DOCSLIB.ORG

Rfw Wq Report 2006.Qxp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rfw Wq Report 2006.Qxp Roaring Fork Watershed Water Quality Report 2006 1. Introduction Having sources of abundant, high quality water is vital to maintaining clean drinking water, TABLE OF CONTENTS agriculture, tourism, and the ecosystem health 1. Introduction 2 of the Roaring Fork Watershed. In 1997, the Roaring Fork Con- 2. Roaring Fork Conservancy 2 servancy began a 3. Roaring Fork Watershed 3 monitoring program 4. Water Quality Sampling Program 4 to determine water 5. Most Common Pollutants 6 quality conditions 6. Importance of Healthy Streams 7 and trends through- out the watershed. 7. Healthy Stream Reaches 8 The Roaring Fork 8. Threats to Healthy Streams 9 Conservancy’s first 9. Streams on Watch List 13 State of the River 10. Impacted Streams 14 Report synthesized data collected during 2000 11. What is Being Done 17 and established a baseline inventory of water Appendix 18 quality (Hempel & Crandall, 2001). The data indicated high water quality throughout most of References 20 the watershed, and recommended that: 1) chemical data be supplemented by physical and biological evaluations, and health assessment of different stream reaches in the 2) some changes in sample site locations be made. watershed, threats to healthy streams, and local Incorporating these changes resulted in additional efforts underway to protect water quality and educate data for this report providing a more accurate portray- citizens about the need for plentiful high quality al of water quality and identification of issues to water. Overall, water quality has remained high since address. 2000. However, some stream sections regularly This 2006 report covers the Roaring Fork water exceed state health standards for drinking water quality monitoring program, causes of pollution, supply and/or aquatic biological communities. 2. Roaring Fork Conservancy Roaring Fork Conservancy is a community supported Sound scientific analysis and collaboration are non-profit watershed conservation organization for vital for protecting the watershed’s rivers and riparian the Roaring Fork Watershed in central areas. Roaring Fork Conservancy has close working Colorado. Since 1996 the Roaring relationships with other non-profits, municipal, Fork Conservancy has worked “to county, regional, state and federal agencies, and the inspire people to explore, value business community. Its water quality program works and protect the Roaring Fork closely with the Colorado Division of Wildlife Watershed.” Supporting this (CDOW), Colorado Department of Public Health mission are our four program and Environment (CDPHE), U.S. Environmental areas: Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Geological • Water Quality Monitoring Survey (USGS). • Conservation Easements For more information on the Roaring Fork Con- • Watershed Education servancy and its water quality monitoring program, • Water Resources Research visit the organization’s website: www.roaringfork.org. 2 3. Roaring Fork Watershed The Roaring Fork Watershed is comprised of a network of streams and rivers that flow into the Roaring Fork River which then empties into the Colorado River at Glenwood Springs. The Roaring Fork’s main stem flows for over seventy river miles, starting near Independence Pass at over 12,000 feet on the Con- tinental Divide. On its journey to the confluence with the Colorado River the Roaring Fork drops over 6,000 feet and travels from high alpine tundra to semi-desert pinõn-juniper woodlands. The Roaring Fork River is the second largest tributary to the Colorado River in the state of Colorado, and contributes about five percent lower valley. Above Aspen, granite, gneiss, and schist of the total water in the Colorado River Watershed. rock formations are dominant. Plant communities The Roaring Fork Watershed covers an area of 1,451 along the river include canopy species of ponderosa square miles (approximately the size of the state of pine, narrow-leaf cotton- Rhode Island). Major tributaries of the Roaring Fork wood, box elder, and are the Fryingpan and Crystal rivers. All of the juniper; understory valley’s major communities, Aspen, Basalt, Carbon- species include water dale, and Glenwood Springs, are located along the birch, Gambel’s oak, wild Roaring Fork River. Smaller communities are located rose, and willow. on main tributaries. The watershed contains parts of Fish species found in three counties: Eagle, Garfield, and Gunnison, and the watershed’s rivers and most of Pitkin County. In 2000, the U.S. Census esti- streams include the non- mated that the population of the watershed was native brook, brown, and rainbow trout; and the approximately native Colorado River cutthroat trout. Additional 40,000 people cold water species include the mountain whitefish; and growing in mottled sculpin; speckled dace; and bluehead, all four counties. flannelmouth, and mountain suckers. Caddisflies, Annual mean stoneflies, mayflies, and midges represent the most snowfall in the common macroinvertebrates found in and along the watershed is 65 to valley’s rivers (Spackman et al., 1999). The water- 70 inches and the shed also provides habitat for many bird, mammal, annual mean amphibian, and reptile species. rainfall is 11 inches. Basalt beds, the Maroon forma- Additional information, including facts and tion, the Eagle Valley gypsum formation, Mancos figures about the Roaring Fork Watershed, is avail- shale, and Mesa-Verde sandstone occur along the able at: www.roaringfork.org/watershed. 