Lower Mississippi River Basin Planning Scoping Document€¦ · The final strategies for land-use, geographic management and monitoring included in this Basin Plan Scoping Document

��

BalmmBasin Alliance for the Lower MississippiIn Minnesota

Lower Mississippi River Basin PlanningScoping Document

June 2001

balmmBasin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota

2

About BALMM

A locally led alliance of land and water resource agencies has formed in order tocoordinate efforts to protect and improve water quality in the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin. The Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota (BALMM) coversboth the Lower Mississippi and Cedar River Basins, and includes a wide range oflocal, state and federal resource agencies. Members of the Alliance include Soil andWater Conservation District managers, county water planners, and regional staff of theBoard of Soil and Water Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Natural ResourcesConservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of MinnesotaExtension, Department of Natural Resources, Mississippi River Citizen Commission,the Southeastern Minnesota Water Resources Board, the Cannon River WatershedPartnership, and others. BALMM meetings are open to all interested individuals andorganizations. Existing staff from county and state agencies provide administrative,logistical and planning support. These include: Kevin Scheidecker, Fillmore SWCD,Chair; Norman Senjem, MPCA-Rochester, Basin Coordinator; Clarence Anderson,Rice SWCD, Area 7 MASWCD Liaison; Bea Hoffmann, SE Minnesota WaterResources Board Liaison.

This Basin Plan Scoping Document is the fruit of a year-long effort by participants inBALMM. Environmental Goals, Geographic Management Strategies and Land-UseStrategies were developed by either individual BALMM members or strategy teams.An effort was made to involve those who will implement the strategies in developingthem. Each strategy was presented at least once at a monthly BALMM meeting, andsubsequently revised based on comments received, before being included in this draftdocument. Other parts of the document were prepared by the Basin Coordinator, whodrew on a multitude of published sources to describe the basin’s geology, waterquality, and land-water relationships.

3

CONTENTS Page

I. Introduction.......................................................................................... 5

II. Basin Description ............................................................................. 10A. Overview ......................................................................................... 10B. History ............................................................................................. 11C. Geology........................................................................................... 15D. Land Use, Landscape Features and Water Quality ........................ 16

III. Water Quality..................................................................................... 19A. Basinwide Surface Water Conditions and Trends ........................... 19B. Mississippi River Water Quality....................................................... 25

1. Lake Pepin and Upstream ........................................................... 252. Downstream of Lake Pepin.......................................................... 28

C. Water Quality of Major Tributaries .................................................. 29D. Lake Water Quality.......................................................................... 35E. Ground Water Quality...................................................................... 45

IV. Land-Water Relationships ................................................................ 49A. Sediment ......................................................................................... 50B. Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus).............................................. 54C. Fecal Coliform Bacteria................................................................... 57D. Pesticides........................................................................................ 61E. Hydrologic Modification ................................................................... 61

V. Environmental Goals......................................................................... 65A. Water Quality Goals ........................................................................ 65B. Water Quantity Goals ...................................................................... 65C. Aquatic Ecosystem Goals ............................................................... 65

VI. Geographic Management Strategies ............................................... 66A. Watershed Management ................................................................. 66B. Aquifer Protection............................................................................ 72C. Floodplain Management.................................................................. 77

VII. Land-Use Strategies ......................................................................... 85 A. Perennial Vegetation: Maintain/Increase Acreage ......................... 85 B. Wetland Protection and Restoration............................................... 92 C. Soil Conservation on Row-Crop Land............................................ 96 D. Urban and Rural Residential Land Management ......................... 102 E. Nutrient and Pesticide Management ............................................ 107 F. Animal Feedlot Management........................................................ 113 G. Mining Activities Management ..................................................... 117

VIII. Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................ 119

IX. Future Directions ........................................................................... 125

4

TABLES Page

303(d) List of Impaired Waters 1998...................................................... 20

Long-Term Water Quality Trends .......................................................... 32

Lower Mississippi River Basin Lake Assessment ............................... 36

Lake Zumbro Water Quality ................................................................... 38

2000 Crop Residue Survey Results....................................................... 50

Effect of Crop Residue on Soil Loss ..................................................... 51

Agencies and Groups Involved in Water Quality Monitoring............ 121

FIGURES

Map: Lower Mississippi River Basin ....................................................... 9

1998 Impaired Waters List...................................................................... 20

Lake Zumbro Summer Mean Total Phosphorus................................... 39

Lake Zumbro Summer Mean Chlorophyll-a .......................................... 39

Lake Zumbro Summer Mean Secchi Transparency ............................. 40

Estimated Summer TP Loading Rate to Lake Pepin ............................ 42

Lake Pepin Summer Mean Total Phosphorus ...................................... 43

Lake Pepin Summer Mean Chlorophyll-a.............................................. 44

Lake Pepin Summer Mean Secchi Transparency................................. 44

Agro-Ecoregion Map of the Lower Mississippi River Basin.............. 110

5

I: IntroductionIn the summer of 1999 an ad-hoc groupof county, state and federal agencyrepresentatives started meeting todiscuss the possibility of creating abasin plan for the Lower MississippiRiver and Cedar River Basins insoutheastern Minnesota. Shortlythereafter, Governor Jesse Venturalaunched the Water UnificationInitiative, as a result of which sevenBasin Teams composed of state andfederal agency representatives wereappointed to assist in the developmentof the next state water plan, called“Water Plan 2000” (the title was laterchanged to “Watermarks”). Thus twobasin planning groups becameestablished at roughly the same time inthe Lower Mississippi and Cedar RiverBasins, with similar purposes andoverlapping membership.

The Basin Team1 produced a reportthat was provided to the State PlanningAgency in February 2000 for inclusionin Watermarks. It focused on waterquality goals, objectives and indicatorsfor the basin. Watermarks waspublished in September 2000. Over thenext two years, the seven Basin Teamswill be responsible for developing

1 Members of the original Basin Team were:Norman Senjem, Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency (co-chair); Mark Dittrich, MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture (co-chair); LarryGates, Department of Natural Resources; JohnNicholson, Natural Resources ConservationService; Art Persons, Minnesota Department ofHealth; Dave Peterson, Board of Water and SoilResources, Judy Sventek, MetropolitanCouncil-Environmental Services; AlleneMoesler, executive director, Cannon RiverWatershed Partnership; and Bea Hoffmann,executive director, Southeastern MinnesotaWater Resources Board.

strategies whereby the environmentalgoals and objectives outlined inWatermarks can be achieved. Thesewill be included in a statewide planscheduled to be published inSeptember 2002.

The ad-hoc basin planning group thatstarted meeting in August 1999contributed to the development of waterquality and land use objectives inWatermarks and, since February 2000,has been developing strategies bywhich these goals and objectives canbe accomplished over the next decade.The planning group calls itself the BasinAlliance for the Lower Mississippi inMinnesota (BALMM). It meets monthlyand is staffed informally by KevinScheidecker, Fillmore Soil & WaterConservation District Manager, whoserves as chair; and Norman Senjem,MPCA-Rochester, who serves as basincoordinator. A secretarial positionstaffed by BWSR-Rochester currently isvacant. Membership includes most ofthose who belong to the Basin Team, inaddition to representatives of manylocal, state, regional and federalagencies.2

2 Participants in BALMM include counties, Soiland Water Conservation Districts, University ofMinnesota-Extension, Minnesota PollutionControl Agency, Minnesota Department ofAgriculture, Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, Board of Water and SoilResources, Natural Resources ConservationService, US Fish and Wildlife Service,Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission; PrairieIsland Indian Community; St. Mary’s UniversityResource Studies Center, SoutheasternMinnesota Water Resources Board, CannonRiver Watershed Partnership and theWhitewater River Watershed Project.

6

In addition to the BALMM activities, twopublic forums were conducted by theMPCA to seek advice and comment onwater quality goals and strategies. Thefirst was held Feb 7, 2000, and thesecond on Nov. 8, 2000, in Rochester.Citizens who had participated in theMay 1999 “The Governor’s Forums:Citizens Speak Out on theEnvironment” in Rochester were invitedto attend a similar event to provideinput into Watermarks on Feb. 7, 2000.County commissioners and waterplanners also were invited, as weremembers of the public through a widelydistributed news release. Thirty-sixpeople participated in the first forum,which made use of keypad technologyto provide instant feedback on how thegroup voted on specific questions.Demographically, the group was evenlysplit among urban, rural-farm and rural-non-farm. Forty-six percent werecitizens, 34 percent government staff,and 20 percent elected officials. Usingthe document Water Plan 2000Objectives: Lower Mississippi/CedarRiver Basins, the group evaluated theadequacy of the Water Quality andEcosystem objectives as a whole, andthen evaluated each of the land-useobjectives from the standpoint of botheffectiveness in accomplishingenvironmental objectives, and thefeasibility of implementing them. Inaddition, the group suggested severaladditional objectives to add to thereport, two of which were subsequentlyadded to the Basin Plan ScopingDocument Geographic ManagementStrategies: Groundwater RechargeAreas; and Floodplain Management).Comments also were used to modifyexisting objectives and indicators.

The second public forum was held onNov. 8, 2000, to provide the public anopportunity to comment on the Draft

Basin Plan Scoping Document. Aninformal Open House was combinedwith a keypad voting session similar tothat used at the first forum. Once again,the discussion and voting focussed onboth the effectiveness and feasibility ofeach strategy. Forty-two individualsparticipated, including citizens (61%);government staff (27%) and electedofficials (12%). Results of the CitizensForum were reviewed at the nextBALMM meeting, and were used torevise the Basin Plan ScopingDocument.

The final strategies for land-use,geographic management andmonitoring included in this Basin PlanScoping Document will be provided tothe Basin Team for inclusion in the“Strategies” portion of Watermarks. Inaddition, they will be further refined anddeveloped by BALMM sub-teams andthrough interaction with basin citizensand stakeholders to develop a finalBasin Plan.

Purpose of Basin Planning

To an ever-increasing extent, waterquality protection and improvementefforts in Minnesota are beingorganized by major drainage basin.Public and private funding sources areshowing a growing preference forworking through basin initiatives ratherthan funding a host of separate,uncoordinated efforts within the samebasin. The purpose of BALMM is tocreate an organized, unified effort in theLower Mississippi/Cedar River basinsthat will:

1. Make the case to the public,elected officials and fundingsources for giving priorityattention to water quality

7

restoration and protection insoutheastern Minnesota;

2. Establish ongoingcoordination of local, state,tribal and federal agencies toplan and implement waterquality protection andrestoration activities that areeconomically andenvironmentally sustainableand reflect local anddownstream issues andpriorities.

The Basin Plan Scoping Document is aguide toward the pursuit of these broadgoals that the BALMM has developed inits first year. As such, it will be used byAlliance members to guide andcoordinate implementation activities inthe basin, even as it continues to berefined and elaborated into a morecomplete Basin Plan. This approachsuits the implementation orientation ofAlliance members while conforming tothe state’s schedule for thedevelopment of basin plans in thecontext of Watermarks.

Making ConnectionsThe core of the Scoping Document isfound in the strategies that have beendeveloped by Alliance members tomanage the land in the context ofwatershed management, aquiferprotection and floodplain managementto achieve environmental goals andobjectives. Goals for Water Quality andQuantity and Ecosystem Health aredescribed in Part IV, while strategies forattaining these goals are described inParts V and VI. Strategies have beendeveloped at the basin scale, for usethroughout the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin, but with a view to makingconnections with land-use planningactivities at both smaller and largergeographic scales. Accordingly, goals

and objectives from comprehensivelocal water plans from counties withinthe basin were collected, organized,and distributed to Alliance members tohelp guide the development ofstrategies. This should help to ensurethat activities undertaken at the basinscale are compatible with andsupportive of land-use activitiesundertaken by counties.

Similarly, an attempt has been made torelate strategies developed forsoutheastern Minnesota to those beingdeveloped for the larger, 189,000square mile Upper Mississippi RiverBasin, defined as the drainage areaupstream of Cairo, Illinois, where theOhio River joins the Mississippi River.Toward this end the Alliance hasreviewed the recently publishedstrategy by the Upper Mississippi RiverConservation Committee, entitled “ARiver that Works and A Working River:A Strategy for the Natural Resources ofthe Upper Mississippi River System.”This strategy lists nine objectives forthe river system as a whole, whichincludes the drainage basin as well asthe main channel and its floodplain. Inparticular, improving water quality for alluses (Objective 1), Reduction inerosion and sediment impacts(Objective 2), and Manage channelmaintenance and disposal to supportecosystem objectives (Objective 7) areexplicitly supported by the BALMMstrategies. Other objectives, which dealwith particular aspects of managing theMississippi River and its floodplain,appear to be less directly related to theland-use management activities of localand state government participating inthe Alliance.

In addition, the Alliance is keepingabreast of developments concerninghypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, its

relationship to nutrient inputs to theMississippi River originating inMinnesota, and the “Draft Action Planfor Reducing, Mitigating and ControllingHypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico”that was developed by the MississippiRiver/Gulf of Mexico Nutrient TaskForce. Concern about nitrate-nitrogencontamination of ground water is high insoutheastern Minnesota’s karst regionof fractured, porous bedrock. Becauseof the close interaction between surfacewater and ground water in karstgeology, this concern extends to thetrend of steadily increasingconcentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in theregion’s rivers. Reversing this trend is a

key water quality goal for the basin thatis seen as supporting efforts to reducenutrient loads to the Gulf of Mexico.

Pool Planning

An attempt will be made also to relatethe management of tributarywatersheds to goals established for themain channel and backwaters ofspecific navigation pools, through poolplanning. Pool plans are beingdeveloped for Pools 1-10 by the Fishand Wildlife Work Group, a sub-groupof the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St.Paul District’s River Resources Forum.

10

II: Basin DescriptionA: OverviewThe Lower Mississippi River Basin,which includes the Cedar River Basinfor planning purposes, is located insoutheastern Minnesota. It includes allor part of 17 counties and has 12 majorwatersheds covering about 7,266square miles (4,650,100 acres). Landuse is diverse. On the western sidelands are primarily cultivated, while theeastern landscapes are dominated bysteep forested hill slopes. About two-thirds of the land in the basin is undercultivation, while about 13 percent isforested. Roughly 17 percent of theland use is open or pasture lands.Major agricultural crops include corn,soybeans and hay. Animal productionincludes dairy and beef cattle, hogs,sheep and lambs. Major populationcenters include the southernMetropolitan area of Dakota County inaddition to Austin, Albert Lea, Faribault,Owatonna, Rochester, Red Wing andWinona. These and other urban areasare experiencing rapid populationgrowth and commercial development.

The basin’s population grew 11.9percent between 1990 and 1998, from539,787 to 603,997, according toMinnesota Planning. Most of the growthhas been in Dakota (23.3 percent),Dodge (10 percent), Olmsted (11.8percent) and Rice (10 percent)counties.

Beautiful bluffs, springs, caves andnumerous trout streams abound in theeastern basin, where steep topographyand erosive soils increase the potentialfor pollutant runoff and sedimentation ofstreams. Sinkholes and disappearingstreams highlight the close connectionbetween surface water and

groundwater in this part of the basin.The presence of fractured limestonebedrock lying close below the landsurface, which is often referred to askarst topography, 3 presents awidespread risk of groundwatercontamination in the eastern basin. Inthe southwestern basin, Mississippitributaries emerge as small streams outof a prairie landscape once rich inwetlands but now extensively drained tosupport a productive agriculture.Further to the north, in the westernCannon River Watershed, remnants ofthe Big Woods hardwood forestintermingle with mixed crop andlivestock farming in a rolling terraininterspersed with lakes and wetlands.On the basin’s eastern border, theMississippi River is shaped by the lock-and-dam system, which converted afree-flowing meandering river into aseries of navigation pools with a nine-foot-deep channel for barge traffic.

The character of rivers and streams inthe Lower Mississippi River Basinschanges considerably along the maindirection of flow, west to east. TheCannon River originates in the lakearea of eastern Le Sueur and westernRice County, a farming region of glacialdrift and moraines. A major tributary,the Straight River, has its marshybeginnings near Owatonna. Theheadwater tributaries of the Zumbro,Root and Cedar Rivers ooze from till

3 Karst is a geologic term used to describe alandscape created over soluble rock withefficient underground drainage. The underlyingrock dissolves over time as surface waterpercolates through the soil and carbon dioxidefrom the air and from biological activity in thesoil combine with the water. The water andcarbon dioxide chemically form a weak carbonicacid that reacts with calcite and dolomite,causing the rock to dissolve slowly to producejoints and cracks.

11

plains and moraines of Steele, Dodge,Mower and Freeborn counties once richin wetlands, now extensively drained foragriculture.

The extent of presettlement wetlands inLower Mississippi Basin counties hasbeen estimated to be approximately880,000 acres. Good estimates ofremaining wetland acreage are notavailable, but considerably less thanhalf of the original wetlands arebelieved to exist today (Anderson andCraig, 1984). The vast majority oforiginal wetland acreage is located onthe western side of the basin in Dodge,Freeborn, Mower, Steele and Wasecacounties. Seventy-nine percent of thelandscape in southeastern Minnesota isclassified as well-drained, and much ofthe land that was poorly drained hasbeen tiled for agricultural production.

After leaving the till plains, the Cannon,Zumbro and Root drop down intodeeper valleys starting near Northfield(Cannon), Zumbrota (Zumbro) andSpring Valley (Root). Hereafter thenetwork of rivers and tributaries is fedby ever-deeper reserves of groundwater. In certain streams, acombination of swiftly moving current,streambeds formed of boulders, cobbleand gravel, and stable flows of cool,oxygen-rich waters support trout andthe aquatic insects on which they feed.Deep pools and undercut banks providerefuge during sunny days and lowwaters, while riffles provide a continuingsource of food.

Stream gradients become steeper asthe rivers approach the MississippiValley. The upper stream valleys in thisdriftless area, which the last glaciationdid not reach, are formed by verticallimestone bluffs, the product of milleniaof erosion through highly soluble

limestone. Snowmelt and heavy rainfallcan induce flash floods in thistopography. Finally, the rivers near theMississippi Valley begin to slow down,lose energy and drop their load ofsediment in alluvial floodplains thathave been inching higher ever sinceglacial times. In recent decades,however, dikes along the lower reachesof the Root and Zumbro havedisconnected the rivers from theiralluvial floodplains, making farming ofthe rich soil possible, at the cost ofincreased sedimentation of theMississippi and the degrading of a richecosystem.

B: History

The Mississippi River valley is theproduct of thousands of years of glacialactivity and water and wind erosion.The first people that lived along theUpper Mississippi River Valley (thestretch between Lake Itasca and theconfluence with the Missouri Riverabove St. Louis) arrived 12,000 yearsago. These early inhabitants werefollowed by a succession of nativecultures that lived near the Mississippiand relied on the river for food.

Some later cultures also farmed on theMississippi floodplains and islands. Forexample, early European explorerswrote of native farming practices onPrairie Island, Minnesota. These earlyexplorers also documented the bountyof the Mississippi River in terms of fishand game:

“Radisson went with huntingparties, and traveled "fourmonths...without doinganything but go from river toriver." He was enamored ofthe beauty and fertility of thecountry, and was astonished

12

at its herds of buffaloes andantelopes, flocks of pelicans,and the shovel-nosedsturgeon, all of which heparticularly described. Suchwas the first year, 1655, ofobservations and explorationby white men in Minnesota,and their earliest navigationof the upper part of theMississippi River.”(Collections of the MinnesotaHistorical Society, Volume10, Part 2, pp. 462-463)

Following the early exploration of theMississippi River in what is nowMinnesota, additional Europeans beganto trickle into this part of the continent.Eventually that trickle became a flood,and European settlers became thepredominant residents of the rivervalley.

Land-Use ChangesAs European immigrants advancedacross the U.S., they left changinglandscapes in their wake. InMinnesota, settlers plowed under theprairie and cut down the forests.Outposts, then towns, then cities grewup on riverbanks. Industry wasestablished on the banks of theMississippi in St. Anthony/Minneapolis,then in St. Paul. All of these activitiestook their toll on the health of theMississippi River.

European settlers weren’t the onlysources of landscape changes in theLower Mississippi River basin,however. Pollen analysis of sedimentcores taken from Lake Pepin shows anincrease in “Big Woods” plant speciessuch as sugar maple and basswoodtrees long before the arrival of mostEuropeans. This landscape change isassociated with a climatic shift to

cooler, wetter conditions that occurredseveral hundred years beforeEuropeans began to settle this part ofthe continent.

During European settlement, thelandscape changed again. Pollenanalysis (again on Lake Pepin sedimentcores) shows a shift from primarily pine,oak, birch, and big woods species togreatly increased amounts of pollenfrom plants like ragweed, which growswell in open fields and cleared areas(Engstrom and Almendinger, 2000).While the exact timing of this shift is notknown, the co-occurrence of thischange with the first appearance ofcorn and wheat pollen suggests that ithappened at about the same time thatwidespread cultivation came toMinnesota, in the 1850’s.

At roughly the same time thatagricultural activities were changing thelandscape of southern Minnesota,logging was altering the Mississippi andSt. Croix River basins to the north, bothof which flow into the Lower Mississippi.Massive logging operations were activein the Upper Mississippi basin betweenabout 1870 and 1915 (Sterner andNunnally, 1999). Hundreds ofthousands of board feet of logs andlumber were sent down the Mississippito the mills of St. Anthony and evenfarther downstream each year. The St.Croix River was also a thoroughfare forthe logging industry, and large millswere built at Stillwater and beyond.The intensive logging left the landsusceptible to erosion, and wasteproducts from the mills were disposedof in the rivers.

Finally, the advent of commercialnavigation on the Mississippi Riverabove St. Louis, Missouri impacted thebasin as well, both directly and

13

indirectly. The arrival of the firststeamboat at Fort Snelling in 1823heralded a new era in rivertransportation in Minnesota, andenormous changes for the river itself.

Navigation and the RiverIt is difficult to over-state the impact ofnavigation on the Mississippi River.The advent of commercial navigation,and the ensuing channel modificationsand lock and dam system, transformedthe Mississippi River above St. Louis,Missouri, from a free-flowing river to asystem of reservoirs interrupted bystretches of altered river. Thesechanges had a profound impact on theriver’s ecology. Today, the existence ofthe navigation system placesboundaries on the extent to which theriver can be restored and managed.

The changes wrought on theMississippi between St. Anthony Fallsand the Minnesota-Iowa border due tonavigation began almost as soon as thefirst steamboat maneuvered upstreamto Fort Snelling and later the falls of St.Anthony. Wood was scavenged or cutfrom the banks of the river to feed thesteam engines. This activity had asignificant impact on the MississippiRiver near St. Louis. On the Minnesotastretch of the river, early steamboattraffic was limited to high-water periodswhen the boats could navigate theshallow Mississippi depths. But thatlimitation was soon to change.

Recognizing that steamboat trafficupstream of the confluence of theMississippi and Missouri Rivers (belowwhich the river became morenavigable) would increase if the riverchannel was “improved,” the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (USACE) beganaltering the Mississippi River channelas early as 1838. In 1878, Congress

authorized the USACE to create a 4.5-foot navigation channel through acombination of dredging and clearingsnags from the river. According to thereport Ecological Status and Trends ofthe Upper Mississippi River System1998:

“Snag clearing …contributed to the instabilityof the river bank becausetrees were removed 100 to200 feet (30 to 60 m) backfrom the shoreline to reducefuture hazards.” (p. 3-5)

Wing dams were another tool used bythe USACE to enhance navigability.These long fingers of rock and willowmats (and later concrete) extendedfrom the shoreline out into the riverchannel, focusing much of the waterflow into the center channel where itwould scour out accumulated sedimentand debris. The wing dams also servedto raise the water level in the mainchannel. Closing dams were alsoconstructed on side channels, to focusthe river flow into the main portion ofthe river.

It didn’t take long before the 4.5-footchannel was seen as inadequate, andin 1907 Congress authorized a six-footchannel project. This was followed by anine-foot channel project in 1930 thatled to the system of locks and damsthat exists on the river today.

Today, 26 locks and dams aidMississippi River navigation betweenMinneapolis and the confluence of theMissouri and Mississippi Rivers belowAlton, Missouri. Eight of these locksand dams are located in Minnesota,between Minneapolis and theMinnesota-Iowa border.

14

Ecological ImpactsAll of the historical changes in theLower Mississippi River Basin haveimpacted this area’s ecologicalsystems. For example, intensiveagriculture and logging left vast tracts ofbare land susceptible to soil erosion.Wind and water erosion sent thousandsof tons of sediment and associatednutrients into the Mississippi River andits tributary streams each year.

Agriculture and logging were not theonly sources of nutrient inputs to theriver. Untreated sewage and industrialwastes from the cities of Minneapolisand St. Paul were disposed of in theriver until the Pig’s Eye Treatment Plant— now called the Metro Plant — wasconstructed in 1933. This contributedto downstream nutrient loading andother problems. For example, a 1927report of the U.S. Public Health Serviceand the U.S. Bureau of Fisheriesindicated that pollution from the TwinCities was so severe that a 45-milestretch of the river below St. Paul couldnot support fish during August 1926due to low dissolved oxygen levels.

This increased flux of sediment andnutrients into the Lower MississippiRiver can be seen in sediment coresamples taken from Lake Pepin.Between shortly after the onset ofEuropean settlement (approx. 1830)and today, sediment loading to LakePepin increased by an order ofmagnitude, and the lake experienced amore than 15-fold increase inphosphorus accumulation in the bottomsediments. These changes are alsoreflected in a shift in diatoms, a type ofalgae, from species associatedprimarily with clear water to those morecommonly seen in nutrient-enrichedlakes. These changes began duringEuropean settlement and have

continued at varying rates into thepresent, with the greatest changes innutrient and sediment loading occurringafter 1940 (Engstrom and Almendinger,2000).

The burgeoning population living alongthe river took its toll in other ways, aswell. Over-fishing led to the nearelimination of some large fish species(Lubinski et. al., 1998, p. 3-6), andnative mussel beds were decimated bypearl hunting and the harvesting ofshells for the active button industry thatgrew up along the river. (For details onover-harvesting of the mussel beds,see Great River: The EnvironmentalHistory of the Upper Mississippi, 1890-1950, Philip V. Scarpino, University ofMissouri Press, 1985, Chapter 3.)

Navigation, and the accompanying riverchannel alterations, has also altered theecology of the river. The ecologicalimpacts of first the wing dams andclosing dams, and then the lock anddam system has been dramatic. Theconstruction of closing dams cut offside streams and backwater areas ofthe river. No longer exposed toperiodic flushing by higher water flows,the backwater areas began to fill withsediment, a problem that wasexacerbated by increased sedimentloading to the river from upstreamlogging and agricultural activities(USGS, 1998, p. 3-4).

Dredging was also done to increase thedepth of the main river channel.Dredge spoils were piled to createchannel border islands, and alsodeposited in shallow areas near theriverbanks, covering those aquatichabitats (USGS, 1998, p. 4-11).Levees were also built to protect thefloodplains—which had become

15

farmlands and cities—from seasonalfloodwaters.

All of this added up to habitat changesfor the Mississippi River. Fishspawning areas were lost, and nativemussel beds either scoured away orsilted over. As mentioned earlier,fisheries were also impacted. Inaddition, the floodplain forestsexperienced a decrease in diversity anda shift to a system dominated by silvermaple (Yin and Nelson, 1995, p. 5).

The construction of the lock and damsystem in the 1930s brought morechanges. The dams slowed flowvelocities, raised water levels andinundated adjacent floodplains. Manyislands disappeared below the risingwater levels, and those that remainedexperienced increased wave erosion.Larger pool areas in the river meant alarger surface area for the wind to blowacross, spurring wave action that stirsup sediment, leading to decreasedwater transparency and declines inaquatic plants.

Not all of the changes led to a decreasein habitat and diversity. New backwaterareas were created as a result of thedams, and some now support diverseplant and animal communities. Newwetlands were created as well.However, at least some of thesehabitats are slowly filling with sedimentdeposited by the river, and there isconcern that eventually these areas willbe lost.

The River TodayToday, advances in wastewatertreatment and best managementpractices have led to water qualityimprovements. Fish and mayflies havereturned to the Mississippi River belowSt. Paul, and numerous bald eagles

return to the river near Lake Pepin andWabasha each year. However,challenges remain. The current lockand dam system limits the impact of“re-setting events”—like floods anddroughts—that once maintained theecological system. Toxic pollutants,while decreasing, still pose a threat tohuman health and wildlife. Nutrientlevels remain elevated in Lake Pepin.These and other problems must beaddressed if the Lower MississippiRiver Basin is to thrive into the future.

C: GeologyThe Lower Mississippi River Basincomprises an area of 5,708 squaremiles in southeastern Minnesota. TheVermillion, Cannon, Zumbro and RootRivers drain most of the basin. Annualprecipitation ranges from 28 to 31inches and increases toward thesoutheast. Annual runoff ranges from5.5 to about 8 inches, increasing fromwest to east. The topography variesfrom gently rolling in the west toplateaus with deeply-incised bedrockvalleys in the east. Row crop agricultureis the primary land use in upland areas,valley slopes are forested, and rivervalleys have a mixture of agricultureand forest.

Bedrock geology consists of alternatinglayers of shale, sandstone, andcarbonates of Paleozoic age. Thesedeposits have been eroded from westto east so that individual formationsvary in their vertical position. Wherecarbonate bedrock is the first bedrock,it may be highly dissolved. Theuppermost bedrock unit is generallyfractured.

Much of the basin has been glaciated,but glacial deposits vary in thicknessfrom several hundred feet in the west to

16

less than 50 feet in the east. Bedrock isoften exposed along the major rivers.Des Moines Lobe till associated withthe Bemis moraine and the Altamountmoraine occur in the extreme west.Most of the western half of the basin iscovered with old gray till. Alluvial andcolluvial deposits occur along the majorrivers in the east. A loess cap occursthroughout most of the basin.

The hydrogeology of the area has beenextensively studied. Despite this,mechanics of flow are not completelyunderstood because of the complexitiesof flow within fractures and solutionchannels. Aquifers are generallyrecharged where they are exposed orhave a thin cover of unconsolidatedmaterial. Ground water flows toward themajor rivers. Vertical mixing of aquifersis most likely in areas where there aresteep hydraulic gradients, such asalong rivers and in buried bedrockvalleys. Fractured flow and local heavypumping also may lead to verticalmixing between aquifers.

The Cedar River Basin comprises anarea of approximately 1,200 squaremiles in south central Minnesota. TheCedar and Shell Rock Rivers andsmaller streams drain southward intoIowa and eventually into the MississippiRiver. Annual precipitation ranges from30 inches in the northern part of thebasin to 31 inches in the south.Average annual runoff varies from 5.5inches in the west to about 6.5 inchesin the east. The area consists primarilyof a flat undulating plain. Row-cropagriculture is the primary land use.

Glacial deposits overlie the entirewatershed and consist of pre-Wisconsindrift in the eastern half of the basin andWisconsin drift in the western half.Glacial deposits range in thickness from

less than 100 feet in the south centralto more than 200 feet in the northeastand northwest. Few wells arecompleted in drift materials becausesupplies are not dependable, theaquifers are susceptible tocontamination, and concentrations ofdissolved solids are very high,particularly in deposits of the Wisconsindrift.

The Upper Carbonate bedrock unitshave typically been classified as asingle aquifer. They consist of theCedar Valley, Maquoketa, Dubuque,and Galena formations. UpperCarbonate deposits underlie the entirebasin. Ground water within theseformations drains toward the majorrivers and streams in a generalsouthward direction. Recharge to theground water system occurs in uplandareas. Water infiltrates through glacialdeposits and moves into the bedrockunits. Bedrock deposits are fracturedand have many solution channels. Flowcan thus be very rapid within thebedrock aquifers. The rate that waterpercolates through the glacial depositsand the chemistry of glacial depositsexert strong controls on water quality ofthe bedrock aquifers. Recentinvestigations indicate there may beconfining bedrock units within theUpper Carbonate deposits. In manyportions of the basin, the UpperCarbonate aquifer is not considered anacceptable drinking water sources dueto actual or potential contamination.

D: Land Use, Landscape Features andWater QualitySteep-sloping land, often underintensive cultivation or development, islocated in close proximity to streams inmany parts of the basin. This isespecially true of the blufflands on theeastern side of the basin and the rolling

17

moraine landforms on the western edgeof the basin, as well as less extensivesteep areas located in between.Approximately 11 percent of the land isnext to permanent streams and about29 percent next to intermittent streams.This indicates a very high potential forsediment delivery to streams as a resultof erosion and runoff.

The National Resource Inventory, astatistical land-use survey conductedevery five years by the NaturalResources Conservation Service,indicates that soil erosion is evenlydistributed across highly erosive andmoderately erosive fields. Erosion ratesare described relative to the amount oferosion that land can tolerate (T)without impairing its productivecapacity. Land eroding at “T” , whichusually amounts to about 3 to 5 tonsper acre, is thus able to maintain itsproductive capacity.

Results of the 1997 NRI indicate that61,200 acres of cultivated cropland inthe Lower Mississippi River Basin areeroding at a rate of 4T or greater. Thisland comprises only 2.2% of thecultivated cropland in the basin, butaccounts for 16% or the total watererosion in the region from cultivatedcropland. Also according to the 1997NRI, 154,700 acres of cultivatedcropland in the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin are eroding at a rate of 2T - 4T.This land comprises only 5.5% of thecultivated cropland in the basin, butaccounts for 19% of the total soil lossfrom water erosion from in the regionfrom cultivated cropland. However, themajority of soil erosion – an estimated65% -- comes from the remainder ofcropland which erodes at moderate andlow rates of soil loss – an estimated2,597,000 acres. Collectively, itappears that these moderately eroding

acres contribute the bulk of agriculturalsediment to the region’s streams.

Soil erosion and runoff are greatlyaffected by land use – particularly, howthe land use affects surface roughnessand the ability to infiltrate water. Well-managed pasture and hay land providevast areas where rainfall and snowmeltcan infiltrate the soil and rechargeshallow groundwater rather thanrunning off the surface and carryinghigh water volumes and pollutants tostreams.

Data from the NRI show a steadydecline in pastureland and erraticfluctuations in noncultivated croplandfrom 1982 to 1997. Together, acreagein these two land-use categoriesdeclined from 628,000 acres in 1982 to448,000 acres in 1997, a decline of180,000 acres, or 28 percent. Forestedacreage increased slightly over thesame period, from 574,000 to 590,000acres.

