StructureSpot

Volunteers install fish habitats in Braidwood Lake

By Tony Graf tgraf@stmedianetwork.com June 29, 2011 8:38PM

Updated: June 30, 2011 8:34AM

BRACEVILLE — Braidwood Lake has more than 80 new artificial fish habitats, thanks to a team effort Wednesday by Exelon Nuclear, local anglers and a state agency.

The habitats complement a five-year-long stocking effort that has added more than 310,000 fingerling largemouth bass to the lake, said Rob Miller, district fisheries biologist for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

Braidwood Lake is a cooling lake for Braidwood Generating Station, an Exelon Nuclear power plant. Created from flooded strip-mine pits, the lake hosts Exelon’s Fishing for a Cure program each year.

The artificial habitats provide multiple benefits to largemouth bass — a favorite of Midwest anglers — at various stages in the fishes’ lives, Exelon said in a Wednesday news release. The units will act as nursery habitats for young fish and feeding sites for larger, older bass, the company said.

On Wednesday, anglers in fishing boats took off from the lake’s north ramp, headed for numerous destinations around the 2,500-acre cooling lake.

When the anglers found the right places, they simply tossed the lightweight habitats into the water and let them sink to the bottom.

When the habitat reaches the bottom, silt covers the edges of the base so the habitat will settle in that location. It is designed for stability in a riverlike setting, said Jeff Jenkins, of Jenkins & Son LLC from downstate Marion.

Jenkins designed the habitat and gave a presentation Wednesday at the Department of Natural Resources office on Huston Road in Braceville.

The habitat’s base has several vertical cylindrical bars extending upward — informally called “stickups,” Jenkins said.

These stickups will green over with algae within a few days, and zooplankton will start feeding on the algae immediately, he said. This is the first step in creating the desired underwater ecosystem.

Small fish will seek these habitats. Spawning will occur there. And eventually, the habitats will draw the bigger fish, Jenkins said.

The habitats are useful for attracting additional game fish other than bass, he said.

On Wednesday, anglers added 88 habitat units to those deployed in previous efforts. The crews were joined by the DNR’s Rob Miller and Neal Miller, spokesman for Exelon Nuclear.

“As habitats continue to be added and those previously deployed become seasoned, we’re providing habitat types that are attractive to these fish at various stages of their lives, from fingerlings to adults,” Rob Miller said. “The proof is in the increased number of largemouth bass in IDNR surveys and a dramatic improvement in angling success rates.”

On the water

Kyle Danhausen of Kankakee took two local reporters around the lake in his boat Wednesday morning. During the first trip, the three-man crew dropped 12 units in a small channel off a larger channel midlake.

The larger channel has warmer water, and fish take refuge in the cooler water of these side channels.

On the second trip, the crew dropped 12 more units in water 6 feet to 7 feet deep near a shoreline.

Danhausen used his trolling motor to navigate along the shore. There is no bottom structure here, and the water is around 90 degrees, he said.

Milfoil and other aquatic vegetation once was abundant here, providing a habitat for bass. An angler could catch plenty of fish above the weeds, within the weeds or in pockets of open water.

In the mid-1990s, the Braidwood Generating Station started running at a higher capacity, warming the water in the cooling lake. Vegetation started to die, and the fishery declined.

The stocking effort and artificial habitats are bringing back the fishery because the habitats replace some of the green that was lost, which the fish need to thrive, Exelon’s Neal Miller said.

Team effort

Exelon Nuclear and the Department of Natural Resources teamed up with many anglers Wednesday. The effort included members of the American Bass Anglers, Bass PAC, Fishers of Men, and the National Bass Anglers Association. Shimano American Corp. also was represented.

“The efforts of Braidwood Station and IDNR are making a difference,” said Jay O’Connell, a member of the American Bass Anglers and Bass PAC. “We are seeing a tremendous increase in keepers (tournament-length fish) over just a few years ago. The results speak for themselves.”

