Cannon River Watershed Assessment

This page was left blank intentionally for printing purpose

Part A Section 2-Table of Contents

PART A SECTION 2-TABLE OF CONTENTS...... 3 PART A SECTION 3 LISTS OF TABLES, CHARTS, FIGURES AND MAPS...... 5 SECTION 3A-LIST OF TABLES ...... 5 SECTION 3B-LIST OF FIGURES ...... 6 SECTION 3C-LIST OF MAPS ...... 6 PART A SECTION 4 OVERALL INFORMATION...... 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 7 PART A SECTION 5 OVERALL WATERSHED INFORMATION...... 10 SECTION 5A-HISTORY OF THE CANNON RIVER WATERSHED ...... 10 PART A SECTION 5B-WATERSHED INFORMATION...... 12 Bedrock Geology...... 12 Topography...... 13 Climate...... 14 Land Use and Cover...... 15 Population...... 16 Wetlands and Lakes...... 16 Fisheries...... 18 Drainage...... 18 Waste Treatment...... 22 Feedlots/Manure Management...... 22 Recreational Land Use...... 23 Soils...... 23 PART A SECTION 5C PROJECT PARTNERS...... 28 PART A SECTION 5D QUALITY CONTROL...... 29 PART A SECTION 5E PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND COSTS BY ELEMENT ...... 29 PART A SECTION 6 ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND PROJECTS ...... 34 Macroinvertebrate Study...... 34 Point Source Inventory...... 36 PART A SECTION 7-PROJECT MILESTONES ...... 38 PART B. DIAGNOSTIC STUDY...... 38 PART B SECTION 1 STREAM MONITORING OVERVIEW ...... 38 PART B SECTION 2 SITE SELECTION ...... 40 PART B SECTION 3 MONITORING SITE DESCRIPTIONS...... 41 PART B SECTION 4 MONITORING PROCEDURES...... 47 Water quality monitoring...... 47 Flow measurements...... 47 Stream monitoring equipment...... 48 Water sample analysis...... 49 Water quantity estimates...... 50 Sediment and nutrient loading estimates using FLUX...... 50 Analytical terms and definitions...... 51 MONITORING RESULTS ...... 52 PART B SECTION 5 STREAM FLOW...... 53 Hydrologic Terms and Definitions...... 55 Flow and water quality seasons...... 57 Hydrographs...... 58 PART B SECTION 6 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS...... 60 Turbidity...... 60 Total suspended solids...... 62 Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen...... 67 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen...... 70 Total phosphorus...... 71 Ortho-phosphorus...... 75 Bacteria - E. coli...... 76 BOD– biological oxygen demand...... 78 PART B SECTION 7 STREAM CONCLUSIONS AND GOALS ...... 80 PART B SECTION 8: LAKE MONITORING OVERVIEW ...... 88 PART B SECTION 9: LAKE WATER QUALITY ...... 89 PART B SECTION 10: FISHERIES ...... 97 PART B SECTION 11: LAKES-CONCLUSIONS AND GOALS ...... 98 PART C IMPLEMENTATION PLAN...... 103 PART C SECTION 1-IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OBJECTIVES...... 103 Element 1: BMPs...... 103 Element 2 Monitoring...... 107 Element 3 Education and Outreach...... 107 Element 4 Surveys and Inventories...... 109 Element 5 Administration...... 109 PART C SECTION 2 IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY MANAGEMENT AREAS...... 111 PART C SECTION 3 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS ...... 113 PART C SECTION 4 BMP SELECTION AND JUSTIFICATION...... 117 PART C SECTION 5 IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING AND EVALUATION ...... 122 PART C SECTION 6 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROJECT PARTNERS ...... 124 PART C SECTION 7 BMP OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN...... 126 PART C SECTION 8 INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAM...... 126 PART C SECTION 9 PERMITS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECTS ...... 127 PART C SECTION 10 IDENTIFICATION AND SUMMARY OF PROGRAM ELEMENTS...... 127 PART C SECTION 11 PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE ...... 129 PART C SECTION 12 IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT BUDGET...... 131 PART C SECTION 13 CONCLUSIONS...... 133 PART D REFERENCES...... 133 PART E APPENDICES...... 133 PART F DISTRIBUTION LIST...... 134

Part A Section 3 Lists of Tables, Charts, Figures and Maps

Section 3a-List of Tables Table #1 Upper Cannon Lakes 17 Table #2 Upper Cannon River Watershed Drainage type and length 19 Table # 3 Number of registered feedlots by sampleshed 22 Table #4 Project partners and their responsibility 28 Table #5 Education 31 Table #6 2007-2009 Monthly precipitation 53 Table #7 flow statistics for the 2007/2008 monitoring sites 58 Table #8 2007-2009 combined turbidity sample statistics 61 Table #9 2007-2009 combined turbidity sample statistics 63 Table #10 2007-2009 TSS combined sample statistics 67 Table #11 2007-2009 NO3 + NO2 combined sample statistics 70 Table #12 2007-2009 TKN combined sample statistics 71 Table #13 2007-2009 combined total phosphorus sample statistics 75 Table #14 Ortho/Total phosphorus comparisons 76 Table #15 2007-2009 ortho-phosphorus combine sample statistics 76 Table #16 E. coli monthly geometric means for sites 1-5a 77 Table #17 E. coli percent monthly exceedances of standard 77 Table #18 2007-2009 E. coli combined sample statistics 78 Table #19 2007-2009 BOD combined sample statistics 79 Table #20 2007-2008 TSS normalized yields 80 Table #21 2007-2008 TSS FWMC 81 Table #22 2007-2008 normalized N yields 82 Table #23 2007-2008 N FWMC 82 Table #24 2007-2008 TP normalized yields 84 Table #25 2007-2008 TP FWMC 84 Table #26 2007-2009 Ortho-phosphorus vs. TP 85 Table #27 E. coli monthly geometric means for sites 1-5a 86 Table #28 E. coli percent monthly exceedances of standard 86 Table #29 2007-2009 E. coli combined sample statistics 87 Table #30 Summary of water quality data from May through September 2007 89 Table #31 Summary of water quality data from May through September 2008 90 Table #32 Summary of the most recent MNDNR fish survey 91 Table #33 Summary of 2007 Secchi disc for Upper Cannon River watershed lakes 92 Table #34 Summary of 2007 total phosphorus for Upper Cannon River watershed lakes 94 Table #35 Summary of 2007 for chlorophyll a for Upper Cannon River watershed lakes 95 Table #36 Summary of the most recent MNDNR fisheries data (fish/net) 97 Table #37 Using lake models to estimate FWMC, nutrient loading, and phosphorus concentrations 101 Table #39 BMP Level of Participation 113 Table #40 BMP information for Sampleshed 1 and 2 113 Table #41 BMP Level of Participation 114 Table #42 BMP information for Sampleshed 3 114 Table #43 BMP Level of Participation 115 Table #44 BMP information for Sampleshed 4 115 Table #45 BMP Level of Participation 116 Table #46 BMP information for Sampleshed 5 116 Table #47 Project Partners and Responsibilities 125 Table #48 Budget estimate per year 131 Table #49 Implementation project budget by elements and objectives 132

5 Section 3b-List of Figures Figure #1 2007-2008 Upper Cannon Watershed “outlet” total flow 57 Figure # 2 2007 Monitoring sites hydrographs 59 Figure # 3 2008 Monitoring site hydrographs 60 Figure #4 Turbidity/TSS relationship 61 Figure #5 Turbidity/TSS relationship 63 Figure #6 2007 TSS monitoring sites loads 65 Figure #7 2008 TSS monitoring site loads 65 Figure #8 2007 TSS FWMC 66 Figure #9 2008 TSS FWMC 66 Figure #10 2007monitoring sites Nitrate + Nitrite loads 68 Figure #11 2008 monitoring sites Nitrate + Nitrite loads 69 Figure #12 2007 Monitoring sites Nitrate + Nitrite flow-weighted mean concentrations 69 Figure #13 2008 Monitoring sites Nitrate + Nitrite flow-weighted mean concentrations 70 Figure #14 2007 monitoring sites TP loads 73 Figure #15 2008 monitoring sites TP loads 73 Figure #16 2007 TP Flow-weighted mean concentrations 74 Figure #17 2008 TP flow-weighted mean concentrations 74 Figure #18 Shallow Lake Secchi Disc 2007 93 Figure #19 Deep Lake Secchi Disc 2007 93 Figure #20 Shallow Lake Phosphorus 2007 94 Figure #21 Deep Lake Phosphorus 2007 95 Figure #22 Shallow Lake Chlorophyll 2007 96 Figure #23 Deep Lake Chlorophyll 2007 96 Figure #24 Carlson Tropic State Index 98 Figure #25 Ratio of TP to Chlorophyll a 99 Figure #26 Total phosphorus to chlorophyll ratio for Gorman and Sabre Lakes 2007 summer data 99

Section 3c-List of Maps Map #1 Cannon River Watershed 11 Map #2 Bedrock 12 Map #3 Topography 13 Map #4 Land Use 15 Map #5 National Wetlands Inventory 16 Map #6 Drainage 18\19 Map #7 Feedlots 22 Map #8 Soils 23 Map #9 Point Source Inventory 36 Map #10 Sampleshed 1 41 Map #11 Sampleshed 2 42 Map #12 Sampleshed 3 43 Map #13 Sampleshed 4 44 Map #14 Sampleshed 5a 45 Map #15 UCAP sampling locations and subwatershed size 52 Map #16 Upper Cannon River watershed showing subwatersheds 88 Map #17 Samplesheds 111

6 Part A Section 4 Overall Information

Executive Summary

Upper Cannon Assessment Project Le Sueur County, Project Sponsor January 2007-January 2010

The Water of Concern is the Upper Cannon River and its watershed. Water quality issues are a concern to the residents of the Upper Cannon River Watershed. Many of the residents are lakeshore property owners. The project stemmed from the Waterville Lake Association requesting an assessment on their lakes to develop an implementation plan to improve water quality of Lake Tetonka and Sakatah Lake. Since the Cannon River flows through Tetonka and Sakatah, it was determined to assess the Upper Cannon River watershed.

The Upper Cannon Assessment Project (UCAP) took place for three primary purposes: · To determine the sources and amount of nutrients, sediment and bacteria (E. coli) in the Upper Cannon River Watershed. · To determine peak flow · To determine the reduction of pollutants in order to achieve designated uses and water quality standards.

The Cannon River is located in South Central Minnesota in the Cannon River Watershed. The Upper Cannon River Watershed is approximately 212,733 acres in size and is approximately 29% of the Cannon River Watershed. The Upper Cannon watershed is located in the Upper Mississippi River Watershed. The Upper Cannon is one of the four main lobes of the Cannon River watershed. Lakes and agricultural drainage characterize the Upper Cannon River watershed. Six of the forty-four lakes are riverine lakes. The Cannon River flows directly through Shields, Rice, Gorman, Sabre, Tetonka, and Upper/ Lower Sakatah lakes. The Cannon River Watershed lies in the Northern Central Hardwoods Forest Ecoregion and borders the Western Corn Belt Ecoregion. Agriculture has redefined the landscape.

Recreational and natural environment lakes in the Upper Cannon make outdoor recreation a large part of the local economy. The majority of the Upper Cannon River watershed is located in portions of Le Sueur, Rice and Waseca Counties with small areas located in Blue Earth and Steele Counties. The cities, towns and communities located in the watershed are Shieldsville, Cordova, Kilkenny, Elysian, Waterville and Morristown.

Project components included Monitoring, GIS, Education, Survey and Inventories and Administration. The monitoring component included stream and in-lake monitoring. The parameters measured at the stream sites were Turbidity, Total Suspended Solids, Nitrate + Nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Ortho-phosphorus, Bacteria E. coli. Grab samples were taken at five stream locations during storm events and bi-monthly. Lake water quality parameters measured were Total Phosphorus, Chlorophyll a and clarity. Grab samples and a pole sampler obtained lake samples bi-monthly. The samples were put on ice and transported to Minnesota Valley Testing Lab in New Ulm. The results were obtained and analyzed. Data was submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for STORET (state reporting system).

Data/Results TSS summary · Sampleshed 1 represented 22% of the study area, contributed 17% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 2, representing 16% of the study area, contributed 17% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 3, representing 25% of the study area, contributed 22% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 4, representing 15% of the study area, contributed 20% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 5a, representing 22% of the study area, contributed 24% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 4 had the highest TSS yield (38.5 lbs/ac) and load values (414.4 tons) in 2007. · Sampleshed 4 had the highest TSS FWMC of the five monitoring locations for both monitoring years (38.2 and 24.4 mg/L, respectively). · Sampleshed 5a had the highest load values (301.9 tons) of the five monitoring locations for the 2008 monitoring season. TP and ortho-phosphorus summary · In 2007 and 2008 monitoring season, the majority of TP loading occurred during a few storm events. In 2007, major precipitation events occurred in August and October. In 2008, precipitation events occurred during the months of April, May, and June. · Sampleshed #1 accounted for 12% of TP load in 2008, while representing 22% of the study area. · Sampleshed #1 had the lowest FWMC of TP in 2007. This may be caused by the numerous wetland complexes located upstream of the monitoring point and with little contribution from Lake Dora. Sampleshed #4 had the lowest FWMC of TP in 2008. This was surprising based on the high TSS loads associated with Sampleshed #4. This may be a result of the monitoring location being located on a tributary stream and not the mainstem of the Cannon River. The results from both years are more likely to be correlated to the climatic condition for each monitoring year. · Based on the water quality data collected, more than 50% of the TP in the Upper Cannon River Watershed is comprised of ortho-phosphorus. These results signify that the majority of TP load is from organic bound sources. The high ratio of ortho-phosphorus to TP indicates that majority of the phosphorus load is coming from organic sources previously mentioned (faulty septic system, wildlife contributions, subsurface tiled lands, feedlot runoff, manure applied fields, decaying algae or plant materials, etc.).

Nitrate + Nitrite-N summary · During both monitoring years, every monitoring site was below the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L. The N flow-weighted mean concentrations were fairly low when compared to other watersheds in the region. · Areas of the watershed with lakes and more wetland complexes had lower concentrations of N. · Sampleshed #4 exhibited the highest N load, N yield loss, and N flow-weighted mean concentrations in the 2007-monitoring season. · Sampleshed #3 exhibited the highest N load loss (76.4 tons) in 2008, but Sampleshed 4 had the highest N flow-weighted concentration (6.72 mg/L). · Based on flow-weighted mean concentrations of nitrate + nitrite, N slowly increased as water progressed through the watershed starting at Site 1 and finishing at Site 5a. · Sources of N to surface waters in this region of the watershed are typically non-point. This would include mineralization, surface and subsurface drainage, fertilizers, manure application, legume fixation, and precipitation. · The most common pathway for N sources to enter a waterway is through subsurface tile drainage systems.

8 · Sampleshed #4, representing 15% of the study area, contributed 153% (71.5 tons) of N load in 2008. · Sampleshed #5a contribution of the N load was 46.5 tons. The data suggests that this sampleshed is a “losing” system of nitrates. The total N load contribution from this site over the two monitoring years was 144.99 tons (33%).

E. Coli summary · Monitoring Site 4 violated the monthly geometric mean standard on three occasions (June, August, and October). July and September geometric means at Site 4 were 1,427 and 2,165 CFU/100 ml respectively, though the months did not have enough samples to be compared to the standard. These results indicate that there is a significant source of bacteria somewhere in the Whitewater/Waterville Creek sampleshed. · The only other violations of the monthly geo mean standard occurred at Site 1 in June, Site 3 in August and Site 5a in August. · It should be noted that the geometric means might have been affected by the upper reporting limit of 2,419 CFU/100ml. Had the actual CFU values been available for samples that were reported as greater than 2,419 CFU/100ml, the monthly geometric means would likely have been higher for some months/sites.

Lake Monitoring The seven lakes meet the MPCA nutrient criteria for transparency, and Rice Lake meets the MPCA nutrient criteria for chlorophyll with Sabre barely missing the cutoff. However, all seven lakes exceed the nutrient criteria for phosphorus with Frances being the closest to the accepted criteria. The other six lakes greatly exceeded the phosphorus limit. For all seven Upper Cannon River watershed lakes, it would appear that phosphorus is not limiting algae growth. If phosphorus was the limiting nutrient, chlorophyll levels would be expected to be much higher to the degree that chlorophyll would be so dense, that it would start to be light limited. However chlorophyll did not get dense enough (over 150 ppb) to become light limited. In a phosphorus-limited lake, the TP/Chl ratio should be 10 or less. For the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes, the TP/Chl ratio was often over 100 and as high as 300. Some nutrient other than phosphorus must be limiting algal growth. Nitrogen is a possibility but there is abundant nitrogen present in the watershed as well. A micronutrient could be limiting algal growth.

Conclusion/Implementation Plan The implementation plan for the Upper Cannon reflects the “big picture” of watershed restoration. The implementation plan is set up with goals, objectives and actions. Funding will be sought for · Shoreland BMPs (buffers, rain gardens rain barrels and other water retention structures), · Agricultural structural practices (sediment control basins, terraces and grade control structures), · Manure and nutrient management, · Replacement of open tile intakes with alternative intakes, · Vegetative practices (wetland restorations, filter strips, riparian buffers, grass vegetative buffers and grass waterways) and · Upgrading of non-compliant septic systems. · Determine what is limiting algal growth in the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes. · Determine the source of the excess phosphorus found in the lakes. · Implement BMPs to reduce phosphorus, nitrogen, and organic matter loading to the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes.

Other elements of a phase II project include education, surveys and inventories, a scaled down monitoring program and administration.

Part A Section 5 Overall Watershed Information

Section 5a-History of the Cannon River Watershed Bounded by rolling hills, bluffs, farmland, and woods in its upper reaches, the Cannon enters a broad gorge below Cannon Falls, where it is flanked by bluffs up to 300 feet (100 m) high. The Cannon River Watershed has an area of 940,521 acres (See Map #1). The Cannon River originates in west central Rice County, moves west into Le Sueur County then heads south and east back into Rice County. The Cannon River is underlaid with a variety of sedimentary rocks. The river valley created by cutting through these rocks produced rock outcrops of St. Peter Sandstone, the Prairie du Chien Group of dolomites and sandstone. Past the Falls, the river is in the Driftless Area of Minnesota, a region that remained ice free during the last ice age, allowing the river to carve a very impressive canyon. The upper region of the river has glacial morphology with terminal moraines and glacial drift and till, and is not in the Driftless Area.

In the reservoirs and slow stretches above Faribault the most common game fish are northern pike, black crappies, bluegills, and bullheads. Downstream from Faribault the most common species are smallmouth bass, northern pike, walleye, and, in the stretch below Cannon Falls, channel catfish. Wildlife seen in the river valley includes white-tailed deer, beavers, otters, raccoons, bobcats, red fox, gray fox, and coyotes. Bald eagles are sighted near the Mississippi River.

The Dwarf Trout Lily is a rare plant present only in the Cannon River watershed.

Evidence of human activity along Inyan Bosndata (Or “Standing Rock River” as the Cannon is named in the Dakota Indian language) goes back at least 12,000 years. By C.E. 1000 the Mississippian Culture, a tradition heavily dependent on agriculture, was established in southern Minnesota. An important part of the yearly cycle was the hunting of buffalo west of the Mississippi and the Big Woods. The Cannon served as a primary route from the Mississippi River valley to the plains of western Minnesota where bison were common. The Dakota were forced to surrender the area in the 1851 Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and most Dakota (except for a small group south of Faribault) left the area after the Dakota War of 1862.

Adapted from the Minnesota DNR web site

Map #1 Cannon River Watershed

Part A Section 5b-Watershed Information

Why the project took place Water quality issues are a concern to the residents of the watershed. Many of the residents are lakeshore property owners. The project stemmed from the Waterville Lake Association requesting an assessment on their lake to develop an implementation plan to improve water quality of Lake Tetonka and Sakatah Lake. Since the Cannon River flows through Tetonka and Sakatah, it was determined to assess the Upper Cannon River watershed. Like any other watershed, finger pointing occurs. Urban shoreland points its finger at agriculture and agriculture points its finger at urban pollution. Findings from the study will be used to develop an implementation plan that will involve all types of land use in the watershed.

“Watershed Information” covers bedrock geology, topography, climate, land use, population, lakes, fisheries, drainage, waste treatment, feedlots/manure management, recreational land use and soils. The maps inserted in the document can also be found full size in the map section.

Bedrock Geology Map #2 Bedrock

According to the Geologic Atlas of Le Sueur County, which gives a general overview of the Upper Cannon River Watershed, there are glacial drift aquifers and bedrock aquifers. A bedrock aquifer is a geologic formation that is capable of storing and yielding fresh water in usable quantities. A bedrock aquifer system is a multi-aquifer system that is composed of two or more bedrock aquifers that act hydrologically as a single unit and are bound on the top and bottom by aquitards. Individual bedrock aquifers range from coarse-grained deposits such as sandstone to hard fractured sedimentary rocks such as limestone or dolomite. Groundwater can be obtained from three bedrock aquifer systems. They are the St. Peter-Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer system, the Franconia-Ironton-Galesville aquifer system and the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer system.

The majority of the watershed consists of Lower Ordovician and Middle Ordovician rocks (See map 2). The Lower Ordovician rocks consist of the Shakopee and Oneota Formations of the Prairie du Chien Group of the Hollandale embayment of Southeastern Minnesota. Unit consists dominantly of dolostone and dolomitic limestone. The Shakopee also contains intervals of quartz arenite, including a pronounced basal unit named the New Richmond Member. Middle Ordovician rocks consist of Decorah Shale; limestone of the Platteville Formation, shaly rocks of the Glenwood Formation and St. Peter Sandstone in the Hollandale embayment of southeastern Minnesota.

There is a portion of the watershed in the Northeast, in Rice County that consists of Upper Cambrian rocks, undivided-Jordan Sandstone, dolomitic, glauconitic and silty glauconitic rocks of the St Lawrence and Franconia Formations: Ironton and Galesville Sandstones, sandy and shaly rocks of the Eau Claire Formation and the Mount Simon Sandstone.

Along the southeastern border of the watershed there is Middle Ordovician Decorah Shale, a light greenish-gray shale and lesser amounts of coquinoid limestone, especially in the upper half of the formation. This is mapped as a separate unit when possible.

Topography Map #3 Topography

The topography of the watershed consists of recessional moraines, which created a rolling to steep topography. The landscape is generally one of circular, flat-topped hills separated by swales and bogs. In the southern part of the watershed the hills are more irregular in shape; the knolls and ridges are separated by swales and drainage ways. The watershed has areas of peat, sloughs and lakes that are interspersed between the hills and ridges. The upland area of the watershed is nearly level to rolling ground moraines. In the moraine areas of the watershed, hills and ridges rise 50 to 150 feet above the swales and drainage ways (Le Sueur County Water Plan-1997).

Climate The climate of the Upper Cannon River Watershed (based on the local water plans within the watershed) classified as cool, sub humid, and continental. The watershed has wide variations in temperature from summer to winter. Although the climate is essentially uniform throughout the watershed, variations in microclimate may occur as a result of differences in vegetation, soil, urbanization and relief.

Precipitation in the watershed varies from month to month. The average precipitation is twenty-eight (28”) towards the west to thirty-one inches (31”) towards the east per year. Snowfall averages about forty-six inches (46”) per year.

Average daily temperatures in the watershed range from eleven to seventy-two degrees Fahrenheit (11o F to 72o F). In the winter months, the average daily minimum temperature is about 6 degrees Fahrenheit (6o F). The average daily maximum temperature in the summer on the west end of the watershed is about eighty-four degrees Fahrenheit (84o F) while the average daily maximum temperature in the eastern portion of the watershed is about eighty-one degrees Fahrenheit (81o F).

Land Use and Cover Map #4 Land Use

The breakdown of Landuse is: Landuse Percent (%) Open Water 8.3 Developed Open Space 3.65 Developed Low Intensity 2.09 Developed Medium Intensity 0.33 Developed High Intensity 0.12 Barren Land (Rock, Sand, Clay) 0.01 Deciduous Forest 7.49 Evergreen Forest 0.23 Mixed Forest 0.05 Shrubs 1.78 Grassland/Herbaceous 1.87 Pasture/Hay 17.59 Cultivated Crops 52.33 Woody Wetlands 0.12 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 3.96 15

Population

The population of the watershed is an estimate from the 2000 census and percentage of the township in the watershed. The population estimate in the Upper Cannon River Watershed is approximately 8,240. The cities in the watershed are: Elysian, Kilkenny, Waterville, Shieldsville and Morristown. An estimate of increase of population based on Rice County’s water plan is a 30% increase by 2010. Rice County as a whole is more populated then the Upper Cannon River with larger towns. An estimate for the watershed would be an increase from the year 2000 to 2010 between 20-30%. Rural population has been decreasing and urban population has been increasing according to the Le Sueur County Hazard Mitigation plan.

Wetlands and Lakes Map #5 Na onal Wetlands Inventory

Approximately 44 named lakes are located in the Upper Cannon River Watershed. The depths of lakes vary from deep to shallow lakes, recreational development lakes to natural environment lakes.

16 Table #1 Upper Cannon Lakes

Lake Name GIS Acres DNR Acres Maximum Lake Depth Primary County Bossuot Lake 249.76 No Data Le Sueur Cannon lake 1593.22 1591 15 Rice Caron Lake 373.56 406 4 Rice Cedar Lake 885.51 885.51 42 Rice Diamond Lake 102.77 No Data Le Sueur Dudley Lake 59.64 61.18 60 Rice East Jefferson 646.49 646.49 37 Le Sueur Faribault Lake 56.55 No Data Rice Fish Lake 78.62 78 55 Le Sueur French Lake 875.79 875.79 56 Rice German Lake 773.92 791.62 51 Le Sueur Goose Lake 194.94 No Data Le Sueur Gorman Lake 494.23 499 14 Le Sueur Horeshoe Lake 414.57 416.62 26 Le Sueur Hunt Lake 177.93 176.36 27 Rice Kelly Lake 61.51 62 No Data Rice Lake Charles (Rays) 140.54 156.3 32 Le Sueur Lake Dora 711.34 760 6 Le Sueur Lake Francis 872.52 926.99 60 Le Sueur Lake Mabel 169.31 No Data Le Sueur Lake Volney 254.14 268.86 67 Le Sueur Lower Sakatah Lake 358.75 310 7 Rice Middle Jefferson 664.22 664.22 8 Le Sueur Mud Lake 297.29 No Data Waseca Perch Lake 22.01 No Data Blue Earth Pooles lake 315.83 No Data Rice Rice Lake 322.81 323 6.7 Rice Roberds Lake 632.28 632.28 43 Rice Roemhildts Lake 67.52 70.44 60 Le Sueur Round Lake 131.75 No Data Le Sueur Sabre Lake 243.29 263 13 Le Sueur Sasse Lake 276.36 No Data Le Sueur Shields Lake 952.42 940.47 42 Rice Sprague Lake 168.67 No Data Rice Steele Lake 68.81 69.8 27 Le Sueur Sunfish Lake 119.4 121.11 30 Le Sueur Swedes Bay 516.76 492 6 Le Sueur Tetonka Lake 1356.56 1336 35 Le Sueur Toners Lake 119.05 134 Waseca Upper Sakatah lake 863.8 881 12 Le Sueur

17 Weinberger Lake 32.68 No Data Rice Wells Lake 640.66 634 4 Rice West Jeﬀerson 438.8 438.8 24 Le Sueur Willing Lake 27.82 No Data Rice Turek Marsh 162.79 No Data Rice

Fisheries A total of 31 lakes with public access, totaling nearly 16,000 acres, have been surveyed in the Upper Cannon River watershed. Eleven of those lakes covering nearly 8,000 acres are directly connected to the Cannon River. Fish community assemblages show the riverine influence; channel catfish, white bass, white sucker, quillback sucker, shortnose gar, and longnose gar have been found in Cannon chain lakes. Game fish found in most of the Upper Cannon River Watershed include bluegill, black and white crappie, walleye, largemouth bass, and northern pike.

The Upper Cannon Watershed has a mix of stable and unstable lakes with varying fish communities. They include shallow water “boom and bust” fisheries that winterkill with frequency; rare, clearwater lakes with small watershed to waterbody ratios; deeper eutrophic to highly eutrophic lakes with bass and panfish fish communities; and river connected lakes directly connected to the Cannon River.

Lake and stream surveys measure aquatic vegetation, fish habitat, substrates, water quality, water levels and flow measurements, watershed characteristics, and fish abundance. Minnesota DNR Fisheries surveys collect data for stream and lake management planning, evaluating management activities, and for long term monitoring. Most surveys are completed every five to ten years.

