Back to Nutrient Criteria Committee Home Page 

Table of Contents: 

• Meeting minutes February 26, 2004
• Meeting minutes March 18, 2004
• Meeting minutes April 15, 2004 
• Meeting minutes May 2004
• Meeting minutes June 17, 2004
• Meeting minutes July 15, 2004
• Meeting minutes August 19, 2004
• Meeting minutes September 16, 2004
• Meeting minutes October 21, 2004
• Meeting minutes November 18, 2004
• Meeting minutes December 16, 2004

February 26, 2004 

Christina Richmond, WV Department of Agriculture

Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture

Meredith Pavlick, WV Rivers Coalition

Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator)

Wayne Appleton, WVMA/WVCOC

John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry

Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute

Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health

Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

Kimberly Miller, USGS

Joseph Hankins, TCF Freshwater Institute

Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition – Participated by phone

• Page 2 – Literature Review, added Martin Christ provided reports to the NCC.

• Page 2 – Budget, $50,000 is to be used for consulting and other support.

• Page 2 – Budget, Funding possibilities. Added A Study of in front of Hypolimnetic chemistry, Storm sampling events, and Nutrients – periphyton.

• Page 2 – Budget, Funding possibilities, added explanation to All around brain – hire someone who can speak to it.

• Page 2 – Update from Ed Snyder, Added This was discussed due to the concern that this change could affect this group. Ed felt the group should continue regardless.

• Page 3 – Update on ORSANCO, changed Randy Sovic attended to Randy Sovic reported on the gulf hypoxia meeting.

• Page 3 – Update on ORSANCO, The criteria on the Clark, changed applying to applied.

• Page 4 – Martin Christ discussed the strawman proposal, changed there could be lakes to there will be lakes that have low flow in the summer and longer residence times.

With the above changes, the minutes were approved.

*Agenda items 7 and 8 were discussed before the Committee Reports so Evan could participate via phone.

• Literature Review

• Neil Gillies asked if there was a purpose to continue literature review. Right now it is not focused.

• It was decided that literature review will be used as a specific tool to document decision making and utilized when there is a specific question.

• Budget

• Joe Hankins reported that there is uncertainty about EPA funding. Libby is going to verify this.

• $50,000 is earmarked for criteria, we need to develop an RFP.

• Randy Sovic recommended that we focus on lakes with this money and look for funds later for streams.

• Data needs – lakes (*Field Measurement)

Phosphorous $10/sample

Chlorophyll A $15/sample

*DO

Turbidity (may be field)

*Secchi

Iron $50/sample

Sulfides $15/sample

*Temperature

Total Nitrogen $50/sample

*pH

*Conductivity

• We need to approach these agencies with these questions: 1) What data is available historically? 2) What are you currently collecting? 3) What are you willing to add to your current program?

  • US Army Corps of Engineers – Kim

  • DNR – Mike

  • Universities, Marshall – Neil, WVU – Meredith

  • DEP – Randy

  • Power Companies – Randy

  • MUB – Meredith

  • Watershed Associations – Randy

  • NRCS – Matt

  • NCC Members – Wayne will draft a letter for Tom to send out

• Joe Hankins recommended developing a matrix of impoundments, picking some extremes and checking to see if our criteria describes them. Evan, Martin and Meredith will develop this matrix. A conference call will be set up at least a week before the next meeting for discussion.

• Dave Clark reminded the committee that we need to look for matching funds and possibly utilize an intern from a university.

• Randy Sovic advised that a letter was secured from the Governor supporting the Gulf Hypoxia issue.

• Money was requested for ORSANCO to oversee a subcommittee on Gulf Hypoxia.

• The subcommittee will begin meeting in October 2004.

• Criteria development, trading, scorecard and outreach workgroups should convene before the October meeting.

• We will work closely with ORSANCO, it may work very similarly to the Chesapeake Bay Program.

• The development of a tributary strategy is moving ahead. The deadline is April 30, 2004.

• Members of the Ag subcommittee are not comfortable putting numbers in the document because they are afraid EPA will later hold them to the numbers.

• No report given.

• No specific discussion on this agenda item.

Meredith distributed: Inventory of impairments to designated uses of the waters of West Virginia that may be caused by nutrients

• Document is open to input.

• Best professional judgment and TSI was used for evaluation.

• Meredith distributed: When is a lake not a lake?

• Montana uses seasonal criteria that are only enforced during that season.

• If we set the criteria based on the most sensitive time, we could impact municipalities and industries. This could cause them to be less efficient.

• A discharge in February may produce a temporal impact several months later.

• We need to be careful and set criteria so it affects that part of the ecosystem and downstream but doesn’t keep us from processing waste.

• Phosphorous is difficult to monitor, it isn’t always in the water column. This makes it difficult to determine the actual phosphorous burden.

• There is a great deal of data that is below the method detection limit.

• Evan and Meredith will do an analysis on the lake data with residence times.

• Meredith distributed: Possible Models and Thresholds for Choosing P Standards for West Virginia’s Reservoirs and Lakes

• Martin Christ performed this analysis of data.

• Document covers methods of developing standards. There are other methods, this is not a final document.

• The method detection limit was cut in half to be used for this analysis. Some lakes with high detection limits were thrown out.

• Neil Gillies stressed the importance of getting lake samples during the turnover.

• Meredith distributed: Summary of US Army Corps of Engineers Lake Data

• Some lakes fell during fall turnover.

• Links between low DO and phosphorus are unclear due to insufficient data.

• Question for Libby: did George Kincaid (USACE) provide a copy of their data to NCC?

• Neil Gillies suggested NCC look at all of the data and request more information from lakes of interest.

• Joe Hankins suggested focusing on a smaller number of impoundments.

• Matt Monroe stressed the difficulty of setting standards on lakes that are manipulated for specific purposes.

• No specific discussion on this agenda item.

• Develop RFP

• ORSANCO Update

• Chesapeake Bay Update

• Update from USEPA

• Update from Martin on DNR Meeting

• Analysis of residence times

• Establish agenda

• Meeting Agenda

• Meredith Pavlick handout – Summary of US Army Corps of Engineers Lake Data

• Meredith Pavlick handout – Possible Models and Thresholds for Choosing P Standards for West Virginia’s Reservoirs and Lakes.

