StructureSpot

Kansas Seniors expected to pay for fish habitat improvements

Outdoors: Older outdoorsmen may face fee

KDWPT wants to do away with ‘fish, hunt for free’

Posted: January 28, 2012 – 8:39pm
 Back | Next 

The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism will ask the Kansas Legislature to remove the exemptions that allow Kansas residents 65 years and older to fish and hunt for free. These free licenses were implemented in 1971 and the KDWPT is looking at broadening its funding base as a growing number of Kansas baby boomers, like Gene Brehm, are nearing this age.  PHOTOGRAPH BY MARC MURRELL

PHOTOGRAPH BY MARC MURRELL
The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism will ask the Kansas Legislature to remove the exemptions that allow Kansas residents 65 years and older to fish and hunt for free. These free licenses were implemented in 1971 and the KDWPT is looking at broadening its funding base as a growing number of Kansas baby boomers, like Gene Brehm, are nearing this age.
SPECIAL TO THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Since 1971, Kansas residents who are 65 years of age or older haven’t had to purchase a Kansas hunting or fishing license. The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (KDWPT) is asking the 2012 session of the Kansas Legislature to consider removing these license exemptions for people 65 years of age or older.

According to KDWPT officials there are several reasons for this request. The KDWPT operates its fisheries and wildlife programs without the aid of Kansas state general fund tax money. These programs are paid for by licenses and permit fees charged for various hunting and fishing activities. In addition, for each license sold in Kansas the state receives federal money as a match from excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment.

This money is allotted to each state based on the number of licenses sold and divided accordingly. Fifteen percent of the KDWPT budget for fisheries and wildlife programs comes from the federal funding matching money.

Fishing and hunting programs in Kansas are supported by license and permit sales. According to the KDWPT, removing the senior exemptions will assist the agency to continue providing a variety of outdoor opportunities. One popular example includes the Kansas Walk-In Hunting Area program which has opened more than a million acres of private land for public access. Another is the Community Fisheries Assistance Program which has opened more than 200 community lakes for fishing.

Additionally, license money is used to pay for fisheries management and fish stockings in 24 federal reservoirs and 40 state fishing lakes. In addition, license fees aid wildlife-related law enforcement, wildlife management on 100 public wildlife areas, boating access, fish habitat programs, research, education and wildlife population and health monitoring.

The KDWPT recognizes the changing demographics of Kansas residents. More people in the Baby Boomer generation will be reaching their 65th birthdays in the coming years. For example, the number of deer hunters 65 years of age and older that purchased deer permits has increased 25 percent in the last five years. Concern is that without a broadened funding base when many of these users leave the system others still paying for annual licenses will have to carry a heavier burden for fish and wildlife programs. The KDWPT said the elimination of the senior license exemptions will spread the cost among those that use the resources, keeping them equal and affordable for all.

Individual hunting or fishing licenses cost $20.50 for the calendar year. A combination hunting/fishing license is $38.50 which amounts to 11 cents per day. The KDWPT points out that the cost of a yearly license is a bargain compared to other forms of entertainment like dining in a restaurant, watching a movie or playing a round of golf. In addition, they point to the cost of the license as but a small percentage of the overall cost of other expenses relating to a hunting or fishing experience.

The KDWPT estimates the lost revenue from the senior license exemptions are considerable. Calculations used based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) 2006 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-related Recreation in Kansas (survey results from the most recent USFWS survey will be available this summer) estimates that 20,000 Kansas residents 65 years of age and older hunted in Kansas that year.

The KDWPT receives $18 from each license (after vendor and convenience fees) which would amount to $360,000. Matching federal money for each hunting license is $16.15. Subtracting 7,696 (the number of seniors who purchased a deer or turkey permit which can be counted for federal aid matching funds) that amounts to $198,709 in federal matching money for hunting licenses for a total of $558,709.

Using similar formulas and information, the KDWPT estimates lost revenue from annual fishing license exemptions for seniors amounts to $847,289. This is based on 33,000 anglers 65 or older at $18 for a total of $594,000. Federal aid ($8.31 is available as a match for each fishing license) from the sales of these licenses would amount to $253,289 (subtracting 2,520 anglers who purchased third pole or trout permits which can be used for federal aid reimbursement).

The KDWPT says it doesn’t want to unfairly target seniors who enjoy hunting and fishing. However, more than $1.4 million in lost revenue is substantial. They believe the elimination of the exemptions will make the license fee structure more equitable for all hunters and anglers and help to continue programs and services they enjoy.

Individuals wishing to express their concerns or questions are encouraged to contact their elected officials, or they can contact the KDWPT Office of the Secretary, 1020 S. Kansas Ave., Ste. 200, Topeka, KS 66612, or call (785) 296-2281.

HEARING SET FOR WATERCRAFT TAX

House Concurrent Resolution 5017 will have a hearing at 10:30 a.m. on Feb. 2 in Room 152 S in the State Capital. This addresses the current rate of taxation on watercraft in Kansas.

