community

DNR fisheries employee teaching kids about brook trout in Spring Brook (CRWP)

The watershed of Spring Brook would look much different today if not for involvement from the communities of Northfield and Dundas. In the past decade, the people of the Cannon Valley have made the protection of Spring Brook a priority. Fisherman or non-fisherman, many groups of people have found a special interest in this stream, and have taken on the challenge of protecting it. The following provides a brief history outlining some of the key decisions that have been made regarding the management of Spring Brook.

Involvement of Spring Brook Landowners
One key element of every conservation effort is the involvement and approval of the landowners who have emotional and economical attachments to the land in question. The landowners of Spring Brook have had an integral role in the decision making processes, which has helped move the conservation effort along. Landowners who joined a special Spring Brook committee made their opinions heard by writing and signing a letter of approval addressing their interest in protecting Spring Brook (click here to view the letter). The recommendations of the Spring Brook committee and the CRWP led to action being taken to improve the health of the watershed. Here are some examples of improvements made, and issues dealt with by the committee and other supporting groups.

Streambank Erosion
Due to the sandy soils of the watershed and occasional high flows, the banks of Spring Brook have a tendency to erode. The Spring Brook Committee and the CRWP sought out erosion sites or erosion prone sites along the stream and installed bank stabilization improvements. After receiving aid from the DNR through a DNR Conservation Partners grant, a badly eroded streambank carved out from strong storms was repaired. This is one example of how the community organizations have worked successfully with state agencies such as the DNR to achieve the common goal of conservation.

An example of bank stabilization project on Spring Brook (photo: Jeff Jasperson)

Trout Stream Designation
The portion of Spring Brook in sections two and three of Bridgewater Township became a designated trout stream in 1980. The portion of the stream in section four of the township was designated in 1992 (Spring Brook Committee Minutes). When the DNR lists a stream as a "designated trout stream," the taking of fish is prohibited except during the open trout season (the saturday nearest April 15 to Sept. 30 in Rice County, MN DNR). Designated trout streams prohibit the use of more than one line at a time. Live minnows cannot be taken or used for bait in designated trout streams. These regulations are part of MN Rules sec. 6262.04. In addition, a DNR trout stamp ($8.50) is required to fish designated trout streams for anglers between 16 and 64 years of age. The funds raised through the selling of trout stamps go into an account that can be used only for trout stream and lake habitat development, restoration, maintenance, identifying easements, or for rearing and stocking trout and salmon (MN DNR). Without this operation, improvements to southeastern Minnesota's trout resources would not be possible.

DNR Stream Easements
Gaining access to Spring Brook can be difficult because most of the stream runs through private land. To give anglers and hikers more access to streams, the DNR purchases "easements" along trout streams from willing landowners. The landowners get a onetime payment and retain ownership of the property and all rights, except that to prevent fishing. These easements are permanent, meaning that the easement remains if ownership of the land changes.

In the 1970's, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) purchased permanent easements along a 3/4 mile stretch of Spring Brook on both sides of Decker Avenue. The easements are 66 feet wide on each side of the stream. According to the DNR, the purpose of the easements is to "permit the development of fish habitat, including tree planting, fencing, erosion control, installation of instream habitat improvement structures, posting of signs, and other such improvements as are deemed necessary." Each year, the DNR spends roughly $200,000 to $400,000 buying approximately five to ten new easements. Almost all of the easements are located in southeastern Minnesota, which contains most of the state's trout streams that run through private land.

Photo: Signs marking the start and end of DNR easements near Decker Avenue (Jeff Jasperson)

Repair of Decker Avenue Bridge
In the summer of 1998, a torrential downpour raised the water level of Spring Brook to the point where it took out the Decker Avenue bridge. The cooperation that followed exemplifies the conservation ethic of the Spring Brook Committee, the city of Dundas, and CRWP. Instead of simply replacing the bridge at lowest cost, the committee, CRWP, and the city government talked about possible replacements that have a minimal impact on the stream and the trout habitat.

Photo: Picture on left shows washed out culvert (CRWP). Picture on right shows new trout-friendly bridge (Jeff Jasperson)

In the interest of the resident brook trout of the stream, it was decided that standard culverts would be avoided to minimize the trout habitat lost along the banks. Building off of recommendations from the DNR, it was decided that a standard bridge would replace the old culvert-style bridge, meaning that the stream bottom was kept natural for trout spawning activity. This example of community action displays the conservation priorities of the groups overseeing developments in the Spring Brook watershed.

Planning for the Future
Once the committee increased its organization and decided on what conservation goals to focus on, they turned to the future and envisioned what it would take for the long-term preservation of Spring Brook. The committee and CRWP wrote up a document called "A Description of the Spring Brook Watershed in 2050" that outlined the measures they felt needed to be taken for a healthy Spring Brook in the distant future. The document had two directions, representing two possible conservation efforts that could be taken. One path was called the "development option," which tailored its conservation strategies towards a Northfield area that grew significantly in population.
This strategy focused on the establishment of a city park along the stream, housing clusters built at a safe distance from riparian habitat, and roads constructed with the stream in mind. The other path, "the no development option," envisioned conservation strategies for city that did not grow. This plan focused on low-impact agriculture and grazing.

A Description of the Spring Brook Watershed in 2050