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
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 establish what 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
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
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 flood and 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 (BMPs). There are
lots to chose from, start with the categories of
BMPs. This is not the BAT, BCT, and MEP
categories, but what they physically look like.
33
I. Categories of BMPs (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
• BMPs that dont seem to be associated with the
  pipe at all.

34
I. Categories of BMPs (cont.)

• B. At the front of the pipe, categories could
  include
• BMPs that seek to minimize the use of a
  substance that could be a pollutant.
• BMPs that seek to adjust peoples behavior.
• BMPs that seek to keep pollutants in their
  place.
• BMPs that seek to prevent pollutants that have
  been mobilized from entering the pipe.

35
I. Categories of BMPs (cont.)

• C. In the middle of pipe, categories could
  include
• BMPs that seek through structural means to halt
  the progress of the pollutants in the pipe.
• BMPs that involve the adjustment of the
  landscape to halt the transport of pollutants
  over significant stretches of sheet flow.

36
I. Categories of BMPs (cont.)

• D. At the end of the pipe, categories could
  include
• BMPs that use physical phenomena such as
  settling or adsorption to remove pollutants from
  the flow using structural devices.
• BMPs that borrow ideas from nature to polish the
  flow.

37
I. Categories of BMPs (cont.)

• E. BMPs that dont seem to be associated with
  the pipe at all
• BMPs that, in an organization, seek to establish
  accountability for the prevention of pollution.
• BMPs that seek to build general public awareness
  of non-point source pollution.