HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-14 PACKET 05.01.Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MCES-113
S006-139
SS00009
S004-655
SS00043
MCES-002
S004-653
S001-946
SS00010
S006-140
S003-995
S000-025
S006-148
S003-370
S006-163
S002-947
S002-948
S002-949
S006-162
Gene copies/100 ml
DRAFT: Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Study & Protection Plan
[UM[ F
water
February 24, 2014
ecology
community
Cover Images
Left Image: Mississippi River, Ramsey County
Right Image: Little Two Rivers, Morrison County
Document Component Specs
®
Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Study
and Protection Plan
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Department of Health
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
TMDL Summary Table
EPA/MPCA Summary TMDL
Required ElementsPage #
Location
E. coli
Reach Reach AUIDReach Year Target Start/
1
NameDescriptionListedCompletion
303(d) Listing
Information
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Reach Year Target Start/
Reach AUID
NameDescriptionListedCompletion
E. coli
Standard Notes
Applicable Water
Quality Standards/
Numeric Targets
Standard Notes
Critical condition:
E. coli
Loading Capacity
(expressed as daily
load)
E. coli
SourcePermit #AUIDWLA
(billion
org/d)
Wasteload
Allocation
[billion org/d]
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
x
x
x
x
LA
Reach NameAUID
(billion org/d)
Load Allocation
Margin of SafetyExplicit MOS:
Seasonal Variation
Reasonable
Assurance
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Monitoring
Monitoring Plan included?
1. Implementation Strategy included?
Implementation
2. Cost estimate included?
x
x
Public Participation
x
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table of Contents
TMDL Summary Table................................................................................................................................ 2
1Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................17
2Project Overview..............................................................................................................................19
2.2.1Aquatic Recreation............................................................................................................19
2.2.2Drinking Water..................................................................................................................20
2.5.1TMDL Study Reaches.......................................................................................................30
2.5.2TMDL Study Subwatersheds............................................................................................34
2.6.1TMDL-Deferred Reaches..................................................................................................36
3Watershed Characterization............................................................................................................37
4Potential Bacteria Sources..............................................................................................................45
4.1.1Humans.............................................................................................................................45
4.1.2Pets...................................................................................................................................55
4.1.3Livestock...........................................................................................................................55
4.1.4Wildlife...............................................................................................................................61
4.1.5Land Cover as Delivery Mechanism.................................................................................61
4.1.62006 NLCD Land Cover Maps..........................................................................................62
4.2.1Humans.............................................................................................................................77
4.2.2Livestock Requiring Registration......................................................................................79
4.2.3Livestock Not Requiring Registration................................................................................81
4.2.4Pets...................................................................................................................................82
4.2.5Wildlife...............................................................................................................................83
4.2.6BacteriaDelivery Factor to Surface Waters......................................................................84
4.2.7Strengths and Limitations................................................................................................. 87
5Approach: Water Quality Analysis and TMDLs.............................................................................97
5.2.1Water Quality..................................................................................................................100
5.2.2Flow................................................................................................................................. 100
5.2.3Precipitation....................................................................................................................100
5.3.1Load duration curves.......................................................................................................100
5.3.2Monthly summary figures................................................................................................101
5.3.3Tabular summaries.........................................................................................................101
5.5.1MS4................................................................................................................................. 103
5.5.2Wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs).......................................................................104
5.5.3Other...............................................................................................................................105
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6Water Quality Analysis Results....................................................................................................112
6.1.1Protection Reach 07010201-501 Mississippi River (End HUC 07010104 (below Swan R)
to Two R) US ACE River Mile 954-961..........................................................................112
6.1.2Protection Reach 07010201-502: Mississippi River (Watab R to Sauk R) US ACE River
Mile 930-932.5................................................................................................................114
6.1.3Protection Reach 07010201-513: Mississippi River (Little Rock Cr to Sartell Dam) US
ACE River Mile 932.5-937..............................................................................................116
6.1.4TMDL Reach 07010201-516: Little Two River (Headwaters to Mississippi R)...............118
6.1.5TMDL Reach 07010201-523: Two River (North & South Two R to Mississippi R)........119
6.1.6TMDL Reach 07010201-525: Spunk Creek (Lower Spunk Lk to Mississippi R)............120
6.1.7TMDL Reach 07010201-528: Watab River (Rossier Lk to Mississippi R)......................121
6.1.8TMDL Reach 07010201-529: Watab River, North Fork (Headwaters (Stump Lk 73-0091-
00) to S FkWatab R)......................................................................................................122
6.1.9TMDL Reach 07010201-537: County Ditch 12 (Unnamed cr to Watab R).....................123
6.1.10TMDL Reach 07010201-543: South Two River (Two River Lk to Two R)......................124
6.1.11Protection Reach 07010201-545: Platte River (Unnamed cr (above RR bridge) to
Mississippi R).................................................................................................................125
6.1.12TMDL Reach 07010201-554: Watab River, South Fork (Little Watab Lk to Watab R)..126
6.1.13TMDL Reach 07010201-564: County Ditch 13 (Bakers Lk to Watab R)........................127
6.1.14Protection Reach 07010201-577: Little Rock Creek (Little Rock Lk to Mississippi R)...127
6.1.15Protection Reach 07010201-607: Mississippi River (Morrison/Stearns County border to
Little Rock Cr) US ACE River Mile 937-947...................................................................127
6.1.16Protection Reach 07010201-615: Stony Creek (Headwaters to Mississippi R).............128
6.1.17Protection Reach 07010202-501: Sauk River (Mill Cr to Mississippi R).........................129
6.2.1Protection Reach 07010203-503: Mississippi River (Elk R to Crow R) US ACE River Mile
879.5-884.5....................................................................................................................131
6.2.2Protection Reach 07010203-510: Mississippi River (Clearwater R to Elk R) US ACE River
Mile 884-914..................................................................................................................133
6.2.3Protection Reach 07010203-511: Clearwater River (Clearwater Lk to Mississippi R)...135
6.2.4Protection Reach 07010203-525: Elk River (Orono Lk to Mississippi R).......................135
6.2.5TMDL Reach 07010203-528: Unnamed creek (T121 R23W S19, south line to Mississippi
R)....................................................................................................................................136
6.2.6TMDL Reach 07010203-557: Silver Creek (Locke Lk to Mississippi R).........................137
6.2.7TMDL Reach 07010203-561: Unnamed creek (Luxemburg Creek) (T123 R28W S30,
south line to Johnson Cr)................................................................................................138
6.2.8TMDL Reach 07010203-572: Plum Creek (Warner Lk to Mississippi R).......................139
6.2.9Protection Reach 07010203-574: Mississippi River (Sauk River to University Dr S bridge
in St. Cloud) US ACE River Mile 926.5-930...................................................................140
6.2.10TMDL Reach 07010203-635: Johnson Creek (Meyer Creek) (Unnamed cr to Unnamed
cr)....................................................................................................................................142
6.2.11TMDL Reach 07010203-639: Johnson Creek (Meyer Creek) (T123 R28W S14, west line
to Mississippi R).............................................................................................................143
6.2.12TMDL Reach 07010203-724: Unnamed creek (Robinson Hill Creek) (CD 14 to CSAH
136)................................................................................................................................. 144
6.3.1Protection Reach 07010206-501: Mississippi River (L & D #2 to St Croix R (RM 815.2 to
811.3))............................................................................................................................145
6.3.2Protection Reach 07010206-502: Mississippi River (Rock Island RR bridge to L & D #2
(RM 830 to 815.2)).........................................................................................................147
6.3.3Protection Reach 07010206-503: Mississippi River (Lower St Anthony Falls to L & D #1
(RM 853.3 to RM 847.6))................................................................................................149
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.4Protection Reach 07010206-504: Mississippi River (Metro WWTP to Rock Island RR
bridge (RM 835 to 830))................................................................................................. 151
6.3.5Protection Reach 07010206-505: Mississippi River (Minnesota R to Metro WWTP (RM
844 to 835))....................................................................................................................153
6.3.6TMDL Reach 07010206-506: Shingle Creek (County Ditch 13) (Headwaters (Eagle
Cr/Bass Cr) to Mississippi R)..........................................................................................155
6.3.7Protection Reach 07010206-509: Mississippi River (Coon Creek to Upper St. Anthony
Falls) US ACE River Mile 854-865.................................................................................157
6.3.8Protection Reach 07010206-511: Mississippi River (Elm Cr to Coon Rapids Dam) US
ACE River Mile 866-871................................................................................................. 158
6.3.9Protection Reach 07010206-512: Mississippi River (Coon Rapids Dam to Coon Cr) US
ACE River Mile 865-866................................................................................................. 161
6.3.10Protection Reach 07010206-513: Mississippi River (Upper St Anthony Falls to Lower St
Anthony Falls) US ACE River Mile 853.5-854................................................................163
6.3.11Protection Reach 07010206-514: Mississippi River (L & D #1 to Minnesota R) US ACE
River Mile 844-847.5......................................................................................................165
6.3.12Protection Reach 07010206-517: Unnamed creek (Headwaters to Mississippi R)........167
6.3.13TMDL Reach 07010206-526: Unnamed Creek (Plymouth Creek) (Headwaters to
Medicine Lk)...................................................................................................................167
6.3.14TMDL Reach 07010206-538: Bassett Creek (Medicine Lk to Mississippi R).................169
6.3.15TMDL Reach 07010206-542: Unnamed creek (Interstate Valley Creek) (Unnamed cr to
Mississippi R).................................................................................................................171
6.3.16TMDL Reach 07010206-552: Unnamed creek (North Branch, Bassett Creek) (Unnamed
lk to Bassett Cr)..............................................................................................................172
6.3.17Protection Reach 07010206-568: Mississippi River (NW city limits of Anoka to Rum R)
US ACE River Mile 871.5-874........................................................................................174
6.3.18TMDL Reach 07010206-584: Rice Creek (Long Lk to Locke Lk)...................................176
6.3.19Protection Reach 07010206-592: Battle Creek (Battle Creek Lk to Pigs Eye Lk)..........177
6.3.20Protection Reach 07010206-606: Fish Creek (Carver Lk to Unnamed (North Star) lk) . 179
6.3.21Protection Reach 07010206-727: Unnamed creek (Unnamed lk (82-0086-00) to
Mississippi R).................................................................................................................180
6.3.22Protection Reach 07010206-xxx: Unnamed/unassessed creek (to Mississippi R)........180
7TMDLs and Percent Reductions...................................................................................................181
8Stakeholder Participation..............................................................................................................190
9Implementation Strategies.............................................................................................................191
9.1.1Pollution Prevention and Source Controls......................................................................192
9.1.2Wetland Treatment Systems...........................................................................................192
9.1.3Detention and Retention Ponds......................................................................................192
9.1.4Biofiltration/Filtration........................................................................................................193
9.1.5Hydrodynamic and Manufactured Devices.....................................................................193
9.1.6Vegetated Buffers/Filter Strips/Swales...........................................................................193
9.1.7Livestock Riparian Access Control.................................................................................194
9.1.8Manure Management......................................................................................................194
9.1.9Wastewater System Maintenance..................................................................................194
9.1.10Wastewater System Structural Improvements................................................................194
9.1.11Education........................................................................................................................194
9.1.12Ordinances......................................................................................................................195
10Reasonable Assurances................................................................................................................197
10.2.1Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits..............................................197
10.2.2Wastewater & State Disposal System (SDS) Permits....................................................198
10.2.3Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems Program (SSTS)............................................198
10.2.4Feedlot Rules..................................................................................................................198
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
11Monitoring Plan..............................................................................................................................199
12References......................................................................................................................................200
Appendix A.Stakeholder Organizations..........................................................................................204
Appendix B.Classification of Impaired Reaches Excluded from the Upper Mississippi River
Bacteria TMDLStudy and Protection Plan..................................................................................208
Appendix C.Monitoring Stations for Data Analyses......................................................................215
Appendix D.Data Summary...................................................................................................219
E. coli
Appendix E.Water Quality Analysis for Reaches Outside of TMDL and Protection
Subwatersheds...............................................................................................................................271
E.1.1AUID 07010201-508: Mississippi River (Spunk Cr to Platte R)......................................272
E.1.2AUID 07010201-509: Mississippi River (Two R to Spunk Cr)........................................272
E.1.3AUID 07010201-606: Mississippi River (Platte R to Morrison/Stearns County border) . 272
E.2.1AUID 07010203-513: Mississippi River (St Cloud Dam to Clearwater R)......................272
E.2.2AUID 07010203-548: Elk River (St Francis R to Orono Lk)............................................272
E.2.3AUID 07010204-502: Crow River (S Fk Crow R to Mississippi R)................................. 274
E.3.1AUID 07010206-508: Elm Creek (Headwaters (Lk Medina 27-0146-00) to Mississippi R)
........................................................................................................................................274
E.3.2AUID 07010206-530: Coon Creek (Unnamed cr to Mississippi R)................................. 277
E.3.3AUID 07010206-539: Minnehaha Creek (Lk Minnetonka to Mississippi R)....................277
E.3.4AUID 07010206-557: County Ditch 17 (Headwaters to Mississippi R)...........................279
E.3.5AUID 07010206-567: MississippiRiver (Crow R to NW city limits of Anoka).................279
E.3.6AUID 07010206-594: Unnamed ditch (Headwaters to Mississippi R)............................279
E.3.7AUID 07010207-555: Rum River (Trott Bk to Madison/Rice St in Anoka)......................280
E.3.8AUID 07020012-505: Minnesota River (RM 22 to Mississippi R)...................................283
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
List of Tables
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
List of Figures
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Abbreviations
AFOAnimal feeding operation
ASAEAmerican Society of Agricultural Engineers
AUAnimal unit
AUIDAssessment unit identification
AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association
BMPBest management practice
CAFOConcentrated animal feeding operation
CFRCode of Federal Regulations
ChChapter
CrCreek
CSAHCounty State-Aid Highway
CSOCombined sewer overflow
DNRDepartment of Natural Resources
E. coliEscherichia coli
ELTRExisting load of TMDL Reach
ELURExisting load of upstream reaches
EOREmmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency
EQIPEnvironmental Quality Incentives Program
EQuISEnvironmental Quality Information System
GISGeographic information system
HGICHome and Garden Information Center
HSGHydrologic soil group
HUCHydrologic unit code
IDInsufficient data
IDULImpairment due to upstream load
ISTSIndividual sewage treatment system
ITPHSImminent threat to public health and safety
LALoad allocation
lbspounds
LCTRLoading capacity of TMDL Reaches
LCURLoading capacity of upstream reaches
LDCLoad duration curve
LkLake
MCESMetropolitan Council Environmental Services
MCMMinimum Control Measure
MDAMinnesota Department of Agriculture
MDHMinnesota Department of Health
MinMinnesota
MissMississippi
MNMinnesota
mgdMillion gallons per day
MnDOTMinnesota Department of Transportation
MOSMargin of safety
MPCAMinnesota Pollution Control Agency
MPNMost probable number
MS4Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
Ml Milliliters
NASSNational Agricultural Statistics Service
NHDNational Hydrography Dataset
NLCDNational Land Cover Dataset
NPDESNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
orgOrganisms
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
RRiver
RMRiver mile
ROWRight of way
SDSState Disposal System
subpSubpart
SPIStream power index
SSOSanitary sewer overflow
SSTSSubsurface sewage treatment system
SWCDSoil and Water Conservation District
SWPPPStormwater pollution prevention program
TACTechnical advisory committee
TMDLTotal Maximum Daily Load
USUnited States
US ACEUnited States Army Corps of Engineers
USDAUnited States Department of Agriculture
USEPAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
UVUltraviolet
WDWatershed District
WLAWasteload allocation
WMOWatershed Management Organization
WRAPSWatershed Restoration and ProtectionStrategy
WWTFWastewater treatment facility
WWTPWastewater treatment plant(the term Waste water treatment facility WWTF is used in this
document with the exception of cases where the official name of the river reach includes
reference to a Waste water treatment plant, In those cases the acronym WWTP is used)
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ultimate goal of this project is to describe the reduction in pollutant loading and
implementation activities needed so that Upper Mississippi River reaches can meet the water
quality standard for aquatic recreation due toEscherichia coli (E. coli), a bacteria used to
indicate the potential presence ofwaterborne pathogens that can be harmful to human health. In
meeting this goal, the implementation of best management practices(BMPs)in critical areas may
also help reduce other contaminants of concern investigated during this study.
This project is a joint effort between the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) in close coordination with a multitude of project
partners.
The project is located in central Minnesota along the Mississippi River Corridor from Royalton
to Hastings.
A large number of Minnesota’s residents rely on the Mississippi River for both drinking water
and as a place for recreational activities. While specific recreational user data (boating,
swimming, wading) is not known at this time, between 940,000 and 950,000 Minnesotans use
the Mississippi River between Royalton and Hastings for drinking water.
All surface waters in Minnesota, including lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands, are protected for
aquatic recreation where this use is attainable. This beneficial use isassociated with a specific
numeric water quality standard for bacteriathat reduces the risk of illness from this pollutant in
water. Although most are harmless themselves, fecal indicator bacteria are used as an easy-to-
measure surrogate to evaluate the microbiological suitability of recreational and drinking waters,
specifically, the presence of pathogens. Water contaminated with pathogenic bacteria from
human or animal fecal material can cause illness in humans such as nausea, vomiting, fever,
headache, and diarrhea, but more serious illness is a possibility. The Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) study and protection plan uses the standard for E. coli and addresses 22impaired
reaches and 29 protection reaches (Table 2-3 and Table 2-4).
The majority of the TMDL study and protection plan focuses on the Mississippi River Corridor,
and, specifically, portions of three Major Watersheds (8-digit HUCs): Mississippi River –Sartell
Watershed (07010201), Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (07010203), and the
Mississippi River –Twin Cities Watershed (07010206).
The following analyses were conducted for the TMDL Study Reaches (22 TMDL study reaches
impaired for aquatic recreation due to bacteria) and the corresponding TMDL Subwatersheds:
Potential Bacteria Sources (Section 4)
x
Water Quality Analysis Including Load Duration Curves (Section 6)
x
TMDL Calculations (Section 7)
x
Implementation Strategies (Section 9)
x
TMDLs were derived for five flow regimes (from low to high flows) using the load duration
curve method. TMDLs range from 0.833 billion org/d to 53.7 billion org/d for low flows and
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
from 32.1 billion org/d to 514 billion org/d for high flows. The impaired reaches require load
reductions from 0% to 97%, varying for each reach and flow regime, to meet the E. coli
standard.
Additional subwatersheds (Protection Subwatersheds) were identified in order to support the
protection of surface waters that are not known to be impaired for bacteria. The Protection
Subwatersheds (independent of the TMDL Subwatersheds) focus on the Mississippi River
corridor from Royalton to Hastings. They are composed of drainage areas to 1) reaches not
known to be impaired for bacteria, including Mississippi River mainstem reaches and their direct
drainage areas, 2) five impaired Mississippi River mainstem reaches for which TMDLs have
been deferred, and 3) downstream portions of tributaries that directly discharge to the Mississippi
River and that are not known to be impaired (for details refer to Section 2.6). The following
project components were completed for the Protection Subwatersheds and their corresponding
Protection Reaches:
Potential Bacteria Sources (Section 4)
x
Water Quality Analysis Including Load Duration Curves(Section 6)
x
Implementation Strategies (Section 9)
x
Additional water quality analyses were also conducted for tributaries that directly discharge to
the Mississippi River and are part of an existing or future/planned TMDL (Appendix E).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
2.1Purpose of TMDLStudy and Protection Plan
The ultimate goal of this project is to describe the reduction in pollutant loading and
implementation activities needed so that 1) Upper Mississippi Rivertributariescan meet the
water quality standard for Escherichia coli (E. coli), a type of bacteria used to indicate the
potential presence of waterborne pathogens that can be harmful to human health, and 2) so that
non-impaired reaches are equipped with the tools necessary to protect the existing water quality.
In meeting this goal, the implementation ofbest management practices(BMPs)in critical areas
may also help reduce other contaminants of concern investigated during this study.
This project is a joint effort between the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) in close coordination with a multitude of project
partners.
2.2Surface Water Uses & Water Quality Standards
A large number of Minnesota’s residents rely on the Mississippi River for both drinking water
and as a place for recreational activities. These two uses, drinking water and aquatic recreation,
are directly affected by fecal contamination and are addressed here.
2.2.1Aquatic Recreation
All surface waters in Minnesota, including lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands, are protected for
aquatic recreation where this use is attainable. This beneficial use is associated withnumeric
water quality standards for bacteria, in this case Escherichia coli (E. coli), which are protective
concentrations for short- and long-term exposure to this pollutant in water. See Minnesota Rules
Chapter 7050 for a more detailed description of beneficial uses
at https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/rules/?id=7050.