Drainage

Map #6 Drainage

18 Table #2 Upper Cannon River Watershed Drainage type and length * Waterways in Waseca County are listed as streams.

Upper Cannon Miles in Blue Miles in Le Miles in Rice Miles in Steele *Miles in River Earth Sueur Waseca Watershed Ditch Type Drainage Ditch 53.952 19.993 0 0 Intermittent Drainage Ditch 1.605 18.625 1.102 0 0 Perennial Drainage Ditch 0.172 0 0 Undifferentiate d

Le Sueur County Drainage Information: Drainage in Le Sueur County is extensive and very important to the agricultural community. Approximately 70% of the land use of Le Sueur County is agriculture (1998 Le Sueur Comprehensive Local Water Plan). This number most likely has changed since 1998 due to development. Approximately 41% of the cropland acres in the county are considered to be wet soils. According to the local NRCS office, about 60 to 70 percent of the total cropland in Le Sueur County is tiled. The length of public and private tile systems has not been quantified. Le Sueur SWCD is the contact for drainage authority.

Rice County Drainage: No new ditches have been constructed since 1972, and no laterals have been added since 1984. Periodic maintenance is done on the existing ditches.

A link to the University of Minnesota Extension that has a good description of drainage that includes the pros and cons of drainage is http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc7740.html

Minnesota Statute on Drainage can be found at: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=103E Agricultural drainage is the use of surface ditches, subsurface permeable pipes, or both, to remove standing or excess water from poorly drained lands. European settlers constructed drainage ditches and channeled streams during the late 1800s to carry water from the wet areas of their farms to nearby streams and rivers. Through out the 1900’s drainage increased by subsurface drainage pipes installation, generally at a depth of three to six feet.

A Brief Chronology of State Laws on Wetlands/Public Waters Management http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/history.html · 1858 Chapter 73 allowed private corporations to be formed for the purpose of draining lands and creating water privileges. · 1883 Chapter 108 allowed county commissioners to authorize the construction of ditches or water courses within the county, including the drainage of "shallow, grassy, meandered lakes under four feet in depth." · 1897 Chapter 257 created a state drainage commission to "have care, custody, control and supervision of all drainage ditches in the state." It also provided the first statutory definitions of public and private waters. This law and the powers of the drainage commission were expanded by statutory amendments through 1917. · 1919 Chapter 65 abolished the state drainage commission and the Department of Drainage and Waters, under the control of a commissioner, was established. · 1931 The Department of Conservation was created and Drainage and Waters became a division within the new department. During the 1930s, the Depression and periods of drought, along with increased conservation concerns, halted wide-scale drainage efforts. · 1937 Chapter 468 declared "In order to conserve, protect and utilize the water resources of the state ... it is hereby declared to be the policy of the state that, subject to existing rights, all waters in streams and lakes wholly within the state ... shall be public waters....” Section 4 of this Act established the water permit program for activities appropriating water and Section 5 established the permit program for dams and waterway obstructions. · 1947 Chapter 142 declared, "All waters providing substantial public use and that are navigable in fact" to be public waters. Drainage of public waters could occur only if they were deemed "non- public," or permission was acquired from the Commissioner of Conservation. · 1951 The "Save the Wetlands" program was enacted, which used federal funds (Pittman- Robertson) to acquire wetlands for state wildlife management areas. · 1955 Chapter 681 brought conservation into the drainage code; it required that in determining the benefit of a proposed drainage system, the conservation of soil. water, forests, wild animals and related natural resources must be considered. · 1961 Chapter 754 created state policy that, where practicable, all state agencies shall conserve precipitated water in areas where it falls. · 1973 Chapters 315 and 479 were enacted that (1) expanded the definition of public waters to include "all waters which serve a beneficial public purpose, thereby including wetlands; and (2)

20 required new elements, including environmental concerns, that need to be considered before establishing or improving drainage systems. · 1976 Chapter 83 established a program to inventory and specify public waters once and for all, including wetlands. The state water bank program was created, where easements could compensate landowners who agreed to preserve their wetlands. · 1979-84 The public waters inventory was begun in 1979 to identify all public waters, and final publication of county inventory maps was finished in 1984. · 1991 Chapter 354, the Wetland Conservation Act, created a "no net loss policy"; provided for mitigation of drained or filled wetlands; allowed local units of government administrative authority; and authorized the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to adopt rules and acquire permanent easements for Type 1 to 3 wetlands.

To offset or mitigate pollution through drainage, Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been developed. Conservation drainage evolved. Pattern tiling was the previous trend. Conservation drainage is currently the newest technology of drainage. Conservation drainage consists of: · Buffer Strips · Culvert Sizing · Side Inlet Controls · Wetland Restorations · Wood Chip Bioreactors (on tile systems) · Drainage Water Management (on tile systems) · 2-Stage Ditch · Alternative Tile Inlets · Treatment Wetland (off-channel and on-channel)

Artificial drainage is very important to the agricultural economy. Benefits of agricultural drainage include: · Allows earlier more timely field work in the spring · Allows earlier planting and better utilization of fertilizers · Reduces soil compaction and increases traffic ability · Allows uninterrupted fields operations and crop growth · Allows conservation tillage practices to be used · Results in higher crop yields and profits · Reduces risk for the farmer · Improves land value -- a capital investment

Negative impacts to surface water quality of drainage include: · Turbidity (erosion & sediment) · Dissolved Oxygen (erosion & sediment, phosphorus, algae) · Nutrient / Eutrophication (erosion & sediment, phosphorus, algae) · Nutrient / Eutrophication (nitrogen, nitrates, groundwater sources and Gulf Hypoxia) · Changes the hydrology of the landscape · Increases stream energy and flooding · Can reduce ecological diversity

21 Waste Treatment

Rural Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) are under the jurisdiction of County Environmental Service Offices. The counties work under MN SS 7080. An estimate of septic system compliance is approximately 65-70% systems are in compliance.

Feedlots/Manure Management Map #7 Feedlots

Table #3 Number of registered feedlots by sampleshed

Sampleshed: 1 2 3 4 5 Total # Of Registered Feedlots (MPCA 2008- 53 20 44 29 58 204 Information and Map were compiled by the CRWP)

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the state agency for regulating animal feedlots in Minnesota. In addition, counties may be delegated by the MPCA to administer the program for feedlots that are not under federal regulation. MPCA regulates the collection, transportation, storage, processing and disposal of animal manure and livestock processing activities, and provides assistance to counties and the livestock industry. The rules apply to all aspects of livestock production areas including the location, design, construction, operation and management of feedlots, feed storage, stormwater runoff, and manure handling facilities. The MPCA has fact sheets and technical guidance documents available. Local feedlot regulatory work is accomplished through the county ordinance for each county in the Upper Cannon River Watershed. There are feedlots located in the watershed that are not required to be registered by the State of Minnesota. 22

Recreational Land Use

Recreation has a large impact within the Upper Cannon River Watershed. The watershed contains wildlife management areas (Murphy, Diamond Lake, Factor, Velishek, Boyd, McCullough, Carl and Verna Schmidt and Sakatah), Delahanty Waterfowl Production Area, Townsend Woods Scientific and Natural Area, and Sakatah Lake State Park and the Sakatah Singing Hills State Trail. With the number of lakes, wetlands, natural areas and Wildlife Management Areas, recreation has a big impact on the local economy. Hunting, fishing and other water recreation, camping, birding, hiking, biking and snowmobiling are a few ways that people recreate in the watershed.

Soils Map #8 Soils

When soil is well managed, it can be an efficient receiver of rainwater. If soil is improperly managed, however, the water may run off the surface, carrying soil particles with it. This process, called soil erosion has been a major cause of soil degradation. Damage to water quality occurs when eroded soil enters surface waters.

Sedimentation occurs when water carrying eroded soil particles slows long enough to allow soil particles to settle out. The smaller the particle, the longer it stays in suspension. Larger particles such as gravel and sand settle out sooner than smaller particles such as clay. Clay may stay in suspension for very long periods, contributing significantly to water turbidity.

Sediment comes from many sources: bluff erosion, shoreland, agricultural fields, woodlands, highway road banks, construction sites, and mining operations. By volume, sediment can be the largest water pollutant. It affects water quality physically, chemically, and biologically. Damage from sediment is expensive, both economically and environmentally. Sedimentation destroys fish spawning beds, reduces

23 useful storage volume in reservoirs and clogs streams and ditches. Suspended sediment can reduce aquatic plant life and alter a stream's ecology. Because the environmental damage from sediment is often cumulative, the ultimate effects and costs may not be evident for years. The consequences of off-site sedimentation can be severe, both for those immediately affected and for those who must cope with subsequent problems.

Sediment often carries organic matter, animal or industrial wastes, nutrients, and chemicals. The most troublesome nutrient element is phosphorus. In freshwater ecosystems developed under very low phosphorus conditions, large additions of phosphorus can stimulate the production of algae blooms. As the algae die, organisms in the aquatic system decompose the algae to use as a food source. In the process, they also use significant amounts of oxygen. If the oxygen level is initially low, the decomposition process can further reduce it to a point that "fish kills" can occur. Phosphorus may come from such sources as fertilizers, organic matter, and animal manure. Phosphorus is very immobile in most soils and concentrates in the top few inches of soil. It is very susceptible to erosion and likely to be present in sediment.

Sediment also may carry pesticides—such as herbicides and insecticides—that may be toxic to aquatic plants and animals. The varying chemical properties of pesticides—for example, their solubility, toxicity, and chemical breakdown rate—determine the potential damage to water quality.

Edited from Soil Facts: Soils and Water Quality: http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/Soilfacts/AG-439-01/

The soil classifications of the Upper Cannon River Watershed (NRCS Soil Survey):

· Northern portion of the watershed; Kilkenny-Caron Kilkenny- Kilkenny clay loam consists of well drained and moderately well drained, moderately slowly permeable soils on convex areas of moraines. These soils formed in moderately fine textured sediments and underlying medium textured glacial till. The course fragments of this soil are dominantly shale fragments.

Caron- Caron muck consists of very poorly drained soils on moraines (found in upland depressions). These soils formed in a layer of moderately decomposed herbaceous material and in underlying coprogenous earth. Permeability is moderately rapid or rapid in the upper part of the profile and moderately slow in the lower part.

· Northeastern portion of the watershed; Webster-Nicollet-Lester

Webster- The Webster series consists of very deep, poorly drained, moderately permeable soils formed in glacial till or local alluvium derived from till on uplands. Slope ranges from 0 to 3 percent. Webster soils are on relatively un-dissected till plains of Wisconsin age. Slopes are nearly plane to slightly concave and range in gradient from 0 to 3 percent. Webster soils formed in loamy glacial till of mixed mineralogy and from local alluvium from such till. Webster soils are poorly drained, and most areas are artificially drained with tile and open ditches. Runoff is slow. Permeability is moderate. The seasonal high water table is a depth of 0 to 1 foot from November to July in most years where un-drained.

24 Nicollet- The Nicollet series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in calcareous loamy glacial till on till plains and moraines. Nicollet soils have slightly convex or plane slopes. They are on till plains, ground moraines, and terminal moraines. Somewhat poorly drained. Runoff is low.

Lester- The Lester series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable soils in the uplands. These soils formed in medium textured and moderately fine textured calcareous glacial till. The texture is loam or clay loam throughout the profile. Drainage class--well drained--a frequently saturated zone does not occur within a depth of 1.8 meters during the wettest part of years when precipitation is within one standard deviation of the 30-year mean of annual precipitation

· Western portion of the watershed; Lester-Le Sueur-Cordova

Le Sueur Series- The Le Sueur series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils that formed in calcareous loamy glacial till on rises on moraines. These soils have moderate permeability. The Le Sueur soils have slightly concave, plane, or slightly convex slopes on moraines. They formed in a calcareous, loamy till and are moderately well drained. Surface runoff is slow. An apparent water table is at 2.5 to 4 feet during November to June in most years. Moderately well drained Le Sueur soil can be found on slightly elevated flats and gently convex slopes. Drainage and Permeability: Well drained. Permeability is moderate. Runoff is moderate high or high

Cordova- The Cordova clay loam consists of very deep, poorly drained soils that formed mostly in loamy calcareous glacial till on swales and slight depressions on ground moraines. The upper part of the solum in some of these soils formed in modified glacial till. Poorly drained. Surface runoff is low. Permeability is moderately slow. The Cordova soils have slightly concave to slightly convex slopes on broad flat ridge tops in rolling moraine areas or on lower lying areas in ground moraines and till plains.

· Southwestern portion of the watershed; Storden-Esterville-Clarion

Storden- The Storden series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in calcareous loamy glacial till on glacial moraines. Carbonates are in all horizons. It is slightly alkaline or moderately alkaline throughout. Well drained. Surface runoff is low to very high.

Estherville- The Estherville series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in 25 to 50 centimeters of loamy sediments over sandy and gravelly outwash. These soils are on outwash plains, stream terraces, valley trains, and kames on moraines. Drainage class--somewhat excessively drained--a frequently saturated zone does not occur within a depth of 1.8 meters during the wettest periods of years when precipitation is within one standard deviation of the 30 year mean of annual precipitation.

Clarion- The Clarion series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in glacial till. Drainage class--moderately well drained--a frequently saturated zone occurs 25 within depths of 1.2 to 1.8 meters (4 to 6 feet) during March to June in normal years Saturated hydraulic conductivity--moderately high to high. Surface runoff potential--is very low to medium depending on slope.

· South portion of the watershed; Lester-Le Sueur-Cordova

Le Sueur Series- The Le Sueur series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils that formed in calcareous loamy glacial till on rises on moraines. These soils have moderate permeability. The Le Sueur soils have slightly concave, plane, or slightly convex slopes on moraines. They formed in a calcareous, loamy till and are moderately well drained. Surface runoff is slow. Permeability is moderate. An apparent water table is at 2.5 to 4 feet during November to June in most years. Moderately well drained Le Sueur soil can be found on slightly elevated flats and gently convex slopes. Drainage and Permeability: Well drained. Permeability is moderate. Runoff is moderate high or high

· Southeast portion of the watershed; Webster-Nicollet-Clarion-Canisteo

Nicollet- The Nicollet series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in calcareous loamy glacial till on till plains and moraines. Nicollet soils have slightly convex or plane slopes. They are on till plains, ground moraines, and terminal moraines. Somewhat poorly drained. Runoff is low.

Clarion- The Clarion series consists of very deep, moderately well drained soils on uplands. These soils formed in glacial till. Drainage class--moderately well drained--a frequently saturated zone occurs within depths of 1.2 to 1.8 meters (4 to 6 feet) during March to June in normal years Saturated hydraulic conductivity--moderately high to high. Surface runoff potential--is very low to medium depending on slope.

26 Canisteo-The Canisteo series consists of very deep, poorly and very poorly drained soils that formed in calcareous, loamy till or in a thin mantle of loamy or silty sediments and the underlying calcareous, loamy till. These soils are on rims of depressions, depressions and flats on moraines or till plains. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent. Drainage class--poorly drained and very poorly drained--in an un-drained condition, a frequently saturated zone occurs at the surface to a depth of 0.3 meters during the wettest periods of years when precipitation is within one standard deviation of 30 year mean annual precipitation

· Along the Cannon River from Elysian to Faribault: Waukegan-Estherville- Dickinson-colo

Waukegan-The Waukegan series consists of very deep, well-drained soils that formed in 50 to 100 centimeters of loess or silty glacial alluvium and in the underlying sandy or sandy-skeletal glacial outwash. These soils are on slightly concave to convex slopes on glacial outwash plains and valley trains. Slope ranges from 0 to 12 percent.

Dickinson- The Dickinson series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in glacial or alluvial deposits that have been reworked by wind. These soils are on uplands and on treads and risers on stream terraces in river valleys. Slope ranges from 0 to 30 percent. Mean annual air temperature is about 9 degrees C. Mean annual precipitation is about 840 millimeters.

Part A Section 5c Project Partners Table #4 Project partners and their responsibility

Project Sponsor Project Representative MPCA Project Manager Le Sueur County Lauren Klement Current Manager: Shaina Keseley Responsibility: Fiscal Agent Le Sueur County Environmental Previous Manager: Scott MacLean Services

Cannon River Watershed Le Sueur County Environmental BWSR Partnership Services Chris Hughes, Tom Fischer Dave Legvold, Beth Kallestad, Lauren Klement, Amy Beatty Responsibility: Technical support Lucas Bistodeau, Leslie Kennedy, Responsibility: Project through attendance at meetings Aaron Wills, Ross Hoffmann, Administration, education, technical Hilary Ziols, Lisa Carey support Responsibility: Project coordination, administration, technical support through monitoring, planning

Le Sueur SWCD Rice County Environmental DNR Gene Krautkremer Services Randy Bradt-Hydrology Responsibility: Technical support, Jennifer Mocol Responsibility: Technical support education, promotion, planning Responsibility: Technical support, through meetings education, GIS Marc Bacigalupi-Fisheries Jacquelyn Bacigalupi- Fisheries Responsibility: Fish and aquatic plant surveys

Greg Kruse-Waters-Monitoring Responsibility: Contract for flow monitoring & development of rating curves Rice SWCD Waseca County MPCA Steve Pahs Angie Knish, Mark Leiferman Justin Watkins, Pat Baskfield, Tiffany Responsibility: Technical support, Responsibility: Education and Schauls, Katie Brosch education, promotion, planning technical support Responsibility: Reconnaissance/site selection/equipment set up, equipment technical support

Waseca SWCD University of Minnesota Extension Minnesota State University-Mankato Marla Watje Service Rick Moore, Kim Musser Responsibility: Technical support, Diane Stouffer-Le Sueur County Responsibility: Contract for GIS and education, promotion, planning Brad Carlson-Rice County education (Website) Responsibility: Education, technical support, planning Lake Associations USDA NRCS USGS Gene Schwacke-WLA Steve Breaker Gregory Mitton Bernie Baumann-WLA Responsibility: Technical support Responsibility: Reconnaissance/site Tom Miller-GLA selection Tom Springmeyer-LFA Rick Elsen-SLA Responsibility: Education, volunteer monitoring, technical committee representation Special Thanks to the following for studies, assessments and education: St. Olaf College-Macroinvertebrate monitoring: Dr. Shea, Dr. Swift and Dr. Waddell Sil Pembleton on behalf of CRWP and WEM teachers Diane Eckhoff and Keith Zickafoose-Education 28

Part A Section 5d Quality Control

For all Clean Water Partnership Projects, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requires a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The Upper Cannon Assessment Project Quality Assurance Plan is located in the Appendices and can be found under appendix #4

Part A Section 5e Project Description and Costs by Element Administration Project Description: Development of the project work plan Fiscal Management Project Management Program Element 1 Summary: Le Sueur County was the Project Sponsor and Fiscal Agent of the Upper Cannon River Assessment Project. The project representative was responsible to oversee the project to completion within its timeframe and assist with and submit reports in a timely manner. The project representative along with the CRWP staff completed the project work plan. The CRWP managed the project bringing program elements to completion and assist with reporting. The final project report was completed at project end.

Grant Cash Budget (Revised amount) $42,500 In-kind Budget: $16,754 Cash Match: $2,000 Total Cash Budget (Grant and Cash Match) $44,500 Actual Cash Spent $44,598 Actual In-kind Spent $32,286 Total Cash and In-kind Spent $76,884

Monitoring Project Description: Site selection Water quality monitoring In stream data collection In lake monitoring Citizen stream and lake monitoring Laboratory analysis Data Analysis Prioritize watersheds Program Element 2 Summary: The CRWP conducted the monitoring component with sampling beginning in the spring of 2007 and ending the fall of 2009. Originally the monitoring plan was to collect samples for two monitoring seasons. The spring of 2007 brought difficulties with equipment. The technical committee and the MPCA determined that a third year of monitoring was needed. The budget was revised to accommodate one more year of collecting data. The monitoring element also included stormwater sampling. This portion of the grant budget was removed but in-kind was kept in due to Le Sueur County working with the Lake Francis Association and Elysian on water quality issues. 29 A reconnaissance team selected monitoring site locations and what equipment was needed. Equipment was purchased and installed. Sampling occurred during three monitoring seasons to collect storm event data and baseline data on streams. In-lake monitoring was conducted through Blue Water Science in 2007. The CRWP was responsible with 2008 citizen lake-monitoring portion of lakes that were not covered with Blue Water Science. Lake Associations also conducted water quality tests either through the Citizen Lake Monitoring Program or for example, Lake Francis Association sampled their water for phosphorus and fecal coliform. The Waterville Lakes Association sampled Tetonka and Sakatah in 2008. Minnesota Valley Testing Laboratory is the lead for laboratory analysis. CRWP along with technical partners conducted data analysis for the project. The MPCA was responsible for model work. The technical partners assisted with prioritizing watersheds and preparing for the implementation phase of the project.

Grant Cash Budget $96,612 In-kind Budget: $85,576 Cash Match: Total Cash Budget (Grant and Cash Match) $96,612 Actual Cash Spent $95,353 Actual In-kind Spent $120,753 Total Cash and In-kind Spent $216,106

GIS Project Description: Contract with MSU-M WRC Program Element 3 Summary: This element was contracted through the Minnesota State University at Mankato Water Resources Center. Maps produced include: Potential Restorable Wetlands; Highly Erodible Cultivated Land; Slope Characteristics; Base map; Land use; Soil Erosion Potential (RUSLE); and Feedlots.

Grant Cash Budget $13,500 In-kind Budget: $7,000 Cash Match: $0 Total Cash Budget (Grant and Cash Match) $13,500 Actual Cash Spent $13,092 Actual In-kind Spent $708 Total Cash and In-kind Spent $13,800

Educational Component Project Description: Environmental Accountability Web site development Lake residency education Education and Outreach U of MN Extension Project Education sub-grant Program Element 4 Summary: The CRWP organized the Environmental Accountability educational component. MSU-M WRC was responsible for creating the website for the UCAP. Lake Associations 30 were responsible for educating their members on water quality and the need to improve their lakes. All project partners such as the SWCDs and Counties continued to educate watershed residents on the water quality of the UCAP. The University of Minnesota Extension conducted tillage and/or nutrient trials and conducted two workshops after the results were collected and analyzed. The numbers of events and presentations were pursued as opportunities arose.

Grant Cash Budget $33,977 In-kind Budget: $117,376 Cash Match: $2,000 Total Cash Budget (Grant and Cash Match) $35,977 Actual Cash Spent $34,161 Actual In-kind Spent $127,655 Total Cash and In-kind Spent $161,816

The goal of the Education Component was to increase the understanding of nonpoint source pollution among residents. To reach this goal, there were two areas that we hoped to address: Environmental Accountability and Water Quality Education. A. Environmental Accountability – This component was intended to address the role that elected officials can play in protecting and improving water quality through the decisions they make regarding land use. CRWP staff sent a letter to the Le Sueur County Commissioners and the Soil and Water Conservation District Board about participating in a panel discussion at the Le Sueur County Fair in August 2007 as a way to begin this process. Proposed topics included: Comprehensive Plan, Shoreland Ordinances, Protecting Recreational Development Lakes, and others. CRWP did not receive a favorable response from most of the commissioners about participating. One SWCD board member attended. The fair staff did not announce the event well and there was little public interest. B. Water Quality Education – This component focused on presentations to lake associations, working with the Waterville-Elysian- Morristown (WEM) school district to provide educational opportunities to students, development of a website, and field days. The following is a list of the activities that took place

Table #5 Educa on

Date Activity Estimated People Reached 4/16/07 Presentation to the Shield’s Lake Association about 40 people UCAP project 7/12/07 Front-page article in Lake Region Life Newspaper Lake Region Life has a describing the project. circulation of approximately 2000. (See attached article) Sept/Oct 2007 River Math – led by Sil Pembleton on behalf of 79 students for a total of 395 CRWP to 7th graders at WEM. For 3 days students student hours of instruction collected data at the Cannon River in Morristown, (see attached school newspaper which is, located 2 blocks from the school. article) Students conducted physical measurements of the stream to calculate discharge over the milldam in the heart of town. They also took turbidity

31 measurements and looked at a representative sample of macroinvertebrates to discuss water quality. In preparation for the river activities students studied the CRWP tabloid publication entitled “The Cannon River Watershed.” Hip- waders, buckets, turbidity tubes and tabloids were supplied for student use. 9/10/07 Presentation at CRWP Board meeting, also had 25 people members of Shield’s Lake Association present, regarding UCAP project 9/13/07 Table display at University of Minnesota SROC Approximately 100 people Open House in Waseca stopped at display 5/14/08 Presentation “Who Polluted the Cannon River” by 81 students, 3 teachers Sil Pembleton on behalf of CRWP. Given to 3 – 4th Provided materials to take grade classes at WEM. home to families. 5/15/08 Presentation of “Sewer Man” by Dave Legvold of 81 students and 120 family CRWP. Given to 3 classes of 7th graders. members. 5/31/08 Cannon Lake Shoreland restoration project. CRWP NA staff assisted with planting and discussed UCAP project with key members of lake association 6/4/08 Table display at MN DNR Shoreland Rules Open 10 people House in Faribault 6/16/08 Class for youth “Stream Sense” at Waterville 9 students. Provided materials summer program taught by Dave Legvold. to take home to families. 6/30/08 Class for youth “Shower in the Watershed” at 4 students. Provided materials Waterville summer program taught by Hilary Ziols. to take home to families. 7/1/08 Shoreland Restoration Class held in Waterville by 4 participants Hilary Ziols and Phil Nasby, MN DNR. Summer 2008 Offered 3 Community Education Classes regarding No one registered so classes water quality and lake health in the evenings. were cancelled. March 2009 Lake Volney Association sponsored a Rain Garden Approximately 18 people Installation workshop through the University of attended Minnesota Spring 2009 River Math Project – Sil Pembleton on behalf of 79 students CRWP and WEM teachers Diane Eckhoff and Keith Zickafoose. 9/10/09 Table display at University of Minnesota SROC Approximately 100 people Open House in Waseca stopped at display Through out County staff of their respective counties met with Lake Association meetings: project length lake associations, Coalition of Lake Associations approximately 10 people per and county boards. A public meeting was held in meeting; COLA: January of 2010 to present the results. approximately 8 people per meeting, twice a year; County board-5; public meeting-37 attendees

Inventories and Surveys The DNR conducted aquatic plant and fish surveys are located in the appendices.

Grant Cash Budget $0 In-kind Budget: $13,418 Cash Match: $0 Total Cash Budget (Grant and Cash Match) $0 Actual Cash Spent $0 Actual In-kind Spent $23,860 Total Cash and In-kind Spent $23,860

Part A Section 6 Additional Studies and Projects Macroinvertebrate Study Benthic macroinvertebrate are used in many stream water quality assessment studies. The animal species that inhabit a particular section of stream are indicators of present and past physical, chemical, and biological conditions (Zischke, 1996). Sediment affects macroinvertebrates by filling in the areas used for habitat (Waters, 1995).

The text Living Waters: Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River’s Health (River Watch 1997) lists the following as important characteristics to look at when evaluating the condition of the stream: “Abundance: the number of organisms present. Nutrient and food enriched streams will usually have a greater abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates. Both toxicity and physical habitat degradation (silt or sand erosion) will usually decrease the abundance.

Diversity: the number of different types of organisms present. In most cases, the greater the number of types, the healthier the stream.

Composition: the types of organisms that make up the community. In general, the mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies should be well represented. If any of these groups are absent, it indicates there may be a problem.”

Objective 5 of the project was to monitor macroinvertebrates at three sites two times per year for two years. We chose sites 2, 3 and 4 as they had the best access. Samples were collected in May and September of 2007 and May of 2008. Water levels were too low in September 2008 to collect samples that would be representative of the sites. The intent of this sampling was to give us a rough idea of the macroinvertebrate communities at these sites.

Beth Kallestad (CRWP Staff) and Jim Waddell (CRWP member and Aquatic Ecologist) collected the samples. A D-net was used to collect samples in the river. An approximately one square foot area of the stream bed was kicked, rocks were rubbed with our hands into the net, submerged vegetation was kicked, snags were rubbed with our hands, and overhanging vegetation was jabbed with the net. Not all sites allowed for all types of sampling and the collection areas are noted in the results table. We attempted to sample the various areas proportionate to their presence at the site. Samples were picked over to remove large debris and then preserved with alcohol in glass jars. The samples from the May 2007 collection were identified with the assistance of the St. Olaf College Field Ecology Class. Dissecting microscopes were used to identify the specimens to the most detailed level possible. Jim Waddell identified samples from the September 2007 collection and May 2008 collection. The Guide to Aquatic Invertebrates of the Upper Midwest by R.W. Bouchard, Jr. was used to assist with identification. This key includes tolerance values used to evaluate water quality. Invertebrates are given a number 0 – 10 rating them as being intolerant (lower numbers) or tolerant (higher numbers to pollution. Values of 0-3 are considered indicative of a low tolerance to stress, values of 4 through 6 a moderate tolerance, and values of 7 through 10 a high tolerance. Bouchard bases these tolerance values on organic pollution and not on organism’s tolerance to heavy metals or toxic chemicals. The values are based primarily on those of Hilsenhoff (1988) as well as from Barbour et al. (1999).