Currently, watercraft are taxed at 30 percent of assessed value which is considerably higher than cars, trucks, recreational vehicles and motor homes. The House of Representatives passed HCR 5017 in 2011 by a vote of 121 yea, 2 nay. It now must be approved by the Senate before it can be voted on by the public as a change in the Constitution.

The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (KDWPT) estimates as many as 10,000 boats and other watercraft are registered in other states to avoid paying Kansas property taxes. As a result, counties lose considerable revenue and the KDWPT loses revenue as well as federal aid reimbursable matching monies for improvements in boat ramps, safety markers and buoys, boating access, boater education and enforcement. The KDWPT supports this resolution.

If passed by the Senate, the resolution will go on the ballot to be voted on by the public as a change to the Constitution in the November 2012 election. If approved by the public, the 2013 session of the Kansas Legislature will determine how much to lower the current rate of taxation on watercraft personal property. This process already has been completed for vehicles, camping trailers and other recreational vehicles.

Anyone wishing to participate in the hearing and provide comments can contact Mary Jane Brueck, Committee Assistant at (785) 296-2713.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

Marc Murrell can be reached
at mmoutdoors@cox.net.

Pot Grows Destroy Fish Habitat

Brad Job: Rapacious Grows Destroy Habitat, Undo Restoration Work – January 29, 2012

Saturday, January 28, 2012
Nightmare mosaic photo from a raid in the King Range National Conservation Area. Photo courtesy Brad Job

I’ve been fascinated by water and the organisms that live in it since I was a child. When three years of sea duty made me fall in love with the ocean, I decided to pursue a degree from HSU in Environmental Resources Engineering, which I completed in 1993.

Since then, my career has focused on water quality and water resources. For the past 10 years I have had the honor and privilege of being part of a team of professionals that steward some of our nations’ most spectacular public land. In this occupation I have also been witness to many environmental sins that have occurred as a result of marijuana cultivation.

As a pragmatic environmentalist, it is not my job to deride marijuana or its use. But, similar to the environmental effects of logging, the problem is not necessarily that one grows pot, it’s about how one grows pot.

Regardless of how one feels about marijuana and its legal status, anybody that understands just a little about aquatic ecosystems has to admit that widespread cultivation has bad consequences for fish. It degrades the quality of our rivers and streams, which to me, are the core of what makes northwest California special. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

In reference to one of last week’s cover stories about illegal excavation and un-engineered fill(‘Shocking’ environmental damage from outdoor grows, Eye, Jan. 18) I can attest that the additional input of sediment eroded from grow-related excavations permanently damages habitat for imperiled salmon and trout populations and undoes the benefits of millions of dollars’ worth of watershed restoration work.

However, increased sedimentation is not the only or necessarily the worst environmental consequence of rapacious pot growing out in the hills.

The giant hunk of failing fill is located right above Bear Creek where it exits the King Range NCA could not be in a worse spot as far as fish habitat goes (notice the clear creek in the upper right corner).

Recent research has shown that 80 to 90 percent of the nitrogen in coastal watersheds historically came from the ocean, much of it in the form of return runs of salmon and steelhead. However, dwindling fish populations and environmentally oblivious pot growers have turned that dynamic on its head.

Now, growers dump hundreds of tons of excess fertilizer into these watersheds annually. The most obvious consequence of fertilizer overuse is increased algal growth, which is most likely why toxic concentrations of blue-green algae have been observed in the Eel River in recent summers. Excessive algal growth kills fish and the organisms that they feed upon.

In addition, outdoor grows frequently discharge rodenticides, insecticides and fungicides into the environment; divert springs and creeks for long distances; and leave vast quantities of trash and black poly-pipe behind.

And then there are the diesel dope grows. These operations often improperly and illegally store large quantities of diesel in plastic tanks that are prone to failure. And those that do use metal tanks almost never have secondary containment and often have leaks and spills.

A pile of dumped cannabis root balls, surely laden with fertilizers and other soil amendments, cascades down the banks of Liscom Slough into sensitive marine habitat last week. Photo courtesy Ted Halstead

It is worth noting that fuel distributors that dispense fuel into such tanks are also committing a felony. If anyone wants to observe the environmental consequences of petroleum spills in aquatic ecosystems, they need only to travel to an urban stream to witness the reduced abundance and diversity of invertebrate species, which are the base of most aquatic food webs.

Then consider the water diversions, air and noise pollution from inefficient generators, and the random dumping of fertilizer-laden potting soil. And I can hardly bear to ponder the sad irony of burning fossil fuel to make light to grow plants in a manner that is literally 99 percent inefficient, all while it is warm and sunny outside.

As long as the marijuana status quo and large profit margins remain, it appears inevitable that some of the worst crimes at marijuana gardens will be environmental ones.

