Red River Basin Disaster Information Network
On-line Workshop
July 27, 2000 -- 12:00 Noon CDT

Water Quality
A Watershed Approach

John Giedt
Source Water & Ground Water Team Leader
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
U.S. Secretary, International Red River Board

Molly MacGregor
Principal Planner, Red River Basin Coordinator
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Amy Sebring, Moderator
RRBDIN Coordinator/EIIP Technical Projects Coordinator

[Introduction]

Amy Sebring: Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us in the Red River room of the EIIP Virtual Forum. Our topic today is Water Quality: A Watershed Approach.

We will be posting a number of related links today during the session, and you will most likely not have time to view all of them. They will be included in the transcript, and you can come back and view them at your convenience. Background information for today's session may be found at http://www.emforum.org/redriver/workshop/wk000727.htm

We have two guests with us today. First, John Giedt, who is with EPA Region 8 where he is currently the Source Water & Ground Water Team Leader, and who also has been serving as the U.S. Secretary for the International Red River Pollution Control Board. Welcome John.

John Giedt: Hi - glad to be here, in virtual reality.

Amy Sebring: We are also pleased to have Molly MacGregor with us, representing the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and who currently serves as Red River Basin Coordinator, based in the Detroit Lakes office. Welcome Molly.

Molly MacGregor: Hello!

Amy Sebring: We are going to start with John who is providing an update on the IJC approach and activities. We will follow his overview with an opportunity for your questions and comments. Then we will continue with Molly's presentation about activities in Minnesota, followed by Q&A.

[Water Quality and the International Red River Board]

John Giedt: Pursuant to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, and under terms of references received from the governments of the US and Canada, the IJC formed the International Souris-Red Rivers Engineering Board in 1948, and the International Red River Pollution Board in 1969.

The Engineering Board's responsibilities were associated with the use and apportionment of transboundary waters, including diversions, dams, and flood control measures. The Pollution Board's responsibility was to establish continuous supervision over the quality of Red River crossing the boundary, including monitoring for water quality objectives, alert levels, and the aquatic ecosystem health. The responsibilities of the Engineering Board and Pollution Board frequently overlapped, and so for some time, the two Boards jointly monitored basin activities and held a combined annual meeting.

As a result of the IJC's 21st Century Report, issued Oct 1997, the Boards recommended that the IJC combine the Boards into a single Board, with consideration of future establishment of an International Watershed Board for the Red River. At its April 2000 semi-annual meeting, the IJC formed the new International Red River Board. The IRRB's mandate is to assist the IJC in preventing and resolving disputes regarding the waters and aquatic ecosystem of the Red River and it's transboundary tributaries.

This will be accomplished through the application of best available science and knowledge of the aquatic ecosystem of the basin, and an awareness of the needs, expectations and capabilities of residents of the Red River Basin.

The IRRB held its 1st annual meeting in Detroit Lakes, MN on June 28 - 29, 2000. A public participation session was held on June 29. The IJC requested the IRRB to draft a new directive that takes into account the union of the boards and membership, including enhanced public participation. The IJC also requested the IRRB consider what recommendations from the recent International Red River Basin Task Force's final Flood Report could be undertaken.

The IRRB will prepare an annual report for presentation to the IJC at its annual meeting to be held during late September in Ottawa, Ontario. Also, at this meeting, the IRRB will submit its recommendations for a consolidated directive, membership, and the Task Force Report.

The annual report will include....

• Water Quality at the International Boundary, including 1) discharge; and 2) pH and temperature.

• Water Quality Objectives, including 1) Dissolved Oxygen (IJC objective: greater than 5.0 mg/L); 2) Total Dissolved Solids (IJC objective: less than 500 mg/L) 3) Chloride (IJC objective: less than 100 mg/L); 4) Sulfate (IJC objective: less than 250 mg/L); and 5) Fecal Coliform (IJC objective: less than 200 colonies per 100 mL).

