Water Quality Board Research Articles

Symmetry and solitude: Status and lessons learned from binational Areas of Concern

Areas of Concern are geographically distinct areas within the waters of the Great Lakes that are contaminated to the extent that they were originally identified by the International Joint Commission’s Water Quality Board and later codified in the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as areas requiring remedial actions. Five of the 43 Areas of Concern are binational (Canada, USA), and are located on every river or connecting channel that drains a Great Lake. Implementing an ecosystem approach, as called for in the Agreement, presents unique challenges for binational Areas of Concern due to multiple jurisdictions and communities, and hence greater institutional, program and participatory complexity. Our review of progress in each of the binational Areas of Concern suggests that a binational and ecosystem-oriented approach is underway in the St. Marys, St. Clair and Detroit River Areas of Concern, while the Niagara River and St. Lawrence River Areas of Concern are proceeding on decidedly more independent domestic tracks. Our case study analysis of the Detroit River and St. Lawrence River Areas of Concern suggest that well developed and formal governance frameworks, the establishment of informal networks, and maintaining flexibility within a science-focused approach create conditions better suited to a binational, ecosystem-oriented means of remediation.

Use of collaborative funding to implement the Remedial Action Plan for the St. Louis River Area of Concern, Minnesota, USA

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, collaborative funding by some of the nation’s leading tycoons led to development of Duluth, Minnesota and the surrounding area. This included Andrew Carnegie, Jay Cooke, Andrew Mellon, J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, to name a few. This tremendous period of growth and expansion included major industrial developments, including grain, lumber, iron mining, manufacturing, rail, shipping and shipbuilding, and associated development of the frontier. Although critical to the development of a vital community, these activities took a toll through unchecked alteration of natural habitat and contamination of St. Louis River estuary sediments. These adverse legacy impacts, which occurred well before the establishment of our current environmental regulatory framework, became well recognized in 1985 when the International Joint Commission’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board identified the St. Louis River as an Area of Concern requiring the development and implementation of a remedial action plan to restore all impaired beneficial uses. This commitment to Remedial Action Plans was then codified in the 1987 Protocol to the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The initial Stage 1 Remedial Action Plans for the St Louis River Area of Concern was completed in 1992 with the initial Stage 2 Remedial Action Plan completed in 1995, followed by periodic updates through 2012. However, these updates did not have budgets and action timelines necessary to secure the financial commitments to implement identified actions. Establishment of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in 2010 led to the 2013 Remedial Action Plan update (i.e. Stage 2 Remedial Action Plan) that included a business plan that identified specific actions, timelines, and budget estimates. Minnesota began implementing recommendations utilizing collaborative funding through a partnership approach. Ninety-nine percent of the actions identified in the Remedial Action Plan have been completed or are currently underway. Funding needs and sources have been clearly identified and the project is on track to complete major actions by 2020 and remove all beneficial use impairments and delist as an Area of Concern, dependent upon confirmation of use restoration, by 2025.

A review of total dissolved copper and its chemical speciation in San Francisco Bay, California

Following basin-wide contamination from industrial emissions and urban development, total dissolved copper concentrations in some regions of San Francisco Bay have exceeded national and state guidelines for water quality. In the face of dramatic improvements in wastewater treatment and point source control, persisting elevated dissolved copper concentrations in the Bay have prompted multiple studies and extensive monitoring of this estuary since 1989. Statistical analyses of monitoring data show that total dissolved copper concentrations have declined in the North (by 17%) and South (29%) San Francisco Bay as well as in the Southern Sloughs (44%) from 1993 to 2001. Concentrations remain elevated in the farthest reaches of the Bay (Delta and Estuary Interface), and in the Central Bay. Dissolved copper concentrations throughout the Bay have also been positively correlated ( r = 0.632 , P < 0.0005 , n = 598 ) with dissolved organic matter, supporting results from complimentary chemical speciation studies which indicate that high-affinity copper-binding organic ligands dominate the chemical speciation of dissolved copper in the Bay. These organic ligands typically bind>99.9% of the dissolved copper, effectively buffering the system against small changes in dissolved copper concentrations, and maintaining free Cu 2+ concentrations well below the toxicity threshold of ambient aquatic microorganisms. In response to these findings, site-specific water quality criteria for dissolved copper concentrations are now being developed by the Regional Water Quality Board to provide a more appropriate standard for copper toxicity in the Bay—one based on its chemical speciation and bioavailability.

