1

Developing a Plan to Improve Water Quality in the

Lower Vermillion River

Public Meeting for the Turbidity Total Maximum Daily Load Study

March 19, 2008

Hastings, Minnesota

6:30 PM

2

MPCA: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

PCB: Polychlorinated biphenyls

3

Agenda

• Welcome and Introductions• Background Information

– TMDLs, Turbidity, Vermillion River• Project Update and Review• Recommendations• Next Steps• Discussion

Goal: Info Exchange

4

Welcome

• Introductions– Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)– Tetra Tech– Stakeholders

5

• Background– TMDLs, Turbidity, Vermillion River

6

Background: TMDLs

• In the 1970’s, the Clean Water Act provided motivation and funding to identify water quality problems and to develop solutions to correct these problems

• States have a responsibility to create water quality standards and assess water bodies (such as a lakes, rivers, and streams)

• Based on the specific use of the water bodies, States must identify waters not meeting water quality standards (303d list)

7

TMDLs Continued• Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are required to be

developed for each pollutant in a water body on the 303d list (also known as the impaired waters list)

• In general terms, a TMDL is the amount of a specific pollutant that a water body can receive and attain and maintain a given water quality standard

• A strategy for achieving the water quality standard must be developed, approved, and then implemented

8

What is the Process for Developing a TMDL?

Collect and Analyze Data

Develop and Test Options for Reducing Pollutants

Select Best Option and Develop Implementation Strategy

Implement and Monitor Progress

Stakeholder Involvement

Stakeholder Involvement

9

Translation

Techie & Acronym-Laden Explained

Aggressive terminology and plenty of acronyms, but this is a basic process that is our best available tool for cleaning up our waters.

Designated Uses

WQ Standards

Impaired Waters

TMDLs

Implementation

Designated Uses

WQ Standards

Impaired Waters

TMDLs

Implementation

What You Do

Pollution Limit

Polluted Waters

Problem Investigation

Fix the Problem

What You Do

Pollution Limit

Polluted Waters

Problem Investigation

Fix the Problem

10

Background: Vermillion River

11

Salmo trutta

Upper Vermillion:

Trophy Brown Trout Fishery

12

13

MN State Record Black Crappie

1940, Vermillion River

5 pounds, 0 ounces

21 inches long

The Vermillion River

High Water Inundation in Floodplain Forest

July 2001

15

The Vermillion River

Looking downstream from Etter Bridge

November 2003

16

The Vermillion River

Vegetated Shoreline – Lakes Segment

July 2001

17

Background: Turbidity

• In general terms, turbidity is a measure of the clarity of a liquid. It is a surrogate parameter, that suggests the presence of suspended solids or dissolved matter.

18

nephelo-, nephel-, nepho- neph-

• (Greek: cloud, clouds, cloudiness) • Some related words:

– Nephelogical: Related to clouds or cloudiness.– Isonephelic: An indication of the equality of

cloudiness.– Hypernephelist: Someone who goes above the

clouds.– Nephalism: Total abstinence from alcoholic

beverages.

19

Turbidity Background Con’t

• Minnesota’s turbidity water quality standard = 25 NTU

• Waters with turbidity over 25 NTU can stress aquatic life

• Waters that go over 25 NTU repeatedly are considered impaired

20

Turbidity Visuals

~0-3 NTU

~0-3 NTU

~12-20 NTU

~12-30 NTU??

21

Why is Turbidity an Issue?• Impacts to Recreation

– Reduced visibility for swimmers and boaters – Reduced sportfish populations

• Impacts to Health– Increased potential for waterborne diseases from recreation– Increased need for drinking water treatment

• Impacts to Aquatic Life– Reduced light for submerged aquatic plants– Increased temperatures– Reduced oxygen levels

22

Affected Use: Aquatic Lifei.e. keep eye on prize

23

24

25

Stonefly Genus Agnetina (Golden Stones)

26

Behavioral Changes

Salvelinus fontinalisSSC Conc: 4.5 mg/l(~3-4 FNU)Duration: 168 hoursOverhead cover abandonedGradall & Swenson 1982

27

Mortality

Salmo truttaSSC Conc: 110 mg/l(~80 FNU)Duration: 1440 hours98% mortality of eggsScullion & Edwards 1980

28

Warmwater too…

29

30

How Much is Too Much?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1989 1991 1994 1997 1999 2002 2005

TUR

BID

ITY

(NTU

)

MS221MS297MS299VR002VM00.1WQS

31

Goals of the Turbidity TMDL Study

• To define the nature and extent of the turbidity impairment

• To understand how sediment is transported and how it affects aquatic life

• To evaluate the total sediment load for an "unimpaired“ Vermillion River

• To better understand how various sources influence turbidity levels

• To integrate TMDL efforts with long-range Pool 3 planning and management efforts

