Back to Nutrient Criteria Committee Home Page
Table of Contents
FINAL
January 20, 2005 Committee Members Present: Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health Jeremiah Johnson, WVMWQA Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator) Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman) Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association Others in Attendance: Penny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker) Edward Snyder, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board member), Shepherd University Meredith Pavlick, WV Rivers Coalition Doug Chambers, USGS Scott Simonton, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board member), Marshall University
1. Review and approval of December 16, 2004 meeting minutes.
2. Committee Reports
3. Update NCC committee member list
4. Update on ORSANCO efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP The second steering committee meeting is scheduled. Nothing has occurred since the last update.
5. Update on Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria development –WVDA
6. Update on periphyton project - WVDEP
7. Update on Point Source Innovation Committee The committee is continuing to meet and discuss options to meet load caps. Joe Hankins is the chair of the committee. Alana Hartman is also participating.
8. Continued discussion regarding development of criteria for rivers and streams b) Generate Speaker’s List .
c) Evan Hansen distributed Studying impairment of the Public Water Supply Designated Use.
9. Report on lake sampling and user survey data analysis
10. Update on possible data collection in rivers and streams by the West Virginia Coal Association (WVCA), Larry Emerson
11. Update on contacts with other states regarding possible collaborative research proposal
12. Establish agenda for next meeting
Materials passed out during the meeting:
~ Meeting Adjourned ~
Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes
Committee Members Present Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture Doug Chambers, USGS Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Joe Hankins, TCF/Freshwater Institute Wayne Appleton, WVMA/WVCOC Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition John Wirts, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator) Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman) John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry Bob Williams, WV Farm Bureau Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health Jeremiah Johnson, WVMWQA
Others in AttendancePenny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker)
1. Review and approval of January 20, 2005 meeting minutes. - There were changes to January 20, 2005 minutes. - Changes were necessary on the December 16, 2004 minutes: Page 3, third bullet changed mg/L to μg/L.
2. Committee Reports - Neil Gillies is scheduled to facilitate a discussion at the Freshwater Nutrient Criteria Workshop on March 23 at Cacapon State Park. He distributed an agenda for the meeting and asked the group for input for the scheduled discussion.
3. Update on ORSANCO efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP - Matt Monroe reported that there is an Ohio River Sub Basin Steering Committee Meeting scheduled for the end of February.
4. Update on Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria development –WVDA - The Bay office sent a strawman proposal of a mix of BMP’s to illustrate what we need to meet the cap load. WV will look at the mix of BMP’s and try to develop a mix that’s more attainable in WV. Even though it is unclear how WV will proceed, projects are still being implemented. Some of these projects include a buffer demonstration in partnership with NRCS and a project at Spring Run Hatchery with participation from WV Conservation Agency, WVDA, and Cacapon Institute.
5. Update on periphyton project - WVDEP - John Wirts had no new developments. DEP is working to get periphyton data to EPA. - Neil Gillies is resubmitting his proposal to look at periphyton community changes in non point environments.
6. Update on Point Source Innovation Committee - The next scheduled meeting is on March 3, 2005. The group is having a difficult time coming up with innovations. Long discussions have been held on trading. There have been a few useful suggestions, but no major policy changes. The committee has a few more meetings and must then get back to WVDEP with suggestions.
7. Review draft proposal for regional research project – Martin Christ - Martin has submitted a draft proposal with the updates that he received from the group. John Wirts reported that Randy sent the proposal to other states and has only heard back from Delaware. - Martin will contact Randy to determine what needs to be done next to go forward with this proposal.
8. Update on contacts with other states regarding possible collaborative research proposal – Randy Sovic, John Wirts, WVDEP - There was no update. This will be discussed at March meeting.
9. Update on possible data collection in rivers and streams by the West Virginia Coal Association (WVCA), Larry Emerson - There was no update.
