Water Quality Task Force
Call to Order and Introductions
The Water Quality Task Force (WQTF) meeting was called to order at by Jim Baumann, WQTF Chair. Introductions of all in attendance followed. Shannan Garretson commented on her role representing the McKnight Foundation’s Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative and gave a brief description of the Collaborative.
June 2008 Meeting Summary
Baumann asked if there were any comments or corrections on the notes from the June 2008 WQTF meeting. Mohsen Dkhili indicated that, on page 3 of the notes, the number of colony forming units (cfu) for the level “B” criterion should be 548 (rather than 546). He further noted that the level “B” classification was subsequently disapproved, so that in actuality the level “A” criteria (of 126 cfu) is applicable for all whole body contact use designations.
Outcomes of Clean Water Act-Ecosystem Restoration Workshops
Dave Hokanson reported on the outcomes of the April and June 2008 workshops, which brought together staff from Clean Water Act (CWA) and Ecosystem Restoration programs on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR), with the intent of exploring potential policy and practice interfaces between these two programs areas. He commented that the workshops were successful and that a final report had just been completed and distributed by the UMRBA.
Hokanson circulated a summary table displaying potential next steps in cross-program coordination that were identified at the workshops. Among these, he noted that the following may be of most interest to the WQTF, or may directly involve the WQTF:
§ Continue efforts to discuss, harmonize, and refine state CWA water quality standards applicable to the UMR (including designated uses and criteria), with input from ecosystem restoration staff.
§ Develop biological indicators for the UMR that serve both CWA and ecosystem restoration programs. (Hokanson mentioned that an interagency work group had already been formed to address this issue, and that its efforts would be described in more detail later in the day.)
§ Examine quality assurance and analytical methods requirements for CWA and restoration program sampling, analysis, and data management to identify opportunities for enhanced data sharing.
§ Coordinate monitoring schedules across programs/agencies/states to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancies.
§ Summarize and share US EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) data across programs.
Hokanson suggested that the WQTF consider this list of potential next steps, and then discuss them the following day to determine which possibilities the WQTF views as most promising.
Upcoming UMRBA Water Quality Executive Committee/Board Discussions
noted that the Water Quality Executive Committee (WQEC) will be meeting jointly
with the UMRBA Board in November at the Association’s quarterly meeting in
reported that the UMRBA had sent a letter on
§ The importance of state-led local water quality improvements to overall success.
§ The need to support and build upon existing interstate efforts, such as those taking place through the UMRBA.
§ The historic, cooperative relationship between the states and US EPA in implementing the CWA.
§ The ongoing work of the sub-basin teams, such as UMRSHNC, in addressing the hypoxia issue.
also distributed a summary of items from the FY 08 hypoxia “operating plan”
that may be of greatest interest to the WQTF.
Interagency Personnel Agreement with
Hokanson reported that UMRBA staff continue to work with US EPA Office of Water staff on implementing an interagency personnel agreement (IPA) under which the US EPA would provide staff support to the UMRBA for the designated use project and other WQTF work. He noted that the first attempt, which would have required US EPA staff to relocate to UMRBA did not attract qualified candidates. Hokanson explained that the position had been re-advertised to allow the individual to stay in their current work location and that applications had been received and would be examined soon.
Marvin Hora reported that work on the Lake Pepin TMDL was moving forward and that the following eutrophication goals were being considered as targets for work on the TMDL: 32 ug/l chlorophyll-a, 0.8 m Secchi depth, and 100 ug/l phosphorus. Hora added that Limnotech had completed modeling on Pools 1-4 and that initial goals for reduction being determined, with the indication that 20-50% load reductions would be needed for TMDL targets to be met.
John Sullivan commented on the recent Lake Pepin Technical Conference, noting that it was both well attended and well run. He highlighted that one of the new pieces of information presented at the conference was that the contribution of streambank erosion to overall sediment loading was greater than previously estimated, and therefore that off-field erosion was not as large a contributor as previously thought.
