# Presentation: 838899

## Collaborative Monitoring in the Great Lakes:Revisiting the Lake MichiganMass Balance ProjectCharlie Peters – USGS WI Water Science CenterJohn Hummer – Great Lakes Commission Gary Kohlhepp – Michigan Department of Environmental QualitySteve Westenbroek – USGS  WI Water Science CenterJudy Beck – U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office

- National Monitoring Conference
- May 10, 2006
- San Jose, CA

## Great Lakes Hydrologic and Political Boundaries

## Monitoring Coordination Issues

- In most cases water resources data is collected according to political boundaries rather than resource boundaries
- Data collection agencies each have specific monitoring objectives that often do not overlap

## Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council (LMMCC) Background

- Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordination Council (LMMCC) Background

- Inaugural meeting September 1999
- Broad ecosystem approach -- not only water quality monitoring

## Serve as a regional forum to coordinate and support consistent, credible monitoring methods and strategies
Help define a regionally-coordinated agenda for Lake Michigan basin monitoring, with improved collaboration and data comparability
Link basin wide information systems
Improve awareness of importance of monitoring

- Help define a regionally-coordinated agenda for Lake Michigan basin monitoring, with improved collaboration and data comparability
- Link basin wide information systems
- Improve awareness of importance of monitoring

- LMMCC Goals

## Membership

**Federal agencies (7)**
**Tribal nations/associations (2)**
**Business, industry and consultants (2)**
**Agricultural groups (1)**
**Local volunteer or environmental groups (2)**
**Sea Grant Programs or university-based institutes (4)**
**Lake Michigan LaMP Forum (1)**
**Local government/planning agencies (4)**
**Great Lakes Fishery Commission (1)**
**Chair of LaMP Technical Coordinating Committee and Great Lakes Commission (ex-officio members)**

## LMMCC Workgroups

**Air**
**Aquatic Nuisance Species**
**Fisheries**
**Groundwater**
**Land Use**
**Collaboration and Outreach**
**Technical coordination**
**Communication/outreach**
**Workshop/ meeting planning**

**Open Lake**
**Recreational Waters**
**Research**
**Tributaries**
**Wetlands**
**Wildlife**

## Tributary Work Group Efforts

- Basin wide monitoring inventory
- Issue papers
- Analysis of Monitoring Objectives
- Coordinated Monitoring Network Considerations
- Surface Water Monitoring Network Design
- Projects
- Spatial analyses of historic surface water flow and chemistry data
- Coordinated Tributary Monitoring project

## Coordinated Tributary MonitoringProject Objectives

- Compare current loading rates with 1994-95 Lake Michigan Mass Balance (LMMB) loading rates
- Incorporate results into Lake Michigan Mass Balance models

## Development of Lake MI Tributary Monitoring Project

- Examined the results of LMMB study to determine the important constituents and site locations
- Determined who is currently collecting the LMMB constituents, and at what locations
- Considered how to link ongoing data collection with minimal new resources to meet study objectives
- Developed several monitoring options based upon funding availability and statistical viability
- Statistically tested potential to replicate LMMB effort with significantly reduced scope

## Workshop – June 2004

- Determined potential monitoring locations and parameters for “10-year LMMB snapshot”
- Discuss details of each option
- Finalize constituents to monitor
- Compare specific monitoring protocols
- Confirm sites to monitor
- Development of final plan for 2005/2006 monitoring event

## 1994 – 1995 Lake MI Mass BalanceTributary Monitoring Stations

- http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/

## 1994 – 1995 LMMB PCB Loads

- http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/

## 1994 – 1995 LMMB Mercury Loads

- http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lmmb/

## 2005-2006 Lake MI Tributary Monitoring Project Sites

- Lower Fox (WI)
- Indiana Harbor Canal (IN)
- St. Joseph (MI)
- Kalamazoo (MI)
- Grand (MI)

## Analytes

- _Constituents:_
- Total PCB congeners (dissolved and particulate for Indiana and Wisconsin Sites)
- Total Mercury (particulate and dissolved, total and methylmercury, Fox River only)
- Nutrients and solids
- Atrazine
*trans*-Nonachlor** **

**ELIMINATED TO MINIMIZE**
**TOTAL PROJECT COST**

## Sample Collection and Timing 

**Collect 12 samples from each tributary (36 were collected during 1994 – 1995 LMMB study)**
_**Sample Timing:**_
**Indiana Ship Canal: 100% scheduled **
**Fox River: 33% base flow / 66% high flow**
**St. Joseph, Kalamazoo, and Grand: **
**33% base flow / 66% high flow**

## Progress to Date (April 2006)

- Fox River: 7 samples / 1 duplicate / 1 blank
- Indiana Ship Canal: 6 samples/ 1 duplicate / 1 blank
- St. Joseph, Kalamazoo, and Grand: 12 samples (complete)
- Sampling at the Indiana and Wisconsin sites will be completed by the end of July, 2006

## Coordinated Tributary Monitoring Project Funding

- Project Planning and Management
- In kind funding - USEPA, GLC, MI DEQ, USGS WI WSC
- Michigan DEQ Monitoring
- November, 1998: Clean Michigan Initiative
- For 2005, priorities realigned to allow 12 PCB and Mercury samples from 3 tributaries
- USGS Monitoring, Data Analyses and Report
- EPA GLNPO funds via Great Lakes Commission
- USGS Cooperative Water Program funds
- Wisconsin and Michigan Water Science Centers

## Coordinated Tributary MonitoringTimeline

- Project design (April 2004 – March 2005)
- Sample collection (April 2005-July 2006)
- Sample analysis (July 2005-October 2006)
- Data analysis (August 2006-April 2007)
- Draft report (June 2007)

## Future Work

- Estimate mass loading for each of the five sampled Lake Michigan tributaries
- Estimate the uncertainty associated with each of the loading estimates
- Compare concentration and loading estimates with the 1994-1995 Lake Michigan Mass Balance project concentrations and loading estimates

## Effect of Sample Size: Simulated 2005 PCB Load Estimates (Unstratified Beale Ratio Estimator)

- Effect of Sample Size: Simulated 2005 PCB Load Estimates (Unstratified Beale Ratio Estimator)

**“****Actual” Mass**
** ****Loading: 99.7 Kg**

**Notes:**
Expected variance of a load estimate at the fox river made with 12 sample is considerably greater than with 36 samples> will likely be even more variable at the other sites where flow is less regulated

## Lessons Learned

- It is possible to coordinate sampling between individual monitoring programs to meet additional objectives
- Partners must be willing to compromise
- Creative funding solutions, combining in-kind contributions with additional funding sources, can be developed

## For More Information

- LMMCC website
- _[http://wi.water.usgs.gov/lmmcc/](http://wi.water.usgs.gov/lmmcc/)_
- John Hummer (GLC)
- 734-971-9135 or _[jhummer@glc.org](mailto:jhummer@glc.org)_
- Charlie Peters (USGS)
- 608-821-3810 or _[capeters@usgs.gov](mailto:capeters@usgs.gov)_
- Gary Kohlhepp (MDEQ)
- 517-335-1289 or _[kohlhepg@michigan.gov](mailto:kohlhepg@michigan.gov)_

## Questions?