DOCSLIB.ORG

Le Sueur River and Little Beauford Ditch Acetochlor Impairment Response Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Le Sueur River and Little Beauford Ditch Acetochlor Impairment Response Report Le Sueur River and Little Beauford Ditch Acetochlor Impairment Response Report 10/23/2013 Minnesota Department of Agriculture 625 Robert Street North Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 http://www.mda.state.mn.us 651-201-6000 or 800-967-2474 TTY: 1-800-627-3529 651-201- Authors and Contributors Pesticide Management Unit, Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Division: Larry Van Lieshout, Ron Struss and Joseph Zachmann Monitoring and Assessment Unit, Pesticide and Fertilizer Management Division: Bill VanRyswyk, Matt Ribikawskis and Dave Tollefson Acknowledgements The following cooperating organizations were critical to the collection, analysis and interpretation of much of the data presented in this report: Acetochlor Impairment Report Plan Advisory Committee (listed in Appendix 1) Acetochlor Registration Partnership Crystal Valley Cooperative Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota Minnesota Department of Agriculture Laboratory Services Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Southern Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota Stone Environmental, Inc. WFS Cooperative Water and Environmental Analysis Laboratory, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point Cover Photo The Little Beauford Ditch at high flow on September 9, 2005. Acetochlor Impairment Response Report Page 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 5 UNITS USED IN THIS REPORT ................................................................................................................ 6 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 6 The Le Sueur River and Little Beauford Ditch Watersheds ............................................................... 6 Acetochlor’s role and use in the watershed ......................................................................................... 7 Acetochlor fate and transport .............................................................................................................. 8 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Activity 1: Establish and coordinate a technical advisory group and stakeholder group. ...................... 9 Activity 2: Computer modeling of acetochlor runoff and Best Management Practice effectiveness. .. 11 Acetochlor BMPs in the Little Beauford Ditch subwatershed .......................................................... 11 Acetochlor BMPs in the for Le Sueur River watershed .................................................................... 13 Activity 3: Develop acetochlor management recommendations from computer modeling results. ..... 14 Activity 4: Watershed scale water monitoring. .................................................................................... 14 Activity 5: Subwatershed scale water monitoring. ............................................................................... 20 Sampling methods ............................................................................................................................. 21 Analytical methods ............................................................................................................................ 22 ELISA Monitoring Conclusions........................................................................................................ 26 Activity 6: Collect farming system information on acetochlor use in the watersheds. ........................ 27 Activity 7: Collect voluntary acetochlor BMP use information in the watershed. ............................... 29 Activity 8: Evaluate effectiveness of reduced rates Best Management Practice on loss to tile water. 30 Activity 9: Evaluate effectiveness of filter strip BMP on acetochlor loss to surface water. ................ 32 Activity 10. Develop an “Acetochlor Impairment Response Report” by March 2013. ....................... 33 A NATIONAL CONTEXT FOR MINNESOTA’S ACETOCHLOR IMPAIRMENTS ........................... 34 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................... 37 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 39 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 40 APPENDIX 1 (Advisory committee for Acetochlor Impairment Response Plan) ..................................... 41 APPENDIX 2 (Units and scientific terms used in this report) .................................................................... 42 APPENDIX 3 (Acetochlor report submitted by the Acetochlor Registration Partnership) ........................ 43 Acetochlor Impairment Response Report Page 3 List of Tables Table 1. Herbicide products containing acetochlor registered for use in Minnesota – 2012. ....................... 7 Table 2. Chemical properties of acetochlor, other common corn herbicides ................................................ 9 Table 3. Meeting summary of Acetochlor Impairment Response Plan Advisory Committee .................... 10 Table 4. Number of samples with concentrations above 10% and 50% of the acetochlor standard ........... 15 Table 5. Concentrations statistics for the Le Sueur River and Little Beauford Ditch monitoring sites.. .... 15 Table 6. Storm analysis for Little Beauford Ditch pesticide samples ......................................................... 19 Table 7. The Le Sueur River watershed sampling locations for ELISA analysis. ...................................... 21 Table 8. Summary statistics from acetochlor ELISA analysis in the Le Sueur River watershed ............... 24 Table 9. Survey responses of awareness and use of acetochlor BMPs in the Le Sueur River watershed... 30 Table 10. Detections of acetochlor (and breakdown products) in tile water ............................................... 31 Table 11. Water body impairments listed in the EPA database for the herbicide atrazine ......................... 34 List of Figures Figure 1. Le Sueur River Watershed ............................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2: Pathways for pesticide fate and transport in the environment. ...................................................... 