Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC2. CM Sign Memorandum Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brian Heaston, Project Engineer Craig Woolard, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to sign Memoranda of Agreement with the Gallatin Local Water Quality District, Montana Conservation Corps, and MSU Extension Water Quality as well as PSA Amendment No. 7 with HDR Engineering in connection with project WW27 of the approved FY 17 Wastewater Fund CIP. MEETING DATE: April 11, 2016 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to sign Memoranda of Agreement with the Gallatin Local Water Quality District, Montana Conservation Corps, and MSU Extension Water Quality as well as PSA Amendment No. 7 with HDR Engineering in connection with project WW27 of the approved FY 17 Wastewater Fund CIP. BACKGROUND: The approved FY 17 Wastewater Fund CIP contains $200,000 for project WW27, a watershed study and stream modeling project for the East Gallatin River. The city intends to utilize a fully calibrated and verified water quality model to derive specific numeric nutrient limits for the East Gallatin River. The model will serve as an important tool that will inform wastewater discharge permit compliance discussions with the DEQ. The FY 17 effort builds upon work completed in the previous two fiscal years to collect water quality data in accordance with sampling guidelines provided by the DEQ. The city is partnering with the Gallatin Local Water Quality District (GLWQD) to lead the data collection effort similar to the previous two years. Additional partnerships are necessary with the Montana Conservation Corps (MCC) and MSU Extension Water Quality (MSUEWQ) to provide qualified field personnel necessary to complete the sampling field work. Separate Memoranda of Agreement with GLWQD, MCC, and MSUEWQ area attached. Each outlines the particular roles and responsibilities of the parties as well as costs. Water quality data collected over the past two years as well as data to be collected this coming summer season will be utilized by HDR Engineering to calibrate and validate a water quality model for the East Gallatin River. The PSA Amendment attached provides scope and fee to complete the model as well as wastewater discharge permitting assistance. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: The approved FY17 Wastewater Fund CIP contains $200,000 for project WW27. Total planned costs in the MOAs and PSA Amendment are broken out below and amount to $201,250. Adequate funding exists within the remaining FY16 WRF Plant budget for professional services and the adopted CIP budget for project WW27 to cover the $201,250 total planned cost. 10 • MOA w/GLWQD costs: $93,950 (all in FY17) • MOA w/MCC costs: $12,000 (all in FY17) • MOA w/MSUEWQ costs: $4,300 (all in FY17) • PSA Amendment No. 7 w/ HDR Engineering costs: $91,000 ($6,000 to $11,000 in FY16 and $80,000 to $85,000 in FY17) Attachments: MOA w/GLWQD MOA w/MCC MOA w/MSUEWQ PSA Amendment No. 7 w/HDR Engineering Report compiled on: March 31, 2016 11 FY2017 MOA for East Gallatin River Water Quality Sampling Page | 1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Between CITY OF BOZEMAN And GALLATIN LOCAL WATER QUALITY DISTRICT For FY2017 EAST GALLATIN RIVER WATER QUALITY SAMPLING This Memorandum of Agreement (this ‘Agreement’) made this day of , 2016, between the CITY OF BOZEMAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Montana (COB) and the GALLATIN LOCAL WATER QUALITY DISTRICT (GLWQD), describes the duties, agreements and obligations of the COB and GLWQD in connection with water quality sampling and analysis on the East Gallatin River. Article 1 – Roles and Responsibilities A) GLWQD agrees to perform water quality sampling activities on the East Gallatin River in general accordance with ‘Appendix A: Recommendations for Sampling and Modeling the East Gallatin River to Accomplish Multiple Objectives’ (hereafter ‘Sampling Effort’) contained in Version 1.0 of the Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance developed by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hereby incorporated by referenced and attached to this Agreement. More specifically, the following tasks will be performed by GLWQD to support development of a mechanistic water quality model (to be completed by others) for the East Gallatin River between Bridger Creek and West Gallatin River confluences to be utilized in deriving reach-specific nitrogen and phosphorous criteria: 1) GLWQD agrees to prepare a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to document activities to be conducted for the Sampling Effort during the 2016 field season. The SAP will be presented to the COB and DEQ for review and approval. Any changes to the approved SAP necessitated by field conditions or other circumstances will be documented by Addendum to the SAP. 12 FY2017 MOA for East Gallatin River Water Quality Sampling Page | 2 2) Acquire data necessary to complete the Objective described in Section A3.0 of the Sampling Effort sufficient to calibrate and confirm a mechanistic model of the study reach. a) Sampling at six sites (A, D, G, H, I, and J) as recommended in Section A3.1 of the Sampling Effort, will be performed in August 2016. Water quality sampling will be synoptic and occur within a 1 or 2-day period. Biological data (benthic algae and phytoplankton) will be sampled immediately following. Sampling activities will acquire the following data, be documented in the SAP prepared per Article 1.A.1 of this Agreement, and be designed to sample for key model drivers contained in Section A3.1 of the Sampling Effort. 1) Benthic Algae (Chlorophyll-a) 2) Benthic Algae (Ash-Free Dry Mass) 3) Phytoplankton (Chlorophyll-a) 4) Water Quality: Nutrients (TN, TP, SRP, nitrate + nitrite, total ammonia), TSS, ISS, alkalinity, hardness, TOC, CBOD20 5) Stream discharge 6) PAR 7) Instantaneous field parameters (DO, pH, SC, water temperature) 8) Collect data from sondes deployed at each of the 6 sites (A, D, G, H, I, and J) for a minimum of 14 days in August 2016. Water-quality parameters to be measured include DO (DO delta), pH, temperature, conductivity and turbidity. b) Sampling at additional sites as generally recommended in Section A3.2 of the Sampling Effort, will be performed in August 2016 and September 2016. Water quality sampling will be synoptic and occur within a 1 or 2-day period. Biological data (benthic algae and phytoplankton) will be sampled immediately following. Sampling activities will acquire the following data, be documented in the SAP prepared per Article 1.A.1 of this Agreement, and be designed to sample for key model drivers contained in Section A3.1 of the Sampling Effort. 1) Benthic Algae (Chlorophyll-a) 2) Benthic Algae (Ash-Free Dry Mass) 3) Phytoplankton (Chlorophyll-a) 4) Water Quality: Nutrients (TN, TP, SRP, nitrate + nitrite, total ammonia), TSS, ISS, alkalinity, hardness, TOC, CBOD20 5) Stream discharge 6) PAR 13 FY2017 MOA for East Gallatin River Water Quality Sampling Page | 3 7) Collect instantaneous data for: DO, pH, conductance, and temperature B) GLWQD agrees to use laboratories and equipment recognized by DEQ to produce data of sufficient quality for the intended purpose of the Sampling Effort and to process data as appropriate and input into the state’s official water quality database. C) GLWQD agrees to manage and direct field work activities of personnel representing other organizations that assist the COB, by way of separate Memorandum of Agreement, with the East Gallatin River water quality sampling effort. D) The COB agrees to fund laboratory costs, equipment rental costs, labor costs, and GLWQD professional services costs to the complete the Sampling Effort in accordance with Article 2 below. Article 2 – Payment Schedule A) Laboratory and equipment rental and/or equipment purchase invoices will be paid by the COB directly. A cost not to exceed $50,000 is provided for lab analyses and equipment rentals. A project analytical budget for lab and equipment rentals and/or equipment purchase costs shall be prepared by GLWQD and included in the SAP. B) The COB will pay GLWQD for professional services costs for SAP preparation, lab and equipment vendor coordination, obtaining site access permissions, and field work at a total unit cost of $750/site-visit for a total cost not to exceed $33,750. The COB agrees to pay these professional services costs upon presentation of invoices from the GLWQD. C) The COB will pay GLWQD for professional services costs for data processing and data entry into the state’s water quality database at a unit cost of $600/site for a total cost not to exceed $10,200. The COB agrees to pay these professional services costs upon presentation of invoices from the GLWQD. Article 3 – Duration of the Agreement The term of this agreement shall expire on June 30, 2017 unless separately extended or amended as agreed by the parties hereto. Article 4 – Independent Contractor The parties agree that GLWQD is an independent contractor for purposes of this Agreement and is not to be considered an employee of the COB for any purpose. Neither GLWQD nor any of its employees, officials, or agents, are subject to the terms and provisions of the COB’s 14 FY2017 MOA for East Gallatin River Water Quality Sampling Page | 4 personnel policies handbook and may not be considered a COB employee for workers’ compensation or any other purpose. GLWQD is not authorized to represent the COB or otherwise bind the COB in any dealings between GLWQD and any third parties. Article 5 – Non-Discrimination GLWQD will not refuse employment to a person, bar a person from employment, or discriminate against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of race, color, religion, creed, political ideas, sex, age, marital status, national origin, actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental disability. Article 6 – Execution IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their authorized representatives, on the day and year first written above. CITY OF BOZEMAN (Signature) City Manager (Title) Chris Kukulski (Printed Name) APPROVED AS TO FORM: GREG SULLIVAN, CITY ATTORNEY GALLATIN LOCAL WATER QUALITY DISTRICT (Signature) Board Chair (Title) Kathy Gallagher (Printed Name) 15 WQPBWQSTR-002 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance Version 1.0 JULY 2014 Prepared by: Water Quality Planning Bureau, Water Quality Standards Section Montana Department of Environmental Quality 1520 E. Sixth Avenue P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 16 Suggested citation: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2014. Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance. Version 1.0. Helena, MT: Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality 17 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance – Table of Contents 7/31/14 Final i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... v 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Defined Nutrient-reduction Steps for Permittees Operating under a General Nutrient Standards Variance ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Guidance Pertaining to the Evaluation Process for Individual Variances ............................................... 2 3.1 Public-sector Permittees ..................................................................................................................... 2 3.1.1 Substantial and Widespread Economic Impacts: Process Overview ........................................... 3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3.1.2 Completing the Substantial and Widespread Assessment Spreadsheet ..................................... 5 3.1.3 The Remedy: Determining the Target Cost of the Pollution Control Project .............................. 6 3.2 Private-sector Permittees ................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Substantial and Widespread Economic Impacts: Process Overview ........................................... 9 3.2.2 Completing the Substantial and Widespread Assessment Spreadsheet ................................... 10 3.2.3 The Remedy: Determining the Cost of the Pollution Control Project for Private Entities ......... 10 4.0 Guidelines for Developing Individual Nutrient Standards Variances via Water Quality Modeling, and the Relation of these to Site-specific Numeric Nutrient Criteria ................................................................ 11 4.1 Mechanistic and Empirical Modeling Approaches for Establishing Reach-specific Nutrient Standards and Individual Variances (If Necessary) ................................................................................. 12 4.2 Protection of Downstream Beneficial Uses ...................................................................................... 13 4.3. Unwarranted Cost and Economic Impact ........................................................................................ 13 4.4 Periodic Review of the Individual Variance, Board Adoption of Site-specific Criteria ...................... 14 5.0 Guidance Pertaining to Alternative Nutrient Standards Variances ...................................................... 15 6.0 Streamlined Methods for Developing Site-specific Numeric Nutrient Criteria .................................... 16 6.1 Background and Rationale ................................................................................................................ 16 6.2 Site-specific Methods ........................................................................................................................ 16 6.2.1 Two Site-specific Methods ......................................................................................................... 17 6.2.2 Other Methods ........................................................................................................................... 19 6.3 Confirmation of Biological Health, and Minimum Dataset ............................................................... 20 6.3.1 Assessment of the Biological Health of the Stream ................................................................... 20 6.3.2 Dataset Minimum ...................................................................................................................... 20 6.3.3 Consideration of the Other Nutrient ......................................................................................... 21 6.4 Case-study Example .......................................................................................................................... 21 18 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance – Table of Contents 7/31/14 Final ii 6.4.1 Data Summary for Stream X (in Middle Rockies Ecoregion) ...................................................... 21 6.4.2 The Assessment of Stream X ...................................................................................................... 22 6.4.3 Site-specific Criteria Derivation for Stream X using the Streamlined Approach........................ 22 Appendix A: Recommendations for Sampling and Modeling the East Gallatin River to Accomplish Multiple Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 23 A1.0 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 23 A1.1 Design and Possible Outcomes of the Investigation ...................................................................... 23 A1.2 Summary of the Basic Approaches to Reach-specific Criteria ........................................................ 25 A2.0 Biological Characterization of the East Gallatin River, and the Empirical Model Approach to Deriving Reach-specific Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 26 A2.1 Detailed Consideration of the Objective 1 ..................................................................................... 26 A2.2 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................................ 29 A2.3 Recommended Sampling Sites along the East Gallatin River ......................................................... 29 A2.4 Sampling Frequency and Duration of Study ................................................................................... 31 A2.5 Data Analysis and Interpretation .................................................................................................... 35 A2.6 Reach Specific Criteria—Empirical Approach ................................................................................. 35 A2.7 Protection of Downstream Uses ..................................................................................................... 35 A3.0 Developing Reach Specific Criteria via the Mechanistic Modeling Approach .................................... 36 A3.1 Sites Requiring Water Quality Sonde Deployment ......................................................................... 37 A3.2 Additional Sites Requiring Flow and Water Quality Data ............................................................... 39 A3.3 Other Data ...................................................................................................................................... 40 A3.4 Numeric Nutrient Criteria Derivation Process via QUAL2K ............................................................ 40 A4.0 Can Beneficial Uses be Supported by Applying Greater Emphasis on Reducing One Nutrient? ........ 40 A5.0 Status Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 42 A6.0 Budget Estimates ................................................................................................................................ 42 A7.0 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A1 ................................................................................................................................................ 44 Document and Appendix References ......................................................................................................... 47 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1. Flow chart for evaluation of substantial and widespread economic impacts ............................ 3 Figure 3-2. Sliding scale for determining cost cap based on a community’s secondary score. .................... 7 Figure 6-1. Overview of the Streamlined Site-specific Criteria Methods. .................................................. 17 Figure 6-2. Scenario 1. Candidate site-specific nutrient criteria may fall between the ecoregional nutrient standard (black dot with X) and the 95th percentile of the applicable reference distribution (dashed arrow). ......................................................................................................................................................... 18 19 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance – Table of Contents 7/31/14 Final iii Figure 6-3. Scenario 2. Site-specific criteria derivation method for cases where a Department- recommended criterion is near or above the 95th percentile of the ecoregional reference distribution. . 19 Figure A1-1. Flowchart outlining various outcomes from the analysis of reach-specific data and the development of reach-specific criteria. ...................................................................................................... 24 Figure A2-1. Ten biological and water quality sampling sites along the East Gallatin River. ..................... 32 Figure A2-2. Sampling sites A to G along the East Gallatin River between the Bridger and Hyalite creek confluences. ................................................................................................................................................ 33 Figure A2-3. Close-up of the three sampling sites around the city of Bozeman WRF discharge. Green dot is USGS gage 06048700. .............................................................................................................................. 34 Figure A3-1. Map showing the six main sites along the East Gallatin River needed for the development of the QUAL2K model. ..................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure A4-1. QUAL2K model results for nitrogen, phosphorus, and light limitation of benthic algae in the Yellowstone River. From Flynn and Suplee (2013). .................................................................................... 41 LIST OF TABLES Table A2-1. Discharge, ft3/sec for USGS Station 06048700 "East Gallatin River at Bozeman, Mont.". Mean of daily values for 10 years of record (calculation period 2001-10-01 to 2011-09-30). ............................. 26 Table A1-1. Biological Characterization (2-year study, up to three months per summer). This work is undertaken regardless of preferred modeling approach. .......................................................................... 44 Table A1-2. Statistical Empirical Model (One additional year of data in additional to the biological characterization). ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Table A1-3a. QUAL2K Model main sites (data in addition to data from the biological characterization). Assumes a single year sampling in Aug and Sept. ...................................................................................... 45 Table A1-3b. QUAL2K Model, Additional Sites. Assumes a single year sampling in Aug and Sept. ........... 