upper mississippi river basin association water quality efforts and monitoring strategy
DESCRIPTION
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Water Quality Efforts and Monitoring Strategy. Joint ORSANCO -UMRBA Technical Session June 5, 2013. Presentation Overview. Background and Context Recent UMRBA Water Quality Efforts UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Questions and Discussion. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Water Quality Efforts and Monitoring Strategy Water Quality Efforts and Monitoring Strategy
Joint ORSANCO-UMRBA Technical SessionJoint ORSANCO-UMRBA Technical SessionJune 5, 2013June 5, 2013
Presentation Overview
Background and Context Recent UMRBA Water Quality
Efforts UMR CWA Monitoring
Strategy Questions and Discussion
UMRBA Focus Areas
UMR Water Quality: Key Considerations
• Scale, Complexity, Diversity • Basin Influence• Multiple Uses: Recreation, Water Supply, Ecosystem, Navigation • Institutional Setting: Border River, Multiple Jurisdictions
2007 Governors’ Statement
“We are committed not only to the protection of the River’s water quality, but we are also committed to doing so in a coordinated manner…..We are therefore supporting the coordination of water quality monitoring, assessment, and standards for the Upper Mississippi River by the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin and the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association. This approach will allow the Clean Water Act to be implemented on the Upper Mississippi River in a more coordinated and consistent fashion than has ever been possible previously.” From the Statement of the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin on Water Quality Protection for the Mississippi River (August 2, 2007).
UMR Clean Water Act (CWA) Program Coordination
States’ Goals• Protect & improve UMR water quality• Improve consistency in CWA program outcomes• Consistent messages to the public • Consistent expectations for the regulated community• Efficient allocation of resources
States’ Approach• UMRBA Water Quality Task Force & Executive Committee• CWA “building blocks”: designated uses, criteria,
monitoring, assessment• Mainstem/local water quality• UMRBA supports the states/increased capacity• Stable, ongoing federal funding needed• Collaborate with other UMR programs and stakeholders
UMRBA Water Quality Work Groups
Water Quality Staffing and Funding
Staffing• Water Quality Program Director• Small portions of other staff time• Temporary staff (none currently)• Contractor support
Funding• States’ voluntary water quality “assessment”
($17,000/yr)• Periodic state and federal grants/contracts
Recent & Current UMRBA Water Quality Projects
Ongoing CWA
Consultation
Ongoing CWA
ConsultationUMR Human Health Uses
(Arsenic Issue Paper)
(2010-2011)
UMR Human Health Uses
(Arsenic Issue Paper)
(2010-2011)
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy
106/IL EPA(2011-2013)
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy
106/IL EPA(2011-2013)
CWABiological
Assessment604(b)
(2010-2011)
CWABiological
Assessment604(b)
(2010-2011)
UMR Nutrients
Workshops604(b)(2011)
UMR Nutrients
Workshops604(b)(2011)
UMRNutrients
Report604(b)
(2010-2011)
UMRNutrients
Report604(b)
(2010-2011)
Aquatic Life Designated
UsesEPA/IPA
(2009-2011)
Aquatic Life Designated
UsesEPA/IPA
(2009-2011)
Improved UMR CWA
Approaches
Improved UMR CWA
Approaches
Recent & Current UMRBA Water Quality Projects
Ongoing CWA
Consultation
Ongoing CWA
ConsultationUMR Human Health Uses
(Arsenic Issue Paper)
(2010-2011)
UMR Human Health Uses
(Arsenic Issue Paper)
(2010-2011)
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy
106/IL EPA(2011-2013)
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy
106/IL EPA(2011-2013)
CWABiological
Assessment604(b)
(2010-2011)
CWABiological
Assessment604(b)
(2010-2011)
UMR Nutrients
Workshops604(b)(2011)
UMR Nutrients
Workshops604(b)(2011)
UMRNutrients
Report604(b)
(2010-2011)
UMRNutrients
Report604(b)
(2010-2011)
Aquatic Life Designated
UsesEPA/IPA
(2009-2011)
Aquatic Life Designated
UsesEPA/IPA
(2009-2011)
Improved UMR CWA
Approaches
Improved UMR CWA
Approaches
UMR Aquatic Life Designated Uses Project
• Key Question: Are there sufficient differences across the UMR’s floodplain (e.g., main channel v. backwaters) and along its length to warrant distinct treatment when it comes to protecting the aquatic life use?
