NL llllllllllllIm EEEEEIIIIIIIEE IIIEEEEIIIEEEE *IIIIIIIIIIum. · ad-a099 290 iowa inst of...

AD-A099 290 IOWA INST OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH IOWA CITy F/B 8l/S

GREAT II UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER (GUTTENBERG, IOWA TO SAVERTON, ETC(UDEC 80 DACW25-78-C-0O48UNCLASSIFIED

NL. il3EEEEEEEEEEElllllEEEEEI

llllllllllllImEEEEEIIIIIIIEEIIIEEEEIIIEEEE*IIIIIIIIIIum.

Water QualityWork Grou p. Appendix.

AD AO 99 2

FINALDECEMBERGRAU

1~8O Upper Mississippi River(Guttenberg, Iowa to Saverton, Missouri)

fo pu'crla n ae tis u- li.e

8\1 506 4

GreatRim m~romerMActi Tea

TABLE. OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary .. .. ..................

I.INTRODUCTION................. . . . ... .. .. .. .....

A Studv Authowization and Development..... .. .. .. ..19, Studdi Purpose ared Scopc..... .. . .. .. .. .. ..

C.Stud,, lai iipation and Organization.... .. .. .. .. .D. Water Quality Work Group Organization .. ..... .... 2

11. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION..... .. . ... .. .. .. .. ..

A. Problem Identification Process. .. .... ......... 5B. 1979 Conditions .. ...... ........ .....C. Projected Conditions - 2025. .. .... ........... 8D. Statements of Problems. .. .... ........ .... 9E. Statement of Objectives.................F. Forn~ulation of Work Group Tasks. .. ....... .... 9

ill. WORK GROUP ACTIVITIES/ACCOMPLISHM ENT .. .. ...... 19

A. Water Quality Assessment Report .. ..... ....... 19B. Point Source Discharge Map .. .. ....... ...... 19C. Dredge Disposal Assessment. .. ..... ......... 19D. Laboratory Simulation of Desorption of Pollutants

From Dredged Sediments. .. ........ ..... 19

E. On-Site Inspection .. ..... ........ ...... 20F. Post-Disposal Evaluation. ... ........ ...... 20G. Work Group Meetings and Discussions. ... ........ 20H. Management Tool Development .. ...... ....... 20

IV. FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS. .21

A. Process. .. ..................... 21B. Work Group Recommendations. ...... ........ 22

Recommendation #1. ... ........ ...... 23Recommendation #2. ... ........ ...... 29Recommendation #3. ... ........ ...... 33Recommendation #4. ... ........ ...... 37Recommendation #5. ... ........ ...... 41Recommendation #6. ... ........ ...... 49Recommendation #7. ... ........ ...... 53Recommendation #8. ... .... .... ........ 7Recommendation #9. ... ........ ...... 61

V. SUMMARY .. .. ....... ........ ........ 67

Problem I .. ... ........ ........ ...... 67Problem 2 . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 67Problem 3 .. ... ........ ........ ...... 68

Tah(- f ()eris C"ontinued

........................ Page

P~4~. . 69Proble n 6 .* 69Problem 7.. ... ......... ........ ..... 70Problem 8 .. ... ........ ......... ..... 70Problem 9 .. ... ......... ........ ..... 70Problem 10. .... ........ ........ .... 70P'-Dlem 11 .. ........ ........ ........ 71

III obhjfni 15...........................72PL',nem -16... ....................... 72I'robierr 17. .... ........ ......... .... 72

Pr~~m18. .... ........ ........ ..... 72tioblem 19. .... ........ ......... ... 72

Po'Im20. .... ........ ......... ... 72C:Iluobiern 21 .. ........ ......... ....... 72Problem 22. .... ........ ......... ... 72Problem 23. .... ........ ........ ..... 72Problem 24. .... ........ ........ .... 73Problem 25. .... ........ ......... ... 73Problem 26. .... ........ ........ ..... 73Problem 27. .... ........ ......... ... 73Problem 28. .... ........ ........ ..... 74Problem 29. .... ........ ......... ... 74Problem 30. .... ........ ........ ..... 74Problem 31. .... ......... ........ ... 74Problem 32. .... ........ ......... ... 74Problem 33. .... ........ ......... ... 74Problem 34. .... ........ ........ ..... 75Problem 35. .... ........ ........ ..... 75

BIBLIOGRAPHY .. ...... ......... ....... 77

vOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. .. ....... ....... 79

N. A Summary and Discussion of Water Quality on theUpper Mississippi River. .. ...... ........ 81

1 Introduction .. ..... ........ ....... 8111 Major Ions. .. ..... ......... ...... 81'!! Nutrient Ions. .. .... ........ ....... 81IV Dissolved Oxygen .. .. ........ ........ 84

V Thermal Discharges .. .. ........ ....... 93VI Fecal Coliform. .. ..... ......... ... 97\1II Toxic Compounds. .. ..... ........ ... 99

A.- PCBs .. ..... ......... ....... 99Bi. Pesticides. .. ........ .......... 101

C.Heavy Metals .. ....... .......... 109

Table of Contents Continued Page

VIII Sediment .. .... ........ ......... 126IX Fish Diversity. .. ...... ........ ... 128X Summary of the Present Status of Water

Quality in the Upper Mississippi River. .. .... .. 134

GLOSSARY. .. ....... ........ .... 142BIBLIOGRAPHY. .. ...... ........ .. 143

B. Minutes of Water Quality Work Group Meetings .. ... .... 147

C. Contract Reports (Published Under Separate Cover)......163

D. Discharge Inventory .. .. ........ ......... 165

Ar~e~~i~f'For

~TAB 3

Av

o k L

(fA

OSpue"or

Nq

INDEX TO TABLES

Table Page

i Extent of Water Quality Standards Violation in theUpper Mississippi River ..... ................ ... ii

ii Impact Assessment Summary .... ............... ... 65

1 Relative Proportions of Major Ions in Mississippi (1976) 83

2 Mean Nutrient Concentrations - Mississippi River .. ..... 85

3 Summary of Thermal Monitoring Data for Selected PowerPlants on Mississippi River .... .............. ... 95

4 Levels of PCBs in the Tissue of Fish From SeveralLocations on the Upper Mississippi River (mg/kg) 100

5 Occurence of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides inthe Uppe Mississippi River Basin ..... ........... 104

6 Levels of Pesticides in the Tissues of Fish From SeveralLocations in the Upper Mississippi River Basin (mg/kg) . 107

7A Arsenic ..... ... ........................ ... 109

7B Cadmium ........ .. ........................ 110

7C Hexavalent Chromium ..... .................. .. ..

7D Trivalent Chromium ...... ................... ... 112

7E Copper ...... .. ........................ ... 113

7F Lead ...... ... ......................... ... 114

7G Manganese ....... ....................... . I.115

7H Zinc .... ..... ......................... ... 116

71 Silver ........ ......................... ... 117

7J Nickel ..... ... ......................... ... 118

7K Iron ..... .... ......................... . .119

71, Mercury ...... .. ........................ . 120

hidex to Tables Continued

Tabic Page

8 U.S. E.P.A. Water Quality Standards forHeavy Metals (ug/1) ..... ................. ... 121

9 Frequency of Aquatic Life Standards Violationsby Heavy Metals ........ ................... 122

10 Frequency of Drinking Water Standards Violationsby Heavy Metals ........ ................... 123

11 Distribution of Suspended Sediment ConcentrationsWithin Selected Discharge Ranges (Percent) ....... . 132

12 Fisit Species Known to be Extirpated or Greatly Reducedin Number on the Upper Mississippi River ........ ... 135

13 Wqter Quality Monitoring Network for the UpperMississippi River Basin ..... ................ ... 136

14 The Extent of Various Water Quality Standards Violationsin the Upper Mississippi River ..... ............. 138

15 Water Quality Related Problems on the Upper MississippiRiver and GREAT I WQWG Recommendations .. ..... 141

INDEX TO FIGURES

FigurePe

I Upper Mississi-pi River Basin .... ............... ... 82

2 Concentration of Nutrient in the Upper Mississippi River . 86

3 Approximate BOD 5 Loading to the Upper Mississippi River 87

4 D ssd1ve(d Oxygen in Relation to Time of Day/Year . . . . 88

5 Monthly Average Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen,Mississippi River at Canton, MO ..... ........... 90

6 Mean and Minimum Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations inthe Upper Mississippi River .... .............. ... 91

7 Average Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations for theMississippi River Below Clinton, Iowa .... ......... 94

8 Location of Large Power Plants in the GREAT II-I11Segment of the Upper Mississippi River .. ........ .. 96

9 Log Mean Fecal Coliform Concentration in the UpperMississippi River ........ ................... 98

10 Concentrations of PCBs in Fish Flesh 1975-1977 (mg/kg) . . 102

11 The Occurrence of Pesticides in the Waters of the UpperMississippi River Basin (USGS 1972-76) .... ........ 103

12 The Frequency of Occurrence of Three Pesticides in IowaStreams (April 1968 - October 1976) .. ......... ... 106

13 Mercury Levels in Fish Tissue in the Fish of theUpper Mississippi River Basin* (mg/kg) .. ........ .. 125

14 The Relationship of Mercury Accumulation and Length inSeveral Species of Fish From the Mississippi River

(Burlington, IA to Hannibal, MO) .. ......... ... 127

15 The Relationship of Suspended Sediment Concentrations andDischarge in the Mississippi River at Hannibal, MO

(1967-1972, 1974) ....... ................ 129

16 Suspended Sediment Load Concentrations to the MississippiRiver at Hannibal, MO (1944-1966) .... ......... 130

17 Frequenicy of Jischarge by Selected Flow Regimes in theMississippi River at Hannibal, MO (1967-1972, 1974) . 131

18 Locations of Present Water Quality Sampling Stations onthe Upper Mississippi River .... .............. ... 137

-9 - 1 111Il +i r[

Executive Summary

The Water Quality Work Group, GREAT il, discernible return flow at Hannibal. Sand-consisted of members representing the Rock sized material settled within the first 100Island District, Corps of Engineers, the U.S. meters and silt sized particles, generallyFish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environ- within 400 to 500 meters.mental Protection Agency (Regions V andVII), Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources, Iowa Division of Environmental The Schubel-Carter model anc theQuality and the Missouri Pepartmen or Weschler-Cogley model were evaluated forNatural Resources. This group was respo i- accuracy and ease of use. The Schubel-sible for identifying water quality problemcs Carter model, orginally developed for estu-on the Mississippi River, formulating aries, was modified to work on conditionsappropriate studies to better define or solve more typical of the Upper Mississippi. Thisthe most important of these problems, and model proved to be awkward in. its solutionfinally to make recommendations to the Plan and was not recommended for consideration.Formulation Work Group supportive of water The Weschler-Cogley model has more promisequality interests, and can utilize "plane" as well as "point"

sources of suspended material. A "plane"source is a more accurate description of side

Thirty-five problems were identified by the bank or beach nourishment disposal than awork group and the public. Seventeen of the "point" source. A third model is beingidentified problems were addressed (due to developed by Sayre. The final report willthe broad nature of some problem state- contain 27 solutions for the Weschler-Cogleyments, many of these problems were only model representing a variety of conditions,partially addressed) by work group activities, and a user manual.Four other problems were too low on thepriority list for funding of studies. Theremaining fourteen problems were considered Laboratory Desorption of Pollutants:more appropriate to other work groups within Three sediment samples each from 10 sitesGREAT II, to studies being conducted by were analyzed as was river water and elu-GREAT I, or were beyond the scope of the triates. At some sites there was considerableGREAT process. variation in the size and character of the

pollutants. As expected, sandy sedimentswere generally very low in pollutants and

The major accomplishments of the work finer-sized sediments somewhat higher. In

group were: studies on water quality effects general, ammonia, COD, manganese and

of dredge disposal site return flows, and on sometimes oil and grease, cadmium and zincdesorption of pollutants from sediments. were desorbed from sediments. Iron, phos-

These studies were contracted to the Univer- phate, and copper seemed to adsorb to sedi-

sity of Iowa, Institute of Hydraulic Studies. ments during elutriate tests.

The final reports of these contracts not onlyexplain study results but develop predictive Water quality standard violations in elu-water quality models to be used by the Rock triates occurred infrequently. The secondaryIsland District Corps of Engineers in esti- drinking water standard for manganese wasmating impacts of dredging, a requirement of occasionally exceeded.the 404 permit process. Results are sum-marized below.

Modeling of Suspended Sediment Plumes: A report on the water quality of the UpperReturn flows at the Rock Island and Mississippi River and a point-source dischargeKeithsburg sampling sites showed increases in inventory of the river were generated inter-suspended sediments of up to 75 mg/l over nally by the Work Group. A summary ofambient levels in the river. There was no water quality problems is presented in table i.

-Ii.

Table i

EXTENT OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS VIOLATIONIN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER

LENGTH OF STANDARD VIOLATIONA FIF 'C"TEDSEt1IFNT DRINKING PROTECTION OF WHOLE BODY

(MI LES) WATER AQUATIC LIFE FISH FLESH CONTACT RECREATION

Entire Iron (1)*Length Manganese(l) Mercury (1)

100-500 Dieldrin (4) Fecal Coliform fromSediment (4) St. Louis Area (3)Copper (2)

10-100 Lead (2) Other PCBs (2) Fecal Coliform fromPesticides (4) Dieldrin (4) Quad Cities (3)

1-10 Mercury (2) DissolvedOxygen (2.3)

0-I leat (2)

*Mnjor Sources: 1. Natural Weathering and Erosion2. Industrial and Commercial Wastes3. Domestic Waste4. Arrictlturn I Non-point

'U i , ater' Qiua iil k ork ( roiip reconi- meat regti a ion: anld Str I' eg !C.s for ORmended tile followinig measures to tie Plan river';Formulation Work Grloup:

All N1P IES tnc rrnal mon itolring repor tsU.S.li.P.A. should revise suspended arid should be standardized and should utilizesettleable solids standards so that they are existing mathematical modeling of the heatbased upon thle need to protect fisheries dispersion process and;and aquatic habitat rather than to protectthe photosynithetic process. A group of monitoring stat ions should be

established by tLIEA in the Mississippi(lill)!'O E use the quantitative ,issessinent River below the Quad it ies to d"ILi icfl:moes ot water qua Iit ipa ts ()I t he (1tgrev of' Water q'i lidt v de('yradn t11ondredthing developed bv the WQW0, ) aid rate of i-ecoverv from this poilv tlon

source.States in thle (,HEAT It studiv area shouldinstitute industrial pre-treatment programs From the water quality perspeetiye, it WW'as soon as possible, concentrating on speci- recommended that nil dredg~e disposal occurfied towns, and should press for better out Of the floodplain and thait waters in thetrca tin en t or, resouree recovery for speci- dredge spoils be retained at the disposal sitefied industries; until they ore of equal qunlity to the Water in)

the river. On-site inspection by officials ofStates in the GREAT 11 study area should the Savanna Provingr Grounds would precededlevelop compatible wvater quality manlage- any disposal on the SPG.

>2:p -'.,

-- b**--.

VI

Noar'th A merica, ga Cr n a-af fioai l to C (ongress anai the people ai ihc' ru q'statess anid two ('oiia pwom.iees mnfd nianageroen t plai) that is, above II !tadra ining 1.5 inill ion square miles. it is tih' istiC - plan that is tuchnical-1 1il

third largest %0aershed in the worki, flowirag economriically !Ouind, s ocially and env;ii on

2a500 miles k. Mhe (KOF of !AIcnitm 11illons mentally, acceptale, arid capable of heW;-.of people live oil1 it,. haniks and dial' 14e fin put into action v. ihi a irflsonatls jA(-c'

0-mi. in hi-;' 7)rogn< han pn. the ri~v \ a-The put'pos of the GREA[_ T w i

lti\varied a nd !cur ' ' 'eni-i: Ice!s. ta )dcfltifN anld resolve coniflicts r

10,' pressures of A :m,-j to ci(t i T,,) i parat (.fsat-L - :.

grading the envi'a cam qahtiS4o of Onongr(:ss wihmandantcd t!I1 tIs.VI01 Vr .lore nli.'f 'aJissis -ippi RiNser ho tv'rra.d

(~ lplex illtcr'i-t innn of th iver I reI' smuC;ii c s not jonal inteet for comii eiCC 1::

and these to:'ei' ill ;1s 00 C tior nnd as a fish nnd wHiif relad'tivqtia Whnen Ks- ah TI' tabn is oht~ind. iteil !.) tvc Id t-) %h U11W it pro)blem."h('t~ The Peleept of tiitud ,( IT

:a d whant a it - at<1 ir 11 Vail111)11 to solve front a need to ecoardinate alh ;,.itik prnbleems uwd m" i nate liver if-, t nanec oct ivitlt Cs aof a 0 iliii) few, i

mnimlize eonflicts. .-hannol by tHie 1'.S. (Corns o!' i a aton uttIenhe!,i7. low a tc

Stud -Xi' ot ! t cli--iC lva lp i ca11 ssouri iith Other riv<cer . (;1?11-- - - -- -- -%,,, as founded Ilecauise of' i neiica '

In rc--pnn~e to increasinig puthi c concern byv conseva tionists and th ; -an

oern fot' -or env iron mental (julayli of public over tihe lack of in-m tionn ,the river, the (Wen 't R ivei Study waq ible about tie m ipacts o.-f U.S. Iao j

authorized by' (ongress in t he "or FtmEgineers cilaindc lia inrlive No ' '

Resources Djevelopment Act of 101 en minny key5 resources of tHie i'ix,

(PI, 94-587). 1 his log-islniion li .

the U.S. Coirnitps of Tiifll'' Ilie, scopo, 1.1" tha J A !- Ii C

to ti'csl igote and s tud"- in ('oopet-ii d 2'ojictd mtai' d(- eopNwg .1 "P, r,xthi inltei t5101 states anld f'idei'I P-0it Iangeili' it jlan PsOMM11*' '

,ece.thirouigh tie 11pper \l ,sisoia, iotnl river resoorce iWucli'm i

Rivetr P02 I );otission. the (levelop- I-R A 11: I I Was' OVi'l.IiFlI/0d all i'l

mon-It of " -iver system tannoflge Iia CI <( 1 9i 7 (Clctobe' 197 1; tl(-dot . .' 'eptembei' 19771 anmd is Alidviii'' lh I

t 11 6111 terihe t-, I.0 Ia iO 11

IIC MInt -tIVi progirnm U, 'hi1i(' ll'2lisurI at R(ia'Eii'iia-clAli~

ILP EATI, afwiiha w th Li spoinisitI fot -Std Par't w*i or t1 LI'an-,-

the, river rendeos f iit St, Palil, M intieapolisto kittenheigr, lown WHEiiA'T II; (IwtlitthegoII ElI cii sC

fn S:rivertonl. 11115(nii'i t ((il?K 1 11\i' i); am'i''enoite fm t!,., ''- i

- ii ton I, i t. oo fui iweie 4 iF lle .)i: .....j ;-- a -

!!inr. if' III Own ~I TFA ''li- i " v'2 W, of me- -'a Ii

ITS. I h pi: I li fte Initerior Steve Baurragarn- IOWA l)EQI r kl n Wildlife serv ioe D~avid( Kennedy-Wise. iDfl

U.S. Irepartiefli of Agriculture - TVhomas Lovejoy-Wise. 1)NR

Suil 'Ori. urvatiofl Set-vice Work Group Chairman:

L. S. D~epartnment of Defense -

Lcptartinent of the Army -Corps of Robert Koke - U.S.E.P.A. untiling in e* r January 1978

.S.. 1 rpa 1 uen t a f Trarsportat ionl - V. Ramiah - MO DNR Januaryvi U..-4I tl;elr\ 1978 - October 1978

Lv : ~ritri Protection John Ford - )l10 1)NR October1978 - Present

Upper \lsispiRiver Conserva-tion ('ollirnt tee (ex officio) 2. Nlectings and Procedures

(;R :%1 1 isorgnize ino 1 f~IC-As of October 1. 1979 the Water

tional work groups and the Plan For- Quality Work (ru a e~ i

111111,1011Workurou. Ech wrk goupMeetings. TIhe first three me(etingsmusto Wc(ork, the u dyc or ru objciecs0curred between November, 1977,

isto ratomlis the study gouetis asnc and March, 1978. During these

theya rea todasdrcd the terop amfnc meetings, work of the GREAT I

tiork areauand as directedby therteam. study was reviewed, water qualityWorkgrops ae cmposd o peronsproblems in the GREAT 11 area

having expertise and interest in the identified and studies proposed. Thneworkgrou's rea f stdy.fourth and fifth meetings of the

Thisrepot smmarzesthe on-work group were held in June aind

cerns, objectives, activities, conclusions ofpthmer studies to be alz u detanls

Qadt recommendaos ofe rlte Wthe contracted out b\ the work group.Qualty orkgrop a thy rlattotheTire sixth meeting was held in

GREAT r 1 Study area. September, 1979 to discuss the re-

Wate Qulit Wok GoupOrgni-stil ts of work group-sponsoredz. aterQaitookn0'ai studies and work group recommen-

zationdat ions to the final report.

1. Participants. Those members of theNofraie rusofrdrwework group who have attended at N ored. drle frerwr

least 2 of tihe 5 meetings inlu~de:obevd

Ruth .Xndi'ews-l{.l.C .O.E. 3. Voting Procedures

Thomas IBainbridge-Wisc. DNR. Since the work group represented aRick iBreitenbach-lJ.S.F.W.S. single interest, water quality on tire

1Richn Geoodm-U .. . . Mississippi River, it was agreed that

Rieore ood-U..F.W.. all motions should pass by consensus

Goert ,Johnso-l.....Rgo of all work group members present. 'Ro etVIk-JIL .A, R go When quick decisions were needed.

\/ IImembers were contacted by tele-

WiV ii in n c -oeller-lI .C.O. E. phone and consensus of all i--

V. Rll unih- M issouri DNR sponding members was required.[hi viii St ol terber - ti.S. E.P.A.,Region V 4. I~ivision of Responsibilities

(lm who i ave rP,' rticpu ted in the The following items were the re-rovieW mi d C.ifl incirt of work group spons ibi lit y of aill work group m m -orAput inclode: bers:

rview of emsting data pertinent rCconi meindat ion ot' 8' cotractor,to the work group, problem iden- reviewmlg interirn contractortification, design of studies, progress reports, scheduling andreview and comment on GREAT presiding ft work groupII Water Quality Work Group meetings, represent work groupstudies, formulation of con- on Plan Formulation Work Group,clusions and study recommenda- On-Site Inspection Team, andtions. Post-Disposal Task Force,

writing water quality assessmentResponsibilities of the chairman report, develop point source dis-include: chturge map, vrite watr qualitv- drafting ;tudv contracts, re- work group appendix of the final

viewing conitractor proposals, study report.

2i

I!

11. PROBLENI l)ENTIF(A TION

A. Problem Identification Process The results of this screenini, proo,,Once the twelve functional work were put into tables and displaco in

groups and their overall objectives were the Preliminary Feasibility Rcport.formulated, the work group membersbegan to identify public concerns, con- Once the work groups had develo L flicts and other problems related to a set of problems and needs, thytheir overall objective and area of formulated a list of objectives designedstudy. A work group's list of problems to address and, at a minimum, partially\was 'composed of those problems identi- resolve their problems. The -fied in any of the following ways: lives were then used to identify !skv

and/or studies which the work groupI. The problem was identified in needed to accomplish in order to iden-GREAT I and was applicable to the tify the possible alternative solutions toGREAT If area. their respective problems; The

problems, objectives and tasks, there-

The particular work group recog- fore, represent the plans-of-actionseach work group used to derive theiriedxaeisting roblemfinal conclusions and recommendations.

existing conditions.3. The oarticular work group recog- The conditions, both existing and

Thed otil w roup raecog future, which were used to identifynized a potential problem based on polm fawr ru r icse

future projections of existing con- problems of a work group are discussed

ditions and trends. in the following sections. The year 1979was chosen as a base point for existing

4. Other work groups identified con- conditions, and a project life of fiftycerns relating to the particular work years was used to predict future con-group area of study. ditions. Attachments 1, 2, and 3 sum-

marize the plan-of-action for each wo'k

5. The public expressed concerns and group.problems directly to the particular B. 1979 Conditionswork group.

6. The public expressed concerns and I. Present Water Quality Conditions.See Section VII A. Water Qualityproblems to a particular work group Assessment Report.

through the public participation andinformation work group (i.e. towninfrmatin orka grups (iet. to2. Sources of Pollutants to Mississippimeetings; houseboat trips; etc.). River in GREAT II Study Area.These problems were compiled into

a list to be evaluated by the particular The most important sources ofwork group for: (1) their relevancy to pollution to the Mississippi Riverthe study, (2) the urgency or certainty in the study area are pointof the problem and, (3) the potential for source municipal and industrialresolving the problem within the time- discharges from large citiesframe of the study. Certain problems directly to the river and thewere eliminated from further study delivery of sediments frombased on criteria guidelines developed erosion of agricultural land. Theby the Upper Mississippi River Basin urban areas of Dubuque, Clinton,Commission in 1974. The list of re- and Quad Cities, Muscatine,maining problems was then prioritized Burlington, Fort Madison andby the work groups. (See Plan Formula- Keokuk are the major dis-tion Work Group Appendix for the chargers of point source pollu-listing of these problems.) tants to the Mississippi. The

4CDINIG PAGN MALA-NOT 7ZJO

ito.k, Iowa, .\lanquoketa, Skunk, 'Itl ',, us , whcLh call , t. .t i ,Des Moines and Fabius iRivers location or stau of pol luli- iare the major sources of sedi- ready ill the river include direl lr_ment discharged to the Missis- and the operation of vowfnirioelsippi. rivereraft (turbidity, r.ut..CtL persuiI (,ibot tom sediments, desorptm ,i

3. Relationship of Riparian Land pollutants from bottom sediment .

Management and Water Quality.

5. The Relationship of Present Ust. iiii-!The uses made of land adjacent Water Quality.

to the Mississippi River presentthese potniit u, non -point source .ll tile t i -. .problems for water quality in the a ffect wa te r qua lit -M t i tt N' !;,,,river: the saine degree of implct ,l V%;t I

quality. The withdrawal of V~abr- increa;ed soil erosion rates of for domcstie, commercial and in

riparian land. dustrial use, and its return to theriver carrying waiste produCts of tie

- discharge of pollutants used, use, has, by far, the greatc'st effl.tgenerated or stored on riparian on water quality in the river. Iidiland. cators of organic pollution (nutri-

ents, fecal coliforms) from largeThe potential for adverse im- urban areas can extend many miles

pacts on water quality increases as downstream from their source (Sec.the amount of land contributing to VII A) in the Mississippi, but studiesthe problem increases and as the by GREAT I Water Quality ,ork

distance from the river decreases. GRp ( shoed i s pol-The pecrum f rparan lnd sesGroup (1978) showed increased pol-

The spectrum of riparian land uses ltn ocnrto asdb e

would run from a bottomland hard- suspns ion sei e durn

wood forest, which would provide suspension of sediments during

the best water quality protection, to dredging disposal persisted no fur-

an industrial site with large areas of ther than 1 mile downstream.

unvegetated soil or impervious Studies conducted by Johnsonpaving and polluting substances ex- (1976) and the GREAT I Water Qual-posed to surface runoff or subsur- ity Work Group (1978) summarizeface leaching to the river, known impacts of. rivercraft on

4. Relationship of River Use and Water watel quality. These studies on the

Quality. Mississippi, Minnesota and IllinoisRivers demonstrated increased tur-bidity levels correlated with size ofMany uses are made of the river, craft and depth of channel. Tur

but water quality is affected in one bidity rean ained above t ient

of two general ways. The use can leek for as much as 2 hours, hut

entail discharge of pollutants into te co s u c s 2f h s k d t

the river or it can affect the status toluton s stllces s e th n

of pollutants already in the water. thattof ischarg es fr vre uran

Those uses contributing discharges areas.

to the river would be:

- recreation and operation of rec- 6. Relationship of the Sludy .Area'sreational and eommercial river Ee on to Water Quality.craft (oil and grease, sanitarywastes, spills of transported ma- (haiigcs in water q(lity wLLIilterials), be expected to mediate changc' in:

- withdrawal of waters for indus-trial and municipal uses (n wide public health (viral and b)n(te,'irange of pollutants). infeetions, and (vancer, anid

-~~ ~ - 1'.. \I(I

I t Ii ;1, 4,1 i1 41 4 1 1i v';, 0iIi t 1i 11

I t fIt tIO x vI 1 11 tt I~ ti Si Ii 1

01ajo1111 Wit IViI', tirolIl C'ii W HO' dii r eal n rt om~ ~liO t 1-t'ltO h o

mid proov.ippi fiv a r tin to ithpr d itie uso i edwih ixI. r

wit2' t ct (1mt I'itl it/ to ailel .li..tr i t-td 1( t l it.oie. i

fish:'~'1tti 1-.tiiv l tifr itqgurgrtn'ac ~Iipii l\hu o

QualIt\ . i cpanuu to, 11titic cub-i nu~tI

thatl (o I'll- Iii i/ill/i ill io til [I/ill li

Fit- it , if th cst Ann-o ltt'itl

h dal v' okiuet 1 cttkrii(IIctI he neeti 1 tthptt' lil '.iahu t

wIhin a t loll "lil to it 'tt'lg it.w tr iltt\ il''t h ii i

Stidi'. if ttitit~h\ tiiratil iI rofliii ho ii iId ( t I 1

I k I .I liaI( : IoIir lIIIII 1 , 1(

-the relationship of water quality charged to the river. More intensiveand recreational boating. use of riparian land (commercial or

industrial development, more barge-point source dischar~fes in Ft. fleeting areas, or cultivation to ,ear

Madison, Iowa. river edges) will result in greaternon-point source pollution in the

-farm chemnicels and sediment. Mississippi.

-coordinaition of the G;REATr 3. Pro .ected-1Water Qjuality.Stutiy Witt) stilte water quality

projected ,ibov( II f, i .xpcev1d I--Water podItu i ou ii t Costs. decreaise water qualit- There( ar,

however, some trend,1 tiut iiat, help-point somlot disvharges from 3M mitigate or offset this regress'iOn in

plant. water quality:

-relat ionrshipi )I barge tows tid cotiieloI criIpropeller size or) rottom turhu- eraniuelocl govermneer furidi forI

lenc ai~ t ubidi Y*collection system.,. cOnstruet ion

thernalpolutin bvpowr pantof new sewage treiittwent facil-o therma polt ioerp w r l n it ies and upgrading (4. ex istirng

coolng wter.plants.

U. Projeete-d oiitiit tions- _202t. Increased &npussii in~lustriii

I.Projete Sht mi-~ad - ederal pretreat nicitt and rcoo(verN, of_____ materials as b'fprodfict! rat her

Act ions. than their tliselirge its wiP~teCs.

%Nithoeijt the (.HEAT' Studv, there -use of orgi-n ic wast os Ifromi iarge

mliN not have been 9 consensus sourves (iegiain proee ,sing) asamonig bordering sutets arid EPA alterfiativi enrg Ourves forregiowi ias to wha oist itutes ade- t he prodie on of' rnct hai f rquate water qjumlit ' assessment of alcohol, 1a- 1 livestock feedwdIredging aind dlisposalI imrpacts, aind fert ilIizer.what level IIr impaict we cain livewith on the I pper Mississippi. Such developicit (dl urbaln lon piunita lac-k if eofnsensiis aimong ageneies po)011011 .11 iba lItpli.would manke ompliance with stateand federal regriat ions Concerning 4. Public oric-rris.dredging more- difficult. Without-the (,I{1. X Stitdyi a intthenittral ureill 'et!u I.expression of wider qulrhtt impacts course, filrrfr [)ioiefI'~~ tp f,-

vause(I b~y drediginig mna , not hotve water qroj lit Ith- l eci Vv, (Jbeen ultve lope-d to aissist Ii water two segmcn~?t., 'I tho rivt-i1H 11111%qualoit maitq-rmt i l eoi.siens. indreaitt- hofw ottiviVi'i . II llIlo.