Transitional waters in Germany: the Elbe estuary as an example

1. The requirements and approaches of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are introduced and explained in the light of the strategies developed by the international conventions to protect the riverine and marine environment. In transitional and coastal waters the directive's aims and measures overlap with the programmes of measures and the existing monitoring requirements of the marine conventions (OSPAR, Helsinki, Barcelona Conventions). A harmonization of monitoring and assessment methods is needed to avoid duplication of work and extra costs. 2. The physico-chemical, hydromorphological and biological characteristics of the Elbe transitional waters are described as basic information necessary for the ‘General Description’ required according to Article 5 of the WFD. 3. The strengths of some of the biological quality elements for WFD monitoring in tidal estuaries are discussed. 4. An overview of the monitoring programme routinely carried out by the Office of the Elbe River Water Quality Board is presented. Sampling by helicopter proved to be a useful method. 5. A pilot surveillance monitoring programme is described which has been drafted for the tidal Elbe in order to provide a sound basis for surveillance monitoring as required by the WFD after 2006. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ELBIS, an Internet Information System on the Water Quality of the River Elbe

AbstractThe Elbe information system ELBIS provides an elaborate view of the water quality of the Elbe river system. Since July 2001 it can be used by the general public via internet. www.elbis.de supplies information on the water quality and related topics for the river Elbe. The geographical information system (GIS) ELBIS is based upon extensive data from measuring campaigns. The ARGE Elbe (Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Reinhaltung der Elbe/Elbe River Water Quality Board) supplies the measured values of 218 different variables. The ELBIS generally includes data from 1994 onwards, for the measuring point Schnackenburg, however, the values are available back to 1985. Annual data updates of the database would be necessary to ensure the system's topicality. The continuous time series enables the assessment of the water pollution load of the river Elbe.In order to make the information available to a broad circle of users, ELBIS was created as an internet information system. To simplify its usage a broad meta‐information and navigation concept was developed. The user interface enables data to be accessed by laymen as well as specialists. An important element of the user interface is the geographical component: Via a digital map the user can specify which area he or she is interested in. The data basis of the ELBIS is held in a database management system. Thus new data can be added easily.

Contaminated Sediment Management in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem

Contaminated sediment remains a pervasive problem to the restoration and delisting in all of the Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Like many other problems, both identification and implementation of ecologically and economically acceptable solutions is complex. Recognizing the scope of this issue and perceiving that limited progress had been achieved, the International Joint Commission (IJC) asked its Great Lakes Water Quality Board to review the magnitude of the problem and what progress had been made in managing contaminated sediment by Canada and the United States. In addition, the Commission also asked for an identification of obstacles to remediation and recommendations for solutions. This paper provides a synopsis of this work and a summary of an IJC workshop held in June of 1997, in Collingwood, Ontario. Six categories of obstacles to sediment remediation are discussed, potential solutions are identified, and a series of recommendations are proposed. A plan of action to further develop approaches to sediment management and to stimulate additional remediation throughout the basin is also presented.

Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans: Fostering Adaptive Ecosystem-Based Management Processes

Introduction As is well known, the International Joint Commission (IJC) is an institutional mechanism for cooperative problem-solving of water management issues established by the United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. The IJC uses experts, serving in their personal and professional capacities, to undertake independent fact-finding and to provide independent advice for problem resolution. Its processes have compiled agreed-upon and trusted scientific and socioeconomic data, and have interpreted these data in a public fashion in an effort to build broad-based understanding and support for action. In addition, IJC processes are charged to embody a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach--that is, accounting for the interrelationships between land, air, water, and all living things, including humans, and involving all stakeholders groups in comprehensive management (Hartig and Vallentyne 1989). One of the best examples of the practical application of these processes is the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Program. This paper reviews the history of RAPs in order to ensure continued progress toward the goal of restoring and protecting all uses in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. The concept of Remedial Action Plans Originated from a 1985 recommendation of the IJC's Great Lakes Water Quality Board (Water Quality Board 1985). The Board found that, despite implementation of regulatory pollution control programs, a number of beneficial uses--for example, unrestricted human consumption of fish, successful reproduction of certain sentinel wildlife species, and fish and wildlife habitat--were not being restored, and recommended that comprehensive and systematic RAPs be developed and implemented to restore all beneficial uses in Areas of Concern (Figure 1). The 1987 Protocol amending the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) formalized the RAP program and explicitly defined Areas of Concern as specific geographic areas that fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the GLWQA where such failure has caused, or is likely to cause, impairment of beneficial use or reduction of the area's ability to support aquatic life (Protocol 1987). Impairment of beneficial use means a change in the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem sufficient to cause any of fourteen use impairments: - restrictions on fish or wildlife consumption; - tainting of fish and wildlife flavor; - degradation of fish and wildlife populations; - fish tumors or other deformities; - bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems; - degradation of benthos; - restrictions on dredging activities; - eutrophication or undesirable algae; - restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems; - beach closings; - degradation of aesthetics; - added costs to agriculture or industry; - degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; or - loss of fish and wildlife habitat. TABLE 1. A summary of the extent of use impairments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Number of Areas of Concern Use Impairment With Impaired Use (N = 42) Restrictions on fish or wildlife consumption 36 (86%) Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor 4 (10%) Degradation of fish and wildlife populations 30 (71%) Fish tumors or other deformities 20 (48%) Bird or animal deformities or reproductive 14 (33%) problems Degradation of benthos 35 (83%) Restrictions on dredging activities 36 (86%) Eutrophication or undesirable algae 21 (50%) Restrictions on drinking water consumption, 12 (29%) or taste and odor problems Beach closings 24 (57%) Degradation of aesthetics 25 (60%) Added costs to agriculture or industry 7 (17%) Degradation of phytoplankton or 10 (24%) zooplankton populations Loss of fish and wildlife habitat 34 (81%) A summary of the extent of use impairments in Areas of Concern is presented in Table 1. …

Great Lakes Water Quality Board Position Statement on the Future of Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans September 1996

Great Lakes Water Quality Board Position Statement on the Future of Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans September 1996

Ground-Water Salinity Control Assessment Along the Canadian River--An Integrated Geophysical Approach

Increased salinity in Lake Meredith has been attributed by water sampling to a reach of 5.5 mi of the Canadian River immediately below Ute Dam near Logan, New Mexico, as a source of saline inflow. Since Lake Meredith, impounded by Sanford Dam 150 mi downstream from Ute Dam, and the Canadian River are primary water supplies for several municipalities, including the city of Amarillo, Texas, remediation of salinity contamination is needed. Investigations performed in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the Texas Water Quality Board, the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation conclude that the saline contamination is the result of naturally occurring artesian aquifers associated with evaporites. Proposals concluded that relieving the artesian head on these aquifers through pumping and disposing of the brine in deep-injection wells would greatly reduce the saline inflow into the river. An exploration program was initiated in November 1993 to determine the character of the brine aquifer(s), lateral extent, porosity/permeability, and also potential deep injection strata for disposal wells for the brine water. Included in this program were exploration drilling, borehole geophysics, surface seismic reflection, and pumping tests. Shallow geophysical reflection surveys in the river channel mapped the brine aquifer and located lateral discontinuities, interpreted as collapse zones providing vertical flow paths from the brine aquifer to the river channel. Deep seismic reflection surveys, tied to existing deep oil wells in the area, show sufficiently thick sedimentary sequences for deep disposal wells. These sedimentary sections of arkosic sands are associated with a deep graben in the vicinity of Logan where brine flows into the Canadian River. Log analysis of existing wells in the area allowed the correlation of lithology to seismically derived structural horizons. Information on a variety of lithologic parameters, including primary and fracture porosity, allowed selection of disposal formations prior to injection testing.

