Alternative Tile Intake Cost-Share Program

Transcription

1 Alternative Tile Intake Cost-Share Program Final Report Project Sponsor: Heron Lake Watershed District Contributing Sponsors: Nobles County Nobles County Soil and Water Conservation District Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District Murray County Soil and Water Conservation District Cottonwood County Soil and Water Conservation District Landowners September 2010

2 Table of Contents Grant Project Summary... 4 Section I Work Plan Review... 6 Section II Grant Results... 9 Products Public outreach and education Long-term results Lessons learned Suggestions for improvement Section III Final Expenditures

3 Figures Figure 1: Water Sampling and Stream Gage Sites Figure 2: Average concentration of TSS Figure 3: Average concentrations of Turbidity at O Figure 4: Average concentrations of NO2_NO Figure 5: Average concentration of Total Phosphorus Figure 6: Average concentration of Orthophosphorus Figure 7: Average concentration of TSS in lake sites Figure 8: Average concentration of TP in lake sites Figure 9: Average concentration of OP in lake sites Figure 10: Average concentration of Chlorophyll A in lake sites Figure 11: Annual Precipitation Figure 12: Departure from Normal Precipitation Figure 13: TSS Load Reduction Figure 14: TP Load Reduction Figure 15: OP Load Reduction Figure 16: TSS FWMC Figure 17: TP FWMC Figure 18: OP FWMC Figure 19: Rock Inlet locations Figure 20: Sediment Reduction by Minor Watershed Figure 21: Soil Loss Reduction by Minor Watershed Figure 22: Phosphorus Reduction by Minor Watershed Tables Table 1: Alternative Tile Intake Summary Information Table 2: Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Table 3: Jack Creek Summary Statistics Table 4: Okabena Creek Summary Statistics Table 5: Heron Lake Outlet Summary Statistics Table 6: Fulda Lake 1 Summary Statistics Table 7: Fulda Lake 2 Summary Statistics Table 8: West Graham Lake Summary Statistics Table 9: East Graham Lake Summary Statistics Table 10: North Heron Lake Summary Statistics Table 11: South Heron Lake Summary Statistics Table 12: Summary of average concentrations Table 13: 1992, 2003, 2006, and 2009 Discharge (cubic feet) Table 14: Budget summary

4 Project title: Organization (Grantee): Alternative Tile Intake Cost-Share Program Heron Lake Watershed District Grant Project Summary Project start date: November 21, 2006 Project end date: August 31, 2010 Report submittal date: September 27, 2010 Grantee contact name: Jan Voit Title: District Administrator Address: PO Box 345 City: Heron Lake State: MN Zip: Phone number: Fax: Basin (Red, Minnesota, St. Croix, etc.): Des Moines County: Project type (check one): Grant Funding Clean Water Partnership (CWP) Diagnostic CWP Implementation Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development 319 Implementation 319 Demonstration, Education, Research TMDL Implementation Final grant amount: $23, Final total project costs: $54, Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Matching funds: Final cash: Included as inkind Final in-kind: $31, Final Loan: $0.00 Contract number: A96071 MPCA project manager: Kelli Nerem Executive Summary of Project (300 words or less) The Heron Lake watershed encompasses many of the same problems seen in other agricultural areas in Minnesota. A diagnostic study completed in 1992 indicated the watershed s major problems are a direct result of drainage and the resulting higher peak and base flows, urban sources of pollution and storm water runoff, and intensive agricultural land use. These same problems are prevalent throughout the four counties within the project area. Farmers within Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood counties have been receptive to programs available for installing filter strips, waterways, terraces, and wetland restorations. Increasing the soil conservation practices within the watershed is a vital component for water quality improvement. To address the water quality concerns that arise from phosphorus loading, erosion, and sedimentation, this project hoped to increase public awareness of pollution problems, provide cost-share for landowners and farm operators to replace open tile intakes with rock inlets, and monitor for changes and improvement. The Heron Lake Watershed District and Soil and Water Conservation District staff provided first-hand information about the program requirements through direct mailing, one-on-one contact, watershed-wide newsletters, and reports to the general public and local officials. These efforts proved successful in that there were a total of 136 open tile intakes replaced with rock inlets in the four-county project area. Operators were enthusiastic about the program and commented that the rock inlets were convenient for their farming operation and helped to improve water quality. The elink program estimates a 68 pounds/year reduction in phosphorus and a 54,400 pounds per year reduction in sediment from the 136 rock inlet projects. An overall analysis of water quality, as a result of all the landscape changes throughout the Heron Lake watershed, shows a 13,154 pound per year reduction in total phosphorus and a 1,162 ton per year reduction in total suspended solids.