Site Characteristics Site 2 – Cannon River at 450th St., downstream of Sabre Lake. This site is located on property that has been put in conservation reserve. The adjacent property is agricultural land that is in row crop 34 production. A gravel road and wooden bridge cross the site and there is limited traffic. The width of the river is approximately 50 feet. Depth can be from 2- 4 feet deep. A large tree is in the river downstream of the site. The bottom is mostly gravel and the water is typically clear and tea-colored. Ducks, turtles and other wildlife are commonly seen.

Site 3 – Cannon River at County Road 12, upstream of Lake Tetonka. This site is in a somewhat forested area with row cropping and lakeshore residential property nearby. A paved county road with a wooden bridge crosses the site. The bottom is mostly muddy/silty with some gravel and logs. The water is typically clear with tea-color. The river is approximately 56 feet wide and the depth ranges from 2 – 4.5 feet. It is common for there to be a lot of macrophyte growth at the site and we often see people fishing. Duckweed is also often found here.

Site 4 – Whitewater Creek at Hoosac St. in Waterville, downstream of confluence of Waterville and Whitewater Creeks. This site is in an urbanized area and the channel itself is concrete in some parts. All streets are paved. There is no tree cover and limited vegetation on the sides of the channel at the site and downstream but there is tree cover upstream. There are a number of rocks and boulders in the stream. The stream is 17.5 feet wide and the depth ranges from 1 – 2 feet. The water is typically clear to cloudy. Ducks and fish are occasionally seen at the site. Results: As mentioned previously, macroinvertebrates can be used to help describe how polluted or unpolluted a stream site may be. The more polluted a site the less likely that sensitive species will be present. In general, the more organisms from the Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stonelies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) the better the water quality or the better habitat. According to the manual Living Waters Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Habitat to Assess Your River’s Health (River Network, 1997) “If any of these groups (EPT) are absent, it indicates that there may be a problem. As a group, stoneflies are the most sensitive to pollution from sewage and other organic material. They usually make up a relatively small percentage of the sample (5-10%) and are usually the first to disappear from the stream. If they are not present, stream quality may be moderately degraded. Mayflies contain many taxa that are sensitive to pollution. They usually make up a significant percent of the sample (20-40%) and are usually the next to disappear. If neither mayflies nor stoneflies are present the stream may be moderately to seriously degraded. Caddisflies contain many taxa that are sensitive to pollution, but also one common taxon (certain genera within the family Hydropsychidae) which is tolerant to pollution. It is very rare to find a sample with no caddisflies –usually the Hydropsychidae caddisflies will be present even in seriously degraded streams. If the sample is dominated (>50%) by worms or midges, the stream may be seriously degraded.” Our results indicate almost no stoneflies present at any of the sites during any sampling time. As stoneflies are on the intolerant end of the pollution scale this is not a good result. Mayflies were present and in very high abundance percentage wise at sites 2 and 4 especially during the September 2007 sampling. Caddisflies were present in very limited numbers at sites 2 and 3 but made up 21-25% of the sample at site 4 in September 2007 and May 2008. Only the September 2007 samples identified the caddisflies down to the family level and those were mostly Hydropsychidae. The sampling event in May 2008 had the greatest abundance at sites 2 and 3 and second greatest at site 4. This was due to the very high amounts of black flies at the sites. These insects have a mid-range of pollution tolerance. Non-biting midges were the second most abundant and their pollution tolerance is mid-high. Diversity of samples was not very good. Most of the insects came from a few orders and not many that were on the low tolerance scale.

This sampling effort was intended to give some general information about the macroinvertebrates in the Upper Cannon watershed. We do not have comparison data for what is typical at these sites for macroinvertebrates. The MPCA will be conducting an intensive watershed monitoring process in 2011- 2012 that will include biological monitoring at many sites in the watershed that will provide better data for comparison. Continuing to collect samples and gathering more information on the habitat conditions will be beneficial. 35

Industrial Stormwater Permit At industrial sites such as factories, salvage yards and airports, stormwater may come into contact with harmful pollutants, including toxic metals, oil, grease, de-icing salts and other chemicals. Industrial stormwater permits are designed to limit the amount of these contaminants that reaches surface water and groundwater, by requiring good practices for storing and handling materials. Facilities with these permits must prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, detailing the practices they will use to limit stormwater pollution. For more information on industrial stormwater, see: www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwateri.html.

MS4 Project A Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is a system of conveyances - such as gutters, ditches, city streets and storm drains, which is used as a path for stormwater. Regulated MS4s cover large areas, and are owned or operated by a public entity such as a city, county, township, watershed district or university. Runoff from sidewalks, driveways and city streets can contain pollutants, such as fertilizers, oil, road salt, litter and other debris. Permits for MS4s are designed to reduce the amount of stormwater pollution that reaches surface water and groundwater. For more information on MS4s, see: www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwaterms4.html.

Wastewater Discharger (Permitted Facility, Individual Permit and Permitted Facility, General Permit) A wastewater discharger is a facility that generates or treats wastewater for discharge onto land or into water. Wastewater dischargers include sewage treatment plants, as well as ships with ballast water permits, and some manufacturers. MPCA permits may require treatment and monitoring, and limit the amount of contaminants that a facility can release into the environment. Wastewater permits may be classified as SDS or NPDES/SDS. SDS stands for State Disposal System, and indicates that the facility needs to follow Minnesota rules and regulations for wastewater. NPDES is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and indicates that the facility is also subject to the regulations of the federal Clean Water Act. For more information on wastewater, see: www.pca.state.mn.us/water/wastewater.html.

Definition of station types for discharge stations are as follows: Groundwater - Well, lysimeter and piezometer stations Land Application - A land application/treatment site, or a waste introduction point or area located on or beneath the land surface Surface Discharge - A station that discharges to surface waters of the state Surface Water - A station in surface waters of the state Waste Stream - A waste or water supply station, excluding surface discharge stations

Part A Section 7-Project Milestones

See Appendix #6 for the UCAP PERT Chart

PART B. DIAGNOSTIC STUDY

Part B Section 1 Stream monitoring overview In order to derive quantitative measures of what is occurring in the Upper Cannon River watershed, various forms of stream monitoring were included in this project. This data was collected at five locations within the Upper Cannon River watershed (Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a). Data collected either throughout or at different stages of the project included: stage, temperature and precipitation; water quality constituents (total suspended solids, total phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus, nitrate-nitrite, total kjeldahl nitrogen, and bacteria as E. coli); and macro invertebrate surveys (Sites 2, 3, and 4 only). Below are summaries of stream monitoring activities separated by three sample years.

2007 Monitoring season Water quality monitoring was tentatively planned to begin for the Upper Cannon Assessment Project in April 2007, but due to equipment shortages the water quality monitoring did not begin until May 2007. Five monitoring locations were installed to measure stage, temperature, and precipitation. The five monitoring sites were identified as sites 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Monitoring site 5 was relocated slightly upstream and renamed monitoring site 5a. These locations were also where water quality chemical parameters and physical measurements were taken. In addition, monitoring sites 2, 3, and 4 had macroinvertebrate surveys conducted to determine dominant macroinvertebrate communities at each of these monitoring locations. The first set of water quality samples were collected on April 25th, 2007 following ice-out (Site 5a sample collection did not start until August. This site was relocated based on MNDNR staff recommendation as they felt site 5 was not conducive to collecting reliable in-stream flow measurements). 2007 water quality monitoring was completed on October 25th. Stage height values were collected from April 25th through October 26th and FLUX modeling software was used to calculate nutrient and sediment loading for each monitoring location. The FLUX analysis calculated load values for TSS, nitrate-nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The other water quality sample data was not used in calculating load values for those specific parameters in this study, but were used as supplemental information. The Minnesota DNR-Division of Waters (MNDNR) was contracted to collect flow measurements at different flow regimes during all three monitoring years at each site six times a year to derive site-rating curves. Rating curves were then used to create site discharge tables to plot stream discharge volume from the corresponding monitoring station stage heights.

In order to accurately predict loads using FLUX software, it is recommended that 15-25 samples are taken at all four stages of the hydrograph: baseline, the rising limb, peak, and falling limb. A total of twenty-three water quality samples were collected from monitoring sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 in 2007. Monitoring site 5a had only 12 water quality samples collected in 2007 due to its re location in the middle of the monitoring season. In general, samples were collected during all four different stages in the hydrograph. . Sample collections in 2007 from sites 1-4 were well distributed with a good proportion of high and low flow conditions captured. The water quality samples collected at site 5a can be characterized as well distributed, but more samples during the falling limb of the hydrograph and baseline conditions would have enhanced FLUX analysis. Monitoring sites 1-4 had 23 samples collected while site 5a had only 12 sample sets. This lack of sample numbers and timing of sample collection at this monitoring location may have led to an over/underestimate of sediment and nutrient loads using the 38 FLUX modeling. For example, lack of water quality samples in the beginning of the monitoring season will cause inaccurate characterization of the spring and early summer as the flow/TSS relationship have large seasonal differences. Despite this fact, FLUX analysis was still used on site 5a to calculate sediment and nutrient loads.

Flow and precipitation in 2007 can be characterized as average for the area. Flow values in 2007 ranked as the 7th highest annual flow year of the past 17 years (correlated to the long-term USGS monitoring site at the Welch location on the Cannon River). The months of April, May, June, and July had below average monthly precipitation values. However, the months of August, September and October had above average precipitation. 2007 average precipitation for the area in April through October was 26.73 inches. By comparison, the 30-year average precipitation for those months at Faribault, MN was 25.96 inches. In 2007, the monthly flow distribution can be described as follows; April 8.9%, May 21%, June 15.7%, July 1%, August 13.2%, September 4.9%, and October 35%. Storm events that occurred during the month of August accounted for 30% (9.72 inches) of the annual precipitation in 2007.

2008 Monitoring season Water quality sampling resumed in April 2008 at the five monitoring locations previously mentioned. The first water quality sample was collected on April 3rdand the last was collected on September 24th. Stream stage measurements began on March 28th for Site 2. The other four monitoring sites started stage measurements within the next couple of days. Derived flow values from March 28th through October 13th, 2008 were used in the FLUX modeling to calculate nutrient and sediment loading for each monitoring location. FLUX analysis calculated load values for TSS, nitrate-nitrogen and total phosphorus. As in 2007, the other water quality sample data was not used in calculating load values for those specific parameters in this study, but were used as supplemental information. MNDNR continued to collect flow measurements at the four different flow regimes during 2008 at each site six times a year to derive rating curves.

A total of nineteen water quality samples were collected from each of the monitoring sites in 2008. In general, this monitoring season can be characterized as very dry with a limited number of storm events. A few early season storm events were not sampled. However, the samples that were collected did provide good coverage of the seasonal hydrograph. More samples during the falling limb of the hydrograph and during baseline conditions would have enhanced FLUX analysis.

Flow and precipitation in 2008 can be characterized as below average for the area. Flow values in 2008 ranked as the 6th lowest annual flow year of the past 18 years (correlated to the long-term USGS monitoring site at the Welch location on the Cannon River). In 2008, the monthly flow distribution can be described as follows; April 34.6%, May 31.8%, June 21.2%, July 8.5%, August 3.1%, September 0.001%, and October 0.001%. There were two periods of elevated flow discharge during the winter thaw from April 2nd through May 8th and during a storm event on June 10th.

2009 Monitoring season Originally, 2009 was not supposed to be a sampling year as part of this project. However, due to the relocation of monitoring stations, availability of equipment, the lack of water quality samples collected in 2007, and problems associated with programming the monitoring stations which lead to loss of data, water quality and stream monitoring was extended for an additional year to improve assessment capabilities. In 2009, water quality monitoring began on April 20th and was completed on October 25th. Stream stage measurements were collected between March 17th and November 11th. Flows for 2009 were not available at the time this report was written. Therefore, seasonal loads were not estimated using FLUX, but could be when the flow values become available.

39 There were a total of eight water quality samples collected for the 2009 monitoring season. The season could be characterized as very dry with below average precipitation during the growing season with a significant amount of the annual precipitation occurring during the months of August, October, and November leading to delayed crop harvest. There were three periods of elevated flow discharge on March 21st, April 24th and June 6th.

Part B Section 2 Site selection To assess the water quality and quantity of the Upper Cannon River watershed, five monitoring locations were selected within the watershed. These sites were selected in March 2007 by a reconnaissance team comprised of personnel from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, United States Geological Survey, Lake Gorman Lake Association, Cannon River Watershed Partnership, and Le Sueur County. The five monitoring sites were equipped with Campbell Scientific dataloggers and ultrasonic transducers to record stage levels that were used to estimate discharge volumes. The following information will provide a detailed description of each monitoring site and location within the watershed.

Part B Section 4 Monitoring procedures

Water quality monitoring Water quality samples were collected during storm events and baseline flows for the 2007-2009 monitoring seasons. Flow data was collected on a regular basis, but were dependant on seasonal precipitation amounts. Within this study, there were periods when the Cannon River became stagnant or dry. In these situations, no regularly scheduled flow sampling could be conducted. Storm event sampling was targeted to capture the rising, peak, and falling limbs of the hydrograph.

Grab sampling was used exclusively for sample collection over the three monitoring years for this project. Grab sample collection for this project consisted of depth integrated lake sampling and a bucket with a rope for stream locations. Blue Water Science sampled in 2007 and citizen volunteers or lake association members in 2008 completed lake sampling for this project. Lake samples were collected two times a month in June, July, and August. CRWP or Le Sueur County personnel collected stream samples over the three years of the project. Stream grab sample collection occurred during both baseline and storm events. It is important to note that nutrient and sediment concentrations can vary greatly during a storm event. Ideally, samples should be collected during the rise, peak, and recession of the hydrograph. However, collection of the grab samples can pose problems due to timing of storm events. Storm event sampling can be missed if the event occurs during the evening or weekends due to exceedances in sample hold times or the laboratory was closed. In these instances, it would have been helpful to possess an automated sampler to collect composite samples during storm events, but budget restrictions prevented the use of automated samplers. Automated samplers could be utilized in a later study or during the implementation phase of the project.

Regularly scheduled grab sampling was used to characterize baseflow or non-storm event conditions. This data was also used to assess the effects of any major point source contributions within the Upper Cannon River Watershed, as point sources tend to be larger relative contributors at low flows. Storm event data was used to evaluate the effects of subsurface tile runoff and rill/sheet erosion on stream or lake water quality. Though they tend to be short in duration relative to the flow record, storm events typically deliver the majority of pollutant loads over a monitoring season.

Water quality samples were collected using standard Minnesota Pollution Control Agency sampling procedures, by trained CRWP or Le Sueur County staff. Duplicate samples were collected throughout each monitoring season based on frequency (at minimum, one per 10 samples). Due to the limited laboratory hold times for some of the chemical parameters, special attention was needed to ensure samples were delivered before hold times were exceeded. Samples were collected and immediately placed in a cooler of ice to keep sample cold. Samples were delivered to the Le Sueur County Environmental Services office then delivered to MVTL laboratories.

Flow measurements Flow measurements were conducted at all five monitoring locations by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Waters Division field staff at least six times per monitoring season at various flow conditions. Rating curves were developed from which recorded stage values could be converted to flow volumes. In the spring of 2007, the MN DNR staff started to perform the following duties: · Stream flow measurements were made at monitoring sites #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5a and performed during low, medium and high flow periods. The number of flow measurements per year was set at six measurements for each site. (see appendix 1 and 2 for flow measurements for 2007 and 2008 monitoring years). 47

Water quantity estimates MNDNR staff calculated daily mean flows at each monitoring location for the 2007 and 2008 monitoring seasons (See web site h p://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/csg/index.html ). The 2009 daily mean flows were not available at the time this report was written. This data will be calculated and available before the 2010-monitoring season. This process for determining daily mean flows was as follows: 1. The MNDNR conducted stream discharge measurements over the three monitoring seasons at all five monitoring locations in the Upper Cannon Watershed.

2. CRWP staff collected stream stage data using a CR510 datalogger and SR50A ultrasonic transducer at each of the monitoring locations. The CR510 dataloggers record stream stage heights every fifteen minutes, which can then be used to calculate the average hourly stage.

3. The collected data were downloaded to a Campbell Scientific SM192 storage module using a Campbell Scientific keypad and then uploaded to a desktop computer back at the CRWP office. The information downloaded at each site included time, date, stage and 15-minute precipitation values (when an electronic rain gage is installed). The data collected from the storage module was uploaded to the computer using PC208 software.

4. MNDNR staff used the 15-minute stage data to calculate the 15-minute average stream flow. To do this, the rating equation that was created by the MN DNR was input into the program and hourly stream flows were calculated. Then, the daily mean flow values were derived.

5. The daily mean flow values were used for sediment and nutrient loading estimates in FLUX software for the 2007 and 2008 monitoring seasons.

Sediment and nutrient loading estimates using FLUX FLUX is a computer-modeling program designed for use in estimating the loading of nutrients or other water quality parameters passing a stream sampling site over a given period of time. FLUX requires only two data files to determine loading values: a continuous flow record with daily mean flows for each monitoring site in each year and a water quality file containing date, sample flow, and quantitative values for each of the chemical parameters being evaluated in the study. Using the six established calculation techniques within the program, the FLUX software applies the sampled flow/concentration relationship to the entire flow record to estimate total mass discharge and associated error statistics for a given monitoring period. FLUX acts as a powerful tool in the calculation of nutrient loading in streams. However, the accuracy of FLUX estimates depend on many variables including: · Accurate stage-discharge rating equation, which is related to the number and range of stream flow measurements collected over the study period. · Accurate stage data collection by the field monitoring equipment. · The substantial collection of water quality samples so that the sample set represents all flow and seasonal scenarios (base flow and the rising, peak, and receding limb of the hydrograph). · Collection technique, including consistency of collecting at the same point, proper handling of the samples (holding temperatures, repeatable methodologies, met holding times). · The accuracy of laboratory analyses of water quality samples.

50 · The proper usage of FLUX, including the use of proper stratification, selection of methods, elimination of outliers, and identify missing flow record, etc.

Analytical terms and definitions

Channel Runoff “Runoff” can be defined as the part of precipitation that actually reaches streams and rivers. Runoff includes water from any source, including base flow, surface flow, storm flow, flow from groundwater and flow from point sources. Runoff can also be defined as all the water flowing past a particular monitoring site, during a specific period of time. Runoff is calculated by adding the total cubic flow over a monitoring period. This number is converted to inches of runoff and divided by the contributing acres of watershed. Conceptually, this is like redistributing the entire monitoring season discharge for a site over its watershed and measuring the depth in inches. The largest contributor of runoff is usually precipitation. However, the amount of runoff will depend on many factors, including storm intensity, soil type, soil moisture conditions, soil infiltration capacity, land use, and topography.

Sampleshed A “sampleshed” is defined as a specific watershed area that is used for analysis to compare to another sampleshed. In the Cannon River Watershed, monitoring sites were established at five locations along the upper reaches of the Cannon River. A “sampleshed” is the watershed area a site represents minus the area of the samplesheds upstream. To calculate loads at a sampleshed, the load from upstream monitoring sites were subtracted from the downstream site to find the specific load that is coming out of that sampleshed. Map #15 identifies the five monitoring locations and samplesheds.

Load “Load” is defined as the total mass of nutrient or material (such as TSS) that passes a given point over a specific period of time. “Load” is estimated by FLUX and displayed in total kilograms (kg). For simplicity, the load values were converted into tons.

Pollutant Yield “Yield” is used to assess loads based on subwatershed size. Pollutant yields were normalized by dividing the load (lbs) by the subwatershed area (acres). Pollutant yield was displayed in lbs/acre. The analysis of pollutant yield is very important when comparing subwatersheds of different sizes, which was the case for this particular project.

Flow-weighted mean concentration Similarly to calculating the pollutant yields, “flow-weighted mean concentrations” (FWMC) were estimated by adding the total mass or load for a given time period and dividing it by the total flow for that given period. FWMC is mass normalized for flow. FWMC is typically displayed in milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Table #6 2007-2009 Monthly precipita on

Monitoring season (inches) Monitoring Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. year 2007 1.27 1.18 3.21 1.82 2.29 2.56 2.56 8.57 3.23 4.40 0.41 1.45 2008 0.24 0.23 1.40 3.42 3.20 3.65 3.36 2.70 1.81 2.13 1.87 1.33

2009 0.45 1.21 2.07 1.78 1.28 3.26 1.80 5.70 0.88 5.75 0.97 0.00*

Monthly 0.7 0.87 2.23 2.3 2.26 3.2 2.6 5.7 1.97 4.1 1.1 0.93 average *2009 December precipitation amounts were not included due to timing of this report

2007 Precipitation Precipitation that occurred in 2007 was above average for the region. 2007 total precipitation was 33.94 inches. Table 1 revealed a significant amount of the annual precipitation occurred during the months of August and October. These elevated precipitation values were caused by intense storm events. Based on the precipitation data collected from the three monitoring years, 2007 exceeded the calculated monthly average eight times.

2008 Precipitation Precipitation that occurred in 2008 was below average for the region. 2008 total precipitation was 26.76 inches. Table #1 showed a majority of precipitation fell during the months of April through August. Based on the precipitation data collected from the three monitoring years, 2008 exceeded the calculated monthly averages only four times. These precipitation exceedances occurred during the growing season months (April-July). Larger precipitation events coupled with an undeveloped vegetative canopy on the landscape typically result in the majority of seasonal pollutant loading occurring during these months.

2009 Precipitation Total precipitation received in 2009 was the lowest of the three monitoring years. 2009 received only 25.15 inches of precipitation. This total precipitation amount does not account for precipitation occurring in December. The majority of this precipitation in 2009 occurred during the months of August and October. Based on the precipitation data collected from the three monitoring years, 2009 exceeded the monthly precipitation averages only three times.

Part B Section 5 Stream Flow Stream flow is typically the metric used to measure overland surface water flow. Overland flow occurs when the rate of precipitation exceeds the infiltration capacity of local surface soils. Stream flow is measured in terms of volume of water moving past a predetermined reference point during a period of time. Typically, these values are represented by either cubic feet per second (cfs) or millions of gallons per day (MGD). Stream flow is a function of stream width, depth, roughness of channel substrate, and the stream gradient. Typically, streams with a narrower channel width and shallower depth; rough stream substrate and low stream gradient will have a lower discharge volume. Stream flow increases downstream as the stream broadens and the volume of water being discharged into the stream increases as the area drained by the river increases.

The amount of water entering a stream system, as groundwater discharge from underlying bedrock, glacial aquifers or subsurface tile discharge should be considered the stream’s base flow condition. There are two ways to classify a stream’s water function: 1) gaining- meaning that the stream receives 53 water from groundwater or other contributing sources 2) losing- meaning the stream is losing water due to climatic conditions, porosity and permeability of soil types, or removal of water for agricultural purposes.

Land usage, soil types, topography, vegetative cover, and density of wetlands or lakes can all have a major impact on slowing or diverting surface runoff which will reduce soil erosion and minimize negative effects to aquatic systems. However, in some instances subsurface pattern tiling will increase stream flow by diverting water that typically infiltrates soil profiles and eventually recharges groundwater aquifers. By diverting this water, the discharge volume of streams will rise and increase stream’s energy therefore increasing the probability that stream bank erosion and substrate scouring occur. It is due to this relationship of stream discharge and erosive energy potential that detrimental effects to habitat and water quality conditions in stream systems have increased in recent history.

Land usage, soil types, topography, vegetative cover and density of wetlands or lakes can all have a major impact on slowing or diverting surface runoff. Diverting and/or reducing runoff will reduce soil erosion and minimize negative effects to aquatic systems. However, in some instances (subsurface pattern tiling) will increase stream flow by diverting water that typically infiltrates soil profiles and eventually recharge groundwater aquifers. By diverting this water, the discharge volume of streams will rise and increase the energy of the stream therefore increasing the probability that stream bank erosion and substrate scouring will occur. It is due to this relationship of stream discharge and erosive energy potential that detrimental effects to habitat and water quality conditions in stream systems have increased in recent history.

Flow information can be found at: h p://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/csg/index.html

Directions: · Go to the “Filters” tab at the top of the map. · Click “no” on the “have telemetry data” drop down · Click “yes” on the “have archive data” drop down · Click on “update map” · Use the “+” and box tool at the top of the map to narrow in on the Cannon sites · Click on the arrow “I” tool at the top of the map · Hover and click on the site you want to look at and a ID box should pop up. · Click on the site ID number or the “site report” to go to the site data page. From there you can look at the data and modify the hydrographs using the tabs at the top of the hydrograph. You may have to modify or refresh the page to get the hydrographs to show up-occasionally the hydrographs hang up. The data can be directly down loaded into a spreadsheet by using the download options at the bottom of the page.

Hydrologic Terms and Definitions

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/water/hydroterms.html

Some of the text and graphics were adapted from the U.S. Corps of Engineers HEC-HMS Training Documents, 1999. Acre-foot: the volume of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. One acre-foot is equal to 43,560 cubic feet or 1,233.5 cubic meters. Antecedent conditions: the conditions prevailing prior to an event. This description is normally used to characterize basin wetness. Attenuation: the reduction in the peak of a hydrograph as it moves downstream, resulting in a more broad, flat hydrograph. Base flow: the sustained flow in a channel because of subsurface runoff. Calibration: the process of adjusting model parameters to known data. Cubic feet per second (cfs): a cfs is equal to 0.0283 cubic meters per second (cms). Channel: an open conduit either naturally or artificially created that may convey water. Confluence: the point at which two streams converge. Detention basin: storage site, such as a small-unregulated reservoir, which delays the conveyance of water downstream (compare to retention basin). Diffusion: dissipation of the energy associated with a floodwave. Diffusion results in the attenuation of the floodwave. Direct runoff: the runoff entering stream channels promptly after rainfall, exclusive of base flow. Direct runoff equals the volume of rainfall excess (total precipitation minus losses). Discharge: the volume of water that passes through a given cross section per unit time. Discharge is commonly measured in cubic feet per second (cfs) or cubic meters per second (cms). It is also referred to as flow. Exceedance probability: hydrologically, the probability that an event selected at random will exceed a specified magnitude. Excess precipitation: the precipitation in excess of infiltration capacity, evaporation, transpiration, and other losses. It is also referred to as effective precipitation. Floodplain – The lowland areas adjoining lakes, wetlands, and rivers that are susceptible to inundation of water during a flood. For regulatory purposes, the floodplain is the area covered by the 100-year flood or the area that has a 1 percent chance of flooding every year. It is usually divided into districts called the floodway and flood fringe. Areas where the floodway and flood fringe have not been determined are called approximate study areas or general floodplain. Local units of government administer ordinances that guide development in floodplains. Flood stage - The National Weather Service defines flood stage as the river level that begins to impact life and/or property. Â River flood warnings will be issued when river levels are forecast to reach flood stage at any official national weather service river forecast location. Hydraulics: the mechanical properties of water and other liquids and the application of these properties in engineering. Hydrograph: a description of flow versus time or a description of stage versus time.

Hydrologic cycle: the continuous process of water movement between the oceans, atmosphere, and land. The hydrologic cycle is processes that occurs within the earth’s atmosphere in which water molecules move and are transformed from liquid to vapor and back to liquid again. The cycle begins when an unending circulation of water begins as energy from the sun, which evaporates enormous quantities of water from the oceans. Atmospheric winds transport the moist air to other regions, where it condenses into clouds, some of which produce rain and snow. If the precipitation falls into an ocean, the water is ready to begin its cycle again. If the precipitation falls on a continent, a great deal of the water makes its way back to the ocean in a complex journey over land and underground. Hydrology: the study of water. Hydrology generally focuses on the distribution of water and interaction with the land surface and underlying soils and rocks. Hyetograph: rainfall intensity versus time. A hyetograph is often represented by a bar graph. 55 Infiltration: the movement of water from the land surface into the soil. Inflection point: generally refers to the point on a hydrograph separating the falling limb from the recession curve. It is any point on the hydrograph where the curve changes concavity. Interception: the capture of precipitation above the ground surface, for example, by vegetation or buildings. Isohyets: lines of equal rainfall intensity. Lag time: the time from the center of mass of excess rainfall to the hydrograph peak. Lag time is also referred to as basin lag. Model: a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process. Optimization: derivation of a set of model parameters that produces the best results when compared to observed data. Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL): The ordinary high water level (OHWL) is a reference point that defines the DNR's regulatory authority over development projects that are proposed to alter the course, current, or cross section of public waters and public waters wetlands. For lakes and wetlands, the OHWL is the highest water level that has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The OHWL is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominately aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses (rivers and streams), the OHWL is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the OHWL is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. The OHWL is also used by local units of government as a reference point from which to determine structure setbacks from water bodies and watercourses. Parameter: a variable, in a general model, whose value is adjusted to make the model specific to a given situation. Parameter estimation: the selection of a parameter value based on the results of analysis and/or engineering judgment. Peak: the highest elevation reached by a flood wave. Peak is also referred to as the crest. Peak flow: the point of the hydrograph that has the highest flow. Peakedness: the rate of rise and fall of a hydrograph. Provisional data (USGS): stage data that may have been affected by factors not accounted for at the time the stage was recorded. Further analysis is often required before data are deemed final. Rating curve: the relationship between stage and discharge. Reach: a segment of a stream channel. Recession curve: the portion of the hydrograph where runoff is predominantly produced from basin storage (i.e., subsurface and small land depressions). It is separated from the falling limb of the hydrograph by an inflection point. Retention basin: similar to a detention basin but water in storage is permanently obstructed from flowing downstream. Stage: the elevation of a water surface in relation to a datum. Time of concentration: the travel time from the hydraulically furthermost point in a watershed to the outlet. This is also defined as the time from the end of rainfall excess to the recession curve inflection point as illustrated on the accompanying hydrograph. Time of rise: the time from the start of rainfall excess to the peak of the hydrograph. Time to peak: the time from the center of mass of the rainfall excess to the peak of the hydrograph. It is also referred to as lag time. Unit hydrograph: a direct runoff hydrograph produced by one unit of excess precipitation over a specified duration. For example, a 1-hour unit hydrograph corresponds to one unit of excess precipitation occurring uniformly over an hour. Watershed - an area characterized by all direct runoff being conveyed to the same outlet. Similar terms include basin, subwatershed, drainage basin, catchment, and catch basin.

