Nitrogen (N) is one of the most widely distributed elements in nature and is present virtually everywhere on the earth’s crust in one or more of its many chemical forms. Nitrate (NO3), a mobile form of N, is commonly found in ground and surface waters throughout the country. Nitrate is generally the dominant form of N where total N levels are elevated. Nitrate and other forms of N in water can be from natural sources, but when N concentrations are elevated, the sources are typically associated with human activities (Dubrovski et al., 2010). Concerns about nitrate and total N in Minnesota’s water resources have been increasing due to effects of nitrate on certain aquatic life and drinking water supplies, along with increasing N in the Mississippi River and its impact on Gulf of Mexico oxygen depletion.
Where does nitrate come from?
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters (2013)
How does nitrate move from cropland into our water?
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters (2013) |
Tile drainage pathway |
Where does the nitrate go?
Nitrate loads leaving Minnesota via the Mississippi River contribute to the oxygen-depleted “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico (currently estimated to be the size of Massachusetts). The dead zone cannot support aquatic life, affecting commercial and recreational fishing and the overall health of the Gulf.
How do we reduce the nitrate going into surface waters?
Tactics for reducing cropland nitrate going into surface waters fall into three categories:
Nitrate fertilizer efficiency has improved during the past two decades. While further refinements in fertilizer rates and application timing can be expected to reduce nitrate loads by roughly 13% statewide, additional and more costly practices will also be needed to make further reductions and meet downstream needs. Statewide reductions of more than 30% are not realistic with current practices.
To see progress, nitrate leaching reductions are needed across large parts of southern Minnesota, particularly on tile-drained fields and row crops over thin or sandy soils. Only collective incremental changes by many over broad acreages will result in significant nitrogen reductions to downstream waters.
Nitrogen is considered a limiting nutrient in the Gulf of Mexico, the body of water where much of Minnesota’s river and stream waters ultimately discharge. When nutrients in the Mississippi River originating in 31 states reach the Gulf of Mexico, a low oxygen “dead zone” known as hypoxia develops.
Hypoxia, which means low oxygen, occurs when excess nutrients, primarily N and P, stimulate algal growth in the Mississippi River and gulf waters. The algae and associated zooplankton grow well beyond the natural capacity of predators or consumers to maintain the plankton at a more balanced level. As the short-lived plankton die and sink to deeper waters, bacteria decompose the phytoplankton carbon, consuming considerable oxygen in the process. Water oxygen levels plummet, forcing mobile creatures like fish, shrimp, and crab to move out of the area. Less mobile aquatic life become stressed and/or dies.
The freshwater Mississippi River is less dense and warmer compared to the more dense cooler saline waters of the gulf. This results in a stratification of the incoming river waters and the existing gulf waters, preventing the mixing of the oxygen-rich surface water with oxygen-poor water on the bottom. Without mixing, oxygen in the bottom water is limited and the hypoxic zone remains. Hypoxia can persist for several months until there is strong mixing of the ocean waters, which can come from a hurricane or cold fronts in the fall and winter.
Hypoxic waters have dissolved oxygen concentrations of less than about 2-3 mg/l. Fish and shrimp species normally present on the ocean floor are not found when dissolved oxygen levels reduce to less than 2 mg/l. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is the largest in the United States and the second largest in the world. The maximum areal extent of this hypoxic zone was measured at 8,500 square miles during the summer of 2002. The average size of the hypoxic zone in the northern Gulf of Mexico in recent years (between 2004 and 2008) has been about 6,500 square miles, the size of Lake Ontario.
Hypoxia Task Force
A multi-state Hypoxia Task Force (which includes Minnesota) released their first Action Plan in 2001. This plan was reaffirmed and updated in a 2008 Action Plan. The Hypoxia Task Force established a collaborative interim goal to reduce the 5-year running average areal extent of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone to less than 5,000 square kilometers (1,931 square miles). Further information about Gulf of Mexico hypoxia can be found at: https://gulfhypoxia.net/
A thorough technical discussion of the research associated with Gulf of Mexico hypoxia and possible nutrient reduction options is presented by the US EPA (2007). The report notes that P may be more influential than N in the near-shore gulf water algae growth, particularly in the spring months, when algae and phytoplankton growth are often greatest. In the transition months between spring and summer, the algae and phytoplankton growth are controlled largely by the coupling of P and N. Nitrogen typically becomes the controlling nutrient in the summer and fall months. Based on these more recent findings, emphasis has shifted to developing strategies for dual nutrient removal (P and N). The Science Advisory Board recommends a 45% reduction in riverine TP and TN loads into the Gulf of Mexico (US EPA 2007).