• Meredith Pavlick handout – Inventory of impairments to designated uses of the waters of West Virginia that may be caused by nutrients

• Meredith Pavlick handout – When is a lake not a lake?

Top of Page

Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture

John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry

Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition

Luke Richmond, WVMWQA

Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition

Meredith Pavlick, WV Rivers Coalition

Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman)

Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute

Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association

Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health

Patrick Bowen, US Department of Agriculture-NRCS

Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator)

Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment

Tiffany Crawford, USEPA – Participated by phone

Libby Chatfield, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board staff)

Penny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker)

• Page 1 – Changed spelling of Hansen

• Page 3 – Update on ORSANCO, Changed Randy Sovic secured a letter to Randy Sovic advised that a letter was secured from the Governor supporting the Gulf Hypoxia issue.

• Page 3 – Update on ORSANCO, changed The NCC to Criteria development.

• Page 3 – Update on ORSANCO, changed close to closely. Changed will be very similar to may work very similarly.

• Page 4 – Possible Models and Thresholds, added some lakes with high detection limits were thrown out.

• Page 4 – changed No link between low DO and phosphorous data to Links between low DO and phosphorus are unclear due to insufficient data.

• Page 4 – changed spelling of Kincaid.

With the above changes, the minutes were approved.

• Literature Review

• Martin feels that the definition of impairment on the web looks incomplete and doesn’t reflect the most recent statement. Neil will review and determine if we should discuss it further.

• No new information since the last meeting.

• Budget

• Randy Sovic participated in a conference call with EPA Region 3. Region 3 does not have its budget for FY04, as a result it is unclear what money will available to the states for FY04. It is unclear whether the states will collectively use those monies or if the states will individually request monies. There will be a very small window of opportunity to submit RFP’s once a decision is made. WV may want to collectively work with the other Region 3 states on an issue that would support nutrient criteria development. WV may need funding now for data collection for lakes, and may want to consider only submitting a separate RFP for lakes.

• Virginia is working on lake criteria and sent DO and TP data to Randy.

• Libby reiterated that a task list and cost estimates need to be communicated to the EQB when they are developed. Funding for this process is critical and EQB is willing to assist in any way.

• Waiting to hear from EPA about funding.

• Tennessee is not a compact state but is willing to participate in the Ohio River Sub basin if and when formed.

• The development of a tributary strategy is moving ahead. The document is currently out for public comment. The deadline for comments is March 29, 2004.

• Tiffany provided feedback to West Virginia’s nutrient criteria plan. Region 3 is very confident with the plan, however Headquarters had three concerns.

• Inventory of existing data – the regional and national databases were not mentioned in the document.

• Development of work plan and budget – the plan needs to reflect that West Virginia will not be getting all funding from EPA.

• 2009 timeline for criteria development – Headquarters felt the time long was too long. If we aren’t willing to adjust the timeline, we may want to provide explanation.

• Libby will review our plan, incorporate the changes and distribute it to the group.

• Headquarters is in the process of developing a technical support document and wants to know what needs the states have. Tiffany will send a request for state input by e-mail to Randy Sovic and Libby Chatfield. The deadline for this feedback will be one week after the email goes out. The committee discussed a preliminary list of technical support needs which include the following: (*priority items):

• *Hypolimnetic chemistry/fall turnover/oxygen concentrations

• Storm sampling events

• Periphyton data

• Cross-ecosystem comparisons

• *Numeric data – dose response curves related to impairment

• Fish studies

• Work in other states

• Support for NCC conference

• *On call limnologist and similar "experts"

• *User surveys – people who fish, swim, or general recreational users

• Policy implications for criteria development

• Drinking water/algal blooms

• Neil and Martin will work on a response to EPA, using this list. Libby will send final input to EPA.

• EPA is planning to hold an "All States" meeting if funding is available.

• It is expected that this meeting will be held after the National Coordinators Meeting, which will be about a year from now.

• The committee expressed concern with this projected date.

• West Virginia would be willing to host this meeting and not wait for EPA.

• Tiffany asked that we wait until she can talk with the other states’ coordinators before attempting to host the meeting. She will provide an update before our next meeting.

• Tiffany reminded the group of the biology workshop scheduled at Cacapon Institute (Cacapon State Park).

• Martin Christ spoke with Frank Jernejcic, a WVDNR biologist, and they both believe it would be beneficial for NCC to speak with the other WVDNR biologists.

• According to Martin, DNR biologists believe that there are none to few nutrient related problems with game fish but there are no new nutrient related problems in game fish.

• Martin will send our definition of impairment and preliminary inventory of nutrient problems to Bret Preston of WVDNR and ask for his input.

• Evan distributed: Residence time summary of West Virginia lakes

• Evan did a cause/effect analysis of data and developed TP criterion of 50 μg/L.

• Used Clean Lakes and USACE data and looked at DO and P.

• Evan and Martin will refine the document, look at other available parameters and change the residence time charts.

• Evan distributed: A West Virginia lake sampling program for 2004

• We need to focus on getting data collected before the fall turnover.

• Randy Sovic suggested that stream partners and watershed groups may be able to help sample – is working with Tim Craddock of WVDEP on this.

• Todd Petty at WVU volunteered to design a sampling plan.

• Possible ways to get samples: WVDA, WVDEP, private entity.

• Group discussed sampling costs – developed the following matrix to estimate sampling needs:

 

Analytical	Trips	# Lakes
$100/sample	20m/Deep At every 2 meters DO, Temp, pH, Conductivity 2/profile – upper and lower iron, sulfide, TN, TP 1/profile Chlorophyll A Secchi	1 time/month for 5 months (July – November)

• Questions need answered to develop sampling plan

• Validate cause and criteria presented in Feb?

• Can we confirm P/DO relationship?

• Demonstrate impairment above calculated criteria?

• Is algal growth ever Nitrogen limited?

• Relationship between P & Chlorophyll?

• Is there nuisance algal growth?

• Is turbidity related to nutrient levels?

• How much nutrients do lakes retain?

• A sub committee was developed to discuss a sampling program with Todd Petty at WVU: Evan, Matt, Meredith, Tom, Martin, Neil, Pat, and John.

• Do we need new data? If so, how can we best design a sampling program?

• The sub committee will get Todd Petty’s input.

• Neil will draft a document before the next NCC meeting.

