Water Quality Task Force Meeting
Meeting Summary
Participants
|
Gregg Good |
|
|
Matt Short |
|
|
Roy Smogor |
|
|
Marcia Willhite |
|
|
John Olson |
|
|
Tom Wilton |
|
|
Will Bouchard |
|
|
Marvin Hora |
Minnesota PCA |
|
Mohsen Dkhili |
Missouri DNR |
|
Jim Baumann (1) |
|
|
John Sullivan |
|
|
Bill Franz |
|
|
Larry Shepard |
|
|
Shannan Garretson |
|
|
Chris Yoder |
Midwest Biodiversity
Institute |
|
Peg Donnelly |
UMRBA/US EPA Region 5 |
|
Dave Hokanson |
UMRBA |
|
Nat
Kale |
UMRBA |
(1) Participated by phone.
Call to Order and Introductions
The meeting of the Water
Quality Task Force (WQTF) was called to order at
Corrections to Previous Meeting Summary
Dave Hokanson asked whether
there were any corrections to the summary of the January 2010 WQTF
meeting. No corrections were
requested.
(Note:
Several corrections were provided by John Olson following the May
meeting and were incorporated into the final version of the January 2010
meeting summary as posted on the UMRBA website at www.umrba.org/meetings/wqtf-summaries/wqtf1-10.htm.)
Interstate 305(b) Assessment and 303(d)
Listing Consultation
Marvin Hora said that
John Sullivan said that
John Olson said that
Good said that US EPA’s final
and complete approval of
Matt Short passed out a
summary of
Dkhili said that there are
not any UMR listings on
US EPA Region 7
Shepard reported that Region
7 is developing a TMDL to address
US EPA Region 5
Bill
Franz said he did not have any other comments to offer from the Region 5
perspective.
Draft Arsenic TMDL
Olson gave background
information on the draft arsenic TMDL developed by US EPA Region 7 and currently
out for public comment. Olson explained
that
Hora said that, from
Marcia Willhite stated that
the WQEC had also discussed the draft TMDL during a recent conference call and identified
the issues mentioned by Olson and Hora, including the concern regarding a zero
waste load allocation. She said that Art
Spratlin (Region 7 Water Division Director) had indicated that Region 7 would
be checking with plaintiffs in the Sailors
case to determine whether they view the consent decree as extending to the UMR
arsenic issue. Willhite emphasized the
situation is a “poster child” for the issue of disparate criteria among the UMR
states, and that it also highlights the shortcomings of the TMDL process
generally. She said she hoped that
Region 7 would delay going forward with the TMDL and allow time to explore
arsenic criteria and other issues raised by the TMDL.
Shannan Garretson asked
whether there were any reports of illness associated with the levels of arsenic
present. Olson said that he was not
aware of any.
Short said it is possible to
speciate in arsenic analysis and measure just arsenic (III), but that the
In response to a question
from Shepard, Olson said that
Hokanson said that the WQEC,
in its conference call the preceding Friday, had expressed interest in
developing a join state comment letter through UMRBA. He said UMRBA staff will draft a comment
letter for review and approval by the UMRBA Board and WQEC. The WQTF will also have an opportunity to
provide input on the draft.
Hora reported that a
site-specific total suspended solids (TSS) standard of 32 mg/l for the “South
Metro Mississippi River” (Pools 2, 3 and Upper Pool 4) is currently out for
public comment. He indicated that comments
received so far have been positive and that the proposal will go to the MPCA
Citizens’ Board for approval on June 22.
Hora said that, if approved by the Citizens’ Board, the proposal would
then go to US EPA in late June for review.
In regard to nutrients and
eutrophication, Hora said that MPCA will not be pursuing a site-specific
standard for the
Other Agency and Organization Updates
Good said Illinois EPA had
purchased a new
Good said Illinois EPA is
working with the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies (IAWA) on a
statewide tiered aquatic life use (TALU) approach in response to a proposal
from IAWA. He noted that this process
will include meetings with members of the environmental community.
Good commented that
Good also noted the ongoing
concern regarding the potential entry of Asian carp into
Hora said
Hora stated that newer data
confirmed the PFC impairment for Pool 2 of the UMR, and that these more recent
data showed levels similar to earlier rounds of monitoring. He also noted that, for one urban lake in the
Twin Cities area, a single metal plating facility was determined to be the
source of elevated PFC concentrations.
He added that one problem MPCA has encountered in PFC sampling is
compounds coming out of solution.
Olson said
Olson noted that
Dkhili said
Dkhili reported that
Dkhili commented that Dale
Robertson of USGS had requested nutrient point source data for facilities in
Hokanson asked whether there
was any update regarding whole body contact use designation for the UMR in the
US EPA Region 5
Franz reported that Susan
Hedman has been appointed Regional Administrator for US EPA Region 5. He also noted that Region 5 is paying close
attention to the impacts of the BP oil spill in the
US EPA Region 7
No further comments were
offered from US EPA Region 7.
