2001 Basin Plan Scoping Document

Balmm Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi In Minnesota Lower Mississippi River Basin Planning Scoping Document

June 2001

balmm Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota About BALMM

A locally led alliance of land and water resource agencies has formed in order to coordinate efforts to protect and improve water quality in the Lower Mississippi River Basin. The Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota (BALMM) covers both the Lower Mississippi and Cedar River Basins, and includes a wide range of local, state and federal resource agencies. Members of the Alliance include Soil and Water Conservation District managers, county water planners, and regional staff of the Board of Soil and Water Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Minnesota Extension, Department of Natural Resources, Mississippi River Citizen Commission, the Southeastern Minnesota Water Resources Board, the Cannon River Watershed Partnership, and others. BALMM meetings are open to all interested individuals and organizations. Existing staff from county and state agencies provide administrative, logistical and planning support. These include: Kevin Scheidecker, Fillmore SWCD, Chair; Norman Senjem, MPCA-Rochester, Basin Coordinator; Clarence Anderson, Rice SWCD, Area 7 MASWCD Liaison; Bea Hoffmann, SE Minnesota Water Resources Board Liaison.

This Basin Plan Scoping Document is the fruit of a year-long effort by participants in BALMM. Environmental Goals, Geographic Management Strategies and Land-Use Strategies were developed by either individual BALMM members or strategy teams. An effort was made to involve those who will implement the strategies in developing them. Each strategy was presented at least once at a monthly BALMM meeting, and subsequently revised based on comments received, before being included in this draft document. Other parts of the document were prepared by the Basin Coordinator, who drew on a multitude of published sources to describe the basin’s geology, water quality, and land-water relationships.

2 CONTENTS Page I. Introduction...... 5

II. Basin Description ...... 10 A. Overview ...... 10 B. History...... 11 C. Geology...... 15 D. Land Use, Landscape Features and Water Quality ...... 16

III. Water Quality...... 19 A. Basinwide Surface Water Conditions and Trends ...... 19 B. Mississippi River Water Quality...... 25 1. Lake Pepin and Upstream ...... 25 2. Downstream of Lake Pepin...... 28 C. Water Quality of Major Tributaries ...... 29 D. Lake Water Quality...... 35 E. Ground Water Quality...... 45

IV. Land-Water Relationships ...... 49 A. Sediment...... 50 B. Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus)...... 54 C. Fecal Coliform Bacteria...... 57 D. Pesticides...... 61 E. Hydrologic Modification ...... 61

V. Environmental Goals...... 65 A. Water Quality Goals ...... 65 B. Water Quantity Goals...... 65 C. Aquatic Ecosystem Goals ...... 65

VI. Geographic Management Strategies ...... 66 A. Watershed Management ...... 66 B. Aquifer Protection...... 72 C. Floodplain Management...... 77

VII. Land-Use Strategies...... 85 A. Perennial Vegetation: Maintain/Increase Acreage ...... 85 B. Wetland Protection and Restoration...... 92 C. Soil Conservation on Row-Crop Land...... 96 D. Urban and Rural Residential Land Management ...... 102 E. Nutrient and Pesticide Management ...... 107 F. Animal Feedlot Management...... 113 G. Mining Activities Management ...... 117

VIII. Monitoring and Evaluation...... 119

IX. Future Directions...... 125

3 TABLES Page

303(d) List of Impaired Waters 1998...... 20

Long-Term Water Quality Trends ...... 32

Lower Mississippi River Basin Lake Assessment ...... 36

Lake Zumbro Water Quality ...... 38

2000 Crop Residue Survey Results...... 50

Effect of Crop Residue on Soil Loss ...... 51

Agencies and Groups Involved in Water Quality Monitoring...... 121

FIGURES

Map: Lower Mississippi River Basin ...... 9

1998 Impaired Waters List...... 20

Lake Zumbro Summer Mean Total Phosphorus...... 39

Lake Zumbro Summer Mean Chlorophyll-a ...... 39

Lake Zumbro Summer Mean Secchi Transparency ...... 40

Estimated Summer TP Loading Rate to Lake Pepin ...... 42

Lake Pepin Summer Mean Total Phosphorus ...... 43

Lake Pepin Summer Mean Chlorophyll-a...... 44

Lake Pepin Summer Mean Secchi Transparency...... 44

Agro-Ecoregion Map of the Lower Mississippi River Basin...... 110

4 I: Introduction In the summer of 1999 an ad-hoc group strategies whereby the environmental of county, state and federal agency goals and objectives outlined in representatives started meeting to Watermarks can be achieved. These discuss the possibility of creating a will be included in a statewide plan basin plan for the Lower Mississippi scheduled to be published in River and Cedar River Basins in September 2002. southeastern Minnesota. Shortly thereafter, Governor Jesse Ventura The ad-hoc basin planning group that launched the Water Unification started meeting in August 1999 Initiative, as a result of which seven contributed to the development of water Basin Teams composed of state and quality and land use objectives in federal agency representatives were Watermarks and, since February 2000, appointed to assist in the development has been developing strategies by of the next state water plan, called which these goals and objectives can “Water Plan 2000” (the title was later be accomplished over the next decade. changed to “Watermarks”). Thus two The planning group calls itself the Basin basin planning groups became Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in established at roughly the same time in Minnesota (BALMM). It meets monthly the Lower Mississippi and Cedar River and is staffed informally by Kevin Basins, with similar purposes and Scheidecker, Fillmore Soil & Water overlapping membership. Conservation District Manager, who serves as chair; and Norman Senjem, The Basin Team1 produced a report MPCA-Rochester, who serves as basin that was provided to the State Planning coordinator. A secretarial position Agency in February 2000 for inclusion staffed by BWSR-Rochester currently is in Watermarks. It focused on water vacant. Membership includes most of quality goals, objectives and indicators those who belong to the Basin Team, in for the basin. Watermarks was addition to representatives of many published in September 2000. Over the local, state, regional and federal next two years, the seven Basin Teams agencies.2 will be responsible for developing

1 Members of the original Basin Team were: 2 Participants in BALMM include counties, Soil Norman Senjem, Minnesota Pollution Control and Water Conservation Districts, University of Agency (co-chair); Mark Dittrich, Minnesota Minnesota-Extension, Minnesota Pollution Department of Agriculture (co-chair); Larry Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Gates, Department of Natural Resources; John Agriculture, Minnesota Department of Natural Nicholson, Natural Resources Conservation Resources, Board of Water and Soil Service; Art Persons, Minnesota Department of Resources, Natural Resources Conservation Health; Dave Peterson, Board of Water and Soil Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Resources, Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota- Council-Environmental Services; Allene Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission; Prairie Moesler, executive director, Cannon River Island Indian Community; St. Mary’s University Watershed Partnership; and Bea Hoffmann, Resource Studies Center, Southeastern executive director, Southeastern Minnesota Minnesota Water Resources Board, Cannon Water Resources Board. River Watershed Partnership and the Whitewater River Watershed Project.

5 In addition to the BALMM activities, two Basin Plan Scoping Document. An public forums were conducted by the informal Open House was combined MPCA to seek advice and comment on with a keypad voting session similar to water quality goals and strategies. The that used at the first forum. Once again, first was held Feb 7, 2000, and the the discussion and voting focussed on second on Nov. 8, 2000, in Rochester. both the effectiveness and feasibility of Citizens who had participated in the each strategy. Forty-two individuals May 1999 “The Governor’s Forums: participated, including citizens (61%); Citizens Speak Out on the government staff (27%) and elected Environment” in Rochester were invited officials (12%). Results of the Citizens to attend a similar event to provide Forum were reviewed at the next input into Watermarks on Feb. 7, 2000. BALMM meeting, and were used to County commissioners and water revise the Basin Plan Scoping planners also were invited, as were Document. members of the public through a widely distributed news release. Thirty-six The final strategies for land-use, people participated in the first forum, geographic management and which made use of keypad technology monitoring included in this Basin Plan to provide instant feedback on how the Scoping Document will be provided to group voted on specific questions. the Basin Team for inclusion in the Demographically, the group was evenly “Strategies” portion of Watermarks. In split among urban, rural-farm and rural- addition, they will be further refined and non-farm. Forty-six percent were developed by BALMM sub-teams and citizens, 34 percent government staff, through interaction with basin citizens and 20 percent elected officials. Using and stakeholders to develop a final the document Water Plan 2000 Basin Plan. Objectives: Lower Mississippi/Cedar River Basins, the group evaluated the Purpose of Basin Planning adequacy of the Water Quality and Ecosystem objectives as a whole, and To an ever-increasing extent, water then evaluated each of the land-use quality protection and improvement objectives from the standpoint of both efforts in Minnesota are being effectiveness in accomplishing organized by major drainage basin. environmental objectives, and the Public and private funding sources are feasibility of implementing them. In showing a growing preference for addition, the group suggested several working through basin initiatives rather additional objectives to add to the than funding a host of separate, report, two of which were subsequently uncoordinated efforts within the same added to the Basin Plan Scoping basin. The purpose of BALMM is to Document Geographic Management create an organized, unified effort in the Strategies: Groundwater Recharge Lower Mississippi/Cedar River basins Areas; and Floodplain Management). that will: Comments also were used to modify existing objectives and indicators. 1. Make the case to the public, elected officials and funding The second public forum was held on sources for giving priority Nov. 8, 2000, to provide the public an attention to water quality opportunity to comment on the Draft

6 restoration and protection in and objectives from comprehensive southeastern Minnesota; local water plans from counties within 2. Establish ongoing the basin were collected, organized, coordination of local, state, and distributed to Alliance members to tribal and federal agencies to help guide the development of plan and implement water strategies. This should help to ensure quality protection and that activities undertaken at the basin restoration activities that are scale are compatible with and economically and supportive of land-use activities environmentally sustainable undertaken by counties. and reflect local and downstream issues and Similarly, an attempt has been made to priorities. relate strategies developed for southeastern Minnesota to those being The Basin Plan Scoping Document is a developed for the larger, 189,000 guide toward the pursuit of these broad square mile Upper Mississippi River goals that the BALMM has developed in Basin, defined as the drainage area its first year. As such, it will be used by upstream of Cairo, Illinois, where the Alliance members to guide and Ohio River joins the Mississippi River. coordinate implementation activities in Toward this end the Alliance has the basin, even as it continues to be reviewed the recently published refined and elaborated into a more strategy by the Upper Mississippi River complete Basin Plan. This approach Conservation Committee, entitled “A suits the implementation orientation of River that Works and A Working River: Alliance members while conforming to A Strategy for the Natural Resources of the state’s schedule for the the Upper Mississippi River System.” development of basin plans in the This strategy lists nine objectives for context of Watermarks. the river system as a whole, which includes the drainage basin as well as Making Connections the main channel and its floodplain. In The core of the Scoping Document is particular, improving water quality for all found in the strategies that have been uses (Objective 1), Reduction in developed by Alliance members to erosion and sediment impacts manage the land in the context of (Objective 2), and Manage channel watershed management, aquifer maintenance and disposal to support protection and floodplain management ecosystem objectives (Objective 7) are to achieve environmental goals and explicitly supported by the BALMM objectives. Goals for Water Quality and strategies. Other objectives, which deal Quantity and Ecosystem Health are with particular aspects of managing the described in Part IV, while strategies for Mississippi River and its floodplain, attaining these goals are described in appear to be less directly related to the Parts V and VI. Strategies have been land-use management activities of local developed at the basin scale, for use and state government participating in throughout the Lower Mississippi River the Alliance. Basin, but with a view to making connections with land-use planning In addition, the Alliance is keeping activities at both smaller and larger abreast of developments concerning geographic scales. Accordingly, goals hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, its

7 relationship to nutrient inputs to the key water quality goal for the basin that Mississippi River originating in is seen as supporting efforts to reduce Minnesota, and the “Draft Action Plan nutrient loads to the Gulf of Mexico. for Reducing, Mitigating and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico” Pool Planning that was developed by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Nutrient Task An attempt will be made also to relate Force. Concern about nitrate-nitrogen the management of tributary contamination of ground water is high in watersheds to goals established for the southeastern Minnesota’s karst region main channel and backwaters of of fractured, porous bedrock. Because specific navigation pools, through pool of the close interaction between surface planning. Pool plans are being water and ground water in karst developed for Pools 1-10 by the Fish geology, this concern extends to the and Wildlife Work Group, a sub-group trend of steadily increasing of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in the Paul District’s River Resources Forum. region’s rivers. Reversing this trend is a

groundwater in this part of the basin. II: Basin Description The presence of fractured limestone bedrock lying close below the land A: Overview surface, which is often referred to as The Lower Mississippi River Basin, karst topography, 3 presents a which includes the Cedar River Basin widespread risk of groundwater for planning purposes, is located in contamination in the eastern basin. In southeastern Minnesota. It includes all the southwestern basin, Mississippi or part of 17 counties and has 12 major tributaries emerge as small streams out watersheds covering about 7,266 of a prairie landscape once rich in square miles (4,650,100 acres). Land wetlands but now extensively drained to use is diverse. On the western side support a productive agriculture. lands are primarily cultivated, while the Further to the north, in the western eastern landscapes are dominated by Cannon River Watershed, remnants of steep forested hill slopes. About two- the Big Woods hardwood forest thirds of the land in the basin is under intermingle with mixed crop and cultivation, while about 13 percent is livestock farming in a rolling terrain forested. Roughly 17 percent of the interspersed with lakes and wetlands. land use is open or pasture lands. On the basin’s eastern border, the Major agricultural crops include corn, Mississippi River is shaped by the lock- soybeans and hay. Animal production and-dam system, which converted a includes dairy and beef cattle, hogs, free-flowing meandering river into a sheep and lambs. Major population series of navigation pools with a nine- centers include the southern foot-deep channel for barge traffic. Metropolitan area of Dakota County in addition to Austin, Albert Lea, Faribault, The character of rivers and streams in Owatonna, Rochester, Red Wing and the Lower Mississippi River Basins Winona. These and other urban areas changes considerably along the main are experiencing rapid population direction of flow, west to east. The growth and commercial development. Cannon River originates in the lake area of eastern Le Sueur and western The basin’s population grew 11.9 Rice County, a farming region of glacial percent between 1990 and 1998, from drift and moraines. A major tributary, 539,787 to 603,997, according to the Straight River, has its marshy Minnesota Planning. Most of the growth beginnings near Owatonna. The has been in Dakota (23.3 percent), headwater tributaries of the Zumbro, Dodge (10 percent), Olmsted (11.8 Root and Cedar Rivers ooze from till percent) and Rice (10 percent) counties. 3 Karst is a geologic term used to describe a Beautiful bluffs, springs, caves and landscape created over soluble rock with numerous trout streams abound in the efficient underground drainage. The underlying rock dissolves over time as surface water eastern basin, where steep topography percolates through the soil and carbon dioxide and erosive soils increase the potential from the air and from biological activity in the for pollutant runoff and sedimentation of soil combine with the water. The water and streams. Sinkholes and disappearing carbon dioxide chemically form a weak carbonic streams highlight the close connection acid that reacts with calcite and dolomite, causing the rock to dissolve slowly to produce between surface water and joints and cracks.

10 plains and moraines of Steele, Dodge, limestone. Snowmelt and heavy rainfall Mower and Freeborn counties once rich can induce flash floods in this in wetlands, now extensively drained for topography. Finally, the rivers near the agriculture. Mississippi Valley begin to slow down, lose energy and drop their load of The extent of presettlement wetlands in sediment in alluvial floodplains that Lower Mississippi Basin counties has have been inching higher ever since been estimated to be approximately glacial times. In recent decades, 880,000 acres. Good estimates of however, dikes along the lower reaches remaining wetland acreage are not of the Root and Zumbro have available, but considerably less than disconnected the rivers from their half of the original wetlands are alluvial floodplains, making farming of believed to exist today (Anderson and the rich soil possible, at the cost of Craig, 1984). The vast majority of increased sedimentation of the original wetland acreage is located on Mississippi and the degrading of a rich the western side of the basin in Dodge, ecosystem. Freeborn, Mower, Steele and Waseca counties. Seventy-nine percent of the B: History landscape in southeastern Minnesota is classified as well-drained, and much of The Mississippi River valley is the the land that was poorly drained has product of thousands of years of glacial been tiled for agricultural production. activity and water and wind erosion. The first people that lived along the After leaving the till plains, the Cannon, Upper Mississippi River Valley (the Zumbro and Root drop down into stretch between Lake Itasca and the deeper valleys starting near Northfield confluence with the Missouri River (Cannon), Zumbrota (Zumbro) and above St. Louis) arrived 12,000 years Spring Valley (Root). Hereafter the ago. These early inhabitants were network of rivers and tributaries is fed followed by a succession of native by ever-deeper reserves of ground cultures that lived near the Mississippi water. In certain streams, a and relied on the river for food. combination of swiftly moving current, streambeds formed of boulders, cobble Some later cultures also farmed on the and gravel, and stable flows of cool, Mississippi floodplains and islands. For oxygen-rich waters support trout and example, early European explorers the aquatic insects on which they feed. wrote of native farming practices on Deep pools and undercut banks provide Prairie Island, Minnesota. These early refuge during sunny days and low explorers also documented the bounty waters, while riffles provide a continuing of the Mississippi River in terms of fish source of food. and game: “Radisson went with hunting Stream gradients become steeper as parties, and traveled "four the rivers approach the Mississippi months...without doing Valley. The upper stream valleys in this anything but go from river to driftless area, which the last glaciation river." He was enamored of did not reach, are formed by vertical the beauty and fertility of the limestone bluffs, the product of millenia country, and was astonished of erosion through highly soluble

11 at its herds of buffaloes and cooler, wetter conditions that occurred antelopes, flocks of pelicans, several hundred years before and the shovel-nosed Europeans began to settle this part of sturgeon, all of which he the continent. particularly described. Such was the first year, 1655, of During European settlement, the observations and exploration landscape changed again. Pollen by white men in Minnesota, analysis (again on Lake Pepin sediment and their earliest navigation cores) shows a shift from primarily pine, of the upper part of the oak, birch, and big woods species to Mississippi River.” greatly increased amounts of pollen (Collections of the Minnesota from plants like ragweed, which grows Historical Society, Volume well in open fields and cleared areas 10, Part 2, pp. 462-463) (Engstrom and Almendinger, 2000). While the exact timing of this shift is not Following the early exploration of the known, the co-occurrence of this Mississippi River in what is now change with the first appearance of Minnesota, additional Europeans began corn and wheat pollen suggests that it to trickle into this part of the continent. happened at about the same time that Eventually that trickle became a flood, widespread cultivation came to and European settlers became the Minnesota, in the 1850’s. predominant residents of the river valley. At roughly the same time that agricultural activities were changing the Land-Use Changes landscape of southern Minnesota, As European immigrants advanced logging was altering the Mississippi and across the U.S., they left changing St. Croix River basins to the north, both landscapes in their wake. In of which flow into the Lower Mississippi. Minnesota, settlers plowed under the Massive logging operations were active prairie and cut down the forests. in the Upper Mississippi basin between Outposts, then towns, then cities grew about 1870 and 1915 (Sterner and up on riverbanks. Industry was Nunnally, 1999). Hundreds of established on the banks of the thousands of board feet of logs and Mississippi in St. Anthony/Minneapolis, lumber were sent down the Mississippi then in St. Paul. All of these activities to the mills of St. Anthony and even took their toll on the health of the farther downstream each year. The St. Mississippi River. Croix River was also a thoroughfare for the logging industry, and large mills European settlers weren’t the only were built at Stillwater and beyond. sources of landscape changes in the The intensive logging left the land Lower Mississippi River basin, susceptible to erosion, and waste however. Pollen analysis of sediment products from the mills were disposed cores taken from Lake Pepin shows an of in the rivers. increase in “Big Woods” plant species such as sugar maple and basswood Finally, the advent of commercial trees long before the arrival of most navigation on the Mississippi River Europeans. This landscape change is above St. Louis, Missouri impacted the associated with a climatic shift to basin as well, both directly and

12 indirectly. The arrival of the first authorized the USACE to create a 4.5- steamboat at Fort Snelling in 1823 foot navigation channel through a heralded a new era in river combination of dredging and clearing transportation in Minnesota, and snags from the river. According to the enormous changes for the river itself. report Ecological Status and Trends of the Upper Mississippi River System Navigation and the River 1998: It is difficult to over-state the impact of “Snag clearing … navigation on the Mississippi River. contributed to the instability The advent of commercial navigation, of the river bank because and the ensuing channel modifications trees were removed 100 to and lock and dam system, transformed 200 feet (30 to 60 m) back the Mississippi River above St. Louis, from the shoreline to reduce Missouri, from a free-flowing river to a future hazards.” (p. 3-5) system of reservoirs interrupted by stretches of altered river. These Wing dams were another tool used by changes had a profound impact on the the USACE to enhance navigability. river’s ecology. Today, the existence of These long fingers of rock and willow the navigation system places mats (and later concrete) extended boundaries on the extent to which the from the shoreline out into the river river can be restored and managed. channel, focusing much of the water flow into the center channel where it The changes wrought on the would scour out accumulated sediment Mississippi between St. Anthony Falls and debris. The wing dams also served and the Minnesota-Iowa border due to to raise the water level in the main navigation began almost as soon as the channel. Closing dams were also first steamboat maneuvered upstream constructed on side channels, to focus to Fort Snelling and later the falls of St. the river flow into the main portion of Anthony. Wood was scavenged or cut the river. from the banks of the river to feed the steam engines. This activity had a It didn’t take long before the 4.5-foot significant impact on the Mississippi channel was seen as inadequate, and River near St. Louis. On the Minnesota in 1907 Congress authorized a six-foot stretch of the river, early steamboat channel project. This was followed by a traffic was limited to high-water periods nine-foot channel project in 1930 that when the boats could navigate the led to the system of locks and dams shallow Mississippi depths. But that that exists on the river today. limitation was soon to change. Today, 26 locks and dams aid Recognizing that steamboat traffic Mississippi River navigation between upstream of the confluence of the Minneapolis and the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (below Missouri and Mississippi Rivers below which the river became more Alton, Missouri. Eight of these locks navigable) would increase if the river and dams are located in Minnesota, channel was “improved,” the U.S. Army between Minneapolis and the Corps of Engineers (USACE) began Minnesota-Iowa border. altering the Mississippi River channel as early as 1838. In 1878, Congress

13 Ecological Impacts continued at varying rates into the All of the historical changes in the present, with the greatest changes in Lower Mississippi River Basin have nutrient and sediment loading occurring impacted this area’s ecological after 1940 (Engstrom and Almendinger, systems. For example, intensive 2000). agriculture and logging left vast tracts of bare land susceptible to soil erosion. The burgeoning population living along Wind and water erosion sent thousands the river took its toll in other ways, as of tons of sediment and associated well. Over-fishing led to the near nutrients into the Mississippi River and elimination of some large fish species its tributary streams each year. (Lubinski et. al., 1998, p. 3-6), and native mussel beds were decimated by Agriculture and logging were not the pearl hunting and the harvesting of only sources of nutrient inputs to the shells for the active button industry that river. Untreated sewage and industrial grew up along the river. (For details on wastes from the cities of Minneapolis over-harvesting of the mussel beds, and St. Paul were disposed of in the see Great River: The Environmental river until the Pig’s Eye Treatment Plant History of the Upper Mississippi, 1890- — now called the Metro Plant — was 1950, Philip V. Scarpino, University of constructed in 1933. This contributed Missouri Press, 1985, Chapter 3.) to downstream nutrient loading and other problems. For example, a 1927 Navigation, and the accompanying river report of the U.S. Public Health Service channel alterations, has also altered the and the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries ecology of the river. The ecological indicated that pollution from the Twin impacts of first the wing dams and Cities was so severe that a 45-mile closing dams, and then the lock and stretch of the river below St. Paul could dam system has been dramatic. The not support fish during August 1926 construction of closing dams cut off due to low dissolved oxygen levels. side streams and backwater areas of the river. No longer exposed to This increased flux of sediment and periodic flushing by higher water flows, nutrients into the Lower Mississippi the backwater areas began to fill with River can be seen in sediment core sediment, a problem that was samples taken from Lake Pepin. exacerbated by increased sediment Between shortly after the onset of loading to the river from upstream European settlement (approx. 1830) logging and agricultural activities and today, sediment loading to Lake (USGS, 1998, p. 3-4). Pepin increased by an order of magnitude, and the lake experienced a Dredging was also done to increase the more than 15-fold increase in depth of the main river channel. phosphorus accumulation in the bottom Dredge spoils were piled to create sediments. These changes are also channel border islands, and also reflected in a shift in diatoms, a type of deposited in shallow areas near the algae, from species associated riverbanks, covering those aquatic primarily with clear water to those more habitats (USGS, 1998, p. 4-11). commonly seen in nutrient-enriched Levees were also built to protect the lakes. These changes began during floodplains—which had become European settlement and have

14 farmlands and cities—from seasonal return to the river near Lake Pepin and floodwaters. Wabasha each year. However, challenges remain. The current lock All of this added up to habitat changes and dam system limits the impact of for the Mississippi River. Fish “re-setting events”—like floods and spawning areas were lost, and native droughts—that once maintained the mussel beds either scoured away or ecological system. Toxic pollutants, silted over. As mentioned earlier, while decreasing, still pose a threat to fisheries were also impacted. In human health and wildlife. Nutrient addition, the floodplain forests levels remain elevated in Lake Pepin. experienced a decrease in diversity and These and other problems must be a shift to a system dominated by silver addressed if the Lower Mississippi maple (Yin and Nelson, 1995, p. 5). River Basin is to thrive into the future.

The construction of the lock and dam system in the 1930s brought more C: Geology changes. The dams slowed flow The Lower Mississippi River Basin velocities, raised water levels and comprises an area of 5,708 square inundated adjacent floodplains. Many miles in southeastern Minnesota. The islands disappeared below the rising Vermillion, Cannon, Zumbro and Root water levels, and those that remained Rivers drain most of the basin. Annual experienced increased wave erosion. precipitation ranges from 28 to 31 Larger pool areas in the river meant a inches and increases toward the larger surface area for the wind to blow southeast. Annual runoff ranges from across, spurring wave action that stirs 5.5 to about 8 inches, increasing from up sediment, leading to decreased west to east. The topography varies water transparency and declines in from gently rolling in the west to aquatic plants. plateaus with deeply-incised bedrock valleys in the east. Row crop agriculture Not all of the changes led to a decrease is the primary land use in upland areas, in habitat and diversity. New backwater valley slopes are forested, and river areas were created as a result of the valleys have a mixture of agriculture dams, and some now support diverse and forest. plant and animal communities. New wetlands were created as well. Bedrock geology consists of alternating However, at least some of these layers of shale, sandstone, and habitats are slowly filling with sediment carbonates of Paleozoic age. These deposited by the river, and there is deposits have been eroded from west concern that eventually these areas will to east so that individual formations be lost. vary in their vertical position. Where carbonate bedrock is the first bedrock, The River Today it may be highly dissolved. The Today, advances in wastewater uppermost bedrock unit is generally treatment and best management fractured. practices have led to water quality improvements. Fish and mayflies have Much of the basin has been glaciated, returned to the Mississippi River below but glacial deposits vary in thickness St. Paul, and numerous bald eagles from several hundred feet in the west to

15 less than 50 feet in the east. Bedrock is less than 100 feet in the south central often exposed along the major rivers. to more than 200 feet in the northeast Des Moines Lobe till associated with and northwest. Few wells are the Bemis moraine and the Altamount completed in drift materials because moraine occur in the extreme west. supplies are not dependable, the Most of the western half of the basin is aquifers are susceptible to covered with old gray till. Alluvial and contamination, and concentrations of colluvial deposits occur along the major dissolved solids are very high, rivers in the east. A loess cap occurs particularly in deposits of the Wisconsin throughout most of the basin. drift.

The hydrogeology of the area has been The Upper Carbonate bedrock units extensively studied. Despite this, have typically been classified as a mechanics of flow are not completely single aquifer. They consist of the understood because of the complexities Cedar Valley, Maquoketa, Dubuque, of flow within fractures and solution and Galena formations. Upper channels. Aquifers are generally Carbonate deposits underlie the entire recharged where they are exposed or basin. Ground water within these have a thin cover of unconsolidated formations drains toward the major material. Ground water flows toward the rivers and streams in a general major rivers. Vertical mixing of aquifers southward direction. Recharge to the is most likely in areas where there are ground water system occurs in upland steep hydraulic gradients, such as areas. Water infiltrates through glacial along rivers and in buried bedrock deposits and moves into the bedrock valleys. Fractured flow and local heavy units. Bedrock deposits are fractured pumping also may lead to vertical and have many solution channels. Flow mixing between aquifers. can thus be very rapid within the bedrock aquifers. The rate that water The Cedar River Basin comprises an percolates through the glacial deposits area of approximately 1,200 square and the chemistry of glacial deposits miles in south central Minnesota. The exert strong controls on water quality of Cedar and Shell Rock Rivers and the bedrock aquifers. Recent smaller streams drain southward into investigations indicate there may be Iowa and eventually into the Mississippi confining bedrock units within the River. Annual precipitation ranges from Upper Carbonate deposits. In many 30 inches in the northern part of the portions of the basin, the Upper basin to 31 inches in the south. Carbonate aquifer is not considered an Average annual runoff varies from 5.5 acceptable drinking water sources due inches in the west to about 6.5 inches to actual or potential contamination. in the east. The area consists primarily of a flat undulating plain. Row-crop D: Land Use, Landscape Features and agriculture is the primary land use. Water Quality Steep-sloping land, often under Glacial deposits overlie the entire intensive cultivation or development, is watershed and consist of pre-Wisconsin located in close proximity to streams in drift in the eastern half of the basin and many parts of the basin. This is Wisconsin drift in the western half. especially true of the blufflands on the Glacial deposits range in thickness from eastern side of the basin and the rolling

16 moraine landforms on the western edge acres contribute the bulk of agricultural of the basin, as well as less extensive sediment to the region’s streams. steep areas located in between. Approximately 11 percent of the land is Soil erosion and runoff are greatly next to permanent streams and about affected by land use – particularly, how 29 percent next to intermittent streams. the land use affects surface roughness This indicates a very high potential for and the ability to infiltrate water. Well- sediment delivery to streams as a result managed pasture and hay land provide of erosion and runoff. vast areas where rainfall and snowmelt can infiltrate the soil and recharge The National Resource Inventory, a shallow groundwater rather than statistical land-use survey conducted running off the surface and carrying every five years by the Natural high water volumes and pollutants to Resources Conservation Service, streams. indicates that soil erosion is evenly distributed across highly erosive and Data from the NRI show a steady moderately erosive fields. Erosion rates decline in pastureland and erratic are described relative to the amount of fluctuations in noncultivated cropland erosion that land can tolerate (T) from 1982 to 1997. Together, acreage without impairing its productive in these two land-use categories capacity. Land eroding at “T” , which declined from 628,000 acres in 1982 to usually amounts to about 3 to 5 tons 448,000 acres in 1997, a decline of per acre, is thus able to maintain its 180,000 acres, or 28 percent. Forested productive capacity. acreage increased slightly over the same period, from 574,000 to 590,000 Results of the 1997 NRI indicate that acres. 61,200 acres of cultivated cropland in the Lower Mississippi River Basin are Although reasons for declining acreage eroding at a rate of 4T or greater. This of pasture and noncultivated cropland land comprises only 2.2% of the were not identified in the NRI study, cultivated cropland in the basin, but conversion from mixed crop/livestock accounts for 16% or the total water farming to larger, more specialized row- erosion in the region from cultivated crop operations appears to be playing a cropland. Also according to the 1997 major role. In Olmsted County, for NRI, 154,700 acres of cultivated example, data from the Minnesota cropland in the Lower Mississippi River Agricultural Statistics Service indicate Basin are eroding at a rate of 2T - 4T. that major crop acreage has changed This land comprises only 5.5% of the significantly over the past 25 years. cultivated cropland in the basin, but There has been a shift from a forage- accounts for 19% of the total soil loss small grain-corn rotation to a corn- from water erosion from in the region soybean rotation. From 1975 to 1998, from cultivated cropland. However, the soybeans have replaced one-third of majority of soil erosion – an estimated the alfalfa hay acres and more than 65% -- comes from the remainder of eighty percent of the harvest oats cropland which erodes at moderate and acreage. Soybean acres have low rates of soil loss – an estimated increased from 29,900 in 1975 to 2,597,000 acres. Collectively, it 67,600 acres in 1998 (Wotzka and appears that these moderately eroding Bruening).

