StructureSpot

Fish Take Advantage Of High Waters

Fish Take Advantage Of High Waters
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Fish & Wildlife

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Montanans, though battered by weeks of high water and flooding, haven’t forgotten to wonder how the state’s fish are faring judging by the questions Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks is receiving.

FWP officials say the answer is generally good—in fact some fish species are already taking advantage of the high water.

“Fish are well adapted to survive flooding, though they can sometimes be stranded when high water recedes, depending on where they took refuge,” said Bruce Rich, FWP fisheries bureau chief.

Remember, natural streams and rivers of the not too distant past were a substantially wilder, more transformative force on the landscape than they are today. They carried soil, nutrients, and heavy debris for miles, cut new channels during spring runoff, reseeded cottonwood trees along their river banks and scoured stream bottom gravels providing high-quality spawning and rearing habitat for fish. Some springs it is hard to imagine all this stream activity, but not this year.

“In high water like we’re seeing this year, fish generally move to the margins of the river for refuge—to backwater areas, or warmer, less turbid side channels or tributaries,” said Mark Lere, FWP’s Future Fisheries Improvement Program coordinator. “Fish might even move out onto the floodplain when it is inundated, then back into the backwaters and side channels as the water recedes.”

Lere said as water spreads out over the floodplain it tends to warm and pick up nutrients, providing great growing conditions for everything in the aquatic system–algae, insects, fish and other aquatic creatures.

Even when water is running muddy and fast, fish are able to orient themselves to the main channel and find food. Their body shapes and musculature help, but so does a sophisticated set of organic navigation tools.

“Fish have a sensory mechanism called the lateral line system that they use to navigate,” said Amber Steed, FWP fisheries biologist in Kalispell. “It is made up of external pores running from front to back through the fish’s midsection that allows the fish to sense movement and vibration, and changes in flow and water pressure.”

This system is a sense organ somewhat analogous to a human’s senses. Most amphibian larvae and some adult amphibians have a type of lateral organ too.

Fish reproduction also benefits as a result of high spring runoff. Fish deposit eggs in river gravels in what are called “redds.” Heavy runoff flushes mud and debris out of these gravels so fresh, clean water flows through increasing the oxygen available to the embryonic fish that will develop.

As Montanans everywhere cope with high water and its after effects, it may be some comfort to anglers and others to know that there will be some future benefits.

High FLows On Prairie River Systems And Warm Water Fish
By Diane Tipton, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Statewide Information Officer

Montana’s prairie stream systems generally have low annual flows. This spring will go on record as an exception. High water in eastern Montana is making life difficult in area communities at the same time that it may be enhancing conditions for some of the state’s warm water fish, including the endangered pallid sturgeon.

At least five radio-tagged adult pallid sturgeon are using the Milk River, say Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks biologists tracking the pallids. Biologists have determined that at least one adult male pallid sturgeon has traveled 36 river miles up the Milk from its mouth this spring, the furthest a pallid has ever been documented upstream in this river.

Another of the pallids in the Milk is a female that is expected to spawn this year. Female pallid sturgeon spawn for the first time at about 20 years of age, and then every two to three years after.

“A naturally spawning pallid sturgeon in the Milk or Missouri River would be very big news,” said Tyler Haddix, FWP fisheries biologist at Fort Peck on the pallid sturgeon team. Although FWP documented natural spawning in the Yellowstone River in 2009, it has not been documented in either the Missouri or Milk Rivers.

Pallid sturgeon have been on the federal list of threatened and endangered species since 1990. FWP believes that only about 150 wild produced adult pallid sturgeon survive in the Yellowstone and lower Missouri River complex. FWP and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been producing hatchery-reared pallid sturgeon and stocking them into the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers since 1998.

“Of all the adult pallid sturgeon that have radio tags—about 45 fish—we’re seeing a significant proportion using the Missouri River this year compared to any previous year we’ve studied these fish,” Haddix said. “That is a direct result of high, muddy water.”

Other benefits of high water and flooding on the flatlands of eastern Montana include increased production of aquatic insects and other fish food sources.

“Nutrients increase and water temperature goes up—resulting in increased fish growth and improved winter survival,” Haddix said.

Increased production and good survival could mean anglers will see more paddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon, sauger, and channel catfish in a few years, he said.

“In 2010 on the Milk, another high-water year, FWP documented the best production of paddlefish in the Milk River and shovelnose sturgeon in the Missouri River in the 11 years that we have been intensively looking at larval fish production,” Haddix said. “This year could be another high production year for these two species.”

Spring 2011 may go down in the record books for a variety of reasons—some of them tragic. It is good to know the record-breaking events we’ve observed this spring may have some positive effects—for Montana’s fish populations.

-fwp-

SIDEBAR:
Q. How do fish navigate?

A. Fish have adapted to the need to navigate high water in spring and to flooding rivers. Many fish species have a sensory mechanism to orient themselves and to detect what is going on in their environment called the “lateral line.” This system allows fish, when water recedes from an area, to sense changes in flow and water pressure.

The lateral line provides information to help a fish orient itself to its environment similar to how a human’s sensory systems enables a person to know they are changing elevation, or that someone is standing right behind them.

