RESUMO
The Brisbane River estuary is an anthropogenically-impacted waterway in southeast Queensland, Australia. The estuary is over 80 km long and flows through an urbanised region. It receives over 500 t per year of total nitrogen (N) from direct point-source discharges in addition to sporadic flood loads of N from an agriculturally impacted upper catchment. Comprehensive water quality monitoring data for the estuary have been collected from at least 2001. This monitoring data includes ambient nutrient concentrations in the estuary, nutrient concentration and volume of the catchment inflows, and nutrient concentration and volume of point source discharges. This long-term data from a range of sources was used to determine temporal and spatial variations in concentrations, forms, stores and loads of N along the estuary for the period 2001 to 2022. Results showed that, during low-flow periods, the store of N in the mid-upper estuary (33-81 km upstream) is significantly determined by point-source discharges to this reach, and therefore the store of N can be modelled. Model parameters are the daily point source loads, a point source load decay factor, and a background constant store. In the lower estuary (0-33 km upstream) N store can be accurately determined based on dilution with seawater, with point sources not having significant influence on total N in the reach. Total N from large flood events was found to largely pass through the estuary without detectable removal processes, delivering catchment derived N directly to coastal waters. This work informs potential application of nutrient offsets in the estuary, guiding where and when offset options will be effective to mitigate the water quality impacts of point-source nutrients.
RESUMO
Nutrient offsetting allows nutrient point source polluters to pay for diffuse source nutrient reductions, or improvements in nutrient load reductions from alternative point sources. These programs have the potential to provide a more cost-effective approach to achieve water quality goals in waterways compared to infrastructure upgrades. However, worldwide adoption of nutrient offset/trading has not been realized. Here, we identified the biophysical-chemical knowledge gaps that can act as barriers to adopting these programs and summarized areas where further research is needed. This includes a) evaluating if any appropriate spatial scale (local-, catchment-, or regional-scale) and time scale (especially for areas with dry/wet cycles) exists to achieve nutrient load management goals, and b) quantifying nutrient characteristic differences and load contributions between point and diffuse sources to determine possible offsets between the two. Where offsets are appropriate, there is also a need to 1) improve monitoring design and reduce modelling uncertainties to better quantify diffuse nutrient loads; 2) quantify and manage uncertainties in catchment interventions to reduce nutrient loads, and design effective long-term monitoring and maintenance to sustain intervention outcomes; 3) prioritize areas within catchments that are key nutrient sources for catchment interventions to achieve the optimal outcomes for nutrient load management and catchment and aquatic ecosystem health; and 4) develop methodologies to determine the environmental equivalency ratio between different nutrient sources in terms of ecosystem effects. This would include identifying the best metric to quantify equivalency ratios, determining discharge patterns for different nutrient sources, and linking this with ecosystem responses across seasons and in the downstream receiving environment. Addressing the identified knowledge gaps will improve the program feasibility assessment process as well as confidence and certainty in the environmental outcomes of nutrient offsetting.
