5.5. Refinement of designated uses (Refinement of designated uses (beginning

stages))6.6. TALU & biocriteria developmentTALU & biocriteria development7.7. Implement operational monitoring and Implement operational monitoring and

assessment program; WQ Stdsassessment program; WQ Stds

Why is a change needed?

• Colorado’s ALUCs are too generalized and outdated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

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

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

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

Biological Data“What data will be used to refine Colorado’s 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 uses…will be used to build supportive biocriteria around “Uses”

Biological Data cont.“What is the status of Colorado’s 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 now…must continue updating predictor

variables

Biological Data cont.

• Fish MMIs– Will be calibrated and validated during development of

Colorado’s chapter of EPA’s EMAP report (ongoing)– MMIs developed for plains and xeric bioregions– No MMI for mountain bioregion…no metrics worked– Anticipate full availability in late 2006 or early 2007

• Aquatic GAP– Peer reviewed by CDOW staff– Anticipate full availability in spring 2007

Recent Progress“Breaking 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…

ALUC Distribution by Bioregion(% of total stream miles per bioregion)

78%

6%

0%

10%

1%

5%

Xerics

Mountains

77%

1%

15%1%

5%

1%

Plains15%

15%5%

52%3%

10%

Cold 1Cold 2Warm 1Warm 2No Class_StreamNo Class_Ditch

Stream Miles Statewide = 104,432

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)

78%

6%

0%

10%

1%

5%

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

15%15%5%

52%3%

10%

Cold 1Cold 2Warm 1Warm 2No Class_StreamNo Class_Ditch

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

77%

1%

15%1%

5%

1%

Critical Findings and Observationsby Bioregion

• Mountain bioregion observations

• Xeric bioregion observations

• Plains bioregion observations

Critical Findings and Observationsin Mountains

• Warm I & II segments in the mnts had a high probability of classifying correctly (>90%) 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 variables…Cold II 0.0% probability

• Cold I class groups well in mountain bioregion

* = Proximity of site below dam, # of diversions u/s

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 variables…i.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

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 variables…Cold II segments did not

* = Proximity of site below dam, # of diversions u/s

Common Denominators

• Hydrological modifications are greatly influencing how ALUCs were and are currently being assigned

• Areas of misclassifications typically seen at interfaces between bioregions…”transition 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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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.

Trouble Shooting

• Fish data…all we have to go on right now is fish data from EPA’s 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 Colorado’s ALUCs (by late 2006)

• Must address how Aquatic GAP can be of use when biocriteria building commences in spring of 2007

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

Contact Information

Chris Theel

Colorado Department of Public Health & Env

Water Quality Control Division

Monitoring Unit

christopher.theel@state.co.us

303-692-3558

Candidate Ref Sites in Xerics

Black Sulphur Creek at Cty Rd 26

Candidate Ref Sites in Xerics

Yellow Creek below conf with Barcus Creek

Candidate Ref Sites in Xerics

South Fork White River at Oak Ridge SWA