DOCSLIB.ORG

Fingerprinting Sources of Suspended Sediments (Pdf)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fingerprinting Sources of Suspended Sediments (Pdf) Fingerprinting Sources of Suspended Sediments Reference Lakes 2.5 y = 0.65 + 4.8x R 2= 0.58 /yr) 2 Richardson 2 Dunns Beaver 1.5 Minimum Tillage Fish Be Conventional Fe Hook George Tile Drainage Stahl Tillage Pb Be Cs Be Henderson Fe Hg Fe 1 George Pb Bass Pb Diamond Cs Pb Flux (pCi/cm Flux Pb Cs Hg Hg Long 210 Duck Kreighle Sagatagan Be 0.5 Fe Mean Pb Cs Hg Streambank 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 2 Avg Sed Rate inorg. (g/cm /yr) Pasture Be Fe Pb Cs Hg Sand Creek Suspended Sediment …the path to studying tile drainage Shawn Schottler, Dan Engstrom and Dylan Blumentritt St. Croix Watershed Research Station--Department of the Science Museum of Minnesota Lake Pepin Sediment Accumulation History 103 tons/yr Core Top 0 200 400 600 800 2008 1990 1970 1950 “Hey, Brain what are we going to do today” 1930 1910 1890 “Same thing we do every day mucho… Down Core Pinky… 1870 133 dump trucks/day …try to figure out where the 1850 sediment comes from, and 1830 why it changes” 1810 - Records erosion - 10 X faster than history of Minnesota’s pre-settlement ag lands Lake Pepin: Integrator of watershed scale erosion processes • Sediment cores = window to the past • Record erosion history of MN Watershed Bay City N I Maiden Rock W E II S Lake Pepin J III km 05101 Lake City Pepin IV V MN River watershed, ~85% cultivated What is the source of the sediment ? Lake Pepin Sediment Accumulation History 0 200 400 600 800 Field Erosion 2008 1990 1970 1950 1930 1910 1890 1870 1850 1830 1810 Non-field So What…. Sediment a serious pollutant Ag Fields assumed to be major source Spend many $$$$ to keep soil on fields BMP’s designed for fields Can’t solve the problem unless we understand the problem ? ? Why does it change over time…? Lake Pepin Sediment Accumulation Rate -It’s possible the reasons are related 103 tons/yr -Why does the rate change the way Core Top 0 200 400 600 800 2008 it does? 1990 1970 - Do the sources also change? 1950 1930 1910 We can’t solve the problem 1890 until we understand what is Down Core causing the changes. 1870 1850 1830 1810 …Fingerprinting Sediment Sources with 210Pb Constant Exposure to Atmosphere and Rain 0.25 Pb-210 0.2 0.15 Cultivated Field 0.1 Suspended Sediment Activity (bq/g) 0.05 Non-field Erosion 0 Minimal Exposure to Atmosp. and Rain Relative Contribution of Fields to Riverine Sediment 24% S. Fork Crow = 31% Lake Pepin = 28% 31% 26% 25% 14% 16% 20% 27% 14% 30% 15% Field vs Non-field Sediment Loads 250 Field Load Between Watersheds: 200 Non-field Load - Non-field vary by: 400,000 150 - Field Load Vary only: 20,000 100 Load (1000's tons/yr) 50 0 - Non-field highly variable! Carver Cr Bevens Cr High Island LeSueur R. Redwood R. Chippewa R. Blue Earth R. Watonwan R. Cottonwood R. S. Fork Crow R. Upper Carver Cr. Upper LeSueur R. Yields--- 800 Field Yield 700 Non field Yield Steeply Incised 600 Watersheds 500 Less Incised 400 300 Yield (kg/ha-yr) Field Yield Vary 200 by 60 kg/ha 100 0 Non-field Vary by 500 kg/ha Carver Cr Bevens Cr High Island LeSueur R. Redwood R. Chippewa R. Blue Earth R. Watonwan R. Cottonwood R. S. Fork Crow R. Upper Carver Cr. From Hudak and Hajc, 2005 ..and now for Lake Pepin (= field + non-field) Field Non-field 2007 25% 75% 1996 28% 72% 1964 35% 65% 1940 70% 30% Neat-O, but why does it change Non-field… if you expressloading as is loading, increasing…. some sources not really changing Lake Pepin Sediment Loading 6 5 Field Non-Field 4 -yr) 2 Field load ~ 3 Prairie Ag. constant 2 Non-field Load (g/cm accelerating & 1 is now 6X “natural” rate 0 1840 1940 1964 1996 So… % Sediment from non-field sources Ravens Creek = 70% Kasota Pond & integrator sites = 60-80% Lake Pepin = 65% Event TSS samples = >70% …and Symbols of the L. Pepin Sed. Accumulation Rate 103 tons/yr 0 200 400 600 800 2008 1990 1970 1950 1930 1910 1890 1870 1850 1830 1810 Sed Rate is 10X pre-settlement >65% of sed is non-field Therefore RATE of non-field is not natural …why change: A hypothesis that needs testing 103 tons/yr (inorganic sed.) 0 200 400 600 800 2008 Rate due to 1990 artificial drainage Intensification + precip 