(cheerful music) - Hello and welcome to The Journal.

I'm Steve Kendall.

Bowling Green State University has been tapped to lead a national project that deals with research into freshwater and understanding how watersheds work and preventing toxic algae blooms in those waterways.

Joining us is the distinguished research professor in biology from Bowling Green State university, Dr. George Bullerjahn.

He is also the director of BGSU's Great Lakes Center for Fresh Waters and Human Health.

So Dr. Bullerjahn, welcome to the program today and appreciate you taking the time to talk with us.

- Oh, it's a pleasure to fill you in on the sorts of things that we're doing here.

So thanks for having me.

- Yeah, and I know that we've talked and this has been an ongoing project.

I remember when we first started talking about Lake Erie and it's been a number of years ago, I know that you and your colleagues at that time said, look, the solution is not gonna happen immediately.

This is gonna take a lot of time because the issue is built up over a lot of time and there is no flip a switch and we've fixed the problem sort of thing.

So here we are talking about this, but talk a little about the Great Lakes Center for Fresh Waters Human Health and the things that you guys have been doing and what's in the works and the fact, that you've weathered the COVID pandemic pretty well, which is a good thing, you know, because we don't wanna abandon the research on the lake because of that.

So talk about what you folks have been up to since the last time we talked.

- Okay, good.

I'll start with just talking in general about our center.

Our center is funded by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Science Foundation.

It's a $5.2 million award, which not only funds work at Bowling Green State University and my colleagues, Tim Davis here, but it funds projects with collaborators at seven other institutions.

And so we're, the projects are threefold within this center.

First, we look at factors which stimulate or we look at the environmental factors which drive the formation, persistence, and decline of cyanobacteria harmful algal bloom events.

The second thing is to try to analyze the toxins which are present and the other kinds of metabolites to see exactly what they all are 'cause we really, there's a whole suite of toxins we don't know about.

So let's discover what's actually these organisms are making.

And then the third one is a comparison of all the different analytical tools that we have to see what are the best practices for predicting bloom, bloom events, and communicating these problems to the public.

And so, my lab specifically deals with the first problem and looking at factors which contribute to the formation and persistence and decline of bloom events.

Now, specifically for my lab, we're actually looking at those sorts of things which kill off cyanobacteria blooms.

And so you might think that's a good thing, and it sounds like, oh, if we could just come up with a a biological stressor that would actually wipe out a bloom, that would be a good thing.

And in fact, it isn't.

And the reason is, it's kind of interesting, the reason is, is that cyanobacterial toxins are kept inside host's cells.

And what we've done, we did a project in last year and then in 2019 showing that if there are viruses which actually attack the algae.

And when that happens, that actually releases the toxin into the water.

And so that goes straight into the water plant, and the water plant actually has dissolved toxins to deal with instead of actually using sand filters to filter out the cells.

If you filter out the cells, you get rid of most of the toxin.

If all the cells are rupturing, well then you got a problem and you have to deal with the water that enters the plant.

So we actually documented an event, a viral attack on the 2019 bloom, which actually saw a really bad spike in dissolve toxins.

So we're actually, we're developing tools in which water plant operators can detect viral activity as it's happening so they'll know in advance that they have to do these remedial actions on the water that enters the plant.

That's one thing we're doing.

Another project, and this is, everything's in collaboration with my colleague Tim Davis here at Bowling Green.

The other project is looking at factors that stimulate the growth of the Planktothrix bloom in Sandusky Bay, which has really been a problem up until last year.

And what's really surprising is that the bloom has been happening every year for 20 years.

And then last year, in our COVID year, which despite the fact we were able to get out every week, it never appeared, and it hasn't appeared yet this year either.

And so we're trying to figure out why.

This is good news, but we don't know the cause of the good news.

And so this is one of mother nature's little surprises.

What we do know that last year, there wasn't a huge load of nutrients into the bay.

It was a little lower than average, but still pretty decent.

