crwd 2011 monitoring report

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report

Prepared by:

Capitol Region Watershed District 1410 Energy Park Drive, Suite 4

St. Paul, MN 55108 651.644.8888

www.capitolregionwd.org

Table of Contents Acronyms .....................................................................................................................................…i Definitions......................................................................................................................................iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................…vii 1. Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................…1 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................…3 3. Baseline Stormwater Monitoring

a. Monitoring Locations.................................................................................................…7 b. Monitoring and Analysis Methods...............................................................................9 c. Climatological Summary ...........................................................................................19 d. Summary of Results .....................................................................................................23 e. Detailed Results

i. Como Subwatershed ........................................................................................51 ii. East Kittsondale Subwatershed ........................................................................55

iii. Phalen Creek Subwatershed .............................................................................59 iv. St. Anthony Park Subwatershed ......................................................................63 v. Trout Brook Subwatershed ..............................................................................69

vi. Lake McCarrons Subwatershed .......................................................................77 4. Lake Monitoring

a. Introduction ..................................................................................................................83 b. Methods........................................................................................................................84 c. Results ..........................................................................................................................85

5. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................95 References......................................................................................................................................99 Appendices

A. Detailed Subwatershed Data i. Como Subwatershed .....................................................................................103

ii. East Kittsondale Subwatershed ......................................................................109 iii. Phalen Creek Subwatershed ...........................................................................116 iv. St. Anthony Park Subwatershed ....................................................................122 v. Trout Brook Subwatershed ............................................................................132

vi. Lake McCarrons Subwatershed .....................................................................152 B. Metals Standards Based on Hardness ..........................................................................161 C. Reference Tables .........................................................................................................165

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report i

Acronyms and Abbreviations ac Acre AHUG Arlington Hamline Underground BMP Best Management Practice cBOD 5-day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand Cd Cadmium cf Cubic feet cfs Cubic feet per second cfu Colony forming unit chl-a Chlorophyll-a Cl Chloride Cr Chromium CRWD Capitol Region Watershed District Cu Copper DO Dissolved Oxygen E. coli Escherichia coli EPA Environmental Protection Agency ft Foot GP ha

Gottfried’s Pit Hectare

FWA Flow-Weighted Average IBI Index of Biological Integrity IDDE Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination in Inch kg Kilogram L Liter lb Pound m Meter MCES Metropolitan Council Environmental Services mg Milligram mL Milliliter MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MPN Most probable number MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NA NCHF

Not Available North Central Hardwood Forest

NH3 Ammonia Ni Nickel NO2 Nitrite

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report ii

NO3 Nitrate NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ortho-P Ortho-phosphate Pb Lead PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls RCD Ramsey Conservation District RCPW Ramsey County Public Works s Second TB Trout Brook TBI Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor TDS Total Dissolved Solids TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TMDL TP

Total Maximum Daily Load Total Phosphorus

TSS Total Suspended Solids VSS Volatile Suspended Solids Zn Zinc

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report iii

Definitions Acute exposure – in water quality standards, the minimum concentration of a chemical to which an organism may be exposed for a short time period without experiencing adverse effects. Baseflow – water flowing through the pipe during non-storm events, usually at a relatively constant, slow velocity. Best Management Practice – Technique, measure, or structural control that is used for a given set of conditions to manage the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff in the most cost effective manner. Chronic exposure – in water quality standards, the minimum concentration of a chemical to which an organism may be exposed for an extended period of time without experiencing adverse effects. Composite sample – a water sample that is made up of several samples taken at spaced intervals. Discharge – rate of flow in pipe or stream, expressed as a volume per unit time, most commonly cubic feet per second (cfs). Epilimnion – in a lake, the top layer of water, characterized in the summer by warm, circulating water. MPCA lake standards are based on water sampled from this layer. Eutrophic – a water body with high biological productivity. These lakes have murky water and an extensive macrophyte population. Algal blooms are common. Flow-weighted concentration – the total pollutant load divided by total flow, often expressed as mg/L. Grab sample – a water sample that is obtained by taking a single sample. Hardness – the concentration of salts (e.g. calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate) in a water sample. Hypereutrophic – a waterbody with excessive biological productivity. These lakes have very murky water, frequent algal blooms and fish kills, foul odor, and rough fish. Illicit Discharge – Any discharge to the municipal separate storm sewer system that is not composed entirely of stormwater, except for discharges allowed under a NPDES permit or water used for firefighting operations (EPA). Impaired Waters – Waters that are not meeting their designated uses because of excess pollutants violating water quality standards (from the MPCA website). Load – the total volume of pollutant, often expressed in lbs or kg.

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report iv

Mesotrophic – a waterbody that has intermediate biological productivity. These lakes have moderately clear water, late-summer algal blooms, moderate macrophyte populations, and occasional fish kills. Normalized Pollutant Yield – This normalized yield accounts for temporal and spatial precipitation differences by dividing the pollutant yield by the number of inches of water runoff (water yield) in a subwatershed over a given period of time. It is expressed as pounds per acre per inch of runoff. Oligotrophic – a waterbody that has low biological productivity, and is characterized by clear water, few macrophytes, and salmonid fish. Secchi depth – a measure of the transparency of lake water. Storm flow – water flowing through the pipe during storm events. Storm flow usually occurs for a short amount of time, and has a high velocity. Stormwater – water that is not infiltrated into the soil during and following a rainfall event. Yield – the amount of pollutant produced per land area, often expressed as lbs/acre or kg/ha.

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report v

List of Figures Figure 1. Capitol Region Watershed District ........................................................................................5 Figure 2. Mississippi River Reference Site and 2011 CRWD Monitoring Sites ..................................8 Figure 3. Annual precipitation totals (2005-2010) as compared to the NWS 30-year normal ...........20 Figure 4. Monthly precipitation totals for 2011 in CRWD .................................................................21 Figure 5. Total Discharge at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2005 – 2011.................................................25 Figure 6. Storm and Base Discharge CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2011 ................................................26 Figure 7. Total Water Yield at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2005-2011 ................................................27 Figure 8. Flow-Weighted Average TSS Concentrations at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2005-2011 ....25 Figure 9. Flow-Weighted Average TP Concentrations at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2005-2011 ......26 Figure 10. Storm and Base TSS Loads at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2011 ........................................27 Figure 11. Storm and Base TP Loads at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2011 ..........................................28 Figure 12. TSS Yields at CRWD Monitoring Sites ............................................................................29 Figure 13. Normalized TSS Yields at CRWD Monitoring Sites ........................................................30 Figure 14. Normalized TSS Yields Across CRWD Monitored Subwatersheds .................................31 Figure 15. TP Yields at CRWD Monitoring Sites ..............................................................................32 Figure 16. Normalized TP Yields at CRWD Monitoring Sites ..........................................................33 Figure 17. Normalized TP Yields Across CRWD Monitored Subwatersheds ...................................34 Figure 18. TSS Yields at Metro-Area Tributaries and CRWD Subwatershed Outlets .......................35 Figure 19. TP Yields at Metro-Area Tributaries and CRWD Subwatershed Outlets .........................36 Figure 20. Sampling Sites in the Como Lake Subwatershed ..............................................................47 Figure 21. Sampling Sites in the East Kittsondale Subwatershed ......................................................51 Figure 22. Sampling Sites in the Phalen Creek Subwatershed.......... .................................................55 Figure 23. Sampling Sites in the St. Anthony Park Subwatershed .....................................................59 Figure 24. Sampling Sites in the Trout Brook Subwatershed .............................................................67 Figure 25. Lake McCarrons Subwatershed .........................................................................................73 Figure 26. Historical Growing Season Secchi Depth Averages .........................................................80 Figure 27. Historical Growing Season Average Chl-a Concentrations ..............................................80 Figure 28. Historical Growing Season Average TP Concentrations ..................................................81 Figure 29. 2011 and Historical Growing Season Secchi Depth Averages .........................................81 Figure 30. 2011 and Historical Growing Season Chl-a Averages ......................................................82 Figure 31. 2011 and Historical Growing Season TP Averages ..........................................................82 Figure 32. Como Lake Growing Season Secchi Depths, and TP and Chl-a Averages .....................83 Figure 33. Crosby Lake Growing Season Secchi Depths, and TP and Chl-a Averages....................84 Figure 34. Lake McCarrons Growing Season Secchi Depths, and TP and Chl-a Averages .............85 Figure 35. Loeb Lake Growing Season Secchi Depths, and TP and Chl-a Averages .......................86 Figure 36. 2011 Como 7 Level, Velocity, and Discharge ................................................................105 Figure 37. 2011 Como 7 Level, Discharge, and Rain .......................................................................106 Figure 38. 2011 Golf Course Pond Outlet Level, Velocity, and Discharge .....................................107 Figure 39. 2011 Golf Course Pond Outlet Level, Discharge, and Rain ............................................108 Figure 40. 2011 East Kittsondale Level, Velocity, and Discharge ...................................................115 Figure 41. 2011 East Kittsondale Level, Discharge, and Rain .........................................................116 Figure 42. 2011 Phalen Creek Level, Velocity, and Discharge ........................................................121 Figure 43. 2011 Phalen Creek Level, Discharge, and Rain ..............................................................122

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report vi

Figure 44. 2011 St. Anthony Park Level, Velocity, and Discharge ..................................................129 Figure 45. 2011 St. Anthony Park Level, Discharge, and Rain ........................................................130 Figure 46. 2011 Sarita Outlet Level, Velocity, and Discharge .........................................................135 Figure 47. 2011 Sarita Outlet Level, Discharge, and Rain ...............................................................136 Figure 48. 2011 Trout Brook – West Branch Level, Velocity, and Discharge .................................141 Figure 49. 2011 Trout Brook – West Branch Level, Discharge, and Rain .......................................142 Figure 50. 2011 Trout Brook – East Branch Level, Velocity, and Discharge ..................................149 Figure 51. 2011 Trout Brook – East Branch Level, Discharge, and Rain ........................................150 Figure 52. 2011 Trout Brook Outlet Level, Velocity, and Discharge ..............................................157 Figure 53. 2011 Trout Brook Outlet Level, Discharge, and Rain .....................................................158 Figure 54. Water Level Elevation and Precipitation at Arlington-Jackson

Stormwater Pond, 2011 ....................................................................................................161 Figure 55. Water Level Elevation and Precipitation at Sims-Agate Stormwater Pond, 2011 ..........162 Figure 56. Water Level Elevation and Precipitation at Westminster-Mississippi

Stormwater Pond, 2011 ....................................................................................................163 Figure 57. Water Level Elevation and Precipitation at Willow Reserve

Stormwater Pond, 2011 ....................................................................................................164 Figure 58. 2011 Villa Park Level, Velocity, and Discharge .............................................................167 Figure 59. 2011 Villa Park Level, Discharge, and Rain ...................................................................168 Figure 60. Water Level and Discharge at Lake McCarrons Outlet, 2011 ........................................171

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report vii

List of Tables Table 1. Sites Monitored in 2011 .....................................................................................................11 Table 2. Analysis Method, Reporting Limit, and Holding Times for Water Chemistry Parameters

Analyzed by MCES Laboratory.........................................................................................12 Table 3. Surface Water Quality Standards ........................................................................................16 Table 4. NSQD Stormwater Pollutant Median Values ....................................................................18 Table 5. CRWD Monitoring Season Rainfall Amounts ..................................................................20 Table 6. The 2005 to 2011 annual precipitation totals as compared to the NWS 30-year normal. .24 Table 7. CRWD Total Monitoring Days ..........................................................................................24 Table 8. 2011 Monitoring Results Summary ...................................................................................30 Table 9. Pollutant Standards and Average Concentrations at Monitoring Sites and in the

Mississippi River ...............................................................................................................43 Table 10. 2011 Metals Concentrations at CRWD Sites and in the Mississippi River .....................45 Table 11. 2011 Baseflow Grab E. coli Concentrations at CRWD Baseline Sites ...........................46 Table 12. 2011 Stormflow Grab E. coli Concentrations at CRWD Baseline Sites .........................47 Table 13. CRWD 2011 Median Stormwater Data versus NSQD Median Data ..............................49 Table 14. 2005 – 2011 Como 7 Subwatershed Monitoring Results ................................................54 Table 15. 2005 – 2011 East Kittsondale Monitoring Results ..........................................................57 Table 16. 2005 – 2011 Phalen Creek Monitoring Results ...............................................................61 Table 17. 2005 – 2011 St. Anthony Park Monitoring Results .........................................................67 Table 18. 2005 – 2011 Sarita Monitoring Results ...........................................................................68 Table 19. Average Pond Elevations in Trout Brook Stormwater Ponds, 2006 - 2011.......... ..........72 Table 20. 2005 – 2011 Trout Brook - West Branch Monitoring Results ........................................74 Table 21. 2006 – 2011 Trout Brook - East Branch Monitoring Results ..........................................75 Table 22. 2005 – 2011 Trout Brook Outlet Monitoring Results ......................................................76 Table 23. 2005 – 2011 McCarrons Outlet Stage and Discharge. .....................................................79 Table 24. 2006 – 2011 Results for the Villa Park Subwatershed ....................................................81 Table 25. Deep and Shallow Lake Water Quality Standards ...........................................................85 Table 26. 2011 and Historical Water Quality Average Concentrations ..........................................87 Table 27. 2011 Como 7 Subwatershed Laboratory Data ...............................................................103 Table 28. 2011 Como 7 Subwatershed Loading ............................................................................109 Table 29. 2011 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Laboratory Data .................................................113 Table 30. 2011 East Kittsondale Subwatershed Loading ..............................................................117 Table 31. 2011 Phalen Creek Laboratory Data ..............................................................................119 Table 32. 2011 Phalen Creek Loading ...........................................................................................123 Table 33. 2011 St. Anthony Park Laboratory Data .......................................................................127 Table 34. 2011 St. Anthony Park Loading ....................................................................................131 Table 34. 2011 Sarita Outlet Laboratory Data ...............................................................................133 Table 34. 2011 Sarita Outlet Loading ............................................................................................137 Table 35. 2011 Trout Brook – West Branch Laboratory Data ......................................................139 Table 36. 2011 Trout Brook – West Branch Loading ...................................................................143 Table 37. 2011 Trout Brook – East Branch Laboratory Data ........................................................147 Table 38. 2011 Trout Brook – East Branch Loading .....................................................................153 Table 39. 2011 Trout Brook Outlet Laboratory Data ....................................................................155

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report viii

Table 40. 2011 Trout Brook Outlet Loading .................................................................................159 Table 41. 2011 Villa Park Laboratory Data ...................................................................................165 Table 42. 2011 Villa Park Loading ................................................................................................169 Table 43. 2011 Metals Standards Based on Average Hardness .....................................................176 Table 44. 2011 Data Collection Efficiency at CRWD Monitoring Sites .......................................179 Table 45. 2011 Epilimnetic Data and Growing Season Averages .................................................180

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011 Monitoring Report 1

Chapter 1 Executive Summary Since 2005, the Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) has been monitoring stormwater quality and quantity from its 41-square mile watershed in Saint Paul, Roseville, Maplewood, Falcon Heights and Lauderdale, which eventually drains to the Mississippi River. The watershed district is highly urbanized with 225,000 residents and at least 42% impervious land cover. CRWD is a special purpose unit of local government established in 1998 whose mission is to protect, manage and improve the water resources of the District. Essential to accomplishing this mission, CRWD has developed and implemented a monitoring program to assess stormwater water quality and quantity in various subwatersheds and the four lakes located within CRWD. Throughout the year in 2011, CRWD collected water quality and flow data from storm sewers, stormwater ponds, and lakes at 17 monitoring sites. Of those 17 sites, ten sites were full monitoring stations where both water quality and flow data were collected. Four major subwatersheds in CRWD; East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, Saint Anthony Park, and Trout Brook, had full monitoring stations. The other full monitoring stations collected data from portions of two major subwatersheds, Saint Anthony Park and Trout Brook. Como 7, Villa Park, Trout Brook – West Branch, and Trout Brook – East Branch are located within Trout Brook subwatershed while Sarita is located within the Saint Anthony Park subwatershed. Samples were collected during both baseflow (dry weather) and stormflow (wet weather) and were analyzed for a suite of water quality parameters including nutrients, sediment, metals, and bacteria. Of the remaining sites, two were flow-only stations at Como Lake and Lake McCarrons and four were water level recording stations at three stormwater ponds located in the Trout Brook subwatershed and one pond located in the Villa Park subwatershed. Ramsey County Public Works Department (RCPW) monitored water quality of the four lakes in CRWD on a monthly or bi-monthly basis from May through September. The lakes were monitored for a suite of water quality parameters including nutrients, sediment, water clarity, and chlorophyll a. 2011 was an above average year for precipitation based on historical normal rainfall averages. Five sites were monitored throughout the entire year with an average of 358 days of data collected at each. These five sites (East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, Trout Brook – West Branch, Trout Brook – East Branch, were located in the four major subwatersheds. Sites not monitored for the entire year had an average of 222 days of data each. Winter monitoring efforts is aiding in the MPCA’s Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Project. In general, CRWD major subwatersheds recorded greater flow and lower normalized phosphorus and sediment yields in 2011 than in previous years. The Trout Brook subwatershed generated the highest discharge and TP and TSS loads in CRWD with East Kittsondale subwatershed producing the next highest TSS load while Phalen Creek produced the second highest TP load. Most of this pollutant loading occurred during storms rather during dry weather conditions. The Phalen Creek site experienced high water during most of the spring and summer. This site yielded much smaller TSS loads than in the past. Of the major subwatershed outlets, the per acre water export was highest from Phalen Creek. The Trout Brook subwatershed had the second


highest per acre water yield. In terms of flow-weighted pollutant concentrations, East Kittsondale had the highest flow-weighted average TP and TSS concentrations of all sites in 2011, but the concentrations were low in comparison to other monitoring years. In East Kittsondale, land use and activities produced higher pollutant loading per acre of land and per inch of runoff than other subwatersheds. For the most part, stormwater runoff from CRWD was more polluted for TP and TSS than the Mississippi River. While the East Kittsondale subwatershed had the highest TP and TSS flow-weighted average concentrations, the Phalen Creek subwatershed had the lowest flow-weighted concentrations. Besides phosphorus and sediment being pollutants of concern in CRWD, metals and bacteria issues were identified in 2011. During storm events, the average lead and copper concentrations for all major subwatershed outlet sites except one were higher than the state standards. Average zinc concentrations during storms at two of the four major subwatershed outlet sites, East Kittsondale and St. Anthony Park, were higher than the state standard. Thirteen of 19 samples collected during storm events at the four major subwatershed outlet sites in 2011 exceeded the maximum standard for E. coli bacteria with the highest being 40,400 mpn/100mL. Conversely, during dry weather, only 4 of 65 samples exceeded the state standard. The City of Saint Paul eliminated an illicit sanitary discharge of bacteria in the East Kittsondale subwatershed in May 2010, and 2011 bacteria concentrations show that it has been completely eliminated, with only one exceedance at this site during dry weather. Due to a wet monitoring season and the occurrence of spring flooding, all four lakes experienced increased total phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations, with Como Lake and Crosby Lake not meeting the state eutrophication standard, which is based on total phosphorus, chlorophyll a concentrations and water clarity data. 2011 was the first year Crosby Lake did not meet the state standard. Based on field observations, CRWD staff observed up to 10 potential illicit discharges from the St. Anthony Park subwatershed. Due to fluctuations from the Mississippi River these discharges could not be confirmed by flow data. However, staff noted colorful plumes, floating debris, and foul odor during these events. While results are currently inconclusive, the discharges typically have higher concentrations of total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, and E. coli. CRWD is working with the City of Saint Paul to determine the source of these discharges. Based on the results and findings of the 2011 monitoring program, CRWD makes several recommendations for 2012. CRWD will continue to document illicit discharges throughout the watershed, including St. Anthony Park and work with the City of Saint Paul to eliminate this and other potential sources of pollution. It will also work to continue monitoring through winter months and work with the MPCA in monitoring the extent of chloride pollution. CRWD will also begin to evaluate important portions of unmonitored subwatersheds for consideration of new short or long-term monitoring sites.


2 Introduction The Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD) is located in Ramsey County, Minnesota in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. CRWD is a special purpose unit of government that was formed in 1998 to manage and protect part of the Mississippi River Basin, along with the wetlands and four lakes, Como, Loeb, Crosby, and McCarrons, that comprise the watershed and ultimately drain to the Mississippi River. Portions of the cities of Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Maplewood, Roseville, and most of Saint Paul comprise CRWD (Figure 1). The Capitol Region Watershed is highly urbanized – 245,000 people reside in the watershed and 42% of the land is covered by impervious surfaces. Land use in the watershed is primarily residential with tracts of commercial, industrial, and institutional uses interspersed throughout the watershed. Previous development and redevelopment in the watershed have placed a significant burden on the health and sustainability of the water resources of CRWD. Impervious surfaces generate polluted stormwater runoff which causes environmental impacts such as poor water quality, increased peak storm flows, decreased groundwater recharge, increased flooding, and loss of aquatic and wildlife habitat. In terms of water quality, stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of pollution in CRWD. It delivers detergents, fertilizers, pesticides, pet and wildlife waste, nutrients, sediment, heavy metals, and other anthropogenic pollutants to local waters and wetlands. It is collected and conveyed through an extensive network of underground storm sewer pipes that eventually drain to the Mississippi River. A total of 55 known outlet pipes discharge into the thirteen mile stretch of the Mississippi River bordering CRWD. Both historical and current water quality data of CRWD lakes, ponds, and the Mississippi River indicate that these water bodies are impaired for various pollutants including nutrients, bacteria, and turbidity and are not meeting their designated uses for fishing, aquatic habitat, and recreation. The Mississippi River and Como Lake are listed on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) 2010 303(d) list of impaired waters. Impaired waters require a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study, or pollution budget, for pollutants including bacteria, nutrients, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and turbidity (MPCA, 2010). The nutrient of most concern in CRWD is phosphorus. Phosphorus is a biological nutrient which limits the growth of algae in most lakes and streams and is often found in high concentrations in stormwater. In excess, phosphorous can cause the overgrowth of algae and aquatic plants in lakes and rivers which reduces dissolved oxygen levels and increases turbidity of the water column. Common sources of phosphorous include fertilizers from lawns and gardens, leaves and grass clippings, pet and wildlife waste, detergents used for car washing, automobile emissions, and wastewater treatment plant discharges. Sediment is another major constituent of stormwater runoff that negatively impacts water clarity and impairs benthic aquatic habitat. Its reduction or removal from stormwater is essential because it is the substrate that other pollutants adhere to. Sediment originates from erosion of soil particles from construction sites, stream banks, and lake shores, and from sand applied to streets, highways, and parking lots for deicing in the winter.


Street and highway runoff are significant contributors of metals. The potential sources of metals include auto exhaust, auto and tire wear, brakes and some winter de-icing agents. Pathogens, which include bacteria and viruses, also contribute to the water quality degradation of the water resources in CRWD. They impact recreation and pose potential health risks to humans. Sources of pathogens include illicit sanitary connections to storm drains, and pet and wildlife waste. CRWD was formed to understand and address these impacts and better protect and manage local water resources. In 2004, CRWD established a monitoring program to assess water quality and quantity of various subwatersheds and stormwater best management practices (BMPs) owned and/or operated and maintained by CRWD. Prior to the CRWD monitoring program, limited data was available on stormwater in the watershed. Since its establishment, the monitoring program has formed a foundation for CRWD initiatives, programs, and standards and allows CRWD to characterize the current state of its water resources and identify trends over time. The objectives of the program are to identify water quality problem areas, quantify the subwatershed runoff pollutant loadings to the Mississippi River, evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs, and provide data for the calibration of hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality models. CRWD collects water quality and continuous flow data from major subwatersheds, stormwater ponds, lakes, and stormwater BMPs. There are a total of sixteen major subwatersheds in CRWD and monitoring is currently conducted in six subwatersheds (Figure 2). The six subwatersheds that are monitored include:

Como East Kittsondale

McCarrons Phalen Creek

St. Anthony Park Trout Brook

The CRWD 2011 Monitoring Report presents information on CRWD’s water quality monitoring program including methods and water quality and flow monitoring results for subwatersheds, stormwater ponds, and lakes throughout CRWD. Major subwatershed outlet sites include four that outlet directly to the Mississippi River and five minor subwatershed outlet sites within the Como, McCarrons, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Subwatersheds. Results and analysis of CRWD wetlands and stormwater BMPs are discussed in separate reports. An assessment of CRWD wetlands may be found in the 2008 CRWD Wetland Assessment Report (CRWD, 2009). A complete assessment of the effectiveness of stormwater BMPs within CRWD is presented in the BMP Performance and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CRWD, 2012).


Figure 1. Capitol Region Watershed District.


3 Stormwater Monitoring 3a Monitoring Locations In 2011, CRWD collected water quality and quantity data at seventeen monitoring sites in the District: ten full water quality stations, two flow-only stations, and five level logger sites (Figure 2). Also, six precipitation gauges collected rainfall data across the watershed. At each full water quality station, both water quality and quantity data was collected. The ten full water quality stations were located at:

1) Upper watershed of the St. Anthony Park subwatershed as it drains through the Sarita Wetland (Sarita)

2) St. Anthony Park subwatershed (St. Anthony Park) 3) East Kittsondale subwatershed (East Kittsondale) 4) Phalen Creek subwatershed (Phalen Creek) 5) Como 7 subwatershed, Como 7 monitoring site 6) Como 7 subwatershed, Golf Course Pond Outlet monitoring site 7) East Branch of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (Trout Brook – East Branch) 8) West Branch of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (Trout Brook – West Branch) 9) Outlet of the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (Trout Brook Outlet) 10) Villa Park Wetland outlet, located in the lower western watershed of the Lake McCarrons

subwatershed (Villa Park Outlet) (Figure 1)

Four of the full water quality stations (2, 3, 4, and 8) are positioned at or near the outlets of subwatersheds which drain directly to the Mississippi River. The remaining six full water quality stations are minor subwatersheds located within the Como, Lake McCarrons, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook subwatersheds. Two stations are operated at the outlets of Como Lake and Lake McCarrons to determine the amount of discharge from the lakes into the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor. A station is also operated at the emergency overflow structure for the Villa Park Wetland. Monitoring stations are also operated at four storm ponds in the Trout Brook subwatershed and the data is used to calibrate and update models for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor. The storm ponds monitored are Arlington-Jackson, Sims-Agate, Westminster-Mississippi, and Willow Reserve (Figure 2). Six precipitation gauges are located throughout the watershed. They are located at Highland Park, the CRWD office location, the Villa Park Outlet monitoring site, Saint Paul Fire Station No. 1, the Trout Brook - East Branch monitoring site, and the Westminster-Mississippi stormwater pond (Figure 2). CRWD also obtains precipitation data reported by the Minnesota Climatology Research Group (University of Minnesota- St. Paul) and by the National Weather Service (NWS).


Figure 2. Mississippi River Reference Site and 2011 CRWD Monitoring Sites.


3b Monitoring and Analysis Methods Data Collection Methods Full water quality stations consisted of an area-velocity sensor and an automated water sampler. The area-velocity sensors are secured to the base and center of the pipe or channel and connected to the automated water sampler housed above ground. Area-velocity sensors measured and recorded water depth and velocity every 10 minutes. This data was used to calculate discharge or flow at the site. When the flow of water reached a specified depth or velocity, the sampler engaged to collect water samples. A sample was collected after a specified volume of water passed through the site in order to collect samples over the entire hydrograph. This provides a better representation of stormwater quality throughout the entirety of a storm or base flow event rather than taking a single grab sample. These individual samples are combined and mixed to produce a single composite sample. . Two different sampler sizes were used: a compact sampler and a full-size sampler. A compact sampler can collect up to 48- 200 milliliter (mL) discrete samples, and a full-size sampler can take 96- 200 mL discrete samples. Water quality samples were collected during storm events at the ten full water quality sites. With the exception of the Sarita site, monitoring stations have constant baseflow or other flow during dry weather periods. Composite samples of this dry weather flow were also taken at these sites twice a month from April through October. During the winter, monthly grab samples were taken at all of the full water quality sites except for the Como 7 and Sarita sites. Bacteria grab samples for Escherichia coli (E. coli) were taken at all sites during storm events depending on the time of day and precipitation amount. At the eight sites with baseflow, bacteria base grab samples were collected twice a month during dry weather from April through October and monthly during the winter. Bacteria grab samples for E. coli were collected directly into sterilized containers during storm events and baseflow periods and delivered immediately due to the short holding time. If the lab analysis occurred after the holding time of a given chemical parameter had expired, that chemical parameter was not analyzed. After sample collection, water quality samples were delivered to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Laboratory for analysis. The chemical parameters, method of analysis, and holding times are listed in Table 2. Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD) was also analyzed in water quality samples collected at the four major subwatershed outlet sites (East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Outlet) during storm events and baseflow periods. The stations positioned at the outlets of Como Lake and Lake McCarrons use two different methods to collect and determine discharge data. At the Como Lake outlet, flow is regulated by a wooden weir in a manhole. A level sensor is placed on the upstream side of the weir and when the level recorded exceeds the distance between the sensor and the weir, it indicates that the structure is experiencing outflow. The volume was then calculated based on the dimensions of the weir (area) and the periods of recorded outflow (velocity). At the Lake McCarrons outlet, an area-velocity sensor connected to a data logger


collects and records water depth and velocity every ten minutes. This data was used to calculate discharge at the site. Level logger stations were operated at four storm ponds within the Trout Brook subwatershed (Figure 2, Table 1). The data collected at these sites is used to track pond level in relationship to precipitation. Also, the data is used to calibrate the hydrologic and hydraulic model for the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor. A pressure transducer is secured at a known depth in the pond and connected to a data logger which continuously recorded stage every ten minutes. The logger locations were surveyed relative to a known benchmark, which allowed the stage data to be converted to true elevation. Precipitation was measured using automatic and manual rain gauges (Figure 2, Table 1). The Highland Park, Trout Brook - East Branch, and Saint Paul Fire Station No. 1 precipitation monitoring sites used automatic tipping bucket rain gauges which record precipitation amounts continuously during storm events. Manual rain gauges were used at the CRWD office, Villa Park, and Westminster-Mississippi locations. The manual rain gauge at the CRWD office was checked and emptied daily. Manual rain gauges at the Villa Park and Westminster-Mississippi sites were checked and emptied after every storm event. Also, precipitation data recorded every 15 minutes by the Minnesota Climatology Research Group was utilized to determine daily, monthly, and annual rainfall amounts. The precipitation gauge used by the Minnesota Climatology Research Group is located on the University of Minnesota- St. Paul campus, so it is centrally located within CRWD.


Table 1. Sites Monitored in 2011. Site Name Description TypeComo 7 Storm Sewer Full Water QualityComo Park Regional Pond Storm Sewer Full Water QualityEast Kittsondale Storm Sewer Full Water QualityPhalen Creek Storm Sewer Full Water QualitySarita Storm Sewer Full Water QualitySt. Anthony Park Storm Sewer Full Water QualityTrout Brook - East Branch Storm Sewer Full Water QualityTrout Brook - West Branch Storm Sewer Full Water QualityTrout Brook Outlet Storm Sewer Full Water QualityVilla Park Wetland Full Water QualityComo Outlet Lake Outlet Continuous LevelMcCarrons Outlet Lake Outlet Continuous FlowArlington-Jackson Storm Pond Continuous LevelSims-Agate Storm Pond Continuous LevelWestminster-Mississippi Storm Pond Continuous LevelWillow Reserve Storm Pond Continuous LevelVilla Park Overflow Wetland Continuous LevelHighland Park Precipitation Automatic GaugeSt. Paul Fire Station Precipitation Automatic GaugeTrout Brook - East Branch Precipitation Automatic GaugeCRWD Office Precipitation Manual GaugeVilla Park Precipitation Manual GaugeWestminster-Mississippi Precipitation Manual Gauge


Table 2. Analysis Method, Reporting Limit, and Holding Times for Water Chemistry Parameters Analyzed by MCES Laboratory for 2011.

Parameter Abbreviation MCES Method Reference MethodReporting

Limit UnitsHolding

TimeOrtho-Phosphate Ortho-P ORTHO_P_1 SM 4500-P E 0.01 mg/L 48 hoursChloride Cl CHLORIDE_AA_1 SM 4500-Cl E 2.00 mg/L 28 days Cadmium Cd MET-MSV EPA 200.8 0.50 µg/L 6 monthsChromium Cr MET-MSV EPA 200.8 0.16 µg/L 6 monthsCopper Cu MET-MSV EPA 200.8 0.60 µg/L 6 monthsLead Pb MET-MSV EPA 200.8 0.50 µg/L 6 monthsNickel Ni MET-MSV EPA 200.8 0.60 µg/L 6 monthsZinc Zn MET-MSV EPA 200.8 1.60 µg/L 6 monthsAmmonia NH3 NH3N-AV EPA 350.1 0.06 mg/L 28 days

Total Kjeldahl Nitogen TKN NUT-AV EPA 351.2 0.10 mg/L 28 daysTotal Phosphorus TP NUT-AV EPA 365.4 0.05 mg/L 28 daysNitrate NO2 N_N-AV SM 4500-NO3- H-00 Online Edition 0.05 mg/L 28 daysNitrite NO3 N_N-AV SM 4500-NO3- H-00 Online Edition 0.03 mg/L 28 days

Total Dissolved Solids TDS TDS-180 SM 2540 C 10.00 mg/L 7 daysTotal Suspended Solids TSS TSSVSS-GF SM 2540D 1.00 mg/L 7 daysVolatile Suspended Solids VSS TSSVSS-GF SM 2540 E 1.00 mg/L 7 daysHardness Hardness HARD-HL SM 2340 C 5.00 mg/L 14 daysFluoride Fl FL-ICV EPA 300.0 0.15 mg/L 28 daysPotassium K K-MSV EPA 200.8 Rev 5.4 1.00 mg/L 180 daysSulfate SO4 SO4-ICV EPA 300.0 0.50 mg/L 28 days

Surfactants Surfactants MBAS SM 5540 C 0.10 mg/L 48 hoursEscherichia coli E. coli ECOLI-MPNT Coliert-18 Quanti-Tray/2000 method 1.00 MPN/100 mL 6 hoursBiochemical Oxygen Demand cBOD BOD5C SM 5210B-01 1.00 mg/L 48 hoursEPA: Environmental Protection Agency

MCES: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services

SM: Standard Methods Monitoring Data Quality Assurance Seven of the full water quality sites (St. Anthony Park, East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, Trout Brook – East Branch, Trout Brook – West Branch, and Trout Brook Outlet) were monitored from January through December in 2011. All other full water quality, flow logger, level logger, and precipitation monitoring sites were generally operational from April through November in 2011. On average, the full water quality sites collected data for 305 days in 2011. CRWD achieved a monitoring efficiency of 98% at the full water quality sites in 2011, meaning that 98% of all potential data was collected during the monitoring season (Appendix C). Missing data accounted for the remaining 2% and is due to equipment failure, power failure, flooding, and vandalism. Monitoring at other sites such as continuous level sites was 100% efficient. After the 2011 monitoring season was completed, flow data was quality checked and “cleaned” by removing bad data points (points with missing data or negative values) and interpolating their values between good data points. If there were extended periods of missing data in which there were no storm events, the level and remaining good velocity data were graphed and a regression line was calculated. The equation for the regression line was used to determine velocity for those periods of missing data. If this was not possible or there were storm events during this time, the data was left as missing.


The 2011 water quality sample data reported by the MCES lab was also rigorously checked for quality. The reported sample times and dates were compared with field notes as well as the lab chain of custody forms. Also, any abnormally high or low sample values were denoted and cross-checked with field notes to ensure the parameter value was commensurate with the conditions of the day in which the sample was taken. Total Discharge and Pollutant Load Calculations For all full water quality monitoring sites, total discharge, TP, and TSS loads were calculated from stage, flow, and water quality data. Discharge and pollutant loads were calculated for each base, storm, snowmelt, and illicit discharge event at every site as well as total discharge and loads for the entire monitoring season (less the extreme outlier values). The majority of the monitoring season totals do not reflect total annual discharges and loads because additional flow and pollutant loading does occur during unmonitored months. At some locations, monitoring equipment cannot be operated during the winter months because equipment failure or damage can occur from freezing temperatures and ice formation. Total discharge and pollutant loads for the Como 7 Subwatershed includes data from the Como 7 monitoring site as well as the outlet for the Como Park Regional Pond. Outflow from the pond discharges into the storm sewer just downstream of the Como 7 monitoring site. Analysis of the combined Como 7 and Como Park Regional Pond Outlet site data was done in accordance with all other full water quality monitoring sites. Total discharge and pollutant loads for Villa Park also includes any discharge flowing through an emergency overflow near the outlet of the wetland system. Total Flow and Pollutant Load Calculations Total discharge for each event was calculated using Isco Flowlink® (Version 5.1) software. To begin calculating discharge, the time interval was initially determined for each event. Next, discharge for every 10 minute time interval across the event was summed to produce a single total discharge for that particular event. Total TP and TSS loads were calculated for each interval using the following equation:

Pollutant Load (lbs) = (Interval Q) * (Pollutant EMC (mg/L)) *

28.316 (L/cf) * 1 (lb) / 453,592 (mg)

Where Q = discharge (cf) EMC = Event Mean Concentration (mg/L)

Total discharge and pollutant load subtotals were calculated for each event type (i.e. base, storm, snowmelt, and illicit discharge) for the entire monitoring season. Event discharge and TP and TSS loads for each event type were summed to produce total discharge and pollutant loads for the entire monitoring season.


Flow Weighted Average (FWA) Concentration Calculations TP and TSS event concentrations were used to calculate TP and TSS loads for the corresponding sampled event interval. For those event intervals in which samples were not collected, an average concentration for TP or TSS was applied (less the extreme outlier values). The average concentration is the average of all samples collected, unless otherwise noted in the lab tables for each monitoring site, for a given event type (i.e. base, storm, snowmelt, or illicit discharge) for the entire monitoring season. Flow weighted averages (FWA) for TP and TSS were also calculated for each flow type for the entire monitoring season (i.e. storm flow-weighted average TP/TSS concentration) as well as for all interval types for the entire monitoring season (total flow weighted average). FWA concentrations take into account the differences between base and stormflow, as pollutant concentrations tend to be higher during storm events. However, storm events generally account for less of the total discharge. FWA concentrations for TP and TSS for each flow type were calculated using the following equation:

Flow Type (Base, Storm, Illicit Discharge) FWA TP or TSS (mg/L) = (Interval TP or TSS Load (lbs) * 453,592 (mg/lb)) / (Interval Discharge (cf) * 28.32 (L/cf))

Total FWAs for TP and TSS for the entire monitoring season were calculated using the following equation:

FWA TP or TSS (mg/L) =

(Total TP or TSS Load (lbs) * 453,592 (mg/lb)) / (Total Discharge (cf) */ 28.32 (L/cf))

Pollutant Yield and Normalized Pollutant Yield Calculations To make useful and valid comparisons of stormwater monitoring data between 2011 full water quality data and previous monitoring years, the data was normalized to eliminate the influence of subwatershed size and annual precipitation. Annual yields for total discharge and total TP and TSS loads for each full water quality monitoring site were calculated. This allows for site-by-site comparisons of the monitoring data by removing the influence of drainage area. Water yields were calculated using the following equation:

Water Yield (cf/ac) = Total Discharge (cf) / Subwatershed Area (ac)

Pollutant yields for TP and TSS were calculated using the following equation:

TP or TSS Yield (lbs/ac) = Total TP or TSS Load (lbs) / Subwatershed Area (ac)

The total TP and TSS load data was also normalized to account for temporal and spatial differences in precipitation. By removing the influence of year-to-year variation in precipitation, trends of pollutants loads are more easily recognizable. Normalized pollutant yields were calculated in two steps. First,


total runoff (in inches) was calculated for each full water quality monitoring site. The amount of runoff was calculated using the following equation:

Runoff (in) = (Water Yield (cf/ac) / (1 ac / 43,560 ft²)) * (12 in / 1 ft) Next the normalized TP and TSS yield was calculated. Normalized TP and TSS yields were calculated using the following equation:

Normalized TP or TSS Yield (lbs/ac/in) = (Total TP or TSS Load (lbs) / Subwatershed Area (ac)) / Runoff (in)

Federal and State Surface Water Quality Standards Comparison There are no federal or state water quality standards for stormwater. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have established surface water quality standards for only certain water quality parameters. Regardless, since CRWD’s stormwater flows into the Mississippi River, it is useful to compare the stormwater data to surface water quality standards, which serve as a benchmark to consider for each pollutant (Table 3). TP and TSS Standards Because the MPCA has not established stream standards for TSS and TP, the data was compared to the average TP and TSS values in minimally impacted streams in the North Central Hardwoods Forest (NCHF) ecoregion (McCollor and Heiskary, 1993). The standards used are listed in Table 3. When comparing CRWD TP and TSS concentrations to water quality standards, FWA concentrations were used. Chronic Metals Standards State water quality standards for chronic exposure to metals, are based on a function of hardness as outlined in Minnesota Rule 7050.0222 for Class 2B waters. Class 2B waters are waters used for the purpose of aquatic life and recreation that are not protected for drinking water. These standards are set at the lowest concentration of a chemical for which chronic exposure will cause harm to aquatic organisms. In order to make comparisons between CRWD metals data to state standards and other reference locations, calculation of the state standards was completed. Bacteria Standard For E. coli bacteria, the following standard applies: no less than five samples taken during one of those months shall exceed a geometric mean of 126 cfu/100mL; no more than ten percent of all samples taken during one of those calendar months shall exceed 1,260 cfu/100mL. The E. coli bacteria standard only applies during the months of April through November. Because CRWD collects a limited number of samples each month (one or two samples) and typically cannot meet the full monitoring requirements of the E. coli standard, CRWD compares individual E. coli


monitoring results to the maximum value of the standard, 1,260 cfu/100mL. This comparison provides a benchmark only for comparing CRWD bacteria data and does not imply whether or not the full bacteria standard is being met. The MCES lab measures E. coli as the most probable number per 100 milliliters of water (mpn/100mL). Research shows that mpn/100mL is comparable to cfu/100mL (Massa et al., 2001). Table 3. Surface Water Quality Standards.

