Sentinel Lakes Program: MPCA Update – Sentinel Lakes Program: MPCA Update – WQ Sampling, Data Analysis & ReportingWQ Sampling, Data Analysis & Reporting

Steve Heiskary

Prepared in conjunction with:Jesse AndersonPam Anderson

Lee EngelMatt LindonKelly O’Hara

Lakes and Streams Monitoring UnitWater Monitoring Section

Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division

OutlineOutline

2008 sampling & data analysis overview;2008 sampling & data analysis overview; Sentinel Lake Summary sheets – Sentinel Lake Summary sheets –

approach & scheduleapproach & schedule Reporting Plan for 2009-2011;Reporting Plan for 2009-2011; Collaboration with MDNR staff on LAP Collaboration with MDNR staff on LAP

reporting;reporting; Sampling 2009Sampling 2009 SummarySummary

WQ & related monitoringWQ & related monitoring

Profiles – DO, temperature, conductivity & pH @ Profiles – DO, temperature, conductivity & pH @ 1m intervals;1m intervals;

Standard water chemistry: nutrients, chlorophyll-Standard water chemistry: nutrients, chlorophyll-a, TSS, color, alkalinity, a, TSS, color, alkalinity,

Special – cation, anion, TOCSpecial – cation, anion, TOC Algal sampleAlgal sample Near-shore assessment (NLAP protocol) – 10 Near-shore assessment (NLAP protocol) – 10

random sites at least once on each;random sites at least once on each; Monthly observations for exotics (curly-leaf) at Monthly observations for exotics (curly-leaf) at

many lakes;many lakes;

2008 MPCA WQ sampling2008 MPCA WQ sampling

~monthly May- September (full suite: May, ~monthly May- September (full suite: May, July & October) nutrients and chl-a July & October) nutrients and chl-a remainder;remainder;

CLMP Secchi - ~18 lakesCLMP Secchi - ~18 lakes Volunteer DO & temperature profiles ~18 Volunteer DO & temperature profiles ~18

lakeslakes Linked with existing TMDL or other Linked with existing TMDL or other

monitoring where possible ( e.g. Peltier);monitoring where possible ( e.g. Peltier);

Near-shore Assessments

Volunteer Assistance

Artichoke 3 No Belle 3 Yes

Bearhead 0 Yes Carlos 3 No Carrie 3 Yes Cedar 3 Yes Echo 0 No Elk 2 Yes

Elephant 0 No Hill 3 Yes

Madison 5 Yes Northern Lights 0 No

Pearl 3 Yes Peltier 6 Yes

Portage 2 Yes Red Sand 2 Yes Shaokatan 2 Yes

South Center 3 Yes South Twin 2 Yes St. James 6 Yes

St. Olaf 6 Yes Ten Mile 2 Yes

Trout 0 No White Iron 0 Yes

Lakes 18 18

Summary of

•# of near-shore assessments (1 complete NLAP assessment) & exotics recon. conducted by staff

•# of lakes with volunteer assistance

•May be willing to continue but may be limited by # of DO meters available in 2009 and future years;

22

-Ap

r

2-M

ay

7-M

ay

16

-Ma

y

21

-Ma

y

27

-Ma

y

4-J

un

12

-Ju

n

23

-Ju

n

24

-Ju

n

2-J

ul

9-J

ul

15

-Ju

l

23

-Ju

l

30

-Ju

l

4-A

ug

11

-Au

g

18

-Au

g

24

-Au

g

29

-Au

g

6-S

ep

15

-Se

p

24

-Se

p

3-O

ct

22

-Oc

t

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8

-9

T e m p . D e g . C

De

pth

M

5-10 1 0-15 1 5-2 0 2 0-2 5 2 5-3 0

Using MPCA & volunteer profile data: St. Olaf Lake Temperature & DO Isopleths based on MPCA & volunteer measurements (created by Matt Lindon)

