StructureSpot

StructureSpot

Tag: pvc fish attractors

Increasing Fish Production

Posted on by david

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.

Shabbona Lake hosts Rockfest

Posted on by david

Shabbona Lake hosts Rockfest

Sportsman’s Club will put artificial structures into lake

January 31, 2011|By Don Dziedzina | On the outdoors

Experienced anglers know that most fish are found in only a relatively small portion of a lake. The reason is structure.

Structure is what makes fish congregate in certain locations. Fish also use structure as a route when migrating from one place to another to feed or spawn.

What is structure? In a lake, natural structure is the lake bottom, rocks, trees, weeds, drop-offs and more.

But it can also be artificial. Fish cribs, stake beds and fish habitats, made by or put in the water by man, are examples of artificial structure. A fish crib can be pilings of criss-crossed wooden boards. Habitat can look like a bush made of a dozen or more pieces of plastic tubing set into a 5-gallon bucket filled with concrete. Sometimes discarded Christmas trees are tethered to a concrete block and sunk in the water. A pile of rocks is another example.

One thing that most artificial structures do is accumulate algae. Small-bait fish and fry are attracted for the food and cover. Their presence in turn attracts panfish and gamefish.

Fish use structure to find food and as cover, either from sunlight or from predators. Some fish will place themselves in cover as an ambush point when they are the predator.

The bottom line is that artificial structures are often placed in heavily fished lakes to create more fishable locations.

One such body of water is Shabbona Lake in DeKalb County. On Saturday, the Shabbona Lake Sportsman’s Club will host the 11th annual Rockfest. But this is no music festival. It’s an event where rocks will be placed into the lake for artificial structure.

“Three truck loads of rock, 20 tons each, are coming from the Macklin quarries in Rochelle.” said club President Rich McElligott. “So we’re always looking for helpers who will load rocks on plywood sleds. ATVs will drag the sleds out to onto the lake and the rocks will be dumped into the water through a hole in the ice. Bobcats will bring out the bigger rocks.”

The rocks are mostly the size of softballs or basketballs. They’re also getting about 50 rocks that are will be 2-foot-by-3-foot.

This year, rocks will be placed by an underwater point across from the spillway. Some large dead trees that have been collected at the Shabbona State Park also will be submerged at other parts of the lake. The Illinois DNR fisheries biologists are always consulted before adding the artificial structure.

Since this program started 11 years ago, more than 1,000 tons of rocks have been added to various locations at Shabbona Lake, including some shorelines where rock was used for rip rap to help reduce erosion. The Illinois Smallmouth Alliance, DuPage River Fly Tyers and Shabbona Lake Sportsman’s Club each purchased a truckload for this event.

The event has in years past drawn from 35 to 75 helpers. Once the work is completed, the club hosts a brat and hot dog cookout. Many helpers spend the rest of the day ice fishing.

Volunteers are asked to meet at the Shabbona Lake park office at 8:30 a.m. Saturday. Shabbona Lake is off Route 30 by the town of Shabbona in DeKalb County. For more information on this event, call Rich McElligott at 815-824-2523.

Don Dziedzina’s blog is at Illinoisoutdoors.com

 

Fish Cribs 101

Posted on by david

Fish Cribs 101 – Reprint from Ripples

JUNE 22, 2010
by crescentlakewi

Fish Cribs 101

By Bob Young – OCLRA Director

Attend some northern Wisconsin lake association meetings and you‘ll probably run into this before long: …let‘s put in some fish cribs so we can catch more fish?, or …the fishing has really gone downhill, let‘s put in some cribs to boost the fish population?.

If it‘s a clear water lake, you may get some folks who object to the prospect of seeing a man-made structure while they‘re out kayaking on a calm evening. But on most lakes there are some who are convinced it will turn the lake around, back to the great fishing spot it was when they fished it as a kid they‘ve already assembled a work crew, lined up materials, and have a funding proposal drafted for the group to vote on.

Row of fish cribs along a shoreline.

But just what is a fish crib, and what can it do for your lake? Before we can answer that question we need to step back a bit and also consider some other types of fish habitat structures, and the role they play in a lake‘s ecosystem.

All the commonly used fish habitat structures fish cribs, tree drops, brush bundles, half-logs, or even Christmas trees, involve replacing woody habitat to lakes that are often wood -starved. Ever visit a small backwoods lake with no development, and paddle around the shoreline? What strikes you immediately is the large number of downed trees, logs and branches you can see in the shallow waters. Larger, usually older logs are lying in deeper water that you can‘t see.

