StructureSpot

StructureSpot

Month: April 2011

developer faces fines for harming fish habitat

Posted on by david

Mill Creek developer faces fines for harming fish habitat

Department of Ecology fined real estate developer David Milne $134,000 in connection with mismanagement of a 40-acre construction site that destroyed salmon and steelhead habitat in Mount Vernon — the third penalty for Milne in just over a year.

By Lynda V. Mapes

Seattle Times staff reporter

A Mill Creek-based real-estate developer has been fined for the third time in a little over a year by state regulators for mismanagement of construction sites that destroyed salmon habitat.

David Milne was fined $134,000 on May 1 by the state Department of Ecology in connection with more than 250 violations of stormwater regulations at a 40-acre construction site in Mount Vernon in 2008.

It was the third recent penalty in the past year for Milne, whose firm David Alan Development Co., was fined twice in 2009 for similar violations at the Horstman Heights construction project in Port Orchard. Ecology fined the company $28,000 in January 2009 and $48,000 in April 2009 in connection with that project. Milne has yet to respond to the agency, let alone pay the fines, said Katie Skipper, spokeswoman for the agency.

Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant said the agency’s next step will be to seek liens against the developer’s property. “Part of it is how do we make him pay for what he has done, and the other is how do we keep him from doing this again,” Sturdevant said.

The developer could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The most recent violation damaged a mile of steelhead and salmon spawning habitat, according to the agency, when on May 21, 2008, a stormwater detention pond failed on Milne’s Parkwood development. A flood of muddy water powerful enough to rip trees and stumps from the ground blasted down slope to Thunderbird and East Thunderbird Creeks, tributaries of the Skagit River, Skipper said.

The mud, water and debris scoured the bottom of the two creeks and settled in Trumpeter Creek. The creeks are home to coho and chinook salmon and steelhead trout. Both populations of chinook and steelhead are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. Juvenile salmon had been documented in the creek by state wildlife staff weeks before the stormwater pond blew out.

The failure was the result of a year of little or no effort to properly manage the construction site as required by federal and state law, as outlined in a construction stormwater permit granted to Milne, according to Ecology.

Inspectors repeatedly reported violations at the residential development, where Milne hired a series of contractors to prepare the 40-acre site for development — including clearing and leveling half of the site. Violations ranged from unstable soils to muddy water flowing from the site to the unfinished pond. Milne stopped paying the contractors, who left the site unsupervised, and conditions deteriorated until the pond failed, the agency says.

“It was a really egregious example,” Sturdevant said. “It’s hard for people to realize even in small amounts, when you add that up over a large amount of raw ground, it can really add up and mess with fish.”

Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com

 

Calif. agencies to sue over sucker fish habitat

Posted on by david

Calif. agencies to sue over sucker fish habitat

By: GILLIAN FLACCUS 04/12/11 1:51 PM
Associated Press

Twelve Southern California water agencies have notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that they plan to sue to block expanded sucker fish habitat that could crimp water supplies for people, the agencies said Tuesday.

The action was prompted by a ruling, which went into effect in January and added 1,026 acres to the fish’s habitat, bringing the total protected area to more than 10,000 acres. The federal agency expanded the habitat for the small brown-and-black mottled fish after an environmental organization sued in 2005, alleging the fish was not protected in its namesake river, the Santa Ana River.

The legal notice, filed Monday, gives the federal agency 60 days to respond before a lawsuit is filed.

Jane Hendron, a spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Carlsbad office, did not immediately return a call or e-mail seeking comment.

The habitat designation does not mean any human water supplies will be shut off or altered, but it does mean that local water districts and cities must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service before doing work on any new or existing water projects with any federal involvement and could face stricter limits on what they can do.

The expanded habitat includes upstream areas that have no sucker fish living in them now — and that sometimes dry up entirely because those areas hold the gravel that is critical for the fish’s survival, said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with Center for Biological Diversity, the group that sued in 2005. That gravel needs to be washed downstream to help the fish, she said.

“The whole reason is to identify areas that may not have any animals in them anymore, but historically did. The critical habitat looks at recovery opportunities as well, rather than just keeping them on life support,” Anderson said of the fish.

The water agencies that filed the notice said Tuesday they were most concerned that they would be required to use water that currently goes to residents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties to push gravel downstream to areas where the creatures reproduce.