• Subcommittee to report back at April NCC meeting regarding:

• Proposed sampling regime with suggested sites

• Draft statement of who will sample and how to go about sampling

• Statement of Purpose/list of things to be done

• Look at definition of impairment on website

• Possible states’ meeting

• Request to DNR – Bret Preston

• Data collection framework

• Martin wants written input on "Possible Models and Thresholds for Choosing P Standards for West Virginia’s Reservoirs and Lakes"

• Revisions to residence time graphs

• Meeting Agenda

• February 26, 2004 Meeting Minutes

• Hansen, Christ, Pavlick – Residence time summary of West Virginia lakes

• Evan Hansen – A West Virginia lake sampling program for 2004

Top of Page

Christina Richmond, WV Department of Agriculture

John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry

Joe Hankins, TCF/Freshwater Institute

Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition

Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

John Wirts, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute

Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment

Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition

Larry Emerson, Arch Coal/WV Coal Association

Ryan Gaujot, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator)

Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman)

Patrick Bowen, US Department of Agriculture-NRCS

Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association

Libby Chatfield, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board staff)

Penny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker)

Minutes were distributed and will be approved at the May meeting.

• Literature Review

• Literature review is dormant until requested. Neil requested the information from Martin and Evan that they have been using for lakes. Evan and Martin will provide this information at the next meeting.

• Budget

• Joe Hankins has no new information to report.

• Randy Sovic participated in a Nutrient Workgroup of ORSANCO conference call. The watershed initiative grant that will fund ORSANCO’s development of a sub basin committee has not been acted on by USEPA, however it is expected that this funding will be made available. ORSANCO is concentrating on setting criteria for the Ohio River by using cause/effect relationships. Nutrient data collected to date is being entered and will be evaluated. The main focus is to identify the effects on water plants on the main stem of the Ohio. The target date for developing Ohio River criteria is 2005-2006.

• Minnesota did a study on large river systems that may be beneficial to what we’re now doing. The study showed a strong correlation between Chlorophyll A, algae and BOD. Randy distributed information from Minnesota’s web page.

• EPA representative advised that the national nutrient RPF will be available sometime in April. The funds will be awarded regionally in July.

• WV is a member compact state of ORSANCO and can offer input when criteria is being established. WV must follow the criteria established by ORSANCO or be more stringent with our own criteria.

• Libby will check with Tiffany on the status of the Nutrient RFP. Libby reminded the committee that Tiffany encouraged collaboration with other states and Neil recommended contacting representatives in Virginia. Randy or John will make this contact.

• Christina Richmond reported that the completion date for the tributary strategy has been moved to June 18, 2004. The new draft of the document will be released on April 26, 2004 and the public comment period will end on May 26, 2004. The final meeting is scheduled for June 14, 2004.

• The agriculture section of the document will include numbers for the cap load allocations. Default data was used in the previous analysis because not all of the sections in the tributary strategy document included numbers.

• Neil Gillies will circulate the Chesapeake Bay Program’s white paper on innovation in agriculture conservation for the Bay to the group.

• John Wirts discussed funding for the non-tidal sampling network. West Virginia will receive $30,000. USGS will receive $10,000 to add another flow gauge. The remaining $20,000 will be used to help with storm sampling and additional sites. All of the non-tidal sampling sites will be associated with a gauge.

• There was discussion concerning the availability of nutrient data from the NPDES permitting program. Randy Sovic indicated that historically, information about TN and TP has not been collected. WVDEP, however, has made a commitment as part of the Strategy that all point sources will be required to provide TN and TP data to WVDEP when their permit is issued or reissued.

• Libby discussed the all states meeting with Tiffany. EPA Headquarters was pleased to hear that there is interest. Tiffany will update the group as information is available. There was no further communication from EPA on the request for comments from states regarding technical support needs and EPA’s development of a technical support document.

• John Wirts discussed the Joseph Beaman Maryland study. The study only applies to the Potomac area and will not be helpful statewide. This study is measuring the effect of periphyton respirations on dissolved oxygen.

• WVDEP’s periphyton study now has close to 400 sites in the state. The project includes identification of periphyton to species level, and collection of P, TN data and land use associated with all of these sites. WVDEP applied for EPA Regionally Applied Research Effort (RARE) money, and did not receive it. EPA is still trying to locate funding for this project. The money was to determine if the regional periphyton index is applicable to WV as it is. The study will help determine which streams are nutrient impacted. WVDEP should be able to complete this project in the future even if EPA funding is not available.

• DEP’s TMDL effort is moving into the Greenbrier and New River watersheds. Nutrient and periphyton data will be collected.

• Libby incorporated EPA’s recommendations to the plan and circulated it to the group. According to Tiffany Crawford, WV is ahead in the process, but we still have not received final acknowledgement on our plan for two years from headquarters. Neil had some additional changes to the plan, Libby will incorporate them into the document and sent it out to the members.

• Bret Preston wants to remain the contact for questions between WVDNR and NCC. Martin summarized Bret’s responses to NCC’s questions. Bret agreed that nutrients cause changes in game fish and non-game fish communities. He did not address the inventory issue.

• Martin will contact Bret with more questions from the group, including his response to the inventory that was developed.

• The group agreed that WVDNR’s continued participation at all NCC meetings is important. Tom suggested that the Board could help encourage continued WVDNR attendance at NCC meetings.

• Evan distributed Possible Models and Thresholds for Choosing P Standards for West Virginia’s Reservoirs and Lakes and Residence time summary of West Virginia Lakes.

• The object of the Models and Thresholds document was to compare different methods of establishing P criteria.

• A TSI of 50 is the standard boundary between mesotrophic and eutrophic.

• Evan distributed updated residence time graphs.

• Martin explained the Models and Thresholds and asked the group which methods should be refined. The group previously agreed to use the cause/effect model.

• The cause/effect model uses the basic limnological understanding to attempt to understand WV’s lakes. WV lakes have special exceptions such as sediment and high turn over.

• Martin Christ asked the group for input on the cause/effect analysis with a 50µg/L Total P concentration.

• Christina Richmond feels that there aren’t enough answered questions from DNR to move forward on a value of 50 µg/L.

• Neil believes the cause/effect relationship has been established based on good science but is based on a limited dataset. Before we can establish criteria based on WV data, we should carefully collect more data to perfect the cause and effect P/DO relationship.