Parameter AgencyWater Body Use/Exposure Standard Units

Cl MPCA, 2011 Surface aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd 230 mg/L

Cd MPCA, 2011 Surface aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd NAe mg/L

Cr MPCA, 2011 Surface aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd NAe mg/L

Cu MPCA, 2011 Surface aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd NAe mg/L

E. coli MPCA, 2011 Surface aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd 1,260f MPN/100 mL

NH3 MPCA, 2011 Surface aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd 0.04gmg/L

Ni MPCA, 2010 Surface aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd NAe mg/L

Pb MPCA, 2010 Surface aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd NAe mg/L

TP MPCA, 1993a Stream aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd 0.13b mg/L

TSS MPCA, 1993a Stream aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd 14b mg/L

Zn MPCA, 2010 Surface aquatic life & recreationc/chronicd NAemg/L

g. The standard

e. The standard is a dependent on water hardness; See Table 41, in Appendix B for the calculated standards.

f. Maximum value standard.

b. NCHF ecoregion averages from minimally impacted streams (McCollor and Heiskary, 1993).

a. MPCA document authored by McCollor and Heiskary (1993).

c. Applies to Class 2B waters.

d. Concentrations apply to chronic exposure.

Mississippi River Reference Site and Twin Cities Metro-Area Tributaries Comparisons In addition to comparing CRWD results to state surface water quality standards, CRWD total TP and TSS FWA concentrations were compared to the average TP and TSS concentrations of the Mississippi River at Lambert’s Landing (Figure 2). MCES monitors the Mississippi River at Lambert’s Landing, river mile 839.1, which is downstream from the Wabasha Street Bridge in St. Paul. MCES also monitors the mouths of several tributaries, including: Bassett Creek, Battle Creek, Fish Creek and Minnehaha Creeks. These are all open channels that discharge to the Mississippi River. Total TP and TSS yields for CRWD subwatershed outlet sites (East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Outlet) were compared to the yields of these other metro-area tributaries to determine the relative impacts to the Mississippi River. CRWD yields are conservative estimates


since monitoring is not always conducted for the full year at each site; whereas, MCES monitors the creek outlets for the entire year.


National Urban Stormwater Quality Comparisons Researchers from the University of Alabama and the Center for Watershed Protection have created an extensive database of stormwater data from urbanized areas by assembling and evaluating stormwater monitoring data from a representative number of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) Phase I stormwater permit holders. The goals of the National Stormwater Quality Database (NSQD) are to describe the characteristics of national stormwater quality, to provide guidance for future sampling needs, and to enhance local stormwater management activities in areas having limited data. Over nearly a ten-year period, stormwater quality data from 3,765 storm events and 65 municipalities in 17 states including Minnesota were assembled and entered into the first version of the NSQD (Center for Watershed Protection, Maestre, and Pitt, 2005). The NSQD, Version 1.1 was extensively reviewed for quality assurance and control, and statistical analyses were performed to characterize and understand the pollutant data. Although the NSQD, Version 1.1 includes only a small set of data from the Midwest and northeast portions of the country, which have similar climatic conditions, it still provides a useful comparison of how clean or polluted stormwater in CRWD is compared to the rest of the country. The database includes stormwater quality data for various land use types including commercial, freeway, industrial, open space, residential, and several categories of mixed uses. Forty two percent of the land in CRWD is comprised of impervious surfaces with the predominant land uses of mixed residential, commercial, and industrial. CRWD’s stormwater quality data was compared to the NSQD’s mixed residential land use category, which has a median impervious percentage of 45%. The table below presents the NSQD median data values for the mixed residential land use category. Table 4. NSQD Stormwater Median Values.

ParameterMedian Value

Area (acres) 150.8% Impervious 44.9Precipitation Depth (in.) 0.53

Escherichia coli (mpn/100mL) 1,050Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 66Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 0.28Ammonia (mg/L) 0.39Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 0.57Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 1.40Cadmium (mg/L) 0.0009Chromium (mg/L) 0.0070Copper (mg/L) 0.0160Lead (mg/L) 0.0160Nickel (mg/L) 0.0078Zinc (mg/L) 0.0950


3c Climatological Summary CRWD utilizes climatological data collected by the Minnesota Climatology Research Group (University of Minnesota- St. Paul) and by the National Weather Service (NWS) to assist with calculating annual precipitation, annual runoff, and annual loading. The Minnesota Climatology Research Group records precipitation every fifteen minutes from an automatic rain gauge located on the University of Minnesota-St. Paul Campus (UMN). This rain gauge is located approximately two miles west of the CRWD office. The data is reported on a public website (http://climate.umn.edu/). The 15-minute precipitation data was used to calculate hourly precipitation totals, monthly precipitation totals, and annual precipitation totals. Table 5 lists the annual precipitation totals for 2005 through 2011. Additionally, CRWD obtains daily precipitation totals from by a NWS weather station located at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Data was retrieved weekly from a public website (http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=mpx). This weather station is located approximately ten miles south of the CRWD office. The 2005 to 2011 climate data was compared to the NWS 30-year normal values (Table 5). In previous reports, the NWS 30-year normal precipitation value (1971-2000) was 29.41 inches. Due to higher than normal precipitation in recent years, the NWS 30-year normal precipitation value for 1981-2010 was increased to 30.61 inches in 2011. Table 5 lists the annual precipitation departures from the 30-year normal values for the Minneapolis-St. Paul region. Figure 3 graphically compares the 30-year normal precipitation value to annual precipitation totals recorded by UMN for 2005 to 2011. The total precipitation amount for 2011 was 33.62 inches. The majority of the precipitation occurred during the spring and summer months of 2011 with July being the wettest month. There was an extended dry period starting in late August 2011 through December 2011. While the fall was exceptionally dry with few precipitation events, the total -annual precipitation was still greater than the NWS 30-year normal for 1981-2010 by 3.01 inches. Figure 4 shows a graph of monthly precipitation totals in 2011.


Table 5. The 2005 to 2011 annual precipitation totals as compared to the NWS 30-year normal.

Figure 3. Annual precipitation totals (2005-2011) as compared to the NWS 30-year normal.

Year

Precipitation

(inches)a

Departure from

NWS Normal

2005 35.98 (+) 5.37"

2006 31.69 (+) 1.08"

2007 29.72 (‐) 0.89"

2008 21.67 (‐) 8.94"

2009 23.34 (‐) 7.27"

2010 36.32 (+) 5.71"

2011 33.62 (+) 3.01"

NWS 30‐Year Normal

(1981‐2010) 30.61a Annual precipitation reported by the Minnesota Climatology Research Group (UMN)

35.98

31.6929.72

21.6723.34

36.3233.62

30.61

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Precipitation (inches)

Precipitation (inches) NWS 30‐Year Normal (1981‐2010)


Figure 4. Monthly precipitation totals for 2011 in CRWD.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC

Precipitation (inches)

2011 Monthly Precipitation Totals


3d Summary of Results The 2011 precipitation total measured in Capitol Region Watershed District was above-average in 2011, based on 30-year normal averages (NWS, 2012). The months of July and August had the most rain where January and November were the driest of months in 2011 (Figure 4). Total measured rainfall amounts were similar among all of the sites and were higher for sites monitored throughout the year (Table 6). In general, CRWD stormwater monitoring sites had greater flow (Figure 5) and less total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) loads (Figures 8 and 9) than most other years. This can be attributed to a year-long period at many sites and lower average concentrations. The highest total TP and TSS loads were generated from the Trout Brook Outlet and Trout Brook – West Branch subwatersheds with Phalen Creek and East Kittsondale having the second and third highest pollutant loads (Table 8). Trout Brook-West Branch generated the highest TP yield (lbs/ac), and had the second highest TSS yield behind the Phalen Creek subwatershed. Of the four major subwatershed outlet sites, the normalized pollutant yields (lbs/ac/in runoff) for both TP and TSS were highest at East Kittsondale. Compared to the Mississippi River at Lamberts Landing, CRWD sites were generally more concentrated in pollutants (Table 9). CRWD sites also exceeded several water quality standards for other nutrients and metals during both dry and wet weather (Table 10). Compared to other metro-area tributaries, CRWD sites generally produced more pollutants per acre (Figures 18 and 19). Bacteria concentrations exceeded the maximum standard at all sites during stormflow (Table 12). Water Quantity Trout Brook Outlet and Trout Brook - West Branch subwatersheds once again exported the greatest volumes of water during the 2011 monitoring season with 533 million and 329 million cubic feet (cf), respectively (Figure 5; Table 8). The minor subwatershed sites (Como 7, Sarita, and Villa Park) exported the least amount of water because their drainage areas are only a portion of the major subwatershed in which they reside (Table 8). For the East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, Saint Anthony Park, Trout Brook – East Branch, Trout Brook-West Branch, and Trout Brook Outlet, baseflow accounted for more than 50% of the total discharge (Figure 6). Stormflow comprised a majority of total discharge from the Como 7, Sarita, and Villa Park subwatersheds (Figure 6). Total water yield was highest at Trout Brook – West Branch (138,163 cf/ac) (Figure 7). Although the total discharge at Trout Brook Outlet was higher than that of Trout Brook - West Branch and Phalen Creek, its water yield was the third highest (Figure 7). The lowest yields were generated from the Sarita and Villa Park, which are among the smallest subwatersheds that have relatively smaller total areas of impervious surfaces.


Table 6. CRWD Monitoring Season Rainfall Amounts.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

East Kittsondale 29.05 24.67 24.25 18.89 20.95 35.61 33.62

Phalen Creek 29.28 24.13 13.96 17.73 20.34 36.32 33.62

St. Anthony Park 28.27 24.13 23.99 9.95 18.72 26.84 29.24

Trout Brook-East Branch 23.87 23.92 17.91 20.63 36.27 33.43

Trout Brook-West Branch 28.78 24.67 24.25 18.99 20.63 36.32 33.62

Trout Brook Outlet 29.28 24.67 24.23 15.54 20.95 36.32 24.53

Como 7 28.96 24.16 17.40 18.82 30.92 28.90

Sarita 18.19 23.19 17.64 18.72 30.62 28.90

Villa Park 24.66 24.16 19.45 19.11 31.32 28.90

SiteRainfall (inches)

Table 7. CRWD Total Monitoring Days.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

East Kittsondale 200 210 225 218 277 365 365

Phalen Creek 197 194 134 210 262 365 365

St. Anthony Park 191 192 215 126 218 230 269

Trout Brook-East Branch 191 217 212 273 365 349

Trout Brook-West Branch 191 212 228 220 273 365 365

Trout Brook Outlet 198 211 226 198 277 365 344

Como 7 195 222 209 217 209 205

Sarita 159 227 203 213 205 203

Villa Park 204 228 223 220 212 211

Monitoring DaysSite


0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

EastKittsondale

Phalen Creek St. AnthonyPark

Trout Brook-East Branch

Trout Brook-West Branch

Trout BrookOutlet

Como 7 Sarita Villa Park

Dis

ch

arg

e (c

f)

Site

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Figure 5. Total Discharge at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2005 – 2011.


0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


Tota

l Dis

ch

arg

e (

cf)

Site

Snowmelt

Illicit Discharge

Storm

Base

Figure 6. Storm and Base Discharge at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2011.


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


Wa

ter

Yie

ld (

cf/

ac

)

Site

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Figure 7. Total Water Yield at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2005-2011.


Total Suspended Solids, Total Phosphorus, and Nutrients Table 8 presents the complete water quality data set for all CRWD monitoring sites. The sites with the highest flow-weighted average (FWA) TSS concentrations in 2011 were East Kittsondale (122 mg/L) and Trout Brook – West Branch (76 mg/L) (Figure 8). The lowest flow-weighted average TSS concentrations in 2011 were measured at Phalen Creek (28 mg/L) and Villa Park (30 mg/L). Since 2005, the flow-weighted average TSS concentrations for all sites exceeded the NCHF ecoregion average TSS concentration (Figure 8). In 2011, East Kittsondale, St. Anthony Park, Trout Brook – West Branch, and Sarita had higher the flow-weighted average concentrations than the Mississippi River at Lamberts Landing (Figure 8). The site with the highest flow-weighted average concentration of TP was Como 7 (0.218 mg/L) (Figure 7). However, the site had relatively low total flow, so the total load was actually low compared to other sites (Figure 9). Trout Brook – East Branch and Trout Brook – West Branch had the next highest flow-weighted average concentrations of TP, both with 0.201 mg/L (Table 8). The sites with the lowest flow-weighted average TP concentrations were Phalen Creek and St. Anthony Park (0.131). Since 2005, CRWD major subwatershed sites have been more highly concentrated in TP than the Mississippi River at Lamberts Landing. In 2011, 2 of the 4 major subwatershed outlet sites, Phalen Creek and St. Anthony Park, had lower FWA TP concentrations than the Mississippi River at Lambert’s Landing. These concentrations also fell below the NCHF ecoregion average for TP in minimally impacted streams. Regardless of whether or not the majority of flow occurred during stormflow, most of the TSS loading occurred during storms (Figure 10). Baseflow includes groundwater, lake and storm pond water, and permitted industrial discharges, which generally have lower TSS. In addition, since velocity, turbulence, and total flows are lower during baseflow, water does not have as much ability to carry solids. Stormwater washes off streets, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces, and contains more TSS. During high flows, sediment is less likely to settle before reaching storm drains. Most of the TP loading in the subwatershed also occurred during storms, although the percentage resulting from stormflow is smaller than for TSS (Figure 11). TP loading generally increases with TSS loading because nutrients adhere to suspended solids, plant debris and soil particles. However, TP also exists in soluble form, which is not attached to particles. Across CRWD, the greatest TSS yield (654 lbs/ac) in 2011 occurred in the Trout Brook – West Branch subwatershed (Figure 12). East Kittsondale and Trout Brook Outlet had the next highest TSS yields, 520 lbs/ac and 295 lbs/ac, respectively. The lowest yields, 31 to 66 lbs/acre, occurred at three sites within a major subwatershed and with the smallest areas, Sarita, Villa Park, and Como 7. Pollutant yields were normalized for the amount of stormwater runoff and expressed as lbs/ac/in runoff. In 2011, the normalized TSS yields were highest at East Kittsondale (28 lb/ac/in runoff), St. Anthony Park (17 lb/ac/in runoff), and Trout Brook – West Branch (17 lb/ac/in runoff) (Figure 13). Normalized TSS yields were generally lower than their historical average. Villa Park had the lowest average TSS concentration of any site in 2011 (21mg/L). The lowest normalized TSS yields of 6 lbs/ac/in runoff was exported from the Phalen Creek subwatershed. Normalized TSS yield (lb/ac/in runoff) for Trout Brook – West Branch was higher than Trout Brook Outlet, indicating that the West Branch of Trout Brook subwatershed was generating more pollutants on a per acre and per inch of runoff basis, which has been the trend historically (Figure 13).


In 2011, the subwatersheds that generated the lowest TP load per acre were Como 7 (0.256 lbs/ac) and Sarita (0.087 lbs/ac). The highest yields were generated in the Trout Brook – West Branch (1.730 lb/ac) and Phalen Creek (1.029 lbs/ac) subwatersheds (Figure 15). Although East Kittsondale produced the highest normalized TSS yield in 2011, its normalized TP yield (0.041 lbs/ac/in runoff), was moderate when compared to other sites. Sites with smaller drainage areas have comparable normalized yields to the larger subwatershed sites because their flow-weighted average concentrations were higher and were dominated greatly by stormflow. Compared to the yields of four other metro-area tributaries, three of four CRWD’s major subwatershed outlet sites, East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek and Trout Brook , produced more TP per acre (Figure 19). The Saint Anthony Park subwatershed discharged less TP than the metro-area tributaries except Minnehaha Creek. While the values for the four major subwatershed sites generally exceeded that of the metro-area tributaries, the TSS per acre yields for Phalen Creek and St. Anthony Park fell below that of Battle Creek. It should be noted that entire CRWD is urbanized, with water flowing in pipes, whereas many of the other tributaries’ watersheds are partly undeveloped and water flows in natural channels. Storm sewers operate differently than natural streams. When water velocity decreases, sediments settle out of the water column. In natural streams, this occurs when the stream meanders, flows through a vegetated area, gets wider, or reaches a relatively flat stretch. Storm sewers are designed to maintain velocity in the pipe; pipes have a set diameter, do not meander, and can change elevation quickly. In natural streams, nutrients are taken up by vegetation and algae, but there is no vegetation in storm sewers. As a result, most of the sediment and nutrients washed into storm sewers remain in the water column until the pipe reaches a body of water. Sediments and nutrients from streets and sidewalks are washed directly into the storm sewer and carried to the river. Average concentrations from East Kittsondale exceeded Lambert’s Landing concentrations and ecoregion averages or agency standards for TP, TSS, lead, and chloride. (Table 9). Average concentrations from Phalen Creek exceeded Lambert’s Landing concentrations and ecoregion averages or agency standards for TP and lead. Average concentrations from St. Anthony Park exceeded Lambert’s Landing concentrations and ecoregion averages or agency standards for TP and TSS. Average concentrations from Trout Brook Outlet did not exceed both the Lambert’s Landing concentrations and ecoregion averages or agency standards for any parameter. Ammonia, nitrite, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and chloride concentrations at all four major subwatershed outlets exceeded just the concentrations at Lambert’s Landing.


Table 8. 2011 Monitoring Results Summary.

East Kittsondale Phalen Creek

St. Anthony Park



Trout Brook Outlet Como 7 Sarita Villa Park

Subwatershed Area (acres) 1,116 1,433 3,418 932 2,379 5,028 793 929 753

Total Rainfall (inches) 33.62 33.62 29.24 33.43 33.62 24.53 28.90 28.90 28.90

Number of Monitoring Days 365 365 269 349 365 344 205 203 211

Number of Storm Sampling Events 13 6 7 11 11 6 6 6 10

Number of Storm Intervals 34 29 17 32 27 20 37 28 23

Number of Snowmelt Sampling Events - 6 - 9 6 3 - - -

Number of Snowmelt Intervals - 8 - 10 13 6 - - -

Number of Base Sampling Events 18 21 19 18 19 14 0 0 13

Number of Baseflow Intervals 34 43 28 35 33 23 0 0 19

Total Discharge (Cubic Feet) 76,282,660 179,835,227 115,056,718 43,363,061 328,689,637 533,045,947 14,918,644 6,490,307 15,879,438

Storm Flow Subtotal (Cubic Feet) 36,668,961 38,703,641 26,484,149 19,264,104 135,021,212 126,247,447 14,746,403 6,490,307 12,382,914

Illicit Discharge Subtotal (Cubic Feet) 0 0 0 0 0 0 172,241 0 0

Snowmelt Subtotal 0 9,361,953 0 2,405,051 15,136,168 69,637,200 0 0 0

Baseflow Subtotal (Cubic Feet) 39,613,699 131,769,633 88,572,569 21,693,906 178,532,258 337,161,300 0 0 3,496,524

Water Yield (cf/ac) 68,354 125,496 33,662 46,527 138,163 106,016 18,813 6,986 21,088

Storm Water Yield (cf/ac) 32,857 27,009 25,914 20,670 56,755 25,109 18,813 6,986 16,445

Snowmelt Water Yield (cf/ac) 0 6,533 0 2,581 6,362 13,850 0 0 0

Baseflow Water Yield (cf/ac) 35,496 91,954 7,748 23,277 75,045 67,057 0 0 4,643

Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 117 34 89 37 70 47 165 53 21

Total FWA TSS (mg/L) 122 28 73 46 76 45 56 70 30

Storm FWA TSS (mg/L) 243 92 214 79 154 129 56 70 35

Base FWA TSS (mg/L) 10 8 31 16 17 13 0 0 12

Total TSS Load (lbs) 580,026 316,563 524,922 124,707 1,555,358 1,484,552 51,943 28,530 29,837

Storm TSS Load (lbs) 555,801 221,169 353,893 94,989 1,298,980 1,013,270 51,921 28,530 27,241

Snowmelt TSS Load (lbs) 0 30,974 0 8,365 68,730 187,628 0 0 0

Baseflow TSS Load (lbs) 24,225 64,419 171,030 21,353 187,648 283,654 0 0 2,596

Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 520 221 154 134 654 295 66 31 40

Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 28 6 17 10 17 10 13 16 7

Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.166 0.161 0.190 0.196 0.201 0.151 0.303 0.173 0.205

Total FWA TP (mg/L) 0.186 0.131 0.131 0.201 0.201 0.145 0.218 0.200 0.197

Storm FWA TP (mg/L) 0.316 0.276 0.261 0.314 0.341 0.300 0.220 0.200 0.187

Illicit Discharge FWA TP (mg/L) 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0 0

Base FWA TP (mg/L) 0.066 0.079 0.093 0.101 0.088 0.072 0 0 0.232

Total TP Load (lbs) 886 1,474 944 544 4,116 4,831 203.4 81 195

Storm TP Load (lbs) 724 667 431 378 2,878 2,366 202.8 81 145

Snowmelt TP Load (lbs) 0 157 0 30 255 959 0.6 0 0

Base TP Load (lbs) 162 650 513 136 983 1,505 0 0 51

Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.766 1.029 0.276 0.584 1.730 0.961 0.256 0.087 0.259Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.041 0.030 0.030 0.046 0.045 0.033 0.049 0.045 0.045NA= Not available, these sites were not monitored or sampled for Illicit Dischargesa. Como 7 values represent total amounts exported from the subwatershed, and include combined data from the Como 7 and Golf Course Pond monitoring sites.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


Flo

w-W

eig

hte

d T

SS

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg

/L)

Site

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

a. Average TSS concentration in minimally impacted streams in the North Central Hardwoods Forest ecoregion (McCollor & Heiskary, 1993).b. Average TSS concentration at Lamberts Landing, 2010 (source: Metropolitan Council).

NCHFa Monitoring YearLamberts Landingb

Figure 8. Flow-Weighted Average TSS Concentrations at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2005-2011.


0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


Flo

w-W

eig

hte

d T

P C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/L

)

Site

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

NCHFa Monitoring YearLamberts Landingb

a. Average TP concentration in minimally impacted streams in the North Central Hardwoods Forest ecoregion (McCollor & Heiskary, 1993).b. Average TP concentration at Lamberts Landing, 2010 (source: Metropolitan Council).

Figure 9. Flow-Weighted Average TP Concentrations at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2005-2011.


0

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,600,000

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


TS

S L

oa

d (

lbs

)

Site

Snowmelt

Storm

Base

Figure 10. Storm and Base TSS Loads at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2011.


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


TP

Lo

ad

(lb

s)

Site

Snowmelt

Storm

Base

Figure 11. Storm and Base TP Loads at CRWD Monitoring Sites, 2011.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


TS

S Y

ield

(lb

/ac)

Site

Historical (2005-2010) 2011

Figure 12. TSS Yields at CRWD Monitoring Sites.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


TS

S Y

ield

(lb

/ac/

in r

un

off

)

Site

Historical (2005-2010) 2011

Figure 13. Normalized TSS Yields at CRWD Monitoring Sites.


Figure 14. Normalized TSS Yields Across CRWD Monitored Subwatersheds.


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


TP

Yie

ld (

lb/a

c)

Site

Historical (2005-2010) 2011

Figure 15. TP Yields at CRWD Monitoring Sites.


0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

EastKittsondale




Trout BrookOutlet


TP

Yie

ld (

lb/a

c/in

ru

no

ff)

Site

Historical (2005-2010) 2011

Figure 16. Normalized TP Yields at CRWD Monitoring Sites.


Figure 17. Normalized TP Yields Across CRWD Monitored Subwatersheds.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Basset Battle Fish Minnehaha

TS

S Y

ield

(lb

s/a

c)

Creek

East KittsondalePhalen CreekSt. Anthony ParkTrout Brook Outlet

Note: Non-CRWD data were collected in 2010 (MCES, 2012).

Figure 18. TSS Yields at Metro-Area Tributaries and CRWD Subwatershed Outlets.


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Basset Battle Fish Minnehaha

TP

Yie

ld (

lb/a

c)

Creek

East KittsondalePhalen CreekSt. Anthony ParkTrout Brook Outlet

Note: Non-CRWD data were collected in 2010 (MCES, 2012)

Figure 19. TP Yields at Metro-Area Tributaries and CRWD Subwatershed Outlets.


Table 9. Pollutant Standards and Average Concentrations at CRWD Monitoring Sites and in the Mississippi River. Agency Standards for Pollutants and their Average Concentrations at Monitoring Sites and in the Mississippi River.

Metropolitan Council Site

Standard (mg/L)

Lamberts Landing

East Kittsondale

Phalen Creek

St. Anthony Park

Trout Brook Outlet

TPa

0.13 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.15

TSSa

14 61 117 34 89 47

Ammoniae

0.04 0.05 0.11 0.22 0.17 0.23

TKNc

NA 1.24 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.40

Nitratec

NA 3.14 1.41 1.74 0.85 0.82

Nitritec

NA 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05

Cadmiumd

0.0005 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003

Chromiumd

0.0050 0.0052 0.0046 0.0043 0.0034

Copperd

0.0022 0.0145 0.0095 0.0093 0.0061

Leadd

0.0009 0.0150 0.0073 0.0060 0.0051

Nickeld

0.0045 0.0049 0.0056 0.0103 0.0050

Zincd

0.0050 0.0716 0.0502 0.0480 0.0281

Chlorideb

230 22 328 148 150 174aThere are no numeric standards for TP and TSS. These values are NCHF ecoregion averages from minimally

impacted streams.bChloride standards are from the MPCA.cThere is no nitrate, nitrite, or TKN standard for surface water.d Metals standards are based on measured hardness values. See appendices for metals standards.eAmmonia standard is based on un-ionized ammonia, which varies and is dependent on temperature and pH

All numbers are in mg/L.

Numbers highlighted in yellow exceed/equal Lambert 's Landing concentrations, but not the standard.

Numbers highlighted in red exceed/equal Lambert 's Landing concentrations and the standard.

2011 CRWD Monitoring Sites

Metals The MPCA standards for metals toxicity are a function of water hardness. CRWD calculated metal standards for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc based on measured hardness levels for each site (Appendix B). Average concentrations of metals were calculated for base flow, storm flow, and total yearly flow and compared to the MPCA standards and Lambert’s Landing concentrations (Tables 9 and 10).


According to the MPCA standards, the average storm concentrations of lead at all sites (except Villa Park) exceeded toxicity standards in 2011 (Table 10). The 2011 yearly average concentrations for lead exceeded toxicity standards at East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, Trout Brook-West Branch, Como 7 and Sarita (Table 10). Yearly concentrations of lead also exceeded the Mississippi River concentrations at Lambert’s Landing for East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Outlet (Table 9). The average storm concentrations of copper at all sites (except Trout Brook Outlet and Villa Park) exceeded toxicity standards in 2011. However, the 2011 yearly average concentrations of copper only exceeded the toxicity standard at Como 7 and Sarita (Table 10). Yearly concentrations of copper also exceeded the Mississippi River concentrations at Lambert’s Landing for East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Outlet (Table 9). In addition, average storm concentrations of zinc exceeded the chronic toxicity standard at East Kittsondale, St. Anthony Park, and Como 7 in 2011. The 2011 yearly average concentration of zinc was only exceeded at Como 7 (Table 10). Yearly concentrations of zinc exceeded the Mississippi River concentrations at Lambert’s Landing for East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Outlet (Table 9). For all sites, average concentrations of cadmium, chromium, and nickel for all flow types (base, storm, and yearly) did not exceed the MPCA toxicity standards in 2011 (Table 10). However, yearly concentrations of nickel exceeded the Mississippi River concentrations at Lambert’s Landing for East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Outlet (Table 9). Also, chromium concentrations at East Kittsondale were greater than those reported at Lambert’s Landing (Table 9), but did not exceed the state standard. Chloride Chloride was sampled for at all monitoring sites in 2011. Average chloride concentrations were calculated and compared to the MPCA standards and Lambert’s Landing concentrations (Tables 9). Yearly concentrations of chloride exceeded the Mississippi River concentrations at Lambert’s Landing for East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, St. Anthony Park, and Trout Brook Outlet (Table 9). In addition, yearly chloride concentrations at East Kittsondale exceeded the MPCA toxicity standard (Table 9). In general, all CRWD sites had higher chloride concentrations during spring snowmelt, due to winter road salt application. Bacteria Most individual E. coli bacteria concentrations at the monitoring sites during baseflow were below the E. coli maximum standard of 1,260 cfu/100mL (Table 11). Phalen Creek did not have any baseflow samples that exceeded the standard. All other monitoring sites had one to four samples with bacteria concentrations higher than the maximum standard. Most samples at every site exceeded the maximum standard for bacteria during storm events in 2011 (Table 12). Only 15 samples out of a total of 39 samples at the nine monitoring sites were less than the maximum standard for E. coli bacteria. E. coli concentrations ranged from 307 mpn/100mL to 40,400 mpn/100mL.


Table 10. 2011 Metals Concentrations and exceedances at CRWD Monitoring Sites and in the Mississippi River (mg/L).

Parameter Average

Lambert's Landing

East Kittsondale

Phalen Creek

St. Anthony

Park

Trout Brook -

East Branch

Trout Brook -

West Branch


Base 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002Illicit Discharge 0.0003Storm 0.0003 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0002Yearly 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0002 0.0003






CRWD site concentrations are from 2011; river concentrations are from 2001-2010.

Red-highlighted cells are sites which exceeded the MPCA chronic standard for surface waters.

See appendices for metals standards.

NA: Not available, these sites were not monitored or sampled for Illicit Discharges

Nickel

Zinc

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead


Table 11. 2011 Baseflow Grab E. coli Concentrations at CRWD Monitoring Sites (mpn/100mL).

East Kittsondale

Phalen Creek

St. Anthony Park



Trout Brook Outlet Villa Park

1/5/2011 26 5 35 22 99 NS NS

1/7/2011 NS NS NS NS NS NS 1152/11/2011 51 3 77 36 649 308 NS3/7/2011 7 185 77 166 214 156 1085/2/2011 579 6 12 9 96 86 535/17/2011 1,120 7 48 31 79 70 346/6/2011 199 26 NS 1,300 1,733 980 1186/30/2011 249 42 77 1,120 199 184 6137/13/2011 285 99 55 411 1,414 NS 5798/4/2011 73 148 121 172 214 127 6498/18/2011 186 64 404 326 517 NS 1,5539/6/2011 121 16 17,500 68 387 461 3659/22/2011 308 NS 12,200 199 2,420 NS 4,1009/23/2011 NS 16 NS NS NS 461 NS10/4/2011 816 36 86 NS 866 NS 52410/5/2011 NS NS NS 56 NS NS NS10/20/2011 52 308 142 115 687 NS 46110/31/2011 120 20 50 6 308 148 46111/22/2011 22,600 1,000 131 1,300 2,420 2,000 92112/6/2011 24 2 64 24 579 276 20

NS: No sample collected

Value exceeds MPCA maximum numeric standard (1,260 cfu/100mL).

Site

Sample Date


Table 12. 2011 Stormflow Grab E. coli Concentrations at CRWD Monitoring Sites (mpn/100mL).

East Kittsondale

Phalen Creek

St. Anthony Park



Trout Brook Outlet


3/22/2011 NS 3,100 687 1,120 956 NS 1,414 NS 1,4144/26/2011 461 1,986 614 1,300 1,203 1,414 1,986 307 1,1205/9/2011 816 1,000 1,468 1,046 1,203 1,553 NS NS 1,2036/15/2011 4,100 8,400 5,200 2,420 2,420 4,100 6,300 5,200 1,7337/14/2011 NS 22,800 NS 10,900 21,800 1,300 NS NS NS7/15/2011 12,200 40,400 NS NS NS NS NS NS 41112/14/2011 NS NS 1,203 NS NS NS NS NS NS

NS: No sample collected

Value exceeds MPCA maximum numeric standard (1,260 cfu/100mL).

Sample Date

Site


Summary Comparison of CRWD Stormwater Data and NSQD Data Compared to other urbanized areas in the country, CRWD’s stormwater water quality in 2011 had higher median concentrations for several pollutants including bacteria, TSS, TKN, TP, and metals. Table 13 compares stormwater pollutant median concentrations from CRWD and NSQD. All sites except for St. Anthony Park, Sarita, and Villa Park were higher than the NSQD median concentration of 1,050 mpn/100mL for E. coli. Median stormflow TSS concentrations at six of the nine sites were higher than then NSQD median concentration of 66 mg/L. Trout Brook – East Branch, Sarita and Villa Park, had TSS median concentrations lower than the NSQD median concentration. East Kittsondale and Phalen Creek had higher median concentrations of total phosphorus than the NSQD median concentration of 0.28 mg/L. TP median concentrations in CRWD ranged from 0.152 mg/L to 0.322 mg/L. All sites were below the NSQD median concentrations for ammonia. Median total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, Trout Brook – East Branch, Trout Brook – West Branch, Trout Brook Outlet and Como 7 were greater than the NSQD median concentration. The comparisons between median concentrations for numerous metals in CRWD and the NSQD were varied. All sites with the exception of St. Anthony Park had median nickel concentrations that were lower than the NSQD median concentration. All sites with the exception of Trout Brook – West Branch had median cadmium concentrations that were lower than the NSQD median concentration. Three out of the four major subwatershed sites, East Kittsondale, Phalen, and St. Anthony Park, exceeded the NSQD median concentrations for chromium, copper, and zinc. Two out of the four major subwatershed sites, East Kittsondale, and Phalen Creek exceeded the NSQD median concentrations for lead.


Table 13. CRWD 2011 Stormwater Median Water Quality Data versus NSQD Median Data.

ParametersNSQD - Mixed

Residential

East Kittsondale

Phalen Creek

St. Anthony Park

Trout Brook -

East Branch

Trout Brook - West

Branch

Trout Brook Outlet


Area (acre) 151 1,116 1,433 3,418 932 2,379 5,028 793 929 753% Impervious 45 46 50 48 37Escherichia coli (mpn/100mL) 1,050 2,458 1,986 742 1,083 1,203 1,300 1,700 548 850Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 66 229 76 133 56 106 89 80 49 13Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 0.280 0.315 0.322 0.249 0.270 0.260 0.247 0.276 0.152 0.179

Ammonia (mg/L) 0.39 0.19 0.36 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.23 0.25 0.28

Nitrate+Nitrite (mg/L) 0.57 0.38 0.79 0.60 0.49 0.40 0.60 0.26 0.29 0.18Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 1.40 1.90 1.80 1.25 1.50 2.10 2.00 1.60 0.80 1.10Cadmium (mg/L) 0.0009 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0020 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002Chromium (mg/L) 0.0070 0.0092 0.0090 0.0088 0.0060 0.0052 0.0050 0.0037 0.0027 0.0006Copper (mg/L) 0.0160 0.0240 0.0190 0.0161 0.0120 0.0116 0.0100 0.0078 0.0063 0.0017Lead (mg/L) 0.0160 0.0304 0.0180 0.0127 0.0060 0.0107 0.0090 0.0077 0.0073 0.0008Nickel (mg/L) 0.0078 0.0051 0.0050 0.0094 0.0030 0.0042 0.0030 0.0026 0.0024 0.0013Zinc (mg/L) 0.0950 0.1380 0.0980 0.1045 0.0600 0.0630 0.0530 0.0556 0.0408 0.0148Numbers highlighted in red exceed the NSQD value.


Como Lake Subwatershed The Como Lake subwatershed is located directly east of the St. Anthony Park subwatershed, and includes the cities of St. Paul, Roseville, and Falcon Heights (Figure 20). Como 7 is one of eight minor subwatersheds within the Como Lake subwatershed, and is located west of Como Lake. North of Como 7 is Como 8 subwatershed, which drains to Gottfried’s Pit, a stormwater detention pond. When the water level in Gottfried’s Pit reaches a specific level, a lift station pumps the water via storm sewer to the Como Park Regional Pond before being discharged to Como Lake. CRWD monitors the Como 7 subwatershed to determine the aggregated or combined improvements to water quality based on the BMPs constructed as part of the Arlington-Pascal Stormwater Improvement Project. Started in 2005, the project included four stormwater BMP types: 1) eight infiltration trenches, 2) eight raingardens, 3) an underground infiltration and storage facility (Arlington-Hamline Underground Storage Facility) and 4) a stormwater pond at the Como Golf Course. These BMPs treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff, which minimizes localized flooding and reduces stormwater volumes in the storm sewer system. Three of the four BMPs, the Arlington-Hamline Underground Stormwater Storage Facility, eight in-street infiltration trenches and eight neighborhood raingardens, became operational in 2006 and 2007. The last BMP of the project, a storage and retention pond on the Como Park Golf Course (Como Park Regional Pond) became operational in October 2007. To characterize total discharge from the Como 7 subwatershed, CRWD collected and combined monitoring data from two sites: 1) at a storm sewer on the west side of the Como Park Regional Pond and east of Chelsea Avenue (Como 7) and 2) at the outlet of the Como Park Regional Pond (18). The Como 7 site was monitored in 2005 to collect pre-construction data, but not monitored in 2006 due the construction of the BMPs. Monitoring resumed in 2007 to collect post-construction data. Monitoring of the Como Park Regional Pond commenced in 2008. Both the inlet and outlet of the pond are monitored, however, for this monitoring report, only the outlet data was needed for calculating total discharge and pollutant loads from the Como 7 subwatershed. The inlet and outlet data of the stormwater pond are presented in the BMP Performance and Cost Benefit Analysis (CRWD, 2011). The Como 7 site and Como Park Regional Pond sites will continue to be monitored to determine the effectiveness of the entire project at reducing flow and nutrient, and sediment loading. Flow into the Como 7 site from the north is regulated by a diversion structure at the corner of Chelsea Street and Arlington Avenue which diverts water for treatment to the Golf Course Pond under most flow conditions before discharging to Como Lake. High flows coming into the diversion structure may overtop a high flow weir and be routed to the 60-inch storm sewer that runs through Como 7 before draining to Como Lake. Como 7 Subwatershed Results In 2011, the Como 7 subwatershed produced 14,918,644 cf of runoff, of which 99% was due to stormflow while the remaining 1% resulted from non-storm discharges (Table 14). These non-storm discharges were first documented at the Como 7 monitoring site in 2008, the first year of monitoring after all BMPs were operational. In 2011, CRWD quantified discharges at this site. The results of these non-storm discharges are reflected in the corresponding tables and are labeled “illicit discharge.” The total discharge recorded from the Como 7 subwatershed was higher than other monitoring years, but


lower than in 2010. The greater than average volume can be attributed to a much greater number of storms and Gottfried’s Pit pumping events. In 2011, the total TP flow-weighted average concentration from the Como 7 subwatershed was 0.218 mg/L, similar to the previous two monitoring years. Total TP load at Como 7 in 2011 was 203 lbs, above average when compared to previous monitoring seasons. Similar to water yield, the TP yield (lb/ac) was among the lowest in CRWD. When normalized for drainage area and amount of runoff, Como 7 yielded about 89% of normalized TP yields recorded in previous years (Figure 16). Total TSS load at the Como 7 subwatershed in 2011 was 51,943 lbs with ninety-nine percent of the total loading occurring during storms. The total TSS load in 2011 was the second highest annual load recorded at this monitoring site. Like other monitoring years, TSS yield (lb/ac) in 2011 was one of the lowest in CRWD. When normalized for drainage area and amount of runoff, Como 7 yielded lower than historical TSS values, and was the third lowest since 2005. At the Como 7 subwatershed, the flow-weighted average concentrations of TP and TSS in 2011were 0.218 mg/L and 56 mg/L, respectively. These values exceed the average concentrations for minimally impacted streams in the NCHF ecoregion. The flow-weighted average TSS concentration was less than that of the Mississippi River at Lambert’s Landing. The flow-weighted average TSS concentration was greater than that of the Mississippi River at Lambert’s Landing. Storm and yearly metals concentrations exceeded aquatic life and recreation chronic exposure standards (based on average hardness at each site) for, copper, lead, and zinc at the Como 7 site in 2011 (Table 10). Average cadmium, chromium, and nickel concentrations at the Como 7 site did not exceed the chronic exposure toxicity. All three storm samples in 2011 exceeded the maximum standard for E. coli (Table 12). Como Lake Results Discharge was also measured at the outlet of Como Lake (Figure 2), the location where the entire Como Lake subwatershed flows into the Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor. The outlet structure is regulated by an 8-ft weir that controls lake discharge into the storm sewer system. Data indicated that Como Lake discharged 16,628,800 cf of water in 2011. Lake water quality is monitored by RCPW each summer/fall. The 2011 results are presented in Chapter 4.


