ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT
Assignment III
Ashish Kumar
Roll Number: - 110MN0496

National institute of technology, Rourkela

DEPARTMENT OF MINING ENGINEERING

Environmental Risk Assessment, Audit and Water

Quality Modelling

CONTENTS

Sl.
No
1

Description
Environmental Risk Assessment
Introduction
Ecological Risk Assessment Framework
The Importance of Professional Judgment
Problem Formulation
Discussion Between the Risk Assessor and Risk Manager (Planning)
Stressor Characteristics, Ecosystem Potentially at Risk, and Ecological
Effects
Characterization of' Exposure
Stressor Characterization: Distribution or Pattern of Change
Risk characterization
Risk Estimation
Integration of Stressor-Response and Exposure Profiles
Comparing Single Effect and Exposure Values
Conducting Simulation Modeling
Environmental Audit
What is an Environmental Audit?
Planning an Environmental Audit
Conducting an Environmental Audit
Audit tools and technology
Environmental auditing in India
Water Quality Modelling
Introduction
Establishing Ambient Water Quality Standards
Water-Use Criteria
Water Quality Model Use
References

Page
Number
1-8
1
1-4
4
4
4-5
5-6
6
6
6-7
7
7
7-8
8
9-14
9
9-10
10-12
12-13
13-14
15-18
15
15-16
16-17
17-18
19

Environmental Risk Assessment

Introduction
Public, private, and government sectors of society are increasingly aware of ecological issues
including global climate change, habitat loss, acid deposition, a decrease in biological diversity,
and the ecological impacts of xenobiotic compounds such as pesticides and toxic chemicals. To
help assess these and other ecological problems, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has developed this report, Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, which describes the basic
elements, or framework, of a process for evaluating scientific information on the adverse effects
of stressors on the environment. The term stressor is defined here as any physical, chemical, or
biological entity that can induce an adverse effect (see box1). Adverse ecological effects
encompass a wide range of disturbances ranging from mortality in an individual organism to a loss
in ecosystem function.
This introductory section describes the purpose, scope, and intended audience for this report;
discusses the definition and application of ecological risk assessment; outlines the basic elements
of the proposed framework; and describes the organization of this report.
Ecological risk assessment is defined as a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse
ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. A
risk does not exist unless (1) the stressor has the inherent ability to cause one or more adverse
effects and (2) it cooccurs with or contacts an ecological component (i.e., organisms, populations,
communities, or ecosystems) long enough and at a sufficient intensity to elicit the identified
adverse effect. Ecological risk assessment may evaluate one or many stressors and ecological
components.
Ecological risk may be expressed in a variety of ways. While some ecological risk assessments
may provide true probabilistic estimates of both the adverse effect and exposure elements, others
may be deterministic or even qualitative in nature. In these cases, the likelihood of adverse effects
is expressed through a semiquantitative or qualitative comparison of effects and exposure.
Ecological risk assessments can help identify environmental problems, establish priorities, and
provide a scientific basis for regulatory actions. The process can identify existing risks or forecast
the risks of stressors not yet present in the environment. However, while ecological risk
assessments can play an important role in identifying and resolving environmental problems, risk
assessments are not a solution for addressing all environmental problems, nor are they always a
prerequisite for environmental management. Many environmental matters such as the protection
of habitats and endangered species are compelling enough that there may not be enough time or
data to do a risk assessment. In such cases, professional judgment and the mandates of a particular
statute will be the driving forces in making decisions.

Ecological Risk Assessment Framework

The distinctive nature of the framework results primarily from three differences in
emphasis relative to previous risk assessment approaches. First, ecological risk assessment can
consider effects beyond those on individuals of a single species and may examine population,
National Institute of Technology, Rourkela

Page 1

community, or ecosystem impacts. Second, there is no one set of assessment endpoints

