Water Quality Task Force Meeting
Meeting Summary
Participants
|
Gregg Good |
|
|
Roy Smogor |
|
|
John Olson |
|
|
Tom Wilton |
|
|
Will Bouchard |
|
|
Shannon Lotthammer |
Minnesota PCA |
|
Mohsen Dkhili |
Missouri DNR |
|
Bill Franz |
US EPA, Region 5 |
|
Chris Yoder |
Midwest Biodiversity Institute |
|
Peg Donnelly |
UMRBA/US EPA, Region 5 |
|
Dave Hokanson |
UMRBA |
|
Nat Kale |
UMRBA |
|
Barb Naramore |
UMRBA |
Call to Order and Introductions
The meeting of the UMRBA 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
Interstate 305(b) Assessment and 303(d)
Listing Consultation
Hokanson distributed updated 2008-2010
UMR impaired waters and approved TMDL comparison chart, noting that preliminary
information on
Good said that
Shannon Lotthammer said that
Hokanson said that while Wisconsin
John Olson reported that US
EPA Region 7 had approved
Hokanson asked why
Olson added that a TMDL to
address the localized nutrient “slime” impairment on UMR Reach 7 has been
approved. Smogor asked whether the
“slime” impairment was related to a particular compound. Olson replied that it was not necessarily a
particular compound, but rather the outcome from processes used at the ADM
plant at this location.
Dkhili reported that
Dkhili explained that the
localized lead and zinc impairment at
Dkhili also noted that
Hokanson provided brief
comments on behalf of US EPA Region 7, which had been forwarded to him by Larry
Shepard. These included a summary of
Discussion
Peg Donnelly asked about
Olson said that Iowa
UMR TMDL Updates
Lotthammer reported that the
site-specific total suspended solids (TSS) standard of 32 mg/l for the “South
Metro Mississippi River” (Pools 2, 3 and Upper Pool 4) was approved by the MPCA
Citizens’ Board on
Lotthammer said that MPCA
also continues to work on riverine nutrient standards, though these are not
specific to the Lake Pepin TMDL per se. She
reported that technical support documents for these standards are currently
being reviewed at US EPA Region 5.
Dkhili asked Lotthammer to further describe the details of MPCA’s
approach. Lotthammer replied that it
includes a focus on phosphorus, as well as response variables including
chlorophyll-a, dissolved oxygen flux, and biological oxygen demand. She added that a nitrate toxicity standard is
also included in
In regard to the phosphorus
standard, Dkhili asked whether a reference condition would be used. Lotthammer replied that reference condition
was considered, but several other factors were part of the standard development. Dkhili further asked how backwaters would be
addressed under this approach.
Lotthammer replied that this would be considered in future implementation.
Tom Wilton asked if there was
a stream size threshold for the applicability of the standards. Will Bouchard replied that there is no cutoff
in applicability due to stream size.
Good asked if it was the case that the phosphorus standard would only
apply if response variables indicated a problem. Lotthammer replied that this was correct.
Chris Yoder observed that US
EPA Regions have been comfortable with approaches similar to what
Good asked why total nitrogen
was not addressed in
Dkhili asked whether a single
response variable could trigger a nutrient exceedance under
Dkhili described the current
draft TMDL to address elevated lead and zinc levels near
Dkhili explained
Dkhili continued by
describing the watershed in which the impairment is identified and the land use
within this watershed. He also reviewed
the data used and methodology employed in development of the TMDL, including
the use of load duration curves. Dkhili
explained that all loads in the TMDL are attributed to waste load allocation,
as the TMDL assumes no natural background lead or zinc concentrations. He added that the margin of safety for the
TMDL is implicit, and incorporates a conservative approach in its
assumptions.
Dkhili said that US EPA and Doe
Run, the smelter’s owner, have a consent decree in place and are looking at
ways to reduce pollution, including revisions to the NPDES permit for the
facility. He noted that the 2010 CWA assessment
of water quality data does not identify impairment and that as a result the
segment may be delisted. Dkhili also
displayed estimated outfall reductions for proposed permit conditions.
Lotthammer asked why it
appears that an increase in lead is actually allowed at one of the
outfalls. Hokanson asked if this might
be the case because discharge at another outfall was being completely
eliminated.
Hokanson asked whether the
current lack of impairment was due to a change in observed values, or due to a
change in calculations. Dkhili replied
that it is due to change in observed values.
Good asked whether the permit numbers will still apply without a current
impairment listing. Dkhili answered that
both the TMDL and the revised permit requirements would still apply. He added that US EPA is working with Doe Run
to ensure that levels will be reduced to meet, or even be below, what is required
by the TMDL.