Figure 20. Sampling Sites in the Como Lake Subwatershed.


Table 14. 2005-2011 Como 7 Subwatershed Monitoring Results.

2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Subwatershed Area (ac) 793 793 793 793 793 793Total Rainfall (inches) 28.96 24.16 17.40 18.82 30.92 28.90Number of Monitoring Days 195 222 204 217 206 205Number of Storm Sampling Events 15 22 15 33 23 6Number of Storm Intervals 22 40 34 50 55 37Illicit Discharge Sampling Events 3 3 4 12 3 0Number of Illicit Discharge Intervals 36 41 1 150 92 43Total Discharge (cf) 6,830,745 6,999,688 5,228,923 8,050,350 15,626,233 14,918,644Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 2,855,384 2,541,171 4,961,542 7,767,386 15,242,041 14,746,403Illicit Discharge Flow Subtotal (cf) NA NA 267,381 282,963 384,191 172,241Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 219 154 233 133 118 165Total FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 134 93 65 46 35 56Storm FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 29 162 66 47 33 56Illicit Discharge FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 134 54 46 21 88 2Total TSS Loading (lbs) 57,123 40,727 21,247 23,198 33,902 51,943Storm TSS Loading (lbs) 49,982 25,697 20,479 22,833 31,780 51,921Illicit Discharge TSS Loading (lbs) 7,142 15,030 768 364 2,122 21Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 72 51 27 29 43 66Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 30 21 15 10 8 13Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.297 0.330 0.426 0.363 0.277 0.303Total FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.290 0.240 0.283 0.206 0.209 0.218Storm FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.310 0.300 0.266 0.205 0.210 0.220Illicit Discharge FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.270 0.210 0.595 0.225 0.188 0.053Total TP Loading (lbs) 123 104 92 103 204 203.4Storm TP Loading (lbs) 56 47 82 99 200 202.8Illicit Discharge TP Loading (lbs) 67 57 10 4 5 0.6Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.150 0.130 0.116 0.130 0.257 0.256Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.065 0.054 0.064 0.046 0.047 0.049Note: Como 7 was not monitored in 2006.NA: Not available


East Kittsondale Subwatershed The East Kittsondale subwatershed is located in the southern portion of CRWD and drains 1,116 acres of St. Paul (Figure 21), the smallest of the four major subwatersheds monitored by CRWD. The subwatershed empties into the Mississippi River, downstream of the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. There are no surface water bodies in the subwatershed. Land use in the subwatershed is largely residential, with 46% impervious surface cover (CRWD, 2000). CRWD operates a full water quality monitoring station in the East Kittsondale subwatershed. It is not located at the true outlet to the river. Because of the depth of the storm sewer beneath the ground surface, it is not possible to monitor any further downstream of the station’s current location. In 2011, 76,282,660 cf of water discharged from the East Kittsondale subwatershed with a majority of flow occurring as baseflow (Table 15). This is unexpected from this subwatershed due to the rather small amount of baseflow. However, this may be due to an extremely dry fall and monitoring through winter when baseflow is dominant. East Kittsondale was monitored for a full year in 2011. The 2011 total flow monitored reflects these additional days of monitoring. East Kittsondale exported 580,026 lbs of TSS and 886 lbs of TP during in the 2011 monitoring season, of which 96% and 82% was attributable to stormflow, respectively. These loads are relatively low when compared to other major subwatershed sites, but remain among the highest when compared to the size of its drainage area. East Kittsondale exported 520 lbs of TSS per acre and 0.794 lbs of TP per acre. These represent the second highest and fourth highest TSS and TP loads of all monitoring sites. TSS and TP yields (lbs/ac) continue to be higher than most other metro area tributaries (Figures 18 and 19). When normalizing for both drainage area and amount of runoff, the East Kittsondale TSS and TP yields (lb/ac/in runoff) are the highest for all sites in 2011. East Kittsondale’s TSS and TP flow-weighted average concentrations decreased in 2011 (Table 15). However, these concentrations still exceeded NCHF ecoregion averages and average concentrations at Lambert’s Landing. The site also exceeded the Lambert’s Landing concentrations for ammonia, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and chloride. Like most CRWD monitoring sites, the East Kittsondale yearly average concentrations for lead exceeded agency standards, but met the other metals standards (Table 10). East Kittsondale chloride concentrations during baseflow conditions consistently exceeded the chloride standard with 17 out of 18 samples having concentrations greater than 230 mg/L. In previous years, CRWD conducted extensive monitoring of East Kittsondale to better understand the extent and magnitude of the bacteria issues and identify the potential source(s) of the bacteria, which included collection of more bacteria samples and other IDDE parameters to distinguish between discharge types. In May 2010, the illicit connection was eliminated and water quality in East Kittsondale improved during dry weather. This was further evidenced by the 2011 bacteria data, where only one sample out of 16 baseflow samples exceeded the state standard. Two of 5 samples exceeded the standard during wet weather.


Figure 21. Sampling Sites in the East Kittsondale Subwatershed.

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011Monitoring Report 57

Table 15. 2005-2011 East Kittsondale Monitoring Results.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Subwatershed Area (ac) 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116Total Rainfall (inches) 29.28 24.13 13.96 18.89 20.95 35.61 33.62Number of Monitoring Days 200 210 225 217 277 325 365Number of Storm Sampling Events 18 15 25 12 25 19 13Number of Storm Intervals 23 26 43 37 58 54 34Number of Illicit Discharge Sampling Events NA NA NA NA 8 NA 0Number of Illicit Discharge Intervals NA NA NA NA 41 NA 0Number of Base Sampling Events 1 8 11 11 25 20 18Number of Baseflow Intervals 41 21 42 38 82 58 34Total Discharge (cf) 27,816,625 39,689,928 58,852,320 35,342,806 44,095,386 66,983,674 76,282,660Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 21,125,831 25,397,422 45,045,199 24,635,756 30,705,350 50,937,930 36,668,961Illicit Discharge Subtotal (cf) NA NA NA NA 4,211,844 NA 0Baseflow Subtotal (cf) 6,690,794 14,292,506 13,806,121 10,707,050 9,178,141 16,045,744 39,613,699Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 133 171 279 169 100 106 117Total FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 132 173 316 214 112 185 122Storm FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 133 266 403 291 141 241 243Illicit Discharge FWA TSS (mg/L) NA NA NA NA 98 NA 0Base FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 4 6 32 36 20 7 10Total TSS Loading (lbs) 230,190 427,494 1,161,807 471,176 308,358 773,129 580,026Storm TSS Loading (lbs) 228,519 421,821 1,134,452 447,229 271,189 766,063 555,801Illicit Discharge TSS Load (lbs) NA NA NA NA 25,722 NA 0Base TSS Loading (lbs) 1,671 5,673 27,354 23,877 11,360 7,066 24,225Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 206 383 1,038 422 276 693 520Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 30 39 71 48 25 42 28Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.307 0.370 0.350 0.392 0.289 0.254 0.166Total FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.230 0.380 0.350 0.480 0.291 0.341 0.186Storm FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.280 0.540 0.440 0.584 0.345 0.431 0.316Illicit Discharge FWA TP (mg/L) NA NA NA NA 0.184 NA 0.000Base FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.060 0.080 0.080 0.240 0.158 0.056 0.066Total TP Loading (lbs) 398 931 1,302 1,058 801 1,425 886Storm TP Loading (lbs) 373 861 1,236 898 662 1,369 724Illicit Discharge TP Load (lbs) NA NA NA NA 49 NA 0Base TP Loading (lbs) 25 70 66 161 90 56 162Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.357 0.834 1.167 0.948 0.718 1.277 0.794Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.052 0.085 0.080 0.109 0.066 0.077 0.041NA: Not available. Illicit discharge events were not monitored or sampled until 2009.

Capitol Region Watershed District 2011Monitoring Report 58


Phalen Creek Subwatershed Phalen Creek subwatershed is the eastern-most subwatershed in CRWD (Figure 1). Located entirely within the city limits of St. Paul, Phalen Creek drains 1,433 acres and outlets to the Mississippi River (Figure 22). CRWD monitors the Phalen Creek storm sewer near its outlet to the Mississippi River at the Bruce Vento Nature Sanctuary. Land use in the Phalen Creek subwatershed is a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential with approximately 50% impervious surfaces (CRWD, 2000). During the 2011 monitoring period, Phalen Creek exported 179,835,227 cf of water, 316,563 lbs of TSS, and 1,474 lbs of TP (Table 16). Phalen Creek was monitored for a full year in 2011. The Phalen Creek site received a total of 33.62 inches of precipitation throughout the 2011 monitoring season. While the measured precipitation was less than in 2010, the calculated discharge was comparable. The TSS load was the lowest annual load ever recorded at the site. The TP load was also significantly less than was recorded in 2010, but was comparable to the average since 2005. Due to the wet conditions during spring and summer of 2011 as well as fall 2010, the Mississippi River experienced high water levels through much of 2011, which back-flowed into the Phalen Creek storm sewer and monitoring station. Although TSS and TP are still exported during this time, the high water levels at the Phalen Creek site acted as a settling location for particles, which subsequently yields a lower overall pollutant load. Flow-weighted average concentrations of TSS and TP were 28 mg/L and 0.131 mg/L, respectively (Table 16). The 2011 flow weighted TSS and TP concentrations were both significantly lower than the 2005-2010 historical monitoring averages of 111 mg/L TSS and 0.188 mg/L TP. Also, these concentrations were both lower than the concentration at Lambert’s Landing (Figures 8 and 9). The flow-weighted TP average concentration also dropped below the NCHF ecoregion concentration (Figure 9). The total calculated TSS and TP yields in pounds per acre were normalized for runoff to remove the influence of annual precipitation and drainage area (Table 16). The 2011 normalized TSS yield for Phalen Creek was 6 lb/ac/in runoff, which is significantly lower than the 2005-2010 historical average of 25 lb/ac/in runoff. The normalized TP yield in 2011 was 0.030 lb/ac/in runoff, which is also significantly less than the historical average value of 0.042 lb/ac/in runoff. In 2011, the Phalen Creek yearly average concentrations exceeded MPCA agency standards and Lambert’s Landing concentrations for TP and lead (Table 9). All other metals, except Cadmium and Chromium, were found to exceed Lambert’s Landing concentrations (Table 9). Chloride also exceeded the Lambert’s Landing concentrations (Table 9). The yearly and storm average concentrations of lead exceeded MPCA agency standards and Lambert’s Landing concentrations (Table 10). Copper concentrations exceeded the chronic toxicity standard only during storms (Table 10). During baseflow conditions, Phalen Creek samples did not exceed the state maximum E.coli standard of 1,260 cfu/100mL (Table 11). Six E. coli samples were collected at Phalen Creek during storm events in 2011 (Table 12). Similar to previous years, almost every stormwater sample collected in 2011 exceeded the state standard for bacteria with a maximum measured value of 40,400 mpn/100mL (over 32 times the state standard).


Figure 22. Sampling Sites in the Phalen Creek Subwatershed.


Table 16. 2005-2011 Phalen Creek Monitoring Results.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Subwatershed Area (ac) 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433Total Rainfall (inches) 29.28 24.13 13.96 17.73 20.34 36.32 33.62Number of Monitoring Days 197 194 134 210 262 362 365Number of Storm Sampling Events 15 7 16 17 18 22 6Number of Storm Intervals 23 15 22 38 33 55 29Number of Snowmelt Sampling Events 6Number of Snowmelt Intervals 8Number of Baseflow Sampling Events 4 9 7 14 16 14 21Number of Baseflow Intervals 35 18 19 38 32 54 43Total Discharge (cf) 88,688,082 74,856,833 64,631,475 97,607,350 106,837,331 173,450,665 179,835,227Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 28,075,754 14,451,216 25,260,005 29,007,153 30,113,506 50,698,610 38,703,641Snowmelt Flow Subtotal (cf) 9,361,953Baseflow Subtotal (cf) 60,612,328 60,405,617 39,371,470 68,600,197 76,723,824 122,752,055 131,769,633Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 289 183 103 169 136 204 34Total FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 185 115 105 70 80 112 28Storm FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 535 454 164 207 277 369 92Snowmelt FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 53Base FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 23 34 3 11 3 5 8Total TSS Loading (lbs) 1,022,726 538,550 422,175 423,925 535,477 1,209,635 316,563Storm TSS Loading (lbs) 937,202 409,501 415,784 375,408 520,356 1,167,829 221,169Snowmelt TSS Loading (lbs) 30,974Base TSS Loading (lbs) 85,524 129,049 6,391 48,517 15,121 41,806 64,419Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 714 376 295 296 374 844 221Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 42 26 24 16 18 25 6Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.392 0.290 0.200 0.392 0.297 0.353 0.161Total FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.220 0.200 0.170 0.169 0.173 0.194 0.131Storm FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.570 0.570 0.340 0.440 0.480 0.539 0.276Snowmelt FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.269Base FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.070 0.200 0.060 0.055 0.053 0.052 0.079Total TP Loading (lbs) 1242 914 674 1,033 1,157 2,104 1,474Storm TP Loading (lbs) 993 518 536 796 902 1,706 667Snowmelt TP Loading (lbs) 157Base TP Loading (lbs) 249 396 138 237 255 398 650Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.867 0.638 0.470 0.721 0.807 1.468 1.029Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.051 0.044 0.038 0.038 0.040 0.044 0.030


St. Anthony Park Subwatershed The St. Anthony Park subwatershed has a drainage area of 3,418 acres and is the western-most subwatershed monitored by CRWD (Figure 23). CRWD monitors the storm sewer outlet of the St. Anthony Park subwatershed where it directly flows into the Mississippi River at Desnoyer Park in St. Paul. The subwatershed is primarily comprised of industrial and residential land uses with 48% impervious surface land coverage. CRWD also monitors a 929 acre upland subwatershed of St. Anthony Park called Sarita. The Sarita subwatershed is monitored in a storm sewer at the outlet of the Sarita Wetland near Como Avenue (Figure 23). The Sarita subwatershed has substantially different land use than any other CRWD subwatershed because it encompasses the Minnesota State Fair Grounds and the University of Minnesota St. Paul Campus where open space dominates. The predominant land use within the Sarita subwatershed is institutional with 16% impervious surface coverage. Sarita Subwatershed Total discharge from the Sarita subwatershed in 2011 was 6,490,307 cubic feet (cf), all of which was measured to be storm flow (Table 18). The Sarita outlet was monitored for 203 days in 2011 equaling a total of 2 days less than 2010; however, there was a 28% increase in total measured discharge due to a wet winter and spring coupled with intense summer rain events. The Sarita subwatershed received a total of 28.90 inches of precipitation throughout the 2011 monitoring season. In comparison, 30.62 inches of precipitation were recorded in 2010. Like previous monitoring years, Sarita had the lowest total water yield of all the full water quality monitoring sites even in comparison to those sites with similar drainage area. This could potentially be attributed to the lesser total area with impervious surfaces covering the Sarita subwatershed as well as the recent implementation of several large scale BMP projects in the upland. In 2011, the Sarita subwatershed exported 81 lbs of total phosphorous (TP) and 28,530 lbs of total suspended solids (TSS). This is the third highest recorded amount of TSS exported from Sarita since monitoring commenced in 2006 (Table 18). The total flow-weighted average (FWA) concentrations of TP and TSS were 0.200 mg/L and 70 mg/L respectively. In comparison to other sites in CRWD, Sarita generated the lowest total TP yields than any other subwatershed in 2011 (Table 8). However, both TP and TSS total FWA concentrations at Sarita exceeded the Northern Central Hardwood Forest (NCHF) ecoregion averages as well as the Lambert’s Landing reference site average concentrations. For further analysis, the total calculated TSS and TP yields in pounds per acre were normalized by runoff to remove the influence of annual precipitation trends and for site to site comparison. This calculation allows for more accurate conclusions to be drawn between the entire five years of monitoring record. The 2011 normalized TSS yield for Sarita was 16 lb/ac/in runoff. In comparison to other monitored sites in CRWD, Sarita exported the third highest normalized TSS value in 2011. For TP, the 2011 normalized yield was found to be 0.045 lb/ac/in runoff, a slight decrease from the 2010 value of 0.055 lb/ac/in runoff.


The average concentrations of both copper (0.0064 mg/L) and lead (0.0074 mg/L) at Sarita exceeded MPCA toxicity standards in 2011 (Table 10). The average annual concentration of zinc was found to exceed the Lambert’s Landing average concentration, but did not exceed the MPCA agency standards. Two Escherichia coli (E. coli) grab samples were taken during storm events at Sarita in 2011. One out of two of those samples exceeded the maximum state agency standard for bacteria of 1,260 cfu/100mL with concentrations ranging from 307 cfu/100mL to 5,200 cfu/100mL. St. Anthony Park Subwatershed During the period of March through November 2011, the St. Anthony Park subwatershed exported 115,056,718 cf of water, 944 lbs of TP, and 524,922 lbs of TSS (Table 17). The St. Anthony Park subwatershed received a total of 29.24 inches of precipitation throughout the 2011 monitoring season. The 2011 total discharge (cf) was only slightly less than the 2010 yield, despite receiving more rainfall, but was higher than total discharge values from the dry years of 2008 and 2009. For TSS, a 42% decrease in the average TSS load (lbs) from the previous monitoring year was observed, despite an increase monitoring season length in 2011. The data shows that the majority of TSS was exported in 2011 occurred during storm events, but the majority of TP was exported during baseflow. In evaluating the 2011 total flow-weighted averages (FWA), TP and TSS concentrations were found to be 0.131 mg/L and 73 mg/L, respectively. Additionally, the FWA TSS concentration exceeded the NCHF ecoregion average as well as the average concentration observed at Lambert’s Landing. The FWA TP concentration did not exceed the NCHF ecoregion average or the average concentration at Lambert’s Landing. The total calculated TSS and TP yields in pounds per acre were normalized by runoff to remove the influence of annual precipitation trends and for site to site comparison. The 2011 normalized TSS yield for St. Anthony Park was 17 lb/ac/in runoff. In comparison to other monitored sites in CRWD, St. Anthony exported the second highest normalized TSS value in 2011, falling only behind East Kittsondale. For TP, the 2011 normalized yield was found to be 0.030 lb/ac/in runoff, which is the lowest recorded value for all 2011 CRWD monitoring sites. The 2011 yearly average concentrations of copper, lead, nickel, and zinc concentrations exceeded Lambert’s Landing concentrations, but not the MPCA agency standards. However, the St. Anthony Park average storm concentrations for copper, lead, and zinc exceeded MPCA agency standards as well as Lambert’s Landing concentrations (Table 9). Sixteen E. coli grab samples were taken at St. Anthony Park during baseflow conditions in 2011. All but two met the state maximum standard of 1,260 mpn/100mL (Table 11). Five E. coli grab samples were collected at St. Anthony Park during storm events in 2011. Only two samples exceeded the state maximum standard for bacteria ranging from 614 cfu/100mL to 5,200 cfu/100mL. CRWD staff recorded up to 10 potential illicit discharges from the St. Anthony Park subwatershed. These discharges could not be confirmed by flow data. Staff noted colorful plumes, floating debris, and foul odor during these events. While results are currently inconclusive, the discharges typically have


higher concentrations of total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, and E. coli. CRWD is working with the City of Saint Paul to determine the source and magnitude of these discharges.


Figure 23. Sampling Sites in the St. Anthony Park Subwatershed.


Table 17. 2005-2011 St. Anthony Park Monitoring Results.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Subwatershed Area (ac) 3,418 3,418 3,418 3,418 3,418 3,418 3,418Total Rainfall (inches) 28.27 24.13 23.99 9.95 18.72 26.84 29.24Number of Monitoring Days 191 192 215 126 218 188 269Number of Storm Sampling Events 44 21 19 12 25 17 7Number of Storm Intervals 9 23 33 24 38 44 17Number of Base Sampling Events 3 7 11 12 16 9 19Number of Baseflow Intervals 28 23 32 25 24 41 28Total Discharge (cf) 191,591,247 145,671,734 209,782,937 57,793,346 99,163,464 117,851,525 115,056,718Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 65,769,117 49,091,775 60,484,181 19,865,767 41,313,601 57,480,844 26,284,149Baseflow Subtotal (cf) 119,056,352 96,579,959 149,298,756 37,927,579 57,849,863 60,370,681 88,572,569Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 124 108 145 129 138 149 89Total FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 66 62 72 92 95 123 73Storm FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 146 152 205 247 176 238 214Base FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 21 16 18 10 38 13 31Total TSS Loading (lbs) 787,976 564,202 941,282 330,829 589,228 904,150 524,922Storm TSS Loading (lbs) 599,259 465,259 774,686 306,571 453,744 853,968 353,893Base TSS Loading (lbs) 153,661 98,943 166,595 24,258 135,484 50,182 171,030Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 231 165 275 97 172 250 154Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 15 14 16 21 22 28 17Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.222 0.220 0.210 0.211 0.226 0.215 0.190Total FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.167 0.140 0.130 0.155 0.173 0.178 0.131Storm FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.229 0.270 0.270 0.327 0.286 0.304 0.261Base FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.137 0.080 0.070 0.065 0.092 0.059 0.093Total TP Loading (lbs) 1999 1,307 1,668 561 1,070 1,313 944Storm TP Loading (lbs) 942 820 1,031 406 738 1,091 431Base TP Loading (lbs) 1022 487 636 155 332 222 513Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.585 0.380 0.488 0.164 0.313 0.384 0.276Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.038 0.033 0.029 0.035 0.039 0.040 0.030


Table 18. 2006-2011 Sarita Monitoring Results.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Subwatershed Area (ac) 929 929 929 929 929 929Total Rainfall (inches) 18.19 23.19 17.64 18.72 30.62 28.90Number of Monitoring Days 159 227 211 213 205 203Number of Storm Sampling Events 7 17 13 13 11 6Number of Storm Intervals 19 33 23 18 30 28Total Discharge (cf) 4,722,303 5,364,747 2,501,022 2,028,779 5,052,244 6,490,307Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 4,722,303 5,364,747 2,484,855 2,024,843 5,052,244 6,490,307Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 186 79 82 48 85 53Total FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 90 99 102 44 143 70Storm FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 90 99 102 44 143 70Total TSS Loading (lbs) 26,516 33,176 15,862 5,553 45,191 28,530Storm TSS Loading (lbs) 26,516 33,176 15,780 5,541 45,191 28,530Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 29 36 17 6 49 31Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 20 22 23 10 32 16Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.360 0.260 0.270 0.212 0.234 0.173Total FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.340 0.292 0.287 0.203 0.246 0.200Storm FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.340 0.290 0.288 0.203 0.246 0.200Total TP Loading (lbs) 102 98 45 26 77 81Storm TP Loading (lbs) 102 98 45 26 77 81Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.110 0.105 0.049 0.028 0.083 0.087Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.078 0.066 0.066 0.047 0.055 0.045


Trout Brook Subwatershed The entire Trout Brook subwatershed is the largest subwatershed in CRWD that drains 8,000 acres in the cities of St. Paul, Maplewood, Falcon Heights and Roseville and includes the drainage areas of Como Lake in Saint Paul and Lake McCarrons in Roseville (Figure 24). It also contains Loeb Lake and five major stormwater ponds. Land use in the Trout Brook subwatershed is a mix of residential, industrial, and commercial, with 40% impervious surface. Runoff in the subwatershed drains to CRWD’s Trout Brook Storm Sewer Interceptor (TBI), which connects to the City of St. Paul’s storm sewer interceptor before eventually discharging to the Mississippi River, just downstream of Lambert’s Landing in St. Paul. TBI is six and a half miles in length with pipe sizes ranging from 6 to 13 feet in diameter. The upper section of TBI is comprised of two branches, east and west, which converge near the intersection of Maryland Avenue and I-35E in St. Paul. For monitoring and data analysis purposes, CRWD does not consider the drainage areas of Como Lake and Lake McCarrons as part of the Trout Brook subwatershed drainage area. The Trout Brook subwatershed area considered for monitoring purposes is 5,028 acres. Three sites were monitored from January through December for water quality and water quantity in the Trout Brook subwatershed: 1) the west branch of TBI (Trout Brook – West Branch), 2) the east branch of TBI (Trout Brook – East Branch), and 3) the outlet upstream of the connection to the City of Saint Paul’s storm sewer interceptor (Trout Brook Outlet). Water levels were also measured in Loeb Lake and three stormwater ponds (Arlington-Jackson, Sims-Agate, and Westminster-Mississippi). The Arlington-Arkwright was not monitored. In addition, CRWD measured precipitation at Trout Brook - East Branch and the Westminster-Mississippi Stormwater Pond monitoring sites (Figure 24). Trout Brook – West Branch Trout Brook – West Branch subwatershed drains 2,379 acres in St. Paul, Roseville, and Falcon Heights. It has the third largest drainage area of the nine monitoring sites. The Arlington-Jackson Stormwater Pond, Willow Reserve Stormwater Pond, Como Lake, Lake McCarrons, and Loeb Lake are located in this subwatershed (Figure 24). The monitoring site is located just upstream of the convergence with the east branch of the TBI, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Maryland Avenue and I-35E. Because of the length of the monitoring season in 2011 (January through December), Trout Brook – West Branch produced greater total loads and yields of TP and TSS than average. The site exported 328,689,637 cf of water, 1,555,358 lbs of TSS, and 4,116 lbs of TP (Table 20). Trout Brook – West Branch produced the second highest TP and highest TSS load of any site in 2011 (Table 8). Pollutant loading at this site is driven by stormflow despite the fact that 54% of the flow was comprised of baseflow. Eighty four percent of the TSS load and 70% of the TP load were exported during storm events. The normalized TP yield (0.045 lb/acre/in runoff) for Trout Brook – West Branch was slightly higher than its historical average (0.037 lb/acre/in runoff), while the normalized TSS yield (17 lb/acre/in runoff) for Trout Brook – West Branch was slightly lower than its historical average (22 lb/acre/in runoff) (Table 20). The flow-weighted average TSS concentration at Trout Brook – West Branch was 76 mg/L, the lowest flow-weighted average TSS concentration for this site since 2007 (Table 20). This TSS concentration exceeded the average concentrations for minimally impacted streams in the NCHF ecoregion and


Lambert’s Landing. The flow-weighted average TP concentration was 0.201 mg/L, a slight increase from the 2010 average (0.183 mg/L) (Table 20). Despite this increase, the TP concentration was comparable to most of the other sites in 2011 (Table 8). This TP concentration exceeded both the NCHF average and the Lambert’s Landing concentrations. Like other CRWD sites, the average stormflow concentrations for copper and lead at Trout Brook – West Branch exceeded MPCA toxicity standards (Table 10). Baseflow average concentrations for all of the metal parameters met their toxicity standards. Four of seventeen E. coli samples at Trout Brook – West Branch during baseflow exceeded the state maximum standard of 1,260 cfu/100mL (Table 11). Two of five bacteria samples exceeded the maximum standard during storm conditions with concentrations ranging from 956 mpn/100mL to 21,800 cfu/100mL (Table 12). Trout Brook – East Branch Trout Brook - East Branch drains 932 acres in St. Paul and Maplewood and includes two stormwater ponds, Westminster-Mississippi and Arlington-Arkwright. First established in 2006, this monitoring station was moved slightly downstream in 2007 from its original location to a manhole located between L’Orient Street and I-35E ramp (Figure 24). Like Trout Brook – West Branch, this site was monitored throughout the year and total recorded flow at Trout Brook – East Branch in 2011 was greater than most other monitoring years. Trout Brook – East Branch exported 43,363,061 cf of water, 124,707 lbs of TSS, and 544 lbs of TP (Table 21). These pollutant loads are still low when compared to other monitoring sites (Table 8). The 2011 flow-weighted average TSS concentration of 46 mg/L exceeded the Lambert’s Landing average concentration and the NCHF average concentration. The flow-weighted average TP concentration in 2011 of 0.201 mg/L also exceeded average concentrations of the NCHF ecoregion and Lambert’s Landing. Trout Brook – East Branch comprises 19% of the subwatershed area of the Trout Brook - Outlet and contributed 8% of the total flow. Trout Brook – East Branch contributed 11% and 8% of the total TP and TSS loads, respectively. The average stormflow concentrations for copper and lead at Trout Brook – East Branch exceeded MPCA toxicity standards (Table 10). Baseflow average concentrations for all of the metal parameters met their toxicity standards. The site also exceeded the MPCA chloride standard during baseflow conditions with an average concentration of 485 mg/L. During most baseflow events, bacteria concentrations at Trout Brook – East Branch met the state maximum standard with only two samples exceeding it (Table 11). Three of five samples taken during storm events exceeded the MPCA standard value with concentrations ranging from 1,046 mpn/100mL to 10,900 mpn/100mL (Table 12). Trout Brook Outlet Trout Brook Outlet receives water from nearly 5,028 acres of the Trout Brook subwatershed, which does not include the drainage areas of Como Lake and Lake McCarrons (Figure 24). In 2011, Trout Brook


Outlet exported 533,045,947 cf of water, and exported 1,484,552 lbs of TSS and 4,831 lbs of TP (Table 22). Due to re-construction at the site access, the Trout Brook Monitoring site missed 21 days of data in 2011, most of them in July, a month that received over 10 inches of rain. For this reason, the pollutant loads are likely an underestimate for the year. Baseflow comprised a 63% of the total discharge. The large amount of baseflow is likely a result of groundwater entering the pipe in the downstream section because of low elevations of the storm sewers, which is an occurrence seen at other higher water yield sites. In 2011, total flow-weighted average TSS and TP concentrations were 45 mg/L and 0.145 mg/L, respectively, both lower concentrations than seen in previous years (Table 22). The FWA TP and TSS concentrations exceeded the NCHF ecoregion but not the Lambert’s Landing average concentrations (Table 9). The average concentration of lead exceeded MPCA standards during storms, but not during baseflow (Table 10). Average concentrations for ammonia, TKN, nitrite, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and chloride were higher than the Lambert’s Landing concentrations (Table 9). Only one baseflow sample exceeded the E. coli maximum standard with a concentration of 2,000 mpn/100mL (Table 11). All four samples taken during storm events exceeded the MPCA standard value with the highest concentration being 4,100 mpn/100mL (Table 12).


Trout Brook Stormwater Ponds Average water levels in three Trout Brook subwatershed stormwater ponds were consistent with previous monitoring years (Table 19). Since 2011 was a wet year, the storm ponds experienced only slightly higher than average elevations, similar to the 2010 monitoring year. Table 19. Average Pond Elevations in Trout Brook Stormwater Ponds, 2006-2011

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Arlington-Jackson 118.8 119.0 118.8 118.8 118.8 118.8

Westminster-Mississippi 107.3 107.6 107.6 107.6 108.1 108.1

Willow Reserve 149.6 150.1 149.8 149.7 150.2

Sims-Agate 83.7 83.5 83.5 83.4 83.6 83.6

PondElevation (feet)


Figure 24. Sampling Sites in the Trout Brook Subwatershed.


Table 20. 2005-2011 Trout Brook - West Branch Monitoring Results.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Subwatershed Area (ac) 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379 2,379

Total Rainfall (inches) 28.78 24.67 24.25 18.99 20.63 36.32 33.62

Number of Monitoring Days 191 212 228 224 273 365 365

Number of Storm Sampling Events 27 12 18 8 20 21 11

Number of Storm Intervals 14 21 38 27 31 54 27

Number of Snowmelt Sampling Events 6

Number of Snowmelt Intervals 13

Number of Base Sampling Events 6 10 10 13 16 15 19

Number of Baseflow Intervals 32 23 36 28 30 51 33

Total Discharge (cf) 141,113,120 105,996,024 178,456,040 136,464,730 173,066,683 333,565,680 328,689,637

Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 27,471,750 26,637,070 39,682,781 33,416,733 56,480,312 136,032,158 135,021,212

Snowmelt Flow Subtotal (cf) 15,136,168

Baseflow Subtotal (cf) 103,641,370 79,358,954 138,773,259 103,047,997 116,586,370 197,212,437 178,532,258

Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 270 266 109 375 130 203 70

Total FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 108 125 43 115 86 96 76

Storm FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 312 400 156 378 233 222 154

Snowmelt FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 73

Base FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 34 33 10 29 14 9 17

Total TSS Loading (lbs) 950,788 827,991 476,080 978,540 927,558 1,991,582 1,555,358

Storm TSS Loading (lbs) 730,597 665,210 386,111 788,964 747,671 1,881,829 1,298,980

Snowmelt TSS Loading (lbs) 68,730

Base TSS Loading (lbs) 220,191 162,781 89,468 189,576 104,904 109,272 187,648

Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 400 348 200 411 390 837 654

Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 24 28 10 26 19 22 17

Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.359 0.280 0.240 0.501 0.287 0.263 0.201

Total FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.163 0.190 0.110 0.171 0.174 0.183 0.201

Storm FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.408 0.420 0.310 0.470 0.412 0.371 0.341

Snowmelt FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.270

Base FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.075 0.110 0.060 0.073 0.058 0.054 0.088

Total TP Loading (lbs) 1,440 1,249 1,255 1,453 1,739 3,820 4,116

Storm TP Loading (lbs) 955 697 761 981 1,179 3,150 2,878

Snowmelt TP Loading (lbs) 255

Base TP Loading (lbs) 484 553 494 472 422 668 983

Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.605 0.525 0.528 0.611 0.731 1.606 1.730

Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.037 0.043 0.026 0.039 0.036 0.042 0.045


Table 21. 2006-2011 Trout Brook - East Branch Monitoring Results.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Subwatershed Area (ac) 451 932 932 932 932 932Total Rainfall (inches) 23.87 23.92 17.91 20.63 36.27 33.43Number of Monitoring Days 191 220 220 273 359 349Number of Storm Sampling Events 11 24 14 18 19 11Number of Storm Intervals 27 30 19 32 37 32Number of Snowmelt Sampling Events 9Number of Snowmelt Intervals 10Number of Base Sampling Events 8 11 14 19 15 18Number of Baseflow Intervals 27 23 20 29 35 35Total Discharge (cf) 8,769,577 22,368,888 19,741,039 26,611,519 41,959,911 43,363,061Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 7,411,730 14,214,980 9,634,182 11,911,763 21,073,199 19,264,104Snowmelt Flow Subtotal (cf) 2,405,051Baseflow Subtotal (cf) 1,357,847 8,153,908 10,106,857 14,699,756 20,886,712 21,693,906Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 37 98 72 49 51 37Total FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 44 71 70 39 44 46Storm FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 51 105 132 79 83 79Snowmelt FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 56Base FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 7 11 11 8 5 16Total TSS Loading (lbs) 24,279 99,207 86,186 65,532 115,109 124,707Storm TSS Loading (lbs) 23,687 93,578 79,265 58,555 109,063 94,989Snowmelt TSS Loading (lbs) 8,365Base TSS Loading (lbs) 591 5,628 6,921 6,977 3,047 21,353Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 54 106 92 70 124 134Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 10 16 16 9 10 10Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.220 0.240 0.181 0.169 0.278 0.196Total FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.280 0.210 0.177 0.148 0.261 0.201Storm FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.320 0.280 0.287 0.255 0.404 0.314Snowmelt FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.198Base FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.090 0.080 0.071 0.060 0.116 0.101Total TP Loading (lbs) 155 292 218 245 683 544Storm TP Loading (lbs) 147 251 173 190 531 378Snowmelt TP Loading (lbs) 30Base TP Loading (lbs) 8 41 45 55 152 136Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.344 0.313 0.234 0.263 0.733 0.584Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.064 0.047 0.040 0.033 0.059 0.046


Table 22. 2005-2011 Trout Brook Outlet Monitoring Results.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Subwatershed Area (ac) 5,028 5,028 5,028 5,028 5,028 5,028 5,028Total Rainfall (inches) 29.28 24.67 24.23 15.54 20.95 36.32 24.53Number of Monitoring Days 198 210 226 198 276 364 344Number of Storm Sampling Events 23 21 19 14 23 24 6Number of Storm Intervals 15 40 38 26 33 52 20Number of Snowmelt Sampling Events 3Number of Snowmelt Intervals 6Number of Base Sampling Events 5 18 10 14 16 14 13Number of Baseflow Intervals 33 43 29 25 25 32 24Total Discharge (cf) 292,595,899 438,485,575 388,392,876 279,271,142 356,849,169 496,585,344 533,045,947Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 80,113,383 88,748,004 133,852,477 88,336,642 113,482,177 180,006,459 126,247,447Snowmelt Flow Subtotal (cf) 69,637,200Baseflow Subtotal (cf) 212,482,516 349,737,571 254,540,399 190,934,500 243,366,992 316,578,885 337,161,300Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 311 141 198 82 104 156 47Total FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 71 50 102 60 56 82 45Storm FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 201 199 285 175 159 211 129Snowmelt FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 43Base FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 20 12 6 8 8 9 13Total TSS Loading (lbs) 1,306,755 1,363,229 2,474,834 1,054,580 1,143,682 2,557,705 1,484,552Storm TSS Loading (lbs) 1,054,690 1,104,384 2,377,790 963,965 1,027,807 2,374,988 1,013,270Snowmelt TSS Loading (lbs) 187,628Base TSS Loading (lbs) 252,065 258,845 97,044 90,615 115,875 182,717 283,654Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 320 271 492 210 227 509 295Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 20 11 23 14 12 19 10Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.508 0.260 0.300 0.200 0.275 0.307 0.151Total FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.151 0.130 0.180 0.163 0.163 0.178 0.145Storm FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.342 0.390 0.410 0.394 0.406 0.399 0.300Snowmelt FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.221Base FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.074 0.070 0.050 0.056 0.050 0.053 0.072Total TP Loading (lbs) 2,698 3,630 4,249 2,845 3,638 5,529 4,831Storm TP Loading (lbs) 1,742 2,155 3,438 2,175 2,874 4,482 2,366Snowmelt TP Loading (lbs) 959Base TP Loading (lbs) 956 1,476 811 670 764 1,047 1,505Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.697 0.722 0.845 0.568 0.724 1.100 0.961Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.043 0.030 0.040 0.037 0.037 0.040 0.033


Lake McCarrons Subwatershed Lake McCarrons subwatershed drains 1,070 acres and is the northernmost subwatershed in CRWD, located entirely within the city limits of Roseville (Figure 25). Land use in the subwatershed is predominantly residential and parkland. As a result, the percentage of impervious surfaces in Lake McCarrons subwatershed is less than the other subwatersheds monitored by CRWD. More than half of the subwatershed drains to the Villa Park Wetland System which is designed to provide stormwater treatment before discharging to Lake McCarrons. CRWD monitors the Lake McCarrons subwatershed at the outlet of the Villa Park Wetland System; before the water discharges to Lake McCarrons (Villa Park Outlet). CRWD intends to monitor the Villa Park Outlet site long-term, as a baseline site. In addition, a flow-only station is monitored by CRWD at the outlet of Lake McCarrons (McCarrons Outlet) and RCPW collects water quality data for Lake McCarrons (see Chapter 5 for lake water quality monitoring results). Water flowing from the outlet of Lake McCarrons eventually flows into the Trout Brook Storm Sewer System before discharging to the Mississippi River. Villa Park Outlet The Villa Park Wetland System drains 753 acres in the Lake McCarrons Subwatershed and in 2011 approximately 15.7 million cf of water discharged from the outlet of the system (Table 24). This is the largest amount of total flow observed at this site since monitoring began and is likely due to excessive amounts of stormwater runoff produced by four storm events (occurring on 4/26/11, 5/20/11, 7/16/11, and 8/16/11), of which, each produced 1-2.3 million cf of discharge. The discharge from those four events combined accounted for 38% of the total flow for 2011. The amount of total flow in 2011 was 31% more than the historical total flow average (approximately 12 million cf). Stormflow accounted for the largest proportion (79%) of the total flow which discharged from the system in 2011; baseflow accounted for 21% (Table 24). It is interesting to note that the proportion of annual total flow attributable to baseflow, significantly decreased from 2008 to 2009. From 2006 to 2008, on average, baseflow accounted for 40% of the total annual flow from the system each year. However, from 2009 to 2011, the proportion of baseflow accounted for an average 22% of the total flow each year. In 2011, approximately 29,837 lbs of TSS discharged from the Villa Park Wetland System outlet which is greater than the historical average (26,900 lbs) (Table 24). Of the total TSS load, 91% was attributable to stormflow. Combined, the TSS loads produced by the four storm events listed previously, accounted for 43% of the total TSS load in 2011. The TSS load produced by the 8/16/11 storm event, alone, accounted for 29% of the total TSS load for 2011. The average TSS concentration in 2011 (21 mg/L) was below the historical average of 30 mg/L (Table 24). However, the 2011 average TSS concentration still exceeded the NCHF ecoregion average of 14 mg/L.