5 Goals Goal: Reduce sediment and phosphorus entering open tile intakes by replacing with subsurface intakes. Results that count Result: The elink program estimates a 68 pound/year reduction in phosphorus and a 54,400 pound/year reduction in sediment from the 136 rock inlet projects. An overall analysis of water quality, as a result of all the landscape changes throughout the Heron Lake watershed, shows a 13,154 pound/year reduction in total phosphorus and a 1,162 ton/year reduction in total suspended solids. Picture (Attach at least one picture, do not imbed into this document.) Description/location: Installation of an alternative tile intake. Acronyms (Name all project acronyms and their meanings.) Heron Lake Watershed District HLWD Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MPCA Soil and Water Conservation District SWCD Best Management Practices BMP Natural Resources Conservation Service - NRCS Heron Lake Outlet O3 Jack Creek I4 Okabena Creek I3 Total Suspended Solids TSS Total Phosphorus TP Ortho Phosphorus OP, P-PO4 Ammonia Nitrogen NH3_N Nitrate+Nitrite Nitrogen NO2_NO3 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TKN Chlorophyll A Chl A Suspended Volatile Solids SVS Dissolved Oxygen DO Biochemical Oxygen Demand BOD Escherichia coli E. coli Flow Weighted Mean Concentration FWMC Department of Natural Resources DNR Partnerships (Name all partners and indicate relationship to project) Heron Lake Watershed District: project sponsor, project staff, project administration, and cash match Nobles County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD): technical support and cash match if needed Jackson County SWCD: technical support and cash match if needed Murray County SWCD: technical support and cash match if needed Cottonwood County SWCD: technical support and cash match if needed Landowners: cash match 5

6 Section I Work Plan Review Changes There were no work plan changes during the grant period. Work Plan Activities Objective 1: Work plan development Task A. Draft a relevant work plan describing project goals, timeline, and budget Jan Voit, HLWD Administrator, drafted a work plan in October of The work plan was received by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on October 31, A signed grant agreement was executed on November 21, (See Appendix 1) Objective 2: Rock inlet installation Task A. Increase landowner participation On April 25, 2006, HLWD staff met with SWCD staff from Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood Counties to discuss the rock inlet grant, roles, and responsibilities. The work plan was submitted to EPA, but had not yet been approved. No timeline was given for approval. Signups could be taken, but no contracts could be signed. (See Appendix 2) Information regarding the program and grant requirements was available to the general public on the HLWD website. (See Appendix 7) The HLWD January 2007 newsletter was dedicated to this grant. In addition, HLWD newsletters in April 2008 and December 2008 provided landowners with a reminder about the funding available. (See Appendix 3) The direct contact that SWCD staff and HLWD staff had with landowners was the primary means employed to inform landowners about the rock inlet grant program requirements. HLWD and SWCD staff met with individual landowners and explained the program. Signups were taken throughout the grant period. Task B. Determine cost-share amount An estimated cost-share for each landowner was determined when the rock inlet application was submitted. The actual cost-share was determined when the final bills were submitted. The grant paid 50 percent of the cost. The landowner paid 25 percent. The remaining 25 percent was paid by the HLWD or SWCD, depending on project location. One of the partnering SWCDs encountered financial stress during this grant. They were able to fulfill their obligations on projects in process but no new projects were sought from that SWCD. Task C. Contractor installation All contractors installing rock inlets during the grant period had previously completed field checks and were approved to install alternative tile intakes. 6

