Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-18-SAC Meeting SummaryNC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 1 of 10 Attendees SAC members in attendance: Jim Bowen Jud Kenworthy Jessie Jarvis Martin Lebo Lauren Petter Michael O’Driscoll Fritz Rohde Wilson Laney Rachel Gittman (in and out) Hans Paerl Marcelo Ardon NCDEQ staff in attendance: Note: may not have captured all DEQ staff in attendance Rich Gannon Chris Ventaloro Susie Meadows (note taker) Pam Behm Nora Deamer Anne Deaton Charlie Deaton Timothy Ellis Casey Knight Karen Higgins Paul Cough Heather Jennings Cam Mcnutt Elizabeth Kountis Bridget Shelton Paul Wojoski Others: Nathan Hall, Anne Coan, Clifton Bell, TJ Lynch, Andy McDaniels, SAC meeting facilitator: Emily Barrett Meeting notes ***All questions, comments and answers are paraphrased*** 1) Convene (Emily Barrett) • DEQ/DWR introductions • SAC introductions 2) Recap of the SAC Charter (Emily Barrett): • Striving for Consensus. • The path forward when there’s a difference of opinion. • Jud has requested this charter presentation to be sent to the SAC members. 3) Overview of Surface Water Standards and Assessment (Chris V., Pam B.): • Goals of WQS: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters as per the CWA. • Components: o Designated Uses: goals of the waterbody NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 2 of 10 o Criteria: limits on pollution magnitude, duration & frequency. o Antidegredation: framework to maintain water quality where standards are already met. • Criteria: o Magnitude (numeric value/statement describing conditions appropriate to protect the use) o Duration (time period over which magnitude is considered). o Frequency (how often magnitude/duration cannot be met without impacting the use). • Development of Criteria: o Each criteria component based on scientific evidence indicating appropriate conditions to support use (tox studies, bioassessments, field studies/assessment, chemical properties, organism stressor-response info, etc.). o Examples of how this information forms the development of the criteria. • Magnitude: aquatic tox data – adverse effects concentration, chemical properties – environmental persistence. • Duration: lab and field studies – chronic and acute exposure times. • Frequency: organism stressor-response data – recovery time from catastrophic events. o More useful example is Clarity for SAV protection: water quality condition (for aquatic life). • Magnitude: taken info that’s been published, to come up with either light attenuation of 13% & 22% or light extinction coefficient. • Duration: looked at use of a median growing season based on knowledge of the critical growth of the SAV. • Frequency: based on discussion from the July SAC meeting, we’re looking at any season with insufficient light can affect support & recovery of SAV. • Assessment of Standards (Pam B): What is water quality assessment? o CWA required WQS implementation program o Goal is to identify whether waters are meeting standards, whether data is inconclusive or not meeting standards. o Waters that aren’t meeting standards and don’t have a protection plan already are placed in Category 5 (303d list) of the Integrated Report per the NCDEQ 303d Listing & Delisting Methodology. Category 5 assessments require development of a restoration plan (TMDL or Management Strategy). NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 3 of 10 • Integrated Report: o List all assessed waters and assigned categories. o Established by Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the CWA. o Not required to receive public comment on the report, but we do. o Went over 305(b) integrated reporting categories: 1 is meeting criteria, 3 is data inconclusive and 4 & 5 are exceeding the criteria/impaired. • 303(d) list: list of impaired waters where TMDL action is needed, public review and comment, due to EPA every even-numbered year on April 1 and EPA has final approval authority. • How is assessment made: water bodies split into assessments units based on conditions, multiple years used, data includes (chemical, bio, physical, fish tissue, swim advisories), multiple types of assessments used (numeric criteria, benthic & fish community rating system, recreational criteria, shellfish growing areas, fish tissue consumption). • Example: Chlorophyll-a standard – not greater than 40 ug/l for lakes, reservoirs and other waters subject to growths of macroscopic/microscopic vegetation. o General assessment procedure: 5 yrs of data (min of 10 samples), applied station by station, >10% exceedance with 90% statistical confidence exceeding criteria = not meeting standards. o Discussion about this being just an example and how the assessment is different from the standard language. • Clarity assessment development needs: o Clear understanding of derivation of criteria number o Clear understanding of uncertainties involved o A monitoring plan to specify expected: sample locations, collection frequency, sample numbers and procedures (QA/QC), any known or expected challenges. 