The past fecal coliform and currentE. coli numeric water quality standards for Class 2 waters are
shown in Table 2-1.E. coli and fecal coliform are fecal bacteria used as indicators for
waterborne pathogens that have the potential to cause human illness. Although most are harmless
themselves, fecal indicator bacteria are used as an easy-to-measure surrogate to evaluate the
suitability of recreational and drinking waters, specifically, the presence of pathogens and
probability of illness. Pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and protozoa pose a health risk to humans,
potentially causing illnesses with gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, fever, headache,
and diarrhea), skin irritations, or other symptoms. Pathogen types and quantities vary among
fecal sources; therefore, human health risk varies based on the source of fecal contamination.
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study and protection plan will use the standard for E.
coli.The change in the water quality standardfrom fecal coliform to E. coli is supported by an
EPA guidance document on bacteriological criteria (USEPA 1986). As of March 17, 2008,
Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050 water quality standards for E. coli are:
Escherichia (E.) coli - Not to exceed 126 organisms per 100 milliliters as a geometric
mean of not less than five samples representative of conditions within any calendar
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
month, nor shall more than ten percent of all samples taken during any calendar month
individually exceed 1,260 organisms per 100 milliliters. The standard applies only
between April 1 and October 31.
Although surface water quality standards are now based on E. coli, wastewater treatment
facilities are permitted based on fecal coliform (not E. coli) concentrations.
Table 2-1.Past and current numeric water quality standards of bacteria (fecal coliform and )
E.coli
for the beneficial use of aquatic recreation (primary and secondary body contact).
Current
Past StandardUnitsUnitsNotes
Standard
E. coli
E. coli
Geometric mean is used in place of arithmetic mean in order to measure the central tendency of
the data, dampening the effect that very high or very low values have on arithmetic means. In
fact, the geometric mean is really a log-transformation of data; it is equivalent to the arithmetic
mean of the logarithmic values of a data set, converted back to a base 10 number. Since bacteria
data sets often contain a few very high values, the geometric mean more appropriately
characterizes the central tendency of the data.
The MPCA’s Guidance Manual for Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters for
Determination of Impairment: 305(b) Report and 303(d) List provides details regarding how
waters are assessed for conformance to the E. coli standard (MPCA 2012b).
2.2.2DrinkingWater
Between 940,000 and 950,000 Minnesotans rely on the Mississippi River between Royalton and
Hastings for drinking water.The Mississippi River is the exclusive drinking supply for St. Cloud
(also serves St. Augusta) and the Minneapolis Water Treatment and Distribution Services (serves
the cities of Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope, Columbia Heights, Hilltop, Fort Snelling,parts
of Bloomington and Edina (Morning Side), and the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport). It is also one
of the main sources for the St. Paul Regional Water Services (serves at least part of the cities of
Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Maplewood, Arden Hills, Little Canada, Saint Paul, West Saint
Paul, South Saint Paul, Lilydale, Mendota and Mendota Heights, Roseville, and Sunfish Lake).
Many of Minnesota's 24 community water supply systems that use surface water have expressed
interest in developing protection plans. The cities of St. Cloud, St. Paul, and Minneapolis have
State endorsed Source Water Protection Plans following the MDH guidance for surface water
intakesfrom the Mississippi River. In each of these plans, cities have identified “contaminants of
concern” and have designated priority areas for drinking water protection (Figure 2-1).A few
examples of these contaminants of concern are Cryptosporidium, fecal coliform, Giardia, other
viruses, total suspended solids, sediment, and suspended organics. More information about the
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Upper Mississippi River Source Water Protection Project can be found at
http://www.umrswpp.com/.
Figure 2-1depicts all of the reaches impairedfor aquatic recreation due to bacteria
concentrations within the entire study area regardless of their inclusion in the TMDL. The
impaired reaches for which TMDLs are being developed as part of this project are depicted in
Figure 2-2for the Mississippi River- Sartell HUC, in Figure 2-4for the Mississippi River – St.
Cloud HUC and in Figure 2-6for the Mississippi River – St. Paul HUC. The reaches where
TMDLs are being deferred to a later date and the protection reaches are depicted in Figure 2-3
for the Mississippi River- Sartell HUC, in Figure 2-5 for the Mississippi River – St. Cloud HUC
and in Figure 2-7for the Mississippi River – St. Paul HUC.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 2-1. Composite Source Water Protection areas for Minneapolis, St. Cloud, St. Paul within
the three focus HUC 8 watersheds of the TMDL and Protection Plan.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
2.3Stakeholders
Stakeholders were involved in guiding the project’s approach and reviewing deliverables. See
the MPCA’s project website for meeting agendas, presentations, and meeting
minutes: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmdl/project-uppermiss-bacteria.html.A summary of
stakeholder and technical advisory group meetings is provided in Section 7Stakeholder
Participation.Table A-1, in Appendix A, lists the stakeholder organizations that were invited to
participate in these meetings.
2.4Project Location
This study focuses on the Mississippi River Corridor, which includes portions of three Major
Watersheds(8-digit HUCs): Mississippi River –Sartell Watershed (07010201), Mississippi
River – St. Cloud Watershed (07010203), and Mississippi River –Twin CitiesWatershed
(07010206). The impaired reaches for which TMDLs are being developed are depicted in Figure
2-2,Figure 2-4 and in Figure 2-6. The reaches where TMDLs are being deferred to a later date
and the protection reaches are depicted in Figure 2-3,Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-7.
Thehydrologic unit system is a standardized watershed classification system that was developed
by the USGS. Table 2-2identifies the 8-digit HUCs for the three Major Watersheds on which
this study is focused.
Table 2-2. Major Watersheds of the TMDL Study and Protection Plan
Major Watershed MPCA Major Watershed Name (EPA Watershed Name)
8-Digit HUC
The Mississippi River –Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201) covers approximately 1,020 square
miles. The watershed includes parts of Benton, Crow Wing, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Stearns, and
Todd Counties. Major communities located in the watershed include Lastrup, Pierz, Buckman,
Royalton, Upsala, Bowlus, Rice, Hodingford, Avon, St. Joseph, and Sartell. The Mississippi
River – Sartell Watershed has 879 total river miles.
The Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (HUC 07010203) covers approximately 1,080
square miles. The watershed includes all or parts of Benton, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Morrison,
Sherburne, Stearns and Wright Counties. Communities located in the watershed include Sauk
Rapids, Elk River, Big Lake, Monticello, and parts of St. Cloud. The Mississippi River – St.
Cloud Watershed has 907 total river miles. St. Cloud, at the upstream end of this watershed, is
the first city along the Mississippi River to obtain its drinking water from the Mississippi River.
The Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206) covers approximately 1,030
square miles. The watershed includes portions of Hennepin, Anoka, Ramsey, Washington,
Dakota, Carver, and Sherburne Counties, 99 cities including Minneapolis and St. Paul, and 14
watershed management organizations (WMOs). The Mississippi River in the Mississippi River –
Twin Cities Watershed is a major drinking water supply for the Twin Cities. About 1.5 million
people live in this watershed.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 2-2.Impaired reaches and Subwatersheds of the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL
Study and Protection Plan: Mississippi River – Sartell (HUC 07010201).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 2-3.Protection reaches and deferredreaches of the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL
Study andProtection Plan: Mississippi River – Sartell (HUC 07010201).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 2-4. Impaired reaches and Subwatersheds of the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL
Study and Protection Plan: Mississippi River – St. Cloud (HUC 07010203).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 2-5. Protection reaches and deferred reaches of the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL
Study and Protection Plan: Mississippi River – St. Cloud (HUC 07010203).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 2-6. Impaired reachesand Subwatersheds of the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL
Study and Protection Plan:Mississippi River – Twin Cities (HUC 07010206).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 2-7. Protection reaches and deferred reaches of the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL
Study and Protection Plan: Mississippi River – Twin Cities (HUC 07010206).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
2.5TMDL Study ReachesandSubwatersheds
The following analyses were conducted for the TMDL Study Reaches (TMDL study reaches
impaired for aquatic recreation due to bacteria) and Subwatersheds:
Potential Bacteria Sources(Section 4)
x
Water Quality Analysis Including Load Duration Curves(Section 6)
x
TMDLCalculations (Section 7)
x
Implementation Strategies(Section 9)
x
2.5.1TMDL Study Reaches
The MPCA assesses the state’s water bodies periodically to evaluate which waterbodies meet
water quality standards. Using protocols in the MPCA Guidance Manual for Assessing the
Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters for Determination of Impairment: 305(b) Report and
303(d) List (MPCA 2012b), water bodies are classified as one of the following:
Not impaired: meets water quality standards
x
Impaired: does not meet water quality standards
x
Insufficient data: additional data needed to complete the assessment
x
Waterbodies that are designated as impaired are placed on the state’s 303(d) list of impaired
waterbodies, named after the section in the federal Clean Water Act that requires states to assess
and list their water bodies.
TMDLs were developed for 22 reachestributary to the Mississippi River, which are impaired for
aquatic recreation due tofecal coliformor E. coli.Table 2-3summarizes the impairments. Refer
to Figure 2-2 through Figure 2-4for a map of the TMDL study impaired reaches (TMDL
Reaches) and corresponding subwatersheds (TMDL Subwatersheds).
Reaches addressed as a part of this TMDL study are impaired tributary reaches that directly
dischargeto the Mississippi River (‘T1’ in Table 2-3), and impaired reaches within the
watersheds of T1 reaches (marked as ‘T2’ in Table 2-3). The TMDLs forthe five impaired
Mississippi River reaches are being deferred; these reaches have been designated as Protection
Reaches throughout this study (refer to Section 2.6.1TMDL-Deferred Reachesfor more
information). This TMDL study also excludes those impaired reaches that are being (have been
or are planned to be) addressed in another project (refer to Appendix B, Table B-1).
Stream reaches in MN are divided into assessment units, and each assessment unit has a unique
assessment unit identification number (AUID). The first eight digits of the AUID indicate the
Major Watershed (8-digit HUC) that the water body is in. Throughout this report, an AUID will
be referred to simply as a reach (i.e. a river reach). Note that reaches or tributaries not listed as
impaired may have not yet been assessed. Note that reaches impaired for fecal coliform are being
addressed through development of an E. coli TMDL since that is the current water quality
standard (refer to Section 2.2 Surface Water Uses & Water Quality Standards); additional E. coli
monitoring data was collected for some of these reaches as a part of this project (refer to Section
5.1 Monitoring).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
2.5.2TMDL Study Subwatersheds
Refer to Figure 2-2,Figure 2-4, and Figure 2-6for maps of the TMDL study impaired reaches
(TMDL Reaches) and corresponding subwatersheds (TMDL Subwatersheds). One TMDL
Subwatershed boundary was defined for each TMDL Reach(there is exactly one TMDL Reach
in each TMDL Subwatershed).For example if the drainage area of a TMDL Reach includes a
second TMDL Reach, the drainage area is split into two separate subwatersheds; the outlet of
each of the subwatersheds is the downstream end of the TMDL Reach. Within these watersheds,
there were noreaches that hadbeen assessed by the MPCA and determined to be unimpaired;
these would have been excluded from the TMDL Subwatersheds. DNR Catchments were the
base layer used to delineate the TMDL Subwatersheds. The following edits to the DNR
Catchments were made:
The DNR Catchments were subdivided where needed (using USGS StreamStats) so that the
x
downstream end of the TMDL Reach corresponds to the downstream end of the TMDL
Subwatershed.
A request was made to the regulated MS4 entities for stormwater drainage information
x
(based on stormsewer conveyances) that substantially differs from the DNR Catchments.
Information received from the regulated MS4 entities was used to edit the TMDL
watersheds.
2.6ProtectionPlanReaches and Subwatersheds
Refer toFigure 2-3,Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-7for maps of the Protection Plan Subwatersheds
(Protection Subwatersheds). The Protection Subwatershed identification numbers correspond to
1
the downstream reach of the Protection Subwatershed as found in Table 2-4. The following
project components were completed for the Protection Reaches and Subwatersheds:
Potential Bacteria Sources (Section 4)
x
Water Quality Analysis Including Load Duration Curves(Section 6)
x
Implementation Strategies (Section 9)
x
A loading capacity was not calculated for Protection Subwatersheds (in contrast to the TMDL
Subwatersheds). Although the Protection Subwatersheds do not have a numeric goal,
implementation strategies wereidentified (Section 9)based on the potential bacteria sources
(Section 4) and the load duration curves (Section 6).
The Protection Subwatersheds (Figure 2-2,Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-6) include areas draining to
the Mississippi River with a focus on the Mississippi River corridor. Protection Subwatersheds
include:
Mainstem reaches: The direct drainage area (as defined by DNR Catchments) to all
x
Mississippi River mainstem reaches that are not already part of the TMDL Subwatersheds.
Mainstem reaches: The subwatersheds to the impaired Mississippi River mainstem reaches
x
for which TMDLs were deferred (refer to Section 2.6.1TMDL-Deferred Reachesfor more
information).
1
Note: Mississippi River Reach 07010206-511 does not have a unique Protection Subwatershed, rather, it is within
the Mississippi River Reach 07010206-512 Protection Subwatershed
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Tributaries: Direct drainage areas (as defined by DNR Catchments) to the downstream-most
x
reach of adjacent tributaries that are NOT 1) already part of the TMDL, nor 2) part of a
future planned TMDL. A tributary is considered to be adjacent when it is the downstream
most reach or AUID that directly flows into the Mississippi River. If the downstream-most
reach was less than 2 miles long (excluding reaches that pass through lakes), an additional
upstream DNR catchment was included. In order to keep with the spirit and intent of
focusing on the Mississippi River Corridor. Two exceptions to this rule apply: 1) In the case
of an unnamed stream in Cottage Grove (AUID 07010206-517), the DNR catchment
included upstream reaches that were many times the length of the downstream-most reach
and, therefore, a significant distance away from the Mississippi River. Drainage boundaries
submitted by the City of Cottage Grove during the stakeholder review of TMDL
Subwatersheds were used to reduce the drainage area to include just the downstream-most
reach. 2) The downstream-most reach of the Minnesota River was not included. Its
downstream-most reach is 24 miles long and, again, departs from the intent of focusing on
the Mississippi River Corridor.
Table 2-4identifies the 29 Protection Reaches, which include the Mississippi mainstem river
reaches and downstream-most adjacent tributaries that are included in the protection plan (and in
the Protection Subwatersheds) of the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Study and
Protection Plan.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table 2-4. Protection Reachesofthe Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Study and Protection
Plan.
Protection Beneficial
Reach DescriptionAUID
Reach NameUse Class
2.6.1TMDL-Deferred Reaches
The TMDLs of five impaired Mississippi River reaches (listed in Table 2-4) for which a TMDL
study has not yet been completed are being deferred; these reaches have been designated as
Protection Reaches throughout this study. Initially, these reaches were selected as TMDL
Reaches (with corresponding TMDL Subwatersheds). However, the TMDL and loading
reductions required to meet the TMDL (using the methods described in Section 5) found a 0%
required load reduction. MPCA assessment notes corroborate and explain these results in that the
trigger for impairment was slight. As a result, MPCA is deferring the TMDLs of these reaches
until further data analysis and/or reassessment undertaken as a part of the monitoring plan
(Section11) and adaptive management process (refer to Section 9Implementation Strategies).
Although these impaired Mississippi River reaches are evaluated as Protection Reaches, the
detailed methods used to identify the subwatersheds (before it was decided to defer the TMDLs)
are provided in the interest of aiding any possible future TMDL derivation. The subwatersheds to
the impaired Mississippi River reaches were considered to be those portions of the watershed
that contribute to exceedances of the water quality standard.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
3 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
The three Major Watersheds on which the TMDL and Protection Study is focused are
Mississippi River –Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201), Mississippi River – St. Cloud
Watershed (HUC 07010203), and Mississippi River –Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206).
These watersheds are the framework for watershed characterization. Population, topography and
soil characteristics are illustrated here. For more detailed land cover and impairment maps, refer
to Section 4.1.6 2006 NLCD Land Cover Maps.
3.1Population
Table 3-1 identifies the 2010 population and the projected 2030 population for each of three
Major Watersheds based on the 2010 US Census and the Minnesota State Demographic Center.
Table 3-1.USCensus 2010 population data for three Major Watersheds.
Major Watershed20102030
3.2Topography and Soils
In the Mississippi River –SartellWatershed (Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2), the Mississippi River
experiences one of its greatest drops in elevation within the Upper Mississippi River Basin. From
the community of Little Falls to Royalton, the river drops 6.5 feet for every mile of river.The
excessively drained sand plain regions are some of the most intensively used lands within the
watershed, and much of these areas are situated along the Mississippi River.
The stretch of the Mississippi River in the Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (Figure 3-3
and Figure 3-4) has been designated asaWild and Scenic River. This segment of the river is a
popular recreational route due to the rolling forested bluffs, wildlife, fishing opportunities, and
numerous accesses.
The Mississippi River –Twin Cities Watershed (Figure 3-5 and Figure 3-6) is largely
characterized by developed shorelines and urban areas.Soils in the metropolitan area that once
held water have been covered with impervious pavement and stormwater infrastructure, which
convey stormwater more quickly to surface waters like the Mississippi River. Of all the
Mississippi River locks and dams, the one having the largest dropis located in this watershed at
the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, which is also the uppermost lock and dam on the
Mississippi River. St. Anthony Falls is the only true waterfall on the entire Mississippi River.
The entire length of the Mississippi River in this Major Watershed has been a National Park
since 1988, the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, from the mouth of the Crow
River to south of the confluence with the Saint Croix River. This same stretch of the river is
designated the Mississippi River Critical Areaby the State of Minnesota.
Soils are classified into groups based upon the hydrologic characteristics of the soils. Soil
hydrologic groups are used to estimate the amount of runoff generated for a given rainfall event.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Vegetation, organic/mineral or physical composition and slope all contribute to the runoff
potential of a soil. There are four hydrologic soil groups: A, B, C and D. Table 3-2presents a
description for each of the hydrologic soil groups. Certain wet soils are placed in group D based
solely on the presence of a water table within two feet of the surface but may have properties that
would otherwise make them capable of infiltration. If these soils can be adequately drained, then
they are assigned to dual hydrologic soil groups (A/D, B/D, and C/D) based on their infiltration
characteristics. The first letter applies to the drained condition and the second to the undrained
condition (USDA NRCS, 2007).
Table 3-2. Hydrologic soil group descriptions.
Hydrologic
Description
SoilGroup
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 3-1.Mississippi River – Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201) topography.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 3-2.Mississippi River – Sartell Watershed(HUC 07010201)soils.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 3-3.Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed(HUC 07010203) topography.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 3-4.Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed(HUC 07010203)soils.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 3-5.Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206) topography.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 3-6.Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206) soils.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
4 POTENTIAL BACTERIA SOURCES
Potential sources of bacteria to surface waterswere investigated at two different scales: the Phase
I Project Area (approximately 8,900 square miles) and the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds.
Potential bacteria sources identified forthe Phase I Project Area provide guidance for restoration
and protection, but the Phase I Project Areabacteria source estimates areless detailed than that
of the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds. Methods and results for the Phase I Project Area
can be found in Phase I Project Area Potential Bacteria Sources, which will be posted on the
project website athttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/ktqha48. Methods and results for the TMDL and
Protection Subwatersheds are presented here. Section 4.1 provides a general discussion of
bacteria sources and delivery mechanisms including details applicable to the TMDL and
Protection Subwatersheds. Section 4.2describes the approach used in the estimation of potential
bacteria sources for the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds. Section 4.3presents findings with
respect to potential bacteria sources.
In Phase I of the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL project, a preliminary investigation of
bacteria sources(a separate effort preceding the Phase I Project Area Potential Bacteria Sources
report)entailed gathering and summarizing preliminary information regarding potential bacteria
sources in the watershed. The report, Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL: Data Analysis,
Source Assessment, and Monitoring Recommendations (MPCA and MDH 2009), can be found
on the project website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ktqha48. Source categories included human
sources, livestock, pets, wildlife, urban stormwater, and sediments. The more detailed analyses
presented in this report build on previous findings.
4.1Discussion of Potential Bacteria Sources and Delivery Mechanisms
Humans, pets, livestock, and wildlife contribute bacteria to the environment, where they can
survive for long periods in sand and sediments. These bacteria, after appearing in fecal material,
are dispersed throughout the environment by an array of natural and man-made mechanisms.