The citizen’s suit provision in the Clean Water Act might be a big enough hammer to change some landowners’ behavior if a motivated team of attorneys and environmental scientists were to respond to a specific incident.

However, the sad fact remains that the underground economy is creating really bad consequences for the increasingly fragile ecology of our rivers and streams. But, if this letter makes only one grower reduce their fertilizer and agricultural chemical use or cause less erosion, the time it took to write it will have been well spent.

Sincerely,

Brad Job, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

Arcata

Conservation effort sets priorities for habitat

By DOUG WARNOCK

For the Capital Press

Forest resources, arid lands habitat and Puget Sound health were the areas selected as priorities for the Washington State Coordinated Resource Management program.

Washington’s CRM Executive Committee and CRM Task Group met together to establish program priorities. Reduced funding and loss of a full-time program coordinator precipitated the need to streamline activities and focus on high-priority needs.

The three areas deemed of greatest need were:

* Forest resources, emphasizing water issues.

* Arid lands habitat, focusing on sage grouse and endangered fish.

* Puget Sound health, emphasizing improved water quality.

The CRM Task Group is implementing a plan to assist new groups organized to address issues in the three priority areas, while continuing to support existing CRM groups across the state. The Task Group is led by Kevin Guinn, Natural Resources Conservation Service range management specialist, and facilitated by Ray Ledgerwood, Washington Conservation Commission Program Facilitator.

Coordinated resource management is a collaborative approach to resolving issues and improving management of land and water resources. The approach has been in existence in Washington state for over 50 years and has resulted in improved health of soil and water resources across the state.

A group in the Tenmile Watershed of Whatcom County stabilized stream banks and improved fish habitat. It involved local dairies, poultry producers, fruit and vegetable farmers and many community members.

A program in Klickitat County resulted in the development of 30 springs as water sources for wildlife and livestock, installation of 50 miles of fence to protect riparian areas and trees planted on 100,000 acres for forest renewal.

These are just two examples of successful programs. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

Planning for any program is done by the local people who are responsible for managing the land and who have the best knowledge of the situation. Resources of the State CRM Executive Committee and the state CRM Task Group are available to support local groups as needed.

The program planning process empowers local people to solve land use and natural resource issues through collaboration. It brings people together, enhancing communications and reducing conflicts, to help find common ground while working toward the achievement of mutual goals.

Consensus is the basis for success in planning. The approach works because planning together across ownership lines and management boundaries results in better resource health, helps people meet their objectives and minimizes conflict among participants. While there may be a difference in how individuals view a problem or situation, all have an interest in the land’s well-being and can find mutual objectives for its benefit.

The CRM Executive Committee is composed of the heads of the state and federal agencies associated with land and water resources. The CRM Task Group includes representatives of the same state and federal agencies involved in the Executive Committee, as well as several members at large. All are dedicated to enhancing the health and well-being of natural resources in the state.

Doug Warnock, retired from Washington State University Extension, now lives on a ranch in the Touchet River Valley where he consults and writes on ranch management.

Information

Keswick beaches get $215K for cleanup and fish habitat restoration

“The Elmhurst Beach project showcases how effective partnerships are contributing to the health of the lake. We are very happy to see that this project will be completed on time and will allow for many to enjoy the beach now and into the future.”

The project will remove failing concrete breakwalls and replace them with boulders in an effort to re-naturalize the shoreline and prevent its further erosion. It will also introduce a natural buffer strip to reduce phosphorus loading and improve fish habitat.

Two Keswick beaches will get the last trickle of federal funds under a four-year, $30-million program that has all but dried up.
The six-figure shoreline restoration project at Elmhurst and Bayview park beaches in south Keswick will be one of the last to get federal funding under the Lake Simcoe Clean Up Fund, which ends in March.
Government house leader and Conservative York-Simcoe MP Peter Van Loan donned an umbrella, tip-toed through mucky construction and braved the rain for this morning’s announcement of $215,500 in federal backing for the estimated $300,000 project that will re-build crumbling breakwalls along 1,000 feet of Lake Simcoe shoreline in Georgina.
The project will remove failing concrete breakwalls and replace them with boulders in an effort to re-naturalize the shoreline and prevent its further erosion. It will also introduce a natural buffer strip to reduce phosphorus loading and improve fish habitat.
The announcement comes as part of the seventh round of projects approved under the $30-million federal program, which was launched in the fall of 2007.
Mr. Van Loan praised Patti Dawson, the president of the Elmhurst Beach Association, who put forward a proposal in 2010, as well as the numerous volunteers, environmental groups and concerned residents for their extensive co-ordination and fundraising efforts.
“The Elmhurst Beach project showcases how effective partnerships are contributing to the health of the lake. We are very happy to see that this project will be completed on time and will allow for many to enjoy the beach now and into the future,” said Mr. Van Loan.
He also pointed to other partners, most notably the environment ministry and conservation authority, that have come on board since the clean-up fund was announced that has allowed the initial $30-million investment to lead to around $100-million worth of projects, which have greatly improved the health of the lake and its watershed.
Of the 300 proposals submitted under the fund, 160 projects have been approved for funding said Richard Simpson, the chairperson of the Protect and Preserve the Environment of Lake Simcoe Committee (PROPEL) — the advisory committee charged with assisting and administering funding under Environment Canada.
“Projects completed to date represent five times more money than what was left in the fund,” said Mr. Simpson. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.
While some of the approved projects have yet to be announced, the original investment, however, is all but spent and no future clean-up funding should be expected, Mr. Van Loan added.
He said the “one-time commitment” from the federal government has produced real results, but there is plenty left to do with respect to the health of the lake and local municipalities and the province will have to step up to ensure the valuable work continues in the future.
Michelle Rempel, the parliamentary secretary to the environment minister, was pleased to be a part of this morning’s announcement and said the fund highlights the importance of environmental stewardship and local economic growth, especially since Lake Simcoe generates roughly $200 million of economic activity annually.By Heidi Riedner

