Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNC0000272_Annual Meeting Pigeon River Recovery_20060101 Pigeon River Recovery Project Annual Meeting Proposed Work Schedule-2006: At the February 16 PRRP meeting, it was decided that the following actions would be attempted during 2006: Release gilt darters at Denton—2 efforts Release stripetail darters at Tannery—2 efforts in late summer/fall Release bluebreast darters at Tannery—2 efforts Release mt.madtoms at Tannery—2 efforts Release both species of lamprey at Denton—2 efforts Release stargazing minnows at Tannery— 1 effort Release various river snails—2 efforts Attempt trial run at seining blotched chubs from French Broad— 1 effort Scout for additional lamprey collecting sites on Little River Survey Tannery for juvenile madtoms in September Survey for stripetail juveniles at Tannery,prior to 2006 releases Snorkel survey for blueside darters at Fork Island area of lower Pigeon Some of these efforts can be conducted simultaneously at one site, so each effort is not necessarily a separate day/trip. We will attempt to spread out the efforts thru the collecting season of March thru November to make it easier on our schedules. A rough example schedule of the years' work could be organized as follows: March—gilt effort April—Cosby Creek with NC, scout for lamprey sites, lamprey effort May—gilt/stargazers at Sevierville,madtom/bluebreast/snail effort at Campbell Island June—lamprey effort,make-up dates July—Pigeon IBIS, survey for juvenile striptails August—stripetail effort,trial run for blotched chubs, snorkel for bluesides September—bluebreast/snail effort at Nolichucky,juvenile madtom survey October—bluebreast effort at Nolichucky,madtoms at Boyer November—stripetail effort,make-up dates As always,we'll have to be flexible and very weather/flow dependent,but by trying to accomplish at least 2 of the above per month during the sample season,we might be able to achieve most of these efforts. My highest priorities for 2006 are: - finish releases of gilts to Denton—after 2006 any gilt releases will be incidental catch, and aimed at increasing genetics total releases of stripetails to well over 1000, document reproduction - total releases of madtoms to over 1000,document reproduction Success in any of these 3 categories will allow us to apply those time/resources towards other species efforts next year, including some limited snail/mussel work Pigeon River: What Fish Species are Missing? bluebreast darter gilt darter tangerine darter olive darter river darter wounded darter stripetail darter longhead darter blotchside logperch blueside darter warpaint shiner striped shiner mirror shiner saffron shiner stargazing minnow mimic shiner bullhead minnow blotched chub spotfin'chub mountain madtom northern studfish mountain brook lamprey American brook lamprey mooneye Pigeon River Re-introduction Totals Year Organism Genera/Sp. Individuals 1996-2004 Snail. 6 205-215k 2000-2004 Mussel 9 145 2001-2005 Darter 4sp.' 3747 2002-2005 Madtom 1 sp. 886 2002-2005 Minnow 5 sp. 5922 2003-2005 1 Lamprey 1 2 sp. T 1581 Underwater Video Mapping Characterization and mapping of available habitat will help us select species and release sites for further re-introductions of native fauna Video surveys will help in tracking the success of already re-introduced species, hopefully documenting reproduction and colonization The use of video for education and outreach can be invaluable—the quality of tape that can be produced can raise public interest in a way that posters and still shots cannot The surveys may help locate and document sources and severity of impacts to the river, which can then be targeted for regulatory action or other pollution abatement programs _ram ik r .'f Native Fish Species by Sampling Year 40 35 30 .d 25 ■ Denton ( 20 ■ Tannery i) 15 10 5 0 _ 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 Sampling Year Pigeon River; Trend Summary and Current Status • IBI scores have risen from `poor' in late 80's to `good' by 2000 • Strong improvements in species diversity, abundance, and sport fishery • Snails re-introduced in 1996, mussels in 2000 • Fish Consumption Advisory removed entirely • PRRP began re-introductions of native fish species in TN in 2001,in NC in 2004 • Reproduction in Gilt Darters first observed in 2003 • Began propagation of Tangerine Darter in 2004, first spawn in 2005 • Re-colonization of the lower Pigeon River by the Gilt Darter documented in 2005 • A total of 12 fish species re-introduced to date Ell d ' it .icy •r. A S, y International Paper-Riegelwood NC0003298 Columbus County Ceriodaphnia dubia Chronic WET limit at 8% Monitoring Months: January,April,July, October No previous WET noncompliance since began monitoring in 1988 Test Results 7/8/05 Failure of pass/fail test-25%reduction in reproduction from control,no mortality 8/12/05 Invalid test(Control organism reproduction variability exceeds guideline) 8/31/05 Multi-dilution test produces ChV=5.7%-Non Compliant 9/23/05 "Split"Multi-dilution test produces ChV=>32%-Compliant DWQ Response NOVs issued for 7/8 and 8/31 non compliances No civil penalty assessed due to average of ChVs >limit(18.8°/n>8%) International Paper Response 9/28/05 letter makes argument questioning test results based on laboratory performance 11/9/05 conference call between Matt/Kevin and facility reps Ed Kreul and William Roy. International Paper reiterates concerns with laboratory; Matt/Kevin address each issue outlined in letter. 