TSS yields (in pounds per acre) were normalized by runoff to remove the influence of annual precipitation trends and allowed for site-to-site comparisons. The normalized TSS yield for Villa Park in 2011was 7 lb/ac/in runoff, which was slightly less than the historical average (8 lb/ac/in runoff) (Table 24). Also, this yield was one of the lowest observed of all monitored subwatersheds in 2011 which is consistent with past results observed. The Villa Park watershed area is dominated by parkland and residential land uses which are generally more advantageous to producing less and infiltrating more stormwater runoff than the more highly industrialized and commercialized land uses observed in other larger, more developed subwatersheds. The total TP load that discharged from the outlet of the Villa Park Wetland System in 2011 was 195 lbs, which was consistent with the historical average amount (197 lbs) (Table 24). TP loads produced by storm events accounted for 74% of the total TP load. TP loads produced by the four storm events listed above, accounted for 40% of the 2011 total TP load. By itself, the TP load produced by the 7/16/11 storm event was attributable to just over one-quarter of the 2011 total TP load. The 2011 average TP concentration (0.205 mg/L) was the lowest observed since monitoring began in 2006. This concentration, however, still exceeded the NCHR ecoregion average (0.13 mg/L) and the Lambert’s Landing (Mississippi River reference site) TP average (0.16 mg/L). The 2011 normalized TP yield for the outlet of the Villa Park Wetland System was 0.045 lb/ac/in runoff (Table 24). This yield was the lowest observed at this site since monitoring began and is also slightly less than the historical average (0.060 lb/ac/in runoff). Although this has been the lowest normalized TP yield observed at this site, in comparison to the other monitored subwatersheds, it is comparable to values seen at other sites in 2011 (Table 8). In 2011, the Villa Park yearly average concentrations for all metal parameters (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc) were all below the MPCA agency chronic toxicity standards and Lambert’s Landing average concentrations (Table 10). Sixteen E. coli grab samples were collected during baseflow conditions at the outlet of the Villa Park Wetland System in 2011 (Table 11). All but two of those bacteria samples were below the MPCA maximum standard (1,260 mpn/100mL). The two samples which exceeded the standard occurred on 8/18/11 and 9/22/11 with concentrations of 1,553 mpn/100mL and 4,100 mpn/100mL, respectively (Table 11). E. coli grab samples were also collected during three snowmelt events and five storm events in 2011 (Table 12). E. coli concentrations of the three snowmelt samples fell below the maximum standard and two of the five storm samples exceeded the maximum standard. Those exceedences occurred on 3/22/11 and 6/15/11 with concentrations of 1,414 mpn/100mL and 1,733 mpn/100mL, respectively (Table 12). Lake McCarrons Outlet The total discharge from the outlet to Lake McCarrons in 2011 was approximately 21.7 million cf (Table 23). This is greater than total flows observed from 2006 to 2010, however, the total discharge in 2011 is slightly less than the historical average (approximately 23.2 million cf). In 2011, the average stage observed at the outlet was 0.410 ft (Table 23). This was the highest average stage observed since monitoring began and was more than three times the historical


average (0.131 ft). The high total discharge and stage are primarily due to frequent and high precipitation storm events starting in early to mid-July. Particularly, a storm event occurring on 7/16/11 produced in excess of 3 inches of precipitation in a short amount of time (2 hours). During and after this one event, discharge and stage of that discharge from Lake McCarrons remained elevated through early August. See Appendix A for the 2011 Lake McCarrons Outlet hydrograph. Table 23. 2005 – 2011 McCarrons Outlet Stage and Discharge.

YearAverage Stage (ft)

Discharge (cf)

2005 0.16 83,156,6302006 0.10 8,603,954

2007 0.13 18,831,1562008 0.07 4,888,5482009 0.11 9,673,9892010 0.23 13,998,9002011 0.41 21,723,800


Figure 25. Lake McCarrons Subwatershed.


Table 24. 2006-2011 Villa Park Subwatershed Monitoring Results.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Subwatershed Area (ac) 753 753 753 753 753 753Total Rainfall (inches) 24.66 24.16 19.45 19.11 31.32 28.90Number of Monitoring Days 204 228 223 220 212 211Number of Storm Sampling Events 12 18 12 17 13 10Number of Storm Intervals 15 28 19 24 28 23Number of Base Sampling Events 7 9 13 16 11 13Number of Baseflow Intervals 18 23 36 20 19 19Total Discharge (cf) 11,075,521 14,512,244 12,884,967 7,597,428 13,687,318 15,879,438Storm Flow Subtotal (cf) 5,564,657 9,835,524 7,839,161 5,668,868 11,029,258 12,382,914Baseflow Subtotal (cf) 5,510,864 4,656,826 5,045,805 1,928,561 2,658,060 3,496,524Average TSS Concentration (mg/L) 18 18 25 32 59 21Total FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 17 23 22 43 75 30Storm FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 19 28 14 49 91 35Base FWA TSS Concentration (mg/L) 15 12 35 26 11 12Total TSS Loading (lbs) 11,833 20,394 17,740 20,410 64,362 29,837Storm TSS Loading (lbs) 6,742 16,981 6,725 17,230 62,584 27,241Base TSS Loading (lbs) 5,091 3,397 11,014 3,180 1,778 2,596Total TSS Yield (lb/ac) 16 27 24 27 85 40Normalized Total TSS Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 4 5 5 10 17 7Average TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.280 0.260 0.324 0.286 0.335 0.205Total FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.310 0.240 0.268 0.239 0.263 0.197Storm FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.230 0.220 0.234 0.226 0.264 0.187Base FWA TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.400 0.280 0.322 0.277 0.258 0.232Total TP Loading (lbs) 216 216 215 113 225 195Storm TP Loading (lbs) 79 136 114 80 182 145Base TP Loading (lbs) 137 80 101 33 43 51Total TP Yield (lb/ac) 0.287 0.287 0.286 0.150 0.299 0.259Normalized Total TP Yield (lb/ac/in runoff) 0.071 0.054 0.061 0.054 0.060 0.045


4 Lake Water Quality Monitoring Introduction There are four lakes within the boundaries of CRWD: Como Lake, Crosby Lake, Lake McCarrons, and Loeb Lake (Figure 2). The lakes are monitored by Ramsey County Public Works (RCPW) and CRWD to assess overall health and to determine if each lake supports their designated uses for swimming, fishing, and/or aesthetics. With the exception of Loeb Lake, all of the lakes receive stormwater runoff and ultimately drain to the Mississippi River. Como Lake, Crosby Lake, and Loeb Lake are classified as shallow lakes and Lake McCarrons is classified as a deep lake. Shallow lakes are defined as those lakes which have a maximum depth less than fifteen feet or those in which more than 80% of the lake is within the littoral zone. The littoral zone is the area of the lake in which plants grow. Deep lakes are defined as those lakes in which the maximum depth is greater than fifteen feet or those in which less than 80% of the lake is in the littoral zone. Como Lake Como Lake is a 67-acre lake with a maximum depth of 15.5 feet and is located in the City of Saint Paul. Surrounding land uses are primarily residential and parkland. Como Lake is classified as a shallow lake because nearly 100% of the lake is in the littoral zone. The lake has been monitored since 1984, and although water quality has improved slightly over time, there has been significant annual variation in water quality. In effort to improve water quality in the lake, the Como Lake Strategic Management Plan was developed in 2002 (CRWD, 2002). Since 2002, Como Lake has been listed as impaired on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) 303(d) list for excess nutrients (MPCA, 2012). Crosby Lake Crosby Lake is a 48-acre shallow lake that is situated in the Mississippi River floodplain in Saint Paul and is part of the Crosby Farm Regional Park and the Mississippi River National River and Recreation Area. The lake is divided into two separate water bodies by a trail: Crosby Lake and Little (or Upper) Crosby Lake. Crosby Lake is classified as a shallow lake because it has a maximum depth of 19 feet and the littoral zone covers 97% of the lake area. Little Crosby Lake is a small lake with a maximum depth of 34 feet. However, 90% of its area is littoral (<15 feet in depth). The surrounding land uses for both water bodies are primarily parkland, single family residential, and industrial. Crosby Lake and Little Crosby Lake are periodically flooded by the Mississippi River (a 3-year storm event, or when the river reaches 49,000 cfs). Crosby Lake has been monitored by RCPW and CRWD since 2005. Little Crosby Lake was monitored for the first time in 2011. Both Crosby Lake and Little Crosby Lake are not currently listed on the MPCA 303(d) list of impaired waters. Lake McCarrons Located in the City of Roseville, Lake McCarrons is a 68-acre lake with a maximum depth of 57 feet. It is considered a deep lake with less than 36% of the lake area located in the littoral zone. Lake McCarrons has a surrounding land use of mostly mixed residential and open space. Lake McCarrons


has been monitored since 1988 by RCPW. Lake McCarrons received an alum treatment in 2004 and water quality of the lake has shown improvement since. The lake is considered to be an unimpaired water body and is not currently listed on the MPCA 303(d) list. Loeb Lake Loeb Lake is a 9-acre shallow lake with a maximum depth of 28 feet located in Marydale Park in the City of St. Paul. Surrounding land uses are predominately mixed residential and parkland. Loeb Lake has been monitored by RCPW and CRWD since 2003 (with the exception of 2004). Loeb Lake is considered to be an unimpaired water body and is not currently listed on the MPCA 303(d) list. Methods The 2011 lake water quality data (and all years preceding) was collected by RCPW. Samples and data were collected throughout the growing season (May through September) on a monthly or bi-weekly basis. At each lake, RCPW collected water samples and measured water quality parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and water transparency). Water samples were collected from discrete depths within the mixed water layer. If thermal stratification was present, additional water samples were collected from the thermocline and the hypolimnion. The water samples were analyzed by RCPW for chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), phaeophytin-a (Phaeo-a), total phosphorous (TP), soluble reactive phosphorous (SRP), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate (NO3), chloride ion concentrations (Cl), and ammonia (NH3). Water transparency, or water clarity, was determined with the use of a Secchi disk. A Secchi disk is a black and white patterned disk that is connected to a line or pole. To take a measurement, the Secchi disk is lowered slowly into the water column until the pattern is no longer visible. The depth at which the disk is no longer visible is then recorded. This measurement is commonly referred to as Secchi depth. A shallower Secchi depth measurement typically indicates poor water clarity as a result of increased turbidity caused by suspended sediments, organic matter, and/or phytoplankton (algae). The primary pollutant of concern to CRWD lakes is total phosphorus (TP). Phosphorus occurs naturally in the environment and is an essential biological nutrient associated with the growth of aquatic plants. In excess, phosphorus in lakes can cause algal blooms and growth of nuisance aquatic macrophytes, which can be detrimental to aquatic health. Common anthropogenic sources of phosphorus include fertilizers from lawns, golf courses, and other treated open spaces, detergents from residential and commercial car washes, animal waste, and sewage from illicit connections. CRWD is within the Northern Central Hardwood Forest (NCHF) ecoregion. It is one of seven ecoregions in Minnesota and is characterized as an area with fertile soils with agriculture as the dominant land use in rural areas. In most lakes in the NCHF ecoregion, phosphorous is the least available nutrient; therefore, the concentration of phosphorous controls the extent of algal growth. Algal growth in turn affects the clarity and recreational potential of lakes.


Chlorophyll-a is a pigment present in algae. Measuring chlorophyll-a concentration is a surrogate for measuring algal population. Algal blooms can make recreation unpleasant and certain species are toxic to humans and other animals. In addition, as algae die and decompose, oxygen is removed from the water column. Chronic low dissolved oxygen concentrations (<5 mg/L) may result in fish kills and low diversity of aquatic species. A lake is considered eutrophic if it has high nutrient levels, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and frequent algal blooms. Although some lakes are naturally eutrophic, many have become eutrophic as a result of anthropogenic activities. In order to identify eutrophic water bodies in Minnesota, the MPCA established eutrophication numeric water quality standards in lakes for TP, Secchi depth, and chlorophyll-a (Table 25) (MPCA, 2008). In the NCHF ecoregion, there is a different standard for shallow and deep lakes (Table 25). For a lake to be considered compliant and not eutrophic under the MPCA standards, it is required to meet the standard for both TP and either the Secchi depth or chlorophyll-a. Lakes that do not meet the standards may be placed on the MPCA 303(d) list of impaired waters. To account for differences in natural trophic state, the standards vary by ecoregion and lake type. Table 25. Deep and Shallow Lake State Water Quality Standards.

Parameter Agency Use/ExposureDeep Lake Standard

Shallow Lake Standard Units

TP MPCA, 2008 aquatic life & recreation/nutrients < 0.04 < 0.06 mg/LChl-a MPCA, 2008 aquatic life & recreation/nutrients < 14 < 20 µg/LSecchi depth MPCA, 2008 aquatic life & recreation/nutrients ≥ 1.4 ≥ 1.0 m

a. Applies to Class 2B waters: those suitable for warm and cool water fish and other aquatic life and for human recreation.

b. Excess nutrients can negatively impact recreation and aquatic life - the standards are threshold levels. Results and Analysis Summary of Results The water quality of all CRWD lakes degraded in 2011. Both Como Lake and Crosby Lake did not meet the MPCA eutrophication numeric water quality standards during the growing season (Table 26). Both lakes significantly exceeded the shallow lake standards for TP and Chl-a, though they both met Secchi disk standards (Table 26). This was the first time Como Lake did not meet the Secchi depth shallow lake standard since 2006; however, the lake has consistently not met the eutrophication numeric standards in the past. For Crosby Lake, which is consistently listed as unimpaired, 2011 was the first year in the monitoring record that it was not in compliance with the eutrophication standards. The Mississippi River plays a role in this as it flooded in fall 2010, and again for much of the 2011 season. In addition, the growing season averages of all water quality parameters for both Como Lake and Crosby Lake worsened in 2011 in comparison to the 2010 (Figures 26, 27, 28). It should be noted that the period of May through August 2011 were the wettest months, which is typical for the region.


Loeb Lake and Lake McCarrons both met the eutrophication numeric water quality standards and are categorized as unimpaired (Table 26). Lake McCarrons met the deep lake standards, though the growing season averages for each water quality parameter worsened in comparison to 2010 values. Como Lake In 2011, the growing season average for TP and Chl-a in Como Lake significantly exceeded the state shallow lake standards (Table 26). However, the growing season average Secchi depth was 1.0, equal to the state standard (Table 26 and Figure 26). In comparison to historical averages, the 2011 growing season TP and Chl-a average concentrations were greater than the historical averages (Figures 30 and 31). Also, increases in TP were observed in 2011 in comparison to 2010 averages (Figure 32). Most notably, the 2011 TP concentrations increased throughout 2011 and the average TP concentration (0.224 mg/L) increased by 59% from the 2010 average TP (0.141 mg/L). The Chl-a concentration peaked in mid to late July, and Secchi depth subsequently worsened. The growing season average Secchi depth (1.0 meters) was less than the historical average and in comparison to 2010 (Figures 26, 29, and 32). Figure 32 presents the historical relationships between Secchi depth, TP, and Chl-a. In general, Como Lake has seen overall improvements in water quality since monitoring began in 1984, though each parameter tends to fluctuate annually. It is hypothesized that the lake is cyclic in water quality and biological response (Noonan, 1998); which is observable in the data as trends of increase and decrease occur generally every 5 years. In 2006, improvements in water quality parameters were observed in Como Lake which continued through 2007, 2008, and 2009. From 2007, this reduction in nutrient loading is partially attributed to the Arlington-Pascal Stormwater Improvement Project constructed upstream of Como Lake. More information about the performance of these BMPs may be found in the CRWD BMP Performance and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CRWD 2012). Crosby Lake In 2011, Crosby Lake met the state shallow lake standards for Secchi depth, but exceeded the standards for TP and Chl-a (Table 26). Also, the 2011 growing season Chl-a and TP averages were significantly greater the historical averages and the 2011 Secchi depth average was less than the historical average, cumulatively indicating a decline in water quality (Figures 29, 30, 31). In Spring 2011, the flooding of Crosby Lake is thought to have caused initial high Chl-a concentrations and poor water clarity. However, even after the flood period, high Chl-a and TP concentrations persisted. Since monitoring of Crosby Lake began in 2005, a decrease in annual average TP concentrations was observed until a sharp increase occurred in 2010. TP concentrations were high again and in 2011 reached the highest average annual concentration ever observed at 0.122 mg/L. Similarly, the growing season Chl-a average has significantly increased in Crosby Lake with a 152% increase in 2011 (44.3 µg/L) from the 2010 average concentration (17.6 µg/L). The growing season Secchi depth average has also continued to decrease (Figure 33). Since 2005, the overall water quality of Crosby Lake has been in decline, but 2011 was the first year that it did not meet the MPCA eutrophication standards (Table 26). Little Crosby Lake was monitored for the first time in 2011. The 2011 sampling data for Little Crosby Lake showed an average TP concentration of 0.102 mg/L to exceed the state shallow lake standard. The


Chl-a concentration (11.5 µg/L) and 2011 average Secchi depth (2.03 meters.) both met the state shallow lake standard. Lake McCarrons In 2011, Lake McCarrons met state deep lake standards for Chl-a, TP, and Secchi depth (Table 26). The 2011 growing season average for Secchi depth (2.9 m) was greater than the historical average of 2.8 m (Figure 29), but decreased from 2010 (4.0 m) (Figure 34). The 2011 growing season TP and Chl-a averages were less than the historical averages (Figures 30 and 31), but increased slightly from 2010 (Figure 34). During the first half of the 2011 season, Lake McCarrons had been improving slightly in the month of May. Lake McCarrons’ Secchi depth and Chl-a concentrations increased from June through the beginning of August. While overall 2011 growing season averages for TP, Chl-a, and Secchi depth did not improve over 2010 values (Figure 34), Lake McCarrons has seen an overall improvement in water quality since receiving the alum treatment in 2004. From 2004 to 2011, TP and Chl-a concentrations have significantly decreased and Secchi depths have also improved (Figure 34). Loeb Lake In 2011, Loeb Lake met the state shallow lake standards for Chl-a, TP, and Secchi depth. The 2011 growing season TP and Chl-a averages were nearly the same as the historical averages (Figures 30 and 31). The 2011 growing season Secchi depth average decreased from 3.5 m in 2010 to 3.0 m in 2011 (Figures 26 and 35). Loeb Lake exhibited similar behavior to McCarrons through in that it had been improving in the month of May, but its Secchi depth and Chl-a concentrations continued to worsen from June through the beginning of August. Precipitation played a role in this since July was not only the peak of the growing season, but also received 10 inches of rain in 2011, the most of any other month. Since monitoring began in 2005, growing season Chl-a averages have had little annual deviation (Figure 35). However, growing season averages for TP have been increasing since 2009, which is likely due to wetter years in 2010 and 2011. 2011 averages still remain less than the historical average (Figure 35). Based on the historical data since 2005, water quality has been fairly steady over the years in Loeb Lake (Figure 35). Table 26. 2011 and Historical Water Quality Growing Season Averages.

Secchi (m)

Chl-a (µg/L)

TP (mg/L)

Secchi (m)

Chl-a (µg/L)

TP (mg/L)

Secchi (m)

Chl-a (µg/L)

TP (mg/L)

1.0 41.8 0.224 1.6 35.7 0.166 1.0 20.0 0.0601.3 44.3 0.122 2.0 14.2 0.060 1.0 20.0 0.0602.0 11.5 0.102 NA NA NA 1.0 20.0 0.0603.0 4.3 0.025 3.5 4.5 0.024 1.0 20.0 0.0602.9 7.7 0.020 2.8 10.3 0.035 1.4 14.0 0.040

Values exceed the state standard

NA: Not applicable. Little Crosby Lake was not monitored until 2011.

Lake

Little Crosby

Lake Standards

ComoCrosby

LoebMcCarrons

2011 Averages Historical Averages


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Secchi D

epth (m)

Como

Crosby

Loeb

McCarrons

Deep Lakes Standard

Shallow Lakes Standard

Figure 26. Yearly Growing Season Secchi Depth Averages.

0

20

40

60

80

100

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Chlorophyll‐a (µg/L)

Como

Crosby

Loeb

McCarrons

Deep Lakes Standard


Figure 27. Yearly Growing Season Average Chl-a Concentrations.


0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

TP (m

g/L)

Como

Crosby

Loeb

McCarrons

Deep Lakes Standard


Figure 28. Yearly Growing Season Average TP Concentrations.

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4.0

4.4

4.8

Como Crosby Loeb McCarrons

Secchi depth (m

)

Historical Average 2011

Deep Lakes Standard


CRWD Historical AveragesComo (1984 ‐ 2010) McCarrons (1988 ‐ 2010)Crosby (2005 ‐ 2010) Loeb (2003 ‐ 2010)

Figure 29. 2011 and Historical Growing Season Secchi Depth Averages.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Chlorophyll‐a (µg/L)


Deep Lakes Standard



Figure 30. 2011 and Historical Growing Season Chl-a Averages.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25


TP (mg/L)



Deep Lakes Standard


Figure 31. 2011 and Historical Growing Season TP Averages.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

4500

1

2

3

4

5

6

19

84

19

85

19

86

19

87

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

TP

an

d C

hl-

a C

on

cen

trat

ion

s (µ

g/L

)

Sec

chi

Dep

th (

m)

Average Secchi Depth (m)

Average TP Concentration (µg/L)

Average Chl-a Concentration (µg/L)

Figure 32. Como Lake Growing Season Secchi Depths, and TP and Chl-a Averages.


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1400

1

2

3

4

5

6

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

TP

an

d C

hl-

a C

on

cen

trat

ion

s (µ

g/L

)

Sec

chi

De

pth

(m

)




Figure 33. Crosby Lake Growing Season Secchi Depths, and TP and Chl-a Averages.


0

20

40

60

80

100

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

TP

an

d C

hl-

a C

on

cen

trat

ion

s (µ

g/L

)

Sec

chi

Dep

th (

m)




Figure 34. Lake McCarrons Growing Season Secchi Depths, and TP and Chl-a Averages.


0

20

40

60

80

100

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

TP

an

d C

hl-

a C

on

cen

trat

ion

s (µ

g/L

)

Sec

chi

Dep

th (

m)



Average Chl-a Concentration (µg/L) Figure 35. Loeb Lake Growing Season Secchi Depths, and TP and Chl-a Averages.


Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions Stormwater discharging from CRWD was measured to be more polluted than the Mississippi River. Additionally, the 2011 stormwater data was compared to a national stormwater quality database of urbanized areas which revealed that CRWD stormwater is typically more polluted with sediment, nutrients and bacteria than other urban watersheds across the nation. Concentrations for TP, TSS, metals, and bacteria in CRWD subwatersheds remained high in 2011, especially during stormflows. High stormwater pollutant levels contributed to the various water quality impairments found in CRWD lakes and the Mississippi River. The 2011 monitoring season was the second year that CRWD monitoring sites collected data year-round from January through December. Therefore, total recorded discharge and pollutant loads are higher than recorded in the past. However, overall pollutant loads and concentrations were lower than seen historically when normalized for drainage area dn the amount of runoff received. Among the monitoring sites, the Trout Brook subwatershed produced the highest total discharge and total loads for TSS and TP from CRWD in 2011 which closely corresponds to trends identified in previous monitoring years. East Kittsondale again showed improvement in normalized TSS and TP yields in 2011, but flow-weighted average concentrations remained very high. In comparison to the other sites, East Kittsondale continued its trend of generating the highest normalized sediment and phosphorus loads on a per acre and per inch of runoff basis. Monitoring of the Villa Park subwatershed has identified it as a prominent source of TP to Lake McCarrons. While Villa Park showed an decrease in overall TP load in 2011, it was accompanied by a larger decrease in TSS load and average TSS concentrations. This is in stark contrast to the 2010 monitoring year, which showed a rather large increase in pollutant concentrations. In 2011, the average yearly concentrations of lead at five monitoring sites exceeded MPCA toxicity standard (East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek, Trout Brook – West Branch, Como 7, and Sarita). Average storm concentrations of copper at all sites except Trout Brook Outlet and Villa Park exceeded the MPCA standard. Zinc also appears to be of some concern during storms at some sites, with East Kittsondale, St. Anthony Park, and Como 7 exceeding the MPCA toxicity standard. In general, bacteria levels during 2011 storm events were found to exceed MPCA water quality standards at most monitoring sites. At all sites, baseflow bacteria samples typically did not exceed the standard. CRWD staff witnessed potential illicit discharges which may not be related to bacteria at St. Anthony Park in 2011, and will continue to monitor the quality of water entering the Mississippi River at this site. Chloride levels were monitored year-round in 2011 at all CRWD sites. Large increases in chloride concentrations that exceeded the MPCA toxicity standard were generally observed during the winter months and snowmelt periods due to road salt application. However, both East


Kittsondale and Trout Brook-East Branch consistently discharged chloride concentrations in excess of the water quality standard all year during baseflow conditions. CRWD stormwater ponds were able to provide adequate water storage while maintaining surface levels commensurate with previous monitoring years. Stormwater ponds experienced slight increases in water levels during large storm events; however, excess water was generally drained within 72 hours. In 2011, all lakes saw a water quality degradation from the previous year. Como and Crosby Lakes showed a decline in water quality for the second year in a row and did not meet eutrophication standards. However, pollutant loading in Como Lake is more greatly dominated by stormwater runoff than is Crosby Lake, which has more limited stormwater inputs and experiences periodic flooding from the Mississippi River. Crosby Lake’s TP and Chlorophyl-a values were significantly greater their historical averages. While in the past decade, Como Lake has generally improved from its historical conditions, 2011 showed increases in TP and Chl-a concentrations and a decrease in Secchi depth. Loeb Lake and Lake McCarrons have also seen increases in TP in recent years, despite general improvements from historical conditions. Recommendations It is the goal of CRWD to continually improve the monitoring program with new ideas in order to advance the program in quality, efficiency, and usefulness. The monitoring program aims to collect and analyze high quality data from multiple locations to better understand the water quality in individual subwatersheds as well as the watershed as a whole. Data collection and analysis through the monitoring program helps to further CRWD’s mission “to protect, manage and improve the water resources of the Capitol Region Watershed District.” In 2011, CRWD achieved many of the goals stated in the 2010 Monitoring Report, including:

Identifying a potential illicit discharge from the St. Anthony Park subwatershed; Continued monitoring bacteria concentrations at East Kittsondale during baseflow

periods to ensure the illicit discharge removed in 2010 does not re-emerge; Year-round monitoring of five full water quality sites, East Kittsondale, Phalen Creek,

Trout Brook – West Branch, Trout Brook – East Branch, and Trout Brook Outlet; Additional preliminary monitoring of unmonitored subwatersheds (data not yet reported); Monitoring equipment improvement; and Collaboration with the MPCA to monitor chloride in the Trout Brook subwatershed for

development of the Chloride Management Plan.

For 2012, CRWD has several goals and recommendations to continue improving the monitoring program and the water quantity and quality dataset: Illicit discharge detection and elimination and continued monitoring at the Saint Anthony

Park subwatershed outlet.


CRWD will attempt to identify other illicit discharges by collecting extensive water quality samples during non-stormwater flow events. This includes continued monitoring of the the St. Anthony Park subwatershed. Improvement of laboratory services for stormwater sample analysis by changing service

providers.

CRWD changed its primary laboratory service provider for analysis of water quality samples to Pace Analytical. CRWD has utilized Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) for laboratory services since 2005. The change from MCES to Pace is recommended due to several of reasons, including cost, client service, and convenience. Throughout the transition to Pace Analytical in 2012, it is recommended that duplicate samples be submitted to MCES in order to determine whether or not a significant difference in results exists between labs.

Development of a monitoring database system that is capable of storing multiple years of

monitoring data.

CRWD began its monitoring program in 2005 and now has seven years of data for some sites. It is recommended that CRWD actively pursue a monitoring database system that can house all of the monitoring data. Development of additional analysis for monitoring data using statistical methods and other

techniques.

Continued monitoring and additional analysis will assist in guiding our development of water quality improvement projects that target the key pollutants and subwatersheds.

Continue comprehensive monitoring to determine areas of most concern within the

watershed. CRWD will continue comprehensive monitoring of stormwater at the established sites. CRWD will consider the addition of other monitoring locations to gather information on unmonitored subwatersheds or project sites. Data from these sites can be analyzed and used to better understand the watershed and as guide other management decisions regarding projects within the District.


References Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2010. Stormwater BMP Performance Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Saint Paul, MN. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2002. Como Lake Strategic Management Plan. Saint Paul, MN. Capitol Region Watershed District (CRWD), 2000. Watershed Management Plan 2000. Roseville, MN. Center for Watershed Protection, Maestre, A., and Pitt, R., 2005. The National Stormwater Quality Database, Version 1.1, A compilation and Analysis of NPDES Stormwater Monitoring Information. Prepared for US EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. City of St. Paul Surveyor’s Office, 2011. Survey records. Accessed on-line from http://survey.ci.stpaul.mn.us/survey_records1.html. Saint Paul, MN. ESRI, 2011. ArcGIS 9.3 Redlands, CA, USA. Kloiber, S.M., 2006. Estimating nonpoint source pollution for the Twin Cities Metropolitan area using landscape variables. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 172: 313-335. Massa, S., Brocchi, G.F., Peri, G. Altieri, C. and Mammina, C., 2001. Evaluation of recovery methods to detect faecal streptococci in polluted waters. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 32: 298-302. McCollor, S. and Heiskary, S., 1993. Selected water quality characteristics of minimally impacted streams from Minnesota’s seven ecoregions. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Saint Paul, MN. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES), 2012. Environmental Information Management System. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 2012. Final TMDL list of impaired waters. Accessed on-line from http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=8281. Saint Paul, MN. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 2010. Draft TMDL list of impaired waters. Accessed on-line from http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=8260. Saint Paul, MN. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA), 2011. National Weather Service Climate data. Accessed on-line from http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=mpx


United States Environmental Protection Agency. Current national recommended water quality criteria. Accessed on-line from http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html

Appendix A


Table 27. 2011 Como 7 Subwatershed Laboratory Data.

Como 7Sample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness cBOD SO4 E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLSnowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 9:35 2/17/2011 9:35 0.34 864 0.001 0.012 0.016 0.007 0.02 0.089 1.88 4.3 0.521 0.9 0.12 1,480 390 38 82 16 17.9 2,420Snowmelt Grab 3/16/2011 14:50 3/16/2011 14:50 0.263 206 0.0002 0.0054 0.0116 0.0077 0.0033 0.0634 0.75 3.5 0.488 0.27 0.05 430 70 38 32 8.8 - -Storm Grab 3/22/2011 9:15 3/22/2011 9:15 0.125 13 0.0002 0.005 0.0096 0.0117 0.0031 0.0697 0.31 1 0.264 0.2 0.03 54 80 24 36 - - 1,414Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:25 4/26/2011 9:25 0.047 4 0.0002 0.0041 0.0078 0.0123 0.0025 0.0556 0.11 1.1 0.183 0.07 0.03 28 76 33 32 5.8 - 1,986Storm Composite 5/9/2011 6:50 5/9/2011 7:36 0.008 5 0.0014 0.101 0.114 0.159 0.0612 0.702 0.23 2.8 0.373 0.3 0.03 63 928 316 46 25.9 - -Storm Composite 5/21/2011 3:36 5/21/2011 5:11 - 4 0.00028 0.0069 0.018 0.0175 0.0056 0.143 0.21 3.4 0.52 0.19 0.03 56 314 143 36 - - -Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:05 6/14/2011 19:23 0.05 4 0.00021 0.0045 0.0137 0.0105 0.0032 0.0937 0.09 2.6 0.459 0.08 0.03 29 153 68 40 6.6 - -Storm Grab 6/15/2011 8:35 6/15/2011 8:35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6,300Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:00 7/15/2011 10:29 - 4 0.0002 0.0037 0.0094 0.0104 0.003 0.0682 0.23 0.58 0.119 0.27 0.05 41 205 89 32 - - -Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:10 7/27/2011 16:08 0.039 2 0.0002 0.0024 0.0067 0.0093 0.0023 0.0491 0.17 2.6 0.276 0.22 0.04 35 102 45 18 4.4 - -

Snowmelt Average Como 7 0.302 535 0.0006 0.0087 0.0138 0.0074 0.0117 0.0762 1.32 3.9 0.505 0.59 0.09 955 230 38 57 12.4 17.9 1,917Storm Average Como 7 0.054 5 0.0004 0.0182 0.0256 0.0330 0.0116 0.1688 0.19 2.0 0.313 0.19 0.03 44 265 103 34 10.7 - 3,233

Annual Average 0.125 123 0.0004 0.0161 0.0230 0.0273 0.0116 0.1482 0.44 2.4 0.356 0.28 0.05 246 258 88 39 11 18 3,030Annual Maximum 0.340 864 0.0014 0.1010 0.1140 0.1590 0.0612 0.7020 1.88 4.3 0.521 0.90 0.12 1,480 928 316 82 26 18 6,300Annual Minimum 0.008 2 0.0002 0.0024 0.0067 0.0070 0.0023 0.0491 0.09 0.6 0.119 0.07 0.03 28 70 24 18 4 18 1,414

Annual Median 0.050 4 0.0002 0.0050 0.0116 0.0105 0.0032 0.0697 0.23 2.6 0.373 0.22 0.03 54 153 45 36 8 18 2,203

Golf Course Pond OutletSample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness cBOD SO4 E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLSnowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 9:50 2/17/2011 9:50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 345Storm Grab 3/22/2011 9:15 3/22/2011 9:15 0.292 7 0.0002 0.0012 0.0035 0.0013 0.0014 0.014 0.34 1.9 0.458 0.3 0.03 128 19 12 36 - - 1,120Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:25 4/26/2011 9:25 0.049 37 0.0002 0.0037 0.0074 0.0051 0.002 0.0443 0.12 0.84 0.144 0.07 0.03 110 89 55 20 7.2 - 435Storm Composite 5/21/2011 1:18 5/21/2011 12:13 - 79 0.0002 0.0036 0.0045 0.0015 0.0019 0.0183 0.43 1.1 0.114 0.31 0.04 155 24 10 34 - - -Storm Grab 6/15/2011 8:45 6/15/2011 8:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,420Storm Composite 6/14/2011 21:16 6/16/2011 9:18 0.107 60 0.0002 0.0017 0.0035 0.001 0.0016 0.0288 0.5 1.5 0.206 0.14 0.03 111 5 3 38 3.4 - -Storm Composite 7/27/2011 5:28 7/28/2011 10:32 0.009 21 0.0002 0.0022 0.0022 0.0012 0.0026 0.0178 0.11 0.86 0.119 0.22 0.04 82 10 7 20 4.4 - -Storm Composite 10/12/2011 16:07 10/13/2011 21:10 0.077 9 0.0002 0.0021 0.0039 0.0015 0.0018 0.026 0.03 1.6 0.3 0.08 0.03 75 17 10 38 6.6 - -

Storm Average Golf Course Pond Outlet 0.107 36 0.0002 0.0024 0.0042 0.0019 0.0019 0.0249 0.26 1.3 0.224 0.19 0.03 110 27 16 31 5.4 - 1,325Storm Average Como 7 Subwatershed 0.080 19 0.0003 0.0109 0.0157 0.0186 0.0071 0.1023 0.22 1.7 0.272 0.19 0.03 74 156 63 33 8.0 - 2,279

Annual Average Como 7 Subwatershed 0.117 88 0.0003 0.0106 0.0163 0.0171 0.0077 0.0989 0.37 2.0 0.303 0.24 0.04 192 165 59 36 8.9 17.9 2,055Annual Como 7 Subwatershed Maximum 0.292 79 0.0014 0.1010 0.1140 0.1590 0.0612 0.7020 1.88 4.3 0.521 0.90 0.12 1,480 928 316 82.0 25.9 17.9 6,300Annual Como 7 Subwatershed Minimum 0.009 7 0.0002 0.0012 0.0022 0.0010 0.0014 0.0140 0.03 0.6 0.114 0.07 0.03 28 5 3 18.0 3.4 17.9 345

Annual Como 7 Subwatershed Median 0.064 9 0.0002 0.0037 0.0078 0.0077 0.0026 0.0556 0.23 1.6 0.276 0.22 0.03 75 80 38 36.0 6.6 17.9 1,700

number is approximate (~)actual value is less than number (<)

- not collected

F

Figure 36. 20111 Como 7 Level

Capitol R

l, Velocity, and

Region Watersh

Discharge.

hed District 2011105

1 Monitoring Reeport

F

Figure 37. 20111 Como 7 Level

Capitol R

l, Discharge, and

Region Watersh

d Rain.



F

Figure 38. 20111 Golf Course P

Capitol R

Pond Outlet Lev

Region Watersh

el, Velocity, and


d Discharge.


F Figure 39. 20111 Golf Course P

Capitol R

Pond Outlet Lev

Region Watersh

el, Discharge, a


and Rain.



Table 28. 2011 Como 7 Subwatershed Loading.

