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

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

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 of Natural Resources

MNDOT – Minnesota Department of Transportation

MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

NBS – Near-Bank Sheer Stress

NID – National Inventory of Dams

PHDI – Palmer Hydrologic Drought Index

QBAA – Quaternary Buried Artesian Aquifers

QWTA - Quaternary Water Table Aquifers

SGCN – Species of Greatest Conservation Need

SID – Stressor Identification

SWCD – Soil and Water Conservation District

SWMA – State Wildlife Management Area

SWUDS – State Water Use Data System

UMRWD – Upper Minnesota River Watershed District

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture

USGS – United States Geologic Survey w/d – Width-to-Depth Ratio

WAN – Wildlife Action Network

WHAF – Watershed Health Assessment Framework

WMA – Wildlife Management Area

WRAPS – Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies

Table of Figures Figure 1. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) imagery depicting the west-to-east slope of the watershed’s landscape with the major and minor tributaries of the watershed...... 11 Figure 2. Sedimentary association of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed (SSURGO)...... 12 Figure 3. Soil Survey Geographic database (SSURGO) depiction of soil drainage capacity within the Minnesota River Headwaters watersheds of Minnesota...... 13 Figure 4. 2017 land use data for the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed (CropScape)...... 14 Figure 5. 2017 land use data for the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed (CropScape)...... 14 Figure 6. The total number of acres harvested for each crop type farmed within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed. Over time, there has been a significant increase in corn and soybean production while small grains production has decreased...... 15 Figure 7. Rare Features, native plant communities, and protected lands in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 17 Figure 8. Five components of a healthy watershed. All components are interrelated; a disruption of any one of the components can have an effect on the rest of the components...... 19 Figure 9. Three spatial dimensions of connectivity: longitudinal (red), lateral (green), and riparian (orange). Dams and bridges are two of several structures that disrupt each of these three dimensions of connectivity. Rapidan Dam, Blue Earth River image courtesy of Google Earth 2014...... 21 Figure 10. Measurements used to classify a representative stream reach. Once measurements of entrenchment, bankfull width to depth ratio (w/d ratio), sinuosity, and slope at a riffle cross section have been established, a conclusion on stream type can be made. Additional measurements are taken to determine whether the stream is stable within its current state or it if is in a successional state to adapt to its current climate, hydrology, and land use (Rosgen 1997)...... 23 Figure 11. Percentage of watersheds planted to soybeans from 1948 to 2015...... 30 Figure 12. Percentage of watersheds planted to wheat and oats from 1926 to 2015...... 30 Figure 13. Percentage of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed planted in corn and soybean (These data were derived from the NASS’s CropScape, which has high-resolution data from 2006 to present)...... 31 Figure 14. Annual number of tiling permits within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed and correlating annual commodity prices...... 32 Figure 15. Average annual permitted length of tile for permits within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 32 Figure 16. Cumulative permitted tile length within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 33 Figure 17. Permitted tile density within the MN River Headwaters watershed...... 33 Figure 18. Annual precipitation trend analysis for the Little Minnesota River watershed near Peaver, SD...... 34 Figure 19. Annual Precipitation trend analysis for the Whetstone River watershed near Big Stone City, SD...... 35 Figure 20. Annual precipitation trend analysis for the Yellow Bank River watershed near Odessa, MN. . 35 Figure 21. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed deviation from long-term average annual precipitation...... 36 Figure 22. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed total annual precipitation...... 36 Figure 23. Little Minnesota River watershed double mass curve with the inflection point identified by change in color...... 38

Figure 24. Whetstone River watershed double mass curve with the inflection point identified by change in color...... 38 Figure 25. Yellowbank River watershed double mass curve with the inflection point identified by change in color...... 39 Figure 26. Little Minnesota River watershed seasonal precipitation...... 39 Figure 27. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed proportion of difference from long-term average fall precipitation...... 40 Figure 28. Whetstone River watershed seasonal precipitation...... 40 Figure 29. Little Minnesota River watershed daily precipitation...... 41 Figure 30. Yellow Bank River watershed daily precipitation...... 41 Figure 31. Proportion of difference from long-term average PDSI for South Dakota climate division 3. . 42 Figure 32. Little Minnesota River flow duration curve...... 43 Figure 33. Whetstone River flow duration curve...... 43 Figure 34. Yellow Bank River flow duration curve...... 44 Figure 35. Little Minnesota River watershed mean monthly discharge...... 44 Figure 36. Whetstone River watershed mean monthly discharge...... 45 Figure 37. Yellow Bank River watershed mean monthly discharge...... 45 Figure 38. Proportion of difference from long-term average annual bankfull MDQ for the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 46 Figure 39. Seasonal watershed runoff for the Yellow Bank River watershed...... 47 Figure 40. Whetstone River watershed seasonal runoff...... 47 Figure 41. Yellow Bank River watershed seasonal runoff...... 48 Figure 42. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed average annual days above Q10...... 48 Figure 43. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed average annual days below Q90...... 49 Figure 44. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed average annual zero flow days...... 49 Figure 45. Groundwater use in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed ...... 51 Figure 46. Water use by type within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 52 Figure 47. Groundwater use by type within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 52 Figure 48. Active installations by resource within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 53 Figure 49. 2016 water use by resource within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 53 Figure 50. Spatial location of 15 structures, MPCA biological sampling location, and sampling locations upstream of longitudinal connectivity barriers within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 55 Figure 51. Restorable wetland index identifying previously drained wetlands and lakes in a subwatershed (i.e. catchment 2202000) of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 57 Figure 52. Location of bridges and culverts as identified by the MNDOT shapefile, as well as road/stream intersections, throughout the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 58 Figure 53. Longitudinal connectivity of riparian corridors within the subwatersheds of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed as assessed by the watershed Health Assessment Framework (WHAF)..... 59 Figure 54. Perennial vegetation cover within the subwatersheds of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed as assessed by the watershed health assessment framework (WHAF)...... 60 Figure 55. Spatial location and channel classification of geomorphology survey sites within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 63 Figure 56. BANCS model estimates of twenty-one stream banks along the Little Minnesota River...... 66 Figure 57. Concrete weir built into the culvert on the upstream side of the passing backs sediment up. 70

Figure 58. Plunge pool on the downstream side of the crossing...... 71 Figure 59. Riffle cross section at the Lower Stony Run survey location indicating the 1.1 bank height ratio...... 75 Figure 60. Restorable wetlands inventory identifying the locations of several lakes and numerous small wetlands that have been drained since settlement...... 76 Figure 61. Longitudinal profile of the surveyed reach showing a section of steeper grade adjacent to a section with shallower grade...... 78 Figure 62. Numerous tall terraces with active erosion were present at the survey location...... 79 Figure 63. Riffle cross section at the North Fork Yellow Bank River gage study location showing how the shape of the valley limits the rivers lateral floodplain width...... 81 Figure 64. Riffle cross section at the Five Mile Creek - Shible Lake, study location identifying the stream’s lateral confinement...... 89 Figure 65. Longitudinal profile of the thalweg, water surface, bankfull bench, and low banks at the Five Mile Creek – Shible Lake, study location...... 90 Figure 66. Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan as it pertains to the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 102 Figure 67. Minnesota Wildlife Action Network within the MN River Headwaters Watershed...... 103

Table of Tables Table 1. Dimension, pattern, and profile measurements used within the Rosgen methodology for channel classification...... 23 Table 2. Valley type descriptions with stable and unstable stream types exhibited (from Rosgen 2014)...... 24 Table 3. Water appropriation permits in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed...... 51 Table 4. Listing of structures within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed including the structures names, type, potential as barrier, number of IWM sites impacted, county, and UTMs...... 56 Table 5. Number and density of bridges and culverts as identified by the MNDOT shapefile throughout the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed broken down by study reach drainage area...... 58 Table 6. Vegetation type, bank height, root depth, root density, weighted root density, and BEHI rating for each study site study bank...... 61 Table 7. Study stream reach names, bank height ratios, and the correlating degree of incision adjective rating...... 62 Table 8. BANCS model data including station, station length, BEHI adjective rating, NBS adjective rating, bank erosion rate, length of bank, study bank height, erosion subtotal, erosion rate, and unit erosion rate...... 67

Executive Summary The Minnesota River Headwaters watershed is comprised of the Little Minnesota River Watershed and several small watersheds that flow directly into the Minnesota River. The hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed (i.e. 07020001) drains approximately 761 square miles of primarily agricultural land in west- central Minnesota, north-eastern South Dakota, and south-eastern North Dakota. The following report analyzes the hydrology, connectivity, and geomorphology components of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed as well as general watershed characteristics. Historical gage data, stream crossing data, and applied fluvial geomorphology assessments were analyzed to characterize conditions of the watershed and find relationships to help understand water quality and biological impairments throughout the watershed.

Analysis of land use within the watershed showed an increase in acres planted to corn and soybeans since the 1970’s, with a correlating decrease in acres planted to wheat and oats. Review of tile drainage records also showed an increase in both permit numbers issued, and average annual length of tile since the mid 2000’s. Precipitation data collected within the separate watersheds indicated variability in precipitation over time, but largely stayed within the 25-75th percentile range. When the same data were split into fourteen year increments, however, average annual precipitation has increased from north to south over time. Inflection points within the double mass curves for the Little Minnesota, Whetstone, and Yellow Bank rivers were identified in 1993, 1991, and 1984 respectively. Relationships in the double mass curves indicate the amount and timing of discharge per inch of precipitation has increased over time. General trends in cumulative annual precipitation before and after each inflection point identified an increase in fall, and decrease in summer, for both time periods in each watershed. Analysis of daily precipitation events for each watershed indicated an increase in frequency of larger daily precipitation periods for each of the watersheds. Cumulatively, monthly flow values have shown an increase in monthly average discharge volumes, and the number of days the one and a half year return interval flow has been met or exceeded has increased when assessing mean daily discharge.

Longitudinal connectivity assessments within the watershed indicated a road crossing density of 3.01/mi2. High densities of road crossings were identified in the western portion of the watershed (i.e. along the Coteau des Prairies), while fewer crossings were identified in the eastern half. An extensive search of various databases identified fourteen longitudinal connectivity structures, ten that are longitudinal fish passage barriers, one that is a barrier at certain flows, and three that are not fish passage barriers at any flows. An additional assessment of longitudinal connectivity of riparian corridors was completed near the survey sites. The assessment found that nine survey locations had adequate riparian width, two had adequate width but were grazed pastures, two only had adequate width on one side, and one lacked adequate riparian corridor width altogether. Assessment of lateral connectivity at each of the survey locations indicated that one survey site was completely entrenched, two sites were moderately entrenched, and ten sites were in varying degrees of slight entrenchment.

Survey assessment results indicated systemic issues within each of the watersheds. Channel stability at two survey sites was rated good, four sites were fair, and seven sites were poor. Survey sites included two ‘B’ channels, four ‘C’ channels, six ‘E’ channels, one ‘F’ channel, and one ‘G’ channel. Several sites appeared to be moving towards a state of channel succession through down cutting and widening, potentially resulting in different stream types in the future. Restoration and protection strategies within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed should focus on system wide issues.

Introduction Watershed Characterization The Minnesota River Headwaters watershed is comprised of the Little Minnesota River watershed and several small watersheds that flow directly into the Minnesota River from both the north and south sides. The combination of these watersheds together are identified as the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 07020001 watershed. The Minnesota River Headwaters watershed drains approximately 761 square miles over parts of twelve different counties residing in three different states. Counties with lands within the watershed include Richland County in North Dakota; Marshall, Roberts, Grant, Codington, and Deuel counties in South Dakota; and Traverse, Big Stone, Stevens, Swift, Lac qui Parle, and Chippewa counties in Minnesota.

Flowing in a general north west to south east directions, the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed begins with the Little Minnesota River. The Little Minnesota River originates on the Coteau des Prairie in Marshall County, South Dakota near the town of Veblen. As the Little Minnesota River flows south and east, it flows into the Traverse Gap; formed by the Glacial River Warren. Glacial River Warren carved the present day Minnesota River Valley when Glacial Lake Agassiz broke through the Big Stone Moraine near present day Browns Valley, Minnesota, approximately 11,700 years ago and flowed for roughly 2,300 years (MRBDC). Within the Traverse Gap lies a continental divide that separates drainages to the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. Further to the south and east of the confluence of the Little Minnesota River and outlet of Big Stone Lake, the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed picks up direct flow drainages from both the north and south sides of the Minnesota River Valley. The major tributaries to the Minnesota River include: Yellow Bank and Whetstone rivers; Emily, Fish, Five Mile, and Salmonson creeks; and Stony Run (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) imagery depicting the west-to-east slope of the watershed’s landscape with the major and minor tributaries of the watershed.

Geology Surficial Geology The surficial geology of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed was greatly influenced by the advance of the Des Moines Lobe during the Wisconsin glacial periods (i.e. roughly 14,000 years B.P.; Lusardi 1997). As the Laurentian ice sheet receded across the state of Minnesota, meltwater rivers and lake became prevalent on the landscape. Numerous glacial outwashes left by the meltwater rivers wind through the middle portions of the watershed (Figure 2). These glacial outwashes were left within primarily supraglacial drift complexes and till plains that dominate the eastern three quarters of the watershed. The western boundary of the watershed is till end moraines and till stagnation moraines.

Figure 2. Sedimentary association of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed (SSURGO).

Soils The Soil Survey Geologic database (SSURGO) identifies most of the soils within the watershed, west of the Minnesota River, as well drained (Figure 3). These soils would have developed under the western edge of the last glacial advance that left poorer drained soils in the eastern extent of the watershed. The Soil Survey Geologic database also identifies that many of the soils within the watershed are highly organic (i.e. >2% and <6%). Similar to many highly organic soils found in southern and western Minnesota, much of those within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed are agriculturally productive.

Figure 3. Soil Survey Geographic database (SSURGO) depiction of soil drainage capacity within the Minnesota River Headwaters watersheds of Minnesota.

Land Use The Minnesota River Headwaters watershed was historically covered in tallgrass prairie with numerous wet prairie island and complexes west of the Minnesota River basin (Marschner pre-settlement map). Currently, agriculture dominates land use within the watershed with 60.4% of the landscape in row crop and small grain production, while 20.3% is in pasture (Figures 4 and 5; CropScape). Corn and soybean production accounts for 25.2% and 29.2% of the land cover, wheat production for 2.7%, and other agriculture accounts for 3.6%. Wetlands cover roughly 10.6% of the land while open water and development cover 5.2% and 0.6% respectively. Furthermore, a significant decrease in total small grain acres harvested has occurred through the years as a significant increase in soybean and corn acres has occurred (Figure 6; NASS 2016).

Figure 4. 2017 land use data for the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed (CropScape).

Figure 5. 2017 land use data for the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed (CropScape).

Acres of Crops Harvested Annually 1600000

1400000

1200000

BARLEY 1000000 CORN 800000 FLAXSEED HAY 600000 Acres Acres Harvested OATS 400000 SOYBEANS WHEAT 200000

1945 1969 1993 1921 1925 1929 1933 1937 1941 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 Year

Figure 6. The total number of acres harvested for each crop type farmed within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed. Over time, there has been a significant increase in corn and soybean production while small grains production has decreased.

High Value Resources The Minnesota River Headwaters watershed falls within the prairie parkland ecological province. This province is dominated by the Minnesota River Prairie subsection, which is in the heart of the Midwest corn-belt (MNDNR 2017). It is defined by large till plains that flank the Minnesota River (MNDNR 2017). The Minnesota River occupies a broad valley that splits the subsection in half. The valley was created by Glacial River Warren, which drained Glacial Lake Agassiz (MNDNR 2017).

The Minnesota River Headwaters watershed retains a variety of rare and unique features that primarily occur along the Minnesota River. The health of these natural resources can be impacted by watershed activities, land-use changes, and hydrologic changes. The following high value resource features occur within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed boundary:  Twenty-four mapped native plant communities  Eight designated calcareous fens  Seventy-one rare plant and animal species that are listed as threatened, endangered, or special concern. This list includes state and federally listed species.  Minnesota River-main tributary (DNR Hydro ID: 104280), Stony Run (DNR Hydro ID: 108862), and Unnamed stream (DNR Hydro ID: 108863)  Marsh Lake (DNR Hydro ID: 54553), Big Stone Lake (DNR Hydro ID: 50695); Lac qui Parle-NW Bay (DNR Hydro ID: 52386), Lac qui Parle-SW Bay (DNR Hydro ID: 60392) as well as other important smaller lakes.

The Minnesota River Headwaters watershed was historically dominated by dry prairie, with many pockets of wet prairie in the western part of the watershed (MNDNR 2017). Trees were restricted to ravines along streams. Dry, dry-mesic, and dry-gravel prairies existed in this part of the watershed on the Big Stone moraine and prairie kames (MNDNR 2017). Only a small percentage of these native systems remain. Integrating native systems into our land and water use is extremely important for maintaining healthy, resilient watersheds.

Rare Natural Features Rare features (Figure 7) contribute to the health of the habitat and environment that surrounds us. Some even contribute directly to local economies in the form of recreation—including hunting/fishing, wildlife viewing, canoeing/kayaking, and camping. The DNR has a statutory responsibility to conserve rare features (Minnesota Stat. 84.0895). Rare features can include species of unique plants and animals as well as native plant communities (habitats). Rare features are often key indicators of the health of our environment. When they decline, it is usually an indication that a natural process or element is not functioning well.

There are 30 endangered and threatened species documented in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed (MNDNR 2017b). There are an additional 84 species that are in suspected decline and are listed as special concern, species of greatest conservation need, or watch list species (MNDNR 2017b, Appendix I). These species are often tied to native plant communities that may also be in decline. In the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed in addition to the number of rare species, there is also a high density of these species occurring along the main channel of the Minnesota River and its tributaries. The majority of documented species are either tied to upland prairie and rock outcrop communities or aquatic habitats like rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands. Maintaining upland and lowland connections across the watershed is critically important for retaining these species and to achieve healthy watershed goals.

Two of the documented rare species are associated with calcareous fen habitats such as the 8 designated calcareous fens in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed. Calcareous fens are rare and distinctive wetlands characterized by a substrate of non-acidic peatland dependent on a constant supply of cold, oxygen-poor groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium bicarbonates. This calcium-rich environment supports a plant community dominated by calcium-loving species. Because these types of wetlands are one of the rarest natural communities in the United States, they are a specially protected resource in Minnesota (Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.222 - .2373 and Minnesota Rules, chapter 8420).

Figure 7. Rare Features, native plant communities, and protected lands in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Native Plant Communities A native plant community (NPC) is a group of native plants that interact with each other and with their environment in ways not greatly altered by modern Native Plant Communities human activity or by introduced organisms (MNDNR 2017a). These groups of native plant species form Native Plant Communities (NPC) in recognizable units, such as prairies, oak forests, or Minnesota have been assigned conservation marshes. The MNRHW is unique in that it retains status ranks (S-ranks) that reflect their risk large expanses of native habitat, uncharacteristic for of elimination from the state. There are five much of Southwestern Minnesota. These habitats ranks that are determined using have been added to over the years with restorations methodology developed by the conservation that have yielded a larger than usual complex of organization NatureServe and its member habitat—much of this habitat occurs on the Big Stone natural heritage programs in North America. National Wildlife Refuge and the Lac qui Parle Wildlife Ranks in Minnesota are based on Management Area. Even so, all, but one of the native information compiled by DNR ecologists. plant communities in the MNRHW are considered critically imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable to extirpation (Appendices I).

Connections to the Watershed Connections between wildlife species, native plant communities, lakes and wetland features are many and often complex. In order to conserve these features, a tiered approach should be used—preserving native communities, restoration and enhancement to create larger habitat networks, and incorporating best management practices such as soil health into the agricultural landscape. All three tiers can be implemented at the same time and focusing on these three levels of restoration and protection strategies maximizes our conservation benefits. Remaining clusters of rare or sensitive natural features are indicative of habitat quality while their scarcity elsewhere in the watershed signal the need for restoration or adaptive management. Maintaining and restoring biological diversity, abundance, and resiliency is a component of integrated watershed health. The more diverse an area is, the better chance it has at long-term health and self-sustainability. Over the years, there will be variations in invasive species pressure, soil conditions, and climate such as extreme drought or extreme moisture. Having a diversity of communities and species ensures that more of these will become established/adapted to these extremes and can therefore meet the ebb and flow of change.

The Minnesota River Headwaters watershed has dense concentrations of high value ecological features that primarily occur along the Minnesota River and associated upland prairie and rock outcrop habitats. The watershed includes a priority habitat network along the Minnesota River for the Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan, the Minnesota Wildlife Action Plan (2015-2025), and the Lac qui Parle-Big Stone Important Bird Areas. This is a hot spot in terms of conservation potential. Figure 7 shows large opportunities to create a connected corridor of native and restored plant communities building off of the existing Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge and Lac qui Parle Wildlife Management area along the Minnesota River and its tributaries—including, but not limited to: Stony Run and Unnamed stream (DNR Hydro ID:108863). These communities, which include priority fish and wildlife habitat areas, wetland/upland complexes, and natural areas not only provide quality habitat, but sequester carbon, provide a home for rare species, contribute to clean water, and offer many recreational opportunities.

