DOCSLIB.ORG

Le Sueur River Watershed WRAPS Report (Wq-Ws4-10A)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Le Sueur River Watershed WRAPS Report (Wq-Ws4-10A) ` Watershed conditions and restoration and protection strategies Le Sueur River WRAPS Report Circa 1913 Circa 2013 August 2015 wq-ws4-10a Credits Author: Joanne Boettcher, Project Manager: Paul Davis Editing and comment: MPCA Staff- Eileen Campbell, Pat Baskfield, Scott MacLean, Lee Ganske BWSR Staff- Matt Drewitz, Chris Hughes MDNR Staff- Brooke Hacker, Jon Lore, Brady Swanson MDA Staff – Bill VanRyswyk, Scott Matteson, Heidi Peterson GIS maps and analysis: Ashley Ignatius, Joanne Boettcher, Breeanna Bateman HSPF model assistance and data management: Chuck Regan, Ben Rousch Strategies Development Workshop Planning/Facilitation: John Knisley (Brown County), Mark Schaetzke (Freeborne County SWCD), Joanne Boettcher Strategies Development Team (and report comment): · Mark Schaetzke, Freeborn County SWCD · Michelle Stindtman, Faribault County/SWCD · Dick Hoffman, Freeborn County · Merissa Lore, Faribault County/SWCD · Mark Lieferman, Waseca County · Joe Mutschler, Faribault County/SWCD · Julie Conrad, Blue Earth County · Ryan Braulick, NRCS - Mankato · Paul Zimmer, City of Mankato · Eileen Campbell, MPCA - Mankato · Brooke Hacker, DNR - Mankato · Bryan Spindler, MPCA - Mankato · Chris Hughes, BWSR - Mankato · Paul Davis, MPCA - Mankato · Bill VanRyswyk, MDA - Mankato Additional strategies and report comment: Jerad Bach and Christina Stueber, Blue Earth County SWCD Final strategies synthesis, calculations, and editing: Joanne Boettcher Spatial Targeting Workshop Planning/Facilitation: Rick Moore, Ashley Ignatius, Joanne Boettcher Spatial Targeting Workshop Attendance: · Christina Stueber, Blue Earth SWCD · Joe Mutschler, Faribault County/SWCD · Jonathan Graves, Waseca County · Brandee Douglas, Faribault County/SWCD · Brooke Hacker, DNR - Mankato · Becky Alexander, Cottonwood SWCD · Dan Girolamo, DNR - Waterville · Ashley Brenke, Martin SWCD · Chris Hughes, BWSR - Mankato · Bridgett Winkels, Watonwan County · Paul Davis, MPCA - Mankato Cover pictures: http://mankatotimes.com/2013/08/12/caring-for-the-red-jacket-bridge/ http://www.lakesnwoods.com/images/Mankat6.jpg ii 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1 2.Table Watershed of Contents Description & Background ............................................................................................2 3. Watershed Conditions ...................................................................................................................4 3.1 Programs to Monitor Conditions ..................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Conditions across the State ............................................................................................................. 4 3.3 Conditions in the Watershed ........................................................................................................... 6 Lake Conditions and Trends ....................................................................................................... 7 Stream Conditions and Trends ................................................................................................... 8 3.4 HSPF Modeled Conditions ............................................................................................................. 10 4. Pollutant Sources & Reductions ................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Source Identification ..................................................................................................................... 11 Altered Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 11 Sediment .................................................................................................................................. 15 Nitrogen ................................................................................................................................... 17 Phosphorus .............................................................................................................................. 18 E. coli /Fecal Coliform .............................................................................................................. 19 Dissolved Oxygen ..................................................................................................................... 20 Habitat ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................. 21 4.2 Water Quality Goals ...................................................................................................................... 21 5. Restoration & Protection ............................................................................................................. 23 5.1 Civically-Supported Strategies to Restore and Protect Waters .................................................... 23 Le Sueur River Watershed Network ......................................................................................... 23 Lakes Focus Group ................................................................................................................... 23 Resident & Farmer Interviews ................................................................................................. 24 Staff-Identified Priorities & Challenges .................................................................................... 24 5.2 Scientifically-Supported Strategies to Restore and Protect Waters ............................................. 25 Agricultural BMPs .................................................................................................................... 25 Stormwater Management BMPs ............................................................................................. 25 Lake Watershed Strategies ...................................................................................................... 25 Computer Model Results ......................................................................................................... 25 5.3 Selected Strategies to Restore and Protect Waters ...................................................................... 