• Margaret Janes indicated that using that value, 2 lakes currently listed on the 303(d) list would meet that limit. She suggested that DEP had been cautious in its listing decision, and that there was a level of certainty regarding the decision to list those lakes as impaired.

• Evan Hansen indicated that Todd Petty (WVU) feels we could use the cause/effect relationship for criteria and should focus on the outliers in the data.

• 14 day residence time will be used to determine if a lake is a lake.

• We should include lakes in our sampling program that have <14 day and >14 day residence times.

• Martin discussed the refinements that were made to the residence time graphs.

• Todd Petty (WVU) recommended using the money to try to explain outliers in the available data. He felt it would be unreasonable to attempt to add to the data set, but we should develop a plan based on an unlimited budget and determine what can be completed this summer.

• A task outline that reflects the information obtained from Todd Petty was distributed.

1. Add new lakes to existing data set

2. Collect additional data on outliers

3. General expert advice

• We need to be sure the lakes that we have represents the whole story of lakes in WV.

• WVDA would consider performing lake sampling.

• Lake Selection Criteria

1. Geographic Location

2. Residence Time

3. Eutrophic, Mesotrophic

4. Several Designated Uses

5. Geology

6. Age of impoundment

• There will be a conference call to develop a sampling protocol. Martin, Neil, Evan, John, Matt, and Joe will work with Todd Petty and Bret Preston to establish a sampling proposal.

• Strawman Sampling Proposal

• 10 Lakes (½ 14 day RT or less, ½ >14)

• Physiographic province (Ridge and Valley, Appalachian Plateau)

• Known or suspected trophic state

• Land Use

• Sampling (5 profiles/lake – stratified)

• July – November, 1 time/month

• Other sampling in the watershed

• Virginia Lakes and Reservoirs User Perception Survey was distributed. We need user surveys. Libby recommended distributing surveys at lakes we have data for or are planning to monitor.

• Ryan will check into surveys that CVI has done.

• We need to develop a budget for the user surveys.

• Randy will determine how VA is distributing surveys.

• Sampling proposal conference call – April 23 at 9:00 a.m.

• ORSANCO

• Bay Update

• USEPA update – Libby will contact Tiffany on RFP and distribute to group

• Periphyton Project – John Wirts

• Update on DNR dialogs

• Update on discussion of residence times

• Sampling Protocol and discussion

• RFP

• More discussion on cause/effect model

• Meeting Agenda

• March 18, 2004 Meeting Minutes

• Randy Sovic handout – Streams: Algae Monitoring, from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

• Evan Hansen handout – Possible Models and Thresholds for Choosing P Standards for West Virginia’s Reservoirs and Lakes.

• Evan Hansen handout – Lakes and Residence time summary of West Virginia Lake

• Sampling Task Outline

• Virginia Lakes and Reservoirs User Perception Survey

Top of Page

Doug Hudson, WV Department of Agriculture

Joe Hankins, TCF/Freshwater Institute

Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition

Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute

Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture

Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator)

Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition

Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry

Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health

Roger Sherman, WV Forestry Association

Libby Chatfield, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board staff)

Penny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker)

Edward C. Armbrecht, Jr, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board member)

Ifey Davis, USEPA (participated by phone)

Pat Campbell, WVDEP (participated by phone)

March 18, 2004 Minutes

• Page 2 – Committee Reports, last bullet, changed is to in.

• Page 3 – Discussion of possible meeting with WVDNR biologists, changed second bullet, According to Martin, DNR biologists believe that there are none to few nutrient related problems with game fish but there are no new nutrient related problems in game fish.

April 15, 2004 Minutes

• Page 3 – Discussion and amendments to the Nutrient Criteria Plan, WV is ahead in the process, but we still have not received final acknowledgement on our plan for two years from headquarters.

• Page 3 – added A TSI of before 50.

• Page 4 – changed WVDA would consider performing lake sampling.

• Page 4 – changed % rock type to geology.

• Page 5 – changed Ridge, Valley to Ridge and Valley.

• Page 5 – changed Lane Use to Land Use.

• Page 5 – changed spelling of Hanson to Hansen.

• Literature Review – No literature review report

• Budget – discussed with Agenda item 10

• Randy Sovic participated in a conference call with a number of states concerning water quality trading.

• It is still not known if ORSANCO will receive funding.

• A commission meeting will be held the second week of June.

• Information on the model run was received back from the Bay and we’re only 1/3 of the way finished.

• The comment period on the tributary strategy ends May 26, 2004 and the final meeting will be on June 14, 2004.

• The Blue Ribbon Panel held its third meeting. There is a meeting concerning nutrients in the Bay on June 4, 2004 in Shepherdstown. Bill Brannon and Matt Monroe will be attending the Principle Staff Meeting June 6-7, 2004.

• Rebecca Hanmer wants to focus on what can be accomplished now.

• Ifey Davis from USEPA Headquarters joined by telephone and provided an update regarding the request for Assistance published by the agency.

• The recently released Request for Assistance is the same that has been done in the past. A nationwide announcement was sent out. Awards will be $20,000-$80,000, proposals need to be submitted within this range. Using this money to make up for gaps in the existing data is a good idea.

• EPA will respond to the proposal as quickly as possible, we could receive a response within one week of the closing, however the grants office will take longer. Money cannot be spent before it is awarded.

• WV’s request will be more heavily weighted if it is used to match other resources. Iffy believes it would be more favorable for us to explain that we are studying lakes now and will move on to streams. She recommended listing streams because it is more collaborative.

• QAPP protocol must be written and approved by EPA before sampling can begin. Pat Campbell will look at the plans DEP has for TMDL sampling and make refinements to it for lake sampling.

• We will receive written acceptance from EPA once the final copy is received and a consensus is achieved.

• No update from WVDEP.

• Neil did not receive the grant for a periphyton study.

• Martin asked about the EPA request for technical guidance. Libby, Martin and Neil will have a conference call to discuss this document.

• Martin distributed the letter he sent to DNR. He has received no response from DNR.

• Martin asked how he should get DNR involved in proposal refinement. He will contact Bret to invite Frank Jernejcic.

• Evan asked if Lance Lin should be brought on board. It was suggested that Tom Brand contact Viadero at WVU. Libby will contact Tom and Chairman Snyder to determine the best response.

• No discussion.