46 20 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance– Acronyms 7/31/14 Final v ACRONYMS Acronym Definition AFDM Ash Free Dry Mass CBOD20 Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand, run for 20 consecutive days DEQ Department of Environmental Quality (Montana) DO Dissolved Oxygen EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.) EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera HBI Hilsenhoff Biotic Index ISS Inorganic Suspended Sediment LMI Low to Moderate Income MCA Montana Code Annotated MHI Median Household Income PAR Photosynthetically Active Radiation QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TOC Total Organic Carbon TP Total Phosphorus TSS Total Suspended Solids USGS United States Geological Survey WRF Water Reclamation Facility WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant 22 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document was developed through the collective efforts of the Nutrient Work Group and the Department. It provides guidance pertaining to the implementation of Montana’s base numeric nutrient standards and variances from those standards. The remaining sections address the following topics: Section 2.0: For permittees operating under a general nutrient standards variance, this section provides the defined effluent limits (i.e., nutrient reduction steps) to be met over several permit cycles of the general variance. Section 3.0: Provides guidance for the development of individual nutrient standards variances for public- and private-sector entities, based on economic factors and the limits of technology. Section 4.0: Provides detailed, data-intensive modeling approaches for developing site-specific numeric nutrient criteria. This approach lends itself to the development of model-based individual variances for dischargers. Section 5.0: Provides guidance for the development of alternative nutrient standards variances for public- and private-sector entities. Section 6.0: Outlines a streamlined approach for developing site-specific numeric nutrient criteria for streams or rivers where full biological support is demonstrated but where the existing nutrient concentrations exceed applicable base numeric nutrient standards. 1.1 SCOPE The provisions for general, individual, and alternative variances in section 75-5-313, Montana Code Annotated (MCA), are available to all discharge permit holders and are not limited to dischargers under permit on the effective dates of Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Circular DEQ-12A or DEQ Circular DEQ-12B. 1.2 DEFINITIONS 1. Limits of technology means treatment for the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds from wastewater that meets the more stringent of the following: (a) ability to consistently achieve a concentration of 70 µg Total Phosphorus (TP)/L and 4,000 µg Total Nitrogen (TN)/L, or (b) the best demonstrated control technology, processes, or operating methods available at the time the Department evaluates a permittee’s application for a limits of technology variance. 2. Pollution control project means an upgrade to a wastewater treatment facility and all directly relevant infrastructure. 2.0 DEFINED NUTRIENT-REDUCTION STEPS FOR PERMITTEES OPERATING UNDER A GENERAL NUTRIENT STANDARDS VARIANCE The Department and the Nutrient Work Group developed a series of defined nutrient-reduction steps to be taken over time and that are specific to recipients of general nutrient standards variances. Per §75-5- 24 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 2 313 [8], MCA, general nutrient standards variance may be established for no more than 20 years. The intent of establishing nutrient reduction steps upfront for most of the 20 year period is to provide permittees regulatory certainty well out into the future. This in turn allows for better facility planning and financing. State law still requires the Department to review triennially the general variance concentrations, and to lower them conforming with technological advancements and improvements in cost (Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 75-5-313[7][b]). However, the Department will only supersede the reduction steps defined here if substantial cost reductions for existing technology have occurred, or technological innovations have allowed for nutrient reductions well beyond the defined steps and those technologies can be readily implemented on wastewater facilities in Montana. For the purposes of permit development, the values provided below apply to recipients of general nutrient standards variances and the concentrations should be viewed as monthly averages applicable during the time period the base numeric nutrient standards are in effect. 1. For facilities > 1 million gallons per day: A. By 2016 (or first receipt of general nutrient standards variance): 10 mg TN/L, 1.0 mg TP/L B. Next permit cycle (5 year later): 8 mg TN/L, 0.8 mg TP/L C. Next permit cycle (5 years later): 8 mg TN/L, 0.5 mg TP/L D. Next permit cycle (5 years later): Under Development 2. For facilities < 1 million gallons per day: A. By 2016 (or first receipt of general nutrient standards variance): 15 mg TN/L, 2.0 mg TP/L B. Next permit cycle (5 year later): 12 mg TN/L, 2.0 mg TP/L C. Next permit cycle (5 years later): 10 mg TN/L, 1.0 mg TP/L D. Next permit cycle (5 years later): 8 mg TN/L, 0.8 mg TP/L 3. For lagoons not designed to actively remove nutrients: A. By 2016 (or first receipt of general nutrient standards variance): Maintain current lagoon performance and commence nutrient monitoring in the effluent B. Next permit cycles (5 years later): Implement BMPs identified during optimization study 3.0 GUIDANCE PERTAINING TO THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUAL VARIANCES Section 3.0 provides guidance on applying for an individual variance based on the direct evaluation of economic factors. Section 3.1 applies to the public sector, while Section 3.2 applies to the private sector. 3.1 PUBLIC-SECTOR PERMITTEES Montana law allows for the granting of nutrient standards variances based on the specific economic and financial conditions of a permittee (§75-5-313 (1), MCA). These variances, referred to as individual nutrient standards variances (“individual variances”), may be granted on a case-by-case basis because the attainment of the base numeric nutrient standards is precluded due to economic impacts, limits of technology, or both. Individual variances may only be granted to a permittee after the permittee has made a demonstration to the Department that adverse, significant economic impacts would occur, the 25 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 3 limits of technology have been reached, or both, and that there are no reasonable alternatives to discharging into state waters. The processes by which the demonstration is made are provided here, and were developed in conjunction with Montana Nutrient Work Group. Methods outlined below in Section 3.1.1 are Montana’s modifications to methods presented in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995; Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 75-5-513[7][b]) and pertain to the economic impacts rationale for an individual variance. If adverse, substantial and widespread economic impacts to a community trying to comply with base numeric nutrient standards can be demonstrated, the facility interim effluent limit will be determined via a sliding scale as proposed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its September 10, 2010 memo to the Department entitled “EPA Guidance on Variances”. Permittees applying for an individual variance based on discharging at the limits of technology do not have to prepare the economic analysis presented below in Section 3.1.1. Rather, they should demonstrate to the Department that the waste treatment system they are proposing can achieve, at a minimum, the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations described in Section 1.2 of this document, and that achieving those concentrations still will not enable them to attain the base numeric nutrient standards at a 14Q5 flow. Various factors will have a bearing on the final effluent concentrations approved by the Department for individual variances discussed in this paragraph. 3.1.1 Substantial and Widespread Economic Impacts: Process Overview The Department has assumed that most permittees who cannot comply with the base numeric nutrient standards (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2014a) would pursue a general variance (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2014b). Therefore, individual variances discussed here are generally for permittees for whom significant economic impacts would occur even at the general variance treatment levels. As noted above, the Department will assess economic impacts using a modified version of EPA’s economic-impact guidance. For communities with secondary scores (discussed further below) of 1.5 or lower, the cost cap for the upgrade would be set at 1.0% or lower of the median household income (MHI) for a community, including existing wastewater fees. If the cost cap were below existing wastewater rates, then no further action would be required. Higher Secondary scores would to a higher MHI cost cap. See Figure 3-1 for a small flow chart of the overall process. Figure 3-1. Flow chart for evaluation of substantial and widespread economic impacts The following is an overview of the steps required to carry out a substantial and widespread economic analysis for a public-sector permittee. The evaluation can be undertaken directly in an Excel spreadsheet Can the permittee affordably meet the General Variance? Permittee meets the General Variance with upgrades or optimization Permittee applies for an Individual Variance. Permittee demonstrates they cannot meet base nutrient standards using significant and widespread tests. After looking at all alternatives to meeting the base numeric nutrient standards, permittee takes Secondary Score and uses sliding scale to determine cost cap. Permittee works with the Department to find a variance solution based on the cap. NO YES 26 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 4 template which contains instructions. The template is called “PublicEntity_Worksheet_EPACostModel_2014.xlsx”, and is available from the Department. Step 1: Verify project costs that would occur from meeting the base numeric nutrient standards and calculate the annual cost of the new pollution control project. Step 2: Calculate total annualized pollution control cost per household including existing wastewater fees and the new pollution control project (manifested as an increase in the household wastewater bill). Steps 3-5: The Substantial Test Step 3: Calculate and evaluate the Municipal Preliminary Screener score based on the new wastewater fees and the town’s Median Household Income. This step identifies communities that can readily pay for the pollution control project vs. those that cannot. Note: If the public entity passes a significant portion of the pollution control costs along to private facilities or firms, then the review procedures outlined in Chapter 3 of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1995 (EPA, (1995) for 'Private Entities' should also be consulted to determine the impact on the private entities. Step 4: Calculate the Secondary Test to get a secondary score. This measurement incorporates a characterization of the socio-economic and financial well-being of households in the community where the wastewater plant is located. It comprises five evaluation parameters which are then compared against state averages for a score. The scores of the five parameters are averaged to provide the secondary test score for a given community. A secondary score can range from 1.0 to 3.0. A value of 3.0 is a strong score and 1.0 is a weak score. Note: The Secondary Score is based on the assumption that the ability of a community to finance a project may be dependent upon existing household financial conditions within that community. Step 5: Assess where the community falls in the substantial impacts matrix. This matrix evaluates whether or not a given community is expected to incur substantial economic impacts due to the implementation of the pollution control costs. If the applicant can demonstrate substantial impacts, then the applicant moves on to the widespread test. If the applicant cannot demonstrate substantial impacts, then they will not perform the widespread test; they will be required to meet the base numeric nutrient standards. Note: The evaluation of substantial impacts resulting from compliance with base numeric nutrient standards includes two elements; (1) financial impacts to the public entity as measured in Step 3 (reflected in increased household wastewater fees), and (2) current socio-economic conditions of the community as measured in Step 4. Governments have the authority to levy taxes and distribute pollution control costs among households and businesses according to the tax base. Similarly, sewage authorities charge for services, and thus can recover pollution control costs through user’s fees. In both cases, a substantial impact will usually affect the wider community. Whether or not the community faces substantial impacts depends on both the cost of the pollution control and the general financial and economic health of the community. 27 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 5 Step 6: The Widespread Test Step 6: If impacts from meeting the base numeric nutrient standards are expected to be substantial, then the applicant goes on to demonstrate whether or not the impacts are expected to be widespread. The Widespread test consists of questions that ask the permittee about current economic, social and population trends in the affected area (usually the community and possibly outlying areas tied to the community). The permittee is then asked to estimate the effects of higher wastewater costs on each of these trends. Further optional questions are asked about the effects of higher wastewater costs on things like city debt limits, improved water quality, future development patterns, and other factors that the applicant may want to add. Note: Estimated changes in socio-economic indicators of the community and other geographical areas tied to the community as a result of pollution control costs will be used to determine whether widespread impacts would occur. Step 7: Final Determination of Substantial and Widespread Economic Impacts Step 7: If widespread impacts are also demonstrated, then a permittee is eligible for an individual variance after having demonstrated to the Department that they considered alternatives to discharging (including but not limited to trading, land application, and permit compliance schedules). If widespread impacts have not been demonstrated, then the permittee is not eligible for an individual variance based on these methods. 3.1.2 Completing the Substantial and Widespread Assessment Spreadsheet Detailed steps for completing the substantial and widespread cost assessment are found in the spreadsheet template “PublicEntity_Worksheet_EPACostModel_2014.xlsx” available from the Department and on the Nutrient Workgroup website. Readers should refer to that spreadsheet, as it is self-explanatory and instructions are found throughout. Below are a few additional details which may help clarify some of the steps: 1. Start at the far left tab of the spreadsheet (“Instructions [Steps to be Taken]”) and review the instructions. They are the same steps outlined in Section 3.1.1 above, but in more detail. Proceed to subsequent tabs to the right, making sure not to skip any of worksheets A through F. 2. Summarize the project on Worksheet A. 3. Detail the costs of the project on Worksheet B. 4. Calculated the annual cost per household of existing and expected new water treatment costs on Worksheet C. 5. On Worksheet D, carefully read the text in blue and compare it to the results from the MHI test and the community’s Low to Moderate Income (LMI) level. Based on this screener, the evaluation will either terminate (i.e., it has been shown that the water pollution control is clearly affordable), or will continue to the secondary tests on the next tab which is Worksheet E1. 1 The Department appended the LMI test to EPA’s Municipal Preliminary Screener at this step in the process. This was done in order to address communities in which the income distribution is skewed such that there is a large proportion of high- and low-income individuals, but less in the middle near the median household income. As modified, the test should assure that such communities will move on to the more detailed secondary tests. 28 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 6 6. On Worksheet E, note the linkages to websites and phone numbers where the information requested can be obtained. Then use this information to fill in Worksheet F where a secondary score is calculated. 7. The next tab, ‘Substantial Impacts Matrix’, shows if the community has demonstrated substantial impacts (or not). Those that have clearly demonstrated substantial impacts as well as those that are ‘borderline’ move on to the widespread tests. 8. On the ‘DEQ Widespread Criteria’ tab, complete the four descriptive questions. Then, complete the six primary questions and determine the outcome as to whether impacts are widespread. If still unclear, complete the additional secondary questions and again evaluate. 9. In order to be eligible for an individual variance, both substantial and widespread tests must be satisfied. 10. If substantial and widespread impacts are demonstrated, then the permittee moves on to the next tab, Worksheet I, Remedy. In this step, the permittee examines and reports whether there are “reasonable alternatives” to the individual variance that preclude the need for an individual variance. If not, then then the cost the permittee will need to expend towards the pollution control project will be based on the sliding scale (see below). The cost cap is determined as a percentage of the community’s MHI, and the key driver of the required cost cap is the Secondary Score. The difference between the cost cap MHI from the sliding scale and what is currently being paid (also in MHI) is the additional money that can go towards the pollution control project. Once the amount of money available is determined, the Department and the applicant will look at both capital and O&M investments that could be used to craft an individual variance, given what money is available. Refer to Section 3.1.3 below for more details on the remedy process. 3.1.3 The Remedy: Determining the Target Cost of the Pollution Control Project If a permittee has demonstrated that substantial and widespread economic impacts would occur if they were to comply with the base numeric nutrient standards, and there are no reasonable alternatives to discharging (including trading, permit compliance schedules, general variances, alternative variances, or alternative effluent management loading reduction methods such as reuse, recharge, or land application), then the cost the permittee will need to expend towards the pollution control project will be based on a sliding scale (Figure 3-2). The cost cap is determined as a percentage of the community’s MHI, and the key driver of the cost cap is the secondary test (secondary score) calculated in step 4 of Section 3.1.1. For example, a community has demonstrated that substantial and widespread economic impacts would occur from trying to comply with the base numeric nutrient standards, and there were no reasonable alternatives to discharging. If the permittee’s average secondary score from the secondary tests was 1.5, then the annual cost cap for the pollution control project (including current wastewater fees) would be the dollar value equal to 1.0% of the community’s MHI at the time that the analysis was undertaken (see blue line, Figure 3-2). This 1.0% would include existing wastewater costs plus the new, hypothetical upgrades. If this community was already paying ≥ 1.0% of community MHI for its wastewater bill, then no additional monies would be spent on capital or O&M costs (and no additional upgrades would occur). Still, additional improvements may still be expected. The facility’s current discharge nutrient concentrations might become the basis of the community’s individual variance but the community must 29 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 7 first look at optimization options such as operator training and use all tools available within their cost cap to improve water quality. Once those are considered, the individual variance can be developed. The difference between the cost cap MHI from the sliding scale and what is currently being paid in MHI is the additional money that can go towards the pollution control project. This amount could be zero in some cases, as in the example just given. This additional money is calculated for the whole community over 20 years (assumed life of the pollution control project) in order to see what the total amount of money available would be. The cost cap, which is given as a percentage of a community’s MHI and determined by the ‘sliding scale’ in Figure 3-2, would translate to the final wastewater bill that the community would pay after the upgrade. 