Back to Nutrient Criteria Committee Home Page Over to NCC 2002 Minutes
Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes Final Draft Attending (sign-in sheet): Wayne Appleton, WVMA/WVCC Rodney Branson, WVFB Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute (Facilitator) Larry Emerson, WVCA/Arch Coal, Inc. Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Joseph Hankins, Conservation Fund/Freshwater Institute Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau of Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center Kimberly Miller, USGS Matt Monroe, WVDA Dan Ramsey, USFWS John Rowe, WVDOF Kathy Rushworth, Municipal Water Quality Association Jeff Skousen, WVU College of Ag & Forestry Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association Ed Snyder, EQB Randy Sovic, WVDWR Ben Stout, Wheeling Jesuit University John VanHassel, American Electric Power John Wirts, WV DEP 1. Review and approve of
minutes of February 27, 2003 committee meeting.
With the above changes, the minutes were approved. 2. Discuss response to suggestions offered by USEPA (on form entitled “Draft Procedures for EPA Review of State/Tribal Nutrient Criteria Plans, and Process for Reaching Agreements”) to the Nutrient Criteria Plan submitted by the Board on 10/29/02. § Report from Wayne Appleton regarding discussion with Tiffany Crawford of USEPA: § EQB needs to send a letter to USEPA Region 3 conveying that although the NCC is not changing the process flow diagram, we anticipate sending parts of our work for review by the Legislature as they become ready and not waiting until the end. § The question remains as to what we need to do to have a plan agreed to since EPA and EQB are in on-going discussions. § Ed Synder of EQB said EQB could send a letter but would prefer a letter from the NCC so that EQB was clearly forwarding the will of the committee. §
Wayne Appleton agreed to draft this letter and submit to NCC through
email so it could be presented at the next EQB meeting. (completed)
3.
Discuss “Nutrient Concentrations and Benthic Invertebrate Community
Metrics in West Virginia Streams” (draft), co-authored by Martin Christ and
Evan Hansen. § The opportunity to read and discuss the paper was appreciated. § Correction—SCI of 60.6 not 62 should be used. § The paper tells us there is not an obvious or quick answer. § How do we postulate the driver for going forward—there is no silver bullet, i.e., “this much nitrate equals this problem.” § It seems this paper tells us there is not a simple equation across all ecological and nutrient concentrations, but does tell us to look at subsets of environments, metrics and species and see if we can find relationships; i.e., break the problem into smaller pieces. § The question is begged: is there literature to guide us? § While literature is voluminous, we still must define impairment and then establish how we determine if it is caused by nutrients. § By looking at literature, can we find a way to define impairment—should we define it without having the benefit of what the literature might say about defining impairment? We might need at least some consensus on impairment as we look at scientific data in the literature. The literature search might benefit from some basic ideas/questions (chicken and egg dilemma). § The literature is largely related to nutrients and reference conditions—the reference condition is the base from which you compare criteria—yet, the NCC has put reference conditions at the bottom of the list. This, from the perspective of some, creates a conundrum for the literature search. § It was suggested that since the NCC plan starts with lakes/reservoirs (303d), the literature search should begin with lakes/reservoirs. NCC could develop criteria for this finite area of water in the State. Then, we can build on that to look at streams or rivers, and as such our literature search will evolve to steams. §
Question was raised—what definition of impairment was used in creation
of the 303d list? Randy Sovic
offered to invite an expert to the next meeting to review. § A question was raised—do we tend to know more about effects than cause? 4. Continue discussion of
work plan and budget. §
It was suggested and agreed that an update on the Chesapeake Bay and
Ohio River Basin issues be discussed on each NCC agenda. § Discussion of resources (it was noted generally that each agency is already supporting the work of the NCC by allowing the time commitment at meetings and other work in between): § CVI: - Can be fiscal agent and can waive standard administrative fees for this project. - Can help with travel for those not reimbursed by their agency. - Modeling expertise—CVI has a GIS shop. Perhaps a one-day workshop for the NCC so it can determine what it might want in the way of modeling. (the CVI is willing to organize this). § Rivers Coalition (Martin Christ): - Literature review - Published papers and links to other data. § Rivers Coalition (Evan Hansen): - Literature review - Can help get information out through newsletter and watershed network to ask for help with sampling/data collection - Might be able to co-sponsor a workshop on volunteer training for sampling and monitoring. - Can house an intern to work with NCC § Cacapon Institute (Neil Gillies): - Web site - Data (largely historical/long-term) - Literature review § Fish and Wildlife Service (Dan Ramsey): - Literature search - Possibility of helping with sampling - Might be able to help with borrowing articles for literature review § WVMA/WV Chamber (Wayne Appleton): - Links to American Chemistry Council and Federal Water Quality Coalition for technical expertise - Will explore help with data collection - Serves as conduit for information and link with member groups § Division of Forestry (John Rowe): - Literature search § Conservation Fund/Freshwater Institute (Joseph Hankins): - Data collection - Can act as fiscal conduit for