Sturgeon and Paddlefish habitat question — pool 2

Having a discussion with somebody about the absence of Sturgeon and Paddlefsh from pool 2. They claim that the possible removal of the Ford dam and the rapids it would create could pave the way for a comeback of these fish up here.

I’d like to hear from the “experts” on these fish… is this even remotely possible, and what would it take to make this happen? I could see how removing ALL dams could make a difference. Are there even any sturgeon or paddlefish left in pool 2 that would migrate up there to spawn?

My other question would be how this would affect the habitat for all the other fish on pool 2.

Thanks in advance!

Or another angle to this question would be… if sturgeon need shallow rapids to spawn…are they finding that in pools 3 and 4? Those pools are also dammed so? Are they only spawning up the croix at Taylor’s falls?

I read it takes a female sturgeon 20 years to begin spawning and then only once every 5 years? How could you re-build a fish population under those conditions?

I’ve been reading this site for years and know there are some passionate sturgey guys here. Hope to hear from some of you.

I grew up fishing the Chippewa River and we ran into paddlefish quite regularly. We were always told this span of over 30 miles of undamed river from P4 to Eau Claire Wisconsin was one of the only areas where successful spawning still took place in large quantities. I cannot verify if this was true, but paddlefish are still a fairly regular sighting there.

Well…I don’t play to be an expert at anything but here’s my take.

BTW I’m against removing the dam making it a “wild river” and I think the reasons will show below.

Pool 2 and the MN River are showing more sturgeon (both species) and to a lesser amount paddlefish then in the past. One thing to consider is that there isn’t a deep pool at the Ford Dam like L&D #3 has where people can fish for sturgeon and unintentionally snag a paddle. There’s a lot of hooks in the water at L&D #3.

Most sturgeon are spawning in tributaries of the Mississippi and St Croix Rivers (there’s always the exception like the shallow waters of Taylors Falls).

Now looking for shallow, rocky areas like this with enough flow on P2 and the Minnesota River is scarce so I would assume breeding areas are few.

Take out the dam and there’s going to be much more rocky areas. Better spawning for sturgeon. I don’t know enough about paddle spawning to comment.

With that being said, I ask myself how walleyes, bass and pike spawn? Not to mention how well do prop boats work in those areas. Think of above Mpls/St Paul.

I was told (by a guy that should know) that in Prescot in the low water months of August prior to the dams, a person could walk across the stream they call the Mighty Mississippi.

I love sturgeon and removing the dam would be a boon, but like I’ve said many times before in these river “construction” areas, “How can we say that one species is more important than another?”

I’ll come back to see if I missed any of your other questions.

Thank you Bucky and Brian for your input.

I’m thinking aloud, just curious… there must be other factors that go into good sturgeon habitat than just shallow rocky spawning areas. I would actually think there is already access to a pretty good stretch of this kind of habitat directly up the mouth of Minnehaha creek below the existing Ford dam, but the fish still haven’t thrived on p2 in years. Beyond the spawning habitat, I wonder what else these fish need to thrive for the rest of the year…

Like you Brian, I am opposed to dam removal. The USACE appears to have an agenda (we want to save money by getting out of the L&D biz in the twin cities). While I understand that impulse, they’re not doing a good job of managing the PR around the issue. The media and public are now under the spell of this activist group called For the Rivers, which is seizing on this opportunity to try to advance their agenda of removing dams and restoring to “natural” rivers. All they do is talk about the positive impacts of this and never address the potential negatives.

“All they do is talk about the positive impacts of this and never address the potential negatives.”

I wonder how many trucks it would take to replace the barge traffic on the river? That strikes me as an enormous negative impact.

S.R.

I too am all for leaving the dams in-place and making necessary repairs knowing the immense costs involved. There are some species that would likely benefit from removal (sturgeon, paddlefish), but the impact on other species are unknown.

