WV NUTRIENT CRITERIA COMMITTEE

2003 Minutes

Back to Nutrient Criteria Committee Home Page

Over to NCC 2002 Minutes 

Table of Contents:

 

March 20, 2003

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.

 

  • Page 2, change mid-April to July

  • Add that Martin Christ offered to bring paper on vertebrate communities

  • Add that there was a lengthy discussion on document management and administrative costs

  • Add to possible available resources that CVI could act as fiscal agent

 

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

 Back to Top

 

 

April 25, 2003

Nutrient Criteria Committee

Meeting Minutes

FINAL

 

 

Attending (sign-in sheet):

 

Wayne Appleton, WVMA/WVCC

Rodney Branson, WVFB

Tom Brand, WVU

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

Ben Stout, Wheeling Jesuit University

John VanHassel, American Electric Power

John Wirts, WV DEP

 

 

1.  Review and approve of minutes of March 20, 2003 committee meeting.

 

  • Page 1, change vertebrate communities to invertebrate communities

  • Page 7, add “or existing” to the Proposed Definition of Nutrient Impairment

  • Page 7, remove “is impaired” from the definition of Cateogry A and add “fails to attain this use”

  • Page 7, Remove from the definition of Category A the words “of all water supply, public”

  • Page 7, change the spelling of Mike McCurry to Mike Arcuri

  • Page 7 change the spelling of Orsanko to ORSANCO

 

 

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

  • Add budget subcommittee reports

  • Literature Review

  • Two draft forms were distributed for review and discussion.  These are included to these minutes as Attachments Neil’s NCC Literature Review & Dave’s NCC Literature Review??)

    • Add

        • Sediments

        • TSS

        • Watersheds

        • Baseline

        • Peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed

        • Medium

        • Confidence

    • Add on: Keep title and author the same just add on the next review after the last one. (Neil and Dave will work on this)

    • Send Libby at EQB copies of documents reviewed

    • Look at Cambridge database

 

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

 Back to Top

 

May 28, 2003

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

  • Chesapeake Bay

    • Working on introduction

    • June 19th at 10:00 a.m. meeting at WV Farm Bureau on WV involvement in Chesapeake Bay

  • Literature Review

    • Handout – Nutrient Criteria Committee Literature Review

      • Come up with strategy for reviews

  • Letter to EPA

    • Wayne Appleton wrote a letter to the WVEQB, for their approval and for the EQB to send to the EPA requesting their approval of the State's plan.

    • The WVEQB (and Committee) should be receiving a formal statement from EPA stating their approval of the Committee’s plan

    • Funding issue – EPA suggested that the committee considered locating other sources of funding

    • EPA also suggested coordinating with other states

        • Electronic copies of other states plans will be put up on our webpage

  • Budget

    • $10,000 – 20,000 from EPA, still working on it

    • Libby called Tiffany (EPA) and CVI

    • Money intended to reimburse travel expenses

 

 

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

 

  • #1 – Conclusion, Nobody found the doubling in itself impairment.  However, there were concerns about additional loadings and their impact downstream and on the community.

  • #2 – Conclusion, Maybe impairment – depends upon assumptions

§         Biomass only response changes and no downstream then it is not impairment

§         Magnitude of change is important

  • #3 – Conclusion, Loss of species in a stream due to nutrients is a loss of community integrity, which is impairment

  • #4 – Conclusion, Loss of species in a stream due to nutrients is a loss of community integrity, which is impairment

  • #5 – Conclusion, A reduction is impairment

  • #6

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

  • #7 – Conclusion, With sufficient sampling and if it’s original condition was reference then it is impairment

  • #8 – Conclusion, Some species of periphyton have disappeared, change in periphyton suggests a loss of community integrity

  • #9

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

  • #10 – Conclusion, significant shift in population, outside normal range in an ongoing situation is impairment

  • #11 & #12 – Conclusion, impaired not dealing with Zebra Mussels

  • #13

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

 Back to Top

 