26 Protection Considerations ....................................................................................................... 26 Prioritizing and Targeting ......................................................................................................... 27 6. Appendix ....................................................................................................................................31 6.1 Agricultural BMP Summary Table ................................................................................................................. 31 6.2 Computer Model Summaries ....................................................................................................................... 32 6.3 Available GIS Targeting Tools/Data Layers ................................................................................................... 33 6.4 Usefulness of GIS Data Layers/Tools ............................................................................................................ 35 6.5 Lake Restoration and Protection Strategies ................................................................................................. 39 6.6 Water Quality Goal Information ................................................................................................................... 36 6.7 Individual Lake Phosphorus Reductions ....................................................................................................... 37 6.8 Flow Target Calculation ................................................................................................................................ 38 6.9 Discovery Farm Information ......................................................................................................................... 39 6.10 ET Rate Data & Calculation ........................................................................................................................... 41 6.11 Point Source Data Summary ......................................................................................................................... 42 6.12 NPDES Permit Holders in the Le Sueur River Watershed ............................................................................. 43 6.13 GIS Hydrologic Alteration Analysis ............................................................................................................... 45 6.14 References .................................................................................................................................................... 46 6.15 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ 51 iii Legislative Requirements There are specific legislative definitions and requirements associated with Clean Water Legacy legislation on WRAPS (ROS 2013). Although the intent of this report is to be more comprehensive and usable than just merely meeting legislative requirements, this table is provided to help reviewers ensure those requirements are adequately addressed. However,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Le Sueur River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report
    z c LeSueur River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report March 2012 Acknowledgements MPCA Watershed Report Development Team: Bryan Spindler, Pat Baskfield, Kelly O’Hara, Dan Helwig, Louise Hotka, Stephen Thompson, Tony Dingmann, Kim Laing, Bruce Monson and Kris Parson Contributors: Citizen Lake Monitoring Program volunteers Citizen Stream Monitoring Program Volunteers Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minnesota State University, Mankato Water Resource Center Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment). March 2012 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: wq-ws3-07020011b Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 II. The Watershed Monitoring Approach ........................................................................................................................... 3 Load monitoring network ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing Sediment Sources with Meteoric 10Be: Linking Erosion And
    Tracing sediment sources with meteoric 10Be: Linking erosion and the hydrograph Final Report: submitted June 20, 2012 PI: Patrick Belmont Utah State University, Department of Watershed Sciences University of Minnesota, National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics Background and Motivation for the Study Sediment is a natural constituent of river ecosystems. Yet, in excess quantities sediment can severely degrade water quality and aquatic ecosystem health. This problem is especially common in rivers that drain agricultural landscapes (Trimble and Crosson, 2000; Montgomery, 2007). Currently, sediment is one of the leading causes of impairment in rivers of the US and globally (USEPA, 2011; Palmer et al., 2000). Despite extraordinary efforts, sediment remains one of the most difficult nonpoint-source pollutants to quantify at the watershed scale (Walling, 1983; Langland et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2011). Developing a predictive understanding of watershed sediment yield has proven especially difficult in low-relief landscapes. Challenges arise due to several common features of these landscapes, including a) source and sink areas are defined by very subtle topographic features that often cannot be detected even with relatively high resolution topography data (15 cm vertical uncertainty), b) humans have dramatically altered water and sediment routing processes, the effects of which are exceedingly difficult to capture in a conventional watershed hydrology/erosion model (Wilkinson and McElroy, 2007; Montgomery, 2007); and c) as sediment is routed through a river network it is actively exchanged between the channel and floodplain, a dynamic that is difficult to model at the channel network scale (Lauer and Parker, 2008). Thus, while models can be useful to understand sediment dynamics at the landscape scale and predict changes in sediment flux and water quality in response to management actions in a watershed, several key processes are difficult to constrain to a satisfactory degree.