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5Secondary ScoreCost Cap (Percent MHI) Cost Cap versus Secondary Score Cost Cap Figure 3-2. Sliding scale for determining cost cap based on a community’s secondary score. The horizontal axis represents percentages of a community’s median household income (MHI) that the community would be expected to expend towards the pollution control project as a function of the secondary score shown on the vertical axis. 3.1.3.1 The Remedy: Details, and an Example The Department will consider the town's current treatment level (TN and TP) and current treatment technology, which informs (along with the additional money amount) what the next level of treatment should be. Once the amount of money available is determined, the Department and the applicant will look at both capital and O&M investments that could be used to meet an individual variance, given what money is available. Staff from the Department will review the application and the remedy. The staff will generally include the Department’s economist, an engineer from the Technical and Financial Assistance Bureau, staff from the Water Quality Standards Section, and staff from the Water Protection Bureau (i.e., permitting). The waste water treatment Plant (WWTP) applicant must propose a level of water treatment greater than what they are currently meeting. If a community is already at the cost cap, then they still must look at optimization options such as operator training and use all tools available within their cost cap which could lead to water quality improvement. The variance must be established as close to the underlying 30 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 8 numeric criteria (or general variance) as possible to show both that the highest attainable use is being realized and that further incremental progress towards the underlying standard is occurring. The Department and the applicant will evaluate options and select the alternative that would result in the highest effluent condition that does not trigger substantial and widespread economic impacts. The decision process should include engineering costs, design, treatment effectiveness, etc. The decision regarding the pollution control project may also account for facility upgrades that do not directly improve water quality. For example, if $4 million is available over 20 years for a given community, but $2 million is needed for replacing delivery system piping over that 20 years, it may be the case that only $2 million are available to directly reduce nutrient concentrations in the effluent. For example, a community with 10,000 households has a MHI of $40,000/year. The community’s secondary score is 1.5 and therefore the sliding scale indicates that 1.0% MHI needs to be expended on the pollution control project. To receive the individual variance, the per-household wastewater bill for the community would need to become, on average, $400 per year ($33.33 per month), because $400 is 1.0% of MHI in that community. If the average household in this community currently has a wastewater bill that is $300 per year ($25.00 per month), then a bill increase of $100 per year per household on average would be warranted to reach $400 per year or 1% MHI. Multiplying $100/year in an increased wastewater bill by the number of households on the system (10,000) provides the total annual dollar value available to be expended towards construction, operations, and maintenance of the wastewater upgrade. In this hypothetical case, that amounts to $1 million (10,000 X $100) that could be spent per year on an upgrade project. The upgrade itself may be significantly more than $1 million in initial capital costs, but the annualized payback of capital costs plus O&M costs of the upgrade could not be more than $1 million per year. Annualizing $1 million per year over several years could allow for a substantial upgrade of several million dollars. Again, if the current wastewater bill of this town was already $400 or higher, then no additional significant capital or O&M cost upgrade would be expected (i.e., no further significant system upgrade would be required). Finally, the final cost of the engineering project may not exactly match the dollar value associated with the percent MHI determined via Figure 3-1 (i.e., the actual project cost could be somewhat lower or somewhat higher than the dollar value equivalent for the percent MHI of the community in question). Engineers should view the dollar value equivalent of the MHI derived from Figure 3-1 as a target, to help select the most appropriate water pollution control solution for the community. In order to accommodate actual engineering costs for the project, the Department will provide flexibility around the dollar value arrived at via Figure 3-1, subject to final Department approval. When the level of treatment required has been established and accepted by the Department, it will be adopted by the Department following the Department’s formal rule making process and documented in Circular DEQ-12B. 3.2 PRIVATE-SECTOR PERMITTEES Individual nutrient standards variances (“individual variances”) may be granted to permit holders in the private sector, on a case-by-case basis, because (1) the attainment of the base numeric nutrient standards is precluded due to economic impacts, (2) treatment to the limits of technology still does not enable the permittee to attain the base numeric nutrient standards, or (3) both reasons (§75-5-313 [2], MCA). Individual variances may only be granted to a permittee after the permittee has made a demonstration to the Department that adverse, significant economic impacts would occur, limits of 31 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 9 technology have been reached, or both, and that there are no reasonable alternatives to discharging into state waters. Methods outlined below in Section 3.2.1 pertain to the economic-impact rationale (bullet 1 in the paragraph above) and are almost identical to those presented in EPA (1995). If adverse substantial and widespread economic impacts to a private entity trying to comply with nutrient standards are demonstrated, the facility upgrade (cost cap) will be determined via approaches discussed in Section 3.2.3. Permittees applying for an individual variance based on discharging at the limits of technology do not have to prepare the economic analysis presented below in Section 3.2.1. Rather, they should demonstrate to the Department that the waste treatment system they are proposing can achieve, at a minimum, the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations described in Section 1.2 of this document, and that achieving those concentrations still does not enable them to attain the base numeric nutrient standards at a seasonal 14Q5 flow. Various factors will have a bearing on the final effluent concentrations approved by the Department for individual variances discussed in this paragraph. 3.2.1 Substantial and Widespread Economic Impacts: Process Overview The following is an overview of the steps required to carry out a substantial and widespread economic analysis for a private-sector permittee. The evaluation can be undertaken directly in an Excel spreadsheet template which contains instructions. The template is called “PrivateEntity_Worksheet_EPACostModel_2014.xlsx” and is available from the Department. Step 1: Verify Project Costs and Calculate the Annual Cost of the Pollution control project to the private entity. Step 2: Substantial Test. Run a financial impact analysis on the private entity to assess the extent to which existing or planned activities and/or employment will be reduced as a result of meeting the water quality standards. The primary measure of whether substantial impact will occur to the private entity is profitability. The secondary measures include indicators of liquidity, solvency, and leverage. Step 3: Widespread Test. If impacts on the private entity are expected to be substantial, then the applicant goes on to demonstrate whether they are also expected to be widespread to the defined study area. Note: Estimated changes in socio-economic indicators in a defined area as a result of the additional pollution costs will be used to determine whether widespread impacts would occur. Step 4: Final Determination of Substantial and Widespread Economic Impacts. If both substantial and widespread impacts are demonstrated, then a permittee is eligible for an individual variance after having demonstrated to the Department that they considered alternatives to discharging (including but not limited to trading, land application, and permit compliance schedules). If widespread impacts have not been demonstrated, then the permittee is not eligible for an individual variance (however, the permittee may still receive a general variance if they can comply with the end-of-pipe treatment requirements thereof). 32 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 10 3.2.2 Completing the Substantial and Widespread Assessment Spreadsheet Detailed steps for completing the substantial and widespread cost assessment are found in the spreadsheet template “PrivateEntity_Worksheet_EPACostModel_2014.xlsx” (available from the Department). Readers should refer to that spreadsheet, as it is self-explanatory and instructions are found throughout. Detailed steps for private sector entities are also found in Chapter 3 of EPA (1995). Below are a few additional details which may help clarify some of the steps: 1. Start at the far left tab of the spreadsheet (“Instructions [Steps to Take]”) and review the instructions. They are the same steps outlined in Section 3.2.1 above. Proceed to subsequent tabs to the right, making sure not to skip any of the worksheets. 2. Summarize the project on Worksheet A. 3. There are no worksheets B through F on the private test. 4. The next worksheet is G where one details the costs of the project. 5. In the next tab, carefully read the ‘Substantial Impact Instructions’. 6. In worksheets H through L, the four main substantial tests are presented. For these tests, profit and solvency ratios are calculated with and without the additional compliance costs (taking into consideration the entity's ability to increase its prices to cover part or all of the costs). Comparing these ratios to each other and to industry benchmarks provides a measure of the impact on the entity of additional wastewater costs. For profit and solvency, the main question is how these will be affected by additional pollution control costs. The Liquidity and leverage measures look at how a firm is doing right now financially, and how much additional financial burden they could take on. 7. In the Tab entitled “Substan.Impacts_Determined”, instruction is given as to how to interpret the results from the ‘Substantial’ tests in worksheets H through L. 8. If a ‘Substantial‘ finding is made, then proceed on to the next tab. If it is not made, then the variance based on evaluations in this sub-section will not be given. 9. On the ‘DEQ Widespread Criteria’ tab, complete the descriptive questions. Then, complete the primary questions and determine the outcome as to whether impacts are widespread. If still unclear, complete the secondary questions and again evaluate. 10. In order to be eligible for an individual variance, both substantial and widespread tests must be satisfied. 11. If both substantial and widespread impacts are demonstrated from additional pollution control costs, see Section 3.2.3 below. 3.2.3 The Remedy: Determining the Cost of the Pollution Control Project for Private Entities U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995) provides very little guidance as to what financial expenditure should be made towards water pollution control when a private firm has demonstrated substantial and widespread impacts would occur if they complied with the standards. EPA (1995) only states that “…if substantial and widespread economic and social impacts have been demonstrated, then the discharger will not have to meet the water quality standards. The discharger will, however, be expected to undertake some additional pollution control.” In cases where substantial and widespread economic impact has been demonstrated per methods outlined here in Section 3.2, the Department expects that in most cases the discharger (and their engineers) will propose to the Department some level of effluent improvement beyond that which they are currently doing, but less stringent that the general variances concentrations (which are in statute at 33 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 11 §75-5-313, MCA through May 2016, but have been adopted as Department rules). A likely scenario would be that the discharger could implement a treatment technology one level less sophisticated than that required to meet the general variance concentrations. Basic definitions for different treatment levels are found in Falk et al. (2011); for example, through 2016 the general variance requirement for dischargers > 1 million gallons per day corresponds to treatment level 2 in Falk et al. (2011). When the discharger and the Department have come to agreement on the level of treatment required, the treatment levels will be adopted by the Department following the Department’s formal rule making process, and documented in Circular DEQ-12B. 4.0 GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING INDIVIDUAL NUTRIENT STANDARDS VARIANCES VIA WATER QUALITY MODELING, AND THE RELATION OF THESE TO SITE-SPECIFIC NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA Circumstances may arise where, for a specific discharger, it may not make sense to move to the new, lower general variance concentrations at the time the Department updates them during a triennial standards review. Similarly, it may not make sense for a discharger to upgrade to one of the nutrient reduction steps (see Section 2.0 of this document) that have been defined for the 3 permit cycles subsequent to the initial treatment requirements (e.g., 1 mg TP/L and 10 mg TN/L) defined in statute at §75-5-313 (5)(b), MCA. In some cases a permittee may be able to demonstrate, using water quality modeling and reach-specific data, that greater emphasis on reducing one nutrient (the target nutrient) will achieve the same desired water-quality conditions as can be achieved by equally emphasizing reduction of both nutrients. Requiring a point source discharger to immediately install sophisticated nutrient-removal technologies to reduce the non-target nutrient to levels more stringent than what is in statute at §75-5-313(5)(b), MCA may not be the most prudent nutrient control expenditure, and would cause the discharger to incur unnecessary economic expense. Since this can be interpreted as a form of economic impact, sensu §75-5-313(1), MCA, these situations are appropriately addressed by individual variances. If such a case can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Department, then a permittee can apply for an individual variance which will include discharger-specific limits reflecting the highest attainable condition for the receiving water rather than limits based on a general variance concentration. The permittee will be required to provide monitoring water-quality data that can be used to determine if the justification for less stringent effluent limits continues to hold true (i.e., status monitoring is required), consistent with New Rule I(4). This is because status can change, for example due to substantive nonpoint source cleanups upstream of the discharger. The purpose of Section 4.0 is to provide guidelines for the types of information the Department would need to evaluate in order to grant an individual variance that allows a discharger to (1) remain at treatment levels less stringent than general variance requirements defined in statute at §75-5-313 (5)(b), MCA (or Department updates), or (2) remain at levels less stringent than the reduction steps in Section 2.0 of this guidance document. The nutrient concentrations identified via this modeling may be adopted as site-specific standards under the Board of Environmental Review’s rulemaking authority in §75-5-301(2), MCA, but would require an analysis of their downstream effects prior to adoption (downstream effects are discussed further in Section 4.2). 34 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 12 4.1 MECHANISTIC AND EMPIRICAL MODELING APPROACHES FOR ESTABLISHING REACH-SPECIFIC NUTRIENT STANDARDS AND INDIVIDUAL VARIANCES (IF NECESSARY) Two general modeling approaches may be used: 1. Simulations based on mechanistic computer models 2. Demonstration of use support based on empirical data Whichever approach is selected—and in fact both approaches can be pursued simultaneously—the Department would like a 2-year biological characterization of the reach in question. A solid understanding of the biological status existing under the current level of water quality is required. Later in this document (Section 6.0) a simplified empirical approach to site-specific nutrient criteria is presented, and has a 3-year minimum data requirement. The empirical modeling approach in the present section has only a 2-year requirement because the amount of data to be collected and frequency of sampling is so much higher in this case. Factors (both natural and human-caused) independent of nutrient concentrations can influence biological integrity and need to be understood. The biological characterization will change from case to case, but will normally involve collection of diatoms, macroinvertebrates, benthic and phytoplankton algae density, and critical physical and chemical parameters that influence these. See Section A2.0 of Appendix A for an example of the types and quantity of biological data and the rationale for each. The following provides further detail on the two modeling approaches bulleted above. Simulation Based on Mechanistic Computer Models. The Department will consider mechanistic model results that demonstrate that the lowering of one nutrient (e.g., TP) without the lowering (or more likely, with less lowering) of the other would achieve essentially the same water quality endpoint (i.e., similar water quality and biological goals), subject to Department approval of the model and the model’s parameterization. Modeled endpoints may include changes in water quality (pH, dissolved oxygen, etc.), and benthic and phytoplankton algae density. Mechanistic models should be supported by data from a Department-approved study design that includes characterization of the chemical, biological, and hydrological conditions of the study reach during a lower-than-average baseflow condition. Data collection should follow Department SOPs. The Department encourages the use of the QUAL2K model (Chapra et al., 2010) but may consider results from other water quality models as well. Assuming the point source is a major contributor to the nutrients in the receiving stream, modeled nutrient reduction scenarios from the facility can vary, but scenarios based on the five treatment levels described in Falk et al. (2011)—which represent steps in biological nutrient removal technologies—are encouraged by the Department. The Department will consider nitrogen and phosphorus independently in this analysis. The state of the art in computer water quality/algal growth modeling is such that nutrient co-limitation and community interaction of river flora is poorly simulated (or is not simulated at all). Models usually treat algal growth dynamics in streams and rivers as though the algae were a monoculture (which is not the case). Because of the uncertainties in model simulations, the Department will require monitoring (per New Rule I[4]) for dischargers that are permitted to depart from general variance concentration 35 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 13 requirements via an individual variance based on a mechanistic model. The intent of the monitoring is to corroborate (or refute) the computer simulated results. At a minimum, growing season benthic-algae sampling will be required for a reach of the river downstream of the permittee’s mixing zone, to be established in coordination with the Department. If the base numeric nutrient standard for the river in question was developed based on another water quality endpoint (for example, pH), then data collection should also include that parameter. If the collected data and the computer modeling results corroborate one another, then a reach-specific base numeric nutrient standard may be in order. However any reach-specific nutrient standards must be adopted by the Board of Environmental Review under its rulemaking authority in §75-5-301(2), MCA, and would require an analysis of their downstream effects prior to adoption. Demonstration of Use Support Based on Empirical Data. Permittees may begin at any time to collect nutrient concentration, benthic and phytoplankton algae, and other biological and water quality data in the receiving waterbody downstream of their mixing zone. In cases where the Department’s base numeric nutrient standards for the waterbody were developed using a specific water quality endpoint (for example, pH), data collection must include that parameter. Data collection should follow Department SOPs. Permittees are strongly encouraged to coordinate with the Department on study design and data collection protocols upfront, to assure that the data types and quantity will be acceptable to the Department when the time comes for evaluating the outcomes. For example, it has been shown that chlorination of effluent can, in some cases, mute the effects of nutrients for some distance downstream (Gammons et al., 2011); this would need to be accounted for in any study design. Subject to Department approval, these data may be used to develop an individual variance. If the collected data conclusively indicate that beneficial uses of the waterbody are fully supported, then reach-specific base numeric nutrient standards may be appropriate. Any reach-specific nutrient standards so determined may be adopted by the Board of Environmental Review under its rulemaking authority in §75-5-301(2), MCA, but would require an analysis of their downstream effects prior to adoption. An example of an empirical approach to developing reach-specific nutrient criteria is provided in Section 2.0 of Appendix A. 4.2 PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM BENEFICIAL USES In order to be adopted as standards, any reach-specific criteria developed for a receiving stream using a mechanistic or empirical model will also need to protect downstream beneficial uses. This is a basic requirement of a water quality standard under the Federal Clean Water Act. “How far downstream” is a consideration which will vary from case-to-case; an example is provided in Sections 2.7 and 4.0 of Appendix A. Mechanistic models have very clear advantages over empirical models for running hypothetical scenarios and assessing potential downstream impacts, however a mechanistic model will normally be more expensive to complete. A budget estimate for a mechanistic and an empirical model is provided in Section 6.0 of Appendix A. If it results that modeling (of either type) has shown that beneficial uses of the assessed reach can be protected with site-specific criteria, but a downstream reach will be negatively impacted by the higher concentrations of one (or both) nutrients, then the Department would require treatment levels which would support the uses in the downstream waterbody, or it would have to recommend against the site-specific standards. 