June 23, 2003

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

  • Chesapeake Bay

    • WV Tributary Strategy

      • Still meeting monthly

      • All BMP data or practices that have been installed since 1985 up to 2002 must be into the Bay Program by July 15

    • Model

      • Rich Bitiuk presented model

      • Used as a planning tool

    • Allocation divided by the water

      • .75 milligrams per liter nitrogen

      • 39 micrograms per liter of phosphorus

    • EPAs suggested numbers

      • .3 nitrogen

      • .01 total phosphorus

  • Literature Review

    • John Rowe will be working on reviewing literature related to forestry issues

    • Starting point = 2 EPA documents

      • Lakes Guidance

      • Rivers Guidance

  • Budget

    •  Nutrient and Bio Criteria Grant request for proposals.

      • EPA extended deadline

      • Libby worked with John Wirts, Bill Brannon and Pat Cambell from DEP in an effort to determine what should be submitted.

      • EPA was looking for a state that would help coordinate distribution of that money and use it for periphyton work.

      • Joe Beeman, from Maryland submitted a grant, will most likely receive the grant.  However, there has been no response from EPA since the close of the grant proposal deadline.

    • DEP submitted proposal = 104B

      • $10,000

      • Administrative costs for the Board to continue to run the NCC effort.  The majority of the NCC money will be going to periphyton data collection in coordination with other states.

    • Requests for reimbursements

      • Submit by July 1

  • ORSANCO

    • Proposal to establish a subbasin committee with ORSANCO leading this process was addressed at Commission Meeting that Randy Sovic was unable to attend.

      • Subbasin Committee was established as part of the Gulf Hypoxia Task Force Plan

        • 11 tasks within that plan and the grouping of Subbasin committees throughout the Mississippi Basin was the 2nd task on that list. 

    • If ORSANCO leads this project they will be meeting with representatives of agriculture in various states.

    • Three Major Goals of action

      • Coastal Goal

        • Reduce 5 year running average of extent of the hypoxic zone down from 20,000 square miles to 5,000.

      • Within Basin Goal

        • Restore and protect the waters of the 31 states that are implementing nutrient and sediment reduction actions

      • Quality of Life Goal

        • Improve communities and economic conditions across the basin to improve public and private land management in cooperative incentive based approaches.

    • Is this trading?

      • EPA approached ORSANCO to develop a Nutrient Trading Program

 

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.

  • Libby will email the entire committee the definitions as they are presented above in hopes of reaching a consensus. 

  •  

6.  Suggested Next Steps to Develop Nutrient criteria for Lakes and Reservoirs in

     West Virginia

 

  • Summarization about what the committee has learned about nutrient criteria development in lakes from EPA’s reference based approach and Mike Arcuri’s presentation to the NCC regarding the approach that the agency has used to classify lakes as impaired.

  • Literature review of classic literature that people have used for decades on lake impairment

  • Man made lakes that are managed for a certain goal vs. natural streams that the Clean Water Act tells us she be managed for a balanced indigenous population.

      • Supreme Court

      • Really no difference between the two because each of them become a water of the State and are subject to all of the same definitions and objectives.

      • Any guidance as to whether something should be warm or cold water fisheries?

        • How is it designated/classified by the EQB?

  • If we have no natural lakes then how would we get to a balanced indigenous community?

  • Is this an area that we may want to implement user surveys?

    • Find the publics perception about the lakes use

    • Are there ways that we can develop a sampling protocol of the levels in those lakes that may reflect the feedback that we get from the public?

      • Recreation = yes

      • User surveys do not dictate fishery protection

    • Are there other places that we could look at examples of user surveys?

        • Watershed associations

        • WVU - Martin

        • Randy will check with his contacts

        • Other states – Evan & Martin

        • Lake Champlain survey

        • Parks and Recreation – contact ASAP

    • All waters of the State are protected by 2 default use designations

      • Fishable

      • Swimable

      • Removing either one of those would require a use attainability analysis on behalf of the board.