donations/private support (tax deduction for contributor) - Can help with samples, especially in eastern panhandle. - Literature review § DEP (John Wirts): - Random sampling program (150 sites statewide) - Pre-TMDL development data collection for watersheds deemed impaired - will have some data on nutrients by this summer § DEP (Randy Sovic): - Continued updates on efforts with Chesapeake Bay and ORSANCO - Continued review of Federal Register to look for funding opportunities - Support for user surveys as part of process of defining impairment (with DNR and Dept. of Health) - Can set up half-day workshop on sample collection procedures § Farm Bureau (Rodney Branson): - Can continue offering facilities and meals for members - Can continue offering some meeting support, but members are encouraged to bring sufficient copies of handouts. § WV Forestry Association (Roger Sherman): - Links to national organizations - Literature review - 20 years of collections in 7 streams - 2 staff who might be able to provide technical assistance (Ph.D. wildlife specialist and Ph.D. research director) § Coal Association (Larry Emerson): - Literature review, related to coal fields - Can ask what data is routinely monitored with respect to nutrients § USGS (Kim Miller): - Compiled database - Can respond to specific requests § Municipal Water Quality Association: - No paid staff - Could summarize data - Focus is on treating wastewater - Links with Maryland and Virginia—can ask about nutrient loading work - Limited data for receiving streams § Bureau of Public Health (Michael Hawranick): - Drinking water analysis - Turbidity data - Can request providers to collect and submit data § Wheeling Jesuit University (Ben Stout): - Literature review - Experimental design expertise - Can add sampling for NCC to field work this summer (and provide spatial location and biological data) § West Virginia University (Jeff Skousen): - Can assign students in special topics courses to help with NCC literature search § Shepherd College (Ed Snyder): - Students can do sampling § EQB: - Libby will continue her assistance - Looking for funding § Resources/Budget Subcommittee: § It was decided to establish a group to frame out a more specific scope of work and concomitant resources (cost and sources): - Joseph Hankins, chair - John Rowe - Martin Christ - Wayne Appleton - Evan Hansen - Randy Sovic §
A straw model will be provided at the next meeting. § Literature Search Subcommittee: §
Martin Christ offered a straw model for compiling the literature review. §
Neil Gillies offered to compile the data on Excel in a searchable
database. § It was agreed that paper trails exist for each review; see data management section later in the minutes for a subsequent discussion. § It was agreed that only literature with annotations should be considered. § The template (ideas): · Name of Reviewer · Source · Date of Source · Author · Contact · Utility to Committee · Notes (e.g., rebuttals, comments, etc.) · Submittal Date · Key word check-off - Background, nutrient levels - Lakes - Streams - Biotic impacts - Definition of Impairment - Region of state (decide how these will be demarcated) · Format of data · Confidence in methodology § Subcommittee will: - Generate list of key words - Assign tasks - Provide copies of article to NCC and EQB - Report on progress at each meeting § Subcommittee volunteers: - Martin Christ - Evan Hansen - Neil Gillies, chair - Dan Ramsey - Ben Stout - John Wirts - Larry Emerson
5. Continue discussion of data management begun at the February meeting. § Documents go to EQB § Suggestion that EQB maintain data on CD (sources and content logged) § Grey literature also goes to EQB § Master list maintained by EQB § Will hold off on sub committee right now § Need to address: - Quality assurance - Accessibility - Content - Linking databases (if appropriate and needed) 6. Continue
discussion of developing framework for defining “impairment”. “Proposed Definition of Nutrient Impairment” A water body is impaired by nutrients if nitrogen, phosphorus, or a resulting water quality characteristic (including but not limited to nuisance algae, high turbidity, or low dissolved oxygen) prevents attainment of a designated or exisiting use. In particular: o For Category A, Public Water Supply, Public Water Supply, a water body fails to attaint his use if nutrients directly or indirectly produce unacceptable taste or odor of the water, or significantly impair water supply withdrawal from a water body. 7. Review future
meeting dates. April 25 May 29 8. Discuss agenda for
April meeting. § Mike McCurry to discuss lake/reservoir impairment § Reports from subcommittees: § Chesapeake Bay §
Orsanko § Budget § Literature Review § Continue definition of impairment discussion § Review introductory paragraph and Category A § Continue to Category B ~
Meeting Adjourned ~ Mate § “Nutrient Concentrations and Benthic Invertebrate Community Metrics in West Virginia Streams” (draft), co-authored by Martin Christ and Evan Hansen § Definition of Impairment draft (modification of Christ et. al proposal) § February 27, 2003 minutes
Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes FINAL Attending (sign-in sheet): Wayne Appleton, WVMA/WVCC Rodney Branson, WVFB Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute (Facilitator) Larry Emerson, WVCA/Arch Coal, Inc. Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Joseph Hankins, Conservation Fund/Freshwater Institute Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau of Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center Angela McCauley, WVU Kimberly Miller, USGS Matt Monroe, WVDA John Rowe, WVDOF Jeff Skousen, WVU College of Ag & Forestry Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association Randy Sovic, WVDWR John VanHassel, American Electric Power John Wirts, WV DEP 1. Review and approve of
minutes of March 20, 2003 committee meeting.
