DOCSLIB.ORG

Lake Pepin and Mississippi River Eutrophication TMDL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ............................................................................................................................. 1 1. Project Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Project Purpose and History................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Identification of Waterbodies .............................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Priority Ranking .................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Targets ................................. 7 2.1. State of Minnesota Designated Uses ................................................................................................... 7 2.2. State of Minnesota Water Quality Standards and Criteria for Listing ................................................. 8 3. Watershed and Waterbody Characterization .......................................................................... 11 3.1. Lake Pepin and Impaired Stream Reaches ......................................................................................... 11 3.2. Watershed Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 13 3.2.1. Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 17 3.2.2. Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.3. Historic and Current Water Quality Conditions of Impaired Waters ................................................. 22 3.3.1. Mississippi River – Lake Pepin ............................................................................................. 22 3.3.2. Twin Cities Metropolitan Area ............................................................................................ 26 3.3.3. Minnesota River Basin ........................................................................................................ 27 3.4. Phosphorus Source Summary ............................................................................................................ 30 3.4.1. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater ................................................................................. 32 3.4.2. Regulated Stormwater ........................................................................................................ 36 3.4.3. Permitted Confined Animal Feeding Operations ................................................................ 39 3.4.4. Nonpoint Sources ................................................................................................................ 41 3.4.5. Natural Background ............................................................................................................ 45 4. Modeling Approach ................................................................................................................ 47 4.1. Water Quality Model .......................................................................................................................... 47 4.1.1. Baseline Loads ..................................................................................................................... 50 4.1.2. Scenario Development ........................................................................................................ 51 4.1.3. Modeling to Develop WLAs ................................................................................................. 54 4.2. Relationships to Other TMDLs ........................................................................................................... 54 5. TMDL Development ................................................................................................................ 56 5.1. Loading Capacity ................................................................................................................................ 60 Lake Pepin Watershed Phosphorus TMDLs Minnesota Pollution Control Agency iii 5.1.1. Lake Pepin and Pool 2 ......................................................................................................... 60 5.1.2. Impaired Stream AUID – Crow River to Upper St. Anthony Falls ........................................ 60 5.2. Wasteload Allocation Methodology .................................................................................................. 62 5.2.1. Permitted Municipal and Industrial Wastewater ............................................................... 62 5.2.2. Regulated MS4 Stormwater ................................................................................................ 65 5.2.3. Regulated Construction and Industrial Stormwater ........................................................... 67 5.3. Load Allocation Methodology ............................................................................................................ 67 5.4. Margin of Safety ................................................................................................................................. 68 5.5. Reserve Capacity ................................................................................................................................ 68 5.5.1. Minnesota Reserve Capacity ............................................................................................... 69 5.5.2. Wisconsin Reserve Capacity ................................................................................................ 70 5.6. Boundary Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 70 5.7. Seasonal Variation .............................................................................................................................. 73 5.8. Tribal Lands ........................................................................................................................................ 73 6. Reasonable Assurance ............................................................................................................ 75 6.1. Framework ......................................................................................................................................... 75 6.2. Basin, Regional and Local Entities ...................................................................................................... 79 6.3. Summary of Local Plans ..................................................................................................................... 83 6.4. Example Basin-wide Source Reduction Activities and Tools .............................................................. 84 6.5. Future Developments ......................................................................................................................... 95 7. Monitoring Plan ...................................................................................................................... 97 8. Implementation Strategy Summary ...................................................................................... 100 8.1. The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy ................................................................................... 100 8.2. The Minnesota Watershed Approach .............................................................................................. 103 8.3. Permitted Sources ............................................................................................................................ 103 8.3.1. Construction Stormwater ................................................................................................. 103 8.3.2. Industrial Stormwater ......................................................................................................