• Alert Levels, including 1) the Board listing of alert levels to complement existing water quality objectives; 2) Lindane and Mercury commonly exceed the alert levels; and 3) other pesticides and herbicides are intermittently exceed alert levels.

• Status reports from ND, MN and Manitoba, including 1) Ambient water quality monitoring program; 2) fish advisories; 3) biological monitoring program; 4) pollution abatement; and 5) spills and releases.

The annual report also summarizes other issues and activities of interest to the Board.

Finally, the IJC requested the IRRB consider developing a Watershed Information Network, that would enhance basin-wide communication, and provide an awareness of IJC involvements. EPA agreed to provide $100K for a pilot project. Currently, EPA/8 is discussing best approaches for a WIN Grant with local organizations. We are interested in gaining local input, for example --- Should it involve an onsite coordinator? Should it include a fact sheet or brochure? How could it compliment or enhance ongoing local efforts? This concludes my formal remarks.

Amy Sebring: Thank you very much John for preparing this information and being with us today. We will take audience comments and questions next.

[Questions/Comments from Audience]

Question:

Molly MacGregor: John, what's the schedule on the WIN grant?

John Giedt: Hi Molly, we just received the funding from EPA/HQ & are uncertain if we can pull a grant together this FY --- maybe by early Fall.

Question:

Terry Birkenstock: The RRBDIN, our attempt to build a basin information network --- can you discuss how you see the two overlapping? RRBDIN and WIN.

John Giedt: Paul & I briefly discussed this. We are hopeful we can complement each other. I am particularly impressed with the notion of expanding RRBDIN. We are open to further discussions and ideas. I would appreciate hearing more from you.

Question:

Amy Sebring: John, are/will the Board reports be available from the IJC Website?

John Giedt: Amy, the Boards have space on the IJC Website for reports. First, we need to upgrade the new IRRB page, then include the annual report

Question:

Mark Deutschman: John, could part of complimenting the RRBDIN be developing aspect specific to water quality? Could funding be available to do this?

John Giedt: Yes, I think that would be a good way of communicating our water quality role. IRRB is exploring many options with the IJC; funding for IRRB expanded duties is very high on the list.

Question:

Mark Deutschman: Are you aware that concept development of the next RRBDIN phase is in progress?

John Giedt: Mark - I must admit I am not well versed in RRBDIN upcoming actions.

Molly MacGregor: What do you have in mind Mark - perhaps posting of data and interpretation of implications for water quality?

Mark Deutschman: Certainly data access is a possibility.

Comment:

Paul Bourget: Maybe I can help clarify what Mark's talking about. Our intent going forward is to expand the scope of RRBDIN to the point of dropping the D designator and focusing on a broader watershed management approach. We're asking how we can all work together to achieve this, I believe.

John Giedt: Thanks Paul, that is what I was referring to in my earlier comment.

Amy Sebring: We are hoping that John will accept an invitation to come to our August Network Growth meeting to tell us more about the WIN network.

John Giedt: We held a WIN meeting at the Detroit Lakes meeting. Molly prepared some notes from that meeting. More recently, in talking with the EPA/8 WIN project officer, she expressed interest in furthering discussion with RRBDIN - which wasn't included in D/L meeting. So, we will appreciate your thoughts and ideas. Timing for such coordination should start soon.

Question:

Amy Sebring: John, what kind of comments/feedback did you get in the June public meeting; were they generally supportive of combining the boards for example?

John Giedt: Molly - can you help me out?

Molly MacGregor: The public meeting was a chance for the states to report on issues we had and there wasn't much discussion about response to the board. I believe some of that occurred during the public meetings in April and May. Jim probably knows more about that than I do.

Comment:

James Moench: We at RRBB supported the combination of the boards and we supported the RRBDIN as the information tool of the new combined board.

Amy Sebring: Thanks Jim, and thank you John. Molly, are you ready to proceed?

[Minnesota's Reports on the Health of the Red River]

Molly MacGregor: Nonpoint source pollution is the No. 1 threat to water quality for Minnesota's share of the Rd River Basin. That's significant for the entire basin since Minnesota's 11 tributaries contribute a large proportion of water to the Red in the United States.