Medard Park reopens with fortified embankments, fish and fish habitat

 

By GEORGE WILKENS | The Tampa Tribune
Published: January 23, 2012
TURKEY CREEK –The water at Edward Medard Park and Reservoir is back – along with the fish, and the anglers.The 1,284-acre Hillsborough County park remained open nearly two years after the reservoir was drained to allow repairs to its crumbling shoreline. After sufficient accumulated rainfall, the 750-acre reservoir was reopened to boating and fishing on Dec. 31.See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

The lengthy period without fishing at the popular park adversely impacted attendance, said Kent Newcomb, the senior manager of the park south of Plant City and east of Valrico.

“These people want to go fishing,” Newcomb said. “A couple of years of no fishing is not what people want.

Now it’s time to get the word out: Anglers can cast a line again at Medard Park.

“It’s been stocked with bass bluegills, specs and catfish; we’re talking hundreds of thousands,” Newcomb said.

One change for anglers: The reservoir’s fish management plan allows catch-and-release fishing only, at least for now. Newcomb said he thinks the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission may rescind that in a year or so, once the new fish population has stabilized.

Boat ramps, of course, have reopened. The daily launch fee is $5 per boat, and annual passes are available.

New at the park are canoe and kayak rentals, $25 for as much as four hours.

Additionally, the observation tower and boardwalk leading to it — popular vantage points for bird-watchers have been rebuilt — Newcomb said.

More than 30 years had passed since water of any magnitude had been drained from the enormous reservoir at the park off Turkey Creek Road. But deteriorating sandbags along the banks signaled it was time, and water levels began dropping after the dam was removed in November 2009.

Construction, begun in January 2010, was by a contractor for the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

“They just about drained it all the way out,” leaving only isolated pockets of shallow water, Newcomb said.

Then, 3,000 feet of concrete mats were strung across a berm to help form the shoreline. The rocks that previously lined the shoreline will become fish habitat — artificial reefs to help transform the manmade lake into a more natural habitat.

Keeping the shoreline intact ensures residents to the south will not get flooded if the berm breaches.

The project was intended to fortify reservoir embankments to protect against erosion and provide flood control, said Amy Harroun, a spokeswoman for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which owns the reservoir.

Medard Reservoir provides flood control, as well as groundwater recharge and recreational benefits, she said.

“The project was a success; construction was complete in June 2010, and then we waited for rainfall to raise the water level,” Harroun said.

The project provided additional benefits.

At the urging of state Sen. Ronda Storms, the tons of tilapia and catfish removed from the reservoir were filleted and distributed to America’s Second Harvest, which provided it to local food banks to feed the hungry.

Additionally, fisheries biologists from the University of Florida removed and tagged large bass, which were relocated to other Florida lakes.

Newcomb, who has managed the park for 20 years and lives onsite, is as happy as anyone to have the reservoir reopened, as it attracts more than those who want to fish or boat.

“The water reflects on everything else,” including attendance by campers and picnickers, Newcomb said.

After the reservoir was drained, the park saw a sharp drop in attendance, which normally is close to 500,000 visitors a year.

“It’s still not back to what we hope it will be,” Newcomb said. “(But) I’m sure it will come back.”