17 Historical and Ecological Approach. Sources: Section II Report submitted to the Minnesota Anderson, Jeffrey, and William Craig, Pollution Control Agency Environmental 1984,”Growing Energy Crops on Trends Project. Minnesota’s Wetlands: The Land-Use Perspective,” Center for Urban and University of Minnesota, “Lower Regional Affairs, University of Mississippi River Basin Information Minnesota, Minneapolis Page”, Department of Soil, Water and Climate. Engstrom, Daniel R., and James E. http://www.soils.agri.umn.edu/research/ Almendinger, 2000, “Historical Changes seminn/ in Sediment and Phosphorus Loading to the Upper Mississippi River: Mass US Army Corps of Eng., 2000. balance Reconstructions from the Sediments of Lake Pepin,” St. Croix US Department of Agriculture, Natural Watershed Research Station, Science Resources Conservation Service, Museum of Minnesota, Marine on St. National Resources Inventory, 1982, Croix, Minnesota 1987, 1992, and 1997 Waters, Tom, 1977, Streams and Hoops, Richard. 1987. A River of Rivers of Minnesota, University of Grain: The Evolution of Commercial Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Navigation on the Upper Mississippi River. University of Wisconsin- US Geological Survey, 1999, Madison, College of Agricultural and “Ecological Status and Trends of the Life Sciences Research Report. Upper Mississippi River System 1998: Madison, WI. A Report of the Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program,” LTRMP 99-T001, Minnesota Historical Society, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Collections of the Minnesota Historical Center, La Crosse, Wisconsin Society, Volume 10, Part 2, 1905 Wotzka, Paul and Denton Breuning, 2000, “A Small-Scale Watershed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Assessment of Nitrogen Inputs and 1999, “Baseline Ground Water Quality Losses for A Southeastern Minnesota Information for Minnesota’s Ten Trout Stream,” Minnesota Department Surface Water Basins,” MPCA Ground of Agriculture, St. Paul Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, web site at Yin, Yao, and John T. Nelson. 1995. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groun Modifications to the Upper Mississippi dwater/gwmap/gwpubs.html/#reports River and Their Effects on Floodplain Forests, Long Term Resource Scarpino, Philip V., Environmental Monitoring Program Technical Report History of the Upper Mississippi, 1890 – 95-T003. Prepared for National 1950, University of Missouri Press, Biological Service Environmental 1985 Management Technical Center. Onalaska, WI. Sterner, Robert and Patrick Nunnally. 1999. Ecological Trends in the Upper Mississippi Basin: A Combined

18 coliform bacteria, 19 are for turbidity, III: Water Quality and four are for un-ionized ammonia.

The MPCA is required under the Clean A: Basinwide Surface Water Water Act to publish a list of stream Quality Conditions and Trends segments which have impaired uses, and for which the MPCA proposes to Summary: complete total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies. TMDL studies define Water quality monitoring data from the the maximum amount of each pollutant Mississippi River and its tributaries in which can be released and assimilated southeastern Minnesota present a in the receiving water from point and somewhat mixed picture. The current nonpoint sources and still allow the condition of surface water in the basin receiving water to achieve water quality must be described as impaired and in standards. The MPCA is required to list need of restoration with regard to and prioritize stream segments. The several types of pollutants – mainly 1998 list of impaired waters is based on those for which numerical water quality a relatively small number of monitoring standards exist. A review of historical stations whose locations were water quality monitoring data in the determined by specific needs not basin has identified widespread necessarily related to watershed impairments indicated by exceedences assessment. Thus, the list of impaired of the water quality standards for waters did not result from a turbidity4 and fecal coliform bacteria5, comprehensive survey of water quality. and isolated exceedences of the Prioritization decisions are based on standard for un-ionized ammonia.6 problem severity, relative importance of Of 42 stream reach impairments on the the stream segment, and availability of Section 303(d) list7, 20 are for fecal resources to conduct the TMDL work. As the basin planning process is launched in the Lower Mississippi River 4 The ambient water quality standard for turbidity (Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050.0222) basin, water quality problems will be for most waters is 25 nephelometric turbidity identified and prioritized, resulting in units (NTUs); for cold-water streams (Class 2A) possible modifications of the list below: the standard is 10 NTUs. 5 The ambient water quality standard for fecal coliform bacteria (Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050.0222) for most waters of the state applies between April 1 and October 31 and is divided into two parts: 1) 200 organisms per 100 milliliters (not to exceed a geometric mean of not less than 5 samples per calendar month, or 2) 2000 organisms per 100 milliliters (no more than 10 percent of the samples per calendar month can individually exceed.) 6 7 The 303(d) list of Impaired Water Bodies is a reporting requirement of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The MPCA generates this list every two years, based on an evaluation of states to develop a pollution budget, or Total water quality monitoring data in STORET. The Maximum Daily Load, for each listed Clean Water Act requires the U.S. EPA and impairment.

19 303(d) IMPAIRED WATERS 1998 LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN

Mississippi River, Pine Cr. to Root R. 07040006-001 Aquatic life Ammonia5, 6 2004//2007 Mississippi River, LaCrosse R. to Pine Cr. 07040006-002 Aquatic life Ammonia5, 6 2004//2007 Reach River Reach# Lake # Affected use Pollutant or stressor Target start//completion 7 UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN, Lower Portion (cont'd)

Mississippi River, Trimble R. to Cannon R. 07040001-006 Aquatic life Ammonia5, 6 2004//2007 Garvin Brook, Headwaters to Mississippi R. 07040003-023 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2002//2006 Root River, S. Fk. Root R. to Mississippi R. 07040008-001 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2001//2005 *** 07040008-002 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2001//2005 Straight River, Maple Cr. to Crane Cr. 07040002-021 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//2007 Zumbro River, South Fork, Cascade Cr. To Middle Fk. Zumbro R. 07040004-016 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2000//2004 Whitewater River, South Fork, Source to Split at 122 S. Fk. Whitewater R. 07040003-222 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2002//2006 Robinson Creek, Headwaters to N. Br. Root R. 07040008-418 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2001//2005 Prairie Creek, Headwaters to Cannon R. 07040002-033 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 1999//2003 Salem Creek, Split at 220 to S. Fr. Zumbro R. 07040004-120 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2000//2004 Whitewater River, North Fork, Unnamed Cr. to Middle Fk. Whitewater R. 07040003-120 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2002//2006 Vermillion River, Headwaters to S. Br. Vermillion R. 07040001-312 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//2007 Vermillion River, S. Br. Vermillion R. to the Hastings Dam 07040001-212 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//2007 Cannon River, Pine Cr. To Mississippi R. *** 07040002-002 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//2007 07040002-001 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//2007 Mississippi River, La Crosse R. to Root R.

20 *** 07040006-001 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2008 07040006-002 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2008 Mississippi River, Root R. to Coon Cr. 07060001-021 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2008 Garvin Brook, Headwaters to Mississippi R. 07040003-023 Aquatic life Turbidity 2002//2006 Mississippi River, Hay Cr. to Lake Pepin 07040001-204 Aquatic life Turbidity 2003//2007 Root River, Thompson Cr. to Mississippi R. 07040008-001 Aquatic life Turbidity 2001//2005

Reach River Reach# Lake # Affected use Pollutant or stressor Target start//completion 7 UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN, Lower Portion (cont'd)

Mississippi River, L&D #3 to Trimble R. 07040001-108 Aquatic life Turbidity 2003//2008 Mississippi River, Trimble R. to Cannon R. 07040001-006 Aquatic life Turbidity 2003//2008 Mississippi River, Coon Cr. to L&D 8 07060001-217 Aquatic life Turbidity 2004//2008 Zumbro River, Indian Cr. to Mississippi R. 07040004-001 Aquatic life Turbidity 2000//2004 Vermillion River, Dam to Mississippi R. 07040001-112 Aquatic life Turbidity 1999//2003 Mississippi River, Lk. Pepin to Rush R. 07040001-104 Aquatic life Turbidity 2003//2008 Cannon R, Belle Cr. to Mississippi R. 07040002-001 Aquatic life Turbidity 1999//2003 Mississippi River, Root R. to Coon Cr. 07060001-021 Aquatic life Turbidity 2004//2008 Whitewater River, Whitewater R., N.Fk. to Mississippi R. 07040003-018 Aquatic life Turbidity 2002//2006 Whitewater River,N. Fk., Unnamed Cr. to Middle Fk. Whitewater R. 07040003-120 Aquatic life Turbidity 2002//2006 Mississippi River, Zumbro R. to Whitewater R. 07040003-008 Aquatic life Turbidity 2004//2008

CEDAR-DES MOINES RIVER BASIN

Des Moines River Below Windom Dam, Windom Dam to Jackson dam 07100001-101 Aquatic life Ammonia4,5 2004//2007 Shell Rock River, Albert Lea Lake to Goose Cr. 07080202-009 Aquatic life Ammonia5 2004//2007

21 Des Moines River, Windom Dam to Jackson Dam 07100001-101 Aquatic life Low Oxygen2 2002//2007 Cedar River, Roberts Cr. to Austin Dam upper 07080201-321 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2007 Cedar River, Rose Cr. to Woodbury Cr. 07080201-016 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2007 Shell Rock River, Albert Lea Lk. to Goose Cr. 07080202-009 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2007 Des Moines River, Windom Dam to Jackson Dam 07100001-101 Aquatic life Turbidity 2002//2007

22 In addition, 17 lakes in the basin are Many of these positive trends likely impaired by severe algae blooms that have resulted from the installation of result from excess nutrients. Nutrient secondary (biological) or further levels in streams are monitored, but the treatment for point source dischargers lack of numeric ambient water quality in the basin. However, despite these standards makes it difficult to evaluate positive and neutral trends, whether monitored concentrations are concentrations of many pollutants causing impairments. Impairments for remain high enough to cause both fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity widespread water quality impairments. frequently occur in the lower reaches of The ubiquitous and substantial the basin’s major tributaries as well as increases in nitrate nitrogen far upstream in the watersheds. concentrations is thought to be related to manure and commercial nutrient On the positive side, a long-term applications to row-cropped fields. evaluation of the MPCA’s 16 Minnesota Many fields have been extensively Milestone monitoring sites in the Lower drained with subsurface tile, which act Mississippi/Cedar River basins shows as efficient conveyors of nitrate nitrogen significant improvements in the to surface water. In addition, concentration of certain pollutants and wastewater treatment facilities with no trend in others over the past three ammonia effluent limits convert decades. ammonia to the nitrate form of nitrogen. S Un-ionized ammonia concentrations decreased at all 16 sites. S Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentrations decreased at all but one site (on the Vermillion River); S Total Phosphorus decreased at 11 sites and remained unchanged at 5 sites. S Fecal Coliform Bacteria concentrations declined at 8 sites and showed no trend at 8 sites. S Total suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations showed no trend at 11 sites, declined at 4 sites and showed an increase at two sites (both on the Mississippi River) S Nitrate Nitrogen concentrations showed an increasing trend at 12 sites and no change at four sites. Cedar and Lower Mississippi River Basins

( 1999 Impaired Waters List (F) T) Vermillion R (T) (per Section 303(d) Clean Water Act) (A Sc ott ,T) ) M (F ississipp n R i R no ) Affected Use an F,T C ( (T) Aquatic Life Swimming Dakota ) Rice (F Both Wabasha Pollutant, Stressor, or Indicator: rairie Cr P A - Ammonia

Les ueur M T) F - Fecal Coliforms ( i R s s T - Turbidity ro i b s m s u i Z p County Boundary p i r te R Riv er a w ( Blue e T Watershed Boundary it ) ) Ea rt h Goodhue h (T S Waseca St eele S Dodge W R

t F r

a k i N

g F Z W k h u hit t ew ) m ate T R r R ,

b Olm st ed F ( r (F ( F o ,T) r ) R B Fk n S i ( M F F) v water R ( r i ) White a s Salem C s r (F) G is s ip p i R

) F Winona ( r Houston C Fillmore ( n Mower A Freeborn o , s t R, S Fk (F) F in Roo ) b o R Root R (F,T) ) ( F F S ( , M T h ) i e s

l s l i R s ( s T o ) i ) c p F k ( p

i R R R

r (

A a d , F e

) C Cedar River Basin Lower Mississippi River Basin B: Mississippi River Water 1. Water Quality: Lake Pepin and the Quality River Upstream Two dominant influences on water Water quality in the Mississippi River quality in the 60 river miles between varies considerably along the 146.5 Lake Pepin and upstream through Pool river miles between confluence with the 2 are the Minnesota River and the St. Croix River just southeast of St. Metropolitan Twin Cities area. The Paul, southward to the Iowa border. Minnesota River contributes more than Several complicating factors make this 80 percent of the average annual stretch of river unique and challenging sediment load to Lake Pepin, and is to describe with simple measurements chiefly responsible for the filling-in of of water quality. the lake at a rate roughly 10 times that The first, and most obvious, is the lock- which prevailed in pre-settlement times and-dam system that forms nine (before 1840). Approximately 17 navigation pools adjacent to Minnesota percent of the lake volume in 1830 has (29 for the entire Upper Mississippi been replaced by sediment. If current River) within which a nine-foot-deep rates of sedimentation continue, Lake navigation channel is maintained to Pepin will fill in after approximately 340 support commercial barge traffic. This years rather than 4,000 years without system, installed in the 1930s, has accelerated sediment loading. In less fundamentally changed the river and its than a century the upper third of Pepin potential uses by converting a free- will be filled in. The rate of phosphorus flowing river meandering through a accumulation has increased 15-fold broad floodplain, into a series of pools over the same period. Currently, the that cover the floodplain with Minnesota River contributes slackwater. Within the navigation approximately half the load of pools it is useful to distinguish between phosphorus and viable chlorophyll a (a the flowing water of the main channel, measure of algae) to Lake Pepin on an and the side channels and backwaters, average annual basis. During low flow when describing water quality and its periods of concern, half the load of connection to aquatic life support. chlorophyll comes from the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This A second structural factor that greatly contributes to chronic problems influences water quality of the associated with algal production. Mississippi is the presence of Lake Upstream of Lake Pepin, sediment from Pepin, which was formed naturally from the Minnesota River makes the alluvial sediment deposits at the mouth Mississippi River much more turbid of the Chippewa River. Because Lake than it otherwise would be, limiting the Pepin acts as a settling basin for diversity of aquatic life including sediments and attached contaminants, mussels and submersed aquatic water quality differs quite dramatically vegetation. upstream and downstream of Lake Pepin. The Metropolitan Twin Cities area also exerts a powerful influence on the Mississippi River through Lake Pepin. This is a result of the density of population (more than 3 million) combined with the relatively small

25 discharge of the river in the point sources provide the bulk of metropolitan area (310 cubic meters phosphorus to the river. The last such per second on average, compared to period was summer 1988, when a 520,000 cubic meters per second near severe drought resulted in very low the mouth of the Mississippi River). flows, algal blooms, oxygen depletion This produces a “population stress” and resulting fish kills in Lake Pepin. level of about 10,000 people per square meter of river flow per second, the Toxic chemicals became a major highest of any point on the Mississippi pollution problem in the Mississippi River. following World War II, when the synthetic-organic chemical industry The 60-mile reach downstream of the rapidly expanded and introduced Metropolitan area was polluted with thousands of new chemicals, which sewage for many decades. This eventually found their way into the resulted in frequent depletion of nation’s rivers. By 1950, the Mississippi dissolved oxygen, which adversely River had been significantly degraded affected fish and other pollution- by chemicals such as mercury and sensitive organisms. This situation polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). prevailed until the mid-1980s, after Following the banning of PCBs in the which time improvements in the Metro 1970s, concentration in sediments Plant, the state’s largest sewage decreased greatly. Bed sediments treatment facility, were introduced. The deposited during the 1950s and 1960s Metro Plant was built to provide primary retain extremely high levels of PCBs treatment in 1938; secondary treatment (2000 to 3000 nanograms per gram) in was added in 1978. More recently, Pool 2; thus, contaminated sediments additional treatment for ammonia was could remain a problem for years to added; and biological phosphorus come. USGS sampling from 1987 to removal is being introduced at the 1992 showed that bed-sediment Metro Plant and other facilities operated concentrations of mercury in Lake by the Metropolitan Council in the near Pepin exceeded 0.18 future. The separation of storm water micrograms/gram, a level that has been from the sanitary sewage collection shown to increase the mortality rates in system completed in 1995 has further fish, embryos, eggs and larvae8. In reduced pollution pressure by virtually surficial bed sediments, PCB eliminating the need for sewage concentrations are high below the Twin treatment bypasses during storm Cities, reach a peak in Lake Pepin, and events in the Metro area. decline sharply downriver.

Ammonia toxicity problems have High organic-carbon concentrations in diminished in frequency as a result of the presence of mercury in the bed these improvements, and it is hoped that phosphorus reductions from the 8 Birge, W.J., Block, J.A., Westerman, A.G., Metro Plant, combined with planned Francis, P.C., and Hudson, J.E., 1977, reductions from point and nonpoint Embryopathic effects of waterborne and sources in the Minnesota River, will sediment-accumulated cadmium, mercury and zinc on reproduction and survival of fish and help to reduce algal bloom frequency amphibian populations in Kentucky: US and duration in Lake Pepin, especially Department of Interior, Research Report 100, in vulnerable low-flow periods when Washington, D.C., 28 p.

26 sediments increase the methylation rate area (Lock & Dam 3 and 4). Dissolved of mercury and subsequently increase oxygen concentrations and dissolved the absorption and retention of mercury oxygen saturation exhibited a small in fish and human tissues. The increasing trend over the same period. Mississippi River between Lake Pepin Municipal point source pollution and the Twin Cities is one of the areas abatement activities, particularly in the where this is most likely to occur. Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, were likely important management activities Recent water quality monitoring data influencing these positive show that the Mississippi River improvements. However, upstream of Lake Pepin is impaired by nitrite+nitrate nitrogen concentrations turbidity and ammonia. The MPCA lists and loading increased significantly at the Mississippi River from Lock and Lock and Dam 3 and 4. But when all Dam 3 through Lake Pepin as impaired forms of inorganic nitrogen were by turbidity. The lower reach of the considered, only a small increasing Vermillion River, which at higher flows trend was observed at Lock & Dam 4. exchanges water with the Mississippi, also is listed as impaired by turbidity. In A Water Quality Assessment Report addition, a short reach between the published in 1999 by the Wisconsin Trimbelle River and the Cannon River Department of Natural Resources is impaired by un-ionized ammonia. indicates that concentrations of PCBs have been gradually decreasing at USGS monitoring from 1987 to 1992 monitoring sites near Lock and Dam 3 showed that average concentrations of and Lock and Dam 4 on the Mississippi herbicides were below maximum River. This assessment is based on contaminant levels of drinking-water long-term monitoring of suspended standards established by the US EPA. sediment contaminant concentrations at However, it is not known whether these two sites since 1987. Suspended agricultural chemicals and their sediment contaminant trends for lead metabolites adversely affect aquatic and mercury are less obvious, although life. Concentrations of dissolved heavy there appears to be a decline in lead metals are well below maximum and mercury concentrations at Lock contaminant levels, but concentrations and Dam 3. These trends in in suspended and deposited sediment contaminant reduction were credited to often exceed maximum contaminant past pollution abatement efforts to levels, and toxics accumulated in bed reduce the use or discharge of these sediments remain a potential threat to contaminants. riverine biota. Suspended sediment in river water The Wisconsin Department of Natural represents a major portion of Resources’ Mississippi-Lower St. Croix contaminant transport, especially in Team has identified positive trends in turbid rivers such as the Mississippi several water quality parameters after River. Organic chemicals that do not examining two decades of monitoring dissolve readily in water (such as data. In the last 20 years, significant PCBs, organochlorine pesticides and decreasing trends were noted for fecal heavy metals) adsorb to fine-grained coliform bacteria, un-ionized and total suspended sediment particles, ammonia nitrogen in the upper study especially those high in organic matter

27 content. Some sources of contaminant Dredging itself as well as related input include runoff from urban and activities such as transport and storage agricultural land use, deposition from and dewatering of dredge spoils within coal and waste incineration, the flood plain, are potential sources of resuspension of contaminated bed pollution. sediments, and wastewater discharges. Finer-particle sediments (silt and clay) Concentrations of PCBs, lead and from tributaries and points upstream mercury in suspended sediments (the Minnesota River, for example) tend normally were higher in samples to settle out in side-channels and collected from Lock and Dam 3 than at backwater areas where water moves Lock and Dam 4. This is due to the very slowly. In the decades since the closer proximity to the Twin Cities Lock-and-Dam system was Metropolitan area, a major source of constructed, backwater areas that once these contaminants. Lake Pepin acts as were lakes, old river channels, oxbows a natural sediment trap, which results in and wetlands, have been filled in with decreased transport of these several feet of fine-particle sediment contaminants downstream. from upstream sources. The surficial sediments are not consolidated, and 2. Water Quality Downstream of are easily resuspended by wind or Lake Pepin turbulence caused by recreational and In some respects the Mississippi River commercial boat propellers. “starts over” at Lake Pepin. As noted above, concentrations of heavy metals Many backwater areas of the drop sharply. Nutrient enrichment and Mississippi supported dense beds of consequent hyper-eutrophication is not aquatic plants before an abrupt decline a recurring, widespread problem, as it in the late 1980s. High levels of turbidity is in Lake Pepin and further north in continue to hinder the re-establishment Spring Lake. Impairments for and recovery of submersed aquatic ammonia, fecal coliform bacteria and vegetation in these areas by keeping turbidity are clustered toward the light from penetrating to the river bed. southern stretches of the river, between Continued deposition and resuspension the confluence with the LaCrosse River of sediment in backwaters also has and the Iowa border. tended to produce a uniform depth of water which results in a less diverse Sediment is a widespread and recurring biological community. A recent increase problem both in the main channel and in submersed aquatic vegetation in slackwater areas of all navigation pools. Pools 5-9 has been accompanied by an Continual deposition of large-particle apparent decline in turbidity. sediments (sand) in the main channel necessitate regular dredging and a The rapid spread of zebra mussels into massive river channel maintenance the Upper Mississippi River is quickly program to maintain the 9-foot becoming a major water quality issue. navigation channel. Much of the large- Zebra mussels were first discovered particle sediments originate in near La Crosse in 1991. Since then, the Chippewa River. Other tributaries and population and distribution of zebra upstream river channel scouring also mussels have expanded greatly. The are sources of large-particle sediment. highest concentrations have been

28 found on hard substrates in flowing threatened by urban development, lack water with moderate to low suspended of shading, high temperature and solid concentrations. Densities unstable hydrology. The Vermillion is exceeding several thousand individuals impaired by excess levels of fecal per square meter have been found in coliform from the headwaters to the some portions of the river. Zebra dam in Hastings, and by excess mussel populations upstream of Lake turbidity in the lower reach that runs Pepin are very low and are likely parallel to the Mississippi River. negatively affected by high suspended Sediment exchange between the solid concentrations from the Minnesota Vermillion and Mississippi Rivers at River. high flow complicates the turbidity problem. Recent monitoring shows that Unusually low dissolved oxygen riverine lakes along the lower reach of concentrations were detected in parts the Vermillion are impacted by excess of the Mississippi River where zebra phosphorus. Urbanization, stream mussel populations were high, during corridor protection from agricultural early summer periods of 1997and 1998. practices and development, and the Water clarity improved dramatically in Metropolitan Council’s Empire portions of the river in late summer wastewater treatment facility are among 1997, which may have resulted from the most significant concerns. Long- the filter-feeding activity of zebra term monitoring of the Vermillion four mussels. Perhaps the most serious miles northeast of Farmington indicates impact of zebra mussels is on native decreasing concentrations of total mussel populations in the river. Native suspended solids and un-ionized mussels are being smothered by high ammonia, and increasing concentrations of zebra mussels that concentrations of BOD5 and nitrate- attach themselves to the native nitrogen. mussel’s shell. This greatly reduces the ability of native mussels to filter-feed. Cannon River: The Cannon River In addition, waste products from zebra enters the Mississippi River mussels may be harmful to native immediately upstream of Lake Pepin. mussels. Riverine reservoirs including Cannon Lake and Lake Byllesby often suffer C: Water Quality of Major from hyper-eutrophication, the result of Mississippi Tributaries excessive loads of phosphorus from point and nonpoint sources. The latter The major tributaries to the Mississippi include feedlots, excess fertilizer and are listed north to south, accompanied manure use, and soil erosion. Riverine by a brief summary of water quality lakes at the mouth of the Cannon also resource issues: may be impacted by phosphorus. Fecal coliform bacteria levels are high Vermillion River: This stream originates throughout the Cannon River and its in the south metro area near Lakeville, major tributaries. The northern portion and discharges into the Mississippi of the watershed is experiencing rapid near Redwing. The headwaters area of urban development, partially a result of the Vermillion includes reaches more Twin Cities commuters. The classified for a trout fishery, which are lower reach of the Cannon is impaired by excess turbidity, which is likely a

29 result of excessive soil erosion from the Zumbro River: Like the Cannon River, surrounding hilly terrain combined with the Zumbro River is impaired streambank erosion. The Straight River, throughout by excessive concentrations a major tributary that runs parallel to the of fecal coliform bacteria. Zebra developing Interstate 35 corridor, is mussels were detected in Lake Zumbro impaired by fecal coliform bacteria. in September 2000, the first time this Long-term monitoring at the mouth of exotic species has been found in the Cannon show decreasing Minnesota outside of the Mississippi concentrations of BOD5 ,un-ionized River and the Duluth-Superior harbor ammonia, total suspended solids, total where it is a major nuisance. Lake phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria Zumbro also suffers from hyper- over past decades. eutrophication, but has improved somewhat since phosphorus controls U.S. Geological Survey monitoring from were introduced at the Rochester Water 1984 to 1993 was evaluated for the Reclamation Plant. Additional National Water Quality Assessment reductions from point and nonpoint Program (NAWQA) in the Cannon sources are needed. The Zumbro also River. The assessment showed that is considered a source of nitrates that the greatest loads and yields of nitrate contribute to the contamination of the nitrogen and total phosphorus in both aquifer that supplies drinking water to the Straight River (near Faribault) and the City of Rochester. A Clean Water Cannon River (near Welch) occurred in Partnership for the South Fork was spring and summer. Nitrate nitrogen initiated to address this problem. The concentrations exceeded the Maximum lower Zumbro is impaired by high Contaminant Level of 10 milligrams per suspended sediment concentrations. liter on the Straight River during spring Sediment and phosphorous discharged and summer of 1990. The Straight from the Zumbro at times may impair River, a large tributary that enters the aquatic vegetation in Weaver Bottoms Cannon River at Faribault, was found to in the Mississippi. Long-term monitoring contribute disproportionately to nutrient of the south fork of the Zumbro loads in the Upper Mississippi. Yield of downstream of Rochester shows total nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen was decreasing concentrations of BOD5 , un- 8.22 tons per square mile per year, on ionized ammonia and total phosphorus, average, more than twice the amount and an increasing trend in nitrate- estimated for the Minnesota River and nitrogen concentrations over past seven times the amount for the decades. Vermillion River. The yield of total phosphorus was 0.30 tons/square Whitewater River: The Whitewater mile/year, three times that of the River supports a healthy population of Minnesota River, and six times the level brown trout, and is the centerpiece of in the Vermillion River. In an Upper one of the state’s most popular parks. Mississippi River Basin NAWQA Study Impairments from excessive sediment of snowmelt runoff, concentrations of and bacteria limit its uses. The MPCA, nitrate nitrogen, dissolved ammonia Natural Resources Conservation nitrogen and total phosphorus in the Service and other state and federal Cannon River watershed were among agencies are assisting local the highest in the study area. government in a major watershed improvement effort focused mainly on

30 sediment reduction and habitat decreasing over past decades, while improvement. These efforts will also nitrate-nitrogen concentrations have help to protect the Weaver Bottoms in been increasing. the Mississippi River. Long-term monitoring indicates that average Cedar and Shell Rock River concentrations of BOD5 and un-ionized watersheds. These two watersheds ammonia have been decreasing over discharge into the Cedar River in Iowa, past decades, while nitrate nitrogen where the vast majority of the concentrations have been increasing. In watershed acreage is located. Fecal the 1990s decade, the mean coliform bacteria concentrations are concentration of nitrate nitrogen was high enough to cause both streams to 8.90 mg/l, the highest level recorded at be impaired on the Minnesota side of long-term monitoring stations in the the border. The Cedar River is listed as basin. impaired by nitrate-nitrogen and fecal coliform bacteria by the Iowa Root River: The Root River originates in Department of Natural Resources. the Western Corn Belt Plains ecoregion Long-term monitoring has been dominated by intensive agricultural land conducted at two sites on the Cedar uses, and flows into the Driftless River and one site on the Shell Rock Region which is more wooded, rolling River. A monitoring site north of Austin karst terrain where groundwater flows on the Cedar shows decreasing provide stream temperatures suitable concentrations of BOD5, total for trout. High concentrations of fecal phosphorus and un-ionized ammonia. A coliform bacteria and sediment impair monitoring site south of Austin, the Root River, limiting its suitability for downstream, shows decreasing recreation and for aquatic life support. concentrations of BOD5 , total The mean concentration of total phosphorus, un-ionized ammonia and suspended solids at the mouth of the fecal coliform bacteria, with an increase river was 99 mg/l during the 1990s, in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations. The more than twice as high as any other Shell Rock River shows decreasing monitored major tributary in the basin. concentrations of BOD5, total Concentrations of BOD5, Total suspended solids and un-ionized Phosphorus, un-ionized ammonia and ammonia, and increasing fecal coliform bacteria have been concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen.