With the above changes, the minutes were approved. 2. Update on Chesapeake Bay
nutrient criteria development from Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture § Tom asked where the samples were taken? Matt informed the committee that samples had been taken at the mouth. § The cost of the project is $18.7 billion § If they do not meet the guidelines then they will write a TMDL § They expect to meet everything except for the deep channel § Nitrogen is difficult to contain § WV still reviewing with EPA about what our level of involvement is § 64,000 miles, less than 5% is in WV § Bay project is an annual goal not a seasonal one § Contact Twiala Carr 260-0644,tcarr@dep.state.wv.us 3.
Presentation by Mike Arcuri, Division of Water and
Waste Management, WVDEP regarding lake and reservoir data. § Definition of trophic status § 15 lakes assessed for trophic status in 1996 o 1 oligotrophic (infertile) o 3 mesotrophic (moderately fertile) o 11 eutrophic (highly fertile) § Determining trophic status o Secchi depth o Chlorophyll o Total phosphorus § Carlson’s indices range – 0-100 with higher numbers indicating eutrophy and lower numbers indicating oligotrophy. o 0-39 oligotrophic o 40-50 mesotrophic o 51-100 eutrophic § Nitrogen is a better indicator of algal blooms in freshwater streams. § *Eutrophy and impairment are not the same 4. Committee Reports
5.. Continue
discussion of developing framework for defining “impairment”. “Proposed Definition of Nutrient Impairment” A water of the State is impaired by nutrients if nitrogen, phosphorus, or a resulting water quality characteristic prevents attainment of a designated or existing use. In particular: o For Category A, Public Water Supply, a water of the State fails fails to achieve this use if nutrients directly or indirectly threaten human health produce unacceptable taste or odor of the water, or unreasonably impact conventional treatment (i.e.: settling and disinfection). o For Category B, Propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life, a water of the State fails to attain this use if nutrients directly or indirectly cause a shift in community integrity. A shift in community integrity includes, among other things, increasing or decreasing the negative impact on the abundance or diversity of indigenous populations of fish or other aquatic life. § Suggestion to put community integrity back in the definition § Define negative o For Category C, Water contact recreation, a water of the State is impaired if nutrients directly or indirectly cause nuisance algae, unacceptable water clarity, unacceptable odor, or unacceptable microbial growth. § Suggestion to add human health · Opposition was demonstrated to this suggestion because it was thought that Nitrogen and Phosphorus are not a health threat. · Conclusion – Leave human health out until there is further evidence to support the idea. 6.. Budget
matters/expense reimbursement forms § Contact Libby for travel/expense reports § Still awaiting the EPAs $10,000 o Tiffany told Libby that there is an extra $85,000 at EPA for region 3. o It was thought that this figure had increased significantly from what was originally stated. § Self selecting- if you need/want assistance it will be made available to you. 7. Review future
meeting dates May 29 June 23 8. Discuss agenda for
May meeting § Reports from subcommittees: § Chesapeake Bay §
ORSANCO § Budget § Literature Review § Libby will contact Tiffany about available dollars § Continue definition of impairment discussion § Martin Christ will prepare nutrient criteria scenarios two weeks prior to the next meeting § Review introductory paragraph and Category A § Continue to Category B § Continue to Category C ~
Meeting Adjourned ~ Mate Materia § March 20, 2003 minutes § Backgrounder “Setting Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” § The Conservation Fund § Wayne C. Appleton’s letter to Dr. Edward Snyder, Chairman of the WVEQB about the Nutrient Criteria Development plans § TMDLs for Bear Lake, West Virginia § NCC Literature Review – Neil § NCC Literature Review – Dave § Narrative Standard for Nutrient Regulation Draft § Best Available Science and the Designation and Protection of Critical Areas
Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes FINAL Attending (sign-in sheet): Wayne Appleton, WV Chamber/WVMA Patrick Bowen, NRCS Tom Brand, WVU Libby Chatfield, EQB Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Larry Emerson, Arch Coal/WV Coal Association Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Joseph Hankins, Freshwater Institute Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau of Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center Angela McCauley, WVU Matt Monroe, WVDA John Rowe, WVDOF Roger Sherman, Forestry Community Randy Sovic, DWWM John Wirts, WV DEP-DWWM 1. Review and approve of
minutes of April 25, 2003 committee meeting. § Page 2 – add level of involvement instead of role § Page 2 – omit cleared away § Page 3 – change the “Proposed Definition of Nutrient Impairment” o Change a water body to water of the state o For Category A, Public Water Supply, a water body fails to achieve this use if nutrients directly or indirectly threaten human health produce unacceptable taste or odor of the water, or unreasonably impact conventional treatment (i.e.: settling and disinfection). o Page 3 – omit last bullet under #5 o Add budget subcommittee reports With the above changes, the minutes were approved 2. Committee Reports