11/30/05 Kreul emails Alan and again questions test results; requests face-to-face meeting on 12/1 12/1/05 Alan and Matt meet with Kreul, review data and DWQ's position.NOVs will not be withdrawn. Rationale for DWQ Position . Both tests met all EPA and DWQ test acceptability criteria . Review of laboratory bench sheets indicated no irregularity with either test . Laboratory was certified Laboratory reference toxicant testing data(organism.QC tests) indicated organisms were responding with appropriate sensitivity to toxicants during this time • There was no other WET test data produced for the facility with which to evaluate compliance during the months in question • "Split" analysis conducted 9/23/05 by facility's old lab and another lab produced the same test result • DWQ's response was consistent with EPA Region 4 and Office of Water policy: minimum response for WET permit violation is NOV VSUMMARY OF AN EVALUATION OF THE EPA REPORT: Pigeon River Science Panel Data Review and Recommendations, dated 2005 and marked : "Final Report' Overall.Reaction: Paragraph 33 of the 1997 Settlement Agreement reads as follows: V. ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PIGEON RIVER SYSTEM AND THE WATERVILLE RESERVOIR ^� 33 . Over the years, a number of studies have been conducted c ` by various entities on the health of the a k: quatic biological .community in the Pigeon River and, in particular, analysis of fish flesh contamination. However, EPA believes that a more current evaluation of the level of contaminants remaining in the system and the overall health of the river and of the Waterville Reservoir should be undertaken. ,EPA will lead, in cooperation with North Carolina and Tennessee, an independent evaluation of current information on the Pigeon River. The evaluation will include convening a group of scientists to evaluate existing data, to identify additional data needed, and, if necessary, to conduct an ecological assessment. EPA agrees to take the lead in convening the scientific panel. The information gathered from such an assessment would be used to determine :whether any significant ecological or health risks exist, and, if so, what, if any, steps could and should be taken to address those risks. The Applicability of the Report A first observation is that this Agreement was related to a 1996 NPDES permit issued by NC, and the process that EPA conducted to resolve issues between TN and third parties and the NC permit. In fact, the Agreement specifically states that this"settlement" is related to those issues and an administrative challenge to the'96 permit by TN. The settlement process was undertaken a decade ago and the Agreement was finalized by all parties nine years ago. All other provisions of the Agreement were met long ago by the responsible parties of the Agreement and, in fact, NC reissued the '96 permit in December 1997 (on the basis of agreement on the principles of the text of the Agreement—all parties were not able to sign the agreement until early 1997) in strict accordance with the Agreement. All other provisions of the document were carried out over the remaining period of the effective dates of the 1997 permit(it expired in 2001,five years after the initial issue date of the permit in 1996). Another permit was issued in 2001 by NC that superseded the'97'permit which doesn't reference the Agreement at all and that permit reaches its expiration in late 2006. EPA's responsibility under Paragraph 33 has grown"old" awaiting its action on this matter. This should have been address right after the Agreement was reached and certainly within the effective period of the permit that the document addresses (i.e. before 2001 and the next permit renewal). Coming almost a decade after the agreement, this report is inappropriate. The Context of the Report Considering the report within the context of the Agreement and paragraph 33 shown above, the most glaring failure of the report presented as"final" is that it has not been developed"in cooperation"with the pertinent parties and certainly NC was not given an opportunity to review the data the"panel"looked at, provide additional data that was, according to the report, "not available"to the group (this point will be addressed further), have an opportunity to discuss the data with the"panel,"or to review a"draft"report before it was released. This"after the fact" presentation of a report that was to be a joint effort with EPA, NC and TN is a direct disregard for the spirit and intent of the'97 agreement and specifically it has left NC"out"of the process. The presentation of a final report only leaves NC with the option of stating its exceptions to the report or to endorse a report that it had no role in developing. It is also clear that EPA delegated its responsibility to"lead"this effort to a consultant. The"process"of developing this report is in direct conflict with the Agreement. It has also been suggested that TN had a role in developing this report and the opportunity to address the"panel"and to"frame"their issues related to paragraph 33 of the Agreement as well as discussing the review process as it was conducted with EPA. NC had no such opportunity and in the context of the Agreement, Paragraph 33 and how this report was developed, makes the report as it exists today illegitimate. Until and unless EPA allows full cooperation on the final disposition of the report, the existing document should be"sent back"for additional work with the three appropriate parties and the"panel"directly under EPA's leadership. Issues within the Report as it Exists Today Considering the comments already made, it is important to at least look at the Report as it exists to get some consideration of the evaluation it offers. In looking