DOCSLIB.ORG

State of the Minnesota River Summary of Surface Water Quality Monitoring 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of the Minnesota River Summary of Surface Water Quality Monitoring 2000 State of the Minnesota River Summary of Surface Water Quality Monitoring 2000 The purpose of this Summary Report is to consolidate surface water quality monitoring information collected in the Minnesota River Basin for the calendar year 2000. This Report pulls together data collected by multiple agencies and organizations and presents the data in a fashion that allows for comparison between some of the major tributaries and mainstem sites in the Minnesota River Basin. This initial attempt to summarize annual water quality data collected by multiple agencies falls short in that not all tributary data were able to be included in the report. Noticeably lacking are data from tributaries located on the Lower Minnesota River between St. Peter and the confluence with the Mississippi River at Fort Snelling. Previous work has indicated that this portion of the basin contributes a sizable portion of the nonpoint load to the Minnesota River. Although monitoring stations exist in this portion of the basin, at the time this report was being assembled, some organizations had not finalized data analysis for the year 2000. It is expected that the 2001 Summary Report will include data from some of these missing watersheds or stations. In addition, this Report does not include data from many of the smaller tributaries and field scale evaluations occurring within the basin. This Report also helps fulfill the overall mission of the Minnesota River Basin Data Center, which is to inventory, develop, retrieve, interpret and disseminate information on topics that impact the environment, economy and communities within the Minnesota River Basin. This mission was first articulated by the Citizens Advisory Committee in a series of recommendations to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and later by the Minnesota River Basin Joint Powers Board. This report is not related to any state mandates or requirements and all organizations and agencies participated voluntarily. The most comprehensive study of water quality in the Minnesota River Basin, the 1994 Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP), concluded that the Minnesota River is impaired by excessive nutrient and sediment concentrations. Since the publication of MRAP, several organizations throughout the basin have taken responsibility for collecting additional data to better define tributary characteristics and learn more about how these tributaries affect the condition of the Minnesota River. In many parts of the basin, this information is used to target implementation practices that reduce nonpoint source pollution, thereby improving the overall health of the Minnesota River. Local watershed projects are supported mainly by Clean Water Partnership grants administered by the MPCA. Much of the remaining data presented in this Report are provided through monitoring programs of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Metropolitan Council Environmental Services with contributions from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Minnesota State Climatology Office. 1 A secondary purpose of this Summary Report is to provide a forum for continued discussion and improvement of the methodologies used by various organizations to collect and interpret physical and chemical water quality data. Presently, within the Basin, slightly different methodologies are used to collect and analyze data. By documenting and assessing current methodologies, we can begin to identify those of greatest utility and hopefully improve efficiencies and reduce costs. More importantly, adoption of a standard set of methods will allow us to draw more meaningful and accurate water quality comparisons across the basin. This, in turn, should help direct limited resources to areas of greatest need. Preparation of this Summary Report is a joint venture of the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Water Resources Center at Minnesota State University, Mankato. The report is posted on the Minnesota River Basin Data Center web site at http://mrbdc.mankato.msus.edu/ to allow wide access and opportunity for review and comment on its content. Contributors Data to compile this report were submitted and reviewed by representatives of several organizations including: Brown-Nicollet-Cottonwood Clean Water Project Chippewa River Watershed Project High Island Creek Watershed Assessment Project Martin County Environmental Services Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Program Minnesota Department of Agriculture Surface Water Monitoring Program Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Mankato Office Redwood-Cottonwood Rivers Control Area Watonwan River Clean Water Partnership Project Water Resources Center -Minnesota State University, Mankato The