StructureSpot

New Hampshire Artificial Fish Habitat Plans Expand!

 

Warmwater Lake and Pond Habitat Initiative

Fishiding underwater fish attractors

The Department’s fisheries biologists recently discussed the feasibility of installing fish habitat structures to mitigate for the absence or loss of physical fish habitat in some New Hampshire water bodies. This discussion was initiated because of the potential opportunity that exists to enhance warmwater fisheries through fish habitat improvement projects.

The overall goal of these habitat projects is to improve warmwater fish populations and the opportunities to fish for these species. An additional objective of installing shoreline habitat structures would be to increase youth fishing opportunities.

Improving fish habitat by installing structures has been a successful management strategy in use for many years in states across the U.S., as these structures can benefit both forage and sport fish populations in a number of ways. Habitat structures have been shown to provide important nursery areas for many fish species and can act to increase fish growth and survival. The abundance of forage fish species is often enhanced in areas with habitat structures, which in turn can increase the abundance and growth of sportsfish (this is especially relevant in some NH lakes and ponds where a decline or lack of forage fish and/or crayfish may be the result of the absence or loss of appropriate habitat). Additionally, studies have shown that habitat structures can increase nest density, spawning success and juvenile survival of both largemouth and smallmouth bass.

Using fish habitat structures in New Hampshire waters is currently in a conceptual phase and there is no firm timeline for when, where, and what types of structures will be used. Before formulating a specific plan, the Department’s fisheries biologist will first thoroughly review the existing scientific literature, inventory current habitat quality and quantity on various lakes and ponds, and communicate with anglers in an effort to better understand their interest in this type of initiative.

Fishiding full size Keeper and Safehouse Fish Structure

The Department is also actively pursuing a feasibility analysis of using fish habitat structures. The feasibility analysis will answer the following questions: Will fish habitat structures provide habitat for the fish species of interest? What types of structures have been used elsewhere and for what purpose? What types of structures (artificial or natural) are allowed under current regulations? What are the potential problems (maintenance, ability to obtain permits from NH DES, potential navigation issues, potential effect on other fish species such as invasive species) in using fish habitat structures? What are the costs of building, deploying and maintaining such structures? How will anglers use the fish habitat structures (i.e., how will they access them)? What monitoring efforts would be best suited for evaluation purposes?

Warmwater fish habitat projects offer an exciting opportunity to improve fish habitat and warmwater fisheries in New Hampshire lakes and ponds. Additionally, involving anglers in this process presents an excellent opportunity for the Department and anglers to work together towards the common goal of improving and sustaining our state’s fisheries resources for current and future generations.

CONTACT:
John Magee, Fish Habitat Biologist
Gabe Gries, Region 4 Fisheries Biologist and Warmwater Project Leader

Increasing Fish Production

Ohio Pond Management
Increasing Fish Production
Methods of Increasing Fish Production
Fertilization
Artificial Feeding
Adding Fish Habitat Structures

Pond owners should view their ponds as selfsustaining bodies of water that are capable of providing all of the ingredients necessary for good fish production. The amount of fishes that can be harvested depends upon a pond’s ability to produce them, and this amount varies from pond to pond. Ohio ponds can often support up to 250 pounds of fish per acre, although this amount is generally less for ponds that are smaller than one acre. If a pond’s normal fish production is less than what the pond owner deems acceptable, it may be possible to enhance production.

The most effective methods to artificially increase fish production are pond fertilization and fish feeding (pellet feeding pictured). However, each of these methods can also cause pond problems, so pond owners should consider them only after carefully weighing the trade offs associated with trying to increase fish production.

Fertilization
Fertilization can improve fish production by increasing the production of tiny plants and animals at the bottom of the food chain, the phytoplankton and zooplankton. This increase in production at the bottom of the food web may ultimately translate into improved growth and production of sport fish. However, negative impacts from fertilization can also result if the added nutrients stimulate growth of undesirable types of aquatic vegetation and algae. Whereas excess vegetation can be a problem to anglers and swimmers during warm weather months, it can also make the pond more susceptible to fish kills due to a build-up of dead and decaying plant material. The pond owner may find that the cost of fertilizer, effort to maintain a fertilization program, and risk of fish kills outweigh the benefits of the increase in fish harvested.

