Stakeholder Criteria and Ecological Model: Informing Selection of Approaches Addressing Harmful Algal Blooms in Grand Lake St. Marys. Presented at the Ohio Academy of Sciences, 2012.

1. Stakeholder Criteria and Ecological Model:
Informing Selection of Approaches Addressing
Harmful Algal Blooms in Grand Lake St. Marys
Harry J. Stone, Tom Gulbransen, and Henry Pate
The Ohio Academy of Science
April 14, 2012
1

2. Grand Lake St Marys (GLSM)
• Covers 13,500 Acres in Mercer and
Auglaize Counties
• Largest Inland Lake in Ohio in Terms
of Land Area
• Average Depth of 1.5 to 2.1 Meters
Ideal for Blue-green Algae:
Blue-
• Temperature: >20 C
• P: >80 μg/L
• Flush rate: <18%/day
• Limited Surface Mixing
• Low Predation Pressure
2

3. Project: Evaluate Proposed Solutions
for GLSM Harmful Algal Blooms
• Sponsors
– Western Ohio Education
Foundation
– Ohio Department of Natural
Resources
– Grand Lake St. Marys
Restoration Commission
• Near Term: Keep Lake Open for Tourism and Recreation
• Long Term: Address Root Cause (P) to End HABs
3

4. Technical Challenges
• Phosphorus (P) in Water Column is Root Cause:
Ag Sources, Sediment P Inventory
• Lakewide Approaches Needed
(Very Large Lake)
• Bloom Conditions Often Present
– Planktothrix: put up warning signs
– Planktothrix Aphanizomenon shift
(N:P Ratio): close lake
• Lake Chemistry Releases P: Fe (Low O2) and Al (High pH)
• Wind and Carp Resuspend Shallow Lake Sediments (P)
• Low Outflow Retains P in Lake
• Most P Enters Lake in a Few High-Flow Rain Events
• Dying Cyanobacteria Release Cyanotoxins
4

5. Approach
• Compile Proposed Vendor
Solutions (from Stakeholders)
• Establish Selection Criteria
(Stakeholder Input and Vetting)
• Obtain Information on
Solutions from Vendors
• Apply Selection Criteria to Rate Potential Solutions
• Develop Conceptual Ecological Model
• Use Ecological Knowledge to Refine Selection
• Facilitate Stakeholder Down-selection of Solutions
• Request Demonstration of Deployed Solutions
5

6. Solutions Aim at Various P
Pathways & Blue-Green Algae
Wastewater Treatment
Restoration Options: Suitability to improve
which elements of lake ecosystem? Ag P Capture
Anaerobic Digestion
• Agricultural Production Lake Level and Outflow
• Non-point Source Runoff
Loads • P Flux from Sediments Tributary Precipitate
• Atmospheric Deposition Algae Harvest or
• Wind Algaecide
• Algae & Zooplankton Aeration/Circulation
Cycling • pH, Hypoxia
• Rough Fish Sediment Digestion
Biomanipulation
• Sediment Sequestration Wetlands/Littoral
Sinks • Outflow from Lake Revegetation
Chemical Sequestration
Fish Harvest
Sediment Use, Capture,
Dredging
6

7. Request for Information (RFI) Criteria
Factors Request for Information
Relevance Which part of GLSM issue will you improve?
Measurability How will improvements be evident & quantified?
Solution completeness Is your proposition a turnkey solution or are local
staff and additional equipment required?
Readiness, Scalability Has the idea been deployed in field or just bench
scale tests? Is it commercially available?
Risks What are possible risks and hazards of solution?
Uniqueness Describe how your proposition differs from others.
Permanence When & how long will your solution improve GLSM?
Transferability Describe deployments most similar to GLSM.
Verification studies Provide citations or articles on efficacy.
Cost considerations Describe unit and operational costs of approach.
Community involvement How can regional companies and people participate?
7

8. Vendor Feedback
• 75 Vendors Identified for RFI Solicitation
• 39 Responses (with varying levels detail)
• 4 Offered Packaged Solution in Multiple
Configurations
• 2 Offered Multiple Solutions
• 3 Provided Insufficient Information to Evaluate
Solution
• 9 Contained Deal-Breaker Conditions, e.g.,
Reapplication to Whole Lake Multiple Times in a
Season
8