• Martin distributed Addendum to: Possible Models and Thresholds for Choosing P Standards for West Virginia’s Reservoirs and Lakes.

• Martin discussed the changes made to the document. Cause/effect analysis was used and the data set was improved. Summer residence times of >14 days were used. The average concentration of all available TP data was used.

• Joe suggested sampling lakes that we have data on that supports the hypothesis.

• Neil recommended having a meeting with Virginia, they are also in the process of establishing lake criteria.

• Evan asked if we should consider other parameters other than TP. DO was earlier decided to be the most important parameter.

• Neil recommended doing a quick sampling to determine if the lakes are still represented by the data that we have.

• Discussion with Pat Campbell (WVDEP) on lake sampling.

• WVDEP has responsibilities to monitor lakes in the state. Pat plans to hire temporary help to work with the intern from WVDA.

• Pat proposed that WVDEP and WVDA collect the samples and take them to a private lab for analysis.

• WVDEP is offering staff time as far as administrative costs.

• WVDA is offering a summer intern for three months of the sampling and will use a full time employee for the remaining three months.

• Libby has not spoken with the EQB about the specifics of the sampling proposal, but the board supports the overall protocol and wants to help in any way.

• Pat Campbell was contacted by Lance Lin. He is currently working on establishing nutrient criteria in Illinois and will soon be beginning a job with WVU. The group felt Lance Lin should be contacted.

• Pat estimates that WVDEP will be ready to start sampling July 1, 2004.

• Joe Hankins suggested that user surveys should be taken out of the proposed budget if they don’t have to be done when the sampling is done. We should go back to EPA later for funding for the user surveys.

• Martin Christ’s sampling proposal was approved by the group. Data needs to be collected this summer, the state’s plan is to make recommendations by the end of the year.

• WVDA needs training and equipment to begin sampling.

• Neil Gillies asked WVDEP to provide QAPP before hiring a temporary employee for sampling.

• Randy Sovic feels that we may not get all of the key information we need if we take the user surveys out.

• Randy Sovic and Roger Sherman will contact Virginia about the user surveys they have completed.

• EQB has given the chairman authorization to spend $31,000 of the $50,000.

• Budget for A & B (Cost to NCC, not agency costs)

Personnel $25,000 (DEP - $20,000)

Equipment $2,000 (WVDA - $5,000)

Analyses $20,000

Travel $8,700

Boat(s) $500

$56,200

• Ted spoke about funding. EQB appreciates the care and thought that went into the lake proposal. Before EQB approves $50,000 for parts A and B, we must determine how we will pay for part C ($6,200).

• Neil recommended explaining in our Request for Assistance to EPA that the project is ongoing and needs more money to complete all three parts.

• This money has to be spent by September 30, 2005.

• Randy Sovic recommended the user surveys be completed by parks and recreation and those who are already on the ground.

• Smaller groups were created to work with Pat on parts A and B, to refine user surveys and to address the $6,200.

• To work on parts A and B: Martin (will set up), Joe, Neil, Evan, Todd Petty, Matt Monroe, Pat Bowen, Mike Arcuri and Frank Jernejcic.

• Releasing the full $50,000 to the group will be discussed at the EQB meeting on June 11, 2004.

• User surveys: Evan and Randy. Dave will check with CVI.

• Submit all information to Martin by June 4, he will put the report together and get it to EQB by June 11, 2004. Evan or Martin will represent NCC at this EQB meeting.

• Joe Hankins asked if the EPA Request for Assistance must be approved by EQB. The proposal will be written in EPA format and presented at the June 11, 2004 EQB meeting.

• Request for Assistance – high priority

• Review user survey

• Review Request for Assistance

• Possibilities to talk to group at next meeting: Todd Petty, Lance Lin, USGS, Jean Gregory.

• Meeting Agenda

• Martin distributed – NCC Field Sampling Proposal 2004

• Martin Christ’s letter to DNR

• Martin Christ distributed – Addendum to: Possible Models and Thresholds for Choosing P Standards for West Virginia’s Reservoirs and Lakes.

Top of Page

Committee Members Present

Doug Hudson, WV Department of Agriculture

Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition

Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture

Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition

John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry

John Wirts, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute

Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment

Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator)

Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman)

Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health

Wayne Appleton, WVMA/WVCOC

Others in Attendance

Libby Chatfield, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board staff)

Penny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker)

1. Review and approval of May 20, 2004 meeting minutes.

• Page 2 – Update from USEPA, added data after existing in second bullet.

• Page 2 – Update from USEPA, added more heavily after be in the fourth bullet.

• Page 3 – continued discussion of Possible Models, changed <14 to > 14 days.

2. Committee Reports

• Martin distributed a summary of NCC/DNR communications. Martin will remain NCC’s contact with DNR for questions.

• Libby will continue to encourage attendance by DNR and will contact agencies that have been invited but are not attending to encourage participation. The following were listed as possible additional participations:

• WVPSC (EQB will contact)

• WV Conservation Agency (Tom will contact Truman Wolfe)

• Rural Water (Wayne will contact)

• Margaret and Martin will develop a summary of Martin and Evan’s reports before the next NCC meeting. This document could possibly be put on EQB’s website or published in the DEP newsletter.

• Libby will email a list of everyone that has been invited to NCC meetings to the members.

3. Update on ORSANCO efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP

• Watershed initiative proposal (3-year Gulf sub-basin study) will likely not be granted to ORSANCO.

• EPA agreed to offer ORSANCO $165,000 for a one year period for the same goal.

• Some of the states were undecided about their participation in ORSANCO’s efforts on the Gulf sub-basin study. Randy advised them about WV’s experience with the Chesapeake Bay. WV did not initially get involved and had to catch up.

• ORSANCO will pursue the $165,000 to start the process.

• The nutrient work group will start soon and the sub basin committee process will start at a later date.

• ORSANCO is looking for other funding, there is possible funding through USDA and USEPA.

4. Update on Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria development –WVDA

• The first draft of the tributary strategy was run through the model. WV is 1/3 of the way towards meeting the cap load allocation. We are currently working on the second draft of the input deck. The input deck is a matrix of numbers that go into the model.

• The Bay office doesn’t believe that any of the states have a strong implementation plan.

• The tributary strategy meetings will continue and will focus on numbers to meet the cap load allocation and what this cost will be. The Bay office wants these figures by August 1, 2004.