Q. What are the main benefits to fish of the spring runoff and occasional flooding?

A. Fish benefit from high water and flooding in multiple ways.

1. High water redistributes gravel otherwise unavailable to fish in other parts of the system and scours away silt covering the gravel fish need to spawn. Many fish species in Montana need clean, silt-free gravels to spawn.

2. Runoff typically introduces nutrients to the river system that feed algae, plants, and insects which in turn feed the fish that live there.

3. Other fish habitat-enhancers, such as root wads, rocks, whole trees, and more may be brought into the river system and distributed during high runoff. These habitat-enhancers are important to fish as refuges from the heavy flows, to avoid predators, feed, over winter and rear young.

4. Runoff in also a cue that it is spring spawning time for fish species such as cutthroat trout, large-scale suckers, rainbow trout and other species.

$1.6 million Grafton dam modification faces rejection by DNR

 
WRITTEN BY STEVE OSTERMANN
WEDNESDAY, 15 JUNE 2011 18:25

After years of planning and debate, $1.6 million Grafton dam modification faces rejection by DNR

The long-awaited and much-discussed fish passage expected to be built at the Bridge Street dam in Grafton this summer appears to be dead in the water.

A $1.6 MILLION fish passage was to be built at the east end (right) of the Bridge Street dam in Grafton as part of Ozaukee County’s Milwaukee River fish habitat restoration project. The plan, however, has been rejected by the Department of Natural Resources.
Press file photoThe Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources last week informed local officials that it plans to deny a permit application for the project, which calls for construction of a 650-foot fishway along the east bank of the Milwaukee River.

The fishway — designed to allow native species such as northern pike, walleye, bass, trout and salmon to travel upstream and spawn — was scheduled to be built as part of a $7.2 million river-restoration effort. More than half of the funding comes from a $5.2 million federal stimulus grant awarded to Ozaukee County by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Plans call for the box-culvert structure to extend from the dam to an exit by a boat launch that would also be constructed north of Washington Street (Highway 60).

An alternative to removing the dam, the fish passage was approved by the Village Board in December after months of communitywide debate. The debate led to a referendum in which voters overwhelmingly supported saving the landmark structure.

Design plans for the fish passage were submitted to the DNR for final review, with approval expected early this year.

However, a DNR spokesman said concerns about the possible spread of invasive fish species and a deadly fish virus prompted a tentative decision to deny the permit.

“By far the greatest concern is the spread of aquatic invasive species north of Grafton if the fish passage were installed,” said Randy Schumacher, a DNR fisheries supervisor for the department’s southeast region.

“We wish we didn’t have to deal with aquatic invasive species, but you can’t open a newspaper in this day and age without reading about them.”

Invasive species such as sea lamprey, Asian carp and round goby have been detected in Lake Michigan. Studies have indicated a potential threat of migration, which a fish passage at the Bridge Street dam could facilitate, Schumacher said.

The permit denial was also driven, Schumacher said, by a concern with the possible spread of VHS (viral hemorrhagic septicemia) — a virus that has caused large fish kills in the Great Lakes — as well as the box-culvert design of the passage.

Schumacher said the Bridge Street dam is the last line of defense between inland fish habitat upstream and the Lake Michigan fishery downstream.

In response to the DNR’s decision, county and village officials asked the department to schedule a public informational meeting to discuss the fishway project. During the meeting — to be held from 4:30 to 7 p.m. Monday, June 27, at the Village Hall,
860 Badger Cir. — DNR officials will accept comments, answer questions and consider any new information about project.

Andrew Struck, county director of planning and parks, said he was disappointed by the DNR’s decision but remains hopeful the permit — the final approval needed for the project — can still be secured. The fish passage, designed by Bonestroo engineers, has been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and was reviewed without objection by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, he said.

“Obviously, we think it is still a good and important project,” Struck said. “We are still planning to get clarification and more information and hoping there will be reconsideration of the decision.”

Struck said he understands concerns about invasive species and VHS but believes the Bridge Street dam fish passage would not increase those threats.

“We certainly need to be concerned about those issues, but there has been a lot of testing for VHS in the river with no strong evidence of a serious threat,” he said.

“We’ve designed barriers in the fish passage to prevent migration of invasive species and have also offered monitoring techniques that can be used downstream.”

Struck said worries about invasive species are overshadowing the proven benefits of fish passages throughout the state. Most recently, the Milwaukee River restoration project included the construction of a passage at the Thiensville dam downstream
from Grafton.

“This is important work. Restoring native species in the Milwaukee River is not anything close to what they could be,” Struck said.

Village Administrator Darrell Hofland said the DNR’s decision has frustrated local officials and residents who believed the project would be approved after it went through a review process that included public discussion of invasive species and design
options last year.

“The frustration that I’ve heard expressed is, ‘Why now?’ when both issues were already identified,” Hofland said. “It is unclear if any new information has come to light that would cause an 11th-hour change in the decision.”

Hofland said village officials “hope the DNR will keep an open mind about the project before making a final decision.”

