No Slide Title

Todays presentation focuses on water quality of TCMAs lakes, streams and rivers. Water resources are multi-faceted, supporting human consumption, recreational activities, aesthetics, and biological diversity. Protection and restoration of these resources is a goal of the Council and the state Clean Water Legacy Program

To ensure that the water quality leaving the metropolitan area is as good as the water quality entering the metropolitan area, and in compliance with federal and state regulations.- 2030 Regional Development FrameworkCouncils Water Quality Goal As you know, the Met Council plays an integral role in protecting our water resources. Councils role starts with our NAI goal water quality leaving is as good as water quality entering the metro area. This goal encompasses all surface waters including rivers, streams, and lakes. We assess if we are meeting this goal through our monitoring, assessment and modeling work that we do at the Council.

2Factors Contributing to Water Quality

LakeArkansas Watershed Advisory Groups Nonpoint Sources (Parking Lots, Lawns, Farm Fields, Construction Sites,Bluff & Streambank Erosion)WeatherPoint Sources (WWTP, Industry, Storm Sewers)Population Growth Many factors contribute to the water quality of our regions water resources. weather (amount of precipitation, intensity, when it occurs and where) precipitation creates runoff which in some cases goes directly into our resources and in others is treated to reduce pollutants before being discharged. increased population growth creates increased impervious surfaces. Increased impervious surface creates more runoff when it rains and less infiltration as occurs naturally Point sources discharge directly to our resources such as flow from our WWTPs, industry, and permitted storm sewers. Nonpoint sources of pollution include runoff from parking lots, lawns, farm fields, bluffs and stream bank erosion.

3

www.topnews.in

http://montananps319grants.pbworks.com

Bluff ErosionStormwaterFertilizersAgricultural RunoffWater Quality Assessment Nonpoint Source PollutantsWhen we are looking at nonpoint source pollution, we are looking at pollution from bluff erosion, stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, runoff from farm fields, and runoff from urban lawns that carry pollutants such as fertilizers which are high in nitrogen and used to be a source for phosphorus until the phosphorus ban in fertilizer went into place a few years ago.Over the years, we have started to get a better handle on controlling discharges from point sources of pollution but nonpoint sources of pollution are much harder to control and treat prior to discharge to our resources.4

Annual Survey Results#1 (2004 2009)I also wanted to point out that water quality and monitoring of area lakes, rivers and streams is very important to our customers as well.It has ranked #1 on the list of activities we do for the last 6 years.The survey results show the importance of our water resources to people who live here and use these resources as a water supply source in some cases and as a form of recreation in many cases.Having good water quality is a quality of life issue in Minnesota.5MCES Monitoring & AssessmentPoint Source Pollution (WWTPs)

To meet State of Minnesota pollutant discharge permit requirements To assess if meeting State of Minnesota water quality standardsWhy do we monitor and assess point sources of pollution?Do WWTPs reduce point source pollution? Do rivers meet water quality standards downstream of WWTPs? Do WWTPs minimize impacts on river health? Do WWTPs contribute to water quality problems?

Mississippi RiverMetro Plant So back to our monitoring programs. Why do we monitor? We monitor the water resources to assess progress in meeting the Councils regional framework NAI goal In doing so, we monitor to look at point source pollution and non-point source pollution We monitor lakes, rivers and streams. We assess the conditions of the major rivers for several reasons. We are required to meet certain requirements and water quality standards as part of our permits so we need to monitor the water quality of our rivers where we discharge effluent to make sure we are meeting these permit requirements We assess rivers to see if rivers are meeting water quality standards downstream of our WWTPs To determine if our the WWTPs are impacting the health of the river And to determine how much of an impact the WWTPs are on the river water quality