3 4. Water Quality Sampling Program Background In 1997, the Conservancy helped coor- dinate efforts to establish a watershed wide water quality sampling program in partnership with the River Watch Dedicated citizen program coordinat- volunteers and ed by CDOW, local schools Colorado Water- (Aspen High, shed Network Aspen Country (CWN), and Day, Basalt High, CDPHE. As of Carbondale 2006, there are a Middle, Marble total of 24 water Charter, Colorado quality sampling Rocky Mountain, sites throughout the Roaring Fork Watershed. The incorporated into the River Watch web page and Glenwood Springs River Watch program’s first-class STORET, the national water quality database High) make water water quality testing protocol is administered by the EPA (River Watch, 2005). At a quality sampling used statewide to monitor stream local scale, the Conservancy’s water quality monitor- in the Roaring health and quality. River Watch ing program Fork Watershed trains middle and high school collects accurate possible! students and teachers during a and consistent comprehensive multi-day class data to inform overseen by CDOW biologists and local decision- River Watch staff. makers, citizens, Conservancy staff are trained to implement this and Roaring Fork protocol and are responsible for training the citizen Conservancy volunteer ‘stream teams’ staff. This infor- throughout the valley. mation aids watershed management decisions and Key to the consistency of identifies areas for either remedial efforts or targeted the monitoring program studies. At a broader scale, the data are used by is a strict sampling CDOW, EPA, and the CDPHE’s Water Quality schedule, adherence to Control Division (WQCD) to monitor drinking holding times for all water quality and aquatic habitat. The WQCD use samples, and regular these data to assess the physical, biological and quality assurance and chemical integrity of Colorado’s waters (CDPHE, quality control checks administered by the River 2005). Watch and Conservancy staff. River Watch partner schools and Roaring Fork Conservancy staff enter Sampling Protocol data they have collected into the River Watch data For every sample taken, monitoring participants: base (www.wildlife.state.co.us/riverwatch). • sample for total and dissolved metals; • run chemical analysis for hardness, alkalinity, Data Users pH, and dissolved oxygen; All data from the volunteers and labs are scrutinized • record temperature of air and water; and for precision and accuracy by River Watch staff and • note any physical changes in the site. 4 macroinvertebrates are sent out for Family Biotic Index (FBI) analysis. Field parameters, metals, and In a polluted stream, there typically are large numbers of only a few nutrient amounts are important in specific species, while in a clean stream there is greater diversity of establishing baselines for analysis and species. Because both pollution sensitive and tolerant forms are future threat assessments. Macroinverte- present in ‘clean’ waters, it is the absence of sensitive species and brate data (sidebar) is important because presence of tolerant species that may indicate pollutants. The Family it provides information on the biological Biotic Index (FBI), a form of the Biotic Index, is based on grouping integrity of the stretch of water. macroinvertebrates into categories depending on their response to Macroinvertebrates reflect stream con- organic pollution (Hilsenhoff, 1988). ditions over a period of time rather than on the day of sampling. Water Quality based on Family Biotic Index Frequency of water quality testing (Hilsenhoff, 1977) and the parameters tested are based on Biotic Index Water quality Degree of organic pollution state standards for stream health 0.00 - 3.50 Excellent Organic pollution unlikely (CDPHE, 2005) and the significance of 3.51 - 4.50 Very Good Possible slight organic pollution each parameter (Colorado Watershed 4.51 - 5.50 Good Some organic pollution probable Network, 2005). Nutrients are collected 5.51 - 6.50 Fair Fairly substantial pollution likely twice per year and macroinvertebrates 6.51 - 7.50 Fairly poor
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aquatic Ecology Teacher Guide