Study Background The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) initiated the Intensive Watershed Monitoring (IWM) process for the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed in 2015 to assess the overall health of the watershed and identify areas for restoration and protection efforts. The MPCA and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) use a five component “healthy watershed” framework to understand and describe how complex ecological systems are functioning. The five components of a healthy watershed consist of hydrology, geomorphology, connectivity, water quality, and biology (Figure 8). Within this five component framework, the MPCA is charged with assessing the biology and water quality components. The MNDNR thus analyzes the current and historical hydrology trends of the watershed, assesses the fluvial geomorphology and stability of rivers and streams within the system, and investigates connectivity (i.e., longitudinal, lateral, and riparian). All of the components are interrelated, and the disruption of any of them can result in undesirable results deeming the stream impaired for one or more condition.

Once all of the components have been assessed, the MPCA completes a stressor identification (SID) document to show what stressors are causing listed impairments within each Assessment Unit ID (AUID). The SID document is one component to help develop Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategies (WRAPS); a report summarizing the water quality monitoring and assessment, pollutant and stressor source identification, civic engagement and public participation, and restoration and protection

18 strategy development. Ultimately, WRAPS can be used to inform local plans and guide conservation work within the watershed.

Figure 8. Five components of a healthy watershed. All components are interrelated; a disruption of any one of the components can have an effect on the rest of the components. Hydrology Hydrologic conditions (e.g., precipitation, runoff, storage, and annual water yield) and the disturbance of natural pathways (e.g., tiling, ditching, land use changes, and loss of water storage) has become the driver of many impairments in other Minnesota watersheds (MPCA 2012). These disturbances coupled with an increase in precipitation (i.e., total, frequency, and magnitude) have resulted in issues with: increased bank erosion, excess sediment, habitat degradation, and disturbance of natural flow regime.

Hydrologic modification is the alteration or addition of water pathways and associated changes in volume by human activity. Those modifications can dramatically alter discharge due to changes in volume, timing, connectivity, or flow rates, particularly if the area was not a flow pathway in the past. The types of hydrologic modifications are vast, including the draining and filling of wetlands and lakes, ditching or draining formerly hydrologically disconnected basins, adding impervious surfaces across the basin, increasing drainage for increased transport of water (i.e., in urban and agricultural areas), straightening or constricting a natural flow path or river, and changing the timing and rate of delivery within the hydrologic system. Any increase in stream power (e.g., due to change in peak flows or increased frequency of bankfull flows) will generate an increase in water yield (Lane 1995). Reduced surface storage, increased conveyance, increased effective drainage area along with the recent transition to a two crop rotation (i.e. corn and soybeans) supporting soybeans over perennial grasses and small grains have all altered the dynamics of, and generally increased the annual water discharge

19 from, these watersheds while also dramatically altering the return interval for various flow stages (Schottler 2014).

In extensively drained landscapes, such as the agricultural Midwest of the United States, the connection of isolated basins has inflated total surface water discharge and increased the density of linear drainage networks (Ter Haar & Herricks 1989, Hitjema 1995, Magner et al. 2004). Many streams in the region are in disequilibrium due to past and current land-use change with corresponding hydrologic responses, as well as direct channel modifications (Lenhart 2007).

These modifications have not occurred at a constant rate, but in episodes or events, such as construction of the public drainage system from 1912-1920 (Lenhart 2007, 2008) and continue today through repair, upgrade, and increased amount of impervious surfaces and subsurface drainage. Construction of subsurface tile and surface ditch drainage systems in the early 1990s increased contributing drainage areas, resulting in greater amounts of water delivered to rivers (Leach and Magner 1992, Kuehner 2004, Lenhart 2008). The effects of these suites of changes are cumulative, interrelated, and tend to compound across different spatial and temporal scales (Spaling & Smit 1995, Aadland et al. 2005, Blann et al. 2009). The contribution of subsurface drainage to aquatic ecosystem affects may be difficult to isolate relative to other agricultural impacts (Blann et al. 2009). Cumulatively, these changes in hydrology, geomorphology, nutrient cycling, and sediment dynamics have had profound implications for aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity (Blann et al. 2009)

The hydrologic analysis found in this report focuses on surface-water components of the hydrologic cycle, rainfall-runoff relationships, open-channel flow, flood hydrology, and statistical and probabilistic methods in hydrology. Furthermore, some analysis of groundwater and watershed appropriations are summarized. Connectivity Connectivity is defined as the maintenance of lateral, longitudinal, and vertical pathways for biological, hydrological, and physical processes within a river system (Annear 2004). Connectivity is thus the water mediated transfer of energy, materials, and organisms across the hydrological landscape (Pringle 2003). The transport of these integral components within a river travel in four dimensions: longitudinal, upstream and downstream; lateral, channel to floodplain; vertical, hyporheic to groundwater zones; and temporal, continuity of transport over time (Annear 2004; Figure 9). Due to the objectives of this study, vertical connectivity was not directly assessed.

Longitudinal connectivity of flowing surface waters is of the utmost importance to fish species. Many fish species life histories employ seasonal migrations for reproduction or overwintering. Physical barriers such as dams, waterfalls, perched culverts, and other instream structures disrupt longitudinal connectivity and often impedes seasonal fish migrations. Disrupted migration not only holds the capacity to alter reproduction of fish, it also impacts mussel species that utilize fish movement to disperse their offspring. Structures, such as dams, have been shown to reduce species richness of systems, while also increasing abundance of tolerant or undesirable species (Winston et al. 1991, Santucci et al. 2005, Slawski et al. 2008).

Figure 9. Three spatial dimensions of connectivity: longitudinal (red), lateral (green), and riparian (orange). Dams and bridges are two of several structures that disrupt each of these three dimensions of connectivity. Rapidan Dam, Blue Earth River image courtesy of Google Earth 2014.

Longitudinal connectivity of a system’s immediate riparian corridor is an integral component within a healthy watershed that promotes the free movement of aquatic terrestrial species both up and down stream within a hydrologic system. Continuous corridors of high quality riparian vegetation work to sustain stream stability and play an important role in energy input and light penetration to surface waters. Lateral riparian connectivity provides habitat for terrestrial species as well as spawning and refuge habitat for fish during periods of flooding and represents one of the most significant attributes for maintaining stream stability. Improperly sized bridges and culverts hinder the role of longitudinal riparian connectivity as they reduce localized floodplain access, disrupt streambank vegetation, create impassable flow velocities, stand as tunnel lengths that restrict species movement, reduce or eliminate natural migration pathways for terrestrial and aquatic organisms, and cause streambed and floodplain aggradation upstream and streambed degradation or aggradation downstream.

Lateral connectivity represents the connection between a river and its floodplain. The dynamic relationship amongst terrestrial and aquatic components of a river’s floodplain ecosystem comprises a spatially complex and interconnected environment (Ickes et al. 2005). The degree to which lateral connectivity exists in both a time-dependent phenomenon (Tockner et al. 1999) and dependent upon the physical structure of the channel. Stable river systems are hydrologically dynamic systems where

21 their floodplain inundation relates to prevailing hydrologic conditions throughout the seasons. Riverine species have evolved life history characteristics that exploit flood pulses for migration and reproduction based on those seasonally predictable hydrologic conditions that allow systems to access their floodplains (Welcomme 1979, McKeown 1984, Scheimer 2000). When a river system degrades to a point where it can no longer access its floodplain, the system’s capacity to dissipate hydrologic energy is lost. Without adequate dissipation of hydrologic energy through floodplain access, the hydrologic shear stress on streambanks and streambed increase. Increasing shear stress within the channel causes the channel to widen or streambed to scour, depending upon which feature has the lowest shear strength based upon the materials the feature is comprised of. Channel widening or channel incision driven by this hydrologic shear reduces channel stability and decreases effective bedload transport capacity. Reduced bedload transport capacity causes aggradation of the streambed, leads to the loss of important aquatic habitat, increases water temperature, lowers oxygen levels, and leaves smaller and less diverse bed materials that in turn reduce biotic integrity of the aquatic and terrestrial communities in the system.

Geomorphology Fluvial geomorphology pertains to the way land has formed and continues to form by flowing water (Leopold et al. 1964). The principle methods utilized in this study to describe the geomorphology of the watershed follow the Rosgen (1994) classification system (Figure 10). Within the Rosgen classification system, the dimension, pattern, and profile of a stream are measured through the use of dimensionless ratios in order to classify the stream regardless of its size (Table 1). Boundary conditions [i.e. valley type (Table 2)] of stream type are also documented as they can strongly influence channel evolution. Subsequently, measurements such as bank height ratio, erosion rate, and sediment competence are used to assess whether the channel is in a stable or transitional state (i.e. evolving to or from a disturbed channel type).

Equilibrium and river stability are terms that are often used interchangeably within the context of geomorphology. River stability is defined as a river’s ability, in the present climate, to transport the flows and sediment of its watershed, over time, in such a manner that that channel maintains its dimension, pattern, and profile without either aggrading or degrading (Rosgen 1996, 2001a, 2006). When components of a healthy watershed are disturbed, successional changes in rivers occur in order to adjust to the new conditions. Typically, these adjustments impact habitat and water quality due to an imbalance of sediment and bedload supply and transport that results in biotic and turbidity impairments.

Figure 10. Measurements used to classify a representative stream reach. Once measurements of entrenchment, bankfull width to depth ratio (w/d ratio), sinuosity, and slope at a riffle cross section have been established, a conclusion on stream type can be made. Additional measurements are taken to determine whether the stream is stable within its current state or it if is in a successional state to adapt to its current climate, hydrology, and land use (Rosgen 1997).

Table 1. Dimension, pattern, and profile measurements used within the Rosgen methodology for channel classification.

Table 2. Valley type descriptions with stable and unstable stream types exhibited (from Rosgen 2014).

Methods Hydrology In order to understand and evaluate the hydrologic processes within a watershed, several types of analysis are used to examine the relationships between flow (i.e. discharge) and precipitation. Ground water levels and usage over time was also reviewed. The analysis methods can evaluate and measure changes within a system by reviewing statistical variations and trends over time. Watersheds MN River Headwaters HUC-8 Watershed = 2132 sq. mi.

 USGS Streamgage 05290000 Little MN River near Peever, SD Watershed = 448 sq. mi. o Period of Record – 10/1/1939 - Present o Missing Data – 12/24/1981 - 9/30/1989, 10/7/2002 - 7/17/2008  USGS Streamgage 05291000 Whetstone River near Big Stone City, SD Watershed = 406 sq. mi. o Period of Record – 4/1/1910 - Present o Missing Data – 12/1/1910 - 3/31/1911, 11/1/1911 - 3/31/1912, 12/1/1912 - 3/31/1931  USGS Streamgage 05293000 Yellow Bank River near Odessa, MN Watershed = 460 sq. mi. o Period of Record – 10/1/1939 - Present o Missing Data – 9/30/1999 - 4/7/2001

 USGS Streamgage 05292000 MN River at Ortonville, MN Watershed* = 339 sq. mi. o *Little MN and Whetstone River watersheds excluded from analyses o Streamflow record not analyzed due to impacts of dam and reservoir directly upstream

The following analyses were completed for the watersheds upstream of the aforementioned gages. Land Use NRCS Land Capability Classification data were utilized to define land suitable for cultivation (Class I-IV) in the portion of each county in the watershed and the entirety of each county within the watershed. The resulting percentage was multiplied by NASS county-level data for acres planted to corn, soybeans, wheat/oats, and hay/alfalfa to determine the amount of each crop type in the watershed on an annual basis. Data for acres planted was utilized because it more accurately represents true land cover impacts, whereas harvested acreage could be markedly less due to several variables, particularly intra-yearly weather events. Tile Drainage Permit Inventory Tiling permits issued by the respective drainage authority in Roberts, Grant, and Deuel Counties in SD and the Upper Minnesota River and Lac qui Parle-Yellow Bank Watershed Districts in MN were inventoried to determine the year issued, location of tile and outlet, and length of tile permitted for installation. The first two variables were always available for each permit; however, a portion of the permits, especially those issued by the watershed districts in MN, didn’t contain information relative to permitted tile length. As a result, analyses for the MN portion of the Yellow Bank and MN River at Ortonville* watersheds only included information for the first two variables. There were 10 permits for the Little MN, 12 for the Whetstone, and 7 for the SD portion of the Yellow Bank that didn’t include tile length information. Whenever maps that depicted tiling plans accompanied the permit, they were analyzed to determine tile length. Additionally, if plow furrows from the tiling project were visible on an air photo, as-built tile length was also quantified. Precipitation A GIS-based version of Thiessen Polygons, an area-weighting method for interpolating point data, was employed to quantify precipitation data on the watershed scale; this method was utilized because gridded precipitation data are not available for the portions of the watersheds in SD. Precipitation stations with long periods of record and few missing daily values were used in the analyses. Double Mass Curve A Double Mass Curve is an analysis based on a cumulative comparison of one independent variable with a cumulative dependent variable. This is useful in hydrologic data as it allows the examination of the relationship between two variables. This technique was used to compare precipitation and stream discharge relationships (annual and seasonal) and well elevation fluctuations relative to precipitation. When plotted, a straight line indicates consistency in the relationship, a break in the slope would mean a change in the relationship.

When used with long term discharge data sets, the curve can demonstrate when the change in the relationship began to occur. All double mass curves presented are runoff (i.e. discharge/watershed area) and monthly precipitation in inches. All discharge values are converted to inches by dividing total volume by the watershed area (the annual discharge converted to acre–ft. and then to inches of runoff

25 over the watershed). Additional information on double mass curve development and interpretation can be found on the following website: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1541b/report.pdf Discharge Analysis Flow/discharge data sets are collected by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) and MPCA/DNR stream gage network for the various watersheds. Site specific streamflow data are calculated using continuous stream stage measurements and periodic streamflow measurements. These data are plotted and charted to allow for statistical analysis and are used to create hydrographs, flow duration curves, and other visual representations of the period of record.

Watershed discharge data can be used to review daily, monthly, seasonal, annual, and long term trends within a watershed and examine changes in the discharge characteristics such as periods of low or zero flow, flood frequency, base flow volume, and seasonal variability. Ground Water Usage Permitted groundwater usage was reviewed to examine changes in type of usage and volume over time. Data was collected through the Minnesota Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) and used to review total volume appropriated, volume appropriated by county, aquifer type, and well level fluctuations relative to precipitation. Observation well data was also used to examine groundwater trends, and potential ground/surface water interaction when data was available.

Connectivity Longitudinal Connectivity Longitudinal connectivity within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed was assessed through the use of desktop reconnaissance tools. ArcMap, Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), Watershed Health Assessment Framework (WHAF), National Inventory of Dams (NID), MNDNR’s dam safety records, and Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MNDOT) bridges and culverts inventory were utilized to assess longitudinal connectivity. Because culvert inventories do not document whether individual structures are perched, dams were the only barriers with adequate data to analyze continuity within the surface waters of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Similarly, the same tools were used to assess longitudinal connectivity of riparian corridors throughout the watershed. Bridges and culverts were divided within the watershed, and amongst subwatersheds, to assess abundance and density (i.e., bridges and culverts/mi2).

Furthermore, riparian corridor and habitat quality was qualitatively assess at each geomorphology survey site. Vegetation type, root depth, root density, and weighted root density [i.e., (root depth/study bank height) * root density] were all measured and documented. Information gathered was later used in site-specific assessment of stream stability and potential of sediment supply through bank erosion. Lateral Connectivity Flood-prone area (i.e. active floodplain) is defined as the area adjacent to the stream channel that is under water in flow events that are 2x maximum bankfull depth at the riffle cross section (Rosgen 1996, 2006). Bankfull, in the context of this report, refers to the normal high water flow; typically relating to ~1.5 year return interval flow (i.e. channel forming flow). Field surveys are required to calibrate bankfull

26 elevations at a riffle within a study reach, as well as determine flood-prone elevation. Due to the need for field surveys to acquire bankfull and flood-prone elevations, only geomorphology sites were subjected to lateral connectivity analysis. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) imagery digital elevation models (DEMs) were used in conjunction with surveyed elevations to determine flood-prone width at sites with particularly wide flood-prone areas.

Channel incision is the process of the lowering of the local base level of a channel (Rosgen 2014). The degree to which a channel is incised is measured by the bank-height ratio (BHR; lowest bank height divided by bankfull maximum depth). A BHR of one indicates that the low bank height is the bankfull height, ratios higher than one indicated a degree of incision. Degrees of incision are categorized as stable (i.e. 1-1.1), slightly incised (i.e. 1.1-1.3), moderately incised (i.e. 1.3-1.5), and deeply incised [i.e. 1.5-2 (Rosgen 2014)]. The degree of incision is a strong factor in lateral connectivity, however, the categories detail the relative degree of incision and not whether the channel has disconnected from its floodplain. Channels that are categorized as deeply incised may still have lateral connectivity to their floodplain, just at flows higher than those relative to the bankfull and low bank heights. As the degree of incision increases, higher flows are contained within the channel, increasing sheer stress within the channel.

Geomorphology Field Methods Site selection worked to fulfill several objectives set forth through multi-level coordination that included the MNDNR, MPCA, and the Upper Minnesota River Watershed District (UMRWD). Sites were selected based on their capacity to identify specific stressors and investigate impairments, represent various channel and valley types found within the watershed’s geology, depict stable and unstable stream reaches, and represent channels of varying slopes (i.e. sites stratified across watershed).

At each survey site elevation data was collected to characterize the dimension, pattern, and profile of the reach. At sites with minimal or no canopy cover, a Trimble R10 Global Positioning System (GPS) grade surveying receiver was used to calculate elevations based on distance and angle from multiple satellites; data that is then corrected through a signal from a local base station. At sites where canopy cover hampered the ability of the R10 to connect with multiple satellites, a Trimble S3 total station was used to measure elevation.

In order to characterize the dimension, pattern, and profile of each reach, methods consistent with those taught by Dave Rosgen were employed. A longitudinal profile of at least 20x bankfull width in length was surveyed. Longitudinal profiles consist of thalweg (i.e., deepest portion of the channel), water surface, bankfull, and low bank height (i.e., actual “floodplain if located above bankfull) elevations throughout the reach. Those elevations incorporate water slope, bankfull slope, channel bed features (e.g., pool, riffle, glide, run), and rate of incision (i.e., low bank height/bankfull height; if greater than 1). These data are necessary to help classify the stream through use of the Rosgen (1994) stream classification system.

Surveying at each site also included a riffle cross section that allowed for the analysis of width-to-depth ratio (i.e., bankfull width/average bankfull depth), entrenchment ratio (i.e., flood-prone width/bankfull width), flood-prone width, bankfull cross-sectional area, and to calibrate bankfull elevations for the

27 reach. Cross sections were started on the left bank (facing downstream) and elevations were surveyed to include all changes in slope across the channel. Starting and ending points for cross sections were positioned so that flood-prone width and entrenchment ratio could be calculated from the data.

Generally, a second cross section was surveyed and monumented within the study reach. Methods used were similar to the methods used for surveying riffle cross sections; however, benchmarks (i.e. rebar posts) were placed at the start and end of the cross sections to allow for annual resurveys and assessment of change over time. Furthermore, a toe pin was placed at the base of a study bank where three pins were driven horizontally into the bank face. The toe pin at each study bank serves as the starting point for the bank survey, whereas the benchmark on top of the bank serves as the ending point. The placement of these benchmarks allows for annual bank erosion assessment, where exposed portions of the horizontal banks pins are used to help validate measured versus modeled bank erosion.

The Bank Assessment for Non-point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) model is a combination of the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near-Bank Shear-stress (NBS) utilized to predict annual sediment inputs from a specific bank. Bank Erosion Hazard Index and NBS methods developed by Dave Rosgen (2001b) were employed to estimate bank erosion at the study bank, as well as other models: Colorado, Yellowstone, and North Carolina models. Modeled estimates varied with actual erosion rates after one year of study, therefore, the Colorado model was used for all sites in order to standardize the data. Since the model was developed in Yellowstone, measured bank erosion at each site will help develop a regional model for southern Minnesota rivers.

Within each study reach, 100 active stream bed particles were measured (i.e. pebble counts) throughout the reach (for classification; Wolman 1954, Rosgen 2012) and 100 particles were measured through the riffle cross section (for hydraulic analysis, Rosgen 2012). The D50 particle (i.e. 50% of particles are smaller than the D50 particle) in the representative pebble count helps to classify the reach. For example, a C4 stream is a C channel type with a reach D50 particle representing gravel substrate. The D84 particle in the riffle cross section is used to calculate roughness coefficients and bankfull discharge estimation.

At the completion of surveying at each study reach, a modified Pfankuch stability rating was conducted. The Pfankuch stability rating is a qualitative assessment predicting stability of the representative channel based on upper, middle, and lower banks, and channel characteristics (Pfankuch 1975, Rosgen 1996, Rosgen 2001c). After each metric is scored a final score is calculated and an adjective rating is given (i.e., poor, fair, or good) based on the stream type for the respective study reach. Office Methods Office methods for the analysis of survey elevation data utilized the RIVERMorph Professional, version 5.2 software; developed by Stantec. RIVERMorph was used to develop cross sections, longitudinal profiles, dimensional and dimensionless ratios, and other graphs that were subsequently used to help classify the channel type of respective study reaches. Other measures of pattern, profile, and dimension such as radius of curvature, stream meander length, belt width, sinuosity, and linear wavelength were measured within RIVERMorph’s geographic information system (GIS) tool.

ArcMap was another GIS tool used to investigate study reach characteristics. LiDAR data was used in correlation with ArcMap to create valley cross sections at study reaches in order to confirm valley type. Valley type defines boundary conditions of stream channels and helps to understand lateral

28 confinement. LiDAR was also used to assess local slope, stream power, terrain analysis, and locate historical depressional areas. ArcMap was also used in correlation with aerial photography to further assess lateral confinement and stability. Historical aerial photos from 1991 were used to develop stream line shape files that were later overlaid upon current aerial photographs (e.g., 2013 and 2015). This allowed for the assessment of lateral stability as well as changes in radius of curvature, stream meander length, belt width, sinuosity, linear wavelength, and dimensional changes such as channel widening over the last 20 years.