2. l'rtp ceel ~%ate' i~jriali~ l~rstur(iialt II I Iffi~i \1.~- IF)~jthance4 ounrveN'. witt-'r (lielit 1,. of'fi-ht I 1 kl'' .1i,

I rea slitih fe- Iic f t vi I I r o gni Ii t rig fI I j i (It , if'

eroeast III till iajor watetr use's, high yvinlitt, ,Iwlar I il \.Municipail nimid indiistriatl poiint (1ualittS III the 11T"isss.Ipp but'l,sliirees shoiitrl' inrease, 0l mii ei't Lo s, InI eintratt is oiofidvI4r4'f! Iofiffaid InI ifflaI polil itiri iead (ils andit iti rii f t ilc# link- silV-'t It

major con(cernms are at it mm-ih more L Statement of Objective,~

fundamental level - human health Atcmni)and the maintenance (if aquatic lifein the river (GREAT Ill Public Par-- I-. Formulation of Work Group

ticipation Work Group). Tasks. (Attachment #3

I. Statements of Problems. (Attachment

# 1).

- 0<

co-

C-C.

.C -n 0~

0 ~ -> Cl)

CC0

- 0 Ir -i *-, I -E

Q) - (7- ; Z z ; C

Z -j C:)

o7 m - a- o

o bo r 0 t,

QIQ

r.i.cL

,c~

I~~~flIoL

0 c~I -

4-~) z

(J)~ C-, ~

~ 4- IA-

I. 4

7C" -t

-- - 2

- --

.4- 1.C -~ - -

- [-- - C-

7. . , - C

~ z - -

~ .~-C~~-~z: - - -

£ C r ( 2~C- U U I~* C

~1' -U

-U

:7 -. I

'I U p

I cr

U-..- . . C

-'I-

C: - H-" !

E z 0~

.aE zC). K

E I EE-

0C/ E) 0 CL

Cl)

F- . ~C> .I C.) 0 0

Z - ~ C C >

Or ' - V - t-. c I

o cc

-___ -t 0

LD cc ccx L

S_- C t

0~ 0 v,~,~C. .C.) 0 z 0C' 0 bL ~ -

a . .z L. C,

0G. 0C) 0 0

GiD E,, LO' P

0 0

0-. C-1

so--~

-C) C) 00) -) -

-- t

0' 0 0

I <

C0 Z - '

-~~ bit C), C ) )

C) 0 Q, ) - - o r-b 3 3 a

- 0)

r uL-c-_ co m I j

")

0i L

C-4))O)

-0 0

E 7 "0 amI r

V) ri t C 0

cr

< n <

(n w- ..4- -

;00 00Z

cc; 00 0

-1

E COa)E b~V >C.~ C:'0 Q) 0 nE w R, 0-0o A 02o 0

1'~a a~ co0j0 - CL c ~ ~ *

:5 ~ -0--

<cr 0 W C

0- w~ bO-" ! , C

-bl t.0 -ir 0 u a =~~b.0 4) cnrcu -0 -'Z = 0) LL.

0Cd CL rJ b ,,-ov ho-~ rV a)

co C .- .

J~ ~-

~ o0

E ~ 0E

2I -~

0'- -~

z -~

z~ 0

U I-,

Z -I0 ~

~00-r n

I -

C'4

I-.)

It>1! ~

III;K0' ~>

0021

~-

STA ILMIEN I'( 01 J il( ',f\ 1L5

MX IA L OBJELCT'IVEL:

l11.outo the main onnalnce or01, ciin 1 ati il Rn F1 RAT 11 srI:>

TFo eliaactoiize present at or qualitv in the stud', ai-en, me lding- "p I~fndto mnpoi'al I-va toln quality tr~ends, and loca'tions 111 d fr-equonce s Of wa tel' qual"Violat ions.

2. .Ses the cffoctivoess of piresent water, quality mon iarm ian prgr m astudyv nre.pi

~. Develop inoeling procedures that will predict the water- qualitY impacts ofdrecdging ind dredge disposal on) a site specific b asis.

41. Promote the for-mationl Of a Uniform set of guidelines tar ;ill aqc-acios involve'lin wate ul'(ity management in the study ,rea.

3. Provide I'or mitigation of the adver'st water qtiititv effets of dredging ariddisposal, during the per-iod prior 1 development of final ws-a quaitv oritcren afor' dvednng "Ind dispo<r 1.

- zt C

II -

CCoC

If.

-C,-

C) cC

If,

.. .... ....

-1 8

ctc

V)V

II W~OkK i(GRO)UP (:ll'lSA.OfLl MUN

A. WaterQuality Assessment Report. anld communication with :statc official.The map has aided in the interpretation

The purpose of the report was to of water quality data. It should beprovide an overview of current water useful in future planning and manage-quality on the Upper Mississippi River. merit in the fields of recreation, flood-Although many reports on specific pol- plain management and protection oflutants in specific areas and maiy fish and wildlife, ats well as watcisourees of rn w ciati st a compilation quality.and an)d \ sis )t :W Ii '. for- the river'was needed to help) put :;poCI tic pollu- Development of miap informationtants and] locations in the proper per- waPs included in the water quality reportspective so that sound water quality costs. Additional costs of obtimnin6managemenit decisions could be made. base map, drafting and printing are

estimated at $2,000.The report provided information on

pollition caused by organic enrichment C. Dredge [Disposal Assessment.and contamination by heavy metals andchlorinated hydrocarbons on a 600-mile A study to determine turbidity anrasegment of the Upper Mississippi River. Suspended sediment problems belo %

dredge disposal return flows was con-The i eport draws ambient water tracted to thle University of Iowa.

quality data primarily from the Illinois Institute of Hydraulic Studies. TN.[)EQ and the U.S. Geological Survey, three major components of the studyInformation on point sources came pr i- were:man'ily from~ state 303e basin planningdocuments and state records on effluent 1. Monitor turbidity below dredge (insmonitoring. Special studies by a wide posal sites an~d define plumeo olvariety of states and agencies provided turbid water.much of the informaution on mercury,other heavy metals, PCBs and pesti- 2. Establish the relationship betweencides. turbidity and suspended solids at thc

sites monitored.Writiiig the report was at task ot' the

work group chairman. Total chair- 3. Adjust two existing mnatlieminrca;nianship costs from l'ebruary 1, 1978 to models of :;uspended solids dispei-September 30, 1979, are estimatpd at siori to fit field data obtained ;itapproximately $28,0t00; costs incurred disposal sites.in tire writing of the water qualityreport are estimated at $5,000. I'he cost of thle stildNs' i $30.000.Printing and distribution may addAnother $6,000. 7,000 to the eost of thle A detriled explanation of miethods.report. reslits conclusions arc included it:

thc finai report issued for thi.s si ud\Re,,,It,, and conclusions of the re- printed under separate cover.

port are summarized in the reportabs I r net. I). Labo'a Iorv Si nlula ioni of lDesoyp It)- of

Q~iI~iiih-Wi-ii -c-dgedj Sedimc-outs.Point0 Sourc i .l~ v: 1 -

--. ~A stusdy to determnince~ "ich pot errA map11 Of tI In ( il 1'. \ T 11 StWu M'y 1 ara ajl pollutants mnay lbe r'eleased from

.;howing known point source (lisciharges sediments into the water column (luringto the Mi ssissipp)i wiis Diode will) the !iid dredging and1( dredge dispos1l wa':s eon-of the ttes303 o basin plan 'Jociinments tract ed to the( Un iversi Iv of loN\ a

2 (l

InsIt i lk l . 'i I ii-tuzllle studies. I ie force arid. ;Is it part of fthat vw'k.., V~ Ithree' imij)I'(( Vfl)Onenft, of tlae study summriz e anid discuss t he wHUterwere: quality data gathered by the R o vi

1. lDeterin line V, hieli Pollutants Will Island D)istrict Corps of Engineers fordesorb frorm Upper Mississippi River the 1979 dredging seasonr.dredge mnaterial using elUtriatIetestinga. G~. Work Group Meetings rind Discussions.

2. Detc unlit. the nits wti ,Ici de- Minutes of the Water Qual ityv Worl>0W. or I (i a roup meetings, are included as Sectl

diilol ho il l'1l~i1COkl'(' if angeen To Development.aI Corte i lit The completion of' the two studie.

Thc oi or' tie -I r. Iv is $7 0, eontraeted Lo the University of' lov, ashould lead to formulAtion of Inatia

A ioak i$a2 aof m~t~ fatieal methods to predict wmi i

res.ults nnd ei lisiorr< nVC 1flU ha 11 ill quality impacts of dredging and drec ,#,the f jlar report issuuwkI for tis -lud disposal. The li mirted time and dO1 i

pr ifteo wndor separate cover, base for construction of these pr~edre.tive techniques strongly sugges-ts ti lui

E. On-Site Inspection. additional refinement of' these tech-niques will be needed. Byv expanding tti

The Water Quality Work Group dlid data base and by verification tiurougfIlnot develop criteria wvhich Would reject water quality monitoring dur rr<,

potental disposal sites. The major dredging, the accuracy of tire predicti,water quality cocr faseii techniques will be improved. It isdisposal site concesisn of speaifi anticipated that further model refine-

fromn whole body wa-ter contact ree,- ment and verification will be anreation areas and. water suipply intakes, activity of the GREAT Ill Water' QulMIit VThese concerns Could be addressed Work Group.without field inspections. Therefore,participation of' the On-Site InspectionTeam wais infrequent. It is hoped that til, Work ek ill I

F . Post-Disposal Evafluation, to a method of quantitatively assessiri _the wvater quality impacts of dredgiir

'[he Work group chairman will par- acceptable to all agencies involved ill

ticipate in the 1979 post-disposal task water quality management.

t, I !' IIt '! () I 'I L It ., \ I l\ L'sAN) lEY(.'()MMINIA IONS

A. ['rocvIII liitedt.1 [1i15(( )il thf, Wiptol i~(t -i>

and careful evailuaioni tof tie reCoilii t-li(r:The tasks thuI chtl Vol'k gio.i chose 1o tion, the work group thbrougli vnriou, v1lii,

accomplish varied by work group, by type procedures, either approved or rejected t.,of problenr and bv the existing knowledge recommendation.about that pt-Obe i. All wurk groupsneeded to oolloet i aid ,,i',ni t ackground All w ork ,!'roupL )p'vd CtC(I P, n,inforr~ilitif:, 'P .- l , i, , 'lior i.,, tcl 101:. WT.r A lit to t:-0 (I lf .: I I 1 i .:!a ,W I.s d i , : i:I:, lo"' , co o'-; -, i t ecordinul fo!' I iv( ", o .r0e !

prov.ide inl - ;.i i :;i l., I , r work vice. The eoordiuiator would then mail ttigroups i c fo\( r grol, o. -It' Iiarralil e info'nation, complete with , cianl unitfor thei' wr rk grou[ C pptidixs \,icre little back to the appropriate work group etai:-background inforinion .xistf.eJ, baseline mnlin. The work group then did a nnor,data was c, dleled ;nd,'or research studies thorough and deta iled nssessruent ot Itt:conducted. impact potential of their reconnieidit iLrv.

This information was recorded on , t :i,,As all tusks winecunt ll, er . the results ment 7. Each 'Aork group was rosponsihi,

were disikute to nencle.s w the per- for obtaining or estimating the nevess,,titinent work group. -onelusions were then information for their impact ass-.mtdrawn by niembers 0f the work group based through their studies, work group meeting.on the resids of then work group's tasks. discussions with other work groups. dise.

sions with other agencies Iaving esperti-,*

The conclusions developed by each work in that particular 'ield. discussnon witI,

group led t the Identification and conse- economists and discussions with the ilip:,e

quent development of potential alterna- assessment coordinator. Mhen Atl njclni;l

tives to their problems. The results of 7 was completed to the work grmp,-'

some tasks indicated that there still was satisfaction, sufficient copies of .\Itte lnot enough available informnaion to ensure ment 4 and 7 were brought to the nt t P::r

a knowledgeable assess meit of the poten- Formulation Work (Group meeting. TI'

tial alternalive :olutiois to a problem. In impaet assessment was reviewed Iv :,i

these cases, no allrnotives could he for- memibers present, a nd addition.,, cangt-, ()i

mnulated and the onlv recommendation suggest ions were nade to the i ripictwhich could be nade wis for further study sesas p rent. oach work group c!lil r!lurll il,of the problem. V',here coinplet ion of woi)lk the appropriateI revisions rina brougrht

of tle roblm. ler vol~pltlonof orkfinal version of the imipact asse ,srn,,nt I.group tasks led to ilentifheation of poten-th n e Pvs n o the io I ases.;,tial solutions, the altermtives were dis- the next Plan Form ln toi 'ork rev iewplayed on Attachment 4. lhe iilternatives meeting for final review.varied in spjeif i ,v Irorn site-specificguidelines to gerrn1 policy changes, de-pendent upon the iroleii t ,ev were ad- At this drop e the rcnc' ril ,nr hidressing. Alternlives ,!isp In yed on ere o pe f ro ern etion iAttachment 4 wore ass.,ssnd all(] ill alter- eration, until.all reeomernlntir, v.,

native selected on the basis of a judg- submitted by aill of the work N r l cihti

mental impact 8sses'srnlnt. Onee an alter- all of tihe recommendalions had hen ,i i,native was seleeteI, the i rtiornle for its mitted to the pla l i -oriill ltil; in 1,

selection and tll av;ilatrle supporting docu- Group, the developirernt of nlegd' al

nients, ino, a iri n ,'jii ! ,r i lit-s supporting final plan . began.its seletion ware ilin it el ono displayedon Attachment .1. l'lis information (aidother), was usel Ito conpile Ia brief sum-mary of the types of impacts that wouldresult if the rceoielitgiaiion were iple- * Inhlc ii, page

II IL' Ct-Vo I I I( Ii !'I 11 QI I' IkI I u ,I Io 11 fI IU ill k.I. a I I ons1 aippin g t I A I tit

Pll P11nI [Ar~l~t 1lin I% 1'k ( I Nol' Vii itdk ill W hole toj IIos 'f i lliiriefIial111,

SpeeIlficity and iipelliclitn'1)ilit aid were, 4WC lfiv iii linii lit. lhrev e, tegorit',

grouped into thte folIlowig genern I 'spevi tieit uv sed to organ/ ithe rectmii,tI

vait egor ics: (kil 10111of( actiloll plans tit.( l isteid be*Io w

I. Ini1plertientabl' acions with c) itin I. ger'eraI - apply to enitire (dOI,\ I I

at t act jug reach or e'ntire Upper M issisippiRivet- Basin.

2. lnplenieritohie metion.s requiring l[ 2 pool fi'Ax to)BQIII-lilt lf. (du ' ots

3. Iflplei('fltal)I. tiici, vithin ox-3.>t - pl lo puf( it(

istig dithf~t\.within j pool.

4. linplement a hi tdies reqju iring leg-islationi.

The following recomnmendat ionr< rei

6. Poll(-\,v haiige-,. ;ent those of the Water Quatlit Wo;nIiroup before they were miodi liedj tb thI

Wit hin (ci ch of the six grrouips above, the H' an Form ulat iou Work "I'oLJp in tle . II:

r'ecommnendat ions varied from genera I ree- devolopment proces s.

I~ lt ()\t !I % I)% I It )N i I

D-Jr 1.l A) 0I Rr:~ 1. 0 1A .N1 1

1 UIM IN A ItY I A 1 V'I \SSI.SSNII N I

I ;to\PprOVAd Ili k\or ' (:1 otu

is of ite ee bIv diednr & fIdc~(rodIe( disposaIl

1 . I1,;,r :I Inck of ooI'(tiflrte(I jkier qull l\ >e,1ni'rrlt (jIi! it ItIurea onl witii to base ilatnugemrent d',itOitonP-.

44. ()peint loi S. ma~intenaniice of Ih L)-it. ebliflint 1 111;11' f(lit11i~h lt i', lIII Iprob Ie ms.

S12. PolIhIIt ion duec t o dredging preIch , e- (I ipoulit iwt t i ri:tI k- iH wclit i I i.

ft 20. (l in shellI dredging creates high leVels Of' I. UrtilttV

2. Sub-problem iiddressed (write out - Lise' onlV wheAIV ei 'i

3 )Suh-objeet r ye addressed ( ttlent fromi At tae imnt o~2 wiA't flirt):

Promrot e the Oflomt ion of at uninform set of guide Iinos for iejri~ 11r a'W1 its ruxiInI water qualIity maenagemnent in the strudv Hreca.

41. 'last-ks acecompl ishred to address problIem (to kerr from At taet nent ; 3 -v- Iiout):

Devyelop tvecin meraaionis for fial report coniste) 11twilh vXil Vir iwiobject ives.

5. IList ing of al tennat ines to problem:

Fu lrther researchon water qrro"lity & airqrlI e hImhit:1 IIIl 'n~t11S(nsldnve sedlimient N sedjru ~ttion roles shourld be0 couctedt %v wI(Iilit y er ter in dleve loped 1),g,,(ed onl this resca rph.

.1

I iii H' I ~ Ii I I.

ill 'itti iii liii i*\'~IIijii1iiiI~ ~AuIttr

* ili - I t~!s. ' ,r * IS's s s ' ' Ii .1 ss*t * 1',

5 \il ,us'

it iii ' is

I~,'tsssil' iskiiiliiii, thu- I lii- li\1k15 ~w1 s.* IS. I jI\ >

-~ N,, ~ 4

II Vs

st '' I it~t 5t1 it IsI(It lit issi s\ I ut ~'. I I- * I' s. Is is 'us

sY lit tsipiits< util'. lust hsi ttii*tu IIH- 'I'. I Ii--' si K ' ''I

2. I' ii' -'.-s - I * - ii- I 1 i jilts's- ii I --

is si. h-i .5~ I' iii!, ii ~5-5 ii in

26

*1.

E K-& -, CU

C-

C.-

7

V

RELOMRIKN DA 1 1(' N 4 2

RID,'jOE should supplement tLhei assessment teehniques usingmathematical models developed during the GREAT If study for documentingwater quality impacts of dredging and disposal.

Compliance with specific water quality criteria requires quantitativemeasurement of impacts. Impact assessment of COE dredging and disposal onwater quality should use mathematieal models to predict the magnitude ofsuspended sediment and desorbed pollutant plumes. Such models will be aproduct of the GREAT I1 Water Quality Work Group and these models, alongwith user manuals, will be presented to RII)/COE. Further refinement andverification of these models is planned in the GREAT IllI study.

It is further recommended that RlD/COE put these models into use attwo locations each during the 1980 and 1981 dredging seasons.. RlliCOLshould design their water quality monitoring schemes during dredging tocheck the accuracy of the model predictions.

1'

31j

J1111w 26, 1979 \1ti1I[a t i

D)ISPL.AY OF RIIC'OI\IINI)A FION

PRELIJMINARY Ijlp.-jrT ASSE:SSAILN'1

kit) e Approved bY Work ('roup______

I. ( Cqral probletan aldesseucI (write out use nunaher, from At talwriet I

1-1wrL(: is a, )iswk of doto peritainling to suirfae and1 grouridwater (ua iili< iffeeted by dredging and disposal.

4 4. 01waro lion arid min ntenance of thle 9-ft. channel int fle OP!nP iriu to1,*C BProblem.

1 2. Pollution duec to dredgring protie 01dsoa sf di eg nate ai

occurr'ing.

-1 20. Clain shel dI(redgiug creates hiigha levels of t ilbid it v.

2. Shid-proile rn addie55se0 (write out - use onlyv when iae,,-ssa iv):

3- Stab otateet o' pkres (takecn from Attnehmewn #-) wi ite otil""

h~eve hap mnodel ing Procedures that will predioe the watcer yul at' vltIpw,Of dredgiiag nrid dredge disposal on a site specifie c tmass.

-I. hi sk" aecolriplistied to address problem (tknfromn Athwhmtnit 43 -x Oit c

mit ):

'\sses,,aaheaal 1 t dredgec di spaisaI reat ed walfi' qucimtv pro1 '1 m'

lob) sinai0ol of esorption of pllu~tanlts.

a.Listinug of oAtearities to piisbleiln

;a. Ihe ('01" sholl improve their w.q. a5ss,,ntint c'ajpnbilit ie(, ia' ata

inil imodcling based upon rece tapeb findin-g~s mode bo r-t a ftIAY VW1%

tie. '()I .~Isuhld ir-pltI't\' till . . ses. i.rent capabilities using mathe-a tical modeling based apoin datb eltleetion and existing model mnodifica-

tlions undertaken by the GREAT study.

e. 'the COE should improve their w.q. assessment capabilities without theu,' of nmathematical models.

e (')L due.: u-, lct-. it , pio, t.I S .q. assessment capabilities.

. l tior 1l1 for 'wet of alernativo: Since a mathematical model based onooref it..,, typical to thv stl l(: a:'ea is u od. the assessment can be quantitativewvd .ol, i, necessary it ina, ,s tire to oe compared with established criteria):d 1 a, e aceura t- ehmi a niore generalized model.

* i-I.41 iwls Ust'd tO select :alternative (use tasks, support documents and/or0iise :- - s * tldies, articles, etc.).

I,, ciussions among members of water quality work group, discussions ande- "respondence with WES staff and WES documents of the DMRP.

9. Rtioale for elimination ot other alternatives:

a. M ithematical models are presently not sufficiently developed toa -rratel' predict w.q. impacts in the study area.

,. :' ionn-mathematical assessment procedure cannot quantify impacts and,threfore, cannot compare them with established criteria.

a. 1esent (-Oti W,.q. :sseS;snert is viewed as inaoequate by several agenciesinvolved in w.o. management in the study area.

Pr' lrninar impact assessment of selected alternative. (List below all general- ',);(- whiel, can h identified by the work group. The level of detail, -ud is only that for whieh the information is readily available.)

Inorease research rind model development costs.

t. Improve w:ler qualiIy through improved water quality management skills.

*. r I,;, for ',ork group rejection of reeornmendal ion:

.... " .... .. ... .. ... ..... .. ...... ... ...... .. ' " , ' ' "" " -° -. .. .... .. ,n' 't

": ' ' , " ' i * ': 2 ?' " : .. ...

r0

Env a E c

C- 0,: E _ Zo,"- >

0~

C,. ,n (z r- cc. c co

0 - a) Q

.-. L1 cc_ "-- C-

co 0- -00

5-. IT 4' G 3 L

t Z v 'v, "' : 3 -0 c"'= o a 0 -. 0

0 o

W.- 0 -

o 0 , -. II CI

C' ~ O C- 4) >

LI)) w

Z , <e~-- I (C~0rd

0 C) bCC.

a, 0c)

CC), CO0 El ~ b

C)C)

>H F-w.o-~~

33.

RECOMMENDATION # 3

All dredge niaterial disposal sites should be located out of tieI loodpla in.

64-

1;4

June 26, 19-.9 Attachment #4W.Q. Work Group

DISPLAY OF' RECOMMENDATION &PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Reco:iin endation Number 3

Pool Number All

River 'Mile

Date Approved by Work Croup

1. ;eneral problem addressed (write out & use number from Attachment #1):

#,4. Operation and maintenance of the 9-ft. channel may contribute to thePCB problem.

#ii. Pollution due to dredging practices and disposal of dredge materials is

occurring.

2. S:!b-problem addressed (write out -- use only when necessary):

3. K b-objective addressed (taken from Attachment #2 - write out):

Provide for mitigation of the adverse water quality effects of dredgingand disposal during the period prior to development of final w.q. criteriafor dredging and disposal.

4. 'l'asks accomplished to address problem (taken from Attachment #3 - write

out):

Participat;on in OSIT, post-disposal task force.

J). listing of alternatives to problem:

a. Stabilize spoils at a location out of the floodplain.

b. Stabilize spoils of materials within floodplain but not adjacent to lheriver.

c. Allow disposal at any site conditional upon stabilization of materinl atsite.

d. Place no strietures on disposal of dredge spoils.

-35-

6. Selected alternative a (write in the letter).

7. Rationale for selection of alternative: Generally, this alternative wouldprovide the greatest protection from erosion of spoils back into the river.

8. References used to select alternative (use tasks, support documents and/ordiscussion;. studie,, articles, etc.):

Participation in on-site inspection team and post-disposal task force,discussion with RID/COE personnel and participation in formation ofchannel maintenawr'e plan.

9. Rationale for elimination of other alternatives: All other alternatives provideless prote.'tion from erosion of spoils back into river.

10. Preliminary impact assessment of selected alternative. (List below all generalimpacts which can be identified by the work group. The level of detail,oquired is only that for which the information is readily available.)

I. Increased cost of dredge disposal at many locations.

2. Increased beneficial use of dredge material.

,3. Reduction in sediment load to the river.

11. Reason for work group rejection of recommendation:

V,

-E 5

*~ 0- 0

bD 0 Q w

1. =vc C L c

0 C

~ cC:

1 M101 5t, -

E ci)C, zi) - . cc

0 0

0 >~ ( vc 1 !-

41 T7-cca>~ --- >-0 il

0 0-

-37-

RECOMMENDATION # 4

All dredge disposal material, including water, must be contained at thedisposal site. Release of water back to the river should not occur until thequality of the contained waters equals that of the river. Impacts of returnflows on lands and receiving water courses shall be minimized.

i'K

-38-

June 26, 1979 Attachment #4W.Q. Work Group

DISPLAY OF RECOMMENDATION &PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Recommendation Number 4

Pool Number All

River Mile

Date Approved by Work Group

1. General problem addressed (write out & use number from Attachment #1):

#4. Operation and maintenance of the 9-ft. channel may contribute to thePCB problem.

#10. There is eutrophication in the study area which results in large amounts ofaquatic plant growth and shoaling of backwaters.

#12. Polltion due to dredging practices and disposal of dredged materials isoccurring.

2. Sub-problem addressed (write out - use only when necessary):

3. Sub-objective addressed (taken from Attachment #2 - write out):

Provide for mitigation of the adverse water quality effects of dredgingand disposal during the period prior to development of final w.q. criteriafor dredging and disposal.

4. Tasks accomplished to address problem (taken from Attachment #3 - writeout):

5. Listing of alternatives to problem:

a. Require complete containment of water on site unit return flows are at

least of equal quality with water in the river.

h. lRequire containment of waters on a site specific basis.

P. )o not require containment of waters at any site.


I n t '. i If 4 1( a I I -I, I I I I I v H II, Illcrw lllvc 1)1-oVl(j(.,, the Ino'l%V.q. h\ dredgc return f'l()w,,.

pollution will not s11104 Ille polliltalit" tivId In theIn. [it nrc;k-, 111-c -'edillICT11, V0 11011 A 111 lit)t tll(' 1011, M id VC1

'1111ill )Tlctllitl- Itlotl- of nictal (- Illorl" whieh J) be boulld 1)\' ojl plirtlelIr-,

11cfer. liv(-, u-'ed If, eleot alict-tilitivc (um, twk,, iipport doeument" wid orloll , ;1lidle , :Irtick".

P r1wilmtIoll 11) ()S(T, po t (11"pwal tlk forov, (11,cli"Jon RID col..11 1 ;,crclull I lrom 'I 11f, 111:11i tI cliw nl :1l"cliew .

I Il III, I();. r h im ir ito li ,I' ('11II'l

(iw,( ;Iltcl-fw11v(., provio, lc',"poll rotill-11 How'.

Prt 11. ;,Ilwr v mlp wt !)t f h-c-ted 111termitive. (1.1"t hclo". all gelier 11 41

1111imcl, hwh o-m III Wentil'wd 1) v (III, worl, rroup. '1114, levol of (1(,t;,Il

(11111-0 1, (I(IIN 111:1t for Ivhwh 1114. mltwilml loll I rc ldil

11 cl.(, :,c(I (., 1 11 d lsPOI, Il. I

Jw( killil ;w '-I1c(! tt, ow lt illl v, Itcl

!"'I'Wip rt'loollwl J recom III ctl(! ! I loll:

cr 0

z

, , 0_ -, ' C-

.. = .. E -r- , b -

-0 < u - C) LnE-)

E 0E -0

n o u - -c -

z

I O Ho •- .

,- C)<

o o .

E

0 "CZIIl Q; 0eF-2

• z-- " V IV 0 I c.

, _ , :. .. .. . .. . . .. ,Vi

l

z 0 09

04-I n ECL

0 ;a L a V

WU 0 W)--

MOANS"

t I I~ I ' I w , 11 1~ -I

Quincv. Illillois,

hX~ere ?osiblC, [more offetQfvc I( Utrotr fit iflnrevovery s~houl~d he accomplished W itt) priorn tv oil Itic-1. Hlouw'! d~to the MIississippi. Significant poult nB.t are "howr if H

John ])iCoro and( (ompin.I )ubliqur. lk a U I(

A :pple R~iver ( hetien. niii, 1. Duiquioie. Illiti,

F 1. 1) u 1) (-,I11 t 'Do riioiirs,, I plo . ,\Ieretir,,h

Nitrtogenouis wnVtc)

3 Al ( orporition. near I \lhw% . Ili,! i(i

1,)101 I )oerc liri ( am ipm .. Xlr I

F~irst Mrlissisippi l11(ororT~lIcdI 114 an It.\~i .Iv

( hrorii i i, Ni'-kfl idt Xmip)

- Consolidated Packaging lneorpornted, I t. Nindi,,on, loW,, W1WI)

- W. A. Shea ffer Pen CompanY, Ft. Maio.Iowa 'to un i

1 ~ i~tt*, ir'I . \l(idign, Iowa (B 0 D,

f(l !1t'!i w'l)ttll\, fik'al I t. 7d1ttAisol, Ioli

'Ai

-43

June 26. 1979 Attachment #4W.Q. Work Group



Pool Number All

River Mile


I. General problem addressed (write out & use number from Attachment #1):

#18. Point source (lis harges contribute many pollutants to the river.

#25. Point source discharges in Ft. Madison, Iowa are degrading water quality.

#27. There may not be adequate coordination with w.q. management agenciesin Iowa.

#29. Effluent from 3M Plant may be degrading water quality.



To characterite present water qualitv in the study area including spatialand temporal water qualit v trends, and locations and frequencies of ',atel'quality standards violations.

4. Tasks accomplished to address problem (taken from Attachment #3 - write11):

trite water qualitV assessment report.

Map point source discharges to the Mississippi.

. liting of alternatives to problem:

• . State w.q. management agencies and U.S. E.P.A. should promote more nlhetter industrial pretreatment of wastes.

b. Indwi'triala pretreatment of wastes remain at present level,.

1

6. Selected .native a (writ In the l etter).

7. Rat it.. i or selection of alternitive: Several heavy metals in the Mississippifrequent.' _ - found in violation of either the drinking water standard, theaquatic life standard, or both. Municipal treatment plants are not designed forhigh efficiency metals removal. Metals in municipal treatment plants sludgescan make them toxic and reduce their value as a soil conditioner.

8. Iteferenees used to select alternative (use tasks, support documents and/ordiscussions, studies, articles, etc.):

1', ter quality assessment report, GREAT I.

9. Rationiale for elimination of other alternatives:

If industrial pretreatment remains at present levels, the metals load toriver will remain high ind contribute to frequent violations of waterqua lity standards.

10. Prelimil m'% impact assessment of selected alternative. (List below all generalimpacts which can be identified by the work group. The level of detailrequired is only thmt for which the information is readily available.)

1. Increased cost of pretreatment.

2. Savings due to resource recovery through pretreatment process.

3. Improved water quality, heavy metals, other industrial wastes.

4. Improved water quality due to higher efficiency of treating organic wastesat municipal plants.

5. Increased value of mn icipaI sludge.

11 1. Reason for work group rejection of recommndation:

I

4 5

77.

-- c

Cl. E

.7- -- 7--

~C

m . j - -

- .- If)

0C

j E ~ .