Start DateStart Time

End Date End Time Start End

Storm 0.313 265 4/15/11 21:30 4/16/11 14:00 3,208.0 0.063 53Storm 0.313 265 4/20/11 3:30 4/20/11 15:10 4,064.0 0.08 67Storm 0.313 265 4/21/11 20:10 4/22/11 2:00 3,461.0 0.07 57Storm 0.313 265 4/22/11 17:10 4/22/11 23:50 4,130.0 0.08 68Storm 0.313 265 4/23/11 7:30 4/23/11 11:50 483.0 0.01 8Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:25 4/26/2011 9:25 0.183 76 4/26/11 3:00 4/27/11 13:00 86,670.0 0.99 411Storm 0.313 265 4/28/11 12:30 4/28/11 21:10 2,835.0 0.06 47Storm 0.313 265 4/30/11 3:40 4/30/11 17:30 30,308.0 0.59 501Storm 0.313 265 5/5/11 2:50 5/5/11 18:00 8,761.0 0.17 145Storm 0.313 265 5/8/11 14:30 5/9/11 4:20 5,435.0 0.11 90Storm Composite 5/9/2011 6:50 5/9/2011 7:36 0.373 928 5/9/11 6:40 5/9/11 10:30 24,089.0 0.56 1,396Storm 0.313 265 5/11/11 10:20 5/11/11 14:30 479.0 0.01 8Storm 0.313 265 5/12/11 10:00 5/12/11 15:00 5,840.0 0.11 97Storm 0.313 265 5/14/11 9:50 5/14/11 18:30 729.0 0.01 12Storm Composite 5/21/2011 3:36 5/21/2011 5:11 0.520 314 5/20/11 11:40 5/21/11 11:30 67,664.0 2.20 1,326Storm 0.313 265 5/21/11 11:40 5/22/11 2:10 21,283.0 0.42 352Storm 0.313 265 5/22/11 2:20 5/22/11 11:20 14,114.0 0.28 233Storm 0.313 265 5/22/11 11:30 5/23/11 3:10 18,805.0 0.37 311Storm 0.313 265 5/23/11 3:20 5/23/11 14:20 3,958.0 0.08 65Storm 0.313 265 5/25/11 5:10 5/25/11 6:30 64.0 0.00 1Storm 0.313 265 5/27/11 17:30 5/28/11 0:00 2,740.0 0.05 45Storm 0.313 265 5/28/11 0:10 5/28/11 23:20 2,096.0 0.04 35Storm 0.313 265 5/28/11 0:10 5/28/11 9:30 9,351.0 0.18 155Storm 0.313 265 5/30/11 9:10 5/30/11 20:30 2,200.0 0.04 36Storm 0.313 265 5/30/11 21:40 5/31/11 7:30 861.0 0.02 14Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/2/11 9:10 6/2/11 18:00 2,228.0 0.008 0.3Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/3/11 10:50 6/3/11 20:40 2,705.0 0.009 0.34Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/4/11 8:10 6/4/11 15:40 508.0 0.002 0.06Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/4/11 23:10 6/14/11 23:50 28.0 0.0001 0.003Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/5/11 7:00 6/5/11 15:20 1,973.0 0.007 0.25Storm 0.313 265 6/6/11 4:40 6/7/11 4:20 7,445.0 0.15 123Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/7/11 6:50 6/7/11 15:50 1,231.0 0.004 0.15Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/8/11 9:10 6/8/11 10:30 530.0 0.002 0.07Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/9/11 6:50 6/9/11 19:10 2,543.0 0.009 0.32Storm 0.313 265 6/10/11 2:40 6/10/11 19:40 10,369.0 0.20 172Storm 0.313 265 6/10/11 19:50 6/11/11 8:50 7,922.0 0.15 131Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/11/11 9:00 6/12/11 8:00 2,361.0 0.008 0.29Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/12/11 8:10 6/13/11 7:20 2,032.0 0.007 0.25Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/13/11 7:30 6/14/11 17:40 4,057.0 0.014 0.51Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:05 6/14/2011 19:23 0.459 153 6/14/11 17:50 6/15/11 2:50 49,262.0 1.41 471Storm 0.313 265 6/15/11 3:00 6/15/11 16:10 24,611.0 0.48 407Storm 0.313 265 6/15/11 16:20 6/16/11 1:20 3,055.0 0.06 51Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/16/11 8:10 6/16/11 18:40 1,139.0 0.004 0.14Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/17/11 7:50 6/17/11 18:00 1,613.0 0.005 0.20Storm 0.313 265 6/18/11 12:20 6/18/11 11:10 11,915.0 0.23 197Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/18/11 14:10 6/19/11 6:20 11,603.0 0.039 1.45Storm 0.313 265 6/19/11 6:40 6/19/11 22:40 5,534.0 0.11 92Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/20/11 8:50 6/20/11 20:30 2,226.0 0.008 0.28Storm 0.313 265 6/21/11 2:50 6/21/11 14:30 34,297.0 0.67 567Storm 0.313 265 6/21/11 14:40 6/22/11 6:50 28,395.0 0.55 470Storm 0.313 265 6/22/11 7:00 6/23/11 13:10 22,406.0 0.44 371Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/24/11 9:10 6/24/11 18:40 1,222.0 0.004 0.15Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/25/11 1:10 6/25/11 16:50 2,400.0 0.008 0.30Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/26/11 7:50 6/26/11 17:40 2,286.0 0.008 0.29Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/27/11 8:20 6/27/11 19:30 1,028.0 0.003 0.13Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/28/11 6:50 6/28/11 21:00 2,061.0 0.007 0.26Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/29/11 8:00 6/29/11 22:20 2,254.0 0.008 0.28Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 6/30/11 7:50 6/30/11 19:40 3,347.0 0.011 0.42Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/1/11 7:00 7/1/11 19:20 3,857.0 0.013 0.48Storm 0.313 265 7/1/11 19:30 7/2/11 1:40 8,722.0 0.17 144Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/2/11 8:50 7/2/11 20:00 3,163.0 0.011 0.39Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/3/11 6:50 7/3/11 18:10 3,595.0 0.012 0.45Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/4/11 7:50 7/4/11 22:20 1,370.0 0.005 0.17Storm 0.313 265 7/5/11 5:20 7/5/11 23:50 1,967.0 0.04 33Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/6/11 8:00 7/6/11 17:50 802.0 0.003 0.10Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/7/11 7:40 7/8/11 18:30 5,983.0 0.020 0.75Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/9/11 9:30 7/9/11 16:30 579.0 0.002 0.07Storm 0.313 265 7/10/11 5:50 7/10/11 22:00 34,455.0 0.67 570Storm 0.313 265 7/10/11 22:50 7/11/11 21:00 62,767.0 1.23 1,038Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/12/11 7:30 7/14/11 5:00 4,300.0 0.014 0.54Storm 0.313 265 7/14/11 6:50 7/14/11 17:40 8,555.0 0.17 142Storm 0.313 265 7/15/11 6:50 7/16/11 2:10 63,551.0 1.24 1,051Storm 0.313 265 7/16/11 4:10 7/17/11 4:50 429,257.0 8.39 7,101Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/18/11 15:10 7/18/11 16:20 10.0 0.000 0.00Storm 0.313 265 7/19/11 7:30 7/19/11 14:30 98,410.0 1.92 1,628Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/22/11 7:30 7/22/11 11:30 1,700.0 0.006 0.21Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:00 7/15/2011 10:29 0.119 205 7/23/11 9:10 7/23/11 21:50 5,251.0 0.04 67Storm 0.313 265 7/23/11 22:00 7/24/11 6:50 25,631.0 0.50 424Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/24/11 7:00 7/25/11 12:20 4,798.0 0.016 0.60Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/26/11 10:40 7/26/11 17:10 2,545.0 0.009 0.32Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:10 7/27/2011 16:08 0.276 102 7/27/11 0:10 7/27/11 16:10 22,610.0 0.39 144Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/29/11 8:20 7/29/11 13:40 2,428.0 0.008 0.30Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/30/11 8:30 7/30/11 15:40 3,199.0 0.011 0.40Storm 0.313 265 7/30/11 22:50 7/31/11 0:50 36,708.0 0.72 607Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 7/31/11 6:30 7/31/11 7:00 2,100.0 0.007 0.26Storm 0.313 265 8/1/11 7:30 8/1/11 8:00 382.0 0.01 6Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/1/11 13:30 8/1/11 12:10 1,132.0 0.004 0.14Storm 0.313 265 8/1/11 13:30 8/1/11 18:40 281,489.0 5.50 4,657Storm 0.313 265 8/2/11 5:10 8/2/11 7:00 6,931.0 0.14 115Storm 0.313 265 8/2/11 8:20 8/2/11 10:30 986.0 0.00 16

Loading IntervalInterval

Volume (cf)Interval TP

(lb)Interval TSS (lb)

Sample TypeSample Collection Time

TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)


Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/4/11 10:10 8/4/11 13:00 520.0 0.002 0.06Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/5/11 8:20 8/5/11 9:50 2,588.0 0.009 0.32Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/6/11 9:50 8/6/11 14:00 619.0 0.002 0.08Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/7/11 7:30 8/7/11 8:00 1,972.0 0.007 0.25Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/8/11 7:50 8/8/11 11:50 1,276.0 0.004 0.16Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/9/11 7:30 8/9/11 10:50 530.0 0.002 0.07Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/10/11 8:20 8/10/11 13:20 1,487.0 0.005 0.19Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/11/11 6:40 8/11/11 7:10 1,550.0 0.005 0.19Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/12/11 7:10 8/12/11 7:30 225.0 0.001 0.03Storm 0.313 265 8/13/11 2:10 8/13/11 8:00 42,704.0 0.83 706Storm 0.313 265 8/13/11 15:50 8/13/11 17:20 4,695.0 0.09 78Storm 0.313 265 8/14/11 6:30 8/14/11 15:10 3,440.0 0.07 57Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/15/11 8:30 8/16/11 10:20 10,120.0 0.034 1.26Storm 0.313 265 8/16/11 19:00 8/16/11 22:10 92,845.0 1.81 1,536Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/17/11 7:00 8/17/11 8:10 1,432.0 0.005 0.18Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/18/11 8:10 8/18/11 11:10 906.0 0.003 0.11Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/19/11 7:30 8/19/11 10:20 326.0 0.001 0.04Storm 0.313 265 8/20/11 7:30 8/20/11 12:00 2,168.0 0.04 36Storm 0.313 265 8/21/11 7:40 8/21/11 9:00 1,455.0 0.03 24Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/22/11 8:20 8/22/11 14:50 2,084.0 0.007 0.26Storm 0.313 265 8/23/11 5:50 8/23/11 8:30 1,888.0 0.04 31Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/24/11 8:30 8/24/11 15:30 1,862.0 0.006 0.23Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/26/11 7:50 8/26/11 16:30 2,242.0 0.008 0.28Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/27/11 7:40 8/27/11 7:40 944.0 0.003 0.12Storm 0.313 265 8/28/11 6:20 8/28/11 7:10 1,300.0 0.03 22Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/29/11 7:40 8/29/11 12:30 1,745.0 0.006 0.22Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/30/11 8:00 8/30/11 10:10 854.0 0.003 0.11Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 8/31/11 8:00 8/31/11 12:40 1,617.0 0.005 0.20Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/2/11 9:10 9/3/11 3:20 2,042.0 0.007 0.25Storm 0.313 265 9/3/11 4:10 9/3/11 8:30 3,597.0 0.07 60Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/4/11 8:00 9/4/11 13:50 1,517.0 0.005 0.19Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/5/11 8:50 9/5/11 15:40 2,636.0 0.009 0.33Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/6/11 9:10 9/6/11 14:50 1,526.0 0.005 0.19Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/7/11 6:40 9/7/11 10:30 1,600.0 0.005 0.20Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/9/11 8:00 9/9/11 13:50 1,776.0 0.006 0.22Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/9/11 18:50 9/9/11 20:10 82.0 0.000 0.01Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/10/11 8:20 9/10/11 15:30 1,364.0 0.005 0.17Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/11/11 6:00 9/11/11 18:00 3,067.0 0.010 0.38Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/12/11 7:40 9/12/11 12:30 1,518.0 0.005 0.19Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/13/11 7:50 9/13/11 12:30 970.0 0.003 0.12Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/14/11 8:50 9/14/11 13:50 1,387.0 0.005 0.17Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/15/11 7:50 9/15/11 11:40 820.0 0.003 0.10Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/16/11 8:10 9/16/11 10:40 984.0 0.003 0.12Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/17/11 8:00 9/17/11 8:00 346.0 0.001 0.04Storm 0.313 265 9/18/11 5:00 9/18/11 17:20 5,525.0 0.11 91Storm 0.313 265 9/21/11 3:30 9/21/11 14:10 4,331.0 0.08 72Storm 0.313 265 9/22/11 0:10 9/22/11 11:20 2,167.0 0.04 36Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/23/11 7:40 9/23/11 8:00 22.0 0.000 0.00Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/25/11 6:50 9/25/11 10:00 358.0 0.001 0.04Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/26/11 7:50 9/26/11 8:30 716.0 0.002 0.09Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/26/11 11:10 9/26/11 13:40 379.0 0.001 0.05Storm 0.313 265 9/27/11 8:20 9/27/11 16:20 1,157.0 0.02 19Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/28/11 8:00 9/28/11 10:10 234.0 0.001 0.03Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/29/11 9:30 9/29/11 12:30 667.0 0.002 0.08Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 9/30/11 7:50 9/30/11 13:10 1,679.0 0.006 0.21Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/1/11 9:40 10/1/11 16:50 2,270.0 0.008 0.28Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/2/11 8:50 10/2/11 8:50 26.0 0.0001 0.003Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/3/11 9:50 10/3/11 14:50 735.0 0.002 0.09Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/4/11 11:10 10/4/11 15:40 1,057.0 0.004 0.13Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/5/11 9:30 10/5/11 15:20 2,209.0 0.007 0.28Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/6/11 9:00 10/6/11 12:50 802.0 0.003 0.10Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/7/11 9:20 10/7/11 14:30 911.0 0.003 0.11Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/8/11 8:50 10/8/11 22:50 1,670.0 0.006 0.21Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/9/11 5:10 10/9/11 18:20 3,206.0 0.011 0.40Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/10/11 7:20 10/10/11 17:50 892.0 0.003 0.11Storm 0.313 265 10/10/11 18:00 10/11/11 8:20 2,423.0 0.05 40Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/11/11 9:30 10/11/11 23:10 1,208.0 0.004 0.15Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/11/11 23:50 10/12/11 9:00 505.0 0.002 0.06Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/12/11 9:30 10/12/11 12:30 505.0 0.002 0.06Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/18/11 11:40 10/18/11 13:10 183.0 0.001 0.02Storm 0.313 265 10/23/11 4:30 10/23/11 5:30 382.0 0.01 6Illicit Discharge 0.054 2 10/27/11 9:50 10/27/11 10:40 452.0 0.002 0.1

0.318 261 Storm Subtotal 1,786,588 35 29,143Illicit Discharge Flow-Weighted Average 0.053 2 Illicit Discharge Subtotal 172,241 0.574 21

0.295 238 Total 1,958,829 36 29,164Total Flow-Weighted Average

Storm Flow-Weighted Average

Note: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average storm flow concentrations. Average storm TP = 0.313 mg/L, TSS = 265 mg/L. Average illicit discharge TP = 0.054 mg/L, TSS = 2 mg/L


Golf Course Pond OutletStorm 0.224 27 4/12/11 16:40 4/26/11 4:10 39,551 0.55 67Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:25 4/26/2011 9:25 0.144 89 4/26/11 4:20 4/30/11 7:10 696,878 6.26 3,872Storm 0.224 27 4/30/11 7:20 5/9/11 7:00 284,209 3.97 479Storm 0.224 27 5/9/11 7:10 5/12/11 10:20 306,130 4.28 516Storm 0.224 27 5/12/11 10:30 5/20/11 20:40 29,208 0.41 49Storm Composite 5/21/2011 1:18 5/21/2011 12:13 0.114 24 5/20/11 20:50 5/28/11 1:00 1,176,036 8.37 1,762Storm 0.224 27 5/28/11 1:10 5/30/11 18:00 99,331 1.39 167Storm 0.224 27 5/30/11 18:10 6/10/11 5:30 23,270 0.33 39Storm 0.224 27 6/10/11 5:40 6/14/11 18:30 84,621 1.18 143Storm Composite 6/14/2011 21:16 6/16/2011 9:18 0.206 5 6/14/11 18:40 6/18/11 0:30 588,373 7.57 184Storm 0.224 27 6/18/11 0:40 6/18/11 14:00 15,178 0.21 26Storm 0.224 27 6/18/11 14:10 6/21/11 3:40 117,349 1.64 198Storm 0.224 27 6/21/11 3:50 7/1/11 20:20 678,111 9.48 1,143Storm 0.224 27 7/1/11 20:30 7/10/11 5:50 86,795 1.21 146Storm 0.224 27 7/10/11 6:00 7/15/11 10:20 744,359 10.41 1,255Storm 0.224 27 7/15/11 10:30 7/19/11 9:50 2,944,760 41.18 4,963Storm 0.224 27 7/19/11 10:00 7/23/11 11:00 753,604 10.54 1,270Storm 0.224 27 7/23/11 11:10 7/27/11 2:30 491,524 6.87 828Storm Composite 7/27/2011 5:28 7/28/2011 10:32 0.119 10 7/27/11 2:40 8/1/11 14:10 498,584 3.70 311Storm 0.224 27 8/1/11 14:20 8/13/11 2:30 1,315,728 18.40 2,218Storm 0.224 27 8/13/11 2:40 8/16/11 19:00 521,222 7.29 879Storm 0.224 27 8/16/11 19:10 10/12/11 12:40 1,136,592 15.89 1,916Storm Composite 10/12/2011 16:07 10/13/2011 21:10 0.300 17 10/12/11 12:50 11/3/11 11:00 328,402 6.15 349

Golf Course Pond Total Flow-Weighted Average 0.207 28 12,959,815 167 22,779

0.220 56 14,746,403 202.8 51,921Como 7 Subwatershed Illicit Discharge Flow - Weighted Average 0.053 2 172,241 0.6 21

0.218 56 14,918,644 203.4 51,943

Note: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average storm flow concentrations. Average storm TP = 0.224 mg/L, TSS = 27 mg/L.

Como 7 Subwatershed Storm TotalComo 7 Subwatershed Illicit Discharge Total

Como 7 Subwatershed Total Flow - Weighted Average Como 7 Subwatershed Total

Golf Course Pond Total

Como 7 Subwatershed Storm Flow - Weighted Average


Table 29. 2011 East Kittsondale Laboratory Data.

Sample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness cBOD Surfactants Fl K E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLBase Grab 1/5/2011 10:25 1/5/2011 10:25 0.027 733 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.57 0.034 2.05 0.03 1,630 1 1 552 - 0.1 0.192 3.84 26Base Grab 2/11/2011 10:30 2/11/2011 10:30 0.011 398 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.61 0.011 1.83 0.03 1,060 1 1 504 - 0.1 0.0366 2.5 51Base Grab 3/7/2011 10:15 3/7/2011 10:15 0.007 2,113 0.0002 0.001 0.0048 0.0004 0.0021 0.0192 0.04 0.8 0.023 1.57 0.03 3,560 2 1 540 - - - - 7Base Grab 5/2/2011 11:10 5/2/2011 11:10 0.038 517 0.0002 0.00058 0.0024 0.0001 0.0016 0.0101 0.03 0.72 0.043 2.61 0.03 1,230 1 1 560 - - - 579Base Grab 5/17/2011 9:20 5/17/2011 9:20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,120Base Composite 5/17/2011 10:37 5/18/2011 8:46 0.029 478 0.0002 0.00058 0.002 0.0019 0.0018 0.0124 0.06 0.52 0.029 2.57 0.03 1,260 2 1 532 1 - - - -Base Grab 6/6/2011 11:00 6/6/2011 11:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 199Base Composite 6/6/2011 11:24 6/7/2011 9:17 0.009 416 0.0002 0.00055 0.0029 0.0029 0.0015 0.0233 0.02 0.72 0.042 2.6 0.04 586 6 2 472 1.8 - - - -Base Grab 6/30/2011 8:50 6/30/2011 8:50 0.025 397 0.0002 0.00086 0.0024 0.0011 0.0017 0.0089 0.02 0.43 0.036 2.09 0.03 983 8 2 452 1 - - - 249Base Grab 7/13/2011 8:55 7/13/2011 8:55 0.027 404 0.0002 0.00062 0.0022 0.00035 0.0018 0.0098 0.02 0.67 0.039 2.36 0.03 1,020 2 2 464 1 - - - 285Base Grab 8/4/2011 10:10 8/4/2011 10:10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 73Base Grab 8/5/2011 9:15 8/5/2011 9:15 0.041 408 0.0002 0.00071 0.002 0.00022 0.0016 0.0137 0.02 0.59 0.04 2.66 0.03 1,080 3 1 468 1 - - - -Base Grab 8/18/2011 8:45 8/18/2011 8:45 0.09 353 0.0002 0.00081 0.0029 0.00037 0.002 0.0081 0.02 0.72 0.094 3.02 0.03 1,040 21 10 480 1 - - - 186Base Grab 9/6/2011 9:10 9/6/2011 9:10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 121Base Composite 9/6/2011 9:37 9/6/2011 14:13 0.02 264 0.0002 0.0061 0.0133 0.0147 0.0045 0.0868 0.06 1.3 0.244 2.1 0.05 777 102 19 360 1.2 - 0.5495 4 -Base Composite 9/6/2011 14:29 9/7/2011 9:36 0.016 329 0.0002 0.00067 0.0019 0.00086 0.0017 0.0077 0.02 0.94 0.046 2.54 0.03 1,010 6 1 424 1 - - - -Base Grab 9/22/2011 9:30 9/22/2011 9:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 308Base Composite 9/22/2011 10:08 9/23/2011 8:37 0.018 338 0.0002 0.00063 0.0027 0.0018 0.0019 0.0208 0.04 0.64 0.032 2.23 0.03 953 5 1 440 1.1 - - - -Base Grab 10/4/2011 9:00 10/4/2011 9:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 816Base Composite 10/4/2011 9:20 10/5/2011 3:05 0.011 260 0.0002 0.00061 0.0021 0.0015 0.0018 0.0103 0.07 0.58 0.031 2.04 0.05 829 6 1 420 1 - - - -Base Grab 10/20/2011 9:05 10/20/2011 9:05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 52Base Composite 10/20/2011 9:30 10/20/2011 21:35 0.014 183 0.0002 0.001 0.0032 0.0044 0.0015 0.0152 0.21 0.84 0.036 1.53 0.09 607 25 4 336 1 - - - -Base Grab 10/31/2011 9:20 10/31/2011 9:20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 120Base Composite 10/31/2011 9:44 11/1/2011 8:54 0.007 370 0.0002 0.0019 0.0035 0.00056 0.012 0.0117 0.03 0.14 0.026 2.28 0.03 999 63 16 536 1 - - - -Base Grab 11/7/2011 9:50 11/7/2011 9:50 0.112 347 0.0002 0.00029 0.0013 0.00013 0.0016 0.0019 0.04 0.6 0.01 2.22 0.03 987 11 1 484 1 - - - -Base Grab 11/22/2011 9:15 11/22/2011 9:15 0.426 1,461 0.0002 0.0024 0.0128 0.0055 0.0031 0.0427 0.02 1.8 0.579 1.16 0.05 2,640 9 6 500 34 - - - 22,600Base Grab 12/6/2011 9:50 12/6/2011 9:50 0.013 589 0.0002 0.00037 0.0012 0.0001 0.0017 0.0038 0.04 0.41 0.02 2.1 0.03 1,420 4 1 560 1 - - - 24

Base Average 0.050 545 0.0003 0.0021 0.0044 0.0023 0.0044 0.0182 0.04 0.7 0.074 2.19 0.04 1,246 15 4 478 3.3 0.1 0.259 3.4 1,577

Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:25 4/26/2011 9:25 0.043 9 0.0003 0.0149 0.0424 0.0411 0.0061 0.206 0.13 1 0.222 0.1 0.03 58 246 66 56 7.9 - - - 461Storm Composite 5/9/2011 6:55 5/9/2011 8:57 0.047 8 0.0004 0.0154 0.0405 0.0455 0.0084 0.209 0.49 2.7 0.473 0.36 0.03 51 420 120 52 14 - - - -Storm Grab 5/9/2011 9:00 5/9/2011 9:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 816Storm Composite 5/20/2011 18:15 5/20/2011 21:01 - 43 0.00024 0.0108 0.0372 0.019 0.0068 0.17 0.34 3.4 0.436 0.14 0.04 164 156 70 72 - - - - -Storm Composite 5/21/2011 1:28 5/21/2011 6:29 - 10 0.00026 0.0092 0.024 0.0341 0.005 0.138 0.21 2.1 0.329 0.34 0.04 80 229 78 68 - - - - -Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:04 6/14/2011 20:34 0.059 11 0.0002 0.0109 0.0226 0.019 0.0051 0.122 0.1 3.4 0.46 0.14 0.03 47 169 70 60 5.6 - - - -Storm Grab 6/15/2011 9:00 6/15/2011 9:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,100Storm Composite 7/10/2011 5:40 7/10/2011 8:17 0.057 7 0.00037 0.0073 0.0329 0.0413 0.0062 0.171 0.2 1.9 0.337 0.28 0.06 60 384 82 52 5 - - - -Storm Composite 7/10/2011 22:59 7/10/2011 23:37 0.039 2 0.00036 0.0084 0.0361 0.0522 0.0067 0.166 0.2 1.4 0.315 0.23 0.03 47 639 147 44 4.2 - - - -Storm Composite 7/15/2011 9:55 7/15/2011 13:09 - 5 0.00021 0.0099 0.0215 0.0277 0.0044 0.12 0.17 0.76 0.102 0.36 0.05 55 133 34 36 - - - - -Storm Grab 7/15/2011 10:00 7/15/2011 10:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,200Storm Composite 7/19/2011 12:06 7/19/2011 15:04 0.044 10 0.00022 0.0068 0.0204 0.0304 0.0041 0.104 0.52 2 0.229 0.44 0.04 48 139 29 36 3 - - - -Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:01 7/27/2011 4:50 0.025 11 0.0002 0.0045 0.0185 0.0243 0.0039 0.117 0.14 1.5 0.245 0.42 0.04 66 220 100 44 4.1 - - - -Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:23 7/31/2011 1:01 0.039 14 0.0002 0.0057 0.0213 0.0292 0.004 0.131 0.19 1.5 0.22 0.42 0.03 72 261 71 40 3.7 - - - -Storm Composite 8/1/2011 13:42 8/1/2011 17:58 0.013 6 0.0002 0.0076 0.0192 0.025 0.0036 0.095 0.14 1.1 0.177 0.35 0.03 42 126 35 36 3.3 - - - -Storm Composite 10/12/2011 12:44 10/12/2011 21:10 0.294 13 0.00034 0.0139 0.0442 0.0471 0.0072 0.197 0.02 2.7 0.783 0.05 0.03 172 280 103 76 40 - - - -

Storm Average 0.066 11 0.0003 0.0096 0.0293 0.0335 0.0055 0.1497 0.22 2.0 0.333 0.28 0.04 74 262 77 52 9.1 - - - 4,394Annual Average 0.055 328 0.0003 0.0052 0.0145 0.0150 0.0049 0.0716 0.11 1.2 0.166 1.41 0.04 770 117 34 305 5.6 0.1 0.259 3.4 2,114

Annual Maximum 0.426 2,113 0.0010 0.0154 0.0442 0.0522 0.0200 0.2090 0.52 3.4 0.783 3.02 0.09 3,560 639 147 560 40.0 0.1 0.550 4.0 12,200Annual Minimum 0.007 2 0.0002 0.0003 0.0012 0.0001 0.0015 0.0019 0.02 0.1 0.010 0.05 0.03 42 1 1 36 1.0 0.1 0.037 2.5 7

Annual Median 0.027 297 0.0002 0.0035 0.0100 0.0037 0.0038 0.0221 0.05 0.8 0.045 1.70 0.03 803 16 8 422 1.2 0.1 0.192 3.8 186

number is approximate (~)actual value is less than number (<)missing data

- not collected

F

Figure 40. 20111 East Kittsonda

Capitol R

ale Level, Veloc

Region Watersh

city, and Discha


arge.


F

Figure 41. 20111 East Kittsonda

Capitol R

ale Level, Disch

Region Watersh

harge, and Rain.




Table 30. 2011 East Kittsondale Loading.



Base Grab 1/5/2011 10:25 1/5/2011 10:25 0.034 1 1/1/11 0:00 2/1/11 17:00 1,330,240 2.82 83Base Grab 2/11/2011 10:30 2/11/2011 10:30 0.022 1 2/1/11 17:15 3/1/11 10:45 4,027,880 5.53 251Base Grab 3/7/2011 10:15 3/7/2011 10:15 0.023 2 3/1/11 11:00 3/22/11 3:15 5,776,980 8.29 721Storm 0.333 262 3/22/11 3:30 3/23/11 10:30 1,665,780 34.63 27,245Base 0.074 15 3/23/11 10:45 4/26/11 2:10 6,109,840 28.22 5,721Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:25 4/26/2011 9:25 0.222 246 4/26/11 2:20 4/27/11 18:20 2,971,910 41.19 45,639Base 0.074 15 4/27/11 18:30 4/30/11 3:00 361,549 1.67 339Storm 0.333 262 4/30/11 3:10 5/1/11 12:20 1,210,620 25.17 19,800Base Grab 5/2/2011 11:10 5/2/2011 11:10 0.043 1 5/1/11 12:30 5/8/11 14:10 838,888 2.25 52Storm 0.333 262 5/8/11 14:20 5/8/11 21:10 271,212 5.64 4,436Base 0.074 15 5/8/11 21:20 5/9/11 6:30 31,848 0.15 30Storm Composite 5/9/2011 6:55 5/9/2011 8:57 0.473 420 5/9/11 6:40 5/9/11 18:50 996,935 29.44 26,139Base Composite 5/17/2011 10:37 5/18/2011 8:46 0.029 2 5/9/11 19:00 5/20/11 11:20 1,016,670 1.84 127Storm Composite 5/20/2011 18:15 5/20/2011 21:01 0.436 156 5/20/11 11:30 5/20/11 23:30 416,310 11.33 4,054Storm Composite 5/21/2011 1:28 5/21/2011 6:29 0.329 229 5/20/11 23:40 5/21/11 11:30 1,831,250 37.61 26,179Storm 0.333 262 5/21/11 11:40 5/22/11 2:00 723,181 15.03 11,828Storm 0.333 262 5/22/11 2:10 5/22/11 9:20 507,273 10.55 8,297Storm 0.333 262 5/22/11 9:30 5/23/11 16:40 923,170 19.19 15,099Base 0.074 15 5/23/11 16:50 5/27/11 23:40 531,324 2.45 498Storm 0.333 262 5/27/11 23:50 5/28/11 12:50 434,037 9.02 7,099Base Composite 6/6/2011 11:24 6/7/2011 9:17 0.042 6 5/28/11 13:00 6/14/11 17:30 2,087,330 5.47 782Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:04 6/14/2011 20:34 0.460 169 6/14/11 17:40 6/15/11 3:50 1,444,730 41.49 15,242Storm 0.333 262 6/15/11 4:00 6/16/11 1:50 1,131,850 23.53 18,512Base 0.074 15 6/16/11 2:00 6/18/11 0:00 179,261 0.83 168Storm 0.333 262 6/18/11 0:10 6/18/11 14:10 896,755 18.64 14,667Storm 0.333 262 6/18/11 14:20 6/19/11 5:10 558,598 11.61 9,136Base 0.074 15 6/19/11 5:20 6/21/11 2:40 189,631 0.88 178Storm 0.333 262 6/21/11 2:50 6/21/11 14:00 978,461 20.34 16,003Storm 0.333 262 6/21/11 14:10 6/21/11 21:50 1,044,250 21.71 17,079Storm 0.333 262 6/21/11 22:00 6/22/11 5:40 522,691 10.87 8,549Storm 0.333 262 6/22/11 5:50 6/22/11 19:20 693,470 14.42 11,342Storm 0.333 262 6/22/11 19:30 6/23/11 13:40 519,813 10.81 8,502Base Grab 6/30/2011 8:50 6/30/2011 8:50 0.036 8 6/23/11 13:50 7/1/11 20:10 840,828 1.89 420Storm 0.333 262 7/1/11 20:20 7/2/11 7:10 354,914 7.38 5,805

Sample TypeInterval



TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)Sample Collection Time Loading Interval


Base 0.074 15 7/2/11 7:20 7/10/11 5:00 825,533 3.81 773Storm Composite 7/10/2011 5:40 7/10/2011 8:17 0.337 384 7/10/11 5:10 7/10/11 15:00 910,218 19.15 21,819Base 0.074 15 7/10/11 15:10 7/10/11 22:40 1,220,730 5.64 1,143Storm Composite 7/10/2011 22:59 7/10/2011 23:37 0.315 639 7/10/11 22:50 7/11/11 14:30 35,082 0.69 1,399Base Grab 7/13/2011 8:55 7/13/2011 8:55 0.039 2 7/11/11 14:40 7/14/11 9:50 266,441 0.65 33Base 0.074 15 7/14/11 10:00 7/14/11 18:40 66,218 0.31 62Storm 0.333 262 7/14/11 18:50 7/15/11 9:30 344,576 7.16 5,636Storm Composite 7/15/2011 9:55 7/15/2011 13:09 0.102 133 7/15/11 9:40 7/16/11 4:10 2,064,500 13.15 17,141Storm 0.333 262 7/16/11 4:20 7/17/11 6:20 3,651,660 75.91 59,725Base 0.074 15 7/17/11 6:30 7/19/11 11:40 314,179 1.45 294Storm Composite 7/19/2011 12:06 7/19/2011 15:04 0.229 139 7/19/11 11:50 7/20/11 6:50 1,481,640 21.18 12,857Base 0.074 15 7/20/11 7:00 7/23/11 22:20 552,683 2.55 518Storm 0.333 262 7/23/11 22:30 7/24/11 15:10 856,513 17.81 14,009Base 0.074 15 7/24/11 15:20 7/27/11 1:50 292,833 1.35 274Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:01 7/27/2011 4:50 0.245 220 7/27/11 2:00 7/27/11 16:10 669,586 10.24 9,196Base 0.074 15 7/27/11 16:20 7/30/11 22:30 443,784 2.05 416Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:23 7/31/2011 1:01 0.220 261 7/30/11 22:40 7/31/11 12:50 723,836 9.94 11,794Base 0.074 15 7/31/11 13:00 8/1/11 13:00 161,288 0.75 151Storm Composite 8/1/2011 13:42 8/1/2011 17:58 0.177 126 8/1/11 13:10 8/3/11 3:40 1,747,340 19.31 13,744Base Grab 8/5/2011 9:15 8/5/2011 9:15 0.040 3 8/3/11 3:50 8/13/11 2:30 1,623,660 4.05 304Storm 0.333 262 8/13/11 2:40 8/14/11 1:00 818,652 17.02 13,390Base 0.074 15 8/14/11 1:10 8/16/11 19:00 303,611 1.40 284Storm 0.333 262 8/16/11 19:10 8/17/11 10:10 2,390,520 49.69 39,099Base Grab 8/18/2011 8:45 8/18/2011 8:45 0.094 21 8/17/11 10:20 9/1/11 6:20 1,633,890 9.59 2,142Base Composite 9/6/2011 9:37 9/6/2011 14:13 0.244 102 9/1/11 6:30 9/6/11 14:20 503,120 7.66 3,204Base Composite 9/6/2011 14:29 9/7/2011 9:36 0.046 6 9/6/11 14:30 9/20/11 1:40 1,371,130 3.94 514Base Composite 9/22/2011 10:08 9/23/2011 8:37 0.032 5 9/20/11 1:50 10/1/11 10:10 1,018,870 2.04 318Base Composite 10/4/2011 9:20 10/5/2011 3:05 0.031 6 10/1/11 10:20 10/12/11 12:10 754,480 1.46 283Storm Composite 10/12/2011 12:44 10/12/2011 21:10 0.783 280 10/12/11 12:20 10/13/11 2:20 877,628 42.90 15,340Base Composite 10/20/2011 9:30 10/20/2011 21:35 0.036 25 10/13/11 2:30 10/25/11 3:40 616,404 1.39 962Base Composite 10/31/2011 9:44 11/1/2011 8:54 0.026 63 10/25/11 3:50 11/4/11 18:50 411,070 0.67 1,617Base Grab 11/7/2011 9:50 11/7/2011 9:50 0.010 11 11/4/11 19:00 11/15/11 11:45 435,696 0.27 299Base Grab 11/22/2011 9:15 11/22/2011 9:15 0.579 9 11/15/11 12:00 12/1/11 12:45 1,274,400 46.06 716Base Grab 12/6/2011 9:50 12/6/2011 9:50 0.020 4 12/1/11 13:00 12/31/11 23:50 2,201,410 2.75 550

0.316 243 Storm Subtotal 36,668,961 724 555,8010.066 10 Base Subtotal 39,613,699 162 24,2250.186 122 Total 76,282,660 886 580,026

Note: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average base and storm flow concentrations. Average base TP = 0.074 mg/L, TSS = 15 mg/L; average storm TP = 0.333 mg/L, TSS = 262 mg/L.

Total Flow-Weighted Average

Storm Flow-Weighted AverageBase Flow-Weighted Average


Table 31. 2011 Phalen Creek Laboratory Data.

