DOCSLIB.ORG

Minnesota River Headwaters Watershed Characterization Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minnesota River Headwaters Watershed Characterization Report Minnesota River Headwaters Watershed Characterization Report MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES 1 2019 Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Table of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................................................... 11 Geology ............................................................................................................................................... 12 High Value Resources .......................................................................................................................... 15 Rare Natural Features ......................................................................................................................... 16 Native Plant Communities .................................................................................................................. 17 Connections to the Watershed ........................................................................................................... 18 Study Background ................................................................................................................................... 18 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................................ 20 Geomorphology ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................ 24 Watersheds ......................................................................................................................................... 24 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 25 Tile Drainage Permit Inventory ........................................................................................................... 25 Precipitation ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Double Mass Curve ............................................................................................................................. 25 Discharge Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 26 Ground Water Usage .......................................................................................................................... 26 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Longitudinal Connectivity ................................................................................................................... 26 Lateral Connectivity ............................................................................................................................ 26 Geomorphology ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Field Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Office Methods ................................................................................................................................... 28 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................ 29 2 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 29 Tile Drainage Permit Inventory ........................................................................................................... 31 Precipitation ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Stream Flow ........................................................................................................................................ 42 Water Use ........................................................................................................................................... 50 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................................ 55 Longitudinal Connectivity ................................................................................................................... 55 Lateral Connectivity ............................................................................................................................ 62 Geomorphology ...................................................................................................................................... 63 Little Minnesota River ......................................................................................................................... 64 Fish Creek ............................................................................................................................................ 69 Upper Stony Run Creek ....................................................................................................................... 72 Lower Stony Run Creek ....................................................................................................................... 74 Whetstone River ................................................................................................................................. 77 North Fork Yellow Bank River Gage .................................................................................................... 80 South Fork Yellow Bank River Gage .................................................................................................... 82 Yellow Bank River Gage ....................................................................................................................... 84 Five Mile Creek - County Ditch #2 ....................................................................................................... 86 Five Mile Creek – Shible Lake .............................................................................................................. 88 Upper Five Mile Creek ......................................................................................................................... 