Wyoming Nutrient Strategy Update February 2017 Outline Wyomings - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Wyoming Nutrient Strategy Update February 2017

Outline

2

• Wyoming’s Nutrient Strategy
• 2017 Priorities
• Identifying Priority Watersheds

Wyoming Nutrient Strategy

3

• Identify priorities and key next steps to assist the state in

addressing nutrient pollution

Wyoming Nutrient Strategy

4

• Kick-off meeting April 2016
• Formed four support groups (Criteria Development, Point

Sources, Nonpoint Sources, Education and Outreach)

• Held 5 conference calls for each support group
• Developed draft strategy and priorities for each support group
• Received preliminary feedback on strategy

Criteria Development

5

Priority 1: Identify Nutrient Conditions in Wyoming Priority 2: Develop Numeric Criteria For Lakes/Reservoirs in the Short-term Based on Data Availability

Priority for Criteria Development Lakes/Reservoir Group Criteria Development Status as of July 2016 1 Wyoming Basin Under Development 2 Bighorn Basin Continue Supplemental Data Collection 3 *Boysen Reservoir Continue Supplemental Data Collection 4 Southeast Wyoming Continue Supplemental Data Collection 5 *Seminoe Reservoir Continue Supplemental Data Collection

Wyoming Basin Lakes

6

Short-Term Criteria Development

7

2 3 4 5

Criteria Development

8

Priority 3: Update Nutrient Criteria Development Plan Priority 4: Evaluation of Existing Narrative Criteria

Criteria Development

9

Priority 5: Use Prioritization System for Remaining Waters

Drinking Water Public Recreation (Swimming, Water and Jet Ski) Public Recreation (Boating, Fishing, Wading) Public Recreation (Fishing, Wading) Non-game Fisheries &

• ther aquatic

life Agriculture, Industry, Wildlife Priority Moderate to High HABS Risk, High Chlorophyll-a High Very High Very High High High Moderate Moderate High TP or TN, Moderate Chlorophyll-a Moderate High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Chlorophyll-a, Low to Moderate TP or TN Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Low Nutrient Potential Risk Moderate Waterbody Use High Low Tier 1 - Human Health Tier 2 - Commerce Tier 3 - Other

Point Sources

10

Priority 1: Collect and analyze existing nutrient effluent data Priority 2: Evaluate ways to reduce surface water discharges Priority 3: Develop nutrient reduction targets for individual facilities

Point Sources

11

Priority 4: Identify facilities that may be exempt or subject to delayed implementation of nutrient reduction goals Priority 5: Identify feasible options individual facilities can use to meet technology based effluent limits and any expected in-stream water quality criteria Priority 6: Evaluate feasibility of rulemaking for interim effluent limits

Point Sources

12

Priority 7: Identity technical assistance, training, and funding for facilities discharging to priority waters Priority 8: Develop BMP based nutrient reduction compliance strategies for industrial, construction, and municipal stormwater permittees Priority 9: Coordinate with NRCS, WY Dept. of Ag, and

• ther partners to develop nutrient compliance

strategies for CAFOs

Nonpoint Sources

13

Priority 1: Identity voluntary, incentive-based actions and how to encourage implementation Priority 2: Identity and target most effective nutrient reduction practices in agricultural areas Priority 3: Determine how to reduce nutrients from stormwater in non-MS4 communities Priority 4: Determine how to reduce nutrients from septic systems

Nonpoint Sources

14

Priority 5: Recommend how different agencies can work together on planning, implementation, and documentation Priority 6: Recommend protection strategies for drinking water supplies

Education and Outreach

15

Priority 1: Refine and Finalize Plan For Harmful Algal Blooms Priority 2: Improve DEQ Nutrient Pollution Website Priority 3: Educate Public About Nutrient Pollution and Wyoming’s Efforts to Address Nutrient Pollution Priority 4: Planning and Public Reporting on Nutrient Strategy Implementation

Feedback on Strategy?