4) Draft 5 language for the Clarity (SAV) Standard: (Chris V.): This is for Class SC waters. The same language can be used for Class C waters with the removal of the high salinity component. Clarity for Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV): (a) Low-salinity SAV waterbodies: not to exceed a SAV growing season median photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) extinction coefficient (KdPAR) of 1.36 m-1. (b) High-salinity SAV waterbodies: not to exceed a SAV growing season median photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) extinction coefficient (KdPAR) of 0.89 m-1. For the purpose of this Item: (i) The SAV growing season is March 1 through October 31; NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 4 of 10 (ii) Low and high salinity SAV waterbodies shall be those waterbodies identified as low or high salinity SAV Regions in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.1 of Chapter Four of the Division of Marine Fisheries North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan – 2021 Amendment (CHPP), which is hereby incorporated by reference and can be obtained free of charge at https://deq.nc.gov/media/26810/open; (iii) The clarity standard for SAV shall apply only in those areas within SAV waterbodies that currently have or historically have been vegetated with one or more of the following species: bushy pondweed or southern naiad (Najas guadalupensis), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), eelgrass (Zostera marina), horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris), naiads (Najas spp.), redhead grass (Potamogeton perfoliatus), sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata, formerly Potamogeton pectinatus), shoalgrass (Halodule wrightii), slender pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus), water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia), water starwort (Callitriche heterophylla), waterweeds (Elodea spp.), widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima), and wild celery (Vallisneria americana). These vegetated areas are documented in Figures 4.1 through 4.9 of the CHPP and are geospatially depicted in the online map titled NC Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Areas, which is available at www.xxx.deq.gov. • Jud: To retain consistency between subsections 2 and 3, we could use a reference point of chapter 4 of the CHPP instead of referencing the website. Because that chapter includes the identification of the historical extent of SAV and both high and low salinity in NC. • Chris: the website, deq website will be to an interactive map. • Martin: I’m good with all except the frequency. • Chris: Is everyone good with the extinction coefficient and growing season? • Rich: might be good to describe why we didn’t use the exact language of the CHPP. • Chris: We discussed in the last meeting to go with the extinction coefficient rather than going with the specific depths. • Wilson: How is the depth captured in those extinction coefficients? • Jud: As they’re stated 1.36 meter will get the amount of light necessary for the threshold amount of light to a specific depth which is based on what we know about the maximum depth of growth of the plants in our system. If you apply that particular extinction coefficient, you’ll get x % of light reaching a certain depth in the water. That’s what we’ve related to a maximum depth of growth. It’s spelled out in the CHPP. • Wilson: How would you measure that in the field? High salinity for example. • Jud: Typically, with 2 light sensors placed at different depths, like 50 cm apart on a pole and then you place sensors in the water and record the 2 light measurements and then calculate the extinction coefficient between the 2. You could profile the whole water column in certain increments. NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 5 of 10 • Jesse: I can see Wilson’s point here, that it could be confusing not having the required depth stated, so if you measuring kd out in the middle of the channel, but do we need to be more explicit here? • Chris: Keep in mind, that along with this standard language there will be a monitoring plan/SOP on how to sample and where. It’s a next step discussion. We wanted to keep the standard language simple. • Wilson: What you said makes sense. If the assessment is explained in assessment methodology/ SOP, I am good with that. • Chris: We are wanting to have supporting documents to go along with the standard. • Wilson: the clarity standards are good for SAV and the predators using those beds. • Chris: That info will be good for when we have to write up a fiscal note. • Emily: Should the SAC members start gathering citations of work done? • Chris: yes. • Judd: one thing to address in the SOP, is where are these stations in relation to the SAV beds. • Rich: The description of SAV was decided to tie it into current or historic extent of waters as mapped. We thought it was the cleanest and simplest way to do it. • Lauren: Same list of species from the previous regulation, are there any species left out? • Anne D: That species list are the same as what’s in our rulebook, so it should be all inclusive. • Marcello: Might be too much in the weeds, but the extinction coefficients having to be 1.36 or 0.89, what happens if in the assessment it comes out to 1.35 or 0.91? • Cam: If the median value was that close, we’d likely say the data was inconclusive. • Marcello: These numbers came from Nathan’s work, would values of 1.3 or 0.8 would be more easy to implement. • Nathan: The numbers came from the work in the Chesapeake and where the seagrasses can live. • Cam: We probably need to be more conservative with the numbers. • Chris: what if we round up? Like 1.4 and 0.9. I’m curious if the SAC is suggesting that? • Cam: How far off will it be from the 13% and 22% if we round? • Wilson: Back to species list. There might be another Vallisneria out there, so we will need to look at the list