Bacteria fate and transportis affected by, for example,human waste disposal and treatment
mechanisms, methods of manure reuse, imperviousness of land surfaces, and natural decay and
die-off due to environmental factors such as UV exposure and detention time in the landscape. It
is the complexity of these fate and transport mechanisms that make it particularly difficult to
decipher and quantify bacteria loading sources. The following discussion highlights potential
sources of bacteria in the environment and mechanisms that drive the delivery of bacteria to
surface waters. Details specific to the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds informed the
approach to estimating potential bacteria sources, which is discussed in Section 4.2.
4.1.1Humans
Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) and Collection Systems
WWTFs
WWTFs are required to monitor effluent fecal coliform bacteria levels at frequencies specified in
their NPDES permits. Dischargers to Class 2 waters are required to disinfect from April through
October, and dischargers to Class 7 waters are required to disinfect from May through October.
Wastewater disinfection is required during all months for dischargers within 25 miles upstream
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
of a water intake for a potable water supply system (Min. Rules Ch. 7053.0215, subp. 1). The
geometric mean for all samples collected in a month must not exceed 200 cfu/100 ml fecal
coliform bacteria. MPCA enforcement action varies based on frequency, severity, and
circumstances of violation(s). MPCA enforcement actions can range from discussions with
facility staff to letters of warning to notices of Violation, Administrative Penalty Orders or
Stipulation Agreements with monetary penalties. Enforcement actions are more aggressive for
repeated or serious violations than for a minor one-time violation. Mechanical failures and
precipitation-driven flood events are examples of circumstances under which enforcement
actions for violations are dependent on the cause(s) of the event and the way in which the facility
responded to it.
Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 identify the WWTFs in the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds,
respectively, and includes design flows and bacteria loads. The WWTF locations are shown on
the land cover maps in Section 4.1.6.
Table 4-1. WWTFs, design flows, and bacteria loads in TMDL Subwatersheds.
Permitted
Bacteria
Loadas
E.
Design
at
coli
Subwatershed IDFacility NamePermit No.Flow
126 org /
[mgd]
*
100 ml
[billion
org/day]
E. coliE.
coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table 4-2. WWTFs, design flows, and bacteria loads in Protection Subwatersheds.
Permitted
Bacteria
Loadas
E.
Design
at
coli
Subwatershed IDFacility NamePermit No.Flow
126 org /
[mgd]
1
100 ml
[billion
org/day]
E. coli
Combined Sewer Overflows
A combined sewer overflow event, or CSO, is a discharge of untreated sewage mixed with
stormwater runoff (from buildings, parking lots, streets and so on) to the Mississippi River. The
occurrence of a CSO can result in adversely affecting downstream use of the resource.
Combined sewer systems were designed to collect sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff in a
single pipe system. These systems were designed to overflow in the event of heavy rain, if the
combined total of wastewater and stormwater exceeded the capacity of the sewer system, to
protect property and prevent sewer backups into homes and other buildings.
Minneapolis, Saint Paul and Metropolitan Council Environmental Services have been actively
working on sewer separation since the construction of the first wastewater treatment plant in the
1930s. The City of Minneapolis and the Metropolitan Council hold a joint CSO Permit and are
actively working to minimize CSO events to the river as well as other system requirements.
CSOs have become relatively rare in the Twin Cities. There were zero overflow events in the
years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012. In 2010 there were two overflow events that lasted a
total of 2 hours with an estimated 211,000 gallons of combined stormwater and sewage being
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
2
discharged. By comparison, in 1984 there were 77 overflow events in the Twin Cities, with over
1 billion gallons of overflow.
There are nine CSO regulator locations remaining, one in Saint Paul, and the others in
Minneapolis. The locations in applicable TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds are shown in
Table 4-3. The elimination of overflow structures may not be feasible in every case without
causing a public health or safety hazard. Some overflow regulators may need to remain
operational for emergency bypasses necessitated by extreme storm or flood events, or to
minimize damage due to accidents or system failures.
57
Typical CSO concentrations for total coliforms are reported as 10 to 10 MPN/100 mL
(Novotny et al., 1989), or about 1 order of magnitude greater than treatment plant effluent. Raw
79
sewage entering a WWTF typically has a total coliform count of 10 to 10 most probable
3
number (MPN) per 100 mL (Novotny et al., 1989). Associated with raw sewage are
proportionally high concentrations of pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and protozoans. A typical
4
plant reduces the total coliform count by about three orders of magnitude, to the range of 10 to
6
10 MPN/100 mL. The magnitude of pathogen reduction, however, varies with the treatment
process employed.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
WWTF bypasses, also called sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are emergency discharges of
partially treated or untreated sewage. They occur during periods of heavy precipitation, when
WWTFs become overloaded due to illicit stormwater connections and/or inflow and infiltration
(I&I). Inflow typically is from a structure or device that collects stormwater and drains to the
sanitary sewer. Infiltration is the seepage of groundwater into sanitary pipes through cracks and
joints. They occur during periods of heavy precipitation, when WWTFs become overloaded due
to illicit stormwater connections and/or I&I. SSOs typically last from a few hours to a few days.
Violations are recorded if a WWTF’s effluent exceeds the 200 cfu/100 ml fecal coliform
bacteria. Bypasses occur in separated and combined sewer systems. CSOs, in contrast to SSOs,
are specific to combined sewer systems. Table 4-3identifies the subwatersheds that have
experienced more than five SSO events of water that has not received secondary treatment
during the period 2002-2011 (according to WWTF bypass reports submitted to MPCA).
2
The 2010 events occurred after a breach between the downtown Minneapolis storm and sanitary sewer systems.
The breach was identified during a routine July 2010 inspection. It had notbeen visible during a May 2010
inspection. Once identified, plans and special provisions were completed; construction started in September 2010
and was completed in January 2011.
3
Laboratory analytical methods for bacteria typically entail one of two methods: membrane filtration or multiple-
tube fermentation. Membrane filtration filters organism from the water sample onto a paper surface for incubation.
Resultant visible colonies/growths are counted and reported as coliform forming units (CFUs) per 100 milliliters of
sample. Multiple-tube fermentation uses test tubes and measures gas production during incubation. Results are
reported as most probable number of organisms (MPN or organisms) per 100 milliliters of sample. Measurements of
CFUs and MPN are often compared directly; however, there are inherent differences in analytical procedures that
may or may not always produce comparable results.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
According to Future Wastewater Infrastructure Needs and Capital Costs: FY 2012 Biennial
Survey of Wastewater Collection and Treatment, sewers installed over 50 years ago are typically
beyond their useful life due to materials used at the time of construction (e.g. vitrified clay tiles)
and new and improved construction standards (MPCA 2012a). The report found that
approximately 72% of sewers in Minneapolis and St. Paul were constructed over 50 years ago.
Approximately 14% of sewers in suburban MCES Service Area communities are over 50 years
old. In greater Minnesota, the percent of collection sewer systems older than 50 years is
estimated to be 31%. The geographic extent of areas serviced by WWTFs in each subwatershed
was approximated as the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and 2006 National Land Cover
Dataset (NLCD) Developed land covers. This information was used in combination with results
from the MPCA’s Fiscal Year 2012 report to approximate the percent area of each TMDL and
Protection Subwatershed having collection sewers over 50 years old (Table 4-3). It should be
noted, however, that age of infrastructure is only one of the risk factors for sanitary sewers to
leak. New and old sanitary sewer pipes could leak due to a number of factors including invasion
from tree roots or poor construction practices.
Considering the age of some sanitary sewers and vulnerability of sewers to I&I, untreated
sewage leaksfrom the sewers into the ground and can enterthe stormsewer conveyance system.
This phenomenon was identified as a likely cause of extensive human fecal contamination in
separated storm drain systems in Santa Barbara, California (Sercu et al. 2009). A series of
follow-up field studies concluded that leaking sanitary sewers can directly contaminate nearby
leaking storm drains with untreated sewage during dry weather and that sanitary sewer leakage
can be chronic, contaminating downstream surface waters (Sercu et al. 2011).Generally
accepted engineering practices are to site sanitary sewers below water mains and stormsewers to
minimize leakage.However, the number of sanitary sewers that are sited below stormsewers in
our project area is unknown.
Most Cities have routine sanitary sewer operation and maintenance plans and ongoing
rehabilitation efforts to address leaking or structurally unsound pipes. A common method used in
rehabilitating leaking or structurally unsound sanitary sewer pipes is lining.
According to the Phase I water quality data analysis conducted as a part of this project (MPCA
and MDH 2009), the following conclusions were reached with respect to water quality:
x
Bacteria concentrations along the Mississippi River mainstem peak around the metropolitan
area.
x
Storm sewer data exhibit high E. coli concentrations and experience some of the greatest
concentrations of all monitoring sites.Please note that data were available from only four
sites out of hundreds of outfalls to the Mississippi River and tributaries in the Phase I Project
Area and therefor may not be representative of concentrations in all storm sewer outfalls.
However, these E. coli concentrations were within the range of data reported for storm
sewers in other urban areas (e.g.: Wisconsin, Bannerman et al. 1993; Michigan, Gannon and
Busse 1989; International BMP Database records, WWE and GC 2010).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Land Application of Biosolids
Application of biosolids from WWTFs follows Minnesota Rules Chapter 7041 Sewage Sludge
Management.The application of biosolids from WWTFs is highly regulated, monitored, and
tracked.
Biosolids disposal methods that inject or incorporate within 24-hours of land application result in
minimal possibility for mobilization to downstream surface waters. Surface application presents
a conceivable risk to surface waters. However, the restrictions in Table 4-5 apply. In order to
meet pathogen reduction requirements, land applied biosolids have a 2,000,000 org/100 mL
limit; typical counts range from 6,000 to 200,000 org/100 mL.
Table 4-3. WWTFs, CSO locations, SSO events, and infrastructuresusceptible to failurein TMDL
and Protection Subwatersheds.
Number
Greater than
% Area
of
5 SSOevents Having
TMDL or Locations
Number prior to Sanitary
Sub-Protection where
Reach Nameof secondary Sewers
watershed IDSub-CSOs
WWTFstreatment Over 50
watershedCould
during 2002-Years
Still
1
2011?Old
Occur
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Number
Greater than % Area
of
5 SSOevents Having
TMDL or Locations
Number prior to Sanitary
Sub-Protection where
Reach Nameof secondary Sewers
watershed IDSub-CSOs
WWTFstreatment Over 50
watershedCould
during 2002-Years
Still
1
2011?Old
Occur
Future
Wastewater Infrastructure Needs and Capital Costs: FY 2012 Biennial Survey of Wastewater Collection and
Treatment
Illicit Discharges from Unsewered Communities
According to the 2007 American Housing Survey, twenty-two percent of households in the
Midwest depend on onsite or small community cluster systems to treat wastewater. In many
cases, these systems are installed and forgotten until problems arise. Residential lots in small
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
communities throughout Minnesota cannot accommodate modern septic systems that meet the
requirements of current codes due to small lot size and/or inadequate soils. Development
pressures in lake communities add to the problem as well as cabins that occupy a large footprint
on small lake lots. In addition, many small communities are characterized by outdated,
malfunctioning septic systems serving older residences. Small lots, poor soils, and inadequate
septic system designs andinstallations may be implicated in bacterial contamination of
groundwater but the link to surface water contamination is tenuous. Community septic systems
that discharge greater than 10,000 gallons per day are required to obtain an NPDES discharge
permit.
“Failing” subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) are specifically defined as systems that
are failing to protect groundwater from contamination, while those systems which discharge
partially treated sewage above-ground to road ditches, tile lines, and directly into streams,rivers
and lakes are considered an imminent threat to public health and safety (ITPHS).
ITPHS systems also include illicit discharges from unsewered communities (sometimes called
“straight-pipes”). The use of straight pipes to convey sewage away from homes wasthe first
infrastructure step toward sewage treatment in individual, community,and municipal systems. In
agricultural regions, where the land has been drained for crop production, drain tile lines were
commonly used to convey sewage away from homes and businesses to the edge of town,
combining sewage with ground and surface water. This resulted in the “community” straight
pipes; some still occur in Minnesota. Straight pipes are illegal and pose an imminent threat to
public health as they convey raw sewage from homes and businesses directly to surface water.
Community straight pipes are more commonly found in small agricultural communities.
MPCA’s 2011 report to the legislature, Recommendations and Planning for Statewide
Inventories, Inspections of Subsurface Sewage Treatment System,identifies percent of systems in
unsewered communities that are ITPHS for each county in Minnesota (MPCA 2011). Table 4-4
identifies the ITPHS rates for counties in the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds; for example,
6% of systems in unsewered communities in Anoka County are estimated to be ITPHS. The
percentages of ITPH systems may not apply at the same rate to areas in the Twin Cities served
by the Metropolitan Council’s WWTFs.Refer to the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services web page that specifies the communities served by each of their 7 WWTFs:
(http://www.metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Services/Wastewater-Treatment-
(1)/Communities-Served-by-7-MCES-Treatment-Plants.aspx).
Table 4-4. Rates of ITPHS septic systems,including illicit discharges from unsewered
communities.
2000-2009 Average Estimate of % Imminent
County
1
Threat to Public HealthSeptic Systems
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
2000-2009 Average Estimate of % Imminent
County
1
Threat to Public HealthSeptic Systems
Land Application of Septage
A state subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) license issued by the MPCA is required for
any business that conducts work to design, install, repair, maintain, operate, or inspect all or part
of an SSTS. Land application of septage is regulated by the USEPA. Disposal contractors are
required to properly treat and disinfect septage through processing or lime stabilization. Treated
septage may then be disposed of onto agricultural and forest lands. EPA Standards Section 503
provides general requirements, pollutant limits, management practices, and operational standards
for the final use or disposal of septage generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a
treatment works. The management practices require that septage application remain greater than
10 meters from waters of the United States, as defined in 40 CFR 122.2, unless otherwise
permitted. To prevent septage from entering wetlands or other waters of the United States,
septage may not be applied to sites that are flooded, frozen, or snow-covered. Standards for the
density of fecal coliform in the septage are as follows: Fecal coliform shall be less than 1000
MPN (most probable number) per gram of total solids (dry weight basis), or the density of
Salmonellasp. bacteria shall be less than three MPN per four grams of total solids (dry weight
basis) at the time it is used or disposed, at the time it is prepared for sale or give away (in a bag
or other container) for application to the land, or at the time the septage or material derived from
septage is prepared to meet the requirements in 503.10 (b), (c), (e), or (f).
MPCA does not directly regulate the land application of septage from SSTS. Management
guidelines entail site suitability requirements with respect to soil conditions, slope, and minimum
separation distances (MPCA 2002). Notable requirements include 3 foot minimum depth to
bedrock and seasonally saturated soils, restrictions on 6-12% slopes, no application on slopes
greater than 12%, and horizontal separation distances as shown in Table 4-5. Dakota and
Sherburne Counties have SSTS septage ordinances, but site suitability guidance does not appear
to differ from MPCA guidance. Some cities and townships have SSTS septage ordinances (a list
is available at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=10139); these
were not reviewed as a part of this study. According to MPCA, approximately five complaints a
year are reported to MPCA with regard to land application of septage in the Phase I Project Area
between St. Paul and Royalton (Pat Shelito, MPCA, Personal Communication, September 30,
2011). However, since MPCA does not directly regulate the land application of septage from
SSTS, there is a lot of uncertainty as to the level of implementation of MPCA guidance and EPA
standards.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table 4-5.Minimum separation distances for septage land application
Surface Incorporated
FeatureInjected
Applicationwithin 48 hours
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
4.1.2Pets
Pets (dogs andcats)can contribute bacteria to a watershed when their waste is not properly
managed. When this occurs, bacteria can be introduced to waterways from:
Dog parks
x
Residential yard and sidewalk runoff (spring runoff after winter accumulation)
x
Rural areas where there are no pet cleanup ordinances
x
Animal elimination of excrement directly into waterbodies
x
Dogs
Dog waste can be a significant source of pathogen contamination of water resources in urban
settings. Dog waste in the immediate vicinity of a waterway could be a significant local source
with local water quality impacts.
Cats
Outdoor and feral cats may contribute significantly to bacteria levels in urban streams and rivers
(Ram et al. 2007).
4.1.3Livestock
Animal Feeding Operations
Manure containing fecal bacteria can be transported in watershed runoff to surface waters. The
MPCAregulatesanimal feedlots in Minnesota though counties may be delegated by the MPCA
to administer the program for feedlots that are not under federal regulation. The primary goal of
the state program for animal feeding operations is to ensure that surface waters are not
contaminated by the runoff from feeding facilities, manure storage areas, and cropland with
improperly applied manure.
An animal feeding operation(AFO) is a general term for an area intended for the confined
holding of animals, where manure may accumulate, and where vegetative cover cannot be
maintained within the enclosure due to the density of animals. Animal feeding operations that
either (a) have a capacity of 1,000 animal units or more, or (b) meet or exceed the EPA’s
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) threshold and discharge to Waters of the
United States, are required to apply for permit coveragethrough the MPCA. If item (a) is
triggered, the permit can be an SDS or NPDES/SDS permit; if item (b) is triggered, the permit
must be an NPDES permit. Thesepermits require that the feedlots have zero discharge to surface
water.
Feedlots with greater than 50 animal units, or greater than 10 animal units in shoreland areas, are
required to register with the State of Minnesota. Estimates of the numbers of animal units in
registered feedlots are available from the MPCA. All NPDES-permitted feedlots (refer to
previous paragraph) are also registered with the state. Feedlots with fewer than 1,000 animal
units but greater than 50 animal units (or 10 animal units in shoreland areas) are registered with
the state but not required to have a permit through the SDS or NPDES program.Figure 4-1
illustrates the triggers for registration and permitting based on number of animal units (AU).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-2 through Figure 4-4 identify the locations (and counts) of animal feeding operations
(feedlots) based on the MPCA registration database. Registered operations not requiring NPDES
coverage are grouped separately from those that are NPDES-permitted.
Figure 4-1. Animal feeding operation registration and permitting triggers based on number of
animal units (AU).
Permit required
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-2.Mississippi River – Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201) registered animal feeding
operations in the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-3. Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (HUC 07010203) registered animal feeding
operations in the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-4. Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206) registered animal feeding
operations in the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
LivestockNot Requiring Registration
These facilitiesare small-scale farms that house less than 50 animal units outside of shoreland
and less than 10 animal units in shoreland (Figure 4-1) but may have small-scale feeding
operations and associated manure application or stockpiles. These facilities are still required to
follow the MN state rule chapter 7020 for feedlots. For the purposes of this study, these facilities
may include any livestock (e.g. sheep, goats, cows, horses), but exclude pets(dogs andcats).
Land Application of Manure
Livestock manure is often either surface applied or incorporated into farm fields as a fertilizer
and soil amendment. This land application of manure if not properly applied has the potential to
be a substantial source of fecal contamination, entering waterways from overland runoff and
drain tile intakes. MN Rules Chapter 7020 contains manure application setback requirements
(Table 4-6). These setback requirements are largely based on research related to phosphorus
transport, and not bacterial transport, and the effectiveness of these current setbacks on bacterial
transport to surface waters is not known.
Research being conducted in southern MN shows high concentrations of fecal bacteria leaving
fields with incorporated manure and open tile intakes (Scott Matteson, Minnesota State
University, personal communication).
Table 4-6. Manure application setback distances for Minnesota
Surface Incorporation within
Waterbody Type
Application24 hrs.
Grazing
Grazing occurs on pastured areas where the concentration of animals allows a vegetative cover to
be maintained during the growing season. Pastures are neither permitted nor registered with the
state.
The impact that grazing livestock have on surface water quality can be mitigated through the use
of vegetative buffers along waterways and/or barriers that exclude the animals from entering or
approaching surface waterbodies. Agricultural land uses adjacent to lakes, rivers, and streams
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
require a buffer strip of permanent vegetation that is 50 feet wide unless the areas are part of a
resource management system plan (MN Rule 6120.330 Subp. 7). Additionally, for any new
ditches or ditch improvements, the land adjacent to public ditches must include a buffer strip of
permanent vegetation that is usually 16.5 feet wide on each side (MN Statute 103E.021). Note
thatit is commonly believed that these rules have limited enforcement statewide.