    • DNR know what the population should consist of in fisheries

    • Creel census and user surveys from DNR for Category B

      • Libby will contact person at DNR – Dan Cincotta

      • Have representative from DNR come to next NCC meeting to give a presentation about user surveys

  •  Look at what is being done now in other states as far as TSI is concerned and what their justifications for the thresholds are.

  • If there is an existing cold water fishery use and we decide to stay with the idea of TSI thresholds then Martin suggests that a lower threshold be used that keeps it more towards the oligotrophic side.

 

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.

   

 Back to Top

 

August 8, 2003

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.

 

  • Change spelling to Janes on attending list

  • Change 39 to 59 micrograms/liter (on allocation divided by water)

  • Change .01 total phosphorous to 10 micrograms/liter (on EPA suggested numbers)

  • Change spelling to Batiuk

  • Change spelling to Beaman

  • Clarify that John Rowe is working on literature review as schedule permits.

  • Change to “subbasin committee to be established”

  • Note with regard to the definition of impairment that it is the consensus that the current wording is a final definition for the purposes of the NCC, subject to being revisited at a later time.

  • Change natural streams to “natural lakes” in reference to the Clean Water Act.

  • Change “she” to “they should be,” in the sentence on the Clean Water Act.

  • In reference to “all waters are protected by 2 default use designations, change fishable to Category B and swimable to Category C.

  • Change “DNR knows” to “DNR has detailed knowledge of natural populations of fish in the waters throughout the state.”

  • Change June meeting reference to August

 

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)

 Back to Top

September 10, 2003

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)

bpreston@dnr.state.wv.us

 

§       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

§         

 

 

 Back to Top  

 

DRAFT

 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

 

  • Literature Review

    • Database – PDF output report on one page per citation format.  Asked everyone to look at it and let him know what they want.

    • 10 reviews currently, expects to have more by next time

    • Nutrient and Biocriteria Grant request for proposals.

 

  • Budget

    • Email EPA about funding proposal about Watershed Grants

      • Grants must be approved by Governor

      • Distributed e-mail from Linda Eichmiller to Joe Hankins

    • DEP is compiling information to send to the Governor

    • Randy Sovic reported that ORSANCO is looking for $320,000 over a two year period

      • Revised amount to equal $500,000

      • EPA is interested in getting $60,000 for the first six months

      • WV NCC should look into these funds, but ORSANCO is trying to get these funds also.

      • Kanawha River – potential

        • 2nd highest source of loadings leading into the Ohio River

      • Little Kanawha – also has potential

    • Neil asked if ORSANCO could put in  a letter of support for NCC to receive the grant and Randy didn’t see why not.  Randy stated that he would make contact.

    • Budget Committee will set up conference all regarding how ORSANCO and NCC can work together to get this grant.

 

 

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

  • Matt reported that the BMP efficiency estimates have been lowered after review (literature and BPJ); causing consternation among many of those involved.

    • Neil – changed date to submit to January 1st for Bay States- where are the loads and how do we reduce them?

    • Water quality group, data to verify output doesn’t exist in WV data sources.

      • Minimum of 3 storm samples

      • Data collected very useful, but load levels are a different data set.

      • Tom suggested that WV should come up with their own model

        • Many people liked the idea

        • Will it include non-agriculture counties?

        • What does/should the model consist of?

        • Envisioned an 8 county area at first then apply it to whole state later, due to time restraints.

        • Use all point sources, take into consideration everything

        • Martin stated that the model is similar to a planning tool, meaning if you implement x you will get an x amount in reduction.

      • CVI has suggested offering a workshop on modeling

        • They would bring in experts from all over

        • Dave will look in to having someone come in to discuss modeling.

  • Discussion of the limitations of the model used:  How do the land use designations match up to reality?  Catch-all categories don’t reflect real land uses which have an impact on nutrients.