6MCES Monitoring & Assessment Nonpoint Source Pollution

aworldofprogress.com

www.santafenm.gov

bayjournal.com Comply with statutes including:- Target pollutant loads for metropolitan area watersheds (Statute 473.157) Why do we monitor and assess nonpoint source pollution?- Assessing the water quality of the metropolitan area (Statute 103F.721) What watersheds pose the greatest water quality threat? What questions do we try to answer related to nonpoint source pollution? Where should we focus Best Management Practices (BMPs) for greatest improvement? How will landscape changes impact future water quality? We monitor lakes, rivers and streams also to look at the impacts from nonpoint source pollution as well. Minn. Stat. 103F requires the Council to work with the PCA in assessing the water quality of the water resources in the TCMA Statute 473.157 directs the Council to develop target pollutant loads for all watershed outlets for various pollutants such as TP and TSS in the MA. These are just a few of the statutes directing our work on monitoring, assessment and modeling that we do for metro area waterbodies. We monitor and assess to meet these statutes and to answer questions related to nonpoint source pollution such as what watersheds in the metro area pose the greatest water quality threat where should we focus our BMPS to get the biggest bang for our buck how is the water quality going to change overtime due to changes in pop growth, impervious surface really to determine impact on our resources from nonpoint source pollution as well as point source of pollution and what we can do to minimize or even reverse the impacts from these sources.

7MCES Water Quality Monitoring

7-County Metropolitan AreaWith that summary of why we monitor and assess metro area water resources, the next couple of slides show the extent of our monitoring programs. This map just shows the metro area and major rivers, the Miss, St. Croix and Minnesota River. 8MCES Water Quality Monitoring

WWTP Monitoring 1 on St. Croix River 2 on Minnesota River 4 on Mississippi RiverNow we have added the 7 Council WWTPs.As you know we have one on the St. Croix, 2 on the Minnesota and 4 on the Mississippi now that the Empire Plant discharges to the Miss and not the Vermillion River anymore.Of course the RGCs have their own facilities as well, but for this discussion I am focusing on the Councils WWTPs.9MCES Water Quality Monitoring

River Monitoring 22 river monitoring sitesNext we add our 22 river monitoring sites.The goal of those sites is to have a site upstream and downstream of our WWTPs so we can determine impacts (positive and negative) due to the WWTPs.Our river network also allows us to get a better idea of changes within the metro area due to nonpoint source pollution.We monitor weekly at many of these sites for a select set of parameters, biweekly over the winter months and monthly or quarterly for parameters such as metals and volatile organics. Have fact sheet available for what is in permit vs. other parameters we monitor for and frequency.10MCES Water Quality Monitoring

Stream Monitoring 26 stream monitoring sites (historic total)Next we added our 26 stream monitoring sites. This is the stream network through 2009. We have dropped the Scott County Ditch #10, West Raven, willow creek and Carnelian Marine Outlet sites for 2010.Stream monitoring sites allow us to collect data from outlet of watersheds to the main stem of the major rivers.It allows us to look at what is coming off the watersheds and where there are issues with pollutants being discharged into our major rivers.Have data since 1989 at some of our sites. Original sites were sites discharging to Minnesota River.Program was designed to gather information on nonpoint source pollution contributions on a watershed scale.Data has been used by us and our partners in developing TMDLs throughout the metro area.

11Lake Monitoring 949 lakes 355 lakes monitored since 1980 195 lakes monitored in 2009 by MCES and volunteers

MCES Water Quality Monitoring Map shows all lakes in metro area Been monitoring lakes since 1980 949 Lakes in metro area355 been monitored since program startedUsually monitor around 200 a year, 10-20 by MCES staff and rest through CAMP Monitor for TP, CHL-a, and secchi depth12

MPCA 2008 Impaired Waters of the Metropolitan Area

Water Quality Assessment Impacted Waterways Monitoring information we collect is used by us to assess the condition of metro area water resources and by the PCA to assess the condition of water resources and list waters as impaired This map shows 2008 list of impaired waters in metro area, waters impaired due to mercury only are not shown since a state TMDL was completed to address this impairment impairments include nutrients, DO, chloride, pH, temp, fecal coliform, turbidity to name a few A lot of impairments in the metro area are on the impaired waters list due to data collected through our water quality monitoring programs. We have been assisting the PCA/state in their federal mandate under the Clean Water Act to assess the water quality of all waters in the state and to determine the condition of the resources. Part of a partnership we have with the PCA and part of fulfilling our mandate I mentioned before to help the PCA assess the waters of the state.13

Water Quality Trends What Questions Need to Be Answered?