Baumann reported that Norman Senjem’s presentation at the June 2008 Clean Water Act-Ecosystem Restoration workshop had led to considerable discussion between Wisconsin DNR and Minnesota PCA staff regarding the selection and use of biological endpoints.
also commented that less than 10% of
Hokanson asked how the TMDL’s eutrophication goals, as mentioned by Hora, were to be understood – as criteria, as loads, or something else – in a regulatory sense. Baumann replied that both the biological goals and physical/chemical criteria could be used as measures of success, with a critical question being that of independent applicability—i.e., it still needs to be determined whether meeting one set of measures is sufficient or whether all must be met.
offered that the relationship between biological and chemical/physical targets
needs to be well understood, and targets set for the two kinds of metrics must
be consistent. He added that there is a
work group addressing this exact question--i.e., relating turbidity criteria to
the desired vegetative response. Hora commented that legal advice within MPCA
is that independent applicability applies here; thus both targets must be
met. Baumann suggested that
site-specific criteria for
Mohsen Dkhili suggested that situations may arise where the criterion for a specific parameter to support aquatic life may differ from the criterion for the same parameter that supports aquatic recreation. Hora replied that, in cases such as this, the most restrictive criterion becomes the goal. Dkhili acknowledged this point, but provided an example where meeting the clarity goal for recreational use appeared to result in a decline of fish populations for sport fishing. Sullivan commented that this situation could potentially occur for oligotrophic lakes, but was unlikely for eutrophic lakes. He also added that fishing success may not be the primary intent of an aquatic life use designation.
asked the group how the information and lessons learned from the
indicated that MPCA continues to work on issues related to pharmaceuticals, including
endocrine disruptors and personal care products. He commented that this continues to be a
major issue in
reported that MPCA is pursuing a proposal to the Legislative-Citizen Commission
on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) to establish a nitrogen budget for the
Hora also reported that the Minnesota Department of Agriculture had recently done pesticide analysis on 50 randomly selected lakes statewide and found broad distribution of atrazine in these samples, including remote areas such as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
Baumann asked how MPCA is approaching nitrate levels for the protection of the aquatic life use. Hora replied that a considerable amount of toxicology data is available for nitrate and therefore a defensible chronic toxicity value could likely be determined. But he acknowledged that potential economic impacts would likely be an issue. He also emphasized that MPCA is working closely with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture on the issue.
to the issue of pharmaceuticals, Hora noted the federal Drug Enforcement Agency
stipulates that certain controlled substances should be flushed down the
toilet, rather than thrown away. He
indicated that MPCA would generally prefer that these materials be landfilled,
but that the controlled substances regulations are a complicating factor. Franz added that a common practice in hospice
care is to flush any unused medications.
Hora indicated that facilities are to seek approval from waste water
treatment operators before flushing, but operators are reluctant to give such
approval. Sullivan commented that
Wisconsin DNR and
noted that he is completing work related to nutrient impairments of backwaters
on the UMR. Baumann reported on work
that Wisconsin DNR is doing for the lower Fox River and
distributed a handout which provided a written summary of
Fish Tissue Monitoring: Results of U.S. EPA’s Regional Ambient Fish
Tissue (RAFT) 2007 monitoring, which occurred at 3 sites on the UMR in
Nutrient Criteria: Olson also discussed
Cyanobacteria: A recent cyanobacteria bloom in the Lower
Raccoon River, the source of drinking water for the City of
asked Olson what percentage of
also reported that there would be legislatively mandated future rule making
efforts for widespread economic/social impact variances for many wastewater
treatment plants in
also noted that, although
asked whether the 500 UAAs completed by
provided a brief update on the status of
§ Level 1 Streams: March-July = 5 mg/l, August-February = 4 mg/l
§ Level 2 Streams: March-July = 5 mg/l, August-February = 3.5 mg/l
Short added that four distinct segments of the UMR have been classified as Level 1, and displayed these areas on a map. Sullivan asked whether these DO criteria are applied throughout the floodplain of the UMR, or just to the mainstem of the UMR. Short responded that the numeric criteria apply to the mainstem and that a narrative criterion is applicable to backwaters.
indicated that UMR listings for lead and zinc would be included in
also reported that there has been no final decision on a proposal to exclude a
28.3 mile stretch of the UMR in the greater
US EPA Update
2009-2014 Strategic Plan Update
Bill Franz reported that language regarding the UMR is currently included in the draft of US EPA’s 2009-2014 Strategic Plan.
US EPA’s Council of Large Aquatic Ecosystems
indicated that a meeting of US EPA’s Council of Large Aquatic Ecosystems will be
taking place on October 28th.
Tim Henry of Region 5 will attend as an “at large” member, as the
Franz commented that, generally, Region 5’s perspective on the UMR is to support the ongoing work of the states and the UMRBA. He observed that Region 7’s perspective may be more focused on agricultural programs.