The village has been ordered by the DNR to repair the dam — which has no major structural problems but needs work done on both abutments to meet state flood-control standards — by 2020. Repairs to the east abutments are included in the fish-passage work but would have to be paid for by the village if the project is abandoned, Hofland said.

“If they don’t proceed, the village taxpayers will have to pick up the cost,” he said. “The village was given less than nine years to complete this work, which has to be done.”

The village is exploring options for repairing the west abutment and has agreed to pay Bonestroo up to $25,600 to prepare designs and bid documents for that project.

The Bridge Street dam fish passage is expected to cost $1.6 million, including $300,000 for design work and $1.3 million for construction. Even if the DNR is convinced to approve the permit application, the current delay makes it unlikely the project could be completed this year, officials said.

Schumacher said he appreciates the concerns raised by local officials and praised the river-restoration work being done by the county.

“Ozaukee County is trying to do wonderful things for the fish population of the Milwaukee River and has in fact accomplished a great deal already,” he said, noting that 40 or so culverts have been installed in the river to improve fish habitats and movement.

“Unfortunately, the Grafton dam is a different issue.”

In addition to input received at the June 27 informational meeting, the DNR will accept written comments on the fish passage project for 10 more days before making its final decision. The decision is subject to appeal.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

The Bridge Street dam has been a source of debate in Grafton since 2009, when the village was poised to raze the landmark structure.

Protests from residents and downtown businesses fueled a petition drive organized by the Save the Dam Association and led to a binding referendum in April 2010 in which voters supported preserving the dam until at least 2019.

Press reporter Bill Schanen IV contributed to this story.

Paw Paw River Restoration Watervliet Dams Removal Project

Project OverviewThis project will restore the Paw Paw River by  removing both the spillway and diversion dams.   After removal, the river channel and banks will be  restored. With over 40 fish species, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division and The  Nature Conservancy consider the Paw Paw River one of the highest quality freshwater systems in the Great Lakes Basin.

Currently, the spillway dam is the only obstruction on the Paw Paw River from Lake  Michigan to the Maple Lake dam in Paw Paw Village.   The dams removal project is listed as high priority in several plans including the Berrien County Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Paw Paw River Watershed  Management Plan and the St. Joseph River  Watershed Assessment. Expected Project Benefits?? Improved Safety The dams have known structural deficiencies.  The dams are a safety hazard for  recreational users, including those fishing, canoeing and kayaking.  ?? Improved Fish Habitat and Water Quality The dams prevent the migration and movement of many aquatic animals (native fish,  mussels, etc.) and their removal will restore connectivity to over 100 miles of river habitat.  Following removal and restoration work, gravel and cobble will be exposed in the historic channel providing new fish habitat.  ?? Improved Economic Opportunities Short term this project will provide jobs.

In the long term, this project will enhance the  economic opportunities associated with the river.  The communities along the Paw Paw River will benefit from the improved fish habitat and water quality as it will create more  fishing and recreational opportunities.   Project FundersMajor implementation and monitoring funding has been provided by the  Great Lakes Restoration Initiative through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration (NOAA) with additional funding from:   Berrien County Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Other Project Team Members Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT)Southwest Michigan Planning Commission (SWMPC) The Nature Conservancy (TNC)  Two Rivers Coalition (TRC)Paw Paw River Restoration Watervliet Dams Removal Project For more  information visit:   www.swmpc.org/watervlietdam.asp

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Pebble again on the ballot – for now……..

Pebble again on the ballot – for now – in Lake & Pen Borough

By Andrew Jensen
Alaska Journal of Commerce

Another ballot battle over Pebble mine is brewing.

The “Save Our Salmon” initiative was certified May 30 to be placed on the Lake and Peninsula Borough ballot this October after initiative backers turned in a petition claiming more than 300 signatures, well above the required amount and comparable to the 384 total votes counted in the October 2010 borough elections.

Unlike the statewide Prop 4 aimed at large metallic mines bigger than 640 acres that failed to pass in 2008 after the most expensive initiative campaign in Alaska history, the setting this time around is in the borough where the Pebble deposit lies just west of Iliamna.

Pebble Limited Partnership, which unsuccessfully sued to keep Prop 4 off the ballot in 2007 before ultimately losing its case before the Alaska Supreme Court in 2009, is again challenging the validity of an initiative it believes is solely targeted at stopping its mine project.

While it makes some changes to the appeals process for permitting decisions, the main thrust of the Save Our Salmon initiative adds language to the Lake and Pen permitting code that states: “Where a resource extraction activity could result in excavation, placement of fill, grading, removal and disturbance of the topsoil of more than 640 acres of land and will have a significant adverse impact on existing anadromous waters, a development permit shall not be issued by the (planning) commission.”

The initiative also changes the preferred order in which permits are applied for. Current code requires that an applicant seeking a borough permit must have already secured all state and federal permits.

The initiative strikes that language and states that, “the applicant should obtain its development permit from the borough prior to obtaining state and federal permits.”

Lake and Pen Borough Clerk Kate Conley approved the language of the initiative April 7, and Pebble filed its challenge May 13 to her decision. George Jacko and Jackie Hobson Sr., the lead sponsors of the initiative, were granted intervenor status to join the defense of the initiative and filed a motion June 1 requesting summary judgment to keep the measure on the October ballot.