0~~ E C C 0~

a.~

C . . M . C > co c

E- ECC~ EC

z, c CL C. CL n

t721p n C'

C bfla- 7

0 ) -;2

___ E E~~2o I C -

E ECE. E 0 .

00V, 0~,C C ~

-0 >

0 C" C

E5 E E

bD w~ '0 Cj o c

8. to) 0" m ' 0

LrE

V.

bz - =

u -E rEC brflE E

147-

z

W--0

- 0c

0 .4,5w 0 0 w

,o -0 -31 - 0

00

;F0 0 V -0)c OD C ,h

z~Gj w C 0j0E c

C CGo~

0 U) 5

.. 0 ~0 Z

to> -u 0-0~* <.0 : . !n

0-0

z iiE

-- r bo

C 0 -

0,0

.s~u~J

-1 E/ bO ,0

-40-

RECOMMENDATION # 6

The water quality management activities of the states of Wisconsin,Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri should treat the Upper Mississippi River as anentity and not as an aggregate of political units. Although various segmentsof the river differ and may require different standards or use designations,the adjoining states along any given segment of the river should be consistentin their management to this degree:

- identical water quality standards for that segment (identifying andprotecting the same beneficial uses).

- similar limitations on the concentration of pollutants in dischargesto the river. As a general rule, effluent limits for one stateshould not exceed those of the adjoining state by more than .100%.

- identical chlorination policies.

- state water pollution control agencies should encourage U.S.E.P.A. through the State-EPA agreement process to conduct awaste load allocation study for the Upper Mississippi River.

This recommendation should be considered at the 1980 or 1981 nationalmeeting of the Association of State Water Pollution Control Administrators(ASWPCA), or at a meeting specially convened and attended by the WaterPollution Control Administrators for the four states involved.

June 26, 1979 Attachment #4W.Q. Work ;roup

I)ISPLAY OF RECOMMENDATION &PRELIMINARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Recoin mendat ion Number 6

Pool Ntumber All

River Mile --



#5. It is not known whether legislative and institutional arrangements areadequate to successfully manage water quality.

#9. Impact of point sources on water quality is unknown and hinders properw.q. management.

#12. Pollution due to dredging practices and disposal of dredge materials is

occurring.

#18. Point source discharges contribute many pollutants to the river.

#25. Point source discharges in Ft. Madison are degrading water quality.

#26. Farm chemicals and sedimentation are degrading water quality.

#29. Effluent from 3M Plant may be degrading water quality.

#32. Thermal pollution caused by discharge from nuclear plants may degradew.q.



Promote the formation of a uniform set of guidelines for all agenciesinvolved in water quality management in the study area.


Write n water quality assessment report.

Assessment of dredge disposal related water quality problems.

Lab simulation of desorption of pollutants.

-51-

5. Listing of alterntives to probleI :

ti. )evelop compatible w.q. management regulations for the Mississippi Riveragrecable to till states in the study area.

h. (ontinue to have each state set its own water quality standards andeffluent irlitat ions on the Mississippi.

6. Selected llternative it (write in the letter).

7. Rationale for selection of alternative: The best interests of the river resourcemanagement will be served only when the river is recognized and managed asan entity rather than an aggregate of political units.

8. References used to select alternative (use tasks, support documents and/or(lisCussions, studies, articles, etc.):

Discussions with personnel from RID/COE, U.S. F.W.S., U.S. E.P.A. and

the various state w.q. management agencies.

9. Rationale for elimination of other, alternatives:

Separate state standards hinder interagency and interstate cooperation inreaching w.q. management goals.

Ill. Preliminary impact assessment of selected alternative. (List below all generalimpacts which can be identified by the work group. The level of detailrequired is only that for which the information is readily available.)

1. Costs of interagency/interstate w.q. management activities.


-52-

00

10-, 0l 0 E -c

oo~C~ ECdQ . 0 CL

OHEOa Eo

(Z ccC E2 r- 0

zcC, , C

0-0 ) Cd

0 ~ ,,- a)>b 0 a. 0.

X: V. cc U

0 0 o u 3 C

Z U, C) C)0' 0 >

c:. ca - ~

z~b zL- I'U' caU, , C) -2 C)

/ ~ ~ C bnC- * -C

-cf l-.r L L

(u I-

L.. C7 0 >- o co Va C ,. C))V qja

0~~~~ W)- -r ( ~ c- .z

-53-

RECOMMENDATION # 7

All NPDES permit holders in the GREAT II study area required tosubmit quarterly thermal monitoring reports should use a standardizedreporting format. The process of heat dispersion is well understood, andadequate site specific mathematical models have been developed for somepower plants. It is recommended that all NPDES permit holders who mustfile quarterly monitoring reports develop a mathematical model of heatdispersion of their effluent in the Mississippi River. The model should be ableto predict the following attributes of the thermal plume:

- length, width and deph of the 5 0 F over ambient thermal plume.

0- the percent of the river cross-section passing through the 5 Fover ambient plume.

- the percent of river flow passing through the 5°F over ambientplume.

-54-




Pool Number All

River Mile



#1. There is a lack of coordinated water quality and sediment quality data inthe study area.

#9. The impact of point sources on water quality is unknown.

#32. Thermal pollution caused by discharge from nuclear plants may degradewater quality.



Assess the effectiveness of present water quality monitoring programswith study area.


Write a water quality assessment report.


a. Require that all thermal monitoring reports submitted for watersdischarged to the Mississippi River in the GREAT I study area have anidentical fornat which ncludes (as a minimum) the length, width anddepth of the 5 F over ambient thermal plume(s), an estimate percent ofriver cross section, and the percent of river flow passing through theplume. All NPDES permit holders required to submit thermal monitoringreports should be encouraged to develop predictive models which canestimate plume size on critical days within the reporting period.

b. Make no change in present reporting procedures.

-55-


7. Rationale for selection of alternative: Present thermal monitoring reportshave different formats and often do not present complete information on themost important problems. Standardizing the format for essential parts of thereport guarantees that the reports will accomplish the purposes intended.

8. References used to select alternative (use tasks, support documents and/ordiscussions, studies, articles, etc.):

Thermal monitoring reports for power plants in the GREAT ll-IIl studyarea.

9. Rationale for elimination of other alternatives: Present monitoring proce-dures, particularly at the Quad City Nuclear Plant when discharge from theintake fore bay occurs, do not define the thermal plume dimensions. Thepercent of river passing through the plume and the percent of river crosssection are factors with important biological implications that are notmeasured at most power plants.

10. Preliminary impact assessment of selected alternative. (List below all generalimpacts which can be identified by the work group. The level of detailrequired is only that for which the information is readily available.)

I. Increased monitoring costs.

2. Increased knowledge of thermal dischages.

II. Reason for work group rejection of recommendation:

--I, -

I

I-

z -

z

0

- -~ __-~1001 C C Lfl

ri ~ C Q C

~ ~ ~zC.- -,

~ CQ~ I~ C '

10 0

LI) KI)- L~.

E C~.. c.~

1- C) I> C

z-262 C~ 0

- .1~C C .7 ~ C -~

C:C) ______

z 0

ox- u.

C CC

I-. - 0

- - C C

_ C-

- I-. SZ-

~,- -. CO COCC

- 0~00

R IC OMA\lIVN)A lION 8

A group[ Of iter'C] ualit m non itorinrg sta tions should 1w es ta hI ishiqht-lo. it major urban area wit bin tie GRE AT IF St Ud\ Segmient (Quad C it ies isVucc 1 n mended). Tbhis group of stations will bc used to assess.; the impact of the(diSchargeYS Of a large urban area on water quality in the Mississippi River.Such a 4tudy would be an integratl part of any wasteload allocation project for,the Mississippi. Therefore, it is recommended thatt this monitoring program

ho implemented by U.S. E.P.A.

Stuadus gn should provide for- at leiist four, stat ions that will Shov. thei Ite, md saialI extent of the reoeyndor dispersion proeess. Water

(J-litY cvai ahles to he monitored shld ( include as, a minimum: temperatunre,p1l. ('onductivityv. DO, 1301), COD, Nil 3-N ,NO 2*NO -N. Total P) total

ilter'ahle 1P. FC. and the total and dissolved fractions oi these meotals; iron.mitangainese. cadnmium, chromium. coppei., lead. / Inc. anW mercury.

II li - IV ~iAttatchmaent #4W.Q Work Gr[oujp

[)ISPI. XY 01' M.L( O\BILN ATION6PRE11. L AIN A IY IM\lPA(T A':SS ESSM ENT'I

P(ool Nu:nth':- I h

River \Iilc A\ll

Oi)ato Approve ('I v W~ork ( r'oup____

1.1wlcia prohliln ;i0dr('55Cd (Write out & use lnmCr from Attachment #1):

'111orci i-s a lack of coordinated water quali tY and se di ment quality data' inl

# 9. Thu impact of point sources on water quality is Unknown and] hindersfiropu l managemient of water quality.

t 17. trbain runoff is contributing sediment, 0 & (G. organics and otherpollu.tnlts to the river.

#1 8. Point source(. discharges contribute many pollutants to the river.

2.Sih-prollu in addressed (write out - use only when necessary):

Sub -ohiect ivu atddressed (taken from Attachment #2 - write Out):

\sesthe effectiveness of present water quality monitoring programs inthe tdyarea).

-1. '[as ks ;ucconrplished to address problem (taken from Attachment #3 - writeor it):

I )cvelop recoinmendat ions for final report consistent with W.Q. W.G;.objpec tives0.

5.List ingr of ailterintivyes to prohle m

a. hvvlop n group of a nhient w.q. monitoring locations neo 'Iajrura

a runI~ in thu (;l{ Al 11 sturdv urea to assess urban point and nonpoint sourcepollutanit irrpacts on river water quality.

I outinure to iise only- w iule lv spliced nii bient monitoring ocat ions and do(lot aIttempt to rureasrure rirhan pollution eets on the river.

6. Seleett'd l ltern tiwe a (write in the letter).

7. Rationnl for selection of alternative: The large federal, state, and localgovernment investments and those of the private sector in water pollutioncontrol need to be tied, in some rational manner, to existing water quality andour knowledge of how it is affected by pollutant sources.

8. Referenees used to select alternative (use tasks, support documents and/ordisCussions, studies, articles, etc.):

Tak #5: Develop recommendations for final report consistent withW.Q. W.G. objectives.

9. Rationale for elimination of other alternatives: Other alternatives do notprovide adequate data to evaluate the impact of urban point and nonpointpollution on the Mississippi in the GREAT II area.

10. Preliminary impact assessment of selected alternative. (List below all generalimpacts which can be identified by the work group. The level of detailedrequired is only that for which the information is readily available.)

1. Increased ambient monitoring costs.

2. Increased knowledge of urban point/nonpoint pollutant impacts on river.


A

-- A~iaI

-C,

-C-

0(CD

Zo-

~C - C -

*0.0co CAy C).

I0 0 3

G))C

0-

HILVOM.MENDA'J'ON # 9

:\tl oil-site inspection attended by the RII)/COE and officials of the

Snvanna Proving Grounds shall precede any disposal of dredge materials on

the Savanna Proving Grounds.

-62-




Pool Number 13

River' Mile 545.2-558.5


I. General problem addressed (write out & use number from Attachment #1):

# 12. Pollution due to dredging and dredge disposal practices is occurring.


3/ Sub-objective addressed (taken from Attachment #2 - write out):

Provide for mitigation of the adverse water quality effects of dredgingand d:'edge disposal during the period prior to development of final w.q.criteria for, dredging and disposal.

4. 'Tasks accomplished to address problem (taken from Attachment #3 - writeout):

Develop recommendations for final report consistent with work groupobjectives.


a. Prohibit disposal at Savanna Proving Grounds.

b. Require on-site inspection by personnel from COE & SPG prior toplacement of dredge spoils on SPG to insure disposal activities do notimpact materials stored at site.

C. Follow same format for disposal as is normally observed at other disposal

site.

6. Selected alternative b (write in the letter).

7. 1Rationale for selection of alternative: Inspection of the area by COE & SPC;officiils should insure that disposal and return flows will not come in contactwith materials stored at site. The Proving Grounds are out of the floodplain sothat erosion of spoils back into the river should be negligible.

-63-

8. References used to select alternative (use tasks, support documents and/ordiscussions, studies, articles, etc.):

Discussion with personnel of RID/COE, state w.q. management agenciesand PFWG.

9. Rationale for elimination of other alternatives: Rejecting the site woulddisallow an otherwise suitable, out of the floodplain, disposal site. Not takingthe precaution of an on-site inspection might increase the risk ofcontaminating return flows with hazardous or toxic materials stored at site.

10. Preliminary impact assessment of selected alternative. (List below all generalimpacts which can be identified by the work group. The level of detailrequired is only that for which the information is readily available.)

I. Decreases risk of water quality degradation by materials stored at site.


_dI

-64-

0

E c

E'a 04

- 03

V,,

0 0 o

H W :4 .)F-ILa C

a, OFr

C.1

9 .~ 3: ,-0-r - 0-Q

f- CD nC

u4~~~C .0~Z- ~ o

~00~: -~~ - C

-65-

TFable ii

IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARYWater Quality W~ORK (;ROtAI

RECOMMENDATION NUMBEkH

IMPACTS 1 2 3 -4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Noise _ _ _ -- _ K2. Displacement of People

3. Aesthetic Values

4. Community Cohesion

5. (Desired) Community Growth ---

6. TFax Revenues 117. Prpet Values___j

8. Public Facilities

9. Public Services --

10. (Desired) Regional Growth - .---- _

11. Employment /Labor Force

12. Business/Industrial Activity_____

13. Displacement of Farms -

14. Man-AM1ade Resources

15. Natural Resources

16. Air Quality

17. Water, Quality/Quantity

>< Significant Direct Impact NOTE: Significant Direct Impricts wnd

No Direct Impact, Indirect Impacts Indirect Impacts which may need furthrMay Need Further Assessment assessment are shown and measured on

[] Negligible D~irect Impact Attachment 7.No Direct Impact

.7 (. I 22

4.-'

V. SUMMARY

PROBLEMN 1: NASQAN Stations iaLn by the U.S. (;co-logical Survey. Since no large uirbln ireas

Lack of' C'oor'dinated Water Quality and Sedi- within the study area are located ii 1it is,-ment Data it) Study Area on Which to Base consin or Missouri, either Iowa, Illinois orManagement Decisions. U.S. E.P.A. appear to be the agencies best

suited for implementation. A group of f'ourSub-objective(s): stations should be established with ver-

tically integrated sampling at several- To characterize present water quality in points in the river cross section at each

the study~ area. location. Spacing of stations should hebased on a reconnaissance sampling pro-

- lo assess the effectiveness of present gram which defines the zone of reccovery\a'Iter' (qualitV mionitoring programs in the from pollution. No other large pollutant"t It(\, nrl. sources or major tributary should enter the

segment bounded by the monitoring loelt-Ilt ask k): tions.

% i te t - (tport onl water quality in the study Unaddressed Problems, Future Needs

The most important data needs are rhoseRe-u d I! annI am 'sions of' Task(s): which keep us fromt basing important vat er

quality management decisions on aictul[he waiter (11ual ty assessment report water quality problems. Foremost in term>,

stil llllmanzes water quality data from several of fiscal importance are diata neecs tviurcsources lrid notes which pollutants in which wastewater tr'eatmen t to in-stream wa(terInca tiori>, exc'eed qujality' standards. The quality.'('port also discusses present monitoring

act ivt a~.PROBLEM 2:

l'eoi~ir'niatioi>:There Is a Lack of' Data Per'ta ining to Surfaceand Groundwater Quality as It is A ffected hy

Re-qu ire NPll)ES thermal monitoring Dredging and] D isposal. onl Which to Basel-oports, to have a standardized Management iDecisions.

' at n ormant.Sub-objective(s):

1)8 I vclop aj group of ambient water(fllity monitoring locations below a - D~evelop modeling procedure,, thait t,',i Iran jar ul~ram nrell. predict tihe wvater quality rnpntl of'

dredging arnd dredge disposall onl al it(-Imdenrratin rifRequir'ements specific balsis.

- l{'clmria'rrdaition ft7 will r-equire Tusk(s):('oordirit iou between EPIA Regions V andVII aild the MIissouri 1)N R. Due to the - Assessmient of' dredge dIisposalI re hit ed1 lologioan I ignificanc of thermnl (]is- water qua lity V rothlems..fra r'gv, tine U.S. F ishi and Wildli1fe Serviceanld thn variious state conservation agencies - Lab simulation of' desorption of pollnIi~nl-rnliv wi1sf to providle input into at pr'oposed froni sedliments.

lR.eorni ra(ifnt lorl 8 %%ould best be niccom-- Results arid I oninisrons of lsi)rinodlt(,d hl 111 N or at tte waiter pollit iono'ant ml ;W'i(' f ii rorping of stat ions Mlodeling of Suspended Sediment l'lii-. 10do, nor t H tht rreteptivif f'rnework of turn flows A tire Rock Isia arid hifrr

-68-

sampling sites showed increases in suspended Unaddressed Problems, Future Needssediments of up to 75 mg/I over ambientlevels in the river. There was no discernible - None of the work which was done addressedreturn flow at hannibal. Sand-sized material groundwater quality.settled within the first 100 meters and silt-sized particles, generally within 400 to 500 - The models developed in GREAT II must bemeters. evaluated as predictors of water quality

The SChUbel-('arter model and the Wesehler- impacts associated with dredging and dis-heSehel- te model evaaned fr Wscury posal. It is anticipated that further refine-

Cogley model were evaluated for accuracy ment of the models will be needed sinceand ease of use. The Schubel-Carter model, the data base for the development of theoriginally developed for estuaries,was modi- models was not large. Model verification ified to work on conditions more typical of theUpper Mississippi. This model has proved tobe awkward in its solution and was not PROBLEM 3:recomi mended for consideration. TheWeschler-Cogley model has more promise and There is a Lack of Data on the Effect ofcan utilize "plane" as well as "point" sources Navigation on Water Quality, on Which toof suspended material. A "plane" source is a Base Management Decisions.more accurate description of side bank orbeach nourishment disposal than a "point" - The problem and future research needs ',resource. A third model is being developed by being addressed by GREAT I.Sayre. [he final report will contain 27solutions for the Weschler-Cogley model, PROBLEM 4:representing a variety of conditions, and auser manual. Operation and Maintenance of the ,-1 ot

Channel May Contribute to the lPCB Problem.lab. l)esorption of Pollutants: Three sedi-ment samples, each from 10 sites, were Sub-objective(s):analyzed as was river water and elutriates.At some sites there was considerable varia- - To characterize present water qnralit. intion in the size and character of the pollu- the study.tants. As expected, sandy sediments weregenerally very low in pollutants and finer - Develop modeling procedures that will pre-size(i sediments somewhat higher. In general, diet the water quality impacts of dredgrii<.

am rOni a. ('01), manganese and sometimes oilarid c~rease, cadmium and zinc were desorbed Task(s):from sediments. Iron, phosphate and copperseemed to ndsorb to sediments during elu- - Lab simulat..... :)f desorption of polltant'-1.trinte tests.

1'1nter qualit% \stanldards violations in elir1- - Write a water quality assessment report.triote (',om'ed infrequently. The secondarytriit(.',M-011--Cdi~lV~qJ('ltl. T e sconary Results and Conclusions:

drinking water standard for manganese wasoccasior llIv ex,'e,ded.

- Mississippi River sediments sampled forRecorn nerrmen ltions elutriate testing contained negligible

amounts of PCBs. There was no deteetable#'2- I II),('O1 should use mathemnatical models increase in PCB concentration in elutriate(levlol)el by V QW( ; R FAT II to supplement over concentrations in ambient river water.their dootniritttior of water qunlity effects The conclusion is that any PCB problem inof (r (' m. the GREAT 11 Study Area is not measuranby

I ru1. lle(ttn il RL( jy('rients: affected by channel maintenance.

'Ilh1e nilc s hoill! be velified by II)/('O F Resultant Recommendations: None.during to rodg ing operations in 1980 andI , , .(ti( .~gr j ,)en',tions in 1.181 Implementation and Requirements: None.

Pl ~n iit(e AlissIssipp)i are Primriiiily a comlpatible waiter (Iuilt\ ;-ji(

levels that (-,,n he' toxic to the animals u geinent pracetices aiji iwinIvolved anld to hu1.mans who consume them. liv pollitical loiinda lies.

Present level,- Ii Mississippi River fish haveheen dlocumented in the water quality report. Implementation and Requiremnts:Periodic testing'. ot, Mississippi River fish fleshfHr) P(H lb shouJl con1tinule. -Recoinmendation #1I has, zdreelx iw

tilly impie men tedl. Spec if tic lev(1. 1PI{0llll;M i: Most variables have heen(50)KI

U.S. E.P.A. A criteion ha' notIt is Not known Whet her Legislative aind established for' ('01), ma1( II t 5)1

Inst it utionalI Arrangem-ents are Adequlate to turbidity (sediment) criterion ne

Su(ccss fll v\ Manage %ater' Qualit\y, before it will have anly prict ica I v:d -I!irivers. Thc quest ion of whetlw ;11

11 t-0 t 1 v C(s): liteC S~ ii'(ili t stziid~ii'd of.;rt(standard of' so mally paV p1'!t [liii

\ssess" the effect ixe'less of' present wateor ambient should he used. init

qiaa lit', mionitoring progrrams, in the qtudiva Pe. -Reconinendntiori #2 is hemri' I

G;REAT I ;)11(i (;]"E VV Ill. %tI!Pi'oiaare the faorration of a riniformT set of' GiH FA ill, the Vonais!t ;

il dliatsfor aill agencies involved in water qua lit v alHa~f( Ilo ent ;1' t itO

wo, tei' atolity nianagrenent in the stud%, advise tile 'or!pt Oil whlit i. ilt1it';ment Iof tho riodel is ; I ret I!

C'OE; shIolld coat irie th)is \'1n( I

l';isk~st: omoeent crotroclr'.

O ex'eloa revoilm[enlli ios for final report ;-I,!(11.111oet isvt with. final water qiial itY vobjee- U.S. Lt'd ti .t P 11

nin\ stts Hotli 17.5 1..

I il 1;1( 1H ' i siolili('l lii'

v,-ortik rotip At dies, were conducted -which Recoin nritent OHvC . i

tei-t;uirIed( to this prohleni1. l,'eC(omraInendat ions of' the( L;)!w;' -'ItiIVwere dveloped tirorir-ti review of Present iiiission (L!' H t t,(I 'IH!Il~t~t'ilt' \. yterIlls lri1(l (iisIlssioii w"ith Per-

rota 1,CP !Tiior\ ;t(r'Iicies irnvolved( in river Uriia ddretj'5(l Pl'11' i. lotli:A \,

'1.0111 1ll'it bit ions: I vet' '(';11101101i')I

dr'essiat t) I ille I 11P1It* ~ ~ -riter for ('r'edli ng

(l11Wlt\ dkor~l Iloria he(('(

I hc ti')I~' -410111d I rv their11 Ic tu level-l I

2. St".with tlhe help of the tUAS. ilis pi'ohloil 111 -0,LP. A.. shioild illitiate or str'ngtten groiup. ( 1Ht toif ic' l11 11 fir :)1 1 11 ('1

m~li~tr~iI kA,;A(,pre tre: m en pr - 11 ior I'lnoli'I] 1.1 1*1

l~~l~liI7:most obvious Ii(- Iud( (: (cnit;i ill Lint in o I I i Iflesh below M lieapoah5-St. Paul aii [(if

ol leetion lrid I renti men t of W~aste waters ill St. Lou is, inereaise Ili frequency- of' hiil IVOHtite l'l Ci(ities I Irs aIn Adverse Im1pact Oil levels helow St. Loiuis arlid high f)iott(Ia IWater Qua it v inl thle Stutdy Area. levels below the Ill10i no l.i. 'Itl(- 1)p*t(*111ir

of samrplinig loci tions wstoo greit to Jhov,il-is pi-ohlein w as not atppropriate to thle all but the Mlost Obv ious eases at v, at (-

scvope of (ffl{ 1 1 aInd was not addressed in pollution fromn urban areas.dletanil. 1)(11 rori trni intion was addressed intlie wnater qi in it v report and PC Bs were ResultaInt H eeOMa neC. dIt ionrs:ineasured iii the labh simulation tests.

# S. I )celop a group a4 Wt-itcr (111.-ltPlIll 8 onlitor-ing, locations helo'. at11

urban area in the G HUA 11 IIljt ml'a;t er Iron t D evelopmernt Activities Halve an irea that will measure the imipactW

Adverse Impact onl Water Ouality, thle urban discharges onl river-v i,,tt

lUhis proble it s felt to he more appropriteto State 2(18 planning than to river' manage- Implementation and Requirements:nierut. Initial 208 planning for inventory* o fpolluitjin sources, aInd forilmatiori of abate- Same as for problem #1.mnen t plans has Already, occur'red in moststat es. Unaddtressed Problems, Future Needs:

PRO~I.IKI 9:Same as for problem # 1.

ill- lImpact of Point Sources onl Water Quality PROB3LEM 10:Is Unknown. Thiis HIinders Proper Manage-no ant of Vl at er Quality. There Is Eutrophication in the Study Ar-ea.

Subl h2 jeetlye(s ): Sub-objective(s):

la) oh iraeterize present x'. ater quali ty in - To characterize present water quality, Inthe -Alid\-%rea the Study ar'ea.

-Aes, the (-fleet iveness of' present w.ater TFask(s):q' ilitv \ ion itorinfrg programIIs in the study

IS .Write u report on water qulality in the studlyarea.

Results ar-d ( onlellsi Oris:k\ nitc( atnassi r report of presentWa;t Itampinlit% \Ili tlie studY area. No studies Of Stand ing Crop (hOiom ns' ) W'-

product ivityv rates of phytoplank tori or aqwtla-ritit% .d ra)p locrutiori of' all direct tic macrophytes were mrade. ITie sprtiil11)1111 oloi-ce dlisehnn'ges to the Mlississippi Water quality data show local nuriernt ill-livi-r- IlIii -tndY inrtl creases inl response to areas, vwith large point

Source dischiar'ges arid subsequent do wnsti-en riilf - - lp r' -emtmii 1(11t ions for finn I report assi mi lation of nutr'ients by the river, biotaj

'li-i~~rlt .' i I ter quaility objectives. Over a 600-mile segment of thle tpper M issis-

(i-stit> tid r~reliisoris:sippi from Dubunque, Iowa, to ( i ro, II i nori,,;0"~l,:110 olvll oll,,:there is a general trendl of inucr'easing NO - N

rind 1P0 4-P) in thle dowast rem n direct ion. 11h i,I ~ ~ (1711 \I, vriv iiqili cti'eded somle trend indicates that rrssimilnrtion by plant,, i-

h' uil'l t4ri-rid-- r attigni-e ri'brtii Poll- not keeping puaee with nutrient loadirug to thelml br-f~l ow In - wremr Vjte ii(llit\'. Thie river. This trend may be not only aI resutlt of

-71-

inerkased nutrient loading in the St. Louis Results and (onclusions:area, but also the reduction in standing cropof aquatic plants in the open river compared Same as Problem #2.to the pooled portion of the river. Study ofplant productivity in running water has here- Resultant Recommendations:totore presented too many difficulties toyield accurate results. However, work by #2. The COE should improve their waterPowers et al (1972) showed that nutrient quality assessment capabilities usingadditions to an already nutrie, ' -- ich lake did mathematical modeling based upontrot ,promote additional alga. productivity. data collection and existing modelNutrient levels in the Mississippi are higher modifications undertaken by thethan those reported for the lake. Rivers also Great Study.provide a continual and fairly rapid replace-nent of nutrients because they are moving #3. Stabilize spoils at locations out of

vvaters. Therefore nutrient additions would the floodplain.appear to be less important in controllingplant productivity than light penetration or #4. Require complete containment of, uitable substrate (aquatic macrophytes). water on-site until return flows are

at least of equal quality with waterin the river.P R013 1,EI", t1:

#9. Require on-site inspection by pcr-N.P.D.E.S. Permits May Require Rewriting to sonnelfrom RID/COE and SavannaAdequately Protect Water Quality. Proving Grounds (SPG) prior to

placement of any dredge spoils onlI'his problem is beyond the scope of the the SPG.GREAT If study. The problem should beaddressed by the issuing state or federalagency. Implementation and Requirements:

PROBII'M 12:- For Recommendation 2: same as for

Pollution Due to Dredging Practices and problem #5.

Disposal of Dredge Materials Is Occurring. - For Recommendation 3: The RID/COE

Sub-objective(s): with the assistance of the GREAT IIChannel Maintenance Task Force and On-

Develop modeling procedures that will pre- Site Inspection Team should secure and use

dict water quality impacts of dredging and out of the floodplain disposal sites for all

dredge disposal on a site-specific basis. deposition of spoils. Placement at the siteshould ensure minimal movement of ma-

Provide for mitigation of the adverse water terial due o erosion.

iunlitv effects of dredging and disposal - For Recommendation 4: Rough estimationduring the period prior to development of tfinl wa)ter quality criteria for dredging required to issue adequate volume within

anld iisposal. retention structures. This work should be

Sk) done by the RII)/COE.

.\sse'sment of dredge disposal-relatedwater quality problems. Unaddressed Problems, Future Needs:

,iub ;iimulit ion of desorption of pollutants.Future refinement of predictive models for

lJvelop reoni mendations for final report water quality impacts of dredfging is an tici-on,,i.tnt with WQW; objectives. paled.

-7 2-

'dvein nt of Rivereraft ('an Degrade Water Point Source D i'c:harges Co tribute MaNi''

(pulaitv. Pollutants to the River.Same disposition by WQWG as problem #9.

*Ihis problem is being addressed by GREAT 1.PROBLEM 19:

PRO!BIIi. 1 4:Accidental Spills, Including Shipment of Ha-

1hlk[,( k Need For a Document Which Gives zardous Materials, Pipeline and Railroad

*uiitc'hcisive Data on Upper Mississippi Spills, Degrade Water Quality in the River.It; v v '\t ur QualIity. - Disposition cf river transportation prob-

lems are the same as in problem #6.Jeot-i(, .(' e(s):

- Spills from terrestrial transportat-ion modeslo ohk,:l ieterizc present water quality in are under the jurisdiction of state waterthe studY area. pollution control agencies and U.S. E.P.A.

Spill response programs have been devel-I ask(s): oped within those agencies.

I- Iit, C ,eport on Water quality in the study PROBLEM 20:

Clamshell Dredging Creates High Levels of

'-ill Vad ('onelusions of Tasks: Turbidity.

This problem is not being addressed because>iii,~c ', ta' problem #1. of the limited amount of clamshell dredging

p5: pthat occurs in the study area. This topic wastoo low on the priority list for funding.

,L'phii tLrosion Is Contributing Sediment to PROBLEM 21:i1, l{ ivr.

There Is Insufficient Understanding of HowPHUHIlL\I__1;: Water Quality Affects The Biota of the

Keokuk Pool.Si tre. il atnnk I;rosion Is Con tribUting Sediment

to the River. This is a problem requiring special studies.The Illinois Natural History Survey has con-

hl prohlein is being addressed by the Sedi- ducted studies on an important member of,rirt and lFrosion (ontrol Work Group, the benthos, Musculium transversum. This

;:\l II. problem was placed on the GREAT 11 list of

i't()Illt1 7: proposed studies but was too low on thepriority list for funding.

I batn tRunioff Is Contributing Sediment, Oil PROBLEM 22:,,,0I (;ae. Organics and Other Pollutants tot I Viw,. Recreational Boating.