All of that wood provides food and cover for wood consuming organisms and fish of all sizes and species during some stage of their life. It‘s what lakes do – provide food and cover, aka habitat, for their natural residents.

Contrast that with your own lake. Do you see many downed trees, branches and logs lying in the shallow water? If not, it‘s like many other developed lakes here in northern Wisconsin. For a long time now, trees have either been removed from lake shorelines or pulled from shallow waters. They are wood-starved.

Which brings us back to fish cribs and the other man-made habitat structures. Fish cribs at- tract fish, no doubt about it. When the crib locations are well known, they increase fish harvest. Great for the knowledgeable angler, as long as the harvest is sustainable over time. It‘s still being debated by fisheries biologists whether cribs can actually increase overall fish numbers.

Yet many biologists believe that if installed properly, fish cribs can provide some benefit to lakes. First, consider the real need for cribs in your lake — they are best placed in lakes that don‘t have much natural woody habitat or vegetation. On the other end of the spectrum, lakes with an overabundance of vegetation often have a stunted panfish population — in this case adding cribs adds to the problem by providing even more places for overabundant panfish to hide from predators.

Some other guidelines to keep in mind if you‘re planning a crib project:

Plan to eventually install large numbers of cribs to spread out angling pressure. If you don‘t, your fish crib project may actually work against your goal of improving fishing.

Create effective habitat by weaving the maximum amount of brush into each structure.

Follow WDNR guidelines and rules for installing fish cribs found athttp://dnr.wi.gov/ waterways/checklists/checklist_fishcrib.pdf. Primary among them is the requirement to use natural materials (wood). No plastic or metal here, except for fasteners.

Now, what about tree drops, brush bundles and half-logs, or even Christmas trees? They are all forms of woody habitat structures, like fish cribs. Brush bundles and Christmas trees are not often used anymore, primarily because they rot away quickly, and they‘re difficult to anchor. When they break loose they can become a boating hazard or general nuisance.

That leaves the gold standards of fish habitat structures, tree drops and half-logs. Half-logs are thick planks supported on each end by a concrete block. Easy to build and relatively easy to place in shallow water, at least compared to a fish crib. And they work. In bass lakes without much natural woody cover, they are heavily used by spawning bass, especially small- mouths. Again, you must follow WDNR regulations, found at http://dnr.wi.gov/waterways/ checklists checklist_halflogs_old.pdf.

Consider tree drops. The term itself, tree drop, is self explanatory. Trees have been dropping naturally into our lakes since the glaciers receded. And until about a hundred years ago, they stayed where they dropped, providing excellent critter habitat. A man-made? tree drop is just that you cut or place a tree so that its butt end is on shore, with the rest extending out into the lake. It‘s secured with a cable to keep it in place.

It quickly becomes colonized with invertebrate life, which in turn attracts all sorts of fish and water lov- ing animals. Each year after the ice leaves, you‘ll see a procession of different fish species use the same tree for spawning and cover, but at different intervals. By the time summer gets here, the results of their spawning efforts – lots of little fish – are seeking shelter in the branches. Imagine that, just like Ma Nature, and it was man-made?. Once again, follow the rules you find at http:// dnr.wi.gov/waterways/checklists/checklist_treedrop.pdf.

One other bit of advice for the habitat minded – before you even start to plan your project, talk with your local fisheries biologist. They can help you decide what, if any, habitat projects are appropriate for your lake, and give advice along the way.

 

Fish Sticks

Posted on by david

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

Posted on by david
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

Posted on by david
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

Posted on by david
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

Posted on by david

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

Posted on by david
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)


 

Status of Fish Habitats Report Gives “Fish Eye View” of National Waters

Posted on by david

Action Plan News Status of Fish Habitats Report Gives “Fish Eye View” of National Waters
Status of Fish Habitats Report Gives “Fish Eye View” of National Waters
THURSDAY, 14 APRIL 2011 15:13
The National Fish Habitat Board (www.fishhabitat.org) today released a first-of-its-kind status of fish habitats in the United States report as envisioned in the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, an effort to protect, restore and enhance our nation’s aquatic habitats. The report titled THROUGH A FISH’S EYE: The Status of Fish Habitats In The United States 2010 summarizes the results of an unprecedented, nationwide assessment of the human effects on fish habitat in the rivers and estuaries of the United States.