The initiative sponsors are represented by Scott Kendall and Timothy McKeever of Holmes Weddle & Barcott of Anchorage. Art Hackney, who was campaign coordinator for the failed Prop 4 initiative, is leading the public relations efforts on the new effort. Pebble opponent Bob Gillam is supplying financing to the tune of $250,000 so far this year, according disclosures filed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission.

Pebble is represented by Matt Singer and Howard Trickey of Jermain Dunnagan and Owens of Anchorage. The borough is represented by Aisha Tinker Bray and Jim DeWitt of Guess and Wood of Fairbanks.

In a new twist, law firm Trustees for Alaska filed a friend of the court brief June 1 on behalf of Nunamta Aulukestai (a coalition of Native village corporations opposed to Pebble mine) alleging that striking the initiative from the ballot would violate the Voting Rights Act.

The brief asserts that Pebble “would have this court disenfranchise hundreds of votes of Alaska Natives protected by the Voting Rights Act by denying them the ability to cast a vote on an initiative that has been lawfully certified by the borough clerk.”

Although the legal challenges have been filed with the 3rd District Court in King Salmon, oral arguments will take place June 23 in Anchorage.

The initiative sponsors have requested summary judgment in their favor without pre-election review of the measure’s validity. While stating the borough acted properly in certifying the initiative in its response to Pebble’s suit, Lake and Pen does not object to pre-election review.

“In the event the borough erred … the significant resources of the borough and its residents, both for and against the initiative, can be saved by pre-election review,” the Lake and Pen response states, “… if the borough acted properly, as it believes, little is wasted by pre-election review …”

Pebble asserts in its challenge to the initiative that the change in order of permits makes the proposal unenforceable as a matter of law because the borough has neither the expertise nor resources to properly consider a project application that figures to be altered multiple times as it goes through state and federal permit processes.

Sponsors of the initiative counter in their motion for summary judgment that applying for the borough permit first is simply a recommendation, and is designed for the benefit of the applicant “to spare an applicant the delay, cost and annoyance from obtaining all other necessary permits — a time-consuming process — only to be required to change their project to meet the borough’s standards.”

An initiative being enforceable as a matter of law is one of four standards a municipal ballot initiative must meet under state statute. The others are: it relates to a single subject; it is legislative and not administrative in nature; and it is not special legislation.

With the Alaska Supreme Court having already rejected Pebble’s nearly identical arguments about special legislation in the Prop 4 case — although Pebble’s attorneys counter that case is different because it is a local, not statewide, issue and even more specifically targeted at Pebble than was Prop 4 — the battle over the Save Our Salmon initiative could turn on enforceability and the legislative vs. administrative question.

The standard for deciding the legislative vs. administrative question was established in 2009 by the Alaska Supreme Court in the Swetzof vs. Philemonoff case, which revolved around an initiative in St. Paul that would have required the city to quit its electric utility business.

In adopting a test used by courts in Kansas, Montana and New Mexico, the Alaska Supreme Court relied on three guidelines for determining whether an initiative is administrative or legislative.

“An ordinance that makes new law is legislative; while an ordinance that executes an existing law is administrative,” states the first guideline. “Permanency and generality are key features of a legislative ordinance.”

The second guideline states: “Acts that declare public purpose and provide ways and means to accomplish that purpose generally may be classified as legislative. Acts that deal with a small segment of an overall policy question generally are administrative.”

The third guideline states: “Decisions which require specialized training and experience in municipal government and intimate knowledge of the fiscal and other affairs of a city in order to make a rational choice may properly be considered as administrative, even though they may also be said to involve the establishment of policy.”

In deciding Swetzof and allowing the initiative to appear on the St. Paul ballot, the Alaska Supreme Court stated that the third guideline (which would appear relevant in the current issue considering the SOS initiative amends language governing the borough planning commission) should not supersede the first two guidelines.

The Supreme Court found that the initiative to require the city to stop selling electricity was indeed a new policy and therefore legislative, and provisions to give the city time to apply to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska to quit the utility gave the tools that made it enforceable as a matter of law.

The sponsors of Save Our Salmon assert the initiative is new policy for the borough and therefore legislative in nature, but that is unclear both from a reading of the Lake and Pen planning code and the sponsors’ own motion for summary judgment.

On page 20 of the sponsors’ motion, it states the initiative seeks to prevent destruction of salmon abundance — “the very goal to which the borough’s development code is already dedicated.” (emphasis theirs)

But on Page 25, the sponsors state, “Prohibiting certain large scale resource extraction activities that will have a significant adverse impact on anadromous waters is new law taking the borough in a new policy direction.” (emphasis theirs)

The purpose section of the SOS initiative states, “The Act is necessary because salmon is a renewable resource which supports both the economy and subsistence lifestyle of the residents of the Borough.”

According to the current planning code for the borough, one of the purpose and balance objectives is, “ensuring that short-term economic gains are not made at the expense of long-term stability and continued productivity of coastal habitats and resources.”