5. Update from US Environmental Protection Agency

• Tiffany was not available, but Libby provided some information.

• Libby heard from Tiffany that the revised Nutrient Criteria Plan has been accepted. We should receive written notification from EPA in approximately two weeks.

• Libby will check with Tiffany on the information that Martin and Neil compiled for the technical document.

6. Update on periphyton project - WVDEP

• John Wirts distributed DEP’s Proposal for the 2004 RARE Grant. DEP received $45,000 of the $50,000 that was requested. The project will continue as is.

7. Continued discussion regarding development of framework for proposal for funding (2004) for nutrient data collection.

• EQB has approved the proposed sampling plan.

• Matt Monroe recommended adding another large lake and dropping one of the smaller ones.

• Mike Hawranick will get municipal intake and TOC data to determine when the lakes turn over.

• John Wirts recommended using DEP’s deployable sampling units to be sure to get samples from the fall turnover. DEP currently has five units and is trying to buy more. Tom Brand will send a letter of support for purchasing these units to Allyn Turner and copy it to Pat Campbell.

• DEP can put units out for sampling in September and will pick up the cost for this.

• Martin suggested using the money DEP spends on these units for part of the matching funds to EPA.

• Matt Monroe and John Wirts will work out the details in the sampling plan.

• Dave works with a watershed group for Moncove Lake that he will contact.

• Randy suggested partnering with other entities to assist with analytical costs. This would be more helpful when we address rivers and streams.

• Martin and John will make the revisions to the sampling proposal. Tomlinson will be dropped and a smaller lake will be added. John will choose another lake and notify the group. The sampling proposal must be changed and submitted to Libby before the June 28, 2004 meeting.

• User surveys will be distributed on the days the lakes are monitored. Evan developed a survey using Minnesota and Vermont’s existing surveys. John Rowe, Martin and Evan will meet in the next week to finalize the surveys.

• Neil recommended developing a protocol for surveys that includes scripts with definitions of the terms on the survey. Evan will draft a straw man protocol for user surveys and a script of how to approach individuals to complete the surveys.

• Randy and John will check with Mike Arcuri for contacts at each lake for assistance with the user surveys.

• Evan will take the lead in analyzing the user surveys. John Rowe and Evan will meet with staff at WVU to develop a protocol.

• Mike Arcuri is working on QA for sampling.

• Evan suggested a presentation on the ammonia issue for Category A waters. Libby will contact Mike Hawranick for more information. Wayne will ask a municipal and a rural water operator to attend next month’s meeting.

• Maryland , in cooperation with USGS, is requesting the full $80,000 available from the USEPA Request for Assistance from Nutrient Criteria Development to continue the work funded by USEPA last year.

• Libby will call Tiffany for information about a multi-state effort. Cooperating with other states will help in our request for funding. Kent Crawford would be able to provide information on the protocol.

• Neil recommended a user survey for category C streams.

• We need to begin preparing for next year’s RFA, possibly developing an RFA subcommittee.

• Lance Lin would like to participate in our nutrient criteria process. He received EPA funding for his project and his assistance would be a benefit to the group.

8. Next steps for developing criteria for rivers and streams.

• NCC will draft a document with lessons learned from establishing lake protocol. NCC members should bring their input to the next meeting.

9. Establish agenda for next meeting

• WV Bureau of Public Health

• Drinking Water Clearinghouse

• Rural Water – participation

• Dan Cincotta – presentation about reference community of fish in WV rivers and streams.

• Draft summary that Martin and Margaret are developing.

• Lessons learned from lakes

• Data needs for rivers and streams

• USGS proposal – multistate

• Kent Crawford

Materials passed out during the meeting:

• Meeting Agenda

• Martin Christ handout – Summary of NCC/DNR communication and proposed followup questions

• John Wirts handout – DEP’s Proposal for 2004 RARE Grant

Top of Page

July 15, 2004

Nutrient Criteria Committee

Meeting Minutes

Committee Members Present

Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture

Joseph Hankins, TCF Freshwater Institute

Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition

John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry

Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition

Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment

Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator)

Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health

Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman)

Others in Attendance

Bret Preston, WV Division of Natural Resources

Penny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker)

1. Review and approval of June 17, 2004 meeting minutes.

• Page 2 – Update on ORSANCO, changed third bullet to: Some of the states were undecided about their participation in ORSANCO’s efforts on the Gulf sub-basin study. Randy advised them about WV’s experience with the Chesapeake Bay. WV did not initially get involved and had to catch up.

2. Committee Reports

• Evan will email the final version of the user survey to the group.

• Matt Monroe reported that 12 surveys were completed at Beechfork Lake, the rest are to be finished later this week.

• Randy will contact Jean Gregory in Virginia. Virginia’s program to establish nutrient criteria is parallel to West Virginia’s.

3. Update on ORSANCO efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP

• No update.

4. Update on Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria development –WVDA

• More numbers were added for the second model run. All of the numbers have been increased.

• Joe Hankins stated that more point sources were identified than the Bay model accounted for. Matt Monroe related that the agriculture numbers don’t match with the numbers provided by Ag Statistics.

• An in-state implementation committee is being formed. The stakeholders will develop the implementation plan.

• An education committee will be formed to educate the public.

• WVDA will implement non-tidal sampling by October. All sampling sites will be near USGS flow stations.

• NRCS is funding another litter transport program. The old program moved 7,000 tons of litter. This program will be funded for one year.

5. Update on periphyton project - WVDEP

• No update.

6. Discussion with Kent Crawford, USGS

• Delayed until next meeting.

7. Update on lake sampling work

• Mike Arcuri started sampling on Beech Fork and had boat problems, he will finish the sampling today. DEP will collect the samples and Doug Hudson will work on the user surveys.

• Tomlinson Lake will still be sampled and Sutton was added.

• Twelve user surveys have been completed to date.

• Evan Hansen spoke with two students at WVU who volunteered to help with user surveys near Morgantown. Ed Snyder approved $500 to pay mileage for these lakes.

• Tom Brand told the group that Virginia had problems with user surveys, many of them weren’t returned.

• Alan Collins at WVU will assist in analyzing the user surveys. Evan will collect the first month’s worth of surveys and then meet with Alan. Evan may be able to meet with Alan before the next NCC meeting.

