Science Advisory PanelNov. 10, 2010

Stakeholder Advisory Committee MeetingNov. 15, 2010

Norman Senjem and Dennis WasleyMinnesota Pollution Control Agency ǿljπƛǿфπмнƴ Nov. 15, 2010

Thank You, Stakeholdersó For attending meetings, providing feedback, and

communicating with your peers since 2004;

ó For helping to shape and edit two TMDL work plans that have provided a road map for the overall process and direction for individual projects; and

ó For raising questions which led to concrete steps by MPCA, such as taking Spring Lake off the list of impaired waters for nutrient enrichment, and undertaking a study of market and non-market costs and benefits of achieving TMDL goals in small watersheds.

2

Purpose of meetingó Present key elements of draft TMDL Report

ó Provide opportunities for questions and exchange of views and informationó Whole group

ó Small groups

ó Prepare for subsequent steps in the TMDL process

3

Why conduct this TMDL?ó A federal requirement under the Clean Water Act

ó Effects of sediment on fisheries and wildlife

ó Minnesotans concerned about Lake Pepin filling in with sediment

ó Provide an ongoing forum for various stakeholders to be represented in developing a pathway to our common goal of clean water

4

Key elements of TMDLó Water quality standard and degree of exceedance in

impaired reaches

ó Major pollutant sources

ó TMDL Components: WLA + LA + MOS + RC

ó General implementation approach

ó Reasonable Assurance of non-point source load reductions

ó Process for TMDL Review and approval

5

TMDL componentsó WLA + LA + MOS + RC

ó Waste Load Allocation – Permit-regulated point source discharges/stormwater runoff

ó Load Allocation – Pollutant loads originating from diffuse, non-permitted “nonpoint” sources

6

7

Nutrient Impairment

Turbidity Impairment

Lake Pepin

Spring Lake

Impaired Reaches

9

South MetroMississippi:Locks, Dams and ID numbers

Proposed Site-Specific Standards

ó Mississippi RiverAquatic Life:ó 32 mg/L (ppm) Total Suspended

Solids

ó Increased frequency of vegetation

ó Critical condition:ó Medium-high flow

ó 1-2 meter water depth

Nov, 15 2010

Contrast Above and Below Impaired Reach

11

32

Impaired Reach

Min

neap

olis

Has

ting

s

Red

Win

g

Wab

asha

Today, tomorrowFuture AllocationCurrent Allocation

urban runoffrural runoffwastewater treatment plantssuburban runoffmargin of safetyreserve capacity

5 stories Upper Mississippi 157,229 MT (16%)

Foshay Tower32 stories (454 ft)

24 stories MN River 732,964 MT (76%)

St. Croix River 24,067 MT (2%)

2 stories Cannon/Vermillion 53,986 MT (6%)

Annual Average Sediment Load to South Metro Mississippi is 968,246 metric ton (MT)Enough sediment to cover a city block to the height of the Foshay Tower

Modeling reduction scenariosó Applied model to 21 scenarios ranging from 20 to 90

percent reductions in Total Suspended Solids/Total Phosphorusó ‘Scenario 17’ meets proposed site-specific standards:ó 50% reductions from Minnesota and Cannon watershedsó 20% reductions in Upper Mississippi and St. Croix

watershedsó Graduated reductions in mega, large and intermediate

wastewater facilities’ permitted loadsó 25% reduction in urban stormwater (MS4) runoff

Nov. 15, 2010

Historical sediment loads

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

Wet Moist Average Dry Low

TSS

(MT/

yr)

Flow condition

Average annual total suspended solids (TSS) loads for current conditions (1985-2006)

Other Sources

Metro WWTP

Cannon/ Vermillion

St. Croix

Minnesota

Upper Mississippi

15

Load allocation/Waste load allocation by flow

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

very high high moderate low very low

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

etric

tons

/yea

r)

flow condition

Load allocation

Natural Background

WWTP RC

WWTP

Stormwater

16

Load allocation/Waste load allocationby tributary/watershedat average flow

18

TMDL components by area at average flow

19

Margin of Safety (MOS)ó Choice of explicit or implicit Margin of Safety

ó MPCA proposes an explicit MOS based on a TMDL endpoint of 30 mg/L Total Suspended Solids:ó 6 percent less than the standard of 32 mg/L TSS

ó Additional reductions from the Minnesota River will be needed to meet 30 mg/Ló 60 percent reductions vs. 50 percent at higher flows

20

Reserve Capacityó Population growth of 22% predicted from 2005 to 2035

ó Future growth provided for point sources, mainly municipalities

ó Permitted Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s): ó Reserve Capacity of 30% of aggregate waste load allocation for

permitted MS4s provided for future growth

ó Wastewater treatment facilities: ó Reserve capacity of 50% of aggregate waste load allocations of

facilities discharging at ≥ 30 mg/L set aside for new and expanding dischargers

21

Discussion

22

Lunch Break

23

Implementation approachó Geographical scale linkagesó Mississippi watershed scale

