1 / 25

Wabash River Continuous Monitor

Wabash River Continuous Monitor. Agenda Item 7a. Project Goals. 1 year project. Budget of $98,000 Determine annual load of nutrients from Wabash River to Ohio River Evaluate the Wabash River as a possible cause of low dissolved oxygen in the Smithland Pool. Project Location. Parameters.

abeni
Download Presentation

Wabash River Continuous Monitor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wabash River Continuous Monitor Agenda Item 7a

  2. Project Goals • 1 year project. Budget of $98,000 • Determine annual load of nutrients from Wabash River to Ohio River • Evaluate the Wabash River as a possible cause of low dissolved oxygen in the Smithland Pool

  3. Project Location

  4. Parameters • Continuous monitor data downloaded 3/day • pH, conductivity, temp, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a • Nutrients collected every 2 weeks • Ammonia, TKN, Nitrate/Nitrite, Total Phosphorus, BOD, TSS, Algae, Chlorophyll • Ohio River samples collected during summer months • Data available on website

  5. Challenges • Previous 10 year gauge range of 2 to 22 feet. We experienced 45 days at 1 foot and 14 days at 23.5 feet. • Lightning • Damaged equipment caused loss of data in May/June. Nutrients samples still collected during this period.

  6. TN and TP vs. Flow

  7. Comparison to Ecoregion VI (corn belt) • Total Phosphorus • Max = 0.535 mg/L • Min = 0.029 mg/L • Avg = 0.165 mg/L • EPA Ecoregion VI • 0.0763 mg/L • Total Nitrogen • Max = 5.98 mg/L • Min = 1.023 mg/L • Avg = 2.536 mg/L • EPA Ecoregion VI • 2.18 mg/L

  8. Wabash River Nitrogen Data • Total Nitrogen • Max = 5.98 mg/L • Min = 1.023 mg/L • Avg = 2.536 mg/L

  9. Wabash River Nitrogen • TKN • Range of 0.407 – 2.48 mg/L • N/N • Range of <0.100 -4.57 mg/L • During low flow periods in September 2010 and 2011 nitrate/nitrite dropped below detection limit.

  10. Wabash River Nutrient Load • Annual TN load • 7/1/2010 to 6/30/2011 • 137,755 metric tons • Average Ohio River load (2001-2005) 533,000 metric tons • 25.8%

  11. Wabash River Nutrient Load • Annual TP load • 7/1/2010 to 6/30/2011 • 4,100 metric tons • Average Ohio River load (2001-2005) 57,000 metric tons • 7.2%

  12. Wabash River DO and Chl. a • Max DO = 16.75 mg/L • Min DO = 2.64 mg/L • # days < 5 mg/L average DO = 0 • # days < 4 mg/L instantaneous DO = 5 • # days of DO range >6 = 9

  13. Chlorophyll Comparison EPA Ecoregion VI criteria = 7.33 ug/L

  14. DO Comparison

  15. Wabash and Ohio Rivers Comparison

  16. BOD Comparison

  17. Future Activities • Data collection ended 9/30/2011 • Analytical results by 10/31/2011 • Grant ends April 4, 2012 • Load calculation • LOADEST (USGS model) • Other Suggestions? • Probable extension of project with 3 year, $200,000 grant through IDEM • Instrument left in place and operational in anticipation of extension

  18. POTW Nutrient Discharge

  19. In 2007 ORSANCO began asking major POTWs (>1mgd) to begin quarterly monitoring for TKN, Ammonia, Nitrate/Nitrite, Total Phosphorus • There are 65 major POTWs on the mainstem • We have retrieved data for 29 facilities from OTIS

  20. Facilities • IN • Charleston • Clarksville • Mt. Vernon • Oak Park • Tell City • KY • Derek Guthrie • Eastern Regional • Owensboro East • OH • Belpre • EORA • Ironton • Marietta • Muddy Creek • New Richmond • Portsmouth • South Point • Toronto • Union Rome

  21. Facilities (cont.) • PA • Aliquippa • Beaverborough • Montour Run • Riverview Authority • Vanport • WV • Huntington • New Martinsville • Parkersburg • Wheelin • Lubeck • Moundsville

  22. Concentration Range (mg/L)

  23. Future Activities • Applied for grant which will allow further investigation • What is the range by type of treatment? • What assumptions have been made in previous studies (concentration and flow)?

More Related