Mustinka River Watershed

Overall Watershed Tabs

Watershed

Vertical Tabs

Overview

The Mustinka River watershed drains an area of 562,112 acres in the Glacial Lake Agassiz Plain, North Central Hardwoods, Northern Lakes and Forests, and Northern glaciated plains Level II ecoregions. The Mustinka River begins its course southwest of Fergus Falls in southwestern Otter Tail County and flows towards the south into Grant County, where it continues through Stony Brook Lake and Lightning Lake. In southern Grant County the river turns to the west, flows past Norcross into Traverse County, then turns southwest past Wheaton, flowing to the northern end of Lake Traverse. Over time the Mustinka River has been extensively channelized, straightened and dammed.
Source: Mustinka River Watershed - MPCA

LINKS
Mustinka River Watershed - MPCA
Mustinka River Rapid Assessment - NRCS
Watershed Health Assessment Framework Overview - MDNR
Mustinka Watershed Health Assessment: Interactive Map - MDNR

ACRONYMS
BWSR - Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
MDA - Minnesota Department of Agriculture
MDH - Minnesota Department of Health
MDNR - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
MPCA - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
NRCS - Natural Resources Conservation Service

SYMBOLS
= External link to Website
= Link to PDF

Landscape

Landscape:

Land Use & Crops Map

Mustinka River Watershed NASS (2013): The Mustinka River Watershed's Crop Data Layer from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) shows the watershed is used main for agricultural cultivation, primarily corn, soybeans, and some sugar beets.

Nitrogen

Vertical Tabs

Nitrogen Overview

What is Nitrogen?:

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.

Why is Nitrogen a Concern?:

Elevated nitrate levels harm fish and aquatic life.
Because nitrate moves primarily via groundwater and tile drainage waters (not surface runoff), it can pollute drinking water wells.
Nitrate leaving Minnesota via the Mississippi River contributes to the oxygen-depleted dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Where does nitrate come from?

More than 70% of the nitrate is coming from cropland, the rest from sources such as wastewater treatment plants, septic and urban runoff, forest, and the atmosphere.
Municipal wastewater contributes 9% of the statewide nitrate load.
Nitrate leaching into groundwater below cropped fields and moving underground until it reaches streams, contributes an estimated 30% of statewide nitrate to surface waters.

Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters (2013)

How does nitrate move from cropland into our water?

The amount of nitrate reaching surface waters from cropland varies tremendously, depending on the type of crops, tile drainage practices, cropland management, soils, climate, geology and other factors.
Tile drainage is the highest estimated cropland source pathway.
Precipitation amounts have a pronounced effect on nitrate loads. During a dry year, loads may drop by 49% compared to an average year, however during a wet year, overall loads may increase by 51%.
Nitrate concentrations and loads are high throughout much of southern Minnesota, resulting largely from leaching through large parts of intensively cropped soils and into underlying tile drains and groundwater.
Cropland sources account for an estimated 89 to 95% of the nitrate load in the Minnesota, Missouri, and Cedar Rivers, and Lower Mississippi River basins.

Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters (2013)

Tile drainage pathway
In tiled cropland, most of the rainwater that ends up in surface water (ditches, streams) flows through tile drainage. This water can be high in nitrate, but can potentially be treated before reaching ditches.

Groundwater pathway
In cropland without tile drainage, most rainwater flows through the ground to get to surface waters. As it travels through the earth, some of the nitrate is removed, resulting in less nitrate reaching our streams and rivers. However, there are fewer options of controlling this kind of nitrate pollution once it moves below the crop roots.

Where does the nitrate go?

