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.
(No consensus on time frames)
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
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.
Hansen: (No consensus on time frames)
Sovic: same as above.
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:
and/or cause and effect analyses based on West Virginia data.
and/or cause and effect analyses based on other data.
Hansen: The alternative to the first two approaches is to define
when and under what circumstances a reference-based criteria might be
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
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
a) Waters draining to
the Potomac River
b) Waters draining to
the Ohio River
c) West Virginia level
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
Hansen: In some instances, geology and terrain (topography?) may be used
to refine regionalization.
potential waters to be considered include:
Mainstem Ohio River
Mainstem Potomac River
Mainstem North Branch Potomac River
Mainstem Tug Fork River
Mainstem Big Sandy River
Lakes & Reservoirs
Small headwater steams (e.g. 1st, 2nd and 3rd
a. low gradient
b. high gradient
Larger order steams (e.g. 4th, 5th order)
Tier 2.5 and 3 waters
be extrapolated from a data rich watershed to similar watersheds that are
not data rich, but that share similar geology, topography, and waterbody
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"
Lakes & Reservoirs
Streams & Rivers
Inventory of Existing Data (note to consider listing time
frames, parameters and number of water bodies).
and evaluate data from the following sources:
DEP large river and wadeable stream data
WV Department of Agriculture data
Cacapon Institute information
WV Bureau of Public Health information
US Corp of Engineers data
Volunteered monitoring data
WV DNR data
Lake Study data
EPA data (e.g. EMAP)
US Forest Service data (e.g. Fernow Experimental Forrest)
NRCS data (e.g. National Resource Inventory)
Other State’s shared water data
US Fish & Wildlife Service
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.
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.
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.
be assessed at each scheduled meeting of the Nutrient Workgroup of which
EPA is a participant. Quarterly progress reports will be prepared and submitted
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
Deviations and Revisions
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
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.
Specific Near – Term Objectives
Definition of impairment.
Develop Work Plan for collection of existing data.
Hansen: 1) Define impairment.
2) Develop Work Plan for collection of existing data, data analysis, and
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