8 Figure 3. Effect of various management practices on acetochlor loss in the Le Sueur River watershed.... 13 Figure 4. Little Beauford Ditch hydrograph with acetochlor concentrations for May and June, 2011. ..... 16 Figure 5. Acetochlor concentration plot for the period of record at Little Beauford Ditch ........................ 17 Figure 6. Acetochlor concentration plot for the period of record at Le Sueur River .................................. 17 Figure 7. Le Sueur River subwatersheds and sampling locations. .............................................................. 21 Figure 8. Acetochlor ELISA vs acetochlor GC/MS concentrations.. ......................................................... 23 Figure 9. Acetochlor ELISA vs combined acetochlor and metolachlor GC/MS concentrations.. .............. 23 Figure 10. Median acetochlor concentrations from the ELISA analysis 2009-2012. ................................. 24 Figure 11. Acetochlor concentrations measured by ELISA and GC/MS on May 7 and May 11, 2012 ..... 25 Figure 12. Location of dealerships included in acetochlor use survey of agronomists............................... 27 Figure 13. Percentage of acetochlor acres incorporated within the Le Sueur River Watershed, 2010. ...... 28 Figure 14. Pounds of acetochlor active ingredient (a.i.) applied per acre ................................................... 29 Figure 15. Tile drainage study plots at University of Minnesota Southern Research Center ..................... 31 Figure 16. Vegetative filter strip study site subwatershed map .................................................................. 32 Figure 17. Vegetative filter strip study site photos. .................................................................................... 33 Acetochlor Impairment Response Report Page 4 INTRODUCTION In 2008, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) included two water bodies, the Le Sueur River and Little Beauford Ditch, on the state’s 303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) list of impaired waters1 for violations of the acetochlor water quality standard. Acetochlor is a corn and soybean herbicide whose use is regulated by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA). This report describes specific activities completed and evaluated in response to these water quality impairments. The activities are outlined in the Acetochlor Impairment Response Plan developed by the MDA in cooperation with the MPCA in 2009. Some of the activities are in direct response to the acetochlor water quality impairments; others are in response to MDA’s on-going responsibility to assure pesticides are used in a manner that does not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. To assist in implementing the Acetochlor Impairment Response Plan, the MDA convened an Acetochlor Impairment Response Plan Advisory Committee made up of local representatives from the affected counties, interest groups, and farmers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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
    [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]
  • Analyses of Potential Ravine and Bluff Stabilization Sites Within the Blue Earth and Le Sueur River Basins
    Minnesota State University, Mankato Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato All Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Other Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects Capstone Projects 2015 Analyses of Potential Ravine and Bluff Stabilization Sites within the Blue Earth and Le Sueur River Basins Anna My-Tien T. Tran Minnesota State University - Mankato Follow this and additional works at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds Part of the Geographic Information Sciences Commons, Soil Science Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Tran, A. M. T. (2015). Analyses of Potential Ravine and Bluff Stabilization Sites within the Blue Earth and Le Sueur River Basins [Master’s thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato]. Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/ etds/522/ This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects at Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. Analyses of potential ravine and bluff stabilization sites within the Blue Earth and Le Sueur River Basins By Anna My-Tien T. Tran A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Master of Science in Environmental Science (in association with the Water Resources Center) Minnesota State University, Mankato Mankato, Minnesota 2015 ii Analyses of potential ravine and bluff stabilization sites within the Blue Earth and Le Sueur River Basins Endorsement Date: ______________________ This thesis, completed by Anna My-Tien T.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterville Area Fisheries
    Waterville Area Fisheries (! Hastings Gaylord Red Wing (! (! Cannon River Mississippi River Le Center Wabasha (! (! Zumbro River St. Peter New Ulm ! (! Minnesota River ( Faribault (! Mankato P! Le Sueur River Watonwan River Waseca Owatonna (! (! Mantorville (! Rochester P! St. James (! Root River Preston Fairmont Austin ! Albert Lea (! ( (! Blue Earth (! (! Cedar River Iowa River, Upper Blue Earth River Waterville Area Fisheries (! Hastings Gaylord Red Wing (! (! Cannon River Mississippi River Le Center Wabasha (! (! Zumbro River St. Peter New Ulm ! (! Minnesota River ( Faribault (! Mankato P! Le Sueur River Watonwan River Waseca Owatonna (! (! Mantorville (! Rochester P! St. James (! Root River Preston Fairmont Austin ! Albert Lea (! ( (! Blue Earth (! (! Cedar River Iowa River, Upper Blue Earth River Le Sueur River Watershed (! Hastings Gaylord Red Wing (! (! Cannon River Mississippi River Le Center Wabasha (! (! Zumbro River St. Peter New Ulm ! (! Minnesota River ( Faribault (! Mankato P! Le Sueur River Watonwan River Waseca Owatonna (! (! Mantorville (! Rochester P! St. James (! Root River Preston Fairmont Austin ! Albert Lea (! ( (! Blue Earth (! (! Cedar River Iowa River, Upper Blue Earth River Freeborn Lake, Fish Species Present Freeborn Lake Fish Management Plan • Fisheries Management – First Fisheries Survey was conducted in 1983. • “Fish Management options are very limited because of habitat conditions which favor bullhead, carp and green sunfish.” • Good fishing of bullhead and/or crappie historically were largely dependent on winterkill events. • “The only economical way to improve the fishing in this lake is to create a situation for severe winterkill of bullheads and carp.” • A northern pike spawning area was operated in 1967-1968 and it produced only 20 and 6 fingerlings in consecutive years, so it was abandoned.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H ––– Flooding