Most ponds in Ohio are adequately supplied with nutrients from the surrounding watershed and should not require artificial fertilization. In fact, many ponds receive so many nutrients from the watershed alone that problems develop with growth of excess vegetation and reductions in water quality. The following criteria should be met if a pond is to be considered for fertilization: 1) the watershed to pond ratio is less than 20 acres of watershed per surface acre of pond, 2) the watershed consists primarily of woodland acreage with soils that are low in fertility, and 3) the pond has a minimal amount of shallow water and most of the shoreline has the recommended 3:1 slope to discourage the growth of aquatic vegetation. Ponds without these characteristics should not be fertilized.

If fertilization is appropriate, then the pond owner needs to proceed with the proper treatment applied on a careful schedule. The recommended procedure is monthly applications of liquid fertilizers 10-34-0 (N-P-K) applied at the rate of two gallons per surface acre. Treatments should begin when water temperatures reach 60°F in the spring, and stop when water temperatures drop below 60°F in the fall. Fertilization should be temporarily halted when water temperatures exceed 80°F during the summer. Dilute each gallon of fertilizer with 10 gallons of water and spray the mixture evenly over the pond surface. Water clarity is a simple and convenient way to measure the progress of a fertilization program. The water clarity should be monitored twice each month throughout the fertilization season. This is easily accomplished by simply lowering a white object into the pond, such as a coffee mug on the end of a string. The white object should be visible to at least 18 inches below the water’s surface. If the object is not visible down to 18 inches, overfertilization may be a problem. In this case, postpone the next fertilizer treatment until the water has cleared somewhat and remeasure water clarity.

Artificial Feeding
Feeding is the most direct and reliable method to increase production of bluegills and channel catfish in ponds that are less than five acres. Proper artificial feeding will increase fish growth and provide larger fish for anglers. Unlike fertilization, with artificial feeding all of the nutrients go directly into fish production rather than the complex food chain. For ponds less than five acres, feeding is a feasible way to increase fish production. Bluegills and channel catfish will readily eat pelleted feeds that are available at agricultural feed stores. Pellet feed containing at least 25 to 32 percent protein will produce the best growth. Largemouth bass prefer live natural foods and will seldom eat pelleted feed.

Training fishes to accept artificial pellets may take a few days. When bluegills are feeding on the surface in the evening, tossing a few floating pellets into the areas where they are feeding will teach them to eat pelleted food. Begin an artificial feeding program by feeding fish about two pounds of pellets per acre per day. This amount may be increased to 15 pounds per acre per day after they have become accustomed to being fed. The feeding rate should be adjusted in the summer according to how much the fish are eating. Feeding may slow or even cease during the summer if water temperatures get above 85°F.

The best guide to feeding fishes is to give them no more than they can eat in 15 to 20 minutes. Using floating pellets in a feeding ring is a good way to monitor how much food they are eating. A feeding station approximately three feet in diameter can be constructed by sealing the ends of a piece of corrugated field tile. Connect the ends after sealing to form a three-foot circle and place the tile in an area of the pond that can easily be reached to fill with food (pictured right).

A pond owner should be willing to make a long-term commitment to continue feeding before a feeding program starts. Feeding should begin in the spring when water temperatures reach 60°F and should stop in the fall when water temperatures drop to 60°F. Fish should be fed daily at approximately the same time and in the same place. Missing a few days of feeding while on vacation will not cause problems if feeding is consistent during the remainder of the summer. Overfeeding fish can cause many of the same problems as overfertilization. Food that is not eaten by fish will decompose and use up the pond’s dissolved oxygen (see fish kills). Decomposing food can also release nutrients into the water that may promote the growth of aquatic vegetation and algae.

Adding Fish Habitat Structures to the Pond
Habitat structures –“fish shelters,” or “fish attractors”– are primarily designed to concentrate fish and increase an angler’s chances of success. Depending upon the size and type of materials used, structures can provide cover, resting areas, and feeding areas. Habitat structures can act as substitutes for natural cover in ponds where these types of areas are lacking.

Habitat structures can be constructed from many different natural and man-made materials. Easily obtained materials such as discarded Christmas trees can be banded together, weighted and sunk, although trees such as oak, hickory, and cedar work best due to their resistance to decay (brush pile picture right) . Man-made materials such as PVC pipe, field tile, concrete block, and wooden pallets can also be fashioned into fish attracting devices. Habitat structures can be placed into the pond from the bank if the structures are not too large and there is relatively deep water near the shore. Larger structures can be placed from a boat to allow access to deeper water.

