Fish Consumption Advisory (BUI #1) Preliminary Workgroup Meeting

Monday, November 3, 2003
6:30 - 8:30 pm
DeWitt-Seitz 3rd floor conference room

Attending: J. Howard McCormick, Ted Smith

• RAP/AOC process overview - handout

• status of all Great Lakes AOCs according to IJC (ijc.org)
- IJC says the restoration work of AOCs is greater in U.S. than Canada. Two Canadian AOCs have been delisted, one Canadian/one U.S. in process of restoration.
- 7/10 Canadian AOCs have chosen natural restoration. No clear guidelines for selecting this.
- IJC wants U.S. government to provide the IJC with a schedule of restoration targets for each AOC within two years.
- Reason for these meetings. CAC board in May said would like to do meetings locally to decide restoration goals rather than having someone in Chicago or Washington decide them for us.
* IJC advises federal government. IJC has clout with EPA only if President says they do. States have no obligation to do what IJC suggests. No funding comes from IJC to states.

• review of contents of folder
- Calendar/timeline: September 2004 forward restoration goals to EPA.
* We need to get message out/communication better to get better participation at these meetings.
- Goals of RAP
* Precedes the current CAC. Were formed during the development of the 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, 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.
- BUI Rational for Removing from the Impairment List: This is what we are trying to develop tonight.
- Preliminary Workgroup Meeting Schedule
- Agenda
- General Guidelines for Restoration Goal Development
* Might recognize deficiencies in BUIs but won't be editing them.
* Consensus - compromise will make goals more acceptable and therefore more effective.
* Goals go through who? Getting responsible parties to table would be most powerful.

• 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.

* IJC criteria has been revised in the past if necessary.
* Rational for Listing: Have we gone beyond the rational for listing?
- Rational is still true for consumption of fish advisories.
- Mercury, PCBs not collectively issued, but selectively. Mercury and PCBs are separate studies.
- Mercury is still an issue for sure. Probably true for PCBs. What about PAH?

* Pat, MN Dept. of Health: MN uses arbitrary sizes for fish consumption advisories. WI uses fish ages for advisories.
- Generally size and age can be statistically related.
- Prior to 1995, advisories differed in species and size of fish between MN/WI. Candice Shrank (WI) and Pat Johnson (MN) worked together and advisories are now similar.
- Should now be able to use Interstate water data from both states.

* What rationale can we use for taking this off the BUI list?
1. Strict approach: BUI will not be lifted until data supports that mercury/PCB residue levels are below standards (.5 mg/kg and .1 mg/kg).
- Reduction of all residue levels below standards is no likely. Biggest fish will still contain residues in excess of the standards.
- No mercury at all isn't reasonable. Will always have some mercury in fish tissue.
2. Inputs are no longer anthropogenic (due to humans).
- Statistical control parameters allow some fish to fall outside standards and still be acceptable.
3. Look at statistics that were used by both states to issue advisories. We don't have to agree with it, but it is a place to start.
- Dioxin levels? Patty King study not significant in SLR?

* Is goal to have no advisories or is it to have reduced contaminants in fish?
- Restoration goal should be to have people able to consume fish (no matter what the contaminant: mercury, PCB, dioxin, PAH, etc) unrestricted.
- Sport fish: need license for that fish. Some people eat carp though.
- Want unrestricted consumption of fish without harmful health effects.
- Have an interim goal to get advisories reduced to cover only fish greater than x (23?) inches. Then get next goal to be unrestricted consumption.

* Ultimate goal: no mercury in fish.
* Restoration Goal/Delisting Goal: all fish naturally have mercury so use different goal. No advisories issued to restrict consumption.
* Interim Goal/Progress Goal: Advisories limited to walleye greater than x (27, 29?) inches or 1 meal of this fish every x (month, week, etc).

* 90% of mercury in SLR comes from air deposition. Will we ever see a reduction in mercury in fish?
- Don't set too easy a goal. Lake Superior is an international resource. Need to have reasonable goals, but still need to reduce effects no matter where the source of the pollution comes from.

* Goals
1. Progress Goal: No advisories under x inches or y meals a week/month.
2. Delisting Goal: Goal to agree to delist AOC.
3. Restoration Goal: no significaÚÛØÙÞßÜ