Paula Goodman Maccabee, Esq.

Just Change Law Offices 1961 Selby Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota 55104, pmaccabee@justchangelaw.com

Ph: 651-646-8890, Fax: 651-646-5754, Cell 651-775-7128 http://justchangelaw.com

May 14, 2013 Delivered by Electronic Mail Shannon Lotthammer, MPCA (shannon.lotthammer@state.mn.us) Katrina Kessler, MPCA (katrina.kessler@state.mn.us) Pat Engelking, MPCA (pat.engelking@state.mn.us) RE: Wild Rice Impaired Waters Assessment Wild Rice Advisory Committee Follow-up from May 1, 2013 Meeting Dear Ms. Lotthammer, Ms. Kessler, Ms. Engelking: Thank you for providing members of the Wild Rice Advisory Committee with an opportunity to comment on the wild rice impaired waters assessment and 2013 wild rice testing work plan and ongoing studies. The following comments are submitted on behalf of WaterLegacy, a grassroots non-profit organization formed to protect Minnesota’s water resources and the communities that rely on them. Wild Rice Impaired Waters Should Not be Limited to those with 10 Data Points As we explained during the Committee meeting on May 1, 2013, the requirement that there be at least 10 sulfate measurements in order for a body of water to be considered for inclusion on the wild rice impaired waters list appears to be arbitrary and would result in an inappropriate exclusion of information from tribal expert sources. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has proposed a requirement that only median data showing a 90 percent probability that elevation would not have occurred by chance be used. We believe that this statistical requirement is sufficient to determine whether a data set of fewer than 10 points indicates that levels of sulfate have exceeded the state water quality standard. If data show sulfates from 11 to 20 mg/L, for example, the median of a limited data set is unlikely to meet statistical requirements. If data reflects sulfates at 80 or 100 mg/L, the median may well demonstrate exceedance even if fewer than 10 data points are provided. The MPCA was informed on May 1, 2013 that data collected by the 1854 Treaty Authority does not include 10 or more sulfate measurements for relevant bodies of water. Absent evidence that the 1854 Treaty Authority data is unreliable, WaterLegacy would object to any artificial data limit that excludes assessment by this expert source of information. Year-Round Sulfate Concentrations Should be Considered to Determine Impairment There is no basis in law, precedent or science to restrict assessments of wild rice impaired waters to those where high sulfate levels were detected from April through August. Although the Agency very recently, in response to industry pressure, stated in one individual permit case – the Mesabi Nugget NPDES/SDS permit - that the wild rice sulfate standard of 10 mg/L is only applicable from April to August, there is no statute or rule that restricts its application to only those months. Prior permitting cases do not support this restrictive interpretation. The 1975 Clay Boswell Cohasset NPDES permit imposed limits on sulfate year-round, although higher levels of discharge were allowed during certain months. The Keetac mine and tailings basin NPDES permits approved in October 2011 applied the 10 mg/L sulfate limit year-round. There has been no consideration of proposed rule language that would limit application of the wild rice sulfate standard to the months from April to August, let alone promulgation of a rule that would so

Wild Rice Advisory Comments May 14, 2013 Page 2 constrain application of the standard. More important, scientific data does not support limiting the assessment of sulfate exceedance data to these few months. Scientific research, including research conducted under the auspices of this Committee, suggests that in addition to any impacts of sulfate on the growing plant, there are impacts to wild rice and its next generation of seeds from sulfide in sediments. Year-round data of sulfate concentrations should be included in the assessment of wild rice impaired waters. MPCA Case-by-Case Assessment of Waters Used for the Production of Wild Rice WaterLegacy disagrees with the argument made by the Chamber of Commerce and the mining industry in their May 9, 2013 memorandum that for the MPCA to determine “waters used for the production of wild rice” on a case-by-case basis is in some way inappropriate. The industry’s legal claims that case-by-case determination of wild rice waters by the MPCA was impermissibly vague or would exceed statutory authority were dismissed by the courts. Pending promulgation of a rule to more specifically define waters used for the production of wild rice, case-by-case determination is what is required under Minnesota law. Field Work Comments WaterLegacy would oppose the diversion of resources to evaluate wild rice of a different species than that in Minnesota in a high sulfate water body located in North Dakota. We do not have specific comments as to the potential sites for in-depth field work except to express our concern that some additional field work should be done in aquatic environments that have not been complicated by diverse industrial discharges. WaterLegacy opposes the request made by the Chamber of Commerce and the mining industry that field sites should be selected to “balance” the distribution. This is an inappropriate use of a statistical argument. If presence of wild rice in high sulfate sites is anomalous, field data should not be manipulated to undermine findings that presence of wild rice varies depending on the concentration of sulfates. WaterLegacy makes no specific comments on the mining industry’s additional requests for what should be measured and how data should be used in the field and mesocosm studies. However, we continue to be concerned at the resources expended by the industry to undermine certain portions of the wild rice research and control other aspects of the studies. We believe that the MPCA has no obligation to generate information requested by industry and, to the extent that the industry influences sampling and study design, we are concerned that the objectivity and reliability of research may be compromised. Hydroponic Research Comments WaterLegacy continues to be concerned about the way in which hydroponic studies may be used as well as the expenditure of resources on gathering data that does not pertain to ecological sustainability of a resource. Industry representatives have repeatedly stated in their advocacy that levels of sulfate that do not produce toxicity in a brief laboratory experiment with an individual seedling demonstrate a lack of effect of that concentration in a natural stand of wild rice over time. We would request that the MPCA clarify how it intends to use data pertaining to effects of sulfate or sulfide from a hydroponic experiment. WaterLegacy would also request confirmation as to the seed sources for hydroponic experiments. The “2013 MPCA Wild Rice study: Potential sites for monthly field sampling” states that Monongalia and Little Round are the seed source for hydroponic experiments. Please confirm, as stated in November 2011 Sulfate Standard to Protect Wild Rice Study Protocol at page 20, “Most experiments will be conducted with seeds obtained from environments likely having low-sulfide porewaters, in order to provide some margin of safety in

Wild Rice Advisory Comments May 14, 2013 Page 3 assessing the need to revise the water quality standard to protect wild rice production. It is possible different strains of wild rice vary in their ability to tolerate elevated sulfide, given that such variance has been documented for white rice (Iimura et al. 2002).” Again, as with the field studies, we are troubled that the mining industry is attempting to control the outcomes of wild rice research. In particular, WaterLegacy would highlight the following instruction from the mining industry memo, “data generated to date has been far outside the expected ranges of other laboratory sulfate toxicity endpoints, with no explanation behind the expected causal mechanism of this increased toxicity. Beginning definitive testing under such conditions is unwise. .” It is clearly inappropriate to determine whether or not to proceed with studies based on the fact that the studies appear to be showing toxicity. Classification WaterLegacy has briefly reviewed recent documents circulated by the MPCA regarding a wild rice classification system. We don’t have an opinion as to whether such a classification system would be helpful in the management of natural stands of wild rice, but we don’t believe such classification should play any part in developing or enforcing water quality standards. Conclusion We look forward to hearing from you in response to the above comments. Please feel free to call me at 651-646-8890 if you have any questions regarding the above matters. Sincerely yours,

Paula Goodman Maccabee Counsel/Advocacy Director for WaterLegacy cc: Chris Wagener, EPA (wagener.christine@epa.gov) Paul Proto, EPA (proto.paul@epa.gov)

From: Darren VogtTo: Kessler, Katrina (MPCA)Cc: Swain, Ed (MPCA); Engelking, Pat (MPCA); Tomasek, Mark (MPCA); Blaha, Gerald (MPCA); Lotthammer,

Shannon (MPCA)Subject: wild rice and sulfate impaired waters assessment approachDate: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:55:07 AM