(environmental values to be protected) that can be generally applied. Rather, assessment endpoints
are selected from a very large number of possibilities based on both scientific and policy
considerations. Finally, a comprehensive approach to ecological risk assessment may go beyond
the traditional emphasis on chemical effects to consider the possible effects of non-chemical
stressors.
The ecological risk assessment framework is shown in figure 1. The risk assessment
process is based on two major elements: characterization of exposure and characterization of
ecological effects. Although these two elements are most prominent during the analysis phase,
aspects of both exposure and effects also are considered during problem formulation, as
illustrated by the arrows in the diagram. The arrows also flow to risk characterization, where the
exposure and effects elements are integrated to estimate risk. The framework is conceptually
similar to the National Research Council (NRC) paradigm for human health risk assessments
(NRC, 1983).
The first phase of the framework is problem formulation. Problem formulation includes a
preliminary characterization of exposure and effects, as well as examination of scientific data and
data needs, policy and regulatory issues, and site-specific factors to define the feasibility, scope,
and objectives for the ecological risk assessment. The level of detail and the information that will
be needed to complete the assessment also are determined.
The first phase of the framework is problem formulation. Problem formulation includes a
preliminary characterization of exposure and effects, as well as examination of scientific data and
data needs, policy and regulatory issues, and site-specific factors to define the feasibility, scope,
and objectives for the ecological risk assessment. The level of detail and the information that will
be needed to complete the assessment also are determined. This systematic planning phase
is proposed because ecological risk assessments often address the risks of stressors to many
species as well as risks to communities and ecosystems. In addition, there may be many ways a
stressor can elicit adverse effects (e.g., direct effects on mortality and growth and indirect effects
such as decreased food supply). Problem formulation provides an early identification of key
factors to be considered, which in turn will produce a more scientifically sound risk assessment.

The second phase of the framework is termed analysis and consists of two activities,
characterization of exposure and characterization of ecological effects. The purpose of
characterization of exposure is to predict or measure the spatial and temporal distribution of a
stressor and its cooccurrence or contact with the ecological components of concern, while the
purpose of characterization of ecological effects is to identify and quantify the adverse effects
elicited by a stressor and, to the extent possible, to evaluate cause-and-effect relationships.
The third phase of the framework is risk characterization. Risk characterization uses the results of
the exposure and ecological effects analyses to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

associated with exposure to a stressor. It includes a summary of the assumptions used, the scientific
uncertainties, and the strengths and weaknesses of the analyses.
Figure 1 also indicates a role for verification and monitoring in the framework. Verification can
include validation of the ecological risk assessment process as well as confirmation of specific
predictions made during a risk assessment. Monitoring can aid in the verification process and may
identify additional topics for risk assessment. Verification and monitoring can help determine the
overall effectiveness of the framework approach, provide necessary feedback concerning the need
for future modifications of the framework, help evaluate the effectiveness and practicality of policy
decisions, and point out the need for new or improved scientific techniques (U.S. EPA, in pressa).
The interaction between data acquisition and ecological risk assessment is also shown in figure 1.
In this report, a distinction is made between data acquisition (which is outside of the risk
assessment process) and data analysis (which is an integral part of an ecological risk assessment).
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

In the problem formulation and analysis phases, the risk assessor may identify the need for
additional data to complete an analysis. At this point, the risk assessment stops until the necessary
data are acquired. When a need for additional data is recognized in risk characterization, new
information generally is used in the analysis or problem formulation phases. The distinction
between data acquisition and analysis generally is maintained in all of EPA's risk assessment
guidelines; guidance on data acquisition procedures are provided in documents prepared for
specific EPA programs.
The Importance of Professional Judgment
Ecological risk assessments, like human health risk assessments, are based on scientific data that
are frequently difficult and complex, conflicting or ambiguous, or incomplete. Analyses of such
data for risk assessment purposes depends on professional judgment based on scientific
expertise. Professional judgment is necessary to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

design and conceptualize the risk assessment;

evaluate and select methods and models;
determine the relevance of available data to the risk assessment;
develop assumptions based on logic and scientific principles to fill data gaps; and
Interpret the ecological significance of predicted or observed effects.

