DOCSLIB.ORG

Redwood River Turbidity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Redwood River Turbidity Redwood River Turbidity Total Maximum Daily Load Report Draft – March, 2011 For Submission to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 Chicago, Illinois Submitted by: Project Technical Team Local project support: Douglas Goodrich, Shawn Wohnoutka – Redwood Cottonwood Rivers Control Area Advisory Committee members Minnesota Pollution Control Agency project support and management: Mark T. Hanson, Regional Division—Marshall Kelli Daberkow, Regional Division—Marshall i Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Project Background ..................................................................................... 6 2.0 Watershed Characteristics ..................................................................................... 7 2.1 Demographics ............................................................................................... 7 2.2 Location and Topography ............................................................................ 9 2.3 Land Use ..................................................................................................... 13 2.4 Temperature ................................................................................................ 16 2.5 Precipitation ................................................................................................ 16 2.6 Stream Flow Dynamics .............................................................................. 17 3.0 Description of Applicable Water Quality Standards and Assessment Procedures ...................................................................................... 19 3.1 Classification and Beneficial Uses ........................................................... 19 3.2 Applicable Minnesota Water Quality Standards ...................................... 20 3.3 Impaired Assessment ................................................................................ 20 3.4 Fecal Coliform and E. coli Standards ....................................................... 27 3.5 Monthly Fecal Coliform Concentrations in the Redwood River ............. 27 3.6 MPCA Non-degradation Policy .................................................................. 28 3.7 Trends in Fecal Coliform Surface Water Quality ..................................... 28 4.0 Description of Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Its Sources .................................... 30 4.1 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Description ......................................................... 30 4.2 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Sources .............................................................. 30 4.2A Human Sources ............................................................................. 30 4.2B Livestock Sources ......................................................................... 32 4.2C Pet Sources ................................................................................... 37 4.2D Wildlife (Natural Background) Sources ....................................... 37 5.0 TMDL Development for the Redwood River Watershed .................................... 39 5.1 Approach to Allocations Needed to Satisfy the TMDLs .......................... 39 5.2 Components of TMDL Allocations ............................................................ 41 5.2A Wasteload Allocation .................................................................... 42 5.2B Load Allocations ........................................................................... 43 5.2C Margin of Safety ............................................................................ 43 5.2D Reserve Capacity .......................................................................... 44 5.3 TMDL Allocations for Individual Impaired Reaches ................................ 47 5.3.1 Redwood River; Ramsey Creek to Minnesota River .................. 47 5.3.2 Redwood River; Clear Creek to Redwood Lake ......................... 52 5.3.3 Clear Creek; Headwaters to Redwood River .............................. 56 5.3.4 Redwood River; T111 R42W S33 Westline to Threemile Creek – Below Marshall .............................................. 60 5.3.5 Redwood River; T111 R42W S33 Westline to Threemile Creek – Above Marshall .............................................. 64 5.3.6 Threemile Creek; Headwaters to Redwood River ...................... 68 5.3.7 Redwood River; Headwaters to Coon Creek .............................. 72 ii 5.3.8 Tyler Creek; Headwaters to Redwood River ............................... 77 5.3.9 Coon Creek; Lake Benton to Redwood River ............................. 81 6.0 Margin of Safety (MOS) ......................................................................................... 85 7.0 Seasonal Variation ................................................................................................ 85 8.0 Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 87 9.0 Implementations .................................................................................................... 87 9.1 Implementation through Source Reduction Strategies ........................... 87 9.2 Locally Targeted Implementation .............................................................. 90 10.0 Reasonable Assurance ....................................................................................... 92 10.1 Evidence of BMP Implementability ......................................................... 92 10.2 Non-regulatory, Regulatory, and Incentive-Based Approaches ........... 93 11.0 Public Participation ............................................................................................. 94 12.0 References ........................................................................................................... 95 iii Figures 2.01 Map of Population Centers in the Redwood River Watershed .......................... 8 2.02 Location Map of Redwood River Watershed ..................................................... 10 2.03 Elevation Map of Redwood River Watershed.................................................... 11 2.04 Average Monthly Temperatures ......................................................................... 16 2.05 Precipitation Data; Redwood River Watershed (1971-2000) ............................ 