Water Quality
Dave McShaffrey
Harla Ray Eggleston Department
of Biology, Marietta College
3/22/2016
Chemical Monitoring
 list of 100’s of possible parameters
3/22/2016
Physical Monitoring




maps
remote sensing
current and flow measurements
field observations
3/22/2016
Biomonitoring




number of organisms
indicator species
species abundance
species diversity
3/22/2016
Why Biomonitoring?
3/22/2016
Summary:
 physical methods only hint at water quality
problems
 chemical tests most discriminating, but:




expensive
need hundreds of tests
must sample at right place, right time
biomonitoring reasonable compromise
• less expensive than chemical (but still expensive)
• less accurate than chemical
• integrative nature
3/22/2016
Aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates
ideal for biomonitoring because:





species can be associated with given water
quality
remain in local area for extended periods
easy to capture, store, and identify
not as mobile as fish, which can avoid
pollutants
Demonstration of WinMac using data from
Tables 1&2
3/22/2016
Ecological Basis for
biomonitoring
 River Continuum - now outdated


A predicatable series of changes in the
biota should occur as one moves
downstream
Perturbations will affect the predicted
community
3/22/2016
River Continuum
3/22/2016
Source: http://www.shorelandmanagement.org/depth/rivers/02.html
Headwater
Midstream
Mouth
lowest
highest?
smallest
medium
medium
medium
highest
high
largest
low DT max
shaded
clear
high DT max
open
slightly turbid
low DT max
open
turbid
Particle size:
10mm
1mm
0.001mm
Substrate
diverse
diverse
homogeneous
Seasonal effects:
highest
medium
lowest
<1
Heterotrophic
Allochthonous
>1
Autotrophic
Autochthonous
<1
Heterotrophic
Allochthonous
high
low
med
highest
high
high
low
low
low
shredders
collectors
filterers
Flow:
volume:
speed:
channel width:
Temperature & Sun
temperature
canopy
turbidity
Nutrients:
P/R ratio
Food chain
Nutrient Source
Species Richness:
macrobenthos
phytoplankton
benthic algae
FFG's:
3/22/2016
Problems with the River
Continuum

Poor understanding of large rivers
• Underestimate stream velocities and substrates

Species richness
• Not a continuum
• Underestimate of headwater streams

Prediction of FFG's
• Assigning FFG’s accurately
• Data from New Zealand
• Seasonal shifts
3/22/2016
Modern Concepts:






nutrient spiraling
Patch dynamics
correlation of substrate diversity and
species diversity
roles of biofilms
meiobenthos and interstitial organisms
interaction of stream and surrounding
groundwater
3/22/2016
Ecosystem Health and Stream
Ecosystems
 Diversity indices:




Number of species
SCI – sequential comparison index
Shannon-Weiner
Equitability
 Biomonitoring today:




SCI
Hilsenhoff
Ohio EPA
Ohio Scenic Rivers Program
3/22/2016
Expected Values for selected benthic invertebrate community-structure parameters in
relatively undamaged, moderately damaged, and heavily damaged waterways from midwestern deciduous forests.
Expected
Values
Degree of
Damage:
Water Quality:
Number
(taxa)
of
Species
Ecological Density
2
(Number of organisms/m )
Pollution status
Pollution-sensitive
Pollution-facultative
Pollution-tolerant
Species Diversity Index
(Shannon-Weiner)
Equitability Index
Relatively
Undamaged
GoodExcellent
>40
Moderately
Damaged
Fair
Heavily
Damaged
Poor
20-40
<20
500-2,000
<500 or
2,000-5,000
<500 or
>5,000
75-100%
10-25%
0-5%
25-75%
25-75%
25-50%
0-10%
25-75%
50-100%
>3.0
2-3
<2
>0.7
0.5-0.7
<0.5
References:
1.
Olive, J.H. and K.R. Smith. 1975. Benthic Macroinvertebrates as indices of water quality in the Scioto River Basin (Ohio).
Ohio Biological Survey New Series Bulletin. 5(2). The Ohio State University Press, Columbus, Ohio.
2.
Wihlm, J.L. and T.C. Dorris. 1968. Biological parameters for water quality criteria. Bioscience. 18(6):477-481.
3.
Weber, C.I. (ed.) 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents.
Env. Monitoring Series, Office of Research and Development, USEPA. Cinncinnati, Ohio.
3/22/2016
Table 1. Water quality classifications for the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (BI) (Hilsenhoff 1987)
Bi Value
3/22/2016
Water Quality
Degree of Organic Pollution
0.00-3.50
Excellent
3.51-4.50
Very Good
Slight organic pollution
4.51-5.50
Good
Some organic pollution
5.51-6.50
Fair
Fairly significant organic pollution
6.51-7.50
Fairly Poor
Significant organic pollution
7.51-8.50
Poor
Very significant organic pollution
8.51-10.00
Very Poor
Severe organic pollution
No apparent organic pollution
Modern Techniques
Modern Techniques
 Current Ohio EPA Methodology
 Critical web pages:



Overview of Water Quality Standards
Interactive Map
Biocriteria Page
• Biological Criteria Volume I – overview of why Ohio EPA uses biocriteria.
3/22/2016
Ohio Biomonitoring
 In context of USEPA requirements

Sections 303(d) & 305(b) of Clean Water
Act
• 303(d) – states must develop lists of impaired
waters
• 305(b) – states must report biennielly
3/22/2016
Section 305(b) [as codified]








(1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date
by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a report which shall include—(A) a description of the
water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the preceding year, with appropriate
supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations,
correlated with the quality of water required by the objective of this chapter (as identified by the
Administrator pursuant to criteria published under section 1314 (a) of this title) and the water quality
described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the protection
and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water;
(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and a level of
water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or
will be achieved by the requirements of this chapter, together with recommendations as to
additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action is
necessary;
(D) an estimate of(i) the environmental impact,
(ii) the economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this chapter in such State,
(iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and
(iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and
(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to
the programs which must be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an estimate
of the costs of implementing such programs.
3/22/2016
Ohio EPA Metrics
 3 main metrics are calculated:
1. Index of Biotic Integrity (fish) - IBI
2. Modified Index of Well-Being - MIwb
1. Uses fish, 4 parameters:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Numbers of individuals
Biomass
Shannon – numbers
Shannon – weight
3. Invertebrate Community Index
(macroinvertebrates) - ICI
3/22/2016
Ohio Ecoregions
3/22/2016
Ohio EPA Metrics
 Metrics used to assign waters to 1 of 7
categories for aquatic life:
3/22/2016
1
2
3/22/2016
3
3/22/2016
4
5
3/22/2016
6
7
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
• Also, considerations given to human
uses, chemical parameters, taste, odor,
drinking water, etc. – very complicated!
• We will focus on wildlife end of things,
particularly ICI.
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
Sampling Schedule
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
Historical Trends
3/22/2016
“EPA will use environmental indicators, together with measures of activity accomplishments,
to evaluate the success of our programs. Working in partnership with others, we will be able
to report status and trends of U.S. and global environmental quality to the public, Congress,
states, the regulated community, and the international community. National program
managers will use environmental indicators to determine where their programs are achieving
the desired environmental results, and where inadequate results indicate strategies need to
be changed. Over time, as more complete data are reported, environmental indicators will
become the Agency’s primary means of reporting and evaluating success.”[Italics ours]
There is a large gap, however, between this vision statement and the implementation of indicators within
EPA programs and between it and the support for adequate state monitoring programs that include
indicators. Nationally, tracking of the use attainment status of surface water resources has suffered from
an insufficient and biased collection of ambient data. Additionally, there has been an overreliance on
chemical-specific data to the exclusion of more integrative, direct measures of water resource integrity.
Without the availability of direct and holistic measures of water resource integrity, tracking of the success
of pollution abatement has focused on management activities (e.g., permit issuance) instead of