Bankfull elevations (i.e. ~1.5 year discharge return interval) are integral measurements taken during field surveys. Using RIVERMorph, predicted bankfull discharge was calculated through the assessment of water slopes and roughness coefficients. The USGS StramStats tool was then used to validate bankfull calls made during field surveys (Lorenz et al. 2009). StreamStats provided drainage area and the predicted flows, with confidence estimates, for catchments upstream of study reaches. Validation of bankfull field survey calls were attained when bankfull discharge predictions aligned with ~1.5 year discharge return intervals calculated by StreamStats.

Regional curves (Appendix II) were another tool used to help validate field survey bankfull elevation calls. Regional curves graphically depict the mathematical relationships that exist amongst drainage area and bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and cross-sectional area (Smith and Turrini-Smith 1999). Although, regional curves are currently under development for south-central Minnesota, the information was still helpful to validate relationships between cross sectional area and drainage area. Regional curves correlate a variety of variables, however, the most commonly used set of variables are cross sectional area and drainage area. Though other factors such as slope and channel type can affect how close a site is compared to predicted cross sectional area, often the regional curve provides a strong estimate of what the cross sectional area of a riffle cross section should be based on drainage area. Development of the curves is regionally based as many factors can affect the dimension of the channel (e.g., precipitation, runoff potential, local geology, local storage capacity, etc.).

Results Hydrology Land Use The percentage of the watersheds planted to soybeans and wheat/oats has diverged substantially since the mid-1970s, with the former increasing approximately 20-25% and the latter decreasing approximately 20% (Figures 11 and 12). The percentage of the watersheds planted to corn increased by nearly 15% from the mid-1980s to the early 2010s. The percentage of the watersheds planted to corn and soybeans increased by approximately 35-40% from the mid-1970s to the early 2010s; wheat/oats decreased by 20% over the same time (Figure 13). Similar percentages of corn and soybeans have been planted in the Little MN and Whetstone over the period of record; percentages for the Yellow Bank and MN River Ortonville* watersheds have been up to 5% and 5-15% greater, respectively, for both crops. The difference in the percentage of watershed planted to corn and soybeans in the MN versus SD portions of the Yellow Bank has been approximately 15% for the former and 15-20% for the latter since the mid-1970s. The percentage of wheat/oats planted in the MN portion of the watershed was roughly 5% greater than in SD from the late 1970s through the late 1980s; the inverse was true from the late 1990s through 2015. During the decade from 2006-2015, the percentage of the watersheds planted to

29 corn and soybeans increased by 14.77% for the Little MN, 10.86% for the Whetstone, and 9.28% for the Yellow Bank; perennial grass cover correspondingly decreased by 2.67%.

MN Headwaters Watersheds -- NASS Soy Acreage 1948- 2015 35

5 % of Watershed of % 0

Little MN Whetstone Yellow Bank MN Ortonville*

Figure 11. Percentage of watersheds planted to soybeans from 1948 to 2015.

MN Headwaters Watersheds -- NASS Wheat/Oats Acreage 1926-2015 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

% of Watershed of % 0

Little MN Whetstone Yellow Bank MN Ortonville*

Figure 12. Percentage of watersheds planted to wheat and oats from 1926 to 2015.

MN Headwaters Watershed -- NASS Corn/Soy Acreage 1948- 2015 70

10 % of Watershed of % 0

Little MN Whetstone Yellow Bank MN Ortonville*

Figure 13. Percentage of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed planted in corn and soybean (These data were derived from the NASS’s CropScape, which has high-resolution data from 2006 to present).

Tile Drainage Permit Inventory Aside from 1986 and 1987, less than 5 tiling permits were issued annually in the Yellow Bank from the early 1970s to the early 1990s; the same was true in the Whetstone and MN River at Ortonville* watersheds from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s and the late 1980s to the mid-2000s, respectively. No tiling permits were issued in the Little MN until 2007 (Figure 14). The average U.S. price for corn and soybeans was relatively stable from the early 1970s through the mid-2000s, at which point the combination of concurrent weather disasters in several major crop producing countries and implementation of the Renewable Fuels Standard in the U.S. drove prices substantially higher over the next 6-8 years before they began to decline. During this period, the number of tiling permits issued in the watersheds corresponded closely to the rise and fall in corn and soybean prices, particularly in the Yellow Bank. It’s particularly noteworthy that within the Yellow Bank nearly 2/3 of the permits issued were for the MN portion—an area that encompasses only 17% of the watershed.

The average annual length of tile permitted for installation in feet per square mile followed the same general trend as the number of permits issued in each watershed, with the exception of the Whetstone, which has seen a relatively consistent upward trend since the late 2000s (Figure 15). The cumulative length of permitted tile in the watersheds substantially increased beginning in the mid-2000s, particularly in the SD portion of the Yellow Bank and, to a lesser extent, the Whetstone (Figure 16).

Permitted tile density was determined by dividing the number of permits issued in each watershed by the amount of land suitable for cultivation (Land Capability Classification I-IV) therein. Density in the Yellow Bank was nearly 160% greater than the next highest watershed, and density in the MN portion was over 3 times greater than the Yellow Bank average (Figure 17).

MN Headwaters Catchments Tiling Permits and Commodity Prices 100 16.00 90 14.00 80 12.00 70 60 10.00 50 8.00 40 6.00

Tiling Tiling Permits 30 4.00 20 10 2.00 US Price Avg. ($/bu.)

0 0.00

1987 2015 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Soybeans Corn Little MN Whetstone MN Ortonville* Yellow Bank

Figure 14. Annual number of tiling permits within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed and correlating annual commodity prices.

MN Headwaters Watersheds Average Permitted Tile Length 3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000 Avg. Avg. Tile Length (ft./sq. mi.) 500

1996 2009 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Little MN Whetstone SD Yellow Bank

Figure 15. Average annual permitted length of tile for permits within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

MN Headwaters Watersheds Cumulative Permitted Tile Length 7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

Tile Tile Length(ft.) 2,000,000

1,000,000

2005 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Little MN Whetstone SD Yellow Bank

Figure 16. Cumulative permitted tile length within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

MN Headwaters Watersheds Permitted Tile Density 7 6.21

IV - 5

3 1.89 2 0.99 0.73 0.88 Permits/Sq. Permits/Sq. Mi. LCC I 1 0.48 0.13 0.12 0

Little MN Whetstone MN River Ortonville* Yellow Bank SD Yellow Bank MN Yellow Bank SD MN River Ortonville* MN MN River Ortonville*

Figure 17. Permitted tile density within the MN River Headwaters watershed.

Precipitation Data collected within the watershed indicates that the area has experienced variability in precipitation over time, but has largely stayed within the 25-75th percentile (Figures 18-20). Interestingly rainfall during the wide spread drought conditions of the 1930s kept the precipitation totals near the average values, with higher than average values frequently pushing the seven year average over the 75th percentile from 1900 until 1950. Yearly precipitation totals were lower than average after the 1950s through the 1980s, with fluctuations above and below the 25th and 75th quartile. Even with the variability of the annual total values, the seven year average is largely within the 25th to 75th percentile values, indicating fairly stable precipitation in the region.

Based on a division of the precipitation record (1946-2015) into 14 year increments, deviation from combined long-term average annual precipitation for all four watersheds was less than average for the periods beginning in 1946, 1960, and 1974, the exception being the period beginning in 1946 for the Yellow Bank; the opposite was true for the periods beginning in 1988 and 2002 for all four watersheds. In general, average annual precipitation increased from north to south among the watersheds (i.e., Little MN

Figure 18. Annual precipitation trend analysis for the Little Minnesota River watershed near Peaver, SD.

Figure 19. Annual Precipitation trend analysis for the Whetstone River watershed near Big Stone City, SD.

Figure 20. Annual precipitation trend analysis for the Yellow Bank River watershed near Odessa, MN.

MN Headwaters Watersheds Deviation Long-Term Average Annual Precipitation 3

-1 Precipitation(inches) -2

-3 1946-1959 1960-1973 1974-1987 1988-2001 2002-2015

Little MN Whetstone MN Ortonville* Yellow Bank

Figure 21. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed deviation from long-term average annual precipitation.

MN Headwaters Watersheds Average Annual Precipitation 30

10 Precipitation(inches)

0 1946-1959 1960-1973 1974-1987 1988-2001 2002-2015

Little MN Whetstone MN Ortonville* Yellow Bank

Figure 22. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed total annual precipitation.

The double mass curve inflection point for the Little MN, Whetstone, and Yellow Bank occurred in 1993, 1991, and 1984, respectively; those years were used as the basis for “pre” versus “post” inflection point analyses of seasonal precipitation (Figures 23-25). A second analysis consisted of dividing the record into 14 year increments. The general trend for change in cumulative annual precipitation on a seasonal basis was an increase in fall and decrease in summer for both analyses.

Average annual seasonal precipitation increased by roughly 10% for spring and summer for the “post” period in all three watersheds; increases of approximately 45%, 27%, and 17% occurred in fall for the Little MN, Whetstone, and Yellow Bank, respectively. When the record was divided into 14 year increments to analyze average annual seasonal precipitation, (1) there was a substantial upward trend in the fall, (2) winter and spring didn’t display particularly distinct trends, and (3) summer displayed greater variability and, in general, the periods beginning in 1946, 1988, and 2002 had greater summer precipitation (Figure 26-28).

An analysis of daily precipitation events (0.5-1”, 1-1.5”, 1.5-2”, 2-3”, and 3+” of total precipitation over a 24-hour period) showed that the average number of days per year of the aforementioned categories increased from the “pre” to the “post” inflection point periods for all three watersheds, except for the 3+” category for the Little MN and the 2-3” category for the Whetstone. When the records were divided into 14 year increments, (1) the Little MN had a continuous upward trend in 0.5-1” events, (2) there was a general increase in 1-1.5” events in the Whetstone, and (3) the number of 1.5-2” and 2-3” events in the Yellow Bank doubled the respective preceding averages for the period beginning in 2002 (Figures 29 & 30).

The Palmer Drought Severity Index, which incorporates temperature and precipitation data, is used to quantify relative dryness on a scale of -8 to +8. The long-term average for South Dakota Climate Division 3 from 1946-2015 was 1.10, with “pre” and “post” inflection point values of 0.15 and 3.04 for the Little MN, 0.12 and 2.86 for the Whetstone, and 0.41 and 2.27 for the Yellow Bank. When the record was divided into 14 year increments, the periods beginning in 1988 and 2002 were noteworthy for being well above the long-term average, while those beginning in 1946 and 1974 were well below (Figure 31).

Figure 23. Little Minnesota River watershed double mass curve with the inflection point identified by change in color.

Figure 24. Whetstone River watershed double mass curve with the inflection point identified by change in color.

Figure 25. Yellowbank River watershed double mass curve with the inflection point identified by change in color.

Little MN River Watershed Seasonal Precipitation 12

9.91 10 9.05

8 7.03 6.32 6.19 6 1946-1992 1993-2015 4.26 4

Average Precipitation (inches) Precipitation Average 2.51 1.72 2

0 Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure 26. Little Minnesota River watershed seasonal precipitation.

MN Headwaters Watersheds % Difference Long-Term Average Fall Precipitation 20

Percent -5

-10

-15

-20 1946-1959 1960-1973 1974-1987 1988-2001 2002-2015

Little MN Whetstone MN Ortonville* Yellow Bank

Figure 27. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed proportion of difference from long-term average fall precipitation.

Whetstone River Watershed Seasonal Precipitation 12 10.69 9.92 9.82 10 8.919.03

8 1946-1959 6.96 6.616.57 5.87 5.98 5.87 1960-1973 6 5.25 4.83 1974-1987 4.344.41 4 1988-2001 2002-2015 1.96 1.842.13 Average Precipitation (inches) Precipitation Average 2 1.391.53

0 Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure 28. Whetstone River watershed seasonal precipitation.

Little MN River Watershed Daily Precipitation 12

10.09 10 8.66

6 1946-1992

1993-2015 Days/Year

4 3.17 2.28 2 0.891.00 0.340.52 0.090.00 0 0.5-1" 1-1.5" 1.5-2" 2-3" 3+"

Figure 29. Little Minnesota River watershed daily precipitation.

Yellow Bank River Watershed Daily Precipitation 180 159 160 154 139 143 140 133

120 0.5-1" 100 1-1.5"

Days 80 1.5-2" 2-3" 60 35 3+" 40 31 32 30 30 22 20 11 11 10 11 12 6 5 7 6 0 0 0 1 2 0 1941-1955 1956-1970 1971-1985 1986-2000 2001-2015

Figure 30. Yellow Bank River watershed daily precipitation.

% Difference from Long-Term Average PDSI -- SD Climate Division 3 150 113.43 97.55 100

0 Percent -21.83 -50

-100 -90.59 -98.56

-150 1946-1959 1960-1973 1974-1987 1988-2001 2002-2015

Figure 31. Proportion of difference from long-term average PDSI for South Dakota climate division 3.

Stream Flow Consideration should be given to the fact that the Little MN gage was not in operation for nearly 8 years in the 1980s and nearly 6 years in the 2000s. The double mass curve inflection point for the Little MN, Whetstone, and Yellow Bank occurred in 1993, 1991, and 1984, respectively, at which time the slope of the line of best fit for the “pre-inflection point” versus “post-inflection point” periods nearly doubled for each watershed. Compared to the “pre” period, the flow duration curve for the “post” period was shifted to the right approximately: 1% at 1000 cfs, 13% at 100 cfs, 30% at 10 cfs, and 36% at 1 cfs for the Little MN; <1% at 1000 cfs, 9% at 100 cfs, and 40% at 10 cfs for the Whetstone; and 1% at 1000 cfs, 10% at 100 cfs, 30% at 10 cfs, and 7% at 1 cfs for the Yellow Bank (Figure 32-34).

Discharge data was also plotted out using monthly and annual average flow values for the period of record to create a hydrograph. A hydrograph is a chart showing the rate of flow (i.e., discharge) over time at a sample location. Once plotted, the data can be examined for changes over time. Looking at the monthly flow value over time, average discharge volumes have increased (Figures 35-37).

Figure 32. Little Minnesota River flow duration curve.

Figure 33. Whetstone River flow duration curve.

Figure 34. Yellow Bank River flow duration curve.

Figure 35. Little Minnesota River watershed mean monthly discharge.

Figure 36. Whetstone River watershed mean monthly discharge.

Figure 37. Yellow Bank River watershed mean monthly discharge.

Based on a 1.5 year return interval flow (i.e., bankfull flow) for each watershed, there was an upward trend in the number of days per year it was equaled or exceeded based on mean daily discharge. Average annual daily flow events greater than or equal to bankfull discharge for the “pre” and “post” periods were 6.98 and 22.63 for the Little MN, 3.39 and 5.76 for the Whetstone, and 3.36 and 8.58 for the Yellow Bank. When the records for the Whetstone and Yellow Bank were divided into 15 year increments, the periods beginning in 1986 and 2001 for the Yellow Bank were substantially above the combined long-term annual average (Figure 38).

The proportion of cumulative annual streamflow increased in the fall, summer, and winter and decreased in the spring in the “post” period for all three watersheds. Greater volumes of streamflow for all seasons were noted in each watershed, with “post” period increases of approximately 270-290% in fall, 140-200% in summer, 190-260% in winter, and 50-60% in spring for the Whetstone and Yellow Bank. Dividing the record into 14 year increments and comparing average volume of seasonal streamflow to long-term seasonal average showed that periods beginning in 1986 and 2001 were above average for all seasons, particularly the former period, and the three earlier periods were below average for all seasons (Figures 39-41).

From 1946-2015, the number of days above Q10 showed an increasing trend, and the number of days below Q90 and zero flow days showed a decreasing trend for each watershed (Figures 42-44).

MN Headwaters Watersheds % Difference from Long-Term Average Annual Bankfull MDQ 100 93 80 54 60 40 15 20 12 0

Percent -20 -19 -16 -40 -30 -31 -39 -40 -60 -80 -100 1941-1955 1956-1970 1971-1985 1986-2000 2001-2015

Whetstone Yellow Bank

Figure 38. Proportion of difference from long-term average annual bankfull MDQ for the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Yellow Bank River Watershed Seasonal Runoff 100% 5.13 10.21 90% 22.46 80% 27.37 70% 60% 50%

40% 69.47 57.07 30% 20% 10% 0% 2.93 5.35 1941-1983 1984-2015

Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure 39. Seasonal watershed runoff for the Yellow Bank River watershed.

Whetstone River Watershed Seasonal Runoff 50,000

45,000 43,271

40,000

35,000

30,000 28,288

25,000 1946-1990 21,363 1991-2015 20,000

Average (AF) Volume Average 15,000

10,000 6,996 6,662 4,023 5,000 1,403 1,801 0 Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure 40. Whetstone River watershed seasonal runoff.

Yellow Bank River Watershed Seasonal Runoff 120 105 108 100 80 64 60 36 1946-1959 40 20 26 Term Avgerage Term 14 - 20 1 1960-1973 0 1974-1987 -20 -19-14-17 -20 1988-2001 -40 -24 -27 -37 -60 -46 2002-2015 -53-54 -57 -55 -80

-100 % Difference Long from% Difference -120 Winter Spring Summer Fall

Figure 41. Yellow Bank River watershed seasonal runoff.

MN Headwaters Watersheds Average Annual Days Above Q10 70 66 59 60 55 51 48 50 43 40 31 30 29 30 Days 30 27 26 27 23 21 20

0 1946-1959 1960-1973 1974-1987 1988-2001 2002-2015

Little MN Whetstone Yellow Bank

Figure 42. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed average annual days above Q10.

MN Headwaters Watersheds Average Annual Days Below Q90 100 90 90 80 70 60 54 53 47 50 44

Days 41 38 38 40 37 30 26 26 20 10 5 5 4 0 0 1946-1959 1960-1973 1974-1987 1988-2001 2002-2015

Little MN Whetstone Yellow Bank

Figure 43. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed average annual days below Q90.

MN Headwaters Watersheds Average Annual Zero Flow Days

7 6.50

5 4.29

4 3.43

Days 3 2.432.29 1.93 2 1.07 0.86 1 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 0 1946-1959 1960-1973 1974-1987 1988-2001 2002-2015

Little MN Whetstone Yellow Bank

Figure 44. Minnesota River Headwaters watershed average annual zero flow days.

Water Use General Hydrogeological Background Groundwater use in the Minnesota Headwaters Watershed is focused in areas south of Appleton and east of Correll (Figure 45). A line of irrigators can also be found from south of Beardsley running one to two miles east and parallel to Big Stone Lake.

The glacial sediments of former glacial Lake Benson provide highly conductive buried sand and gravels overlain by glacial clays and surficial sands. Multiple deltas formed where streams entered the glacial lake leaving sand, gravel and silts behind (Patterson 1999).

There are three primary types of aquifers that are utilized in the area. The Quaternary Water Table Aquifer system (QWTA) found along many of the water courses in the watershed, the Quaternary Buried Artesian Aquifer (QBAA), and the Cretaceous bedrock aquifer (KRET). The QBAA is the most used in the area. The QBAA is made up of multiple layers of sand and gravel separated by layers of clay deposits. The QBAA system is made of many different sand and gravel aquifers that may be well confined or semi confined. Each QBAA system will yield different quantities of water, with most, providing only enough for domestic supplies. Larger QBAA systems are primarily found in outwash areas such as glacial Lake Benson (Berg and Bradt 2000).

Water Appropriations Major Use Types and Permits In the upper Minnesota River Watershed, there are a total of 146 active installations covered by 100 active water appropriation permits (Tables 3). There are currently three water appropriation permits undergoing review. There are 13 completed preliminary well construction assessments in the watershed, indicating that there is continued demand for groundwater. There is 4.87 billion gallons of water authorized for use in the watershed and 12,343 acres of cropland authorized for irrigation.

There are two primary water uses in the Upper Minnesota Watershed. The primary use is agricultural irrigation with the second largest use being for municipal water supply. In 2016, 86% of all water used in the watershed was from groundwater resources, with 94% of the users holding permits to appropriate from groundwater resources. Historically, a significant range of water use has been reported (Figure 46). The water use high was recorded in 1988, a year of extreme drought. Greater than two billion gallons of water was reportedly appropriated in the watershed from groundwater resources in 1988 from 44 reporting agricultural irrigation permits. In 2016, 72 agricultural irrigation permits reported an annual use of less than 1.5 billion gallons (Figure 47).

Overall, municipal water use has remained relatively steady. Various other uses have shown, in comparison, relatively minor water use including livestock facilities, water level maintenance activities, and non-crop irrigation (i.e. golf course irrigation). Historically, a significant amount of water was appropriated for power generation, but after 1993, that use was no longer needed.

Aquifers Utilized The primary aquifer utilized are the various QBAA systems found throughout the watershed. 66% of water authorized (Figure 48) and 65% of water used (Figure 49) is from the QBAA. The QWTA and surface water features not listed as Big Stone Lake and the Minnesota River make up an additional 28% of all water reported in 2016. A total of 1.4 billion gallons or 72% of all water appropriated in 2016 was for agricultural irrigation out of the QBAA groundwater systems.