7 Task D. Pay cost-share A spreadsheet was developed to track the cash and inkind contributions for each project. Cost-share payments were made in July, October, and December of Cost-share payments were made in March, April, June, September, October, and November of Cost-share payments were made in January, May, June, October, and December of Thirty-six landowners participated in the program and replaced 136 open tile intakes with alternative tile intakes. It was noted in November of 2008 that the project sponsor and partners were not following the work plan and grant agreement for payment terms. The HLWD revised the best management practices (BMP) spreadsheet to include correct financial information. The HLWD and partners issued checks to landowners to correct the grant share. (See Appendix 4) Task E. Landowner survey On February 24, 2010, surveys were mailed to the 28 cooperators who had installed rock inlets through the cost-share program. (See Appendix 5) Survey questions included rock inlet satisfaction, current tillage practice being used, and the condition of the rock inlet. Those returning the survey were entered in a door prize drawing for a $50.00 gift certificate to the Kinbrae Supper Club. Task F. Landowner statements Landowner statements were obtained through the landowner survey. (See Appendix 5) Objective 3: Develop spreadsheets, databases, and maps to track local research and program improvements Task A. Project progress A spreadsheet was created that summarized the following information: cooperator, project, and financial information. This was done as a means to track projects installed through this grant mechanism. Landowners completed cost-share assistance agreement forms and returned them to the HLWD or SWCD offices. These forms confirmed their intent to comply with program requirements. Thirty-six landowners participated in the program and replaced 136 open tile intakes with rock inlets. The work plan called for submitting project results to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) showing alternative tile intakes to be a viable practice for possible implementation nationwide. This task was not completed due to inconclusive data. But, the final report will be sent to area SWCD and NRCS offices. Information that will be included: transactions associated with alternative tile intake construction, including landowner names and addresses, contractors, materials used, and any alterations to the design specifications, water quality evaluations, financial transactions, and locations of inlets, watershed area, and soil type. Objective 4: Project Evaluation Task A. Evaluation In July of 2010, a database was developed that contained information about the cooperator, project location, township, county, contractor, crop rotation, soil type, tillage practice, average slope, basin size, materials used, whether the design was altered, and the working condition of the practice. (See Appendix 6) 7

8 Completed projects were entered into the BWSR s elink program on an annual basis. The program provides tools for evaluating project success. This final report will be sent to area SWCD and NRCS offices to provide them with information and results about this project. Another means employed to track watershed improvement was through water quality monitoring. The purpose of this ongoing effort is to ensure timely completion of the watershed treatment strategies and show their effectiveness in improving the stream and lake water quality. Water quality monitoring is the most effective means to show tangible results. Water samples have been collected on an annual basis through the HLWD s Clean Water Partnership grant. Since 2003, the HLWD has collected water samples at three stream sites. Lakes were sampled in 2006, 2009, and The list below shows the parameters tested at each site. Samples were analyzed by Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratories located in New Ulm, Minnesota. Duplicate samples were collected monthly. In general, water samples were collected from April through October. Both storm and baseline events were sampled. See Appendix 8 for all water quality lab results and field parameters collected from 2003 to Parameters: TSS Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) TP Total Phosphorus (mg/l) OP, P-PO4 Ortho Phosphorus (mg/l) NH3_N Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/l) NO2_NO3 Nitrate+Nitrite Nitrogen (mg/l) TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/l) Chl A Chlorophyll A (ug/l) SVS Suspended Volatile Solids (mg/l) Turbidity Turbidity (NTU) DO Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) ph ph BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/l) E.coli Escherichia coli Objective 5: Final Report Task A. Final Report Preparation Final report writing began in July 2010 and concluded in September Task B. Final Report Submission The final report was submitted on September 27, Objective 6: Project Administration Task A. Administration The HLWD was notified by MPCA about the continuation funding round. An application was written. Letters of support were received from the SWCDs in Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood counties. The HLWD approved a resolution and letter of support. The application was submitted on June 10, (See Appendix 1) The MPCA sent confirmation of the Alternative Tile Intake Cost-Share Program Continuation on August 13, The project will provide $36, in grant funds and $45, in match funds for a total of $81,

