Monitoring & Assessment Background & Updates 303(d) List Open House Circuit: SE Region

Justin Watkins Watershed Coordinator MPCA Watershed Division

wq-swm8-01 December 21, 2011 „ Share some information regarding changes to MN’s monitoring and assessment work „ Review the draft 2012 impaired waters list „ Discuss, ask questions

„ Thank you for coming out „ Thank you for BALMM agenda time Justin Howard Discussion

Other “open houses” scheduled around MN

3 „ Background „ Watershed monitoring „ Assessment process „ Root, Cedar/ShellRock, Miss River Lake Pepin „ Overall process, timeline „ Some good tools „ Questions & discussion

„ Howard’s presentation (handouts) „ More questions & discussion

Pirated material

4 „ The CWA requires states to:

† Establish standards to protect beneficial uses

† Monitor waters and assess against standards

† List waters that do not meet standards

† Identify pollutant sources and the reductions needed

† Develop an implementation plan to achieve the necessary pollutant reductions „ 2004: Water Quality Monitoring Strategy † Assess MN streams and lakes over a 10-year cycle „ 2006: MN Clean Water Legacy Act † “To protect, restore, and preserve the quality of ’s surface waters by providing authority, direction and resources to achieve and maintain water quality standards for surface waters as required by section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act.” „ FY08-09 CWLA appropriation allows for full implementation of condition monitoring part of the strategy „ Manage WQ through a 10-year cycle via major watersheds „ Integrate biology, chemistry and physical/habitat monitoring „ Integrate agency, citizen and local monitoring „ Identify impairments and waters in need of protection „ Utilize TMDLs where appropriate „ Write comprehensive watershed plans „ Design and implement good projects „ Track trends over time „ Changes: evolution and improvement

† Touch on bio data † Example of site placement in wtshd Sander canadensis

8 9 Biological monitoring; chemical monitoring; fish consumption sites; This is important; not the way we’ve done it to date.

10 Monitoring Goal: Examine Use Support

™ Aquatic consumption ~ edible fish guidelines (Hg, PCBs)

™ Aquatic recreation ~ swimming/wading/boating with minimal risk of illness or nuisance algal conditions.

™ Aquatic life ~ “. . . provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife” Example Design: Miss River Lake Pepin

Wells Creek Watershed (8 Digit HUC) Monitoring for determination of aquatic consumption use support (n = 2) Fish Hg and PCBs Example Design: Miss River Lake Pepin

Wells Creek Watershed 10X water monitoring for determination of (8 Digit HUC) aquatic recreation and aquatic life use support (n = 5)

E.coli, DO, pH, temp.,TSS, P, Nitrite+Nitrate, NH3, Chloride, Sulfate Example Design: Miss River Lake Pepin

Wells Creek Watershed Biological monitoring for determination (8 Digit HUC) of aquatic life use support (n = 12)

Fish, Inverts, 1x WQ, Habitat, 1X Flow Temp logger, Land use Example Design: Miss River Lake Pepin

Wells Creek Biological monitoring for determination Watershed of aquatic life use support (n=12) (8 Digit HUC) Monitoring for determination of aquatic recreation and aquatic life use support Red Wing (n=5) Monitoring for determination of aquatic consumption, aquatic recreation, and aquatic life use support (n=2)

Lake City Watershed Black dots: monitoring sites

16 Cedar & Watersheds Black dots: monitoring sites

[insert map of Cedar/Shellrock sites]

17 Implications for Assessment

„ Significantly more data Assessable Data „ A lot more biological data

700000 Assessable „ Increased interest, Data 600000 resources, expectations 500000 400000

300000 and complexity Count Data 200000

100000

0

Assessment Year 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

18 19 „ Reflect watershed approach

„ Comprehensive, protective and proactive

† Identify overall condition as well as impairment

„ Engage partners

„ Better inform next steps

„ Address data increase

„ Meet expectations and responsibilities

20 Statewide, Projects and biennial, funding focused on driven by 303d impairments List Projects driven Major watershed, by overall Annual (10-year condition, 303(d) cycle), Focused List an output, on condition not sole driver Call for Data Desktop Review Pre-Assessments Focus on (Individual (Computer “Assessment” parameter analysis) Watersheds evaluations)