31 Long-Term Water Quality Trends in the Lower Mississippi River Basin

Cannon River at Br on CSAH-7 at 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Welch (CA-13) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5- 3.3 ------2.5 2.5 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids ------22.8 15.1 decrease Total Phosphorus ------0.26 0.18 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------3.00 3.90 no trend Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0060 0.0040 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms ------139 52 decrease

Cedar River at CSAH-4, 3 Miles S of 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Austin (CD-10) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5- --- 5.2 5.8 3.1 2.4 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids --- 31.0 30.5 23.4 28.8 no trend Total Phosphorus --- 0.64 0.72 0.43 0.36 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------3.20 3.90 5.45 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0135 0.0070 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms --- 2,307 697 199 280 decrease

Cedar River at CSAH-2, 0.5 Miles E of 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Lansing (CD-24) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5- --- 3.3 3.0 1.9 1.4 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids --- 23.0 25.5 18.9 21.1 no trend Total Phosphorus --- 0.18 0.28 0.19 0.16 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------4.40 6.55 no trend Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0060 0.0030 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms --- 409 589 302 374 no trend

Garvin Brook at CSAH-23, SW of 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Minnesota City (GB-4.5) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5------1.6 1.4 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids ------85.8 35.5 no trend Total Phosphorus ------0.25 0.13 no trend Nitrite/Nitrate ------1.30 1.70 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0050 0.0040 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms ------670 851 no trend

Units of Measurement Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) (geomean in mg/l)l Total Suspended Solids (geomean in mg/l)l Total Phosphorus (geomean in mg/l)l Nitrite / Nitrate (geomean in mg/l)l Un-ionized Ammonia (geomean in mg/l)l Fecal Coliform Organisms (geomean in col/100ml)

32 Root River at Br on MN-26, 3 Mi E of 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Hokah (RT-3) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5- --- 5.5 2.4 1.8 1.5 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids --- 58.5 92.6 81.3 99.1 no trend Total Phosphorus --- 0.16 0.26 0.18 0.17 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------1.90 2.65 3.90 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0025 0.0020 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms --- 1,276 703 322 615 decrease

Straight River near CSAH-1, 1 Mi SE of 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Clinton Falls (ST-18) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5- 6.4 4.6 --- 2.4 1.8 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids --- 25.8 --- 22.5 21.0 no trend Total Phosphorus ------0.33 0.24 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------4.90 6.20 no trend Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0095 0.0030 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms --- 3,433 --- 353 537 decrease

Mississippi River below US-14 Br at La 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Crosse (UM-698) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5------3.4 2.5 2.6 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids ------19.1 20.9 27.8 no trend Total Phosphorus ------0.21 0.18 0.18 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------0.85 0.78 1.30 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0055 0.0030 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms ------50 68 101 no trend

Mississippi River at Lock & Dam #6 at 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Trempealeau, Wis (UM-714) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5- --- 4.1 3.4 2.3 2.5 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids --- 27.6 27.5 19.1 25.5 decrease Total Phosphorus --- 0.21 0.24 0.18 0.20 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------0.97 1.60 no trend Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0060 0.0030 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms --- 188 174 46 120 decrease

Mississippi River at Lock & Dam #5, 3 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Mi SE of Minneiska (UM-738) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5------3.4 2.3 2.6 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids ------20.9 18.1 25.0 no trend Total Phosphorus ------0.21 0.18 0.18 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------0.90 1.16 2.00 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0070 0.0040 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms ------66 28 63 no trend

33 Mississippi River at Lock And Dam #2 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall at Hastings (UM-815) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5- --- 5.3 5.7 3.5 3.0 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids --- 45.8 37.7 36.3 42.0 no trend Total Phosphorus --- 0.37 0.37 0.28 0.26 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------1.40 2.80 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0130 0.0050 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms --- 3,109 114 35 50 decrease

Mississippi River at Shiely Co. Dock, 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Grey Cloud Island (UM-826) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5------4.9 3.3 2.9 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids ------25.7 34.1 43.1 increase Total Phosphorus ------0.33 0.26 0.26 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------0.96 1.60 2.70 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0125 0.0160 0.0060 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms ------1,186 167 97 decrease

Mississippi River at Dock upstrm of 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Wabasha St Br, St. Paul (UM-840) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5------3.3 2.9 2.7 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids ------30.1 44.6 50.4 increase Total Phosphorus ------0.22 0.21 0.21 no trend Nitrite/Nitrate ------0.78 1.50 2.70 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0075 0.0100 0.0040 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms ------774 265 82 decrease

Shell Rock River at Br on CSAH-1, 1 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Mi W of Gordonsville (SR-1.2) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5- --- 13.4 11.2 8.1 6.4 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids --- 77.5 35.1 44.4 41.8 decrease Total Phosphorus --- 0.52 0.73 0.91 0.41 no trend Nitrite/Nitrate ------0.33 3.95 1.95 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0160 0.0045 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms --- 140 158 175 150 no trend

Vermillion River at Br on Blaine Ave, 4 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall Mi NE of Farmington (VR-32.5) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5------1.1 1.4 increase day) Total Suspended Solids ------12.9 8.1 decrease Total Phosphorus ------0.72 0.64 no trend Nitrite/Nitrate ------4.50 4.40 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0030 0.0010 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms ------129 105 no trend

34 Whitewater River South Fork N of Cr- 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall 115, 3.5 Mi NW of Utica (WWR-26) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5------2.5 1.6 1.7 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids ------19.0 19.3 41.7 no trend Total Phosphorus ------0.47 0.45 0.52 no trend Nitrite/Nitrate ------6.00 7.10 8.90 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0050 0.0020 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms ------487 373 1,157 no trend

Zumbro River South Fork at CSAH-14, 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overall 3 Mi N of Rochester (ZSF-5.7) trend Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5------5.0 2.8 2.1 decrease day) Total Suspended Solids ------30.5 25.6 36.8 no trend Total Phosphorus ------0.95 0.35 0.22 decrease Nitrite/Nitrate ------3.30 5.20 5.95 increase Un-ionized Ammonia ------0.0085 0.0020 decrease Fecal Coliform Organisms ------132 115 409 no trend

D: Lake Water Quality For the Lower Mississippi River basin, 47 lakes (45,237 acres) were assessed. The direct drainage (exclusive of the Of the 47 lakes, 91 percent, Minnesota, St. Croix and Upper representing 43,701 acres (97 %), were Mississippi River basins) of the Lower monitored. The high percentage of Mississippi River drains three separate monitored data reflects monitoring ecoregions. The Driftless Area (DA) conducted by MPCA, as well as includes the river itself as well as the monitoring conducted by citizens in the surrounding bluff area and comprises Citizen Lake Monitoring Program 23 percent of the basin. It is relatively (CLMP), Lake Assessment Program lake-poor because of a lack of glacial (LAP), or studies in conjunction with activity in this portion of the basin. The local water plans. North Central Hardwoods (NCHF) is located on the northwest portion of the The majority of assessed lakes are basin and accounts for nine percent of located in the NCHF (29 lakes, 62 the basin in terms of area. The Cannon percent), followed by the WCBP (15 River is a major tributary that drains lakes, 24 percent). The DA ecoregion from this ecoregion, whose watershed had two assessed lakes -- Lake Winona contains several lakes. A majority of and Lake Pepin. Lake Pepin is the the basin’s lakes are in this ecoregion. largest lake in the basin and perhaps The Western Corn Belt Plains (WCBP) the most studied. It is about 25,000 accounts for 68 percent of the basin acres and represents 55 percent of the and is drained by several major assessed lake acres in the basin. tributaries which flow eastward to the Based on the assessed lakes, the Lower Mississippi, including the NCHF lakes have an average surface Zumbro, Whitewater and Root Rivers. area of 529 (±75) acres and average maximum depth of 32 (±4) feet while

35 the WCBP lakes have an average Of the 29 assessed lakes in the NCHF, surface area of 323 (±118) acres and six lakes (21 percent) fully support average maximum depth of 25 (±7) swimmable use, while 20 lakes (67 feet. percent) do not support swimmable uses. The remainder (12 percent) Lake water quality often is evaluated in partially support swimmable use. In relation to excessive concentrations of terms of trophic status, the majority are algae, which reduce the aesthetic eutrophic or hypereutrophic (15 lakes, appeal – or “swimmability” – of lakes. 52 percent). Cannon, Jefferson, and Although many factors influence the Sakatah are three of the larger lakes in level of algae production in a lake, this portion of the basin which do not phosphorus very often is the limiting support swimmable use based on this growth factor. Thus, the concentration assessment. The only three assessed of phosphorus is a key indicator of mesotrophic lakes in this basin are whether a lake supports swimming use located in this ecoregion. fully, partially or not at all. Because “swimmability” is a partly subjective In the WCBP portion of the basin only attribute, which varies by region, the one lake ( Beaver Lake, Steele County) MPCA has developed regionally fully supports swimmable uses. The specific criteria for determining the remainder do not support swimmable degree to which the goal of swimmable use (13 lakes) or partially-support use is being attained by a specific lake. swimmable use (1 lake). The majority of Since the Lower Mississippi River the lakes (87 percent) are drains multiple ecoregions, swimmable hypereutrophic and the remainder are use was determined based on the eutrophic. Among the assessed lakes ecoregion-based phosphorus criteria in this ecoregion, those not supporting and is summarized as follows. Only swimmable uses (although swimming seven lakes (15 percent), accounting does occur) are: Lake Byllesby on the for 2,490 acres (6 percent), fully Cannon River, Zumbro on the Zumbro support swimmable use. In contrast, 36 River and several shallow lakes on the lakes (77 percent), accounting for floodplain of the Vermillion River. All of 40,082 acres (86 percent), are non- these lakes are impacted by point and supporting. The remainder of the lakes nonpoint sources. In each case point (8 percent) partially-support swimmable sources are a significant portion of the use. An ecoregion-based analysis will phosphorus loading to the lakes at low place this in perspective. flow while nonpoint sources dominate at average to high flows. Lower Mississippi River Basin Lake Assessment Support of swimmable use for all assessed lakes and by ecoregion Fully Support - Partial - Non - Supporting Threatened Support Supporting All – lakes 7 4 36 All – acres 2,490 2,665 40,082 CHF ecoregion 6 3 20 WCBP 1113 ecoregion DA ecoregion 2

36 Case Study: Lake Zumbro, near been in compliance since 1988. The Rochester, Olmsted County MPCA studies conducted on the lake have suggested that, although the The Rochester Water Reclamation facility is approximately 10 miles Plant (RWRP) was among the first upstream of the lake, the effluent limit major municipal wastewater treatment has improved lake water quality. Total facilities (greater than 5 miles from a phosphorus (TP) trends exhibit a lake) to receive a 1.0 mg/l P limitation. decline from the 300 to 600 µg/L range The facility is on the South Fork of the during the late 1970’s to the 100 to 250 Zumbro River. Although approximately µg/L range during 1991 through 1998 10 miles upstream of Lake Zumbro, the (Figure 1). Based on the Kendall tau-b issue of whether phosphorus (P) control statistic this is a statistically significant at the RWRP was needed to protect decline in TP (Rk = -0.8, p= <0.001). Lake Zumbro water quality was The very high summer-mean TP in adjudicated in an administrative hearing 1993 is likely a function of the in 1978 when the City was required to extremely high precipitation and flood implement a 1.0 mg/l P effluent events of that summer. Similarly, limitation. The lake experienced severe chlorophyll-a trends show a decline nuisance algal blooms and MPCA from 70 - 113 µg/L in 1976 and 1985 to studies suggested that the RWRP 16 - 37 µg/L in 1990 through 1998, with contributed approximately 77 percent of the exception of 1992 which had a the phosphorus loadings to the lake. mean of 75 (±20) µg/L based on 6 samples. While this decline in The city installed P removal equipment chlorophyll-a is not statistically when construction for the upgraded significant based on the Kendall tau-b Water Reclamation Plan was statistic it could be considered completed in June 1984. However, the significant if we compare the “pre” facility began to exceed the 1.0 mg/l P chlorophyll-a concentrations (plus or limit in 1985. The City agreed to a minus standard error) with the “post” Stipulation Agreement with the MPCA treatment concentrations (Table 2). in 1987 which required that the City be Secchi transparency has increased only in compliance with its permit by July 1, slightly over the entire period of record 1988. However, the City requested a and no significant difference is evident review of the phosphorus effluent based on Table 2 or Figure 3. limitation in its NPDES permit in 1988 since its consultants had determined These data suggest significant progress that the facility had little effect on the has been made towards improving the lake. water quality of Lake Zumbro. For example, the summer-mean TP MPCA conducted a lake/watershed concentration in 1998 is very near the study that also included computer WCBP ecoregion-based P criteria level modeling. This study, and subsequent of 90 µg/L. The ecoregion-based permit hearings, suggested that an criteria level would likely be a good effluent phosphorus limit was still interim goal for Lake Zumbro until needed to improve Lake Zumbro water further work is done to define a more quality. The City has upgraded its appropriate goal. Further goal-setting phosphorus removal system and has efforts should consider goals for

37 specific segments of the reservoir as Zumbro watershed, only two well, since the near-dam segment can (Rochester and Pine Island) have 1 be expected to differ substantially from milligram per liter effluent phosphorus the inflow segment of the reservoir. limitations. Individually, none of the Flow regime might also be a remaining facilities greatly impact Lake consideration in this process since Zumbro, but collectively they contribute nutrient loading and the relative substantially to the phosphorus contributions from point and nonpoint loadings to the lake. As their permits sources will vary substantially with are renewed individually, significant changes in flow. impacts on Lake Zumbro cannot be demonstrated. However, it is likely that The reductions in TP have yielded limits for these facilities, along with measurable reductions in chlorophyll-a needed non-point loading reductions, and this hopefully has translated into a can be best approached through basin reduction in the frequency and severity planning and working collectively with of nuisance blooms (Figure 2). municipalities and agricultural However further reductions in P loading producers in the watershed to achieve to the lake will be required to achieve a the needed reductions in nutrient TP concentration of 90 µg/L or lower. loading to the Zumbro River and hence Some concerns remain that, of the 12 Lake Zumbro. point source permittees in the Lake

Lake Zumbro summer-mean water quality prior to P control at Rochester (“pre”) vs. “post” P control (excludes 1985 when treatment was first initiated but limit not met). Includes standard error of the mean.

TP ppb Chl-a ppb Secchi m Pre (1976-1981) 368 ± 37 81 ± 11 0.9 ± 0.1 Post (1988-1998) 146 ± 21 43 ± 9 1.0 ± 0.1

38 Figure 1. Lake Zumbro Summer-mean Total Phosphorus. TP ppb Includes standard error of the mean. 600 SE Rk = -0.8, TP ppb p= <0.001 500 P removal installed 400 RWRP

RWRP 300 meets limit

200 WCBP ecoregion P criteia 100

0 76 77 79 80 81 85 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 98 Year

Figure 2. Lake Zumbro Summer-mean Chlorophyll-a. Chl-a ppb 160 SE

140 CHLA 120 ppb 100 80 Long-term mean 60 40 Severe nuisance blooms 20 0 76 77 79 80 81 85 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 98 Year

39 Figure 3. Lake Zumbro Summer-mean Secchi Secchi m 0

-0.5

-1 Long-term mean

-1.5

-2 SE Rk= 0.2, p=0.3 Mean -2.5 76 77 79 80 81 85 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 98 Year

Case Study: Lake Pepin Pepin. Figure 4 depicts the range in phosphorus loading from low, average, Lake Pepin is a natural lake on the and high-flow years and the relative Mississippi River. It has a surface area contributions from the four principal of about 40 square miles and a mean external sources: Upper Mississippi, St. depth of 18 feet. Its watershed is about Croix, Minnesota, and MCES - Metro 48,634 square miles and includes the Plant. In addition to these “external or Upper Mississippi, St. Croix and watershed” sources internal recycling of Minnesota Rivers and drains about 55 phosphorus (particularly soluble percent of Minnesota and a portion of reactive phosphorus) plays an Wisconsin. This results in watershed to important role in the nutrient budget of lake ratio of about 1,215:1. This large the lake. This “internal” loading is most watershed area promotes short water pronounced during summers of low to residence times that range from 6 to 47 average flow in Lake Pepin and days, with an average of 9 days. phosphorus loading from previous Severe water quality problems were years becomes a part of the documented in Lake Pepin during the “phosphorus budget.” low flows of 1988. During that summer severe nuisance algal blooms and fish Figure 4 indicates that relative kills occurred. These events triggered contributions to the external many of the recent studies on Lake phosphorus loading to Lake Pepin vary Pepin and its watershed. substantially over a range from low to high flow. At low flow, point source Phosphorus and water loadings vary loadings dominate while at average to substantially from low to high flow, as high flow the Minnesota, Upper do relative contributions to the Mississippi, and St. Croix Rivers phosphorus and water budgets for Lake become increasingly important with the

40 Minnesota River being the greatest as a goal for Lake Pepin -- this goal contributor. In general, nonpoint minimizes the frequency of “nuisance sources in these three basins would be algal conditions (40 g/L)” and “severe the principal source of phosphorus nuisance algal conditions (60 g/L)” in under high flow conditions, while point Lake Pepin. Since water residence sources would be significant time partially controls the production of contributors during low flow events. algae biomass and algal composition in Lake Pepin it was also important to Establishing a water quality goal was associate the goal with a particular flow an important part of the overall study of range. In this case the range Lake Pepin. Two major aspects of the corresponded to 4,578 cfs (120 day, goal setting process were (1) to define 50-year low flow, less than two- percent what constitutes “nuisance algal reoccurrence frequency). This flow is blooms” for Lake Pepin and (2) comparable to the low flows of 1976 determine what factors or and 1988 when severe nuisance environmental conditions contribute to blooms were encountered. A flow the nuisance conditions. A combination value of 20,000 cfs was recommended of user perception survey data (from as the upper limit for applying the goal. Lake Pepin and the surrounding A summer-mean flow of 20,000 cfs ecoregions), citizen interview, and provides a residence time of about 11 water quality data were used to define days which is within the 8-14 days nuisance conditions and determine required for full algal response to when these conditions were likely to be nutrients in lakes. encountered. This goal has provided a basis for Total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a are predicting the phosphorus reductions typically used for identifying use- necessary, under different flow impairment related to eutrophication conditions, to achieve acceptable water (e.g. Minnesota’s in-lake phosphorus quality conditions in Lake Pepin. As criteria). Chlorophyll-a is the better with goals in other projects this parameter for making direct linkages to chlorophyll-a goal has provided a target nuisance conditions, while phosphorus that all participants in the process can can be a more appropriate parameter focus on. In the course of these from modeling and source-control discussions and modeling it has standpoint. For Lake Pepin chlorophyll- become evident that there will be a a was considered the most appropriate need for reductions from all basins, parameter for goal setting since including point and nonpoint sources, if chlorophyll-a was relatively insensitive improvements in the water quality of to phosphorus concentration at high Lake Pepin are to be realized and the flows (short residence time) and it was chlorophyll-a goal achieved over the more directly linked to nuisance prescribed range of flows. conditions. In Lake Pepin chlorophyll-a varies as a function of total phosphorus Over the period of record (1976 - 1998) concentration, inorganic turbidity, there has been a decline in TP over mixing depth, and water residence time. time in Lake Pepin (Figure 5) with a A summer-mean chlorophyll-a long-term summer-mean of 230 µg/L. concentration of 30 g/L was selected Since the major low-flow event of 1988 TP concentrations have ranged

41 between a low of 167 µg/L in 1997 to Reductions in point source loading to 234 µg/L in 1992. Chlorophyll-a (or tributary to) Lake Pepin will occur concentrations have declined as well over the next several years as more since 1988 with concentrations ranging WWTF’s will have P effluent limitations from a low of 20 µg/L in 1993 and 1996 as a part of their permits and hence be to a high of 36 µg/L in 1992 (Figure 6). treating to 1 mg/L or lower in most Most of these summers were instances. The most prominent of characterized by relatively high flows upstream point sources is the 250 mgd and hence short water residence time MCES Metro Plant which is scheduled would contribute to the lower to have bio-P treatment on-line by chlorophyll-a concentrations. Secchi 2003. These point source reductions transparency has been fairly stable at coupled with continued nonpoint source about 0.7 to 1.1 meters in recent years reductions will yield improvements in (Figure 7). the water quality of Lake Pepin as well as the Lower Mississippi River.

Figure 4. Estimated Summer TP Loading Rate to Lake Pepin. Flow- weighted means as compared to Lock and Dam 3 inflow.

Metro 100% St. Croix Miss. 80% Minnesota

60%

40%

20%

0% Flux 11,600 kg/day 42,000 kg/day 73,000 kg/day 1988 1990 1991 Year

42 Figure 5. Lake Pepin Summer-Mean Total Phosphorus

Figure 5. Lake Pepin Summer-mean Total Phosphorus

600

500 SE

Mean

400

300

200

100

0 78 79 80 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Avg Year

43 Figure 6. Lake Pepin Summer-Mean Chlorophyll-a

70

60 SE

50 Mean

40 Chl-a Goal

30

20

10

0 78 79 80 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Avg Year

Figure 7. Lake Pepin Summer-Mean Secchi Transparency

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

SE -1.0 mean

-1.2

-1.4 78 79 80 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Avg Year

44 D: Ground Water Quality was present in nearly all samples collected from the The MPCA’s Ground Water Monitoring eastern half of the basin and and Assessment Program provides the absent from nearly all wells following summary of ground water sampled in the western half, quality results for the Lower Mississippi reflecting recharge and River Basins and Cedar River Basins, younger water in the east. respectively: Since wells were sampled at different depths but Lower Mississippi River Basin distributions of chemicals Eighty-eight samples were collected. were not related to depth, the Twenty-four were from the Prairie du data suggest there is Chien aquifer, 19 from the Jordan, 13 considerable vertical from the Galena, 12 from the St. Peter, movement or mixing of 11 from the Franconia, 5 from glacial ground water. aquifers and the remainder from other 3. Higher nitrate concentrations aquifers. were observed in samples reflecting oxygenated 1. Ground water quality is conditions and in samples generally good but varies containing detectable tritium, between aquifers. but the correlation was not Concentrations of total particularly strong. This is dissolved solids were highest because several wells in the in the buried glacial aquifers eastern part of the basin had and lowest in the sandstone no detectable nitrate despite aquifers (St Peter, Jordan, being vulnerable to nitrate Franconia). Dissolved solid contamination. These wells concentrations increased were probably located in non- from east to west and were agricultural areas where highest in aquifers overlain nitrogen inputs are low. by Des Moines Lobe till and 4. Concentrations of trace gray drift. This was true for all inorganic chemicals were bedrock aquifers. generally low, with a couple 2. The distribution of dissolved exceptions. Cadmium solids is inversely correlated concentrations were elevated with values for Eh (a in the area underlain by old measure of the potential for gray till, with four oxidation-reduction). In the exceedances of the drinking eastern part of the basin, water standard (4 ug/L). Lead aquifers are oxygenated and concentrations exceeded 2 had Eh values greater than ug/L across the eastern part 275 mV. In the west, oxygen of the basin, where bedrock is absent and reducing is close to the land surface. conditions were encountered There was no effect of in most wells. These results aquifer type on the were verified by the distribution of lead, distribution of tritium. Tritium suggesting the source of lead may be anthropogenic.

45 Five hydrogeologic regimes can be glacial deposits. Highly distinguished in the basin. In the leached pre-Wisconsin extreme western part of the basin, Des deposits, found in the eastern Moines Lobe till overlies bedrock part of the basin, contribute aquifers. Buried sand and gravel fewer dissolved ions than aquifers are present within the till, but deposits of Wisconsin age, bedrock aquifers are the primary source located in the west. These of drinking water. Ground water moves dissolved ions consist slowly through the unconsolidated primarily of calcium, deposits and eventually reaches the magnesium and bicarbonate. bedrock aquifers. The long residence Another factor affecting water times lead to reducing conditions in quality may be travel time – ground water, low sensitivity to nitrate the time it takes for water to contamination, and high concentrations percolate through the glacial of dissolved solids. The area underlain deposits and into bedrock by old gray drift provides a transition aquifers. Although results for zone between east and west. The drift tritium indicate most water is provides some protection for underlying pre-1953, concentrations of bedrock aquifers. In the eastern part of dissolved oxygen decrease the basin, bedrock aquifers are close to from east to west. Oxygen is the land surface and are vulnerable to more likely to be present in contamination, but water quality is good younger, more recently if the aquifers are not contaminated. recharged water. Surficial sand and gravel aquifers are 2. Concentrations of arsenic not common in the basin, but when exceed 3 ug/L in areas where present, are highly vulnerable to nitrate stagnation moraines occur. contamination. Aquifers that occur These are in the western part along and within river valleys appear to of the basin. A similar pattern be highly vulnerable to nitrate of high arsenic contamination, but nitrate is often not concentrations in areas of present in ground water because the stagnation moraines occurs land is not used for agriculture. statewide. 3. Nitrate concentrations were Cedar River Basin below the reporting limit of Since there are few wells completed in 0.5 mg/L in all sample wells. the upper part of the Upper Carbonate Low concentrations of nitrate deposits, most of the data collected are most likely the result of probably reflects water quality of lower, samples being collected from confined bedrock units. Seven samples older wells in well-protected were collected from the Cedar Valley aquifers, as evidenced by the aquifer, four from the Galena aquifer, absence of tritium in most and one each from the St. Peter and samples. Prairie du Chien aquifers. 4. There were no significant 1. Concentrations of total differences between the dissolved solids increase Galena and Cedar Valley from east to west. This aquifers in the concentration maybe due to infiltration of of any sampled chemical. recharge water through

46 Four hydrogeologic regimes can be by aquifer source. In addition, it is not distinguished in the Cedar River Basin. possible to determine the degree to Ground moraine associated with the which poor well construction or poor Des Moines Lobe covers the central wellhead area management contributed part of the basin. Till associated with to high contaminant concentrations. the Des Moines Lobe contributes high Nevertheless, this is one of the few concentrations of dissolved solids to sources of data that indicate the level of underlying bedrock aquifers. Surficial contamination of some private drinking sand and gravel deposits are not water in the region. extensively used as a source of drinking water. Old gray drift occurs in The percentage of drinking water the east and contributes fewer samples that tested positive for coliform dissolved solids than Des Moines Lobe bacteria in 1999 ranged from one in six till. Stagnation moraines occur in the to almost half, as follows (lowest to west and are locally associated with highest percentage detection): Houston high concentrations of arsenic. Sand County (16%); Rice County (18%); and gravel aquifers and bedrock Olmsted County (21%); Mower (23%); aquifers underlying areas overlain by Winona (25%); Dodge (27%); Wabasha sand and gravel deposits are (31%); Goodhue (33%); Fillmore (45%). vulnerable to contamination from nonpoint sources. The percentage of 1999 drinking water samples that exceeded the maximum It is recommended that samples be contaminant level of 10 parts per million collected the upper portion of the Upper for nitrate-nitrogen was less than 10% Carbonate bedrock units to determine if for Rice, Dodge, Mower, Olmsted and confining layers are present and what Winona Counties; slightly above 10% impact these confining layers have on for Goodhue and Wabasha Counties, water quality. A better understanding of and approximately 30% for Fillmore the hydrogeologic system is required in County (data for Houston County are this basin before specific not yet available). The percentage of recommendations can be made for private well samples containing 1-9.9 long-term monitoring. ppm nitrate nitrogen was considerably higher. The percentage of wells with Private well samples greater than 1 ppm nitrate nitrogen A summary of samples from privately ranged from about 18% in Rice County managed drinking water supplies in to 70% in Wabasha and Fillmore southeastern Minnesota counties counties. reveals substantial differences in the percentage of wells that exceed drinking water standards for total coliform bacteria and nitrate nitrogen. Sources: The summary was developed by Engstrom, Daniel R., and James E. Olmsted County Public Health Almendinger, 2000, “Historical Changes Services, which provides well water in Sediment and Phosphorus Loading testing services for several counties in to the Upper Mississippi River: Mass southeastern Minnesota. This summary balance Reconstructions from the does not constitute a representative Sediments of Lake Pepin,” St. Croix sample of well water quality identified Watershed Research Station, Science

47 Museum of Minnesota, Marine on St. Upper Mississippi River System 1998: Croix, Minnesota A Report of the Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program,” LTRMP 99-T001, James, William F., John W. Barko, and Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Harrl L Eakin, “Synthesis of Center, LaCrosse, Wisconsin Phosphorus/Seston Fluxes and Phytoplantkon Dynamics in Lake Pepin U.S. Geological Survey, (1997) (Upper Mississippi River), 1994-1996,” “Variability of Nutrients in Streams in U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Part of the Upper Mississippi River Experiment Station, Eau Galle Aquatic Basin, Minnesota and Wisconsin,” Ecology Laboratory, Spring Valley, USGS Fact Sheet 164-97 Wisconsin. U.S. Geological Survey, 1995, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Contaminants in the Mississippi River, 1999, “Baseline Ground Water Quality 1987-92,” U.S. Geological Survey Information for Minnesota’s Ten Circular 1133, U.S. Government Surface Water Basins,” MPCA Ground Printing Office Water Monitoring and Assessment Program, web site at Sullivan, John F., 2000, “Long-Term http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groun Water Quality Trends Observed at dwater/gwmap/gwpubs.html/#reports Wisconsin’s Ambient Monitoring Sites on the Upper Mississippi River,” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Wisconsin Department of Natural 1999, “Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Resources, La Crosse, Wisconsin Rivers,” St. Paul, Minnesota. Sullivan, John F., Jim Fisher, Heidi Olmsted County Health Department, Langrehr, Gretchen Benjammin, Jeff Report to the Olmsted County Janvrin, 1999, “Water Quality Environmental Commission on the Assessment Report for the Water Quality of Privately Managed Mississippi/Lower St. Croix Team,” Wells, April 19, 2000. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, La Crosse, Wisconsin U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, “Ecological Status and Trends of the

48 follows is meant to be suggestive, not IV: Land-Water definitive, of such relationships, and is Relationships no substitute for more thorough assessments at the basin, major Watershed management is based on watershed and minor watershed scales the principle that the water quality of that are called for in the Watershed any particular water body is a reflection Management Strategy. These of how land is used within the relationships will be presented in the watershed that drains to that water context of a number of specific water body. The soils, hydrogeology and quality pollutants. biological diversity of a watershed were shaped over millenia by the combined A complementary approach to forces of climate, glaciation, erosional evaluating land-water relationships is processes and a host of biological and the agro-ecoregion approach chemical interactions. European developed by Dr. Dave Mulla, settlement starting in the early 1800s Department of Soil, Water and Climate, changed the land-water relationships University of Minnesota. Mulla has that had been formed over geologic defined a number of agro-ecoregions in time. This has resulted in increased southeastern Minnesota. Agro- surface water runoff and soil erosion ecoregions are defined as zones having with consequent stresses on stream, unique soil, landscape and climatic lake and wetland hydrology, structure characteristics which confer unique and water quality. Close interaction limitations and potentials for crop and between surface and ground water animal production. The 4,650,100 acre quality in much of southeastern landscape of southeastern Minnesota Minnesota means that ground water has been subdivided into eight unique quality may be threatened by land uses agro-ecoregions based on distinctions that degrade surface water quality, in between soil types and geologic parent addition to land uses that directly affect material, slope steepness, natural an the transport of substances to an artificial internal drainage, and erosion aquifer. potential. Each agro-ecoregion is characterized by unique physiographic Because land-water relationships vary factors that influence the potential for considerably over short distances, production of nonpoint source pollution being affected by a multitude of site- and the potential for adoption of farm specific variables, it is hazardous to management practices. To view an generalize about such relationships agro-ecoregion map of southeastern within large land areas such as the Minnesota, and for a detailed Lower Mississippi River Basin. description of the eight subregions, visit However, a review of watershed the following University of Minnesota assessments and field studies within web site: and adjacent to the basin helps to http://www.soils.agri.umn.edu/research/ identify some broadly relevant land- seminn/doc/agecoregionnew.html water relationships that can help to guide land-use management decisions on a basin scale. The information that

49 A: Sediment Garvin Brook and the Whitewater River watersheds. In the more flat and gently Most of the data available on erosion rolling areas of the western basin, and sedimentation rates have been information from the Dobbins Creek developed for agricultural watersheds. watershed is combined with data from In the steeply sloping land of the several minor watershed evaluations on eastern basin, major assessments have the western edge of the Minnesota been completed for the Bear Creek, River Basin.

Report 1. 2000 Minnesota Corn-Soybean Residue Survey Results Summary for the Lower Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota

Percent of Corn and Residue Trend Analysis Soybean Fields Percent of Corn and Soybean Fields Meeting Residue Targets1 in Meeting Residue Targets1,2 2000 Rank County CORN SOYBEANS 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1 Le Sueur 75% 78% 47 72 * 65 74 77 2 Waseca 59% 70% 42 26 63 33 38 64 3Houston57%81%*****64 4 Dakota 53% 57% * * 33 34 29 54 5 Winona 47% 79% *****53 6Freeborn39%69%*****53 7 Fillmore 44% 52% 47 * * 26 14 47 8Steele32%55%*****43 9 Dodge 36% 47% * * * 39 36 41 10Mower24%45%****1034 11 Olmsted 30% 38% 65 * * 26 * 33 12 Rice 23% 41% * * * 6 18 32 13 Goodhue 17% 45% *****28 14Wabasha22%24%*****23

Averages40%56%*****46 Average of Counties Reporting 1 Fields meeting residue targets include fields with >30% residue plus fields with >15% residue when following soybeans. 2 An asterisk indicates no data were collected.