4.3. UNWARRANTED COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT In order to satisfy the economic impact component of an individual variance (§75-5-313(2), MCA) which may be developed as a result of the modeling methods described above, permittees should provide the 36 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 14 Department approximate estimates of the capital costs, and operations and maintenance costs, which would have been expended in order to upgrade the facility to any new general variance concentrations. The intent is to demonstrate that there were substantial savings in capital costs, materials, fuel, and energy by opting not to upgrade the facility. The permittee can compare the cost saved to the MHI of the community, similar to what is done for determining substantial and widespread economic impacts (see steps 1 through 5, Section 3.1.1); however, the Department wants to make clear that no specific percent of MHI needs to be realized in order for this aspect of the analysis to be satisfied. Permittees are encouraged to work with the Department’s economist when carrying out this analysis (Jeff Blend or his successor). Capital costs saved would not include design-related work and overhead. Operations and maintenance cost saved should be estimates of fuel and/or electrical consumption, and other materials (e.g., chemicals). Permittees are not required to carry out a complex analysis comparing the relative economic or social value of protecting one resource (the stream or river) vs. another (e.g., air quality) and then trying to quantify the relative savings. Rather, the Department wants a straight-forward quantification of cost savings associated with the key factors of concern (capitol costs, fuel and electrical consumption, and routine materials used such as chemical additions). 4.4 PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE INDIVIDUAL VARIANCE, BOARD ADOPTION OF SITE- SPECIFIC CRITERIA Status monitoring of the receiving stream and the affected downstream waterbody will be used to evaluate the individual variance justification going forward. For example: model results have shown that a large reduction of phosphorus by the permittee would render the receiving stream P-limited and in full support of beneficial uses, without a major reduction in nitrogen. At the same time, nonpoint contributions of nitrogen to the downstream part of the waterbody of concern are presently large enough that a substantial reduction of nitrogen load at the permittee’s facility would have had little or no beneficial effect on the waterbody’s uses. As a result, the permittee’s individual variance reflects a low TP concentration and a TN concentration of, say, 9 mg/L. If in the next ten years (of the twenty year variance period) nonpoint sources cleanup sufficiently that the facility’s 9 mg TN/L concentration has become a sizeable proportion of the downstream nitrogen load and reduction of that load would benefit the stream, then the justification for the 9 mg TN/L will have changed. Any updated individual variance would reflect a lower TN concentration. As before, modeling could be used to help derive the updated TN concentration. The ultimate endpoint of the modeling work is likely to be site-specific nutrient standards for the receiving stream, adopted by the Board. As indicated earlier, model-based site-specific criteria will need to demonstrably protect downstream beneficial uses. In some cases where site-specific criteria have been developed, an individual variance may still be necessary, as the site-specific criteria may not be immediately achievable because (for example) the site-specific criteria are still below the limits of technology and the point source is a major proportion of the stream flow. Individual variances approved by the Department become effective and may be incorporated into a permit only after a public hearing and adoption by the Department (§75-5-313(4), MCA). 37 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 15 5.0 GUIDANCE PERTAINING TO ALTERNATIVE NUTRIENT STANDARDS VARIANCES Statute provides for alternative nutrient standards variances (“alternative variances”) in addition to general and individual variances. A permittee may request an alternative variance if the permittee demonstrates to the Department that achieving the nutrient concentrations established for an individual or general nutrient standards variance would not result in a significant reduction of instream nutrient loading (§75-5-313[10][a], MCA). The idea behind the alternative variance is that the permittee is a very small proportion of the watershed’s nutrient load. For example the permittee’s discharge may be extremely small compared to the volume of the waterbody, and/or the waterbody may be highly dominated by non-point nutrient sources. Either way, an alternative variance is an option when the permitee can demonstrate that meeting general variance concentrations at §75-5-313[5][b], MCA (or future Department updates) would not result in an environmentally significant improvement in water quality and material progress towards attainment and maintenance of the waterbody's base numeric nutrient standards. Alternative variances are evaluated by the Department on case-by-case basis. Permittees may apply for an alternative variance for nitrogen, phosphorus, or both. In many circumstances the need for an alternative variance will be precluded because the non- significance of the permittee’s nutrient load to the waterbody in question will have already been accounted for in the development of the waterbody’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), consistent with New Rule I(7). In such cases, the waste-load allocation in the TMDL becomes the basis for the discharge permit and no variance of any kind is needed. Put differently, the concentration of nutrients in the permittee’s discharge may be higher than the general variance concentrations in statute (or future Department updates), but it would not be sensible— from a practical or economic perspective—to require the permittee to reduce those concentrations because their contribution to the overall watershed nutrient load is insignificant. Therefore, the permittee’s existing discharge concentrations become the basis of the TMDL and the permit limit; no variance is needed. In the absence of a completed TMDL, a permittee may apply for an alternative variance if it can be reasonably demonstrated to the Department that the discharger’s nutrient load is non-significant. Watershed models are useful for this purpose and Section 4.0 of this document addresses some modeling techniques. The Department will consider other modeling approach as well. The alternative variance derived via modeling can operate as an interim effluent limit until the time that the TMDL is completed. Whether a point source is or is not a significant load in a watershed is not likely to be a static situation, and will probably change over time. Therefore, a permittee granted an alternative variance must demonstrate throughout the variance period that the facility’s discharge has remained insignificant (per §75-5-313[10][b], MCA). This is necessary because if, for example, nonpoint source cleanups were substantial, the facility’s nutrient load may have become significant in the watershed over time and may be preventing the waterbody from attaining the base numeric nutrient standards. Permittees granted an alternative variance should work with the Department regarding the frequency of monitoring needed to carry out the demonstration discussed in this paragraph. 38 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 16 6.0 STREAMLINED METHODS FOR DEVELOPING SITE-SPECIFIC NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA 6.1 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE Numeric nutrient criteria were developed for all major and several minor ecoregions in Montana (Suplee and Watson, 2013). Suplee and Watson (2013) also include a limited number of site specific criteria, and it has been acknowledged that the Department will need to develop other site-specific nutrient criteria going forward. A criteria development approach using empirical or process-based models (e.g., QUAL2K) is provided in Section 4.0 of this document. That process is, however, data intensive. There will likely be streams which warrant site-specific numeric nutrient criteria but for which a smaller dataset and less rigorous analysis can be used; this paper outlines a simplified, streamlined approach for doing this. Criteria developed via this streamlined process may be adopted as site-specific standards under the Board of Environmental Review’s rulemaking authority in §75-5-301(2), MCA. This simplified approach was motivated by observations stemming from the application of the Department’s methodology for assessing stream eutrophication (Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). Using those methods, some streams have been found to support a healthy stream ecology and are in compliance with the biologically-based assessment parameters (e.g., levels of benthic chlorophyll a, macroinvertebrate Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) metric), but show exceedences of one or both of the nutrients (N, P) recommended as criteria. Site-specific numeric nutrient criteria are likely to be appropriate in these situations. Section 6.0 is organized as follows: Section 6.2: The basic concept and approach is presented; Section 6.3: Assessment of biological health and minimum dataset requirements are provided; and Section 6.4: A case study example is given. 6.2 SITE-SPECIFIC METHODS This section outlines the streamlined approach for deriving site-specific nutrient criteria for streams and small rivers. The methods cover the situation where a stream has higher-than-expected nutrient concentrations, but at the same time has full biological support. However, site-specific criteria could also be developed for the reverse situation. That is, a stream which shows effects of elevated nutrients (e.g., excess algae) but which has nutrient concentrations at or below the standards. This could occur because the type of phosphorus-bearing rock in the stream’s watershed weathers easily, and releases more soluble inorganic P than what is typical for the ecoregion. The Department expects that latter situations to be uncommon, and will address them on a case-by-case basis using the concepts outlined below (or rather, the mirror image of them). Figure 6-1 shows a flowchart of the process outlined in Section 5.0. Note that the figure only applies to the situation where full biological health is observed in the stream, but the stream’s nutrient concentrations are above the standards. 39 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 17 Figure 6-1. Overview of the Streamlined Site-specific Criteria Methods. The diagram applies to cases where nutrient concentrations are elevated above standards, but biological integrity is demonstrated. 6.2.1 Two Site-specific Methods Nutrient concentration data from reference sites have been compiled for each ecoregion (Suplee and Watson, 2013). Data from dose-response studies (nutrient concentration as dose, impact to beneficial use as response) applicable to each ecoregion have also been compiled in that document. Each of these data types provide concentration ranges within which this streamlined site-specific criteria method can operate. In applying this method, two scenarios will be encountered. Scenario 1: Figure 6-2 illustrates how information from ecoregionally-applicable reference sites can be used. It is assumed here that a stream assessment (per Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011) has already been carried out and has shown that a particular stream’s biological condition supports all uses, i.e., no detrimental eutrophication effects have been observed. In Figure 6-2, the Department’s recommended criterion (black dot with X) falls within the reference distribution of the ecoregion’s reference-site data (median dataset2)(Suplee and Watson, 2013). This occurs in a number of ecoregions, for example for TP in the Middle Rockies, due to the fact that dose-response studies were the primary drivers in setting the criteria. What the data show us is that there are reference sites which routinely manifest nutrient concentrations higher than the regional criterion; therefore, there is a range of concentrations beyond the recommended nutrient criterion that may still be protective within the ecoregion. In scenario 1, If an assessed stream meets the Department’s biological expectations and manifests a nutrient concentration falling between the ecoregion nutrient standard (Montana Department of 2 The median dataset must be used for this analysis and is available from the Department. In the median dataset, within any given ecoregion, nutrient concentrations from each reference site were first reduced to a median, and then descriptive statistics were calculated for the population of site medians. For an example, see Table 3-1B in Suplee and Watson (2013). Assemble minimum biological and nutrient- concentration dataset for the stream Do the stream’s concentrations of nitrogen or phosphorus exceed the standards? NO YES Does the dataset indicate full biological health? NO YES Compare stream’s nutrient concs. to (1) reference distribution, or (2) range from dose- response studies, in Suplee and Watson (2013). Does stream meet conditions for site- specific criteria? NO YES Site-specific nutrient criteria using streamlined process are appropriate END END END 40 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 18 Environmental Quality, 2014a) and the 95th percentile of the ecoregion’s reference dataset (within the dashed arrow, Figure 6-2), then the assessed stream is eligible for a site-specific criterion. The stream’s new criterion should be established at the 80th percentile of the stream’s nutrient dataset3. This criterion can then be recommended to the Board of Environmental Review for adoption as a site-specific nutrient standard during a subsequent triennial review. Figure 6-2. Scenario 1. Candidate site-specific nutrient criteria may fall between the ecoregional nutrient standard (black dot with X) and the 95th percentile of the applicable reference distribution (dashed arrow). The reference distribution used must be the median dataset from Suplee and Watson (2013), or its equivalent update. This method only applies to streams that demonstrate good biological health and full support of beneficial uses using assessment methods in Suplee and Sada de Suplee (2011). Scenario 2: In other cases, the criteria recommended by the Department are very near to or beyond the 95th percentile of the ecoregional reference distribution. In these cases, the approach shown in Figure 6- 2 will not work and an alternative approach is illustrated in Figure 6-3. For each level III ecoregion, Suplee and Watson (2013) have provided in each concluding paragraph a range of concentrations from the dose-response studies they reviewed. The dose-response studies most applicable to the ecoregion in question (not the broader range of generally-applicable studies) will provide the concentration range within which site-specific criteria can be identified. Contact the Department’s Water Quality Standards Section if you are unsure which concentrations range applies. 3 Assuming the assessment methodology in Suplee and Sada de Suplee (2011) remains the same, the stream in question would, in the future, be assessed using the binomial test for streams considered compliant with the nutrient criteria (i.e., null hypothesis is “stream compliant with nutrient criteria”). Due to the allowable exceedence rate (20%) and the gray zone (15%) established in the binomial test, a site-specific nutrient criterion set at the 80th percentile of the site’s existing dataset will always PASS the binomial in the future (assuming the stream’s nutrient conditions are unchanged). The T-test would also be PASS. 41 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 19 Figure 6-3. Scenario 2. Site-specific criteria derivation method for cases where a Department- recommended criterion is near or above the 95th percentile of the ecoregional reference distribution. Candidate site-specific nutrient criteria fall between the criterion recommended by the Department (black dot with X) and the upper range of the values from the dose-response studies specifically applicable to the ecoregion in question (dashed arrow with gray fringe). The dose-response studies must be from Suplee and Watson (2013), or equivalent updates. If an assessed stream meets the Department’s biological expectations but manifests a nutrient concentration above the Department’s criterion, and that criterion is near or above the 95th percentile of the ecoregional reference dataset, then the range of concentrations from the applicable dose- response studies should be reviewed. If the assessed stream’s nutrient concentration at the 80th percentile falls within the range of the regionally-applicable dose-response studies, then that concentration can be used as a site-specific criterion. This criterion can then be recommended to the Board of Environmental Review to be adopted as a site-specific nutrient standard. 6.2.2 Other Methods Recent work in the scientific literature provides a means to develop site-specific criteria on a stream-by- stream basis; the method was specifically developed for western regions of the United States (Olson and Hawkins, 2013). This method uses a geospatially-driven model that considers major environmental factors within a watershed that influence nutrient concentrations in streams (geology, precipitation, soil bulk density, etc.). It should be pointed out that the method is not for use in the plains region of Montana (Olson and Hawkins, 2013). The Department may consider results provided by others that have used the Olson and Hawkins (2013) method. (Again, this is predicated on the assumption that full biological support is shown in the stream.) However, results from this model will need to be reviewed by the Department on a case-by-case basis. If 42 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 20 approved, they can be recommended to the Board of Environmental Review for adoption as site-specific standards. In general, streams whose nutrient concentrations fall outside of the defined ranges in Figures 6-2 and 6-3 are not eligible for this streamlined approach. Rather, methods outlined in Section 4.0 of this document should be used. There may also be cases where an upstream level IV ecoregion with naturally high nutrient concentrations is influencing the stream in question, and the reach-specific methods in Section 4.0 of Suplee and Watson (2013) may be applicable. 6.3 CONFIRMATION OF BIOLOGICAL HEALTH, AND MINIMUM DATASET This section addresses the minimum requirements needed to assert that the biological health of the stream fully supports beneficial uses. 6.3.1 Assessment of the Biological Health of the Stream Assessment methods outlined in Suplee and Sada de Suplee (2011) or updates will be used. That assessment methodology is designed to provide a minimum dataset by which eutrophication-based impacts to beneficial stream uses can be assessed. There are different methods and data requirements for different parts of the state (western MT, and the plains region of eastern MT). Data types include: 1. A minimum nutrient dataset (usually 12-13 independent samples) 2. Benthic chlorophyll a samples 3. Periphyton samples for taxonomic identification and biological metrics 4. Aquatic insect (macroinvertebrate) samples for taxonomic identification and biological metrics Data (chemical and biological) are to be collected during the defined growing season for the ecoregion in question, which corresponds with the period of application of the nutrient standards (see Circular DEQ-12A, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2014a). Although Suplee and Sada de Suplee (2011) define specific biological metrics, etc. to be considered, other chemical and biological data or metrics may also be included when the entire suite of stream-specific data is evaluated. For example, in a western MT stream it has been found that an assessed stream’s nutrient concentrations are elevated and fail both statistical tests (Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011); the binomial, which looks as the proportion of observations above the criterion, and the t-test, which addresses the dataset average and the presence of high outliers. However the biological signals are all acceptable; benthic algal biomass is below the 120 mg Chla/m2 (reach average), diatom metrics (where applicable) show a low probability of nutrient impairment (<51%), and the macroinvertebrate-based HBI metric is acceptable since it is < 4, meaning water quality is very good (Hilsenhoff, 1987). This stream would be a candidate for site-specific nutrient. 