Excessive Loading of Nutrients and Sediments (BUI #6) Preliminary Workgroup Meeting

Tuesday, February 17, 2004
6:30 - 8:30 pm
DeWitt-Seitz 3rd floor conference room

Attending: Dorothy Anway, Sean Hancock, Nancy Larson, Kay McKenzie, Paul Sandstrom, Ted Smith

• review of contents of folder
- Map of AOC
- Goals of RAP
- Historical Background of RAP
- Development of RAP
- Problems Identified in Stage I of RAP
- Agenda
- BUI worksheet - What we are trying to work on tonight.
- Final product worksheet to be sent to EPA
- Meeting schedule
- Calendar: November 2003 to September 2004.
* GLNPO grant to develop/facilitate the development of BUI restoration/delisting goals.
* Want to develop goals in our community.
* By end of August hope to have goals for the 9 BUIs ready to present to EPA.
- General Guidelines for Restoration Goal Development
* Goals are advisory in nature.
* We will not be revising the established Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) list for the St. Louis River. There were nine identified impaired uses (BUIs).

•IJC Criteria: An impairment will be listed when there are persistent water quality problems (e.g. dissolved oxygen depletion of bottom waters, nuisance algal blooms or accumulation, decreased water clarity, etc.) attributed to cultural eutrophication.

Although persistent water quality problems associated with eutrophication are not observed currently in the estuary, the high levels of nutrients and sediments being delivered to Lake Superior is an important concern. Therefore, the RAP will use a modification of the IJC eutrophication criterion to reflect local conditions.

Adaptation of IJC Criterion to Fit Local Conditions: High nutrient and sediment levels in the St. Louis River estuary lead to excessive loadings to Lake Superior, although these high nutrient levels do not seem to be expressed as eutrophication in the Area of Concern.

• SLR RAP Rational for Listing: Prior to the improvements in wastewater treatment in the late 1970's in this area, water quality and biological investigations characterized the St. Louis estuary as eutrophic. At this time, the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) treatment plant was built and the Superior wastewater treatment plant was upgraded. Since that time, many indicators of trophic status have shown improvements. For instance, concentrations of total phosphorus, ammonia, and organic nitrogen have decreased in the St. Louis Bay. The loading of phosphorus to the estuary from point sources has been reduced substantially. Further work is needed to ascertain the effects of nonpoint source loadings to the system and to Lake Superior. Despite the reductions in point source loadings, phosphorus concentrations in the estuary remain at levels where eutrophic conditions might be expected. However, algal biomass has been lower than would be expected given these high phosphorus concentrations. Chlorophyll A concentrations measured in the estuary have been similar to levels found in mesotrophic or oligotrophic waters. Several investigators have proposed that reduced light penetration due to turbidity and color may be a limiting factor for algal growth in the estuary. Although persistent water quality problems associated with eutrophication are not observed currently in the estuary, the high levels of nutrients and sediments being delivered to Lake Superior is an important concern. Therefore, the RAP will use a modification of the IJC eutrophication criterion to reflect local conditions.

* The adaptation to the IJC criteria was made with the full approval and support of the IJC.

* Diparia (sp?) are a bottom dwelling scud. Important as a base of the food chain for many fish (ex. whitefish). Two millimeters long at largest. Diparia have collapsed in Lake Michigan due to zebra mussels. This has led to the collapse of the whitefish population there. There is also a new exotic mussel that has been introduced into Lake Michigan (name?).

* SLR AOC includes part of Lake Superior. It is important to consider this when talking about our AOC. It's not just the river and estuary.
- Nutrient concentrations in the estuary are extremely high. Have to worry about this loading into Lake Superior.
- Algal blooms are a symptom of high nutrient concentration but are not the source of the impairment.
- The SLR estuary doesn't experience severe algal blooms. This may be due to light limitation because of high turbidity of the water.
- If we remove turbidity and other problems in an effort to clean up the river, we may start seeing increased plant and algal growth.
- River may actually appear to be worse as the nutrient concentrations are decreased.

