Management of Non-Point Source Pollution CE 296B

1. Management of Non-Point Source PollutionCE 296B Department of Civil Engineering California State University, Sacramento Lecture #16, April 2, 1998 Receiving Water Impacts - Part III Management Strategies - Part I

2. III. Alternative method of assessing receiving water impacts - environmental indicators. (cont.) • E. Environmental indicators. (cont.) 4. Social Indicators. One would select appropriate choices from: • Public attitude surveys • Industrial / commercial pollution prevention • Public involvement and monitoring • User perception These are indicators that give an indication as to how much support can be expected in the long run for the management of non-point source pollution.

3. Public Attitude Surveys - I • Conduct public opinion polls within the watershed to determine: • Awareness level of water quality concerns • Awareness level of efforts to address those concerns • Willingness to pay for solutions • Can be used to better direct future efforts in public education. (Public education is a common BMP!) • Can be used to become better aware of real life public behavior that contributes to water pollution.

4. Public Attitude Surveys - II • Can be used to better understand actual realiztion of benifitial uses. Example: Why are people more interested in swimming at a particular time and place than another. • May provide a measure of what kinds of source control programs might meet the least resistance. • May provide a measure of what kinds of source control programs might meet massive resistance. • Is a relatively expensive process to perform properly. If performed badly, the results may be quite misleading.

5. Industrial / Commercial Pollution Prevention • Because industrial or commercial concerns may do a better job of keeping records than households, assessing the costs and benefits of non-point source pollution at industrial or commercial sites may be a reasonable task. That information can then be used to decide what programs in other areas should be emphasized. • Although this may not cost much, many concerns may feel such a requirement is “piling on”, not an entirely unjustified complaint.

6. Public Involvement and Monitoring • Using citizen volunteers in different aspects of a non-point source pollution management program. Examples include: • Household hazardous waste recycling programs • Monitoring efforts (collection of pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen type data) • Public education programs • Method for building public awareness • Has the problem of being “preaching to the choir”

7. Overall watershed boundary Sub - watersheds Primary stream IV. Application of a coordinated environmental indicator program. Examples: A. Consider the following watershed: Pristine Watershed

8. Example A - 1 • In this case, there are six sub-watersheds available for evaluation. There is money in the budget to evaluate three of them. • The pristine sub-watershed will be chosen as the reference water body. • Two other sub-watersheds, as similar as possible will be chosen. • One will have significant management efforts applied • The other will have no management efforts applied.

9. Example A - 2 • In the first year, the chemical and microbiological quality of the three tributary streams in question would be examined carefully. Samples in each collected: • Under normal flow conditions • During a “typical” storm event • Outfalls to the streams would be sampled under dry weather and storm conditions. • This would be the last of the broad scale water quality sampling for many years - say 10. • The point is to establishwhat is present more than how much.

10. Example A - 3 • Additionally, conduct public opinion surveys to establish: • What kinds of source control programs are palatable. • What kinds of stream restoration programs are palatable. • Perception of relative importance of different beneficial uses.

11. Example A - 4 • In the second year, during normal flow conditions, the composite biological indicator, fish, macro-invertebrate, and micro-invertebrate assemblages would be performed for each of the three streams. • The results from the two non-pristine streams would be compared to the pristine (reference) stream for both water quality and biological quality information. Problems to be noted: • Pollutants not present in reference stream, but prevalent in other streams. • Species present in reference stream, but missing in other streams.

12. Example A - 5 • In the third year, the physical habitat of the three streams would be surveyed. • Also in the third year, toxicity tests would be run on organisms that appeared to be affected in the non-pristine streams using assays directed towards finding the pollutants causing the toxic response if one is noted. • Finally in the third year, using the information gathered from the first three years, devise an assessment program for the next several years.

13. Year One Water Quality Analysis Year Two Biological Analysis Determine Action for Next Five Years Year Three Physical Habitat Analysis / Toxicity Tests Years Four - Nine Conduct Ongoing Indicator Program Example A - 6 • Flow Chart:

14. Example A - 7 • Example program for years four through nine:(cont.) • In one of the non-pristine watersheds: • Implement source control measures specifically targeting constituents that have been identified as critical. • Engage in stream restoration efforts, particularly in establishing riparian habitat. • Through structural devices such as detention basins, work to reduce flooding impacts and some pollution.

15. Example A - 8 • Example program for years four through nine: • Monitoring receiving water impacts, comparing the pristine with the non-pristine watersheds: • Sample water quality for target constituent(s) that appear to be having the greatest impact. Look for sources and seasonal variations. • Establish and monitor a stream widening / downcutting section near the mouth of each stream. • Monitor stream temperature on an ongoing basis. • Monitor the population of a macro-invertebrate (single species indicator) that is experiencing pollution effects. In this case, a macro-invertebrate species was chosen as if improvements take place it will be noticed sooner.

16. Example A - 9 • Example program for years four through nine:(cont.) • A typical question to ask would be, if the concentration of a targeted pollutant is moving closer to the pristine conditions, is it due to: • The source control efforts? • The restoration of riparian habitat? • Or both? If outfall concentrations are not changing very much, then it is likely that the habitat restoration is having a big impact.

17. Example A - 10 • Example program for years four through nine:(cont.) • Another question might be, is the increase in the population of the single species indicator due to: • Declining concentration of the pollutant? Toxicity tests might confirm or deny this. • The stabilization of temperature due to the restored riparian habitat? Temperature type toxicity tests might be helpful.

