Lake Pepin Watershed Lake Pepin TMDL Basics MINNESOTA • Largest TMDL to Date – half of MN, part of WI Upper Mississippi NORTH River Basin • Two States – Border DAKOTA Water Impairment St. Croix • Two types of water River Basin bodies WISCONSIN – Lake – River SOUTH Minnesota Lake Pepin DAKOTA River Basin • Two types of impairments Cannon River Basin – Eutrophication – Turbidity Lake Pepin Basins IOWA BASIN • Sedimentation Cannon River Basin Minnesota River Basin – Lake Pepin filling in St. Croix River Basin Upper Mississippi River Basin Feature Area ( Kilometers 2 ) HUC 07040001 Lake Pepin Watershed 122,575 Major Rivers Minnesota 218,480 Lake Pepin Watershed 105,368 Metro Area Minnesota Pollution with in Minnesota Controal Agency TMDL Chronology (est.) • 2002 – Impaired Waters List • 2004 – Lake Pepin TMDL begins • WQ Model – 1.06 – 6.08 • TMDL Components – 6.08 – 11.08 • Draft TMDL – 12.08 • Public Review – 1.09 – 3.09 • Final TMDL to EPA – 4.09 Lake Pepin Watershed TMDL: Stakeholder Involvement River Basin Teams ▪ Minnesota River ▪ Upper Mississippi River ▪ St. Croix River ▪ Lower Mississippi ▪ Metro Region ▪ MPCA Stakeholder Advisory ▪ Steering Committee ▪ Support Public EPA Help design TMDL work plan ▪ Leadership ▪ Review Approval Provide advice on solutions and ▪ Education ▪ mouth of watershed goals ▪ Draft TMDL Report ▪ Coordinate communications Social/economic issues Science Advisory Panel ▪ Review TMDL Documents ▪ Help to resolve technical issues ▪ Provide expert opinion on scientific questions Sediment Reduction Advisory Panel (shared) ▪ Provide sediment reduction options ▪ Science Advisory panel for Minnesota and Crow River Watersheds Turbidity Nutrient Impairment Impairment Spring Lake Lake Pepin TMDL Goals • Mississippi River : Aquatic Life – 25 NTU (turbidity) – Restore aquatic vegetation – Medium-High Flow Critical Condition • Lake Pepin: Recreation – 100 ppb Total Phosphorus – 32 ppb chlorophyll a – 0.8 m Secchi transparency – Low Flow Critical Condition Turbidity Impairment: Why Worry? Tundra Swan Food Source Wild Celery - Vallisneria Sufficient underwater light energy is necessary for the growth of submersed aquatic vegetation Beneficiaries of vegetation http://www.schmoker.org/BirdPics/Photos/Blackbirds/YHBLfly3.jpg http://www.ctbirding.org/images/goldeneye%20lefta.jpg http://www.cmsu.edu/naturecentral/pictures/whitetail_deer.jpg http://www.dcwild.com/images/Mammals/Muskrat.jpg http://www.eitangrunwald.com/NC500/NC500p1_files/Redbelly%20Water%20Snake3.jpg http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/naturewatch/images/photos/wildlife/birds/canvasbk.JPG http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mnh/nature/frogs/thumbs/images/greenf.j pg http://www.webofnature.com/DR-6-3-04-0028-Blandings.jpg http://www.mkk.szie.hu/~tejfol/csuka2.jpg Pool 2 Potential Aquatic Vegetation Beds 2 feet or less = Potential Emergent and Submersed Aquatic Vegetation 5 feet or less = Potential Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Greater than 5 feet or flowing channel Geological (Historical) Definition of Background Sediment Flux (1000 T/yr) Cultural Natural Background Scenario 17 Reductions on an Annual Basis, 2002 Conditions 2500 Upper Mississippi • Scenario 17 reductions: River – 20% in Upper Miss. River 2000 Minnesota River – 50% in Minnesota River – 20% in St. Croix River 1500 St. Croix Bar chart, TSS load, Baseline vsRiver 17 – 50% in Cannon River – 20% in other tributaries Cannon & 1000 Vermillion – Direct WWTPs at Rivers permitted flows and TSS Other TSS Load (Metric tons/day) TSSLoad(Metric 500 – Reduced resuspension in Pool 2 Direct WWTPs 0 Baseline Scenario 17 Effect of Scenario 17 Reductions over 22-Year Period, LD2 Avgerage Turbidity (May 15-Sept 15) at LD2 Baseline Scenario 17 Reductions 60 25.0 50 Bar chart, 22-years, Baseline side-by-side with 17, 20-40 highlighted 20.0 40 15.0 30 20 10.0 LTRMP Turbidity (NTRU) 10 5.0 0 0.0 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Scenario 17 Reductions on an Annual Basis, 2006 Conditions 3000 Upper Mississippi • Scenario 17 reductions: River 2500 – 20% in Upper Miss. River Minnesota River – 50% in Minnesota River 2000 – 20% in St. Croix River St. Croix Bar chart, TSS load, Baseline vsRiver 17 – 50% in Cannon River 1500 – 20% in other tributaries Cannon & – Direct WWTPs at Vermillion 1000 Rivers permitted flows and 0.3 mg/L TP TP Load (Metric tons/yr) TPLoad(Metric Other – Reduced resuspension in 500 Pool 2 Direct WWTPs 0 Baseline Scenario 17 Effect of TP Reductions on Chl-a, Lake Pepin Average, Low-Flow Conditions, June - Sept. Lake Pepin - All Scenarios 1987 2006 1989 40 30 20 Chlorophyll (ug/L) 10 0 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Critical Distinction: TMDL vs. Implementation Plan • TMDL Report to EPA • TMDL Implementation Plan – Must Meet Water Quality – Not required by EPA Standards – Required by state for access – Implications for Sectors to certain funds Regulated under NPDES – Implementation can be • WLA reflected in enforceable phased in stages permits • 20% - 40%- 60% - 80% – Implications for nonpoint – Harmonize scales sources • Pepin Watershed • LA reflected in programs such • Drainage Basin as CWLA • Major watershed • „Reasonable assurance‟ of meeting load allocation – Adaptive Management • Use existing authorities – • Plan CWLA • Do • Largely voluntary, incentive- • Check -- Revise as needed based programs Implementation Planning Components • Gross Allocations of TP and TSS by basin – Basin Plans with individual allocations & permits, nonpoint source targets & strategies – Major watershed “chapters” • River Management Methods – Water level drawdowns, island building, to reduce sediment resuspension • Monitoring Plan/Adaptive Management Adaptive Approach for Meeting Turbidity Standard and Vegetation Objectives Achieve 20 Existing Implement 20% NTRU conditions reduction Standard & ecosystem restoration (ER) Monitor turbidity and aquatic vegetation Monitor turbidity and aquatic vegetation Vegetation Implement 80% objectives are met reduction – success?? & ER Achieve 40 NTRU Implement Achieve 30 Monitor turbidity and 50% NTRU aquatic vegetation reduction & ER T ogether M innesotans D eveloping L egacies Rep. Dennis Ozment, 2004.