Under administrative policies, the borough code states that, “Maintenance and enhancement of fish habitat will be given the highest priority when evaluating projects which may impact fish spawning, migration, rearing, and overwintering areas.”

In the same section, under policy for anadromous fish waters, the code states, “no development activities, alteration of vegetation, excavation, placement of fill, or land clearing shall take place within a minimum distance of 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of anadromous fish waters unless feasible and prudent alternatives are not available, and the protection of water quality and stream habitat can be assured.”

The code goes on to lay out additional standards for preserving fish habitat and water quality regarding solid discharges and mining waste known as tailings: “The Borough and appropriate state agencies shall not consider any reduction in water quality standards for industrial use in locations where coastal habitats, fish and wildlife resources, or public uses and activities are dependent on the maintenance of higher water quality standards.”

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

‘Birds lose’ with upgrade to fish habitat in park

ColonyFarmsPar-7web.jpg

Colony Farm Regional Park was picked as a site for the creation of fish channels to offset habitat destroyed by the Port Mann Bridge/Highway 1 project.
By Jeff Nagel – BC Local News
Published: June 09, 2011

Local environmentalists are criticizing the province’s $3-million plan to upgrade fish habitat in Metro Vancouver’s Colony Farm Regional Park to compensate for damage from building the new Port Mann Bridge and widening Highway 1.

Elaine Golds of the Burke Mountain Naturalists says Metro’s board shouldn’t have agreed May 27 to the construction of 80 hectares fish channels and ponds in the park’s Wilson Farm area.

“It’s very important bird habitat,” she said. “It’s more rare in the Lower Mainland than salmon streams.”

Golds said the park’s old field habitat supports short-eared owls, barred owls and great blue herons in winter.

Her group wanted the provincial government’s Transportation Investment Corp., which oversees the Highway 1 project, to find other sites where fish habitat can be improved without it coming at the cost of wildlife habitat.

“Under this plan, the birds lose and the fish win,” she said. “It shouldn’t be one versus the other. It pits the salmon supporters against the birders, which is not a good move in a public park.”

Colony Farm’s bird habitat once got upgrade money from federal authorities in compensation for the construction of Vancouver International Airport’s third runway.

“They’ve forgotten about that and now they’re piling on fish compensation work,” Golds said.

Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore in April persuaded the board to send staff back to press Victoria to look for better sites, adding Colony Farm may have been picked because it’s the easiest and cheapest option.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Metro officials say they took up the concerns with the TI Corp. but were told no other alternatives were possible.

The project needed quick approval in order for work to start this August when impacts to fish would be minimal.

Golds had suggested instead remediating an old dump site by the Coquitlam River and converting it to fish habitat.

But that was unworkable, according to a Metro report.

“DFO considers clean up of a contaminated site to be a high-risk activity that is likely to result in the release of contaminants to the aquatic environment,” it said.

Other sites along the Coquitlam River either had low value for salmon enhancement, a high risk for failure or didn’t meet DFO requirements for suitable compensation, the report said.

The TI Corp was required by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to provide 174,000 square metres of in-stream habitat and 441,000 square metres of streamside habitat to ensure no net loss from the project.

The work shouldn’t significantly alter public access to the park.

The former Wilson Farm was once an important wetland until it was diked for agriculture a century ago.

Fish Habitat Action Plan-Great Lakes Basin

Partnerships Fish Habitat Partnerships Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership
Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership
The international Great Lakes Basin is a unique and young-of-year Lake Sturgeon (Photo Credit: USFWS)
biologically diverse region containing the largest surface freshwater system in the world, with sport and commercial fisheries valued at over $7 billion annually. The fishery and aquatic resources of the Great Lakes have suffered detrimental effects of invasive species, loss of biodiversity, poor water quality, contaminants, loss or degradation of coastal wetlands, land use changes, and other factors.

The Basin includes all of Michigan; portions of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in the U.S. and Ontario and Quebec in Canada. It covers 295,710 square miles, including 94,250 square miles of surface
water and 201,460 square miles of land in the U.S. and Canada.
The Great Lakes and connecting waters have over 11,000 miles
of coastline.

Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership Website

Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership Project Update (FWS Fish Lines)

The Basin is home to 10% and 31% of the human population in the U.S. and Canada, respectively, with over 43 million people relying on the Great Lakes as a source of drinking water. More than 300 species of fish and other aquatic organisms inhabit the rivers, streams, coastal areas, and open waters.

The GLBFHP is built on a foundation of numerous bi-national restoration and protection efforts (i.e., Great Lakes Fishery Commission 1955; Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement 1972, 1978, 1987; A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries 1981, revised 1997). More recent efforts include the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (2004), Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (reauthorized in 2006), Canada-Ontario Agreement (2007), and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (2010). Even with all these efforts, no other initiative is in place to advance on-the-ground aquatic habitat protection and restoration Basin-wide. The GLBFHP will provide the leadership,
collaboration, and coordination necessary to bring a comprehensive, strategic approach to fish habitat conservation.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

The GLBFHP overlaps two recognized Fish Habitat Partnerships, the Midwest Glacial Lakes Partnership (MGLP), and to a much lesser extent, the Eastern Brook Trout Joint
Venture (EBTJV). The conservation goals of GLBFHP will complement those of the other FHPs. Improving the quality and quantity of water and overall health of glacial
lakes located within the Basin will have positive effects on the Basin’s ecosystem. The EBTJV has identified several priority watersheds that lie within the Basin’s watershed.
GLBFHP anticipates having areas of mutual priority in headwater streams of the eastern portion of the Basin.

