LIMITATION OF ALL FIELD IMPACT ASSESSMENT DESIGNS

1
LIMITATION OF ALL FIELD IMPACT ASSESSMENT DESIGNS

• ONLY DETECT / ESTIMATE IMPACTS AFTER THEY HAVE
  OCCURRED

• NOT DESIRABLE MECHANISM FOR ACHIEVING
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

• MUCH BETTER TO FORECAST IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED
  ACTIVITY MODIFY PROJECT IN PLANNING STAGE TO
  AVOID THEM

THESE ARE PRINCPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS (EIA)
2
ADMINISTRATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(EIA) PROCESS TWO POINTS

• EIA ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AN EXERCISE
  IN HYPOTHESIS GENERATION

• NO SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF EIR/S HYPOTHESES

3
FORECASTING IMPACTS IN EIA PROCESS

• GATHER PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFORMATION(WHERE,
  WHAT, HOW)

• GATHER SITE-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

• COMBINE IN THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TO FORECAST
  POSSIBLE IMPACTS

ESSENTIALLY A QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT
4
EIA PROCESS GENERATES HYPOTHETICAL IMPACTS
PROBLEM REGULATION BASED ON HYPOTHESIZED
IMPACTS
ONCE EIS/R CERTIFIED, PREDICTED IMPACTS BECOME
ACTUAL IMPACTS OF PROJECT BY LAW
CERTAIN PROJECTS REQUIRED TO PERFORM COMPLIANCE
MONITORING PROGRAM (CONTROL - IMPACT DESIGN)
MOST PROJECTS HAVE NO EXPLORATIONOF REAL IMPACTS
5
CONSEQUENCE OF NO SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT OF
PROJECT IMPACTS
CANNOT DETERMINE IF EIA PROCESS EFFECTIVE OR HOW
TO IMPROVE IT
LESSONS FROM CASES WHERE SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT OF
EIR/S PREDICTIONS DONE
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (SONGS)
6
SONGSSAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
7
IMPACT ON MARINE ENVIRONMENT FROM OPERATION OF
SONGS EXAMINED (BACIPS OTHER APPROACHES)
SONGS WITHDRAWS HUGE VOLUMES OF COASTAL SEAWATER
AS COOLING WATER
DISCHARGES HEATED SEAWATER INTO COASTAL
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH DIFFUSERS
BEST OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE EIS/R PREDICTIONS
WITH ACTUAL EFFECTS
8
PREDICTED ACTUAL SONGS IMPACTS
CHARACTERISTIC PREDICTION ACCURATE?
ERROR
MYSIDS (FISH FOOD) AMOUNT KILLED HUGE
NO TOO HIGH
POPULATION SIZE BIG ?
NO POPS ?
EFFECT ON FISH BIG ?
NO FISH ?
OTHER ZOOPLANKTON AMOUNT KILLED 250
TONS/YR NO 1200 TONS/YR
POPULATION SIZE BIG ?
NO NO CHANGE
SPECIES COMPOS. NO CHANGE YES

9
PREDICTED ACTUAL SONGS IMPACTS
CHARACTERISTIC PREDICTION ACCURATE?
ERROR
PHYTOPLANKTON ABUNDANCE BIG
? NO NO CHANGE
PRODUCTION BIG ?
NO NO CHANGE
RED TIDES FREQUENT
NO NONE
GIANT KELP ABUNDANCE NO
EFFECT NO 50 DECLINE
BENTHOS SOFT-BOTTOM NO EFFECT
YES
HARD-BOTTOM NO EFFECT NO
30-90 DECLINE
10
PREDICTED ACTUAL SONGS IMPACTS
CHARACTERISTIC PREDICTION ACCURATE?
ERROR
FISH AMOUNT TAKEN IN 40 TONS/YR YES
KELP BED SPP NO EFFECT NO
70 DECLINE
MIDWATER SPP NO EFFECT NO
30-70 DECLINE
BENTHIC SPP NO EFFECT YES
REGIONAL STOCKS NO EFFECT NO
6-13 DECLINE
MECHANISM THERMAL NO
INTAKE

DISCHARGE
11
CONCLUSION NEED TO DO BETTER JOB PREDICTING
RISKS
HOW? MORE RIGOROUS USE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
MODELS
PREDICTIVE RISK ASSESSMENT - A PROMISING
APPROACH (EPA)
WHATS STILL MISSING? FIELD ASSESSMENTS THAT TEST
PREDICTIONS
12
NO RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL YET CAPABLE OF
PREDICTING ACCURATELY ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

• LACK KNOWLEDGE OF HOW ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
  RESPOND TO HUMAN DISTURBANCE

• UNCERTAINITY IN MODEL FORMULATION
• - REALISM OF PARAMETER VALUES
• - VALUES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INPUTS
• - APPROPRIATENESS OF MODEL CHOSEN