- But not enough to account for the complete disappearance of the bloom.

- [George] Not enough.

Right, not enough.

- Right.

- And secondly, but the other thing we noticed is that there was a lot of calm days, a lot of bright sunshine, the weather was good for the most part.

And so the cyanobacteria bloom there, the Planktothrix bloom doesn't like a lot of light.

And so we had a lot of very sunny days, very little sediment in the waters that would make the water cloudy and turbid, which the organisms like.

And so we think that a light penetration had a lot to do with it.

And this is helping inform restoration projects in the bay, in which they're trying to construct islands that would limit wave action and limit sediment resuspension.

So we think that's playing a role, but it might not be, but like nature, it's probably not the whole story.

- Right.

Now this, and this is a total question that you haven't touched on.

Do the lake levels affect this?

And if so, how?

I mean, cause we had higher than normal lake levels over the last years.

This year apparently is gonna be a lower lake level year, so you take that into account as well.

That has impact also.

- It should have impact.

In a shallow embayment, such as Sandusky bay will have that.

So some of our resuspension actually you would expect to go up under lower water conditions because when driven events, they have to move less water, that means moving more sediment.

So that's another factor we have to consider.

We have to look at these events year by year over year.

One year isn't gonna tell us a story.

So we have to compare high water years with low water years and we haven't been out there long enough to really assess the impacts, but certainly it does have impact.

- Right, yeah.

When we come back, let's talk, obviously you've got a lot of other initiatives that you guys have undertaken and will be undertaking.

So we can talk more about Bowling Green State University's research into the health of Lake Erie back with Dr. George Bullerjahn in just a moment here on The Journal.

Thank you for staying with us here on The Journal.

Our guest is Dr. George Bullerjahn, the director of BGSU's Great Lakes Center for Fresh Waters and Human Health.

And you know, we've talked about Lake Erie, we talked about Sandusky bay, but I know that across the country, we're not the only ones experiencing algal blooms or water quality issues somewhat related to that.

So talk briefly just a little bit about what else is going on around the country a little bit and that sort of thing.

'Cause we're not the only ones dealing with this.

We'd like to think we are because it's so close to us, but it's a national problem.

- Yes, and these bloom events are expanding and becoming more common nationwide.

We're seeing expansion of bloom events that would typically occur in more, you know, warmer regions.

We're seeing them move further north.

There are many different kinds of toxic cyanobacteria that produce different suites of toxins and we're starting to see them in Ohio from latitudes further south.

So it really is a national problem.

We see bloom events, there are very serious bloom events in Florida, South Carolina.

The water supply, just like Toledo, the water supply to Salem, Oregon was shut down a couple of years back.

And the different kinds of toxins which are being identified are, we're discovering more and more toxins as time goes on.

And so this is a problem that isn't gonna go away.

So we actually do collaborate with folks that are working on lakes that are distinct from Lake Erie because the more we know about the different kinds of toxic cyanobacteria, the more we can know what to look for if they get here and they start populating Lake Erie.

Another aspect of this is that if we can figure out how to use the latest instrumentation that can document the presence of the blooms and look at and examine the toxins, a lot of these instruments have to be put in a lake, that's a challenging environment.

And so one approach we're taking is we're deploying instrumentation into smaller lakes which are easier to handle, or the weather the weather conditions are easier to handle.

So we know how to operate these devices which cost, you know, $30,000.

We'll learn how to do things in a smaller lake before we deploy them in Lake Erie.

And so, we have a number of projects in Chautauqua Lake New York, which is four hours away in extreme Western New York.

Has harmful algal blooms, and we're putting nutrients analyzers in throughout the lake to try to understand what are the pulses of nutrients that are driving the events that we see there.

Not only are we learning something about Chautauqua Lake and how to manage that bloom, and there's a very big economy around that lake.

We're also learning techniques on how to best utilize instrumentation in more challenging environments like Lake Erie, so.