Hypoxia Action Plan
Franz reported that the 2008 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan was completed and signed in June 2008. He noted that the Action Plan was accompanied by an FY 08 Operating Plan. Franz explained that the actions in the Action Plan were more general, while the Operating Plan was developed to provide a summary of more discrete, year-by-year tasks that support the Action Plan.
Hora asked whether a coordinated budget has been developed to support implementation of the Action Plan. Franz replied that no such budget has been created.
Upcoming Wastewater Operators’ Workshop
that US EPA is working with ORSANCO to put on a workshop for wastewater
treatment plant operators regarding nutrient control, energy use, finance, and
other issues. The workshop is scheduled
to take place
UMR Early Warning Monitoring Network
Franz briefly described the types of instrumentation incorporated into the monitoring stations being established by US EPA on the UMR under a Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) grant. He explained that this instrumentation includes a multiprobe sonde to measure conventional water quality parameters (such as pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature), a UV fluorescence sensor to detect petroleum products, and equipment to measure the gape behavior of mussels as they respond to water quality changes. All of the data are collected and reported continuously. Franz added that an auto-sampler is also included that will collect a grab sample if triggering criteria are met, and that this grab sample is used to help identify specific contaminants.
reported that three monitoring stations are currently in place on the UMR
within the state of
asked if the data from the monitoring stations are being archived. Franz indicated that the data are being
archived, and the group involved in the project is now considering procedures
for sharing the monitoring data. Garretson
suggested that notification to the
UMRCC Water Quality Tech Section Update
reported on the Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee Water Quality
Technical Section meeting that was held at the
UMR PFC Sampling
Hokanson reported that results from spring/summer 2008 PFC sampling are not yet available and have been slowed down by issues with another study carried out at the same EPA lab that is analyzing the UMR samples. He explained that, although this analytical issue was not a concern for the UMR water samples, it had triggered additional internal review requirements within US EPA that would slow down release of results generally. Hokanson reported that the EPA researchers had indicated that 2008 results appear to be in a range similar to the 2007 results, and that more detailed information will be available when a draft manuscript on the UMR sampling is prepared, though they could not yet provide a timeline for the availability of this manuscript.
noted that Dale Robertson of USGS has been revising the SPARROW model. The model’s ranking of 8 digit HUC code areas
for nitrogen and phosphorous loading should be available soon. Franz commented that the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Great Rivers Ecosystems (EMAP-GRE) Update
Mark Pearson provided a presentation on the Great River Fish Index (GRFIn), an index of biotic integrity recently developed by EMAP-GRE for the UMR. Items noted by Pearson in his presentation included the following:
§ In terms of physical stressors (sedimentation, flow, and land use), on the impounded UMR there is a slight increasing longitudinal gradient from downstream to upstream, with urban areas demonstrating greater stress than non-urban areas. On the unimpounded UMR, there is a greater variability in the stressors.
§ The index of biotic integrity (IBI) process followed in developing the GRFIn was that laid out by Karen Blocksom (US EPA).
§ Metrics retained for the Impounded Mississippi River GRFIn are:
o Proportion of invertivore individuals (trophic)
o Proportion of non-indigenous individuals (composition)
o Proportion of individuals with DELTS (fish health)
o Proportion of detritivore individuals (trophic)
o Proportion of native individuals (composition)
o Total deep-bodied sucker biomass (kg) (biomass)
o Total number of fish species (exclusive) (richness)
o Number of darter species (richness)
o Catch per unit effort of native species (relative abundance)
o Number of minnow species (richness)
§ There appears to be a relationship between stressor and GRFIn scores for the impounded river.
§ There are possibilities for applying GRFIn scores in both 303(d) impairment listing and ecosystem restoration contexts.
§ Metrics retained for the Open Mississippi River GRFIn are:
o Proportion of top piscivore individuals (composition)
o Proportion of individuals with DELTS (fish health)
o Total number of fish species (inclusive) (richness)
o Number of minnow species (richness)
o Number of great river species (richness)
o Number of centrarchid species (richness)
o Catch per unit effort top piscivores (relative abundance)
o Total native fish biomass (kg) (biomass)
§ Only three metrics were retained in common between the Impounded and Open River GRFIn indices.
IBI may not be an appropriate approach for the Open Mississippi River, though
some utility may be gained in looking at the lower
§ Data can be grouped and interpolated to give estimates of GRFIn scores for minimum interstate assessment reaches.
commented that, in regard to the
Smogor asked whether, ultimately, the biological data would stand alone in use of the index, without the stressor gradient information. Pearson replied that this was correct, but there was also value in tracking the physical/chemical data. Bolgrien added that having both the biological data and physical/chemical data helps to establish linkages between observed biological response and possible causes.
