DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrologic and Water-Quality Data for Streams and Impoundments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydrologic and Water-Quality Data for Streams and Impoundments HYDROLOGIC AND WATER-QUALITY DATA FOR STREAMS AND IMPOUNDMENTS IN THE COTEAU DES PRAIRIES--UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN, 1979-84 By C. J. Smith, G. A. Payne, and L. H. Tornes U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 88-84 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS U.S. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE St. Paul, Minnesota 1990 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Building 41 702 Post Office Building Box 25425 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract.................................................................. 1 Introduction.............................................................. 2 Purpose and scope.................................................... 2 Acknowledgements..................................................... 3 Study area................................................................ 3 Climate.............................................................. 3 Geology and soil..................................................... 3 Sample sites......................................................... 5 Methods of data collection................................................ 7 Stream sites.................................................... 7 Impoundment sites............................................... 9 References cited.......................................................... 44 Tables of data............................................................ 45 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Monthly precipitation and departure from normal precipitation at Canby, Minnesota. (Data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (1979-84)........................ 4 2. Location of sampling sites..................................... 6 3-12. Graph showing discharge hydrographs and sample collection at: 3. LaBolt Impoundment inlet near LaBolt, South Dakota......... 10 4. LaBolt Impoundment outlet near Labolt, South Dakota........ 11 5. Florida Creek near Burr, Minnesota......................... 12 6. Lac Qui Parle River near Canby, Minnesota.................. 13 7. Dillon-Syltie Impoundment inlet near Porter, Minnesota..... 14 8. Dillon-Syltie Impoundment outlet near Porter, Minnesota.... 16 9. Lake Laura Impoundment north inlet near Walnut Grove, Minnesota................................................ 18 10. Lake Laura Impoundment south inlet near Walnut Grove, Minnesota................................................ 19 11. Lake Laura Impoundment outlet near Walnut Grove, Minnesota................................................ 20 12. Dry Creek near Jeffers, Minnesota.......................... 21 TABLES Table 1. Name and drainage area of reconnaissance-sampling sites........ 22 2. General description of intensively sampled sites............... 33 3. Type of data collected, 1980-84 water years.................... 41 4 One-time chemical analyses of bed material at impoundments, 1982-83 water years.......................................... 43 iii TABLES Page 5a-5o. La Bolt Impoundment sites (tributary to Yellow Bank River) La Bolt Impoundment inlet 5a. Water-discharge data........ ^ ............................. 47 5b. Water-quality data ......... 4 ............................. 49 5c. Suspended-sediment data .................................. 53 5d. Sediment-size data ....................................... 53 La Bolt Impoundment 5e. Monthly stage data ....................................... 54 5f. Water-quality-profile data ............................... 55 5g. Water-quality data ....................................... 59 5h. Bed-material-chemical and partical-size data ............. 65 5i. Phytoplankton data ....................................... 66 La Bolt Impoundment outlet 5j. Water-discharge data ..................................... 75 5k. Water-quality data ....................................... 77 - 51. Suspended-sediment data .................................. 81 5m. Sediment-size data ....................................... 81 5n. Daily observers rainfall data, (farm upstream of La Bolt Impoundment inlet) 4 ............................. 82 5o. Daily observers rainfall data, (farm downstream of La Bolt Impoundment outlet)............................. 83 6a-6f. Webber Impoundment sites (tributary to Lac Qui Parle River) Webber Impoundment inlet 6a. Water-quality data ....................................... 86 Webber Impoundment 6b. Water-quality-profile data . j ............................. 88 6c. Water-quality data ....................................... 91 6d. Bed-material-chemical and patftical-size data ............. 95 6e. Phytoplanton data ........................................ 96 6f. Daily observers rainfall data, (farm downstream of Webber Impoundment)....... * ............................. 