Figure 45. Groundwater use in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed

Table 3. Water appropriation permits in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

All Water Use by Use Type 4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 Water Use WaterUse (x1,000,000g) 500

Special Categories Agricultural Irrigation Water Supply Non-Crop Irrigation Water Level Maintenance Industrial Processing

Figure 46. Water use by type within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Groudwater Use by Use Type 4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

Water Use WaterUse (x1,000,000g) 500

Special Categories Agricultural Irrigation Water Supply Industrial Processing

Figure 47. Groundwater use by type within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Active Installations by Resouce

QWTA 25% KRET Unknown 3% Groundwater 1% Other Surface Water…

Big Stone QBAA 1% 66% Minnesota River 1%

Figure 48. Active installations by resource within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

2016 Water Use by Resource

KRET QWTA 3% 15% Unknown Groundwater 3%

Other Surface Water 13% QBAA 65% Big Stone 1%

Minnesota River 0%

Figure 49. 2016 water use by resource within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Future Groundwater use Groundwater use is projected to continue to increase in the upper Minnesota River Watershed. Use from agricultural irrigation has continued to show growth as has the demand for water from livestock operations. Large dairies have moved in to neighboring watersheds over the past decades putting significant stress on groundwater resources.

During a drought, especially an extended one, groundwater resources may be strained. This also increases the potential for impacts to surface features. There are 1.6 times the number of active irrigation permits in 2017 as there were in 1988. There is the potential for an additional billion gallons of water to be appropriated for agricultural irrigation purposes during an extremely dry summer. Water utilized by irrigation is also typically appropriated between the months of June and early September further increasing the stress on groundwater resources.

Observation Well Information State Observation Wells There are 16 active DNR observation wells in the watershed. Most of the active DNR observation wells in the watershed are completed in the QBAA. Visual assessment of the select long term observation wells shows overall increases or maintained steady water levels in the QBAA. Some wells show indications of pumping impacts but recover during the winter months. No wells were found to be reporting electronic water level data.

Appropriation Observation Wells Appropriators operate seven active observation wells in the watershed. Four of these wells were installed in 2018. Appropriator water level information is limited due to the limited time frame of data collection. The wells are related to two irrigation systems, with wells to the south completed in the QBAA. These two wells completed in the QBAA show pumping impacts, but the visual assessment of the water levels indicate recovery of water levels during the winter months.

Groundwater Relationships to Surficial Resources Areas of concentrated groundwater use are indicated as being highly susceptible to contamination (Berg and Bradt 2000). This can be inferred as indicating a high likelihood that shallow groundwater users have a high potential to interact with surficial resources, including public water bodies and water courses.

Most wells and permitted groundwater users are completed in QBAA systems. Carbon age dating completed on the deeper groundwater resources indicated water ages of 1,500 to 8,000 years. This indicates that wells completed in many deeper systems are unlikely to impact surficial resources. In places throughout the watershed, glacial tills of low conductivity may not be expansive or can be extremely leaky due to sand content and fracturing of the tills. Due to limited available data, there is still potential for deeper groundwater to interact with shallow groundwater systems and surficial resources under certain conditions (Berg and Bradt 2000). The potential for impact is dependent on location and geology encountered while drilling.

Connectivity Longitudinal Connectivity An extensive search through GNIS, WHAF, NID, and MNDNR’s dam safety records indicates that 15 structures exist within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed (Figure 50). Ten of the existing structures are barriers to fish passage, 3 of the structures are not barriers to passage, 1 structure is a barrier at certain flows, and 1 of the structures was never built (Table 4). Four MPCA biological sampling sites are potentially impacted by two of the barriers. Three sites are upstream of the Long Tom Lake outlet structure, however, fish have refuge habitat within the lake and other locations within the watershed. One sampling location is upstream of the Lac qui Parle Refuge #2 earthen berm and outlet structure, however, during higher water there is a direct connection to Lac qui Parle Lake and the Minnesota right through several small adjacent marshes.

Figure 50. Spatial location of 15 structures, MPCA biological sampling location, and sampling locations upstream of longitudinal connectivity barriers within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Table 4. Listing of structures within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed including the structures names, type, potential as barrier, number of IWM sites impacted, county, and UTMs.

# IWM Sites Name Structure Type Barrier Potential Impacted NID County UTMX UTMY Ortonville TWP 15 Earthern Berm Barrier 0 MN01771 Big Stone 23205 502047 Odessa TWP North 25 Earthern Berm Barrier 0 MN01772 Big Stone 23570 501797 Big Stone Lake Dam with Gates Barrier 0 MN00169 Big Stone 22959 502172 Long Tom Lake Lake Outlet Structure Barrier 3 MN00170 Big Stone 23726 502347 Steen WMA Lake Outlet Structure with boards Barrier 0 MN00556 Big Stone 22782 503507 Marsh Lake Lake Outlet Structure Barrier 0 MN00579 Lac qui Parle 25686 500663 Lac qui Parle Dam with Gates Barrier 0 MN00580 Lac qui Parle 27394 498939 Highway 75 Hinged Crest Gate Barrier 0 MN00581 Lac qui Parle 24163 501591 Lac qui Parle Refuge #2 Earthen Berms with Culvert Gate Barrier 1 MN00726 Lac qui Parle 24743 501061 Holtz I Pond Never Built Not a Barrier 0 MN00727 Big Stone 20535 504982 Johnson Earthen Berm Barrier 0 MN00919 Big Stone 22507 503269 Stoney Run Creek Not a Dam, Roadway Not a Barrier 0 MN01080 Big Stone 23737 501991 Tunsberg Diversion Low Head Dam Barrier at Certain Flows 0 MN1284 Chippewa 27957 498953 County Road 1 Roadway Over Old Channel Not a Barrier 0 MN01435 Lac qui Parle 23226 501626 MN River Pool 7 Dikes 1 and 2 Dikes with Stop Log Control Structure Barrier 0 MN01426 Lac qui Parle 23562 501705

Among the rest of the barriers identified, most of the stream miles upstream of the barrier either have refuge habitat, or the barriers themselves have been circumvented by other means (e.g. berm eroded through, high water flow paths).

Portions of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed still hold extensive networks of wetlands. Prior to settlement, however, most of the watershed excluding the Coteau landscape held abundant lakes, wetlands, and wetland complexes. After European settlement, lakes, wetlands, and depressional areas within the watershed were altered (e.g. outlet structures), or drained (e.g. public and private drainage systems). Extensive drainage in some subwatersheds (Figure 51), and outlet structures, have had a drastic impact on the longitudinal connectivity, natural drainage network, and quality of aquatic resources within the watershed.

Minnesota and South Dakota Department of Transportation (MNDOT, SDDOT) bridges and culverts shapefiles were gathered. The acquired shapefiles indicated that there are 356 bridges (0.47/mi2) and 31 culverts (0.04/mi2) within the watershed (Figure 52; Table 5). An intersection, however, of stream lines and road lines within ArcMap indicated that there were 2,289 (3.01/mi2) road and stream intersections which likely have some form of crossing within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed. Bridges and culverts can have drastic impacts on rivers and streams, especially when improperly sized. Improperly sized bridges and culverts can create flood flow confinement (FFC), which can cause channel widening, alter sediment transport capacity, and sediment deposition (Zytkovicz and Murtada 2013).

The road and stream line intersections dataset was also used to indicate longitudinal connectivity of the riparian corridor. The shapefile created allows for spatial assessment of road crossings and thus breaks in longitudinal connectivity. Longitudinal connectivity of riparian corridors was also assessed locally (i.e. roughly one stream mile’s length of survey location) during field surveys. Among the study reaches, 9 locations (i.e. Little Minnesota River, Upper Stony Run, South Fork Yellow Bank River, Yellow Bank River Gage, Five Mile Creek – CD#2, Five Mile Creek – COTM, Lower Five Mile Creek, Upper Emily Creek, and Lower Emily Creek) had intact riparian corridors with adequate riparian width for the size of the channel.

Two study reaches (i.e. Fish Creek and Whetstone River) had an intact riparian corridor with adequate width, but only on one side of the stream. Two study locations (i.e. Lower Stony Run and Upper Five Mile Creek) had adequate riparian corridor width, but were grazed pastures. Grazed pastures typically lack vegetative ground cover often used as wildlife habitat, and typically have shallow grass root systems leaving streambanks vulnerable to erosion. Only one site (i.e. North Fork Yellow Bank River) lacked adequate riparian corridor connectivity and had minimal riparian width given the size of the channel. Longitudinal connectivity of riparian corridors and perennial cover within subwatersheds of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed were assessed using the watershed health assessment framework [WHAF (Figures 53 & 54)]. The WHAF tool, however, was developed by the MNDNR and therefore scores for all catchments within South Dakota were not always available. Finally, vegetation type, root depth, root density, and weighted root density was also assessed at each study bank location (Table 6).

Figure 51. Restorable wetland index identifying previously drained wetlands and lakes in a subwatershed (i.e. catchment 2202000) of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Figure 52. Location of bridges and culverts as identified by the MNDOT shapefile, as well as road/stream intersections, throughout the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Table 5. Number and density of bridges and culverts as identified by the MNDOT shapefile throughout the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed broken down by study reach drainage area.

Drainage Number of Density of Number of Density of Total # of Density of Study Stream Reach Area (mi2) Bridges Bridges (#/mi2) Culverts Culverts (#/mi2) Crossings Crossings (#/mi2) Little Minnesota River 456 77 0.17 NA NA 535 1.17 Fish Creek 78.7 0 0.00 0 0.000 36 0.46 Upper Stony Run 18.7 0 0.00 0 0.000 17 0.91 Lower Stony Run 127 0 0.00 5 0.04 77 0.61 Whetstone River 406 119 0.29 NA NA 545 1.34 North Fork Yellow Bank River 209 5 0.02 NA NA 320 1.53 South Fork Yellow Bank River 209 62 0.30 5 0.02 287 1.37 Yellow Bank River Gage 460 73 0.16 7 0.02 646 1.40 Five Mile Creek - CD #2 50.5 2 0.04 3 0.06 51 1.01 Five Mile Creek - COTM 28.1 1 0.04 0 0.00 30 1.07 Upper Five Mile Creek 82.4 3 0.04 3 0.04 86 1.04 Lower Five Mile Creek 87.3 7 0.08 3 0.03 90 1.03 Upper Emily Creek 6.8 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 1.47 Lower Emily Creek 33.8 0 0.00 1 0.03 44 1.30 MN River Headwaters HUC 8 761 356 0.47 31 0.04 2289 3.01 58

Figure 53. Longitudinal connectivity of riparian corridors within the subwatersheds of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed as assessed by the watershed Health Assessment Framework (WHAF).

Figure 54. Perennial vegetation cover within the subwatersheds of the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed as assessed by the watershed health assessment framework (WHAF).

Table 6. Vegetation type, bank height, root depth, root density, weighted root density, and BEHI rating for each study site study bank.

Weighted Bank Root Root Root BEHI Study Stream Reach Dominant Vegetation Type Height Depth Density Density Rating Little Minnesota River Mixed Hardwoods/Brome/Reed Canary 7 2 30 8.6 High Fish Creek Brome/Reed Canary Grasses 6 6 30 5.9 Low Upper Stony Run Reed Canary Grass 2.7 2.5 35 5.7 Moderate Lower Stony Run Brome/Reed Canary Grasses 7 2 15 10 Moderate Whetstone River Mixed Hardwoods/Brome/Reed Canary - - - - - North Fork Yellow Bank River Mixed Hardwoods/Forbs/Reed Canary 7.5 3 20 8.7 Very High South Fork Yellow Bank River Mixed Hardwoods/Reed Canary 11.5 7 15 8.5 High Yellow Bank River Gage Mixed Hardwoods/Forbs/Reed Canary 14.5 12 40 5.7 Moderate Five Mile Creek - CD #2 Native Grasses/Forbs and Reed Canary 4 4 40 5.1 Low Five Mile Creek - COTM Native Grasses/Forbs and Reed Canary 12 10 8 8.8 Moderate Upper Five Mile Creek Brome/Reed Canary Grasses 10.5 3 25 8.8 Moderate Lower Five Mile Creek Reed Canary Grass 5.3 2 10 10 Moderate Upper Emily Creek Brome/Reed Canary Grasses 4 3 50 5.3 Moderate Lower Emily Creek Brome/Reed Canary Grasses/Forbs 5 4 30 6.7 Moderate

Lateral Connectivity Flood-prone elevations are considered as two time’s maximum bankfull depth at a riffle cross section and are typically comprised from the approximate 1.5 year return interval flow. Seven of the fourteen fluvial geomorphology study reaches (i.e., Fish Creek, Lower Stony Run, South Fork Yellow Bank River, Five Mile Creek – CD #2, Upper Five Mile Creek, Lower Five Mile Creek, and Lower Emily Creek) have sufficient lateral connectivity to access their floodplains, recharge oxbows, and provide refuge to biota during high flow events (Table 7). Four study reaches (i.e., Upper Stony Run, Yellow Bank River Gage, Upper Emily Creek, Whetstone) maintain lateral connectivity with their floodplains, however, the surveyed riffle cross sections indicated that the channels have incised to the degree where they are close to losing connection to their floodplains. The three remaining study reaches (i.e., Little Minnesota River, North Fork Yellow Bank River, and Five Mile Creek - COTM) were found to be incised to the point at which they are completely entrenched and cannot access their floodplains during flood flows.

Table 7. Study stream reach names, bank height ratios, and the correlating degree of incision adjective rating.

Study Stream Reach Bank Height Ratio Little Minnesota River 2.24 - Deeply Incised Fish Creek 1.91 - Deeply Incised Upper Stony Run 1.57 - Deeply Incised Lower Stony Run 1.1 - Stable Whetstone River 1.79 - Deeply Incised North Fork Yellow Bank River 3.1 - Deeply Incised South Fork Yellow Bank River 1.37 - Moderately Incised Yellow Bank River Gage 1.53 - Deeply Incised Five Mile Creek - CD #2 1.21 - Slightly Incised Five Mile Creek – Shible Lake 3.64 - Deeply Incised Upper Five Mile Creek 1.54 - Deeply Incised Lower Five Mile Creek 1.1 - Stable Upper Emily Creek 1.85 - Deeply Incised Lower Emily Creek 1.41 - Moderately Incised

Geomorphology Fourteen reaches were surveyed during the 2015 and 2016 field seasons. The following map shows the spatial locations of the survey reaches as well as the channel classification of each site (Figure 55). This section provides and in-depth look at the characterization and stability of each survey site starting in the northern portion of the watershed and progressing south and east through the various drainages.

Figure 55. Spatial location and channel classification of geomorphology survey sites within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Little Minnesota River Stream Information Stream Name Little Minnesota River Drainage Area 456 mi2 AUID 07020001-508 Stream Type F5 County Big Stone County Valley Type U-GL-GO Section, Township, Range S5 T124N R49W Water Slope 0.0006 Entrenchment Ratio 1.24 Sinuosity 1.402 Width/Depth Ratio 15.52 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.1281 tons/ft/yr Bank Height Ratio 2.24 - Deeply Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 108 - Fair

The Little Minnesota survey site is located just south of the city limits of Browns Valley, MN. The 456 square mile watershed constitutes the headwaters of the Minnesota River basin. Land use within the survey locations subwatershed is comprised of 60.2% cultivated land, 24.6% perennial cover (i.e. forest, shrubs, and herbaceous plants), 10.5% water, and 4.4% development (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of the Little Minnesota River is impaired for Invertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation (MPCA 2018).

The channel at the survey location was classified as an F5. F5 stream types are sand dominated, deeply incised, entrenched channels (Rosgen 1996). Because the channel is fully entrenched, the bankfull elevation within F5 channels is well below the ‘top of banks’ elevation (Rosgen 1996). F5 channels have slopes that are generally less than 2% and typically have high to very high width to depth ratios (Rosgen 1996). Depending on rates of streambank erosion, sediment supply in F5 channels is typically high (Rosgen 1996). Because the channels are completely entrenched (i.e. cannot access their floodplain at 2X bankfull elevations) streambank erosion is typically prominent (Rosgen 1996). Due to their high width to depth ratios, depositional features such as central and transverse bars are thus common (Rosgen 1996). Overall, F5 channels have a very high sensitivity to disturbance, poor recovery potential,

64 very high sediment supply and streambank erosion potential, while riparian vegetative influence is moderate (Rosgen 1994).

The bank height ratio (i.e. lowest bank height/max bankfull depth) at the riffle cross sections was measured to be 2.24. A BHR of 2.24 indicates that the channel is deeply incised at the study site location. The entrenchment ratio (i.e. flood-prone width/bankfull width) was 1.24, meaning the channel is considered entrenched. The riffle cross section indicates that flood flows (i.e. 2X riffle bankfull max depth) cannot assess the sites floodplain as the flow elevation is a foot below that of the low bank height. The bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio classifications are important characteristics identified at the study location. The characteristics are important due to the fact that flood flow access to a river’s floodplain is a fundamental component to a stable stream channel. When flood flows access the floodplain the energy of the flowing water is dissipated. When flood flows cannot access the floodplain, the energy of the flowing water is contained within the channel thereby increasing the sheer stress upon the banks of the river. Increased sheer stress thus results in increased bank erosion, sedimentation, and suspended sediments. A portion of this the Little Minnesota River starting west of town, and running through Brown’s Valley, still have some floodplain relief due to a bypass channel. The bypass channel was created to allow high water to spill into a man-made channel that transports water directly downstream of Brown’s Valley; thus ‘bypassing’ town in hopes of alleviating flooding.

The slope of the F5 channel found just south of Browns Valley, Minnesota was 0.0006 ft/ft. The low slope is attributed to the fact that the channel lies within the old glacial River Warren channel just downstream of the original Big Stone moraine. The channel was classified as an F5 stream type and was displaying signs of cutting and erosion on both banks (i.e. due to being entrenched), but not as much as if there were greater slope. The sinuosity of the channel was 1.42 (i.e. significantly less than the Little Minnesota River channel outside the historic glacial channel). The width-to-depth (w/d) ratio was 15.52 and has likely been increasing as the channel has been incising and widening. A completed Pfankuch qualitative assessment scored the channel at 108 which is a good score for an F5 channel. The adjective rating for the score, however, should be derived through the consideration of what the potential stream type of the channel is (i.e. the channel has degraded to an F5 from its potential stream type). Given the measures of entrenchment, w/d ratio, sinuosity, and slope, the potential stream type was likely between a C or E channel. If the potential is a C channel, then the Pfankuch for the channel is only rated as ‘fair’ and if the true potential is an E channel then the score is rated as ‘poor.’

Sediment supply from streambank erosion was estimated using the BANCS (i.e. BEHI matched with NBS) model. Two monumented pool cross sections were established at the survey location. The monumented cross sections allow for annual surveys of the exact same cross section, which in return can be used to show annual bank loss due to erosion. The bank loss measurements can then be used to help validate or show deviation from the BEHI estimates. Bank erosion hazard index estimates for the upstream most study bank were 0.1416 tons (i.e. 283.2 pounds) of sediment per linear foot of streambank annually when using the Colorado erosion rate curve (Rosgen 2001). Estimates for the downstream most study bank was 0.1281 tons (i.e. 256.2 pounds) of sediment per linear foot of streambank annually.

Additionally, the BANCS model was used to estimate streambank erosion throughout the Little Minnesota River stream reach from Browns Valley to the head of Big Stone Lake. A total of twenty-one banks were assessed (Figure 56; Table 8). The results indicated an erosion rate of 0.0582 tons (i.e. 116.4

65 pounds) of sediment per linear foot of streambank each year. The BANCS assessment effort, as well as a longitudinal profile of the channel downstream of Browns Valley, indicated that this particular reach of the Little Minnesota River lacks adequate pool habitat and is relatively homogenous in regards to stream features.

Figure 56. BANCS model estimates of twenty-one stream banks along the Little Minnesota River.

Table 8. BANCS model data including station, station length, BEHI adjective rating, NBS adjective rating, bank erosion rate, length of bank, study bank height, erosion subtotal, erosion rate, and unit erosion rate.

Stream: Little Minnesota River Location: Browns Valley, MN Total Stream Length (ft): 1238 Date: 6/3/2016 Valley Type: U-GL-GO Stream Type: F5 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Erosion Erosion Rate Bank Study subtotal (tons/yr/ft) BEHI rating NBS rating erosion Length of bank [(4)×(5)×(6)] {[(7)/27] × Station (Length/ft) (adjective) (adjective) rate (ft/yr) bank (ft) height (ft) (ft3/yr) 1.3 / (5)} 1. Bank 1 (636) Moderate Very Low 0.100 150.0 10.0 150.00 0.04810 2. Bank 2 (637) Moderate Very Low 0.100 170.0 9.0 153.00 0.04330 3. Bank 3 (638) Low Very Low 0.018 200.0 8.0 28.00 0.00670 4. Bank 4 (639) Moderate Very Low 0.100 200.0 8.0 160.00 0.03850 5. Bank 5 (640) Low Very Low 0.018 300.0 6.5 34.13 0.00550 6. Bank 6 (641) Moderate Very Low 0.100 150.0 8.5 127.50 0.04090 7. Bank 7 (643) Moderate Moderate 0.282 30.0 7.5 63.45 0.10180 8. Bank 8 (642) Moderate Very Low 0.100 60.0 9.0 54.00 0.04330 9. Bank 9 (644) Low Very Low 0.017 200.0 6.5 22.23 0.00540 10. Bank 10 (645) Moderate Very Low 0.100 80.0 9.5 76.00 0.04570 11. Bank 11 (646) Moderate Very Low 0.100 100.0 8.0 80.00 0.03850 12. Bank 12 (647) High Very Low 0.368 60.0 9.0 198.72 0.15950 13. Bank 13 (648) Moderate Very Low 0.100 100.0 7.0 70.00 0.03370 14. Bank 14 (649) Moderate Very Low 0.100 100.0 7.5 75.00 0.03610 15. Bank 15 (650) Moderate Very Low 0.092 150.0 7.5 103.73 0.03330 16 Bank 16 (651) Low Very Low 0.018 300.0 6.5 34.13 0.00550 17 Bank 17 (652) Low Very Low 0.018 170.0 6.0 17.85 0.00510 18 Bank 18 (653) Low Very Low 0.018 100.0 5.0 8.75 0.00420 19 Bank 19 (654) Low Very Low 0.018 250.0 5.0 21.88 0.00420 20 Bank 20 (655) Low Very Low 0.018 200.0 3.5 12.25 0.00290 21 Bank 21 (656) Low Very Low 0.018 150.0 2.0 5.25 0.00170 Total Erosion 1495.85 (ft3/yr) Total Erosion 55.40 (yds3/yr) Total Erosion 72.02 (tons/yr) Unit Erosion Rate 0.0582 (tons/yr/ft)

Little Minnesota River Restoration and Protection Strategies Watershed wide restoration and protections strategies for the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed are provided after the geomorphology study site summaries. More specific restoration and protections strategies, however, will be identified on a subwatershed basis.

