Upload
donal
View
44
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Water Quality Monitoring, Standards, and Assessments. Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists Association Presented by David Melgaard November 2012. Standards, Monitoring, Assessment, and Listing. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists Association
Presented by David MelgaardNovember 2012
Water Quality Monitoring, Standards, and Assessments
STANDARDS, MONITORING, ASSESSMENT, AND LISTING
A.K.A.: Federal: CWA§303 [(a),(b),(c),(d)], CWA§305(b), CWA§106(e), Numerous CFRs; Many State Rules and Regulations; Multiple Guidance documents - both Federal and State
Topic Description
A discussion of the approaches that states are currently considering in assessing impairment for water quality parameters
Water Quality Standards Most are not developed with
specific monitoring requirements included
Exceptions- Bacteriological- Fish consumption- Toxics – “shall not exceed”- State specific requirements (e.g., FL NNC (proposed), others??)
Lack of standards to address flow related issues
Monitoring Strategies
Elements of Monitoring and Assessment Program Strategy Objectives Design Indicators QA Data Management (WQX/STORET, ADB, State systems) Data Analysis/Assessment Reporting (IR, State Reports) Programmatic Evaluation General Support and Infrastructure Planning References
Assessment and Listing Methodologies for Waterbody Condition
Determination EPA’s Consolidated and Listing Methodology Guidance,
2002
http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/monitoring/calm.cfm
Each state has an Assessment and Listing Methodology- Must be consistent with state’s WQS
EPA’s Integrated Report Guidance http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/guidance.cfm
Current Status
Great progress has been made in data management
Great progress has been made in developing CALMs that are directly related to WQS
Very few issues with assessment and impairment calls in 303(d) listings/delistings
Issues with Assessment and Listing Inadequate resources for monitoring Dealing with small data sets Lack of data for toxics Lack of biological data Flow monitoring resources (USGS, internal) Insufficient data for determining causes of
impairment Many unassessed waters Time constraints Other
Issues with CALMs vs. 303(d)
Small datasets Uses of the binomial with small datasets Toxics Inconsistencies with standards Interpretation of biological data Interpretation of narrative criteria 4b determinations – Reasonable Assurance Natural condition determinations (4c) Bacteriological (shellfish vs. recreational) Other
Current Approaches States are Considering in Assessments
Funding- Reverse recent budget cuts- Seek new sources
Toxics - metals
Emerging contaminants- Pharmaceuticals- Personal care products – soaps, fragrances, cosmetics- Water treatment byproducts e.g., brominated THMs
Third party data- when and how to use- QA/QC
Current Approaches States are Considering in Assessments
(continued) Sedimentation - qualitative vs.
quantitative measures Habitat Alteration – how to measure
and document Natural condition determinations Periphyton Fish IBI Estuary bioassessment Flow
FLOW
FLOW
Flow Concerns
USGS found that human alteration of waterways has impacted the magnitude of minimum and maximum stream flows in more than 86% of monitored streams nationally.
Flow Concerns Must balance the needs of water
quantity and water quality Competing interests to use GW and
SW for: Drinking water Industrial uses – power generation Municipal needs Agriculture Etc.
Flow Concerns (cont.) Water use conflicts
complicated by:
Droughts Floods Climate Change Interbasin Transfers Water Diversion
The Effect of Groundwater Withdrawals on Surface Water
USGS Circular 1139
Groundwater discharge to a gaining stream can be affected by a pumping well. A well close to a gaining stream could decrease the amount of groundwater discharging to the stream. Further pumping of the well could cause the gaining stream to become a losing stream.
EPA R4: Addressing Flow Issues Under the CWA
Discussions with State Water Division Directors
Working with EPA HQ, USGS, FWS, and other Regions
Water division Flow Workgroup tasked to look at instream flow issues in all program areas including monitoring and assessment
Encouraging all states to adopt explicit flow WQS(TN,KY, Seminole already have)
Questions, Comments, Discussion