• To ultimately find a solution to the impairment

32

Lower Vermillion River Turbidity TMDL

• MPCA contract with Tetra Tech• Phased Approach

– Phase I: Data Gathering and Model Development (2003/2004)

– Phase II: Sampling and Model Development (2006/2007)– Phase III: Model Refinement and TMDL Development

(2007/2008)

33

Phase I Tasks• Compiled all available water quality and biological data

• Researched information on numerous manmade structures that control flow between Pool 3 and Lower Vermillion River

• Statistical analysis of relationship between TSS, nutrients, chlorophyll a, and turbidity

• Developed conceptual understanding of LVR turbidity

34

Conceptual Model

Turbidity

OrganicDetritusAlgaeInorganic

Solids

Algal &Detrital Input

PhosphorusInput

SedimentInput

LocalWatersheds

ChannelErosion

UpperVermillion

MississippiRiver

Turbidity

OrganicDetritusAlgaeInorganic

SolidsOrganicDetritusAlgaeInorganic

Solids

Algal &Detrital Input

PhosphorusInput

SedimentInput

Algal &Detrital Input

PhosphorusInput

SedimentInput

LocalWatersheds

ChannelErosion

LocalWatersheds

ChannelErosion

UpperVermillion

UpperVermillion

MississippiRiver

MississippiRiver

35

Phase I Findings

• Inorganic sediment appears to be the primary cause of elevated turbidity (62 percent)

• Pathways involving algae and organic detritus contribute about 38 percent (on average) of the observed turbidity in the LVR

36

Phase I Findings (continued)

• Scoping Level Estimates of Sediment Inputs– Mississippi Pool 3 (62 percent)– Upper Vermillion River (21 percent)– Local tributaries (17 percent)– Internal sources unknown

• Algal growth within the LVR is a secondary contributor to turbidity and is sensitive to concentrations of phosphorus

37

Monitoring and Field Work Update

38

Dike Functionality

Truedale Slough Dike: functional with rusty culvert

DNR Dike: nonfunctional dike bypassed by water

Three Bridges Dike: nonfunctional dike no longer intact

Spot Dike K: nonfunctional dike located in wetland area

39

Example Cross SectionsCross-Section 1

677.00

678.00

679.00

680.00

681.00

682.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Distance (feet)

Elev

atio

n (f

eet M

SL)

Cross-Section T

660.00

665.00

670.00

675.00

680.00

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Distance (feet)

Elev

atio

n (f

eet M

SL)

Cross-Section 15

655.00

660.00

665.00

670.00

675.00

0 50 100 150 200 250

Distance (feet)

Elev

atio

n (f

eet M

SL)

40

Modeling

• What is a model?– Mathematical formulation describing the physical

behavior of a waterbody and its temporal variability– Inputs

• Weather• Stream channel characteristics• Boundary flows and concentrations

– Outputs• Time varying (e.g., hourly, daily, monthly, annual) flow and

concentrations• Multiple locations

41

Modeling Update (continued)

• Why model?– Determine load reductions needed to meet

water quality goals– Evaluate potential pollutant sources– Assess potential restoration scenarios– Modeling used in combination with other

data/information to inform policy and make final management decisions

42

Phase 2 and 3 Modeling

• Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model to Estimate Loads from Local Tributaries

• FLUX Model to Estimate Loads from Upper Vermillion River

• CE-QUAL-W2 Model to Estimate Conditions in the Lower Vermillion River

43

44

Modeling Process• Step 1. Set up model

– Acquire and organize model inputs

• Step 2. Calibrate and validate models to available flow and water quality data– Adjust model parameters to obtain best possible fit to observed

data

• Step 3. Run models for various scenarios to evaluate management alternatives– Identify key sources of pollution – Identify potential impact of various alternatives

45

Modeling Results

Sources of Flow

Vermillion Slough15%

Truedale Slough31%

Carter Slough21%

Upper Vermillion

River21%

Local Tributaries

5%

Pool 41% Internal

Sources6%

Sources of Sediment

Internal Sources

3%

Pool 41%

Local Tributaries

16%

Upper Vermillion

River8%

Carter Slough21%

Truedale Slough35%

Vermillion Slough16%

46

Modeling Results (continued)• Distinctly different

conditions depending on stage of Mississippi River– Mode 0: insignificant

inflow from the Mississippi

– Mode 1: Mississippi River inflows dominate conditions

650655660665670675680685690695

0 1

1.25 4

4.5

5.5 6 6 6 9

9.5 10

Hastings

650655660665670675680685690695

0 1

1.25 4

4.5

5.5 6 6 6 9

9.5 10

Hastings

650655660665670675680685690695

0 1

1.25 4

4.5

5.5 6 6 6 9

9.5 10

Vermillion Slough

650655660665670675680685690695

0 1

1.25 4

4.5

5.5 6 6 6 9

9.5 10

Vermillion Slough

650655660665670675680685690695

0 1

1.25 4

4.5

5.5 6 6 6 9

9.5 10

Truedale/Carter Slough

650655660665670675680685690695

0 1

1.25 4

4.5

5.5 6 6 6 9

9.5 10

Truedale/Carter Slough

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Etter Bridge

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Etter Bridge

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Mouth 650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Mouth