56 Flow and water quality seasons Flow monitoring Water quality monitoring 2007 Monitoring season Apr. 25th through Oct. 26th Apr. 25th through Oct. 26th 2008 Monitoring season Mar. 28th through Oct. 13th Apr. 3rd through Aug. 25th 2009 Monitoring season* Mar. 16th through Nov. 4th Apr. 20th through Oct. 25th In 2007, the “ice out” conditions were not recorded within the field book. However, the first water quality sample was collected on April 25th. In 2008, ice out was recorded on March 15th. Similarly, in 2009, the ice out conditions occurred on March 24th. *Note: 2009 estimated flows were not available by final report deadline.

Upper Cannon “outlet” flows (Site 5a-in Morristown, MN at County Road 16) 2007 Monitoring season 620,941,248 Cubic Feet** 2008 Monitoring season 1,980,076,320 Cubic Feet **Note: Site 5a was relocated in June of 2007. Flow volume represents total flow between June 2nd and October 25th.

Annual watershed discharge comparison

Site 5a was the monitoring location furthest downstream in this project and will be considered the “outlet” point. It should be noted that the Cannon River continues east through the watershed and eventually discharges into the Mississippi River at Red Wing, MN. The lack of flow data from early in the 2007 season makes comparisons between years difficult. Adding the seasonal flow from Site 3 and Site 4 could provide a rough estimate of the total flow at the outlet for 2007. The sum of flows from Sites 3 and 4 is 893,209,248 cubic feet. In 2008, the total flow at Site 5a was approximately 8.5% higher than the sum of Sites 3 and 4. Assuming a similar relationship, the total flow for 2007 could be estimated at 969,132,034 cubic feet.

The actual data do indicate a wetter June in 2008 than 2007, which could at least in part account for differences in loading between years. The major August storm in 2007 had a significant effect on flows, but occurred at a time the vegetative crop canopy was closed.

2007 and 2008 Site flow summary

Figure #1 2007-2008 Upper Cannon Watershed ”outlet” total ﬂow

57 Table #7 Flow sta s cs for the 2007/2008 monitoring sites

Year Site #1 Site #2 Site #3 Site #4 Site #5a Daily Mean 2007 11.02 26.03 34.13 21.75 49.2 Flows (cfs) 2008 31.63 60.33 84.88 20.68 114.59 Total Flows 2007 175,210,560 416,039,328 545,520,960 347,688,288 620,941,248 (cf) 2008 546,517,065 1,042,502,746 1,466,792,064 357,307,200 1,980,076,320 % of Upper Cannon study 22% 16% 25% 15% 22% area Sampleshed 32,512 22,782 35,683 21,549 32,212 Size (acres) *Lack of mean daily flow prevented 2009 data to be included.

Table #7 summarizes the flow data collected from the 2007 and 2008 monitoring seasons. The 2007 season had lower mean daily flow for all monitoring sites except for Site 4. Comparatively, total flow values were also lower in 2007 for all the monitoring sites. Site 4 flows were very similar between years. As previously indicated, Site 4 is not located on the mainstem of the Upper Cannon River. Rather, it captures two small tributaries before they enter the main stem of the Cannon River. As a result, it is not surprising that the between year flows for Site 4 do not follow the same pattern as the mainstem sites.

At first glance, the flow records seem to contradict the precipitation records as flows were greater in 2008 and total precipitation was greater in 2007. Timing of the precipitation events in 2007 and 2008 can help explain the apparent contradiction. A large amount of the precipitation that fell on the Upper Cannon watershed in 2007 occurred in one intense August rain event. At the time of the event, the crop canopy was fully developed, increasing interception and evapotranspiration and reducing run-off to receiving waters. This was exhibited in the 2007 flow hydrograph. Precipitation in 2008 followed a more typical pattern, with wetter conditions earlier in the growing season (April, May, June) prior to canopy development. As a result in 2008, more of the precipitation that fell was available for surface and subsurface run-off to the Upper Cannon. Therefore, despite the greater total precipitation that fell in 2007, it is not surprising that 2008 exhibited higher daily average and total flows. As previously discussed, the flow record for Site 5a was significantly longer in 2008 than in 2007 due to site relocation. Therefore, the total flow measured at Site 5a in 2007 was much less than that measured in 2008. Even so, the rough estimate derived from combining Sites 3 and 4 and a correction factor of 8.5% suggests that total flows at Site 5a were indeed lower in 2007.

Hydrographs

2007 Monitoring sites hydrographs

58 Figure 2 is a general overview of the flow record that occurred at each monitoring site during the 2007 monitoring season. The majority of the flow in 2007 occurred during the early spring. However, a few intense precipitation events in late August and October increased flows for all five sites. The flow data indicates that in 2007, the months of May and October contributed the largest portion of total annual flow.

Figure #2 2007 Monitoring sites hydrographs

2007 Monitoring site hydrographs 375 350 Site #1 325 Site #2 300 Site #3 275 Site #4 250 Site #5a ) 225 s f c

( 200

o 175 l

F 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08 08 09 09 10 10 /2 /0 /2 /0 /2 /0 /1 /0 /1 /2 /1 /2 /1 /2 5/ 9/ 3/ 6/ 0/ 4/ 8/ 1/ 5/ 9/ 2/ 6/ 0/ 4/ 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 Dates

2008 Monitoring site hydrographs

The majority of the flow in 2008 occurred during the early spring and summer months (Figure 3). There were no significant precipitation events that occurred after June. In general, the months of April, May, and June accounted for 85-96% of the monitoring season flow.

Figure #3 2008 Monitoring site hydrographs

2008 Monitoring site hydrographs 340 315 Site #1 290 Site #2 265 240 Site #3 215 Site #4 ) s

f 190 Site #5a c ( 165 w o l 140 F 115 90 65 40 15 -10 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08 08 09 09 10 /2 /1 /2 /0 /2 /0 /2 /0 /1 /0 /1 /2 /1 /2 /1 8/ 1/ 5/ 9/ 3/ 6/ 0/ 4/ 8/ 1/ 5/ 9/ 2/ 6/ 0/ 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 Dates

Monitoring sites mean daily flows

Appendices 1 and 2 contain the daily mean flows for each of the five monitoring locations in 2007 and 2008, respectively.

Part B Section 6 Water Quality Parameters

Turbidity What is turbidity?

Turbidity is a measure of opacity, or the degree to which light is scattered or absorbed by water. Turbidity is typically measured or expressed in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU’s). In the Cannon River Watershed, the most significant nonpoint source (including natural background) contributors to turbidity are related to upland, streambank, and stream channel soil erosion and sediment delivery processes. Turbidity reduces the depth to which light can penetrate water, potentially reducing primary and secondary productivity of the biota as well as aesthetic value of the resource. Turbidity is not measured in terms of mass, so total suspended solids (TSS) are often used as a surrogate parameter to represent or reflect the degree of turbidity.

60 Figure #4 Turbidity/TSS rela onship (1995-2004 MPCA, LTRMP, and CRWP data) ; note log scale to account for range of data

10000

y = 1.9447x0.9703 R2 = 0.8448

1000

25 NTU = 44 mg/l TSS ) l /

g m

( 100

S T

1 0.11101001000 10000 Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity- combined sample analysis Table #8 presents the site-specific statistics for turbidity concentrations for samples analyzed from 2007- 2009. The turbidity results showed that during storm event and base flow conditions the turbidity concentrations are typical for the Western Corn Belt Plains (WCBP) eco-region. The turbidity values for this eco-region range from 2.5 to 290 NTU’s. The Upper Cannon River watershed turbidity concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 98 NTU’s.

Table #8 2007-2009 combined turbidity sample sta s cs

Site Mean Median Min Max % of samples N (NTU’S) (NTU’s) (NTU’s) (NTU’s) exceeding limit (# of samples) Site #1 12.08 7 0.1 98 4 48 Site #2 12.3 8 0.1 70 9 47 Site #3 8.94 5 0.1 64 8 50 Site #4 15.27 9 0.4 96 14 50 Site#5a 13.85 8.4 0.1 59 21 39

Total suspended solids

What are total suspended solids?

Total suspended solids are a mass-based measure of water quality, generally expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). Light scatter and absorption is strongly influenced by solid material suspended in the water column-hence there is a close relationship between turbidity and TSS. Total suspended solids can be defined as the total amount of particulate matter that is suspended in the water column. TSS can include a wide variety of materials, such as sediment, decaying plant matter, animal matter, industrial wastes and sewage. High concentrations of TSS can cause problems for stream health and aquatic life that live within it. TSS concentrations vary for both physical and biological reasons.

Sediment and other debris materials are carried into streams and ditches during intense precipitation events by overland flow and through surface tile intake systems. In an urban setting, soil particles and debris from streets, nearby parking lots, industrial, commercial and residential areas are often washed directly into storm sewer systems, which outlet to streams, ditches, rivers and lakes. Impervious surfaces such as asphalt and concrete in urban areas reduce infiltration rates, increase stream velocities and simultaneously reduce a watershed’s ability to filter runoff before it reaches a stream system. Rapid runoff caused by intensive tile drainage networks in agricultural areas and increased use of impervious surfaces in urban areas has caused increased stream bank erosion in the stream channel as streambanks adjust to the increased energy associated with increased flow.

The largest proportion of organic matter contributed to total suspended solids is due to algae. The population of algae changes seasonally, but usually they are concentrated in the summer months as stream temperatures and nutrient concentrations elevate. Excess nutrients, specifically phosphorus, in stream systems can cause a sudden increase in algae growth, which lead to higher concentrations of TSS in water quality samples. While algae and other plant material does account for part of the TSS concentration, the largest percentage of TSS concentrations is derived from sediment. However, during low flow years, such as 2007, less soil erosion may have occurred, therefore organic material could account for a larger percentage of the total suspended solids.

As previously discussed, TSS can cause detrimental effects to a stream’s health and aquatic life. Sedimentation and siltation in a stream can ruin important fish spawning habitat, reduce gill function in fish, reduce growth rates, decrease predation success rates, decrease survival rates of yearly fry, increase mortality rates and impair other aquatic life. Elevated concentrations of TSS can also mean higher concentrations of bacteria, nutrients, pesticides and metals in the water.

Although the purpose of this report is to assess and determine the condition of the Upper Cannon River Watershed, if impairments are found, the TMDL and its component parts are expressed as a TSS load. Using this mass-based expression offers an advantage. Soil erosion and sediment delivery are commonly expressed in terms of annual and daily mass loads (tons/year or tons/day). In this respect, the waste load and load allocations, and any nonpoint source load reductions that may be necessary to meet the allocations, will be expressed in terms that agricultural professionals, permit-holders, and the construction/development industry can understand and implement.

Relationship between turbidity and TSS

No state standard has been implemented for TSS, but a state standard of 25 NTU’s for turbidity exists in Minnesota. Comparisons of turbidity and TSS analysis have shown a strong positive relationship between the two parameters. Data reported in the State of Minnesota River, 2001 Surface Water Quality Monitoring report stated that in the Minnesota River Basin 25 NTU’s equates to approximately 58-66 mg/L of TSS. MPCA, LTRMP and CRWP used turbidity and TSS sample results collected from 1995- 2004 in the Lower Cannon River Turbidity TMDL to determine the relationship between TSS and turbidity. A regression equation relating TSS and turbidity was created using the 285 paired water quality samples collected from the Lower Cannon River in 1995-2004. As depicted in Figure _, 44 mg/L is the TSS “equivalent” of the 25 NTU water-quality standard.

Figure #5 Turbidity/TSS relationship (1995-2004 MPCA, LTRMP, and CRWP data); note log scale to account for range of data

10000

y = 1.9447x0.9703 2 R = 0.8448

1000 25 NTU = 44 mg/l TSS

) l / g

m ( 100

S S

1 0.11101001000 10000 Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity- combined sample analysis Table #9 presents the site-specific statistics for turbidity concentrations for samples analyzed from 2007- 2009. The turbidity results showed that during storm event and base flow conditions the turbidity concentrations are typical for the Western Corn Belt Plains (WCBP) eco-region. The turbidity values for this eco-region range from 2.5 to 290 NTU’s. The Upper Cannon River watershed turbidity concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 98 NTU’s.

Table #9 2007-2009 combined turbidity sample statistics

Site Mean Median Min Max % of samples N (NTU’S) (NTU’s) (NTU’s) (NTU’s) exceeding (# of samples) limit Site #1 12.08 7 0.1 98 4 48 Site #2 12.3 8 0.1 70 9 47 Site #3 8.94 5 0.1 64 8 50 Site #4 15.27 9 0.4 96 14 50 Site#5a 13.85 8.4 0.1 59 21 39

TSS-Total suspended solid loads

2007 Figure 6 shows the total TSS load in tons that passed each monitoring site during the sampling season in 2007. Again, it is important to note that Site 5a loads are based on a shorter monitoring season than the other sites. In addition, the months that were missed at Site 5a typically exhibit the largest loads of the season (April-July). Therefore, the estimated load is likely significantly less than what actually passed Site 5a between April and October.

A considerable amount of sediment likely precipitates out while water flows through Tetonka and Sakatah Lakes. The project did not monitor outflows from Sakatah Lake, so it might be instructive to approach the Upper Cannon sites in three categories – main river reach upper sites located above Tetonka and Sakatah (Sites 1, 2, and 3), small reach site above Tetonka and Sakatah Lakes (Site 4) and the one site below Tetonka and Sakatah (Site5a). Of the upper sites, sampleshed 3 contributed the highest percentage of the load (53%) passing Site 3, while samplesheds 1 and 2 contributed 29 and 18 % of the load, respectively. Relative contributions in a system such as the Upper Cannon, where the river heavily influences the lakes, can be misleading. Although the load at site 2 was the lowest of the three upper sites, there could still be considerable near-channel and surface erosion within sampleshed 2. The lakes likely trap or store a fair amount of sediment reducing the overall load passing through the river. This would be particularly important for sampleshed 2 as the Upper Cannon flows through Gorman and Sabre Lakes upstream of site 2. In terms of yield (lbs/acre), sampleshed 3 contributed 5.49 lbs/acre and samplesheds 1 and 2 contributed 4.4 and 1.5 lbs/acre respectively. Evaluated together, sampleshed 1 and 2 yielded 4.1 lbs/acre.

Sampleshed 4 as monitored by Site 4 was a major contributor of TSS sediment load in 2007. An estimated 414 tons of TSS passed the monitoring site between April and October. With a contributing watershed of only 21,549 acres, this equated to a yield of 38.5 lbs/acre, by far the highest yield of any sampleshed in the study. Site 5a in 2007 is problematic due to the shortened monitoring season. Between June and October of 2007, an estimated 385.5 tons of TSS passed by the “outlet” site. Taken over the entire study area, this is equivalent to a yield of 5.3 lbs/acre between June and October.

2008 Figure _ shows estimated 2008 TSS loads at each monitoring site. Of the upper sites in 2008, 200.9 tons of TSS passed Site 1, and 206.1 and 269.4 tons passed Sites 2 and 3 respectively. Again, relative contributions in this system might be misleading as a large percentage of the load from sampleshed 1 could have settled out in the flow-through lakes of sampleshed 2. The total load for samplesheds 1 and 2 taken as a whole (206.1 tons) equate to a yield of 7.45 lbs/acres. Sampleshed 3 as monitored by Site 3 showed a 2008 yield of 3.55 lbs/acre.

Sampleshed 4 was a significant contributor to the overall TSS load in 2008. Approximately 251.4 tons of TSS passed Site 4 in 2008, equating to a yield of 23.3 lbs/acre. The total TSS load passing Site 5a in 2008 is estimated at 822.7 tons. The sum of loads from Site 3 and 4 was 520.8 tons, indicating sampleshed 5a contributed 301.9 tons of TSS or 18.8 lbs/acre in 2008. As a significant amount of load passing Site 3 was probably trapped in Tetonka and Sakatah Lakes, the relative contribution of sampleshed 5 might have been considerably larger.

Figure#6 2007 TSS monitoring sites loads

Figure #7 2008 TSS monitoring site loads

2007/2008 Sampleshed TSS Flow-weighted mean concentration

Flow weighted mean concentrations (FWMC) are computed by dividing the total pollutant load by the total flow volume. The resultant value represents the average concentration of a given pollutant over the course of a monitoring season. FWMCs provide a flow-normalized concentration that allows for more meaningful comparisons between sites. Figure _ illustrates the 2007 FWMCs for all five sites. Site 4 stands out as having the highest FWMC, which is consistent with the loading and yield estimates previously discussed. Figure 9 shows a similar pattern in 2008. 65

Figure #8 2007 TSS FWMC

Figure #9 2008 TSS FWMC

TSS-combined sample analysis

Table # 10 presents monitoring site specifics for all TSS samples collected from 2007-2009.

Table #10 2007-2009 TSS combined sample statistics

Site Mean Median Min Max % of samples N (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) exceeding (# of limit samples) Site #1 11.63 7 2 61 4 48 Site #2 16.36 8 2 282 2 47 Site #3 8.5 4 2 74 2 50 Site #4 20.36 12.5 2 156 12 50 Site#5a 14.08 9 2 46 3 39

Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen What is Nitrate?

Nitrogen is one of the most abundant elements on Earth. About 80 % of the air we breathe is comprised of nitrogen. It is found in the cells of all living things and is a major component of proteins. Inorganic nitrogen may exist in a free-state such as a gas (N2), nitrate (NO3-), nitrite (NO2-), or ammonia (NH3+). Organic nitrogen is found in proteins and is continually recycled by plants and animals. Nitrogen forms do however pose an environmental threat to watersheds.

Nitrogen-containing compounds are an essential nutrient for stream and river systems. However, some forms of nitrogen can cause problems in lotic systems. Nitrate reactions in fresh water can cause oxygen depletion. These reductions in oxygen can lead to aquatic organisms dying depending on the supply of oxygen in the stream. The major routes of entry of nitrogen into bodies of water are municipal and industrial wastewater, septic tanks, feedlot discharges, animal wastes (including bird and fish), subsurface tile drainage, and atmospheric deposition. In general, the two largest sources of nitrate- nitrogen in bodies of water originate from agricultural fertilizers and application of animal manure. During the summer months, bacteria in water can quickly convert NO2- to NO3-. This is where nitrates cause problems in aquatic environments.

In temperate zones, such as southern Minnesota, nitrate concentrations in soils vary seasonally with temperature, precipitation, and moisture levels. Typically, in areas that are preserved and pristine, most of the available nitrate is removed from the soil. Very little nitrate is added to the soil profile naturally during the cold weather months because of slowing or stopping of the mineralization and nitrification processes.

During the spring and summer months is when concentrations of nitrates are highest in soil and streams. Due to incorporation of inorganic fertilizers in row-crop agriculture, concentrations of nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and soil nitrate level increase. Spring and early summer are a time of reduced evapotranspiration and increased tile drainage volume. Nitrate-nitrogen is very soluble in water, making it susceptible to transport to tile lines and receiving waters. Peak concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen typically occur in June and July. The removal of agricultural crops in the fall also increases the probability for large inputs of NO3 to enter surface water systems.

A common trend seen in the Cannon River Watershed, and other watersheds dominated by agricultural land-uses, is nitrate concentrations that become concentrated in soil profiles during low precipitation 67 years, such as 2008 and 2009, and then are “washed out” during high precipitation years or storm events, as seen in August 2007, for example. Although total loads were greater in 2008 due to early season rains, the August 2007 event with its high nitrate concentrations and flows delivered one of the largest storm loads of the three-year study.

Cannon River Watershed and the Gulf of Mexico

There are many adverse effects that high nitrate concentrations in the environment can have, both on a local scale (Cannon River Watershed) and on a regional/global scale (Gulf of Mexico hypoxia zone). Consumption of drinking water with high concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen (10 mg/L) can cause methemoglobinemia (Blue Baby Syndrome) in infants. Pregnant women and infants are advised to avoid groundwater sources with high concentrations of nitrate. High concentrations of nitrate can enter groundwater through aquifer recharge areas.

The “hypoxia zone” in the Gulf of Mexico has been at least in part attributed to high levels of nitrate- nitrogen from the Minnesota and Mississippi River. Hypoxia, or a lack of dissolved oxygen, typically develops in the summer months, making the affected zone un-inhabitable for most aquatic organisms. The hypoxic zone is caused by excessive nitrate-nitrogen loading that triggers exponential algal growth. The problem occurs when the algae die and detritus bacteria consume oxygen to decompose the algae. This oxygen consumption causes huge decreases in dissolved oxygen concentration within the water column leading to reductions in fish and shrimp populations, which need that oxygen to survive.

Nitrate-nitrogen limits/standards

There is currently no Minnesota River water quality standard for nitrate concentration. However, the drinking water standard for nitrates is 10 mg/L. For streams located in the Upper Cannon River Watershed the nitrate-nitrogen range is 0.01-20.0 mg/L.

Nitrate + Nitrite-N loads Figures #10 and #11 represent the total tons of nitrate-nitrogen calculated for each of the monitoring locations during the 2007-2008 monitoring seasons. Although 2008 had lower overall precipitation, the timing of the precipitation (spring and early summer) resulted in greater nitrate transport to drain tile lines and receiving waters. As a result, the loads seen in 2008 were quite a bit higher at all of the sites except for Site 4. (*-Denotes a reduced monitoring season)

Figure #10 2007monitoring sites Nitrate + Nitrite loads

Figure #11 2008 monitoring sites Nitrate + Nitrite loads

2007-2008 Sampleshed Nitrate + Nitrite-N flow-weighted mean concentrations

Figure #12 and #13 represent the nitrate + nitrite-nitrogen flow-weighted mean concentrations for the monitoring sites for 2007 and 2008. The data indicate the entire Upper Cannon River Watershed had low levels of nitrate + nitrite-nitrogen concentrations, which could be associated with denitrification occurring in Sabre, Tetonka and Sakatah lakes. Interestingly, monitoring Site 4 located on Whitewater Creek had the highest concentration of nitrogen for both years. This could be due to lack of denitrification that was seen at other monitoring locations.

In the denitrification process, bacteria facilitate the reduction of nitrates (NO3) to molecular nitrogen (N2), which is then released back to the atmosphere. Gentrification typically occurs in anoxic conditions in which bacteria respire nitrate as the terminal electron acceptor in place of oxygen. When flooding occurs in wetlands, water saturates the soil and denies it access to the oxygen in the air above. As a result, the soils might become anoxic and can undergo denitrification. This can also occur in a lake system were sediment is deposited on the lakebed and denitrifies due to the lack of oxygen.

Figure #12 2007 Monitoring sites Nitrate + Nitrite flow-weighted mean concentrations

Figure # 13 2008 Monitoring sites Nitrate + Nitrite ﬂow-weighted mean concentra ons

Nitrate + Nitrite-N combined sample analysis

Table # 11 represents the monitoring site-specific statistics for nitrate + nitrite-N samples analyzed over the three year monitoring period.

Table #11 2007-2009 NO3 + NO2 combined sample statistics

Site Mean Median Min Max % of Count (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) samples exceeding limit* Site #1 1.68 0.2 0.1 16.7 6 48 Site #2 1.05 0.44 0.2 6.81 0 47 Site #3 1.85 0.7 0.2 7.86 0 50 Site #4 5.11 5.3 0.2 12.8 6 50 Site #5a 0.52 0.2 0.2 2.24 0 39 *Limit based on drinking water standard

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen What is Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen?

Nitrogen can exist in many different forms. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is the sum of the organic nitrogen and the ammonia in a water sample. TKN is an important water quality parameter to evaluate due to the fact that excess ammonia contributes to eutrophication of surface water systems. Organic nitrogen includes natural substances like amino acids, protein, peptides, nucleic acids and urea, as well as a large number of man-made organic compounds. Ammonia can be present in natural waters and in

70 various forms of wastes. TKN is measured in milligrams per liter (mg/L). High measurements of TKN typically indicate discharge of sewage and manure to water bodies.

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen limits/standards

There is currently no surface water standard for TKN in the state of Minnesota.

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen -TKN loads

No load calculations were conducted for TKN for this initial assessment of the watershed. However, future assessments during implementation may use this water quality data to calculate loads.

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen - TKN flow-weighted mean concentrations

No flow-weighted mean concentrations were calculated for this initial assessment of the watershed. Future projects may require further assessment of water quality parameters including TKN.

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen - combined sample analysis

Table #12 shows the water quality statistics from all the TKN samples collected during the 2007-2009 monitoring seasons. Site 2 data indicates a higher range and average for TKN over the 2007-2009 monitoring season. This could be an indication of failing septic systems or higher manure application within this subwatershed.

Table #12 2007-2009 TKN combined sample statistics

Site Mean Median Min Max Count (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Site #1 2.36 1.9 0.7 6.8 47 Site #2 2.79 1.9 0.7 32.5 47 Site #3 1.64 1.6 0.4 2.8 50 Site #4 1.8 1.75 0.6 3.2 50 Site #5a 2.12 2 0.7 4.7 39

Total phosphorus What is phosphorus?

Phosphorus is a key element in all known forms of life. Inorganic phosphorus in the form of phosphate 3- PO4 plays a major role in biological molecules such as DNA and RNA where it forms part of the structural framework of these molecules. Living cells also use phosphate to transport cellular energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Nearly every cellular process that uses energy obtains it in the form of ATP. Sources of phosphorus in streams and lakes include the weathering of rocks and other minerals, stormwater runoff, agricultural runoff, erosion and sedimentation, atmospheric deposition, and direct inputs from wildlife. Most of these examples are nonpoint sources of phosphorus pollution. Some examples of point sources would include wastewater treatment facilities and permitted industrial discharges. Total phosphorus (TP) exists in three forms, ortho-phosphate, meta-phosphate and organically bound phosphate. These three forms can be found in living and dead organisms, in aqueous solutions, bound to sediment particles or found in rocks.

71 Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for aquatic plants in lake and stream systems. This element is commonly referred to as the “limiting” nutrient of freshwater systems. If low levels of phosphorus are detected in aquatic systems, plant and algal growth will be limited. Increased primary production will occur in an aquatic system with elevated phosphorus levels. This will have a direct effect in the food web by increasing fish and macroinvertebrate food availability and hence populations. However, if phosphorus loading is not controlled or regulated, primary production can overwhelm the system and lead to anoxic conditions. As bacteria decompose dying materials they consume oxygen in the process, leading to fish kill events and reductions in biodiversity for both plant and animal communities. These elevated primary production rates can also cause higher turbidity levels that impact aquatic habitat, function and aesthetic value.

Ortho-phosphorus is particularly interesting when trying to assess a stream or lake’s condition. This form of phosphorus is readily available for use to the biological community. In most cases, ortho- phosphorus concentrations in an undisturbed stream are relatively low. Evaluating the relationship between TP and ortho-phosphorus is important for determining the sources of phosphorus in a stream or lake. Section 4h will further explain the relationship between these two forms of phosphorus.

It has been shown that phosphorus forms strong ionic bonds with soil particles and is usually found in high concentrations where severe erosion and agriculture is occurring. In the Upper Cannon River Watershed, phosphorus loading is attributed to row crop agriculture, tile drainage, stream bank and gully erosion.

Total phosphorus limits/standards

There is currently no river standard associated with total phosphorus in the state of Minnesota. However, the Environmental Protection Agency recommends 0.10 mg/L as a desired surface water goal for total phosphorus. The target to reduce algal growth is 0.26 mg/L.