Katrina,Thanks for the discussion on the impaired waters assessment approach for wild rice and sulfate at theAdvisory Committee meeting in Duluth. I just want to quickly reiterate some comments. I have concern over the proposed language that only waterbodies with at least ten sulfatemeasurements will be assessed. Ten measurements is fairly intensive monitoring, and I question howmany relevant locations would meet that criteria. For example, we know of locations downstream ofmining impacts with elevated sulfates and wild rice presence. However, such a location would notqualify for consideration if the only available data is from one sample per year over a three year period(3 samples total). This does not seem appropriate. The time of year that the sample is taken should also not be a factor. If the point is to show sulfatelevels, a sample taken outside of the proposed April through August timeframe should still qualify. I understand the need for good data, but the proposed approach seems exclusive instead of inclusive. Thank you. Darren VogtEnvironmental Director1854 Treaty Authority4428 Haines RoadDuluth, MN 55811218-722-8907 (phone)218-722-7003 (fax)dvogt@1854treatyauthority.orgwww.1854treatyauthority.org 

1

Memorandum To: Shannon Lotthammer & Pat Engelking

From: MPCA Advisory Committee Members:

Kurt Anderson, MN Power (ALLETE, Inc.)

Rachel Walker, Barr Engineering

Robin Richards, ENVIRON International Inc.

David Hatchett, Mesabi Mining

Frank Ongaro, MiningMinnesota

Timothy Peterkoski, Arcelor Mittal USA

Mike Robertson, MN Chamber

David Skolasinski, Cliffs Natural Resources

David Smiga, US Steel

Subject: Response to May 1, 2013 MPCA Wild Rice Standards Study Advisory Committee Meeting

Date: May 9, 2013

cc: MN Chamber Wild Rice/Sulfate Task Force

Shannon and Pat,

In response to the “next steps” discussion at the end of the May 1, 2013 Advisory Committee Meeting,

the above Advisory Committee Members have the following comments:

1. Input on your preferred format for the next Advisory Committee Meeting wich will be held

in early/mid-June – in person in St. Paul, or conference call? (No. 4 in Pat’s 5-2-13 email)

We would prefer a face-to-face meeting in St. Paul, with the opportunity to phone in for members

who are unable to travel.

2. Any concerns with the proposed approach to Technical Conference Calls? (No. 6 in Pat’s 5-

2-13 email)

We believe the technical conference calls are valuable and should definitely continue. As with the

face-to-face meetings, it would be beneficial to clearly define the purpose and scope of these

technical calls at the beginning of the meeting to make the best use of Advisory members’ and MPCA

staff’s time. We look forward to the next call at the end of May.

2

3. Input on the best way to get information to you – package it up and send an e-mail every

two weeks or so? Send as soon as we get new information? Explore an FTP site? (No. 5 in

Pat’s 5-2-13 email)

We prefer to have data disseminated as soon as possible, and email seems to be working fine. The

Agency should not “store up” data and wait for some “critical mass”; rather, the Agency should pass

along data as soon as it becomes available. In the event that certain pieces of data are very large (e.g.

multiple MB), the Agency should consider posting such information on an FTP site with access to the

Advisory Committee members. Although the Agency expressed concern about its ability to do so, a

number of our members routinely use and set up such sites, and would be happy to assist the Agency

should that be necessary.

In addition, the above Advisory Committee Members have the following comments on the following

technical issues:

4. Input on an additional 15-20 sites for one-time field sampling, by site conditions (see table

below) (No. 1 on Pat’s 5-2-13 email)

We believe that the numbers in each quadrant of the table below need to be balanced, with 5 sites in

each quadrant, in order to maximize the statistical power of the analysis. To the extent that there are a

limited number of high sulfate, rice present sites, the number of low sulfate, rice present need to

match the number of high sulfate, rice present sites.

There was a fair amount of concern over analysis of sites where rice was not present, but other

macrophytes, particularly water lilies were. Concerns ranged from the fact that there may be other

aquatic macrophytes which are better indicators of the presence of conditions suitable to wild rice, to

concerns that water lilies actually are competitors of wild rice and may have simply crowded out any

rice that was once present, to the overall concern about whether the absence of rice is due to sulfate

concentrations, or some other factors.

While we have not seen the final analysis of sites with sulfate measurements from the 2012 field

season, it appears that there are few, if any sites listed which have low sulfate and rice absent. We

suggest that the tribes and the DNR may be aware of potential sites from their efforts to establish wild

rice in lakes where rice is not currently present. We feel these sites would provide very useful data to

help inform the standard.

3

If sites with low sulfate and no rice present are not available or accessible for sampling, we would

suggest dropping the entire column of “rice absent” and simply concentrate on high and low sulfate

sites with rice present. Again, however, we would caution that an equal number of sites from each

category be used, to simplify statistical analyses and presentation to the public.

CONDITIONS Rice Present Rice Absent

High Sulfate (> 10 ppm for the

purposes of the study design)

Low Sulfate (~ 10 ppm for the

purposes of the study design)

5. Input on which seven sites of the MPCA’s list of candidate sites to sample monthly from

May through September, and why you recommend these sites. Of these, additional input on

which two sites at which to also conduct peeper monitoring and why. Please also indicate

any additional sites on the MPCA candidate list that you believe are important for monthly

monitoring and why. (No. 2 on Pat’s 5-2-13 email.)

The sites monitored in 2013 should include as large a range of sulfate concentrations as possible.

There should be a mix of rivers, lakes and cultivated paddies to cover at least a portion of the

potential habitats for wild rice. The research should concentrate solely on those sites where rice is

present, leaving the “rice absent” sites to the 15-20 sites above.

Our nominations for the 7 sites would include the following:

a. Rice Paddy 6 – high sulfate, paddy conditions

b. Second Creek – high sulfate, river/stream

c. Height of Land – low sulfate, lake

d. Mississippi River upstream of Cohasset power plant – low sulfate, river

e. Cromwell – high sulfate, lake

f. Little Round – low sulfate, lake + source of hydroponic rice

g. Eighteen – low sulfate, lake

4

6. Input on whether the North Dakota site should be sampled? (No. 3 on Pat’s 5-2-13 email)

Yes, the North Dakota water body should be sampled, and included as one of the high sulfate sites on

which rice grows. Even though it is a different species of rice, insights gained will be useful. The

North Dakota water body should be sampled in a single event, similar to the 2012 campaign, and not

included in the water bodies which will undergo extensive testing. It will be important to gather the

entire suite of chemical analysis, both for the overlying water and for the porewater, so that

meaningful comparisons can be made to the data collected in 2012 and 2013.

7. Additional technical comments on 2013 field and mesocosm studies

2013 Field studies

We would renew our on-going comment that the U of M needs to measure oxidation reduction

potential (ORP) at these sites. We struggle to understand the MPCA’s resistance to such

measurements. We recognize that caution must be taken while measuring ORP in the field;

however, caution must also be taken when measuring sulfide and other sensitive parameters. In

the absence of direct ORP measurements, the MPCA needs to provide multiple pairs of oxidized

and reduced chemical species in both the overlying water and in the sediment porewater, in order

to obtain meaningful results from the Nernst equation. In the 2012 data, only nitrates and

ammonia were measured in both places. We would suggest at a minimum, oxidized and reduced

iron, sulfate and sulfide, as well as nitrate and ammonia, with measurements of all species in both

the overlying water and sediment pore water. Given the difficulties in obtaining and maintaining

anoxic samples, it would seem that direct measurement of the ORP would provide more

meaningful data at lower cost.

We would also like to review all data collected by Dr. Myrbo or otherwise in the possession of

the Agency regarding sulfate and other water chemistry from cultivated rice paddies. We

understand that Dr. Myrbo sampled at least four sites, three of which Dr. Swain recited at the

Advisory Committee meeting and committed to supply. We would also request any other data

which the Agency or the University has pertaining to the water or pore water or sediment

chemistry in paddies.

