3.9. cost aspects - ihe delft open courseware module water quality assessment 2 learning objectives...

1

- 3.9.-COST ASPECTS

3.9. COST ASPECTS

Mario Chilundo

UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education

Online Module Water Quality Assessment

2

Learning objectives

After completing this unit the student will have a basic understanding of:

• The concept of costs in monitoring activities

• Items to consider when budgeting monitoring activities

• Requirements to optimize water quality networks

For extra info, relevant links and papers discussing the concept of water quality monitoring costs and optimization are suggested

3

CONTENTS

1. Definitions

2. Costs of a WQ monitoring programme

3. Optimization of water quality monitoring

(WQM) networks

4. Case study: South Florida

4

The Concept of Cost in WQM

• Costs refers to:

– The burden sustained in order to perform certain activity, to

accomplish certain production activity, to achieve specific goals

– The value of money that has been used up to produce something,

and hence is not available for use anymore

• In WQM activities, costs refer to the total expenses

burden from the desk studies up to information

dissemination to appropriate level of end users

5

CONTENTS

1. Definitions



(WQM) networks

4. Additional reading

6

• At the first stage costs are determined

by the purpose of the program:

– Operational

– Surveillance

– Investigative

Costs of a WQ Monitoring Programme

Refer to books by Chapman (1996) and Bartram & Ballance (1996) for more details 7

Monitoring activities requires access to resources in all its stages


Monitoring Activities

Field Equipment

Office Facilities

Others

Certified Laboratory

Qualified Personnel

Transport

All together these resources determine

the involved costs

8


• Specifically, monitoring costs are composed of the

following items:

– Equipment and maintenance (field equipment, parts, man-

hours);

– Sample collection and shipment (man-hours, preservation,

shipping costs)

– Laboratory analysis (cost of analytical services)

– Results analysis and reporting (man-hours for data review,

analysis and reporting)

9


• Pitfalls that increase costs, which have to be avoided:§ Lack of careful planning;

§ Absence of distinctive objectives;

§ Inappropriate equipment;

§ Erroneous programming;

§ Lack of systematic maintenance;

§ Change of activities focus, which is

not reflected on the equipment;

§ Incompatible add-ons

Increase on data analysis time due to mismatched/missing

data

High Monitoring Costs

Systematic planning is required to reduce costs 10


• To avoid pitfalls programme, design should:1. Determine the general needs as well as produce a written

statement of the programme purpose;

2. Determine the type of information to be generated by the

programme;

3. Estimate the equipment and operational costs;

4. Determine the need for additional information (e.g. purpose,

collection method, interval) to be combined with monitoring data;

5. Determine how the data will be collected (automation, sampling

sites, frequency, etc.).

11


• To avoid pitfalls program design should (Cont..):6. Determine the data to be collected and respective analysis

method;

7. Assess the validity of data. Establish QA/QC (quality

assurance/quality control) programme;

8. Determine the type of equipment required and its operation

(costs, configuration, calibration, maintenance, tolerance to

environment);

9. Get information of laboratory costs, conditions and analytical

methods. Check if a contract is needed;

10. Develop a record system and a maintenance schedule.12

CONTENTS

1. Definitions



(WQM) networks

4. Additional reading

13

Optimization of Water Quality Monitoring Networks

• Statistical Optimisation:

§ Is essential to increase monitoring performance while reducing

costs;

§ Important to simplify parameter schedules and therefore, to

save resources;

§ But is rarely achievable, since it requires large amounts of

statistic information on the monitored variables during the

programme design stage (but possible for existing

programmes; see Course 4)

§ Thus, system performance improvement should often be

considered, rather that optimization.14

Optimization of Water Quality Monitoring Networks

• Improvement of WQ Monitoring system

§ Is the collection or generation of the same information amount

(e.g. for decision makers) with less financial resources

demand;

§ Requires specific research to determine adequate amount of

data for specific purposes;

§ Requires objective functions relating information and costs in

order to select appropriate monitoring level;

§ First sampling stage (for 3 to 4 years) with dense monitoring

stations is required to generate baseline data.

