Wild Rice Sulfate Standard Study

& Preliminary Analysis

Laurentian Vision Partnership Meeting May 5, 2014

Shannon Lotthammer

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Wild Rice Sulfate Standard

Studies found correlation between lower sulfate and wild rice

Sulfate standard adopted in 1973 to protect wild rice production

“10 mg/L, applicable to water used for production of wild rice during periods when the rice may be susceptible to damage by high sulfate levels”

Implementing the Sulfate Standard

Additional information needed

Study protocol developed

2011 Legislation: $1.5 million for wild rice standards study from the

Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment

Advisory committee to provide input on study protocol, research results and rulemaking

MPCA to initiate rulemaking upon completing the study

Wild Rice Standards Study Advisory

Committee Kurt Anderson, Minnesota Power (ALLETE), wild rice

harvester

Leonard Anderson, wild rice harvester, citizen

Sara Barsel, citizen

Mike Appelwick, Northeast Technical Services

David Biesboer, University of Minnesota

Jennifer Engstrom, Minnesota DNR

Tracy Ekola, Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board (MESERB)

Ann Geisen, Minnesota DNR

Craig Johnson, League of Minnesota Cities

David Hatchett, Mesabi Mining

Kathryn Hoffman, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

Peter Lee, Lakehead University

John P. Lenczewski, Minnesota Trout Unlimited

Paula Maccabee, WaterLegacy

Joe Mayasich, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District

Anne Nelson, wild rice harvester, Wetlands and Water Committee of the Sierra Club

Beth Nelson, Minnesota Cultivated Wild Rice Council

Frank Ongaro, MiningMinnesota

Robert Pillsbury, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Raymie Porter, University of Minnesota

Robin Richards, ENVIRON International Corporation

Lloyd Grooms, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce

Shane Bowe, Red Lake Nation Foods and Red Lake Department of Natural Resources

Nancy Schuldt, Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa

Robert Shimek, wild rice harvester, member of Red Lake Band

David Skolasinski or Rob Beranek, Cliffs Natural Resources

David Smiga, U.S. Steel

Rod Ustipak, Minnesota Wild Rice Company, wild rice harvester

Rachel Walker, Barr Engineering

Darren Vogt, 1854 Treaty Authority

Wild Rice Standard Study

Goal: Enhance understanding of the effects of sulfate on wild rice; inform standard evaluation

Key avenues of investigation: Laboratory experiments

Field survey

Container experiments

Sediment experiments

Any standard modification will be based on multiple info. sources

Study Results and Preliminary Analysis

Data collection completed in December 2013

Reports posted

MPCA preliminary analysis posted March 12

Summarized MPCA analysis to date – further analysis ongoing

www.pca.state.mn.us/ktqh1083

Hydroponic Growth Tests (Dose-Response)

Germination Test (50 seeds per jar; 3 jars per treatment)

Juvenile Seedling Test (7 plants per bottle, 3 bottles per treatment)

Preliminary analysis: Sulfate treatments did not produce statistically-significant

impacts in hydroponic tests

Sulfide treatments (exposure level #2) did produce a statistically-significant reduction of seedling growth

Hydroponic seedling exposures

Maintaining exposure levels was a challenge, addressed in analysis

Method exposed whole seedling, which may or may not be an issue

Hydroponic Exposure Level #2 significantly reduced seedling growth

Effects not observed at 134 µg/L, observed at 309 µg/L

Regression Analysis of Hydroponic Sulfide Seedling Test Results

Effect concentration estimates can be used to interpret results

100 1,000 10,000

Mean Initial Sulfide Concentration (µg/L)

Change in

Weight (mg/day)

Field Survey

Can further inform understanding of sulfate-sulfide-wild rice relationship

Allows examination of other variables Iron, Others?

Targeted site selection Goal: Characterize

potential wild rice habitat across a range of sulfate

Comparing to other data

Wild Rice Field Survey Surface water

Na, K, Mg, Ca, Fe

SO4, Cl

Alkalinity, pH, conductivity, Total P, Total N,

Ammonia, Nitrate + Nitrite, transparency

Porewater

Sulfide

Na, K, Mg, Ca,

SO4, Cl

Total P, Total N, Silica

Ammonia, Nitrate + Nitrite

DOC (dissolved organic carbon)

Fe, Cu, Zn, Co, Ni, Mn, Mo, Se, As, B

Bulk Sediment Chemistry

Acid-Volatile Sulfide

Total carbon, phosphorus, nitrogen, sulfur

Phosphorus fractionation

Simultaneously-Extracted Metals:

Fe, Cu, Zn, Co, Ni, Mn, Mo, Se, As, B

Other Sediment Properties

Water

organic matter

carbonate content

Organic grain size

Wild rice phytolith presence/absence

Sediment coring at field site

Principal Components Analysis (PCA)

Tool to examine relationships among multiple variables measured at field sites

Additional analysis underway

Proportion of sites with at least 5% cover of wild rice declines with increasing porewater sulfide

• Field data consistent with observation that wild rice is less successful when porewater sulfide is above 150 to 300 µg/L

• May need to adopt a sediment porewater sulfide standard

Iron in porewater has a strong role in controlling sulfide in porewater

Sulfide and iron in porewater

Incorrect data point

Wild rice tends to grow where porewater is low in sulfide and high in iron

Because of iron, plots of sulfide on sulfate are wedge-shaped

Quantile Regression is an appropriate way to analyze pollutants whose effects

have multiple controls

• For example:

• wedge-shaped data between phosphorus and chlorophyll in streams (Fig. 22, Minnesota Nutrient Criteria Development for Rivers).

Quantile regression is a useful way to relate sulfide levels to surface water sulfate

Analysis continues

Preliminary Analysis, Summary

Although sulfate is not directly toxic to wild rice, it can be converted to sulfide, which can be toxic

Laboratory experiments showed reduced seedling growth when sulfide exceeded 150 to 300 µg/L Field data reinforced this

May need a sediment porewater sulfide standard

Preliminary Analysis, Cont.

Sulfide in the porewater is affected by sulfate in surface water and iron in porewater

Site-specific standards may be needed

Continue to examine if characteristics of water body type affect sulfide concentrations

Further explore “period of susceptibility” of wild rice to sulfate

23

Next Steps

Feedback from Advisory Committee

Meetings with interested parties

Continue data analysis scientific review doc.

Expert scientific review – summer 2014

If MPCA recommends change to standard:

Develop Technical Support Document

Initiate formal rulemaking

Informal and formal comment opportunities

Also exploring implementation & policy questions

More about Scientific Peer Review

Contracted with independent company -- ERG

25

Activity Date/Timeframe DRAFT

MPCA continues to refine the analysis, considering feedback received

April – May 2014

MPCA review document and technical charge sent to peer reviewers and Advisory Committee

Early June 2014

Advisory Committee members submit feedback on review document; ERG sends this feedback to peer reviewers for their consideration

Late June/Early July 2014

Peer review meeting held Early August 2014

Final meeting summary from ERG Early September 2014

Thank You!

Shannon.lotthammer@state.mn.us; 651/757-2537

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ktqh1083