Minnesota F-29-R(P)-17 Area 340 Study 3 April 2001 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Section of Fisheries Stream Survey Report Fairhaven Creek 2000 By Eric R. Altena Fisheries Management Specialist Montrose Area Fisheries Office Funded under Federal Aid by the Sport Fish Restoration Act, F-29-R(P)-17
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES... 3 LIST OF FIGURES... 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 5 STUDY AREA... 6 METHODS... 6 RESULTS... 7 DISCUSSION... 10 Management implications... 12 REFERENCES... 24 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... 24 2
LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Fairhaven Creek (M-71-5) watershed estimated land use...13 2. Fairhaven Creek reach profiles recorded with GPS during fall 2000...13 3. Results of Rosgen classification sites for Fairhaven Creek fall 2000...13 4. Fairhaven Creek Temperature monitor mean, minimum, and maximum hourly values ( 0 C) recorded from three locations between June and October 2000... 14 5. Number of measured fish per 10-mm group from electrofishing at all stations, Fairhaven Creek, October 2000 and October 1994... 14 6. Electrofishing station information and catch rates for brook trout from sampling Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000.... 15 7. Length at capture (mm), standard errors and survival estimates for brook trout sampled from Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000... 15 8. Population estimates derived for all brook trout and for brook trout over 200 mm from three stations on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000... 15 3
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Location of Fairhaven Creek, Minnesota.... 16 2. Estimated 1991 land use within the Fairhaven Creek (M-71-5) major watershed... 17 3. Location of temperature monitors and Rosgen classification sites on Fairhaven Creek during 2000.. 18 4. Reach location and number on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000... 19 5. Rock dam located at the top of reach 1 in Fairhaven Creek, during fall 2000... 20 6. Road crossing (Erosion site) within reach 3 on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000... 20 7. Typical barrier within reach 6 found on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000... 20 8. Erosion site found in reach 7 on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000... 20 9. Typical stream channel found within reach 9 on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000.... 20 10. Erosion, access and bottom composition locations observed on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000... 21 11. Mean daily temperatures ( C) recorded by three automated temperature monitors located on Fairhaven Creek from June through October 2000... 22 12. Location and catch per unit of effort (CPUE) from electrofishing stations for brook trout larger than 200 mm observed on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000... 23 4
Executive Summary Fairhaven Creek is a designated trout stream with a headwater located approximately 2 miles northwest of the town of Fairhaven in Stearns County, Minnesota, and flows 3.6 miles to the confluence with Lake Marie on the Clearwater River. During 2000, a follow up survey to the 1994 assessment including mapping of major physical features using a global positioning system (GPS), Rosgen classification, temperature monitoring, and electrofishing was completed to update fisheries and physical feature information. Fairhaven Creek s watershed land use was largely represented by agricultural practices, forest, and grassland shrub with the entire watershed encompassing 1800 acres. Slightly more than 2% of the estimated land use was in residential plots, while wetland, gravel pits and lakes were all less than 1%. Temperature monitors collected hourly temperatures between June 1 and October 1, 2000. Values found indicate there are favorable conditions for brook trout survival with less than 8% of the hourly readings over 20 C. Sampling the streamline revealed a mean sinuosity of 5.52, approximately 1600 deadfalls per mile, 339 rifles per mile, and a mean gradient of 35 feet per mile. Rosgen classification conducted at three sites indicated the stream is an E5 type upstream of County road 44 and near the mouth, while it is best represented by the E4 or C4 type channel just below County Road 44. Electrofishing revealed 8 species of fish: brook trout, black nose dace, central mud minnow, hybrid sunfish, Johnny darter, largemouth bass, northern red-belly dace, and white sucker, however, only trout and black nose dace were found upstream of the rock dam located at near the mouth of Fairhaven Creek. The average length of brook trout sampled was 126 mm, and catch per unit of effort ranged from 123/h to 632/h, from all first pass stations. Mean length at capture estimated from