Streaming to Cleaner Water

Streaming to Cleaner Water A look at the past, present and future Doug Wetzstein Watershed Division February 23, 2013

Clean Water Act Federal Clean Water Act 72 Goal fishable/swimmable by 1983 Framework to protect and restore water quality Designate uses and set standards Assess waters TMDLs for impaired waters Protection and Control strategies 2

Pieces of the Impaired Waters Puzzle Why do TMDLs 2002, Legislative Auditor identified underfunded requirement to identify, evaluate and restore waters 2003, MPCA charged a diverse group to develop an efficient, accountable path to clean water the G-16 Feb. 2004, G-16 made recommendations July 2004, G-16 reconvened to develop legislation 3

Cannot Cause or Contribute Why do TMDLs 2005, Minn. Court of Appeals cited impaired waters section of CWA when it blocked the wastewater permit for the cities of Annandale- Maple Lake Neither the difficulty of the issues nor the commendable effort authorizes a resolution that clearly violates the plain language of the regulation governing impaired waterways.. it requires effluent limits in permits that insure a discharge does not cause or have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality standards. Wastewater permits and many economic development projects halted until TMDLs were in place Created a new urgency for stakeholders and politicians to address impaired waters, leading to the Clean Water Legacy Act 4

2006 Clean Water Legacy Act Identify impaired waters in 10 years Develop TMDLs (10% per year) Implement restoration Promptly delist Comply with CWA requirements Protect unimpaired waters Early involvement of stakeholders 5

The (Old) TMDL Approach Meet EPA requirements Single parameter/single segment Focused on chemistry Small to huge 4-8 years Costly 100 year plan 6

The 10 Year Cycle Monitoring and Assessment Condition monitoring Effectiveness monitoring Every 10 Years Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy TMDL Protection Strategy Implementation Plans Implementation Activities BMPs Permits Etc. 7

The Watershed Approach Watershed approach => managing the system Physical /Chemical/ Biological => comprehensive Restoration and Protection Tools and Procedures => to define problems and solutions Components of the project include: Water quality assessments for lakes and streams Process to identify biological impairment stressors Pollutant load and wastewater discharge limit modeling Develop impaired water TMDL studies for EPA approval Develop focused and targeted implementation strategies Adaptive Management Data and information to tell the story Accountability =>Data and measures to track 8

Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies Watershed restoration and protection strategy (WRAPS) provide: Local Government Comprehensive Water/shed Management Plan will use WRAPS to establish: How much pollutant reduction or protection is needed to meet standard, achieve goal or improve trend Where the water pollution problems are coming from (approx. at HUC 12 scale) Propose a pace of progress. TMDL with WLA and LA that goes to EPA. How to fix problems or threats (project and practice design) Priority/Sequence for fixing water problems or threats Who will have responsibility for fixes Pursuit of $ resources to accomplish fixes. 9

Then and Now Pre 2008 Now Focus Federal TMDL requirements Clean Water for MN Scope Single parameter impairments Impairments and Protection for Watershed Scale Variable: tiny to huge 8 digit HUC ~(81) Data Chemistry Chemistry + Biology + Physical Time More than 4 years 4 years Use Permit Decisions Permit + Local Plans + Action Decisions Products TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS + RA Condition assessment + Stressor Id. + HSPF Modeling and Spatial analysis +TMDL + Locally adopted and State Approved local water/shed plan Costs High - $100k $1m / TMDL Coming down ~ $400-500k / Watershed 10

What will a WRAP look like? Pomme de Terre River Watershed Report New summary document for stakeholders Prototype: Gathering input through April Will finalize a template May 11

Watershed Monitoring Intensive Watershed Monitoring Biological/Physical monitoring Lake monitoring Flow/chemical/load monitoring ongoing On track to complete state in 10 years 12

Monitoring and Assessment Reports A comparison of water quality conditions to standards to determine if water is achieving designated uses. Identify impairments Identify waters that should be protected 13

Biotic Stressor Identification A study of local stressors limiting the fish and invertebrate communities Stressors investigated by evaluating: Hydrology Water Quality Geomorphology Biology Connectivity 14

