mj paul tetra tech inc. center for ecological sciences rtp, nc using biological responses in...
TRANSCRIPT
MJ PaulTetra Tech Inc.Center for Ecological SciencesRTP, NC
USING BIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN
NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT: APPLICATIONS,
OPPORTUNITIES, AND CONCERNS
We can simplify the linkages
This has Clean Water Act implications
NUTRIENT POLLUTION IMPACTS BIOLOGY
40 CFR § 131.11 Criteria
States must adopt water quality criteria that protect designated uses, based on science and composed of suffi cient parameters;
These should be: Numeric or; Narrative “where numerical criteria cannot be established or to
supplement numerical criteria”
Focus has been on deriving numeric nutrient criteria How is this done? 4 major approaches – often in a weight of evidence approach
NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
Reference based – biology can be used here
NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
TP
(ug
/L)
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
25th
75th
90th
PIEDMONT TN MODELLogTN = 0.1 + 0.49*Agriculture + 0.14*Urban
TN = 100.1 = 1.0 mg/L
Nu
trie
nt
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n
Non-Forested Land CoverNon-Forested Land Cover
Stressor-response based – biology most definitely used here
NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
S CI2 0 0 7 = 3 0 .7 2 7 6 -6 .5 0 5 8 *x; 0 .7 5 P re d .In t.
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
L n T P
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
1 0 0
SC
I20
07
Ln(TP)
IBI Sco
re
Mechanistic Models E.g., WASP, QUAL-2k, EFDC, CE-QUAL, HSPF, MIKE… Model specific endpoints to generate nutrient goals
NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
Outcome – numeric value One or more lines of evidence
NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA
45 mg/L
70 mg/L
40 mg/L
55 mg/L
Distribution
Stressor-response
Literature
Models
65 mg/L
Typically criteria are implemented as they are written: E.g., 40 ug/L annual average not to be exceeded more than
1 in 3 yearsWith nutrients, some states have proposed linked
biological and nutrient criteria:
Or as a multimetric: Composite Criteria = Pchla + PDO + B + N
IMPLEMENTING NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA
Biology ok
Biology not ok
Nutrients ok Nutrients not ok
Not Impaired Not ImpairedFurther Study
ImpairedNeed Cause
Nutrient Impaired
Why? Lack of cause-effect Variability of response of algae/invertebrates/water
chemistry to nutrient enrichment Cannot reliably predict a value that will produce aquatic life
use impact False positives would be costly
LINKED BIOLOGICAL AND NUTRIENT CRITERIA
A B C
D
X X
X
S CI vs. L n (T P )A l l Ha b i ta t S co re s
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
L n T P
0
2 0
4 0
6 0
8 0
1 0 0
1 2 0
SC
I20
07
L n T P :S CI2 0 0 7 : y = 3 6 .4 7 8 9 - 4 .5 0 3 6 *x; r2 = 0 .0 9 1 5
Ln(TP)
IBI Sco
re
If nutrient concentrations cannot predict biological response, then how can a biological response be used to infer nutrients are too high? If they can, why do you need confirmation?
Does not improve with a “building the case” approach If cannot reliably link nutrients to algae, DO and/or IBI, then
how can they be combined to infer a numeric nutrient impairment?
LINKED BIOLOGICAL AND NUTRIENT CRITERIA ISSUES
A BX
A BX C DX X
If models are inaccurate, immediately concluding that biological impacts are due to nutrients is questionable stressor identification
LINKED BIOLOGICAL AND NUTRIENT CRITERIA ISSUES
What would such an approach open up for other criteria (e.g., priority pollutants)? E.g., Cd limits derived to protect 5 th percentile of sensitive
lab species Combine with proof of in-stream aquatic life impact?
LINKED BIOLOGICAL AND NUTRIENT CRITERIA ISSUES
Waiting for evidence of impacts on aquatic life use before acting on nutrient pollution may confl ict with 131.11(a) - States must adopt water quality criteria that protect designated uses;
It is also ecologically risky…
LINKED BIOLOGICAL AND NUTRIENT CRITERIA ISSUES
“Expectations that ecosystems will return to original conditions …following reduced nutrient inputs may be fundamentally flawed….”
Reduce the variability – a big part of our problem may be classification…
Accept and apply risk based reasoning Derive numbers based on reducing the risk of impacts, not
on being 100% correct; Existing water quality criteria are very precautionary
SOLUTIONS
S CI vs. L n (T P )A l l Ha b i ta t S co re s
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
L n T P
0
2 0
4 0
6 0
8 0
1 0 0
1 2 0
SC
I20
07
L n T P :S CI2 0 0 7 : y = 3 6 .4 7 8 9 - 4 .5 0 3 6 *x; r2 = 0 .0 9 1 5
S CI2 0 0 7 = 3 0 .7 2 7 6 -6 .5 0 5 8 *x; 0 .7 5 P re d .In t.
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
L n T P
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0
5 0
6 0
7 0
8 0
9 0
1 0 0
SC
I20
07
Classification
Ecology
Incorporate the variability into the criteria setting step, not the assessment step If response conditions are fine and nutrients elevated
(within an acceptable range), then refine numeric nutrient criterion site-specifically
Such an approach protects existing biological conditionfrom nutrients rather than requiring proof of impactbefore action
SOLUTIONS
Incorporate measures with safety levels – range concept Reference based values = lower trigger Stressor-response based values (invertebrate/fish) = upper
values
But, use biological measures EARLY in the causal pathway
SOLUTIONS
Listed for
Nutrients
Not Listed
Listed for
Nutrients
Not ListedSSC
Listed for
NutrientsListed
for Nutrient
s
Nutrient Threshold Exceeded
Bio
logic
al Thre
shold
Exc
eeded
No Yes YesLow High
Yes
No
Require proof on multiple biological endpoints If nutrients elevated, but chlorophyll is not; then you need
to confirm that all aspects of aquatic life are okay. Nutrients can affect many aspects of aquatic life in streams
(even shaded headwaters):
Algae
Invertebrates Fish
Bacteria Fungi
Function
SOLUTIONS
This discussion is all VERY good for biology Whichever way it goes Bio-confirmation or No (Focus on ALU)
Support technical research Fund more experimental work
Field and lab dosing experiments Develop and apply statistical approaches for
reducing variability Develop new and refine existing biological
response tools
Ask experts what they think
SOLUTIONS