Dan Enright, Braidwood station site vice president, said: “Thanks go to the American Bass Anglers, Bass PAC and the IDNR for helping us with this important environmental project. Their knowledge of the lake and expertise in the area of bass fishing is critical to our success.”

Exelon and the three groups mentioned by Enright have been working for five years to enhance the fishing experience at Braidwood Lake. The five-year project cost is $25,000.

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 Catfish Cradle

The catfish’s cradle

Species thrives under near-perfect conditions found in Lake Houston

By SHANNON TOMPKINS

June 30, 2011, 10:59AM

photo
Shannon Tompkins

When fishing Lake Houston’s thriving catfish fishery, guide Walter Pratt and clients regulary land blue cats.

Walter Pratt faced a problem any angler would be happy to have.

Standing at the edge of the water on an island in Lake Houston earlier this week, the 50-year-old Splendora resident was smiling as he held a fishing rod and fought what turned out to be a 3-pound blue catfish.

But as the catfish wallowed on the surface a few yards off the bank, the tip of Pratt’s second rod, propped on a nearby holder, began nodding with the telltale signal a fish was gobbling the chunk of threadfin shad hiding a hook.

What to do?

Pratt hurriedly battled the blue cat to the bank, lifted it far enough onto the sand that it couldn’t easily flop back into the lake, dropped that rod, grabbed the other, set the hook and was fast to another fish.

He turned, grinning as he reeled in what proved to be a 14-inch channel catfish.

“Now you see why I say Lake Houston is the best catfish lake I’ve ever fished,” Pratt said.

He and Lake Houston’s catfish had already made a strong argument to that effect.

Pratt, whose Walt’s Guide Service specializes in rod-and-reel catfishing trips on the 12,000-acre reservoir on the San Jacinto River in far-northeast Houston, picked up my fishing partner and me at Lake Houston Marina at dawn. We carefully motored up the lake, dodging stumps and sandbars and islands uncovered by the reservoir’s shrinking water level until easing ashore on a heavily timbered island where we set up chairs and ice chests on a shady, sandy strip of beach.

We baited hooks with chunks of fresh shad, heaved them into the lake, sat down and settled into chairs to wait. But we didn’t have time to get comfortable.

Almost immediately, we began catching catfish. Lots of catfish. Channel cats. Blue cats. The smallest we landed were at least an inch over the 12-inch minimum for blue and channel cats. The largest was a 28-inch blue that weighed 8 pounds. And we had a handful of 3-5-pounders.

It seemed as though the flat between the island and the old San Jacinto River channel was crawling with catfish.

“We always catch a good mess of fish,” the gregarious Pratt said. “I’ve fished for catfish all over Texas. I used to think Lake Livingston had the best catfishing — and it is good. But for numbers and average size, I haven’t found a better lake than Lake Houston.”

Numbers don’t lie

Empirical evidence supports Pratt’s anecdotal observations.

“Lake Houston has really strong populations of blue and channel catfish,” said Mark Webb, district biologist for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s inland fisheries division. “And the fish are fat and healthy.”

Results of TPWD gill net surveys of Lake Houston earlier this year produced averages of 40 blue cats and 24 channel cats per “net night,” Webb said.

“That’s huge,” he said, adding the fish taken in the samplings showed a wide range of sizes of catfish, which indicates strong recruitment of young fish and good numbers of older, larger fish.

“Lake Houston’s catfish fishery is really underutilized,” Webb said. “It’s by far the strongest fishery in the lake, but doesn’t get that much pressure.”

That’s in large part a function of Lake Houston’s physical character and reputation.

The lake, built in 1954 as a water source for the City of Houston, is mostly an open-water reservoir with very little shallow-water habitat (willows, aquatic vegetation or other “structures”) conductive to largemouth bass, sunfish and crappie.

Considerable bulkheading along the shoreline by lakeside property owners hurts shallow-water aquatic habitat. But it’s the lake’s often muddy water, caused by runoff from sand and gravel operations along the San Jacinto River upstream from the lake, that really limits shallow-water habitat needed by largemouths. All that muddy runoff causes siltation and limits the amount of sunlight able to penetrate the water.