91 Lower Five Mile Creek ......................................................................................................................... 93 Upper Emily Creek............................................................................................................................... 95 Lower Emily Creek ............................................................................................................................... 97 Restoration and Protection Strategies ........................................................................................................ 99 Correlated Planning Efforts ................................................................................................................... 101 Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan ............................................................................................... 101 3 List of Acronyms AUID – Assessment Unit Identification BANCS – Bank Assessment for Non-point source Consequences of Sediment BEHI – Bank Erosion Hazard Index bgy – Billion Gallons a Year BHR – Bank Height Ratio cfs – Cubic Feet per Second DEMs- Digital Elevation Models DMC – Double Mass Curve FFC – Flood Flow Confinement GNIS – Geographic Names Information System GPS – Global Positioning System HUC – Hydrologic Unit Code IBI – Index of Biotic Integrity IWM – Intensive Watershed Monitoring JD – Judicial Ditch KRET – Cretaceous Bedrock Aquifer LiDAR – Light Detection and Ranging LGU – Local Government Unit MGIO – Minnesota Geospatial Informational Office mgy – Million Gallons a Year MNDNR – Minnesota Department
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proposal: River Otter Delisting
    GAME, FISH, AND PARKS COMMISSION ACTION PROPOSAL State Threatened and Endangered Species Listings Chapter 41:10:02:04 Commission Meeting Dates: Proposal March 5-6, 2020 Pierre Public Hearing May 7, 2020 Custer State Park Finalization May 7-8, 2020 Custer State Park COMMISSION PROPOSAL Proposed change: Remove North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis) from list of state threatened mammals. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION Recommended changes to proposal: None. SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION River otters were historically widespread across North America, including South Dakota in appropriate habitats. However, due to habitat loss and degradation and unregulated take during the early 20th century, river otter populations were drastically reduced, including likely extirpation from South Dakota. In 1978, river otters were included on the first list of South Dakota state threatened mammals. Several factors have allowed river otter populations to rebound across much of their former range, including reintroductions, improvements in wetland and river habitat management, and protections afforded under various state threatened and endangered species laws. In South Dakota, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe released 35 river otters along the Big Sioux River on tribal grounds in Moody County in 1998 and 1999. As part of a study to determine river otter distribution in the state, Kiesow and Dieter (2003) collected 34 confirmed reports of river otter in South Dakota. The majority (89%) of these reports occurred along the Big Sioux River; half occurred in Moody County. Melquist reported in 2015 that river otter distribution included the following: Big Sioux, Vermillion and James River drainages, Jorgenson River, Little Minnesota River, Whetstone River, Yellow Bank River, Jim Creek/Big Slough and the Missouri River downstream from Pierre (Melquist 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Lac Qui Parle County Water Plan (2014-2023) ~ Table of Contents ~
    Lac qui Parle County Local Water Management Plan Serving the Years 2014-2023 ~ With 2014-2018 Implementation Plan ~ Prepared by The Lac qui Parle County Resource Commission, with assistance from Midwest Community Planning, LLC Lac qui Parle County Resource Commission ~ The Resource Commission works to coordinate and guide water resource management in Lac qui Parle County ~ Graylen Carlson County Commissioner (as appointed by the County Board) Darrell Ellefson Watershed Manager (as appointed by the Watershed District) Bob Ludvigson SWCD Supervisor (as appointed by the SWCD) Dave Craigmile Planning & Zoning (as appointed by the Planning & Zoning Board) Mark Bourne Township Officer (selection at discretion of the County Board) Members-At-Large Jeff Rheingans ~ Crops Jim Nesvold ~ Well Sealer Ron Enger ~ Livestock/Cattle Jerry Stensrud ~ Septics Kay Fernholz ~ Organic Jeff Olson ~ Seed Dealer/Edible Beans John Plathe ~ Crops James Barthel ~ Livestock/Dairy Mark Hastad ~ Crops Myron Anhalt ~ Livestock/Turkeys Local Units of Government Jennifer Breberg ~ Environmental Officer Trudy Hastad ~ LqPYB Watershed District Grant Bullemer ~ LqP SWCD Jon Radermacher ~ City of Madison Sonja Farmer ~ City of Marietta Mary Homan ~ LqPYB Clean Water Partnership Agency Advisors Burton Hendrickson, Natural Resource Conservation Service David Sill, Board of Water and Soil Resources Stacy Salvevold, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Brad Olson, Department of Natural Resources Katherine Pekarek-Scott, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Water Plan Coordinator ~ Terry Wittnebel, LqP SWCD District Manager Lac qui Parle County Water Plan (2014-2023) ~ Table of Contents ~ Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... iv A: Purpose of the Local Water Plan ........................................................................ iv B: A Description of Lac qui Parle County’s Priority Concerns ............................... v C: Summary of Goals, Objectives, Action Steps, and Estimated Cost ...................