Towards defining aquatic ecosystem health for the Great Lakes

The Canada — U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement defines Areas of Concern as geographic areas that fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or the area's ability to support aquatic life. Impairment of beneficial use is defined by the Agreement as a change in the physical, chemical or biological integrity sufficient to cause any one of 14 designated use impairments. In 1987 the International Joint Commission's Great Lakes Water Quality Board (GLWQB) recommended that criteria be developed to determine when ecosystem conditions have been impacted enough to warrant designation as an Area of Concern and when conditions have improved sufficiently to be delisted. Based on scientific input and policy considerations, the GLWQB adopted, in principle, a set of quantitative and qualitative listing/delisting criteria for each of the 14 use impairments. These criteria can be uniformly applied throughout the basin. Further, the GLWQB recommended future refinement of these criteria based on advances in science and public input.

How Clean is Clean in Great Lakes Areas of Concern? Report from the 1988 IAGLR Symposium

Forty-two Areas of Concern have been identified in the Great Lakes by the eight Great Lakes states and the Province of Ontario. These are areas where failure to meet the general or specific objectives of the Canada/United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or the area's ability to support aquatic life. The International Joint Commission's Water Quality Board has identified the need for a precise set of criteria to list and delist Areas of Concern. This paper summarizes the results of a symposium held as part of the 1988 International Association of Great Lakes Research conference to address this need. Consensus from the symposium was that the historical approach to identifying water problems and beneficial use impairments (e.g., violations of chemical objectives) is too limited and must be expanded to include more data and information on biological effects. No one test will suffice in identifying water quality problems and beneficial use impairments. Rather, a suite of tests will be required to identify problems more consistently with the GLWQA's systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach. Such a suite of tests, based on the 14 use impairments in Annex 2 of the GLWQA, is proposed, including a definition for “How Clean is Clean?” for each use impairment.

Development of plans to restore degraded areas in the Great Lakes

The International Joint Commission's Water Quality Board has identified 42 Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes ecosystem where Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement objectives or jurisdictional standards, criteria or guidelines, established to protect uses, have been exceeded and remedial actions are necessary to restore beneficial uses. As a result of the 1985 report of the Water Quality Board, the eight Great Lakes states and the Province of Ontario committed themselves to developing a remedial action plan (RAP) to restore all uses in each Area of Concern within their political boundaries. Each RAP must identify the specific measures necessary to control existing sources of pollution, abate existing contamination (e.g., contaminated sediments), and restore all beneficial uses. Points which must be explicitly addressed in each RAP include: geographic extent of problem, beneficial uses impaired, causes of problems, remedial measures and a schedule for implementation, responsible agencies, and surveillance and monitoring activities that will be used to track effectiveness of remedial actions. The jurisdictions are responsible for developing RAPs, and the International Joint Commission is responsible for evaluating the adequacy of each RAP and tracking progress in restoring beneficial uses.

