Back to Nutrient Criteria Committee Home Page Over to NCC 2002 Minutes
Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes Final Draft Attending (sign-in sheet): Wayne Appleton, WVMA/WVCC Rodney Branson, WVFB Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute (Facilitator) Larry Emerson, WVCA/Arch Coal, Inc. Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Joseph Hankins, Conservation Fund/Freshwater Institute Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau of Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center Kimberly Miller, USGS Matt Monroe, WVDA Dan Ramsey, USFWS John Rowe, WVDOF Kathy Rushworth, Municipal Water Quality Association Jeff Skousen, WVU College of Ag & Forestry Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association Ed Snyder, EQB Randy Sovic, WVDWR Ben Stout, Wheeling Jesuit University John VanHassel, American Electric Power John Wirts, WV DEP 1. Review and approve of
minutes of February 27, 2003 committee meeting.
With the above changes, the minutes were approved. 2. Discuss response to suggestions offered by USEPA (on form entitled “Draft Procedures for EPA Review of State/Tribal Nutrient Criteria Plans, and Process for Reaching Agreements”) to the Nutrient Criteria Plan submitted by the Board on 10/29/02. § Report from Wayne Appleton regarding discussion with Tiffany Crawford of USEPA: § EQB needs to send a letter to USEPA Region 3 conveying that although the NCC is not changing the process flow diagram, we anticipate sending parts of our work for review by the Legislature as they become ready and not waiting until the end. § The question remains as to what we need to do to have a plan agreed to since EPA and EQB are in on-going discussions. § Ed Synder of EQB said EQB could send a letter but would prefer a letter from the NCC so that EQB was clearly forwarding the will of the committee. §
Wayne Appleton agreed to draft this letter and submit to NCC through
email so it could be presented at the next EQB meeting. (completed)
3.
Discuss “Nutrient Concentrations and Benthic Invertebrate Community
Metrics in West Virginia Streams” (draft), co-authored by Martin Christ and
Evan Hansen. § The opportunity to read and discuss the paper was appreciated. § Correction—SCI of 60.6 not 62 should be used. § The paper tells us there is not an obvious or quick answer. § How do we postulate the driver for going forward—there is no silver bullet, i.e., “this much nitrate equals this problem.” § It seems this paper tells us there is not a simple equation across all ecological and nutrient concentrations, but does tell us to look at subsets of environments, metrics and species and see if we can find relationships; i.e., break the problem into smaller pieces. § The question is begged: is there literature to guide us? § While literature is voluminous, we still must define impairment and then establish how we determine if it is caused by nutrients. § By looking at literature, can we find a way to define impairment—should we define it without having the benefit of what the literature might say about defining impairment? We might need at least some consensus on impairment as we look at scientific data in the literature. The literature search might benefit from some basic ideas/questions (chicken and egg dilemma). § The literature is largely related to nutrients and reference conditions—the reference condition is the base from which you compare criteria—yet, the NCC has put reference conditions at the bottom of the list. This, from the perspective of some, creates a conundrum for the literature search. § It was suggested that since the NCC plan starts with lakes/reservoirs (303d), the literature search should begin with lakes/reservoirs. NCC could develop criteria for this finite area of water in the State. Then, we can build on that to look at streams or rivers, and as such our literature search will evolve to steams. §
Question was raised—what definition of impairment was used in creation
of the 303d list? Randy Sovic
offered to invite an expert to the next meeting to review. § A question was raised—do we tend to know more about effects than cause? 4. Continue discussion of