That could mean diverting water that could supply more than 500,000 people and impact the water supply for about 3 million residents who live downstream, said Douglas Headrick, general manager of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District’s sucker fish task force.

“The only way to move the gravel is with water. What we’re concerned about is that someone will require us to use the water that we’ve been diverting to move gravel. We don’t know any other way,” he said.

The Santa Ana sucker fish is listed as a federally threatened species with known populations in areas of Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange counties.

The fish in Ventura and Los Angeles counties, in the Santa Clara River, have interbred with other types of sucker fish, however, and are not included in the critical habitat listing because they are not considered genetically pure, Anderson said.

The critical habitat now includes portions of the Santa Ana river in San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties and the San Gabriel River and Big Tujunga Creek in Los Angeles County.

The 12 agencies who are objecting to the final ruling on the habitat have planned or current projects or activities that will be affected by the inclusion of the Santa Ana River in the protected area, according to the 60-day notice paperwork. Included are water districts in Big Bear, San Bernardino, Riverside, Yucaipa and others, as well as the city of Redlands.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011/04/calif-agencies-sue-over-sucker-fish-habitat#ixzz1KBj6L3I7

 

ATVs damaging fish habitat: DFO

Posted on by david

ATVs damaging fish habitat: DFO

Last Updated: Friday, July 23, 2010 | 6:10 AM ET

CBC News

Off-road vehicle enthusiasts that are driving their all-terrain vehicles through rivers and streams are damaging fish habitats and polluting waterways, according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Federal fisheries officials are warning riders to stop.

Frédéric Butruille, a DFO spokesman, said people may think it’s fun to splash through the water, but it’s endangering fish.

“The Atlantic salmon or the brook trout are two species of fish that spawn in the fine gravel of the rivers and quite often the ATVs by crossing the river, they crush the nests of the fish and also they release some toxic substances in the rivers,” Butruille said.

With the hot weather this summer, water levels in some areas are lower than usual. Butruille said that makes them even easier to cross in off-road vehicles.

New Brunswick salmon are having a difficult summer. The warm water and lower levels, particularly in the Miramichi River system, has caused hundreds of salmon to die, according to the fisheries department.

The DFO prohibited fishing in the Indiantown Brook, Wilson Brook and Sutherland Pool to protect salmon under stress from the weather.

New surveillance

Daniel Boucher, the president of the New Brunswick All-Terrain Vehicle Federation, said the organization tries to educate members not to drive through waterways.

“It’s an issue that’s unfortunate to have happen,” Boucher said.

“Every time there’s somebody using the watercourse it’s not only the water they are polluting, it’s the fish habitat and so on, and the environment is the responsibility of everyone.”

The federation will launch a trails ambassador program this weekend. 50 people will have vests and logos to identify them as they boost surveillance along trails.

Boucher said their work will focus on education.

The plan follows harsh criticism of some off-road vehicle riders who wrecked public trails used by hikers and cyclists earlier this year.

 