Minnesota’s Contribution to Gulf Hypoxia
Certain areas of Minnesota release large quantities of N and P to Minnesota streams. Much of the nutrients remain in the Mississippi River system, ultimately reaching the Gulf of Mexico. Alexander et al. (2008) used computer modeling (SPARROW) to estimate the proportion of gulf nutrients originating in different geographic areas. The model accounted for the loss of nutrients in the river, river pools, and backwaters prior to reaching the Gulf of Mexico. This modeling indicated that Minnesota contributed 3% of Gulf of Mexico N and 2% of the P. However, with more recent SPARROW modeling, Minnesota’s contribution is estimated to be higher, ranking as the sixth highest state for N contributions behind Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri. The more recent modeling estimates indicate that Minnesota is responsible for about 6% of the N loading and 4% of the P loading into the Gulf of Mexico (Robertson, 2012 personal communication).
Recognizing that it will take a concerted effort by all states which contribute significant amounts of nutrients to the gulf, the MPCA agreed with other top nutrient contributing states to complete and implement a comprehensive N and P reduction strategy. This plan was completed in 2014 (Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 2008). The goal of the Action Plan is to reduce nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico while at the same time addressing in-state water protection and restoration.
Minnesota Nitrogen Study
The MPCA conducted a study of nitrogen in surface waters so that we can better understand the nitrogen conditions in Minnesota’s surface waters, along with the sources, pathways, trends and potential ways to reduce nitrogen in waters.
Excerpts from Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters
Sources of Nitrogen - Results Overview
Sources of Nitrogen - Wastewater Point Source Nitrogen Loads
Sources of Nitrogen - Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen in Minnesota Watersheds
Statewide - N Sources to Waters - Average Year
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, Sources of Nitrogen - Results Overview (2013)
Cropland sources contribute an estimated 73 percent of the statewide N load during an average precipitation year. Cropland nitrogen is primarily delivered to surface waters through subsurface pathways of tile drainage and groundwater.
Minnesota River Basin - N Sources to Surface Waters
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, Sources of Nitrogen - Results Overview, 2013
Statewide - N Sources to Surface Waters Chart -Average Year
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, Sources of Nitrogen - Results Overview (2013)
Estimated N loads to surface waters from different sources within the Minnesota portions of major basins during an average precipitation year. “Ag” represents cropland sources.
Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network - MPCA
Water Quality Databases
DNR/MPCA Cooperative Stream Gaging Network – USGS, DNR, MPCA – Stream discharge and links to Division of Waters Resources, climate information, river levels, water quality information, recreation and commonly used hydrologic terms
USGS – USGS discharge Information
EDA Environmental Data Access – Water quality data collected for all MPCA monitoring projects
EQuIS – Environmental Quality Information System – Water quality data from more than 17,000 sampling locations across the state.
Source: Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network - MPCA (2014)
Average annual flow-weighted mean concentrations for Total Nitrogen near watershed outlets based on annual averages derived from available information collected in 2007-11.
|
Source: Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network - MPCA (2014)
Average annual yield (lbs/acre) for Total Nitrogen near watershed outlets based on annual averages derived from available information collected in 2007-11.
|
Source: Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network - MPCA (2014)
Average annual Total Nitrogen Load near watershed outlets based on annual averages derived from available information collected in 2007-11.
Excerpts from Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters - MPCA
Chapter 4: Modeled Nitrogen Loads (SPARROW)
The MPCA’s Nitrogen Study shows elevated nitrate levels, particularly in the southern third of Minnesota.
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, Chapter 4: Modeled Nitrogen Loads (SPARROW) (2013)
Data Source: SPARROW flow-weighted mean TN concentration by HUC8 watersheds. The value represents the median FWMC of all subwatershed catchments within the HUC8 watersheds.
SPARROW Modeling for the Le Sueur River Watershed indicated average flow-weighted mean TN concentration of 12.57 mg/l. This value represents the median FWMC of all subwatershed catchments within the Le Sueur River Watershed.