work plan and budget. §
It was suggested and agreed that an update on the Chesapeake Bay and
Ohio River Basin issues be discussed on each NCC agenda. § Discussion of resources (it was noted generally that each agency is already supporting the work of the NCC by allowing the time commitment at meetings and other work in between): § CVI: - Can be fiscal agent and can waive standard administrative fees for this project. - Can help with travel for those not reimbursed by their agency. - Modeling expertise—CVI has a GIS shop. Perhaps a one-day workshop for the NCC so it can determine what it might want in the way of modeling. (the CVI is willing to organize this). § Rivers Coalition (Martin Christ): - Literature review - Published papers and links to other data. § Rivers Coalition (Evan Hansen): - Literature review - Can help get information out through newsletter and watershed network to ask for help with sampling/data collection - Might be able to co-sponsor a workshop on volunteer training for sampling and monitoring. - Can house an intern to work with NCC § Cacapon Institute (Neil Gillies): - Web site - Data (largely historical/long-term) - Literature review § Fish and Wildlife Service (Dan Ramsey): - Literature search - Possibility of helping with sampling - Might be able to help with borrowing articles for literature review § WVMA/WV Chamber (Wayne Appleton): - Links to American Chemistry Council and Federal Water Quality Coalition for technical expertise - Will explore help with data collection - Serves as conduit for information and link with member groups § Division of Forestry (John Rowe): - Literature search § Conservation Fund/Freshwater Institute (Joseph Hankins): - Data collection - Can act as fiscal conduit for donations/private support (tax deduction for contributor) - Can help with samples, especially in eastern panhandle. - Literature review § DEP (John Wirts): - Random sampling program (150 sites statewide) - Pre-TMDL development data collection for watersheds deemed impaired - will have some data on nutrients by this summer § DEP (Randy Sovic): - Continued updates on efforts with Chesapeake Bay and ORSANCO - Continued review of Federal Register to look for funding opportunities - Support for user surveys as part of process of defining impairment (with DNR and Dept. of Health) - Can set up half-day workshop on sample collection procedures § Farm Bureau (Rodney Branson): - Can continue offering facilities and meals for members - Can continue offering some meeting support, but members are encouraged to bring sufficient copies of handouts. § WV Forestry Association (Roger Sherman): - Links to national organizations - Literature review - 20 years of collections in 7 streams - 2 staff who might be able to provide technical assistance (Ph.D. wildlife specialist and Ph.D. research director) § Coal Association (Larry Emerson): - Literature review, related to coal fields - Can ask what data is routinely monitored with respect to nutrients § USGS (Kim Miller): - Compiled database - Can respond to specific requests § Municipal Water Quality Association: - No paid staff - Could summarize data - Focus is on treating wastewater - Links with Maryland and Virginia—can ask about nutrient loading work - Limited data for receiving streams § Bureau of Public Health (Michael Hawranick): - Drinking water analysis - Turbidity data - Can request providers to collect and submit data § Wheeling Jesuit University (Ben Stout): - Literature review - Experimental design expertise - Can add sampling for NCC to field work this summer (and provide spatial location and biological data) § West Virginia University (Jeff Skousen): - Can assign students in special topics courses to help with NCC literature search § Shepherd College (Ed Snyder): - Students can do sampling § EQB: - Libby will continue her assistance - Looking for funding § Resources/Budget Subcommittee: § It was decided to establish a group to frame out a more specific scope of work and concomitant resources (cost and sources): - Joseph Hankins, chair - John Rowe - Martin Christ - Wayne Appleton - Evan Hansen - Randy Sovic §
A straw model will be provided at the next meeting. § Literature Search Subcommittee: §