scales showed that brook trout reach 221 mm by Age 2 and 264 mm by Age 4. Survival estimates derived from linear regression of the aged fish revealed 0.08, 0.11, 0.39, and 0.20 for ages 0 through 3, respectively. Population estimates were conducted at three stations: 1, 4, and 5, with 98, 221 and 234 brook trout, respectively, while the estimate for adults (>200 mm) was 4, 10 and 17, respectively. Overall, the brook trout population appears relatively stable from 1994 to 2000, despite continued impacts from upstream erosion and agricultural land use within the watershed. The population was dominated by young-of-the-year brook trout indicating good spawning and recruitment conditions. The apparent decrease in larger size brook trout may be related to density dependant mortality and a decrease in available deep pools. An effort should be made to remove cattle from riparian corridors, and reestablish communication with all landowners along Fairhaven Creek to offer an option for a DNR fishing easement. Future consideration should be made to acquire an easement along the entire stretch of Fairhaven Creek from 140 th street to the confluence with the Clearwater River. 5
STUDY AREA Fairhaven Creek is a designated trout stream with a headwater located approximately 2 miles northwest of the town of Fairhaven in Stearns County, Minnesota, and flows 3.6 miles to the confluence with Lake Marie on the Clearwater River (Figure 1). Fairhaven Creek has a gradient that ranged between 25 and 53 feet per mile and a sinuosity of 5.52 between Lake Marie and 140 th street northwest of the town of Fairhaven. The stream has a watershed of 1800 acres (Figure 2) with estimated land use of 49% agricultural, 26% forested, 22% grassland/shrub, and 2% residential (Table 1). Flows recorded at each of three cross section sites (Figure 3) during the sampling period in 2000 were 0.79, 0.72 and 0.44 cubic feet per second (CFS) from upstream to down stream. METHODS An initial survey of Fairhaven Creek was conducted in 1979, and follow up surveys in 1980, 1986, 1991 and 1994 compiled information on fish communities, physical and chemical characteristics and invertebrate species composition and abundance. During 2000, a follow up survey including mapping of major physical features using a global positioning system (GPS), Rosgen classification (Rosgen 1996), temperature monitoring, and electrofishing was completed to update fisheries and physical feature information. Fairhaven Creek was divided into 9 similar reaches for ease of describing features within each area and to correspond with data presented during 1994. Fairhaven Creek was mapped using a Corvallis Micro Technologies (CMT) GPS unit to mark locations of major barriers to fish movement, access points, erosion sites, tributaries, riffles and electrofishing start and end points, from the confluence with the Clearwater River on Lake Marie to the intersection with 140 th street northwest of the town of Fairhaven. Deadfalls (any tree or shrub extending one-third the width of the channel) and undercut banks (banks where significant depth for cover was overhung by the actual bank) were counted to give reference to available habitat within each reach. Analysis of land use and map production was performed using Arcview 3.1, and the 1991 international land use/land cover layer. Rosgen classification (Rosgen 1996) was performed by selecting three sample cross sections in the lower, middle, and upper areas of Fairhaven Creek (Figure 3) and elevations were recorded with the aid of a laser level. Stowaway Tidbit remote temperature monitors were placed in three locations (pools) in the 6
stream where flow was expected to be constant (Figure 3). Monitors were programmed to record temperature each hour and anchored to the streambed to evaluate minimum, maximum and daily fluctuation, and assess the response to rainfall events, between May and October. Fish sampling methods included a Smith Root BP-15D back pack electrofisher, using pulsed direct current, beginning at a downstream block net and proceeding upstream to an additional block net or major physical feature (barrier). All fish were counted and identified. Game fish were measured to the nearest mm and scales were collected from five representatives per 25-mm group. Survival estimates were derived from a length-age regression of aged fish and extrapolated to the entire sample using the Chpman-Robson equation assuming constant survival and recruitment. Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) was calculated for all (single pass) stations and for initial runs on population estimates. When population estimates were performed, a two-pass removal method was used. All fish from the first run were placed in a live car at the top of the station until the second run was completed. The Moran-Zippin method (Everhart and Young 1981) was used to derive population estimates with corresponding confidence intervals for all brook trout captured, and for brook trout over 200 mm in total length. Comparisons to the previous survey were made by selecting single pass electrofishing stations similar to those used in 1994. Catch data were combined across sampling stations for both years. RESULTS Overall, the entire length (1.75 miles) of Fairhaven Creek had a mean sinuosity of 5.52, and a gradient of 35.67 feet/mile. The average number of deadfalls/100ft was 3.0, with the average number of riffles and undercut bank areas per reach at 4.44 and 5.00, respectively. All of the nine reaches sampled contained varying degrees of complexity, health and quality. Reach 1 (455 ft) (Figure 4) from the mouth at Lake Marie to an artificially created rock dam (Figure 5), had a moderate number of deadfalls (4.2/100 ft), 3 noticeable undercut banks, and only 1 riffle. Reach 1 was characterized by a low gradient and a relatively high sinuosity (4.33)(Table 2). Additionally, a Rosgen classification site (1) was within this reach, and data indicated that the area has a flood-prone width considerably higher than the upstream stations (Table 3). Reach 2 (233 ft) was represented by 2.6 deadfalls per 100 ft, 3 undercut bank areas, two riffles and a 7
sinuosity of 3.96. This reach showed evidence of residential impact as houses and trails were near the stream banks. Reach 3 (343 ft)contained 2.9 deadfalls per 100 ft, 4 undercut banks and the first erosion site (a road or four-wheeler crossing) encountered on Fairhaven Creek (Figure 6). Reach 4 (519 ft) was typified by an increase in elevation as the number of riffles (7) was more than previous reaches. Deadfalls (2.3/100ft) were more common and the sinuosity increased to 5.46. Reach 5 (756 ft) was a higher gradient stretch (6 riffles), had an average number of deadfalls (2.2/100 ft), with 3 undercut bank areas and a sinuosity of 5.91. Reach six (1954 ft) contained a slightly higher number of deadfalls (2.8/100 ft) while also having a higher than average number of riffles (15). Reach 6 contained several barriers (5) that may limit migration of fish (Figure 7). Reach 7 contained the highest number of deadfalls (6.6/100 ft) and an increase in gradient with 5 riffles in a relatively short reach. This reach also contained the second Rosgen site with a bank full width of 18.3 ft, a flood prone width of 47 ft and the highest sinuosity (7.08). Reach 8 began above County Road 44 and continued upstream through several areas containing cattle induced erosion sites (5, Figure 8). This reach had a higher than average number of deadfalls (3.8/100 ft) and 5 riffles, with a sinuosity of 5.99. Reach 9 contained the farthest upstream Rosgen site, which had a bank full width of 5.1 ft and a flood prone width of 50 ft, indicating a relatively high entrenchment ratio (Table 3). This reach was typified by overhanging reed canary grass (Figure 9) and silt bottom while having a relatively high sinuosity (5.85). Location of bridges (access sites) general bottom composition and erosion sites for all reaches can be found in Figure 10. Rosgen classification was performed at three locations along the length of the stream (Figure 3). Classification of these areas includes calculation of slope, sinuosity, entrenchment (flood prone width relative to stream channel width), and particle count within the sample area. The lower site was typical of a flood plain with a wide flood prone area (106 ft), high entrenchment (10.6), and a low width/depth ratio (8.29)(Table 3). The predominant substrate type was medium sand (0.125-0.25 mm) with 63% of the particles as fines. The second Rosgen site located just downstream of County Road 44 revealed a relatively narrow flood prone width (47.1) a low entrenchment (2.57) and a moderate to low width/depth ratio (12.46). Percent fines (42%) were lower than the upstream and downstream stations; however, the D- 50 (median size) was still a fine gravel (4-8 mm). The third station was located above the cattle pasture area with five of the six erosion sites. The station displayed the impacts from downstream erosion by the 8
high width/depth ratio (39.03), and lowest sinuosity of all stations (3.99). The flood prone width of 50.1, a moderate entrenchment (9.82), and a D-50 of medium sand (0.25-.50 mm) signify the shallow channel undergoing down cutting in the area. Temperature monitors collected hourly temperatures between June 1 and October 1, 2000. All temperature monitors had relatively few readings over 18 C (8% and 4% in the lower and middle stations) and even fewer readings above 20 C (1% in the lower and middle stations). These values indicate there are favorable conditions for brook trout survival during most of the year. The upper station monitor had hourly values as low as 5.94 0 C, with a high of 15.97 0 C, and an average of 10.7 0 C. The middle station located just