Reading The Buffer Tea Leaves

Since "they" won't show us the problem, we can try to read tea leaves instead. I reckon we can read tea leaves mathematically by back-calculating. The buffer abacus targets 70% to 75% pollutant removal. It is largely based on the Mayer paper (Mayer et al, 2007). The Mayer paper considered only nitrates, so let's consider nitrate regulatory limits.* The drinking water standard for nitrates, the maximum contaminant level (MCL), is 10 mg/L, which is the same level established as the aquatic life criterion set by EPA.

Presumably, "they" sized our buffers so that our water would be safe coming out of the buffer, meaning nitrate levels no higher than 10 mg/L. At efficiencies of 75% removal, that would imply that our pre-buffered water from development areas could have ambient nitrate concentrations around 40 mg/L. For 70% removal, that would imply a figure as high as 33.3 mg/L.

Is that a lot?

Yes, it is, especially for surface waters. I believe it is unreasonable to think concentrations around here could ever be that high. Those levels are high even for aquifers in heavy use areas, such as the Salinas Valley in California, where there has been decades of intensive nitrogen fertilizer use associated with agriculture.

The USGS says the background concentration of nitrate in groundwater in the Puget Sound region is only about 3 mg/L. As for surface water data from the San Juans specifically, there is no mention of nitrates in the 303d reports. However, a study by Huxley College monitored nitrates and several other constituents in the islands, and they found nitrate concentrations to be around 2 mg/L or less. They had just one data point that was significantly higher in concentration, a 7 mg/L reading that they attributed to alders, not an anthropogenic source.

The Huxley comment about alders raises an interesting point. Many plants fix nitrogen into the soil, like alders. Other plants take it out, like grasses. A typical crop rotation schedule has a plant from the grass family (e.g. corn) followed by a legume (e.g., alfalfa). The grasses use nitrogen, and legumes put it back into the soil. Despite the fact that grasses are well-known consumers of nitrogen, our proposed County buffer calculator assumes lawn buffers are less effective than other vegetation at removing nitrogen. That is a peculiar conclusion since grasses are very good at withdrawing nitrogen from soil, and that is why people apply nitrogen fertilizer to lawns in the first place. Grass is so good at taking up nitrogen, it needs extra.

Is it possible that with fertilizer use or other behaviors that we might develop a nitrate problem somewhere in the county at some time? Sure, anything is possible. In fact, a 2008 Eastsound water supply report from the County Health Department suggests that nitrates may be slowly accumulating in the Eastsound aquifer, but levels are still quite low.  Further research (e.g., isotopic analysis of nitrogen and oxygen) may be needed to better define the source, and the situation is being monitored.

But it is fantasy to think that our county-wide pre-buffered ambient environmental concentrations of nitrate could be in the range of 30 to 40 mg/L (measured as nitrogen). Yet, by back-calculating, that appears to be the unspoken design criterion for all our buffers.

Even if we ignore all the other questions about the derivation of the buffer calculator, I still have to wonder why "they" sized buffers for 70% to 75% removal? Where is the justification for a problem so large and widespread that we all need buffers that robust? 

Why are our buffers so big? For the same reason "they" consider grass to be relatively ineffective at nitrogen removal. That is to say, for no reason at all apparently.


* - the MCL and aquatic life criterion express nitrate as nitrogen. Nitrate can be measured as nitrogen or as nitrate, the difference being the ratios of their molecular weights.  The same concentration of nitrate, measured as nitrate instead of nitrogen, is roughly 4.5 times higher than that same concentration of nitrate measured as nitrogen.  A 10 mg/L limit for nitrate as nitrogen is equivalent to a level of 45 mg/L for nitrate measured as nitrate.  If you click the link for the Salinas Valley data, they show nitrate measured as nitrate, so a 90 mg/L data point in their figures corresponds to a 20 mg/L level as compared to the MCL provided here.