Martin Christ offered a straw model for compiling the literature review. §
Neil Gillies offered to compile the data on Excel in a searchable
database. § It was agreed that paper trails exist for each review; see data management section later in the minutes for a subsequent discussion. § It was agreed that only literature with annotations should be considered. § The template (ideas): · Name of Reviewer · Source · Date of Source · Author · Contact · Utility to Committee · Notes (e.g., rebuttals, comments, etc.) · Submittal Date · Key word check-off - Background, nutrient levels - Lakes - Streams - Biotic impacts - Definition of Impairment - Region of state (decide how these will be demarcated) · Format of data · Confidence in methodology § Subcommittee will: - Generate list of key words - Assign tasks - Provide copies of article to NCC and EQB - Report on progress at each meeting § Subcommittee volunteers: - Martin Christ - Evan Hansen - Neil Gillies, chair - Dan Ramsey - Ben Stout - John Wirts - Larry Emerson
5. Continue discussion of data management begun at the February meeting. § Documents go to EQB § Suggestion that EQB maintain data on CD (sources and content logged) § Grey literature also goes to EQB § Master list maintained by EQB § Will hold off on sub committee right now § Need to address: - Quality assurance - Accessibility - Content - Linking databases (if appropriate and needed) 6. Continue
discussion of developing framework for defining “impairment”. “Proposed Definition of Nutrient Impairment” A water body is impaired by nutrients if nitrogen, phosphorus, or a resulting water quality characteristic (including but not limited to nuisance algae, high turbidity, or low dissolved oxygen) prevents attainment of a designated or exisiting use. In particular: o For Category A, Public Water Supply, Public Water Supply, a water body fails to attaint his use if nutrients directly or indirectly produce unacceptable taste or odor of the water, or significantly impair water supply withdrawal from a water body. 7. Review future
meeting dates. April 25 May 29 8. Discuss agenda for
April meeting. § Mike McCurry to discuss lake/reservoir impairment § Reports from subcommittees: § Chesapeake Bay §
Orsanko § Budget § Literature Review § Continue definition of impairment discussion § Review introductory paragraph and Category A § Continue to Category B ~
Meeting Adjourned ~ Mate § “Nutrient Concentrations and Benthic Invertebrate Community Metrics in West Virginia Streams” (draft), co-authored by Martin Christ and Evan Hansen § Definition of Impairment draft (modification of Christ et. al proposal) § February 27, 2003 minutes
Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes FINAL Attending (sign-in sheet): Wayne Appleton, WVMA/WVCC Rodney Branson, WVFB Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute (Facilitator) Larry Emerson, WVCA/Arch Coal, Inc. Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Joseph Hankins, Conservation Fund/Freshwater Institute Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau of Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center Angela McCauley, WVU Kimberly Miller, USGS Matt Monroe, WVDA John Rowe, WVDOF Jeff Skousen, WVU College of Ag & Forestry Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association Randy Sovic, WVDWR John VanHassel, American Electric Power John Wirts, WV DEP 1. Review and approve of
minutes of March 20, 2003 committee meeting.
With the above changes, the minutes were approved. 2. Update on Chesapeake Bay
nutrient criteria development from Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture § Tom asked where the samples were taken? Matt informed the committee that samples had been taken at the mouth. § The cost of the project is $18.7 billion § If they do not meet the guidelines then they will write a TMDL § They expect to meet everything except for the deep channel § Nitrogen is difficult to contain § WV still reviewing with EPA about what our level of involvement is § 64,000 miles, less than 5% is in WV § Bay project is an annual goal not a seasonal one § Contact Twiala Carr 260-0644,tcarr@dep.state.wv.us 3.
