Maine Ocean Acidification Study Commission s1

Maine Ocean Acidification Study Commission

Third Meeting, September 18, 2014

Held at the Cross Office Building, Room 206, Augusta, Maine

Present: Sen. Johnson, Rep. Welsh, Rep. Parry, Susanne Miller, Jon Lewis, Kathleen Leyden, Larry Mayer, Meredith White, Mark Green, Richard Nelson, Joe Salisbury, Susie Arnold, Joe Payne.

Absent: Rep. Devin, Sen. Langley, Bill Mook

1. Meeting welcome and introductions.

Sen. Johnson opened the meeting, reviewed the agenda, and modified the agenda to reflect the unexpected cancellation of the conference call with the Maryland Ocean Acidification Task Force.

2. Presentations by the Department of Environmental Protection on wastewater.

- Brian Kavanah (Director, Division of Water Quality Management)

Mr. Kavanah discussed the point sources that are contributing to nutrient runoff, and presented information about public, commercial, and small residential and commercial facilities that were cited in the DEP legislative report, Status of Licensed Discharges (April, 2014). The report is available online through DEP’s webpage (http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/attach.php?id=619015&an=1).

Mr. Kavanah’s briefing handout indicated there are 1,408 facilities statewide. Of the 308 licensed point source dischargers flowing into surface water almost half (45%, or 138) are publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) ranging in size from 20m gal/day in output to <0.002m gal/day. The remaining licensed point source dischargers are commercial and industrial operations such as paper mills, food processing plants, fish hatcheries and non- contact cooling water. These outputs range in size from 51m gal/day to insignificant intermittent outflows; approximately 59 (or 42%) of these POTWs discharge to marine estuaries and the other 79 (58%) flow into rivers and streams at varying distances from marine and estuarine waters.

The majority of facilities consist of small (averaging about 300 gallons or less/day) residential and commercial overboard discharges into marine waters. Given the very small size of these facilities their combined loading of nitrogen is thought to be insignificant. See Maine Ocean Acidification Study Commission DEP Briefing on Wastewater Issues, 9/18/14.

Mr. Kavanah described treatment plant designs as being oriented for the most part to treat oxygen depleting organic compounds through a combination of physical settling, aerobic treatment, and chlorine or UV based disinfectant, rather than actual nutrient (i.e., nitrogen or phosphorous are the key culprits) removal. Lagoons, activated sludge, trickling filter systems are all varying and (by necessity) site-specific approaches to biological treatment. For more detailed information about nitrogen treatment technologies – and costs – he referred commission members to the DEP legislative report, Development of Nutrient Criteria for Maine’s Coastal Waters (June 2008) that is also available online at http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/nutrient-criteria/nutrient_criteria_report_2008.pdf. The report was included in the packet of meeting materials that was distributed to commission members at the meeting.

Portland is the largest POTW with 20m gal/day, there are 10 facilities generating over 5m gal/day, and the rest are 5m gal/day or fewer.

Data measuring the nitrogen and phosphorus concentration of the receiving water above certain licensed facilities discharging to freshwater will be available by late October 2014.

The DEP briefing sheet cites the DEP report, Maine Combined Sewer Overflow 2013 Status Report (June 2014) for further information about combined sewer overflow (http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/cso/2013_status_report.pdf). There are 33 public or quasi-public facilities licensed to emit combined sewer overflow.

DEP noted steady and significant decline in combined sewer overflow overall, using the number of combined sewer overflow points, numbers of combined sewer overflow events, total volume discharged and volume discharged per inch of precipitation as progress metrics for combined sewer overflow abatement. This downward trend is expected to continue except for spikes during years with large rainfall.

The June 2008 report on nutrient criteria development lists combined sewer overflow discharges at 5 mg/L TKN (Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen). Other than this data, Mr. Kavanah stated that there are no known combined sewer overflow numbers for nitrogen since they do not sample automatically and vary from storm to storm. The 5 mg/L TKN figure Mr. Kavanah referenced (see handout) is the only reasonable data available. The need to abate combined sewer overflow as much as possible regardless of nitrogen content derives from bacterial pathogens and other hazards.