Sample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness cBOD SO4 E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLBase Grab 1/5/2011 11:15 1/5/2011 11:15 0.026 146 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.43 0.039 1.88 0.03 676 1 1 480 1 - 5Base Grab 2/11/2011 10:53 2/11/2011 10:53 0.027 135 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.0330 0.02 0.35 0.061 1.88 0.03 636 5 1 480 1 - 3Base Grab 2/23/2011 15:43 2/23/2011 15:43 0.025 1,451 0.001 0.01 0.013 0.003 0.02 0.1080 0.13 1 0.128 1.83 0.03 2,580 40 17 404 - - -Base Grab 3/7/2011 11:00 3/7/2011 11:00 0.033 3,309 0.0003 0.0081 0.0232 0.0081 0.0041 0.1030 0.39 1.8 0.148 1.81 0.07 5,200 49 18 452 - - 185Base Grab 5/2/2011 10:25 5/2/2011 10:25 0.02 115 0.0002 0.0012 0.0023 0.0019 0.0010 0.0168 0.25 0.97 0.096 1.83 0.03 515 7 2 404 1.1 - 6Base Grab 5/17/2011 9:55 5/17/2011 9:55 0.029 120 0.0002 0.00072 0.0011 0.0004 0.00086 0.0089 0.06 0.32 0.056 2.21 0.03 635 3 2 460 1 - 7Base Grab 5/19/2011 15:30 5/19/2011 15:30 0.028 129 0.0002 0.00058 0.00086 0.0001 0.00061 0.0075 0.03 0.26 0.057 2.2 0.03 662 2 1 476 1 - -Base Grab 6/6/2011 10:30 6/6/2011 10:30 0.039 33 0.00025 0.00036 0.0012 0.00019 0.0014 0.0049 0.05 0.82 0.076 3.05 0.03 395 6 2 340 - - 26Base Grab 6/30/2011 9:20 6/30/2011 9:20 0.074 27 0.0002 0.00046 0.0021 0.0013 0.002 0.0077 0.02 0.91 0.112 4.29 0.03 402 20 5 312 1 - 42Base Grab 7/13/2011 9:15 7/13/2011 9:15 0.039 145 0.0002 0.00056 0.00045 0.0001 0.00058 0.0070 0.02 0.37 0.051 2.08 0.03 628 1 1 480 1 - 99Base Grab 8/2/2011 11:15 8/2/2011 11:15 0.048 108 0.0002 0.0010 0.0022 0.00066 0.00081 0.0095 0.06 0.31 0.086 1.91 0.03 524 5 2 360 1 - -Base Grab 8/4/2011 10:30 8/4/2011 10:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 148Base Grab 8/5/2011 9:30 8/5/2011 9:30 0.038 146 0.0002 0.0010 0.00058 0.0001 0.0005 0.0076 0.02 0.31 0.053 2.08 0.03 683 1 1 480 1 - -Base Grab 8/18/2011 10:20 8/18/2011 10:20 0.039 138 0.0002 0.00056 0.0013 0.00012 0.00069 0.0064 0.03 0.44 0.072 2.1 0.03 605 1 1 464 1 - 64Base Grab 9/6/2011 11:00 9/6/2011 11:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16Base Composite 9/6/2011 11:04 9/7/2011 9:52 0.032 153 0.0002 0.00057 0.0006 0.0001 0.0006 0.0069 0.04 0.32 0.058 2.17 0.03 652 2 1 444 1 - -Base Grab 9/23/2011 10:00 9/23/2011 10:00 0.033 158 0.0002 0.00056 0.00084 0.00031 0.00051 0.0083 0.03 0.29 0.049 2.18 0.03 668 1 1 464 1 - 16Base Grab 10/4/2011 11:15 10/4/2011 11:15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36Base Composite 10/4/2011 11:40 10/4/2011 16:54 0.019 140 0.0002 0.00071 0.0016 0.0013 0.00068 0.0216 0.02 0.5 0.059 2.09 0.03 609 3 3 404 1.9 - -Base Grab 10/6/2011 11:00 10/6/2011 11:00 0.023 142 0.0002 0.00069 0.00082 0.0002 0.00059 0.0178 0.02 0.35 0.046 2.34 0.03 671 8 3 484 - - -Base Grab 10/20/2011 11:35 10/20/2011 11:35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 308Base Grab 10/21/2011 12:15 10/21/2011 12:15 0.035 143 0.0002 0.00061 0.001 0.00013 0.001 0.0138 0.02 0.26 0.053 2.31 0.03 655 2 1 476 1 - -Base Grab 10/31/2011 12:05 10/31/2011 12:05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20Base Grab 10/31/2011 14:45 10/31/2011 14:45 0.031 144 0.0002 0.00058 0.0014 0.00085 0.0012 0.0030 0.05 0.03 0.053 2.29 0.03 655 2 2 464 1 - -Base Grab 11/7/2011 11:30 11/7/2011 11:30 0.029 150 0.0002 0.00052 0.0004 0.0001 0.0006 0.0060 0.04 0.28 0.035 2.21 0.03 656 1 1 484 1 - -Base Grab 11/22/2011 12:10 11/22/2011 12:10 0.228 496 0.0002 0.0022 0.0070 0.0039 0.0018 0.0321 0.03 1.5 0.314 1.65 0.04 1,200 10 6 490 24 - -Base Grab 12/6/2011 12:50 12/6/2011 12:50 0.032 195 0.0002 0.00074 0.00089 0.00025 0.00061 0.0077 0.03 0.33 0.061 2.27 0.03 722 2 2 484 1 - 2

Base Average 0.042 351 0.0003 0.0024 0.0038 0.0013 0.0036 0.0208 0.06 0.6 0.080 2.21 0.03 938 8 3 445 2.3 - 61

Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 11:38 2/14/2011 11:38 0.183 1,994 0.001 0.015 0.045 0.021 0.02 0.238 1.37 6.2 0.401 1.3 0.17 3,360 124 53 256 - - 980Snowmelt Grab 2/16/2011 14:00 2/16/2011 14:00 0.205 563 0.001 0.011 0.031 0.022 0.02 0.167 0.89 3.4 0.46 0.66 0.1 1,110 104 40 132 - - -Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 9:45 2/17/2011 9:45 0.207 707 0.001 0.01 0.019 0.009 0.02 0.099 1.08 3.1 0.326 0.97 0.08 1,320 46 17 172 12 23.7 921Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 14:52 2/17/2011 14:52 0.205 417 0.001 0.01 0.017 0.012 0.02 0.100 0.78 2.8 0.355 0.74 0.08 997 51 23 124 - - -Snowmelt Grab 3/9/2011 15:30 3/9/2011 15:30 0.092 890 0.0002 0.0099 0.0239 0.021 0.0056 0.124 0.47 3 0.317 1.08 0.08 1,780 76 30 228 - - -Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 11:10 3/15/2011 11:10 0.037 205 0.0002 0.0018 0.0056 0.0027 0.0013 0.028 0.06 0.72 0.122 1.99 0.03 742 13 4 432 1 - 77Storm Grab 3/22/2011 9:30 3/22/2011 9:30 0.098 25 0.0002 0.0089 0.0200 0.0331 0.0051 0.114 0.27 1.2 0.294 0.29 0.03 83 111 34 84 3.6 - 3,100Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:45 4/26/2011 9:45 0.063 9 0.0002 0.0086 0.0137 0.0215 0.0038 0.0747 0.12 0.85 0.208 0.15 0.03 64 108 34 44 4.5 - 1,986Storm Grab 5/9/2011 9:15 5/9/2011 9:15 0.204 26 0.0002 0.0058 0.0130 0.0140 0.0029 0.0631 0.45 1.8 0.456 0.65 0.03 148 51 19 88 15 - 1,000Storm Grab 6/15/2011 9:20 6/15/2011 9:20 0.058 20 0.00027 0.0047 0.0143 0.0111 0.0027 0.0486 0.21 1.1 0.202 0.47 0.04 109 76 20 104 4.6 - 8,400Storm Grab 7/14/2011 10:30 7/14/2011 10:30 0.067 110 0.0002 0.0084 0.0182 0.0052 0.0026 0.0958 0.13 1.5 0.167 1.86 0.08 465 30 18 324 12.1 - 22,800Storm Grab 7/15/2011 10:30 7/15/2011 10:30 0.076 7 0.00022 0.0092 0.0199 0.0462 0.0059 0.0961 0.26 1.8 0.392 0.37 0.03 56 195 43 32 6.3 - 40,400

Snowmelt Average 0.155 796 0.0007 0.0096 0.0236 0.0146 0.0145 0.1260 0.78 3.2 0.330 1.12 0.09 1,552 69 28 224 6.5 23.7 659Storm Average 0.094 33 0.0002 0.0076 0.0165 0.0219 0.0038 0.0821 0.24 1.4 0.287 0.63 0.04 154 95 28 113 7.7 - 12,948

Annual Average 0.071 373 0.0004 0.0046 0.0095 0.0073 0.0056 0.0502 0.22 1.2 0.161 1.74 0.04 908 34 12 347 3.9 23.7 3,226Annual Maximum 0.228 3,309 0.0010 0.0150 0.0450 0.0462 0.0200 0.2380 1.37 6.2 0.460 4.29 0.17 5,200 195 53 490 24.0 23.7 40,400Annual Minimum 0.019 7 0.0002 0.0004 0.0004 0.0001 0.0005 0.0030 0.02 0.0 0.035 0.15 0.03 56 1 1 32 1.0 23.7 2

Annual Median 0.039 144 0.0002 0.0015 0.0040 0.0023 0.0016 0.0208 0.06 0.8 0.091 1.90 0.03 655 8 3 418 1.0 23.7 77


- not collected

F

Figure 42. 20111 Phalen Creek L

Capitol R

Level, Velocity

Region Watersh

y, and Discharge


e.


F

Figure 43. 20111 Phalen Creek L

Capitol R

Level, Discharg

Region Watersh

ge, and Rain.




Table 32. 2011 Phalen Creek Loading.



Base Grab 1/5/2011 11:15 1/5/2011 11:15 0.039 1 1/1/11 0:00 2/8/11 14:10 16,199,000 39.44 1,011Base Grab 2/11/2011 10:53 2/11/2011 10:53 0.061 5 2/8/11 14:20 2/13/11 13:00 2,083,700 7.93 650Snowmelt 0.330 69 2/13/11 13:10 2/14/11 6:50 585,580 12.06 2,522Base 0.080 4 2/14/11 7:00 2/14/11 9:10 49,286 0.25 12Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 11:38 2/14/2011 11:38 0.401 124 2/14/11 9:20 2/14/11 22:30 510,050 12.77 3,948Base 0.080 4 2/14/11 22:40 2/15/11 11:00 260,437 1.30 65Snowmelt 0.330 69 2/15/11 11:10 2/16/11 6:30 718,113 14.79 3,093Snowmelt Grab 2/16/2011 14:00 2/16/2011 14:00 0.460 104 2/16/11 6:40 2/16/11 21:00 698,175 20.05 4,533Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 9:45 2/17/2011 9:45 0.326 46 2/16/11 21:10 2/17/11 12:20 768,264 15.63 2,206Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 14:52 2/17/2011 14:52 0.355 51 2/17/11 12:30 2/18/11 4:30 735,591 16.30 2,342Base Grab 2/23/2011 15:43 2/23/2011 15:43 0.128 40 2/18/11 4:40 3/7/11 5:50 7,391,330 59.06 18,456Base Grab 3/7/2011 11:00 3/7/2011 11:00 0.148 49 3/7/11 6:00 3/8/11 13:30 583,680 5.39 1,785Snowmelt Grab 3/9/2011 15:30 3/9/2011 15:30 0.317 76 3/8/11 13:40 3/12/11 3:00 2,031,900 40.21 9,640Base 0.080 4 3/12/11 3:10 3/14/11 12:10 1,076,480 5.38 269Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 11:10 3/15/2011 11:10 0.122 13 3/14/11 12:20 3/18/11 2:30 3,314,280 25.24 2,690Base 0.080 8 3/18/11 2:40 3/22/11 2:40 2,158,700 10.78 1,078Storm Grab 3/22/2011 9:30 3/22/2011 9:30 0.294 111 3/22/11 2:50 3/22/11 23:30 1,597,380 29.32 11,069Base 0.080 8 3/22/11 23:40 3/31/11 14:40 5,786,160 28.90 2,890Storm 0.287 95 3/31/11 14:50 4/1/11 1:20 854,553 15.31 5,068Base 0.080 8 4/1/11 1:30 4/10/11 4:20 3,784,320 18.90 1,890Storm 0.287 95 4/10/11 4:30 4/10/11 6:00 162,670 2.91 965Base 0.080 8 4/10/11 6:10 4/26/11 3:00 9,427,750 47.08 4,708Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:45 4/26/2011 9:45 0.208 108 4/26/11 3:10 4/26/11 21:30 2,237,250 29.05 15,084Base 0.080 8 4/26/11 21:40 4/30/11 6:50 1,095,180 5.47 547Storm 0.287 95 4/30/11 7:00 4/30/11 10:50 376,877 6.75 2,235Base Grab 5/2/2011 10:25 5/2/2011 10:25 0.096 7 4/30/11 11:00 5/9/11 6:10 4,172,090 25.00 1,823Storm Grab 5/9/2011 9:15 5/9/2011 9:15 0.456 51 5/9/11 6:20 5/9/11 16:20 817,694 23.28 2,603Base Grab 5/17/2011 9:55 5/17/2011 9:55 0.056 3 5/9/11 16:30 5/18/11 6:00 2,612,740 9.13 489Base Grab 5/19/2011 15:30 5/19/2011 15:30 0.057 2 5/18/11 6:10 5/21/11 1:50 916,680 3.26 114Storm 0.287 95 5/21/11 2:00 5/21/11 11:20 1,666,430 29.86 9,883Storm 0.287 95 5/21/11 11:30 5/21/11 22:20 609,679 10.92 3,616

Interval Volume (cf)

Interval TP (lb)

Interval TSS (lb)


Sample Type


Base 0.080 8 5/21/11 22:30 5/22/11 11:10 335,665 1.68 168Storm 0.287 95 5/22/11 11:20 5/22/11 16:10 531,497 9.52 3,152Base Grab 6/6/2011 11:30 6/6/2011 11:30 0.076 6 5/22/11 16:20 6/14/11 17:30 10,166,880 48.24 3,808Storm 0.287 95 6/14/11 17:40 6/15/11 4:00 1,335,130 23.92 7,918Storm Grab 6/15/2011 9:20 6/15/2011 9:20 0.202 76 6/15/11 4:10 6/15/11 16:00 1,018,300 12.84 4,831Base 0.080 8 6/15/11 16:10 6/18/11 0:10 1,635,770 8.17 817Storm 0.287 95 6/18/11 0:20 6/18/11 5:10 518,357 9.29 3,074Base 0.080 8 6/18/11 5:20 6/18/11 11:50 176,033 0.88 88Storm 0.287 95 6/18/11 12:00 6/18/11 20:20 1,077,660 19.31 6,391Base 0.080 8 6/18/11 20:30 6/21/11 3:10 932,933 4.66 466Storm 0.287 95 6/21/11 3:20 6/21/11 8:20 1,133,080 20.30 6,720Base Grab 6/30/2011 9:20 6/30/2011 9:20 0.112 20 6/21/11 8:30 7/5/11 19:20 7,495,320 52.41 9,358Storm 0.287 95 7/5/11 19:30 7/5/11 21:00 252,018 4.52 1,495Base 0.080 8 7/5/11 21:10 7/10/11 5:20 1,310,620 6.55 655Storm 0.287 95 7/10/11 5:30 7/10/11 14:40 1,213,040 21.73 7,194Base 0.080 8 7/10/11 14:50 7/10/11 22:40 130,411 0.65 65Storm 0.287 95 7/10/11 22:50 7/11/11 13:30 1,317,480 23.60 7,813Base Grab 7/13/2011 9:15 7/13/2011 9:15 0.051 1 7/11/11 13:40 7/14/2011 10:00 804,008 2.56 50Storm Grab 7/14/2011 10:30 7/14/2011 10:30 0.167 30 7/14/2011 10:10 7/15/11 9:40 551,032 16.00 2,875Storm Grab 7/15/2011 10:30 7/15/2011 10:30 0.392 195 7/15/11 9:50 7/15/11 21:00 1,535,130 2.37 1,178Base 0.080 8 7/15/11 21:10 7/16/11 4:40 96,751 0.48 48Storm 0.287 95 7/16/11 4:50 7/17/11 0:50 7,091,430 127.05 42,056Base 0.080 8 7/17/11 1:00 7/19/11 11:30 1,007,150 5.03 503Storm 0.287 95 7/19/11 11:40 7/19/11 20:10 1,554,700 27.85 9,220Base 0.080 8 7/19/11 20:20 7/23/11 22:20 2,454,160 12.26 1,226Storm 0.287 95 7/23/11 22:30 7/24/11 18:00 3,474,030 62.24 20,603Base 0.080 8 7/24/11 18:10 7/27/11 2:50 1,016,440 5.08 508Storm 0.287 95 7/27/11 3:00 7/27/11 16:30 891,589 15.97 5,288Base 0.080 8 7/27/11 16:40 7/30/11 22:50 849,349 4.24 424Storm 0.287 95 7/30/11 23:00 7/31/11 3:00 561,020 10.05 3,327Base 0.080 8 7/31/11 3:10 8/1/11 13:30 595,480 2.97 297Storm 0.287 95 8/1/11 13:40 8/2/11 10:00 2150850 38.54 12,756Base Grab 8/2/2011 11:15 8/2/2011 11:15 0.086 5 8/2/11 10:10 8/13/11 2:50 61540 0.33 19


Storm 0.287 95 8/13/11 3:00 8/13/11 11:20 923,830 16.55 5,479Base 0.080 8 8/13/11 11:30 8/16/11 19:00 1,118,760 5.59 559Storm 0.287 95 8/16/11 19:10 8/17/11 4:20 2,475,850 44.36 14,683Base Grab 8/18/2011 10:20 8/18/2011 10:20 0.072 1 8/17/11 4:30 9/4/11 1:00 5,902,950 26.53 368Base Composite 9/6/2011 11:04 9/7/2011 9:52 0.058 2 9/4/11 1:10 9/18/11 5:20 4,664,600 16.89 582Base Grab 9/23/2011 10:00 9/23/2011 10:00 0.049 1 9/18/11 5:30 9/27/11 8:40 2,954,150 9.04 184Base Composite 10/4/2011 11:40 10/4/2011 16:54 0.059 3 9/27/11 8:50 10/5/11 1:30 3,028,630 11.15 567Base Grab 10/6/2011 11:00 10/6/2011 11:00 0.046 8 10/5/11 1:40 10/12/11 12:00 2,699,170 7.75 1,348Storm 0.287 95 10/12/11 12:10 10/12/11 17:40 351,434 6.30 2,084Base Grab 10/21/2011 12:15 10/21/2011 12:15 0.053 2 10/12/11 17:50 10/22/11 11:30 3,248,680 10.75 406Base Grab 10/31/2011 14:45 10/31/2011 14:45 0.053 2 10/22/11 11:40 11/1/11 12:00 3,396,980 11.24 424Base Grab 11/7/2011 11:30 11/7/2011 11:30 0.035 1 11/1/11 12:10 11/12/11 12:45 3,538,540 7.73 221Base Grab 11/22/2011 12:10 11/22/2011 12:50 0.314 10 11/12/11 13:00 11/24/11 0:00 3,726,060 73.04 2,326Base Grab 12/6/2011 12:50 12/6/2011 12:50 0.061 2 11/24/2011 0:10 12/14/11 11:45 6,038,640 23.00 754Storm 0.287 95 12/14/11 12:00 12/14/11 22:00 423,651 7.59 2,512Base 0.080 8 12/14/11 22:15 12/31/11 23:45 4,786,430 23.90 2,390

0.276 92 Storm Subtotal 38,703,641 667 221,1690.079 8 Base Subtotal 131,769,633 650 64,419

Snowmelt Flow-Weighted Average 0.269 53 Snowmelt 9,361,953 157 30,9740.131 28 Total 179,835,227 1,474 316,563

Note: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average base and storm flow concentrations. Average base TP = 0.080 mg/L, TSS = 8; average storm TP = 0.287 mg/L, TSS = 95 Total Flow-Weighted Average



Table 33. 2011 St. Anthony Park Laboratory Data.

Sample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness cBOD Surfactants Fl K SO4 Chl-A E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLIllicit Discharge Grab 3/25/2011 12:00 3/25/2011 12:00 0.047 78 0.0002 0.00062 0.0017 0.00099 0.0027 0.0182 0.26 1.2 0.116 1.82 0.03 359 12 3 228 1.4 0.01 0.1102 4.49 - - 104Illicit Discharge Grab 3/25/2011 14:15 3/25/2011 14:15 - 462 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.038 0.26 1 0.061 0.94 0.04 1,060 44 9 316 - - 0.0924 4.78 - - -Illicit Discharge Grab 6/6/2011 8:30 6/6/2011 8:30 0.108 27 0.00025 0.0038 0.0172 0.0049 0.0051 0.101 0.18 8 1.67 0.58 0.05 277 288 236 224 93 0.1 0.2124 6.49 - 22 5,200Illicit Discharge Grab 6/6/2011 12:09 6/6/2011 12:09 0.032 29 0.0002 0.00063 0.0024 0.0013 0.0019 0.0072 0.02 1.1 0.121 0.84 0.03 252 15 4 236 1.6 - - - - - -Illicit Discharge Grab 6/23/2011 9:15 6/23/2011 9:15 0.021 83 0.00033 0.0038 0.0155 0.0113 0.0076 0.103 0.15 4.8 1.43 0.74 0.03 357 106 72 236 - - 0.141 4.25 19.7 - 4,100Illicit Discharge Grab 8/2/2011 8:45 8/2/2011 8:45 0.054 45 0.0002 0.0012 0.0035 0.003 0.0026 0.0134 0.14 0.87 0.12 0.55 0.04 243 18 5 176 1.4 1 0.1614 3.5 - - 6,300Illicit Discharge Grab 9/22/2011 14:48 9/22/2011 14:48 0.005 162 0.0002 0.0026 0.005 0.00081 0.0147 0.0436 0.15 0.72 0.071 1.36 0.03 683 15 3 436 1 - - - - - -Illicit Discharge Grab 9/30/2011 10:04 9/30/2011 10:04 0.005 161 0.0002 0.0022 0.0041 0.0005 0.0136 0.0375 0.16 0.46 0.047 0.95 0.03 644 15 3 444 1 - 0.1535 - - 86Illicit Discharge Grab 9/30/2011 10:09 9/30/2011 10:09 0.005 45 0.0002 0.00048 0.0015 0.00017 0.0032 0.0034 0.02 0.62 0.024 0.5 0.03 341 8 3 280 1 - 0.1666 - - 50Illicit Discharge Grab 10/7/2011 8:20 10/7/2011 8:20 0.005 147 0.0002 0.0028 0.0051 0.00041 0.0163 0.0127 0.17 0.81 0.117 1.01 0.03 705 19 4 408 1 0.1 - - - - 96Illicit Discharge Grab 10/17/2011 8:54 10/17/2011 8:54 0.007 137 0.0002 0.0028 0.0056 0.00099 0.0141 0.0123 0.23 0.68 0.06 1.16 0.04 646 32 10 444 1 - 0.2897 - - 138Illicit Discharge Grab 10/17/2011 9:50 10/17/2011 9:50 0.005 147 0.0002 0.0025 0.0045 0.00091 0.0139 0.0131 0.24 0.67 0.056 0.9 0.05 631 24 4 420 1 - 0.3178 - - 62Illicit Discharge Grab 10/17/2011 9:55 10/17/2011 9:55 411

ID Average 0.027 126.917 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.010 0.034 0.17 1.7 0.324 0.95 0.04 517 50 30 321 10 0.3 0.1828 4.70 19.7 22 1655

Base Grab 1/5/2011 8:45 1/5/2011 8:45 0.005 154 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.81 0.041 0.65 0.03 678 11 2 424 1 - - - - - 35Base Grab 2/11/2011 9:10 2/11/2011 9:10 0.005 96 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.59 0.07 0.58 0.03 571 12 3 424 1 - - - - - 77Base Grab 3/7/2011 9:00 3/7/2011 9:00 0.006 900 0.0002 0.00087 0.0036 0.00083 0.0087 0.0137 0.26 1 0.068 0.69 0.03 1,810 14 3 460 - - - - - - 77Base Grab 5/2/2011 11:25 5/2/2011 11:25 0.006 58 0.0002 0.00037 0.0012 0.0003 0.0023 0.0036 0.07 0.88 0.042 0.76 0.03 331 9 2 252 1 - - - - - 12Base Grab 5/17/2011 8:45 5/17/2011 8:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48Base Composite 5/17/2011 8:50 5/18/2011 8:10 0.005 165 0.0002 0.0021 0.0024 0.0031 0.0056 0.0149 0.13 0.79 0.046 1.65 0.03 661 20 3 416 1.2 - - - - - -Base Composite 6/6/2011 9:11 6/7/2011 8:30 0.005 151 0.0002 0.0032 0.0062 0.0022 0.0065 0.0375 0.06 0.8 0.141 0.91 0.05 1,110 57 11 416 2.8 - - - - - -Base Grab 6/30/2011 8:15 6/30/2011 8:15 0.051 31 0.0002 0.00045 0.0016 0.00033 0.0017 0.0033 0.02 1 0.091 1.29 0.03 300 8 3 556 1 - - - - - 77Base Grab 7/13/2011 8:40 7/13/2011 8:40 0.079 20 0.0002 0.00043 0.0012 0.00042 0.0014 0.0026 0.02 1 0.143 0.68 0.03 264 13 4 216 1 - - - - - 55Base Grab 8/4/2011 9:00 8/4/2011 9:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 121Base Grab 8/5/2011 8:30 8/5/2011 8:30 0.1 26 0.0002 0.00036 0.001 0.00034 0.0015 0.005 0.02 0.87 0.15 0.49 0.03 297 12 4 224 1 - - - - - -Base Grab 8/18/2011 8:20 8/18/2011 8:20 0.062 27 0.0002 0.00041 0.0012 0.00043 0.0017 0.0028 0.02 0.86 0.12 0.34 0.03 266 108 37 180 1.2 - - - - - 404Base Grab 9/6/2011 8:42 9/6/2011 8:42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17,500Base Composite 9/6/2011 9:11 9/7/2011 10:20 0.005 146 0.0002 0.002 0.0073 0.0016 0.0068 0.0254 0.06 0.55 0.053 0.78 0.04 605 27 7 412 1.4 - - - - - -Base Grab 9/22/2011 8:45 9/22/2011 8:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12,200Base Composite 9/22/2011 14:20 9/23/2011 0:30 0.005 142 0.0002 0.003 0.0068 0.0027 0.0109 0.029 0.08 0.66 0.116 0.74 0.03 619 37 9 420 3 - - - - - -Base Grab 10/4/2011 8:25 10/4/2011 8:25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 86Base Grab 10/5/2011 8:30 10/5/2011 8:30 0.005 151 0.0002 0.0027 0.0048 0.00048 0.0157 0.0114 0.12 0.45 0.056 1.25 0.03 715 15 3 452 1 - - - - - -Base Grab 10/6/2011 9:15 10/6/2011 9:15 0.005 42 0.0002 0.00048 0.0016 0.00014 0.0026 0.0046 0.02 0.6 0.042 0.43 0.03 334 15 5 246 1.5 - - - - - -Base Grab 10/10/2011 8:30 10/10/2011 8:30 0.005 42 0.0002 0.00044 0.0018 0.00012 0.0025 0.0027 0.04 0.56 0.031 0.43 0.03 330 10 4 272 1.4 - - - - - -Base Grab 10/20/2011 8:30 10/20/2011 8:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 142Base Composite 10/20/2011 9:01 10/21/2011 8:20 0.005 147 0.0002 0.0031 0.0049 0.0023 0.011 0.0311 0.05 0.5 0.072 0.87 0.03 649 37 7 436 1 - - - - - -Base Grab 10/31/2011 8:35 10/31/2011 8:35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50Base Grab 11/1/2011 8:40 11/1/2011 8:40 0.005 84 0.0002 0.00027 0.001 0.0001 0.001 0.0092 0.12 0.34 0.041 0.95 0.03 536 20 4 384 1 - - - - - -Base Grab 11/9/2011 9:00 11/9/2011 9:00 0.146 169 0.0002 0.004 0.0062 0.00064 0.0218 0.0254 0.21 0.74 0.063 1.4 0.03 712 27 4 500 1 - - - - - -Base Grab 11/22/2011 8:30 11/22/2011 8:30 0.005 400 0.0002 0.0038 0.0078 0.00065 0.0157 0.0226 0.21 0.65 0.16 1.41 0.03 1,030 27 6 436 2.2 - - - - - 131Base Grab 11/30/2011 14:30 11/30/2011 14:30 0.005 201 0.0002 0.0053 0.0123 0.00052 0.0286 0.0259 0.2 0.54 0.061 1.42 0.03 782 35 6 524 1 - - - - - -Base Grab 12/6/2011 8:40 12/6/2011 8:40 0.005 214 0.0002 0.0044 0.0083 0.00055 0.0239 0.0216 0.21 0.57 0.051 1.05 0.03 781 28 6 472 1 - - - - - 64

Base Average 0.025 160 0.0003 0.0027 0.0048 0.0011 0.0100 0.0158 0.11 0.7 0.079 0.89 0.03 637 26 6 387 1.3 - - - - - 1,942

Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 9:00 2/14/2011 9:00 0.005 627 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.039 0.52 1.6 0.07 0.7 0.04 1,280 40 5 332 - - - - - - 517Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 9:05 2/17/2011 9:05 0.054 783 0.001 0.01 0.017 0.009 0.02 0.118 0.82 2.6 0.258 0.67 0.07 1,410 81 19 200 8.4 - - - 25.4 - 797Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 11:40 3/15/2011 11:40 0.005 190 0.0002 0.00058 0.0031 0.0005 0.0074 0.0354 0.31 0.95 0.056 0.64 0.03 711 10 2 400 1 - - - - - 64Storm Grab 3/22/2011 8:55 3/22/2011 8:55 0.05 40 0.0005 0.0153 0.0346 0.0414 0.0118 0.215 0.24 1.5 0.425 0.2 0.03 153 1,330 100 76 4.4 - - - - 687Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:05 4/26/2011 9:05 0.04 25 0.0004 0.0109 0.0209 0.02 0.0089 0.131 0.11 0.95 0.254 0.14 0.03 98 191 39 52 4.3 - - - - - 614Storm Grab 5/9/2011 8:30 5/9/2011 8:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,468Storm Composite 5/20/2011 15:30 5/20/2011 16:51 - 82 0.0002 0.0084 0.025 0.0116 0.0098 0.102 0.38 2.1 0.276 1.15 0.07 463 130 26 232 - - - - - - -Storm Composite 5/21/2011 12:41 5/21/2011 13:00 - 106 0.0002 0.0057 0.0121 0.0048 0.0087 0.0569 0.22 1 0.196 1.14 0.08 481 108 19 316 - - - - - - -Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:31 6/15/2011 5:40 0.028 15 0.00021 0.0091 0.0145 0.0117 0.0064 0.0967 0.06 1.3 0.261 0.24 0.04 79 135 41 80 3.7 - - - - - -Storm Grab 6/15/2011 8:20 6/15/2011 8:20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,200Storm Composite 6/21/2011 3:50 6/21/2011 6:30 0.017 11 0.00025 0.0056 0.0151 0.0193 0.0071 0.109 0.17 1.3 0.243 0.32 0.04 84 150 38 56 3 - - - - - -Storm Composite 7/10/2011 6:00 7/10/2011 7:50 0.018 10 0.00041 0.0073 0.0279 0.0291 0.012 0.163 0.2 2.1 0.343 0.48 0.05 65 64 6 - - - - - -Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:10 7/15/2011 12:04 - 11 0.00031 0.0091 0.0172 0.0227 0.0078 0.107 0.09 1.2 0.213 0.35 0.05 34 64 - - - - - - -Storm Composite 7/19/2011 15:21 7/19/2011 16:04 0.05 35 0.0002 0.0044 0.0101 0.0137 0.0051 0.0506 0.35 1.2 0.234 2.59 0.98 145 84 15 88 1.9 - - - - - -Storm Composite 10/12/2011 12:40 10/12/2011 15:51 0.047 13 0.00059 0.0132 0.0431 0.0407 0.0175 0.248 0.02 0.92 0.447 0.24 0.03 114 356 105 92 20 - - - - - -Storm Grab 12/14/2011 11:30 12/14/2011 11:30 0.005 211 0.0002 0.0036 0.0104 0.0039 0.0156 0.0481 0.17 0.74 0.112 1.17 0.04 677 40 12 2 - - - - - 1,203

Snowmelt Average 0.021 533 0.0007 0.0069 0.0100 0.0042 0.0158 0.0641 0.55 1.7 0.128 0.67 0.05 1,134 44 9 311 4.7 - - - 25.4 - 459Storm Average 0.032 51 0.0003 0.0084 0.0210 0.0199 0.0101 0.1207 0.18 1.3 0.273 0.73 0.13 255 280 45 112 5.7 - - - - - 1,834

Annual Average 0.026 150 0.0003 0.0043 0.0093 0.0060 0.0103 0.0480 0.17 1.2 0.190 0.85 0.06 562 84 21 305 4.6 0.30 0.183 4.7 22.6 22 1,711Annual Maximum 0.146 900 0.0010 0.0153 0.0431 0.0414 0.0286 0.2480 0.82 8.0 1.670 2.59 0.98 1,810 1,330 236 556 93.0 1.00 0.318 6.5 25.4 22 17,500Annual Minimum 0.005 10 0.0002 0.0003 0.0010 0.0001 0.0010 0.0026 0.02 0.3 0.024 0.14 0.03 79 8 2 52 1.0 0.01 0.092 3.5 19.7 22 12

Annual Median 0.005 96 0.0002 0.0031 0.0062 0.0016 0.0087 0.0254 0.16 0.9 0.112 0.76 0.03 571 27 6 316 1.2 0.10 0.161 4.5 22.6 22 126


- not collected

F

Figure 44. 20111 St. Anthony P

Capitol R

ark Level, Velo

Region Watersh

ocity, and Discha


arge.


F

Figure 45. 20111 St. Anthony P

Capitol R

ark Level, Disch

Region Watersh

harge, and Rain


n.



Table 34. 2011 St. Anthony Park Loading.



Base Grab 3/7/2011 9:00 3/7/2011 9:00 0.068 14 3/7/11 9:00 3/19/11 13:20 3,905,130 16.58 3,413Base 0.079 26 3/23/11 7:10 4/26/11 2:10 19,878,400 98.03 32,264Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:05 4/26/2011 9:05 0.254 191 4/26/11 2:20 4/26/11 23:50 2,883,990 45.73 34,387Base 0.079 26 4/27/11 0:00 4/29/11 20:20 1,432,450 7.06 2,325Storm 0.273 266 4/29/11 20:30 4/30/11 20:50 1,657,960 28.26 27,531Base Grab 5/2/2011 11:25 5/2/2011 11:25 0.042 9 4/30/11 21:00 5/5/11 12:20 1,862,570 4.88 1,046Storm 0.273 266 5/5/11 12:30 5/5/11 17:00 625,649 10.66 10,389Base 0.079 26 5/5/11 17:10 5/9/11 0:00 888,070 4.38 1,441Storm 0.273 266 5/9/11 0:10 5/9/11 22:00 1,550,950 26.43 25,754Base Composite 5/17/2011 8:50 5/18/2011 8:10 0.046 20 5/9/11 22:10 5/18/11 8:20 4,742,270 13.62 5,921Base Composite 6/6/2011 9:11 6/7/2011 8:30 0.141 57 5/24/11 15:10 6/14/11 17:40 16,214,300 142.72 57,695Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:31 6/15/2011 5:40 0.261 135 6/14/11 17:50 6/15/11 4:10 1,026,140 16.72 8,648Storm 0.273 266 6/15/11 4:20 6/15/11 21:40 743,078 12.66 12,339Base 0.079 26 6/15/11 21:50 6/18/11 0:00 446,068 2.20 724Storm 0.273 266 6/18/11 0:10 6/18/11 11:10 655,211 11.17 10,880Base 0.079 26 6/18/11 11:20 6/21/11 3:00 981,049 4.84 1,592Storm Composite 6/21/2011 3:50 6/21/2011 6:20 0.243 150 6/21/11 3:10 6/21/11 14:20 1,027,700 15.59 9,623Storm 0.273 266 6/21/11 14:30 6/22/11 5:20 1,456,320 24.82 24,183Storm 0.273 266 6/22/11 5:30 6/23/11 9:10 1,429,210 24.36 23,733Base Grab 6/30/2011 8:15 6/30/2011 8:15 0.091 8 6/23/11 9:20 7/10/11 5:20 8,765,440 49.79 4,378Storm Composite 7/10/2011 6:00 7/10/2011 7:50 0.343 246 7/10/11 5:30 7/10/11 12:40 918,012 19.66 14,098Base 0.079 26 7/10/11 12:50 7/10/11 22:30 106,704 0.53 173Storm 0.273 266 7/10/11 22:40 7/11/11 9:30 1,564,370 26.66 25,977Base Grab 7/13/2011 8:40 7/13/2011 8:40 0.143 13 7/11/11 9:40 7/15/11 9:20 1,616,360 14.43 1,312


Interval TP (lb)

Interval TSS (lb)


Sample Type


Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:10 7/15/2011 12:04 0.213 160 7/15/11 9:30 7/16/11 4:10 3,510,920 46.68 35,068Storm 0.273 266 7/16/11 4:20 7/16/11 19:30 3,943,300 67.20 65,480Base 0.079 26 7/16/11 19:40 7/19/11 15:00 1,143,050 5.64 1,855Storm Composite 7/19/2011 15:21 7/19/2011 16:04 0.234 84 7/19/11 15:10 7/20/11 1:30 2,912,870 42.55 15,274Base 0.079 26 7/20/11 1:40 7/26/11 11:50 2,257,200 11.13 3,664Base 0.079 26 7/27/11 23:50 8/1/11 11:20 739,689 3.65 1,201Storm 0.273 266 8/1/11 11:30 8/1/11 23:30 414,089 7.06 6,876Base Grab 8/5/2011 8:30 8/5/2011 8:30 0.150 12 8/2/11 0:00 8/14/11 0:00 3,581,480 33.54 2,683Base Grab 8/18/2011 8:20 8/18/2011 8:20 0.120 108 8/14/11 0:10 8/25/11 20:10 2,873,790 21.53 19,375Base Composite 9/6/2011 9:11 9/7/2011 10:20 0.053 27 8/25/11 20:20 9/15/11 17:10 4,764,400 15.76 8,030Base Composite 9/22/2011 14:20 9/23/2011 0:30 0.116 37 9/15/11 17:20 9/30/11 8:00 1,475,640 10.69 3,408Base Grab 10/5/2011 8:30 10/5/2011 8:30 0.056 15 9/30/11 8:10 10/5/11 12:00 719,776 2.52 674Base Grab 10/6/2011 9:15 10/6/2011 9:15 0.042 15 10/5/11 12:10 10/8/11 17:00 241,490 0.63 226Base Grab 10/10/2011 8:30 10/10/2011 8:30 0.031 10 10/8/11 17:10 10/12/11 12:20 477,997 0.93 298Storm Composite 10/12/2011 12:40 10/12/2011 15:51 0.447 356 10/12/11 12:30 10/12/11 16:40 164,380 4.59 3,653Base Composite 10/20/2011 9:01 10/21/2011 8:20 0.072 37 10/12/11 16:50 10/25/11 10:30 2,808,950 12.63 6,488Base Grab 11/1/2011 8:40 11/1/2011 8:40 0.041 20 10/25/11 10:40 11/8/11 22:20 2,506,980 6.42 3,130Base Grab 11/9/2011 9:00 11/9/2011 9:00 0.063 27 11/8/11 22:30 11/15/11 15:30 430 0.00 1Base Grab 11/22/2011 8:30 11/22/2011 8:30 0.160 27 11/15/11 15:45 11/26/11 11:00 2,186,930 21.84 3,686Base Grab 11/30/2011 14:30 11/30/2011 14:30 0.061 35 11/26/11 11:15 12/3/11 12:30 1,387,490 5.28 3,032Base Grab 12/6/2011 8:40 12/6/2011 8:40 0.051 28 12/3/11 12:45 12/6/11 8:45 568,466 1.81 994


Note: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average base and storm flow concentrations. Average base TP = 0.079 mg/L, TSS = 26 mg/L; average storm TP = 0.273 mg/L, TSS =266 mg/L.




Table 35. Sarita Outlet Laboratory Data.

Sample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness SO4 E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLSnowmelt Grab 3/17/2011 11:05 3/17/2011 11:05 0.068 85 0.0002 0.00089 0.0033 0.0021 0.00085 0.0283 0.49 1.1 0.118 0.31 0.03 190 7 4 34 2.43 548Storm Grab 3/22/2011 9:40 3/22/2011 9:40 0.05 30 0.0002 0.0033 0.0074 0.0073 0.0024 0.0558 0.28 0.83 0.144 0.21 0.03 82 49 15 34 - -Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:45 4/26/2011 9:45 0.041 9 0.0002 0.0032 0.0063 0.0082 0.0024 0.0416 0.09 0.55 0.122 0.05 0.03 52 49 15 28 - 307Storm Composite 5/21/2011 5:17 5/21/2011 7:34 - 3 0.0002 0.0035 0.0097 0.012 0.0034 0.0632 0.31 1.5 0.262 0.33 0.04 56 101 25 40 - -Storm Composite 6/14/2011 20:15 6/14/2011 23:32 0.066 2 0.0002 0.00093 0.005 0.0024 0.0011 0.0213 0.19 0.81 0.152 0.23 0.03 54 17 5 42 1.82 -Storm Composite 6/15/2011 7:58 6/15/2011 9:39 0.055 2 0.0002 0.00082 0.0032 0.0014 0.00077 0.0179 0.15 0.65 0.102 0.24 0.03 26 9 5 40 - -Storm Grab 6/15/2011 9:00 6/15/2011 9:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,200Storm Composite 7/10/2011 6:08 7/10/2011 8:25 0.059 3 0.0002 0.0027 0.0071 0.0095 0.0028 0.0408 0.46 1.6 0.238 0.4 0.03 70 83 25 48 2.65 -Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:13 7/15/2011 12:29 - 2 0.0002 0.0051 0.0094 0.0177 0.0045 0.0533 0.25 1 0.264 0.35 0.06 66 108 20 56 - -Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:49 7/27/2011 5:22 0.035 2 0.0002 0.0022 0.0061 0.0063 0.0022 0.0304 0.15 0.8 0.155 0.26 0.03 66 50 14 36 2.23 -

Snowmelt Average 0.068 85 0.0002 0.0009 0.0033 0.0021 0.0009 0.0283 0.49 1.1 0.118 0.31 0.03 190 7 4 34 2.4 548Storm Average 0.051 7 0.0002 0.0027 0.0068 0.0081 0.0024 0.0405 0.24 1.0 0.180 0.26 0.04 59 58 16 41 2.2 2,754

Annual Average 0.053 15 0.0002 0.0025 0.0064 0.0074 0.0023 0.0392 0.26 1.0 0.173 0.26 0.03 74 53 14 40 2.3 2,018Annual Maximum 0.068 85 0.0002 0.0051 0.0097 0.0177 0.0045 0.0632 0.49 1.6 0.264 0.40 0.06 190 108 25 56 2.7 5,200Annual Minimum 0.035 2 0.0002 0.0008 0.0032 0.0014 0.0008 0.0179 0.09 0.6 0.102 0.05 0.03 26 7 4 28 1.8 307

Annual Median 0.055 3 0.0002 0.0027 0.0063 0.0073 0.0024 0.0408 0.25 0.8 0.152 0.26 0.03 66 49 15 40 2.3 548


- not collected

F

Figure 46. 20111 Sarita Outlet L

Capitol R

Level, Velocity,

Region Watersh

and Discharge.



F

Figure 47. 20111 Sarita Outlet L

Capitol R

Level, Discharge

Region Watersh

e, and Rain.




Table 36. 2011 Sarita Outlet Loading.