down stream of County Road 44 had a minimum hourly of 5.92 0 C, a maximum of 22.07 0 C, and an average daily value of 12.86 0 C. The lower station located in reach 1, had a minimum daily value of 4.96 0 C, a maximum of 22.34 0 C, and an average of 13.95 0 C (Figure 11). Electrofishing sampled 8 species of fish (with numbers in parentheses): brook trout (1,130), black nose dace (20), central mud minnow (2), hybrid sunfish (1), Johnny darter (2), largemouth bass (1), northern red-belly dace (4), and white sucker (2), however, only trout and black nose dace were found upstream of the rock dam located at the start of reach 2. Electrofishing for 4.36 hours and more than 41% of available area potentially suitable for trout resulted in a catch of 1,130 brook trout, of which approximately 79% were young-of-the-year. Average length of trout sampled was 126 mm, and number of trout over 200 mm was 67. Catch per unit of effort ranged from 123/h (Station 6) to 632/h (Station 4), for the first pass on all stations. Catch per 100 ft also varied by station, as station 6 had a low of 9.42/100 ft and station 3 had the highest with 54.59/100 ft (Table 6). Catch per hour of electrofishing for brook trout larger than 200 mm varied between 4.79 (station 1) and 31.64 per hour (station 6) for the first pass on all stations (Figure 12). Mean length at capture from scales showed that brook trout reach 221 mm by Age 2 and 264 mm by Age 4 (Table 7). Survival estimates derived from linear regression of the aged fish revealed 0.08, 0.11, 0.39, and 0.20 for ages 0 through 3, respectively. Population estimates were conducted at three stations: 1, 4, and 5, with 95, 215 and 219 brook trout, respectively. The estimate for adults (>200 mm) was 4, 10 and 13 for stations 1, 4 and 5, respectively (Table 8). The number of brook trout for Fairhaven Creek was estimated to be 1,756 brook trout per mile of all sizes, and 87 brook trout per mile over 200 mm. 9
DISCUSSION Land use practices within the Fairhaven Creek watershed are largely agricultural (49%), yet there is a corridor along the stream, which is mostly forested. A 100 m buffer was applied to the stream and the estimated land use within the buffer was calculated to be 59% forested, 30% grassland/shrub, 6% residential, and 5% agricultural. With this in mind, efforts to enroll the agricultural land outside of this buffer and within the watershed in Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) or Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) type of programs may prove essential for maintaining water quality and low temperatures in the future. A diversion, which had previously been described in the 1994 survey, has been corrected in reach 1 of Fairhaven Creek; however, one major rock dam still exists in the area where the initial diversion appeared to take place. This rock dam did not appear to affect downstream migration of brook trout, as 95 brook trout were captured downstream of this feature. Reaches 2-4 have been impacted by local land owners obtaining access through foot bridge construction, or recreational areas. Reach 5 and 6 represented the least impacted areas below County Road 44. These reaches had higher than average deadfall counts, with higher gradient than the other reaches. Reach 6 represented the best conditions for brook trout in Fairhaven Creek, with higher numbers of quality pools, deadfalls and a lack of erosion sites. This appeared to benefit trout abundance and the number of individuals over 200 mm. What was formerly described as a deep scour pool in reach 7 below County road 44 has now silted in, potentially due to erosion that occurred upstream in reach 8. Reach 8, located upstream of County Road 44 contained the most erosion sites, however, the brook trout population estimate for the area was higher than calculated for downstream estimates for all sizes captured, and for brook trout greater than 200 mm. The higher population estimate may be a function of the increased primary food production, due to cow fecal matter directly introduced in the stream in the area of the electrofishing station, although, catch per unit of effort for this station was second lowest for brook trout over 200 mm, and slightly less than the average CPUE for all sizes of fish. This may be attributed to the cattle causing increased bank erosion and silt loading of existing pools. The silt loading may have displaced fish to preferred downstream locations. Finally, a beaver dam found in reach 9 described during the 1994 survey, no longer exists, and the channel appears to have returned to a natural narrow profile with overhanging reed canary grass, although, it may be 10