Problem formulation
Problem formulation is the first phase of ecological risk assessment and establishes the goals,
breadth, and focus of the assessment. It is a systematic planning step that identifies the major
factors to be considered in a particular assessment, and it is linked to the regulatory and policy
context of the assessment.
Entry into the ecological risk assessment process may be triggered by either an observed ecological
effect, such as visible damage to trees m a forest, or by the identification of a stressor or activity
of concern, such as the planned filling of a marsh or the manufacture of a new chemical. The
problem formulation process (figure 2) then begins with the Initial stages of characterizing
exposure and ecological effects, including evaluating the stressor characteristics, the ecosystem
potentially at risk, and the ecological effects expected or observed. Next, the assessment and
measurement endpoints are identified. (Measurement endpoints are ecological characteristics that
can be related to the assessment endpoint.) The outcome of problem formulation is a conceptual
model that describes how a given stressor might affect the ecological components in the
environment. The conceptual model also describes the relationships among the assessment and
measurement endpoints, the data required, and the Methodologies that will be used to analyze the
data. The conceptual model serves as input to the analysis phase of the assessment.
Discussion Between the Risk Assessor and Risk Manager (Planning)
To be meaningful and effective, ecological risk assessments must be relevant to regulatory needs
and public concerns as well as scientifically valid. Although risk assessment and risk management
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

are distinct processes, establishing a two--way dialogue between risk assessors and risk managers
during the problem formulation phase can be a constructive means of achieving both societal and
scientific goals. By bringing the management perspective to the discussion, risk managers charged
with protecting societal values can ensure that the risk assessment will provide relevant
information to making decisions on the issue under consideration. By bringing scientific
knowledge to the discussion, the ecological risk assessor ensures that the assessment addresses all
important ecological concerns. Both perspectives are necessary to appropriately utilize resources
to produce scientifically sound risk assessments that are relevant to management decisions and
public concerns.

Stressor Characteristics, Ecosystem Potentially at Risk, and Ecological Effects

The initial steps in problem formulation are the identification and preliminary characterization of
stressors, the ecosystem potentially at risk, and ecological effects. Performing this analysis is an
interactive process that contributes to both the selection of assessment and measurement endpoints
and the development of a conceptual model.ANALYSIS PHASE
The analysis phase of ecological risk assessment (figure 3) consists of the technical evaluation of
data on the potential effects and exposure of the stressor. The analysis phase is based on the
conceptual model developed during problem formulation. Although this phase consists of
characterization of ecological effects and characterization of exposure, the dotted line in figure 3
illustrates that the two are performed interactively. An interaction between the two elements will
ensure that the ecological effects characterized are compatible with the biota and exposure
pathways identified in the exposure characterization. The output of ecological effects
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

characterization and exposure characterization are summary profiles that are used in the risk
characterization phase (section 4). Discussion of uncertainty analysis, which is an important part
of the analysis phase, may be found in section 4.1.2.
Characterization of exposure and ecological effects often requires the application of statistical
methods. While the discussion of specific statistical methods is beyond the scope of this document,
selection of an appropriate statistical method involves both method assumptions (e.g.,
independence of errors, normality, and equality of variances) and data set characteristics (e.g.,
distribution, presence of outliers or influential data). It should be noted that statistical significance
does not always reflect biological significance, and profound biological changes may not be
detected by statistical tests. Professional judgment often is required to evaluate the relationship
between statistical and biological significance.
Characterization of' Exposure
Characterization of exposure (half of the analysis phase shown in figure 3) evaluates the interaction
of the stressor with the ecological component. Exposure can be expressed as co-occurrence or
contact depending on the stressor and the ecological component involved. An exposure profile is
developed that quantifies the magnitude and spatial and temporal distributions of exposure for the
scenarios developed during problem formulation and serves as input to the risk characterization.
Stressor Characterization: Distribution or Pattern of Change
Stressor characterization involves determining the stressor's distribution or pattern of change.
Many techniques can be applied to assist in this stressor characterization process. For chemical
stressors, a combination of modeling and monitoring data often is used. Available monitoring data
may include measures of releases into the environment and media concentrations over space and
time. Fate and transport models often are used that rely on physical and chemical characteristics
of the chemical coupled with the characteristics of the ecosystem. For nonchemical stressors such
as physical alterations or harvesting, the pattern of change may depend on resource management
or land-use practices. Depending on the scale of the disturbance, the data for stressor
characterization can be provided by a variety of techniques, including ground reconnaissance,
aerial photographs, or satellite imagery.
Risk characterization
Risk characterization (figure 4) is the final phase of risk assessment. During this phase, the likelihood of
adverse effects occurring as a result of exposure to a stressor are evaluated. Risk characterization contains
two major steps: risk estimation and risk description. The stressor-response profile and the exposure profile
from the analysis phase serve as input to risk estimation. The uncertainties identified during all phases of
the risk assessment also are analyzed and summarized. The estimated risks are discussed by considering
the types and magnitude of effects anticipated, the spatial and temporal extent of the effects, and recovery
potential. Supporting information in the form of a weight-of-evidence discussion also is presented during
this step. The results of the risk assessment, including the relevance of the identified risks to the original
goals of the risk assessment, then are discussed with the risk manager.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