Within the Little Minnesota River watershed, several restoration strategies hold potential for helping to increase channel stability and watershed health. First, aerial photo review of the subwatershed identified on, or near, channel pastures. Rotational grazing near the channel should be implemented where deeper rooted native plants should be fostered to grow beside the unstable channel. Vegetation has a moderate influence of F5 channels, and better grazing practices could help to increase bank stability through better root mass and reduced trampling by cattle. Furthermore, a mid-channel stock dam was identified within this watershed. Mid channel features such as a stock dam alter the stream sediment transport capacity and should be filled in so that the channel has a more representative, stable, channel width to restore the fluvial dynamics of the channel. Finally, a perched culvert was identified on Jorgenson River at 129th street in Roberts County, SD. Perched culverts deter fish migration through a break in the longitudinal connectivity of the channel. Without a full culvert inventory, there is no way to determine the prevalence of perched culverts throughout the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Fish Creek Stream Information Stream Name Fish Creek Drainage Area 78.7 mi2 AUID 07020001-532 Stream Type E5 County Big Stone County Valley Type U-GL-TP Section, Township, Range S32 T124N R48W Water Slope 0.0002 Entrenchment Ratio 5.74 Sinuosity 1.098 Width/Depth Ratio 7.41 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.0049 tons/yr/ft Bank Height Ratio 1.91 - Deeply Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 96 - Fair

The Fish Creek survey site is located approximately 3 miles south of the town of Beardsley. Positioned just atop the Minnesota River Valley wall, the Fish Creek survey site has a drainage area of roughly 78.7 square miles. Land use for the entire watershed consists of 79.2% cultivated land, 15% water, 4.2% development, and 1% perennial cover (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of Fish Creek is impaired for Fish IBI, Invertebrate IBI, Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation (MPCA 2018).

The channel at the study reach location was classified as an E5 stream type. The E5 stream types are channels with slight to moderately steep gradients, very low width/depth ratios, where the dominant channel materials are composed of finer materials [e.g. sand (Rosgen 1996)]. Channel slopes are typically less than 2% while the bed and banks are inherently stable (Rosgen 1996). Riparian vegetative influence is very important in E5 channels (Rosgen 1994; Appendix III) as root mats help the relatively deep channels to maintain high resistance to plan form adjustment (Rosgen 1996). The E5 stream type is an efficient channel type that maintains high sediment transport capacity and are very stable unless streambanks are disturbed and/or significant changes in sediment or streamflow occur (Rosgen 1996). Having a high sensitivity to disturbance also makes the streambank erosion potential high (Rosgen

1994). The E5 stream type, however, does have a good recovery potential if disturbance does occur (Rosgen 1994).

The BHR at the riffle cross section was measured to be 1.91. A BHR of 1.91 indicates that the channel is deeply incised. Though the channel is deeply incised it still has adequate access to its floodplain. Two times bankfull flows at the riffle cross section are roughly 2.3 feet in elevation above the low bank height. The entrenchment ratio was 5.74 indicating that the channel is slightly entrenched. Sinuosity was low at 1.098 and the upper portions of the watershed are channelized. A Pfankuch stability assessment scored the channel at a 96 which indicates the channel is in fair condition for its potential stream type.

Adequate longitudinal and lateral buffer zones exist at the study location. The riparian corridor was primarily a dense stand of Reed Canary grass with root depths down to the water’s surface. Given the relatively un-sinuous pattern of the channel and lack of quality representative banks within the reach, a pool study cross section was not monumented. A BEHI was completed for one bank and predicted an erosion rate of 0.0049 tons (i.e. 9.8 pounds) of sediment per foot annually when using the Colorado erosion rate curve (Rosgen 2001).

Sediment transport within the channel is altered by the culvert just downstream of the study location. On the upstream side of the culvert, a concrete weir was installed as part of the culver. The weir, which is likely a fish barrier under various flows, backs sediment up behind it (Figure 57). On the downstream side, a large plunge pool exists where water does not continuously flow though, but rather ponds up and flows back into the channel nearly adjacent to the culvert itself (Figure 58).

Figure 57. Concrete weir built into the culvert on the upstream side of the passing backs sediment up.

Figure 58. Plunge pool on the downstream side of the crossing.

Fish Creek Restoration and Protection Strategies Much of the Fish Creek has historically been channelized. Channelization reduces stream length, increases slope, and leaves the channel devoid of habitat. Over time, natural processes begin to build bankfull benches and small meanders in the bottom of channelized ditches as the hydrologic and hydraulic dynamics of the watershed work to find equilibrium with the altered dimension, pattern, and profile of the channel. These benches and meanders begin to create scour pools, build riffles, and deposit floodplain benches, all of which increase instream habitat and stream health. Channels that begin to create such features are often re-excavated with the intent of increasing drainage. Channels with such features should be left alone and not re-excavated in order to increase stream habitat and health. Furthermore, small channelized headwater streams such as the upper end of Fish Creek are great opportunities for complete channel restoration. Finally, the plunge pool identified within the summary should be filled, and stream channel realigned with the crossing, in order to restore proper dimension, pattern, and profile of the channel.

Upper Stony Run Creek Stream Information Stream Name Stony Run Creek Drainage Area 18.7 mi2 AUID NA Stream Type E5 County Big Stone Valley Type C-GL-TP Section, Township, Range S32 T123N R45W Water Slope 0.0002 Entrenchment Ratio 3.87 Sinuosity 1.068 Width/Depth Ratio 6.36 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.0130 tons/ft/yr Bank Height Ratio 1.57 - Deeply Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 75 - Good

The Upper Stony Run survey site is located approximately 5 miles south and east of the town of Clinton. Land use within the subwatershed the site is located within is comprised of 81.8% cultivated land, 12.4% water, 4.3% development, and 1.2% perennial cover (NLCD 2011). Drainage area for the survey site is 18.7 square miles and constitutes the headwaters for the Stony Run watershed. The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of Stony Run Creek is impaired for Fish IBI and Aquatic Life (MPCA 2018).

The BHR at the riffle cross section was measured to be 1.57. A BHR of 1.57 indicates that the channel is deeply incised at the study site reach. Though the channel is deeply incised, the entrenchment ratio of the channel was measured to be 3.87 indicating that the channel is only slightly entrenched. Further analysis of the riffle cross section identifies that the river can still access its floodplain, but any further incision will begin to significantly decrease the flood-prone width and thus the entrenchment ratio.

An adequate lateral and longitudinal riparian buffer was documented at the study reach. The riparian corridor primarily consisted of a dense stand of Reed Canary grass whose root structure reached down to the water’s edge. Due to these attributes, streambanks at the study site appeared to be relatively stable. Sediment supply from streambank erosion was estimated using the BANCS model and a monumented pool cross section was established. Erosion estimates predicted that 0.013 tons (i.e. 26 pounds) of sediment were eroding from the study bank per foot each year. Erosion estimates, however,

72 have not been validated by resurveying the pool cross section as the study site was only established in 2016. A comparison between the predicted erosion rates and measured erosion rates will be made when the pool cross section is resurveyed at a future date.

Among the river miles not channelized within the upper Stony Run watershed, sinuosity measurements are relatively low. Sinuosity within the proximity of the study reach was measured to be 1.068. The study reach itself was relatively featureless, however, adequate stream depths were found for a channel with such a small drainage area. A Pfankuch channel stability assessment indicated that the channel was in good condition with a score of 75 as the channel’s potential stream type is an E channel. The specific stream reach the study location is in does not appear to have changed much since the 1938 aerial photograph. Given upstream channelization, it is not likely that most of the stream miles upstream of the study reach would fare as well of a rating.

Lower Stony Run Creek Stream Information Stream Name Stony Run Creek Drainage Area 127 mi2 AUID 07020001-531 Stream Type C5c- County Big Stone County Valley Type U-AL-FD Section, Township, Range S18 T121N R45W Water Slope 0.0008 Entrenchment Ratio 11.9 Sinuosity 1.413 Width/Depth Ratio 13.16 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.1416 tons/ft/yr Bank Height Ratio 1.1 - Stable Pfankuch Stability Rating 98 - Fair

The Lower Stony Run survey site is located roughly 2 miles to the north of the town of Odessa. The survey site is positioned so that its catchment (i.e. 127 square miles) comprises a large majority of the entire Stony Run watershed. Land use within the subwatershed is 69.9% cultivated land, 21.6% water, 4.4% development, and 4% perennial cover (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of Stony Run Creek is impaired for Fish IBI, Invertebrate IBI, Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation (MPCA 2018).

The channel at the study location was classified as a C5c- stream type. This stream type is typically described as a slightly entrenched, meandering, sand-dominated, riffle/pool channel with a well- developed floodplain (Rosgen 1996). Within the Rosgen stream classification system, C5 channels have a slight gradient of less than 2%. Streams such as the one found at this study location are further classified as C5c- streams as they have a gradient of less than 0.1%. C5 stream types have a very high sensitivity to disturbance, sediment supply, and streambank erosion potential; while vegetative influence is very important and recovery potential is fair (Rosgen 1994; Appendix III). The rate of lateral erosion within C5 streams is controlled by the presence and quality of riparian vegetation (Rosgen 1996). C5 channels are very susceptible to shifts in vertical and lateral stability due to direct channel

74 disturbances and alterations in the flow and sediment regimes of the contributing catchment (Rosgen 1996).

The BHR at the riffle cross section was measured to be 1.1 (Figure 59). A BHR of 1.1 indicates that the channel is stable at the study site reach due to the fact that it can adequately access its floodplain. The entrenchment ratio at the riffle cross section was also adequate for channel stability. The entrenchment ratio was 11.9 and indicates that the channel is only slightly entrenched.

An adequate lateral and longitudinal riparian buffer was documented at the study reach. Though the riparian corridor was grazed, it did not appear over grazed. Adequate riparian buffers such as the one at the lower Stony Run survey location help stream bank stability through structural stability provided by plant roots. Sediment supply from streambank erosion was estimated using the BANCS model, however, a monumented pool cross section was not established in order to avoid potential injury to cattle by vertical rebar monuments. Instead, 4 separate BEHI assessments were completed on various streambanks throughout the surveyed reach. A summary of these BEHIs indicates an erosion estimate of 0.014 tons of sediment per foot of streambank per year.

When compared to many other streams surveyed within MNDNR region 4, Stoney Run Creek at this specific location appears to be relatively stable and changing at a pace slower than many other rivers. This slower rate of change can most likely be attributed to 3 primary factors: the river is still easily able to get out onto its floodplain at higher flows which helps reduce erosive forces within the channel, lakes and wetlands upstream of the survey location allow for water storage areas so that all the runoff is not coming down stream at once, and vegetative buffers exist on both sides of the channel for a significant distance

Figure 59. Riffle cross section at the Lower Stony Run survey location indicating the 1.1 bank height ratio.

Stony Run Creek Restoration and Protection Strategies Similar to the headwaters of Fish Creek, much of the headwaters of the Stony Run watershed have been channelized, or altered to a large extent. Protection strategies would be aimed at protecting channels that have begun to re-meander themselves from being re-excavated. Restoration opportunities within the headwaters are twofold. First, many areas lend themselves to complete channel restorations and recreations to increase in-channel aquatic habitat and water storage. Secondly, many wetlands, several large, were drained in order to convert land into agricultural uses (Figure 60). Draining wetlands changes the hydrologic regime of the watershed and has subsequent detrimental effects. Restoring any of these drained wetlands would increase water storage and decrease the effects of the altered hydrologic regime within the watershed.

Further down in the watershed, pasture management is mixed. Some parcels appear to be managed with rotational grazing, while other parcels appear over grazed. Rotational grazing is very important in protecting the channel as vegetated streambanks help stabilize C5c- streams. Furthermore, restoration of longitudinal connectivity could be addressed by repairing the severely perched culvert at the crossing upstream of the lower Stony Run study site.

Figure 60. Restorable wetlands inventory identifying the locations of several lakes and numerous small wetlands that have been drained since settlement.

Whetstone River Stream Information Stream Name Whetstone River Drainage Area 406 mi2 AUID NA Stream Type B4c County Grant, South Dakota Valley Type U-AL-FD Section, Township, Range S18 T121N R46W Water Slope 0.002 Entrenchment Ratio 1.98 Sinuosity 1.308 Width/Depth Ratio 21.74 Study Bank Erosion Rate NA Bank Height Ratio 1.79 - Deeply Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating NA

The Whetstone River survey site was located just west of the Big Stone City, SD corporate limits. The survey site was located near the confluence of the Whetstone River and the Minnesota River where its watershed covers 406 square miles. Land use within the watershed is comprised of 64.4% cultivated land, 23.2% perennial cover, 7.3% water, and 4.9% development (NLCD 2011). Only 0.3 miles of the Whetstone River lies within the Minnesota borders, therefore monitoring was limited. The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of the Whetstone River meets standards for TSS and pH, however, other parameters were either not assessed or had insufficient data (MPCA 2018).

The channel at the study location was classified as a B4c stream type. B4 stream types are moderately entrenched channels that typically develop in stable alluvial fans, and colluvial deposits (Rosgen 1996). B4 channels typically develop on gradients of 2-4%, however, B4c channels are lower gradient [i.e. <2% (Rosgen 1996)]. The streambed morphology in B4 channels is dominated by gravel sized material and generalized as a series of rapids with irregular spaced scour pools (Rosgen 1996). Pool-to-pool spacing in B4c channels is generally slightly higher than B4 channels at 4-5 bankfull channel widths (Rosgen 1996). Considered a relatively stable channel type, B4 streams are not a high sediment supply channel (Rosgen 1996). Overall, B4 channels have a moderate sensitivity to disturbance, excellent recovery

77 potential, moderate sediment supply, low streambank erosion potential, and the riparian vegetative community has a moderate influence on the channel (Rosgen 1994; Appendix III).

The survey site was located at the Whetstone River USGS Gage (#05291000). Based on survey data and the USGS Rating Table, bankfull discharge is 392cfs. This aligns with the 1.29 year return interval flow, and matches up fairly well with discharge analyses that predicted bankfull discharge to be 361.77cfs at the classification riffle. Four riffle and three pool cross sections were surveyed to detect differences in channel dimension throughout the reach. These cross sections will help with the design of the proposed channel restoration that will put the Whetstone River back into its old channel. When restored, the Whetstone River will once again flow directly into the Minnesota River instead of Big Stone Lake. Bank- height ratios ranged from 1.0 – 2.56, where the more incised cross sections were near the local channel cutoff on a steep riffle.

The survey reach was long enough to incorporate a steep reach near the old channel cutoff and a relatively flat reach downstream of the cutoff (Figure 61). Habitat was better in the steep reach, as very low flow (i.e. 23cfs) pool depths still reached nearly five feet deep at times. In the flat reach, riffle and pool habitats were filled with upstream sediment as the channel widened out and lost its capacity to transport sediment effectively. While streambanks were not assessed for bank erosion at the time of survey, historic incision has left numerous tall terraces that appear to be actively eroding (Figure 62). These eroding features send sediment and nutrients directly to Big Stone Lake and could be alleviated with a future stream restoration.

Figure 61. Longitudinal profile of the surveyed reach showing a section of steeper grade adjacent to a section with shallower grade.

Figure 62. Numerous tall terraces with active erosion were present at the survey location.

Whetstone River Restoration and Protection Strategies Historically, the Whetstone River flowed directly into the Minnesota River. In the 1930s the Whetstone River was diverted into Big Stone Lake. The purpose of the diversion was to increase water levels in Big Stone Lake during times of drought. However, in recent times this channelized reach has created localized flooding issues and channel instability increasing sediment loading and decreasing habitat for aquatic organisms. There is currently local momentum and support from partners to reconnect the Whetstone River with its historic channel. The restoration would restore flow to 9,000 feet of the historic Whetstone River. Thus, providing a natural channel with pool and riffle sequences for enhanced aquatic habitat and to set the channel up for dynamic equilibrium, as it will be sized, shaped, and sloped utilizing natural channel restoration principles. A significant component of the project will be to also incorporate an adequately sized floodplain in to the project, which will be approximately 500-ft on each side of the channel. A draft engineers report for the proposed Whetstone River restoration project has already been completed by Houston Engineering. This project is supported by the MNDNR, as the restoration would increase the channel length, decrease slope, and reduce flooding and sediment loading to the Minnesota River. This project will also create more stable geomorphic conditions and improve aquatic habitat, water quality, hydrologic storage, and connectivity.

For more detailed information on the potential Whetstone River restoration, go to: http://www.umrwd.org/Whetstone_HE_Report.pdf.

North Fork Yellow Bank River Gage Stream Information Stream Name North Fork Yellow Bank River Drainage Area 209 mi2 AUID 07020001-510 Stream Type B5c County Lac qui Parle County Valley Type U-AL-FD Section, Township, Range S22 T120N R46W Water Slope 0.0012 Entrenchment Ratio 1.51 Sinuosity 1.33 Width/Depth Ratio 10.32 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.1373 tons/ft/yr Bank Height Ratio 3.1 - Deeply Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 128 - Poor

The North Fork Yellow Bank River survey site is located approximately 6.25 miles south west of the town of Odessa. The survey location is near the confluence of the North Fork Yellow Bank River and the South Fork Yellow Bank River. Land use within the 209 square mile watershed consists of 66.6% cultivated land, 22.5% perennial cover, 5.9% water, and 4.8% development (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of the North Fork Yellow Bank River is impaired for Fish IBI, Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation (MPCA 2018).

The stream channel at the survey location was classified as a B5c. Many of the characteristics found in B4c channels are similar to those in B5c channels. The primary difference the B4c stream type and the B5c stream type is that B5c channels are dominated by sand sized materials rather than gravel size materials (Rosgen 1996). Overall, B5c channels are moderately sensitive to disturbance, have excellent recovery potential, moderate sediment supply, moderate streambank erosion potential, and riparian vegetation has a moderate influence on the channel (Rosgen 1994).

The BHR at the riffle cross section was measured to be 3.1. A BHR of 3.1 identifies that the channel is deeply incised through the study site reach. The entrenchment ratio at the same riffle cross section was 1.51 indicating that the channel is moderately entrenched. Though the adjective rating for the entrenchment ratio was moderate, the shape of the valley and channel severely limit the river’s lateral floodplain width (Figure 63).

Aside from limited lateral floodplain connectivity, the North Fork Yellow Bank River at this study location also lacks adequate lateral and longitudinal riparian connectivity. The little riparian corridor that exists within proximity of the study location consisted of mixed hardwoods and herbaceous plants. However, at certain points along the stream corridor, no riparian corridor existed as cultivated fields ran right up to the top of the river bank. In areas where cultivated fields and river banks adjoin the river banks become extremely susceptible to increased rates of stream bank erosion. Increased erosion rates are due to the lack of deep rooted perennial vegetation whose roots add structure to the streambank. Furthermore, the root structure of annual crops are much shallower than a majority of the perennial vegetation found within the existing riparian corridor.

The w/d ratio of the channel was measured to be 10.32 which is relatively low for the data of several B channel types presented in Rosgen 1996. With a lower width do depth ratio, one may assume higher mean depth may have been present such as is common with low w/d ratio E channel types. The channel at the North Fork Yellow Bank River gage, however, did not have a very high mean depth. Furthermore, deep pool refuge habitat was very sparse within the channel. A Pfankuch channel stability assessment completed at the study location scored a poor (i.e. 128) rating.

The BANCS model was again used to estimate the sediment supply from stream bank erosion at the study location. Bank erosion hazard index estimates for the monumented study bank was 0.1373 tons (i.e. pounds) of sediment per linear foot of streambank annually. The monumented cross section that was established in 2015 was again surveyed in the field season of 2016. Field surveys of the study bank indicated that 1.34 feet of bank had eroded between 2015 and 2016 in areas.

Figure 63. Riffle cross section at the North Fork Yellow Bank River gage study location showing how the shape of the valley limits the rivers lateral floodplain width.

South Fork Yellow Bank River Gage Stream Information Stream Name South Fork Yellow Bank River Drainage Area 209 mi2 AUID 07020001-526 Stream Type C4c- County Lac qui Parle County Valley Type U-AL-FD Section, Township, Range S1 T119N R46W Water Slope 0.0003 Entrenchment Ratio 2.88 Sinuosity 1.056 Width/Depth Ratio 15.8 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.2105 tons/ft/yr Bank Height Ratio 1.37 - Moderately Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 104 - Fair

The South Fork Yellow Bank River study site is located roughly 7.75 miles south of the town of Odessa. The study site is located near the confluence of the South Fork Yellow Bank River and the North Fork Yellow Bank River. The 209 square mile watershed contributing to the study location is comprised of 61.9% cultivated land, 26.3% perennial cover, 7.3% water, and 4.3% development (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of the South Fork Yellow Bank River is impaired for Fish IBI, Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation (MPCA 2018).