15

16

EXAMPLE OF COSTS, NETHERLANDS

Annual cost as percentage of total programme cost) of the programme for monitoring the chemical water quality of the Dutch part of the North Sea, per cost component.

CONTENTS

1. Definitions



(WQM) networks

4. Case study: South Florida

17

• Formed in 1949 as local sponsor of the Central & South Florida Flood Control Project

• Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 broadened the agency’s mission to include:

Water supply Water quality protection Environmental management Flood protection

CASE STUDY: South Florida Water CASE STUDY: South Florida Water Management DistrictManagement District

46,439 kilometer2

2,898 km of canals22 major pump stations2,220 water control structures

InfrastructureInfrastructure

Environmental Monitoring Environmental Monitoring Environmental Monitoring Environmental Monitoring

TotalTotalProjected CostProjected Cost

$53 Million$53 Million$53 Million$53 Million++++ ++++ ====

SCADA & HydroSCADA & HydroData ManagementData ManagementSCADA & HydroSCADA & HydroData ManagementData Management

$23 Million$23 Million$23 Million$23 Million

Water Quality MonitoringWater Quality MonitoringWater Quality MonitoringWater Quality Monitoring


Watershed & CERP Watershed & CERP / RECOVER/ RECOVERWatershed & CERP Watershed & CERP / RECOVER/ RECOVER

Regional:Regional:•• PeriphytonPeriphyton•• VegetationVegetation•• InvertebratesInvertebrates••FishFish••Wading birdsWading birds


HydrometeorologyHydrometeorology Water QualityWater Quality BiologyBiology++ ++ == SFWMD EnvironmentalSFWMD EnvironmentalMonitoring ProgramMonitoring Program

3,200 Sensors:3,200 Sensors:•• FlowFlow•• StageStage•• Groundwater levelsGroundwater levels•• WeatherWeather••GeotechnicalGeotechnical

1,995 Stations1,995 Stations•• NutrientsNutrients•• Physical ParametersPhysical Parameters•• InorganicsInorganics•• PesticidesPesticides•• Mercury (ultraMercury (ultra--trace)trace)

Water Quality Water Quality Monitoring Monitoring

OPTIMIZATION/”REOPTIMIZATION/”RE--ENGINEERING”ENGINEERING”OPTIMIZATION/”REOPTIMIZATION/”RE--ENGINEERING”ENGINEERING”

§ Review objectives from ORIGINAL sources§ Question and evaluate all assumptions § Conduct statistical analyses§ Get expert input, top down and bottom up§ Involve users, internal and external§ Study geographic area and local resources § Refine sampling programmes and go through

review and revision process22

Costs of Environmental MonitoringCosts of Environmental MonitoringMust be Understood and Integrated Must be Understood and Integrated Costs of Environmental MonitoringCosts of Environmental MonitoringMust be Understood and Integrated Must be Understood and Integrated

§ Annual sampling trips to each site ($10,000 - $15,000 per year) § Travel is the majority cost ($3,000 – 7,000)§ Equipment installation/maintenance for automated sites

(~$5,000)§ Sampling accounts for a much smaller cost ($2,000 – 3,000)

§ Lab analyses (ca. $1,000 – 2,000)§ Data processing, quality assurance and management § Cost uncertain but long-term can be important

§ Data analysis, evaluation and reporting§ South Florida Environmental Report, more than $1

million to develop each year23

-442 square 442 square kilometers of kilometers of Everglades Everglades marshland marshland surrounded by surrounded by levees, canals levees, canals and other and other Everglades Everglades areasareas 24

Structures

EFA/RECOVER

TP Rule

STA Permit

EVPA, S.A.

