Merganser Model. MERcury Geo-spatial. For the New England Region

Transcription

1 Merganser Model MERcury Geo-spatial AssessmeNtS For the New England Region David Evers, John Graham, Eric Miller, Neil Kamman, Keith Robinson, Jamie Shanley, Alison Simcox, Richard Smith, Jeri Weiss 1

2 What is the Merganser Model A geo-spatial statistical model designed to explain the variation in fish tissue mercury concentrations in lakes and reservoirs throughout New England. Identify significant predictors of Hg in fish tissue from a host of environmental variables and mercury sources Links fish tissue mercury predictions to population response models for piscivorous birds 2

3 Why develop Merganser? Fish Consumption Advisories for Mercury Source: USEPA 2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories 3

4 Merganser Builds on Existing Research USEPA regional supported studies -emissions inventories -atmospheric deposition and transport models -fish tissue assessments USDA Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative NE Mercury Research Group Numerous other studies 4

5 Conceptual form of the Merganser Model Conceptual Models (multi-variate and logistic regression models): Hg Conc* Lake I = Hg sources Watershed I + Hg delivery features Watershed I + Hg Processing Features Watershed/Lake I + error *Average for lake, normalized to a common species (yellow perch) 5

6 Model Components Dependent variable: Hg in Fish Tissue Independent/predictor variables: Lake Chemistry Watershed Features Atmospheric Deposition From: Mercury Pollution: Integration and Synthesis, Watras and Huckabee, Ed, 1994 Hg Point Sources 6

7 Fish Tissue Data Fish tissue data based on Northeastern Ecosystem Research Cooperative NE Mercury Research Group effort, but will include other data 530 lakes/reservoirs with fish tissue data (Kamman and others, 2005) Yellow-perch equivalents (YPE) (Burgess and others, 2005) Kamman et al., 2005 Ecotoxicology 14(1-2) 7

8 1.200 Reservoir River Lake Hg u g g -1 (w.w.) WHS BNT BNB YLP LMB BKT SMB ECP NPK WAL LKT WHP LLS Kamman et al., 2005 Ecotoxicology 14(1-2) Species code HgT Flux (ug. m-2. yr-1) Watershed - Lake Area Ratio Fish Hg concentrations vary by water body type and watershed position VT-NH Lakes LBW Kamman and Engstrom, Atm. Env

9 Acidic watersheds and water bodies, greater organic carbon, and lower nutrient/trophic conditions enhance Hg bioaccumulation in fish tissue From Driscoll et al., Bioscience

10 Characterizing Lake Watersheds Hydrography and Physical Attributes from SPARROW Lake management features Surrounding land use Wetlands extent and type from National Wetlands Inventory Land-to to-water delivery variables 10

11 Characterizing Lake Chemistry General chemistry ph, ANC, alkalinity Organic carbon/ indicators of organic carbon Trophic status May be based on actual data or regional assessments SPARROW Predicted Nitrogen Yield Catchment Yield (kg / sq km) ,000 1,500 2,300 2,700-4,800 4,800-10,000 10,000-32,000 > 32,000 11

12 Mercury Sources Atmospheric emissions and deposition Wastewater discharges Known land-based mercury release sites 12

13 Atmospheric Sources: CMAQ-HRDM Mercury Deposition Estimates CMAQ will be used to define regional concentration fields while HRDM is used to define the local watershed-scale scale deposition velocities Mixed Resolution Modeling Coarse-resolution resolution (12-36 km 2 ) precipitation Hg (GEM, RGM, and Particulate) concentration field derived from CMAQ output Fine-resolution (100 m 2 ) orographic effects on precipitation rate from the HRDM (Miller et al. 2005) provide better estimates of local terrain influence i on wet deposition at the small-stream stream reach watershed scale. Includes: -Fine-resolution (100 m 2 ) dry deposition velocities from the HRDM (Miller et al. 2005) provide representation of receptor surface influence on deposition at the small-stream stream reach watershed scale -GEM deposition Will attempt source tagging to HRDM output 13

14 HRDM Output: Total Mercury Deposition µg m -2 y Estimated Total Deposition (µg m -2 y -1 ) 10 From Miller et al. (2005) Ecotoxicology 0 14

15 Example Tagged Results 1996 MWC + MWI Wet Deposition (μg/m 2 ) from NESCAUM Sources 2002 MWC + MWI Wet Deposition (μg/m 2 ) from NESCAUM Sources Note the substantial modeled reductions in local deposition due to local controls 15

16 9 8 7 Average Deposition Results to NESCAUM States NY_NJ New England ROUS NonUS Total Deposition 37% 20% Deposition (ug/m2) % 7% 28% 10% % 24% Wet Deposition Dry Deposition

17 Running the Fish Tissue Model Calibrate based on existing data and bootstrap analysis Apply model to lakes with no tissue data Predictions of mercury levels in tissue, probability of exceeding FDA consumption advisory level/epa criterion Use estimated fish tissue concentrations as input to wildlife response models evaluating ecosystem integrity 17

18 Wildlife Response Model Use loons as a bioindicator of Hg levels in aquatic ecosystems to evaluate spatial and temporal distribution of Hg in such systems and resulting population level impacts Links to previous investigations by Evers et al (2003, 2005) and other investigators 18

19 Wildlife Response Model Loon weight (male and female) data are converted to Female Loon Units (FLU) of Hg in blood. Also egg Hg levels can be converted to FLU. Can be evaluated on a lake-by by-lake basis FLU can also be generated from yellow perch equivalent (YPE) Hg predictions Use Merganser YPE to predict Hg in loon populations 19

20 Fish prey Hg strongly correlates with adult loon blood Hg 6 Common Loon blood total Hg level (ww, ppm Male (n=19) Female (n=21) y = 3.65x R 2 = y = x R 2 = Cumulative total Hg levels for 4 sizes classes of fish (ww, ppm) From Scheuhammer and Blancher 1998, Hydrobiologia; Burgess and Hobson, Hydrobiologia 20

21 FLUs by State an Year FLU (ppm) MA ME NH RI VT NY FLU (ppm)

22 Merganser Model Development 2-Year Effort Year 1 -build data sets to be used in model -complete loon response model Year 2 -build calibrated model and apply to lakes in New England -prepare journal papers summarizing results -present results at workshops/symposia 22

23 Thank You 23