Authors would also like to acknowledge the USGS for much of the flow data that was utilized in the completion of this Report. They are a valuable resource for many organizations throughout the Minnesota River Basin. To submit comments or questions, please send them to: Patrick Baskfield (MPCA) 507-389-1648 Robert Finley (WRC-MSU) 507-389-5492 Heather Offerman (Met Council) 507-344-0145 Bill VanRyswyk (MDA) 507-389-5772 2 2000 Results This section of the 2000 Report presents results from many of the current monitoring projects in the Minnesota River Basin. The discussion presented attempts to evaluate differences in reported results, and in some instances, the methodologies used to collect or compile the results. Most of the data were collected and compiled by the respective monitoring organizations. Map 2.01 presents the locations of the monitoring stations discussed in this Report. Tables and graphics are set up to allow comparative review of the data and are organized from upstream to downstream locations along the Minnesota River. Year 2000 Runoff Runoff is the part of precipitation which appears in rivers and streams, including baseflow, storm flow, flow from ground water, and flow from point sources. Essentially, it is all the flow passing a particular location on the river. By evaluating runoff, comparisons can be made of the relative amount of water coming out of the individual watersheds. To calculate monitoring season runoff, the total flow volume or the amount of water which came past the station during the monitored period is calculated and converted to acre-inches of water. This number is then divided by the total number of contributing acres to determine inches of runoff. Conceptually, this is equivalent to redistributing all the flow out equally over the watershed, then measuring that depth in inches. Typically, the more precipitation that occurs in a watershed, the more runoff there will be. However, the timing and intensity of precipitation, antecedent soil moisture conditions, soil types, land slopes, land use, as well as other factors, can dramatically influence the final runoff number. By evaluating runoff, as well as the concentration of chemicals of interest, we develop a better understanding of individual watershed behavior, which then provides a better platform for comparing different watersheds. The assessment of runoff is particularly important in the Minnesota River Basin because runoff tends to increase as one moves from the western portion of the basin eastward, due to geographical differences in precipitation. A review of data from the State Climatology Office indicates that much of the Le Sueur River Watershed, and a portion of the Blue Earth River Watershed, experienced above normal precipitation during 2000 (see Map 2.02 and Map 2.03). Totals ranged from two to six inches above normal. Generally, those watersheds south of the Minnesota River experienced normal or above normal precipitation levels, while those north of the River were at or below normal precipitation levels. The precipitation total (Map 2.02) reflects the general west to east trend of increasing precipitation. Map 2.02 indicates the western watersheds received roughly 20-28 inches of precipitation during 2000, with runoff volumes of approximately 1-2 inches, while watersheds in the eastern part of the basin received approximately 28-36 inches of precipitation with runoff volumes ranging from 4-8 inches. The 2000 monitoring season runoff values for the participating watersheds were almost all below the 15-year average with the exception of the Le Sueur River Watershed, 3 which was approximately one inch more than the 15-year average. Figure 2.01 presents the inches of runoff from each of the respective projects, and the 15 year monitoring season (April through October) runoff average using a combination of project and United States Geological Survey (USGS) data. Map 2.02 Map 2.03 An evaluation of long-term USGS flow data for the Minnesota River at Mankato, the Blue Earth River at the Rapidan Dam and the Le Sueur River near Rapidan reveals a significant trend of increasing annual runoff over the last 60 years as presented in Figure 2.02. An analysis of long-term flow trends for the Minnesota River (Mallawatantri and Mulla, 1998) found about 70% of the increased flow was due to climatic changes, with the rest due to non-climatic effects. The most likely sources for these non-climatic effects include drainage of wetlands, agriculture drainage, channelization of streams, loss of floodplains, changes in vegetation and cropping systems, and expansion of urban areas. 4 Figure 2.01: 15 Year Monitoring Season Runoff Average Comparison with 2000 Comparison of 2000 Runoff with 15 Year Average MN R.- St Peter 7 Mile Cr. LeSueur Blue Earth Watonwan MN R.- Judson Little Cottonwood 15 Year Avg. Monitoring Season Cottonwood Runoff 4/1 to 10/31 (in) Redwood Inches of Runoff - 2000 monitoring season Chippewa 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 Runoff (in) Source: USGS flow records and Project data Figure 2.02: 2000 Calendar Year Annual Runoff ANNUAL RUNOFF TREND (Calendar Year, USGS Data) 25.00 MN @ MANKATO BLUE EARTH 20.00 LESUEUR Linear (MN @ MANKATO) Linear (BLUE EARTH) 15.00 Linear (LESUEUR) 10.00 INCHES OF RUNOFF 5.00 0.00 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 YEAR 5 Monitoring Season Monitoring season length is an important variable to consider when evaluating the reported data.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Regression Model to Estimate Regional Ground Water Recharge