18. Example A - 11 • Example program for years four through nine:(cont.) • Another question might be, there is a decrease in the concentration of the targeted pollutant, but the single species population continues to decline. • Is there a source of the targeted pollutant in the sediment, sequestered from past pollution that the organism in question has access to? Perhaps sediment testing would help answer this question. • Is the required reduction in pollutant concentration much greater?

19. Example A - 12 • Example program for years four through nine:(cont.) • Let us say that the conditions in both non-pristine watersheds remained the same. • Are there other factors such as a the amount of impervious surface area being too great for any efforts to work? • Is it going to take much longer to for the effects of non-point source pollution management to take effect? • Are there other pollutants not targeted, but actually having the biggest impact?

20. Example A - 13 • Example program for years four through nine:(cont.) • During and at the end of four years: • Attempt to determine if the management efforts have been successful in: • Reducing negative physical and hydrological effects such as reduced stream downcutting or temperature profiles that more closely resemble pristine conditions. • Reestablishing single species indicator. • If efforts have been successful, what appears to have the greatest impact? • If efforts have not been successful, why has that been the case?

21. Example A - 14 • Example program for years four through nine:(cont.) • Implement what has been learned in all of the non-pristine sub-watersheds non-point source pollution management programs. • Redo initial three years work to determine the next round of indicator efforts.

22. Receiving Water Watershed IV. Application of a coordinated environmental indicator program. Examples: (cont.) B. Consider a receiving water without the possibility of a reference water body:

23. Example B - 1 • The lack of a reference water body makes any evaluation of receiving water impacts more difficult regardless of the method used. It is always going to be difficult to estimate what is actually attainable. • The goal for the use of environmental indicators in such a setting would be to indicate: • What direction the overall health of the water body was taking - getting worse, getting better, staying the same. • If possible, identify the primary watershed factors that influence the health of the water body.

24. Example B - 2 • Here, the regular use of composite indicators such as fish assemblages, sediment testing, and physical habitat monitoring would be helpful. Testing water samples regularly would likely be frustrating due to natural variability. • Due to the lack of a reference water body, the an ultimate goal can not be easily set. Results in such a case are directed towards making progress and again, if possible looking for causes would be good. • Improved toxicity assays would be helpful in establishing cause and effect.

25. Example B - 3 • A major problem in such a situation would be that the goal of what the quality of the water body should ultimately attain might be never be reached because of the land use patterns in the area. The benchmark would not provide workable guidance. • Inevitably, comparisons (as an example, the numbers and health of fish) would have to be made to water bodies that are somewhat similar and not in pristine condition either. • Making finding that are statistically significant would be problematical.

26. Example B - 3 • An example of how environmental indicators might be used for a water body that did not have a reference water body. • A survey of the water quality considerations and physical and hydrological considerations of the water body using appropriate indices would be collected. • A fish assemblage would be collected. The existing species diversity would be compared to species diversity that could be ultimately expected based on the somewhat similar water bodies used for comparison.

27. Example B - 4 • An example of how environmental indicators might be used for a water body that did not have a reference water body. (cont.) • The reasons for the species with the depressed numbers would be investigated. Examples: • Temperature considerations • Alternating floodand low water considerations • Contaminated sediment • Toxicity assays directed towards the specific species in question and the specific pollutants in question.

28. Example B - 4 • An example of how environmental indicators might be used for a water body that did not have a reference water body. (cont.) • If the reasons for the species decline could be identified, then the causes of that reason would be investigated. • Of course, an important feature of this approach is the ongoing assessment of the water body from a holistic standpoint to continue to provide useful information in the future.

29. Discussion Break What level of expertise would be required to manage a coordinated program of environmental indicators for a receiving water body? Is talent stretched too thin out there for this to be reasonable to apply on a large scale?

30. Discussion Break You come up with a scenario of how to use a group of indicators to investigate receiving water impacts on your stream! Butte Creek Feather River Yuba River Cache Creek Bear River American River Consumnes River Mokelumne River Calaveras River Stanislaus River

31. Lecture #16, April 2, 1998 Management Strategies - Part I

32. I. At this point, this sounds repetitive, but the strategy for the management of non-point source pollution is to implement a comprehensive program of Best Management Practices (BMP’s). There are lots to chose from, start with the categories of BMP’s. This is not the BAT, BCT, and MEP categories, but what they physically look like.

33. I. Categories of BMP’s (cont.) A. Location with respect to where the pollution is coming from and where it is going: • Front of the pipe • In the middle of the pipe • End of the pipe • BMP’s that don’t seem to be associated with the pipe at all.

34. I. Categories of BMP’s (cont.) B. At the front of the pipe, categories could include: • BMP’s that seek to minimize the use of a substance that could be a pollutant. • BMP’s that seek to adjust peoples behavior. • BMP’s that seek to keep pollutants in their place. • BMP’s that seek to prevent pollutants that have been mobilized from entering the pipe.

35. I. Categories of BMP’s (cont.) C. In the middle of pipe, categories could include: • BMP’s that seek through structural means to halt the progress of the pollutants in the pipe. • BMP’s that involve the adjustment of the landscape to halt the transport of pollutants over significant stretches of sheet flow.

36. I. Categories of BMP’s (cont.) D. At the end of the pipe, categories could include: • BMP’s that use physical phenomena such as settling or adsorption to remove pollutants from the flow using structural devices. • BMP’s that borrow ideas from nature to polish the flow.

37. I. Categories of BMP’s (cont.) E. BMP’s that don’t seem to be associated with the pipe at all: • BMP’s that, in an organization, seek to establish accountability for the prevention of pollution. • BMP’s that seek to build general public awareness of non-point source pollution.