    [Show full text]
  • By David L. Lorenz and Gregory A. Payne
    SELECTED DATA FOR STREAM SUBBASINS IN THE LE SUEUR RIVER BASIN, SOUTH-CENTRAL MINNESOTA By David L. Lorenz and Gregory A. Payne ABSTRACT This report presents selected data that describe the characteristics of stream basins upstream from selected points on streams in the Le Sueur River basin. The points on the streams include outlets of subbasins of about five square miles, sewage treatment plant outlets, and U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations in the basin. INTRODUCTION The Le Sueur River upstream from its confluence with the Blue Earth River drains an area of 1,110 mi (square miles). It is located in the counties of Blue Earth, Faribault, Freeborn, Le Sueur, Steele, and Waseca in south-central Minnesota. This report is one of several gazateers providing basin characteristics of streams in Minnesota. It provides selected data for subbasins larger thai about 5 mi , sewage-treatment-plant outlets, and U.S. Geological Survey (USG! streamflow-gaging stations located in the Le Sueur River basin. Methods USGS 7-1/2 minute series topographic maps were used as base maps to obtain the data presented in this report. Data were compiled with a geograph­ ic information system (CIS) and were stored in an Albers equal-area projec­ tion. Data-base functions and other capabilities of the CIS were used to aggregate the data, determine drainage area of the subbasins, and determine stream channel lengths. Elevation data for the streams were recorded at the point were topographic-contour lines interescted the stream traces. Points on the stream channel 10 percent and 85 percent of the stream-channel length from the basin outlet to the drainage divide were located by the CIS, and the elevations of these points were interpolated from the data recorded in the CIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Waseca County Water Plan Cover.Pub
    WASECA COUNTY LOCALWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 2015 - 2018 (Photo credit: Kelly Hunt) Clear Lake, Waseca, Minnesota Prepared by Waseca County Planning and Zoning This page was intentionally left blank to allow for two-sided printing. WASECA COUNTY WATER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations List………………………………………......................... Pg. iii Executive Summary..........................................................................................iv Water Plan Contents……………………………………………………………………………..…..iv Section One: Purpose of the Plan……………………………………………………………....v Section Two: Waseca County Priority Concerns....……………………………….....vi Waseca County Water Plan Task Force……………………………........................vii Section Three: Summary of Goals & Objectives………………………………………..x Section Four: Consistency with Other Plans & Recommended Changes………………………………………………………………………………….……xi Section Five: Nonpoint Priority Funding Plan……………………………………..……xv Chapter One: County Profile & Priority Concerns Assessment………………………………………………………….1 Section One: County Profile……………………………………………………………………..1 Section Two: Reducing Priority Pollutants Assessment………………………………………………………………………….6 Section Three: Drainage & Wetlands Assessment…………………………………………………………………………24 Section Four: Shorelands & Natural Corridors Assessment…………………………………………………………….36 Section Five: Public Education Assessment……………………………………………..39 Waseca County Water Plan Amendment (2015 – 2018) i Chapter Two: Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Steps .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • River Bank Erosion in the Minnesota River Valley A
    RIVER BANK EROSION IN THE MINNESOTA RIVER VALLEY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY ANDREW C KESSLER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIERMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DR. SATISH C GUPTA DECEMBER 2015 © ANDREW C. KESSLER, 2015 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the assistance that was provided over the years in completing this research by Blue Earth County Environmental Services Staff especially Scott Salisbury and Professor Susan Galatowitsch of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology for their insights about early survey data; Ryan Mattke and the staff at the University of Minnesota, John R. Borchert Map Library for their help with the historical aerial photographs; and Greg Spoden and Pete Boulay of the State Climatologist Office of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for sharing the long-term climatic data. In addition, I’d like to acknowledge help from Ashley Grundtner, Melinda Brown, David Thoma, and Kari Wolf with field work and manuscript reviews. The original 2009 Lidar scan was jointly funded by the Minnesota Corn and Soybean Research and Promotion Councils. Remaining research projects were partially supported with funds from the Minnesota Corn Research and Promotion Council. I’d also like to acknowledge the tireless work of my major adviser Dr. Satish Gupta whose guidance made this research possible. Finally, I would like to acknowledge my wife Andrea and our three daughters for supporting me through this endeavor. i ABSTRACT Sediments remain one of the major causes of water quality impairments in the United States. Although soil erosion from agricultural lands has been viewed as the major source of sediment to rivers and lakes, in many watersheds, river banks are also contributing a significant amount of sediments to surface waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction Description of the Study Area The Le Sueur River Major Watershed is one of the twelve major watersheds of the Minnesota River Basin. It is located in south central Minnesota within Blue Earth, Faribault, Freeborn, Le Sueur, Steele, and Waseca counties (Figure 1). Predominate land use within the watershed is agriculture including cultivation and feedlot operations. Urban land use areas include the cities of Eagle Lake, Janesville, Mankato, Mapleton, New Richland, Waseca, Wells, Winnebago, and other smaller communities. The Le Sueur River Major Watershed area is a region of gently rolling ground moraine, with a total area of approximately 1,112 square