Volunteer workers improve fish habitat in Lake Hamilton

Posted on by david

Columnist | Joe Mosby
Volunteer workers improve fish habitat in Lake Hamilton
Posted on 05 March 2011
By Joe Mosby
The old lament of “why don’t they do something about the fishing in this lake?” is getting an answer in several Arkansas bodies of water.
The “they” is a combination of federal agencies, state agencies and — the key ingredient — private citizens who volunteer their money and labor.
One strong example is Lake Hamilton, the heavily used impoundment on the Ouachita River at the doorstep of Hot Springs. Fish habitat structures are being fabricated and sunk in appropriate places in the lake.
“Build it, and they will come” has been proven any number of times in Arkansas waters. The Lake Hamilton project, which will go on for several years, is moving ahead under guidance of fishing veterans Ricky Green and Darryl Morris. They have a contingent of other volunteers working with them and with the help of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
Brett Hobbs, a fisheries biologist with the Game and Fish Commission, said volunteers are also doing much of the habitat work on DeGray Lake and Lake Greeson.
Green, formerly of nearby Arkadelphia, was one of the top professional bass tournament competitors in the 1970s and 1980s. Morris operates Family Fishing Trips, a guide service focusing on crappie fishing, on Lake Hamilton.
Morris said, “We are making two types of cover with bamboo. One is 10 to 12 feet tall that we call a ‘condo,’ and one is 5 to 6 feet tall that we call a ‘casa.’ There are other types available upon request by donors.”
The components are a plastic drain pipe with holes drilled in it, cane or bamboo and a 5-gallon bucket that is filled with concrete to hold the rig in place underwater.
Lake Hamilton is an old lake, built in the early 1930s by Arkansas Power & Light Co. for power generation. All of its natural cover is gone, Morris said, and the structures being installed will partly restore cover.
Morris said, “The fish structures benefit bass, crappie, bream and baitfish. They will support the entire life cycle of the fish. The density of these habitats provides ample protection for fish fry and bait fish. Algae growing on (the structures) provide food for fry and baitfish. This reduces the mortality rate and increases recruitment of the fry and baitfish which in term increases the number of catchable bass, crappie and bream.”
The structures are not marked, Morris said, “but are put in strategic locations like coves and points where they will be easy to find with a sonar unit” (depth finder).
The bamboo-and-bucket structure has been used for several years with success on Lake Greeson, where Morris worked with fellow crappie guide Jerry Blake in putting numerous structures into that lake. The encouraging crappie catches on Greeson have become known around Arkansas fishing circles.
Morris said about the Lake Hamilton project, “This will be an ongoing project. We hope to do 200 or more per year. After about five years it will become a maintenance program to keep the cover in the lake.
Help is needed.
Materials for the fish structures cost money even if the bamboo or cane is free except for the labor in cutting and transporting it. Green and Morris have several volunteer workers to assemble the structures and move them by boat to the desired locations. But they can use more willing hands.
Money donated by cash, check or credit card goes into a 3-to-1 match of federal and state funds for sport-fisheries restoration.
Morris can be contacted by e-mail at captdarryl@familyfishingtrips.com. A website, www.lakehamiltonhabitat.org, has more information.

Fish Sticks

Posted on by david

The following story was posted in a Northern Wisconsin newspaper. Although not all situations allow trees to be used, pay special attention to the need for shallow water cover to hold fry. Fishiding products are just the answer to this dilema. Take a look and see why the only American made artificial fish habitat, made from reclaimed PVC is the answer to a green approach to fish habitat management. http:// www.fishiding.com

 

Vilas County may include structures in cost share program

By Ratchel White Of the Lakeland Times

Fish sticks aren’t just frozen food anymore. In areas where the technique is implemented, “Fish Sticks” refers to fallen trees arranged and utilized for fish habitat. The idea has gained local attention, especially because the structures are suspected to also reduce shoreline erosion.

Researchers studying shoreline restoration in Oneida and Vilas Counties are interested in possibly integrating the technique in their efforts. Vilas County Department of Land and Water Conservation has also eyeballed the technique as a potential candidate to include in their cost share program for landowners combating erosion.

Vilas County land conservation specialist Marquita Sheehan said that with so many lakes, people in this part of the state are likely to pick up on the technique.

Michael Meyer, lead research scientist on the above mentioned efforts, agrees. “Anything that increases people’s likelihood to catch fish is popular,” Meyer said.

And it does seem to be the case that the structures increase the amount of fish in lakes where they have been built. Thats according to Department of Natural Resources fisheries biologist Scott Toshner.

“People who fish in lakes and people who scuba dive or snorkel really like these things because they attract fish. That’s just the bottom line,” Toshner said.

Toshner has been involved with more than 20 “Fish Sticks” projects over the past four years. He has watched the interest in this method of improving lake health and habitat spread to other counties and even out of state. The idea for fish sticks was resurrected from a DNR study in the 1950’s.

The technique arranges entire trees, with their branches, in a criss-cross shape that resembles the letter A.  Typical structures use five tress and take up 25-50 feet of shoreline.

Fish Sticks are assembled on the ice so they will fall into place once the lake surface thaws. The structures are anchored to trees on the shoreline. They require a DNR permit and specialized equipment to build. Toshner estimated the cost of a project as roughly $25.00 per tree.

One project near Bayfield was scaled back because the structures were too near a beach at a public campground. However, Toshner said it was the only instance of controversy surrounding the structures.