Storm Grab 4/26/2011 9:45 4/26/2011 9:45 0.122 49 4/26/11 4:50 4/26/11 4:50 338,408 2.58 1,035Storm 0.180 58 4/30/11 8:10 4/30/11 23:20 119,937 1.35 434Storm 0.180 58 5/5/11 7:00 5/5/11 15:50 7,714 0.09 28Storm 0.180 58 5/9/11 7:10 5/9/11 13:40 31,392 0.35 114Storm Composite 5/21/2011 5:17 5/21/2011 7:34 0.262 101 5/21/11 5:00 5/21/11 19:50 265,632 4.34 1,675Storm 0.180 58 5/22/11 2:30 5/23/11 6:00 159,251 1.79 577Storm Composite 6/14/2011 20:15 6/14/2011 23:32 0.152 17 6/14/11 19:00 6/15/11 4:20 72,890 0.69 77Strom Composite 6/15/2011 7:58 6/15/2011 9:39 0.102 9 6/15/11 4:30 6/15/11 14:20 65,315 0.42 37Storm 0.180 58 6/18/11 0:30 6/18/11 10:40 34,626 0.39 125Storm 0.180 58 6/18/11 14:20 6/19/11 3:50 42,470 0.48 154Storm 0.180 58 6/20/11 9:00 6/20/11 13:10 6,501 0.07 24Storm 0.180 58 6/21/11 3:40 6/21/11 23:50 162,085 1.82 587Storm 0.180 58 6/22/11 7:20 6/22/11 11:00 25,747 0.29 93Storm Composite 7/10/2011 6:08 7/10/2011 8:25 0.238 83 7/10/11 6:00 7/10/11 13:20 64,313 0.96 333Storm 0.180 58 7/10/11 23:10 7/12/11 6:50 242,393 2.72 878Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:13 7/15/2011 12:29 0.264 108 7/15/11 10:10 7/17/11 6:30 1,545,370 25.47 10,419Storm 0.180 58 7/19/11 12:00 7/19/11 9:40 407,248 4.58 1,475Storm 0.180 58 7/23/11 22:40 7/24/11 7:20 64,848 0.73 235Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:49 7/27/2011 5:22 0.155 50 7/27/11 3:30 7/27/11 13:30 59,672 0.58 186Storm 0.180 58 7/30/11 23:10 7/31/11 9:10 131,041 1.47 474Storm 0.180 58 8/1/11 14:00 8/3/11 0:30 844,568 9.49 3,058Storm 0.180 58 8/13/11 2:30 8/16/11 19:00 258,049 2.90 934Storm 0.180 58 8/16/11 19:10 8/19/11 11:30 660,447 7.42 2,391Storm 0.180 58 8/23/11 7:00 9/9/11 14:00 649,768 7.30 2,353Storm 0.180 58 9/18/11 12:10 9/19/11 1:30 9,611 0.11 35Storm 0.180 58 9/21/11 7:10 9/22/11 4:50 24,148 0.27 87Storm 0.180 58 9/23/11 6:00 9/24/11 6:40 5,453 0.06 20Storm 0.180 58 10/12/11 12:40 10/14/11 21:10 191,410 2.15 693

0.200 70 Storm Subtotal 6,490,307 81 28,5300.200 70 Total 6,490,307 81 28,530

Note: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average storm flow concentrations. Average storm TP = 0.180 mg/L, TSS = 58 mg/L.


Interval TP (lb)

Interval TSS (lb)



Sample Collection Time Loading Interval

Storm Flow-Weighted Average

Sample Type


Table 37. 2011 Trout Brook – West Branch Laboratory Data.

Sample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness cBOD E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLBase Grab 1/5/2011 13:15 1/5/2011 13:15 0.006 88 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.32 0.88 0.039 0.57 0.03 376 8 2 244 - 99Base Grab 2/11/2011 9:20 2/11/2011 9:20 0.005 81 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.77 0.041 0.8 0.03 604 5 2 256 - 649Base Grab 2/23/2011 15:10 2/23/2011 15:10 0.005 347 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.008 0.02 0.049 0.34 2.2 0.199 0.84 0.03 949 50 19 260 - -Base Grab 3/7/2011 12:00 3/7/2011 12:00 0.009 658 0.0002 0.0032 0.0079 0.0054 0.0027 0.0357 0.32 1.8 0.134 0.83 0.03 1,240 60 18 248 - 214Base Grab 5/2/2011 10:00 5/2/2011 10:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 96Base Composite 5/2/2011 10:16 5/3/2011 8:45 0.005 95 0.0002 0.00038 0.0017 0.0011 0.00079 0.0124 0.07 1 0.051 0.68 0.03 362 10 4 212 - -Base Grab 5/17/2011 10:30 5/17/2011 10:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 79Base Composite 5/17/2011 11:00 5/18/2011 9:40 77 0.00078 0.00045 0.0017 0.0007 0.0012 0.0103 0.11 0.66 0.042 0.78 0.03 369 10 6 244 2.5 -Base Grab 6/6/2011 10:30 6/6/2011 10:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,733Base Composite 6/6/2011 10:56 6/7/2011 10:06 0.006 87 0.0002 0.00052 0.0018 0.00095 0.001 0.0053 0.06 0.75 0.085 0.78 0.05 322 11 4 228 - -Base Grab 6/30/2011 10:35 6/30/2011 10:35 0.011 88 0.0002 0.00039 0.0013 0.00067 0.0016 0.0032 0.09 0.71 0.05 0.63 0.05 367 5 3 240 - 199Base Grab 7/13/2011 9:55 7/13/2011 9:55 0.037 86 0.0002 0.00039 0.001 0.00086 0.00091 0.0162 0.07 0.95 0.121 0.53 0.03 319 8 6 180 - 1,414Base Grab 8/4/2011 11:30 8/4/2011 11:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 214Base Grab 8/5/2011 10:45 8/5/2011 10:45 0.053 84 0.0002 0.00036 0.0018 0.00083 0.00083 0.005 0.02 1.1 0.154 0.37 0.03 295 12 8 160 - -Base Grab 8/18/2011 10:00 8/18/2011 10:00 0.068 72 0.0002 0.00041 0.0017 0.0014 0.00091 0.0037 0.02 1.3 0.194 0.24 0.03 268 19 15 152 - 517Base Grab 9/6/2011 10:20 9/6/2011 10:20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 387Base Composite 9/6/2011 10:37 9/7/2011 9:11 0.005 86 0.0002 0.00075 0.0023 0.0016 0.0014 0.0121 0.04 0.74 0.067 0.76 0.03 344 23 7 228 - -Base Composite 9/22/2011 10:42 9/23/2011 7:52 0.009 78 0.0002 0.00059 0.0015 0.00063 0.0011 0.0081 0.11 0.67 0.064 0.83 0.07 339 7 3 236 - -Base Grab 9/22/2011 10:45 9/22/2011 10:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,420Base Grab 10/4/2011 9:40 10/4/2011 9:40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 866Base Composite 10/4/2011 9:47 10/5/2011 4:46 0.008 69 0.0002 0.0011 0.0041 0.0054 0.0014 0.0282 0.04 0.72 0.086 0.69 0.04 326 26 10 196 - -Base Grab 10/20/2011 10:50 10/20/2011 10:50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 687Base Composite 10/20/2011 10:58 10/21/2011 5:57 0.007 67 0.0002 0.00047 0.0017 0.0029 0.001 0.0102 0.07 0.58 0.046 0.72 0.04 312 13 5 212 - -Base Grab 10/31/2011 9:30 10/31/2011 9:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 308Base Grab 11/1/2011 11:45 11/1/2011 11:45 0.009 80 0.0002 0.00037 0.0019 0.0019 0.0018 0.0092 0.14 0.56 0.05 0.78 0.03 331 11 3 252 - -Base Grab 11/8/2011 9:25 11/8/2011 9:25 0.008 85 0.0002 0.00046 0.0012 0.00065 0.00094 0.0026 0.17 0.68 0.044 0.83 0.03 356 10 4 280 - -Base Grab 11/22/2011 10:45 11/22/2011 10:45 0.014 110 0.0002 0.0011 0.0025 0.0015 0.0016 0.011 0.17 1 0.09 0.62 0.03 380 21 6 232 - 2,420Base Grab 12/6/2011 11:50 12/6/2011 11:50 0.006 82 0.0002 0.0014 0.0031 0.0022 0.0017 0.0072 0.20 0.97 0.086 0.65 0.03 324 29 11 216 - 579

Base Average 0.015 127 0.0004 0.0022 0.0035 0.0022 0.0043 0.0142 0.14 0.9 0.086 0.68 0.04 431 18 7 225 2.5 758

Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 10:08 2/14/2011 10:08 0.012 458 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.011 0.02 0.048 0.58 2.7 0.208 0.89 0.04 949 71 24 212 - 770Snowmelt Grab 2/16/2011 13:30 2/16/2011 13:30 0.073 627 0.001 0.01 0.018 0.01 0.02 0.096 0.85 3.1 0.309 0.69 0.09 1,190 84 30 208 - -Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 10:50 2/17/2011 10:50 0.108 464 0.001 0.01 0.011 0.006 0.02 0.074 0.93 2.5 0.255 0.7 0.06 859 41 14 172 - 4,100Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 14:25 2/17/2011 14:25 0.12 451 0.001 0.01 0.013 0.008 0.02 0.078 0.78 2.7 0.305 0.64 0.07 732 53 21 116 - -Snowmelt Grab 3/9/2011 15:00 3/9/2011 15:00 0.022 885 0.0002 0.012 0.0238 0.0196 0.0067 0.123 0.45 3.1 0.348 0.75 0.07 1,610 134 51 200 - -Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 9:33 3/15/2011 9:33 0.008 86 0.0002 0.0029 0.0062 0.0067 0.0024 0.0283 0.31 1.5 0.177 0.79 0.03 342 62 15 220 - 461Storm Grab 3/22/2011 10:25 3/22/2011 10:25 0.064 78 0.0002 0.0044 0.0088 0.0083 0.0028 0.0447 0.34 1.1 0.203 0.56 0.03 202 80 25 100 - 956Storm Grab 4/26/2011 10:30 4/26/2011 10:30 0.051 34 0.0002 0.0043 0.0072 0.008 0.0021 0.0355 0.11 0.95 0.164 0.2 0.03 123 44 15 80 - 1,203Storm Composite 5/9/2011 7:11 5/9/2011 9:56 0.007 28 0.0002 0.0091 0.0243 0.0243 0.0068 0.124 0.21 2.3 0.465 0.51 0.04 121 304 108 96 - -Storm Grab 5/9/2011 10:05 5/9/2011 10:05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,203Storm Composite 5/21/2011 3:44 5/21/2011 8:05 - 16 0.0002 0.0058 0.0171 0.0147 0.0047 0.0868 0.17 2.2 0.411 0.32 0.03 97 278 79 72 - -Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:35 6/14/2011 22:10 0.057 14 0.0002 0.0052 0.0102 0.0072 0.0026 0.0499 0.10 1.8 0.34 0.24 0.03 62 115 41 56 - -Storm Grab 6/15/2011 10:10 6/15/2011 10:10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,420Storm Composite 6/21/2011 3:51 6/21/2011 7:13 0.039 18 0.0002 0.0039 0.0117 0.0136 0.0036 0.063 0.13 1.3 0.259 0.28 0.04 98 150 29 84 - -Storm Composite 7/10/2011 5:59 7/10/2011 8:08 0.082 10 0.0002 0.0047 0.0153 0.0146 0.0042 0.0718 0.35 2.1 0.406 0.47 0.07 88 176 44 56 - -Storm Grab 7/14/2011 11:04 7/14/2011 11:04 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:18 7/15/2011 13:32 - 12 0.0002 0.005 0.0116 0.0132 0.0031 0.0519 0.10 0.92 0.167 0.36 0.05 87 108 27 60 - 21,800Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:43 7/27/2011 6:23 0.047 24 0.0002 0.0023 0.008 0.009 0.0021 0.0382 0.10 1.2 0.208 0.34 0.04 117 95 30 80 - -Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:08 7/31/2011 1:22 0.073 12 0.0002 0.0029 0.0084 0.0107 0.0026 0.0386 0.19 1.3 0.26 0.34 0.04 71 106 21 44 - -Storm Composite 10/12/2011 12:46 10/12/2011 15:20 0.277 19 0.00027 0.0083 0.0221 0.0203 0.0056 0.106 0.02 3.7 1.12 0.05 0.03 135 265 87 84 - -

Snowmelt Average 0.057 495 0.0007 0.0092 0.0137 0.0102 0.0149 0.0746 0.65 2.6 0.267 0.74 0.06 947 74 26 188 - 1,777Storm Average 0.077 24 0.0002 0.0051 0.0132 0.0131 0.0037 0.0646 0.17 1.7 0.364 0.33 0.04 109 156 46 74 - 5,516

Annual Average 0.040 157 0.0004 0.0043 0.0082 0.0069 0.0058 0.0396 0.23 1.5 0.201 0.59 0.04 419 70 22 173 2.5 1,832Annual Maximum 0.277 885 0.0010 0.0120 0.0243 0.0243 0.0200 0.1240 0.93 3.7 1.120 0.89 0.09 1,610 304 108 280 2.5 21,800Annual Minimum 0.005 10 0.0002 0.0004 0.0010 0.0006 0.0008 0.0026 0.02 0.6 0.039 0.05 0.03 62 5 2 44 2.5 79Annual Median 0.012 82 0.0002 0.0031 0.0080 0.0057 0.0025 0.0319 0.16 1.1 0.166 0.65 0.03 329 43 15 204 2.5 687


- not collected

F

Figure 48. 20111 Trout Brook –

Capitol R

– West Branch L

Region Watersh

Level, Velocity,


and Discharge.

1 Monitoring Re

eport

F


Capitol R

– West Branch L

Region Watersh

Level, Discharge


e, and Rain.



Table 38. 2011 Trout Brook – West Branch Loading.



Base Grab 1/5/2011 13:15 1/5/2011 13:15 0.039 8 1/1/11 0:00 2/1/11 12:00 16,906,439 41.16 8,443Base Grab 2/11/2011 9:20 2/11/2011 9:20 0.041 5 2/1/11 12:15 2/13/11 12:45 4,679,903 11.98 1,461Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 10:08 2/14/2011 10:08 0.208 71 2/13/11 13:00 2/14/11 12:00 730,401 9.48 3,237Snowmelt 0.267 74 2/14/11 12:15 2/15/11 13:00 888,783 14.81 4,106Snowmelt 0.267 74 2/15/11 13:15 2/16/11 13:00 934,365 15.57 4,316Snowmelt Grab 2/16/2011 13:30 2/16/2011 13:30 0.309 84 2/16/11 13:15 2/17/11 0:00 646,798 12.48 3,392Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 10:50 2/17/2011 10:50 0.255 41 2/17/11 0:15 2/17/11 12:00 732,227 11.66 1,874Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 14:25 2/17/2011 14:25 0.305 53 2/17/11 12:15 2/19/11 6:00 1,921,799 36.59 6,358Base Grab 2/23/2011 15:10 2/23/2011 15:10 0.199 50 2/19/11 6:15 3/1/11 12:00 5,819,692 72.30 18,165Base Grab 3/7/2011 12:00 3/7/2011 12:00 0.134 60 3/1/11 12:15 3/8/11 14:30 3,781,885 31.64 14,165Snowmelt 0.267 74 3/8/11 14:45 3/9/11 11:30 633,255 10.55 2,925Snowmelt Grab 3/9/2011 15:00 3/9/2011 15:00 0.348 134 3/9/11 11:45 3/10/11 14:45 828,519 18.00 6,931Snowmelt 0.267 74 3/10/11 15:00 3/11/11 14:30 697,962 11.63 3,224Snowmelt 0.267 74 3/11/11 14:45 3/12/11 21:00 1,086,976 18.12 5,021Base 0.086 18 3/12/11 21:15 3/14/11 13:45 1,110,636 5.96 1,248Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 9:33 3/15/2011 9:33 0.177 62 3/14/11 14:00 3/15/11 10:30 713,552 7.88 2,762Snowmelt 0.267 74 3/15/11 10:45 3/16/11 12:15 1,254,086 20.90 5,793Snowmelt 0.267 74 3/16/11 12:30 3/18/11 13:45 4,067,444 67.80 18,790Base 0.086 18 3/18/11 14:00 3/22/11 4:15 2,709,801 14.55 3,045Storm Grab 3/22/2011 10:25 3/22/2011 10:25 0.203 80 3/22/11 4:30 3/22/11 16:45 2,664,728 33.77 13,308Base 0.086 18 3/22/11 17:00 3/27/11 17:00 9,757,055 52.38 10,964Base 0.086 18 4/11/11 12:40 4/26/11 2:50 10,751,126 57.72 12,081Storm Grab 4/26/2011 10:30 4/26/2011 10:30 0.164 44 4/26/11 3:00 4/30/11 7:20 10,568,934 108.20 29,030Storm 0.364 156 4/30/11 7:30 5/2/11 10:00 4,662,002 105.94 45,401Base Composite 5/2/2011 10:16 5/3/2011 8:45 0.051 10 5/2/11 10:10 5/9/11 6:30 7,042,988 22.42 4,397

TSS (mg/L)Loading Interval


Interval TP (lb)

Interval TSS (lb)


TP (mg/L)


Storm Composite 5/9/2011 7:11 5/9/2011 9:56 0.465 304 5/9/11 6:40 5/10/11 13:50 1,882,546 54.65 35,726Base Composite 5/17/2011 11:00 5/18/2011 9:40 0.042 10 5/10/11 14:00 5/21/11 2:10 7,018,875 18.40 4,382Storm Composite 5/21/2011 3:44 5/21/2011 8:05 0.411 278 5/21/11 2:20 5/26/11 17:30 12,677,305 325.26 220,008Base 0.086 18 5/26/11 17:40 5/28/11 12:10 1,095,817 5.88 1,231Storm 0.364 156 5/28/11 12:20 5/28/11 23:50 1,348,098 30.63 13,128Base Composite 6/6/2011 10:56 6/7/2011 10:06 0.085 11 5/29/11 0:00 6/14/11 18:00 10,558,193 56.02 7,250Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:35 6/14/2011 22:10 0.340 115 6/14/11 18:10 6/17/11 12:20 4,845,847 102.85 34,788Base 0.086 18 6/17/11 12:30 6/18/11 12:30 324,143 1.74 364Storm 0.364 156 6/18/11 12:40 6/20/11 5:40 3,045,266 69.20 29,656Base 0.086 18 6/20/11 5:50 6/21/11 3:20 724,969 3.89 815Storm Composite 6/21/2011 3:51 6/21/2011 7:13 0.259 150 6/21/11 3:30 6/21/11 21:50 2,269,565 36.70 21,252Storm 0.364 156 6/21/11 22:00 6/22/11 19:20 1,453,928 33.04 14,159Storm 0.364 156 6/22/11 19:30 6/25/11 3:30 3,375,547 76.70 32,873Base Grab 6/30/2011 10:35 6/30/2011 10:35 0.050 5 6/25/11 3:40 7/1/11 20:30 4,120,015 12.86 1,286Storm 0.364 156 7/1/11 20:40 7/2/11 4:50 393,213 8.94 3,829Base 0.086 18 7/2/11 5:00 7/5/11 19:20 1,715,096 9.21 1,927Storm 0.364 156 7/5/11 19:30 7/6/11 2:10 491,540 11.17 4,787Base 0.086 18 7/6/11 2:20 7/10/11 5:40 2,351,763 12.63 2,643Storm Composite 7/10/2011 5:59 7/10/2011 8:08 0.406 176 7/10/11 5:50 7/10/11 19:30 1,400,525 35.50 15,388Base 0.086 18 7/10/11 19:40 7/10/11 22:50 104,086 0.56 117Storm 0.364 156 7/10/11 23:00 7/11/11 15:30 2,264,660 51.46 22,054Base Grab 7/13/2011 9:55 7/13/2011 9:55 0.121 8 7/11/11 15:40 7/14/11 10:40 2,996,043 22.63 1,496Storm 0.364 156 7/14/11 10:50 7/14/11 15:50 363,531 8.26 3,540Base 0.086 18 7/14/11 16:00 7/15/11 10:00 1,002,275 5.38 1,126Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:18 7/15/2011 13:32 0.167 108 7/15/11 10:10 7/16/11 4:40 2,941,755 30.67 19,833Storm 0.364 156 7/16/11 4:50 7/19/11 11:50 20,413,658 463.86 198,798Storm 0.364 156 7/16/11 12:00 7/23/11 22:20 12,733,303 289.34 124,003Storm 0.364 156 7/23/11 22:30 7/27/11 3:10 7,149,200 162.45 69,622


Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:43 7/27/2011 6:23 0.208 95 7/27/11 3:20 7/29/11 21:30 4,655,147 60.45 27,607Base 0.086 18 7/29/11 21:40 7/30/11 23:00 933,419 5.01 1,049Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:08 7/31/2011 1:22 0.260 106 7/30/11 23:10 8/1/11 13:40 3,690,085 59.89 24,418Storm 0.364 156 8/1/11 13:50 8/5/11 10:30 12,213,929 277.54 118,945Base Grab 8/5/2011 10:45 8/5/2011 10:45 0.154 12 8/5/11 10:40 8/13/11 3:00 7,280,352 69.99 5,454Storm 0.364 156 8/13/11 3:10 8/14/11 1:40 1,741,902 39.58 16,963Base 0.086 18 8/14/11 1:50 8/16/11 19:00 1,997,801 10.73 2,245Storm 0.364 156 8/16/11 19:10 8/18/11 9:50 6,762,906 153.67 65,860Base Grab 8/18/2011 10:00 8/18/2011 10:00 0.194 19 8/18/11 10:00 9/4/11 10:30 14,577,901 176.55 17,291Base Composite 9/6/2011 10:37 9/7/2011 9:11 0.067 23 9/4/11 10:40 9/15/11 8:30 6,600,695 27.61 9,477Base Composite 9/22/2011 10:42 9/23/2011 7:52 0.064 7 9/15/11 8:40 10/1/11 16:40 9,256,225 36.98 4,045Base Composite 10/4/2011 9:47 10/5/2011 4:46 0.086 26 10/1/11 16:50 10/12/11 12:40 6,606,142 35.47 10,722Storm Composite 10/12/2011 12:46 10/12/2011 15:20 1.120 265 10/12/11 12:50 10/12/11 18:20 916,608 64.09 15,163Base Composite 10/20/2011 10:58 10/21/2011 5:57 0.046 13 10/12/11 18:30 10/25/11 14:10 7,058,961 20.27 5,729Base Grab 11/1/2011 11:45 11/1/2011 11:45 0.050 11 10/25/11 14:20 11/5/11 6:50 4,530,055 14.14 3,111Base Grab 11/8/2011 9:25 11/8/2011 9:25 0.044 10 11/5/11 7:00 11/15/11 10:00 3,795,502 10.43 2,369Base Grab 11/22/2011 10:45 11/22/2011 10:45 0.090 21 11/15/11 10:15 12/1/11 14:00 8,115,089 45.59 10,638Base Grab 12/6/2011 11:50 12/6/2011 11:50 0.086 29 12/1/11 14:15 12/14/11 12:15 5,926,945 31.82 10,730Storm 0.364 156 12/14/11 12:30 12/14/11 23:15 8,095,484 183.95 78,838Base 0.086 18 12/14/11 23:15 12/31/11 0:00 7,282,372 39.10 8,183

0.341 154 Storm Subtotal 135,021,212 2,878 1,298,9800.088 17 Base Subtotal 178,532,258 983 187,648

0.270 73 Snowmelt Subtotal 15,136,168 255 68,7300.201 76 Total 328,689,637 4,116 1,555,358

Note: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average base and storm flow concentrations. Average base TP = 0.086 mg/L, TSS = 18; average storm TP = 0.364 mg/L, TSS = 156 mg/L.

Storm Flow-Weighted AverageBase Flow-Weighted AverageSnowmelt Flow - Weighted Average



Table 39. 2011 Trout Brook – East Branch Laboratory Data.

Sample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness cBOD E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLBase Grab 1/5/2011 12:54 1/5/2011 12:54 0.013 436 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.24 1.1 0.043 0.43 0.03 1,170 3 1 600 - 22Base Grab 2/11/2011 9:35 2/11/2011 9:35 0.015 415 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.9 0.041 0.35 0.03 1,080 4 1 576 - 36Base Grab 2/23/2011 15:21 2/23/2011 15:21 0.005 1,203 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.062 0.45 1.7 0.129 0.46 0.04 2,280 21 8 564 - -Base Grab 3/7/2011 12:15 3/7/2011 12:15 0.018 2,107 0.0003 0.0053 0.0133 0.0113 0.0046 0.0615 0.41 2.4 0.3 0.5 0.04 3,590 101 28 596 - 166Base Grab 5/2/2011 9:45 5/2/2011 9:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9Base Grab 5/3/2011 9:46 5/3/2011 9:46 0.008 267 0.0002 0.00023 0.0013 0.0001 0.0016 0.0052 0.03 0.92 0.048 0.87 0.03 748 2 1 388 - -Base Grab 5/17/2011 10:00 5/17/2011 10:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31Base Grab 5/18/2011 9:30 5/18/2011 9:30 0.008 389 0.0002 0.00017 0.00078 0.0001 0.0022 0.003 0.08 0.74 0.039 0.99 0.03 997 3 2 588 1 -Base Grab 6/6/2011 10:25 6/6/2011 10:25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,300Base Composite 6/6/2011 11:02 6/7/2011 9:52 0.03 348 0.0002 0.0019 0.004 0.0037 0.0031 0.0293 0.11 1.2 0.22 1.11 0.03 1,050 40 9 556 - -Base Grab 6/30/2011 10:20 6/30/2011 10:20 0.022 379 0.0002 0.00028 0.001 0.00037 0.0019 0.0056 0.07 0.72 0.05 0.86 0.03 956 3 2 564 - 1,120Base Grab 7/13/2011 9:35 7/13/2011 9:35 0.026 318 0.0002 0.00021 0.00084 0.0002 0.0021 0.0049 0.1 0.9 0.096 0.8 0.03 854 2 2 488 - 411Base Grab 8/4/2011 11:15 8/4/2011 11:15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 172Base Composite 8/4/2011 11:59 8/5/2011 10:12 0.04 175 0.0002 0.0005 0.0017 0.00069 0.0016 0.0132 0.18 1 0.151 0.74 0.04 590 8 4 332 - 326Base Grab 8/18/2011 9:50 8/18/2011 9:50 0.025 182 0.0002 0.00045 0.0014 0.00018 0.0015 0.006 0.09 0.81 0.092 0.6 0.03 590 3 2 332 - -Base Grab 9/6/2011 10:10 9/6/2011 10:10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 68Base Composite 9/6/2011 10:42 9/7/2011 8:27 0.025 346 0.0002 0.00034 0.0011 0.00056 0.002 0.0101 0.05 0.66 0.095 0.77 0.03 409 8 3 552 - -Base Grab 9/22/2011 10:00 9/22/2011 10:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 199Base Composite 9/22/2011 10:42 9/23/2011 8:25 0.029 370 0.0002 0.00032 0.001 0.0015 0.0019 0.018 0.06 0.58 0.073 0.58 0.03 966 6 2 528 - -Base Composite 10/4/2011 10:05 10/5/2011 9:21 0.025 330 0.0002 0.00025 0.0011 0.0098 0.0019 0.0144 0.03 0.54 0.075 0.57 0.03 1,010 7 2 556 - -Base Grab 10/5/2011 9:30 10/5/2011 9:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56Base Composite 10/20/2011 11:15 10/21/2011 7:31 0.033 339 0.0002 0.00035 0.0012 0.0013 0.0021 0.0133 0.04 0.75 0.09 0.56 0.03 976 7 3 572 - -Base Grab 10/31/2011 9:45 10/31/2011 9:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6Base Composite 10/31/2011 10:19 11/1/2011 7:06 0.032 368 0.0002 0.00028 0.0011 0.00051 0.0021 0.0095 0.07 0.37 0.083 0.63 0.03 983 4 2 552 - -Base Grab 11/8/2011 8:30 11/8/2011 8:30 0.028 345 0.0002 0.00015 0.00052 0.00013 0.0017 0.002 0.09 0.58 0.038 0.71 0.03 974 2 1 572 - -Base Grab 11/22/2011 10:30 11/22/2011 10:30 0.029 498 0.0002 0.00062 0.0016 0.0011 0.0022 0.0178 0.15 1 0.082 0.46 0.03 1,220 10 3 560 - 1,300Base Grab 12/6/2011 11:40 12/6/2011 11:40 0.022 392 0.0002 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0024 0.0081 0.16 0.82 0.102 0.48 0.03 1,070 28 4 564 - 24

Base Average 0.023 485 0.0003 0.0023 0.0033 0.0022 0.0050 0.0170 0.13 0.9 0.097 0.66 0.03 1,132 14 4 528 1.0 328

Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 10:21 2/14/2011 10:21 0.01 1,511 0.001 0.01 0.011 0.003 0.02 0.061 1.02 3.8 0.371 0.53 0.07 2,750 56 19 548 - 411Snowmelt Grab 2/16/2011 13:40 2/16/2011 13:40 0.048 1,109 0.001 0.01 0.015 0.003 0.02 0.079 0.74 2.5 0.234 0.53 0.06 1,990 45 17 356 - -Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 10:35 2/17/2011 10:35 0.09 865 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.06 0.8 2.5 0.202 0.7 0.06 1,550 27 9 264 - 276Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 14:30 2/17/2011 14:30 0.071 782 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.048 0.61 2.3 0.217 0.64 0.05 1,240 30 12 256 - -Snowmelt Grab 3/9/2011 15:15 3/9/2011 15:15 0.012 2,306 0.0002 0.005 0.0121 0.0061 0.004 0.0572 0.68 3.2 0.461 0.39 0.04 2,540 52 21 396 - -Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 9:45 3/15/2011 9:45 0.013 673 0.0002 0.00058 0.0027 0.00084 0.0022 0.0116 0.3 1.4 0.097 0.55 0.03 1,310 8 2 444 - 214Storm Grab 3/22/2011 10:15 3/22/2011 10:15 0.071 90 0.0002 0.0107 0.0191 0.015 0.005 0.0914 0.26 1.2 0.275 0.48 0.03 221 96 26 100 - 1,120Storm Grab 4/26/2011 10:40 4/26/2011 10:40 0.055 69 0.0002 0.009 0.0129 0.0089 0.0032 0.054 0.08 0.95 0.233 0.23 0.03 208 63 23 72 - 1,300Storm Composite 5/9/2011 6:49 5/9/2011 8:35 0.025 113 0.0002 0.0057 0.016 0.0083 0.0034 0.066 0.35 2.2 0.296 0.59 0.05 380 92 43 176 - -Storm Grab 5/9/2011 10:00 5/9/2011 10:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,046Storm Composite 5/21/2011 2:41 5/21/2011 7:03 - 86 0.0002 0.0037 0.014 0.0093 0.0034 0.0596 0.25 1 0.222 0.37 0.05 220 180 53 128 - -Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:48 6/14/2011 22:45 0.093 64 0.0002 0.0047 0.0095 0.0041 0.0023 0.0349 0.16 1.5 0.382 0.26 0.05 158 64 19 88 - -Storm Grab 5/9/2011 10:00 5/9/2011 10:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,420Storm Composite 6/21/2011 3:56 6/21/2011 6:48 0.069 53 0.0002 0.0037 0.0107 0.0091 0.0029 0.0606 0.22 1.5 0.366 0.24 0.04 184 72 22 88 - -Storm Composite 7/10/2011 5:52 7/10/2011 7:47 0.093 58 0.0002 0.0041 0.015 0.0107 0.0034 0.0691 0.53 2.5 0.461 0.46 0.08 196 93 34 68 - -Storm Grab 7/14/2011 11:00 7/14/2011 11:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,900Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:20 7/15/2011 12:51 - 48 0.0002 0.0062 0.0125 0.0075 0.0023 0.0507 0.22 0.85 0.205 0.36 0.12 157 47 13 92 - -Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:48 7/27/2011 11:08 0.072 60 0.0002 0.0013 0.0046 0.0028 0.0015 0.0254 0.16 0.97 0.228 0.38 0.06 188 22 8 108 - -Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:11 7/31/2011 2:49 0.099 44 0.0002 0.0024 0.0068 0.0041 0.0017 0.029 0.22 1.1 0.27 0.4 0.09 135 35 12 100 - -Storm Composite 10/12/2011 12:48 10/12/2011 18:31 0.258 161 0.0002 0.0061 0.0163 0.0111 0.0046 0.0858 0.03 2.3 0.695 0.05 0.03 505 84 37 200 - -

Snowmelt Average 0.041 1,208 0.0007 0.0076 0.0101 0.0032 0.0144 0.0528 0.69 2.6 0.264 0.56 0.05 1,897 36 13 377 - 300Storm Average 0.093 77 0.0002 0.0052 0.0125 0.0083 0.0031 0.0570 0.23 1.5 0.330 0.35 0.06 232 77 26 111 - 3,357

Annual Average 0.044 481 0.0004 0.0041 0.0073 0.0042 0.0060 0.0352 0.26 1.4 0.196 0.55 0.04 985 37 13 376 1.0 956Annual Maximum 0.258 2,306 0.0010 0.0107 0.0191 0.0150 0.0200 0.0914 1.02 3.8 0.695 1.11 0.12 3,590 180 53 600 1.0 10,900Annual Minimum 0.005 44 0.0002 0.0002 0.0005 0.0001 0.0015 0.0020 0.03 0.4 0.038 0.05 0.03 135 2 1 68 1.0 6

Annual Median 0.029 346 0.0002 0.0031 0.0082 0.0030 0.0024 0.0272 0.16 1.0 0.177 0.53 0.03 970 25 8 420 1.0 245

actual value is less than number (<)- not collected

F


Capitol R

– East Branch Le

Region Watersh

evel, Velocity, a


and Discharge.

1 Monitoring Re

eport

F


Capitol R

– East Branch Le

Region Watersh

evel, Discharge,


, and Rain.



Table 40. 2011 Trout Brook – East Branch Loading.



Base Grab 1/5/2011 12:54 1/5/2011 12:54 0.043 3 1/1/11 0:00 1/6/11 0:00 332,945 0.89 62Base Grab 2/11/2011 9:35 2/11/2011 9:35 0.041 4 1/6/11 0:10 2/13/11 14:30 2,281,925 5.84 570Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 10:21 2/14/2011 10:21 0.371 56 2/13/11 14:40 2/15/11 10:50 172,211 3.99 602Snow Melt 0.264 36 2/15/11 11:00 2/16/11 12:30 158,857 2.62 357Snowmelt Grab 2/16/2011 13:40 2/16/2011 13:40 0.234 475 2/16/11 12:40 2/17/11 5:20 168,619 2.46 5,000Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 10:35 2/17/2011 10:35 0.202 27 2/17/11 5:30 2/17/11 13:00 79,717 1.01 134Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 14:30 2/17/2011 14:30 0.217 30 2/17/11 13:10 2/19/11 6:20 336,793 4.56 631Base Grab 2/23/2011 15:21 2/23/2011 15:21 0.129 21 2/19/11 6:30 2/24/11 0:00 282,229 2.27 370Base Grab 3/7/2011 12:15 3/7/2011 12:15 0.300 101 2/24/11 0:10 3/9/11 9:10 859,338 16.09 5,418Snowmelt Grab 3/9/2011 15:15 3/9/2011 15:15 0.461 52 3/9/11 9:20 3/10/11 13:00 106,502 3.06 346Snow Melt 0.264 36 3/10/11 13:10 3/11/11 14:00 93,135 1.53 209Snow Melt 0.264 36 3/11/11 14:10 3/12/11 21:40 154,501 2.55 347Base 0.097 14 3/12/11 21:50 3/14/11 12:20 116,442 0.71 102Snow Melt 0.264 36 3/14/11 12:30 3/15/11 10:40 98,486 1.62 221Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 9:45 3/15/2011 9:45 0.097 8 3/15/11 10:50 3/20/11 0:20 1,036,230 6.27 518Storm 0.330 77 3/20/11 0:30 3/21/11 7:10 351,143 7.23 1,688Base 0.097 14 3/21/11 7:20 3/22/11 4:10 110,431 0.67 97Storm Grab 3/22/2011 10:15 3/22/2011 10:15 0.275 96 3/22/11 4:20 3/22/11 17:30 467,979 8.03 2,805Storm 0.330 77 3/22/11 17:40 3/24/11 1:00 320,965 6.61 1,543Base 0.097 14 3/24/11 1:10 4/1/11 0:00 866,042 5.24 757Storm 0.330 77 4/1/11 0:10 4/1/11 21:30 174,798 3.60 840Base 0.097 14 4/1/11 21:40 4/3/11 6:20 139,256 0.84 122Storm 0.330 77 4/3/11 6:30 4/4/11 6:00 250,357 5.16 1,203Base 0.097 14 4/4/11 6:10 4/10/11 4:00 487,946 2.95 426Storm 0.330 77 4/10/11 4:10 4/11/11 2:30 151,580 3.12 729Base 0.097 14 4/11/11 2:40 4/25/11 18:00 1,196,430 7.24 1,046

Sample TypeInterval





Storm Grab 4/26/2011 10:40 4/26/2011 10:40 0.233 63 4/25/11 18:10 4/28/11 21:50 1,475,320 21.46 5,802Base 0.097 14 4/28/11 22:00 4/30/11 6:40 167,254 1.01 146Storm 0.330 77 4/30/11 6:50 5/1/11 15:10 479,770 9.88 2,306Base Grab 5/3/2011 9:46 5/3/2011 9:46 0.048 2 5/1/11 15:20 5/9/11 6:40 766,397 2.30 96Storm Composite 5/9/2011 6:49 5/9/2011 8:35 0.296 92 5/9/11 6:50 5/10/11 12:40 291,035 5.38 1,671Base Grab 5/18/2011 9:30 5/18/2011 9:30 0.039 3 5/10/11 12:50 5/20/11 20:00 708,596 1.73 133Storm Composite 5/21/2011 2:41 5/21/2011 7:03 0.222 180 5/20/11 20:10 5/22/11 11:30 1,092,350 15.14 12,274Storm 0.330 77 5/22/11 11:40 5/23/11 13:20 344,555 7.10 1,656Base Composite 6/6/2011 11:02 6/7/2011 9:52 0.220 40 5/23/11 13:30 6/14/11 18:00 1,629,800 22.38 4,070Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:48 6/14/2011 22:45 0.382 64 6/14/11 18:10 6/16/11 9:30 717,709 17.12 2,867Base 0.097 14 6/16/11 9:40 6/18/11 0:30 122,420 0.74 107Storm 0.330 77 6/18/11 0:40 6/18/11 12:10 98,177 2.02 472Storm 0.330 77 6/18/11 12:20 6/19/11 16:10 248,163 5.11 1,193Base 0.097 14 6/19/11 16:20 6/21/11 3:20 132,156 0.80 115Storm Composite 6/21/2011 3:56 6/21/2011 6:48 0.366 72 6/21/11 3:30 6/21/11 22:00 480,003 10.97 2,157Storm Composite 7/10/2011 5:52 7/10/2011 7:47 0.461 93 6/21/11 22:10 6/22/11 19:20 242,897 6.99 1,410Storm 0.330 77 6/22/11 19:30 6/24/11 16:30 340,561 7.02 1,637Base Grab 6/30/2011 10:20 6/30/2011 10:20 0.050 3 6/24/11 16:40 7/5/11 19:20 779,399 2.43 146Storm 0.330 77 7/5/11 19:30 7/6/11 12:30 126,103 2.60 606Base 0.097 14 7/6/11 12:40 7/10/11 5:40 247,633 1.50 216Storm 0.330 77 7/10/11 5:50 7/10/11 22:50 406,651 8.38 1,955Storm 0.330 77 7/10/11 23:00 7/12/11 19:20 782,243 16.11 3,760Base Grab 7/13/2011 9:35 7/13/2011 9:35 0.096 2 7/12/11 19:30 7/15/11 10:00 269,532 1.62 34Storm Composite 7/15/2011 10:20 7/15/2011 12:51 0.205 47 7/15/11 10:10 7/16/11 4:30 876,032 11.21 2,570Storm 0.330 77 7/16/11 4:40 7/18/11 8:30 3,459,620 71.27 16,630Base 0.097 14 7/18/11 8:40 7/19/11 11:40 113,933 0.69 100Storm 0.330 77 7/19/11 11:50 7/20/11 20:00 785,162 16.17 3,774Base 0.097 14 7/20/11 20:10 7/23/11 22:20 553,655 3.35 484Storm 0.330 77 7/23/11 22:30 7/25/11 7:40 678,974 13.99 3,264


Base 0.097 14 7/25/11 7:50 7/27/11 3:30 215,150 1.30 188Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:48 7/27/2011 11:08 0.228 22 7/27/11 3:40 7/28/11 3:30 294,593 4.19 405Base 0.097 14 7/28/11 3:40 7/30/11 23:00 372,894 2.26 326Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:11 7/31/2011 2:49 0.270 35 7/30/11 23:10 7/31/11 23:00 426,386 7.19 932Base 0.097 14 7/31/11 23:10 8/1/11 13:40 65,534 0.40 57Storm 0.330 77 8/1/11 13:50 8/2/11 5:40 944,530 19.46 4,540Storm 0.330 77 8/2/11 5:50 8/4/11 23:30 760,681 15.67 3,656Base Composite 8/4/2011 11:59 8/5/2011 10:12 0.151 8 8/4/11 23:40 8/13/11 3:00 704,298 6.64 352Storm 0.330 77 8/13/11 3:10 8/14/11 6:20 379,933 7.83 1,826Base 0.097 14 8/14/11 6:30 8/16/11 19:00 198,494 1.20 173Storm 0.330 77 8/16/11 19:10 8/18/11 4:30 1,420,780 29.27 6,829Base Grab 8/18/2011 9:50 8/18/2011 9:50 0.092 3 8/18/11 4:40 8/18/11 17:50 60,980 0.35 11Base Composite 9/6/2011 10:42 9/7/2011 8:27 0.095 8 8/18/11 18:00 9/10/11 0:00 1,662,830 9.86 830Base Composite 9/22/2011 10:42 9/23/2011 8:25 0.073 6 9/10/11 0:10 10/3/11 0:00 1,651,420 7.53 619Base Composite 10/4/2011 10:05 10/5/2011 9:21 0.075 7 10/3/11 0:10 10/12/11 12:30 603,107 2.82 264Storm Composite 10/12/2011 12:48 10/12/2011 18:31 0.695 84 10/12/11 12:40 10/13/11 15:50 200,053 8.68 1,049Base Composite 10/20/2011 11:15 10/21/2011 7:31 0.090 7 10/13/11 16:00 10/21/11 7:20 442,299 2.48 193Base Composite 10/31/2011 10:19 11/1/2011 7:06 0.083 4 10/21/11 7:30 11/2/11 11:30 729,529 3.78 182Base Grab 11/8/2011 8:30 11/8/2011 8:30 0.038 2 11/2/11 11:40 11/8/11 9:10 315,772 0.75 39Base Grab 12/6/2011 11:40 12/6/2011 11:40 0.102 28 11/23/11 8:50 12/14/11 12:40 1,499,820 9.55 2,622Storm 0.330 77 12/14/11 12:50 12/15/11 19:10 195,001 4.02 937Base 0.097 14 12/15/11 19:20 12/31/11 23:50 1,008,020 6.10 881

0.314 79 Storm Subtotal 19,264,104 378 94,9890.101 16 Base Subtotal 21,693,906 136 21,353

Snowmelt Flow-Weighted Average 0.198 56 Snowmelt Subtotal 2,405,051 30 8,3650.201 46 Total 43,363,061 544 124,707

Note: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average base and storm flow concentrations. Average base TP = 0.097 mg/L, TSS = 14 mg/L; Average storm TP = 0.330 mg/L,TSS =77 mg/L; Average snowmelt TP = 0.264 mg/L, TSS = 36




Table 41. 2011 Trout Brook Outlet Laboratory Data.

