1 / 23

Local Water Quality Data Evaluation in Mecklenburg County, NC

This article provides a reality check on water quality monitoring activities at the local level, focusing on evaluation goals, monitoring sites, flow distribution analysis, trend analysis, program recommendations, and a reality check summary. Recommendations include shifting focus to smaller spatial scales, using continuous monitors, and integrating data from various sources to assess water quality conditions effectively. Contact Jeff Hieronymus for further information.

bethany-cervantes
Télécharger la présentation

Local Water Quality Data Evaluation in Mecklenburg County, NC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of Water Quality Monitoring Data at the Local Level, a Reality Check Jeff Hieronymus

  2. Mecklenburg County, NC

  3. A Brief History Lesson September 1969 Water Quality Articles

  4. How do you address odor problems? Use Deodorant

  5. Headwater Streams

  6. Monitoring Program Objectives • Identify general water quality conditions • Assess effectiveness of program activities and identify trends • Designated Use assessment / TMDL compliance • Pollutant source identification • Support management initiatives

  7. Monitoring Sites

  8. Monitoring Evaluation Goals • Is the sampling program adequate in capturing the full range of flow conditions? • How useful is the program in establishing pollutant concentration and loading trends (assess program effectiveness)? • Should the program be modified to reduce cost and/or increase cost effectiveness?

  9. Flow distribution Analysis • Cumulative frequency distributions were determined for entire flow record • Second streamflow distribution was calculated based on streamflow measured on sampling days • Comparison of distributions assesses whether full range of streamflows are included in data set • Important because bias in streamflow distribution could produce a bias in loading estimates • Stations grouped according to presence of upstream WWTP and whether stormwater samples were collected

  10. No Upstream WWTP, Ambient and Stormwater Samples

  11. Upstream WWTP, Ambient and Stormwater Samples

  12. No Upstream WWTP, Only Baseflow Samples

  13. Flow-Concentration at MC-45

  14. Trend Analysis • Important to gage program effectiveness • Time plots of data from all monitoring stations for each constituent was examined for a broad visual assessment • Regression lines were generated indicating the overall change that has occurred with time • Two-sample t-test approach was used to provide an approximation of number of samples required to discern a change in the mean concentration of each water quality characteristic

  15. Time Series – Suspended Residue

  16. Time Series – Total Phosphorus

  17. T-Test Results for Suspended Residue

  18. T-Test Results for Total Phosphorus

  19. Program Recommendations • Shift focus of water quality sampling from watershed scale to smaller spatial scale where changes are more likely to be detected • Make additional use of continuous monitors along with flow and water quality measurements to assess creek conditions • Make additional use of water quality information collected by other agencies to assess water quality conditions

  20. Trend Analysis of Flow Regime

  21. Reality Check • Identify general water quality conditions • Stormwater samples needed to capture flow regime • Water chemistry only a part of the story • Public understanding of chemical data • Habitat / visual assessment may be better • Assess effectiveness of program activities and identify trends • Cannot identify trends with current protocols • Number of samples needed cost prohibitive • Potential to move station upstream to project locations where changes more likely detected

  22. Reality Check (continued) • Designated Use assessment / TMDL compliance • State relies mostly on benthic macroinvertebrate data / habitat to assess use attainment • TMDL compliance points at bottom of watersheds • Pollutant source identification • Cannot determine sources at the watershed scale • Support management initiatives • NPDES Permits require data collection • Limited guidance given regarding how to use / interpret data

  23. Questions? • Contact information jhieronymus@ci.charlotte.nc.us 704-336-3927

More Related