17 2.06 Mean Monthly Flow; Redwood River at Redwood Falls (1940-2000) .............. 17 2.07 Mean Monthly Flow; Redwood River at Marshall (1940-2000) ......................... 18 3.01 Water Monitoring sites in Redwood River Watershed ..................................... 23 3.02 E. coli – Fecal Coliform Ratio ............................................................................. 27 3.03 Redwood River Watershed Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean by Sampling Site (1997-2006) ................................................................... 28 3.04 Redwood River, at North Redwood, Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean by Decade .................................................................................................. 29 3.05 Redwood River, at North Redwood, Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean by Half-Decade .......................................................................................... 29 4.01 2003 Registered Feedlots in the Redwood Watershed .................................... 36 5.01 Redwood River Flow Duration Curve Daily Mean (1940-2006) ........................ 40 5.3.x Figures for Individual Reaches ......................................................................... 47 5.3.xA Map of Sub-watersheds 5.3.xB Monthly Geometric Mean Fecal Coliform Concentrations 1997-2006 7.01 Seasonal Variation of Fecal Coliform (cfu/100mL) & Flow (MGD) At Site RR1 ........................................................................................................... 86 iv Tables 1.01 Redwood River Watershed Impaired Reaches Descriptions and Assessment Summaries ............................................................................................................. 5 2.01 Local Units of Government in the Redwood River Watershed .......................... 7 2.02 Redwood River Watershed Land Use by County in Acres and Percentages ......................................................................................................... 14 2.03 Redwood River Land Use by Impaired Reach .................................................. 15 2.04 Cumulative Land Use in the Redwood River Watershed by Impaired Reach .............................................................................................. 15 3.01 RWR-1 site: 1974-2006 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Sampling by Month ............. 24 3.02 Fecal Coliform Bacteria Sampling Data in the Redwood River Watershed, all sites: 1999-2006 ......................................................................... 25 3.03 Redwood River Watershed Assessment Site Descriptors .............................. 26 4.01 Wastewater Treatment Facilities in the Redwood Watershed ......................... 31 4.02 Redwood River “Unsewered” Communities ..................................................... 31 4.03 Redwood River Watershed Feedlot Inventory .................................................. 34 4.04 Inventory of Fecal Coliform Producers in the Watershed ..............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geology and Ground-Water Conditions of the Redwood Falls Area ' F County, Minnesota
    Geology and Ground-Water Conditions of the Redwood Falls Area ' f County, Minnesota f GEORGE R. SCHINER and ROBERT SCHNEIDER ONTRIBOTJONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1669-R ^repared in*eooperation with the division of Waters, Minnesota department of Conservation, and he city of Redwood Falls NITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 k UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR' STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract________________________________________________________ Rl Int«oduction_____________ _________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope_____________________________________________ 2 Methods of investigation_____________________________________ 2 Previous reports_____________________________________________ 3 Acknowledgments _____________________________________________ 3 Well-numbering system______________________._________________ 4 Geography______________________________________________________ 5 Location_____________________________________________________ 5 Culture. _»_-__--___________________________________ 5 Climate-______-_-_--____----_--_-_______-________-_______-___ 6 Topography and drainage______-_______._______________________ 6 Geology.-'-----_-_----------------------_---_-_----------__---___ 7 Summary of geologic history_____________-______________________ 7 Geologic units and their water-bearing
    [Show full text]
  • History Inventory Form
    MINNESOTA ARCHITECTURE - HISTORY INVENTORY FORM Project: Local Historic Bridge Study - Phase II Redwood Falls, Redwood County, Minnesota Identification SHPO Inventory Number RW-RFC-018 Historic Name Bridge 89859 / Ramsey Park Swayback Bridge Review and Compliance Number Current Name Bridge 89859 Form (New or Updated) Updated Field # Description Address N/A East Oak Street (CSAH 31) over Minnesota River Linear Feature? No City/Twp Redwood Falls HPC Status: Unknown County Redwood Resource Type Structure Architect/Engineer WPA Legal Desc. Twp 113 Range 36 Sec 36 QQ SWNE Style No Style USGS Quad REDWOOD FALLS Construction Date 1938 UTM Zone 15N Datum NAD83 Easting 331223 Northing 4935262 Original Use Transportation Property ID (PIN) Current Use Transportation Description Bridge 89859, also known as the Ramsey Park Swayback Bridge, is located in Alexander Ramsey Park in Redwood Falls, Redwood County, Minnesota. The bridge was constructed in 1938 and is owned by Redwood County. It has a southwest to northeast alignment and carries CSAH 31 (East Oak Street) over the Redwood River. Alexander Ramsey Park is a 219-acre municipal park located north of downtown Redwood Falls. The area northeast of the bridge is surrounded by wooded parkland, parking areas, and the Ramsey Park Zoo. The area southwest of the bridge is wooded parkland with trails and a parking area. The Redwood River follows a generally northwest to southeast alignment through the park, and has banks lined with trees, riprap, and soil. There are several islands in the river, including one upstream of the bridge and a smaller one immediately downstream. The Ramsey Park Swayback Bridge is a multi-span, Rustic Style, reinforced-concrete slab bridge that is faced with North Redwood granite.