Olson said that US EPA Region
7 has decided not to finalize the draft arsenic TMDL for two segments of the
UMR in
Olson said that the arsenic
impairments will stay on
Hokanson noted that the WQTF
meeting packet included UMRBA’s comment letter on the draft TMDL, which had
pointed out a number of technical issues with the TMDL and urged US EPA not to
purse the TMDL and rather to engage in cross-agency dialog. Olson thanked UMRBA for sending the letter
and said that it may have been influential in US EPA’s decision. He also asked
if UMRBA staff knew how the letter had been received by US EPA.
Hokanson noted that comment
letters had also been submitted by other states, including
Hokanson noted that US EPA’s
response letter leaves open the potential to pursue the TMDL in the
future. He added that the WQEC has
continued to discuss some of the issues that were raised because of this TMDL
and has developed a plan for conversations to explore these issues over the
next 2-3 months. He noted that a
description of this effort is included in the WQTF meeting packet and added
that 604(b) cross-programmatic workshop could potentially be another way to
further explore these issues.
Other Agency and Organization Updates
Good reported that Illinois
EPA is spending quite a bit of time on nutrient issues and on 2008 and 2010
impairment listings, including responding to US EPA Region 5’s questions
regarding the 2008 list. He said there
is also substantial time being invested into tiered aquatic life use (TALU)
development, including engagement with Illinois DNR and wastewater utilities
regarding T
Lotthammer echoed Good’s
remarks, saying funding constraints continue to affect MPCA’s programs. She said that MPCA continues to make progress
on TALU development statewide and is currently developing indices of biotic
integrity (IBIs) for cold water streams.
Lotthammer said that MPCA’s triennial standards review will include
replacing the existing turbidity standard with a TSS standard, where the TSS
number will be adjusted for different regions of the state and different types
of streams. Will Bouchard further
explained that exceeding the standard more than 10% of the time will constitute
a violation. Smogor asked whether the standard
makes a link to aquatic life response.
Bouchard replied that it does, that there is a causal association and
that multiple lines of evidence will be considered.
In regard to 303(d) listing
issues, Olson said that he proposed not using a single sample bacteria maximum
for listing, as US EPA had said in a 2006 guidance document that a geometric
mean should be used. He stated that, to
date, US EPA Region 7 has not agreed with the geometric mean approach, but that
he intended to continue investigating this possibility. Lotthammer and Smogor commented that
single-sample exceedances tend to be the trigger for the majority of impairment
listings. With regard to chronic criteria for toxics, Olson noted that US EPA
has indicated that it may no longer allow use of a threshold of 10% of values
above the criteria before an impairment is identified. Smogor commented that
Olson said that Iowa
Dkhili reported that Missouri
Dkhili said that Missouri
In regard to bacteria
criteria, Dkhili said that
Franz said that US EPA will
be asking states to include nutrient data collection as part of permit renewals
and that the agency is moving toward technology-based limits for
nutrients. Naramore asked which
constituents would be subject to the monitoring requirements. Franz responded that it would be for N and
P.
Franz mentioned the SPARROW
model webinar that had been held the preceding week and said that Dale Robertson
would now be focused on SPARROW modeling of nutrient loading at the 12-digit
HUC level. Franz said that a decision
support system (DSS) based on SPARROW was also in development and that this DSS
should be available in about one year and will allow for manipulation of land
use within the model. He said that
another SPARROW webinar would take place soon, likely in January 2011.
Smogor asked what the Gulf
endpoint goal for nutrient reduction is.
Franz said that the goal has been established by the Hypoxia Task Force
as a 45% reduction in N and P from 2005 levels, in order help reduce the size
of the hypoxic zone. Smogor asked if
there is any legal requirement forcing the attainment of these reductions. Franz said that there is currently no legal
requirement, though the establishment of a TMDL could create such a legal
mandate. Donnelly said that an Executive
Order, as had been done for the Chesapeake Bay, is another tool that could be
used to establish a legal requirement, although that did not appear likely in
the near term for the
Good reported on the Nutrient
Summit held by Illinois EPA on
Good also said that Illinois
EPA’s work on nutrients has not been demonstrating strong correlations between
nutrient levels and impacts, though US EPA
has been strongly hinting that a particular range of total nitrogen
levels should be established in state water quality standards.
Hokanson said that he and Nat
Kale had spoken with Jim Baumann regarding
Hokanson said that the rule
including this criterion has completed legislative review and that only
procedural steps, including the establishment of an effective date, remained
and that no substantive changes were expected.
