DOCSLIB.ORG

Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed Monitoring And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mississippi River – St. Cloud Watershed Monitoring And z c Mississippi River (St. Cloud) Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report October 2012 Authors The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs MPCA Mississippi River (St. Cloud) Report Team: by using the Internet to distribute reports and Benjamin Lundeen, Kelly O’Hara, Jim MacArthur, information to wider audience. Visit our web site Bruce Monson, and Scott Niemela for more information. Contributors MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content paper manufactured without Kris Parsons – MPCA GIS development chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Chuck Johnson – MPCA Stressor ID Phil Votruba – MPCA Watershed Manager Citizen Lake Monitoring Program Volunteers Citizen Stream Monitoring Program Volunteers Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture RMB Environmental Laboratories, Inc. Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment) 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-ws3-07010203b Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 II. The Watershed Monitoring Approach ............................................................................ 3 Figure 1. Major watersheds within Minnesota ...................................................................................... 3 (8-Digit HUC) ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Load monitoring network ..................................................................................................................... 3 Intensive watershed monitoring ........................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Overview of the intensive watershed monitoring design .......................................................... 4 Figure 3. Monitoring locations of local groups, citizens, and the ............................................................ 6 MPCA monitoring staff in the Mississippi River (St. Cloud) Watershed .................................................... 6 III. Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................. 7 Water quality standards ....................................................................................................................... 7 Assessment units ................................................................................................................................. 7 Determining use attainment status ...................................................................................................... 8 Data management ............................................................................................................................... 9 Period of record ................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4. Flowchart of aquatic life use assessment process .................................................................. 10 IV. Watershed Overview .................................................................................................. 11 Physical setting .................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 5. The Mississippi River (St. Cloud) watershed within the .......................................................... 11 North Central Hardwoods Ecoregion of central Minnesota .................................................................. 11 Land use summary ............................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 6. Land use in the Mississippi River (St. Cloud) watershed ......................................................... 12 Surface water hydrology .................................................................................................................... 13 Climate and precipitation ................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 7. Statewide precipitation levels during the 2009 water year .................................................... 13 V. Watershed Wide Data Collection Methodology ........................................................... 14 Stream water sampling ...................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 8. Water chemistry monitoring stations in the Mississippi River (St. Cloud) watershed .............. 15 Stream biological sampling ................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 9. Biological monitoring locations in the Mississippi River (St. Cloud) watershed ....................... 16 Fish contaminants .............................................................................................................................. 17 Lake water sampling .......................................................................................................................... 17 VI. Individual HUC-11 Watershed Results .......................................................................... 18 Stream assessment ............................................................................................................................ 18 Stream habitat results ........................................................................................................................ 19 Outlet water chemistry results ............................................................................................................ 