The channel at the study location was classified as a C4c- stream type. The C4c- stream type is very similar to the previously described C5c- stream type, however, instead of being a sand dominated stream, the C4c- stream type has a gravel dominated stream bed (Rosgen 1996). Overall, C4c- streams have a very high sensitivity to disturbance, good recovery potential, high sediment supply, very high stream bank erosion potential where riparian vegetative influence is very high (Rosgen 1994).

The riffle cross section bank height ratio at the study location was measured to be 1.37. A BHR of 1.37 identifies that the channel is moderately incised. Though the channel is moderately incised, the river still currently has adequate lateral floodplain connectivity. With an entrenchment ratio of 2.88, the channel is currently considered to only be slightly entrenched. An additional half foot of incision, however, would greatly reduce the entrenchment ratio and floodplain connectivity. The w/d ratio of

82 the channel was measured to be 15.8 which falls well within the most abundant categorical group of w/d ratios for C4 channels (Rosgen 1996). A Pfankuch channel stability rating was calculated for the South Fork Yellow Bank River gage location. After assessment, the channel scored a Pfankuch rating of 104 which is considered to be ‘fair’ for C4 channels.

The South Fork Yellow Bank River at the study site location was surrounded by perennial vegetation and had an adequate longitudinal riparian corridor. Sediment supply from streambank erosion was estimated at the site using the BANCS model. The BANCS model predicted that the monumented pool study bank erodes 0.38 ft/yr and contributes 0.2105 tons (i.e. 421 pounds) of sediment per foot of bank annually. A resurvey of the monumented pool study bank in 2016 identified less erosion with an average erosion rate of 0.0062 feet.

Sinuosity at the South Fork Yellow Bank River study location was very low at 1.056. The longitudinal profile identified a channel slope of 0.003 ft/ft, which falls into the largest categorical classification identified for C4 channels by Rosgen (1996). The longitudinal profile was surveyed during low flows and also identified adequate pool and refuge habitat for biotic assemblages.

Yellow Bank River Gage Stream Information Stream Name Yellow Bank River Drainage Area 460 mi2 AUID 07020001-525 Stream Type C4c- County Lac qui Parle County Valley Type U-AL-FD Section, Township, Range S7 T120N R45W Water Slope 0.0002 Entrenchment Ratio 2.21 Sinuosity 1.836 Width/Depth Ratio 12.17 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.1069 tons/ft/yr Bank Height Ratio 1.53 - Deeply Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 115 - Poor

The Yellow Bank River gage study location is approximately 2.5 miles south of the town of Odessa. The study site is near the confluence of the Yellow Bank River and the Minnesota River and has a watershed of approximately 460 square miles. Land use within the watershed is comprised of 65.6% cultivated land, 21.8% perennial cover, 7% water, and 4.5% development (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of Yellow Bank River is impaired for Fish IBI, Invertebrate IBI, TSS, Sechi Tube, Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation (MPCA 2018).

Similar to the South Fork Yellow Bank River gage study location, the channel at the Yellow Bank River gage location was also classified as a C4c- channel. The BHR at the riffle cross sections was measured to be 1.53, indicating that the channel is deeply incised. Though the channel is deeply incised, the channel currently maintains the capacity to access its floodplain over its left bank. The entrenchment ratio was measured to be 2.21 identifying that the channel is only slightly entrenched. However, as little as three quarters of a foot of additional incision will begin to dramatically reduced the entrenchment ratio thus indicating a reduction in floodplain access.

Streambank erosion at the study location was estimated utilizing the BANCS model. A monumented cross section was established and surveyed in both 2015 and 2016 to compare against the estimates generated by the BANCS model. The model estimate that the study bank at the cross section would erode 0.153 ft/yr and contribute 0.1069 tons (i.e. 213.8 pounds) of sediment per foot of bank annually. The overlay of the bank survey and resurvey indicated that the bank only experienced an average erosion rate of 0.025 feet.

A Pfankuch channel stability assessment was conducted throughout the stream study reach. The Pfankuch score for this portion of the Yellow Bank River was 115, which is considered a poor score for a C4 channel. Assessment of the longitudinal profile indicates that the channel was relatively featureless and does not hold many high quality habitat characteristics. Sinuosity throughout the general area of the study location was measured as 1.836. The surveyed section of river is relatively straight when compared to existing conditions upstream and downstream of the study location. This sinuosity attribute may be a fundamental characteristic driving the surveyed portion of river to be generally featureless. Pool habitats form at bends and curves within river systems so a generally straight portion of river in and of itself lacks the potential for pool habitat due to lack of required scour. Additional survey work would be required to identify if this lack of habitat quality exists within larger portions of the Yellow Bank River.

Yellow Bank River Restoration and Protection Strategies Restoration and protection strategies within the Yellow Bank River watershed should primarily be focused on the riparian corridor and its management. Much of the North Fork Yellow Bank River could benefit from a wider vegetative riparian corridor as many areas have minimal widths. Furthermore, throughout both the North Fork Yellow Bank and South Fork Yellow Bank River watersheds, feedlots and pastures within the riparian corridor are common. As with other subwatersheds discussed, rotational grazing and pasture management focused on maintaining a well vegetated riparian corridor will benefit the overall health and stability of the river. Several feedlots are in very close proximity to the rivers themselves, and it should be verified that runoff from these feedlots is not entering the stream. Feedlot run off increases both nutrient and bacteria concentrations that have negative effects to both the aquatic assemblages within them, and the users of the river.

Other restoration opportunities exist in areas of historic channelization. Throughout the watershed there are instances of channelization, as well as meander bend cut offs. Restoring historical channels in areas of meander bend cut offs (e.g. near Pegg Lake and Milbank, SD) would increase stream habitat. Channelized and straightened sections of river lack the habitat that a naturally formed channel develops over time and reconnecting old sections of channel will benefit the river’s fish assemblage. Furthermore, culverts, crossings, and weirs (e.g. downstream of South Fork Yellow Bank survey site and south of Milbank, SD) that pose as longitudinal connectivity barriers should be addressed to allow fish passage throughout the system.

Five Mile Creek - County Ditch #2 Stream Information Stream Name Five Mile Creek Drainage Area 50.6 mi2 AUID 07020001-534 Stream Type E5 County Big Stone County Valley Type U-GL-TP Section, Township, Range S1 T120N R44W Water Slope 0.0004 Entrenchment Ratio 28.69 Sinuosity 1.408 Width/Depth Ratio 5.34 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.0140 tons/yr/ft Bank Height Ratio 1.21 - Slightly Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 104 - Poor

The Five Mile Creek – Big Stone County Ditch #2 (CD #2) study site is located 2.25 miles east-south-east of the town of Correll. The CD #2 survey location was established near the bottom of the watershed just upstream from its confluence with the Five Mile Creek - Shible Lake watershed. Land use within the CD #2watershed is comprised of 82% cultivated land, 11.5% water, 4.9% development, and 1.6% perennial cover (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identified Fish IBI and Aquatic Life impairments upstream of surveyed location, and Fish IBI, Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation impairments downstream.

Similar to the upper Stony Run survey site, the study reach located in CD #2 of the Five Mile Creek watershed was also classified as an E5 channel. The measured BHR at the riffle cross section was 1.21 indicating that the channel is slightly incised. Measurements of the BHR do not adequately portray the ease of lateral floodplain access the river holds within this portion of river. An additional 3 feet of incision would need to occur before the channel becomes significantly more entrenched than its current state. At the time of the study survey, CD #2 at the property had an entrenchment ratio of 28.69 meaning that the channel is only slightly entrenched. Width-to-depth ratio of the channel was measured to be 5.34, which falls within the most numerously populated category of w/d ratios for E5 channels outlined in Rosgen (1996).

Property surrounding the CD #2 survey location had perennial vegetation where the river had adequate longitudinal and lateral riparian connectivity. Dense stands of perennial grasses and forbes existed along the channel are an integral component of E channels. Without those perennial species, the channel is highly susceptible to become significantly more unstable. A Pfankuch assessment was completed for the study stream reach of CD #2 and scored a 104. A score of 104 indicates a poor score for an E5 channel and E4 channel if the streams potential stream type is an E4. The poor Pfankuch score was predominantly driven by the attributes scored within the channel bottom category of attributes (i.e., rock angularity, brightness, consolidation of particles, bottom size distribution, scouring and deposition, and aquatic vegetation).

Measurements of the longitudinal profile indicated that the channel slope was 0.004 ft/ft. Low slopes are typical for E stream types, however, a slope of 0.0004 ft/ft is the minimum slope for the shallowest sloped category identified within Rosgen (1996) for E5 channels. Sinuosity measurements of E channels are typically high due to the nature in which the shallow sloped channels evolve. Sinuosity of the study reach was found to be 1.408, but would be higher if looking at a larger expanse of County Ditch #2. Flows at the time of the survey were low and channel depths from three quarters to two and a half feet deep. These depths may be adequate to support habitat and refuge for smaller species of biotic communities (i.e. those typically found in smaller streams such as County Ditch #2).

Like other survey sites, sediment supply from streambank erosion was estimated using the BANCS model. The BANCS model estimated that the pool study bank had an erosion rate of 0.073 ft/yr and contributed 0.014 tons (i.e. 28 pounds) of sediment per foot of bank annually. A monumented cross section traversing the pool study bank was surveyed in both 2015 and 2016. The measured streambank erosion was shown to average 0.0031 ft/yr at the study bank.

Five Mile Creek – Shible Lake Stream Information Stream Name Five Mile Creek Drainage Area 28.1 mi2 AUID NA Stream Type G6c County Swift County Valley Type U-GL-TP Section, Township, Range S32 T121N R43W Water Slope 0.0003 Entrenchment Ratio 1.57 Sinuosity 1 Width/Depth Ratio 9.05 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.0533 tons/yr/ft Bank Height Ratio 3.64 - Deeply Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 106 - Poor

The Five Mile Creek – Shible Lake survey site is located approximately 4 miles north east of Correll. Located near the confluence with County Ditch #2’s portion of the Five Mile Creek watershed, the survey site’s watershed is approximately 28.1 square miles. Land use within the watershed is comprised of 71.4% cultivated land, 21.1% water, 5.5% development, and 1.8% perennial cover (NLCD 2011). Assessments have not been conducted within the AUID to have established any existing impairments.

Pattern, profile, and dimension measurements collected at the survey site identified the channel as a G6c stream type. Rosgen (1996) describes G6 stream types as entrenched gully systems that are deeply incised in cohesive silts or clays. G6 channels are further explained by Rosgen (1996), however, those are naturally formed channels that are described. The channel at this Five Mile Creek study location, however, is not a naturally formed channel. Instead the channel is a manmade drainage ditch dug for agricultural purposes. Though the channel falls within the pattern, profile, and dimension measurements of a G channel, and even hold some similar attributes to those described by Rosgen (1996), they are different in nature. Typically drainage ditches are incised, entrenched, and over widen where they lack the capacity to entrain and transport the sediments of its watershed. Ineffective

88 bedload transport typically leads to aggradation of fine sediments within the bottom of drainage ditches across central, southern, and western Minnesota.

The bank height ratio at the study location was measured to be 3.64, indicating that the channel is deeply incised. Furthermore, the measured entrenchment ratio was 1.57 which identifies the channel as being moderately entrenched. When examining the riffle cross section (Figure 64), it is apparent that the channel cannot laterally access a floodplain other than any small bankfull benches that may have developed due to the channel being over widened. A Pfankuch assessment was completed for the survey reach and scored an adjective rating of ‘poor.’

A survey of the longitudinal profile of the thalweg, water surface, bankfull bench, and low banks was completed (Figure 65). The portion of Five Mile Creek that was surveyed lacks habitat and does not contain adequate pool or refuge habitat to support or maintain most biological species that would otherwise utilize a stream of similar size.

Figure 64. Riffle cross section at the Five Mile Creek - Shible Lake, study location identifying the stream’s lateral confinement.

Figure 65. Longitudinal profile of the thalweg, water surface, bankfull bench, and low banks at the Five Mile Creek – Shible Lake, study location.

Upper Five Mile Creek Stream Information Stream Name Five Mile Creek Drainage Area 82.4 mi2 AUID 07020001-521 Stream Type C4 County Big Stone County Valley Type U-GL-TP Section, Township, Range S1 T120N R44W Water Slope 0.0038 Entrenchment Ratio 2.91 Sinuosity 1.13 Width/Depth Ratio 20.53 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.0466 tons/yr/ft Bank Height Ratio 1.54 - Deeply Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 117 - Poor

The Upper Five Mile Creek survey location is located just downstream of the confluence of the County Ditch #2 watershed and the Five Mile Creek – Shible Lake watershed. Positioned roughly 2.5 miles E of Correll, the watershed is comprised of 78.5% cultivated land, 14.6% water, 5.2% development, and 1.6% perennial cover (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of Five Mile Creek is impaired for Fish IBI, Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation (MPCA 2018).

The channel at the study location was classified as a C4 stream type. The C4 stream type is generally a slightly entrenched, meandering, gravel-dominated, riffle/pool channel with a well-developed floodplain (Rosgen 1996). Streambanks of C4 streams typically are comprised of unconsolidated, heterogeneous, non-cohesive, alluvial materials that are finer than the gravel that comprises the streambed (Rosgen 1996). Channels such as this have very high sensitivity to disturbance and streambank erosion potential and thus high sediment supplies (Rosgen 1994, Appendix III). Recovery for C4 channels is good and vegetation of the riparian corridor can have a very high controlling influence upon the channel (Rosgen 1994).

The BHR at the riffle cross section was measured to be 1.54. A BHR of 1.54 indicates that the channel is deeply incised through the study reach. The entrenchment ratio at the same riffle cross sections was 2.91 identifying that the channel is only slightly entrenched. Though the channel is deeply incised, the channel does have moderate floodplain width when accessed by the river. Longitudinal connectivity of the riparian corridor was relatively intact near the location of the study reach. Mixed patches of hardwoods and grasses primarily dominated the riparian corridor. Near the study reach the corridor was utilized for grazing cattle while other portions of the corridor were encroached upon by agricultural fields.

Sediment supply from streambanks erosion was estimated using the BANCS model. The BANCS model estimated that the pool study bank had an erosion rate of 0.092 ft/yr and contributed 0.0466 tons (i.e. 93.2 pounds) of sediment per foot of bank annually. A monumented pool cross section was not placed at the study bank, therefore, no resurveys were conducted to validate these estimates.

The w/d ratio at the channel was measured to be 20.53 which falls within the largest categories of w/d ratios documented for C4 channels by Rosgen 1996. The longitudinal profile surveyed indicates that pool and refuge habitat does exist within the channel at the survey location. A Pfankuch assessment conducted, however, rated the channel as 117 which is a ‘poor’ adjective rating for a C4 channel.

Lower Five Mile Creek Stream Information Stream Name Five Mile Creek Drainage Area 87.3 mi2 AUID 07020001-521 Stream Type E5 County Big Stone County Valley Type U-AL-RD Section, Township, Range S14 T120N R44W Water Slope 0.0005 Entrenchment Ratio 35.93 Sinuosity 2.31 Width/Depth Ratio 9.63 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.1071 tons/yr/ft Bank Height Ratio 1.1 - Stable Pfankuch Stability Rating 105 - Poor

The Lower Five Mile Creek survey site is located approximately 2 miles south east of the town of Correll. Positioned near the outlet of the watershed (i.e confluence of 5 Mile Creek and Lac que Parle reservoir), the survey site has a drainage area of 87.3 square miles. Land use within the Five Mile Creek watershed is comprised of 78.5% cultivated land, 14.6% water, 5.2% development, and 1.6% perennial cover (NLCD 2011). Similar to the other AUIDs within the Five Mile Creek watershed, the AUID in which the survey site is located has not previously been assessed for impairments. The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of Five Mile Creek is impaired for Fish IBI, Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation (MPCA 2018).

Similar to the Fish Creek, Upper Stony Run, and County Ditch #2 survey sites, the channel at the Lower Five Mile Creek survey site classified as an E5 channel. The survey location positioned in the historical Glacial River Warren channel that has since been impounded to create Marsh Lake. The geologic history of this location, in combination with the landscape changes created by the impoundment, have left this locale very flat. The surrounding landscape is dominated by perennial grasses that grow from very cohesive organic soils. Due the surrounding landscape, the slope of the channel was measured to be very low at 0.0005 ft/ft. The flat landscape, cohesive soils, and dense perennial grass community are

93 integral components for the formation of an E channel such as the one found at the Lower Five Mile Creek survey location.

The BHR was the lowest of all sites surveyed within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed at 1.1. A BHR of 1.1 is considered to be stable and very minimally incised in comparison to other rivers and sites surveyed. A survey of a representative riffle cross section also identified that the channel has adequate lateral access to its floodplain with an entrenchment ratio of 35.93. An entrenchment ratio of 35.93 is just below the average entrenchment ratio of E5 channels (i.e. 39.5) as outlined by Rosgen (1996). Even though the channel holds some attributes of a high quality E channel, a Pfankuch assessment scored the channel at 105 which has an adjective rating of ‘poor.’ The poor rating was primarily a component of mass wasting, bank rock content, cutting, rock angularity, and particle consolidation.

A longitudinal profile of the channel was surveyed, indicating that the channel provides adequate pool and refuge habitat for biotic assemblages. Sediment supply from streambank erosion was estimated using the BANCS model. The BANCS model estimated that the bank at the established pool study bank had an erosion rate of 0.42 ft/yr and contributed 0.107 tons (i.e. 214 pounds) of sediment per foot of bank annually. A resurvey of the established cross section, however, showed that the bank only had a 0.0009 ft/yr erosion rate between 2015 and 2016.

Five Mile Creek Restoration and Protection Strategies Similar to other subwatersheds within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed, many opportunities for channel restoration and pasture management are present. Much of the headwaters of Five Mile Creek have been channelized. Several areas still show the historic pattern of the river where the channel appears as oxbows. Areas such as those are great opportunities to restore the historic channel and restore the hydraulic integrity of the system while increasing instream habitat. Furthermore, many drained wetlands are associated with the channelized stream segments. The restoration of drained wetlands can help keep more water on the land longer, and thereby slow the effects of hydrologic alteration. Finally, many of the road crossings in the upper watershed appear to be improperly sized culverts that affect connectivity. Large plunge pools and overly widened channels downstream of road crossings indicate improperly sized culverts where proper sizing should be considered when they are replaced in the future.

Protection strategies within the 5 Miles Creek subwatershed should be focused on remaining wetlands, re-meandering channels, and the natural pattern in lower end of the watershed. Though many lakes and wetlands were drained within the watershed, several still exist. Wetland restoration, and the protection of the remaining wetlands from alteration and nutrient runoff should be a priority. Channel excavation or repair of ditches in the watershed should be done in a manner, and timing, that minimizes downstream water quality and flooding impacts. Often these channels begin to re-meander and build a bankfull bench, thus providing a channel with more habitat than a straightened flat thalweg. Finally, the dimensions, pattern, profile, and floodplain connectivity of the downstream watershed’s channel should be protected.

Upper Emily Creek Stream Information Stream Name Emily Creek Drainage Area 6.8 mi2 AUID 07020001-546 Stream Type E4 County Lac qui Parle County Valley Type U-GL-TP Section, Township, Range S28 T119N R43W Water Slope 0.0055 Entrenchment Ratio 11.09 Sinuosity 1.2 Width/Depth Ratio 7.6 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.0487 tons/yr/ft Bank Height Ratio 1.85 - Deeply Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 74 - Good

The Upper Emily Creek survey site is located roughly 7.25 miles west-south-west of the town of Milan. Located in the headwaters portion of Emily Creek, the survey site’s watershed drains approximately 6.8 square miles. The watershed contributing to the survey site consists of 90.5% cultivated land, 6% development, 2.3% water, and 1.1% perennial vegetation (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of Emily Creek is impaired for Fish IBI, Invertebrate IBI, and Aquatic Life (MPCA 2018).

The attributes measured at the study site classified the stream channel as an E4 stream type. Characteristics of E4 channels are identical to E5 channels with the exception that E4 channels have predominantly gravel sized substrates in contrast to the finer substrates of an E5 channel (Rosgen 1996). Two representative riffle cross sections were surveyed at the upper Emily Creek survey site. Both cross sections indicated that the channel is deeply incised with a BHR of 1.85. The first of the riffle cross sections (i.e. cross section utilized for classification purposes) showed that the channel was only slightly entrenched, but was within several tenths of a foot of incision from being severely entrenched. Dimensions documented at the second riffle cross section showed that the channel was severely entrenched at that location.

Additional dimension measurements showed that the channel had a w/d ratio of 7.6, which is slightly higher than the average w/d ratio for E4 channels (i.e. 5.86) documented by Rosgen (1996). Sinuosity of the channel was 1.2, which is low for an E4 channel. Like many E channels, however, the riparian corridor of dense perennial vegetation minimizes impacts to the stream. A Pfankuch channel stability assessment was completed for this portion of Emily Creek and scored a 94, which is a ‘good’ adjective rating. The good Pfankuch score was primarily due to the score given to the attributes within the upper banks category follows by fair scores for the attributes within the channel bottom category.