The ability to navigate the river is what makes them such a valuable resource (tourism and angling). The Corps of Engineers has millions into island projects, closing off and opening backwater areas, dredge deposits, etc. The impact of taking out a lock and dam would create far more variables and leave a lot of the research, land projects, etc. with unknown outcomes.

I’d rather we be able to look at solutions to problems like sedimentation, invasive species, unproductive spawns, flood control, etc. with a limited number of variables. If a lock or dam is removed, it seems a lot of the research and data we have will have a full “reset” to it.

Removing Ford Dam (LD1) would be a big help to restoring spawning habitat for lake sturgeon and paddlefish. It would restore large rock and fast water that lake sturgeon prefer for spawning. Gravel bars would also likely be restored, which is what paddlefish need. The rest of Pool 2 would be relatively unchanged. The big change would be to Pool 1. Water levels in Pool 1 would drop, current would be faster, habitat would be more coarse, and would benefit a large number of river species. Pool 1 as it is right now is beneficial to common carp. Yes there are other fish there, but given the lack of fishing pressure in Pool 1, you might think it was a hidden gem because accessibility is terrible. I am continually unimpressed with the fish population as a whole in Pool 1.

While the habitat would be restored, that doesn’t necessarily mean the fish would return to spawn there. Pool 2 is relatively devoid of lake sturgeon. I have worked on Pool 2 since 2008. I have seen one lake sturgeon. One. In 2015. I put a transmitter in that fish, and in less than 3 weeks, it was in the St Croix and has not been back since. That fish likely originated from the St Croix, it went for a little swim and got past Lock & Dam #2 (no small feat), and we happened to get our hands on it while it was on its way back home. We have implanted 47 lake sturgeon with transmitters between the St Croix, Pool 4, and the one in Pool 2. Some haven’t been at large for very long and most were immature, so things could change, but I have only seen one lake sturgeon swim as far as the Ford Dam. It went there in July and was probably a juvenile, so it wasn’t there on a spawning run. After it bonked its head on the Ford Dam, it went downstream a few miles and took off at least 25 miles up the Minnesota River for about 2 weeks then went back to the St Croix. So if the lake sturgeon spawning habitat is restored in Pool 1/Pool 2, the lake sturgeon would need to get past LD2 in Hastings first. That dam is one of the hardest for fish to pass (only LD5 may be harder to pass). Yes fish can lock through, but they are not drawn to a lock. They are drawn to flow and the dam gates. If the water is high enough, the gates are out of the water and velocity through the gates is reduced, making it easier for fish to pass.

Paddlefish are a different story. There appears to be a resident population of paddlefish in the Minnesota River, and they will utilize the Mississippi as well. We have seen transmitter paddlefish swimming laps, going as far as 200 miles up the Minnesota River, and exploring a good portion, if not all of Pool 2. Again, not very many years of data, but we have seen 5 transmitter paddlefish show up below Ford Dam and I have seen other paddlefish below the dam in the summer. None of those observations appear to be for spawning purposes (maybe one in mid-May). That movement is more summer travels. Those transmitter fish were implanted in different areas, one in the Minnesota River, two in Pool 2, one in Pool 3, and one in Pool 4. So at least two of them passed LD2 to get up to the Ford Dam. Given a good number of paddlefish end up below LD2 in the spring (15 paddlefish transmitters there in spring of 2018) and the low number that pass into Pool 2 (2 transmitters in 2018, one in spring one in summer), just reinforces the fact that LD2 is hard to pass (and we don’t really know if they have a desire to pass, we assume they would pass if it was easier, but it is possible that is their final destination, but I think they are making due with the situation). Since there appears to be a paddlefish population above LD2, removal of the Ford Dam could be beneficial to paddlefish providing more spawning habitat. I don’t think the paddlefish that are currently in the Minnesota River/Pool 2 are just coming from downstream. I think they are maintaining their population, probably spawning in the Minnesota River.