Winter ice cover provides an excellent opportunity to build and place structures too large to install from the shore or by boat. These structures can be built on the ice, or built on shore and dragged out onto the ice. In either case, the structure is placed on the ice and allowed to fall into the desired location when the ice melts (see brush piles on ice to the right).

Fishes & anglers alike will make the best use of habitat structures that are distributed carefully in the best locations. These structures are best placed in water that is within reasonable casting distance from shore & two to eight feet deep to allow consistent fish use. Habitat structures should not be placed in the deepest part of the pond where low dissolved oxygen levels (common during summer) make them inaccessible to fish.

Lake Kegonsa Fish Cribs Locations

2010 Fish Crib Locations Map >> Click Here
.pdf Adobe document will open in a new browser window.

Fisheries Committee

 

The goal of the Fisheries Committee is to preserve and improve the quality of fishing in Lake Kegonsa.  They meet with various agencies and concerned individuals to discuss ways to achieve this.  Topics of interest include: breeding habitats, fish cribs, fish stocking, invasive species (plant & fish) and harmful runoff.

 

 

Fish Crib Project
The FOLKS Fish Committee after years of planning built and placed 31 fish cribs into Lake Kegonsa in the spring of 2009.   This was a joint effort between FOLKS and the DNR.  FOLKS provided the funding for all materials, some equipment, and barge rental and got many volunteers to provide most of the labor.  The DNR obtained all permits, provided additional equipment and labor, including crib design and location.   Because of the limited amount of structure in Lake Kegonsa, we hope this can be an every 3 -5 year project.  Free lake maps distributed by Dane County Parks show the GPS crib locations.

 

Five fish cribs were placed in the lake in 2008 in the following locations.

 

Degrees Degrees, Minutes Degrees, Min, Sec

1. 42.96754° x -89.23289°            42° 58.0524’ X -89° 13.9734’            42° 58’ 3.1” X -89° 13’ 57.6”

2. 42.96765° x -89.23277°            42° 58.0590’ X -89° 13.9662’            42° 58’ 3.5” X -89° 13’ 57.9”

3. 42.96760° x -89.23247°            42° 58.0560’ X -89° 13.3942’            42° 58’ 3.4” X -89° 13’ 24.7”

4. 42.96746° x -89.23231°            42° 58.0476’ X -89° 13.9386’            42° 58’ 2.9” X -89° 13’ 56.3”

5. 42.96741° x -89.23260°            42° 58.0446’ X -89° 13.9560’            42° 58’ 2.7” X -89° 13’ 57.4”

 

 

Aquatic Plant Management Committee

The committee is concerned with reducing invasive and harmful aquatic plants.  This is a major concern for almost everyone who enjoys spending time on the lake.  The committee has been in close contact with Dane County and DNR officials regarding future plans for weed control in Lake Kegonsa.

Aquatic Plant Survey

On Thursday June 10th, Peter Foy, Ray Potempa, and Tom McGinnis conducted a survey of the lake to assess the aquatic plant growth situation.  We began the survey from Peter’s dock using his boat.  We proceeded clockwise around the lake, following the shoreline.  We encountered fairly thick growth almost immediately out from shore at a depth of approximately 4 to 5 feet.  As we moved out to 6.5 to 7 feet it cleared up.  This pattern continued around Lunds Point and well into Barbers Bay.  We encountered a couple of clear areas; however the growth was pretty consistent in all of Barbers Bay all the way to Colladay Point.  From that point on we encountered very minor growth in the rest of the lake.  Most of the vegetation we encountered was Eurasian watermilfoil.

 

 

Rules and Regulation Committee

 

Of universal concern to most riparian owners, are the proposed regulations regarding piers and boatlifts.  The Rules and Regulation Committee have very diligently been tracking the progress of these regulations over the past year.

A special meeting was held on 6/12/10 to assist FOLKS members to fill out the forms to document piers existing before 2/6/04.  Piers not conforming to the new regulations can be grandfathered to maintain them as is.

 

 

Strategic Planning Committee

The goal of the Strategic Planning Committee is to stay aware of the interests and concerns of our members.  We conduct an annual survey and after careful analysis of the responses we modify our strategic direction if necessary.  We also use the survey responses to  monitor the level of satisfaction our members have with the various FOLKS activities, such as our Newsletter, Lake Alerts, Educational Sessions, Committee work, etc.

A survey was sent to all members with e-mail addresses on file to gauge the interest in FOLKS activities.  A form that could be mailed was included in the September newsletter.