Edward Medard Park and Reservoir

WHERE: 6140 Turkey Creek Road, Plant City

HOURS: 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. (winter hours)

ADMISSION: $2 per vehicle (eight people or fewer)

BOAT RAMP: $5 per launch

CAMPING: 42 sites with electricity, $24 nightly; $18 for ages 55 and older

CANOE/KAYAK RENTAL: $25 for four hours

INFORMATION: (813) 757-3802

gwilkens@tampatrib.com (813) 259-7124

New reefs for fish habitat in Maryland

Artificial reefs for fish habitat
fish attractors

The new fishing season might seem like a long way off but we’re really only a couple months away from when folks will begin extracting fishing rods from attics and sheds, pulling winter tarps from their boats, and reviewing their charts, just to make extra sure they’re set and ready for the fun times ahead. The natural optimism found in most anglers may foster aspirations for a new fishing season filled with beautiful weather and stringers full of big fish. But in these times when it seems fishermen are so often hampered by political, environmental, and economic issues, even the most optimistic angler can sometimes have trouble keeping a smile on their face when the winter news carries so many headlines of “doom and gloom.” So it’s always refreshing to hear some good news about positive developments within the fishing industry. On that note, let me reintroduce to you the Ocean City Reef Foundation and MARI. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

Its activities may not always capture front-page headlines, but since 1997 the Ocean City Reef Foundation has been busy creating and enhancing offshore fish habitat through an ever-expanding network of artificial reefs. From boats to barges, cable to concrete, tanks to trains, in recent years Reef Foundation administrators have strategically submerged so much material off our shores that give fish traveling through Maryland waters a reason to reside and reproduce off our coast.

There have always been artificial reefs off Ocean City. But, until the Reef Foundation got to work, offshore structure was restricted to a small handful of boats and ships that accidentally sank, or structure that was intentionally put down by a few well meaning anglers on a very limited basis. Consequently, local wreck fishing used to be practiced by a relatively small segment of local anglers who, through years of trial and error, acquired the coordinates to the bulk of offshore structure. Since no one wants to schedule their day around fishing a certain wreck and then find someone else already anchored over it, once obtained these coordinates were very seldom shared with other fishermen. With such limited opportunities, local wreck fishing was destined to remain one of Ocean City’s best-kept secrets.

Not any more. The OC Reef Foundation has been so successful at seeding the waters that fishermen no longer have a need to keep a good thing to themselves. There’s plenty of places to fish, and plenty of fish once you get there.

When structure goes down it immediately begins to provide safe habitat for aquatic life. In relatively short order, entire living communities can establish themselves on, in, and around the structure. In areas where the ocean floor was little more than smooth bottom there becomes a living reef and complete food chain, from tiny microscopic plants and animals to large predators. The Reef Foundation is just getting warmed up; they sink structure all year and have lots more on the agenda.

A few years ago Maryland also got into the reef building business when they kicked off the Maryland Artificial Reef Initiative (MARI), which includes over 60 private, state, and federal partners, and acts as a funding mechanism (using private and corporate donations) for reef development in Maryland. It’s a volunteer organization dedicated to preserving, restoring and creating fish habitat in tidewater Maryland. Funding for MARI comes from the Coastal Conservation Association, Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the coalition of donors and partners. MARI brings together a coalition of diverse stakeholders to accomplish meaningful and measurable goals that not only benefit the sport fishing industry, but also provide priceless marine habitat. Last summer, MARI had a hand in the offshore sinking of the 564-foot warship Radford which is now in striking distance of Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey fishermen.

Though spring is still few months away, sooner or later it will be here and happy anglers will once again put to sea in hopes of enjoying their best fishing season ever. Fishermen should take comfort in knowing that the Ocean City Reef Foundation and MARI are working hard to ensure that such hopes can indeed become reality. For more information about the Reef Foundation visitwww.ocreeffoundation.com, or see www.dnr.state.md.us for details on MARI.

Written by
Mark Sampson

Underwater cannon can protect valuable fish in the Great Lakes

Lake News, Information
& Events

Michigan: Scientists Will Chase Invading Fish With Cannon
Source: The New York Times; National Briefing-Midwest – By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. Published: December 30, 2011

Scientists are trying to discern whether an underwater cannon can protect valuable fish in the Great Lakes from the round goby, a predator that lurks near spawning beds and gobbles up the eggs of lake trout and whitefish. Biologists plan to use a seismic gun next fall to chase the predatory fish from several Lake Michigan reefs. Researchers hope the gobies will stay away long enough for native fish to hatch and escape. The experiment is part of the increasingly sophisticated war against invasive animals and plants that costs the nation’s economy billions of dollars each year.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/us/michigan-scientists-will-chase-invading-fish-with-cannon.html?_r=2

Fish love Snags and snags create habitat

Re-snagging the Goulburn to increase native fish habitat and improve recreational fishing opportunities between Seymour and Nagambie.

The Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (CMA) is working along the Goulburn River between Seymour and Nagambie in the coming weeks to increase the amount of large woody habitat, or snags, in the Goulburn River, with the aim to increase in the native fish population and diversity in this section of the river.

Funded by the Victorian Government, through revenue from Recreational Fishing Licenses to improve recreational fishing in Victoria and the Goulburn Broken CMA, the snags are being placed in the Goulburn River, downstream of the Hume Freeway Bridge near Seymour. The works that are being carried out will lead to an increase in habitat for native fish in the area and an improvement in catch rates for recreational fishers.