16

• Comments?
• Also email comments on the document to

Lindsay.Patterson@wyo.gov

• Call Lindsay Patterson at 307-777-7079 with questions or

suggestions

2017 Priorities - Criteria Development

17

1. Finalize Nutrient Maps 2. Using prioritization matrix, identify priority waters for criteria development and nutrient strategy implementation 3. Continue working on numeric nutrient criteria for Wyoming Basin Lakes (finalize technical support document, external peer review, Nutrient Work Group feedback) 4. Update nutrient criteria development plan 5. Review narrative criteria and work on more detailed assessment methods to assist in identifying impairments due to nutrient pollution

2017 Priorities - Point Sources

18

1. In priority watersheds, identify, collect, and analyze facility effluent nutrient data for priority facilities 2. For priority facilities, use effluent data and other information to develop nutrient reduction targets 3. For priority facilities, develop a list of treatment options that would allow the facility to meet nutrient reduction targets

2017 Priorities - Nonpoint Sources

19

1. Within priority watersheds, work with partnering agencies and local entities to identify and prioritize nutrient management activities 2. Announce locally prioritized watersheds statewide to better inform funding agencies where technical and financial assistance could be prioritized 3. Work with partner agencies to promote cropping systems based on NRCS Soil Health Initiative in priority watersheds

2017 Priorities Education and Outreach

20

1. Continue to work on refining and finalizing plan for educating the public about and responding to harmful algal blooms 2. Work on updates to DEQ nutrient pollution website 3. Work with WNWG to edit the Wyoming Nutrient Strategy 4. Work with WNWG to finalize 2017 priorities 5. Determine strategy to outreach to the public about the Wyoming Nutrient Strategy and initiate outreach

Feedback on Priorities?

21

• Comments?
• Email comments to Lindsay.Patterson@wyo.gov or call 307-

777-7079

Prioritizing Watersheds

for Nutrient Strategy Implementation

IDENTIFY RANKING

Prioritization Overview

1) Identifying Priority Reservoirs

a.

Prioritization Matrix

b.

Waterbody Use

c.

Nutrient Risk

d.

Matrix Results

2) Ranking Priority Reservoirs

a.

Weighting by Population and Health Risk

b.

Standardization

c.

Ranking Results

2 3

Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions Introduction WDEQ WDEQ

Why Prioritize?

 We need to identify watersheds where we want to focus nutrient strategy implementation.

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

3

How to Prioritize?

 Stakeholders recommended a risk matrix to prioritize waters for criteria development.  Prioritization should be based on:

 Nutrient Risk  Waterbody Use

 The matrix also seemed appropriate to identify areas for nutrient strategy implementation.

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results

WDEQ

Questions

4

Prioritization Matrix

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

5

 Lakes and reservoirs are susceptible to nutrient impacts because they function as nutrient sinks.

High Risk Waters

 Lakes and reservoirs have sensitive waterbody uses:

 Drinking water supplies  Primary contact recreation  Aquatic life

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

6

WDEQ

Prioritization Matrix

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

7

Determining Waterbody Uses

 A list of reservoirs was created using the WDEQ Nutrient Database and WGFD Fishing Guide:

 Total of 169 lakes and reservoirs

 Uses were assigned using best available information:

 Drinking water intake locations  WGFD regulations  Water activities found online  Watershed Protection Program comment

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

8

Waterbody Uses Results

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

169 reservoirs

with waterbody uses

59 reservoirs 106 reservoirs 4 reservoirs

9

Prioritization Matrix

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

10

Nutrient Potential Risk

 Cyanobacteria have the potential to produce harmful algal blooms (HABs) that threaten drinking water supplies and contact recreationalists.  Chlorophyll-a is a measure of floating plant growth.  Nutrients such as total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) stimulate plant growth.

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

11

Prioritizing Nutrient Risk

 Nutrient Potential Risks were assigned numeric threshold values.  Priorities were then determined for reservoirs with nutrient data.