TP & EVPA

TP & STA Permit

TP & EFA/RECOVER

S.A. & EFA/RECOVER

Existing Monitoring in WCAExisting Monitoring in WCA--2A2AExisting Monitoring in WCAExisting Monitoring in WCA--2A2A

25

§ Meet regulatory requirements (Permits)• Monitor water quality

• Estimate nutrient concentrations and loads

• Research the ecosystem

§ Track long-term status (Agency Mission)

Original WCA-2A Monitoring Objectives

26

Sampling Water Management Sampling Water Management StructuresStructures

§ Travel to structures biweekly & sample only if flowing

§ Results for one set of structures in WCA-2A• Approximately 25% of all discharge events

missed by more than two weeks• Approximately 50% of all sampling trips have

one or more stations with no samples• Overall, inefficient monitoring

27

CA27CA28

CA2-15

F1

F2

F4CA29

F3F5

E5U3

U1

C2

N1

N.25N2N4

C.25

C1C4

S.25

S1S2

S4

FS.25FS1.0

FS2.0FS3.0

CA223CA2-6

404Z1

CA224

CA222

CA217

TP Rule

WCA2A

EVPA

Original Project and Original Project and Marsh Monitoring Marsh Monitoring Station Overlap Station Overlap DiagramDiagram

41 stations

56 station visits per month Biweekly

MonthlyMonthly

E2

E0

E3

E4

E1

F0

U2

Threshold

Monthly

28

§ Unified marsh sampling methods§ Transferred 15 stations to water quality

monitoring team to eliminate duplicative trips§ Standardized frequency to monthly at seven

stations, reducing sampling trips§ Optimized existing stations

• 10 eliminated; 1 added

§ Reduced monthly station visits by 43% (56>>32) § Cut helicopter costs by > $100,000/yr

WCAWCA--2A Case Study 2A Case Study Marsh ResultsMarsh Results

29

E3FS.25

32 Monthly Stations

F1

F2

F4 F0

F3 U2

F5

U3E2

E0

E4E1

E5

U1CA223

404C2

C1

S4

N1

N.25

N4

CA2-6

CA29

FS1.0

FS3.0

CA217404Z1

CA224

CA222

WCA2RT

TP Rule

EVPA

ThresholdWCA2A STA

Reengineered WCAReengineered WCA--2A Marsh Monitoring2A Marsh Monitoring30

Refined WCARefined WCA--2A 2A Marsh Monitoring NetworkMarsh Monitoring Network

•• Fewer Fewer stationsstations

•• Better distributionBetter distribution

•• Standardized Standardized samplingsampling

•• Reduced costsReduced costs

31

Helicopter Sampling in the EvergladesHelicopter Sampling in the Everglades

Inefficient sampling trips are very wasteful Inefficient sampling trips are very wasteful

•• Must Must eliminate redundant eliminate redundant stations and stations and optimize sampling optimize sampling flights flights

•• Need Need to stop flights when to stop flights when marsh marsh is too shallow to sampleis too shallow to sample32

Reengineering Annual Costs SavingsReengineering Annual Costs Savings

§ Southwest Coastal $10,000§ Marsh Monitoring Frequency Change $30,000§ Recorded Flow Demonstration Project $15,000§ Redundant Station Reductions $30,000§ S38B/NSID1 Monitoring $10,000§ Biscayne Bay $30,000§ Trace Metals Reduction $5,000

Total $130,000

33

New Monitoring: Annual Costs SavingsNew Monitoring: Annual Costs Savings

§ Compartment C treatment wetland $124,500§ Compartment B treatment wetland $28,000§ Downstream STAs marshes $72,500§ Biscayne Bay marine water quality $20,000

Total $245,000

Other Costs Savings Other Costs Savings -- FutureFuture

• Compartment B Capital $264,500• Compartment C Capital $289,500

Total $554,00034

§ Re-engineered monitoring produces equal or more data and information for less money

§ Monitoring must be rethought from the ground up for long-term sustainability

§ More data is not always better; look at needs and cost-benefit analysis

§ Review all monitoring assumptions

§ Apply re-engineering concepts to monitoring plans for new projects.

Lessons Learned Lessons Learned

35

3.9. cost aspects - ihe delft open courseware module water quality assessment 2 learning objectives...

Documents