    Appendix H ––– Flooding Flooding Section --- Blue Earth County Water Management Plan Definitions Flood Mitigation Actions Flash Flooding FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Flooding Goals and Strategies Blue Earth County Comprehensive Land Use Plan Blue Earth County Water Management Plan 2017-2026 Flooding Section Appendix H — Flooding Blue Earth County Land Use Plan Flooding Flooding is a concern related to public safety, loss of property and Flood Mitigation Actions infrastructure, and water quality. Prevention: Government, administrative, or regulatory actions or There are different definitions and categories of floods and affects processes that influence the way land and buildings are developed and that can be addressed with mitigation action, such as prevention, built. These actions also include public activities to reduce hazard property protection, public education and awareness, natural losses. Examples include planning and zoning, building codes, capital resources protection, emergency services and structural improvement programs, open space preservation, and stormwater improvements. management regulations. Definition Property Protection: Actions that involve the modification of existing The State of Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan definition of buildings or structures to protect them from a hazard or removal from “flooding is the accumulation of water within a water body (e.g., the hazard area. Examples include acquisition, elevation, structural stream, river, lake, and reservoir) and the overflow of excess water retrofits, storm shutters, and shatter-resistant glass. onto adjacent floodplains.” Public Education and Awareness: Actions to inform and educate The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force divides citizens, elected officials, and property owners about the hazards and flooding in the United States into categories including the following: potential ways to mitigate them.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphic Evolution of the Le Sueur River, Minnesota, USA, and Implications for Current Sediment Loading
    spe451-08 1st pgs page 1 The Geological Society of America Special Paper 451 2009 Geomorphic evolution of the Le Sueur River, Minnesota, USA, and implications for current sediment loading Karen B. Gran Department of Geological Sciences, University of Minnesota, Duluth, 1114 Kirby Dr., Duluth, Minnesota, 55812, USA Patrick Belmont National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics, St. Anthony Falls Lab, 2 Third Ave. SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414, USA Stephanie S. Day National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics, St. Anthony Falls Lab, 2 Third Ave. SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414, USA, and Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 310 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA Carrie Jennings Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 310 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA, and Minnesota Geological Survey, 2642 University Ave. W, St. Paul, Minnesota 55114, USA Andrea Johnson Department of Geological Sciences, University of Minnesota, Duluth, 1114 Kirby Dr., Duluth, Minnesota, 55812, USA Lesley Perg National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics, St. Anthony Falls Lab, 2 Third Ave. SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414, USA, and Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 310 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA Peter R. Wilcock National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics, St. Anthony Falls Lab, 2 Third Ave. SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414, USA, and Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles St., Ames Hall 313, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218, USA ABSTRACT There is clear evidence that the Minnesota River is the major sediment source for Lake Pepin and that the Le Sueur River is a major source to the Minnesota River.
    [Show full text]
  • Le Sueur River Monitoring Station Information
    Table 1.LE. Le Sueur River Monitoring Station Information Station Address: State Highway 66 Bridge, Mankato, MN 56001 County: Blue Earth Major Basin: Minnesota River Basin Watershed: Le Sueur River Drainage Area: 1,100 square miles Station Operators: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Contact Information: Contact Person: Heather Offerman Address: 515 North Riverfront Drive, Suite 220 Mankato, MN 56001 Phone: 507-344-0145 E-mail: [email protected] Station Overview: MCES and MDA have conducted water quality monitoring of the Le Sueur River since 1999. The monitoring station is located near Mankato, Minnesota, 1.3 miles upstream from the river confluence with the Blue Earth River. The Le Sueur River flows north and west through mostly agricultural land in Freeborn, Waseca, and Blue Earth Counties. MCES and MDA cooperatively operate this monitoring station, but partner with the USGS, which measures river flow at a station approximately one mile upstream from the MCES/MDA location. USGS has been monitoring flow at the upstream location, station number 05320500, since 1939. USGS has also intermittently collected water quality samples at their station, in 1967-1969 and 1989-1993. 2001 Monitoring Year: Snowmelt began during the last week of March 2001. The Le Sueur River rose rapidly, with flow increasing from 1,400 cfs on April 1, 2001 to a peak daily average flow of 13,100 cfs on April 6, 2001. This was the fourth highest peak flow on record, compared to the highest recorded daily average flow of 24,700 cfs, with a stage of 22.10 feet, on April 8, 1965.
    [Show full text]