Although reasons for declining acreageof pasture and noncultivated croplandwere not identified in the NRI study,conversion from mixed crop/livestockfarming to larger, more specialized row-crop operations appears to be playing amajor role. In Olmsted County, forexample, data from the MinnesotaAgricultural Statistics Service indicatethat major crop acreage has changedsignificantly over the past 25 years.There has been a shift from a forage-small grain-corn rotation to a corn-soybean rotation. From 1975 to 1998,soybeans have replaced one-third ofthe alfalfa hay acres and more thaneighty percent of the harvest oatsacreage. Soybean acres haveincreased from 29,900 in 1975 to67,600 acres in 1998 (Wotzka andBruening).

18

Sources: Section IIAnderson, Jeffrey, and William Craig,1984,”Growing Energy Crops onMinnesota’s Wetlands: The Land-UsePerspective,” Center for Urban andRegional Affairs, University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis

Engstrom, Daniel R., and James E.Almendinger, 2000, “Historical Changesin Sediment and Phosphorus Loadingto the Upper Mississippi River: Massbalance Reconstructions from theSediments of Lake Pepin,” St. CroixWatershed Research Station, ScienceMuseum of Minnesota, Marine on St.Croix, Minnesota

Hoops, Richard. 1987. A River ofGrain: The Evolution of CommercialNavigation on the Upper MississippiRiver. University of Wisconsin-Madison, College of Agricultural andLife Sciences Research Report.Madison, WI.

Minnesota Historical Society,Collections of the Minnesota HistoricalSociety, Volume 10, Part 2, 1905

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,1999, “Baseline Ground Water QualityInformation for Minnesota’s TenSurface Water Basins,” MPCA GroundWater Monitoring and AssessmentProgram, web site athttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/gwpubs.html/#reports

Scarpino, Philip V., EnvironmentalHistory of the Upper Mississippi, 1890 –1950, University of Missouri Press,1985

Sterner, Robert and Patrick Nunnally.1999. Ecological Trends in the UpperMississippi Basin: A Combined

Historical and Ecological Approach.Report submitted to the MinnesotaPollution Control Agency EnvironmentalTrends Project.

University of Minnesota, “LowerMississippi River Basin InformationPage”, Department of Soil, Water andClimate.http://www.soils.agri.umn.edu/research/seminn/

US Army Corps of Eng., 2000.

US Department of Agriculture, NaturalResources Conservation Service,National Resources Inventory, 1982,1987, 1992, and 1997Waters, Tom, 1977, Streams andRivers of Minnesota, University ofMinnesota Press, Minneapolis

US Geological Survey, 1999,“Ecological Status and Trends of theUpper Mississippi River System 1998:A Report of the Long-Term ResourceMonitoring Program,” LTRMP 99-T001,Upper Midwest Environmental SciencesCenter, La Crosse, WisconsinWotzka, Paul and Denton Breuning,2000, “A Small-Scale WatershedAssessment of Nitrogen Inputs andLosses for A Southeastern MinnesotaTrout Stream,” Minnesota Departmentof Agriculture, St. Paul

Yin, Yao, and John T. Nelson. 1995.Modifications to the Upper MississippiRiver and Their Effects on FloodplainForests, Long Term ResourceMonitoring Program Technical Report95-T003. Prepared for NationalBiological Service EnvironmentalManagement Technical Center.Onalaska, WI.

http://www.soils.agri.umn.edu/research/seminn/

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/gwpubs.html/#reports

19

III: Water Quality

A: Basinwide Surface WaterQuality Conditions and Trends

Summary:

Water quality monitoring data from theMississippi River and its tributaries insoutheastern Minnesota present asomewhat mixed picture. The currentcondition of surface water in the basinmust be described as impaired and inneed of restoration with regard toseveral types of pollutants – mainlythose for which numerical water qualitystandards exist. A review of historicalwater quality monitoring data in thebasin has identified widespreadimpairments indicated by exceedencesof the water quality standards forturbidity4 and fecal coliform bacteria5,and isolated exceedences of thestandard for un-ionized ammonia.6Of 42 stream reach impairments on theSection 303(d) list7, 20 are for fecal

4 The ambient water quality standard forturbidity (Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050.0222)for most waters is 25 nephelometric turbidityunits (NTUs); for cold-water streams (Class 2A)the standard is 10 NTUs.5 The ambient water quality standard for fecalcoliform bacteria (Minnesota Rules Chapter7050.0222) for most waters of the state appliesbetween April 1 and October 31 and is dividedinto two parts: 1) 200 organisms per 100milliliters (not to exceed a geometric mean ofnot less than 5 samples per calendar month, or2) 2000 organisms per 100 milliliters (no morethan 10 percent of the samples per calendarmonth can individually exceed.)6

7 The 303(d) list of Impaired Water Bodies is areporting requirement of Section 303(d) of theClean Water Act. The MPCA generates this listevery two years, based on an evaluation ofwater quality monitoring data in STORET. TheClean Water Act requires the U.S. EPA and

coliform bacteria, 19 are for turbidity,and four are for un-ionized ammonia.

The MPCA is required under the CleanWater Act to publish a list of streamsegments which have impaired uses,and for which the MPCA proposes tocomplete total maximum daily load(TMDL) studies. TMDL studies definethe maximum amount of each pollutantwhich can be released and assimilatedin the receiving water from point andnonpoint sources and still allow thereceiving water to achieve water qualitystandards. The MPCA is required to listand prioritize stream segments. The1998 list of impaired waters is based ona relatively small number of monitoringstations whose locations weredetermined by specific needs notnecessarily related to watershedassessment. Thus, the list of impairedwaters did not result from acomprehensive survey of water quality.Prioritization decisions are based onproblem severity, relative importance ofthe stream segment, and availability ofresources to conduct the TMDL work.As the basin planning process islaunched in the Lower Mississippi Riverbasin, water quality problems will beidentified and prioritized, resulting inpossible modifications of the list below:

states to develop a pollution budget, or TotalMaximum Daily Load, for each listedimpairment.

20

303(d) IMPAIRED WATERS 1998LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN

Mississippi River, Pine Cr. to Root R.07040006-001 Aquatic life Ammonia5, 6 2004//2007

Mississippi River, LaCrosse R. to Pine Cr.07040006-002 Aquatic life Ammonia5, 6 2004//2007

Reach River Reach# Lake # Affected use Pollutant or stressor Target start//completion 7

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN, LowerPortion (cont'd)

Mississippi River, Trimble R. to Cannon R.07040001-006 Aquatic life Ammonia5, 6 2004//2007

Garvin Brook, Headwaters to Mississippi R.07040003-023 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2002//2006

Root River, S. Fk. Root R. to Mississippi R.07040008-001 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2001//2005

*** 07040008-002 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2001//2005Straight River, Maple Cr. to Crane Cr.

07040002-021 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//2007Zumbro River, South Fork, Cascade Cr. To Middle Fk. Zumbro R.

07040004-016 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2000//2004Whitewater River, South Fork, Source to Split at 122 S. Fk. Whitewater R.

07040003-222 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2002//2006Robinson Creek, Headwaters to N. Br. Root R.

07040008-418 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2001//2005Prairie Creek, Headwaters to Cannon R.

07040002-033 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 1999//2003Salem Creek, Split at 220 to S. Fr. Zumbro R.

07040004-120 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2000//2004Whitewater River, North Fork, Unnamed Cr. to Middle Fk. Whitewater R.

07040003-120 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2002//2006Vermillion River, Headwaters to S. Br. Vermillion R.

07040001-312 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//2007Vermillion River, S. Br. Vermillion R. to the Hastings Dam

07040001-212 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//2007Cannon River, Pine Cr. To Mississippi R.

*** 07040002-002 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//200707040002-001 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2003//2007

Mississippi River, La Crosse R. to Root R.

21

*** 07040006-001 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//200807040006-002 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2008

Mississippi River, Root R. to Coon Cr.07060001-021 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2008

Garvin Brook, Headwaters to Mississippi R.07040003-023 Aquatic life Turbidity 2002//2006

Mississippi River, Hay Cr. to Lake Pepin07040001-204 Aquatic life Turbidity 2003//2007

Root River, Thompson Cr. to Mississippi R.07040008-001 Aquatic life Turbidity 2001//2005

Reach River Reach# Lake # Affected use Pollutant or stressor Target start//completion 7

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN, LowerPortion (cont'd)

Mississippi River, L&D #3 to Trimble R.07040001-108 Aquatic life Turbidity 2003//2008

Mississippi River, Trimble R. to Cannon R.07040001-006 Aquatic life Turbidity 2003//2008

Mississippi River, Coon Cr. to L&D 807060001-217 Aquatic life Turbidity 2004//2008

Zumbro River, Indian Cr. to Mississippi R.07040004-001 Aquatic life Turbidity 2000//2004

Vermillion River, Dam to Mississippi R.07040001-112 Aquatic life Turbidity 1999//2003

Mississippi River, Lk. Pepin to Rush R.07040001-104 Aquatic life Turbidity 2003//2008

Cannon R, Belle Cr. to Mississippi R.07040002-001 Aquatic life Turbidity 1999//2003

Mississippi River, Root R. to Coon Cr.07060001-021 Aquatic life Turbidity 2004//2008

Whitewater River, Whitewater R., N.Fk. to Mississippi R.07040003-018 Aquatic life Turbidity 2002//2006

Whitewater River,N. Fk., Unnamed Cr. to Middle Fk. Whitewater R.07040003-120 Aquatic life Turbidity 2002//2006

Mississippi River, Zumbro R. to Whitewater R.07040003-008 Aquatic life Turbidity 2004//2008

CEDAR-DES MOINES RIVER BASIN

Des Moines River Below Windom Dam, Windom Dam to Jackson dam07100001-101 Aquatic life Ammonia4,5 2004//2007

Shell Rock River, Albert Lea Lake to Goose Cr.07080202-009 Aquatic life Ammonia5 2004//2007

22

Des Moines River, Windom Dam to Jackson Dam07100001-101 Aquatic life Low Oxygen2 2002//2007

Cedar River, Roberts Cr. to Austin Dam upper07080201-321 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2007

Cedar River, Rose Cr. to Woodbury Cr.07080201-016 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2007

Shell Rock River, Albert Lea Lk. to Goose Cr.07080202-009 Swimming Fecal Coliform3 2004//2007

Des Moines River, Windom Dam to Jackson Dam07100001-101 Aquatic life Turbidity 2002//2007

In addition, 17 lakes in the basin areimpaired by severe algae blooms thatresult from excess nutrients. Nutrientlevels in streams are monitored, but thelack of numeric ambient water qualitystandards makes it difficult to evaluatewhether monitored concentrations arecausing impairments. Impairments forboth fecal coliform bacteria and turbidityfrequently occur in the lower reaches ofthe basin’s major tributaries as well asfar upstream in the watersheds.

On the positive side, a long-termevaluation of the MPCA’s 16 MinnesotaMilestone monitoring sites in the LowerMississippi/Cedar River basins showssignificant improvements in theconcentration of certain pollutants andno trend in others over the past threedecades.

� Un-ionized ammoniaconcentrations decreased atall 16 sites.

� Biochemical oxygen demand(BOD) concentrationsdecreased at all but one site(on the Vermillion River);

� Total Phosphorus decreasedat 11 sites and remainedunchanged at 5 sites.

� Fecal Coliform Bacteriaconcentrations declined at 8sites and showed no trend at8 sites.

� Total suspended Solids(TSS) concentrations showedno trend at 11 sites, declinedat 4 sites and showed anincrease at two sites (both onthe Mississippi River)

� Nitrate Nitrogenconcentrations showed anincreasing trend at 12 sitesand no change at four sites.

Many of these positive trends likelyhave resulted from the installation ofsecondary (biological) or furthertreatment for point source dischargersin the basin. However, despite thesepositive and neutral trends,concentrations of many pollutantsremain high enough to causewidespread water quality impairments.The ubiquitous and substantialincreases in nitrate nitrogenconcentrations is thought to be relatedto manure and commercial nutrientapplications to row-cropped fields.Many fields have been extensivelydrained with subsurface tile, which actas efficient conveyors of nitrate nitrogento surface water. In addition,wastewater treatment facilities withammonia effluent limits convertammonia to the nitrate form of nitrogen.

Cedar River Basin Lower Mississippi River Basin

Prairie

Cr (F

)

Zumbro R (T)

Gar

vin B

r (F,

T)

Root R, S Fk (F)

Root R(F,T)

Robins

on Cr (F

)

Whitewate

r

R (T)

Stra ig ht R (F)

Salem Cr (F)

Ced

a r R

(F)

Shell Rock R (A ,F)

Vermillion R (F)

Cannon R (F) Mississippi R

N FkWhitewater R

S FkWhitewater R (F)

S F k Zu mbro R

(F )

(F, T)

(F,T)(T)

(T)

(A,T)

(T)

Mississippi R (T)

Mississippi R

(T )

(F)

(F,T)

Mis si ss ip pi R

(A,F )

Dakota

Scott

Lesueur

Rice

Goodhue

Wabasha

Winona

Olmsted

DodgeSteeleWaseca

Freeborn MowerFillmore Houston

BlueEarth

Cedar and Lower MississippiRiver Basins

1999 Impaired Waters List(per Section 303(d) Clean Water Act)

Watershed BoundaryRiverCounty Boundary

Affected UseAquatic Life

BothSwimming

Pollutant, Stressor, or Indicator:A - AmmoniaF - Fecal ColiformsT - Turbidity

25

B: Mississippi River WaterQuality

Water quality in the Mississippi Rivervaries considerably along the 146.5river miles between confluence with theSt. Croix River just southeast of St.Paul, southward to the Iowa border.Several complicating factors make thisstretch of river unique and challengingto describe with simple measurementsof water quality.The first, and most obvious, is the lock-and-dam system that forms ninenavigation pools adjacent to Minnesota(29 for the entire Upper MississippiRiver) within which a nine-foot-deepnavigation channel is maintained tosupport commercial barge traffic. Thissystem, installed in the 1930s, hasfundamentally changed the river and itspotential uses by converting a free-flowing river meandering through abroad floodplain, into a series of poolsthat cover the floodplain withslackwater. Within the navigationpools it is useful to distinguish betweenthe flowing water of the main channel,and the side channels and backwaters,when describing water quality and itsconnection to aquatic life support.

A second structural factor that greatlyinfluences water quality of theMississippi is the presence of LakePepin, which was formed naturally fromalluvial sediment deposits at the mouthof the Chippewa River. Because LakePepin acts as a settling basin forsediments and attached contaminants,water quality differs quite dramaticallyupstream and downstream of LakePepin.

1. Water Quality: Lake Pepin and theRiver Upstream

Two dominant influences on waterquality in the 60 river miles betweenLake Pepin and upstream through Pool2 are the Minnesota River and theMetropolitan Twin Cities area. TheMinnesota River contributes more than80 percent of the average annualsediment load to Lake Pepin, and ischiefly responsible for the filling-in ofthe lake at a rate roughly 10 times thatwhich prevailed in pre-settlement times(before 1840). Approximately 17percent of the lake volume in 1830 hasbeen replaced by sediment. If currentrates of sedimentation continue, LakePepin will fill in after approximately 340years rather than 4,000 years withoutaccelerated sediment loading. In lessthan a century the upper third of Pepinwill be filled in. The rate of phosphorusaccumulation has increased 15-foldover the same period. Currently, theMinnesota River contributesapproximately half the load ofphosphorus and viable chlorophyll a (ameasure of algae) to Lake Pepin on anaverage annual basis. During low flowperiods of concern, half the load ofchlorophyll comes from the UpperMississippi River Basin. Thiscontributes to chronic problemsassociated with algal production.Upstream of Lake Pepin, sediment fromthe Minnesota River makes theMississippi River much more turbidthan it otherwise would be, limiting thediversity of aquatic life includingmussels and submersed aquaticvegetation.

The Metropolitan Twin Cities area alsoexerts a powerful influence on theMississippi River through Lake Pepin.This is a result of the density ofpopulation (more than 3 million)combined with the relatively small

26

discharge of the river in themetropolitan area (310 cubic metersper second on average, compared to520,000 cubic meters per second nearthe mouth of the Mississippi River).This produces a “population stress”level of about 10,000 people per squaremeter of river flow per second, thehighest of any point on the MississippiRiver.

The 60-mile reach downstream of theMetropolitan area was polluted withsewage for many decades. Thisresulted in frequent depletion ofdissolved oxygen, which adverselyaffected fish and other pollution-sensitive organisms. This situationprevailed until the mid-1980s, afterwhich time improvements in the MetroPlant, the state’s largest sewagetreatment facility, were introduced. TheMetro Plant was built to provide primarytreatment in 1938; secondary treatmentwas added in 1978. More recently,additional treatment for ammonia wasadded; and biological phosphorusremoval is being introduced at theMetro Plant and other facilities operatedby the Metropolitan Council in the nearfuture. The separation of storm waterfrom the sanitary sewage collectionsystem completed in 1995 has furtherreduced pollution pressure by virtuallyeliminating the need for sewagetreatment bypasses during stormevents in the Metro area.

Ammonia toxicity problems havediminished in frequency as a result ofthese improvements, and it is hopedthat phosphorus reductions from theMetro Plant, combined with plannedreductions from point and nonpointsources in the Minnesota River, willhelp to reduce algal bloom frequencyand duration in Lake Pepin, especiallyin vulnerable low-flow periods when

point sources provide the bulk ofphosphorus to the river. The last suchperiod was summer 1988, when asevere drought resulted in very lowflows, algal blooms, oxygen depletionand resulting fish kills in Lake Pepin.

Toxic chemicals became a majorpollution problem in the Mississippifollowing World War II, when thesynthetic-organic chemical industryrapidly expanded and introducedthousands of new chemicals, whicheventually found their way into thenation’s rivers. By 1950, the MississippiRiver had been significantly degradedby chemicals such as mercury andpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).Following the banning of PCBs in the1970s, concentration in sedimentsdecreased greatly. Bed sedimentsdeposited during the 1950s and 1960sretain extremely high levels of PCBs(2000 to 3000 nanograms per gram) inPool 2; thus, contaminated sedimentscould remain a problem for years tocome. USGS sampling from 1987 to1992 showed that bed-sedimentconcentrations of mercury in LakePepin exceeded 0.18micrograms/gram, a level that has beenshown to increase the mortality rates infish, embryos, eggs and larvae8. Insurficial bed sediments, PCBconcentrations are high below the TwinCities, reach a peak in Lake Pepin, anddecline sharply downriver.

High organic-carbon concentrations inthe presence of mercury in the bed 8 Birge, W.J., Block, J.A., Westerman, A.G.,Francis, P.C., and Hudson, J.E., 1977,Embryopathic effects of waterborne andsediment-accumulated cadmium, mercury andzinc on reproduction and survival of fish andamphibian populations in Kentucky: USDepartment of Interior, Research Report 100,Washington, D.C., 28 p.

27

sediments increase the methylation rateof mercury and subsequently increasethe absorption and retention of mercuryin fish and human tissues. TheMississippi River between Lake Pepinand the Twin Cities is one of the areaswhere this is most likely to occur.

Recent water quality monitoring datashow that the Mississippi Riverupstream of Lake Pepin is impaired byturbidity and ammonia. The MPCA liststhe Mississippi River from Lock andDam 3 through Lake Pepin as impairedby turbidity. The lower reach of theVermillion River, which at higher flowsexchanges water with the Mississippi,also is listed as impaired by turbidity. Inaddition, a short reach between theTrimbelle River and the Cannon Riveris impaired by un-ionized ammonia.

USGS monitoring from 1987 to 1992showed that average concentrations ofherbicides were below maximumcontaminant levels of drinking-waterstandards established by the US EPA.However, it is not known whetheragricultural chemicals and theirmetabolites adversely affect aquaticlife. Concentrations of dissolved heavymetals are well below maximumcontaminant levels, but concentrationsin suspended and deposited sedimentoften exceed maximum contaminantlevels, and toxics accumulated in bedsediments remain a potential threat toriverine biota.

The Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources’ Mississippi-Lower St. CroixTeam has identified positive trends inseveral water quality parameters afterexamining two decades of monitoringdata. In the last 20 years, significantdecreasing trends were noted for fecalcoliform bacteria, un-ionized and totalammonia nitrogen in the upper study

area (Lock & Dam 3 and 4). Dissolvedoxygen concentrations and dissolvedoxygen saturation exhibited a smallincreasing trend over the same period.Municipal point source pollutionabatement activities, particularly in theTwin Cities Metropolitan Area, werelikely important management activitiesinfluencing these positiveimprovements. However,nitrite+nitrate nitrogen concentrationsand loading increased significantly atLock and Dam 3 and 4. But when allforms of inorganic nitrogen wereconsidered, only a small increasingtrend was observed at Lock & Dam 4.

A Water Quality Assessment Reportpublished in 1999 by the WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resourcesindicates that concentrations of PCBshave been gradually decreasing atmonitoring sites near Lock and Dam 3and Lock and Dam 4 on the MississippiRiver. This assessment is based onlong-term monitoring of suspendedsediment contaminant concentrations atthese two sites since 1987. Suspendedsediment contaminant trends for leadand mercury are less obvious, althoughthere appears to be a decline in leadand mercury concentrations at Lockand Dam 3. These trends incontaminant reduction were credited topast pollution abatement efforts toreduce the use or discharge of thesecontaminants.

Suspended sediment in river waterrepresents a major portion ofcontaminant transport, especially inturbid rivers such as the MississippiRiver. Organic chemicals that do notdissolve readily in water (such asPCBs, organochlorine pesticides andheavy metals) adsorb to fine-grainedsuspended sediment particles,especially those high in organic matter

28

content. Some sources of contaminantinput include runoff from urban andagricultural land use, deposition fromcoal and waste incineration,resuspension of contaminated bedsediments, and wastewater discharges.

Concentrations of PCBs, lead andmercury in suspended sedimentsnormally were higher in samplescollected from Lock and Dam 3 than atLock and Dam 4. This is due to thecloser proximity to the Twin CitiesMetropolitan area, a major source ofthese contaminants. Lake Pepin acts asa natural sediment trap, which results indecreased transport of thesecontaminants downstream.

2. Water Quality Downstream ofLake Pepin

In some respects the Mississippi River“starts over” at Lake Pepin. As notedabove, concentrations of heavy metalsdrop sharply. Nutrient enrichment andconsequent hyper-eutrophication is nota recurring, widespread problem, as itis in Lake Pepin and further north inSpring Lake. Impairments forammonia, fecal coliform bacteria andturbidity are clustered toward thesouthern stretches of the river, betweenthe confluence with the LaCrosse Riverand the Iowa border.

Sediment is a widespread and recurringproblem both in the main channel andslackwater areas of all navigation pools.Continual deposition of large-particlesediments (sand) in the main channelnecessitate regular dredging and amassive river channel maintenanceprogram to maintain the 9-footnavigation channel. Much of the large-particle sediments originate inChippewa River. Other tributaries andupstream river channel scouring alsoare sources of large-particle sediment.

Dredging itself as well as relatedactivities such as transport and storageand dewatering of dredge spoils withinthe flood plain, are potential sources ofpollution.

Finer-particle sediments (silt and clay)from tributaries and points upstream(the Minnesota River, for example) tendto settle out in side-channels andbackwater areas where water movesvery slowly. In the decades since theLock-and-Dam system wasconstructed, backwater areas that oncewere lakes, old river channels, oxbowsand wetlands, have been filled in withseveral feet of fine-particle sedimentfrom upstream sources. The surficialsediments are not consolidated, andare easily resuspended by wind orturbulence caused by recreational andcommercial boat propellers.

Many backwater areas of theMississippi supported dense beds ofaquatic plants before an abrupt declinein the late 1980s. High levels of turbiditycontinue to hinder the re-establishmentand recovery of submersed aquaticvegetation in these areas by keepinglight from penetrating to the river bed.Continued deposition and resuspensionof sediment in backwaters also hastended to produce a uniform depth ofwater which results in a less diversebiological community. A recent increasein submersed aquatic vegetation inPools 5-9 has been accompanied by anapparent decline in turbidity.

The rapid spread of zebra mussels intothe Upper Mississippi River is quicklybecoming a major water quality issue.Zebra mussels were first discoverednear La Crosse in 1991. Since then, thepopulation and distribution of zebramussels have expanded greatly. Thehighest concentrations have been

29

found on hard substrates in flowingwater with moderate to low suspendedsolid concentrations. Densitiesexceeding several thousand individualsper square meter have been found insome portions of the river. Zebramussel populations upstream of LakePepin are very low and are likelynegatively affected by high suspendedsolid concentrations from the MinnesotaRiver.

Unusually low dissolved oxygenconcentrations were detected in partsof the Mississippi River where zebramussel populations were high, duringearly summer periods of 1997and 1998.Water clarity improved dramatically inportions of the river in late summer1997, which may have resulted fromthe filter-feeding activity of zebramussels. Perhaps the most seriousimpact of zebra mussels is on nativemussel populations in the river. Nativemussels are being smothered by highconcentrations of zebra mussels thatattach themselves to the nativemussel’s shell. This greatly reduces theability of native mussels to filter-feed.In addition, waste products from zebramussels may be harmful to nativemussels.

C: Water Quality of MajorMississippi Tributaries

The major tributaries to the Mississippiare listed north to south, accompaniedby a brief summary of water qualityresource issues:

Vermillion River: This stream originatesin the south metro area near Lakeville,and discharges into the Mississippinear Redwing. The headwaters area ofthe Vermillion includes reachesclassified for a trout fishery, which are

threatened by urban development, lackof shading, high temperature andunstable hydrology. The Vermillion isimpaired by excess levels of fecalcoliform from the headwaters to thedam in Hastings, and by excessturbidity in the lower reach that runsparallel to the Mississippi River.Sediment exchange between theVermillion and Mississippi Rivers athigh flow complicates the turbidityproblem. Recent monitoring shows thatriverine lakes along the lower reach ofthe Vermillion are impacted by excessphosphorus. Urbanization, streamcorridor protection from agriculturalpractices and development, and theMetropolitan Council’s Empirewastewater treatment facility are amongthe most significant concerns. Long-term monitoring of the Vermillion fourmiles northeast of Farmington indicatesdecreasing concentrations of totalsuspended solids and un-ionizedammonia, and increasingconcentrations of BOD5 and nitrate-nitrogen.

Cannon River: The Cannon Riverenters the Mississippi Riverimmediately upstream of Lake Pepin.Riverine reservoirs including CannonLake and Lake Byllesby often sufferfrom hyper-eutrophication, the result ofexcessive loads of phosphorus frompoint and nonpoint sources. The latterinclude feedlots, excess fertilizer andmanure use, and soil erosion. Riverinelakes at the mouth of the Cannon alsomay be impacted by phosphorus. Fecalcoliform bacteria levels are highthroughout the Cannon River and itsmajor tributaries. The northern portionof the watershed is experiencing rapidurban development, partially a result ofmore Twin Cities commuters. Thelower reach of the Cannon is impairedby excess turbidity, which is likely a

30

result of excessive soil erosion from thesurrounding hilly terrain combined withstreambank erosion. The Straight River,a major tributary that runs parallel to thedeveloping Interstate 35 corridor, isimpaired by fecal coliform bacteria.Long-term monitoring at the mouth ofthe Cannon show decreasingconcentrations of BOD5 ,un-ionizedammonia, total suspended solids, totalphosphorus and fecal coliform bacteriaover past decades.

U.S. Geological Survey monitoring from1984 to 1993 was evaluated for theNational Water Quality AssessmentProgram (NAWQA) in the CannonRiver. The assessment showed thatthe greatest loads and yields of nitratenitrogen and total phosphorus in boththe Straight River (near Faribault) andCannon River (near Welch) occurred inspring and summer. Nitrate nitrogenconcentrations exceeded the MaximumContaminant Level of 10 milligrams perliter on the Straight River during springand summer of 1990. The StraightRiver, a large tributary that enters theCannon River at Faribault, was found tocontribute disproportionately to nutrientloads in the Upper Mississippi. Yield oftotal nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen was8.22 tons per square mile per year, onaverage, more than twice the amountestimated for the Minnesota River andseven times the amount for theVermillion River. The yield of totalphosphorus was 0.30 tons/squaremile/year, three times that of theMinnesota River, and six times the levelin the Vermillion River. In an UpperMississippi River Basin NAWQA Studyof snowmelt runoff, concentrations ofnitrate nitrogen, dissolved ammonianitrogen and total phosphorus in theCannon River watershed were amongthe highest in the study area.

Zumbro River: Like the Cannon River,the Zumbro River is impairedthroughout by excessive concentrationsof fecal coliform bacteria. Zebramussels were detected in Lake Zumbroin September 2000, the first time thisexotic species has been found inMinnesota outside of the MississippiRiver and the Duluth-Superior harborwhere it is a major nuisance. LakeZumbro also suffers from hyper-eutrophication, but has improvedsomewhat since phosphorus controlswere introduced at the Rochester WaterReclamation Plant. Additionalreductions from point and nonpointsources are needed. The Zumbro alsois considered a source of nitrates thatcontribute to the contamination of theaquifer that supplies drinking water tothe City of Rochester. A Clean WaterPartnership for the South Fork wasinitiated to address this problem. Thelower Zumbro is impaired by highsuspended sediment concentrations.Sediment and phosphorous dischargedfrom the Zumbro at times may impairaquatic vegetation in Weaver Bottomsin the Mississippi. Long-term monitoringof the south fork of the Zumbrodownstream of Rochester showsdecreasing concentrations of BOD5 , un-ionized ammonia and total phosphorus,and an increasing trend in nitrate-nitrogen concentrations over pastdecades.

Whitewater River: The WhitewaterRiver supports a healthy population ofbrown trout, and is the centerpiece ofone of the state’s most popular parks.Impairments from excessive sedimentand bacteria limit its uses. The MPCA,Natural Resources ConservationService and other state and federalagencies are assisting localgovernment in a major watershedimprovement effort focused mainly on

31

sediment reduction and habitatimprovement. These efforts will alsohelp to protect the Weaver Bottoms inthe Mississippi River. Long-termmonitoring indicates that averageconcentrations of BOD5 and un-ionizedammonia have been decreasing overpast decades, while nitrate nitrogenconcentrations have been increasing. Inthe 1990s decade, the meanconcentration of nitrate nitrogen was8.90 mg/l, the highest level recorded atlong-term monitoring stations in thebasin.

Root River: The Root River originates inthe Western Corn Belt Plains ecoregiondominated by intensive agricultural landuses, and flows into the DriftlessRegion which is more wooded, rollingkarst terrain where groundwater flowsprovide stream temperatures suitablefor trout. High concentrations of fecalcoliform bacteria and sediment impairthe Root River, limiting its suitability forrecreation and for aquatic life support.The mean concentration of totalsuspended solids at the mouth of theriver was 99 mg/l during the 1990s,more than twice as high as any othermonitored major tributary in the basin.Concentrations of BOD5, TotalPhosphorus, un-ionized ammonia andfecal coliform bacteria have been

decreasing over past decades, whilenitrate-nitrogen concentrations havebeen increasing.

Cedar and Shell Rock Riverwatersheds. These two watershedsdischarge into the Cedar River in Iowa,where the vast majority of thewatershed acreage is located. Fecalcoliform bacteria concentrations arehigh enough to cause both streams tobe impaired on the Minnesota side ofthe border. The Cedar River is listed asimpaired by nitrate-nitrogen and fecalcoliform bacteria by the IowaDepartment of Natural Resources.Long-term monitoring has beenconducted at two sites on the CedarRiver and one site on the Shell RockRiver. A monitoring site north of Austinon the Cedar shows decreasingconcentrations of BOD5, totalphosphorus and un-ionized ammonia. Amonitoring site south of Austin,downstream, shows decreasingconcentrations of BOD5 , totalphosphorus, un-ionized ammonia andfecal coliform bacteria, with an increasein nitrate-nitrogen concentrations. TheShell Rock River shows decreasingconcentrations of BOD5, totalsuspended solids and un-ionizedammonia, and increasingconcentrations of nitrate-nitrogen.