  • The Chesapeake Bay Model is being used as basis for WV modeling – maybe used more effectively in a smaller watershed?

  • Tributary Strategy Group meeting scheduled for November 20th.

 

5.  Update from USEPA

 

  • Handout – update from other states provided by Tiffany Crawford.

  • Libby Chatfield reported that Tiffany Crawford has advised that the $10,000 committed to the state in 2001 by USEPA is not available.

  • Funding requested under the 104(b) USEPA grant by WVDEP has been awarded.  A portion of that grant will go to the Environmental Quality Board for nutrient criteria development.  More information will be provided at next month’s meeting.

  • Since the Board submitted its Nutrient Criteria Plan to Region 3 USEPA, that agency has followed up with a series of questions and requests for clarification.  In its most recent communication on the plan, Region 3 has requested that the Board update the plan to incorporate the responses to questions and submit again for final review and acknowledgment. 

  • Libby Chatfield reported the following from Tiffany Crawford at USEPA, Region 3.  Discussions are planned at Headquarters EPA on nutrient criteria on October 23 – seeking input from states to find out top priorities for Nutrient Criteria development

    • Headquarters is interested in the following:  If money were made available, how would the state utilize in nutrient criteria development? 

      • Priorities identified by the committee were data collection and support for a half-time aquatic scientist/professor of limnology/stream ecology.  Libby suggested submitting the idea to the EPA for evaluation, will talk to Tiffany and do a follow up.

      • Dave Clark requested that the Budget Committee come up with a budget for the half-time person.

 

 

6.  Continued discussion on nutrient criteria development in lakes, including classification of WV lakes

 

  • Randy Sovic distributed copies of a CD, prepared by John Wirts, with all WV lake data.  Randy reported that the contractor for USEPA Region 3 is finalizing the data collection for EPAs nutrient database.  Suggested that upon completion of the report, the NCC can evaluate data needs.

 

  • Evan Hansen suggested that a priority for data collection is biological and chemical data collected simultaneously.  Randy indicated that some such data may have been collected by DEP’s Watershed Assessment group.  Evan suggested looking to DNR for biological data and/or help with collection of simultaneous data.  Mike Shingleton from DNR indicated that there is only minimal chemical data collected with their biological data.

 

  • Pat Bowen handed out a document Titled “Reservoir Management and Warning System.  Shows Graphs of streams tracking Hurricane Isabel and it’s aftermath.

 

  • Joe Hankins handed out a document entitled Characteristics of Impoundments in West Virginia.  Query: How much like lakes are these impoundments?  Bluestone example – relatively large impoundment with fairly quick turnover time/low residence time.  There is substantial artificiality associated with impoundments – they don’t behave much like lakes.  Difficult to determine volume of water in an impoundment.

 

  • Evan Hansen distributed a document Entitled WV Lakes, which is a graph with size distributions.  Shows data available on WV lakes.  

 

  • Questions raised during discussion:

    • Is there need for more P frequency distributions

    • Suggestion to look for relationships with different types of nutrient data – ie: across lake sizes.  Look for data gaps

    • Will the MDL issue for parameters skew analysis?

    • How many classes of lakes covered by existing data?

    • Need to know when data collected – associated with storm surge – water quality strongly controlled by flow and turnover.

    • At what point is a lake different than a pool in the Ohio River?

 

  • Impairment

    • What impairments occur in lakes that do not in streams?

    • Sulfide toxicity – toxic at low pH

    • Hypoxia

      • Suggested provision:  “No more than 1/3 of lake basin area can be hypoxic”.   (Similar to Chesapeake Bay approach?)

    • Quality of aquatic populations as indicators of impairment?  WV lakes not “natural” – therefore hard to determine “naturally occurring” population.

      • Envisioned that numeric criteria for “nutrient” parameters would be used and that they would be linked somehow to biological impacts.

      • Discussion of use of narrative criteria for protection of aquatic life use.   Implementation difficulties discussed.