    National Park Service Rocky Mountain U.S. Department of Interior Rocky Mountain National Park Aquatic Ecology Teacher Guide Table of Contents Teacher Guides..............................................................................................................................2 Schedule an Education Program with a Ranger.......................................................................2 Aquatic Ecology Background Information Introduction........................................................................................................................4 Water Quality in RMNP...................................................................................................5 Pollution in RMNP............................................................................................................6 Chemical Testing Methods................................................................................................6 Riparian Habitat...............................................................................................................15 Aquatic Invertebrates.......................................................................................................18 Aquatic Ecology Resources Classroom Resources.......................................................................................................21 Glossary.............................................................................................................................22 References.........................................................................................................................24
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDICES Cover Photo Credit: Southern Ute Indian Tribe Gold King Mine Release of Acid Mine Drainage to the Animas and San Juan Rivers
    United States Office of Research and EPA/600/R-16/296 Environmental Protection Development January 2017 Agency Washington DC 20460 Analysis of the Transport and Fate of Metals Released from the Gold King Mine in the Animas and San Juan Rivers APPENDICES Cover photo credit: Southern Ute Indian Tribe Gold King Mine Release of Acid Mine Drainage to the Animas and San Juan Rivers Appendix A. Information about Acquired Data Sources Appendix A-1 Gold King Mine Release of Acid Mine Drainage to the Animas and San Juan Rivers Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ 3 TABLE A-1. LINKS TO ACCESS GOLD KING MINE EVENT-RELATED DATA ................................................................. 4 TABLE A-2. LINKS TO ACCESS GOLD KING MINE POST-EVENT RELATED DATA .......................................................... 5 TABLE A-3. LINKS TO ACCESS GOLD KING MINE PRE-EVENT RELATED DATA ............................................................ 6 TABLE A-4. LINKS TO ACCESS GENERAL SOURCES OF DATA USED TO SUPPORT GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS AND MODELING . 7 TABLE A-5. LINKS TO ACCESS GENERAL SOURCES OF DATA USED TO SUPPORT ANALYSIS AND MODELING ....................... 9 TABLE A-6. CONSOLIDATED LIST OF SITES SAMPLED BY DATA PROVIDERS DURING AND AFTER THE GOLD KING MINE RELEASE .......................................................................................................................................... 10 TABLE A-7. LIST OF METALS LABORATORY METHODS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES BY DATA PROVIDER .................... 21 TABLE A-8. LIST OF METALS LABORATORY METHODS FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES BY DATA PROVIDER ............................ 27 TABLE A-9. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR METAL ANALYSES. INCLUDES METHODS USED FOR HISTORIC SAMPLES. .... 31 TABLE A-10. LIST OF LABORATORY METHODS FOR GENERAL ANALYTES BY DATA PROVIDER. ..................................... 33 TABLE A-11. LINKS TO QUALITY ASSURANCE DOCUMENTATION FROM DATA PROVIDERS ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan
    River Watch Water Quality Sampling Manual Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan Every monitoring program needs to have planned evaluation both formative and summative. Formative evaluation is assessing individual workflows or tasks, such as sample collection, processing or specific analyses. Did the instructions achieve desired results, where they clear, did the volunteer understand what is needed from them, etc. These are lower stakes, more of an iterative process and are embedded in the workflow execution. For example if an unknown pH result fails, staff and volunteer correct the problem, remove any suspect data, document and carry on. Most elements in the QAQC plan and all standard operating procedures (SOPs) provide formative evaluation for River Watch. Summative evaluation assess the overall monitoring program as a system, is River Watch answering our monitoring questions? Is the data being used to achieve desired results, outcomes and impacts? Are volunteers staying with program and new ones onboarding? An annual evaluation of all program elements is conducted by staff to address summative evaluation. Here staff break down all program elements and workflows, explore changes in volunteers, data users, regulations and operations that require program adjustments, include adjusting desired results, outcomes or impacts. Every monitoring program should have standard operating procedures (SOPs) that provide the appropriate formality and rigor to achieve data quality objectives and serve as the instructions to implement all tasks, workflows and processes from A to Z in a monitoring program. Most SOPs are considered internal documents and proprietary. Sections of the River Watch SOP can be provided upon request.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality at Hetlebakken; River Health and Suitability of the Lake For