I hi, Iptrbictlr is being addressed by state or, Problem not addressed, too low on priority,I, w-.;, ! ;irem 208 plans developed under a list for funding..,.ion ,W the Federal ('lenn Wnter Law. The(,(i), of the- 208 effort is far beyond that to PROBLEM 23:

,el ([IK\' II could :e committed. There-I,, irlveen ent in this problem by A Concise Bibliography Does Not E.xist WhieI

,k I II VQk"(; ill occur. Compiles Research on the Effects of Nuviga-

. i• .. ,.,-. . ... - :,. .... v,,:4 .r,- ' : ." ' " .* * " . :...- -

F. . .......

n V \airrtraince onl Water (li I)\n ben 1l ~' euia- mlo ai: f sOh. fOat Dieidrin levels ini fish on

the(, ?diss issippi nem- H ann ibal approach the

P! ir iw addkressed, too low on priority strindurd. Al[though no fish flesh '!andard1< IIIWII.exi.Sts, for' it, biotccura)Ulat ion of chiordatte

many als,,o he a problem. '[here are pre,--P i OIl1i24: sently 10 locations on the tTM R (2 within

the GRE A T 11 segment) where annual fishi v Pt1. Hoph ical Differences as to fle-sh amplhng is done. This sampling

1 ..*'should lBe Usedl. should h( adequate to provide informationonl tr(,nfis in pesticide contamination of fisn

tw~.lvond the scope of the fI(.-I.

Resultant Recomnmendat ion" NONL

soit-t Scrre iseliarges in Ft. Madison Arc Implerniiition aind -Requ ire ments: NONE

% oer Qality.Unaddress-ed Problems and Further Needs:a r ie~eUin the sa me manner as

'as ~ ' he ovcrll LAroblem is reducing the loading ofbiOacamila t ive pollutants tit their source

P IBh V ti:and the need to develop management systemsto aceomplish these reductions.

['wm ( rewm reals and Sedimentation Are De- POI" 7lnrrrr r' tc HUlialitv. POEE 7

Silt) oh't1Ve(s): There Ala\ Not be Adequate CoordinationW ;tII Iowa DEQ.

:ut4~'vpresent water quality in the'fill :; Sub-object ivecisi:.

-Promote the foi mation of a uniform set of

guiideli nuo> for all agencies inve.ived ir-,

P a; sesnrc'rr t report on present water (quality miingenient in the study area.(r1a1itV inl the 'studv a)rea.

IU-ar t> ;If!( (onclts ioils: - l-eo ecoi n endat ions for the final

Sedw,(-t~i and pesticide levels in the Missis- report consistent with WQWG objectives.

Ippij elmnige dramnatically within the -Par tic ipat ion in Oil-site inspect ioni tema n.H Ot\ irimv airea.- The more southerly post i0isposal task< force and water quzilit,,

(ifflo ct he -Il area has much heavier wokg(up-rd r et rds- and a higher frequency of okra.

r~rre~e Of pesticides. Non-point Result>" and ('oneclu-si oils:serir-ces~ ense 1 oil erosion of agri-

ca ltiral origin onl the lowa, Manquoketa, Comnio nat ion witIh Jowal) EQ has be(,enSkii esMone . nd Yabius River basins maintaiined throughout the study. It is felt('ri, fIi r foi s Sediment problems that there will he aldequafte ('oordifilat ionl of

a i, asoo at ed with the ac- 8Ct VOIC' aWith IiW [on)EQ.itd 4h iing of back water areas.

I e ed s re not it threat to drinking Rslatecim'ndtos:Noneo rr it, thc ooncentrattions presently

I ,hlIis st andards for lDieldr in IU naddressed P'roblemis and Future Needs:rat fi,( uwti es tnbl shed. Available Nn

I k()hl \l25:Results and! ('oiw lus ions:

Costs of lezItimnii Lp Ilfthilent Are 11irh. Ihe extent ot thermal discharges to theViS,-issippi is not gceeally lal-re. Ihle Inn j

Thiiis prohie in is, on V i(le tihe Oope aof the imumn length of the 50 F increased tcnpeio i-* Cill A\ I Stti(Iv. ture plume is about one mile and occupirs

only a fraction of the channel width. lfow-PRlOBLI;DI 29 ever, present monitoring formats generally d'o

not Measure variables important to ichthyo-F*t'Iluent Vron 3M PhLnt May he Degrading plankton survival. The Quad Cities Nucleir1\ le- Oun lit':. Znd Sho011k be Checked. Plant does not measure plu me dimensionis

when they exceed 500 feet in length.

!Is Po"Acn #9.Resultant Recommendation:PROBtLL:1. :o-

47. Require all thermal mnonitoring re-Com einievi i Te iaffic Increases Bank ports within the study wnca to have

Erosion oi( Turbid it v. standardized reporting format whichincludes as a minimumn, 0 the lengthi,

Same dis;position as pr-oblem #3. w ,-idth and depth of the 5 F over am-bient thermal plume(s) and an esti-

P!1iOBLE.\i :')I: mate of percent of river cross sec-tion and percent of river flow

li.S.E.P.A. Crants fo:- Sewa~ge Treatment passing through this plume. AllITlnt ('on~tijition Aie Slow. NPDES permit holders required lo

submit thermal monitoring !cports[his problem is not v-ithin the scope of the should be encouraged to developl F 'AT s tud 'v. predictive models which can esti-

mate plume size on critical dayswithin the reporting period.

.Implementation and Requirements:

lnthC11 PDischarges May f~eide y te UIaityO .cl Implementation would be the responsibility ofthe state or federal permit issuing authority.

Sob5-o)Ject i vet ): Unaddressed Problems, Future Neds,,:

- ha;,nCteri/-' pre''ent w ater quality in the The maj.or area of concern is the, effect of,ud ir, thermal discharges on the total fisheries

resource of the river, Killing of iehthvo-plankton or adult fish occurs due to abrupt

-Assess the effectiveness of present water chianges in river temperature assoc,ited( v%,thquality monitoring programs in the study thra (ishre. Ioee. atI1

area.actual size -nd nature of the fis herios of tie(

T ask(s): Nlississippi can he determined aind comnparedto potential carrying capac ity,. the inmpo -

- Witenriassssentof ate qaliy i th tnee of these effects will not he known.Wi'te n asesmet o waerquaityin he Fuirth~er research on actual fish population

study area. size versus carrying atet is needled.

- Identify atnd niap locations of all direct PR R0111 FM 33:point source discharges to the Mississippi inthe study area. There Is Inadeqia te K'nowledge of FloKw Thc-

Deveop ecomendtion cosistnt ith imes to Predict the Movement of' Pollution.WQMC objectives. Snn disposit ion ais prob~lems 2 aind 9.

-75-

PROBLEM 34: PROBLEM 35:

Municipal Water Plants Do Not Keep Detailed The Effects of Large Rainfalls Within theEnough Records to Evaluate Significant Basin on River Water Quality Is Not WellWater Quality Changes Over the Years. Known.

The large size and cost of such a researchThis is not considered a problem since this project is beyond the scope of GREAT. Thekind of work is not a function of water state of the art in watershed research cannottreatment plant operation, presently deal with a watershed of this size.

I

II

MON=

-77-

VI BIIB.IOGRAPHY

Anderson, K.B. et al, 1977, "The Toxicity of Potassium, Undissociated Ammonia,and Illinois River Water to the Fingernail Clam, Musculium transversum."Presented at the 39th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Madison, Wisconsin.December 4-7, 1977.

Brannon, l{.M. et al. (no date) "Distribution of Toxic Heavy Metals in Marine andFreshwater Sediments." Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Great River Environmental Action Team I - Water Quality Work Group, 1978. "APilot Study on Effects of Hydraulic Dredging and Disposal on Water Quality of theUpper Mississippi River." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Great River Environmental Action Team II - Water Quality Work Group, 1980."Laboratory Simulation of Desorption of Pollutants From Dredge Materialspublished by Rock Island District Corps of Engineers, Rock Island, Illinois.

Johnson, J.H. 1976, "Effects of Tow Traffic on the Resuspension of Sediments andon Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the Illinois and Upper Mississippi Riversunder Normal Pool Conditions," U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Mississippi. Technical Report Y-76-1, 129 pp.

Powers, C.F., et al, 1972 "Algal Responses to Nutrient Additions in Natural WatersIt; Field Experiments," in Nutrients and Eutrophication, G.E. Likens (Ed.),American Society of Limnology and Oceanography.

Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978, "Water Quality Analysis:1978 Dredging Season." Rock Island District COE. Rock Island, Illinois, 1978.

Thompson, (,.M. and R.E. Sparks, 1977, "Status of the Fingernail Clam, Musculiumtransversum, in the Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River." Presented at the 39thMidwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, December 4-7, 1977.

-79-

VII ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS

A. Water Quality Assessment Report.

B. Minutes of Water Quality Work Group Meetings.

C. Contract Reports. (published under separate cover)

1. Dredge Disposal Return Flow Assessment: To be submitted byContractor by January 1, 1980.

2. Lab Simulation of Desorption of Pollutants: To be submitted byContractor by January 1, 1980.

I~ r~C~4)i~J PA~i BANK .NO Fi k~U

,n

-81-

A. Water Quality Assessment Report

A SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OFWATER QUALITY ON TIlE UPPER

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

I. Introduction tributaries and possibly by large metropolitanareas such as St. Louis. The influence of

This report addressed water quality in the these sources is shown in Table 1.Upper Mississippi River. While the confinesof the GREAT II Study are the mainstem of The Mississippi clearly becomes less a

the Mississippi between Guttenburg, Iowa and "bicarbonate type" river as it progressesSaverton, Missouri, this report, of necessity, downstream, particularly below the conflu-

discusses a larger segment of the river and its ence of the Missouri. Major ion budgetsmajor tributaries to better understand the (1975-1978) for the Missouri and the Missis-

observed water quality in the GREAT It sippi above the Missouri, show that while the

segment. (See Figure 1.) two rivers deliver approximately equalamounts of Ca, Mg, K, HCO 3 and Cl, the

This report discusses general water chem- Missouri contributes three times as much Na

istry, toxics, suspeided sediment and water and SO4. Thus, the relative importance of

quality implications on fish resources of the Ca, Mg and HCO 3 is reduced at Thebes, but

river. Even though sediment and fisheries Cl is not, suggesting there are importantconstitute separate GREAT II work groups, sources of this ion other than the Missouri

they are intimately associated with water and Upper Mississippi Rivers.quality, and both will be addressed in thisreport.

III. Nutrient IonsII. Major Ions Although the dissolved solids load of the

The Mississippi, like most fresh waters of Mississippi is made up almost entirely of the

the world, is a "bicarbonate water" since seven major ions discussed in the preceding

bicarbonate (especially calcium bicarbonate) section, important plant nutrients such as

is the predorninant dissolved substance. phosphate, nitrate and ammonia are also inRuttner (1953) noted that hicarbonate waters solution in small quantities. Whereas the

worldwide have nearly identical proportions seven major ions account for about 240 mg/Iof major dissolved substances. A more recent in the Upper Mississippi at Winona, Minnesota

summary by Wetzel (1975) shows greater and over 400 mg/I at Thebes, Illinois, thevariability in relative ion concentration but total amount of N and P in the Mississippi is

takes into ,ccount the volume contributed by only 2 mg/I at Winona and about 2.5 mg/I atsuch rivers as the Amazon whose waters have Thebes (USGS, 1976). The importance of

little contact with underlying geologic strata. these nutrients, however, far outweighs theirIt was noted by llvnes (1970) that it is a small amounts. They are important building

common trait of rivers to show an increase in blocks of anabolic processes and products of

concentration of major ions in the down- catabolic processes. Their concentration

stream direction. This conclusion holds true fluctuates much more than the major ions,for the Misissippi. I)iring W.Y. 1976, at and this fluctuation is valuable in indicating

Winona, Minnesota (UMR Mile 726) the aver- the entry of organic pollutants into the river,live concentatior of the seven rJor ions and their changes in form or assimilation by

was ,upproxinately 240 mrg/l, while at Thebes, aquatic biota. The downstream changes in

lllinor' (UMNI Mile 44) it had increased to 411 concentration of these nutrient ions reflect

mg/l. (US(;S, 1976). more complicated processes than those whicha ffect major ion concentration. In his dis-

Noticeable effects on the major ion com- eussion of this subject, Ilynes (1970) was able

position of the Mississippi ar, made by large to reference two studies on large rivers

iCL.)1!4G P"~i BLAMNI( r -bO 2,ugg

-8

SI. 'd 1.N V ii uie* ~ lefsr

Poc klIand

S I.

TABLE 1

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF MAJOR IONS IN MISSISSIPPI (1976)(percent)

Location Ca Mg Na K HCO 3 SO 4 Cl

Winona, MN 18 11 8 1 52 4 6

Thebes, IL 16 10 17 1 38 12 6

-84-

where significant reductions in nutrient ions in more sluggish waters the'.e is usually awere caused by biological activity. However, greater range of dissolved oxygen (DO) sntu-he makes no general statement on down- ration and lower values can occur-. Largcrstream trends in nutrient ion conceittration rivers show similar trends hut exhibit greaterexcept that nutrients are apparently taken up variation in dissolved oxygen values (Hynesand recycled quickly through plants back to 1970). High flows on the middle Mississippithe stream and that local conditions exert the have been shown to reduce dissolved oxygenmost i:ifluence, because of the wash-in of organic matter and

the redn tion in photosynthesis caused byTable '2 aid ligiire 2 show the variation in increased turbidity (Dorris, et al I '

,',('iltidton 01' itito1gen arid phosphorus inthe form of ,itrate, ammonia and phosphate Characterization of dissolved oxygen (ihna-bct weenr ,uttenburg, Iowa and Cairo, Illinois, mics in the river has been complicated by theas meas ured by the Illinois EPA and USGS. construction of navigation dams, which have

Figure 3 ,hows that when large point exaggerated the original pool-chute nature ofsource 10i) 5 loads and the confluences with the Mississippi. Measurements made in 1930major trrbut'aries are added to the informa- showed 20 percent more DO above thetion in Figure 2, they match up very well with Keokuk Pool than in it. Thirty miles belowthe observed spatial variation in average the dam, DO was 10-15 percent less thannutrient concentration. River segments be- above the pool (Barnicol and Starrett, 1951).tween adjacent water quality stations which The Des Moines River may have contributedshow a decreasing trend in nutrient concen- to the lower DOs below the dam, but no )Otration do not contain large point source measurements were given for that river.discharges. Coniversely, all segments with Barnicol also stated that in 1944, Plattnerlarge point source discharges show increased reported a bi-modal oxygen sag with the firstnutrient concentration at the downstream end depletion immediately below St. Louis fol-of the .egment. The influence of the lowed by a second sag below Crystal City.Wapsipinicon, Rock, Skunk and Des MoinesRivers is masked by large point source dis- Figure 4 gives information collected by thecharges in the same segment. The Iowa River USGS on dissolved oxygen in the Mississippiis evidently similar in concentration to the at Canton, Missouri. The upper graph plotsMis~is>r,i, below Muscatine, since no change DO against time of day for rising versusin coneentration is noted. The effect of the stable hydrographs. Time of day was re-llinois and Missouri, however, are clearly corded only on the 1975 water year samples,shown. The Illinois increases the nutrient so that even though there appears to he partconceltration substantially while the Missouri of a diurnal DO pulse indicted, there areaccomplishes the opposite effect. The true probably too few samples to justify thismngnitud(, of the effect of these two rivers conclusion. The lower graph at first glanceinnv not he, nceurately represented at stations appears to be a scattergrani showing no16-19 due to incomplete mixing of these large significant trends of DO variation with is-

tributaries with the Mississippi. charge or season of the year. A closer look,however-, indicates the following:

In segments with no large dischargers thereis apparrentlv a gradual withdrawal of nutri- 1. DO saturation values are almost equallyents in their nmost available form (PO and distributed between 55 and 90 percent.

4.NO ) from the rive,', but this process is with very few values oeourring out sidevi'n llv untiabl, to keep pace with the large of this range.

port ource nitrient additions to the MiiSsis-ippi,, fon the overall trend is one of in- 2. Without regard to season, (luring I time

ertasr, Iug oonectr' tiao o f nutrients in the of increasing discharge, )O eonealra

downstre n direoton. t ion is less than at times of stnbilizedor decreasing discharge. The average

I', lis Iv \ ,-i, of all data points on the graph a, 70versus 74.2 percent. [his diffcrenec

In sIll 1ir m](111it 'tr'enra the oxyg(n was significant at the 95 percent (,of s jl li , ,it (w ObOVW saturation, hut fidit'ne e level using a I-tailed "I" te-..

iql1.AN NUNHI l ( ),.('LN IH \.4)NS '%I .I l I .

, NO. 4

9 1)0 . 0. 12 0.1 )

I )uhw e__________

0. 1 0.09 _00

3 50o0. 1 0-20

I t USG S 0.58 0.ioj _ _

4 503 9 1 0.23

9 + 414 .5 7 G . 4 n 2 ,3). .1 4 0.76 0 ____ 0.21

, iit*.i nS j "-i.l!. 4 *

411'Y7 "18

8+ ; I 1. -I j . ( (.12

1 1 4 4 0 .2 2 ,_ 0, -. 3

10- 81 1

1(t-:l *1? 1 1 ,,L

0 .

(').? 2 0 3 0

3121 V 21 .024*

ii

15

14' 0. 1 1

241 ti I H 9:. II!,1 18

20 i'f .2I

211

1 .t1;:1 I w I,,-___r ______ i ij"i * _____

llr!.k1P ++tlt'r% " Ii11' " %l l'h [~ rl ' ''I +

- . .. . .. .=... , -.. . .. ,+,,s..'+ " ' . . - . .. .".,+-+ "+"++k .qr'k+'

r... " __ -- .i

Cl)z

F- -_____

Cl) ~1"C

C)C E

& ~- K0 z z C)

VI,

I,

0

-~ C)U-

01-

0

C)0~

Cl)

Cf

r-r --- .iJ~

to Owi 1pper R\~~srv 'iver

III S r I,, m" I I, ; ' i

N 0. I I 13 NI Q

I u b , Di AM I N;-Wit

IISI~ II' I P1<H I lshs 11 ~ ~ Naii(,fure

I is. _J -Rock River

i1-j I~ R v-

II I I-f7T ThE 10- - Sknk 1ve

I t ' 111

-88

.igure 4

Dissolved Oxygen in Relation toTime of Ia%, Year

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

100- at Canton, MO(October 1974 - September 1975)

00z

S0 80

0 0

00

o Rising fHydrograph0 Stable or Falling Hydrograph

40 . a . .1000 1400 1800

LI (I Vo D\Y

MISSISSIPPI RIVERat Canton, MO

H I (August 1969 -September 1975)

0z 0

090 0 0 0OD % 0I-< 0 0 0

- f0 *0 0 0

0 0 0 0

C -

.0 0

Feb. Apr- Jim Aug. Oct. Dec.

>': • I

7 AD-AC99 290 IOWA INST OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH IOWA CITY F/G 8/8

GREAT 11 UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER (GUTTENBERG, IOWA TO SAVERTON-ETC(U:DEC 80 DACW25-78-C-0046

UNCLASS7FIED NL

89-

3. A seasonal )O trend for ri.ing hydru- .re 2) showed that recorded DO valuesgraphs is evident. DO saturation values - r.ever below 50 peurcent of saturationare lower in the summer and fall than in during higher summer temperatures (28winter or spring, a trend which is C., tr,,' 30 percent saturation would result inconsistent with the idea that the wash- DO concentrations of about 3.8 mg/l. Whilein of oxygen-demanding material re- individual values may be in error, the plot ofduces DO during, and for some time average DO values in Figure 6 does compareafter, rising hydrographs. Between favorably with USGS data in Figure 5. BothNovember and May, ten of thirteen DO sets of data show average DO values for thevalues on rising hydrographs were above Mississippi near Canton to be between 8 and 970 percenit svt,'irtio,, but Ictv'een ithy rag/I.and November, only one of elevenvalues measured was above 70 percent. The data plotted in Figure 6 affords some

indication of spatial DO trends in the Upper4. A less distinct trend is discernible for Mississippi River. The most wide-ranging

stable or falling hydrographs. A very trend is the slight decline in average annualnoticeable rise occurs from late sum- DO concentration in the downstream direc-mer into December, followed by a sharp tion. Linear regression of these data pointsreducton in percent saturation from show a line slope of 0.523 mg/l per 100 riverJanuary through March. Figure 5, by miles, or a difference of 3.14 mg/l in thegiving the monthly average DO in mil- average DO content between Guttenburg,ligrams per liter, shows that seasonal Iowa and Cairo, Illinois. Using this informa- iDO and temperature trends are very tion and a table of oxygen saturation values

similar except during this January to one finds that it would require a waterMarch period. Presumably, ice cover temperatur% difference between the twoabove Lock and Dam #20 is reducing cities of 9.5 C in the winter and 24 C in theatmospheric oxygen assimilation rates, summer for solubility to account for this

difference in average DO. TemperatureWhile this discussion has centered around differences of this magnitude are rarely

DO variations at one point on the river realized. Typically, temperature dif-through time, there are important spatial DO fereneces betweeg these cities are notvariations that occur at any one time. The greater than 5 or 6 C. If the average DOexact nature of these variations is largely data presented in Figure 4 accurately portrayunknown due to the limited number of places this general trend, then an increasing dis-that DO has been concurrently determined on solved oxygen demand is being placed on thethe river. river as it moves downstream.

Typical sources of spatial variation would Less extensive but more interesting DOinclude the DO sag and recovery curve from variations include apparent sags belowpoint sources (only large sources might cause Clinton and Keokuk, Iowa and lowered DOa demonstratable DO sag), the difference values in the Alton Pool. The magnitude ofbetween lentic and lotic sections of the river, the apparent sag and the close group of fourand horizontal and vertical DO variation stations within a 35-mile stretch of the river,within pools caused by thermal stratification, made the segment from Clinton to Daven-primary production, respiration and the resi- port, Iowa, the best place to examine the DOdence time of water in various parts of the response of the Mississippi to point sourcepool. pollution. As Figure 3 indicates, the major

dischargers in the Clinton Area place approx-The Illinois EPA has been sampling the imately 32,000 lbs./day BOD into the river

Mississippi for dissolved oxygen at various between river miles 514 and 50.locations, and average DO values based upon20 to 100 samples per location are given in On nineteen occasions, DO samples at.Figure 6. The accuracy of some of the data these four stations were taken on the same oris questionable since individual samples adjacent days. The three stations imme-showed values as high as 30 mg/l and others diately below Clinton were always sampled onas low as 0 mg/l. USGS data from Canton the same day. The changes in DO from

-90-

Figure 5

MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATUREAND DISSOLVED OXYGEN, MISSISSIPPI RIVER

at Canton, MO

(August 1969 -September 1975)

0---C* 0

00

10,

10 'I10

0 0

>t 8

/ 20

6*DO 0

0OTemp.0

I T I I I I . 30

Feb. Apr. Jun. Aug. Oct. Dec.

MONTH

ofi

-9 1-

0HI

00

0I

U, 4I

I - 0

Ln CL0. 0 1:-

C -

If

z 0

'' - -

Z -6

OI € C)

O 0

, -E E

z 0 ,-- 0

00 o

0 0

"o

I 'o

000

DISSOLVED OYr" '' n )

OXY , 0,) (rft1

-92-

station 4 to station 5 and station 5 to station Illinois EPA data collectedi from 1975 through6 were examined statistically, using the 1977, and from USGS for various dates.Wilcoxon test.* The change in DO from These data indicate the lowest DO valuesstations 4 to 5 or from stations 5 to 6 was not occur in the Alton Pool and in the Mississippisignificant at the 95 percent confidence at St. Louis (locations which correspond tolevel. The sample was disaggregated into the the greatest amount of BOD loading in theperiods June through mid-October and mid- GREAT 11-111 segment) and in the CapeOctober through May. Average DO values for Girardeau area. Since the stations imme-these two periods graphed in Figure 7, show diately above the St. Louis and Alton areas doopposite DO trends, with a slight oxygen sag not have low DO minima, this suggests that aat station 5 during the summer but a dis- large amount of short-term BOD and/or CODplacement and weakening of any sag further is entering in the Alton-St. Louis area. Lowdownstream during the cooler months. Figure DOs in Cape Girardeau would indicate longer I7 demonstrates the weakness of using average term BOD or COD from the St. Louis-Altonannual DO data to characterize DO trends in area.this segment of the river. Statistical tests,however, showed the differences in average A concentration of at least 5 mg/i DO isDO between stations during the warm generally accepted as necesary for main-{weather or the cooler weather period were taining a diverse aquatic fauna. It must benot significant at the 95 percent confidence noted, however, that the higher metaboliclevel. The disaggregation, however, lowers rates of aquatic animals during warmer tem-the degree of freedom in the test and makes peratures require more oxygen, so that a 5.0it less sensitive to real variation. Thus, the mg/I standard does not provide the same levelexisting data may suggest that discharges in of protection in all seasons. Numerousthe Clinton area cause an oxygen sag in the studies have addressed the dissolved oxygenMississippi, but statistically a high degree of of requirements of various fish species. Thereliance cannot be placed on that assumption. following summary is taken from California

Water Quality Criteria (McKee and Wolf,1963).

The spread of sampling stations below Teltaefctoother cities is too great to define any oxygen lwcnetain fds

sag on other sections of the river. solv coxyenappes tos

Minimum DO values are another important be increased by the pres-facet of DO variation. Average DO values ence of toxic substances,are meaningless to aquatic organisms if DO such as excessive dis-minima are below their range of tolerance. solved carbon dioxide,The minima plotted in Figure 4 are from ammonia, cyanides, zinc,

lead, copper, or cresols.____________________With so many factors in-

fluencing the effect of*DO values at Canton were evaluated by the oxygen deficiency, it isuse of the parametric 'tt' test, an acceptable difficult to estimate thetest for a variable with normal distribution minimum safe concentra-and a mean of zero. Since the variable for tion at which fish will beevaluating the difference in DO values be- unharmed under naturaltween stations is expressed as X= (DO in mg/I conditionsat Sta. X) - (DO in mg/l at Sta. Y),differences in mean annual temperature, "Extensive studiesopportunities for reaeration and the presence have been made by Mooreof Lock and Dam #14 may cause differences in which fish of severalin average DO at the various stations. The species were confined invariable may have a normal distribution but boxes of wire netting andprobably does not have a mean of zero. lowered to varying depthsTherefore, the nonparametric Wilcoxon test in lakes. The concentra-is used. tion of dissolved oxygen

-93-

and the temperature were two variables which exr~rt the greatest in-noted at each depth, and fluence upon the character of running waters.the reactions of the fish Although temperature affects such physicalwere observed. His re- aspects of water as density, viscosity and gassults show that the me- solubility, its greatest effects are in deter-dian fish will die at con- mining the composition and regulating thecentrations of 3.1 mg/I in seasonal cycles of aquatic biota.summer tund 1.4 mg/i inwinter, and will live at 4.2 Temperatures determine distribution pat-mg/i in summer and 3.1 terns of entire populations and also whether amg/i in winter, specific individual organism can survive in a

particular location. In the latter instance,"In a somewhat similar the effects of discrete thermal discharges

study, the Water Pollution become of concern. The largest thermalResearch Board of Eng- discharges on the Upper Mississippi areland found the minimum cooling water return flows from large power

oxygn tnsins t wichplants. As part of the National Pollutantvarious fish wnuld survive Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) per-84 hours at 16 C ranged mit process, these facilities submit quarterlyfrom 3 mg/l for Rainbow reports on the thermal changes made in the

Trot (alm ardnri)toriver as a result of their discharge. Data0.54 mg/ 1for the Tench from thermal monitoring reports for several(Tinca tinca). large power plants are summarized in Table 3

and their locations are shown in Figure S."'Ellis indicated thatAsTbe3sosthlagsiefte

under average streamAsTbe3sosthlagsiefteconditions, 3.0 mg/I of Mississippi usually mitigates thermal impactsdissolved oxygen, or less, quickly from even large power plants.should be regarded as haz- Cooling water withdrawals are typically lessardous or lethal, and that than 1 to 2 percent of river flow. The shapesto maintain a varied fish of the thermal plumes vary greatly between,

faun in ood ondiionlocations but the area of water greater than 5the dissolved oxygen con- F above ambient temperature typically repre-centration should remain sents no more than 1 to 6 percent of the riverat 5.0 mg/I or higher." cross-section. However, since mixing zones

for thermal discharges are typically in theDO measurements in the water column may faster flowing part of the river cross-section,

not reflect DO conditions near the bottom of the percent of the river passing through thepools within the river. Dissolved oxygen heated plume is greater than the percent ofconcentrations near the bottom muds of cross-sectional area represented by thesluggish rivers may approach zero. Under plume. In the case of Union Electric's Rushsuch conditions, the hatching of fish eggs has Island Plant, the percent of river passingbeen delayed,or the fish hatching from such through the cross-section is greater by aeggs have been deformed (McKee and Wolf, factor of at least 4.

1963).The length of the plume can be substantial.If the data on minimum DO values reported The 50F over ambient temperature plume has

here for the Mississippi are accurate, there been found a mile and a third in length beloware segments of the river periodically unsuit- the Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Plant inable as fish habitat due to low DO concentra- Davenport, and plume lengths almost a miletions. long have been found at Portage Des Sioux,

the Union Electric plant above St. Louis. TheV. Thermal Discharges most interesting feature of the Sioux plant

thermal plume is the great change in itsCurrent velocity and temperature are con- shape with cha. ges in river discharge. The

sidered by most steam limnologists to be the extent of the 5 F over ambient thermal

-94-

Figure 7

AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS

FOR THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER BELOW CLINTON, IOWA

14

hoE

z 12

x0

0 10

8

o mid Oct. - May0 June -mid Oct. U

520 500 480

RIVER MILE

-95-

Z CL.

0~0

ooU, &0) C.-4C

w dI. I >

z 00 IM..

< U,

9.1

0.. cDz *z ID

0 ~ C cp0

00.0Lel, CDO

*

0, 0

z C~w0

0

(0 0.

.n0 0

0 39>4 0 c V 0 0 C

0U..

-96-

Figure 8

LOCATION OF LARGE POWER PLANTS IN THE

GREAT I1-111 SEGMENT OF THE UPPERMISSISSIPPI RIVER

DubuqueINTERSTATE POWER CO. DUBUQUE PLANT

Clinton

INTERSTATE POWER CO. CLINTON PLANT

tv a ITIESCON. ED. QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR PLANT

IOWA-ILLINOIS GAS AND ELECTRIC

DAVENPORT PLANT

Muscatine MUSCATINE POWER AND WATER CO.

vKeokuk

UNION ELECTRIC PORTAGE DES SIOUX PLANT

UNION EL.ECTRIC MERAMEC PLANT

UNION ELECTRIC RUSH ISLAND PLANT

Urban Arva

Cairo Location of Power Plant

-97-

plume on the surface of the Mississippi below Therefore, sewage treatment plant effluentthe Sioux plant was once estimated at 92 may have high concentrations of fecal coli-acres. forms. Even fecal coliform hDwever, do not

present a clear picture of the microbiologicalThe major problems associated with the)se hazards to health. Several non-fecal bacteria

thermal mixing zones (areas greater than 5 F can cause infections of eye, ear, nose andover ambient temperature) are the heat shock throat, and many diseases can be caused bythey can place on fish and icthyoplankton waterborne viruses.

