# Presentation: 182029

## South Carolina Surface Water Monitoring: Different Designs for Different Objectives

- Presented by David Chestnut

## Reporting Requirements

**§305(b) Report**
- Comprehensive statewide summary report on water quality to Congress every two years
**§303(d) List**
- Listing of impaired waters
- Submitted to EPA every
-     two years

## Other SCDHEC Reporting Activities

- Watershed Water Quality Assessments (WWQA)
*Healthy People Living In Healthy Communities*

## Other Data Needs

**Capability for targeted monitoring for specific needs:**
- Special studies
- Tracking of implementation of control strategies
- Respond to emerging issues

## Purpose of the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Program

**The collection and analysis of data needed to make water quality management decisions:**
- Determine water quality status & identify waters not supporting classified uses (§305(b), §303(d), WWQA)
- Determine long-term trends in concentrations of various  constituents at individual sites (WWQA)
- Collect data for Wasteload Allocation Models
- Support specific NPDES permit limits
- Evaluate effectiveness of SCDHEC programs

## Basic Designs of Ambient Surface Water Monitoring are:

_**Big Picture:**_
- Make statements about representative WQ at varying scales (§305(b), WWQA)
_**Site Specific**_
- Examine long-term trends in concentration of specific WQ parameters
- Identify waterbodies not meeting classified uses (§303(d))
- Track specific targeted activities

**Notes:**
Varying scales:
	Entire State, basin, watershed

Track specific targeted activities:
	Specific permittees
	Remediation actions
	Specific land use practices

## Main Ambient Monitoring Activities

**Physical & Chemical Monitoring**
- Water Column
- Sediment
**Biological Community Monitoring**
- Macroinvertebrate
**Fish Tissue Monitoring**

## Components of the Ambient Monitoring Network Design

**Fixed Monitoring Network**
- Long-term trends
_**Consistent**_ statewide coverage
**Cyclical Basin Monitoring**
- More spatially dense coverage
- Watershed focus
**Probability-Based Monitoring**
- Statistical survey of statewide resources
- Sample new locations

**Notes:**
Consistent statewide coverage

## Types of Fixed Statewide Surface Water Chemistry Monitoring Sites

**Integrator & Special Purpose Sites**
- Sampled monthly year-round
- Target outflow of 11-digit WSU or specific data needs
**Special Summer-Only Sites**
- Sampled monthly May-October
- Target specific data needs
**Basin Sites**
- More-or-less fixed, on a 5 year cycle
- Sampled monthly for 1 year when active

**Notes:**
Special purpose sites
	Headwaters and forebays of major lakes
	Large watershed unit size
	Political concerns

Numbers
Integrators		313
Special Purpose	 31
Total		344

Summer-Only	5
Sediment-Only	8

Savannah-Salkehatchie	104
Saluda-Edisto	100
Catawba-Santee	83
Pee Dee		92
Broad		94

## Slide 10

## Probability-Based Component

**Probability Sites**
- Sampled monthly for 1 year
**Make comprehensive statements about **_**statewide**_** WQ conditions (§305(b) use support)**
- Unbiased random sample (survey)
- Known confidence of estimates
**Sample previously unsampled locations**
- Identify new §303(d) candidates

## Assistance in Development of Probability- Based Monitoring

- Ron Raschke – Region IV EPA (retired)
- Kent Thornton – FTN Associates
- EPA ORD National Health & Environmental Effects Research Laboratories
- Tony Olsen – EPA ORD NHEERL Corvallis, OR
- Kevin Summers – EPA ORD NHEERL           Gulf Breeze, FL
- Bob Van Dolah – SCDNR MRRI

## Resource Types Assessed Using Probability-Based Approach

**Streams**
**Lakes**
**Estuaries**

## Slide 14

## Primary Uses to be Assessed with Probability Data

**Statewide**
- Aquatic Life Use Support
- Recreational Use Support

**Notes:**
Survival & propagation of balanced indigenous aquatic community =
Aquatic Life Use Support
Swimming
Recreational Use Support