• Randy Sovic will check with John Wirts about getting the data entered.

8. Discussion of water treatment protocols, Mike Hawranick

• Mike distributed Public Drinking Water – List of Required Contaminant Analyses

• Mike was able to speak with Charles at Spencer Lake and there was nothing significant with the data.

• A coagulant is added to make sediment drop out. The results of past monitoring affects what is currently monitored.

• Treatment technique requirements from EPA are followed. When deciding whether to treat, the operators make judgment calls based on past experiences at that facility.

• Copper sulfate is an algaecide that is sometimes used.

• Bret Preston said that copper sulfate is not used at fishing impoundments, it is only used on some hatching facilities.

• Randy Sovic asked if the Health Department can survey systems and ask how and why chemicals are added. Mike will send out an inquiry and get feedback.

• Mike will develop a draft letter and circulate for NCC input. He will focus on facilities that are on lakes. The following questions will be included:

• What causes you to add material?

• What is the cost?

• When does it become problematic when it comes to disinfection?

9. "Lessons Learned" from developing the lake protocol

• Delayed until next meeting.

10. Information update from WVDNR, Martin Christ and Bret Preston

• Bret based his answers on fisheries management applications.

• West Virginia does not fertilize lakes, this is a policy decision, and DNR does not feel it’s necessary.

• DNR has not seen any issues where nutrients affect non-game fish. Dan Cincotta would be able to provide more information on this issue. Bret will invite Dan and Janet Clayton to the next NCC meeting.

• Randy Sovic asked if a TP standard of 50μg/L would cause problems for DNR. Bret replied that the levels that will be found in the next few weeks would help him determine how DNR will react.

• West Virginia is nutrient deficient when it comes to the fish population.

• Matt Monroe asked about the algae problems on the South Branch. This issue should be addressed in Dan Cincotta’s presentation.

• Dave encouraged DNR’s attendance at NCC meetings. NCC’s decision may affect DNR’s operations.

11. Summary of NCC efforts to date, Margaret Janes and Martin Christ

• Margaret Janes distributed Nutrient Summary for Bulletin to stakeholders.

• Margaret will incorporate comments from Randy and send the finalized document to Libby to send out as a news release.

12. Preliminary discussions on proposals for next round of EPA’s RFA for Nutrient Criteria Development.

• We must be prepared for the next RFA. Martin recommended having a proposal somewhat prepared when the request comes out.

• Joe recommended suggesting to program offices what we need before the proposals are taken. Once we have a list of needs, we can develop our financial needs.

13. Continued discussion of next steps for developing criteria for rivers and streams.

• Delayed until next meeting.

14. Presentation by National Drinking Water Clearinghouse.

• No presentation given.

 

14. Establish agenda for next meeting

 

• Lake Sampling update – John Wirts

• User Surveys – Evan

• Update from Jean Gregory – Randy

• USGS – Kent Crawford

• National Drinking Water Clearinghouse

• Dan Cincotta and Janet Clayton – Martin will send information to

• Update from Mike Hawranick

• Inventory of impairments by nutrients

• Next steps for developing criteria for rivers and streams

 

Materials passed out during the meeting:

• Meeting Agenda

• Bret Preston Handout, Summary of NCC/DNR communications and proposed follow-up questions, with DNR’s response

• Mike Hawranick handout, Public Drinking Water – List of Required Contaminant Analyses

• Margaret Janes handout, Nutrient Summary for Bulletin to stakeholders

 

 

~ Meeting Adjourned ~

Top of Page

FINAL

August 19, 2004

Nutrient Criteria Committee

Meeting Minutes

 

Committee Members Present

Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture

Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition

Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition

Margaret Janes, Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment

Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health

Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

John Wirts, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute

Larry Emerson, WV Coal Association

Dave Clark, Canaan Valley Institute, (Meeting Facilitator)

Tom Brand, West Virginia University, (Committee Chairman)

Patrick Bowen, US Department of Agriculture-NRCS

John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry

Others in Attendance

Libby Chatfield, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board staff)

Penny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker)

Dan Cincotta, WV DNR (Presenter)

1. Review and approval of July 15, 2004 meeting minutes.

 

• Page 2 – Update on lake sampling. Changed Hanson to Hansen.

 

2. Committee Reports

 

• Libby distributed a list of NCC members. The list will be updated and redistributed.

• Randy Sovic will check with Alvan Gale to determine if he still wants to participate in NCC.

• Tom Brand recommended adding Bret Preston as a member. Randy Sovic seconded the nomination.

• Libby will determine if a letter was sent to George Kincaid requesting his attendance at NCC meetings.

• Alana Hartman is working for DEP as the Potomac Basin Coordinator for the Chesapeake Bay Program.

 

3. Update on lake sampling work

 

• The first round of lake sampling is finished and the second is well underway.

• Ferrous iron collection is difficult, therefore we have been testing total iron only. Ferrous iron must be tested within two hours. Martin Christ suggested borrowing a colorimeter from Friends of Decker’s Creek. John will buy a colorimeter to begin testing ferrous iron.

• John Wirts is concerned that the samples are being collected too close to the bottom of the lake. He will develop a way to assure that this is not happening.

• Some of the lake samples were analyzed by Biochem Laboratory and some by Sturm Laboratory. There are some questions about the data provided by Sturm Laboratory: How is TKN analyzed? Phosphorus or phosphate? John will contact Sturm to get these issues resolved.

• Evan Hansen distributed a summary of the first 66 user surveys.

• Question 6 needs to be clarified. It will now read:

On a scale of 1-5, please describe your opinion of the quality of the lake today. "One" means that the lake water is as nice as can be today, and "five" means the lake water is very poor today. Please rate the lake water quality for each category below.

A) Swimming B) Fishing C) Boating D) Hiking, camping or enjoying the lake from the shore.

• Before reading question 6 to the individual, the surveyor will say: This next set of questions pertains to the lake water quality. Please focus your response on the lake water.

• 6a will read: describe your opinion of the lake water based upon your use of the lake today. If the response does not relate to water quality, the surveyor may say this as a clarifier: Thank you. Is there anything more specific to water quality?

• There was a great deal of discussion on the usefulness of the user surveys.