Projects to put in structures have mainly been on private property and with landowner’s cooperation.

In all cases except for the above, Toshner said that response to the structures on lakes where they are put in is overwhelmingly positive. They have gained a reputation as improving fish habitat, though he said that the structures also improve turtle and other wildlife habitat.

In comparing the structures to fish cribs, Toshner indicated that they may provide a missing link in terms of fish habitat. “With the fish cribs, the one thing you kind of miss with them is the link between the near shore area where a lot of theses fish spawn and spend their lives as juveniles…[with fish sticks] the wood in this near shore area may be a missing link in terms of habitat in some of these lakes,” Toshner said.

In addition to improving habitat for lake critters, there is furthewr evidence that these structures may reduce soil erosion. However, the evidence remains annecdotal.

A UW-Steven’s Point study is attempting to confirm observations that the structures help prevent wave action and can build up eroded shoreline. Right now, it’s the growing interest in these structures that is is the most encouraging side effect, according to Toshner.

Lakes in Eau Claire, Douglas and Bayfield Counties currently have fish sticks structures, and Toshner said the forest service in the Michigan  Upper Penninsula and groups out of Minnesota have also expressed interest.

More interest leads to more awareness of the benefits of fish sticks projects, according to Toshner. The educational component of current projects cannot be overlooked, he said, especially for people who live out on the lakes.

“If they see this and they see that it’s a good thing, which is what we’re seeing, then they’re more apt to leave that tree in that fell along the shoreline instead of removing it,” Toshner said. “If people can see that trees in the water are a valuable resource, they’re less likely to remove a tree that might fall inj along their own shoreline.”

 

The Largest Fish Habitat Restoration Project in America

Posted on by david
The Largest Fish Habitat Restoration Project in America
In 1992 the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Arizona entered into an ambitious fishery habitat restoration project on Lake Havasu in partnership with 6 state and federal agencies and Anglers United. Natural fish habitat in the lake had deteriorated to the point that sport and bait fish populations were in serious decline and fishing was marginal.

Shimano donated a specially designed pontoon boat adapted from the Shimano Live Release boat program to transport and strategically place thousands of fish habitat structures throughout the lake.

Press Coverage

Shimano Boat .jpg

BLM, Anglers United Agree on $27 Million Project at Havasu

Lake Havasu News Release.pdf

Lake Havasu Kids Fishing Day

Havasu Kids Day.pdf

Bureau of Land Management Thank You Letter

BLM Thank You Letter.pdf

In 2002 the Lake Havasu habitat improvement project was completed, thanks to the donation of thousands of hours of volunteer effort to construct and place fish structures and $40 million dollars of government funding. As one of the largest and most successful fish habitat improvement projects ever undertaken in the U.S. , the foresight of the BLM Arizona State Office under the leadership of Director Les Rosencranz and his capable staff stands as a shining example of what can be accomplished when government natural resource agencies, anglers and interested members of the public and private sector companies work together on behalf of the future of fishing.

Bassmasters of Delaware add needed fish structure

Posted on by david
The Eastern Shore Bassmasters of Delaware, in conjunction with the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) have completed a habitat restoration project at Griffith’s Lake in Milford. The club is an affiliated member of the National Bass Anglers Sportsmen Society or B.A.S.S. as it is more commonly known, and the Delaware B.A.S.S. Federation Nation, a state wide federation made up of other clubs within the state to help promote, educate, and conserve the basic principles of freshwater sport fishing in Delaware. 

The club participated in the DNREC’s Division of Fish and Wildlife GO FISH program which stands for Fill In Structural Habitat. The GO FISH program consists of clubs applying to the DNREC program requesting to plant artificial or natural fish attractors in area ponds and lakes to enhance the habitat for all species of fish. Members of Eastern Shore Bassmasters collected discarded Christmas trees after the holidays and constructed bundles of trees that were weighted with concrete blocks and placed in the ponds in areas that are productive places for fish to seek shelter and food.

The tree bundles also serve as fish attracting features along the shoreline to provide more opportunities for shoreline anglers, or bank fishermen.  Multiple shoreline fish attractors were placed in the pond along the fishing access areas including areas along Griffith’s Lake Drive. Two (2) of tree bundles will be made visible to bank fishermen through the Division of Fish and Wildlife identifying the two locations as fish attractors on the pond’s map, and placement of signs at the park indicating such. The other thirteen (13) tree bundles were placed in areas to provide cover and safe habitat for fish throughout the pond.

