Sentinel Lakes Program: MPCA Sentinel Lakes Program: MPCA Update – WQ Sampling, Data Update – WQ Sampling, Data Analysis & Reporting Analysis & Reporting Steve Heiskary Prepared in conjunction with: Jesse Anderson Pam Anderson Lee Engel Matt Lindon Kelly O’Hara Lakes and Streams Monitoring Unit Water Monitoring Section Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division
18
Embed
Sentinel Lakes Program: MPCA Update – WQ Sampling, Data Analysis & Reporting Steve Heiskary Prepared in conjunction with: Jesse Anderson Pam Anderson Lee.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
Standard water chemistry: nutrients, chlorophyll-Standard water chemistry: nutrients, chlorophyll-a, TSS, color, alkalinity, a, TSS, color, alkalinity,
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;
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.
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
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.
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.