9 Task B. Submit semi-annual reports The 2007 annual report was submitted on January 1, 2008 and revised on July 6, The 2008 semi-annual report was completed and submitted to MPCA on July 24, 2008 and revised on July 6, The 2008 annual report was submitted on December 31, The 2009 semi-annual report was submitted on June 29, The 2009 annual report was submitted on January 15, (See Appendix 1) Section II Grant Results Measurements Successful implementation of a grant program requires an extensive effort in recordkeeping. Section I summarized the activities completed during the grant period. The methods of measured results and success are varied and dependent upon the tasks. The measurements are described below by objective and task as presented in the workplan. Objective 2: Rock inlet installation, Task E. Landowner survey On February 24, 2010, surveys were mailed to the 28 cooperators who had installed rock inlets through the cost-share program. Twenty-four surveys or 85% were returned to the HLWD. Not all of the questions reflected the 85 percent response rate as some of the survey participants did not complete the back page of the survey. From these surveys, the HLWD learned that the majority of the rock inlets were installed because of water quality concerns or because they had been recommended by others. Fourteen of the respondents take their tillage equipment through the rock inlet, while eight said that they do not. The original rock is still visible on the majority of the rock inlets. Fourteen of the landowners use conventional tillage methods, while 17 use minimum till. Two use no till in their fields. Twenty-two respondents believe the HLWD should continue to provide cost-share for rock inlet installation and 21 would recommend rock inlets to others. Of the 24 who responded, 19 are very satisfied with their rock inlets and two are satisfied. There was no majority for how people learned about the rock inlet program: HLWD newsletter (8), HLWD website (1), HLWD staff (2), SWCD staff (7), another program participant (7), and other (3). Objective 2: Rock inlet installation, Task F. Landowner statements The following quotes were obtained in the landowner survey discussed above. Based on the comments, the program seemed to be well-liked and appropriate for the farming practices in the area. I believe rock inlets help with water quality. I would recommend rock inlets because they improve water quality and are easy to work around. I think HLWD should continue the rock inlet program because it helps reduce the top soil that gets into the streams and rivers. If my rock inlet works as good as I have heard, I would like to replace more of my open inlets. I like rock inlets because you don't have to drive around them and they are more convenient to farm. Keep up the good work! Rock inlets are superior to what we had before! I would recommend rock inlets because of the convenience in field preparation. Rock inlets take more water faster and filter it better than open inlets. I just love them and they clean the water, too! 9

10 Objective 2: Rock inlet installation, Task D. Pay cost-share Table 1 lists the cooperator, number of intakes installed, and cost-share provided. Although the grants funds were not completely expended, the positive response the HLWD received from participating cooperators indicates the importance of the program. During the grant period, the economy and changes in farming practices and land prices most likely affected the success of the program. During difficult financial times, fewer intakes were installed. One of the local partners expressed concern about paying the 25% cost-share, but they fulfilled their commitment as required. They were unable to continue providing cost-share to the program and therefore did not promote the program. Table 1: Alternative Tile Intake Summary Information Project Cost-Share Grant HLWD Landowner Other Cooperator Intakes Cost Allowed Amount Match Match Match Milfred Kremer Ronald Fults/Cottonwood SWCD Russell Herrig/Cottonwood SWCD Lyle Gertner/Cottonwood SWCD Charles Friese/Murray SWCD James Mixner Loraine Jones 6 1, , Leonard Eigenberg/Cottonwood SWCD Keith Cranston/Jackson SWCD 5 1, , Harriet Abels George Pankonin/Cottonwood SWCD Daniel Jensen/Cottonwood SWCD 3 1, Ben Lutterman/Jackson SWCD 2 1, Lester Evers/Cottonwood SWCD Robert Schmidt Pat Haberman Glen Talsma/Murray SWCD Craig Rubis/Jackson SWCD Craig Rubis/Jackson SWCD Lester Evers/Cottonwood SWCD Lyle Gertner/Cottonwood SWCD Jerry Perkins 9 2, , , Marvin Rachuy/Cottonwood SWCD Jim Buschena/Murray SWCD Jim Buschena/Murray SWCD Jim Buschena 6 2, , , C.C. Broesder Quentin Hoffman 11 3, , , Alvin Heintz 10 4, , , , , Roger Knudson/Cottonwood SWCD Jim Bose/Murray SWCD Donald Heintz 4 1, Dennis Willaby/Cottonwood SWCD 5 1, , Lester Evers/Cottonwood SWCD 2 1, , Andy Englin/Cottonwood SWCD 10 3, , , Pam Kunze 5 1, , Pam Kunze Jean Dieter Erving Graf/Robert Dieter Stan Kramer 4 1, , Stan Kramer Stan Kramer Mike Crowley Steve Freking TOTALS , , , , , ,