    [Show full text]
  • By Stephen J. Lawrence Water-Resources Investigations
    WATER-RESOURCES APPRAISAL OP THE LAKE TRAVERSE INDIAN RESERVATION IN SOUTH DAKOTA By Stephen J. Lawrence U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4031 Huron, South Dakota 1989 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Rm. 408, Federal Bldg. Federal Center, Bldg. 810 200 4th St. SW Box 25425 Huron, SD 57350 Denver, CO 80225-0425 CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................ 1 Introduction .............................. 1 Physiography ........................... 2 Climate .............................. 2 Geology .............................. 6 Surface water .............................. 6 Surface-water quantity ....................... 15 Streams ............................ 15 Lakes ............................. 21 Surface-water quality ....................... 21 Streams ............................ 21 Lakes ............................. 27 Ground water .............................. 31 Hydrogeology ............................ 32 Ground-water quality ........................ 35 Needed additional studies ........................ 38 Summary ................................. 40 Selected references ........................... 41 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Map showing the location of the Lake Traverse Indian Reservation in South Dakota ................. 3 2. Map showing physiographic
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic History of Minnesota Rivers
    GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF MINNESOTA RIVERS Minnesota Geological Survey Ed ucational Series - 7 Minnesota Geological Survey Priscilla C. Grew, Director Educational Series 7 GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF MINNESOTA RIVERS by H.E. Wright, Jr. Regents' Professor of Geology, Ecology, and Botany (Emeritus), University of Minnesota 'r J: \ I' , U " 1. L I!"> t) J' T II I ~ !oo J', t ' I' " I \ . University of Minnesota St. Paul, 1990 Cover: An early ponrayal of St. Anthony Falls on the Mississippi River In Minneapolis. The engraving of a drawing by Captain E. Eastman of Fan Snelling was first published In 1853; It Is here reproduced from the Second Final Report of the Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, 1888. Several other early views of Minnesota rivers reproduced In this volume are from David Dale Owen's Report of a Geological Survey of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota; and Incidentally of a portion of Nebraska Territory, which was published In 1852 by Lippincott, Grambo & Company of Philadelphia. ISSN 0544-3083 1 The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation. 1-' \ J. I,."l n 1 ~ r 1'11.1: I: I \ 1"" CONTENTS 1 .... INTRODUCTION 1. PREGLACIAL RIVERS 5 .... GLACIAL RIVERS 17 ... POSTGLACIAL RIVERS 19 . RIVER HISTORY AND FUTURE 20 . ... REFERENCES CITED iii GEOLOGIC HISTORY OF MINNESOTA RIVERS H.E. Wright, Jr. A GLANCE at a glacial map of the Great Lakes region (Fig. 1) reveals that all of Minnesota was glaciated at some time, and all but the southeastern and southwestern corners were covered by the last ice sheet, which culminated about 20,000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5.0 Detailed Analysis of Little Minnesota River Floodway and Toelle Coulee Flood Mitigation Alternatives
    SECTION 5.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF LITTLE MINNESOTA RIVER FLOODWAY AND TOELLE COULEE FLOOD MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES 5.1 LITTLE MINNESOTA AND TOELLE COULEE ALTERNATIVES Based upon the information presented within Section 4.0, Range of Flood Mitigation Alternatives Considered, discussions with the BVFMTF, and consultation with the UMRWD, the range of Little Minnesota River flood mitigation alternatives became reduced to: 1) a Little Minnesota River floodway; and, 2) storage, a floodway, a levee or some combination thereof for Toelle Coulee. This section provides descriptions, detailed information on the engineering design, and an assessment of hydraulic performance for each of the flood mitigation alternatives selected for evaluation. Section 7 provides the rationale for selection of the preferred floodway alternatives for the Little Minnesota River and the design for Toelle Coulee. 5.1.1 Little Minnesota River Floodway Alternatives Six different alignments and two inlet types (i.e., gate-controlled or “active” and fixed crest or “passive”) for a total of twelve different floodway alternatives were considered for the Little Minnesota River to provide flood protection for the City of Browns Valley. Floodway Option 3 was added by Houston Engineering, Inc. subsequent to the November 1, 2007 BVFMTF meeting. Option 3 is intended to better address potential concerns relative to maintaining the historic proportion of flow to Lake Traverse and concerns about modifying low flows through the City of Browns Valley. All floodway designs focused on containing the design discharge (plus 1-foot of freeboard) within the floodway channel, rather than using levees to provide additional capacity. Material from floodway construction will be placed in spoil banks adjacent to the floodway and used to reconstruct Roberts CR 24.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Minnesota River Watershed Five Year Strategic Plan