• Answer: Yes• Key recommendation: Classification structure
MC SC BWC IMP
Upper Impounded Reach (to L&D 13)
Lake Pepin
Lower Impounded Reach (to Missouri River)
Open River Reach (below Missouri River)Current CWA Structure Reality Classification Structure
UMR CWA Biological Assessment Guidance Project
• Key Question: “Can existing biological protocols (sampling designs & indices) be used to assess aquatic life use support on the UMR’s main channel?”
• Answer: Yes, with some modifications• Key recommendations:
– Sampling design (EMAP-GRE)– Assemblages (fish, macroinvertebrate,
vegetation)– CWA monitoring strategy– Data management system– Consider programmatic options , including
costs
UMR Nutrients Report Project
Purpose and Approach Survey & synthesis of current
information regarding UMR nutrient monitoring, occurrence, and local impacts
Unique focus – impacts to CWA designated uses on the UMR mainstem Aquatic life Recreation Drinking water
• Findings and Recommendations• Extensive set of options• For states and partners
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy ProjectRationaleNo unified or comprehensive UMR CWA monitoringExisting programs not designed for CWA purposes nor cover full spatial extentBiology not integratedInconsistent and limited assessments resultALDU, nutrient, and bioassessment project recommendations
Project Purpose“…develop a monitoring strategy framework via a collaborative interagency process to aid the UMR states in moving forward with more comprehensive, consistent, and accurate CWA assessments of the River, leading to both a better understanding of its condition and improvements to its water quality.” - from UMRBA-Illinois EPA funding agreement
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project
ScopeFull longitudinal extentFour lateral strata (where tools available), main channel highest priorityFour major designated uses – aquatic life, drinking water, recreation, fish consumptionChemical, physical, and biological parameters
GoalsCentral goal – support improved assessment of the UMR under the CWAAlso aid other key CWA program functions including standards development, NPDES permits, TMDLs, nonpoint source assessment & management, and measurement of nutrient loading from tributaries
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project
Existing Monitoring
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project
Design Option Description Number of Sites (Approx.) Suggested Implementation Cycle
Fixed Station Current network 65 Annual (monthly/quarterly)
Probabilistic A System-level assessment, Intensification of NRSA 50 Once every 5 years
Probabilistic BMajor longitudinal reach level assessment, Four-fold increase of Probabilistic A
120+ Once every 5 years
Probabilistic C State-level assessment, Follows EMAP-GRE design 150-200+ Once every 5 years; plus
follow-up3 if desired
Probabilistic D1 Thirteen UMR Reach-Level Assessment (30 sites/reach) 390
3-5 year rotation; 1/3 to 1/5 of UMR per year, plus follow-up3 if desired
Probabilistic D2 Thirteen UMR Reach-Level Assessment (15 sites/reach) 195 Once every 5 years; plus
follow-up3 if desired
Nonrandom Longitudinal Survey
Longitudinal sampling “every 5 miles” along “best bank”
total ≈420≈180 baseline over 2 years;≈80/year follow-up over 3
years (≈240);
5 year rotation; 2 year baseline, then3 years of follow-up3
Intensive Pollution Survey
Intensive sampling based on the presence of stressors ≈400 Four year rotation; ¼ of
UMR each year
Main Channel/Side Channel Design Options
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy ProjectRange of Spatial Intensity in Design Options
Probabilistic Design A Entire river as one system (30-50 sites)
Intensive Survey Design/Probabilistic Design DAssessment to site/13 assessment reach level (approx. 400 sites)
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project
Preliminary Preferences for Recommended Monitoring PlanSupport assessment at the 13 reach level
Scale for monitoring, assessment, management
Must be at least Probabilistic D level of density
Probabilistic D2 plus targeted fixed sites 15 sites per reach, may weight Main channel (perhaps also side channel) Probabilistic best for aquatic life, fish tissue Need supplementary sites for recreation,
drinking water, stressor identification
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project
Preliminary Preferences for Recommended Monitoring PlanMaximize Use of Existing Monitoring
Possible to integrate LTRMP fish data Use existing fixed sites