102 7a-7e. West Branch Lac Qui Parle River (l^QP-28) 7a. Maximum annual peak-discharge data........................ 104 7b. Water-quality data ....................................... 105 7c. Suspended-sediment data................................... 109 7d. Sediment-size data........................................ 109 7e. Daily observers rainfall data, (farm upstream of gage).... 110 8a-8g. Florida Creek (LQP-3) 8a. Water-discharge data...................................... Ill 8b. Water-quality data........................................ 113 8c. Suspended-sediment data. .... t ............................. 121 8d. Sediment-partical-size data............................... 123 8e. Daily observers rainfall data, (site 1, upstream of gaging station) 124 8f. Daily observers rainfall data, (site 2, upstream of gaging station)......................................... 125 8g. Daily observers rainfall data, (near gaging station)...... 127 iv TABLES Page 9a-9i. Lac Qui Parle River (LQP-8) 9a. Water-discharge data...................................... 129 9b. Water-quality data........................................ 132 9c. Suspended-sediment data................................... 140 9d. Sediment-size data........................................ 143 9e. Daily observers rainfall data, (site 1, upstream of gaging station)......................................... 144 9f. Daily observers rainfall data, (site 2, upstream of gaging station)......................................... 145 9g. Daily observers rainfall data, (site 3, upstream of gaging station)......................................... 146 9h. Daily observers rainfall data, (site 4, upstream of gaging station)......................................... 147 9i. Daily observer rainfall data, (near gaging station)....... 148 lOa-lOp. Dillon-Syltie Impoundment sites Dillon-Syltie Impoundment inlet lOa. Water-discharge data...................................... 150 lOb. Water-quality data........................................ 155 lOc. Suspended-sediment data................................... 163 lOd. Sediment-size data........................................ 165 Dillon-Syltie Impoundment lOe. Monthly-lake stage data................................... 166 lOf. Water-quality-profile data................................ 167 lOg. Water-quality data........................................ 171 lOh. Bed-material-chemical and partical-size data.............. 181 lOi. Phytoplanton data ........................................ 182 Dillon-Syltie Impoundment outlet 10j. Water-discharge data...................................... 197 10k. Water-quality data........................................ 202 101. Suspended-sediment data................................... 210 10m. Sediment-size data........................................ 212 lOn. Daily observers rainfall data, (site 1, upstream of inlet gaging station)................................... 213 lOo. Daily observers rainfall data, (site 2, upstream of inlet gaging station)................................... 217 lOp. Daily observers rainfall data, (upstream of Impoundment)............................................ 220 lla-llr. Lake Laura Impoundment sites Lake Laura Impoundment north inlet lla. Water-discharge data...................................... 222 lib. Water-quality data........................................ 223 lie. Suspended-sediment data................................... 227 lid. Sediment-size data........................................ 228 Lake Laura Impoundment south inlet lie. Water-discharge data...................................... 229 llf. Water-quality data........................................ 231 llg. Suspended-sediment data................................... 235 llh. Sediment-size data........................................ 236 TABLES Page Tables lla-llr. Lake Laura Impoundment sites*--Continued Lake Laura Impoundment 111. Monthly lake-stage data................................... 237 llj. Water-quality-profile data................................ 238 Ilk. Water-quality data........................................ 242 111. Bed-material-chemical and partical-size data.............. 246 llm. Phytoplanton data......................................... 247 Lake Laura Impoundment outlet lln. Water-discharge data...................................... 253 llo. Water-quality data.......... * ............................. 255 lip. Suspended-sediment data..... t ............................. 259 llq. Sediment-size data.......... ^ ............................. 262 12a-12f. Dry Creek (LCW-21) 12a.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin, Southwestern Minnesota and Eastern South Dakota