Presentation by Mike Arcuri, Division of Water and
Waste Management, WVDEP regarding lake and reservoir data. § Definition of trophic status § 15 lakes assessed for trophic status in 1996 o 1 oligotrophic (infertile) o 3 mesotrophic (moderately fertile) o 11 eutrophic (highly fertile) § Determining trophic status o Secchi depth o Chlorophyll o Total phosphorus § Carlson’s indices range – 0-100 with higher numbers indicating eutrophy and lower numbers indicating oligotrophy. o 0-39 oligotrophic o 40-50 mesotrophic o 51-100 eutrophic § Nitrogen is a better indicator of algal blooms in freshwater streams. § *Eutrophy and impairment are not the same 4. Committee Reports
5.. Continue
discussion of developing framework for defining “impairment”. “Proposed Definition of Nutrient Impairment” A water of the State is impaired by nutrients if nitrogen, phosphorus, or a resulting water quality characteristic prevents attainment of a designated or existing use. In particular: o For Category A, Public Water Supply, a water of the State fails fails to achieve this use if nutrients directly or indirectly threaten human health produce unacceptable taste or odor of the water, or unreasonably impact conventional treatment (i.e.: settling and disinfection). o For Category B, Propagation and maintenance of fish and other aquatic life, a water of the State fails to attain this use if nutrients directly or indirectly cause a shift in community integrity. A shift in community integrity includes, among other things, increasing or decreasing the negative impact on the abundance or diversity of indigenous populations of fish or other aquatic life. § Suggestion to put community integrity back in the definition § Define negative o For Category C, Water contact recreation, a water of the State is impaired if nutrients directly or indirectly cause nuisance algae, unacceptable water clarity, unacceptable odor, or unacceptable microbial growth. § Suggestion to add human health · Opposition was demonstrated to this suggestion because it was thought that Nitrogen and Phosphorus are not a health threat. · Conclusion – Leave human health out until there is further evidence to support the idea. 6.. Budget
matters/expense reimbursement forms § Contact Libby for travel/expense reports § Still awaiting the EPAs $10,000 o Tiffany told Libby that there is an extra $85,000 at EPA for region 3. o It was thought that this figure had increased significantly from what was originally stated. § Self selecting- if you need/want assistance it will be made available to you. 7. Review future
meeting dates May 29 June 23 8. Discuss agenda for
May meeting § Reports from subcommittees: § Chesapeake Bay §
ORSANCO § Budget § Literature Review § Libby will contact Tiffany about available dollars § Continue definition of impairment discussion § Martin Christ will prepare nutrient criteria scenarios two weeks prior to the next meeting § Review introductory paragraph and Category A § Continue to Category B § Continue to Category C ~
Meeting Adjourned ~ Mate Materia § March 20, 2003 minutes § Backgrounder “Setting Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” § The Conservation Fund § Wayne C. Appleton’s letter to Dr. Edward Snyder, Chairman of the WVEQB about the Nutrient Criteria Development plans § TMDLs for Bear Lake, West Virginia § NCC Literature Review – Neil § NCC Literature Review – Dave § Narrative Standard for Nutrient Regulation Draft § Best Available Science and the Designation and Protection of Critical Areas
Nutrient Criteria Committee Meeting Minutes FINAL Attending (sign-in sheet): Wayne Appleton, WV Chamber/WVMA Patrick Bowen, NRCS Tom Brand, WVU Libby Chatfield, EQB Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition Larry Emerson, Arch Coal/WV Coal Association Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute Joseph Hankins, Freshwater Institute Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau of Public Health Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center Angela McCauley, WVU Matt Monroe, WVDA John Rowe, WVDOF Roger Sherman, Forestry Community Randy Sovic, DWWM John Wirts, WV DEP-DWWM 1. Review and approve of
minutes of April 25, 2003 committee meeting. § Page 2 – add level of involvement instead of role § Page 2 – omit cleared away § Page 3 – change the “Proposed Definition of Nutrient Impairment” o Change a water body to water of the state o For Category A, Public Water Supply, a water body fails to achieve this use if nutrients directly or indirectly threaten human health produce unacceptable taste or odor of the water, or unreasonably impact conventional treatment (i.e.: settling and disinfection). o Page 3 – omit last bullet under #5 o Add budget subcommittee reports With the above changes, the minutes were approved 2. Committee Reports
3. Scenarios (WEB NOTE: To read the scenarios discussed in the following section, click here.) Assumptions · Reference condition · Sampling certainty · Range of healthy population · Size of stream/watershed · Scale · Nature/natural population
§ Biomass only response changes and no downstream then it is not impairment § Magnitude of change is important
o If original condition was reference then this is impairment o Assume each point is outcome of vigorous sampling o Not enough information to say whether it is impairment or not o With sufficient sampling and if it’s original condition was reference then it is impairment
o Is evidence of decline sufficient evidence to term impairment? o Return to this scenario when we know definition of impairment o Put aside for further review
o Some say nitrate can deform amphibians and other disagree o Apparent and obvious change in population and deformities equal impairment o Take away assumptions and it does not equal impairment **
Assignment – Everyone Write a Scenario for Next Meeting ** |