5

2013 Mesocosm studies

A review of the history of the work plans for the mesocosm studies will be useful to

understand our comments and concerns. Originally, the mesocosms were to be conducted as

an essential part of the suite of studies for the review of the sulfate standard: the aptly named

“three legged stool” of hydroponics, mesocosm and field studies. When the Advisory

Committee met in June of 2012, Dr. Pastor demonstrated not only the hydroponic apparatus

he intended to use, but showed us the mescosms at the farm of UMD. During the

presentation at the farm and during the meeting preceding the farm trip, Dr. Pastor and the

MPCA noted that there were empty mesocosms which could be used, and the experiments

funded by the MPCA could begin in clean mesocosm containers, with new solutions of

varying sulfate concentrations added. Dr. Pastor noted that the work that was currently

underway would be finished in 2012 and that those mesocosm containers would also be

available.

During the mid-project review, the timeline presented by the MPCA indicated that, because

of the struggles in developing the hydroponic work plans, the mesocosm work would only be

completed “as budget and time allows”. Given the struggles with the hydroponic work, it

seemed that there would be insufficient time and budget to do any mesocosm work.

Now, at the May 2013 Advisory Committee meeting, the MPCA announced that not only

does it intend to conduct one seasons study in the mesocosms, but that the materials in the

mesocosms would continue to be used, after two years of testing at varying sulfate

concentrations. The Advisory Committee was told that there was no data available on the

2011 and 2012 mesocosm studies, and that the results of those studies would not be available

until late summer or fall of 2013.

This is a highly unorthodox way to begin an important experiment which will be used to help

inform the sulfate water quality standard. Experiments that are initiated with test chambers,

sediments, and organisms already subjected to another exposure is atypical and a classic

example of experimental bias, which is why this approach is almost always avoided

regardless of time or budgetary constraints.

6

That said, it is extremely difficult to comment upon the proposed scope of work without a

thorough understanding of the scope and objectives of the previous work, or without a

thorough understanding of the current and historical conditions of the mesocosms which will

be used in 2013. To that end, we would request the following information be supplied as soon

as possible, and additional time be given to review the materials, ask questions of the

researchers where materials are not clear to the reviewer, and to prepare comments on the

2013 mesocosm study work.

a. The objectives of the 2011 and 2012 mesocosm studies

b. The work plans, QAPs and results of the 2011 and 2012 studies

c. The starting point of the 2013 mesocosm experiments (e.g. the chemical and biological

state of the mesocosms after two years of experiments at varying sulfate concentrations in

the overlying water). This should include measurements taken of the overlying water, the

sediment, and sediment porewater this spring, as soon as ice is out, to determine the

effects of the past winter.

d. The objectives of the 2013 studies. Based on the, admittedly limited, presentation by Mr.

Munson, it seems as though the objectives are many and varied, and not well defined.

Given the legislation, the objective should be to determine whether or not there are

effects on wild rice at varying sulfate concentrations in the overlying water.

e. A definitive work plan, similar to the work plans provided by Dr. Pastor for the

hydroponic work, and by Dr. Myrbo and Dr. Johnson for the field and sediment-

temperature work.

In addition, given the results of the 2012 field experiments, as well as the 2012 germination

and “juvenile seedling” experiments, a higher concentration of sulfate for the high end – on

the order of 1,000 mg/L to 1,600 mg/L would seem to be more in order. (The agency one-

page handout indicates that previous mesocosm work was limited to background (10 mg/L ±)

to 300 mg/L. That level may not be high enough to show significant impacts.

7

8. Starting definitive hydroponic testing now seems premature

Although not specifically referenced in the follow-up email from Pat Engelking, during the

Advisory Committee meeting, Phil Monson indicated that definitive hydroponic testing at UMD

was set to begin in the near future. The Advisory Committee members listed above have serious

reservations that sufficient method development progress and rangefinding tests have been

completed to justify moving into the definitive testing stage at this point. The rangefinding/MDP

data that has been made available to advisory Committee members shows non-normal distribution

and intermittent significant effects as sulfate concentrations increases -- strong evidence that an

interpretable dose-response effect has not been generated and the researchers have not yet

determined sulfate concentrations ranges that are sufficient to measure toxic effect. Furthermore,

data generated to date has been far outside the expected ranges of other laboratory sulfate toxicity

endpoints, with no explanation behind the expected causal mechanism of this increased toxicity.

Beginning definitive testing under such conditions is unwise, as it introduces the distinct

possibility the test results will reflect toxic effects from test design and not the stressor in question

(sulfate).

9. Additional technical comments on potential 303(d) listing of water used for the production

of wild rice

The above Advisory Committee Members have technical comments in a number of areas with

regard to the potential 303(d) listing of impaired waters used for the production of wild rice. We

will submit these detailed comments to Ms. Kessler in a separate memorandum, but wanted to

highlight the concerns which we have for the staff and the Advisory Committee working on the

research, given the extensive discussions at the May 1 Advisory Committee Meeting.

First, during the Advisory Committee meeting, Ms. Lotthammer stated that the Agency has made

a legal determination that any listing of impaired “waters used for the production of wild rice” is

not a rulemaking to define the term “waters used for the production of wild rice”. We would

request all of the documentation that was used in reaching this legal conclusion.

Second, we believe that the effort to list impaired “waters used for the production of wild rice” is

premature, and should wait until after the MPCA has completed the research required by the

8

Minnesota Legislature and after the rulemaking anticipated by the Legislature, including

rulemaking on the definition of “waters used for the production of wild rice.” As noted in the

MPCA’s guidance:

“The possible erroneous placement of a waterbody on the 303(d) impaired list is a

concern because of the regulatory and monetary implications of 303(d) listing.”1

As the Agency is aware, there are serious regulatory and monetary implications of a 303(d) listing

of “waters used for the production of wild rice”. These implications fall not only on industry, but

on municipal and other dischargers above “waters used for the production of wild rice”. In

addition to the high cost of treating to meet the current numeric limit, issues of anti-degradation

and anti-backsliding could impact dischargers who are required to meet the current limit, even if

the agency decides to modify the current numeric limit.

Third, we have serious concerns about the working definition of “waters used for the production

of wild rice” which the Agency has proposed for the case-by-case determinations it intends to

make in the 303(d) listing assessments. As you will recall from the January 2013 Advisory

Committee meeting, there was near unanimous dissatisfaction with the “straw proposal” which

the Agency put forth for the definition of “waters used for the production of wild rice”. Yet the

Agency appears to be using essentially the same “straw proposal” for its case-by-case

determinations in making the 303(d) listing assessments. There are a number of concerns with

this approach, which we will detail in our separate memorandum to Ms. Kessler:

a. This approach does not appear to meet the requirements of the wild rice legislation

As you are aware, the 2011 legislation has specific requirements to be considered in defining

“waters used for production of wild rice”:

“The criteria shall include, but not be limited to, history of wild rice harvests,

minimum acreage and wild rice density.” (MN Session Laws 2011, First Special

Session, Chapter 2, Article 4 Section 32) (Emphasis added)

1 1 Guidance Manual for Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters for Determination of

Impairment: 305(b) Report and 303(d) List, 2012 Assessment Cycle, wq-iw1-04, December 2011

9

It seems that any case-by-case determinations must include actual measurements of wild rice

acreage and wild rice density, in order to conform to the direction of the Legislature. The

listing of source documents which the Agency presented in its proposal and the discussion at

the Advisory Committee meeting seems to indicate that the Agency is not requiring any

quantitative analysis of the rice upon which the Agency is making a case-by-case

determination that there is impairment. On the two previous case-by-case determinations

made in permitting cases, there were multiple years of measurements of the extent and

density of wild rice, and of water chemistry2.