Garretson mentioned the
Collaborative has several reports available addressing state water quality
standards as they apply to the
Short gave a brief report on
the Spring 2010 meeting of the Water Quality Technical Section (WQTS) and noted
that John Sullivan is now the Chair of the WQTS. He also explained that the WQTS is carrying
out an effort to catalog water quality data sources for the UMR. Short said that this is not intended to be a
compilation of the data itself, but rather a comprehensive listing of UMR data
sources and contacts.
UMR Aquatic
Life Designated Uses Project
Peg Donnelly presented an
update on the UMR aquatic life designated uses project, including a review of
her summary of Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) water quality data
and her synthesis LTRMP and related reports dealing with fisheries.
Temperature
Dkhili asked whether any of
the states would list a water body as impaired based on temperature. Olson replied that
Dissolved Oxygen
Dkhili asked what the
frequency was for the collection of dissolved oxygen (DO) data. Donnelly replied that measurements were once
a day. She asked the group whether a
10% exceedance was typically used to determine impairment. Short said that, for
Conductivity
Donnelly observed that,
although the WQTF selected conductivity as one of the parameters to examine, it
is difficult to draw conclusions from the data because there are no applicable
water quality criteria to use for comparison.
pH
Dkhili asked what a typical
criterion for pH is. Donnelly responded
that a typical maximum level criterion for pH is 9. Good asked whether a pH level above 9 would
be indicative of a nutrient impairment.
Sullivan responded that it would be a contributing factor in a nutrient
impairment. Will Bouchard commented that
there needs to be both the presence of elevated nutrients plus a response
(e.g., pH, DO flux) in order to identify a nutrient impairment.
Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids
Sullivan commented that the
UMRCC’s recommendations for turbidity could be applied as far down the UMR as
Pool 13. He added that
Chlorophyll-a
Olson commented that, while
there is no applicable water quality criterion, problems with chlorophyll-a are
observed when levels of approximately 30 μg/l are reached. Good said that he is not sure why the data
show chlorophyll concentrations dropping on the lower impounded and open river,
unless turbidity is limiting light availability in these reaches of the
river. Sullivan encouraged Donnelly to
check on the methods used of chlorophyll-a measurements (fluorometric vs.
spectrophotometric), adding that it was possible that differences between
strata and pools could be attributed to differences in analysis method. Donnelly indicated that she would check on
this.
Nitrogen
Hora commented that, since
nitrogen is not typically limiting in the UMR, it is unlikely that any of the
UMR states would propose nitrogen criteria to address eutrophication.
Phosphorous
Donnelly said that she had
used
Trends in Water Quality Data
Good asked Donnelly if, based
on her work with the LTRMP water quality data, she sees any significant
differences among strata. Sullivan
observed that the important variations seemed to be taking place in the
backwaters. Donnelly said that the three
areas where lateral differences appeared strongest were: 1) DO, 2) TSS, and 3)
nutrient-related parameters. She added
that longitudinal differences were more common, with a number of parameters
exhibiting longitudinal patterns.
Synthesis of Fisheries Reports
Donnelly next began an overview
of the fish-specific LTRMP and LTRMP-related reports she had examined. Smogor observed that the literature suggests
it is significant when habitat explains more than 20% of the variation in fish
assemblage data.
Sullivan asked Donnelly if
she sees a need for different aquatic life uses in different parts of the
river, based on her review of fisheries data thus far. Donnelly responded that longitudinal
differences were most prominent. She
also noted that differences in lateral strata are of varying significance,
depending on species/guild and life stage. She said that some major
distinctions (e.g., upper vs. lower impounded, channel vs. off channel) are
emerging, but that there are some significant limitations in the data,
particularly when viewed from the perspective of having data available in all
13 assessment reaches.
As Donnelly was not able
complete presenting her LTRMP report synthesis during the time available, Good
suggested that she circulate her presentation to the WQTF for review and then
schedule a conference to facilitate any further discussion. All agreed to this proposal.
Recognition of Marvin Hora
The WQTF recognized the
contributions of Marvin Hora of MPCA to the WQTF. Good thanked Hora for his service as past Chair
of the WQTF and congratulated him on his upcoming retirement.
CWA Programs
and the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP)
Hokanson said he has updated
his summary document of how the states’ CWA programs use LTRMP data and will
circulate the updated version to the WQTF members for review. He said he will then revise the document
based on review comments prior to the WQTF’s next meeting.
