Agency Pollution Control Agency

Contractor United States Geological Survey

SWIFT Contract Number 17078

Project Name Lake of the Woods Water Quality & Quantity Monitor

Project Number (if applicable) {Empty}

Summarize purpose of the contract, including why it was necessary: In 2010, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) placed the Lake of the Woods (LOW) on the federal 303(d) list of impaired waters because of nutrient, eutrophication, and biological indicator impairments.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to conduct a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study of all listed, impaired waters. TMDL studies provide a calculation of the amount of pollutant a body of water can assimilate and still meet water-quality standards. In order to address the LOW nutrient impairment listing, the MPCA had to conduct a pre-TMDL study of existing conditions in LOW and selected tributaries in the U.S., concurrent with studies in Canada. The data collected in the pre-TMDL study would be used to develop and calibrate a lake model that would lead to a better of understanding of the sources of nutrients and the dynamics of LOW nutrient processing, which will aid in targeting nutrient load reductions to bring LOW into compliance with water-quality standards.

The first phase (project addressed under this contract/agreement), of the pre-TMDL study, involved intensive water-quality monitoring of the lake and major U.S. tributaries, as well as measurements of streamflows into and out of the lake.

The contract/agreement required USGS to:

(1) Collect water-quality samples and gauge streamflow near the mouths of the Rainy and Warroad Rivers during the open water season of 2010, as part of the Nutrient-Sediment Loading Study, Phase I. Streamgauging would continue during the open-water season of 2011 to better develop index-velocity/discharge relations;
(2) Collect water-quality samples at 10 sites in LOW during the open-water season of 2010, as part of the In-Lake Nutrient Study, Phase I; and
(3) Measure streamflow velocities and cross-sectional areas of 5 channel constrictions in LOW, as part of the Big Traverse Outlet Hydrology Study, Phase I., if velocities are sufficient. Channel locations near the Northwest Angle are Tug Channel, Canadian Channel, Sturgeon Channel, Flag Island Channel, and NW Angle Flowage.

Project Duration

Start Date Sun, 09/19/2010 - 00:00

Original end date Mon, 04/30/2012 - 00:00

Actual end date Mon, 04/30/2012 - 00:00

Did project finish on time? Yes

Total billable hours utilized (if applicable) {Empty}

Contract Amounts

Original contract: $796400.00

Amendments {Empty}

Contract total $796400.00

Did project finish within budget? Yes

What was the funding source? 2302 R3237111 R32W111 411310

Is this a sole source contract? Yes

If this was a single source contract, explain why the agency determined there was only a single source for the services (if applicable) USGS has the expertise and the equipment (Acoustic Doppler Velocity Profilers (ADVP)) to conduct streamflow velocity readings at cross-sectional areas of channels as large as the ones being addressed in this study. In addition to the ADVP expertise, the USGS can provide expertise in measuring and gauging streamflow at hydrologically complex rivers and lake channels affected by variable backwater. The USGS can also provide staff with expertise and equipment for the large lake sampling needed to complete this portion of the pre-TMDL study. An efficiency is achieved by having USGS conduct the lake and river sampling and monitoring in conjunction with semi-monthly ADVP data collection and maintenance activities.

No other governmental unit in Minnesota stated that they had the expertise and squipment to conduct the ADVP study of the five outflow channels. While other governmental units could provide lake and river sampling and monitoring, an efficienct is achieved by having USGS conduct the lake and river sampling and monitoring in conjunction with the semi-monthly ADVP data collection and maintenance activities.

Evaluator Name Cary Hernandez

Evaluator Email Address cary.hernandez@state.mn.us

Evaluate the contractor's timeliness All deliverables were received on time, and the contractor had excellent schedule maintenance.

Evaluate the contractor's quality The contractor accomplished all of the contract goals, and provided excellent data and reports.

Evaluate the contractor's cost The contractor stayed with in the allotted budget. The MPCA received the final invoice before all deliverables had been received. The MPCA delayed payment before all deliverables were in.

Evaluate the contractor's overall performance Contractor performed as expected and satisfied all requirements of the contract.

Would you engage the contractor's services again? Yes

Describe any negative action taken during the duration of this contract (i.e., termination, pursuit of suspension, etc.): {Empty}

Please rate the overall experience with the contractor 5 - very satisfied