Considerations for Development of a Coordinated

Water Quality Monitoring Network for Lake Michigan

Background and Introduction

Water quality monitoring is conducted by a wide array of entities at all levels of government, academia, the private sector and citizen volunteers. Currently, there is relatively little coordination of these monitoring efforts or structured exchange of monitoring information between the various monitoring groups. Enhancing the coordination of monitoring, and the dissemination and interpretation of information within the monitoring community, is a widely recognized priority.

Considerations for Coordinating Monitoring

Monitoring Network Goals/Objectives

The Lake Michigan Monitoring Inventory provides a good start to defining the currently operating network. The phase II efforts of the Great Lakes Commission to develop the inventory into an Internet-based GIS coverage of the monitoring points is a good next step. A more detailed survey, like the one circulated at the last LMMCC meeting, would provide information about objectives of monitoring.

Possible goals/objectives include:

1. assess occurrence and distribution of water quality parameters and determine whether water quality standards are being met;

2. measure spatial and temporal trends in water-quality parameters;

3. identify contaminant sources;

4. evaluate program/project effectiveness; and

5. detect new and emerging issues/problems.

Spatial Monitoring Network Design

Designs are based on objectives. How do we best coordinate these designs? One idea is to look at the current network relative to GIS layers such as land use, geology, soils, point sources, etc. and see where the gaps and overlaps are. This would produce a stratified design similar to what NAWQA and CMI are using that would include indicator and integrator sites and perhaps point source related sites as well. An “indicator” site is one that is chosen to indicate a specific characteristic or condition. This could be based on land use, geology, or a pollutant source (or lack thereof). For example, indicator sites chosen based on land use might include forested, wetland, agricultural, urban, and developing locations. An “integrator” site is one that reflects, or integrates, all of the activities occurring upstream in the watershed. For example, water quality characteristics near the mouth of the Looking Glass River reflect all of the activities in the Looking Glass River watershed (e.g. pollution sources, land use).

Temporal Monitoring Network Design

This design must be based on objectives. Guidance should be developed that indicates when storm-event samples, low-flow samples, regular-interval samples, or continuous monitoring (or some combination of these) are appropriate or necessary to meet specific objectives. For example, load calculations may require a different sampling frequency than one necessary to determine whether a best management practice reduces suspended sediment concentrations in a river. The monitoring survey would provide additional detail. There may be means to add additional value to a data set collected for one objective by adding storm sampling, monthly sampling, or other temporal designs. The seasonal component of the design relative to differing objectives should also be studied.

Parameters to be Sampled

The parameters analyzed are also based on objectives. Ambient networks are include a wide range of parameters, whereas regulated entities only need information on a smaller set of specific parameters. The monitoring survey would provide additional detail. Multiple objectives could be satisfied if another bottle was collected for additional parameter analysis. The use of indicator data collected by some programs could be tested for correlation to a larger suite of parameters collected by other programs. Some effort should be made to select a set of indicators to be monitored throughout the basin in a coordinated fashion. These would be indicators with basinwide value. This set of indicators should be selected from those generated through the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan, the Inter-agency Task Force on Monitoring (ITFM), and the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC).

Methods Comparability

Sampling and analytical methods are important. Field comparisons are probably the best means to assure comparability. The Method Quality Objectives (MQOs) may vary considerably between programs as some may seek to only determine presence, while others may require accurate and precise concentrations. This information could be collected through the survey or through meetings between relevant monitoring organizations. Complete analyses of each step of the data collection and analysis process – field collection methods and certification, preservation and transport methods, analytical methods, laboratory comparability or accreditation – are needed.

QA/QC Design

It will be necessary to compile information on current QA/QC protocols relative to various program objectives to determine if an agreed upon level of QA/QC can be achieved. Considerations should include the MQO and the related Method Detection Levels, precision, accuracy, use of replicates, duplicates, lab blanks and trip blanks, chain-of-custody, and data validation and verification.

Metadata Requirements

A core list of water quality data elements (metadata) will need to be agreed upon to allow comparability. A survey that provides information on metadata currently being provided would be a good place to start.

Data Analysis Comparability

Statistical tests to use, important statistical measures to report, graphical display approaches, load estimation and models are somewhat dependent on program objectives. It may be possible to develop a consistent core approach and recommend advanced approaches. For example, a list of statistical tests and key conditions could be recommended to measure temporal trends in water quality. There is a wealth of information (much of it available on the Internet) that could be cataloged.

Reporting Needs

Agreement should be reached on the type and frequency of reports related to a coordinated water quality monitoring network. Who are the target audiences (the public, resource managers, technical staff, or others)? Should the results be summarized or should all data be included? The answer to this question may depend on the target audiences. Should there be an annual report or some other framework? While each entity may have their own specific reporting needs/requirements, a basic minimum approach for reporting results of a coordinated network should be established. This would probably have to be a report by the LMMCC since the LMMCC will not have any authority to dictate reports by other entities.