Laserfiche WebLink
<br />rocks, Cretaceous shale and sandstone, and Pleis- <br />tocene glacial deposits for 286 k:m in a southeast- <br />erly direction. At Mankato, Minnesota (rkm 178), <br />the river makes an abrupt turn to the northeast <br />to the confluence with the Mississippi River. Here, <br />the channel is cut through lower Paleozoic sand- <br />stone, shale, dolomite and limestone, and overly- <br />ing glacial deposits. <br />A unique feature of the watershed is the Coteau <br />des Prairie in the southwest sector of the basin. <br />The Coteau is a plateau that rests on the remains <br />of an ancient mountain range. This plateau is <br />150-250 m higher than the otherwise flat to gently <br />rolling prairie. <br />The original vegetation in the western two- <br />thirds of the basin was tallgrass prairie and prairie <br />wetlands. The eastern third of the basin was cov- <br />ered with hardwood forests~ Floodplains of the <br />Minnesota River and the lower reaches of the <br />tributaries were forested with cottonwood, willow, <br />and silver maple. <br /> <br />Existing Conditions <br /> <br />Today, the Minnesota River and its watershed <br />are in some ways similar to the area in presettle- <br />ment days and in other ways very different. The <br />lower 384 k:m of the river are free from major <br />modifications and are free-flowing. Atrkm 408 and <br />413 there were small waterfalls that had been <br />dammed for hydroelectric generation. The natural <br />dams created by sediment deposition at Big Stone, <br />Marsh, and Lac Qui Parle lakes were further devel- <br />oped with larger structures. <br />Land use in the basin has changed to predomi- <br />nately agricultural and urban use. Wetlands have <br />been drained by installing drain tiles and ditches, <br />and streams have been channelized and dammed. <br />Today, the Minnesota River has a serious nega- <br />tive effect on water quality in the Mississippi <br />River. . State and federal water quality standards <br />for turbidity, unionized ammonia, and dissolved <br />oxygen are frequently violated in the lower Minne- <br />sota River. These violations are probably due in <br />large part to nonpoint pollution ~urces. <br /> <br />Restoration Planning <br /> <br />Comprehensive planning for the restoration of <br />the river began in 1989 with the initiation of the <br />Minnesota River Assessment Program (MRAP). <br />Before 1989, data collection, and resource man- <br /> <br />CHRISTOPHER M. KAVANAUGH 7 <br /> <br />agement activities and responsibilities were frag- <br />mented and often contradictory. The mission of <br />the MRAP is to assess water quality, water quan- <br />tity, sediment chemistry, aquatic communities, <br />and current land uses in the Minnesota River <br />basin. One objective of the project is to develop <br />specific water quality goals and then to implement <br />programs and Best Management Practices <br />(BMP's) throughout the basin to achieve those <br />goals. <br />The MRAP is a cooperative project funded pri- <br />marily by the Minnesota State Legislature <br />through the Legislative Commission on Minne- <br />sota Resources. Additional funding has come from <br />the following cooperators: U.S. Geological Survey, <br />U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Soil <br />Conservation Service, Minnesota Pollution Con- <br />trol Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural <br />Resources, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil <br />Resources, Minnesota Extension Service, <br />Mankato State University, Gustavus Adolphus <br />College, St. Olaf College, University of Minnesota, <br />University of Minnesota-Duluth Natural Re- <br />sources Research Institute, Soil and Water Con- <br />servation Districts, Metropolitan Waste Control <br />Commission, Metropolitan Council, and several <br />joint powers, boards, and other local units of gov- <br />ernment (water management organizations, wa- <br />tershed districts). <br />The structural organization of the MRAP con- <br />sists of a steering committee that coordinates and <br />directs the activities of four subcommittees. Each <br />of the four subcommittees is further divided into <br />specific components. <br />The MRAP is in its fourth and final year of <br />assessment. Results presented in this paper are <br />preliminary, as data are still being collected and <br />analyzed. The final project report will include a <br />synthesis of all components presented in a Geo- <br />graphical Information System (GIS) database with <br />analysis and recommendations. <br />Restoration efforts will be coordinated by the <br />Minnesota River Implementation Program <br />(MRIP). The Minnesota River Implementation <br />Program is composed of a Citizens Advisory Com.- <br />mittee and a Technical Advisory Committee; each <br />is made up of a diverse membership, representing <br />the entire basin and a multitude of interests. <br />This report is a compilation of progress reports <br />submitted by principal investigators of each of the <br />study components (Table 1). <br />