3. Scenarios (WEB NOTE: To read the scenarios discussed in the following section, click here.) Assumptions · Reference condition · Sampling certainty · Range of healthy population · Size of stream/watershed · Scale · Nature/natural population
§ Biomass only response changes and no downstream then it is not impairment § Magnitude of change is important
o If original condition was reference then this is impairment o Assume each point is outcome of vigorous sampling o Not enough information to say whether it is impairment or not o With sufficient sampling and if it’s original condition was reference then it is impairment
o Is evidence of decline sufficient evidence to term impairment? o Return to this scenario when we know definition of impairment o Put aside for further review
o Some say nitrate can deform amphibians and other disagree o Apparent and obvious change in population and deformities equal impairment o Take away assumptions and it does not equal impairment **
Assignment – Everyone Write a Scenario for Next Meeting ** 6. Definition of Impairment Category B – Propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life, a water of the State fails to attain this use if nutrients directly or indirectly cause a shift in community integrity. A shift in community integrity is defined as increasing or decreasing the relative abundance of species or diversity of indigenous communities of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life or wildlife outside the normal range of variability. § Change all water body’s to water of the state 7. Review future meeting
dates August 8 8. Discuss agenda for June Committee Reports o Chesapeake Bay o ORSANCO o Budget o Literature Review · Discussion on new scenarios – DEADLINE 1 week before next meeting ~ Meeting Adjourned ~ Materials
passed out during the meeting: § Nutrient Criteria Committee – Literature Review Nutrient Scenarios
Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes DRAFT Attending (sign-in sheet): Edward C. Armbrecht jr. Libby Chatfield, EQB Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Dave Clark, CVI Larry Emerson, Arch Coal/WV Coal Association Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Evan Hansen, WVRC Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau of Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center Angela McCauley, WVU Matt Monroe, WVDA Dan Ramsey, USFWS Luke Richmond, WVMWQA John Rowe, WVDOF Randy Sovic, DWWM 1. Review and approve of
minutes of May, 28 2003 committee meeting. § Page 2 – Revise wording under Letter to EPA § Page 2 – Under Budget change the 2nd bullet to Libby called Tiffany and CVI § Add scenarios to the minutes With the above changes, the minutes were approved 2. Committee Reports
3. Definition of Impairment A
water of the State is impaired by nutrients if nitrogen, phosphorus, or a
resulting water quality characteristic prevents attainment of a designated or
existing use. In particular: Category
A - Public Water Supply. A water of
the State fails to attain this use if nutrients directly or indirectly threaten
human health, produce unacceptable taste or odor of the water, or unreasonably
impact conventional treatment (i.e.: settling and disinfection). Category
B - Propagation and maintenance of fish
and other aquatic life. A water of the State fails to attain this use
if nutrients directly or indirectly cause a shift in community integrity. A
shift in community integrity is defined as increasing or decreasing the relative
abundance of species or diversity of indigenous communities of fish, shellfish,
other aquatic life, or wildlife - outside the normal range of variability. Category
C - Water contact recreation. A
water of the State is impaired if nutrients directly or indirectly cause
nuisance algae, unacceptable water clarity, unacceptable odor, or unacceptable
microbial growth.
6. Suggested Next Steps to
Develop Nutrient criteria for Lakes and Reservoirs in West
Virginia
7. Review future meeting
dates September 10th 8. Discuss agenda for June
meeting · Committee Reports o Chesapeake Bay o ORSANCO o Budget o Literature Review · Definition of Impairment · DNR presentation · Evan and Martin’s presentation on research from other states · Martin’s paper on streams and approaches ~ Meeting Adjourned ~ Materials
passed out during the meeting: § NCC 5-28-03 Minutes § Definition of Nutrient Impairment § Suggested Next Steps to Develop Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Reservoirs in West Virginia – Evan & Martin June 2003. Click here to read.
Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes DRAFT Attending (sign-in sheet): Wayne Appleton, WVMA/WVCC Tom Brand, WVU Patrick Bowen, USDA-NRCS-WV Libby Chatfield, EQB Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute (Facilitator) Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Joseph Hankins, Conservation Fund/Freshwater Institute Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau of Public Health Matt Monroe, WVDA Dan Ramsey, USFWS John Rowe, WVDOF Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association Ed Snyder, EQB Randy Sovic, WVDWR John Wirts, WV DEP 1. Review and approve of
minutes of February 27, 2003 committee meeting.
