Fish Consumption Advisory (BUI #1) Preliminary Workgroup Meeting

Tuesday, February 10, 2004
6:30 - 8:30 pm
DeWitt-Seitz 3rd floor conference room

Attending: Len Anderson, Nate Meyer, Ted Smith

• RAP/AOC process overview - handout
- 9 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI) were identified for the St. Louis River.
- 5/9 had meetings in November to develop restoration goals locally.
- March Quarterly Board Meeting for SLRCAC will have presentations on restoration goals to encourage greater participation in development of delisting criteria.
* Put together a draft restoration goal, and we may have better attendance.
* Want citizens to develop restoration goals then send to state agencies.
* Maybe citizens don't think they have appropriate knowledge and technical background to participate.
* Maybe citizens don't realize the urgency.
- Delisting criteria appear to be technical but common sense is just as important as technical knowledge. If local people don't participate in the process it will be done for us in Chicago or Washington. Time is limited.

• review of contents of folder
- Calendar/timeline: September 2004 forward restoration goals to EPA.
* This timeline has been extended a little bit.
- Goals of RAP
- Historical Background
- Development of the St. Louis River Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
- Problems in the St. Louis River AOC Identified in the Stage I RAP
- Map: Shows AOC and some selected sites within it. AOC includes the Nemadji River watershed, Cities of Superior, Duluth, Cloquet, and the nearshore waters of Lake Superior.
- Restoration Goals and Milestones worksheet: This is what we will be submitting to EPA.
* Ohio, Michigan, New York have developed these already.
- Some are redefining BUIs to delist them.
- Some Canadian AOCs are doing the same thing. Redefining to delist. They have chosen natural recovery in 7/10 AOCs.
- Maybe active restoration is not affordable or practical but have they taken care of the sources of the problems?
- Rational for Removing BUIs from the Impairment List: This is what we are trying to develop tonight.
- Workgroup Meeting Schedule
- Agenda
- General Guidelines for Restoration Goal Development

• IJC Criteria: An impairment will be listed when contaminant levels in fish or wildlife populations exceed current standards, objectives or guidelines, or public health advisories are in effect for human consumption or fish or wildlife. Contaminant levels in fish and wildlife must be due to contaminant input from the watershed.

• SLR RAP Rational for Listing: Fish samples taken from the St. Louis River and Lake Superior exceed standards established by Minnesota and Wisconsin for the unrestricted consumption of sport fish. Each of the two states issue consumption advisories for various population groups, based on fish species and size classes. Advisories are collectively issued for the presence of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls. Fish tissue residues of mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls also exceed the .5 mg/kg and .1 mg/kg standards established in the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement for the protection of aquatic life and fish consuming birds.

* Protecting both humans and wildlife/fish
- New information about human pregnancy: Mercury levels in umbilical cords average 1.7 times greater than levels in the mother's blood.
- EPA estimates that 1 out of 7 children born in U.S. suffers from brain damage due to mercury.

* Water Quality Agreement and MN/WI guidelines are the standards.
- Pat McCann, MN Dept of Health and Candy Schrank, WI Dept of Hygiene in WDNR would both like to be involved in development of restoration goals and delisting criteria.
- Maybe we can hold a day meeting and conference call them in.

* Do we have a rationale for delisting right now?
- 1st meeting: Clearly no right now.
- So when could we delist?

* Milestone
- Could still have some large fish that are not safe for unlimited consumption.
- That's how fish consumption advisories are issued. Based on size and age.
- Need to be able to trust fish consumption advisories from states. Maybe recommend that a citizen committee approve the advisories to keep it from being too political.

* Restoration goal
- Don't make it based on issuance of fish consumption advisories or government could stop issuing them as a way to achieve "restoration."
- Base the goal on real protection of fish, wildlife, and human health not on the existence of advisories.

* WI has one resource management agency: WDNR.
- Mercury in fish data was collected to investigate a potential correlation between pH and methyl-mercury levels and the relationship to acid rain.

* MN has two resource management agencies: MPCA and Health Department.
- MPCA has had a role in fish consumption advisories. MDNR role is not clear.

* The agencies with fish management responsibilities have apparent inherent conflicts in issuing health related fish consumption advice.

* Recent data indicate that mercury content in fish is affected by more than pH of the water and atmospheric deposition. You can collect data on length vs. age and length vs. mercury content in fish from two similar lakes right next to one another and have different levels of mercury.
* Mercury is preferentially located in the muscle tissue (edible portion) of fish.
* Methylization of mercury can occur in wetlands. This methylized form is bioactive and drives fish consumption advisories. Elemental mercury is toxic, but it is not as bioactive as methylmercury.
* There are in place deposits and local sources of mercury in addition to regional sources. The AOC should no tbe delisted because of an allegation that the source is outside the watershed. Don't want someone to delist the AOC because they say most of the mercury pollution comes from airshed pollution.
* Process in eliminating mercury pollution is complex but also simple. Stop generating mercury emissions and you will have less mercury in fish.

* Don't come up with one restoration goal but take a staged approach:
1. Ultimate Goal: No mercury in fish. This isn't realistic, but it's good to establish a vision.
2. Restoration Goal: Ability of citizens to eat fish from the area without health concerns except for "reasonable" limitations on eating the largest fish. Maybe eat one fish every month over x inches for example.
3. Delisting Goal: Ability of citizens to eat many of the fish caught with "acceptable" limitations on consumption of larger fish. Go fishing and eat most of fish that you catch. Able to put big ones on wall.
4. Progress Goal: Ability of citizens to eat walleyes from x inches up to y inches once a month without health concerns. All walleyes up to x inches are safe to eat y times a month for example.