“You just don’t have the littoral habitat to support a premier largemouth bass fishery,” Webb said.

But Lake Houston does provide just the kind of habitat in which catfish can thrive, he said. The water is rich in nutrients that support a healthy population of threadfin and gizzard shad – primary forage for blue catfish.

Channel cats, which focus primarily on crawfish, aquatic insects and other benthic creatures, also find plenty of food in Lake Houston.

“Lake Houston has a good, strong forage base,” Webb said. “You see that in the body condition of the catfish. They are extremely healthy.”

So is the lake’s water.

“The lake’s water quality is excellent; it’s just muddy,” Webb said.

Add low predation on young catfish (largemouth bass are big predators on small catfish, but Lake Houston’s bass population is modest at best), and you have the ingredients for a booming catfish fishery.

Somewhat surprisingly, given that catfish are the second most-popular target species among the state’s 2 million or so freshwater anglers and the lake sits within 50 miles of nearly 5 million people, Lake Houston’s catfish fishery is relatively ignored.

TPWD surveys of anglers fishing the lake indicated 43 percent of them were targeting crappie, 28 percent were after largemouth bass, and only 15 percent focused on catfish.

Also, most of the fishing pressure on Lake Houston is concentrated in Luce’s Bayou and adjacent waters on the northeast side of the lake – not surprising, as the Luce’s Bayou area holds almost all of the best bass/crappie habitat in the reservoir.

That leaves the rest of the lake to people like Pratt, who have discovered just how good the lake’s catfishing can be.

“I can’t remember a day when we didn’t catch a bunch of fish,” Pratt said of his seven years targeting Lake Houston’s catfish.

A typical trip produces a mix of channel and blue cats, he said. And it’s traditional, laid-back catfishing – from the bank in chairs set on a shady, sandy shoreline or, when the lake level is up and he can use a larger boat, from an anchored pontoon boat.

Best-kept secret

Most of the catfish Pratt’s clients land are well over the 12-inch minimum. Channel cats, which don’t grow as large as blues, average 13-17 inches. Blues average 15-25 inches, with occasional fish weighing 10 pounds or more. (The heaviest LakeHouston catfish he’s caught on rod-and-reel was a 44-pound flathead, and the heaviest blue was a 36-pounder caught on a jug line.)

Experienced anglers commonly land 25-fish aggregate limits of blues and channels, Pratt said. And they almost always have the fishing and the wildlife-rich islands to themselves.

“We see deer and pelicans and roseate spoonbills and even bald eagles,” Pratt said. “But we hardly ever see any other people catfishing.

“They don’t know what they’re missing.”

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/tompkins/7633251.html#ixzz1REWXEtJL

Fish habitat report reveals mixed outlook for Michigan

Our debut story this week looks at the most recent “Waters to Watch” list from the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, a nationwide collaboration between government agencies, grassroots groups and others to restore and improve fish habitat.

Just a few days before issuing the list, the Action Plan released a report (PDF) outlining the status of fish habitat in the nation’s rivers and estuaries.

“There hasn’t been a report done at this scale nationally,” said Ryan Roberts, communications coordinator for the Action Plan.

Nationwide, nearly 40 percent of freshwater fish species are “at risk or vulnerable to extinction,” according to the report, with habitat loss the biggest cause of past extinctions.

Twenty-seven percent of stream miles in the lower 48 are at high or very high risk of habitat degradation, and 29 percent are at moderate risk, the report says.  The figures are based on risk factors like livestock grazing and agriculture, urban development, mining and dams.

The outlook for Michigan’s rivers is mixed, according to an interactive map that accompanies the report.

At its lowest resolution, the map reveals the picture you might expect: There’s a big red patch indicating very high risk in the state’s southeast corner, and as you move north the threat level decreases, ending with a purple band across the Upper Peninsula denoting very low risk.

But when you use the finest scale, the map gets more complicated.  It shows some remote watersheds in the U.P. at very high risk for a range of reasons, and a handful of southeast Michigan streams are shown to be at low risk.