    Physical Characteristics of Stream Subbasins in the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin, Southwestern Minnesota and Eastern South Dakota By Christopher A. Sanocki Abstract Data that describe the physical characteristics of stream subbasins upstream from selected sites on streams in the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin, located in southwestern Minnesota and eastern South Dakota are presented in this report. The physical characteristics are the drainage area of the subbasin, the percentage area of the subbasin covered only by lakes, the percentage area of the subbasin covered by both lakes and wetlands, the main- channel length, and the main-channel slope. Stream sites include outlets of subbasins of at least 5 square miles, outlets of sewage treatment plants, and locations of U.S. Geological Survey low-flow, high-flow, and continuous- record gaging stations. Introduction watershed boundaries, which were used for parts of this report. These contributions were essential for the This is the 10th report in a series detailing subbasin completion of this report. characteristics of streams in Minnesota and adjacent states. The Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine River Basin drains an area of 2,070 square miles and is represented Methods by hydrologic accounting unit 07020004 (U.S. U.S. Geological Survey 7-1/2 minute series Geological Survey, 1974). The Hawk Creek-Yellow topographic maps were used as source maps to obtain Medicine River Basin includes parts of Yellow the areas for the subbasin boundaries, lakes, marshes, Medicine, Lac qui Parle, Lincoln, Lyon, Chippewa, the main-channel length, and the contour elevation Kandiyohi, Renville, and Redwood Counties in points used in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal: River Otter Delisting
    GAME, FISH, AND PARKS COMMISSION ACTION PROPOSAL State Threatened and Endangered Species Listings Chapter 41:10:02:04 Commission Meeting Dates: Proposal March 5-6, 2020 Pierre Public Hearing May 7, 2020 Custer State Park Finalization May 7-8, 2020 Custer State Park COMMISSION PROPOSAL Proposed change: Remove North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis) from list of state threatened mammals. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Recommended changes to proposal: None. SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION River otters were historically widespread across North America, including South Dakota in appropriate habitats. However, due to habitat loss and degradation and unregulated take during the early 20th century, river otter populations were drastically reduced, including likely extirpation from South Dakota. In 1978, river otters were included on the first list of South Dakota state threatened mammals. Several factors have allowed river otter populations to rebound across much of their former range, including reintroductions, improvements in wetland and river habitat management, and protections afforded under various state threatened and endangered species laws. In South Dakota, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe released 35 river otters along the Big Sioux River on tribal grounds in Moody County in 1998 and 1999. As part of a study to determine river otter distribution in the state, Kiesow and Dieter (2003) collected 34 confirmed reports of river otter in South Dakota. The majority (89%) of these reports occurred along the Big Sioux River; half occurred in Moody County. Melquist reported in 2015 that river otter distribution included the following: Big Sioux, Vermillion and James River drainages, Jorgenson River, Little Minnesota River, Whetstone River, Yellow Bank River, Jim Creek/Big Slough and the Missouri River downstream from Pierre (Melquist 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Map of Upper Sioux Agency State Park Trails and Facilities
    ©2019, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources MAP AND GUIDE: ABOUT THE PARK SO EVERYONE CAN ENJOY THE PARK... UPPER SIOUX AGENCY Upper Sioux Agency State Park was established in 1963 to STATE PARK preserve and interpret the remains of the historic site of A full set of STATE PARK RULES AND the Upper Sioux or Yellow Medicine Indian Agency. The REGULATIONS is available at mndnr.gov. 5908 HIGHWAY 67 Historic Upper Sioux Agency Site is managed by the GRANITE FALLS, MN 56241 PARK OPEN Minnesota Historical Society and offers self-led 8 a.m.–10 p.m. daily. YELLOW MEDICINE COUNTY opportunities. Be sure to explore the park’s diverse 320-564-4777 landscapes covering 1,280 acres of the Minnesota River VEHICLE PERMITS and its confluence with the Yellow Medicine River. You’ll Permits required; purchase at park office or entrance kiosk. find open prairie knolls, bluffs and cool, wooded slopes. A VISITOR TIPS visit will reveal trails that are perfect for horseback riding, PETS WELCOME • The park office is open Memorial hiking, snowshoeing and snowmobiling. Reserve a tipi for a unique experience. Keep on 6-foot leash; pick up after; attend at all times; not allowed in Day weekend to Labor Day buildings or at beaches. weekend on Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday afternoons. TRAIL HIGHLIGHTS − CAMPGROUND QUIET HOURS • Contact at the park November 10 p.m.– 8 a.m.; only registered campers may be in campground during quiet hours. through March may be sparse. Hiking Club Trail 4.3-mile loop • Trails are shared with horses; all Hilly • Mowed grass • Packed dirt FIREWOOD dogs must be leashed.