50 The single most notable relationships the stream. Streambank erosion was are those relating land surface cover, very minimal, amounting to only four slope and precipitation to soil erosion percent of soil erosion delivered to the rates. This relationship is summarized stream. Erosion from crop and in the Revised Universal Soil Loss forestland results in heavy Equation (RUSLE). A relationship sedimentation over natural stream between two of the variables, surface substrate, which has greatly reduced residue cover and soil erosion rates natural trout reproduction. The goal of (keeping slope and precipitation the project is to reverse these losses constant) is shown in the graphic through erosion-control measures. below. Also shown are the results of the 2000 crop residue transect survey for The Whitewater River Watershed is the counties of the Lower Mississippi located in Olmsted, Wabasha and River Basin (above). Winona Counties. Sediment is a major problem in this watershed, which includes several designated trout streams. Concentrations of suspended sediment range from several milligrams per liter during base flow conditions to levels in the 5,000 to 7,000 milligram per liter range during high-flow periods. Erosion rates are high, but less than those found in the Bear Creek Watershed. About 19 percent of INSERT GRAPH cropland acres are estimated to be eroding at greater than the replacement rate of soil loss, or 5 tons per acre. A sediment budget for the watershed shows that the vast majority of sediment, 68 percent, comes from sheet and rill erosion, three percent from ephemeral gully erosion, eight percent from classic gully erosion, and The Bear Creek Watershed, located in 21 percent from stream bank erosion. Houston and Fillmore counties in Minnesota and Winneshiek and The Wells Creek Watershed in Allamakee Counties of Iowa is Goodhue County shows that overall managed by Iowa Department of positive trends in land use that have Natural Resources as a “put-and-take” reduced soil erosion, may also be trout fishery. Nearly all the land is improving the hydrology of classified as highly erodible, with slopes southeastern Minnesota streams. ranging from 5 to 14%. Average erosion Hydrologic data suggest that base flow rates are 10 to 17 tons per acre per discharge has increased significantly year. It is estimated that approximately over the past 35 years. This is thought 17 percent of gross erosion from to be the result of increased infiltration cropland is delivered to the stream, and of precipitation, the flip side of reduced that approximately 29 to 34 percent of surface runoff. Wells Creek base flow is gross erosion from forestland reaches fed by groundwater recharge from the

51 aquifers along and underlying the main the century, and continuing with the stem. unique historical sediment studies of The Garvin Brook Watershed in Stanley Trimble, at the University of Winona County was the subject of California-Los Angeles. Trimble’s latest intensive study in the 1980s under the analysis showed that the amount of Rural Clean Water Program. Sediment sediment discharged by Coon Creek and flow monitoring showed that into the Mississippi River has remained suspended sediment greatly increases fairly constant over the twentieth during runoff events, often resulting in century, even though erosion rates in more sediment being transported in one the watershed have gone through day than in several months or one year dramatic changes. The reason for the of baseflow condition transport. fairly constant sediment yield, as Immediately following storm events, measured at the watershed’s point of Total Suspended Solids spiked up to discharge to the Mississippi, is 350 milligrams per liter in one instance, deposition within the watershed. and up to 6,200 milligrams per liter a During the period of maximum soil month later in response to a rainfall erosion rates, approximately 1920 to event that was only 24 percent greater. 1940, the floodplains of the lower main As storm intensity and duration valley received about 15 centimeters of increased, peak runoff, sediment and vertical accretion of sediment a year. nutrient transport increased Rather than being discharged from the exponentially. Larson et al. (1997) have mouth of Coon Creek, suspended argued that rare “catastrophic” storms sediment settled in the alluvial generate the majority of erosion, and floodplain. Following improvements in that conservation tillage alone is not farmland management, the rate of adequate to protect the soil against sediment accretion in the lower valley erosion during these events. fell to 0.53 centimeters a year, from Conservation structures such as 1975 to 1993. While overall rates of terraces and sediment basins are sediment storage decreased, the site of needed, too. sediment storage also shifted from the lower valley to floodplains higher up in Over the project period, TSS median the watershed. Some of these concentrations declined from a floodplains were newly developed, the beginning value of 85 milligrams per result of lateral streambank erosion that liter to values of 35 milligrams per liter widened stream channels and created and less. Median summer to fall new, wide floodplains that later became turbidity continually decreased as well, vegetated and served as sediment from 27 to 4 nephelometric turbidity traps. Trimble describes the process as units (NTUs). The changes in TSS and morphological feedback. In earlier turbidity cannot be explained by studies, Trimble had predicted that changes in flow, and may be upper tributaries would be net sediment attributable to increased adoption of soil sources for decades to come. His conservation practices. studies show that erosion and deposition patterns within watersheds The Coon Creek Watershed south of La of the driftless region of southeastern Crosse, Wisconsin, has been the Minnesota and southwestern Wisconsin subject of considerable study beginning are dynamic, and caution should be with research by Aldo Leopold early in used in relating sediment yield to rates

52 of soil erosion. Although Trimble’s study would reduce sediment losses from a 5- does raise questions about the inch rain event by 91 percent. A more connection between upland soil erosion moderate solution of gully removal and and sediment loads to the Mississippi, introducing conservation tillage on all his study does not deal with or cast cropland would result in a 33 percent doubt upon the relationship between reduction in sediment load for the 5- upland soil erosion and suspended inch storm event. Interestingly, neither sediment or turbidity in the tributary of these BMPs alone would have much itself. impact. Modeling less extreme conditions in a normal 30-inch rainfall Dobbins Creek Watershed: Use of the year predicted that gully removal and Agricultural Nonpoint Source model on complete adoption of conservation this watershed in Mower County tillage would result in a 60 percent showed that big storms have huge reduction in sediment delivery. impacts on sediment delivery. A single 5-inch rain event, for example, resulted Minnesota River Basin: Several minor in the delivery of 11,700 tons of watersheds on the eastern fringe of the sediment to the watershed mouth at Minnesota River Basin underwent a East Side Lake – 925 pounds for each land-use assessment as part of the acre in the 25,000-acre watershed. Minnesota River Assessment Project That’s roughly equivalent to the amount (MRAP) in 1990-91. The Level II of sediment that would be delivered to assessment, conducted by the Natural the watershed mouth over the course of Resources Conservation Service, an entire “normal” year with 30 inches evaluated sediment and nutrient runoff of precipitation doled out in 77 from 10 minor watersheds. Results individual rainfall events, most of them from two watersheds – County Ditch #5 small. in southeastern Blue Earth County, and the Maple River in northeast Faribault An estimated 97 percent of the County, will be used here to illustrate sediment budget of East Side Lake land-water relationships in the western originated from storm flows and spring Lower Mississippi River Basin with runoff in this predominantly agricultural similar conditions: flat to gently rolling watershed. Average sediment yield for land, heavily drained for intensive row- the watershed was modeled at 875 crop agriculture. pounds/acre, with one subwatershed contributing twice this amount and Gross erosion rates in these two another subwatershed contributing just headwater watersheds averaged two to one-fourth of the average sediment three tons per acre – below the rate of yield. replacement (T) of approximately five tons per acre. Sediment yield at the The sediment load is sufficient to mouths of the watersheds was 0.55 to deposit a 0.8 inch-thick layer of 0.60 tons per acre, reflecting a sediment on the bed of East Side Lake sediment delivery ratio of approximately every year, on average. 20 percent in these small, headwater streams. Modeling of an extreme solution showed that converting the entire Various degrees of adoption of 25,000-acre watershed to meadow conservation tillage were modeled. This

53 Best Management Practice has been show an impact is that the majority of shown to reduce soil erosion by nitrogen leaves the field as surface approximately two-thirds, compared to runoff, according to the model. fall moldboard plowing. The first management option, applying conservation tillage to land eroding at T B: Nutrients (Nitrogen and or greater, reduced predicted soil Phosphorus) erosion by five to 15 percent, and sediment yield by nine to 25 percent. Nitrogen: Nitrogen concentrations in The second option, applying Lower Mississippi River Basin conservation tillage on all cropland tributaries have been increasing for acreage, resulted in predicted soil several decades, and detections of high erosion reductions of 33 to 46 percent, concentrations in private wells are fairly and sediment yield reductions of 31 to common. There are many sources of 52 percent. nitrogen which contribute to these problems. According to statewide Two nutrient management options were estimates, soil organic matter and evaluated along with sediment nitrogen fertilizer are by far the leading reduction. The first option called for 15 sources of inorganic nitrogen, the form percent or greater residue on cropland of greatest concern to groundwater combined with a spring preplant contamination. These sources provide application of 120 pounds of anhydrous 42 percent and 36 percent of total nitrogen and an incorporation at inorganic nitrogen, respectively. While planting time of 30 pounds of nitrogen manure and legumes each contribute and 70 pounds of phosphate. This only 6 percent of inorganic nitrogen in option resulted in predicted reductions the state, the failure of farmers to take of 43 to 48 percent less total credit for these sources when phosphorus runoff, and 12 to 14 determining commercial fertilizer percent less nitrogen loss to surface application rates leads to excessive water, as measured at the watershed fertilizer application and increased outlet. These results show a strong potential for nitrogen leaching and trend of reduced nutrient losses with runoff. Southeastern Minnesota river increased crop residue cover. counties, and counties adjacent to them, are estimated to have some of The second option applied conservation the highest levels of plant-available tillage (30 percent residue) to all fields nitrogen contributions from manure in and banded 30 pounds of nitrogen and the state. 20 pounds of phosphate at planting with a side dress application of 120 pounds Farm nutrient management evaluations of anhydrous nitrogen at the first conducted by the Minnesota cultivation. This option resulted in a Department of Agriculture show that reduction in total phosphorus losses of farmers often apply more nitrogen 68 to 74 percent, and a reduction in fertilizer than necessary in the Lower nitrogen losses of 12 to 14 percent. The Mississippi River Basin. Usually this is impact of the second option on nitrogen because they don’t give enough credit reductions was identical to the impact to nitrogen provided by applied manure of the first option. One reason for the and previous legume crops such as failure of the split nitrogen application to

54 soybeans and alfalfa, as the University areas under agricultural production of Minnesota recommends. The result showed a relatively high percentage (27 is increased potential for nitrate to 44 percent) of wells exceeding 10 leaching and runoff. An evaluation of milligrams per liter nitrate nitrogen, 22 farmers in the Whitewater River while newly constructed or municipal Watershed in 1998 indicates that wells showed a much lower percentage farmers apply approximately 12 percent (1-4 percent). (16 pounds per acre) more nitrogen than necessary because of failure to Agronomic field trials in Olmsted give adequate credit to previous County in 1987 illustrate the effect of soybean crops and applied manure. management practices on nitrogen This level of nitrogen over-use is leaching. At an application rate of 150 relatively modest, likely the result of pounds per acre of nitrogen applied to educational efforts undertaken through corn, N03 –N concentrations in the soil the Whitewater River Watershed water at 5 feet began to climb rapidly. A Project. Despite fairly good nitrogen nitrogen rate of about 120 pounds per management, nitrogen levels in the acre would have optimized yield and Whitewater River remain high. This profitability to the farmer while may be partly attributable to a shift in minimizing nitrates in the groundwater. agriculture away from alfalfa and Fall application of anhydrous ammonia towards corn and soybeans. Alfalfa resulted in lower yields than the same fields erode little and leach very little rate applied in the spring before nitrogen. Plus, alfalfa is an effective planting. Moreover, N03 –N scavenger of nitrogen deep in the soil concentrations in the soil water were 50 profile, at the same time as it is able to to 70 percent higher with the fall fix nitrogen when soil supplies are applications.9 insufficient to support growth. Soybean fields tend to be highly erosive, In the Garvin Brook Watershed study, although soybeans also scavenge 160 private wells were analyzed. More nitrogen in the shallow soil profile. than 36 percent exceeded the nitrate drinking water standard and nearly 20 An earlier 1993 evaluation of dairy percent had bacterial contamination. farmers in several southeastern Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations four to Minnesota counties by the MDA eight feet below fertilized land generally showed a higher difference between were between 20 and 50 milligrams per actual and recommended applications. liter. Drainage from feedlots contributed This was at the very time when new to high ammonium concentrations in and lower University of Minnesota soil profiles but did not result in high nitrogen crediting recommendations nitrate levels in the soil profile. The had been published, but were not yet greatest source of nitrogen, by far, was widely publicized. Factoring in all agricultural applications of fertilizer and appropriate credits from fertilizer, manure to cropland. Over the course of legumes and manure, farmers over- the project, participating farmers applied nitrogen by an average of 53 pounds per acre. 9 University of Minnesota Extension Service, The Olmsted County Groundwater and “Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use Wellhead Protection Project found that in Southeastern Minnesota,” AG-FO-6126-B, shallow wells in geologically sensitive 1993

55 reduced nitrogen use by an estimated source predominates depends on 21 percent, according to farmer precipitation and flow conditions. At low surveys. The average rate of nitrogen flow, when precipitation and therefore applied to lawns was 70 pounds per surface runoff tend to be low, acre. It was estimated that 4,000 continuous daily discharges from point pounds of nitrogen fertilizer were being sources tend to provide the bulk of applied each year in Lewiston, the phosphorus. For example, monitoring watershed’s largest town, compared to data on Lake Zumbro from the early an estimated three to four million 1980s show that the Rochester Water pounds of nitrogen annually applied to Reclamation Plant was responsible for crop land and one million pounds of more than 70 percent of the total nitrogen from manure generated in the phosphorus budget of Lake Zumbro in watershed. The total annual nitrogen low-flow years. (This is not likely to be released from septic tanks was true today, because effluent estimated to be 0.2 percent of annual concentrations now are limited to one nitrogen from fertilizer and animal milligram per liter.) A more recent Lake manure in the project area. Assessment Program study of Lake Byllesby showed that point sources were responsible for approximately half Phosphorus: Phosphorus often is the the total load of phosphorus to the lake limiting growth factor that contributes to in low-flow years, and about one-third the production of excessive algae in of the total load in average years. Point surface water in southern Minnesota. source phosphorus is particularly This is particularly true of lakes and important to control for two reasons. reservoirs, where hydraulic residence First, it is the predominant source of time is sufficient to permit the growth of phosphorus during low river flows, blue-green algae, in particular. In when streams and reservoirs and lakes addition to natural lakes that are so are most vulnerable to eutrophication. affected, reservoirs such as Lake Second, point source phosphorus is Byllesby and Lake Zumbro are heavily highly soluble, therefore immediately affected by phosphorus-induced available to stimulate the growth of hypereutrophication. Backwater lakes algae. of the Mississippi River also may be vulnerable, especially in low-flow years. Nonpoint sources tend to be the Lake Pepin, a natural lake formed from dominant source of phosphorus at high an alluvial sediment dam at the mouth and average flows. Much nonpoint of Wisconsin’s Chippewa River, is a source phosphorus is attached to well-known example of hyper- sediment and is transported to surface eutrophication that occurs at low river water as overland flow. The flows. concentration of phosphorus in sediment varies from less than one Major sources of phosphorus to surface pound per ton for sandy soil, to as water are from point and nonpoint much as three pounds or more per ton sources. Point sources include for finely granulated clays where municipal and industrial wastewater phosphorus applications over the years treatment facilities, and nonpoint have been high. As noted in the above sources include surface runoff from discussion of sediment, practices that agricultural and urban land. Which reduce soil erosion also help to reduce

56 phosphorus runoff. Soil erosion control Certain types of bacteria pose a practices combined with proper potential health risk to those who come adjustment of rate and placement can into contact with surface water. These reduce phosphorus runoff from bacteria come from a variety of agricultural fields by two-thirds or more, sources, including agricultural runoff, compared to black-till conditions. inadequately treated domestic sewage, Surface-applied manure is an obvious even wildlife. Some of these bacteria source of phosphorus runoff, but few may cause disease. Other potential studies have estimated the magnitude. disease-causing agents from these MPCA modeling of two lake watersheds sources include viruses, protozoa, and in southern Minnesota indicate that worms. But it’s bacteria that cause the livestock feedlot runoff comprises less most problems. Of greatest concern are than 15 percent of all phosphorus bacteria from human feces. runoff. Cropland runoff, which includes the effect of surface-applied manure, The limitations of available monitoring typically contributed 80 percent or more tools make it difficult to determine of all phosphorus runoff. whether bacterial contamination in a water body is from human or animal Most phosphorus is exported from sources. It is, however, possible to cropland as sediment-attached runoff. determine whether the bacteria High erosion rates generally are originated in the intestinal tract of a associated with high phosphorus runoff. mammal. These kinds of bacteria are For example, University of Minnesota called fecal coliforms. If fecal coliform data show that conventionally tilled corn bacteria levels exceed state water experiences approximately four times quality standards, it’s an indication that as much phosphorus runoff as no-till fecal matter is entering the stream in corn. Phosphorus levels in the soil are quantities that pose a potential threat to an additional factor affecting the public health. amount of phosphorus runoff. The higher the concentration of phosphorus There are many types of fecal coliform in the soil, the more total phosphorus is bacteria, and not all of them cause exported with each ton of sediment disease in humans. But where there are runoff. The University of Minnesota coliform bacteria there may be recommends that no additional pathogens (disease-causing phosphorus be applied to fields where organisms) of concern. Thus, soil tests indicate that additional widespread violation of the fecal phosphorus is very unlikely to result in coliform standard in the Lower a crop yield response. This point is Mississippi River Basin indicates reached at 20 parts per million using serious pollution and a possible health the Bray test for soil phosphorus, or 16 concern, but it doesn’t necessarily parts per million using the Olsen test. 10 mean there is an immediate health C: Fecal Coliform Bacteria threat in any particular area.

Selected reaches of streams and rivers 10 Rehm, George, and John Lamb, Michael in the Lower Mississippi River Basin are Schmitt, Gyles Randall and Lowell Busman, “Agronomic and Environmental Management of routinely monitored for fecal coliform Phosphorus,” Minnesota Extension Service bacteria. At some sites where routine FPO-6797-B, 1997 monitored has indicated exceedence of

57 the water quality standard, more Minnesota was considerably greater intensive monitoring has been than elsewhere in the state, conducted to determine the degree and particularly in the Whitewater River, scope of the fecal bacteria problem at Prairie Creek and the Root River. and upstream of the initial monitoring S Sampling has been undertaken in site. Altogether, these data strongly connection with several impaired indicate the widespread presence of reaches in the past two years to fecal coliform bacteria in the region’s initiate the TMDL process or as part rivers and streams at levels that exceed of a Clean Water Partnership water quality standards, often by a wide project, in the following streams: margin. Vermillion River, Straight River, Widespread impairment of streams by South Branch Root River, and fecal coliform bacteria is documented Cedar River. In all cases, sampling by several sources of information. was conducted at the frequency S The 1998 303(d) list for the Lower required by the rule at multiple sites Mississippi and Cedar River Basins upstream of the listed site of list 42 reach impairments. Twenty impairment to help identify sub- are for fecal coliform bacteria watersheds contributing exceedences of the state standard. disproportionately to the problem. Exceedences are found in all parts S Straight River TMDL12: Seven of the basin and in all stream sizes, sites were sampled in 1999- from second- and third-order 2000. About 72% of samples streams (Robinson Creek and exceeded 200 organisms/100ml Salem Creek) to main stem – all sub-watersheds exceeded tributaries. Most main stem the standard several times. tributaries exceed the standard at S Vermillion River TMDL13: the mouth (exception is Zumbro, County staff and citizen which is impaired at two sites volunteers monitored 5x/mo at upstream). The Mississippi River 11 primary sites throughout the itself is listed as impaired for three watershed, May through reaches. September, 1999. Five S Since the 303(d) list is based on a additional sites received some sampling regime less frequent than sampling. Out of the total of 16 is required by the rules pertaining to sites, 13 exceeded the standard the fecal coliform bacteria standard, for fecal coliform bacteria. intensive sampling of these sites S Cedar River TMDL14: Ten samples was conducted in 1997 and 1998 by were collected at each of 13 sites the MPCA11 to determine with more

confidence whether the standard 12 was being exceeded. In all cases, Chapman, K. Allen, “Fecal Coliform Pollution in the Straight River: An Information more frequent sampling confirmed Assessment,” Minnesota Center for that the fecal coliform bacteria Environmental Advocacy, Nov. 2000. standard was being exceeded at the 13 Morrison, David, “Vermillion River Watershed listed sites. The degree of standard Citizen Monitoring Fecal Coliform Bacteria exceedence in southeastern Monitoring Project, May – September, 1999,” unpublished presentation. 14 Mower County Environmental Health Dept., 11 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “Fecal “2000 TMDL Cedar River Study,” unpublished Coliform Bacteria in Rivers,” January 1999. manuscript.

58 from July 13 –August 23, 2000. Very approximately once a week from few samples showed a March to December 1999. Sites concentration below the 200 included the South Zumbro, organism/100 ml standard – each Middle Zumbro, Root River and site averaged above the sample. Whitewater River. Of the 121 Monitoring will be expanded in 2001 bacteria samples taken, 89 to further evaluate where the (74%) failed to pass the problem is coming from. swimming standard of 235 E. S South Branch Root River Watershed coli/100 ml (“Recommended Project:15 As part of Minnesota’s Standards for Bathing Beaches” process of ranking wastewater – a standard used as a guideline treatment facilities for funding, 1999- by ten states bordering the Great 2000 fecal coliform data was Lakes and Upper Mississippi analyzed under the methodology River. This number also is cited used to develop the 1998 303(d) list. in EPA’s Ambient Water Quality The upper portion of the South Criteria for Bacteria-1986 as a Branch was determined to be single sample maximum impaired. Monitoring conducted allowable density for a Aug. 2, 1999, at 11 sites showed an designated beach area.) Only exceedence of the 200 one site, at the discharge of a organism/100 ml at 10 of the 11 reservoir, consistently met the sites. On Aug. 30, 1999, three days standard. after rainfall, samples were collected at both stream and spring sites. The relationship between land use and Samples from three of the springs fecal coliform concentrations found in were in the 2,300 to 3,400 org/100 streams is complex, involving both ml range, verifying strong pollutant transport and rate of survival connectivity between surface and in different types of aquatic ground water flows in karst environments. Intensive sampling at topography. Stream samples also several of the sites listed above in were extremely high, with 5 southeastern Minnesota shows a reporting concentrations above strongly positive correlation between 2,000 org/100 ml. The average for 5 stream flow, precipitation and fecal fecal coliform samples taken in 1999 coliform bacteria concentrations. In the was well above the standard at Vermillion River watershed, storm- three sites. event samples often showed D Olmsted County16: Volunteers concentrations in the thousands of and county staff sampled and organisms per 100 milliliters, far above tested surface water at 31 sites non-storm-event samples. A study of in Olmsted County the Straight River watershed divided sources into continuous (failing 15 Fillmore County, “Watershed News: South individual sewage treatment systems, Branch of the Root River Watershed Project,” unsewered communities, industrial and Fall 1999, April 2000 and November 2000 institutional sources, wastewater issues. treatment facilities) and weather-driven 16 Wilson, Bob, “Summary of 1999 E. coli Sampling of Streams in Olmsted County,” (feedlot runoff, manured fields, urban Presentation to Olmsted County Environmental stormwater). The study hypothesized Commission, April 19, 2000. that when precipitation and stream

59 flows are high, the influence of continuous sources is overshadowed Hydrogeologic features in southeastern by weather-driven sources, which Minnesota may favor the survival of generate extremely high fecal coliform fecal coliform bacteria. Cold concentrations. However, during groundwater, shaded streams and drought, low-flow conditions continuous sinkholes may protect fecal coliform sources can generate high from light, heat, drying and predation concentrations of fecal coliform, the (MPCA 1999). Sampling in the South study indicated. Besides precipitation Branch of the Root River watershed and flow, factors such as temperature, showed concentrations of up to 2,000 livestock management practices, organisms/100 ml coming from springs, wildlife activity, fecal deposit age and pointing to a strong connection between channel and bank storage also affect surface water and ground water. The bacterial concentrations in runoff presence of fecal coliform bacteria has (Baxter-Potter and Gilliland, 1988). been detected in private well water in southeastern Minnesota. However, Several studies have found a strong many such detections have been traced correlation between livestock grazing to problems of well construction, and fecal coliform levels in streams wellhead management, or flooding, not running through pastures. Several from widespread contamination of the samples taken in the Grindstone River deeper aquifers used for drinking water. in the St. Croix River Basin, One study from Kentucky showed that downstream of cattle observed to be in rainfall on well-structured soil with a sod the stream, were found to contain a surface could generate fecal coliform geometric mean of 11,000 contamination of the shallow organisms/100 ml, with individual groundwater through preferential flow samples ranging as high as (McMurry et al., 1998). 110,000/100ml. However, carefully managed grazing can be beneficial to Finally, fecal coliform survival appears stream water quality. A study of to be shortened through exposure to southeastern Minnesota streams by sunlight. This is purported to be the Sovell found that fecal coliform, as well reason why, at several sampling sites as turbidity, were consistently higher at downstream of reservoirs, fecal coliform continuously grazed sites than at concentrations were markedly lower rotationally grazed sites where cattle than at monitoring sites upstream of the exposure to the stream corridor was reservoirs. This has been demonstrated greatly reduced. This study and several at Lake Byllesby on the Cannon River, others indicate that sediment- and the Silver Creek Reservoir on the embededness, turbidity and fecal South Branch of the Zumbro River in coliform concentrations are positively Rochester. related. Fine sediment particles in the streambed can serve as a substrate An MPCA evaluation for the Minnesota harboring fecal coliform bacteria. River Basin suggests that improper “Extended survival of fecal bacteria in Individual Sewage Treatment Systems sediment can obscure the source and (ISTS) may be responsible for extent of fecal contamination in approximately 74 fecal coliform bacteria agricultural settings” (Howell et al., organisms per 100 milliliter sample 1996).

60 within larger rivers. 17 However, have not been detected. There is not a transport and survival of fecal coliform strong correlation between the quantity bacteria are not well understood, of pesticide applied and its occurrence particularly as they are affected by the in streams. Chemical characteristics interaction of surface and groundwater appear to be more important in flows in karst geology. Wastewater determining whether a compound treatment facilities are required to appears in surface water. The disinfect their wastewater before it is herbicides acetochlor, alachlor, discharged. atrazine, cyanazine, dicamba, and metolachlor are detected at highest Data exist on the fecal coliform bacteria concentrations during storm events concentrations from businesses, homes immediately following application on and unsewered communities. However, fields. Atrazine and one of its watershed allocations of fecal coliform metabolites, de-ethyl atrazine, are bacteria load have not yet been detected year-round in streams attempted in Minnesota. Bacterial throughout southern Minnesota. contamination of surface and ground Monitoring results were similar for water by antibiotic-resistant micro- watersheds ranging in size from 25 to organisms has been expressed as a 16,200 square miles. public concern in southeastern Minnesota; however, data on this issue In the Garvin Brook Watershed study in do not appear to have been collected in the 1980s, monitoring showed that low the Lower Mississippi River Basin. levels of atrazine and cyanazine Monitoring is needed to fill this data leached into the vadose zone of the soil gap. following recharge events after pesticide application. Two private wells D: Pesticides: east of Lewiston had pesticide levels above drinking water standards. Mixing of pesticides close to wells was seen to The presence of commonly used be of particular concern, both at farms pesticides has been detected in private and commercial application centers. well water in southeastern Minnesota. However, such detections have generally been traced to problems of E: Hydrologic Modification: well construction or wellhead management, not widespread aquifer Modern land uses result in significant contamination. modifications of surface and ground water hydrology in southeastern Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minnesota. Some of the most pesticide sampling from 1992 to 1996 in significant of these land uses are row- southern Minnesota indicate commonly crop cultivation of farm land, the used corn herbicides are present in drainage of farm land, particularly in the surface water following nearly all storm western basin using a combination of events and snow melts. Insecticides surface drainage and subsurface tile drainage, the covering of urban land 17 David Morrison, “Contributions from Septic with impervious surfaces, and the Systems and Undersewered Communities,” mining of aggregate (sand and gravel) presented at Bacteria in the Minnesota River , below the water table. Mankato, Minnesota, Feb 16, 1999

61 Small urban watersheds are very agricultural fields can greatly affect the sensitive to the percentage of the hydrology of the watershed, hence the watershed surface that is impermeable. structure and stability of the streams. A Numerous urban watershed studies modeling study of Prairie Creek, part of show that when urban development the Cannon River Watershed, shows proceeds to the point where this that crop residue management can percentage passes 10 percent, substantially reduce peak flows degradation in channel stability, water associated with rainfall events ranging quality and stream biodiversity begin. from one inch to six inches. In the When the percentage of impervious upper watershed, reductions in peak surface exceeds 25 percent the degree flow were approximately 50 percent, of degradation becomes severe. More compared with more modest reductions runoff reaches the stream faster, of 13 percent downstream. resulting in streambank erosion. Base flows are harder to maintain when The effect of land drainage on stream water flows are directed over the structure and water quality is thought to surface rather than through the ground. be dramatic. However, quantitative Temperatures increase. The effects of estimates for southeastern Minnesota impermeable surface are mainly felt in are not readily available. Qualitatively, smaller urban watersheds, and are not extensive land drainage with surface very noticeable at the large watershed ditches speeds up the delivery of runoff or basin scale. 18 to receiving streams, resulting in higher peak flows and greater streambank The percentage of precipitation that erosion. Subsurface tiling will not result runs off the land surface is referred to in the same speed of runoff delivery as as the runoff coefficient. Runoff that caused by surface ditches, except coefficients within an urban area vary where surface tile intakes create a between 0.70 to 0.95 in downtown direct conduit for surface water escape. areas, to 0.25 to 0.40 for residential- However, the combination of surface suburban areas, to as low as 0.05 to ditching and sub-surface tile drainage 0.10 for flat lawns with sandy soil. 19 results in the drainage of marshy areas Runoff coefficients for farm land range that previously were hydrologically from almost zero for set-aside land with isolated. This has reduced the surface permanent vegetative cover, to the water storage capacity of the landscape range of 0.15 to 0.25 for typical land and increased the volume of runoff to uses in south-central Minnesota20 the region’s streams. Practices that affect surface runoff from

18 Schueler, Thomas, and Richard Claytor, P.E., “Impervious Cover as a Urban Stream Indicator and a Watershed management Tool,” Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Spring MD. 19 American Society of Civil Engineers, “Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers,” Manuals and Reports of Engineering Practice, No. 37, 1970. 20 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “Lake Washington Water Quality Improvement Project, Diagnostic Study Report,”Clean Water Project # 931-1-112-40

62 Sources for Section IV:

Baxter-Potter, W, and M. Gilliland. 1988 “Bacterial Pollution in Runoff From Agricultural Lands,” J. Environmental Quality, 17(1): 27-34.

Chapman, Allen K., 2000. Fecal Coliform Pollution in the Straight River: An Information Assessment, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, November 2000.

Fillmore County, “Watershed News: South Branch of the Root River Watershed Project,” Fall 1999, April 2000, and November 2000 issues.

Hanson, Corey, “Prairie Creek Watershed Model Report”, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1998

Howell, J. et al. 1996. “Effect of Sediment Particle Size and Temperature on Fecal Bacteria Mortality Rates and the Fecal Coliform/Fecal Streptococci Ratio”. J. Environmental Quality. 25: 1216 - 1220

Johnson, Scot, “Wells Creek Watershed 1994. Field Season Report and analysis: Main Stem and Tributary Base flow Discharge,” Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters, 1994.

Larson, William E., and M.J. Lindstrom and T.E. Schumacher, 1997. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, March-April 1997

McMurry, S., et al. 1998. “Fecal Coliform Transport Through Intact Soil Blocks Amended with Poultry Manure,” J. Environ. Quality. 27: 86 – 92.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 1999. “Survey of Farmers within the Middle Fork of the Whitewater River,” Sept. 17, 1999

Minnesota Department of Agriculture,1998. “Dairy Farmers Located on the Karst Region of Southeast Minnesota,” Feb. 10, 1998

Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “Nitrogen in Minnesota Groundwater,” December 1991

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1999. Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Rivers, January 1999.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1997. Lake Byllesby Assessment, 1996,Byllesby Reservoir,” Publication ID #19-0006, December 1997

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1994. Minnesota River Assessment Project: Volume III: Land-Use Assessment, January 1994 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,1989. “Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment in the Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project Area,” November 1989.