Risk Estimation
Risk estimation consists of comparing the exposure and stressor-response profiles as well as
estimating and summarizing the associated uncertainties.
Integration of Stressor-Response and Exposure Profiles
Three general approaches are discussed to illustrate the integration of the stressor-response and
exposure profiles: (1) comparing single effect and exposure values; (2) comparing distributions of
effects and exposure; and (3) conducting simulation modeling. Because these are areas of active
research, particularly in the assessment of community- and landscape-level perturbations,
additional integration approaches are likely to be available in the future. The final choice as to
which approach will be selected depends on the original purpose of the assessment as well as time
and data constraints.
Comparing Single Effect and Exposure Values
Many risk assessments compare single effect values with predicted or measured levels of the
stressor. The effect values from the stressor-response profile may be used as is, or more commonly,
uncertainty or safety factors may be used to adjust the value. The ratio or quotient of the exposure
value to the effect value provides the risk estimate if the quotient is one or more, an adverse effect
is considered likely to occur. This approach, known as the Quotient Method (Barnthouse et al.,
1986), has been used extensively to evaluate the risks of chemical stressors (Nabholz 1991; Urban
and Cook, 1986). Although the Quotient Method is commonly used and accepted, it is the least
probabilistic of the approaches described here. Also, correct usage of the Quotient Method is
highly dependent on professional judgment, particularly in instances when the quotient approaches
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

one. Greater insight into the magnitude of the effects expected at various levels of exposure can
be obtained by evaluating the full stressor-response curve instead of a single point and by
considering the frequency, timing, and duration of the exposure.

Conducting Simulation Modeling

Simulation models that can integrate both the stressor-response profile and exposure profile are
useful for obtaining probabilistic estimates of risk. Two categories of simulation models are used
for ecological risk assessment: single-species population models are used to predict direct effects
on a single population of concern using measurement endpoints at the individual level, while multispecies models include aquatic food web models and terrestrial plant succession models and are
useful for evaluating both direct and indirect effects.
When selecting a model, it is important to determine the appropriateness of the model for a
particular application. For example, if indirect effects are of concern, a model of community-level
interactions will be needed. Direct effects to a particular population of concern may be better
addressed with population models. The validation status and use history of a model also are
important considerations in model selection. Although simulation models are not commonly used
for ecological risk assessment at the present time, this is an area of active research, and the use of
simulation models is likely to increase.
In addition to providing estimates of risks, simulation models also can be useful in discussing the
results of the risk characterization to the risk manager. This dialogue is particularly effective when
the relationship between risks to certain measurement endpoints and the assessment endpoint are
not readily apparent (e.g., certain indirect effects and large-scale ecosystem-level disturbances).
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

Environmental Audit
What is an Environmental Audit?
Image Environmental auditing is a systematic, documented, periodic and objective process in
assessing an organization's activities and services in relation to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Assessing compliance with relevant statutory and internal requirements

Facilitating management control of environmental practices
Promoting good environmental management
Maintaining credibility with the public
Raising staff awareness and enforcing commitment to departmental environmental policy
Exploring improvement opportunities
Establishing the performance baseline for developing an Environmental Management
System (EMS)

Image of Resource Conducting an environmental audit is no longer an option but a sound

precaution and a proactive measure in today's heavily regulated environment. Indeed, evidence
suggests that EA has a valuable role to play, encouraging systematic incorporation of
environmental perspectives into many aspects of an organizations overall operation, helping to
trigger new awareness and new priorities in policies and practices.
Planning an Environmental Audit
Any premises that wishes to conduct an environmental audit must have a clear idea of the
objectives of the exercise and the steps required to achieve it. Before commencing an
environmental audit, the following requirements must be fulfilled:

i.