The Upper Cannon River Assessment Project found that the median total phosphorus concentration of the samples collected from the five monitoring sites in 2007-2009 was 0.39 mg/L. Average total phosphorus concentration for reference streams in the Northern Hardwood Forest eco-region ranged from 0.07-0.17 mg/L. Target total phosphorus concentrations for reference lakes in this eco-region ranged from 0.23-0.50 mg/L.

Total phosphorus (TP) loads

Figures #14 and #15 present the total tons of TP calculated at each monitoring site for the 2007 and 2008 monitoring season using FLUX. TP loads for sampleshed #1 were relatively low in 2007 and moderate in 2008. The monitoring data at site 2 indicates considerable loading from Sabre Lake. This is consistent with the very high in-lake TP concentrations measured in Sabre during the study (see Part B Section 8: Lake Monitoring Overview). Sampleshed #3 appears to have been a losing reach in 2007 as the TP load actually decreased, in contrast to 2008 when sampleshed #3 contributed more than four tons. Sampleshed #4 was a relatively small contributor of TP load in 2007 and 2008, which was fairly surprising as sampleshed #4 was a moderate to major source of TSS load during the study. As previously discussed, comparisons between years for site 5a are difficult due to different season lengths. It stands to reason that a significant portion of the load at site 5a comes from Tetonka and Sakatah lakes, as in-lake TP concentrations were fairly high during the study.

Figure #14 2007 monitoring sites TP loads

Figure #15 2008 monitoring sites TP loads

2007/2008 Sampleshed TP flow-weighted mean concentrations

Figures #16 and #17 present the flow-weighted mean concentrations of TP for each monitoring site in 2007 and 2008. Although TP loads were generally higher in 2008, 2007 exhibited higher flow weighted mean concentrations.

Figure #16 2007 TP Flow-weighted mean concentrations

Figure #17 2008 TP flow-weighted mean concentrations

TP- combined samples analysis

Table # 13 represents statistics for all the TP samples collected during the 2007-2009 monitoring season. Site 2 had the highest mean TP concentration and the highest median TP concentration. This could be attributed to high levels of TP in Sabre Lake which is located just upstream of this monitoring site.

Table #13 2007-2009 combined total phosphorus sample statistics

Site Mean (mg/L) Median Min Max % of Count (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) samples exceeding benchmark* Site #1 0.39 0.33 0.005 1.13 88 48 Site #2 0.95 0.67 0.006 7.13 85 47 Site #3 0.49 0.47 0.005 1.21 92 50 Site #4 0.24 0.18 0.005 0.47 56 50 Site#5a 0.34 0.29 0.005 1.08 77 39 *Based on mean 1970-1992 Northern Hardwood Forest Ecoregion Average of 0.17 mg/L

Ortho-phosphorus What is ortho-phosphorus?

Ortho-phosphorus is the biologically available form of phosphorus. Therefore, if higher concentrations of ortho-phosphorus are found in a stream, the more readily available this nutrient is for aquatic plants and algae. Large algal blooms can be problematic when algal populations die off and bacteria decompose dead materials and consume all available oxygen leading to anoxic conditions. Major anthropogenic activities such as untreated sewage; agricultural runoff, lawn fertilizers and increased subsurface drainage that cause higher erosion rates can all be considered sources of ortho-phosphorus. Deriving the ratio of ortho-phosphorus to total phosphorus is important because it can be used, as an indicator as to how much of the nutrient is readily available for primary production.

Ortho-phosphorus limits/standards

There is currently no surface water standard for ortho-phosphorus in streams or lakes in the state of Minnesota. Typically, streams with exhibit pristine conditions have very low concentrations of ortho- phosphorus in the range of 0.050 mg/L. Any concentrations above this value should be evaluated more closely to determine if unnatural sources are causing the elevated concentrations of phosphorus.

Ortho-phosphorus-loads

Loading calculations for ortho-phosphorus were not calculated for this study. However, water quality samples were collected for ortho-phosphorus and did provide some insight as to the ratio of ortho- phosphorus to total phosphorus. Future analysis using FLUX will determine ortho-phosphorus loads. It is important to note that ortho-phosphorus is a percentage of the total phosphorus concentrations observed. Table # 14 describes the percentage of ortho-phosphorus from total phosphorus from the samples collected during the 2007-2009 monitoring seasons. Site 3 had the largest percentage of ortho- phosphorus from the 2007-2009 sample data. Monitoring site 2 exhibited the highest sample mean and median for all five monitoring sites. This could be due to this monitoring station being located just downstream of Sabre Lake.

Table #14 Ortho/Total phosphorus comparisons

Site 2007 - 2007 - 2007- 2007- Percentage 2009 2009 2009 2009 of mean TP TP TP OP OP from ortho sample sample sample sample phosphorus mean median mean median (2007-2009) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Site #1 0.39 0.33 0.27 0.26 69% Site #2 0.95 0.67 0.69 0.57 73% Site #3 0.49 0.41 0.43 0.41 88% Site #4 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.15 75% Site#5a 0.34 0.29 0.21 0.2 62%

Ortho-phosphorus- combined sample analysis

Table # 15 presents the sample statistics for all ortho-phosphorus collected from 2007-2009 monitoring seasons. Table #15 2007-2009 ortho-phosphorus combine sample statistics

Site Mean Median Min Max Count (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Site #1 0.27 0.26 0.023 0.95 46 Site #2 0.69 0.57 0.007 1.71 47 Site #3 0.43 0.41 0.006 1.15 50 Site #4 0.18 0.15 0.005 0.7 50 Site#5a 0.21 0.2 0.008 0.65 39

Bacteria - E. coli What is an E. coli bacterium?

Escherichia coli, commonly called E. coli, is one of the most common species of coliform bacteria. It is a normal component of the large intestines in humans and other warm-blooded animals. E. coli is used as an indicator organism because it is easily cultured, and its presence in water in defined amounts indicates that sewage may be present. The presence of E. coli in surface waters is often attributed to fecal contamination from agricultural and urban/residential areas. Possible sources of contamination are faulty septic systems, livestock operations, and wildlife contributions. However, variations in E. coli concentrations from site to site and the contribution of human vs. agricultural sources are not readily understood. In addition, E. coli concentrations at a particular site may vary depending on the base line bacteria level already in the river, inputs from other sources, dilution with precipitation events, and die- off or multiplication of the organism within the river water and sediments. The concentration of E. coli in surface water depends for the most part on the runoff from various sources of contamination and is thus related to the land use and hydrology of the contributing watersheds. Fecal bacteria may persist in stream sediments and contribute to concentrations in overlying waters for months after initial contamination (Sherer et al., 1992).

E. coli limits/standards

The Minnesota Pollution Control agency has two surface water standards for E. coli: 1) a monthly geometric mean not to exceed 126 CFU/ 100 mL for not less than 5 samples collected in a month or 2) no more than 10% of samples in given month may exceed 1,260 CFU/100 mL. The standards apply between the months of April and October.

Sites 1-4 had enough samples over the three years to compute monthly geometric means for all monitoring months except July and September. Site 5a had enough data over the three years to compute monthly geometric means for all monitoring months except for May, July and September (Table 16). Table 17 shows the percent of samples per month that exceeded the 1,260 CFU/100ml standard.

Table #16 E. coli monthly geometric means for sites 1-5a. Means are based on at least five samples collected over the three-year study1.

Site April Geo May Geo June Geo July Geo August Geo September October Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Geo Mean Geo Mean (CFU/100ml) (CFU/100ml) (CFU/100ml) (CFU/100ml) (CFU/100ml) (CFU/100 (CFU/100ml) ml) Site #1 16.3 59.3 128.3 NA 450.5 NA 80.0 Site #2 4.1 4.5 5.8 NA 66.8 NA 35.6 Site #3 35.8 70.0 97.5 NA 277.8 NA 103.0 Site #4 75.1 123.3 1,273.9 NA 1,149.8 NA 495 Site NA 53.7 #5a 7.2 NA 67.2 NA 168.1 1 standard set for geometric mean of samples: not to exceed 126 CFU/100 mL

Table #17 E. coli percent monthly exceedances of standard1

Site April Percent May Percent June July Percent August September October of Samples of Samples Percent of of Samples Percent of Percent of Percent of Exceeding Exceeding Samples Exceeding Samples Samples Samples Standard Standard Exceeding Standard Exceeding Exceeding Exceeding Standard Standard Standard Standard Site #1 0% 0% 0% 25% 37.5% 0% 0% Site #2 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% Site #3 0% 0% 14.3% 0% 11% 0% 17% Site #4 0% 12.5% 43% 50% 70% 100% 33% Site 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% #5a 1 No more than 10% of month specific samples to exceed 1,260 CFU/100ml.

Monitoring Site 4 violated the monthly geometric mean standard on three occasions (June, August, and October). July and September geometric means at Site 4 were 1,427 and 2,165 CFU/100 ml respectively, though the months did not have enough samples to be compared to the standard. These results indicate that there is a significant source of bacteria somewhere in the Whitewater/Waterville Creek sampleshed. The only other violations of the monthly geo mean standard occurred at Site 1 in June, Site 3 in August and Site 5a in August. It should be noted that the geometric means might have been affected by the upper reporting limit of 2,419 CFU/100ml. Had the actual CFU values been available for samples that were reported as greater than 2,419 CFU/100ml, the monthly geometric means would likely have been higher for some months/sites. Future monitoring should stress obtaining more samples during July and September at all sites so meaningful comparisons can be made to the standard and insistence that laboratories dilute samples that are suspected of exceeding the current upper

77 reporting limit. Table 18 shows the median, minimum and maximum CFU/100ml for the 2007-2009 data at each site.

Table #18 2007-2009 E. coli combined sample statistics

Site Median M in Max Count (MPN/100mL) (MPN/100 mL) (MPN/100 mL) Site #1 104 1 2420 45 Site #2 19 0.2 2420 44 Site #3 86 1 2420 47 Site #4 921 3 3609 47 Site #5a 33 1 980 38

Comparison of the site data to the 1,260 CFU/100ml standard yielded fairly similar results with Site 4 showing elevated E. coli levels in most months. Site 4 samples exceeded the 1,260 CFU/100 ml standard more than 10% of the time in all months but April. Site 1 exceeded the standard in July (based on only 4 samples) and Site 3 exceeded the standard in June and October. All of the sites except Site 5a exceeded the standard in August, indicating a possible temperature component to E. coli concentrations in the Upper Cannon River.

BOD– biological oxygen demand What is BOD?

This water quality parameter can be defined as the amount of dissolved oxygen needed to break down (oxidize) organic materials to carbon dioxide, water, and minerals in a given volume of water at a certain temperature over a specified time period. BOD results from oxygen consuming processes such as organic material being decomposed by bacteria.

BOD standard/limits

Currently, there is no surface water standard for BOD in the state of Minnesota. However, the calculated average concentration for BOD in the Northern Hardwood Forest eco-region is 2.7 mg/L. This was the benchmark concentration used in Table #13 to make comparisons.

BOD loads

Loading calculations for biochemical oxygen demand were not conducted for this study. However, water quality samples were collected for BOD and did provide some insight as to the proportion of samples that exceeded eco-region averages. Future analysis using FLUX will help determine BOD loads and flow-weighted mean concentrations.

BOD- combined sample analysis

Table # 19 describes the BOD samples statistics collected from the 2007-2009 monitoring seasons. Site 5a had the highest percentage of samples over the eco-region average. It could be further assumed that loads from this location would be proportionate. Meaning that load from this site would be the highest only if it also had high flows. Loads depend on concentration and flow. Monitoring Site 2 exhibited the highest maximum sample concentration for all five monitoring sites. This could be due to this

78 monitoring station being located just downstream of Sabre Lake. Interestingly, Site 1 located just downstream of Lake Dora inlet also had elevated concentrations of BOD with a maximum of 23 mg/L.

Table #19 2007-2009 BOD combined sample statistics

Site Mean Median Min Max % of samples Count (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) exceeding benchmark1 Site #1 4.56 3 2 23 71% 48 Site #2 4.64 2 2 34 49% 47 Site #3 2.66 4 2 6 36% 50 Site #4 2.56 2 2 8 28% 50 Site#5a 3.9 4 2 7 77% 39 1Based on annual averages for minimally impacted streams in CHF eco-region

Part B Section 7 Stream Conclusions and goals The following discussion is focused on the first two years of monitoring; 2007 and 2008. The 2009 flow record for the five monitoring sites was not completed in time to be included in this report. The 2009 data could be used in the future to run FLUX analysis and calculate load and flow-weighted mean concentrations for the entire study period.

a. Total suspended solids

Total suspended solids (TSS) loading, particular sediment and in some instances algae, are major issues in the Upper Cannon River Watershed. These TSS values indicate significant erosion rates in the watershed and identify sampleshed areas that have higher contribution of sediment-laden waters (Site 4 and 5a) than other samplesheds (Site 3) in the upper portion of the watershed. The water quality data suggests that the majority of the sediment loading occurs further downstream where agricultural landuse is more prevalent. It is also important to note that monitoring locations 1-3 are located on the main stem of the Cannon River where the river flows through a lake system. Due to this fact, TSS results may be skewed or biased due to sedimentation of soil particles in these lentic systems. Results from the 2008 monitoring season at sampleshed (5a) represented a majority (36.6%) of the TSS loads in 2008. These calculations could not be completed for the 2007 monitoring season due to equipment problems and site relocation leading to a shorter monitoring season at this station.

Table #20 2007-2008 TSS normalized yields

2007 Normalized TSS 2008 Normalized TSS Monitoring location yield yield Sampleshed #1* 4.4 12.8 Sampleshed #2* 1.5 7.45 Sampleshed #3* 5.49 5.92 Sampleshed #4* 38.5 23.3 Sampleshed #5a** 5.3 18.8 *Normalized yield= Annual load (lbs)/sampleshed area (acres) **Normalized Yield=Annual load (lbs)/sampleshed acre (acres ) based on reduced sampling period Aug- Oct.2007

Normalized TSS loads were calculated by dividing the annual calculated TSS load derived using FLUX by the cumulative watershed area. Therefore, all yields have to be normalized by cumulative area except for sampleshed #4 which was a tributary stream not on the Cannon River. Table # 20 indicates that samplesheds #1 and #4 were major contributors of TSS to the Cannon River Watershed based on the normalized yield data. The high yields of TSS from sampleshed #1 are likely to be associated with greater sloped topography, land use practices, and highly erodible soils in the area that causes increased streambank and surface erosion of the Cannon River Watershed. These elevated TSS values for sampleshed #1 could also be associated with discharge from Lake Dora which is located just upstream of the monitoring location.

Monitoring Site 4 (located in sampleshed #4) represents 14.8% of the study area, but had a relatively high TSS load (30.6%) in 2008, which means it delivers a large proportion of the TSS load relative to

80 area in the Upper Cannon River Watershed. This specific monitoring location is a tributary to the Cannon River with lower discharge volumes. Within this sampleshed, there is a high number of feedlots operations and sloping topography that could be influencing TSS concentrations within the Whitewater and Waterville Creeks. Also, if cattle are allowed to graze and wade within the stream’s floodplain or channel this will increase probability of stream bank failure leading to higher TSS concentrations.

Also previously discussed, there is no surface water standard for TSS, but the state of Minnesota has set a standard for turbidity. TSS can be used as a surrogate for turbidity. This turbidity standard is 25 NTU’s. Based on a strong relationship seen in the Lower Cannon River Turbidity TMDL, the turbidity standard equates to 44 mg/L of TSS.

Table #21 2007 2008 TSS FWMC (total tons divided by flow)

Site 2007 TSS 2008 TSS FWMC FWMC Site #1 13.1 6.17 Site #2 8.69 6.73 Site #3 12.4 6.19 Site #4* 38.2 24.4 Site #5a 19.9 14.7 * using the sample shed analysis

Table # 21 presents the 2007-2008 TSS FWMC for the five monitoring locations in the Upper Cannon River Watershed. In 2007 and 2008, all of the monitoring locations were below the standard suggested of 44 mg/L, which could be related to the low flow conditions, but 2007 did have significant precipitation events to consider. It may be helpful to look at individual rain event loads to determine each sampleshed response to different precipitation intensities. It is important to note that water quality standards are compared to individual samples and not by flow-weighted mean concentrations to determine impairment status. Site 4 exhibited the highest flow-weighted mean concentration of TSS both monitoring years. TSS BMP’s and implementation activities should first focus in this sampleshed due to the high load and flow-weighted mean concentrations.

A portion of the sediment losses can be associated with background sedimentation rates in the Upper Cannon River watershed. However, anthropogenic changes in agricultural/urban land-use and increased usage of subsurface tile drainage have changed water retention and water storage capacities in the Upper Watershed, and by doing so, has caused dramatic shifts in the flow regime of the River. Typically, in areas with increased tile drainage and row-crop agriculture stream flows increase dramatically over a shorter period of time by doing so there is potentially more stream energy to scour and erode a stream bank which equates to more sediment particles traveling downstream. There is a strongly correlated positive relationship with stream flow and TSS losses that can be seen in many different stream types and regions.

TSS summary · Sampleshed 1 represented 22% of the study area, contributed 17% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 2, representing 16% of the study area, contributed 17% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 3, representing 25% of the study area, contributed 22% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 4, representing 15% of the study area, contributed 20% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 5a, representing 22% of the study area, contributed 24% of the TSS load in 2008. · Sampleshed 4 had the highest TSS yield (38.5 lbs/ac) and load values (414.4 tons) in 2007. · Sampleshed 4 had the highest TSS FWMC of the five monitoring locations for both monitoring years (38.2 and 24.4 mg/L, respectively).

81 · Sampleshed 5a had the highest load values (301.9 tons) of the five monitoring locations for the 2008 monitoring season. b. Nitrate + Nitrite-N

Total nitrate + nitrite-N load was not calculated for 2007 due to a shorter sampling period, and total nitrate + nitrite-N load in 2008 at the “outlet” (5a) was 46.4 tons. Total annual nitrogen load could not be calculated accurately. Based on the available data collected in this project, sampleshed #4 had the highest annual nitrate load losses with 73.5 and 71.5 tons in 2007 and 2008, respectively. This monitoring location also had the highest flow-weighted mean concentration of nitrates for both monitoring years (6.77 and 6.72 mg/L, respectively). This sampleshed location also had the highest nitrogen yield for both years (6.82 and 6.64 lbs/ac, respectively). In comparison, nitrate + nitrite-N sampleshed yields at the “outlet” point were 2.89 lbs/ac in 2008. These differences in nitrate yields can be attributed to differences in seasonal precipitation timing and intensity, monitoring site installation timing, and seasonal changes in soil conditions.

Table #22 presents the normalized yield data for nitrate + nitrite-N in 2007 and 2008 for the five monitoring sites. The data indicates a trend of increased nitrate-nitrogen yields the further upstream you travel in the watershed, with the exception of sampleshed #4, which is a tributary stream to the Cannon River.

Table # 22 2007-2008 normalized N yields

Monitoring location 2007 Normalized N yield 2008 Normalized N yield Sampleshed #1* 0.64 1.72 Sampleshed #2* 1.52 5.37 Sampleshed #3* 2.41 4.28 Sampleshed #4** 6.82 6.64 Sampleshed #5a* 0.75 2.89 *Normalized yield= Annual load (lbs)/sampleshed area (acres) **Yield=annual load/sampleshed acre (acres) Values based on FLUX calculated load values

Table #23 presents the 2007 and 2008 monitoring season flow-weighted mean concentrations for nitrate and nitrite-N. This data indicates that sampleshed #4 has the highest flow-weighted mean concentrations for all five samplesheds during both monitoring years. These results also indicate that samplesheds located in the middle of the watershed had greater concentrations of nitrogen. A plausible explanation for the lower concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen further up the watershed (monitoring sites 1 and 2) is that denitrification is occurring in the lakes (Sabre and Gorman) as the Cannon River flows through them.

Table # 23 2007-2008 N FWMC (tons divided by flow)

Site 2007 NO3 FWMC 2008 NO3 FWMC Site #1 1.91 1.67 Site #2 1.33 2.06 Site #3 2.52 2.74 Site #4 6.77 6.72 Site #5a 0.62 0.83

82 These water quality results above support the importance of wetland and lake areas as a nitrogen sink. The concentrations of nitrate + nitrite at the “outlet” point (5a) were fairly low when comparing results from the Rush River which had flow-weighted mean concentrations of 23-28.3 mg/L. The nitrate-nitrite nitrogen flow-weighted mean concentrations from this river represent the highest levels detected within the state of Minnesota.

Nitrate + Nitrite-N summary · During both monitoring years, every monitoring site was below the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L. The N flow-weighted mean concentrations were fairly low when compared to other watersheds in the region. · Areas of the watershed with lakes and more wetland complexes had lower concentrations of N. · Sampleshed #4 exhibited the highest N load, N yield loss, and N flow-weighted mean concentrations in the 2007-monitoring season. · Sampleshed #3 exhibited the highest N load loss (76.4 tons) in 2008, but Sampleshed 4 had the highest N flow-weighted concentration (6.72 mg/L). · Based on Table # 23, flow-weighted mean concentrations of nitrate + nitrite-N slowly increased as you progressed through the watershed starting at Site 1 and finishing at Site 5a. · Sources of N-N to surface waters in this region of the watershed are typically non-point. This would include mineralization, surface and subsurface drainage, fertilizers, manure application, legume fixation, and precipitation. · The most common pathway for N sources to enter a waterway is through subsurface tile drainage systems. · Sampleshed #4, representing 15% of the study area, contributed 153% (71.5 tons) of N load in 2008. Sampleshed #5a contribution of the N load was 46.5 tons. The data suggests that this sampleshed is a “losing” system of nitrates. The total N load contribution from this site over the two monitoring years was 144.99 tons (33%).

Nutrient management initiatives and educational outreach are needed in this region to reduce over- application of N and identify optimal N rates. To do this, consistent soil testing will be needed to account for the residual N sources remaining within the soil profile from year-to-year to avoid over- application of nutrients. In addition to accounting for the residual nitrogen in a soil profile using soil testing, realistic yield goals must be determined taking into account regional area and dominant soil types. Also, one must consider giving the appropriate N credit from other sources such as N in soil organic matter, legumes, animal manures, composts plus other soil additives, and sludge when calculating N needs. Another consideration for nitrogen BMP would be timing of application (spring vs. fall) and type of N used (anhydrous ammonia or urea). By implementing these strategies, the probability of N entering surface water systems will be minimized.

c. Total phosphorus and ortho-phosphorus

Water quality data from the two years of monitoring indicated high total phosphorus (TP) loads and concentrations passing through the Upper Cannon River watershed, particularly during spring thaw and after storm events. In 2008, total annual TP loads at site 5a “outlet” were 13.2 tons. Normalized TP yield for the “outlet” was 0.82 lbs/ac in 2008.

Normalized TP loads were calculated by dividing the annual calculated TP load (lbs) derived using FLUX and dividing it by the individual sampleshed area (ac). Therefore, all yield information had been normalized by area on the Upper Cannon Assessment project area. The normalized yield (total pounds divided by sampleshed area) for TP in 2007 and 2008 for the five samplesheds are represented in table # 83 24. The combined normalized yield data for both monitoring years indicate that sampleshed #5a had the highest contribution of TP per acre in the study area. As shown in Table # 24 sampleshed #5a had the highest TP yield for each monitoring year.

Table # 24 2007-2008 TP normalized yields

Monitoring location 2007 Normalized TP 2008 Normalized TP yield yield Sampleshed #1* 0.10 0.28 Sampleshed #2* 0.66 0.68 Sampleshed #3* 0.38 0.67 Sampleshed #4** 0.30 0.11 Sampleshed #5a* 0.77 0.82 *Normalized yield= Annual load (lbs)/sampleshed area (acres) **Yield=annual load/sampleshed acre (acres) Values based on FLUX calculated load values

Table #25 presents the average flow-weighted mean concentration for TP in 2007 and 2008. This data varies from year-to-year due to climatic conditions, but the data shows again that the upper portions of the watershed have high concentrations of TP. In 2007, Site 2 had the second highest concentration of TP after Site 5a. It is important to note that this monitoring site is located just downstream of Sabre Lake. In 2008, a drier season, Site 1 and 3 had the highest TP concentrations. Site 3 is located just before the Cannon River enters Tetonka Lake. It is important to note that Le Sueur County ditch 59 drains into the Cannon River upstream of this monitoring site. This ditch runs through an agriculturally dominated landscape and starts at a 303(d) impaired lake (German Lake) for nutrients. The data indicates that in 2007, which received more precipitation than 2008, the TP concentrations were higher for all the monitoring sites.

Table # 25 2007-2008 TP FWMC (tons divided by ﬂow)

Site 2007 TP 2008 TP FWMC FWMC Site #1 0.29 0.27 Site #2 0.58 0.25 Site #3 0.41 0.27 Site #4 0.30 0.12 Site #5a 0.64 0.23

The relationship between TP and ortho-phosphorus was evaluated to help determine the sources of P in the Upper Cannon River Watershed. During the 2007-2009 monitoring seasons, ortho-phosphorus concentrations ranged from 62-88% of the TP. Ortho-phosphorus is the mobile source of TP that is readily available for biological uptake and stimulates algae and plant growth.

The water quality data from 2007 and 2008 indicated that during baseflow and stormflow conditions ortho-phosphorus accounts for greater than 50% of TP in all five monitoring locations. During baseflow conditions, it is assumed that high ortho-phosphorus concentrations originate from organic sources such as; failing septic systems, feedlot runoff, discharge from lakes with high rough fish populations, decaying algae, or plant materials, etc. During stormflow events, elevated ortho-phosphorus levels could be linked to surface or stream bank erosion. These phosphorus results are confounding because of the location of the monitoring sites. One factor that could be possibly affecting these P concentrations would be the lakes that are part of the Upper Cannon River Watershed system. These lake systems have the potential for high internal P loading. During storm events, these shallow lakes are “flushed out” causing elevated P concentrations to enter the stream. A majority of these lakes can be classified as moderately 84 to highly eutrophic with a large population of rough fish that re-suspend sediment particles bound with phosphorus. It is due to this confound factor that further evaluation may be needed to understand nutrient transport mechanisms. These conditions of elevated ortho-phosphorus concentrations are seen during both flow conditions.

Table # 26 presents the percentage of ortho-phosphorus relative to TP at the five monitoring locations in the 2007-2009 seasons. These high ratios of ortho-phosphorus to TP indicate that faulty septic system, surface/agricultural runoff, and subsurface tile drainage are the main contributors of phosphorus at all the monitoring locations. Soil erosion and lake contribution in these areas also plays a significant role in phosphorus concentration/loading and should not be overlooked.

Table # 26 2007-2009 Ortho-phosphorus vs. TP

Site 2007-2009 % of OP to TP Site #1 69 Site #2 73 Site #3 88 Site #4 75 Site #5a 62

TP and ortho-phosphorus summary · In 2007 and 2008 monitoring season, the majority of TP loading occurred during a few storm events. In 2007, major precipitation events occurred in August and October. In 2008, precipitation events occurred during the months of April, May, and June. · Sampleshed #1 accounted for 12% of TP load in 2008, while representing 22% of the study area. · Sampleshed #1 had the lowest FWMC of TP in 2007. This may be caused by the numerous wetland complexes located upstream of the monitoring point and with little contribution from Lake Dora. Sampleshed #4 had the lowest FWMC of TP in 2008. This was surprising based on the high TSS loads associated with Sampleshed #4. This may be a result of the monitoring location being located on a tributary stream and not the mainstem of the Cannon River. The results from both years are more likely to be correlated to the climatic condition for each monitoring year. · Based on the water quality data collected, more than 50% of the TP in the Upper Cannon River Watershed is comprised of ortho-phosphorus. These results signify that the majority of TP load is from organic bound sources. The high ratio of ortho-phosphorus to TP indicates that majority of the phosphorus load is coming from organic sources previously mentioned (faulty septic system, wildlife contributions, subsurface tiled lands, feedlot runoff, manure applied fields, decaying algae or plant materials, etc.).

85 d. E. coli bacteria Sites 1-4 had enough samples over the three years to compute monthly geometric means for all monitoring months except July and September. Site 5a had enough data over the three years to compute monthly geometric means for all monitoring months except for May, July and September (Table 27). Table 28 shows the percent of samples per month that exceeded the 1,260 CFU/100ml standard.

