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?