(larval fish and fish eggs). lcthyoplankton

drift with the river current and are therefore The average fecal coliform concentrationsaffected to a degree proportional to thepercent of river passing through the mixing in Figure 9 for 25 locations on the Upper

zone. Based upon figures in Table 3, 10-20 Mississippi. The Illinois EPA data were

percent of thle river at times may flow gathered between January 1975 and Januarythrough a mixing zone. Once fish reach the 1978, and USGS data are from water yearswimming stage, they can choose to avoid or 1970 to 1977.be drawn to heated discharges. Avoidance ofareas of heated waters reduces potential fish The plot of average fecal coliform concen-habitat and can interfere with fish move- trations* shows important spatial variations.ment. Attraction to heated waters is com- Most sampling stations were on bridges inmon in winter, and during this time of year urban areas, so that if upstream contamina-areas of heated waters often provide better tion sources were present, high coliformhabitat than other areas of the river. Fish counts were found (Muscatine and Burlington,mortality occurs, however, when fish accli- Iowa, Canton, Missouri, and at all locations

mated to colder waters move too quickly into below St. Louis). In other cities (Dubuque,heated waters. The opposite phenomenon, Clinton, Ft. Madison and Keokuk, Iowa andfish acclimated to heated waters killed due to the Quad Cities), there were no large sourcesthe shock of colder waters, occurs during the of fecal coliform immediately above thewinter when a power plant shuts down or sampling sites, and counts were low. Basedgreatly cuts power generation. upon the data presented, the most important

conclusions to be made are; first, above St.Although we are aware of these effects on Louis (except where influenced by local

fish, we do not know the magnitude of the sources) fecal coliform levels in the Missis-impact on the total fisheries resource of the sippi are generally near the 200 per 100 ml

river. Knowledge of the numbers of fish and standard. Secondly, average fecal coliformthe age class distribution of various species is concentrations below local sources can

difficult to obtain on a river the size of the greatly exceed the recommended standard.Upper Mississippi. Until we have this know- Thirdly, the St. Louis area is responsible for aledge, the impact of a power plant, or several high level of bacterial contamination. Thepower plants on the fisheries resource, will elevated levels of fecal coliform apparentlynot be known. persist throughout the remaining downstream

segment of the Upper Mississippi. Since theVI. Fecal Coliform State of Illinois has designated all the Missis-

sippi for general use, which includes wholeColiform bacteria are commonly associated body contact recreation, the fecal coliform

with the gastrointestinal tracts of warm- standard is consistently violated below St.blooded animals, and laboratory tests for Louis.their presence and concentration are rela-tively easy. This test is commonly used as an Population differences alone do not explainindicator of the bacteriological health hazard the order of magnitude increase in averagepresented by the water. Results of totalcoliform tests must be tempered by therealization that many soil bacteria are of the *Average fecal coliform concentation wascoliform group. Tests for fecal coliform are determined by averaging the logs of all fecalassumed to truly identify bacteria from the coliform measurements and finding the anti-

intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals. log of that value.

IU

-98-

-0 Cairo

-Cape Girardeau

....... Chester

II.Ste. Genevievekimwc

0. . . ... . ... .. .. . ... .

QUinevCanton

H ~ Neouk (see inset) KeokukCi~ ~I _-Ft. Madison

0 Burlington7

0-

C0

- vi___ _

0 -uad Cities

-u

C)DCc- J

c')r

MEA FEAHOIOM10m

fecal colifIorin wlo ~v St . L ottis. Mahjor urban Ingest ion of j( vim eon! a l;i ITa I(areas from Dul uque to KeokUk have just over water sujpplies,. howevcr, does not appeair to400,000 populationl, While St. Louis and dtown- be it problem. PC~s have very low silu-stream communities have somewhat less than bility in water and appear to be presenttwice that number of people (1970 census). primarily by adsorption to stispended scdi-Chlorination policies, of the three states meat. Studies of PCBI removtol by miuni-involved better exphkiri the variations in cipal and industrial waste treaitment plantsaverage fecal coliform density shown in in Wisconsin showed high levels of P(13Figure 9. Major discharges of domestic removal. Municipal' plants hafve showni 70sewage to the M ississippi in Iowa chlorinate percent or bet tor- i-duet ion inl 11' Hs, nwastewatur.s du'rng the' ricrefttioital season somle iii du.Aruic-s. wC- I liao (,\t el i(April I-October 31), while Illinois tvpicnfly levels of' reduction in P( B3s bfter trcfatiienthas chlorination on newer plants and no (K~leinert, 1976). The primary* method ofchlorination on older ones. Missouri does not PCB reduction in both cases is prec ipita-chlorinate sewage treatment plant effluent. tion of Suspended solids, hut sone baceteriail

decomposition is probably involved. Sinepublic water suppliers drawing from si'

VII. 'Toxic C.olpounds face waters routinely use somet tyle itcoagulation and clarification prioocis. P'( 'H.,

A. 1)CB- in Water supplies dot not appear to he aiproblemn. NO PCB poi.-oniing is known from,concentrations existing in the waters of the

PCI3W are a group of mafn -mode organic Upper Mississippi Basin. While PCBs itocompounds whichi may vary in state from not water soluble, they arc fat soluble. ani.,liquid to crystall, but which all exhibit great like chlorinated hyvdrocalrbon insect ic'dc".stability under pressure and over a wide canl accumulate in animal tissue mionorange of temperatures. Consequently they thousands of times their conicentrattion tinhave found Wide use in industry. The the water. This fact was drawn to pulbliccompounds oonsist of two joined phenol attention inl 1970 when carp cauight bygroups with one or more chlorine atoms commercial fishermen in Lake Pepin, a1replacing hydrogen aitomos on the outside of large natural pool in the Mississippi River.the phenol rins. Mlono-and dichlorobi- were denied interstate shipment becausephenyls (which have only one and two fish contained more than the FDA-allowed.chlorine atoms respectively) are r~eadily 5 mg/kg maximuIm PCH concentration. Thebiodegradable, but P~CIs with three or miechanism Of ulptake is de~bitable. S01110more chlorine groups become increasingly feel uptake follows the food chair, andtoxic and therefore more difficult for contamination results primarily from ingesbacteria to metabolize. tion of food. Others believe aissimi at ini

directly from the water is the most .mpor-tant source. Study, of PC (indta in the

P(Z'Bs are toxic to humnans. PC~s have Upper Mississippi has led the 1'.S. Fish1 andcaused skin disease nd abnormal pigmen- Wildlife Service (1 975) to ceide I hattation in over 1.000t people in Japan, and rgide"o lolaiTn.Ht.ilieloexperiments with Rhesus mionkey' s showed rega)dless f ilaechan isis. lt- lie nc emskin disease find reproductive svpte m dvs- fish eonetam nut iln toe xt ol tofunclion ( includfinF abort ion and stillbirth) Pt1coenrtnsiI OWIC'occurred ait levels as low as 2.5 mg/'kgPC 1s in their diets Mo ra. 1976). Sine 11" m7 a wimnber of' st udie, loave

illtemopted to c, is the extent of thmep('ls art- founild virtuaill' everywhere. contain mint ionl of fish by i UP.,. Much of

An important miethod of triinspm't is evuip- th') dlt giutuiertd doinou Ithese stub st isoration and miovemn t in the tiimosphevre presente I tin lolie 4. Lssermt l v, 1 the(Maekmiy 1 9731, Harvey 1 976). Surfae st udies Showed that v irtli mliv fill ii sIi dov. arunoff, suibsir face tecpilge aind spills fromt stream of major urbainareas eon imalledareas of nianurfact tire. use anid disposal Pt Is. Li kes ind ipoundedl Soc 01 fcontribute to 11('B pollut ion of' waters. rivers whichl ii lowvd suspended! 111it!eril'.

lable 4

LEVELS OF PCBs IN THE TISSUE OF FISHi 11.1 SEVERAL LOCATIONS ON THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER (mg/kg)***

. .ROUGH FISII* GAME FISH**

1,0L-AION -1k2 - 1 7 T- 17 1970 973-45-7

M o-i, el-joo MN_ .f4 - . . - .... _ ..... . .. _.,_- . ... . .26below Coon Rupids, MN 0.5 It .26___-__

_ ---F- -St. Anthonx- 1aLs, MN7 -. 3 .49_ ________

bt 7k m 1 6)# .53 1.60______________SpringIaa c M :N I-- - .

kPrescott - .- 8 7.22 -23.18 .18 6.22 3.18LaePpn 3vC it' 1 . 1.65 1 21.93

dMtitden Ro--k - 2.52., 0. 73 1_ 0.94, 1.03(d )r ... 3... 6.8-- 4.07 1.70 780 3273 12.32 1.11 1.13

Ne on m1 : 1 1 -6.9 - . 3 4 8.08 5.19 0 5 .40Alma I- 1 5.2 5 6.63 i 2.98 11.04 9.08 0. 40Fo-un-tain--Citv; - [ ... WI ,.68g - --- { .5,90

Trm-Ilan & Df, 7. 74 2.4) 4584 _____(0 Trempemlea.u River 1 3. 1 3.43 iI_ _2.86

La (.ro.s, W--_ 10 Y- 1.19 2.54 0.36StoddardI M I t 9 I . ... 2. ,9-- 1 .21 _,2Geno , W1 . . 2.53 ____....___-___.. ........ _1 5_- 2.25Lansi. . .IA ____. . 2.80 __-_"_0.22

FerrvvilleL WI . _ 8 .28_ ___ -- 1.061Vfnxvill A I\ 3.14 1.32 2.24 0.34

Chien__ __1 1.93 __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

abo ve. y nnsin R., --- -9_ ...... 1. 3 ...... 1 ,3.. 38[Ltelow It <nsil I{. 2 .09 0.68

s--- iile--- - - - -7. . 1.01 0.91 0.12Dbu tquL, IA .16 0 22 1 0.23

C'litonIA 0.34Davenport, % 0.46 0.10, 0.14D a w: r ... .. - - - .. . . (-- -- 14 . .. ._ __ __

. . . .. ...... ...t'' I- . . . , ._ . . . . _0 4 3-0 20

Quli . - .

b__ o -<-_ ' I_ ._. . ._: ' . . . .. . . . ..... :_.- ,. _ t ____ .20 0_,_ _

C ( * t.( Zi i110 0. 603.2 0.8~0-1.20 0.20-027Cfltl he I-, 1-77" I Y-i - - ! 1.30, 1.60 . .L0.14

*i oi'i--, I,,tiir~ko, i'lq¢. Sho , II|i sll

***]bil,? t ;.,' 1.- t i: 1 .. . 9>:97 I lt'l , 1976; llolita, 1976; Skeffv, 1977;S.. -I V iii 1 i ', . K , \ '.,<,ii .( ) 4 I' ,ii-Q!-VcipI, iolnpublisl(,d data.

I +;.. , ' l, .'l <' I.. fs< t~l , #v !" Pihl )!, ",~ l.. liilltl~ ll'ht . N.7i

to '.et t l ( I l 1m ::~k di~ wit) piv river or to the relative abilities of theseiulariv high lcvt k. )f Vt't ho h1ighest areas to catch and retain PCB-conta-levelI inll~ I tht toli tot lild in tilt iinated sediments. Certainly additional

Missip ~vr!ipur(Ii t n )05 PCB sources exist below the Twin Cities asill) rnedliattelv hlow M\l iielipol ~s-st. Paiul indicated by fish tissue PCB levels of 0.04down to :aIid meILI gi .kt Pepin. During to 0.19 mg/kg in the Iowa, Cedar and Des1 970, gnmre fi!dh desill- from I uik Pepin M'uoines Rivers.contained ?n a \'er'age of' 3,2 agr/kg Pt' Its. In1975. fish trma osIiln lbs i arni area In general, the trend is toward a reduc-vwere lov .,! mli .; tio!l a1nyi Iueul loll tion in PCB fish contamination in the,Ill hdi ha. a livi, .. i Ill!)daiatiorl IC\'iiI Lppci. Plississippi over time (from 1970 tonitO\'C thc pit 1) t I. 1:X 2 ng,'kg limnit. 1977") and over distance (from the TwinSarmples o'ken ill 19"iY i t).\ the U.S. EPA Cities to St. Louis). Below St. Louis thereshow that ithe Probleil is les s severe in are substantial increases in PCE concentra-ot her plii'ts of, tilhttppeir \1 ississippi R iver, tion in fish.hut thle urhl cli oe af I ivenpor't, Iowa and]

st.ton>. l i~~on'i ittnill significant B. PesticidesCoiitrtitor!> to Ill BAi'Jilti ii intion in fish(lorerni. I97H). D~ue to their persistenice The occurrence of detectable levels ofand a ft'iii t ((i Nfo[- einntPlbWill (-On)- pesticides is widespread in the waters oftinlie, to '11a tn fist, anid at her aqutio ( the Upper Mississippi Basin. Figure I Ilife for INor \eio h uthneks in thle shows the location of pesticide samplingdischarge of th'ks to tile Mississilppi is stations in the Upper Mississippi Basin forreflected h\, the reduction inl P('B levels inl which USGS has published data. At manyfishi flesh. I evets of' P( 's in Lake Michi- stations, pesticides have been found ingan have niot shown this degree of reduc- concentrations exceeding their recoin-t ion. -olis moiv Ie dut. pa9rtlY to a eon-- mended levels. Although analyses for manytinning high level o:f 1"(1 loading to thle pesticides have been conducted since 1972,lake but also to the oifferences in sedimient including organophosphates such as Dia-dynamnics, hetween ti ake and a river. zinon, and Chlorophenoxyacetic acids suchR eseairchers inl Jufoin ha~ve shown that as 2, 4-D; 2,4,5-T and Silvex herbicides,PCBs have a g-rcater affinit:Y for smalller only the chlorinated hydrocarbons - thepar'tiobes (Choi, 19761. Therefore, the "'hard pesticides"' - were found in levelsamount of P1(14s flushed 1hrough nd out Of exceeding EPA's water quality standards.thle Upper Alississippi colnhh te a significantfactor cant rihutmrg to t hit irediet ion of 1)(13levels in f'ish inl0 1 th I i\'r'. Detectable levels of these chlorinated

hydrocarbons are rarely found in the head-waters of the Mississippi, and this appears

AS I Igrirt flov%. the 'wIrinenpolis-St. to be more a result of land use patternsPaul atrea of fihe river still contains fish than basin process. The headwaters arepopulaltions- With) P(H Icontent two anld primarily northern coniferous forest areasthree times greater thman the FDA 2 mg/kg of less intensive pesticide use. Furtherlimit. The great difference in average fish down in the basin, the streams drain thetissue contaminit ion levels in two nearby more intensely cultivated lands of southernsections of thec river inl the Twin Cities Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Illinoisarea shows that the, hydraulic characteris- where pesticides are used more frequently.tics and the nmohilhtv of !edimentis in a This pattern of use is reflected in theparticular se(_gment of the river are prob- greater pesticide occurrence in the watersably more important tlhn distance fromi of' these areas. As stream order increases,the source of 1( Itk o,inination. T[here- however, dilution appears to play a morefore, although Yigniwe If) ;huow., inerensing important role than recruitment of addi-levels of P(Wfi inl fr~ti frorn I uhique to tional sources, since the number of chlori-Clinton to the Quad t 'it ics, it is not clear nted hydrocarhon pesticides detected inwhether tie trend~ is, in response to mddi- the mr-in stem of the Mississippi is lowertional PCI1 s oures inl tlK. seotioni of the than that of many tributaries. Table 5

-102-

F igure 1 0

CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs IN FISH TISSUE197 5-197 7

(nig'kg)

0.19

Minneapolis

St. Paul 4.3-6.50.49-1.6

eLake Pepin 1.1-4.1

0.10 Cedar Rapids 0.18-0.19

Omaha0.10 Des Moines iQuad Cities

00

Kansas Citv00-.00.26 St. Louis

0.27-0.86 \o

-103-

Figure I1I

THE OCCURRENCE OF PESTICIDES

IN THE WATERS OF THE UPPER

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN

(USGS 1972-76)

ot0

0

CD@

DD 109

* ~~ Numer of Loann Whr

4Thet Paestcd ExceededeQultits Recommnddadar

II.~ 0pxd

5etahor mor

-10 4-

0 >0

E !-

4 0 0 4

~~J)

zz

0>0

(1) 0

-- 0

' CV)

E) L) -ai P4- -a

EE0 0

10.5~s(IIl I~ihi/'e tit- (rctitit'llie ' Uof the det eel- quenev during the later period. The earliernbli' levels of' ch i,i*intel pvst tii's, In the survey found "only occasional" detectablebasin. Sie tiis table surrimarizes mnfor- amounts of Aldrin and fHeptachlor, so themattiori from nmany state and'1 federal mon- status of these pesticides has not greatlyitoririg activities, the kinds of pesticides changed.and the intensitv of the '.:tinphing vary withtime and place. T'herefore, not all analyses The state of Iowa has regularly sampledtested for aill pestioides. and many of the pesticide levels in streams for many years.pesticide,, listed rmust have it higher fre- Figure 12 summarizes some of their data.querits it .ceilr'rv*, ot thi these (bi ta As the preceding data on the Upper Missis -

limshowed, Dieldrin is of miostconcern, and LDDE, a breakdown product of

Snic . t .(Jtil t'i i~ "Oh 'SO." [DDT, is more prevalent than D)1)1 itself.were run %it tit, 0.1 ug 'I level of detection, The trend to note on the Mississippi is that(which is equial to or greaiter than the frequencies of detectable limits (henceallowable conocitations 6w till the men- standards violations) increase dramaticallytioned orgmtrmctlormiiv. exoept Eidriri), aill fronm the northern to the southern end ofthe deteocd leveik (d 1i tedrin, 1)1I, D)lE, Iowa as a result of pesticides in the largeLindane. Ileptnehilor. (Chlordane and Aldrin rivers draining the state.are in violation of' stundards for protectionof aquatic life. Like PCBs, pesticides bioaccumulate Ini

aquatic animals during their lifetime. TheThe threat to huniari hinlth fromn acute FDA has therefore set limits for accept-

toxicity of pesticides in drinking water able levels of DDT and Dieldrin in fishappears to b,, no greater than the threat flesh. A limit of 5 mg/kg has been set for,from PCBs aind for the same reasons. [DDT and 0.3 mg/kg for Dieldrin. No limnitsThese organochlorines have very tow solti-- were set for any other pesticides. Table f;bility in waiter and are found mostly ini summarizes data collected by severalsuspended sediments which are removed agencies on the contamination of fish fleshduring water treatm'tent. by pesticides. The 5 mg/kg limit for 1)1)I

was not approached in any of the locations

Thechlrinte hNdroitron hae ben Samllpled, but the 0.3 mg'kg limit foi'[he h lorriui e I ydrocrbonshave een was approached in the 1 isour i

restricted1 in use foi' -several 'years. The River at Boonville and the Mississippi mtlevels of Di eldi litid other chlor iiiated Hlann iblI, and exceeded in the VI issisipihydrocarbons Incas' ored d In rg th lielst few at C hester, Illinois. Chlordane has w.years are mnost lv per'sistent re'sidnes from official limit, but its chemical simiiilaritI\ 1,pesticide nppl rca Iinns maide years be fore. DI eldrit arid its concentrat ion In f s~r flesh1Therefore, whilt Ik lves (of ilw Piest i('i(1c in the Missouri and tipper Mississippi liasn,are not esliectei t( rise. t iU ('On I irited suggest it is as big at problem ti asI ieldr ii.restricted itst arid their ridriwi releasefrom streamii sedi-ii, will sustain the The effects of long termi suh-acttpresence of v is hi* i:: et IIriI ,rme rnis for levels of' pest icidIes are unknown. Isk ini!many niorn veujrs. I uicll, for. extilriple, of problem) cannot be simulated In n labor tI

lR5 hIwO little. ohllmmi~c III Its f~firceo tory, and therefore the safe dakilI, dosavgu -during a revviri 8 X your 1wr i((I. A sIud Ii(\ ri a pesticide over a 60 -year pe .riod I, riotpesticide occuirrence. in l11w Missouri and known. Chlronic low-le'vel pesticide coilUpper Missrippi l(i.'i. th)l ed( nbtout 4t) tam irit ion would aippear to be of uhorepercent of I hi' i(,- niit i ~met! Ieldi'in concern t harn ncute toxicity from) uit lietbetweeii I 9)I mnit 1 116~~ae et 'III drining water or fish.1967), o~ipa'' '1i. it 3-1 [wrctrl id 48percent for thte \ se'iamid I pper Nlisissippi Bmosiisrsec ey during 197 C. Hleavy Metalsthrough 1 976i. t 1',1) DI' arid I 'idrin-occuirred Iin lvc'r ifIII ti tf tw earlier Withbout except ion, the hea vv metalsamples, it ccui-i with noiichIs fre discussed below hav,, very complex biogeo

-106-

Figure 12TiHl. FREQUENCY 0F

OCCUjRRE:NCTEOF THREE PESTICID)ESIN IMA STREAMS

(April 1968 - Otober 1976)

.0

.29

W*

-107-

Table 6

LEVELS OF PESTICIDES IN THE TISSUES OF FISH FROMSEVERAL LOCATIONS IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN (mg/kg)

HEPTACHLOR

STREAM LOCATION DDT DDE DDD CHLORDANE DIELDRIN EPOXIDE

Missouri R. Yankton, SD 23 16 12 9Sioux City, IA 30 13Omaha, NE 31 10 13St. Joseph, MO 85 185 64 53 58

Kansas R. Kansas City, MO 42 19 31 23Missouri R. Kansas City, MO 49 28 34

Boonville, MO 274 294Jefferson City, MO 52 32 118

Mississippi R. Lansing, IA 1.3 2Clinton, IA 30 20 12Davenport, IA 22,5.7 20,7 21,13.7

Cedar R. 15 84 37Iowa R. 72 68 49 178Mississippi R. Below Burlington, IA 3.6Des Moines R. 141,43 127,47Mississippi R. Warsaw, IL 84 81.2 5

Meyer, IL 36.7 32Quincy, IL 50 39 2Hannibal, MO 251 243Louisiana, MO 117 104Alton, IL 86 81St. Louis, MO 23 94 202

Meramec R. 65 18Mi-ksissippi R. Chester, II. 333 499

Cape Girardeau, MO 37 52 101Caruthersville, MO 66 205 208 63,151 33,116

*Data from Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Comm. (1972); Iowa ConservationCommission '1976); Missouri Department of Conservation, Lorenz (1976).

L a w - I, ., - _. .. . . .-... ._ jil ,b i-I~,,,., ,,. -- ' -- -- . =.. , ,,• i= ..

-108-

chemical cycles. They move through the of dissolved organics in water caused byaquatic environment in wter as ions or autumnal leaf fall and winter runoff fromcomplexed with dissolved compounds. They decomposing organic matter would increasecan be adsorbed onto suspended or de- the potential for complexing metal ions toposited sediments of both mineral and organic substances.organic origin. Most importantly they canbe incorporated into living tissue. The Tables 7 A-L present data on thefactors which control the pathways a metal occurrence of heavy metals in the Uppercan take through an aquatic community -- Mississippi River Basin.its rate, magnitude and impact on the biota-- are rniy. Of the twelve metals shown in Tables 7

A-L, eight showed violations of waterThe total anmount of a metal present is quality standards which are presented in

important since the various forms in which Table 8. Those metals: cadmium, copper,it may e\ist (i.e., as ar ion. bound onto or lead, manganese, zinc, silver, iron andwithin particles or incorporated into living mercury, are discussed below. Tables 9 andtissues) must follow thie laws of chemical 10 present the frequency of violations ofequilibria. ('hanges iii the total amount of aquatic life standards and of drinking waterthe metal can mediate a change in all standards by heavy metals.forms of the metal. Therefore, a change inthe amount of metal in the stream canchange the mounts of all forms in which Cadmium: There was only one violationchage heal moupent o a s in h rnoted. This occurred in the St. Louis area.the metal is present, not just in the form Although cadmium is quite toxic to mostwhich is entering the stream.

aquatic life, the very low frequency of

Alkalinity appears to greatly influence violations in the Upper Mississippi Riverthe toxicity of metals. Soft waters, those indicate that cadmium pollution is not a

low in calcium bicarbonate, show much problem.

higher toxicity for a given concentration ofa metal than waters rich in calcium car- o : The pattern of copper viola-bonate and bicarbonate. The toxicity has tions is distinct. There are frequentgenerally been interpreted to be caused by violations in the Dubuque to Burlington

the replacement of calcium by other segment, but no further violations until the

metals, and the rate of substitution would St. Louis metropolitan area. Several forms

be reduced in waters with abundant avail- of copper occur in water, and their toxicityable calcium, is quite variable. Evidence of a copper

pollution problem, therefore, is not docu-The presence and amount of complexing mented by this data. The bicarbonate

organic substances or metal adsorbing min- nature of the Mississippi is a positiveeral or organic partioles regulates the factor in reducing the impact of ambientequilibrium Corncentration:, of a given levels of copper on the biota of the river.amount of a metal. In ;ome cases these The area of greatest concern appears to bebinding agents hold the metal so tightly below St. Louis.that it is effeetivel' removed from use bythe aquatic biota. In other eases the metal Lead: Lead analyses shows this metalmay be loosely bound and released after to be a problem mainly in the GREAT Ifonly a minor change in water chemi.try, segment of the river. Lead is toxic andAs -t is regulated by the itmount of metill, accumulates in man and other animals.the equilibrium is also regulated bv the The frequency with which the drinkingcharacter and qunitit., of these complexing water and aquatic life standards are vio-substances and d,,sorbing mlerials. There lated indicate that long-term lead accumu-fore, periods Of high surface runoff could lation might be a health problem.change the amount of mettls entering astream, the alkalinity and inlso the aitount Manganese: This secondary drinkingof metal ndsorbing patr!lt',h suspended in water standard is almost always exceededthe water. Incre'i',- in the nneentration for the entire Upper Mississippi River. The

NBSI-NI(

% o fRI1vi Major Sta Avg. # of Sample-

Itiselevrge,s No. Total Samples ExceedingRierMetal Standard

Cone.mg/I equalle drinking

Ing~l 1, e water

7- 11thl D eere C. No2-1 .000 16 Std. 0

-7 Pl (l)Il l SIP

It5 .) 0: 3 .000 13 _ 0

4 1:1-7 17 Chilton SIP. 1.. .Quadtt CII it);Dlpoflt ihwkevc

\Iu.e't rr 1'GS* .002 11 ___ 0lv11p- iIpii 4)0 River ___

a 5 0 4 .000 - 904! 16 .000

9 .17 -6 .0(AO 0 9 -0((ta Iiy~i it481 Daivenport Stp.

107 HooRek River1wk il 45 -- 7 .000 1 _ 0

4 ;n 9 0e

12 41.9- .000F -- f10-_ 0

1Si. 1uRier ip10 .000 0 _

r' It IilolS p14 CS .003 13. 0

11 .000 100

15 I'.tektik Stp. flrtirrgertIf \Iuice River

16 12

17 , hI S eti d13 .000 13 0-f

19 ' f14 .000 10TVl . (01 100

16 .001 3 0

20 I *I ('IS .006 14

1 1718 W;0 2 _0

19 .0012 2-2 11 j2 .001 140

22 ;S .005 23 022 .001 11

** >1' Swigt rentinit Plant

-110

C'ADMIUM

Avg. % ofRiver Major Sta. Total # of Samples

Mile Dischargers No. Metal Samples Exceeding

Cone. StandardSmg/l au~c",11

l)ubuqiie l

2 john hecro )( o .9I .000o 16 0 03 __ _d_ ___~ct'' 'o

-'utohI)ubnqte st. . .... .. .000 6 0Clinton 3_( 537 021. . - . ... ,

4 o43 .~ ~. - 3 .000 13 0 0

Quad (it es -0 . 5 .. i ipent. 1nwkeve- . ......... --_..... . ..Thom.

Mus.atine 1 GS* .002 10 0 0- T 1 ,0 11p:ipillieoln River -. ... ,80 _ 4 .000 9 0 0

496 _--_ -5 .000 12 0 09 485 6 .000 9 0 0

Burlington 4-1] D - _a__o_._- - _

1-o u-479 _ l _ River ...... .Kekk455.5 7 .000 12 0 0

" MuSe0 inC Stp. __.. .._

1 -... 'lonm .to

437 . . 8 .000 9 0 _ 01 2 4 3 1 . . . .lo w v e_.. . .

12 ~~~4109 L 91 ii4 _.) , __ I- _9 ..... o0 ... . 040 Quincy J t",lington SIp.

13 Quincy -- : 96- _-_- Skunk Riv e}r ...... -]

84 .1 .000 10 0 0'83 H '. Mladisonl Stp.,

E a "an...bal

14 364 .. . ..i.l (;S . .002 f.. 13 0 03 -(H .2 11 .000 10 0 0

15 36 W Kcokuk Stp. lIlubinger --. - _. . .361 .5 Des Moines River

16 3.43 12 .17 3' - . .000 10 0 0

319 -32 5 (, ine% Stp.El s. Louis .\iwriean ('anamnid1 - -lest.. ...-- 0T .T - - -- --19.14 .000 1 i _1 o -1115 .000- it 0 0

218 lllitoi, River204 1 G .000 6 06 _ 0

20 _ 1 ;S .065_ 16- 6_195.5 2 jll i lxier

229-I 17 .006 2 6 -0 -

18. 19 .000 12 0 (1

I 7 01 . . . .. .12 S ot o-_

5._) 2 1I

-; 2 2 l - ; S 0 0 6(1 2 + -€- I 2'2 '.002 | 12 I0 I (

•~~~ ~~ n% ,i- Sl.1 :ILll t olj

R iver Mtajor Stf. Avg. # of Saiple"i l iemgrNo '1oul Samples ECecedirig

Mit tiscinrgi~sNo. Metal StandardCone.

21 .000 0TV 0

Istp ________

3 2 .000 8 (1 0C It ()ii -A Ono 1 0- 0

4u 5i 3 5 1 l i n t . 1;..

Quad 6 5 D1toil Haky

5 3 .000 q _ q o

9 437 85C .000 qY 0 0

102 1 ~ i D ngtoiicw Sip.I

E03 I I -f14oti 4i-t.2_ 70 0-

12- .2t 0000

4) In2 tP 1-;;2 Rilliitols S p.

19 Qu82e 146 Skn 00 tRive0

2010t .000 9 0

10? I 1I0 03

HI 1 8 .000 3 0 0

3f; I .5I D ' . iver

6I tO 4 1 .000 10 0 0

1 14 .1)00 12 0 0

___ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ - --- Is .000 12 0o

'~t iAnn

-112

Table 7D

% o fAvg. Samples

River Mnjor Sta. TotalI # of Exceeding

Mile Dlischargers No. Metil Samples Sadr

1o e a,)uat c drnmn.irgmg/huque - -

2 386 ---- ('0

3 '2 .08 0 _O

52 )3 .00 12 0 04 5 :! 2-07 (hltoll Stp. . I..]I. - - -

Qii d Cities 5 - utflo lt. 1:

8 4__ .6 9 056 .00 12 00

9 485 0 9 0 C

IJ I Il ii liton -48 I I veitjtoi ISI p.

E3 N t i k si.p, .00 _ 12 -0

43 7 8 .00 9 0 01

12 109 .00 10 n)

13 1 i

< I In .00 _ 9 0 0I't . i klloti Sip.

14~ no I (f.\nir--.0 1 0 01

15 S P* 1 .5 DItVil i ier16 1 '2~ Iie

1713 .00 10 0

li>11 .00 10) 0 0II15 .00 10 0 0 ]

I f; lbOO _3 0t

20 W; .O;

I I18 .02 3 0

901 .01 1 2 021 no Ii 1i 0 0 0

22 I(;s____ ___ __0 _ _.1 I1 0

R I ver Mnor Sta. 1 Avg. of Si plo'o . Total Samples Exceeding

Mill t., lirgers No. 1e 1d('dCone.I n c'q.e, C

Iii l iC .- -lg 'l:?,< ""'''

2 t . I, . 1 4.-+0Z .... 6.'.03 16 19 0

('lritorl 3 3 .03 8 50 0

4 5 li, t ~S,,, s r . i. - . 18 22 0

QUIid C itii.S 5 )

6.} "'- .... 1 f t. 1 l2keye - - - 0

Jp,7, 111won Rwer 9 I4 A. t 9 12 0

I C .04 12 33 09 483: 6 - _ 0 -_ __+. .. -

105 -- 6T .03 - - 22 0

.7§4. 0 4.

I.; 8 .04 __ 9 33 0

12 9 02 0 10 0

13 (L11110

KuI(.'o *-.,l; i. I hun er .0.. .

,, -hi o o o ...- -

17 13 .00 10 0.

I l 8! 1, ,itOG. ,, '\i'veiri!! -

,.- 6 1 21

0 13 (S . 0 82in 0 -

19 IIS .,0,3,l 3II l i0)

151 .00 11 3 0

S0 1 1 8 fl

22 I , (.S .-03 2 :13

21 1 A5 .0 1 12 83 n 0 _

22) (Is .03 25 56 0 -

.01 12 1 (

2 1 + li: ''I(S '.1i'il2l83 S I ..