Contact:

Mark Brouder
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Ashland NFWCO, Ashland WI
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ” target=”_blank”>mark_brouder@fws.gov

Pam Dryer
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Ashland NFWCO, Ashland WI
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ” target=”_blank”>pam_dryer@fws.gov

Jay Wesley
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ” target=”_blank”>wesleyj@michigan.gov

Water Quality and Fish Habitat

Water quality and fish habitat

Fish in stream

“An important factors in fish health and human health is water quality.  We all need clean water to stay healthy, and forested waterways play an important role in maintaining clean water supply.”

More information:

People need clean water. In the western United States, almost all municipal water—the stuff we city-slickers use—comes from forests. About 70% of these same forests are also actively managed for timber harvest. Thus far, municipal water quality has been sustained while other forest uses, logging and recreation for example, have also been sustained. With a growing population in the West, can we keep it up? See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Fish need clean, cool water. Fish and other aquatic animals, are not limited to the forested reaches of waterways. Salmon, for instance, use waterways to travel from the highest reaches, the often-forested mountains where adults spawn, all the way to the oceans where juveniles grow to adulthood. Because animals like salmon use all stretches of waterways, it will take more than forest-covered mountains to keep our streams healthy for them. Every stretch of river—whether in the mountains, in agricultural valley-lands, in the city, or along the coast— is important in maintaining water quality, forested or not!

Trees play an important role in our waterways. Fish need cool, oxygen-rich water in order to survive and stay healthy. Trees help shade waterways, keeping the water temperature down and the dissolved oxygen high. Also, sediments washed into waterways from adjacent land can coat the bottom of streams where fish lay their eggs, suffocating them before they can hatch—tree roots can stabilize river banks, reducing erosion of sediments into the stream. Tree roots can also regulate the flow of water in the ground—this water can move more slowly through the soil, giving microorganisms like fungi and bacteria a chance to degrade pollutants before they reach the waterway! Similarly, tree leaves—both green leaves in the tree canopy and fallen leaves on the forest floor—absorb the impact of raindrops, protecting easily eroded soil surfaces.

Because trees can play such an important role in maintaining water quality, many times we can often minimize water quality problems by “buffering” a waterway from harmful impacts. In some cases we do this by leaving borders of trees and understory vegetation; we call these “buffer strips”.

Buffer strips are successfully used to reduce negative impacts on riparian areas in a variety of circumstances. In fact, one can see them along streams in agricultural, urban, and forested areas.  They are used as filters for animal waste-rich waters that percolate from pasture. They are used as live barriers to keep livestock away from sensitive areas like easily eroded streambanks They are used to provide myriad benefits to forested areas adjacent to fish-bearing streams—trees are still harvested from upslope stands, but the valuable services of streamside trees and other plants are maintained.

As you can see, trees and other plants are important factors in water quality.  Woody vegetation like trees offer something else that few other plants can however; large woody debris. Woody debris in streams creates slow spots in fast-moving water where fish can rest. It creates pools where fish can grow and escape predation. Woody debris becomes both home and food for insects that make up a fish’s diet. It also provides fish the physical cover needed to avoid predators. And, as mentioned before, it can serve as a filter for pollutants and sediments by acting as a biological “scrub-brush” for the water!

Pork producer hit with fines

Pork producer hit with fines

Jun 12, 2011

Written by
SETH SLABAUGH

UNION CITY — A pork producer recently paid $12,693 to the Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement to settle a complaint that his hogs’ manure killed nearly 47,000 fish in 2008.

Rick Kremer and State Line Agri, Ansonia, Ohio, paid the civil penalty on Friday, about two months after an IDEM inspection found that he had not completed three “supplemental environmental projects” required in an agreed order on July 24, 2009.

At that time, in lieu of paying the civil penalty, Kremer agreed to replace existing county drainage tile that is 112 years old, to install a grass and tree buffer along Price Ditch to help filter and reduce potential contaminants, reduce soil erosion and improve wildlife habitat and to install a tree buffer and windbreak around hog buildings to screen, filter and disperse potential air contaminants exhausted from the buildings.

The agreed order called for the projects to be completed by July 24, 2010.

“Part of the supplemental environmental project was prohibited by dry weather last fall, and they had difficulty getting the rest of it done, so they opted to pay the balance instead of completing the project,” said IDEM spokesman Barry Sneed.

Kremer already had reimbursed the Indiana Department of NaturalResources $13,696 for the value of damage to an estimated 46,962 bass, bluegill, carp, catfish, creek chub, darters, minnows, stonerollers, suckers and other fish killed in an eight-mile stretch of Little Mississinewa River.