environmental results. The failure to use more direct measures of biological integrity has led to a criticism
of the effort to monitor the effects of reduced pollutants in surface waters (U.S. GAO 1986). Although the
effluent loadings of many chemical parameters have been reduced since the passage of the original Clean
Water Act (Smith et al. 1987) it has been difficult to relate this to improvements in aquatic life uses other
than in specific instances (U.S. GAO 1986). Considering the $50 billion spent and the additional $118
billion projected for municipal WWTP construction up to the year 2000 (U. S. EPA 1982) more effort needs
to be devoted toward directly quantifying the environmental results of these activities. Chemical criteria
as surrogates of aquatic life use impairment have traditionally been used alone to produce
estimates of the extent (e.g., miles) waterbodies are attaining or not attaining their use or to detect
trends. They provide, however, little consistent information on the severity of pollution other than
degree and frequency of chemical exceedences of water quality criteria. This approach …
3/22/2016
Factors Affecting
Water Quality
3/22/2016
Water Quality Standards
Ohio Water Quality Standards (WQS)
Ohio EPA has employed the concept of tiered aquatic life uses in the Ohio Water
Quality Standards (WQS) since 1978. Aquatic life uses in Ohio include the Warmwater
Habitat (WWH), Exceptional Warmwater Habitat (EWH), Cold Water Habitat
(CWH), Seasonal Salmonid Habitat (SSH), Modified Warmwater Habitat (three
subcategories: channel-modified, MWH-C; mine affected, MWH-A; and impounded,
MWH-I), Limited Resource Water (LRW), and the now defunct Limited
Warmwater Habitat (LWH) designations. Each of these use designations is defined
in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-1). Table 2-1 lists the size of waterbodies for
each aquatic life and non-aquatic life use assigned to Ohio surface waters. The
lengths (miles) of designated uses by stream and river size category are illustrated
in Figure 2-1.
3/22/2016
Antidegradation
Antidegradation
After the initial draft of this report was complete and sent to USEPA, Ohio EPA’s new
Antidegradation Rule (3745-1-05 OAC) became effective (October 1, 1996). Federal
regulations require that State water quality standards must include an antidegradation
policy. The antidegradation rule applies in situations where the existing water quality is
better than that “necessary” to support fish and aquatic life and recreation in and on the
water. Thus there is a “public trust” of high water quality that must be considered in
situations where a permittee wants to add pollutants. The antidegradation rule spells out
the review requirements need to approve any lowering of water quality. IN ALL CASES
THE EXISTING USES MUST BE PROTECTED. Ohio EPA’s Antidegradation Rule
applies to wastewater discharge (NPDES) permits and permit-to-install applications
(PTIs) if there would be an increase in the permit limit for the discharge of pollutants to
surface waters. With some exceptions this rule requires the Ohio EPA to do an
“antidegradation” review for all new or increase discharges, Section 401 water quality
certifications (“permits for the dredging and filling of streams”). Nonpoint source pollution
is covered to the extent separate regulatory authority exists.
3/22/2016
Biocriteria
3/22/2016
Biocriteria
3/22/2016
Biocriteria
3/22/2016
Sampling Sites
3/22/2016
Sampling Sites
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
Bioassessment Techniques
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
Attainment Status
3/22/2016
Causes of Impairment
3/22/2016
Causes of Impairment
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
Water Quality Trends
3/22/2016
Causes of Impairment
3/22/2016
Emerging Issues
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
Dissolved Oxygen
3/22/2016
Soil Erosion
3/22/2016
IBI
3/22/2016
Soil Erosion
3/22/2016
Soil Erosion
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
3/22/2016
Altered Habitats
3/22/2016
Good Habitats
3/22/2016
Trends
3/22/2016
Trends
3/22/2016
Trends
3/22/2016
Trends
3/22/2016
Lakes
3/22/2016
The End
3/22/2016