closer. Need to look into that more. • Chris: Keep in mind that we review the standards every 3 years, so if there are new species that pop up, we can add them to the list. NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 6 of 10 • Lauren: The rounding idea, doesn’t sound good. It’s better to be precise on the criteria. • Cam: the difference here is the not to exceed median, we don’t have the extra statistical confidence to put on whether we’re exceeding that. • Lauren: I would suggest that if there was anything measurement error, we could discuss it next time because there is specific language on it. • Jesse: if you have secchi depth, you can translate to kd. There are equations out there to do that. • Nathan: Those don’t work well if you have a mix of CDOM and particles. There are vast differences between those 2 extremes of absorption vs scattering causing attenuation. • Martin: Having an uncertainty around the measurement may allow a confidence of how different it would be from say 1.36 and you have a frequency of not more than 1 in 3 years, then if you are a little above 1.36, there is some forgiveness around that. • Judd: If we want to be conservative the number needs to go lower. Has anyone planted Vallisneria in an attempt to develop a super plant (from FL)? • Nathan: Heard about that. • Wilson: We just need to know if there is an additional naturally occurring Vallisneria in NC, if not then we’re good. • Rich: With regards to CDOM, we refer to the maps of current and historic locations, we wouldn’t include a natural conditions clause that could make it very complicated getting it through rulemaking. Just wanted to share our logic on that. 5) Clarity Standard Walk-through (Rich): • Magnitude – there is support for this. • Duration – growing season. Is everyone comfortable with this? To note climate change could alter this. o Wilson: Has there been discussion of changes based on climate change? Just to make sure everyone is aware it could change in the future. o Karen: It is accounted for in the Triennial Review (every 3 years). This would be a good item to document in a supplemental document or SAC document. As we move forward, people will come and go, so it would be important to have this documented. • Season – Growing season median is the duration component. • # of samples – Maybe we should put that off for a subsequent meeting. • Frequency – We know there are issues with this and more discussion to have. NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 7 of 10 • SAV not-definition – how do you like how we referenced this? Meaning species list and maps. Is there support? Yes. o Martin: I am not uncomfortable with the approach. Is there going to be any provision in the assessment that, if someone believes the map incorrectly reflects, can they petition? o Chris: I don’t know. We haven’t talked about that. o Cam: We would look at this on the assessment side and probably say data is inconclusive. o Karen: The way the language is written, it is not dynamic. It is referencing a static map through the 2021 CHPP and if changes needed to be made that would be done through the Triennial Review. The regulatory community will have concerns if changes aren’t predictable and done through rulemaking. So, that’s why worded it the way we did. • Referencing maps for high/low salinity - yes • Referencing maps for historic extent - yes • Natural conditions clause – We are relying on current and historic extent, for what is capturing any natural conditions that have prevented it from existing. Natural conditions are also considered during the assessment process. Is there support for this approach? o Martin: Most of the of the natural conditions are addressed well by historic range where the biology tells you where it has grown. You aren’t going to have meteorological conditions frequently, but can cause water clarity issues through DOM, turbidity. That could be covered through frequency if you have a not to exceed. o Lauren: A point for homework on the high and low salinity, is to look at that table 4.5, the Cape Fear River to SC line region has high/low but also has 0 historic extent, so maybe it’s a non-issue, or maybe there should be an extra line in there if you were to apply high/low. Just flagging that to double-check the details. o Emily: Do you think that would warrant clarification in words? o Lauren: There could be a question at some point because that region is included in the table 4.5, but it does say 0 historic extent, so that could be documented. o Jud: all state agencies signed off on the CHPP for special extent, we shouldn’t doubt it. o Anne D: I agree Judd, but the reason it’s there is b/c the recorded southern limit is to the Cape Fear River, but we don’t go that documented in the map because don’t historically go back that far. So, leaving the 0 extent is fine. o Wilson: The general consensus based on discussions with the ASMFC Habitat Community and South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council Habitat Advisory Panel is that SC and Georgia don’t SAV because of the high NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 8 of 10 tidal range and associated high turbidity. I think that generally applies to the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary as well. So, appropriate to say 0 extent and the map. o Emily: I feel the SAC members understand Martin’s comment/question. o Martin: I’d like to hear more. Not to exceed one in 3 yrs, more appropriate and more protective of seagrass. o Jim B: Can