Pearson commented that, in developing the GRFIn, efforts were made to look at human-induced stressors rather than features that vary naturally along the length of the river. He added that caution was taken not to allow “circular linkages” between biology and stressor gradient components.
Bolgrien commented that the data associated with the GRFIn do not appear to show any significant year-to-year variation.
Other EMAP Data and Discussion
Bolgrien indicated that EMAP may provide a web-based version of its assessment for the UMR, which will separate data out by state and by impounded vs. unimpounded river. The assessment may also break the data out by the 13 minimum interstate assessment reaches.
Short asked about the status of a macroinvertebrate IBI being developed by EMAP. Bolgrien replied that this was in development and may rely on a different stressor gradient than the fish IBI.
commented that the
Bolgrien emphasized that the development and selection of indicators is not science-limited, and that moving forward should not wait upon the creation of a “perfect method.” Sullivan agreed, but added that there must be agreement on the methods used.
Baumann observed that the Water Quality Task Force has discussed the idea of putting together a session on biological indicators, in the hope that an approach can be identified for use on the UMR. He cautioned, however, that there appear to multiple potential approaches and that there is a lot of individual ownership associated with different approaches.
Pearson suggested that various IBIs could be compared against each other to assess their applicability for the UMR. Bolgrien concurred, but added that IBIs can only be directly compared if using the same data and that; moreover, one of the key elements of selecting an IBI would be to determine if data existed to “feed” into a particular IBI. Olson pointed out that the other key consideration, in a Clean Water Act sense, is where an impairment threshold is drawn in relationship an IBI score. Bolgrien concurred with this observation. Sullivan asked who would determine the threshold – the WQTF, the EPA, or someone else? Olson agreed this was an important question but added that he did not know the answer.
Biological Indicators for the UMR
Setting Biological Goals in a Clean Water Act Context
Roy Smogor of Illinois EPA provided a presentation on considerations for biological indicators in a Clean Water Act context. Items noted by Smogor in his presentation included the following:
§ “Fishable and swimmable” shorthand for the Clean Water Act interim goal is not helpful in considering aquatic life use, and it is better to refer to the text of the interim goal, which calls for “wherever attainable…a balanced population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife...[to] be achieved….”
§ Aquatic life use definitions, designations, and determination of attainment all need to be considered simultaneously, not as separate steps.
§ Each defined aquatic life use is essentially its own goal.
§ Defining the biological condition gradient (BCG) is critical, where the ultimate “biological integrity” goal of the Clean Water Act is highly natural condition and the “interim goal” is more in the mid-range of the gradient.
§ Aquatic life use goals are defined by what is attainable along the BCG. If the attainable use is below the interim goal, a use attainability analysis (UAA) is then required, though a UAA may be useful in other situations as well.
§ Articles by Stoddard and Davies may be helpful in working with the BCG.
§ To be useful, a biological indictor must be :
o clearly interpretable in terms of Clean Water Act aquatic life goals, and
o sufficiently sensitive to human impact (signal) amid other sources of variability (noise)
§ The ability of the indicator to detect the signal may vary at different spatial and temporal scales. These may be very prominent issues on a large river.
§ There may be opportunities for biological indicators to serve both Clean Water Act and ecosystem restoration goals if the restoration goals also incorporate concepts of biological integrity and biological condition.
Olson asked whether pre-settlement conditions were potentially a goal to be considered for the UMR. Smogor replied that setting the desired reference condition is a key step, but that pre-settlement may not be a reasonably attainable condition for the UMR and that something such as “least disturbed” may be a more likely reference condition.
Baumann observed that “least impacted” could actually exist almost anywhere on the BCG continuum, depending on the state of degradation of the system. Smogor replied that the Stoddard paper is helpful in getting agreement on what is meant by terms and where they occur. In response to a question from Hora, Smogor also referred to the paper by Davies and Jackson as being helpful in determining where to anchor goals in the BCG. He also restated that the usefulness of indicators to ecosystem restoration efforts is dependent upon the goals established for restoration.