ó River basin scale

ó Major watershed scale

ó Non-point source control strategiesó Economic incentives

ó Education/technical assistance

ó Existing regulations

24

Implementation approach, continued

ó Point source control strategiesó MS4 permitting programó List of Best Management Practices for 25/50% reduction

ó Waste water treatment plant permitting programó Under discussion with EPA

ó Mississippi restoration activitiesó Island building to reduce wind resuspension

ó Water level draw downs to stimulate vegetation growth

25

Three geographic scales

26

Mississippi Watershed Scaleó Source identification for

better targetingó Phase I plan: 25%

reductionó Gap analysisó Adaptive managementó Hydrologic researchó Economic Analysisó Data Storage/Retrieval

System

27

Basin Scale Implementationó Within-basin allocation

targets

ó BMP targeting strategy

ó Water quality monitoring and BMP Tracking

28

Major Watershed Scaleó Where implementation is

planned and executed

ó Targets and timelines for priority watersheds

ó Part of 10-year cycle of monitor-plan-do-check

ó Comprehensive Watershed Plans to address local and downstream issues

29

30

Timeline to Completionó Preliminary DRAFT released: Oct. 28, 2010ó EPA approved proposed TSS Standard Nov. 8, 2010ó Science Advisory Panel review meeting: Nov. 10, 2010ó Stakeholder Advisory Committee review meeting: Nov. 15, 2010ó Revised Draft TMDL: Jan. 3, 2010ó MPCA Citizens’ Board: Jan. 25, 2010

ó Public review period: Jan-Feb?ó Revise based on public comments

ó Submit 2nd Revised Draft to EPA: March/April?ó Revise based on EPA comments

ó Final Report to EPA: May/June?

31

Proceeding with sound scienceó Lake Pepin Study 1994-98: ó 6 major study components – Metropolitan Council

ó Lake Pepin/South Metro Mississippi TMDLs, 2005-2010:ó Water quality modeling improvements/updates with 22-

year data set

ó 3 studies of sediment sources interacting with each other

ó Minnesota River modeling at macro and micro scale

ó Integration of TMDL endpoints with broad Mississippi ecosystem indicators and metrics

32

Amount of sediment flowing into South Metro Mississippi/Lake Pepin

Met

ric T

ons

per Y

ear

Year

Sources of sediment to Lake Pepin

Year Field Non-field2007 35% 65%

1985 59% 41%

1940 65% 35%

Pre~1860 0% 100%

34

Field vs. Ravine vs. Stream?

Nov. 15, 2010

Don’t want the TMDL to be a“bridge to nowhere”

Providing “Reasonable Assurance” of non-point source implementationó Develop basin and watershed strategies to meet sediment

load reduction goals

ó Evaluate existing programmatic, funding, and technical capacity to implement strategies

ó Identify gaps in programs, funding and local capacity to achieve needed controls

ó Commit to fill gaps and build program capacity; agree to meet specific, iterative, short term (1-2 year) milestones

Reasonable assurance, cont.ó Demonstrate increased implementation and/or pollutant

reductions

ó Commit to track/monitor/assess and report progress at set regular times – adaptive management

ó Accept contingency requirements if milestones are not met after a previously agreed time, or after specific actions have been taken

p pp g g g j

Implement 20/20% reduction and ecosystem restoration (ER)

Achieve 50 mg/L TSS

Monitor turbidity and aquatic vegetation

Implement 50/20% reduction and ER

Achieve 40 mg/L TSS

Existing conditions

Implement 80/50% reduction and ER

Monitor turbidity and quatic vegetation Monitor turbidity and

aquatic vegetationVegetation objectives are met – success??

Achieve 30 mg/L TSS

Transform critical areas of landscape

Restore rooted aquatic vegetation of Mississippi River

http://www.dcwild.com/images/Mammals/Muskrat.jpghttp://www.eitangrunwald.com/NC500/NC500p1_files/Redbelly%20Water%20Snake3.jpg

http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mnh/nature/frogs/thumbs/images/greenf.jpg

http://www.cmsu.edu/naturecentral/pictures/whitetail_deer.jpg

http://www.mkk.szie.hu/~tejfol/csuka2.jpg

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/ro/naturewatch/images/photos/wildlife/birds/canvasbk.JPG

http://www.ctbirding.org/images/goldeneye%20lefta.jpg

http://www.webofnature.com/DR-6-3-04-0028-Blandings.jpg

http://www.schmoker.org/BirdPics/Photos/Blackbirds/YHBLfly3.jpg

Ultimate goals ofMississippi restoration

43

QUESTIONS?