## In order to do that, sufficient data must be collected at each Probability Site to apply SCDHEC’s Assessment Methodology

- This is a different approach than that employed by most other states with Probability-Based designs

## Core Parameters - All Physical & Chemical Sites

| Monthly |  |
| --- | --- |
| Air & Water Temp | Total Phosphorus |
| Dissolved Oxygen |  Kjeldahl Nitrogen |
| pH | Nitrate |
| BOD5 | Ammonia |
| Fecal Coliform Bacteria | Alkalinity |
| Turbidity |  |

## Core Parameters - All Physical & Chemical Sites

| Quarterly |  |
| --- | --- |
| Total Organic Carbon | Manganese |
| Cadmium | Mercury |
| Chromium | Nickel |
| Copper | Zinc |
| Iron | Annually |
| Lead | Hardness* |

- *Freshwater sites only

## Core Parameters -  Waterbody-Type Specific 

_**Monthly**_
- 	Salinity
- 	Conductivity
- 	Chlorophyll a (May-Oct. all lakes and select estuarine)
- 	Transparency (Secchi depth, all lakes)

## Ambient Surface Water Chemistry Monitoring Numbers

- 	   313  Integrators (statewide)
- 	     31  Special Purpose (statewide)
- 	       5  Summer Only (statewide)
- 	       8  Sediment Only (statewide)
-  83-104  Basin Sites (depending on target basins)
- 	     90  Probability Sites (statewide)

**Notes:**
With Basin Sites = 517 to 538 sites per month 
Integrators + Special Purpose + Probability = 434
Plus 5 Summer only
Plus 8 one-time sediments

## Don’t Put All of Your Eggs in One Basket!

## You Need to Have a Little of Everything

- Probability based for big picture statements
- Fixed sites to examine long-term trends in individual parameters
- Capability for targeted monitoring for specific needs:
- Emerging issues/special studies
- Tracking of implementation of control strategies

## Expected Benefitsof Whole Package

- Consistent & comparable data statewide
- Known confidence in §305(b) statements
- Sample previously unsampled locations
- Identify new §303(d) candidates

## Use of Generated Data

**§****305(b)**
- Probability Sites
- Initially a comparison of old approach, all data all sites, with probability results

**§****303(d)**
- Integrator Sites
- Special Purpose Sites
- Summer Only Sites
- Basin Sites
- Probability Sites
- Other QA’d data

## Use of Generated Data

- Watershed Water Quality Assessments
- All available data for basin
- Assess use support
- Assess long-term trends
- Track corrective actions

## So what do the results show?

- Traditional 5 -Year §305(b) Assessment
- vs.
- Probability-Based Stream Results

## Traditional 5 -Year §305(b) Assessment

- Individual fixed sites selected for a variety of reasons, e.g. below point source, urban area, background conditions, citizen concerns, other special interests
- Individual sites (points) are sampled
- Segments or polygonal areas are assigned to be represented by the water quality at the sampled point
- Based on professional judgment; general landuse, stream size, local knowledge, etc.
- Determines size represented by individual point

## Slide 28

## Targeted Categories for Probability-Based Sites

**Streams (30 sites per year)**
- Sampled monthly
- First order streams
- Second order streams
- Third order & greater streams
- Unequal weights

**Notes:**
Considering a change: Combining first & second order streams into one category

Annual macroinvertebrate sampling at all sites

## Slide 30

**Notes:**
tradi_305b2.png

## Slide 31

## Slide 32

## Rivers & Streams

**Traditional §305(b) Approach**
- NHD 29,794 Total Miles
- 630 water quality monitoring sites
- Representing 15,312 miles assessed
**Probability-Based Approach**
- Estimated 20,954 miles in stream design frame
- 58 water quality monitoring sites 2001-02
- 118 water quality monitoring sites 2001-04
- Representing all miles

