Last fall at the Wild Rose State Fish Hatchery in Wild Rose, Wi, State WDNR Biologists, Supervisors and staff, eagerly awaited the start of a new pilot study, incorporating artificial habitat in rearing ponds with musky, walleye and other species. Multiple offices within the WDNR, jockeyed for position to decide just what to study first.

WDNR Biologists and staff discussed the various benefits of incorporating habitat in their Hatcheries and which species to use them on first. Musky were the first in line, with musky being the State fish.  Being an ambush predator, Musky instinctually seek cover to hide and attack their prey. The grow ponds lacked anything to hide and learn to hunt around. Typically, the fish would circle the rubber lined 2 acre ponds, relating to the only physical form available, the water’s edge. Original story.

When I began discussions with Steven Fajfer, Natural Resources Operations Supervisor at Wild Rose, he explained they had been studying musky raised on pellets indoors and then switched to minnows when put in the grow ponds outside. This would be in comparison to fish that were fed minnows exclusively from start to finish. Next, they would stock pre-designated lakes with both groups of fish and track them. More habitat articles at fishiding.com

Because this study was already underway, by incorporating habitat into the above feeding parameters, this would give the Biologists even more and improved data for comparison. Although discussions and plans to use the habitat with Walleye and other species present at the Hatchery, those fish would have to wait until the Musky study was completed. Next, the hatchery had to select the best option for them in artificial habitat.

Fishiding Artificial Fish Habitat is produced using reclaimed PVC vinyl siding. Multiple pieces of durable, flat, strips of material are held together by cement, forming the base. These patented, multi-textured, bush like units, provide shade and surface area, forming a fuzz of aquatic growth when placed underwater. This natural process is nature’s pristine way of converting over abundant nutrients into periphyton, (fuzz/algae) which is then consumed by the small fish by a process called “grazing”. All fish eat this exclusively as fry.

Each unit is unfolded and bent by hand, to abstract shapes. When placed on the lake or pond bottom, they simulate something like an artificial Christmas tree, providing hiding and feeding areas. The mid-sized Safehouse model was selected as the preferred size for the staff to work with. Standing just under 4’ tall and opening up to over 7’ in diameter, each unit stays in place with the weighted base, coming in at about 15 pounds total.

The ability to wash, disinfect and re-use over and over again, made it the easy choice for the many studies the State has planned. 300 units were delivered, 75 in each of the grow ponds, awaiting delivery of the musky from the Michigan DNR.

When we left Wild Rose last fall after setting up the habitat, we could hardly wait to hear that the ponds had been filled and the Musky had been put in the grow ponds. After a number of months passed with no confirmed delivery, the anticipation turned to disappointment. The musky wouldn’t be stocked with the habitat this year. Bummer yes, but with good reason as the details unfolded.

Steven explained a great deal of the background of the State’s current and past stocking efforts with Musky. Back in the early 1900’s, the Great lakes spotted musky were common in Green Bay and the surrounding waters of Lake Michigan. Unfortunately, poor water quality and over fishing wiped them out. Starting in 1989, Wisconsin received eggs from the Michigan DNR and began restocking them in Green Bay. When those fish became mature and attempted to spawn naturally, they became the source of eggs for the stocking program, since there was very limited natural reproduction. With the outbreak of VHS in 2007, that was no longer an option.

With the local fish not viable to use for brood stock anymore per VHS, that wasn’t the only problem with local stock as the genetic diversity was lacking. About 2007, the State began looking for other outlets to acquire the Great Lake Strain. For a few years, WDNR worked with Ontario, purchasing fingerlings from Georgian Bay stock, which had been raised on pellets. This worked ok, with most fish being stocked directly into Wisconsin inland lakes and a few grown at the Westford Hatchery to about 12” and then stocked. The biggest problem was the red tape getting them across the border each time, resulting in lengthy delays and increased costs.

Back in 1989, the WDNR began working with the Michigan DNR Fisheries department, stocking Great Lakes Musky in places like the Indian River, Burt and Mullet lakes. to name just a few. Michigan also has a top notch program and cool water facility. Easy to transport, healthy and close to home, the two States work well together on each other’s experience and knowledge. Michigan has a wonderful and robust fishery, with plans to improve the State’s fishing opportunities even more. Recently, $1,000,000 in Grant money has been made available for habitat improvement and installation projects.

The Musky that are to be brought in to Wild Rose for the habitat study are coming from Michigan……at some point. About a week before the fish were to be delivered they were tested one more time by the Michigan DNR staff. There was a problem. The biologists discovered Piscirickettsia-like organisms, or something called P.L.O  disease in the Musky.