The tree bundles were constructed by taking two (2) trees joined side by side and tied at the trunks and tips. The concrete blocks were then fastened one to each end of the bundle to help sink the trees and hold them in place in the water. The trees were placed by members of the club, with the assistance from the DNREC Fish and Wildlife workboat and crew on hand to assist, in various locations on the pond in no less than five (5) feet of water, as not to impede boat navigation.

The club considered the idea to enhance habitat in area ponds due to the large numbers of ponds with featureless lake cover and structure such as stumps, weed beds, submerged timber, rock piles, and dock pilings. The consideration was given to bank fishermen as well to attract more numbers of fish closer to shore. The fish attractors will provide opportunities for more anglers as more fish become accustomed to using the tree bundles for cover, food, and staging areas.

Griffith’s Lake was selected as this year’s location as somewhat of a resource management option. The lake back in 2006 suffered an unexpected partial drawdown that occurred when a leak developed under the dam and put it at risk for losing quality fish and habitat. It is the club’s goal to help restore some of the habitat and provide for a better angling experience for more fishermen, as well as provide the necessary habitat and cover with the tree bundles for promoting healthy populations of all fish species.

Club President Dave Perrego and Conservation Director Bob Wallace have been in contact with DNREC’s Cathy Martin, a fisheries biologist for the Division of Fish and Wildlife and GO FISH program administrator since early this year. This is the 2nd habitat planting project in Kent County in two years. The last took place at Killen’s Pond in Felton back in April of 2008.

For more information on how your Delaware club or organization can participate in the GO FISH program you may contact Ms. Cathy Martin at (302) 653-2887, or email her at catherine.martin@state.de.us.

To contact the club to inquire about future conservation projects and general membership, please call Dave Perrego at (302)339-2133, or email the club ateasternshorebassmasters@yahoo.com. The club’s website can also be found at www.eteamz.com/easternshorebassmasters.

 

Fish and Game and Volunteers Restore Fish Habitat

Posted on by david

Fish and Game and Volunteers Restore Fish Habitat

Page Last Updated: Wednesday April 20, 2011 10:40pm MDT
Idaho Fish and Game 

Idaho Fish and Game

Today at the old Cove Dam site Idaho Fish and Game along with dozens of volunteers released around 1000 Bonneville cutthroat trout into the wild as a final step in a project that began years ago. Joselin Matkins Director of Sagebrush Steppe Regional Land Trust explains why today was a great day for the partnership. Joselin Matkins, Director, “This is a great day for the partnership with PacifiCorp energy, Fish and Game, all the other partners at the Bear River Coordinating Committee because we released about 1000 Bonneville cutthroat trout into the stream today.”

David Teuscher, Regional Fisheries Manager for Idaho Fish and Game explains the vital role that the cutthroat trout have in the bear river ecosystem

David Teuscher, Regional Fisheries Manager, “The cutthroat trout play an important role, fish eating birds rely on fish resources so in the past native cutthroat trout filled all these streams and tributaries and they were food resources for other things like fish birds so the played an important role in a larger picture.”

Today is the culmination of years of hard work Fish and Game and volunteers have put in to restore the habitat of these fish.

But converting this once dam site to a useable habitat for the fish takes time and effort. Teuscher says many of these fish and game projects like this one would not be possible without the help of volunteers.

Teuscher, “So volunteers play a huge role in the amount of work we’re able to do because as you know labor and things are very expensive and we’re limited by how much we can do on an annual basis on budgets, the more volunteers we get the more work we can do.”

All the hard work and effort does pay off as an important investment in Idaho fisheries for the future.

Teuscher, “In two years when these fish come back upstream to spawn they’ll have that good spawning habitat.”

Those interested in volunteering for Idaho Fish and Game can find more information on their website.