Stressor ID Reach Reach Name 07020002-563 Pomme de Terre River Barrett Lake to North Pomme de Terre Lake 07020002-562 Pomme de Terre River Perkins Lake to Muddy Creek 07020002-501 Pomme de Terre River Muddy Creek to Minnesota River 07020002-551 Unnamed Creek Unnamed Creek to Unnamed Creek 07020002-556 Dry Wood Creek Dry Wood Lake to Pomme de Terre River Biotic Impair ments Primary stressors to the biological community Dissol ved Oxyge n Nitrat e Phosp horus Turbid ity Fish Passage (dams) Alter ed Hydr ology Fish X X X X Fish X X Fish & Inverte brates Habi tat X X X Fish X X Fish & Inverte brates X X X X X X 15

HSPF Modeling Conventional Parameter TMDLs Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs River Nutrient TMDLs Support of Stressor ID development Priority Management Zone Support 16

TMDL Report Complete all TMDLs for 8 digit HUCs Define reduction goals for restoring water quality and desired uses Submit to EPA for approval 17

18

Human Disturbance Score Watershed Land Cover Riparian land cover Point sources Feedlots Stream channelization 19

20

21

22

23

Topographic Map

Orthophotography

3-meter DEM (Lidar)

EBI Top 5% (2006 NLCD) Water: proximity & stream power index Soil erodability: USLE Biological Habitat BWSR/UofM

Restorable Wetlands (2006 NLCD)

100-meter Riparian Corridor (2006 NLCD)

EBI, RW and Riparian (2006 NLCD)

EBI Top 5% (2006 NLCD)

EBI Top 5% (2006 NLCD) 33

Water Quality Targeting Water Quality Parameter Total Suspended Solids Watershed Derived Sediment: approx. 35% Pervious Areas by land-use category Total Suspended Solids Watershed Derived Sediment: Impervious Areas. - MS4 Total Suspended Solids Near-Channel Derived Sediment. Approx. 65% Current Conditions Current Loading by Flow Zone all sources. Very High 29 T/day High 4.9 T/day Mid - 1.6 T/day Low 0.49 T/day Very low 0.027 T/day NA this watershed Water Quality Targets by Parameter. Strategies Required Adoption Rate TSS levels reduced by _% by flow zones, to achieve WQ standards. Source Prevention: Moving the 90% to 52mg/l TSS. Loading Capacity by Flow Zone all sources. Very High 15 T/day High 3.1 T/day Mid - 1.2 T/day Low 0.40 T/day Very low 0.027 T/day TSS levels reduced by _% to achieve WQ standards. BMPs designed to achieve target levels. TSS levels reduced by _% to achieve WQ standards. Moving the 90% to 52mg/l TSS. Channel embeddedness. Interception & Treatment: In-Channel Work: Source Prevention: Interception & Treatment: In-Channel Work: Source Prevention: Interception & Treatment: All cropland continuously protected by 30% residue or equivalent. 100 year flood plan in permanent vegetation. * Top 5% of EBI areas protected. * Compliance with SWPPP 100 year flood plan in permanent vegetation. * Top 5% of EBI areas protected. * Measures Who Milestone Land-owners SWCD BWSR NRCS NPDES Permit Holders MS4s. Land-owners SWCD BWSR NRCS 100% in 10 years. 10% or more protected during each year. Schedule of Compliance if needed. 100% in 10 years. 10% or more protected during each year. Phosphorus Nonpoint Phosphorus by land-use category Current Loading by Flow Zone all sources. Very High 82 lbs./day High 8.4 lbs. /day Mid - 2.4 lbs./day Low 0.90 lbs./day Very low 0.15 lbs./day Reduce phosphorus levels to FWM 18.4 lbs. /day or less. This level set to achieve compliance with D.O. WQ standard during 7Q10 flows. WLA 0.02 lbs./day MOS 1.84 lbs./day LA: Very High 27 lbs./day High 4.7 lbs. /day Mid - 1.6 lbs./day Low 0.69 lbs./day Very low 0.13 lbs./day In-Channel Work: Source Prevention: Interception & Treatment: In-Channel Work: All manure applied at agronomic rates for phosphorus. 25 foot permanent vegetation buffers around all pasture lands.* Land-owners SWCD BWSR NRCS 100% in 10 years. 10% or more protected during each year. 35

Implement priority actions in targeted locations 36

It s a WRAP The goal is clean water. To get there we are: Monitoring all 81 watersheds by 2017 Monitoring not just chemical, but physical and biological too Protection as well as restoration of impaired waters Taking a comprehensive, focused and targeted approach Integrating point and non point Adapting revisit and build off what s been done and also see if it s working Reduced costs of doing assessment and TMDLs 37

Questions Doug Wetzstein Watershed Manager 651-757-2819 Doug.wetzstein@state.mn.us