The report is limited in scope.  To make data collection manageable, the report leaves out lakes, reservoirs and marine areas.  Limited historical data led the Action Plan to also leave out a range of threats–including water withdrawals, animal feedlots, forestry and oil drilling–that are of particular interest in Michigan.

As part of its charter, the Action Plan is slated to update the report every five years.  Future reports will likely cover other water bodies and additional threats, Roberts said.

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.

Outdoors: Research continues on Wisconsin River

  •  

GARY ENGBERG|For the State Journal | No Comments Posted | Posted: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:00 pm

 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.

A walleye’s gills are watered after its stomach was stitched to hold a radio transmitter.

  • walleye's gills
  • Dr. Brian Weigel

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is constantly doing research on the rivers and lakes in the state.

When you consider the thousands of lakes and thousands of miles of shoreline on the state’s rivers, the DNR has a never-ending job in keeping our waters clean — free of pollutants, protecting our resources and providing good fishing opportunities to the million and a half anglers who purchase resident and non-resident licenses.

Every spring, I go on to area lakes with DNR technicians as they electro-fish and fyke net fish on the Madison Chain of Lakes. The Madison lakes are regularly netted and shocked every five years for information and data on each lakes fishery and what is planned for the future in stocking and fish species.

For example, some of the research is the stocking of the Leech Lake muskie strain and the Wisconsin or Thompson muskie strain in local lakes to see which muskie does better in our waters and what muskie strain stocking is better economically. Much of the research being done will not produce results for years with the relatively slow growth of the muskie.

Recently, I happened to be up near the Prairie du Sac Dam on the Wisconsin River doing some wading for smallmouth bass. Near the VFW boating landing, I ran into Dr. Brian Weigel, a DNR fisheries researcher from the DNR Science Services Department, and Kurt Welke, DNR fish biologist and manager.

They were on the Wisconsin River researching the temperature preference of walleyes because the river’s temperature is now near the thermal preference threshold for walleyes. Many scientists and researchers predict that climate change will bring warmer water to the Upper Midwest, which may impact what fish species will inhabit and survive.

Conditions for fish — and walleyes in particular along with their close cousin the sauger — could be difficult in the future with an increase in the river’s water temperature which is predicted to be above the fish’s comfort zone. The researchers want to know where the walleyes are going in the warmer water of summer.

The day I ran into the DNR, they had two boats with fisheries technicians and grad students electro-fishing the waters below the dam for walleyes.

The electro-fished walleyes were put into a tank and revived from the shocking. Then, Weigel and Welke would cut a slit with a scalpel along the walleye’s stomach and insert a transmitter into the abdominal cavity.

The transmitters are about the size of an AAA battery. The cut was then stitched with monofilament line and patted down with iodine to prevent infection. The walleyes were then put into a “holding tank” which had a water re-circulator to keep the fish alive and give them time to recover before being released back into the Wisconsin River.

Weigel and Welke wanted to get 25 to 30 fish near the dam for their study. They seemed to be reaching their walleye quota.

The radio transmitters that are put into the fish will show where they are “hanging out” during the warmer months of the year. Walleyes have to be at least 16 inches long and preferably longer for the transmitters — which along with the software will allow Weigel to record data for two years. The transmitters are turned off during the winter.

There may be things done in the future to enhance the walleye’s survival such as improving fish habitat and changing the river’s water flow. The Wisconsin River fishery is a valuable and very vulnerable resource which deserves all the protection and help that it needs to provide fishing and recreational activities to all.

The trees and soil along the river’s banks are falling into the river at an alarming rate. The river seems to change every year with deeper areas getting filled in with sand and silt. Once one gets past the Highway 12 Bridge at Sauk City, it is difficult to find water deeper than 10 feet. The only really deep water is directly below the dam in the “scour” hole created from high water in the spring.