Goulburn Broken CMA River Health Projects Coordinator, Mr Jim Castles explains, “Native fish rely heavily upon instream habitat such as tree roots, logs and branches called ‘snags’. Since European settlement, our streams and rivers have been de-snagged, in the belief this would increase water flow and quality. We now know this is not the case.”

Native fish ecologists from the Murray Darling Basin Authority estimate that fish populations have declined by 90% since European settlement. There have been many threats to native fish including removal of in-stream and riparian habitat and flow modification.

Snags are the inland equivalent of coastal reefs and provide habitat for native fish and other animals such as tortoises and native water rats. Native fish use them to shelter from fast currents and sunlight and take refuge from predation. Native fish also use snags as feeding and spawning sites, and as nursery areas for juvenile fish.

Recent fish surveys within the Murray Darling Basin have found that 80% of Murray Cod are found within 1 metre of a snag. All large bodied freshwater native fish use snags as habitat.

“Re-snagging is a sound management intervention we can use to restore native fish habitat to our waterways, and results so far suggest that native fish populations respond strongly as a result. Re snagging on its own, however, is unlikely to be the sole driver in native fish recovery in the Goulburn River. The key is to better manage our riparian zones by fencing to restrict stock access and protect native vegetation, and revegetating degraded areas so there will be a constant natural supply of snags in the future” says Mr. Castles. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

The areas to be re-snagged have been identified via in-stream habitat mapping undertaken in 2011 by scientists from the Arthur Rylah Institute (ARI) in the Goulburn River between the Mitchellstown and Hume Freeway Bridges to identify areas that have a low density of snags. The sites where the Goulburn CMA carry out re-snagging are being selected based on priority zones identified by ARI as a result of this mapping, and access to the waterway within these zones.

The fallen trees used for the re-snagging project have been sourced from a number of nearby locations, including the Nagambie Bypass and a public reserve in Seymour. The Goulburn Broken CMA and its contractors work to rigorous guidelines that have been developed in other locations where re-snagging has been carried out over many years.

“The snags will be secured safely and positioned in a way that does not block the river channel to ensure fishing boats can still travel along the river,” explains Mr Castles “The snags will have very little or no net impact on water flow and will enhance native fish habitat, thereby leading to a more robust native fish community, which will result in huge benefits for recreational fishers in our region.”

This project is funded by the Department of Primary Industries Recreational Fishing Licence Grants Scheme, which uses revenue raised from the sale of recreational fishing licences to fund projects that directly improve recreational fishing in Victoria.

Snags on the riverbank prior to placement. Photo: Jim Castles, Goulburn Broken CMA

Recreational Fisheries Award to Kamloops

Minister Shea Presents 2011 National Recreational Fisheries Award to Kamloops Volunteer

KAMLOOPS, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – Jan. 19, 2012) – The Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of National Revenue and Cathy McLeod, Member of Parliament for Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, on behalf of the Honourable Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Gateway today presented Mr. Mo Bradley with a Recreational Fisheries Award in their home community of Kamloops.

“Mr. Bradley has contributed to Canada’s world-renowned recreational fisheries,” said Minister Shea. “It is important to recognize the hard work of volunteers who are committed to building sustainable fisheries in their communities.”

For over 30 years, Mr. Bradley has been developing and promoting recreational fishing in the Kamploops/Shuswap area of British Columbia. He is passionate about fishing and about teaching others how to fish, particularly young people. In teaching others, he never emphasizes the catching of the fish, rather the whole experience of fishing including observation of the natural world.

He has been an active member of local fishing clubs, contributing to expansion of programs to provide more fishing opportunities and educational experiences. As a board member for the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, Mr. Bradley lent his expertise and understanding of the needs of the fishery to ensure that fisheries projects would be of long term benefit to the resource.

A master fly-tyer, Mr. Bradley donates more than 3,000 flies each year to conservation groups to raise funds; flies tied by Mr. Bradley are much in demand. Passing on his knowledge and expertise to the future generation of anglers is considered by his peers to be the best aspect of his accomplishments overall.

“As Mr. Bradley is committed to ensuring that recreational fisheries are preserved, so is our Government,” said MP McLeod “We are proud to honour the efforts of such dedicated volunteers who make such an important contribution to this important tradition.”

Canada’s National Recreational Fisheries Awards were created in 1989 to recognize outstanding contributions by individuals and organizations in areas such as recreational community leadership, restoring and enhancing fisheries and fish habitat or promoting conservation and sustainable recreational fishing. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

For Broadcast:

The Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of National Revenue and Cathy McLeod, Member of Parliament for Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo today presented a 2011 National Recreational Fisheries Award to Mr. Mo Bradley. Canada’s Recreational Fisheries Awards were created in 1989 to recognize outstanding contributions by individuals and organizations in areas such as recreational angling, community leadership, restoring and enhancing fisheries and fish habitat or promoting conservation and sustainable recreational fishing.