22

-Ap

r

2-M

ay

7-M

ay

16

-Ma

y

21

-Ma

y

27

-Ma

y

4-J

un

12

-Ju

n

23

-Ju

n

24

-Ju

n

2-J

ul

9-J

ul

15

-Ju

l

23

-Ju

l

30

-Ju

l

4-A

ug

11

-Au

g

18

-Au

g

24

-Au

g

29

-Au

g

6-S

ep

15

-Se

p

24

-Se

p

3-O

ct

22

-Oc

t

0

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

- 5

- 6

- 7

- 8

- 9

D O m g /l

De

pth

M

14 -16 12 -1 4 1 0-12 8-10 6-8 4 -6 2 -4 0 -2

Sentinel Lake Summary sheetsSentinel Lake Summary sheets

Purpose – provide brief summary data & analysis Purpose – provide brief summary data & analysis for each lake (4 pages);for each lake (4 pages);

Focus on basic lake & watershed characteristics, Focus on basic lake & watershed characteristics, summer-mean WQ, available trend data;summer-mean WQ, available trend data;

Summarize watershed, WQ, fisheries & plant Summarize watershed, WQ, fisheries & plant management issues;management issues;

Audience – anyone interested in Sentinel Lakes Audience – anyone interested in Sentinel Lakes program: volunteers, other researchers, program: volunteers, other researchers, legislators, etc.legislators, etc.

Fishery and Aquatic Plant Survey Summary

Table 3. Focal species captured during recent surveys and their size and abundance compared with other lakes in its lake class.

Species Stocked Abundance Size Notes Walleye* Y Average Large Northern Pike N Average Large Black Crappie* N High Large White Crappie N Average Average Largemouth bass N Low Small Bluegill* N Average Average Gizzard Shad N Variable Variable Discovered in 1970 Yellow perch N Average Small

Table 4. Aquatic Plant Summary

Frequency of plants 15ft 25% Number of species 10% freq.

0

90% depth spp. occur 3ft Infested Curly-leaf pondweed (lightly)

Example of fish & plant survey summary:

Madison Lake, Blue Earth County

Note – MPCA near-shore assessments at 10 random sites in May & June found heavy infestation of curly-leaf (implies value of routine-random site observations)

Table 2. Madison Lake summer-mean as compared to typical range for WCBP ecoregion reference lakes MPCA data based on 1985-86 and 2008 sample collections

Parameter Madison

2006 Madison

2008 WCBP Number of reference lakes 16 Total Phosphorus (µg/L) 81 ± 11 75 65 – 150 Chlorophyll mean (µg/L) 47 ± 5 27 30 – 80

Secchi Disk (meters) 0.7 ± .06 1.1 1.6 – 3.3 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 1.8 ± 0.1 1.3 1.3 – 2.7 Alkalinity (mg/L) 144 ± 2 140 125 – 165 Color (Pt-Co U) 18 ± 2 20 15 – 25 pH (SU) 8.7 ± 0.1 8.0 8.2 – 9.0 Chloride (mg/L) 20.6 ± 0.2 22 13- – 22 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 10.0 ± 1 7.6 7 – 18 Total Suspended Inorganic Solids (mg/L)

2.1 ± .04 2.8 3 – 9

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 267.5 ± 67 358 300 – 650 TN:TP ratio 22.5:1 16.3:1 17:1 – 27:1

Summer-mean 2008 as compared to typical range based on ecoregion reference lakes. Include additional year when available

Figure 3. Trout Lake July 2008 and July 1986 DO and Temperature Profiles

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20 25

Temperature ( C ) and Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Dep

th (

met

ers) 2008 Temp

2008 DO

1986 Temp

1986 DO

Elk Lake July Profiles (1985 & 2008)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25

DO (mg/l) & Temp (C)

De

pth

(m

)

1985 DO 1985 Temp 2008 DO 2008 Temp

Compare 2008 profile with that from an earlier survey Kelly & Jesse).