4.1.4Wildlife
Bacteria can be contributed to surface water by wildlife (e.g. raccoons, deer, ducks, and geese)
from dwelling in waterbodies, within conveyances to waterbodies, or when their waste is carried
to stormwater inlets, creeks, ditches,and lakes during stormwater runoff events. Areas such as
DNR designated wildlife management areas, State Parks, National Parks, National Wildlife
Refuges, golf courses, state forest, and other conservation areas and for some animals, urban
areas including stormwater ponds provide wildlife habitat and could be potential sources of fecal
coliform due to the high densities of animals. There are likely many other areas within the
TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds where wildlife congregates. It has been suggested that
surface water in areas near power plants may remain open throughout the winter, offering a
gathering place for waterfowl and resulting in higher fecal contamination.
Bacteria fate and transport mechanisms differ betweenwildlife that live and dwell in surface
water such as waterfowl and semi-aquatic mammals, where there is a daily source of bacteria
input directly to waters, and wildlife that dwell in upland areas such as deer, where input of
bacteria to waterbodies is primarily precipitation driven.
In urban areas, wildlife such as raccoons and rats often find adequate habitat within storm sewer
systems where bacteria from scat can accumulate over time during dry periods. Runoff from
storm events ultimately dislodges accumulated scat and flushes it into receiving waters.
4.1.5Land Coveras Delivery Mechanism
The fate and transport of bacteria after it leaves the animal is widely variable. The landscape
onto which the bacteria is excreted, applied, stored, or discharged affects the level of risk of
contamination of downstream surface waters. In addition, watershed runoff from pervious and
impervious landscapes contains bacteria from all source categories: humans, pets, livestock, and
wildlife. Consider some example scenarios: manure applied to cultivated cropland, raccoon
excrement in stormsewer pipe, horse droppings excreted in a pasture or pigeon droppings on
pavement. The diversity of sources and of fate and transport mechanisms makes determination of
bacteria sources a difficult task. Estimating actual loads to surface waters from each of the
potential sources involves even more complexity and requires a weight-of-evidence approach. As
part of the weight-of-evidence approach, we put together all that we know. It is clear that many
of the mechanisms that drive the fate and transport of bacteria in pervious landscapes
significantly differ from that of impervious landscapes. The fate and transport mechanisms that
define the amount of bacteria ultimately delivered to surface waters are discussed independently
for pervious and impervious landscapes. Section 4.1.6 contains land cover maps of the TMDL
and Protection Subwatersheds based on the 2006 National Land Cover Dataset.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Pervious (Rural) Landscapes
Pervious (rural) landscapes often entail agricultural activities and septic systems. In addition,
expansive pervious landscapes are characterized by natural and ditched drainage ways,
agricultural draintile, and large tracts of natural landscapes. These factors affect the movement to
surface waters of watershed runoff and its associated pollutants. Draintile and ditches can
accelerate transport of pollutants, but pervious surfaces and natural landscapes can slow
transport.
Impervious (Urban) Landscapes
Absent of stormwater BMPs, fecal bacteria and associated pathogen loads in urban stormwater
runoff are directly conveyed to lakes, streams, and rivers via impervious surfaces, storm drains,
and storm sewer system networks. In cases where there are failures of the sanitary sewer system,
impervious landscapes can also be characterized by chronic contamination of stormsewer
systems that convey raw sewage originating from chronic leakage and from underground
breaches in sanitary sewers (Sauer et al. 2011; Sercu et al. 2009; Sercu et al. 2011). Chronic
leakage from a sanitary sewer pipe would be characterized as being a smaller water volume and
more continuous versus acute leakage (i.e. breach) that could be characterized as having a larger
water volume and be more temporary a phenomena. Fecal bacteria concentrations in stormwater
runoff from urban areas can be as great as or greater than those found in cropland runoff, grazed
pasture runoff, and feedlot runoff (USEPA 2001).
Bacteria enters our waterways in impervious settings due to the following sources and delivery
mechanisms:
x
Animals
Pets
o
Wildlife
o
x
Sanitary Sewer Bypasses/Overflows
Illicit Connections
o
Sewer Failure
o
Inflow and infiltration
o
Combined sewer overflows
o
x
Inadequate Treatment Capacity of Some Stormwater Infrastructure
4.1.62006 NLCD Land Cover Maps
The 2006 USGS National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) provides a valuable tool to identify the
developed, agricultural, and natural landscapes throughout the TMDL and Protection
Subwatersheds. Table 4-7 provides the 2006 NLCD description of the land covers in the TMDL
and Protection Subwatersheds. Figure 4-5 through Figure 4-13illustrate land cover of the TMDL
and Protection Subwatersheds. In addition to these maps, a more detailed set of maps depicting
the land cover as it relates to municipal boundaries can be found on the MPCA website for the
project athttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/ktqha48.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table 4-7. 2006 USGS NLCD descriptions.
Land CoverDescription
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Mississippi River –Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201)
Land cover in the Mississippi River –Sartell Watershed (Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6) is primarily
agricultural and mostly under private ownership.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-5.Mississippi River – Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201) land coverand WWTF locations:
TMDL Subwatersheds.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-6.Mississippi River – Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201) land coverand WWTF locations:
Protection Subwatersheds.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (HUC 07010203)
The Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed is on the fringe of the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area and underwent significant residential development during the height of the economy
(Figure 4-7 through Figure 4-10).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-7.Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (HUC 07010203) land coverand WWTF
locations: TMDL Subwatersheds (West, Map 1 of 2).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-8.Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (HUC 07010203) land coverand WWTF
locations: TMDL Subwatersheds (East, Map 2 of 2).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-9.Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (HUC 07010203) land cover: Protection
Subwatersheds (North, Map 1 of 2).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-10.Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (HUC 07010203) land coverand WWTF
locations: Protection Subwatersheds (South, Map 2 of 2).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206)
Consistent with the high population of the Mississippi River –Twin Cities Watershed (Table
3-1) land cover in the watershed (Figure 4-11 through Figure 4-13) is characterized by medium-
to high-intensity developed areas, especially along the river corridor.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-11.Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206) land coverand WWTF
locations: TMDLSubwatersheds.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-12.Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206) land cover: Protection
Subwatersheds (North, Map 1 of 2).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Figure 4-13.Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206) land coverand WWTF
locations: Protection Subwatersheds (South, Map 2 of 2).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
4.2Approachto Identifying Potential Bacteria Sources
The following series of tables describes the methodologies used to estimate the delivery of
bacteria to surface waters in the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds. Where applicable in this
approach, bacteria production estimates are based on the bacteria content in feces and an average
excretion rate (with units of cfu/day-head; where head implies an individual animal). Bacteria
content and excretion rates vary by animal type. The EPA’s Protocol for Developing Pathogen
TMDLs provides estimates for bacteria production for most animals shown in Table 4-8 (USEPA
2001); values for deer and raccoons were obtained from other sources (Zeckoski et al. 2005;
Yagow 1999). All production rates obtained from the literature are from fecal coliform rather
than E. coli due to the availability of fecal coliform data. The production rate was multiplied by
0.5 to estimate theE. coli production rate, which is based on the assumption that 50% of fecal
coliform are E. coli (Doyle and Erikson 2006).
The potential bacteria that is delivered to surface waters was calculated for each TMDL and
Protection Subwatershed. However, potential bacteria sources are ultimately reported using
relative rankings only. Due to the complexity of the fate and transport mechanisms of bacteria in
the environment, expressing results through relative rankings as opposed to numeric results is
one way to account foruncertainties in the estimates.
Table 4-8. Bacteria production by animal type.
1
Literature Source
Production
E. coli
Source
Rate
Producer
Category
[cfu/day-head]
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
4.2.1Humans
Table 4-9. Data sources and assumptions for estimates of potential bacteria sources: humans.
Bacteria SourcesData Sources and Assumptions
Land Application of Biosolids
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
E. coli
E. coli
Land Application
of Septage
Developed
E. coli
E. coli
Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) and Collection Systems
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
Combined Sewer Overflows
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
4.2.2LivestockRequiring Registration
The Census of Agriculture is a complete count of U.S. farms and ranches. The Census definition
of a farm is any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and
sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year (USDA 2009). The Census looks
at data in many areas, including animal ownership and sales. The authority for the Census comes
from federal law under the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997(Public Law 105-113, Title 7,
United States Code, Section 2204g). The Census is taken every fifth year, covering the prior
year. The most recent Census was completed for the year 2007. The USDA National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) conducts the survey. Livestock numbers, by county, are available for
cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, and poultry. Data for counties that overlap TMDL and Protection
Subwatershed boundaries were distributed between each applicable subwatershed on an area-
weighted basis. For example, County A with 100 square miles and 100 head of cattle would be
treated as having 1 head of cattle per square mile; the TMDL Subwatershed that includes 50
square miles of County A would be estimated to have 50 head of cattle. MPCA’s geographic
feedlot database developed for registration and NPDES permitting provides location data and
related accounting. However, the numbers of animal units recorded in the database are the
allowable numbers under the permit/registration and not the actual numbers on site; actual
animal units are often lower and could be significantly lower. Therefore, USDA NASS data was
usedto approximate livestock requiring registration.Horses are accounted for as livestock not
requiring registration (refer to Section 4.2.3).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table 4-10. Data sources and assumptions for estimates of potential bacteria sources: livestock.
Bacteria Sources 1
Delivery Factor
Grazing
Pasture/Hay
Grassland/Herbaceous
Partially Housed or Open Lot
without Runoff Controls
Animal
Barren, Pasture/Hay,
Feeding
Grassland/Herbaceous,
Operations
Scrub/Shrub
(AFO)
Surface
Application
without
Incorporation
Land
Application of
Manure
Cultivated
Crops
Incorporated or
Injected
Land
Application of Manure
allowableactual
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
4.2.3Livestock Not Requiring Registration
Animal populations typical of small scale facilitieswere estimated based on windshield surveys
(including only facilities with fewer than 50 animal units) conducted by the Chisago County Soil
and Water Conservation District (SWCD) in lower portions of the Sunrise River Watershed and
the Three Rivers Park District in the watershed of Lake Independence in west-central Hennepin
County. Based on these surveys, aerial rates of cattle, goats, sheep, horses and poultry were
identified and applied to geographic areas having 2006 NLCD Pasture/Hay and
Grassland/Herbaceous land covers.
All cattle, goats, sheep, poultry, and horses were treated as partially housed or open lot
operations without runoff controls. Ultimately, a delivery factor (refer to Section 4.2.6) was
applied to estimate the amount of bacteria delivered to downstream surface waters. The
applicable geographic area for stockpiling or spreading of manure from these small scale
facilities is based on 2006 NLCD Mixed Forest, Pasture/Hay, and Grassland/Herbaceous land
covers (refer to Table 4-7).In all cases, bacteria production by animal type was estimated based
onliterature values citedTable 4-8.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
4.2.4Pets
Populations of pets (dogs and cats) were estimated as described in Table 4-11.
Table 4-11. Data sources and assumptions for estimates of pet populations.
AnimalBasis for Estimates of Animal Population
Table 4-12. Data sources and assumptions for estimates of potential bacteria sources: pets.
Bacteria Source Categories
DeliveryFactor
Pervious Areas
Waste Not
Collected by
except Open
Owners
Water Developed
Impervious Areas
Developed
Waste Collected by Owners
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
4.2.5Wildlife
Populations of wildlife (breeding ducks, deer, geese, pigeons, and raccoons) were estimated as
described in Table 4-13.
Table 4-13. Data sources and assumptions for estimates of wildlife populations.
AnimalBasis for Estimates of Animal Population
E. coli
Canada Goose Program Report
Open Water
Open Water
Open Water
Open Water
Developed, High Intensity
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table 4-14. Data sources and assumptions for estimates of potential bacteria sources: wildlife.
Bacteria SourceCategories
DeliveryFactor
Open Water Areas
Open Water
Impervious Areas
Developed
Pervious Areas
except Open Water
Developed
High Intensity Development
Developed,
High Intensity
4.2.6Bacteria Delivery Factorto Surface Waters
Bacteria delivery factors (the estimated percent of E. coli that is delivered from the landscape to
rivers and streams) were applied to bacteria sources that end up on the land surface prior to
discharge to surface waters (e.g. land application of manure or wildlife excrement) but do not
have overriding assumptions as to the relative delivery potential (e.g. land application of
biosolids having low delivery potential). The bacteria delivery factors account for fate and
transport factors such as proximity to surface waters, slope, imperviousness, and discharge to
lakes prior to discharge to stream networks. A unique delivery factor was calculated for each
bacteria source category in each subwatershed (e.g. the delivery factor for grazing animals in
TMDL Subwatershed 07010201-516, Little Two River, differed from the delivery factor for
grazing animals in TMDL Subwatershed 07010201-523, Two River).
The basis for the delivery factors was the state-wide GIS layers of Water Quality Risk, as
recently developed by a Minnesota multi-Agency effort and published under the name
Conservation Targeting Tools (www.bwsr.state.mn.us/ecological_ranking/,Maps &GIS Data).
The original Water Quality RiskGIS layer is a 30 meter gridded dataset. Each grid cell has a risk
score on a 0-100 basis for its potential contribution to surface water quality degradation, 100
being the highest risk. Half (50 points) of the risk score was determined by Stream Power Index
(SPI) values, which account for the likelihood of overland erosion based on slope and soil type.
Half of the risk score was determined based on the proximity to the nearest surface water feature;
the highest risk score was given to the grid cells closest to water features.
The original Water Quality Risk layer does not account for imperviousness. In addition lakes that
are not part of a stream network (i.e. not flow-through lakes), are weighed equally with streams
and flow-through lakes in the proximity scoring. Since imperviousness increases risk of surface
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
water contamination of bacteria and since streams are the impaired surface watersof interest (not
lakes), the 0-100 water quality risk layer was revised to account for these elements. The water
quality risk score of non-flow-through-lakes (including a quarter mile buffer) was reduced by 50
points, to a minimum possible value of zero. In addition, a third 50-point scale for
imperviousness was added to the water quality risk score. Areas having imperviousness of 50%
or more (2006 NLCD Developed, Medium Intensity and Developed, High Intensity land covers)
were given an additional 50 points. Areas having imperviousness of 25 to 49% (2006 NLCD
Developed, Low Intensity land cover) were given an additional 25 points. Finally, the project-
wide GIS layer was re-scaled to a range of 0-100, resulting in the delivery factor GIS layerfor
use in the estimates of potential bacteria sources. The factor, 0-100, was interpreted to mean the
percent of E. coli that is delivered from the landscape to rivers and streams.
The delivery factor GIS layer was used wherever described in the tables in Section 4.2, which
define bacteria source estimation approaches. Using the gridded delivery factor GIS layer, the
mean delivery factor was calculated for each bacteria source category for each TMDL and
Protection Subwatershed across the applicable geographic areas described in the approach
summary tables in Section 4.2 (e.g. grazing animals were assumed to occur in NLCD 2006 land
covers of Pasture/Hay and Grassland/Herbaceous). The delivery factors wereinterpreted and
applied as the percent of the E. colithat is delivered from the landscape to rivers and streams.
The delivery factor accounts for delivery to allstream reaches in each of the subwatersheds; it is
not specific to the individual TMDL Reachor Protection Reach.
The following three steps in Figure 4-14illustrate thedelivery factor calculations and how the
delivery factorsare used for the determination of the percent of E. colithatis delivered from the
landscape to rivers and streams. The example is for grazing livestock in TMDL Subwatershed
07010201-516 Little Two River. Again, delivery factors were applied only where described in
the approach summary tables in Section 4.2.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Step 1.
Pasture/Hay Grassland/Herbaceous
Step 2.
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Step 3.
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
E.coli
Figure 4-14. Example of the delivery factor calculation for grazing livestock in TMDL
Subwatershed 07010201-516 Little Two River.
4.2.7Strengths and Limitations
The results of the estimates of potential bacteria sources inform stakeholders as to the types and
relative magnitude of bacteria delivered to surface waters in therespective TMDL or Protection
Subwatershed. The estimates of potential bacteria sources were not used to determine the TMDL
equation, but they provide a valuable tool for the planning and management of waterbodies with
respect to bacteria contamination.
The estimates of potential bacteria sources use a GIS-based approach. However, available data
sources are at different scales and have different boundaries than that of the TMDL and
Protection Subwatersheds. A limitation to the estimation process is that populations must be
distributed geographically (e.g. county to subwatersheds) using assumptions related to
population density. There is a probable minimum scale atwhich bacteria source estimatesare
useful.
A significant portion of animal types were accounted for in the potential bacteria sources.
However, several animals were not included: birds other than geese and ducks (e.g. song birds
and wading birds) and many wild animals (e.g. bear and wild turkey). Data, resource limitations,
and consideration for the major animals in the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds led to the
selected set of animal types accounted for in these estimates.
The estimates of potential bacteria sources arealso limited by the fact that bacteria delivery
mechanisms are complex. Fate and transport mechanisms at the microbiological scale are
difficult to quantify. In addition, there is insufficient data to determine with great certainty for
our particular subwatersheds the actual distribution of the fecal matter throughout the
environment (e.g. the actual portion of manure that is land applied with incorporation, or the
actual amount of human waste that is produced and the proportion that is treated via septic
systems as opposed to municipal wastewater treatment facilities).
The delivery factor is a well-designed water quality risk matrix developed and reviewed through
a multi-agency effort. This water quality risk matrix (and the adjustment that was made as a part
of this study) provides for the consideration of a variety of factors related to the fate and
transport of E. coli (e.g. proximity to rivers and streams, imperviousness, and soil erosion
potential). Although it certainly provides a tool for relative risk of E. coli delivery to surface
waters, it may or may not be accurate to interpret the resultant numeric risk values as the actual
percent of E. coli that is delivered from the landscape to surface waters.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
The estimates of potential bacteria sources also do not account for the relative risk among
different types of bacteria. Instead, E. coli production is estimated as an indicator of the
likelihood of pathogen contamination of our waterbodies.
4.3Potential Bacteria Sources: Results
Table 4-15 and Table 4-16identify the potential bacteria sources of the TMDL and Protection
Subwatersheds. Results are presented by source categories: first by fate and transport mechanism
(Table 4-15), and subsequently by animal type (Table 4-16). The bacteria load from any single
source is reported relative to the bacteria loads from the other sources in the same subwatershed.
Note that the two different summary tables are provided in order to give a fuller picture of the
potential bacteria sources, since different categorizations (e.g. by fate and transport mechanism
versus animal type) may highlight different potential sources. Refer to Section 4.2.7for a
discussion of strengths and limitations of these results. Also recall that different animals produce
different levels of E. coli in their excrement (refer to Table 4-8).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
5 APPROACH: WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS AND TMDLS
The water quality data analysis presented in this report was conducted in addition to the Phase I
analysis and for development of the TMDLs; this analysis includes the use of additional
monitoring data collected per the recommendations of the Phase I report. This first phase of the
overall TMDL study and protection project included data analysis, preliminary investigation of
potential bacteria sources, and monitoring recommendations. The Phase I report, Upper
Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL: Data Analysis, Source Assessment, and Monitoring
Recommendations,entailed water quality trends analysis and a concise summary of findings
(MPCA and MDH 2009).
5.1Monitoring
Extensive monitoring has been done in support of this TMDL (Refer to Section 6Water Quality
Analysis Results and Appendix C, D, and E). In Phase I of this project, water quality and flow
data from the Mississippi River mainstem and tributaries collected between 1999 to 2008 was
compiled and assessed. The findings of this assessment are described in the Phase I Report
Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL: Data Analysis, Source Assessment, and Monitoring
Recommendations (MPCA and MDH 2009) which can be found on the project website
at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ktqha48. Key findings from the assessment of monitoring data
were as follows:
x
Data at individual sites often show increasing bacteria concentrations into the fall. In several
cases, this trend appears only after 2004.
x
High winter concentrations are not uncommon among sites having winter data. In particular,
River Mile (RM) 863.0 and 815.6 experience high winter concentrations. Data from a
downstream site on the Minnesota River also experiences high winter concentrations. Several
water quality monitoring sites do not have winter data. Even though the aquatic recreation
standard does not apply during the winter months, winter bacteria sources are relevant due to
the potential survival of bacteria in sediments of downstream waterbodies. Winter bacteria
sources are also relevant to source water protection efforts.
x
Bacteria concentrations along the Mississippi River mainstem peak around the metropolitan
area.
x
Increases in bacteria concentrations between adjacent monitoring sites along the Mississippi
River mainstem mainly occur in late summer and fall and never occur in the spring.
