July 31-830-Carrie Raber
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•41 views
This presentation discusses Minnesota's efforts to advance groundwater protection through watershed planning. It outlines the development of Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS), an interagency effort to provide local partners with consolidated groundwater data and information to identify needs and guide planning. GRAPS compiles background information on land use, geology, groundwater quality and quantity issues. Implementation is organized at the HUC 10 watershed scale with action tables. Lessons learned include identifying priority capacity-building needs, recognizing that information alone is not enough, and getting started with local strategies.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to July 31-830-Carrie Raber
Similar to July 31-830-Carrie Raber (20)
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society
More from Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
July 31-830-Carrie Raber
- 1. Advancing Groundwater Implementation through Watershed Planning SWCS International Annual Conference July 31, 2019
- 2. Presentation Overview • Watershed Planning in MN • Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) • Lessons Learned 8/13/2019 2
- 3. 3
- 4. Minnesota has 90,000 miles of shoreline, more than California, Florida and Hawaii Combined.
- 5. Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment 2008 Legacy Amendment • Increases the state sales tax by three-eights of one percent • Additional sales tax revenue is distributed into four funds • Clean water fund (over $759 million) • Protect, enhance, and restore water quality • Protect groundwater from degradation • At least 5% to protect drinking water sources 5
- 6. Managing Resources at the Watershed Scale 6 • MN adopted a Watershed Approach to assess and manage water resources • Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS) • One Watershed One Plan
- 7. Driving Interest in Groundwater Protection 8/13/2019 7 • Lack of groundwater information available for local water planning • Soil and Water Conservation Districts requesting to be resource partners
- 8. Information Gathering to Identify Local Needs • Statewide survey to assess groundwater confidence • Quality and Quantity • Needs Assessment Survey on Drinking Water • Barriers to implementation 8
- 9. 75% of SWCD’s ranked drinking water protection as a priority, yet 74% spent 0-25% of their time working on drinking water protection in the past year.
- 10. Survey Results Local Partners Limited by: • Lack of access to state agency data/information and technical expertise • Lack of technical knowledge • Lack of funding • Lack of education and training • Water Resource Professionals • Decision makers 10
- 11. Groundwater Restoration and Protection Strategies (GRAPS) 11
- 13. Background Information Land Cover /Land Use Geology/ Hydrogeology Pollution Sensitivity (Aquifer Vulnerability) Drinking Water Information Groundwater Withdrawals/Use 13
- 14. Groundwater Quality Information NitrateContaminated Sites Arsenic · New Well Samples SSTS Pesticides Animal Feedlots 14 · Active Tank & Leak Sites · Closed Landfills · Ambient Monitoring · Private Well Sampling Initiative · New Well Samples · Private Well Sampling Initiative · Ambient Monitoring
- 15. Groundwater Quantity Information Surface Water vs. Groundwater Water Level Trend Interpretation Groundwater Use Trends Trout Streams Calcareous Fens Lakes Animals Plants Native Plant Communities Groundwater Connected Features 15
- 17. Organized on a HUC 10 Scale 17
- 18. Table of Actions and Strategies to Restore and Protect Groundwater • Organized by subwatershed and county • Provides tips for targeting • Acknowledges multiple benefits 18
- 19. 19 Tips for targeting & helpful maps
- 20. Map for Targeting Nitrate
- 21. Map for Targeting Nitrate
- 23. Lessons Learned 8/13/2019 23 • Know your audience • Identify and prioritize critical capacity-building needs • Information is not enough • Expand stakeholder groups • Get started today
- 24. Thank you! Visit the GRAPS project webpage at: www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/cwf/localimplem.html 24
Editor's Notes
- Four funds: Arts & cultural heritage – 19.75% Outdoor heritage (wetlands, prairie, and habitat restoration) – 33% Parks & trails – 14.25% Clean Water Fund (33%) The Legacy Amendment transformed water planning in MN
- WRAPS and 1W1P combine many elements of the EPA’s Healthy Watersheds Initiative. WRAPS is a watershed assessment, that includes an extensive monitoring and assessment period to characterize watershed issues and identifies targeted measures to achieve CWA goals of fishable and swimmable, in addition to classifying healthy lakes and those close to being impaired. WRAPS develops restoration and protection strategies to maintain and restore watershed health. This assessment is handed off to local resource partners to help inform the 1W1P. The 1W1P considers a range of issues from habitat, flood mitigation, water quality, drinking water protection, among others issues to achieve multiple benefits in a given watershed. 1W1P is the driving force for resource protection in the state, bringing increased staff capacity and financial resources to implement plans.
- While the development of WRAPS has been ongoing for a decade, there hasn’t been a similar push for groundwater protection until recently. Groundwater is managed by four primary agencies in MN. MDH ensures safe drinking water from public water supplies, DNR manages groundwater availability, and the MPCA and MDA run the ambient groundwater quality monitoring program. This division of responsibilities was intended to provide checks and balances, but has lead to silos where each agency effectively maintains their program but doesn’t readily share information with other agencies let alone local resource partners. This was recognized by agency managers, as well as by our SWCDs. In 2013 the MASWCD adopted 5 resolutions regarding groundwater.
- Before developing a program, we needed to better understand local partners needs.
- Identifies barriers that prohibit implementation
- This has lead to the culmination of GRAPS
- Protection framework to help target areas at greatest risk to contamination High level overview of groundwater concerns Interagency effort that assembles existing state agency information Compiled into one report on GW from all state agencies makes for easier interpretation & targeting MDH envisions GRAPS as a tool for local resource staff to provide technical assistance for private well users on groundwater risks. This is the clientele that they work with, so it makes sense that they could be the messenger on resource concerns.
- Green hexagons are contaminants/blue hexagons are landuses that may lead to contamination Arsenic sampling began in 2008, relatively new dataset MPCA Ambient program has over 260 sites; tests for 40 CECs, 130 analytes, such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and fire retardants.
- DNR is evaluating trend use to try and state if the aquifer is at risk of overuse. The information discovered from our search on both quality and quantity issues informs the strategies and actions recommended for implementation.
- - Follows how the WRAPS is organized, so strategies/actions can be easily inserted into other planning documents.
- - Future reports going to evaluate if we could add a column to note if an action is also reflected in the WRAPS
- Tips for targeting and the maps that would helpful in identifying target area Four of maps referenced will be used in the following slides to demonstrate targeting
- - In the Cannon when you start layering information, similar to the zonation process, your target area becomes clear. Start with the pollution sensitivity of near surface, then overlay the pollution sensitivity of wells. This generally reduces the planning area, but in this case it exposed a risk in the western part of the watershed for drinking water wells.
- - You can further refine your target area by bringing in landuse such as MDAs TTP maps and MDHs nitrate sampling data, which is overlaid on top of the pollution sensitivity of wells. All of this data supports that the wells in the NE part of the watershed are at greatest risk.