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood County, Minnesota Comprehensive Plan
    REDWOOD COUNTY, MINNESOTA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FINAL DRAFT DOCUMENT) October 15, 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This plan was prepared with input provided by citizens of Redwood County, members of the Redwood County Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (Redwood County Board and Planning Commission), and Redwood County staff Redwood County Board: - Brian Kletscher (District 1) - John Schueller (District 2) - Al Kokesch (District 3) - Joseph Schouvieller (past District 3) - Bruce Tolzmann (District 4) - Gene Short (District 5) Redwood County Planning Commission: - David Zwach (District 1) - David Moldan (District 2) - John Hogan (District 3) - Calvin Jensen (District 4) - William Moldestad (District 5) Staff: - Jon Mitchell, Director Environmental Office - Brian Green, Environmental Officer - Brent Lang, Drainage Inspector - Brian Sams, Recycling Coordinator - Gail Prokosch, Office Assistant - Patty Vollmer, Office Assistant Redwood County Comprehensive Plan Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................1 What is a Comprehensive Plan .......................................1 What is the Authority of a Comprehensive Plan...............1 How Should the Comprehensive Plan be Used ................1 Process for Developing the Plan .....................................2 Approach to Plan Development ......................................5 Redwood County History ...............................................7 THE EARTH ...................................................................9 Natural Environment
    [Show full text]
  • Redwood River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report
    Watershed health June 2020 Redwood River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report Authors Dan Fettig Jordan Donatell Joel Chirhart Kelli Nerem Mark Gernes David Duffey Bruce Monson Kim Laing Lee Engel Pam Anderson Contributors/acknowledgements Redwood Cottonwood River Control Area 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-ws3-07020006 Contents Contents ......................................................................................................................................................... i Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ ii Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... iii List of acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ v Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Stream Runoff and Climate in Minnesota's River Basins
    ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Project Report No. 543 Annual Stream Runoff and Climate in Minnesota’s River Basins by Todd R. Vandegrift and Heinz G. Stefan September 2010 Minneapolis, Minnesota ABSTRACT Stream flows recorded by the USGS from 1946 to 2005 at 42 gauging stations in the five major river basins of Minnesota and tributaries from neighboring states were analyzed and related to associated climate data. Goals of the study were (1) to determine the strength of the relationships between annual and seasonal runoff and climatic variables in these river basins, (2) to make comparisons between the river basins of Minnesota, and (3) to determine trends in stream flows over time. Climatic variables were air temperature, precipitation, the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), and the Palmer Hydrological Drought Index (PHDI); the latter are common indices of soil moisture. Water year averages showed stronger correlations than calendar year averages. Precipitation was a good predictor of stream flow, but the PDSI was the best predictor and slightly better than PHDI when linear regressions at the annual timescale were used. With an exponential regression PDSI gave a significantly better fit to runoff data than PHDI. Five-year running averages made precipitation almost as good a predictor of stream flow (runoff) as PDSI. A seasonal time scale analysis revealed a logical stronger dependence of stream flow on precipitation during summer and fall than during the winter and spring, but all relationships for seasonal averages were weaker than for annual (water year) averages. Dependence of stream runoff on PDSI did not vary significantly by season.