Managing nonpoint source pollution requires a variety of responses, from information to enforcement of existing regulations. Implementing these strategies requires participation of all levels of government, and awareness and participation by individuals. In short, nonpoint source pollution can't be addressed from the top down.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has adopted a Basin Plan to establish the framework for identifying and addressing nonpoint source pollution problems in the Red River Basin. First step was publication of a Basin Information Document, listing water resources and threats to water quality, in 1997. The next step was a plan listing water quality issues and goals for achieving improvements. That plan was published in 1999 and is available on line at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/redriver/wqplan/index.html.

Currently, a team representing citizens, industry, water users and all levels of government is working together to implement the plan. This effort has broad implications: degraded water quality in the Red River of the North basin has a significant impact locally, as well as nationally and internationally.

How healthy is the Red River in Minnesota? According to the state's biennial report to the U.S. Congress, water quality meets designated uses. However, conditions are stressed for aquatic life. This report is available for download via http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/basins/redriv98.pdf.

For the 1998 report, 149 river reaches on the Red and its tributaries were assessed, using either actual monitoring data or a survey of local resource managers. The 1998 stream assessment found water quality limited at nearly three-quarters of the sites monitored (91 of the 149 reaches). These limitations affect aquatic life, and tell us that water quality is compromised in these river reaches. How water quality is limited by pollution is explained at the web site of the University of Minnesota's soils department: See http://www.soils.agri.umn.edu/research/redriver/doc/watqualnew.html.

Pollutants of concern in the Red River of the North basin include bacteria and other disease causing organisms, suspended sediments, excess nutrients, and decaying organic matter responsible for low levels of oxygen. These pollutants come from a variety of sources including runoff and wind and water erosion from agricultural fields, stream channel scouring, city streets, construction sites, feedlots, and the effluent from wastewater treatment plants and septic systems.

The states of Minnesota and North Dakota and the Region 5 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have developed a method to assess the biological health of the Red River and its tributaries. (See Region 5 EPA's web site for background on the value of biological assessments at: http://www.epa.gov/ceisweb1/ceishome/atlas/bioindicators/biologicalindicators.html.)

This study found that the health of the Red's tributaries is stressed. Restoring the health of the tributaries will help the water quality of the Red River, the study reported. "There are a number of plausible explanations for the low biotic integrity of headwater streams in the Lake Agassiz Plain ecoregion. Stream channelization limits ecological quality of streams. Negative effects may be most pronounced on small headwater streams where many have been straightened and rerouted to serve as field drainage systems for row crops.

"Stream channelization reduced habitat quality by reducing pool depth and substrate heterogeneity, altering riffle-pool sequences, increasing turbidity, and reducing the retention time for water remaining in the stream channel...," the report stated.

"The importance of headwater streams cannot be over emphasized. Although headwater streams in this ecoregion did not typically support year-round game fish populations, they did serve an important function in providing many game fish species with suitable spawning habitat. In addition, headwater streams were important components in river drainage networks and served as an entry point for pollutants from the terrestrial environment. Therefore, the condition of moderate sized streams and large rivers was intimately tied to the condition of headwater streams," the report states.

Minnesota's Red River Basin Water Quality Team is working cooperatively to restore the water quality of the Red River and its tributaries. The Team has identified projects that will help meet its goal of reducing sediment to the Red River. The Team will be seeking federal funds for these projects through the Pollution Control Agency this fall. In October, the Team will begin developing a comprehensive best management practices manual for protecting water quality of the Red River Basin.

The Red River Basin Water Quality Team welcomes public involvement. Next meeting is Monday, Oct. 23, at Fertile, MN, and meetings will be held on the fourth Monday of every month through May. The Team publishes an electronic newsletter about water quality. For information about the Basin Team, its plan and meetings, or to subscribe to the e-newsletter, send a message to molly.macgregor@pca.state.mn.us or call 218/826-0494.