19 Lake water chemistry ......................................................................................................................... 19 HUC-11 and HUC-8 figures .................................................................................................................. 19 Upper Elk River Watershed Unit ...................................................................................................... 20 Table 1. Aquatic life and recreation assessments on stream reaches in the Upper Elk River Watershed Unit. Reaches are organized upstream to downstream in the table. ........... 20 Table 2. Minnesota Stream Habitat Assessment (MSHA) for the Upper Elk Watershed Unit ................. 21 Table 3. Outlet water chemistry results for the Upper Elk Watershed Unit ........................................... 21 Figure 10. Currently listed impaired waters by parameter and land use characteristics in the Upper Elk River Watershed Unit ......................................................................................................... 23 Mayhew Creek Watershed Unit ...................................................................................................... 24 Table 4. Aquatic life and recreation assessments on stream reaches in the Mayhew Creek Watershed Unit. Reaches are organized upstream to downstream in the table. ................................... 24 Table 5. Non-assessed biological stations on channelized AUIDs in the Mayhew Creek Watershed Unit ................................................................................................................................. 25 Table 6. Minnesota Stream Habitat Assessment (MSHA) results for Mayhew Creek Watershed Unit ................................................................................................................................. 25 Table 7. Outlet water chemistry data for the Mayhew Creek Watershed Unit ...................................... 26 Table 8. Aquatic Recreation Use Assessments (ARUS) for lakes in the Mayhew Creek Watershed Unit ................................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 11. Currently listed impaired waters by parameter and land use characteristics in the Mayhew Creek Watershed Unit .......................................................................................................... 28 Stony Brook and Rice Creek Watershed Unit .................................................................................... 29 Table 9. Aquatic life and recreation assessments on stream reaches in the Stony Brook and Rice Creek Watershed Unit. Reaches are organized upstream to downstream in the table. .................. 29 Table 10. Non-assessed channelized sites in the Stony Brook and Rice Creek Watershed Unit ............... 30 Table 11. Minnesota Stream Habitat Assessment (MSHA) results for the Stony Brook and Rice Creek Watershed Unit ................................................................................................................. 30 Table 12. Outlet water chemistry results for the Rice Creek Watershed Unit ........................................ 31 Figure 12. Currently listed waters by parameters and land use characteristics in the Stony Brook and Rice Creek
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project (Wqip) Elk River Basin Water Quality Gap
    SOUTHWEST MISSOURI WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (WQIP) ELK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY GAP November 2008 PREPARED FOR: Environmental Resources Coalition 3118 Emerald Lane Jefferson City, Missouri 65109 PREPARED BY: MEC Water Resources, Inc. 1123 Wilkes Boulevard, Suite 400 Columbia, Missouri 65201 Ozarks Environmental Water Resources Institute, Missouri State University Temple Hall 328 901 South National Avenue Springfield, Missouri 65897 (page intentionally left blank) Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project Missouri State University Elk River Basin Water Quality Gap Analysis MEC Water Resources, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................vii I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................................1 II. STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................................3 2.1. Basin Characteristics..................................................................................................3 2.2. Population and Land Use............................................................................................3 2.3. Permitted Point Source Discharges ..........................................................................7 2.4. Geology and Soils .....................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Restoration of Tanyard Creek in the Little Sugar Creek Watershed B