1970 of tile-drainage (& increasing 1950 precip) 1930 Rate due to loss of perennial cover 1910 95% prairie gone 1890 1870 1850 Natural Rate 1830 Begin plowing prairie 1810 Blue Earth County, slide from MPCA Given that: Non-field inputs are significant and increasing Hypothesize that: changes in riverine hydrology are mechanism for non-field inputs. ? Has tile drainage changed riverine hydrologic conditions ? Are changes in precipitation responsible These two are linked--how do we disentangle them? Compare watersheds ‘with’ and ‘without’ drainage Hydrologic Changes -over time -between watersheds -link to amount/density of drainage -“normalize to climate” Relate magnitude and timing of: -- hydrologic changes -- installation of drainage to Pepin sedimentation rate changes Disentangling effects of climate from artificial drainage Preliminary data--a hint at what we might find… Elk River LeSueur River 800 (minimal tile drainage) (intense tile drainage) R2 = 0 p = 0.71 R2 = 0.17 p= 0.004 600 400 Runoff Ratio -May 200 1945 1965 1985 2005 1945 1965 1985 2005 Runoff Ratio = flow/precipition (normalizes flow to rainfall) Examine 14 other hydrologic parameters (monthly and seasonally) e.g. runoff ratio, peak frequency, maximum flow, max flow duration, rate of increase, rate of decrease, flow:PDHI - do they change over time - how do watersheds compare - are changes coincident with drainage, or climate - how much can be explained by drainage v. climate -Has drainage changed hydrologic conditions? Model 2 Waterhsheds ( 1with, 1 “without”) Swat model: -calibrate to 1940-1970 -compare model predictions to actual 1970-2008 Summary WHY? Not natural Why has non-field sediment loading increased How much is related to intensification of artificial drainage and/or increased precipitation? Redwood River Reservoir---different river, same story… Non-Field Glacial 2006 70% Lake Agassiz 1964 67% 1950 50% 1940 40% 3 Field 2.5 Non-field 2 1.5 1 Sediment Rate 0.5 0 1940 2006 Climate is getting Wetter… Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index 8 y = -42.62 + 0.02x R2= 0.09 6 y = -41.38 + 0.02x R2= 0.08 4 2 0 -2 -4 Avg. PHDI April - August -6 Region 8 Region 7 -8 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Sedimentation Rate and Climate ? Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index 6 -2 -1 y = 9.8 - 0x R2= 0 kg m yr 0123456789 y = 16.68 - 0.01x R2= 0 2000 4 19901980 1960 2X 1940 2 1940 1920 1900 0 1880 1860 1840 -2 1820 1800 1700 Avg. PHDI April - August -4 Region 8 1600 1500 Region 7 0 200 400 600 800 1000 -6 103 t yr-1 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Trends in Sediment Accumulation Rates-- in Different Systems Riverine systems Increase in Sed. Rate since Settlement 10 Pepin Field + Non-Field Reference Lakes 8 Field Source Only 6 Neat-O, but why are they Factor Increase 4 different? 2 0 pre 1860 1900-1930 1940-1963 1963-1996 Effect of artificial drainage on flow and non-field erosion ?? Elk River (near Big Lake MN) Runoff Ratio Since 1940 800 y = -330.18 + 0.24x R 2= 0 p = 0.71 700 600 Watershed with 500 minimal 400 artificial Q/P - May 300 drainage 200 100 Need to quantify 0 and 1944 1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Le Sueur River understand this Runoff Ratio Since 1940 1200 y = -8064.41 + 4.22x R 2= 0.17 p= 0.004 difference 1000 800 Watershed with dense 600 Q/P - May artificial 400 drainage 200 0 1944 1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 Lake Pepin Sediment Accumulation Rate 103 tons/yr (inorganic sed.) Core Top 0 200 400 600 800 2008 1990 1970 1950 1930 “Hey, Brain what are we 1910 1890 going to do today” Down Core 1870 1850 “Same thing we do every 1830 1810 day Pinky, Try to figure out where the sediment comes from, and why it changes” Tracing Sediment Sources with Radioisotope Fingerprints. 1. 210Pb and 137Cs are deposited by rain “…why am I singing 2. Different Sources = Different Concentrations and what does it have to do with 3. Fields have high concentrations fingerprinting” 4. Non-fields sources have ~ 0 Ravines, Streambanks, Bluffs Gullies 5. Suspended Sediment combination 6. Measure suspended sed. and compare to Source Fingerprints.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Rise and Fall of the Lake Pepin “Half-Breed Tract” Allison C. Bender