GREAT LAKES IN THE FUTURE

Water quality -protection will be one of the most important means of ensuring the well being of the Great Lakes System. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement represents a great international venture to halt the degradation of this fresh-water system, and has provided the framework under which the necessary investigations, research, and studies may be undertaken. This article reviews some of the concerns and investigations of the Water Quality Board set up under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Archaeological Investigations at Sites near Natalia, Medina County, Texas

In January, 1976, Hayden Whitsett, archaeologist for the Texas Water Quality Board, carried out an initial archaeological reconnaissance of areas to be affected by the construction of new sewage treatment plant and lines in Natalia, Texas (Medina County WCID #3; Whitsett 1976). As a result of Whitsett's survey, five archaeological sites (41 ME 18-ME 22) were documented, and Whitsett suggested (ibid: 1) that four of these might be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Sites. Subsequent to his reconnaissance, Whitsett contacted the Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio, regarding a "Step 2" archaeological testing program at the four sites thought to be of possible National Register quality. An agreement to conduct the needed testing was reached between the Center and the firm of Groves, Fernandez, Barry, Telford and Associates, Inc., the authorized representatives of the Medina County Water Control and Improvement District., A plan of study outlining the proposed testing program of the Center for Archaeological Research was filed with both the Texas Water Quality Board and the Texas Historical Commission.

POSSIBLE DIVERSION OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER TO TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO1

ABSTRACT.A summary is presented of remarks made at a conference held at Louisiana Tech University on the possibility of diverting some of the Mississippi River water to Texas and New Mexico. The Texas Water Plan which has initiated the diversion possibility is discussed and particular reference is made to the activities of the federal and state agencies directly responsible for determining various aspects of the diversion study. These agencies include the Texas Water Development Board, Texas Water Quality Board, Louisiana Department of Public Works, State Engineer's Office of New Mexico, Mississippi River Commission, and the Bureau of Reclamation.

Regulation of Subsurface Disposal in Texas: ABSTRACT

An injection well is defined in the Texas Injection Well Act as an artificial excavation made for the purpose of injecting or disposing of industrial and municipal waste into subsurface strata. Industrial and municipal waste is defined as any liquid, gaseous, solid, or other waste substance which might be expected to cause pollution of fresh water. Before any person may begin the drilling of an injection well or converting any existing well into an injection well for the purpose of disposing of industrial or municipal waste, a permit must be obtained from the Texas Water Quality Board, and a fee of $25 must accompany the application. A permit for drilling of an injection well to be utilized for disposal of waste arising from the production of oil or gas must be obtained from the Railroad Commission of Texas. An application to the Board for a permit or waste-control order must be accompanied by a letter from the Railroad Commission of Texas stating that the well will not endanger any oil or gas resources. The Water Quality Board also is required to send copies of each application and subsequent waste-control order to the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas State Department of Health, and the Texas Water Well Drillers Board. The Act does not require a public hearing on the application, but the Board may hold public hearings if it is deemed in the public interest. The Board chose to hold public hearing and has adopted rules and regulations outlining the procedure. The technical staff of the Board reviews each application for completeness, and assures that the proposed project is properly designed and that the reservoir is capable of receiving the waste without undue pressure increase. The staff makes recommendations for approval or denial of the waste-control order. A waste-control order to drill an injection well may be granted by the Water Quality Board when it has been determined that this method of disposal has less effect on the environment than alternate methods of disposal, the well will not impair any existing rights, and that both groundwater and surface waters can be protected from pollution. The waste-control order contains provisions and requirements deemed necessary to protect fresh water. The staff of the Board observes certain phases of the well completion, certifies the project upon completion, and conducts periodic inspections. The permittee must submit periodic reports on the wellhead injection pressure, and the volume and quality of the waste injected. Penalties are provided, not to exceed $1,000 for each day of noncompliance with provisions of the permit. In cases of noncompliance, action may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction, and at the request of the Texas Water Quality Board, the Attorney General of Texas may institute and conduct a suit in the name of the State of Texas. End_of_Article - Last_Page 2086------------

Application of Industrial Dynamics Concepts to Decision Making in Environmental Management

Dynamic feedback modeling of the decision making processes of a California regional water quality board was carried out to study the interactions of the board with various groups having different vested interests in water quality and the impact of these interactions on achieved water quality. It is concluded that such models are useful for exploring the implications of alternative institutional arrangements, and some tentative recommendations are stated.