nebraska h2o stream bioassessment workshopcpcb.ku.edu/.../2011newkshp_jpoore_evalassessment.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Nebraska H2O Stream
Bioassessment
Workshop
Grand Island, Nebraska
May 18-19, 2011
With Field Work in the Wood River
and Application to Phase II MS4
Permits
MS4 Evaluation and Assessment
Not everything that counts can be measured.
Not everything that can be measured counts.
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)
Comprehensive Evaluation and
Assessment Program for MS4s
“You must evaluate program compliance, the
appropriateness of identified best management
practices, and progress towards achieving your
identified measurable goals.
NPDES permitting authority (NDEQ) may
determine monitoring requirements for you in
accordance with State/Tribal monitoring plans
appropriate to your watershed. Participation in a
group monitoring program is encouraged.”
(64 FR 68843, Dec. 8, 1999)
Comprehensive Evaluation and
Assessment Program for MS4s
“The permittee must provide a comprehensive
evaluation and assessment program that utilizes
narrative effluent limitations requiring
implementation of BMPs to satisfy permit
requirements and protect water quality.”
(EPA MS4 Permit Improvement Guide 2010)
Must be designed to meet stated objectives:
Monitoring Program Objectives
Assess compliance with MS4 permit;
Measure the effectiveness of SWMP through
performance and effectiveness measures;
Assess progress towards measurable goals; and
Evaluate the appropriateness of identified BMPs
using appropriate administrative and
environmental assessment indicators.
SWMP Indicators
Environmental indicators represent:
physical and hydrologic criteria;
biological criteria; and
water quality criteria.
Administrative indicators represent:
social criteria;
programmatic criteria; and
site criteria.
Water Quality Considerations
That Must Be Incorporated
Chemical, physical, and biological impacts to
receiving waters from stormwater discharges;
Stormwater discharge characteristics;
Source identification of specific pollutants; and
Overall health and long-term trends in quality.
End of Pipe Sampling
"But he has nothing at all on!" at last cried out
all the people. The Emperor was vexed, for he
knew that the people were right; but he thought
the procession must go on now! And the lords
of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever,
to appear holding up a train, although, in reality,
there was no train to hold.”
The Emperor’s New Clothes
Disadvantages of End of Pipe
Sampling Only
Unlike a WWTF, not all the representative
discharge is actually being sampled;
Flow in non-sampled locations is only estimated
and therefore event concentrations are only
estimated;
Periodic sampling misses many of the “pulses”
inherent in a dynamic landscape; and
Results unlikely to product action this decade.
Disadvantages of End of Pipe
Sampling Only
CWA – Mandates ecological integrity as well
Underlying presumption that “improvements in
chemical water quality would be followed by a
restoration of biological integrity” has been
increasingly questioned.
Factors related to habitat structure, flow regime,
biotic interactions, and the available energy base are
also responsible for the condition of surface water
resources.
Disadvantages of End of Pipe
Sampling Only
“Most water-monitoring networks were
designed and implemented at a time when
detection and control of chemical pollutants in
water was of paramount importance.”
“Now, however, the need for aquatic biological
information is more widely recognized.”
Disadvantages of End of Pipe
Sampling Only
“Although many individual monitoring networks
have been well designed to meet their own
goals, data solely from these networks often will
not provide a broad and comprehensive
assessment of water quality at watershed scales.”
USEPA and USGS
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality – 1995
http://acwi.gov/itfm.html
ITFM Water Quality
Recommendations Included:
Identify indicators to measure goals
Include ecological and biological information
Improves ecosystem-, watershed-, and aquifer-
management decisions
Link compliance and ambient monitoring
Implement comparable methods
Identify research needs
Promote cost effectiveness
Stream Bioassessment Monitoring
Is ditchwater dull? Naturalists with microscopes
have told me that it teems with quiet fun. ~
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates as
Indicators of Stream Quality
Affected by the physical, chemical, and
biological conditions of the stream.
Can't escape pollution and show the effects of
short-and long-term pollution events.
May show the cumulative impacts of pollution.
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates as
Indicators of Stream Quality
May show impacts from habitat loss not
detected by traditional water quality assessments.