 

 

FOLKS Lake Level and Flow Rate Subcommittee

 

The water flow in the Yahara River between Lake Waubesa and Lake Kegonsa was monitored to determine if there are one or more natural or manmade features in the Yahara River flow path between the two lakes that are seriously restricting the flow of water from Lake Waubesa into Lake Kegonsa.

The study was completed and the results presented at the annual meeting.  A summary of those results is as follows:

 

 

Water Quality Committee

 

The mission of the Water Quality Committee of FOLKS is to engage in activities that directly improve the water quality of Lake Kegonsa and to support quality projects for the Yahara Chain of Lakes.

 

Stoughton Sanitary District, Dane County Soil Conservation, NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), WDNR and the USDA developed a solution to prevent run-off from agricultural land from entering Lake Kegonsa.  A prairie restoration was placed along HWY B (parallel with the highway) which will flow into a 6.3 acre piece of land that will be taken out of production and replaced with native plants.

 

The Prairie Restoration project was funded by FOLKS, Town of Dunn, and the USDA.

 

A similar project several years ago created a retention pond near Barber Drive.  The reduction of sediment into the lake is an important water quality issue.

 

 

 

How to Build Fish Cribs for Habitat

How to Build Fish Cribs for Habitat
The approximate cost of a crib is about $10.00 each, and now there is a new way to help purchase cribs for Lake Chippewa Flowage. In the summer of 2002 friends of the flowage will have the opportunity to purchase $10.00 raffle tickets. A drawing will be held in October and the lucky winners will be able to schedule a free day with a local fishing guide for 2003.
The Chippewa Flowage was created over 75 years ago. In those 75 years many trees and stumps that harbored food and shelter for fish have disappeared through natural decay. Realizing the structure must be replaced for a healthy fishery, the Lake Chippewa Resort Association, along with the Chippewa Flowage Area Property Owners Association started building and placing fish cribs in Flowage waters. Since March 1996 over 2500 cribs have been built and placed by volunteers from these associations. Building Cribs:

The first step is to accumulate wooden pallets. Pallets are donated by various companies in Wisconsin and trucked to the flowage at our expense. Cinderblock, clips and strapping must be purchased to build cribs. Cribs are constructed by layering pallets separated by cinderblocks on each comer until it is 3 or 4 pallets deep. Then the “sandwich” is strapped together. At this point the cribs are loaded by tractor-forklifts onto special pontoon boats that have been totally stripped down to just bare decks. Workers then turn the pallet/cribs on edge to stuff in brush. It takes a lot of brush to fill each crib. Accumulating brush and stuffing the cribs is actually one of the hardest parts of the job. Finally , when the pontoon is totally loaded, the captain and workers shove off and the cribs are dropped off into new crib locations.

Meanwhile other volunteers are cooking and serving food and beverages to the hungry workers. A master map is kept by the associations, but not published. After all, the cribs are for the fish, not the fishermen!

Crib building is an on-going project. Members of both associations are committed to preserving and enhancing this great fishery for current and future generations. If you are interested in supporting this effort, look for Crib Program Raffle Tickets on your next visit or mail donations to: CFAPOE Adopt-a-Crib P.O. Box 555 Hayward, WI 54843-0555

Volunteer workers improve fish habitat in Lake Hamilton

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

Fish Sticks

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

 

Vilas County may include structures in cost share program

By Ratchel White Of the Lakeland Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Largest Fish Habitat Restoration Project in America

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

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

Press Coverage

Shimano Boat .jpg

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

Lake Havasu News Release.pdf

Lake Havasu Kids Fishing Day

Havasu Kids Day.pdf

Bureau of Land Management Thank You Letter

BLM Thank You Letter.pdf

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

Bassmasters of Delaware add needed fish structure


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Pennsylvania fish habitat regulations/information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spacer
Habitat Improvement
spacer

 

 

Fish Habitat Partnerships/ NFHAP

Partnerships Fish Habitat Partnerships
Partner profiles

Fish Habitat Partnerships

 

Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership
Southeast Regional Partnership boat 

The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) was initiated in 2001 to address the myriad issues related to the management of aquatic resources in the southeastern United States, which includes about 26,000 miles of species-rich aquatic shoreline and over 70 major river basins. The area faces significant threats to its aquatic resources, as illustrated by the fact that 34% of North American fish species and 90% of the native mussel species designated as endangered, threatened, or of special concern are found in the Southeast.

http://southeastaquatics.net/

Matanuska Susitna Basin Salmon Habitat Partnership
Mat-Su Basin 

The Matanuska-Susitna Basin, or Mat-Su, covers 24,500 square miles in southcentral Alaska, roughly the combined size of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. The basin supports thriving populations of chinook, coho, sockeye, pink and chum salmon as well as world-class rainbow trout, char, and grayling, making it one of the country’s premier sportfishing and wildlife viewing destinations. Salmon and other fish are at the heart of Alaskan ecosystems, economy, and culture.