Table # 27 E. coli monthly geometric means for sites 1-5a. Means are based on at least five samples collected over the three year study1

Table # 28 E. coli percent monthly exceedances of standard1

Table # 29 2007-2009 E. coli combined sample statistics

Site Median M in Max Count (MPN/100mL) (MPN/100 mL) (MPN/100 mL) Site #1 104 1 2420 45 Site #2 19 0.2 2420 44 Site #3 86 1 2420 47 Site #4 921 3 3609 47 Site #5a 33 1 980 38

Issues during the project 2007 The project had some problems with acquiring monitoring equipment as the manufacturer has discontinued the equipment we had planned to purchase. We were able to borrow some data loggers from the North Cannon River Water Management Organization through the Dakota SWCD office for 2007. MPCA has also provided some equipment. There were also some problems with equipment not functioning properly. MPCA staff assisted in revising the computer program that the sonic range sensors used and they now seem to be operating correctly. The last major challenge for this year has been lack of rainfall. As of the end of June three of the monitoring sites have very little flow.

The project also had a problem with the program used with the new Ultrasonic monitors for water level. The problem was corrected. Functionality improved during the second half of the year. Low flow due to lack of rain through mid-August was an issue. From mid-August to October there were several large rain events.

2008 Lack of rain events

2009 E. coli lab results were reported back with the limit of 2,419 CFU/100ml even though project staff requested and insisted that the laboratory dilute samples that are suspected of exceeding the current upper reporting limit.

Part B Section 8: Lake Monitoring Overview

Map # 16 Upper Cannon River watershed showing subwatersheds (yellow lines) and lakes (map prepared by Minnesota State University – Mankato Water Resources Center).

Blue Water Science monitored seven lakes within the Upper Cannon River watershed in 2007 and two lakes were sampled in 2008. Results for water quality and fisheries are summarized in this section with additional details given in Sections 9 and 10. The seven lakes sampled in 2007 were: Shields, Rice, Gorman, Sabre, Tetonka, Sakatah, and Frances. Lakes were sampled twice a month from May through September. Three water quality parameters were collected at each trip and included Secchi disc, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll a. In 2008, Gorman and Sabre Lakes were sampled through a Surface Water Assessment Grant, which included Secchi disc, TP and Chlorophyll a, nitrogen along with other field parameters that were monitored.

Part B Section 9: Lake Water Quality

2007 Monitoring Season: Seven lakes (Sakatah and Lower Sakatah were counted as one lake) were monitored from May through September in 2007. The seven lakes monitored in the Upper Cannon River watershed share a startling similarity: they have better clarity then would be predicted based on the lake phosphorus concentrations. A summary of water quality values for 2007 is shown in Table 30.

The seven lakes meet the MPCA nutrient criteria for transparency, and Rice Lake meets the MPCA nutrient criteria for chlorophyll with Sabre barely missing the cutoff. However, all seven lakes exceed the nutrient criteria for phosphorus with Frances being the closest to the accepted criteria. The other six lakes greatly exceeded the phosphorus limit, even using the Western Corn Belt Ecoregion nutrient criteria.

Table 30 Summary of water quality data from May through September 2007 for Shields, Rice, Gorman, Sabre, Sakatah, Lower Sakatah, and Frances Lakes

Secchi Disc Total Chlorophyll a 2007 (May - Sept Ave) Phosphorus (ppb) (m) (ft) (ppb) Shields (deep) 1.6 5.3 307 41.2 Rice (shallow) 1.0 3.3 405 3.3 Gorman (shallow) 1.2 4.0 1,089 26.9 Sabre (shallow) 1.3 4.3 1,144 21.9 Tetonka (deep) 2.2 7.3 335 33.3 Sakatah (deep) 1.2 4.0 481 41.5 Lower Sakatah (shallow) 0.9 3.0 477 59.6 Frances (deep) 2.1 6.9 74 ND Nutrient Criteria by Ecoregion Central Hardwood Forest 1.4 4.6 <40 14 (deep) Western Corn Belt 0.9 3.0 <65 22 (deep) Central Hardwood Forest 1.0 3.3 <60 20 (shallow) Western Corn Belt 0.7 2.3 <90 30 (shallow)

2008 Monitoring Season: Blue Water Science monitored Gorman and Sabre Lakes from May through September in 2008. Lake association members monitored Shields, Tetonka and Sakatah. As was the case in 2007, total phosphorus concentrations in Gorman and Sabre lakes were extremely high, far exceeding the nutrient criteria for an impaired lake in the Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion.

However, all lakes but Shields meet the nutrient criteria for shallow lakes in the Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion for clarity (as represented by Secchi disc transparency) and just exceed criteria for chlorophyll a.

The summer average for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Gorman and Sabre was slightly above average but not extremely high. Other values were within range for moderately fertile lakes in this part of the state.

Table 31 Summary of water quality data from May through September 2008

Secchi Disc Total Chl a Nitrate- Total Total Total Chlorides Phos (ppb) Nitrite Kjeldahl Suspended Volatile (mg/l) 2008 (May - (m) (ft) Sept Ave) (ppb) (mg/l) Nitrogen Solids Solids (TKN) (TSS) (TVS) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) Shields 1.1 3.5 219 82.7 Gorman 1.3 4.3 824 20.8 0.3 2.2 8.9 113 19.3 Sabre 1.7 5.5 831 20.9 0.8 2.2 14.3 128 18.9 Tetonka 2.0 6.7 358 20.9 Upper Sakatah 543 25.1 Frances 2.0 6.7

Nutrient Criteria by Ecoregion

Secchi- Secchi- Total Chlorophyll a meters feet Phosphorus (ppb) (ppb)

Central Hardwood Forest (deep) 1.4 4.6 <40 14 Western Corn Belt 0.9 3.0 <65 22 (deep) Central Hardwood Forest 1.0 3.3 <60 20 (shallow) Western Corn Belt 0.7 2.3 <90 30 (shallow)

90 Fisheries Summary: The MNDNR has conducted fish surveys on all seven of the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes using both gillnets and trapnets. The lakes were found to have between 13 to 18 fish species with moderate numbers of gamefish, panfish, and non-game species. A summary of the most recent fish surveys for the seven lakes is shown in Table #32.

Table 32 Summary of the most recent MNDNR ﬁsh surveys for seven Upper Cannon River watershed lakes

Gamefish Panfish Non-Gamefish

Shields Northern pike and walleye Black crappies, bluegill, and Black bullheads and carp were common, largemouth yellow perch were common. were moderate, freshwater Survey: bass were scarce. drum were abundant. July 16, 2006 (14 species) Rice Northern pike are common, Black crappies, bluegills, Black bullheads were walleyes and largemouth and yellow perch were common and carp were Survey: bass were scarce. found in moderate moderate. Dogfish were July 25, 2003 numbers. common. (15 species) Gorman Walleye and northern pike Bluegill, hybrid sunfish, and Black bullheads and carp were common and channel yellow perch were found in are found at low numbers Survey: catfish were present, but moderate numbers. and freshwater drum are July 6, 2009 scarce. moderate. White bass are (17 species) present in moderate numbers. Sabre Northern pike are abundant Low numbers of panfish are Carp are moderate and and channel catfish and present. Bluegills and black bullheads and Survey: walleyes are present. yellow perch are present. freshwater drum are low in June 15, 2009 number. White bass, white (16 species) sucker, and dogfish are present in moderate numbers. Tetonka Northern pike and walleye Panfish are present, but low Black bullheads are low in are common. Smallmouth in number. Panfish include number and carp and Survey: bass and channel catfish black crappie, bluegills, and freshwater drum are July 20, 2009 are rare. yellow perch with moderate. Six other (18 species) pumpkinseed and hybrid species are found including sunfish present. longnose gar. Sakatah Walleyes and northern pike Yellow perch are common Black bullheads and carp are common. Channel and bluegills and black are moderate in number Survey: catfish and bass are crappies are low to and freshwater drum are Aug 3, 2009 present at low numbers. moderate in number. common. (17 species) Frances Walleyes and northern pike Black crappies and bluegills Black bullheads, common are common and are moderate. carp, freshwater drum are Survey: largemouth bass are Pumpkinseed and hybrid present but in low numbers. July 10, 2009 present. sunfish are scarce. Yellow bullheads are (13 species) common.

Secchi Disc Transparency: Secchi disc transparency ranged from poor to good over the summer monitoring season (May - Sept) for the seven lakes monitored in 2007 (Table 33). All of the lakes had periodic algae blooms, which reduced clarity. Tetonka had the highest summer average clarity. The lakes start out in May with good clarity and clarity declines in July and August, which is common in lakes in the Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion.

Table 33 Summary of 2007 Secchi disc for Upper Cannon River watershed lakes

Secchi Disc Transparency (feet) - 2007 Date Gorman Rice Sabre Shields Sakatah Lower Tetonka Frances (2007) Sakatah 5.8 10.2 5.0 11.6 17.2 9.9 6.9 17.8 5.21/22 5.3 5.4 10.9 4.6 5.1 11.4 6.6 2.7 3.6 4.1 2.6 5.8 4.6 14.2 6.19/20 3.6 2.3 7.1 2.4 3.5 7.6 7.10 2.1 2.2 2.8 3.0 1.8 3.6 7.20 5.3 4.0 4.0 3.3 1.7 1.0 2.3 8.15 2.1 4.0 2.4 1.7 3.6 1.2 5.3 8.28 4.0 2.0 4.3 3.1 4.0 4.0 3.0 9.12 2.3 2.3 2.8 1.7 2.0 1.8 4.1 9.23/27 1.7 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 Avg (ft) 4.0 3.3 4.3 5.3 4.0 3.0 7.3 6.9

Secchi Disc Criteria for Lakes Secchi disc transparency criteria have been established for deep and shallow lakes in the Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion and for the Western Cornbelt Ecoregion. In 2007, all the lakes met the Secchi disc criteria, except for Lower Sakatah.

92 Figure 18 Shallow Lake Secchi Disc 2007

Figure 19 Deep Lake Secchi Disc 2007

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0 5.3 5.2 6.0

7.0 7.3 8.0 ShieldsTetonkaFrances

93 Total Phosphorus Concentration: Phosphorus concentrations in the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes were high. Frances had the lowest and Sabre had the highest summer average (May - September). Gorman and Sabre Lakes had extremely high phosphorus concentrations (Table 34).

Table #34 Summary of 2007 total phosphorus for Upper Cannon River watershed lakes

Total Phosphorus - 2007 Date Gorman Rice Sabre Shields Sakatah Lower Tetonka Frances (2007) Sakatah 5.8 386 137 317 111 84 110 197 5.21/22 590 248 499 130 189 152 182 6.6 820 200 790 220 162 180 169 6.19/20 1,040 326 892 303 307 418 193 7.10 1,390 674 1,400 369 647 512 220 7.20 1,310 757 1,280 341 646 659 288 8.15 1,660 624 1,650 440 954 604 410 8.28 1,450 385 1,510 356 769 850 497 9.12 1,170 288 1,510 436 594 711 595 9.23/27 1,070 414 1,590 360 459 571 597 Avg 1,089 405 1,144 307 481 477 335 74

Total Phosphorus Criteria for Lakes Total phosphorus nutrient criteria have been established for deep and shallow lakes in the Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion and for the Western Cornbelt Ecoregion. In 2007, all the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes exceeded the phosphorus criteria. Lake Frances had the lowest lake phosphorus concentrations, but the concentration still exceeded the Ecoregion criteria. The other lakes had summer average phosphorus concentrations greater then 300 ppb (ug/l). These are extremely high phosphorus concentrations. Figure 20 Shallow Lake Phosphorus 2007

1,200 1144 1089

1,000

800

600 481 477 405 400

200

0 GormanRiceSabreSakatahLower Sakatah 94 Figure 21 Deep Lake Phosphorus 2007

1,200

1,000

800

600

400 335 307

200 74 0 ShieldsTetonkaFrances

Chlorophyll a Concentration: Chlorophyll in the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes had a wide range of concentrations. Rice Lake has the lowest and Lower Sakatah had the highest summer average (May-September)(Table #35).

Table #35 Summary of 2007 for chlorophyll a for Upper Cannon River watershed lakes

Chlorophyll a (ug/l) Date Gorman Rice Sabre Shields Sakatah Lower Tetonka (2007) Sakatah 5.8 <1 2.4 1.8 1.2 <1 <1 1.2 5.21/22 4.4 1.6 2.5 2.8 1.7 8.3 1.1 6.6 20.3 1.9 1.7 8.3 22.6 24.8 3.4 6.19/20 68.8 1.7 56.4 10.3 36.4 37.1 9.9 7.10 37.2 7.4 22.5 31.3 88.4 28.7 46.6 7.20 9.2 5.0 8.7 20.1 36.0 148 49.7 8.15 61.4 1.2 50.4 117 6.9 55.2 31.2 8.28 13.1 4.2 11.2 31.0 53.4 93.2 107 9.12 42.3 4.8 59.0 149 101 131 49.7 9.23/27 11.1 2.5 4.9 43 68.0 68.3 33.2 Avg 26.9 3.3 21.9 41.2 41.5 59.6 33.3

95 Chlorophyll a Criteria for Lakes Chlorophyll criteria have been established for deep and shallow lakes in the Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion and for the Western Cornbelt Ecoregion. In 2007 (Table 35), Rice Lake was below the chlorophyll a threshold and the rest of the lakes exceeded the criteria. Gorman and Sabre Lakes had lower chlorophyll concentrations than the other lakes even though they had much higher phosphorus concentrations.

Figure #22 Shallow Lake Chlorophyll 2007

Figure #23 Deep Lake Chlorophyll 2007

59.6 60

41.5 40

30 26.9

21.9 20

10 3.3 0 GormanRiceSabreSakatahLower Sakatah

41.2 40 33.3 30

0 ShieldsTetonka

Part B Section 10: Fisheries

Fisheries: Results of the most recent MNDNR fish surveys for seven lakes in the Upper Cannon River watershed are shown in Table #36.

Table #36 Summary of the most recent MNDNR ﬁsheries data (ﬁsh/net) for Upper Cannon River watershed lakes

GN = gillnet. TP = trapnet. Red shading indicates gamefish, yellow shading indicates panfish and blue shading indicates non- gamefish associated with potential phosphorus loading to the water column.

Shields Rice Gorman Sabre Tetonka Sakatah Frances Typical Range Date July 17, July 25, July 6, 2009 June 15, July 20, Aug. 3, 2009 July 10, 2006 2005 2009 2009 2009 Net Type GN TN GN TN GN TN GN TN GN TN GN TN GN TN GN TN Channel Catfish 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.3 NA NA Largemouth Bass 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 - 1 0.2 - 0.7

Northern Pike 4.2 0.3 5.0 0.7 2.9 0.2 6.7 0.3 3.2 0.3 2.1 0.6 5.0 0.8 1 - 8 NA Smallmouth Bass 0.1 Walleye 2.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 3.7 0.1 1.3 2.4 0.3 3.1 0.2 4.7 0.6 2 - 18 0.5 - 3 Black Crappie 15 3.1 9.7 23 0.1 3.1 4.8 3.4 0.6 4.0 0.8 1 - 14 1 - 21 Bluegill 24 4.3 27 14 5.1 18 1.5 2.2 1.7 28 8.1 7.1 12 28 NA 1 - 20 Green Sunfish 0.3 Hybrid Sunfish 2.9 2.1 0.1 0.1 1.4 NA NA Pumpkinseed 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.5 White Crappie 0.3 0.5 - 16 Yellow Perch 36 0.6 43 1.2 15 4.7 0.1 0.7 27 2.5 3 - 27 0.3 - 4 Black Bullhead 30 0.1 36 123 4.4 1.9 0.7 2.4 1.7 0.9 9.1 5.4 0.4 0.2 30 -151 12 - 132 Common Carp 0.2 0.7 3.0 0.4 0.2 3.1 0.3 1.1 0.5 4.3 0.2 1 - 14 1 - 6 Freshwater Drum 19 14 1.7 1.0 5.3 4.6 2.3 4.9 11 5.9 25 19 1.3 0.2 0.5 - 8 0.2 - 24 Bigmouth Buffalo 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 - 6 0.2 - 1 Bowfin (Dogfish) 3.2 2.0 3.7 4.8 0.7 2.3 2.8 3.2 0.2 1.4 0.4 1.7 0.2 0.4 0.2- 0.5 0.3 - 0.9 Golden Shiner 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.3 2.5 1.5 0.1 - 0.7 Highfin Carpsucker 0.2 Longnose Gar 0.1 Quillback 0.1 White Bass 5.4 0.1 5.2 0.2 0.3 10 0.3 0.6 0.3 - 10 0.2 - 0.7 White Sucker 0.1 0.3 0.6 4.5 0.4 0.1 2.1 1 - 7 0.3 - 3 Yellow Bullhead 2.2 1.1 6.8 1.0 2.0 6.9 2.3 0.1 1.9 24 2.7 0.5 - 4 0.5 - 3 # of species by gear 13 14 13 12 15 11 13 10 12 14 15 15 12 12 # of species (total) 14 15 17 16 18 17 13

Part B Section 11: Lakes-Conclusions and Goals

Seven lakes were evaluated within the Upper Cannon River watershed in 2007 and Gorman and Sabre were sampled again in 2008.Rice; lake association members sampled Tetonka and Sakatah and the data can be found in table 31. Phosphorus levels were extremely high for Gorman and Sabre Lakes with a summer average total phosphorus (TP) concentration over 1,000 ppb in 2007 and over 800 ppb in 2008. In 2007, Shields, Rice, Tetonka, and Sakatah had high summer average TP concentrations (ranging from 307 to 481 ppb-TP). Lake Frances had the lowest summer average TP concentration at 74 ppb.

However, all seven lakes had water clarity that was better and chlorophyll concentrations that were lower then expected based on trophic state index relationships.

The trophic state index is an index that was published by Dr. Bob Carlson in 1977. The index was constructed from a database where phosphorus was considered to be the limiting nutrient in the lake. When phosphorus is the limiting nutrient, transparency, chlorophyll, and total phosphorus are coupled, that is, they are interrelated. The relationship of Secchi disc transparency, chlorophyll a, and total phosphorus is shown in the chart below.

Theoretically, the values for transparency, chlorophyll, and total phosphorus should “line up” on the chart. If one of the three parameters is way out of line, it indicates other factors are influencing the trophic state parameters.

Figure #24 Carlson Tropic State Index

98 In the Trophic State Index (TSI), the ratio of total phosphorus to chlorophyll decreases as a function of the increase in the lake phosphorus concentration.

Figure#25 Ra o of TP to Chlorophyll a

0 352550100150200

If the TP:Chl ratio is too high for a given lake phosphorus concentration, then TP and chl are uncoupled and indicates something else is limiting algal growth.

For all seven Upper Cannon River watershed lakes, it would appear that phosphorus is not limiting algae growth. If phosphorus was the limiting nutrient, chlorophyll levels would be expected to be much higher to the degree that chlorophyll would be so dense, that it would start to be light limited. However chlorophyll did not get dense enough (over 150 ppb) to become light limited. In a phosphorus-limited lake, the TP/Chl ratio should be 10 or less. For the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes, the TP/Chl ratio was often over 100 and as high as 300. Some nutrient other than phosphorus must be limiting algal growth. Nitrogen is a possibility but there is abundant nitrogen present in the watershed as well. A micronutrient could be limiting algal growth.

Figure #26 Total phosphorus to chlorophyll ra o for Gorman (Circle) and Sabre (Triangle) Lakes using 2007 summer data. The red squares show typical phosphorus to chlorophyll ra o for a lake that is phosphorus limited. Data for the red squares represent the Carlson TSI.

99 Although, it is clear that phosphorus is abundant in all seven lakes and even though it might not be a limiting nutrient at the present time, it could be in the future. An overall goal is to reduce phosphorus loading to the lakes and reduce the in-lake TP concentration. To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to evaluate the various sources of phosphorus to the lakes.

To evaluate phosphorus loading, several lake model runs using the MnLEAP model were conducted and results are summarized in Table 7. Based on stream monitoring, measured phosphorus loading could be used for the lake models. Using stream phosphorus inputs based on monitoring, the predicted lake phosphorus concentration from the model was always lower than the actual measured lake concentration. Modeling results indicate that monitored stream inputs account for only 5% to 32% of the estimated phosphorus loading needed to account for the actual lake phosphorus concentrations. This implies there must be other sources of phosphorus loading to the lakes.

The other potential sources of phosphorus are speculative at this time. The potential sources and the probability of being a significant contributor are listed below.

1. Curlyleaf pondweed dieback in the lakes: low to average contributor. 2. Fish, such as carp, bullheads, or freshwater drum, translocating nutrients from the lake sediments to the water column: average to slightly above average contributor. Fish surveys indicate fish populations are in a typical range for Cannon River watershed lakes. Fish are a factor, but not the major factor. 3. P-release from the sediments: probably a significant contributor. 4. Unmonitored watershed inputs: probably a significant contributor.

100 Table #37 Using lake models to es mate ﬂow weighted mean concentra ons (FWMC), nutrient loading, and lake phosphorus concentra ons

Lake Lake Size Mean Catchment Watershed TP Flow Lake TP Lake Lake TP (acres) Depth Area (acres) Area (acres) Weighted (ppb) Chla Secchi Loading (feet) Mean Conc. (ppb) (m) (Kg/yr) (ppb) Shields Actual (2007) 11.2 941 7,196 6,255 283 307 41 1.6 - (DNR) Calc TP loading and FWMC 5,870 307 283 0.3 19,431 based on Lake TP Model using measured FWMC 283 54 23 1.2 1,046 (measured) Ecoregion Goal 601 - 150 - 570 40 - 65 14 -22 1.4 - 0.9 1,990 Rice Actual (2007) 323 6 (est) 12,897 12,574 - 405 3.3 1.0 - Calc TP loading and FWMC 1,730 405 424 0.2 11,777 based on Lake TP Model using estimated FWMC 307 (est) 125 76 0.6 2,122 Ecoregion Goal 1,043 - 150 - 570 60-90 20 - 30 1.0 - 0.7 3,907 Gorman Actual (2007) 499 8 (est) 44,099 43,600 283 1,089 27 1.2 - Calc TP loading and FWMC 4,811 1,089 1,799 0.1 110,734 based on Lake TP Model using measured FWMC 283 147 97 0.5 6,553 (measured) Ecoregion Goal 150 - 570 60 - 90 20 - 30 1.0 - 0.7 3,455 Sabre Actual (2007) 263 10 (est) 56,167 55,904 782 1,144 22 1.3 -- Calc TP loading and FWMC 3,495 1,144 1,931 0.1 103,306 based on Lake TP Model using measured FWMC 782 384 392 0.2 23,031 (measured) Ecoregion Goal 4,405 - 150 - 570 60 - 90 20 - 30 1.0 - 0.7 16,875 Tetonka Actual (2007) 17.2 1349 105,585 104,236 423 335 33 2.2 - (est) Calc TP loading and FWMC 1,378 335 321 0.3 75,840 based on Lake TP Model using measured FWMC 423 151 100 0.5 23,360 (measured) Ecoregion Goal 8,280 - 150 - 570 40 - 65 14 - 22 1.4 - 0.9 31,421 Sakatah Actual (2007) 7 881 131,906 131,025 -- 481 42 1.3 -- (MPCA) Calc TP loading and FWMC 1,050 480 543 0.2 72,485 based on Lake TP Model using estimated FWMC 335 (est) 197 148 0.4 23,199 Ecoregion Goal 10,309 - 150 - 570 40 - 65 14 - 22 1.4 - 0.9 39,398 Frances Actual (2007) 927 15 (est) 4,107 3,180 -- 74 ND 2.1 -- Calc TP loading and FWMC 1,080 74 35 0.9 1,919 based on Lake TP Model using estimated FWMC 300 (est) 38 13 1.7 614 Ecoregion Goal (CHF-WCB) 360 - 150 - 570 40 - 65 14 - 22 1.4 - 0.9 1,066

101 Another important part of this improvement program is to address what is currently limiting algal growth.

It is clear that algal growth is not phosphorus limited, unless the phosphorus is not bioavailable. However, Orthophosphorus was not monitored in the lakes so what portion of TP was bioavailable is unknown. Another option to consider would be that of a nitrogen limited system. However, there are high levels of nitrate, ammonia, and TKN in the streams and lake monitoring indicates high levels of TKN in the lakes as well. There is no reason to believe that the nitrogen is not available for growth.

Another factor that was considered was lake residence time. If water residence time was too short, algae blooms would not develop, and lakes would be acting like a river system. However, residence times are long enough in the lakes to produce lake conditions. Based on modeling residence times range from 0.1 years for Sabre and Sakatah up to 3.8 years for Shields and 9.7 years for Frances. In addition, the hydrographs for 2007 indicate that 2007 was a low flow year with reduced flow over the summer. This would produce longer water residence times compared to the model runs. It does not appear that short water residence time accounts for the limited algal growth observed in the lakes.

If the lakes are not P nor N limited, and if residence times are long enough to produce typical lake algal growth, then what else could be limiting algal growth. It could be herbicide runoff into the lakes is limiting algae growth. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has published herbicide residue findings for a number of lakes and streams in the state. Lake Sakatah was tested and herbicides were detected. However, aquatic plants are found in all the lakes in the watershed, so the herbicides would have to be selective for algae and not plants. Algal growth limitation by herbicides is a possibility but unlikely. However, further herbicide testing should be conducted.

Another possibility and the leading candidate to explain the algal limitation is the loading of total and dissolved organic matter to the lakes. The entire watershed is predominately agricultural and there is the potential for elevated organic matter to be introduced into streams and into the lakes. High levels of organic matter could stimulate microbial growth and the increased growth of this community could deplete a micronutrient needed by algae. Thus, algal growth would be limited.

There is evidence for elevated organic matter concentrations in the streams. BOD concentrations were found to be elevated at all five stream monitoring sites (included in this report). High BOD implies high organic matter content. Further work is needed along this line to evaluate the role of organic matter in influencing algal growth in the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes.

As part of the implementation program, there are several goals: 1. Determine what is limiting algal growth in the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes. 2. Determine the source of the excess phosphorus found in the lakes. 3. Implement BMPs to reduce phosphorus, nitrogen, and organic matter loading to the Upper Cannon River watershed lakes.

102 Part C IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Part C Section 1-Implementation Plan Objectives

Overall Issue: Degraded water quality within the watershed. Overall Goal: Improved water quality within the watershed

The implementation plan was designed to have well though out projects that can be pulled and put into grant applications. The implementation phase priority areas are based on the monitoring results are samplesheds 1, 2 and 4; Projects will be targeted in these areas. Projects that arise in sampleshed 3 and 5 will be evaluated and taken into consideration. At the end of the second year, the remaining funds will be open to the entire project area; this includes lakeshore, urban and rural projects. Determining the amount of pollutant reduction of projects before the implementation phase has begun is difficult in such a large area. The cumulative effect of projects will improve water quality. Different grant sources will determine the amount of funds requested per source. The estimated costs below reflect the big picture of implementation.

Element 1: BMPs Category 1a Agricultural BMPs Goal 1: Installed Best Management Practices in the watershed that will improve water quality by reducing TP, N, TSS and E. Coli in the water column. Objective 1: Hire a technician to work jointly with Le Sueur, Rice and Waseca SWCDs for at least three years. · Action 1: Create a hiring sub-committee · Action 2: Determine office location · Action 3: Develop job description and rate of pay · Action 4: Develop hiring protocol · Action 5: Complete the hiring process

Cost of Objective 1: Grant $0.00; In-kind: $3,000 (SWCDs, Counties, Technical Committee)

Objective 2: Contact up to 100% of the watershed landowners in the target watersheds, one on one for promoting BMP projects throughout project length. · Action 6: Develop protocol to reach landowners · Action 7: Arrange appointments to meet onsite · Action 8: Follow up on initial calls

Cost of Objective 2: Grant $159,000; In-kind $16,200 (SWCD, Counties) (Cost of staff person) $50,000 x 3 years = $150,000 Office space: $250 x 12 x 3 years=$9,000

Objective 3: Determine areas of concern to place BMPs using LiDAR/GIS · Action 9: Gather GIS/LiDAR data on subwatersheds within target areas · Action 10: Contact local agency staff/landowners to verify areas · Action 11: Create maps

Cost of Objective 3: Grant $8,000; In-kind $4,000 (SWCD, Counties, CRWP)

103

Objective 4: Install Ag BMPs in target watersheds including buffers, harvestable buffers and alternative tile inlets.