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, Chapter 4: Modeled Nitrogen Loads (SPARROW) (2013)
SPARROW model annual TN yield results by HUC8 watershed in lbs/acre/year. The basin yields represent the total load delivered to the watershed outlet or state border divided by the sum of the SPARROW (MRB3 2002) catchment area.
SPARROW model annual TN yield results for the Le Sueur River Watershed was 21.76 lbs/acre/year.
Statewide Comparison of Nitrate+Nitrate-N Yields (lbs/ac)
|
Nitrite+Nitrate-N |
S. Central |
11-19 |
Southeast |
8-9 |
Southwest |
4-9 |
Central |
1-2 |
Northwest |
0.1-1 |
Northeast |
0.1-2 |
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters (2013)
Total Nitrogen Contributions to the Mississippi River (percent Load by HUC8 Watershed)
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, 2013
Percent contribution of TN delivered to the Mississippi River in Keokuk, Iowa, from each of Minnesota’s HUC8 Watersheds which ultimately drain into the Mississippi River. Each bar represents the percent TN originating from a single watershed, from highest contributor (left) to lowest contributor (right).
Fifteen of the 45 watersheds draining into the Mississippi River from Minnesota each contribute over 3 percent of the modeled load delivered to the Mississippi River in southern Iowa (Keokuk). Combined, these 15 watersheds contribute 73.7 percent of the total nitrogen load delivered to Keokuk from Minnesota. These higher loading watersheds are mostly located in South-central and southeastern Minnesota. The other thirty watersheds each contribute between 0 and 2.4 percent of the load, and are thus considered relatively minor contributors.
WS # |
Watershed Name |
% load contribution |
33 |
Lower Minnesota River |
7.3 |
28 |
Minnesota River - Mankato |
6.7 |
30 |
Blue Earth River |
6.4 |
32 |
Le Sueur River |
5.7 |
25 |
Minnesota River - Yellow Medicine River |
5.6 |
39 |
Cannon River |
5.2 |
43 |
Root River |
5.2 |
41 |
Zumbro River |
4.9 |
19 |
South Fork Crow River |
4.7 |
48 |
Cedar River |
4.4 |
29 |
Cottonwood River |
4.3 |
20 |
Mississippi River - Twin Cities |
3.7 |
31 |
Watonwan River |
3.4 |
51 |
Des Moines River - Headwaters |
3.2 |
26 |
Chippewa River |
3.1 |
18 |
North Fork Crow River |
2.4 |
16 |
Sauk River |
1.7 |
27 |
Redwood River |
1.6 |
40 |
Mississippi River - Winona |
1.5 |
15 |
Mississippi River - Sartell |
1.4 |
38 |
Mississippi River - Lake Pepin |
1.4 |
17 |
Mississippi River - St. Cloud |
1.4 |
21 |
Rum River |
1.3 |
49 |
Shell Rock River |
1.3 |
10 |
Mississippi River - Brainerd |
1.2 |
37 |
Lower St. Croix River |
1.1 |
24 |
Lac Qui Parle River |
1.1 |
23 |
Pomme de Terre River |
1.0 |
50 |
Winnebago River |
0.8 |
36 |
Snake River |
0.8 |
9 |
Mississippi River - Grand Rapids |
0.7 |
12 |
Crow Wing River |
0.7 |
46 |
Upper Iowa River |
0.6 |
13 |
Redeye River |
0.6 |
35 |
Kettle River |
0.6 |
14 |
Long Prairie River |
0.6 |
53 |
East Fork Des Moines River |
0.5 |
22 |
Minnesota River - Headwaters |
0.4 |
44 |
Mississippi River - Reno |
0.4 |
42 |
Mississippi River - La Crescent |
0.4 |
34 |
Upper St. Croix River |
0.3 |
52 |
Lower Des Moines River |
0.2 |
7 |
Mississippi River - Headwaters |
0.1 |
11 |
Pine River |
0.1 |
8 |
Leech Lake River |
0.0 |
47 |
Upper Wapsipinicon River |
0.0 |
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, 2013
Excerpts from Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters
Nitrate Trends in Minnesota Rivers
Nitrogen Trend Results from Previous Studies
Four tributaries to the Minnesota River upstream of Courtland had trend analyses performed. All four rivers showed no significant trends since 1993 (Table 8). Prior to 1993, nitrate was increasing in the Pomme de Terre and Redwood Rivers and was stable (no significant trend) at the more influential Yellow Medicine and Cottonwood Rivers.