Nutrient and
Jim Baumann reminded the WQTF
that several environmental groups filed a notice of intent to sue with US EPA
in November 2009, claiming that EPA had failed to ensure that Wisconsin had
numeric nutrient criteria in place for nitrogen and phosphorous. He reported that Wisconsin DNR just received
a letter from US EPA indicating that, if WI
In response to a question
from Dkhili, Baumann said US EPA’s letter only addressed phosphorous and did
not reference nitrogen. Good asked
whether WI
Baumann next described
1)
2)
More money needs to be invested in both point and
nonpoint source controls.
3)
Point sources should not be required to implement
further controls until nonpoint sources are more thoroughly addressed.
Baumann observed that these
comments really can not be addressed via the administrative rules process,
under which the phosphorous criteria are being established.
Baumann said that the rule
proposal will go before the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board in June
2010. If approved, the rule would go to
the Legislature for required legislative review. He said that WI DNR hoped to complete the
entire process before the end of Governor Doyle’s term in early January
2011.
Good asked Baumann what
nonpoint source pollution performance standards and prohibitions might be
included. Baumann replied that a
phosphorous index is being considered, along with TMDL-specific performance
standards. Dkhili asked whether this
might mean that a TMDL requirement would trump the standard. Baumann confirmed that this could happen –
i.e., a TMDL could impose a more stringent standard. Dkhili asked if assessments would still be
done based on the criteria. Baumann
replied that the assessment would still be based on the criteria.
Hokanson asked Baumann to
comment on the status of
State Reports Regarding Nutrient Criteria Development
Willhite said
Dkhili reported that
As he had mentioned earlier,
Olson said
Hora stated that
Smogor asked Hora and
Willhite to clarify their conversation in regard to response variables. They responded by explaining that criteria
approaches should include not only a pollutant level for the criterion but also
a way to link that level to observed response.
Smogor replied that finding the response would seem to be the hard
part. Willhite concurred, saying that
this is especially challenging when “high” levels of nutrients do not appear to
be triggering a response in particular waterbodies.
US
Franz said that US EPA’s
proposed Mississippi River Basin Initiative is part of the President’s FY 11
budget. With Congress yet to act on FY
11 appropriations, it is unknown whether the initiative will remain in the
agency’s final budget. He explained that
the funding would be used in Regions 5 and 7 to support grants and 15 FTEs with
the effort designed to complement USDA’s Mississippi River Basin Healthy
Watersheds Initiative (MRBI).
US EPA National Nutrient Criteria Development Strategy
In regard to the Mississippi
River, Franz said that US EPA is considering a “working up” approach, meaning
focus on criteria would start at the
604(b) Project Discussion: Task 2 (Nutrients)
Hokanson reviewed the content
of Task 2 of the 604(b) project, which is focused on nutrients, and asked WQTF
members for their feedback and further thoughts as Nat Kale begins his work on
this project element. Hora suggested
that it may be useful to incorporate a summary of the states’ current work on
nutrient criteria into the report. Franz
suggested that the report address the effect of nutrient criteria on wastewater
treatment plants. Hora said that
Good encouraged the WQTF to
focus on the five components of the project report described in the 604(b)
proposal, which are:
1)
A
compilation/synthesis of existing UMR mainstem
nutrient data for key parameters, likely including – but not limited to –
phosphorus, nitrogen, and chlorophyll-a.
2)
A
compilation/synthesis of existing UMR tributary
nutrient data for key parameters, likely including – but not limited to –
phosphorus, nitrogen, and chlorophyll-a.
3)
Based on the data
compilation/synthesis, a discussion of trends in nutrient levels in the UMR
mainstem and in UMR tributaries over time.
4)
A
compilation/synthesis of reported impacts to aquatic life and other designated
uses occurring on the UMR mainstem, and nutrient levels associated with these
impacts.
5)
Recommendations
for enhanced/improved nutrient monitoring on the UMR and its tributaries, based
on the review of nutrient levels and reported impacts.
Good said he believes these
five report components have value, and he is not sure how the suggestions by
Hora and Franz fit into the report’s framework.
Willhite concurred, saying that the items laid out in the proposal
seemed most foundational and important to address.
Sullivan said that, of all the
proposed report components, he believes that # 4 (compilation and synthesis of
impacts) is the most important and meaningful.
He encouraged work to begin with this component. Sullivan also noted that many analyses of UMR
and tributary nutrients data have already been completed. He urged that the WQTF report focus on
synthesizing information which has already been compiled. Good commented that the important thing is
for the topics to be covered, whether through original analysis or synthesis of
work already completed.
Franz suggested that Kale
communicate with Robertson of USGS to benefit from work already completed in
support of the SPARROW model. Willhite
suggested that Kale communicate with ORSANCO in regard to its work to examine
causes and effects related to nutrients.
Garretson encouraged the WQTF to work with the Mississippi River
Collaborative throughout the process.
The meeting adjourned at