10. Continued discussion on developing criteria for lakes and reservoirs. - Evan distributed Recommended Nutrient Criteria for West Virginia Lakes and Reservoirs, Draft document dated February 15, 2005, and went over the changes from the last draft. Evan received the final data from John Wirts and redid all of the calculations. The following list of questions was generated for each category: - Category B 1. Use of 6 mg/L Do vs. 5 mg/L 2. Need for ground truthing proposed criteria 3. Bear Rocks inclusion – exclude for comparison 4. Possibility of calibrating 2004 chlorophyll numbers, consider nitrate levels 5. Define other accumulated assumptions 6. Standard as average, given other averaged numbers used 7. Run numbers without samples below MDL a. Use other correlation methods 8. Clear relationship between N and P - Category C 1. Use the same number for both categories B and C. 2. Consistent level of impairment across parameters and categories (Evan and Martin) 3. Consistent with literature (Evan and Martin will research) - Wayne Appleton had questions about the assumptions using 6 mg/L CO as opposed to the state standard of 5 mg/L. - Roger Sherman is concerned about the accumulated assumptions that have been made. - Margaret Janes is concerned that waters will be under protected if we use 6 mg/L DO instead of 5 mg/L. - Wayne Appleton asked about using P to determine N. The Manufacturer’s Association would like more time to look at the data. The association may/may not develop a different set of numbers. - The group will continue to work towards consensus, but any dissent must be defensible with scientific background. All alternative opinions should be discussed with the group first and not given to the NCC separately. - Joe Hankins felt that we should be conservative and test any criteria that we develop. We need to try to establish a nutrient standard that protects the 5 mg/L DO standard. - John Wirts will send out the diel data that DEP has. - Wayne Appleton thinks using 6 mg/L instead of 5 mg/L will be difficult to defend. A criteria based on a number that may be objective will be difficult to get through the legislature. - Martin Christ explained that we must be careful with DO because of diurnal variation and the fact that the sampling program was not designed to catch the lows. - Neil reminded the group that we knew that we would have a large dataset for West Virginia. We began with a literature review and looked at our data to determine if it was consistent with the level of limnology available. - Roger Sherman believes that we don’t have enough information to pick a different target for D.O. - Numbers calculated with 5 mg/L vs. 6 mg/L DO DO TP Chl Secchi TN 5 82 12.0 2.1 .98 6 33 7.1 3.3 .67 - Needs for DO: 1. Variation data (John Wirts - diurnal data, Martin will look at USACE data) 2. DEP’s impaired list (John Wirts) 3. Apply DEP’s matrix for impairment to our old data (Evan and Martin) 4. DEP’s data for listing the lakes. - Answers for Category B 2) Use of 6 mg/L Do vs. 5 mg/L – really need Bret Preston and Mike Arcuri involved. 3) Ground truthing proposed criteria – Martin will research 4) Calibrating 2004 chlorophyll – Evan will determine if this can be done 5) Define other accumulated assumptions – Evan generated list 8) Relationship between N and P – Evan and Martin, Martin will forward data to Doug Chambers. Doug will look for other methods. - Category C – Tomlinson was excluded because it had <14 day resident time. - Category C Question – Should we use the same number for both categories B and C?
11. Establish agenda for next meeting - Bob Miltner’s Presentation - Update on contacts with other states regarding possible collaborative research proposal - Continued discussion on developing criteria for lakes and reservoirs
Materials passed out during the meeting: § Meeting Agenda
~ Meeting Adjourned ~
DRAFT Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes
Committee Members Present
Joe Hankins, TCF/Freshwater Institute Doug Chambers, USGS Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment Larry Emerson, WV Coal Association Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator) Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman) Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health John Wirts, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management
Others in AttendanceEdward Snyder, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board member), Shepherd University Penny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker) Meredith Pavlick, WV Rivers Coalition Lisa Burgess, WVMA/WVCOC Bob Miltner, Ohio EPA
1. Review and approval of February 17, 2005 meeting minutes. - Page 2, Review of draft proposal, changed second sentence in first bullet to John Wirts reported that Randy contacted other states and outlined the concepts of the proposal. He has only received feedback from Delaware. - Page 3, second bullet, changed CO to DO. - Page 3, third bullet, changed 6 mg/L DO to 5 mg/L DO and 5 mg/L DO to 6 mg/L DO. - Page 3, fifth bullet, changed NCC to EQB. - Page 3, sixth bullet, changed we would have a large dataset to we would have a small data set. - Page 3, last bullet, changed Do to DO.
2. Committee Reports - No reports given.
3. Update on ORSANCO efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP - The second meeting of the steering committee was held. An outline of a nutrient reduction strategy was developed. The four workgroups were given guidance as to what needs to be done. - Randy Sovic will represent West Virginia on the Inventory Workgroup with point sources. Teresa Koon (WVDEP) will participate in the non point issues. Matt Monroe (WVDA) will also participate in the point sources. - ORSANCO only has funding until October of this year. Future funding must be secured. - ORSANCO will try to define Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCTC) for waste water treatment plants. - The steering committee will be reconvening but the future is unclear due to funding. - The five sub-basin commissions will be addressing issues individually and then collectively addressing the Gulf hypoxia issue. - ORSANCO is funded by the states but seeks funding from EPA for programmatic functions.
4. Update on Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria development –WVDA - The next input is being generated but is not yet complete. - Neil Gillies gave an overview of a project at the Spring Run Hatchery that is being initiated by the West Virginia Conservation Agency, the West Virginia Department of Agriculture, Cacapon Institute and Friends of Spring Run.
5. Update on periphyton project - WVDEP - No Update.
6. Update on Point Source Innovation Committee - The committee is continuing to meet and look for viable ways to meet load caps. Trading is being looked out but no conclusions have been made. The next meeting is scheduled for March 23, 2005.
7. Update on contacts with other states regarding possible collaborative research proposal – Randy Sovic, John Wirts, WVDEP - No Update.