Commitment
a. Obtain commitment at the Directorate level
b. Communicate commitment to personnel at all levels

ii.

Define Audit Scope and Audit Site(s)

c. To include:
i. Audit site and boundary
ii. Audit objective(s)
iii. Areas of audit
d. Audit objectives typically entail:
i. Verification of legislative and regulatory compliance
ii. Assessment of internal policy and procedural conformance
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

iii. Establishment of current practice status

iv. Identification of improvement opportunities
e. Areas of audit normally encompass:

iii.

i. Material management, savings and alternatives

ii. Energy management and savings
iii. Water management and economy of use
iv. Waste generation, management and disposal
v. Noise reduction, evaluation and control
vi. Air emissions and indoor air quality
vii. Environmental emergency prevention and preparedness
viii. Transportation and travelling practices
ix. Staff awareness, participation and training in environmental issues
x. Environmental information publicity
xi. Public enquiry and complaints response
xii. Environmental management system set up, suitability and performance
Assemble An Audit Team
An Audit Management Committee (AMC) established by management at
Directorate level, is responsible for:
Overseeing the audit process

Appointing an Audit Team Leader to be in charge of the audit

Securing the necessary resources and funding
Reviewing the Audit Report
Reporting to the organization Directorate

The AMC in conjunction with the Audit Team Leader to:

Appoint Audit Team Members

Assess requirement for external assistance to ensure. thoroughness and objectivity
of audit
Secure financial resources if external assistance is required Confirm availability of
Audit Team members

Conducting an Environmental Audit

An environmental audit is typically undertaken in three phases:
1. Pre-audit
2. On-site audit
3. Post-audit
Following up an Environmental Audit
Develop Action Plan
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

10

Upon endorsement of the Audit Report, an Action Plan with the appropriate targets and objectives
for environmental improvement may be developed in consultation with audit site senior
management.
An action plan should cover:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

Action objectives;
Specific actions required;
Responsible party(ies);
Budget allotted; and
Implementation program

Implement Action Plan

Responsible party(ies)to undertake actions according to the allotted budget, and the agreed
timescale for completion.

Checking and Monitoring

To monitor progress of Action Plan implementation, a status report should be carried out and
should include information on:
i.
ii.
iii.

Progress of action(s) undertaken

Problem(s) encountered when action(s) taken
Proposed solution(s) and revised timescale for completion

Review Action Plan

Review the Action Plan upon completion of Action Plan implementation.
Key points to review include:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Review results of action plan implementation

Establish levels of performance improvement achieved
Address possible need for changes to Green management policy, objective(s) and
procedure(s)
Next audit scope and schedule

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

11

Each of these phases comprises a number of clearly defined Objectives, with each objective to be
achieved through specific Actions, and these actions yielding results in the form of Outputs at the
end of each phase.

Environmental Audit Process - An Overview

Audit tools and technology

The term "protocol" means the checklist used by environmental auditors as the guide for
conducting the audit activities. There is no standard protocol, either in form or content. Typically,
companies develop their own protocols to meet their specific compliance requirements and