32

Long-Term Water Quality Trends in the Lower Mississippi River Basin

Cannon River at Br on CSAH-7 atWelch (CA-13)

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s overalltrend

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)

3.3 --- --- 2.5 2.5 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- --- --- 22.8 15.1 decreaseTotal Phosphorus --- --- --- 0.26 0.18 decreaseNitrite/Nitrate --- --- --- 3.00 3.90 no trendUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0060 0.0040 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- --- --- 139 52 decrease

Cedar River at CSAH-4, 3 Miles S ofAustin (CD-10)



--- 5.2 5.8 3.1 2.4 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- 31.0 30.5 23.4 28.8 no trendTotal Phosphorus --- 0.64 0.72 0.43 0.36 decreaseNitrite/Nitrate --- --- 3.20 3.90 5.45 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0135 0.0070 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- 2,307 697 199 280 decrease

Cedar River at CSAH-2, 0.5 Miles E ofLansing (CD-24)

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s


--- 3.3 3.0 1.9 1.4 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- 23.0 25.5 18.9 21.1 no trendTotal Phosphorus --- 0.18 0.28 0.19 0.16 decreaseNitrite/Nitrate --- --- --- 4.40 6.55 no trendUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0060 0.0030 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- 409 589 302 374 no trend

Garvin Brook at CSAH-23, SW ofMinnesota City (GB-4.5)



--- --- --- 1.6 1.4 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- --- --- 85.8 35.5 no trendTotal Phosphorus --- --- --- 0.25 0.13 no trendNitrite/Nitrate --- --- --- 1.30 1.70 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0050 0.0040 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- --- --- 670 851 no trend

Units of MeasurementBiochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) (geomean in mg/l)lTotal Suspended Solids (geomean in mg/l)lTotal Phosphorus (geomean in mg/l)lNitrite / Nitrate (geomean in mg/l)lUn-ionized Ammonia (geomean in mg/l)lFecal Coliform Organisms (geomean in col/100ml)

33

Root River at Br on MN-26, 3 Mi E ofHokah (RT-3)



--- 5.5 2.4 1.8 1.5 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- 58.5 92.6 81.3 99.1 no trendTotal Phosphorus --- 0.16 0.26 0.18 0.17 decreaseNitrite/Nitrate --- --- 1.90 2.65 3.90 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0025 0.0020 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- 1,276 703 322 615 decrease

Straight River near CSAH-1, 1 Mi SE ofClinton Falls (ST-18)



6.4 4.6 --- 2.4 1.8 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- 25.8 --- 22.5 21.0 no trendTotal Phosphorus --- --- --- 0.33 0.24 decreaseNitrite/Nitrate --- --- --- 4.90 6.20 no trendUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0095 0.0030 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- 3,433 --- 353 537 decrease

Mississippi River below US-14 Br at LaCrosse (UM-698)



--- --- 3.4 2.5 2.6 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- --- 19.1 20.9 27.8 no trendTotal Phosphorus --- --- 0.21 0.18 0.18 decreaseNitrite/Nitrate --- --- 0.85 0.78 1.30 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0055 0.0030 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- --- 50 68 101 no trend

Mississippi River at Lock & Dam #6 atTrempealeau, Wis (UM-714)



--- 4.1 3.4 2.3 2.5 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- 27.6 27.5 19.1 25.5 decreaseTotal Phosphorus --- 0.21 0.24 0.18 0.20 decreaseNitrite/Nitrate --- --- --- 0.97 1.60 no trendUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0060 0.0030 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- 188 174 46 120 decrease

Mississippi River at Lock & Dam #5, 3Mi SE of Minneiska (UM-738)



--- --- 3.4 2.3 2.6 decrease


34

Mississippi River at Lock And Dam #2at Hastings (UM-815)



--- 5.3 5.7 3.5 3.0 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- 45.8 37.7 36.3 42.0 no trendTotal Phosphorus --- 0.37 0.37 0.28 0.26 decreaseNitrite/Nitrate --- --- --- 1.40 2.80 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0130 0.0050 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- 3,109 114 35 50 decrease

Mississippi River at Shiely Co. Dock,Grey Cloud Island (UM-826)



--- --- 4.9 3.3 2.9 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- --- 25.7 34.1 43.1 increaseTotal Phosphorus --- --- 0.33 0.26 0.26 decreaseNitrite/Nitrate --- --- 0.96 1.60 2.70 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- 0.0125 0.0160 0.0060 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- --- 1,186 167 97 decrease

Mississippi River at Dock upstrm ofWabasha St Br, St. Paul (UM-840)



--- --- 3.3 2.9 2.7 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- --- 30.1 44.6 50.4 increaseTotal Phosphorus --- --- 0.22 0.21 0.21 no trendNitrite/Nitrate --- --- 0.78 1.50 2.70 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- 0.0075 0.0100 0.0040 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- --- 774 265 82 decrease

Shell Rock River at Br on CSAH-1, 1Mi W of Gordonsville (SR-1.2)



--- 13.4 11.2 8.1 6.4 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- 77.5 35.1 44.4 41.8 decreaseTotal Phosphorus --- 0.52 0.73 0.91 0.41 no trendNitrite/Nitrate --- --- 0.33 3.95 1.95 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0160 0.0045 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- 140 158 175 150 no trend

Vermillion River at Br on Blaine Ave, 4Mi NE of Farmington (VR-32.5)



--- --- --- 1.1 1.4 increase

Total Suspended Solids --- --- --- 12.9 8.1 decreaseTotal Phosphorus --- --- --- 0.72 0.64 no trendNitrite/Nitrate --- --- --- 4.50 4.40 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0030 0.0010 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- --- --- 129 105 no trend

35

Whitewater River South Fork N of Cr-115, 3.5 Mi NW of Utica (WWR-26)



--- --- 2.5 1.6 1.7 decrease

Total Suspended Solids --- --- 19.0 19.3 41.7 no trendTotal Phosphorus --- --- 0.47 0.45 0.52 no trendNitrite/Nitrate --- --- 6.00 7.10 8.90 increaseUn-ionized Ammonia --- --- --- 0.0050 0.0020 decreaseFecal Coliform Organisms --- --- 487 373 1,157 no trend

Zumbro River South Fork at CSAH-14,3 Mi N of Rochester (ZSF-5.7)



--- --- 5.0 2.8 2.1 decrease


D: Lake Water Quality

The direct drainage (exclusive of theMinnesota, St. Croix and UpperMississippi River basins) of the LowerMississippi River drains three separateecoregions. The Driftless Area (DA)includes the river itself as well as thesurrounding bluff area and comprises23 percent of the basin. It is relativelylake-poor because of a lack of glacialactivity in this portion of the basin. TheNorth Central Hardwoods (NCHF) islocated on the northwest portion of thebasin and accounts for nine percent ofthe basin in terms of area. The CannonRiver is a major tributary that drainsfrom this ecoregion, whose watershedcontains several lakes. A majority ofthe basin’s lakes are in this ecoregion.The Western Corn Belt Plains (WCBP)accounts for 68 percent of the basinand is drained by several majortributaries which flow eastward to theLower Mississippi, including theZumbro, Whitewater and Root Rivers.

For the Lower Mississippi River basin,47 lakes (45,237 acres) were assessed.Of the 47 lakes, 91 percent,representing 43,701 acres (97 %), weremonitored. The high percentage ofmonitored data reflects monitoringconducted by MPCA, as well asmonitoring conducted by citizens in theCitizen Lake Monitoring Program(CLMP), Lake Assessment Program(LAP), or studies in conjunction withlocal water plans.

The majority of assessed lakes arelocated in the NCHF (29 lakes, 62percent), followed by the WCBP (15lakes, 24 percent). The DA ecoregionhad two assessed lakes -- Lake Winonaand Lake Pepin. Lake Pepin is thelargest lake in the basin and perhapsthe most studied. It is about 25,000acres and represents 55 percent of theassessed lake acres in the basin.Based on the assessed lakes, theNCHF lakes have an average surfacearea of 529 (±75) acres and averagemaximum depth of 32 (±4) feet while

36

the WCBP lakes have an averagesurface area of 323 (±118) acres andaverage maximum depth of 25 (±7)feet.

Lake water quality often is evaluated inrelation to excessive concentrations ofalgae, which reduce the aestheticappeal – or “swimmability” – of lakes.Although many factors influence thelevel of algae production in a lake,phosphorus very often is the limitinggrowth factor. Thus, the concentrationof phosphorus is a key indicator ofwhether a lake supports swimming usefully, partially or not at all. Because“swimmability” is a partly subjectiveattribute, which varies by region, theMPCA has developed regionallyspecific criteria for determining thedegree to which the goal of swimmableuse is being attained by a specific lake.Since the Lower Mississippi Riverdrains multiple ecoregions, swimmableuse was determined based on theecoregion-based phosphorus criteriaand is summarized as follows. Onlyseven lakes (15 percent), accountingfor 2,490 acres (6 percent), fullysupport swimmable use. In contrast, 36lakes (77 percent), accounting for40,082 acres (86 percent), are non-supporting. The remainder of the lakes(8 percent) partially-support swimmableuse. An ecoregion-based analysis willplace this in perspective.

Of the 29 assessed lakes in the NCHF,six lakes (21 percent) fully supportswimmable use, while 20 lakes (67percent) do not support swimmableuses. The remainder (12 percent)partially support swimmable use. Interms of trophic status, the majority areeutrophic or hypereutrophic (15 lakes,52 percent). Cannon, Jefferson, andSakatah are three of the larger lakes inthis portion of the basin which do notsupport swimmable use based on thisassessment. The only three assessedmesotrophic lakes in this basin arelocated in this ecoregion.

In the WCBP portion of the basin onlyone lake ( Beaver Lake, Steele County)fully supports swimmable uses. Theremainder do not support swimmableuse (13 lakes) or partially-supportswimmable use (1 lake). The majority ofthe lakes (87 percent) arehypereutrophic and the remainder areeutrophic. Among the assessed lakesin this ecoregion, those not supportingswimmable uses (although swimmingdoes occur) are: Lake Byllesby on theCannon River, Zumbro on the ZumbroRiver and several shallow lakes on thefloodplain of the Vermillion River. All ofthese lakes are impacted by point andnonpoint sources. In each case pointsources are a significant portion of thephosphorus loading to the lakes at lowflow while nonpoint sources dominateat average to high flows.

Lower Mississippi River Basin Lake AssessmentSupport of swimmable use for all assessed lakes and by ecoregion

FullySupporting

Support -Threatened

Partial -Support

Non -Supporting

All – lakes 7 4 36All – acres 2,490 2,665 40,082

CHF ecoregion 6 3 20WCBP

ecoregion1 1 13

DA ecoregion 2

37

Case Study: Lake Zumbro, nearRochester, Olmsted County

The Rochester Water ReclamationPlant (RWRP) was among the firstmajor municipal wastewater treatmentfacilities (greater than 5 miles from alake) to receive a 1.0 mg/l P limitation.The facility is on the South Fork of theZumbro River. Although approximately10 miles upstream of Lake Zumbro, theissue of whether phosphorus (P) controlat the RWRP was needed to protectLake Zumbro water quality wasadjudicated in an administrative hearingin 1978 when the City was required toimplement a 1.0 mg/l P effluentlimitation. The lake experienced severenuisance algal blooms and MPCAstudies suggested that the RWRPcontributed approximately 77 percent ofthe phosphorus loadings to the lake.

The city installed P removal equipmentwhen construction for the upgradedWater Reclamation Plan wascompleted in June 1984. However, thefacility began to exceed the 1.0 mg/l Plimit in 1985. The City agreed to aStipulation Agreement with the MPCAin 1987 which required that the City bein compliance with its permit by July 1,1988. However, the City requested areview of the phosphorus effluentlimitation in its NPDES permit in 1988since its consultants had determinedthat the facility had little effect on thelake.

MPCA conducted a lake/watershedstudy that also included computermodeling. This study, and subsequentpermit hearings, suggested that aneffluent phosphorus limit was stillneeded to improve Lake Zumbro waterquality. The City has upgraded itsphosphorus removal system and has

been in compliance since 1988. TheMPCA studies conducted on the lakehave suggested that, although thefacility is approximately 10 milesupstream of the lake, the effluent limithas improved lake water quality. Totalphosphorus (TP) trends exhibit adecline from the 300 to 600 µg/L rangeduring the late 1970’s to the 100 to 250µg/L range during 1991 through 1998(Figure 1). Based on the Kendall tau-bstatistic this is a statistically significantdecline in TP (Rk = -0.8, p= <0.001).The very high summer-mean TP in1993 is likely a function of theextremely high precipitation and floodevents of that summer. Similarly,chlorophyll-a trends show a declinefrom 70 - 113 µg/L in 1976 and 1985 to16 - 37 µg/L in 1990 through 1998, withthe exception of 1992 which had amean of 75 (±20) µg/L based on 6samples. While this decline inchlorophyll-a is not statisticallysignificant based on the Kendall tau-bstatistic it could be consideredsignificant if we compare the “pre”chlorophyll-a concentrations (plus orminus standard error) with the “post”treatment concentrations (Table 2).Secchi transparency has increased onlyslightly over the entire period of recordand no significant difference is evidentbased on Table 2 or Figure 3.

These data suggest significant progresshas been made towards improving thewater quality of Lake Zumbro. Forexample, the summer-mean TPconcentration in 1998 is very near theWCBP ecoregion-based P criteria levelof 90 µg/L. The ecoregion-basedcriteria level would likely be a goodinterim goal for Lake Zumbro untilfurther work is done to define a moreappropriate goal. Further goal-settingefforts should consider goals for

38

specific segments of the reservoir aswell, since the near-dam segment canbe expected to differ substantially fromthe inflow segment of the reservoir.Flow regime might also be aconsideration in this process sincenutrient loading and the relativecontributions from point and nonpointsources will vary substantially withchanges in flow.

The reductions in TP have yieldedmeasurable reductions in chlorophyll-aand this hopefully has translated into areduction in the frequency and severityof nuisance blooms (Figure 2).However further reductions in P loadingto the lake will be required to achieve aTP concentration of 90 µg/L or lower.Some concerns remain that, of the 12point source permittees in the Lake

Zumbro watershed, only two(Rochester and Pine Island) have 1milligram per liter effluent phosphoruslimitations. Individually, none of theremaining facilities greatly impact LakeZumbro, but collectively they contributesubstantially to the phosphorusloadings to the lake. As their permitsare renewed individually, significantimpacts on Lake Zumbro cannot bedemonstrated. However, it is likely thatlimits for these facilities, along withneeded non-point loading reductions,can be best approached through basinplanning and working collectively withmunicipalities and agriculturalproducers in the watershed to achievethe needed reductions in nutrientloading to the Zumbro River and henceLake Zumbro.

Lake Zumbro summer-mean water quality prior to P control at Rochester (“pre”)vs. “post” P control (excludes 1985 when treatment was first initiated but limit

not met). Includes standard error of the mean.

TP ppb Chl-a ppb Secchim

Pre (1976-1981) 368 ± 37 81 ± 11 0.9 ±0.1

Post (1988-1998) 146 ± 21 43 ± 9 1.0 ±0.1

39

Figure 1. Lake Zumbro Summer-mean Total Phosphorus. Includes standard error of the mean.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

76 77 79 80 81 85 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 98

Year

TP ppbSETP ppbRk = -0.8,

p= <0.001

P removal installed RWRP

RWRP meets limit

WCBP ecoregionP criteia

Figure 2. Lake Zumbro Summer-mean Chlorophyll-a.

020406080

100120140160

76 77 79 80 81 85 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 98Year

Chl-a ppbSE

CHLAppb

Long-term mean

Severe nuisance blooms

40

Figure 3. Lake Zumbro Summer-mean Secchi

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

76 77 79 80 81 85 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 98Year

Secchi m

SEMean Rk= 0.2, p=0.3

Long-term mean

Case Study: Lake Pepin

Lake Pepin is a natural lake on theMississippi River. It has a surface areaof about 40 square miles and a meandepth of 18 feet. Its watershed is about48,634 square miles and includes theUpper Mississippi, St. Croix andMinnesota Rivers and drains about 55percent of Minnesota and a portion ofWisconsin. This results in watershed tolake ratio of about 1,215:1. This largewatershed area promotes short waterresidence times that range from 6 to 47days, with an average of 9 days.Severe water quality problems weredocumented in Lake Pepin during thelow flows of 1988. During that summersevere nuisance algal blooms and fishkills occurred. These events triggeredmany of the recent studies on LakePepin and its watershed.

Phosphorus and water loadings varysubstantially from low to high flow, asdo relative contributions to thephosphorus and water budgets for Lake

Pepin. Figure 4 depicts the range inphosphorus loading from low, average,and high-flow years and the relativecontributions from the four principalexternal sources: Upper Mississippi, St.Croix, Minnesota, and MCES - MetroPlant. In addition to these “external orwatershed” sources internal recycling ofphosphorus (particularly solublereactive phosphorus) plays animportant role in the nutrient budget ofthe lake. This “internal” loading is mostpronounced during summers of low toaverage flow in Lake Pepin andphosphorus loading from previousyears becomes a part of the“phosphorus budget.”

Figure 4 indicates that relativecontributions to the externalphosphorus loading to Lake Pepin varysubstantially over a range from low tohigh flow. At low flow, point sourceloadings dominate while at average tohigh flow the Minnesota, UpperMississippi, and St. Croix Riversbecome increasingly important with the

41

Minnesota River being the greatestcontributor. In general, nonpointsources in these three basins would bethe principal source of phosphorusunder high flow conditions, while pointsources would be significantcontributors during low flow events.

Establishing a water quality goal wasan important part of the overall study ofLake Pepin. Two major aspects of thegoal setting process were (1) to definewhat constitutes “nuisance algalblooms” for Lake Pepin and (2)determine what factors orenvironmental conditions contribute tothe nuisance conditions. A combinationof user perception survey data (fromLake Pepin and the surroundingecoregions), citizen interview, andwater quality data were used to definenuisance conditions and determinewhen these conditions were likely to beencountered.

Total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a aretypically used for identifying use-impairment related to eutrophication(e.g. Minnesota’s in-lake phosphoruscriteria). Chlorophyll-a is the betterparameter for making direct linkages tonuisance conditions, while phosphoruscan be a more appropriate parameterfrom modeling and source-controlstandpoint. For Lake Pepin chlorophyll-a was considered the most appropriateparameter for goal setting sincechlorophyll-a was relatively insensitiveto phosphorus concentration at highflows (short residence time) and it wasmore directly linked to nuisanceconditions. In Lake Pepin chlorophyll-avaries as a function of total phosphorusconcentration, inorganic turbidity,mixing depth, and water residence time.A summer-mean chlorophyll-aconcentration of 30 �g/L was selected

as a goal for Lake Pepin -- this goalminimizes the frequency of “nuisancealgal conditions (40 �g/L)” and “severenuisance algal conditions (60 �g/L)” inLake Pepin. Since water residencetime partially controls the production ofalgae biomass and algal composition inLake Pepin it was also important toassociate the goal with a particular flowrange. In this case the rangecorresponded to 4,578 cfs (120 day,50-year low flow, less than two- percentreoccurrence frequency). This flow iscomparable to the low flows of 1976and 1988 when severe nuisanceblooms were encountered. A flowvalue of 20,000 cfs was recommendedas the upper limit for applying the goal.A summer-mean flow of 20,000 cfsprovides a residence time of about 11days which is within the 8-14 daysrequired for full algal response tonutrients in lakes.

This goal has provided a basis forpredicting the phosphorus reductionsnecessary, under different flowconditions, to achieve acceptable waterquality conditions in Lake Pepin. Aswith goals in other projects thischlorophyll-a goal has provided a targetthat all participants in the process canfocus on. In the course of thesediscussions and modeling it hasbecome evident that there will be aneed for reductions from all basins,including point and nonpoint sources, ifimprovements in the water quality ofLake Pepin are to be realized and thechlorophyll-a goal achieved over theprescribed range of flows.

Over the period of record (1976 - 1998)there has been a decline in TP overtime in Lake Pepin (Figure 5) with along-term summer-mean of 230 µg/L.Since the major low-flow event of 1988TP concentrations have ranged

42

between a low of 167 µg/L in 1997 to234 µg/L in 1992. Chlorophyll-aconcentrations have declined as wellsince 1988 with concentrations rangingfrom a low of 20 µg/L in 1993 and 1996to a high of 36 µg/L in 1992 (Figure 6).Most of these summers werecharacterized by relatively high flowsand hence short water residence timewould contribute to the lowerchlorophyll-a concentrations. Secchitransparency has been fairly stable atabout 0.7 to 1.1 meters in recent years(Figure 7).

Reductions in point source loading to(or tributary to) Lake Pepin will occurover the next several years as moreWWTF’s will have P effluent limitationsas a part of their permits and hence betreating to 1 mg/L or lower in mostinstances. The most prominent ofupstream point sources is the 250 mgdMCES Metro Plant which is scheduledto have bio-P treatment on-line by2003. These point source reductionscoupled with continued nonpoint sourcereductions will yield improvements inthe water quality of Lake Pepin as wellas the Lower Mississippi River.

Figure 4. Estimated Summer TP Loading Rate to Lake Pepin. Flow-weighted means as compared to Lock and Dam 3 inflow.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1988 1990 1991Year

Metro St. CroixMiss.Minnesota

11,600 kg/day 42,000 kg/day 73,000 kg/dayFlux

43

Figure 5. Lake Pepin Summer-Mean Total Phosphorus

78 79 80 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Avg0

100

200

300

400

500

600

78 79 80 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 AvgYear

Figure 5. Lake Pepin Summer-mean Total Phosphorus

SE

Mean

44

Figure 6. Lake Pepin Summer-Mean Chlorophyll-a

78 79 80 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Avg0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

78 79 80 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 AvgYear

SE

Mean

Chl-a Goal

Figure 7. Lake Pepin Summer-Mean Secchi Transparency

78 79 80 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Avg-1.4

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

78 79 80 88 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 AvgYear

SE

mean

45

D: Ground Water Quality

The MPCA’s Ground Water Monitoringand Assessment Program provides thefollowing summary of ground waterquality results for the Lower MississippiRiver Basins and Cedar River Basins,respectively:

Lower Mississippi River BasinEighty-eight samples were collected.Twenty-four were from the Prairie duChien aquifer, 19 from the Jordan, 13from the Galena, 12 from the St. Peter,11 from the Franconia, 5 from glacialaquifers and the remainder from otheraquifers.

1. Ground water quality isgenerally good but variesbetween aquifers.Concentrations of totaldissolved solids were highestin the buried glacial aquifersand lowest in the sandstoneaquifers (St Peter, Jordan,Franconia). Dissolved solidconcentrations increasedfrom east to west and werehighest in aquifers overlainby Des Moines Lobe till andgray drift. This was true for allbedrock aquifers.

2. The distribution of dissolvedsolids is inversely correlatedwith values for Eh (ameasure of the potential foroxidation-reduction). In theeastern part of the basin,aquifers are oxygenated andhad Eh values greater than275 mV. In the west, oxygenis absent and reducingconditions were encounteredin most wells. These resultswere verified by thedistribution of tritium. Tritium

was present in nearly allsamples collected from theeastern half of the basin andabsent from nearly all wellssampled in the western half,reflecting recharge andyounger water in the east.Since wells were sampled atdifferent depths butdistributions of chemicalswere not related to depth, thedata suggest there isconsiderable verticalmovement or mixing ofground water.

3. Higher nitrate concentrationswere observed in samplesreflecting oxygenatedconditions and in samplescontaining detectable tritium,but the correlation was notparticularly strong. This isbecause several wells in theeastern part of the basin hadno detectable nitrate despitebeing vulnerable to nitratecontamination. These wellswere probably located in non-agricultural areas wherenitrogen inputs are low.

4. Concentrations of traceinorganic chemicals weregenerally low, with a coupleexceptions. Cadmiumconcentrations were elevatedin the area underlain by oldgray till, with fourexceedances of the drinkingwater standard (4 ug/L). Leadconcentrations exceeded 2ug/L across the eastern partof the basin, where bedrockis close to the land surface.There was no effect ofaquifer type on thedistribution of lead,suggesting the source of leadmay be anthropogenic.

46

Five hydrogeologic regimes can bedistinguished in the basin. In theextreme western part of the basin, DesMoines Lobe till overlies bedrockaquifers. Buried sand and gravelaquifers are present within the till, butbedrock aquifers are the primary sourceof drinking water. Ground water movesslowly through the unconsolidateddeposits and eventually reaches thebedrock aquifers. The long residencetimes lead to reducing conditions inground water, low sensitivity to nitratecontamination, and high concentrationsof dissolved solids. The area underlainby old gray drift provides a transitionzone between east and west. The driftprovides some protection for underlyingbedrock aquifers. In the eastern part ofthe basin, bedrock aquifers are close tothe land surface and are vulnerable tocontamination, but water quality is goodif the aquifers are not contaminated.Surficial sand and gravel aquifers arenot common in the basin, but whenpresent, are highly vulnerable to nitratecontamination. Aquifers that occuralong and within river valleys appear tobe highly vulnerable to nitratecontamination, but nitrate is often notpresent in ground water because theland is not used for agriculture.

Cedar River BasinSince there are few wells completed inthe upper part of the Upper Carbonatedeposits, most of the data collectedprobably reflects water quality of lower,confined bedrock units. Seven sampleswere collected from the Cedar Valleyaquifer, four from the Galena aquifer,and one each from the St. Peter andPrairie du Chien aquifers.

1. Concentrations of totaldissolved solids increasefrom east to west. Thismaybe due to infiltration ofrecharge water through

glacial deposits. Highlyleached pre-Wisconsindeposits, found in the easternpart of the basin, contributefewer dissolved ions thandeposits of Wisconsin age,located in the west. Thesedissolved ions consistprimarily of calcium,magnesium and bicarbonate.Another factor affecting waterquality may be travel time –the time it takes for water topercolate through the glacialdeposits and into bedrockaquifers. Although results fortritium indicate most water ispre-1953, concentrations ofdissolved oxygen decreasefrom east to west. Oxygen ismore likely to be present inyounger, more recentlyrecharged water.

2. Concentrations of arsenicexceed 3 ug/L in areas wherestagnation moraines occur.These are in the western partof the basin. A similar patternof high arsenicconcentrations in areas ofstagnation moraines occursstatewide.

3. Nitrate concentrations werebelow the reporting limit of0.5 mg/L in all sample wells.Low concentrations of nitrateare most likely the result ofsamples being collected fromolder wells in well-protectedaquifers, as evidenced by theabsence of tritium in mostsamples.

4. There were no significantdifferences between theGalena and Cedar Valleyaquifers in the concentrationof any sampled chemical.

47

Four hydrogeologic regimes can bedistinguished in the Cedar River Basin.Ground moraine associated with theDes Moines Lobe covers the centralpart of the basin. Till associated withthe Des Moines Lobe contributes highconcentrations of dissolved solids tounderlying bedrock aquifers. Surficialsand and gravel deposits are notextensively used as a source ofdrinking water. Old gray drift occurs inthe east and contributes fewerdissolved solids than Des Moines Lobetill. Stagnation moraines occur in thewest and are locally associated withhigh concentrations of arsenic. Sandand gravel aquifers and bedrockaquifers underlying areas overlain bysand and gravel deposits arevulnerable to contamination fromnonpoint sources.

It is recommended that samples becollected the upper portion of the UpperCarbonate bedrock units to determine ifconfining layers are present and whatimpact these confining layers have onwater quality. A better understanding ofthe hydrogeologic system is required inthis basin before specificrecommendations can be made forlong-term monitoring.

Private well samplesA summary of samples from privatelymanaged drinking water supplies insoutheastern Minnesota countiesreveals substantial differences in thepercentage of wells that exceeddrinking water standards for totalcoliform bacteria and nitrate nitrogen.The summary was developed byOlmsted County Public HealthServices, which provides well watertesting services for several counties insoutheastern Minnesota. This summarydoes not constitute a representativesample of well water quality identified

by aquifer source. In addition, it is notpossible to determine the degree towhich poor well construction or poorwellhead area management contributedto high contaminant concentrations.Nevertheless, this is one of the fewsources of data that indicate the level ofcontamination of some private drinkingwater in the region.

The percentage of drinking watersamples that tested positive for coliformbacteria in 1999 ranged from one in sixto almost half, as follows (lowest tohighest percentage detection): HoustonCounty (16%); Rice County (18%);Olmsted County (21%); Mower (23%);Winona (25%); Dodge (27%); Wabasha(31%); Goodhue (33%); Fillmore (45%).

The percentage of 1999 drinking watersamples that exceeded the maximumcontaminant level of 10 parts per millionfor nitrate-nitrogen was less than 10%for Rice, Dodge, Mower, Olmsted andWinona Counties; slightly above 10%for Goodhue and Wabasha Counties,and approximately 30% for FillmoreCounty (data for Houston County arenot yet available). The percentage ofprivate well samples containing 1-9.9ppm nitrate nitrogen was considerablyhigher. The percentage of wells withgreater than 1 ppm nitrate nitrogenranged from about 18% in Rice Countyto 70% in Wabasha and Fillmorecounties.

Sources:Engstrom, Daniel R., and James E.Almendinger, 2000, “Historical Changesin Sediment and Phosphorus Loadingto the Upper Mississippi River: Massbalance Reconstructions from theSediments of Lake Pepin,” St. CroixWatershed Research Station, Science

48

Museum of Minnesota, Marine on St.Croix, Minnesota

James, William F., John W. Barko, andHarrl L Eakin, “Synthesis ofPhosphorus/Seston Fluxes andPhytoplantkon Dynamics in Lake Pepin(Upper Mississippi River), 1994-1996,”U.S. Army Engineer WaterwaysExperiment Station, Eau Galle AquaticEcology Laboratory, Spring Valley,Wisconsin.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,1999, “Baseline Ground Water QualityInformation for Minnesota’s TenSurface Water Basins,” MPCA GroundWater Monitoring and AssessmentProgram, web site athttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/gwpubs.html/#reports

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,1999, “Fecal Coliform Bacteria inRivers,” St. Paul, Minnesota.

Olmsted County Health Department,Report to the Olmsted CountyEnvironmental Commission on theWater Quality of Privately ManagedWells, April 19, 2000.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999,“Ecological Status and Trends of the

Upper Mississippi River System 1998:A Report of the Long-Term ResourceMonitoring Program,” LTRMP 99-T001,Upper Midwest Environmental SciencesCenter, LaCrosse, Wisconsin

U.S. Geological Survey, (1997)“Variability of Nutrients in Streams inPart of the Upper Mississippi RiverBasin, Minnesota and Wisconsin,”USGS Fact Sheet 164-97

U.S. Geological Survey, 1995,Contaminants in the Mississippi River,1987-92,” U.S. Geological SurveyCircular 1133, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office

Sullivan, John F., 2000, “Long-TermWater Quality Trends Observed atWisconsin’s Ambient Monitoring Siteson the Upper Mississippi River,”Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources, La Crosse, Wisconsin

Sullivan, John F., Jim Fisher, HeidiLangrehr, Gretchen Benjammin, JeffJanvrin, 1999, “Water QualityAssessment Report for theMississippi/Lower St. Croix Team,”Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources, La Crosse, Wisconsin

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/groundwater/gwmap/gwpubs.html/#reports

49

IV: Land-WaterRelationshipsWatershed management is based onthe principle that the water quality ofany particular water body is a reflectionof how land is used within thewatershed that drains to that waterbody. The soils, hydrogeology andbiological diversity of a watershed wereshaped over millenia by the combinedforces of climate, glaciation, erosionalprocesses and a host of biological andchemical interactions. Europeansettlement starting in the early 1800schanged the land-water relationshipsthat had been formed over geologictime. This has resulted in increasedsurface water runoff and soil erosionwith consequent stresses on stream,lake and wetland hydrology, structureand water quality. Close interactionbetween surface and ground waterquality in much of southeasternMinnesota means that ground waterquality may be threatened by land usesthat degrade surface water quality, inaddition to land uses that directly affectthe transport of substances to anaquifer.

Because land-water relationships varyconsiderably over short distances,being affected by a multitude of site-specific variables, it is hazardous togeneralize about such relationshipswithin large land areas such as theLower Mississippi River Basin.However, a review of watershedassessments and field studies withinand adjacent to the basin helps toidentify some broadly relevant land-water relationships that can help toguide land-use management decisionson a basin scale. The information that

follows is meant to be suggestive, notdefinitive, of such relationships, and isno substitute for more thoroughassessments at the basin, majorwatershed and minor watershed scalesthat are called for in the WatershedManagement Strategy. Theserelationships will be presented in thecontext of a number of specific waterquality pollutants.

A complementary approach toevaluating land-water relationships isthe agro-ecoregion approachdeveloped by Dr. Dave Mulla,Department of Soil, Water and Climate,University of Minnesota. Mulla hasdefined a number of agro-ecoregions insoutheastern Minnesota. Agro-ecoregions are defined as zones havingunique soil, landscape and climaticcharacteristics which confer uniquelimitations and potentials for crop andanimal production. The 4,650,100 acrelandscape of southeastern Minnesotahas been subdivided into eight uniqueagro-ecoregions based on distinctionsbetween soil types and geologic parentmaterial, slope steepness, natural anartificial internal drainage, and erosionpotential. Each agro-ecoregion ischaracterized by unique physiographicfactors that influence the potential forproduction of nonpoint source pollutionand the potential for adoption of farmmanagement practices. To view anagro-ecoregion map of southeasternMinnesota, and for a detaileddescription of the eight subregions, visitthe following University of Minnesotaweb site:http://www.soils.agri.umn.edu/research/seminn/doc/agecoregionnew.html

http://www.soils.agri.umn.edu/research/seminn/doc/agecoregionnew.html

50

A: Sediment

Most of the data available on erosionand sedimentation rates have beendeveloped for agricultural watersheds.In the steeply sloping land of theeastern basin, major assessments havebeen completed for the Bear Creek,

Garvin Brook and the Whitewater Riverwatersheds. In the more flat and gentlyrolling areas of the western basin,information from the Dobbins Creekwatershed is combined with data fromseveral minor watershed evaluations onthe western edge of the MinnesotaRiver Basin.

Report 1. 2000 Minnesota Corn-Soybean Residue Survey ResultsSummary for the Lower Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota

Percent of Corn and Residue Trend AnalysisSoybean Fields

MeetingPercent of Corn and Soybean Fields

Residue Targets1 in2000

Meeting Residue Targets1,2

Rank County CORN SOYBEANS 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20001 Le Sueur 75% 78% 47 72 * 65 74 772 Waseca 59% 70% 42 26 63 33 38 643 Houston 57% 81% * * * * * 644 Dakota 53% 57% * * 33 34 29 545 Winona 47% 79% * * * * * 536 Freeborn 39% 69% * * * * * 537 Fillmore 44% 52% 47 * * 26 14 478 Steele 32% 55% * * * * * 439 Dodge 36% 47% * * * 39 36 4110 Mower 24% 45% * * * * 10 3411 Olmsted 30% 38% 65 * * 26 * 3312 Rice 23% 41% * * * 6 18 3213 Goodhue 17% 45% * * * * * 2814 Wabasha 22% 24% * * * * * 23

Averages 40% 56% * * * * * 46Average of Counties Reporting

1 Fields meeting residue targets include fields with >30% residue plus fields with >15% residue when following soybeans.2 An asterisk indicates no data were collected.

51

The single most notable relationshipsare those relating land surface cover,slope and precipitation to soil erosionrates. This relationship is summarizedin the Revised Universal Soil LossEquation (RUSLE). A relationshipbetween two of the variables, surfaceresidue cover and soil erosion rates(keeping slope and precipitationconstant) is shown in the graphicbelow. Also shown are the results of the2000 crop residue transect survey forthe counties of the Lower MississippiRiver Basin (above).

INSERT GRAPH

The Bear Creek Watershed, located inHouston and Fillmore counties inMinnesota and Winneshiek andAllamakee Counties of Iowa ismanaged by Iowa Department ofNatural Resources as a “put-and-take”trout fishery. Nearly all the land isclassified as highly erodible, with slopesranging from 5 to 14%. Average erosionrates are 10 to 17 tons per acre peryear. It is estimated that approximately17 percent of gross erosion fromcropland is delivered to the stream, andthat approximately 29 to 34 percent ofgross erosion from forestland reaches

the stream. Streambank erosion wasvery minimal, amounting to only fourpercent of soil erosion delivered to thestream. Erosion from crop andforestland results in heavysedimentation over natural streamsubstrate, which has greatly reducednatural trout reproduction. The goal ofthe project is to reverse these lossesthrough erosion-control measures.