Mississippi RMs 858.5, 839.1, and 831.0 experience increases in bacteria concentrations
between adjacent monitoring sites only during winter months.
x
Tributary sites tend to experience more exceedances above the E. coli standard than
Mississippi River mainstem sites.
x
Storm sewer data exhibit high E. coli concentrations and experience some of the greatest
concentrations of all monitoring sites.Please note that data were available from only four
sites out of hundreds of outfalls to the Mississippi River and tributaries in the Phase I Project
Area so may not be representative of concentrations in all storm sewer outfalls. However,
these E. coli concentrations were within the range of data reported for storm sewers in other
urban areas (e.g.: Wisconsin, Bannerman et al. 1993; Michigan, Gannon and Busse 1989;
International BMP Database records, WWE and GC 2010).
x
Exceedances in E. coli concentrations above the standard (126 org/100mL) are experienced
under all flow regimes demonstrating no clear pattern and suggesting a possible mix of
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
bacteria sources. The lack of trends is especially apparent, and expected, on mainstem, large
river data; it is a function of the inherent convergence of a variety of bacteria sources and
flow regimes from both local and regional watersheds.
x
Mainstem data indicate that neither temperature, total suspended solids nor turbidity alone is
a surrogate for E. coli.
x
Annual trends in geometric mean bacteria concentrations of AUIDs indicate a relatively
common decrease in E. coli and fecal coliform concentrations in the years 2006 and 2008 as
compared to the year before. Increases are less common.
An additional aspect of the report was to develop an approach for monitoring to be conducted in
2010 and 2011 to fill data gaps. E. coli monitoring was conducted by EOR and MPCA at the
locations and frequency indicated in Table 5-1. The Mississippi WMO also added a monitoring
location on the Mississippi River, between Upper and Lower Saint Anthony Falls, AUID
07010206-513.
A separate pilot study was undertaken to investigate the use of microbial source tracking (MST)
of fecal contamination for TMDL studies in Minnesota. The MPCA and MDH collaborated with
the University of Minnesota and undertook a sampling effort at 19 sites, which entailed
laboratory analyses of surface water quality samples for Bacteroides primers and fluoride. E. coli
in these samples were also analyzed. Eleven of the 19 MST study sites were among the sites
monitored in 2010 and 2011 to fill data gaps for E. coli; as such, they are marked in Table 5-1.
The MST report Microbial Source Tracking Pilot Study: Developed for the Upper Mississippi
River Bacteria TMDL, will be posted to the project website
at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ktqha48.Enterococcus was also monitored at four sites in 2011;
they are also marked in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Monitoring sites and numbers of samples in 2010 and 2011.
Number of Samples
StationReach NameAUIDReach Name
20102011Total
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Number of Samples
StationReach NameAUIDReach Name
20102011Total
Microbial Source Tracking Pilot Study
E. coli Bacteroides
E. coli
Enterococcus
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
5.2Database
5.2.1Water Quality
Existing E. colidata (2002-2011) within the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds (and from the
downstream-most monitoring stations of impaired tributaries that directly discharge to the
Mississippi River) were gathered and compiled from the following sources:
Environmental Quality Information System (EQuIS)– download from MPCA
x
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services – download through Environmental
x
Information Management System website
Data submitted directly from St. Paul Regional Water Services, St. Cloud Water Treatment
x
Facility, Minnesota Department of Health, Mississippi Watershed Management
Organization, Capital Region Watershed District (data were requested individually from
these sources because these entities do not submit their data to EQuIS, or had only submitted
some of their data to EQuIS, with respect to the10-year period of interest)
Water quality samples that were found to have E. coli concentrations below the reporting limit
(as defined by the laboratory analytical methods) were used at a concentration of half of that of
the reporting limit. Samples that were found to be greater than the upper limit concentration of
the analytical test were requested to be diluted (ten-times dilution) for subsequent samples. Data
that were still found to be greater than the upper limit concentration of the analyticaltest were
not diluted again; they were used in the data analysis at the same concentration as the upper
limit.
5.2.2Flow
In-stream flow (discharge) data (2002-2011) from within the TMDL and Protection
Subwatersheds (and from downstream monitoring stations of impaired tributaries that directly
discharge to the Mississippi River) were compiled from website downloads from the following
sources: USGS, MCES, and DNR/MPCA Cooperative Stream Gaging.
5.2.3Precipitation
Precipitation data (2002-2011) from within and near the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds
were compiled from website downloads from MCES and the National Weather Service.
5.3Water Quality Data Analysis
Water quality data from each Mississippi River reachandfrom eachreachthat directly outlets to
this portion of the Mississippi River were evaluated. These reaches were included in the water
quality evaluation whether or not they are impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli. For each
of these reaches, the following analyses were completed.
5.3.1Loadduration curves
Load duration curves (LDCs) illustrate E. coliconcentrations with respect to flow on the same
day providing information as to the timing and source of high levels of E. coli in the water body.
The y-axis of a LDC represents E. coli load, and the x-axis represents flow in terms ofthe
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
probability of exceedance: low flows have a high probability of exceedance and high flows have
a low probability of exceedance. A given mass of E. coliat low flows would have a much lower
concentration if occurring during high flows; this input would also likely have a different source
in each case (e.g. septic field leaching versus stormwater runoff). LDC analyses on large rivers
may have a different meaning than those on small rivers. On small rivers, high flows are the
result of runoff within the immediate drainage area. On a large river system, high flows may be
the result of a rain event away from the vicinity of the monitoring point at a far upstream location
where precipitation patterns differ than that experienced locally. In that case, high E. coli loading
at high flows may actually be a dry weather input from adjacent land that did not receive
precipitation. Alternatively, the adjacent land may be the source of the precipitation, but the E.
colimay be from dry (or wet) weather input upstream. In order to better address the source of
flows, local precipitation data from the National Weather Service were plotted against gauged
flow as part of this analysis. In addition, monitoring data on adjacent tributaries helped provide
information for the mainstem LDCs.
For LDCs on Mississippi River reaches, flow data from the nearest flow monitoring site on the
Mississippi River (from 2002-2011) were used to develop the LDC for each reach. Data were
weighted by watershed area to approximate flow at the downstream end of each reach. For LDCs
on the tributaries, flow data from the nearest monitoring site (also from 2002-2011) on the
tributary were used, and weighted by watershed area to approximate flow at the downstream end
of the reach.If flow data were not available on the tributary, then flow data from the nearest site
on the Mississippi River were used and area-weighted. Where mainstem flow data were used to
approximate tributary flow data, values for E. coliloading are less reliable than where tributary
flow data are used. However, the relationship between monitored E. coli data and the standard
remain valid. A list of which flow and water quality monitoring sites were used for eachreach’s
LDC is in Table C-1 in Appendix C.
E. coli monitoring data (individual samples) from all monitoring sites along a reach are displayed
in the reach’s LDC.
E. coli loads that exceed the E. coli loading at the numeric standard of 126 org/100mL are
individual load observations, which are not used to determine whether the waterbody is
impaired. In addition, the state standard applies only from April to October, but this analysis
evaluates exceedances throughout the calendar year.
5.3.2Monthly summary figures
Figures showing relationships among precipitation, flow, and E. coli are also included. Monthly
E. coli geometric mean, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation are graphed
together. For Mississippi River reaches, the flow data weighted by watershed area were used. For
tributaries, area weighted flow data from the tributary were used. If flow data were not available
from the tributary, then this monthly summary figure is not included for that reach.Table C-1 in
Appendix C summarizes the pairing of precipitation, flow and E. coli monitoring stations used
for each reach.
5.3.3Tabularsummaries
The following summary tables are provided in Appendix D.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Monthly E. coligeometric mean concentrations for eachreach; data are combined across all
x
years (e.g. all May data are combined into one geometric mean for 2002-2011).
Monthly E. coligeometric mean concentrations for each reach; monthly geometric means are
x
presented individually for each year of monitoring data (e.g. May 2002, May 2003, and etc.).
Note that MPCA’s water quality data assessment for listing stream reaches as impaired for
bacteria entails analysis of the data by month by year, if data allow, else the assessment is
conducted by month across all years. Therefore, data presented in these summary tables may not
be consistent with the approach used for listing stream reaches as impaired for bacteria.
5.4Loading Capacity
Equation 1 illustrates the calculation procedures for the TMDL. The TMDLs are calculated
based on the geometric mean standard (126 org/100 ml). It is assumed that practices
implementedto meet the geometric mean standard will also address the “maximum” standard
(1,260 org/100 ml) and that the maximum standard will also be met.
The loading capacity and allocations apply only to the TMDL Subwatershedof each TMDL
Reach (TMDL study impairments), as described in Section 2.5TMDL Study Impairments and
Subwatersheds.The TMDL Subwatershedincludes the direct drainage area of the TMDL Reach,
the direct drainage area of reaches directly upstream that are unassessed, and the drainage area of
unassessed tributaries. It does not include tributaries that are meeting E. coli standards,
tributaries for which there is a current or planned TMDL study in the near future, or upstream
tributaries that are also impaired and part of a TMDL Subwatershedfora separate impairment.
The loading capacity of each TMDL Reach was calculated using the load duration curve
developed for the TMDL Reach and the reach directly upstream (see Load duration curves under
Section 5.3:Water Quality Data Analysis). Each load duration curve was used to identify five
flow intervals: high, moist, mid-range, dry, and low flow. The midpoint of each interval was
selected as the representative flow for that interval, and the loading capacity of the reach at that
point was calculated by multiplying the flow by the water quality standard (126 org/100 L E.
coli).
The TMDL for eachTMDL Subwatershed was calculated by subtracting the loading capacity of
the upstream reach and the loading capacity of any tributary that is not in the TMDL
Subwatershed from the loading capacity of the TMDL Reach,such that the TMDL reflects the
allowable load of the TMDL Subwatershed only. If the upstream reach meets water quality
standards, then the existing load is used instead of the loading capacity. The existing load is
based on the midpoint of each flow duration interval and the E. coligeometric mean
concentration of all observations (all monitoring sites along the reachare combined)in that flow
interval. The lower of the two E. coli concentrations of the upstream reach (existing vs. loading
capacity)is used so that, if a stream has better water quality than the standard, it is assumed that
the stream will not degrade. Three significant digits were used when reporting all flows,
concentrations, and loads throughout the report.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
TMDL= LCTR – LCUR
LCTRLCTR
E. coli
LCURLCELUR
E. coli E. coli
Equation 1. TMDL Development
Loading capacities (and associated allocations) were not calculated for Protection Reaches.
Although Protection Subwatersheds do not, therefore, receive a numeric goal, potential bacteria
sources (Section 4) and applicable implementation strategies were identified (Section 9) (as was
done for the TMDL Subwatersheds).
Equation 3 represents the calculation of percent reductions required to meet the TMDL. Figure
5-1 is an illustration of the TMDL and percent reduction calculations for a hypothetical TMDL
Subwatershed, for demonstration purposes only.
5.5Wasteload Allocations
Wasteload allocations (WLA) were established for regulated municipal separate storm sewer
systems (MS4s) and for NPDES-permitted wastewater treatment facilities(WWTFs).Three
significant digits were used when reporting all loads throughout the report.
5.5.1MS4
Community storm sewer systems within the TMDL Subwatersheds that serve a population of at
least 10,000 and systems with a population of at least 5,000 and discharging to valuable or
polluted waters may be required to obtain a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
permit. This permit requires a range of actions to reduce the impactof stormwater from these
communities on downstream waterbodies. Since there are likely to be multiple sources of
bacteria contributing to the impairment, reductions may be needed from all contributing sources
(both regulated and non-regulated entities).
For each TMDL Reach, a categorical WLA was developed for state, county, city, township,
watershed district, and other regulated MS4s. The area that falls under MS4 regulation was
approximated by the following:
City and township: The 2006 USGS National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), a 30-meter grid
x
that characterizes land cover, was used to approximate the areas within cities and townships
that are regulated by the MS4 permit. The following “developed” categories wereused to
approximate the regulated area:
Developed, open space
-
Developed, low intensity
-
Developed, medium intensity
-
Developed, high intensity
-
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
The remaining land cover categories are natural land covers and were used to approximate
the areas notregulated by the MS4 permit (associated with the load allocation).
MnDOT: An average right of way (ROW) width of 90 feet was assumed on all MnDOT
x
roads (MnDOT BaseMap 2011 Roads GIS shapefile: Interstate, US Highway, or MN
Highway) within MnDOT’s Metro District and Outstate Districtwithin the US Census
Bureau-defined Urbanized Areas. A ROW width of 90 feet on both sides of the centerline of
each road was usedto approximate MnDOT’s regulated area.
County: A90-foot ROW was also assumed for county roads (including CSAHs) within the
x
US Census Bureau-defined Urbanized Areas.
Watershed District: Areas regulated through watershed district MS4 permits were assumed to
x
overlap with city, township, county and/or state MS4 areas.
Additional MS4 areas (e.g. colleges and universities): The boundary of the property was used
x
to approximate the regulated area. These areas oftenoverlappedwith other regulated MS4
boundaries such as cities.
The categorical WLA for regulated municipal stormwater wasdetermined on an area basis. It is
the TMDL minus the Margin of Safety (MOS) and WWTF WLAs, which is then multiplied by
the areal proportion of the TMDL watershedthat is considered to be regulated through the MS4
permit.Overlapping areas that are regulated through the MS4 permit (e.g. areas of a city that
overlap with universityproperty) were not double-counted in the determination of the regulated
acreage applicable to the categorical WLA calculation.
For low flows for TMDL Reach 07010203-528 Unnamed Creek (T121 R23W S19, south line to
Mississippi R), the MS4 WLA is expressed as an equation. Refer to Section 5.5.2, Subsection
WLAs and LA for TMDL Reach 07010203-528 Unnamed Creek and Equation 2on Page 105.
5.5.2Wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs)
WLAs were provided for all NPDES-permitted WWTFs that have fecal coliform discharge limits
(200 org/100mL, April 1 through October 31)and whose surface discharge stations fall within
the TMDL watersheds. On March 17, 2008, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050 water quality
standards for bacteria were changed from fecal coliform concentration to E. coli concentration
supported by an EPA guidance document on bacteriological criteria (USEPA 1986). In
conjunction with the change of indicator organisms for bacterial water quality, a decision was
made to retain existing fecal coliform effluent limitations for wastewater treatment
facilities. This decision is extensively documented in the regulation’s Statement of Need and
Reasonableness, Book III, Section VII.G. If a discharger is meeting the fecal coliform limits of
their permit, it is assumed that they are also meeting the E. coliWLA in these TMDLs.The
WLA wasthereforecalculated using the assumption that the E. coli standard of 126 org/100mL
provides equivalent protection from illness due to primary contact recreation as 200 org/100mL
fecal coliformmultiplied by the permitted facility design flow. Continuously discharging
municipal WWTF WLAswerecalculated based on the average wet weather design flow,
equivalent to the wettest 30-days of influent flow expected over the course of a year. Municipal
controlled discharge WWTF (pond) WLAswerecalculated based on the maximum daily volume
that may be discharged in a 24-hour period. Unlike the TMDL and the WLAs for permitted MS4
dischargers, the WLAs for the WWTFs do not vary based on instream flow. Expanding and new
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
dischargers permitted at the fecal coliform limit will be added to the E. coliWLA via the NPDES
permit public notice process (see Section 5.8:Reserve Capacity and Future Growthfor a
discussion regarding new or expanded WWTFs).
Since all allocations apply only to the TMDL Subwatersheds and not upstream watersheds (see
Section 2.5TMDL Study Impairments and Subwatersheds), WWTF WLAs were developed only
for those facilities located in the TMDL Subwatersheds. NPDES-permitted WWTFs that are
located inthe hydrologic watershed of an impaired reach but upstream of the TMDL
Subwatershed were not provided WLAs, based on the following assumptions:
1)If the WWTF is located in a watershed of an upstream impaired reach, then the WWTF will
receive a WLA for the TMDL of the upstream impaired reach (i.e. the reach to which the
WWTF discharges more directly).For example, all of the WWTFs in the Crow River
watershed have received or will receive WLAs as part of separate TMDL reports.
2)If the reach directly upstream of the impaired reach is meeting water quality standards, the
unimpaired reach is successfully assimilating existing bacteria loads. Dischargers in this area
upstream of the TMDL watershed do not contribute to the downstream impairment as
demonstrated by the fact that the upstream reach is not impaired due to high E. coli
concentrations. All WWTFs arepermitted to discharge fecal coliform at a concentration of
200 org/mL, which provides an equivalent protection from illness due to primary contact
recreation to the E. coli standard of 126 org/mL, and therefore serves to attain and maintain
the E. coli water quality standard.
WLAs and LA for TMDL Reach 07010203-528 Unnamed Creek
The total daily loading capacities in the low flow zone are very small due to the occurrence of
very low flows in the long-term flow records. Consequently, for one of the impaired reaches
(07010203-528, Unnamed Creek, T121 R23W S19, south line to Mississippi R), the permitted
WWTF design flows exceed the stream flow at the low flow zone. Of course actual treatment
facility flow can never exceed stream flow as it is a component of stream flow. To account for
this singular unique situation, the low flow WLAs and LA for TMDL Reach 07010203-528 are
expressed as Equation 2 rather than an absolute number.
(Wasteload) Allocation = (flow from E. coli source) x 126 org E. coli/100mL
Equation 2. TMDL Reach 07010203-528 low flow WWTF WLAs and LA.
In essence, this amounts to assigning a concentration-based limit to MS4 communities and
nonpoint source LA sources for the low flow zone for TMDL Reach 07010203-528. The WLA
for straight pipe wastewater discharges remains zero. This is the same procedure employed for
four reaches with similar situations in the Revised Regional TMDL Evaluation of Fecal Coliform
Bacteria Impairments in the Lower Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota (MPCA 2006)and the
Pipestone Creek Bacteria and Turbidity TMDL Report (MPCA 2008).
5.5.3Other
WLAs for regulated construction stormwater (permit #MN R100001)were not developed, since
E. coliis not a typical pollutant from construction sites.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
WLAs for regulated industrial stormwater were also not developed. Industrial stormwater must
receive a WLA only if the pollutant is part of benchmark monitoring for an industrial site in the
watershed of an impaired water body (as detailed in MPCA’s June 8, 2001 memo cited in
previous paragraph). There are no E. coli benchmarks associated with the industrial stormwater
permit (permit #MN R050000).
Straight pipes are illegal conveyances of raw sewage from homes and businesses directly to
surface water. Straight pipes receive a WLA of zero for all impaired water bodiesbecause
discharges from straight pipes are not authorized under any NPDES/SDS permits.
5.6Load Allocations
Load allocations (LAs) represent the portion of the loading capacity that is designated for non-
regulated sources of E. coli. Like the WLA for regulated stormwater runoff, the LA for each
TMDL Reachwas determined on an area basis. It is the TMDL minus the MOS and WWTF
WLAs, which is then multiplied by the areal proportion of the TMDL watershed that is not
considered to be regulated through the MS4 permit (see Section 5.5 for a discussion on how the
regulated watershed areas are those areas designated as Developedaccording to NLCD land
cover data). Three significant digits were used when reporting all loads throughout the report.
For low flows for TMDL Reach 07010203-528 Unnamed Creek (T121 R23W S19, south line to
Mississippi R), the LAis expressed as an equation. Refer to Section 5.5.2, Subsection WLAs and
LA for TMDL Reach 07010203-528 Unnamed Creek and Equation 2 on Page 105.For many
reaches the allocations are based, in part, upon monitoring data that was collected during 2010,
2011. Refer to Table 5-1for the specific reaches.
5.7Margin of Safety
The margin of safety (MOS) accounts for uncertainties in both characterizing current conditions
and the relationship between the load, wasteload, monitored flows, and in-stream water quality.
Ultimately, the MOS accounts for uncertainty that the allocations will result in attainment of
water quality standards.
An explicit MOS equal to 10% of the loading capacity was used for this TMDL report based on
the following considerations:
x
Since the TMDL is developed for each of five flow regimes, most of the uncertainty in
flow is a result of extrapolating (area-weighting) flows from the hydrologically-nearest
stream gage. The explicit MOS, in part, accounts for this.
x
Allocations are a function of flow, which varies from high to low flows. This variability
is accounted for through the development of a TMDL for each of five flow regimes.
x
The load duration analysis does not address bacteria re-growth in sediments, die-off, and
natural background levels. The MOS helps to account for the variability associated with
these conditions.