Watershed Assessment Team Technical Review Professional for Specific Topics Judgment Group (Multi-discipline)

Draft Assessments 303(d) List, and Watershed including formal Reports Even Years public review (Annual)

23 „ No more statewide assessments for:

† Aquatic life (other than toxics)

† Aquatic recreation „ Multiple lines of evidence considered for aquatic life use support decisions „ Some aquatic life listings will require stressor identification; some listings may not require TMDLs „ Watershed-specific lake assessment reporting „ Nitrate gaining prominence in the process:

† Drinking water assessment

† Stressor to aquatic life

24 „ Statewide „ Root River „ Miss River Lake Pepin „ Cedar & Shell Rock

„ More detail later

25 „ Statewide, the proportion of biota listings relative to aquatic life use listings derived via surrogate indicators (typically turbidity/tube/TSS) is higher than in previous assessments.

† And in SE MN, the biota listings are a first. 2012 Draft 303(d) List

27 Use Support Summary: Root River Watershed

ROOT RIVER Fish only: 1 Inverts only: 32 Fish and inverts: 7

28 Aquatic Life Use Support: Miss River Lake Pepin

MISS WELLS, DIRECT TRIBS Fish only: 1 Inverts only: 0 Fish and inverts: 0 Aquatic Recreation Use Support: Miss River Lake Pepin Use Support Summary: Cedar & Shell Rock River Watersheds

Deferred AUID’s… Shell Rock: 13 [insert map of Cedar/Shellrock assessment results] Cedar: 22

SHELL ROCK CEDAR RIVER Fish only: 0 Fish only: 0 Inverts only: 0 Inverts only: 14 Fish and Inverts: 1 Fish and inverts: 5

31 „ Fifteen fish impairments

„ Cedar River Wtshd:

† Cedar River: (Rose Creek to Woodbury Creek)

† Roberts Creek

† Unnamed Creek

† Turtle Creek

† Unnamed Creek (Woodson Creek) „ Shell Rock River Wtshd:

† Shell Rock River „ Miss River Lake Pepin Wtshd:

† Gilbert Creek „ Root River Wtshd:

† Upper Bear Creek

† Spring Valley Creek

† Watson Creek

† Camp Creek

† Rice Creek

† Silver Creek

† Corey Creek

† Unnamed Creek (Willow Creek Tributary)

32 „ Fish and bug impairments go to Stressor identification process „ Pathogen impairments everywhere

† Regional Fecal Coliform TMDL in place † Working on next steps „ Potential subsequent steps: † TMDLs where appropriate, models, identification of management priorities „ Compose a watershed plan „ Use it to fund best possible projects

33 Context: Watershed Approach Timeline

IWM Start Date Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Planning Biological Monitoring WQ Assessments Stressor Identification

Watershed Monitoring (Flow and Water Chemistry)

Data Compilation Pre-Modeling Work

Modeling

Identify PMZ’s Implementation Planning Watershed Plan TMDL Studies Protection Public Participation/Civic Engagement Strategies „ Assessments completed for 16 watersheds

† Part of 2012 Integrated Report/List „ Continue to refine processes as needed † Consistency tools

† Comprehensive assessment approach „ On track to monitor all major watersheds on 10-year cycle

† Assessments completed 1-2 years after † Then cycle repeats

35 „ Impaired Waters Viewer (IWAV)

† Google: sixth hit „ Environmental Data Access (EDA) † Google: second hit „ Cooperative Stream Gauging (CSG) † Google: first hit

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Questions/Discussion

Zumbro River downstream of green bridge

[email protected] 507.206.2621

43