at the reason this report was being done—paragraph 33 of the December, 1997 Settlement Agreement—the charge was"EPA will lead, in cooperation with North Carolina and Tennessee, an independent evaluation of current information on the Pigeon River'.The evaluation was to include a convened group of scientists to 1) evaluate existing data 2) identify additional data needed 3) and, if necessary, conduct an ecological assessment Contrary to the charge, instead of a collaborative evaluation, it appears EPA assigned this task to a group of three scientists, with perhaps some input from Tennessee and no input from North Carolina. It appears the Panel tried to complete task 1)for data through 2004, made some recommendations that attempted to address task 2) (possible data that could be collected in the future for conducting an ecological assessment), and for task 3)failed to do an ecological assessment and in fact gave no indications that one was even necessary. In relation to the data review, the report doesn't seem to incorporate significant data sources that are available through NC and other agencies/groups, particularly the electronic data bases within NC DWQ's Environmental Sciences Section and the effluent and in stream monitoring data collected under the NPDES permit. The staff at DWQ could have been extremely helpful in providing this information and to providing the"panel"with insight on the data and the extensive history of study within this watershed. Some of the recommendations made by the"panel"clearly show a lack of knowledge about the work that has been done on the river. A significant amount of work has been performed during 2005 to document ecological improvements in the river and to develop essential information for the 2006 permit renewal. Since the report has already been delayed for going on ten years, it would seem prudent at this time to at least incorporate recent data which would further better understanding of the river's ecological health today. By limiting the data review process and by excluding the NC agency personnel with extensive knowledge of the Pigeon and this ecosystem,this process failed to"turn on the lights"to get a better look at the issues. The Panel findings from looking at data from 1983 to 2004 seem to be: 1) Lack of continuity—data was not gathered continuously and consistently over the two decades 2) Sampling and methods of calculating benthic communities differ between NC and TN 3) Significant improvements in water quality occurred during the early 1990's 4) Substantial improvements to the benthic and fish communities have clearly occurred over time 5) Downstream fish communities show an increasing diversity of native species— suggesting substantial improvement in the ecological condition of the Lower Pigeon River 6) Dioxin concentrations in fish has decreased substantially such that consumption advisories have been eliminated in TN and rescinded to only carp in Waterville Reservoir ' in NC From those findings, there is no conclusion that the Pigeon River presents any ecological health risk and the only human health risk appears to be for those people who may eat carp from Waterville Reservoir(this is a very low risk indeed). In looking at the data for dioxin and understanding the changes at the mill, it is clear that dioxin is steadily decreasing in fish and should soon be at levels where the last consumption advisory can be removed. Although there was no stated reason or logical argument provided to conclude that a future ecological assessment needed to be performed, the Panel recommended activities that could be done, presumably by state agencies, in the future.They include: 1) Centralized banking of data 2) Periodic synoptic benthic surveys 3) Continuous DO, temperature, and conductivity monitoring at three places on the Pigeon River and some unidentified number of major tributaries. 4) Reduce dioxin sampling of bottom feeding fish in Waterville Reservoir to once every five years—all that is needed to confirm that dioxin will remain below levels of health concern. Perhaps monitor dioxin in sediments and other biota. 5) Perform sediment transport modeling 6) A general list of ecological information about pollutant levels, stressors, organism responses, predators, etc. These recommendations are clearly beyond any conceivable scope of the intention of Paragraph 33 and would represent an unsupportable portion of either NC or TN's water quality monitoring budgets for the entire states, or even EPA's monitoring budget. These conclusions represent a "research project'view of this system rather than a realistic review of the extensive database available on this system and the dramatic improvement in environmental quality over the last few years. The"panel"failed to establish any basis for needing this kind of unprecedented assessment and if followed would only"throw" limited water quality management resources at a system that is well on its way to full recovery and that is currently meeting State and Federal standards in these regards. Since no significant ecological or human health risk has been identified and the water quality continues to improve with time, in perhaps what is the most studied river in either state, undertaking any of these recommendations is unwarranted. Conclusion As noted,the report is completely"untimely"and outside the reasonable scope of the Agreement. Even considered the document on its own merit, it is, in the way it was development and within its content, completely inconsistent with Paragraph 33 of the Agreement. As it exists today, this report is not a product of the 1997 Agreement.