Habitat Improvement in the Driftless

[ontheflymn]

This is a conversation that certainly will raise some hackles as there are many ways to do stream improvements, and, invariably, feelings are going to be hurt over the projects.

I agree with iatrouter that the whole erosion conversation is messy. My point was simply that bank protection should be more of a priority. TU's approach has been to either hard armor the bejesus out of stretches of water, or to put woody debris in (which I am not a favor). Itch, this is the same tactic used on CSB, and, yes, it is all gone. It wasn't a good project, IMO, to begin with.

Soft armor does require more long-term maintenance, but when done correctly, the stuff is awesome. I think the SA approach is not on high on those who do stream design because it does require maintenance vs. hard armoring a section of water and moving on to the next spot.

Debate away...

 

[diamond rush]

When I'm fishing, I want to feel close to nature. Habitat improvement kills that for me. I'd rather fish a natural place with fewer and smaller trout. I know that I'm the minority, but every single stream doesn't have to look the same.

 

[ontheflymn]

Per my response to another post about trees in the river: That's essentially what woody debris is. They also will use them to create plunge pools, which I have no issue with.

The best HI I've seen done in the Midwest is actually in Iowa. It's soft armor, it's sloped, and it's been reinforced with native prairie grass. Not one rock was placed on the project, and all wood, trees, debris, etc. have been cleared from the stream, up to several hundred yards from the stream.

The reason for this is the debris (trees) clog up the stream and limit movement and actually create more opportunity for erosion, etc. by keeping the stream free-flowing, there is no issue with debris pile ups, plus when it floods (note the when, not if), the stream rises up and flows freely over the bank side prairie grass. Once the waters recede, the grass holds the banks in place and pops back up.

It's a simple sounding process that took quite a few years of trial and error to master. The landowner actually started with sloping and woody debris and found it had a negative effect on the banks, so it was all removed in favor of prairie grass.

DR: I agree that I don't like the cookie cutter effect (Trout Run comes to mind as the gold course/cookie cutter model...but the hard armor, rock stabilization has held, even in the highest of flooding).

 

[ia_trouter]

Glad you started this thread. I haven't been on near as many streams as most of you and I'll reserve the right to make statements that may not be correct on a widespread basis. That's fine as I am more than willing to learn. Please don't take my challenges as "aggressive". Just trying to stir up spirited conversation.

I'll start with Diamonds' comment. All natural sounds very nice. I wish it would work everywhere but it simply doesn't. At my end of the Driftless many streams run through cattle pastures or nearby corn/bean fields. There is too much soft and disturbed ground nearby. Without bank improvements and cooperation from farmers it's a complete train wreck. It's their land and I am glad the DNR has talked many of them into some cooperation. If they ignore these streams then half the IA streams go away as viable trout water. It's clearly better in WI and MN, or at least I think that is the case based on my few visits.

When I first fly fished there was a 20 year absence from when my Dad took me spin fishing on these streams as a boy. I absolutely did not recognize them. I would estimate a 20ft wide stream had moved 50ft in places. It's natural but it doesn't work too well overall. So silted in I stepped in some areas and truly wondered if I was going to die in the woods. Another popular stream I fish moves 10ft or more on an annual basis. There are areas on that stream that are heavily rocked (naturally) and seem to be fairly stable, but they are extremely shallow.

Back to the first stream, I don't know if this is soft improvement or not, but here is what the DNR did and so far so good. They straightened a couple curves, graded the stream bank 50+ ft and planted prairie grass and some juvenile hardwoods. Farmers moved their field plantings back and I see no cattle now. All is well so far. Rock work was minimal as far as I can remember. That is near the public access. It is holding so far and this is where the bait guys hang out. This is upstream from some more natural stretches (and a biiitch to fish). I'll visit them soon and see if it helped down stream.

I'll comment on the trout park hard improvements in a later post. Not that I am into trout parks but much effort was expended there and it's a good experimental site in progress.