The presence and importance of Piscirickettsia-like bacteria in mammals have been long recognized, but only in recent years could they be identified and characterized in aquatic animals. For this reason, it was not until the late 1980s that Rickettsia agents were linked with major diseases in fish, and subsequently attributed as the cause of substantial economic losses due to disease-related mortality in the 1990s. Piscirickettsiosis and piscirickettsiosis-like diseases have affected aquaculture productivity, profitability, species compatibility with commercial rearing, and fish transport.

Musky with the disease were first discovered in Lake St. Clair in the early 2000’s. It can appear as red spots or blotches on the fish. The WDNR asked them to hold onto the fish for further testing, which showed no definitive results of where or how they were infected. Although the fish appeared healthy, robust and happy, the Wisconsin officials regrettably had to decline the importation. A sincere feeling of disappointment spread through the various department offices, as the realization of waiting another year to begin the study solidified.

“The risk is simply too high to utilize fish with ANY known issues or problems.” That is the standpoint the WDNR had to take. “The investment in time and money to study diet and habitat with any potentially skewed fish stock is not an option.”  It’s not known what the Michigan Hatchery did or will do with the infected fish, but a new, fresh batch of Great Lakes Strain Spotted Musky are already growing fat, planning to come to Wisconsin this fall of 2014.

The Wisconsin DNR Fisheries Department and their own state of the art Wild Rose State Fish Hatchery, will continue to draw attention. Known as one of the finest run Hatchery programs in the Nation, all eyes are on the leaders, the ones to watch.

It’s tough decisions like these, that ensures that anglers all across the state will continue to enjoy some of the World’s finest freshwater fishing. Plans to utilize the habitat are taking place with walleye, while the musky mature for delivery. “We have plenty of fish that we are eager to study within the habitat. We just wanted to start first with our well known and much loved Musky.”

Patience and adjustment to ever changing issues in the aquatic realm is a stark reality today.  Learning from past experience and pushing for new ways to grow better, stronger and more sustainable fisheries, the Musky habitat study will happen. This fall, Wisconsin’s plans to grow smarter, stronger, “super” muskies will begin.

If you want to drop a line into Southwest Pond near Greenspond this summer, you should know the rules have changed — dramatically. Dozens of unique habitat models at fishiding.com

Topics :

Fisheries and Oceans Canada , Indian Bay Ecosystem , Southwest Pond , New-Wes-Valley ,Greenspond

• The process of restoring coho salmon habitat may get a bit easier for local landowners willing to undertake voluntary projects along Siskiyou County streams and rivers.
• By John Bowman Yreka, CA

• 

  •  Zoom

  In 2010 the California Department of Fish and Game declared that two of the three brood years of Shasta River coho were functionally extinct, meaning there are no longer enough adults returning to the river in those years to sustain a viable population.
• The process of restoring coho salmon habitat may get a bit easier for local landowners willing to undertake voluntary projects along Siskiyou County streams and rivers with the California legislature’s passage of Assembly Bill 1961, introduced by Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D–San Rafael). Dozens of unique habitat models at fishiding.comThe bill passed its final legislative hurdle on Aug. 27 with its approval by the California Assembly and now heads to the governor’s desk for his signature. First introduced in February, AB 1961 would expedite the approval process for voluntary habitat restoration projects by implementing a 30-day approval process and eliminating many of the usual regulatory hurdles for such in-stream projects.

  “Coho salmon cannot afford to wait and neither can the communities where these restoration projects would provide much needed jobs,” said Huffman. “This bill lets us work together in a new way so that immediate actions can yield near-term results.”

  Coho salmon generally have a three year life cycle. In 2010, the California Department of Fish and Game declared that two of the three brood years of Shasta River coho were functionally extinct, meaning there are no longer enough adults returning to the river in those years to sustain a viable population.

  According to the text of the bill, “An urgency exists due to the extraordinarily small numbers of coho salmon remaining in California. In order to prevent their extinction from northern California waters, it is imperative that habitat restoration efforts be expedited and increased as soon as possible.”

  Siskiyou County landowners and Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) have cumulatively implemented millions of dollars worth of habitat restoration projects since coho were listed as threatened by both California and the federal Endangered Species Act in 1997. State and federal agencies say much more work must be done to aid the recovery of the species, though many landowners and stakeholders have complained that the permitting and regulatory processes create too many roadblocks.

  AB 1961 directs state agencies to “expedite and streamline the permitting and approval of coho salmon habitat enhancement projects, including, in particular, large woody debris restoration projects, in northern California streams.”