    Valuable People: The Rise and Fall of the Lake Pepin “Half-Breed Tract” Allison C. Bender History 489: Research Seminar Fall Term 2016 Contents Abstract………...……….……………………………...…………………………………………iii Introduction and Historiography…………………………………………………………………..1 Race as a Social Construct.....……………………………………………………………………..5 Treaty of Prairie du Chien 1825…………………………………………………….......................7 Understanding the Treaty of Prairie du Chien 1830......................................................................10 The Lake Pepin “Half-Breed” Tract..............................................................................................16 Franklin Steele and the Fort Snelling Internment Camp...............................................................18 Call for Further Research………………………………………………………………………...22 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….24 Works Cited.………………………………………………………………….………………….27 ii Abstract This paper focuses on the Dakota nation during the early nineteenth century while discussing the various tribes within the Midwest during that time. These tribes include the Ojibwe, confederated Sacs and Foxes, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, Ioway, Ottowa, and Potawatomi. As intertribal warfare disrupted the peace between these tribes, it also disrupted the plans of many European settlers who had wanted to live, farm, hunt, mineral mine, and trade in the Midwest. One can see evidence of this disruption by visiting treaties from the early nineteenth century as well as accounts from various Indian Agents from this time. Several treaties
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Guide
    see map on page 31 Mississippi River 815.3R Lock and Dam No. 2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lock on right 814.6R Lake Rebecca Municipal Park, City of Hastings 814.1R concrete plank ramp on lake, picnic area, trail, portable chemical toilet (across road) Lake Rebecca 814.3R Mississippi River - Hastings Public Access, MN DNR and City of Hastings concrete slab ramp Conley Lake 813.8L King’s Cove Marina, LLC, Private entrance at River Mile 812.7L, dockage, fuel, pumpouts, repair facilities, restrooms, service and canvas department, ship’s store, slips for rent, storage, brokerage (651) 437-6186, (651) 480-8900 fax (651) 480-8926 www.kingscove.com Mississippi River 815.3- Hastings area 812.0R food, lodging Dakota County Sheriff emergency 911 or non-emergency (651) 438-4771 814.2L Hub’s Landing and Marina, Private concrete slab ramp (fee), transient slips, overnight parking available (651) 437-4358 www.hubslanding.com 813.3R Hastings Marina, Inc., Private concrete slab ramp (fee), fuel, pumpouts, restrooms, showers, snacks, water & pop (651) 437-9621, fax (651) 438-9924 St. Croix River 0.4- Prescott area 810.8L food, lodging away from river www.saintcroixriver.com Pierce County Sheriff emergency 911 or all other services (715) 273-5051 28 St. Croix River Continued 0.5L Prescott Public Beach, City of Prescott beach 0.3R Point Douglas, Washington County Parks fishing pier, picnicking, restrooms, swimming beach (651) 430-8240 www.co.washington.mn.us/parks 0.1L Prescott City, Courtesy Dock temporary docking (fee) Mississippi River 811.5- Prescott area 810.8L food, lodging www.saintcroixriver.com Pierce County Sheriff emergency 911 or all other services (715) 273-5051 811.4L Leo’s Landing, Private temporary dockage, fuel, full service marina, pumpouts, restrooms (715) 262-5998, fax (651) 770-8870 e-mail: [email protected] 811.4L Point St.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring the Upper Mississippi River at Lake Pepin: Phase 1
    Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council HRE 12 Fiscal Year 2020 / ML 2019 Request for Funding Date: May 31, 2018 Program or Project Title: Restoring the Upper Mississippi River at Lake Pepin: Phase 1 Fund s Req uested : $750,000 Manager's Name: Rylee Main T itle: Executive Director Organization: Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance Ad d ress: P.O. Box 392 C ity: Red Wing, MN 55066 Office Number: 630-806-9909 Mobile Number: 630-806-9909 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.lakepepinlegacyalliance.org County Locations: Goodhue Regions in which work will take place: Southeast Forest Activity types: Restore Enhance Priority resources addressed by activity: Wetlands Forest Habitat Abstract: This project leverages more than $10 million in federal funds to begin implementation of a system-wide effort to improve game fish and waterfowl production in the Upper Mississippi River by improving 100 acres of floodplain forest and up to 1,000 acres of aquatic and wetland habitat at the upper end of Lake Pepin. Local partners are working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to mitigate habitat degradation caused by turbidity and excess sediment accumulating at the head of the lake. Project construction is anticipated to begin in 2020. Design and scope of work: The Upper Mississippi River is impaired for turbidity (fine sediments) from the confluence with the Minnesota River to Lake Pepin. Continued deposition of these Minnesota sourced suspended solids has resulted in a lack of aquatic vegetation, poor invertebrate production, and reduced abundance of fish and wildlife. Deep protected aquatic areas that would serve as habitat for bluegill and other species, including walleye and sauger, is lacking in both the backwaters and within large open water areas of upper Lake Pepin.
    [Show full text]
  • Recurrence of Hexagenia Mayflies Demonstrates Improved Water Quality in Pool 2 and Lake Pepin, Upper Mississippi River
    OpenRiver Cal Fremling Papers Cal Fremling Archive 1990 Recurrence of hexagenia mayflies demonstrates improved water quality in Pool 2 and Lake Pepin, Upper Mississippi River Cal R. Fremling Winona State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openriver.winona.edu/calfremlingpapers Recommended Citation Fremling, Cal R., "Recurrence of hexagenia mayflies demonstrates improved water quality in Pool 2 and Lake Pepin, Upper Mississippi River" (1990). Cal Fremling Papers. 35. https://openriver.winona.edu/calfremlingpapers/35 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Cal Fremling Archive at OpenRiver. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cal Fremling Papers by an authorized administrator of OpenRiver. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i\ ooj>. at RECURRENCE OF HEXAGENIA MAYFLIES DEMONSTRATES IMPROVED WATER QUALITY IN POOL 2 AND LAKE PEPIN, UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER Calvin R. Fremling1 and D. Kent Johnson2 1 Biology Department, Winona State University, Winona, Minnesota, 55987, USA 2Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101, USA ABSTRACT Hexagenia mayflies are good indicators of general water quality because they have long life cycles and because their burrowing nymphs, which are unable to tolerate anaerobic conditions or swim long distances, live in sediments where toxins tend to accumulate. While chemical tests only describe water quality in terms of specific parameters and times, Hexagenia distribution indicates synergistic effects of many toxins, anoxia and other stresses throughout the year. Over 1,400 collections of imagoes and subimagoes along the Upper Mississippi River in 1957-1968,1976 showed that most of the 29 navigation pools supported large populations, as did impoundments upstream of Minneapolis-St.Paul.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic History of Minnesota Rivers
    GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF MINNESOTA RIVERS Minnesota Geological Survey Ed ucational Series - 7 Minnesota Geological Survey Priscilla C. Grew, Director Educational Series 7 GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF MINNESOTA RIVERS by H.E. Wright, Jr. Regents' Professor of Geology, Ecology, and Botany (Emeritus), University of Minnesota 'r J: \ I' , U " 1. L I!"> t) J' T II I ~ !oo J', t ' I' " I \ . University of Minnesota St. Paul, 1990 Cover: An early ponrayal of St. Anthony Falls on the Mississippi River In Minneapolis. The engraving of a drawing by Captain E. Eastman of Fan Snelling was first published In 1853; It Is here reproduced from the Second Final Report of the Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, 1888. Several other early views of Minnesota rivers reproduced In this volume are from David Dale Owen's Report of a Geological Survey of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota; and Incidentally of a portion of Nebraska Territory, which was published In 1852 by Lippincott, Grambo & Company of Philadelphia. ISSN 0544-3083 1 The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation. 