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

12

management systems. Audit firms frequently develop general protocols that can be applied to a
broad range of companies/operations.
Current technology supports many versions of computer-based protocols that attempt to simplify
the audit process by converting regulatory requirements into questions with "yes", "no" and "not
applicable" check boxes. Many companies and auditors find these useful and there are several such
protocol systems commercially available. Other auditors (typically those with many years of
environmental auditing experience) use the regulations/permits directly as protocols. There is a
long standing debate among environmental audit professionals on the value of large, highly
detailed and prescriptive protocols (i.e., that can, in theory, be completed by an auditor with little
or no technical experience) versus more flexible protocols that rely on the expertise and knowledge
of experienced auditors and source documents (regulations, permits, etc.) directly. However usage
of structured and prescriptive protocols in ISO 14001 audits allows easier review by other parties,
either internal to the Certification Body (e.g. technical reviewers and certification managers) or
external (accreditation bodies).
In the US, permits for air emissions, wastewater discharges and other operational aspects, many
times establish the primary legal compliance standards for companies. In these cases, auditing only
to the regulations is inadequate. However, as these permits are site specific, standard protocols are
not commercially available that reflect every permit condition for every company/site. Therefore,
permit holders and the auditors they hire must identify the permit requirements and determine the
most effective way to audit against those requirements.
During the past 20 years, advances in technology have had major impacts on auditing. Laptop
computers, portable printers, CD/DVDs, the internet, email and wireless internet access have all
been used to improve audits, increase/improve auditor access to regulatory information and create
audit reports on-site. At one point in the 1990s, one major company invested significant resources
in testing "video audits" where the auditor (located at the corporate headquarters) used real-time
video conferencing technology to direct staff at a site to carry live video cameras to specific areas
of the plant. While initially promising, this technology/concept did not prove acceptable.
The current "disruptive technology" in environmental auditing is Apple Computer's iPad. At this
time, one audit consulting firm is using the iPad extensively for environmental audits, which
includes specific protocols for the new technology.
Environmental auditing in India
1. Auditing in India
The Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) in India is headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General
(CAG) of India who is a constitutional authority. The CAG of India derives his mandate from
Articles 148 to 151 of the Indian Constitution. The CAGs (Duties, Powers and Conditions of
Service) Act, 1971 prescribes functions, duties and powers of the CAG. While fulfilling his
constitutional obligations, the CAG examines various aspects of government expenditure and
revenues. The audit conducted by CAG is broadly classified into Financial, Compliance and
Performance Audit. Environmental audit by SAI India is conducted within the broad framework
of Compliance and Performance Audit.
2.Environment protection in India
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

13

Main article: Ministry of Environment and Forests (India)

The Ministry of Environment & Forests is the nodal agency in the administrative structure of the
Central Government of India, for the planning, promotion, coordination and overseeing the
implementation of environmental and forestry programmes. The Ministry is also the Nodal agency
in the country for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In the states, the
Department of Environment and Forest is the main agency for implementation of environment
programmes.
i. The principal activities undertaken by Ministry of Environment & Forests consist of
ii. Conservation & survey of flora, fauna, forests and wildlife;
iii. Prevention & control of pollution; afforestation and regeneration of degraded areas; and
iv.
Protection of environment, in the frame work of legislation.
v. Major policy initiatives by Ministry of Environment and Forests include:
vi.
National Environment Policy, 2006;
vii.
Conservation Strategy and Policy Statement on Environment and Development,1992;
viii. Policy Statement for Abatement of Pollution;
ix. National Forest Policy

