May 2017 Update 1 Wyoming Nutrient Strategy Identifies priority - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Wyoming Nutrient Strategy May 2017 Update

1

Wyoming Nutrient Strategy

 Identifies priority items and key next steps to address nutrient pollution in Wyoming  Focus areas include Criteria Development, Point Sources, Nonpoint Sources, and Education and Outreach

2

Recap of February Webinar

Discussed and solicited feedback on:  February 2017 Draft of Nutrient Strategy  2017 Nutrient Strategy Priorities  Prioritization of waters for strategy implementation

3

Status of Wyoming Nutrient Strategy

 Wyoming Nutrient Strategy has been edited based on feedback received from the Wyoming Nutrient Work Group and WDEQ  Current version of the strategy is May 2017 Draft

4

Prioritization Recap

 To begin implementing the strategy, we need to identify priority waters/watersheds  WDEQ and partners will focus efforts in these watersheds

5

Prioritization Recap

 Used the prioritization matrix recommended by the Criteria Development support group to identify priority lakes and reservoirs

6

Prioritization Recap

 Lakes and reservoirs were prioritized because:

• They are more susceptible to the impacts of nutrient

pollution since they can act as nutrient sinks

• Blue-green algae blooms in reservoirs may pose a

risk to public health because reservoirs are used for immersion recreation and as drinking water supplies

7

Drinking Water Public Recreation (Swimming, Water Skiing) Public Recreation (Boating, Fishing, Wading) Public Recreation (Fishing, Wading) Non-game Fisheries & Other Aquatic Life Agriculture, Industry, Wildlife Priority High HABS Risk High Chlorophyll-a High Very High Very High High High Moderate Moderate High TP or TN and Variable Chlorophyll-a Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Chlorophyll-a, TP and TN Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Nutrient Risk Moderate Waterbody Use High Low Tier 1 - Public Health Tier 2 - Commerce Tier 3 - Other

Prioritization Recap (Matrix)

 Very High (N=16), High (N=21), Moderate (N=52)

8

Prioritization Recap

 Since the watershed areas of the 16 “very high” reservoirs is so large, we need to further prioritize  February prioritization of 16 “very high” reservoirs were based on population density around the lake (surrogate for number of users) and median cyanobacteria density  Drinking water was not factored into ranking results

9

February Prioritization Results

Rank Reservoir Population Median Cyanobacteria Final Standardized Value

1 Sloans Lake 82,974.08 116,246.10 100.00 2 Buffalo Bill Reservoir 38,005.34 40,342.30 15.90 3 Boysen Reservoir 50,644.57 13,854.93 7.27 4 Woodruff Narrows Reservoir 15,384.73 31,663.13 5.05 5 Saratoga Lake 3,429.56 91,279.54 3.25 6 Greyrocks Reservoir 31,118.80 6,271.26 2.02 7 Twin Butte Reservoir 35,733.91 3,533.21 1.31 8 Fontenelle Reservoir 32,148.45 3,685.26 1.23 9 Granite Springs Reservoir 114,473.87 989.58 1.17 10 East Newton Lake 13,708.66 6,041.67 0.86 11 Seminoe Reservoir 16,829.33 2,385.42 0.42 12 Yellowtail Reservoir 48,166.94 410.19 0.20 13 Wheatland Reservoir #3 829.87 15,527.65 0.13 14 Big Sandy Reservoir 872.68 4,261.42 0.04 15 Pathfinder Reservoir 86,536.35

• 16

Glendo Reservoir 35,322.49

Feedback on Prioritization

 Get more accurate user information from Wyoming Game and Fish  Consider potential future developments that may impact the water bodies such as Moneta Divide  Consider presence of cooperators, available data, and likelihood of success  Consider categorical ranking rather than numeric  Consider nesting watersheds to maximize results

