Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Water Quality Program
Water Quality Assessment Integrated Reporting:Program Overview and Improvements Summary
August 28, 2017
WQ Engagement Workshop
Jennifer Wigal | Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Topics to be presented
• Overview of Integrated Report Process
• Historical Perspective
• Summary of Improvements
• Scope of DEQ’s Efforts
• Status of 2012 Integrated Report and 303(d) List
• Future Stakeholder Engagement
Integrated Report in Oregon
Overview of Integrated Report, Historical Perspective, & Improvements Summary
Federal requirements
• Assess and report every two years:• Overall condition of Oregon’s waters
• Federal Clean Water Act Section 305(b) report
• Identify waters not meeting water quality standards (Water quality limited or impaired waters)• Federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list - Need Total Maximum Daily Loads
• Waters that don’t need a TMDL
• Integrated Report – Data report• Combines 305(b) and 303(d) reporting to assess waters where data are available
• Informs Congress and public about general water quality conditions in the U.S.
• Public review and comment on draft list of water quality limited waters
State requirements – ORS 468B.039DEQ must:
• Solicit scientific/technical input including scientific peer review when appropriate prior to publishing draft assessments of waterbodies
• Publish a draft Assessment Methodology for public comment prior to development of the draft assessment conclusions
• Provide EQC an informational overview of the draft Assessment Methodology following the public comment period and prior to DEQ completing and publishing the draft assessment conclusions
• Give public opportunity to comment to EQC
How is the assessment done and the data report prepared?
• Process• Public comment on draft methodology
• Call for all available water quality data
• Assemble data and information
• Data evaluated and waters assessed according to the methodology
• Draft Integrated Report and 303(d) list• Public comment
• Submit to EPA: 303(d) list, priority rankings for TMDLs, documentation
• EPA reviews and approves 303(d) list• If disapproved, EPA must identify 303(d) waters in 30 days
Assessment Methodology for Oregon’s Integrated Report
The Methodology contains:
• Data requirements
• Listing and delisting criteria
• Assessment of beneficial uses
• Oregon’s narrative and numeric criteria
• Categorical determination
Assessment Methodology for Oregon’s Integrated Report
Category 1: All designated uses are supported. (Hasn’t been used)
Category 2: Some of the designated uses are supported. (Attaining)
Category 3: Insufficient data to determine whether any designated uses are supported.
• 3B: Insufficient data to determine use support but some data indicate non-attainment of a criterion and a Potential Concern.
• 3C: Impairing pollutant unknown. (EPA disapproved 2010)
Assessment Methodology for Oregon’s Integrated Report
Category 4: Water is impaired, but a TMDL is not needed. This includes:• 4A: TMDLs that will lead to attaining water quality standards have been approved. (TMDL approved)
• 4B: Other pollution control requirements that will lead to attaining water quality standards are in place
• 4C: Impairment is not caused by a pollutant (e.g., flow or lack of flow is not considered a pollutant).
Category 5: Water is impaired and a TMDL is needed.
• This category constitutes the Section 303(d) list that EPA will approve or disapprove under the Clean Water Act.
Historically, the assessment methodology was published with the draft Integrated Report.
DEQ will be publishing the draft methodology for comment and make subsequent revisions prior to the data call.
Assessment Methodology for Oregon’s Integrated Report
Looking Ahead…
Public Engagement
summer 2017
Public comment on
draft Assessment
Methodology
EQC Presentation
Draft Integrated
Report
Call for Data Final Integrated
Report
Integrated Report: Historical Submittals
• Only 5 Integrated Reports in the last 20 years due to:
• Data quantity
• Data infrastructure
• Resources
• Only 3 submitted since 2004• Last two limited in scope and resulted in EPA
adding waters to Oregon’s 303(d) list
Status of 2012 Integrated Report
• Last effort by DEQ: list of impaired waters based on partial
review of data using 2010-2012 data
• December 2016
• EPA approved DEQ submittal → listings effective
• EPA proposed 332 additional listings and 714 temperature listings for
public comment
• EPA to finalize list later this fall
Improvement Efforts: Big Picture
Resourcing
• We have a team!
Update foundation
• Data Infrastructure/ Processing
• Geospatial info
Improve Processes
• Segmentation
• Methodologies
Transparency/Access to Information
• Use of EPA systems
Improvement Efforts: Big Picture
Resourcing
• We have a team!
Update foundation
• Data Infrastructure/ Processing
• Geospatial info
Improve Processes
• Segmentation
• Methodologies
Transparency/Access to Information
• Use of EPA systems
Improvement Efforts: Big Picture
Resourcing
• We have a team!
Update foundation
• Data Infrastructure/ Processing
• Geospatial info
Improve Processes
• Segmentation
• Methodologies
Transparency/Access to Information
• Use of EPA systems
Foundation Updates• Georeferencing Water Quality Standards
• Migrate from LLID to NHD
• Easy identification of applicable WQS
Foundation Updates
• Environmental Data Management • Oregon WQ Monitoring Data Portal (AWQMS)
• Will house all raw data used in IR assessments
• Publicly accessible
Foundation Updates
• Reporting • Conform to federal ATTAINS
system• Comparability to other
states/regions
• Public Accessibility
Improvement Efforts: Big Picture
Resourcing
• We have a team!