' ' t 7

UIV. # of~ Lie ~No.~ Samrples

3l!)o -.10 - 7 _29 4:1 lI 3 .07 18 17 .

tz I 65 ~c- 5

40 .02 12 1 1

9 1 0 .04 9 22 2El B i 1kT2I it t8 t;,~ 1 2 (APO p.

Kcku 10 .05 1 2 4.

Sin St ii tp .I_

12 I 1 :'9 05 1 -0 0 40-

('in 10 -.00 09 0 _I I

14 G) C .02 12 0 j 8

17 13 .n0 10 0 0

19 _ '14 .0) in 0

18"t 0. .U i,'

14 n00 in 0- .T15 .0-9 10n

20 (;s O

1. .0 1 2 0n I

21 ~ :3 o21!( 0,122( 2 12 0

J "._ _ _ _ _ _ '' _ _ _ 0_ 0__ _

,# of

Il NI ,. ll 4 t IN 2 i 1 i n

2 2 C.. . .N"' '+ N .1 .1(; r2 inf

3 ',I., I

ir .5 2. ll ~ T~r

8 III .. ,, 1,: '

' 4 s .12: I n ion I

T - I '

12 I

3t : ~~~~ +,. + + n o Im lt

9 . + ++l r N N ' 2 N1 (1 (

S 1 .'8 12 ~fl l120

14-., 8 .14 4 H (f l 0.' I I

1 , , j .I 11o 0 1 (t)

19 14 1., 11 n 11

N i 1'"'3N .- -II/

II NIi I ,I- I I t

14),

17'(+ NI >1.I .1 1t I) Ii 1 1,

20.' q Ii .] Ii; 1 l~~1wll.. \ -- ,IIlH i I'\ '

.12 .N fi - 1f)

21,SI , .4.1 1 100

[ °TII , , ' -, I +

22 1.,; 0~

5 Ni' .. N ' N'1 I fIN

.. . . .. . . ... . ... . '> [ . ? ; :? . .

/I N C

1t)C ll

- :1 arnples ,0,

N0 10 0I

N',." Itll t~ m s I ep11++

3 -2 .0

- 1 I 6 , <.:r . .. .. .

t :s;,ttI .. " '1 .u -{t~~ 3IH (a 7' I .0 13J 0

"4I .,.041 ]1,..1.

)f)4 9_ f)

9h4t'! , .0 - _f5 0t l il 48 i ;V t- Stp.-

-I-,!) R-e V R:p.LU ( ive (. r10479 oc Iix - g- - --- -.n -_ - -

lheo ii'i t 4ul di,;55i5p . 7 .0 1 12 0 0

4- -

- ..9 ! lw~el Rivor .. .

!2 oCkuk 4k .3 i ' . a,

S1' n 10oa.

11,irnbal K . slkg . \rnn410 .0 1n 0 01U '.1. I \k8ikI Stp.II16 + -4 1 1i r1 f ii et' 1- - - . .

1 3 n l . 1 4 . .0 7 - 1 0 +'19 - 14 .0 in- 0

llaliliib<<3) _ i ( +t, uk St.

I [uhl~ ing-e .. ..

11 14 .0 11 -0

01 6 17 020 10; GS .67 1; ,0

. I . 2 l fl 0

-- 0 ::-, f) P-O a _

1 19 . 2 R )

21 +wo 20 .0 - 12 0 0

0 S t

:l It 1 up,'- I t "i'nr S1. - -

22 (is .01 25 0 0 0

221 .1 i0 1 021 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ MmjoIli 20 .l 20"

101

R iver \Iajor Sta. \v # of Sa ile..,I otiicsNo ot rplsI\~t(d9

\Ictal Stimdard

-p II MO Ino 1 0 PI

2 .000 8 0non0itj 2 3 .n00 13 0 I

Quad~~ *> 'h ~7 i Iaoa Sit). . E. 1.-Qud5 1 upon!t . 1:wkevo

0 1 k1 ips ip I t ~1 0 NI ver8503 4 '.00 9 n 0i

490 G 5 .o00 11 0 0-t

g 48. J .r 0 Po 9 0urnInigon481 1 1:vonport Mtp.

107479 Rook NiverKeokilk 4-55.5 noo00 12 10 0

\lasentilne Sip.

1241 8 000tt 0 0

414- Iowa River ~j02 1 I

13 ,Quilcv 396 Skn Rive

8!------------------ .0000 10 0- 0f)8 F t . Mladison Stp.

., )- -, -- - - .-- - -- .- -- I I . 0 0 0. 0is 1( 3 eoku ik Sip. I 11ihirig'el.~

15 1631 - -1 )(' A -N-i m ( IRive v- r

17 -- 16 o01 10 in 0

19 -:31 '.- - ii \ S p. - -

19 '9 4 .000 10 0 o'141 Ann 10 0 0

"(14 -G 0 n0 0 0

20 ? 03 s192.- Rive I 00*' 0

181 A.00 3 0 0

-- n7 19 .000 125 0 n

21 ( 20(~ IO .000 - 12 0 0

21122 (;S

IS ~ "imilir Stilt joll

l.iW J

it\ CI il or SIHa. .XvI # of Sti lili.,

,NiIt I)iseltttrgers No. to i S~ rples I \c(c(1ing

2 ) . 'i ,I .No

0 10 0 sti

'Onion ~kItOljllt Sip.0---

.)0 3 .0 13 -0C4 5 13517 1 im1l t Sp. .11. _

itiOo 5 DuIPontI iiwev

Altiwcatinc 1 C-; q

8 7 Wapipm'ini? Rver5 03 4 .411 5 .0(

9 o , - 12- 0-- -lint lington 48 .0~clpr _ 010 ~ ~ ~ ~ - 479 loi -tvl

10Keokuk 12 -

12 94 .o 5I _

13 'Quntne\ -- F)f Skmik- River

in ni

14 Din .2; S-3 , - It .0 1

15 - 6 :1 N oktl ,,;IP .I lininiger1 75'1 l( t's River .

16 34213 12

17 : 1.7 12 .0 10 0

E 113 93 o2 Q;ifhlevoIf Stp

19 ]-1 i .0 11 0

20 ~ ;S

17 .0 2 0

I 1A ir.1m it Sip.

19 10 I n2 20v .0 12 0

22 I__________ ! 2 .0 I?

-.-.--- 4 -.... .- -

i tt

I m I . I ., ib

I~Ing

2 1,4, ,"0 ' 1 ( 2~ ( 8l (!f4

Quad illt i C6 " - ; -5T 8.] ]7 ' i'I?! 'rl i.-S1I"+

'.'r

67 1 4, " :

\,1ti.('l 4tiie .- 'I g 2 ... rI Tn4 if 14

9, o' n 19 ,i2 * FI',i !

4., ., 1 <>,., :. ,! 1

12 Ii2 I'' 9

13 ,

14 I1 11 loll

1I7I 4.1 44 I 44

I] t ! t!- , < I .

19t~ ll l II,!. I.. ..\tl jll'

. i i i -I i ts . I li4, * l il' - t ,

2074.4

V I :1' i H I ',' , lol109 .8 _10 (0 . 444-

4'4( 1H , . 1) ! (444 -, 414

!< " 4, ' .4'. z*'.) It

1 20

*! I .'[4 ,< '.. r ' t' , HI[>

-I211,, ] )Il] ll

101

6I.

121*

22 f,.

-121

Table 8

U.S. E.P.A. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR HEAVY METALS (ug/l)

Metal Aoqkttic Life Standard Drinking Water Standard

Arsenic -- 50

Cadmiun 12 * 10

Chromium 100 50

Copper 20 ** 1,000

Lead 100* 50

Manganese 1,000 50

Zinc 300 * 5,000

Silver 5 50

Nickel 1,000 --

Iron 1,000 300

Mercury .05 2

* Use of this figure assumes "hard water."

• * Based upon interpretation of toxicity test data on sensitiveresident species by the state of Missouri.

-122-

Table 9

FREQUENCY OF AQUATIC LIFE STANDARI)S VIOLATIONSBY HEAVY METALS

M ETA I

LOCATION As. CD. CR + 6 CR+3 Cu. Pb. Mn. Zn. Ag. Fe. fig.

Dubuque, IA .19 .06 .10

Neai Sabula, IA .50 .29 .12

Above Clinton, IA .22 .17 .08

Clinton, IA* .10 .70 .91

Below Clinton, IA .12 .11 .22

Above E. Moline, IL .33 .17 .33

E. Moline, IL .22 .22 .22

Muscatine, IA .42 .25 .50

Below Muscatine, IA .33 .22 .11 .11

Above Burlington, IA .10 .30 .10 .30

Ft. Madison, IA .40

Keokuk, IA* .42 .92

Keokuk, IA .20

Qunicy, IL .10 .30

Louisiana, MO .27

Winfield, MO .45

Alton, IL .18 .17 .50

Below Alton, IL* .06 .82 .75 .33

Above St. Louis, MO .50 1.00

St. Louis, MO .33 1.00 .67

Below St. Louis, MO .54 .08 .92 .30

Chester, IL .83 .92

Thebes, IL* .56 1.00 .7(0

Belovw Cairo, II, .18 .92

*US(;S dat - all others are Illinois EPA

... . .1-" :' ". . . .I

-123-

Table 10

FREQUENCY OF DRINKING WATER STANDARDS VIOLATIONSBY HEAVY METALS

M ETA L

LO( ATION t6 +3As. Cd. CR CR Cu. Pb. Mn. Zn Ag. Fe. fig.

)ubuque, IA .12 1.00 .90

Near Sabula, IA .43 1.00 .67

Above Clinton, IA .22 1.00 .69

Clinton, IA* .10 1.00 1.00

Below Clinton, IA .11 1.00 .67

Above E. Moline, I1 .25 1.00 .92

F. Nioline, I. .22 1.00 .67

Muscatine. IA .42 1.00 .92

Below Muscatine, IA .33 1.00 .78

Above Burlington, IA .40 .90 .9o

Ft. Madison, IA 1.00 .80

Keokuk. IA* .08 1.00 1.00

Keokuk, IA 1.00 .55

Quinev, II. 1.00 .70

Louisiana, .10 .82 .55

V infield, MO 1.00 .73

Alton, IL .83 .83

Below Alton, IL* .36 1.00 1.00

Above St. Louis, MO 1.00 1.00

St. Louis, 1I.O 1.00 1.00 .67

Below St. Louis, MO .92 ).o0 . 5

C;hester, I11 1.00 1.00

Thebes, II,* .56 1.00 1.00 .04

Below (airo, IL .92 1.00

*US(iS datn - tll other are Illinois LPA

-124-

main problems are the staining of laundry Heavy Metal Contamination of the Biotaand the taste of the water. High levels ofiron may aggravate the adverse effects of Metals are not only a problem in water butmanganese. in aquatic animals. This has been recognized

by the F.D.A., which has imposed a limit ofZinc: The standards for protection of 0.5 mg/kg mercury in fish shipped to inter-aquatic life were occasionally exceeded at state markets. Canada uses this figure andscattered locations (below Muscatine, Iowa, sets a 5 mg/kg limit for arsenic, a 10 mg/kgbelow the mouth of the Illinois and below level of lead and a 100 mg/kg level for copperSt. Louis). As with copper, bicarbonate and zinc.waters itet to re'tuce zinc toxicity.

Mercury is of special concern since re-Silver: Only two measurements, one search has shown that any form of mercury

above Burlington and one at Quincy, can be microbially converted to methyl-showed significant levels of silver resulting mercury, which is readily assimilated by thein violations of the aquatic life standard. biota. Studies of mercury contamination in aSince different silver compounds have flowage in Ontario (Armstrong,'1973) showedwidely varrying toxicitics, the importance that mercury concentrations were higher inof silver as a pollutant in the Upper- deeper, more quiescent parts of the lake.Mlississippi is questionable. These findings were apparently corroborated

by studies in Wisconsin on mercury levels inIon: Laboratory tests show many ducks. Diving ducks, which feed in deeperaquatic animals are adversely affected by waters, had higher levels of mercury thaniron at concentrations commonly found in puddle ducks which feed in shallow water-.streams. Often. however, these laboratory The increase of mercury in diving duckresults do not parallel toxicities in natural tissues was 33 percent and in the liver (100waters. Above the mouth of the Illinois, percent over that of puddle ducks (Wisconsinthe standard for protection of aquatic life DNR, 1972). However, the diving (uks mayjs exceeded less than 50 percent of the be at a somewhat higher trophic level thantime at all locations except the USGS the puddle ducks. In the snme studY it wiv,station t (Clinton, but below the Illinois, it found that the average mercury concentrrais exceed(d 50 percent of the time or tion in fish tissues* exceeded the IIA. ().more at all locations sampled. This sharp mg/kg limit in most of the Wisconsin liver r,rise it frequeney of standard violations as well as the Lower Flambeau and the mrn lh.well is the increase in average concentra- section of the Chippewa FlowagTe. The 1",It

tion mm present significant adverse of Wisconsin advised tha t in mor( th (ai) oineffects to the biota of the Mississippi meal per week be made Iroil fiheh (,t inbelow the Illinois River. The drinking these areas. At that time th(, av, r'qrge (i-,water iinn(ar(d, like the one for mnngu- mercury level in fi'h it lhe )11--.ipp, Riv-1,nese. is In aesthe tic one. Like inanganese, where it borders eiseonsin was 0.'14 mg kg.the stwidard for iron is consistently ex-eeded at all locations on the Mississippi. During 1975-1976 nercury determination-The main problems are staining of aIunmdry made on northern pike by the Iowa ('onscrvaand water tiast.i tion Commission (1 976) showed that fist

taken in the area where the 1972 survey wti,Nlereurv: Violations of the mercury made showed mercury levels of 0.19 mwgkg.

standard occuirred in the St. louis aren Further south, below Diavenport, the a'vragi,(aqrmt ic life md drinking water) and below concentration was 0.17 mg'kg. This andIlannmal (aimitie life). Mercury poisoning other information on mercury lovels in fish iis uw-illv tihe resid of industrial exposure shown in Figure 13.or 1v ingestion of contam inated food ratiherthan throuigh conta inmation of water. Four There is not a substantial amount of inforof 16 measureennts in the St. Louis area ination on what normal background levels ofexceeded the drinking water standnrd, how-ever, arid suggest that mercury l(vcls *33 pereenlt rough fist). 67 pereent iTam)should be of concern. fish.

t iourc' 1

MEI:RCURY LEVELS IN

FISH TISSUE" IN TIlE FISI OF Till" UPPER

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN*

(mg kg)

K .14

.3 G

1.2)

..;4

IvY'j.O

I IN N4 0

I (m':, , . olmln~ . (1976) -,

11,. 1 '1d

I ,I> (,n)u .

-126

mercury should occur in fish. Since it is however, has been dote in Michigan andretained and released very slowly from the Wisconsin (Michigan DNR, 1972; Wisconsinbody, mercury can be found in virtually all DNR, 1974). Both studies found thatfish. Statewide surveys in Michigan and chromium content in fish is strongly corre-Wisconsin from a variety of streams found lated with chromium content in the water.detectable traces of mercury in all fish The Michigan study found that for zinc andsampled (Michigan DNR, 1972; Wisconsin copper the same was true. This study alsoDNR, 1972). Background values ranging from found that zinc and copper accumulated most0.04 to 0.76 mg/kg and 0.03 to 0.18 mg/kg heavily in bottom feeders, suggesting thathave been reported from Canada and Sweden these reti: . nrt hioei nf, entratc, that theyrespedtivel'.+ (Wisconsi l)N R, 1972). 1i are cliriit, c ir'cGt ,1w ;)v or easilv andappears, therefore, that levels in fish of the that the richu-t source of these metals isUpper Mississippi River are within or only probably bottom sediments rather than anyslightly above background levels, and that member of the food chain. The Michiganreductions in point source mercury loading study found lead levels in fish were about themay help tributary streams, but should have same in areas of lead contamination and inlittle effect on the levels in Mississippi River areas with only background levels of lead infish. the environment. A study of hearv\ metal

contamination in waters near a lead miningUnlike other metals, there has been evi- and milling area in Missouri, however, found

dence of bioconcentration of mercury. A large accumulation of lead and zinc in fish,Swedish study found highest levels in northern amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates of thepike. The Michigan study also showed higher downstream aquatic communities (Wixon,levels of mercury in predator fishes. Infor- 1977). Sunfish and catfish living in stillingmation from Illinois EPA when plotted as ponds and streams immediately below millingmercury concentration against body length * sites had accumulations of lead up to 178 andis shown in Figure 14. Since an individual of 405 mg/kg respectively, with even higherany species bioaccumulates mercury through- levels in aquatic invertebrates. Very highout its lifetime, mercury concentration in- levels of zinc were also noted.creases with age and all data points for onespecies should follow a general trend of In general it appears that, with the excep-aligning along a line from lower left to upper tion of mercury, heavy metals are not biocon-right. The dashed lines separate species or centrating in aquatic ecosystems. Fish andgroups of species from those accumulating other aquatic animals appear to accumulatemercury at different rates. The highest these metals in rates that depend as muchrates of accumulation occur among those upon their habitat as their diet. Neither thespecies which feed mostly on invertebrates Michigan nor the Wisconsin study found levelsand other fish. Those species which feed of lead, zinc, copper or arsenic that were Imostly on herbaceous or detrital material above the limits for fish flesh used in Canada.appear to accumulate mercury at lower rates. These studies suggest that in mining and

milling areas, where concentrations in theThis information indicates that, as in other water or sediments are great, accumulations

waters, mercury is being bioconcentrated in in the biota can greatly exceed safe limits,the Mississippi River. contamination of fish by these metals below

urban and industrial areas is generally not aThere is less information or, the concentra- threat to human health.

tion of other heavy metals in fish and howthese relate to concentrations in sedimentsand in the water. This type of study, VIII . Sediment

This section will rise! ss sourees of sedi-nient and how suspended sediment in the main

• The relationship between trophic status and stein is affected by increases in flow. The

mercury accumulation would be more ac- data were obtained from suspended sedimentcurately portrayed if age, rather than length sampling stations operated by the USGS andwas available, the Rock Island District, Corps of Engineers.

' l;

-12-

TI I I R I{"LL:iI 0N SI I IP () F

'.IL-RCURY ACCUMlULA\TION AND) INCGT 11 INS1V. .

SPEC'IES O1F FISH

FROM Till: MISSISS]IPi iVIAZ

(Burlington. IA to h11lainIul AMO)

-. 5

. /

7 .3

.2

AAA

I I I I

-1 8 12 16 21 0 2

181 .Ni1 11 (w.)I

1S ( dr i.p 7 1A hi lB'-

(*,'I)'[ v M ile lner

lihic Buffll() ripp.

j'l wi u e o I fwi l If i) Io t I'.[ s lre I( it'( i 10 II I ~ I,' I Iut t it r' i I 0 [(di1

t i tying tiirut'ce pttibl orl rrrr(e:ir'able levels of [t'll11 lihoul it.suspende~iCd sedimnt i s rio EP V11 ip s Qua lilyC ritrtiai for W\riter (197 2) gives the follIowing: Sedimen 'Ht loads inrease dJra nra I rcaI\' [iwii

thle (;1U.A[ I to thle (;lRlAI II 5(giii('rt oftIlriver. Figure 1(3 preset s It te sti~prdid

Acirat ic ('onl roun it iis should he pro-- sediment loadl conr'ibut ion,,I to the' ias5-leeted if the followingo miaximluml eon- Riiver' at Hanitibal, \1 issorri. TI'ie c

I larlil ibkI I is s evvo 11 11d ottoAc -I If r 7 tI ,1 sof1 p1(1 oteira 25 lilt, A trtn aiteen ta

MIoderate protect ionl 80 tog. I Mlississippi vwatei''hled it1 lkitrnih:1I- - I'Lowa level of' protection 4(1( mg/I lvice als large as at I hbriqin . ] iII It IVery low irvel of' pro- Table 11show the frequency cf Vrrl 11, iVlectiart over 400 mng, 1 regimles and distribuition Of -(peo af

mlerit coolrtin %~~ vithliti (elth lint: r,,, ain the live!- att fllirbl, \isrti

[hle in 1fortilnin e rises of the word ''malxi -

mum"ior prec hides. tihe above ['torn being a I\.V Fshr iversit ',practtical standard since at time,, of very highdisehargre, almoost all streams would fall in to Thre tipper Msisippi ithle jlst 100( \ ('Ithle lowest category. Figure 15 s-,fows; flow has changed frim a f ree flow- rlig riv\QImedian skis-pended sediment levels in thle draining a frorntier to aies of ver \ lot ,rMississippi at H annibal vary with flIow. Pools subjcCt to or rICI barge traffi atZllMedian levels at the lower flows (under drini nrg large cities rind vast areas of nt en -75,0010 cfs) are less than 100 mg/I and A highi siVelv orl tivrrted land. These changres avflows (above 200,0)00 cfs) mcdian suspended7 greatly altered tire phy\sical nd biologicallsediment levels are between 300-400 mg/I. character of, the r iver, and the charac tter'Ma1XimuurI values exceed 2,000 mg/I. By the thle fisheries resources of' the river.1972 C'riteria. this part of thle Mississippi The earliest important modification of tire''ave's a very\ low level of protection to

aquaic cniniinites.river was the construction of the Keokukoommimties.Lock and Dam in 1913. This and subsequentdJamis increased the amount of stilled water at

IP A's Quality ( riteriti for Water (1976) the expense of running water. The benthicgrives thle folloIAing' criterion. "Set tleable and habitat of' much of the river that hod pr-snlspc'Ided solids shotild riot reduce thle depth viously been silt-free was now covered withof tire comtrpe'rstrtiorr point for photosynthetic silt. lBarnicol (1951) noted the difference inacetivity by ) more thtan 10 per'cent from tire the benthic communities of thle Mississippi

seaonalyestallshred normi for aquatic life." near Keokuk. On thle floor of the KheokUrkTIhe i rp'reoertor this de'fi nit ion over thre pool he found mussels, chironom ids.areC 1i11 in1972, ;ith ough needed, is not ('hiroborris, purlnmona te snails, snmall iva Ive<

t'(;nllilv rppar'ert . inste(ad of Imeas"urirrg tire and several species of leeches. in silt- freea rirorrit o f, sol idls IIi rselves, one tru t rror- areas wer'e r ound eaiddisflies. Neuropl era.surea I the a~t Ierriionl of' lig ht a ftei' fir'st flat wor'ms. beetle larvae, cm \'fish. Odoirri Ilira vig dete mifier , for ea- , ea,)son, a)t whmot and leeches. 'Thris and subsequent do inis onl tiredepth Iiiet pi i nny prodition byv the ph yto- river have proboably been responsible f awplinktl ion(ait IIltiri v is, telr. '1Ire prnotioalit\ chanlges, in thle dis triblution of' fishes. ('rkerof the. ('rrt('ritoit is flrther'. 'otllit'omised by, (1929) believes that interference inl tirelie tInt 11hat uir',,Ianii('ol do inlcur. big liig br'ecdinrg of migrartoryv shad~ and possihl% 'itit

plaid' I tnt. alit-nir f-entC't In g'alrrrir', geon has been oursed by thre pr'esence (ifillrtcl'( tis'lre ailll uhn -IKiit 'light aid can Kxeokuk Drim ating as it bar'ricr. Iln the oniseviiltt.' illre --larrdilrd. 11we ho tr sedirrieril . of the Skipjnrek Hlerring, Alosa cliiysoctrlotn-

wlia'tt ~ ,I ifr.crrr/' >lb'it, r' gratcsl and( the (1'r/zord Shod. fforoorno (pedipal lIii nt I ix volulrlw. cantor no: irs ill d'> aniinm , the('ir rest rict ion or, 'eduet iOn Iii t0

01I 'JSllil NWI'l SlIlAII N I ()\tN( I II \1)(N

400I

)

(~0

NoI1nw /Ilo

1.), 0

10O IilIl MISSISSIP~P[IjI lkI it AIV:HNNIBAL,. 1MISSOURI

( 19-44 - 1966)

Mis,'issippl

It.

AbOVe DUbLuqtW13%

> Wapipin ieon, Rock, lowa n

Cedai lRivers 2 3 %

Do Ioi)c -~ f and lot) uS Rivers1'

63%

,t Ilannihn)

A--1

Cj

co

z- o

zz -c

-n cC. c2 c.c)--

13A

river a lovc 1toktik atUe ['ts f tie belithi(e tO 1- the total weight ol tie coflflrelel l (I t cfinnity since they are host for the larval dropped from 6.3 to 2.1 million U)i(,!

state of commercially important mussels. annually.Eels, Anguilla sp. which are catadramous(migrate to salt water to spawn), have had Clearly the quality of the M issisolpi :i-

their distribution, but not their spawning fish habitat has been declining. Imoiioiareas reduced. ment, overfishing and introduction of for o,n

species have all contributed to declinms intThe change from lotic to lentic habitat has native fish population.

also affected fish ,istribution. Spawningarea, have been severely reced and fish It is not readily apparent on the Misissipp,which normally inhabited the swifter areas of how instrumental water quality has been iiithe river have lost living space. Two such these declines compared to other factors, hutspecies, the Lake Sturgeon, Aeipenser ful- information from other streams is availahle.veseens and the B lue Sucker, Cycleptus elon- Several studies have shown significant reduegt,have been greatly reduced in number. tion in fish diversity due to degradation inBarnicol lists the flooding of the LeClaire and water quality. Fish declines documented 1i,,Keokuk Rapids as a major reason for the Lachner (1956) from the Upper Ohio Riverdecline of the Blue Sucker and notes that the showed 18 species extirpated and six greatltpreferred food of sturgeon is found over reduced in numbers. The pollutant was acidsandy or gravel bottons and not in silt. lie mine drainage from the coal mines of westertnalso notes that overfishing has caused a large Pennsylvania. Larimore and Smith (1963)reduction in sturgeon numbers. found 16 species removed from the fish famn,

of Champaign County, Illinois, which is :t

Initaly the damis also created a great deal headwaters area for five streams. The mainof'Inewtisy theaia in ated rm gref deas or cause was the change in land use to intensive

of new fish habitat in the form of sloughs or agriculture during the present century whichLtckwaters which were readily exploited bybuffalo fishes and many sport fishes, flow- has modified the aquatic habitat and de-bufal ishes an mileansotfhers o wth graded water quality. Gerking (1945) sampledever, many of the backwaters along with 10 streams in Indiana which had been sa mph,.,

natural floodplain lakes were reclaimed for 50 years before and found about a 13 percent

agriculttu'al land and much of this habitat was

lost. decline in the number of fish species. All ofthese studies included a variety of stra oh

Introductic i of the carp, (Cyprinus enrpio, sizes and, therefore, are not really corn-

from Asia via l.turope prior to 1900 has hod a parable to large rivers like the Mississippi

major effect on the relative importance of which have a distinctive fish fauna. Son

major fish species of the river. Records of data are available, however, for the ma in

lMississippi stem of larger rivers. Mills (1966) believesRiver c Illinoisand Missouri from 1894, 1899, that 18 species have been lost from the maiiRivr i Ilinos ad Mssori rom189, 199, stern of the Illinois River which was subject1931, and 1946 were compared by Barnicol to large amounts of organic pollutants during,(1951). The most significant trend was the t ~'Caonso rai oltnsdrn(1951). inthe m ostiniicntof trd was the the 1920s and 1930s, and still receives a largcincrease in the proportion of earp at the amount of treated effluent, barge traffic :iniexpense of the buffaI fish aind cathfish. In runoff from agricuIltural lnd. File main stem1894, hiffaI) fish (inciding the Quiback) of the Missouri, by contrast, has undergo ic

catci by weight; cet fish a boat 22 percent significant channel modification (motIly in-creasing rather than dereasing the eurren)

and carp 4 per(ent. ly 1946, carp was about but Pflieger (1975) does not list iny fish :i47 pereient, tuffalo fish 21 percent and extirpated and only two species ;s beingp

(ilt'ish 1,4 percent of file coinmcr(iiil catchby weight. Im'ring that same period there greiitly redued in n mlher.was )I halving in the importance of paddlefishand a threefold ile einc i tie importance of At least two species of fish appear to hayv,turgeon. Ihe decline of native fishes its been extirpated an( seven others gte:r Ii

percent of totu aiitch is made all the more reduced in nnml:bcr oil the Upper i1isilli.snificant by the fact that during this 1pt'iod Ifarha (1956) roted thit the t;ra.s JhrketJ.

.;~ i a ln(9 6 oe h ttc (.as 1jk r )

.sox VeIrn (lvldatii'. w~l reore i')ito~ be if) the generalIly been goodt. Ma jor reitsons, for tirM ississippi a Ihovc Ii il(lfle. low" in I 935, hut overall good qua lityv of the river water- is thEcon Id no longer he found there. iris date large size of river., heneo its Iir'ge wasteeorresfpori( e1 ISE lv to tile cous-t ruct ion of dilution and assin liii vIif 'ipoe it y. Find statedolirts on that ltrea of thne river (I ock and IDarn and federal 'Nat _-r clean lp) pr'ogramnis.#1 its coilplet ed iii 1 937, Lock and [)iam#I'- and #13~ wer-e conmpleted in 1938). rhe river is not without water qualityPflieger (1 975) nioted at least five species of problems. Some problems are common tofish inl the river lthovc the Mlissouri which had most or all of the river. The most serious, in

beeli grter Iv F roL ?Ii riririe, ahic hlits general, are localized problems below par-Palid h~rei. ~ airns, lniir as ticularly large pollutant sources. These

lippir'eit lv Itwe i e\t irpated. Impoundment problems usually diminish due to dilution,was riot ftre enitire p~roblemi since tire Pallid chemical processes, biological renovation orSiinei a ko Va 0 ihed fiorri tin impounded see- assimilation. Such health hazards as bac-tions of' ftre \isspiind from l'ree-flowiirg terial contamination, high metals content intriibutarive. ilffit'grr I blieves turbidity anid the water and a high content 'of chlorinateddslaip eree pob tajos factors~ Of tirhie hydrocarbons (PC Bs, pesticides) in fish occurdisppelf-ict o' fll, spci". f to fve in certain segments of the river. Table 13

speieshe ots a rc 'f rducd i mii- and Figure 18 describe the water qualityher, high turfidiitv no'i~ Ne irporlant in tile monitoring network for the Upper Mississippidecline of' tire C entral Silvery Mlinnow, River Basin. A sumimary of the extent of

I lbogia lis indof s.[iiSinI Imo ti Bas, various pollutants is given in Table 14.M icropteitis tioloflijeiri. tihe Blue ('at fisir, cta-I urus fui-caituis, the lajke St i-rgeon. Ac ipenseradfeunl

THcns aidth( PIaddlefish, Poivodori Iron, manganese admercury feun]spathirla hove ill lippzirent lv Suffered f ro m are in violation of ovater quality standardshahitat miodificatiion. lir,' 'the latter two throughout the length of the river. The ironspeciens, which innitwie slowly, have heen and manganese standards are aesthetic ratheraffected i)\ overt islfir. than health standards and much of the iron

and manganese found in the water is theThe U[pper ftiispilhas riot exper' entd result of natural weathering. The frequene',

le reducrtion ill firiniheis of, f~sin Species ,, of high levels of iron in the river ineretscNhave 1io1e polluted iessuch aIS tire Illinois below the Illinois River, probably in responseor tire U!ppe'I Ol to. Irirhid it y arid possiblV to Illinois River water and point sources, inother water (1ialit 'v profiferris. alre indicated it. tihe St. Louis at-ea. The mercury standard isbeing a pr-ohleni withi thinree of the s pecies violated frequentl', because the allowablelisted in) Tabhle I' 2.l 111 l my in firet. be tire amount of mercury in writer, is very small.moost iniportarit ro(isoris, for' dec,(lines in) tire Several researchers have reported high levelstwo ( vrprinlidfs, tine' Pall1id siirrr 'Ilrd tire in fish from waters not affected by othe;Centr'rr ISilvery V iriow. The i iriporindmlent of than natural mercury sources. Therefore.

thi( rivr' lt Iweathering and soil erosion may account for'the( river with theii)-(h(cqlerlt I iv~ifil pre.s teetnieeso temruypolmenv f' ris mid A incro haWt~tfibitait niodfiti teetniiso temruypolm

('at tori ;ifpf(i's 0I he in'w ig in ificait it) lin Although the water standard has been ex-dee in inrg dii er-~i t Fi tw i Jlieriv resolurce. ceeded, the amount in Mississippi River fish

flesh appears to he at or near what has been-eported as background levels. The drinking

X -Sumrnary of' the I'rrerrf Sflitiv, of W.atri water -tandard for mnercuiry has been exQualit ' ill the Ij )f)( l ~ v ceeded in the Mississippi in the St. Louis

area.

linelvhl t~reni~ d, 'F li lisssi Dieldrin is a chlorinated hydrocarbon insec-fleetslie 114,1. innI tfiirntoh)logeaf1 arid inrore ticide and breakdown product of another

l~(l -I 1[er :nin'r1 inrI ni roist runj rit- insecticide, Aldrin. These chemicals haveI agre. Di pili r-hi : lon ni nii i rnt- been extensively used on corn, b~ut duie totire 'lrid ;I tinrivirig A ;f eirnoillt ('ri ilreee, Dieldrin's Perritencc in the ervironmient,wiftent (1ii110 if v tin ii Ii f th 4 I fin lVr'fis neither pesticide has been registeredl for

-135~-

Table 12

Fish Species Known to be Extirpated or Greatly Reducedin Number on the Upper Mississippi River

Cause of DeclineSpecies Physical

Habitat Water Over- PresenceModification Quality Fishing of D:jmS

Chainl Pickerel XLSOX verm icukitus

2. Blue Stocker XCy'cle trrs clongattus

3.Paddlefish X XPOlyodon1 spa-thula

Lake Sturlgeon N X X XA\ejpcnser fulvescens.

