Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-31-SAC Meeting SummaryNC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 03/31/2023 Page 1 of 8 Attendees SAC members in attendance: Jud Kenworthy Jim Bowen Hans Paerl Lauren Petter Fritz Rohde Rachel Gittman Martin Lebo NCDEQ staff in attendance: Susan Meadows Tim Ellis Elizabeth Kountis Bongghi Hong Karen Higgins Nora Deamer Anne Deaton Charlie Deaton Paul Wojoski Mark Vander Borgh Tammy Hill Forest Shepherd Cam McNutt Daniel Wiltsie Jimmy Johnson Others in attendance: Clifton Bell Paul Cough Anne Coan Doug Durbin Andrew McDaniel Blake Schaeffer SAC meeting facilitator: Emily Barrett Meeting notes ***All questions, comments and answers are paraphrased*** 1) Convene (Emily Barrett) • Attendance Rollcall • Jud Kenworthy: Missing some SAC members. • Emily Barrett: Michael Driskell let me know this morning (that he would not attend) and Jesse Jarvis is missing. This is an informational meeting where members are not making any recommendations on anything but process so it is fine to meet without a full quorum but I’ll do a tally and put that in the chat so you can know where you sit in terms of makeup of the official SAC as we have of lot of interested parties here but we’re here to do the business of the SAC. • Tim Ellis: Wilson Laney not on email list and not at many past meetings. • Emily Barrett: Will look into. • Tim Ellis: He would certainly be attending if he was able to. 2) Meeting Minutes for February (Emily Barrett) NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 03/31/2023 Page 2 of 8 • Attached to your outlook are the minutes; however, I realize you have not had an opportunity to go over them, so let us approve at the next meeting; any opposed (to this approach)? (No) • Will turn over the mic to Mark Vanderborgh to introduce himself and talk with us about the N-STEPS program. Attached to the outlook invitation was a nice summary that Mark Vanderborgh passed along so that can be nice back up information as you continue to think about the N-STEPS program. 3) Powerpoint Presentation entitled “CyAN Remote Sensing Report Review - NCDP SAC Meeting March 31st, 2023” & “NC CyAN Albemarle Sound June 2022 Draft Update” (presented by Mark Vanderborgh) 4) Next Steps (Paul Wojoski): • SAC has developed and put forth draft WQS for clarity. • DWR is looking at implementation issues with that WQS. • NCDP has us next looking at N & P and designated uses. o Could look at relation of N & P with clarity standard for protection of designated uses. o Support in NCDP and CHPP for this approach. o Wanted to invite the N-STEPS presentation as the algal blooms are a driving factor for the NCDP and want to ensure products created protect SAV and also address algal blooms and other nutrient loadings. o As we move forward, look to consider how they’re related, how clarity relates to other nutrient loadings. o Want feedback on information just presented (by Mark Vanderborgh) from SAC, and any data needs that the SAC would like to identify to give feedback to the N- STEPS project so they can refine their work to provide useful support to the SAC’s mission. 5) Discussion of PowerPoints: • Andy McDaniel: What is the definition of a bloom in terms of aerial photography? • Mark Vanderborgh: Digital images produce a digital number as the intensity goes from 1 up, and can divide that into a category: the digital number 0 is no bloom, 1-29 is low, 30- 99 is medium, 100-250 is high bloom. This is a common way to look at blooms? • Hans Paerl: Yes! Some cyanos are surface bloomers, some are not. If you go to the Albemarle or Currituck Sound, the dominant Cyano bloomers are not surface bloomers; how deal with in terms of quantifying blooms and assigning bloom intensity? Surface bloomers give high chlorophyll a but if distributed through the column you get a lower surface value but the overall water column value may be high. It is important in terms of the linkage in regard to light and the SAV question. • Blake Schaeffer: Satellites do not penetrate more than two meters depth. Using red part of the light spectrum. • Jud Kenworthy: What do we know about other NC watersheds? What do we know about what we’ve seen in this report and other information relative to other systems in the NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 03/31/2023 Page 3 of 8 country and around the world? Seeing something extremely unique in Albemarle Sound and its tributaries? There is a problem in Albemarle Sound that does threaten our ability to move forward with this water quality standard for low salinity SAV; if conditions are widespread and very challenging for us then perhaps uncouple the low and high salinity criteria. We are ready to move forward with the high salinity criteria; there are a lot more challenges with low salinity systems for protecting SAV there (see further discussion below). • Hans Paerl: Trends analysis that Mark showed displays not much of a trend in Albemarle Sound but if look at state’s chlorophyll a measurements, which Nathan did a great job of plotting this, there is a trend in chlorophyll increases since the 80s/90s, maybe because Albemarle Sound is integrated