1-' \ J. I,."l n 1 ~ r 1'11.1: I: I \ 1"" CONTENTS 1 .... INTRODUCTION 1. PREGLACIAL RIVERS 5 .... GLACIAL RIVERS 17 ... POSTGLACIAL RIVERS 19 . RIVER HISTORY AND FUTURE 20 . ... REFERENCES CITED iii GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF MINNESOTA RIVERS H.E. Wright, Jr. A GLANCE at a glacial map of the Great Lakes region (Fig. 1) reveals that all of Minnesota was glaciated at some time, and all but the southeastern and southwestern corners were covered by the last ice sheet, which culminated about 20,000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Pepin Comprehensive Plan Page 1 of 73 General Characteristics
    Town of Pepin Pepin County Wisconsin Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing: September 15, 2009 Plan Committee Members: Andrea Myklebust Alice Auth Jim Reeser Jim Sterry Carol Inderion Bruce Peterson Gary Samuelson Rob Meyer Mark Johnson Robert Bjerstedt Lou Seyffer Betty Bergmark Dennis Wolfe Table of Contents General Characteristics Page 2 History of Town of Pepin Page 3 General Planning Goals Page 6 Elements Section Issues and Opportunities Page 7 Transportation Page 13 Housing Page 17 Utilities and Community Facilities Page 22 Agricultural, Natural, Cultural Resources Agricultural Page 26 Natural Page 30 Cultural Page 34 Intergovernmental Cooperation Page 36 Economic Development Page 39 Land Use Page 45 Implementation Page 52 Appendix Appendix I Survey letter and form Page 59 Appendix II Maps Page 63 1. Bluffland & Slope Areas 2. Floodplain 3. Surface Waters/Wetlands 4. Groundwater Flow and Nitrates 5. Land Use Appendix III Cultural/Historic Sites Page 68 August 27, 2009 Town of Pepin Comprehensive Plan Page 1 of 73 General Characteristics The Town of Pepin is located in Pepin County in West Central Wisconsin. Lake Pepin, a wide part of the Mississippi River, forms a southern border. The Chippewa River borders the eastern boundary. To the north Frankfort Township of Pepin County and Maiden Rock Township of Pierce County are found on the map. Stockholm Township forms a western border. Pierce and Dunn County are located to the west and north and Buffalo County is located across the Chippewa River as our eastern neighbor. The land survey system designates the Town of Pepin at Townships 23 and 24 North, Ranges 14 and 15 West of the 4th Prime Meridian.
    [Show full text]
  • The Winona Legend / [G. Hubert Smith]
    THE WINONA LEGEND On September 17, 1805, Zebulon Montgomery Pike wrote the following in the diary of his exploration of the upper Mississippi River: I was shown a point of rocks from which a Sioux maiden cast her­ self, and was dashed into a thousand pieces on the rocks below. She had been informed that her friends intended matching her to a man she despised; having been refused the man she had chosen, she ascended the hill, singing her death-song; and before they could over­ take her and obviate her purpose she took the lover's leap! Thus ended her troubles with her life. A wonderful display of sentiment in a savage! ^ From this modest beginning there sprang one of the best- known legends of Minnesota, one which was recorded in more or less detail by almost every traveler and elaborated upon by many later writers. There are many " Lover's Leaps," but perhaps few have as authentic a legend as has Maiden Rock on Lake Pepin.^ It may be interesting to see just how authentic the Winona legend Is. Although Pike appears to have been the first to mention the episode, Stephen H. Long, who made a voyage to the Falls of St. Anthony in 1817, first gave the story of Winona in detail. Long also was the first to relate the story of Black Day Woman and the Falls of St. Anthony.* Long's ^ Zebulon M. Pike, Expeditions to Headwaters of the Mississippi River, 1:66 (Coues edition. New York, 1895). ^A name for this rock which appears to have been little used is " Cap des Sioux." David Dale Owen, Report of a Geological Survey of Wis­ consin, Iowa, and Minnesota, 44 (Philadelphia, 1852).