Is the water quality leaving the metropolitan area as good as when it entered?

How have WWTP improvements impacted river water quality?

How does point source pollution compare to nonpoint source pollution?

How have the metropolitan area lakes changed over time?Arkansas Watershed Advisory Groups The next few slides will be getting into more of some of the analysis we have completed with our data we have collected.First we look at what questions do we need to answer related to trends in water quality?The questions we will be addressing today includeIs the water quality leaving the metro area as good as when it entered?Have the WWTP improvements over the last 10-20 years impacted the river water quality?What can we tell about point source pollution compared to nonpoint?And how the lake water quality changed over time?14

Is the Water Quality Leaving the Metropolitan Area as Good as When It Entered?Confluence of the St. Croix and Mississippi RiversOur first question about whether or not water quality leaving the metro area is as good as water quality entering the metro area is not that simple to answer.The answer really is it depends. Answer varies on annual basis, requires long-term evaluationIt depends on what parameters you look at, where you are looking, for example, while water quality leaving the metro area at Lock and Dam #3 may show less TSS than what is entering, that does not mean that all water bodies in the metro are improving. Some lakes, creeks, river reaches are impaired, some are improving but the mass balance suggests there is less TSS leaving. But that is also dependant on weather conditions for the period of record and how much TSS is settled out in the pool before lock and dam #2 and in the river and lakes themselves.

15

30.4Water Quality Trends Precipitation VariationFirst, looking at precipitation trends over the last 30 years, and in particular over the last 10 years it looks like 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009 were below the 30-year average where 30.4 of rain/snow fell throughout the year. Some years were near the average and others above.You need to look at rainfall intensity, time between rain events, and total precipitation over the period of an event to really evaluate the effects of precipitation.All of these factors (dry vs. wet year, rainfall intensity, days dry in between rain events) play a role in stormwater runoff and the amount of pollutants associated with the runoff.

16River Monitoring Results Total Phosphorus (TP)

Here it would appear that in 2009 TP is less at lock and dam #3 just above Red Wing than when it enters the MA in western Hennepin county. This was the case in 2005 as well. However, there are many things occurring between the point when phosphorus enters the system and leaves including: inputs from nonpoint and point source contributions, losses from deposition (5-11% in Lower Minnesota 2004-2006), less runoff in drier years, so trying to determine whether or more TP is being reduced and treated and the river water quality is improving is not as clear as it may at first may seem.17River Monitoring ResultsTotal Suspended Solids (TSS)

Looking at TSS, it would also appear that except for 1995, there are less solids leaving the metro area than entering.Here again, deposition is a big factor and can account for a lot of the sediment losses in the TCMA Approximately ~25% in Pool 2 above Hastings- long term.So there still may be a lot of TSS running off the land in watersheds within the metro area but it appears that it is settling out in the river system, the pools above the locks and dams before leaving the metro area.18River Monitoring ResultsNitrate (NO3)

Nitrate appears to be slightly less leaving the metro area in 2009 than entering as well.Denitrification could yield some loss.So my point is that while it looks like pollutants leaving the metro area are better in some cases or similar in others, the answer is much more complex than that. We are winning the battle in reducing TP, TSS and nitrates in some watersheds and others still have a lot of work to do.19How Have Improvements at the MCES WWTPs Impacted Water Quality?

