Nutrient Monitoring on the Ohio River: Balancing Information Needs

The Ohio River Basin

Ohio River/ Basin Facts

981 Miles long from Pittsburgh, PA, to Cairo, IL

Drainage basin covers 204,000 sq. miles in 14 states

Basin home to 25+ million people

Drinking water for 3 million people

120+ species of fish live in the Ohio River

20 dams and 49 power-generating facilities

230 million tons of cargo transported annually

About ORSANCO Interstate Compact agency Member states: Illinois, Indiana,

Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia.

3 Commissioners per state plus 3 federal

Authority: Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact

The Compact is incorporated in the laws of each of the member states.

The Compact is also incorporated in Federal law.

The Compact was signed by the Governors and State Commissioners on June 30, 1948.

Guiding Principle:

Wastes discharged in one state shall not harm the waters of another state.

Commission Structure3 Commissioners per State = 24

3 Federal Commissioners = 3Total Commissioners = 27

StandingCommittees

SpecialCommittees

AdvisoryCommittees

Program AdvisoryCommittees

ORSANCO Staff

TechnicalAdministrative PublicInformation

ORSANCO Commissioners Represent:

Municipal Utilities (4) State/Fed environmental

agencies (8) Attorneys (4) Elected Official (1) Environmental

consultants (3) Educational institutions (1) Industry (1)

Current Program Areas Water Quality Monitoring and

Assessment Biological Studies Spill Detection and Response Pollution Control Standards Public Involvement

Monitoring/Assessment Requirements of the Ohio River VWS Compact No specific mention Article I sets water quality goals for

interstate waters, pledges states to work cooperatively to reach them.

Article VI sets water quality requirements for intrastate waters.

Implied need – status and trends monitoring/assessment.

Monitoring/Assessment Requirements of the Ohio River VWS Compact Article VIII charges the Commission

to study the pollution problems of the District.

Implied need - any monitoring/assessment effort that identifies causes of water quality problems.

Current Monitoring and Assessment Activities Monitoring of the Ohio River on

behalf of the states Biennial water quality assessment

(305[b]) Special studies as directed –

currently wet weather studies, biological criteria development

Routine Monitoring Programs Bimonthly ambient monitoring Bacteria and Dissolved Oxygen Fish Population studies Macroinvertebrate sampling Fish Tissue analyses

ORSANCO Nutrient Related Activities Algae and Nutrient Monitoring Nutrient Criteria Development Participation in Gulf Hypoxia

Meetings Nutrient Loading Project Organize and coordinate Ohio River

Sub Basin Committee

Algae Monitoring Taste and Odor problems in drinking

water supplies Need for consistent data Cooperative sampling with water

utilities

Nutrient Criteria Development Need for cause (nutrient) and effect

(algae, chlorophyll a) data Desire for multiple observations to

define relationships

Current Algae/ Nutrient Monitoring Program Cooperative monitoring by ten Ohio

River drinking water utilities. Samples collected two times per

month. Analyses for algae, chlorophyll a,

turbidity, total P, TKN, ammonia N, nitrite + nitrate N.

Ecoregions of the Mainstem

TN – 0.69 mg/LTP – 0.037 mg/L

TN – 0.31 mg/LTP – 0.010 mg/L

TN – 2.18 mg/LTP – 0.076

mg/L

Average Phosphorous ConcentrationsDefault USEPA CriteriaEcoregion VI – 0.076 mg/LEcoregion IX – 0.037 mg/LEcoregion XI – 0.010 mg/L

River-wide AverageTP = 0.15 mg/L

0.24 mg/L

0.25 mg/L

0.15 mg/L

0.18 mg/L

0.11 mg/L0.11 mg/L

0.16 mg/L

0.12 mg/L0.11 mg/L

0.10 mg/L

Default USEPA CriteriaEcoregion VI – 2.18 mg/LEcoregion IX – 0.69 mg/LEcoregion XI – 0.31 mg/L

Average Nitrogen Concentrations

River-wide AverageTN = 1.50 mg/L

1.15 mg/L

2.22 mg/L

1.94 mg/L

1.67 mg/L

1.36 mg/L1.68 mg/L

1.44 mg/L

1.56 mg/L1.50 mg/L

1.22 mg/L

Total Algae/Total Nitrogen

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

08/0

1/00

10/0

2/00

12/0

5/00

03/0

1/01

05/0

3/01

07/0

9/01

09/0

4/01

11/0

5/01

01/0

7/02

03/0

4/02

05/0

6/02

Tota

l Alg

ae (U

nits

/ml)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

(mg/

L)

Total Algae

Total Nitrogen

Wheeling, WV

Total Algae/Total Phosphorous

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

450008

/01/

00

09/1

5/00

11/0

1/00

01/0

3/01

03/0

1/01

04/1

7/01

06/0

4/01

07/2

3/01

09/0

4/01

10/1

5/01

12/0

3/01

01/2

2/02

03/0

4/02

04/2

2/02

06/1

7/02

Tota

l Alg

ae (U

nits

/ml)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

Tota

l Pho

spho

rous

(mg/

l)

Total Algae

TP

Wheeling, WV

MISSISSIPPI – ATCHAFALAYA RIVER BASIN

ORSANCO Participation in Gulf Hypoxia Deliberations Attended meetings on behalf of member

states since 1995. Have attended all Task Force meetings. Full Commission met in conjunction with

Task Force in 2002. Received funding for 1st year of Sub Basin

Committee operation in June, 2005.

Actions Assigned to Sub Basin Committees

Develop strategies for nutrient reduction for each sub-basin

Reduce loadings from point sources

Increase assistance to agricultural producers/ businesses for implementation of best management practices

Total N Yield Delivered Total N Yield Delivered to the Gulf of Mexicoto the Gulf of Mexico

DrainageArea

Total NLb/day

Total NLb/sq mi

Wabash 33,100 1,630,000 49.2

Great Miami 5700 236,000 43.6

Tennessee 40,910 404,000 9.9

Cumberland 17,920 323,000 18.0

Scioto 6510 168,000 25.8

Tributary Nitrogen Loads

2

.8

i

19.2

IL INOH

WV

KY

TN

Estimated peak season total nitrogen loads on selected tributaries (lbs/day/sq.mi.)

Information Needs for Gulf Action Plan Quantify Ohio River nutrient loading

to the Mississippi over time. Quantify tributary loads for

prioritization. Track tributary conditions to assess

program effectiveness

Monitoring Program Design Questions Can current program meet Gulf

Action Plan needs? Can resources be shifted away from

criteria development? Role of probabalistic design