Incorporate Biology Fish assemblage (EMAP) Vegetation (Pools 3 to 13 only) Macroinvertebrate (kick vs. artificial substrate)
Cost and time 2 years to monitor, repeat on 5 year cycle Estimated $2.5 million to complete
Future refinement foreseen
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project
Tributary Loading NetworkConsidered separately from assessment-based networks Fixed sites by definition Maximize use of existing sitesPaired water quality and gaging stationsMore about coordination, branding, and consistency in parametersCoordinate with HTF Monitoring Collaborative effort 44 sites identified on UMR tributaries and main stem
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project
Recommended ParametersNutrients
Nitrogen series (nitrate, nitrite, TKN, ammonia)
Total phosphorus
Sediment Total suspended sediment
Flow and field measurements Water volume/time (per gage) Temperature, DO, pH,
conductivity, turbidity (meters)
Keep consistent over time
UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project
Next StepsDiscussion todayFinalize Options and Considerations document by June 30Draft Recommended Monitoring Plan in July Review of Draft Recommended Monitoring PlanFinal Recommended Monitoring Plan by September 30Project complete by September 30 Pursue funding/implementationContinue work on assessment methodology
Questions and Discussion
For More Information, Contact: Dave Hokanson
[email protected] 651-224-2880
See also:UMRBA Web Sitewww.umrba.org
Monitoring and Data Collection
Findings• Extensive current nutrient
monitoring in mainstem and basin
• Program differences, spatial gaps, and data system incompatibilities comprehensive characterization difficult
• No common approaches to fish kill and algal bloom measurement
Recommendations• Pursue more consistent
monitoring protocols:– Minimum parameter set– Minimum sampling frequencies
• Expand to address mainstem’s full spatial extent, but not at basin monitoring’s expense
• Harmonize data reporting/sharing• Develop CWA-focused UMR
monitoring strategy• Identify mutually-accepted algal
bloom & fish kill tracking / reporting methods
Sources, Concentrations, and Trends
Findings• Concentrations have increased
significantly post-settlement, generally more stable since 1990
• Current concentrations frequently above guidelines/criteria to limit nutrient enrichment, varying by location and season
• Research & modeling indicate agricultural land use is primary determinant of nutrient loading, followed by urban areas
• Conservation practices have successfully reduced loading, though challenges remain, including nitrogen loss via subsurface flow
Recommendations• Pursue further research on
historic nutrient levels (e.g., core sampling), particularly for phosphorus
• Address agricultural nonpoint source pollution, as well as point sources – ideally, in proportion to contribution
• Ongoing collaboration regarding conservation practices is essential
Impacts to CWA Designated Uses
Findings• Both nitrogen (N) and
phosphorus (P) contribute to local UMR impacts
• Backwaters most impacted - metaphyton (filamentous algae and duckweed) blooms
• Sestonic (floating) algae blooms occur, cyanobacteria extent not known
• Based on current standards and data, toxicity from nitrate (to humans) & ammonia (to aquatic life) not presently an issue
Recommendations• Formalize and expand
metaphyton sampling• Improve cyanobacteria
estimates (N:P ratios, direct measurement)
• Work with water suppliers regarding algae growth and total organic carbon (TOC) concerns
CWA Implementation
Findings• Elevated nutrient levels
alone do not necessarily lead to eutrophic conditions – but are a prerequisite for this
• NPDES nutrient monitoring requirements vary among states
• UMR states working to address nutrients under the CWA, at different points and on different paths
Recommendations• Consider the following in numeric criteria
development:– May need values for both N and P, possibly vary by
strata– N and P are eutrophication drivers, but
concentrations cannot always predict eutrophication– Response variables may be considered in assessment,
if there is strong dependency between nutrient levels & response variables, and downstream uses protected
– Numeric criteria most effective as part of a comprehensive approach including other CWA and non-CWA tools
• Pursue consistent NPDES discharge monitoring requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus
• Seek consistency among states in UMR approaches