Metro WWTPOur second question was how have improvements at the WWTPs impacted water quality? MCES WWTP improvements have resulted in improved phosphorus and mercury concentrations in the river system MCES had reduced mercury inputs through the dental amalgam program TP has been reduced due to lower TP limits at all facilities over the past 10 years. To determine the net effect of all MCES WWTPs monitoring needs to occur throughout the TCMA

20

WWTP Monitoring Results Mercury (Hg)Mercury Reduction Program InitiatedThe mercury reduction program began in 2003 where mercury is now collected by dentists and kept our of the wastewater treatment system. The program is voluntary but we have had good success so far and a lot of interest from the dental association on reducing this source of mercury.You can see that generally since the program has started we have seen reductions in the mercury in our effluent and that is going directly into the river.21

WWTP Monitoring ResultsTotal Phosphorus (TP)1976 Statewide phosphate ban2000-2002 Secondary treatment conversion2003 Phosphorus effluent limit 1 mg/LThis graph shows you the reductions in TP concentrations in our effluent and appears to be impacted by several events.In 1976, there was a statewide phosphate ban and a corresponding decrease in TP in the effluentAgain in 2000-2002 we changed our secondary treatment which also reduced TP discharge The most apparent decrease has occurred since 2003 when our TP effluent limit was reduced to 1 mg/l.Shows that TP has been greatly reduced from the WWTP process upgrade to bioP in the metro area, TP sources from nonpoint sources now larger22How Does Point Source Pollution Compare to Nonpoint Source Pollution?

Nine Mile CreekHow does point source pollution compare to nonpoint?Lakes, streams, wetlands are interconnected with the major river systems. Point sources discharge directly into our resources, nonpoint sources of pollution harder to tie down but have a major impact on our resources as well.All of our resources are facing increasing stresses due to increased imperviousness from growth.23

Stream and WWTP Monitoring ResultsTotal Phosphorus (TP)As I said before, nonpoint sources include farm fields, urban runoff, bluff and bank erosion. In 2004 MCES did a study that looked at the point and nonpoint sources and tried to quantify where the pollution was coming from.In all 4 years, TP loads from nonpoint sources was greater than from our WWTPs With the reductions in TP at our facilities, this trend is expected to continue.Nonpoint sources in this study included loads from the 26 watershed outlets in our WOMP monitoring program plus loads from 3 other watersheds not in WOMP. This was our attempt to quantify nonpoint loads will the best available data we had.Point source loads in this study represent only point sources from our 7 WWTPs

24Stream and WTTP Monitoring Results Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

TSS load results are more dramatic.You really see that TSS is coming from the nonpoint sources for the 4 years studied rather than from our 7 WWTPs.

25 Examination of Pollutant Contributions from 4 Metropolitan Area Watersheds

Watersheds Bassett Creek (43 mi2) Browns Creek (34 mi2) Nine Mile Creek (38 mi2) Sand Creek (271 mi2)Urban Landuse (~73%)Urban Landuse (~67%)Agricultural Landuse (~51%)Mixed Agricultural / Rural Residential Landuse (~42%) In addition to comparing point and non-point sources within the Metropolitan Area, it is important to examine the relative impacts between different watersheds within the metro. Each watershed has different characteristics that impact its pollutant load contribution. Today we will examine four watersheds; Bassett Creek, Browns Creek, Nine Mile Creek, and Sand Creek. Bassett Creek landuse is primarily urban (~73%) Browns Creek landuse is primarily agriculture and rural residential (~42%) Nine Mile Creek landuse is primarily urban (~67%) Sand Creek landuse is primarily agriculture (~51%)26 Stream Monitoring ResultsTotal Phosphorus (TP)

When we compare the impact of total phosphorus within the four watersheds during two separate years (2005 and 2009) we can see some trends. In general, Sand Creek typically contributes the greatest phosphorus load. This may be because of the domination of agriculture within the region and it may also be due to the size of the basin (6 times larger than the other 3 basins). The lowest contributor of phosphorus is Browns Creek which has more rural residential land area and a greater ability to infiltrate precipitation, likely allowing less phosphorus to runoff the landscape into the creek.27 Stream Monitoring ResultsTotal Suspended Solids (TSS)