    [Show full text]
  • Lac Qui Parle County Water Plan (2014-2023) ~ Table of Contents ~
    Lac qui Parle County Local Water Management Plan Serving the Years 2014-2023 ~ With 2014-2018 Implementation Plan ~ Prepared by The Lac qui Parle County Resource Commission, with assistance from Midwest Community Planning, LLC Lac qui Parle County Resource Commission ~ The Resource Commission works to coordinate and guide water resource management in Lac qui Parle County ~ Graylen Carlson County Commissioner (as appointed by the County Board) Darrell Ellefson Watershed Manager (as appointed by the Watershed District) Bob Ludvigson SWCD Supervisor (as appointed by the SWCD) Dave Craigmile Planning & Zoning (as appointed by the Planning & Zoning Board) Mark Bourne Township Officer (selection at discretion of the County Board) Members-At-Large Jeff Rheingans ~ Crops Jim Nesvold ~ Well Sealer Ron Enger ~ Livestock/Cattle Jerry Stensrud ~ Septics Kay Fernholz ~ Organic Jeff Olson ~ Seed Dealer/Edible Beans John Plathe ~ Crops James Barthel ~ Livestock/Dairy Mark Hastad ~ Crops Myron Anhalt ~ Livestock/Turkeys Local Units of Government Jennifer Breberg ~ Environmental Officer Trudy Hastad ~ LqPYB Watershed District Grant Bullemer ~ LqP SWCD Jon Radermacher ~ City of Madison Sonja Farmer ~ City of Marietta Mary Homan ~ LqPYB Clean Water Partnership Agency Advisors Burton Hendrickson, Natural Resource Conservation Service David Sill, Board of Water and Soil Resources Stacy Salvevold, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brad Olson, Department of Natural Resources Katherine Pekarek-Scott, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Water Plan Coordinator ~ Terry Wittnebel, LqP SWCD District Manager Lac qui Parle County Water Plan (2014-2023) ~ Table of Contents ~ Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... iv A: Purpose of the Local Water Plan ........................................................................ iv B: A Description of Lac qui Parle County’s Priority Concerns ............................... v C: Summary of Goals, Objectives, Action Steps, and Estimated Cost ...................
    [Show full text]
  • ROOT RIVER ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN -I- SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District
    Cold Snap Photography Prepared For: Root River Planning Partnership Prepared By: Houston Engineering, Inc. Photo by Bob Joachim Root River Watershed | ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN List of PLan Abbreviations i Plan Definitions iii Executive Summary iv 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Preamble 1-1 1.2 Plan Area 1-1 1.3 Watershed Characteristics 1-4 1.4 Plan Overview 1-4 1.5 Plan Partners and Roles in Plan Development 1-5 1.6 Incorporating Comments into the Plan __________________1-7 2. ANALYSIS AND PRIORITIZATION OF RESOURCES, CONCERNS, AND ISSUES CAUSING CONCERN 2-1 2.1 Definitions 2-1 2.2 Identifying Potential Resource Concerns and Issues 2-2 2.3 Prioritizing Potential Resource Concerns and Issues 2-13 2.4 Priority Resource Concerns and Issues 2-14 2.4.1 "A" Level Priorities 2-14 2.4.1.1 Description and Resource Concern Locations 2-14 2.4.1.2 Issues Affecting "A" Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-18 2.4.2 "B" Level Priorities 2-18 2.4.2.1 Description and Landscape Locations 2-18 2.4.2.2 Issues Affecting “B” Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-26 2.4.3 "C" Level Priorities 2-26 2.4.3.1 Issues Affecting “C” Level Priority Resource Concerns 2-35 2.5 Use of Priority Categories in Plan Implementation 2-35 2.6 Emerging Issues 2-35 2.6.1 "Scientific and Technical Emerging Issues 2-36 2.61.1 Climate Change and Infrastructure Resilience 2-36 2.6.1.2 Endocrine Active Compounds 2-37 2.6.1.3 Water Movement Within a Karst Landscape 2-37 2.6.1.4 Improving Soil Health 2-37 2.6.1.5 Buffers for Public Waters and Drainage Systems 2-38 2.6.1.6 Invasive Species 2-38 2.6.1.7
    [Show full text]
  • Little Crow Historic Canoe Route
    Taoyateduta Minnesota River HISTORIC water trail BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA Twin Valley Council U.S.-Dakota War of 1862 AUGUST 17, 1862 The TA-OYA-TE DUTA Fish and Wildlife Minnesota River Historic Water Four Dakota men kill five settlers The Minnesota River Basin is a Trail, is an 88 mile water route at Acton in Meeker County birding paradise. The Minnesota stretching from just south of AUGUST 18 River is a haven for bird life and Granite Falls to New Ulm, Minne- several species of waterfowl and War begins with attack on the sota. The river route is named af- riparian birds use the river corri- Lower Sioux Agency and other set- ter Taoyateduta (Little Crow), the dor for nesting, breeding, and rest- tlements; ambush and battle at most prominent Dakota figure in ing during migration. More than the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862. Redwood Ferry. Traders stores 320 species have been recorded in near Upper Sioux Agency attacked the Minnesota River Valley. - The Minnesota River - AUGUST 19 Beneath the often grayish and First attack on New Ulm leading to The name Minnesota is a Da- cloudy waters of the Minnesota its evacuation; Sibley appointed kota word translated variously as River, swim a diverse fish popula- "sky-tinted water” or “cloudy-sky tion. The number of fish species commander of U.S. troops water". The river is gentle and and abundance has seen a signifi- AUGUST 20 placid for most of its course and cant rebound over the last several First Fort Ridgely attack. one will encounter only a few mi- years.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Funds, Sharing Expertise in the Yellow Medicine River