    Hetlebakkstemma 2014 Water quality at Hetlebakken; River health and suitability of the lake for recreational use Group 8: Sigrid Skrivervik Bruvoll, Kjetil Farsund Fossheim, Aksel Anker Henriksen, Alexander Price BIO300 Autumn 2014 1 BIO300 UiB Group 8: Sigrid Skrivervik Bruvoll, Kjetil Farsund Fossheim, Aksel Anker Henriksen, Alexander Price Hetlebakkstemma 2014 Content 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Materials and methods ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Sampling area and sites ................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Sampling and sample analysis ....................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Data Analysis and Statistics ......................................................................................................... 12 3. Results ............................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1: Abiotic Factors ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.2 Thermotolerant Coliform Bacteria .............................................................................................. 14 3.3 Biodiversity
    [Show full text]
  • Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan
    River Watch Water Quality Sampling Manual Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan A quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plan tells the data provider and user what the quality of data is and how that quality will be achieved in order to answer the questions being asked of the data. Any data user can then decide to use the data for the same purpose and questions or other purposes responsibly. Documenting the quality of data collected and being transparent about the quality and methods to achieve that quality is what makes data an asset. It is an essential component for a monitoring program to deliver measurable results. The entire River Watch Quality Assurance Project Plan (RW QAPP) and the River Watch Standard Operating Procedures (RW SOP) is available on the River Watch website, www.coloradoriverwatch.org. These documents go into detail on our QA/QC methods and reporting and are often necessary when applying for grants to do water quality work. This QA/QC plan here is a subset of the larger RW QAPP should any entity ask about the quality of your data. River Watch’s primary data user is the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s, Water Quality Control Division and Commission and the Colorado Clean Water Act, that dictates our field and laboratory methods and our QA/QC plan. River Watch follows CDHPE field and laboratory methods. There are many elements of the River Watch QA/QC plan, most of which focus on two themes. Precision ensures analyses can be repeated with similar results, within an acceptable margin of error.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncompahgre River Water Quality Report 2012
    Uncompahgre River Water Quality Report 2012 Written by John Woodling On behalf of the Uncompahgre Watershed Partnership http://www.uncompahgrewatershed.org/ Uncompahgre River Water Quality Report 2012 Acknowledgments This water quality report was competed by the Uncompahgre Watershed Partnership (UWP). It was supported by grants from the Colorado Nonpoint Source Pollution Program and the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s Healthy Rivers Program. Bonie Pate was project coordinator for the Water Quality Control Division; Chris Sturm was project coordinator for the Healthy Rivers Fund. Sarah Sauter was the coordinator for the UWP. John Woodling, PhD, as a consultant to the UWP, was the document’s primary author. Others contributed materially to the success and completion of this update. Andrew Madison, Rachel Boothby and Mathew Jurjonas working for the UWP assisted with data analysis. Our thanks go also to the following individuals who rendered valuable advice to the UWP and commented on draft versions of this plan: Bonie Pate, Phil Hegeman, and Rebecca Anthony Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Dan Kowalski, Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Natural Resources Jeff Litteral, Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, Colorado Department of Natural Resources Mike Berry, Tri County Water, and Dan Crabtree, Bureau of Reclamation, for advice on water management in the Uncompahgre Watershed Additionally, we wish to thank the UWP stakeholders and supports who provided the organization and Uncompahgre River Valley community with the necessary energy and encouragement to engage in this planning process. ii Uncompahgre River Water Quality Report 2012 Executive Summary This comprehensive assessment of water quality in the Uncompahgre River was produced for the Uncompahgre Watershed Partnership (UWP) to serve as the scientific foundation for the Uncompahgre Watershed Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Water and Suspended Sediment Quality of the Transboundary Reach of the Slave River, Northwest Territories