The cost to upgrade wastewater facilities depends on what levels of nutrients are allowed in the water. He stated that ambient criteria for nutrients first needs to be established in order to determine what type of technology would be needed to meet thresholds. Currently, nitrogen levels are generally not monitored because no limits have been established.

Mr. Kavanah informed the commission that funding for upgrades at POTWs tends to be financed by a loan-grant combination, with user fee rate increases to fill the gap. The general package combines USDA Rural Development grants/loans, Community Development Block Grants for eligible communities, and low interest State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) loans. Occasionally, the DEP gets wastewater grant funding through voter approved bonds it can grant to support targeted communities with rising user rates. The SRF program is funded with federal dollars matched with state dollars; municipal bonds are also an option.

Research on effective methods for nitrogen removal is an evolving field, and being done in places like Connecticut and Maryland (Chesapeake Bay) to fine-tune the treatment process.

Every POTW is working on inflow and infiltration to some degree to separate the storm water from the sewer effluent. The best facilities develop a proactive plan to assess and upgrade the systems.

Since nitrogen is not a parameter they are required to monitor it was difficult for DEP to say whether levels are increasing. There isn’t a reason to think it is increasing since what goes into the treatment plant is consistent year-round with some fluctuations. Mr. Kavanah pointed out that the allowable limits of pH in waste discharge is governed by statute and would require legislation to change it. It is conceivable that changing the limits could have an effect on pH in the near coastal waters depending on the volume of effluent being discharged and the diluting characteristics of the receiving water.

Mr. Kavanah distributed a handout from the Maine Water Environment Association that indicated relative contributions of loading of nitrogen from various sources (point source, agriculture, impervious area, etc.) in three out of state watersheds.

- Angela Brewer, Marine Unit Leader, Division of Environmental Assessment, Bureau of Land and Water Quality - Briefing on Nutrient Criteria Issues

Angela Brewer presented on nutrient loading, including EPA’s 2004 directive (with guidance) to states to develop numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorous to protect aquaculture, shellfish harvesting/propagation (most relevant to OA) and marine habitat for aquatic marine life. Ms. Brewer stated DEP developed draft regulations for freshwater, a seasonal total phosphorous concentration threshold, and biological response indicator criteria (e.g., chlorophyll, dissolved oxygen, etc.) for each appropriate water body type. For marine waters, the process for developing nutrient criteria began with Resolve 2007, chapter 49, which required DEP to create a work plan and timeline leading to approved nutrient standards, and a report on technological innovations to (total nitrogen) nutrient reduction/wastewater treatment. Also, significant point and non-point sources of nutrients flowing into Casco Bay were inventoried. The report, published in June 2008, provided a 2012 deadline for developing nutrient criteria for coastal waters, which was subsequently extended to 2015. Ms. Brewer described the numeric nutrient criteria as a useful tool to reduce nutrient loading to water bodies, specifically from point sources. Like other states, DEP has struggled to put this in place. EPA is supportive but there is little DEP data with which to establish a comprehensive dataset and much effort has been invested to improve/ensure/establish the quality of data from other sources such as EPA, non-profit volunteer networks, and academics. There are ample ambient nitrogen data points (mostly from Casco Bay), but the major data gaps include biological response to ambient nitrogen concentrations. It is a challenge to tie the status of aquatic life to ambient nitrogen. It is a further challenge to prioritize where in Maine this research is most needed to determine that the aquatic life present in coastal waters is appropriate. DEP’s impression is that it is limited in scope. Good information exists from different points in time but high-resolution data over tidal cycles (day-length scale as opposed to annual or decadal) is needed. Looking at the effects over shorter time periods would shed light on variability in stressor (nitrogen) and response (biological) indicators.

Maryland (Chesapeake Bay), Massachusetts (MA bays like Buzzards Bay) and Connecticut/New York (Long Island Sound) have established Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits to reduce nitrogen loads based on well-documented dissolved oxygen impacts.

Ms. Brewer stated that research on kelp and filter feeding organisms for bioextraction is being done at the University of Connecticut. DEP will provide the commission additional information and scientific references on bioextraction research and mitigation. DEP and the Department of Marine Resources noted that there is research into composting and whether spent kelp can be used for urchin farms as feed. Extraction remains a key approach with post-treatment of the vegetation an important question to answer. Nichole Price at Bigelow is working on bioremediation.