6.3.2 Dataset Minimum All data collection must follow Department SOPs (e.g., Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2011b; Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2011a; MT Department of Environmental Quality, 2012; Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). For the purposes of developing site-specific nutrient criteria via this process, the dataset needs to have been collected for three years (though not necessarily contiguously) for all of the data types required in Suplee and Sada de Suplee (2011). For western Montana streams, this would be 13 nutrient samples, ≥ 3 sampling events for benthic chlorophyll a, ≥ 3 43 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 21 samples for diatoms (where applicable), and ≥ 3 samples for macroinvertebrates. If the dataset minimums to complete a stream assessment were achieved after just two years of data collection (which is common), a complete third year of data must be collected as well. For prairie streams, data types should include 13 nutrient samples, measurement of dissolved oxygen (5 continuous days at a minimum, during summer), ≥ 3 diatom diatoms, and visual assessment of aquatic plant densities during each field visit (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2011b), for a minimum of three years. The complete, three-year dataset is taken through the assessment data matrix. In some cases the additional year may change the initial outcome, and it may result that site-specific criteria are not warranted. However if the assessed stream again arrives to a scenario like the example in Section 6.3.1 above, , site-specific nutrient criteria are likely warranted and the approaches outlined in Section 6.2 may be applied. 6.3.3 Consideration of the Other Nutrient Where a site-specific criterion is warranted for a nutrient elevated above the ecoregion- based standards, consideration must be given to the other nutrient in the stream (N vs. P, and vise-versa). For example, a stream manifesting good biological health but elevated P concentrations may very likely be N limited, and should be maintained so. If N limitation were alleviated, there is a high likelihood that the biological health of the stream would be impacted. The Redfield ratio (Redfield, 1958) will be used as a general guide for establishing which nutrient limits (by-mass ratio < 6, N limits; by-mass ratio > 10, P limits) and for establishing the final concentration of the other nutrient. What the updated criterion for the non-elevated nutrient should be needs to be determined on a case- by-case basis in conjunction with the Department. A first-cut approximation would be roughly 75% of the established ecoregional criterion concentration. In some cases, both N and P will be elevated above the ecoregional nutrient standards in Circular DEQ- 12A (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2014a). In such cases each nutrient should be evaluated per these methods and it may result that site-specific criteria for both N and P will be higher than the nutrient standards. In such cases factors other than nutrients (e.g., heavy riparian shading) are likely limiting nutrient effects in the stream and potential downstream effects of a standards change should be given consideration. 6.4 CASE-STUDY EXAMPLE The following is a case which lends itself to site-specific nutrient criteria. 6.4.1 Data Summary for Stream X (in Middle Rockies Ecoregion) Years of data: 3 (2004, 2011, 2012) Number of Nutrient Samples: 12-14 (meets minimum) Average Total Phosphorus (TP) Concentration: 35 µg/L Average Total Nitrogen (TN) Concentration: 40 µg/L Benthic Chlorophyll a Samples: 3 (each comprised of 11 sub-replicates) (meets minimum) Diatom Metric Samples: Not applicable (Department has no validated diatom-based metrics for the Middle Rockies ecoregion at this time) Macroinvertebrates Samples: 3 (meets minimum) 44 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 22 6.4.2 The Assessment of Stream X The applicable criteria for the Middle Rockies are 30 µg TP/L and 300 µg TN/L (Circular DEQ-12A, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2014a). Data for stream X were evaluated and TN was found to be quite low (average = 40 µg/L), well below the recommended ecoregional criterion of 300 µg/L. However TP averaged 35 µg/L and was above the ecoregional criterion of 30 µg/L. All biological indicators were found to be acceptable In additional, other aspects of the data were considered. The macroinvertebrate O/E scores were reviewed to see if they were above 1.04 (none were). The benthic chlorophyll a concentrations were not only below the threshold (120 mg Chla/m2) they were very low (<< 50 mg Chla/m2), as was algal ash free dry mass (AFDM). Nitrate concentrations were also evaluated, and all concentrations were very low. 6.4.3 Site-specific Criteria Derivation for Stream X using the Streamlined Approach The Middle Rockies ecoregion standard (where stream X is located) is 30 µg TP/L; this value matches the 82nd percentile of the Middle Rockies’ reference data (median dataset; Suplee and Watson, 2013). The TP concentration at the 80th percentile of stream X’s dataset is 42 µg TP/L, a concentration equal to the 89th percentile in the Middle Rockies reference dataset. Therefore, stream X fits scenario 1 (Figure 6-2) because its site-specific TP value (42 µg/L) falls between the Department’s recommended criterion and the 95th percentile of the Middle Rockies reference dataset. Stream X’s new criterion (42 µg TP/L) is not too far above the Department’s criterion, so a large reduction in the stream’s TN criterion is not warranted. But it is prudent to set the TN lower than 300, to 250 µg TN/L (which is at the 97th percentile of the Middle Rockies reference distribution). This maintains a Redfield ratio of < 6 which should help maintain N limitation. The site specific criteria would be 42 µg TP/L and 250 µg TN/L, applicable during the growing season for the Middle Rockies (July1-Sept 30). 4 O/E scores decline from an ideal score of 1.0 due to impacts from a variety of stressors (excess sediment, heavy metals, elevated temperatures, etc.). However it is not uncommon to see scores > 1.0. These indicate the stream has more species of macroinvertebrates than the model is expecting to see for the region. Essentially, slightly elevated nutrient levels have led to a less austere environment and more species can exist than is normally seen. For this reason O/E scores > 1.0 can be indicative of nutrient enrichment above reference. When nutrient enrichment becomes excessive, O/E scores again drop below 1 due to species loss. 45 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 23 APPENDIX A: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAMPLING AND MODELING THE EAST GALLATIN RIVER TO ACCOMPLISH MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES A1.0 BACKGROUND The Department indicated in its draft numeric nutrient standards rule package that a person may collect and analyze water quality and biological data along a reach of stream or river to determine if reach- specific numeric nutrient criteria different from those of the Department are warranted. A draft proposal of this type was provided to the Department in July 2012 for the East Gallatin River (HDR Engineering, Inc., 2012)5. The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) provided to the Department in July 2012 (HDR Engineering, Inc., 2012) is based on sites that were sampled in 2009-2010 for the purpose of determining flow-stage relationships in the East Gallatin River. Building on those sites, the following are recommendations for an optimized study design which can be used to develop reach-specific nitrogen and phosphorus criteria for the East Gallatin River. It is hoped that this document may also serve as a blueprint for similar work that may be carried out on other Montana rivers or streams. The Department already has a public-reviewed and finalized assessment methodology for determining when a stream reach is impaired by excess nitrogen and phosphorus (Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). However, that assessment methodology was designed to be a minimum data method and was not intended to be sufficient for deriving reach-specific criteria. Therefore, the reader will find that methods recommended below are more data intensive than those needed to complete an assessment via the assessment methodology. A1.1 DESIGN AND POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF THE INVESTIGATION The East Gallatin River is an excellent case study in which to explore several variations on the development of reach-specific criteria. These variations include: 1. The case where a stream reach may have natural factors (e.g. high turbidity, cold temperature, etc.) that suppress benthic algae growth, and therefore reach-specific criteria are appropriate; 2. The case where benthic algae is found to be above nuisance levels, but modeling shows the algae problem can be addressed by focusing on the reduction of one nutrient more than the other; or 3. The case where reach-specific numeric nutrient criteria for a reach of the East Gallatin River are appropriate, but consideration of downstream beneficial uses precludes their application. Figure A1-1 below forms the basis for the recommendations in the rest of this document. 5 It should be noted that the Department has developed reach-specific criteria for the East Gallatin River using approaches somewhat different than those provided here. See Section 4.0 in Suplee and Watson (2012). 46 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 24 Figure A1-1. Flowchart outlining various outcomes from the analysis of reach-specific data and the development of reach-specific criteria. 1. Based on the analysis of data collected along the East Gallatin River between the Bridger and Hyalite creek confluences, from July to September, is benthic algae density above or below benchmarks? BELOW ABOVE 6. Done. Study and/or modeling does not indicate reach specific criteria are appropriate. TP and TN criteria developed by the Department in 2012 should be retained for reach 8. River ecological status complex. Consultation between the Department and city need to determine course of action/how much additional work should be done. Further/different sampling may be required. 2. Do other biological and/or other water quality indicators along the reach exceed standards or benchmarks? YES NO 5. Develop reach-specific criteria. Will downstream beneficial uses be protected by the criteria? NO YES 3. Does modeling show that benthic algae benchmarks can be met in the reach by reducing one nutrient substantially more than the other (e.g., reduce end-of pipe TP to 0.1 mg/L, but only reduce TN to 8 mg/L)? NO YES 4. Will downstream beneficial uses be protected, especially in regards to the nutrient which is not being substantially reduced? NO YES 7. Reach Specific Criteria Appropriate. Develop reach- specific criteria and monitor biological status of the receiving stream 47 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 25 Figure A1-1 provides for an empirical approach to developing reach-specific criteria and assessing downstream effects of these criteria. It provides a mechanistic model approach (starting in Box 3), as well as an approach where either option can be pursued (starting in Box 5). Regardless of which approach is taken, as shown in Figure A1-1, proper biological characterization of the mainstem East Gallatin River needs to be undertaken. Both criteria derivation approaches require robust field data and an understanding of the impairment status of the river in relation to nuisance algae and/or other aquatic life. Please note that “other water quality indicators” (Box 2) in Figure A1-1 does not include a comparison of measured nutrient concentrations to currently recommended criteria for the reach. (That would be circular.) It does, however, include things such as pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and DO delta; i.e., effect variables. It is a foregone conclusion (based on existing data) that much or all of the reach below the Bozeman water reclamation facility (WRF) outfall will manifest nutrient concentrations in excess of the Department’s recommended criteria. Figure A1-1 does not provide closure in all circumstances. There is a pathway by which one can arrive to Box 8 “River ecological status complex”. If the study findings lead to this outcome, it is not clear at this point what the path forward would be. It may require substantially more sampling and analysis. The assumption here is that the Department and the city would want to discuss what (if any) further work would be carried out, and what the endpoints might look like. A1.2 SUMMARY OF THE BASIC APPROACHES TO REACH-SPECIFIC CRITERIA Two broadly defined modeling approaches to developing criteria (empirical and mechanistic) are detailed in the following sections. Briefly, the basic characteristics and strengths and weaknesses of each are given below. Empirical Approach. Fewer overall sites to sample compared to mechanistic modeling and, as a result, lower overall cost. Samples can be collected most years during baseflow. Samples need to be collected for at least three years, however two of those three years are already needed for the basic biological characterization of the reach and the same sites can be used for both. Robustness of the empirical statistical relationships are difficult to know in advance and could require additional data beyond three years. The ability to run “what if” scenarios or extrapolate predictions outside of the range of data from which the relationship is developed is much more limited compared to that of the mechanistic model. Mechanistic Approach. This method requires more overall sites and more complex data collection compared to the empirical approach, with concomitantly higher cost. The mechanistic model still requires a two-year biological characterization, only some sites of which will overlap with the sampling sites for the model. The model will also require collection of DO, pH, etc. with deployed water-quality sondes. As you can imagine, these factors increase the cost and complexity of this approach. Data for calibration and validation of the model can be collected during one field season, provided that both collections are done near to peak growth and approximately a month apart. Two separate low-flow years of data is probably a better corroboration of the model. Preferably, data collection should occur during a low baseflow (i.e., near the seasonal 14Q5 or, optionally, when baseflow is below the long-term seasonal average). This ensures that physical and biogeochemical conditions are consistent with that of the targeted low-flow period. Once the model is corroborated (i.e., validated) it can readily be used to run “what if” scenarios which can assess downstream uses, different nutrient reduction strategies at the Bozeman WRF and their effects, etc. 48 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 26 A2.0 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EAST GALLATIN RIVER, AND THE EMPIRICAL MODEL APPROACH TO DERIVING REACH-SPECIFIC CRITERIA Objective 1: Determine the current biological condition of the reach of the East Gallatin River between the Bridger Creek and West Gallatin River confluences during the growing season (summer and early fall) and compare the results to standards and benchmarks used to assess stream eutrophication. A2.1 DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE OBJECTIVE 1 The following questions are designed to address objective 1 given above: In the wadeable regions of the East Gallatin River between the Bridger Creek and West Gallatin River confluences, during the July 20 to September 30 period, what: (a) are the average benthic algae densities (quantified as chlorophyll a and ash free dry mass, per m2)? (b) is the areal coverage and thickness of benthic algae and macrophytes (based on standardized visual assessment methods)? (c) is the range and central tendency of specified macroinvertebrate metric scores (MT Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, O/E, and ephemeroptera, plecoptera, and trichoptera (EPT) taxa richness)? (d) is the range and central tendency of specified diatom metric scores (WEMAP MVI and WEMAP WA TN)? (e) are the dissolved oxygen concentrations and pH compared to state standards, and what is the dissolved oxygen delta (daily maximum minus the daily minimum)? (f) are the concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus (total and soluble) and total suspended solids? (g) is the stream temperature, and incoming light intensity( in photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) units, e.g., µmol quanta/m2∙s)? (h) are the concentrations of herbicides which are frequently used in the watershed? Note in the question at the start of Section A2.1 the dates during which data collection should occur (July 20 to the end of September). These dates were based on the Middle Rockies growing season (Suplee et al., 2007), and the fact that in the East Gallatin River the first three weeks of July have considerably higher flows compared to August and September (shown in dark gray, Table A2-1). Commencing July sampling after July 20th will generally exclude the higher flows and lead to data collection during base flow conditions more consistent with August and September. Sampling could extend into the first two weeks of October, if temperatures remain moderate and base flow conditions remain reasonably stable (Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). Table A2-1. Discharge, ft3/sec for USGS Station 06048700 "East Gallatin River at Bozeman, Mont.". Mean of daily values for 10 years of record (calculation period 2001-10-01 to 2011-09-30). Day of month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 42 47 45 118 283 433 164 52 43 40 55 47 2 44 43 44 128 267 441 155 51 42 41 55 47 3 44 42 46 124 268 453 147 53 39 42 57 47 4 41 43 48 112 297 433 142 53 37 44 56 47 5 43 44 47 121 295 418 141 51 39 48 55 47 6 43 47 46 148 328 425 130 52 42 50 53 47 7 41 44 46 139 364 479 124 51 43 51 55 46 49 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 27 Table A2-1. Discharge, ft3/sec for USGS Station 06048700 "East Gallatin River at Bozeman, Mont.". Mean of daily values for 10 years of record (calculation period 2001-10-01 to 2011-09-30). Day of month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 8 46 44 52 140 379 461 118 52 41 51 62 43 9 44 42 54 149 376 440 108 54 43 52 60 43 10 42 42 56 157 380 443 102 52 50 52 56 44 11 41 42 58 155 373 513 101 49 45 52 56 46 12 42 42 70 164 373 501 97 46 41 53 56 46 13 43 42 88 182 377 465 94 45 42 52 57 45 14 44 42 88 218 404 436 90 45 42 52 56 45 15 43 41 80 232 439 420 84 47 43 55 52 45 16 42 41 80 212 442 404 81 44 42 59 55 43 17 44 41 81 229 464 390 78 44 44 61 54 42 18 46 41 86 239 484 359 75 47 45 59 53 41 19 51 42 89 235 509 335 73 46 44 59 53 43 20 48 40 88 231 528 310 68 42 44 66 52 44 21 47 41 93 254 523 299 66 41 46 63 49 45 22 44 41 94 279 505 277 66 41 47 58 47 44 23 44 41 94 324 495 264 67 45 48 56 48 46 24 44 41 90 315 500 247 62 43 49 56 46 44 25 43 41 89 290 615 237 63 41 46 57 48 45 26 43 42 95 293 540 228 64 41 43 55 50 46 27 47 43 93 270 502 209 63 39 42 55 48 44 28 46 43 95 266 475 195 61 39 42 55 47 44 29 44 41 91 274 490 183 55 41 42 57 46 46 30 45 97 295 466 175 51 41 44 57 47 44 31 43 104 444 50 43 56 43 To further address the questions posed at the start of Section A2.1, it will be necessary to measure a number of physico-chemical parameters; the rationale for measuring each of these is described below. Biological parameters specified in the questions above were selected because they are known to be directly influenced by or significantly correlate with lotic nutrient concentrations. The Department has established benchmarks for most of the physic-chemical and biological variables, and East Gallatin River data can be compared against these (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2012a; Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). Benthic algae densities (chlorophyll a [Chla] and ash free dry mass [AFDM] per m2). Based on work in the Clark Fork River, statewide public opinion surveys, and a whole-stream dose-response study, the Department is using average Chla levels of 125 to 150 mg/m2 and 35 g AFDM/m2 as harm-to-use thresholds for western Montana rivers and streams (Dodds et al., 1997; Suplee et al., 2009; Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). Algae densities above these levels impact the recreation and aquatic life uses. The Department also has standard visual assessment methods to asses algal and macrophyte density at a coarser scale (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2011b). The general composition, amount, color, and condition of aquatic plants are visually assessed in the field using the Aquatic Plant Visual Assessment Form. This information helps describe the health and productivity of the aquatic ecosystem, records nuisance aquatic plant problems, documents changes in the plant community over time, and can be used to help corroborate the quantitative Chla results. 50 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 28 Macroinvertebrate metrics. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) is included as part of the Department’s current eutrophication assessment methodology (see Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). The HBI index was designed to assess biological impacts caused by organic enrichment and eutrophication (Hilsenhoff, 1987). The Department considers HBI scores in the Middle Rockies > 4.0 to indicate an impact to aquatic life (Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). Two other metrics, O/E and EPT richness, were considered during the development of the eutrophication assessment methodology since both metrics correlated significantly to nutrient concentrations (Tetra Tech, Inc., 2010); however, for simplicity, only the HBI was retained in that methodology. Nevertheless, it would be of value to include these metrics in this study. The O/E metric evaluates the taxa diversity that was actually Observed compared to an Expected taxa diversity for the location where the sample was collected. The Department uses an O/E ratio of 1.0 to 0.9 as un-impacted; ≤ 0.9 is the harm threshold (i.e., loss of 10% of species). Modest stream nutrient enrichment can actually cause the metric to be > 1.0. A Bray-Curtis Index should be calculated to accompany the O/E to help interpret counterintuitive O/E scores (MT Department of Environmental Quality, 2012). The EPT richness metric was part of older DEQ protocols and has application to intermountain valley and foothill streams. EPT richness values > 14 are considered healthy and this value will decline with water quality impacts (Bukantis, 1998). Diatom metrics. The Department currently addresses nutrient impacts using increaser diatom taxa metrics which were developed using discriminant function analysis (Bahls et al., 2008; Teply, 2010b; Teply, 2010a; Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). Currently there is no calibrated and validated model for the ecoregion in which the East Gallatin River resides (the Department hopes to have such a metric in a year or so). Therefore, two diatom metrics are recommended (one for TN, one for TP) which were developed by others and which correlate closely with stream nutrient concentrations in Montana (Teply, 2010a). The metrics are WEMAP WA TN (for TN) and WMAP MVI (for TP); each was developed from work in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) of the early 2000s. Results that differ largely from the regression line shown in Tetra Tech (2010) might suggest a stream with characteristics different from the Middle Rockies norm; for example, a WEMAP MVI diatom score of 1.5 associated with a TP concentration of 0.25 mg/L would be well outside the expected pattern (one would expect a score closer to 3)(Tetra Tech, Inc., 2010). Dissolved oxygen, pH. Standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH for a B-1 waterbody are established in state law (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2012a). DO and pH have been linked to elevated nutrient concentrations (Stevenson et al., 2012), making them good parameters to measure. But the Department has frequently observed that DO minima are not found to be out of compliance in heavily eutrophied streams, at least during summer, due to stream re-aeration. However, punctuated DO problems can occur in fall when the built-up algae senesce en masse (Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). Therefore, in addition to state-adopted DO standards, the Department uses DO delta (daily maximum minus the daily minimum) of 5.3 as a benchmark for excessive plant productivity and respiration in streams (see Appendix C.2, Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). Others have found DO delta to be valuable in assessing eutrophication in northern rivers, and recommend a benchmark of 5.0 (Heiskary et al., 2010). Concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus (total and soluble), total suspended solids, temperature, incoming light intensity, and herbicide concentrations. These water quality parameters are critical for the development of empirical relationships between algae density and nutrient concentrations. Variables that influence light levels are particularly important for algal growth rates. Light measurements can include PAR near the stream bottom, or (as a possible surrogate) measurements of canopy density above the water’s surface. Temperature alters the growth rates of stream algae. In 51 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 29 addition, stream samples for herbicides which have historically been used in the basin should be collected as these, if present in sufficient concentration, could suppress algal growth. Previous work has shown herbicides to be present in Montana rivers and streams, with atrazine, metolachlor, and triallate being among the most commonly detected (Miller et al., 2005). Algae (as well as macrophytes) are sensitive to these herbicides and growth can be suppressed at fairly low concentrations (see work by the USGS and EPA at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm#benchmarks, and http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/clearinghouse/data/usgs_brd_cerc_d_cerc008.html . The Department would not consider suppression of algal growth in the East Gallatin River due to herbicides as a viable rationale for reach-specific nutrient criteria because (a) it is not a naturally occurring environmental variable and (b) future application of BMPs might reduce the amount of herbicides reaching the river and this change could remove the algae-suppressing effect. A2.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODS The Department has Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the collection of benthic and phytoplankton algae (both quantitative and qualitative methods)(Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2011b), diatoms (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2011a), macroinvertebrates (MT Department of Environmental Quality, 2012), and water quality (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2012b), and recommended methods for measuring DO, pH, and DO delta when assessing eutrophication (Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). The Department’s 3rd iteration of the Field Procedures Manual (Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2012b) also summarizes parts of the SOPs most pertinent to field sampling. I recommend these methods be adhered to for all sampling in the East Gallatin River. These documents can be found at: http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/qaprogram/sops.mcpx. A common trait of all the biological sampling methods is the necessity of laying out a short sampling reach, which the Department usually refers to as a ‘site’. These short reaches are typically 150 to 300 m in length in wadeable streams, and are delineated at the time of sampling as 40X the wetted width of the stream or a minimum of 150 m. Sample collection at locations where there is a large proportion of the river that is unwadeable requires special consideration and these situations are also addressed in the SOPs. Collection of DO, temperature, pH, and DO delta are best measured with deployed data sondes (e.g., YSI 6600s). Continuous collection of data via sondes is not needed at all stations but 1 or 2 along the East Gallatin River study reach is recommended for biological characterization. These instruments can be rented seasonally from commercial suppliers. Details on data collection will need to be elaborated upon in the final Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) developed to implement this general study design. A2.3 RECOMMENDED SAMPLING SITES ALONG THE EAST GALLATIN RIVER To address objective 1 and its associated questions, ten sampling sites have been identified along the East Gallatin River between the Bridger Creek and West Gallatin River confluences (Figure A2-1). These ten sites are key to the implementation of the empirical approach outlined in Section A1.2. Seven sites (A to G; Figure A2-2) are intended for more intense chemical and biological sampling, while three (H to J) may be less intensively sampled and are the foundation of the downstream use assessment. 52 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 30 Site A (~0.7 miles downstream of the Bridger Creek confluence, at 45.71516, -111.0358): Establishes water quality and biological conditions near the head of the study reach. Suplee and Watson (Suplee et al., 2012) indicate that the East Gallatin River upstream of the Bridger Creek confluence should have a higher TP criterion (to account for the natural influence of the Absaroka-Gallatin Volcanic Mountains ecoregion). However, the elevated TP has been diluted out once Bridger Creek joins the river, and the recommended criteria are then the same as for the Middle Rockies as a whole. The site is the natural starting point for the work. This site also corresponds to site 1 of the mechanistic model (i.e., the QUAL2K model). Site B (~0.3 stream miles upstream of Bozeman WRF outfall, at 45.72568, -111.06469): Provides a second site to characterize the upper extent of the study reach. It is also not far upstream from the major point source on the river and so can provide a nearby point of reference for any changes occurring downstream of the facility. See also, Figure 2-3. Site C (~0.9 stream mile downstream of the Bozeman WRF outfall, at 45.7284, -111.072): First site downstream of the city of Bozeman WRF discharge. A study shows that the facility’s effluent is completely mixed within about 400 ft (0.08 miles) of the discharge (Cleasby and Dodge, 1999), although flows at the time of the study were nearly double that of average conditions and nearly 3X the 7Q10. This site—located about 0.9 miles downstream of the discharge— should capture changes in the river due to the effluent, post-mixing. See also, Figure 2-3. Site D (~0.3 stream miles downstream of the Riverside Water & Sewer District ponds, at 45.7363, - 111.07105): Conversations with Department staff indicate that the Riverside Water & Sewer District ponds are a likely source of nutrients to the East Gallatin River. By establishing this site (and the one upstream, site C) it should be possible to discern differences in river biology and water quality due to the Bozeman WWTP effluent vs. any subsequent changes due to the ponds. See also, Figure 2-3. This site also corresponds to QUAL2K model site 2. Site E (~0.6 stream miles downstream of the Buster Gulch irrigation diversion, at 45.74765, - 111.08195): Site is established below a major water withdrawal to Buster Gulch. The site is established in order to determine if lower water volume is having a measureable effect on water quality or biology of the reach below the withdrawal. Site F (Lower third of reach at 45.76698, -111.0968): Site will provide data representative of the reach between site E upstream and site G downstream. There are few notable characteristics in this reach of the river (e.g., point sources, tributaries, etc.) and this site will help ascertain the degree to which upstream loads extend their influence downstream. Site G (upstream of confluence with Hyalite Creek, at 45.7888, -111.1195 [same as site EGRF2]): Establishes water quality and biological conditions near the end of the reach prior to the Hyalite Creek confluence. This site corresponds to a site established in an earlier study on the river (PBS&J, 2010). Any earlier data can be compared to that collected for this study. This site also corresponds to QUAL2K model site 3. Site H (just upstream of the Dry Creek Irrigation withdrawal, at 45.83059, -111.14617): Nutrient criteria recommended for Hyalite Creek are higher for TP (due to natural geologic sources) and slightly lower for TN (to maintain N limitation) than the reach of the East Gallatin River into which Hyalite flows (Suplee et al., 2012). As such, Hyalite Creek is an important water quality change point. This site is 53 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 31 intended to discern changes resulting from Hyalite Creek and to characterize the East Gallatin just prior to the Dry Creek irrigation withdrawal. This location is the first site intended for the assessment of downstream uses. This site also corresponds to QUAL2K model site 4. Site I (just upstream of the Dry Creek Irrigation System return flow, at 45.88921, -111.26408): The Dry Creek Irrigation system is one of, if not the largest, irrigation withdrawals on the East Gallatin River. Irrigation return flows can be a significant source of nutrients and turbidity. The intent of this site is to characterize the East Gallatin River just prior to the addition of irrigation return flow to the river. The site is part of the assessment of downstream uses, and also corresponds to QUAL2K model site 5. Site J (just upstream of the confluence with the West Gallatin River, at 45.8923, -111.3286 [same as site EGRF1]): This site is located just upstream of the confluence with the West Gallatin River, and should reflect effects from the Dry Creek irrigation return. The site corresponds to an earlier study site (EGRF1; PBS&J, 2010) and so flow-stage relationships established there can be used; it also is the end of the study reach. The site is part of the assessment of downstream uses, and also corresponds to QUAL2K model site 6. If resources are a constraint, objective 1 can be addressed with a scaled-down version of this plan. At a very minimum, the Department recommends that sites B, C (or as alternate to C, D), F, G, H, I and J be sampled. A2.4 SAMPLING FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF STUDY Each site should be sampled synoptically at least once during the months of July, August, and September. This will provide good characterization of the sites during baseflow. Two years of data should be collected for the basic biological characterization. This will provide enough information to have some confidence in the biological status of the river during baseflow. If it is intended that the empirical criteria-derivation approach is taken, at least one more year (three total) of baseflow data should be collected at the sites. (Requirements associated with the mechanistic model approach are addressed in Section A3.0.) However, if a particular year has unusual high flows ≥ 165% of the long-term average August and September flows, data should not be collected until flows have declined to below this volume. At the USGS gage station at Bozeman on the East Gallatin River (gage No. 06048700), the long-term average flow in August and September is 45 ft3/sec; thus, until summer and fall flows fall below 74 ft3/sec, sampling should not occur. 54 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 32 Figure A2-1. Ten biological and water quality sampling sites along the East Gallatin River. Sites A to G are for biological characterization of the East Gallatin River in the reach below the WRF. Sites H to J are for biological characterization and for assessing downstream use protection. 55 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 33 Figure A2-2. Sampling sites A to G along the East Gallatin River between the Bridger and Hyalite creek confluences. 56 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 34 Figure A2-3. Close-up of the three sampling sites around the city of Bozeman WRF discharge. Green dot is USGS gage 06048700. 57 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 35 A2.5 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Due to the number of variables measured (e.g. benthic algae density, macroinvertebrates, diatoms), many different data combinations and outcomes are possible. The Department does not believe that establishing a rigid analysis structure upfront—that is, laying out the exact statistical tests, data aggregation methods, etc.—would be beneficial at this point. There are still a number of unknowns going forward and we must allow ourselves some flexibility in how the data will be interpreted. When statistical tests are, ultimately, carried out, a balance should be sought between type I and II error rates, as has been instituted in other Department stream-assessment procedures (Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). This will seek a balance between error that imposes unneeded cost on the regulated community, and error that leads to degradation of (or lack of improvement to) the river environment (Mapstone, 1995). A2.6 REACH SPECIFIC CRITERIA—EMPIRICAL APPROACH If it appears that natural environmental factors are keeping benthic algae density below nuisance levels in spite of elevated nutrient concentrations, then it may be possible to develop a reach-specific multiple regression equation involving nitrogen, phosphorus, and the additional environmental variable(s) of relevance, as has been done by others (e.g., Dodds et al., 1997; Biggs, 2000). Whether there will be enough data to develop significant relationships is hard to predict in advance, especially if the reduced- sites approach is selected; but it is safe to say the dataset will be relatively small and will require the assumption that all (or most) sites are independent from one another and samples collected a month apart are temporally independent. The Department has been able to substantiate similar assumptions in other cases (see Appendix A.3, Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011). The multiple regression might take on the following form (Neter et al., 1989): Y = βo + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + βnXn where Y is the dependent (or response) variable, what is being predicted or explained; βo is a constant or Y-intercept; β1 is the slope (beta coefficient) for X1; X1 is the first independent variable that is explaining the variance in Y; β2 is the slope for X2; X2 is the second independent variable that is explaining the variance in Y; β3 is the slope for X3 and X3 is the third independent variable that is explaining the variance in Y, and on so on for the total number of slope∙variables used (βnXn). For purposes of this work, Y equals benthic algae density (mg Chla/m2, g AFDM/m2). Likely explanatory variables (βs) would be Total Nitrogen (TN) concentration, Total Phosphorus (TP) concentrations, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration, and stream-bottom PAR. This same approach could be used to explain relationships between other response and causal variables (e.g., macroinvertebrate HBI score as the response [Y], TN, TP, and TSS as causal variables [βs]). A2.7 PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM USES The next step in the process is to determine if downstream uses will be protected by the reach-specific criteria (Box 5, Figure A1-1). Nutrients are assimilated longitudinally in streams and elevated concentrations will eventually decline due to biological uptake and adsorption to the sediments. Thus, assessing protection of downstream uses amounts to an evaluation of whether or not the higher nutrient concentrations being allowed upstream will have a deleterious effect downstream. 58 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 36 It is unlikely that any reach-specific criteria in the East Gallatin River would affect the Missouri River. The confluence of the three forks of the Missouri River results in orders-of-magnitude greater summer flows than the East Gallatin River. For example, mean August flow in the Missouri River ~24 miles downstream of the three forks is around 2,747 ft3/sec, whereas in the Gallatin River at Logan it is 490 ft3/sec, and near the mouth of the East Gallatin River it is about 250 ft3/sec (Berkas et al., 2003; PBS&J, 2010). The most likely impacts from reach-specific nutrient criteria would be in the reach of the East Gallatin River downstream of the Hyalite Creek confluence. The nitrogen criterion recommended for the East Gallatin River between Hyalite Creek and the confluence with the West Gallatin River is 290 µg TN/L, lower than the 300 µg TN/L for the Middle Rockies (Suplee et al., 2012). Data suggest that the stream is nitrogen limited (since TP is naturally elevated) and is the reason why a lower TN criterion has been recommended there. A relaxation of the nitrogen criterion upstream of Hyalite Creek could very well lead to use impacts if the nitrogen limitation is, consequently, alleviated. Two approaches (which tie to Box 5 in Figure A1-1) can be taken to address downstream effects: An empirical approach. If the sites along the East Gallatin River downstream from Hyalite Creek (sites H, I, and J) show a general immunity to elevated nutrients (and the reach upstream of Hyalite Creek does as well) due to some natural factor like elevated turbidity, then reach specific criteria in the East Gallatin River could be extended all the way from the Bridger Creek confluence to the confluence with the West Gallatin River, or even beyond, to the confluence with the Missouri River. However if the reach of the East Gallatin River downstream of the Hyalite Creek confluence shows biological impacts/nuisance algae above targets, then reach specific criteria that may be appropriate for the East Gallatin River further upstream will not protect downstream uses, and should not be put in place. A mechanistic modeling approach using QUAL2K. This approach links to Section 3.0. The model would extend the full length of the East Gallatin River, between the Bridger Creek and West Gallatin River confluences to ascertain whether nutrients at a certain concentration, moving downstream from the point where Hyalite Creek confluences with the East Gallatin, would impact the beneficial uses further downstream. Beneficial uses addressed by the model include DO delta, pH delta, and benthic algae density. Please note that the mechanistic model requires additional types of sampling and sampling sites (tributaries, irrigation withdrawals and returns) than the empirical approach; see Section A3.0. The next section discusses approaches that can be used to develop a mechanistic model. A3.0 DEVELOPING REACH SPECIFIC CRITERIA VIA THE MECHANISTIC MODELING APPROACH Objective: Collect enough data along the East Gallatin River between the Bridger Creek confluence and the West Gallatin River confluence during a low-flow condition to be able to calibrate and confirm a mechanistic QUAL2K model of the study reach. This objective still requires adequate biological characterization of the reach, as outlined in Sections A2.1 through A2.5. Many sites described in Section A2.0 overlap with model sites described below; this was done in order to optimize sampling. To assure the reach is long enough to be able to judge the validity of the rate coefficients used in the model, the longitudinal distance must be sufficient to observe during calibration the decline in soluble nutrients, conversions to organic from algal death and recycling, etc. It is the Department’s judgment that the East Gallatin River can be effectively modeled if the reach 59 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 37 from above the Bozeman WRF to the West Gallatin River confluence (Figure A3-1) is considered, a distance of approximately 25 stream miles. Mechanistic models for criteria derivation require a robust set of field observations including streamflow and water-quality data, measurements from continuously deployed sondes (including, at a minimum, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, conductivity, and turbidity), and biogeochemical kinetic observations (if possible). The Department has a detailed Quality Assurance Project Plan (Suplee et al., 2006) and a technical report (Suplee and Sada de Suplee, 2011) on the use of the QUAL2K model for developing reach-specific nutrient criteria; the reader is referred to those documents for greater detail. Selected sites are best sampled during one low-flow summer and fall (i.e., a year with flows near the seasonal 14Q5 of the East Gallatin River (McCarthy et al., 2004) or, alternatively, sequential low-flow summers during the peak of the growing period. Consecutive years with base flows that are below average is preferred but may not always be possible. If, during the initial biological and water-quality characterization (Sections A2.1 through A2.5), it is found that herbicides are high enough to suppress algal growth, the model will be severely compromised. Therefore, herbicide data are best collected and then assessed in advance of the decision to complete the mechanistic model detailed below. A3.1 SITES REQUIRING WATER QUALITY SONDE DEPLOYMENT For the QUAL2K model, six sites are recommended (Figure 3-1). Sondes could be deployed continuously, or for a week to ten days in middle to late August and then again for another week to ten days in middle to late September, during period of relatively stable flow (or in two sequential Augusts if each has lower- than-average baseflow). Water quality samples for key model drivers (nutrient concentrations—which include total nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite, ammonia, total phosphorus, and soluble reactive phosphorus; TSS and inorganic suspended sediment (ISS); alkalinity; hardness; Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand, run for 20 consecutive days(CBOD20); Total Organic Carbon [TOC]; and benthic and phytoplankton algae) need to be collected at the six sites, at least once in August and once in September (or in sequential low flow years). These data collections could potentially be synchronized with the data collection in Section A2.1. 