    1. Cover Page: 2012 State Wildlife Grant Pre-Proposal a. Title of Project: Stream Restoration of Tanyard Creek in the Little Sugar Creek Watershed b. Project Summary: A 2,500 foot section of Tanyard Creek will be enhanced and restored. Unstable streambanks and excessive woody debris are compromising the aquatic and terrestrial habitat of this Karst area, and accelerated streambank erosion is contributing approximately 1,600,000 lbs/yr of sediment and 200 lbs/yr of total phosphorus to the Little Sugar Creek basin. Aquatic habit is limited from severe sedimentation which has diminished riffle/pool features and from stream instability resulting in degradation of the riparian area. A natural channel design approach will be used to restore and enhance the channel in a manner that reduces streambank erosion, transports sediment efficiently, and improves the riparian area and aquatic habitat for 13 SGCNs. c. Project Leader: Sandi Formica, Executive Director Watershed Conservation Resource Center 380 West Rock, Fayetteville, AR 72701 [email protected], 501-352-5252 d. Project Partners: Darrell Bowman, Lake Ecology/Fisheries Manager, Bella Vista Village Property Owners Association (Bella Vista POA); [email protected], (479) 855-5068 Drew Holts, Executive Director, Elk River Watershed Improvement Association (Elk River WIA), [email protected], (417) 223-3414 Steve Filipek, Assistant Chief Special Programs, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AG&FC), [email protected], 501- 223-6369 David Casaletto, President, Ozark Water Watch and Multi-Basin Regional Water Council, [email protected], (417) 739-4100 e. Project Budget: Amount of SWG Funds Requested: $70,000 (37%) Total Matching Funds Provided: $121,000 (63%) Total Project Cost: $191,000 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Elk River Landfill Expansion – Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    TO: Interested Parties RE: Elk River Landfill Expansion – Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal by Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL) to construct a horizontal landfill expansion at its existing site in the city of Elk River, Sherburne County. The Draft EIS is being distributed for public comment pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.2600, and will be on public notice until December 1, 2005. During that period, any person may provide comments on the Draft EIS to the MPCA. The MPCA will conduct a public informational meeting on this Draft EIS. The public meeting will take place at the Uppertown Conference Room, 13065 Orono Parkway, Elk River, Minnesota, on Tuesday, November 15, 2005, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Any person may appear and present comments during this meeting. Commenters are advised that all comments made in connection with this Draft EIS will become a part of the public record. A court reporter will be employed to provide a written record of meeting proceedings. Your comments and questions on the Draft EIS are important to the completion of the Final EIS, the adequacy decisions to be made by the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board), and to future permits that may be considered for this project. The MPCA will prepare written responses to your comments, and will revise the Draft EIS, if necessary, prior to the Board consideration of the Final EIS. All commenters will receive a copy of the Final EIS. All persons on the mailing list will be notified in advance of the Board adequacy decision meeting, and any person may appear at that meeting and address the Board if desired.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis Rafinesqueana)
    Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Cover photo: Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This species biological report informs the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). The Species Biological Report is a comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Neosho Mucket and provides an account of species overall viability. A Recovery Implementation Strategy, which provides the expanded narrative for the recovery activities and the implementation schedule, is available at https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Executive Summary The Neosho Mucket is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It is associated with shallow riffles and runs comprising gravel substrate and moderate to swift currents, but prefers near-shore areas or areas out of the main current in Shoal Creek and Illinois River. It does not occur in reservoirs lacking riverine characteristics. The life-history traits and habitat requirements of the Neosho Mucket make it extremely susceptible to environmental change (e.g., droughts, sedimentation, chemical contaminants). Mechanisms leading to the decline of Neosho Mucket range from local (e.g., riparian clearing, chemical contaminants, etc.), to regional influences (e.g., altered flow regimes, channelization, etc.), to global climate change. The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of threats are often complex in aquatic environments, making it difficult to predict changes in mussel and fish host(s) distribution, abundance, and habitat availability that may result from these effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mississippi River-Brainerd Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report
    Watershed health May 2019 Upper Mississippi River-Brainerd Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report Authors Chad R. Anderson, Joe Hadash, Cadie Olsen, Sophia Vaughan, Anthony J. Dingmann, Mike Bourdaghs, Bruce Monson Contributors/acknowledgements Citizen Stream Monitoring Program Volunteers Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture Aitkin County SWCD Crow Wing SWCD Central Lakes College - Natural Resources Program The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our website for more information. MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | 651-296-6300 | 800-657-3864 | Or use your preferred relay service. | [email protected] This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us. Document number: wq-ws3-07010104b Table of contents List of acronyms .............................................................................................................................. viii Executive summary ............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Mcdonald Countycounty Missourimissouri States...And It Territories...For the Protection of Life and Property