    UPPER MINNESOTA RIVER WATERSHED FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN In Cooperation With: East Dakota Water Development District South Dakota Conservation Districts South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Date: August 2012 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................8 1.1 Project Background and Scope ........................................................................8 1.2 Upper Minnesota River Watershed History ...................................................10 1.3 Upper Minnesota River Watershed Water Quality Studies ..........................13 1.4 Goals of the Upper Minnesota River Basin Project .......................................15 2.0 Causes and Sources of Impairment .......................................................................15 2.0.1 Geography, Soils, and Land Use....................................................................15 2.0.2 Water Bodies Studies and Current Status .....................................................24 2.1.0 Description of the Impairments for 303(d) Water Body Listings in the Upper Minnesota River Basin ............................................................29 2.1.1 Temperature ...................................................................................................29
    [Show full text]
  • Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Facility Permit
    Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Facility Permit Dakota Range III, LLC Dakota Range III Wind Power Facility Application to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission for a Facility Permit Dakota Range III, LLC Dakota Range III Wind Power Facility Grant and Roberts Counties, South Dakota prepared by Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. Centennial, Colorado COPYRIGHT © 2018 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. Application for Facility Permit Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY .......................................................... 2-1 3.0 FACILITY PERMIT APPLICATION ................................................................... 3-1 4.0 COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST ....................................................................... 4-1 5.0 NAMES OF PARTICIPANTS (ARSD 20:10:22:06) .......................................... 5-1 6.0 NAME OF OWNER AND MANAGER (ARSD 20:10:22:07) ............................. 6-1 7.0 PURPOSE OF, AND DEMAND FOR, THE WIND ENERGY FACILITY (ARSD 20:10:22:08, 20:10:22:10) .................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Wind Resource Areas .......................................................................................... 7-2 7.2 Renewable Power Demand .................................................................................. 7-2 7.3 Consequences of Delay .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota River Basin Trends
    Minnesota River Basin TRENDS Minnesota River near Redwood Falls by Brian Peterson, Star Tribune Star Brian Peterson, by Falls near Redwood Minnesota River Dear Reader This is the first Minnesota River Trends document. The purpose of this report is to provide a broad overview of trends related to the state of the Minnesota River. It is meant to be easy-to-read overview that summarizes some of the major demographic, land use, water quality, biological and recreational trends in the Minnesota River Basin over the past 10 to 100 years depending on data availability. In a few cases, where an analysis of change over time was not possible, the report includes information on current conditions. The indicators included in the following report were prioritized by a group of agency representatives and citizens with the hopes of providing some clues of broader ecosystem health across the Minnesota River Basin. What you will discover in this document is a mixed story—research shows some indicators improving, some declining, some static. We hope that this document will provide insight into this dynamic, complex and varied river basin. The river has been studied extensively and is managed by a number of different agencies and organizations for a variety of purposes. The report draws data from researchers across many diverse fields. Thanks to our many project cooperators (see list on back page). If you want to learn more, a rich resource list used to develop this report is available online http://mrbdc.mnsu.edu/mnbasin/trends As you will see, many actions and projects have been put in place to try to understand and improve the water quality across the basin.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    FINAL REPORT Determination of river otter (Lontra canadensis) distribution and evaluation of potential sites for population expansion in South Dakota 1 October 2011 - 30 January 2015 Prepared for: Wildlife Diversity Program South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Submitted by Wayne E. Melquist, Ph.D. CREX Consulting [email protected] May 2015 Grant Number T-55-R-1, Study No. 2465 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Completion of this project would have been immensely more challenging were it not for the support, cooperation, and encouragement of numerous South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP) personnel. Silka Kempema, biologist with the Wildlife Diversity Program, was my primary contact in administering this contract, including multiple amendments. She never hesitated to assist in any way possible and enthusiastically joined me on floats down the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne Rivers. Silka has been a good companion and friend. Behind the scene, Eileen Dowd Stukel, head of the Wildlife Diversity Program, facilitated many aspects of the project and provided valuable input and review of the final report. Heather Berg, GIS Analyst, exhibited great patience with me during production of the maps found in the report, even when we went through multiple iterations before arriving at a final product. And Chelsea West, Heather’s supervisor, has provided me with graphic assistance for a decade of South Dakota projects. Jacquie Ermer, Regional Wildlife Manager, Watertown, conducted some of the early assessments of otters in South Dakota, and was a kindred spirit when it came to furbearers. The door was always open at the “Ermer Hotel” whenever I was in the Webster area, and I enjoyed sharing time with her family.