Ms. Brewer informed the commission that Casco Bay treatment plants and a paper mill monitored effluent nitrogen concentrations in 2008, and DEP has monitored some effluent nitrogen as part of environmental monitoring efforts and permitting, but the data needs are so great that one commission member noted that the study might need to make directing research recommendations central to its work. Ms. Brewer said that DEP generally assumes nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in marine waters, though phosphorus may be limiting in low salinity waters near head of tide. Nitrogen fluctuates, drawing down inorganic carbon to raise pH but what happens before it gets into the bay/harbor is the unknown variable.

Ms. Brewer stated that DEP created pie charts from data generated from the SPARROW (SPAtially-Referenced Regression On Watershed attributes) Model (using USGS data) in Moore et al. (2011). This reference was provided to the Commission. The plotting exercise was intended to show the relative contributions of loaded nitrogen from point sources (11.8% and 4.3%, respectively) in the Kennebec and Penobscot River Basins for comparison with examples provided by Brian Kavanah (via Aubrey Strause, Maine Water Environment Association), of other embayments external to Maine. 3. The conference call with the Maryland OA Task Force did not take place as scheduled.

4. Subcommittee updates and report recommendations

a. Data and Model Subcommittee

The commission discussed the utility and imperfection of oceanographic models. Though there are inherent errors in the complexity of models they are extremely useful to understand and address ocean acidification related processes. A single model for dealing with ocean acidification in Maine is too limiting so different models for various places of phenomena at different scales are needed. For this reason, the subcommittee did not recommend a single model and stated that is it may be worthwhile to adopt multiple models for addressing the same issue in multiple places in order to draw comparisons.

The subcommittee recommended building a model useful for freshwater monitoring to be at the top of the commission’s recommendation list. Freshwater input levels fluctuate coast-wide with 35% of the freshwater that enters the ocean does not come through a major river. This model would look at how these influxes affect the components of carbonate chemistry.

The ocean is a very dynamic system; therefore, making single-point measurements inadequate. A 3-D model could scale processes over time and across space. Data showing changes to the rates of key processes of primary production (e.g., respiration, etc.) would be needed to parameterize an effective biogeochemical model, depending on species and life stage. Stock measurements (which exist) are not as useful as rates. Data on the ocean side is relatively rich while surface related data is relatively poor. Casco Bay has quality data on seasonal oxygen fluctuations from 6 separate stations.

The commission and subcommittee agreed that commission’s legislative directive was to focus on the entire Gulf of Maine and all commercially important fisheries not just a select few. The subcommittee thanked Mike Doan from Friends of Casco Bay and Damien Brady from the U. of Maine’s Darling Marine Center for their help with the modeling report.

The subcommittee also brought up the possibility of setting up pilot projects in a region or regions of the state to initiate a new modeling program to get data to run actual models.

b. Washington State Report Recommendations subcommittee

The Washington State Recommendations subcommittee’s written report is forthcoming. The subcommittee will recommend 38 of the 42 recommendations contained in the Washington report and will circulate them to the commission in advance of the next meeting. There was a discussion about the generality of the Washington State report recommendations, and that their implementation as actual adaptive mitigation strategies will need to be formulated and fleshed out as policy decisions.

c. State of the Science subcommittee

The subcommittee is in the process distilling and critically evaluating the scientific data in prose, with a simplified version of the subcommittee’s NECAN based table to make the report readable and put the science in context. It was agreed that most readers will not read a complicated table. A simpler version of the proposed table will achieve the objective of demonstrating the data gaps by showing what has been studied. The report narrative can convey the dangers indicated in lab settings that are applicable and identify areas in which there is a shortage of research. The subcommittee will submit the completed narrative portion for the impacted species for the commission’s review at the next meeting. A simplified table will show the number of studies on each relevant species, accompanied by a descriptive analysis of the results, and discussion/explanation of any caveats or issues associated with any of the studies.

d. Information requests- clam flat data, buoy N, etc.

The commission reviewed all of the handouts that represented the rest of the information requested during its September 9, 2014 meeting, including mudflat pH and other data collected through the coastal alliance monitoring project (volunteer network), data being collected through the buoy N sensors, and the MOU between DACF and DMR coordinating effort to protect shellfish by mitigating farm runoff.