- Yeah because, you know, we look at the lakes and again we see it as a recreational tourist kind of thing and it seems relatively benign, but yeah, the technology that you're putting in there to gather this information, it's a pretty abusive environment for it because water levels go up and down, wave action, all sorts of weather, all those things impact that.

So that's an interesting point, yeah.

- And let's not forget boat traffic.

- [Steve] Whoops.

- Yeah, that's proving to be a real challenge.

And Chautauqua lake, putting things on buoys actually didn't work well because boats would run into them, so.

So the more we learn about, so anything we learn from one lake can be, there's information that will be transferred to others.

And another aspect that I think is very important that people may not be aware of is that when we talk about toxins, everything around here is centers around Microcystin which is produced by the two big organisms that grow here, Microcystis and Planktothrix.

Well, there are other toxins out there.

We're detecting antitoxin, which is a neurotoxin.

We're detecting that at times.

We can detect genes saxitoxin, which is another neurotoxin all throughout Ohio and in the central base of Lake Erie.

And so, there's a lot more going on than just Microcystin.

And some of these blooms don't occur on the surface or throughout the water column, they actually occur on the bottom of lakes.

And so a lot of animal poisonings, you know, dog deaths are associated with these benthic blooms, which are these mats that form on the bottom of lakes.

So we gotta be watching out for lots of things that we haven't been thinking about as deeply over the years.

- Yeah, well, and that's a good point because we, the average person, like most of us are who don't deal with this to the degree that you do, we simply, when we see the algal blooms, we assume that's the only thing that's going on.

But as you said, there's a lot more going on just below the surface then all the way to the bottom of whatever particular body of water you're working with.

And that expands the scope of what you have to look for.

So that's a good point because we only see the material that shows up on top.

And I guess that's what worries us the most.

But the reality is, as you said, there's such a variety of these things and how they impact, how toxic they are is also also part of this whole research package.

- Right, and you know, I mean, the issue is so complicated.

I mean, we're seeing the migration of different toxic species coming further and further north.

That's linked to climate change.

Climate change is real.

We're seeing that, you know, in this part of the world, climate change is modeled to yield more intense storms and more rainfall, which means more nutrient runoff.

We're certainly seeing in the west, that's contributing to drought.

Over here is contributing to more water.

And so trying to understand the interplay between climate change and these harmful algal blooms is another issue.

I could go on and on.

Another complicating factor is that when you look at a bloom and it's all green water, might think it's all exactly the same organism.

Well, it's the same species, but there are different genotypes and some are toxic, some aren't.

And depending on what time of year it is, it may be more toxic or not.

So you might see green water and it's not toxic at all, or not very toxic.

You might see water that looks okay, and it might be very toxic.

And so these sorts of, trying to understand the interplay between toxic genotypes and factors like other organisms, other bacteria, which may promote the toxicity of the bloom.

You know, we're only just now teasing that out and we need very, very detailed molecular tools in order to sort that out, to identify all the genes in the water and figure out how they're being turned on and off.

- Yeah.

Now when we come back, you touched a little bit on the, you know, you were talking about the viral impact and how some of those source points like wastewater treatment plants, things like that.

When we come back can we talk a little bit about, again, and you mentioned it too, the runoff and things of that nature and how you folks are looking at that and dealing with the and being able to measure that in some way too.

So we can talk about what's going into the lakes, maybe, in a way as well, so.

- [George] And that's-- - Yeah.

- Yeah, in terms of understanding nutrient loads, we rely on the work of other folks.

Certainly the lab at Heidelberg led by Laura Johnson, the National Center for Water Quality Research.

They have data sets going back decades on nutrients linked, you know, nutrients in the major rivers and under Lake Erie.

And so we do have a pretty good idea of what kinds of nutrient reductions will be necessary to minimize the blooms.

There has been a recommendation in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement annex floor for there's a 40% reduction.