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]
  • Inland Zone Sub-Area Contingency Plan (SACP) for Minneapolis/St
    EPA REGION 5 INLAND ZONE SUB-AREA CONTINGENCY PLAN Inland Zone Sub-Area Contingency Plan (SACP) for Minneapolis/St. Paul December 2020 Sub-Area Contingency Plan i Minneapolis/St. Paul Letter of Review Minneapolis/St. Paul Inland Zone Sub-Area Contingency Plan (SACP) This SACP has been prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the direction of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) with collaboration from stakeholders of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Inland Zone Sub-Area. This SACP has been prepared for the use of all agencies engaged in responding to environmental emergencies and contains useful tools for responders, providing practical and accessible information about who and what they need to know for an effective response. This SACP is not intended to serve as a prescriptive plan for response but as a mechanism to ensure responders have access to essential sub-area specific information and to promote interagency coordination for an effective response. This SACP includes links to documents and information on non-EPA sites. Links to non-EPA sites and documents do not imply any official EPA endorsement of, or responsibility for, the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at those locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. David Morrison Federal On-Scene Coordinator United States Environmental Protection Agency Superfund & Emergency Management Division Region 5 Sub-Area Contingency Plan ii Minneapolis/St. Paul Record of Change Change SACP Description of Change Initials Date Number Section 1 all EPA R5 2020 New Sub Area Format – IAP w/main body plan DHM 12/22/2020 Sub-Area Contingency Plan iii Minneapolis/St.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mississippi River Basin Planning Scoping Document
    2001 Basin Plan Scoping Document Balmm Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi In Minnesota Lower Mississippi River Basin Planning Scoping Document June 2001 balmm Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota About BALMM A locally led alliance of land and water resource agencies has formed in order to coordinate efforts to protect and improve water quality in the Lower Mississippi River Basin. The Basin Alliance for the Lower Mississippi in Minnesota (BALMM) covers both the Lower Mississippi and Cedar River Basins, and includes a wide range of local, state and federal resource agencies. Members of the Alliance include Soil and Water Conservation District managers, county water planners, and regional staff of the Board of Soil and Water Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University of Minnesota Extension, Department of Natural Resources, Mississippi River Citizen Commission, the Southeastern Minnesota Water Resources Board, the Cannon River Watershed Partnership, and others. BALMM meetings are open to all interested individuals and organizations. Existing staff from county and state agencies provide administrative, logistical and planning support. These include: Kevin Scheidecker, Fillmore SWCD, Chair; Norman Senjem, MPCA-Rochester, Basin Coordinator; Clarence Anderson, Rice SWCD, Area 7 MASWCD Liaison; Bea Hoffmann, SE Minnesota Water Resources Board Liaison. This Basin Plan Scoping Document is the fruit of a year-long effort by participants in BALMM. Environmental Goals, Geographic Management Strategies and Land-Use Strategies were developed by either individual BALMM members or strategy teams. An effort was made to involve those who will implement the strategies in developing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Ricard Missoula MT Daniel Aagenes Cleveland Cliffs Hibbing Taconite Hibbing MN Jason Aagenes Cleveland-Cliffs Inc
    First Name Last Name Company City State Erin (Stevens) Ricard Missoula MT Daniel Aagenes Cleveland Cliffs Hibbing Taconite Hibbing MN Jason Aagenes Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. Eveleth MN Aleesha Aasved Butte MT Behrooz Abbasi University of Nevada Reno Reno NV Charles Abbey Missouri University of Science and Technology Rolla MO Jamie Aberle Freeport-McMoRan Inc Clifton AZ Chris Abraham Marquette MI Adele Abrams Law Office of Adele L Abrams PC Beltsville MD Chandler Absher University of Kentucky Nancy KY Chandler Absher University of Kentucky Department of Mining Engine Lexington KY Sevket Acar Kissimmee FL Yovani Achata Instituto de Ingenieros de Minas del Peru (IIMP) La Molina Louis Ackah Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Carbondale IL Gina Acker Caterpillar Inc - Global Mining Deerfield IL Blake Acton Solvay Tempe AZ John Adair Standard Minerals, LLC Port Huron MI Belinda Adams Eirich Machines, Inc Gurnee IL Brent Adams Komatsu Equipment Company Elko NV Bryan Adams Yellow Jacket Drilling Services Phoenix AZ Justin Adams US Steel Minnesota Ore Operations Biwabik MN Kim Adams InfoMine Inc Vancouver BC Opal Adams Geo-Logic Associates Ontario CA Stephen Adams Mount Dora FL Douglas Addo University of Kentucky Erlanger KY Anthony Adun University of Arizona Tucson AZ Diwaker Aduri GIW Industries, Inc (A KSB Company) Grovetown GA Eleftheria Agioutanti Blacksburg VA Kitty Agioutantis Lexington KY Zacharias Agioutantis University of Kentucky Lexington KY Mikel Agirregabiria Ulma Conveyor Components Otxandio Keith Agner Miner Elastomer Products Geneva IL Domenic Aguilar Reno NV Rene Aguilar Antofagasta Minerals Las Condes David Aguilera Miller Sales & Engineering Tucson AZ Mikel Aguirregabiria Ulma Conveyor Components Otxandio John Ahart RDO Integrated Controls Bloomington MT Jason Ahlin Brahma Group, Inc Salt Lake City UT Usman Ahmad Mittelsachsen Junmo Ahn University of Arizona Tucson AZ Risto Ahvo The Switch Oak Creek WI Lee Aiken MTS Sensors Cary NC James Aiken, P.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mississippi River Basin