Taking Our Medicine

Imagine you sit on a citizen panel that is responsible for approving a new drug, a pill. This pill is an antidote for a poison. Actually, it's reported to be an effective antidote for an innumerable variety of poisons, and we are told by the finest scientists in the land that we are surrounded by undetectable but lethal poisons. This is surprising to us because we do not feel ill, but the scientists tell us that nearly everyone in the community must now take this antidote, in varying doses prescribed for us, or we will all die. We have to live with this pill for the rest of our lives, and by the way, this pill is very expensive and has crippling side effects. All the same, we must take it. We have no choice.

As a caring member of the community, you accept the imperative to protect. You are, however, very concerned about the side effects of the antidote.  As a member of the approval panel, you focus all your efforts towards reducing the pill's side effects, if only marginally.  If you make palliative modifications, you feel heroic since you have approved a vital community-saving measure while reducing negative consequences.

Based on recent conversations, many members of our Council and Planning Commission seem to feel this way. They have accepted that we are sick (eco-hypochondriacs?). They have accepted that we need to take the miracle pill despite the terrible side effects. They believe the (buffer) pill is the only solution that can save us: there is no alternative or combination of alternatives that might be a substitute remedy. There is only one final solution, and it is worth everything. Our officials feel embattled, but heroic. As such, they are focused only on forcing us to swallow the pill, and to that end, they are trying to gain our grudging cooperation by reassuring us that the side effects will not be as bad as they are reported to be.

But the surest way to prevent side effects is not to take the pill in the first place. That said, hardly any of our public officials are seriously scrutinizing whether the pill is needed to begin with. For its advocates, though the evidence is scant, the pill represents science. Although we have lived an apparently healthy life without the scientific pill, "they" insist that we cannot go on living without the new drug.

This is how most of our public officials think of the CAO, its buffers, and the diagnosis of Dr. Adamus and others. The fact that our officials can think this way is the most difficult pill to swallow of all.

Previous posts raised questions about our diagnosis, the remedy (i.e., pill), and the methodology used to compute our dose. Upcoming posts will ask whether the proposed remedy has any active ingredients at all? Or, is it just a placebo with crippling side effects?

Buffer Paradox

Why is the science about buffers so poor (see email below), and yet they are proposed with calculated precision as a solution for all manner of pollutants? For such a "well accepted" remedy to pollution, you'd think there would be all sorts of data about the effectiveness of buffers to clean up metals, pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals.

The answer is that, outside of their use by planners and wetland scientists, buffers have no reputation as a remedy for pollution. That's why they have been studied so little. No one in the venerable fields of ecotoxicology or fate & transport would propose a buffer as the primary solution to contamination. If buffers were effective as a remedy, then to clean up Hanford, Love Canal, Times Beach, or the Duwamish, all we would have to do is put a buffer around them and call it a day.

There is plenty of data about the ecotoxicology and fate & transport of thousands of potential contaminants. If there is nary a mention about buffers in that scientific literature, it is probably for the same reason there is no mention of buffers as a solution to AIDS: buffers have no relevance to the problem.

Buffers simply are not useful as a remedy for authentic pollution problems. From my perspective, they are a planning gimmick. If we want buffers, we should have them for aesthetic or public policy reasons.

______________________________________________________________

From: Paul Adamus <adamus7@comcast.net>

Date: September 29, 2011 9:29:01 AM PDT

To: Shireene Hale <shireeneh@sanjuanco.com>

Subject: Alderton comments - reply

Shireene,

Sorry I could not reply to this before the meeting.  Janet Alderton raises some good points with regard to the minimum width of buffer that should be allowed - in the specific case of protecting functions of the wetlands of lowest importance from low-intensity development where the potential for pollutant transport is low.