Groundwater nitrate can take from hours to decades to reach surface waters.
The highest nitrate-yielding watersheds are Cedar, Blue Earth and Le Sueur in south-central Minnesota.
The Minnesota River adds twice as much nitrate to the Mississippi River as the combined loads from the Upper Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers.
On average, 158 million pounds of nitrate leaves Minnesota per year in the Mississippi River — 75% comes from Minnesota watersheds.
Nitrate concentrations have steadily increased in the Mississippi River since the mid-1970s.
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:

Manage in-field nutrients (i.e., optimize fertilizer rates, apply fertilizer closer to timing of crop use)
Manage and treat tile drainage water (i.e., plan tile spacing and depth; control drainage; construct and restore wetlands for treatment purposes; and bioreactors)
Diversify vegetation/landscape (i.e., plant cover crops; plant more perennials on marginal cropland, riparian zones and other areas)

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's Downstream Impacts:

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.

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.

Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters (2013)

Nitrogen Sources

Nitrogen in Soil:

Excerpts from Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters
Source of Nitrogen in Soil - Results Overview

Nitrogen in Surface 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.

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.

Nitrogen Monitoring

Nitrogen Monitoring Locations:

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.

Nitrogen Monitoring FWMC:

WPLMN Total Nitrogen FWMC Map

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.

Nitrogen Monitoring Yields:

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.

Nitrogen Monitoring Loads:

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 (2013),
Chapter B2. Conditions — Monitoring Mainstem River Nitrogen Loads

RED RIVER NITROGEN LOADING
The U.S. portion of the Red River Basin, depicted in Figure 25, originates mostly in Minnesota and North Dakota, with a small percentage also in South Dakota. After crossing the U.S./Canadian border, additional Manitoba watersheds flow into the Red River before it discharges into Lake Winnipeg.

Red River Basin Boundaries

Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters (2013), Chapter B2. Conditions — Monitoring Mainstem River Nitrogen Loads Map from Bourne et al., 2002.

Minnesota’s contribution to Emerson nitrogen loads
Based on unpublished data provided by Environment Manitoba (Manitoba Water Stewardship and Environment Canada, the average Red River annual TN load between 1994 and 2008 at the Canadian border in Emerson, Manitoba was 37,326,000 pounds/year (Figure 26). Nitrate concentrations are relatively low in the Red River, and only 42% of the TN is in the nitrate form, with the remainder as TKN (organic-N and ammonia+ammonium-N). Most of the Red River load in Emerson originates in the United States, with only 5.5% coming from Canadian watersheds which flow into North Dakota before joining up with the Red River in the United States. Therefore, 94.5% of the 37 million pounds of N reaching the Canadian border in the Red River is from Minnesota and the Dakotas. Of the United States contributions, SPARROW modeling results indicate that 48% of the United States load is from Minnesota, and 52% is from the Dakotas (see Chapter B4).

Therefore, if we assume 37,326,000 pounds/year of TN at Emerson, of which 94.5% is from the United States and 48% of that amount is from Minnesota, Minnesota’s N contribution to the Red River is estimated as 16,931,000 pounds/year, on average.

Red River estimated annual N Loads based on monitoring data at Emerson, Manitoba near the U.S./Canadian border. Monitoring and load calculations from Manitoba Conservation Water Stewardship and Environment Canada. Only TN was available for 2000. Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters (2013), Chapter B2. Conditions — Monitoring Mainstem River Nitrogen Loads

United States contributions to Lake Winnipeg
Environment Canada (2011) assessed TN loads from the period 1994 to 2007, including loads from such sources as atmospheric deposition directly into Lake Winnipeg. They concluded that the Red River from the United States and Canada watersheds contributed 34% of the N load to Lake Winnipeg. In an earlier report, Bourne et al. (2002) concluded that 65% of the Red River N comes from the United States. Combining these results, we can assume that approximately 22% of the N load to Lake Winnipeg comes from watersheds in Minnesota and the Dakotas, with about 11% of the Lake Winnipeg TN load from Minnesota.

Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters (2013), Chapter B2. Conditions — Monitoring Mainstem River Nitrogen Loads

Nitrogen Modeling

Nitrogen Modeling Loads:

Excerpts from Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters
Chapter 4: Modeled Nitrogen Loads (SPARROW)

The Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters Report shows elevated nitrate levels, particularly in the southern third of Minnesota.

Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, Chapter 4: Modeled Nitrogen Loads (SPARROW) (2013)

Nitrogen Modeling FWMC:

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 Mustinka River Watershed indicated average flow-weighted mean TN concentration of 11.01 mg/l. This value represents the median FWMC of all subwatershed catchments within the Mustinka River Watershed.

Nitrogen Modeling Yields:

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 Mustinka River Watershed was 5.49 lbs/acre/year.

Statewide Comparison of Nitrate+Nitrate-N Yields (lbs/ac)

	Nitrite+Nitrate-N Yield (lbs/ac)
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)

Nitrogen Modeling Ranking:

SPARROW modeled delivered loads for Red River Basin HUC 8 Watersheds

WS #	Watershed Name	SPARROW delivered load to state border (TN lbs/yr)
09020101	Bois de Sioux River	1,025,263
09020102	Mustinka River	629,665
09020103	Otter Tail River	3,376,696
09020104	Upper Red River of the North	1,491,545
09020106	Buffalo River	3,682,373
09020107	Red River of the North - Marsh River	1,204,886
09020108	Wild Rice River	4,820,908
09020301	Red River of the North - Sandhill River	2,082,969
09020302	Upper/Lower Red Lake	46,853
09020303	Red Lake River	3,836,901
09020304	Thief River	553,662
09020305	Clearwater River	2,104,744
09020306	Red River of the North - Grand Marais Creek	1,773,828
09020309	Snake River	2,367,201
09020311	Red River of the North - Tamarac River	2,556,921
09020312	Two Rivers	3,376,716
09020314	Roseau River	2,285,206

Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, Chapter B4. Conditions — Modeled Nitrogen Loads (SPARROW) (2013)

Nitrogen Trends

Nitrogen Trends Summary:

Statewide Nitrate Trends

Excerpts from Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters
Nitrate Trends in Minnesota Rivers
Nitrogen Trend Results from Previous Studies

Red River of the North Trend Results
Three sites on the Red River of the North were analyzed for trends in flow-adjusted nitrate concentrations. All three sites had relatively low nitrate concentrations, although the concentrations were higher at the downstream site in Perley. No trends were detected at the upper-most location at Brushvale. At Moorhead, and just downstream from Moorhead at Perley, concentrations increased prior to 1993-95, but had no significant trends after 1993 and 1995, respectively.

Tributaries of the Red River of the North
Trends were assessed for two tributaries of the Red River of the North, the Ottertail River and the Red Lake River, each with two monitoring locations. Similar to the Red River of the North at Brushvale, nitrate concentrations were very low, mostly between 0.1 and 0.15 mg/l. At these low concentrations, the Ottertail River showed a steady increasing trend since 1982. The percentage increase was greater in Fergus Falls than at the downstream site at Breckenridge (Table 14). The Red Lake River at East Grand Forks had a trend very similar to that of the Ottertail River in Breckenridge, both with gradually increasing nitrate concentrations by 35% over the entire time of analysis. Farther upstream at Fisher, no trends were detected.

See Trends — Nitrate Trends in Minnesota Rivers for more information.

Source: Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters, Nitrate Trends in the Minnesota River Basin (2013)

Phosphorus

Vertical Tabs

Phosphorus Overview

What is Phosphorus?:

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.

Why is Phosphorus a Concern?:

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.

Phosphorus induced algae bloom
MPCA

Phosphorus Impacts:

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.

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

Phosphorus Sources

Phosphorus in Soil:

Phosphorus in Surface Waters:

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.

Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy (2013)

Phosphorus Monitoring

Phosphorus Monitoring Locations:

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.

Phosphorus Monitoring FWMC:

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.