affected by the downstream cattle erosion. Temperature profiles recorded during 2000 were favorable for brook trout with a low percentage of readings above 18 C. The highest reading recorded during 2000 was a maximum temperature of 20.47 C, with 3 days of hourly readings above 20 C. This was similar to 1999 when a maximum temperature of 20.77 C and a total of 6 days with hourly readings above 20 C were recorded for the same area. However, this was considerably different from what was found in 1996, where temperatures above 24 C were recorded. Air temperatures for the surrounding area were not substantially different for 1996 and 2000, which indicated the lack of weather influence on water temperature. Additionally, the temperatures in 1996 were recorded by a different style of monitor, which may have given slightly different results than readings from the monitors used in 2000. Slightly more brook trout were sampled in 1994 than in 2000, and maximum size was also larger in 1994.. However, mean number of brook trout/100 ft has remained essentially unchanged with 28.36 in 1994 and 28.91 in 2000. Effort has varied considerably between stations and years on Fairhaven Creek and therefore may reflect individual electrofishing operator differences. Since Fairhaven Creek is relatively small, and efficiency of catching brook trout was observed to be high, comparisons based on length of stream sampled may be a more realistic representation of catch per effort changes over time. For brook trout greater than 200 mm CPUE appeared to decrease from 18.4/hour in 1994, to 15.4/ hour in 2000, however, number per 100 ft of sample area increased slightly from 1.51/100 ft in 1994 to 1.73/100 ft in 2000. Mean length at capture has remained unchanged since 1994, although the largest individual captured during 2000 (Age 4) was smaller than the mean length at annulus described for 1994 (300 mm). Management Implications Overall, the brook trout population appears relatively stable from 1994 to 2000, despite continued impacts from upstream erosion and agricultural land use within the watershed. The population was dominated by young-of-the-year brook trout, indicating good spawning and recruitment conditions. The apparent decrease in larger size brook trout may be related to density dependant mortality and a decrease in available deep pools. The 1994 report stated that the lack of sizeable brook trout might be impacted by 11
the abundant young-of-the-year in the system. Since 1994 little has appeared to change, as abundance of young-of-the-year is still high. The lack of adult type habitat was reflected during the GPS of the streamline and electrofishing with pools that appeared to have a thick layer of silt in the deepest areas. There is the potential to provide structures that can scour pools and deeper areas within the existing stream channel. This may provide better habitat for adult brook trout, however, there are currently no easements on Fairhaven creek that would allow the DNR to investigate some sort of habitat improvement. Landowners have been contacted in years prior to 2000, regarding land use and grazing within the stream corridor, but, with limited results. There appears to be a need to revert the overall watershed land use to lower impact activities that may lessen the erosion and silt loading that is occurring on Fairhaven Creek. It may be feasible to attempt restoration efforts in smaller watersheds, such as Fairhaven Creek, and efforts to gain local cooperators to achieve this goal should be made. Fisheries potential for the Fairhaven Creek exists throughout the entire reach; however, the opportunity for access may be a problem for anglers. An effort should be made to reestablish communication with all landowners along Fairhaven Creek to offer an option for a DNR fishing easement. Future consideration should be made to acquire an easement along the entire stretch of Fairhaven Creek from 140 th street to the confluence with the Clearwater River. If an easement appears unlikely, educational efforts should be undertaken to minimize negative impacts to the stream and promote the value of the resource. 12
Table 1. Fairhaven Creek (M 71-5) major watershed estimated land use by acres and percent (1991 data). Land Use Acres Percent Agricultural 884.348 49.12% Forest 475.288 26.40% Grassland/Shrub 389.628 21.64% Residential 40.437 2.25% Wetland 9.118 0.51% Gravel pits 1.315 0.07% Lakes 0.19 0.01% Total 1800.324 Table 2. Fairhaven Creek reach profiles recorded with GPS during fall 2000. Reach Deadfalls Undercuts Riffles Erosion Barrier Kilometer Mile Sinuosity Number N N N N N 1 19 3 1 0 0 0.14 0.086 4.33 2 6 3 2 0 0 0.07 0.044 3.96 3 10 4 2 1 0 0.10 0.065 4.33 4 12 4 7 0 0 0.16 0.098 5.46 5 17 3 6 0 1 0.23 0.143 5.91 6 54 11 15 0 5 0.60 0.370 6.77 7 32 8 5 1 0 0.15 0.092 7.08 8 40 7 2 5 2 0.32 0.197 5.99 9 0 2 0 0 5 1.07 0.663 5.85 Table 3. Results of Rosgen classification sites for Fairhaven Creek fall 2000. Label Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Near Mouth Below CR 44 Above Cattle pen Bank Full Width (ft) 10 18.3 5.1 Flood prone Width (ft) 106 47.1 50.1 Entrenchment 10.60 2.57 9.82 Mean depth @ BFD (ft) 1.21 1.47 1.28 Width/Depth Ratio 8.29 12.46 39.03 Slope 0.005 0.010 0.005 Fall/Mile (ft) 25.08 53.50 28.41 Sinuosity 4.18 6.81 3.99 D 50 Medium Sand Fine Gravel Fine Sand Percent Fines 63% 42% 68% Stream Type E5 E4/C4 E5 13