Sample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness cBOD SO4 E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLBase Grab 1/5/2011 11:50 1/5/2011 11:50 0.005 144 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.32 0.93 0.049 0.88 0.03 621 3 1 416 1 - -Base Grab 2/11/2011 10:30 2/11/2011 10:30 0.005 133 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.96 0.055 1.05 0.03 350 11 2 400 1 - 308Base Grab 3/7/2011 11:35 3/7/2011 11:35 0.005 639 0.0002 0.0019 0.0062 0.0033 0.002 0.0254 0.28 1.6 0.1 0.98 0.03 1,330 37 12 352 - - 156Base Grab 5/2/2011 10:45 5/2/2011 10:45 0.005 139 0.0002 0.00022 0.002 0.0001 0.00096 0.0037 0.13 1.2 0.053 0.92 0.03 480 5 2 292 - 86Base Grab 5/17/2011 10:25 5/17/2011 10:25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 70Base Composite 5/17/2011 10:30 5/17/2011 16:30 0.009 135 0.0002 0.00032 0.0013 0.0005 0.0013 0.0162 0.18 0.74 0.038 1.14 0.03 587 6 3 368 1.2 - -Base Grab 6/6/2011 11:00 6/6/2011 11:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 980Base Composite 6/6/2011 11:27 6/7/2011 2:39 0.01 129 0.0002 0.0005 0.0012 0.00023 0.00098 0.0075 0.12 0.77 0.079 1.13 0.07 102 4 2 396 1 - -Base Grab 6/30/2011 9:40 6/30/2011 9:40 0.09 158 0.0002 0.00053 0.0014 0.0017 0.0015 0.0069 0.11 0.79 0.052 0.9 0.05 567 14 3 412 1 - 184Base Grab 8/4/2011 11:00 8/4/2011 11:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Base Composite 8/4/2011 11:17 8/5/2011 9:50 0.029 89 0.0002 0.00043 0.002 0.0014 0.00091 0.0083 0.02 1.2 0.171 0.53 0.03 420 16 10 224 2.1 - 127Base Grab 9/6/2011 10:45 9/6/2011 10:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 461Base Composite 9/6/2011 11:04 9/7/2011 9:24 0.005 155 0.0002 0.0003 0.0014 0.0006 0.0014 0.0084 0.11 0.6 0.045 1.06 0.05 607 7 2 384 1.1 - -Base Composite 9/22/2011 12:19 9/23/2011 10:32 0.007 148 0.0002 0.00029 0.0011 0.00058 0.0012 0.0102 0.14 0.72 0.058 1.11 0.06 612 5 2 396 3 - -Base Grab 9/23/2011 11:45 9/23/2011 11:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 461Base Grab 10/31/2011 11:40 10/31/2011 11:40 0.006 140 0.0002 0.00059 0.001 0.00014 0.001 0.0061 0.18 0.68 0.037 1.09 0.04 590 3 2 400 1 - 148Base Grab 11/8/2011 10:48 11/8/2011 10:48 0.007 160 0.0002 0.00035 0.00093 0.00031 0.0012 0.0024 0.2 0.79 0.036 1.14 0.03 655 6 2 432 1 - -Base Grab 11/22/2011 11:50 11/22/2011 11:50 0.015 203 0.0004 0.00081 0.0031 0.0012 0.0017 0.0084 0.21 1 0.095 0.92 0.03 661 17 6 372 2.6 - 2,000Base Grab 12/6/2011 11:05 12/6/2011 11:05 0.005 162 0.0002 0.0019 0.0041 0.0035 0.002 0.0123 0.23 1.5 0.119 0.96 0.03 615 45 15 408 1 - 276

Base Average 0.015 181 0.0003 0.0020 0.0033 0.0014 0.0040 0.0111 0.18 1.0 0.071 0.99 0.04 586 13 5 375 1.4 #DIV/0! 438

Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 11:05 2/14/2011 11:05 0.011 579 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.007 0.02 0.041 0.73 2.8 0.242 1 0.05 1,380 53 20 384 - - 921Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 10:00 2/17/2011 10:00 0.083 471 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.004 0.02 0.054 0.86 2.8 0.259 0.83 0.06 1,080 33 11 244 7.6 33.3 921Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 10:55 3/15/2011 10:55 0.005 186 0.0002 0.002 0.0044 0.0044 0.0021 0.0254 0.34 1.8 0.153 0.97 0.03 624 46 10 360 1 - 225Storm Grab 4/26/2011 10:05 4/26/2011 10:05 0.05 41 0.0002 0.0076 0.0138 0.0204 0.0037 0.0654 0.09 0.98 0.219 0.2 0.03 153 117 29 76 3.9 - 1,414Storm Composite 5/9/2011 6:51 5/9/2011 10:50 0.01 63 0.0002 0.0077 0.0198 0.0187 0.0052 0.102 0.34 2.7 0.437 0.6 0.04 228 236 84 136 14.3 - -Storm Grab 5/9/2011 9:40 5/9/2011 9:40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,553Storm Composite 5/21/2011 3:17 5/21/2011 8:07 - 44 0.0002 0.0046 0.014 0.0136 0.0038 0.0711 0.17 2.2 0.356 0.4 0.04 154 169 50 112 - - -Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:59 6/15/2011 0:27 0.046 42 0.0002 0.0049 0.0094 0.0074 0.0024 0.0543 0.08 2.2 0.398 0.32 0.04 175 109 43 88 3.7 - -Storm Grab 6/15/2011 9:45 6/15/2011 9:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,100Storm Grab 7/14/2011 10:00 7/14/2011 10:00 0.011 136 0.0002 0.00031 0.0012 0.00059 0.0011 0.0034 0.16 0.98 0.08 0.87 0.04 532 8 4 336 1 - 1,300Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:46 7/27/2011 7:06 0.049 43 0.0002 0.0023 0.0078 0.0103 0.0021 0.0529 0.12 1.2 0.233 0.38 0.07 171 83 24 96 2.5 - -Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:14 7/31/2011 4:24 0.075 30 0.0002 0.0032 0.0104 0.0167 0.003 0.0479 0.12 1.4 0.251 0.41 0.15 134 95 20 76 1.9 - -

Snowmelt Average 0.033 412 0.0007 0.0073 0.0081 0.0051 0.0140 0.0401 0.64 2.5 0.218 0.93 0.05 1,028 44 14 329 4.3 33.3 689Storm Average 0.040 57 0.0002 0.0044 0.0109 0.0125 0.0030 0.0567 0.15 1.7 0.282 0.45 0.06 221 117 36 131 4.6 - 2,092

Annual Average 0.024 174 0.0003 0.0034 0.0061 0.0051 0.0050 0.0281 0.23 1.4 0.151 0.82 0.05 535 47 15 298 2.6 33.3 826Annual Maximum 0.090 639 0.0010 0.0100 0.0198 0.0204 0.0200 0.1020 0.86 2.8 0.437 1.14 0.15 1,380 236 84 432 14.3 33.3 4,100Annual Minimum 0.005 30 0.0002 0.0002 0.0009 0.0001 0.0009 0.0024 0.02 0.6 0.036 0.20 0.03 102 3 1 76 1.0 33.3 70

Annual Median 0.010 140 0.0002 0.0019 0.0043 0.0030 0.0020 0.0181 0.18 1.1 0.098 0.92 0.04 577 17 8 364 1.2 33.3 461

number is approximate (~)missing data

- not collected

F

Figure 52. 20111 Trout Brook O

Capitol R

Outlet Level, Ve

Region Watersh

elocity, and Disc


charge.


F

Figure 53. 20111 Trout Brook O

Capitol R

Outlet Level, Dis

Region Watersh

scharge, and Ra


ain.



Table 42. 2011 Trout Brook Outlet Loading.



Base Grab 1/5/2011 11:50 1/5/2011 11:50 0.049 3 1/1/11 0:00 1/25/11 6:15 25,929,000 79.31 4,856Base Grab 2/11/2011 10:30 2/11/2011 10:30 0.055 11 1/25/11 6:30 2/13/11 12:00 19,735,000 67.76 13,552Snowmelt 0.218 44 2/13/11 12:15 2/14/11 9:45 1,365,150 18.58 3,750Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 11:05 2/14/2011 11:05 0.242 53 2/14/11 10:00 2/15/11 9:30 1,617,340 24.43 5,351Snowmelt 0.218 44 2/15/11 9:45 2/16/11 11:00 2,135,530 29.06 5,866Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 10:00 2/17/2011 10:00 0.259 33 2/16/11 11:15 2/19/11 6:45 7,027,000 113.62 14,476Base Grab 3/7/2011 11:35 3/7/2011 11:35 0.100 37 2/19/11 7:00 3/15/11 7:45 32,806,700 204.80 75,776Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 10:55 3/15/2011 10:55 0.153 46 3/15/11 8:00 3/16/11 8:15 2,148,280 20.52 6,169Snowmelt 0.218 44 3/16/11 8:30 4/5/11 1:15 55,343,900 753.17 152,016Base 0.071 13 4/5/11 1:30 4/10/11 0:15 8,278,670 36.69 6,718Storm 0.282 117 4/10/11 0:30 4/13/11 6:00 6,479,750 114.07 47,327Base 0.071 13 4/13/11 6:15 4/26/11 2:40 18,288,700 81.06 14,842Storm Grab 4/26/2011 10:05 4/26/2011 10:05 0.219 117 4/26/11 2:50 4/30/11 4:00 14,313,200 195.68 104,542Storm 0.282 117 4/30/11 4:10 5/1/11 17:50 5,367,560 94.49 39,204Base Grab 5/2/2011 10:45 5/2/2011 10:45 0.053 5 5/1/11 18:00 5/9/11 6:20 14,555,090 48.16 4,543Storm Composite 5/9/2011 6:51 5/9/2011 10:50 0.437 236 5/9/11 6:30 5/11/11 3:20 4,364,860 119.07 64,306Base Composite 5/17/2011 10:30 5/17/2011 16:30 0.038 6 5/11/11 3:30 5/21/11 0:00 16,189,800 38.41 6,064Storm Composite 5/21/2011 3:17 5/21/2011 8:07 0.356 169 5/21/11 0:10 5/27/11 16:00 22,535,000 500.81 237,745Storm 0.282 117 5/27/11 16:10 5/29/11 8:10 3,701,700 65.17 27,037Base Composite 6/6/2011 11:27 6/7/2011 2:39 0.079 4 5/29/11 8:20 6/14/11 17:50 25,085,900 123.72 6,264Storm Composite 6/14/2011 18:59 6/15/2011 0:27 0.398 109 6/14/11 18:00 6/18/11 0:20 9,352,370 232.37 63,638Storm 0.282 117 6/18/11 0:30 6/20/11 4:30 5,443,020 95.82 39,755Base 0.071 13 6/20/11 4:40 6/21/11 3:10 1,646,160 7.30 1,336Storm 0.282 117 6/21/11 3:20 6/21/11 21:50 3,732,410 65.71 27,261Storm 0.282 117 6/21/11 22:00 6/22/11 19:10 3,057,530 53.83 22,332Storm 0.282 117 6/22/11 19:20 6/25/11 19:00 7,769,420 136.77 56,747

Sample Collection Time Loading IntervalSample Type


Interval TP (lb)

Interval TSS (lb)



Base Grab 6/30/2011 9:40 6/30/2011 9:40 0.052 14 6/25/11 19:10 7/1/11 20:20 9,685,910 31.44 8,465Storm 0.282 117 7/1/11 20:30 7/2/11 5:10 825,515 14.53 6,029Base 0.071 13 7/2/11 5:20 7/5/11 19:40 4,772,130 21.15 3,873Storm 0.282 117 7/5/11 19:50 7/6/11 7:00 863,602 15.20 6,308Base 0.071 13 7/6/11 7:10 7/8/11 13:30 2,178,240 9.65 1,768Base 0.071 13 7/26/11 9:20 7/27/11 2:40 1,763,550 7.82 1,431Storm Composite 7/27/2011 3:46 7/27/2011 7:06 0.233 83 7/27/11 2:50 7/27/11 15:20 2,111,920 30.72 10,943Base 0.071 13 7/27/11 15:30 7/30/11 22:50 7,209,920 31.96 5,851Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:14 7/31/2011 4:24 0.251 95 7/30/11 23:00 7/31/11 22:50 3,820,790 59.87 22,659Base 0.071 13 7/31/11 23:00 8/1/11 13:30 1,248,470 5.53 1,013Storm 0.282 117 8/1/11 13:40 8/4/11 9:00 12,828,700 225.84 93,699Base Composite 8/4/2011 11:17 8/5/2011 9:50 0.171 16 8/4/11 9:00 8/13/11 3:00 15,382,540 164.21 15,364Storm 0.282 117 8/13/11 3:10 8/14/11 7:20 3,166,000 55.73 23,124Base 0.071 13 8/14/11 7:30 8/16/11 19:10 3,864,920 17.13 3,137Storm 0.282 117 8/16/11 19:20 8/20/11 16:30 13,395,600 235.82 97,840Base Composite 9/6/2011 11:04 9/7/2011 9:24 0.045 7 8/20/11 16:40 9/13/11 16:30 26,609,000 74.75 11,628Base Composite 9/22/2011 12:19 9/23/2011 10:32 0.058 5 9/13/11 16:40 10/12/11 12:20 33,880,600 122.67 10,575Storm 0.282 117 10/12/11 12:30 10/14/11 1:00 3,118,500 54.90 22,777Base Grab 10/31/2011 11:40 10/31/2011 11:40 0.037 3 10/14/11 1:10 11/1/11 9:20 20,185,700 46.62 3,780Base Grab 11/8/2011 10:48 11/8/2011 10:48 0.036 6 11/1/11 9:30 11/10/11 6:30 8,399,700 18.88 3,146Base Grab 11/22/2011 11:50 11/22/2011 11:50 0.095 17 11/10/11 6:40 12/1/11 16:00 17,846,300 105.84 18,939Base Grab 12/6/2011 11:05 12/6/2011 11:05 0.119 45 12/1/11 16:10 12/31/11 23:50 21,619,300 160.60 60,732

0.300 129 Storm Subtotal 126,247,447 2,366 1,013,2700.072 13 Base Subtotal 337,161,300 1,505 283,654

Snowmelt Flow - Weighted Average 0.221 43 Snowmelt Subtotal 69,637,200 959 187,6280.145 45 Total 533,045,947 4,831 1,484,552


Note: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average base and storm flow concentrations. Average base TP = 0.071 mg/L, TSS = 13 mg/L; average storm TP = 0.282 mg/L, TSS = 117 mg/L, average snowmelt TP = 0.218 mg/L, TSS = 44 mg/L.


F

Figure 54. Wateer Level Elevati

Capitol R

ion and Precipit

Region Watersh

tation at Arlingt


on-Jackson Stor

1 Monitoring Re

rmwater Pond, 2

eport

2011.

F


Capitol R

ion and Precipit

Region Watersh

tation at Arlingt


on-Jackson Stor

1 Monitoring Re

rmwater Pond, 2

eport

2011.

F


Capitol R

ion and Precipit

Region Watersh

tation at Westmi


inster-Mississip

1 Monitoring Re

ppi Stormwater P

eport

Pond, 2011.

F Figure 57. Wateer Level Elevati

Capitol R

ion and Precipit

Region Watersh

tation at Willow


w Reserve Storm

1 Monitoring Re

mwater Pond, 20

eport

11.


Table 43. 2011 Villa Park Outlet Laboratory Data.

Sample Sampling Start Sampling End Ortho-P Cl Cd Cr Cu Pb Ni Zn NH3 TKN TP NO3 NO2 TDS TSS VSS Hardness cBOD SO4 E. coliType Date / Time Date / Time mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mpn/100mLBase Grab 1/7/2011 11:33 1/7/2011 11:33 0.042 474 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 0.97 2.1 0.157 0.31 0.04 1,150 6 2 484 - - 115Base Grab 3/7/2011 12:35 3/7/2011 12:35 0.009 569 0.0002 0.0018 0.0019 0.001 0.0018 0.0133 0.86 1.9 0.195 0.32 0.03 1,200 17 6 456 - - 108Base Grab 5/2/2011 9:15 5/2/2011 9:15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 53Base Composite 5/2/2011 9:49 5/3/2011 7:42 0.012 85 0.0002 0.00042 0.0015 0.00059 0.00081 0.03 0.03 0.7 0.067 0.26 0.03 284 5 3 192 1 13.6 -Base Grab 5/17/2011 9:30 5/17/2011 9:30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34Base Grab 5/18/2011 9:00 5/18/2011 9:00 0.022 98 0.0002 0.00016 0.0004 0.0002 0.0014 0.0008 0.09 0.72 0.108 0.05 0.03 418 2 2 260 1.3 12.8 -Base Grab 6/6/2011 9:50 6/6/2011 9:50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 118Base Composite 6/6/2011 10:41 6/7/2011 11:15 0.046 104 0.0002 0.0005 0.00099 0.00062 0.0012 0.0174 0.20 1.7 0.37 0.05 0.03 454 26 14 276 2.7 9.94 -Base Grab 6/30/2011 11:35 6/30/2011 11:35 0.052 91 0.0002 0.00019 0.00069 0.00039 0.0012 0.0039 0.11 0.97 0.27 0.05 0.03 349 9 5 224 2.5 7.24 613Base Grab 7/13/2011 10:15 7/13/2011 10:15 0.096 58 0.0002 0.00023 0.00044 0.00024 0.0008 0.0289 0.23 0.89 0.352 0.05 0.03 209 5 4 156 1.5 4.35 579Base Grab 8/4/2011 12:05 8/4/2011 12:05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 649Base Composite 8/4/2011 12:38 8/5/2011 10:56 0.12 31 0.0002 0.00025 0.00086 0.0011 0.00073 0.0085 0.20 0.87 0.272 0.05 0.03 172 6 4 136 2.4 4.94 -Base Grab 8/18/2011 9:35 8/18/2011 9:35 0.128 26 0.0002 0.00044 0.00075 0.00032 0.00086 0.0022 0.10 0.55 0.234 0.06 0.03 169 4 3 120 1.8 4.51 1,553Base Grab 9/6/2011 9:50 9/6/2011 9:50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 365Base Composite 9/6/2011 10:20 9/7/2011 6:07 0.022 95 0.0002 0.00029 0.0013 0.0017 0.0013 0.0126 0.06 0.76 0.281 0.05 0.03 531 26 10 288 2.4 8.48 -Base Grab 9/22/2011 11:00 9/22/2011 11:00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,100Base Composite 9/22/2011 11:37 9/23/2011 8:16 0.016 133 0.0002 0.00058 0.00094 0.0017 0.0012 0.0144 0.12 0.91 0.251 0.05 0.03 546 15 6 372 3.2 13.4Base Grab 10/4/2011 10:20 10/4/2011 10:20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 524Base Composite 10/4/2011 11:00 10/5/2011 4:06 0.016 139 0.0002 0.00036 0.0007 0.0036 0.0011 0.0206 0.05 0.93 0.174 0.05 0.03 595 15 6 396 2.9 17.3 -Base Grab 10/20/2011 10:20 10/20/2011 10:20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 461Base Composite 10/20/2011 11:05 10/21/2011 10:26 0.023 138 0.0002 0.00029 0.001 0.0015 0.0012 0.0081 0.16 0.98 0.156 0.05 0.03 582 7 3 380 1.8 16.6 -Base Grab 10/31/2011 10:45 10/31/2011 10:45 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 461Base Grab 11/1/2011 12:05 11/1/2011 12:05 0.02 148 0.0002 0.0005 0.0011 0.0021 0.0014 0.0037 0.07 0.78 0.121 0.05 0.03 629 16 7 432 6.2 30.3 -Base Grab 11/8/2011 9:30 11/8/2011 9:30 0.018 168 0.0002 0.00059 0.0013 0.0028 0.0017 0.0049 0.19 2.4 0.305 0.08 0.03 628 40 18 464 11 27.1 -Base Grab 11/22/2011 11:25 11/22/2011 11:25 0.028 183 0.0002 0.00036 0.00047 0.0005 0.0012 0.0021 0.30 1.4 0.238 0.05 0.03 714 10 5 232 3.5 26.6 921Base Grab 12/6/2011 12:30 12/6/2011 12:30 0.024 233 0.0002 0.00015 0.0006 0.00041 0.0013 0.0048 0.18 1 0.112 0.14 0.03 800 5 3 524 1.6 29.1 20

Base Average 0.041 163 0.0002 0.0010 0.0015 0.0013 0.0023 0.0115 0.23 1.2 0.215 0.10 0.03 555 13 6 317 3.1 15.1 667

Snowmelt Grab 2/14/2011 9:42 2/14/2011 9:42 0.036 438 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.02 1.55 2.9 0.306 0.23 0.03 1,120 13 5 484 - - 43Snowmelt Grab 2/17/2011 10:30 2/17/2011 10:30 0.114 668 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.02 0.032 0.97 2.7 0.294 0.55 0.05 1,200 25 9 236 6.4 15.1 579Snowmelt Grab 3/15/2011 10:49 3/15/2011 10:49 0.023 435 0.0002 0.0007 0.0022 0.00086 0.0017 0.013 0.72 1.9 0.175 0.41 0.03 951 15 5 364 1 23.1 57Storm Grab 3/22/2011 10:05 3/22/2011 10:05 0.056 78 0.0002 0.0022 0.0049 0.003 0.0018 0.0288 0.48 1.2 0.182 0.63 0.03 248 37 14 116 - - 1,414Storm Grab 4/26/2011 10:00 4/26/2011 10:00 0.028 92 0.0002 0.00064 0.0018 0.0008 0.0012 0.009 0.10 0.68 0.083 0.15 0.03 383 12 7 216 5 - 1,120Storm Grab 5/9/2011 10:20 5/9/2011 10:20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,203Storm Composite 5/9/2011 10:21 5/9/2011 15:19 0.005 89 0.0002 0.0003 0.0016 0.00061 0.0013 0.0148 0.02 1 0.098 0.23 0.03 400 7 6 244 4.8 16.6 -Storm Composite 5/21/2011 6:53 5/21/2011 16:16 0.014 62 0.0002 0.00044 0.0018 0.00073 0.0015 0.0175 0.13 0.83 0.112 0.21 0.03 315 10 4 192 2.9 11.6 -Storm Composite 6/15/2011 0:50 6/15/2011 15:47 0.031 87 0.0002 0.00064 0.0016 0.0005 0.001 0.0096 0.03 0.67 0.127 0.05 0.03 310 7 3 208 2.1 12.2 -Storm Grab 6/15/2011 9:50 6/15/2011 9:50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,733Storm Composite 6/22/2011 21:35 6/23/2011 3:45 0.036 56 0.0002 0.00026 0.00079 0.00041 0.00068 0.017 0.02 0.5 0.081 0.05 0.03 239 8 6 140 1.8 5.83 -Storm Composite 7/10/2011 5:54 7/10/2011 15:30 0.05 59 0.0002 0.00055 0.0016 0.001 0.00098 0.0136 0.28 1.3 0.218 0.1 0.03 225 37 14 124 3.4 7.18 -Storm Composite 7/10/2011 23:15 7/11/2011 3:46 0.061 64 0.0002 0.00052 0.0014 0.00063 0.00096 0.0122 0.32 1.5 0.306 0.1 0.03 246 198 12 184 2.4 6.85 -Storm Grab 7/15/2011 11:20 7/15/2011 11:20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 411Storm Composite 7/15/2011 13:49 7/15/2011 22:31 - 44 0.0002 0.00022 0.0012 0.00056 0.00061 0.0147 0.27 0.76 0.163 0.05 0.03 197 12 3 124 - - -Storm Composite 7/16/2011 4:55 7/16/2011 6:20 - 30 0.0002 0.0016 0.0036 0.0057 0.0015 0.0327 0.57 2.1 0.348 0.12 0.06 134 60 26 92 - - -Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:28 7/31/2011 11:58 0.07 43 0.0002 0.00025 0.001 0.00067 0.00081 0.0141 0.10 0.81 0.194 0.05 0.03 203 9 4 164 1.7 6.93 -

Snowmelt Average 0.058 514 0.0007 0.0069 0.0074 0.0023 0.0139 0.0217 1.08 2.5 0.258 0.40 0.04 1,090 18 6 361 3.7 19.1 226Storm Average 0.039 64 0.0002 0.0007 0.0019 0.0013 0.0011 0.0167 0.21 1.0 0.174 0.16 0.03 264 36 9 164 3.0 9.6 1,176

Annual Average 0.042 162 0.0003 0.0015 0.0022 0.0014 0.0030 0.0144 0.31 1.2 0.205 0.15 0.03 503 21 7 267 3.1 13.8 718Annual Maximum 0.128 668 0.0010 0.0100 0.0100 0.0057 0.0200 0.0327 1.55 2.9 0.370 0.63 0.06 1,200 198 26 524 11.0 30.3 4,100Annual Minimum 0.005 26 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 0.0002 0.0006 0.0008 0.02 0.5 0.067 0.05 0.03 134 2 2 92 1.0 4.4 20

Annual Median 0.028 92 0.0002 0.0004 0.0013 0.0008 0.0012 0.0136 0.18 1.0 0.194 0.06 0.03 400 12 5 232 2.4 12.5 493


- not collected

F

Figure 58. 20111 Villa Park Out

Capitol R

tlet Level, Velo

Region Watersh

city, and Discha


arge.


F

Figure 59. 20111 Vila Park Outl

Capitol R

let Level, Disch

Region Watersh

harge, and Rain.




Table 44. 2011 Villa Park Outlet Loading.



Base 0.215 13 4/14/11 13:20 4/26/11 3:20 377,690 5.07 307Storm Grab 4/26/2011 10:00 4/26/2011 10:00 0.083 12 4/26/11 3:30 4/30/11 7:10 1,022,058 5.30 766Storm 0.174 36 4/30/11 7:20 5/2/11 8:10 325,992 3.54 733Base Composite 5/2/2011 9:49 5/3/2011 7:42 0.067 5 5/2/11 8:20 5/5/11 4:10 156,595 0.65 49Storm 0.174 36 5/5/11 4:20 5/6/11 7:50 69,055 0.75 155Base 0.215 13 5/6/11 8:00 5/8/11 14:00 74,290 1.00 60Storm Composite 5/9/2011 10:21 5/9/2011 15:19 0.098 7 5/8/11 14:10 5/11/11 12:40 292,090 1.79 128Base 0.215 13 5/11/11 12:50 5/12/11 9:50 29,198 0.39 24Storm 0.174 36 5/12/11 10:00 5/16/11 2:20 91,649 1.00 206Base Grab 5/18/2011 9:00 5/18/2011 9:00 0.108 2 5/16/11 2:30 5/20/11 5:10 49,466 0.33 6Storm Composite 5/21/2011 6:53 5/21/2011 16:16 0.112 10 5/20/11 5:20 5/27/11 17:10 1,509,034 10.55 942Storm 0.174 36 5/27/11 17:20 5/31/11 19:50 183,259 1.99 412Base Composite 6/6/2011 10:41 6/7/2011 11:15 0.370 26 5/31/11 20:00 6/14/11 17:50 285,288 6.59 463Storm Composite 6/15/2011 0:50 6/15/2011 15:47 0.127 7 6/14/11 18:00 6/21/11 2:10 563,578 4.47 246Storm Composite 6/22/2011 21:35 6/23/2011 3:45 0.081 8 6/21/11 2:20 6/30/11 10:00 823,192 4.16 411Base Grab 6/30/2011 11:35 6/30/2011 11:35 0.270 9 6/30/11 10:10 7/5/11 19:20 26,400 0.44 15Storm 0.174 36 7/5/11 19:30 7/6/11 23:10 49,801 0.54 112Base 0.215 13 7/6/11 23:20 7/10/11 5:40 80,555 1.08 65Storm Composite 7/10/2011 5:54 7/10/2011 15:30 0.218 37 7/10/11 5:50 7/10/11 22:50 145,345 1.98 336Storm Composite 7/10/2011 23:15 7/11/2011 3:46 0.306 198 7/10/11 23:00 7/12/11 14:00 429,247 8.20 5,306Base Grab 7/13/2011 10:15 7/13/2011 10:15 0.352 5 7/12/11 14:10 7/15/11 9:50 189,821 4.17 59Storm Composite 7/15/2011 23:15 7/15/2011 22:31 0.163 12 7/15/11 10:00 7/16/11 4:20 151,349 1.54 113Storm Composite 7/16/2011 4:55 7/16/2011 6:20 0.348 60 7/16/11 4:30 7/17/11 10:50 2,292,262 49.80 8,586

Interval TP (lb)

Interval TSS (lb)


TP (mg/L) TSS (mg/L)Loading Interval



Base 0.215 13 7/17/11 11:00 7/19/11 4:00 172,159 2.31 140Storm 0.174 36 7/19/11 4:10 7/21/11 1:20 679,241 7.38 1,526Base 0.215 13 7/21/11 1:30 7/23/11 22:10 211,714 2.84 172Storm 0.174 36 7/23/11 22:20 7/27/11 3:30 515,186 5.60 1,158Storm 0.174 36 7/27/11 3:40 7/30/11 10:50 279,119 3.03 627Storm Composite 7/30/2011 23:28 7/31/2011 11:58 0.194 9 7/30/11 11:00 8/1/11 13:40 698,102 8.45 392Storm 0.174 36 8/1/11 13:50 8/3/11 11:50 611,544 6.64 1,374Base Composite 8/4/2011 12:38 8/5/2011 10:56 0.272 6 8/3/11 12:00 8/13/11 2:30 449,527 7.63 168Storm 0.174 36 8/13/11 2:40 8/16/11 18:50 198,013 2.15 445Storm 0.174 36 8/16/11 19:00 8/18/11 9:00 1,082,789 11.76 2,433Base Grab 8/18/2011 9:35 8/18/2011 9:35 0.234 4 8/18/11 9:10 9/3/11 2:10 403,703 5.90 101Storm 0.174 36 9/3/11 2:20 9/4/11 5:00 39,427 0.43 89Base Composite 9/6/2011 10:20 9/7/2011 6:07 0.281 26 9/4/11 5:10 9/16/11 21:00 153,739 2.70 250Base Composite 9/22/2011 11:37 9/23/2011 8:16 0.251 15 9/16/11 21:20 9/28/11 14:50 121,787 1.91 114Base Composite 10/4/2011 11:00 10/5/2011 4:06 0.174 15 9/28/11 15:00 10/10/11 18:00 194,714 2.12 182Storm 0.174 36 10/10/11 18:10 10/16/11 22:30 331,582 3.60 745Base Composite 10/20/2011 11:05 10/21/2011 10:26 0.156 7 10/16/11 22:40 10/28/11 11:20 356,008 3.47 156Base Grab 11/1/2011 12:05 11/1/2011 12:05 0.121 16 10/28/11 11:30 11/3/11 8:50 95,872 0.72 96Base Grab 11/8/2011 9:30 11/8/2011 9:30 0.305 40 11/3/11 9:00 11/8/11 10:30 67,998 1.29 170


Storm Flow-Weighted AverageBase Flow-Weighted AverageTotal Flow-Weighted AverageNote: Italics indicate estimated concentrations based on average base and storm flow concentrations. Average base TP = 0.215 mg/L, TSS = 13 mg/L; average storm TP = 0.174 mg/L, TSS = 36 mg/L.

F

Figure 60. 20111 McCarrons Ou

Capitol R

utlet Level, Disc

Region Watersh

charge, and Rain


n.


Appendix B


Metal Standards Based on Hardness

Metals standards for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were calculated for the entire monitoring season (yearly) and also for base, storm, and illicit discharge event types (Table 42). Listed below are the equations used to calculate the event type and yearly metals standards for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. Average hardness concentrations for each monitoring site were used in the calculations.

Cadmium Standard (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L) = e ^ (0.7852 * ln (Average Hardness (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L)) – 3.49)

Chromium Standard (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L) = e ^ (0.819 * ln (Average Hardness (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L)) + 1.561)

Copper Standard (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L) = e ^ (0.620 * ln (Average Hardness (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L)) – 0.57)

Lead Standard (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L) = e ^ (1.273 * ln (Average Hardness (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L)) – 4.705)

Zinc Standard (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L) = e ^ (0.8473 * ln (Average Hardness (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L)) + 0.7615)

The Minnesota Rules also states that for waters with hardness values greater than 212 mg/L, the chronic standard for nickel shall not exceed 0.297 mg/L. For those event types or yearly averages which have average hardness values which exceed 212 mg/L, the nickel standard for those event types or year was set equal to the state standard of 0.297 mg/L. If the average hardness value was less than 212 mg/L, the following equation was used to calculate the nickel standard:

Nickel Standard (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L) = e ^ (0.846 * ln (Average Hardness (Base, Illicit Discharge, Storm, or Yearly) (mg/L)) + 1.1645)


Table 45. 2011 Metals Standards Based on Average Hardness.

Parameter AverageEast

KittsondalePhalen Creek

St. Anthony

Park

Trout Brook -

East Branch

Trout Brook -

West Branch


Base 478 445 387 528 225 375 317Illicit Discharge 321Storm 52 224 112 111 74 131 34 41 164Yearly 305 113 305 376 173 298 39 40 267

Base 0.0039 0.0037 0.0033 0.0042 0.0021 0.0032 0.0028Illicit Discharge 0.0028Storm 0.0007 0.0021 0.0012 0.0012 0.0009 0.0014 0.0005 0.0006 0.0017Yearly 0.0027 0.0012 0.0027 0.0032 0.0017 0.0027 0.0005 0.0006 0.0025






Zinc

Hardness

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Nickel

Appendix C


Table 46. 2011 Data Collection Efficiency at CRWD Monitoring Sites.

Site Possible Days Possible Hours Hours Missing Efficiency

East Kittsondale 365 8,760 0 100%

Phalen Creek 365 8,760 0 100%

St. Anthony Park 269 6,456 749 88%

Trout Brook-East Branch 349 8,376 374 96%

Trout Brook-West Branch 365 8,760 0 100%

Trout Brook Outlet 344 8,256 496 94%

Como 7 205 4,919 0 100%

Sarita 203 4,874 0 100%

Villa Park 211 5,058 0 100%

Arlington-Jackson 203 4,876 0 100%

Sims-Agate 203 4,878 0 100%

Westminster-Mississippi 204 4,896 0 100%

McCarrons Outlet 117 2,808 0 100%

Como Outlet 118 2,831 0 100%

Total 3,521 84,507 1,618 98%


Table 47. 2011 Epilimnetic Data and Growing Season Averages.

DateSecchi

(m)Chl-a (µg/L)

TP (mg/L)

5/2/2011 1.3 28.0 0.0905/19/2011 1.3 14.3 0.074

6/6/2011 1.2 46.6 0.1366/27/2011 2.3 10.8 0.1817/15/2011 1.1 71.8 0.290

8/4/2011 0.5 79.7 0.3298/24/2011 0.3 33.7 0.3059/14/2011 0.2 49.3 0.387

1.0 41.8 0.2246/3/2011 0.5 80.0 0.123

6/23/2011 1.3 30.0 0.1557/12/2011 1.3 38.0 0.198

8/1/2011 1.3 36.0 0.1168/19/2011 1.4 36.0 0.114

9/9/2011 1.7 45.0 0.0719/28/2011 1.6 45.0 0.079

1.3 44.3 0.1225/3/2011 2.0 7.7 0.026

5/20/2011 3.4 2.6 0.0246/7/2011 3.0 1.4 0.020

6/28/2011 3.8 2.5 0.0167/18/2011 3.2 6.4 0.017

8/8/2011 2.1 7.0 0.0428/25/2011 2.6 3.4 0.0269/15/2011 3.9 3.3 0.031

3.0 4.3 0.0255/3/2011 2.4 6.9 0.030

5/20/2011 4.8 3.0 0.0166/7/2011 4.8 1.5 0.012

6/28/2011 2.5 4.2 0.0127/18/2011 2.9 5.5 0.010

8/8/2011 1.3 25.2 0.0388/25/2011 2.0 8.5 0.0199/15/2011 2.2 6.5 0.022

2.9 7.7 0.020Value exceeds the state standard

Value equals the state standard

Crosby

CrosbyCrosby

Como

ComoComo

Lake

ComoComoComo

LoebLoebLoeb

ComoComo

AverageCrosby

Crosby

Crosby

Crosby

AverageLoebLoebLoebLoebLoeb

Average

Average

McCarronsMcCarronsMcCarronsMcCarronsMcCarronsMcCarrons

McCarronsMcCarrons


DateSecchi

(m)Chl-a (µg/L)

TP (mg/L)

6/3/2011 0.8 21.9 0.1046/23/2011 1.2 23.4 0.1567/12/2011 1.6 8.7 0.158

8/1/2011 1.7 16.9 0.1118/19/2011 1.8 6.7 0.084

9/9/2011 2.7 1.7 0.0579/28/2011 4.4 0.8 0.042

2.0 11.4 0.102Value exceeds the state standard

Value equals the state standard

Little CrosbyLittle Crosby

Average

Little Crosby

Lake

Little Crosby

Little CrosbyLittle CrosbyLittle Crosby

crwd 2011 monitoring report

Documents

como subwatershed

east kittsondale subwatershed

detailed subwatershed

anthony park subwatershed

lake mccarrons subwatershed

phalen creek subwatershed

trout brook subwatershed

lake monitoring