They are a critical part of the stream's food web.
Some are very intolerant of pollution.
Relatively easy to sample and identify.
Advantages and Disadvantages of
Stream Bioassessment
It is not difficult to realize that a stream full of
many kinds of crawling and swimming "critters"
is healthier than one without much life.
A stream bioassessment may not be able to
definitively tell us why certain types of creatures
are present or absent on its own.
Chemical vs. Bioassessment
What approach provides information needed?
Start with how will information be used!
What approach is required?
Permit or watershed monitoring (TMDL) plan?
What approach is feasible?
“Not reasonable to expect local governments to
spend public funds when outcomes are highly
uncertain and some assurance of reasonable
compliance is not proffered.”
Questions to Define Feasibility
What contaminants are important for
monitoring in the selected watershed?
What are their sources?
How frequently does an area need to be sampled
to address key management issues and concerns?
Questions to Define Feasibility
What are the sources, transport, fate, and effects
of selected contaminants in stream reaches or in
the watershed as a whole?
Does the information collected provide a clear
framework for key decision makers?
How do pollutant loadings affect the beneficial
uses defined for the receiving waters?
Chemical vs. Bioassessment
No single monitoring component is sufficient to
indicate where and how ecosystem integrity is
being affected, particularly where multiple
stressors are impacting stream reaches.
Ohio EPA found 49.8% of streams assessed as
“impaired” were detected by bioindicators but
not by chemical indicators!
Chemical indicators > criteria in 2.8% of cases
where biocriteria fully attained (Yoder, 1999)
Chemical vs. Bioassessment
Attribute Chemical-based Bioassessment-based
Expressed in WQS as Parameter-specific criteria Biological criteria*
Representation of
Biointegrity
Surrogate measure Direct measure
Principal Focus Pollutant only Aquatic environment
Breadth of Coverage Partial Complete
Operative Direction Bottom-up Top-down
Effect Properties Individual Cumulative
Indicator Role Stressor/exposure Response
Best Strength Design criteria Impact assessment criteria
*Nebraska DEQ does not define biological criteria for receiving waters in the State
What is Required?
Other NPDES Permit Approaches
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater
Single point of discharge that can be monitored
Complex treatment technology utilized
Active operation 24-hours per day
Combined Sewer Overflow
Expensive modeling of water quality impacts
Water quality performance goals required
Technology performance goals required
Multiple permits to presume or demonstrate quality
Phase II MS4 Permit Approach
Education and Involvement
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Construction Stormwater
Post-Construction Stormwater
Good Housekeeping/Pollution Prevention
Performance and Effectiveness Measures are to
be built in to provide for a “treatment standard”
MS4 Treatment Standard Guidance
What Information is Available?
Sharing Information
Leaving MS4s to collect monitoring information
on their own without coordinating other data
collection in the watershed is wasteful and
possibly divisive between stakeholders.
Other sources of information are available
Integrated approach to watershed monitoring is
encouraged and logical
NDEQ Monitoring Sites
NDEQ Basin Rotation Schedule
Watershed Based-NRDs
NRCS – Resource Assessments
MS4 Partnerships for Data
Growing National Data Pool
Volunteer Monitoring
Community, youth, land owner, planners have
opportunity to become educated about local
water-resources characteristics and problems,
and to foster a sense of stewardship.
Provide data to agencies for watershed planning,
assessment, and reporting and water quality
management.
Example Watershed Groups in
Grand Island Area
Nature Conservancy - Nebraska Field Office
Watershed Land Trust – Nebraska
Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance
Trust, Inc.
Nebraska Wildlife Federation
Stewards of the Platte
Central Platte Natural Resource District
EPA STORET Data Available
Wood River MP2-10200
Conclusions for MS4 Evaluation
and Assessment Plan
Content of Evaluation and Assessment Plan:
1st - Performance and Effectiveness Measures
2nd- Administrative and Environmental Indicators
Balance Environmental Indicators:
Flexibility needed due to issues facing each MS4
Blend of options for water quality sampling and
stream bioassessments is right approach
Utilization of ALL relevant and available monitoring
data collected by others.