Phosphorus loads are appropriate.

One of the projects in our center is to actually manipulate balloon biomass with a 40% reduction to see if that actually does anything.

And that's worked by Hans Pearl at the University of North Carolina.

We're collaborating with him within the center.

And that looks like 40% is a reasonable target, but there are some problems with it, but let's just say it's reasonable, okay?

The big problem though is getting to that 40% reduction.

We know that years where the nutrient load is about down 40% due to a low rain year, we don't have much of a bloom.

And so that sort of drove the initial decision.

Now, how we actually permanently change land use such that that 40% reduction is achieved is really tough.

I mean, there are land use models which come close.

Land use scenarios that have been developed and at Ohio State and University of Michigan.

But doing it through voluntary measures will take us part of the way there, but I think that my opinion, and it's just my opinion, is that down the road, we may need some regulations imposed to get through that.

To get to that target.

- Well, when we come back, let's talk a little more about that.

And then any other initiatives that we haven't talked about that you believe are important too.

And we can kind of, well, as we know, this is not a story that ends in the next seven or eight minutes, but we can touch base on that.

So back in just a moment with Dr. George Bullerjahn, the director of BGSU's Great Lakes Center for Fresh waters and Human Health here on The Journal.

You're with us here on The Journal.

Our guest is Dr. George Bullerjahn, the director of BGSU's Great Lakes Center for Fresh Waters and Human Health.

At the end of that last segment, you were talking about the fact that you do have a model at least that that seems to say that a 40% reduction would be an appropriate goal, a reasonable goal to maybe affect the changes that we believe we would like to see in the Lake Erie quality environment.

And there are various, the state of Ohio has the H2O Initiative, that sort of thing.

But you did say, and again, an opinion that volunteer majors probably won't get us to that 40%.

Maybe talk a little about that, and again, how the state's efforts with H2O and the other things they've talked about have at least kind of leaned, pointed us in the right direction maybe.

- Yeah, I mean, the, politically, I think H2Ohio is a great thing.

I think it's done a lot of, there's a lot of good in it.

It's a tremendous effort.

I think the governor needs a lot of credit for pushing this through.

I'm hoping that the full 10 year effort can be seen through and in upcoming budgets.

And there's a lot of good in it.

There are economic incentives for farmers to do the right thing and develop a nutrient management plan.

The right now there's a $40 an acre incentive.

If the farmers sign up for, I think, a three-year period to develop a nutrient management plan, they get the 40 bucks an acre.

So I think that's, farmers are signing up for that.

That will have an impact.

There are, you know, will measures like this get to the 40% reduction?

I honestly don't know.

I mean, the modeling suggests it'll get closer, but will get there?

It may take a more serious efforts.

And so I think the way the political climate is right now, adding a tax on farmers isn't going to work.

I mean, but let's see what we can do for now with H2Ohio.

And then if more serious measures are required, we have to think about that in the future, so.

- Sorry.

And you mentioned the political part of it, and I guess, because what you hear, again, and then we've obviously talked, I don't talk to everybody, but when this topic comes up, generally speaking, people say, well, there's two arguments going on.

There's two sides of this.

And one side says, well, once you clean up all the wastewater treatment plants, come and see me about my 500 acres of farm land.

And now we know that both are contributors, and the other side says, well, when you clean up all the agricultural land, you know, we're doing the best we can with our water treatment.

So that's kind of this linchpin on this whole thing is one side sees the other side as the greater contributor.

The other side sees it exactly the opposite way.

And there's more than two sides, obviously, but that always seems when it kind of drills back down to.

So the incentive for agricultural land, which makes up most of the watershed of the Maunmee River Basin, how do you, and I know I'm asking you a question, but these things will at least try and incent that part of the contributing group to make it better.

- Right, well, I think people need to understand that most of the nutrients are coming from agriculture these days.

And not everybody knows that or accepts it, but that's the reality.

- [Steve] That's the reality, okay, all right.