With the above changes, the minutes were approved. 2 & 3 Update on Chesapeake Bay and Committee Reports and Chesapeake Bay (report by Matt Monroe): § WV is now an official member of the Implementation Committee (IC). § Forest repairing buffer issue: 30,000 miles of forest repairing buffer and signatories agreed to 26,000 miles; asking headwater states to on remaining 4,000. § Question on whether the IC should evaluate every state’s tributary strategy. As the representative, Matt Monroe indicated WV will retain the right to control its own tributary strategy plan, with the option to revise or not revise it. Some other states will revise strictly according to the model that predicts whether you will meet your allocation (the model is in Phase 5 of update), but WV is comfortable with the predictive value of its model. § The Tributary work groups are very important (report due 2004)—need participation. Meetings are monthly and more information is available through the tributary strategies discussion board at www.wvnet.org. There is a concern that the report cannot be completed by 2004. § NCC role vis a vis the Bay process: · We can learn from the process related to the Bay (as well as ORSANCO) · We should continue NCC’s deliberations based on science and available expertise. · The tributary strategy is aimed at protecting the Bay and this activity is a resource for the NCC. (keep in mind the trib strategy is focused on eastern panhandle of WV) · The NCC process is to help us meet water quality goals of the state. ·
The consensus of the NCC is to continue updates from Matt Monroe; Neil
Gillies will put link on NCC web site; and Matt will add anyone to mailing list
who asks. ORSANCO § No meeting since last NCC meeting § EPA is pressing ahead to have ORSANCO develop a nutrient trading program (pilot project in Ohio watershed is under discussion) § It is likely there will be a cap allocation for the Ohio River (similar to the Bay). § Target for the report is 2006. Budget Committee: § Libby Chatfield reported EPA is looking for one grant, which is likely to go to Maryland. Money from this grant could then be distributed to other states. § West Virginia has put in a proposal for support of the NCC, but there is no word yet on the decision. Literature Review: § In response to the NCC’s request, Martin Christ and Evan Hansen have looked at what other states are doing. § A new section 4 was provided to “Lessons from Other States” § At the suggestion of a professor, 3 states were selected to begin the task of benchmarking: Minnesota, Iowa, and Florida · Minnesota: o Trophic categorization o 3 ways to calculate TSI: phosphorous, chlorophyll, and secchi depth—MN looks at these separately, if they are not close it sends up a red flag. o Ecoregion-specific criteria used (EPA ecoregions) o Impairment threshold varies by ecoregion. · Iowa: o Uses TSI approach (threshold of 80) · Florida: o Conducting sponsored research to develop nutrient criteria. o “Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes: A Comparison of Approaches” looked at Phosphorous, Nitrogen, Chlorophyll and Secchi Depth (available on web and copies offered) o Use narrative criteria, similar to our NCC’s category B o Need 1 sample each season to calculate TSI and use a 4 year average—a trend of TSI increasing over historical values is reviewed. o Appears to include nitrogen in TSI in some circumstances. § Evan Hansen offered to look at other states or these three in more depth. The NCC recognized some geographical disparities from West Virginia (Florida is a coastal plain and Minnesota is glaciated potholes). §
Recommended to look at
other ridge and valley provinces like West Virginia—Pennsylvania, Western
North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky, as well mountain west states of Idaho
and Colorado. Evan and Martin will
follow up. §
Question was raised as to
whether secchi depth can be used reasonably by the NCC: John Wirts will talk to
DNR on this question. §
In this discussion it was
noted that the NCC needs a participating representative from DNR: Libby
Chatfield will follow-up. § The question was asked: what other information is needed to begin the process of selecting a methodology? · TSI seems to be emerging as a model—we need to see if anyone is doing anything other than TSI. (Look at Florida research on the 6 approaches) · Choosing TSI would be step 1; step 2 would be to develop the method of TSI. o Evan Hansen, Neil Gillies, Joe Hankin, and Martin Christ will start a straw model. ·
John Wirts will provide
update on available data. · Randy Sovic will provide update on Kentucky draft plan—using a threshold of 1,000 acres. (what gross factors might we want to consider for West Virginia?) § Martin Christ reported on continued progress of literature review framework—he asked for any contributions by others · Add “harms” as a key word in data base. · Question raised about issue of nutrient minimums—committee decided to remain open to this issue if related literature is found. · Consensus was this would be a good reference document for EQB to provide the EPA and we should continue with the exercise. 4. Additional discussion of definitions of impairment, if needed. § Consensus was to continue to use as a definition for the NCC’s work and return to public policy aspects at some other time. § Concern expressed to make sure the NCC does not use language that would seem to preclude further water quality improvement. § Committee members stipulated that a historical range of variability implies a reference condition. § Consensus to move forward with current definition and that reference condition is implicit in Category B, recognizing some difficulty in establishing a reference condition 5. Next Steps: § Literature review needs expedited and diversified (limitations are time and resources). § EPA has good literature review in the 2000 technical guide—look at what has come out since 2000. § Dan Ramsey provided some readings; needs more specific directions as he continues culling the information coming into his office. §