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

14

Water Quality Modelling

Introduction
The most fundamental human needs for water are for drinking, cooking and personal hygiene. To
meet these needs, the quality of the water used must pose no risk to human health. The quality of
the water in nature also affects the condition of ecosystems that all living organisms depend on.
At the same time, humans use water bodies as convenient sinks for the disposal of domestic,
industrial and agricultural wastewaters. This of course degrades the quality of those water bodies.
Water resources management involves the monitoring and management of water quality as much
as the monitoring and management of water quantity. Various models have been developed to
assist in predicting the water quality impacts of alternative land and water management policies
and practices. This chapter introduces some of the main principles of water quality modelling.
Water quality management is a critical component of overall integrated water resources
management. Most users of water depend on adequate levels of water quality. When these levels
are not met, these water users must either pay an additional cost for water treatment or incur at
least increased risks of damage or loss. As populations and economies grow, more pollutants are
generated. Many of these are waterborne, and hence can end up in surface and groundwater bodies.
Increasingly, the major efforts and costs involved in water management are devoted to water
quality protection and management. Conflicts among various users of water are increasingly over
issues involving water quality as well as water quantity.
Natural water bodies are able to serve many uses, including the transport and assimilation of
waterborne wastes. But as natural water bodies assimilate these wastes, their quality changes. If
the quality drops to the extent that other beneficial uses are adversely affected, the assimilative
capacities of those water bodies have been exceeded with respect to those affected uses. Water
quality management measures are actions taken to ensure that the total pollutant loads discharged
into receiving water bodies do not exceed the ability of those water bodies to assimilate those loads
while maintaining the levels of quality specified by quality standards set for those waters.
What uses depend on water quality? One can identify almost any use. All living organisms require
water of sufficient quantity and quality to survive, although different aquatic species can tolerate
different levels of water quality. Regrettably, in most parts of the developed world it is no longer
safe to drink natural surface or ground waters; they usually need to be treated before they become
fit for human consumption. Treatment is not a practical option for recreational bathing, or for
maintaining the health of fish, shellfish and other organisms found in natural aquatic ecosystems.
Thus, standards specifying minimum acceptable levels of quality are set for most ambient waters.
Various other uses have their own standards as well. Irrigation water must not be too saline or
contain toxic substances that can be absorbed by the plants or destroy microorganisms in the soil.
Water quality standards for industry can be very demanding, depending of course on the particular
industrial processes.
Establishing Ambient Water Quality Standards
Identifying the intended uses of a water body whether a lake, a section of a stream or an estuary
is a first step in setting water quality standards for that body. The most restrictive of the specific
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

15

desired uses of a water body is termed a designated use. Barriers to achieving the designated use
are the presence of pollutants, or hydrological and geomorphic changes that affect the water
quality.
The designated use dictates the appropriate type of water quality standard. For example, a
designated use of human recreation should protect humans from exposure to microbial pathogens
while swimming, wading or boating. Other uses include those designed to protect humans and
wildlife from consuming harmful substances in water, in fish and in shellfish. Aquatic-life uses
include the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife resources.
Standards set upstream may affect the uses of water downstream. For example, small headwater
streams may have aesthetic value but may not be able to support extensive recreational uses.
However, their condition may affect the ability of a downstream area to achieve a particular
designated use such as fishable or swimmable. In this case, the designated use for the smaller
upstream water body may be defined in terms of achieving the designated use of the larger
downstream water body.
In many areas, human activities have altered the landscape and aquatic ecosystems to the point
where they cannot be restored to their pre-disturbance condition. For example, someones desire
to establish a trout fish-farm in downtown Paris, Phnom Penh, Prague or Pretoria may not be
attainable because of the development history of these areas or the altered hydrological regimes of
the rivers flowing through them. Similarly, someone might wish to designate an area near the
outfall of a sewage treatment plant for shellfish harvesting, but health considerations would
preclude any such use. Ambient water quality standards must be realistic.
Designating the appropriate use for a water body is a policy decision that can be informed by the
use of water quality prediction models of the type discussed in this chapter. However, the final
standard selection should reflect a social consensus made while bearing in mind the current
condition of the watershed, its pre-disturbance condition, the advantages derived from a certain
designated use, and the costs of achieving that use.
Water-Use Criteria
The designated use is a qualitative description of the desired condition of a water body. A criterion
is a measurable indicator surrogate for use attainment. The criterion may be positioned at any point
in the causal chain of boxes shown in Figure 12.1.
In Box 1 of Figure 12.1 are measures of the pollutant discharge from a treatment plant (such as
biological oxygen demand, ammonia (NH3), pathogens and suspended sediments) or the amount
of a pollutant entering the edge of a stream from runoff. A criterion at this position is referred to
as an effluent standard. Criteria in Boxes 2 and 3 are possible measures of ambient water quality
conditions. Box 2 includes measures of a water quality parameter such as dissolved oxygen (DO),
pH, total phosphorus concentration, suspended sediment or temperature. Criteria closer to the
designated use (e.g. Box 3)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

16

Factors considered when determining designated use and associated water quality standards.

include more combined or comprehensive measures of the biological community as a whole, such
as the condition of the algal community (chlorophyll a) or a measure of contaminant concentration
in fish tissue. Box 4 represents criteria that are associated with sources of pollution other than
pollutants. These criteria might include measures such as flow timing and pattern ( a hydrological
criterion), abundance of non-indigenous taxa, or some quantification of channel modification ( e.g.
a decrease in sinuosity) (NRC, 2001).
The more precise the statement of the designated use, the more accurate the criterion will be as an
indicator of that use. For example, the criterion of fecal coliform count may be a suitable criterion
for water contact recreation. The maximum allowable count itself may differ among water bodies
that have water contact as their designated use, however.
Surrogate indicators are often selected for use as criteria because they are easy to measure and in
some cases are politically appealing. Although a surrogate indicator may have these appealing
attributes, its usefulness can be limited unless it can be logically related to a designated use.