60 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 38 Figure A3-1. Map showing the six main sites along the East Gallatin River needed for the development of the QUAL2K model. Twelve other sampling sites (tributaries, irrigation canal withdrawals, etc.) are needed to develop the model but are not shown on this map. 61 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 39 The sites are: Model Site 1 (~0.7 miles downstream of the Bridger Creek confluence, at 45.71516, -111.0358; same as Site A): Establishes water quality boundary conditions near the upper-most point of interest on the East Gallatin River based on reasons provided previously (page 9). Model Site 2 (~0.3 stream miles downstream of the Riverside Water & Sewer District ponds, at 45.7363, -111.07105; same as Site D): For the purposes of the model, this site is intended to represent conditions in the East Gallatin River after the full mixing of Bozeman’s WRF effluent discharge and any effects that may be coming from the Riverside Water & Sewer District ponds (see Figure A2-3). Model Site 3 (upstream of confluence with Hyalite Creek, at 45.7888, -111.1195 [same as site G and site EGRF2]): Establishes water quality conditions in the East Gallatin River just before the confluence of Hyalite Creek, which naturally has differing nutrient concentrations (Suplee et al., 2012). This site corresponds to a site established in an earlier study (PBS&J, 2010). Any earlier data and flow-stage relationships can be compared to that collected for this study. Model Site 4 (just upstream of the Dry Creek Irrigation withdrawal, at 45.83059, -111.14617, same as site H): Nutrient criteria recommended for Hyalite Creek are higher for TP (due to natural geologic sources) and slightly lower for TN (to maintain N limitation) than the reach of the East Gallatin River into which Hyalite flows (Suplee et al., 2012). As such, Hyalite Creek is an important water quality change point. Model Site 4 is intended to discern changes resulting from Hyalite Creek, and characterize the East Gallatin just prior to the Dry Creek irrigation withdrawal. Model Site5 (just upstream of the Dry Creek Irrigation System return flow, at 45.88921, -111.26408, same as site I): The Dry Creek Irrigation system is one of if not the largest irrigation withdrawals on the East Gallatin River. Irrigation return flows can be a significant source of nutrients and turbidity. The intent of this site is to characterize the East Gallatin River just prior to the addition of irrigation return flow to the river. Changes in water quality as a result of this inflow will be captured by the next site downstream, model site 6. Model Site 6 (just upstream of the confluence with the West Gallatin River, at 45.8923, -111.3286 [same as site J and site EGRF1]): This site is located just upstream of the confluence with the West Gallatin River, and should reflect any effects from the Dry Creek irrigation return. The site corresponds to an earlier study site (EGRF1; PBS&J, 2010) and flow-stage relationships established there can be used; it also is the end of the modeled reach. A3.2 ADDITIONAL SITES REQUIRING FLOW AND WATER QUALITY DATA Proper quantification of the water balance, associated mass fluxes, and water quality changes resulting from inputs and outputs to the East Gallatin River are key to a successful modeling strategy. As a result, there are a number of large and small tributaries inflows, irrigation withdrawals and return flows, and point source contributions that need to be quantified. These should be sampled for concentrations of nutrients (total nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite, ammonia, total phosphorus, and soluble reactive phosphorus), TOC, alkalinity, TSS and ISS, hardness, and CBOD20 along with instantaneous measurement of temperature, DO, conductivity, pH, and flow. A list of important hydrologic features that the Department believes should be characterized is shown below. Other tributaries and canals may be included if greater model detail is desired: 62 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 40 1. Bozeman WRF effluent 2. Withdrawal to Buster Gulch irrigation diversion, located ~0.6 upstream of Site E (see Figure 2-1); flow only 3. Mouth of Hyalite Creek 4. Withdrawal to Dry Creek irrigation diversion, just downstream of model site 4 (flow only) 5. Mouth of Smith Creek 6. Mouth of Dry Creek 7. Mouth of Ben Hart Creek 8. Mouth of Story Creek 9. Mouth of Cowen Creek 10 Mouth of Gibson Creek 10. Return flow from Dry Creek irrigation diversion (just downstream of model site 5) 11. Mouth of Thompson Creek 12. Mouth of Bull Run Creek It should be noted that prior to the field assessment, diurnal variation of the discharge of the wastewater from the Bozeman WRF should be considered. If flows from the WRF are significantly variable such that they alter the diurnal flow characteristics of the East Gallatin River itself, further discussions with the Department should be commenced about using a time-variable flow model necessary to represent these changes and their associated effect on water quality. A3.3 OTHER DATA In addition to the boundary conditions identified previously, forcing functions of air temperature, dewpoint, windspeed, and cloud cover are required to develop incoming photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) estimates and associated heat balances with QUAL2K. The Department has not taken the time to investigate whether suitable information is available from Gallatin Field (or other stations), but it is recommended that such information be assessed to determine availability as well as whether it is appropriate for the East Gallatin River corridor. If suitable information is not available, it is recommended that a meteorological station be placed nearby to measure these inputs for the model. A3.4 NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA DERIVATION PROCESS VIA QUAL2K A properly calibrated and validated QUAL2K model is necessary for nutrient criteria derivation. Basic criteria for determining when the model is calibrated and validated can be found in Suplee et al. (2006) and are further elaborated upon in Flynn and Suplee (Flynn and Suplee, 2013). Numeric nutrient criteria can be ascertained by simulating incremental nutrient additions, or more likely in this case nutrient reductions, to the point where water quality standards (e.g., DO, pH), benchmarks (benthic algae density), or other ecological indicators are in compliance /achieved. Detailed discussions of this process are found in Section 13 of Flynn and Suplee (Flynn and Suplee, 2013). A4.0 CAN BENEFICIAL USES BE SUPPORTED BY APPLYING GREATER EMPHASIS ON REDUCING ONE NUTRIENT? The model described in Section A3.0 can be used to answer certain questions regardless of whether or not the East Gallatin River is found to have nuisance algae levels or other undesirable water quality 63 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 41 characteristics. If it is established that algae density is above benchmarks, the model can be used to explore “what if” scenarios, including “what if the city of Bozeman greatly reduced its TP load to the East Gallatin but only reduced its TN load somewhat?” Figure A4-1 helps illustrates the concept. Taken from Flynn and Suplee (Flynn and Suplee, 2013), Figure A4-1 shows growth limitation factors (0-1 scaling factor) from nitrogen, phosphorus, or light at any given point along the river. The horizontal line nearest to the X-axis is the most-limiting factor. Figure A4-1. QUAL2K model results for nitrogen, phosphorus, and light limitation of benthic algae in the Yellowstone River. From Flynn and Suplee (2013). What can be ascertained from Figure A4-1 is that in the case of point-source inputs, the nutrient limitation term can greatly change. In this example, nitrogen limitation is strong downstream of the city of Billings for some distance due to phosphorus load additions from the Billings WWTP (note: the nitrogen load is also large, but the phosphorus load evidently has a much stronger effect because it leads to river phosphorus concentrations far above saturation levels for benthic algae). But the nitrogen- limitation status then changes due to external conditions. So within a model, questions can be posed such as: (1) “What if the Billings TP load were to be greatly reduced such that phosphorus could be made limiting (or co-limiting) with nitrogen?”, (2) “What effect would this have on benthic algae levels 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.00100.00200.00300.00400.00500.00600.00 Growth Limitation Factor (dimensionless)River Station (km) Nitrogen Limitation Phosphorus Limitation Light Limitation Miles CityTerryGlendiveForsythBillingsSidneyHuntley DamCartersville DamIntake DamWaco-Custer DamYellowstone DamRancher's DamBighorn RiverCusterPowder RiverFlow direction 64 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 42 in the immediate vicinity of the wastewater discharge?”, and (3) “What would be the effect further downstream?”. In the case the East Gallatin River, such an exercise would greatly help us understand if a greater reduction in WRF phosphorus (the less expensive nutrient to eliminate) would achieve benthic algae targets by pushing the East Gallatin to P limitation. The model could also be used to see the downstream effects. We know that Hyalite Creek introduces naturally-elevated TP concentrations; in all probability, any TP limitation achieved further upstream would there be lost. The model could also show how changes to WRF treatment systems affect benthic algae. Model results may possibly indicate that a substantial reduction in TN from the WRF is necessary so that nitrogen limitation (and beneficial uses) can be maintained below the Hyalite Creek confluence. Again, the main point is that with the QUAL2K model “what if” scenarios can be evaluated. A5.0 STATUS MONITORING If reach specific criteria are developed and it appears that downstream uses will be protected, and those criteria are moving towards adoption by the Board of Environmental Review, the last step in the process is status monitoring. The state-of-the-art in both mechanistic and empirical models is such that they inherently have noise, and confirmation of use-support of the reach-specific criteria is needed to assure stream protection. It is recommended that model sites 1 through 6 be used for this purpose regardless of the method used (mechanistic model or empirical model) to develop the criteria. Data collection should focus on the endpoints of concern (benthic algae density, macroinverebrate metrics, diatom metrics), and (if QUAL2K modeling was used) other endpoints (like pH) that were used in developing the criteria. Presuming that the criteria can be met by changes to the WRF alone, then, after upgrades occur, five years continuous monitoring is recommended at a minimum, to be carried out by the city or its consultants. Five years will also allow enough time to apply robust non-parametric trend statistics to the dataset (Helsel and Hirsch, 2002). Models developed via the methods outlined in Sections A2.6 and A3.0 may show that, due to nonpoint source contributions, an upgrade to the WRF cannot in and of itself achieve the reach-specific criteria. In this case, the Department and the city should discuss how to proceed with status monitoring. TMDLs for nonpoint source cleanups or application of BMPs generally recognize that implementation will take years (5+), and this should play an important role in determining the monitoring status timeline. A6.0 BUDGET ESTIMATES An estimate was made for the cost to complete the data collection and analysis for each of the three major aspects discussed: (1) the biological characterization, followed by either (2) empirical statistical modeling or (3) QUAL2K modeling. Estimates shown are total, that is, the grand total to complete each task including development, calibration, and validation of the models, and any criteria developed thereof. Status monitoring, which would occur afterwards, is not included. Cost estimates were based on 2012 analytical laboratory price sheets, costs for purchasing small equipment or rental of large equipment, etc. They should be viewed as estimates only, as best professional judgment was needed to estimate hours of labor for field data collection, professional data analysis and modeling, etc. See Appendix A1 for details. 1. Biological characterization: $75,220 65 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 43 The following are additional costs to be added to that above in order to complete the task: A. Empirical Model Approach: $30,900 B. QUAL2K Model Approach: $113,635 If the empirical approach is taken, the grand total (biological characterization plus the empirical statistical model) is $106,120. If the minimized study (sites B, D, F, G, H, I and J only) is selected for the empirical approach, which again includes the biological characterization, the grand total drops to $75,853. If the mechanistic model approach using QUAL2K is taken, the grand total (biological characterization plus the calibrated and validated model) is $188,855. If the minimized study (sites B, D, F, G, H, I and J only) is selected for the biological characterization, the grand total for the QUAL2K model approach drops to $168,500. A7.0 NEXT STEPS This document has outlined the basic conceptual framework for (a) characterizing the biological and water-quality status of the East Gallatin River (Section A2.0), (b) using empirical methods to derive the criteria (Sections A2.6), (c) using mechanistic modeling approaches to derive the criteria (Section 3.0), (d) consideration of downstream effects (Sections A2.7 and Section A4.0), and (e) biological status monitoring (Section A5.0). This document provides several pathways and options to study and model the East Gallatin River. If work outlined in this document is to be undertaken, the next logical step would be to develop a detailed SAP. Potentially, a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) may need to be developed, but that document may be optional so long as Department SOPs are closely adhered to and the SAP provides sufficient detail on topics that are not specifically covered in DEQ SOPs. Further discussion with the Departments Quality Control Officer (Mindy McCarthy; MMcCarthy3@mt.gov ) should clarify if a QAPP is needed to further support field sampling. If reach-specific criteria are found to be needed and the QUAL2K model is going to be used, it would be worth further consultation with the Department on a QAPP specific to the model as well as discussions with Department staff during model development. 66 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 44 APPENDIX A1 Table A1-1. Biological Characterization (2-year study, up to three months per summer). This work is undertaken regardless of preferred modeling approach. SITE Benthic Algae (Chla) Benthic Algae (AFDM) Macroinvertebrates Diatoms Water Quality (nutrients, TSS)* Herbicides** Frequency Cost/ sample Frequency Cost/ sample Frequency Cost/ sample Frequency Cost/ sample Frequency Cost/ sample Frequency Cost/ sample A 6 $1,170 6 $300 4 $980 2 $500 6 $960.00 5 $750 B 6 $1,170 6 $300 4 $980 2 $500 6 $960.00 5 $750 C 6 $1,170 6 $300 4 $980 2 $500 6 $960.00 5 $750 D 6 $1,170 6 $300 4 $980 2 $500 6 $960.00 5 $750 E 6 $1,170 6 $300 4 $980 2 $500 6 $960.00 5 $750 F 6 $1,170 6 $300 4 $980 2 $500 6 $960.00 5 $750 G 6 $1,170 6 $300 4 $980 2 $500 6 $960.00 5 $750 H 6 $1,170 6 $300 2 $490 1 $250 6 $960.00 5 $750 I 6 $1,170 6 $300 2 $490 1 $250 6 $960.00 5 $750 J 6 $1,170 6 $300 2 $490 1 $250 6 $960.00 5 $750 Totals: $11,700 $3,000 $8,330 $4,250 $9,600 $7,500 Subtotals, analytical costs: $44,380 YSI 6600 Sonde Rental: $2,240 Assume 2 sondes, deployed for 1 week each summer for two summers ($560 X 2 X 2). * TSS $20.00 Purchase YSI 85 $1,350 For instantaneous DO, temperature, and conductivity. Separate low-cost pH meter can be purchased. TN $40.00 Labor in field: $14,250 Assume a field team of 2 people, 10 sites, 3 hrs/site, average of 4.75 trips per site (for both years), assume $50/hr. TP $30.00 Data analysis $10,000 Assume 1 person, contracted, professional environmental consulting firm SRP $30.00 Misc. supplies: $3,000 macroinvertebrate nets, filters, filter apperatus, vehicle gasoline, etc. nitrate + nitrite $25.00 GRAND TOTAL, Biological Characterization: $75,220 total ammonia $15.00 Analytical (min sites) Field labor (min sites) GRAND TOTAL, min. sites (B, C, F, G, H, I, J): $54,865 $160.00 $28,300 $9,975 **N, P, and S containing pesticides (Method E507 modified). SRP = Soluble Reactive Phosphate, AFDM = Algal Ash Free Dry Mass 67 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 45 Table A1-2. Statistical Empirical Model (One additional year of data in additional to the biological characterization). SITE Benthic Algae (Chla) Benthic Algae (AFDM) Macroinvertebrates Diatoms Water Quality (nutrients, TSS)* Herbicides Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample A 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 B 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 C 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 D 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 E 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 F 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 G 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 H 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 I 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 J 3 $585 3 $150 2 $490 1 $250 3 $480.00 2 $300 Totals: $5,850 $1,500 $4,900 $2,500 $4,800 $3,000 Subtotals, analytical costs: $22,550 YSI 6600 Sonde Rental: $560 Assume 1sondes, deployed for 1 week for 1 summers ($560 X 1 X 1). Labor in field: $6,990 Assume a field team of 2 people, 10 sites, 3 hrs/site, average of 2.333 trips per site, assume $50/hr. Data analysi:s $15,000 Assume 1 person, contracted, professional environmental consulting firm. This would be final report and emperical model development Misc. supplies: $800 macroinvertebrate nets, filters, filter apperatus, vehicle gasoline, etc. Year 3 Total: $30,900 Emperical Model, TOTAL‡: $106,120 Analytical (min sites) Field labor (min sites) Year 3 Total, min. sites (B, C, F, G H, I, J): $20,988 $14,735 $4,893 Emperical Model, TOTAL, min sites (B, C, F, G, H, I, J)‡: $75,853 ‡Cost includes what was spent for bio characterization in first two years. TSS = Total Suspended Solids, AFDM = Algal Ash Free Dry Mass Table A1-3a. QUAL2K Model main sites (data in addition to data from the biological characterization). Assumes a single year sampling in Aug and Sept. SITE Benthic Algae (Chla) Benthic Algae (AFDM) Phytoplankton Chla Nutrients* TSS, ISS, Alk, Hardness, TOC† CBOD20 Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample 1 (same as A) 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 2 (same as D) 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 3 (same as G) 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 4 (same as H) 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 5 (same as I) 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 6 (same as J) 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Totals: $2,340 $600 $780 $1,260 $720 $720 *TN $40.00 †TSS $20 TP $30.00 ISS $20 SRP $30.00 alkalinity $10 nitrate + nitrite $25.00 hardness $20 total ammonia $15.00 TOC $35 total nutrients: $140.00 total WQ: $105.00 ISS = inorganic suspended sediment, TSS = Total Suspended Solids, SRP = Soluble Reactive Phosphate, Alk = Alkalinity, TOC = Total Organic Carbon, AFDM = Algal Ash Free Dry Mass 68 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 46 Table A1-3b. QUAL2K Model, Additional Sites. Assumes a single year sampling in Aug and Sept. Additional Sites Benthic Algae (Chla) Benthic Algae (AFDM) Phytoplankton Chla Nutrients* TSS, ISS, Alk, Hardness, TOC† CBOD20 Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample Frequency Cost/sample (two flow sites) Bozeman WRF 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 $420.00 3 $315 3 $180 Hyalite Cr mouth 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Smith Cr mouth 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Dry Creek mouth 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Ben Hart Cr mouth 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Story Cr mouth 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Cowen Cr mouth 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Gibson Cr moutn 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Dry Creek Irrig. return 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Thompson Cr mouth 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Bull Run Cr mouth 2 $390 2 $100 2 $130 2 $280.00 2 $210 2 $120 Totals: $3,900 $1,000 $1,300 $3,220 $2,415 $1,380 Subtotals, analytical costs: $19,635 YSI 6600 Sonde Rental: $10,800 Assume 6 sondes, deployed for 2 weeks in Aug and 2 weeks in Sept ($1800/month X 6). Labor in field: $12,000 Assume a field team of 2 people, 16 sites, 3 hrs/site, average of 2.5 trips per site (for both months), assume $50/hr. Assume flow meter provided by consultant. Hobo Weather Station: $1,200 Data analysi:s $65,000 To build calibrated and validated model, professional environmental consulting firm with expertise in QUAL2K modeling Misc. supplies: $5,000 vehicle gasoline, filters, syringes, Aquarods, etc., contingencies QUAL2K Model, TOTAL: $113,635 ISS = inorganic suspended sediment, TSS = Total Suspended Solids, AFDM= Algal Ash Free Dry Mass, Alk = Alkalinity, TOC =T otal Organic Carbon GRAND TOTAL, Emperical Approach (include biological characterization): $106,120 This could be as low as $X if the minimum sites were sampled. GRAND TOTAL, QUAL2K Model Approach (include biological characterization): $188,855 This is an estimate only. Could be lower if data from biological characterization can be used to build the model, could be more if calibrating and validating the model costs more than my data analysis estimate. 