Council’s Water Quality Goal

2. Council’s Water Quality Goal 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 Framework

3. Factors Contributing to Water Quality Weather Nonpoint Sources (Parking Lots, Lawns, Farm Fields, Construction Sites, Bluff & Streambank Erosion) Population Growth Point Sources (WWTP, Industry, Storm Sewers) Lake Arkansas Watershed Advisory Groups

4. Water Quality Assessment • Nonpoint Source Pollutants Bluff Erosion Stormwater http://montananps319grants.pbworks.com Agricultural Runoff Fertilizers www.topnews.in

5. Annual Survey Results #1 (2004 – 2009)

6. MCES Monitoring & AssessmentPoint Source Pollution (WWTPs) Why do we monitor and assess point sources of pollution? • To meet State of Minnesota pollutant discharge permit requirements • To assess if meeting State of Minnesota water quality standards Metro Plant 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 River

7. MCES Monitoring & Assessment • Nonpoint Source Pollution bayjournal.com www.santafenm.gov aworldofprogress.com Why do we monitor and assess nonpoint source pollution? • Comply with statutes including: - Assessing the water quality of the metropolitan area (Statute 103F.721) - Target pollutant loads for metropolitan area watersheds (Statute 473.157) What questions do we try to answer related to nonpoint source pollution? • Where should we focus Best Management Practices (BMPs) for greatest improvement? • What watersheds pose the greatest water quality threat? • How will landscape changes impact future water quality?

8. MCES Water Quality Monitoring 7-County Metropolitan Area

9. MCES Water Quality Monitoring • WWTP Monitoring • 1 on St. Croix River • 2 on Minnesota River • 4 on Mississippi River

10. MCES Water Quality Monitoring • River Monitoring • 22 river monitoring sites

11. MCES Water Quality Monitoring • Stream Monitoring • 26 stream monitoring sites • (historic total)

12. MCES Water Quality Monitoring • Lake Monitoring • 949 lakes • 355 lakes monitored since 1980 • 195 lakes monitored in 2009 • by MCES and volunteers

13. Water Quality Assessment • Impacted Waterways MPCA 2008 Impaired Waters of the Metropolitan Area

14. 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

15. Is the Water Quality Leaving the Metropolitan Area as Good as When It Entered? Confluence of the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers

16. Water Quality Trends • Precipitation Variation 30.4”

17. River Monitoring Results • Total Phosphorus (TP)

18. River Monitoring Results • Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

19. River Monitoring Results • Nitrate (NO3)

20. How Have Improvements at the MCES WWTPs Impacted Water Quality? Metro WWTP

21. WWTP Monitoring Results • Mercury (Hg) Mercury Reduction Program Initiated

22. WWTP Monitoring Results • Total Phosphorus (TP) 1976 – Statewide phosphate ban 2000-2002 – Secondary treatment conversion 2003 – Phosphorus effluent limit 1 mg/L

23. How Does Point Source Pollution Compare to Nonpoint Source Pollution? Nine Mile Creek

24. Stream and WWTP Monitoring Results • Total Phosphorus (TP)

25. Stream and WTTP Monitoring Results Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

26. 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) Mixed Agricultural / Rural Residential Landuse (~42%) Urban Landuse (~73%) Urban Landuse (~67%) Agricultural Landuse (~51%)

27. Stream Monitoring Results • Total Phosphorus (TP)

28. Stream Monitoring Results • Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

29. How Have the Metropolitan Area Lakes • Changed Over Time? Lake Minnetonka

30. Lake 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 Grades A B C D F • Lake Physical Characteristics • Lake type (drainage, seepage, impoundment) • Depth (deep vs. shallow) • Watershed drainage area & land use • Lake Monitoring Programs • Monitoring by MCES staff • Monitoring by citizen volunteers via CAMP Square Lake, Washington County

31. 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.org Square Lake’s exceptional water quality promotes various recreational activities

32. Lake Monitoring Results - Case Study 1 • Square Lake (Washington County) 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 www4.agr.gc.ca/

33. Lake 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.

34. Lake Monitoring Results - Case Study 2 • Twin 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 ½ the phosphorus to the lake • (lawn runoff, nutrients from fertilizers, sediment, pet & animal waste) MPCA 2007

35. State of Water Quality within the Metropolitan Area Summary Overall Conclusions • Total 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 Council’s goal

36. State of Water Quality within the Metropolitan Area Summary WWTP Conclusions • Water 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 effluent Rivers and Streams Conclusions • Nonpoint 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 Lake Conclusions • The Metropolitan Area lakes are facing increasing challenges from urbanization, but the Council’s 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.

37. State of Water Quality within the Metropolitan Area Summary Where do we go from here? • 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 Council’s 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

38. Questions? Informational Contacts: Judy Sventek, Manager, Water Resources Assess. judy.sventek@metc.state.mn.us 651-602-1156 Kent Johnson, Manager, Environmental Monitoring kent.johnson@metc.state.mn.us 651-602-8117