Update foundation
• Data Infrastructure/ Processing
• Geospatial info
Improve Processes
• Segmentation
• Methodologies
Transparency/Access to Information
• Use of EPA systems
Process Improvement
• Segmentation• Move from defining by cycle based on available data to fixed statewide
assessment units
Old approach resulted in overlapping segments for different parametersthat changed from cycle to cycle
New approach: one fixed segment for all parameters
Process Improvement
Methodology Development and Revision Sequence:
1. Prioritize methods for development and revision
2. Scientific peer review for relevant methods
3. Draft methodology with revisions
4. Public input and comment
5. Present methodology to EQC
Improvement Efforts: Big Picture
Resourcing
• We have a team!
Update foundation
• Data Infrastructure/ Processing
• Geospatial info
Improve Processes
• Segmentation
• Methodologies
Transparency/Access to Information
• Use of EPA systems
Transparency of Process and Access to Info
• Public engagement• In person meetings
• Email/website
• Ease of accessing info
• Transparency of process• so people know what’s going on
BREAK
Integrated Reporting Improvements
Scope of DEQ’s Efforts
Goals for current IR improvement effort
• Build sustainable process and program• Capable of conducting complete report
• Produce IR every two years
• Transparent process• Opportunities for input
• Track work and access info the public/DEQ staff need
• Meet state and federal requirements
• Address other long-standing issues
Scope of current effort – What we are up to now
• Data infrastructure and reporting• Data management
• Nationally consistent reporting = ATTAINS
• Georeferencing WQS• Consistent and transparent information about WQS applicability
• Segmentation• Complete overhaul
• Revisions to methods that:• have had WQS revisions
• EPA identifies as a “must-do”
• Significant comments in past assessments
• More robust data sets
Data infrastructure and reporting• Data Management
• Oregon WQM data Portal• All DEQ raw grab data• DEQ continuous data• Macroinvertebrate raw and metrics • Volunteer Monitoring Program• Third party data to be used in the IR
• Call for data• Clarification of data quality
requirements• Consistent template for data submittal • Public outreach to parties interested
in using direct upload to submit all amounts of data
Data infrastructure and reporting:Example from Utah
• Identify Beneficial Uses Impaired
• Identify impairing pollutant
Segmentation → Assessment Units
• New method for determining segments (assessment units)• Fixed – Will remain the same over time (unless we learn something new about
the waterbody)• Tracking changes between cycles
• Easy to communicate results
• Transparency
• Environmentally relevant breaks • Water type – river, lake or estuary
• Where different groups of beneficial uses apply
• Stream Order (size)
• Watershed
• Attainment based on beneficial use, not individual parameters
• Data from multiple stations will be aggregated at the assessment unit level
Revisions to methods that:Have had WQS revisions –
• Ammonia
• temperature and pH dependent equation
• salmonid presence / absence (fish use designations)
• Bacteria
• Minor changes to criteria that protect coastal recreation waters
• Georeferenced coastal rec uses, freshwater rec uses, and shellfish uses
• Cadmium
• New federally promulgated acute hardness-based criterion
• Includes regional defaults
• Copper
• Adopted biotic ligand model based numeric criteria
Revisions to methods that:
EPA tells us are a “must-do” –
• Remove seasonal assessments where not a component of the standard
• most criteria except spawning (D.O. and temperature)
• Link WQ criteria to support of beneficial uses• necessary for reporting to ATTAINS
Revisions to methods that:
Had significant comments –
• Listing policy (assessing large datasets)
• Toxics methodology• dissolved metals
• Delisting policy• weighting most recent data
• sample size
• Conflicting/Overwhelming evidence• multiple lines of evidence for listing determinations
Evaluating revisions to methods that:
Have updated/new data –
• Arsenic• Conversion factor for comparing
total-As to inorganic As criterion
• Chromium• Total-Cr assessed against most
stringent criterion (chromium VI)
• Biocriteria• Metrics for listing categories and
delisting requirements
Out of the scope of this effort - For future prioritization
• New methods for narrative criteria• Sediment
• Nutrients
• Other narrative implementation
• Trend analysis
• Narrative Report summarizing status of Oregon’s waters (relates to CWA 305(b))
Question
Is DEQ missing anything critical in its current improvement efforts?
Next steps
DEQ’s actions and how to stay informed and engage in the development of the next Integrated Report
Input into Method Revision
• Scientific Peer Review• For technical methodology updates that require review in accordance with
ORS 468B.039
• 2-Part public process• Today’s overview and request for input
• Workgroup • DEQ provide in-depth information about proposed revisions to Methods
• provide input on specific methodology revisions
Workgroup Members
• Invited environmental organizations, organizations representing NPDES permittees, representatives of agriculture and forestry, and tribal and environmental justice representatives
• Workgroup comprised of ~10 members
• Objective: Where method revisions have multiple options, review and provide feedback on options and implications
Future Work Group Meetings
• Three meetings this autumn, specific topics TBD
• All to be held at DEQ HQ, 700 NE Multnomah St., Portland
• Agendas and materials posted on DEQ’s website
Timeline Revisited
Public Engagement
summer 2017
Public comment on
draft Assessment
Methodology
EQC Presentation
Draft Integrated
Report
Call for Data Final Integrated
Report
Question
Do you have any additional suggestions for how DEQ can ensure interested people stay informed?
DEQ Contacts:Improvement Project and Assessment Program
Integrated Reporting Improvement Project: • Project Sponsor, Jennifer Wigal
• Project Manager, William [email protected]
Water Quality Assessment Program:
• Coordinator (vacant position)
• Acting Lead, Becky [email protected]
• Data Lead, Lesley [email protected]
DEQ Contacts:Improvement Project and Assessment Program
• DEQ Web Site
http://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/Pages/WQ-Assessment.aspx
• DEQ Email Address for Integrated Report