He reported that Baumann had said one consideration in setting an
effective date is to try and synchronize it with permit renewals, as well as
the possibility for a gap time between state implementation and US EPA
approval. Donnelly said it was unlikely
that a state would go ahead with permits until US EPA had approved the
standards. Hokanson said that his
understanding from Baumann was that the rules had not yet been submitted to US
EPA for approval.
Olson said that John Sullivan
is the new chair of the WQTS and that the WQTF will next meet
Aquatic Life Designated Uses (ALDU)
Project
Donnelly reviewed the
timeline for the completion of the ALDU project report, noting that the revised
draft of the report would be provided to the WQTF in December 2010 for
discussion at the January 2011 WQTF meeting, and that the report would be
finalized by the end of the intergovernmental personnel agreement in February
2011.
Donnelly next gave an
overview of the components of the draft project report, which had been sent out
to the WQTF for review prior to the meeting.
Donnelly emphasized that one area where the states’ review was needed
was in the portrayal of their existing uses, criteria, and assessment
methodologies in Chapter 2 of the draft report.
Hokanson and Donnelly noted
that they were unsure whether to include fish consumption as part of Table 2-9
summarizing the attainment of the aquatic life use on the UMR, as it appears
that some states may include fish consumption as part of their aquatic life
use. Good said that
Hokanson asked Olson whether
it would be acceptable to send his comments on the draft report along to the
full WQTF. Olson said that this would be
fine. Naramore encouraged the WQTF to
use “reply all” when making comments, so that all members could benefit from
the input. Donnelly indicated that this
was essentially a “last call” for comments on Chapters 1-3 of the report.
Donnelly said that Chapter 4
gives a summary of data and literature reviewed and that much of it had been
previously communicated to the WQTF, but it is now compiled and internal
summaries are provided. She noted that
the discussions address longitudinal, lateral, and temporal variation.
Donnelly distributed a
summary of EMAP data and acknowledged that the “above or below” language used
here and in Chapter 4 to compare data to threshold values is not ideal, but
that it did not seem appropriate to use the term “violation” in the context of
this data analysis. Good asked what
values had been used for the comparisons.
Donnelly replied that in some cases these are existing or proposed
criteria, while in other cases they are recommended values. Olson suggested adding language to qualify
any discussion about violations. Smogor
suggested using the terms “met” and “not met.”
Lotthammer proposed removing
the comparison from a regulatory context entirely, and placing more emphasis on
identifying where there are differences in observed values, rather than
comparison to standards. She added that
comparisons to single values may imply a consistency that doesn’t actually
exist on the UMR. Dkhili concurred,
suggesting that a statistical analysis of differences would be a more
appropriate approach than the threshold comparisons, and that standards should
not yet be part of the discussion.
Naramore suggested that
perhaps table notes are needed that explain the origin of the thresholds used
for comparison. Hokanson suggested it
might useful to simply have a separate table explaining the threshold values
selected. He recalled that one of
Baumann comments on the report was that it needed to be more compelling in
regard to “what are we trying to fix” and that the comparison to threshold
values can help demonstrate what Baumann had described as areas of potential
over- or under- regulation of the UMR’s water quality. Therefore, Hokanson said, a primary value of
retaining the threshold comparisons is in the problem definition, though he
agreed that statistical analysis of data may be more important in developing
solutions.
Olson said that he favored the
idea of having a separate table to describe the threshold values used. He also supported the use of alternate
language to describe the threshold comparisons. Donnelly said that part of her uncertainty was
in selecting threshold values to use (e.g., should temperature be 30° C or 31°
C?). Hokanson emphasized that, since the
numbers were just being used for comparative purposes, any reasonable choice
could be employed, as long as it is appropriately explained.
Lotthammer reiterated that
the report should not seek to be an assessment and, as such, there was not
great benefit to the threshold comparisons.
Donnelly pointed out that an additional problem is the interrelationship
between variables, so that the value of single-parameter comparisons may be
limited.
Smogor said that, in regard
to the EMAP data summary tables, if the point is just to illustrate
variability, it is not necessary to “color in” the highest and lowest values in
order to observe longitudinal variation.
Donnelly replied that the EMAP tables are the first data set that gets
all 13 assessment reaches. She said her
goal in assembling the tables was to illustrate where there may be breaks
between assessment reaches; where the UMR should potentially be treated differently
under the CWA. Donnelly said that one of
her goals is to give the WQTF enough information to make an informed decision
and to highlight longitudinal variation.