and well mixed and dominated by cyanobacteria with blooms not necessarily at the surface. Need linkage between integrated measurements because that could make the difference between different systems. The Chowan is dominated by more surface bloomers, but in the Albemarle things are mixed yet chlorophyll levels are high at times. Remote sensing can be very helpful at looking at this on an intensive data kind of basis to see whether different times of year when calm have more of a trend versus when well mixed. It’s a confusing answer but when you look at total chlorophyll data in the column there is a trend in Albemarle Sound and is a good correlation with nitrogen. So, there is a link to chlorophyll to a nutrient that impacts clarity; need some way to link these things so can go back up to the nutrient question and link to chlorophyll as an optical absorber in the water and the SAV questions. Will need innovative modelling to deal with that. • Jud Kenworthy: What seeing (versus other areas)? Is the Sound unique? • Elizabeth Fensin: We have blooms everywhere in NC all year round. The Chowan turns bright green and other systems don’t tend to turn bright green and have blooms last long so the Sound stands out. The Chowan is unique in terms of intensity but not in terms of what’s going on across the state. • Blake Schaeffer: We have not done this analysis and trends of study in estuaries but are detecting in a number of estuaries. We did look at trends across lakes in all states and get a similar result; some lakes only special extent is increasing and magnitude but others increasing in spatial extent, and would expect diverging patterns. Recently did an analysis for all lakes and spatial extent seems to be increasing in larger lakes over the last couple years. This was not the case in 2008 and 2012. Magnitude across lakes tends not to be increasing, and only a few lakes where seems to be increasing. See blooms in lots of different estuaries. • Nora Deamer: Why the signal may not be what we know is happening is because the size of Albemarle is so large and all data being averaged together. The northern side of the Sound has hot spots with smaller rivers contributing to the Sound. If we break up the Sound into chunks, might see trends in the data of what we’re actually seeing in the monitoring data, which we are getting infrequently, so having this tool to show how these things are changing would be helpful. We know since 2015 that the frequency and NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 03/31/2023 Page 4 of 8 expanse has increased in certain areas, so when you take a big chunk of the Sound it dilutes the information that doesn’t show up in the trend. • Hans Paerl: Good point Nora. The Albemarle Sound is an integrator and that’s why trends are subtle. Chlorophyll throughout the water column there is a trend there over time increasing and is more closely related to nitrogen than phosphorus because nutrient bioassays done on the system show that nitrogen tends to be the limiting nutrient. • Lauren Petter: If chunked up the Sound for chlorophyll and satellite imagery would they be the same subsections or see disconnect between cyanobacteria and chlorophyll? • Hans Paerl: This gets back to the behavior of the cyanobacteria, whether they are surface bloomers, and weather, if it is a windy period, it will be mixed and if not, the surface dwellers will dominate. • Blake Schaeffer: There is going to be a disconnect between imagery recording (cyano specific) versus total chlorophyll a biomass as two separate measures; did not detect in imagery things like diatoms because asked to look at cyanos only. 6) Structure to pursue for next steps (Emily Barrett): Discussion of idea to uncouple low and high salinity to move forward (posed by Jud Kenworthy) • Jud Kenworthy: We are in a very good position to make very scientifically sound recommendations for protection of high salinity SAV; need to finalize assessment process and build capacity to do monitoring needed, we have a good SAV seagrass monitoring program. It is underway, moving forward, and involves broad partnership. We have some really big challenges with low salinity to address, especially in Albemarle Sound, which has been our pilot location for low salinity. • Emily Barrett: Any policy limitations for decoupling low and high salinity? • Paul Wojoski: It should be driven by the science and should not be any policy limitations to that; both support NCDP plan and CHPP. How we want to approach that and how we want to do that will be important to this and part of an acknowledgement of Nathan’s work is we were thinking of having him present info on the bio-optical model to move the conversation forward. He couldn’t come today due to teaching commitments but in the works for him to come in the future. • Hans Paerl: I second Paul’s recommendation to bring Nathan on board on this. Low salinity areas are a bigger challenge for turbidity and where are the blooms (are they at the surface and/or are they throughout column) and what drives blooms. Nathan has synthesized the state’s historical data. These are clearly linked to the SAV conundrum, and it is a bigger