Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Water Quality Efforts and Monitoring Strategy

1. Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Water Quality Efforts and Monitoring Strategy Joint ORSANCO-UMRBA Technical Session June 5, 2013

2. Presentation Overview Background and Context Recent UMRBA Water Quality Efforts UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Questions and Discussion

3. UMRBA Focus Areas

4. UMR Water Quality: Key Considerations • Scale, Complexity, Diversity • Basin Influence • Multiple Uses: Recreation, Water Supply, Ecosystem, Navigation • Institutional Setting: Border River, Multiple Jurisdictions

5. 2007 Governors’ Statement “We are committed not only to the protection of the River’s water quality, but we are also committed to doing so in a coordinated manner…..We are therefore supporting the coordination of water quality monitoring, assessment, and standards for the Upper Mississippi River by the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin and the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association. This approach will allow the Clean Water Act to be implemented on the Upper Mississippi River in a more coordinated and consistent fashion than has ever been possible previously.” From the Statement of the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin on Water Quality Protection for the Mississippi River (August 2, 2007).

6. UMR Clean Water Act (CWA) Program Coordination States’ Goals • Protect & improve UMR water quality • Improve consistency in CWA program outcomes • Consistent messages to the public • Consistent expectations for the regulated community • Efficient allocation of resources States’ Approach • UMRBA Water Quality Task Force & Executive Committee • CWA “building blocks”: designated uses, criteria, monitoring, assessment • Mainstem/local water quality • UMRBA supports the states/increased capacity • Stable, ongoing federal funding needed • Collaborate with other UMR programs and stakeholders

7. UMRBA Water Quality Work Groups

8. Water Quality Staffing and Funding Staffing • Water Quality Program Director • Small portions of other staff time • Temporary staff (none currently) • Contractor support Funding • States’ voluntary water quality “assessment” ($17,000/yr) • Periodic state and federal grants/contracts

9. Ongoing CWA Consultation UMR Human Health Uses (Arsenic Issue Paper) (2010-2011) Aquatic Life Designated Uses EPA/IPA (2009-2011) Improved UMR CWA Approaches UMR Nutrients Report 604(b) (2010-2011) UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy 106/IL EPA (2011-2013) CWA Biological Assessment 604(b) (2010-2011) UMR Nutrients Workshops 604(b) (2011) Recent & Current UMRBA Water Quality Projects

10. Ongoing CWA Consultation UMR Human Health Uses (Arsenic Issue Paper) (2010-2011) Aquatic Life Designated Uses EPA/IPA (2009-2011) Improved UMR CWA Approaches UMR Nutrients Report 604(b) (2010-2011) UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy 106/IL EPA (2011-2013) CWA Biological Assessment 604(b) (2010-2011) UMR Nutrients Workshops 604(b) (2011) Recent & Current UMRBA Water Quality Projects

11. UMR Aquatic Life Designated Uses Project Key Question: Are there sufficient differences across the UMR’s floodplain (e.g., main channel v. backwaters) and along its length to warrant distinct treatment when it comes to protecting the aquatic life use? Answer: Yes Key recommendation: Classification structure Reality Classification Structure Current CWA Structure

12. UMR CWA Biological Assessment Guidance Project Key Question: “Can existing biological protocols (sampling designs & indices) be used to assess aquatic life use support on the UMR’s main channel?” Answer: Yes, with some modifications Key recommendations: Sampling design (EMAP-GRE) Assemblages (fish, macroinvertebrate, vegetation) CWA monitoring strategy Data management system Consider programmatic options , including costs

13. UMR Nutrients Report Project Purpose and Approach Survey & synthesis of current information regarding UMR nutrient monitoring, occurrence, and local impacts Unique focus – impacts to CWA designated uses on the UMR mainstem Aquatic life Recreation Drinking water Findings and Recommendations Extensive set of options For states and partners

14. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project Rationale No unified or comprehensive UMR CWA monitoring Existing programs not designed for CWA purposes nor cover full spatial extent Biology not integrated Inconsistent and limited assessments result ALDU, nutrient, and bioassessment project recommendations Project Purpose “…develop a monitoring strategy framework via a collaborative interagency process to aid the UMR states in moving forward with more comprehensive, consistent, and accurate CWA assessments of the River, leading to both a better understanding of its condition and improvements to its water quality.” - from UMRBA-Illinois EPA funding agreement

15. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project Scope Full longitudinal extent Four lateral strata (where tools available), main channel highest priority Four major designated uses – aquatic life, drinking water, recreation, fish consumption Chemical, physical, and biological parameters Goals Central goal – support improved assessment of the UMR under the CWA Also aid other key CWA program functions including standards development, NPDES permits, TMDLs, nonpoint source assessment & management, and measurement of nutrient loading from tributaries

16. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project

17. Existing Monitoring

18. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project Main Channel/Side Channel Design Options

19. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project Range of Spatial Intensity in Design Options Intensive Survey Design/Probabilistic Design D Assessment to site/13 assessment reach level (approx. 400 sites) Probabilistic Design A Entire river as one system (30-50 sites)

20. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project Preliminary Preferences for Recommended Monitoring Plan Support assessment at the 13 reach level Scale for monitoring, assessment, management Must be at least Probabilistic D level of density Probabilistic D2 plus targeted fixed sites 15 sites per reach, may weight Main channel (perhaps also side channel) Probabilistic best for aquatic life, fish tissue Need supplementary sites for recreation, drinking water, stressor identification

21. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project Preliminary Preferences for Recommended Monitoring Plan Maximize Use of Existing Monitoring Possible to integrate LTRMP fish data Use existing fixed sites Incorporate Biology Fish assemblage (EMAP) Vegetation (Pools 3 to 13 only) Macroinvertebrate (kick vs. artificial substrate) Cost and time 2 years to monitor, repeat on 5 year cycle Estimated $2.5 million to complete Future refinement foreseen

22. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project Tributary Loading Network Considered separately from assessment-based networks Fixed sites by definition Maximize use of existing sites Paired water quality and gaging stations More about coordination, branding, and consistency in parameters Coordinate with HTF Monitoring Collaborative effort 44 sites identified on UMR tributaries and main stem

23. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project Recommended Parameters Nutrients Nitrogen series (nitrate, nitrite, TKN, ammonia) Total phosphorus Sediment Total suspended sediment Flow and field measurements Water volume/time (per gage) Temperature, DO, pH, conductivity, turbidity (meters) Keep consistent over time

24. UMR CWA Monitoring Strategy Project Next Steps Discussion today Finalize Options and Considerations document by June 30 Draft Recommended Monitoring Plan in July Review of Draft Recommended Monitoring Plan Final Recommended Monitoring Plan by September 30 Project complete by September 30 Pursue funding/implementation Continue work on assessment methodology

25. Questions and Discussion For More Information, Contact: Dave Hokanson dhokanson@umrba.org 651-224-2880 See also: UMRBA Web Site www.umrba.org

26. Monitoring and Data Collection Findings Extensive current nutrient monitoring in mainstem and basin Program differences, spatial gaps, and data system incompatibilities comprehensive characterization difficult No common approaches to fish kill and algal bloom measurement • Recommendations • Pursue more consistent monitoring protocols: • Minimum parameter set • Minimum sampling frequencies • Expand to address mainstem’s full spatial extent, but not at basin monitoring’s expense • Harmonize data reporting/sharing • Develop CWA-focused UMR monitoring strategy • Identify mutually-accepted algal bloom & fish kill tracking / reporting methods

27. Sources, Concentrations, and Trends Findings Concentrations have increased significantly post-settlement, generally more stable since 1990 Current concentrations frequently above guidelines/criteria to limit nutrient enrichment, varying by location and season Research & modeling indicate agricultural land use is primary determinant of nutrient loading, followed by urban areas Conservation practices have successfully reduced loading, though challenges remain, including nitrogen loss via subsurface flow • Recommendations • Pursue further research on historic nutrient levels (e.g., core sampling), particularly for phosphorus • Address agricultural nonpoint source pollution, as well as point sources – ideally, in proportion to contribution • Ongoing collaboration regarding conservation practices is essential

28. Impacts to CWA Designated Uses Findings Both nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) contribute to local UMR impacts Backwaters most impacted - metaphyton (filamentous algae and duckweed) blooms Sestonic (floating) algae blooms occur, cyanobacteria extent not known Based on current standards and data, toxicity from nitrate (to humans) & ammonia (to aquatic life) not presently an issue • Recommendations • Formalize and expand metaphyton sampling • Improve cyanobacteria estimates (N:P ratios, direct measurement) • Work with water suppliers regarding algae growth and total organic carbon (TOC) concerns

29. CWA Implementation Findings Elevated nutrient levels alone do not necessarily lead to eutrophic conditions – but are a prerequisite for this NPDES nutrient monitoring requirements vary among states UMR states working to address nutrients under the CWA, at different points and on different paths • Recommendations • Consider the following in numeric criteria development: • May need values for both N and P, possibly vary by strata • N and P are eutrophication drivers, but concentrations cannot always predict eutrophication • Response variables may be considered in assessment, if there is strong dependency between nutrient levels & response variables, and downstream uses protected • Numeric criteria most effective as part of a comprehensive approach including other CWA and non-CWA tools • Pursue consistent NPDES discharge monitoring requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus • Seek consistency among states in UMR approaches