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2007 A Regression Model to Estimate Regional Ground Water Recharge David Lorenz U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] Geoffrey N. Delin U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Lorenz, David and Delin, Geoffrey N., "A Regression Model to Estimate Regional Ground Water Recharge" (2007). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 606. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/606 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. A Regression Model to Estimate Regional Ground Water Recharge by David L. Lorenz1 and Geoffrey N. Delin2 Abstract A regional regression model was developed to estimate the spatial distribution of ground water recharge in subhumid regions. The regional regression recharge (RRR) model was based on a regression of basin-wide estimates of recharge from surface water drainage basins, precipitation, growing degree days (GDD), and average basin specific yield (SY). Decadal average recharge, precipitation, and GDD were used in the RRR model. The RRR estimates were derived from analysis of stream base flow using a computer program that was based on the Rorabaugh method. As expected, there was a strong correlation between recharge and precipitation. The model was applied to statewide data in Minnesota. Where precipitation was least in the western and northwestern parts of the state (50 to 65 cm/year), recharge computed by the RRR model also was lowest (0 to 5 cm/year).
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Minnesota River Watershed
    Minnesota River Basin 2010 Progress Report Middle Minnesota River Watershed MIDDLE MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED This major watershed is characterized by its irregular shape compared Nine Mile Creek to the other major watersheds in the Minnesota River Basin and the fact John Cross it is drained by a numerous smaller tributaries but no major river. The only other major watershed not defined by a main stem tributary in the basin is the Lower Minnesota River Watershed. Little Cottonwood River is the largest sub-watershed, a total of 230 square miles. Ranked sixth in size compared to 12 major watersheds, the Middle Minnesota is approximately 1,347 square miles or 862,060 acres. Agriculture dominates much of the watershed with a number of major river communities found within its boundaries including parts of Redwood Falls, New Ulm and Mankato along with St. Peter, located right before Morgan Creek Vineyard the Minnesota River flows into the Lower Minnesota River Watershed. 38. Lake 35. Red Top Farms Washington Water Demonstration Site Quality Project 2. St. Peter Treaty 33. Wetland Site History Center Litigation 37. Pehling Farm 34. Paired Watershed 1. St. Peter Water 32. Mississippi River Studies for Nutrient 36. State Highway Treatment Plant Basin Health Reduction 169 Erosion 3. GAC Recycle Watersheds Initiative Control Mania 4. Lake Emily 31. New Ulm Clean-up Wastewater Treatment Plant 5. Seven Mile Creek Watershed Project 30. Capitol for a • 6. Wetland day – New Ulm Restorations • 7. Conservation Highlights 29. River Regional • 8. Farm Practice River History & Survey Information Center • 9. Groundwater Vulnerability 28. Coalition for a Study Clean Minnesota • 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeffers Petroglyphs: a Recording of 7000 Years of North American History Tom Sanders 4/24/14
    Jeffers Petroglyphs: a Recording of 7000 Years of North American History Tom Sanders 4/24/14 Introduction For thousands of years, indigenous people left a seemingly endless variety of symbols carved into Jeffers Petroglyphs’ red stone outcroppings. Elders (Dakota, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Ojibwa and Iowa) have told us that this is a place where people sought communion with spirits and a place to retreat for ceremonies, fasting and guidance. They tell us that there were many reasons for carving the 5000 images at the site. These elders stressed that the carvings are more than art or mimicry of the natural environment. They tell us that the carvings are eloquent cultural symbols of the rich and complex American Indian societies. They say that elders taught philosophy through parables pictured on the rock and American Indian travelers left written directions for those that were to follow. These