The Greater Blue Earth River contributes substantial quantities of nitrate to the Minnesota River and therefore has a large effect on Minnesota River nitrate levels in these areas. The Blue Earth River showed an increase from 1976 to 1982, followed by a long gradual decrease. Conversely, the Watonwan River has shown a long gradual increase in flow-adjusted nitrate concentrations. Neither of these trends in the Blue Earth and Watonwan mirror the trends in the downstream segments of the Minnesota River, and therefore additional tributaries and factors appear to be at work affecting nitrate trends in the Minnesota River Basin.
Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, Nitrate Trends in the Minnesota River Basin (2013)
Phosphorus is the nutrient primarily responsible for the eutrophication (nutrient enrichment of waterbodies) of Minnesota’s surface waters. Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plants, animals and humans. It is one of the 20 most abundant elements in the solar system, and the 11th most abundant in the earth’s crust. Under natural conditions phosphorus (P) is typically scarce in water. Human activities, however, have resulted in excessive loading of phosphorus into many freshwater systems. This can cause water pollution by promoting excessive algae growth, particularly in lakes. Lakes that appear relatively clear in spring can resemble green soup in late summer due to algae blooms fueled by phosphorus. Water quality can be further impaired when bacteria consume dead algae and use up dissolved oxygen,suffocating fish and other aquatic life.
An overabundance of phosphorus—specifically usable (bioavailable) phosphorus—results in excessive algal production in Minnesota waters. Phosphorus from point sources may be more bioavailable, impacting surface water quality more than a similar amount of nonpoint source phosphorus that enters the same surface water conditions. Total phosphorus levels of 100 or more ppb categorize lakes as highly eutrophic, with high nutrient and algae levels.
In some water bodies, the concentration of phosphorus is low enough to limit the growth of algae and/or aquatic plants. In this case, scientists say phosphorus is the limiting nutrient. For example, in water bodies having total phosphorus concentrations less than 10 parts per billion (1 ppb – equal to one drop in a railroad tank car), waters will be nutrient-poor and will not support large quantities of algae and aquatic plants.
MPCA
Phosphorus contributions to Minnesota surface waters by point and nonpoint sources are known to vary, both geographically and over time, in response to annual variations in weather and climate. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus tend to comprise a larger fraction of the aggregate phosphorus load to Minnesota surface waters during relatively wet periods, while point sources become increasingly important during dry periods.
Minnesota River Basin-Lake Pepin
Three major river basins empty into Lake Pepin in southeastern Minnesota – St. Croix, Upper Mississippi, and the Minnesota. Lake Pepin is listed as an impaired water due to sediment and eutrophication (excessive nutrients and algae). The Minnesota River contributes a majority of the sediment. In a highly turbid water body such as the Minnesota River, much of the phosphorus load is attached to eroded soil particles, especially at higher flows. Much of the particulate phosphorus in the Minnesota River converts to the soluble that can become available to algae. This occurs in several ways: chemical and physical change (diagenesis) of sediment in the river or lake bed, interaction with dissolved chemicals in the water, and decay of organic P releasing dissolved phosphorus from soil particles. Models being used in the Lake Pepin and Minnesota River Total Maximum Daily Load projects keep track of both particulate and dissolved forms of phosphorus.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is currently developing new water quality standards for River Eutrophication and Total Suspended Solids. Visit the MPCA website for more information.
Sources:
Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy - MPCA
Phosphorus: Sources, Forms, Impacts on Water Quality - MPCA
New Water Quality Standards for River Eutrophication and Total Suspended Solids - MPCA
Excerpts From Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Chapter 5 Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions (2013)
Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds (2004)
Summary of Phosphorus Loading by Basin (2004)
Statewide Phosphorus Sources, Average Year
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Chapter 5 Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions (2013)
Under normal water flows, roughly two- thirds of the total phosphorus load to lakes and rivers comes from nonpoint sources such as runoff from pasture and croplands, atmospheric deposition and stream bank erosion. Phosphorus loading contributed by runoff from pastures and croplands is largest source of nonpoint phosphorus on a statewide basis. Other nonpoint sources include urban runoff, non-agricultural rural runoff and seepage from individual sewage treatment systems.
Approximately 30 percent of the phosphorus load to Minnesota waters comes from point sources such as municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. The magnitude of various sources of phosphorus varies greatly throughout the state due to the diverse nature of Minnesota’s watersheds.