5.8Reserve Capacityand Future Growth
An explicit reserve capacity was not included in these TMDLs. The LAs (for non-regulated
sources) are for all current and future sources.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
A process for incorporating future MS4 regulated areas into the WLAs was established. Future
transfer of loads in this TMDL may be necessary if any of the following scenarios occur within a
TMDL Subwatershed:
x
New development occurs within a regulated MS4. Newly developed areas that are not
already included in the WLA must be given additional WLA to accommodate the growth.
x
One regulated MS4 acquires land from another regulated MS4. Examples include
annexation or highway expansions. In these cases, the transfer is WLA to WLA.
x
One or more non-regulated MS4s become regulated. If this has not been accounted for in
the WLA, then a transfer must occur from the LA.
x
Expansion of an urban area encompasses new regulated areas for existing permittees. An
example is existing state highways that were outside an Urban Area at the time the
TMDL was completed, but are now inside a newly expanded urban area. This will require
either a WLA to WLA transfer or a LA to WLA transfer.
x
A new MS4 or other stormwater-related regulated source is identified and is covered
under an NPDES permit. In this situation, a transfer must occur from the LA.
Load transfers will be based on methods consistent with those used in setting the allocations in
this TMDL. Load transfers may occur from LA to WLA or from WLA to WLA. In cases where
WLA is transferred from or to a regulated MS4, the permittees will be notified of the transfer.
A process for incorporating future WWTF discharges into the WLAs was established. All WLAs
(and LAs) are based on 2002-2011 stream flow data, and the allocations assume that the flow
regime will not change in the future. However, increases in population density in the watersheds
are likely to lead to new and/or expanded WWTFs, which will increase flows from WWTFs to
surface waters. Increased flows from WWTFs will also increase the overall loading capacity by
increasing river flows. Since the fecal coliform discharge limits are consistent with E. coliwater
quality standards, the discharge limits of the new and expanded WWTFs will serve to attain and
maintain water quality standards. Therefore, new and expanded WWTFs are not likely to have an
impact on the E.coliconcentrations in the stream reaches provided the discharge limits are met.
A streamlined WLA modification procedure will be used to update WLAs for new and
expanding WWTFs. This process will apply to the WWTFs that received a WLA in this report
and to any new NPDES-permitted wastewater discharge in the TMDL watersheds.
1)A new or expanding discharger will file with the MPCA permit program a permit
modification request or an application for a permit reissuance. The permit application
information will include documentation of the current and proposed future flow volumes and
fecal coliform loads.
2)The MPCA permit program will notify the MPCA TMDL program upon receipt of the
request or applicationandwill provide the appropriate information, including the proposed
discharge volumes and the fecal coliform loads.
3)MPCA Watershed program staff will provide the permit program with information on the
TMDL WLA to be published with the permit's public notice.
4)The supporting documentation (fact sheet, statement of basis, effluent limits summary sheet)
for the proposed permit will include information about the fecal coliform discharge
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
requirements, noting that for fecal coliformthe effluent limit is consistent withthe in-stream
E. colistandardand the increased discharge will maintain the E. coli water quality standard.
The public will have the opportunity to provide comments on the new proposed permit,
including the fecal coliform discharge and its relationship to the TMDL.
5)The MPCA TMDL program will notify the EPA TMDL program of the proposed action at
the start of the public comment period. The MPCA permit program will provide the permit
language with the attached fact sheet (or other appropriate supporting documentation) and
new fecal coliform information to the MPCA TMDL program and the USEPA TMDL
program.
6)EPA will transmit any comments to the MPCA Permits and TMDL programs during the
public comment period, typically via e-mail. MPCA will consider any comments provided by
EPA and by the public on the proposed permit action and WLA and will respond
accordingly,conferring with EPA if necessary.
7)If, following the review of comments, MPCA determines that the new or expanded fecal
coliform discharge is consistent with applicable water quality standards, MPCA will issue the
permit with these conditionsand send a copy of the final fecal coliform information to the
USEPA TMDL program. MPCA's final permit action, which has been through a public
notice period, will constitute an update of the WLA.
8)EPA will document the update to the WLA in the administrative record for the TMDL.
Through this process EPA will maintain an up-to-date record of the applicable WLAsfor
permitted facilities in the watershed.
5.9Reductions Needed to Meet TMDL
In all cases, WWTFs arerequired to meet their permitted bacteria loading limits and are not
required to make any further reductions in bacteria loading as a part of this TMDL study. All
other bacteria loads do require reductions in order to meet the TMDL. Bacteria sources requiring
reduction will be termed watershed runoff for the purposes of this TMDL, which includes
stormwater and watershed runoff from urban and rural landscapes, including regulated (MS4
stormwater) and non-regulated sources. The percent reductions needed to meet the allocations
for watershed runoff (i.e. sources other than WWTFs)were estimatedaccording to the following
steps(illustrated in Equation 3).
The existing load of each TMDL Reach was calculated using the load duration curve developed
for the TMDL Reachand the reach directly upstream (see Load duration curves under Section
5.3:Water Quality Data Analysis). Each load duration curve was used to identify five flow
intervals: high, moist, mid-range, dry, and low flow. The midpoint of each interval was selected
as the representative flow for that interval. The existing load of the reach for that interval was
calculated by multiplying the flow by the E. coli geometric meanof all observations (all
monitoring sites along the reach were combined) in that flow interval.
The existing load for eachTMDL Subwatershed was calculated by subtracting theexisting load
of upstream reachesthat are not in the TMDL Subwatershed from the existing loadof the TMDL
Reach, such that the existing load reflects the load of the TMDL Subwatershed only. The existing
load of upstream reaches was calculated in the same way as that of the TMDL Reach.Three
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
significant digits were used when reporting all flows, concentrations, and loads throughout the
report.
The WWTF WLAs were then subtracted from the existing load of the TMDL Reach so that the
existing load reflects the load from watershedrunoff only (and from the TMDL Subwatershed
only).
Theexisting watershed runoff load from the TMDL Subwatershed (‘ELTR – ELUR –WWTF
WLAs’ in Equation 3) was then compared to the loading capacity from watershed sources in
order to obtain the percent reduction required to meet the TMDL. The loading capacity from
watershed sources is the TMDL minus the MOS and the WWTF WLAs. The required percent
reduction was calculated for every flow regime as long as data was available from the TMDL
Reachand upstream reaches.
Based on the selection process for the TMDL Reaches in this project (refer to Section 2.5.1), all
impaired reaches upstream of TMDL Reaches are also being addressed as a part of this TMDL
study, and a TMDL has been calculated for them. Therefore, ifthe TMDL Reachis not meeting
the water quality standardbecause of the load from an upstream impaired reach (in other words,
if the TMDL Reach will meet the water quality standard once the upstream impaired reach
reduces its E. coliconcentration to the water quality standard), the TMDL Subwatershed
received a 0% reduction for the applicable flow regime.
% Reduction
[]
x 100
=ELTR – ELUR – WWTF WLAs – (TMDL – MOS – WWTF WLAs)
(ELTR – ELUR – WWTF WLAs)
ELTRELTR
E. coli
ELURELUR
E. coli
TMDL
Loading Capacit
WWTF WLAsWWTFWAs
Equation 3. Percent reductions.
Note that the E. colistandard is applied by month (April through October in coordination with
the recreational season), but the TMDL and percent reductions are calculated by flow regime in
order to accommodate variability in E. coli concentrations at different flows.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Step 1.
Step 2.
Figure 5-1.Calculations of the TMDL and required percent reduction for a hypothetical TMDL
Subwatershedfor demonstration purposes.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
5.10Critical Conditions and SeasonalVariations
Use of these water bodies for aquatic recreation occurs from April through October, which
includes all or portions of the spring, summer and fall seasons. E. coli loading varies with the
flow regime and season. Spring is associated with large flows from snowmelt, the summer is
associated with the growing season as well as periodic storm events and receding streamflows,
and the fall brings increasing precipitation and rapidly changing agricultural landscapes.
The following list represents a compilation of trends and findings with respect to critical
conditions and seasonal variations based on the water quality analysis [some of these findings are
based on the Phase I analysis (MPCA and MDH 2009)]:
x
Data at individual sites often show increasing bacteria concentrations into the fall. In several
cases, this trend appears only after 2004.
x
Increases in bacteria concentrations between adjacent monitoring sites along the Mississippi
River mainstem mainly occur in late summer and fall and never occur in the spring.
x
High winter concentrations are not uncommon among sites having winter data. Several water
quality monitoring sites do not have winter data. Even though the aquatic recreation standard
does not apply during the winter months, winter bacteria sources are relevant due to the
potential survival of bacteria in sediments of downstream waterbodies. Winter bacteria
sources are also relevant to sourcewater protection efforts.
x
Tributary sites tend to experience more exceedances above the E. coli standard than
Mississippi River mainstem sites.
x
Bacteria concentrations along the Mississippi River mainstem peak around the metropolitan
area.
x
Storm sewer data exhibit high E. coli concentrations and experience some of the greatest
concentrations of all monitoring sites.Please note that data were available from only four
sites out of hundreds of outfalls to the Mississippi River and tributaries in the Phase I Project
Area so may not be representative of concentrations in all storm sewer outfalls. However,
these E. coli concentrations were within the range of data reported for storm sewers in other
urban areas (e.g.: Wisconsin, Bannerman et al. 1993; Michigan, Gannon and Busse 1989;
International BMP Database records, WWE and GC 2010).
x
Exceedances in E. coli concentrations above the standard (126 org/100mL) are experienced
under all flow regimes demonstrating no clear pattern and suggesting a possible mix of
bacteria sources. The lack of trends is especially apparent, and expected, on mainstem, large
river data; it is a function of the inherent convergence of a variety of bacteria sources and
flow regimes from both local and regional watersheds.
Critical conditions and seasonal variation are addressed in this TMDL through several
mechanisms. The E. coli standard applies during the recreational period, anddata was collected
throughout this period. The water quality analysis conducted on these data evaluated variability
in flow through the use of five flow regimes: from high flows, such as flood events, to low flows,
such as baseflow. Through the use of load duration curves and monthly summary figures, E. coli
loading was evaluated atactual flow conditions at the time of sampling (and by month), and
monthly E. coli concentrations were evaluated against precipitation and streamflow.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
The three Major Watersheds on which the TMDL and Protection Study is focused are
Mississippi River – Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201), Mississippi River – St. Cloud
Watershed (HUC 07010203), and Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206).
These watersheds provide the framework for presentation of the water quality analysis results.
For each Mississippi River reachand adjacent(directly discharging)tributary, the following
analyses were conducted on data from 2002-2011:
x
Load duration curves
TMDLand Protection Reaches (here in Section 6)
o
Reaches outside of the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds (Appendix E)
o
x
Monthly data summary figures with precipitation, flow, and E. colidata(if data allow)
TMDLand Protection Reaches (here in Section 6)
o
Reaches outside of the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds (Appendix E)
o
x
Geometric meansin tabular form (Table D-1 and Table D-2in Appendix D)
Table C-1 in Appendix C summarizes the pairing of precipitation, flow and E. coli monitoring
stations used for each reach. If no water quality data were available for any single reach, no data
analyseswere conducted for that reach.
The load durations curves presented in the following section plot the E. coli load using the
standard of 126 org/100ml across the range of flows for each reach. Observed (monitored) values
of E. colithat are plotted come from throughout the period of record. In calculating the TMDL,
as well as determining allocations and percent reduction, the geometric mean of the monthly
values in each flow regime was used rather than simply using the occurrence of exceedances. In
viewing the load duration curves there will be situations where a high level of E. colican be seen
in a given flow regime yet there is not an exceedance of the standard when the geometric mean is
calculated.Refer to Appendix D for the geometric means that were used for the TMDL
calculation.
6.1Mississippi River – Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201)
6.1.1Protection Reach07010201-501 Mississippi River (End HUC 07010104 (below Swan R)
to Two R) US ACE River Mile 954-961
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010201-501) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-1.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010201-501) from 2007-2011.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure 6-2.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010201-501).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.2Protection Reach07010201-502: Mississippi River (Watab R to Sauk R)US ACE River
Mile 930-932.5
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010201-502) is impaired for aquatic recreation due
to E. coli. The TMDL for this reach is being deferred (refer to Section 2.6.1).
E. coli
Figure 6-3.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010201-502) from 2007-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-4.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010201-502).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.3Protection Reach07010201-513: Mississippi River (Little Rock Cr to Sartell Dam)US
ACE River Mile 932.5-937
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010201-513) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-5.geometric means,monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010201-513) from 2010-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-6.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010201-513).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.4TMDL Reach07010201-516: Little Two River(Headwaters to Mississippi R)
Little Two River (AUID 07010201-516) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired
for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table
7-1 in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-7.Load duration curve for at Little Two River(07010201-516).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.5TMDL Reach07010201-523: Two River (North & South Two R to Mississippi R)
Two River (AUID 07010201-513) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-8.Load duration curve for at Two River (07010201-523).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.6TMDL Reach07010201-525: Spunk Creek (Lower Spunk Lk to Mississippi R)
Spunk Creek (AUID 07010201-525) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to fecal coliform.This reach received anE. coli TMDL as a part of this
study (Table 7-1 in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-9.Load duration curve for at Spunk Creek (07010201-525).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.7TMDL Reach07010201-528: Watab River (Rossier Lk to Mississippi R)
Watab River (AUID 07010201-528) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-10.Load duration curve for at Watab River (07010201-528).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.8TMDL Reach07010201-529: Watab River, North Fork (Headwaters (Stump Lk 73-0091-
00) to S Fk Watab R)
Watab River, North Fork (AUID 07010201-528) is a tributary of the Watab River and is
impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study
(Table 7-1 in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-11.Load duration curve for at Watab River, North Fork (07010201-529).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.9TMDL Reach07010201-537: County Ditch 12 (Unnamed cr to Watab R)
County Ditch 12 (AUID 07010201-537) is a tributary of the Watab River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-12.Load duration curve for at County Ditch 12 (07010201-537).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.10TMDL Reach07010201-543: South Two River (Two River Lk to Two R)
South Two River (AUID 07010201-543) is a tributary of Two River and is impaired for aquatic
recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1 in
Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-13.Load duration curve for at South Two River (07010201-543).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.11Protection Reach07010201-545:Platte River (Unnamed cr (above RR bridge) to
Mississippi R)
The Platte River (AUID 07010201-545) does not have sufficientdata to assess whether it is full
support or non support with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-14.Load duration curve for at Platte River (07010201-545).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.12TMDL Reach07010201-554:Watab River, South Fork (Little Watab Lk to Watab R)
Watab River, South Fork (AUID 07010201-554) is a tributary of the Watab River and is
impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study
(Table 7-1 in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-15.Load duration curve for at Watab River, South Fork (07010201-554).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.13TMDL Reach07010201-564:County Ditch 13 (Bakers Lk to Watab R)
County Ditch 13 (AUID 07010201-564) is a tributary of the Watab River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-16.Load duration curve for at County Ditch 13 (07010201-564).
E. coli
E. coli
6.1.14Protection Reach 07010201-577: Little Rock Creek (Little Rock Lk to Mississippi R)
This reach of Little Rock Creek (AUID 07010201-577) does not have sufficient data to assess
whether it is full support or non support with respect to E. coli.Water quality data are not
available.
6.1.15Protection Reach07010201-607:Mississippi River (Morrison/Stearns County border to
Little Rock Cr) US ACE River Mile 937-947
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010201-607) is the downstream reach of the
Protection Subwatershed with the same identification number. However, this reach does not have
sufficient data to assess whether it is full support or non support with respect to E. coli. Water
quality data are not available.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.16Protection Reach07010201-615:Stony Creek (Headwaters to Mississippi R)
Stony Creek (AUID 07010201-615) does not have sufficientdata to assess whether it is full
support or non support with respect to E. coli.Refer to Section 2.2.1 for an explanation of water
quality standards and associated data requirements for assessment.
E. coli
Figure 6-17.Load duration curve for at Stony Creek (07010201-615).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.1.17Protection Reach07010202-501:Sauk River (Mill Cr to Mississippi R)
The Sauk River (AUID 07010202-501) has been assessed as fully supporting aquatic recreation
with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-18.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Sauk
E. coli
River (07010202-501) from 2002-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-19.Load duration curve for at Sauk River (07010202-501).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (HUC 07010203)
6.2.1Protection Reach07010203-503:MississippiRiver (Elk R to Crow R) US ACE River
Mile 879.5-884.5
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010203-503) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-20.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010203-503) from 2009-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-21. Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010203-503).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.2Protection Reach07010203-510:MississippiRiver (Clearwater R to Elk R) US ACE
River Mile 884-914
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010203-510) is impaired for aquatic recreation due
to fecal coliform.Only E. coli data were analyzed. The TMDL for this reach is being deferred
(refer to Section 2.6.1).
E. coli
Figure 6-22.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010203-510) from 2002-2007.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-23. Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010203-510).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.3Protection Reach07010203-511:ClearwaterRiver (Clearwater Lk to Mississippi R)
The Clearwater River (AUID 07010203-511) has been assessed as fully supporting aquatic
recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-24. Load duration curve for at Clearwater River (07010203-511).
E. coli
E. coli
6.2.4Protection Reach 07010203-525: Elk River (Orono Lk to Mississippi R)
This reach of Elk River (AUID 07010203-525) does not have sufficient data to assess whether it
is full support or non support with respect to E. coli.Water quality data are not available.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.5TMDL Reach07010203-528:Unnamed creek (T121 R23W S19, south line to Mississippi
R)
Unnamed creek (AUID 07010203-528) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-25. Load duration curve for at Unnamed creek (07010203-528).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.6TMDL Reach07010203-557:Silver Creek (Locke Lk to Mississippi R)
Silver Creek (AUID 07010203-557) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-26. Load duration curve for at Silver Creek (07010203-557).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.7TMDL Reach07010203-561:Unnamed creek (Luxemburg Creek) (T123 R28W S30,
south line to Johnson Cr)
Unnamed creek (Luxemburg Creek) (AUID 07010203-561) is a tributary of Johnson Creek and
is impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this
study (Table 7-1 in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-27. Load duration curve for at Unnamed creek(Luxemburg Creek)(07010203-561).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.8TMDL Reach07010203-572:Plum Creek (Warner Lk to Mississippi R)
Plum Creek (AUID 07010203-572) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-28. Load duration curve for at Plum Creek (07010203-572).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.9Protection Reach07010203-574: Mississippi River (Sauk Riverto University Dr S
bridge in St. Cloud) US ACE River Mile 926.5-930
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010203-574) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-29.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and totalmonthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010203-574) from 2002-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-30.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010203-574).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.10TMDL Reach07010203-635: Johnson Creek (Meyer Creek) (Unnamed cr to Unnamed
cr)
Johnson Creek (AUID 07010203-635) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-31.Load duration curvefor at Johnson Creek (07010203-635).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.11TMDL Reach07010203-639: Johnson Creek (Meyer Creek) (T123 R28W S14, west line
to Mississippi R)
Johnson Creek (AUID 07010203-639) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-32.Load duration curve for at Johnson Creek (07010203-639).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.2.12TMDL Reach07010203-724: Unnamed creek (Robinson Hill Creek) (CD 14 to CSAH
136)
Unnamed creek (AUID 07010203-724) is a tributary of Johnson Creek and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-33.Load duration curve for at Unnamed creek (Robinson Hill Creek) (07010203-
E. coli
724).
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3Mississippi River – Twin Cities Watershed (HUC 07010206)
6.3.1Protection Reach07010206-501: Mississippi River (L & D #2 to St Croix R (RM 815.2 to
811.3))
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-501) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-34.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-501) from 2010-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-35.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-501).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.2Protection Reach07010206-502: Mississippi River (Rock Island RR bridge to L & D #2
(RM 830 to 815.2))
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-502) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-36.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-502) from 2002-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-37.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-502).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.3Protection Reach07010206-503: Mississippi River (Lower St Anthony Falls to L & D #1
(RM 853.3 to RM 847.6))
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-503) is impaired for aquatic recreation due
to E. coli. The TMDL for this reach is being deferred (refer to Section 2.6.1).
E. coli
Figure 6-38.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-503) from 2003-2006.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-39.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-503) from 2007-2011.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure 6-40.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-503).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.4Protection Reach07010206-504: Mississippi River (Metro WWTP to Rock Island RR
bridge (RM 835 to 830))
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-504) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-41.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-504) from 2006-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-42.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-504).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.5ProtectionReach07010206-505: Mississippi River (Minnesota Rto Metro WWTP (RM
844 to 835))
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-505) is impaired for aquatic recreation due
to E. coli. The TMDL for this reach is being deferred (refer to Section 2.6.1).