In examining the TSS loads during 2005 and 2009 the trends are more difficult to define. In 2005 (above normal precipitation year), the two urban dominated watersheds produced the greatest sediment load likely due to the high volume of water running off pavement, etc and causing bank and gully erosion. In 2009 the trend is misleading in that Sand Creek had a larger contribution than the urbanized watersheds and much higher contribution compared to 2005. This is because the snow melt and rainfall events were more severe in that watershed than the other watersheds and lead to increased bank / gully erosion. This notes the importance of examining not only the amount of pollutant leaving a watershed on a given year, but also the timing of runoff events causing the pollutants to leave the watershed. In turn, this knowledge helps us determine where the best locations for improved management practices should be located based on the impacts of the individual events.

28How Have the Metropolitan Area Lakes Changed Over Time?

Lake MinnetonkaFinally, we look at our lake monitoring program.Similar to streams, many lakes are facing increasing pressures from changes in land use.Many lakes are experiencing decreasing water quality as a result of changes in land use, climate, and other factors29Lake Monitoring Results

Lake Grades Each lake receives a grade that is correlated with perceptions of recreational use suitability.

Grade is calculated from: Lake clarity (Secchi) Chlorophyll-A Phosphorus

2008 Lake GradesABCDF Lake Physical Characteristics Lake type (drainage, seepage, impoundment) Depth (deep vs. shallow) Watershed drainage area & land use

Square Lake, Washington County Lake Monitoring Programs Monitoring by MCES staff Monitoring by citizen volunteers via CAMPLakes are monitored by MCES staff and citizen volunteers through the CAMP program.Lakes in our monitoring program receive a grade that is based on recreational use suitability.TP, CHL-a and secchi depth are used to create a grade for each lake in the program.Most lakes in the metro area in our monitoring program are average or C grades. Lake conditions should also be judged on the type of lake it is, the depth of the lake and the watershed area and land use around the lake.

30

Lake Monitoring Results - Case Study 1 Square Lake (Washington County)Square Lake (Washington County Regional Park) Rural / agricultural watershed MCES priority lake for recreation & water clarity Grade A lake Not cited as impaired by MPCA (excluding mercury) Monitoring data indicate a trend of decreasing water quality

http://www.co.washington.mn.us

http://cmscwd.orgSquare Lakes exceptional water quality promotes various recreational activities First case study is Square lake in Washington County In a regional parkDesignated as Trout Lake Grade A lakeIn a rural/agricultural watershed currently not impaired but is seeing a decreasing trend in water quality31Lake Monitoring Results - Case Study 1 Square Lake (Washington County)

www4.agr.gc.ca/Secchi Disk to Measure Water Clarity Declining water quality has led the CMSCWD to establish goals including:- Implement erosion control projects- Develop septic pumping program- Adopt stormwater regulations- Maintain water quality monitoring to assess effectiveness of implementing goals Partnerships between MCES and local partners facilitate monitoring MCES provides technical guidance, assessments, and laboratory services to local partners in this case the Carnelian Marine St. Croix WD to promote involvement. In return the local partners support a continuous long-term monitoring effort in conjunction with MCES monitoring that serves as an indicator of the water quality. While Square Lake is not considered impaired, without continued monitoring and preventative steps taken by the local watershed groups, the lake could become threatened.

32Lake Monitoring Results - Case Study 2 Twin Lake, Middle (Hennepin County) Twin Lake (Middle) (Hennepin County) Urban watershed Grade C lake Cited as impaired for phosphorus Used for swimming and fishing, but impairment limits use and enjoyment.