5. Smalirnouth Bass X\lievOptei-us dolonlicui

C6. Pallid Shiner N X.Notropis rni

7 . C entral Silverv 1 intiow X

8. i~ue ( tfjishic ti urus furetitus

91. Sk ipitek li ervillT

'd-135-

I!' J~ f'rrt

S hjO JI~ 1

su- '101 u 1 1C

a. Cyc 0 01 CY0 11

W l YN 3 3^ (01 O "Y0

Th. . .10 .1 .1 01. .1 .0 . . . .2

L.C J,3

W)'i- 11 0 1 00 10

d1:11 01 01 001 0IN , 7

or0

0)~~ .~' . ... . ~ . .- .. .

.) . . . . .

I'S ':2 C.Cc-

LOAT) AIO(N S 01: PRIiESElNT W ATlER

Q1 IATll SA\MlPANC, STIAT1IONS ON VJJ PI'II

\IISSISSIPPI 111% i1iR

IHastings, AIN

Red litg.AIN ook a nd Darn) No. Threel?.' ~ ig.'iiN ~ Lake Pepiri

Milohia, IIN

'i]( leval. IA I,.%fl\v i Ile(. 1\ I

I ultoll. II.

I 1~i~ripo1lA

Kecokuk (2)

lhtoll. 1I.

Tible 14

HIE EXTENT OF VARIOUS WATER QUALITY STAN DARDS VIOLATIONSIN TIE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Protection WholeDrinking of Aquatic Fish Body WaterWa ter Life Flesh ContactStandard Standard Standard Standard

Entire Length Iron (1)* Mercury (1)of River Manganese (1) Dieldrin (4)

Sediment (4) Fecal Coliform (3)Copper (2) from St. Louis

area.100 Other

Pesticides (4)

Lead (2) PCBs (2)

Fecal Coliform (3)

from Quad Cities10 - Mercury (2)

0 Dissolved

Oxygen (2,3).. Dieldrin (4)

S 1 Heat (2)

*( Major Sources)

1. Natural Weathering, soil erosion2. Industrial, commercial waste3. Domestic waste4. Agricultural non-point

Now"

Agl-WILlItUl'al !)it Wrill lipt, :1 1 i. t lit

Sol I it' I I Itv IF) wit t cf. N It I I ( i I I t I I I I I I I [It I I I I I r I I t

III S t r k a n I Se( I I I (' I I lict ls I I. c 1, v I I. I

renew the mmomit ill the w tter. I'll(- lhek i)l i IWIlwif ,III 1,- :111(! .'11111 l(.11t remj), ocid o I' I i I t e n S) v I g r I v I I I I I I i e lit I t I () f I pr I I - I1101-thern part ol, tf!v Upper "thsSissippi liw'lll [1,' 8 1 loll d I I](' pl '!'Icfil h( lt),,N hill 1111L, if 11IS tfIc 0[11%r ftictol' WIIIVII JWCVILOC 1)[Oldt'llit'rom being It I I , I I I 'A' IdC I)t'ot)lf' III . It I )I't OF I A I I I O I I I t I I I I I - I I

f'ound it, detook0fle levck t rolil I I w Q I I: I (I I, I V(' I 1 If t' 1 1 o. it IIit le, \refl tt) ()f I I",

fll()'t f rr(Im I; t k III It tit I wrtl 1, 'v. I :t' i.,%,t' hert. the !mj If if T! If f 111--. ko

o t th ilt 't;jl( lilt'. th t. 11- 1 " ()11 f t>11)[)I. Otticl. pt 11('16 , ;Irt, 6 1 I'Ot ('( 11 )-t IOII I 1 1, 1trequelitk ill tht .illlr Irc:t' hill thc\ ill t :I, 'IPi- Idetccted :I, ()ft(,Il zi, I jit'hirill III itm 1)'Il Ithe river. j. 1, :,'11

iolitt loll, (It' I tit ooppi-I -1 Iql': if, If:t w I I I c I wotir I I'm:I I f!jhtj(jIw I Itil: I

i f [( fi l l 1 11it r ioll I'( w I if, ( )II k-I y! I( 'I u ill %'Itrr I

Ii I v ( - ( I 11, 1 (' re I I t III. I 'v e ril 11 1(-it% (4 oopper I, I fit !,1(. 11lut t ure of ihc I lvcr. I !'c I;1;)oI't:tlI(-copper w, ;I tomo t!,(I,, riot kilowr.

AlthouLTh j 'c( !I m('111 !;ill, ':I f I I ifpritetwid v ihw \tt ti) If(. dr% efopo (?, t it W "R.? N'?f' 1%mIdlillenit loild I I I the Uppcf. '111- 1 'Ippl (,lIJI( -Ok'hl i'll't ill- 1 .1 1 1otmili'e" 'o dralfrit willk t hilt w (li ;1111 1, , I' ( I I j I '-f- , I III I"Illent ("Ill he o"Illi'd if pollljl fllt Ill thi, I 11.'t I fil - I 1--t If I'' i Ifrom Southern kfw l to ;111(). 1111m )I- . I I Irol l!'f if1,11 Ill ) I nj )po-) I t f 11111 1 . I I I I j I I wnort hern lowli I , c I I I r i r I, I f, 1,

sediment lon(k f row tT.1htj1;tI- w- I I I I" Iliol ij (- rl P 1) 11 T f 1, ! It I I

R LA T 11 evmcnt worc i t - t fic li pcfi(lo St. 1j)(11, 1:: 6.011!' !if, 'I"t'dilliclit loml of, ht, Ill I'\('( - r I ) \ - '1 1:'!';f'Vvri hundl-cd pere(.1111. Milch of 1111, Illort'l-t-'f.I,, duc t o mitural (-it tvws. St I v I I , " (d 1 1,11( I iSt r. i hu t loll "Ilo w t t m I nil t I if-it I t 110 )11111 1 f, \ , -I-i n t I I c, I I I ,,, o I I r I wcre ,( I mijoh I I I gh c r t I i , I I fit

t he 11 it hov(' I f Ie M r" O' Irl t II;I I t I I( it' I lilt', It vs - lim 1, If 1 -11 1' 1'. 1

(-oil H tien cc Fri I I- k ( -( I Off- ,( )IF It I I t rj I I I I t w: I t I q It 1 1114 p1wr If if Isevern I Spco- I (IS (I i,, t I- I hi I I I on ill I tic M I I )I If I ;if If, If !j

;ippi . ( .0tlVVf'I1eI\ , -,onle f ish v"ll wh ilre Ill I to \ I I I 'n ifadmpt (Ill to Illore I (11-hi, 1 ,"'0 ers tuld (il"t 1.1hij "cf flf( -fit 'I I hf - rI Iticl, I'( I I 'k I I

It [nn" thilt Included I It(, l 1"' ollri fllfl t lit, hw rf e(q., '( I 'l"'( )I vf -I I\ It 1,

NI ls' i"sippi I)elow the M 1' otlrl , till t I)( I t Ill(. 3 .-) I lit I I ( "' I . I (ml- :I11 issis"'Ippl m bovc I It( - I. I 1"Sol Ir I hce;l tj c of t I If' Ile.ill ';I I if ll';Irdt )111, ',1 -Ill 1. 11

vIcHr wlitcr. ti-em -rm I m-i if- I I, of tl it I I If( I ifnn(l lliml j lit ItheSc levok (.1111 elltl l 11.1- If vq I,

I'lle pr i ill ar ' v dr I rik I nV ,I t v r t i I I I( lif I I-( i tillit\ ill wllc 'pcow' fit I 1-It lllf I ',It if I, -(hom I t It it riot t I I(, if( it lit It I e I I h - I I ](tit I.( I I'( w 11 ft I. I Ver

if ~ ~ ~ ti kO 11 11 )t IV1'T vorlerlis ;iboltit tailt (Iisolaitges to tlc rive!

1* 0 itt 1. !1' i k' [ k,1,,( t' I~I l' tIf( )ii theC (tt((t5s on ietll\Or)Iafktori (ish larvw.)

fit et I, I ' I 1'I 0 1 !,.at -1))1 f hit If tC 'ild ~IduIit t islies. loth 01' W I ICh I I HI V T

I vi 1 1 I III i lii t I1k~ dit IJTlkt I) 5 rsitiv VC d can( hII e killed hv 11 11 temhermt-

.,Ill" 1.w wi ''Ip th tu p* hres or- rapid temperature a 11 mg elrl Iih (d 1h( mi'~l(~ rmnrary of' these water qluality problem s :iid

winet ~ItI11,1m 1.1it tp u~r(' I- resultant recommrrndations of' the (RA{A f 1

Ie~~~~'.~~ t, i . Ilt W\iter (Quulity W\ork (Ir'oup are given It II h

-141-

Table 15

WATER QUALITY RELATED PROBLEMS ON TIlE UPPERMISSISSIPPI RIVER AND GREAT II WQWG

RECOMMENDATIONS

PROBLEMS RECOMMENDATIONS

High levels of Pesticides inwater and fish.

High levels of PCBs in fish.

High levels of certain heametals (Pb, Cu, Fe, M: Hg)in water. Improve industrial

pretreatment programs

Large point source dischargesincreasing nutrient levels inthe river.

Increasing oxygen demand in Establish a group ofa downstream direction, W.Q. monitoringpossible oxygen sags below stations to measurelarge urban areas. W.Q. impacts of a

large urban area on

the river.

High fecal coliform levelsbelow large urban areas.

Inadequate sampling todetermine magnitude of waterquality impacts of a largeurban area on the river.

l)ifferent use classifications, Compatable W.Q.and effluent guidelines in management regs. anddifferent states. guidelines should be

developed.

Differences in data collection Standardize thermalformat for thermil studies. monitoring report.Inadequte stu(lies for someIarge plower plants.

- Idlw ioll o 11( Io )8S:\ toit

kl.soipt ionl-P TIiHOViji Oft iiiIt01(CSt()i a''Ol ilo

Ill trIi t t c- -t he liqid( t hit I r lflills itfter 1i S Cii le t qilple is Iflimt' ill

wvitter. twn fiItetred.

IitiopheIilt))-H- pr00055 of inereasing nutrient levels :11 aqu i~iati( planti2,i'twth in lIKes or tre nms

IIdrogna-ilp -i a git~ph W hich show." (.hanges iii dtischiarge over time1

It it iiAill Water enriniollent (IaIkc. pondi~ or pool)

)o-t i( -t moving Witter environment (streall or river.)

N ASQ \ N - -a tntion--w ide net work of' Water tpilIity monitoring statton,1i101aim-l ed hY thle .q. ( tioIoI ic Sulrvey\.

NIIS-- itioia svvsteti of' wiv~tcitt dis('chtrge peri'mit ,

ui l ( I ('I I Sol d - 1i lneiiilie( of' 1.t1C iIIoiiAlit Of -.OhidS Wht Niict i Mi thC ii

wit en ~ e -t(.

Tubdiv Il't llikt.w oftc:btivo, i'e.o (10ifeWte

\rnrstrnrr' [\J n'd Hlamilton, A.J,.. 1973, ''Padllmivs of M~er'eurv in ii PollutedNorlhwe-.tcrr Oritrik, lnke,' ('1lapter 5, in ''Traoe Meotals and Metill-Organiclrrter'ct ion-s il NAtural Waters,'' P. C. Singer (Ed.) Anun Arbor ScenceW, Anan A rior.M iohigmlr.

Barn 1ol, 1) .(; anid stmaret t, W.C., 1951. ''Fishes of' the Mississippi River.'"imunNat. ]list. Stirv. Balfl. 25:5, 266-350.

Bow ie. J.IK., 1971, 1'tern )erTOare of Missouri Streamis, USGS, Water Resoure ,M ivis ion. lkot hi. 51rssouir'.

Choi, WV. and N.Y. ( lin. ''Association of Chlorinated I lvdrocarbons wi th F"ineParticles' iid Mimaica Sal tannees in Near Shore Surficial Sediments,'' E-N \ I. S( '(TFECH!. 10:8:782-796.

C'oker, R. F.. 1929. "Keokak D~am and tlre Fisheries of tire Upper Mississippi River."Bul~l. Bar. F sl Wsh 45:87-1 39.

I )r''i. I)'.arid Co'peland. 13.., 1962, "Linrnologv of the 'Middle Mississippi: 1\Phv\si~l em id 'trin ical Ii mnolog\' of River and Chute.'' IAM N L; Oceanogr. 8:79-88.

~e''r.S.i). 1 945. "''he Pistribut ion of Fishes in Indiana,'' INVEST. OF IN Ii.LANKES \AN1) STH VlS. 3:1 -13 7.

G It EAT 1, Water Qua lit v Wo rk Gr'oup, 1978. "A Pilot Study on EfJfects of HydraulicDredging andl( lisposal on Watter Quity of the Upper Mississippi River (,July197 T6. -____________ _

(iimes, ).,J., 1975.. ''Release of Sediment-Bound Fecal ('oliforms by Dredging."APPI., "IWROIM-L 29:1 09-I11.

1 hr'Inn. J. lH. N- Speaker, E. B.. 1956. Iowa Fish andjFishing. Iowa Conserv t ionCornraissiom, D es Mloines, lowir.

liarvi'\'. l).J. and W.t ;. Steinhrauer, 1 976, '"Trimnsport Pathways of' PolychlorinatedBiphenyk'l inl Atlantic Writer'." JOURt. V1ARINE RiES. 34:561-575,

l1orrn, SI. F. (1.,I976i. PolVChIo r'inated Bliphenvis (PCBs) irr the Upper M ississipp;River Basin, Min-Ws.P('B Interagency T'ask Force

Ilyes IB.N. 97. Te -oog of lRunning Waters. University of Toronto Press.Toronto. U(f Il kirrlBffalo, N..

Illinois EPA '11 elflre monitoring dat. unpublished, personal com mun icat ion.Springfield, 11Illnois..

Mlinors E1PA. X\rI.'' lr:ltv da~nto r Mississippi Iiiver frorm 1972 throughr 1 977.rrrprnd -frd U f, per"orral 'oar irinicat ion.

llirrois ITI V\ I 97 ,a;tcr Qrlnht\' "lriugement B~asirn Plimm, Pharse 1: (Soritli. Saint1'r'rtrnl, North Ce( rrt'l mrrd North Mississippi River Basin vohirries). spr'irrgfield

-144-

Iowit C onserva ton C om mission, 1 976, Comnmercial Fisheries Invest igatlions AnnualPerf'orraanee leport,,, Project No. 2-255-R, "Northern Pike Investigation (Segment2 fJuly 1, 1975-une :10, 1976.' Des Moines, Iowa.

Iowa 1)ivis-ion ot' Environmental Quality; effluent monitoring data and in-streampesticide concentration data, unpublished, personal comnmunication, D~es Moines,fowl].

Iowa D ivision ot' Fivi rorfen tnl Qual ityv, 1976, Iowa Water Quality ManagementPlan; (Northeastern Iowa, Cedar-Iowa, Skunk and Des M1oines Basin volumes.) l~esMloinles, Iowa.

IKania.ri Forestrv, Fish and Came C'ommission, 1972, "Pesticide Residue in KansasStreams.' I)ingell-Johnson Project F-I15-11. Job No. K-1 -1.

Lacehner. L., 19,56, '"The Changing Fish Faruna of the Upper Ohio B~asin,"' Man andthre Waters of the -Upper Ohio Basin, Pittsburgh University, Pittsburgh,Pen nsylvania.

Laramore, {. W. arild Srmith, P.W1., 1963, "T'he Fishes of Cha mpaign County. Illinois,.'Ill. Nat. lust. SUrv. Bull. 28:2, 299-382.

Lor'enz, 1.191 76, Suminmarv Report of thle Occurrence of 11CII Fish F'leshlContamination in the Rivers and Streamso ego II .. EPRginVISrrrveilln-e ann- \nalvsis Division, Kansas City, IKanisas.

Mackay, I). and A.W. Wolkoff, 1973, "Rate of evaporation of low-solubilitycontaminants from water bodies to atmosphere." ENVIRON. S('I TECI. 7:611-614.

McKee, J. V. and Wolf. l1, . 1963, liater Quality Criteria. California WaterResoujrecs, Con trot. Sacra m iento, C ali forniia, 547 pp.

Michi-an I )pa rinrenrt of N at ural Riesources, 1972, 1 leavy \ietals in the SuirfaceWatlers, Sedimenct, and( Fish in Michigan, Lansing, Michigan.

MIi Is, 11.1. et a I, I196(6 "'Man's E-Iffec-t on the Fish and Wildlife of the Illinois Miver."ILL1. NAlT. IlS'!. SI' HV. 1310L. NOTES No. 57, Urbana, Illinois.

' li>oliri I inpartmunut of ( 'orservatiori. unrpublished data, personal om municat ion.

lliori )f'pa rtwcnt of Natural Resorres; effluent monitoring data. ,Jefferson

Ah1,n,,omi I I In'Ian t 1mmt (4 Naitria i es,~ "'-s; t hernmal monitoring reports from file,,

\lVsnlir i In patrimiit naf' Nut rn1a I Resources; Water QuaIi ty Mana1ge men t Basin Plans(I )(-- \lnnirrn" Sal. lUpper \lissi .sippi-Merainec Rivcr B~asin volumes).Jefferson

I'lteger, k% ., 175, The F isthes of__Missouri, Missouri Department of Conservation,,Jeffersonl ( it \, \l issouri.

ltirttnrri. V'ran /, 153. t'ur'rtnmentrils of Lirnno ov, University of Toronoto Press,Toronto. ( a nada mrid Bu ffalo, New York.

-145-

Schafer, Ml.1... et al. 1967. 'Pesticides in Drinking Waters from the Mississippi andMissouri Rivers," ENVIR. SCI. & TECH. 3:12, 1261-1269.

Skeffv, T.B., 1977. 19797 Status Report on the PCB Problem in Wisconsin, WisconsinDepartment of' Natural Resources, Madison, Wisc.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1978, Dynamics of PCBs in the Upper MississippiRiver, Vols. 1-Il. Columbia, Natl. Fishery Res. Lab., Columbia, Missouri.

U.S. EPA, 1972, Quality C'riteria for Water, Washington D.C.

U.S. EPA, 1976, Quality Criteria for Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA, Region V. thermal monitoring reports from files, unpublished personalcommul~n iction. ('icago, IllirloiS.

U.S. EPA. Region V11, theirmal monitoring reports from files, unpublished, personalcornmunicat ion, Narisos City, Alissour'i.

United Stated G;eological Survey, Water Resources Data, one volume publishedannually 1,01' ouch state.

Wetzel, Hohert. 1 975, Eiilogry\, W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, London,Toronto.

Wisconsin D epar'tmen t of Naturral Resour'ces, effluent monitoring data. unpublished.personal coni ninitori.

Wisconsin l)epart ment of Natural Resources, 1972. Mercury Levels in Wisconsin1" ish :Ind \ iId life, Tech. Bll~ I. No. 52, Madison, Wisconsin.

Wlisconsin I epanrerrl of' Naturnl Resources, 1977, Wisconsin Water QualityPrgrm asin R~eport ((ratnt- Platte River Basin voIlume).

Wixson, B. . d.), 1 977, l issour'i Lead Study, Interdisciplinary Lead Sturdy Teamn.tiiver sit v of, '\ issollri. RollIa. Al issouri.

-147-

B3. MINUTES OF

WATER QUALfli Y WORK GROUP MEETINGS

I-EjtaDlkdQ pAGN MBLAN-kOT Ti a

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DATE: Nn'.'onber 23, 1977

SU- CT; GREAT 11 W ~ter Qial i ty Vonrk C oou Hr'e ti nq

FROM: Rq ert J. Roke /ChairmanWd ter Quality Work Group

T3; Work Group 1'embers

A meeti!,g of the GRFAT 11 Water Qua]lity W4ork Group was held at, 1 p'

at the Rorck Isl and District Corps of Engi neers Office.

Persons in Attendance

Joh-Eri c T. Stensc'n U.S. EPA, ChicaqoRobert J. Yoke 1 , Kansas CityBill K('elIl no r Corp:; of Enqi neers , Rock Is] and

(George Johnsoun .0 II I It

FRobert J. ktitirv~ St. PaulVictor Crivello [NW Illinois EPA CoordinatorWlendy Thur Puhblic Participation CoordinatorSteve 'Waters Iovia Conservation ComimissionRick Preitenbach U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceTom Bainbridge Wt-isconsin Dapt. of Natural Res.-ourcesdim irVA ran It 11ouri1V. R....i iah T T I II

k mm)uf I is h;;u-n ts

Bob W'hi ti nqj, St. ikoul1 Di sirict and C:o(-,rhi n of tf 4, GRI ,ATI I Crer IjI.Jrrk Grui , flrovidrd a status re port on w,,hat his qIOw~i is drii u'l

'11'LAT I ha0S studied the via tr uil it', effect-s Of thu" first'!.,vLake Pepi n

2. They hove pertormed analys;is of bed ,rd4-,,nt (it every other wi 1'the Mlis:si-i ppi River.

3. They ha,.e inn i'tored the inrt) 1)di ty of Kpliv r1' from a r

di s ol-,l :pcrati oi.

Hie GRFAT Ior Group ha:; found itc~ii to 1have a full -t~ior st lH f Ie;'LI

Ti-,': 'ni gi cup di ..r'iss'- and appruov.d 0 1:1 O f )t Udy to VXrk nit tSr ~i ri, 'Junl co' :1 tteu' on an y ~of ke st wd alld s

(Idii'v (, 1 t Ii n i rY str a 11u . Mu freiibrwl of the '..mL grril n

tma BLriNO nt.M

cPrA Il TI") 0 '.

-1 50-

1 he work mpd i a1,-,o7ue(t'a'i ta.'I wn, f'rn, Qvvi, -. Co;i J fSIjq s ti oil UtIiat t I ww Ok group Iuse t ho fue§ (I e r ,l 2 o 1-;

a ftfll1-tiwe chairwin. The qr-oup' Lx-l i cvod t h'A the' loolle V hwlt ~on a study of sedimcnt which may qenerato th, need for a fUll-ti ik-chairmnan or staff Lnher next year.

The state ir ;ohbers t*.erc aOked if tiwir C qI-'c'.10( l~O h~iveof the vwor (3oup , but no cmie was ,,ill1in~j to ac:rceot it.

The Coriks of Enginieers di cussed their water qual ity sa: ,p i ogror

N ill! I a o L t 1-I t WQWkI t, C*ktt i n 11 .1I1 it 1 ' h, tr it o! I'

1-110 fe o o in,. pv .-wn.s at r end ed t i,- it meet ing

V. Raim i i ah , Mo . De pa r Lmon t ot f Na t ura I iueott it Member'lentm Blbridigo, :LotsnDeptlrt~iieit )f Nitri (~(tir,:0-

Bob Koke , U. S. Env ironm:entail Protectijon AttCIACl'y, l-P,10t 1 V1i ' 1 , M-i

Dave StOl Lenberv;, 1!.S. Environmenital Protecition A)-ii'N', Pt':j 1l V, ''.

Jim 1101111,11, IMt Dl'p~tt'tttto~t Of Natlural R0sottru'; , 61)!eerverChri., BeRck, Mo. Depa rtment of Natrira 1 Resoimrcee- , bs.-erver

A. Approval of~ Mis, otiri 's Chairmanship:

'Ihle WNiG el eted mie a; thle chlair-Ma and approvedl t1e I)IgCe L hl - t

mitted , by a Voice Vote. A cipy of the buidget prepo.ial was e !;iit toi , viearlier by Bab Koke.

B. Status; Report on Chairmansi,-hip:

Bob Koke al iso subtittted the Imige t propostal to the Pl an Fe rrul iat. io it irGroup (PVWCU) and GPEA IT 1 Teaim. App rovalI o f t Ito I'FiX Zart th Ilea ffi>

anticipated an January 1 ')h and January 2/1tb lospcctively.

C. Cha irtman's Ris potts iblb itIlas:

(I) 'I'l State of Mis.,;ouri wil I exit'nd C'VLr, elki lt ti %i'ttl i .

Lto t Virer Oua]l it v App tnklix sit-tinl L hO cue. t Ti jtt

(f; Al Oi lt- i) 1) 1 ai> 11 0 [1 1~it Vi t: 1''. V - V I I Wt i i L it .. 1 1 '

,.'ll)_ iif('- i %10'. lI CitSte:1 lil ),' 1 t'

1t I C t it Vj e:I t ti

Dtie t 4 t it, ci tc I f it ii-w -i i i r~~e* t i it t t t t ii

-(.,! utitti 'eti' let' Uit tite I t !' Vi 'e t ti t t 11C ie P: ;

Wil t ti- I r i wil it a Iiti i't i , wil - r1. ie d i !; t he P

li nu t

I entr I IiIt I oi; -)f Iiiru '1i 0of PoI I lir tle:1

G,-nralI -- I' t iv si-, aired t Li t w' shitiIld lt as tan rolil I-ti-., 1! 1 1, 1':i

.inil riiptlilei tlti-, t i!tE befirt Vl ie try I1 , li71,. t'o to! lw.is i; 'oNurc.-'

-152-

(3) accidental spills, (9) urban runoff and (10) beaces;. Mcmiber; wr,.requested to propose changes as soon as possible.

F. Interfacing with Other Work Groups:

Due to the complexity of water pollution control, it was sugge,.d ti:the WQWG take the leadership iole in areas where no other entity hasprograms for pollution control and be actively involved with agencies/

work groups who have the authority to develop control program, so that t..concerns of the WQWG is sufficiently represented.

G. Dr'tai led Studies:

It was agreed that each member should prepare a ,sep,irate IJ.at and ."'all other mcmbers by February 15. Then Comct imc in tho first e, ,i

March, we will meet in St. Louis to finali:'c the li t . TfhI P1arf. iwhich is due for submission on April 1 will be writ-tea bic1 ed on tIt was also s uggested that the subject of Dot Ai I St die!i be re,;tto Level I invo lvement.

There was a discussion oi Literature Reso .rch. A: t( ic.1t i.:,

water pollution related ,:itivilies is too volumin,,iL in tli, r r-:z .

it wa,, St,);pe ;ted that the Scope mav have Lo be 1c:,tr ic t-i. It W:: a ,

sugi't r.ted to use the output of CRI-AT I's itW n th! n e i I a v, t.

he hired b Ml.isouri to the greatest possibe extent; that wtv %, cl;eavoid duplication of effort and ut1]izc the talents; and a!;pirottitn; )Ithe new employee.

-153-

FROM: V. Ramaiah "Ram", Chairman, WQWG of the GREAT II

TO: Members of WQWG, PFWG and GREAT II Team

SUBJECT: Minutes of the WQWG Meeting, held in St. Louis on March 1, 1978

1. The meeting was attended by:

Rick Breitenbach U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Mike Werner Corps of Engineers, Rock IslatiudRich Greenwood U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceGene Degenhardt Corps of Engineers, St. Louis

Bill Koellner Corps of Engineers, Rock IslandDave Stoltenberg U.S. E.P.A., Chicago

Tom Bainbridge Wisconsin DNRBob Koke U.S. E.P.A., Kansas City

Mark Ackelson Iowa Conser.ation ComnissionV. Ramalah Mo. Dept. of Natural Rer;ourcjo

2. Location. It was decided to hod future meetings in Rock Tsisn! ashdBill. Koellner will make the nece.3sary arrangements for a confernc.1 rC :.

3. The Iowa DEQ is not likely to attend the meetings as they have assigneda low priority for the GREAT River Study. However, Mr. Obr should bekept abreast of the developments.

I. Minutes of lasf meeting: (no discussion).

r Status Report:

I have ulbmitted to the Corps a contract proposal. It will be 6 to 8 tel,>;before the Corps can finalize the contract and it will be 10 to 12 .eksbefore a full time employee is hired. This; c:ployee will be a Water Qualt'Specialist III and this designation requires; MS plus three years w,,:kexperience. This individual must have strong research aptittide a; it le ,,part of his time is likely to be used for literature ies;earch.

TIT. Efforts of WQWG of CRE T I.

A. Pilot Study: A copy of the summary section of this prel iinsrv r,,!,rwas distributed and the entire report is to be mailed lat, r. %!; tA i,report wa, rece ved only t:wo d;y:: bet ore the meeting, I diud not 1,:

the tillw t.o st.udv it thoroughly. So it: was apreed to -tvit- thi ,

report and modelliin procedures before It!; applicailit' tk C'fA i I!in termined. The Idea i.s to ,avold dilp!I rat ing C Il ' ,ffol ' .

check the applicability of 11o d(,.l iug to iredict dredwjrmx, di 'p0

to traftic. By the 17th o f Mlarc1, I .i I he l C i;;1i;Kt; L s L, lwith N eP Uerner and Tom Iflii Lridge ird I t 1 i oh:,1 (o106.- ivo, 11e !pos;sibly the pr)ceduire hfore IE n(xt Ikot [ij.

-154-

IV.ict i tioii of the tAip;o~ich

ha.;ic l v dofif in t fon oitt 1 ifld in rho em of Jaiieiptv d. oo:((

proj cket:; ill%,, Ill ili, thxe Work of otho-r work groiips of (AZL-A'iI I 1 n 11 1h1ca0st. of Ip 10j C & requiring 1.evoi 1. coordinat 1 to, ior witi ci kit. iImea eure!; are being developed by agencies o ther thain (;CEAT r iver 0I

such a.ie the it atet; 208 planning p r c c ,;; a nd p)ro0 j Lr(et recpq I i i 1)g, 1ev 1, Icoordinatico fwill be temporarily deferred to the latter pirt of FY N)9.At thatr point: our tnvo ivellinr wi I I be r ost ric t A to po ic'! a

Tie criricoal tiit element wai; 0: ~ d. It %-111 !- Ilk-.;s: t c' t Ithe propono!1 becilore Mairch 15 io that 11ht. N.*::; k .l 11-,I ,lo t u. v the reosiand act uon ic iil till'~n~ mt'' ;Ii

Ic'c p r- cc t: will receive the ipb pr ;Or.lLy. riv r, 1-l !a trw proi, al for detailed studies outs ide th( iool %~ *:: 01 I'

p rob Ielar . Thc.,e studies will, not Ile dropped f rom our I titp, i,I ov!.fr priority than those studics proposed directly to t va1 1IOLC t

proilelms, relateCLd to navigational use.