Information submitted by Mark Green contained a graph illustrating that clams will not burrow into acidic mud. During this discussion it was stated that the report should include illustrations, along with narrative text to explain the data. In reference to the graph, Mr. Green explained that marine mud has a lot of heterogeneity. As bivalves transition to the benthos they can accept or reject sediments. As shellfish have been found to not settle into under saturated muds this can be an important indicator. As part of the mitigation strategy, it was suggested the commission could recommend restoring dead mud flats, by altering saturation levels. This could be accomplished through a shellfish recycling program, whereby, shells are deposited onto the flats to change the saturation levels. Commission members agreed that locally sourced shells can be returned locally as has been done traditionally but other strategies are needed for areas with large dead flat expanses. Volunteers could simply place pelletized lime from the hardware store on clam flats. It was agreed that there is an existing source of shells that could be collected, processed and deposited safely onto the flats. A system to collect shells did not need to be complicated. However, a few issues were identified with this concept.

1. Current regulation prohibit the disposal of shellfish parts in the intertidal zone; 2. The source of the shellfish would need to monitored to ensure contamination or the introduction of invasive species does not occur; and 3. Discussions would need to be had with DEP to see if at a certain level disposal of shells would trigger the need for a discharge permit.

It was pointed out that the commission could propose legislation to remove any regulatory barriers. It was also suggested that limestone could be used as an alternative to shellfish. Mark will look at what other states are doing and how they have addressed the concerns raised during this discussion, such as contamination, permitting, costs and benefits, and scale.

5. The regulatory summaries were distributed but not discussed because of time constraints.

6. Mitigation discussions and other considerations. The commission discussed the following:

. DEP plan to EPA-Inland and Coastal waters – should be ensuring plans incorporate best management practices that are updated for increased rainfall and increased severe weather events.

. Kelp as a potential mitigation measure, but more information about how much nitrogen kelp can remove from seawater is needed. The commission discussed possible commercial opportunities from the harvest of kelp grown for mitigation purposes (biofuels, fertilizer, food, etc.) and that it is important to remove kelp before it dies and releases the stored nitrogen back into the ocean. It was pointed out that growing kelp may be seen as aquaculture and require permits or legislation to enable municipalities to grow and use kelp for mitigation purposes.

. The feasibility of growing species in a controlled environment when they are more vulnerable to acidification and releasing them when they can withstand tougher conditions was discussed (i.e. during early stages lobsters are more vulnerable to acidification, but later on they can tolerate these conditions better).

. The reduction of impervious surfaces in developed areas was mentioned but not extensively discussed.

. The extension of outflow pipes further out into the ocean, but the cost may be prohibitive.

. The importance of conserving eel grass beds to aid in the mitigation of acidification.

. Rewriting rules, laws, etc., so that when local projects are started there is heightened awareness of ocean acidification. . The need for better education for the public on lawn care. What alternatives can be used to reduce nutrient loading?

. A new low tech method that was being used to take nitrogen out of agricultural runoff – wood chips are buried at the end of slopes and the runoff is filtered through the wood chips. It has so far been successful except for when there are sheet flows.

. Looking at biomass as a mitigation option because it would not only remove excess nutrients but may also buffer acid.

. Reduction of CO2 emissions. DEP’s CO2 emissions report from January was mentioned to provide a context for current sources, levels and goals.

. Upstream mitigation efforts and laws governing buffer zones/greenbelts. DEP spoke about its nonpoint source pollution program and how agriculture is largely exempt from many regulations but is encouraged to employ best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate runoff. Until recently nitrogen has not been the focus of BMPs. BMPs that are good at removing nitrogen should perhaps be required in certain areas, on certain projects.

. Creation of a website to keep ocean acidification awareness current and to update what is happening in relation to this issue.

. The form of the report and a suggestion that the report should:

1. Prescribe some immediate things that can be done that the commission agrees on; 2. What the state should be watching and thinking about; and 3. What kind of data collection and study needs to be conducted

. Establishing an entity or program within a department to continue working on acidification issues and how to fund that work. One option may be to use existing groups, state agencies, university to coordinate ongoing work.

The commission adjourned at 3:00pm D:\Docs\2018-04-06\0749bb0104c550fb9362fa69281e0901.docx