Wood improvements are very temporary. It doesn't mater how cheap they are as the next flood will move them and potentially cause a jam downstream.

More later , this post is getting windy.

Itch, when we get a chance let's discuss some Viroqua area streams and Waterloo in Iowa because we have some common experience there.

 

[guest64]

This is a conversation that certainly will raise some hackles as there are many ways to do stream improvements, and, invariably, feelings are going to be hurt over the projects.

I agree with iatrouter that the whole erosion conversation is messy. My point was simply that bank protection should be more of a priority. TU's approach has been to either hard armor the bejesus out of stretches of water, or to put woody debris in (which I am not a favor). Itch, this is the same tactic used on CSB, and, yes, it is all gone. It wasn't a good project, IMO, to begin with.

Soft armor does require more long-term maintenance, but when done correctly, the stuff is awesome. I think the SA approach is not on high on those who do stream design because it does require maintenance vs. hard armoring a section of water and moving on to the next spot.

Debate away...

I tend to agree with you. One other point I would add is that much of the HI in SE MN is done on "easements". This generally limits the improvement area to a 66' corridor. In many cases, this is through livestock pasture or cultivated fields. The limitations of easements and the long-term maintenance have an impact on HI approaches.

---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------

When I'm fishing, I want to feel close to nature. Habitat improvement kills that for me. I'd rather fish a natural place with fewer and smaller trout. I know that I'm the minority, but every single stream doesn't have to look the same.

Many of those trees that we may percieve as "natural" are, in fact, not that natural. The driftless area was originally much more prairie and less wooded than we might think.

Furthermore, many of the trees along the streams are invasives, such as box elders. These are generally pretty shallow rooted, don't hold the soil and eventually end up in the stream and trapping silt.

There have been studies done, including on the soft armor stream that onthe flymn mentioned, that show that taking out trees improves water temp and quality on driftless streams. This is somewhat counter intuitive, but fewer trees and more stable banks means less silt in the streams and that dark silt absorbs a lot of sunlight / heat and warms the stream. Also more sun light reaching the stream helps weed growth and insects.

Lastly, for all of those that have an interest in this topic, I'd suggest you get involved with the DNR and TU folks that are driving projects in your area. Lots of this is done by hard working volunteers. They aren't necessarily going to read this forum and call you, but they are interested in feedback and opinions if you show up for a work day, planning meeting, public forum, etc.

 

[diamond rush]

Lastly, for all of those that have an interest in this topic, I'd suggest you get involved with the DNR and TU folks that are driving projects in your area. Lots of this is done by hard working volunteers. They aren't necessarily going to read this forum and call you, but they are interested in feedback and opinions if you show up for a work day, planning meeting, public forum, etc.

I wish I could! I live in NC and only get to visit my folks back home once a year.

I think the biggest problem for the streams comes from the fact that they drain from vast tracts of farm land. That magnifies silt run-off in the feeder cricks and ditches. The smaller streams that drain almost exclusively from park land seem to do just fine. I don't know how to solve that issue while still having every acre on top of the bluffs being farmed.

 

[guest64]

I think the biggest problem for the streams comes from the fact that they drain from vast tracts of farm land. That magnifies silt run-off in the feeder cricks and ditches. The smaller streams that drain almost exclusively from park land seem to do just fine. I don't know how to solve that issue while still having every acre on top of the bluffs being farmed.

I agree with you you that all of the agriculture, and especially row crops, in the driftless is the biggest challenge. It's not only silt, but also ag chemicals that are getting into our streams.

We had a significant fish kill on popular stream here in SE MN a couple years ago. The kill happened shortly after a heavy rain with run-off and high water. The DNR / MPCA report identified a "stew" of chemicals -- manure, fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides -- in the stream, but wasn't able to identify a specific chemical or source as the cause.

I was talking with one of our DNR guys recently. He's originally from northern MI and he was contrasting the streams and challenges up there with those here. Of course, northern MI is mostly forest. He noted the diversity and consistency of hatches in MI was much better than here. He also noted that stream run-off / flooding was much less frequent and significant than in the dirftless and that streams were much more stable.