SomO Of LLC studies, alt-hough of importance for total rcFsL)lrCv oapk't

coln:; iered beyond the Scope of CREN' dlue to their comp] exit, ,co:,1 andoduration. A case in point is the proposed 'Toxic Substanc:e Control Lill'!juWater Qual itv Moelling of the entire stretch of theMno1:;k 1

icm r

studios,- will hre listed for ' long- term planning ' and othor aeo to. :

the UMP\IC will be recommended to uindertake it. It i, o 1~ dle (lObAV. . t.

WQ1,4(; must be deailing with the technical stuldio; Of imotmetO Cl::r!

tot 1 ot onance and not a review group for othier ;wenc 1 r;.

dtr oeidc-d to defer -ny fuirter di!sCkISs-;on Oll 111, topiCi to t

iiL~xt mtet tog". In thait poriod , we, will he stldyfl _ Lho tin re

It h. Vol"; 01 Gl\iA]' I t it 1.ti , "A Pilo 0t Studv on EI fcc-, ii_' iiila

!rrdgj'ng, and Dii noeal oil Water Qual itv of Olhe Up'c Mi , ilp P 'V

11n, Ia en t i "IIl modelII ll', p rocedu1 Ire:-; to0 p r-d ie('t til3e xrt l ki V i *j,l I

ut ie]1 'l~t,(ji c"osal aI,id tow trziff ic. 11It oil pn.1,1el' .. i

tor~~tin:tinl( two, niamely the_ in-- :;treami snail 10 00(1 11 i

Iteir orimiit ion th1o1u pon i )1' fim~ ei'(1the of thLi u;11 bu II

I Wu~up't't 1tlI h t i no;t tadi~ of he f err I a IOC i:n -'T1, Uit,

:i p'oI i(- - it O.,tt reuorin ov ;mn in -depth ,tnd., o)f tuinrn dfU, ..

!-Ir! hv~r d i 1't.'I ,i .on, thli s i d(- I Z! wa r O r Iodp . 'I1he I Ir', It i'll I It.

i-i it proI;Ie.; it;5iI ~ be i'~' toc h I i urcl ,i 1on I:- i trir I ti 1- r,1 .

1. it, Ii;Irk Rc :11tie lh: f t i> a'r o to he 1i; i - ~l1) ' I -. it

Vio l MI. 111b ii-ix '. fe t Ithat. t: i I ntict V'.' 1t k -L

iurcti;:t ttii e 111 '1( v .l 2 '''

DF, OI'timit tii (k Ijt

I ii u iou Lc 2d i c ir ol t, i ti, r LiT to.i jv,. i lr L V 0i oi iIll pal I %,:i ae r qu-il It'' 1 1 '

(i C110I l e itt IIC~ a1 1 ' & 71, 1 i 13j. of C ! Vi1.

m11,1 t Thcri w a t in k 1ta,) I r w . 1 IU I r I

t)f p0 Ot tit I po. C ill' TII o ;i' ws

t. 11. I t i o rt y TI r- ri o1 t' Ln 9(o- 1 1 8

LLr~ p ani t.lldy T- will o no o I!,, * , ii

cu ;It 1) 1 1 ve jo inmlw i h ino fI nll, 1,'m k L t' 1

ISi t t oe oh r ri p :11 1) C icIii0 111t iii O : ' I r- v ,F

2. I~ I-oI PO 0 1:* AV'I t L' k ' 'llld i tilL' I tIIi ' < 1'''''I

pr i. r t (She1)s Cqlnlt IV, talIkcd i tt fr I~m !I,in t~cr LL t, ) io'.w" . H: . :1n'i e ig t 1

'rpeunla I tkr Ko k'c'umk Poo ).

I n itho t ain 1) 1,1, ut l', l- ,ll- 0r

lit in 1 'I)'' de i t KelT )ltoi It '

Ii 'II

tI mLI

t to I th i- II'1 t ; I iiI'

I~~ ~ ~ I A I-I tI'

Iv"

1 ~ I *

157

!.L:;k'I!:; t," 'I'Iji V nS '.kl;'Y WA i 'u> :lLW.: !'!

T tl' /1ti) 1,.m. , m hie 28 l "

P Li,,. C],,t. T,,,er- Build lap, RI::i' ;iid , II i 22,i2

t ' I{. I ,. l t, l urnI w t.rC I i- t t£[O, tOi.Thr ! a t i,, ,TuE,'Li 1

a r> I l. "it - _it,

Pr .: ", K: (jj' i-ti: 'i'

r t "x . 1v 1e I nii

-Li

'Ha 4Qci "or(I(p L:icIJ L u pe s t:'nu o , . cltV i Ln ti a rL t

thO JU Lpult fr( I ev1 B beCone ava1ilialc.

M aps for Po int n', rcc Du 1)1w rgo s-,

'! 11 1 1, a pot sira "1 :2)'!' sng c's t iani t ~1 t tI! :c ' nps- icL p rc:.: I i

parvt of L' f :i 11 reapa i llj icapo auLin,,,p ll o 'cir.csg1 ,

SO2Ir, 1 :C '.dtg', S Lo I>1< t~inko-, barpgo tn:'':w il mi' c a ,1 o t 11r I ,toct 1s c'! c r fo'-: )r t ox ic sad0 ;r c i LcS 'hl rop1)r c 'cvnt a t i'>>; ) I I I (i .Lt-tL

furlli::. witil, a li'stxrda as; of Jf:1, 1979, nd~ c,' fU j

'ml srn cn SLiT i i-; I L I~i :c.; h inflormat ion a,-; 2 of t:! U

1! o t n P r , a n: VI 1 0f J C ' >, I'L) 1) L -aI Yl l tt fl

I :Lj n h i u o s:i Lit w1 14 a i n,- I;' i a t i et 4 n o

ti~l iV'voi hIrli tio.'v ')'' n; r. L' ii' 1

'k . e -Ic1C

0 1-I 11 tt I10FC 1'

1A t

I !)' -k Z- L.' t-1 ', V1

l~~~t C 0 i 1 1 t 1.' 1

t m !n :11, L t, r ~ > to t- 1, I ' 1S

I3:1

II c

It fll i i 011

Il it

1,I t so 1 5 1 r

I' i7 at' *A t' I ; in iir

iltii tr t a7.1 t t ?Xj'L'ri4

iwi $ L: . d wd ii 11(1 ft dj 1 1) 11 411i 1 11., r.

:I 1. 'L 1 iinP h 1 L'la Ii. :oppr uli-il . dIiiL klt -1) Yri iu ;i I r' in.

mK

Nmm-Wa ti-r Qaa I .it 1 1,u~ CI:0 Ui

P1dge 2Suptomniber 19, 19>

Wat er qlual ity s tandaird!; vio]lat ions in clui ratL'S irrdirreiot > 'I sc.

tdri iii in, w'ateir standard fo r Magn was, orcd'; i na I Iy cxoimcdcel

!I r(- %,.is a elct iISO l 1 V.I] !1i. 1, i e I i r t 11 iM 01l i .li, e t:

Ad(-qiatt, ;ocuc% ,utat lon oif ,,;iter tiial it,; impacts i!; requi Ilcd ji iect 40cL 4 ol til

1 rcral Clc.Lan ',!ator Li 'noi Kc>- c;:i 1,1 '. had noit made! 1 ile; -)I cii i .1. jI. t

u ct imi ordl Of IMiS;uiri )h cithA Missour i llac fl )t addtirfci i

e ir

c;iii~;~'c -' I:~ Ll'ct I I:,i 11 Le Pt~l L,t .cP* ~r:u .

n,, L I I (,' 1

V. Ka:2h11 .111, ;hail 1Iman, Wat tr Q~i: i j C~v Croo G 1:

.. ~~Ji ;' P.O. Box l3tbS, Tjeferson Cj -v, 1 1o ui fi~

M ii~tcors o l ~JIT

Tei tlb Ineti m, o f tl)(402( war hLl 0 on scltctm11r I U

St ev"'I B~tetoIwlorry S:-!, ioo r Un Ii ver i ty af T I

Wayn t' -,.uel Corps of ni

Ru 11) ~lrw

hr -II 1i . C li 7

1. roa, (C11liru:1 0. tho 01.~o u1T , nI ltto to i.....

t ('I 1 ' fJ AT T T t . 'u ol t7v 1 0 1 1 (d aW, bit

Iiit

II , o I I o I It

r I , t k": t 1 , r l I Il

6'l Nk'r'i

Sept~nmhcr 22, 1 1tC;S

iMoc~e1 n (ni' Near Davenport at 481 .5;(b) Above 11annibal. at 314 .0

(c) Below Saverton at 302.0

Lbsiill' a tiol. SixL- ma in Channel staLl ous wvreci cl t_ hiS to r .. Jr,

(a) B e low Maquoiket a River at MiP 547-54, i;(b) he Ilow (:1 ii ton Rivye r at IMP 503- 5Wl;c( B I) It low Dav v npo r t Lit Mo nt I)-i i r, a t-MP 4 69)

((!) h 0A.cow tMotocatlne alt. Baa,;; Is;land at !!) 448.();(0) 1'C IOW KLokulk at Fo-x Is land alt MiP 354 .0;( f) B c Io %. Quincy at I;E Power a:t 1.11 32().0.

In aij tlifl folir side chwacl or stoll.;IJ.l I A.-cre ailo cl.i

(a) , Bb L, lo.lov'ie i in App] P-411, L, r 1)1 h -i t . .5;(b) B,-o' ciw CntoI; ill steannboc"t sl m!s1 at,~ 5n.,.;

()Bt-lc.': keitl~br ia Burnt :I~rtt t4'(L) bu'Kookok in Crays,; (IotA :31 355.0.

('I. Sn i to 111", IOLc cI1' Ao 'T.

St 1:1IIAIISAAY1 , TOI ,o..oeDF0 1 ALc, o f h:,

cclif I L eco f Doi -)ee ) M im. aid N ;!;, i-a pi KRi;v(r . S I r- Ii t i., Cd rio f t fe 1-1I<U wi 1l. re -C, weeen th L (VL:eon tho kSI~ fr', a !S sit V1 SR.iv e r. This tho coiL-FCCS OF ti~ hob, Ii' ho a:-' t 25LC aIt .: i I.

S i t" C1A.; et i-enS

4. Fi l i L ot )LiO . ill', V J fLl I' w::IS ii 'I' 's'

al trli' 1'> laIte Me Lt onl1y te-nt ill iv-;. (> c-: :Ii t At

Oili Stj t,: sb r 25 ;ii.I coiit iliii) fA (! (% .0- %, o A\. ) A~) I '

0 ovi- at 101t, one~jLI~t::

13 -

C. (ONTRAC"T I{EPORTS

(Published Under Separate ('over,)

I

L~,'2 j~ -~

~'-~4A

vi

AN

INVENlORY OF POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES TO THE

MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GHTJTENB[RG, IOWA, TO

COMPILED BY THE

GREAT 11

WJATER QUALITY WORK GROUP

FOP

'-i (!2ILN i TIT ORPS OF FNGI B[LPS

CLUC KiOWE R BUJILDI NG, ROC K I SLAND , IL LI NOIS

I'l doce n contl li rt. Ii II, 18 lliji, 11 1,a a i

pa it source to cii1i tht I , it I I~m I! I I t Il

I\i v e r lIe in I I I ma, t In Ii v: t t I v I i t

Ht :t I i n v ii vii> t m 1 a I t i1~*

t 11 C- t't ' t~ I t t i I o I a; tk i m t

M, 1 I t I utI1) 2 t c ~iii I I i If, 1ll i

. w t tri'tC l I iii t 11t (S P) iLt L'I t r ' A tI(iI I I mIt T

* I ra (M ii 1 tIl I o i i vcts 11 1 I t i mt alt II ! i I

r i , r 1!1 i Ic t ii I I t . i d ii 1 1 ge C.OI Iil S, 5 dea r i Ce P F(i T 1 1

o It ka st eli t c.r d i sclizargt, TlI i s inf o rmit i on rant'c r om It, I ado C imen t a and I~ ritt waI-te-wate-r mon itori tip daita 'Ci I 10 C t C I. , t' It

C, lI mn ) vivecs tilt- quahnLilv of the di;j, la1,1e .ti It-,

c'iinfl,'\'i r t i ~ it t i h)vif L oil kHas Li:va a I ) 1 e I f Ci 11 t Ilk, > ci I'

fAi ii i t ",,I <a ) 11 i It to iirrofmi0tod t') i S L own111, i t a- I at cii 1) 1il-1-Itt h,.CO I iimn 6 its inl eat ifnAtt' if the 5-dziv BODl (iliofogi'il Ox\'pt'o Itcuiiid! I i

o rgan 0 1)1)1 lilt ion I oad (I i skrha rged oi I Iumi 7 ea,,t itn ii tH c t a ,Itil tt I :

iit ritgen (Iii Lch'iarged . Column 8 mav 1 ndiratO ho0W tm h' Ca% S tiw C cr it > rat

and wliat Lorta; of pcI Itittant- aOthier t hati oratic m, nit tor i zil a i t 7,-v (t iit , i1 I

C, ) unto 9 g ives- t Iiv' name - of tt 11L st rcamII rce i' v i g t ihe d i snch irl,,

I t dIMi I cihe no(t ed t iiAt th Il'qUI I i t' and! quant i t' %, was I t t wi t L I- if S''

pnart itilarl v t hose of industrius, :ire Ifi ItI Ivn v ar iale an d nttii I,

iII rmat i ( ha iifn C 'I ivit~i -i a-7 1re 1-as;-Jd ii a rc I It i VC l's ii ; , I >;i l' (

n1 rmt i i 1 prt (i' rt , -d i t thC Ic L o i, k n It I ;ho fI(I t Io L ir2 I), k Itw, i I-,

dti 'i ttt I t )I v i t 'he .Saistc ,-tttr ti t hr l l 11 iCirgt'a IAt' ' t

-168 -

. . . .. ... . .. . .. .. .

-r, IfJ TF, U) T f f ,, f , ' . 1. r If ,

t'.n (PU I ! T T) TF cf. J .

37' .- ,-

C) C C C)''CC)C r

-- C" C 2 " =

L''' C C' C:,C D . .) C

uc;

C"r

C

- I

-. --

z X' X L("

a :

r. 2. i>2l C> _

4. UC~l (l) f (f) U)

W~i2 .7~

-4-4 -4

Ct Ct- -4 - - 2- 2(I

C usu -- ' . -- 4

C 22 Cn If 'p

1' ~® "-4 -- --4

4~4~2 KJC4-~ ~- U- (IC 12

It It It CIC-~ U- 'fri .-

Q~4~J CtCC) H-4(121 '4- " "

2 7

-- I - -

I rn --- --

- I I -

-4 .-2 -

If

- -V

-- -~ 4-I I

* I/U-,

I ~i~2I 4- 4 -~

-~ -- 7 -

o 2 C -

-'22 -

smo ** 4 s - - -- -. - -- - -

* * *-- * . . . . I

L(2Z - - --4

->-4- 2

00

I - -t ' * -

I - -- 2~- 7

- -f '1 - - - -- 4

- -4-- t -

-~ - r4 - --- CI -,

*-J '~ I '- Ii -~.

-. U- P. --

C-)

1~44

~1

.2 -p -r-p

'p '.- . f P-- I. 'P

-- I -. -

I

-. I

.-4 f

-. r . .

F 4

'P

a

- £ 1 129 ~ .- IC - P C C

:727211 - I -

- I

p -

- 2 . -

- C - -

I - -

4 - . -t -

71 . . 7.

I C I

*JI 7

-I

Li

a

-

I .-' ~-

Ct~ m U' f

3 U' U' U' I

flJw U'U' U' U'C-, 4-~ '1) U' U' U' £C.) ~-J "-4

U'

.3,- - I

-- 317 --- .- - -

02' --

12 C

V

-- I ---- -- ---- --- -- - -

§ 2 2, - -. -

I- -- I- V- - ----- V. .-

4-.- -r

z.

I ,-

17! -- - -- - -'- 4-

- 1 4 4-

* ' -J.~a* AdS- -.....- J

C IF - . -

Lj

I I

S 2L .... -- .7 -~ -s - A

2< 7

- -

- I -I - -

- -' -. . '.9 9~

I -. I-.- . C.)

C.9.

I A"-4 'I

:-c :.i~-- Ct!

I- S~C (1 1-.

CA *I

- I

S

C-

-- 4-

- 'C, St 2-S--'2< CCC---'Z .- AL-

VIC C -

a"

Cso -" S

C-AZ. ~ I ~ -~ >-b C 7C

I-

* CC z> a- :~-

acZ -~'Vt Vt -~

-'7

-'I I' --

A S"1 -- 'A

Li. A-A

-. C

A

-~ --- ---.-- -if - - -. ' -A

'42

C .-~ ,-~ .,-. H -,--4 H .- -, if" if' -'P. F42 U' (42 'PU' Cf. .t ' ~ 'P U..-. U,

s'~ (iF 'P 'P'P 'P (12(42 ~p p U' U'. F

'H ~ HHH if~ ,4~~-4 'H . '~ -H

CJC) Ff2 'J' 'P '1' U' UF'P U. 2 P. if. '~ "P. 'P..F 'P.~- 'p'i C.'j$- '12 (12 -~ '422 Ff2 'P.12(12 *.-' (1'.,-..if.,',f 'P.-.. 'r.~ J'JQ ti *H '~.4 .,-, 4-. .- , 4-. 4-..,--if 'H 2

4222 u~ ,-.. -. - ..' -. - - ~' H U' 7 7 H 7

I -.

U':

F-.42. -

2.-' *- -. -- -if~2

~. ~

-. ~-.''-if 4-i ' ' -- -- -

-~(121 '42.- "' 'j .42..

U' I 'if .. J0-if- C-.U 42 .. ..-. -.

~ -- - if

* *~iff_

.2> 0 -. .-. --- -. ----. - -.

C-.- --.

.4-

C '-.-- '212 0

~ 2,22 0 C. 210 0 "42 - '--. . -- . -

-1 0 0'--.c~ -. (F~ .-- C C -- '

0 0 0~-- 0~--. C 22 22

.4 ..- . '-if2 -.

H - if. 4' if -2 F 2.2-2 .. .22 - --

-A4~4

.2

if 'I; '~C "-~ <C 'if

-4 I --. -:F.if

,f. .22.-:

if -' 2 -'U ':'F ----.

42.',.. -P.2 (('2' ' 4'

-~ if-

- . .- 'r 'if'-if - if- -

-H -' - - . . . -

'A -' -. -----I *- '- '-if . --

42 2 - . -if (''4 -U' -. .- 2>2 7- F 4-

Ii, P if - . . 4-i

H U C A I

o iff

".4

-, 1''1 2A

A

J

CZ) - -

.S.

CC

C ~ ~ 1 VQ) - -

C., L:- I "C' C:S*1

CC1 -4C-

If U

-C '7 L) IT' CT c

0.0 .- C. - .- C-'U) rp (1) Cm 0.l 0-

u V4 - n (- JH U) Er.

H. C coo o t c p o-

Ctoto to t cc t F-t

Cr al p frf rfH C tW c ~ c~u~i to to t to _7.t

L) 'i a O to t C a

4 QJ f -.* ,i H '-I H ri 0

k ~- J

V

~ j 'I

I ill,,

- I'~ I i\' I .IflIII. 5,; 1 I I' Wi

Id5.

-- -* 0/ *

(~)

>1

-- -,

- -- I''- I

IIJ~

1 -

/ I .1I 1<1~.

-' - A j

I-

.1It (

-I.

- / -

I. I

'I-

.4-4'-,

a -

j I. ,,'-j> - j. 2'i I *1j 7.

07.1

#' I Folk~

11 7--

III'

-- ~. S ~ *fV -~ F

F - ~ F,

- * F F

.5 - ' F

I

F iF

* t

* F I *F, 1FF

F 'FFI~F,,FF,, , F

* 7* )

* /

I-.)

.~. 4

/I'.I, - -~

K

-I / .7

.- 4. .1'Ii~j/ -

I --- -

- -, ~.

.1

* 7

'ii 3

~<

1/ / I

/' 4

I -~

1 31

*1 - /

I.

I

3..,

. -I

/ ..- I -

.\ K. - -, ~r~~'- -. -

,- -, I.A.

~f... I--A -

~ -.-. -

'I

M4

I. -~.,,

-~ .

4, N

'N.

4 N,

4 -

N, N'4

j-.

N,

N- *

Ii ~Q 11 t'ViiC IA.

- -- 4

N-

-I I,,.. '4"

*1 -: - ~-'-,N

wI

-~ - - -- '.,- . {'-: -~

-~ 4

~.-*----,*'.' N.'K -;

~ -

N.

'K

'I''

- K"* ( K-.

* JV-*--~.-. ~-

I

/

I-I i.

I/

' ~

/ I

- /4 -. :

/

- >9

-- I

~'< b~ 9.~ *~,

/

~ ~

I9

* 9. .9

144.

.9 .9

I*1 / .

.7 ..--.- - t... . . . . - - .- . . ..

- I-

-,. -p

-, . . ..

#I -

2.I 4 .

/ -I

_.. 2 . - t.

* -, A; 4

_ .,I - .: .. " - -

_ I- / -,1

K. "

-if>

-"._ , _ , :e>lz , ' _ , , , .. - ,- .,.. • ' " Y

7 AD-A099 290 IOWA INST OF HYDRAULIC RESEARCH IOWA CITYF/ aGREAT 11 UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER (GUTTENBERG. IOWA To SAVERTON,-ETC(U:DEC 80 DACW25-78C-00A8

UNCLASSIFIED N

MOR

2,

" Jl " '6 '" : 31 , 32 .

TI I.

-

T14

4

I . , ,

.e..

191. 2

.15

p

1 2 '.

7'*" .

I. p..

II lrC ~lps onf, i 1. , STP S

1 i * a, Y

"".- .1I 19',. 201

; .H i' ,I i

':

.

....................

._ _ _ _ _

.

p.

.,",r-..

' /~/ .a .t ,, _ , -

* I ' ' " J " '

0 t

4-i" 20 ~~C

I..-'~4. 4, o * ~ 2

'C r. ',I0-G

aI

-. 4

/ 1 F, ,iI

-- .- - IF-- I

A - a,'

I j IIJ~, / ~. 7~

'~"- -"i A *~ z

V I I-.

/

i2.. .

~ t . VN *~~,** -. . -

4;.I I I I I

K- ~- -I

I Iia, I *'~ \a I A N

. ~ ~ ~- -t

'-S.,, 43 1'

5, ~

__ ~ ~ VI a: -.

-~ .

N -. (%~)N >,,, . a

I 2J I I-

H

- ~-~ifl U N ~ ,N ~

- "' (I'p.

IC'. 'f ,I ~ a.

,,'a

I.-

I I I I I I I . ~ ~

61 -Commonweal th Ed ison Co. (f(Quad City Nuclear Power Plant)- ~3e7 U

62 - rneton, TA., STP

63 - Cordova, ILL., STP -

64 - Port Byron, ILL., STP ~N.~RI65 - be Claire Ouarries Co. V A

67 - Scenic Overlook

R I -C F

---- --s' ------ --

6C 0- -- . - -------- -!

n'3

192-

k I (1) L

-4 Q) 4J C-

w m 0 w a

Hm r- a

0v 2' r C1 0Z C.f.'-

- -

00u~ M D A)n<

cc~O ccc cc cc

U -0 a).- *

4--

4j M

r.1 0

0 u c 0

0 En C4 00

oc b Uz

0 (z 0 ( J--

co .'-4cj- r- -3 n C: c

.14* U0A W (0 E Z *lH -

zO- 0- ~ -H~ w p: : . 4r .

O2O- * 4J0WCJ4J>))0;1-4 C r- u (

L) 4 *~U C -H *UWC(m)Tfl W't

--) > -c - (d 4)- Cc

r.1 'S .9 O j0 0 : h

_______ 117 ~

j I..* ~,

~l a' -. I S -.

* IIA, ~ £ ~ A

o *1 I

A, * -Iz ..

4-. - a.,

- *1.0. -2-

I., a.1.~ I t * -

. >., I - - I,

I -

2, 7.

£

I a -.

14 *C

- a - - - --- 4--

"~.~A . Is. 'SA ~ I.. -

a ~.

N- - I I - - x

-' *5 ~. *A~I*'' I.-- r 5>.

---. -..- c~J -- ~'a.II,, / - *--------*~ - -

I' .

I I -I ''-N

- 'I

d I

-~ -- S -.. '.* -** I r* /

hI A

-. 1-

4 I,', 1~*~*1.;'"'

'S ... iJ*, I ~

.1 ~

a's ~ I II

''~I. ID -i~- ji.I ~,\ .5

-rj

a.Z "N"cmr

I~ i1-1 1.I~i . 4

S-4 ~ -~K

-- ~. .

4- j. -- , -

:1 rl 0. 2=

-4V. *I. -4-

19(4

I ...- ' ..- ~.-- --

I . -* ------ ~

- --- 1~~-~

4--I ,4~ . i KI -.- ,.---------o 24-)

CI) A *

* -*1 - ________{z

(-9

9,

A . -. 4.

-t

~ %~49~4 ~A

41%,,, "-I',,,,,

'1 49, fN'-

~ ,( .. j~ \ -~

II~IIl( ~

~-41 '

- - - ~ -~ 4- -~ '**J.I

'~9. . '9'- N >

* . 01~ -

* . . - L..

'-II.,', I X .4 *.

9.. 'I

--- 9--, 4

(-Cx;

.1

t9

-~ . .- - ~. I . 9

- 4 I. 7 1.4 - -. "%..s~

4* -- '.9

I I I- g. j

* )

j . J ______~.

1.-I *

-1 I

-v J,* ~, ,. I

I . *-. -,

- -------- 1~C)

*-. I . -

C..'

---.---------------------. ~AI -L- I.

I.,/

- xi.- *

I.-- I

I-.

IC III. I - -* j I, - I I

*\ I*. - -- i~* ~ A -- ~--'

-~

- -I,' ~I . U

-I -

a - xt~~~- -..- -x *

J .1V I

* )I* t S

I I~ *

* .-.. -I,,

II

I /*;~: ~*~2~'....................... K..... U.ij / -~

*~ ~ I II. -- I---- p

H. I J it--.:1, *~.*~'" V

1? i - -~____ -fr

-198

-~ I

~ /

-- I - .. ~

~

-~ * H-------- -'--c **~ 3-

cj~ .-- ~

o -

- I,

z -

C..'

z -- "- .~A-~-A~~'

~ ~ (6

I , ,

A.

I--- r -

- I ii

/ -.

- A -

1 * p

I- ---

N *' 0-,

ii -,

£ / A "'s -

A- I

N -

-. A ( - - A;-". 1-----~*

--- *1 A

A .11 * * *

Si-

- 9 'A~ :~-, I A

j 1~' C --- - .9 N~'I / .,

4g * __ 0N,

K - 2.,.C., - . . .- "

-,- ~

a a *..i .- --f---- - , ~ *1

*-.s .** ,' I

V *'tA'.~

-~ -~ --r-jj?4- V V - 4*,j~,,j ~ . -

14

I -.-------4------~---.--1*-. r SI,

~. -1 ..---.

-C... 4- -1

-. ~-' I. -. J

I I--------- -.

U. ;.~ 4v.j':-C * -4Ii~

I

Tj-

V

.,,.*- .-~-. - -- 1~ I V P I'-1- -~---

\ \

- ~ ~ __

-I

-' - .

. . *

-~ .. *. I

~ j~ --200--

- ---- ---

*2sY

~, ~ z a-

N .~

I. '-~ -ii- I4 1

~. 4/

'*1 *~

K . .

- .1 * 4,

I,

~-

I'

EnI u

41 u r

C: - ) 3 ' -

--203- b-RIiy rolrn.

14 R ly4tI14 147 - Burlington, IA., SI P148 - Amrican Oil Co.

4 .149 - IOWa Southern Ut ilit tus Co.

150 -West Burl ington, IA. , STI'1 51 -Spring Lake Canipgrot'nd

4 152 -Lomax Coin Wash

----------- -

15I

V4 .

204

. ... ..

"4 2!

153 -Da~ I7 sCt, L.

154 /

//

//

15 .- - - /

-Fis Mfssi-stpi, Ifl-

I * '- 2 -

" I * " ,.r, :, .

i I

--

: ..

,, . I• - -. • • o "' 5

I I l I I I I I I- .L . ' .

IF" : t r 7 _ -' p t it

1 !~ ,..

T -4

* * 1 9

U ,~It

r-d 4.1,

If I toll 4iI~ fi

Ia k

~\7

* * h .

-207-

- -~ - - - - -

N.4

-208-

- S

", .. j.' -"- * * K

I .. .I

7 - ,.

I) I

, r I

-S-

I' I'

i ) *

*t*, ,, { m,/ ' " '"- . d,. .- .I..

209

& ~.r ~. .. K ~ ~A'

4~4-. iq#~- -'

4 -~ . ~ -~) '4 -4

4.-'

~

o I V- .. C.. - I 'Ii

0

.1

- II .1~r4 - 4 -A___ I I ~ ~. I. -~

I ii"-fl--'

-11* I-;. I~I4

- - 4

<I .,

-. - . .4--a,...

4 a

a, 4 -~ O~)

4... 4 .

a I

-. I ,I'..

I Aa.. .4 -. .

a : '4/

4 ~'1~ 444 . 1.1~~ (

4 I -~ 444 . I ~.--- .

'~- a

i . .9- ~-I I 41 -~4J .1 "

"I

-210

- ' ). -- 7- -- N--- -H c a). ,, .

l.I I "-

4--1

-.4 *:I'.;..>

--k

cc®-

iti

tc . 7I .I i I, Iiii

I III I I i'I'-, I

- - - t~H * ' -'>T'.' . S

- , I l "',- -,I

.. . . . . . . . .. ¢ -

211

S -

~

I.

2 ,*j /

'~ ~.4 ~ -~~.t I I

~:I -~

I 1**

I - . I - -

II I'.. .4

C1

Kt

I- - -.

'I

I - I

- -7

-~

r -T . - '.1

I* *4, I I IaI 1. 4

I I

NN

I-

A.0

C::1

41 u

In _-- -- Of 0

a,~~~~. -r(1a ,C

C~

IT? I I

r*--

214-

I. I g - V .- -

I. '$

-- I- -_

* . S I I , . . S --

*1

I.

1'1

S ~

S...-. j .5. ,. - S.

I--. - S I

5' 9

.5 I IS I

-. , -.

5-: I - 5' -'-S S

- ' -: ~ *5'~

.5 9 . . .*~5' - if.5/ . I , 'I -.

- 1:9 52 * .1.

* I I

- Il*1 -.

- -. - I- I - i. .' p

* U A

* K* -> ~- -, -I

*1 /

* if .

I I I * -

I-. K

* .

*1

/

/

/- *..

* *1' A

-S

I;

- . K ' I** *~~*

* -. *-- ~-

$

r S ~I U I **** .. . . V p . J. I-. N\

/ V.. - . -7' S

S.. p ~-

19' 'b~

4 I~

-. - .~ I., I I I* I,

* 5 - I -

(.. 5 ~tj' ~*s I * !I (1 r3

* <7 ___

~2 I ~

*1

II

V

I,

7>

......

ix iii

* I /7<

:7 * [ . .

1.1 -,

ffiilLffiffi -- -

I

Date post:	20-Aug-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhcong
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

NL llllllllllllIm EEEEEIIIIIIIEE IIIEEEEIIIEEEE *IIIIIIIIIIum. · ad-a099 290 iowa inst of...

Documents