Looking at the taxonomy of
concerns from “Potential Impairment to Waters of West Virginia by Nutrients:
Framework for a Literature Review,” volunteers for research are: ·
Nitrite Toxicity, fish egg
survival, effects on amphibians: Joe Hankin (Dan will send some information) ·
Community shifts—macro
invertebrates: Dan Ramsey ·
Chemicals excreted by
algae: Michael Hawranick and Wayne Appleton ·
Increases in pH and
decreases in dissolved oxygen: Wayne Appleton ·
Changes in pH: Joe Hankin ·
Cancers: Michael Hawranick ·
Growth of filamentous
green algae, trophic-web mediated changes, release of toxic chemicals from
anoxic sediments: Martin Christ. § Consensus of group: · We have met one short term goal—defining impairment. · We are identifying data gaps for lakes (which will form work plan and has budget implications). · Need to define categories the committee wants to use for lakes and decide what data are needed): o
Committee members should
begin developing straw models for classification (John Wirt will see if there is
a list of lakes). · The NCC is on track, but need a more detailed list of tasks. With more detail, Joe Hankin can pull together budget committee to estimate needs to provide EQB. 6. Update on DNR’s creel census and user surveys § Libby Chatfield reported that a DNR representative should be at the next meeting (and, based on an earlier discussion in the meeting, will ask for a permanent DNR representative). 7. Presentation on research from other states: § Evan Hansen and Martin Christ’s report has already been covered in the minutes. 8. Presentation of streams and approaches § Martin Christ’s report has already been covered in the minutes. 9. Budget matters/expense forms § Budget issue already covered. § Libby offered expense forms for anyone who needed one. 10. Updates from USEPA, as available § None (hope to have Tiffany Crawford at September meeting). 11. Future meetings §
September 10, 2003:
Buckhannon §
October 22, 2003:
Buckhannon 12. Discuss agenda for September meeting: § Evan Hansen- report on other states § John Wirts-summary of available lake data § Classification of lakes § DNR § Committee reports (including lit review assignments) ~
Meeting Adjourned ~ Materials passed out during the meeting: § A new section 4 was provided to “Lessons from Other States” (from Christ and Hansen) § Print out of Minnesota web site (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/lakeacro.html) § Print out of a Florida web page (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/surfacewater/nutr_fundrsrch.htm) § Summary document of Florida Research (also available by web) § “Potential Impairment to Waters of West Virginia by Nutrients: Framework for a Literature Review” (Christ and Hansen) Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes DRAFT Attending (sign-in sheet): Tom Brand, WVU Patrick Bowen, USDA-NRCS-WV Libby Chatfield, EQB Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute (Facilitator) Larry Emerson, Arch Coal/WVCA Joseph Hankins, Conservation Fund/Freshwater Institute Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau of Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center Matt Monroe, WVDA Bret Preston, WV DNR Christine Richmond, WVDA John Rowe, WVDOF Randy Sovic, WVDWR John Wirts, WV DEP 1. Review and approve of
minutes of August 8, 2003 committee meeting. § Changes to Chespapeake report: § Repairing to riparian § Asking headwater states to participate on…” § “WV is uncomfortable with the predictive value of the model” § Report due April 2004 § With the above changes, the minutes were approved. 2. Committee Reports Budget Committee: § No report § $10,000 in not going to come through; DEP is working on grant for funding Literature Review: § Progress continues § Joseph Hankinson provided 2 handouts on nitrite toxicity and eggs: 1. toxicity on fresh water is related to chloride concentration in water (low chloride = higher toxicity) 2. some acidic streams with solubility below pH of 6 means nitrite acid, so there also seems to be a pH relationship in addition to chloride. 3. Update from USEPA § The NCC reviewed the email from Tiffany Crawford of USEPA. § Based on discussion by the entire group, a sub-group worked over lunch to draft a written response that was then approved by the NCC and forwarded to the EQB for transmittal to the USEPA. 4. Chesapeake Bay update § Continued progress on tributary strategy work § At the end of November, West Virginia will conduct a strategy run-through of the model (this will not be final verification, but a status run) § The group has been asked for the strategy before any data are available. § The deadlines are still a major concern. § NCC members are still encouraged to attend meetings (see web site for link) 5. ORSANCO § No meeting since last NCC meeting § ORSANCO is convening gulf sub-basin committee. There is discussion as to whether WV will participate to address nutrient problems going to Mississippi to Gulf. WV might participate in pilot nutrient trading. DEP, DA, SCS will further evaluate WV’s participation and candidate streams will be considered. 