Mississippi River
Phosphorus Sources to Surface Waters
Current: Average Precipitation Year
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy (2013)
Pollutant Load Monitoring Sites in Minnesota
Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network - MPCA
Water Quality Databases
DNR/MPCA Cooperative Stream Gaging Network – USGS, DNR, MPCA – Stream discharge and links to Division of Waters Resources, climate information, river levels, water quality information, recreation and commonly used hydrologic terms
USGS – USGS discharge Information
EDA Environmental Data Access – Water quality data collected for all MPCA monitoring projects
EQuIS – Environmental Quality Information System – Water quality data from more than 17,000 sampling locations across the state.
Source: Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network - MPCA (2014)
Average annual flow-weighted mean concentrations (mg/L) for Total Phosphorus near watershed outlets based on yearly averages derived from available information collected in 2007-011.
|
Source: Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network - MPCA (2014)
Average annual Total Phosphorus Yield (lbs/acre) near watershed outlets based on yearly averages derived from available information collected in 2007-011.
Source: Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring Network - MPCA (2014)
Average annual Total Phosphorus Load (kg) near watershed outlets based on yearly averages derived from available information collected in 2007-011.
SPARROW modeling
The SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model, developed and maintained by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), was used for the Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy to estimate Total Phosphorus (TP) loads, yields, and flow-weighted mean concentrations (FWMC) in Minnesota 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC8) watersheds and major basins.
Modeling Total Phosphorus Yield (lb/ac/yr)
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy (2013)
Statewide
Implementation of MPCA’s Phosphorus Strategy and Minnesota Rule Chapter 7053.0255 has resulted in significant wastewater effluent phosphorus load reductions since the year 2000.
Statewide Wastewater Phosphorus Effluent Loading
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Chapter 5: Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Phosphorus Trends & Projections
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Chapter 4: Management Priorites and Recent Progress
Mississippi River Basin
Summary of Recent Progress in Phosphorus Source Loads by Major Basin
Efforts between 2000 and present have resulted in significant progress in reducing phosphorus loads in the Mississippi River Basin, due to both agricultural BMPs and wastewater treatment plant upgrades.
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Chapter 4: Management Priorites and Recent Progress
Notes: Recent progress is the percent of baseline load remaining after accounting for reductions since 2000.
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Appendix A
Assessed Lakes in the Le Sueur River Watershed
Impairment Parameters:
Nutrients = Nutrients
HgF = Mercury in Fish Tissue
HgW = Mercury in Water Column
CL = Chloride
PCBF = PCBs in Fish
PFOS = Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in Fish Tissue
Affected Uses:
AQC = Aquatic Consumption
AQR = Aquatic Recreation
AQL = Aquatic Life
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Assessed Waters (2012) & Impaired Waters (2012)
Lake Associations
Madison Lake Watershed and Lake Association
Lake Elysian Lake Association
Statewide Impaired Lakesheds
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Chapter 2 Setting Goals and Milestones (2013)
For more information about what you can do to protect area lakes, visit MPCA's Lake protection and management website.
Watershed Contacts - MPCA
Local Government Units and Partner Agencies - BWSR
Watershed Group
Le Sueur River Watershed Network
Le Sueur River Watershed Network
Watershed Contacts
MPCA Mankato Office - Paul Davis
(507)344-5246
paul.a.davis@state.mn.us
Water Resources Center
Minnesota State University, Mankato
184 Trafton Science Center S
Mankato, MN 56001
507-389-5492
Minnesota River Basin Data Center
MSUM-WRC
Blue Earth County
Blue Earth County Environmental Services
Blue Earth County SWCD
Faribault County
Faribault County SWCD
Freeborn County
Freeborn County SWCD
Freeborn County Environmental Services
Waseca County
Waseca County SWCD
Waseca County Planning and Zoning
Greater Blue Earth River
Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance
The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy - MPCA
Driving forces and building blocks for the Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Hypoxia Action Plan
Clean Water Land & Legacy Amendment
Minnesota Watershed Approach