miles or 711,838 acres. The watershed is subdivided using topography and drainage features into 86 minor watersheds ranging in size from 1,381 acres to 19,978 acres with a mean size of approximately 8,277 acres. The Le Sueur River Major Watershed drainage network is defined by the Le Sueur River and its major tributaries: the Maple River, and the Big Cobb River. Other smaller streams, public and private drainage systems, lakes, and wetlands complete the drainage network. The drainage pattern of the Le Sueur River Watershed is defined by the Le Sueur River which drains from the southeast along the edge of the moranic belt located in the east and north, the Maple River and the Big Cobb River which drain from the south to reach the river’s confluence with the Le Sueur River near the western edge of the watershed. The lakes and other wetlands within the Le Sueur comprise about 5% of the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ravine Alluvial Fans As Records of Landscape Change in the Le Sueur River Basin, Southern Minnesota
    Ravine alluvial fans as records of landscape change in the Le Sueur River Basin, southern Minnesota A Thesis SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Ian Treat IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. Karen Gran, Advisor October, 2017 © Ian Treat, 2017 Acknowledgements This project was funded in part by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment, and the National Science Foundation (EAR – 1209402). Comments from Karen Gran and my committee, John Swenson and Tongxin Zhu, were invaluable to this project. Field guidance from Phil Larson (Minnesota State University), sample technique development from David Grimley (Illinois State Geological Survey), and electron microscope training from Tsutomu “Shimo” Shimotori (UMD) are greatly appreciated. Most of all, this project would not have accomplished as much without the dedication from my field and lab assistants, Evan Lahr and Austin Cavallin. Thanks to my friends and family for their continual support throughout this project. i Abstract Ravine alluvial fans in the Le Sueur River Basin (LSRB) of south-central Minnesota record post-glacial Holocene changes and modern anthropogenic disturbances to land cover and hydrology in high-latitude watersheds. Seventy meters of base-level drop at the end of the last glaciation initiated millennia of incision that continues on the LSRB today. Onto this template of on-going incision, Euro-American land clearing and drainage of previously stable upland prairie and wetlands in the mid-1800s further increased erosion rates in the basin. Ravines, first-order channels that link low-gradient uplands with the deeply-incised channel network, experienced changes in erosion rates over time from both impacts, with the erosional history preserved in alluvial fans at the mouths of ravines where they terminate on fluvial terraces (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Le Sueur River Watershed Priority Management Zone Identification Project
    Le Sueur River Watershed Priority Management Zone Identification Project July 2014 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: wq-iw7-29q Final Report Format Section 319 and Clean Water Partnership Projects or Final Progress Report for TMDL Development and TMDL Implementation Projects Grant Project Summary Project title: Le Sueur River Watershed - Priority Management Zone Identification Project Organization (Grantee): Greater Blue Earth River Basin Alliance Project start Project end Report submittal date: May 23,2011 date: June 30, 2013 date: 8-1-2013 Grantee contact name: Kay Clark Title: Administrative Coordinator Address: 339 9th Street City: Windom State: MN Zip: 56101 Phone 507-831-1153 number: Ext 3 Fax: 507-831-2928 E-mail: [email protected] Blue Earth, Faribault, Basin (Red, Minnesota, St. Croix, Freeborn and etc.): Minnesota County: Waseca Project type (check one): Clean Water Partnership (CWP) Diagnostic CWP Implementation Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development 319 Implementation 319 Demonstration, Education, Research TMDL Implementation Grant Funding Final grant Final total project amount: $84,403.37 costs: $84,403.37 Matching funds: Final Final in- Final cash: $0.00 kind: $0.00 Loan: $0.00 Contract MPCA project number: CFMS No. B56179 manager: Paul Davis For TMDL Development or TMDL
    [Show full text]
  • Research-Summary.Pdf
    MinnesotaCorn RESEARCH & PROMOTION COUNCIL MINNESOTA CORN MINNESOTA COMPLETED RESEARCH PROJECTS 2015 FUNDED BY MINNESOTA CORN FARMERS RESEARCH SUMMARY YOUR CORN CHECKOFF AT WORK. Identifying and promoting opportunities for the success of Minnesota corn growers is a key part of our mission. As part of that mission, Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA) and Minnesota Corn Research & Promotion Council (MCR&PC) are committed to funding independent research that seeks to enhance opportunities for Minnesota corn farmers by improving agricultural practices TABLE OF CONTENTS and creating new markets for what they produce. Agronomy and Plant Minnesota corn checkoff dollars are Genetics | 3-13 funding a wide range of research projects that directly affect local Corn business and families, including Utilization | 14-20 the development of value-added products, the management of corn inputs, issues related to ethanol Fuels and use, the evaluation of genetic Emissions | 21-23 traits, and the relationship between agricultural management practices Livestock | 24-38 and water quality. This publication highlights Soil completed research projects jointly Fertility | 39-52 funded by MCGA and MCR&PC that address each of these topic areas. Results of these studies are made available to growers in multiple formats, Water | including this Minnesota Corn Quality 53-62 Research Summary. Growers are invited to apply this information to their own farm operations to help optimize best management practices and increase yield and returns. For more information on projects funded by Minnesota’s corn organizations, contact Adam Birr, Ph.D., at the MCGA office: [email protected] or 952-233-0333. 1 INTRODUCTION RESEARCH SUMMARY FARMERS INVESTING IN THEIR FUTURE.