11 Objective 4: Project Evaluation, Task A. Evaluation All projects that received cost-share through the grant were reported in the elink program. The elink program estimates a 68 pound/year reduction in phosphorus and a 54,400 pound/year reduction in sediment from the 136 rock inlet projects. The following pages describe the HLWD monitoring program in detail and summarize the results in various formats. This summary is intended to provide an overview of the monitoring efforts in the HLWD, which is in parts of Nobles, Jackson, Murray, and Cottonwood counties (Figure 1). It should be noted that this grant encompassed the four counties listed above, not just areas in the HLWD. Regardless, the data is meant to show general observations over time. Table 2 summarizes the parameters and years of sampling. Figure 1: Water Sampling and Stream Gage Sites STORET ID ID Lake Sample Point NHL North Heron Lake Center SHL2 South Heron Lake Center of basin off Sandy Point DL Duck Lake Center TEAL Teal Center TIM Timber Center WGL West Graham Lake Center EGL East Graham Lake Center of south basin FL1 Fulda Lake Center of south basin FL2 Fulda Lake Center of north basin COR Corabelle Center 11

12 Table 1: Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Year Parameters TSS, SVS, BOD TP, OP, Fecal, ph, Turbidity, Conductivity TSS, NH3_N, NO2_NO3, TKN, OP, TP, Chl A, BOD, Turbidity, DO, ph TSS, NH3_N, NO2_NO3, TKN, OP, TP, Chl A, BOD, Turbidity, DO, ph Lakes none none none TSS, NH3_N, NO2_NO3, TKN, OP, TP, Chl A, BOD, Turbidity, DO, ph FL1, FL2, EGL, WGL, SHL, NHL TSS, NH3_N, NO2_NO3, TKN, OP, TP, Chl A, BOD, Turbidity, DO, ph none TSS, NH3_N, NO2_NO3, TKN, OP, TP, Chl A, BOD, Turbidity, DO, ph none TSS, NH3_N, NO2_NO3, TKN, OP, TP, Chl A, E.coli Turbidity, DO, ph FL1, FL2, EGL, WGL, SHL, NHL, Duck, Teal, Timber, Corabelle Streams O3, I3, I4* O3, I3, I4* O3, I3, I4* O3, I3, I4* O3, I3, I4* O3, I3, I4* O3, I3, I4* Sediment Basins none none none none none none none * Storm event sampling 12

13 Stream Sites: O3 - S : Heron Lake Outlet, east of Heron Lake. Jackson County, Weimer Township, Section 21 & 22. Directions to site from Heron Lake: south on Highway 60, east 1¼ miles on County Road 24, south ½ mile on 400 th Avenue. I4 - S : Jack Creek, southwest of Heron Lake. Jackson County, LaCrosse Township, Section 25 and 36 and Weimer Township, Section 30 and 31. Directions to site from Heron Lake: 1 mile south on County Road 9, 1 mile west on township road. I3 - S : Okabena Creek, west of Okabena. Jackson County, Alba Township, Section 12, and West Heron Lake Township, Section 7. Directions to site from Okabena: ½ mile north on County Road 9, 1 mile west on township road, ½ mile south on township road. Stream Results and Data: Data has been collected since 1992 at several sites during different flow regimes and seasonal conditions. Reader should note that data corresponds with the Alternative Tile Intake Cost-Share Program grant period. The results below have been presented in numerous ways to accurately determine changes in the watershed s water quality. Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the summary statistics for the three monitoring sites since Total Suspended Solids: Figure 2 illustrates the average concentrations at the stream sampling locations from 2003 to Values ranged from 47 mg/l in 2006 at O3 to 151 mg/l at O3 in MPCA has developed a surrogate standard for TSS. For the Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion, the standard is 58 mg/l. Most years, all sites have exceeded the surrogate standard. Besides 2009, there is a decreasing trend seen throughout the sites. Figure 2: Average concentration of TSS Turbidity: Figure 3 shows the average concentrations at O3 from Turbidity levels ranged from 32 NTU in 2006 to 83 NTU in The Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion 25 th to 75 th percentile is 5.2 to 22 NTU. The MPCA standard is 25 NTU depicted by the red line in Figure 3. Since 2003, the average turbidity concentration has not been below the MPCA standard of 25 NTU. 13