Groundwater Proection and Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan
Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework
Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds
Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters
Modeled Nitrogen Loads (SPARROW)
Watershed Pollutant Load Monitoring - MPCA
Long Term Water Quality Monitoring - USGS, Met Council, Manitoba
Minnesota River Basin
Minnesota River Basin Water Quality Overview
Minnesota River Basin: General Phosphorus Permit – Phase 1
Phosphorus in surface waters: the Minnesota River case study (1998)
Snowmelt runoff, sediment, and phosphorus losses under three different tillage systems (2000)
Targeting nonpoint source pollution control: phosphorus in the Minnesota River Basin (2002)
Pollution trading to offset new pollutant loadings – a case study in the Minnesota River Basin (2003)
Minnesota River Basin Reconnaissance Study (2004)
Minnesota River Watershed Model and TMDL (2004)
Point-Nonpoint source water quality trading: A case study in the Minnesota River Basin (2005)
Influence of alternative and conventional farming practices on subsurface drainage and water quality (2007)
Phosphorus dynamics and loading in the turbid Minnesota River (USA): Controls and recycling potential (2008)
Sediment equilibrium and diffusive fluxes in relation to phosphorus dynamics in the turbid Minnesota River (2009)
HSPF Sediment Research: Minnesota River (2012-2013)
Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance
GBERBA Reports (Grants & Projects)
Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance Watershed Plan (2005)
Slowing Erosion in the Greater Blue Earth River Basin (2010-2011)
Targeting Conservation Drainage in the Cobb River Ditch (2010-2011)
Clean Water for the Blue Earth River Basin (2011-2012)
The Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance Agricultural Shoreland Initiative (2011-2013)
Targeting and Addressing Ravines in the Greater Blue Earth River Basin (2013-2015)
Le Sueur River Watershed
County Feedlot Program
County Water Management Program
SWCD Services
SWCD Reports
Application of HSPF-AGCHEM Module within the WMS for the LeSueur Basin (2001)
SSTS Program Enhancement Grant Program (2011-2013)
Riparian Buffer Easement Program - Phase II (2012-2013)
Gorman Lake Water Retention Basins (2012-2014)
Southern Minnesota Lakes Restoration (2013-2016)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)
Accelerated Wetland and Shallow Lake Enhancement (2013-2018)
Blue Earth County
SWCD Reports and Grants
SWCD South Central Technical Service Area Reports
SWCD Programs
Big Cobb River Watershed Clean Up
Highway 90 Drainage Demonstration Site (2009-2013)
Discovery Farms Minnesota (2009-2018)
Channel Management in the Le Sueur River (2010-2011)
Riparian Buffer Easement Program - Phase I (2010-2011) Phase II (2012-2013)
SSTS Program Enhancement Grant Program (2010-2011)
RIM Reserve Riparian Buffer (2011)
Blue Earth County Buffers (2011-2012)
Agricultural and Urban Runoff Water Quality Treatment Analysis (2010-2014)
Blue Earth County Ravine and Stream Stabilization (2011-2012)
Blue Earth County Well Sealing (2013-2015)
Southern Minnesota Lakes Restoration (2013-2016)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)
Faribault County
Faribault County 12 Year Septic Plan
Planning & Zoning Programs
SWCD Reports (Annual, Grants, Programs)
SWCD Programs
Accelerated Shallow Lake Restorations and Enhancements (2009-2013)
Riparian Buffer Easement Program - Phase I (2010-2011) Phase II (2012-2013)
SSTS Program Enhancement Grant Program - 2010-2011 2011-2013
RIM Reserve Riparian Buffer (2011)
Winnebago – Construct treatment plant improvements (2011)
Creating a Web-Based Drainage Management Tool in Faribault County (2012-2014)
Developing Targeting Tools for the East Branch of the Blue Earth River (2012-2014)
Drainage Management Planning for Faribault’s County’s Future (2013-2015)
Faribault County Stormwater Mini Grant Program (2013-2015)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)
Freeborn County
Freeborn County Section 206 Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
SWCD Programs
SWCD Reports (Annual Plans, Reports, and Grant Summaries)
Shallow Lake Critical Shoreland (2009-2012)
SSTS Imminent Health Threat Abatement Grant Program (2010-2011)
RIM Wetlands Reserve Program Acquisition and Restoration (2011)
Nutrient Management along the Lower Mississippi River (2011-2012)
Riparian Buffer Easement Program - Phase II (2012-2013)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)
Accelerated Wetland and Shallow Lake Enhancement (2013-2018)
Le Sueur County
County Feedlot Program
County Water Management Program
SWCD Services
SWCD Reports
Application of HSPF-AGCHEM Module within the WMS for the LeSueur Basin (2001)
SSTS Program Enhancement Grant Program (2011-2013)
Riparian Buffer Easement Program - Phase II (2012-2013)
