Developing Strategies to Reduce Ravine, Bluff and Streambank Erosion in the Minnesota River Basin
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Developing strategies to reduce ravine, bluff and streambank erosion in the Minnesota River Basin Christian F. Lenhart1, David Smith, John Nieber, and Ann Lewandowski 1Biosystems Engineering (BBE Department) University of Minnesota The Problem Many rivers impaired for turbidity in MN River basin . Majority of sediment exported from basin is channel /near channel sources. How do we practically reduce channel erosion? Downcutting of River . Watershed actions vs. in- Warren stream actions . Where to prioritize . Simply by size, sediment delivery . Cost issues Sediment sources (channels) Ravines Stream banks 16-Aug-12 Stream flow increase and channel change Increased flow; esp. below bankfull Channelization & cutoffs Channel response: widening by 50- 100% since ‘38 Lenhart C, Peterson H, and Nieber. J. 2011. Increased Streamflow in Agricultural Watersheds of the Midwest: Implications for Management. Watershed Science Bulletin, April 2011 issue. Sediment sources by region Minnesota main channel LeSueur (steep bluffs) Elm Creek (glacial till plain) MN River stream bank 1000 m erosion Chatfield Road monitoring site 67 m -> 91 m Channel Widening- lower MN River 1938-2009 1938 channel 2008 channel Increase in channel slope due to cut-off 62 m -> 129 m 58 m -> 100 m Sediment loading – bluffs and deposition Bluff loading ….Deposited in valley Gran et al. 2011 MPCA-Scott Matteson Where to start? watershed vs. channel actions: Watershed Channels • Addressing causes • High sed delivery ratio • However, hydrologic • Reduce loss of storage on large scale farmland very challenging • Ecological restoration • Lag time problem • Aesthetics/recreation • Expensive • Often addresses symptoms MPCA prioritization Alternative MN River strategy Long-term Short-term . Increase hydrologic . Focus on riparian storage in uplands with corridor where economic & policy shift opportunities lie to reduce flow . Focus on smaller . Farm Bill watersheds where WQ . Economic incentives improvements can be . make stream projects seen more affordable BMPs targeting by region Geomorphic region Actions • Glacial till plains / • Wetlands, flow prairie potholes reduction; • Bluff country • Streambanks and • Lower MN river Targeted bluffs, >5,000 t/yr and/or threatening infrastructure • Targeted streambanks, >3m/year lateral migration Watershed practices : wetlands restoration • Hydrologic storage • Flood peak reduction • Excellent N removal • Some P removal • Waterfowl habitat Bluff and bank strategies/policies Bluffs Streambanks Manage the valley, not Plan ahead with road just streams agencies Plan ahead; don’t wait in Lower Minnesota: for disaster – Brown • Divert before reaching Cnty example valley wall • >5,000 tons/yr • Restore sinuosity • Veg management ? Prioritization - A practical approach - Benefit - Cost - Restorability Mary Presnail, M.S. work Restorability issues: Cost /benefit of channel stabilization Cost Data Data Locations 57 projects (34 projects full data) . $125/linear foot . $10,000 fixed cost . Median project cost $25,000 . Several urban projects >$1 million . Cost-prohibitive at river basin scale Cost research Yelllow Medicine, What drives costs up? Minnesota. • In cities, infrastructure $73,000; 2400 ft. • Rock (rip rap and vanes) • Relocating channel • Consulting/design fees • lack of local government expertise • Historic structures Improving the cost/benefit ratio Bringing costs down Valuing ecological services • Use of local materials . Sediment, nutrient loss • Wood over rock . Aesthetics • Proximity to . Prevent lost farmland roads/access . Recreation/Access to • Leveraging local $$$ river on reduced slopes • Planning ahead Use of low-cost, local wood instead of rock Wood in place of rock Wood harvested on-site Targeting vegetative management practices Buffers: grass vs. trees Watershed location + bank height: < 2 meters 2-5 meters >5 meters Restorability issues: landowner perspectives • Landowners’ issues and priorities Landowner likelihood of adopting BMPs 4.0 • Favor actions they can implement by 3.5 themselves 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Crop prices limit upland enrolment in conservation Economic drivers Consequences Corn price per bushel • Land pulled from CRP 6.00 • Loss of upland 5.00 hydrologic 4.00 storage/increased streamflow 3.00 • More demand for 2.00 riparian corridor and 1.00 edge of field BMPs 0.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Tile flow interception before streams Controlled drainage Treatment wetlands Gary Sands, University of MN extension See Lamberton and Elm Creek sites Conclusions and Future Work Strategy Remaining needs • Long term– try to . Assessment of benefits reduce flow with land- of stream projects use policy change . IBI benefits • Short-term – small . Sediment delivery rates watershed goals; largely unknown targeted . Need to quantify eco channels/bluffs benefits better .