someone speak to the Chesapeake standard. o Jesse: There is literature out there that shows if there is low light during just one part of the growing season in the spring, that effects the entire meadow and can result in increased mortality and loss of the meadow. Seasonal light in one year can have big impacts on meadow-level response and can result in loss of meadows. By looking at the entire growing season and by using the median value, we are incorporating those light issues. o Jim: By going with a seasonal median, there were more than one measurements taken that year were above critical light attenuation and that was enough to cause serious damage. By doing a seasonal median, we are allowing for single excursions, but when the excursion is the rule, then that’s when this standard is violated. Seems reasonable to me. o Jud: There are a mix of species here, but fundamentally they’re all clonal plants. There are also flowering plants that produce flowers and seeds. Seeds are so important so if there is a loss of the process of flowering during one growing season is a significant event. One season can have serious and detrimental effect on them. So, waiting 3 years is dangerous. It’s a risk to not look at them based on a seasonal median. o Jim: Interested in what Clifton could tell us about the duration and frequency in the Chesapeake’s criteria. o Emily: We reserve this time to SAC members and DEQ members. Since a SAC member requested this, we will let him speak. o Clifton: The Chesapeake Bay standard was derived in a similar kind of way with the exception of recognition of variability among segments in terms of depth of application. On the assessment side it’s a 3 year assessment based on the best single year. A 1 in 3 would be more stringent than the Chesapeake Bay standard. Basically, it’s the reverse, you only have to meet it one out of three. It was done because of the historical mosaic recognized. It was not based on the idea that one year of light wouldn’t cause the beds to recede. It’s based on inter-annual variability is somewhat inevitable and that beds can recover. Also, because you base your standard on a historical mosaic of the best year, trying to expect that 5 years in a row isn’t a reasonable expectation. If you go without a frequency standard, recognize this is a much more stringent standard than they’ve set up north and I think there will be a lot of questions about that. NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 9 of 10 o Emily: Clifton did you say the Chesapeake went with a not to exceed? o Clifton: They went with a single best year approach out of three. So, a one out three would be a compromise between expecting to meet your single best year every year and ignoring inter-annual variability and the Chesapeake approach. o Emily: Lauren we would like your perspective. Also, from a process standpoint, are we ready to say that we have consensus with one dissenting opinion, we’d need to document. o Lauren: I’m not familiar with the Chesapeake, but we should go with not to exceed. 1 in 3 tends to follow more data rich data sets. At this point I’m not hearing NC specific information that would make it be more like the Chesapeake. o Jud: Chesapeake Bay is still losing SAV, so keep that in mind. In practice, we’ve segmented our system, high and low salinity, and in segmenting the system even further is something we should be aware of down the road. We have identified where losses are occurring at a greater rate than they are in other areas. So, it could lead to further segmenting our high salinity areas. I think we are moving in the right direction. We could do further segmenting in the future. o Emily: Are we comfortable moving forward with a consensus decision? Marcello: good as written, Jim: good, Jesse: good, Jud: good, Martin: good (but have concerns and would like them noted in a write-up), Michael: good (should we have a definition of low and high salinity?), Hans: good, Lauren: good, Fritz: good, Wilson: good. 6) Proposed SAC schedule/timeline going forward (Rich/Karen): • Regrouping January and discuss the protocol for sampling. See how that impacts duration, number of samples, so on. • Keep moving forward with the written documentation for the SAC members to review in March. That’s our goal. • Jud is the current chair and can figure out how to get that written. Jud & Hans. • Jud: Could you go over the parameters of that write-up? • Chris: Scientific citations on the magnitude, duration, frequency. Brief and to the point. • Karen: Lauren, do you have thoughts? • Lauren: Good news is a lot of it refers to the CHPP plan. Just hit the highlights of why the language we said we’re okay with is okay, insert citations and other references that we can respond to. • Jud: So, we want this document to be drafted and reviewed and endorsed by the full committee. Is that the plan? NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 11/18/2022 Page 10 of 10 • Emily: Yes. • Anne D.: At the WQC the Chair had an agreement to ask the EMC to instruct DWR to continue to develop the standard with the SAC, get input from CIC, then go to the EMC in March at the latest. So, from what I just heard, that would not be able to happen. • Karen: That was phrased as a goal, but we’re not quite there yet. It’s a goal. Your concern is noted. And I don’t think we can move any faster than we are currently. 7) Next Steps (Emily Barrett): • Next meeting is on Jan. 20, 2023 at 9am-12pm. 8) Closing (Emily Barrett) 9) Meeting Adjourned (Emily Barrett)