DOCSLIB.ORG

Sunnyside 29 SGC-041410 Use Attainability Analysis for the Animas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sunnyside 29 SGC-041410 Use Attainability Analysis for the Animas -'-;^ Á^:\^rv'ÍV\ ' ~ " - '■ -" * WÊÊSSÊÊ•JV-V:= Modifications, Corrections and Revisions to the Animas UAA Several replacement pages to the UAA are included in this mailing. The plastic binder can be easily be opened by hand if you don't have a binder contraption. Remove original page(s) and replace with new. The following is a summary of the changes we have implemented. Chapter 8 The Ac/Ch Standards.xls workbook (previously Ac_Ch TVS.xls), Appendix 8-B, was modified to reflect the WQCD’s most current equations. Figures 8.16 and 8.17, which compare dissolved and total metal concentrations using the WORM, were revised to correct an error in copying formulas for iron, D/T_Fe.xlsf and zinc D/T_Zn.xls, The DissJTot Folder is a part of the Appendix 8-C. Formula errors in for cadmium, D/T_Cdxls, and manganese, D/T_Mn.xls, were also corrected; however these two metals were are not depicted in figures 8.14 through 17. Chapter 11 M18C, described as the 1st SW Drain-MF Min, was deleted from Table 11.1, Metal loads from selected adits in the Upper Animas Basin. This site is the “red tributary.” It was incorrectly classified as a mine adit. Phase 1 reduction scenarios for aluminum and iron shown in Figures 11.1a and 11. Id were modified to reflect removing M18C as an adit source. Deleting this source also affected concentrations shown in Figures 11.2a and lL2d. Table 11.3, Summary o f metal loads from adits and combined mine waste for the Animas River Basin above A 72, was modified to account for removing 1 SW Drain- MF Min as an adit source of metals. The text of pages XI-2, XI-6, & XI - 7 have revised to reflect that Table 11 1 now contains only 33 (rather than 34) of a total of 133 (rather than 134) draining adits which accounts for 89% of adit loads (rather than 91%). A waste load reduction scenario that considers the impact of zinc loading to the Animas River from undetermined sources between A53 and A68 was developed. The load analysis is based on stream flow and water chemistry at A53 and A68 between August 1998 and August 1999. Results of the load analysis are contained in the workbook A53 A68 Loadxls. The zinc load from undifferentiated sources approximates zinc loads from all adit sources in the basin. The result of removing this undifferentiated zinc load, represented as Zn concentrations at A68 and A72, is presented in the workbook entitled A53_A68 Redxls. • Table 12.1 a-f has been slightly modified to reflect newly adopted Table Value Standard equations and corrections to the anticipated reductions from draining adits. • The title to Table 12.2 has been changed from 85% pH to 15% pH to reflect correct percentile used for pH standards • Table 12.4 has been modified to reflect coiTected values for stream standard and temporary modification recommendations resulting from changes in Table 12.1. Additional Analyses Recently Being Developed includes: • Cumulative Remediations Reductions and Costs from Adits • Cumulative Remediation Reductions and Costs from Mine Wastes • Metal Loading Analysis for Animas river between Howardsville and Silverton These will be made available at regularly scheduled ARSG meetings or upon request. Figure 8.16 Comparison of total recoverable and dissolved iron concentrations and the cyclical variation of pH at stream gages in the upper Animas Basin. Animas at Silverton, A68, is not shown because most observations of dissolved iron are less than detection. Animas River at Silverton, A68 Cement Creek CC48 Month Month ToM R e c o v ----------- Dis ♦ pH { Totd R e c o v ------------Oissotod ♦ pH Mineral Creek, M34 Animas River below Silverton, A72 Month Month Total R e c o v --------- aâsd v etl ♦ pH { TeW R e c o v ------------D ssd w d ♦ pH Figure 8.17 Comparison of total recoverable and dissolved zinc concentrations and the cyclical variation of pH at stream gages in the upper Animas Basin. V I I - 4 7 Legend Figure 8.20a Seasonal, flow-based sources of total recoverable aluminum and iron to Mineral Creek near Silverton, estimated from the water quality regression model. Stream flow is the average monthly flow at M 34,1993 to 1999. Calculated values are for the 15th day of each month. Figure 8.20b Seasonal, flow-based sources of total recoverable cadmium, copper, manganese, and zinc to Mineral Creek near Silverton, estimated from the water quality regression model. Stream'flow is the average monthly flow at M 34,1993 to 1999. Calculated values are for the 15th day of each month. CHAPTER XII - RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations of this report are based on a combination of four components of the UAA - the biological assessment, the water chemistry assessment, the