But HI work, especially when it's limited to a narrow easement corridor, isn't going to fix the fix ag problems. That's a bigger issue that demands other solutions.

 

[ia_trouter]

The smaller streams that drain almost exclusively from park land seem to do just fine. I don't know how to solve that issue while still having every acre on top of the bluffs being farmed.

They do seem to do better but my local stream in a park still gets beat up when there is a 5" rain. That may be unavoidable and "natural". I think the park would have to be very large to offer a true buffer.

And I believe John is correct about tall grass prairies being truly natural, rather than trees. I don't know how far north that applies.

Rock improvements do tend to withstand a flood, but I don't think it is a financially practical solution. You can harden a dozen spots on a mile of stream. The water will find a soft spot in between them within a year or two. I definitely know examples of that locally. Most of Iowa was tall grass prairie when it was settled.

 

[guest64]

Rock improvements do tend to withstand a flood, but I don't think it is a financially practical solution. You can harden a dozen spots on a mile of stream. The water will find a soft spot in between them within a year or two. I definitely know examples of that locally. Most of Iowa was tall grass prairie when it was settled.

Another aspect of HI, whether hard or soft armor, is proper bank sloping. Typically "high" eroding banks are lowered and sloped back at 4 or 5 to 1 ratio. Then when the water rises it spreads out and dissipates its energy across a large area (ideally covered with deep rooted prairie grass). Without proper bank sloping, the high water energy is concentrated on the banks which can get damaged eventually even if rock armored. The HI guys refer to the bank sloping as "reconnecting the flood plain".

Yes, rock and earth moving with heavy equipment for HI is not cheap. However, I think HI is one of those things where doing it well to begin with, even if the initial cost is higher, is less expensive in the long run.

 

[tedwin183]

I'll preface this by saying I have my PhD in entomology, and my profession is research, so I have some "skin in the game." All these HI projects really boil down to is effect size per dollar spent. If scouring a streams banks of any woody plants and reinforcing every bend with tons of field stone makes the greatest improvement to aquatic invertebrate habitat and/or trout spawning habitat, then it is a worthy endeavor from a conservation-only standpoint. And especially if these improvements reduce the reliance on hatchery fish to bolster populations, then it is especially worthwhile.

There are far too many stressors on these Driftless streams to be worried too much about whether it looks "natural" or not, in my opinion. It doesn't matter if I'm standing over a visible lunker structure or staring at submerged logs, a no-see-um bite still feels plenty "out in nature" to me. I'm fine fishing a "golf course" stream and know that the fish in it are healthy and breeding.

 

[ia_trouter]

Another aspect of HI, whether hard or soft armor, is proper bank sloping. Typically "high" eroding banks are lowered and sloped back at 4 or 5 to 1 ratio. Then when the water rises it spreads out and dissipates its energy across a large area (ideally covered with deep rooted prairie grass). Without proper bank sloping, the high water energy is concentrated on the banks which can get damaged eventually even if rock armored. The HI guys refer to the bank sloping as "reconnecting the flood plain".

Yes, rock and earth moving with heavy equipment for HI is not cheap. However, I think HI is one of those things where doing it well to begin with, even if the initial cost is higher, is less expensive in the long run.

Thanks for the response John. I do hope we can maintain this conversation for awhile. It's very important. I have a lot of thoughts, and questions. I'm no expert, but I have seen some projects that appear to work a lot better than others. My southern Driftless perspective may vary from you guys further north. At this time I am inclined to believe.....

-a different strategy may be needed for wild streams and the trout park streams. I am a realist. In Iowa the stocker put and take bait guys are buying 98% of the trout stamps. Provide them a park like experience with a mowed path if that is what they want. They will fish where the access is easy. Leave wild streams as natural as possible. If they are consistently ripped by flood events then some intervention is fine, but don't make a trout park. We have plenty of those already.