Smogor reiterated that if the goal is to show longitudinal variation,
the colored areas on the chart aren’t needed. Donnelly replied that the coloring helps to highlight
“clumps” or breakpoints in the data.
Bouchard requested that the
data be portrayed in graphs with box plots.
Donnelly said that this could be done, though graphs have previously
been provided to the WQTF and that US EPA would want to see “numbers” to
justify decisions.
Good asked Donnelly and
Hokanson what they needed to keep moving forward on the project. Hokanson replied that the report has gone as
far as summarizing available data and that staff need input on the ideas in
Chapter 5 regarding which option(s) the WQTF would like staff to investigate
further.
Olson said he didn’t think
that the WQTF was as far off track as the discussion might suggest. He said that the report has looked at both
lateral and longitudinal differences, and that we need to know if the UMR
states should modify their aquatic life uses to measure off channel areas.
Dkhili commented that the
group should not be limited by what is done under current assessment approaches
and that the data should inform decisions about where breakpoints should
be. He also said that a more specific
focus, such as concentrating on aquatic life use in the main channel in the
near term, may facilitate progress.
Donnelly recalled comments
made by Sullivan that the observation of differing water quality in backwaters
indicate a need for different uses to be assigned in protecting backwater
areas. She said that other national
programs have made distinctions based on longitudinal and lateral variations,
and that the project is going in this direction, but added that she needed
input from the WQTF in how to proceed.
Good said that is important that clear recommendations be made in the
report.
Donnelly replied that the
states need to realize that they will likely need to live with any recommendations
that come out of the report, and as such feedback from the WQTF at this point
is important. She asked that the WQTF
review the report over the next few weeks and provide feedback. Donnelly also offered that a longitudinal
division into 13 separate segments was not something she would recommend. Good concurred that division into 13 was not
a desirable outcome. Donnelly observed
that choices could be made both on what is emergent in the data and on
approaches being taken in other programs, such as the geomorphic reaches used
in restoration planning. Hokanson said
that the type of feedback Good had provided (i.e., there is not interest in
looking at 13 separate longitudinal classifications) is helpful as staff does
not need to spend a lot of time looking at options that the WQTF will not
ultimately support.
Bouchard said he is actually
more interested in programmatic differences, such as how different the use
definitions are between states and if states will need to work to bring assessments
in line with each other. Donnelly
observed that there is little point in putting out new uses if there is not an
accompanying assessment methodology and criteria in place to determine
attainment of the use. She added that a
next logical step is a monitoring program and that all the components – use,
criteria, monitoring, and assessment – will need to match up.
Bouchard asked if the current
aquatic life uses in the states are very different. Donnelly replied that none are extremely
specific about what aquatic life use attainment means. Lotthammer said that many of these use
definitions were written before we had the tools to actually measure and
characterize aquatic life. She suggested
perhaps thinking about the project more iteratively, with a need to periodically
revisit use definitions.
Olson said that the report
needs to provide the rationale and justification for identifying distinctions
laterally and longitudinally as its main focus, providing the basis for future
work. He said that he thought the
project is headed in the right direction.
Donnelly stated that the group
has done a good job of defining the project, and that there are some
similarities in the comments made during the discussion. She asked the WQTF to look through the report
in detail, beyond the summaries. She
noted that one of Baumann’s comments indicated that classifying for lateral
diversity may not be necessary, as this not typically done for different
portions of Wisconsin lakes. Therefore,
she emphasized a need to be clear in stating why the WQTF might see a need to
protect certain areas, such as backwaters, in a unique fashion.
Smogor said that he thought
that the reason Yoder is looking at biological assessment in the main channel is
because the WQTF had already decided to focus its work on the main channel. Hokanson replied that the two projects are
related, but separate, as Yoder’s work is in response to a recognition that,
under any classification structure, there is a need to have better tools to
assess aquatic life attainment on the main channel. He continued by saying that the aquatic life
designated use project is concurrently better defining the aquatic classes
where tools such as bioassessment would be applied.
Good observed that it is
confusing to talk about “uses” when, to his understanding, what is really being
discussed is one aquatic life use, with subclasses for the impounded areas,
side channel areas, etc. Hokanson
replied that the question might then become not uses per se, but how the states
separate out subclasses within the aquatic life use and if they use the same
mechanism. Donnelly said that states use
different approaches to accomplish this.