  • Lake Classification Systems – factors to consider

    • Residence time

    • Size/volume

    • Warm/cold water

      • Mike Shingleton -  lakes in WV which support trout year round: Summersville, Stonecoal, Trout Pond, Middle Wheeling and Stevens

    • Depth:  Suggestion of different criteria/standards for different layers – hypolimnion and mesolimnion?  Concern that not enough data for such delineation.

    • Since 1970, lakes built with standing timber cover, which creates dissolved oxygen problems.  Not sure how long those problems persist.

    • Elevation

    • Dominant soils

    • Function/purpose (ie; flood control)

 

  • Next Steps:

    • Look at EPA database upon completion; reconsider use of EPA values?

    • Research on retention time issue – when is a lake a lake or a river? (Evan will work on and provide information)

    • TSI comparison; history of TSI development (Evan)

    • Corps information – DO profiles, lake management, data available

    • Look at TSI with dissolved oxygen information

 

7.  Schedule meeting dates

  • November 12 – Weston/Buckhannon Service Center

  • December 9 – Moorefield

 

8.  Discuss agenda and location for November meeting

  • Evan’s work

  • Presentation by US Army Corps of Engineers

  • Update from USEPA – Tiffany Crawford

  • Discussion of modeling – CVI staff

 

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 ~

 Back to Top  

 

 

DRAFT

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

 

  • Literature Review – No committee meeting report.

    • Tiffany Crawford reported contact from Evan Hansen in effort to get EPA nutrient related publications.

 

  • Budget – no committee meeting report.

    • Libby Chatfield reported that 104(b) Grant from USEPA to WVDEP includes $60,000 for contract work for development of nutrient criteria.  These funds must be spent within 2 years.

    • Board will be looking to committee for advice regarding how to spend these funds.

    • Ted Armbrecht encouraged continuation of the budget committee’s ongoing efforts to identify resources needed to carry on the work of the committee.  He asked whether this was funding that might be available in the future for the NCC effort. 

    • Libby will forward the grant documentation to budget committee members.

    • Dave Clark suggested that the budget committee work with Libby to get the specifics of the grant proposal.  Possible agenda item for December meeting is to discuss the idea of hiring an expert (as discussed at the September meeting) in light of receipt of these grant funds.

    • The committee will provide at least a preliminary report to the EQB at the Board’s December meeting.

 

3.  Update on ORSANCO efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP

 

John Wirts forwarded a brief update from Randy Sovic

  • ORSANCO still interested in pursuing nutrient trading effort – moving slowly.

  • In process of forming subgroups – one on Gulf Hypoxia issue

 

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:

  • Nutrient Criteria Database Update

    • USEPA Nutrient database for Rivers and Streams has been completed; nutrient database for lakes is scheduled to be completed by end of year

    • Tiffany sought input from the committee regarding format/presentation of the database – put it on the web?  How would we like to see the database used?

    • Group generally agreed that having the capability to add new data, would be helpful.  Sharing this updated information among states also desirable.

 

  • Periphyton Grant update (Region 3 - 2003 Request for Proposals)

    • Proposal prepared by Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and US Geological Service (USGS) for collection of periphyton data for use by all states in Region 3.  USEPA has committed funding for this proposal – award of funds to occur soon.

    • Martin asked how we can make the grant work for us.

    • Tiffany indicated that MDE and USGS will be collecting data on ecoregional basis.  Will be collecting in WV.  There will be a way for states to provide input – everyone who wants to be involved, can be involved. 

    • Libby will send grant proposal to all committee members – version to be distributed with not be the final approved version.

    • Tiffany will begin to hold meetings with states on this project as soon as the money is awarded.

    • John Wirts commented that the data collection outlined in the proposal is somewhat limited – few collection sites are established (in WV?).  Tiffany indicated that the sampling protocol is not subject to amendment at this point.