* One idea is to discharge the water we treat at the treatment plants inland to replenish aquifers and groundwater rather than discharging it into the lake.
- 8000 acres of wetlands in Superior.

* Superior Wastewater Treatment Plant uses ferric chloride to reduce phosphorus in discharged wastewater. They are investigating ways to reduce nitrogen.

* There is a lot of phosphorus and nitrogen in the sediment of the estuary, so even if we eliminate all phosphorus/nitrogen sources to the river/estuary, we may still see elevated nutrient concentrations for decades.

* Definitely still an impaired use and will take a while to restore.
- Need to correct nutrient and sediment loadings to St. Louis River.
- Then correct historical sources already in the river.
- Fertilizing, clearing trees and native vegetation, cultural activities, dredging, ditch washouts, soil erosion and slumping banks are all sources that contribute sediment, phosphorus, and nitrogen into the river.

* Will we ever get to a point with no current loading?
- No
- Need to develop a baseline or acceptable level of loading.

* Nonpoint source pollution is a problem.
- Some education is starting on this problem.
- Need to teach people that what they do on land directly impacts water quality.
- Just because water looks clear and clean doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
- Need to keep this BUI in the forefront of people's minds.

* Protect Lake Superior from excessive loading and you will be fixing many of the AOC problems (Nemadji, St. Louis River watersheds).

* We are upstream. People downstream have no excuse not to clean up if we give clean water to them.

* Trend to delist rather than restore amoung AOCs lately. Might be appropriate at some locations but not on Lake Superior. Especially not at the Head of the Lake.

* Politically emphasizing Lake Superior might give us clout.

* Many times you need to show something is a problem before people will do anything. We need the opposite approach. Need to keep it from becoming a problem.
- Zoning has to be enforced. People build too close to the river and cutting down trees on the shore leads to slumping and undercutting of river banks.

* As a natural group need to keep a positive image.
- Don't say cant do this or can't do that.
- Say we've been doing it this way and it is causing problems. Here are some alternatives.

* Watersheds are complicated.
- Have some good milestones.
- Milestones are easier to deal with and provide some positive feedback. They show progress.
- Examples: x amount of education for public, y feet of enforced setbacks on river.

* Have had good progress on getting point sources of pollution cleaned up. Nonpoint sources and public education seem lacking. Still have a long way to go to goal. Need to set some achievable steps.
- Remove from list when everyone has been exposed to program?
- Remove from list when you have a certain setback?
- Nutrient levels less than x amount?
- When nutrients are at x level in food chain?

* Need a long term vision even if never achievable.
- One ideal goal = concentration of nutrients in SLR no greater than in Lake Superior for instance.
- Need to make sure Lake Superior doesn't get too dirty! Maybe use ideal Lake Superior.
- Vision statement/ideal goal might make easier to develop restoration goals.
- Need to start somewhere to get the process going.

* Restoration goal / Delisting goal - may not be the same thing.

* We don't know everything there is to know. Set goals with idea that future scientists may come up with solutions we haven't though of.
- Periodic evaluations?

* Goals:
- Ultimate goal may be to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings to pre-settlement levels?
- Maybe use loading from a 40 year old forest as baseline?
- Pre-settlement levels could be achievable.
- Buffer strips, riparian areas, retention ponds, etc. can all help reduce loadings.
- Need way to find a pre-settlement concentration in the St. Louis River.
- Maybe a Restoration Goal could be to reduce nutrient concentrations to some level (50%?) above pre-settlement concentrations by a certain date.
- Don't want pre-settlement conditions. We want pre-settlement quality.
- Goal: 30% reduction in phosphorus?
- Need an education campaign to tell how to do this. People would buy protecting water as long as they don't have to give up uses of it.

* Urban Erosion: 15 year project, slowly making progress.

* We'd like to preserve fishing, boating opportunities, and swimming. This could be a better way to present goals than using the words presettlement condition.