challenge. It’s a highly dynamic turbidity and chlorophyll situation. Anne Deaton asked if we can use this technology, and we can but it needs to be integrated with what we know about the blooms and the monitoring, which will continue to be important to answering basic questions. • Lauren Petter: Does decoupling mean moving high salinity first through rulemaking? • Jud Kenworthy: Yes, that would be my recommendation, but I don’t understand the nuances but could certainly defend that. NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 03/31/2023 Page 5 of 8 • Lauren Petter: From a workload and priority standpoint, is that how you would defend that approach? • Jud Kenworthy: And the science. Just finished our third survey, so we have 2007, 2013, and 2020 coast-wide surveys and includes coastwide surveys intermittent in the SE part of the state that Anne Deaton is responsible for, and what have learned is losing seagrass at 1%-2% per year on average coast-wide across all regions, some parts of the coast losing seagrass faster than others. What is really dramatic is that we have a large area of potential habitat that is being occupied so some stressors in the system that we have data to show those changes, so would be irresponsible not to recognize that and consider what ramifications would be should we not de-couple these, and wait until put all criteria forward. • Emily Barrett: Just because the high salinity decision making process could move faster the low salinity conversation could still continue simultaneously while acknowledging that conclusions and recommendations will be later. • Lauren Petter: Is there a science question on the low salinity or is it the implementation details? I understand there is a scientific risk-based reason for accelerating the high salinity. • Hans Paerl: Not a science question but a more complex situation so more of a challenge from the science perspective and modeling will have to be brought in to deal with the interactive effect of different optical absorbers in the water column. Much more dynamic and closer to sources that are causing the problems, including nutrients and turbidity and individual behaviors of organisms particularly the cyanobacteria. I advocate combining the remote sensing approach to looking at this, which is down to 2 meters in optical capability, with integrated water column monitoring. • Nora Deamer: So, you’re not questioning the standard that we all agreed on for low and high salinity, and what we’re concerned about is actual implementation of how to protect low salinity. • Jud Kenworthy: Yes. I’m not advocating pushing the low salinity and all the challenges off the table, I’m advocating that we’re in a position to move froward with the high salinity much better than we are with the low salinity. • Nora Deamer: So, we’re ok with the standard we came up with, so when you say decoupling, you’re not talking about decoupling actually going through the process of approving the standard but actually decoupling implementation of protecting those species. • Jud Kenworthy: Yes. 7) Discussion of need for more data (collection) to inform the low salinity implementation step (posed by Emily Barrett) • Jud Kenworthy: The next big leap in information comes when Nathan finishes calibrating the bio-optical model, that’s going to vault us forward in a huge way. We will be able to deal with the CDOM issue and will have capability to decompose the optical properties into their sources and stressors directly so that will advance us quite a way. The problem NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 03/31/2023 Page 6 of 8 that Hans has raised relative to the surface versus the water column, that’s probably more a monitoring issue than a science issue. Being able to get that data and know what’s driving the optical properties of the system… • Hans Paerl: And also what’s driving by using remote sensing will help clarify that a lot. I’m advocating for continuing monitoring that we have and intensifying monitoring in some ways to better understand the dynamics in the open sound. Modeling is going to be really important there. • Judd Kenworthy: We also have a great deal of challenge in the low salinity to map the extent of our resource, it is another capacity issue. We’re not in that situation in our high salinity because we have a very functional and active and progressive APNEP monitoring program that involves all the partners from the state and federal agencies and academic institutions so it is running as close to a fine-tuned engine as you can get it to run under mostly volunteers but it’s the kind of thing we need to be thinking about being able to build that capacity in the low salinity. There are technological problems there that we have to deal with. • Hans Paerl: One potential technical answer but there’s challenges there is to deploy automated vertical profiling capabilities, which will tell us how dynamic the system is in terms of chlorophyll and turbidity because they both can be done (sensed) up and down in the water column. We’ve done that in the Neuse but Albemarle Sound is a much bigger challenge in terms of even getting out there is a lot