14 Figure 3: Average concentrations of Turbidity at O3 Nitrate-Nitrite Nitrogen: Figure 4 depicts average Nitrate+Nitrite concentrations from NO2_NO3 ranged from 8.0 mg/l at O3 in 2007 to mg/l at I3 in Nitrate levels have remained steady with little variation since The Drinking Water Standard for nitrates is 10 mg/l. Figure 4: Average concentrations of NO2_NO3 14

15 Ammonia Nitrogen: Average NH3_N levels varied from 0.06 mg/l at all three sites to 0.16 mg/l at O3. There is no long-term Ecoregion trend data for ammonia nitrogen.. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Average TKN ranged from mg/l at I3 to 5.85 mg/l at O3. There is no long-term Ecoregion trend data for TKN. Total Phosphorus: Average concentrations for TP varied from 0.15 mg/l at I4 to mg/l at I3. Figure 5 shows the average concentration for TP for sampled stream sites. The Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion 25 th to 75 th percentile TP concentration is 0.16 to 0.33 mg/l. I3 has had high levels of TP until This is most likely due to the two wastewater treatment facilities in Worthington. A new 1.0 mg/l maximum phosphorus discharge limit was established, causing an extreme improvement of TP levels. For the other sites, TP levels remained under the upper range. Figure 5: Average concentration of Total Phosphorus Orthophosphorus: Average OP concentrations ranged from 0.03 mg/l at O3 to mg/l at I3 (Figure 6). There is no long term Ecoregion trend data for Orthophosphorus. I3 had extremely high concentrations through This is most likely due to the Worthington Wastewater Treatment facility. A new 1.0 mg/l maximum phosphorus discharge limit was established, causing an extreme improvement of OP levels at I3. Since 2005, OP levels have remained relatively low and constant. Figure 6: Average concentration of Orthophosphorus 15

16 BOD: The biochemical oxygen demand was collected at O3 from 2001 to 2008, while I4 and I3 have tested BOD from Average BOD ranged from 1 mg/l at all three sites to 20 mg/l at O3. The Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion 25 th to 75 th percentile is 2.0 to 5.5 mg/l. O3 is downstream from the Heron Lake system, which is the reason for the high BOD readings. 16

17 Table 3: Jack Creek Summary Statistics Average YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N SVS E.coli Maximum YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N SVS E.coli >

18 Table 2: Jack Creek Summary Statistics con t Minimum YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N SVS E.coli Number of Samples YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N SVS E.coli

19 Table 4: Okabena Creek Summary Statistics Average YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N SVS E.coli Maximum YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N SVS E.coli >

20 Table 4: Okabena Creek Summary Statistics con t Minimum YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N SVS E.coli Number of Samples YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N SVS E.coli

21 Table 5: Heron Lake Outlet Summary Statistics Average YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N CHL A SVS E.coli Maximum YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N CHL A SVS E.coli >

22 Table 5: Heron Lake Outlet Summary Statistics con t Minimum YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N CHL A SVS E.coli Number of Samples YEAR TP OP TSS COND FECAL ph TURB TKN BOD NO2_NO3 NH3_N CHL A SVS E.coli

23 Lake Results and Data: Data has been collected since 1997 at several lake sites during different seasonal conditions and water levels. The results below have been presented in numerous ways to accurately determine changes in lake water quality. Figures 7-10 show the average concentrations of sites that have been monitored since Tables 6-11 display the average, minimum, maximum, and number of samples from each lake. Total Suspended Solids: Figure 7 shows the average concentrations at the lake sampling locations from 1997 to 2002, 2006, and The Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion 25 th to 75 th percentile TSS range for lakes is 7 to 18 mg/l. As seen in the graph, most sites were above the 75 th percentile from 1997 to 2002 and Fulda 1and 2 along with West Graham were below the 75 th percentile ecoregion range in Figure 7: Average concentration of TSS in lake sites Turbidity: Turbidity levels ranged from 2.2 NTU at FL2 to 180 NTU at SHL. The Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion 25 th to 75 th percentile is 3 to 8 NTU. Nitrate-Nitrite Nitrogen: NO2_NO3 ranged from below detection (0.025 mg/l) at all sites to 9.64 mg/l at FL2. The Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion 25 th to 75 th percentile is mg/l. Ammonia Nitrogen: NH3_N levels ranged from below detection level (0.005 mg/l) at all sites to mg/l at EGL. There is no long-term Ecoregion trend data for ammonia nitrogen. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen: TKN varied from 0.7 mg/l to mg/l at SHL. There is no long term Ecoregion trend data for TKN. Total Phosphorus: Average concentrations for TP varied from no detection to 0.65 mg/l at SHL. Figure 8 shows the average concentration for sampled lake sites. The Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion 25 th to 75 th percentile TP concentration is to 0.15 mg/l. The significant decrease in SHL is due to the City of Worthington s Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities new 23