    [Show full text]
  • South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL (Wq-Iw9-12E)
    Fig 22 South Metro Mississippi River Total Suspended Solids Total Maximum Daily Load Mississippi River Mississippi River Minnesota River Minnesota River October 2015 wq-iw9-12e Submitted to United States Environmental Protection Agency By Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Authors/MPCA Staff Project Coordinator: Norman Senjem (up to 2012), Chris Zadak (2014-2015) Meeting Facilitation: Milt Thomas Modeling Technical Support: Khalil Ahmad, Hafiz Munir, Charles Regan Water Quality Specialists: Steven Heiskary, Howard Markus, Dennis Wasley, Mike Trojan, Marco Graziani, Greg Johnson Data Management: Brandon Smith, Steve Weiss GIS Support: Nels Rasmussen, Ashley Ignatius Planning Coordination: Larry Gunderson, Denise Leezer, Maggie Leach Information and Outreach: Cathy Rofshus Contractors Water Quality Modeling: Limno-Tech, Inc. Sediment Source Research: National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics St. Croix Watershed Research Station, Science Museum of Minnesota University of Minnesota Editing and Graphic Design Graphic design staff: Jennifer Holstad Cover photo: Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our web site for more information. MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer 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: wq-iw9-12e Glossary of Acronyms Acronym Full Name BMP Best Management Practices EMAP Environmental Mapping and Assessment Program EPA U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Quality Assessment of Part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin
    science usesfor a changing world National Water-Quality Assessment Program Water-Quality Assessment of Part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Study Unit, Minnesota and Wisconsin Nutrients, Chlorophyll a, Phytoplankton, and Suspended Sediment in Streams, 1996-98 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4287 The Upper Mississippi River Basin Study units |^| Began in fiscal year 1991 ^^J Began in fiscal year 1994 Began in fiscal year 1997 I___j Began in fiscal year 1999 |___| Not scheduled yet \/yy^\ High Plains Regional Ground-Water Study U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water-Quality Assessment of Part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Study Unit, Minnesota and Wisconsin Nutrients, Chlorophyll a, Phytoplankton, and Suspended Sediment in Streams, 1996-98 By S.E. Kroening, K.E. Lee, and R.M. Goldstein Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4287 Contribution from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat/Director Use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. Mounds View, Minnesota, 2003 For additional information write to: U.S. Geological Survey District Chief 2280 Woodale Drive Mounds View, MN 55112 Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286, MS 517 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Information regarding the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River and Greater Blue Earth River Basin TSS TMDL Minnesota Pollution Control Agency I 5.2 Percent Reductions
    u7Minnesota River and Greater Blue Earth River Basin Total Suspended Solids Total Maximum Daily Load Study January 2020 wq-iw7-47e Authors and contributors: Andrea Plevan, Tetra Tech Jennifer Olson, Tetra Tech Jon Butcher, Tetra Tech Bill Carlson, Tetra Tech Mark Greve, Tetra Tech Scott MacLean, MPCA Paul Davis, MPCA Bottom left cover photo credit: Jim Strudell, MPCA Prepared for: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165 Mankato, MN 56001 Prepared by: 413 Wacouta Street, Suite 435 Saint Paul, MN 55101 www.tetratech.com Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................ i Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iii Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iii Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... vii 1. Project Overview ........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]