2002 Draft Plan with Member Comments


            WV Nutrient Criteria Committee 9/13/2002 DRAFT State Plan

                                with Committee member comments.

I           General Goals/Objectives


1)   All West Virginia Waters (except shared waters):  4 to 7 years for final criteria

    a)  To define the level/extent of Nutrient related use impairment within WV waters and assign appropriate scientifically based nutrient criteria with an understanding of natural background level of nutrients.

    b)  To use information concerning the downstream affects of nutrient loads to set criteria for surface waters, as necessary.

NCC Member Comments:

 Hansen: (No consensus on time frames)  

 Sovic:  Under General Goals and Objectives--believe we discussed not including any of the time frames I had originally listed until we could more fully discuss as a group

2)   All Shared Waters:  3 to 6 years for final criteria

     a)  To collaborate with the State of Kentucky in an effort to develop appropriate and consistent nutrient criteria for the Tug Fork and Big Sandy Rivers.

     b)  To participate in the development of scientifically based nutrient criteria with ORSANCO and the Compact States on agreed upon criteria for the Ohio River.

     c)  To collaborate with the State of Maryland on the development of consistent nutrient criteria for the North Branch of and the Potomac Rivers.

NCC Member Comments:

     Hansen: (No consensus on time frames)  

     Sovic: same as above.

II   Approach


 1)  Define impairment.

     2)  Depending on the availability of data of sufficient quantity and quality, and funds for research and model development, the state will consider the following methods, in the following order of preference:

           ·Empirical and/or cause and effect analyses based on West Virginia data.

               ·Empirical and/or cause and effect analyses based on other data.

NCC Member Comments:

     Hansen:  The alternative to the first two approaches is to define when and under what circumstances a reference-based criteria might be appropriate.

III   Criteria Development


1)         Selection of Parameters:  West Virginia will consider where appropriate for rivers and streams, lakes and reservoirs, and wetlands setting criteria for P, N, turbidity, chlorophyll a. and Secchi Depth.  The State also will consider setting criteria for other response parameters where appropriate (e.g. biological community measures, aesthetic/qualitative/narrative standards, and standing stocks of nutrients.)  Where agreements of loads of P and N are entered and accepted criteria may also be considered.

       West Virginia will evaluate parameters from other states and inter-state compacts and incorporate them into nutrient criteria, as appropriate.

NCC Member Comments:

     Hansen: Where agreements of loads of P and N are entered and accepted criteria may also be considered.  

     Sovic:  Believe need to now remove the sentence "Where agreements...may also be considered".  However, might suggest that the new language added be revised to "West Virginia will evaluate parameters from other interstate and partnership processes (agreements) and incorporate these into nutrient criteria, as appropriate".

2)         Regionalization

        a)         Waters draining to the Potomac River

        b)         Waters draining to the Ohio River

        c)         West Virginia level IV Ecoregions


Different criteria may be developed for different groups of waters, to the extent that data are available to support the distinctions.  In some instances, geology and terrain may be used to refine regionalization

NCC Member Comments:

     Hansen: In some instances, geology and terrain (topography?) may be used to refine regionalization.

3)         Classifications


Projected potential waters to be considered include:

a)     Shared Waters

        i)         Mainstem Ohio River

        ii)        Mainstem Potomac River

        iii)       Mainstem North Branch Potomac River

        iv)       Mainstem Tug Fork River

        v)        Mainstem Big Sandy River                   

b)    Water Types

    i)          Lakes & Reservoirs

    ii)                   Wetlands

    iii)                 Small headwater steams (e.g. 1st, 2nd and 3rd order)

                  a. low gradient

                  b. high gradient

        iv)       Larger order steams (e.g. 4th, 5th order)

        v)        Tier 2.5 and 3 waters


Criteria may be extrapolated from a data rich watershed to similar watersheds that are not data rich, but that share similar geology, topography, and waterbody characteristics.

NCC Member Comments:

     Hansen:  REWORD- iii) Small headwater High gradient and low gradient steams (e.g. 1st, 2nd and 3rd order)  

     Sovic:  Water Types--My notes reveal decided to remove "Small headwater streams and replace with Low and high gradient", with subsequent removal of these terms in "a" and "b".