  The three main categories of projects eligible for the expedited process are as follows:

  • Modification of existing water crossings for the purposes of eliminating a barrier to fish passage;
  • Restoration of eroded or denuded streambanks by utilizing nonrock bioengineering practices and revegetating stream corridors with native riparian species; and
  • Wood placement that benefits naturally reproducing fish stocks by creating or enhancing fish habitat, increasing stream complexity, or both.

  The bill stipulates, “Within 30 days after the [Department of Fish and Game] receives a written request to approve a coho salmon habitat enhancement project containing the information required pursuant to subdivision (c), the director shall determine whether the coho salmon habitat enhancement project is consistent with subdivision (a). If the director determines within that 30-day period, based upon substantial evidence, that the coho salmon enhancement project is consistent with subdivision (a), no further departmental approval shall be necessary.”

  Executive director of the Scott River Water Trust Sari Sommarstrom has worked on many local habitat restoration projects and said, “Expediting state permitting was one of the few issues that everyone could agree on at the legislative hearing on coho last year. I’m glad that some cooperative progress in Sacramento was finally made, but the bill’s provisions are pretty limited. More progress from the state is still needed for those of us trying to help coho.”

US – A new report by Ecotrust has found that watershed and fish habitat restoration in Oregon has created jobs and generated $977.5 million in economic activity between 2001 and 2010.

“Restoration can drive economic development and job creation, particularly in rural communities that have suffered from persistently high unemployment rates,” said Spencer B. Beebe, president and founder of Ecotrust. “And, unlike in many other sectors of our economy, restoration jobs can’t be outsourced to far-off places.” See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover at fishiding.com, the leader in proven science based, fish protection.

Restoration projects create jobs for construction workers, landscapers, heavy equipment operators, and technical experts such as engineers and wildlife biologists. Restoration projects also create demand for local businesses, such as plant nurseries, quarries, and others.

Restoring habitat also benefits the economy in the long term. Habitat improvements intended to bolster fish runs promise to increase sport and commercial fishing opportunities in the coming years — already big business in Oregon.

“Habitat restoration jobs pay dividends twice, first in creating good, local jobs immediately, and then, for many decades to come, through increased benefits from fisheries, tourism and resiliency for coastal communities,” said Eric Schwaab, assistant administrator for fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA provides technical expertise and funding to restore coastal, marine, and migratory fish habitat in Oregon and around the nation.

A recent national study published in Marine Policy analysing job creation and other economic impacts from NOAA restoration projects found that an average of 17 jobs were created for $1 million invested. That rate of job creation is significantly higher than other industries, including coal, natural gas, or road and bridge construction.

Congressman Earl Blumenhauer, who represents Oregon’s third district and recently introduced HR 6249, the “Water Protection and Reinvestment Act,” a bill that calls for investment in clean water infrastructure across the nation, commented: “For too long, we have treated our rivers and waterways like machines to the detriment of water quality and quantity. Investing in restoration not only improves habitat for fish and wildlife, it creates jobs and bring much needed revenue to local communities. Oregon has tremendous opportunities for restoration that can serve as a model for the rest of the nation.”

A recent University of Oregon report found that an average of 90 cents of every dollar spent on restoration stays in the state, and 80 cents of every dollar spent stays in the county where a project is located. For example, of the nearly $400,000 invested to restore Little Butte Creek in Southern Oregon from 2009–2011, 72 per cent was spent in Jackson County, and 97 per cent was expended in Oregon. Over half of those dollars went to salaries that directly benefit Oregonians.

Mike Herrick, Owner of Aquatic Contracting said: “Over the last 10 years, restoration projects have allowed us to provide sustainable livings for our employees. They can use their skills in construction and feel good about what they are doing. We have grown from just a couple of employees to as many as 20. Without this funding we would not be able to provide these opportunities and support the local economies where we work.”

TheFishSite News Desk 27 August 2012

Atlantic sturgeon added to endangered species list

Illegal to catch, sturgeon get more federal protection

cfjljd49 (Video)

Salmon restoration: Maine on the way to making it happen

A Maine biologist’s efforts could lead to a national Atlantic salmon recovery.

By Deirdre Fleming dfleming@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

AVON – With a makeshift air gun fashioned with duct tape and a gas engine on a home-rigged backpack, the biologists with the Department of Marine Resources laughed as they blasted holes for hatchery eggs into a rocky tributary of the Sandy. But their work could be a part of a long-sought Atlantic salmon solution.

click image to enlarge

Paul Christman, a biologist with the Department of Marine Resources in Hallowell, places salmon eggs in a tributary of the Sandy River in Avon. With Christman are, from left, Jed Wright, with the Gulf of Maine Coastal Program, Craig Knights and Chris Domina, with U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Photos by Gregory Rec/Staff Photographer

click image to enlarge

Salmon eggs are placed in a tube, where they will sink to the river bottom and be covered over with rocks when the tube is pulled out.