Phosphorus Monitoring Yields:

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.

Phosphorus Monitoring Loads:

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.

Phosphorus Modeling

Phosphorus Modeling Yields:

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)

SPARROW model annual TP 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 TP yield results for the Mustinka River Watershed was 0.51 lbs/acre/year.

Phosphorus Modeling Ranking:

Source: Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy (2013)

Phosphorus Trends

Phosphorus Trends Summary:

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

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

Phosphorus Lakes

Phosphorus - Assessed Lakes:

Phosphorus - Nutrient Impaired:

Assessed Lakes (2012) in the Mustinka 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

Lake Name	County Name	Impairment Parameters	Affected Uses	MN DNR Lake Finder	Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Cottonwood	Grant County	Not Impaired		Lake Profile: 26018500	Water Quality Profile: 26-0185-00
East Toqua	Big Stone County	HgF	AQC	Lake Profile: 06013800	Water Quality Profile: 06-0138-00
Lightning	Grant County	Not Impaired		Lake Profile: 26028200	Water Quality Profile: 26-0282-00
Mustinka River Flowage	Grant County	Not Impaired		Lake Profile: 26023500	Water Quality Profile: 26-0235-00

Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Assessed Waters (2012) & Impaired Waters (2012)

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.

Planning and Management

Vertical Tabs

Contacts

Contacts:

Watershed Contacts - MPCA
Local Government Units and Partner Agencies - BWSR

Watershed Contacts
Cary Hernandez, Pollution Control Specialist Senior
MPCA Detroit Lakes Office
(218)846-8124
cary.hernandez@state.mn.us

Big Stone County
Big Stone County
Big Stone County SWCD

Grant County
Grant County
Grant County SWCD

Otter Tail County
Otter Tail County
Otter Tail County SWCD

Stevens County
Stevens County
Stevens County SWCD

Traverse County
Traverse County
Traverse County SWCD

Reports

State & Federal Reports:

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

Regional & Local Reports:

Red River Basin
Red River of the North Basin (MPCA)
HSPF Modeling: Mustinka and Bois de Sioux Watersheds Phase III (2012-2013)
Red River Basin Water Quality Decision Support Application (WQDSA) (2012-2014)
Red River of the North Watershed Runoff Reduction (2012-2014)
Water Quality Improvement for Clay County Ditches (2013-2015)

Buffalo-Red River Watershed District
BRRWD Projects
Buffalo-Red River Watershed District Revised Watershed Management Plan (2010)
Buffalo River Watershed Approach Plan II (2011-2013)
Wolverton Creek Restoration (2011-2013)
Buffalo-Red Watershed Sediment Reduction (2012-2014)
Buffalo-Red River Shallow Lakes Restoration Project (2013-2015)
Upper South Branch BMP Strategic Implementation Plan – Part II (2013-2015)

Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District
MSTRWD Projects

Red River Watershed Management Board
RRWMB Reports

Red River Basin Commission
RRBC Natural Resources Framework Plan
RRBC Projects
RRBC Reports
RRBC Nutrient Capture through Water Management and Biomass Harvesting (2013)

Mustinka River Watershed
Watershed Restoration and Protection (MPCA)
Mustinka River Major Watershed WRAP Strategy (MPCA)
Rapid Watershed Assessment: Mustinka (NRCS)
Mustinka River Turbidity TMDL Implementation (2011-2012)
Mustinka River Restoration, Phase II (2012-2014)
Mustinka River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report 2013

Big Stone County
County Environmental Services Planning & Reports
SWCD Conservation Programs
SWCD Services
RIM Wetlands Reserve Program Acquisition and Restoration - Phase II (2010) Phase III (2011)
SSTS Imminent Health Threat Abatement Grant Program - 2011 2012-2014
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)