The Whitewater River Watershed islocated in Olmsted, Wabasha andWinona Counties. Sediment is a majorproblem in this watershed, whichincludes several designated troutstreams. Concentrations of suspendedsediment range from several milligramsper liter during base flow conditions tolevels in the 5,000 to 7,000 milligramper liter range during high-flow periods.Erosion rates are high, but less thanthose found in the Bear CreekWatershed. About 19 percent ofcropland acres are estimated to beeroding at greater than the replacementrate of soil loss, or 5 tons per acre. Asediment budget for the watershedshows that the vast majority ofsediment, 68 percent, comes fromsheet and rill erosion, three percentfrom ephemeral gully erosion, eightpercent from classic gully erosion, and21 percent from stream bank erosion.

The Wells Creek Watershed inGoodhue County shows that overallpositive trends in land use that havereduced soil erosion, may also beimproving the hydrology ofsoutheastern Minnesota streams.Hydrologic data suggest that base flowdischarge has increased significantlyover the past 35 years. This is thoughtto be the result of increased infiltrationof precipitation, the flip side of reducedsurface runoff. Wells Creek base flow isfed by groundwater recharge from the

52

aquifers along and underlying the mainstem.The Garvin Brook Watershed inWinona County was the subject ofintensive study in the 1980s under theRural Clean Water Program. Sedimentand flow monitoring showed thatsuspended sediment greatly increasesduring runoff events, often resulting inmore sediment being transported in oneday than in several months or one yearof baseflow condition transport.Immediately following storm events,Total Suspended Solids spiked up to350 milligrams per liter in one instance,and up to 6,200 milligrams per liter amonth later in response to a rainfallevent that was only 24 percent greater.As storm intensity and durationincreased, peak runoff, sediment andnutrient transport increasedexponentially. Larson et al. (1997) haveargued that rare “catastrophic” stormsgenerate the majority of erosion, andthat conservation tillage alone is notadequate to protect the soil againsterosion during these events.Conservation structures such asterraces and sediment basins areneeded, too.

Over the project period, TSS medianconcentrations declined from abeginning value of 85 milligrams perliter to values of 35 milligrams per literand less. Median summer to fallturbidity continually decreased as well,from 27 to 4 nephelometric turbidityunits (NTUs). The changes in TSS andturbidity cannot be explained bychanges in flow, and may beattributable to increased adoption of soilconservation practices.

The Coon Creek Watershed south of LaCrosse, Wisconsin, has been thesubject of considerable study beginningwith research by Aldo Leopold early in

the century, and continuing with theunique historical sediment studies ofStanley Trimble, at the University ofCalifornia-Los Angeles. Trimble’s latestanalysis showed that the amount ofsediment discharged by Coon Creekinto the Mississippi River has remainedfairly constant over the twentiethcentury, even though erosion rates inthe watershed have gone throughdramatic changes. The reason for thefairly constant sediment yield, asmeasured at the watershed’s point ofdischarge to the Mississippi, isdeposition within the watershed.During the period of maximum soilerosion rates, approximately 1920 to1940, the floodplains of the lower mainvalley received about 15 centimeters ofvertical accretion of sediment a year.Rather than being discharged from themouth of Coon Creek, suspendedsediment settled in the alluvialfloodplain. Following improvements infarmland management, the rate ofsediment accretion in the lower valleyfell to 0.53 centimeters a year, from1975 to 1993. While overall rates ofsediment storage decreased, the site ofsediment storage also shifted from thelower valley to floodplains higher up inthe watershed. Some of thesefloodplains were newly developed, theresult of lateral streambank erosion thatwidened stream channels and creatednew, wide floodplains that later becamevegetated and served as sedimenttraps. Trimble describes the process asmorphological feedback. In earlierstudies, Trimble had predicted thatupper tributaries would be net sedimentsources for decades to come. Hisstudies show that erosion anddeposition patterns within watershedsof the driftless region of southeasternMinnesota and southwestern Wisconsinare dynamic, and caution should beused in relating sediment yield to rates

53

of soil erosion. Although Trimble’s studydoes raise questions about theconnection between upland soil erosionand sediment loads to the Mississippi,his study does not deal with or castdoubt upon the relationship betweenupland soil erosion and suspendedsediment or turbidity in the tributaryitself.

Dobbins Creek Watershed: Use of theAgricultural Nonpoint Source model onthis watershed in Mower Countyshowed that big storms have hugeimpacts on sediment delivery. A single5-inch rain event, for example, resultedin the delivery of 11,700 tons ofsediment to the watershed mouth atEast Side Lake – 925 pounds for eachacre in the 25,000-acre watershed.That’s roughly equivalent to the amountof sediment that would be delivered tothe watershed mouth over the course ofan entire “normal” year with 30 inchesof precipitation doled out in 77individual rainfall events, most of themsmall.

An estimated 97 percent of thesediment budget of East Side Lakeoriginated from storm flows and springrunoff in this predominantly agriculturalwatershed. Average sediment yield forthe watershed was modeled at 875pounds/acre, with one subwatershedcontributing twice this amount andanother subwatershed contributing justone-fourth of the average sedimentyield.

The sediment load is sufficient todeposit a 0.8 inch-thick layer ofsediment on the bed of East Side Lakeevery year, on average.

Modeling of an extreme solutionshowed that converting the entire25,000-acre watershed to meadow

would reduce sediment losses from a 5-inch rain event by 91 percent. A moremoderate solution of gully removal andintroducing conservation tillage on allcropland would result in a 33 percentreduction in sediment load for the 5-inch storm event. Interestingly, neitherof these BMPs alone would have muchimpact. Modeling less extremeconditions in a normal 30-inch rainfallyear predicted that gully removal andcomplete adoption of conservationtillage would result in a 60 percentreduction in sediment delivery.

Minnesota River Basin: Several minorwatersheds on the eastern fringe of theMinnesota River Basin underwent aland-use assessment as part of theMinnesota River Assessment Project(MRAP) in 1990-91. The Level IIassessment, conducted by the NaturalResources Conservation Service,evaluated sediment and nutrient runofffrom 10 minor watersheds. Resultsfrom two watersheds – County Ditch #5in southeastern Blue Earth County, andthe Maple River in northeast FaribaultCounty, will be used here to illustrateland-water relationships in the westernLower Mississippi River Basin withsimilar conditions: flat to gently rollingland, heavily drained for intensive row-crop agriculture.

Gross erosion rates in these twoheadwater watersheds averaged two tothree tons per acre – below the rate ofreplacement (T) of approximately fivetons per acre. Sediment yield at themouths of the watersheds was 0.55 to0.60 tons per acre, reflecting asediment delivery ratio of approximately20 percent in these small, headwaterstreams.

Various degrees of adoption ofconservation tillage were modeled. This

54

Best Management Practice has beenshown to reduce soil erosion byapproximately two-thirds, compared tofall moldboard plowing. The firstmanagement option, applyingconservation tillage to land eroding at Tor greater, reduced predicted soilerosion by five to 15 percent, andsediment yield by nine to 25 percent.The second option, applyingconservation tillage on all croplandacreage, resulted in predicted soilerosion reductions of 33 to 46 percent,and sediment yield reductions of 31 to52 percent.

Two nutrient management options wereevaluated along with sedimentreduction. The first option called for 15percent or greater residue on croplandcombined with a spring preplantapplication of 120 pounds of anhydrousnitrogen and an incorporation atplanting time of 30 pounds of nitrogenand 70 pounds of phosphate. Thisoption resulted in predicted reductionsof 43 to 48 percent less totalphosphorus runoff, and 12 to 14percent less nitrogen loss to surfacewater, as measured at the watershedoutlet. These results show a strongtrend of reduced nutrient losses withincreased crop residue cover.

The second option applied conservationtillage (30 percent residue) to all fieldsand banded 30 pounds of nitrogen and20 pounds of phosphate at planting witha side dress application of 120 poundsof anhydrous nitrogen at the firstcultivation. This option resulted in areduction in total phosphorus losses of68 to 74 percent, and a reduction innitrogen losses of 12 to 14 percent. Theimpact of the second option on nitrogenreductions was identical to the impactof the first option. One reason for thefailure of the split nitrogen application to

show an impact is that the majority ofnitrogen leaves the field as surfacerunoff, according to the model.

B: Nutrients (Nitrogen andPhosphorus)

Nitrogen: Nitrogen concentrations inLower Mississippi River Basintributaries have been increasing forseveral decades, and detections of highconcentrations in private wells are fairlycommon. There are many sources ofnitrogen which contribute to theseproblems. According to statewideestimates, soil organic matter andnitrogen fertilizer are by far the leadingsources of inorganic nitrogen, the formof greatest concern to groundwatercontamination. These sources provide42 percent and 36 percent of totalinorganic nitrogen, respectively. Whilemanure and legumes each contributeonly 6 percent of inorganic nitrogen inthe state, the failure of farmers to takecredit for these sources whendetermining commercial fertilizerapplication rates leads to excessivefertilizer application and increasedpotential for nitrogen leaching andrunoff. Southeastern Minnesota rivercounties, and counties adjacent tothem, are estimated to have some ofthe highest levels of plant-availablenitrogen contributions from manure inthe state.

Farm nutrient management evaluationsconducted by the MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture show thatfarmers often apply more nitrogenfertilizer than necessary in the LowerMississippi River Basin. Usually this isbecause they don’t give enough creditto nitrogen provided by applied manureand previous legume crops such as

55

soybeans and alfalfa, as the Universityof Minnesota recommends. The resultis increased potential for nitrateleaching and runoff. An evaluation of22 farmers in the Whitewater RiverWatershed in 1998 indicates thatfarmers apply approximately 12 percent(16 pounds per acre) more nitrogenthan necessary because of failure togive adequate credit to previoussoybean crops and applied manure.This level of nitrogen over-use isrelatively modest, likely the result ofeducational efforts undertaken throughthe Whitewater River WatershedProject. Despite fairly good nitrogenmanagement, nitrogen levels in theWhitewater River remain high. Thismay be partly attributable to a shift inagriculture away from alfalfa andtowards corn and soybeans. Alfalfafields erode little and leach very littlenitrogen. Plus, alfalfa is an effectivescavenger of nitrogen deep in the soilprofile, at the same time as it is able tofix nitrogen when soil supplies areinsufficient to support growth. Soybeanfields tend to be highly erosive,although soybeans also scavengenitrogen in the shallow soil profile.

An earlier 1993 evaluation of dairyfarmers in several southeasternMinnesota counties by the MDAshowed a higher difference betweenactual and recommended applications.This was at the very time when newand lower University of Minnesotanitrogen crediting recommendationshad been published, but were not yetwidely publicized. Factoring in allappropriate credits from fertilizer,legumes and manure, farmers over-applied nitrogen by an average of 53pounds per acre. The Olmsted County Groundwater andWellhead Protection Project found thatshallow wells in geologically sensitive

areas under agricultural productionshowed a relatively high percentage (27to 44 percent) of wells exceeding 10milligrams per liter nitrate nitrogen,while newly constructed or municipalwells showed a much lower percentage(1-4 percent).

Agronomic field trials in OlmstedCounty in 1987 illustrate the effect ofmanagement practices on nitrogenleaching. At an application rate of 150pounds per acre of nitrogen applied tocorn, N03 –N concentrations in the soilwater at 5 feet began to climb rapidly. Anitrogen rate of about 120 pounds peracre would have optimized yield andprofitability to the farmer whileminimizing nitrates in the groundwater.Fall application of anhydrous ammoniaresulted in lower yields than the samerate applied in the spring beforeplanting. Moreover, N03 –Nconcentrations in the soil water were 50to 70 percent higher with the fallapplications.9

In the Garvin Brook Watershed study,160 private wells were analyzed. Morethan 36 percent exceeded the nitratedrinking water standard and nearly 20percent had bacterial contamination.Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations four toeight feet below fertilized land generallywere between 20 and 50 milligrams perliter. Drainage from feedlots contributedto high ammonium concentrations insoil profiles but did not result in highnitrate levels in the soil profile. Thegreatest source of nitrogen, by far, wasagricultural applications of fertilizer andmanure to cropland. Over the course ofthe project, participating farmers

9 University of Minnesota Extension Service,“Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Usein Southeastern Minnesota,” AG-FO-6126-B,1993

56

reduced nitrogen use by an estimated21 percent, according to farmersurveys. The average rate of nitrogenapplied to lawns was 70 pounds peracre. It was estimated that 4,000pounds of nitrogen fertilizer were beingapplied each year in Lewiston, thewatershed’s largest town, compared toan estimated three to four millionpounds of nitrogen annually applied tocrop land and one million pounds ofnitrogen from manure generated in thewatershed. The total annual nitrogenreleased from septic tanks wasestimated to be 0.2 percent of annualnitrogen from fertilizer and animalmanure in the project area.

Phosphorus: Phosphorus often is thelimiting growth factor that contributes tothe production of excessive algae insurface water in southern Minnesota.This is particularly true of lakes andreservoirs, where hydraulic residencetime is sufficient to permit the growth ofblue-green algae, in particular. Inaddition to natural lakes that are soaffected, reservoirs such as LakeByllesby and Lake Zumbro are heavilyaffected by phosphorus-inducedhypereutrophication. Backwater lakesof the Mississippi River also may bevulnerable, especially in low-flow years.Lake Pepin, a natural lake formed froman alluvial sediment dam at the mouthof Wisconsin’s Chippewa River, is awell-known example of hyper-eutrophication that occurs at low riverflows.

Major sources of phosphorus to surfacewater are from point and nonpointsources. Point sources includemunicipal and industrial wastewatertreatment facilities, and nonpointsources include surface runoff fromagricultural and urban land. Which

source predominates depends onprecipitation and flow conditions. At lowflow, when precipitation and thereforesurface runoff tend to be low,continuous daily discharges from pointsources tend to provide the bulk ofphosphorus. For example, monitoringdata on Lake Zumbro from the early1980s show that the Rochester WaterReclamation Plant was responsible formore than 70 percent of the totalphosphorus budget of Lake Zumbro inlow-flow years. (This is not likely to betrue today, because effluentconcentrations now are limited to onemilligram per liter.) A more recent LakeAssessment Program study of LakeByllesby showed that point sourceswere responsible for approximately halfthe total load of phosphorus to the lakein low-flow years, and about one-thirdof the total load in average years. Pointsource phosphorus is particularlyimportant to control for two reasons.First, it is the predominant source ofphosphorus during low river flows,when streams and reservoirs and lakesare most vulnerable to eutrophication.Second, point source phosphorus ishighly soluble, therefore immediatelyavailable to stimulate the growth ofalgae.

Nonpoint sources tend to be thedominant source of phosphorus at highand average flows. Much nonpointsource phosphorus is attached tosediment and is transported to surfacewater as overland flow. Theconcentration of phosphorus insediment varies from less than onepound per ton for sandy soil, to asmuch as three pounds or more per tonfor finely granulated clays wherephosphorus applications over the yearshave been high. As noted in the abovediscussion of sediment, practices thatreduce soil erosion also help to reduce

57

phosphorus runoff. Soil erosion controlpractices combined with properadjustment of rate and placement canreduce phosphorus runoff fromagricultural fields by two-thirds or more,compared to black-till conditions.Surface-applied manure is an obvioussource of phosphorus runoff, but fewstudies have estimated the magnitude.MPCA modeling of two lake watershedsin southern Minnesota indicate thatlivestock feedlot runoff comprises lessthan 15 percent of all phosphorusrunoff. Cropland runoff, which includesthe effect of surface-applied manure,typically contributed 80 percent or moreof all phosphorus runoff.

Most phosphorus is exported fromcropland as sediment-attached runoff.High erosion rates generally areassociated with high phosphorus runoff.For example, University of Minnesotadata show that conventionally tilled cornexperiences approximately four timesas much phosphorus runoff as no-tillcorn. Phosphorus levels in the soil arean additional factor affecting theamount of phosphorus runoff. Thehigher the concentration of phosphorusin the soil, the more total phosphorus isexported with each ton of sedimentrunoff. The University of Minnesotarecommends that no additionalphosphorus be applied to fields wheresoil tests indicate that additionalphosphorus is very unlikely to result ina crop yield response. This point isreached at 20 parts per million usingthe Bray test for soil phosphorus, or 16parts per million using the Olsen test. 10

C: Fecal Coliform Bacteria 10 Rehm, George, and John Lamb, MichaelSchmitt, Gyles Randall and Lowell Busman,“Agronomic and Environmental Management ofPhosphorus,” Minnesota Extension ServiceFPO-6797-B, 1997

Certain types of bacteria pose apotential health risk to those who comeinto contact with surface water. Thesebacteria come from a variety ofsources, including agricultural runoff,inadequately treated domestic sewage,even wildlife. Some of these bacteriamay cause disease. Other potentialdisease-causing agents from thesesources include viruses, protozoa, andworms. But it’s bacteria that cause themost problems. Of greatest concern arebacteria from human feces.

The limitations of available monitoringtools make it difficult to determinewhether bacterial contamination in awater body is from human or animalsources. It is, however, possible todetermine whether the bacteriaoriginated in the intestinal tract of amammal. These kinds of bacteria arecalled fecal coliforms. If fecal coliformbacteria levels exceed state waterquality standards, it’s an indication thatfecal matter is entering the stream inquantities that pose a potential threat topublic health.

There are many types of fecal coliformbacteria, and not all of them causedisease in humans. But where there arecoliform bacteria there may bepathogens (disease-causingorganisms) of concern. Thus,widespread violation of the fecalcoliform standard in the LowerMississippi River Basin indicatesserious pollution and a possible healthconcern, but it doesn’t necessarilymean there is an immediate healththreat in any particular area.

Selected reaches of streams and riversin the Lower Mississippi River Basin areroutinely monitored for fecal coliformbacteria. At some sites where routinemonitored has indicated exceedence of

58

the water quality standard, moreintensive monitoring has beenconducted to determine the degree andscope of the fecal bacteria problem atand upstream of the initial monitoringsite. Altogether, these data stronglyindicate the widespread presence offecal coliform bacteria in the region’srivers and streams at levels that exceedwater quality standards, often by a widemargin. Widespread impairment of streams byfecal coliform bacteria is documentedby several sources of information.� The 1998 303(d) list for the Lower

Mississippi and Cedar River Basinslist 42 reach impairments. Twentyare for fecal coliform bacteriaexceedences of the state standard.Exceedences are found in all partsof the basin and in all stream sizes,from second- and third-orderstreams (Robinson Creek andSalem Creek) to main stemtributaries. Most main stemtributaries exceed the standard atthe mouth (exception is Zumbro,which is impaired at two sitesupstream). The Mississippi Riveritself is listed as impaired for threereaches.

� Since the 303(d) list is based on asampling regime less frequent thanis required by the rules pertaining tothe fecal coliform bacteria standard,intensive sampling of these siteswas conducted in 1997 and 1998 bythe MPCA11 to determine with moreconfidence whether the standardwas being exceeded. In all cases,more frequent sampling confirmedthat the fecal coliform bacteriastandard was being exceeded at thelisted sites. The degree of standardexceedence in southeastern

11 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “FecalColiform Bacteria in Rivers,” January 1999.

Minnesota was considerably greaterthan elsewhere in the state,particularly in the Whitewater River,Prairie Creek and the Root River.

� Sampling has been undertaken inconnection with several impairedreaches in the past two years toinitiate the TMDL process or as partof a Clean Water Partnershipproject, in the following streams:Vermillion River, Straight River,South Branch Root River, andCedar River. In all cases, samplingwas conducted at the frequencyrequired by the rule at multiple sitesupstream of the listed site ofimpairment to help identify sub-watersheds contributingdisproportionately to the problem.� Straight River TMDL12: Seven

sites were sampled in 1999-2000. About 72% of samplesexceeded 200 organisms/100ml– all sub-watersheds exceededthe standard several times.

� Vermillion River TMDL13:County staff and citizenvolunteers monitored 5x/mo at11 primary sites throughout thewatershed, May throughSeptember, 1999. Fiveadditional sites received somesampling. Out of the total of 16sites, 13 exceeded the standardfor fecal coliform bacteria.

� Cedar River TMDL14: Ten sampleswere collected at each of 13 sites

12 Chapman, K. Allen, “Fecal Coliform Pollutionin the Straight River: An InformationAssessment,” Minnesota Center forEnvironmental Advocacy, Nov. 2000.13 Morrison, David, “Vermillion River WatershedCitizen Monitoring Fecal Coliform BacteriaMonitoring Project, May – September, 1999,”unpublished presentation.14 Mower County Environmental Health Dept.,“2000 TMDL Cedar River Study,” unpublishedmanuscript.

59

from July 13 –August 23, 2000. Veryfew samples showed aconcentration below the 200organism/100 ml standard – eachsite averaged above the sample.Monitoring will be expanded in 2001to further evaluate where theproblem is coming from.

� South Branch Root River WatershedProject:15 As part of Minnesota’sprocess of ranking wastewatertreatment facilities for funding, 1999-2000 fecal coliform data wasanalyzed under the methodologyused to develop the 1998 303(d) list.The upper portion of the SouthBranch was determined to beimpaired. Monitoring conductedAug. 2, 1999, at 11 sites showed anexceedence of the 200organism/100 ml at 10 of the 11sites. On Aug. 30, 1999, three daysafter rainfall, samples were collectedat both stream and spring sites.Samples from three of the springswere in the 2,300 to 3,400 org/100ml range, verifying strongconnectivity between surface andground water flows in karsttopography. Stream samples alsowere extremely high, with 5reporting concentrations above2,000 org/100 ml. The average for 5fecal coliform samples taken in 1999was well above the standard atthree sites.� Olmsted County16: Volunteers

and county staff sampled andtested surface water at 31 sitesin Olmsted County

15 Fillmore County, “Watershed News: SouthBranch of the Root River Watershed Project,”Fall 1999, April 2000 and November 2000issues.16 Wilson, Bob, “Summary of 1999 E. coliSampling of Streams in Olmsted County,”Presentation to Olmsted County EnvironmentalCommission, April 19, 2000.

approximately once a week fromMarch to December 1999. Sitesincluded the South Zumbro,Middle Zumbro, Root River andWhitewater River. Of the 121bacteria samples taken, 89(74%) failed to pass theswimming standard of 235 E.coli/100 ml (“RecommendedStandards for Bathing Beaches”– a standard used as a guidelineby ten states bordering the GreatLakes and Upper MississippiRiver. This number also is citedin EPA’s Ambient Water QualityCriteria for Bacteria-1986 as asingle sample maximumallowable density for adesignated beach area.) Onlyone site, at the discharge of areservoir, consistently met thestandard.

The relationship between land use andfecal coliform concentrations found instreams is complex, involving bothpollutant transport and rate of survivalin different types of aquaticenvironments. Intensive sampling atseveral of the sites listed above insoutheastern Minnesota shows astrongly positive correlation betweenstream flow, precipitation and fecalcoliform bacteria concentrations. In theVermillion River watershed, storm-event samples often showedconcentrations in the thousands oforganisms per 100 milliliters, far abovenon-storm-event samples. A study ofthe Straight River watershed dividedsources into continuous (failingindividual sewage treatment systems,unsewered communities, industrial andinstitutional sources, wastewatertreatment facilities) and weather-driven(feedlot runoff, manured fields, urbanstormwater). The study hypothesizedthat when precipitation and stream

60

flows are high, the influence ofcontinuous sources is overshadowedby weather-driven sources, whichgenerate extremely high fecal coliformconcentrations. However, duringdrought, low-flow conditions continuoussources can generate highconcentrations of fecal coliform, thestudy indicated. Besides precipitationand flow, factors such as temperature,livestock management practices,wildlife activity, fecal deposit age andchannel and bank storage also affectbacterial concentrations in runoff(Baxter-Potter and Gilliland, 1988).

Several studies have found a strongcorrelation between livestock grazingand fecal coliform levels in streamsrunning through pastures. Severalsamples taken in the Grindstone Riverin the St. Croix River Basin,downstream of cattle observed to be inthe stream, were found to contain ageometric mean of 11,000organisms/100 ml, with individualsamples ranging as high as110,000/100ml. However, carefullymanaged grazing can be beneficial tostream water quality. A study ofsoutheastern Minnesota streams bySovell found that fecal coliform, as wellas turbidity, were consistently higher atcontinuously grazed sites than atrotationally grazed sites where cattleexposure to the stream corridor wasgreatly reduced. This study and severalothers indicate that sediment-embededness, turbidity and fecalcoliform concentrations are positivelyrelated. Fine sediment particles in thestreambed can serve as a substrateharboring fecal coliform bacteria.“Extended survival of fecal bacteria insediment can obscure the source andextent of fecal contamination inagricultural settings” (Howell et al.,1996).

Hydrogeologic features in southeasternMinnesota may favor the survival offecal coliform bacteria. Coldgroundwater, shaded streams andsinkholes may protect fecal coliformfrom light, heat, drying and predation(MPCA 1999). Sampling in the SouthBranch of the Root River watershedshowed concentrations of up to 2,000organisms/100 ml coming from springs,pointing to a strong connection betweensurface water and ground water. Thepresence of fecal coliform bacteria hasbeen detected in private well water insoutheastern Minnesota. However,many such detections have been tracedto problems of well construction,wellhead management, or flooding, notfrom widespread contamination of thedeeper aquifers used for drinking water.One study from Kentucky showed thatrainfall on well-structured soil with a sodsurface could generate fecal coliformcontamination of the shallowgroundwater through preferential flow(McMurry et al., 1998).

Finally, fecal coliform survival appearsto be shortened through exposure tosunlight. This is purported to be thereason why, at several sampling sitesdownstream of reservoirs, fecal coliformconcentrations were markedly lowerthan at monitoring sites upstream of thereservoirs. This has been demonstratedat Lake Byllesby on the Cannon River,and the Silver Creek Reservoir on theSouth Branch of the Zumbro River inRochester.

An MPCA evaluation for the MinnesotaRiver Basin suggests that improperIndividual Sewage Treatment Systems(ISTS) may be responsible forapproximately 74 fecal coliform bacteriaorganisms per 100 milliliter sample

61

within larger rivers. 17 However,transport and survival of fecal coliformbacteria are not well understood,particularly as they are affected by theinteraction of surface and groundwaterflows in karst geology. Wastewatertreatment facilities are required todisinfect their wastewater before it isdischarged.

Data exist on the fecal coliform bacteriaconcentrations from businesses, homesand unsewered communities. However,watershed allocations of fecal coliformbacteria load have not yet beenattempted in Minnesota. Bacterialcontamination of surface and groundwater by antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms has been expressed as apublic concern in southeasternMinnesota; however, data on this issuedo not appear to have been collected inthe Lower Mississippi River Basin.Monitoring is needed to fill this datagap.

D: Pesticides:

The presence of commonly usedpesticides has been detected in privatewell water in southeastern Minnesota.However, such detections havegenerally been traced to problems ofwell construction or wellheadmanagement, not widespread aquifercontamination.

Minnesota Department of Agriculturepesticide sampling from 1992 to 1996 insouthern Minnesota indicate commonlyused corn herbicides are present insurface water following nearly all stormevents and snow melts. Insecticides 17 David Morrison, “Contributions from SepticSystems and Undersewered Communities,”presented at Bacteria in the Minnesota River ,Mankato, Minnesota, Feb 16, 1999

have not been detected. There is not astrong correlation between the quantityof pesticide applied and its occurrencein streams. Chemical characteristicsappear to be more important indetermining whether a compoundappears in surface water. Theherbicides acetochlor, alachlor,atrazine, cyanazine, dicamba, andmetolachlor are detected at highestconcentrations during storm eventsimmediately following application onfields. Atrazine and one of itsmetabolites, de-ethyl atrazine, aredetected year-round in streamsthroughout southern Minnesota.Monitoring results were similar forwatersheds ranging in size from 25 to16,200 square miles.

In the Garvin Brook Watershed study inthe 1980s, monitoring showed that lowlevels of atrazine and cyanazineleached into the vadose zone of the soilfollowing recharge events afterpesticide application. Two private wellseast of Lewiston had pesticide levelsabove drinking water standards. Mixingof pesticides close to wells was seen tobe of particular concern, both at farmsand commercial application centers.

E: Hydrologic Modification:

Modern land uses result in significantmodifications of surface and groundwater hydrology in southeasternMinnesota. Some of the mostsignificant of these land uses are row-crop cultivation of farm land, thedrainage of farm land, particularly in thewestern basin using a combination ofsurface drainage and subsurface tiledrainage, the covering of urban landwith impervious surfaces, and themining of aggregate (sand and gravel)below the water table.

62

Small urban watersheds are verysensitive to the percentage of thewatershed surface that is impermeable.Numerous urban watershed studiesshow that when urban developmentproceeds to the point where thispercentage passes 10 percent,degradation in channel stability, waterquality and stream biodiversity begin.When the percentage of impervioussurface exceeds 25 percent the degreeof degradation becomes severe. Morerunoff reaches the stream faster,resulting in streambank erosion. Baseflows are harder to maintain whenwater flows are directed over thesurface rather than through the ground.Temperatures increase. The effects ofimpermeable surface are mainly felt insmaller urban watersheds, and are notvery noticeable at the large watershedor basin scale. 18

The percentage of precipitation thatruns off the land surface is referred toas the runoff coefficient. Runoffcoefficients within an urban area varybetween 0.70 to 0.95 in downtownareas, to 0.25 to 0.40 for residential-suburban areas, to as low as 0.05 to0.10 for flat lawns with sandy soil. 19

Runoff coefficients for farm land rangefrom almost zero for set-aside land withpermanent vegetative cover, to therange of 0.15 to 0.25 for typical landuses in south-central Minnesota20

Practices that affect surface runoff from 18 Schueler, Thomas, and Richard Claytor, P.E.,“Impervious Cover as a Urban Stream Indicatorand a Watershed management Tool,” Centerfor Watershed Protection, Silver Spring MD.19 American Society of Civil Engineers, “Designand Construction of Sanitary and StormSewers,” Manuals and Reports of EngineeringPractice, No. 37, 1970.20 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “LakeWashington Water Quality ImprovementProject, Diagnostic Study Report,”Clean WaterProject # 931-1-112-40

agricultural fields can greatly affect thehydrology of the watershed, hence thestructure and stability of the streams. Amodeling study of Prairie Creek, part ofthe Cannon River Watershed, showsthat crop residue management cansubstantially reduce peak flowsassociated with rainfall events rangingfrom one inch to six inches. In theupper watershed, reductions in peakflow were approximately 50 percent,compared with more modest reductionsof 13 percent downstream.

The effect of land drainage on streamstructure and water quality is thought tobe dramatic. However, quantitativeestimates for southeastern Minnesotaare not readily available. Qualitatively,extensive land drainage with surfaceditches speeds up the delivery of runoffto receiving streams, resulting in higherpeak flows and greater streambankerosion. Subsurface tiling will not resultin the same speed of runoff delivery asthat caused by surface ditches, exceptwhere surface tile intakes create adirect conduit for surface water escape.However, the combination of surfaceditching and sub-surface tile drainageresults in the drainage of marshy areasthat previously were hydrologicallyisolated. This has reduced the surfacewater storage capacity of the landscapeand increased the volume of runoff tothe region’s streams.

Sources for Section IV:

Baxter-Potter, W, and M. Gilliland. 1988 “Bacterial Pollution in Runoff FromAgricultural Lands,” J. Environmental Quality, 17(1): 27-34.

Chapman, Allen K., 2000. Fecal Coliform Pollution in the Straight River: An InformationAssessment, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, November 2000.

Fillmore County, “Watershed News: South Branch of the Root River WatershedProject,” Fall 1999, April 2000, and November 2000 issues.

Hanson, Corey, “Prairie Creek Watershed Model Report”, Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources, 1998

Howell, J. et al. 1996. “Effect of Sediment Particle Size and Temperature on FecalBacteria Mortality Rates and the Fecal Coliform/Fecal Streptococci Ratio”. J.Environmental Quality. 25: 1216 - 1220

Johnson, Scot, “Wells Creek Watershed 1994. Field Season Report and analysis:Main Stem and Tributary Base flow Discharge,” Minnesota Department of NaturalResources, Division of Waters, 1994.

Larson, William E., and M.J. Lindstrom and T.E. Schumacher, 1997. Journal of Soiland Water Conservation, March-April 1997

McMurry, S., et al. 1998. “Fecal Coliform Transport Through Intact Soil BlocksAmended with Poultry Manure,” J. Environ. Quality. 27: 86 – 92.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 1999. “Survey of Farmers within the MiddleFork of the Whitewater River,” Sept. 17, 1999

Minnesota Department of Agriculture,1998. “Dairy Farmers Located on the KarstRegion of Southeast Minnesota,” Feb. 10, 1998

Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “Nitrogenin Minnesota Groundwater,” December 1991

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1999. Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Rivers, January1999.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1997. Lake Byllesby Assessment, 1996,ByllesbyReservoir,” Publication ID #19-0006, December 1997

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1994. Minnesota River Assessment Project:Volume III: Land-Use Assessment, January 1994

64

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,1989. “Water Quality Monitoring and Assessmentin the Garvin Brook Rural Clean Water Project Area,” November 1989.

Mower County and the City of Austin,1992. “East Side Lake Water QualityImprovement Project,” October 1992

Morrison, David, 1999. “Vermillion River Watershed Citizen Monitoring Fecal ColiformBacteria Monitoring Project, May-September 1999,” unpublished presentation.

Olmsted County Clean Water Partnership, “Olmsted County Groundwater andWellhead Protection Project,” August 1994.

Sovell, Laurie, et al., 2000 “Impacts of Rotational Grazing and Riparian Buffers onPhysicochemical and Biological Characteristics of Southeastern Minnesota, USA,Streams” Environmental Management, 26(6) 629 – 641.

Trimble, Stanley W., “Decreased Rates of Alluvial Sediment Storage in the CoonCreek Basin, Wisconsin, 1975-93,” Science, Vol. 285, August 20, 1999

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, NationalResource Inventory 1982, 1987, 1992 and 1997.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, Bear CreekWatershed Plan and Environmental Assessment, September 1998

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Whitewater WatershedPlan and Environmental Assessment, February 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986: “Ambient Water Quality Criteria forBacteria-1986,” EPA440/5-84-002, Washington, DC

Wilson, Bob, 2000. “Summary of 1999 E. coli Sampling of Streams in OlmstedCounty,” presentation to Olmsted County Environmental Commission, April 19, 2000.

