Here the big meanders of the Red River of the North through Crookston are evident. The water moves slower in a sinuous channel than it does in a straightened channel because it has to travel farther.

Karen Terry, University of Minnesota Extension Service, 888-241-0843

In the last issue, rivers were described as ecosystems that can be artificially broken down into five categories to make them easier to study. Those categories are hydrology, biology, water quality, geomorphology, and connectivity. The first three were discussed in the last issue. This article will focus on geomorphology, and connectivity of rivers will be covered in the next issue. As a reminder: there is a lot of overlap and interdependence among these five categories so any change to the river system typically results in impacts that fall into more than one category.

Geomorphology refers to the shape of the river. This is determined by several factors such as the amount of water flowing through it, the steepness of the river valley, and soil type. Think about the streams on Minnesota’s North Shore: they tend to be fairly straight, with few meanders, because the slope is steep and they are dominated by boulders and bedrock. They are more like mountain streams than prairie streams. Prairie streams, like those in southern and western Minnesota, tend to be low gradient (not steep), and the soils are loamy and fine. These factors create streams that are curvy, or that meander back and forth across the landscape, and often have broad floodplains. In addition to meandering across the floodplain, rivers also move up and down along their beds, forming deep places (pools) and shallow places (riffles).

This aerial photo shows a sinuous stream in northwestern Minnesota. Stable streams have predictable patterns, including size and spacing of meanders.

Although healthy rivers have predictable shapes, they do change over time. River bends, and the pools and riffles associated with them, tend to move downstream, and oxbows are sometimes created when a river abandons a bend by cutting a new channel. These changes, when not impacted by humans, happen very slowly and the river’s overall geomorphology remains the same.

Many of Minnesota’s streams have been altered by humans. Practices such as channelizing, which is removing the meanders and creating a straight ditch, and dredging, which is removing the shallow areas to make the river uniformly deep, disrupt the river’s ecosystem. These altered systems have less diverse habitat, which negatively affects the health of the plant and animal communities that live there, and the altered systems are unstable because the river’s physical properties continuously work to return to the stable geomorphology that existed prior to the disturbance. This is often visible as raw, eroding banks as the river eats away at the straightened edges to re-establish its meanders. This exacerbated erosion contributes huge amounts of sediment to the river. Channelization, because it steepens the slope of the river, also impacts the hydrology of the system by speeding up the water.

In the next issue, connectivity, the last of the five components of healthy rivers will be discussed.

Mary Blickenderfer, University of Minnesota Extension Service, 888-241-0885

The four erosion control treatments installed in 2005 to stabilize the sandy slopes of County and DNR islands on Rush Lake (Crow Wing County) continued to hold the slopes in place one year later. In spite of the recent drought, many of the native flowers that were planted and most of the grasses that were seeded in 2005 survived and spread over the slope— as well as a few uninvited weeds. The drought took a toll on the upland bare-root trees and shrubs with less than 50% survival after one year. However, live-stake and bare-root shrubs installed in the wet fringe area had greater survival. The remaining eroding slopes on the islands were seeded with a mixture of native flower and grass seed (no flower plants were installed this year) and covered with one coco blanket. Brush bundle terraces were added on long slopes.

A new hydro-mulch product and technique were tested this year. Instead of mixing the seed with the mulch slurry prior to spraying (done in the 2005 application), the seed was hand-broadcast on the slope prior to hydro-mulching for more even distribution and greater germination. However, little plant life was evident at the end of the season, presumably due to the drought and not the new product and technique (see Table 1 for details).

The toe treatments installed in 2005 were not affected by ice heave during the winter or spring ice-out. There was no visible erosion behind the live fascine, coco log, rock gabion, and rock rip rap treatments and only minor erosion between the gaps in the log rafts and stump revetments. The live fascines failed to root in spite of numerous roots visible in 2005. This is likely due to roots not having access to an appropriate rooting medium — the roots were unable to penetrate the geotextile to reach the soil behind it or sediment and organics did not adequately fill in the voids within the fascine. Other products and techniques involving fascines will be tested in 2007. The aquatic emergent plants installed in 2005 were well established and spreading in areas where they were protected by wave breaks or behind the toe treatments, but had washed away in unprotected areas.

* Includes contractor installation cost. Other trials were installed by volunteers and cost includes only materials.