Contact Information

  • Frank Stanek
    Media Relations
    Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa
    613-990-7537

    Barbara Mottram
    Press Secretary
    Office of the Minister
    Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa
    613-992-3474
    http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Tweed river fish habitat in good hands

Jim Ryan, a state river scientist, surveys a restoration project on the Tweed River in Pittsfield on Friday, Dec. 2, 2011. Floods triggered by Tropical Storm Irene sent the river shooting into a new path that threatened a mill downstream. Road crews seeking gravel further altered the river, making it more unstable. To restore the Tweed, river scientists redesigned a 1,800-foot stretch of the stream, to make it more stable, protect private property and restore fish habitat. Ryan stands on gravel used to fill in the Irene flood channel. That area will be the river's new floodplain -- a relief valve during heavy rains and spring snowmelt. The river flows in its new, more stable channel farther from houses and Vermont 100.
Jim Ryan, a state river scientist, surveys a restoration project on the Tweed River in Pittsfield on Friday, Dec. 2, 2011. Floods triggered by Tropical Storm Irene sent the river shooting into a new path that threatened a mill downstream. Road crews seeking gravel further altered the river, making it more unstable. To restore the Tweed, river scientists redesigned a 1,800-foot stretch of the stream, to make it more stable, protect private property and restore fish habitat. Ryan stands on gravel used to fill in the Irene flood channel. That area will be the river’s new floodplain — a relief valve during heavy rains and spring snowmelt. The river flows in its new, more stable channel farther from houses and Vermont 100. / CANDACE PAGE, Free Press

Written by
Candace Page

 

PITTSFIELD — Jim Ryan stood with Ray Colton on the banks of the Tweed River on Oct. 7 and shook his head, more in resignation than disbelief. He’d seen too many places like this in the last month.

“What a mess,” he said. He made a note in his notebook: “Colton’s mill site: Site is hammered.”

The river running past Colton’s firewood mill looked more like an abandoned gravel pit than a babbling brook.

On Aug. 28, Tropical Storm Irene had ravaged this stretch of the Tweed, a scenic stream that borders Vermont 100 between Killington and Stockbridge. Highway crews compounded the damage. Desperate for gravel to repair the washed-out highway and its broken bridges, they drove excavators and dump trucks into the river and scooped out tons of stone.

The tracks of heavy equipment could still be seen as ridged indentations on gravel bars. Much of the river’s water ran in a stony ditch gouged out by the road crews, but the rest trickled in multiple threads through the gravel islands.

Just upstream, the river had jumped its bank, eating up the field behind Sarah and Gordon Gray’s house and carving a new channel that barely missed Colton’s mill. More than 100 feet of riverbank snowmobile trail had disappeared.

Colton was worried about what would happen in the next high water.

“I’m afraid the river wants to come right through the yard,” he said, referring to his millyard with its stacks of logs. He’d spent the night of Irene sleeping in a camper at the mill to keep an eye on the river.

Ryan shared Colton’s concern about damage from a future flood, but had other worries as well.

“From a water quality and fish habitat perspective, the conditions were just horrible,” he said later. “Think about fish trying to stay cool in the middle of summer. Instead of deep shaded pools, they would have this shallow, braided stream.

“Yes, the river might have healed itself, but it could have taken decades. Something needed to be done,” he said.

Irene had jerked Ryan, a stocky, soft-spoken man, from his job as a state watershed coordinator to join the state’s lightly staffed River Management Program. He had spent the weeks since criss-crossing the White River watershed to survey river damage and to provide guidance to towns about rebuilding bridges and culverts in more flood-resistant ways.

Before the arrival of Ryan and his peers, road crews had torn up river channels across central and southern Vermont. Vermonters were treated to the surreal site of excavators, backhoes and dump trucks chugging through trout streams to remove whole shoals of gravel.

Much of this post-Irene emergency work did not just destroy fish habitat. It left rivers unstable — prone to severe erosion of their banks and sudden changes in course during high water — and thus potentially dangerous.

The challenge facing Ryan at Colton’s mill and elsewhere was: What do we do now? How do we restore a river? How do we resolve the conflict between the laws of physics governing a river’s natural behavior with the need to protect homes, roads and businesses on the bank?

And how do we do all this given shortages of money, manpower and work days before winter?

‘Don’t fight the river’

The traditional Vermont response to flood damage has been to dredge out new gravel deposits and to keep water moving past private property by digging out a straight river channel with banks armored in stone.

Over the last 20 years, river scientists have learned that such “solutions” come with a cost and often do not work. At best, a channelized, armored river will need frequent maintenance. At worst, the river’s potential for damage will simply move downstream.

“The idea is you don’t want to fight to create a river channel that the forces of nature will constantly work against,” says Shayne Jaquith, the state’s river restoration scientist.