Wotzka, Paul, “Pesticides in Southern Minnesota Rivers and Streams”, MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture, in Research and Monitoring in the Cannon RiverWatershed, Cannon River Watershed Partnership, March, 1998

65

V: EnvironmentalGoalsOne of the main purposes of basinplanning is to organize the activities ofnatural resource management agenciesaround the attainment of environmentalgoals. Thus, defining these goals asprecisely as possible is a critical aspectof basin planning. The environmentalgoals listed below were developed forWater Plan 2000, and are included in“Minnesota Watermarks: Gauging theFlow of Progress 2000 to 2010,”published in October 2000 by theEnvironmental Quality Board. As statedin the Introduction, both the LowerMississippi River Basin Team andBALMM contributed to the developmentof goals for the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin. These goals are for waterquality, water quantity and ecosystemhealth.

A: Water Quality Goals

Groundwater Protection:– N03-Nitrogen � 10 mg/L– Total coliform bacteria, N03-N and

85 listed contaminants: reduceconcentrations and detections inpublic and private wells to meetstate drinking water standards.

Surface Water Quality:Rivers:– Minimum of 10 inches (25 cm) of

transparency21

– Reverse trend of increasing N03-Nconcentrations in streams

– Achieve fecal coliform bacteriastandard in lakes and streams.22

21 About equivalent to turbidity standard (� 25NTUs) or Total Suspended Solids SS) � 90mg/L22 � 200 org./100 ml monthly mean, or 2000org/100 ml in 10 percent of samples

– For Vermillion, Straight, Cannonand Zumbro rivers. Reduce meanphosphorus concentrations tolevels needed to restoredownstream reservoirs(approximately 90 parts per billionin-lake P concentration for lakesCannon, Byllesby and Zumbro),and that are consistent with arestoration strategy for Lake Pepin(Cannon and Vermillion Rivers).

– Mississippi River (including LakePepin): Reduce sediment load fromtributaries.

Surface Water Quality: Lakes:– Maintain/increase clarity as

measured by Secchi disk– Reduce P loads to reduce algae

blooms and maintain 02 levels

B: Water Quantity Goals

Keep stream and spring flows andgroundwater levels within historic ranges.

C: Aquatic Ecosystem Goals

– Mussels: maintain diversity of nativespecies

– Aquatic insects: establish baselineIndex of Biotic Integrity

– Fish � Cold-water streams:

introduce/maintain brook trout� Warm-water streams:

maintain/incr. smallmouth bass� Mississippi River:

maintain/increase walleye– Reptiles/amphibians: maintain toad

and frog populations; reducedeformities

– Birds: maintain/increase perchingbirds, shore birds, puddle ducks anddiving ducks, and territories occupiedby bald eagles.

– Mississippi River: slow sedimentationand aging of navigation pools,maximizing biodiversity, meetingreasonable transportation needs.

66

III: GeographicManagementStrategiesTraditionally, natural resourcemanagement agencies at the local,state and federal levels have attemptedto fulfill their missions of naturalresource management andenvironmental protection through aseries of specific programs aimed atcurbing negative behaviors whileoffering incentives to stimulate positivechanges. Such programs have helpedconsiderably to reduce negativeenvironmental impacts such as soilerosion and sedimentation, pollutantdischarges from industry andmunicipalities, illegal dumping andcareless disposal of hazardous waste.Although this programmatic strategyhas resulted in importantaccomplishments, much remains to bedone before the waters of the LowerMississippi Basin are fit for a full rangeof uses including recreation,consumption and the support of aquaticlife.

To go the next step in environmentalimprovement, it is necessary to do twothings:1. First, reach agreement on specific

goals for water quality, waterquantity and aquatic ecosystemhealth. Initial agreement has beenachieved on the goals for waterquality and quantity and aquaticecosystem health, as indicatedabove.

2. Second, determine strategies forachieving these goals throughmodifications in land use and wastemanagement. Often, remainingwater quality, water quantity andecosystem problems have multiple

causes; accordingly, they canseldom be solved by the use of asingle program. More often, multiplesources must be dealt with throughmultiple programs or approaches.These problems require integratedstrategies whereby a combination ofland uses are modified to achieve acommon goal.

Three basic geographic approaches tothe planning and implementation ofintegrated solutions are watershedmanagement, aquifer protection, andflood plain management. Each of theseis a specific geographic, or place-basedapproach to natural resourcemanagement. They can be used aloneor in combination, depending on thespecific problem, or combination ofproblem, that needs to be addressed.Each approach, and some of the keyenvironmental management programsassociated with them, will be described.

A: WatershedManagementLead author: Norman Senjem, MPCA

A watershed is a land surface area fromwhich water drains to a common pointsuch as a river, lake, watershed orrecharge area for a groundwateraquifer. Watershed management is away of protecting or restoring waterbodies such as these by modifying landuses within the upstream watershed. Itoften includes two major phases: a datacollection and evaluation phase thatculminates in the development of awatershed management plan; and theimplementation of this plan bylandowners and users. The purpose ofthe first phase is to better understandhow different types of land use in thewatershed affect water quality, both

67

individually and collectively. Thepurpose of the second phase is to applythis understanding to the protection orrestoration of the water body that is themain focus of the watershed project. Awatershed team comprised of localcitizens, businesses, organizations andstakeholders, together with local, stateand federal governmentrepresentatives, ideally is involved bothin the development and implementationof the management plan.

The following three stream restorationstrategies outline a watershedmanagement process at threehydrologic scales. Taken together, thisprocess meets the needs of the TotalMaximum Daily Load (TMDL) Process23for impaired waters, in a manner thatencourages local leadership and allowsflexibility in how impairments areevaluated and addressed.

Stream Restoration Strategies

Strategy A1: Basin-Wide Scale:Coduct basin-wide water quality andland use evaluations with state andfederal agencies working in partnershipwith local government, stakeholdersand citizens through BALMM. Developbasin-wide environmental goals andbroad land-use strategies to achievethem. 23 The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requiresthat a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) bedeveloped for impaired water bodies reportedby state Section 303(d) lists to the U.S. EPA. ATMDL is the amount of pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water qualitystandards. It is equal to the sum of allowableloads from point and nonpoint sources,considers seasonal variation and includes amargin of safety. Further information on theTMDL process in Minnesota can be found onthe MPCA web site atwww.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl.html

Action 1: Estimate the geographicscope of regional impairments in theLower Mississippi River Basin. Waterquality monitoring indicates thatimpairments for turbidity, fecal coliformbacteria and nitrate-nitrogen arewidespread. Phosphorus impairmentsmay be confined to the northernmoststreams that discharge into impairedlakes and reservoirs. These streamsinclude the Vermillion and Cannon aswell as the Zumbro River upstream ofLake Zumbro. Relationships betweenregional impairments and downstreamproblems such as Mississippi Riverimpairments and Gulf of MexicoHypoxia should also be noted.

Action 2: For each regional impairmentdefine water quality objectives (oftendefined by rule) and associatedoutcome measures and indicators.These are defined earlier in theScoping Document and in the LowerMississippi River Basin portion ofWatermarks. These indicators wouldinclude state indicators (ambient waterquality concentrations) and pressureindicators (land runoff, BMPs,wastewater loads, etc.)Action 3: Based on availableinformation and best professionaljudgement, define broad-based land-use strategies to achieve environmentalgoals. The BALMM has developedseven land-use strategies for basin-wide application, which are described inthe next section of the Basin PlanScoping Document.

Action 4: Seek technical and fundingsupport to implement land-usestrategies across the basin. (TheConservation Reserve EnhancementProgram in the Minnesota River basinis an example.)

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl.html

68

Action 5: Implement at appropriatescales. This may be: a) basin-wide, asin the case of BMP development oreducation; b) major watershed-widewhere organization and infrastructure ispresent to conduct broad strategies; orin a c) minor watershed, when this isthe preferred scale at which counties,SWCDs and other local governmentagencies involved in land resourcemanagement feel they can be the mosteffective.

Action 6: Monitor at regular intervals toevaluate progress toward reachingobjectives on a basin scale. This mayinclude water quality monitoring atcritical points, such as mouth-of-tributary; land-use surveys; and surveysthat measure knowledge, attitudes andpreferences of basin citizens.

Strategy A2: Major Watershed Scale:(Integrated with basin-scale strategy)Action 1: Conduct water qualityassessments to refine water qualityobjectives, outcome measures andindicators. Led by MPCA with partners,assisted by consultants.

Action 2: Refine strategies for achievingobjectives, outcome measures andindicator targets. Use modeling wherefeasible to evaluate alternativereduction scenarios. Fully engage localand regional agencies and the public indeveloping and evaluating alternativescenarios and finally selecting apreferred reduction scenario.

Action 3: Geographically target thestrategies to subwatersheds, includingminor watersheds.

Action 4: Implement strategies intargeted subwatersheds and minorwatersheds, according to the majorwatershed plan.

Action 5: Monitor at regular intervals toevaluate progress toward reachingobjectives on a major watershed scale.

Strategy A3: Minor Watershed Scale:(Integrated with basin and majorwatershed strategies)Action 1: Choose priority watershedsfor implementation, consistent withbasinwide strategies and majorwatershed assessments. There are twobasic approaches to choosing minorwatersheds for implementation priority:� Evaluation of a minor watershed’s

restoration potential. This may beestimated by considering acombination of factors includingdegree of impairment, potential forimprovement, and effort required toachieve a given degree ofimprovement. Moderately impairedstreams whose watersheds havesome variety of land use andecological connectivity, includingchannel or riparian integrity,generally will have a higher degreeof restoration potential than minorwatersheds that are heavilyimpaired and whose landscapes arehighly altered and lack diversity.

� Assessment of a watershed’sdegree of contribution to adownstream impairment. Forexample, watersheds that yield thehighest relative quantities ofsediment, nutrients or otherpollutants within a major watershedmay be chosen as priorities forrestoration.

Whichever of these approaches isappropriate will depend at least partlyon an evaluation of the relative meritsof achieving downstream or “mouth ofwatershed” objectives for a largestream or river, compared to the valueof restoring the quality of minor tributary

69

impairments. Local and regionalpreferences should be consulted tohelp answer this question. However,whichever minor watershed approachor combination of approaches ischosen, the total scope ofimplementation should be sufficient toaddress downstream impairments.

Action 2: Develop an implementationstrategy that addresses the regionalimpairment within the minor watershed.The following steps may be followed toimplement the Total Maximum DailyLoad (TMDL) process for phasedTMDLs where additional information isneeded.

Action 2a: Cooperate with local unitsof government, watershedorganizations and stakeholdersthroughout the process. Encouragelocal leadership.Action 2b: Gather relevant publisheddata on suspected sources ofimpairment in the watersheddraining to the impaired reach. Thisincludes feedlot inventories,assessments of ISTS compliance,identified unsewered communities,and maps indicating areasparticularly vulnerable to soilerosion, surface runoff and deliveryof pollutants to the impaired waterbody.Action 2c:Travel the watershed tobetter identify significant pollutionsources.Action 2d: Use this information tocomplete a TMDL Worksheet.Develop one or more ReductionStrategies that, according toestimates, will result in theattainment of water qualitystandards in the impaired reach.Ask local government, residents andstakeholders to choose a ReductionStrategy.

Action 2e: Submit the TMDL plan toEPA for approval. In cooperationwith local units of government andstakeholders, address EPAcomments to secure the plan’sapproval.Action 2f: Implement the chosenreduction strategy. Identify sourcesof funding, provide technical supportand program support asappropriate.Action 2g: Evaluate progress on thereduction strategy. After theimplementation period is completed,monitor water quality to determinewhether the impaired reach nowmeets water quality standards.Action 2h: If the first reductionstrategy does not succeed inremoving the impairment, conduct amore detailed analysis of theproblem. On the basis of its findings,develop and implement a secondreduction strategy.

Lake Protection andRestoration Strategies

Strategy A4: Lake Protection:Give high priority to the protection oflakes that fully or partially supportdesignated uses according to MPCAwater quality assessments. Promotethe adoption of BMPs and appropriateinspection and enforcement activitieswithin the watersheds of these lakes.

The potential water quality of lakesdepends on factors such as theirshape, watershed size, residence timeof water and the ecoregion within whichthey are located. The latter factor isparticularly important in establishingbenchmarks, or criteria, that can beused as goals to guide lake protectionand restoration efforts. Ecoregion-based criteria have been developed for

70

each of the three ecoregions of theLower Mississippi River Basin: North-Central Hardwood Forest, WesternCorn Belt Plains, and Driftless Region.These eco-region based criteria serveas the primary basis for evaluatingswimmable use support in lakes.A total of 47 lakes in the basin havebeen assessed. Out of this total, sixlakes (15 percent) were in full supportof swimmable use; 5 lakes (12 percent)were in partial support; and theremaining 36 lakes (86 percent) were innon-support of swimmable use. Thesecriteria also are the primary basis forlisting lakes on the 303(d) list and it isanticipated that they also will be thecriteria that eventually will bepromulgated into water qualitystandards. According to the U.S.EPA’s Clean Water Action Plan, stateswill be expected to adopt nutrientcriteria for lakes and streams for waterquality standards development by theend of 2003. The ecoregion-basedphosphorus criteria should serve as thetechnical goals for individual lakes inthe basin until lake and watershedstudies (Lake Assessment Projectstudies at a minimum) provide a basisfor setting a site-specific goal.

“Partial support” of swimmable use is avery desirable goal for many of thelakes in the Lower Mississippi Riverbasin. Given that a very smallpercentage of the lakes fully or partiallysupport swimmable use, lakes in thesecategories should be priorities forprotection or rehabilitation-orientedprojects. In many instances these lakeswill be somewhat deeper than the normfor the basin or ecoregion, and have ahigher likelihood of achieving lowerphosphorus concentrations in contrastto shallower lakes.

Action 1: Periodically review lakemonitoring data and identify lakes thatfully or partially support swimmable useaccording to appropriate ecoregioncriteria (or standards after they arepromulgated).

Action 2: Inform local units ofgovernment, citizens and interestednon-government organizations aboutlakes in their region that fully or partiallysupport swimmable use.

Action 3: Encourage counties,watershed organizations to develop alake management plan for lakes in thefull or partial support categories.

Action 4: Encourage counties andwatershed organizations to submitproject proposals to help implementtheir lake management plan. Wherewater quality data are not sufficient,Clean Water Partnership may be themost appropriate program. If adequatediagnostic study has been conducted toestablish relationships between waterquality and the watershedcharacteristics, lake projects thatpromote the implementation ofprotective BMPS may be moreappropriate.

Action 5: TMDL Strategy. Start first toaddress partially supporting lakesthrough the TMDL process. Thisprocess can lead to the identification ofwater quality goals and pollutant-reduction strategies that will preventthese lakes from getting worse and,eventually, improve them. Highlyimpaired lakes, by contrast, will requiremore extensive study.

Action 6: Overlay GIS feedlotcoverages on maps depicting lakes,with their drainage areas and trophicstatus. Make it a priority to ensure that

71

all feedlots in the watersheds of fully orpartially supporting lakes are permittedand abiding by their land applicationguidelines. Target inspection andenforcement activities in thesewatersheds.

Action 7: Use GIS to identify wheremajor urban areas are located in thewatersheds of fully or partiallysupporting lakes. Target these areas forearly adoption of Phase II stormwaterrules.

Strategy A5: Restoration of ImpairedLakes:The MPCA offers a series of lake-management programs whichinterested citizens groups can makeuse of as they try to better understandthe nature of a lake’s water qualityproblems, major sources of pollutants,and possible solutions that can beimplemented. These programs will bebriefly mentioned in the sequence inwhich citizens groups frequently makeuse of them.

Action 1: Citizens LakeMonitoring Program. Lakeresidents or citizens regularlycollect data on Secchi disktransparency, together withoccasional sampling forphosphorus and chlorophyll a.Trends are evaluated to estimatethe lake’s approximate trophicstate.Action 2: Lake AssessmentProgram. Lakes that warrantfurther investigation based onCLMP results can be studied inmore detail under the LakeAssessment Program (LAP). In aone-year study, MPCA providestechnical assistance to help awatershed group to collectrelevant watershed and lake

data, collect and analyze in-lakesampling for transparency,phosphorus, chlorophyll a,dissolved oxygen and otherparameters, conduct limitedtributary sampling, and write areport that describes the lake’sproblems and outlines possiblefuture actions.

Action 3: Clean WaterPartnership Program, Phase I:Local watershed organizationsthat are interested in seriouslyaddressing a lake’s problemsmay wish to apply for a CleanWater Partnership (CWP) grantfrom the MPCA. Phase I of CWPinvolves a detailed diagnosticstudy that goes considerablybeyond the scope of a LAPstudy. It provides the basis fordeveloping in-lake goals and aset of land use BestManagement Practicesrecommendations to achievethem. Based on this watershedand lake assessment, animplementation plan isdeveloped which becomes thebasis for a Phase IIImplementation grantapplication. The entire programcan extend from 5 to 8 years.

Action 4: Implementation andcontinued monitoring. Lakemanagement is on ongoing needthat extends beyond the durationof any program. This involvescontinued attention to land useBest Management Practicesimplementation, dealing withnew land-use issues as theyarise, and monitoring todetermine whether lake goalsare being met or not.

72

Strategy A7: Determine WatershedPriorities for Protection orRestorationThe following criteria are suggested for8-digit watershed prioritization:

a) Degree of watershedcoordination capabilitypresent at the major (8-digit)and minor (11-digit) level;

b) Degree of watershedplanning and assessmentthat have been conducted;

c) Degree of threat to drinkingwater sources;

d) Degree of land usedevelopment pressure;

e) Severity of downstreamimpacts on aquatic resources(for example, impacts onMississippi River backwaterareas)

f) Restoration Potential of waterbodies within the watershed(stream segments, lakes,groundwater and wetlands)24

B. Aquifer ProtectionStrategy Development Team: BeaHoffmann, SE Minnesota WaterResources Board (lead author); ArtPersons, MDH; Peter Zimmerman,MDH; Terry Lee, Olmsted County waterplanner; Joe Zachmann, MDA; JimLundy, MPCA, Norman Senjem, MPCA

Prevention of aquifer contamination isan important component of managingour drinking water resources. One

24 Factors to consider in determining restorationpotential include: 1) Degree of Impairment(identify impairments that are most likely torespond to appropriate and reasonablerestoration measures; 2) Cost-Effectiveness ofrestoration measures; and 3) Natural ResourceEndowments including undeveloped public landand biological diversity.

approach to preventing pollution of ourdrinking water supplies is to recognizewhere ground water is especiallyvulnerable to pollution and to then takemeasures to protect these sensitiveareas. The Minnesota Ground WaterProtection Act of 1989 defines asensitive ground water area as “ageographic area defined by naturalfeatures where there is a significant riskof ground water degradation fromactivities conducted at or near the landsurface.” For the purposes of thisdocument, geographic areas that are inthe vicinity of public and private drinkingwater sources are also consideredvulnerable areas because of their publichealth importance.

Geologic criteria for assessing sensitiveground water areas are generally basedon the properties of the geologicmaterials overlying the ground water.The sensitivity of the material isindicated by the “time of travel” for awater-borne contaminant to travelvertically from its source at or near theland surface to the aquifer. The mostsensitive areas would have the shortesttime of travel and have the least abilityto retard the vertical movement ofcontaminants into the aquifer.

Wellhead Protection AreasObjective: Achieve land usescompatible with management strategiesidentified in local and tribal wellheadprotection plans.

Almost all the public water supplysystems in the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin rely on ground water. Becauseof this, the protection of wells and theaquifers which supply them is animportant public health issue.Minnesota’s WHP program mustaddress both state and federal

73

mandates. Concerns over the impactsthat unwise land and water use have onthe quality and quantity of ground waterresources prompted the 1989Minnesota legislature to pass theMinnesota Groundwater Protection Act.The Act granted MDH authority todevelop a WHP program to protectpublic water supply wells fromcontamination.

Strategy B1: Support public watersuppliers’ efforts to develop wellheadprotection (WHP) plans. Forcommunities of 900 population or less,bring public water supplier into theWHP by 2003 and those of 900population or more by 2006. Thepurpose of Wellhead ProtectionPlanning is to prevent human-causedcontaminants from entering publicwater supply wells. These efforts areneeded to protect users from chronichealth effects related to ingesting lowlevels of chemical contaminants.

Action 1: Educate the public watersupply managers, public officials, andthe general public about WHPprinciples and requirements.

Action 2: Encourage formation of WHPcitizens committees.

Action 3: Provide technical assistanceto public water suppliers to help themdetermine the five componentsnecessary to determine theirdelineation areas.

Action 3a: For communitiesunder 3300, provide vulnerabilityassessments and delineations.Action 3b: Develop ground waterflow models for SE Minnesota.Action 3c: Conduct pumpingtests in representative aquifersto assist public water suppliers in

determining their transmissivityvalues.Action 3d: Assist in verifying welllocations on existing well logs forthe purpose of determiningground water flow direction.Action 3e: Develop ground waterflow modeling projects for SEMinnesota.

Action 4: Provide technical assistanceto public water suppliers to help indetermining an inventory of potentialpoint source contaminants.

Action 4a: Assist in obtaining aGeopositioning System (GPS)location for potential point sourcecontaminants.Action 4b: Share existingcontaminant source inventorydatabases with public watersuppliers.Action 4c: Create parcelownership and land use mapsfor WHP areas.

Action 5: Provide technical assistanceto public water suppliers in determiningappropriate management strategies forpotential pollutant sources.

Action 5a: Provide guidancedocuments for management ofspecific point sourcecontaminants.Action 5b: Establish well sealingcost-share programs for WHPareas.Action 5c: Support programs toencourage ISTS upgrade inWHP areas.Action 5d: Provide technicalassistance to communitiesconsidering land use regulationsin WHP areas.

74

Action 5e: Facilitate localcooperation among jurisdictionsfalling within WHP areas.Action 5f: Promote appropriateagricultural BMP’s in WHP areasthrough education and cost-share incentives.Action 5g: Provide educationabout management of sourceswithin a WHP management area.Action 5h: Implement WHPmeasures within inner WHPzones.

Strategy B2: Coordinate and supportWHP plan implementation by stateagencies with related missions such asthe MPCA, MDA, and DNR.

Action 1: Develop protocol for inter-agency communication andcoordination.

Action 2: Coordinate sharing ofdatabases.

Strategy B3: Encourage integration ofWHP protection into other plansincluding county water plans,watershed plans, and comprehensiveland use plans.

Strategy B4: Assist public watersuppliers in siting of new wells.

Action 1: Conduct site investigations.

Action 2: Assess risk of contaminationby existing point and nonpoint sourcecontaminants at proposed well locationsites.Strategy B5: Automate WellheadProtection Data

Action 1: Integrate WHP data includingupdated County Well Index informationinto a basin-wide data center and

internet-based site to improvetransmittal of data.

Action 2: Develop a karst featuresdatabase for the purpose of integratinginto point source contaminantinventories.

Strategy B6: Support continued karstinvestigations to improve knowledge ofground water behavior in the basin.

Strategy B7: Implement new federalunderground injection controlregulations that impact certain types ofon-site wastewater disposal systems inwellhead protection areas.

Supplementary materials:Minnesota Rules Parts 4720.5100 to4720.5590Wellhead Protection Phasing ListState Agency Guidance Documents forWellhead Protection Area Management

Private Drinking Water Wells

The primary source of drinking water insoutheastern Minnesota is theindividual underground well. In mostcases, a well can provide a reliable,safe source of drinking water when it isproperly located, constructed, andmaintained. A combination ofregulation and public education canhelp to ensure that proper guidelinesare followed, and that the health risksassociated with contaminated drinkingwater supplies are thereby reduced.The construction of new wells and thedisclosure and sealing of existing wellsare regulated by the MinnesotaDepartment of Health statewide;however, counties or cities having adelegated well program regulate privatewell construction within their borders.The statutory authority for delegation of

75

the duties of the Commissioner ofPublic Health is listed in MN Statutes103I.111. The statutory requirements &authority for requiring wells to be sealedfall under MN Statutes 103I.301.Authority may also be claimed underMN Statutes 145A.04 Subd. 8.

Strategy B7: Well and BoringConstruction

Action 1: Implement and conductcompliance monitoring andenforcement of State Statues andRules pertaining to well and boringconstruction to assure public health andgroundwater resources are protectedthrough proper well and boringconstruction.

Strategy B8: Well and Boring Sealing

Action 1: Implement and conductcompliance monitoring andenforcement of State Statutes andRules pertaining to well and boringsealing to assure public health andgroundwater resources are protectedthrough proper sealing of wells andborings.

Strategy B9: Well DisclosureProgram

Action 1: Follow-up on all unused wellsdisclosed at property transfer to assurethe well is sealed, put back into use, oris placed under a yearly renewablemaintenance permit.

Strategy B10: Education

Action 1: Provide information andeducation to the public, legislators, thenews media, special interest groups,civic organizations, and others toimprove public understanding of theneed for proper construction,

maintenance, and ultimate sealing ofwells and borings.

Action 2: Use existing educational toolssuch as the University of MinnesotaExtension Service Farm-A-Syst andHome-A-Syst programs to evaluate andmodify individual wellhead areapractices.

Action 3: Provide technical assistance,education and training to professionalssuch as well and boring contractors,agency and local government staff, andother professionals through trainingprograms, conferences, newsletters,publications and guidance memoranda.

Strategy B11: Special WellConstruction Areas

Action 1: Develop special wellconstruction areas in response togroundwater contamination problemsby consultation with affected parties,consultants, and government agencies,and by developing technicalpublications, guidance criteria andmaps in order to assure that potablewells are not constructed into thecontaminated aquifer and that wells andborings constructed and sealed in thearea do not adversely affect thecontamination plume.

Action 2: Develop maps depictingwhere carbonate aquifers must not beused for a potable water supply, wherepast well construction practicesnecessitate special techniques forsealing or where hydrologic, waterquality or well construction conditionsrequire development of a special reportor map.

76

Strategy B12: Research and DataGathering

Action 1: Conduct research and gatherdata to further understand geology,hydrology, contaminant behavior andground well/boring constructionpractices.

Strategy B13: Product Evaluation

Action 1: Evaluate new products andmaterials to be used in construction,maintenance, and ultimate sealing ofwells and borings to assure theproducts and materials meet publichealth protection requirements of StateStatutes and Rules.

Strategy B14: Well Water Testing

Action 1: Provide information to thepublic about the potential health risksassociated with contaminated watersupplies, especially those associatedwith vulnerable populations, and theneed for regular testing of well water.

Action 2: Support programs thatsubsidize well water tests and purchaseof bottled water when necessary, toincome-eligible populations.

Action 3: Support programs that providegrants or low-interest loans to income-eligible homeowners for construction,repair, or sealing of private drinkingwater wells.

Action 4: Support policy changes thatensure that owners of rental propertiesnot subjected to housing codes providepotable water supplies to their tenants.

Vulnerable Areas

The over-all objective is to manage landuse to avoid adverse effects to highlysensitive aquifers. Such aquifers maybe locally important resources forprivate drinking water wells notnormally protected by land use plans inwellhead protection areas.Furthermore, pollutants in theseaquifers may leak to deeper aquifers bymeans of fractures in confining units, orat the eroded subcropping edge ofconfining units.

Strategy B15: Manage RechargeAreas Near Edge of Decorah ShaleGround water recharge areas thatoccur at the edge of the Decorah shalereceive ground water from formations inthe unconfined Upper Carbonate andare therefore especially susceptible tocontamination. These areas should bemanaged as vegetative buffer areas(see Land Use Strategies, PerennialVegetation).

Strategy B16: Map DevelopmentDevelop the following maps for eachcounty or community as an aid todetermining priority vulnerable areaswithin that jurisdiction:

� the eroded subcropping edge ofconfining units

� fractures in confining units thatmay recharge to aquifersbeneath

� other solution features (e.g.,sinkholes swarms, caves, zonesof solution enlarged fractures,paleokarst zones, etc.) that mayaffect the movement ofpollutants downward from watertable aquifers to importantresource aquifers

Strategy B17: PlanningAction 1: Integrate the possibility ofcontamination from vulnerable recharge

77

areas and surface contaminationleakage through confining units intoWellhead Protection Plans, CountyWater Plans, Local ComprehensiveLand Use Plans, and transportationplans.

Strategy B18: Research SupportAction 1: Research efforts to quantifythe ability of soils to biologically filterground water that is recharging highlysensitive or very highly sensitiveaquifers and develop best managementpractices for land uses in these areas.

Strategy B19: Land-Use OrdinancesAction 1: Provide model land useordinances, designed to protectvulnerable areas, to local governments.

Strategy B20: Protection andPreservationAction 1: Permanently protect andpreserve highly vulnerable areasthrough purchase of propertyeasements or through programs thatencourage property set-asides.

Strategy B21: Education Provideeducation and technical assistance inidentifying and protecting sensitiveaquifers to the following stakeholdergroups:

� Water planners, land useplanners, transportation planners

� Soil and Water ConservationDistrict supervisors and staff

� Community water suppliers� Elected and appointed officials� Property owners� Public

C: FloodplainManagementStrategy Team: Jim Cooper, DNR(Non-Structural Flood DamageReduction); Judy Mader, MPCA;Norman Senjem, MPCA; Scot Johnson,DNR, John Sullivan, Wisconsin DNR(Mississippi River DredgingManagement)

Objective: Reduce the potentialfor flood damage while enhancingthe original functions offloodplains for water quality andecological benefits.

Introduction: A river system includesmuch more than a main channelrunning at bankful or lower flows. Animportant part of a river corridor is thefloodplain, a relatively flat area on bothsides of a stream that is formed overcenturies as the stream moves backand forth in a process of lateralmigration. This process, and sedimentdeposition, continually reshape thefloodplain, and often form a richdiversity of ecological niches. Duringfloods, the floodplain serves vitalfunctions ranging from sedimentaccumulation to providing areassuitable for fish spawning, to dissipatingriver energy and maintaining channelintegrity. At other times of the year, thenatural floodplain can be part of abiological corridor that supports avariety of wildlife. For a floodplain tocontinue to offer these services it mustremain connected to the river, and asfree as possible of fill, paved surfaceareas and other severe disturbances.

At the same time, human settlement offloodplains – towns, businesses, farms,and residences -- is a prominent

78

feature of today’s landscape that willendure for the foreseeable future.Flood damages to persons andproperty is a real concern that needs tobe dealt with to minimize thesedamages. Balancing these objectives –minimizing flood damages whilemaximizing ecological services of thefloodplain river corridor – is the goal ofthe following flood plain managementstrategies. Two such strategies havebeen prepared: one dealing with floodplain management for flood damagereduction; and another dealing with themanagement of dredging operations inthe Mississippi River Valley. Additionalstrategies will be needed to morespecifically address the functions offlood plains as part of the river corridorecosystem.

Nonstructural Measures ofFlood-Damage Reduction

Historically, flood relief has often beensought through construction of worksfor flood control such as dikes, dams,and enlarged channels. However,when it was found that average annualflood damages were increasing in spiteof the billions of dollars spent acrossthe nation in such works for floodcontrol, a new philosophy wasdeveloped that was referred to simplyas the nonstructural alternative toflood control. This philosophy wasintended to reduce flood damagesthrough such things as development offlood warning systems, flood proofing,floodplain land use planning, andfloodplain regulation with the structuralmeasures being only a subset ofcomprehensive floodplainmanagement.

In Minnesota, the non-structuralalternative to flood control prompted the

Minnesota Legislature to enactfloodplain management statutes thatemphasized non-structural alternatives.This statute exists today as Section103F.105 in Minnesota Statutes thatestablishes policy which in part says:“It’s the policy of this state to reduceflood damages through floodplainmanagement, stressing non-structuralmeasures such as floodplain zoningand flood proofing, flood warningpractices, and other indemnificationprograms that reduce public liability andexpenses for flood damages.” Thissection of law goes on to say: “It is thepolicy of the state not to prohibit but toguide development of the floodplains.”Floodplain management policy is statedin Section 103F.105 of the statutes.

Ecological Benefits. More recentlyawareness has developed over theecological benefits of allowing thefloodplain to function in a naturalunobstructed but connected stateutilizing floodplain storage to limit peakstages and discharges of major floodsbut allowing during normal runoff yearsthose lands that have traditionally beenused for agricultural production tocontinue to be used for such. In turn,those low-lying floodplain lands,wetlands, and ponding areas annuallyflooded would be allowed to continue toflood thereby sustaining waterfowl andfish spawning habitat and providingflood water storage. Sustaining aholistic functioning of these floodplainsnot only promotes healthy ecologicalbiodiversity of both the floodplain andthe adjoining river channel but alsominimizes the extent of monetarydamages when it floods.

Flooding experience of 2000 insoutheast Minnesota. During latespring, early summer of the year 2000,record or near record flooding occurred

79

in the Root River and Cedar RiverBasins of the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin planning area. In an attempt toidentify the perceived effectiveness ofimplementation of the existingfloodplain management policy, electedand non-elected government officialswere contacted and asked: “Inresponse to this year’s late spring, earlysummer flooding what appeared to belacking in terms of government/stategovernment response to those thatwere affected by the flooding?” Asummary of the responses and the listof those contacted is available from theRochester office of DNR Waters. Theresponses received also were helpful inidentifying priority strategies andactions that should be considered in theportion of the revised 2000 State WaterPlan for southeast Minnesota relating tofloodplain management.

Floodplain management strategiesand actions.Strategies and actions relating to statefloodplain management policy and formanagement of floodplains forecological benefits are groupedtogether. Strategies and actionsrelating to the Mississippi RiverFloodplain are listed as a subset. Allthe actions and strategies have beendeveloped within the context of statefloodplain management policy.

Strategy 1. Provide assistance tolocal units of government inpreparation of flood plans thatinclude flood preparedness,operation during flooding, and floodrelief and recovery.

Action1.Prepare compendium of local,federal, and state programs thatprovide assistance to both local units ofgovernment and private interests inmatters of flood preparedness,

operation during times of flooding, floodrecovery and relief and flood mitigation.Action2. Include in compendium asummary of process that will befollowed in disseminating flood reliefinformation during and following floodevents.

Action3. Develop a mechanism whichpromptly sets up public informationaland consultation meetings followingflooding on relief and recoveryprograms for local government andprivate interests.

Action4.Develop a mechanism whichwill, following flooding, accelerateidentification and compilation ofdamage estimates which determine ifthe threshold for a federal disasterdeclaration will be met.

(The above action items evolved fromresponse of the elected governmentand non-elected government officialsthat were queried following the year2000 late spring, early summerflooding.)