The meeting adjourned for the day at , resuming the following morning (10/9) at
Biological Indicators for the UMR – Continued Discussion
Hokanson provided an update on the efforts of the interagency work group addressing the issue of biological indicators on the UMR. He explained that this group had been formed as an outgrowth of the discussions at the CWA-Ecosystem Restoration workshops held earlier in the year, and that it is composed of individuals from multiple agencies and includes those involved in both Clean Water Act and ecosystem restoration programs. Hokanson emphasized that the intent of the work group is not to preclude work being done in the WQTF and other forums, but rather to focus on the cross-program elements of indicator development and use.
Hokanson noted that one of the primary tasks of the work group is to aid in designing a biological indicators workshop for the UMR, to be held some time in early 2009. He distributed a draft agenda for the workshop and asked the WQTF members for their feedback on the work group generally and the workshop specifically.
Hora requested that Howard Markus of MPCA be included in the interagency work group.
Baumann noted that, while the WQTF has been most interested in the use of a fish IBI for the main channel, the broader cross-program discussion is also important. He added that the workshop will include an IBI component and it will be important for the audience to include those individuals working with IBIs who may be able to help implement ideas. Hora emphasized that it is important to determine the purpose of the workshop, and then build participation around that purpose.
Sullivan emphasized the importance of having participation and buy-in at multiple levels within agencies, including field, technical, and managerial staff. He added that, ultimately, program administrators’ buy-in would be needed, even if they did not participate in an initial workshop. Hora concurred with the need for high-level agency support. Franz suggested that the November UMRBA Board and WQEC meetings would be an opportunity to encourage higher-level agency support.
Hokanson described the intent of the workshop as follows:
§ To bring participants to a common level of understanding regarding biological indicators.
§ To build an understanding of existing approaches to biological indicators.
§ To identify the goals of the two programs areas (i.e., Clean Water Act and ecosystem restoration) regarding biological indicators.
§ To explore the applicability of biological indicators in each program area.
Baumann asked the group for its sense of whether the WQTF is in a research mode or implementation mode regarding indicators. Baumann stressed that, if things are at an implementation stage, it is critical to engage agency management. Smogor replied that it does not appear that initial questions of what is being measured and why have yet been answered. Smogor said these questions must be answered before moving to an implementation step. Franz concurred, indicating that the workshop is intended to help address some of these questions.
Olson observed that one of the most challenging pieces is to establish a threshold for impairment against which to compare indicator data in assessing the condition of the water body.
Sullivan noted that one concern in the ecosystem restoration community may be that outputs of indices such as the GRFIn may not match up with the locations where restoration projects and funds have been focused. Naramore responded the approach in restoration on the UMR all along has been to not necessarily put all of the efforts into the most degraded habitats. Short added that restoration projects may often also have a specific focus, such as a specific fishery.
raised the question of how an IBI should be applied in a waterbody that is
artificially stocked with fish. Sullivan
observed that, in regard to
Baumann summarized the discussion on biological indicators to this point by noting that:
§ There are specific considerations for the application of biological indicators in a CWA context, particularly in regard to assessment and listing processes. The WQTF should continue to investigate these issues.
§ There are potential connections between the use of indicators in a CWA context and in ecosystem restoration programs. The work group and workshop will help draw out some of these connections and issues.
§ There is a need to bring the discussion regarding biological indicators to a broader audience, both in terms of across programs and at multiple levels within agencies.
Hokanson added that it will also become important to consider how biological indicators fit into UMR monitoring programs, both at a practical and policy level.
Sullivan asked whether, in the absence of consistent approach for the UMR, states would likely implement a biological approach independently. Hora and Olson indicated that their states would not likely proceed without a UMR-wide approach. Olson added that it might be possible to use different methodologies for intrastate waterbodies and for the UMR. Baumann observed that it may be easier to start with a “new” approach for the UMR, rather than trying to adapt existing approaches. Smogor commented that, if an approach incorporating the biological condition gradient were to be employed, it would be important to reflect this in state water quality standards. Olson again noted that it may be necessary for the states to develop a UMR-specific assessment methodology. Pearson added that it is important to foster collaboration across agencies in such an effort. Baumann observed that this discussion illustrates the types of issues that the WQTF needs to address in relationship to the potential application of biological indicators on the UMR.
to the indicators workshop, Baumann suggested that participants would include:
workshop organizers, workshop presenters, practitioners, program managers,
implementers, and others. Garretson
suggested that a representative number of NGOs be included. Olson added that field station personnel and
fisheries experts would need to be included.