Mower County and the City of Austin,1992. “East Side Lake Water Quality Improvement Project,” October 1992

Morrison, David, 1999. “Vermillion River Watershed Citizen Monitoring Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monitoring Project, May-September 1999,” unpublished presentation.

Olmsted County Clean Water Partnership, “Olmsted County Groundwater and Wellhead Protection Project,” August 1994.

Sovell, Laurie, et al., 2000 “Impacts of Rotational Grazing and Riparian Buffers on Physicochemical and Biological Characteristics of Southeastern Minnesota, USA, Streams” Environmental Management, 26(6) 629 – 641.

Trimble, Stanley W., “Decreased Rates of Alluvial Sediment Storage in the Coon Creek Basin, Wisconsin, 1975-93,” Science, Vol. 285, August 20, 1999

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Resource Inventory 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bear Creek Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment, September 1998

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Whitewater Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment, February 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986: “Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria-1986,” EPA440/5-84-002, Washington, DC

Wilson, Bob, 2000. “Summary of 1999 E. coli Sampling of Streams in Olmsted County,” presentation to Olmsted County Environmental Commission, April 19, 2000.

Wotzka, Paul, “Pesticides in Southern Minnesota Rivers and Streams”, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, in Research and Monitoring in the Cannon River Watershed, Cannon River Watershed Partnership, March, 1998

64 – For Vermillion, Straight, Cannon V: Environmental and Zumbro rivers. Reduce mean phosphorus concentrations to Goals levels needed to restore downstream reservoirs One of the main purposes of basin (approximately 90 parts per billion planning is to organize the activities of in-lake P concentration for lakes natural resource management agencies Cannon, Byllesby and Zumbro), around the attainment of environmental and that are consistent with a goals. Thus, defining these goals as restoration strategy for Lake Pepin precisely as possible is a critical aspect (Cannon and Vermillion Rivers). of basin planning. The environmental – Mississippi River (including Lake goals listed below were developed for Pepin): Reduce sediment load from tributaries. Water Plan 2000, and are included in Surface Water Quality: Lakes: “Minnesota Watermarks: Gauging the – Maintain/increase clarity as Flow of Progress 2000 to 2010,” measured by Secchi disk published in October 2000 by the – Reduce P loads to reduce algae Environmental Quality Board. As stated blooms and maintain 02 levels in the Introduction, both the Lower Mississippi River Basin Team and B: Water Quantity Goals BALMM contributed to the development of goals for the Lower Mississippi River Keep stream and spring flows and Basin. These goals are for water groundwater levels within historic ranges. quality, water quantity and ecosystem health. C: Aquatic Ecosystem Goals

A: Water Quality Goals – Mussels: maintain diversity of native species Groundwater Protection: – Aquatic insects: establish baseline Index of Biotic Integrity – N03-Nitrogen
10 mg/L – Total coliform bacteria, N0 -N and – Fish 3 C 85 listed contaminants: reduce Cold-water streams: concentrations and detections in introduce/maintain brook trout C public and private wells to meet Warm-water streams: state drinking water standards. maintain/incr. smallmouth bass C Surface Water Quality:Rivers: Mississippi River: – Minimum of 10 inches (25 cm) of maintain/increase walleye transparency21 – Reptiles/amphibians: maintain toad and frog populations; reduce – Reverse trend of increasing N03-N concentrations in streams deformities – Achieve fecal coliform bacteria – Birds: maintain/increase perching standard in lakes and streams.22 birds, shore birds, puddle ducks and diving ducks, and territories occupied by bald eagles. – Mississippi River: slow sedimentation 21
About equivalent to turbidity standard ( 25 and aging of navigation pools,
NTUs) or Total Suspended Solids SS) 90 maximizing biodiversity, meeting mg/L 22 reasonable transportation needs.
200 org./100 ml monthly mean, or 2000 org/100 ml in 10 percent of samples

65 causes; accordingly, they can III: Geographic seldom be solved by the use of a Management single program. More often, multiple sources must be dealt with through Strategies multiple programs or approaches. These problems require integrated Traditionally, natural resource strategies whereby a combination of management agencies at the local, land uses are modified to achieve a state and federal levels have attempted common goal. to fulfill their missions of natural resource management and Three basic geographic approaches to environmental protection through a the planning and implementation of series of specific programs aimed at integrated solutions are watershed curbing negative behaviors while management, aquifer protection, and offering incentives to stimulate positive flood plain management. Each of these changes. Such programs have helped is a specific geographic, or place-based considerably to reduce negative approach to natural resource environmental impacts such as soil management. They can be used alone erosion and sedimentation, pollutant or in combination, depending on the discharges from industry and specific problem, or combination of municipalities, illegal dumping and problem, that needs to be addressed. careless disposal of hazardous waste. Each approach, and some of the key Although this programmatic strategy environmental management programs has resulted in important associated with them, will be described. accomplishments, much remains to be done before the waters of the Lower A: Watershed Mississippi Basin are fit for a full range of uses including recreation, Management consumption and the support of aquatic life. Lead author: Norman Senjem, MPCA

To go the next step in environmental A watershed is a land surface area from improvement, it is necessary to do two which water drains to a common point things: such as a river, lake, watershed or 1. First, reach agreement on specific recharge area for a groundwater goals for water quality, water aquifer. Watershed management is a quantity and aquatic ecosystem way of protecting or restoring water health. Initial agreement has been bodies such as these by modifying land achieved on the goals for water uses within the upstream watershed. It quality and quantity and aquatic often includes two major phases: a data ecosystem health, as indicated collection and evaluation phase that above. culminates in the development of a 2. Second, determine strategies for watershed management plan; and the achieving these goals through implementation of this plan by modifications in land use and waste landowners and users. The purpose of management. Often, remaining the first phase is to better understand water quality, water quantity and how different types of land use in the ecosystem problems have multiple watershed affect water quality, both

66 individually and collectively. The Action 1: Estimate the geographic purpose of the second phase is to apply scope of regional impairments in the this understanding to the protection or Lower Mississippi River Basin. Water restoration of the water body that is the quality monitoring indicates that main focus of the watershed project. A impairments for turbidity, fecal coliform watershed team comprised of local bacteria and nitrate-nitrogen are citizens, businesses, organizations and widespread. Phosphorus impairments stakeholders, together with local, state may be confined to the northernmost and federal government streams that discharge into impaired representatives, ideally is involved both lakes and reservoirs. These streams in the development and implementation include the Vermillion and Cannon as of the management plan. well as the Zumbro River upstream of Lake Zumbro. Relationships between The following three stream restoration regional impairments and downstream strategies outline a watershed problems such as Mississippi River management process at three impairments and Gulf of Mexico hydrologic scales. Taken together, this Hypoxia should also be noted. process meets the needs of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process Action 2: For each regional impairment 23for impaired waters, in a manner that define water quality objectives (often encourages local leadership and allows defined by rule) and associated flexibility in how impairments are outcome measures and indicators. evaluated and addressed. These are defined earlier in the Scoping Document and in the Lower Stream Restoration Strategies Mississippi River Basin portion of Watermarks. These indicators would Strategy A1: Basin-Wide Scale: include state indicators (ambient water Coduct basin-wide water quality and quality concentrations) and pressure land use evaluations with state and indicators (land runoff, BMPs, federal agencies working in partnership wastewater loads, etc.) with local government, stakeholders Action 3: Based on available and citizens through BALMM. Develop information and best professional basin-wide environmental goals and judgement, define broad-based land- broad land-use strategies to achieve use strategies to achieve environmental them. goals. The BALMM has developed seven land-use strategies for basin- 23 The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires wide application, which are described in that a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be the next section of the Basin Plan developed for impaired water bodies reported Scoping Document. by state Section 303(d) lists to the U.S. EPA. A TMDL is the amount of pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality Action 4: Seek technical and funding standards. It is equal to the sum of allowable support to implement land-use loads from point and nonpoint sources, strategies across the basin. (The considers seasonal variation and includes a Conservation Reserve Enhancement margin of safety. Further information on the Program in the Minnesota River basin TMDL process in Minnesota can be found on the MPCA web site at is an example.) www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl.html

67 Action 5: Implement at appropriate Action 5: Monitor at regular intervals to scales. This may be: a) basin-wide, as evaluate progress toward reaching in the case of BMP development or objectives on a major watershed scale. education; b) major watershed-wide where organization and infrastructure is Strategy A3: Minor Watershed Scale: present to conduct broad strategies; or (Integrated with basin and major in a c) minor watershed, when this is watershed strategies) the preferred scale at which counties, Action 1: Choose priority watersheds SWCDs and other local government for implementation, consistent with agencies involved in land resource basinwide strategies and major management feel they can be the most watershed assessments. There are two effective. basic approaches to choosing minor watersheds for implementation priority: Action 6: Monitor at regular intervals to S Evaluation of a minor watershed’s evaluate progress toward reaching restoration potential. This may be objectives on a basin scale. This may estimated by considering a include water quality monitoring at combination of factors including critical points, such as mouth-of- degree of impairment, potential for tributary; land-use surveys; and surveys improvement, and effort required to that measure knowledge, attitudes and achieve a given degree of preferences of basin citizens. improvement. Moderately impaired streams whose watersheds have Strategy A2: Major Watershed Scale: some variety of land use and (Integrated with basin-scale strategy) ecological connectivity, including Action 1: Conduct water quality channel or riparian integrity, assessments to refine water quality generally will have a higher degree objectives, outcome measures and of restoration potential than minor indicators. Led by MPCA with partners, watersheds that are heavily assisted by consultants. impaired and whose landscapes are highly altered and lack diversity. Action 2: Refine strategies for achieving S Assessment of a watershed’s objectives, outcome measures and degree of contribution to a indicator targets. Use modeling where downstream impairment. For feasible to evaluate alternative example, watersheds that yield the reduction scenarios. Fully engage local highest relative quantities of and regional agencies and the public in sediment, nutrients or other developing and evaluating alternative pollutants within a major watershed scenarios and finally selecting a may be chosen as priorities for preferred reduction scenario. restoration.

Action 3: Geographically target the Whichever of these approaches is strategies to subwatersheds, including appropriate will depend at least partly minor watersheds. on an evaluation of the relative merits of achieving downstream or “mouth of Action 4: Implement strategies in watershed” objectives for a large targeted subwatersheds and minor stream or river, compared to the value watersheds, according to the major of restoring the quality of minor tributary watershed plan.

68 impairments. Local and regional Action 2e: Submit the TMDL plan to preferences should be consulted to EPA for approval. In cooperation help answer this question. However, with local units of government and whichever minor watershed approach stakeholders, address EPA or combination of approaches is comments to secure the plan’s chosen, the total scope of approval. implementation should be sufficient to Action 2f: Implement the chosen address downstream impairments. reduction strategy. Identify sources of funding, provide technical support Action 2: Develop an implementation and program support as strategy that addresses the regional appropriate. impairment within the minor watershed. Action 2g: Evaluate progress on the The following steps may be followed to reduction strategy. After the implement the Total Maximum Daily implementation period is completed, Load (TMDL) process for phased monitor water quality to determine TMDLs where additional information is whether the impaired reach now needed. meets water quality standards. Action 2h: If the first reduction Action 2a: Cooperate with local units strategy does not succeed in of government, watershed removing the impairment, conduct a organizations and stakeholders more detailed analysis of the throughout the process. Encourage problem. On the basis of its findings, local leadership. develop and implement a second Action 2b: Gather relevant published reduction strategy. data on suspected sources of impairment in the watershed Lake Protection and draining to the impaired reach. This Restoration Strategies includes feedlot inventories, assessments of ISTS compliance, Strategy A4: Lake Protection: identified unsewered communities, Give high priority to the protection of and maps indicating areas lakes that fully or partially support particularly vulnerable to soil designated uses according to MPCA erosion, surface runoff and delivery water quality assessments. Promote of pollutants to the impaired water the adoption of BMPs and appropriate body. inspection and enforcement activities Action 2c:Travel the watershed to within the watersheds of these lakes. better identify significant pollution sources. The potential water quality of lakes Action 2d: Use this information to depends on factors such as their complete a TMDL Worksheet. shape, watershed size, residence time Develop one or more Reduction of water and the ecoregion within which Strategies that, according to they are located. The latter factor is estimates, will result in the particularly important in establishing attainment of water quality benchmarks, or criteria, that can be standards in the impaired reach. used as goals to guide lake protection Ask local government, residents and and restoration efforts. Ecoregion- stakeholders to choose a Reduction based criteria have been developed for Strategy.

69 each of the three ecoregions of the Action 1: Periodically review lake Lower Mississippi River Basin: North- monitoring data and identify lakes that Central Hardwood Forest, Western fully or partially support swimmable use Corn Belt Plains, and Driftless Region. according to appropriate ecoregion These eco-region based criteria serve criteria (or standards after they are as the primary basis for evaluating promulgated). swimmable use support in lakes. A total of 47 lakes in the basin have Action 2: Inform local units of been assessed. Out of this total, six government, citizens and interested lakes (15 percent) were in full support non-government organizations about of swimmable use; 5 lakes (12 percent) lakes in their region that fully or partially were in partial support; and the support swimmable use. remaining 36 lakes (86 percent) were in non-support of swimmable use. These Action 3: Encourage counties, criteria also are the primary basis for watershed organizations to develop a listing lakes on the 303(d) list and it is lake management plan for lakes in the anticipated that they also will be the full or partial support categories. criteria that eventually will be promulgated into water quality Action 4: Encourage counties and standards. According to the U.S. watershed organizations to submit EPA’s Clean Water Action Plan, states project proposals to help implement will be expected to adopt nutrient their lake management plan. Where criteria for lakes and streams for water water quality data are not sufficient, quality standards development by the Clean Water Partnership may be the end of 2003. The ecoregion-based most appropriate program. If adequate phosphorus criteria should serve as the diagnostic study has been conducted to technical goals for individual lakes in establish relationships between water the basin until lake and watershed quality and the watershed studies (Lake Assessment Project characteristics, lake projects that studies at a minimum) provide a basis promote the implementation of for setting a site-specific goal. protective BMPS may be more appropriate. “Partial support” of swimmable use is a very desirable goal for many of the Action 5: TMDL Strategy. Start first to lakes in the Lower Mississippi River address partially supporting lakes basin. Given that a very small through the TMDL process. This percentage of the lakes fully or partially process can lead to the identification of support swimmable use, lakes in these water quality goals and pollutant- categories should be priorities for reduction strategies that will prevent protection or rehabilitation-oriented these lakes from getting worse and, projects. In many instances these lakes eventually, improve them. Highly will be somewhat deeper than the norm impaired lakes, by contrast, will require for the basin or ecoregion, and have a more extensive study. higher likelihood of achieving lower phosphorus concentrations in contrast Action 6: Overlay GIS feedlot to shallower lakes. coverages on maps depicting lakes, with their drainage areas and trophic status. Make it a priority to ensure that

70 all feedlots in the watersheds of fully or data, collect and analyze in-lake partially supporting lakes are permitted sampling for transparency, and abiding by their land application phosphorus, chlorophyll a, guidelines. Target inspection and dissolved oxygen and other enforcement activities in these parameters, conduct limited watersheds. tributary sampling, and write a report that describes the lake’s Action 7: Use GIS to identify where problems and outlines possible major urban areas are located in the future actions. watersheds of fully or partially supporting lakes. Target these areas for Action 3: Clean Water early adoption of Phase II stormwater Partnership Program, Phase I: rules. Local watershed organizations that are interested in seriously Strategy A5: Restoration of Impaired addressing a lake’s problems Lakes: may wish to apply for a Clean The MPCA offers a series of lake- Water Partnership (CWP) grant management programs which from the MPCA. Phase I of CWP interested citizens groups can make involves a detailed diagnostic use of as they try to better understand study that goes considerably the nature of a lake’s water quality beyond the scope of a LAP problems, major sources of pollutants, study. It provides the basis for and possible solutions that can be developing in-lake goals and a implemented. These programs will be set of land use Best briefly mentioned in the sequence in Management Practices which citizens groups frequently make recommendations to achieve use of them. them. Based on this watershed and lake assessment, an Action 1: Citizens Lake implementation plan is Monitoring Program. Lake developed which becomes the residents or citizens regularly basis for a Phase II collect data on Secchi disk Implementation grant transparency, together with application. The entire program occasional sampling for can extend from 5 to 8 years. phosphorus and chlorophyll a. Trends are evaluated to estimate Action 4: Implementation and the lake’s approximate trophic continued monitoring. Lake state. management is on ongoing need Action 2: Lake Assessment that extends beyond the duration Program. Lakes that warrant of any program. This involves further investigation based on continued attention to land use CLMP results can be studied in Best Management Practices more detail under the Lake implementation, dealing with Assessment Program (LAP). In a new land-use issues as they one-year study, MPCA provides arise, and monitoring to technical assistance to help a determine whether lake goals watershed group to collect are being met or not. relevant watershed and lake

71 Strategy A7: Determine Watershed approach to preventing pollution of our Priorities for Protection or drinking water supplies is to recognize Restoration where ground water is especially The following criteria are suggested for vulnerable to pollution and to then take 8-digit watershed prioritization: measures to protect these sensitive a) Degree of watershed areas. The Minnesota Ground Water coordination capability Protection Act of 1989 defines a present at the major (8-digit) sensitive ground water area as “a and minor (11-digit) level; geographic area defined by natural b) Degree of watershed features where there is a significant risk planning and assessment of ground water degradation from that have been conducted; activities conducted at or near the land c) Degree of threat to drinking surface.” For the purposes of this water sources; document, geographic areas that are in d) Degree of land use the vicinity of public and private drinking development pressure; water sources are also considered e) Severity of downstream vulnerable areas because of their public impacts on aquatic resources health importance. (for example, impacts on Mississippi River backwater Geologic criteria for assessing sensitive areas) ground water areas are generally based f) Restoration Potential of water on the properties of the geologic bodies within the watershed materials overlying the ground water. (stream segments, lakes, The sensitivity of the material is groundwater and wetlands)24 indicated by the “time of travel” for a water-borne contaminant to travel B. Aquifer Protection vertically from its source at or near the land surface to the aquifer. The most sensitive areas would have the shortest Strategy Development Team: Bea time of travel and have the least ability Hoffmann, SE Minnesota Water to retard the vertical movement of Resources Board (lead author); Art contaminants into the aquifer. Persons, MDH; Peter Zimmerman, MDH; Terry Lee, Olmsted County water planner; Joe Zachmann, MDA; Jim Wellhead Protection Areas Lundy, MPCA, Norman Senjem, MPCA Objective: Achieve land uses compatible with management strategies Prevention of aquifer contamination is identified in local and tribal wellhead an important component of managing protection plans. our drinking water resources. One Almost all the public water supply systems in the Lower Mississippi River 24 Factors to consider in determining restoration Basin rely on ground water. Because potential include: 1) Degree of Impairment of this, the protection of wells and the (identify impairments that are most likely to aquifers which supply them is an respond to appropriate and reasonable restoration measures; 2) Cost-Effectiveness of important public health issue. restoration measures; and 3) Natural Resource Minnesota’s WHP program must Endowments including undeveloped public land address both state and federal and biological diversity.

72 mandates. Concerns over the impacts determining their transmissivity that unwise land and water use have on values. the quality and quantity of ground water Action 3d: Assist in verifying well resources prompted the 1989 locations on existing well logs for Minnesota legislature to pass the the purpose of determining Minnesota Groundwater Protection Act. ground water flow direction. The Act granted MDH authority to Action 3e: Develop ground water develop a WHP program to protect flow modeling projects for SE public water supply wells from Minnesota. contamination. Action 4: Provide technical assistance Strategy B1: Support public water to public water suppliers to help in suppliers’ efforts to develop wellhead determining an inventory of potential protection (WHP) plans. For point source contaminants. communities of 900 population or less, bring public water supplier into the Action 4a: Assist in obtaining a WHP by 2003 and those of 900 Geopositioning System (GPS) population or more by 2006. The location for potential point source purpose of Wellhead Protection contaminants. Planning is to prevent human-caused Action 4b: Share existing contaminants from entering public contaminant source inventory water supply wells. These efforts are databases with public water needed to protect users from chronic suppliers. health effects related to ingesting low Action 4c: Create parcel levels of chemical contaminants. ownership and land use maps for WHP areas. Action 1: Educate the public water supply managers, public officials, and Action 5: Provide technical assistance the general public about WHP to public water suppliers in determining principles and requirements. appropriate management strategies for potential pollutant sources. Action 2: Encourage formation of WHP citizens committees. Action 5a: Provide guidance documents for management of Action 3: Provide technical assistance specific point source to public water suppliers to help them contaminants. determine the five components Action 5b: Establish well sealing necessary to determine their cost-share programs for WHP delineation areas. areas. Action 5c: Support programs to Action 3a: For communities encourage ISTS upgrade in under 3300, provide vulnerability WHP areas. assessments and delineations. Action 5d: Provide technical Action 3b: Develop ground water assistance to communities flow models for SE Minnesota. considering land use regulations Action 3c: Conduct pumping in WHP areas. tests in representative aquifers to assist public water suppliers in

73 Action 5e: Facilitate local internet-based site to improve cooperation among jurisdictions transmittal of data. falling within WHP areas. Action 5f: Promote appropriate Action 2: Develop a karst features agricultural BMP’s in WHP areas database for the purpose of integrating through education and cost- into point source contaminant share incentives. inventories. Action 5g: Provide education about management of sources Strategy B6: Support continued karst within a WHP management area. investigations to improve knowledge of Action 5h: Implement WHP ground water behavior in the basin. measures within inner WHP zones. Strategy B7: Implement new federal underground injection control Strategy B2: Coordinate and support regulations that impact certain types of WHP plan implementation by state on-site wastewater disposal systems in agencies with related missions such as wellhead protection areas. the MPCA, MDA, and DNR. Supplementary materials: Action 1: Develop protocol for inter- Minnesota Rules Parts 4720.5100 to agency communication and 4720.5590 coordination. Wellhead Protection Phasing List State Agency Guidance Documents for Action 2: Coordinate sharing of Wellhead Protection Area Management databases. Private Drinking Water Wells Strategy B3: Encourage integration of WHP protection into other plans The primary source of drinking water in including county water plans, southeastern Minnesota is the watershed plans, and comprehensive individual underground well. In most land use plans. cases, a well can provide a reliable, safe source of drinking water when it is Strategy B4: Assist public water properly located, constructed, and suppliers in siting of new wells. maintained. A combination of regulation and public education can Action 1: Conduct site investigations. help to ensure that proper guidelines are followed, and that the health risks Action 2: Assess risk of contamination associated with contaminated drinking by existing point and nonpoint source water supplies are thereby reduced. contaminants at proposed well location The construction of new wells and the sites. disclosure and sealing of existing wells Strategy B5: Automate Wellhead are regulated by the Minnesota Protection Data Department of Health statewide; however, counties or cities having a Action 1: Integrate WHP data including delegated well program regulate private updated County Well Index information well construction within their borders. into a basin-wide data center and The statutory authority for delegation of

74 the duties of the Commissioner of maintenance, and ultimate sealing of Public Health is listed in MN Statutes wells and borings. 103I.111. The statutory requirements & authority for requiring wells to be sealed Action 2: Use existing educational tools fall under MN Statutes 103I.301. such as the University of Minnesota Authority may also be claimed under Extension Service Farm-A-Syst and MN Statutes 145A.04 Subd. 8. Home-A-Syst programs to evaluate and modify individual wellhead area Strategy B7: Well and Boring practices. Construction Action 3: Provide technical assistance, Action 1: Implement and conduct education and training to professionals compliance monitoring and such as well and boring contractors, enforcement of State Statues and agency and local government staff, and Rules pertaining to well and boring other professionals through training construction to assure public health and programs, conferences, newsletters, groundwater resources are protected publications and guidance memoranda. through proper well and boring construction. Strategy B11: Special Well Construction Areas Strategy B8: Well and Boring Sealing Action 1: Develop special well Action 1: Implement and conduct construction areas in response to compliance monitoring and groundwater contamination problems enforcement of State Statutes and by consultation with affected parties, Rules pertaining to well and boring consultants, and government agencies, sealing to assure public health and and by developing technical groundwater resources are protected publications, guidance criteria and through proper sealing of wells and maps in order to assure that potable borings. wells are not constructed into the contaminated aquifer and that wells and Strategy B9: Well Disclosure borings constructed and sealed in the Program area do not adversely affect the contamination plume. Action 1: Follow-up on all unused wells disclosed at property transfer to assure Action 2: Develop maps depicting the well is sealed, put back into use, or where carbonate aquifers must not be is placed under a yearly renewable used for a potable water supply, where maintenance permit. past well construction practices necessitate special techniques for Strategy B10: Education sealing or where hydrologic, water quality or well construction conditions Action 1: Provide information and require development of a special report education to the public, legislators, the or map. news media, special interest groups, civic organizations, and others to improve public understanding of the need for proper construction,

75 Strategy B12: Research and Data The over-all objective is to manage land Gathering use to avoid adverse effects to highly sensitive aquifers. Such aquifers may Action 1: Conduct research and gather be locally important resources for data to further understand geology, private drinking water wells not hydrology, contaminant behavior and normally protected by land use plans in ground well/boring construction wellhead protection areas. practices. Furthermore, pollutants in these aquifers may leak to deeper aquifers by Strategy B13: Product Evaluation means of fractures in confining units, or at the eroded subcropping edge of Action 1: Evaluate new products and confining units. materials to be used in construction, maintenance, and ultimate sealing of Strategy B15: Manage Recharge wells and borings to assure the Areas Near Edge of Decorah Shale products and materials meet public Ground water recharge areas that health protection requirements of State occur at the edge of the Decorah shale Statutes and Rules. receive ground water from formations in the unconfined Upper Carbonate and Strategy B14: Well Water Testing are therefore especially susceptible to contamination. These areas should be Action 1: Provide information to the managed as vegetative buffer areas public about the potential health risks (see Land Use Strategies, Perennial associated with contaminated water Vegetation). supplies, especially those associated with vulnerable populations, and the Strategy B16: Map Development need for regular testing of well water. Develop the following maps for each county or community as an aid to Action 2: Support programs that determining priority vulnerable areas subsidize well water tests and purchase within that jurisdiction: of bottled water when necessary, to S the eroded subcropping edge of income-eligible populations. confining units S fractures in confining units that Action 3: Support programs that provide may recharge to aquifers grants or low-interest loans to income- beneath eligible homeowners for construction, S other solution features (e.g., repair, or sealing of private drinking sinkholes swarms, caves, zones water wells. of solution enlarged fractures, paleokarst zones, etc.) that may Action 4: Support policy changes that affect the movement of ensure that owners of rental properties pollutants downward from water not subjected to housing codes provide table aquifers to important potable water supplies to their tenants. resource aquifers

Vulnerable Areas Strategy B17: Planning Action 1: Integrate the possibility of contamination from vulnerable recharge

76 areas and surface contamination leakage through confining units into C: Floodplain Wellhead Protection Plans, County Management Water Plans, Local Comprehensive Strategy Team: Jim Cooper, DNR Land Use Plans, and transportation (Non-Structural Flood Damage plans. Reduction); Judy Mader, MPCA; Norman Senjem, MPCA; Scot Johnson, Strategy B18: Research Support DNR, John Sullivan, Wisconsin DNR Action 1: Research efforts to quantify (Mississippi River Dredging the ability of soils to biologically filter Management) ground water that is recharging highly sensitive or very highly sensitive aquifers and develop best management Objective: Reduce the potential practices for land uses in these areas. for flood damage while enhancing the original functions of Strategy B19: Land-Use Ordinances floodplains for water quality and Action 1: Provide model land use ecological benefits. ordinances, designed to protect vulnerable areas, to local governments. Introduction: A river system includes much more than a main channel Strategy B20: Protection and running at bankful or lower flows. An Preservation important part of a river corridor is the Action 1: Permanently protect and floodplain, a relatively flat area on both preserve highly vulnerable areas sides of a stream that is formed over through purchase of property centuries as the stream moves back easements or through programs that and forth in a process of lateral encourage property set-asides. migration. This process, and sediment deposition, continually reshape the Strategy B21: Education Provide floodplain, and often form a rich education and technical assistance in diversity of ecological niches. During identifying and protecting sensitive floods, the floodplain serves vital aquifers to the following stakeholder functions ranging from sediment groups: accumulation to providing areas S Water planners, land use suitable for fish spawning, to dissipating planners, transportation planners S river energy and maintaining channel Soil and Water Conservation integrity. At other times of the year, the District supervisors and staff natural floodplain can be part of a S Community water suppliers biological corridor that supports a S Elected and appointed officials variety of wildlife. For a floodplain to S Property owners continue to offer these services it must S Public remain connected to the river, and as free as possible of fill, paved surface areas and other severe disturbances.