24 1 mg/l maximum discharge. Although 2006 concentrations were within the Ecoregion range, only EGL was within the range in Figure 8: Average concentration of TP in lake sites Orthophosphorus: Average OP concentrations varied from mg/l at most sites to mg/l at SHL in The maximum OP concentration from was mg/l at SHL. The significant decrease in SHL is due to the City of Worthington s Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities new 1 mg/l maximum discharge. OP saw an increase in FL1, FL2 and WGL. The increase in FL1 and FL2 was the result of a drawdown and reclamation in The reasoning for the drastic increase in WGL is unknown. (See Figure 9) Results from the 2010 sampling season may help answer that question. Figure 9: Average concentration of OP in lake sites 24

25 Chlorophyll A: Chlorophyll A concentrations varied from 0.01 ug/l at FL1 and FL2, to ug/l at NHL. Figure 10 illustrates the average concentrations for Chlorophyll A from 1997 to The Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion 25 th to 75 th percentile is 30 to 80 ug/l. In 2006 all of the lake sites except for NHL and SHL were within the typical value. Figure 10: Average concentration of Chlorophyll A in lake sites 25

26 Table 6: Fulda Lake 1 Summary Statistics FL1-Fulda Lake 1 Average Maximum Minimum Number of Samples

27 Table 7: Fulda Lake 2 Summary Statistics FL2-Fulda Lake 2 Average Maximum Minimum Number of Samples

28 Table 8: West Graham Lake Summary Statistics WGL-West Graham Lake Average Maximum Minimum Number of Samples

29 Table 9: East Graham Lake Summary Statistics EGL-East Graham Lake Average Maximum Minimum Number of Samples

30 Table 10: North Heron Lake Summary Statistics NHL-North Heron Lake Average Maximum , Minimum Number of Samples

31 Table 11: South Heron Lake Summary Statistics SHL2-South Heron Lake Average , Maximum , , Minimum Number of Samples

32 Table 12 is a summary table of the averages for , 2006, and 2009 for OP, TP, and TSS. The red text indicates that the average from 2009 exceeds the average from Almost all of the average concentrations of OP, TSS, and TP have decreased from the averages. FL1 andfl2 were above the average due to the 2008 draw down. WGL was above the due to unknown reasons. Table 12: Summary of average concentrations OP TSS 2002 TP 2002 (mg/l) Avg (mg/l) Avg (mg/l) Avg FL FL FL FL FL FL EGL EGL EGL WGL WGL WGL NHL NHL NHL SHL SHL SHL Note: OP and TP values were very high in Fulda 1 and 2 during This is the result of a drawdown and reclamation of the lake in Water clarity was to the bottom of the lake throughout the entire year in 2009 in Fulda 1 and 2. Rainfall: Rainfall information in Figure 11 was obtained from the State Climatology Office, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Waters, and University of Minnesota Extension. Rainfall was slightly above normal in Figure 12 shows the departure from normal. Data was used from in order to correctly identify a normal year. Figure 11: Annual Precipitation 32