Gorman Lake Water Retention Basins (2012-2014)
Southern Minnesota Lakes Restoration (2013-2016)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)
Accelerated Wetland and Shallow Lake Enhancement (2013-2018)
Steele County
SWCD Practices
SWCD Programs & Services
SWCD Reports and Plans
County Environmental Services
Owatonna – Construct treatment plan improvements (2010-2011)
Riparian Buffer Easement Program - Phase I (2010-2011)
RIM-WRP Program Acquisition and Restoration - Phase III (2011)
Nutrient Management along the Lower Mississippi River (2011-2012)
SSTS Imminent Health Threat Abatement Grant Program (2011-2012)
Owatonna Parks Rain Gardens (2012-2014)
Southeast Minnesota Wastewater Initiative (2012-2014)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)
Waseca County
SWCD Programs & Services
SWCD Projects
SWCD Reports
Feedlots, Agriculture, Weeds & Seeds
Feedlot Water Quality Management Grant Program (2010-2011)
Southern Minnesota Lakes Restoration (2013-2016)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)
Watershed Water Plan Summary
Le Sueur River Watershed Water Plan Summary
Le Sueur River Watershed
Percent of County in Watershed
Water Plan Links
Blue Earth County
Faribault County
Freeborn County
Le Sueur County
Steele County
Waseca County
Local Water Management Overview
County Comprehensive Local Water Management - BWSR
Minnesota Nutrient Strategy Overview
Nitrogen Science
Strategies for Nutrient Reduction - Wastewater
Planning Tools
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool - Nitrogen BMP Spreadsheet (Lazarus et al., 2013)
Nitrogen Priority Watersheds & Reduction Milestone
The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy - MPCA
Excerpts from Chapter 4: Management Priorities and Recent Projects
Nitrogen Priority Watersheds |
Reduction Milestone |
Source: The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy , Chapter 4: Management Priorities and Recent Projects (2013)
Priority Sources
Priority sources are determined on a basin scale, although it should be noted that different sources may be more or less important at the local scale. Priority sources at the HUC8 scale or smaller will be determined through watershed planning efforts at that scale.
Source: The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy , Chapter 4: Management Priorities and Recent Projects (2013)
Example BMP Scenario for Nitrogen Reduction
The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy - MPCA
Excerpts from Chapter 5: Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions
Source: The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy , Chapter 4: Management Priorities and Recent Projects (2013)
See "Economics" Tab for a Watershed BMP Nitrogen Reduction Scenario.
Minnesota Nutrient Strategy Overview
Phosphorus Science
Strategies for Nutrient Reduction - Wastewater
Phosphorus Priority Watersheds & Reduction Milestone
The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy - MPCA
Excerpts from Chapter 4: Management Priorities and Recent Projects
Phosphorus Priority Watersheds |
Source: The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy (2013)
Priority Sources
Priority sources are determined on a basin scale, although it should be noted that different sources may be more or less important at the local scale. Priority sources at the HUC8 scale or smaller will be determined through watershed planning efforts at that scale.
Source: The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy , Chapter 4: Management Priorities and Recent Projects (2013)
Agricultural BMPs
Example BMP scenario for Phosphorus Reduction
The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy - MPCA
Excerpts from Chapter 5: Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions
Source: The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Chapter 5: Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions (2013)
Watershed Summary
Minnesota River Progress Report – MSU WRC
Rapid Watershed Assessment Resource Profile: Le Sueur - NRCS
Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance - County Scorecard
- Blue Earth
- Faribault
- Freeborn
- Le Sueur
- Steele
- Waseca
Conservation Practices
Conservation Implementation - BWSR
Conservation Easements - BWSR
Interactive Conservation Easement Map RIM - BWSR
Conservation Practices - MDA
BMP Summary
Excerpts from The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy - MPCA
Chapter 5 - Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions
Appendix C - Agricultural BMPs
Because agricultural sources contribute the bulk of the statewide nitrogen load and a substantial portion of the phosphorus load, nitrogen and phosphorus reductions from agricultural sources are key to successfully achieving the milestones. Recommended agricultural BMPs and strategy options for promoting adoption of the BMPs to address phosphorus and nitrogen are provided in the links above.