Strategy 2. Remove flood pronestructures from the floodplain.

Action 1.Inventory those communitiesand the number of high damagepotential structures in thosecommunities which have sufferedrepetitive flooding or have the potentialto be substantially damaged because offlooding.

Action 2. Periodically advise local unitsof governments with flood-pronestructures of the programs available toassist in removing such structures fromthe floodplain.

Action 3. Examine ways to speed upgovernment acquisition process for the

80

purchase of flood prone properties ofwilling sellers. (During the 2000 late spring, earlysummer flooding in southeastMinnesota, a number of buildings wereflooded in Austin and Spring Valley,some of which suffered substantialdamage while others have had a historyof repeated flooding. The State FloodDamage Reduction program along withfederal disaster assistance programscan provide local units of governmentsubstantial grants to communities forthe purchase of such flood-damagedstructures. Comment was receivedexpressing a desire to have theacquisition process speeded up.)

Strategy 3. Acquire (througheasement or purchase) the use ofproperties that are repeatedlyflooded which are suitable as wildlifemanagement areas and which wouldrestore the natural floodplainstorage areas.

Action 1. Inventory repeatedly floodedfloodplain areas that would be suitablefor wildlife management purposes, orwhich the restoration of the naturalflood water storage would effectivelyreduce flood stages and peak flooddischarges.

Action 2. Allocate funds to purchaseflood-prone properties from willingsellers which would be suitable forwildlife management purposes or whichwould restore the natural floodplainstorage characteristics thus reducingflood heights and peak discharges.Action 3: Examine ways to speed upgovernment acquisition process forpurchase of flood-prone properties ofwilling sellers.

(As a result of flooding in 2000, someowners of land that have been flooded

several times over the last ten yearshave expressed an interest in selling,but have expressed concern over thelength of time it takes the governmentto make a purchase. Both state andfederal wildlife management agencieshave indicated an interest in purchasingsome of these lands as wildlifemanagement areas.)

Strategy 4. Promote the expansionof flood warning systems to allow forbetter emergency preparedness forflood prone areas.

Action 1: Utilize existing assistanceprograms to provide flood warning tothose communities that don’t have awarning system but have indicated aninterest in having one such as SpringValley.

Action 2: Examine the use of existingprograms to replace the partial durationstream gage at the bridge on the RootRiver near Lanesboro that washed outduring the 2000 late spring, earlysummer flooding to enhancedownstream flood warning capabilities.Action 3: Refit abandoned USGeological Survey stream gages forflood warning purposes and to collectstream flow data to allow more accuraterisk determination and flood frequencyanalysis.

(Responses to the critique of the 2000flooding specifically expressed aninterest in developing a flood warningsystem for Spring Valley and that theLanesboro bridge gage needed to bereplaced. It’s noted that the USGeological Survey will be discontinuingtwo permanent gaging stations insoutheast Minnesota because costshare funding isn’t available to keepthem operating.)

81

Strategy 5. Seek means to developup-to-date floodplain mapping forareas experiencing growth usingstate-of-the-art GIS technology.

Action 1: Inventory those floodplainareas that are not adequately mappedand are experiencing developmentpressures.

Action 2: Examine the use of existingprograms to fund the development ofup-to-date mapping using GIStechnology for those floodplain areasexperiencing development pressures.

(Comments received during the critiqueof the 2000 flood indicated a need forupdated floodplain mapping for areassubject to development pressures.)

Strategy 6. Continue theadministration of floodplainregulation and participation in theNational Flood Insurance program atthe local level.

Action 1.Provide education programs tolocal units of government and the publicon floodplain and watershed hydraulicsand hydrology, floodplain regulationtechniques and the National FloodInsurance program.

Participation in the National FloodInsurance program requires that localunits of government adopt andadminister floodplain land use controlssuch as zoning and subdivisionregulations and building codes.Minnesota Law requires that floodplainzoning regulations adopted by localunits of government meet minimumstate standards set by the Departmentof Natural Resources.State floodplain zoning standards arecompatible with the minimum floodplainregulations required for participation in

the National Flood Insurance Program.All the counties and 57 cities located inthe Lower Mississippi River Basinplanning area participate in the NationalFlood Insurance program and thereforeadminister floodplain regulations thatmeet both flood insurance standardsand minimum state floodplainstandards. In the southeast MinnesotaCounties (Houston, Fillmore andMower) named in the federal disasterdeclaration because of the 2000flooding, as of July 31, 2001, 395 floodinsurance policies were in force; 156policies are in force in Houston County;75 policies are in force in FillmoreCounty of which 16 are in SpringValley; and 164 policies are in force inMower County of which 141 are inAustin.

Strategy 7. Examine cost effectiveoptions to reduce agricultural flooddamages.

Action 1: Promote urban and rural landuse practices on a watershed basisthrough implementation of all elementsof Watermarks and the LowerMississippi River Basin Plan ScopingDocument, which will reduce runoff,reduce flood stages, and reduce theextent of floodwater inundation.

Action 2: Look for opportunities torestore or create wetlands.

Action 3: Seek funding for programsthat provide cost share to local units ofgovernment for removal of debris fromstream channels that cause asignificant obstruction to flow andexcessive stream bank erosion.

Action 4: Continue to use existing workforce programs such as Sentence-to-Serve crews and MinnesotaConservation Corps crews to assist in

82

removal of debris from streams andrivers.

(In the critique of government responseto flooding in 2000, several commentedthat they expect floods to get larger andmore frequent. Others commentedthere was a need to install more landtreatment measures in the uplands ofthe watershed. Several indicated thatSentence- to-Serve Crews shouldcontinue to be used to help removedebris from stream and river channels.)

Mississippi River DredgingManagement

The Mississippi River floodplain on theeastern border of Minnesota “is part ofthe largest riverine ecosystem in NorthAmerica and third largest of seventy-nine such river systems in the world….This floodplain ecosystem complex …is critical habitat for both aquatic andterrestrial species of flora and fauna...The ecological significance of thisfloodplain, as a commercial andrecreational fishery and migratorywaterfowl nesting area, flyway andhunting area, was formallyacknowledged by the U.S. Congress asearly as 1924. That year, at the urgingof the Izaak Walton League, more than200,000 acres of floodplain wasdesignated by Congress as the UpperMississippi National Wildlife and fishRefuge.25

A wide range of federal and stategovernment agencies and non-government organizations are involvedin managing the Mississippi River forcommercial and ecological benefits: theEnvironmental Management Program; 25 A River That Works and A Working River,January 2000, Upper Mississippi RiverConservation Committee, Rock Island, IL,

Long-Term Resource MonitoringProgram; and ongoing evaluations ofcommercial navigation and its impacton water quality and the floodplainecosystem. The following strategyaddresses the management of dredgingthat is conducted to maintain a nine-foot navigation channel by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. The strategyhas four main components. Itaddresses 1) preventive measures thatcan reduce the need for dredging; 2)siting decisions that affect the use offloodplain land for dredge spoil storage;3) the management of dredgingactivities, particularly dredge placementsites, to reduce water quality andecosystem impacts; and 4) beneficialre-use of dredge spoils.

Dredging is often conducted to maintainnavigation access to or within awaterbody. Material that is thendredged from a waterbody must bedisposed of -- Minnesota Statutes andRules strongly discourage in-waterdisposal of pollutants (dredged materialis defined as “other waste” in MN Stat.Chap. 115.03). Therefore, mostdredged material disposal takes placeon upland. Since permittees generallyseek to reduce the financial cost of thedredging activity, dredged material isoften placed in the nearest , and lowestcost, disposal site – the flood plain.The UMRCC Strategy from “A RiverThat Works and a Working River”26thatdeals with dredging issues is “Managechannel maintenance and dredgematerial disposal to support naturalresource management systemobjectives.”

Regardless of the size of the disposalsite, placement of dredged materialwithin the flood plain: 26 Ibid, pp. 25-26

83

a) smothers the flora and fauna atthe site;

b) temporarily disrupts use of thearea by wildlife;

c) hinders the conveyance of highor flood flows, therebypreventing the dissipation of flowenergy; and

d) prevents the deposition ofsuspended sediment, whichholds nutrients to “feed” floodplain vegetation, carried by thehigh or flood flows.

Strategy 8: Reduce turbidity in side-channels and backwaters of theMississippi and minimize the needfor navigation channel dredging bya) reducing the discharge ofsediment from major tributaries, andb) channel management activities.

Action 1: Determine the potential forreducing sediment sources andincreasing sediment sinks withintributary watersheds. Incorporatesediment source/sink analysis intomajor watershed assessmentsconducted for Total Maximum DailyLoad studies and other purposes.

Action 2: Implement sediment reductionstrategies in tributary watersheds(Strategies 1,2,3,4, and 6).

Action 2a: Attempt to increase thestorage of sediment within tributarywatersheds in upstream or alluvialfloodplain locations. Evaluate thepotential for reconnecting themainstem with alluvial floodplains inmajor tributaries.Action 2b: Judiciously use channelmaintenance activities includingmonitoring, buoy positioning,sediment trapping and currentcontrol structures to reduce theneed for dredging, while allowing

the river to function in as natural amanner as possible.

Strategy 9: Reduce the number ofpermanent dredged materialdisposal facilities located in floodplains.

Action 1: Work with applicants andpermittees to:

a) identify viable permanentdisposal sites outside of theflood plain; and

b) beneficially re-use andremove dredged material thatis stockpiled in the flood plainwithin a reasonable timeframe.

Action 2: Educate applicants andpermittees regarding:

a) the impacts of dredgedmaterial placement on thecapacity of a flood plain toconvey river flow during highwater events; and

b) the impact of flood flows onthe integrity of a dredgedmaterial disposal facilitylocated in the flood plain; and

c) the impact of eroded material(both native soils andsediment from dredgedmaterial disposal sites) onthe “health” of the waterbody.

Strategy 10: Manage dredgingactivities to minimize adverse effectson water quality and the floodplainecosystem.

Action 1: Where practical, avoiddredging and transfer of dredgedmaterial during sensitive time periodssuch as fish spawning. Developguidelines for seasonal constraints onriver dredging operations. Citeguidelines in 401 certificates.

84

Action 2: Develop framework for determining effluent limits for TotalSuspended Solids for dredgeplacement sites.

Action 3: Develop a monitoring protocolfor dredge placement sites that includesboth effluent and ambient water quality.

Action 4: Placement site management.Action 4a: Formalize BestManagement Practices (BMPs)that are specific to dredging anddisposal activities.Action 4b: Include, by reference,the BMP Document developed inthe point above in the DredgingExemption from State DisposalSystem permitting (MN Rule7050.0212) for TSS.Action 4c: Through 401Certification require that dredged

material be handled in a mannerthat protects water quality.

Action 5: Increase inspection andenforcement of dredge disposal siteactivities by coordinating activitiesbetween the MPCA and DNR.Action 6: Coordinate closely with theresource agencies in adjoining stateson shared-water issues to avoidcontradictory actions.

Strategy 11: Encourage BeneficialUses of Dredge Spoils.This will reduce the need to devotefloodplain land areas to the permanentstorage of dredge spoils, and reducethe need for aggregate mining to meetincreased demands.

85

VII: Land-UseStrategiesA: Land-Use Strategy 1:Perennial Vegetation

Strategy Development Team: HowardMoechnig, NRCS/BWSR (Pasture LandConservation Management), MaryKells, BWSR, Tom Steger, GoodhueCounty NRCS, Tex Hawkins, USFWS(riparian buffers)

Objective: Increase – or, at a minimum,maintain -- acreage of land in hay andpasture, woods and meadow.

Environmental functions of perennialvegetationMaintaining land with permanentvegetative cover is critically important toachieving water quality, water quantityand ecological goals and objectives inthe Lower Mississippi River Basin.Land with permanent cover helps toreduce surface runoff and interceptpollutants such as pesticides, nutrientsand sediment to protect surface andground water quality. By increasinginfiltration, perennial vegetation helps toreplenish groundwater aquifers andretard the flow of water to streams tostabilize the hydrologic cycle andreduce stream bank erosion. Increasedinfiltration also helps to lower thetemperature of streams by routingrunoff through groundwater rather thanover the surface. In addition,permanent vegetative cover is essentialto support wildlife populations.

The degree of environmental benefitsprovided by perennial vegetative coverdepends on the location andmanagement of such land relative to

other land uses in a watershed. Toprotect surface water quality,permanent vegetative cover can bestrategically located on shorelanddown-slope from intensive land uses, toincrease infiltration and provide a sinkfor pollutants. Periodic harvesting maybe needed to prevent the sink fromeventually exporting pollutants, therebybecoming a pollutant source. Toprotect groundwater quality, permanentvegetative buffers may be establishedat critical geologic positions such as theperiphery of sinkholes. Anotherexample is groundwater recharge areassuch as those that occur at the edge ofthe Decorah shale and receive groundwater from formations in the unconfinedUpper Carbonate aquifers that arecontaminated with nitrate nitrogen andother pollutants (See GeographicManagement Strategies/ AquiferProtection/Vulnerable Areas, above).

Current land-use statusPerennial vegetation includes a varietyof land uses within the LowerMississippi Basin. Some of the land inperennial vegetation is undercommercial use. This includes hay,pasture and public and privateharvested forestland. Non-commercialland in perennial vegetative coverincludes forest, meadows, wetlandcomplexes or temporarily retiredfarmland. As of 1997, approximatelyone-quarter of the land in the LowerMississippi River basin was inpermanent vegetation, according to theNRI. Of these land uses, forest landaccounted for the highest percentage ofland in the basin (13%), followed bypastureland (8%), ConservationReserve Program land (4%), and non-cultivated cropland (2%). Not includedin this measure of perennial vegetationis a very significant item: hay grown inrotation with a cultivated crop, often in

86

contour strips that provide excellenterosion control.

Land-use trendsAlthough forested acreage has heldroughly constant over the past twodecades, local resource managers fromcounty and SWCD offices have noted adisturbing trend over the past severalyears with regard to permanentvegetation. With more and more mixedcrop and livestock farmers leavingfarming, land that used to be devoted tohay and pasture now is being used forrow-crop production. Even if wellmanaged for erosion control, row-cropland provides inferior runoff controlsand habitat benefits compared to thepermanent vegetative cover it replaces.Recent NRI data confirm that this trendhas been taking place for quite a fewyears. From 1982 to 1997, acreage innoncultivated cropland and pasturelandhas declined from 627,700 acres to447,900 acres, a decline of 28 percent.Acreage in intervening years hasvaried, reaching 514,000 acres in 1992.Thus, the objective of restoring landuse to the 1982 levels for pasture andnoncultivated cropland is not as distantas it might at first appear. Pasturelandhas consistently declined from 1982through 1997, while noncultivatedcropland acreage has variedconsiderably.

A: Perennial vegetation forharvesting, grazing and othercommercial uses.

Objective: Restore area in pasture andnoncultivated cropland to 1982 levels(630,000 acres) from current estimatesof 448,000 acres.

Approximately eight percent of the landarea of the Lower Mississippi Riverbasin consists of pastureland,according to National ResourcesInventory (NRI) data for 1997. This isdown from 10 percent in 1982. In theintervening period land in pasturedecreased by 22 percent, or more than100,000 acres. Much of thepastureland is not suitable for cropland.Many acres of pasture are on verysteep soils, where runoff is rapid andintermittent and perennial streamsoccupy the swales. Delivery ofpollutants from these sites to streams isefficient. In terms of numbers ofgrazing livestock, six of the top tencounties in Minnesota are located inthis basin.

Strategy A1: Maintain and, if possible,increase the production of beef anddairy in the basin by promoting theeconomic and environmentalsustainability of cattle production.

Action 1: Support actions to improvethe profitability of beef cattle production.Maintain or increase the use of well-managed cattle grazing on steep slopesand in riparian areas (see “Strategy A3:Pasture Land ConservationManagement).

Action 2: Explore ways of working withthe Minnesota Department ofAgriculture’s “Dairy Initiative” toenhance the economic viability of dairyproduction in southeastern Minnesota.

Strategy A2: Hay and GrasslandManagement Education.

Action 1: Promote the productivemanagement of hay and pastureland,including soil testing and application ofpotassium fertilizer where needed (30%

87

of soil samples indicate potashdeficiencies).

Strategy A3: Pasture LandConservation Management

Proper conservation treatment oferoding pasture lands includesrotational grazing for foragemanagement, as well as managementof sensitive areas within the pastures,such as stream corridors, springs,shallow soils, very steep soils, andareas containing woodlands withcommercial potential. Installation offacilitating practices, such as fencingand watering systems, is critical tosuccess of the rotational grazingsystems. Proper treatment ofpasturelands in this basin will increaseinfiltration of rainfall, reduce soilerosion, reduce nutrient movement tostreams, and help to reduce peak flowsin streams, as well as improve thestability and health of sensitive areas.

Within the last two years there hasbeen an increased interest byproducers to establish rotationalgrazing systems (Prescribed GrazingSystems). A Section 319 grant toBWSR, titled Grazing LandsImprovement Project, is beingimplemented. Through this projectthere will be at least six workshopsdeveloped and given to serviceproviders and producers in the topicareas of forage plant identification,planning prescribed grazing systems,and pasture monitoring. In addition, aworkshop will be developed to provideinformation regarding sensitive areamanagement within pastures. TheEnvironmental Quality IncentivesProgram (EQIP) provides financialincentives and technical support toproducers who want to implementprescribed grazing systems. Interest in

this program is very high, with demandexceeding technical and financialresources. Approximately 60prescribed grazing plans have beendeveloped in this basin through thisprogram.

Action 3A1: Provide TechnicalResources to Producers and ServiceProvidersMost service providers and producerslack knowledge of the intricacies ofplanning and monitoring a goodprescribed grazing system. Thisproblem will be addressed somewhatby the section 319 grant mentionedabove, but this is only a good start.These workshops, to be effective, mustbe limited to 20 students at one time.This educational process needs to becontinued beyond the life of the 319project. The following tasks will beaccomplished within the next two years:

Task 1: Prepare course materialsand present the following courses:� Pasture Forage Plant

Identification� Planning Prescribed Grazing

Systems� Monitoring Prescribed Grazing

Systems� Fencing Systems for Prescribed

Grazing Systems (This willrequire some type of grant forequipment)

� Livestock Watering Systems(This will require some type ofgrant for equipment)

� Managing Sensitive Areas WithinPrescribed Grazing Systems

Task 2: Develop a grazing systemsplanning guidebook. This is alreadynearing completion through EQIPgrants.

88

Action 3A2: Study Impacts ofLivestock in Riparian CorridorsThere is evidence that properlymanaged grazing in riparian areas canhave a positive effect on the streams insoutheast Minnesota. It is alsounderstood that if grazing in theseareas is not properly managed theresults will be a negative impact on theenvironment. This is a controversialsubject and it is contrary to theinformation published to promote thefederal buffers initiative. Because ofthe sensitive nature of the streams inthis basin, this issue needs to be fullydiscussed and researched soon, toprevent damage to the ripariancorridors through well-intentionedactions.Task 1: Study existing research on the

topic of grazing streamcorridors, the effects offorested buffers, and on theeffects of grassed buffers onstream riparian areas in thedriftless regions of Minnesota,Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Task 2: Prepare a document thatoutlines procedures forevaluating stream corridors tomake determinations of the bestpossible treatment of riparianzones.

Task 3: Prepare a workshop to trainservice providers how toevaluate riparian areas.

Action 3A3: Provide Incentives toProducers to Apply FacilitatingPracticesThe only existing cost share programthat provides assistance to livestockproducers for practices that facilitaterotational grazing systems (fencing,watering systems, heavy use areaprotection, etc.) is the federalEnvironmental Quality IncentivesProgram (EQIP). Other options include

modification of the State Cost ShareProgram, inclusion in legislativeinitiatives such as HR4013, andprogrammatic changes such as thatsought by the Grazing LandsConservation Initiative (GLCI).

The GLCI is promoting the inclusion ofa line item in the budget for NRCS forthe specific purpose of management ofgrazing lands in the U.S. The budgetcould be for personnel, cost sharedollars, and/or research.

Action 3A4: Program DeliveryCurrently there is a staffing shortage inall agencies for the specific purpose ofpromoting proper grazing landstreatment. With the documentedinterest by producers, one staff person(most applicably in NRCS) working fulltime in southeast Minnesota would beable to provide one-on-one technicalassistance, prepare technical materials,and provide information throughworkshops and field days.Development of technical materialswould be another important aspect ofthis position.

Producers who rely upon rotationalgrazing systems have the option tobelong to any of the grazing clubs in thearea (approximately 4 clubs exist). Inaddition serious graziers are alreadyeffectively networking with each otheron a regular basis in this area of thestate. Some of the mostknowledgeable graziers in Minnesotaare located within this area.

One goal of the current NRCS grazinglands conservationist in Minnesota is todevelop a series of courses/workshopsthat would constitute a grazing school ifcombined. The option exists to offer a“grazing school” or to offer any one ofthe courses/workshops, depending

89

upon the requirements of a group ofproducers or service providers. Thefollowing is a listing of courses alreadydeveloped or to be developed:� Pasture Forage Plant Identification� Planning Prescribed Grazing

Systems� Fencing Systems for Prescribed

Grazing Systems� Livestock Watering Systems in the

Lower Mississippi River Basin� Monitoring Pastures in Prescribed

Grazing Systems� Managing Sensitive Areas Within

Prescribed Grazing Systems

Strategy A4: Forest Land Management(Adapted from the Whitewater RiverWatershed Project Plan)

Objective: Make forests a sustainable,renewable resource in the watershedthrough proper forest planning andmanagement.

Strategy A4-1: Promote appropriatetimber harvesting techniques.Action 1: Promote the use of forester-assisted private timber harvest(currently used on an estimated10-20percent of private forestland).Action 2: Create a rating system ofbasin loggers and disseminate theresults to woodland owners. Ratingswould be based on BMPs used intimber harvesting already done in thearea.Action 3: Encourage the use of costshare on private timber sales to obtainadequate regeneration, especially ofoak.Action 4: Education wood lot owners onproper timber harvesting techniques.

Strategy A4-2: Develop ForestStewardship Plans

Encourage forest landowners todevelop a forest stewardship plan.These plans should recognize the fullrange of utility and limitations to forestresources and should match biologicaldiversity with soil type, climate andregeneration rates. Plans also shouldinclude disease and pest controlmeasures and means of controllingundesirable species.

Strategy A4-3: Expand ForestedAreas.Work for expansion of forested areaswithin the basin, in order to utilize theforest’s supreme ability to prevent waterrunoff and erosion.Action 1: Suggest that woodlands bestarted where land voluntarily taken outof production has problems with sheetand rill erosion. Examples would beland enrolled in RIM and CRP.Action 2: Suggest tree plantings forwindbreaks, shelterbelts as buffer areasbetween floodplains and agriculturalland, gully heads as well as aroundsprings, sinkholes and headwaterareas.Action 3: Cost share for establishmentof forests and for methods of protectionfrom predators of trees.

Strategy A4-4: Improve current timberstandsAction1: Try to improve current timberstand quality from a present state of 73percent poor, to medium-stockedconditions.Action 2: Strive to remove cattle fromwoods where possible

B: Noncommercial PerennialVegetation

Strategy B1: Protect Existing NaturalVegetation bordering major streams,

90

tributaries, lakes, wetlands or sensitivegroundwater recharge areas.

Action 1: Determine priorities formaintaining existing perennialvegetation -- on the basis of the need toprotect priority water bodies, improvewildlife conservation potential, etc.

Action 2: Consult landownersconcerning their interest in permanenteasement programs such as Reinvestin Minnesota. Pursue funding throughappropriate agencies and non-government organizations. Support afull-time position within the basin tocontact landowners to encourageenrolment in these programs.

Action 3: Consider the development ofcounty land use ordinances that wouldprotect existing areas with naturalvegetation. See model ordinance fornatural area protection developed bythe State Planning Agency. Combinewith the purchase and transfer ofdevelopment rights.

Action 4: Consider the feasibility ofproperty tax reductions or exemptionsfor permanent conservation easementsand shoreland buffers.

Strategy B2: Riparian BuffersObjective: Increase stream miles ofriparian buffers at least 50 feet widebordering protected waters.

Introduction: Riparian bufferimplementation will target protectedwaters in the basin. In addition, thestrategies will allow for counties toaccelerate buffer implementation toprotect all water resources in thecounty. It is understood that riparianbuffers are to be considered just one ofthe BMP’s necessary to reducesedimentation and nutrient loading to

the water resources. Upland watershedmanagement is encouraged and shouldinclude a combination of BMP’s in orderto reduce soil erosion to tolerable limits,sustain soil productivity, slow runoff,and reduce the need to use riparianbuffers as the catch all for sedimentsand nutrients.

Many counties statewide areimplementing buffer initiatives.Information is available on theseprojects to any counties that areinterested.

After reviewing buffer references anddiscussing implementation with countyfield office personnel, the team agreedthat local buffer initiatives needsupplemental establishment ofpermanent vegetative cover in targetedareas of the basin.

Haying, grazing, buffer width,manageable fields and other issues aregenerally recognized but are notreferenced to program specifics.

The strategy is designed to providesome general guidelines in the form ofgoals and actions that can be used toimplement related water plan activities.References were reviewed to ensurethat county priorities were taken intoconsideration.

Strategy B2a--Information/Education:Create an awareness among the publicof the water quality and other resourcebenefits of vegetative riparian buffers inrural and urban settings.

Action 1: Develop rural and urbanlandowner handbooks for countyresidents that include riparian bufferopportunities/programs.

91

Action 2: Develop an information mediacampaign incorporating local andregional media outlets.

Action 3: Work with partners to updatefact sheets outlining various types ofbuffers and their benefits.

Action 4: Encourage non-governmentalorganizations’ participation in thepromotion of buffer implementation.

Strategy B2b: Inventory/Mapping:Encourage counties to map and identifyareas where perennial vegetation andriparian buffers exist or are needed.

Action 1:Work with counties to obtainappropriate GIS data layers necessaryto accomplish buffer needsassessment.

Action 2: Work with universities andresearch/management agencies tocollate and analyze data sets whileproviding training opportunities forstudent interns and technicians.

Strategy B2c: LandTreatment/Implementation:

Action 1: Seek out funding sources foraccelerating one-on-one technicalassistance to landowners through localunits of governments andnongovernmental organizations.Action 2: Work with partners toformulate rules/policies to allow hay orgrazing under an approvedmanagement plan.Action 3: Pursue avenues ofconservation tax credit for landownerswho utilize buffers on their land.

Action 4: Extend funding opportunitiesfor enrollment of riparian buffers inprograms that afford permanentprotection.

Action 5: Seek out sources of additionalfunding or assistance for counties toprovide supplemental incentives forriparian areas not eligible for existingprograms. This could addressprotecting headlands, squaring offfields, crediting existing buffers andbeing able to enroll whole riparian fieldswhen remaining cropland fragments areunmanageable.

Action 6:Use shoreland zoningregulations as an incentive toaccelerate voluntary implementation ofriparian buffers.

Strategy B2d:Research/Demonstration/Monitoring:Action 1: Maintain contact andcoordinate with the USGS-ledAgroecosystem Team on riparian bufferresearch. This research proposes toevaluate riparian buffer management inan integrated, watershed scale studythat blends three key components: theaquatic system, the terrestrial system,and, equally important, the landownerand the constraints that affect his/heradoption of BMP’s.Action 2: Encourage citizen/partnerinvolvement in water monitoringactivities.

Strategy B2e: Develop an evaluationprogram that updates acreage ofpermanent vegetative cover andriparian buffers on an annual basis.

Action 1: Review implementationannually utilizing student interns and/orcounty partners.

Action 2: Complete annual progressreport to BALMM with status ofimplementation of vegetative buffers.

92

B: Land-Use Strategy 2:Wetland Preservation andRestoration

Lead Author: John Voz, Mower SWCD

Introduction: It is estimated thatapproximately half of the acreage ofpre-settlement wetlands in the LowerMississippi River Basin (880,000 acresaccording to CURA estimate) has beendrained and developed for economicuses such as farming and urbandevelopment. The remaining wetlandacres perform valuable functions thatneed protection – hence the statewidegoal of “no net losses of wetlands,”which this strategy embraces.

As wetlands have disappeared from thelandscape, the quality of adjacentwaters has suffered. The ability ofwetlands to filter or catch pollutants hasprovided a strong argument for theirprotection from being drained or filled.But viewing wetlands strictly as stormwater retention areas or watershedkidneys is myopic. The wetlandbiological communities provide intrinsicvalues and functions, which are asimportant as the wetland’s function andvalue within the watershed orecosystem context. These include:

Water quality improvement.Wetlands help to remove orretain nutrients, organics andsediment carried by runoff. Manychemicals are tied to sedimentand trapped in wetlands.Biological processes convertpollutants into less harmfulsubstances. For example,wetlands can help to denitrifyrunoff, converting nitrate-nitrogen to nitrogen gas.

Biological Diversity: Wetlandcomplexes, includingsurrounding upland acreage,afford suitable habitat forterrestrial and aquatic organismsand birds, in addition to plantspecies that thrive in wet soils.Wetlands thus form an importantpart of a landscape mosaic thatsupports a diversity of life forms.

Hydrologic stability. Wetlandsprovide for storage ofprecipitation and snowmelt onthe landscape. Storage helps toretard surface runoff to streams,thereby reducing peak flows andresulting flooding, streamscouring and stream bankerosion. Wetlands also canenhance groundwater recharge.

When a wetland’s watershed is alteredto accommodate agriculture orurbanization (housing, industry, andretail), its hydrology will be affected.Water level changes in the wetlandoften also become more frequent andprolonged. This is often referred to as“bounce”, which has been documentedto:� Shift plant communities from diverse

native species to monocultures ofspecies tolerant of unpredictablehydrologic conditions;

� Contribute to destabilized shorelineconditions favorable to weedy plantspecies;

� Increase suspended solids andturbidity;

� Alter water chemistry conditions;� Impact wildlife, including mammals,

birds, reptiles and amphibianpopulations, and

� Simplify the wetland invertebratecommunity.

93

Altering the hydrology can also divertsurface or groundwater from thewetland. Sometimes referred to asdewatering, projects in a wetland’swatershed that reroute or redirect waterfrom wetlands pose a serious threat towetland resources as well.

Not all wetlands are equal in terms oftheir biodiversity, wildlife habitat andaesthetic values. Likewise, not allwetlands are equal in terms of thewater quality benefits they provide. Inorder to make wise resourcemanagement decisions for theindividual wetland, and for thesurrounding water and land resources,those charged with managing theresources must have the appropriatetools to help gather information that willlead them to the best managementdecisions for the community. Theoverall goal of this wetland strategy isto protect the quantity and quality of thewetland resource in the LowerMississippi River Basin.

Strategy 2A: Improve WetlandRestoration Efforts BasinwideEncourage high-quality wetlandrestorations, creations and recover lostwetland integrity.

Action 1: Update the National WetlandInventory for the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin. Include updates, digitize maps forGeographic Information Systems, andevaluate status and trends. Suggestedpriority areas include:� Rochester and surrounding urban

corridor� The urban fringe and developing areas

of Dakota County� Agriculture areas with inadequate

mapping� Forested areas

Action 2: Develop a comprehensiveinventory of cropped, drained andrestorable wetland sites. Develop aregional database for the Lower MississippiRiver Basin which identifies hydric soilsthat are cropped. Use database to identifypossible wetland restoration sites.

Action 3: Conduct gap analysis atappropriate scale to identify criticaldiscontinuities in wildlife habitat andecological benefit. Provide this informationto local governments.

Action 4: Evaluate restoration efforts andpriorities at the watershed scale. Identifyand target the restoration of wetlandswhich, if restored, would provide a highdegree of benefit to hydrology, waterquality and biological diversity.

Action 5: Based on the above information,and landowner interest, assess the annualneed for wetland protection and restorationin the Lower Mississippi River Basin.Evaluate the funding needed to supportthis degree of protection and restoration.Determine the adequacy of existingfunding sources relative to this estimatedneed.

Action 6: Promote wetland banking withinminor watersheds with high development.Explore the possibility of agriculturalwetland banking sites strictly to offsetagricultural wetland impacts. Explore waysof addressing the problems of cash flowand perceived financial risk that maydiscourage private landowners fromdeveloping wetlands for sale to a regionalbank.

Action 7: Streamline and improveprograms for permanent conservationeasements, such as Reinvest inMinnesota, Wetland Restoration Program,etc.

94

Action 8: Engage non-governmentorganizations in wetland protection andrestoration projects. Consider cities assources of funding for wetland restoration.

Action 9: Support the development ofWetland Functional Assessments27 tofacilitate better decision-making andprotection of wetland functions andvalues. � Evaluate and revise the Minnesota

Routine Assessment Method for theLower Mississippi River Basin.

� Train local governmental units toconduct functional assessments aspart of local water planning.

Strategy 2B: Support local wetlandmanagement and protection efforts.

Action 1: Support the piloting ofcomprehensive wetland decision

27 Wetland functional assessments evaluate thesuitability and quality of the many functionsascribed to a given wetland. Thehydrogeomorphic method (HGM) evaluatesseveral attributes, many of them physicalfactors, for the wetland being assessed andcompares them to expectations of similarwetlands in the same geographic andhydrologic class. Regional Guidebooks mustfirst be developed before HGM assessmentscan be implemented. A guidebook fordepressional wetlands in the Prairie Potholeregion is under development and could beapplied in Minnesota. A second functionalassessment method developed for use inMinnesota is the Minnesota RoutineAssessment Method (MRAM), developed by theMinnesota Interagency Wetland Group. It isintended as an evaluation tool to document andorganize field observations made by trainedwetland professionals. MRAM can be applied toessentially any wetland type in the state, sincethe method does not integrate the variousfunctions into a single value or result thefunctional evaluation is made for each functionon a relative scale. Results are intended toillustrate the consequences of proposed landuse actions on individual functions.

making in agricultural regions.

Action 2: Work toward eliminating multi-agency wetland regulation and creating“one stop shopping” at the local level.

Action 3: Review how fines areassessed by county Farm ServiceAgency offices for Swambusterviolations. Consider issuing a range ofpenalties rather than the current “all ornothing” approach.

Action 4: Support increased localenforcement of the WetlandConservation Act and local wetlandprotection ordinances.

Action 5: Draft model language for localplans (e.g., comprehensive zoning) thatprotects the biological integrity ofwetlands, including fringe/buffer areas.