    • John Wirts reported that he and an EPA biologist recently submitted a proposal for RARE (Regionally Applied Research Effort) money through USEPA to look at USEPAs periphyton index and WVDEP’s data collected in the past two years (150 sites/year) to see if the metrics in the index make sense and whether they tell us what they should.  Consider whether the index needs to be adjusted to address problems with nutrients, sediment, metals, etc. 

 

  • USEPA 2004 Funding

    • Tiffany reported that no budget has yet been established for nutrient work during this fiscal year.  Not certain that regions will get money.  Headquarters trying to determine what states need.  Any 304(a) grant money available may be used for national effort, rather than distributing regionally.  States generally have identified data collection as a top priority for use of available funds.  Tiffany noted that once the Request for Proposals is published, the turnaround time for responding will be short – 2 weeks – therefore Tiffany suggests thinking about this in advance.

    • Tiffany encouraged continued use of other funding sources, such as the 104(b) grant process, for support for nutrient criteria development.

    • Re:  our report to Tiffany, and to EPA Headquarters, that funding for hiring a part-time scientist would be among WV’s priorities – Tiffany indicated that that suggestion was not as popular with EPA Headquarters as data collection, as identified by other states.

    • Dave Clark – should budget committee work on proposal for 304(a) money?  Tiffany suggests that such preparation would be helpful – especially regarding data collection needs.

    • Margaret Janes suggested that WVDEP and USGS might be the more appropriate entities to pursue 304(a) funding.  Tiffany suggested that the NCC stay involved – agreed that partnering with other agencies would be helpful.

    • Acknowledging the regional focus for these funds - how can we be involved in the development, with other states, of future 304 funding proposals?  Is there regional plan to facilitate state coordination? Tiffany responded that right now such coordination is limited to regional conference calls with states.  She suggested that the states may organize additional coordination.  That is occurring now to a certain extent through WVDEPs periphyton work.

    • Tiffany indicated that WV’s NCC is the most organized process for nutrient criteria development within the region that she knows of.

    • Bret Preston suggested using the Mid-Atlantic Water Pollution Biology Workshop as a forum for such coordination among states.  John Wirts agreed and will follow up to determine whether nutrient criteria can be placed this year’s workshop agenda.

 

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.

 

  • Evan Hansen reported on information requests identified at the last NCC meeting.  

    • When is a lake a lake instead of a river?  Evan reported that a Pennsylvania TMDL used a 14-day residence time as the cutoff for a lake.  If flushing occurs more frequently than every 14 days, algae won’t grow.

    • Handouts:  1)Frequency Distribution of Lake Residence Times and 2)Update on WV Lakes.  One questions identified is whether the residence time values are based on average flows or summer residence times.

  • Martin Christ discussed the stratification process in lakes, and provided a handout summarizing that process.

  • US Army Corps of Engineers presentation by George Kincaid.

    • Slides from power point presentation will be provided.

    • Pat Bowen suggested that the agency should be a part of the process of developing nutrient criteria for lakes.

 

7.  Schedule meeting dates

December 9, 2003 – Moorefield WV – WV Department of Agriculture Field Office

January 15, 2003

 

8. Discuss Agenda for December Meeting

  • Location:  USDA Office in Moorefield.

  • Dave Clark suggested that an agenda committee meet to set next meeting agenda.  Committee to include Randy Sovic, Evan Hansen, Martin Christ, Larry Emerson and Wayne Appleton.  Dave will set up a conference call to discuss.

 

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 ~

 Back to Top  

 

DRAFT

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.

October 22, 2003 Minutes

    • Page 2 – Literature Review, change 10 reviews to 31.

    • Page 2 – Budget, added that ORSANCO is initially looking for $320,000

    • Page 2 – Budget, changed EPA is interested in offering $90,000 for the first six months.

    • Page 2 – Budget, Kanawha River is a potential watershed to propose for a nutrient trading pilot.

    • Page 2 – Budget, Little Kanawha also has potential to be a nutrient trading pilot.