b. This approach does not take into consideration other factors which affect the health

and vitality of wild rice

As discussed at both the January and the May Advisory Committee meeting, there are

multiple factors which can impact the health and vitality of wild rice. These include, but are

not limited to:

• Life cycle of wild rice

• Water levels (both absolute levels and levels of fluctuation) and water velocity

• Competition and shading from other aquatic macrophytes

• Predation (e.g. carp, water fowl, aquatic mammals)

• Invasive species (e.g. milfoil, zebra mussels)

• Beavers (see water levels and fluctuations)

• Substrate

• Climate change

If the concern is the impairment of waters used for the production of wild rice, it would

seem the Agency should take these into account, particularly in waters where sulfate

concentrations exceed 10 mg/L. As we saw in 2012, high water levels (in the

northeastern part of Minnesota) and drought (elsewhere) caused large reductions in wild

rice production. All of these factors need to be considered when determining whether or

2 SEASONAL APPLICATION OF THE WILD RICE SULFATE STANDARD – PARTRIDGE RIVER

Draft MPCA Staff Recommendation ‐ August 27, 2012 Update/Clarification) and

REVISED DRAFT (Reflecting Tribal Staff Feedback) WATERS USED FOR PRODUCTION OF WILD RICE –

PARTRIDGE AND EMBARRASS RIVERS, MPCA Draft Staff Recommendation – August 13, 2012

10

not specific water used for the production of wild rice is impaired, and whether or not

that impairment is due to sulfate concentrations.

c. Among these other factors are the morphology of the river, the parent geologic

material through which the river flows, and the substrate of the water body within

which rice is growing.

In a study conducted by Barr Engineering for PolyMet, it was determined that river

morphology and landforms “appear to play an important role in development of river

features that enhance water-level stability”. A copy of the executive summary and some

figures from this report is provided in Attachment A.

d. This approach does not appear to follow existing MPCA and US EPA guidance on

conducting assessments of biological impairments

For the 2012 Impairment Listing process, MPCA produced a set of guidelines for the

2012 impaired water assessment cycle.3 In that guidance, MPCA notes that it uses the US

EPA Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM). We would urge the

agency to follow that approach in this listing, and to follow the other portions of the

guidance.

e. This approach uses the wrong statistical approaches

1. The use of median values may give skewed results, depending upon the

distribution of the data

See Attachment B. The determination of median sulfate concentrations for a given

water body depends upon whether the set of concentration data are normally

distributed or not.

2. The use of a 0.1 level of significance rather than the 0.05 level of significance

routinely used in biological assessments

As discussed at the May 1 Advisory Committee meeting, we would strongly

recommend the use of a 0.05 level of significance rather than a 0.1 level of

3 Ibid 1

11

significance. A 0.05 significance level is the accepted statistical default for

assessing biological, ecological, and toxicological risk; deviation from this default

value must be fully rationalized and the impacts on the numbers of waters that will

be listed as impaired using a 0.10 significance level should be made transparent to

all affected parties. Use of a 0.1 level of significance could result in a greater

possibility of listing as impaired a lake that can support rice when using the 0.1

level of confidence for determining acceptability than if using the 0.05 level of

confidence. As noted above, given the “regulatory and monetary implications of

303(d) listing”, efforts should be made to minimize potentially “false positive

listings, particularly given the relatively small amount of data on which these

decisions will be made .

We understand that the Agency has engaged staff statisticians to begin addressing this

concern, which could have serious and long-lasting repercussions on any impairment

listing process. This is encouraging, and we would further encourage the agency to enlist

statisticians outside of the agency to think through this important issue.

f. This approach does not appear to take into consideration multiple areas where the

concentration of sulfate is greater than 10 mg/L, yet health, dense stands of rice

appear. What criteria will the MPCA use to determine that the rice is impaired when,

biologically, it appears quite unimpaired?

As noted in the list of potential waters for intensive 2013 field surveys and based on

surveys conducted over the past several years, a number of waters have healthy dense

stands of wild rice, yet exceed the 10 mg/L by a wide margin. For example, Hay Lake –

31.7 mg/L, Partridge River downstream from Second Creek (median value 190 mg/L),

Rice Paddy 6 – 279 mg/L and Second Creek – 1100 mg/L are all over 10 mg/L yet have

dense rice stands. The MPCA needs to explain how such bodies of wild rice are impaired

when wild rice has been consistently documented in numerous relatively dense stands

over several years.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the matters before the Advisory Committee. Please direct

any questions you may have to Mike Robertson.

12

Attachments

A: “Influence of Geomorphology on Wild Rice Occurrence in the Upper St. Louis River”

(Executive summary and figures)

B: “Test Sample Lake Sulfate Data”

A determination of “impairment” for waters used for the production of wild rice is based on whether “the median sulfate

concentration is greater than the state water quality standard, as determined by a statistical test that is appropriate to the

distribution of the data and at a 0.1 level of significance”.

How does this determination work? What does it look like? MPCA

We constructed from actual sulfate monitoring of a wild rice lake different types of possible datasets for testing the sulfate data

compliance with existing 10.0 mg/L standard for waters that support wild rice.

LK Data 1 LK Data 2 LK Data 3 LK Data 4

Mea

n,

Med

ian a

nd R

ange

Box P

lots

0

5

10

15

20

25

Sample Sulfate Lake Test Data

Lake Data 1: Slightly skewed distribution with mean = 9.8; median = 10.3; and range of 5.14 to 11.8 mg/L.

This is actual data for a lake noted to support wild rice production and covers about 10 years of monitoring data are:

5.14 6.62 7.45 7.93

9.11 9.33 10 10.1

10.2 10.3 10.6 10.6

10.8 10.9 11 11.3

11.7 11.8 11.8

We then adjusted the above dataset to change distribution of sulfate results, but keep the medians relatively the same, as

follows:

Lake Data 2: Normal distribution with mean = 10.2; median = 10; and range of 7.5 to 13.3 mg/L.

Lake Data 3: Highly skewed distribution with mean = 10.1; median = 12.0; and range of 6.0 to 14.0 mg/L.

Lake Data 4: Highly skewed distribution with mean = 12.8; median = 9.8; and range of 9.0 to 22.0 mg/L.

Below are histograms for each of the above four datasets that, similar to the box plots, further illustrate the distribution of the

sample test data.

0

5

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

More

Fre

qu

en

cy

mg/L Sulfate

Histogram Data 1

Frequency

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fre

qu

en

cy

mg/L Slfate

Histogram Data 2

Frequency

0

2

4

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Fre

qu

en

cy

mg/L Sulfate

Histogram Data 3

Frequency

0

5

10

Fre

qu

en

cy

mg/L Sulfate

Histogram Data 4

Frequency

Two concerns are present when determining what statistical approach to apply in order to determine at a 0.1 confidence level

if the median sulfate concentration is greater than the state standard. First, with the possible exception of dataset Data 2,

statistical approaches based on a normal distribution of data are inappropriate for skewed data distributions. Skewed data and

other non-normal distributions are best addressed with non-parametric statistical methods. Secondly, statistical methods that

make comparisons between two or more distributions of data are not applicable since the sulfate water quality standard is a

single value. Finally, the data distribution parameter of interest her is the median, which is a common focus of non-parametric

tests as opposed to the mean and/or standard deviation or variance tests based on normally distributed data. The type of

question being posed here (population mean different from X value) conforms to a frequency-based analysis (as opposed to

mass, totals, or volumes type data) which can be addressed by non-parametric statistical approaches or permutation tests.

One non-parametric statistical approach would be the one-sample sign test. The one-sample sign test can be used to test the

difference of a population median to a specified value, (which may represent another population median, or as in this case, a

water quality standard). The one-sided sign test assigns a + sign to the test population data values larger than the specified

value, and a - sign to the test population data values smaller than the specified value, and ignores population data values

equal to the specific value. A test statistic r is determined as the lesser of the two numbers (N) of + signs and – signs.