Several stream banks were assessed using the BANCS model to estimate sediment supply. The average erosion rate for the pool study bank was estimated to be 0.253 ft/yr, contributing 0.0487 tons (i.e. 97.4 pounds) per foot of bank annually. A monumented cross section was not established at this study site, however, so estimates could not be validated by resurveying the cross section in 2016. A survey of the longitudinal profile of the stream identified that adequate pool and refuge habitat existed for representative biotic assemblages that would typically be found in a stream as small as the channel at the upper Emily Creek survey location.

Lower Emily Creek Stream Information Stream Name Emily Creek Drainage Area 33.8 mi2 AUID 07020001-547 Stream Type E6 County Lac qui Parle County Valley Type U-AL-FD Section, Township, Range S26 T119N R43W Water Slope 0.0004 Entrenchment Ratio 4.52 Sinuosity 1.123 Width/Depth Ratio 7.55 Study Bank Erosion Rate 0.0610 tons/yr/ft Bank Height Ratio 1.41 - Moderately Incised Pfankuch Stability Rating 97 - Poor

The Lower Emily Creek survey location is positioned approximately 4.75 west-south-west of the town of Milan. Located near the pour point of the watershed the survey site has a watershed area of approximately 33.8 square miles. The Emily Creek watershed is comprised of 84.9% cultivated land, 8.8% water, 4.8% development, and 1.5% perennial cover (NLCD 2011). The MPCA’s Minnesota River – Headwaters Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report identifies that this reach of Emily Creek is impaired for Fish IBI, Invertebrate IBI, Aquatic Life, and Aquatic Recreation (MPCA 2018).

The channel at the study location was classified as an E6 stream type. E6 stream types have moderate to high sinuosity, moderately steep channel gradients, and very low width/depth ratios (Rosgen 1996). The E6 stream type is a riffle/pool system where the dominant channel materials are composed of fine material (e.g. silt-clay) interspersed with organic materials (Rosgen 1996). E6 channel slopes are typically less than 0.02 (i.e. many having slopes <0.0001), however, the stable nature of the streambanks and bed associated with this stream type allow this stream type to develop on a wide range of slopes (Rosgen 1996). Channel types such as this have a very high sensitivity to disturbance, moderate streambank erosion potential, but low sediment supply (Rosgen 1994, Appendix III). E channels are typically controlled by the vegetation of their riparian corridor and have a good recovery potential (Rosgen 1994).

Similar to the Minnesota River, Emily Creek also flows through an abandoned historical river channel. Both the upper and lower Emily Creek study locations are positioned in an old flow path from Glacial River Warren. At the time of the Glacial River Warren, the river was believed to be of high discharge flowing across a low gradient till plain that lead to the formation of a series of interconnected or braided river channels (Miller et al. 2011).

The measured bank height ratio at the riffle cross section was 1.41 indicating that the channel is moderately incised. The channel has adequate floodplain access even though the channel is moderately incised. When analyzing flood-prone width in relation to bankfull width at the riffle cross section we find that the channel is only slightly entrenched, further indicating adequate floodplain access. The w/d ratio was measured to be 7.55, which is within the typical range expected for E channels. Sinuosity was relatively low for an E channel, however, at 1.123. Typically low gradient E channel prairie streams have a higher sinuosity.

Attributes of the upper Emily Creek study site were scored using a Pfankuch assessment. The attributes of the channel scored a 97, which is a ‘poor’ adjective rating for an E channel. Several streambanks within the study reach were assessed using the BANCS model to estimate sediment supply. The average erosion rate for the pool study bank was estimated to be 0.253 ft/yr contributing 0.061 tons (i.e. 122 pounds) per foot of bank annually. A monumented pool cross section was established at the site in order to validate the BANCS estimates.

Emily Creek Restoration and Protection Strategies Restoration and protection strategies for Emily Creek are virtually the same as many other subwatersheds in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed. In the upper portions of Emily Creek, channelization is prevalent and future excavation should be limited. These channelized portions of Emily Creek could be re-meandered, or left alone to allow for the natural hydrologic processes to slowly re-meander a smaller channel within them. Furthermore, many areas of Emily Creek are pastured. Pasture management should be a focus in the Emily Creek watershed as vegetation has a very strong influence on E channels. Poor riparian vegetative management could lead to increased stream instability and have a large lasting effect of the structural integrity of the channel throughout the watershed. Finally, LiDAR and aerial photography indicates a 2.5 meter knickpoint (i.e. area of sharp change in slope) between 301st and 311th avenues. This area should be checked to ensure that it does not stand as a longitudinal barrier to fish passage. If this area is a barrier, efforts to restore connectivity should be sought.

Restoration and Protection Strategies A system-wide approach should be utilized to restore watershed health and system stability within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed. Restoration efforts should focus on the sources (e.g., altered hydrology or land use practices) of water quality, watershed health, and stream stability degradation as opposed to the effects (e.g. streambank erosion). The following strategies are recommended, but are not limited to:

 Increase water storage throughout the watershed and protect the existing water features (e.g. Stony Run watershed lakes).  Restore drained lake beds as well as shallow lakes where temporary drawdowns are feasible.  Target marginal land that frequently floods (e.g. drained wetlands) to restore to hold water on the landscape and thus meter out runoff and flows.  Target water storage projects in areas that provide additional floodplain/lateral connectivity  Target water storage projects in areas that provide water quality (e.g. nutrient removal) and ecological benefits (e.g. waterfowl habitat).  Land use practices that increase organic matter in the soil will benefit future land uses and store water as every 1% increase in organic matter can hold roughly 1 inch of precipitation (U of M Extension).  Establish, maintain, and/or protect deep rooted native perennial vegetation (e.g., Big Bluestem, willows) in the riparian corridor. Several E channels exist within the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed and are highly dependent upon vegetative riparian corridors (Rosgen 1996).  Establish adequate buffer widths and vegetation type for the size of river system and bank height ratio to allow for the development of bank stability.  Avoid hard armoring banks (e.g., rip rap or gabion baskets) unless infrastructure is in danger. Bank stabilization projects that employ hard armoring only deflect energy.  Re-slope and vegetate susceptible banks that are prone to sloughing and/or mass failure as an alternative to armoring.  Where channel restoration is applicable, utilize natural channel design techniques to restore the stream to its stable pattern, profile, and dimension.  Restore marginal cropland back into native prairie (e.g. Conservation Reserve Program) to increase water storage and allow for ground water infiltration.  Establishing additional native plants (e.g. native forbs) can provide additional ecological benefits (e.g. pollinators).  Road crossing projects should implement proper culvert and bridge sizing for the river or stream to allow for water and sediment movement throughout the watershed.  Improperly sized culverts and bridges can affect the river or stream channel downstream and lead to excess sediment supply and habitat degradation.  Floodplain culverts should be placed at bankfull elevations across the floodplain in order to restore longitudinal connectivity of the floodplain and reduce flood flow confinement. See Zytkovicz and Murtada (2013) for further guidance. Proper bridge sizing and floodplain culverts will help to restore travel corridors for riparian animals in many instances so that they do no need to cross busy highways; a situation dangerous to humans and animals.

 Abandoned road and railroad bridges should be removed in order to reduce channel constriction. Furthermore, the associated road and railroad grades should be leveled in order to restore floodplain connectivity.  Implement grassed waterways, conservation tillage, and cover crops to slow water down, reduce excess nutrient and sediment runoff, increase soil organic matter, and allow for greater infiltration.  Implement other Ag BMPs, as appropriate for the site, to reduce nutrients, sediment, and surface runoff into surface waters or open tile intakes.  Livestock should be excluded from rivers and streams by fencing where applicable. Supplying an additional water source will prevent livestock from trampling banks and supplying E.coli and other bacteria and pathogens to the stream (e.g., Cryptosporidium, Campylobacter, Giardia, or Fecal Coliform).  Pursuit of re-establishing natural river and stream channels, where historically channelized, should be prioritized in order to restore the natural physical and ecological function of the system.  All implementation practices should benefit your target components of a healthy watershed without causing detriment to another. For example, road control structures may store floodwaters and reduce hydrology but they can create fish passage barriers and cause channel instability downstream.

Protection opportunities may seem sparser than areas to restore; however, options and opportunities do exist. Lands providing multiple ecosystem services, or environmental benefits, should have highest priorities for protection. Critical habitat areas, wetland/upland complexes, and natural areas not only provide quality habitat, but sequester carbon, provide a home for rare species, produce clean water, and offer many recreational opportunities.

100

Correlated Planning Efforts Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan Prairie habitats once covered one third of Minnesota but presently less than 2% remain. Native prairie, other grasslands, and wetlands provide habitat for many species and are key components of functional landscapes. The Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan is a habitat plan for native prairie grassland, and wetlands in the Prairie Region of western Minnesota with the goal to protect, restore, and enhance remaining native prairie, other grassland, and wetland habitat. In strategic locations, the Prairie Plan has identified key prairie core areas (high concentration of native prairie), corridors, and habitat complexes to create a connected landscape for wildlife and provide opportunities for sustainable grass- based agriculture such as grazing and haying.

There are 6 main aspects of the work:

 Implementation by multi-disciplinary Local Technical Teams in prairie Focus Areas  Secure permanent protection of high quality prairie landscapes, including native prairies, wetlands, and other habitats  Retain restored and natural grassland in these landscapes  Enhance the quality and function of prairie habitat using prescribed fire, conservation grazing, haying, invasive species control and woody plant removal  Secure the resources needed to monitor progress, assess results and implement adaptive strategies that increase success and efficiency  Integrate the efforts of the Prairie Plan Local Technical Teams to increase success and efficiency

The Upper Minnesota River Watershed lies almost entirely within the Lac Qui Parle Local Technical Team area (Figure 66). This established and active Prairie Plan Local Technical Team is available to assist and provide support to the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed and its landowners to achieve wildlife value and water quality goals through targeted placement of perennial vegetation or other agricultural best management practices.

101

Figure 66. Minnesota Prairie Conservation Plan as it pertains to the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

102

Figure 67. Minnesota Wildlife Action Network within the MN River Headwaters Watershed.

103

Aadland, L. P., T. M. Koel, W. G. Franzin, K. W. Stewart, and P. Nelson. 2005. Changes in fish assemblage structure of the Red River of the north. American Fisheries Society Symposium 45:293-321.

Annear, T. I., I. Chisholm, H. Beecher, A. Locke, P. Aarrestad, C. Coomer, C. Estes, J. Hunt, R. Jacobson, G. Jobsis, J. Kauffman, J. Marshall, K. Mayes, G. Smith, R. Wentworth, and C. Stalnaker. 2004. Instream flows for riverine resource stewardship. Instream Flow Council. Cheyenne, WY.

Berg, J. A., and R. Bradt. 2000. Quaternary Geology – Upper Minnesota River Basin, Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Division of Ecological and Water Resources.

Blann, K. L., J. L. Anderson, G. R. Sands, and B. Vondracek. 2009. Effects of agricultural drainage on aquatic ecosystems: a review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 39(1):909-1001.

BWSR (Board of Water and Soil Resources). 1999. Wetlands in Minnesota. BWSR, St. Paul, MN.

CropScape. 2015. United States Department of Agriculture: National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Heinz Center. 2002. The state of the nation’s ecosystems 2002: measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States. H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Haitjema, H. M. 1995. On the idealized time distribution in idealized groundwatersheds. Journal of Hydrology 172:127-146.

Ickes, B. S., J. Vallazza, J. Kalas, and B. Knights. 2005. River floodplain connectivity and lateral fish passage: a literature review. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse, WI June 2005. 25pp.

Kuehner, K. J. 2004. An historical perspective on hydrologic changes in Seven Mile Creek watershed. ASAE paper no 701P0904. Proceedings of the 2004 Self Sustaining Solutions for Streams, Wetlands, Watersheds Conference, St. Paul, MN.

Lane, E. W. 1955. The importance of fluvial morphology in hydraulic engineering. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 81:811-817.

Leach, J., and J. A. Magner. 1992. Wetland drainage impacts within the Minnesota River Basin. Currents 3(2):3-10.

Lenhart, C. F., K. Brooks, D. Henely, and J. A. Magner. 2007. Contributions of organic matter and suspended sediment to turbidity: muddying TMDLs in the Blue Earth River Basin. Hydrological Science and Technology 23(1-4):127-136.

Lenhart, C. F. 2008. The influence of watershed hydrology and stream geomorphology on turbidity, sediment, and nutrients in tributaries of the Blue Earth River, Minnesota, USA. PhD Thesis, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN.

104

Leopold, L. B., G. M. Woman, and J. P. Miller 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. San Francisco, CA. W. H Freeman.

Lorenz, D. L., C. A. Sanocki, and M. J. Kocian. 2009. Techniques for estimating the magnitude and frequency of peak flows on small streams in Minnesota based on data through water year 2005. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report: 2009-5250. 54 pp.

Lusardi, B. A. 1997. Minnesota at a glance: quaternary glacial geology. Minnesota Geological Survey. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 4 pp.

Magner, J. A., G. A. Payne, and L. J. Steffen. 2004 Drainage effects on stream nitrate-n and hydrology in south-central Minnesota (USA). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 91:183-198.

McKeown, B. A. 1984. Fish migration. Croom Helm, London. 225 pp.

Miller, J. D., G. H. Hudak, C. Wittkop, and P. I. McLaughlin. 2011. Archean to Anthropocene: field guides to the geology of mid-continent of North America. Geological Society of America. 544 pp.

MRBDC. Minnesota River Basin Data Center. Minnesota State University. Mankato, Minnesota.

Moore, I. D., C. L. Larson, and D. C. Slack. 1980. Predicting infiltration and micro-relief surface storage for cultivated soils. Water Resources Research Center, University of Minnesota, Graduate School, St. Paul, MN.

MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2012. Pomme de Terre River watershed biotic stressor identification. MPCA, Report wq-iw7-36n, St. Paul, MN.

MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 2018. Minnesota River – Headwaters Monitoring and Assessment Report. MPCA, Report wq-ws3-07020001b, St. Paul, MN.

MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2005. Field guide to the native plant communities of Minnesota: the prairie parkland and tallgrass aspen parklands provinces. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, MNDNR, St. Paul, MN.

MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2008. Calcareous fen fact sheet. MNDNR, St. Paul, MN.

MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2009. Conservation status ranks for native plant community types and subtypes. MNDNR, St. Paul, MN.

MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2015. State wildlife action plan. MNDNR, St. Paul, MN.

MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2017. Minnesota River prairie subsection. MNDNR, St. Paul, MN.

105

MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2017a. Minnesota native plant communities. MNDNR, St. Paul, MN.

MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2017b. Natural heritage information system database. MNDNR, St. Paul, MN. Heritage review conducted January 2017, MNDNR, Region IV, New Ulm, MN.

MNDNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). 2017c. Minnesota prairie conservation plan. MNDNR, St. Paul, MN.

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture. www.nass.usda.gov/.

NLCD (National Land Cover Database) 2011. Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, G. Xian, J. Coulston, N. D. Herold, J. D. Wickham, and K. Megown. 2015. Completion of the 2011 national land cover database for the conterminous United States – representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 81(5):345- 354.

Novotny, E. V., and H. G. Stefan. 2007. Stream flow in Minnesota: indicators of climate change. Journal of Hydrology 334.3:319-333.

Patterson, C. J. 1999. Quaternary Geology – Upper Minnesota River Basin, Minnesota. Minnesota Geologic Survey.

Robinson, J. M., and K. G. Hubbard. 1990. Soil water assessment model for several crops in the high plains. Agronomy Journal 82:1141-1148.

Robinson, M., and D. W. Rycroft. 1999. The impact of drainage on streamflow. in Skaggs, R. W., and J. V. Schilfgaardge, editors. Agricultural Drainage. Agronomy Monographs 38:767-800.

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Elsevier, Catena. 22:169-199

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied river morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Wildland Hydrology Books.

Rosgen, D. L. 1997. A geomorphical approach to restoration of incised rivers. Proceedings of the Conference of Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. 11 pp.

Rosgen, D. L. 2001a. A hierarchical river stability/watershed-based sediment assessment methodology. in Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. Vol. 1. pp. II-97-II- 106. Reno, NV. Subcommittee on Sedimentation.

Rosgen, D. L. 2001c. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. in Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. Vol. 1 pp. II (9) – 11 (15). Reno, NV: Subcommittee on Sedimentation.

Rosgen, D. L. 2012. Applied river morphology: training manual. Wildland Hydrology, Fort Collins, CO. 268 pp.

106

Rosgen, D. L. 2014. River stability field guide. Second Edition. Wildland Hydrology, Fort Collins, CO. 253pp.

Sankarasubramanian, A., R. M. Vogel, and J. F. Limbrunner. 2001. Climate elasticity of streamflow in the United States. Water Resources Research 37(6):1771-1781.

Santucci Jr., V. J., S. R. Gephard, and S. M. Pescitelli. 2005. Effects of multiple low-head dams on fish, macroinvertebrates, habitat, and water quality in the Fox River, Illinois. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:975-992. Schottler, S. P., J Ulrich, P. Belmont, R. Moore, J. Wesley Lauer, D. R. Engstrom, and J. E. Almendinger. Twentieth century agricultural drainage creates more erosive rivers. Hydrological Processes 28(4):1951-1961.

Slawski, T. M., F. M. Veraldi, S. M. Pescitelli, and M. J. Pauers. 2008. Effects of tributary spatial position, urbanization, and multiple low-head dams on warmwater fish community structure in a Midwestern stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1020-1035.

Smith, D. P., and L. Turrini-Smith. 1999. Western Tennessee fluvial geomorphic regional curves. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Water Management Division. Atlanta, GA.

Spaling, H., and B. Smit. 1995. Conceptual model of cumulative environmental effects of agricultural land drainage. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 53:299-308.

Ter Harr, M. J. and E. E. Herricks. 1989. Management and development of aquatic habitat in agricultural drainage systems. University of Illinois, Water Resource Center, Champaign, IL. 145 pp.

Tockner, K., D. Pennetzdorfer, N. Reiner, F. Scheimer, and J. V. Ward. 1999. Hydrological connectivity and the exchange of organic matter and nutrients in a dynamic river floodplain system (Danube, Austria). Freshwater Biology 41(3):521-535.

U of M Extension (University of Minnesota Extension). 2016. Organic matter management. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2011. Cropland data layer. United States Department of Agriculture. National Agriculture Statistics Service.

WHAF (Watershed Health Assessment Framework). 2014. Watershed health assessment framework – interactive web based information system. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Welcomme, R. L. 1979. Fishery management in large rivers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Food and Agriculture Organization Fisheries Technical Paper 194. 60 pp.

Winston, M. R., C. M. Taylor, and J. Pigg. 1991. Upstream extirpation of four minnow species due to damming of a prairie stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:98-105.

107

Wiskow, E., and R. R. van der Ploeg. 2003. Calculation of drain spacings for optimal rainstorm flood control. Journal of Hydrology 272.2:163-174.

Wolman, M. G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse riverbed material. Transactions of the American geophysical Union 35:951-956.

Zytkovicz, K., and S. Murtada. 2013. Reducing localized impacts to river systems through proper geomorphic sizing of on-channel and floodplain openings at road/river intersections. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 56 pp.

108

Appendix I

109

Appendix I. Rare species and native plant communities documented in the Minnesota River Headwaters watershed.

