Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5,000 <br /> <br />CHRISTOPHER M. KAVANAUGH 9 <br /> <br />,-""', <br />I " <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br />/ <br /> <br />4,000 <br /> <br />"ii) <br />E 3,000 <br />& <br />li <br />&. <br />cJ <br /><II <br />is 2,000 <br /> <br />1,000 <br /> <br />- <br />".. <br />,/ <br />---_/ <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />Fig. 2. Instantaneous discharge (cfs) in <br />the Minnesota River in August 1989 <br />and August 1990. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />463 436 383 352 327 283 243 216 193 172 146 62 <br />River Kilometer <br />1989 <br />1990 <br /> <br />Physical and Chemical Monitoring <br /> <br />The objectives of physical and chemical moni- <br />toring are to (1) identify sources and loadings of <br />nutrients, suspended sediment, biochemical oxy- <br />gen demand, and organic carbon in the river; (2) <br />calculate the movement of sediment and associ- <br />ated pollutants between points on the river; and <br />(3) identify areas of bank erosion and associated <br />deposition of sediment to determine the magni- <br />tude and impact ofloadings of sediment within the <br />river channel versus from upland areas. <br />Physical and chemical characteristics were <br />monitored at 11 mainstem sites, 10 tributary <br />sites, and 3 reservoir sites (Table 2). Monitoring <br />began in 1989 and continued through 1992. <br />Loadings and concentrations of nutrients and <br />sediments were much higher than expected consid- <br />ering the size and gradient of the mainstem. Con- <br />centrations of nutrients, specifically nitrates, in- <br />creased in a downstream progression. <br />Concentration of cWorophyll a, attributable mainly <br />to algae, in the river exceeded normal levels and <br />also increased in a downstream progression. Coli- <br />form bacteria, of human and animal origin, also <br />exceeded normal levels. <br />Although preliminary at this point, the hypothe- <br />sis is that dramatic alteration of drainage within <br />the basin from ditching and tiling activities prob- <br />ably increased concentrations and total loading of <br /> <br />nutrients in the river. The Blue Earth River (rkm <br />180) seems to be the most significant contributor of <br />nutrients to the Minnesota River and is currently <br />being studied intensively to identify sources of nu- <br />trient loading. <br /> <br />Land Use Subcommittee <br /> <br />More than 75% of the land use within the Min. <br />nesota River basin is agricultural (row crops--com, <br />soybeans, sugar beets). The number of anirnRI feed. <br />lots is decreasing; however, the size of individual <br />feedlots, particularly hogs and poultry, is increas- <br />ing within the basin. Open ditch and tile drainage <br />systems are found on more than one-third of the <br />cultivated land, contributing soil and nutrients to <br />the river (King 1985). <br />The Minnesota River basin can be separated into <br />1,208 minor watersheds that make up the surface <br />water flow to the river system. Of these, 1,113 are <br />in Minnesota, 18 in Iowa, and 77 in South Dakota. <br />Any activity within a watershed has the poten- <br />tial to affect water quality and biotic integrity <br />within the watershed, and what happens in minor <br />watersheds may ultimately have an effect in the <br />mainstem. The land use subcommittee is studying <br />existing land use characteristics within the basin <br />on the four levels described below. <br />