Final Report: 2016 EAHCP WATER QUALITY MONITORING & BIOLOGICAL MONITORING WORK GROUPS

Transcription

1 Final Report: 2016 EAHCP WATER QUALITY MONITORING & BIOLOGICAL MONITORING WORK GROUPS Nathan Pence, Program Manager Presentation to the Stakeholder Committee September 2016

2 BACKGROUND MARCH 2015 The National Academy of Sciences made recommendations for improving the Biological & Water Quality Monitoring Programs. JULY 2015 NAS Recommendations Review Work Group recommended a holistic review of both monitoring programs. FEBRUARY 2016 Implementing Committee approved the creation of the 2016 Monitoring Program Work Groups.

3 WATER QUALITY MONITORING WORK GROUP

4 MEMBERSHIP Ken Diehl SAWS Melani Howard City of San Marcos Texas State University Charles Kreitler Science Committee Steven Raabe Stakeholder Committee SARA Benjamin Schwartz Texas State University Michael Urrutia GBRA

5 CONCLUSIONS OF THE WQ WORK GROUP Achieved consensus on: WQ Program Sampling Methods Revised WQ Program Sampling - Alternative #3 Odd Years 2017 Even Years Surface water Remove Remove Sediment Remove Reduce to once/year Real-time Add +1 station per system Add +1 station per system Stormwater PDS Reduce to one sampling/year Test only IPMP-listed chemicals & atrazine; add two samples to the rising limb of the hydrograph for a total of 5 samples/location; priority given to locations at tributary outflows Add PPCP membrane at most downstream site Reduce to one sampling/year; add two samples to the rising limb of the hydrograph for a total of 5 samples/location; priority given to locations at tributary outflows Add PPCP membrane at most downstream site Groundwater Remove Remove Tissue Conducted once/year in odd years Not conducted in even years

6 FISH TISSUE SAMPLING Biologists: Chad Furl (EAA/EAHCP), Rebecca Reeves (SARA), Pete Diaz (USFWS), & Bryan Brooks (Baylor University) Fountain darter & a predator species Two locations: spring orifices & downstream Tissue analysis will include: 1. PCBs 2. PAHs 3. SVOCs 4. Metals 5. PPCPs

7 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 10% DEVIATION FROM AVERAGE LONG-TERM WATER QUALITY Fountain darters Invertebrates Salamanders Variable Flow Study FD Drop Net Sampling EAA monitoring of Comal Springs EAA monitoring of Spring Lake spring openings CRITERIA FOR ANALYTICAL LIMITS Sampling Method Surface (base flow) Stormwater Real-time monitoring Sediment PDS Tissue sampling WQWG Approved Limits Aquatic life protection Aquatic life protection Historical long-term averages Literature Create baseline Create baseline

8 NUTRIENT SAMPLING THROUGH EAHCP & OTHER PROGRAMS CURRENT DETECTION LIMITS Analytes Results EAHCP WQ EAHCP BioMP CRP Detection level comments Tested? Method Detection Limit Tested? Method Detection Limit Tested? Ambient Water Reporting Limit Nitrate Minimum µg/l CS, SM Yes 25 µg/l Yes 50 µg/l Yes 50 µg/l Ammonia Ammonia detection limits meet TCEQ approval No - No - Yes 100 µg/l SRP ~95% nondetects No - Yes 50 µg/l No -

9 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AMMONIA DATA Source: U.S Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater (2013) (822-R ). U.S EPA: Washington, D.C.

10 NUTRIENT SAMPLING - SOLUBLE REACTIVE PHOSPHORUS 5 µg/l 3 µg/l 5 µg/l 3 µg/l Groeger, Brown, Tietjen, & Kelsey, 1997, p. 288

11 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS - NUTRIENTS Discontinue current nutrient sampling Primary concerns: 1. Nitrate 2. Ammonia 3. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) Modify SRP detection limits to 5 mg/l Continue use of 100 mg/l for ammonia

12 REGULAR REVIEW & ANALYSIS OF DATA Collaborate with GBRA Clean Rivers Program & complementary programs For example, EAA Aquifer Science Department, & EAHCP Biological Monitoring Program Regular analysis of data should include past year information to determine if trends exist Re-evaluate sampling methodologies as land-use changes

13 BUDGET Monitoring Component Table 7.1 Existing 2016 Estimated 2017 Estimated 2018 WQ $200,000 $474,430 $145,700 $285,300 Real-time - $23,100 $44,000 $25,000 Total $200,000 $497,530 $189, ,300 *Estimated savings of $159,780

14 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING WORK GROUP

15 MEMBERSHIP Tyson Broad Texas Tech U. Jacquelyn Duke Science Committee Baylor University Mark Enders City of New Braunfels Rick Illgner EAA Doyle Mosier Science Committee

16 HISTORY OF BIOLOGICAL MONITORING The program has been collecting data since 2000 Extensively vetted by leading experts in their field The EARIP used the this data set as a basis for the EAHCP Does not require significant changes to the existing program

17 CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIO WORK GROUP Existing Sampling Methods Fixed station photography Aquatic veg mapping, including TWR Fountain Darter sampling Fish community sampling Invertebrate sampling Covered Species Macroinvertebrate food source monitoring Salamander visual observations Comal Springs discharge measurement Flow partitioning within Landa Lake Water quality grab sampling Critical period (high & low-flow events) ITP (Take, 10% Disturbance) Revised Sampling Methods Valuable historical baseline Valuable baseline, trend, & compliance information Valuable indices to fish population health Provides macro information pertinent to Covered Species Necessary to monitor population health Recommendation: substitute rapid bioassessments Necessary to monitor population health Important environmental measure Recommendation: Remove from Program Done through EAA Continue important accompaniment to bio info Important index during critical periods Required for permit

18 BUDGET Biological Monitoring Table 7.1 Existing 2016 Estimated 2017 San Marcos $200,000 $208,514 $218,515 Comal $200,000 $208,514 $218,515 Total $400,000 $417,028 $430,000

19 THANK YOU! QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

20 SYNERGIES BETWEEN THE WORK GROUPS

21 SYNERGIES Using rapid bio-assessments (EAHCP Bio-Monitoring) to identify water quality impairments & measure ecosystem health Using water quality data, such as soluble reactive phosphorus, from bio-monitoring program to measure nutrient impairments & ammonia Analyzing data from Water Quality, Biological, EAA Well Sampling, & Clean Rivers Programs, collectively

22 SYNERGIES Collecting more real-time water quality data because it is more biologically-relevant Requiring monitoring of riparian conditions as a part of Permittees Work Plans After exploring the feasibility of coordinating sampling locations, it was determined no changes are needed in either program.