 

Driftless Area Restoration Effort
Driftless area stream 

The Driftless Area is a 24,000 square-mile area that encompasses portions of southeast Minnesota, northeast Iowa, southwest Wisconsin and northwest Illinois bypassed by the last continental glacier. The region has a high concentration of spring-fed coldwater streams and is recognized for its high diversity of plants, animals, and habitats. The Driftless Area Restoration Effort (DARE) partnership formed to address habitat degradation, loss, and alteration that are the primary factors contributing to the decline of fish populations in this unique region.

Driftless Area Restoration Effort website

 

Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture
Eastern brook trout 

In 2005, in recognition of the need to address regional and range-wide threats to brook trout, a group of public and private entities formed the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) to halt the decline of brook trout and restore fishable populations of this iconic species. The EBTJV directs locally-driven efforts that build partnerships to improve fish habitat, working to ensure healthy, fishable brook trout populations throughout their historic eastern United States range.

www.easternbrooktrout.org

Western Native Trout Initiative
 

Apache troutApache trout (George Andrejko, Arizona Game and Fish Department) 

Trout are important as an “indicator species” of a watershed. When a watershed is in trouble, the trout are the first to die. Species like the greenback cutthroat, gila, and westslope cutthroat trout thrived in Western watersheds until their habitats were altered because of roads, dams, agriculture, and logging. Human introduction of non-native trout species, such as rainbow, brown and brook trout put further pressure on native species by out-competing them for food and by eating native fry. Conservation of Western native trout and their habitats is critical in maintaining their cultural, scientific and recreational value.

www.westernnativetrout.org


WNTI December 2010 Newsletter

WNTI 2010 Annual Report

Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership
 

Photo Credit: Greg Syverson 

The Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership is a made up of local communities, Native organizations, subsistence users, anglers, hunters, commercial fishing interests, lodge owners, hunting and fishing guides, tourism interests, non-profit organizations, federal, state, and local agencies and corporations and foundations working cooperatively to conserve fish, wildlife and habitat and perpetuate the uses they support through voluntary habitat conservation in Southwest Alaska.

http://www.swakcc.org/

Midwest Glacial Lakes Partnership


Desert Fish Habitat Partnership
 

 

Mexican StonerollerMexican Stoneroller 

Desert fish have declined across these arid lands as a result of habitat loss and alteration and the widespread introduction and establishment of nonnative aquatic species.  Despite numerous federal and state laws, regulations, and policies to protect and recover native desert fishes and their habitats, most of them remain imperiled.Current habitat conditions and threats require specific management actions and focused consideration of desert fishes if these species and their habitats are to be protected and remain viable into the future.

 

Desert Fish Habitat Partnership website

Desert Fish Habitat Partnership Newsletter (Oct. – December 2010)

 

Hawaii Fish Habitat Partnership
 

 

`O`opu nopili `O`opu nopili 

The Hawaii Fish Habitat Partnership is composed of a diverse group of partners that have the capacity to plan and implement a technically sound statewide aquatic habitat restoration program.  In addition to state and federal resource agencies, our partners include local watershed coalitions, non-profit organizations, industry groups and private landowners who are interested in increasing effective stewardship of stream, estuarine, coral reef and coastal marine habitats.  The partnership is supporting on-the-ground restoration including removal of barriers to native fish and invertebrate migration, controlling invasive riparian vegetation, improving water quality in coastal areas and contributing to educational support for native Hawaiian student interns.

 

Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership
The geographic extent of the ACFHP stretches from Maine to the 
Florida Keys, including all or part of 16 States. It covers 476,357 square miles, including land areas inland to the headwaters of coastal rivers, and ocean areas outward to the continental slope. The ACFHP plans to work throughout the region, but will focus on estuarine environments and place less emphasis on coastal headwaters and offshore marine ecosystems. 

The Atlantic coast is home to some of the most populous and fastest growing areas of the United States. Aquatic habitats of the Atlantic coast are being heavily impacted by avariety of human disturbances.