Strategy 2D: Wetland Education andOutreach

Action 1: Provide training workshops onwetland ecology, hydrology, soils, botany,classification, functional assessment andcondition assessment

Action 2: Provide wetland “essentials”training for realtors, contractors,developers and other developmentprofessionals.

Action 3: Promote local and regional fieldtours of wetlands for local officials.

Action 4: Find effective ways tocommunicate wetland benefits, floodingand stormwater processes, alternativerunoff management, cumulative impacts ofland use decisions and smart growth.

Action 5: Promote interactive wetlandeducational programs like “WOW” and“Project WET” to provide K-12 students a

95

personal experience with wetlands.Promote wetland-related activities orstudies for school science fairs.

Action 6: Get citizens involved in hands-onmonitoring of their communities’ wetlandsthrough a program modeled after theWetlands Health Evaluation Program inDakota County.

Strategy 2E: Address Wetland ResearchNeedsAction 1: Research the role of wetlandswithin systems such as hydrologic systemsor ecosystems

Action 2: Improve methods to determinewetland water budgets and groundwaterrecharge contribution of individual wetlandbasins or complexes and map importantregional recharge zones.

Action 3: Research and develop improvedguidance for buffer widths and qualitycriteria in urban and rural landscapes.

Action 4: Explore the use of createdwetlands as treatment systems for excessnutrients, sediment and other pollutants.

Action 5: Research the water qualityimpacts of different wetland grazingregimes.

Action 6: Research the need for andecological/ hydrological benefits ofeliminating non-functional judicial drainageditch systems.

Action 7: Evaluate how the property taxsystem influences local government andlandowner decisions about naturalresource management, with particularfocus on wetlands.

Action 8: Promote and expand the use ofremote sensing methods for undergroundtile lines to develop regional inventories.

96

C: Land-Use Strategy 3 Row-Crop Land Conservation

Strategy Development Team: BevNordby, Mower SWCD, John Moncrief,U of M Extension; Tim Wagar, U of MExtension; Gyles Randall, U of MSouth-Central Agricultural ExperimentStation, Lowell Busman, U of MExtension, Norman Senjem, MPCA

Row-crop production has been thepredominant land use in the LowerMississippi River Basin for manydecades. Cultivated cropland currentlyaccounts for approximately 60 percentof total land use (National ResourcesInventory, 1997). The steep slopes anderosive soils of the Lower MississippiBasin, combined with intensivecultivation, create a high potential forsoil erosion. High erosion rates canresult in reduced soil productivity aswell as water quality impairments.Soil erosion from cropland has beenidentified as a major source of waterquality concerns, such as high turbidityand suspended solids and habitatalteration, in several watershed studies(Whitewater, Garvin Brook, LakeGerman-Jefferson, etc). Each majortributary to the Mississippi River, andseveral reaches of the Mississippi Riveritself, exceed the state standard forturbidity, which usually is aconsequence of high rates of soilerosion. These impairments will beaddressed through watershedmanagement efforts, including the TotalMaximum Daily Load process.

A four-part strategy is recommended toaddress the problem of soil erosion andsediment pollution28: 28 These strategies should be implemented inconcert with a broader program of

Strategy 3A: Promote alternativeland uses.On highly erodible land adjacent tostreams and lakes, promotealternatives to corn and soybeanproduction to reduce the potential forsoil erosion. Alternatives includecorn/hay strip cropping on the contour,conservation easements or pasture forhighly erodible land, and other ways ofincreasing the amount of land withperennial vegetation. “Land-useStrategy 1: Maintain/increase PerennialVegetation” includes details on how thismay be accomplished.

Strategy 3B: Promote the adoption ofconservation tillage.Conservation tillage has beendemonstrated to result in greatlyreduced rates of soil erosion and is akey recommended practice for reducingthe transport of sediment andassociated pollutants to rivers andlakes in agricultural regions ofMinnesota. Under many circumstances,conservation tillage can be adopted byfarmers without reducing yield or profit.However, University of Minnesotaresearch indicates that over the longrun, using conservation tillage to benefitwater quality and minimize agronomicrisk requires attention to location-specific factors such as soil type,climate, rotation and nutrientmanagement practices.

The objective of this strategy is todevelop and publicize guidelines forconservation tillage in the LowerMississippi River Basin. Theseguidelines will describe for each majortype of tillage system the following

environmental education that clearly identifiesthe problems being addressed, e.g., loss of soilproductivity and degradation of water quality inspecific ways.

97

factors: expected erosion rates,expected agronomic performance,managerial “critical success factors”,effect of soil and climatic factors, andother considerations that will helpfarmers determine how best to controlerosion while maintaining profitabilityusing residue management. Guidelineswill be based primarily on land grantuniversity-supervised field researchfrom Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa,and will be developed for several keycrop rotations: corn-soybeans; corn-corn; and corn-alfalfa. A secondobjective is to publicize theseconservation tillage guidelines throughthe printing and dissemination ofExtension bulletins, workshops,conferences, field days and otherappropriate methods.

This strategy, broadly applied, createsa basic level of protection against soilerosion. On moderately sloping fields,crop residue management alone maybe enough to keep erosion rates belowT. A rotation average of 30% cropresidue can reduce soil erosion by up to65%. However, on steeper slopes,additional practices usually are neededto reduce the potential for erosion,particularly the high rates of erosionthat result from extreme weatherevents. Thus, the widespread adoptionof conservation tillage in the LowerMississippi River Basin is proposed asa basic erosion control strategy that willhave to be supplemented with otherpractices on very erosive fields. Thefollowing actions are proposed tosupport the strategy:Action 1: Develop conservation tillageguidelines for the Lower MississippiRiver Basin

The University of Minnesota, workingthrough the Minnesota Alliance forConservation and Resource

Management, has obtained a Section319 grant from the MPCA to developconservation tillage guidelines specificto sub-regions of the basin: thekarst/driftless region, and the “loesscap” region to the west. Tim Wagar,John Moncrief, Gyles Randall, LowellBusman and Norman Senjem areworking on this project. The followingtasks will be accomplished over thenext two years:

� Develop tillage guidelines� Publish tillage guidelines� Put guidelines on University’s

web page� Publicize guidelines at basin

workshops

Action 2: Track Adoption throughannual crop residue transect surveys.

Several counties have measured cropresidue adoption through the transectsurvey in 1998 and 1999 (Dodge,Fillmore, Olmsted, Dakota, Mower,Rice). In 2000, this survey wasconducted in all counties. Resultingdata can be used to educate the publicand to help focus educational andtechnical assistance where it is mostneeded.Action 2a: Annually publish a summaryof crop residue cover for the 14counties in the basin and for each ofthe major watersheds.Action 2b: Annually write and distributea news release announcing the resultsof the transect survey. Distribute todaily and weekly newspapers and Agri-News.Action 2c: Use the results of thetransect survey to target low-adoption/high-erosion areas foreducation and demonstration projects.Action 2d: Explore the use of satelliteimagery to produce reliable estimates

98

of crop residue cover as an alternativeto crop residue transect surveys.

Action 3: Develop EducationalCampaign to Promote the Adoption ofConservation Tillage

Many state and local agencies havesome involvement in researching andpromoting conservation tillage:University Extension, NRCS, BWSR,SWCDs as well as county waterplanners. There is a need to develop aconsistent message, and to identify keyaudiences (key geographic areas; keyinfluencers such as canning companyfield reps, farm equipment dealers, etc.)

Action 3a: Identify key areas (lowadoption/high erosion) for aneducational campaign.Action 3b: Attempt to determinereasons for non-adoption ofconservation tillage from farmers,implement dealers, crop consultants,and local resource managers.Action 3c: Develop educational supportmaterials that address key reasonscited for non-adoption.Action 3d: Implement educationalcampaign.Action 3e: Consider adapting a “No FallTillage of Soybean Stubble” campaignpatterned after a program used inWinneshiek County, Iowa.

Strategy 3C: Implement practices toachieve soil loss of T or less

Conservation tillage alone is notsufficient to achieve the goal of T on allcropland. Especially on highly erodibleland, additional practices such asgrassed waterways, buffers, detentionponds, strip cropping in a corn/alfalfarotation are needed to bring erosionrates to T or less. Sometimes, the bestoption may be to devote highly erodible

land to uses other than row cropfarming. The following strategyidentifies a concerted approach thatlocal government (SWCDs, counties,Extension) can take to address landwith different degrees of erosionpotential.

Action 1 – for land eroding at less than2T: According to 1997 NRI data, morethan ninety percent of the land in thebasin falls under this category.Although erosion rates are modest,local problems of turbidity can and doresult from unchecked erosion.� Strategy A (above), “Promote the

adoption of conservation tillage,” isthe primary action recommendedfor land with low to moderateerosion. This practice alone oftencan bring erosion to T on landeroding at up to 2T. It is a goodbasic practice that can be widelypromoted throughout the basin.

Action 2 (Land eroding at 2T to 4T):According to 1997 NRI data, 154,700acres of cultivated cropland in theLower Mississippi River Basin areeroding at a rate of 2T - 4T. This landcomprises only 5.5% of the cultivatedcropland in the basin, but accounts for19% of the total soil loss from watererosion from in the region fromcultivated cropland.� Each SWCD in the basin should

identify land eroding at 2T-4T. Workwith landowners individually and inneighborhood meetings to evaluatea full range of conservation optionsto keep erosion at or below T.Inform landowners of the basineffort to achieve T by 2010.Aggressively promote practices,such as grassed waterways andbuffer strips in addition to

99

conservation tillage on row-cropland.

Action 3 (Land eroding at 4T or more):According to 1997 NRI data, 61,200acres of cultivated cropland in theLower Mississippi River Basin areeroding at a rate of 4T or greater. Thisland comprises only 2.2% of thecultivated cropland in the basin, butaccounts for 16% or the total watererosion in the region from cultivatedcropland:� Each SWCD in basin should identify

land eroding at 4T or greater. Workdirectly with landowners to evaluatefull range of conservation options tokeep erosion at or below T. Informlandowners of the basin effort toachieve T by 2010. Explore ways tosubstitute hay and pasture for row-crops. Explore permanent easementprograms especially in locationswith high potential ecologicalbenefits. Target programs such asRIM and CRP. Watch foropportunities that may come fromnew initiatives to reduce sediment tothe Upper Mississippi River.

Action 4: Southeastern MinnesotaStructural Repair.On very steep land, sediment controlstructures often are needed to preventrecurring ephemeral (gully) erosion. It isestimated that some 2,700 sedimentcontrol structures were built between1970 and 1990 on private lands in therugged blufflands of southeasternMinnesota. These practices weredesigned with a life expectancy of up to35 years. Those completed before 1970are now approaching their sedimentstorage capacity or are in need ofrepair. The Environmental QualityIncentives Program (EQIP) whichreplaced ACP in 1997 as USDA’s

conservation cost-share program doesnot provide for such repaid work.

Action 4a: Structure Inventory –SWCDs should estimate the totalnumber of structures andestimate the sediment-reductionpotential from repairing them,and the cost of repairing them tomeet technical standards.Action 4b: DemonstrationProgram: SWCDs todemonstrate the benefits ofstructural repair with 4 to 8examples per county. Seekfunding to implement ininterested counties.Action 4c: Funding Sources:Seek funding to restore the soilconservation infrastructure ofbluffland counties. Consideropportunities such as sediment-reduction and flood-controlwatershed projects as well asregion-wide funding throughUpper Mississippi River Basininitiatives.

Strategy 3D: Improve ConservationIncentives

Farmers’ choices of resourcemanagement practices are affected byeconomic incentives that arise bothfrom the marketplace and publicpolicies for agriculture. There is a need,firstly, to identify disincentives to theuse of best management practices thatare embedded in current laws andrules. Secondly, there is a need todetermine whether existingconservation programs effectivelyappeal to the full range of agriculturalproducers and landowners – from largecorporate farms to hobby “farmettes.”Thirdly, there is a need to test newforms of incentives besides traditionalcost-sharing. Finally, there is a need to

100

provide incentives that produce long-lasting changes in conservationpractices, instead of short-livedchanges that end as soon as externalfunding sources cease.

Action 1: Support changes in theFederal Farm Program that would focuson conservation rather than crops

The federal farm program, due forrevision in 2002, has a potentiallystrong influence on farmer’s soilmanagement choices. For example, bytying income-support payments to afarmer’s production history of corn andsoybeans, the farm program createsincentives to continue or increaseproduction of these crops, which tend tocause much higher rates of erosionthan is caused by some alternativecrops, such as hay. In addition, USDAprogram rules sometimes discouragerather than encourage conservationpractices. As an example, a farmerwishing to replace a filled-in waterwaywith a wider, improved structure maynot be eligible for the ConservationReserve Program continuous signupincentives because the grassedwaterway has no cropping history.

Action 1a: Support changes thatwould weaken or remove thebias favoring corn and soybeanproduction over alternative cropsin the Federal Farm Bill.Action 1b: Support theConservation Security Programbeing proposed by SenatorsTom Harkin (D-IA) and others,which would provide paymentsto farmers based onconservation, not production.

Action 2: Conservation Compliance:Conduct spot checks on an adequatepercentage of farm conservation plans

in each county to determine compliancewith the federal farm program.

Action 3: Explore the concept of TaxIncentives to bring cropland erosionrates under T.

Research the concept of rewardinglandowners with a tax incentive. TheSWCD/NRCS office will assist thelandowner in developing a conservationplan that would bring their land underthe soil loss tolerance level “T”. A realestate tax incentive would be availablefor those with plans and following them.

Action 3a: Learn from those whohave tried property tax incentiveprograms in Minnesota andWisconsin. Invite Wisconsinresource managers from St.Croix or Dunn County to explainthe Pollution Reduction IncentiveProgram.

Action 3b: Explore the potentialfor pilot-testing a property taxincentive program.

Action 4: Develop a strategy to workwith large farmers on implementingconservation practices

Economics of scale and pressures toreduce costs are resulting in farmsgetting larger with farmers andcorporations cropping thousands ofacres. Although large farmers appearto be adopting beneficial farmmanagement practices such asconservation tillage, structuralconservation practices do not appear tobe a high priority in many largeoperations. This may indicate thatincentive programs that are effectivewith traditional-sized farms may not beeffective with larger operations.

101

Action 4a Attempt to develop moreeffective incentives for motivating largefarm operators to adopt conservationpractices.

Strategy 3E: Encourage localgovernments to revise, upgrade ordevelop agricultural erosion andsediment control ordinances.

Winona, Olmsted, Fillmore and MowerCounties all have agricultural erosionordinances. Encourage other localgovernments to develop ordinances,while helping counties to update theexisting ordinances.

Action 1: Develop a fact sheetdescribing agricultural erosion andsediment control ordinances – their keyprovisions, and how they are beingused.Action 2: Conduct workshops andpresentations to discuss howordinances can be used together withincentives and education to fosterimproved soil conservation practices.Action 3: Offer interested countiesassistance in drafting erosion andsediment-control ordinances usingBWSR’s model ordinance and theexperience of other counties.

Strategy 3F: Develop a strategy towork with canning companies andfarmers on erosion control.

Canning crops are planted on 90,720acres in the Lower Mississippi basin.Typically these acres experienceextremely high erosion rates becausethey lack residue cover and have ashort growing season.

Action 1: Develop a pilot project topromote temporary cover, increasedresidue and incorporating a croprotation that would result in decreased

soil erosion rates from canning cropacreage.

Strategy 3G: Increase the percentageof protected surface tile intakes.

In some of the western portions of thebasin subsurface tile drainage systemsmake use of surface tile intakes toreduce ponding in depressional areasand accelerate the removal of excesswater from the land. Surface tileintakes, if unprotected by risers, rockfilters, grass buffers or other methods,can deliver substantial quantities ofsediment, nutrients and pesticides tosurface water through the tile drainagesystem.

Action 1: Research the effectiveness ofalternative ways of protecting surfacetile intakes.Action 2: Meet with drainagecontractors to discuss alternatives tosurface tile intakes, such as denserpattern tiling in depressional areas.Action 3: Promote the protection orelimination of surface tile intakes.

102

Land-Use Strategy 4:Reduce Impacts fromUrban and Residential Land

Strategy Development Team: DaveMorrison, MPCA (Stormwater); BillBuckley, Mower County (ISTS);Norman Senjem, MPCA (WastewaterTreatment Facilities)

Urban and residential land in southeastMinnesota generates specific kinds ofpollution pressures. These pressuresare related to surface water runoff fromstreets as well as industrial andcommercial properties, and wastewaterdischarges from individual residencesand communities. The pattern ofdevelopment (concentrated ordispersed, for example) can affect theimpact of new housing, streets andbusinesses on both hydrology andwater quality.

Strategy 4A: Offset and ReduceStormwater RunoffIt is important to minimize runoffvolumes for new impervious surfacesand provide for stormwater pollutanttreatment from residential, commercial,industrial, and transportationdevelopments. Improperly managedurban stormwater can alter streamcharacters and geometry, accelerateeutrophication in lakes, bounce ordestroy the habitat of wetlands, andchange or contaminate ground waterresources. The most common urbanpollutants include sediment and salts;phosphorus, nitrogen and organicsubstances; oils and debris; fecalcoliform bacteria and pathogens; andheavy metals (Cd, Cr, Pb, Zn, Cu, Hg).

Action 1: Encourage municipalitiesand local units of government to

consider ordinance requirements forBetter Site Design (BSD).

Better Site Design promotes moregreen space and less imperviousnessalong with natural areas preservation.BSD coupled with appropriate BestManagement Practices (BMPs) such asswales and wet detention pondsprovide for the least impact to wetlands,lakes and streams. BSDs minimizerunoff generation up front instead oftrying to retrofit BMP’s. Traditionaldevelopment plans should be revisitedat the earliest possible phase in theapproval process, particularly withregard to minimizing road lengths,widths, and cul de sac designs,decreasing large lot sizes and peakparking lot sizing designs.

Action 2: Encourage all communities toadopt the principles of the EPA Phase IIConstruction Stormwater requirements.

While only certain communities arerequired to obtain the MunicipalSeparate Storm Sewer System (MS4,NPDES) permits, the principalrequirements should guide allcommunities in their developmentdecisions. The six Minimum ControlMeasures (MCMs) are:

1. Illicit discharge detection andelimination to eliminate oils,toxins and other pollutants fromentering stormwater systems.

2. Municipal operations pollutionprevention efforts to reduce theimpacts of poor operationspractices and designs (streetsweeping, salt use and storage,debris removal, etc.)

3. Construction site requirements toreduce sediment discharges.One acre or larger sites should

103

have a plan, a permit, andBMPs.

4. Post construction stormwaterBMPs to reduce the amount ofpollutants and the physicalimpact of new development.The BMPs are both structural(ponds, wetlands, devices) andadministrative (fertilizer andpesticide control, advanced sitedesign, economic incentives,etc.)

5. Public education and outreach tobuild community support andimprove compliance.

6. Public involvement andparticipation to broaden support,reduce obstacles, gain expertiseand build connections (stormdrain stenciling, citizen watchgroups, public meetings, etc.)

Action 3: Protect cool water streams.

Communities should require protectionof the temperature status of cold- waterstreams. Practices that promoteinfiltration and maintain or increase thebase flow of streams should beencouraged. Pre-treatment forpollutants may also be required forprotection of ground water quality.

Action 4: Encourage all communities toset minimum stormwater standards bypolicy or ordinance. Some examplesmight be:� No new direct discharges without

treatment for sediment or otherpollutants.

� Maximize ground water recharge.Runoff peaks and volumescontrolled to not exceed streamgeomorphology limits.

� Special protection for critical areas.

Action 5: Ensure that there are plansfor BMP maintenance. Support local,county, and state efforts to enforce theexisting ordinances or rules.

Action 6: Support the development ofstormwater alternative management orBSD demonstration projects.

Action 7: Protect all wetlands from thedetrimental impacts of stormwater byapplying Wetland Conservation Act(WCA) requirements for wetlandbanking credits for stormwater ponds.While avoiding the use of existing orrestored wetlands for stormwatertreatment is not always feasible, thiswould limit damage to wetland typeswithin the Lower Mississippi Riverbasin.

Strategy 4B: Increase percentage ofpopulation with properly functioningindividual sewage treatmentsystems.

In many counties, it is estimated thatmore than half of individual, on-sitesewage treatment systems do not meetstate standards. From theseresidences, and from unseweredcommunities, untreated human sewageis contaminating surface andgroundwater with bacteria, nutrients,and other pollutants.A number of options should beinvestigated as actions for meeting thegoal of reducing the number of failingsewage treatment systems. One or allof the above actions could be utilized.Some, such as financial incentives, canbe used in combination with others.Low-interest loans or partial grants(cost share) can be used withenforcement strategies, upgrades at thepoint of sale or upgrades with buildingpermits, etc. Any one of these actionswould take many years to accomplish

104

the goal, but together the time would beshortened considerably. Enforcementaction may seem to accomplish theobjective in the shortest period of time,but the political and financial objectionsmay make it difficult to accomplish.Combining enforcement with upgradesat point of sale and building permits, incombination with loans or grants, wouldbe preferred if state or local fundingwere available. This strategy would alsorequire a minimal number of countystaff, since the required complianceinspections could be performed byinspectors in the private sector and thenumber of systems going in would bespread over several years and wouldbe less likely to over-burden the localinspection staff.

Action 1: Education. Educate the publicin the areas of:

1. Public health as it can beaffected by inadequately treatedwastewater and by discharges ofraw sewage.

2. State and county IndividualSewage Treatment System(ISTS) rules and regulations andthe importance of proper siting,construction and maintenance.

3. Water quality and the impacts ofimproperly treated wastewaterdischarges on nutrient loads andfecal coliform bacteriaconcentrations.

Action 2: Local Ordinances. Amendlocal ordinances to include inspectionand correction of failing ISTS atproperty transfer, building permitissuance, etc.

Action 3: Enforcement ProgramsThe following enforcement activities arerecommended:

Action 3a: Implement pro-activeenforcement actions where

properties are evaluated for properwastewater treatment. County staffor contract personnel would conductevaluations and complianceinspections of properties served byISTS.Action 3b: Conduct inspections,targeting imminent health threats(IHT) or discharges for enforcementand correction.Action 3c: Send letters of violation(notice of violation-NOV) givingrequired deadline for correctionAction 3d: Enforce Minnesota Rulesch. 7080 and county ordinance uponreceipt of complaint of failing systemor IHT.

Action 4: Financial Assistance

Action 4a: Make state and localfunds available for systemsinstallation at a reduced interestrate with no financialqualification. County can assistby collecting payments withproperty tax over 5-10 perperiod.Action 4b: Consider establishingcounty or multi-county revolvingloan fund for the LowerMississippi Basin.

Strategy 4C: Increase the percentageof population with phosphorusremoval from wastewater treatmentfacilities upstream of affected waters(including Lakes Zumbro, Byllesby, andPepin)

The vast majority of towns and cities inthe basin treat their wastewater for awide range of pollutants as required inthe National Pollutant DischargeElimination System program,administered by the MPCA and theEnvironmental Protection Agency.However, in several watersheds there

105

is a need to enhance wastewatertreatment to remove phosphorus inorder to protect downstream lakes. Thecities of Rochester and Pine Islandhave been providing phosphorustreatment to 1 part per million for years,because of their impact on algaegrowth in Lake Zumbro. Phosphorusdischarges from other towns has a lessdirect, cumulative impact on algaegrowth in impaired downstream lakesincluding Zumbro, Byllesby and Pepin.In accordance with the MPCA’sphosphorus strategy, these cities’permits will be reviewed to determinethe need for phosphorus removal attheir next permit reissuance.

Action 1: Create Point SourcePhosphorus InventoriesDevelop inventories of point sourcephosphorus from wastewater treatmentfacilities in the following watersheds:Vermillion River; Cannon River; andZumbro River. Where a publicly ownedtreatment facility (POTW) providestreatment for industries, includeindustrial phosphorus concentrationsand loads in the inventory along withPOTW concentrations and loads.Include the point source inventories aspart of a whole watershed point-nonpoint source phosphorus budget.

Action 2: TMDL ProcessUse phosphorus inventory data todevelop waste load allocations in theTotal Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)process if and when affected waterbodies are put on the Section 303(d) listof impaired waters for which TMDLs arerequired.

Action 3: Conduct PhosphorusManagement PlanningWork with the Minnesota TechnicalAssistance Program (MnTAP), POTWsand significant industrial contributors to

identify economical ways of reducingindustrial phosphorus contributions toPOTWs. Develop a plan for reducingsuch contributions that can be includedin the next NPDES permit as aPhosphorus Management Plan, ascalled for in MPCA’s phosphorusstrategy for point sources.

Action 4: Review Need for PhosphorusTreatmentAt permit reissuance, conduct a reviewto determine the need for phosphoruscontrols at the POTW.

Action 5: Watershed ManagementContextConduct the above activities in thecontext of a comprehensive watershedassessment and management processthat includes point and nonpointsources of phosphorus and otherpollutants. Include all sources andstakeholders in discussions todetermine an appropriate mix of actionsthat will result in achieving water qualityobjectives in a manner consistent witheconomic and social needs andconstraints of the community.

Strategy 4D:Manage Urban andResidential Growth to Protect WaterResources.Water is a crucial resource in everycommunity, from drinking water tomaintenance of wastewater systems toproviding for recreation opportunitiesand economic growth. TheCommunities in the Lower MississippiRiver/Cedar River Basin are growingrapidly and therefore face the constantneed to manage growth whileprotecting its surface water and groundwater resources.

Action 1: Use Minnesota Planning’smodel for sustainable development as aguide to help coordinate the exchange

106

of information among businesses, localgovernment, and special interestgroups within the basin. To accomplishthis, co-sponsor a series of seminarsand otherwise distribute information onthe following topics:

a. How to get citizens involved inland-use decisions

b. Defining urban growthboundaries

c. Defining agriculture and naturalresource protection districts

d. Defining a conservationsubdivision district

e. Infrastructure planningf. Regulatory tools and case

studies:- Transfer and purchase of

development rights- Orderly annexation

agreements- Land-use law- Financial incentives, grants,

and government programs- Legislation- Ordinance

107

Land-Use Strategy 5:Nutrient & PesticideManagement

Strategy Development Team: JoeZachmann, MDA (lead author); JeffKing, Dodge County NRCS; TimWagar, U of M Extension; Derek Fisher,BWSR/Extension ConservationAgronomist; Tony Hill, Olmsted County;Norman Senjem, MPCA

The goal of crop nutrient managementand the development of nutrientmanagement plans is to increase theefficiency of all nutrient sources usedby crops while managing productionrisks and environmental impact.Managing nutrients to increase cropuse efficiency results in maximizingproducer returns on economicinvestment while protecting andconserving natural resources, includingsurface and ground waters. Propermanagement of pesticides (herbicides,insecticides and fungicides) shouldproduce the same results. At a differentbut still significant scale, propermanagement of nutrients andpesticides on lawns, turf and parklandis also necessary to achieveenvironmental protection goals within awatershed.

The following strategies are designed toencourage demonstrated principles innutrient and pesticide managementwithin the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin in Minnesota. They are primarilyintended to help protect public andprivate drinking water supplies fromnitrate nitrogen and pesticidecontamination and to support surfacewater quality objectives such asphosphorus reduction to address lakeand river eutrophication. In addition tocontributing to local and regional

objectives, the strategies shouldcontribute to reducing the nutrientloadings from the Upper MississippiRiver that have been related to theproblem of hypoxia in the Gulf ofMexico.

The strategies are consistent with avariety of Best Management Practicesand the Nitrogen Fertilizer ManagementPlan (NFMP) developed in response tothe 1989 Comprehensive GroundwaterProtection Act. The NFMP includesvoluntary and possible regulatorycomponents in order to prevent,evaluate and mitigate nonpoint sourceoccurrences of nitrogen fertilizer inwaters of the state. Best ManagementPractices for various nutrients andpesticides have been developed andare being adopted and evaluated invarious geographic settings.

The strategies also include anticipatedvoluntary and regulatory guidelinesestablished by revisions to andimplementation of the state’s feedlotrules. Certain types of feedlots andfeedlot management systems areconsidered primary sources ofphosphorus contamination to surfacewaters, as well as sources of nitrogenand fecal coliform contamination.Feedlot rules address manuremanagement and field applicationpractices so that such practicesminimize associated nutrientenvironmental impacts. Separateobjectives on feedlots and relatedphosphorus and land use issuesappear elsewhere in this basin plan.

Strategy 5A: Improve efficiency andreduce environmental impacts ofnutrients applied to agriculturalcrops.

108

Strategy 5A1: Reduce and eventuallyeliminate fall application of commercialnitrogen fertilizer in the karst region ofsoutheastern Minnesota asrecommended in Best ManagementPractices for Nitrogen Use inSoutheastern Minnesota AG-FO-6126-B (1993).

Action 1: Commercial sector (Co-ops,dealers, crop advisors/managers) –Determine level of non-conformance,reasons for non-conformance, identifysolutions, decide on implementationtimeline.

Action 2: Farmers – Educate farmerson economics of proper timing (springvs. fall) of nitrogen application as wellas environmental consequences andthe Groundwater Protection Act.

� News releases, fact sheets.� Establish network of on-farm

demonstrations exhibitingeconomic and environmentalbenefits of spring application

� Letters from MDA and/orextension agents.

� Extension workshops.

Action 3: Explore the feasibility ofoffering BMP insurance productsdesigned to eliminate producer risk inadopting BMPs.

Action 3a: Establish anexploratory committee todetermine how best to developsuch products and establish apilot project within the basin.

Strategy 5A2: Work with producers tocapture the maximum possible nutrientcontributions from field-applied manurethrough proper testing, timing andincorporation as recommended in BestManagement Practices for Nitrogen

Use in Southeastern Minnesota AG-FO-6126-B (1993) and ManureManagement in Minnesota AG-FO-3553-C (1990), and in keeping withrelevant requirements in proposedrevisions to MPCA feedlot rules.

Action 1: Encourage producer anddealer utilization of the MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture ManureTesting Laboratory CertificationProgram (a required element of nutrientmanagement plans developed withNRCS EQIP funds and required underpermits issued under the state feedlotrule revisions).

Action 2: Promote use of manuretesting results by producers, privateand commercial applicators,commercial fertilizer dealers, cropconsultants, etc., to properly creditmanure contribution to field nitrogenand phosphorus budgets.

Action 3: Work with U of M Extension toeducate producers and dealers onproper manure application timing andplacement relative to season and tillagemethods. With respect to applicationmethods, explore the following:

Action 3a: Assess and developequipmentoptions/recommendations foreven distribution of appliedmanure (includingrecommendations from U of MAg Engineering faculty and fromindustry).Action 3b: Educateproducers/applicators on theresults of the assessment.Action 3c: Explore incentives forproducers/applicators to upgradeto recommended options.

109

Action 4: Address producer “disposal”of excess manure on owned land byexploring exchanges or trades withneighboring farms.

Action 5: Explore opportunities/optionsfor manure utilization cropland set-aside program focusing on theexclusive use of manure for cropnutrients.

� Designated areas would have anestablished cover crop.

� Up to two years of manure couldbe applied on the set-asidefollowed by rotation.

� Variances of existing rules wouldbe required to allow, withminimal soil disturbance, theinjection or incorporation ofmanure into cover crops.

Strategy 5A3: Work with producers toproperly credit previous-year legumecontributions to field nitrogen budgets.

Action 1: Work with U of M Extension todevelop targeted educational programson proper crediting of previous-yearlegume crediting.

Action 1a: Educate producers tocurb application of manure toacres coming out of alfalfaproduction.

Strategy 5A4: General education:Promote application of commercialfertilizer (N and P) at University ofMinnesota recommended rates.

Action 1: Work with the commercialsector (soil test labs) and the MDA soiltest laboratory certification program to:

Action 1a: Conduct blind soiltests. Send soil from same

sample to several labs. Comparerecommendations to U of Mrecommendations.

� Discuss reasons fordifferences, etc.

� Report results to theMinnesota Department ofAgriculture.

� Explore perceived“loopholes” inreporting/dissemination ofU of M fertilizerrecommendations directlyto producers under MDAlaboratory certificationprograms (e.g., fertilizerdealers often collect andsubmit for analyses soilsamples, with results andU of M recommendationsreported to the dealerrather than the producer).

Action 2: Work with the commercialsector (co-operatives, dealerships) todevelop mutual understanding ofvoluntary vs. regulatory mandate of the1989 Comprehensive Ground WaterProtection Act and encourage supportof University of Minnesotarecommended fertilizer rates andBMPs.

� Potash and PhosphateInstitute (PPI).

� Minnesota Crop ProductionRetailers.

Action 3: Work with farmers andproducers to demonstrate that adoptionof BMPs and recommended fertilizerrates is environmentally effective andprofitable.

� Education at field days(Waseca; Red Top FarmsDemonstration Plots, St.Peter; other).

110

Action 4: Work with the University ofMinnesota & the Minnesota Departmentof Agriculture to develop appropriategrant proposals and on-farm cropnutrient management demonstrationprotocols.

Action 4a: Conduct field-scaledemonstration plots as recentlyproposed in U of M RapidResponse Fund and LegislativeCommission on MinnesotaResources proposals.Action 4b: Education –Extension, especially as regardsmanure management.Action 4c: Seek grant-supportedor volunteer on-farmdemonstration plots on a varietyof farms using BMP and fertilizerprotocols established by theUniversity of Minnesota,Minnesota Department ofAgriculture, Natural ResourceConservation Service, Soil &Water Conservation Districts,etc.

Action 5: Support and promote thewriting of nutrient management plansas called for in state and federal feedlotprogram rules.

Action 5a: Determine appropriateroles for NRCS, SWCDs,Extension and PrivateConsultants and Farmers indeveloping and implementingnutrient management plansrequired by state and federalprograms.Action 5b: Promote NutrientManagement Plan developmentusing software recommended byentities such as NRCS, MES,MDA, etc. such that plans areconsistent and adaptive to theprincipal agroecoregions within

the basin. [Each agroecoregioncontains unique physiographicfactors that influence thepotential for production of non-point source pollution and thepotential for adoption of farmmanagement practices]. Thegraphic below illustrates thediversity of agroecoregionswithin the basin.

Action 5c: Consider the use ofprogram incentives andrequirements to encouragefarmers to develop, implementand update nutrientmanagement plans.Action 5d: Encourage and assistindividuals from the privatesector to become authorizedthird-party vendors for nutrientmanagement plan developmentand implementation.Action 5e: Consider developingquality assurance protocol forreview of Nutrient ManagementPlans to effectively developeducational efforts and programfocus.