E. coli
Figure 6-43.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-505) from 2002-2006.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-44.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-505) from 2007-2010.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure 6-45.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-505).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.6TMDL Reach07010206-506: Shingle Creek (County Ditch 13) (Headwaters (Eagle
Cr/Bass Cr) to Mississippi R)
Shingle Creek (AUID 07010206-506) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1
in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-46.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Shingle Creek (07010206-506) from 2007-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-47.Load duration curve for at ShingleCreek(07010206-506).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.7ProtectionReach07010206-509: Mississippi River (Coon Creekto Upper St. Anthony
Falls) US ACE River Mile 854-865
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010203-509) is impaired for aquatic recreation due
to E. coli. The TMDL for this reach is being deferred (refer to Section 2.6.1).
E. coli
Figure 6-48.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-509) from 2002-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-49.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-509).
E. coli
E. coli
E. coli
6.3.8Protection Reach07010206-511: Mississippi River (Elm Cr to Coon Rapids Dam) US
ACE River Mile 866-871
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-511) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli. This reach discharges to Protection Reach 07010206-
512: Mississippi River (Coon Rapids Dam to Coon Cr).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-50.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-511) from 2010-2011.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure 6-51.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-511).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-52.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Crow
E. coli
River (07010204-502) from 2007-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-53.Load duration curve for at Crow River (07010204-502).
E. coli
E. coli
6.3.9Protection Reach07010206-512: Mississippi River (Coon Rapids Dam to Coon Cr) US
ACE River Mile 865-866
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-512) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-54.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and totalmonthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-512) from 2010-2011.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure 6-55.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-512).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.10Protection Reach07010206-513: Mississippi River (Upper St Anthony Falls to Lower St
Anthony Falls) US ACE River Mile 853.5-854
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-513) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-56.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-513) from 2010-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-57.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-513).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.11Protection Reach07010206-514: Mississippi River (L & D #1 to Minnesota R) US ACE
River Mile 844-847.5
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-514) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-58.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-514) from 2010-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-59.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-514).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.12Protection Reach 07010206-517: Unnamed creek (Headwaters to Mississippi R)
This unnamed creek (AUID 07010206-517) does not have sufficient data to assess whether it is
full support or non support with respect to E. coli.Water quality data are not available.
6.3.13TMDL Reach07010206-526: Unnamed Creek (Plymouth Creek) (Headwaters to
Medicine Lk)
Unnamed Creek (Plymouth Creek) (AUID 07010206-526) is the headwaters of Bassett Creek
and is impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part of
this study (Table 7-1 in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-60.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
UnnamedCreek (Plymouth Creek) (07010206-526) from 2008-2010.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-61.Load duration curve for at UnnamedCreek(Plymouth Creek)(07010206-526).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.14TMDL Reach07010206-538: Bassett Creek (Medicine Lk to Mississippi R)
Bassett Creek (AUID 07010206-538) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to fecal coliform.This reach received anE. coli TMDL as a part of this
study (Table 7-1 in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-62.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Bassett Creek (07010206-538) from 2006-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-63.Load duration curve for atBassett Creek(07010206-538).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.15TMDL Reach07010206-542: Unnamed creek(Interstate Valley Creek) (Unnamed cr to
Mississippi R)
Unnamed Creek(Interstate Valley Creek)(AUID 07010206-542) is a tributary of the Mississippi
River and is impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part
of this study (Table 7-1 in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-64.Load duration curve for at UnnamedCreek(Interstate Valley Creek)(07010206-
E. coli
542).
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.16TMDL Reach07010206-552: Unnamed creek(North Branch, Bassett Creek)(Unnamed
lk to Bassett Cr)
Unnamed Creek(North Branch, Bassett Creek) (AUID 07010206-552) is a tributary of Bassett
Creek and is impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.This reach received a TMDL as a part
of this study (Table 7-1 in Section 7).
E. coli
Figure 6-65.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Unnamed Creek (North Branch, Bassett Creek) (07010206-552) from 2008-2010.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-66.Load duration curve for at UnnamedCreek(North Branch, Bassett Creek)
E. coli
(07010206-552).
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.17Protection Reach07010206-568: (NW city limits of Anoka to Rum R)
Mississippi River
US ACE River Mile 871.5-874
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-568) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-67.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-568) from 2002-2006.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-68.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Mississippi River (07010206-568) from 2007-2011.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure 6-69.Load duration curve for at Mississippi River (07010206-568).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.18TMDL Reach07010206-584: Rice Creek (Long Lk to Locke Lk)
Rice Creek (AUID 07010206-584) is a tributary of the Mississippi River impaired for aquatic
recreation due to E. coli. This reach received a TMDL as a part of this study (Table 7-1 in
Section 7). The TMDL Reach flows through Locke Lake prior to discharge to the Mississippi
River.
E. coli
Figure 6-70.Load duration curve for at Rice Creek (07010206-584).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.19Protection Reach 07010206-592: Battle Creek (Battle Creek Lk to Pigs Eye Lk)
Battle Creek (AUID 07010206-592) does not have sufficient data to assess whether it is full
support or non support with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-71.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Battle
E. coli
Creek (07010206-592) from 2008-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-72. Load duration curve for at Battle Creek (07010206-592).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
6.3.20Protection Reach07010206-606: Fish Creek (Carver Lk to Unnamed (North Star) lk)
Fish Creek (AUID 07010206-606) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure 6-73.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Fish
E. coli
Creek (07010206-606) from 2008-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure 6-74.Load duration curve for at FishCreek(07010206-606).
E. coli
E. coli
6.3.21Protection Reach07010206-727: Unnamed creek (Unnamed lk (82-0086-00) to
Mississippi R)
This unnamed creek (AUID 07010206-727) does not have sufficient data to assess whether it is
full support or non support with respect to E. coli. Water quality data are not available.
6.3.22Protection Reach 07010206-xxx: Unnamed/unassessedcreek (to Mississippi R)
This unnamed, unassessed creek (AUID 07010206-xxx)discharges to Mississippi River Reach
07010206-502; it does not have sufficient data to assess whether it is full support or non support
with respect to E. coli. Water quality data are not available.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
7 TMDLSAND PERCENT REDUCTIONS
The TMDL for eachTMDL Reach is provided in Table 7-1. For each TMDL Reach, the percent
reduction required in order to meet the TMDL is also provided. In all cases, WWTFs are
requiredto meet their permitted bacteria loading limits and receive a 0% reduction as a part of
these TMDLs. Bacteria sources requiring reduction consists of watershed runoff, which includes
stormwater and watershed runoff from urban and rural landscapes, including regulated (MS4
stormwater) and non-regulated sources. Table 7-2lists the individual WLAs for each WWTF for
each TMDL Subwatershed.Table 7-3lists the MS4s in each TMDL Subwatershed.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table 7-3. MS4swithin each TMDL Subwatershed.
AUID of Reach Reach
MS4s in TMDL Subwatershed(MS4 Permit ID)
TMDL ReachNameDescription
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
AUID of Reach Reach
MS4s in TMDL Subwatershed(MS4 Permit ID)
TMDL ReachNameDescription
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
AUID of Reach Reach
MS4s in TMDL Subwatershed(MS4 Permit ID)
TMDL ReachNameDescription
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
8 STAKEHOLDERPARTICIPATION
During development of the TMDL <total number of meetings TBD> stakeholder and technical
advisory group meetings were held. The purpose of these meetings was to inform the groups and
to solicit their input. A list of the hundreds of organizations represented at the meetings can be
found in Appendix F. Meeting dates, topics, and presentations can be found
at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/ktqha48.
The draft TMDL report is available to the public via the MPCA web site
at http://www.pca.mn.us/water/tmdl.html. A public notice was posted in the State Register and
the public comment period wasfrom <date TBD> to <date TBD>.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
9 IMPLEMENTATIONSTRATEGIES
Various approaches to implementation are needed to address the variety of bacteria sources in
this Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Study and Protection Plan. Implementation
strategies include source controls, education, maintenance, and treatment best management
practices (BMPs).
TMDL Subwatersheds have numeric E. colitargets that need to be met through implementation
of BMPsthat reduce the transport of bacteria into watercourses. The major bacteria sources in
each subwatershed are a key initial focus for implementation. Protection Subwatersheds do not
have a numeric E. coli target, but the major sources have been identified and can be used to
target the types of BMPs that will prevent exceedance of the standard.Potential bacteria sources
are outlined for each of the TMDL and Protection Subwatersheds in Table 4-15.Implementation
should be targeted to the identified likelysources.
Adaptive management will be used to refine strategies during the implementation process. As
implementation activities are conducted, management strategies may be revised to reflect
observed impacts in the watershed (the Monitoring Plan is described in Section 11). Source
reduction and pollution prevention arethe initial focus for implementation efforts. Limiting
bacteria sources is expected to lower the concentration of bacteria entering a BMPand increase
the likelihood that the outflow from the BMP will support surface water quality standards.
Treatment BMPs should be implemented to provide bacteria reduction in support of source
control efforts.
Municipal, watershed, wastewater treatment system and other local and regional plans may
already include implementation of best management practices that will provide bacteria control
and treatment. The implementation strategies listed here should be supported by and integrated
with these planned and ongoing efforts. In addition, bacteria reduction should be considered
when designing BMPs for other purposes. For example, if a BMP is planned for nutrient
reduction, design factors should be considered that would also provide bacteria reduction.BMPs
that address multiple contaminants are preferred and will be encouraged.
All BMPs have a range of effectiveness. BMPs that treat stormwater and bacteria in runoff are
particularly susceptible to variation in treatment efficiency because the runoff volume that the
practice receives depends on variable rainfall and runoff conditions. Discussion of specific
BMPs for each of several BMP categories is included in Section 9.1. The BMP descriptions and
effectiveness summaries will be outlined further through the more detailed Implementation Plan
when it is developed.
9.1 Implementation Strategy Descriptions
Many BMPs provide treatment through filtration or settling of sediment. Since bacteria can be
associated with sediment, sedimentation and filtration may help limit bacteria pollution.Bacteria
also is known to be removed or deactivated through exposure to sunlight, and through drying. Of
course, avoiding the need for treatment by eliminating sources that allow the transport of bacteria
into waterways is another best management practice. Details on most of these implementation
strategies (e.g., bacteria removal efficiencies and design parameters that improve system
performance) can be found in the report Effectiveness of Best Management Practices for
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Bacteria Removal, developed by EOR for the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL, June
2011 (http://www.pca.mn.gov/index.php/view-document.html?gid=16328).More recent data on
practice effectiveness may also be found through the International Stormwater BMP Database
and its International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant
Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria, Nutrients, and Metals, July 2012
(http://www.bmpdatabase.org/). The Agricultural BMP Handbook for Minnesota developed by
EOR for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture
(http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/cleanwaterfund/research/agbmphandbook.aspx)
provides additional guidance for many of the agricultural implementation strategies.
Several TMDLs have been completedin this project area to address other pollutants (e.g. total
phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS)). It is recognized that as implementation
activities are undertaken to address these pollutants the potential exists that bacteria
concentrations may be reduced as well. Many of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
will be used to address these pollutants, particularly those that rely on infiltrating stormwater,
may also be beneficial in reducing bacteria concentrations.
9.1.1Pollution Prevention and Source Controls
Source controls and pollution prevention focus on limiting the introduction of bacteria tothe
landscape where bacteria could be transported to waterbodies. Source controls and pollution
prevention are recommended as the first step when implementing bacteria controls because
reducing the introduction of bacteria intolandscapes where bacteria could be transported to
waterbodies also limits the need for and size of structural controls. Source controls include
efforts such as control of pet waste, street sweeping, septic system maintenance(see Section
9.1.10), wildlife management, livestock exclusion from riparian access(see Section 9.1.7),
manure management (see Section 9.1.8), clean runoff water diversion and animal husbandry as
well as education on these topics. Source controls such as education may not directly target a
specific source area, but can provide valuable benefits toward bacteria reduction. Municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) required as a part of
the MS4 permit include pollution prevention practices and maintenance requirements that can
address source areas. Information on clean runoff water diversion practices is included in MDA
(2012).
9.1.2Wetland Treatment Systems
Wetland treatment systems arewetlands constructed with the purpose of treating wastewater or
stormwater inputs. The wetlands may be vegetated, open water, or a combination of these. A
range of removal efficiencies were found for different wetland treatment system designs. More
effective wetland designs have a large treatment volume in proportion to the contributing
drainage area, have open water areas between vegetated areas, have long flow paths and a
resulting longer detention time, and are designed to allow few overflow events.
9.1.3Detention and Retention Ponds
Sedimentation ponds, also called detention, retention, or stormwater ponds, are open water ponds
constructed to allow the settling of particles in stormwater and watershed runoff and the storage
of water to limit flooding. Sedimentation ponds typically contain ponded open water, but an
alternate design, a dry detention pond, holds water for a brief period and drains dry. Bacteria
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
removal efficiencies vary depending on design factors and setting. Designs that limit the washout
of accumulated sediment, limit overflows, provide a longer detention time, and discourage
congregations of wildlife and waterfowl have been shown to have higher removal efficiencies.
The International Stormwater BMP Database’s International Stormwater Best Management
Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category Summary Statistical Addendum: TSS, Bacteria,
Nutrients, and Metals, July 2012 (http://www.bmpdatabase.org/) found retention ponds to be the
most effective practice of those evaluated as far as reductions in E. coli concentrations from the
inlet to the outlet.
Ponds used in wastewater treatment and storage are addressed in Sections 9.1.8 and 9.1.11.
9.1.4Biofiltration/Filtration
Biofiltration and filtration practices rely on the transport of stormwater and watershed runoff
through a medium such as sand, compost, soil, or a combination of these in order to filter out
sediment and therefore sediment-associated bacteria. Biofiltration systems, also called
bioretention systems, are vegetated while filtration systems are not. Filtration and biofiltration
practices are expected to be most effective when sized to limit overflows and designed to provide
the longest flow path from inlet to outlet.
A related practice is the woodchip bioreactor, typically used to reduce nitrogen from agricultural
tile drainage. The practice has potential to also provide bacteria reductions. Additional
information on the practice can be found in The Agricultural BMP Handbook for Minnesota
(MDA 2012).
9.1.5Hydrodynamic and Manufactured Devices
Hydrodynamic devices capture sediment from stormwater by encouraging more rapid
sedimentation through the swirling action of water moving through the device. Other
manufactured devices may include filtration or settling of stormwater. Bacteria removal
efficiency can vary widely depending on the type and configuration of the manufactured system.
9.1.6Vegetated Buffers/Filter Strips/Swales
Vegetated buffers and filter strips arevegetated sections of land next to an area of runoff. The
runoff is allowed to flow evenly over the buffer or filter strip, allowing capture of sediment by
vegetation and allowing water to filter into the soil. Buffers and filter strips are used in numerous
urban, rural, and agricultural applications such as adjacent to streams and wetlands, along
agricultural field boundaries, and around feedlots. Swales are similar to buffers but allow a more
directed flow pattern in a shallow, vegetated ditch. The Agricultural BMP Handbook for
Minnesotaincludes information on filter strips and field borders and feedlot/wastewater filter
strips specific to agricultural applications(MDA 2012).There are a range of reported bacteria
removal efficiencies for buffers. Buffers and filter strips are expected to be most effective when
infiltration into the soil is high and when a long flow path is provided over the buffer or filter
strip. Swales are typically more effective for bacteria removal if filtration is included (e.g.
permeable compost rolls across the swale).
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
9.1.7Livestock Riparian Access Control
Livestock with access to streams, lakes, and other riparian areas directly introduce fecal matter
and bacteria into the waterway or waterbody. Access control may include fencing, rotational
grazing, stream crossing, and protection in heavy use areas. Installing watering systems away
from the pond or stream can also reduce the amount of time animals spend in the waterbody or
waterway. MDA (2012) provides information specific to agricultural applications for livestock
exclusion fencing, rotational grazing, riparian and channel vegetation, and streambank and
shoreline protection, though bacteria reductions associated with these practices are not discussed.
9.1.8Manure Management
Manure management includes a variety of practices intended to store, treat, and use manure in a
manner that limits the potential for the bacteria in manure to be transported to water bodies or
waterways. Examples of manure management include land application methods that incorporate
manure into the soil, storage of manure in areas where offsite transport is limited, and timing of
manure application to avoid runoff-producing rainfall shortly after application. Information on
manure management is available in the University of Minnesota Extension’s 2007 publication
Best Management Practices for Pathogen Control in Manure Management Systems
(http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/livestocksystems/DI8544.html) (Spiehs and Goyal
2007).
9.1.9Wastewater System Maintenance
Wastewater treatment systems require regular maintenance to maintain effective capture of
bacteria. On-sitesubsurface sewage treatmentsystems require maintenance such as septic tank
pumping. Larger community or regional wastewater treatment facilities require ongoing
maintenance and replacement of infrastructure as the plant ages. Minimization or elimination of
inflow and infiltration through repairing damaged, sewers also reduces the potential for
exfiltration from sanitary sewers.
9.1.10Wastewater System Structural Improvements
Wastewater treatment system infrastructure can be updated to increase bacteria capture and
reduce or eliminate problem areas. For example, sanitary sewer and combined sewer overflows
can be eliminated with changes to infrastructure. In unsewered areas, nonconforming and straight
pipe systems need to be updated to current standards. In agricultural applications, manure and
agricultural waste storage may need upgraded infrastructure to limit seepage into underlying
soils and groundwater or storage facility covers to avoid overflow after rainfall events.
9.1.11Education
Education efforts focus on bringing greater awareness to the issues surrounding bacteria
contamination and methods to reduce loading and transport of bacteria. Education efforts
targeted to the general public are commonly used to provide information on the status of
impacted waterways as well as to address pet waste and wildlife issues. Education efforts may
emphasize aspects such as cleaning up pet waste or managing the landscape to discourage
nuisance congregations of wildlife and waterfowl. Education can also be targeted to
municipalities, wastewater system operators, land managers and other groups who play a key
role in the management of bacteria sources.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
9.1.12 Ordinances
Ordinances are a tool used to set standards that must be followed in prescribed situations.
Ordinances relevant to BMPsfor bacteria treatment commonly include pet waste ordinances,
septic system or SSTS ordinances, and buffer and stormwater management ordinances.
9.2Costs
The Clean Water Legacy Act requires that a TMDL include an overall approximation of the cost
to implement a TMDL (MN Statutes 2007, section 114D.25). The implementation cost estimate
is based on treating the leading sources of bacteria identified for each TMDL Subwatershed in
Table 4-15.Although implementation strategies may not only target the sources of bacteria
ranked as high or medium-high (Table 4-15), it is assumed that the costof treating these leading
bacteria sources provides a reasonablebasis for the costs required to meet the TMDLunder a
range of actual implementation scenarios.Implementation scenarios will be investigated in
greater detail as a part of the Implementation Plan and will entail adaptive management
principles.
The cost estimate entails a unit cost for decreasing the bacteria loads. The sources of bacteria can
be lumped into three generalized categories: rural animals (livestock, wildlife, and pets),
imminent threat to public health septic systems, and bacteria sources in urban stormwater (urban
4
wildlife, pets, and humans). A unit cost for each of these generalized categories was developed.
The unit cost for bringing animal units (AU) under manure management plans and feedlot lot
runoff controls is $350/AU. This value is based on USDA Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) payment history and includes buffers, livestock access control, manure
management plans, waste storage structures, and clean water diversions.
Repair or replacement of imminent threat to public health septic systems was estimated at
$7,500/system (USEPA 2011).
Reductions in bacteria loads from urban stormwater is estimated to be $190,000/square mile of
urban area. This estimate is based onthe base costs of typical structural stormwater BMPs as
identified in Table 6-2 of Costs and Benefits of Storm Water BMPs (USEPA 1999). Although the
best available cost estimate is based on structural stormwater BMPs, the cost is assumed to be
more-than-adequate to account for educational campaigns that might be undertaken in place of
structural BMPs.It is important to note that the urbanstormwatercostestimate does not account
for large-scale capital projects such as replacing existing wastewater and stormwater collection
systems due to age and/or failure. Note that resolving underground breaches in sanitary sewer
that results in the leakage of raw sewage into stormsewer would likely require these large-scale
efforts. Note that none of TMDL subwatersheds ranked high for failing infrastructure. Refer to
Table 4-3 and Table 4-15. For reference the TMDL subwatersheds combined are 738 square
miles of which 163 acres are developed area using the NLCD dataset.
The cost of slip lining sanitary sewer pipes depends upon the size of pipe and the extent of the
project. Based on recent projects in the City of Minneapolis and the City of Blaine the range of
4
Note that human sources of bacteria in urban stormwater is discussed in Section 4.1.1.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
costs to slip line one mile of 12” pipe is $152,000 to $227,000 and the cost to slip line one mile
of 30” pipe ranges from $544,000 to $1,262,000.
