Nutrient Criteria Stakeholders Agenda
February 21, 2006
Columbia, MO
1-4 pm
In Attendance: Greg Anderson, DNR; Claire Baffaut, FAPRI; Karen Bataille, MDC; Dorris Bender, City of Independence; Georganne Bowman, DNR; Robert Brundage, Newman, Comley & Ruth, P.C.; David Casaletto, Table Rock Lake Water Quality; John Fritchie, Washington University; Peter Goode, Washington University; Cassidy Luebbering, MEC Water Resources; Randy Lyman, City of Springfield; Mike McKee, MDC; Dan Obrecht, UMC; Mark Osborn, DNR; Tim Rielly, MDC; Chris Riggert, MDC; Buffy Santel, St Louis MSD; Phil Schroeder, DNR; Steve Stewart, Upper White River Basin Foundation; Tony Thorpe, UMC; John Waitman, City of Springfield; Gary Welker, EPA; Tracey Winter, DNR
Role of RTAG in establishing benchmarks for nutrient criteria – Gary Welker
RTAG is the Technical committee that provides guidance for states as they develop nutrient criteria. There are several key elements, including
Ecoregion and waterbody type
Technical Guidance
RTAG
Ecoregional Nutrient Criteria Development using TN, TP, Chl- A, Secchi, Periphyton, Phytoplankton
Lake classification
Ecoregion (II, III, and IV)
Lake Type (natural, reservoir, etc)
Depth
Turbidity
Surface Area
Retention
When looking at these factors, Ecoregion III, Depth and Turbidity were most helpful in determining differences in lake nutrients and causal factors.
Using that information, RTAG set Benchmarks for region 7 lake criteria
8 ug/l Chl-A
35 ug/l TP
700 ug/l TN
These benchmarks are to be used to determine if the state is on the right track – not to be used in place of developing nutrient criteria.
The group is now working on determining the point of biological impairment.
QUESTIONS:
Q: What lakes were used as the reference lakes for Missouri?
A: DNR provided the lake data – probably 15-20 lakes per state were used to set the benchmarks in all four states, for a total of about 80 lakes.
Q: Why couldn’t you apply land use as a benchmark? If a 30 year old reservoir was built in a watershed that had been farmed for 150 years – land use would be a factor in the water quality for that reservoir.
A: Benchmarks should not take into account attainablity or economics, go back to the intended uses for the waterbody.
Presentation of first draft of nutrient criteria rule – Mark Osborn
Mark presented a draft of the rule, as a starting point for discussion. The draft is attached to these minutes. The discussion that followed incorporated these items for future rule development.
|
Items Missing |
|
Heartburn |
|
Tasks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Anti-degredation |
1 |
Use watershed not Lake region |
1 |
Prioritize water bodies (UMC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
sampling location in lake |
2 |
protect the whole range of lakes from oligitrophic to hyper eutrophic |
2 |
Use reference approach for lakes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Not an issue in small lakes - sample at the dam
|
3 |
the value for TP is higher in the Plains than in the Ozarks |
3 |
email reference list used by EPA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Large lakes - more than one sample site
|
4 |
secchi depth is not a good indicator of WBC |
4 |
CPCB data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
Set individual criteria for Lg Lakes |
5 |
Swimming time period is not appropriate (water temp) |
5 |
drop criteria for WBC - for now |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
How small a lake will we |
|
|
6 |
Develop appropriate Criteria |
|
set criteria for (>10 acres) |
|
|
|
|
|
(subset for small, shallow lakes) |
|
|
7 |
Prioritize (by using UAA) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
subset for oxbows (wetland or Lake?) |
|
|
|
|
- Develop time line to present rule to Clean Water Commission (not discussed at this meeting)
The next meeting dates are as follows:
March 21 – Jefferson City
April 18 – Columbia
May 16 – Jefferson City
June 6 – Jefferson City
|
