nebraska h2o stream bioassessment workshopcpcb.ku.edu/.../2011newkshp_jpoore_evalassessment.pdf ·...

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.