Weigel and his crew also electro-fished the Lower Wisconsin River from the Highway Y boat landing to Arena and only “caught” eight fish. There seemed to be many more walleyes in the immediate area below the Prairie Dam the previous day. This may be because the fish hadn’t migrated downriver yet, the larger females were still recovering from spawning, the fish were staying near the dam because of the deep water, or the fish were gorging on forage fish.

The DNR is trying to answer these and many more questions if we are going to continue to have a walleye fishery on the Wisconsin River. But, the real question is, where do walleyes go in warmer water?

Maybe they’ll go to the Mississippi River or do they cease to exist in the warmer river?

Only time will tell, but at least the DNR is pursuing the questions.

Contact Gary Engberg, a freelance outdoors writer, at gengberg@chorus.net, call 608-795-4208 or visit his website at http://www.garyengbergoutdoors.com.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/sports/recreation/outdoors/article_62553aee-a1fa-11e0-8731-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1REUuneDT

Qualicum Beach negotiates a water buy-in

Arrowsmithdam.jpg

The Arrowsmith Water Service draws its supply from this dam on the Englishman RIver.

News file photo
By Auren Ruvinsky – Parksville Qualicum Beach News
Published: June 28, 2011 9:00 AM
Updated: June 28, 2011 9:07 AM

After a long tough process the Arrowsmith Water Service settled important governance and funding issues at their latest meeting.

At their June 23 meeting, the City of Parksville, Regional District of Nanaimo and Town of Qualicum Beach signed the new joint venture agreement settling issues sparked by Qualicum Beach being reluctant to share the cost of the imminent capital infrastructure work.

The new agreement gives the partners weighted voting power depending on their level of ownership, giving Parksville three votes, the RDN two, and one to Qualicum Beach.

The ownership proportions remain the same, with Parksville at 63.9 per cent, the RDN owning 22.4 per cent and Qualicum Beach at 13.7 per cent, but Qualicum Beach will not contribute to the costs of the new Englishman River intake and water treatment facility in Parksville, with the option to buy its way in later.

When the town needs the water, they will be able to buy their way in by paying their portion of the original construction costs, plus the Consumer Price Index inflation costs.

“I’d like to compliment the staff,” said AWS board representative from Parksville Marc Lefebvre. “This is a demonstration of what we can do when we work together. On behalf of Parksville I would rather have had Qualicum Beach participate in the costs, but it’s understandable.”

A recent report confirmed that by 2050 Parksville — which already uses river water in the peak summer periods — will take 54 per cent of its bulk water from the river.

Nanoose Bay will need 22 per cent, French Creek will need 18 per cent and Qualicum Beach will only need six per cent.

“We’ve had a good relationship and its good we will be going forward,” said Qualicum Beach representative Barry Avis. “There’s no question of our support for the Arrowsmith Water Service.”

Parksville acting mayor Chris Burger said the agreement provides stability moving forward and allows them to approach senior levels of government for funding with a united front.

RDN chair and AWS board member Joe Stanhope called it a milestone agreement and said it was not only good for the residents of Oceanside, but pointed out fish habitat comes first in the language, stressing the importance of considering the wildlife and environment in the process.

The updated agreement, established in 1996 and last updated in 2006, includes a new provision giving right of first refusal of any assets to the partners to keep it in local government ownership.

Carol Mason, RDN chief administrative officer, explained there were a number of issues with the old agreement, including out of date language.

The new agreement makes it clear the AWS management board can’t supersede local municipal decisions, better reflects local government structures and includes clearer rules for new or withdrawing partners and the disposition of the entire venture to ensure protecting public ownership, she said.

Meanwhile the public and board heard an update on the intake and treatment facility progress, still in the early planning stages.

Staff presented an implementation schedule laying out many parallel tracks of study, planning, exploring funding options and public information, with open houses in 2013 leading to a public referendum in 2014 or 2015, hoping to begin construction in 2015.

The recent report estimated at a conceptual level that the first stage will cost $37 million in 2010 dollars, with a total cost of $52 million over the next 40 years.

The new river intake and treatment facility are required for Parksville and parts of the RDN to meet their projected water needs in the near future. A recent Qualicum Beach report found they will not likely need to supplement their existing city water wells.