 

http://www.atlanticfishhabitat.org/

 

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

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

 

Great Lakes Basin Fish Habitat Partnership Website

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

 

Ohio River Basin Fish Habitat Partnership
The Ohio River Basin Fish Habitat Partnership was formed toOhio River Basin (Photo Credit: Ken Cooke)protect, restore, and enhance priority habitat for fish and mussels in the watersheds of the Ohio River Basin.  We pursue this mission for the benefit of the public, but what brings us to the table is as diverse as the basin itself.  Whether it is sport fish, mussels, imperiled fish, water quality, or one of many other drivers, what bonds us is the Basin and our desire to work together to protect, restore, and enhance her aquatic resources. 

The partnership encompasses the entire 981 miles of the Ohio River mainstem (the second largest river in the U.S. as measured by annual discharge) and 143,550 square miles of the watershed.  A decision was made to exclude the Tennessee-Cumberland sub-basin to limit overlap with SARP.

Great Plains Fish Habitat Partnership
Streams of the Great Plains are home to a wide diversity of Topeka Shiner (Photo Credit: Garold Sneegas)
aquatic fauna adapted to harsh changes in temperature and water availability.  Low human population density has enabled many Great Plains streams to remain relatively unimpaired, yet aquatic species have experienced a slow but steady decline in abundance and diversity during the 20th Century and continue to face challenges that threaten their viability. 

Existing habitat loss are attributed to numerous factors including the conversion of native prairie to land uses for agriculture, energy development, and urbanization, which are reflected in degraded water quality, water quantity, fragmentation, and isolation
of rivers from their floodplains. Climate change and invasive species
are also factors affecting Great Plains stream habitat.

http://www.prairiefish.org

 

Reservoir Fisheries Habitat Partnership
Reservoirs are inextricable parts of our natural landscapes; Lake Houston (Photo Courtesy: TPW)
they cannot be isolated or dismissed in conservation management. Constructed to meet a variety of human needs, they impact almost every major river system in the United States, affecting to various degrees habitat for fish and other aquatic species and, in turn, affected by the health of the watershed in which they reside. Reservoirs, their associated watersheds, and their downstream flows constitute interdependent, functioning systems. Effective management of these reservoir systems – maintaining their ecological function and biological health – is essential to the conservation of our nation’s aquatic resources and their habitats. It requires that we minimize the adverse impacts of reservoirs on their watersheds (and watersheds upon reservoirs) and maximize their utility for aquatic habitat. 

www.reservoirpartnership.org

 

Kenai Peninsula Fish Habitat Partnership
Kenai Peninsula Fish Habitat Partnership is a conservation 
partnership developing on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. This partnership is working with the National Fish Habitat Action Plan to protect, restore, and enhance our area’s fish
and aquatic communities. 

Kenai Peninsula Fish Habitat Partnership website

 

California Fish Passage Forum
The mission of the California Fish Passage Forum is to protect
and restore listed anadromous salmonid species, and other
aquatic organisms, in California by promoting the collaboration among public and private sectors for fish passage
improvement projects and programs. Species of concern include: coho and chinook salmon, and steelhead trout.
 

California Fish Passage Forum

California Fish Passage Forum (Western FHP Presentation – July 2010)

Fishers & Farmers Partnership
Our vision rests on a belief that the combined experience, Seitz Farm
knowledge and skills of fishers and farmers can measurably improve the health of land and streams in the altered landscape of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. To advance this purpose, rural landowners voluntarily develop and implement science=based solutions to local water quality issues, with the support of conservationists. As landowners achieve their own goals for conservation and sustainable prosperity, successful practices will be demonstrated and effects measured, lessons will be learned and shared throughout the basin, and ultimately a globally significant landscape will be renewed. 

http://fishersandfarmers.org/

 

“Candidate” Fish Habitat Partnerships
Currently (January 2010) four “Candidate” Fish Habitat Partnerships have stated their intent to apply for recognition as an official partner under the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. The only partnership to state their intent to apply for recognition during the 2009 NFHAP calendar year was the Pacific Marine and Esturine Fish Habitat Partnership.  Below is a current listing  of “Candidate” FHP’s:

Salmon In The City 

Salmon In The City (Western FHP Meeting Presentation – July 2010)

North American Salmon Stronghold Partnership

North America Salmon Stronghold Partnership (Western FHP Meeting Presentation – July 2010)

Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee


Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership

Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership (Western FHP Meeting Presentation – July 2010)


 

Scroll to Top