Free Flowing Stream Conservation Thread

[Al Agnew]

Okay, we all love the Ozark streams, and we spend lots of time talking about them and about the fishing on them. But we all know they face various threats. So let's talk about those threats, cuss and discuss, agree and disagree on what are the most serious, and what to do about them.

What got me thinking about this was the question on the MDC smallmouth survey that asked what you thought the top three threats facing Ozark streams were. So maybe we can start there...

What are the top three problems facing YOUR Ozark stream(s)?

For what it's worth, I put:

1. Gravel dredging

2. Spotted bass invasion in Meramec and Gasconade systems

3. Poor land use practices, especially clearing of riparian corridors.

There are a bunch of others, which I'm sure other people will mention.

[Stoneroller]

i think gravel dredging tends to be kind of localized, as in it doesn't really happen on a widescale, stream long basis, as least from what i've seen, but you see a lot more water than I do.

Riparian corridors I think would be #1 on my list. people just don't get that clearing to the edge of the stream, or even clearing to within say 20 feet of the bank(i think the minimum is actually more like 50 feet) not only increases erosion but removes valuable wildlife corridors and cover.

Second I feel would be, poor water use, specifically livestock access to the rivers and streams, especially the smaller streams, along with agricultural runoff.

littering is always a top 5 issue. Very rarely am I on any waterway when I don't see a cigarette butt or beer can, or my personal favorite, styrofoam worm container. double whammy.

atv use on trails within the watershed of certain high risk streams would have to be in my top 5 too. major erosion/siltation concerns associated with this issue.

apparently from the articles i've been seeing lately, old and substandard septic systems throughout missouri are not helping issues either.

[Guest]

deleted

[flytyer57]

Great thread idea.

1. Access--It is really unfortunate that I can't float some sections of navigable waterways, even reaches with MDC accesses both upstream and down. It makes sections of creek prone to bad land use and gravel dredging because it can go unnoticed for several years.

2. Low length limits for Smallmouth--It takes a LONG time to grow a 17 inch smallmouth, let alone a 19 or 20 inch fish. I think that some streams can handle a 12 inch minimum, but habitats are so varied throughout the state that each watershed or stream segment should be managed for it's potential. Slot limits, higher length limits, catch and keep, and catch and release areas should be studied to determine the best approach for each waterway.

I gotta agree whole heartedly with these two responses.

Third would be pollution. Directly as in litter or inderectly as in both point source and non-source point.

[Al Agnew]

One thing about gravel dredging...I'm not talking just about digging gravel out of streams for commercial purposes. A lot of it on the smaller creeks is what I call "recreational bulldozing" because having fun digging around in the creek seems to be the only real rationale for doing it. People think they are straightening the creek and piling up gravel along the sides so that flood water will flow past more quickly, apparently. But all it does is cause more problems downstream.

When I was working with the gravel mining task force years ago, there was one landowner on the upper Bourbeuse who told us that he had an eroding bank, so he piled up gravel against that bank and thus moved the channel away from it. I asked him how that worked out for him. He said it worked pretty good for a while, but he had to keep doing it, and that was why he was against any restrictions on gravel "mining" in the streams.

So picture it...chances are he cleared all the trees to begin with. Then the river started eating away his bank. Pretty soon, that bank is on the outside of a bend, since the river has eaten it back away from healthier banks upstream and down, while on the inside a gravel bar is piling up. So he bulldozes all that gravel over to the eroding bank. But it's still an outside bend. So a couple floods happen, and the greater force of the water on the outside of the bend moves all that gravel he piled up there on downstream. So he has to do it again.

It shows a total lack of understanding of river dynamics. And, he's wrecking whatever habitat he had in that area, over and over again, while the gravel he's moving around is washing downstream to fill in the pools below.

You see it all the time on small creeks. And mucking around in the stream bed of a gravelly stream is doing nothing but destabilizing the gravel, loosening it, and allowing high water to move it much more easily. Wonder why some of the larger creeks and rivers are filling in with gravel? Look to the tributaries. That's the thing about digging around in stream beds. It not only affects the immediate area, the effects can be seen far downstream (and often far upstream as well).

[Stoneroller]

access, I have to agree is an issue. many times it's not because there isn't a place for access, but simply that MDC doesn't own any land where a good access point could exist. no elk/more access maybe?

not really feeling the lower length limits though. I like catching big fish and unless there is an over population of fish, thereby stunting growth rates, i'd just assume see them get big. limits are something that require close monitoring of the population and enforcement.

i would like to add, collection of native 'minnow' species for bait. especially during breeding times. same thing would go for native crayfish species. more and diverse forage usually equates to larger and healthier predator population. i'd like to see MDC prohibit the collection of stream minnows or crayfish entirely.

[jdmidwest]

If the riparian corridor is managed correctly and use of the stream by cattle is eliminated, then the gravel problems should go away. Managed gravel mining will clean out large gravel bars that have formed because of the above and the stream will return to normal, in a perfect world. But getting landowners to see that is a whole different story.

I checked for more restrictive creel limits and lengths.

[smallmouthjoe]

Education: This is the biggest thing that needs to be accomplished by conservation organizations. The MDC and other agencies, public and private, are trying to get out there and educate the landowners about the effects of riparian clearing at different fishing events (ie the stream trailer). There are cost share programs for restoration of riparian corridors and also cost share programs for fixing eroding banks. It does seem like the MDC only informs landowners of the cost sharing programs if the landowner comes to them with a problem. I wish they had the resources to be a little more proactive and find these landowners that are having erosion problems and go to them to see if they want help. Also available are cost shares for pumping septic tanks which would reduce the amount of nutrient going into our local streams.