Shovelnose sturgeon are similar to paddlefish in that there is a resident population in the Minnesota River. They don’t appear to travel as much as paddlefish though. I have seen one shovelnose sturgeon in Pool 2 in 10 years. It was close to the Minnesota River confluence and would have been a state record by about a pound. I haven’t seen a shovelnose in Pool 2 since the telemetry project started, but my counterpart in Hutchinson implanted a bunch and I have yet to see them in the metro. Shovelnose start showing up again in Pool 3, below LD2 in Hastings. I’m no shovelnose expert, but they seem to prefer faster water with sand and gravel bottoms. Removing the Ford Dam would create that and shovelnose would likely move in if they ever moved far enough to find it.

I know that is a really long winded answer. The short take home message is yes, removing the Ford Dam would improve the habitat for sturgeon and paddlefish. I think paddlefish would take advantage of it for spawning before sturgeon would because there is an established population that would find it. Sturgeon would find it eventually, but LD2 would be the barrier slowing down Pool 2/Minnesota River recovery, at least for lake sturgeon. Other dams are not near the barrier that LD2 is. LD3 in Red Wing, it’s a sieve. We’ve had all kinds of transmitter fish pass that dam. Walleye, flathead catfish, muskellunge, white bass, and almost 40% of our lake sturgeon and paddlefish have been documented passing that dam.

Joel

Joel — Thanks for taking the time to write that all out. I was hoping someone from fisheries would chime in.

I do have a few follow-ups, if you don’t mind.

jstiras wrote:

Removing Ford Dam (LD1) would be a big help to restoring spawning habitat for lake sturgeon and paddlefish. It would restore large rock and fast water that lake sturgeon prefer for spawning. Gravel bars would also likely be restored, which is what paddlefish need. The rest of Pool 2 would be relatively unchanged.

Are you able to share any data or link to other similar situations where removing a dam left the pool immediately under it “relatively unchanged?” I’m having a hard time understanding how/why that would be the case. A lot of people here on p2 are very worried that removal of LD1 will change the river drastically, as well as the existing parklands on the river banks — Wabun/Minneahaha Falls, Hidden Falls, Crosby Farm, and Fort Snelling State Park.

Again, much appreciated!

Steve Root wrote:

“All they do is talk about the positive impacts of this and never address the potential negatives.”

I wonder how many trucks it would take to replace the barge traffic on the river? That strikes me as an enormous negative impact.

S.R.

I think the only barges that would be affected would be the ones that go up the MN river. I suppose the channel could be affected further downstream. Many question marks.

Ah, my mistake. I thought the suggestion was the removal of all dams, not just the Ford Dam.

S.R.

I’m no hydrologist, but Pool 2 is impounded by Lock & Dam #2. If you alter the upper end of Pool 2 by removing LD1, that won’t drop water levels in Pool 2. Pool 1 will change dramatically. It would no longer be an impounded pool I’m assuming it would drop several feet (unless you construct a staircase of rapids that would hold water back and maintain water levels in Pool 1). Not being a hydrologist, I don’t know if upper Pool 2 would maintain its existing water level or increase. I don’t think it would decrease, because you wouldn’t be altering anything that is holding water back (i.e. LD2) on the lower end. Let’s just say that LD1 is 18 feet tall. Now you remove it. What was once the lower end of Pool 1 drops 18 feet to meet the level of upper Pool 2. But maybe it doesn’t drop 18 feet, maybe it only drops 15 feet because there is enough boulders covered in sediment right now that the boulders are holding water back much like a dam is intended to do. Pool 2 hasn’t really changed, but a new habitat was introduced and connectivity to another 6 miles of river has been opened up. By the time all the sediment flushed out of what is now Pool 1, it might be 6 miles of rapids.

