1 / 17

Critical Evaluation of Waterbody Assessment Processes WERF Project 04-WEM-4

Critical Evaluation of Waterbody Assessment Processes WERF Project 04-WEM-4. WERF: Jane Casteline Brown and Caldwell: Lindsay Griffith. Project Objectives. Review current assessment methodologies Identify best approaches Provide recommendations. Integrated Report, 303d/305b Documents.

thwaite-lundy
Download Presentation

Critical Evaluation of Waterbody Assessment Processes WERF Project 04-WEM-4

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. Critical Evaluation of Waterbody Assessment ProcessesWERF Project 04-WEM-4 WERF: Jane Casteline Brown and Caldwell: Lindsay Griffith

  2. Project Objectives • Review current assessment methodologies • Identify best approaches • Provide recommendations

  3. Integrated Report, 303d/305b Documents Critical Evaluation Matrix Questionnaire Telephone Interviews Critical Evaluation Matrix To States for Quality Assurance/ Changes for 2006 Revised Critical Evaluation Matrix

  4. Research Findings • Overall impressions • States in varying stages of methodology refinement • Limited monitoring and assessment resources • Leadership needed for research, guidance on hard issues

  5. Research Findings • States with minimum sample size requirements

  6. Research Findings • States using the “ten-percent rule”

  7. Research Findings • States which quantify uncertainty in assessments

  8. Research Findings • States using weight-of-evidence approach • Chemical • Physical • Biological

  9. Research Findings • States soliciting public comment during methodology development

  10. Recommendations • Publish Minimum Data Requirements • Minimum Data Requirements • DQOs • QAPPs • Better quality data and confidence in the data • Indisputable information

  11. Recommendations • Integrate Monitoring with Assessments Allocate State Resources • Accuracy in listing • Accuracy in diagnosis of cause & trending Develop Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program Stressors Biocriteria Development Accuracy in Use Support

  12. Recommendations • Develop standardized data extrapolation techniques Standardized Assessment Units • Consistent and Transparent Identification of Waters Use Flow-Reference Water Quality Data More Accurate Temporal Extrapolation Accurate Diagnosis and Trending Accuracy in Use Support

  13. Recommendations • Develop numeric wq criteria Formally Adopted Numeric Criteria Transparent and Auditable Benchmark Reduce Disputes in Assessment Results

  14. Recommendations • Use statistical evaluation techniques Statistical Evalutaion Technique Quantifies Uncertainty Associated with Use Support Determination

  15. Recommendations • Include public in methodology development Stakeholder Involvement Reduce Disputes in Assessment Outcome

  16. Summary & Conclusions • State-of-the-science of current assessment methodologies • States continue to struggle with uncertainty (how well does assessment reflect reality) • Recommendations to refine assessment process and help characterize water quality with greater consistency and confidence

  17. WERF – Jane Castelinejcasteline@werf.org703-684-2470 Brown and Caldwell – Lindsay Griffith lgriffith@brwncald.com 303-239-5445

More Related