Through a Fish’s Eye, provides an important picture of the challenges and opportunities facing fish and those engaged in fish habitat conservation efforts. Urbanization, agriculture, dams, culverts, pollution and other human impacts have resulted in specific areas of degraded habitat where restoration is most likely needed to bring back the healthy habitats and fishing opportunities that once existed. Addressing degraded habitat also requires reducing or eliminating the sources of degradation mentioned in this report, through best management practices, land use planning, and engaging landowners, businesses, and local communities in the effort.

The assessment detailed in the report assigns watersheds and estuaries a risk of current habitat degradation ranging from very low to very high. These results allow comparisons of aquatic habitats across the nation and within 14 sub-regions. The results also identify some of the major sources of habitat degradation that plague waterways across the nation.

Overall, 27 percent of the miles of stream in the lower 48 states are at high or very high risk of current habitat degradation and 44 percent are at low or very low risk. Twenty-nine percent of stream miles in the lower 48 states are at moderate risk of current habitat degradation.

Fifty-three percent of estuaries (by area) are at high or very high risk of current habitat degradation, while 23 percent of estuaries are at low or very low risk of current habitat degradation. Marine habitats of the United States tend to be most degraded near the coast, where they are most affected by human activity.

The goal of the national assessment was to estimate disturbance levels to fish habitats in rivers and estuaries from information about human activities occurring in the watersheds and the local areas affecting each aquatic habitat. This approach is supported by a large body of scientific research showing that human disturbances to the land transfer to receiving waters and contribute to disturbance in downstream fish habitats in rivers, estuaries, and the ocean.

While the specific analytical approaches used to assess habitats in the lower-48 states, Alaska, Hawaii and U.S. estuaries differed slightly, the end product of each analysis was similar—an estimate of the risk that discrete habitat units will be degraded due to current human activities on the landscape.

“This report identifies areas where those efforts are most needed and points to areas where fish habitat is most likely still intact and should be protected to maintain its value for fish and other aquatic organisms. Resources for fish habitat conservation are limited, especially for the next few years,” said Kelly Hepler, Chairman of the National Fish Habitat Board.

“Fish Habitat partnerships ensure coordinated work around specific habitat challenges,” said Eric Schwaab, Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries. ”This information will help bring strategic focus to conservation efforts and allow rigorous measurement of results.”

“This report clearly illustrates the need for strategic use of existing resources through partnerships that can identify the most effective use of funds and help the nation as a whole make progress in fish habitat conservation,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Director Rowan Gould. “There are many major threats to the health of fish habitat and the National Fish Habitat Action plan helps to focus and leverage available funds, pool technical expertise, and enlist new partners to address the challenges to fish habitat.”

Key findings from the “Through a Fish’s Eye: Status of Fish Habitats” report include:

Habitats with a very high risk of current habitat degradation include those in or near urban development, livestock grazing, agriculture, point source pollution or areas with high numbers of active mines and dams. Specific locations that stand out as regions at high risk of current habitat degradation include: the urban corridor between Boston and Atlanta; the Central Midwestern states of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio; the Mississippi River Basin, including habitats adjacent to the lower Mississippi River in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana; habitats in eastern Texas; and habitats in Central California and along the Columbia River in Oregon and Washington.

Areas that stand out as being at very low risk of current habitat degradation include rural areas in New England and the Great Lakes states; many habitats throughout the Mountain, Southwest and Pacific Coast states; and most of Alaska. It should be noted that not all water and land management issues could be addressed in the assessment, so some of the areas mapped as at low risk of current habitat degradation actually may be at higher risk due to disturbance factors not assessed. For example, most arid regions of the western United States were found to be at low risk of current habitat degradation.

Estuaries in the mid-Atlantic have a very high risk of habitat degradation related to polluted run-off and other effects of the intense urbanization and agriculture in this area. The estuaries of southern California also have a high risk of current habitat degradation for similar reasons. Estuaries in the north Pacific and downeast Maine have a low risk of current habitat degradation.

The release of this report is also accompanied with the release of a map viewer, which offers the maps that are in the report in greater detail. The National Fish Habitat Action Plan map and data web tool (www.nbii.gov/far/nfhap) was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological Informatics Program under guidance of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan Science and Data Committee. This tool not only enables users to see multiple views depicting the condition of stream and coastal habitats across the country, but also means that users can access more detailed information at finer scales, as well as the option to download data files and map services.

To read the report in its entirety or download a PDF, visit www.fishhabitat.org or go to http://fishhabitat.org/images/documents/fishhabitatreport_012611.pdf to view the PDF.

Scroll to Top