6. DNR: Creel Surveys § Bret Preston, Assistant Chief, Warmwater Fisheries, Wildlife Resources Section: Capitol Complex, Building 3 1900 Kanawha Blvd., East Charleston, WV 25305 304.558.2771 (office) 304.558.3147 (fax) § DNR has few creel surveys in terms of interviewing anglers for catch, effort, etc. Most of these are dated and there are not plans to conduct creel studies at the present time. § Surveys through DNR include: · Angler surveys have mostly been in Ohio River in lock & dam tailwater areas. · Ohio River mainstream system study: 6 state study and informal working group funded by Army Corp of Engineers. · Fishery surveys: to characterize and monitor fish communities look at abundance issues, catch/unit methodology and are geared toward recreational fishing management. Some surveys do include species identification and health assessment. · Trout surveys are conducted. § Focus at DNR is on recreational fishing management. § NCC is looking for relationship between nutrients and fish communities. Long term creel surveys could help in this regard but are very limited in scope and sites are chosen based on recreational fishing needs. § USGS does some fishery work. § DNR does have responsibility for lakes, ~110 small impoundments and larger reservoirs which DNR either manages or assists in management. § Federal aid reports provide data, but 5 year segment trend reports are not yet available. § Fish stocking and artificial changes are made in populations and water levels are manipulated. § Every small impoundment is managed for one reason or another. § It does not seem there is a viable path to include fish as indices for nutrient criteria. § DNR relies on Corp of Engineers for water quality, but DNR does have secchi depth for small impoundments. There are a lot of muddy lakes that are not related to nutrients. Secchi numbers are kept by DNR as they relate to game fishing, not as a read for nutrients. § DNR has some lake depth data, though these change over time. § DNR does participate in fertilization of a few bodies of water to help develop recreational fishing or might add some limestone to mitigate acid impact. § NCC discussion included the following points: § lakes are highly manipulated. § manipulation impedes science-based criteria development, or may make it more difficult. § downstream impacts are important to consider—fertilizing for fish needs to be efficient and mindful of impact § is land-use a driver; is a desire for game fishing a driver? § are there ways DNR could help with surveying? §
Bret will check on
permanent participation with the NCC 7. More lessons from other states § Martin Christ provided an updated chapter 4. § A WVU intern helped Martin and Evan add additional state benchmarks for the NCC. § North Carolina: · Use designation called nutrient sensitive waters · Commission makes designation (seems dependent on excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. · Discharge limits from point sources apply · Some trading flexibility · Web handout provided on NEUSE (Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy) o Virginia and Oklahoma also have these nutrient sensitive designations, according to EPA § Kentucky: · Classifications of large, small, and floodplain lakes and reservoirs · Concentrating on chlorophyll as a criteria § Pennsylvania: · Setting end points for TMDL based on total forestation of watershed. · All forest + 20% loading rate · Chlorophyll is also a target · Decision-making process is not readily apparent § Evan added a new section to Florida, showing funded research results. End
of these minutes—rest of meeting notes taken by Libby. Materials passed out during the meeting: § 2 chapters on nitrite toxicity § A new section 4 was provided to “Lessons from Other States” (from Christ and Hansen) § Web site print out: NEUSE (Nutrient Sensitive Waters Strategy): http://dem.ehnr.state.nc.us/nps/neuse.htm §
October 22, 2003 Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes Committee Members Present: Patrick Bowen, US Department of Agriculture-NRCS Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman) Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator) Larry Emerson, Arch Coal/WV Coal Association Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Joe Hankins, TCF/Freshwater Institute Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry Greg Shellito, Municipal Water Quality Association Jeff Skousen, West Virginia University Randy Sovic, WV Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water and Waste Management Others in Attendance Rob Stull, Canaan Valley Institute Meredith Pavlick, WV Rivers Coalition Intern Angela McCauley, WVU Mike Shingleton, Division of Natural Resources-Wildlife Resources Libby Chatfield, WV Environmental Quality Board 1. Review and approve of
minutes of September 10, 2003 committee meeting. § Add Neil Gillies to the attendance list § Page 2 – Change spelling of Joe Hankinson to Joe Hankins § Add update on Martins presentation § Page 2 – Literature Review, change nitrite acid to nitrous § Page 4 – More Lessons Learned, change Martin Christ to Evan Hansen With the above changes, the minutes were approved. 2. Committee Reports
3. Update on ORSANCO
efforts on nutrient criteria – Randy Sovic, WVDEP See
comments under budget committee report. 4. Update on Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria development – Mat Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture
5. Update from USEPA
6. Continued discussion on
nutrient criteria development in lakes, including classification of WV lakes
7. Schedule meeting dates
8. Discuss agenda and
location for November meeting
Materials
passed out during the meeting: § Minutes from 9-10-03 meeting § 10-22-03 Agenda § Letter to Edward Snyder from Evelyn Macknight § Alternative Funding Sources § The Current Status Region 3 States and Nutrient Criteria § Email from Linda Eichmiller regarding Watershed Grants § Characteristics of Impoundments in West Virginia § Reservoir Management and Warning System for West Virginia § West Virginia Lakes Data § West Virginia Lakes – bar graphs § West Virginia Lakes with regard to Impoundments – bar graphs and maps ~ Meeting Adjourned ~