[Questions/Comments from Audience]

Question:

Bob Halliday: Molly/John, I know major steps have been taken in dealing with point sources. could you comment on the relative importance of point/non-point sources on the MN tributaries and main stem

Molly MacGregor: There aren't many point sources on the main stem - agriculture processing and municipal waste water treatment --- an important issue for the basin plan is control of NPS because the Red is a drinking water source for four MN cities and 6 in ND. Drinking water suppliers are pushing MPCA to consider NPS issues and safe drinking water in permits trying to increase the distance of notification to downstream users, for example --- turbidity and sediment in releases affect operations of drinking water plants.

John Giedt: The NPDES permit program has been underway for many years. EPA has identified non-point sources as the major new challenge.

Question:

John Giedt: Does the team effort you noted in your presentation include coordination with the 303d impaired waters designations and TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) corrective action planning?

Molly MacGregor: First comment to Terry - releases from Lake Travers are an issue, for example. Re: TMDLs, we are proposing that the Basin Team be the coordinating body for development of TMDLs. We recognize that some TMDLs may be due to NPS, such as turbidity and biological impairment while others for dissolved oxygen on the Ottertail and the Roseau may reflect natural conditions.

Question:

John Giedt: EPA/8 also considers the Red River a priority watershed; are our efforts being coordinated with you and the team efforts?

Molly MacGregor: Hmm, not aware of coordination with Region 8 on TMDL's on the Red, but it would make sense. ND's list is slightly different from MN's. USGS is planning to do data collection and modeling on some of our TMDLs; Mark, are you looking at doing one on the Buffalo?

Mark Deutschman: It is in the early planning stages. More of a look at the watershed as a whole.

And the 303(d) list, then to TMDL. The WD has yet to approve this.

Question:

Amy Sebring: Molly do you get good citizen participation in your planning and implementation process? Are people in the region interested?

Molly MacGregor: We have good citizen participation, but it could be more. An upcoming issue is what kind of organizational structure we need to continue basin planning in the future. Our plan is founded on existing outside the MPCA and we certainly don't want to start a new group in the Red! But becoming more formal will probably be necessary, especially if we are successful in attempts to coordinate the state's NPS funding.

Question:

Amy Sebring: Thanks, I would like to get John's comments regarding citizen participation?

Can you comment regarding citizen participation in the region; how the combined board may encourage, for example? Yes, go ahead please, John, then we will come back to Mark to finish up for today.

John Giedt: IRRB is drafting a new membership proposal to the IJC. The IJC is looking for enhanced public participation, more than just appearing at a public meeting - some kind of active participation role. We will be providing recommendations to the IJC this FALL for their consideration. The IJC recognizes the importance of local involvement as we proceed toward a true International watershed approach. Sorry that I cannot provide more details now, but we should have final direction from the IJC this fall.

Comment:

Mark Deutschman: I think coordination is the key to success. There are many entities working in the basin, but I'm concerned about a common direction/vision. I sometimes wonder who will step forward and accept this challenge (successfully).

Molly MacGregor: We talk about coordination in the office and just coordinating the various water planning efforts --- TMDL's, source water, even NPDES permit review would be big steps forward and maybe something we could easily pull off. The drinking water suppliers have been a big push towards a holistic view and they have a message that should resonate with everyone --- we all want to drink clean water!

Comment:

Paul Bourget: I think we're rapidly approaching a point of convergence on all these initiatives.

Amy Sebring: John final comment before we wrap up?

John Giedt: I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the IRRB role. Communication is a big issue for us as well. An information clearing house for all the efforts, data, etc., would be highly valuable.

[Closing]

Amy Sebring: Our time is up. Thanks to both of our guests today for taking the time to share this information with us and thanks to all of you for participating. I will post a transcript of the session and send out a notice when it is available, however, since I am travelling today, it most likely will not be until Monday.

We will adjourn our formal session at this time, however, if you wish to chat further, you are welcome to do so. You no longer need to wait to be recognized.