At the same time, human settlement of floodplains – towns, businesses, farms, and residences -- is a prominent

77 feature of today’s landscape that will Minnesota Legislature to enact endure for the foreseeable future. floodplain management statutes that Flood damages to persons and emphasized non-structural alternatives. property is a real concern that needs to This statute exists today as Section be dealt with to minimize these 103F.105 in Minnesota Statutes that damages. Balancing these objectives – establishes policy which in part says: minimizing flood damages while “It’s the policy of this state to reduce maximizing ecological services of the flood damages through floodplain floodplain river corridor – is the goal of management, stressing non-structural the following flood plain management measures such as floodplain zoning strategies. Two such strategies have and flood proofing, flood warning been prepared: one dealing with flood practices, and other indemnification plain management for flood damage programs that reduce public liability and reduction; and another dealing with the expenses for flood damages.” This management of dredging operations in section of law goes on to say: “It is the the Mississippi River Valley. Additional policy of the state not to prohibit but to strategies will be needed to more guide development of the floodplains.” specifically address the functions of Floodplain management policy is stated flood plains as part of the river corridor in Section 103F.105 of the statutes. ecosystem. Ecological Benefits. More recently Nonstructural Measures of awareness has developed over the Flood-Damage Reduction ecological benefits of allowing the floodplain to function in a natural unobstructed but connected state Historically, flood relief has often been utilizing floodplain storage to limit peak sought through construction of works stages and discharges of major floods for flood control such as dikes, dams, but allowing during normal runoff years and enlarged channels. However, those lands that have traditionally been when it was found that average annual used for agricultural production to flood damages were increasing in spite continue to be used for such. In turn, of the billions of dollars spent across those low-lying floodplain lands, the nation in such works for flood wetlands, and ponding areas annually control, a new philosophy was flooded would be allowed to continue to developed that was referred to simply flood thereby sustaining waterfowl and as the non- structural alternative to fish spawning habitat and providing flood control. This philosophy was flood water storage. Sustaining a intended to reduce flood damages holistic functioning of these floodplains through such things as development of not only promotes healthy ecological flood warning systems, flood proofing, biodiversity of both the floodplain and floodplain land use planning, and the adjoining river channel but also floodplain regulation with the structural minimizes the extent of monetary measures being only a subset of damages when it floods. comprehensive floodplain management. Flooding experience of 2000 in southeast Minnesota. During late In Minnesota, the non-structural spring, early summer of the year 2000, alternative to flood control prompted the record or near record flooding occurred

78 in the Root River and Cedar River operation during times of flooding, flood Basins of the Lower Mississippi River recovery and relief and flood mitigation. Basin planning area. In an attempt to Action2. Include in compendium a identify the perceived effectiveness of summary of process that will be implementation of the existing followed in disseminating flood relief floodplain management policy, elected information during and following flood and non-elected government officials events. were contacted and asked: “In response to this year’s late spring, early Action3. Develop a mechanism which summer flooding what appeared to be promptly sets up public informational lacking in terms of government/state and consultation meetings following government response to those that flooding on relief and recovery were affected by the flooding?” A programs for local government and summary of the responses and the list private interests. of those contacted is available from the Rochester office of DNR Waters. The Action4.Develop a mechanism which responses received also were helpful in will, following flooding, accelerate identifying priority strategies and identification and compilation of actions that should be considered in the damage estimates which determine if portion of the revised 2000 State Water the threshold for a federal disaster Plan for southeast Minnesota relating to declaration will be met. floodplain management. (The above action items evolved from Floodplain management strategies response of the elected government and actions. and non-elected government officials Strategies and actions relating to state that were queried following the year floodplain management policy and for 2000 late spring, early summer management of floodplains for flooding.) ecological benefits are grouped together. Strategies and actions Strategy 2. Remove flood prone relating to the Mississippi River structures from the floodplain. Floodplain are listed as a subset. All the actions and strategies have been Action 1.Inventory those communities developed within the context of state and the number of high damage floodplain management policy. potential structures in those communities which have suffered Strategy 1. Provide assistance to repetitive flooding or have the potential local units of government in to be substantially damaged because of preparation of flood plans that flooding. include flood preparedness, operation during flooding, and flood Action 2. Periodically advise local units relief and recovery. of governments with flood-prone structures of the programs available to Action1.Prepare compendium of local, assist in removing such structures from federal, and state programs that the floodplain. provide assistance to both local units of government and private interests in Action 3. Examine ways to speed up matters of flood preparedness, government acquisition process for the

79 purchase of flood prone properties of several times over the last ten years willing sellers. have expressed an interest in selling, (During the 2000 late spring, early but have expressed concern over the summer flooding in southeast length of time it takes the government Minnesota, a number of buildings were to make a purchase. Both state and flooded in Austin and Spring Valley, federal wildlife management agencies some of which suffered substantial have indicated an interest in purchasing damage while others have had a history some of these lands as wildlife of repeated flooding. The State Flood management areas.) Damage Reduction program along with federal disaster assistance programs Strategy 4. Promote the expansion can provide local units of government of flood warning systems to allow for substantial grants to communities for better emergency preparedness for the purchase of such flood-damaged flood prone areas. structures. Comment was received expressing a desire to have the Action 1: Utilize existing assistance acquisition process speeded up.) programs to provide flood warning to those communities that don’t have a Strategy 3. Acquire (through warning system but have indicated an easement or purchase) the use of interest in having one such as Spring properties that are repeatedly Valley. flooded which are suitable as wildlife management areas and which would Action 2: Examine the use of existing restore the natural floodplain programs to replace the partial duration storage areas. stream gage at the bridge on the Root River near Lanesboro that washed out Action 1. Inventory repeatedly flooded during the 2000 late spring, early floodplain areas that would be suitable summer flooding to enhance for wildlife management purposes, or downstream flood warning capabilities. which the restoration of the natural Action 3: Refit abandoned US flood water storage would effectively Geological Survey stream gages for reduce flood stages and peak flood flood warning purposes and to collect discharges. stream flow data to allow more accurate risk determination and flood frequency Action 2. Allocate funds to purchase analysis. flood-prone properties from willing sellers which would be suitable for (Responses to the critique of the 2000 wildlife management purposes or which flooding specifically expressed an would restore the natural floodplain interest in developing a flood warning storage characteristics thus reducing system for Spring Valley and that the flood heights and peak discharges. Lanesboro bridge gage needed to be Action 3: Examine ways to speed up replaced. It’s noted that the US government acquisition process for Geological Survey will be discontinuing purchase of flood-prone properties of two permanent gaging stations in willing sellers. southeast Minnesota because cost share funding isn’t available to keep (As a result of flooding in 2000, some them operating.) owners of land that have been flooded

80 Strategy 5. Seek means to develop the National Flood Insurance Program. up-to-date floodplain mapping for All the counties and 57 cities located in areas experiencing growth using the Lower Mississippi River Basin state-of-the-art GIS technology. planning area participate in the National Flood Insurance program and therefore Action 1: Inventory those floodplain administer floodplain regulations that areas that are not adequately mapped meet both flood insurance standards and are experiencing development and minimum state floodplain pressures. standards. In the southeast Minnesota Counties (Houston, Fillmore and Action 2: Examine the use of existing Mower) named in the federal disaster programs to fund the development of declaration because of the 2000 up-to-date mapping using GIS flooding, as of July 31, 2001, 395 flood technology for those floodplain areas insurance policies were in force; 156 experiencing development pressures. policies are in force in Houston County; 75 policies are in force in Fillmore (Comments received during the critique County of which 16 are in Spring of the 2000 flood indicated a need for Valley; and 164 policies are in force in updated floodplain mapping for areas Mower County of which 141 are in subject to development pressures.) Austin.

Strategy 6. Continue the Strategy 7. Examine cost effective administration of floodplain options to reduce agricultural flood regulation and participation in the damages. National Flood Insurance program at the local level. Action 1: Promote urban and rural land use practices on a watershed basis Action 1.Provide education programs to through implementation of all elements local units of government and the public of Watermarks and the Lower on floodplain and watershed hydraulics Mississippi River Basin Plan Scoping and hydrology, floodplain regulation Document, which will reduce runoff, techniques and the National Flood reduce flood stages, and reduce the Insurance program. extent of floodwater inundation.

Participation in the National Flood Action 2: Look for opportunities to Insurance program requires that local restore or create wetlands. units of government adopt and administer floodplain land use controls Action 3: Seek funding for programs such as zoning and subdivision that provide cost share to local units of regulations and building codes. government for removal of debris from Minnesota Law requires that floodplain stream channels that cause a zoning regulations adopted by local significant obstruction to flow and units of government meet minimum excessive stream bank erosion. state standards set by the Department of Natural Resources. Action 4: Continue to use existing work State floodplain zoning standards are force programs such as Sentence-to- compatible with the minimum floodplain Serve crews and Minnesota regulations required for participation in Conservation Corps crews to assist in

81 removal of debris from streams and Long-Term Resource Monitoring rivers. Program; and ongoing evaluations of commercial navigation and its impact (In the critique of government response on water quality and the floodplain to flooding in 2000, several commented ecosystem. The following strategy that they expect floods to get larger and addresses the management of dredging more frequent. Others commented that is conducted to maintain a nine- there was a need to install more land foot navigation channel by the U.S. treatment measures in the uplands of Army Corps of Engineers. The strategy the watershed. Several indicated that has four main components. It Sentence- to-Serve Crews should addresses 1) preventive measures that continue to be used to help remove can reduce the need for dredging; 2) debris from stream and river channels.) siting decisions that affect the use of floodplain land for dredge spoil storage; Mississippi River Dredging 3) the management of dredging Management activities, particularly dredge placement sites, to reduce water quality and The Mississippi River floodplain on the ecosystem impacts; and 4) beneficial eastern border of Minnesota “is part of re-use of dredge spoils. the largest riverine ecosystem in North America and third largest of seventy- Dredging is often conducted to maintain nine such river systems in the world…. navigation access to or within a This floodplain ecosystem complex … waterbody. Material that is then is critical habitat for both aquatic and dredged from a waterbody must be terrestrial species of flora and fauna... disposed of -- Minnesota Statutes and The ecological significance of this Rules strongly discourage in-water floodplain, as a commercial and disposal of pollutants (dredged material recreational fishery and migratory is defined as “other waste” in MN Stat. waterfowl nesting area, flyway and Chap. 115.03). Therefore, most hunting area, was formally dredged material disposal takes place acknowledged by the U.S. Congress as on upland. Since permittees generally early as 1924. That year, at the urging seek to reduce the financial cost of the of the Izaak Walton League, more than dredging activity, dredged material is 200,000 acres of floodplain was often placed in the nearest , and lowest designated by Congress as the Upper cost, disposal site – the flood plain. The UMRCC Strategy from “A River Mississippi National Wildlife and fish 26 Refuge.25 That Works and a Working River” that deals with dredging issues is “Manage A wide range of federal and state channel maintenance and dredge government agencies and non- material disposal to support natural government organizations are involved resource management system in managing the Mississippi River for objectives.” commercial and ecological benefits: the Environmental Management Program; Regardless of the size of the disposal site, placement of dredged material

25 A River That Works and A Working River, within the flood plain: January 2000, Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL, 26 Ibid, pp. 25-26

82 a) smothers the flora and fauna at the river to function in as natural a the site; manner as possible. b) temporarily disrupts use of the area by wildlife; Strategy 9: Reduce the number of c) hinders the conveyance of high permanent dredged material or flood flows, thereby disposal facilities located in flood preventing the dissipation of flow plains. energy; and d) prevents the deposition of Action 1: Work with applicants and suspended sediment, which permittees to: holds nutrients to “feed” flood a) identify viable permanent plain vegetation, carried by the disposal sites outside of the high or flood flows. flood plain; and b) beneficially re-use and Strategy 8: Reduce turbidity in side- remove dredged material that channels and backwaters of the is stockpiled in the flood plain Mississippi and minimize the need within a reasonable time for navigation channel dredging by frame. a) reducing the discharge of sediment from major tributaries, and Action 2: Educate applicants and b) channel management activities. permittees regarding: a) the impacts of dredged Action 1: Determine the potential for material placement on the reducing sediment sources and capacity of a flood plain to increasing sediment sinks within convey river flow during high tributary watersheds. Incorporate water events; and sediment source/sink analysis into b) the impact of flood flows on major watershed assessments the integrity of a dredged conducted for Total Maximum Daily material disposal facility Load studies and other purposes. located in the flood plain; and c) the impact of eroded material Action 2: Implement sediment reduction (both native soils and strategies in tributary watersheds sediment from dredged (Strategies 1,2,3,4, and 6). material disposal sites) on the “health” of the waterbody. Action 2a: Attempt to increase the Strategy 10: Manage dredging storage of sediment within tributary activities to minimize adverse effects watersheds in upstream or alluvial on water quality and the floodplain floodplain locations. Evaluate the ecosystem. potential for reconnecting the mainstem with alluvial floodplains in Action 1: Where practical, avoid major tributaries. dredging and transfer of dredged Action 2b: Judiciously use channel material during sensitive time periods maintenance activities including such as fish spawning. Develop monitoring, buoy positioning, guidelines for seasonal constraints on sediment trapping and current river dredging operations. Cite control structures to reduce the guidelines in 401 certificates. need for dredging, while allowing

83 Action 2: Develop framework for determining effluent limits for Total material be handled in a manner Suspended Solids for dredge that protects water quality. placement sites. Action 5: Increase inspection and Action 3: Develop a monitoring protocol enforcement of dredge disposal site for dredge placement sites that includes activities by coordinating activities both effluent and ambient water quality. between the MPCA and DNR. Action 6: Coordinate closely with the Action 4: Placement site management. resource agencies in adjoining states Action 4a: Formalize Best on shared-water issues to avoid Management Practices (BMPs) contradictory actions. that are specific to dredging and disposal activities. Strategy 11: Encourage Beneficial Action 4b: Include, by reference, Uses of Dredge Spoils. the BMP Document developed in This will reduce the need to devote the point above in the Dredging floodplain land areas to the permanent Exemption from State Disposal storage of dredge spoils, and reduce System permitting (MN Rule the need for aggregate mining to meet 7050.0212) for TSS. increased demands. Action 4c: Through 401 Certification require that dredged

84 other land uses in a watershed. To VII: Land-Use protect surface water quality, permanent vegetative cover can be Strategies strategically located on shoreland down-slope from intensive land uses, to A: Land-Use Strategy 1: increase infiltration and provide a sink Perennial Vegetation for pollutants. Periodic harvesting may be needed to prevent the sink from Strategy Development Team: Howard eventually exporting pollutants, thereby Moechnig, NRCS/BWSR (Pasture Land becoming a pollutant source. To Conservation Management), Mary protect groundwater quality, permanent Kells, BWSR, Tom Steger, Goodhue vegetative buffers may be established County NRCS, Tex Hawkins, USFWS at critical geologic positions such as the (riparian buffers) periphery of sinkholes. Another example is groundwater recharge areas Objective: Increase – or, at a minimum, such as those that occur at the edge of maintain -- acreage of land in hay and the Decorah shale and receive ground pasture, woods and meadow. water from formations in the unconfined Upper Carbonate aquifers that are Environmental functions of perennial contaminated with nitrate nitrogen and vegetation other pollutants (See Geographic Maintaining land with permanent Management Strategies/ Aquifer vegetative cover is critically important to Protection/Vulnerable Areas, above). achieving water quality, water quantity and ecological goals and objectives in Current land-use status the Lower Mississippi River Basin. Perennial vegetation includes a variety Land with permanent cover helps to of land uses within the Lower reduce surface runoff and intercept Mississippi Basin. Some of the land in pollutants such as pesticides, nutrients perennial vegetation is under and sediment to protect surface and commercial use. This includes hay, ground water quality. By increasing pasture and public and private infiltration, perennial vegetation helps to harvested forestland. Non-commercial replenish groundwater aquifers and land in perennial vegetative cover retard the flow of water to streams to includes forest, meadows, wetland stabilize the hydrologic cycle and complexes or temporarily retired reduce stream bank erosion. Increased farmland. As of 1997, approximately infiltration also helps to lower the one-quarter of the land in the Lower temperature of streams by routing Mississippi River basin was in runoff through groundwater rather than permanent vegetation, according to the over the surface. In addition, NRI. Of these land uses, forest land permanent vegetative cover is essential accounted for the highest percentage of to support wildlife populations. land in the basin (13%), followed by pastureland (8%), Conservation The degree of environmental benefits Reserve Program land (4%), and non- provided by perennial vegetative cover cultivated cropland (2%). Not included depends on the location and in this measure of perennial vegetation management of such land relative to is a very significant item: hay grown in rotation with a cultivated crop, often in

85 contour strips that provide excellent Approximately eight percent of the land erosion control. area of the Lower Mississippi River basin consists of pastureland, Land-use trends according to National Resources Although forested acreage has held Inventory (NRI) data for 1997. This is roughly constant over the past two down from 10 percent in 1982. In the decades, local resource managers from intervening period land in pasture county and SWCD offices have noted a decreased by 22 percent, or more than disturbing trend over the past several 100,000 acres. Much of the years with regard to permanent pastureland is not suitable for cropland. vegetation. With more and more mixed Many acres of pasture are on very crop and livestock farmers leaving steep soils, where runoff is rapid and farming, land that used to be devoted to intermittent and perennial streams hay and pasture now is being used for occupy the swales. Delivery of row-crop production. Even if well pollutants from these sites to streams is managed for erosion control, row-crop efficient. In terms of numbers of land provides inferior runoff controls grazing livestock, six of the top ten and habitat benefits compared to the counties in Minnesota are located in permanent vegetative cover it replaces. this basin. Recent NRI data confirm that this trend has been taking place for quite a few Strategy A1: Maintain and, if possible, years. From 1982 to 1997, acreage in increase the production of beef and noncultivated cropland and pastureland dairy in the basin by promoting the has declined from 627,700 acres to economic and environmental 447,900 acres, a decline of 28 percent. sustainability of cattle production. Acreage in intervening years has varied, reaching 514,000 acres in 1992. Action 1: Support actions to improve Thus, the objective of restoring land the profitability of beef cattle production. use to the 1982 levels for pasture and Maintain or increase the use of well- noncultivated cropland is not as distant managed cattle grazing on steep slopes as it might at first appear. Pastureland and in riparian areas (see “Strategy A3: has consistently declined from 1982 Pasture Land Conservation through 1997, while noncultivated Management). cropland acreage has varied considerably. Action 2: Explore ways of working with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s “Dairy Initiative” to A: Perennial vegetation for enhance the economic viability of dairy harvesting, grazing and other production in southeastern Minnesota. commercial uses. Strategy A2: Hay and Grassland Management Education. Objective: Restore area in pasture and noncultivated cropland to 1982 levels Action 1: Promote the productive (630,000 acres) from current estimates management of hay and pastureland, of 448,000 acres. including soil testing and application of potassium fertilizer where needed (30%

86 of soil samples indicate potash this program is very high, with demand deficiencies). exceeding technical and financial resources. Approximately 60 Strategy A3: Pasture Land prescribed grazing plans have been Conservation Management developed in this basin through this program. Proper conservation treatment of eroding pasture lands includes Action 3A1: Provide Technical rotational grazing for forage Resources to Producers and Service management, as well as management Providers of sensitive areas within the pastures, Most service providers and producers such as stream corridors, springs, lack knowledge of the intricacies of shallow soils, very steep soils, and planning and monitoring a good areas containing woodlands with prescribed grazing system. This commercial potential. Installation of problem will be addressed somewhat facilitating practices, such as fencing by the section 319 grant mentioned and watering systems, is critical to above, but this is only a good start. success of the rotational grazing These workshops, to be effective, must systems. Proper treatment of be limited to 20 students at one time. pasturelands in this basin will increase This educational process needs to be infiltration of rainfall, reduce soil continued beyond the life of the 319 erosion, reduce nutrient movement to project. The following tasks will be streams, and help to reduce peak flows accomplished within the next two years: in streams, as well as improve the Task 1: Prepare course materials stability and health of sensitive areas. and present the following courses: S Pasture Forage Plant Within the last two years there has Identification been an increased interest by S Planning Prescribed Grazing producers to establish rotational Systems grazing systems (Prescribed Grazing S Monitoring Prescribed Grazing Systems). A Section 319 grant to Systems BWSR, titled Grazing Lands S Fencing Systems for Prescribed Improvement Project, is being Grazing Systems (This will implemented. Through this project require some type of grant for there will be at least six workshops equipment) developed and given to service S Livestock Watering Systems providers and producers in the topic (This will require some type of areas of forage plant identification, grant for equipment) planning prescribed grazing systems, S Managing Sensitive Areas Within and pasture monitoring. In addition, a Prescribed Grazing Systems workshop will be developed to provide Task 2: Develop a grazing systems information regarding sensitive area planning guidebook. This is already management within pastures. The nearing completion through EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives grants. Program (EQIP) provides financial incentives and technical support to producers who want to implement prescribed grazing systems. Interest in

87 Action 3A2: Study Impacts of modification of the State Cost Share Livestock in Riparian Corridors Program, inclusion in legislative There is evidence that properly initiatives such as HR4013, and managed grazing in riparian areas can programmatic changes such as that have a positive effect on the streams in sought by the Grazing Lands southeast Minnesota. It is also Conservation Initiative (GLCI). understood that if grazing in these areas is not properly managed the The GLCI is promoting the inclusion of results will be a negative impact on the a line item in the budget for NRCS for environment. This is a controversial the specific purpose of management of subject and it is contrary to the grazing lands in the U.S. The budget information published to promote the could be for personnel, cost share federal buffers initiative. Because of dollars, and/or research. the sensitive nature of the streams in this basin, this issue needs to be fully Action 3A4: Program Delivery discussed and researched soon, to Currently there is a staffing shortage in prevent damage to the riparian all agencies for the specific purpose of corridors through well-intentioned promoting proper grazing lands actions. treatment. With the documented Task 1: Study existing research on the interest by producers, one staff person topic of grazing stream (most applicably in NRCS) working full corridors, the effects of time in southeast Minnesota would be forested buffers, and on the able to provide one-on-one technical effects of grassed buffers on assistance, prepare technical materials, stream riparian areas in the and provide information through driftless regions of Minnesota, workshops and field days. Wisconsin, and Iowa. Development of technical materials Task 2: Prepare a document that would be another important aspect of outlines procedures for this position. evaluating stream corridors to make determinations of the best Producers who rely upon rotational possible treatment of riparian grazing systems have the option to zones. belong to any of the grazing clubs in the Task 3: Prepare a workshop to train area (approximately 4 clubs exist). In service providers how to addition serious graziers are already evaluate riparian areas. effectively networking with each other on a regular basis in this area of the Action 3A3: Provide Incentives to state. Some of the most Producers to Apply Facilitating knowledgeable graziers in Minnesota Practices are located within this area. The only existing cost share program that provides assistance to livestock One goal of the current NRCS grazing producers for practices that facilitate lands conservationist in Minnesota is to rotational grazing systems (fencing, develop a series of courses/workshops watering systems, heavy use area that would constitute a grazing school if protection, etc.) is the federal combined. The option exists to offer a Environmental Quality Incentives “grazing school” or to offer any one of Program (EQIP). Other options include the courses/workshops, depending

88 upon the requirements of a group of Encourage forest landowners to producers or service providers. The develop a forest stewardship plan. following is a listing of courses already These plans should recognize the full developed or to be developed: range of utility and limitations to forest S Pasture Forage Plant Identification resources and should match biological S Planning Prescribed Grazing diversity with soil type, climate and Systems regeneration rates. Plans also should S Fencing Systems for Prescribed include disease and pest control Grazing Systems measures and means of controlling S Livestock Watering Systems in the undesirable species. Lower Mississippi River Basin S Monitoring Pastures in Prescribed Strategy A4-3: Expand Forested Grazing Systems Areas. S Managing Sensitive Areas Within Work for expansion of forested areas Prescribed Grazing Systems within the basin, in order to utilize the forest’s supreme ability to prevent water runoff and erosion. Strategy A4: Forest Land Management Action 1: Suggest that woodlands be (Adapted from the Whitewater River started where land voluntarily taken out Watershed Project Plan) of production has problems with sheet and rill erosion. Examples would be Objective: Make forests a sustainable, land enrolled in RIM and CRP. renewable resource in the watershed Action 2: Suggest tree plantings for through proper forest planning and windbreaks, shelterbelts as buffer areas management. between floodplains and agricultural land, gully heads as well as around Strategy A4-1: Promote appropriate springs, sinkholes and headwater timber harvesting techniques. areas. Action 1: Promote the use of forester- Action 3: Cost share for establishment assisted private timber harvest of forests and for methods of protection (currently used on an estimated10-20 from predators of trees. percent of private forestland). Action 2: Create a rating system of Strategy A4-4: Improve current timber basin loggers and disseminate the stands results to woodland owners. Ratings Action1: Try to improve current timber would be based on BMPs used in stand quality from a present state of 73 timber harvesting already done in the percent poor, to medium-stocked area. conditions. Action 3: Encourage the use of cost Action 2: Strive to remove cattle from share on private timber sales to obtain woods where possible adequate regeneration, especially of oak. B: Noncommercial Perennial Action 4: Education wood lot owners on Vegetation proper timber harvesting techniques. Strategy B1: Protect Existing Natural Strategy A4-2: Develop Forest Vegetation bordering major streams, Stewardship Plans

89 tributaries, lakes, wetlands or sensitive the water resources. Upland watershed groundwater recharge areas. management is encouraged and should include a combination of BMP’s in order Action 1: Determine priorities for to reduce soil erosion to tolerable limits, maintaining existing perennial sustain soil productivity, slow runoff, vegetation -- on the basis of the need to and reduce the need to use riparian protect priority water bodies, improve buffers as the catch all for sediments wildlife conservation potential, etc. and nutrients.

Action 2: Consult landowners Many counties statewide are concerning their interest in permanent implementing buffer initiatives. easement programs such as Reinvest Information is available on these in Minnesota. Pursue funding through projects to any counties that are appropriate agencies and non- interested. government organizations. Support a full-time position within the basin to After reviewing buffer references and contact landowners to encourage discussing implementation with county enrolment in these programs. field office personnel, the team agreed that local buffer initiatives need Action 3: Consider the development of supplemental establishment of county land use ordinances that would permanent vegetative cover in targeted protect existing areas with natural areas of the basin. vegetation. See model ordinance for natural area protection developed by Haying, grazing, buffer width, the State Planning Agency. Combine manageable fields and other issues are with the purchase and transfer of generally recognized but are not development rights. referenced to program specifics.

Action 4: Consider the feasibility of The strategy is designed to provide property tax reductions or exemptions some general guidelines in the form of for permanent conservation easements goals and actions that can be used to and shoreland buffers. implement related water plan activities. References were reviewed to ensure Strategy B2: Riparian Buffers that county priorities were taken into Objective: Increase stream miles of consideration. riparian buffers at least 50 feet wide bordering protected waters. Strategy B2a-- Information/Education: Introduction: Riparian buffer Create an awareness among the public implementation will target protected of the water quality and other resource waters in the basin. In addition, the benefits of vegetative riparian buffers in strategies will allow for counties to rural and urban settings. accelerate buffer implementation to protect all water resources in the Action 1: Develop rural and urban county. It is understood that riparian landowner handbooks for county buffers are to be considered just one of residents that include riparian buffer the BMP’s necessary to reduce opportunities/programs. sedimentation and nutrient loading to

90 Action 2: Develop an information media campaign incorporating local and Action 5: Seek out sources of additional regional media outlets. funding or assistance for counties to provide supplemental incentives for Action 3: Work with partners to update riparian areas not eligible for existing fact sheets outlining various types of programs. This could address buffers and their benefits. protecting headlands, squaring off fields, crediting existing buffers and Action 4: Encourage non-governmental being able to enroll whole riparian fields organizations’ participation in the when remaining cropland fragments are promotion of buffer implementation. unmanageable.

Strategy B2b: Inventory/Mapping: Action 6:Use shoreland zoning Encourage counties to map and identify regulations as an incentive to areas where perennial vegetation and accelerate voluntary implementation of riparian buffers exist or are needed. riparian buffers.

Action 1:Work with counties to obtain Strategy B2d: appropriate GIS data layers necessary Research/Demonstration/Monitoring: to accomplish buffer needs Action 1: Maintain contact and assessment. coordinate with the USGS-led Agroecosystem Team on riparian buffer Action 2: Work with universities and research. This research proposes to research/management agencies to evaluate riparian buffer management in collate and analyze data sets while an integrated, watershed scale study providing training opportunities for that blends three key components: the student interns and technicians. aquatic system, the terrestrial system, and, equally important, the landowner Strategy B2c: Land and the constraints that affect his/her Treatment/Implementation: adoption of BMP’s. Action 2: Encourage citizen/partner Action 1: Seek out funding sources for involvement in water monitoring accelerating one-on-one technical activities. assistance to landowners through local units of governments and Strategy B2e: Develop an evaluation nongovernmental organizations. program that updates acreage of Action 2: Work with partners to permanent vegetative cover and formulate rules/policies to allow hay or riparian buffers on an annual basis. grazing under an approved management plan. Action 1: Review implementation Action 3: Pursue avenues of annually utilizing student interns and/or conservation tax credit for landowners county partners. who utilize buffers on their land. Action 2: Complete annual progress Action 4: Extend funding opportunities report to BALMM with status of for enrollment of riparian buffers in implementation of vegetative buffers. programs that afford permanent protection.

91 B: Land-Use Strategy 2: Biological Diversity: Wetland complexes, including Wetland Preservation and surrounding upland acreage, Restoration afford suitable habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms Lead Author: John Voz, Mower SWCD and birds, in addition to plant species that thrive in wet soils. Introduction: It is estimated that Wetlands thus form an important approximately half of the acreage of part of a landscape mosaic that pre-settlement wetlands in the Lower supports a diversity of life forms. Mississippi River Basin (880,000 acres according to CURA estimate) has been Hydrologic stability. Wetlands drained and developed for economic provide for storage of uses such as farming and urban precipitation and snowmelt on development. The remaining wetland the landscape. Storage helps to acres perform valuable functions that retard surface runoff to streams, need protection – hence the statewide thereby reducing peak flows and goal of “no net losses of wetlands,” resulting flooding, stream which this strategy embraces. scouring and stream bank erosion. Wetlands also can As wetlands have disappeared from the enhance groundwater recharge. landscape, the quality of adjacent waters has suffered. The ability of When a wetland’s watershed is altered wetlands to filter or catch pollutants has to accommodate agriculture or provided a strong argument for their urbanization (housing, industry, and protection from being drained or filled. retail), its hydrology will be affected. But viewing wetlands strictly as storm Water level changes in the wetland water retention areas or watershed often also become more frequent and kidneys is myopic. The wetland prolonged. This is often referred to as biological communities provide intrinsic “bounce”, which has been documented values and functions, which are as to: important as the wetland’s function and S Shift plant communities from diverse value within the watershed or native species to monocultures of ecosystem context. These include: species tolerant of unpredictable hydrologic conditions; Water quality improvement. S Contribute to destabilized shoreline Wetlands help to remove or conditions favorable to weedy plant retain nutrients, organics and species; sediment carried by runoff. Many S Increase suspended solids and chemicals are tied to sediment turbidity; and trapped in wetlands. S Alter water chemistry conditions; Biological processes convert S Impact wildlife, including mammals, pollutants into less harmful birds, reptiles and amphibian substances. For example, populations, and wetlands can help to denitrify S Simplify the wetland invertebrate runoff, converting nitrate- community. nitrogen to nitrogen gas.

92 Altering the hydrology can also divert Action 2: Develop a comprehensive surface or groundwater from the inventory of cropped, drained and wetland. Sometimes referred to as restorable wetland sites. Develop a dewatering, projects in a wetland’s regional database for the Lower Mississippi watershed that reroute or redirect water River Basin which identifies hydric soils from wetlands pose a serious threat to that are cropped. Use database to identify wetland resources as well. possible wetland restoration sites.

Not all wetlands are equal in terms of Action 3: Conduct gap analysis at their biodiversity, wildlife habitat and appropriate scale to identify critical aesthetic values. Likewise, not all discontinuities in wildlife habitat and wetlands are equal in terms of the ecological benefit. Provide this information water quality benefits they provide. In to local governments. order to make wise resource management decisions for the Action 4: Evaluate restoration efforts and individual wetland, and for the priorities at the watershed scale. Identify surrounding water and land resources, and target the restoration of wetlands those charged with managing the which, if restored, would provide a high resources must have the appropriate degree of benefit to hydrology, water tools to help gather information that will quality and biological diversity. lead them to the best management decisions for the community. The Action 5: Based on the above information, overall goal of this wetland strategy is and landowner interest, assess the annual to protect the quantity and quality of the need for wetland protection and restoration wetland resource in the Lower in the Lower Mississippi River Basin. Mississippi River Basin. Evaluate the funding needed to support this degree of protection and restoration. Strategy 2A: Improve Wetland Determine the adequacy of existing Restoration Efforts Basinwide funding sources relative to this estimated Encourage high-quality wetland need. restorations, creations and recover lost wetland integrity. Action 6: Promote wetland banking within minor watersheds with high development. Action 1: Update the National Wetland Explore the possibility of agricultural Inventory for the Lower Mississippi River wetland banking sites strictly to offset Basin. Include updates, digitize maps for agricultural wetland impacts. Explore ways Geographic Information Systems, and of addressing the problems of cash flow evaluate status and trends. Suggested and perceived financial risk that may priority areas include: discourage private landowners from S Rochester and surrounding urban developing wetlands for sale to a regional corridor bank. S The urban fringe and developing areas of Dakota County Action 7: Streamline and improve S Agriculture areas with inadequate programs for permanent conservation mapping easements, such as Reinvest in S Forested areas Minnesota, Wetland Restoration Program, etc.

93 Action 8: Engage non-government making in agricultural regions. organizations in wetland protection and restoration projects. Consider cities as Action 2: Work toward eliminating multi- sources of funding for wetland restoration. agency wetland regulation and creating “one stop shopping” at the local level. Action 9: Support the development of Wetland Functional Assessments27 to Action 3: Review how fines are facilitate better decision-making and assessed by county Farm Service protection of wetland functions and Agency offices for Swambuster values. violations. Consider issuing a range of S Evaluate and revise the Minnesota penalties rather than the current “all or Routine Assessment Method for the nothing” approach. Lower Mississippi River Basin. S Train local governmental units to Action 4: Support increased local conduct functional assessments as enforcement of the Wetland part of local water planning. Conservation Act and local wetland protection ordinances. Strategy 2B: Support local wetland management and protection efforts. Action 5: Draft model language for local plans (e.g., comprehensive zoning) that Action 1: Support the piloting of protects the biological integrity of comprehensive wetland decision wetlands, including fringe/buffer areas.