A small value of probability will reject the null hypothesis that the test population median is no different than the standard.

Table 1 below provides the critical values of r for sample sizes up to N = 100 for the 1, 5, 10, and 25 percent levels of

significance. Note that the critical r value for a test population of N =19 for each of the test data sets is 3 at the 1 percent level

of significance. The one-sample sign test with a value of 10.0 used as the specified median was applied to each of the test

data sets with the following results.

Data 1: - values = 6 and + values = 12; test statistic r = 6. Table 1 indicates for a sample of N = 19 the critical value for the 0.1

level of significance is r = 3. Thus, with N = 19 discrete sulfate concentration values there would be a 1 chance in 10 for r ≤ 3

indicating the10.0 mg/L sulfate water quality standard to be significantly different from the lake median sulfate concentration.

The Data 1 statistic of r = 6 indicates the 10.0 mg/L water quality standard is NOT significantly different than the median Data

1 sulfate concentration at a 0.1 percent level of significance.

Data 2: - values = 7 and + values = 9; test statistic r = 7; With N = 19 discrete sulfate concentration values there would be a 1

chance in 10 for an r statistic of r ≤ 3 indicating the10.0 mg/L sulfate water quality standard to be significantly different from the

lake median sulfate concentration. The Data 2 statistic of r = 7 indicates the 10.0 mg/L water quality standard is NOT

significantly different than the median Data 2 sulfate concentration at a 0.1 percent level of significance.

Data 3: - values = 6 and + values = 12; test statistic r = 6; With N = 19 discrete sulfate concentration values there would be a

1 chance in 10 for an r statistic of r ≤ 3 indicating the10.0 mg/L sulfate water quality standard to be significantly different from

the lake median sulfate concentration. The Data 2 statistic of r = 6 indicates the 10.0 mg/L water quality standard is NOT

significantly different than the median Data 3 sulfate concentration at a 0.1 percent level of significance.

Data 4: -values = 10 and + values = 9; test statistic r = 9; With N = 19 discrete sulfate concentration values there would be a 1

chance in 10 for an r statistic of r ≤ 3 indicating the10.0 mg/L sulfate water quality standard to be significantly different from the

lake median sulfate concentration. The Data 2 statistic of r = 9 indicates the 10.0 mg/L water quality standard is NOT

significantly different than the median lake sulfate concentration at a 0.1 percent level of significance. However, in this

application the concern is whether there is a statistical difference in the lake median concentration that is ABOVE the 10.0

mg/L water quality standard. Thus, the focus for determining significance using the sign test should rely on the r statistic for

only the number of – values, as was the case for Data 1, Data 2, and Data 3. For Data 4 the directional statistic of r = 10

would be used to determine if the target 10.0 mg/L was significantly below the Data 4 median. A value of r = 10 is well above

the critical r value of 3 show in Table 1 for the 0.1 level of confidence and indicates the 10.0 mg/L water quality standard is

NOT significantly different than Data 1 median sulfate concentration.

Confidence Interval for the Test Data Median

As shown above, the magnitude that the + or – members deviate from the target water quality standard of 10.0 mg/L is not

taken into account, only that they are greater or less than the standard value. Familiarity with the critical r value for N number

of observations will quickly indicate a high or low probability of significance. For Data 1 through Data 4 above, an r > 3

indicated a low probability of statistical significance to be present. When r ≤ 3 the magnitude of the + and – members may

need to be taken into account to determine if the standard is significantly different than the dataset median. The magnitudes

of the + and – members are incorporated in the estimation of confidence limits for the dataset median.

The confidence interval of the median is based on the cumulative binomial probabilities of the N observations. Table 2 below

shows the binomial probabilities for each of N = 19 observations and the cumulative binomial probability from the lowest to

highest values for Data 1.

Table 2. Binomial Probabilities for Data 1

Ranked Cumulative Individual

No. Data 1 Binomial P Binomial P

1 5.14 3.8147E-05 3.62396E-05

2 6.62 0.000364304 0.000326157

3 7.45 0.002212524 0.001848221

4 7.93 0.009605408 0.007392883

5 9.11 0.031784058 0.02217865

6 9.33 0.083534241 0.051750183

7 10.0 0.179641724 0.096107483

8 10.1 0.323802948 0.144161224

9 10.2 0.5 0.176197052

10 10.3 0.676197052 0.176197052

11 10.6 0.820358276 0.144161224

12 10.6 0.916465759 0.096107483

13 10.8 0.968215942 0.051750183

14 10.9 0.990394592 0.02217865

15 11.0 0.997787476 0.007392883

16 11.3 0.999635696 0.001848221

17 11.7 0.999961853 0.000326157

18 11.8 0.999998093 3.62396E-05

19 11.8 1 1

Review of the cumulative binomial P values in Table 2 indicates no value at 0.05 and equivalent with a standard 95%

confidence limit. It is unlikely that a cumulative binomial P value will ever be at 0.05 with less than 100 observations.

However, the 95% confidence interval for Data 1 can be approximated by the following where C is cumulative score, α is the

desired confidence level, n is the number of observations, and the result is the rank of the observation that provides the

concentration:

Lower = Cα(2),n or Lower = C.05,19 and Lower = 5

Table 2 shows the 5th

ranked concentration to be 0.031784 and close to the 95th

percentile of 0.05 (but not over) with a

corresponding value of 9.11 mg/L sulfate. This is an approximation of the lower end of the 95% confidence interval. The

upper end of the 95% confidence interval is found by:

Upper = n - Cα(2),n + 1, or Upper = 19 – 5 +1 and Upper = 15

Table 2 indicates the 15th

rank concentration to be 11.0 mg/L for Data 1. Thus, an approximation of the 95% confidence

interval of the median (10.3 mg/L) for Data 1 is 9.11 to 11.0 mg/L. The target water quality standard of 10.0 mg/L is within this

95% confidence interval for Data 1 and corroborates the finding from the sign test that the standard is not significantly different

from the median for Data 1.

A more precise X% confidence interval can be determined for Data 1based on the binomial probabilities in the same fashion.

Using Table 2, the confidence interval of 9.33 to 10.9 (6th rank and 14

th rank values) is the 91.6% confidence interval for Data

1. Table 3 presents the 95% confidence interval approximations and the 91.6% confidence intervals for Data1 through Data

4 examples. In each case, the target standard of 10.0 mg/L sulfate is within the confidence interval range indicating no

significance from the dataset median.

Table 3. Sign Test Median 95% Confidence Limit Approximations and Next Lowest

Actual % Confidence Limits Based on Binomial Probability for N=19 Observations

Data 1 Data 2 Data 3 Data 4

Median Concentration 10.3 10.0 12.0 9.8

95% Upper CL approximation 11.0 12.0 13.0 16.5

95% Lower CL approximation 9.1 9.2 8.0 9.4

Actual Nearest CL for N = 19

91.6% Upper CL concentration 10.9 11.2 12.5 15.5

91.6% Lower CL concentration 9.3 9.4 9.0 9.4

Interpolated 0.1 level of significance

90.0% Upper CL concentration 10.87 11.17 12.5 15.33

90.0% Lower CL concentration 9.44 9.4 9.2 9.42

The target concentraton of 10.0 mg/L is within the 95% confidence limit range for all test Data

The target concentraton of 10.0 mg/L is within the 90% (0.1) confidence limit range for all test Data

References

Available upon request – mainly stats books

1

Memorandum

To: Katrina Kessler, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

From: Mike Robertson, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce

Subject: Comments on potential 303(d) listing of waters used for the production of wild rice

Date: May 31, 2013

Cc: Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Wild Rice/Sulfate Task Force

Shannon Lotthammer, MPCA

The MN Chamber has technical comments in a number of areas with regard to the potential 303(d) listing

of impaired waters used for the production of wild rice. While these were outlined in a separate

memorandum to Shannon Lotthammer and Pat Engelking from members of the Advisory Committee, we

wanted to expand upon those comments here.