## Rivers & Streams Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS)

**Rivers & Streams ****Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS)**

**Traditional ****§****305(b) 1998-2002**

**Probability 2001-2002**

**Probability 2001-2004**

## Rivers & Streams Recreational Use Support

**Rivers & Streams Recreational ****Use Support**

**Traditional ****§****305(b) 1998-2002**

**Probability 2001-2002**

**Probability 2001-2004**

## Percent of Rivers & Streams Impaired by Specific Causes

*** - Misleading because not every site had a macroinvertebrate assessment.  T****he total resource size represented by macroinvertebrate results is 5,667 miles******

## Difference in Recreational Use & Fecal Coliform Impairment Numbers

- In the past the tendency was to establish fixed sites on stream locations with strong public use or interest
- Under the traditional §305(b) approach, larger streams represent a lot of the total miles assessed compared to smaller order streams
- The smaller order streams not "represented" are just assumed to be "not assessed“

## Difference in Recreational Use & Fecal Coliform Impairment Numbers

- All the traditional percentages are based on the total stream miles **assessed**
- So the small streams are under-represented in the total miles assessed
- Under the probability-based assessment they are now 100% represented, as are all other stream sizes

## Rivers & Streams

## That’s All Folks!

- Any Questions?
- Discussion?

## Targeted Categories for Probability-Based Sites

**Significant Lakes with Public Access (30 sites per year)**
- Sampled monthly
- Major lakes ( 850 acres)
- Minor lakes (40 to 850 acres)
- Unequal weights

**Notes:**
Need a biological indicator appropriate for lakes - zooplankton?

## Lakes & Reservoirs

**Traditional §305(b) Approach**
- NHD 407,505 Total Acres
- 107 water quality monitoring sites
- Representing 227,275 acres assessed
**Probability-Based Approach**
- Estimated 308,765 acres of lake/reservoir  in design frame
- 61 water quality monitoring sites 2001-2002
- 91 water quality monitoring sites 2001-2003
- Representing all acres

## Lakes & Reservoirs Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS)

**Lakes & Reservoirs Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS)**

**Traditional ****§****305(b) 1998-2002**

**Probability 2001-2002**

**Probability 2001-2004**

## Lakes & Reservoirs Recreational Use Support

**Lakes & Reservoirs ****Recreational ****Use Support**

**Traditional ****§****305(b) 1998-2002**

**Probability 2001-2002**

**Probability 2001-2004**

## Lakes & Reservoirs

## Percent of Lakes & Reservoirs Impaired by Specific Causes

## Targeted Categories for Probability-Based Sites

**Estuaries (30 sites per year + 30 more with cooperators)**
- 30 visited monthly
- Two distinct strata
- Open water (> 100 m wide)
- Creeks (< 100 m wide)

## Habitat Designation Criteria

**Less than 100 m wide**

## Open Water

**Open Water**

**Tidal Creeks**

**83%**

**17%**

**Unsampled Shoals**

## Estuaries 

**Traditional §305(b) Approach**
- 401 Total Square Miles
- 79 water quality monitoring sites
- Representing 221 square miles assessed
**Probability-Based Approach**
- 277 square miles in the estuarine sampling design frame
- 60 water quality monitoring sites 2001-02
- 120 water quality monitoring sites 2001-04
- Representing all square miles

## Estuaries Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS)

**Estuaries ****Aquatic Life Use Support (ALUS)**

**Traditional ****§****305(b) 1998-2002**

**Probability 2001-2002**

**Probability 2001-2004**

## Estuaries Recreational Use Support

**Estuaries Recreational Use Support**

**Traditional ****§****305(b) 1998-2002**

**Probability 2001-2002**

**Probability 2001-2004**

## Estuaries

## Percent of Estuaries Impaired by Specific Causes

## Estuarine Biological Condition

## Visit our Web Site!www.scdhec.net/water/

- Laws and regulations
- Reports and publications
- Fish Consumption Advisories
- Watershed maps
- Program contacts
- Outreach information

## Slide 57

## Slide 58