• Matt Monroe feels that the survey is not an effective use of time or money because of the results that we’ve received. Tom Brand indicated that the only way to get the information needed is through literature reviews – the user surveys will only generate more data to argue about. Neil Gillies recommended using a standard clarifying comment on each question if the answers are not related to water quality. Margaret Janes added that without going to people, we can not collect information on recreational use. Unless we have another alternative, we don’t have an option.

 

How do we develop nutrient criteria for the recreation designated use?

• User surveys – existing

• Internal NCC process

• DNR survey Team – professional judgment

• Modified user survey with modified protocol, discard erroneous results

• Citizen survey team

• Lit Review

• Photo survey (web based?)

• Reference Lakes

• Libby recommended combining the modified user surveys and a photo survey. Pictures should be taken when the lake is being sampled.

• John Wirts recommended adding a question to the survey: Are there other lakes that you think are impaired with algae? If so, please list.

• There was consensus to revise the user survey and proceed. There were no clear alternatives to user surveys.

• Evan will research alternatives.

• Surveys will be performed by:

• Rock Cliff – WVDA

• Spruce Knob – WVDA (possibly Mt. Institute, Dave will contact)

• Summit – Leslee McCarty (Libby will contact)

• Tomlinson – Ben Stout (Libby will contact)

• Elk Fork – WV State (Libby will contact)

• Beech Fork – WVDA

• Sutton – WVU Students (Evan will contact)

• On smaller lakes, the sample collectors will distribute the user surveys

 

4. Update on ORSANCO efforts on nutrient criteria – WVDEP

 

• A formal rejection letter was received by ORSANCO from EPA for the $600,000.

• EPA suggested submitting a one-year proposal. This was completed by ORSANCO in May and $165,000 was approved to start on the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia initiative. Four workgroups will be developed: criteria development, trading, scorecard and outreach.

• Randy Sovic suggested that NCC focus on lower order streams and use ORSANCO’s data for the larger rivers.

 

5. Update on Chesapeake Bay nutrient criteria development –WVDA

 

• The second tributary strategy was run through the model. N and P decreased a small amount.

• Agencies are meeting in September to re-evaluate how we will approach the Bay program.

• Streams are being ranked to determine where to focus funds and assistance.

• Neil Gillies said that there is a struggle to determine how to use water quality data. Three ways were suggested, each of these suggestions will have a weighting factor.

1) estimated from model 2) existing averages from data 3) 303(d) list

6. Update on periphyton project - WVDEP

 

• Ohio is planning to use West Virginia’s periphyton data.

 

7. Update on discussion regarding VA and other Region III states’ nutrient criteria development

 

• Regional EPA meeting is scheduled for March. The committee agreed that it would be beneficial to meet with other states in the region before the EPA March meeting.

• Neil Gillies, John Wirts, Randy Sovic and Libby will coordinate this meeting.

• The meeting may be held in conjunction with a meeting John Wirts has scheduled in October or the first week of November. Possible location is the National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown.

 

8. Discussion with Kent Crawford, USGS

• Libby distributed A Regional Approach to the Development of A Response-Based Nutrient Criterion for Wadeable Streams In Nutrient Ecoregions IX, XI, & XIV.

• Ken joined the meeting via teleconference and presented an overview of his study.

• 5mg/L or lower is being considered a low DO.

• Eight sites will be sampled in WV. Joe Beaman is working with John Wirts to select these sites.

 

9. Update from Bureau of Public Health, Mike Hawranick

 

• 131 Questionnaires were sent out, 17 have been returned. Mike should have the data summarized by the next NCC meeting.

 

 

10. Continued discussion of next steps for developing criteria for rivers and streams

 

• Larry Emerson offered to collect data for streams on behalf of the WV Coal Association. He asked to be added to the October agenda.

• Presentation by Dan Cincotta – WVDNR

• Dan distributed Fishes of West Virginia and an issue of West Virginia Wildlife Magazine

• Dan developed an index of biological integrity. Fish were used to develop an index of biological indicators.

• In 2001, he concentrated mainly in the Appalachian Plateau. In 2002, he mostly looked at the Western Allegheny Plateau.

• His full report should be available on EPA’s website in September.

• There is no definitive proof that fish have disappeared because of nutrients. Dan believes that we will not see effects on fish because of nutrients unless it’s excessive.

• EPA partner in data analysis is going to go back and look for nutrient issues that affect specific species of fish.

 

11. Presentation by National Drinking Water Clearinghouse

No Presentation

 

12. Establish agenda for next meeting

• Update from Michael Hawranick

• Update on lake sampling and user surveys

 

Materials passed out during the meeting:

• Meeting Agenda

• NCC Members Contact Information – Libby Chatfield

• Summary of first 66 user surveys – Evan Hansen

• A Regional Approach to the Development of A Response-Based Nutrient Criterion for Wadeable Streams In Nutrient Ecoregions IX, XI, & XIV – Kent Crawford

• Preliminary data analysis of first month’s monitoring data – Evan Hansen

• Fishes of West Virginia, West Virginia Wildlife Magazine – Dan Cincotta

~ Meeting Adjourned ~

Top of Page

 

FINAL

September 16, 2004

Nutrient Criteria Committee

Meeting Minutes

 

Committee Members Present

Matt Monroe, WV Department of Agriculture

Patrick Bowen, US Department of Agriculture-NRCS

Larry Emerson, WV Coal Association

Jeff Skousen, WVU College of Agriculture, Extension

Evan Hansen, WV Rivers Coalition

Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute

Martin Christ, WV Rivers Coalition

Randy Sovic, WV DEP, Division of Water and Waste Management

Joe Hankins, TCF/Freshwater Institute

Michael Hawranick, WV Bureau for Public Health

Luke Richmond, WVMWQA

Jeremiah Johnson, WVMWQA

John Rowe, WV Division of Forestry

Others in Attendance

Libby Chatfield, WV Environmental Quality Board (Board staff)

Penny Hott, WV Department of Agriculture (Note-taker)

1. Review and approval of August 19, 2004 meeting minutes.

• Page 2 – Update on lake sampling work, changed: There was not consensus on user surveys to: There was consensus to revise the user survey and proceed. There were no clear alternatives to user surveys.

• Page 2 – Update on lake sampling work, added: On smaller lakes, the sample collectors will distribute the user surveys.

• Page 3 – Update on ORSANCO, changed: gulf initiative to G