StructureSpot

Five Fish Cribs Placed on Long Lake



Five Fish Cribs Placed on Long Lake
by Scott Sandor
Five fish cribs have been constructed by volunteers of the Long Lake Fishing Club and have been put on the ice this winter.  This is a multi-year project where a total of twenty five fish cribs will be constructed and deployed on the lake (Ten are planned for the next two years). 

The LLFC board approved the project this past summer.  Discussions with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) began shortly thereafter which included the WDNR representatives taking a pontoon tour.  The tour included the proposed locations of the new cribs.  Measurements were taken by board members Charlie Benson, John Hrovat, Matt Kissinger, John Koerble and Brian Ebert.A big thank you goes out to Brian Ebert.  Brian was instrumental in the construction of the cribs.  He went out on his property, cut the wood, searched and gathered the necessary materials needed to build the first five fish cribs and collected the needed Christmas trees to fill the cribs.  Thank you Brian!  Kudos also goes out to Matt Kissinger for constructing the jig to drill the perfectly aligned holes for easy construction.

The first five fish cribs have been placed on the ice in March.  Again thanks to all the LLFC directors and volunteers who made this project happen:  Don Enders, Charlie Benson, John Hrovat, Brian Ebert, Matt Kissinger, Tom Flasch, Boyd Stoffel, Jason Sarauer, Doug Staege and Roger Kahut.

 

developer faces fines for harming fish habitat

Mill Creek developer faces fines for harming fish habitat

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

By Lynda V. Mapes

Seattle Times staff reporter

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

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

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

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

The developer could not be reached for comment Thursday.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Calif. agencies to sue over sucker fish habitat

Calif. agencies to sue over sucker fish habitat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

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

 

 

Spring Bass fishing Tactics

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

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)


 

Spring is time for Crappie fishing and adding new fish habitat.

Well folks now that the winter is near over and the ice is off most of the lakes, ponds, rivers and streams all we need to do know is wait for the crappie spawn to catch some big slab spring crappie Wrong! Spring crappie fishing right after ice out is the most amazing time of year to catch trophy slabs. The fishing pressure will be light because of the still very cold weather. If you can tolerate some very inclement weather you will experience some of the most amazing spring crappie fishing.  

After ice out it is time to go out and start your spring crappie fishing. The crappie are still in deep water but will start their move into holding areas close to their spawning beds. They will be hungry and will their feeding in earnest The water is extremely cold, so you will have to use a very slow bait presentation. The trick is being able to locate the fish, there are some fundamentals you need to be aware of to find the big slab pre-spawn spring crappie. Oh you won?t have to be out on the lake at first light either. It has been my experience , afternoon is better this time of year because there is some sun warming and the crappie feed on the moving bait fish more in the afternoon.

Start your fishing at the last ice fishing location. If you don?t ice fish contact some ice fisherman and find out their last fishing locations. The fish will be holding at these locations right after ice out. If your lake is shallow, head to the deeper boat channels around your lake, the fish will be locate here. In deeper lakes head to narrowing creaks and channels feeding off the lake the spring crappie will be located there. I rivers head for channels that feed off the main river.  

When fishing In cold water I prefer ultra light equipment. When your fishing for spring crappie the bite will most likely be very light. You need to be able to feel the bite to catch fish Use 2lb test and an open face reel and a graphite rod, with a good tip. If you are breaking line and snagging a lot move to 4lb fluorocarbon.. I recommend you use 1/32oz or 1/16oz jig heads that have eyes painted on them. The color of the jig head can very, but my preference is chartreuse or pink. with split tail plastic tubes. with some glitter color. My preference is to use clear color tubes with some glitter color in them for clear water. In murky water use white or yellow. If the water is real muddy use chartreuse.

If you use these tips you will be successful. When you catch a giant slab crappie in early spring there is no better feeling. Well good luck with your spring crappie fishing.

Don’t for get to build up the fish habitat for your crappie to enjoy. Shallow habitat for fry is the first step in growing big slab crappie. Artificial fish attractors and fish habitat grow algae fast and protect young fry for larger predators.   Fishiding.com

Scroll to Top