carvings of deer, buffalo, turtles, thunderbirds and humans illustrate the social life of the cultures that inhabited this area. Some of these images are drawings of spirits. Many of the carvings are the recordings of visions by holy people. Some of the images are healing alters or prayers to the Great Spirit or one of the helping spirits. Dakota elder Jerry Flute tells us that “Jeffers Petroglyphs is a special place, not just for visitors but also for Native Americans. It is a spiritual place where grandmother earth speaks of the past, present, and future. The descendants of those who carved these images consider this an outdoor church, where worship and ceremony still take place.” Many elders believe that Jeffers Petroglyphs is an encyclopedia that records historic and cultural knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Vermillion River Watershed
    PRELIMINARY DRAFT South Metro Mississippi River Total Suspended Solids Total Maximum Daily Load October 2010 Mississippi River Minnesota River Submitted to: United States Environmental Protection Agency Submitted by: wq-iw9-12b TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 6 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Priority Ranking ............................................................................................................................ 8 2.0 Waterbody description ................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Water Quality History ................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.1 Pollutant of Concern ................................................................................................................ 17 3.0 Sediment Sources .......................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Tributary Basins and Watersheds ............................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Urban and Rural Sources ......................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2 Sediment
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River, Mankato Watershed Characterization Report
    Minnesota River, Mankato Watershed Characterization Report MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES September 20, 2016 Table of Contents Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 4 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 11 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 12 Study Background ................................................................................................................................... 12 Watershed Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 12 Location .................................................................................................................................................. 12 Geology ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Bedrock Geology ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Achievements Report 2014 Annual Report to the U.S
    Watershed Achievements Report 2014 Annual Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act Section 319, Clean Water Legacy and Clean Water Partnership Projects in Minnesota This page left blank intentionally. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency www.pca.state.mn.us On the cover: they furnish a perennial base of streamflow by ground water discharge. Cover photo courtesy of Daniel Dix. Non-tourists kayaking in Water supplies are obtained from wells tapping Pleistocene the Cottonwood River near New Ulm. glacial deposits, Cretaceous sandstone, Cambrian sandstone, From: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document. and Precambrian crystalline rocks. The most accessible and html?gid=10414 widely used aquifers are beds of sand and gravel buried in the glacial deposits. The 1,284 square mile Cottonwood River Watershed is situated between the Little Cottonwood River Sub-Watershed to the Dominant regional ground water flow is northeastward from east and the Redwood River Watershed to the west. The the topographic high in the southwest toward the Minnesota watershed drains sections of Lyon, Murray, Cottonwood, River. Local flow patterns indicate ground water discharging Redwood, and Brown counties. The River itself originates in into rivers and creeks. Most of the Cottonwood River the Northern Glaciated Ecoregion on top of the Coteau des Watershed is an area of ground water recharge, indicated by a Prairies or “Highland of the Prairies,” an impressive morainal decreased in hydraulic potential as depth below land surface plateau and important drainage divide, so named by French increases. explorers. Except for a few isolated wetlands set aside by state The dissolved solids and water type in surficial aquifers (less and federal agencies, many of the Coteau’s wetlands have than 100 feet deep) depend on mineral composition of the been drained and converted to cultivated fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project
    Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project An Evaluation of Fish and Invertebrate Community Progress May 2011 Legislative Charge The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is to spend $348,000 to retest the comprehensive assessment of the biological conditions of the lower Minnesota River and its tributaries within the Lower Minnesota River Major Watershed, as previously assessed from 1976 to 1992 under the Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP). The assessment must include the same fish species sampling at the same 116 locations and the same macroinvertebrate sampling at the same 41 locations as the MRAP assessment. The assessment must: (1) include an analysis of the findings; and (2) identify factors that limit aquatic life in the Minnesota River. HF 1231, Article 2, Section 4(a) Authors Estimated cost of preparing this report (as Principal Author: Benjamin Lundeen required by Minn. Stat. § 3.197) Principal Author: Michael Koschak Total staff time: 926 hrs. $25,949 Production/duplication $0 Contributors / acknowledgements Total $25,949 Name: Glenn Skuta Name: Scott Niemela The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs Name: Dan Helwig by using the Internet to distribute reports and Name: Joel Chirhart information to a wider audience. Visit our website Name: Mike Feist for more information. Name: Larry Gunderson MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer Name: Kristofor Parson recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us Document number: lrwq-s-2sy11 Forward Residing in the southwestern portion of Minnesota, the Minnesota River Basin encompasses parts or all of 38 counties and contains 13 major watersheds, which drain nearly 20 percent of Minnesota (Figure 1) (Musser et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding in the Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota, Spring 2001
    science for a changing world Flooding in the Mississippi River Basin in Minnesota, Spring 2001 INTRODUCTION Department of Public Safety, Division of Resources, as well as other State and local Emergency Management, oral commun. agencies. Stage and discharge data During spring 2001 there was much July 9, 2001). gathered at these gages are used for flood flooding in the Mississippi River Basin in forecasting, operations of dams and Minnesota. Greater than normal Record flows were recorded at nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) diversions, managing emergency activities precipitation starting with late fall rains in continuous-streamflow gaging stations during floods, and performing follow-up 2000, greater than normal snowfalls, a within Minnesota or along the Wisconsin studies to better understand river flood- delayed snowmelt, and record rains in flow characteristics. This report April, all contributed to the flooding. Parts border. In addition, 14 stations recorded their 2nd or 3rd highest peaks of record. summarizes flooding in that part of the of the southern one-half of Minnesota had These gaging stations are maintained by Mississippi River Basin that includes streamflows of magnitudes not seen in stream-gaging stations within the borders more than 30 years. Approximately 50 the USGS as part of a network of gages used by the USGS, U.S. Army Corps of of Minnesota and monitoring points along counties were declared disaster areas with Engineers, National Weather Service, the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. greater than 34 million dollars in total Minnesota Department of Natural Peak stages and discharges are reported flood damage (S. Neudahl, included in this report for 44 stream- gaging stations (table 1) maintained by the USGS in the Mississippi River Basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project: an Evaluation Of
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project An Evaluation of Fish and Invertebrate Community Progress May 2011 Legislative Charge The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is to spend $348,000 to retest the comprehensive assessment of the biological conditions of the lower Minnesota River and its tributaries within the Lower Minnesota River Major Watershed, as previously assessed from 1976 to 1992 under the Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP). The assessment must include the same fish species sampling at the same 116 locations and the same macroinvertebrate sampling at the same 41 locations as the MRAP assessment. The assessment must: (1) include an analysis of the findings; and (2) identify factors that limit aquatic life in the Minnesota River. HF 1231, Article 2, Section 4(a) Authors Estimated cost of preparing this report (as Principal Author: Benjamin Lundeen required by Minn. Stat. § 3.197) Principal Author: Michael Koschak Total staff time: 926 hrs. $25,949 Production/duplication $0 Contributors / acknowledgements Total $25,949 Name: Glenn Skuta Name: Scott Niemela The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs Name: Dan Helwig by using the Internet to distribute reports and Name: Joel Chirhart information to a wider audience. Visit our website Name: Mike Feist for more information. Name: Larry Gunderson MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer
    [Show full text]
  • Map of Minnesota River State Water Trail from Morton to Cambria
    MINNESOTA RIVER STATE Route Description, RM 191 to 123 WATER TRAIL R and L represent sides of the river facing downstream MAP 4 - Morton to Cambria 191.5-188 Tiger Lake Wildife Management Area. 190.9 (R) Confluence with Crow Creek. Includes the Cottonwood River 189.8 (R) Morton trailer access. 189.0 Highway 19 bridge. 188.8 Railroad bridge. 186.5 (L) Confluence with Birch Coulee Creek. 182.6 Powerline crossing. 180.8 (L) Confluence with Purgatory Creek. 179.7 (L) Franklin trailer access. Watercraft campsite and rest area, County Roads 11/5 bridge, town of Franklin. 178.8 (R) Confluence with Wabasha Creek. 173.8 County Roads 3/8 bridge. 172.0 (L) Confluence with Threemile Creek. 169.6 (L) Mack Lake Park. Trailer access, watercraft campsite and toilet. 167.7 (R) Kettner’s Landing trailer access. 165.7 (L) Fort Ridgely State Park. Parking, fee camping, historic site, drinking water and toilets. Vehicle permit required to park at Fort Ridgely. 164.8 (L) Confluence with Fort Ridgely Creek. 163.6 (L) Highway 4 trailer access and bridge. Minnriver Wildlife Management Area. 159.8 (L) Confluence with Spring Creek. Route Description, Cottonwood River - 158.8 250th Avenue bridge. 153.1 (L) Confluence with Little Rock Creek. Springfield to the confluence with the Minnesota River 153.1 (R) Confluence with John’s Creek. 163.5-143.1 Caution: This section can be difficult to navigate. The river changes greatly, due to R and L represent sides of the river facing downstream frequent flooding and creates oxbows, espcially in high water conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River - Mankato Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies
    Minnesota River - Mankato Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies January 2020 wq-ws4-63a Authors Joanne Boettcher and Bryan Spindler Contributions and Review Ashley Ignatius, Abdiwahid Yusuf, Breeanna Bateman, Wayne Cords, Scott MacLean, Rachel Olmanson, Kristi Kalk, Angus Vaughan, Kim Laing, Dan Fettig WRAPS Feedback Group Amy Clyde, Nicollet County Heidi Rauenhorst, Hawk Creek Watershed Project Holly Kalbus, LeSueur County Michael Schultz, LeSueur SWCD Holly Hatlewick, Renville SWCD Eric Miller, Nicollet SWCD Diane Mitchell, Renville County Ronald Otto, Sibley SWCD Dave Bucklin, Cottonwood SWCD Alan Gleisner, Brown SWCD Julie Conrad, Blue Earth County Kurt Mathiowetz, Redwood SWCD Jon Lore, DNR Cody Dale, Renville SWCD Brooke Hacker, DNR Melanie Krueger, Brown SWCD Brady Swanson, DNR Joshua Mankowski, LeSueur County Garry Bennett, DNR Amanda Strommer, MDH Taralee Latozke, DNR Jennifer Mocol-Johnson, BWSR John Knisley, Brown County Those with disabilities limiting their ability to access report information may contact the MPCA Watershed Project manager to provide alternate formats that suit their needs. Minnesota River - Mankato Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies 2 Table of Contents Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction and Background ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Quality Assessment of Part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, Minnesota and Wisconsin- Environmental Setting and Study Design
    Water-Quality Assessment of Part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin, Minnesota and Wisconsin- Environmental Setting and Study Design By James R. Stark, William J. Andrews, James D. Fallen, Alison L. Fong, Robert M. Goldstein, Paul E. Hanson, Sharon E. Kroening, and Kathy E. Lee U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4098 Contribution from the National Water Quality Assessment Program Mounds View, Minnesota 1996 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center District Chief Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Box 25286, MS 517 2280 Woodale Drive Denver Federal Center Mounds View, MN 55112 Denver, CO 80225 Foreword The goals of the NAWQA Program are being achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is of 60 of the Nation's most important river basins and to assess the quantity and quality of the earth resources aquifer systems, which are referred to as study units. of the Nation and to provide information that will assist These study units are distributed throughout the Nation resource managers and policy makers at Federal, State, and cover a diversity of hydrogeologic settings. More and local levels in making sound decisions. Assessment than two-thirds of the Nation's freshwater use occurs of water-quality conditions and trends is an important within the 60 study units and more than two-thirds of part of this overall mission.
    [Show full text]