Strategy 2D: Wetland Education and 27 Wetland functional assessments evaluate the suitability and quality of the many functions Outreach ascribed to a given wetland. The hydrogeomorphic method (HGM) evaluates Action 1: Provide training workshops on several attributes, many of them physical wetland ecology, hydrology, soils, botany, factors, for the wetland being assessed and classification, functional assessment and compares them to expectations of similar condition assessment wetlands in the same geographic and hydrologic class. Regional Guidebooks must first be developed before HGM assessments Action 2: Provide wetland “essentials” can be implemented. A guidebook for training for realtors, contractors, depressional wetlands in the Prairie Pothole developers and other development region is under development and could be professionals. applied in Minnesota. A second functional assessment method developed for use in Minnesota is the Minnesota Routine Action 3: Promote local and regional field Assessment Method (MRAM), developed by the tours of wetlands for local officials. Minnesota Interagency Wetland Group. It is intended as an evaluation tool to document and Action 4: Find effective ways to organize field observations made by trained wetland professionals. MRAM can be applied to communicate wetland benefits, flooding essentially any wetland type in the state, since and stormwater processes, alternative the method does not integrate the various runoff management, cumulative impacts of functions into a single value or result the land use decisions and smart growth. functional evaluation is made for each function on a relative scale. Results are intended to illustrate the consequences of proposed land Action 5: Promote interactive wetland use actions on individual functions. educational programs like “WOW” and “Project WET” to provide K-12 students a

94 personal experience with wetlands. Action 4: Explore the use of created Promote wetland-related activities or wetlands as treatment systems for excess studies for school science fairs. nutrients, sediment and other pollutants.

Action 6: Get citizens involved in hands-on Action 5: Research the water quality monitoring of their communities’ wetlands impacts of different wetland grazing through a program modeled after the regimes. Wetlands Health Evaluation Program in Dakota County. Action 6: Research the need for and ecological/ hydrological benefits of Strategy 2E: Address Wetland Research eliminating non-functional judicial drainage Needs ditch systems. Action 1: Research the role of wetlands within systems such as hydrologic systems Action 7: Evaluate how the property tax or ecosystems system influences local government and landowner decisions about natural Action 2: Improve methods to determine resource management, with particular wetland water budgets and groundwater focus on wetlands. recharge contribution of individual wetland basins or complexes and map important Action 8: Promote and expand the use of regional recharge zones. remote sensing methods for underground tile lines to develop regional inventories. Action 3: Research and develop improved guidance for buffer widths and quality criteria in urban and rural landscapes.

95 C: Land-Use Strategy 3 Strategy 3A: Promote alternative land uses. Row-Crop Land Conservation On highly erodible land adjacent to streams and lakes, promote Strategy Development Team: Bev alternatives to corn and soybean Nordby, Mower SWCD, John Moncrief, production to reduce the potential for U of M Extension; Tim Wagar, U of M soil erosion. Alternatives include Extension; Gyles Randall, U of M corn/hay strip cropping on the contour, South-Central Agricultural Experiment conservation easements or pasture for Station, Lowell Busman, U of M highly erodible land, and other ways of Extension, Norman Senjem, MPCA increasing the amount of land with perennial vegetation. “Land-use Row-crop production has been the Strategy 1: Maintain/increase Perennial predominant land use in the Lower Vegetation” includes details on how this Mississippi River Basin for many may be accomplished. decades. Cultivated cropland currently accounts for approximately 60 percent Strategy 3B: Promote the adoption of of total land use (National Resources conservation tillage. Inventory, 1997). The steep slopes and Conservation tillage has been erosive soils of the Lower Mississippi demonstrated to result in greatly Basin, combined with intensive reduced rates of soil erosion and is a cultivation, create a high potential for key recommended practice for reducing soil erosion. High erosion rates can the transport of sediment and result in reduced soil productivity as associated pollutants to rivers and well as water quality impairments. lakes in agricultural regions of Soil erosion from cropland has been Minnesota. Under many circumstances, identified as a major source of water conservation tillage can be adopted by quality concerns, such as high turbidity farmers without reducing yield or profit. and suspended solids and habitat However, University of Minnesota alteration, in several watershed studies research indicates that over the long (Whitewater, Garvin Brook, Lake run, using conservation tillage to benefit German-Jefferson, etc). Each major water quality and minimize agronomic tributary to the Mississippi River, and risk requires attention to location- several reaches of the Mississippi River specific factors such as soil type, itself, exceed the state standard for climate, rotation and nutrient turbidity, which usually is a management practices. consequence of high rates of soil erosion. These impairments will be The objective of this strategy is to addressed through watershed develop and publicize guidelines for management efforts, including the Total conservation tillage in the Lower Maximum Daily Load process. Mississippi River Basin. These guidelines will describe for each major A four-part strategy is recommended to type of tillage system the following address the problem of soil erosion and sediment pollution28: environmental education that clearly identifies the problems being addressed, e.g., loss of soil 28 These strategies should be implemented in productivity and degradation of water quality in concert with a broader program of specific ways.

96 factors: expected erosion rates, Management, has obtained a Section expected agronomic performance, 319 grant from the MPCA to develop managerial “critical success factors”, conservation tillage guidelines specific effect of soil and climatic factors, and to sub-regions of the basin: the other considerations that will help karst/driftless region, and the “loess farmers determine how best to control cap” region to the west. Tim Wagar, erosion while maintaining profitability John Moncrief, Gyles Randall, Lowell using residue management. Guidelines Busman and Norman Senjem are will be based primarily on land grant working on this project. The following university-supervised field research tasks will be accomplished over the from Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa, next two years: and will be developed for several key S Develop tillage guidelines crop rotations: corn-soybeans; corn- S Publish tillage guidelines corn; and corn-alfalfa. A second S Put guidelines on University’s objective is to publicize these web page conservation tillage guidelines through S Publicize guidelines at basin the printing and dissemination of workshops Extension bulletins, workshops, conferences, field days and other Action 2: Track Adoption through appropriate methods. annual crop residue transect surveys.

This strategy, broadly applied, creates Several counties have measured crop a basic level of protection against soil residue adoption through the transect erosion. On moderately sloping fields, survey in 1998 and 1999 (Dodge, crop residue management alone may Fillmore, Olmsted, Dakota, Mower, be enough to keep erosion rates below Rice). In 2000, this survey was T. A rotation average of 30% crop conducted in all counties. Resulting residue can reduce soil erosion by up to data can be used to educate the public 65%. However, on steeper slopes, and to help focus educational and additional practices usually are needed technical assistance where it is most to reduce the potential for erosion, needed. particularly the high rates of erosion Action 2a: Annually publish a summary that result from extreme weather of crop residue cover for the 14 events. Thus, the widespread adoption counties in the basin and for each of of conservation tillage in the Lower the major watersheds. Mississippi River Basin is proposed as Action 2b: Annually write and distribute a basic erosion control strategy that will a news release announcing the results have to be supplemented with other of the transect survey. Distribute to practices on very erosive fields. The daily and weekly newspapers and Agri- following actions are proposed to News. support the strategy: Action 2c: Use the results of the Action 1: Develop conservation tillage transect survey to target low- guidelines for the Lower Mississippi adoption/high-erosion areas for River Basin education and demonstration projects. Action 2d: Explore the use of satellite The University of Minnesota, working imagery to produce reliable estimates through the Minnesota Alliance for Conservation and Resource

97 of crop residue cover as an alternative land to uses other than row crop to crop residue transect surveys. farming. The following strategy identifies a concerted approach that Action 3: Develop Educational local government (SWCDs, counties, Campaign to Promote the Adoption of Extension) can take to address land Conservation Tillage with different degrees of erosion potential. Many state and local agencies have some involvement in researching and Action 1 – for land eroding at less than promoting conservation tillage: 2T: According to 1997 NRI data, more University Extension, NRCS, BWSR, than ninety percent of the land in the SWCDs as well as county water basin falls under this category. planners. There is a need to develop a Although erosion rates are modest, consistent message, and to identify key local problems of turbidity can and do audiences (key geographic areas; key result from unchecked erosion. influencers such as canning company S Strategy A (above), “Promote the field reps, farm equipment dealers, etc.) adoption of conservation tillage,” is the primary action recommended Action 3a: Identify key areas (low for land with low to moderate adoption/high erosion) for an erosion. This practice alone often educational campaign. can bring erosion to T on land Action 3b: Attempt to determine eroding at up to 2T. It is a good reasons for non-adoption of basic practice that can be widely conservation tillage from farmers, promoted throughout the basin. implement dealers, crop consultants, and local resource managers. Action 2 (Land eroding at 2T to 4T): Action 3c: Develop educational support According to 1997 NRI data, 154,700 materials that address key reasons acres of cultivated cropland in the cited for non-adoption. Lower Mississippi River Basin are Action 3d: Implement educational eroding at a rate of 2T - 4T. This land campaign. comprises only 5.5% of the cultivated Action 3e: Consider adapting a “No Fall cropland in the basin, but accounts for Tillage of Soybean Stubble” campaign 19% of the total soil loss from water patterned after a program used in erosion from in the region from Winneshiek County, Iowa. cultivated cropland. S Each SWCD in the basin should Strategy 3C:Implement practices to identify land eroding at 2T-4T. Work achieve soil loss of T or less with landowners individually and in neighborhood meetings to evaluate Conservation tillage alone is not a full range of conservation options sufficient to achieve the goal of T on all to keep erosion at or below T. cropland. Especially on highly erodible Inform landowners of the basin land, additional practices such as effort to achieve T by 2010. grassed waterways, buffers, detention Aggressively promote practices, ponds, strip cropping in a corn/alfalfa such as grassed waterways and rotation are needed to bring erosion buffer strips in addition to rates to T or less. Sometimes, the best option may be to devote highly erodible

98 conservation tillage on row-crop conservation cost-share program does land. not provide for such repaid work.

Action 3 (Land eroding at 4T or more): Action 4a: Structure Inventory – According to 1997 NRI data, 61,200 SWCDs should estimate the total acres of cultivated cropland in the number of structures and Lower Mississippi River Basin are estimate the sediment-reduction eroding at a rate of 4T or greater. This potential from repairing them, land comprises only 2.2% of the and the cost of repairing them to cultivated cropland in the basin, but meet technical standards. accounts for 16% or the total water Action 4b: Demonstration erosion in the region from cultivated Program: SWCDs to cropland: demonstrate the benefits of S Each SWCD in basin should identify structural repair with 4 to 8 land eroding at 4T or greater. Work examples per county. Seek directly with landowners to evaluate funding to implement in full range of conservation options to interested counties. keep erosion at or below T. Inform Action 4c: Funding Sources: landowners of the basin effort to Seek funding to restore the soil achieve T by 2010. Explore ways to conservation infrastructure of substitute hay and pasture for row- bluffland counties. Consider crops. Explore permanent easement opportunities such as sediment- programs especially in locations reduction and flood-control with high potential ecological watershed projects as well as benefits. Target programs such as region-wide funding through RIM and CRP. Watch for Upper Mississippi River Basin opportunities that may come from initiatives. new initiatives to reduce sediment to the Upper Mississippi River. Strategy 3D: Improve Conservation Incentives Action 4: Southeastern Minnesota Structural Repair. Farmers’ choices of resource On very steep land, sediment control management practices are affected by structures often are needed to prevent economic incentives that arise both recurring ephemeral (gully) erosion. It is from the marketplace and public estimated that some 2,700 sediment policies for agriculture. There is a need, control structures were built between firstly, to identify disincentives to the 1970 and 1990 on private lands in the use of best management practices that rugged blufflands of southeastern are embedded in current laws and Minnesota. These practices were rules. Secondly, there is a need to designed with a life expectancy of up to determine whether existing 35 years. Those completed before 1970 conservation programs effectively are now approaching their sediment appeal to the full range of agricultural storage capacity or are in need of producers and landowners – from large repair. The Environmental Quality corporate farms to hobby “farmettes.” Incentives Program (EQIP) which Thirdly, there is a need to test new replaced ACP in 1997 as USDA’s forms of incentives besides traditional cost-sharing. Finally, there is a need to

99 provide incentives that produce long- in each county to determine compliance lasting changes in conservation with the federal farm program. practices, instead of short-lived changes that end as soon as external Action 3: Explore the concept of Tax funding sources cease. Incentives to bring cropland erosion rates under T. Action 1: Support changes in the Federal Farm Program that would focus Research the concept of rewarding on conservation rather than crops landowners with a tax incentive. The SWCD/NRCS office will assist the The federal farm program, due for landowner in developing a conservation revision in 2002, has a potentially plan that would bring their land under strong influence on farmer’s soil the soil loss tolerance level “T”. A real management choices. For example, by estate tax incentive would be available tying income-support payments to a for those with plans and following them. farmer’s production history of corn and soybeans, the farm program creates Action 3a: Learn from those who incentives to continue or increase have tried property tax incentive production of these crops, which tend to programs in Minnesota and cause much higher rates of erosion Wisconsin. Invite Wisconsin than is caused by some alternative resource managers from St. crops, such as hay. In addition, USDA Croix or Dunn County to explain program rules sometimes discourage the Pollution Reduction Incentive rather than encourage conservation Program. practices. As an example, a farmer wishing to replace a filled-in waterway Action 3b: Explore the potential with a wider, improved structure may for pilot-testing a property tax not be eligible for the Conservation incentive program. Reserve Program continuous signup incentives because the grassed Action 4: Develop a strategy to work waterway has no cropping history. with large farmers on implementing Action 1a: Support changes that conservation practices would weaken or remove the bias favoring corn and soybean Economics of scale and pressures to production over alternative crops reduce costs are resulting in farms in the Federal Farm Bill. getting larger with farmers and Action 1b: Support the corporations cropping thousands of Conservation Security Program acres. Although large farmers appear being proposed by Senators to be adopting beneficial farm Tom Harkin (D-IA) and others, management practices such as which would provide payments conservation tillage, structural to farmers based on conservation practices do not appear to conservation, not production. be a high priority in many large operations. This may indicate that Action 2: Conservation Compliance: incentive programs that are effective Conduct spot checks on an adequate with traditional-sized farms may not be percentage of farm conservation plans effective with larger operations.

100 Action 4a Attempt to develop more soil erosion rates from canning crop effective incentives for motivating large acreage. farm operators to adopt conservation practices. Strategy 3G:Increase the percentage of protected surface tile intakes. Strategy 3E: Encourage local governments to revise, upgrade or In some of the western portions of the develop agricultural erosion and basin subsurface tile drainage systems sediment control ordinances. make use of surface tile intakes to reduce ponding in depressional areas Winona, Olmsted, Fillmore and Mower and accelerate the removal of excess Counties all have agricultural erosion water from the land. Surface tile ordinances. Encourage other local intakes, if unprotected by risers, rock governments to develop ordinances, filters, grass buffers or other methods, while helping counties to update the can deliver substantial quantities of existing ordinances. sediment, nutrients and pesticides to surface water through the tile drainage Action 1: Develop a fact sheet system. describing agricultural erosion and sediment control ordinances – their key Action 1: Research the effectiveness of provisions, and how they are being alternative ways of protecting surface used. tile intakes. Action 2: Conduct workshops and Action 2: Meet with drainage presentations to discuss how contractors to discuss alternatives to ordinances can be used together with surface tile intakes, such as denser incentives and education to foster pattern tiling in depressional areas. improved soil conservation practices. Action 3: Promote the protection or Action 3: Offer interested counties elimination of surface tile intakes. assistance in drafting erosion and sediment-control ordinances using BWSR’s model ordinance and the experience of other counties.

Strategy 3F: Develop a strategy to work with canning companies and farmers on erosion control.

Canning crops are planted on 90,720 acres in the Lower Mississippi basin. Typically these acres experience extremely high erosion rates because they lack residue cover and have a short growing season.

Action 1: Develop a pilot project to promote temporary cover, increased residue and incorporating a crop rotation that would result in decreased

101 Land-Use Strategy 4: consider ordinance requirements for Reduce Impacts from Better Site Design (BSD). Urban and Residential Land Better Site Design promotes more green space and less imperviousness Strategy Development Team: Dave along with natural areas preservation. Morrison, MPCA (Stormwater); Bill BSD coupled with appropriate Best Buckley, Mower County (ISTS); Management Practices (BMPs) such as Norman Senjem, MPCA (Wastewater swales and wet detention ponds Treatment Facilities) provide for the least impact to wetlands, lakes and streams. BSDs minimize runoff generation up front instead of Urban and residential land in southeast trying to retrofit BMP’s. Traditional Minnesota generates specific kinds of development plans should be revisited pollution pressures. These pressures at the earliest possible phase in the are related to surface water runoff from approval process, particularly with streets as well as industrial and regard to minimizing road lengths, commercial properties, and wastewater widths, and cul de sac designs, discharges from individual residences decreasing large lot sizes and peak and communities. The pattern of parking lot sizing designs. development (concentrated or dispersed, for example) can affect the Action 2: Encourage all communities to impact of new housing, streets and adopt the principles of the EPA Phase II businesses on both hydrology and Construction Stormwater requirements. water quality. While only certain communities are Strategy 4A: Offset and Reduce required to obtain the Municipal Stormwater Runoff Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4, It is important to minimize runoff NPDES) permits, the principal volumes for new impervious surfaces requirements should guide all and provide for stormwater pollutant communities in their development treatment from residential, commercial, decisions. The six Minimum Control industrial, and transportation Measures (MCMs) are: developments. Improperly managed urban stormwater can alter stream 1. Illicit discharge detection and characters and geometry, accelerate elimination to eliminate oils, eutrophication in lakes, bounce or toxins and other pollutants from destroy the habitat of wetlands, and entering stormwater systems. change or contaminate ground water 2. Municipal operations pollution resources. The most common urban prevention efforts to reduce the pollutants include sediment and salts; impacts of poor operations phosphorus, nitrogen and organic practices and designs (street substances; oils and debris; fecal sweeping, salt use and storage, coliform bacteria and pathogens; and debris removal, etc.) heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Pb, Zn, Cu, Hg). 3. Construction site requirements to reduce sediment discharges. Action 1: Encourage municipalities One acre or larger sites should and local units of government to

102 have a plan, a permit, and Action 5: Ensure that there are plans BMPs. for BMP maintenance. Support local, 4. Post construction stormwater county, and state efforts to enforce the BMPs to reduce the amount of existing ordinances or rules. pollutants and the physical impact of new development. Action 6: Support the development of The BMPs are both structural stormwater alternative management or (ponds, wetlands, devices) and BSD demonstration projects. administrative (fertilizer and pesticide control, advanced site Action 7: Protect all wetlands from the design, economic incentives, detrimental impacts of stormwater by etc.) applying Wetland Conservation Act 5. Public education and outreach to (WCA) requirements for wetland build community support and banking credits for stormwater ponds. improve compliance. While avoiding the use of existing or 6. Public involvement and restored wetlands for stormwater participation to broaden support, treatment is not always feasible, this reduce obstacles, gain expertise would limit damage to wetland types and build connections (storm within the Lower Mississippi River drain stenciling, citizen watch basin. groups, public meetings, etc.) Strategy 4B: Increase percentage of Action 3: Protect cool water streams. population with properly functioning individual sewage treatment Communities should require protection systems. of the temperature status of cold- water streams. Practices that promote In many counties, it is estimated that infiltration and maintain or increase the more than half of individual, on-site base flow of streams should be sewage treatment systems do not meet encouraged. Pre-treatment for state standards. From these pollutants may also be required for residences, and from unsewered protection of ground water quality. communities, untreated human sewage is contaminating surface and Action 4: Encourage all communities to groundwater with bacteria, nutrients, set minimum stormwater standards by and other pollutants. policy or ordinance. Some examples A number of options should be might be: investigated as actions for meeting the D No new direct discharges without goal of reducing the number of failing treatment for sediment or other sewage treatment systems. One or all pollutants. of the above actions could be utilized. D Maximize ground water recharge. Some, such as financial incentives, can Runoff peaks and volumes be used in combination with others. controlled to not exceed stream Low-interest loans or partial grants geomorphology limits. (cost share) can be used with D Special protection for critical areas. enforcement strategies, upgrades at the point of sale or upgrades with building permits, etc. Any one of these actions would take many years to accomplish

103 the goal, but together the time would be properties are evaluated for proper shortened considerably. Enforcement wastewater treatment. County staff action may seem to accomplish the or contract personnel would conduct objective in the shortest period of time, evaluations and compliance but the political and financial objections inspections of properties served by may make it difficult to accomplish. ISTS. Combining enforcement with upgrades Action 3b: Conduct inspections, at point of sale and building permits, in targeting imminent health threats combination with loans or grants, would (IHT) or discharges for enforcement be preferred if state or local funding and correction. were available. This strategy would also Action 3c: Send letters of violation require a minimal number of county (notice of violation-NOV) giving staff, since the required compliance required deadline for correction inspections could be performed by Action 3d: Enforce Minnesota Rules inspectors in the private sector and the ch. 7080 and county ordinance upon number of systems going in would be receipt of complaint of failing system spread over several years and would or IHT. be less likely to over-burden the local inspection staff. Action 4: Financial Assistance

Action 1: Education. Educate the public Action 4a: Make state and local in the areas of: funds available for systems 1. Public health as it can be installation at a reduced interest affected by inadequately treated rate with no financial wastewater and by discharges of qualification. County can assist raw sewage. by collecting payments with 2. State and county Individual property tax over 5-10 per Sewage Treatment System period. (ISTS) rules and regulations and Action 4b: Consider establishing the importance of proper siting, county or multi-county revolving construction and maintenance. loan fund for the Lower 3. Water quality and the impacts of Mississippi Basin. improperly treated wastewater discharges on nutrient loads and Strategy 4C: Increase the percentage fecal coliform bacteria of population with phosphorus concentrations. removal from wastewater treatment facilities upstream of affected waters Action 2: Local Ordinances. Amend (including Lakes Zumbro, Byllesby, and local ordinances to include inspection Pepin) and correction of failing ISTS at property transfer, building permit The vast majority of towns and cities in issuance, etc. the basin treat their wastewater for a wide range of pollutants as required in Action 3: Enforcement Programs the National Pollutant Discharge The following enforcement activities are Elimination System program, recommended: administered by the MPCA and the Action 3a: Implement pro-active Environmental Protection Agency. enforcement actions where However, in several watersheds there

104 is a need to enhance wastewater identify economical ways of reducing treatment to remove phosphorus in industrial phosphorus contributions to order to protect downstream lakes. The POTWs. Develop a plan for reducing cities of Rochester and Pine Island such contributions that can be included have been providing phosphorus in the next NPDES permit as a treatment to 1 part per million for years, Phosphorus Management Plan, as because of their impact on algae called for in MPCA’s phosphorus growth in Lake Zumbro. Phosphorus strategy for point sources. discharges from other towns has a less direct, cumulative impact on algae Action 4: Review Need for Phosphorus growth in impaired downstream lakes Treatment including Zumbro, Byllesby and Pepin. At permit reissuance, conduct a review In accordance with the MPCA’s to determine the need for phosphorus phosphorus strategy, these cities’ controls at the POTW. permits will be reviewed to determine the need for phosphorus removal at Action 5: Watershed Management their next permit reissuance. Context Conduct the above activities in the Action 1: Create Point Source context of a comprehensive watershed Phosphorus Inventories assessment and management process Develop inventories of point source that includes point and nonpoint phosphorus from wastewater treatment sources of phosphorus and other facilities in the following watersheds: pollutants. Include all sources and Vermillion River; Cannon River; and stakeholders in discussions to Zumbro River. Where a publicly owned determine an appropriate mix of actions treatment facility (POTW) provides that will result in achieving water quality treatment for industries, include objectives in a manner consistent with industrial phosphorus concentrations economic and social needs and and loads in the inventory along with constraints of the community. POTW concentrations and loads. Include the point source inventories as Strategy 4D:Manage Urban and part of a whole watershed point- Residential Growth to Protect Water nonpoint source phosphorus budget. Resources. Water is a crucial resource in every Action 2: TMDL Process community, from drinking water to Use phosphorus inventory data to maintenance of wastewater systems to develop waste load allocations in the providing for recreation opportunities Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and economic growth. The process if and when affected water Communities in the Lower Mississippi bodies are put on the Section 303(d) list River/Cedar River Basin are growing of impaired waters for which TMDLs are rapidly and therefore face the constant required. need to manage growth while protecting its surface water and ground Action 3: Conduct Phosphorus water resources. Management Planning Work with the Minnesota Technical Action 1: Use Minnesota Planning’s Assistance Program (MnTAP), POTWs model for sustainable development as a and significant industrial contributors to guide to help coordinate the exchange

105 of information among businesses, local d. Defining a conservation government, and special interest subdivision district groups within the basin. To accomplish e. Infrastructure planning this, co-sponsor a series of seminars f. Regulatory tools and case and otherwise distribute information on studies: the following topics: - Transfer and purchase of development rights a. How to get citizens involved in - Orderly annexation land-use decisions agreements b. Defining urban growth - Land-use law boundaries - Financial incentives, grants, c. Defining agriculture and natural and government programs resource protection districts - Legislation - Ordinance

106 Land-Use Strategy 5: objectives, the strategies should contribute to reducing the nutrient Nutrient & Pesticide loadings from the Upper Mississippi Management River that have been related to the problem of hypoxia in the Gulf of Strategy Development Team: Joe Mexico. Zachmann, MDA (lead author); Jeff King, Dodge County NRCS; Tim The strategies are consistent with a Wagar, U of M Extension; Derek Fisher, variety of Best Management Practices BWSR/Extension Conservation and the Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Agronomist; Tony Hill, Olmsted County; Plan (NFMP) developed in response to Norman Senjem, MPCA the 1989 Comprehensive Groundwater Protection Act. The NFMP includes The goal of crop nutrient management voluntary and possible regulatory and the development of nutrient components in order to prevent, management plans is to increase the evaluate and mitigate nonpoint source efficiency of all nutrient sources used occurrences of nitrogen fertilizer in by crops while managing production waters of the state. Best Management risks and environmental impact. Practices for various nutrients and Managing nutrients to increase crop pesticides have been developed and use efficiency results in maximizing are being adopted and evaluated in producer returns on economic various geographic settings. investment while protecting and conserving natural resources, including The strategies also include anticipated surface and ground waters. Proper voluntary and regulatory guidelines management of pesticides (herbicides, established by revisions to and insecticides and fungicides) should implementation of the state’s feedlot produce the same results. At a different rules. Certain types of feedlots and but still significant scale, proper feedlot management systems are management of nutrients and considered primary sources of pesticides on lawns, turf and parkland phosphorus contamination to surface is also necessary to achieve waters, as well as sources of nitrogen environmental protection goals within a and fecal coliform contamination. watershed. Feedlot rules address manure management and field application The following strategies are designed to practices so that such practices encourage demonstrated principles in minimize associated nutrient nutrient and pesticide management environmental impacts. Separate within the Lower Mississippi River objectives on feedlots and related Basin in Minnesota. They are primarily phosphorus and land use issues intended to help protect public and appear elsewhere in this basin plan. private drinking water supplies from nitrate nitrogen and pesticide Strategy 5A: Improve efficiency and contamination and to support surface reduce environmental impacts of water quality objectives such as nutrients applied to agricultural phosphorus reduction to address lake crops. and river eutrophication. In addition to contributing to local and regional

107 Strategy 5A1: Reduce and eventually Use in Southeastern Minnesota AG- eliminate fall application of commercial FO-6126-B (1993) and Manure nitrogen fertilizer in the karst region of Management in Minnesota AG-FO- southeastern Minnesota as 3553-C (1990), and in keeping with recommended in Best Management relevant requirements in proposed Practices for Nitrogen Use in revisions to MPCA feedlot rules. Southeastern Minnesota AG-FO-6126- B (1993). Action 1: Encourage producer and dealer utilization of the Minnesota Action 1: Commercial sector (Co-ops, Department of Agriculture Manure dealers, crop advisors/managers) – Testing Laboratory Certification Determine level of non-conformance, Program (a required element of nutrient reasons for non-conformance, identify management plans developed with solutions, decide on implementation NRCS EQIP funds and required under timeline. permits issued under the state feedlot rule revisions). Action 2: Farmers – Educate farmers on economics of proper timing (spring Action 2: Promote use of manure vs. fall) of nitrogen application as well testing results by producers, private as environmental consequences and and commercial applicators, the Groundwater Protection Act. commercial fertilizer dealers, crop S News releases, fact sheets. consultants, etc., to properly credit S Establish network of on-farm manure contribution to field nitrogen demonstrations exhibiting and phosphorus budgets. economic and environmental benefits of spring application Action 3: Work with U of M Extension to S Letters from MDA and/or educate producers and dealers on extension agents. proper manure application timing and S Extension workshops. placement relative to season and tillage methods. With respect to application Action 3: Explore the feasibility of methods, explore the following: offering BMP insurance products designed to eliminate producer risk in Action 3a: Assess and develop adopting BMPs. equipment options/recommendations for Action 3a: Establish an even distribution of applied exploratory committee to manure (including determine how best to develop recommendations from U of M such products and establish a Ag Engineering faculty and from pilot project within the basin. industry). Action 3b: Educate Strategy 5A2: Work with producers to producers/applicators on the capture the maximum possible nutrient results of the assessment. contributions from field-applied manure Action 3c: Explore incentives for through proper testing, timing and producers/applicators to upgrade incorporation as recommended in Best to recommended options. Management Practices for Nitrogen

108 Action 4: Address producer “disposal” sample to several labs. Compare of excess manure on owned land by recommendations to U of M exploring exchanges or trades with recommendations. neighboring farms. S Discuss reasons for differences, etc. Action 5: Explore opportunities/options S Report results to the for manure utilization cropland set- Minnesota Department of aside program focusing on the Agriculture. exclusive use of manure for crop S Explore perceived nutrients. “loopholes” in reporting/dissemination of D Designated areas would have an U of M fertilizer established cover crop. recommendations directly D Up to two years of manure could to producers under MDA be applied on the set-aside laboratory certification followed by rotation. programs (e.g., fertilizer D Variances of existing rules would dealers often collect and be required to allow, with submit for analyses soil minimal soil disturbance, the samples, with results and injection or incorporation of U of M recommendations manure into cover crops. reported to the dealer rather than the producer). Strategy 5A3: Work with producers to properly credit previous-year legume Action 2: Work with the commercial contributions to field nitrogen budgets. sector (co-operatives, dealerships) to develop mutual understanding of Action 1: Work with U of M Extension to voluntary vs. regulatory mandate of the develop targeted educational programs 1989 Comprehensive Ground Water on proper crediting of previous-year Protection Act and encourage support legume crediting. of University of Minnesota recommended fertilizer rates and Action 1a: Educate producers to BMPs. curb application of manure to S Potash and Phosphate acres coming out of alfalfa Institute (PPI). production. S Minnesota Crop Production Retailers. Strategy 5A4: General education: Promote application of commercial Action 3: Work with farmers and fertilizer (N and P) at University of producers to demonstrate that adoption Minnesota recommended rates. of BMPs and recommended fertilizer rates is environmentally effective and Action 1: Work with the commercial profitable. sector (soil test labs) and the MDA soil test laboratory certification program to: S Education at field days (Waseca; Red Top Farms Action 1a: Conduct blind soil Demonstration Plots, St. tests. Send soil from same Peter; other).