* All levels of government own forest land and sell out forest rights. Average person sometimes isn't comfortable with how the land is cut. Can see that the government is violating its own rules.

* Using science and BMPs to reduce loading and achieve a concentration level closer to presettlement conditions.
- Use a different word than presettlement.
- Have to come up with a more positive way to say.
- Have to make it easy for people.

* Instead of concentration on way to implement, have to come up with the goal we want to reach.

* Other AOCs:
- Collingwood Harbor - Restoration Target for Delisting: All harbor waters have persistent phosphorus concentrations of less than 20 micrograms per liter, a Secchi disc transparency of greater than 1.2 meters, dissolved oxygen at saturation, chlorophyll concentrations of less than 10 micrograms per liter, unionized ammonia of less than 0.02 milligrams per liter, and phosphorus load from the sewage treatment plant of less than 2760 kilograms per year.
- Saginaw River/ Bay - Targeted Restoration Condition: The average concentration of total phosphorus is 15 micrograms per liter or less, in accordance with the supplement to Annex 3 of the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (as amended).
- Rochester Embayment: Total phosphorus concentrations for near (11 to 12 meters) and near-nearshore (1 meter) are less than or equal to 15 parts per billion and 20 parts per billion, respectively; and chlorophyll a concentrations for the near (11 to 12 meters) and near-nearshore (1 meter) are less than or equal to 3.8 parts per billion and 5 parts per billion, respectively; and Secchi disk measurements in the nearshore (12 meters) are greater than or equal to 4 meters.
- Grant Calumet - Delisting Guideline: When there are no persistent water quality problems (e.g. dissolved oxygen depletion of bottom waters, nuisance algal blooms or accumulation, decreased water clarity, etc.) attributed to cultural eutrophication.

* Common theme: 15 micrograms per liter phosphorus
- Other AOCs have straight IJC criteria, not adapted.
- Our phosphorus concentration is much higher than 15 micrograms per liter. Probably something close to 300 micrograms per liter.
- Natural or not needs to be determined.
- We have concentrations generally associated with cultural eutrophication but we don't have the expected visual symptoms.
- Cultural = due to people not nature. Eutrophication = the process by which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients (as phosphates) that stimulate the growth of aquatic plant life usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen.
- Important part is to reduce impacts of people to estuary and the delivery of sediment to estuary.
- Eliminate inputs to river. Then cleanup sites to reduce nutrients to system.
- Forestry, stormwater, urban, etc. are nonpoint sources.
- WDNR, MDNR, MPCA, Land Conservation Depts. are tools.

* Restore watershed runoff to pre-urban level. Then input of pollutants can be reduced to near pre-settlement conditions.

* Goal can help drive decisions in the community.

* We have a river/estuary system versus a lake system. Need to reduce inputs before dealing with historical sources at sites present in the system.

* Should we have a goal to restore to a previous state or use a concentration number?
- Number is ok as long as a good background for it.
- Say pre-settlement is 5 micrograms per liter. Maybe we can get to 10 micrograms per liter.
- John Kingstead, formerly MN SeaGrant, could maybe help develop the pre-settlement number.

* Objective for discussion: Input of nutrients and sediments to be reduced to near pre-settlement levels. Reduce in-pace nutrients and sediments in the river and bay.
- Could we use water 1 mile out in Lake Superior as a baseline?
- Maybe instead of comparing river to lake, compare river of 200 years ago to river today.
- Goal: Reduce nutrient levels to pre-settlement levels?
- At least can get significantly closer to pre-settlement levels.
- Restoration of water quality in estuary through lowering of nutrient levels.

* Can we get numbers? Yes, we can.

* Don't want to leave something out because we didn't think of it or didn't know about it.

* Paul - Find someone who can estimate pre-settlement concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen.
* Sean - Will bring grant writing worksheet on developing goals from workshop by instructor Sue Newhauser.
* Get together again before end of March.
- R.C. Boheim, Rick Gitar both wanted to come.
- Thursday, March 11, 2004, 9:00 am is next meeting.