Regarding type of improvements, I'd like to see more info on the prairie grass, soft slope/flood plain strategy. The two I have seen seem to be working.
Rocks where it makes sense, wood improvements are next to worthless, and sometimes harmful in the end IMO.

 

[diamond rush]

-a different strategy may be needed for wild streams and the trout park streams. I am a realist. In Iowa the stocker put and take bait guys are buying 98% of the trout stamps. Provide them a park like experience with a mowed path if that is what they want. They will fish where the access is easy. Leave wild streams as natural as possible. If they are consistently ripped by flood events then some intervention is fine, but don't make a trout park. We have plenty of those already.

I completely agree. The DNR should offer a diverse selection of management styles. Streams like the Pine and Trout Run are very healthy trout parks. Streams like the Duschee make sense for put-and-take fisheries.

As long as there is natural reproduction, I don't think every stream needs to be optimized for carrying capacity. Part of fishing for me is exploring. With heavy HI, every pool and run looks the same.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:09 AM ----------

I'll preface this by saying I have my PhD in entomology, and my profession is research, so I have some "skin in the game." All these HI projects really boil down to is effect size per dollar spent. If scouring a streams banks of any woody plants and reinforcing every bend with tons of field stone makes the greatest improvement to aquatic invertebrate habitat and/or trout spawning habitat, then it is a worthy endeavor from a conservation-only standpoint.

It may be a worthy endeavor from the trout-conservation aspect, but at the expense of the whole ecology.

I know what we see today isn't what was here before the white man and the brown trout. But instead of constantly second-guessing nature, let's let it do its job with as little human intervention as possible. I prefer HI that seeks to minimize human impact (buffer zones, riparian areas, wetlands) rather than other types (armor, artificial pools, removing plants).

Just my 2 cents. My apologies if I come across as adversarial. My mother grew up on the Pine and having seen what that stream has been through in the past 30 years, I have some strong opinions. It's a much better trout stream, but my grandfather wouldn't recognize it.

 

[itchmesir]

@diamond rush... Pine is probably a prime example of a stream that has needed the work. Now upstream of the bridge I've never seen the before pictures but I'd fished the section below the bridge that just had HI done about 7 years ago and must say that section definitely needed it. 6'+ high walls... mud and silt everywhere. Clearly it looks nothing like it did before after the HI. And it's a lot of hard armor with plenty of sloping now. It fishes much better than it did before and once the grass grows in it looks very natural from afar. There's some sections that make me go "wtf?" But overall that job was done well. Imho that stream fishes well and it's probably due to all the work that's been put into it.

Now back to my other stream that Steve and I fished the other day... and it makes me wonder... did they do it as a preventative measure... was the landowners hope of less severe flooding more in play? Because this stream has an amazing brook trout population. It's not like the numbers plummeted. Just about any time I'd fish it would be a banner day. Sure it had some high walling and erosion but the trout population was healthy. So why the HI?

 

[Rip Tide]

I don't want to hijack your very interesting discussion, but it reminded me of some stream improvements done on the local river by some fishermen some years back.

6,000 to 8,000 years ago to be more precise. During the middle archaic period

These may not be natural, but the casual observer wouldn't realize that unless it was pointed out to them.
And while they were originally built as weirs, they still function as habit improvements.
Even after all this time.

 

[diamond rush]

@diamond rush... Pine is probably a prime example of a stream that has needed the work. Now upstream of the bridge I've never seen the before pictures but I'd fished the section below the bridge that just had HI done about 7 years ago and must say that section definitely needed it. 6'+ high walls... mud and silt everywhere. Clearly it looks nothing like it did before after the HI. And it's a lot of hard armor with plenty of sloping now. It fishes much better than it did before and once the grass grows in it looks very natural from afar. There's some sections that make me go "wtf?" But overall that job was done well. Imho that stream fishes well and it's probably due to all the work that's been put into it.

Totally agree about the Pine. 30 years ago, the entire stream looked like the portion they did HI on the past couple years. But it runs directly off corn fields, and still has cows in the stream. It also has easy access and is well-known. It's the perfect example of the type of stream to make into a trout park. No issues there. But don't make every stream look like that.