    ONE WATERSHED, ONE PLAN The Yellow Medicine River flows under Minnesota Highway 23 just north of Hanley Falls in Yellow Medicine County. The Yellow Medicine River Watershed was among five One Watershed, One Plan pilot projects funded in 2014. The watershed drains more than 665,000 acres in Yellow Medicine, Lincoln, Lyon and Lac qui Parle counties. Leveraging funds, sharing expertise in the Yellow Medicine River Watershed MARSHALL – In the Yellow middle of the watershed Medicine River Watershed, near Canby, agreed. Antony upstream projects are has phased out of full-time gaining downstream farming since his crop support as One Watershed, insurance business took off, One Plan catches on. but most of his constituents are farmers. The locally driven, “The watershed isn’t just watershed- isolated to our county. based Knutson Netzke Overholser As projects are being approach done upstream, it’s spans ultimately going to help us political River Watershed to leverage “If we’re putting those downstream,” Antony said. boundaries federal funds that will cut practices in and the money “This is how you have to as it landowners’ shared costs in upstream, you’re going to think, as a watershed, not as prioritizes and put more projects on see benefits downstream,” ‘I’m part of this county,’ or conservation the ground. said Michelle Overholser, ‘I’m part of this district.’” work with the potential to Yellow Medicine River make the biggest water- The watershed drains land in Watershed District Agriculture dominates the quality improvements. four counties, from Lincoln administrator. 665,073-acre watershed. County in the southwest to Most watershed districts in A $551,700 Clean Water the Minnesota River south of Yellow Medicine County this part of the state formed Fund implementation grant Granite Falls in Upper Sioux Commissioner Ron Antony, decades ago to alleviate allowed the Yellow Medicine Agency State Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Si@~Ili!Iiii~~I~11~~~~\\Ll\ 11111
    NCE LIBRARY si@~ili!iiii~~i~11~~~~\\ll\ 11111 This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp (Funding for document digitization was provided, in part, by a grant from the Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Program.) SH i73:5 ~M53 1989 MICROHABITAT CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STREAM FISHES AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSTREAM FLOW STUDIES IN MINNESOTA TECHNICAL REPORT 1987-1989 Report to the LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION on MINNESOTA RESOURCES Prepared by Luther Aadland Chantel Waltner Mary T. Negus Henry Drewes Charles Anderson Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Section of Fisheries June, 1989 PREFACE The quantity of water needed to maintain instream values, such as water-based recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, water quality, and navigation, must be determined to resolve water-use conflicts and wisely allocate water for offstream uses. Several methods for setting the protected flows are available, but not all address the habitat requirements of fish. The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a method of quantifying instream flow needs of fish by combining detailed hydraulic modeling with species-specific habitat suitability criteria to determine the "useable" habitat throughout a range of flows. The goal of this project was to develop habitat suitability curves which can be incorporated into instream flow models of Minnesota's warm water streams. These models will be used to determine flow regimes which optimize habitat for target species of fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River Basin Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed
    Minnesota River Basin Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed • Physiography and Description • Geology and Land Use • Climate • Water Quality o Ground Water o Surface Water • Recreation • References This report reflects the number and boundary delineations of earlier work done by the Minnesota River Assessment Project (MRAP), in which the Minnesota River Basin was divided into thirteen major watersheds. The majority of these watersheds contain the drainage area of only one of the Minnesota River's major tributaries, while the others contain a given reach of the Minnesota River as well as the tributaries and creeks joining the Minnesota along that reach. Among the latter is the Hawk Creek- Yellow Medicine River Watershed, classified as a major watershed of the Minnesota River it is actually two separate sub-watersheds, Hawk Creek on the north side of the Minnesota, and Yellow Medicine on the south side of the river. In addition, the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed also includes the section of the Minnesota River mainstem extending between the Lac Qui Parle Reservoir to just below the mouth of the Redwood River. Several smaller creeks draining their respective minor watersheds also join the section of the Minnesota River mainstem within the Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed, it is assumed, land use, geology, water quality, etc. within these minor watersheds is comparable to that within the Hawk Creek Watershed on the north side of the Minnesota River, or the Yellow Medicine Watershed on the south side of the river. Without installing monitoring equipment at each of the smaller tributaries, collective inputs from these minor watersheds can be calculated as being the residuals of Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine Watershed (Minnesota River inflow load plus Hawk Creek-Yellow Medicine load minus Minnesota River outflow load).
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Minnesota River Watershed Five Year Strategic Plan
    UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN In Cooperation With: East Dakota Water Development District South Dakota Conservation Districts South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Date: August 2012 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................8 1.1 Project Background and Scope ........................................................................8 1.2 Upper Minnesota River Watershed History ...................................................10 1.3 Upper Minnesota River Watershed Water Quality Studies ..........................13 1.4 Goals of the Upper Minnesota River Basin Project .......................................15 2.0 Causes and Sources of Impairment .......................................................................15 2.0.1 Geography, Soils, and Land Use....................................................................15 2.0.2 Water Bodies Studies and Current Status .....................................................24 2.1.0 Description of the Impairments for 303(d) Water Body Listings in the Upper Minnesota River Basin ............................................................29 2.1.1 Temperature ...................................................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Facility Permit
    Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Facility Permit Dakota Range III, LLC Dakota Range III Wind Power Facility Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Facility Permit Dakota Range III, LLC Dakota Range III Wind Power Facility Grant and Roberts Counties, South Dakota prepared by Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Centennial, Colorado COPYRIGHT © 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. Application for Facility Permit Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY .......................................................... 2-1 3.0 FACILITY PERMIT APPLICATION ................................................................... 3-1 4.0 COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST ....................................................................... 4-1 5.0 NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS (ARSD 20:10:22:06) .......................................... 5-1 6.0 NAME OF OWNER AND MANAGER (ARSD 20:10:22:07) ............................. 6-1 7.0 PURPOSE OF, AND DEMAND FOR, THE WIND ENERGY FACILITY (ARSD 20:10:22:08, 20:10:22:10) .................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Wind Resource Areas .......................................................................................... 7-2 7.2 Renewable Power Demand .................................................................................. 7-2 7.3 Consequences of Delay .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River Headwaters Watershed Characterization Report
    Minnesota River Headwaters Watershed Characterization Report MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES 1 2019 Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Table of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................................................... 11 Geology ............................................................................................................................................... 12 High Value Resources .......................................................................................................................... 15 Rare Natural Features ......................................................................................................................... 16 Native
    [Show full text]