Case 2 is Twin Lake in Hennepin CountyGrade C lakeVery urban areaUsed for swimming and fishing but use is limited at times due to water quality33Lake Monitoring Results - Case Study 2Twin Lake, Middle (Hennepin County) In 2007 the U.S. EPA approved a TMDL for nutrients (total phosphorus) in Twin Lake and the MPCA approved the associated implementation plan

Nonpoint source stormwater contributions contribute up to the phosphorus to the lake (lawn runoff, nutrients from fertilizers, sediment, pet & animal waste) MPCA 2007

This graph shows that Twin Lake consistently is over the 40 mg/l TP water quality standard for lakes. Twin Lake is impaired for nutrients and recently a TMDL was completed for this lake. Nonpoint source pollution sources contribute up to the TP in the lake which means that nonpoint sources will need to be addressed in the implementation phase of this TMDL. Other sources are most likely internal sources which will require different measures to reduce the TP. Bottom line is that continued monitoring will be necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the Implementation Plan in meeting water quality standards in the future.

34State of Water Quality within the Metropolitan Area Summary Overall ConclusionsTotal phosphorus contributions within the Metropolitan Area are evenly distributed between WWTP (point) and nonpoint sources

Suspended sediment contributions within the Metropolitan Area are dominated by nonpoint sources

Continued reductions in TP, TSS, and NO3 throughout the Metropolitan Area are still required to meet Councils goal

Long-term monitoring and assessment is important to determine the condition of our water resources. MCESs lake, stream and river monitoring programs have been invaluable in helping to determine the quality of our resources and in helping to develop programs to protection and restore these resources.With development and growth pressures, there is a need to continue to reduce TP , TSS and nitrate loads throughout the metro area in order to meet our goal of NAI.35State of Water Quality within the Metropolitan Area Summary WWTP ConclusionsWater quality discharged from WWTPs has improved because they are easily regulated

TP loads from the WWTPs have been reduced

Mercury reduction program has significantly reduced mercury in WWTP effluentRivers and Streams ConclusionsNonpoint sources of pollution discharging to our water bodies are more difficult to identify and are largely unregulated

Evaluation of trends in Metropolitan Area water quality requires long-term monitoring The Metropolitan Area lakes are facing increasing challenges from urbanization, but the Councils partnership with citizens and local partners in monitoring has better prepared the Metropolitan Area to identify the problems and to assess the efficacy of solutions.Lake ConclusionsPoint source pollution ( in this case pollution from our WWTPS) has consistently improved because they are easily regulatedTP loads from the WWTPs have been significantly reduced due to improvements in WWTP processes, nonpoint sources larger contributor at normal and higher flows.The mercury reduction program has significantly reduced mercury in WWTP effluentNonpoint sources of pollution discharging to our rivers, lakes and streams are much harder to pin down and are largely unregulatedEvaluation of trends for water quality required long-term monitoring Increasing urbanization and the challenges associated with urbanization continue to impact our lakes, rivers and streams.

36State of Water Quality within the Metropolitan Area Summary Continue evaluating needs and benefits for WWTP improvements

Provide data to MPCA for use in state surface water assessments

Work with MPCA and local partners to meet the Councils no adverse impact goal

Prepare annual assessment and triennial trend analysis reports

Create partnerships to help manage issues related to lake, river and stream quality

Continue evaluating effectiveness of non-point source best management practices (BMPs) through monitoring & assessment

Model cost effectiveness of certain urban BMPs for non-point pollutant reductions

Where do we go from here?Long-term monitoring and assessment are critical in determining the condition of our water resources as well in evaluating the effectiveness of BMPs put in place to protect and restore the resources.Practices put in place over the last 10 years have reduced mercury inputs to our riversMoving toward BioP removal of TP at our WWTPs has reduced our TP discharges well below the new 1 mg/l limit.In the future we will need to continue to have a balance between point and nonpoint source pollution reduction practices put in place in order to protect and restore our water resources.Continued monitoring and assessment of the monitoring information are critical to show where we are at and where we need to be.37Questions?

Informational Contacts: Judy Sventek, Manager, Water Resources Assess. judy.sventek@metc.state.mn.us651-602-1156

Kent Johnson, Manager, Environmental Monitoringkent.johnson@metc.state.mn.us651-602-8117

A Clean Water Agency
Presented to the Environment CommitteeJune 8, 2010
State of Water Qualitywithin the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
Judy Sventek, MCES Water Resources Assessment Manager

*