MN Clean Water Land & Legacy: is the water getting cleaner? Joe Magner, Professor Dept. of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering University of Minnesota
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
MN Clean Water Land & Legacy: is the water getting cleaner?
Joe Magner, ProfessorDept. of Bioproducts and Biosystems EngineeringUniversity of Minnesota
2006 Clean Water Legacy (State)
• Legislation that created a new water program to address “Impaired” waters
• Impaired waters are waterbodies not meeting water quality standards
•The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 303(d) requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study
How was the Legacy story told?
•The CWA requires states to test all (perceived) surface waters (“Condition”)
•The State estimated around ~10,000 waterbodies that will NOT be unable to meet water quality standards
• If TMDLs are not completed, the CWA restricts any new or expanded pollutant discharges – NO NEW GROWTH!
Building the Legacy legislation
•Policy Work Group (G16)
•Broader Partners Group (G40)
•Broad citizen engagement (NGOs)
•Minnesota Environmental Initiative managed and organized the stakeholder process
Today: Clean Water Council that provides guidance to the Governor
10 year Intensive Watershed Monitoring Schedule
*The 10 year schedule runs from 2008 to 2017. In 2018, the Snake, North Fork Crow
and Pomme de Terre watersheds will be revisited; the first intensive watershed surveys
on these watersheds were completed in 2006 and 2007.
*
Legend
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
1616
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13 13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
09
0909
09 09
09
09
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
07
07
06
River Continuum Concept (RCC)
Vannote et al., 1980•Model for predicting clinal riverine ecological
response (has been observed over time).•Assumes a continuous gradient (W, D, Q &
entropy gain) from headwaters to mouth.• Longitudinal gradient of physical conditions
controls biotic response (upstream feeds downstream)
Riverine Ecosystem Synthesis (RES)
Thorp et al., 2006•Adds new insight into RCC: scale dependent
complexity with partial predictability, •Hydrogeomorphic Patches: scaled geomorphic
features that may be repeatable,•Heuristic approach: includes 4 river dimensions,•Acknowledgement of the role of unique geologic
and hydrologic “lateral patches”
An Investment in Minnesota
On November 4, 2008 Minnesota voters approved the
Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment to the state constitution
The Amendment increases the sales and use
tax rate by 3/8th of 1% on taxable sales,
starting July 1, 2009 and continuing through
2034.
Dollars are dedicated to four funds:
Clean Water
Outdoor Heritage
Arts and Cultural Heritage
Parks and Trails
From Peterson, 2017
Clean Water Fund
Goals:
• Protect, enhance, and restore
lakes, rivers, streams, and
groundwater
• Protect drinking water sources
$228 million in 2016-2017
From Peterson, 2017
Step 1. Monitor water bodies and collect data•Two-year intensive water monitoring to identify impairments (lakes & streams)
Outcomes: •Monitoring & Assessment Report•Stressor Identification Report
Step 2. Assess the data•Identify impaired waters (do not meet standards).•Identify stressors affecting aquatic life.•Analyze data with water quality models and maps.
Step 3. Develop strategies to restore and protect the watershed’s water bodies•Summarize details on water quality issues. •Determine reduction goals for impaired or protected
water bodies. Outcomes: •Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) •WRAPS Report
Step 4. Conduct restoration and protection projects in the watershed•Civic engagement and public participation.•Prioritize, target and measure the implementation of restoration and protection projects.
Outcomes: •One Watershed One Plan•Treatment Trains
“Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS)”
MN Water Management Framework
From Peterson, 2017
Cropland groundwater
30%
Cropland tile drainage
37%
Cropland runoff
5%
Wastewater Point
Sources9%
Atmospheric9%
Urban Stormwater
1%Forests
7%
Septic2%
Feedlot runoff<1%
Statewide: Surface Water Nutrient Sources
Cropland37%
Wastewater point sources
17%
Atmospheric10%
Urban & road runoff
8%
Forest & prairie8%
Septic/feedlots6%
Streambank erosion
14%
Nitrogen Phosphorus
*MPCA, 2014. Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy
MinnesotaFrom Peterson, 2017
Moving from Assessment to Action
Prioritize – what are the problems?
Target – where?
(Tailor) – social negotiation
Measure – Response
From Olm, 2015
A work in Progress….
“Drill down to the scale of Implementation”
Sentinel Watersheds, Magner & Brooks, (2008)
TWAIM: Systems Thinking Approach, Magner (2011)
One Watershed One Plan
Is the water getting cleaner?
• Is the end point compliance w/WQS?
• Is complete restoration possible?
(Recovery Potential, Norton et al. 2010)
• How do measure the cause-and-effect response to management actions?
• What is the Impaired Water Response Time to management action? (Meals et al. 2010)
What can we conclude after a decade?
1) Millions of dollars have been spent,2) Minnesota has a lot of data – (but needs to be analyzed),3) Understanding pathway and process across SCALE is very difficult,4) Estimating Buffer Capacity (system resilience and/or recovery
potential),5) Constraining uncertainty…..easier said than done,6) Does Biological (IBI) data tell us something? 7) Communicating System Understanding,8) Human Dimension constraints,9) Implementation action? Needs more direction,10) Stacking or treatment train design is still a mystery 11) Measuring – what best tells the story?12) Why we need Sentinel data collection (10+ years of data)
Related Documents