111

Strategy 5B: Community/watershedprojects

Action 1: Identify high-priority areaswhere high nutrient levels in surface orground waters are a concern (wellheadprotection area, lakes, etc.) that may beattributable to agricultural or urbannutrient use.

Action 2: Coordinate with the MDA toconduct Farm Nutrient ManagementAssessment Process projects as part ofcommunity efforts to better understandnutrient management in the Basin.

Action 3: Coordinate with the U of MExtension Service Master GardenerProgram to develop educational andoutreach projects that address propertiming and rates of lawn and turffertilization.

Action 4: Review Olmsted CountyHydrologic Unit Area project as a modelfor working with crop producers in apriority area to promote adoption ofBest Management Practices.

Strategy 5C: Reduce surface runoffand leaching of fertilizers, nutrientsand pesticides from urban lawns,golf courses, parks, and othervegetative surfaces.

Action 1: Promote the sale and use ofphosphorus-free lawn fertilizers.

Action 2: Encourage periodic soiltesting before lawn fertilizers areapplied.

Action 3: Develop and distributeeducational material on regional lawncare BMPs, including promotion ofrecommended timing and applicationrates for lawn fertilizers and pesticides.

Action 4: Develop educational materialon the proper disposal options andcleanup methods for pet waste.

Action 5: Increase the use of native andlow-maintenance landscapes in urbanareas through demonstrations andeducational material. Promoterecommended management practicesand guidelines for natural landscapingand reduced-chemical turf, lawn andgarden care.

Action 6: Assist urban communities indeveloping and implementingcomprehensive stormwatermanagement plans. (see urbanstormwater Strategy 7A)

Action 7: Encourage urbancommunities to implement stormwatermanagement “housekeeping BMPs”(see urban stormwater Strategy 7A)and to consider developing ordinancesregarding use of pesticides nearwaterways, and signage requirementsfor lawns treated with pesticides andfertilizers.

Action 8: Conduct stormwatermanagement and erosion controlworkshops for local staff, builders,developers and the general public. (seeto urban stormwater Strategy 7A)

Action 9: Increase the use of IntegratedPest Management (IPM) through thedevelopment and distribution ofeducational materials, demonstrationsand workshops for homeowners andlawn care managers.

Action 10: Promote use of pesticideBMPs and evaluate adoption. TheMDA, U of M and NRCS have createdpesticide BMPs addressing handling,use, timing, selection, spills, mixing,loading and the management of waste.

112

Local units of government can workwith NRCS and SWCD staff to developand provide cost-sharing for IntegratedPest Management Plans, and Weedand Pest Management Plans for cropproducers within the basin.

Action 11: Promote the use of computersoftware to assist in making pesticideuse decisions. The NRCS hasdeveloped the “Windows PesticideScreening Tool” (WinPST), which theMinnesota-based non-profit Institute forAgriculture and Trade Policy hasincorporated into a “Pesticide DecisionTool” (PDT). Together, WinPST andPDT provide a user-friendly method ofevaluating pesticide use, fate andtransport along with environmental andhuman health impacts.

Action 12: Consider surveyingagricultural chemical facilities andapplicators working within or providingservices to the basin to determineinformation needs. Based on theresults of the survey, target educationalefforts. Local units of government canteam up with MDA staff to assistagricultural chemical facilities andapplicators operating within orsupplying services to the basin inobtaining the appropriate informationfor proper licensing and certification.

Action 13: Actively assist local units ofgovernment and the MDA inestablishing waste pesticide collectionprograms for facilities, applicators andhouseholds within the basin.

Action 14: Coordinate with the MDA,MPCA, NRCS, SWCD and BWSR tomaximize county understanding anduse of grant and loan programs forBMPs, education and outreach,infrastructure improvements tofarmsteads to reduce nonpoint source

pollution, conservation reserve andeasement programs, and otherincentives available to improve waterresources within the basin through landuse management, improvements orchanges.

113

Land-Use Strategy 6:Animal FeedlotManagement

Strategy Development Team: NormanSenjem, MPCA (lead author); DaveWall, MPCA; Ron Leaf, MPCA; JerryHildebrandt, MPCA; Chuck Peterson,MPCA; Jeff King, Dodge County NRCS;Joe Zachmann, MDA; Tim Wagar, U ofM Extension; Derek Fisher,BWSR/Extension ConservationAgronomist

Livestock agriculture is vital to theeconomic and environmental health ofthe Lower Mississippi River Basin.Besides adding diversity to farmincome, cattle production in particularalso adds diversity to the landscape inthe form of hay and pasture acreageused as a feed source. This adds to theamount of land in permanent vegetativecover, thereby increasing infiltration andreducing runoff and soil erosion. Thus,maintaining a healthy beef and dairysector is a prerequisite to achieving apriority environmental goal in the basin.Land-use Strategy 1 (Maintain/increaseAcreage of Permanent Vegetation)deals explicitly with this issue.

At the same time, livestock manure is amajor potential source of pollution fromnitrogen, phosphorus, fecal coliformbacteria and oxygen-demandingsubstances. Feedlots and manureapplication need to be carefullymanaged to minimize adverse effects.All feedlots have been required toobtain a permit from the MPCA orcounty when there is a change ofownership, expansion, constructionactivities, or a pollution problem. Oftenthis is done with the involvement ofcounty feedlot officers. Most counties in

the Lower Mississippi River Basin areactive partners with the MPCA inadministering this program. Recentrevisions to the feedlot rules (MinnesotaRules chapter 7020) provide newopportunities for the MPCA andcounties to ensure that all feedlotoperators (above 50 animal units)become registered or permitted.

The following recommendations aredesigned to

� Accelerate bringing feedlotsinto compliance with stateand local requirements,particularly those that areknown to be causingpollution, and that are locatedin high-priority areas;

� Provide greater assurancethat feedlots which arealready permitted are beingmanaged according to theterms of their permits and allapplicable feedlot rules;

� Provide greater assurancethat feedlots that do not needpermits under the new rules(most feedlots less than 300animal units and manyfeedlots between 300 and1000 animal units) are beingmanaged in accordance withthe feedlot rules;

Strategy 6A: Comprehensive FeedlotRegistration/PermittingThe revised state feedlot ruledistinguishes between producers indifferent size categories. Those in thelargest size category (greater than1,000 animal units) are required toobtain an operating permit.Construction permits are required fornew or expanding feedlots with 300 to1000 animal units; and interim permitsare required for feedlots of less than1,000 animal units that pose a pollution

114

hazard. In addition to these permittingprovisions, the new rules call for allfeedlots of 50 animal units or more (10or more in shoreland areas) to becomeregistered, and to re-register every fouryears. All producers – even those thatdo not have a permit -- are subject tocompliance with technical standards inthe feedlot rule that deal with feedlotrunoff water quality, locationrestrictions, liquid and solid manurestorage and land application of manure.

Action 1: Encourage all counties in thelower Mississippi River Basin tobecome delegated to administer thestate feedlot permitting program.

Action 2: Ensure that all producers areregistered or permitted, as required.This will develop a base level ofinformation to determine the level ofneed for corrective actions and manuremanagement planning. Ensure thatregistration information is periodicallyupdated.

Strategy 6B: Promote Open LotAgreement (Extended ComplianceOption)The new rules feature a new choice forproducers with fewer than 300 animalunits: the extended compliance option.Producers who register by no later thanJan. 1, 2002, and later become certifiedfor the Open Lot Agreement, will begiven until 2010 to come into fullcompliance with feedlot runoffrequirements in Minnesota Rules ch.7050.

Producers will have until October 2005to implement cost-effective measuresdesigned to reduce feedlot runoff by 50percent or more, until October 2010 tocome into full compliance with feedlotrunoff requirements. This option thusoffers a gradual, flexible approach for

small and medium-sized producers forwhom cost of compliance is of criticalimportance. Producers in this sizerange who fail to become certified forextended compliance, and whosefeedlots pose a pollution hazard, will berequired to obtain an interim permit andcome into full compliance by Jan. 1,2002.

Action 1: Write and distribute a factsheet that describes the extendedcompliance option in the revised feedlotrules. Include examples of low-costmethods of achieving runoff reductionsof 50 percent or more. Describe what ismeant by a 50 percent reductioncompared to full compliance withfeedlot runoff requirements.

Action 2: Local units of governmenttake the lead in notifying all eligibleproducers in their county about theextended compliance option, possiblywith the assistance of trained retiredfarmers or agriculturists.

Action 3: Write a news releasedescribing the extended complianceoption that can be localized by countiesto distribute before producers areindividually notified.

Action 4: Local units of government(with assistance from trained retiredfarmers or agriculturists) conductfollow-up visits in high-priority areas toencourage producers to enroll inextended compliance option.

� Priority 1 Areas: Feedlotslocated on a stream or lake, orwithin a wellhead protectionzone or sensitive groundwaterrecharge area.

� Priority 2 Areas: Feedlots within1000 feet of a stream or lake.

115

Action 5: Assist producers who enroll inthe extended compliance option toidentify and implement low-costmeasures that can reduce runoff by 50percent or more. Determine whetherfederal and state funding sources maybe used for such measures. Identifyand try to resolve any conflicts infunding guidelines.

Strategy 6C: Determine priorityfeedlots for inspection, assistanceand enforcement.

Focusing inspection, assistance andenforcement on priority feedlots willhelp to ensure that the worst problemsare addressed first, and that increasedfeedlot-related efforts will lead to waterquality improvements.

Action 1:Identify key watersheds,wellhead protection zones andgroundwater recharge areas toconcentrate efforts and monitoring foreffectiveness. Identify these as priorityareas for feedlot inventorydevelopment, permitting, inspection,technical and financial assistance, andenforcement activities.� BALMM should publish an annually

updated list of priority areas.

Action 2: Prioritize feedlots forinspection, assistance and enforcementactivities. Include a provision in countydelegation agreements to sort feedlotsinto three priority areas based onfeedlot registration information.

Priority Area 1: Feedlots locatedon a stream or lake, or within awellhead protection zone orsensitive groundwater rechargearea.Priority Area 2: Feedlots within1000 feet of a stream or lake.

Priority Area 3: Feedlots morethan 1,000 feet from a stream orlake.

Action 3: Large Feedlots (300 to 1000animal units): Prioritize inspection,assistance and enforcement activitiesaccording to feedlot size, pollutionhazard and priority area.

Action 4: Identify and coordinatefunding sources for fixing feedlotpollution hazards in priority areasthrough watershed management orwellhead protection projects.

Action 5: In highest priority areas,consider using the self-audit process toidentify and correct problems withfeedlots, as well as with septic systemsand other potential environmentalhazards.

� Work with county feedlotofficers to develop list ofpriority areas;

� Provide a specified timeperiod (say two years) forproducers to addressproblems identified in theself-audit.

� Help local government tosecure funding to correctproblems identified in thepermitting/self-audit process.

� Coordinate nutrientmanagement planning withthe self-audit process,working with local NRCS,SWCD and Extension.

� After the specified timeperiod, use inspection andenforcement activities tobring non-cooperatingproducers into compliancewith Minnesota Rules 7020.

� Track progress on reductionof pollutants includingphosphorus.

116

Strategy 6D: Manure ManagementPlans (see also NutrientManagement Strategy #5a)

Ensure that those feedlot operators withmore than 300 animal units are eithercertified or have a completed manuremanagement plan by 2005, inaccordance with all rules and statelaws. Also, make sure that all feedlotswith more than 100 animal units arekeeping manure application recordsand encourage all farmers in sensitiveareas to develop and use manuremanagement plans.

Action 1: Clearly inform producers ofstate and local requirements andexpectations related to manuremanagement planning, record keepingand other practices associated withmanure application.

Action 2: Promote the benefits of usingmanure management planning andrecord keeping

Action 3: Prioritize manure applicationrecord checks/audits in sensitive areas,including those areas along streams, inwellhead protection areas, etc.

Action 4: Further details on manuremanagement are included in thenutrient management strategy (#6a) ofthe basin plan.

Strategy 6E: Research andDemonstration

Action 1: Explore the possibility ofestablishing on-farm demonstrations ofanaerobic digestion, composting andother heat-generating processes thatdestroy pathogens in manure. Also,consider demonstrating liquid/solidseparation with an aerobic digestionsystem.

Action 2: Conduct research to betterunderstand the transport of fecalcoliform bacteria from livestock manureto ground water and surface water inthe karst region under a range of landapplication and incorporation methods.

Action 3: Develop a method ofestimating nutrient runoff from feedlotsusing the Feedlot Evaluation Model ona representative sample of feedlots in awatershed and extrapolating results toall feedlots in the watershed.

Action 4: Support the development ofrevised state feedlot rules that wouldallow feedlot compliance to bedetermined on the basis of a whole-farm or a watershed assessment ratherthan only on the basis of individualfeedlots and manure application. Thiswould allow consideration to be given toenvironmental benefits associated withwell-managed hay and pastureproduction that support livestockoperations.

Action 5: Financial Needs Analysis:Action 5a: Evaluate theaggregate private cost ofcomplying with key provisions ofthe new feedlot rule, includingachieving 50 percent or greaterrunoff reduction under theextended compliance option, andaddressing pollution hazards onfeedlots from 300 to 1,000animal units. Include the needfor technical assistance in thecost estimate.Action 5b: Evaluate theadequacy of existing fundingsources and levels relative tothis aggregate need; andAction 5c: Explore how to bettercoordinate federal and statefunding sources available tofeedlot operators.

117

Land-Use Strategy 7:Aggregate Mining

Strategy Development Team: BeaHoffmann, SE Minnesota WaterResources Board; Jeff Green, DNR;Norman Senjem, MPCA; Wendy Turri,MPCA

The purpose of this strategy is to helpensure that aggregate mining activitiesare conducted in a manner thatminimizes potential impacts on groundwater and surface water quality and airquality while maintaining local suppliesat reasonable cost.

The continuing economic expansion ofthe past several years has greatlyincreased the demand for aggregateand gravel for use in new transportationand construction projects in Minnesota.The demand for sand and gravel hasincreased by 50 percent since the mid-1980s, and rapidly increasing demandin the Twin Cities Metro area maytrigger more mining activity insoutheastern Minnesota. Firms thatoperate mines want to maintain localavailability at reasonable cost withoutundue impacts (noise, dust, traffic,water drawdowns, etc.) on localcitizens. Quarrying above the watertable poses risks mainly throughfractures to groundwater combined withhazardous wastes and leaks and spills.Quarrying below the water table posesadditional risks from surface waterrunoff, connections to groundwaterconduits, well interference, springimpacts, flooding of quarries andsinkhole development.

Current state and local permittingprocesses are designed to prevent orminimize water pollution. Bettercoordination among state and local

agencies is needed to ensure that thisoutcome is achieved on a regular basis.Mining operations are permitted for airand water pollutant discharges as wellas water withdrawals. Mines with nowater discharge are regulated bygeneral permits, and those that requirede-watering are regulated by individualpermits from the MPCA. Hazardouswaste permits are required if a shop islocated at the mine. The DNR permitsmines for water withdrawals. There is aneed for counties, the PCA and DNR toshare information to ensure that allworking quarries are properly permitted.Reclamation is primarily a countyresponsibility. Several counties haveexpressed interest in developing andsharing guidelines for reclamation.

Strategy 7A: Develop inventories oflimestone quarries and aggregatesites

Action 1: County inventories: list allknown mines, noting those that areactively being quarried. Obtain lists ofMN DOT aggregate sources to helptrack sites.Action 2: Locate quarries on GIS mapsand share this information among localand state agencies.

Action 3: Encourage the DNR toaccelerate the pace of mapping ofcounty aggregate sources.

Strategy 7B: Improve coordinationbetween local conditional usepermitting, MPCA water qualitypermitting, and DNR waterappropriation permitting activities.

Action 1: Educate zoningadministrators, commissioners,township officers and government staffabout potential water quality problemscreated by aggregate mining

118

operations, requirements forconducting Environmental AssessmentWorksheets on proposed miningoperations, and state agency permittingrequirements.

Action 2: Establish a work group tocoordinate permitting processes at thelocal and state levels.

Action 2a: Develop mechanismfor incorporating into localconditional use permits foraggregate mining explicitrequirements for water qualitypermits from the MPCA (NationalPollutant Discharge EliminationSystem permit for process waterdischarge; storm water permit;and hazardous waste permit).Action 2b: Develop mechanismto improve coordination betweenMPCA and DNR permitting ofaggregate mines.Action 2c: Develop a mechanismfor local units of government tonotify MPCA and DNR of allactive mining operations toensure they have neededpermits.

Strategy 7C: Ensure that proposednew aggregate mining operationsobtain appropriate environmentalreview

Action 1: Educate local elected officialsand appropriate staff aboutrequirements for conducting anEnvironmental Assessment Worksheetin relation to proposed aggregatemining operations.Action 2: Ensure that water qualityconcerns are adequately addressed inthe EAWs.

Strategy 7D: Devote more attentionto inspection and enforcement ofpermitted aggregate miningfacilities.

Action 1: Educate local elected officialsand appropriate staff aboutrequirements for operating aggregatemines and encourage them to report toMPCA and DNR apparent violations ofpermit conditions and the use of closedmines for illegal dumping.Action 2: Encourage local units ofgovernment to give notice every 5years for permit updates.Action 3: Provide information tocounties on process to apply a per tonquarry tax that could fund inspectionand enforcement of permit conditionsand other costs to the countyassociated with quarry operations.

Strategy 7E: Develop guidelines forBest Management Practices forquarries, including definitions andBMP’s for dry and wet quarries, activeand inactive quarries, and properclosure requirements. Provide achecklist for counties to use whenissuing conditional use permits.

Strategy 7F: Develop a demonstrationsite in the basin showing proper closureof a quarry or aggregate site.

Strategy 7G: Conduct investigations todetermine if the MN DOT requirementfor use of higher quality aggregate maydirect quarrying to areas whereoperations disturb the vegetative bufferat the St. Peter/Decorah edge and todetermine any other long-termenvironmental impacts of thisrequirement.

119

VIII: Monitoring andEvaluation

Lead Authors: Bill Thompson and GregJohnson, MPCA

Purpose: Evaluate changes in waterquality in the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin by establishing long termmonitoring networks for physical,chemical, and biological variables andusing trend analyses to determine theeffectiveness of watershedmanagement efforts.

Background:

The primary purpose of the basin planis to improve and protect the waterquality of the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin and its associated lakes,streams, wetlands and ground water.Water quality is defined here in a morecomprehensive fashion. This definitionincludes physical, chemical, andbiological aspects together. Forexample, physical water qualityvariables include water flow andsediment dynamics. Water resourceintegrity includes flow, chemistry,biology, energy, and habitatcomponents. With this in mind, it isimportant to provide for adequateevaluation and assessment of waterquality data to document changes overtime. Over the past 60 years, watermonitoring has been done by differentgroups and individuals for differentreasons. Monitoring by the MPCA hashistorically focused on ambientmonitoring of physical and chemicalconstituents in water. Other agenciessuch as MDNR or USGS haveconducted water monitoring (fish andflow, for example) to meet theirprogram objectives. However, we nowknow that additional information needs

to be developed in conjuction with thehistorical-ongoing data sets, to betterevaluate whether change in waterquality is occurring as the basin planand associated implementation effortsare completed. There are six majorareas of need that will be addressed bythis strategy, with the focus primarily onthe surface water quality of streamsand rivers. Additional strategies toutilize groundwater information, andprovide linkages to both surface waterand drinking water issues, need to bedeveloped.

1. Pollutant Loads. First, there is aneed to measure and document theloads of various pollutants atselected sites where continuousstage (water discharge or flow) ismeasured. The foundation for thiswork will involve the establishment(or continuation) of long-termphysical and chemical monitoringsites at strategic locationsthroughout the Lower MississippiRiver Basin.

2. Biological Monitoring. The secondarea of need is the development ofa comprehensive biologicalmonitoring component in the basin.Much work has been done in recentyears in the development of tools formeasuring and characterizing thehealth of our water resources byassessing the actual bioticcommunities present in streams andrivers. To date, most of this workhas been done on the streamsegment scale, with some work atthe watershed scale.

3. Correlate land use and waterquality. Monitoring and assessmentof both land and water variablesneed to be conducted at multiplescales (basin, major watershed,

120

minor watershed, stream segment).Volunteer stream monitoringconducted in conjuction with landuse monitoring such as crop residuetransect surveys should beconducted at the minor watershedscale to enable the data to becorrelated in space and time.

4. Physical condition monitoring.Since water quality is the integrationof chemical, biological, and physicalvariables, it is critical to assess thephysical condition of streams. Thisinvolves classifying stream reachesaccording to key channel dimensionmeasurements and size of drainagearea. This can help us to betterunderstand stream stability, whichrelates to important issues such asstreambank erosion rates. Astream classification system canhelp to define variables such asstream width, stream depth, anddischarge - all related to drainagearea. Sediment dynamics are alsocritical to understanding streamphysical conditions. Incorporatingstream physical data with otherstream data sets will be animportant step for comprehensivestream system evaluation in thefuture.

5. Best-Attainable StreamConditions. While makingprogress on the first four itemsabove, it will also be necessary toidentify “best-attainable” streamconditions in the basin. This hasalso been called “reference” or“least-impacted” stream conditions.To accomplish this, data on landuse/management will need to beassessed along with water qualitydata by stream reach. All sites andconditions will need to be scaled by

drainage area, and categorized bystream type and classifications.

6. Ground Water Monitoring:Interactions between ground waterand surface water quality meritinvestigation particularly in karsttopography. Fate and transport offecal coliform bacteria and nitratenitrogen are of particular interest. Inthe Cedar River Basin, samplesshould be collected from the upperportion of the Upper Carbonatebedrock units to determine ifconfining layers are present, andwhat impact these confining layershave on water quality. A betterunderstanding of the hydrogeologicsystem is required in this basinbefore specific recommendationscan be made for long-termmonitoring. In the Lower MississippiRiver Basin proper, continuedmapping of drift thickness andhydrogeologic sensitivity tocontamination provides informationuseful for wellhead protection andaquifer management. A long-termmonitoring network for nitrate andpossibly pesticides should beestablished in vulnerable aquifers.Because ground water quality isaffected by individual hydrologicevents, monitoring must incorporatetemporal variations.

The long-term physical and chemicalmonitoring network will best beaccomplished through formation of amulti-agency monitoring task force. Thetask force could operate under theauspices of the Water ResourcesCenter at Winona State University. Thistask force would provide data inputsfrom various monitoring sites for use inbasin evaluation. It would also providesome oversight and coordination of themonitoring programs for maximum

121

benefit to the system. Monitoring siteswill include mainstem Mississippi Riversites and major watershed river sitesnear their confluence with theMississippi River. Several state and

federal agencies and local groups arecurrently conducting monitoring withinthe Mississippi River Basin. Thesegroups would be invited to participate inthe task force.

________________________________________________________Table of Agencies/Groups Involved in Water Monitoring - LMB

Agency / Group Monitoring Sites/ActivitiesMetropolitan Council Environmental Vermillion and Cannon RiversServices (MCES)

Minnesota Department of Middle Branch/WhitewaterAgriculture (MDA) Cascade Creek

The U.S. Geological Survey Long-Term Resource MonitoringArmy Corps of Engineers Program sites at the mouths of major

tributaries and at several locations onthe main stem Mississippi.

The Minnesota Department of Fishery surveys and fishNatural Resources (Fisheries) population assessments

MDNR’s Water Division Stream flow monitoring and physicalstream assessments for selectedrivers.

Wisconsin DNR Mississippi River – fishery, mussels,wildlife and water quality information

Watershed Projects Shorter-term monitoring of landand water

Local monitoring County, school, citizen andsmaller-scale efforts

________________________________________________________________

To be successful, we must combineand utilize monitoring efforts conductedat different scales and organized bydifferent groups. Funding limitationsrequire that greater coordination occuramong all groups involved.

Since pollution’s ultimate effect or end-point is a biological response, it isimportant to understand some of the

new tools for biological streammonitoring. One of these tools is amulti-metric macroinvertebrate indexspecific to the Lower Mississippi RiverBasin. This is being developed now bystaff at WSU, and will complementMDNR’s ongoing fishery surveys.

Much of this trend work will focus onthe mainstem and major tributaries of

122

the Mississippi River; however, siteswill also be located on the smallertributaries in the basin. MPCA staff willalso be conducting biologicalmonitoring of streams in the LowerMississippi Basin within the next 5years.

Citizen stream monitoring is anothernew tool for assessment andimprovement of stream resources. Avolunteer stream monitoring programwas initiated by the MPCA in 1998.The Citizen Stream-MonitoringProgram (CSMP) was developedfollowing discussions with the volunteermonitoring community in the state. Ituses a collaborative approach tostream monitoring by partnering withcitizen volunteers who live on or near astream and who monitor its waterquality on a regular basis. There arecurrently about 50 CSMP volunteersenrolled to monitor streams and riversin the Mississippi River Basin. Benefitsof volunteer monitoring include a cost-effective way to augment existing waterquality databases (sometimes forlocations where there is no other dataavailable), increased awareness ofwater-quality issues, and an enhancedsense of stewardship.

Overall Tasks:

1. Develop and implement a basinmonitoring strategy.

2. Map all existing monitoring sites inthe basin using GeographicInformation System. Define thescale of all monitoring efforts byunderstanding drainage area andstream size parameters.

3. Develop a “data dictionary” for thebasin modeled after the WhitewaterWatershed Project’s data dictionary.

4. Use existing databases to assesswater quality trends wherever

possible. Support positive trendsand seek to reverse or reduceadverse trends.

5. Monitor the addition or removal ofMississippi River Basin waters fromthe 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. [Significant additions ofwaters to the list would be apossible indication that inadequateor ineffective programs exist forthose listings.]

Physical and Chemical Monitoring:

1. Develop a monitoring plan that willprovide for the establishment of along-term physical, chemical, andhydrological monitoring network thatwill provide statistically validestimates of flow-weighted meanconcentrations and mass loads ofpollutants for use in assessing long-term water quality trends.

2. Create a multi-agency task forceoperating through the WaterResources Center at Winona StateUniversity, to coordinate thedevelopment and implementation ofthe long-term physical, chemical,biological and hydrologicalmonitoring network.

3. Estimate costs and pursue thefunding necessary to implement themonitoring plan. Try to redirectdepartmental program funds tosupport long-term monitoring.Funds would likely be needed formonitoring site equipment, staff,water sample analyses, andcontract support services.

4. Implement the monitoring plan asfunding and various agencies’capabilities allow.

5. Adjust current efforts, if needed, tomeet the needs of temporal orspatial trend analysis.

123

Biological Monitoring:

1. Develop a macroinvertebratemultimetric index for the MississippiRiver basin. This would be similarin process to the warm-water andcoldwater IBIs (index of bioticintegrity) for fish.

2. Develop a monitoring plan that willprovide for the establishment of along-term biological monitoringnetwork for use in assessing waterquality trends.

3. Implement the biological monitoringplan as funding and capabilitiesallow.

4. Incorporate monitoring of additionalsites for use in problem investigationand/or effectiveness monitoring.Efforts will be made to partner withwatershed or stream restorationprojects currently underway.

5. Develop a habitat index for thebasin and relate results of habitatassessment to overall biologicalintegrity.

Citizen Stream-Monitoring Program:

1. Promote and expand the CSMP toenhance volunteer streammonitoring at the basin, majorwatershed, and minor watershedscale.

2. Support other volunteer monitoringefforts in the basin by providingtechnical support.

3. Assist schools and otherorgainzations to monitor a selectedstream for multiple years. Providemethods and suggestions to thesecritical groups.

4. Develop news articles, TV newsstories, etc., with selected citizenvolunteers.

5. Hold a CSMP meeting every twoyears at various sites in the basin.

Combined Objectives:

1. Generate and publish regularreports documenting annualmonitoring results and long-termtrends as a means of establishing abaseline for assessing trends and,then, following through with theevaluations as time goes by.a) Collect, pedigree, and

consolidate data from relevantsources:i) Lower Mississippi River

Basin Long-Term MonitoringNetwork

(a) Metropolitan CouncilEnvironmentalServices

(b) MinnesotaDepartment ofAgriculture

(c) U.S. GeologicalSurvey/ U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers“Long-Term ResourceMonitoring Program”

(d) U.S. Fish & WildlifeService

(e) MinnesotaDepartment of NaturalResources

(f) Wisconsin Departmentof Natural Resources

(g) Minnesota PollutionControl Agency

ii) Current Clean WaterPartnership projects

iii) County monitoring projectsiv) MPCA Biological Monitoring

Programv) Citizen Stream Monitoring

Programvi) MPCA Milestone Monitoring

Programvii) Stream Channel

Assessmentsviii) TMDL monitoring and

assessment.

124

ix) USDA’s National ResourceInventory (NRI)

x) Crop Residue Survey Data(by county, major watershed)

xi) Ground water data frompublic water suppliers,monitoring networks, andregional labs

b) Summarize findings in regularreports and present them to theBasin Alliance for the LowerMississippi in Minnesota;Southeast Minnesota WaterResources Board; WhitewaterWatershed Project; SouthBranch Root River WatershedProject; Wells Creek Watershed;Cannon River Watershed JointPowers Board; Vermillion RiverWatershed ManagementOrganization, similar watershedprojects and ComprehensiveLocal Water Planning andSWCD committees.

Milestones:

1. Complete and begin implementingthe Mississippi River Basinmonitoring strategy by 2002.

2. Complete and begin implementingthe long-term physical, chemical,and hydrological monitoring plan forthe basin.a) Create a multi-agency task force

– July 2001.b) Select monitoring sites for long-

term physical, chemical, andhydrological monitoring network– July 2001;

c) Formulate an analyticalmethodology – August 2001.

d) Estimate costs and securefunding.i) Equipment, and/or contract,

analytical and staff costs –August 2001.

ii) Secure funding for costs –February 2001.

e) Purchase and install additionalequipment, as needed – Fall2002 or Spring 2003.

f) Operate monitoring sites –continuing for existing sites,begin new sites – Spring 2003.

3. Complete and begin implementingthe long-term biological monitoringplan for the basin by the year 2005.

a) Develop a macroinvertebratebiological index for the LowerMississippi River Basin.

b) Develop a fish basedbiological index for cold- andwarm-water streams.

c) Select and monitor sites thatwill be used in this plan.

d) Summarize and interpretdata, and communicateresults to provide local, state,and federal resourcemanagers the informationneeded in determiningwhether or not biologicaldesignated uses of rivers andstreams are being met.

e) Increase the number ofCSMP volunteers in theMississippi River Basin to100 by December 2001

f) Write the first report on the“State of the LowerMississippi River Basin”report by Spring 2003.

125

IX: Future Directions

The completion of this LowerMississippi River Basin Plan ScopingDocument marks the first milestone inthe basin planning process undertakenby BALMM starting in the autumn of1999. This document identifiesenvironmental goals and strategies forachieving them. Yet to be determinedis the order in which the strategiesshould be implemented, the roles thatlocal, state and federal agencies andnon-government organizations shouldplay in implementing them, and howbest to coordinate their activities acrossthe basin. This will involve wideningthe circle of discussion to include thosewho stand to be affected, for better orworse, by the implementation of thestrategies. This list of “stakeholders”who have a “stake” in the subject inquestion will be different for eachstrategy, and will range from privateland-owners and businesses to cities,sportsman and environmentalistorganizations, and government entitieswhich have not yet participated in thedevelopment of strategies. As the circleof discussion widens, it can beexpected that strategies will beadjusted to take into account newinformation and concerns.

At the state planning level, discussionsled by the Environmental Quality Boardrelative to the governor’s WaterUnification Initiative will proceed withthe involvement of basin teams acrossthe state. It is not yet clear whatdirection these discussions will take,but some refinement in environmentalobjectives and indicators may beexpected along with the development ofstrategies for achieving them. Ideas orpolicies that result from this Initiativewill be considered for inclusion in a final

Lower Mississippi River Basin Plan,currently scheduled to be published inthe summer of 2003.

At the same time, basin planning willproceed at a finer level of detail with thepreparation of a Lower MississippiRiver Basin Information Document bythe MPCA. This document will organizedata on water quality, pollutant sourcesand related topics by major watershed.This will set the stage for majorwatershed assessments, whererelationships between water quality andland uses are further clarified.Information organized by majorwatershed should help to support workin subwatersheds, too.

The importance of these documentsshould not be over-emphasized,however. In the end, the workingrelationships and communicationestablished through planning are oftenjust as important, or even moreimportant, than planning documents.Implementation of strategies throughcoordinated efforts need not be delayeduntil a final basin plan is prepared.Indeed, implementation of severalbegan even before the draft plan wascompleted. In the spirit of “adaptivemanagement,” in which goals andstrategies are adjusted and refined toreflect new knowledge gained throughimplementation, the Scoping Documentand Basin Plan can be viewed asdescribing stages in a continuingprocess of implementation and planningthat no document should attempt tofinalize.

BALMM MembersArea 7 Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Districts Association, Bluffland Environmental Watch,Cannon River Watershed Partnership, Dakota County/SWCD, Minnesota Board of Water and SoilResources, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Department of Health, MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources, Minneosta Pollution Control Agency, Mississippi River CitizenCommmission, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Prairie Island Indian Community, SoutheastMinnesota Water Resources Board, St. Mary’s University Resource Studies Center, University ofMinnesota Extension, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Whitewater River Watershed Project

BALMM StaffChair Kevin Scheidecker, Fillmore County SWCD, 900 Washington NW, Box A,

Preston, MN 55965. Phone: 507/765-3878e-mail: [email protected]

Coordinator Norman Senjem, MPCA, 18 Wood Lake Dr. SE,Rochester, MN 55904. Phone: 507/280-3592e-mail: [email protected]

Area 7 MASWCD Liaison Clarence Anderson, Rice SWCD, 1501 Greenleaf RdFaribault, MN 55021. Phone 507/334-3934e-mail: [email protected]

SE MN Water Resources Board Liaison Bea Hoffmann, Winona State University, P.O. Box 5838Winona, MN 55987. Phone 507/457-5223e-mail: [email protected]

Printed on recycled paper with minimum 20% post-consumer waste.

Upon request, this material can be made available in other formats, such as Braille, large type or audio tape.

Support and production of this brochure provided by

Reprinted April 2002