limiting factors analysis, and the remediation analysis. Most of the recommendations are directed to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC), but a few are aimed at other stakeholders: the San Juan Board of County Commissioners, U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The recommendations for WQCC lie in three areas, segmentation, use classifications and water quality standards. CHANGES IN SEGMENTATION While the UAA has focused on stream segments in the Upper Animas Basin that have impaired water quality, many small tributaries to Mineral Creek and the Animas River can meet cold water aquatic life class 1 Table Value Standards (TVS). Some of these small streams have improper or non-existent use classifications and standards. For example, about nine small tributaries to the Animas River from Maggie Gulch to Elk Park (tributaries to Segments 3 a, 3b, and 4a), have been inadvertently omitted from descriptions of any segment and therefore have no applicable use classifications and standards. Several tributaries to the upper part of Mineral Creek have no aquatic life classifications, yet they are located in non-mineralized areas and have very good water quality. To bring the omitted segments under regulatory compliance and to more accurately portray the current water quality situation, it is proposed that all tributaries to the Animas River from Maggie Gulch to Elk Park be placed under one segment description, segment 6, with exceptions made for those areas that do not meet TVS for aquatic life class 1. The exceptions fall under: segment 7, the drainage of Cement Creek, segment 8, Mineral Creek above South Mineral Creek including tributaries on the east side of the creek except for Big Horn Creek, and the Middle Fork of Mineral Creek, segment 9, Mineral Creek from South Mineral Creek to the Animas River, currently called segment 9b. Segment 6, therefore includes tributaries to Mineral Creek on the west side of the drainage, which is outside the caldera, except for the Middle Fork of Mineral Creek. It includes’the South Fork of Mineral Creek and Big Horn Creek which is only tributary included on the east side of Mineral Creek. The differences in water quality between streams in segment 6 and those in segments 7, 8, and 9 are closely tied to differences in geology of the areas those streams drain. technology that could be used and the size and complexity of site. Accessibility affects both cost and the remediation technique selected. As discussed in Chapter X, the cost analysis is a first approximation and uses four cost categories, each with a broad numerical range. The costs for remediation for each site listed in Table 11.1 below is the mid-point of the range for each cost category. One million dollars was used as an estimate for sites whose costs are greater than $500,000. These cost estimates do not include engineering design, operation, or maintenance costs that may be needed. Loading from the Largest Adit and Mine Waste Sources The adits have been ranked, using the weighting factors discussed in Chapter 10, on the basis of both high and low flow loading of seven metals plus pH. Most high flow samples were obtained in June or July, while low flow loads were obtained in September or October. These figures may overestimate low-flow loading since early fall stream flows had not yet dropped to levels seen in winter months. Loads from the Kohler, Bandora, North Star, and Evelyn mines were sampled frequently. Selection of sites to be included for possible remediation is based upon the combined rankings of all sites within the Upper Basin (Appendix 10E). Many sites were previously categorized as "no action" because of their low total contributions and remoteness and/or low concentrations. The loading from the top ranking 33 adits, including a few large loaders lacking either a high or a low flow sampling datum, are displayed in Table 11.1. These are current loading figures and do not include any potential reductions. Eighty nine percent of the loading from all adits comes from these top 33 sites. Mine waste piles have been ranked in a similar fashion as adits including the same weighting factors, except that they are ranked by metal concentration determined by the leach test instead of load (Appendix 11 A). Table 11.2 lists the top 26 mine waste sites plus an additional six sites which were added because of their large size and therefore potential for significant load contributions. Leachate concentrations presented in Appendix 10E have been converted to "potential loads". The annual load contributed from waste rock site in Table 11.2 was estimated by multiplying the concentration from the leach test of the waste rock times the surface area of the pile times the average annual runoff from the basin expressed as depth (29 inches).
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]