I concur with her observation that there is almost no published peer-reviewed literature on the adequacy or inadequacy upland buffers for removal of soluble pollutants such as nitrate within the width category of 0 to 82 feet (0- 25m).  As Mayer et al.  (2007) noted, "Effectiveness was not related to buffer width when analyzing buffers within width categories."  [emphasis added].   I chose a 15 foot threshold based not on nitrate removal, but on removal of runoff-borne sediment because published literature amply demonstrates that vegetated buffers of even less than 15 feet are effective for filtering that from runoff.  I do not suggest that sediment is necessarily a good proxy for nitrate, but it is the only data we have.  Note that the 15 foot minimum we proposed is close to the 25 foot minimum buffer width for protecting wetlands recommended by the Washington Department of Ecology.  However, unlike our approach, Ecology's buffer width recommendation does not explicitly address situations where potential for pollutant transport is low, as is the only case where our 15 foot buffer would be applied.

I also concur with Janet Alderton's observation that the removal of nitrate might not be a good proxy for removal of other soluble pollutants such as some surfactants.  However, there is essentially no literature on the effectiveness of buffers for reducing surfactants, so we are forced to adopt a best-available science approach based only on nitrate and sediment removal.

Paul

BAS Ackwards

Why don't basketball players wear football helmets? The answer is that there is no need. There are few, if any, concussions in the NBA. Yes, there might be the occasional elbow to the head, but the risk of a serious head injury is considered to be de minimis. There just aren't enough serious head injuries in the NBA to warrant concern.

Now suppose a determined helmet maker wants to increase his sales, and he seizes upon the idea of selling football helmets to the NBA. He discovers that, compared to the NFL, there is a frightening absence of head injury data in the NBA. This is disturbing since the helmet maker really believes that serious head injuries are ubiquitous in sports. He makes a sales pitch to the NBA where he characterizes the NBA's lack of data about harm as being a genuine cause for concern, and he proposes that every player wear a helmet, to be precautionary in the face of the NBA's scientific uncertainty.

Ah, but some trouble makers challenge the helmet maker over the need for NBA players to wear helmets, so the helmet maker responds by trotting out Best Available Science (BAS) about helmets.  The BAS shows that helmets reduce injuries to professional athletes by a significant amount. The NBA finds the science to be very persuasive, and as a result, it decides that all of its players must wear football helmets from now on.

What went wrong here? Can you spot the syllogistic errors that led to pointless (and expensive) safety measures being taken for a situation that was already de minimis? For one, the salesmen's BAS is about helmets, not the risk situation in the NBA. In fact, to make his pitch, the salesmen never needs to know the actual risk to NBA players. He only needs to be persuasive about head injuries being ubiquitous, point out that the NBA lacks data on this ubiquitous problem, and then propose a plausible solution ... his helmets.

That brings us to San Juan County where expanded buffers (i.e., helmets) are being proposed for our wetlands, streams, and shorelines. Despite data showing many positive aspects to our ecosystem, there is an absence of data showing no harm. We are told by authorities that pollutants are ubiquitous, and many citizens and officials tell frightening stories about our ecosystem's dire prospects if we don't do something. The proposals for much bigger buffers are justified by BAS about buffers, not BAS about the county.

I believe this misconstrues BAS, and it allows the buffer scientists to flip the CAO process on its head. The scientists aren't using BAS about San Juan County to design buffers; they are using BAS about buffers to design the county.

When that happens, buffer scientists become little more than buffer salesmen and BAS becomes just a sales brochure for the salesmen's latest product. Like all pitchmen, the buffer salesmen would love to see you kitted out in the deluxe model.

Let's Assume We Have A Can Opener

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can opener..."

Unfortunately, that famous joke about economists has a great deal of relevance to our CAOs because the State and County CAO "experts" just want to assume that we have "pollution." That is no laughing matter.

What is "pollution" anyway? The notion of pollution is inherently linked to the concept of ecological or human health risk. Pollution occurs when a constituent of potential concern (COPC) is evaluated and found to be present in the environment at concentrations sufficient to cause a quantifiable increase in the likelihood of harm above background levels (i.e., excess risk). When a COPC has been confirmed to be present at concentrations presenting unacceptable excess risk, it is re-titled a constituent of concern (COC).