Nutrient Risk Threshold Priority High HABs > 100K cells/mL High Moderate HABs 20K-100K cells/mL High Chl-a > 25 ug/L High TP > 100 ug/L Moderate High TN > 3,000 ug/L Moderate Chl-a 10-25 ug/L Moderate TP 50-100 ug/L Low Moderate TN 1,000-3,000 ug/L Low Chl-a < 10 ug/L Low TP < 50 ug/L Low TN < 1,000 ug/L

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

12

Nutrient Risk Results

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

89 reservoirs

with nutrient data

36 reservoirs 8 reservoirs 45 reservoirs

13

Prioritization Results

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

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

14

Prioritization Results

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results

Very High Priority Reservoirs Big Sandy Reservoir Pathfinder Reservoir Boysen Reservoir Saratoga Lake Buffalo Bill Reservoir Seminoe Reservoir East Newton Lake Sloans Lake Fontenelle Reservoir Twin Butte Reservoir Glendo Reservoir Wheatland Reservoir No. 3 Granite Springs Reservoir Woodruff Narrows Reservoir Greyrocks Reservoir Yellowtail Reservoir

Questions

15

Cody Farson Dubois Casper Powell Lander Douglas Laramie Rawlins Worland Jackson Pinedale Gillette Cheyenne Sheridan Riverton Evanston Big Piney Torrington Green River

50 25 Miles

I

Big Sandy Watershed

Boysen Watershed Buffalo Bill Watershed East Newton Watershed Fontanelle Watershed Glendo Watershed Granite Springs Watershed Greyrocks Watershed Pathfinder Watershed Saratoga Watershed Seminoe Watershed Sloan Lake Watershed Twin Buttes Watershed Wheatland No.3 Watershed Woodruff Narrows Watershed Yellowtail Watershed Flowlines NHD 500K Lakes or Reservoirs County Boundary

Priority Reservoir Watersheds

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

16

Ranking Reservoirs

 WDEQ thought it would be helpful to further prioritize by ranking the 16 “Very High” reservoirs.

 The rankings would not be an absolute, but rather a starting

point for stakeholder discussion.

 It was suggested that the reservoirs should be weighted by number of users and relative threat to public health.

 When multiplied, these values would reflect the relative

exposure potential (i.e., magnitude) of each data type.

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

17

User Data vs. Population

 Visitor Use Reports (WY State Parks):

 User data are available for 5 out of the 16 reservoirs  No standardized approach for determining user data

for the 11 remaining reservoirs

 Census Block data (Census Bureau):

 Calculate population in proximity to all reservoirs  Same approach applied to all reservoirs

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

18

Calculating Population

 Reservoirs were assigned to a “radius category” based on reservoir size:  Census blocks were clipped by radius buffers in ArcGIS, and population was calculated.

Reservoir Size (acres) Assigned Radius

< 100 10 mi 100-3,000 25 mi > 3,000 50 mi 50 mi

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

19

Threats to Public Health

 Median cyanobacteria densities were used to represent “typical” reservoir conditions.

 It is important to note the sampling size and

sampling location vary per reservoir.

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

20

Micrographia.com Pixgood.com Fmp.conncoll.edu Algalweb.net

Final Standardized Value

 Multiply values then standardize by percentages.

 Reflects the magnitude of each data type and brings all

multiplied values into proportion with the highest value:

Population Median Cyanobacteria Multiplied Value Percentage Calculation (= value/max *100) Final Standardized Value

100 100 10,000 = (10,000 / 10,000)*100 100 87 94 8,178 = (8,178 / 10,000)*100 82 82 81 6,642 = (6,642 / 10,000)*100 66 72 63 4,536 = (4,536 / 10,000)*100 45 41 56 2,296 = (2,296 / 10,000)*100 23

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

21

Ranking Results

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing 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

• Questions

22

Questions?

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results Questions

23

WDEQ

Feedback from Stakeholders

IDENTIFY RANKING Introduction Matrix Waterbody Use Nutrient Risk Results Weighting Standardizing Results

 Any feedback on the prioritization methods?  How many of the watersheds would you want to focus efforts?  How would you like to provide feedback?

 We’ll send out the PowerPoint for comment…  We’ll schedule a follow-up call for discussion.  Please email Lindsay if interested in participating.

Questions

24

Prioritization Comments

Lindsay Patterson

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