· Action 12: Develop payment protocol with the Fiscal Agent · Action 13: Use administrative process in place for cost share · Action 14: Promote grant funds · Action 15: Contact landowners · Action 16: Design/plan projects · Action 17: Contract projects for completion · Action 18: Construct · Action 19: Inspect · Action 20: Payout process · Action 21: Record and Track projects

Cost of Objective 4: Grant $908,000; Cash Match: $227,000; In-kind: $227,000 (property owner, SWCD Board, County Board, County staff, CRWP) Breakdown of objectives 4: CRP Buffer Incentive-$60/acre/yr x 10 years = $600 per acre x 120 acres (40 acres per county): $72,000 Harvestable Buffer-$40/acre/yr x 10 years = $400 per acre x 60 acres (20 acres per county): $24,000 Alternative Open Tile Intakes $250 x 210= $52,000 Wetland Restoration Incentive 20% of $5,000=$1,000 per acre x 100 acres=$100,000 (includes reduced upland basin cost) BMP Sediment Basins Le Sueur County waiting list: $7,500 cost estimate for each basin x 8= $60,000 Ag BMP assorted projects (see Part C Section 4): At least $200,000 x 3 counties = $600,000

Objective 5: Provide Technical Assistance to landowners who qualify for Ag funded projects. (10 % of BMP project total beyond hired technician work. This amount may change depending on grant sources and if funding does allow a technician)

· Action 22: Determine project cost · Action 23: Finalize project construction and proper paperwork · Action 24: Submit payment vouchers to the project coordinator for payment monthly

Cost of Objective 5: Grant $90,800; In-kind: $45,400 (landowners, Counties, SWCD Boards, County Boards

Cost of Objective 6: Grant $3,000 per lake x 7 lakes = $21,000; In-kind $21,000 (Lake Association members, counties, SWCD Technical Committee) 104

Objective 7: Increase the number of Shoreland BMPs installed on priority lakes of the phase 1, opening up the area to all lakes in the project area the final year. · Action 29: use findings from Objectives 2 and 6 and priority lakes to target project areas to reduce excessive nutrient inputs to lakes. · Action 30: integrate staff and resources involved with other agricultural BMPs (Category 1a) to apply specific nutrient reduction projects and programs to lakesheds. · Action 31: Develop payment protocol with the Fiscal Agent · Action 32: Use administrative process in place for cost share · Action 33: Promote grant funds · Action 34: Contract projects for completion · Action 35: Construct · Action 36: Inspect · Action 37: Payout process · Action 38: Record and track projects

Cost of Objective 7: Grant: 75% cost share-35 projects per priority lake (7) = 245 x $4,000 = $980,000; Cash Match $245,000; In-kind $245,000 (property owners, lake associations, counties, SWCDs, CRWP)

Objective 8: Provide 10% Technical Assistance to landowners who qualify for shoreland funded projects. · Action 39: Determine project cost · Action 40: Finalize project construction and proper paperwork · Action 41: Submit payment vouchers to the project coordinator for payment monthly

Cost of Objective 8: Grant $98,000 In-kind: $49,000 (property owners, lake associations, counties, SWCD, cities)

Objective 9: Provide 75% cost share on up to 210 rain barrels priced up to $150 each by project end. · Action 42: Develop protocol for rain barrel cost share · Action 43: Advertise cost share for rain barrels · Action 44: Complete paperwork · Action 45: Payout · Action 46: Record and track projects

Cost of Objective 9: Grant $31,50 Cash Match: $7,875 In-kind: $7,875 (property owners, counties, SWCD)

Objective 10: Work with the cities of Elysian, Waterville and Morristown to address stormwater issues that would include offering cost share funds for projects by project end. · Action 47: Meet with cities, schools and business owners in the watershed to retrofit parking lots and other areas of concern to improve stormwater runoff conditions. · Action 48: Assist with planning and obtaining designs of water retention projects · Action 49: Contract developed for projects · Action 50: Construct · Action 51: Inspect · Action 52: Payout process, record and track projects Cost of Objective 10: Grant $30,000 ($25,000 for projects, $5,000 CRWP); Cash Match $6,250; In-kind: $8,750 (Cities, counties, CRWP) 105

Objective 11: Upgrade at least 40% of septic systems in the watershed by project end. · Action 53: Locate sources of funding for each county using local and state low interest loan programs. · Action 54: Develop loan protocol · Action 55: Develop application · Action 56: Obtain proper approval for process/protocol · Action 57: Market the septic upgrade program · Action 58: Process applications · Action 59: Payout

Cost of Objective 11:Grant $0.00; In-kind $1,350,000 (property owners, counties-90 systems)

Category I C: Implementation of in-lake resource management measures Issue: Lack of information available on the issue of algal growth suppression Goal 3: Obtained information on algal growth suppression Objective 12: Evaluate algal growth suppression in the Cannon River watershed lakes. · Action 60: Create Contracts with project partners · Action 61: Develop a work plan through a partnership with the project, Blue Water Science and the University of Minnesota scientists to determine causes of algal suppression occurring in many of the lakes in the watershed. · Action 62: Implement the plan. · Action 63: Payout, project report, State reporting format of water monitoring if required and updates (Le Sueur County) · Action 64: Create final report · Action 65: Dissemination of information

Cost of Objective 12: Grant $17,000; In-kind $8,500 ($5,500 LSC; $3,000 BWS)

Objective 13: Determine sources of unmeasured phosphorus loading to watershed lakes. · Action 66: Evaluate land use and measure surface water inputs within the direct drainage area. · Action 67: Evaluate phosphorus release from lake sediments and other possible internal nutrient sources.

Cost of Objective 13: Grant $23,000; In-kind $11,500 (LSC, LA)

Objective 14: Work with Blue Water Science and University of Minnesota scientists to determine causes of algal suppression occurring in many of the lakes in the watershed. · Action 68: Evaluate the role of organic carbon (primarily in runoff) in structuring biological communities in watershed lakes. · Action 69: Evaluate mechanisms related to creating limiting micronutrient conditions that could suppress algal growth.

Cost of Objective 14: Grant $30,000 In-kind $15,000 (LSC, LA)

Total Cost for Element 1: Grant $2,396,300 Cash Match $486,125; In-kind $2,012,225

106

Element 2 Monitoring Goal 4: Monitored water quality that showed improvement Objective 15: Implement the monitoring plan for the phase II UCIP. · Action 70: Use sites 1,2 and 4 to monitor on streams and Shields, Gorman, Sabre, Tetonka and Upper and Lower Sakatah lakes · Action 71: Collect Flow data through the MNDNR-the level of monitoring depends on the grant source capped amount. · Action 72: Collect grab samples on streams and lakes according to the monitoring plan. · Action 73: Submit water samples to the lab · Action 74: Gather data · Action 75: Enter data into STORET or current state reporting system · Action 76: Create a monitoring report

Cost of Objective 15: Grant Three years of monitoring: $62,510; One year monitoring 2012: $20,322, Flow Data: $9,300 x 3=$27,900 In-kind: $45,205 (Counties, Lake Assoc, CLMP, Boat/boat owner in-kind $6,000);

Total Cost for Element 2: Grant $90,410; In-kind $45,205

Element 3 Education and Outreach Goal 5: Educated and informed watershed residents about the need to improve water quality. Objective 16: Submitted two water quality and one project update news releases per year to local newspapers · Action 77: Determine topic · Action 78: Write article · Action 79: Submit to local newspapers

Cost of Objective 16: Grant $0.00; In-kind: $1,500 (Counties)

Objective 17: Educate and inform watershed public contacting up to 200 watershed residents and participation up to six local events, education classes for schools and project promotion. · Action 80: Lake Associations, Counties, Extension Service and CRWP will organize and/or participate in local events through displays and presentations.

Cost of Objective 17: Grant $28,000; In-kind: $14,000 (Counties, SWCD, Extension Service, Lake Associations)

Objective 18: Provide signage for up to 238 visible shoreland improvement projects · Action 81: Design sign format · Action 82: Obtain estimates and determine which entity to go through · Action 83: Determine which sites will have signage · Action 84: Install signs

Cost of Objective 18: Grant $35,700; In-kind $17,850 (property owners, counties, SWCD)

107

Objective 19: Conduct four “Coffee on the Cannon” events during project length. · Action 85: Locate locations for Coffee on the Cannon · Action 86: Organize with local coffee shops for the events · Action 87: Determine discussion direction · Action 88: Advertise and promote the event · Action 89: Implement the activity · Action 90: Payout process · Action 91: Report

Cost of Objective 19: Grant $4,000; In-kind $2,000 (Counties, cafes, participants)

Objective 20: Create a Lakescaping Award for shoreland owners to be awarded annually · Action 92: Determine criteria for levels of awards · Action 93: Create application form and application process · Action 94: Determine responsible partners to lead for each lake · Action 95: Implement · Action 96: Print award certificate and present · Action 97: Submit names and shoreland information to the Project Contact · Action 98: Submit news release to local newspapers

Cost of Objective 20: Grant $200; In-kind: $4,000 (Lake Associations, Counties, SWCD, Residents)

Objective 21: Participate in local library events or host a topic evening at four libraries during the project length. · Action 99: Contact local libraries · Action 100: Set Date · Action 101: Determine topic/presentation · Action 102: Implement · Action 103: Submit report to Project Contact

Cost of Objective 21: Grant $2,700; In-kind: $1,350 (Counties, Residents, libraries, Lake Associations)

Objective 22: Update the Upper Cannon Website · Action 104: Determine the uses and needs of the website and map updates · Action 105: Develop contract for continued website development · Action 106: Update website

Cost of Objective 22: Grant $18,000.00; In-kind $9,000 (Counties, SWCD, CRWP, property owners)

Total Cost for Element 3: Grant $88,600 In-kind $49,700

108

Element 4 Surveys and Inventories Goal 6: Conducted aquatic plants and fish surveys and inventories. (No grant funds requested for this) Objective 23: The DNR will conduct aquatic plant and fish inventories within the watershed during the project duration · Action 107: The DNR will plan accordingly; aquatic plant and fish surveys and inventories within the watershed · Action 108: The DNR will conduct the surveys · Action 109: The DNR will report to the project the survey and inventory work that was conducted within the watershed

Cost of Objective 23: Grant $0.00; In-kind $10,000 (MNDNR)

Objective 24: The UM Extension Service will conduct at least two Tillage Transect Surveys within the watershed during project length. · Action 110: Plan · Action 111: Organize · Action 112: Implement · Action 113: Submit data to the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC)

Cost of Objective 24: Grant $3,000; $1,500 in-kind (Extension Service)

Objective 25: Conduct a shoreland BMP perception survey to 800 shoreland owners · Action 114: Research perception surveys and tools · Action 115: Create perception survey · Action 116: Send out survey/announce survey · Action 117: Collect survey · Action 118: Survey analysis · Action 119: Determine a plan on usage of this information · Action 120: Submit report

Cost of Objective 25: Grant $6,500; In-kind $8,400 (Lake Associations, Counties, property owners)

Total Cost for Element 4: Grant $9,500; In-kind $19,900

Element 5 Administration Goal 7: Successfully administered the Upper Cannon Implementation Project Objective 26: Administer the project by completing milestone deadlines with grant agreement, payout, reporting and STORET · Action 121: Sign grant agreement and submit to funding agency/group · Action 122: Submit required reports · Action 123: Submit data to MPCA in the format needed for STORET · Action 124: Follow payout procedure · Action 125: Request funding dependent upon guidelines · Action 126: Submit final report

109 Cost of Objective 26: Grant $36,000; In-kind $18,000 (Counties, SWCDs, Technical Committee, CRWP, Lake Associations)

Objective 27: Evaluate the project course of action at mid project. · Action 127: Project partners meet three times a year to discuss progress and possible changes. · Action 128: Determine methodology of evaluation; possibly use perception survey results. · Action 129: Conduct evaluation · Action 130: Process data · Action 131: Create report · Action 132: Make revisions and implement

Cost of Objective 27: Grant $3,000; In-kind $1,500 (Technical committee, counties, SWCD, Lake Associations)

Total Cost for Element 5: Grant $39,000 In-kind $19,500

110

Overall, the main sources of sediment in the Cannon River Watershed appear to be occurring in highly cultivated lands where sloped topography, highly erodible soils, and extensive pattern tile drainage systems exist with open intakes. Stream and ditch bank erosion are also a source of sediment.

Priority management areas for ortho and total phosphorus

Sampleshed 1 is the primary contributor of TP load in the Upper Cannon River Watershed. Data collected from this monitoring site indicates that between 58-79% of the total phosphorus load is composed of ortho-phosphorus, which means that it is derived from organic sources previously discussed. Implementation plans, BMP’s, and other activities should be focused on reducing organic source applications, retrofitting faulty septic fields, removing surface tile inlets and incorporating agricultural BMP’s in areas of the sampleshed that are highly sloped and contain extensive pattern tile drainage systems. Stormwater runoff can also be a source of phosphorus.

Sampleshed #4 had the second highest TP load and a relatively high FWMC of TP for the two monitoring years. This particular sampleshed is an area of concern because it is not located on the mainstem of the Cannon River, but is a small tributary stream. This stream also exhibited high loading of TSS. Data collected at this site indicates that between 72-76% of the total phosphorus load is comprised of ortho-phosphorus. Implementation activities should be focused on reducing organic sources of P to this sampleshed by removing surface inlets, incorporating buffers, and reviewing feedlot facilities compliance within the sampleshed area.

Priority management areas for nitrate + nitrite-N

Based on the water quality data collected from 2007 and 2008, sampleshed 4 delivered the highest combined nitrate-nitrogen loads (73 and 71 tons) and possessed the highest flow-weighted mean nitrate nitrogen concentrations (6.77 and 6.72). Nutrient management initiatives and educational outreach are needed in this region to reduce over-application of nitrogen (N) and identify optimal N rates. To do this, consistent soil testing will be needed to account for the residual N sources remaining within the soil profile from year-to-year to avoid over-application of nutrients. In addition to accounting for the residual N in a soil profile using soil testing, realistic yield goals must be determined taking into account regional area and dominant soil types. Also, one must consider giving credit to N obtained from other sources such as N in soil organic matter, legumes, animal manures, composts plus other soil additives, and sludge when calculating N needs. Another consideration for nitrogen BMP would be timing of application (spring vs. fall) and type of N used (anhydrous ammonia or urea). By implementing these strategies, the probability of nitrates entering surface water systems will be minimized.

Based on the water quality data collected from 2007 and 2008, sampleshed 3 delivered the second highest N loads to the Cannon River. The same recommendations suggested for sampleshed 4 would be applicable for this sampleshed as well.

Priority management areas for E. coli bacteria

Sampleshed 4 consistently had higher E. coli concentrations than the other four monitoring sites on the Upper Cannon River Watershed (See Part B Section 7 Stream Conclusions and Goals). This sampleshed will be targeted for bacterial reduction strategies.

112 Part C Section 3 Best Management Practice Alternatives and Analysis

The most important element of this project will be the long-term adoption and installation of BMPs. The ultimate goal of BMPs is the reduction of excessive bacterial, sediment and nutrient levels into the Upper Cannon River. Along with improving water quality, applying a significant amount of conservation practices has the potential to increase and improve wildlife and aquatic habitats, as well as recreational opportunities in the watershed. Budgeted activities cover the installation, planning and design of BMPs in the watershed. Costs under this element include cost-share monies, incentive payments and loan dollars. Leveraging Clean Water Funding with this project will occur. Contributing sponsors of the project will play an active role in the promotion, selection and installation of BMPs. An advisory committee will also play an active role in the selection, evaluation and payout process of the installation of BMPs. Sampleshed 1 and 2 Priorities: TP-OP and E. Coli Table #39 BMP Level of Par cipa on

Level of Participation Description Level I (Site Specific) Project is ready to go Level II (Area Target) Partners will contact property owners in a target area Level III (Actively Promote) Advocate, educate, advertise, news releases Level IV (Passively Promote) Assist agencies and/or groups that do implementation Level V (Not advanced) Will not actively pursue at this time Table #40 BMP informa on for Sampleshed 1 and 2

BMP Responsible Partner Level of Regulatory or Social Acceptance Reduction Funding Participation Incentive (Slight, Moderate, Benefit Strategies Strong)

Conservation NRCS, Extension II, III & IV Incentive Moderate Sediment, 319, CWP, CWF Crop Rotation Phosphorus Conservation Extension, NRCS, II, III & IV Incentive Moderate Sediment, EQIP, Cost Share, Tillage SWCD Phosphorus landowner Fencing NRCS, County II & III Incentive Slight Bacteria EQIP, Cost share, (Shoreland) 319, CWF, landowner Filter Strips NRCS, SWCD II & III Incentive Strong Sediment, CRP, 319, Phosphorus landowner Grade NRCS, SWCD I & II (One site Incentive Strong but costly Sediment, Cost Share, 319, Stabilization specific) Phosphorus EQIP, landowner Structures Grassed NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Sediment, CRP, 319, CWF, Waterways Phosphorus landowner Nutrient Extension, NRCS, II, III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, 319, CWP, Management SWCD Pasture County, Extension, II & IV Incentive Strong Bacteria 319, CWP Management NRCS, SWCD Residue Extension, NRCS, III & IV Incentive Strong Sediment, 319, CWP Management SWCD Phosphorus Sediment Basin NRCS, SWCD I & II (Three site Incentive Strong Sediment, EQIP, Cost Share, specific) Phosphorus 319, CWF, CWP, landowner Subsurface NRCS, SWCD III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus 319, CWP, CWF, drainage County landowner Terraces NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Sediment, Cost Share, 319, Phosphorus CWP, CWF, Landowner Livestock NRCS, SWCD, II, III and IV Incentive and Moderate to Strong-can Bacteria, EQIP, Cost Share, Waste County Regulatory be costly Phosphorus 319, CWP, CWF, Management Landowner Septic Upgrade County, SWCD Level II & III Regulatory Moderate-costly Bacteria CWP, 319, CWF, landowner Wetland NRCS II, III & IV Incentive Moderate Sediment, CRP, WRP, 319, Restoration Phosphorus CWF, Landowner 113

Sampleshed 3 Priorities: TP-OP, N-N, TSS, and E. Coli Table #41 BMP Level of Par cipa on

BMP Responsible Level of Regulatory Social Acceptance Reduction Funding Partner Participation or (Slight, Moderate, Benefit Strategies Incentive Strong) Conservation Crop NRCS, Extension III & IV Incentive Moderate Phosphorus, 319, CWP, Rotation Sediment CWF Conservation Tillage Extension, III & IV Incentive Moderate Phosphorus, EQIP, Cost NRCS, SWCD Sediment Share, landowner Fencing (Shoreland) NRCS, County II & III Incentive Moderate Bacteria EQIP, Cost share, 319, CWF, landowner Filter Strips NRCS, SWCD II & III Incentive Strong Phosphorus, CRP, 319, Sediment landowner Grade Stabilization NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, CRP, 319, Structures Sediment landowner Grassed Waterways NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, CRP, 319, Sediment CWF, landowner Nutrient Management Extension, II, III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, Nitrogen 319, CWP NRCS, SWCD Pasture Management County, II & IV Incentive Moderate Bacteria 319, CWP Extension, NRCS, SWCD Residue Management Extension, III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, 319, CWP NRCS, SWCD Sediment Sediment Control Basin NRCS, SWCD I & II (two site Incentive Strong Phosphorus, EQIP, Cost specific) Sediment Share, 319, CWF, CWP, landowner Subsurface drainage NRCS, SWCD III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, 319, CWP, County Sediment CWF, landowner Terraces NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, Cost Share, Sediment 319, CWP, CWF, Landowner Livestock Waste NRCS, SWCD, II, III and IV Incentive and Strong Bacteria, Phosphorus, EQIP, Cost Management County Regulatory Nitrogen Share, 319, CWP, CWF, Landowner Septic Upgrade County, SWCD II & III Regulatory Moderate Bacteria CWP, 319, CWF, landowner Ditch Stabilization County Drainage II & IV Regulatory Moderate-costly Sediment CWP, 319, Authority, SWCD landowner, ditch authority Farmstead and Field SWCD, NRCS III Incentive Moderate to Strong Sediment CRP, cost Windbreaks share, landowner Wetland Restoration NRCS II, III & IV Incentive Moderate Sediment, Nitrogen, CRP, WRP, Phosphorus 319, CWF, Landowner

114

Sampleshed 4 Priorities: E. Coli, N-N, and TSS Table #43 BMP Level of Par cipa on

BMP Responsible Partner Level of Regulatory Social Acceptance Reduction Funding Participation or Incentive (Slight, Moderate, Benefit Strategies Strong) Conservation Crop NRCS, Extension III & IV Incentive Moderate Phosphorus, 319, CWP, CWF Rotation Sediment Conservation Tillage Extension, NRCS, III & IV Incentive Moderate Phosphorus, EQIP, Cost Share, SWCD Sediment landowner Fencing (Shoreland) NRCS, County II & III Incentive Moderate Bacteria EQIP, Cost share, 319, CWF, landowner Filter Strips NRCS, SWCD II & III Incentive Strong Phosphorus, CRP, 319, Sediment landowner Grade Stabilization NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, CRP, 319, Structures Sediment landowner Grassed Waterways NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, CRP, 319, CWF, Sediment landowner Nutrient Management Extension, NRCS, II, III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, 319, CWP SWCD Nitrogen Pasture Management County, Extension, II & IV Incentive Moderate Bacteria 319, CWP NRCS, SWCD Residue Management Extension, NRCS, III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, 319, CWP SWCD Sediment Sediment Control Basin NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, EQIP, Cost Share, Sediment 319, CWF, CWP, landowner Subsurface drainage NRCS, SWCD III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, 319, CWP, CWF, County Sediment landowner Terraces NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, Cost Share, 319, Sediment CWP, CWF, Landowner Livestock Waste NRCS, SWCD, II, III and IV Incentive Strong Bacteria, EQIP, Cost Share, Management County and Phosphorus, 319, CWP, CWF, Regulatory Nitrogen Landowner Septic Upgrade County, SWCD II & III Regulatory Moderate Bacteria CWP, 319, CWF, landowner Ditch Stabilization County Drainage II & IV Regulatory Moderate-costly Sediment CWP, 319, Authority, SWCD landowner, ditch authority Farmstead and Field SWCD, NRCS III Incentive Moderate to Strong Sediment CRP, cost share, Windbreaks landowner Wetland Restoration NRCS II, III & IV Incentive Moderate Sediment, CRP, WRP, 319, Nitrogen, CWF, Landowner Phosphorus

115

Sampleshed 5 Priorities: TSS and E. Coli; Sampleshed 5 is the outlet for the entire Upper Cannon so all priorities will be considered in this watershed with emphasis on TSS and E. Coli. Table #45 BMP Level of Par cipa on

Table #46 BMP informa on for Sampleshed 5

BMP Responsible Level of Regulatory Social Acceptance Reduction Benefit Funding Partner Participation or Incentive (Slight, Moderate, Strategies Strong) Conservation Crop NRCS, Extension III & IV Incentive Moderate Phosphorus, 319, CWP, CWF Rotation Sediment Conservation Tillage Extension, NRCS, III & IV Incentive Moderate Phosphorus, EQIP, Cost SWCD Sediment Share, landowner Fencing (Shoreland) NRCS, County II & III Incentive Moderate Bacteria EQIP, Cost share, 319, CWF, landowner Filter Strips NRCS, SWCD II & III Incentive Strong Phosphorus, CRP, 319, Sediment landowner Grade Stabilization NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, CRP, 319, Structures Sediment landowner Grassed Waterways NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, CRP, 319, CWF, Sediment landowner Nutrient Management Extension, NRCS, II, III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, 319, CWP SWCD Nitrogen Pasture Management County, II & IV Incentive Moderate Bacteria 319, CWP Extension, NRCS, SWCD Residue Management Extension, NRCS, III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, 319, CWP SWCD Sediment Sediment Control NRCS, SWCD I & II (Three site Incentive Strong Phosphorus, EQIP, Cost Basin specific) Sediment Share, 319, CWF, CWP, landowner Subsurface drainage NRCS, SWCD III & IV Incentive Strong Phosphorus, 319, CWP, CWF, County Sediment landowner Terraces NRCS, SWCD II Incentive Strong Phosphorus, Cost Share, 319, Sediment CWP, CWF, Landowner Livestock Waste NRCS, SWCD, II, III and IV Incentive Strong Bacteria, EQIP, Cost Management County and Phosphorus, Share, 319, Regulatory Nitrogen CWP, CWF, Landowner Septic Upgrade County, SWCD II & III Regulatory Moderate Bacteria CWP, 319, CWF, landowner Ditch Stabilization County Drainage II & IV Regulatory Moderate-costly Sediment CWP, 319, Authority, SWCD landowner, ditch authority Farmstead and Field SWCD, NRCS III Incentive Moderate to Strong Sediment CRP, cost share, Windbreaks landowner Wetland Restoration NRCS II, III, & IV; V- Incentive Strong Sediment CRP, WRP, 319, site specific is CWF, located outside of Landowner monitoring area but in the Upper Cannon

116

Part C Section 4 BMP Selection and Justification

Descriptions of chosen BMP practices are listed below. See Part C Section 1-Implementation Plan Objectives for more detailed financial information.

Manure and Nutrient Management

Livestock manure is used throughout the watershed as fertilizer for fields. However, improper applications of manure can pose a significant pollution threat to surface waters in the Upper Cannon River Watershed. Manure and nutrient management plans aid producers in managing the rate, timing, location and method of applying manure and nutrient applications. If developed and implemented properly, these plans can have agronomic, economic and environmental benefits for farm operators and the watershed. The development and implementation of these plans helps reduce the runoff of nutrients and bacteria from manure spread fields by guiding producers in the proper application rates, timing and handling procedures.

The project will partner with the UM Extension to hold one workshop for watershed feedlot operators of 0 - 999 AU during the three year grant period and one workshop will be on nutrient management, based on the needs of the watershed based on the water quality monitoring results. These workshops will aid crop and livestock producers in creating manure and nutrient management plans using their own farm and field information. At the conclusion of the workshops, feedlot operators will be able to meet one on one with Extension staff for help or further development of their management plans.

Educational outreach for manure management plans will be done through fact sheets, newsletter articles, and demonstrations. Local extension service staff and project partners will work together for further educational outreach on ways for producers to properly apply manure and nitrogen to their fields with field trial demonstration and/or a nutrient management workshop.

Priority Areas – All feedlots that are from 0 to 999 animal units in the Whitewater and Waterville subwatershed of Upper Cannon River Watershed will be the priority to target for the workshop and general educational outreach on manure and nutrient management plans.

Cost – The workshop will be held using grant funds and in-kind services provided by the U of M Extension, county staff and workshop attendees. Costs associated with workshop, such as planning, news releases, direct mailings and general meeting expenses, will be budgeted using grant funds.

Manure and Nutrient Management Cash: $20,000 Cash Match: In-kind: $20,000

Wetland Restorations

Wetlands are valuable in Upper Cannon River watershed as they provide wildlife habitat and serve as natural filters for agricultural runoff. They remove nutrients, pesticides and bacteria from surface waters. Wetlands slow down overland flow and store runoff water, which reduces both, soil erosion and flooding downstream. There is a disconnect betweens wetlands since original wetlands have been 117 drained. Disconnect between wetlands can cause the wetlands to become less functional. An increase of wetland restorations is needed to restore the function of current wetlands. The project will offer landowners two different incentive payments based upon basin and upland wetland acres and land values. Completion incentive payment for wetland basin acres will be 20% of the land value per acre and upland will be 10% of the land value per acre for a 15 year CRP contract. These incentives combined with CRP payments will make wetland restorations more economically competitive with current land rental rates.

Priority Areas – Areas that provide the greatest water quality benefit will receive priority. This includes areas that intercept the greatest acreage, have potential for intercepting tile lines, reducing flow significantly and act as wildlife corridors. All wetland restoration projects will be evaluated on a case- by-case basis through the SWCD and NRCS. Then the project must receive the approval of the Technical Committee or BMP sub committee for pay.

Cost – Cost for wetland restorations are affected by several factors such as the size of the project, outlet structure cost, and ability to leverage additional funding sources and find willing landowners. Only wetland basin acres will be funded under this sub-element. 100 total basin and upland acres will be budgeted.. The technical committee will evaluate incentives for wetlands under WRP on a case-by-case basis. Wetland Restorations Cash: $100,000 Cash Match: In-kind: $50,000

Alternatives to Open Tile Intakes

Open tile intakes are man-made openings in the ground that move unfiltered and untreated field runoff water into underground tile lines. While open intakes provide the valuable function of allowing quick drainage of cropland, these intakes provide a direct pathway for runoff into ditches, lakes and streams.. Runoff carries sediments, nutrients and bacteria. The alternatives to open tile intakes are designed to remove some of the sediment and excess nutrients from entering the tile drainage systems.

The project will offer cost share on the following open intake alternative practices: removal of an open intake, removal of an intake by its replacement with dense pattern tiling, removal of an intake by its replacement with a rock tile intake and the installation of a slotted riser. The project goal is to replace 210 open tile intakes with open intake alternatives.

Priority Area: Watershed-wide

Cost – Slotted risers to replace open intakes and rock tile inlets will be offered at 75% cost share. There will be a cap of $250 per rock tile intake. Installation of rock tile inlets is included in the cost. Alternatives to Open Tile Intakes Cash: $52,000 Cash Match: $13,000 In-kind: $13,000

118 Structural Practices Structural practices promoted by this project included diversions, grade control structures, terraces, water and sediment control basins and one agricultural waste system. All of these structural practices aid in the reduction of runoff and soil erosion. The structural practices promoted in rural and urban settings would aid in slowing down the water during large storm events, reducing sediment, nutrient and bacteria delivery into waterways.