 

Pennsylvania fish habitat regulations/information

Posted on by david
PFBC Cooperative Fish Habitat Management Programs for Lakes
What You Need to Know
The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission’s Cooperative Lake Habitat Improvement Program has been in existence for over twenty years.  With the foundation of the Division of Habitat Management, Lake Habitat Cooperators have more options than in the past.  Currently two Commission programs exist solely for the purpose of working with individuals, organizations and other state and federal agencies to manage habitat improvement projects in commonwealth lakes and impoundments. The Cooperative Habitat Improvement Program (CHIP) and the Technical Assistance Program (TAP) are cooperative programs that are managed by staff within the Division of Habitat Management’s Lake Section that is part of the Commission’s Bureau of Fisheries, located in Bellefonte, PA.The Lake Section’s CHIP program is for long term fish habitat enhancement projects with cooperators that are able to partially fund projects with the Commission. The lake or impoundment to be improved must be state or federally owned or open to the public through an easement or management agreement.  Trained Commission staff may provide technical assistance in design, in permitting, in artificial habitat construction and placement oversight.  The trained Commission staff may also use specialized equipment and operators to construct artificial fish habitat structures. The Commission can provide matching material funding for Active CHIP Lake Projects. 

The Division of Habitat Management’s TAP program is aimed at short term projects that require only technical assistance. This technical assistance comes in the form of project design. Like the CHIP program, habitat managers will conduct habitat assessments and inventories of the individual lakes or impoundments and provide a CAD-drawn plan map showing depths and waypoint locations of specific artificial fish habitat structure proposed for the lake.  The cooperator will receive this plan map and the associated plan narrative as a management plan for the waterway.  Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission funding is not available to TAP cooperators, but lakes not open to the public may receive technical support through TAP.  Both the CHIP program and the TAP program have been created to manage the design, the construction and the placement of artificial fish habitat in Pennsylvania lakes and impoundments.

Questions and answers about Lake Habitat Management in Pennsylvania Lakes
What is artificial fish habitat? Artificial habitat is fish structure designed to provide habitat features that allow fish (vertebrate and invertebrate animals) and reptiles to accomplish their daily and seasonal performance tasks with greater efficiency.  Man-made habitat is considered artificial because it does not occur naturally.  For the most part, the man-made habitat is used in man-made lakes (reservoirs & impoundments) which are artificial aquatic environments.Does the Commission have to get permits to place fish habitat in Lakes? The Commission’s Division of Habitat Management assists CHIP cooperators in their request to receive state and federal encroachment permits for fish habitat enhancement structure placement. TAP cooperators may use the Lake Section Designed Plan in a permit request to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection. 

What does Fish Habitat Improvement accomplish? Artificial fish habitat may provide opportunities for angers to have greater success if the artificial habitat is accessible.  But the main objective, is to increase the abundance of submerged native habitat materials, primarily, wood and rock rubble, through engineered structure design, that mimics native or natural habitat found in Pennsylvania impoundments. Wood and rock rubble are the key habitat elements that invertebrate and vertebrate animals use in lakes and impoundments.  When the utilization aspect of fish habitat improvement increases the anglers’ success and provides opportunities for aquatic animals to increase in abundance and in efficiency, it is a win-win lake management tool.

How expensive is Fish Habitat Improvement? Artificial fish habitat structure varies in cost due to the type, to the dimensions, to the materials used and to the regional values.  An average cost of a typical, volunteer built, Pennsylvania style artificial habitat structure is $50.00. Add the cost of Commission staff time to design and to oversee project implantation, plus fuel and transportation costs, the estimated value of a typical submerged Pennsylvania style artificial habitat structure equals approximately $100. Considering that 90% of all Pennsylvania style artificial habitat structures constructed and placed in the last two decades are still submerged and functional, it is a pretty good value.

How much does a typical Fish Habitat Improvement Project cost? Due to regional variations in material, transportation costs and inflation, project costs may vary. However, an average small scale fish habitat annual project may cost between $750 and $1,500. Normally, the Commission’s material costs are $500 to $1000 and the cooperator’s material costs are $250 to $500. The cooperator’s 50% cost match also includes, the value of the volunteer time. Typically speaking, between volunteer time and cooperator material and equipment continuations, the CHIP cooperator exceeds the 50% value of the project cost. Large-scale projects are far more expensive, averaging $10,000 to $50,000 depending upon the size and structure of the Large Scale Fish Habitat Project.