Baumann asked Hora if MPCA and MN DNR would both need to be
included. Hora replied that both
agencies would likely be involved. Olson
indicated that only Iowa DNR would need to participate in such a workshop, but
that other agencies will need to be advised of workshop outcomes. Short noted that multiple agencies in
Designated Uses for the UMR
Smogor observed that the preceding discussion may be relevant for the consideration of designated uses for the UMR, in that the biological condition gradient could be applied within each of the aquatic life use areas being considered (main channel, side channel, isolated backwater, etc.). He noted that the same conceptual goal might then be expressed differently within each of the areas. He added that, since the states’ CWA programs are “locked in” to CWA goals and concepts, it is important to keep the biological condition gradient approach in mind when discussing designated uses. Baumann concurred that this would be an important consideration in moving forward on UMR designated uses.
Baumann reminded the group that, in its earlier discussions, it had reached a consensus that there are different habitat-related strata in the UMR that need to be considered in refining designated uses for the UMR. Sullivan observed that it would be important for individuals with extensive knowledge of river data to work on the designated use project at this point.
Olson asked whether Illinois EPA has developed tiered aquatic life uses within its programs. Short replied that this process is underway.
Pearson commented that initial work by Andy Bartels suggests IBI scores may not be that different between the main channel and backwaters. Bolgrien added that, in any write-up regarding work on the designated uses project, it will be important to state up front what has been agreed upon so far. Pearson noted that fish and macroinvertebrate indices being developed indicate a clear distinction between impounded and unimpounded reaches of the river.
Interstate 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing Consultation
Olson raised one additional issue relevant to 303(d) listings—i.e., how to consider invasive species in regard to impairment. He explained that US EPA Region 7 has most recently asked Iowa not to identify invasive species directly as an impairment, but rather the impact of the species—e.g., suspended sediment and algae increases due to common carp, rather than the common carp per se. All other states indicated that the guidance they have received from US EPA on this matter is not clear.
indicated that the chart developed by UMRBA appears to accurately reflect
observed that a state’s use of criteria not approved by US EPA can hold up
approval of a state’s list. Hora
confirmed that UMRBA’s chart for 2008 reflects what has been submitted to
Dkhili asked whether Region 7’s representation on the WQTF has been established. Franz and Hokanson indicated that it had not, but that they would continue to work with Region 7 on this issue.
Updated Assessment and Listing Survey
indicated that Larry Shepard of US EPA Region 7 had suggested updating the
UMRBA’s “Assessment and Listing Survey” and that this effort had value beyond
Shepard’s interest alone. He asked that
the WQTF provide any comments and updates to him. Hora provided Hokanson with written updates. Baumann indicated that
Upcoming Issues for Assessment and Listing
Hora’s earlier comment that
observed that, if nutrient criteria are developed for the
Next Steps for the WQTF
Topics for Next Meeting
Baumann identified the following as likely topics for the WQTF’s next meeting:
1) Update on Lake Pepin TMDL and associated work with SAV (Likely speakers: Norm Senjem, MPCA and John Sullivan, WI DNR).
2) Update on PFCs (Likely speakers: Andy Lindstrom, US EPA and Marvin Hora, MPCA)
3) NRC project report discussion
4) Designated use project progress and update
5) Further discussion of biological indicators/IBI
6) State updates and assessment/listing consultation
7) Update on SPARROW model
8) EMAP update/EMAP publications
Bolgrien noted that EMAP-GRE’s “assessment” would be complete in approximately 1 year.
Hokanson noted that the indicators/IBI discussion may be affected by the potential for the UMR biological indicators workshop in early 2009. He suggested that the WQTF may want to consider meeting in conjunction with the workshop.
Franz and Baumann suggested that, if needed, Robertson’s SPARROW update could be done as a conference call or webcast.
Next Meeting Date and Location
decided consider the potential workshop dates of
Sullivan asked if it was possible to receive a list of current EMAP publications. Bolgrien and Pearson indicated that this would be possible.
that the McKnight-sponsored Mississippi River Water Quality Collaborative was
Hokanson asked whether the WQTF was interested in more routine involvement from USGS in WQTF meetings and discussions. Baumann suggested that this involvement could range from information sharing, to participation in meetings, to membership on the WQTF. Naramore indicated that she and Hokanson would work with Baumann to identify the most appropriate and effective way of integrating USGS into the WQTF’s work.
Sullivan commented that Jim Fischer (WI DNR) has been working on some of the reach-specific objective-setting efforts related to ecosystem restoration programs. Baumann indicated that he, Sullivan, Franz, and Hokanson should investigate this effort further and report back to the WQTF.
The meeting adjourned at on