    National Weather Service “To provide weather and flood Natural Hazard Risk Assessment warnings, public forecasts and Information For: advisories for all of the United McDonaldMcDonald CountyCounty MissouriMissouri States...and it territories...for the protection of life and property. Information Provided By WFO Springfield, Mo National Weather Service 2009 Update Includes data and information through December 2008 5808 W Hwy EE Springfield, Mo. 65802 Phone: 417-864-8535 Email: [email protected] [email protected] National Weather Service Table of Contents Local Climatology Averages and records for Anderson, Missouri in McDonald County Overview of Weather Hazards in Southwest Missouri 2 Normal Normal Normal Normal Record Record Record Record Historical information for McDonald County Missouri 3 High Low Precip. Snow High Low Precip. Snow Tornado Information 4 Jan 45 22 2.00 4.4 78 -21 5.63 23.0 Severe Hail, Lightning, Wind and Winter Weather 5 Feb 51 27 2.01 3.0 86 -21 6.41 16.6 Flooding 6 Mar 61 36 3.75 2.1 90 -4 10.79 24.0 Heat , Drought and Wildfires 7 Apr 70 44 4.14 0 93 6 9.09 4.0 Dam Failure 8 Historic Weather in Southwest Missouri 9 May 76 53 4.75 0 93 27 16.07 0 Local Climatology 10 Jun 84 62 4.58 0 100 39 10.96 0 Jul 89 66 3.21 0 112 44 11.30 0 Aug 88 64 3.50 0 108 42 8.26 0 Sept 80 57 4.76 0 104 27 12.18 0 Oct 71 45 3.48 0 96 13 9.11 0.5 Nov 58 35 4.41 1.1 86 0 9.09 8.0 Dec 48 26 3.01 2.7 80 -18 6.89 14.3 Links for Climate information www.crh.noaa.gov/sgf/ www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ www4.ncdc.noaa.gov This document is intended to provide general information on severe weather that has affected McDonald County and the communities with in the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample County History Submission
    1 Sample County History Submissions of county history articles should include all of the following elements indicated in bold type. Title: McDonald County Region: Southwest County seat: Pineville Established: March 3, 1849 Population: 23,073 (2010 Census) Area: 539.48 square miles (2010 Census) Author: Kimberly Harper About the Author: Kimberly Harper is the associate editor at the State Historical Society of Missouri. She lives in Columbia. Author’s email address and/or phone number: (please include contact information, which will be kept private) Summary (provides the first paragraph of text for the article and is included in the word count): Located in the southwest corner of Missouri, McDonald County borders Arkansas and Oklahoma. Situated within the Ozark Plateau, it is characterized by a mixture of rugged hills, scenic ridges and river valleys, rolling prairie, towering limestone bluffs, and upland forest. The origins of its nickname, “Snake County,” are obscure, but the name may have been prompted by the large number of snakes found in and around the county’s many streams and caves. Although it remains predominantly rural, McDonald County is included in the Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, Arkansas, Metropolitan Statistical Area, and serves as a bedroom community for these larger Arkansas towns.1 Home to Elk River, Big and Little Sugar Creeks, and Indian Creek, it is known for its scenic beauty and tourism industry. Body text (it is preferred that the text be organized chronologically, with or without subheadings): Pre-European Exploration Archaeological excavations have shown that McDonald County has been inhabited by humans for thousands of years.2 At the time of European contact, the Osage occupied the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Investigations Program SURVEY of the ELK RIVER
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist Water Investigations Program SURVEY OF THE ELK RIVER SYSTEM IN ALABAMA FOR FISH SPECIES OF MODERATE TO HIGHEST CONSERVATION CONCERN: REPORT OF RESULTS FOR 2004 OPEN-FILE REPORT 0506 by Thomas E. Shepard, Patrick E. O'Neil, Stuart W. McGregor, and Maurice F. Mettee Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2004 CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 1 Introduction.......................................................... 2 Study area .......................................................... 3 Methods ............................................................ 6 Results and discussion................................................. 6 Conclusions ........................................................ 35 Literature cited ...................................................... 36 APPENDICES A. Collection results for fish samples in the Elk River system, 2004 . 39 B. Abundance and catch per unit effort (CPUE) for 12 fish species of conservation concern and two nonnative species in the Elk River system, 2004. 70 ILLUSTRATIONS 1. The Elk River system in Alabama and Tennessee . 4 2. Sampling stations in the Elk River system, 2004 . 11 3. Sampling stations where the boulder darter, Etheostoma wapiti, was collected in the Elk River system, 2004 ..................................... 16 4. Sampling