In this 2006 photo, the river bulrush that were planted as apre-vegetated mat in 2005 are well-established behind thebrush bundle wave break and are spreading toward the lake.

Two new shoreland toe protection products were added to the research project this year. These include Shore Sox and flax logs. Both were installed along the eroding shoreline in late spring. The flax logs are similar to coco logs, but with flax stalks replacing the coconut fiber filling and a photo-degradable poly netting replacing the jute netting surrounding the coco logs. These are anchored along the shore with wooden stakes. The Shore Sox are made of corn husk bales placed in photo-degradable woven bags. The bags are held together with ropes strung through sleeves at the top and bottom of the bags. They are anchored to the shore with wooden stakes. Once the bales are saturated, plants can be installed in them. Only licensed and trained dealers of this product are allowed to install Shore Sox. These products have not been tested for long-term, site specific erosion control (i.e., Does the shoreline remain stable when fiber filling and cover have decomposed in three to five years?) See Table 2 for a comparison of all the toe treatments used in the project.

* Includes contractor installation cost. Other trials were installed by volunteers and cost includes only materials.

Barb Liukkonen, Water Resources Center and Minnesota Sea Grant, 612-625-9256

Forty-seven volunteers in Minnesota are collecting water samples from their favorite lake or stream this summer to test for the presence of E. coli bacteria. They split the sample they collect and send half to a certified lab for analysis and take the rest home where they analyze it using two simple test kits. Volunteers are monitoring 24 sites on 15 different lakes and rivers in 11 Minnesota counties. So far they’ve detected a few sites that exceed the state standard for E. coli bacteria on a regular basis and a few sites that have been occasionally high. Many volunteers have been pleased to find that the sites they are monitoring have very low bacteria counts and do not present a human health risk for recreational use.

Their work is part of a six-state regional project assessing the accuracy and reliability of those test kits when used by volunteers. The three-year study, funded through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) is evaluating six different test kits, including the Coliscan® EasyGel and 3M Petrifilm™products that Minnesota volunteers are using. The Water Resources Center is the fiscal agent and Barb Liukkonen is coordinating the project. Five other states are in the project: IA, WI, MI, IN, and OH.

The research project team received the 2006 national Gold Team Award from the Association of Natural Resource Extension Professionals at the association’s annual conference in Park City, Utah, in May.

Eleanor Burkett presented a poster Sustaining Our Shores: New Research, Demonstration and Education Through University of Minnesota Extension Service Shoreland Education Program, Erosion Control for Property Owners at the Association of Natural Resource Extension Professionals conference held May 14 - 17, 2006, in Park City, Utah.

Barb Liukkonen presented two papers at the same conference: Does Arsenic in Drinking Water Affect Dairy Products? and Preventing the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species from Water Gardening.

Also at the conference, Barb and Eleanor received the national Gold Award for Educational Materials for the posters, tip cards, and plant sticks we produced to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic species from water gardening.

Doug Jensen, aquatic invasive species program coordinator for Minnesota Sea Grant, gave a presentation, Habitattitude Baseline Survey Shows that Aquarists and Water Gardeners Can Be The Problem and Solution to Aquatic Invasive Species Spread, at the 14th International Aquatic Invasive Species Conference, in Key Biscayne, Florida, during May.

Doug also gave a presentation, Habitattitude: A Program Update, at the Great Lakes Sea Grant Network Conference in Alpena, MI, June 13, and gave a joint presentation with Marie Zhuikov, Minnesota Sea Grant communications coordinator, and Marco Yzer, assistant professor with the University of Minnesota, Integrating Audience Perspectives into Sea Grant Programming at that conference.

Karen Terry, University of Minnesota Extension Service, Regional Extension Educator, 218-998-3927

Mussels are fascinating but can be hard to know because they spend most of their lives buried in the bottom of Minnesota’s lakes and streams. When people do happen to find them, they often call them clams, but mussels and clams are not the same. They are both mollusks, but the biggest difference is that mussels are capable of making pearls and clams are not. Minnesota’s clam species are very small, but our mussel species can be as big as dinner plates.

This giant floater is just one of Minnesota’s many native mussel species. Photo credit: MN DNR

Minnesota’s mussels have interesting names like spectaclecase, pistolgrip, heelsplitter, and wartyback. There are nearly 50 species of native mussels in Minnesota, but many of these are listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. One of the most imperiled groups of living things nationwide, mussels depend on clean water and diverse fish communities to survive. A healthy population of mussels is a good indicator of a healthy lake or river.