November 12, 2003 Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes Committee Members Present Patrick Bowen, US Department of Agriculture - NRCS Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman) Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator) Tiffany Crawford, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment Christina Richmond, WV Department of Agriculture John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry John Wirts, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management Others in Attendance E.C. Armbrecht, Jr., WV Environmental Quality Board (Board member) Libby Chatfield, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board staff) George Kincaid, US Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District (presenter) Paul Kinder, Canaan Valley Institute (presenter) Bret Preston, WV Department of Natural Resources-Wildlife Resources 1. Review and approval of
October 22, 2003 meeting minutes. October meeting minutes still being drafted – will be available for review at the December meeting 2. Committee Reports
3. Update on ORSANCO
efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP John Wirts forwarded a brief update from Randy Sovic
4. Update on Chesapeake Bay
nutrient criteria development –WV Department of Agriculture No report. 5. Update from US
Environmental Protection Agency – Tiffany Crawford Tiffany Crawford attended the meeting and provided the following updates from the agency:
6. Continued discussion on
nutrient criteria development in lakes, including classification of WV lakes · Chesapeake Bay Model – discussion with Paul Kinder, Canaan Valley Institute, Science and Technology Team Leader. o Paul has contacted Peter Claggett of the Chesapeake Bay Program to see what modeling information he has available. He will forward that information to the committee through Dave Clark when he receives it. o Paul posed the following question for the group to consider: What types of questions need to be answered that modeling would be appropriate for? He then summarized several models that he thought might be of use. § Mike Strager, Natural Resources Analysis Center at WVU, has built a model for WVDEP (WC MASS?) which looks at expected mean concentration of nutrients based on land cover and runoff. Would be helpful if criteria developed on ecoregional basis. § Barry Evans, Penn State (GWLF – Generalized Watershed Loading Function) – enhanced with Arcview. Innovative data sets such as cattle density per zip code. § Others probably available. CVI would be willing to help bring people together to discuss, if needed. o Members stated that there is a general distrust of the Chesapeake Bay model, and indicated further that the charge to the NCC is not to look at land use to set criteria. o Paul agreed that if the committee is looking primarily at biological response to nutrients to develop criteria, modeling may not be particularly useful. o Modeling however could be used to do comparisons with background/historic loading. Would take a good bit of data. For example - information from Fernow Experimental Forest could be used. Could serve as a reality check on criteria developed by the committee. o Martin Christ indicated that instream protection is our goal and asked if Paul was aware of any models showing the rate of increases based on flow. Paul responded that the Athens – USEPA Office of Research and Development has developed a software program called BASS – Bioaccumulation Simulation System (developed for mercury) that addresses how the current state of water quality plays out in the fish community. It is a robust model – calibrated with some EMAP sites. Paul felt that group would be very interested in working with the NCC on this type of effort. Martin and Paul will contact John Johnston of that group to discuss and report back to the committee.
7. Schedule meeting dates December 9, 2003 – Moorefield WV – WV Department of Agriculture Field Office January 15, 2003 8.
Discuss Agenda for December Meeting
Materials
passed out during the meeting: § Meeting Agenda § Evan Hansen Handout – Frequency Distribution of Lake Residence Times § Evan Hansen Handout – West Virginia Lakes § Martin Christ Handout – Stratification in Lakes § Martin Christ Handout – Trout Lake Wisconsin – DO data § (George Kincaid’s power point presentation to be distributed) ~ Meeting Adjourned ~
December 9, 2003 Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes
Committee Members Present Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator) Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health Rodney Branson, WV Farm Bureau Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman) John Wirts, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Patrick Bowen, US Department of Agriculture - NRCS Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management Joseph Hankins, TCF Freshwater Institute Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition
Others in Attendance Ed Snyder, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board member) 1. Review and approval of October 22, 2003 and November 12, 2003 meeting minutes.
November 12, 2003 Minutes
2. Committee Reports
4. Update on ORSANCO efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP
5. Update on Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria development –WV Department of Agriculture
6. Update from US Environmental Protection Agency
John Wirts discussed the funding WVDEP requested under the 104(b) USEPA grant.
7. Continued discussion on nutrient criteria development in lakes
8. Schedule meeting dates
9. Discuss Agenda for January Meeting
Materials passed out during the meeting:
~ Meeting Adjourned ~ |
|