    [Show full text]
  • Traverse County Land Use Ordinance
    Zoning Ordinance TRAVERSE COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF LAND & WATER IN TRAVERSE COUNTY. THE TRAVERSE COUNTY BOARD ORDAINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUTHORITY GRANTED IN LAWS OF MINNESOTA CHAPTER 394 AS AMENDED, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 TITLE 1.00 TITLE 1.00 Title. This Ordinance shall be known, cited and referred to as the Traverse County Land Use Ordinance and will be referred to herein as THIS ORDINANCE. 101707 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SARA.GRONFELD\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET1 FILES\OLKB9\TRAVERSE COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE.DOC ISL Zoning Ordinance SECTION 2 INTENT AND PURPOSE 2.00 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION 2.01 Interpretation and Application. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the Governing Body and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes and are adopted for the purpose of: 1. protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare. 2. protecting and preserving economically viable agricultural land. 3. promoting orderly development of the residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas. 4. conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of the county. 5. conserving and developing natural resources in the county. 6. providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. 7. minimizing environmental pollution. 2.02 Purpose of Adult Use Regulations. The purpose and intent of the adult use regulations set forth in this Ordinance is to serve a substantial government interest by attempting to preserve the quality and vitality of neighborhoods, curtail the depression of property values, restrain increased criminal activity and slow the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Beginning!
    Spring 2007 RIVER TALK RIVER TALK Vol. I Issue I THE MINNESOTA RIVER CURRENT AAA NNNEEEWWW BBBEEEGGGIIINNNNNNIIINNNGGG!!! Welcome to the debut issue of River Out of a 2005 meeting came the Talk – a Minnesota River Watershed formation of the Minnesota River Watershed newsletter! We envision this communication Alliance (Watershed Alliance). This volunteer, piece as a venue to update what is happening loosely organized action-oriented group of watershed advocates is open to all citizens, with Minnesota’s namesake river and all of its landowners, organizations and agencies in the tributaries. This newsletter will highlight the efforts of the Minnesota River Watershed Minnesota River Watershed. As a result of this Alliance and vast network of partners. dynamic conversation, people from across the Ultimately, we want this newsletter to be a Minnesota River Watershed gathered to forge public forum to learn, debate, and speak about solutions, mobilize grassroots action and speak diverse issues surrounding the river. as a single voice on ecological issues facing this Not only is the Minnesota River a river. Join us! valuable resource to the people who live, work Over this last year, the Watershed and play here, it can also be said for Alliance members have focused on a number of far reaching initiatives. As a group they the state and country. Each day people selected fund raising for permanent protection find a need for this 335-mile river in both large and small ways. Slicing of sensitive lands as their initial “Clean up the through the heart of southern Minnesota River” issue. Success has already Minnesota, this river provides us with come in the form of a $250,000 grant from the recreational opportunities, drainage, Carl and Verna Schmidt Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Flood for Winnipeg
    TWENTY YEARS LATER: FLOOD MITIGATION IN THE RED RIVER BASIN R. Halliday & Associates Saskatoon, SK 2017 03 31 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In its November 2000 report, Living with the Red, the International Joint Commission (IJC) made a number of recommendations to governments aimed at reducing, mitigating, and preventing harm from future flooding in the Red River basin. The IJC noted that there is no single solution to the challenge and that comprehensive, integrated, binational approaches must be pursued and implemented. Since the 1997 flood, governments at all levels have made changes in flood-related policies, funded new programs and modified existing ones, invested in research related to flooding, and supported the establishment of new institutions such as the Red River Basin Commission. Not only major floods such as that of 1997, but also smaller tributary floods have been the focus of attention. In June 2001, the United States and Canada directed the IJC and the newly created International Red River Board to monitor progress by governments in implementing the recommendations contained in Living with the Red, and to provide encouragement for continued cooperative, innovative, and integrated watershed management approaches. In January 2003 the IJC specifically requested the Board to provide a written report on progress. A report indicating substantial progress on many recommendations was prepared and made available to the public through the IJC website. In 2006, the Red River experienced a significant flood with relatively little urban damage, although costs were incurred for measures such as closing ring dikes. In 2009, a flood occurred that, at Fargo-Moorhead, exceeded those of 1997 and 1897.
    [Show full text]