2008 Madison Lake Temperature Profiles Deg. C.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

5 10 15 20 25 30

De

pth

Me

ters

April May JuneEarly July August SeptemberOctober

2006 Madison Lake Temperatue Profilesmg/L D O

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

5 10 15 20 25 30

De

pth

Me

ters

M ay June July

Early August Late August Se pte mbe r

Compare profile series among years:

Madison Lake: Variable stratification patterns among years

2008 Madison Lake DO Profiles mg/L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

De

pth

Me

ters

April May JuneEarly July August SeptemberOctober

2006 Mad ison L ake D O P ro filesm g/L D O

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

De

pth

Me

ters

M ay June July

Early August Late August Se pte mbe r

Stratification & stability of thermocline has a direct impact on DO & may impact WQ as well

2006 – anoxic hypolimnion from 6m to bottom July – late August

0102030405060708090

100

May June July Aug Sept

Month

ug

/L

00.511.522.533.544.55

TP Chl-a Secchi

Well-mixed lake with curly-leaf: Portage Lake. Common pattern in shallow lakes

Cedar Lake Water Chemistry

0

10

20

30

40

50

May June July August September October

Date

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n

(ug

/l)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

De

pth

(m

)

TP (ug/l)

Chl-a (ug/l)

Secchi (m)

Stratified lake – Cedar Lake, Morrison County

Figure 4. Portage Lake Summer-mean Secchi, TP & Chl-a

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

De

pth

(m

)

0102030405060708090

100

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2008

Year

ug

/L0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Dep

th (

m)

TP Chl-a Secchi

303(d) listed in 2006

TMDL start date – 2014

Sentinel report can provide information to be used in TMDL assessment & reporting

Shaokatan (Lincoln) Diatom-inferred ( DI-P) & Observed (Obs.-P)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1750 1800 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

TP

pp

b

DI-P Obs.-P

Lake Shaokatan, Lincoln County:

Use of sediment cores & diatom reconstruction of TP

Sentinel Lakes: MPCA data & reporting summary

DOWArea Fisheries Name

MPCA Staff

Sentinel Report SWAG

LAP type/date

Years of

CLMPYears of TP

TMDL Sched.

FS or NS

Special studies

69-000400 Tower White Iron Jesse 2008 LAP 1996 16 5 TMDL - Hg

16-004900 Grand_Marais Trout Jesse 2008 CLMP+ 2004 8 6 FS reference NLF

69-025400 Tower Bearhead Jesse 2009 2 116-008900 Grand_Marais Northern Light Jesse 2010 0 069-061500 I.Falls Echo Jesse 2010 0 169-081000 I. Falls Elephant Jesse 2010 5 0

29-025000 Park_Rapids Portage Kelly 2008 12 10 2014 NS TMDL - P

10-14200 Aitkin Hill Kelly 2009 LAP 1994 13 2

11-041300 Walker Ten Mile Kelly 2009 08/09 LAP 1991 19 5long-term profile data by

15-001000 Bemidji Elk Kelly 2009 11 1various data at Itasca Park

44-001400 Detroit_Lakes South Twin Kelly 2010 08/09 4 0

21-005700 Glenwood Carlos Lee 2008 32 22 FSreference CHF; TMDL hg

41-008900 Windom Shaokotan Lee 2008 Status 2000 13 10 2007 NS

Shallow lakes of SW MN & TMDL - P 2007

06-000200 Ortonville Artichoke Lee 2009 1 1 reference NGP

13-002700 Hinckley South Center Lee 2010 20 6 2013 NS TMDL - P

34-003200 Spicer Carrie Lee 2010 4 0

02-000400 East_metro Peltier Matt 2008 32 23 2008 NSTMDL - P 2007 & sed. Core

07-004400 Waterville Madison Matt 2009 LAP 2006 17 881-000300 Waterville St. Olaf Matt 2009 16 3 reference WCP

83-004300 Windom St. James Matt 2010 LAP 1990 5 1

73-003700 Montrose Pearl Pam 2008 W District LAP 1997 10 5 2008 NS

18-038600 Brainerd Red Sand Pam 2009 CLMP+ 2002 7 3shallow lakes of WC MN

49-014000 Little_Falls Cedar Pam 2009 08/09 14 247-004900 Hutchinson Belle Pam 2010 10 1

Need to roll-out over several years to allow completion for all lakes;

Begin with those with strongest databases;

In 2008:

Jesse – 2

Kelly – 1

Lee – 2

Matt – 1

Pam - 1

Cover page

Sampling (note volunteers), writing, and review credits

List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................ii

List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................iii

Introduction..................................................................................................................................1

General discussion and introduction to Sentinel Lakes Program

Report purpose

Why was this lake selected.