Grant County
County Office
SWCD Grants
SWCD Programs
Grant County Local Water Management Plan 2005-2015, updated 2010
Accelerated Shallow Lake Restorations and Enhancements (2009-2013)
RIM Wetlands Reserve Program Acquisition and Restoration - Phase II (2010) Phase III (2011)
Wellhead Protection Conservation Easement Program - Phase I (2010-2011)
Riparian Buffer Easement Program - Phase II (2012-2013)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)

Otter Tail County
Otter Tail County Shoreland Guide to Lake Stewardship (2011)
Otter Tail County Lakes Assessment
Otter Tail Lake Wastewater Management Case Studies 2012
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)

East
East SWCD Programs
East SWCD Services
Nitrate and Pesticides in Surficial Aquifers and Trophic State and Phosphorus Sources for Selected Lakes, Easter Otter Tail County, West-Central Minnesota 1997
Marion Lake Watershed Evaluation (2010)
Wellhead Protection Conservation Easement Program - Phase I (2010-2011)
East Otter Tail Groundwater Protection (2011-2012)
Lake Seven Watershed Exceptional Resource Protection (2012-2014)
Protecting Groundwater in Otter Tail County (2012-2014)
Otter Tail Community Partners (2013-2015)
Otter Tail County Lake Assessments - Phase II (2013-2015)

West
West SWCD Services
West SWCD Programs
West Otter Tail Annual Plan
RIM Wetlands Reserve Program Acquisition and Restoration - Phase II (2010)
Riparian Buffer Easement Program - Phase I (2010-2011) Phase II (2012-2013)
Drinking Water Supply Protection for Fergus Falls (2011-2012)

Stevens County
Conservation Programs
Environmental Services/Planning & Zoning Department
RIM Wetlands Reserve Program Acquisition and Restoration - Phase II 2010)
Riparian Buffer Easement Program - Phase I (2010-2011)
Stevens County Water Quality Initiative (2010-2011)
RIM Wetlands Reserve Program Acquisition and Restoration - Phase III (2011)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)

Traverse County
SWCD Programs
SWCD Feedlot Reports
Land Management Office
RIM Wetlands Reserve Program Acquisition and Restoration - Phase III (2011)
Shallow Lake & Wetland Protection Program - Phase III (2013-2017)

Water Plans

Water Plans:

Mustinka River Watershed
Percent of County in Watershed

Water Plan Links
Big Stone County LWMP 2013-2013
Grant County LWMP 2010-2015
Otter Tail County LWMP 2009-2019
Stevens County LWMP 2005-2015 amended 2010
Traverse County LWMP 2005-2014 amended 2009

Local Water Management Overview
County Comprehensive Local Water Management - BWSR

Strategy - N Reduction

Strategy - N Reduction:

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.

Strategy - P Reduction

Strategy - P Reduction:

Minnesota Nutrient Strategy Overview
Phosphorus Science
Strategies for Nutrient Reduction - Wastewate

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)

Conservation Practices

Conservation Practices:

Watershed Summary

Rapid Watershed Assessment Resource Profile: Mustinka - NRCS

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

Models

Models:

Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool - Nitrogen BMP Spreadsheet (Lazarus et al., 2013)

Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy SPARROW - (MPCA, 2013)

GSSHA Model – Agricultural Water Certification Program – GSSHA Model – (MDNR, In Progress)

Red River Basin Decision Information Network - Tools
A core RRBDIN service to basin residents and resource managers is to provide decision support “tools” designed to disseminate important and relevant information to aid in local, state, and regional decision-making.

Hydrology Models: HEC-HMS models for tributaries within the Red River of the North basin to assist in development and analysis of future flood damage reduction projects

Red River Basin Commission - Mainstem Modeling

Nutrient Tracking Tools

Nutrient Tracking Tools:

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/

Economics

Economics:

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)

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)

Navigation

Search form

You are here

Overall Watershed Tabs

Vertical Tabs

Vertical Tabs

Statewide Nitrate Trends

Vertical Tabs

Vertical Tabs