8. Update on possible data collection in rivers and streams by the West Virginia Coal Association (WVCA), Larry Emerson - Larry is intending to solicit support from members of the WVCA to collect water quality data for first, second and third order streams. He has not had the opportunity to present the whole plan of sampling to the association but is committed to promoting the idea. - Larry distributed data sets from Mountain Top Mining EIS database. This data includes summaries of the data that is available from this program and is currently in the draft state. The data was collected in 1999-2000. Larry offered this data to the NCC for considered inclusion in the streams data that will be used when establishing criteria. - Joe Hankins asked where the committee could send letters of support. Larry will draft a letter of support and send it out to the committee. The letter will them be sent to the EQB.
9. Presentation – Bob Miltner, Ohio EPA - Bob Miltner gave a presentation on Ohio’s progress with nutrient criteria. This presentation is on file and will be posted to NCC’s web page.
10. Continued discussion on developing criteria for lakes and reservoirs. - Martin Christ distributed Recommended Nutrient Criteria for West Virginia Lakes and Reservoirs, Draft document dated March 14, 2005. Changes from the last meeting have been incorporated into the document. Martin went over the document and pointed out the changes. - Roger Sherman is concerned that the rational is more driven to defend the choice of a number rather than to arrive at that number. - Lisa Burgess is unsure of using a minimum DO coupled with an average nutrient value to arrive at a number. She feels the correlations should be statistically significant. The numbers must be scientifically defensible. - Neil Gillies reminded the committee that we always understood that we had a weak dataset in West Virginia with a limited amount of information. Our discussion and understanding from the beginning is that we would have problems with the statistics. We were looking to see if our data realistically conforms to the existing limnology data on lakes. - Joe Hankins is concerned about 2/3 down in the water column if the surface DO is 6 mg/L. He feels that this number is unlikely to be protective. Martin Christ explained that we designed criteria to protect lakes with a minimum DO. - Lisa Burgess suggested classifying lakes. - Tom Brand asked Randy Sovic how a TMDL would be written for Spruce Knob Lake since there are no sources of contamination. Randy explained that air, rocks and atmospheric sources would be a target in a TMDL. - Martin Christ’s proposal remains to submit this document as criteria. - Dave Clark read the email sent to the group by Bret Preston that explained DNR’s position on the document. - Neil Gillies reminded the group that we will never have sufficient resources to collect “perfect” data. We are charged to develop criteria in a time frame. We could have gone with EPA’s recommended numbers. We are missing the connection to the literature. We should look at the data that we knew would be limited and determine if it is reasonably consistent with the literature. - Randy Sovic explained that the committee could recommend a 5mg/L DO be a criteria in certain regimes of the lake and different in others. If we don’t select a number, EPA will establish the criteria and their numbers are far stricter. - Randy Sovic advised the EQB at the last board meeting that the committee has climatic conditions that caused problems in the data we collected and that we may need additional data collection. The EQB seemed receptive that we may need another year of data collection and that we may need more time for Categories B and C. - The following list of questions was generated. The first four items are to be addressed now and the remainder will be discussed at a later date. The draft document is to be used as a basis for answering these questions. The committee will review these questions prior to the next meeting and be prepared to continue the discussion. 1. 5 v 6 v 7 DO – Diurnal swings 2. Strong relationship – statistically significant 3. Surface DO (as surrogate) 4. Mixing minimums and averages To be discussed later: - Classification of Lakes (ie geographically, physically, characteristics) · Flexibility; allow for later revision with new data · Data limits - Selecting criteria between proposed P criteria (23-82) - Category (user surveys? Ohio model?) - Schedule in relation to plan
In addition, Neil, Martin, and Lisa agreed to draft a literature review in light of the available data.
11. Establish agenda for next meeting - Continue discussion on draft document
Materials passed out during the meeting: § Meeting Agenda § Recommended Nutrient Criteria for West Virginia Lakes and Reservoirs, Draft document dated March 14, 2005 – Martin Christ § Data sets from Mountain Top Mining EIS database – Larry Emerson
~ Meeting Adjourned ~
Minutes from October 20, 2005 NCC Meeting in Buckhannon
Attendance: Tom Brand John Rowe John Wirts Martin Christ Matt Monroe Mike Hawranick Dave Clark Lance Lin
Summary of recent happenings.
Review of Virginia ACC documents.
WVU Study Timeline – reviewed expectations of researchers
Is Bear Lake worth looking at more closely in order to understand why the data is so different from most others? A: Probably
Getting DNR participation. Specifically, descriptions of fishing quality for list of lakes. Tom Brand offered to talk to Secretary Timmermeyer about requesting the assistance of DNR fisheries biologists. Basically asking her to forward the lake list to DNR and ask them to fill in a spreadsheet. Martin will send list to Tom next week.
Set Agenda for Dec 1st meeting. (Announcement will stress importance of this meeting – include brief timeline for when tasks need completed in order to get to 2007 legislative session)
|