    1 Response to RFI for Long-Term Agro-ecosystem Research (LTAR) Network 2012 Lower Mississippi River Basin Abstract: The Lower Mississippi River Basin (LMRB) is a key 2-digit HUC watershed comprised of highly productive and diverse agricultural and natural ecosystems lying along the lower reaches of the largest river in North America. The alluvial plain within the LMRB is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United States, particularly for rice, cotton, corn and soybeans. The LMRB accounts, for example, for a quarter of total U.S. cotton and two-thirds of total U.S. rice production. The 7.1 million irrigated acres of the LMRB cover a larger percentage (>10%) of the entire land area of the basin than for any other two-digit HUC in the country and the basin is second only to California in total groundwater pumped for irrigation. The LMRB is therefore one of the most intensively developed regions for irrigated agriculture in the country. This region is the hydrologic gateway to the Gulf of Mexico and thus links the agricultural practices of the LMRB and the runoff and sediment/nutrient loads from the Upper Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio basins with the Gulf ecosystem. While the natural and agricultural ecosystems of the LMRB are each of national significance, they are also intimately inter-connected, for example, the intensive agricultural irrigation along the alluvial plain has resulted in rapidly declining water tables. Changes in stream hydrology due to declining base-flow combined with the water quality impacts of agriculture make the LMRB a tightly-coupled agro-ecosystem with national significance and thus an ideal addition to the LTAR network.
    [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 America's Greatest River Plan
    RESTORING AMERICA’S GREATEST RIVER A HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 RIVER MODIFICATIONS 4 HABITATS AND LAND USE 6 FLOODPLAINS 8 SPECIES OF CONCERN 10 Mission: Promote the protection, restoration, enhancement, understanding, awareness and wise use NATIVE FISHES 13 of the natural resources of the Lower Mississippi River, through coordinated and cooperative efforts involving CLIMATE ADAPTATION 14 research, planning, management, information sharing, public education and advocacy. PLANNING 16 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 18 GOALS AND ACTIONS 22 CITATIONS 24 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 27 Suggested citation: Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee. 2015. Restoring America’s Greatest River: A Habitat Restoration Plan for the Lower Mississippi River. Published electronically at http://lmrcc.org. Vicksburg, Mississippi. The cover photo, taken by Bruce Reid near Fitler, Mississippi, shows the Mississippi River main channel, a sandbar, a notched dike and the batture forest. © 2015 Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee 2 INTRODUCTION he Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee (LMRCC) was founded in 1994 and is a coalition of 12 state natural resource MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED Tconservation and environmental quality agencies from Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. The LMRCC Executive Committee has one member from each of the agencies. There are also five federal partners: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The USFWS provides a coordination office. LMRCC staff work out of the USFWS’s Lower Mississippi River Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office in Jackson, Mississippi.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Mississippi River Fisheries Coordination Office