Lake Background and Status

Bibliography of published water quality and fisheries reports on the lake or if used as a study lake?

a. Lake Morphometric and Watershed Characteristics (MPCA staff)

Basic summary information on lake morphometry, watershed area and land use composition, and land ownership (Table 1)

Basic comparison to lake and watershed characteristics for that ecoregion

Acknowledge any significant land use activities or changes in the watershed;

b. Precipitation and climate summary (MPCA or MDNR staff)

Basic summary of precipitation, evaporation, and runoff for the lake and its watershed. Base on existing climate summary information, nearby USGS or MDNR gauges, and other information that may be available http://climate.umn.edu/hidensityedit/hidenweb.htm, http://climate.umn.edu/MNclimNet/MNclimNet.htm; .

Note how study years compare to long-term records (e.g. wet year, dry year, etc.);

Ice on and ice off record summary (if it exists);

c. Lake level (following assumes area hydrologist provides some details, otherwise MPCA staff assemble based on what is available through Lakefinder)

Describe lake level record. When possible include long-term chart on lake levels;

Describe if there is active (artificial) management of lake levels, presence or absence of lake outlet structure;

Lake level trends, management and issues over time;

d. Macrophyte assessment (presumes fisheries or ecoservices staff will provide details on this);

History of macrophyte surveys;

Map of macrophyte composition and abundance based on most recent survey;

Trends in macrophyte composition for the lake.

Aquatic Macrophyte Condition Index (originally developed for WI but adapted for MN data by Marcus Beck – U of MN M.S. grad soon to be available)

Description of macrophyte management and issues for the lake;

Discussion about the importance of macrophytes in maintaining resilience of clear-water regimes (a la Scheffer and Carpenter 2003, Genkai-Kato and Carpenter 2005, Valley and Drake 2007).

e. Fishery assessment (prepared by fisheries staff)

Current status of fish populations and community integrity as compared with other similar lakes

Population and community trends over time

Overview of fisheries management and issues for the lake

f. Water Quality assessment

Methods (lab and field)

Field data summary: dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles, seasonal patterns, describe stratification, hypolimnetic oxygen, estimate days of DO > 5 mg/L in hypolimnion (when appropriate); compare current profiles to profiles from previous studies (e.g. see Elk Lake Lake Summary sheet); consider charting surface water temperature from previous surveys (look for patterns and trends);

Water quality status as compared to ecoregion reference lakes (Table 2); discuss seasonal (May to October) patterns for TP, chlorophyll-a, Secchi and any other parameter that may merit this). Use Table 2 as a basis for a basic discussion of lake water quality (as with other LAP reports);

Trophic State Index and Trends (TP, chlorophyll-a, and Secchi) – describe variability and trends;

Diatom reconstruction summary (where data exists);

Modeling – MINLEAP and perhaps BATHTUB (Incorporate ground water contribution to hydrological regime – Lee Engel’s Master’s project if available)

303(d) assessment status and water quality goal setting – Is the lake impaired relative to water quality standards (if so timeline for listing and TMDL development). If not what does current water quality, trend and modeling data tell us about the lake that may be useful for water quality goal setting.

Summary and Recommendations

Summarize above findings briefly

Supply recommendations on future monitoring regimen where possible.

Appendices...................................................................................................................................29

SummarySummary

MPCA staff sampled all lakes in 2008 – in general on a monthly basis;

Citizen volunteer and park staff monitor included on many lakes – important to continue at least Secchi into the future;

MPCA staff have draft Sentinel Summary sheets for all lakes (edits welcome); will finalize, PDF and place on MPCA web site following this meeting (edits welcome, please forward within next week or so);

MPCA (Lakes & Streams Unit) proposes to continue to sample each lakes that is not fully assessed for 303(d) “TMDL” purposes in 2009;

Will need assistance from summer interns to continue our monitoring effort (this and lab budget can be a focus of future discussion);

We will write LAP-type reports that will provide a baseline for each of the lakes – (begin in 2008, complete by 2011);

These reports will provide a good baseline status and trend report for each lake; sound basis for deciding the frequency & intensity of future monitoring, and should serve to help shape future proposals for the Sentinel Lakes program.