Water Quality Monitoring, Standards, and Assessments

kayakjokeMécanique

22 févr. 2014 (il y a 3 années et 6 mois)

69 vue(s)

Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists Association

Presented by David Melgaard

November 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