1. Management of Lac Courte Oreilles, Wisconsin ORW Management of Lac Courte Oreilles, Wisconsin ORW January 6, 2010 USEPA, Region V

2. Lac Courte Oreilles, Oustanding Resource Water  “An antidegradation policy is also issued by each state to maintain and protect existing uses and high quality waters.” (not limited as to sources) Wisconsin lacks lake standards, science well defined Wisconsin lacks lake standards, science well defined Inconsistent linkage of eutrophication variables in WISCALMS & 303 listings Inconsistent linkage of eutrophication variables in WISCALMS & 303 listings  Without stds, limited watershed management options.  Major Outstanding Resource Water is not being protected  USEPA intervention is requested

3. Wisconsin Impairments  Proposed WI 2008 List ~21 lakes for eutrophication, not including LCO  WI 2010 list Faulty linkage TP:CHLa: TSI Faulty linkage TP:CHLa: TSI Added 12 lakes for eutrophication Added 12 lakes for eutrophication  By comparison, MN 2008 List (approved) ~429 lakes for eutrophication including lake bays Lake Standards Approved and ImplementedLake Standards Approved and Implemented  WI (2008) Lists Lake St. Croix (w/MN) Mean St. Croix TP = 51 ug P/L, 20 ug/L Chla, 1.2m SecchiMean St. Croix TP = 51 ug P/L, 20 ug/L Chla, 1.2m Secchi Mean Musky Bay = 71ug P/L (avg. four stations), 10 ug/L Chla, 1.5 m Secchi + associated indicatorsMean Musky Bay = 71ug P/L (avg. four stations), 10 ug/L Chla, 1.5 m Secchi + associated indicators

5. Lac Courte Oreilles Area Lakes: Regional Economic Resource  Estimated Fair Market Value* Area Lakeshore ** = $593 M Area Lakeshore ** = $593 M 40% Lac Courte Oreilles properties (~$237M)40% Lac Courte Oreilles properties (~$237M) County Taxes = $ 5.1 MCounty Taxes = $ 5.1 M  Regional study underway * June, 2009 tabulation from Sawyer County (Mike Coleson to B. Wilson) ** Lac Courte Oreilles, Grindstone, Whitefish and Little Lac Courte Oreilles Lakeshore

6. Satellite Whole Lake Averaged Estimates of Clarity Lac Courte Oreilles Lakes.

7. LCO Center LCO East LCO West Osprey Lake =11,709 acres Osprey Creek = 6,743 acres Ghost Creek = 1,152 acres Grindstone Creek = 15,495 acres Sand Creek = 18,006 acres Whitefish = 2,330 acres Lac Courte Oreilles Watershed Flow Network Durphee = 510 acres Windigo Lake Ring Creek = 213 acres Spring = 3,543 acres Musky Bay Chippewa Flowage Headwaters Sand Musky Bay  LCO West --> LCO Central  LCO East  Out Sand, Whitefish, Grindstone and Lac Courte Oreilles are ORW Grindstone NE BAY

9. TP:Dissolved Oxygen Linkage  Musky Bay reduce inflow P  LCO Main Bays protection from increasing DO depletion rates

10. Halstad, Jennings, West Arm, Stubbs Large Lake Bays and Impairments: Example Lake Minnetonka, MN Impaired Segments

11. Eutrophication: Increased Oxygen Depletion Rates Flow Path : Musky Bay  LCO West  LCO Central   LCO East  Out  Eutrophication Rapid loss of DO at ~11 m Rapid loss of DO at ~11 m Internal P Potential Internal P Potential Stress on cool water fisheries (Cisco) Stress on cool water fisheries (Cisco) Lost - cold water two story potential Lost - cold water two story potential

14. Musky Bay serial eutrophication impacts beyond P and Chla Filamentous mats Expanding Curly Leaf Pondweed infestations 2007-2009. 2009 CLPW found West (N) and NE Bays

17. Musky Bay USGS Summary  USGS Sediment study : Increasing eutrophication since ~1940 with shoreline development and cranberry agri-industry; Increasing eutrophication since ~1940 with shoreline development and cranberry agri-industry; Last 25 years (up to 1999) increased degradation, incidence of floating mats, Last 25 years (up to 1999) increased degradation, incidence of floating mats, Loss of wild rice since 1920’s (water level and eutrophication). Loss of wild rice since 1920’s (water level and eutrophication). Fisheries impacts Fisheries impacts----------------------------------------------------------------------  Barr, 1998 P Loading Sources Cranberry bogs (44 percent) Cranberry bogs (44 percent) Atmospheric deposition (17 percent) Atmospheric deposition (17 percent) Forests and wetlands (25 percent) Forests and wetlands (25 percent) Shoreline development (8 percent) Shoreline development (8 percent) Agriculture (6 percent). Agriculture (6 percent).

18. Changing Climate  Net effect: Increase eutrophication potential Longer growing seasons, ice free time Longer growing seasons, ice free time Intense storms Intense storms More variability dry/wet cycles More variability dry/wet cycles More winter thaws More winter thaws Increasing stream flows Increasing stream flows Warmer temperatures Warmer temperatures Dry-wet periods Dry-wet periods  Hence, need for watershed P management ? Basis without lake standards & meaningful antideg ? Basis without lake standards & meaningful antideg

21. Considerations for EPA  Support LCO Tribal lake standards being advanced.  Require Musky Bay Listed based on 2008 and 2010 data … at a minimum, list as threatened … at a minimum, list as threatened  Require protection LCO Bays and associated economies via enforceable antideg.  Initiate TMDL or alternative process COLA will fund TMDL independent study COLA will fund TMDL independent study  Otherwise Antidegradation is limited Point Source and planning concept only

22. August 25, 2008 Landsat Image of LCO