    [Show full text]
  • Order of the State of Wisconsin Natural Resources Board Amending and Creating Rules
    ORDER OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD AMENDING AND CREATING RULES The statement of scope for this rule, SS 037-16, was approved by the Governor on May 9, 2016, published in Register No. 725A3 on May 16, 2016, and approved by the Natural Resources Board on June 22, 2016. This rule was approved by the Governor on . The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board proposes an order to amend NR 21.11 (1) (i) and 22.11 (10); and to create NR 21.11 (1) (im), 21.11 (2) (b) 7., and 22.11 (11) relating to commercial fishing in Wisconsin-Minnesota and Wisconsin-Iowa boundary waters and affecting small business. FH-11-16 Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources 1. Statutes Interpreted: Sections 29.014(1), 29.041, and 29.604 (1) and (6m), Stats. 2. Statutory Authority: Sections 29.014(1), 29.041, and 29.604 (1) and (6m), Stats. 3. Explanation of Agency Authority: Section 29.014(1), Stats., directs the Department to establish and maintain any bag limits and conditions governing the taking of fish that will conserve the fish supply and ensure the citizens of this state continued opportunities for good fishing. Section 29.041, Stats., provides that the Department may regulate fishing on and in all interstate boundary waters and outlying waters. Section 29.604 (1) and (6m), Stats., find that certain wild animals are endangered or threatened and are entitled to preservation and protection as a matter of general state concern, and that the department may issue a permit authorizing a taking that otherwise is prohibited if the taking is only incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
    [Show full text]
  • GD-FLC-054 STRUCTURES INVENTORY CS 2513 Frontenac R.P.A./Maiden Rock
    MNDOT HISTORIC ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT GD-FLC-054 STRUCTURES INVENTORY CS 2513 Frontenac R.P.A./Maiden Rock Historic Name Frontenac R.P.A./Maiden Rock CS # 2513 Other Name Lake Pepin Rest Area SHPO Inv # GD-FLC-054 Location E side of TH 61/TH 63 1 mi S of Hwy TH 61/63 the jct of TH 61/TH 63 and District 6B CSAH 2 Reference 77.9 City/Township Florence Township County Goodhue Acres 14.2 Twp Rng Sec 112N 13W Sec 24 Rest Area Class 1 USGS Quad Lake City UTM Z15 E554700 N4926700 SP # 2513-01 2513-03 Designer Nichols, A R, Attributed SHPO Review # 93-3608 Builder National Youth Administration (NYA) Historic Use Roadside Parking Area MHS Photo # 013554.01-25 013555.01 Present Use Roadside Parking Area Yr of Landscape Design 1939-40 MnDOT Historic Nic 5.10 Nic 5.20 Photo Album Nic 5.34 Ols 1.101 Overall Site Integrity Very Altered Ols 1.102 Ols 1.103 Ols 1.104 Ols 1.105 Review Required Yes National Register Status Not Eligible, see Statement of Significance Historic Context List of Standing Structures Feat# Feature Type Year Built Fieldwork Date 11-06-97 01 Marker 1939 02 Bench(es), Other 1939 Prep by 03 Overlook Wall 1939 Gemini Research 04 Curb, Stone 1939 Dec. 98 G1. 40 05 Council Ring 1939 06 Well/Pump 1939 Prep for 07 Retaining Wall Ca. 1960 Site Development Unit 08 Picnic Shelter(s) 1968-69 Cultural Resources Unit Continued Environmental Studies Unit Final Report Historic Roadside Development Structures on Minnesota Trunk Highways (1998) MNDOT HSITORIC ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT GD-FLC-054 STRUCTURES INVENTORY CS 2513 Frontenac R.P.A./Maiden Rock Continue Table of Site Structures Feat# Type Year Built 09 Picnic Table(s), Other 1968-69 10 Sea Wall Ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Pepin TMDL Basics MINNESOTA • Largest TMDL to Date – Half of MN, Part of WI