13
MAJOR ISSUE FREQUENTLY NEED TO ESTIMATE
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS WHEN THERE ARE NO BEFORE DATA
VERY DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE IMPACT FROM NATURAL
VARIATION
ASSIGNING CAUSATION TO OBSERVED DIFFERENCES
PROBLEMATIC
MUST BUILD BEST CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE POSSIBLE
14
PRODUCED WATER DISCHARGE AS AN EXAMPLE OF
ESTIMATING IMPACTS WITH NO BEFORE DATA

• TYPICAL MUST USE CONTROL-IMPACT DESIGN

• REFINEMENT USE GRADIENT OF SITES AWAY FROM
  POINT OF DISTURBANCE

15
CONTROL - IMPACT DESIGN
KELLETIA (SNAIL) DENSITY NEAR FARFROM DIFFUSER
PORT
)
2
10
8
6
DENSITY
4
(no. per 40 m
2
0
NEAR
FAR
CONTROL
IMPACT
IMPACT
1.6 km
250 m
50 m
SITE
16
FIELD DESIGN
SITES AT 2, 3, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500
1000 m TO EAST TO WEST OF OUTFALL
PLUME
DIFFUSER PIPE
LAND
STUDY SITE
? EAST
17
SPATIAL PATTERNS IN INFAUNA DENSITIESWITH
RESPECT TO DIFFUSER PORT(SCHMITT OSENBERG)
1
0
STANDARDIZED DENSITY
- 1
SPECIES GROUP 1
- 2
0
10
10
100
100
1000
1000
EAST
WEST
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER (m)
18
SPECIES THAT VARIED INDEPENDENTLY OF OUTFALL
1
0
STANDARDIZED DENSITY
- 1
SPECIES GROUP 2
- 2
0
10
10
100
100
1000
1000
EAST
WEST
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER (m)
19
SPECIES GROUP 2 VARIED SPATIALLY WITH VARIATION
IN SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE
WAS VARIATION IN SPECIES GROUP 1 RELATED TO PW
DISCHARGE?
WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CAN WE USE?
IN GENERAL, KNOW HOW INFAUNAL COMMUNITIES CHANGE
IN RESPONSE TO ORGANIC ENRICHMENT
20
RESPONSES OF SPECIES TO ORGANIC ENRICHMENT
DENSITY RESPONSE
NEMATODES ? CERTAIN POLYCHAETE SPECIES ?
DID SPECIES GROUP 1 CONTAIN SPECIES KNOWN TO BE
AFFECTED BY ORGANIC ENRICHMENT?
21
NEMATODES
1000
DENSITY (NO. /312 CM2)
100
10
0
10
10
100
100
1000
1000
EAST
WEST
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER (m)
22
POLYCHAETES (GROUP 1)
100
DENSITY (NO. / 312 CM2)
10
0
10
10
100
100
1000
1000
EAST
WEST
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER (m)
23
BENTHOS

• SPATIAL PATTERN CONSISTENT WITH PW EFFECT

• CHANGE IN COMMUNITY STRUCTURE THAT EXPECTED FROM
  ORGANIC ENRICHMENT

• NO OTHER SOURCES OF ORGANIC ENRICHMENT

24
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE?
OUTPLANT MUSSELS ALONG GRADIENT
MEASURE INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE AS FUNCTION OF
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER
25
TYPICAL RESULT FROM MUSSEL OUTPLANT
1
RELATIVE PERFORMANCE
0
- 1
1
10
100
1000
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER PORT (m)
26
LARVAE IN WATER COLUMN
PRODUCED WATER DISCHARGE HIGH IN DISSOLVED BARIUM
OTHER TOXICANTS
EIS/R CONCLUDED NO HARMFUL EFFECTS TO MARINE
LARVAE - BARIUM COMPLEXES WITH SALT
PRECIPITATES OUT - OTHER TOXICANTS RAPIDLY
DILUTED TO SAFE LEVELS
27
Adult exposure can affect larval number or
condition.
Larval exposure can affect larvaes ability
to settle.
28
OUR GOAL ESTIMATE PROBABILITY ABALONE LARVA THAT
ENCOUNTERED DISCHARGE PLUME WOULD DEVELOP TO
ADULT GROWTH FORM

• ABALONE BROADCAST SPAWNERS
• LARVAE MUST DEVELOP 5-7 DAYS BEFORE CAPABLE OF
  SETTLING (PRE-COMPETENT STAGE)
• COMPETENT STAGE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS
• LARVAE SETTLE TO BOTTOM METAMORPHOSE

29
PROTOCOL

• PLACED ABALONE LARVAE IN MESH CAGES

• PLACED MESH CAGES AT VARYING DISTANCE FROM
  OUTFALL

• AFTER 96 HR IN FIELD, RETURNED TO LAB CULTURED
• DETERMINED FRACTION THAT GREW TO ADULT BODY FORM
  AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER

30
RESULTS
1.0
FRACTION SUCCESSFUL
0.5
1
10
100
1000
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER PORT (m)
31
CAUSATION

• PATTERNS OF CHANGE CONSISTENT WITH PW IMPACT ON
  NEARBY COMMUNITY

• EVIDENCE STILL CORRELATIONAL

CAN WE LINK PATTERNS TO PW PLUME?
32
MUSSELS SUSPENSION FEEDERS

• BARIUM A CHEMICAL MARKER OF PW PLUME

• MUSSELS INCORPORATE BARIUM IN SHELL

• AMOUNT OF BARIUM INCORPORATED INDICATIVE OF
  EXPOSURE TO PW PLUME

BARIUM IN MUSSELS DECLINED WITH INCREASING
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER
33
MUSSEL PERFORMANCE vs BARIUM CONTENT
1.2
1.0
MUSSEL PERFORMANCE (gms tissue production)
0.8
0.6
- 1
0
1
2
SHELL BARIUM CONTENT (ppm above ambient)
34
CAUSATION
BARUM MARKER STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR
CAUSATION
IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT
BUILDS STRONG CASE FOR CAUSATION?
REVISIT ABALONE LARVAE BIOASSAY
35
PATTERN WHEN PW BEING DISCHARGED
1.0
FRACTION SUCCESSFUL
0.5
1
10
100
1000
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER PORT (m)
36
WAS PRODUCED WATER INVOLVED? LAB STUDY

• COLLECTED PW AT SOURCE
• LAB EXPOSURES OF ABALONE LARVAE TO VARIOUS
  CONCENTRATIONS OF PW
• OBTAINED SAME PATTERN IN ABALONE LARVAL
  PERFORMANCE (REDUCED VIABILITY AT HIGHER
  CONCENTRATIONS)

37
PATTERN WHEN PW BEING DISCHARGED WHEN IT WAS
NOT DISCHARGED
1.0
FRACTION SUCCESSFUL
0.5
1
10
100
1000
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER PORT (m)
38
STRONG CASE FOR PW DISCHARGE AS CAUSE OF ALTERED
ECOLOGICAL PATTERNS
STRONGEST CASE WOULD NEED BEFORE DATA
WERE WE CORRECT?
PW DISCHARGES CEASED PERMANENTLY AFTER OUR
CONTROL - IMPACT STUDIES PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY
FOR BACIPS STUDY
39
RESULTS OF BACIPS STUDIES ON PW OUTFALL
IMPACT
CORRECT?
RECOVERY TIME
LARVAL SUCCESS YES
lt 1 WEEK
MUSSEL PERFORMANCE YES
1 MONTH
INFAUNA YES
1 YEAR
40
MUSSEL PERFORMANCE BEFORE AFTER SHUT-DOWN OF PW
DISCHARGE
1.0
SHUT DOWN
0.9
TISSUE PRODUCTION (fraction of controls)
0.8
OPERATION
0.7
1
10
100
1000
DISTANCE FROM DIFFUSER PORT (m)
41
Local vs Regional Effects

• How do we assess impacts that occur on a
• regional level?

42
Dispersal of Impacts

• Spatial patterns of ecological impacts may
  be
• completely uncorrelated with those of
  physical
• impacts of a disturbance.

43
Dispersal of Impacts
What causes this mismatch between cause and
effect ?
44
Planktonic Larval Durations (PLD) can range
from hours to several months.
45
Migratory species may be impacted at any
point along their path of migration.
46
Adult bluefin tuna were once thought to
consist of two separate populations.
Now we know that they circumnavigate the
Atlantic.
Thunnus thynnus
47
(No Transcript)
48
Dispersal of Impacts
So, local impacts can have serious regional
consequences
Dispersion of the agents of disturbance.
Dispersion of the biological effects of
disturbance.
Need to factor in movement potential of
both the impact and individuals.
49
Dispersal of Impacts
How do we calculate the Spatial Scale
of an impact?
Typical approach is to measure physical
parameters that determine diffusion/dispersal
of causative agent.
50
Over what spatial scale is the impact
detectable ?
Larvae
51
How fast is the impact diffusing ?
Larvae
52
Calculation of the Volume Affected
Larvae
Volume Affected
Area
x Larval Velocity
x Reproductive Season
6.1 1010 m3
53
Number of Larvae Affected
Larvae
x Larval Density
Larvae Impacted
Volume Affected
6.1 1010
54
Dispersal of impacts through food webs
Estes et al. (1998)
55
Otters
Urchins
Kelp
and
associated community
Trophic cascade
Simenstad et al. (1978) in Science
56
Open ocean
steller sea lion
whales
cod, pollack
zooplankton
Estes et al. (1978) in Science
57
Open ocean
Coastal areas
Otters
stellar sea lion
whales
cod, pollack
zooplankton
58
Trophic cascade