9. Criteria Scoring (1 to 9 from most to least
favorable; 7 no response; 9 deal breaker)
)
Factor Request for Information
Relevance P load, P inventory, Algicidal, Aeration, Circulation
Measurability 1=easy, 3=technical, 5=outcome only
Solution completeness 1=turnkey, 3=adjustments, 5=product only
Readiness, Scalability 1=commercial, 3=pilot, 5=lab bench
Risks 1=none, 3=limited/acute, 5=likely/chronic
Uniqueness Qualitative differentiation from competitors.
Responsiveness 1=within days, 3=weeks/months, 5=years
Duration 1=permanent, 3=>3years, 5=months
Transferability 1=same as GLSM, 3=different setting, 5=none
Verification studies 1=peer reviewed, 3=self/media, 5=none
Unit Costs 1=less than market, 3=average, 5=above market
O&M Costs 1=zero, 3=average, 5=above average
Community involvement 1=new jobs, 3=temporary, 5=none
9

10. Strategies
•P Source Reduction (Long Term)
•P Inventory Reduction (Long Term)
•Blooms and Ecosystem Shifts
–Circulation and
Aeration (Near Term)
–Algaecide (Crisis)
Source: Lake Improvement Association
10

11. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
Strategy/Aspects/Criteria/Weight
11

12. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
Strategy/Aspects/Criteria/Weight
12

13. Recommended Demonstrations
• P Source Reduction (Long Term)
– Pilot testing of phosphorus inactivation of internal loading
(alum vs. lanthanum clay)
– Pilot testing of phosphorus inactivation in tributaries (dosing
stations to compare the efficacy of alum and lanthanum clay)
• P Inventory Reduction (Long Term)
– Beneficial use of dredged sediments
• Blooms and Ecosystem Shifts
– Pilot testing of whole lake circulation
– Pilot testing of algaecides and algaestats (highpH concern)
High Cost for Whole-Lake Pilots; No Guarantee of Funding for
Successful Demonstrations No Vendor Participation
13

14. Plan B: “Comparable Lake” Data
• A Select Few Highly Ranked Vendors Invited to
Identify a Comparable Lake Where Solution Used
and Data Available
• Comparable Lake Characteristics:
– Large lake surface area (>10,000 acres)
– Shallow lake (5-7 foot average depth)
– Low turnover
– High phosphorus/nitrogen inflows
– Significant area of channels along shore
– Summer temperatures above 20°C
– Days of still air during summer
14

15. Measured Before-Treatment
Characteristics
• Water Column Summer P >200 ug/L; High Sediment P; High P in Inflows
• High Chlorophyll (>250 ug/L) with >90% Cyanobacteria
• Water Column Summer N >15 mg/L N); High Sediment N; High N in
Inflows
• High Surface Water pH (>8 with excursions to 9.5)
• High pH at 0.5 Meters above Sediments (>8)
• Periods of Hypoxia/Anoxia in Benthos
• Cyanotoxins in Water
• High Levels of Rough Fish
• Minimal Amounts of Submerged or Emergent Plants
• Similar Weather Patterns (Temperature, Wind, Precipitation) to GLSM
• Similar Level of Treatment Required (e.g., Dosing Mass and Frequency;
Number of Circulation Units)
15

16. Treatment Context and Description
• All Technologies Attempted in Lake and Sequence
• Specific “Dose” of Treatment
• Period of Treatment
• Cost per Installed Unit (or Application)
• Annual Operating Costs per Installed Unit
• Scheduled and Unscheduled Maintenance Costs
• Infrastructure Requirements (e.g., Access to
Electricity or a Dock)
16

17. Post-Treatment Measurements
• Same Parameters Measured as “Before”
• Water Temperature, Wind Speed and Direction, Precipitation
that May Influence Outcomes
• Observed Interactions of Treatment Methods
• Indicators of Data Quality
Before and after use of technology. Source: Marine Techno Research, Inc.,
http://www.mi-wea.org/docs/Jet%20Streamers.pdf
17

18. Lessons Learned
• Short Term Tourism Survival Must Be Addressed
Synergistically with Long Term Nutrient Reductions
• Expert Decision Support Can Be Integrated with
Stakeholder Decision Making to Screen Potential
Solutions
• Critical Knowledge Gaps May Be Addressed
through Demonstrations and Pilot Projects, but…
• Business Decisions to Demonstrate Technologies
Depend on Likelihood of Financial Reward
• Data from Comparable Lakes May Provide an
Alternative Approach to Fill Critical Knowledge Gaps
18

19. Thank You
http://www.lakeimprovement.com/sites/default/files/battelle-glsm-report-2011.pdf
19