The board heard that they have met all the conditions to purchase the needed land for the facility along the river behind the city works yard in the industrial park and hope to close at the end of June.

There is a lot of information on the service’s website at www.arrowsmithwaterservice.ca, which they intend to keep up to date as a key part of their communication strategy.

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.

writer@pqbnews.com

Sportsmen Condemn House Attempt to Weaken Clean Water Act

Tuesday, June 21st, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Sportsmen Condemn House Attempt to Weaken Clean Water Act

H.R. 2018 would undermine EPA authority to enforce Clean Water Act, diminishing water quality and harming valuable fish and wildlife habitat.

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipTheodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipSee 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.

WASHINGTON –-(Ammoland.com)- WASHINGTON, DC – American sportsmen today strongly criticized the House Transportation Committee for hastily passing legislation that would dramatically weaken the Clean Water Act and undercut four decades of progress in restoring the nation’s waters and wetlands and conserving valuable fish and wildlife habitat.

The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, H.R. 2018, has received minimal review and no hearings since its introduction three weeks ago. The bill attacks two critical components of the CWA: enforcement of water quality standards and protection of waters from discharges of dredged and fill material. H.R. 2018 would increase state control over Environmental Protection Agency implementation of the CWA, including veto authority over EPA enforcement of water quality standards and over EPA authority to block projects that compromise or diminish fish and wildlife habitat.

“In the name of responsible management of our irreplaceable waters, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat, we urge House lawmakers to abandon their hasty approach to advancing this legislation,” said Scott Kovarovics, conservation director for the Izaak Walton League of America. “The committee should step back and hold a hearing to assess the sweeping consequences this legislation could have on water quality, streams and critical fish and wildlife habitat.”

“Sportsmen strongly oppose this misguided and damaging legislation,” said Jan Goldman-Carter, wetlands and water resources counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. “H.R. 2018 will lead to a hodgepodge of water quality standards and contribute to an overall reduction in U.S. water quality, our natural resources and outdoor opportunities such as hunting and angling.”

In April, sportsmen welcomed proposed guidance issued by the administration that would more clearly define which U.S. waters are subject to Clean Water Act protections, a move that would begin restoring long-standing protections to many of the nation’s wetlands, streams, lakes and headwaters that have remained threatened in the wake of two ambiguous Supreme Court decisions and subsequent agency guidance. Recent actions undertaken by House lawmakers since that time, however, attempt to weaken or undercut these restorative measures.

“The Clean Water Act has led to immense progress nationwide in cleaning up our waters, restoring fish habitat, protecting drinking water sources, reducing wetlands loss and developing water-based recreational economies,” said Steve Kline, director of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s Center for Agricultural and Private Lands. “While states play a lead role in implementing some CWA protections, the law does not function without a federal backstop that ensures its goals are met. We cannot afford to threaten our waters, which serve as economic powerhouses for innumerable communities across the country.”

Waters and wetlands in the United States sustain the activities of 40 million anglers, who spend about $45 billion annually, and 2.3 million waterfowl hunters, who spend $1.3 billion annually.

“Whether Trout Unlimited is restoring small headwater streams in the Potomac Headwaters in West Virginia, removing acidic pollution caused by abandoned mines in Colorado, or protecting the world famous salmon-producing watershed of Bristol Bay, Alaska, the CWA is the safety net on which we rely,” said Steve Moyer, vice president of government affairs for Trout Unlimited. “H.R. 2018 would cut large holes in the safety net.”

Read a letter from sportsmen to House decision makers opposing H.R. 2018.

About:
Inspired by the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, the TRCP is a coalition of organizations and grassroots partners working together to preserve the tradition of hunting and fishing. Visit: www.trcp.org

Related Articles:

Ammoland Click to read AmmoLand FTC Marital Disclosures Distributed to you by – AmmoLand.com – The Shooting Sports News source.

Tags: ,


 

 

 

$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.

Scroll to Top