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lower Mississippi River Fisheries Coordination Office Station Facts Activity Highlights ■ Established: 1994. ■ Development of an Aquatic Resource Management Plan to ■ Number of staff: one. restore natural resources in the 2.7 ■ Geographic area covered: million-acre, leveed floodplain of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, the Lower Mississippi River. Mississippi, Missouri, and ■ Publication of the LMRCC Tennessee. Newsletter, a regional newsletter Station Goals on aquatic resource conservation photo: USFWS photo: ■ Provide a permanent forum for management issues, and natural facilitating the management of the resource-based economic aquatic natural resources of the development. Lower Mississippi River leveed ■ Provide long-term economic, floodplain. environmental, and public ■ Restore and enhance aquatic recreation benefits to the region by habitat in the Lower Mississippi cooperatively addressing aquatic River leveed floodplain and resource management issues. tributaries. Questions and Answers: photo: USFWS photo: ■ Increase public awareness and What does your office do? encourage sustainable use of the The Lower Mississippi River Lower Mississippi River’s natural Fisheries Coordination Office resources. (FCO) coordinates the work of many different state and Federal ■ Promote natural resource-based natural resource management and economic development. environmental quality agencies that deal with the Lower Mississippi River ■ Increase technical knowledge of the aquatic resource issues. Lower Mississippi River’s natural resources. Why is the Lower Mississippi River photo: USFWS photo: important? Services provided to: The Mississippi River is the fourth ■ Project leader serves as longest river in the world, flowing coordinator for the Lower for more than 2,350 miles from its Mississippi River Conservation headwaters in Lake Itasca, Minnesota Committee (LMRCC); LMRCC to the Gulf of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • The Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers: Value and Importance of These Transport Arteries for U.S
    The Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers: Value and Importance of these Transport Arteries for U.S. Agriculture FAPRI-UMC Briefing Paper #03-04 June 2004 Prepared by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute 101 South Fifth St. Columbia, MO 65201 573-882-3576 www.fapri.missouri.edu BRIEFING PAPER ON THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI AND ILLINOIS RIVERS: VALUE AND IMPORTANCE OF THESE TRANSPORT ARTERIES FOR U.S. AGRICULTURE Introduction The upper Mississippi River is a 663-mile segment extending from Minneapolis, Minnesota to near St. Louis, Missouri: this waterway forms borders for Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri and Wisconsin. The 349-mile Illinois waterway extends from Chicago, Illinois to the confluence of the Illinois and upper Mississippi Rivers near St. Louis, Missouri. Both transport arteries originate important quantities of corn, soybeans and wheat that are transported via the middle and lower Mississippi River to export elevators in the lower Mississippi River port area (3). Past studies indicated over 90 percent of the export-destined corn and soybeans originating in states that border the upper Mississippi and Illinois waterways is destined for lower Mississippi River ports (1, 4). In addition, it is estimated that over half of the U.S.’s corn exports and over a third of the soybean exports originate in states bordering the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and move via these transport arteries to lower Mississippi River ports (1, 4). Clearly, the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers are important transport arteries for north central U.S. agriculture, however, as shown by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data, grain/oilseed movements on these Rivers is also important to the barge industry (5).
    [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]
  • Mississippi River
    Mississippi River In 2011 the lower Mississippi River carried the greatest volume of floodwaters ever recorded, exceeding the his- toric flood of 1927. In that earlier flood, considered the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States, levees were breached or overtopped in 145 loca- tions, 70,000 km2 were inundated, and 700,000 people were displaced for weeks to months. Officially hundreds of people died but more likely thousands of rural resi- dents were killed (Barry 1997). The flood exposed two primary limitations to river and floodplain management of the time. First, flood manage- ment relied excessively on levees (the “levees-only” ap- proach) which presumed that nearly the entire floodplain could be disconnected from river floods. Second, flood- plain and river management was uncoordinated. In response to the flood, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed the Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries Project (MR&T). The MR&T coordinated levee placement and design, dam development and operations, floodplain management and navigation for the lower Mississippi Riv- er basin, including several major tributaries (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). In addition to replacing a piecemeal approach to river management with a comprehensive system approach, the MR&T also moved floodplain management away from the “levees only” approach and included floodplain storage and conveyance as critical components of flood-risk man- Figure 1. The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. Floodways agement. Four floodways were designated, portions of the are circled in red. (US Army Corps of Engineers) historic floodplain that would reconnect to the river and convey floodwaters during the highest floods (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]