    [Show full text]
  • Elk River Watershed Elk River
    WV Division of Water Resources An Ecological Assessment the Elk River Watershed West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resources This report summarizes the data collected in the Elk River Watershed by the Watershed Assessment Program in 1997. It includes: An Ecological Assessment of the ● ● ● ●● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● Elk River Watershed ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Water Quality Information ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● from 151 sites; ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●●● ●● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●●● ● ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● ●● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Fecal Coliform Bacteria (colonies / 100ml) ● 0 - 399 ● 400 - 1999 ● > 2000 60 64 80 68 Biological Health Information 74 77 76 82 62 (Macrobenthic invertebrates) 66 42 66 74 from 135 sites; 71 51 76 53 Average WVSCI Scores 70 Bad <42 43 - 53 54 - 64 65 - 71 72 - 77 Good 78 - 82 And physical habitat and landuse pattern information that help us identify and understand the impairments that are affecting the streams of West Virginia. Cropland and Pasture Deciduous Forest Land Evergreen Forest Land Residential, Urban, Industrial Mixed Forest Land Strip Mines; Quarries; and Gravel Pits Nonforested Wetlands Transitional Areas Orchards; Groves; Vineyards; Nurseries Transportation; Communications Reservoirs Watershed Assessment Program Watershed Assessment Program The Elk River Watershed 1 An Ecological Assessment of the Elk River Watershed Report number - 05050007 - 1997 prepared by: Watershed Assessment Program Division
    [Show full text]
  • Elk River Watershed Association Phase I TMDL Report
    Elk River Watershed Association Phase I TMDL Report Elk River Bacteria and Turbidity TMDL Big Elk Lake and Mayhew Lake Nutrient TMDLs Prepared by: Elk River Watershed Association 14855 Hwy 10 Elk River, MN 55330 (763) 241-1170 ext. 3 January 2009 WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 wq-iw8-14h Table of Contents ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................V 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION/ PROBLEM STATEMENT........................................................... 2-1 3.0 APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS .................................................... 3-1 4.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................... 4-1 4.1 General Watershed Characteristics...................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Subwatersheds ....................................................................................... 4-3 4.1.2 Land Use................................................................................................ 4-4 4.1.3 Topography and Soils............................................................................ 4-7 4.1.4 Climate and Meteorological Data.......................................................... 4-7 4.1.5 Hydrology.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Graduate Follow-Up Report 2008—2009 2008-2009 UMD Graduate Follow-Up Report
    UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DULUTH Graduate Follow-up Report 2008—2009 2008-2009 UMD Graduate Follow-up Report Table of Contents Highlights of the Class of 2008-2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Annual Statistics Comparison ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Internship and Study Abroad Participation .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Baccalaureate Statistics ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Baccalaureate Teaching Statistics ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Reported Annual Salaries...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Follow-up
    [Show full text]
  • Light Rail Update
    Big Lake Elk River Ramsey Anoka Coon Rapids Oak Grove Parkway OSSEO METRO Blue Line (LRT): Open 93rd Ave M ISSI METRO Red Line (BRT): Open SS BROOKLYN IPPI METRO Green Line (LRT): Open PARK RI (BRT): Est. 2019 V METRO Orange Line E 85th Ave R METRO Green Line extension (LRT): 2018 METRO Blue Line extension (LRT): TBD METRO Red Line extension (BRT): TBD Brooklyn Blvd Station under consideration Station Fridley BROOKLYN Metro Transit Northstar Line (commuter rail) CENTER updated 11/11/14 63rd Ave CRYSTAL Bass Lake Rd ROBBINSDALE Robbinsdale e v in A p e nn Golden e H Valley Rd t/ e e c a v it i z GOLDEN h tr la st e s a g n A d ll t P a k VALLEY n n Wlv a ill r e a e Di n E k k a P V s w n n Plymouth Ave u t M men o a a m V t P B o le n t u c h l r t B t B i re o e wn s s pe a ic v o e a tad s o E S ro te W N G D W P a e g v Target Field st e d A y t W w mon e e e k e e S Royalston y v v v t v ic - a n P R t r R e A o n A / MINNEAPOLIS a w A g A n t ia S t r l t S Van White d ie in li g r e to r e e v ll in o t i e d r m x t e S s p b C i ai ne a e ic al e a o rs F S H L V D W C R Penn e v n Ri li k t n e 21st St ra v h S Lake St F A t 10 l a t/ tr n e S en West Lake k w C Union Depot a to L id t M Beltline th S 8 3 t ST.
    [Show full text]