Rush Creek, MN

The latest conservation news, issues, or concerns in our backyard, city, state, or country.
S.T.Fanatic
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:42 pm

Re: Rush Creek, MN

Post by S.T.Fanatic »

Just wondering if fast growing annuals like oats and or rye are used to give some ground cover while the root system of the slower growing grasses take hold? I know how important rock is with holding disturbed soils and that native grasses take a good 2-3 years to reach adequate root levels to hold soils back.
“What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and by cautious experimentation to prove how it works. What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one's own land?” Aldo Leopold

brntrout
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Rush Creek, MN

Post by brntrout »

STF,

Oats, winter wheat and rye have been used as cover crops that allow time for slower growing grasses to get established.. Of course, if it floods right away after a project is completed there will be erosion problems that will need to be addressed immediately. Now days, most of the time projects will receive "minor" bank slopping repairs and reseeding at least once or twice before a project gets finished. The one thing most people involved with stream work seem to forget is bank slopping will change soil compaction and make it easier for high water events to wash out banks before seeding can get fully established. So in reality because of soil compaction changes it takes at least 2 to 3 years no matter what type of seed is used.

User avatar
TFO5wt
Posts: 792
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:33 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Rush Creek, MN

Post by TFO5wt »

I checked out this project for the first time Friday afternoon. Eroded banks, gravel bars created by wash outs, and weeds and invasives where ground cover was planted. My favorite was a tree stump anchored into a bank in a stretch of the stream that's uniformly the same depth with no other structure around. Perhaps there were more root wads that got washed out, but the bridge pilings are the best trout structure in that reach. None of this is new info but it's the first time I saw it. I liked this stream much better before the heavy machinery tore it apart. I'm sure I'll have the same reaction when I take a look at SB WW and Wisel projects.
Simply put, people fish because it's fun

brntrout
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Rush Creek, MN

Post by brntrout »

TFO5wt wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:34 am
I liked this stream much better before the heavy machinery tore it apart. I'm sure I'll have the same reaction when I take a look at SB WW and Wisel projects.
The SBWW is a worse project than Rush Creek which is a terrible project and a huge waste of our money. On the SBWW project they actually destroyed a number of great pool habitat areas and turned them into shallow water areas that won't support 1/10th the number of trout that used be in those areas pre project.

AND yes, if you go and check out the SBWW MNTU/DNR project you should be very p-ssed off at the dreadful work completed there! The day we inspected the project we took lot of photos to use once it gets wiped out by the first normal high water event. AND, make no mistake it will wash out and be tore to shreds first decent flood which the SBWW gets a lot of! :x

brntrout
Posts: 3186
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:26 am

Re: Rush Creek, MN

Post by brntrout »

BTW its unlikely MNTU will repair the 2018 Rush Creek project again as it would be the third time or is it the fourth time, i'm losing track how many times its been repaired? Anyway, it would be hard to justify asking LSOHC for MORE MONEY to repair that project again as it would show a high level of incompetency towards those involved designing and supervising these types of projects, which are beginning to be numerous! :(

Post Reply