Gravel mining is another thing I would like to see more attention brought to. I always try to bring it up when working the stream trailer. Many people don't realize how fluid the gravel on the stream bottom is. When a large amount of gravel is taken away from a stream it increases the velocity of the stream forcing gravel from up stream down stream. Over time it can lead to what I've heard described as "a large slug" of loose gravel moving its way down stream choking it.

Channelization is a big concern of mine. I don't see it much in the southern part of Missouri but I do see it up north and to me it turns a stream into a sterile drainage ditch.

Dams: I've heard that because of the water supply issues that the western part of the state is having, that there will be a new reservoir some where out west. Supposedly, there is a list of potential sites for this new reservoir that include the spring river and shoal creek. Joplin and Carthage were negotiating a deal with Oklahoma for water rights to Grand but that fell through.

There are many other concerns i have Including: Access rights, Cattle run-off, littering, thermal pollution, water intakes at coal plants, mercury being shot out of the smoke stack of coal plants, etc.

[Al Agnew]

If the riparian corridor is managed correctly and use of the stream by cattle is eliminated, then the gravel problems should go away. Managed gravel mining will clean out large gravel bars that have formed because of the above and the stream will return to normal, in a perfect world. But getting landowners to see that is a whole different story.

I checked for more restrictive creel limits and lengths.

A little more on gravel mining...when I was on the task force, most of us were willing to allow the type of gravel mining called "bar skimming", which is taking gravel off the top of the gravel bars, down to a foot or so above normal water level, as long as a buffer zone was left. We argued a lot about how wide the buffer zone should be, the most prevalent being 15-20 feet on the upstream edge of the gravel bar, 5-10 feet along the rest of it. But in reality we knew that even this was probably not a good idea, it was just the best compromise we could come up with.

In a simple world, it would seem that taking gravel off a big gravel bar, without digging around in the stream bed, would mean that much less gravel in the river and would be a good thing. But a river is a system, and what you do in one part of the system, even a small part, can have major consequences. It really depends upon the stretch of river. A stretch with a lot of big, loose, barren gravel bars with mostly small gravel will be susceptible to all that gravel moving around with every flood. In that case, bar skimming is probably not very harmful, and you could argue it would have some benefit IF there wasn't always new gravel coming into the system. But a lot of Ozark stream sections have large gravel deposits, but the bars are pretty stable. If you see a bar that has quite a bit of larger rocks in it, and the surface isn't very loose, and there are a lot of plants and small trees growing on it to where there are open gravel areas interspersed with areas of plant cover, that's a stable bar, and that gravel will stay there during most floods. Eventually, it will be so stable that it will no longer be a gravel bar...if it's left alone.

But start digging in it, removing some of the vegetation and breaking through that veneer of "solid" gravel on top, and now it's a very unstable bar that will start moving with the next flood. In that case, bar skimming will only destabilize it. I wrote this not too long ago, but there is a big bar on lower Huzzah Creek that was like this until somebody started bar skimming it. There were a couple of big, deep pools in the next half mile that were excellent fishing...but after they started digging around on that bar, those pools filled in with the next couple of floods. The bar, and the pools, had been stable ever since I could remember, until they started digging, and then it only took one flood to alter everything. Yet, the average person probably would never make the connection between the digging and the filling of a pool a half mile downstream.

The more unstable a river channel is, the more gravel moves. And if you have a lot of unstable tributaries and a lot of land clearing in the watershed, you have a constant supply of new gravel to move into and through the system.

ATVs were mentioned above. It may not be a major part of the problem, but ATV use in and around the streams is another source of gravel, and of instability. Poorly designed (or accidental) ATV trails are always eroding gravel into the river and tribs. And perhaps just as bad or worse, every time you drive an ATV or any kind of vehicle across a gravel bar or across a riffle area, you are loosening gravel and making it more unstable. That ATV track across an otherwise undisturbed gravel bar is a weak point, and flood waters attack weak points. Once a flood finds a weak point and starts digging it out, the instability expands.

I've been on these rivers for 50 years, and I'm a fairly observant person. Ever notice how, from year to year, there is very little change in MOST of the spots on a river, especially most of the riffles? Sure, big floods make big changes in some areas, but it's always been amazing to me that even after a big flood, most of the river stays about the same. The reason for that is that a river "wants" to reach an equilibrium and stay there. There will always be changes, but for the most part, a healthy river with a healthy watershed is going to be pretty stable. It's only when people start making changes in the river or in the watershed that things get really unstable. Those physical changes can be forest clearing somewhere many miles away from the river. Paving over enough area that run-off gets more violent and more extreme. Clearing some trees along just a small piece of bank in the river or its tributaries. Running an ATV across a formerly stable gravel bar, or across a riffle, loosening the gravel. Even the wakes from boats attacking the small area along the margin of a bank. And while probably very little of those activities make major changes in and of themselves, they all add up.

We should value watersheds and riparian corridors like we value our houses and lawns.

[Outside Bend]

It's sort of big-tent, but I've always felt land use changes and the associated problems are probably the biggest threat to Ozark smallmouth fisheries.

Livestock access to streams, gravel mining, and manipulation of the riparian corridor are probably the most visible ones. Dysfunctional septic systems, hormones and other chemicals which remain even after wastewater treatment, reducing or eliminating protections on intermittent and headwater streams, springs, seeps, and feeder creeks, increased use of our underground aquifers (effecting stream base flow), and other effects of having more people living and working in the Ozarks I see as pretty important issues, and personally feel they'll have more long-term impact on the health of our fisheries than the management of the fish themselves.