11

Changes to Input Data and Approach

 Game and Fish staff provided rankings (high, medium, and low) for immersion recreation use for each of the reservoirs  Harmful algal blooms pose a greater health risk for immersion recreation than other types of recreation because water is often ingested during these activities

12

Changes to Input Data and Approach

 Created separate lists for drinking water and immersion recreation, since they are both important, but difficult to combine  Included 2016 cyanobacteria data

13

Changes to Input Data and Approach

 Two-step process for immersion recreation  Step 1: Use maximum cyanobacteria density and immersion recreation rating to categorize waters that pose “very high,” “high,” “moderately high,” “moderate,” and “low” risk to public health  Step 2: Within each category, use median cyanobacteria density to prioritize more chronic problems

14

Immersion Recreation Step 1 Matrix

15

Priority High Medium Low High >100,000 cells/mL High Very High High Moderately High Moderate (20,000 - 100,000 cells/mL) Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low < 20,000 cells/mL Low Low Low Low Cyanobacteria Immersion Recreation Use

Very High = 2, High = 2, Moderately High = 5

Immersion Recreation Results - Step 1 of 2

Priority Reservoir Immersion Rec Drinking Water Max Cyanobacteria (cells/mL)

Very High Seminoe Reservoir High 3,653,219 Very High Boysen Reservoir High Yes 664,378 High Saratoga Lake Medium 268,207 High East Newton Lake Medium 242,836 Moderately High Woodruff Narrows Reservoir Low Yes 2,274,902 Moderately High Wheatland Reservoir #3 Low 1,521,326 Moderately High Twin Butte Reservoir Low 388,264 Moderately High Sloans Lake Low 143,155 Moderately High Big Sandy Reservoir Low 125,092 Moderate Buffalo Bill Reservoir Low Yes 40,342 Low Fontenelle Reservoir Low Yes 15,892 Low Greyrocks Reservoir High 10,086 Low Yellowtail Reservoir High 7,409 Low Granite Springs High Yes 1,477 Low Pathfinder Reservoir High

• Low

Glendo Reservoir High

• 16

Immersion Recreation Prioritization – Step 2 of 2

 Within each category, use median cyanobacteria density to identify chronic blue-green algae problems

17

Immersion Recreation Prioritization - Step 2 of 2

Priority Reservoir Immersion Rec Drinking Water Median Cyanobacteria (cells/mL)

Very High Boysen Reservoir High Yes 9,300 Very High Seminoe Reservoir High 2,188 High Saratoga Lake Medium 91,280 High East Newton Lake Medium 6,042 Moderately High Sloans Lake Low 116,246 Moderately High Woodruff Narrows Reservoir Low Yes 31,663 Moderately High Wheatland Reservoir #3 Low 13,083 Moderately High Big Sandy Reservoir Low 4,261 Moderately High Twin Butte Reservoir Low 2,853 Moderate Buffalo Bill Reservoir Low Yes 21,627 Low Greyrocks Reservoir High 6,271 Low Fontenelle Reservoir Low Yes 5,089 Low Granite Springs High Yes 990 Low Yellowtail Reservoir High 305 Low Pathfinder Reservoir High

• Low

Glendo Reservoir High

• 18

Immersion Recreation Prioritization

19

Drinking Water Prioritization

 Considers depth of intake, maximum and median cyanobacteria density, and cyanobacteria problems that have impacted or could impact drinking water

20 Priority Reservoir Max Cyanobacteria (cells/mL) Median Cyanobacteria (cells/mL)

Very High Woodruff Narrows Reservoir 2,274,902 31,663 High Fontenelle Reservoir 15,892 5,089 Moderate Granite Springs 1,477 990 Low Boysen Reservoir 664,378 9,300 Low Buffalo Bill Reservoir 40,342 21,627

Ranking Results – Drinking Water

21

Questions/Comments?

Lindsay Patterson

Watershed Protection Program Surface Water Quality Standards Lindsay.Patterson@wyo.gov (307) 777-7079