November 12, 2003 Minutes

    • Page 1 – Budget, changed development of nutrient criteria to the development of criteria, including nutrients.

    • Page 2 – Update on ORSANCO, changed one to four for the Gulf Hypoxia issue

 

With the above changes, the minutes were approved.

2. Committee Reports

  • Literature Review

    • Martin Christ contacted John Johnston from USEPA for assistance with modeling.

    • Dave Clark attended the Great Valley Forum sponsored by USGS. USGS is willing to talk to the NCC.

  • Budget

  • Joe Hankins received a copy of the agreement and water quality standard project description from Libby. It is clear that the purpose is to explore other parameters, not just nutrients.

  • $10,000 can be used from this point forward for logistic support.

  • $50,000 is to be used for consulting support.

  • Pat Bowen suggested exploring using any funds as an opportunity to match.

  • Any sub-award would have to follow state and EPA guidelines, would probably have to have a RFP and would probably have to go through the competitive process.

  • Next step – explore the RFP process and determine what a scope of work would be. What type of data do we need?

  • Question for Tiffany – can we sole source?

  • Funding Possibilities

  • Hypolimnetic chemistry

  • Storm sampling events

  • Nutrients – periphyton

  • Fish studies where additional data exists

  • All around brain

  • Assess: document work done in other states

  • Support for national NCC conference

  • (High Level) Limnologist/Aquatic Ecologist

  • Drinking water – Assessment of excessive algal blooms, associated with nutrients.

  • Provide a statewide snapshot of impaired use

  • Evaluate policy implications of criteria development

  • User surveys – algae, fish and lakes

  • Supplies for USGS/CI periphyton study

  • WVDA process TKN samples

  • We will discuss funding more at the January meeting.

  • Martin Christ recommended using a map of the state to discuss what we know about nutrient problems in the state.

  • Update from Ed Snyder

  • Seems to be a move to remove rulemaking authority in water quality standards and to restructure how rulemaking is handled.

  • Option to establish committee based on members of agency and public.

  • EQB may not have authority.

4. Update on ORSANCO efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP

  • Randy Sovic attended the gulf hypoxia meeting.

  • Letters went to Governors, West Virginia has not responded.

  • $500,000 has been increased to $570,000 as part of the process.

  • It is favorable that ORSANCO will get money for gulf hypoxia.

  • The Governor must sign in, the process won’t start until after January. Proposals are due January 15, 2004.

  • Randy participated in a conference call with ASIWPCA.

  • Montana spoke on their program. Montana has a fixed criteria for TN and TP in the Clark River and are looking to develop statewide criteria.

  • The criteria on the Clark is only being applying during the summer period.

  • Pictures of the Clark were taken to public meetings and the public decided what was obnoxious, levels were set based on this public opinion.

  • User surveys could be a good option for WV.

 

5. Update on Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria development –WV Department of Agriculture

  • No report from Matt Monroe.

  • Neil Gillies presented an update on the tributary strategy meetings.

  • Twila Carr is leaving her position at WVDEP. Freshwater and Cacapon Institutes have been asked by WVDEP to take over the technical and narrative support to complete the process.

  • The tributary strategy committee has struggled to come to consensus. Joe Hankins recommended scenario builder.

  • There are concerns about the Bay model. The Bay model is designed to look at outcomes in the Bay and not work backwards. Neil Gillies explained that the model is based on the best available scientific data.

  • Rodney Branson is concerned that credit for farmers for BMP’s keeps changing. Joe Hankins explained that everyone recognizes that the numbers and implementation strategies will change, but we are in the ball park. The big problem with agriculture BMP’s is that the efficiencies will vary widely.

  • Rodney Branson said that the changes represent money for farmers. Neil Gillies explained that one part of the tributary strategy is to determine a cost to give to USEPA.

 

6. Update from US Environmental Protection Agency

  • A Regional Approach to the Development of A Response-Based Nutrient Criterion For Wadable Streams In Nutrient Ecoregions IX, XI, & XIV was distributed.