109 Action 4: Work with the University of the basin. [Each agroecoregion Minnesota & the Minnesota Department contains unique physiographic of Agriculture to develop appropriate factors that influence the grant proposals and on-farm crop potential for production of non- nutrient management demonstration point source pollution and the protocols. potential for adoption of farm management practices]. The Action 4a: Conduct field-scale graphic below illustrates the demonstration plots as recently diversity of agroecoregions proposed in U of M Rapid within the basin. Response Fund and Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources proposals. Action 4b: Education – Extension, especially as regards manure management. Action 4c: Seek grant-supported or volunteer on-farm demonstration plots on a variety of farms using BMP and fertilizer protocols established by the University of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil & Water Conservation Districts, etc. Action 5c: Consider the use of Action 5: Support and promote the program incentives and writing of nutrient management plans requirements to encourage as called for in state and federal feedlot farmers to develop, implement program rules. and update nutrient management plans. Action 5a: Determine appropriate Action 5d: Encourage and assist roles for NRCS, SWCDs, individuals from the private Extension and Private sector to become authorized Consultants and Farmers in third-party vendors for nutrient developing and implementing management plan development nutrient management plans and implementation. required by state and federal Action 5e: Consider developing programs. quality assurance protocol for Action 5b: Promote Nutrient review of Nutrient Management Management Plan development Plans to effectively develop using software recommended by educational efforts and program entities such as NRCS, MES, focus. MDA, etc. such that plans are consistent and adaptive to the principal agroecoregions within

110 Strategy 5B: Community/watershed Action 4: Develop educational material projects on the proper disposal options and cleanup methods for pet waste. Action 1: Identify high-priority areas where high nutrient levels in surface or Action 5: Increase the use of native and ground waters are a concern (wellhead low-maintenance landscapes in urban protection area, lakes, etc.) that may be areas through demonstrations and attributable to agricultural or urban educational material. Promote nutrient use. recommended management practices and guidelines for natural landscaping Action 2: Coordinate with the MDA to and reduced-chemical turf, lawn and conduct Farm Nutrient Management garden care. Assessment Process projects as part of community efforts to better understand Action 6: Assist urban communities in nutrient management in the Basin. developing and implementing comprehensive stormwater Action 3: Coordinate with the U of M management plans. (see urban Extension Service Master Gardener stormwater Strategy 7A) Program to develop educational and outreach projects that address proper Action 7: Encourage urban timing and rates of lawn and turf communities to implement stormwater fertilization. management “housekeeping BMPs” (see urban stormwater Strategy 7A) Action 4: Review Olmsted County and to consider developing ordinances Hydrologic Unit Area project as a model regarding use of pesticides near for working with crop producers in a waterways, and signage requirements priority area to promote adoption of for lawns treated with pesticides and Best Management Practices. fertilizers.

Strategy 5C: Reduce surface runoff Action 8: Conduct stormwater and leaching of fertilizers, nutrients management and erosion control and pesticides from urban lawns, workshops for local staff, builders, golf courses, parks, and other developers and the general public. (see vegetative surfaces. to urban stormwater Strategy 7A)

Action 1: Promote the sale and use of Action 9: Increase the use of Integrated phosphorus-free lawn fertilizers. Pest Management (IPM) through the development and distribution of Action 2: Encourage periodic soil educational materials, demonstrations testing before lawn fertilizers are and workshops for homeowners and applied. lawn care managers.

Action 3: Develop and distribute Action 10: Promote use of pesticide educational material on regional lawn BMPs and evaluate adoption. The care BMPs, including promotion of MDA, U of M and NRCS have created recommended timing and application pesticide BMPs addressing handling, rates for lawn fertilizers and pesticides. use, timing, selection, spills, mixing, loading and the management of waste.

111 Local units of government can work pollution, conservation reserve and with NRCS and SWCD staff to develop easement programs, and other and provide cost-sharing for Integrated incentives available to improve water Pest Management Plans, and Weed resources within the basin through land and Pest Management Plans for crop use management, improvements or producers within the basin. changes.

Action 11: Promote the use of computer software to assist in making pesticide use decisions. The NRCS has developed the “Windows Pesticide Screening Tool” (WinPST), which the Minnesota-based non-profit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy has incorporated into a “Pesticide Decision Tool” (PDT). Together, WinPST and PDT provide a user-friendly method of evaluating pesticide use, fate and transport along with environmental and human health impacts.

Action 12: Consider surveying agricultural chemical facilities and applicators working within or providing services to the basin to determine information needs. Based on the results of the survey, target educational efforts. Local units of government can team up with MDA staff to assist agricultural chemical facilities and applicators operating within or supplying services to the basin in obtaining the appropriate information for proper licensing and certification.

Action 13: Actively assist local units of government and the MDA in establishing waste pesticide collection programs for facilities, applicators and households within the basin.

Action 14: Coordinate with the MDA, MPCA, NRCS, SWCD and BWSR to maximize county understanding and use of grant and loan programs for BMPs, education and outreach, infrastructure improvements to farmsteads to reduce nonpoint source

112 Land-Use Strategy 6: the Lower Mississippi River Basin are active partners with the MPCA in Animal Feedlot administering this program. Recent Management revisions to the feedlot rules (Minnesota Rules chapter 7020) provide new Strategy Development Team: Norman opportunities for the MPCA and Senjem, MPCA (lead author); Dave counties to ensure that all feedlot Wall, MPCA; Ron Leaf, MPCA; Jerry operators (above 50 animal units) Hildebrandt, MPCA; Chuck Peterson, become registered or permitted. MPCA; Jeff King, Dodge County NRCS; Joe Zachmann, MDA; Tim Wagar, U of The following recommendations are M Extension; Derek Fisher, designed to BWSR/Extension Conservation Accelerate bringing feedlots Agronomist into compliance with state and local requirements, Livestock agriculture is vital to the particularly those that are economic and environmental health of known to be causing the Lower Mississippi River Basin. pollution, and that are located Besides adding diversity to farm in high-priority areas; income, cattle production in particular Provide greater assurance also adds diversity to the landscape in that feedlots which are the form of hay and pasture acreage already permitted are being used as a feed source. This adds to the managed according to the amount of land in permanent vegetative terms of their permits and all cover, thereby increasing infiltration and applicable feedlot rules; reducing runoff and soil erosion. Thus, Provide greater assurance maintaining a healthy beef and dairy that feedlots that do not need sector is a prerequisite to achieving a permits under the new rules priority environmental goal in the basin. (most feedlots less than 300 Land-use Strategy 1 (Maintain/increase animal units and many Acreage of Permanent Vegetation) feedlots between 300 and deals explicitly with this issue. 1000 animal units) are being managed in accordance with At the same time, livestock manure is a the feedlot rules; major potential source of pollution from nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal coliform Strategy 6A: Comprehensive Feedlot bacteria and oxygen-demanding Registration/Permitting substances. Feedlots and manure The revised state feedlot rule application need to be carefully distinguishes between producers in managed to minimize adverse effects. different size categories. Those in the All feedlots have been required to largest size category (greater than obtain a permit from the MPCA or 1,000 animal units) are required to county when there is a change of obtain an operating permit. ownership, expansion, construction Construction permits are required for activities, or a pollution problem. Often new or expanding feedlots with 300 to this is done with the involvement of 1000 animal units; and interim permits county feedlot officers. Most counties in are required for feedlots of less than 1,000 animal units that pose a pollution

113 hazard. In addition to these permitting small and medium-sized producers for provisions, the new rules call for all whom cost of compliance is of critical feedlots of 50 animal units or more (10 importance. Producers in this size or more in shoreland areas) to become range who fail to become certified for registered, and to re-register every four extended compliance, and whose years. All producers – even those that feedlots pose a pollution hazard, will be do not have a permit -- are subject to required to obtain an interim permit and compliance with technical standards in come into full compliance by Jan. 1, the feedlot rule that deal with feedlot 2002. runoff water quality, location restrictions, liquid and solid manure Action 1: Write and distribute a fact storage and land application of manure. sheet that describes the extended compliance option in the revised feedlot Action 1: Encourage all counties in the rules. Include examples of low-cost lower Mississippi River Basin to methods of achieving runoff reductions become delegated to administer the of 50 percent or more. Describe what is state feedlot permitting program. meant by a 50 percent reduction compared to full compliance with Action 2: Ensure that all producers are feedlot runoff requirements. registered or permitted, as required. This will develop a base level of Action 2: Local units of government information to determine the level of take the lead in notifying all eligible need for corrective actions and manure producers in their county about the management planning. Ensure that extended compliance option, possibly registration information is periodically with the assistance of trained retired updated. farmers or agriculturists.

Strategy 6B: Promote Open Lot Action 3: Write a news release Agreement (Extended Compliance describing the extended compliance Option) option that can be localized by counties The new rules feature a new choice for to distribute before producers are producers with fewer than 300 animal individually notified. units: the extended compliance option. Producers who register by no later than Action 4: Local units of government Jan. 1, 2002, and later become certified (with assistance from trained retired for the Open Lot Agreement, will be farmers or agriculturists) conduct given until 2010 to come into full follow-up visits in high-priority areas to compliance with feedlot runoff encourage producers to enroll in requirements in Minnesota Rules ch. extended compliance option. 7050. S Priority 1 Areas: Feedlots located on a stream or lake, or Producers will have until October 2005 within a wellhead protection to implement cost-effective measures zone or sensitive groundwater designed to reduce feedlot runoff by 50 recharge area. percent or more, until October 2010 to S Priority 2 Areas: Feedlots within come into full compliance with feedlot 1000 feet of a stream or lake. runoff requirements. This option thus offers a gradual, flexible approach for

114 Action 5: Assist producers who enroll in Priority Area 3: Feedlots more the extended compliance option to than 1,000 feet from a stream or identify and implement low-cost lake. measures that can reduce runoff by 50 Action 3: Large Feedlots (300 to 1000 percent or more. Determine whether animal units): Prioritize inspection, federal and state funding sources may assistance and enforcement activities be used for such measures. Identify according to feedlot size, pollution and try to resolve any conflicts in hazard and priority area. funding guidelines. Action 4: Identify and coordinate Strategy 6C: Determine priority funding sources for fixing feedlot feedlots for inspection, assistance pollution hazards in priority areas and enforcement. through watershed management or wellhead protection projects. Focusing inspection, assistance and enforcement on priority feedlots will Action 5: In highest priority areas, help to ensure that the worst problems consider using the self-audit process to are addressed first, and that increased identify and correct problems with feedlot-related efforts will lead to water feedlots, as well as with septic systems quality improvements. and other potential environmental hazards. Action 1:Identify key watersheds, Work with county feedlot wellhead protection zones and officers to develop list of groundwater recharge areas to priority areas; concentrate efforts and monitoring for Provide a specified time effectiveness. Identify these as priority period (say two years) for areas for feedlot inventory producers to address development, permitting, inspection, problems identified in the technical and financial assistance, and self-audit. enforcement activities. Help local government to S BALMM should publish an annually secure funding to correct updated list of priority areas. problems identified in the permitting/self-audit process. Action 2: Prioritize feedlots for Coordinate nutrient inspection, assistance and enforcement management planning with activities. Include a provision in county the self-audit process, delegation agreements to sort feedlots working with local NRCS, into three priority areas based on SWCD and Extension. feedlot registration information. After the specified time Priority Area 1: Feedlots located period, use inspection and on a stream or lake, or within a enforcement activities to wellhead protection zone or bring non-cooperating sensitive groundwater recharge producers into compliance area. with Minnesota Rules 7020. Priority Area 2: Feedlots within Track progress on reduction 1000 feet of a stream or lake. of pollutants including phosphorus.

115 Strategy 6D: Manure Management Action 2: Conduct research to better Plans (see also Nutrient understand the transport of fecal Management Strategy #5a) coliform bacteria from livestock manure to ground water and surface water in Ensure that those feedlot operators with the karst region under a range of land more than 300 animal units are either application and incorporation methods. certified or have a completed manure management plan by 2005, in Action 3: Develop a method of accordance with all rules and state estimating nutrient runoff from feedlots laws. Also, make sure that all feedlots using the Feedlot Evaluation Model on with more than 100 animal units are a representative sample of feedlots in a keeping manure application records watershed and extrapolating results to and encourage all farmers in sensitive all feedlots in the watershed. areas to develop and use manure management plans. Action 4: Support the development of revised state feedlot rules that would Action 1: Clearly inform producers of allow feedlot compliance to be state and local requirements and determined on the basis of a whole- expectations related to manure farm or a watershed assessment rather management planning, record keeping than only on the basis of individual and other practices associated with feedlots and manure application. This manure application. would allow consideration to be given to environmental benefits associated with Action 2: Promote the benefits of using well-managed hay and pasture manure management planning and production that support livestock record keeping operations.

Action 3: Prioritize manure application Action 5: Financial Needs Analysis: record checks/audits in sensitive areas, Action 5a: Evaluate the including those areas along streams, in aggregate private cost of wellhead protection areas, etc. complying with key provisions of the new feedlot rule, including Action 4: Further details on manure achieving 50 percent or greater management are included in the runoff reduction under the nutrient management strategy (#6a) of extended compliance option, and the basin plan. addressing pollution hazards on feedlots from 300 to 1,000 Strategy 6E: Research and animal units. Include the need Demonstration for technical assistance in the cost estimate. Action 1: Explore the possibility of Action 5b: Evaluate the establishing on-farm demonstrations of adequacy of existing funding anaerobic digestion, composting and sources and levels relative to other heat-generating processes that this aggregate need; and destroy pathogens in manure. Also, Action 5c: Explore how to better consider demonstrating liquid/solid coordinate federal and state separation with an aerobic digestion funding sources available to system. feedlot operators.

116 Land-Use Strategy 7: agencies is needed to ensure that this outcome is achieved on a regular basis. Aggregate Mining Mining operations are permitted for air and water pollutant discharges as well Strategy Development Team: Bea as water withdrawals. Mines with no Hoffmann, SE Minnesota Water water discharge are regulated by Resources Board; Jeff Green, DNR; general permits, and those that require Norman Senjem, MPCA; Wendy Turri, de-watering are regulated by individual MPCA permits from the MPCA. Hazardous waste permits are required if a shop is The purpose of this strategy is to help located at the mine. The DNR permits ensure that aggregate mining activities mines for water withdrawals. There is a are conducted in a manner that need for counties, the PCA and DNR to minimizes potential impacts on ground share information to ensure that all water and surface water quality and air working quarries are properly permitted. quality while maintaining local supplies Reclamation is primarily a county at reasonable cost. responsibility. Several counties have expressed interest in developing and The continuing economic expansion of sharing guidelines for reclamation. the past several years has greatly increased the demand for aggregate Strategy 7A: Develop inventories of and gravel for use in new transportation limestone quarries and aggregate and construction projects in Minnesota. sites The demand for sand and gravel has increased by 50 percent since the mid- Action 1: County inventories: list all 1980s, and rapidly increasing demand known mines, noting those that are in the Twin Cities Metro area may actively being quarried. Obtain lists of trigger more mining activity in MN DOT aggregate sources to help southeastern Minnesota. Firms that track sites. operate mines want to maintain local Action 2: Locate quarries on GIS maps availability at reasonable cost without and share this information among local undue impacts (noise, dust, traffic, and state agencies. water drawdowns, etc.) on local citizens. Quarrying above the water Action 3: Encourage the DNR to table poses risks mainly through accelerate the pace of mapping of fractures to groundwater combined with county aggregate sources. hazardous wastes and leaks and spills. Quarrying below the water table poses Strategy 7B: Improve coordination additional risks from surface water between local conditional use runoff, connections to groundwater permitting, MPCA water quality conduits, well interference, spring permitting, and DNR water impacts, flooding of quarries and appropriation permitting activities. sinkhole development. Action 1: Educate zoning Current state and local permitting administrators, commissioners, processes are designed to prevent or township officers and government staff minimize water pollution. Better about potential water quality problems coordination among state and local created by aggregate mining

117 operations, requirements for Strategy 7D: Devote more attention conducting Environmental Assessment to inspection and enforcement of Worksheets on proposed mining permitted aggregate mining operations, and state agency permitting facilities. requirements. Action 1: Educate local elected officials and appropriate staff about Action 2: Establish a work group to requirements for operating aggregate coordinate permitting processes at the mines and encourage them to report to local and state levels. MPCA and DNR apparent violations of Action 2a: Develop mechanism permit conditions and the use of closed for incorporating into local mines for illegal dumping. conditional use permits for Action 2: Encourage local units of aggregate mining explicit government to give notice every 5 requirements for water quality years for permit updates. permits from the MPCA (National Action 3: Provide information to Pollutant Discharge Elimination counties on process to apply a per ton System permit for process water quarry tax that could fund inspection discharge; storm water permit; and enforcement of permit conditions and hazardous waste permit). and other costs to the county Action 2b: Develop mechanism associated with quarry operations. to improve coordination between MPCA and DNR permitting of Strategy 7E: Develop guidelines for aggregate mines. Best Management Practices for Action 2c: Develop a mechanism quarries, including definitions and for local units of government to BMP’s for dry and wet quarries, active notify MPCA and DNR of all and inactive quarries, and proper active mining operations to closure requirements. Provide a ensure they have needed checklist for counties to use when permits. issuing conditional use permits.

Strategy 7C: Ensure that proposed new aggregate mining operations Strategy 7F: Develop a demonstration obtain appropriate environmental site in the basin showing proper closure review of a quarry or aggregate site.

Action 1: Educate local elected officials Strategy 7G: Conduct investigations to and appropriate staff about determine if the MN DOT requirement requirements for conducting an for use of higher quality aggregate may Environmental Assessment Worksheet direct quarrying to areas where in relation to proposed aggregate operations disturb the vegetative buffer mining operations. at the St. Peter/Decorah edge and to Action 2: Ensure that water quality determine any other long-term concerns are adequately addressed in environmental impacts of this the EAWs. requirement.

118 VIII: Monitoring and to be developed in conjuction with the historical-ongoing data sets, to better Evaluation evaluate whether change in water quality is occurring as the basin plan Lead Authors: Bill Thompson and Greg and associated implementation efforts Johnson, MPCA are completed. There are six major areas of need that will be addressed by Purpose: Evaluate changes in water this strategy, with the focus primarily on quality in the Lower Mississippi River the surface water quality of streams Basin by establishing long term and rivers. Additional strategies to monitoring networks for physical, utilize groundwater information, and chemical, and biological variables and provide linkages to both surface water using trend analyses to determine the and drinking water issues, need to be effectiveness of watershed developed. management efforts. 1. Pollutant Loads. First, there is a Background: need to measure and document the loads of various pollutants at The primary purpose of the basin plan selected sites where continuous is to improve and protect the water stage (water discharge or flow) is quality of the Lower Mississippi River measured. The foundation for this Basin and its associated lakes, work will involve the establishment streams, wetlands and ground water. (or continuation) of long-term Water quality is defined here in a more physical and chemical monitoring comprehensive fashion. This definition sites at strategic locations includes physical, chemical, and throughout the Lower Mississippi biological aspects together. For River Basin. example, physical water quality variables include water flow and 2. Biological Monitoring. The second sediment dynamics. Water resource area of need is the development of integrity includes flow, chemistry, a comprehensive biological biology, energy, and habitat monitoring component in the basin. components. With this in mind, it is Much work has been done in recent important to provide for adequate years in the development of tools for evaluation and assessment of water measuring and characterizing the quality data to document changes over health of our water resources by time. Over the past 60 years, water assessing the actual biotic monitoring has been done by different communities present in streams and groups and individuals for different rivers. To date, most of this work reasons. Monitoring by the MPCA has has been done on the stream historically focused on ambient segment scale, with some work at monitoring of physical and chemical the watershed scale. constituents in water. Other agencies such as MDNR or USGS have 3. Correlate land use and water conducted water monitoring (fish and quality. Monitoring and assessment flow, for example) to meet their of both land and water variables program objectives. However, we now need to be conducted at multiple know that additional information needs scales (basin, major watershed,

119 minor watershed, stream segment). drainage area, and categorized by Volunteer stream monitoring stream type and classifications. conducted in conjuction with land use monitoring such as crop residue 6. Ground Water Monitoring: transect surveys should be Interactions between ground water conducted at the minor watershed and surface water quality merit scale to enable the data to be investigation particularly in karst correlated in space and time. topography. Fate and transport of fecal coliform bacteria and nitrate 4. Physical condition monitoring. nitrogen are of particular interest. In Since water quality is the integration the Cedar River Basin, samples of chemical, biological, and physical should be collected from the upper variables, it is critical to assess the portion of the Upper Carbonate physical condition of streams. This bedrock units to determine if involves classifying stream reaches confining layers are present, and according to key channel dimension what impact these confining layers measurements and size of drainage have on water quality. A better area. This can help us to better understanding of the hydrogeologic understand stream stability, which system is required in this basin relates to important issues such as before specific recommendations streambank erosion rates. A can be made for long-term stream classification system can monitoring. In the Lower Mississippi help to define variables such as River Basin proper, continued stream width, stream depth, and mapping of drift thickness and discharge - all related to drainage hydrogeologic sensitivity to area. Sediment dynamics are also contamination provides information critical to understanding stream useful for wellhead protection and physical conditions. Incorporating aquifer management. A long-term stream physical data with other monitoring network for nitrate and stream data sets will be an possibly pesticides should be important step for comprehensive established in vulnerable aquifers. stream system evaluation in the Because ground water quality is future. affected by individual hydrologic events, monitoring must incorporate 5. Best-Attainable Stream temporal variations. Conditions. While making progress on the first four items The long-term physical and chemical above, it will also be necessary to monitoring network will best be identify “best-attainable” stream accomplished through formation of a conditions in the basin. This has multi-agency monitoring task force. The also been called “reference” or task force could operate under the “least-impacted” stream conditions. auspices of the Water Resources To accomplish this, data on land Center at Winona State University. This use/management will need to be task force would provide data inputs assessed along with water quality from various monitoring sites for use in data by stream reach. All sites and basin evaluation. It would also provide conditions will need to be scaled by some oversight and coordination of the monitoring programs for maximum

120 benefit to the system. Monitoring sites federal agencies and local groups are will include mainstem Mississippi River currently conducting monitoring within sites and major watershed river sites the Mississippi River Basin. These near their confluence with the groups would be invited to participate in Mississippi River. Several state and the task force. ______Table of Agencies/Groups Involved in Water Monitoring - LMB

Agency / Group Monitoring Sites/Activities Metropolitan Council Environmental Vermillion and Cannon Rivers Services (MCES)

Minnesota Department of Middle Branch/Whitewater Agriculture (MDA) Cascade Creek

The U.S. Geological Survey Long-Term Resource Monitoring Army Corps of Engineers Program sites at the mouths of major tributaries and at several locations on the main stem Mississippi.

The Minnesota Department of Fishery surveys and fish Natural Resources (Fisheries) population assessments

MDNR’s Water Division Stream flow monitoring and physical stream assessments for selected rivers.

Wisconsin DNR Mississippi River – fishery, mussels, wildlife and water quality information

Watershed Projects Shorter-term monitoring of land and water

Local monitoring County, school, citizen and smaller-scale efforts ______

To be successful, we must combine new tools for biological stream and utilize monitoring efforts conducted monitoring. One of these tools is a at different scales and organized by multi-metric macroinvertebrate index different groups. Funding limitations specific to the Lower Mississippi River require that greater coordination occur Basin. This is being developed now by among all groups involved. staff at WSU, and will complement MDNR’s ongoing fishery surveys. Since pollution’s ultimate effect or end- point is a biological response, it is Much of this trend work will focus on important to understand some of the the mainstem and major tributaries of

121 the Mississippi River; however, sites possible. Support positive trends will also be located on the smaller and seek to reverse or reduce tributaries in the basin. MPCA staff will adverse trends. also be conducting biological 5. Monitor the addition or removal of monitoring of streams in the Lower Mississippi River Basin waters from Mississippi Basin within the next 5 the 303(d) list of impaired water years. bodies. [Significant additions of waters to the list would be a Citizen stream monitoring is another possible indication that inadequate new tool for assessment and or ineffective programs exist for improvement of stream resources. A those listings.] volunteer stream monitoring program was initiated by the MPCA in 1998. Physical and Chemical Monitoring: The Citizen Stream-Monitoring Program (CSMP) was developed 1. Develop a monitoring plan that will following discussions with the volunteer provide for the establishment of a monitoring community in the state. It long-term physical, chemical, and uses a collaborative approach to hydrological monitoring network that stream monitoring by partnering with will provide statistically valid citizen volunteers who live on or near a estimates of flow-weighted mean stream and who monitor its water concentrations and mass loads of quality on a regular basis. There are pollutants for use in assessing long- currently about 50 CSMP volunteers term water quality trends. enrolled to monitor streams and rivers 2. Create a multi-agency task force in the Mississippi River Basin. Benefits operating through the Water of volunteer monitoring include a cost- Resources Center at Winona State effective way to augment existing water University, to coordinate the quality databases (sometimes for development and implementation of locations where there is no other data the long-term physical, chemical, available), increased awareness of biological and hydrological water-quality issues, and an enhanced monitoring network. sense of stewardship. 3. Estimate costs and pursue the funding necessary to implement the Overall Tasks: monitoring plan. Try to redirect departmental program funds to 1. Develop and implement a basin support long-term monitoring. monitoring strategy. Funds would likely be needed for 2. Map all existing monitoring sites in monitoring site equipment, staff, the basin using Geographic water sample analyses, and Information System. Define the contract support services. scale of all monitoring efforts by 4. Implement the monitoring plan as understanding drainage area and funding and various agencies’ stream size parameters. capabilities allow. 3. Develop a “data dictionary” for the 5. Adjust current efforts, if needed, to basin modeled after the Whitewater meet the needs of temporal or Watershed Project’s data dictionary. spatial trend analysis. 4. Use existing databases to assess water quality trends wherever

122 Biological Monitoring: Combined Objectives:

1. Develop a macroinvertebrate 1. Generate and publish regular multimetric index for the Mississippi reports documenting annual River basin. This would be similar monitoring results and long-term in process to the warm-water and trends as a means of establishing a coldwater IBIs (index of biotic baseline for assessing trends and, integrity) for fish. then, following through with the 2. Develop a monitoring plan that will evaluations as time goes by. provide for the establishment of a a) Collect, pedigree, and long-term biological monitoring consolidate data from relevant network for use in assessing water sources: quality trends. i) Lower Mississippi River 3. Implement the biological monitoring Basin Long-Term Monitoring plan as funding and capabilities Network allow. (a) Metropolitan Council 4. Incorporate monitoring of additional Environmental sites for use in problem investigation Services and/or effectiveness monitoring. (b) Minnesota Efforts will be made to partner with Department of watershed or stream restoration Agriculture projects currently underway. (c) U.S. Geological 5. Develop a habitat index for the Survey/ U.S. Army basin and relate results of habitat Corps of Engineers assessment to overall biological “Long-Term Resource integrity. Monitoring Program” (d) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Citizen Stream-Monitoring Program: Service (e) Minnesota 1. Promote and expand the CSMP to Department of Natural enhance volunteer stream Resources monitoring at the basin, major (f) Wisconsin Department watershed, and minor watershed of Natural Resources scale. (g) Minnesota Pollution 2. Support other volunteer monitoring Control Agency efforts in the basin by providing ii) Current Clean Water technical support. Partnership projects 3. Assist schools and other iii) County monitoring projects orgainzations to monitor a selected iv) MPCA Biological Monitoring stream for multiple years. Provide Program methods and suggestions to these v) Citizen Stream Monitoring critical groups. Program 4. Develop news articles, TV news vi) MPCA Milestone Monitoring stories, etc., with selected citizen Program volunteers. vii) Stream Channel 5. Hold a CSMP meeting every two Assessments years at various sites in the basin. viii) TMDL monitoring and assessment.

123 ix) USDA’s National Resource ii) Secure funding for costs – Inventory (NRI) February 2001. x) Crop Residue Survey Data e) Purchase and install additional (by county, major watershed) equipment, as needed – Fall xi) Ground water data from 2002 or Spring 2003. public water suppliers, f) Operate monitoring sites – monitoring networks, and continuing for existing sites, regional labs begin new sites – Spring 2003. b) Summarize findings in regular reports and present them to the 3. Complete and begin implementing Basin Alliance for the Lower the long-term biological monitoring Mississippi in Minnesota; plan for the basin by the year 2005. Southeast Minnesota Water a) Develop a macroinvertebrate Resources Board; Whitewater biological index for the Lower Watershed Project; South Mississippi River Basin. Branch Root River Watershed b) Develop a fish based Project; Wells Creek Watershed; biological index for cold- and Cannon River Watershed Joint warm-water streams. Powers Board; Vermillion River c) Select and monitor sites that Watershed Management will be used in this plan. Organization, similar watershed d) Summarize and interpret projects and Comprehensive data, and communicate Local Water Planning and results to provide local, state, SWCD committees. and federal resource managers the information Milestones: needed in determining whether or not biological designated uses of rivers and 1. Complete and begin implementing streams are being met. the Mississippi River Basin e) Increase the number of monitoring strategy by 2002. CSMP volunteers in the 2. Complete and begin implementing Mississippi River Basin to the long-term physical, chemical, 100 by December 2001 and hydrological monitoring plan for f) Write the first report on the the basin. “State of the Lower a) Create a multi-agency task force Mississippi River Basin” – July 2001. report by Spring 2003. b) Select monitoring sites for long- term physical, chemical, and hydrological monitoring network – July 2001; c) Formulate an analytical methodology – August 2001. d) Estimate costs and secure funding. i) Equipment, and/or contract, analytical and staff costs – August 2001.

124 IX: Future Directions Lower Mississippi River Basin Plan, currently scheduled to be published in The completion of this Lower the summer of 2003. Mississippi River Basin Plan Scoping Document marks the first milestone in At the same time, basin planning will the basin planning process undertaken proceed at a finer level of detail with the by BALMM starting in the autumn of preparation of a Lower Mississippi 1999. This document identifies River Basin Information Document by environmental goals and strategies for the MPCA. This document will organize achieving them. Yet to be determined data on water quality, pollutant sources is the order in which the strategies and related topics by major watershed. should be implemented, the roles that This will set the stage for major local, state and federal agencies and watershed assessments, where non-government organizations should relationships between water quality and play in implementing them, and how land uses are further clarified. best to coordinate their activities across Information organized by major the basin. This will involve widening watershed should help to support work the circle of discussion to include those in subwatersheds, too. who stand to be affected, for better or worse, by the implementation of the The importance of these documents strategies. This list of “stakeholders” should not be over-emphasized, who have a “stake” in the subject in however. In the end, the working question will be different for each relationships and communication strategy, and will range from private established through planning are often land-owners and businesses to cities, just as important, or even more sportsman and environmentalist important, than planning documents. organizations, and government entities Implementation of strategies through which have not yet participated in the coordinated efforts need not be delayed development of strategies. As the circle until a final basin plan is prepared. of discussion widens, it can be Indeed, implementation of several expected that strategies will be began even before the draft plan was adjusted to take into account new completed. In the spirit of “adaptive information and concerns. management,” in which goals and strategies are adjusted and refined to At the state planning level, discussions reflect new knowledge gained through led by the Environmental Quality Board implementation, the Scoping Document relative to the governor’s Water and Basin Plan can be viewed as Unification Initiative will proceed with describing stages in a continuing the involvement of basin teams across process of implementation and planning the state. It is not yet clear what that no document should attempt to direction these discussions will take, finalize. but some refinement in environmental objectives and indicators may be expected along with the development of strategies for achieving them. Ideas or policies that result from this Initiative will be considered for inclusion in a final

125 BALMM Members Area 7 Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts Association, Bluffland Environmental Watch, Cannon River Watershed Partnership, Dakota County/SWCD, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minneosta Pollution Control Agency, Mississippi River Citizen Commmission, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Prairie Island Indian Community, Southeast Minnesota Water Resources Board, St. Mary’s University Resource Studies Center, University of Minnesota Extension, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Whitewater River Watershed Project

BALMM Staff Chair Kevin Scheidecker, Fillmore County SWCD, 900 Washington NW, Box A, Preston, MN 55965. Phone: 507/765-3878 e-mail: [email protected]

Coordinator Norman Senjem, MPCA, 18 Wood Lake Dr. SE, Rochester, MN 55904. Phone: 507/280-3592 e-mail: [email protected]

Area 7 MASWCD Liaison Clarence Anderson, Rice SWCD, 1501 Greenleaf Rd Faribault, MN 55021. Phone 507/334-3934 e-mail: [email protected]

SE MN Water Resources Board Liaison Bea Hoffmann, Winona State University, P.O. Box 5838 Winona, MN 55987. Phone 507/457-5223 e-mail: [email protected]

Support and production of this brochure provided by

Reprinted April 2002

Printed on recycled paper with minimum 20% post-consumer waste.

Upon request, this material can be made available in other formats, such as Braille, large type or audio tape.