I'll try to dig up some pics of my brother and I fishing off the old School Section Rd bridge. That's where I caught my first trout (with worms on a ShopKo fishing pole).

 

[ia_trouter]

I'm not at all sure this is a widespread problem in the Driftless but we have a local stream that eroded completely through the limestone stream bed. (incised channel?). It has sections of very high banks so it was a muddy mess and candidate for restoration. DNR did a mixed approach on this one. 1000ft of trout park (already had 500 ft forever. Left the other mile of stream natural and VERY tough to fish during summer the way some of us here like it.

I am looking forward to exploring more of the famous Iowa creeks this summer. They took a real beating in 2016 and I am curious to see how they naturally recover. Hopefully the 7" rain events stay away a few years. Most every HI project was thoroughly tested last year.

 

[ontheflymn]

Republicans target water quality law for repeal | Minnesota | postbulletin.com

A lingering part of this conversation on habitat improvement is agriculture, which in the part of the world I live, is not consistent with how they treat all waterways.

The disappointing part for me in the whole buffer strip discussion is the fact that the bill was created to simply to protect waterways. Yet, now it becomes a money issue. Pay the farmers some money for the hassle and continue with the longstanding tradition of already subsidizing their profession.

A situation like this makes it hard to look at the farming class as stewards of the land .

 

[Sage & Abel]

I really like the work that is done in Wisconsin. I started fishing Wisconsin about 15 years ago, after I moved from PA to IL. What I really hated about the areas I fished in PA was that PA spent, in my opinion, most of their money on stocking and not nearly enough on habitat improvement. When I started fishing the Driftless, I was amazed at how that was completely different. We can debate PA and their processes in another thread.

I've seen improvements in the WI that are so old that they actually look like they were part of the stream forever - of course they're not. But I wouldn't consider it landscaped.



I also like the way that many of the streams and rivers I have fished have a nice balance of improved as well as unimproved, such as this shot here on an "improved stream"

Unimproved Section:


Improved Section:


One of my favorite streams in the Driftless:

Unimproved Section:


Improved Section:



To me, I don't consider either of these examples as trout golf courses, but rather improvements along a singular river in different sections that provide protection to the habitat that have persevered over a long period of time and foster sustaining trout populations.

Same stream - unimproved.



There are certainly many areas along many different streams like the picture below that are not my favorite. But to me, the benefit I've seen of these is that they address a particular section of a river to provide protection in a particular section that needed it for one reason or another:



This stream has a lot of improvements in many different sections - I enjoy fishing the unimproved sections such as the section below. I'm making a non scientific assumption that the improved sections help this section as well in the long run:



I have seen some rivers and creeks in the Driftless that really are troutscaped. There is a section on the Blue that comes to mind... I'm glad they're there and glad the hard scape provides habitat to protect the fish. But I've seen enough positives in my years there that I welcome the work for long term protection of the fisheries.

 

[ontheflymn]

More pics from a recent HI project that incorporated woody debris instead of rock for bank stabilization.

Yesterday, I happened to run into the contractor who provided what little rock the project employed. He was planting trees and took a few minutes to talk about the project. The short of it is that admittedly, he's no engineer, but having been around these projects for thirty years, he was disappointed that the plan called for such much woody debris and not rock. That stretch has seen two major floods in the past year, tearing our some of the woody debris and eroding banks in other areas. Some of this could have been prevented by utilizing more rock for bank stabilization, but the project opted for woody debris instead. His disappointment also lied in the fact that they had to go back in and repair damaged areas that could have been shored up prior.

It's hard to support your local trout restoration efforts if the trend is to continue to implement woody debris in favor of hard armoring the banks in place. For those of you who live in the Driftless, you can see first hand the damage that flooding does to our streams, especially those vulnerable areas that have no cover. And these floods aren't the old "hundred year flood." They seem to be happening routinely and woody debris is no match for their destruction.