Mussels do not have eyes, legs, or fins. Throughout their lives, they move by floating downstream, hitching a ride on fish, or by anchoring with their ‘foot’ and pulling themselves along slowly. To reproduce, males release sperm into the water and the females draw it in to fertilize their eggs, which they brood internally. The females later release the tiny larvae, called glochidia, into the water. The glochidia then attach to a fish for the next stage of their lives. Many mussels require a certain species of fish to attach to, and if that mussel does not find that species of fish, then the glochidia will likely die. Glochidia that do latch onto the right fish attach to the fish’s gills, fins, or scales and live as parasites until they are old enough to drop off, settle to the bottom, and begin life on their own. Mussels live from 10 to 30 years.

This DNR mussel researcher is sorting mussels by species. After they are identified, they will be measured and recorded to create a list of mussel species in the water body. Photo credit: MN DNR

Native people used mussels for food, jewelry, and utensils. More recently, shells were used to make buttons for clothing, and they are still used in some places to make cultured pearls. Because mussels reproduce slowly, over-harvesting decimated many populations. Today it is illegal to harvest mussels in Minnesota.

To learn more about mussels, look for empty shells in the shallow water along shore. You can study the shell as long as you return it to the place you found it, but it is illegal to pick up live mussels without a permit. More information can be found in the small spiral-bound book, “Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Minnesota,” available from Minnesota’s Bookstore, 651- 297-3000 or 800-657-3757.

Karen Terry, University of Minnesota Extension Service, Regional Extension Educator, 218-998-3927

Like other ecosystems such as forests, prairies, and oceans, Minnesota’s rivers and streams are complex ecosystems made up of interdependent components. The health and stability of riverine ecosystems depend on these components functioning in a balanced way. In recent times, scientists have categorized rivers into five major components: hydrology, biology, water quality, geomorphology, and connectivity. However, it is important to note that these categories are somewhat artificial because there is a lot of overlap between them. This article will look at the first three components. The other two components will be covered in the next issue.

Healthy rivers are a balance of elements that can be grouped into five components: hydrology, biology, water quality, geomorphology, and connectivity.

Hydrology relates to the flow of water through a watershed. Water is often discussed in terms of quantity, but the timing of the water moving through the watershed is important, too. An area may receive an average of 15 inches of precipitation in a year, but if that falls in a single week, versus at intervals throughout the year, it makes a significant difference within the ecosystem. Human actions can greatly alter the flow of water. In agricultural settings, for example, wetlands and small streams have been drained, ditched, straightened, and tiled in efforts to move the water off the surface of the land faster. In developed areas, such as along lakeshores and in cities, water moves off of impervious surfaces very quickly, and enters nearby waters. In these ways and others, humans have changed the timing of the water moving through watersheds, resulting in negative impacts on rivers.

The biology component encompasses all living things in rivers, both plants and animals. Diverse communities of plants and animals cannot exist without diverse habitat types within the ecosystem. Healthy rivers are typically made up of combinations of deep, slow pools and shallow, fast riffles, and such rivers are better able to support all the life stages of a species. A change in the population of a plant or animal is often the first indication that the balance of the five components has been disturbed. A decline in water quality, for instance, may be detected as a drop in numbers of gamefish in a river.

The water quality component relates to the chemical and physical properties of river water. These properties are not the same for all rivers, and they can vary within certain amounts on each river. Temperature, for example, varies considerably from cold-water streams to warm-water streams. Even within a warm-water stream the temperature can vary some without causing the system to become unstable. In addition to temperature, water quality is also determined by levels of sediment, oxygen, nutrients, alkalinity and pH, and contaminants. Water quality is closely linked to hydrology and biology.

Watch this space in the next issue of From Shore to Shore, for the second article in this series that will describe what relationship geomorphology and connectivity have with healthy rivers.

Renee Pardello, Minnesota Extension Service, 612-624-6479

This attractive 3-ring binder is the second edition of the popular Lake Home and Cabin Kit. A table of contents and tabbed sections guides you to answers for common lake home and cabin questions. The kit contains over 50 cards with information on septic systems, trees, shoreland, water quality, and wildlife. No lake home or cabin owner should be without the University of Minnesota Extension Service’s Lake Home and Cabin Kit. Sturdy cards are provided to keep pertinent personal information about the owner’s property and other important contacts. The 3-ring binder is an attractive addition to any cabin owner’s bookcase. The price is $29.99 and it can be ordered online through the University of Minnesota Extension services web site.