    [Show full text]
  • By D. G. Adolphson Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4030
    AVAILABILITY AND CHEMICAL QUALITY OF WATER FROM SURFICIAL AQUIFERS IN SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA By D. G. Adolphson U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4030 Prepared in cooperation with the SOUTHWEST REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION and the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES St. Paul, Minnesota 1983 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director ._» - .; : ?- f «* For additonal information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch 702 Post Office Building U.S. Geological Survey St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Box 25425, Federal Center Telephone: (612) 725-7841 Denver, Colorado 80225 Telephone: (303) 234-5888 CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................................................. 1 Introduction.............................................................. 1 Background........................................................... 1 Purpose and scope..................................................... 2 Location, extent, and climate ........................................... 2 Methods ............................................................. 2 Previous investigations................................................. 2 Well and test-hole numbering system..................................... 4 Glossary ............................................................. 4 Physiography and surficial geology......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Achievements Report 2014 Annual Report to the U.S
    Watershed Achievements Report 2014 Annual Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act Section 319, Clean Water Legacy and Clean Water Partnership Projects in Minnesota This page left blank intentionally. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency www.pca.state.mn.us On the cover: they furnish a perennial base of streamflow by ground water discharge. Cover photo courtesy of Daniel Dix. Non-tourists kayaking in Water supplies are obtained from wells tapping Pleistocene the Cottonwood River near New Ulm. glacial deposits, Cretaceous sandstone, Cambrian sandstone, From: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document. and Precambrian crystalline rocks. The most accessible and html?gid=10414 widely used aquifers are beds of sand and gravel buried in the glacial deposits. The 1,284 square mile Cottonwood River Watershed is situated between the Little Cottonwood River Sub-Watershed to the Dominant regional ground water flow is northeastward from east and the Redwood River Watershed to the west. The the topographic high in the southwest toward the Minnesota watershed drains sections of Lyon, Murray, Cottonwood, River. Local flow patterns indicate ground water discharging Redwood, and Brown counties. The River itself originates in into rivers and creeks. Most of the Cottonwood River the Northern Glaciated Ecoregion on top of the Coteau des Watershed is an area of ground water recharge, indicated by a Prairies or “Highland of the Prairies,” an impressive morainal decreased in hydraulic potential as depth below land surface plateau and important drainage divide, so named by French increases. explorers. Except for a few isolated wetlands set aside by state The dissolved solids and water type in surficial aquifers (less and federal agencies, many of the Coteau’s wetlands have than 100 feet deep) depend on mineral composition of the been drained and converted to cultivated fields.
    [Show full text]
  • Cottonwood River Watershed
    Minnesota River Basin 2010 Progress Report Cottonwood River Watershed OTTONWOOD RIVER WATERSHED C Located on the west side of the Minnesota River, the Cottonwood River Watershed encompasses 1,310 square miles or drains approximately 840,200 acres. Originating on the Coteau des Prairies (an impressive morainal plateau and important drainage divide), the Cottonwood River flows eastward approximately 150 miles to the Minnesota River with a drop in elevation of about 750 feet. Nearly all wetlands have been drained by a highly efficient and interconnected artificial drainage system. Major tributaries of the Cottonwood River are Highwater/Dutch Charley Creek, Plum Creek, Lone Tree Creek, Meadow Creek and Sleepy Eye Creek. There are over 36,000 people living in the watershed that includes parts of Brown, Cottonwood, Lyon, Murray and Redwood counties. Cottonwood River at Flandrau State Park 3. Vision for 1. Cottonwood Conservation 4. Cottonwood Soil and River Restoration 2. Conservation Water Conservation District Project Drainage 7. Redwood SWCD – 5. Redwood Soil and Water 6. Redwood SWCD – On-the-Road Meetings Conservation District Wetland Restorations The Cottonwood River is a translation of the Dakota name for cottonwood Waraju. The river was named from the abundance of this tree on its banks. Early French explorer Joseph Nicollet stated that the most important village of the Sisseton Dakota was on the its north bank near its junction with the Minnesota River. – Warren Upham, Minnesota Place Names – A geographical Encyclopedia Page 90 Minnesota River Basin 2010 Progress Report Cottonwood River Watershed C OTTONWOOD RIVER WATERSHED along with nutrients and sediment from entering the The joint-powers organization, Redwood- Cottonwood, the Minnesota, the Mississippi rivers and Cottonwood River Control Area (RCRCA) has been a eventually contributing to the Gulf of Mexico’s ‘dead major influence with studying and partnering with zone.’ By controlling the amount of water leaving his other groups and government agencies to improve water quality in this major watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Flow Response to Climate in Minnesota
    ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Project Report No. 510 Stream Flow Response to Climate in Minnesota by Filiz Dadaser-Celik and Heinz G. Stefan Prepared for Legislative Citizens Committee on Minnesota Resources St. Paul, Minnesota April 2009 Minneapolis, Minnesota 1 The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap, age or veteran status. 2 Abstract The variability of stream flows in Minnesota, and the relationship between stream flows and climate are the focus of this report. We analyze historical flow records of Minnesota streams to determine how much frequency and magnitude of flows have been affected by climate and land use changes. Flow duration analysis, high and low flow ranking, and flood frequency analysis were applied to recorded mean daily stream flows, 7-day average low flows, and annual peak flows. Data from 36 gauging stations located in five river basins of Minnesota (Minnesota River, Rainy River, Red River of the North, Lake Superior, and Upper Mississippi River Basins) covering the 1946-2005 period were used. To detect any changes that have occurred over time, data from the 1986-2005 and the 1946-1965 periods of record were analyzed separately. Flow duration curves were prepared for all gauging stations, and low flows (Q90, Q95), medium flows (Q50), and high flows (Q5, Q10) in the two time periods were examined. Multiple stream gauging stations in the same river basin generally showed consistent changes in stream flows, although deviations from a typical river basin pattern were noted at a few gauging stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River Basin Redwood River Watershed
    Minnesota River Basin Redwood River Watershed • Physiography and Description • Geology and Land Use • Climate • Water Quality o Ground Water o Surface Water • Recreation • References Physiography And Description The 703 square mile, Redwood River Watershed, is situated between the Yellow Medicine River Watershed to the east and the Cottonwood River Watershed to the west. The headwaters of the Redwood River begin in the Northern Glaciated Ecoregion on top of the Coteau des Prairies or "Highland of the Prairies," an impressive morainal plateau and important drainage divide, so named by French explorers. Except for a few isolated wetlands set aside by state and federal agencies, many of the Coteau's wetlands have been drained and converted to cultivated fields. In addition, a large proportion of the Coteau's small creeks and streams have been ditched and straightened, permitting earlier planting and allowing more acres to be placed into production. The Redwood River wanders around the corners of Lincoln, Pipestone, Murray, and Lyon counties as a temporary stream, then flows northeast toward the slope of the Coteau, Characterized by landscapes with long northeast facing slopes of moderate steepness, the majority of the Coteau (72%) is classified as having moderate to high water erosion potential. It is well drained southwestern side sheds water into the Big Sioux River while on the other side of the divide, waters flow across well drained loamy soils and into the Des Moines and Minnesota rivers. Between Russell and Marshall, the Redwood drops off the Coteau and falls nearly 300 feet over a span of approximately fifteen miles. In this reach, where it tumbles along the bottom of a wooded valley 100 feet deep is Camden State Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Discharges in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1993
    F L O O D D I S C H A R G E S IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN 9 9 3 U.S . GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1120-A Front Cover-View of Highway 67, West Alton, Missouri, (Srenco Photography, St . Louis, Mo.) Back Cover-View of Spirit of St . Louis Airport, Chesterfield, Mo. (Srenco Photography, St. Louis, Mo.) Field Hydrologist making streamflow measurements (U.S . Geological Survey) FLOOD DISCHARGES IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN, 1993 By Charles Parrett, Nick B . Melcher, and Robert W . James, Jr . Floods in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, 1993 U .S . GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1120-A U.S . DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S . GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Robert M . Hirsch, Acting Director First Printing August 27, 1993 Second Printing (with revisions) September 24, 1993 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1993 Free on application to the U.S . Geological Survey Map Distribution Box 25286, MS 306 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 FOREWORD During spring and summer 1993, record flooding inundated much of the upper Mississippi River Basin . The magnitude of the damages-in terms of property, disrupted business, and per­ sonal trauma-was unmatched by any other flood disaster in United States history . Property dam age alone is expected to exceed $10 billion . Damaged highways and submerged roads disrupted overland transportation throughout the flooded region . The Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers were closed to navigation before and after the flooding . Millions of acres of productive farmland remained under water for weeks during the growing season. Rills and gullies in many tilled fields are the result of the severe erosion that occurred throughout the Midwestern United States farm­ belt .
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River 905(B)
    MINNESOTA RIVER BASIN RECONNAISSANCE STUDY Section 905(b) Analysis (WRDA of 1986) Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Iowa December 2004 Minnesota River Basin Table of Contents 1 STUDY AUTHORITY..............................................................................................................1 2 STUDY PURPOSE....................................................................................................................1 3 LOCATION, CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.......................................................................2 3.1 Location ..............................................................................................................................2 3.2 Congressional Districts .......................................................................................................4 4 PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS, AND EXISTING WATER PROJECTS .................................4 4.1 Existing Corps of Engineers Projects .................................................................................4 4.2 Corps of Engineers Constructed Projects ...........................................................................5 4.3 Other Water Resources Projects .........................................................................................5 4.4 Recent Emergency Actions.................................................................................................6 4.5 Ongoing Corps of Engineers Studies..................................................................................6 4.6 Previous Corps of Engineers
    [Show full text]