As for the barge and truck traffic…the barge traffic through LD1 has already ceased…completely. So we are already a couple years into trucks replacing barges in this area. If a barge went upstream through LD1, it went through both Lower and Upper St Anthony Falls locks to get to their destination. Now that the Upper St Anthony Falls Lock is permanently closed, there is little justification to maintain the expense of maintaining and operating navigational locks and dams without significant commercial traffic. These locks were put in to move commercial product, not to move kayaks and fishing boats up and down the river. Again, I’m no hydrologist, but I don’t think removing one or all three of those dams (LD1, LSAF, USAF) would have any negative impact on commercial barge traffic that still travels up and down the Minnesota River.

People have been talking about restoring the gorge and rapids for 20+ years. Removing those dams is more about uncovering what the water and sediment is hiding because it is impounded. I’m not advocating keeping or removing the dams. I’m just trying to address the question of sturgeon and paddlefish habitat and what would likely occur if one or more dams were removed. My job is to work with the conditions I am presented with, and I have to cooperatively work with the USACE. I’m not going to look those people in the face and tell them they should lose their job or go work somewhere else.

Joel

Tangler, I have a message into one of the planners at the Corp about your second message. I had the same question when they were going to draw down the lower portion of P3 and not lower the St Croix…how the ell does a person do that!
It’s all about control of the dams and the “tipping point”.

To be clear, I don’t know what I’m talking about so hold on.

This stuff is so far over my head, but I appreciate the attempts to make this fool understand. I think I get it. Kind of.

Again, Joel, much appreciated.

And yes Brian, let us know what you hear. From one guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about to another: thanks.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Tangler, I have a message into one of the planners at the Corp about your second message. I had the same question when they were going to draw down the lower portion of P3 and not lower the St Croix…how the ell does a person do that!
It’s all about control of the dams and the “tipping point”.

To be clear, I don’t know what I’m talking about so hold on.

Yeah that tipping point makes me scratch my head too. When there was talk about a Pool 2 drawdown, someone told me that if you dropped the level of Pool 2 in Hastings by a foot or two, that the effects of the drawdown would only be noticed downstream of downtown St Paul. And a foot or two at the dam doesn’t mean a foot or two everywhere. Not 100% positive on that based on the individual who told me, but it was said with conviction so it must be true right?

I don’t yet have an opinion on potential removal of the Ford Dam and what it would do to the rest of the river/fishery. I’m a little selfish in that I spend a tremendous amount of time fishing and recreating the upper section of pool 2 and changes to that would affect me.

I agree with others – understanding the net effect of the removal of the dam to water levels across the pool would help me formulate an opinion. I envisioned levels dropping but understanding what Joel is saying it seems like levels would likely increase as pool 1 and 2 stabilize. If water comes up what happens to Hidden Falls, Watergate, etc?

Also, how does this tie into the work being done downstream? I know the corps and city are talking about a major project by Pigs Eye lake to make that more accessible. I spoke to a corps guy (I think it was the corps) at the boat show and we discussed that project and it’s timelines. Seems like not all the various stakeholders are discussing all the possibilities and ramifications of the various projects? Maybe this will all be tied together in the near future but it would be great to understand the net effect of the removal of the Ford Dam. It would seem a smart guy/gal could help visualize it so those of us that care could start to formulate an informed position.

Great discussion – thanks for starting it Tangler. Thanks Joel for chiming in.

Joel, Good info!!

That is about the best answer we can get. You have facts and all I can toss is observation with a worm in one hand and a fishing rod in the other. haha..

Thanks for the info.

Here’s the reply from a friend at the Corp. Name has been removed to protect the guilty. Also, he/she answered yesterday but I just found it in my SPAM folder. ) The response posted in it’s entirety.

I just read the thread and Mr. Stiras knows what he’s talking about. I assume the “second question” you are referring to is whether or not there would be an effect on Pool 2. In short, no. Of course we always like to qualify such answers by saying “relatively unchanged” because it is hard or impossible to prove a zero effect.