Jeff Gunderson, Minnesota Sea Grant Program, 218-726-8715

Musky fishermen on Lake Vermillion pine for the “weed” beds that used to hold muskies, now gone because of hoards of plant-eating rusty crayfish. Some fishermen sing the praises of bass fishing along the edges of dense aquatic plant beds. Others recognize that many lakes’ fish populations have changed as aquatic plants have disappeared due to lakeshore development. What is the relationship between aquatic plants and fish populations? Sounds simple enough to answer until you sit down to consider the issue’s scope. There are so many species of plants and fish and variations in how they interact that it is an oversimplification to state that all fish depend on healthy native aquatic plant populations. Some fish species need aquatic plants sometime during their lives while others don’t.

I’ve spent most of my career focused on Great Lakes fishes. Many of those species don’t ever see a rooted aquatic plant and they do just fine, such as lake whitefish, lake trout, coaster brook trout, lake herring, deepwater chubs and sculpins. Other fish like largemouth bass thrive with more aquatic vegetation and have increased dramatically in some areas of the Great Lakes. Take Lake Erie for example – prior to the 1990s, poor water clarity in that very productive lake limited plant growth. But when the invasive zebra mussels and quagga mussels populations grew in the lake, they filtered the water and improved clarity to the point that aquatic plants began growing in areas that hadn’t seen them in close to 100 years. As a result, largemouth bass and sunfish increased in numbers and size in those areas where the plants began growing again.

What does this have to do with inland Minnesota? It reminds us that different fish species have different habitat requirements and that loss of critical habitat will result in loss of fish. As with Lake Erie, we may not know what we’re missing because the habitat has been altered for so long that we’ve forgotten how it was. Or a gradual decline in aquatic plant communities results in an almost imperceptible change in the fish community that is difficult to detect during a single generation. Changes may only become clear when you look through old photo albums at your cabin and realize your grandfather caught more of a particular fish species than you do.

One thing is sure – many fish species and other animals depend on healthy native aquatic plant communities for food, habitat, cover, and spawning or nesting sites. What we don’t know is how our individual actions add up to impact a lake. How many individual shoreland property owners (or rusty crayfish for that matter) each removing the aquatic plants on their shoreline does it take to change the lake’s habitat enough to impact its fish?

Without careful consideration about how our individual choices add up to impact lakes, pretty soon we are going to sound like our grandfathers talking about the good old days. New fishery management tools and regulations and the catch and release practices of many anglers, combined with taking care of fish habitat could help ensure that the good old days of fishing in Minnesota are still ahead of us.

Barb Liukkonen,Water Resources Center and Minnesota Sea Grant Program, 612-625-9256

[The following is adapted from the Minnesota Environmental Action Network, May 30, 2006 Legislative Update.]

The Minnesota legislature took a step forward in cleaning up and protecting our lakes, rivers, and streams, but has failed to create a legacy yet. This year, the legislature allocated almost $25 million in one-time money to begin cleanup programs. Environmental and conservation groups have been working with business, agricultural, and local government representatives to secure the needed $80 to $100 million a year in ongoing funding, which the legislature failed to address this year.

Legislators made environmental and conservation projects a significant component of this year’s capital investment bill, which borrows money for long-term investments. The 2006 Protect Our Water package supported projects that invested in clean water, protected lands, healthy communities, and transportation alternatives. Protect Our Water projects received over $230 million in the final bill, which included $14 million for Wildlife Management Areas acquisition (WMAs), $7 million for forest conservation easements, and $60 million for the Northstar Corridor. The $230 million represents a significant commitment to Minnesota’s Great Outdoors in this $1 billion bonding bill.

The greatest accomplishment this year to protect Minnesota’s waters is the state’s new mercury emissions reduction act, which was signed into law in early May. The law requires the state’s largest coal-burning power plants to reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent between 2009 and 2014. Currently, coal-burning power plants account for approximately half of Minnesota’s mercury emissions. This law will reduce mercury emissions approximately 1,200 pounds a year – roughly one-third of Minnesota’s 2005 emissions – and is one of the strongest laws in the country.