Native plant communities documented in the MN River Headwaters watershed Native Native Plant Community Name Conservation Status Rank Plant Commun ity Code MRp83 Prairie Mixed Cattail Marsh S1 = Critically Imperiled MRp93 Prairie Bulrush-Arrowhead Marsh S1 UPs24a Mesic Oak Savanna (Southern) S1 WPs54a Wet Seepage Prairie (Southern) S1 WPs54c Wet Saline Prairie (Southern) S1 LKi54 Inland Lake Clay/Mud Shore S1, S3, or S4 = Apparently secure LKi32 Inland Lake Sand/Gravel/Cobble Shore S1=critically imperiled OR S2=imperiled FFs59c Elm - Ash - Basswood Terrace Forest S2 = Imperiled OPp93b Calcareous Fen (Southwestern) S2 ROs12a1 Crystalline Bedrock Outcrop (Prairie), Minnesota River S2 Subtype ROs12a2 Crystalline Bedrock Outcrop (Prairie), Sioux Quartzite S2 Subtype UPn23a Mesic Brush-Prairie (Northern) S2 UPs13b Dry Sand - Gravel Prairie (Southern) S2 UPs13d Dry Hill Prairie (Southern) S2 UPs23a Mesic Prairie (Southern) S2 WPs54b Wet Prairie (Southern) S2 WMs92 Southern Basin Wet Meadow/Carr S2 MRn93 Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh S2 or S3 RVx54 Clay/Mud River Shore S2 or S3 WMs83 Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr S2 or S3 FFs68a Silver Maple - (Virginia Creeper) Floodplain Forest S3 = Vulnerable to Extirpation MHs38b Basswood - Bur Oak - (Green Ash) Forest S3 WMs83a Seepage Meadow/Carr S3 DPW_CX Dry Prairie - Woodland Complex - Central Complex community

110

Native plant communities documented in the MN River Headwaters watershed in the State of South Dakota Native Plant Community Name Description Conservation Status Rank North-central Maple - Basswood Acer saccharum - Tilia americana / S1=critically imperiled Forest Ostrya virginiana - Carpinus caroliniana Forest Northern Tallgrass Calcareous Carex prairea-Schoenoplectus S1 Fen pungens-Rhynchospora capillacea Herbaceous Vegetation Northern Mesic Tallgrass Prairie Andropogon gerardii - Hesperostipa S1 spartea - Sporobolus heterolepis Herbaceous Vegetation Prairie Transition Rich Fen Carex lasiocarpa - Calamagrostis spp. - S1=critically imperiled or (Eleocharis rostellata) Herbaceous S2=imperiled Vegetation Lower intermittent stream S2 Lower perennial stream S3=vulnerable to extirpation Upper Perennial Coldwater S3 Stream

111

Rare species documented in the Minnesota River Headwaters Watershed Scientific Name Common Name Species Listing General Habitat Type Class Status Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon Fish SPC; Large rivers and lakes SGCN with moderately clear water Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack Herring Fish END; Large, clear rivers with SGCN sand and gravel substrates Truncilla donaciformis Fawnsfoot Mussel THR; Large rivers and SGCN streams with sand or gravel substrates Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket Mussel THR; Medium to large rivers SGCN with sand and gravel substrates Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe Mussel THR; Medium to large rivers SGCN with sand and gravel substrates Lasmigona costata Fluted Shell Mussel THR; Medium to large rivers SGCN dominated by gravel substrates Ligumia recta Black Sandshell Mussel SPC; Riffles and runs of SGCN medium to large rivers with sand or gravel substrates Pleurobema sintoxia Round Pigtoe Mussel SPC; Medium to large rivers SGCN with sand, gravel, or mud substrates Elliptio dilatata Spike Mussel THR; Small to large rivers; SGCN Reservoirs and lakes Nocomis biguttatus Hornyhead Chub Fish Watch Small rivers and list, streams SGCN Megaceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher Bird Watch Rivers, streams, lakes, list, and ponds with clear SGCN water; Vertical earthen banks are used for nesting Lasmigona compressa Creek Heelsplitter Mussel SPC; Creeks, small rivers, SGCN and the upstream portions of large rivers with sand, fine gravel, or mud substrates

112

Freshwater Mussel Grouping Concentration Area of a variety of mussel species in one suitable habitat area Western Grebe Bird SGCN Fresh water lakes and marshes with extensive areas of Aechmophorus open water bordered occidentalis by emergent

vegetation (breeding) Rallus limicola Virginia Rail Bird Watch Freshwater marshes list, with dense, emergent SGCN vegetation Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern Bird Watch Freshwater or brackish list, marshes with tall, SGCN emergent vegetation Cicindela fulgida fulgida Crimson Saltflat Tiger Insect END Salt Lake in LqP Beetle, fulgida County; exposed subspecies shoreline with Salicornia rubra Colonial Water bird Grouping Large, shallow lakes; Nesting Area of a marsh complex variety of nesting bird species Najas marina Sea naiad Aquatic SPC Alkaline lakes Plant Ruppia cirrhosa Spiral Ditchgrass Terrestrial SPC Alkaline lakes Plant Necturus maculosus Mudpuppy Amphibian SPC; Freshwater lakes, SGCN rivers, streams, and ponds Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American White Bird SPC; Large, shallow bodies Pelican SGCN of water Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested Bird Watch Large lakes and ponds Cormorant list with healthy fish populations Sterna hirundo Common Tern Bird THR,SGC Large lakes with N sparsely vegetated islands for nesting or sand/gravelly beaches

113

isolated from predators

Elatine triandra Three Stamened Aquatic SPC Shorelines of lakes, Waterwort Plant ponds, and slow moving streams Eleocharis coloradoensis Dwarf Spike-rush Vascular SPC Exposed muddy or Plant silty lake shores in the prairie region of western Minnesota Eleocharis quinqueflora Few-flowered Terrestrial SPC Sparsely vegetated Spikerush Plant wet habitats found in graminoid fens, shorelines of ponds and small lakes, and occasionally in wet prairie openings Alisma gramineum Narrow-leaved Aquatic SPC Wetlands and Water Plantain Plant shorelines with shallow water Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night- Bird Watch Wetlands, marshes, heron list, streams, rivers, and SGCN lakes with adjacent vegetation for cover Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern Bird Watch Marshes/wetlands List, SGCN Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern Bird SPC, Marsh complexes SGCN Sagittaria calycina var. Hooded Arrowhead Aquatic THR Marshes; Shorelines of calycina Plant rivers and lakes Cypripedium candidum Small White Lady's- Terrestrial SPC Calcareous seeps; wet slipper Plant prairie Rhynchospora capillacea Hair-like Beak-rush Aquatic THR Calcareous fens; Plant spring fens Carex hallii Hall's Sedge Terrestrial SPC Saline prairies Plant Agalinis auriculata Eared false foxglove Terrestrial END Wet meadows and Plant prairies Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren Bird Watch Summer: Wet list, meadows, prairies, SGCN and marshes; Winter: grassy marshes and dry grasslands Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope Bird THR; Wet prairie or rich fen SGCN habitats; OR Grass or

114

sedge-dominated wetlands Anaxyrus cognatus Great Plains Toad Amphibian SPC; Upland and lowland SGCN prairie Oarisma poweshiek Powesheik Insect END; Fed Wet to Dry native skipperling END, prairie SGCN Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary Insect SPC, Upland and wet SGCN prairie Atrytone arogos iowa Iowa Skipper Insect SPC; Mesic to dry-mesic SGCN prairie Carex annectens Yellow-fruited Sedge Terrestrial SPC Mesic, dry-mesic, and Plant partially wet native meadows and prairies Aflexia rubranura Red-tailed Prairie Insect SPC; Dry to wet-mesic Leafhopper SGCN prairies; Prairie dropseed is its host plant Aristida purpurea var. Red Three-awn Terrestrial SPC Dry to mesic prairies in longiseta Plant western MN Astragalus flexuosus var. Slender Milk-vetch Terrestrial SPC Dry to mesic prairies; flexuosus Plant hill prairies Hesperia ottoe Ottoe Skipper Insect END; Dry-mesic to dry SGCN prairie Solidago mollis Soft Goldenrod Terrestrial SPC Dry prairie; sometimes Plant found in mesic prairie Astragalus missouriensis Missouri Milk-vetch Terrestrial SPC Dry prairie; Hill prairie var. missouriensis Plant Hesperia dacotae Dakota Skipper Insect END; High quality Dry-mesic Federally to dry prairie with THR; little bluestem, prairie SGCN dropseed, & side-oats grama as a main component to the vegetation Botrychium campestre Prairie Moonwort Terrestrial SPC Dry prairies, dry hill Plant prairies, dry bedrock bluff prairies, and sand-gravel prairies Dalea candida var. Western White Terrestrial SPC Dry prairies oligophylla Prairie Clover Plant Xanthisma spinulosum var. Cutleaf Ironplant Terrestrial SPC Dry prairies, often at spinulosum Plant the tops of south- or west-facing slopes or knolls, on upper side slopes, or on crests of ridges

115

Tympanuchus cupido Greater Prairie- Bird SPC; Native prairies and chicken SGCN grasslands with open areas for feeding and loafing Viola nuttallii Yellow Prairie Violet Terrestrial THR Dry, gravel prairie, Plant often on slopes and summits; only found in far SW portion of the state (Traverse, Lac qui Parle, Yellow Medicine counties) Heterodon nasicus Plains Hog-nosed Reptile SPC; Dry prairies; Snake SGCN sometimes found in oak-savannas Onychomys leucogaster Northern Mammal SPC; Dry prairies Grasshopper Mouse SGCN Orobanche ludoviciana var. Louisiana Broomrape Terrestrial THR Dry prairies and ludoviciana Plant savannas (northern and southern types) with loose, sandy, or gravelly soil Microtus ochrogaster Prairie Vole Mammal SPC; Dry prairies and SGCN grasslands (primarily undisturbed) Hesperia leonardus Pawnee Skipper Insect SPC Upland prairie; pawnee savanna Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Bird Watch Native prairie and List, open grasslands SGCN Calcarius ornatus Chestnut-collared Bird END; Native prairie; in MN Longspur SGCN found in Felton Prairie (Clay County) Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit Bird SPC; Native grasslands SGCN adjacent to wetlands Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark Bird Watch Native grasslands and list, prairies; Minimum of 6 SGCN acres to establish territories; Where their range overlaps with W. Meadowlarks they will use wetter, low-lying grasslands Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk Bird Watch Native prairie and list, open grasslands; They SGCN will forage in hay or alfalfa fields

116

Bombus pensylvanicus American Bumble Insect Watch Native prairie, Bee list, grasslands, and SGCN meadows with a diversity of forbs and minimal pesticide use Bombus fervidus Yellow Bumble Bee Insect Watch Native prairie, list, grasslands, and SGCN meadows with a diversity of forbs and minimal pesticide use Lepus townsendii White-tailed Mammal Watch Native prairies and Jackrabbit list, grasslands SGCN Sturnella neglecta Western Bird Watch Open grasslands, Meadowlark list, prairies, meadows, SGCN and some agricultural fields; In winter they forage on bare ground Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird Bird Watch Open grasslands, list, prairies, savannas, and SGCN pastures Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough- Bird Watch Open habitats with winged Swallow list, vertical surfaces SGCN Desmanthus illinoensis Prairie Mimosa Terrestrial SPC Tallgrass prairies; Plant Lakeshores in the historical range of prairie Poliocitellus franklinii Franklin's Ground Mammal Watch Tallgrass prairies and Squirrel list, grasslands; Also uses SGCN field edges and unmowed roadsides Poa arida Bunch Speargrass Terrestrial Watch Prairies Plant List Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's Sparrow Bird END; Grasslands and SGCN uncultivated old fields with stalks for perching Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Bird SPC; Large tracts of open SGCN habitat: native prairie, grasslands, pasture, sedge wetlands, shrub swamps, and open peatlands Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed Grouse Bird Watch Open prairies and list, grasslands SGCN

117

Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl Bird END: Open pastures; SGCN Prairies; Areas w/ American badger and Richardson's ground squirrel Taxidea taxus American Badger Mammal Watch Open prairie and list, grasslands SGCN Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk Bird Watch Prairies, grasslands, list, rock outcrops, open SGCN forests, and recently burned or logged areas Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird END; Upland grasslands-- SGCN both high and low quality Calamospiza melanocorys Lark Bunting Bird Watch Prairies, meadows, list and grasslands Bacopa rotundifolia Water-hyssop Aquatic THR Small rainwater pools Plant on bedrock outcrops in western Minnesota Callitriche heterophylla Larger Water- Aquatic THR Shallow rainwater starwort Plant pools on outcrops of igneous or metamorphic rocks, primarily Sioux quartzite. Cyperus acuminatus Short-pointed Terrestrial THR Edge of shallow rock Umbrella-sedge Plant pools and in the muddy margins of ponds and lakes Eleocharis wolfii Wolf's Spikerush Terrestrial END Margins of bedrock Plant pools and shallow wetlands Heteranthera limosa Mud Plantain Aquatic THR Ephemeral pools on Plant rock outcrops (Sioux quartzite) in SW MN Isoetes melanopoda Prairie Quillwort Semi- END Margins of ephemeral Aquatic pools on rock outcrops Plant (Sioux quartzite) in SW MN Limosella aquatica Mudwort Semi- SPC Margins of rainwater Aquatic pools on bedrock or Plant lowland prairies Marsilea vestita Hairy Waterclover Aquatic END Margins of rainwater Plant pools on bedrock or lowland prairies

118

Buchloe dactyloides Buffalo Grass Terrestrial SPC Southern bedrock Plant outcrops Schedonnardus paniculatus Tumblegrass Terrestrial SPC Southern bedrock Plant outcrops Buellia nigra Lichen Lichen SPC Non-calcareous rock in exposed sunny areas; SW Minnesota Escobaria vivipara Ball Cactus Terrestrial END Granite outcrops or Plant thin soil over granite bedrock in the MN River Valley; Currently only found in Lac qui Parle and Big Stone Counties Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Bird Bald Ares with dense or Eagle scattered trees and and wet areas Golden Eagle Protectio n Act (Federal) , SGCN Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher Bird Watch Forests with list, cottonwoods, willows, SGCN dogwoods, and American plum; Breed: Fencerows, shelterbelts, woody edges Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo Bird Watch Woodlands and list, thickets, including SGCN aspen, poplar, birch, sugar maple, hickory, hawthorn, and willow; Prefer deciduous woodlands over coniferous Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift Bird Watch Roost/Nest: suburban, list, urban, and rural areas SGCN with cavities for nesting like chimneys, hollow trees, or caves; Forage in open habitats Puccinellia nuttalliana Alkali Grass Terrestrial Watch Moist to wet areas Plant list with high pH soils;

119

often colonizes disturbed sites Woodsia oregana ssp. Oregon Woodsia Terrestrial SPC Found on moist, cathcartiana Plant shaded (occasionally exposed) basaltic or, less commonly, dolomite cliffs with rocky soils Proglacial river erosion Geologic (quaternary) Feature Sedimentary unit or Geologic sequence (cretaceous, Feature quaternary) END =State Endangered; THR = State Threatened; SPC = State Special Concern; Watch list = Species the DNR is tracking because they are in suspected decline SGCN= Species of Greatest Conservation Need

120

Rare species documented in the Minnesota River Headwaters Watershed in the State of South Dakota Scientific Name Common Name Species Class SD MN Listin Listin g g Status Statu s Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Bird Watc h List Hyla chrysoscelis Cope's Gray Treefrog Amphibian Watc h List Hyla versicolor Gray Treefrog Amphibian Watc h List Necturus maculosus Mudpuppy Amphibian Watc MNSP h List C, SGCN Rana sylvatica Wood Frog Amphibian Watc h List Aegolius acadicus Northern Saw-whet Owl Bird Watc h List Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated Hummingbird Bird Watc h List Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Bird Watc h List Asio otus Long-eared Owl Bird Watc h List Bucephala albeola Bufflehead Bird Watc h List Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk Bird Watc h List Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk Bird Watc h List Butorides virescens Green-backed Heron Bird Watc h List Casmerodius albus Great Egret Bird Watc h List Catharus fuscescens Veery Bird Watc h List Chlidonias niger Black Tern Bird Watc SGCN h List Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Bird Watc h List Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Bird Watc BEGE h List PA (Fede ral)

121

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Bird Watc SGCN h List Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Bird Watc h List Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-heron Bird Watc SGCN h List Pandion haliaetus Osprey Bird SDTH R Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Bird Watc h List Podiceps grisegena Red-necked Grebe Bird Watc SGCN h List Scolopax minor American Woodcock Bird Watc SGCN h List Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird Bird Watc h List Sterna hirundo Common Tern Bird Watc MNT h List HR Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated Vireo Bird Watc h List Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon Fish Watc MNSP h List C, SGCN Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack Herring Fish Watc MNE h List ND Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback Fish Watc h List Chrosomus eos Northern Redbelly Dace Fish SDTH R Culaea inconstans Brook Stickleback Fish Watc h List Moxostoma erythrurum Golden Redhorse Fish Watc h List Nocomis biguttatus Hornyhead Chub Fish Watc SGCN h List Notropis heterolepis Blacknose Shiner Fish SDTH R Notropis percobromus Carmine Shiner Fish Watc h List Percina maculata Blackside Darter Fish Watc h List Percina phoxocephala Slenderhead Darter Fish Watc h List Phoxinus eos Northern Redbelly Dace Fish Watc h List Umbra limi Central Mudminnow Fish Watc h List

122

Atrytone arogos iowa Iowa Skipper Insect Watc MNSP h List C, SGCN Hesperia dacotae Dakota Skipper Insect FedTH MNE R ND Oarisma powesheik Powesheik Skipperling Insect FedEN MNE D ND Speyeria idalia Regal Fritillary Insect Watc MNSP h List C Toxolasma parvus Lilliput Mussel Watc h List Clethrionomys gapperi Southern Red-backed Vole Mammal Watc h List Lontra canadensis Northern River Otter Mammal SDTH R Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel Mammal Watc h List Spilogale putorius interrupta Plains Spotted Skunk Mammal Watc h List Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk Mammal Watc h List Amblema plicata Threeridge Mussel Watc h List Anodontoides ferussacianus Cylindrical Papershell Mussel Watc h List Fusconaia flava Wabash Pigtoe Mussel Watc h List Lampsilis cardium Plain Pocketbook Mussel Watc h List Lampsilis siliquoidea Fatmucket Mussel Watc h List Lasmigona compressa Creek Heelsplitter Mussel Watc MNSP h List C, SGCN Potamilus alatus Pink Heelsplitter Mussel Watc h List Strophitus undulatus Creeper Mussel Watc h List Apalone spinifera Spiny Softshell Reptile Watc h List Liochlorophis vernalis Smooth Green Snake Reptile Watc h List Storeria occipitomaculata Northern Redbelly Snake Reptile Watc occipitomaculata h List Acorus americanus Sweetflag Vascular Plant Watc h List

123

Anemone quinquefolia Wood Anemone Vascular Plant Watc h List Arabis canadensis Sicklepod Vascular Plant Watc h List Aralia racemosa American Spikenard Vascular Plant Watc h List Asarum canadense Wild-ginger Vascular Plant Watc h List Asclepias lanuginosa Wooly Milkweed Vascular Plant Watc h List Aster junciformis Rush Aster Vascular Plant Watc h List Aster pubentior Flattop Aster Vascular Plant Watc h List Cardamine concatenata Toothwort Vascular Plant Watc h List Caulophyllum thalictroides Blue Cohosh Vascular Plant Watc h List Corallorhiza odontorhiza Autumn Coral-root Vascular Plant Watc h List Cypripedium candidum Small White Lady's-slipper Vascular Plant Watc MNSP h List C Cypripedium parviflorum American Yellow Lady's- Vascular Plant Watc slipper h List Cystopteris bulbifera Bulbil Bladder Fern Vascular Plant Watc h List Eriophorum angustifolium Tall Cottongrass Vascular Plant Watc h List Gentiana puberulenta Downy Gentian Vascular Plant Watc h List Gentianopsis procera Small Fringed Gentian Vascular Plant Watc h List Geranium maculatum Wild Cranesbill Vascular Plant Watc h List Juncus alpinoarticulatus Alpine Rush Vascular Plant Watc h List Liparis loeselii Loesel's Twayblade Vascular Plant Watc h List Lithospermum latifolium American Gromwell Vascular Plant Watc h List Lobelia kalmii Kalm's Lobelia Vascular Plant Watc h List Najas marina Spiny Naiad Vascular Plant Watc MNSP h List C Parnassia glauca Waxy Bog-star Vascular Plant Watc h List

124

Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar Vascular Plant Watc h List Prenanthes alba White Rattlesnake Root Vascular Plant Watc h List Rhynchospora capillacea Slender Beakrush Vascular Plant Watc MNT h List HR Salix candida Sage Willow Vascular Plant Watc h List Spiraea alba Meadowsweet Vascular Plant Watc h List Spiranthes cernua Nodding Ladies' Tresses Vascular Plant Watc h List Spiranthes magnicamporum Great Plains Ladies' Tresses Vascular Plant Watc h List Trillium cernuum Nodding Trillium Vascular Plant Watc h List Trillium flexipes Declining Trillium Vascular Plant Watc h List Utricularia minor Lesser Bladderwort Vascular Plant Watc h List Uvularia grandiflora Large-flowered Bellwort Vascular Plant Watc h List Zizania aquatica Wild Rice Vascular Plant Watc h List END =State Endangered; THR = State Threatened; SPC = State Special Concern; Watch list = Species the DNR is tracking because they are in suspected decline SGCN= Species of Greatest Conservation Need

125

Appendix II

126

Appendix II. Southern Minnesota regional curve by stream type; developed through MNDNR geomorphology surveys. Bankfull cross sectional area was taken at a representative riffle cross section at each site. These are draft curves and subject to change.

127

Appendix III

128

Appendix III. Management implications for individual stream types (Rosgen 1994).

Streambank Stream Sensitivity to Recovery Sediment Erosion Vegetation Influence d Type Disturbance a Potential b Supply c Potential A1 Very Low Excellent Very Low Very Low Negligible A2 Very Low Excellent Very Low Very Low Negligible A3 Very High Very Poor Very High Very High Negligible A4 Extreme Very Poor Very High Very High Negligible A5 Extreme Very Poor Very High Very High Negligible A6 High Poor High High Negligible B1 Very Low Excellent Very Low Very Low Negligible B2 Very Low Excellent Very Low Very Low Negligible B3 Low Excellent Low Low Moderate B4 Moderate Excellent Moderate Low Moderate B5 Moderate Excellent Moderate Moderate Moderate B6 Moderate Excellent Moderate Low Moderate C1 Low Very Good Very Low Low Moderate C2 Low Very Good Low Low Moderate C3 Moderate Good Moderate Moderate Very High C4 Very High Good High Very High Very High C5 Very High Fair Very High Very High Very High C6 Very High Good High High Very High D3 Very High Poor Very High Very High Moderate D4 Very High Poor Very High Very High Moderate D5 Very High Poor Very High Very High Moderate D6 High Poor High High Moderate DA4 Moderate Good Very Low Low Very High DA5 Moderate Good Low Low Very High DA6 Moderate Good Very Low Very Low Very High E3 High Good Low Moderate Very High E4 Very High Good Moderate High Very High E5 Very High Good Moderate High Very High E6 Very High Good Low Moderate Very High F1 Low Fair Low Moderate Low F2 Low Fair Moderate Moderate Low F3 Moderate Poor Very High Very High Moderate F4 Extreme Poor Very High Very High Moderate F5 Very High Poor Very High Very High Moderate F6 Very High Fair High Very High Moderate G1 Low Good Low Low Low G2 Moderate Fair Moderate Moderate Low G3 Very High Poor Very High Very High High G4 Extreme Very Poor Very High Very High High G5 Extreme Very Poor Very High Very High High G6 Very High Poor High High High

129

Appendix IV

130

Appendix IV. MNDNR Stream Habitat Program Resources Sheets.

131

132

133

134