Dkhili said that it is
possible for the use and the use’s name to be unchanged, but for accompanying criteria
to be different. Donnelly said that one
way to accommodate for diversity is just to change the criteria for each
“zone,” though in
Smogor asked whether the
Bouchard suggested that
Good suggested that one
appealing approach is to make distinctions between the upper and lower parts of
the UMR, and a distinction between the main channel, side channel, connected
backwater, and impounded areas – resulting in eight subtypes.
Franz said that from his
perspective the report is a good start, but also tells us we have a ways to go. He stated that it is clearly important to
recognize the diversity in the system and also to able to communicate the
choices made to the public. Franz added that we need to be careful that we
don’t convey that the upper UMR is “good” and the lower UMR is “bad,” but
rather that the ecosystems are different.
Smogor agreed, citing the example that people think that a natural swamp
is “worse” than a natural stream.
Dkhili said that it is
important to not let current criteria or methodology cloud the WQTF’s thinking
in coming up with breaks on the river. He
suggested running a statistical model to come up with how to break things up
longitudinally. Dkhili added that
dealing with multiple lateral classes might be overwhelming at this point. He suggested maintaining focus on aquatic
life use in the main channel at this time, and then eventually expanding out to
other aquatic areas and other uses (e.g., human health).
Good said that he was not
sure exactly what types of comments to get back to Donnelly. Franz suggested sending in any comments to
Donnelly and Hokanson, then determining whether a conference call might be
needed. Naramore suggested that comments
on the report be sent in by
Nutrient and
Missouri’s Implementation of the
Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds Initiative (MRBI)
Dkhili provided an update on
Dkhili
reviewed the primary objectives of MRBI, which are to help producers
voluntarily implement conservation practices that:
§
Avoid, control,
and trap nutrient runoff,
§
Improve wildlife
habitat, and
§
Maintain
agricultural productivity.
He further explained that the
MRBI is funded at a level of $80 million dollars in the years FY 2010 through
FY 2013, with funding being provided through three existing conservation
programs – the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), Wetlands
Reserve Enhancement Program (WREP), and Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG).
Dkhili said that monitoring and
evaluation under MRBI is to take place at three levels: 1) field scale/edge of
field, 2) small watershed scale (12-digit HUC), and 3) large watershed scale
(8-digit HUC).
In regard to
Dkhili described Missouri
Good asked how EOF monitoring
is proceeding. Dkhili replied that this
is a challenge for the program, noting that one landowner has engaged a
university to do monitoring, but that others are still looking for ways of
getting this done. Good asked whether a
quality assurance project plan (QAPP) is required for EOF monitoring. Dkhili replied that a QAPP is not required
and that it is not clear yet how EOF monitoring will play out in the program.
604(b)-Funded Nutrient Project
Kale gave an update on the
status of the 604(b)-funded nutrient project.
He reviewed the primary components of the project report and gave a
brief description of the status of each of these elements. Kale said that one of the immediate next
steps will be the distribution of a survey to UMR water suppliers and he provided
copies of the survey for review and feedback from the WQTF. He said that a draft report would be given to
the WQTF and other project participants in December, per the schedule in the
604(b) project work plan. Good asked
whether the data to be used in the report is UMR-specific. Kale replied that basin-wide data will be
included, but that UMR-specific information will pulled out from the basin-wide
data.
604(b)-Funded Cross-Programmatic
Workshops
Hokanson reminded the WQTF
that the 604(b) project included funding for two cross-programmatic workshops
to be completed by
Good offered that MRBI and
human health use/arsenic discussions could be potential topics. In regard to human health/arsenic issues,
Dkhili said that one of the considerations is how to handle background data, in
cases where it’s higher than the recommended/required concentrations. Good offered that revisiting ecosystem
restoration-Clean Water Act workshops could be an option. Franz suggested that emerging contaminants as
a potential topic.
Naramore said that other
topics could include collaboration with specific groups (e.g., NGOs, industry,
water suppliers) and nutrients, potentially including hypoxia and state
nutrient reduction plans. Franz
commented that US EPA will be holding workshops for states regarding nutrient
reduction plans. Good asked whether US
EPA would be providing funds for the development of state nutrient reduction
plans. Franz said that US EPA funds
would not be available. Naramore asked
whether the workshops would be state-based and Good asked who would be running
them. Franz replied that workshops would
be state-based and that Tom Davenport is leading the effort.
Next Steps
Hokanson
summarized two immediate action steps arising from the day’s discussions:
1) Comments on the draft aquatic life designated use
report are due by
2) Comments on the water suppliers’ survey are due by
Hokanson also mentioned that
the second work session for the UMR CWA Biological Assessment Guidance Document
project would be taking place over the next two days.
Adjournment
The WQTF meeting adjourned at