What is the difference between large-scale and small-scale projects? Small Scale Lake Fish Habitat Projects have been part of habitat management for over 20 years and continue to be the mainstay of CHIP. Small scale projects normally have a 3 to 9 year life span, but a few have been ongoing for 20 years. Typically, a small scale project is conducted annually.  Using adult and/or youth volunteer labor along with lake section staff and equipment, it is possible to construct and place 10 to 100 Pennsylvania style wooded artificial fish habitat structures in a single day.

Large Scale Fish Habitat Projects are created by one of two basic elements in impoundments that have a dire need for habitat.  One basic element is the impoundment in a condition where a large amount of habitat can be placed in a short period of time, such as a dam breach, a lake reclamation or a maintenance water drawdown.  The other basic element is when funding becomes available, through a grant or a donation that provides the cooperator and the Commission an opportunity to accomplish a large-scale habitat project.  Large scale projects may provide opportunities for volunteer involvement, but are typically accomplished using specialized aquatic and land-based equipment to construct and place hundreds of artificial habitats in a single day. Large scale projects may last a couple of weeks to a month.

Who does the Commission work with to accomplish Lake Habitat Projects? The Commission’s CHIP program works with numerous organizations and agencies to cooperatively conduct small and large scale fish habitat projects. State agencies like, Pennsylvania’s Department of Conservation & Natural Resources’, Bureau of State Parks and the Pennsylvania Game Commission have been long time partners and cooperators. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the U. S. Forest Service continue to be valuable partners in the CHIP program. Numerous County Conservation Districts and County Park and recreation agencies have been long time cooperators, along with organizations like the Pennsylvania Bass Federation, the individual bass and fishing clubs, and the lake associations across the Commonwealth.

This does not include the hundreds of youth and adult volunteers that work with cooperators annually, to provide the muscle to accomplish the 50 plus small scale projects that occur every year. Other state’s agencies are also involved in Pennsylvania’s cooperative fish habitat program.  Ohio’s Department of Natural Resources’, Division of Wildlife, and Ohio State Parks both are involved in the annual habitat management project at Pymatuning Reservoir, since a portion of Pymatuning Reservoir is in Ohio.

How do you determine if Artificial Habitat is beneficial? Scientifically speaking, determining the fishery population value of artificial fish habitat in a large impoundment may be close to impossible. An impoundment is an incredibly complex aquatic ecosystem and fish populations and natural habitat abundance vary greatly from day to day, season to season and year to year, due primarily to regional environmental conditions. The fish use of artificial habitat can be documented through various sampling methods.  The night electro-fishing is the method most often used to sample habitat in depths of 5’ or less.

Deep water habitat has been evaluated using submersible cameras and scuba diving.  All of these are intrusive methods that can be used to study fish use of artificial habitat. A less intrusive method, but also less effective, is sonar sampling of habitat sites. Sonar can be used to determine if fish are relating to the artificial fish habitat structures, but sonar is not as effective to determine the abundance or the species richness as the other methods. Angling and angling satisfaction are another means to determine the value of a fish habitat improvement project.

The Commission uses all of these methods in regimented studies, in passive sampling and in undocumented discussions with anglers and facilities managers. The Division of Habitat Management is increasing the amount of sampling and monitoring to try and learn more about fish and reptile use of artificial lake habitat structures.   This comes at a good time, since in the near future we will be accomplishing more habitat projects than ever before.

How many Lake Habitat Projects will the Commission be involved in by December 2009? It is estimated that the Lake Section will be involved with and conduct over 100 Small Scale Fish Habitat Projects and 6 Large Scale Fish Habitat Projects by 12/30/09. An estimated 3000 artificial habitat structures will be placed in Commonwealth lakes with the Commission spending an estimated $25,000.  The cooperator and grant estimated contributions to total $125,000.  Between grants, Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission project funding and cooperator contributions; the 4 person Lake Section is preparing to accomplish 100 lake habitat projects with an estimated materials cost of $150,000 in the next two years.  This is an average cost of $50 per fish structure.  This artificial habitat should last at least another two decades into the future.

spacer
Habitat Improvement
spacer

 

 

Spring Bass fishing Tactics

Posted on by david

Each and every spring, bass angling fanatics yank out their bass tackle and start for the lake. Most are starting the season a little too early, but Continue reading “Spring Bass fishing Tactics”

Scroll to Top