- In the earlier days when Lake Erie was declared dead, point sources, industrial wastewater treatment, that was the major source.

So they played a bigger role.

So the game has shifted and we just have to realize that that's what the game is now.

Another, so another issue that, you know, and I think there's some disagreement among the scientists as to how serious it is, but I would really like to see a better assessment of animal feeding operations.

Animal feeding operations are regulated over a thousand animals of a thousand pounds each, okay?

So however you weigh that out is what your animal, your concentrated animal feeding operation is.

If you're below that, you're not regulated.

So if I were, if I add animals, I'd try to keep below that level to be free of regulation.

And so, you know, in the past, manure could be applied up to 150 PPM in the soil, whereas for a row crops, it's 50.

And so they were getting, they get to apply more phosphorous to the soil.

I think that's changing, but really what's the impact.

We know there are more animal feeding operations in the region than there were 15 years ago.

So I think that's an area which requires a little more investigation to see what the contribution is.

I think there's some disagreement that it's a big one or I think there's some disagreement as to how big it is, but I think it's worth looking at.

- Yeah, it's a potential contributor.

We just don't know how much, but it would seem, yeah, it would seem that if you think about it logically, it has to be a contributor.

The question is, yeah, how much?

And you're right, more people will get into that and stay under the regulatory limit, which I don't know if that was based on a scientific, you know, discussion or let's just say a thousand, that sounds like a good number, I don't know.

- All that pre, I had nothing to do with that.

- [Steve] Sure, yeah.

Predates.

- Predates me and that's the way it is.

But, so.

- Yeah we've got just a couple of minutes.

Is there one thing, one area that you guys would really want people to know that you're focusing on right now or the thing you see as the next big step for you?

You know, I guess I wanna leave with sort of a more positive thing.

- [Steve] Sure.

- There are farmers signing up for these incentives.

There are farmers that wanna do the right thing.

We have the Blanchard Demonstration Farms Network, you know, which is educating farmers on best practices.

And there is, you know, I'm old enough to remember when Lake Erie was a dead lake.

(indistinct) And maybe not everybody is, but-- - [Steve] Oh yeah.

- I think there's a sense.

And when I work with people and I talked to people in the field and I, you know, there is the sense that, hey, we did it before, we can do it again.

And so there is an underlying sense of optimism to throw out the field, which gives me hope.

I mean, there are some areas of the United States where they're plagued with blooms, they've never seen it before.

It's a panic mode for them and they don't know what to do.

Well, we've done this.

We know what the source is.

We understand these blooms.

We know what to look for.

We understand these blooms better.

We understood it all, we wouldn't have a problem.

But we do know what the source is, and we do have an idea of what the targets are.

And so it's gonna take time, but we've done it before.

- Yeah, and as you said, we're aware now, we've gathered more information.

So we know what's doable, we just have to figure out how to get to that point.

And everybody is aware that it's an issue that needs to be addressed, and so that's the first step is understanding that you have a problem and we're at that point, and we know that we've dealt with this before, as you said, and got the lake back to a good shape.

And so we know it's possible to do it, so that's good.

Well, Dr. George Bullerjahn, director of BGSU's Great Lakes Center for Fresh Waters and Human Health.

Thank you so much for being on.

We'll have you and your colleagues on in the future to talk about how this is progressing and the steps we're taking and the, yeah, and the positive moves toward making Lake Erie a better lake and all the waterways that feed into that and through Ohio, so appreciate it very much.

- Well, my pleasure, and I hope to be in the studio next time.

- Yeah, we'll be glad to have you, and we're getting back to that.

Yeah, in fact, I know you asked about that, but yeah, we'll be getting people in here and we can, it's yeah, we can have that conversation, so it'll be good, it'll be good.

Yep.

You can check us out each week at WBGU.org and of course, you can watch us every week on WBGU PBS.

See you next time on The Journal.

(cheerful music)