Mode 0

Vermillion Slough: Stagnant

Truedale Slough: Inflow through culvert

Carter Slough: Stagnant

Etter Bridge: Free flowing

Mouth: Free discharge

47

Modeling Results (continued)• Distinctly different

conditions depending on stage of Mississippi River– Mode 0: insignificant

inflow from the Mississippi

– Mode 1: Mississippi River inflows dominate conditions

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Hastings

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Hastings

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10Vermillion Slough

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10Vermillion Slough

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Truedale/Carter Slough

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Truedale/Carter Slough

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Etter Bridge

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Etter Bridge

650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Mouth 650655660665670675680685690695

0 11.2

5 4 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 9 9.5 10

Mouth

Mode 1

Vermillion Slough: Inflow at 675.3’

Truedale Slough: Inflow at 677.5’

Carter Slough: Inflow at 677.5’

Etter Bridge: Free flowing or backwater

Mouth: Backwater

48

Modeling Results (continued)

• Following combination of load reductions found to achieve water quality standards during both modes– Turbidity in Pool 3 simulated as achieving water

quality standards – Loads from internal sources reduced 86 percent during

Mode 0– No reductions to Pool 4 loads– No reductions to Upper Vermillion River loads (other than

removing Empire WWTP load)

49

TMDL Allocations• Clean Water Act requires that TMDLs be

allocated as follows:– TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS– Wasteload Allocations (WLA) for “point

sources” (regulated under NPDES)– Load Allocations (LA) for nonpoint sources

and natural background– MOS for Margin of Safety

50

TMDL Allocations (continued)

Mode 0 (Minimal Pool 3 Inflow)

Mode 1 (Significant Pool 3 Inflow) Allocation

Component: Source Existing TSS Load (kg/day)

Allowable TSS Load (kg/day)

Percent Reduction

Existing TSS Load (kg/day)

Allowable TSS Load (kg/day)

Percent Reduction

TMDL= LA+WLA+MOS 12,117 5,619 54% 234,993 121,876 48% LA: UVR 1546 1546 0% 9808 9808 0% LA: Pool 3 1 1 0% 204,913 94,260 54% LA: Pool 4 1 1 0% 1 1 0% LA: Internal Sources 6,928 956 86% 1 1 0% WLA: Facilities 149 149 0% 149 149 0% WLA: MS4s 844 844 0% 5,229 5,229 0% MOS (Local Tributaries) 2,648 2,250 15% 14,892 12,658 15%

51

What Are Possible Solutions?• Lake Pepin TMDL

– Reduce Mississippi loads at major inlets • Water Level Management

– Reduce sediment re-suspension• consolidation of sediments (periodic drawdowns)• island building

– Perennial vegetation• Fish Management• Rural and Urban BMPs

– Reduce streambank erosion with stabilization projects– Soil conservation on row-crop land

52

Lake Pepin TMDL• Identified impairments include excess nutrients (eutrophication)

and turbidity• Multi-year project to develop

TMDL• Modeling ongoing• TMDL scheduled to be completed

in 2009• Lake Pepin TMDL Forum

– Wednesday, April 16, 2008– 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.– St. James Hotel, Red Wing, MN

53

Water Level Management• Help restore the natural

seasonal fluctuation in water levels that the plants desire

• MDNR has identified three potential strategies:– Pool-wide Pool 4 summer

drawdowns– Vermillion Bottoms/Goose

Lake HREP type drawdowns of the LVR

– Individual LVR backwater lake drawdowns

54

Fish Management• Any attempt to actively remove rough fish from the system

would be ongoing, expensive and unlikely to succeed

• DNR believes it may be possible to induce rough fish to leave and largely stay out of backwater lakes following the spring flood pulse if the rough fish sense they will be trapped by lowering water levels

• Any rough fish control ideas to implement the TMDL should be implemented using an adaptive management approach– Conduct initial projects as experiments or pilot efforts – Implement future efforts based on the success (or failure) of the

initial efforts

55

Rural and Urban BMPs• Rural BMPs

– Conservation Tillage– Filter Strips– Riparian Buffers– Grade Stabilization

Structures

• Urban BMPs– Proactive stormwater

management– Future loads from MS4s

should remain equal to or less than current levels

56

Next Steps• Public Meeting: March 2008

• Draft TMDL Report: March/April 2008

• Final TMDL Report: May/June 2008

• Implementation Plan Development

57

Contact Information

Justin Watkins – MPCA(507) 281-7763Justin.Watkins@state.mn.us

Kevin Kratt – Tetra Tech(216) 861-2950kevin.kratt@tetratech.com