69 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 47 DOCUMENT AND APPENDIX REFERENCES Bahls, Loren L., Mark E. Teply, Rosie Sada de Suplee, and Michael W. Suplee. 2008. Diatom Biocriteria Development and Water Quality Assessment in Montana: A Brief History and Status Report. Diatom Research. 23(2): 533-540. Berkas, Wayne R., Melvin K. White, Patricia B. Ladd, Fred A. Bailey, and Kent A. Dodge. 2003. Water Resources Data Montana Water Year 2002. United States Geological Survey. MT-02-1. Biggs, Barry J. F. 2000. Eutrophication of Streams and Rivers: Dissolved Nutrient-Chlorophyll Relationships for Benthic Algae. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 19: 17-31. Bukantis, Bob. 1998. Rapid Bioassessment Macrointertebrate Protocols: Sampling and Sample Analysis SOP's: Working Draft. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Planning, Prevention and Assistance. Chapra, Steven C., Gregory J. Pelletier, and Hua Tao. 2010. QUAL2K: A Modeling Framework for Simulating River and Stream Water Quality, Version 2.11: Documentation and Users Manual. Cleasby, Thomas E. and Kent A. Dodge. 1999. Effluent Mixing Characteristics Below Four Wastewater- Treatment Facilities in Southwestern Montana, 1997. Helena, MT. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4026. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1999/4026/report.pdf. Accessed 8/31/2012. Dodds, Walter K., Val H. Smith, and Bruce Zander. 1997. Developing Nutrient Targets to Control Benthic Chlorophyll Levels in Streams: A Case Study of the Clark Fork River. Water Resources. 31(7): 1738-1750. Falk, M. W., J. B. Neething, and D. J. Reardon. 2011. Striking a Balance Between Wastewater Treatment Nutrient Removal Adn Sustainability. London, UK: IWA Publishing. NUTR1R06n. Flynn, Kyle F. and Michael W. Suplee. 2013. Using a Computer Water Quality Model to Derive Numeric Nutrient Criteria: Lower Yellowstone River, MT. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Environmental Quality. WQPBDMSTECH-22. http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/standards/numericnutrientcriteria.mcpx. Accessed 8/5/2014. Gammons, Christopher H., John N. Babcock, Stephen R. Parker, and Simon R. Poulson. 2011. Diel Cycling and Stable Isotopes of Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Inorganic Carbon, and Nitrogenous Species in a Stream Receiving Treated Municipal Sewage. 283. HDR Engineering, Inc. 2012. East Gallatin Algae, Nitrogen, and Phosphorous Sampling 2012: Sampling and Analysis Plan. 70 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 48 Heiskary, Steven, R. William Bouchard, and Howard Markus. 2010. Minnesota Nutrient Criteria Development for Rivers: Draft. Saint Paul, MT: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. wq-s6-08. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=14947: Helsel, Dennis R. and Robert M. Hirsch. 2002. "Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey. Book 4, Hydorologic Analysis and Interpretations,", Ch. Chapter A3: statistical Methods in Water Resources: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey): 510. Hilsenhoff, William L. 1987. An Improved Biotic Index of Organic Stream Pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist. 20(1): 31-39. Mapstone, Bruce D. 1995. Scalable Decision Rules for Environmental Impact Studies: Effect Size, Type I, and Type II Errors. Ecological Applications. 5(2): 401-410. McCarthy, Peter M., Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Statistical Summaries of Streamflow in Montana and Adjacent Areas, Water Years 1900 Through 2002. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5266. Miller, Kirk A., Melanie L. Clark, and Peter R. Wright. 2005. Water Quality Assessment of the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana and Wyoming: Water Quality of Fixed Sites 1999-2001. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5113. Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 2011a. Periphyton Standard Operating Procedure. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Environmental Quality. WQPVWQM-010. http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/qaprogram/sops.mcpx. Accessed 8/5/2014a. -----. 2011b. Sample Collection and Laboratory Analysis of Chlorophyll-a Standard Operation Procedure, Revision 6. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Environmental Quality. WQPBWQM-011. http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/qaprogram/sops.mcpx. Accessed 8/5/2014b. -----. 2012a. Circular DEQ-7: Montana Numeric Water Quality Standards. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Environmental Quality. http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/Circulars.mcpx. Accessed 1/15/2013a. -----. 2012b. Field Procedures Manual for Water Quality Assessment Monitoring. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Environmental Quality. WQPBWQM-020 Version 3.2. http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/qaprogram/sops.mcpx. Accessed 8/5/2014b. -----. 2014a. Circular DEQ-12A. Montana Base Numeric Nutrient Standards. http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/Circulars.mcpx. Accessed 8/5/2014a. 71 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 49 -----. 2014b. Circular DEQ-12B. Nutrient Standards Variances. http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/Circulars.mcpx. Accessed 8/5/2014b. MT Department of Environmental Quality. 2012. Sample Collection, Sorting, Taxonomic Identification, and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities Standard Operating Procedure. MT Department of Environmental Quality. WQPBWQM-009. http://deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/qaprogram/sops.mcpx. Accessed 8/5/2014. Neter, John, William Wasserman, and Michael H. Kutner. 1989. Applied Linear Regression Models, 2nd Edition ed., Homewood, IL: Irwin Press. Accessed 3/90. Olson, J. R. and Charles P. Hawkins. 2013. Developing Site-Specific Nutrient Criteria From Empirical Models. Freshwater Science. 32(3): 719-740. PBS&J. 2010. Lower Gallatin TMDL Planning Area 2009-2010 Streamflow Assessment. Bozeman, MT: PBS&J. DEQ Contract #208045. Redfield, Alfred C. 1958. The Biological Control of Chemical Factors in the Environment. American Scientist. 46: 205-221. Montana Code Annotated (MCA), 75-5, State of Montana Stevenson, R. J., B. J. Bennett, D. N. Jordan, and R. D. French. 2012. Phosphorus Regulated Stram Injury by Filamentous Algae, DO, and PH With Thresholds in Responses. Hydrobiologia.(695): 25-42. Suplee, Michael W., Kyle F. Flynn, and Michael W. Van Liew. 2006. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) - Using a Comptuer-Water Quality Model to Derive Numeric Nutrient Criteria for a Segment of the Yellowstone River. Suplee, Michael W. and Rosie Sada de Suplee. 2011. Assessment Methodology for Determining Wadeable Stream Impairment Due to Excess Nitrogen and Phosphorus Levels. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Planning Bureau. WQPMASTR- 01. Suplee, Michael W., Arun Varghese, and Joshua Cleland. 2007. Developing Nutrient Criteria for Streams: An Evaluation of the Frequency Distribution Method. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43(2): 453-472. Suplee, Michael W. and Vicki Watson. 2013. Scientific and Technical Basis of the Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Montana's Wadeable Streams and Rivers—Update 1. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 72 Base Numeric Nutrient Standards Implementation Guidance 7/31/14 Final 50 Suplee, Michael W., Vicki Watson, Walter K. Dodds, and C. Shirley. 2012. Response of Algal Biomass to Large-Scale Nutrient Controls in the Clark Fork River, Montana, United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 48(5): 1008-1021. Suplee, Michael W., Vicki Watson, Mark E. Teply, and Heather McKee. 2009. How Green Is Too Green? Public Opinion of What Constitutes Undesirable Algae Levels in Streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 45(1): 123-140. Teply, Mark E. 2010a. Diatom Biocriteria for Montana Streams. Lacey, WA: Cramer Fish Sciences. -----. 2010b. Interpretation of Periphyton Samples From Montana Streams. Lacey, WA: Cramer Fish Sciences. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2010. Analysis of Montana Nutrient and Biological Data for the Nutrient Scientific Technical Exchange Partnership Support (N-STEPS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Interim Economics Guidance for Water Quality Standards - Workbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-823-B-95-002. 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 1 AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR BOZEMAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made as of , 2016 between THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, a Municipal Corporation, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, Montana, 59771-1230 (OWNER) and HDR Engineering Inc, 8404 Indian Hills Drive, Omaha, NE 68114-4098, (ENGINEER). WHEREAS the parties previously entered into a Professional Services Agreement dated April 9, 2007 herein referred to as the Original Agreement and amended on December 1, 2008, herein referred to as Amendment 1; amended July 16, 2012, herein referred to as Amendment 2; amended on February 25, 2013, herein referred to as Amendment 3; amended on December 8, 2014, herein referred to as Amendment 4; and amended on April 20, 2015, herein referred to as Amendment 5; and amended on January 25, 2016, herein referred to as Amendment 6 for professional engineering services for the Bozeman Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements; and WHEREAS, the scope of the Original Agreement included preliminary design and design engineering services, Amendment No. 1 included construction services, Amendment No. 2 included TMDL Technical Assistance; Amendment No. 3 included additional software programming and additional construction observation, startup and observation services associated with repair of Digester No. 3 and extension of the construction period for the Digester No. 3 and Solids Handling Building (Phase 3) Project; Amendment No. 4 included additional corrective action assistance and startup and observation services associated with repair of Digester No. 3, design and procurement assistance with correction of leaking digester mixer seals at Digester No. 1 and Digester No. 2 and additional follow-on technical assistance to the City of Bozeman regarding the Montana DEQ’s East Gallatin TMDL process; Amendment No. 5 to add additional follow on services for the TMDL Technical Services, Amendment No. 6 to add additional construction contract services (Tasks 2000 – 2006) and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend provisions of the Original Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5, Amendment No. 6 add additional follow on services for the TMDL Technical Services for Amendment No. 7. WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend provisions of the Original Agreement, Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5, and Amendment No. 6 to NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN, the parties agree as follows: 80 2 ARTICLE 1 – ENGINEERING SERVICES Section 1.1 is amended to include the attached Exhibit A. Article 6 - Compensation For Engineering Service Article 6.2.5 is added as follows: “6.2 DIRECT LABOR COST PAYMENT FOR BASIC SERVICES AND EXPENSES OF ENGINEER. 6.2.5 The OWNER shall pay an amount for additional follow-on TMDL Technical Services rendered by the ENGINEER on the basis of the ENGINEER'S Direct Labor Costs times a factor of 3.15 in an amount not to exceed $91,000.” Except as specifically amended herein, the Original Agreement and Amendment Nos. 1-6 shall remain in full force and effect and the parties shall be bound by all terms and conditions therein. In witness whereof, the Parties hereto do make and execute this Agreement. CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA HDR ENGINEERING, INC. BY:________________________ BY:_________________________ (City Manager) Amanda B. McInnis – Vice President DATE:_____________________ DATE:________________________ ATTEST: BY:______________________ (City Clerk) 81 Page 1 of 3 March 2016 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WATER QUALITY BACKGROUND DEQ classifies the East Gallatin River as not supporting beneficial uses and as impaired by multiple probable causes. • Excess algal growth • Low flow alterations • pH • Nitrogen (total) • Phosphorus (total) • Alteration in stream-side or littoral vegetative covers DEQ has completed a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for nitrogen and phosphorus. These impairments and the TMDL impact the City of Bozeman’s management of their water resources, storm water, and wastewater. DEQ uses the water quality information to set the City’s Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) permit for their publically owned treatment works (POTW) that discharges to the East Gallatin River. The City has identified these concerns and has undertaken efforts to understand water quality dynamics in the watershed. The City has supported data collection and the preliminary construction of river water quality models that represent a single day in the summer of 2012 and 2014. The City recognizes the water quality challenges in the watershed and anticipates that continued active involvement in understanding these issues will help guide decision making. OBJECTIVES 1. Analyze, and model river and watershed water quantity and water quality so that the City understands the regulatory implications of wastewater treatment and other management alternatives. 2. Provide data and model(s) at standards that meet DEQ requirements and can be integrated into DEQ’s decisions on permitting. SCOPE OF SERVICES This scope of services is for the Consultant to assist the Owner through various technical assistance activities related to watershed water quality. The proposed scope of Consultant services are identified in the following tasks. Consultant will commence with services upon written notice to proceed with the selected tasks. Schedule will be determined at the time of notice to proceed. TASK 100 - 2015 PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MODELING Objective and Approach Apply water quality data collected in 2015 to the preliminary QUAL2K water quality model of the East Gallatin River for 2012 and 2014. The approach involves the following: • Develop a water balance for the single late summer date representative of the 2015 water quality data based on the data organization. • Include point source effluent inputs for flow and concentration. 82 Page 2 of 3 March 2016 • Organize the collected water quality data into the model format. • Compare the 2012, 2014 and 2015 models and examine differences in nutrient concentrations. • Simulate nutrient reductions (up to 10 scenarios) using the 2015 model and make graphical or tabular comparisons with the results from the 2012 and 2014 models. Assumptions • The modeling will not include calibration and validation. The 2012 and 2014 models will be used as the basis for the 2015 model. • Data for the East Gallatin River physical conditions and water quality and POTW effluent will be readily available via the internet or provided by the Owner. Deliverables • Brief written summary (in a Word file) with minimal documentation (data sources and a few paragraphs about the modeling) of the model application, simulation results, and interpretation. TASK 200 - 2015 EAST GALLATIN RIVER DATA ASSESSMENT REPORT Objective and Approach Examine the 2015 water quality data and generate a report similar to the previous assessment report. The approach involves the following: • Develop graphs and tables to assess the water quality data. • Perform the benthic macroinvertebrate and diatom community analysis. • Examine and update data gaps, conclusions, and recommendations regarding water quality data and issues. Assumptions • The outline and analysis processes are similar to the previous report. Deliverables • 2016 East Gallatin River Data Assessment Report (in a Word file) in a format similar to the previous report. TASK 300 - ADVANCE THE WATER QUALITY MODELING Objective and Approach The preliminary water quality modeling has not been calibrated or validated. These steps will be required by DEQ to change determinations on impairment or permitting. Therefore, refining the water quality modeling involves the following: • Refine the water quality models and perform DEQ-required calibration and validation. Assumptions • Sufficient data exists to refine the models to meet DEQ’s calibration standards. • DEQ’s requirements will not vary from the process outlined for the mechanistic approach to site specific nutrient criteria in the document “Recommendations for Sampling and Modeling the East Gallatin River to Accomplish Multiple Objectives (Dec, 2012)”. All necessary sampling to ensure the model is to the level acceptable by DEQ is assumed to have been included in this document. 83 Page 3 of 3 March 2016 • Modifications made to the Sampling and Analysis Plan for 2014, 2015, and 2106 will not negatively impact DEQ’s ability to accept the water quality model because Dr. Suplee was involved in discussions and approval of the SAP’s. • Budget includes three (3) meetings with DEQ to validate and corroborate the model. • Limited “what if” scenarios are included in this task, but additional analysis and scenarios can be run on a time and materials basis based on the City’s objectives as methods for compliance with water quality standards become more apparent. Deliverables • Written modeling documentation (in a Word file) of the model application and simulation results that meet DEQ’s requirements for modeling projects. • Qual2K model files TASK 400 - PERMIT RENEWAL ASSISTANCE ON-CALL Objective and Approach To assist the City of Bozeman with their MPDES permit renewal through DEQ. Help on an as-needed basis. It is anticipated that this will include multiple meetings with DEQ as well as phone discussions. HDR is prepared and willing to provide technical solutions to the permit renewal and write comment letters on behalf of the City. Also included is a brief white paper outlining the City’s options for compliance with the DEQ permit. The alternatives include: 1. No Action 2. General Variance 3. Water Quality Site Specific Variance Assumptions • Charges will be on a time and materials basis and the overall budget may be extended as required and requested by the City. Deliverables • Permit Strategies white paper • Meeting minutes • Comment letters BUDGET Task Title Budget 100 2015 Preliminary Water Quality Modeling $2,500 200 2016 East Gallatin River Data Assessment Report $3,500 300 Advance the Water Quality Modeling $80,000 400 Permit Renewal On-Call $5,000 84