Water and Sediment Control Basins A water and sediment control basin is an earthen embankment that is built across a drainage way of concentrated water runoff to trap sediment and water running off farmland above the structure. These structures help reduce bank and gully erosion by controlling water flow within a drainage area.

Terraces Terraces are earthen embankments that break long field slopes into shorter ones in order to slow down and direct runoff into an outlet. Terraces are used to reduce sheet-and-rill erosion and prevent gully development. Terraces reduce overland.

Diversions A diversion is much like a terrace, but its purpose is to direct or divert runoff from an area. A diversion is often built at the base of a slope to divert runoff away from bottomlands. A diversion may also be used to divert runoff flows away from a feedlot, or to collect and direct water to a pond. Diversions help reduce soil erosion on lowlands by catching runoff water.

Grade Control Structures A grade control structure is a dam, embankment or other structure built across a grassed waterway or existing gully control to prevent gully development and bed erosion from migrating upstream. Grade control structures can also be used to store water, which provides a water source and habitat for wildlife.

Ag Waste Management System An Ag waste storage system is an impoundment that is made by constructing an embankment, excavating a pit or by fabricating a structure. The purpose of an Ag waste system is to temporarily store wastes such as manure and agricultural runoff, rather than letting runoff directly enter waterways.

Priority Area - Sampleshed 1, 2 and 4 will be targeted for structural practices to reduce soil erosion and runoff the first two years of the project. Structural practices will also be targeted for feedlots that would benefit from runoff flows being diverted from animal waste. If “shovel ready” projects are located in samplesheds 3 and 5 these projects would qualify for funding if there is not a waiting list for projects in the targeted areas.

Cost - Up to 75% total cost share will be offered in conjunction with other federal and state funding, such as EQIP. The project goal is to have up to 20 structural practices installed in each priority watersheds and/or county (diversions, grade control structures, terraces, water and sediment control basins and ag waste systems). If a potential practice is deemed beneficial but does not qualify for state or federal cost-share, the watershed will consider funding the project with up to 75% cost-share as determined by the Technical Committee. Le Sueur County SWCD has Ag producers lined up to install eight sediment basins. Structural Practices Cash: $660,000 Cash Match: $165,000 In-kind: $165,000

119

Vegetative and Stormwater Practices

Incentive payments will be offered for CRP filter strips, riparian buffers and grassed waterways. These practices allow for reduction of runoff and soil erosion. Buffer strips slow down overland flow (sheet flow), and reduce sediment, bacteria and nutrient delivery into waterways. The project will also cost share on rain gardens and rain barrels as a watershed stormwater management practice. Rain gardens and rain barrels can either catch or absorb rainwater runoff from buildings and various impervious surfaces. Filter Strips/Harvestable Buffers Filter strips are strips or areas of herbaceous vegetation that slow water flow and cause contaminants like sediment, nutrients, chemicals and bacteria to collect in vegetation. The vegetation, rather than entering water supplies and water bodies then take up nutrients and chemicals. Filter strips are often constructed along ditches and the natural channel to move row crop operations farther from the stream and reduce the amount of direct runoff enter waterways.

Riparian Buffers Riparian buffers are strips of grass; trees or shrubs that slow water flow and reduce the amount of contaminants like sediments, nutrients, chemical and bacteria from reaching waterways. Riparian buffers consist of re-establishing native plant species along streams and floodplain areas. These buffers are usually created in and along cultivated floodplains and the mainstem of streams.

Grassed Waterways A grassed waterway is a natural or constructed drainage way that has been graded and shaped to form a smooth, bowl shaped channel. An outlet is often installed to stabilize the waterway and prevent a new gully from forming. The grass cover protects the drainage way from gully erosion and can act as a filter to absorb some of the chemicals and nutrients in the runoff water.

The project goal is to install 120 CRP filter strips, grassed waterways and/or riparian buffer acres and 60 acres of harvestable buffers.

Rain Gardens/Shoreland Buffers A rain garden is a planted shallow depression that is designed to absorb rainwater runoff from a building and its associated landscape, as well as impervious surfaces like roofs, driveways, sidewalks and compacted lawn areas. Rain gardens are designed to help minimize the negative impacts of excessive runoff by absorbing rainwater runoff, filtering out sediments and pollutants, while reducing peak flow. The desired result of creating rain gardens and shoreland buffers is to reduce the amount of pollution and volume of flow from reaching waterways. These gardens and buffers can also provide some valuable habitat for certain wildlife species.

Rain gardens and buffers will be subject to the approval of county shoreland staff. The funds for rain gardens will be on a first come, first serve basis. The project will aim to place an educational signs or plaque for each rain garden if the landowner approves as a way to educate watershed residents on what rain gardens are and how rain gardens function.

Rain Barrels A rain barrel is a system that collects and stores rainwater from a roof that would otherwise be lost to runoff and diverted to storm drains and streams. By diverting water from storm drains, rain barrels help decrease the volume of water to and the impact of runoff on streams and other waterways. They also can be used as an educational tool for promoting water conservation.

120

Priority Areas - CRP filter strips, riparian buffers and grassed waterways will be targeted in areas with greater slopes, ditches with smaller berms or lack of a berm, ditches with many side inlets, ditches with failing banks or in cooperation with stabilization projects. Priority will be given to those in areas located in Ag shoreland impact zones. Rain gardens/shoreland buffers and rain barrels will be targeted in shoreland areas (residential and urban) on Shields, Gorman, Sabre Tetonka, Upper and Lower Sakatah, and Frances during the first two years. If funds remain after the second year any lake in the Upper Cannon Watershed qualifies for cost share projects and must be completed during the construction season of the third year.

Cost - The project will pay landowners a onetime completion incentive payment on top of CRP payments offered for filter strips, riparian buffers and grassed waterways. The completion incentive payment will be $60 per acre per year on a 10-year CRP contract.

75% cost share will be offered for residents implementing rain gardens, with a cap of $4,000 per rain garden/buffer within reason. 75% cost share will be offered on rain barrels with an estimated cost of $150 per barrel.

Ag Vegetated Practices Cash: $96,000 Cash Match: In-kind: $48,000

Urban/Shoreland Stormwater Practices Cash: $1,041,500 Cash Match: $259,125 In-kind: $261,625

Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Upgrades

Point source pollution from non-compliant and failing septic systems can cause environmental and human health issues. Septic systems that are failing can contaminate our streams and groundwater with bacteria.

Owners of non-complying subsurface sewage treatment systems are eligible for low-interest loans to upgrade their non-conforming septic systems. If CWP low interest loan funds are obtained, the available low interest loan will be a ten-year period loan. There are eligibility requirements for the SSTS upgrade loan, of which some residents will not qualify. Other options are available for residents with non- complying systems through the Ag BMP Program, local county revolving loan program and Minnesota Valley Action Council.

Priority Area – All non-compliant SSTS throughout the watershed will be targeted with top priority given to Sampleshed 4 of Whitewater Creek and Waterville Creek, which are bacteria impaired.

Cost – At the time of this report, loan funds will not be sought. Each septic system installed in the watershed is match towards the project.

121

Pollution Control Effectiveness: The organizations that are responsible for installation of BMPs are responsible for the analysis of pollution control effectiveness. The tools used for this are found in E-Link: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/outreach/eLINK/calculators.pdf

Also a BMP Evaluation worksheet is available. This worksheet was created by WSB & Associates. The contact for this tool is Pete Willenbring. Best management practices installed will need to show proof of pollution reduction.

Part C Section 5 Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring during the implementation phase will continue with selected sites of the Phase I Assessment Project. Selected primary sites include Site 1, 2 and 4. Selected secondary sites for in-lake monitoring will occur on Shields, Gorman and Sabre lakes. Pollution control effectiveness monitoring will be done at two BMP locations, one upland project and one shoreland project. Monitoring of flow and water quality at the stream sites will allow for the assessment of sediment, nutrient and bacterial reductions obtained by the implementation of BMPs.

Water quality samples will be collected at the monitoring sites approximately 16 times per year during the monitoring season in the second and third year of the project. Baseline and storm event sampling will be performed from April (or ice out conditions) through mid October of each monitoring year. Baseline sampling will be conducted at minimum one time per month. Equipment malfunction and the unpredictability of storm events may affect the sampling schedule. The sampling procedures used during this project will be a continuation of monitoring performed during the diagnostic study. An updated Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) will provide guidance for all water quality monitoring.

The laboratory testing parameters for Sites 1, 2 and 4 will be · Total Suspended Solids (TSS), · Nitrate+Nitrite-N (N-N), · Total Phosphorus, · Orthophosphorus (OP) · E. Coli bacteria.

In-lake sampling will include: · TP · Chlorophyll a · Secchi Depth · Dissolved Oxygen (DO) · Temperature

Ultrasonic pressure transducers, CR510 dataloggers and electronic rain gages will be utilized to record stream stage information and precipitation. Flow measurements and rating equations will be contracted out to DNR-Hydrology. These measurements will be made for each sampling year of the project. Load estimates for TSS, TP, OP and N-N will be estimated using the modeling software FLUX. The

122 MnLEAP model will be used on the lake data. The level of monitoring is dependent on the source of funding.

The MDNR will improve the rating curves for sites 1,2 and 4. The rating curves will be created from flow measurements taken during high, moderate and low flows. Precipitation data will be obtained through the citizen monitoring network volunteers and current members of the SWCD rain gage networks. In addition, an electronic rain gage unit will be installed at one of these sites.

Transparency tube readings will be collected throughout the watershed throughout the project by CRWP staff and citizen volunteers. Sites selected will be the original sampling sites and selected upstream sites.

Evaluations of monitoring data, BMPs and transect surveys will be used to track the success of the project. Mapping of BMP projects into a GIS layer will be conducted. Monitoring data will be reviewed to assess the amount of sediment, nutrient and bacterial reductions achieved. The intent of this monitoring is to document improvement in water quality in the project's water(s) of concern; however, given the environmental constraints and variability present, implementation project monitoring information may not provide conclusive evidence of water quality changes. It is recommended that water quality monitoring and evaluation be considered a long-term goal to fully assess the reductions achieved by past, present and future implementation projects.

123

Part C Section 6 Roles and Responsibilities of Project Partners

MPCA, BWSR (funding sources) oversee the project, technical assistance

NRCS, SWCD Project Lake Associations Le Sueur County Project implementation, technician- Education, BMP Sponsor, Fiscal Agent, contact with landowners, implementati on assistance, Shoreland BMP technical committee technical committee implementation, reporting,

technical committee

Shoreland Owners Ag Landowner Participation In-Lake Projects, Consultant CRWP monitor

work evaluate, education, technical committee

DNR, BWSR, MES and Education other groups- technical committee, education, surveys and inventories

124

Table #47 Project Partners and Responsibili es

Cannon River Watershed Le Sueur County BWSR Partnership Environmental Services Tom Fischer Beth Kallestad, Lucas Bistodeau, Lauren Klement, Amy Beatty Responsibility: Technical support Leslie Kennedy, Aaron Wills, Ross Responsibility: Project Hoffmann, Lisa Carey administration, education, Responsibility: Technical support technical support, shoreland through monitoring and evaluation, BMP implementation and education

Le Sueur SWCD Rice County Environmental DNR Gene Krautkremer Services Randy Bradt-Hydrology Responsibility: Technical support, Jennifer Mocol Responsibility: Technical support education, Ag BMP implementation Responsibility: Shoreland Marc Bacigalupi-Fisheries Jacquelyn Bacigalupi- BMP implementation, Fisheries technical support, education Responsibility: Fish and aquatic plant surveys Greg Kruse-Waters-Monitoring Responsibility: Contract for flow monitoring & development of rating curves

Rice SWCD Waseca County MPCA Steve Pahs Angie Knish, Mark Leiferman Justin Watkins, Tiffany Schauls, Pat Baskfield Responsibility: Technical support, Responsibility: Education Responsibility: Assist with equipment set up, education, Ag BMP implementation and technical support equipment technical support

Waseca SWCD University of Minnesota Minnesota State University-Mankato Marla Watje Extension Service Rick Moore, Kim Musser Responsibility: Technical support, Diane Stouffer-Le Sueur Responsibility: Possible Contract for GIS and education, Ag BMP implementation County education (Website) Brad Carlson-Rice County Responsibility: Education, technical support, surveys

Lake Associations USDA NRCS Consultant and the University of Minnesota: In- Gene Schwacke-WLA Steve Breaker, Thomas lake Resource Management Bernie Baumann-WLA Coffmann, James Jirik Tom Miller-GLA Responsibility: Technical Steve Mc Comas-Blue Water Science Tom Springmeyer-LFA support, education, Ag BMP Rick Elsen-SLA implementation Responsibility: Education, volunteer monitoring, technical committee representation, shoreland BMP assistance

125

Part C Section 7 BMP Operation and Maintenance Plan

Operation and Maintenance plans through the Soil and Water Conservation Districts are developed for specific cost share practices. Inspections are required in the 1st, 5th, and 9th year after the practice is installed. Shoreland BMPs will follow the same protocol with inspection schedule. For shoreland projects a maintenance letter will be sent every other year.

Part C Section 8 Information and Education Program

Education and Outreach Goal 5: Educated and informed watershed residents about the need to improve water quality.

Objective 16: Submitted two water quality and one project update news releases per year to local newspapers · Action 77: Determine topic · Action 78: Write article · Action 79: Submit to local newspapers Objective 17: Educate and inform watershed public contacting up to 200 watershed residents and participation up to six local events, education classes for schools and project promotion. · Action 80: Lake Associations, Counties, Extension Service and CRWP will organize and/or participate in local events through displays and presentations. Objective 18: Provide signage for up to 238 visible shoreland improvement projects · Action 81: Design sign format · Action 82: Obtain estimates and determine which entity to go through · Action 83: Determine which sites will have signage · Action 84: Install signs Objective 19: Conduct four “Coffee on the Cannon” events during project length. · Action 85: Locate locations for Coffee on the Cannon · Action 86: Organize with local coffee shops for the events · Action 87: Determine discussion direction · Action 88: Advertise and promote the event · Action 89: Implement the activity · Action 90: Payout process · Action 91: Report Objective 20: Create a Lakescaping Award for shoreland owners to be awarded annually · Action 92: Determine criteria for levels of awards · Action 93: Create application form and application process · Action 94: Determine responsible partners to lead for each lake · Action 95: Implement · Action 96: Print award certificate and present · Action 97: Submit names and shoreland information to the Project Contact · Action 98: Submit news release to local newspapers Objective 21: Participate in local library events or host a topic evening at four libraries during the project length. · Action 99: Contact local libraries

126 · Action 100: Set Date · Action 101: Determine topic/presentation · Action 102: Implement · Action 103: Submit report to Project Contact Objective 22: Update the Upper Cannon Website · Action 104: Determine the uses and needs of the website and updating maps · Action 105: Develop the contract for continued website development · Action 106: Update website

Part C Section 9 Permits Required for Completion of Projects

Permits that could be required on certain projects include: Grading and Filling Septic DNR General Waters Permit DNR Aquatic Plant Control

Part C Section 10 Identification and Summary of Program Elements

Element 1: BMPs Category 1a Agricultural BMPs Goal 1: Installed Best Management Practices in the watershed that will improve water quality by reducing TP, N, TSS and E. Coli in the water column. Objective 1: Hire a technician to work jointly with Le Sueur, Rice and Waseca SWCDs for at least three years. Objective 2: Contact up to 100% of the watershed landowners in the target watersheds, one on one for promoting BMP projects throughout project length. Objective 3: Determine areas of concern to place BMPs using LiDAR/GIS Objective 4: Install Ag BMPs in target watersheds including buffers, harvestable buffers and alternative tile inlets. Objective 5: Provide Technical Assistance to landowners who qualify for Ag funded projects.

Category 1B: Shoreland BMPs Goal 2: Increased the number of BMPs installed along shoreland. Objective 6: Conduct shoreland ground-truthing from the Environmental Assessment Flyover Shoreland Inventory on Tetonka, Upper and Lower Sakatah, Volney, Frances (Francis) and Jefferson German. Objective 7: Increase the number of Shoreland BMPs installed on priority lakes of the phase 1, opening up the area to all lakes in the project area the final year. Objective 8: Provide 10% Technical Assistance to landowners who qualify for shoreland funded projects. Objective 9: Provide 75% cost share on up to 210 rain barrels priced up to $150 each by project end. Objective 10: Work with the cities of Elysian, Waterville and Morristown to address stormwater issues that would include offering cost share funds for projects by project end. Objective 11: Upgrade at least 40% of septic systems in the watershed by project end. 127

Element 2 Monitoring Goal 4: Monitored water quality that showed improvement Objective 15: Implement the monitoring plan for the phase II UCIP.

Element 3 Education and Outreach Goal 5: Educated and informed watershed residents about the need to improve water quality. Objective 16: Submitted two water quality and one project update news releases per year to local newspapers Objective 17: Educate and inform watershed public contacting up to 200 watershed residents and participation up to six local events, education classes for schools and project promotion. Objective 18: Provide signage for up to 238 visible shoreland improvement projects Objective 19: Conduct four “Coffee on the Cannon” events during project length. Objective 20: Create a Lakescaping Award for shoreland owners to be awarded annually Objective 21: Participate in local library events or host a topic evening at four libraries during the project length. Objective 22: Update the Upper Cannon Website

Element 4 Surveys and Inventories Goal 6: Conducted aquatic plants and fish surveys and inventories. (No grant funds requested for this) Objective 23: The DNR will conduct aquatic plant and fish inventories within the watershed during the project duration Objective 24: The UM Extension Service will conduct at least two Tillage Transect Surveys within the watershed during project length. Objective 25: Conduct a shoreland BMP perception survey to 800 shoreland owners

128

Part C Section 11 Project Milestone Schedule

Year 1 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Objective Element Obj 1: Hire a technician Ag BMP Obj 2: Contact landowners Ag BMP Obj 3: Determine areas for BMPs Ag BMP Obj 4; Install Ag BMPs Ag BMP Obj 5: Provide Ag TA Ag BMP Obj 6: Shoreland ground-truth Shoreland BMP Obj 7: Install shoreland BMP Shoreland BMP Obj 8 Provide shoreland TA Shoreland BMP Obj 9: Provide C/S on rain barrels Shoreland BMP Obj 10 Work with cities Shoreland BMP Obj 11: Upgrade septic systems Shoreland BMP Obj 12: Evaluate algal suppression in lakes. Lake Resource Mgmt Obj 13: Determine sources of P loading to lakes Lake Resource Mgmt Obj 14: Determine causes of algal suppression Lake Resource Mgmt Obj 15: Implement the monitoring plan Monitoring Obj 16: Two news releases annually Education Obj 17: Educate public at up to six local events Education Obj 18: Provide signage for shoreland impr. Projects Education Obj 19: Coffee on the Cannon Education Obj 20: Create Lakescaping Award for shoreland Education Obj 21: Participate in local library events Education Obj 22: Update the Upper Cannon Website Education Obj 23: Conduct aquatic plant surveys and fish inventories Surveys/Inventories Obj 24: Conduct two Tillage Transect Surveys Surveys/Inventories Obj 25: Conduct a shoreland BMP perception survey Surveys/Inventories Obj 26: Administer the project Administration Obj 27: Evaluate the Project course of action Administration

Year 2 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Objective Element Obj 1: Hire a technician (Completed) Ag BMP Obj 2: Contact landowners Ag BMP Obj 3: Determine areas for BMPs Ag BMP Obj 4; Install Ag BMPs Ag BMP Obj 5: Provide Ag TA Ag BMP Obj 6: Shoreland ground-truth Shoreland BMP Obj 7: Install shoreland BMP Shoreland BMP Obj 8 Provide shoreland TA Shoreland BMP Obj 9: Provide C/S on rain barrels Shoreland BMP Obj 10 Work with cities Shoreland BMP Obj 11: Upgrade septic systems Shoreland BMP Obj 12: Evaluate algal suppression in lakes. Lake Resource Mgmt Obj 13: Determine sources of P loading to lakes Lake Resource Mgmt Obj 14: Determine causes of algal suppression Lake Resource Mgmt Obj 15: Implement the monitoring plan Monitoring Obj 16: Two news releases annually Education Obj 17: Educate public at up to six local events Education Obj 18: Provide signage for shoreland impr. Projects Education Obj 19: Coffee on the Cannon Education Obj 20: Create Lakescaping Award for shoreland Education Obj 21: Participate in local library events Education 129 Obj 22: Update the Upper Cannon Website Education Obj 23: Conduct aquatic plant surveys and fish inventories Surveys/Inventories Obj 24: Conduct two Tillage Transect Surveys Surveys/Inventories Obj 25: Conduct a shoreland BMP perception survey Surveys/Inventories Obj 26: Administer the project Administration Obj 27: Evaluate the Project course of action Administration

Year 3 Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Objective Element Obj 1: Hire a technician Completed Ag BMP Obj 2: Contact landowners Ag BMP Obj 3: Determine areas for BMPs Ag BMP Obj 4; Install Ag BMPs Ag BMP Obj 5: Provide Ag TA Ag BMP Obj 6: Shoreland ground-truth Completed Shoreland BMP Obj 7: Install shoreland BMP Shoreland BMP Obj 8 Provide shoreland TA Shoreland BMP Obj 9: Provide C/S on rain barrels Shoreland BMP Obj 10 Work with cities Shoreland BMP Obj 11: Upgrade septic systems Shoreland BMP Obj 12: Evaluate algal suppression in lakes Completed Lake Resource Mgmt Obj 13: Determine sources of P loading to lakes Lake Resource Mgmt Obj 14: Determine causes of algal suppression Lake Resource Mgmt Obj 15: Implement the monitoring plan Monitoring Obj 16: Two news releases annually Education Obj 17: Educate public at up to six local events Education Obj 18: Provide signage for shoreland impr. Projects Education Obj 19: Coffee on the Cannon Education Obj 20: Create Lakescaping Award for shoreland Education Completed. Obj 21: Participate in local library events Education Obj 22: Update the Upper Cannon Website Education Obj 23: Conduct aquatic plant surveys and fish inventories Surveys/Inventories Obj 24: Conduct two Tillage Transect Surveys Surveys/Inventories Obj 25: Conduct a shoreland BMP perception survey Surveys/Inventories Completed Obj 26: Administer the project Administration Obj 27: Evaluate the Project course of action Completed Administration

130

Part C Section 12 Implementation Project Budget The project will apply for CWP Phase II, which has a capped amount that will not allow for 100% funding for the Implementation Plan. Other funding sources will be sought; these sources include 319 funds and Clean Water Legacy funds.

The required three-year budget is an estimate. Certain project elements cannot be predicted as to which year funding payout would occur. Certain project elements such as admin, monitoring, education and surveys can be divided into three years.

Table #48 Budget es mate per year

Project Three Year Length Budget Grant In-Kind Cash Match Year 1 $ 874,603.33 $ 742,441.67 $ 243,062.50 Year 2 $ 874,603.33 $ 742,441.67 $ 143,000.00 Year 3 $ 874,603.33 $ 742,441.67 $ 100,062.50 Total $ 2,623,810.00 $ 2,227,325.00 $ 486,125.00

131

Table #49 Implementa on project budget by elements and objec ves

Required Match * Total Match In- Element Obj. Project Total Grant 50% Cash Match In-kind kind 1 1 $3,000 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $3,000 $3,000. 1 2 $175,200 $159,000 $79,500 $ 0.00 $16,200 $16,200 1 3 $12,000 $8,000 $4,000 $0.00 $4,000 $ 4,000 1 4 $1,362,000 $ 908,000 $454,000 $227,000 $227,000 $454,000 1 5 $136,200 $90,800 $45,400 $0.00 $45,400 $45,400 1 6 $42,000 $21,000 $10,500 $ 0.00 $21,000 $21,000 1 7 $1,470,000 $980,000 $490,000 $245,000 $245,000 $490,000 1 8 $147,000 $98,000 $49,000 $ 0.00 $49,000 $49,000 1 9 $ 47,250 $31,500 $15,750 $7,875 $7,875 $15,750 1 10 $ 45,000 $30,000 $15,000 $6,250 $8,750 $15,000 1 11 $1,350,000 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $1,350,000. $1,350,000 1 12 $25,500 $17,000 $8,500 $ 0.00 $8,500 $8,500 1 13 $34,500 $23,000 $11,500 $ 0.00 $11,500 $11,500 1 14 $45,000 $30,000 $15,000 $ 0.00 $15,000 $15,000 Element $ Total $4,894,650 $2,396,300 $1,198,150 486,125 $2,012,225 $2,498,350 2 15 $216,410 $90,410 $45,205 $ 0.00 $126,000 $126,000 Element Total $216,410 $90,410 $45,205 $ 0.00 $126,000 $126,000 3 16 $1,500 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $1,500 $1,500 3 17 $42,000 $28,000 $14,000 $ 0.00 $14,000 $14,000 3 18 $53,550 $35,700 $17,850 $ 0.00 $17,850 $17,850 3 19 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $ 0.00 $2,000 $2,000 3 20 $4,200 $200 $100 $ 0.00 $4,000 $4,000 3 21 $4,050 $2,700 $1,350 $ 0.00 $1,350 $1,350 3 22 $27,000 $18,000 $9,000 $ 0.00 $9,000 $9,000 Element Total $138,300 $88,600 $44,300 $ 0.00 $49,700 $49,700 4 23 $10,000 $0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $10,000 $10,000 4 24 $ 4,500 $3,000 $1,500 $ 0.00 $1,500 $1,500 4 25 $14,900 $6,500 $ 3,250 $ 0.00 $8,400 $8,400 Element Total $29,400 $9,500 $4,750 $ 0.00 $19,900 $19,900 5 26 $54,000 $36,000 $18,000 $ 0.00 $18,000 $18,000 5 27 $4,500 $3,000 $1,500 $ 0.00 $1,500 $1,500 Element Total $58,500 $39,000 $19,500 $ 0.00 $19,500 $19,500 Total $ 5,337,260 $2,623,810 $1,311,905 $486,125 $ 2,227,325 $2,713,450

132

Part C Section 13 Conclusions The primary goals of the Upper Cannon Implementation Project (UCIP) will be to reduce sediment, nutrients and E. Coli levels in the Upper Cannon River and Lakes. The three-year goal of UCIP is to complete all the objectives listed in the Upper Cannon Implementation Plan. The top priority areas determined from the Upper Cannon Assessment Project are samplesheds 1, 2, 4, 3 and 5. The top priority lakes are Gorman and Sabre lakes, which are located in Sampleshed 2. Shields Lake is located in Sampleshed 1. Tetonka, Upper and Lower Sakatah are located in Sampleshed 5 though all of the lakes are considered priority areas. Other lakes in the watershed that have an impact on water quality in the Upper Cannon are Dora, Volney, Jefferson, German and Lake Frances.

The expected changes in pollutant loadings are determined in E Link; the expected changes in pollutant loadings will not be observed in the early stages of the implementation plan. Water quality improvement will be observed with the cumulative effort of installing BMPs. On-the-ground BMPs, combined with education will result in significant reductions through continued monitoring in sediment, nutrient and E. Coli bacteria concentrations.

Ag and Shoreland BMPs have been selected. If a landowner and/or ag producer requests a project not on the list of implementation activities, the respective agency will determine if the cost benefit ratio is acceptable and will be included in the project. The list of BMPs include:

Manure and Nutrient Management Wetland Restorations Alternatives to Open Tile Intakes Structural Practices Water and Sediment Control Basins Terraces Diversions Grade Control Structures Ag Waste Management System Vegetative and Stormwater Practices Filter Strips/Harvestable Buffers Riparian Buffers Grassed Waterways Rain Gardens/Shoreland Buffers Rain Barrels Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Upgrades

Part D REFERENCES

Part E APPENDICES Appendix 1 2007 Calculated mean daily discharge Appendix 2 2008 Calculated mean daily discharge Appendix 3 2007-2009 Water quality results Appendix 4 QAPP Appendix 5 List of point sources Appendix 6 PERT Chart

133 Part F DISTRIBUTION LIST

Cannon River Watershed Partnership

Le Sueur County Le Sueur County Environmental Services Le Sueur County Board of Commissioners Le Sueur County SWCD Le Sueur County Extension Service Le Sueur County NRCS

Rice County Rice County Environmental Services Rice County Board of Commissioners Rice County SWCD Rice County Extension Service Rice County NRCS

Waseca County Waseca County Environmental Services Waseca County Board of Commissioners Waseca County SWCD Waseca County Extension Service Waseca County NRCS

NRCS Area Office-St Peter

Lake Associations Waterville Lakes Association Gorman Lake Association Lake Francis Association Shields Lake Association

Minnesota State University at Mankato Water Resources Center

Blue Water Science

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources-Tom Fischer

Minnesota DNR Waters Division (Hydrology, Monitoring, Fisheries)

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

134