If you have COCs or if you have constituents exceeding a defined regulatory limit, you have "pollution," and as I hope you can see, that concept is inherently linked to concentrations.  The mere presence of a substance alone does not constitute "pollution." It has to be present at concentrations exceeding de minimis risk.

Where do you find published concentration limits that might be useful in evaluating whether COPCs are above de minimis? You find the regulatory limits for surface water here.  You find the regulatory limits for groundwater here.  You find the regulatory limits for drinking water here.

What about ecological screening levels? Those must be really hard to find ... and expensive too, right?  Actually, they are quite easy to find. Ecological screening levels for soils are part of MTCA, sediment management standards can be found in the WAC, and EPA provides recommended criteria for aquatic life here.

Despite all the available information on potential contaminants, how is it that after years of working on our CAOs, none of our "experts" have come up with a list of constituents that might need a remedy here? They have identified no COPCs. None. Instead, "they" simply want us to assume that pollution of unimaginable variety is present in San Juan County, and all of it can be miraculously treated by buffers. In one conversation, Dr. Adamus even referred to the potential list of contaminants here as, "so soluble and so toxic, and there are hundreds if not thousands that have not been studied in terms of their toxicological effects." And he referred to them as, "contaminants that are the inevitable results of having people around."

Okay, why don't you name a few of them?

Nothing doing apparently.  Instead, "they" seem to want us to live with the notion that "pollution" here is mysterious, present at dangerous concentrations, ubiquitous, but nevertheless, impossible to list much less test for ... so just trust us, it's here. It's all around us, and buffers will take care of all of it, provided they're gigantic.

As for me, I don't trust them, and I don't know how anyone could, because they are proposing buffer orthodoxy, not science. They have assumed a buffer (can opener) and think the problem solved, regardless whether one existed in the first place.

Myth: The CAOs Scientifically Address Ecological Risk

One of the most difficult concepts for many people to grasp is the concept of environmental risk.  For an excellent quick read about environmental risk, peruse this speech given by Ruckelshaus in 1984 at Princeton. Risk is a calculation, and I mean that literally, not figuratively. Risk is an actual number.  Risk is a quantitative measure of the probability of something occurring. For example, you may have a one-in-a-million chance of getting cancer if you are exposed to a certain chemical. Or, there may be a de minimis ecological risk if the hazard index is less than 1.

If your eyes are already starting to glaze over, I suppose I have made my point. Risk is complicated stuff; it is mathematical, probabilistic, and very very scientific. If you don't have a number, you ain't talking risk. You may be talking about someone's perception of risk or fear of the unknown, but you're not talking risk unless you're talking numbers.

When the Council, County staff, and the consultants say that they have developed high, medium, or low-risk scenarios for wetlands and the CAOs, don't buy it. They didn't run the numbers.  In fact, they refused to run the numbers. They can't tell you what quantitative risk level is associated with their high, medium, or low scenarios. Without that, they can't tell you how much risk reduction you get per foot of buffer.

Are you following?  They don't know what risk is present in the environment in the first place because they didn't run the numbers. They can't tell you how much risk reduction the proposed buffers will buy because they didn't run the numbers. This isn't science. The buffer calculator that they have developed is akin to levers that are not connected to anything.  It's all guesswork.

The mantra that you will hear, especially from some members of the Council, is that our current buffers and wetland rules are not based on science, but our shiny new proposed rules are.  Rubbish. Despite spending a bundle on our new rules, they are not based on science either, and they are certainly not based on risk. They are based upon the policy opinions and assumptions of a select few, and in fact, many involved in the development of the new CAOs frequently advocate for eliminating nearly all "risk" no matter how small.

As Ruckelshaus points out in his speech, the ultimate goal of having a rational conversation about risk is to get people to understand the difference between living in a safe world and a risk-free world.  I don't think the proponents of the new CAO rules, including the Council and staff, understand that yet.