After looking at the Tweed, Ryan persuaded Colton not to insist on a quick, Band-Aid fix that would be unlikely to last. Then he won agreement from Colton, the state Transportation Agency and the town of Pittsfield to share the cost of some restoration.

Ryan hoped to resculpt 1,800 feet of river, giving it something close to the form, slope and dimensions the river would find, in time, if it were left alone.

If the design worked, the river would be stable, that is, powerful enough to move sediment downstream — one of a river’s jobs — but not so powerful it cut a deeper and deeper channel or collapsed its banks.

But “stable” in a river system doesn’t mean unchanging. Rivers naturally migrate across a valley landscape, eroding earth from the outside of bends, depositing dirt and stones on the inside of bends where water moves more slowly.

Compromise would be necessary. Here, as farther downstream, the Tweed could not be allowed to migrate willy-nilly because that would endanger the highway and buildings on its banks.

Meanwhile, across Vermont, river management engineers were facing dozens of similar situations — rivers used as gravel mines, landowners calling for new river channels to be moved away from their homes, anglers complaining about the destruction of fish habitat.

Winter loomed. Towns, already facing million-dollar road repair bills, were unable to undertake expensive river restoration projects. The state lacks sufficient staff to design and carry out multiple complicated restorations.

Compromise was required everywhere. Mike Kline, director of river management for the state, compared the dilemma to the building of a new home on a limited budget: The first priority is to get the superstructure right; interior details can wait.

“The basic work we could do was to get people to stop digging — stop digging an 80-foot-wide channel in a 30-foot-wide stream! We would redirect them to fill back in to get the dimensions of the channel right. Get that superstructure right. With that, the river can rebuild over time,” he said.

Resculpting a river

On the Tweed, Ryan had commitments for funding that he hoped would allow him to do a more complete restoration.

He and Jaquith assembled a survey crew to spend a day creating a topographical map of the river, measuring the width, depth and slope of the post-Irene channel.

They compared their measurements to what river science, and data about the Tweed watershed, indicated should be the stream’s natural dimensions. They also used U.S. Geological Survey data to determine how much “bedload” — gravel and sediment — the river should have the capacity to move downstream.

It was clear that big changes were needed.

At the point in the watershed where Colton’s mill sits, the Tweed’s channel should be about 45 feet wide and 2.5 feet deep, as measured from the top of one bank to the top of the opposite bank.

The post-Irene, post-dredging, channel was more than twice as wide and half as deep. The river had lost some of its bend, so it flowed at too steep a slope.

In the end, Jaquith designed a new path for the Tweed much like the one the river had chosen for itself in the years before Irene.

He called for the new channel cut by the river across the Grays’ field to be filled in. The ditch excavated post-Irene would disappear. Mathematical formulas determined the radius and frequency of three new bends that would send the river past the Grays’ house and Colton’s mill in a series of lazy curves.

Those meanders decreased the slope of the river, slowing down the force of the water. In one place, a bend would bring the river against immovable ledges on the far side of the narrow valley, a place where a good fishing hole might develop. Where another bend curved toward Colton’s mill, riprap would protect the bank from erosion.

The newly carved river channel would be 45 feet across. The rest of the 150-foot-wide gravel bed left after Irene would become the river’s new floodplain, a pressure relief valve to hold water during spring snowmelt and moderate floods.

At the tail end of November, the excavators went to work.

‘We’re 80 percent there’

As the heavy equipment finished its work on Dec. 2, the river landscape looked raw, as though newly scraped by a glacier. A wide expanse of gravel, the new floodplain, stretched up-river in the place of the Irene flood channel.

Out beyond the gravel plain, the river meandered gracefully back and forth across the valley within well-defined banks. Driftwood tree trunks had been anchored in the riverbank, their root systems sticking out into the water where they would absorb some of the force of the water and thus protect the banks from erosion. Rocks protected the stretch of shore beside Colton’s mill.

“In the end, I was satisfied,” the mill owner said last week, although he said it had been necessary for him to rein in the river scientists’ plans to import boulders to place in the stream to dissipate more stream energy and create fish habitat. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

“I paid my share, it got done and the river looks pretty good,” he said.

Jaquith and Ryan were satisfied they had done the best they could, within the constraints of an $11,000 budget and — ironically — a shortage of gravel to better define the channel edges at the far end of the 1,800-foot reach. Too much gravel had been dredged out of the waterway.

“What I saw there, that first day, was an ugly thing — I remember thinking, ‘How can someone do something like this to a river, even though it wasn’t done in malice?’ — but what came out of it I hope can be a model,” Ryan said last week.

“We restored a river in a collaborative way. All the parties responsible for the damage came together and did the right thing. We didn’t have to fine anybody or go through environmental enforcement. We have a better stream for stability, for protecting infrastructure, for fish.

“It wasn’t a perfect fit, but it was a good start,” he said.

Scroll to Top