* Need to educate public about fish advisories. Some people don't know about them or ignore them.
* For contaminants that can't be reduced, public behavior should be changed to protect public health. Not enough to say we can't control it. Need to change people's behavior.
* Should be easy to study wildlife behaviors and control levels in wildlife.

* Politics of 4 step approach?
- Should be a bit easier to get money for achievable goals and giving bragging rights about getting something accomplished.

* Spanish Harbor - Lake Ontario
- Insure consumers of fish and wildlife from the AOC are not at risk due to consumption patterns.
- Like the wording. Consumers can mean both human and wildlife.
- Insure consumers are aware of consumption restrictions specific to sports fish from the Spanish Harbor AOC.
- Should be advisories not restrictions. "Consumption restrictions" should be replaced with "health related consumption advice."
- Can't inform wildlife.

* Collingwood Harbor - Airshed vs. watershed debate
- Absence of restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption in the harbor due to sources from the AOC.
- Presence of restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption not attributable to harbor sources.
- Never get to a point to differentiate between harbor / non-harbor sources?

* We do not want to agree to the approach used elsewhere that conditions no worse than surrounding areas warrant delisting. We need to consider the impact of the AOC on Lake Superior.
- Lake Michigan acts as a source of PCBs to atmosphere
- Lake Superior is just the opposite. Perhaps temperature and surface area cause it.

* Base level - Awareness and Behavior as related to fish consumption from Ontario solution for Lake Superior. Also have a commitment to Action to act on this advisory as well.

* Need to take a careful approach.
- Environmental restoration as well as education of public.
- Need both components. Not one alone.

* Mercury levels not going up in fish tissue so controls on incineration, emissions, etc are helping. Programs like Switch the Switch and thermometer exchanges are extremely well done in our AOC.
* The more we learn about mercury, the more toxic we are finding it to be.
* If we continue to do a good job at controlling mercury emissions, mercury levels in fish should go down.

* Historic Sources of mercury to the environment:
- incineration
- fungicides and slimicides from paper production and house paint.
- Coal burning
- As far back as 1930s Flambeau River had fish advisories because of mercury used in paper production.
- Now coal burning is at the top of the list so we have eliminated some of the sources.

* Lake Superior is different from other lakes.
- Significant methylization of mercury does not occur in Lake Superior.
- The harbors and wetlands appear to have a significant role in methylization of mercury.
- 40% of the wetlands on Lake Superior are contained in our AOC, therefore this AOC may be a very significant source to Lake Superior. We have to be very careful how we set the goals and criteria.

* Can we do something about methylization in our wetlands?
- 80% of mercury that becomes active is in spring runoff.
- Housing developments going in on Midway River have terrible hydrology.
- Every spring it floods into Thompson Reservoir and stirs up sludge on bottom that contains historical mercury from the plants in Cloquet. Methylation of the old mercury deposits in reservoirs below Cloquet industries is not understood and needs research to determine the best plan of action. It is irresponsible to choose "natural recovery" in a reservoir system subject to floods and draw downs and even potential catastrophic failure of dams. Parts of the town of Carlton, MN have been evacuated in the past for fear of dam failure after a heavy rainfall. Mercury in the sediments is an element and therefore never destroyed.
- This stirred up material then runs into the river, harbor, and Lake Superior.

* We need to try to prevent mercury that is already in place from moving around and entering the food chain.
- Superfund sites.
- Capping forms and anaerobic environment. This could lead to methylization of the mercury located there. Methylmercury is more mobile than elemental mercury.

* We can't anticipate all the variables. We shouldn't prescribe a solution, just set a target/goal.

* They way these goals are presented in by others could be a factor in how to word them.
- They might present only our delisting goal or all goals could be presented equally.
- Want to keep our good high goals.
- Don't want to define away the problem.
- Want an actual environmental solution.
- Leave restoration goal high and if it gets an acceptable way to restoration goal maybe then it could be delisted. We need to establish what is "acceptable."

* All humans and critters should be able to eat fish from the AOC and not be impaired.

* It would be doable to set size ranges with limits on mercury in them. Have to get sport anglers to buy into these limits. Advisories say catch and release certain size fish but people ignore them.

* Education Goal
* Remediation Goal
* Regulatory Goal

* Proposed for discussion: The delisting goal is to protect human health through public education and 75% towards the impairment is fully restored.
- Need human health, but need to consider wildlife too.
- Awareness, knowledge of issue/threat, motive to achieve full restoration instead of public education
- Regulation - enforcement. Mercury from taconite processing and energy production could be a local or regional problem. Remind resource managers that Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act demands a TMDL program, that includes implementation, for the St. Louis River.
- 75%? At least this level. Put in quotes for discussion. Maybe it should be species specific? Example: walleyes - What would keep sport fishermen happy? 19" walleye?
- Need numbers on minimum and maximum lengths and what lengths fishermen want to catch to eat. Get hard numbers instead of percents?
- Long-term: We want to achieve 100% restoration in long term.
- If we protect human health, will it protect wildlife?

* The delisting goal is to be "x%" towards the restoration of the impairment through environmental remediation, regulation, and to protect human health through greater awareness, knowledge, and motive to adhere to long term restoration.

* Should we have another meeting before end of March?
- Need to write some of this down and share it with people who have attended these meetings and all think about it.
- Then need to get some advice from experts.
- Fish managers in state/federal agencies and health department experts.