“A plan is being developed to use the funds for a fish habitat project that will help native fishes recover and repopulate in or near the kill zone,” said Phil Bloom, a DNR spokesman. “The project has several partners: DNR, Randolph County Soil and Water Conservation District, Randolph County surveyor, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Indiana State Department of Agriculture. The goal is to have the project installed later this year or in 2012.”

Kremer had land-applied manure when soil and weather conditions were unsuitable.

The supplemental environmental projects would have cost Kremer much more than the civil penalty. He previously paid $2,800 of the original civil penalty of $14,000. He had agreed to complete the environmental projects in lieu of paying the remainder of the civil penalty.

The penalty he paid Friday included the remaining $11,200, plus $1,493 in interest.

Damages to the fish population were determined using American Fisheries Society guidelines that calculate the average cost for a hatchery to raise a fish of the same species to the same size.

“All fish have a value,” Bloom said in 2009. “The larger the fish, the more it’s worth.”

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Bass Capitol of the World…….Florida!!

Vision: The worldwide angling public recognizes Florida as the “Bass Fishing Capital of the World,” based on great resources and responsible management. Florida’s bass fisheries provide outstanding ecological, social and economic benefits to the state of Florida.

Introduction: This Black Bass Management Plan for Florida incorporates wide spread public input from surveys, public events and meetings, a citizen’s Technical Assistance Group (TAG),and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff from multiple divisions and offices. We collectively created the plan to ensure Florida is the undisputed “Bass Fishing Capital of the World.” The FWC will use the plan as a road map and for impetus in dedicating and acquiring resources to ensure we fulfill the goal and realize the vision. Although the management plan time frame is 2010-2030, this “living” document will allow adaptive management, public input and new scientific breakthroughs to continually help us improve our results. Our purposes are:  Create a scientifically justified document to guide FWC efforts. Ensure the public has open input into the objectives and priorities to create ownership and provide support for conservation efforts. Be proactive and open to new ideas. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Background: Florida is recognized as the “Fishing Capital of the World” based on the number of freshwater and saltwater anglers, amount of time spent fishing, economic impact, diversity of recreational species, international fishing records set here and tourists who use our resources. Bass anglers spend more than 14 million days fishing in Florida each year, which generates $1.25 billion for the state’s economy. With 3 million acres of freshwater lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, and 12,000 miles of rivers, streams, and canals, Florida is a premier destination for bass anglers. The Florida largemouth bass(Micropterus salmoides floridanus)is genetically unique and has been stocked worldwide because of its potential for rapid growth to trophy size (10 pounds or heavier). Every year, a few Florida anglers catch 13- to 15-pound trophy largemouthbass. Moreover, Florida has shoal (M. cataractae), spotted (M. punctulatus)and Suwannee bass (M. notius), each one of which exists only in discrete areas and requires specific habitat andprey to maintain its population.

The fishing public perceives Florida to be among the top bass fishing states, but the fishery and trophy fish availability are depletedfrom historic levels in many localities, as documented in big-fishtournament records over the past several decades. Numerous pressures challenge fish management, including human population growth and development, declining water qualityand current water management and fish management policies. Climate change, including precipitation and sea level changes, may create additional impacts. Preliminary surveys of stake holders indicate overall satisfaction with the fishery but some concerns about negative impacts on bass populations and fishing opportunities, and the need foran enhanced management strategy.

The Black Bass Management Plan: This plan is action-based and will help FWC staff develop solutions for management issues such as habitat enhancement, aquatic plant management, fisheries regulations and appropriate stocking plans, while improving communications about angling ethics and opportunities, ensuring access, and reaching out to youth to keep them engaged in recreational fishing and conservation. The plan must be integrated with other local, state and federal programs. Effective implementation of the plan should also benefit fishing-dependent private businesses and create jobs, including those that indirectly profit(gas stations, local grocers, motels, and restaurants), and riparian land owners whose waterfront property values are affected by aesthetics and fishing quality. Highlighted below are some of the most innovative and key action items contained in the plan. New opportunities Identify new or special opportunities to create or substantially enhance black bass fisheries, and ensure FWC is proactive about opening new fisheries for the public. Successfully implementing new opportunities will require an aggressive, proactive, science-based approach that also involves local citizenry. Pursue public access to reservoirs during their planning phase, andVision: The worldwide angling public recognizes Florida as the “Bass Fishing Capital of the World,” based on great resources and responsible management.

Florida’s bass fisheries provide outstanding ecological, social and economic benefits to the state of Florida.FISHINGALLOWED New opportunities (continued)develop management plans andc ooperative agreements to produce appropriate trophy black bass fisheries. Make it easy for the public to find places to fish and freshwater public access (ramps, piers, shoreline access)using electronic and print media.? Formalize partnerships with watermanagement districts; federal, local andstate government agencies; and privatelandowners to enhance public access. Help local communities attract major bass tournaments by enhancing ramps and associated facilities that will benefit local economies and anglers. Implement complete de-water renovations on aging reservoirs and lakes with water control structures to stimulate trophy largemouth bass fisheries.

