Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Water Quality Efforts and Monitoring Strategy

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

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

Existing Monitoring


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)


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


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


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


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


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

mailto:[email protected]

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

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Water Quality Efforts and Monitoring Strategy

Documents

Transcript of Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Water Quality Efforts and Monitoring Strategy