Table 4. Fairhaven Creek Temperature monitor mean, minimum, and maximum hourly values ( 0 C) recorded from three locations between June and October 2000. Station Minimum Average Maximum N Readings N 1 > 18 0 C N 1 >20 0 C Upper 5.94 10.74 15.87 2999 0 0 Middle 5.92 12.86 22.07 2997 107 16 Lower 4.96 13.95 22.34 2954 247 39 1 Number of hourly observations recorded above 18 0 and 20 0 C, respectively. Table 5. Number of measured fish per 10-mm group from electrofishing at all stations Fairhaven Creek, October 2000 and October 1994. Length Group 2000 1994 < 79 568 465 80 98 275 90 104 159 100 87 55 110 29 15 120 7 35 130 7 64 140 15 67 150 21 52 160 28 45 170 31 41 180 36 30 190 32 21 200 22 22 210 11 16 220 9 13 230 10 11 240 10 7 250 2 4 260 3 3 270 3 280 2 290 3 300 1 310 1 320 1 SUM 1130 1411 14
Table 6. Electrofishing station information and catch rates for brook trout from sampling Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. Station Length (m) Length (ft) Effort (seconds) BKT BKT >200 mm CPUE CPUE >200 BKT/100 ft BKT >200/100 ft EF1A 214 702 2251 79 3 126.34 4.80 11.25 0.43 EF2 319 1045 2680 299 15 401.64 20.15 28.61 1.44 EF3 216 707 3027 386 23 459.07 27.35 54.60 3.25 EF4A 112 368 1024 180 9 632.81 31.64 48.91 2.45 EF5A 240 787 2538 163 13 231.21 18.44 20.71 1.65 EF6 75 244 673 23 4 123.03 21.40 9.43 1.64 Table 7. Length at capture (mm), standard errors and survival estimates for brook trout sampled from Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. Age N Min Mean Max Std Error Survival Estimate 1 0 268 76 95.70 104 2.79 0.08 1 15 126 168.89 206 6.20 0.11 2 3 214 221.75 229 3.47 0.39 3 4 234 244.33 262 4.17 0.20 4 1 264 264.00 264 -- -- 1 Survival estimate (Chapman-Robson) based on assumption of constant recruitment and survival. Table 8. Population estimates derived for all brook trout and for brook trout, over 200 mm from three stations on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. All BKT P^ PE Variance CI PE-CI PE+CI N EF 1 0.168 97.773 5.6329 4.651 93 102 95 EF 4 0.162 220.85 11.599 6.675 214 228 215 EF 5 0.255 234.32 46.656 13.387 221 248 219 BKT>200mm EF 1 0.250 4.2666 0.790 1.7429 3 6 4 EF 4 0.200 10.416 0.976 1.9372 8 12 10 EF 5 0.462 16.518 32.930 11.247 5 28 13 15
Figure 1. Location of Fairhaven Creek, Minnesota. 16
Figure 2. Estimated 1991 land use with in the Fairhaven Creek (M-71-5) major watershed. 17
Figure 3. Location of temperature monitors and Rosgen classification sites on Fairhaven Creek during 2000. 18
Figure 4. Reach location and number on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. 19
Figure 5. Rock dam located at the top of reach 1 in Fairhaven Creek, during fall 2000. Figure 8. Erosion site found in reach 7 on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. Figure 6. Road crossing (Erosion site) within reach 3 on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. Figure 9. Typical stream channel found within reach 9 on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. Figure 7. Typical barrier within reach 6 found on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. 20
Figure 10. Erosion, access and bottom composition locations observed on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. 21
20 18 Temperature (*C) 16 14 12 10 8 6 1-Jun 8-Jun 15-Jun 22-Jun 29-Jun 6-Jul 13-Jul 20-Jul 27-Jul 3-Aug 10-Aug 17-Aug 24-Aug 31-Aug 7-Sep 14-Sep 21-Sep 28-Sep Date Lower Mid Upper Figure 11. Mean daily temperatures ( C) recorded by three automated Stowaway Tidbit monitors located on Fairhaven Creek from June through October 2000. 22
Figure 12. Location and catch per unit of effort (CPUE*) from electrofishing stations for brook trout, larger than 200 mm observed on Fairhaven Creek during fall 2000. * CPUE calculated from first run of population estimate stations. 23
REFERENCES Everhart W. H. and W. D. Youngs. 1981. Principles of fishery science. Cornell University Press, Ithica, New York. 349 pages. Fairhaven Creek Survey. 1994. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Section of Fisheries, St Paul. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank David Anderson, Mark Pelham, John Hiebert, Steve Bogie and Jay Striemer for their work in field collection. The author would also like to thank John Hiebert, David Anderson and Paul Diedrich for technical and logistical support. 24
Author Date Area Fisheries Supervisor Date Regional Fisheries Supervisor Date Copyright 2001. State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources. Reproduction of this material without the express written authorization of the Department of Natural Resources is prohibited 25