Title
Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Plan: Clark Fork River VNRP - Collaboration to Improve Water Quality
Abstract
The Clark Fork River Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Program (VNRP) is a landmark 1998 agreement to reduce nutrient pollution in the Clark Fork River from Butte to the Flathead River confluence. The agreement allocates nutrient discharge into the river between three municipal wastewater treatment plants (Butte, Deer Lodge, and Missoula), one industrial discharger (Smurfit-Stone) and Missoula County (regulates many septic systems).
Excess nutrients and algae are among the most widespread problems in the basin. Nutrient reduction plans have also been developed for the Flathead basin and Lake Pend Oreille. The goal of the Clark Fork VNRP is to improve water quality by eliminating excessively high levels of attached river algae. Each of the signators to the Clark Fork VNRP agreed to make major financial investments to achieve this goal. Over $80 million will be invested in these projects, although much of this investment also helps protect drinking water or has other benefits.
A monitoring plan for algae and nutrients has been put in place for the river mainstem by the Tri-State Water Quality Council (the Council), the entity which facilitated the VNRP negotiations. Progress addressing nutrient-related problems will be formally evaluated every three years by the VNRP subcommittee of the Council, which includes a Montana DEQ representative.
The VNRP was accepted by the State of Montana and the Environmental Protection Agency as the functional equivalent of a nutrient-TMDL. It has special provisions which allow the signatories until 2008 to meet specific numerical targets for nutrients and algae in the river. Although only 4 major sources were involved in the initial negotiation, they are interested in obtaining the voluntary cooperation of other MPDES permit holders, watershed groups, and conservation districts to manage nutrients in the river and its tributaries.
As the VNRP moves into its implementation phase, many scientific and policy questions remain. Are the water quality targets attainable? Will population growth in the basin endanger the VNRP? How will the State manage other MPDES permits for nutrients? Will other projects, such as Superfund or the Natural Resource Damage Program positively or negatively affect the VNRP’s goals? Inquiring minds want to know.
Start Date
14-4-2000 9:30 AM
End Date
14-4-2000 10:00 AM
Document Type
Presentation
Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Plan: Clark Fork River VNRP - Collaboration to Improve Water Quality
The Clark Fork River Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Program (VNRP) is a landmark 1998 agreement to reduce nutrient pollution in the Clark Fork River from Butte to the Flathead River confluence. The agreement allocates nutrient discharge into the river between three municipal wastewater treatment plants (Butte, Deer Lodge, and Missoula), one industrial discharger (Smurfit-Stone) and Missoula County (regulates many septic systems).
Excess nutrients and algae are among the most widespread problems in the basin. Nutrient reduction plans have also been developed for the Flathead basin and Lake Pend Oreille. The goal of the Clark Fork VNRP is to improve water quality by eliminating excessively high levels of attached river algae. Each of the signators to the Clark Fork VNRP agreed to make major financial investments to achieve this goal. Over $80 million will be invested in these projects, although much of this investment also helps protect drinking water or has other benefits.
A monitoring plan for algae and nutrients has been put in place for the river mainstem by the Tri-State Water Quality Council (the Council), the entity which facilitated the VNRP negotiations. Progress addressing nutrient-related problems will be formally evaluated every three years by the VNRP subcommittee of the Council, which includes a Montana DEQ representative.
The VNRP was accepted by the State of Montana and the Environmental Protection Agency as the functional equivalent of a nutrient-TMDL. It has special provisions which allow the signatories until 2008 to meet specific numerical targets for nutrients and algae in the river. Although only 4 major sources were involved in the initial negotiation, they are interested in obtaining the voluntary cooperation of other MPDES permit holders, watershed groups, and conservation districts to manage nutrients in the river and its tributaries.
As the VNRP moves into its implementation phase, many scientific and policy questions remain. Are the water quality targets attainable? Will population growth in the basin endanger the VNRP? How will the State manage other MPDES permits for nutrients? Will other projects, such as Superfund or the Natural Resource Damage Program positively or negatively affect the VNRP’s goals? Inquiring minds want to know.