First, during the Advisory Committee meeting, Ms. Lotthammer stated that the Agency has made a legal

determination that any listing of impaired “waters used for the production of wild rice” is not a

rulemaking to define the term “waters used for the production of wild rice”. We would request all of the

documentation that was used in reaching this legal conclusion.

Second, we believe that the effort to list impaired “waters used for the production of wild rice” is

premature, and should wait until after the MPCA has completed the research required by the Minnesota

Legislature and after the rulemaking anticipated by the Legislature, including rulemaking on the

definition of “waters used for the production of wild rice.” As noted in the MPCA’s guidance:

“The possible erroneous placement of a waterbody on the 303(d) impaired list is a concern because

of the regulatory and monetary implications of 303(d) listing.”1

As the Agency is aware, there are serious regulatory and monetary implications of a 303(d) listing of

“waters used for the production of wild rice”. These implications fall not only on industry, but on

1 Guidance Manual for Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters for Determination of

Impairment: 305(b) Report and 303(d) List, 2012 Assessment Cycle, wq-iw1-04, December 2011

2

municipal and other dischargers above “waters used for the production of wild rice”. In addition to the

high cost of treating to meet the current numeric limit, issues of anti-degradation and anti-backsliding

could impact dischargers who are required to meet the current limit, even if the agency decides to modify

the current numeric limit at a future date.

Third, we have serious concerns about the working definition of “waters used for the production of wild

rice” which the Agency has proposed for the case-by-case determinations it intends to make in the 303(d)

listing assessments. As you will recall from the January 2013 Advisory Committee meeting, there was

near unanimous dissatisfaction with the “straw proposal” that the Agency put forth for the definition of

“waters used for the production of wild rice”. Yet the Agency appears to be using essentially the same

“straw proposal” for its case-by-case determinations in making the 303(d) listing assessments. There are

a number of concerns with this approach:

a. This approach does not appear to take into consideration multiple areas where the

concentration of sulfate is greater than 10 mg/L, yet health, dense stands of rice

appear.

What criteria will the MPCA use to determine that the rice is impaired when, biologically, it

appears quite unimpaired? As noted in the list of potential waters for intensive 2013 field

surveys and based on surveys conducted over the past several years, a number of waters have

healthy dense stands of wild rice, yet exceed the 10 mg/L by a wide margin. For example,

Hay Lake – 31.7 mg/L, Partridge River downstream from Second Creek (median value 190

mg/L), Rice Paddy 6 – 279 mg/L and Second Creek – 1100 mg/L are all over 10 mg/L yet

have dense rice stands. The MPCA needs to explain how such bodies of wild rice are

impaired when wild rice has been consistently documented in numerous relatively dense

stands over several years. A quartile bioassessment approach may be an alternative – or at

least used as a second tier analytical tool to determine final impairment status.

b. This approach does not meet the requirements of the wild rice legislation

As you are aware, the 2011 legislation has specific requirements to be considered in defining

“waters used for production of wild rice”:

3

“The criteria shall include, but not be limited to, history of wild rice harvests,

minimum acreage and wild rice density.” (MN Session Laws 2011, First Special

Session, Chapter 2, Article 4 Section 32) (Emphasis added)

It seems that any case-by-case determinations must include actual measurements of wild rice

acreage and wild rice density, in order to conform to the direction of the Legislature. The

listing of source documents, which the agency presented in its proposal and the discussion at

the Advisory Committee meeting, indicates that the agency is not requiring any quantitative

analysis of the rice upon which the agency is making a case-by-case determination that there

is impairment. We would also note that in the two previous case-by-case determinations

made in permitting cases2, there were multiple years of measurements of the extent and

density of wild rice, and of water chemistry.

Similarly, with regard to the “history of wild rice harvests”, there needs to be a sustained

record of harvesting water bodies. A single harvest in a single year should not constitute a

“history of wild rice harvests". A criterion for the frequency of harvest needs to be

articulated.

c. This approach does not take into consideration other factors that affect the health and

vitality of wild rice

As discussed at both the January and the May Advisory Committee meetings, there are

multiple factors that can impact the health and vitality of wild rice. These include, but are not

limited to:

• Life cycle of wild rice

• Water levels (both absolute levels and levels of fluctuation) and water velocity

• Competition and shading from other aquatic macrophytes

• Predation (e.g. carp, water fowl, aquatic mammals)

• Invasive species (e.g. milfoil, zebra mussels)

2 SEASONAL APPLICATION OF THE WILD RICE SULFATE STANDARD – PARTRIDGE RIVER

Draft MPCA Staff Recommendation ‐ August 27, 2012 Update/Clarification) and

REVISED DRAFT (Reflecting Tribal Staff Feedback) WATERS USED FOR PRODUCTION OF WILD RICE –

PARTRIDGE AND EMBARRASS RIVERS, MPCA Draft Staff Recommendation – August 13, 2012

4

• Beavers (see water levels and fluctuations)

• Climate change

If the concern is the impairment of waters used for the production of wild rice, the agency

should take these into account, particularly in waters where sulfate concentrations exceed 10

mg/L. As we saw in 2012, high water levels (in the northeastern part of Minnesota) and

drought (elsewhere) caused large reductions in wild rice production. All of these factors need

to be considered when determining whether or not specific water used for the production of

wild rice is impaired, and whether or not that impairment is due to sulfate concentrations.

d. Among these other factors are the morphology of the river, the parent geologic

material through which the river flows, and the substrate of the water body within

which rice is growing.

In a study conducted by Barr Engineering for PolyMet3, it was determined that river

morphology and landforms “appear to play an important role in development of river features

that enhance water-level stability”. A copy of the executive summary and some figures from

this report is provided in Attachment A.

“Landforms appear to play an important role in development of river features that

enhance water-level stability. Within the study area, the Upper St. Louis and Partridge

Rivers flow through three distinct geomorphologic areas; the Toimi Drumlin Plain, the

Aurora Till Plain and the Esquagama Sand Plain. In this memorandum, the portion of the

St. Louis River above the confluence with the rivers assume distinct channel, floodplain

and bank characteristics within each geomorphologic area, and wild rice is observed to

occur in the areas where the resultant river morphology provides pools with shallow

water, a slow current, a mucky bottom and stable water levels (Figure 1-A). Partridge

River is referred to as the “upper study area” and the portion below the confluence is

referred to as the “lower study area.”

• In the upper study area, the Toimi Drumlin Plain is rocky glacial till with rugged

topography. Lowland wetlands and associated stream channels widen between

3 Influence of Geomorphology on Wild Rice Occurrence in the Upper St. Louis River, Barr Engineering, April, 2013

5

hills of compacted, dense till. The resulting river morphology is characterized by

wide, deep, slow-moving pools connected by steep, rocky riffles. There is

slightly more Organic Matter content in the sediment in the upper study area

compared to the lower study area. The upper study area has slightly acidic soils

with pH of ~5.6. Wild rice is present in pools in the upper study area.

• The Aurora Till Plain is a transitional zone. The glacial till in this area has been

reworked and sorted. It is flatter and less rugged than in the Toimi Drumlin Plain,

but still offers the topographic and lithologic variety to create river morphology

of distinct rocky riffles and proportionately wider pools with mucky bottoms.

Wild rice is present in some pools in the Aurora Till Plain.