Select images available for purchase in the
Maine Today Photo Store

Biologist Paul Christman quietly has planted Atlantic salmon eggs in Maine rivers for three years, but in another two years his project could move to the forefront of the national Atlantic salmon recovery effort. Already the project makes Maine a leader in North America in salmon recovery, said Joan Trial, Maine’s senior salmon biologist.

“Salmon restoration has been going on quite a while. Paul is coming up with a way to produce more (salmon) spending more time in a natural environment as opposed to a hatchery. There is some strong evidence that these fish may be more successful surviving out at sea. The more time they spend in their natural habitat, the more imprinted they will be to it. This could be a piece to the puzzle, and a very intriguing piece,” said Trial.

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

Salmon were first listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000 in a small portion of Maine. Then in 2009, the list was expanded and the salmon’s status elevated to endangered.

Trial said the first few years Maine stocked fry in its rivers, there were encouraging results. But that was 10 years ago, and while the removal of dams since then has led to sea-run fish like alewives and herring running up Maine rivers once again, the salmon’s return has been slow.

In addition, those salmon returning are not all wild. And to be taken off the endangered species list, Maine must have wild Atlantic salmon returning to rivers here.

Currently the service is working on a recovery plan that maps out what is needed to delist the salmon. That plan will go to public comment later this year, said Antonio Bentivoglio, the service’s Atlantic salmon recovery coordinator in Maine.

But it will take at least 10 years for the necessary criteria to be met for the salmon to be delisted to threatened and then endangered status, Bentivoglio said.

“For delisting, we have to minimize the hatchery influence, so the hatchery won’t be stocking millions of par and smolts. Then we’ll have much great confidence that they are wild fish,” Bentivoglio said. “Once we get to threatened status, then we’ll have a plan in place to slowly decrease the number of hatchery fish that go out. We want to slowly reduce it, so we can assess the impact, and hopefully wild fish will increase.”

ON THE LIST

First the Atlantic salmon need to show returns of at least 6,000 in its historic ranges: Merrymeeting Bay, the Penobscot River and the Downeast rivers.

In 2010 in the Downeast rivers, just 164 Atlantic salmon returned; in the Penobscot River there were only 1,316; and 14 in Merrymeeting Bay (the Androscoggin and Kennebec rivers), Bentivoglio said.

So the recovery effort has a long way to go.

Whether Christman’s egg planting project can get DMR there is unknown. But there is a lot of hope in the offices at USFW and the Maine fishery agency because the salmon that result from the eggs he plants are considered “more wild” than the fry stocked from hatchery raised eggs.

The salmon that emerge from the eggs Christman plants are considered wild enough to be counted when the service considers whether to downgrade salmon from endangered to threatened, Bentivoglio said.

But the salmon’s international plight is complicated. Scientists still do not know why their marine survival is low, in some cases as low as 50 percent.

“(Christman’s eggs) should be more viable in their natural environment than the hatchery produced smolts. There should be more going out to sea. But we’re not sure what’s going on with marine survival and why marine survival has been so low. Something is going on out in the ocean that the United States, Iceland, Canada and Greenland are trying to figure out, too,” said Trial in Maine’s Bureau of Sea Run Fisheries and Habitat.

OUT TO SEA

The first egg planting done by Christman was in 2009. But in the Atlantic salmon’s life cycle, those fish won’t return to their native rivers, where the salmon emerge from the eggs until 2014. At that point, everyone at DMR will be watching to see if they do. If all goes well, lots of salmon should return.

In 2009, Christman planted 130,000 in the Sandy River; in 2010, he increased the number to 450,000; and again to 860,000 last year. This year, 1 million Atlantic salmon eggs will be planted in salmon habitat in Maine.

His work has shown success with survival rates. The emergence rate from eggs is upward of 40 to 50 percent in some places, he said, which is as good as egg planting projects anywhere.

But the telltale sign will be if the salmon return in 2014. Christman thinks they will return from the sea and run up Maine rivers to where he has planted eggs.

“The idea is that they are more in tune with the river than hatchery fish. Their performance should be better, and their survival better. And from what we’re seeing, yes, they are behaving much better,” Christman said.

Staff Writer Deirdre Fleming can be contacted at 791-6452 or at:

dfleming@pressherald.com

Twitter: Flemingpph

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

Nightmare mosaic photo from a raid in the King Range National Conservation Area. Photo courtesy Brad Job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Brad Job, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

Arcata