Habitat management: Habitat management is the most important component of maintaining good fisheries. Prevent habitat degradation in areas of existing healthy habitat in collaboration with other agencies as needed.  Manage native plants to create and maintain a symbiotic relationship between plants, fish, and people that will improve and sustain black bass fisheries. Implement FWC’s new hydrilla management position on specificwater bodies to improve largemouthbass fishing. Partner with WMDs and the Corps of Engineers to develop new water regulation schedules and to monitor and recommend minimum flows and levels to help maintain healthy black bass populations. Improve bass habitat conditions by manipulating water levels for fisheries enhancement purposes. Fish management Black bass management generally involves actions that affect rates of recruitment, growth, natural mortality, and fishing mortality for bass. Establish customized harvest regulations to manage black bass populations at selected water bodies. Determine the potential effects of bedfishing on black bass populations. Ensure genetic diversity, fitness, and conservation of Florida largemouth bass. Ensure the genetic integrity, fitness,and conservation of endemic black basswithin Florida Panhandle river systems. Stock fingerling (Phase-I, about 1inch long) largemouth bass into new reservoirs and into lakes following major fish kills or droughts. Stock advanced-sized (Phase-II, 4-6inches) largemouth bass fingerlings into water bodies where recruitment is limited.People management Human dimensions are critical to effective implementation of a black bass management plan, including communication, education, ethics, outreach, marketing, partnerships, tournament management, user conflicts, trophy bass documentation, data monitoring, imperiled species, and law enforcement. Implement a trophy fish documentation and release program. Involve stakeholders early in the process of major, resource-specificmanagement actions such as new regulations and major habitat renovations. Design and implement a completemarketing plan for the BBMP andFlorida’s bass fishing.? Build partnerships with bass anglers,other stakeholders, government agencies, institutions, and private industry to complete fishing and lake improvement projects. Cooperate with the bass tournament industry and citizens to effectively manage bass tournaments to minimize negative perceptions. Thank you to Glen Lau for use of the images.Supported by Federal Aid in Sport Fish RestorationFor more information, visitwww.MyFWC.com/FishingA

BOARD OF FORESTRY REPORTS FOREST PRACTICES ACT SUCCESS(Anchorage, AK)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJune 9, 2011

CONTACT:Division of Forestry/Central OfficeRick Rogers, Forest Resources Program Manager, 907-269-8473

– The Alaska Board of Forestry  released its 2010 report on implementation of the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (FRPA) this week. The board announced that the act continues to protect fish habitat and water quality while providing for commercial timber and fishing operations.  “The Board is confident of the act’s effectiveness because of extensive data available from six years of road condition surveys by  the  Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and  the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), eight years of compliance monitoring by DNR, and 19 years of effectiveness monitoring by resource agencies and the timber industry,” said  Chris Maisch,  the state forester and  the  board’s presiding officer.

The act governs how commercial timber harvesting, reforestation, and timber access occur on state, private, and municipal land.  Forest management standards on federal land must also meet or exceed the standards for state land established by FRFA. The act was adopted in 1978 and it has been revised multiple times since to add riparian standards and other protective measures.  State agency  compliance  monitoring, led by the Division of Forestry, determines whether  the act’s  best management practices are applied consistently and correctly on the ground.  Statewide, the monitoring results this year were the strongest ever, with regional scores averaging 4.8 out of a perfect score of 5.0 in Coastal Alaska (Region I), 4.9 in Southcentral (Region II), and 4.7 in Interior Alaska (Region III).

Over the last six years, DNR and ADF&G supplemented the compliance monitoring program with field surveys of closed and inactive forest roads.  Teams of habitat biologists and foresters surveyed every fish stream crossing on 1,891 miles of forest roads on non-federal land in Southeast Alaska.  Notably, the surveys found only 20 culverts with significant issues for fish passage on those roads – approximately one culvert of concern per 94 miles ofroad.  Follow-up surveys of upstream fish habitat were conducted on problem sites, sites have been prioritized for repair, and cooperative efforts are underway to correct the short list of problems identified.

The surveys also checked reforestation and found near-perfect results.Effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether  the act successfully protects fish habitat and water resources.  Alaska hosts one of the longest continuous effectiveness monitoring projects in the country.  Since 1992, state and federal government agencies and private industry have cooperated on an exhaustive study of the status and trends of fish habitat conditions in streams subject to forest harvesting under the act’s best management practices.

Partners in this effort include the Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation (DEC), ADFG, DNR, the U.S. Forest Service and Sealaska Corp.  The partners  jointly fund this work and provide technical expertise to ensure that state-of-the-art science is employed.  This study includes pre- and post-harvest data on 21 anadromous streams in 19 different watersheds in southeast Alaska.  The study has not found any significant adverse impacts  from harvesting on fish habitat in these watersheds.  This work has resulted in numerous reports, scientific meetings, and award-winning, peer reviewed literature publications.  Maisch also noted the role of field inspections in ensuring the act’s success.  “In the last five years alone, the Division of Forestry has conducted over 1,100 inspections on forest operations statewide.

Inspectors ensure that operators are in compliance with best management practices and provide training and enforcement if problems arise.  Many inspections are conducted jointly with ADF&G or ADEC. Their participation and expertise are essential to the implementation of the act.” The report is available on the Division of Forestry web site at http://forestry.alaska.gov/whatsnew.htm

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Scroll to Top