• In the lower study area, the Esquagama Sand Plain is relatively flat. The river

channel meanders with a relatively constant channel width. Pools in the lower

study area are not significantly wider than the riffles, current velocities are higher

and stream bed sediments are coarser. There is slightly less Organic Matter

content in the lower study area compared to the upper study area. The lower

study area has slightly less acidic soils than the upper study area with pH of

~6.1 to 7.3. Wild Rice is not present in the lower study area.”

e. This approach does not appear to follow existing MPCA and US EPA guidance on

conducting assessments of biological impairments

For the 2012 Impairment Listing process, MPCA produced a set of guidelines for the 2012

impaired water assessment cycle.4 In that guidance, MPCA notes that it uses the US EPA

Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM). We would urge the agency to

follow that approach in this listing, and to follow the other portions of the guidance.

f. This approach uses the wrong statistical approaches

1. The use of a 0.1 level of significance rather than the 0.05 level of

significance routinely used in biological assessments

4 Ibid.

6

As we discussed at the May 1 Advisory Committee meeting, we strongly

recommend the use of a 0.05 level of significance rather than a 0.1 level of

significance. A 0.05 significance level is the accepted statistical default for

assessing biological, ecological, and toxicological risk; deviation from this default

value must be fully rationalized and the impacts on the numbers of waters that will

be listed as impaired using a 0.10 significance level should be made transparent to

all affected parties. Use of a 0.1 level of significance could result in a greater

possibility of listing as impaired a lake that can support rice when using the 0.1

level of confidence for determining acceptability than if using the 0.05 level of

confidence. As noted above, given the “regulatory and monetary implications of

303(d) listing”, efforts should be made to minimize potentially “false positive

listings, particularly given the relatively small amount of data on which these

decisions will be made

We understand that the Agency has engaged staff statisticians to begin addressing

this concern, which could have serious and long-lasting repercussions on any

impairment listing process. This is encouraging, and we would further encourage

the agency to enlist statisticians outside of the agency to think through this

important issue.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Please contact me if you have questions.

Attachments

A: Influence of Geomorphology on Wild Rice Occurrence in the Upper St. Louis River (executive

summary and figures)

Technical Memorandum

From: Rachel Walker, Daniel DeJoode, Melisa Pollak and Jeff Weiss, Barr Engineering Co.

Subject: Influence of Geomorphology on Wild Rice Occurrence in the Upper St. Louis River

Date: April 2013

Executive Summary

Wild Rice occurs in the Upper St. Louis River and in the Partridge River above their confluence but not

below it. The confluence also marks a change in the physical characteristics (morphology) of these

rivers. River morphology is among the key factors that influence wild rice habitat, along with biotic

factors, chemical variables, energy sources, and climate. River morphology is in turn a direct result of

the landforms (geomorphology) through which the river flows. This study explores the relationship

between geomorphology, river morphology, and wild rice habitat. Specifically, it focuses on the

relationship between river morphology and wild rice presence in 2012.

It is well known that favorable physical habitat for wild rice includes shallow water with a slow current, a

mucky bottom and stable water levels. Of these characteristics, water-level stability is the most difficult

to directly document because flood events are transient. Maximum current velocity and water-level

bounce may be limiting factors in whether wild rice can grow in a particular river pool, but timing survey

observations to record maximum values is tricky, and after the fact, indirect indicators may be imprecise

or altogether absent.

This study offers screening-level observations on river morphologic features that influence water-level

stability in the study area, and notes that wild rice is present in river reaches where river features limit

water-level bounce, and absent where these features are absent. We find that river pool width relative

to riffle width, and pool width relative to the drainage area above the pool, appear to be promising

indicators of water-level stability and wild rice habitat potential. Specifically, wider pools allow flood

water to slow more and rise less than in narrower pools. And smaller drainage areas gather less flood

water, subduing water level bounce relative to larger drainage areas. These relationships are intuitive,

but to the best of our knowledge, have not been systematically studied in the context of their role in

establishing minimum physical habitat characteristics for wild rice growth and development.

Landforms appear to play an important role in development of river features that enhance water-level

stability. Within the study area, the Upper St. Louis and Partridge Rivers flow through three distinct

geomorphologic areas; the Toimi Drumlin Plain, the Aurora Till Plain and the Esquagama Sand Plain. In

this memorandum, the portion of the St. Louis River above the confluence with the rivers assume

distinct channel, floodplain and bank characteristics within each geomorphologic area, and wild rice is

observed to occur in the areas where the resultant river morphology provides pools with shallow water,

a slow current, a mucky bottom and stable water levels (Figure 1-A). Partridge River is referred to as the

“upper study area” and the portion below the confluence is referred to as the “lower study area.”

• In the upper study area, the Toimi Drumlin Plain is rocky glacial till with rugged topography.

Lowland wetlands and associated stream channels widen between hills of compacted, dense

till. The resulting river morphology is characterized by wide, deep, slow-moving pools

connected by steep, rocky riffles. There is slightly more Organic Matter (OM) content in the

sediment in the upper study area compared to the lower study area. The upper study area has

slightly acidic soils with pH of ~5.6. Wild rice is present in pools in the upper study area.

• The Aurora Till Plain is a transitional zone. The glacial till in this area has been reworked and

sorted. It is flatter and less rugged than in the Toimi Drumlin Plain, but still offers the

topographic and lithologic variety to create river morphology of distinct rocky riffles and

proportionately wider pools with mucky bottoms. Wild rice is present in some pools in the

Aurora Till Plain.

• In the lower study area, the Esquagama Sand Plain is relatively flat. The river channel meanders

with a relatively constant channel width. Pools in the lower study area are not significantly

wider than the riffles, current velocities are higher and stream bed sediments are coarser.

There is slightly less Organic Matter content in the lower study area compared to the upper

study area. The lower study area has slightly less acidic soils than the upper study area with pH

of ~6.1 to 7.3. Wild Rice is not present in the lower study area.

Figure 1-A Relationship between geomorphology, river morphology, and wild rice habitat on the

St. Louis River

#*#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #* #*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

Skibo Landing

US Hwy 53

©̈957

©̈346

190188186

184182180

178

176

174

172

170

168

166

164162

160158

156

154

152

150148

146

144142

140138

136134

Ely

Whitewater

Colby

Loon

Whiteface Reservoir

Pleasant

Esquagama

Embarrass

Otto

Bass

Markham

Minorca Pit

Anchor

Inland Laurentian

Long

Mud Hen

Cedar

Greenwood

Unnamed

Tamarack Lowlands

Toimi Uplands

Laurentian UplandsNashwauk Uplands

976

5

43

2

1

20

19

181716

15

1413

12

1110

£¤53

135

37

4567110

456716

4567108

456796

45674

456795

4567130

4567138

456793

4567100

456797

456799

4567111

456720

4567105

4567108

4567110

4567108

456797

456720

Saint Louis R iver

Reno

Creek

Mud

Hen Creek

Shive

r Creek

Water Hen

Creek

Ely Creek

Colvin Creek

North Branch Whiteface River

PikeRiver

South Bra

nchWater Hen Creek

Partri

dgeR

iver

Bum Cree

k

Firs t Cree k

Little

Shive

r Cree

k

Laird C

reek

Porcu

pine Creek

Apple

Cree

k

Wallow Creek

West B

ran

ch Cloque

t River

Hush

Cree

kPa

rtridge

River

Large Figure 2STUDY AREA

LAND TYPE ASSOCIATIONSNorthMet Project

Poly Met Mining, Inc.Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota

Barr

Foote

r: ArcG

IS 10

.1, 20

13-0

4-24 0

8:44 F

ile: I:

\Clie

nt\Po

lyMet_

Minin

g\Work

_Orde

rs\W

ild_R

ice\M

aps\R

epor

ts\Ge

omor

pholo

gicDe

sktop

Analy

sis_F

ieldS

tudy\R

epor

t_Figu

res_

2012

0124

\Large

Figu

re 2 L

and T

ype A

ssoc

iation

s.mxd

Use

r: KJ

M

#* River MilesStudy AreaOther Rivers and StreamsEcological Subsection

Land TypesAurora Till PlainBig-Bird Lake Moraine

Esquagama Sand PlainFloodwood PeatlandsGreenwood Lake Till PlainMesabi RangePike-Sandy River Sand PlainToimi Drumlin PlainWarba Lake Plain

I0 10,000 20,0005,000

Feet

#*#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #* #*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

Skibo Landing

US Hwy 53

160162

190188

186184

182180

178

176

174

172

170

168

166

164158

156

154

152

150148

146144

142140

138

136134

1196' 1003'

9935'

5372'

5243

'

4076'

4006'

3717'

3100' 2968'

2206'

2125'2067'

1769'

1736'

1631'

1628'

1477'

1468'

1461'

1381'

1365'

1279'

950'

1146'

905'

899'1084'

1054

'

1031'

1002'

715'

689'

719'

547'

541'

502'

470'

452'441'

425'

401'

380'

352'

328'

325'

280'

255'

244'239'

177'

143' 2390'

1290'1288'

1176'

1107'622'

432'

366'

315'

258'

220'

Ely

Whitewater

Colby

Loon

Whiteface Reservoir

Pleasant

Esquagama

Embarrass

Otto

Bass

Markham

Minorca Pit

Anchor

Inland Laurentian

Long

Mud Hen

Cedar

Greenwood

Bird

Stone

Hush

Little Butterball

Lillian

Mesabi Mt. Pit

9

8

76

5

43

2

1

20

19

181716

15

1413

12

1110

£¤53

135

37

4567110

456716

4567108

456796

45674

456795

4567130

4567138

456793

4567100

456797

456799

4567111

456720

4567105

4567108

4567110

4567108

456797

456720

Sa int Lou is River

Reno

Creek

Mud

Hen Creek

Sh

iver Cree

k

Water Hen

Creek

Ely Creek

Colvin Creek

North Branch Whiteface River

PikeRiver

South Bra

nchWater Hen Creek

Pa

rtridge

River

Bum Cree

k

First Creek

Little

Shive

r Cree

k

Laird C

reek

Porcu

pine Creek

Apple

Cree

k

Wallow Creek

Emba

rrass

River

West B

ran

ch Cloque

t River

Cranberry Creek

Hush

Cree

k

Large Figure 4STUDY AREA, BASIN WIDTH,

FLOODPLAIN, AND WATERSHEDSNorthMet Project

Poly Met Mining, Inc.Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota

Barr

Foote

r: ArcG

IS 10

.1, 20

13-0

4-24 0

8:49 F

ile: I:

\Clie

nt\Po

lyMet_

Minin

g\Work

_Orde

rs\W

ild_R

ice\M

aps\R

epor

ts\Ge

omor

pholo

gicDe

sktop

Analy

sis_F

ieldS

tudy\R

epor

t_Figu

res_

2012

0124

\Large

Figu

re 4 B

asin

Widt

h Floo

dplai

n Bou

ndary

and W

atersh

eds.m

xd U

ser: K

JM

#* River Miles

Study Area

Other Rivers and Streams

Basin Width Measurement

Floodplain BoundaryWatersheds

Embarrass River

Headwaters Saint Louis River

Partridge River

Sand Creek-Saint Louis River

Outside of Study Area

Small section at Skibo Landing Paddled in 2012Norway Point

CR 4

CR 108

CR 95

CR 957

CR 346

©̈957

©̈346

I0 10,000 20,0005,000

Feet

!>

!>

!>

Skibo Landing

US Hwy 53

No Wild Rice Observed on the Saint Louis River Downstream of GPS Point Lower 10

Wild Rice with Density Rating of "1 to 5" Observed at Norway Point in 2012

Two Wild Rice Stands with Density Ratings of"2 and 4" Observed at Skibo Landing in 2012Wild Rice with Density Ratings of "1 to 5"

Observed Along the Partridge River Mile 0 to 5

No Wild Rice Observed at CR 4

No Wild Rice Observed at CR 108

No Wild Rice Observed at CR 95

No Wild Rice Observed at CR 957

No Wild Rice Observed at CR 346

No Wild Rice Observed at CR 110

Wild Rice Stands with a Density Ratings of"2" Observed at Public Boat Launch in 2012

©̈957

©̈346

Two Wild Rice Stands with Density Ratings of "1 to 2" and "2 to 4" Observed at Skibo Landing in 2011

Wild Rice Stands with a Density Ratings of"1" Observed at Public Boat Launch in 2011

Two Wild Rice Stands with Density Rating of "2 to 4" Observed at Norway Point in 2012

Wild Rice with Density Rating of "1" Observed in 2011

Wild Rice with Density Rating of "2" Observed in 2011

No Wild Rice Observed at CR 99

Two Wild Rice Stands with Density Rating of "1" Observed in 2010

Wild Rice with Density Rating of "2" Observed in 2010

Saint Louis River

Reno C

reek

Mud Hen Creek

Sh

iver Cree

k

Water Hen

Creek

Ely Creek

Colvin Creek

North Branch Whiteface River

Pike River

South Bra

nch Water Hen Creek

Partri

dgeR

iver

Bum Cree

k

First Cree k

Little

Shive

r Cree

k

Porcupine Cree

k

Apple

Cree

k

Wallow Creek

Unnamed CreekWyman

Cree

k

Emba

rrass

River

West B

ran

chClo

quet River

Cranberry Creek

Hush

Cree

k

Partridge River

£¤53

135

37

456716

4567108

456796

45674

456795

4567138

456793

4567100

456797

456799

4567111

456720

4567105

456797

4567108

456720

Large Figure 5STUDY AREA

WILD RICE STAND LOCATIONSNorthMet Project

Poly Met Mining, Inc.Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota

Barr

Foote

r: ArcG

IS 10

.1, 20

13-0

4-24 0

8:50 F

ile: I:

\Clie

nt\Po

lyMet_

Minin

g\Work

_Orde

rs\W

ild_R

ice\M

aps\R

epor

ts\Ge

omor

pholo

gicDe

sktop

Analy

sis_F

ieldS

tudy\R

epor

t_Figu

res_

2012

0124

\Large

Figu

re 5 W

ild R

ice S

tand L

ocati

ons.m

xd U

ser: K

JM

Study Area

Stream Segments Surveyed in 2012

!> Wild Rice Observations (Lindgren et. al. 2006)

Imagery Source: FSA, 2010.

Norway PointApproximately 0.2 Miles Upstream of Skibo Landing

Approximately 1.5 Miles Upstream of Skibo Landing

I0 10,000 20,0005,000

Feet

#*

#*

E

Saint Louis R iver

Lower 12

148

146

4567108

Large Figure 6SAINT LOUIS RIVER MEANDER PATTERNS

NorthMet ProjectPoly Met Mining, Inc.

Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota

Barr

Foote

r: ArcG

IS 10

.1, 20

13-0

4-24 0

8:52 F

ile: I:

\Clie

nt\Po

lyMet_

Minin

g\Work

_Orde

rs\W

ild_R

ice\M

aps\R

epor

ts\Ge

omor

pholo

gicDe

sktop

Analy

sis_F

ieldS

tudy\R

epor

t_Figu

res_

2012

0124

\Large

Figu

re 6 M

eand

er Pa

tterns

.mxd

Use

r: KJM

E Field Observation Sites#* River Miles

Imagery Source: FSA, 2010 (scale 1:12,000)

I0 1,000 2,000500

Feet

#*186

Saint Louis River

UPPER STUDY AREALOWER STUDY AREA

#*#*

#*

#*#* #* #*

£¤53

190180170160

150140

13537

Imagery Source: FSA, 2010 (scale 1:12,000)