    Water and Suspended Sediment Quality of the Transboundary Reach of the Slave River, Northwest Territories Photo credit: AANDC Water and Suspended Sediment Quality of the Transboundary Reach of the Slave River, Northwest Territories Prepared by: Juanetta Sanderson1, Andrea Czarnecki1 and Derek Faria2 1Water Quality Specialist, 2Hydrologist Water Resources Division Renewable Resources and Environment Directorate NWT Region Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Yellowknife, Northwest Territories November 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The compilation of this report was only possible with the help of many individuals. We would like to acknowledge our Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) colleagues: Denise McCann, Bart Blais, Wayne Starling and Ervin Allen who were always willing to help with the fieldwork and Michele Culhane and Laurie McEachern for their contributions to the report. Also, thank you to Shawn Larocque (AANDC) for his excellent maps. Laboratory support and guidance was provided by Shannon Luchka and Deib Birkholz (ALS Laboratories) and Judy Mah and Angelique Ruzindana (Taiga Environmental Laboratory). Data compilation and auditing was done by Caroline Lafontaine (AANDC) and staff of MacDonald Environmental Sciences (MESL). We also want to thank Barry Zajdlik (Zajdlik and Associates) for his support on this project and especially for the long-term water quality temporal trends analyses results. We express our gratitude to Dorothy Lindeman (Environment Canada), Erin Kelly (Government of the Northwest Territories) and Don MacDonald (MESL) for their time and scientific reviews of the report, as well as Robert Jenkins (AANDC), Steve Kokelj (AANDC), Bob Reid (AANDC), Shawne Kokelj (AANDC), Les Swain (TriStar Environmental Consulting) and Dan Peters (Environment Canada) for their constructive reviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue River Water Quality Management Plan 2012
    BLUE RIVER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 WATERSHED OVERVIEW 1.1 Geography and Hydrology B - 3 1.2 Land Uses and Population Characteristics B - 4 1.3 Watershed Water Quality Management B - 5 2.0 WATERSHED WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT B - 6 2.1 Straight Creek B - 7 2.2 Snake River and Peru Creek B - 7 2.3 Upper Blue River and French Gulch B - 11 2.4 Tenmile Creek B - 14 2.5 Dillon Reservoir B - 18 2.6 Lower Blue River B - 20 2.7 Green Mountain Reservoir B - 24 2.8 Watershed Instream Flows B - 26 3.0 WATER QUALITY ISSUES B - 27 3.1 Point Source Issues B - 27 3.1.1 Municipal Discharges B - 27 3.1.2 Population Statistics and Projections B - 30 3.1.3 Industrial Discharges B - 31 3.1.4 Point Source Issues - Summary B - 31 3.2 Point Source Recommendations B - 32 3.3 Nonpoint Source Issues B - 33 3.3.1 Mining Impacts B - 33 3.3.2 Urban and Construction Activities B - 33 3.3.3 Hydrologic Modifications B - 35 3.3.3.1 Hydrologic Modifications Associated with Trans-basin Diversions B - 35 3.3.3.2 Hydrologic Modifications Associated with In-basin Diversions B - 36 3.3.4 Agricultural Activities B - 37 3.3.5 Recreational Activities B - 37 3.4 Nonpoint Source Recommendations B - 38 4.0 WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS B - 39 4.1 Existing Projects B - 39 4.1.1 Town of Frisco Stormwater Project B - 39 4.1.2 Town of Dillon Stormwater Project B - 39 4.1.3 Town of Breckenridge Blue River Restoration B - 39 4.1.4 Breckenridge Stormwater Quality Enhancement B - 40 4.1.5 Division of Minerals and Geology Peru Creek B - 40 4.1.6 Division
    [Show full text]
  • Why Monitor 101
    River Watch Water Quality Sampling Manual Monitoring Why Monitor 101 Monitoring can tell us how well a river is functioning and if it is healthy or at risk. Understanding how monitoring fits into the bigger picture is essential in implementing a River Watch monitoring program. One way to assess the health of an aquatic ecosystem is to categorize monitoring parameters into three areas chemical, physical, or biological. The River Watch program measures parameters in each of these three categories. When assessing the health or status of a system, like your body or a stream, you want to measure the stress, exposure and responses to possible pollutants. A comprehensive watershed monitoring plan would incorporate all six of these elements as much as resources allow. Furthermore, all three areas can be a stressor, exposing harm to organism who live or use the river and they are indicator species. Exposure causes a response in these species .That response can be chronic or acute. To characterize or quantify exposure a monitoring program’s study design will include ways to measure magnitude, frequency and duration of exposure to determine if it is at a level to cause a chronic or acute impact. That impact will also depend upon the organism, the size, age, species, ability to move, time of year, path of exposure (ingestion, physical, etc.). Magnitude is the degree of exposure above a threshold, large or small. Frequency is how often the organism is exposed, every day or once year or once a life time. Duration is how long an exposure occurs, if every day maybe all day or only for five minutes, if once a year for one day, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 2008–5130
    Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Review of Available Water-Quality Data for the Southern Colorado Plateau Network and Characterization of Water Quality in Five Selected Park Units in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, 1925 to 2004 110° 40° Colorado River UTAH Dirty Devil River Colorado River COLORADO Escalante River Paria River Lake Powell Glen Canyon National Yucca House Recreation Area National Monument Rio Grande San Juan River Rainbow Bridge Animas River National Monument Mesa Verde National Park San Juan River Navajo National Colorado River Monument Aztec Ruins k Grand Canyon Little Colorado River Cree Chinle National Monument National Park Canyon de Chelly National Monument Chaco River Hubbell Trading Post Chaco Culture Rio Grande Wupatki National National Historic Site National Historical Park Monument Chaco Wash Sunset Crater Volcano Bandelier National National Monument Monument Walnut Canyon National Monument Rio Puerco Petrified Forest El Morro National Petroglyph National National Park Monument Monument Little Colorado River El Malpais National Monument 35° ARIZONA r e v i R o Puerc Rio Salinas Pueblo Missions e d r NEW MEXICO e er National Monument V v i S R alt Rio Grande Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5130 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Review of Available Water-Quality Data for the Southern Colorado Plateau Network and Characterization of Water Quality in Five Selected Park Units in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, 1925 to 2004 By Juliane B. Brown Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5130 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015
    ANNUAL REPORT 2015 VISION (Strategic Plan 2010-2014) “To lead Trinidad and Tobago in attaining and managing environmentally healthy and sustainable communities and ecosystems” MISSION The Environmental Management Authority is committed to protecting, restoring and conserving the environment to improve the quality of life by promoting: Environmentally responsible development A culture of care for the environment Development and enforcement of environmental legislation Use of economic, financial and other incentives This is to be achieved in an atmosphere of mutual respect, professionalism, accountability, transparency, collaboration and social responsibility. Environmental Management Authority 2015 Annual Report Water Quality in Trinidad and Tobago MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN This year’s ASOER (Assessment of the State of the Environment Report) focuses on water quality in T&T (Trinidad & Tobago). We acknowledge the detrimental impacts water pollution can have on human health and the environment. Therefore, T&T should have management strategies tailored for the protection of all freshwater and marine environments. In addition to its regulatory programme, the EMA (Environmental Management Authority) has identified other water pollution management plans. The overall objectives of these plans are to control, reduce and prevent water pollution from point and non- point sources discharges. This goal is a target defined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the UN (United Nations) General Assembly in September 2015. However, water quality remains under threat from non-point sources of pollution such as, seepage from landfills and land surface runoff from industrial and agricultural activities. The EMA commenced the Development of the Ambient Water Quality Standards Project to protect water bodies through the identification of the usage of the waters and any designated use.
    [Show full text]
  • North Fork River Improvement Association (Nfria)
    NFRIA Volunteer Monitoring Data Report, 2009 NORTH FORK RIVER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (NFRIA) VOLUNTEER WATER QUALTIY MONITORING NETWORK October 2004 – October 2007 Data Report NFRIA Volunteer collecting a sample on the North Fork of the Gunnison River. NFRIA PO BOX 682 HOTCHKISS, CO 81419 122 A. EAST BRIDGE STREET PHONE: (970) 872-4614 FAX: (970) 872-4612 E-MAIL: [email protected] WWW.NFRIA.PAONIA.COM 1-1 NFRIA Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Data Report, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS...................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................VI 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE NORTH FORK WATERSHED .............................. 1-1 1.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1-1 NFRIA................................................................................................. 1-1 North Fork Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Network............................. 1-1 1.2. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION.................................................................... 1-2 1.3. POINT SOURCES................................................................................ 1-4 1.4. LAND USE ....................................................................................... 1-5 1.5. FLOW DATA ..................................................................................... 1-5 1.6. OTHER WATER QUALITY MONITORING EFFORTS ..........................................
    [Show full text]