  • It is unclear how often samples were taken.

  • Neil Gillies felt the document was remarkably weak and not focused enough to be useful.

  • Joseph Beaman has not contacted John Wirts to include WV. The deadline is in January.

  • We need clarification on this document.

  • Randy Sovic suggested that Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia discuss the document before we make any decisions.

  • John Wirts will contact Joseph Beaman to schedule a discussion.

  • John Wirts discussed the funding WVDEP requested under the 104(b) USEPA grant.

  • The money will be coming to WVDEP

  • WVDEP would consider giving the NCC some of the money if we have a good proposal.

7. Continued discussion on nutrient criteria development in lakes

  • Martin Christ discussed the strawman proposal for nutrient criteria for lakes and provided a handout.

  • Endpoints are outcomes, some of our outcomes will probably be the same for moving and non moving water.

  • Following PA, we don’t need to worry about lakes with a residence time of less than 14 days.

  • It was suggested that we look at annual averages – there could be lakes that have low flow in the summer and longer residence times.

  • Recommendation #1 – for the purpose of characterizing lakes for nutrient development, residence time for lakes will be 14 days.

  • Review PA/EPA Literature – Martin Christ.

  • Comments – we need to know how the 5mg/L is calculated, we need to characterize our lakes

  • State standard for DO is not <5mg/L, there is no provision for deeper volumes of water.

  • Martin recommended setting a standard that a warm-water lake is impaired if the average concentration of oxygen over the water column at the deepest part of the lake falls below 5mg/L. Martin will get USEPA data and distribute.

  • Request to EQB – review table in rule to be sure all listings of cold water lakes are based on management.

  • Recommendation #2 – criteria developed needs to be practical.

  • Sampling can occur during regular working hours.

  • Cost and ease of sampling should be considered.

  • Representative over a period of time.

  • Do we need to look at DO levels or more to the things that affect DO such as Phosphorous?

  • Margaret Janes feels that using DO will complicate matters later.

  • John Wirts recommended using DO and Phosphorous data from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Martin will review the data.

  • Use of the TSI model was explored.

  • Recommendation #3 – Phosphorous – levels of 24mg/L (TSI 50)

  • Review Clean Lakes Data – Martin

  • USACE data – Martin (John Wirts)

  • Define where, when to apply, develop lake-by-lake criteria where manageable.

  • Neil Gillies discussed the USGS periphyton study. There is not enough information on Total Nitrogen. He requested $3000-$5000 for supplies for the study. West Virginia Department of Agriculture could possibly run TKN samples for this study.

  • The recommendations made need to be reviewed before the next meeting.

 

8. Schedule meeting dates

  • January 15, 2004 – Elkins

  • February 26, 2003 – Farm Bureau

  • Beginning in March meetings will be held on the 3rd Thursday of the month.

9. Discuss Agenda for January Meeting

  • Location: Elkins

Materials passed out during the meeting:

    • Meeting Agenda

    • A Regional Approach to the Development of A Response-Based Nutrient Criterion For Wadable Streams In Nutrient Ecoregions IX, XI, & XIV

    • EQB NCC Budget Subcommittee Report

    • Martin Christ Handout – Summary of other states’ approaches to nutrient criteria for lakes.

    • Martin Christ Handout – Strawman proposal for nutrient criteria for lakes.

 

~ Meeting Adjourned ~

  Back to Top

 

Cacapon Institute - From the Cacapon to the Potomac to the Chesapeake Bay, we protect rivers and watersheds using science and education.

Cacapon Institute
PO Box 68
High View, WV 26808
304-856-1385 (tele)
304-856-1386 (fax)
Click here to send us an email
Frank Rodgers,  Executive Director

Website  made possible by funding from The Norcross Wildlife Foundation,  the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Virginia Environmental Endowment, NOAA-BWET, USEPA, The MARPAT Foundation, and our generous members.