tougher to service the vertical profiling capabilities. If I had my wish that would be something we should add to the monitoring but logistically it is not easy. 8) Next meeting in April or May (Emily Barrett) • The next meeting is dictated by Nathan’s availability because we definitely need him to come in and hear some of the recommendations of the SAC. Should we discuss possible dates and hope that he can accommodate one of those dates? • Hans Paerl: He’s probably out in the field today. It’s not so much teaching as he’s dealing with other projects. If we give him a range of dates, I think it will work out fine. • Paul Wojoski: Maybe May rather than April to give us have enough time to really make sure that we have Nathan’s ability but also to check in with EPA to make sure as we’re embarking on next steps that were framing this up right and that we are effective with the SAC’s time. • Hans Paerl: I recommend late April because things are going to get busier for us folks working out there. In May we’re going to be geared up to do all sorts of other stuff. • Emily Barrett: Fridays have been our default day due to many people not have teaching commitments that day. Should we shoot for a Friday, like April 28? • Hans Paerl: Yes, I’m free. • Emily Barrett: Would it be ok to do it in the afternoon, say 1 or 1:30? • Hans Paerl: Jud, are you ok with that? NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 03/31/2023 Page 7 of 8 • Jud Kenworthy: Right now it looks good. I’ve got to figure out what date the next CRC meeting is in April. I know it is in that last week. Do they usually do meetings on Friday? Anybody here, Anne, do you know the dates of the CRC meeting. • Anne Deaton: April 26 & 27. • Jud Kenworthy: April 28 will be ok for me. • Emily Barrett: Typically, our meetings are 3 hours so I can send an inquiry to Nathan to see if April 28 from 1-4 works for him. Paul does that work your schedule as well before we proceed. • Paul Wojoski: Yes. • Emily Barrett: I’ll go ahead and make that inquiry to Nathan. Should we agree on a second option just in case it’s a No (from Nathan for that date)? We could do the same time frame, Friday May 5. The preference will be for April 28 but if he says No, we’ll pitch May 5. Thanks everyone, especially Elizabeth for doing the minutes; with the question about Wilson I’m extra thankful for her doing that as it allowed me to go off screen and call him. • Tim Ellis: I just wanted to clarify what we are going to ask Nathan. Is he just going to be present for Q&A, or are we going to ask him to present, and I am asking that because the APNEP funded bio-optical model recalibration that he is working on will not be done by him by April 28. He’s working on that report now, but he just received the data he needed from DWR a week or so ago. So, I don’t want to give the impression that he can present any preliminary findings necessarily by April 28. • Hans Paerl: Could ask him for progress on that, he’ll be prepared for that I think, but we should ask him. • Emily Barrett: So, when I pitch it to him, I will ask him for a status update because SAC is keenly interested in his work and go from there, and then maybe he can update the SAC on his schedule and pitch a time to come back to the SAC to give a more complete presentation. • Hans Paerl: Emily did you send all info to Nathan that you’ve sent us? I can forward it to him. I think it’s really important for him to look at the N-steps PPts. • Emily Barrett: I will send it to him, too. • Hans Paerl: I will have some interaction with him on that and report what we talked about today. • Emily: That’s great. That will give him good context to know what the SAC is interested in. 9) Any last comments? (Emily Barrett) • Jud Kenworthy: Did you figure out what was going on with Wilson? Not getting the emails… • Emily Barrett: He said he got the invitation but he’s in the middle of a conflict and said he would try to log in toward the end but I let him know it might be a shorter meeting and so he was very reassuring that he had gotten it. Nevertheless, the issue did make me check something and he was not on the SAC specific list so that is a concern so thanks to everyone who responded to my test email, but we will get to bottom of this. Sometimes NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan – Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) 03/31/2023 Page 8 of 8 there are defaults set for lists that can remove someone for bad reasons so we’re investigating it. So he was aware and had another commitment. 10) Closing of meeting (Emily Barrett) • I appreciate everyone’s time and assistance. • Paul Wojoski: I don’t have a whole lot to add to Emily’s comments. Thanks to our guest, Mark Vanderborgh, and his WSS team and their good work on the N-STEPS project. I’m really happy we can have some of those things dovetail together, the SAC’s work and some of those projects going on, that they can feed into each other. Thanks for everyone’s participation and Emily for your help and facilitation. • Hans Paerl: Thanks again Mark Vanderborgh; you put things together in a very brief and comprehensive way. 11) Meeting Adjourned (Emily Barrett)