Thepreliminary cost estimate is expressed as a range. The low end of the range is half of the raw
calculated cost, and the high end of the range istwice the raw calculatedcost. The initial
estimate for implementing the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL in the TMDL
Subwatersheds is approximately $36 million to $144million.
The preliminary cost estimate does not account for the fact that implementation measures
addressing bacteria also (and typically) treat other surface water pollutants. For example,
education campaigns for dog owners to pick-up their dog’s waste reduces E. coli loading to
surface waters as well as phosphorus loading. In addition, as in this example, implementation
efforts that meet the needs of this bacteria TMDL may alsohelp meet the needs of other planned
stakeholder initiatives and/or permit requirements such as the MS4permit’s Minimum Control
Measures (MCMs). Ultimately, the costs incurred that are exclusive to meeting this bacteria
TMDL is expected to be less than half of the preliminary cost estimate; half of the preliminary
estimate is equal to $18million to $72million.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
10REASONABLE ASSURANCES
As part of an implementation strategy, reasonable assurances provide a level of confidence that
the TMDL allocations will be implemented by federal, state, or local authorities. Implementation
of the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL will be accomplished by both state and local
action on many fronts, both regulatory and non-regulatory. Multiple entities in the watershed
already work towards improving water quality. Water quality restoration efforts will be
undertaken by Watershed Districts, County SWCDs, Counties, Municipalities, and local groups
with assistance from the MPCA. Bacteria reductions from point sources will be made through
permit compliance.
10.1Non-Regulatory
The implementation strategies described in this TMDL have demonstrated to be effective in
reducing bacteria loadings. Participation of landowners will be essential to reducing nonpoint
sources of pollution and improving water quality. Educational efforts and cost share programs
can increase participation to levels needed to protect water quality. Monitoring will continue and
adaptive management will be in place to evaluate progress made towards achieving the
beneficial use of each stream reach.
At the local level, most of the watershed districts, counties, SWCDs and local units of
government currently implement programs targeted at water quality improvement and have been
actively involved in projects to improve water quality in the past. It is anticipated that their
involvement will continue. Potential state funding of TMDL implementation projects includes
Clean Water Fund grants and Section 319 funding. At the federal level, funding can be provided
through Section 319 grants that provide cost share dollars to implement activities in the
watershed.
10.2Regulatory
10.2.1Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits
Stormwater discharges associated with MS4s are regulated through National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System/State Disposal System(NPDES/SDS) permits. The Stormwater Program for
MS4s is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and pollution that enters surface and ground
water from storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable. MS4 Permits require the
implementation of BMPs to address WLAs. In addition, the owner or operator is required to
develop a stormwater pollution prevention program (SWPPP) that incorporates best management
practices (BMPs) applicable to their MS4. The SWPPP must cover six minimum control
measures:
x
Public education and outreach;
x
Public participation/involvement;
x
Illicit discharge, detection and elimination;
x
Construction site runoff control;
x
Post-construction site runoff control; and
x
Pollution prevention/good housekeeping.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Many of the MS4s included in this TMDL have had considerable experience in managing non-
point source pollution. Most MS4s have been included in other TMDLs or have addressed non-
point source pollution through coordination with Watershed Districts (MN Statute 103D) or
Watershed Management Organizations (MN Statute 103B) which have complete coverage
throughout the Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties as
well as partial coverage throughout the rest of the TMDL area. MS4s also have a history of
working together to manage stormwater runoff through Capital Improvement Projects that cross
jurisdictional boundaries. Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations have
also taken an active leadership role in developing regional stormwater management solutions that
involve multiple MS4s entities.
10.2.2Wastewater & State Disposal System (SDS) Permits
The MPCA issues permits for wastewater treatment facilities that discharges into waters of the
state. The permits have site specific limits on bacteria that are based on water quality standards.
Permits regulate discharges with the goals of 1) protecting public health and aquatic life, and 2)
assuring that every facility treats wastewater. In addition, SDSpermits set limits and establish
controls for land application of sewage.
10.2.3Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems Program (SSTS)
Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS), commonly known as septic systems, are
regulated by Minnesota Statutes 115.55 and 115.56.
These regulations detail:
x
Minimum technical standards for individual and mid-size SSTS;
x
A framework for local administration of SSTS programs and;
x
Statewide licensing and certification of SSTS professionals, SSTS product review and
registration, and establishment of the SSTS Advisory Committee.
10.2.4Feedlot Rules
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulates the collection, transportation,
storage, processing and disposal of animal manure and other livestock operation wastes. The
MPCA Feedlot Program implements rules governing these activities, and provides assistance to
counties and the livestock industry. The feedlot rules apply to most aspects of livestock waste
management including the location, design, construction, operation and management of feedlots
and manure handling facilities.
There are two primary concerns about feedlots in protectingwater:
x
Ensuring that manure on a feedlot or manure storage area does not run into water;
x
Ensuring that manure is applied to cropland at a rate, time and method that prevents
bacteria and other possible contaminants from entering streams, lakes and ground water.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
11MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring the effectiveness of this TMDL will be accomplished through the MPCA intensive
watershed monitoring approach which consists of a ten year cycle for assessing the waters of
Minnesota. The steps of the approach include; Monitoring and gathering of data, assessment of
the data, establishing implementation strategies to meet standards and implementing water
quality improvement activities. The monitoring is done to identify environmental status by
examining the condition of a water body and is done through a combination of MPCA
monitoring; monitoring by other local, state and federal agencies; citizen monitoring; and remote
sensing. The entire process will be repeated 10 years following initiation of the monitoring.
Specifically as it relates to monitoring effectiveness of this TMDL the following major
watersheds will be monitored in the year indicated; the Mississippi River–Twin Cities
Watershed, 2020, the Mississippi River–St. CloudWatershed, 2019, and the Mississippi River–
Sartell Watershed, 2016.
In addition to the monitoring done in conjunction with the MPCA intensive watershed
monitoring approach it is anticipated that a significant amount of monitoring will be done by the
local partners that have been heavily involved in this TMDL development. Many of the partners
have conducted water quality and flow monitoring in the past and are expected to continue to
monitor the resources that are of local importance. Many of thestate and localentities listed in
Appendix A have collected E. colidata in the past and are likely to continue monitoring in the
future. Some of these partners may also monitor for pathogens.
As water quality improvement practices are constructed in the implementation phase of the
TMDL it can be expected that a monitoring effort will follow. The MPCA will encourage local
partners to actively monitor the performance of the implementation projects and programs they
undertake in order to account for their effectiveness in meeting the goals of the TMDL.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
12REFERENCES
Alderisio, K.A, and DeLuca, H. 1999. Seasonal enumeration of fecal coliform bacteria from the
feces of ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) and Canada Geese (Branta canadensis). Applied
and Environmental Microbiology. 65:5628-5630.
American City and County 1996. CSO control revitalizes stretch of the Mississippi.. (December
1, 1996) http://americancityandcounty.com/mag/government_cso_control_revitalizes/
American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). 1998. ASAE Standards, 45th Edition.
Standards, Engineering Practices, Data.
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). 2007.US Pet Ownership & Demographics
Sourcebook.Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association.
Bannerman, R. T., D. W. Owens, R. B. Dodds and N. J. Hornewer. 1993. Sources of pollutants
in Wisconsin stormwater. Wat. Sci. Tech. 28(3-5): 241-259.
Barding, E.E., and Nelson, T.A. 2008. Raccoons use habitat edges in Northern Illinois. Am. Midl.
Nat. 159:394-402.
City of Eden Prairie. 2008. City of Eden Prairie Canada Goose Management Plan. June 11, 2008.
http://www.edenprairie.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=1073
City of Minneapolis. 2009. Minneapolis Greenprint 2009 Environmental Report: p. 12.
Cooper, J. 2004. Canada goose program report 2004. Unpublished report, 20 pp.
DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 2011. Raccoon: Procyon
lotor.http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/raccoon.html. Copyright 2011, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
Dexter, M.H., editor. 2009. Status of wildlife populations, fall 2009. Unpublished report,
Division of Fish and Wildlife, MinnesotaDepartment of NaturalResources, St. Paul, Minnesota.
314 pp.
Doyle, M., and M. Erikson. 2006. Closing the door on the fecal coliform assay. Microbe.1(4):
162-163.
Gannon, J. J., and M. K. Busse. 1989. E. coli and Enterococci levels in urban stormwater, river
water and chlorinated treatment plant effluent. Water Resources, 23 (9): 1167-1176.
Hardwick, N. 1997. Lake Sammamish Watershed Water Quality Survey. King County Water and
Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA. 122 pp.
Home and Garden Information Center (HGIC). 1996. Residential Fertilizer Use Survey.
University of Maryland Cooperative Extension. College Park, MD. Unpublished surveys.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Horsley and Witten, Inc. 1996. Identification and evaluation of nutrient and bacterial loadings to
Maquoit Bay, New Brunswick and Freeport, Maine. Final Report.
Innolytics (Innolytics The Pigeon Control Company). 2012. Bird Control & Pigeon Control:
Facts & Figures –Feral Pigeons. Web Address: http://ovocontrol.com/pigeons/pigeons/.
Accessed November 2012.
JazzPurr (JazzPurr Cat Care Society). 1998. Executive Summary: Cat Demographics Survey.
JazzPurr.org.
MDA (Minnesota Department of Agriculture). 2012. The Agricultural Best Management
Practice Handbook for Minnesota. Prepared by Tom Miller, Joel Peterson, Adam Birr, Joshua
Stamper, Christian Lenhart, Yoko Nomura.
Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. 3rd ed.
McGraw-Hill, Inc.,New York.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2002. Septage and Restaurant Grease Trap Waste
Management Guidelines. Water/Wastewater–ISTS #4.20. wq-wwists4-20.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2006. Revised regional total maximum daily load
evaluation of fecal coliform bacteria impairments in the Lower Mississippi River Basin in
Minnesota: Final Report – January 2006. wq-iw9-02b.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2008. Pipestone Creek fecal coliform bacteria
and turbidity total maximum daily load report. WQ-iw7-07b.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and MDH (Minnesota Department of Health).
2009. Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL: Data Analysis, Source Assessment, and
Monitoring Recommendations. Prepared by Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2011. Recommendations and planning for
statewide inventories, inspections of subsurface sewage treatment systems. Irwq-wwists-1sy11.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2011. Effectiveness of Best Management
Practices for Bacteria Removal. Prepared by Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc. for the Upper
Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2012a. Future wastewater infrastructure needs
and capital costs: FY2012 biennial survey of wastewater collection and treatment. Irwq-wwtp-
2sy12.
MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2012b. Guidance Manual for Assessing the
Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters for Determination of Impairment: 305(b) Report and
303(d) List. wq-iw1-04. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=16988
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Mulla, D. J., A. S. Birr, G. Randall, J. Moncrief, M. Schmitt, A. Sekely, and E. Kerre. 2001.
TechnicalWork Paper: Impacts of Animal Agriculture on Water Quality. Final Report to the
Environmental Quality Board. St. Paul, MN.
Novotny, V., K.R. Imhoff, M. Olthof, and P.A. Krenkel. 1989. Karl Imhoff’s Handbook of
Urban Drainage and Wastewater Disposal. Wiley, New York.
Oshiro, R. and R. Fujioka. 1995. Sand, soil, and pigeon droppings: sources of indicator bacteria
in the waters of Hanauma Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. Water Science Technology. 31(5-6):251-254.
Overcash, M.R. and J.M. Davidson. 1980. Environmental Impact of Nonpoint Source Pollution.
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Ram, J.L., Brooke, T., Turner, C., Nechuatal, J.M., Sheehan, H., Bobrin, J. 2007. Identification
of pets and raccoons as sources of bacterial contamination of urban storm sewers using a
sequence-based bacterial source tracking method. Water Research. 41(16): 278-287.
Sauer, P.S., VandeWalle, J.S., Bootsma, M.J., McLellan, S.L. 2011. Detection of the human
specific Bacteroides genetic marker provides evidence of widespread sewage contamination of
stormwater in the urban environment. Water Research, 45:4081-4091.
Sercu, B., L.C. Van de Werfhorst, J. Murray, and P. Holden. 2009. Storm drains are sources of
human fecal pollution during dry weather in three urban southern California watersheds.
Environmental Science and Technology, 43:293-298.
Sercu, B., Van De Werfhorst, L.C., Murray, J.L.S., Holden, P.A. 2011. Sewage exfiltration as a
source of storm drain contamination during dry weather in urban watersheds. Environmental
Science & Technology, 45:7151-7157.
Spiehs, M. and Goyal, S. 2007. Bestmanagement practices for pathogen control in manure
management systems. University of Minnesota Extension.
Swann, C. 1999. A survey of residential nutrient behaviors in the Chesapeake Bay. Widener-
Burrows, Inc. Chesapeake Research Consortium. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City,
MD. 112 pp.
Thomann, R.V., and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and
Control. Harper &Row, New York.
TBEP (Tampa Bay Estuary Program). Get the scoop on (dog) poop! Web address:
http://www.tbep.org/pdfs/pooches/poop-factsheet.pdf. Accessed November 2012.
US Census Bureau. 2011. Census 2010 Data Minnesota. Prepared by the US Census Bureau,
2011.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
USDA NASS (US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2009.
2007 Census of Agriculture: United States – Summary and State Data. Volume 1, Geographic
Area Series,Part 51, Updated December 2009. AC-07-A-51. Washington, D.C.: United States
Department of Agriculture.
USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria –
1986: Bacteriological ambient water quality criteria for marine and fresh recreational waters.
USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA440/5-84-002.
USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Chapter 6: Costs and Benefits of Stormwater
BMPs. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA-821-
R-99-012. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/
USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs.
EPA 841-J-00-002. Office of Water (4503F), United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. 132 pp.
USEPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. April 2011. Redwood River Fecal Coliform
Total Maximum Daily Load Draft Report. Prepared by Jim Doering, Shawn Wohnoutka,
Douglas Goodrich. USEPA Region 5 Chicago, Illinois.
USDA NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service). 2007. Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook. Chapter 7 Hydrologic Soil
Groups. Document No. 210–VI–NEH.
Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) and Geosyntec Consultants (GC). December 2010.
International Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database Pollutant Category
Summary: Fecal Indicator Bacteria. Available online at: http://www.bmpdatabase.org.
Yagow, G. (1999). Unpublished monitoring data. Mountain Run TMDL Study. Submitted to
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Richmond, Virginia.
Zeckoski, R., B. Benham, s. shah, M. Wolfe, K. Branna, M. Al-Smadi, T. Dillaha, S.
Mostaghimi, and D. Heatwole. 2005. BLSC: A tool for bacteria source characterization for
watershed management. Applied Engineering in Agriculture.21(5): 879-889.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
APPENDIX A.STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table A-1. Stakeholder organizations
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
x
x
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
xx
xx
xx
x
x
x
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
x
x
x
x
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
APPENDIX C.MONITORING STATIONS FOR DATA ANALYSES
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table C-1. Flow, water quality, and precipitation monitoring stations used for the load duration
curve and monthly summary figure of each reach.
FlowPrecipitation
E. coli
Monitoring
WaterbodyAUIDSite(s)WaterbodyMonitoring SiteNWS Station
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
FlowPrecipitation
E. coli
Monitoring
WaterbodyAUIDSite(s)WaterbodyMonitoring SiteNWS Station
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
FlowPrecipitation
E. coli
Monitoring
WaterbodyAUIDSite(s)WaterbodyMonitoring SiteNWS Station
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
APPENDIX D.DATA SUMMARY
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table D-1. Summary of monthly geometric mean concentrations across all years.
E. coli
All E. coli units in org / 100 ml
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Table D-2. Summary of monthly geometric mean concentrations for each year of
E. coli
monitoring data.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
Reach Median
Categor-Geometric 25th (50th 75th
AUIDizationYearMonthNMinimumMaximumMeanPercentilePercentile)Percentile
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
APPENDIX E.WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR REACHES OUTSIDE OF
TMDL AND PROTECTION SUBWATERSHEDS
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E.1Mississippi River – Sartell Watershed (HUC 07010201)
E.1.1AUID 07010201-508:Mississippi River (Spunk Cr to Platte R)
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010201-508) does not have sufficient data to assess
whether it is full support or non support with respect to E. coli. Water quality data are not
available.
E.1.2AUID 07010201-509:Mississippi River (Two R to Spunk Cr)
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010201-509) does not have sufficient data to assess
whether it is full support or non support with respect to E. coli. Water quality data are not
available.
E.1.3AUID 07010201-606:Mississippi River (Platte R to Morrison/Stearns County border)
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010201-606) does not have sufficient data to assess
whether it is full support or non support with respect to E. coli. Water quality data are not
available.
E.2Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed (HUC 07010203)
E.2.1AUID 07010203-513:MississippiRiver (St Cloud Dam to Clearwater R)
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010203-513) does not have sufficient data to assess
whether it is full support or non support with respect to E. coli. Water quality data are not
available.
E.2.2AUID 07010203-548:Elk River (St Francis R to Orono Lk)
Elk River (AUID 07010203-548) discharges toOrono Lake, which ultimately drains to the
Mississippi River). This reach is impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure E-1. geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Elk
E. coli
River (07010203-548) from 2007-2010.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure E-2. Load duration curve for at Elk River (07010203-548).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E.2.3AUID 07010204-502: Crow River (S Fk Crow R to Mississippi R)
The Crow River (AUID 07010204-502) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure E-3.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Crow
E. coli
River (07010204-502) from 2002-2006.
E. coli
E.3Mississippi River – Twin CitiesWatershed (HUC 07010206)
E.3.1AUID 07010206-508: Elm Creek (Headwaters (Lk Medina 27-0146-00) to Mississippi R)
Elm Creek (AUID 07010206-508) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure E-4.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Elm
E. coli
Creek (07010206-508) from 2002-2006.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure E-5.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Elm
E. coli
Creek (07010206-508) from 2007-2011.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure E-6.Load duration curve for at ElmCreek(07010206-508).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E.3.2AUID 07010206-530: Coon Creek (Unnamed cr to Mississippi R)
Coon Creek (AUID 07010206-530) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure E-7.Load duration curve for at CoonCreek(07010206-530).
E. coli
E. coli
E.3.3AUID 07010206-539: Minnehaha Creek (Lk Minnetonka to Mississippi R)
Minnehaha Creek (AUID 07010206-539) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired
for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure E-8.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Minnehaha Creek (07010206-539) from 2005-2011.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure E-9.Load duration curve for at MinnehahaCreek(07010206-539).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E.3.4AUID 07010206-557: County Ditch 17 (Headwaters to Mississippi R)
County Ditch 17 (AUID 07010206-557) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired
for aquatic recreation due to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure E-10.Load duration curve for at County Ditch 17 (07010206-557).
E. coli
E. coli
E.3.5AUID 07010206-567: Mississippi River(Crow R to NW city limits of Anoka)
This reach of the Mississippi River (AUID 07010206-567) does not have sufficient data to assess
whether it is full support or non support with respect to E. coli. Water quality data are not
available.
E.3.6AUID 07010206-594: Unnamed ditch (Headwaters to Mississippi R)
Unnamed ditch (AUID 07010206-594) is a tributary of the Mississippi River and is impaired for
aquatic recreation due to E. coli.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure E-11.Load duration curve for at Unnamed ditch (07010206-594).
E. coli
E. coli
E.3.7AUID 07010207-555: Rum River (Trott Bk to Madison/Rice St in Anoka)
Rum River (AUID 07010207-555) discharges to Rum River (AUID 07010207-556,
Madison/Rice St in Anoka to Mississippi R) prior to discharge to the Mississippi River. AUID
07010207-555 is impaired for aquatic recreation due to E. coli. AUID 07010207-556 does not
have sufficient data to assess whether it is full support or non support with respect to E. coli.
Monthly summary data are shown on two figures (Figure E-12 and Figure E-13) for improved
visibility.
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure E-12.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Rum
E. coli
River (07010207-555) from 2002-2006.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure E-13.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at Rum
E. coli
River (07010207-555) from 2007-2011.
E. coli
E. coli
Figure E-14.Load duration curve for at Rum River (07010207-555).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E.3.8AUID 07020012-505:Minnesota River (RM 22 to Mississippi R)
This reach of the Minnesota River (AUID 07020012-505) has been assessed as fully supporting
aquatic recreation with respect to E. coli.
E. coli
Figure E-15.geometric means, monthly mean flow, and total monthly precipitation at
E. coli
Minnesota River (07020012-505) from 2006-2011.
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
E. coli
Figure E-16.Load duration curve for at Minnesota River (07020012-505).
E. coli
E. coli
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.