So…the same amount of water would be entering Pool 2 as now, at the same times. In the short term (a couple years) I suppose there may be some change in the amount of sediment moving into 2 from Pool 1, but I don’t think it would even be noticeable. LD 1 controls Pool 1, not 2. It might help to remember that water falls downhill based on gravity at a given point. If you are imagining that the water rolling downhill over the restored rapids would somehow move faster in and through Pool 2, well it just wouldn’t. Pool 2, just wouldn’t notice that LD 1 is gone. The water doesn’t blast out of LD 1 like a garden hose, it just falls out based on how fast it moves through the tailwater.

I guess I don’t have any data/examples available at hand that would show/prove a limited/non-existent impact to Pool 2. If you look up other dam removal projects, they are usually more typical reservoirs that do have a large pool of fine sediment behind them. That slug of sediment, if not removed first, can have a large impact downstream. In Pool 1, most of the bedload sediment is and always has been moving through Pool 1 and into 2. Fine suspended sediment too. There would likely be some extra movement of material caused by lower water levels and a more confined channel, but even so, I think that would work itself out in a few years at most. After the new equilibrium is achieved, there wouldn’t be any effect.

The biggest problems with discussions on topics like this are that they can be hard to understand and no one trusts the answers given by government workers. Some in my family still think we operate the dams for flood control.

And that “tipping point” factor (we call it the hinge point), doesn’t really have much or any bearing on a discussion relative to the impacts of LD1 removal on Pool 2. If you really want your head to hurt, I can try to explain hinge point operation to you sometime. Makes my head hurt too.

Oh,,, all of this I my opinion based on professional experience and is not the official position of the Corps of Engineers…etc., etc.

Thanks Brian, and to the usace employee who offered this explanation.

I think this person hit the nail on the head with the comment about lack of trust of the government entity. I can’t say I’m ready to fully subscribe to these ideas but I’m definitely more open minded about this potential project than I was a week ago.

At this point I still lean toward stopping the lock operation but maintaining the dam. Ideal for me would be the corps sells the dam to xcel, who improves on the existing hydro-power capability so we can at least still get some use of it. But I have no idea if that is feasible or whether xcel would be interested.

And even tho this might not affect my beloved p2 as much as I’d thought, I feel for my friends up in the gorge who would most definitely lose the river as they have come to know it. It’s tough. Big decisions like this, there will always be perceived winners and losers. I just don’t want the river to be the loser.

Hi Joel,
Thanks for the info. As you know I am very interested in the sturgeon project. I’m sure that more details about the telemetry study are welcome. (Did you ever find the missing receiver?) Having a growing paddlefish population would be a great thing. I’m curious how the sturgeon that Sharptailer and I gave to the Fish and Wildlife folks are doing up by Mpls.
Keep us in the loop.
Gregg Gunter

Rod Bent wrote:

Hi Joel,
Thanks for the info. As you know I am very interested in the sturgeon project. I’m sure that more details about the telemetry study are welcome. (Did you ever find the missing receiver?) Having a growing paddlefish population would be a great thing. I’m curious how the sturgeon that Sharptailer and I gave to the Fish and Wildlife folks are doing up by Mpls.
Keep us in the loop.
Gregg Gunter

LOL, I don’t remember which missing receiver we had been talking about, but chances are no, we didn’t find it. Still hoping to recover some of those missing ones. Have 3 I couldn’t find last fall, two in the MN River and one by Lilydale. Will focus on those ones first before I try to find the other 5 that have been lost since 2013.
As for the fish you provided, guessing you are referring to the fish that were given to the U of MN to be studied inside the auxiliary lock chamber at LD1. They had a block net up to keep those fish in there for their study and something was chewing holes in their block net and the fish escaped. They weren’t using the same transmitters we are using, so we don’t know where they went once they got out.

jstiras wrote:

LOL, I don’t remember which missing receiver we had been talking about, but chances are no, we didn’t find it.

That was Nick out of the Lake City office.

A related question. If the pool two is opened how will this impact smallmouth fishing and spawn. I’d expect it will improved smallmouth habit in a good way.