Phosphorus: Based on the SPARROW model and the source attributions developed in the Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds (Barr Engineering 2004), agricultural sources contribute an estimated 38 percent of the statewide phosphorus load. A large part of the remaining phosphorus load is due to stream channel erosion, much of which is indirectly affected by agricultural runoff and intensive drainage practices (Schottler et al. 2013).
Nitrogen: Based on the Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters study (MPCA 2013), agriculture contributes 73 percent of the statewide nitrogen load in a typical year.
See "Strategy - N Reduction" and "Strategy - P Reduction" Tabs for example BMP Scenarios for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Reduction
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool - Nitrogen BMP Spreadsheet (Lazarus et al., 2013)
Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy SPARROW - (MPCA, 2013)
Minnesota River Basin Turbidity Scenario Report - HSPF - (Tetra Tech, 2009)
Lake Pepin Watershed Full Cost Accounting SWAT, InVEST, Sediment Rating Curve Regression, and Optimization (Dalzell et al., 2012)
Modeling of Sediment, Nutrients and Pesticides in the Le Sueur River Watershed - SWAT (Folle, 2010)
GSSHA Model – Agricultural Water Certification Program – GSSHA Model – (MDNR, In Progress)
USDA-NRCS Nutrient Tracking Tool – Tarleton State (Texas Example)
NTT estimates the nutrient and sediment load leaving a farm field through surface water runoff and leaching below the rooting zone and can be used to quantify the water quality benefits of different agricultural management systems and conservation practices. Designed and developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research at Tarleton State University (TiAER), NTT is intended for use by agricultural professionals or others familiar with farm procedures and conservation practices.
Ag BMP Assessment and Tracking Tool – Houston Engineering
Solutions for improving impaired waters often rely on the use of agricultural best management practices (BMPs). The goal of this project is to collect and disseminate thorough and accurate information on the use and effectiveness of agricultural BMPs in the State of Minnesota. Stakeholders can use this information to inform, mock-up and track their BMP implementation strategies.
AG BMP Database - Houston Engineering
The goal of the Ag BMP Database is to provide a comprehensive source of information on the application and effectiveness of agricultural BMPs within the State of Minnesota. The database was developed to hold information on BMPs that are commonly used in the State to address water quality impairments for: sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria.
Ecological Ranking Tools
Watershed Health Assessment Framework - MDNR
The Watershed Health Assessment Framework (WHAF) provides a comprehensive overview of the ecological health of Minnesota's watersheds. By applying a consistent statewide approach, the WHAF expands our understanding of processes and interactions that create healthy and unhealthy responses in Minnesota's watersheds. Health scores are used to provide a baseline for exploring patterns and relationships in emerging health trends.
Ecological Ranking of Parcels for Prioritizing Conservation Activities – NRRI
This site provides a mapping tool by which natural resource managers can visualize and interact with a high resolution map of the spatial data layers. Managers have the ability to specify the relative importance of habitat, soil erosion potential, or other components of the Environmental Benefits Index - a score which represents a summary of the above factors., and view how the ecological ranking of parcels changes under different scenarios.
http://beaver.nrri.umn.edu/EcolRank/
FUNDING GUIDES
Conservation Practices - Funding Guide, MDA
This Minnesota Department of Agriculture website provides an overview of financial and technical assistance for nutrient management.
Conservation Funding Guide: Practice & Payment Information, MDA
On this Minnesota Department of Agriculture website, you can select a conservation practice and compare payments.
COST ANALYSIS PLANNING TOOLS
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool - Nitrogen BMP Spreadsheet (Lazarus et al., 2013)
The Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool (Excel Spreadsheet) was developed as part of the Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters Study by researchers at the University of MInnesota and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The project purpose was to develop a framework for a watershed nitrogen planning aid that could be used to compare and optimize selection of "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) for reducing the nitrogen load from the highest contributing sources and pathways in the watershed.
Overview of Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool
NBMP Tool - Maps
NBMP Spreadsheet (Excel)
Le Sueur River Watershed - Nitrogen Reduction Spreadsheet
Le Sueur Nitrogen Reduction Scenario
Cost Analysis of Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy
An analysis of costs is provided in Chapter 5.5 of the Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy for both wastewater nutrient removal and agricultural BMP implementation.
Excerpts from Chapter 5: Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions
Appendix C: Program Recommendations
Wastewater
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Chapter 5: Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions (2013)
Agricultural BMPs
Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy, Chapter 5: Point and Nonpoint Source Reductions (2013)