Water Quality Model Use

Monitoring data are the preferred form of information for identifying impaired waters.Model
predictions might be used in addition to or instead of monitoring data for several reasons:
a. Modelling might be feasible in some situations where monitoring is not.
b. Integrated monitoring and modelling systems could provide better information than
one or the other alone for the same total cost. For example, regression analyses that
correlate pollutant concentration with some more easily measurable factor (such as
streamflow) could be used to extend monitoring data for preliminary listing (of
impared status) purposes. Models can also be used in a Bayesian framework to
determine preliminary probability distributions of impairment that can help direct
monitoring efforts and reduce the quantity of monitoring data needed for making
listing decisions at a given level of reliability (see Chapter 7).

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

17

c. Modelling can be used to assess (predict) future water quality situations resulting
from different management strategies. For example, assessing the improvement in
water quality after a new wastewater treatment plant is built, or the effect of
increased industrial growth and effluent discharges.
A simple but useful modelling approach that may be used in the absence of monitoring data is
dilution calculations. In this approach the rate of pollutant loading from point sources in a water
body is divided by the stream flow to give a set of estimated pollutant concentrations that may be
compared to the standard. Simple dilution calculations assume conservative movement of
pollutants. Thus, the use of dilution calculations will tend to be conservative and predict higher
than actual concentrations for decaying pollutants. Of course, one could include a best estimate of
the effects of decay processes in the dilution model.
Combined runoff and water quality prediction models link stressors (sources of pollutants and
pollution) to responses. Stressors include human activities likely to cause impairment, such as the
presence of impervious surfaces in a watershed, cultivation of fields close to the stream, overirrigation of crops with resulting polluted return flows, the discharge of domestic and industrial
effluents into water bodies, installing dams and other channelization works, introduction of nonindigenous taxa and over-harvesting of fish. Indirect effects of humans include land cover changes
that alter the rates of delivery of water, pollutants and sediment to water bodies.
A review of direct and indirect effects of human activities suggests five major types of
environmental stressors:
a. alterations in physical habitat
b. modifications in the seasonal flow of water
c. changes in the food base of the system
d. Changes in interactions within the stream biota release of contaminants
(conventional pollutants) (Karr, 1990; NRC, 1992, 2001).
Ideally, models designed to manage water quality should consider all five types of alternative
management measures. A broad-based approach that considers these five features provides a more
integrative approach to reduce the cause or causes of degradation (NRC, 1992).
Models that relate stressors to responses can be of varying levels of complexity. Sometimes, they
are simple qualitative conceptual representations of the relationships among important variables
and indicators of those variables, such as the statement human activities in a watershed affect
water quality, including the condition of the river biota. More quantitative models can be used to
make predictions about the assimilative capacity of a water body, the movement of a pollutant
from various point and non-point sources through a watershed, or the effectiveness of certain best
management practices.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

18

References
1. U.S. Department of the Interior. (1987). Injury to fish and wildlife species. Type B
Technical information document. CERCLA 301 Project. Washington, DC. U.S. EPA. See
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1979). Toxic Substances Control Act. Discussion
of premanufacture testing policies and technical issues; Request for comment. 44 Federal
Register 16240-16292.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990a). Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program.
4. Ecological Indicators. EPA/60/3-90/060, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990b). Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and
Strategies for Environmental Protection. Science Advisory Board SAB--EC-90-02 I,
Washington, DC.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). Summary Report on Issues in Ecological
Risk Assessment. EPA/625/3-91/018, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_audit
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_assessment
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_assessment

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ROURKELA

19