33 Figure 12: Departure from Normal Precipitation Stream Flow and Discharge: The three stream sites monitored during were established in the Heron Lake Watershed Clean Water Partnership Phase 1 Diagnostic Study. They are equipped with stage reading equipment. The HLWD began operating and maintaining the gages in Gages were installed annually in the late spring and removed in the fall. In 2004, water quality monitoring equipment was in use from March 3 through September 30; in 2005, from April 7 through October 27; in 2006, from April 3 through October 4; in 2007, from March 19 to October 16; in 2008, from March 24 to October 9; in 2009, from March 24 to October 27. Discharge measurements were taken several times throughout the year by the DNR at all three sites. A complete report on discharge measurements and rating curves will be included in the CWP Continuation Final Report in Pollutant Loading Estimates: Pollutant loads were estimated using the FLUX modeling program for the CWP Phase I, CWP Continuation, and CWP Implementation grant programs. FLUX has been successful estimating pollutant loads and Flow Weighted Mean Concentrations (FWMC). MPCA recommends the FLUX model application because of its relatively easy access, simplicity, and general acceptability in the scientific community. MPCA suggests reporting the mass calculated for the monitoring season rather than the entire year. The FLUX model computes an average daily load and extrapolates that load out to both the flow season and the entire year. Because Minnesota has a period of 4-5 months of snow cover and frozen stream channels, stream discharge and loadings are near zero during the winter months. Table 13 shows the difference in discharge from 1992, 2003, 2006 and As shown in the table, 1992 contains two types of flow: continuous and non-continuous. In 1992, flow was collected by two different agencies. The DNR collected continuous data for 199 days and MSU collected noncontinuous data (staff gage readings). The 1992 flow season started on April 20 and ran for 199 days to November 4. Although not well documented, the volume reported in the CWP Diagnostic Study was apparently extrapolated to an annual volume. To estimate the actual flow volume between April 20 and November 4, the reported value is divided by 366 and multiplied by 199. For purposes of comparison between the 1992 and 2003 seasons, the continuous flow record (with the estimated 33

34 SITE volume) is most appropriate. Rainfall was also a factor in The average rainfall for Murray, Cottonwood, Jackson, and Nobles counties in 1992 was inches. In 2003, the average rainfall for the four-county area was inches. The average rainfall for the four-county area in 2006 was inches, 2007 was inches, 2008 was 27.5 inches, and inches fell in Table 13: 1992, 2003, 2006, and 2009 Discharge (cubic feet) Continuous Flow Flow Flow Flow (estimated annual volume) April- September April- September April- September 1992 Continuous Flow (estimated volume) (4/20-11/4) I3 1,515,523,000 2,671,992, ,557,950 4,501,489,516 2,447,531,158 I4 1,309,306,000 3,079,081,296 1,161,697,146 5,034,512,404 2,737,344,176 Figures show loading for I3, I4 and O3 in Loading for all parameters has been decreasing since There was a small increase in 2008 where we had an increased amount of snowmelt and rainfall early in the spring when soils were exposed and vulnerable. Figure 13: TSS Load Reduction 34

35 Figure 14: TP Load Reduction Figure 15: OP Load Reduction In an effort to account for the effects of climate, FWMC was compared to obtain a better understanding of the concentration of nutrients and sediment after accounting for flow. The FWMC is the result of applying a statistical weighing function to discrete concentration values. In a traditional FWMC, each individual sample was collected. The result of this calculation can be thought of as the concentration that would be observed if all the stream discharge collected throughout the flow season was poured into a large pool and one sample was collected and analyzed. Figures document the total suspended solids, total phosphorus and ortho phosphorus FWMC for The results in this table indicate that the FWMC for TSS, TP and OP have been decreasing throughout the three sites, which may be the result of land use changes. The only exception is phosphorus in the I4 watershed, which remained comparatively the same. 35

36 Figure 16: TSS FWMC Figure 17: TP FWMC Figure 18: OP FWMC 36

37 Each year, all best management practices completed through 319 grants, CWP grants, and any other programs, are entered into Board of Water and Soil Resources elink database. Through elink, we are able to map pollution reductions by subwatershed. Figure 19 illustrates the locations of implement rock intakes throughout the project area. It is important to note that elink only allows the user to map rock intake per field. For landowners that installed more than one intake per field, only one intake was allowed to be mapped. Figures illustrate the reductions by minor watershed for sediment, soil saved, and phosphorus. Figure 19: Rock Inlet locations 37

38 Figure 20: Sediment Reduction by Minor Watershed Figure 21: Soil Loss Reduction by Minor Watershed 38