    Lake Pepin Watershed Lake Pepin TMDL Basics MINNESOTA • Largest TMDL to Date – half of MN, part of WI Upper Mississippi NORTH River Basin • Two States – Border DAKOTA Water Impairment St. Croix • Two types of water River Basin bodies WISCONSIN – Lake – River SOUTH Minnesota Lake Pepin DAKOTA River Basin • Two types of impairments Cannon River Basin – Eutrophication – Turbidity Lake Pepin Basins IOWA BASIN • Sedimentation Cannon River Basin Minnesota River Basin – Lake Pepin filling in St. Croix River Basin Upper Mississippi River Basin Feature Area ( Kilometers 2 ) HUC 07040001 Lake Pepin Watershed 122,575 Major Rivers Minnesota 218,480 Lake Pepin Watershed 105,368 Metro Area Minnesota Pollution with in Minnesota Controal Agency TMDL Chronology (est.) • 2002 – Impaired Waters List • 2004 – Lake Pepin TMDL begins • WQ Model – 1.06 – 6.08 • TMDL Components – 6.08 – 11.08 • Draft TMDL – 12.08 • Public Review – 1.09 – 3.09 • Final TMDL to EPA – 4.09 Lake Pepin Watershed TMDL: Stakeholder Involvement River Basin Teams ▪ Minnesota River ▪ Upper Mississippi River ▪ St. Croix River ▪ Lower Mississippi ▪ Metro Region ▪ MPCA Stakeholder Advisory ▪ Steering Committee ▪ Support Public EPA Help design TMDL work plan ▪ Leadership ▪ Review Approval Provide advice on solutions and ▪ Education ▪ mouth of watershed goals ▪ Draft TMDL Report ▪ Coordinate communications Social/economic issues Science Advisory Panel ▪ Review TMDL Documents ▪ Help to resolve technical issues ▪ Provide expert opinion on scientific questions Sediment Reduction Advisory Panel
    [Show full text]
  • North Coast Area
    MILES CITY, MONT. (Pop. 9.023- EI. 2.363 ft.) is an impor­ steamship agent named th e city, hoping it would attract stances have blown away. The rice is then placed in a vat. PORTAGE. WIS. (Pop. 7. 821-EI. 81 7 ft. ) is located tiona I opportunities. An estimated 5.5 mill ion pleasure visi­ Welcome aboard tant center for sugar beets and whea t, as well as the settlers from Germany. Today, much of the population is of and a moccasined man or boy "jigs" it with his feet, tram­ between the Fox and Wisconsin rivers. Goods were once tors come to Chicago annua lly. and another 2.2 million nucleus of livestock ra nches that produce more tha.n a German and Russo-German ancestry. pling the shells loose from the grain. The rice is again hauled, or ;'portaged."' from river to river. Later a canal was people are attracted by the 1,000 or more conventions. trade shows, and expositions that have made the city a con­ q uarter of the cattle and sheep in the state. Fort Keogh is roasted, then bagged for market. dug to eliminate the portage, but the name stuck. Today, the Amtrak's across the river from Miles City, and Signal Butte, a high JAMESTOWN. N.D. (Pop. 15.385- EI. 1.410ft). inthe town IS center of a wealthy farmi ng area, the fishing and vention capital . At Chicago. Amtrak offers convenient con­ nections to numerous points around the compass. knob to the sou th, was once used by the fort's officers to James River Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Pepin and Mississippi River Eutrophication TMDL
    Lake Pepin and Mississippi River Eutrophication Total Maximum Daily Load Report April 2021 wq-iw9-22e Authors and contributors: Lake Pepin Legacy Alliance Minnesota Pollution Control Minnesota Department of Agency Natural Resources Mike McKay Anna Bosch Rob Burdis Rylee Main Wayne Cords Scot Johnson Mac Becco Duane Duncanson Megan Moore Jinny Fricke LimnoTech, Inc. Lee Ganske Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Nicholas Grewe Marco Graziani Kevin Kirsch Hans Holmberg Steven Heiskary Patrick Oldenburg Dendy Lofton Scott Maclean John Sullivan Todd Redder Cathy Malakowsky Scott Wade Hafiz Munir Metropolitan Council Joe DePinto Rachel Olmanson Kent Johnson Wendy Larson Norman Senjem Cathy Larson Ed Verhamme Glenn Skuta Judy Sventek Mike Trojan Dave Wall Minnesota Department of Agriculture Dennis Wasley Larry Gunderson Lake Pepin TMDL Science Justin Watkins Advisory Panel Lake Pepin TMDL Stakeholder Chris Zadak Advisory Committee Lake Pepin Watershed Phosphorus TMDLs Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Contents List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ v List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... v Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]