4)         Prioritization


a)     Lakes & Reservoirs

b)    Streams & Rivers

c)     Wetlands

NCC Member Comments:


5)         Inventory of Existing Data (note to consider listing time frames, parameters and number of water bodies).


Accumulate and evaluate data from the following sources:

  a)       DEP large river and wadeable stream data

        b)       WV Department of Agriculture data

        c)        ORSANCO data

        d)       Cacapon Institute information

        e)        USGS data

        f)        WV Bureau of Public Health information

        g)        US Corp of Engineers data

        h)        NPDES data

        i)         Volunteered monitoring data

        j)        WV DNR data

        k)       Lake Study data

        l)        EPA data (e.g. EMAP)

        m)       US Forest Service data (e.g. Fernow Experimental Forrest)

        n)        NRCS data (e.g. National Resource Inventory)

        o)       University data

        p)       Other State’s shared water data

        q)       US Fish & Wildlife Service


Data will first be analyzed to determine where data gaps exist in order to define sampling needs for subsequent sampling and analysis.  Data will then be analyzed to determine if effect-based criteria can be developed, and if so, for what physical classifications of water bodies and in which watersheds.  If determined to be possible using existing data and the relevant scientific literature, effect-based criteria will be recommended.


NCC Member Comments:

     Hansen: REWORD last paragraph - Data will first be analyzed to determine where data gaps exist for subsequent sampling and analysis. Data will then be.used according to the approach outlined in Section II.  

     Sovic:  suggest deleting the note I incorporated into the parenthesis as this was a note I included to remind John Wirts that we need to yet pursue this at some juncture. 
   Also, in the full paragraph subsequent to the listings "a" thru "q", my notes show we revised the 1st sentence  by eliminating the phrase "for subsequent sampling and analysis" and including "Then, data will be used to follow the approach outlined in Section  II".
   Finally, believe we struck the remainder of this paragraph.

6)         Data Needs


Additional data requirements will be determined, and funding will be sought to collect these additional data.  Projections are to establish a collaborative and coordinated effort amongst point/nonpoint sources and other interested stakeholders in the collection of data from approximately 30 watersheds to evaluate cause and effect relationships.  In addition, data analysis may shift to developing criteria based on the other methods mentioned in Item II above.

NCC Member Comments:


7)         Assessing Progress


Progress to be assessed at each scheduled meeting of the Nutrient Workgroup of which EPA is a participant.  Quarterly progress reports will be prepared and submitted to EPA.

NCC Member Comments:

     Hansen: Quarterly progress reports will be prepared and submitted to EPA.  

     Sovic:  My notes show that we revised this simply to read "Progress to be assessed quarterly and will be reported to the  EPA".

8)         Deviations and Revisions


Significant changes to the plan will be formally recommended for approval by the workgroup to the EQB.  EQB will submit the changes to Region III EPA.  Additionally, as a participant in the workgroup, EPA will have advanced knowledge of necessary changes to the work plan and schedule for criteria development.

NCC Member Comments:

     Hansen: REWORD 2nd sentence - EQB will submit approved changes to Region III EPA.  

     Sovic:  Again my notes show the revision here to be worded slighty differently , however, your wording seems to capture the essence of the intended revisions.

IV        Specific Near – Term Objectives


        1)       Definition of impairment.

        2)       Develop Work Plan for collection of existing data.

        3)       Literature review.

        4)       Data Collection

NCC Member Comments:

     Hansen: 1) Define impairment. 

                 2) Develop Work Plan for collection of existing data, data analysis, and identification

                    of data gaps. 

                 3) Collection of new data 

                 4) Data Collection Objectives (1) and (2) can be concurrent.

     Gillies:  I disagree with Evan on #3.  Literature Review should be a near term objective,  collection of new data should wait until data gaps are identified - which may be a near or longer-term action.  

      Sovic:  My notes have and may be better to say "Define impairment in 1).  Believe Item 2) should read "Develop Work Plan for existing data collection/ data analysis".  Item 3) could be to
"Conduct literature review".  Need to add an Item "Identifying of data gaps" and then and item for "Future data collection".

NCC Member General Comments:





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

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

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