A new Utah law that would allow sporting and environmental groups to purchase instream flows from irrigators in order to protect fish habitat has again seen the light of day.  The Instream Flow to Protect Trout Habitat bill passed in the state Senate last year but failed in the House.  New provisions which address concerns about hydropower generation and Endangered Species Act restrictions have garnered more support for the bill, and it’s expected to pass this year.  The bill is modeled after a successful existing program in Montana. 

With the passing of this law, fishing organizations could purchase water rights from irrigators, meaning that water would be left in the stream instead of being used to water crops, providing more and better habitat for trout during critical low-flow periods.  The bill is being praised by a wide audience and has the support of many conservationists, recreationists and farmers. 

Read the Salt Lake Tribune article here

Over the years, trout and salmon enthusiasts have developed a better understanding of the importance of large woody debris in stream systems.  Logs and other large wood are important because they create cover and pool habitat for fish, and also trap gravel that is used by spawning fish.  Past research has shown that fish populations are often limited by lack of pool and cover habitats, and some research I have worked on is showing the potential for spawning gravel to limit stream trout populations in some areas. 

In some systems wood is naturally limited by ecosystem conditions, but in other areas, conditions associated with human disturbance (such as bulldozing streams for log drives, or clearcutting riparian areas) have caused unnaturally low levels of wood recruitment in streams.   

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is taking an innovative (and expensive) approach to restoring woody debris in streams, using a helicopter lift and transport logs into the water. 

Read more here

Wild populations of native brook trout have been on the decline in many parts of the eastern United States for decades.  While some strongholds for the species exist, particularly in northern Maine, and restoration efforts such as those in the Smoky Mountains have been successful, wild brook trout remain imperiled or even nonexistent in many parts of their native range.

Because of the rarity of native brook trout waters in much of the East, state conservation programs have been working hard at restoring the species and protecting habitat in special wild trout waters.

One such water has been known to Pennsylvania angler Mark Rinehamer for decades, but his recent concerns for one of the area’s few remaining wild brook trout creeks caused him to contact Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission biologists to take a look at the creek.

And it turns out that the Commission biologists took an interest in this creek, and plan to make it part of their Cooperative Habitat Improvement Program. 

Check out the story here. 

And if you know of a particular area that may be important for fish conservation, or looks like it might be impaired, be sure to contact your local fisheries biologist.  These guys often have so much water to keep track of, and this results in some waters being overlooked at times.  Good communication between anglers and fisheries professionals is often key to preserving our valuable fish resources.

A local Wisconsin newspaper has a story on stream improvement being conducted by the U.S. Forest Service, Trout Unlimited, and Wisconsin DNR.  The Deerskin River, a class 1 trout stream, was used to transport logs to mills in the early 1900’s, and had a number of dams constructed on it, in addition to other habitat changes making it less suitable for trout.  Periodic habitat enhancement has been ongoing since the 1960’s.

See the story here

One of the stream improvement activities that puzzles me is the removal of alders.  Apparently, it is believed that alder branches are redirecting stream flow, which is widening the banks, so workers are removing these alders and instead placing brush piles in strategic locations.  I can’t speak from too much experience, but as far as I know, alders are almost always good for a stream.  They provide shade to the stream, which keeps the water cool and protects fish from predators from above.  I’ve always considered alders as important to maintaining a diverse stream flow regime.  If anything, they keep the banks stable, and redirect flow in a way that causes sinuosity in a stream, which almost always means more and better stream habitat, including pools and undercut banks.  Maybe the nature of this specific stream requires alder removal to accomplish restoration goals, but I would have to see alder removal work first hand before believing it actually does a stream any good. 

If you have experience with such activities as part of stream restoration, please contact me or post in the comments section.  I’d definitely like to hear more.

A cooperative project aimed at restoring native brook trout in Wisconsin’s Trout Creek (Brown County) is slowly making progress, after being in the planning stages for some time.  Nearby, stream habitat has been improved, but the main obstacle for trout re-colonization after a 30 year hiatus, is a barrier dam at the 17th hole of a golf course that Trout Creek runs through. 

Officials have considered multiple options, including creating a fish ladder at the dam, or channeling water around the pond for fish passage to the stream above.  The golf course operator is willing to cooperate, but wants to preserve the aesthetics of the 17th hole.  Project completion is still quite a ways out, with potential for trout reintroduction as early as 2009. 

Local Story

According to local authorities, fish in Michigan’s Clinton River are responding positively to a $100,000 habitat improvement project that included the installation of boulders and logs utilized by the fish for cover and resting areas.  The Clinton River flows through Auburn Hills, Michigan, and holds a number of both wild and stocked fish species, including brown trout and rainbow trout, which are very popular to anglers.  Overall, fish counts have doubled in the area over the past 3 years, and more people are getting out there and fishing.

 See the full story here 

A recent electrofishing survey completed by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department shows that stream habitat improvements in Vermont’s Batten Kill River appear to be the cause of increased fish numbers.  The project was funded by Orvis, the Green Mountain National Forest, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.  The project provided increased shelter and foraging areas for trout in a river that lacks such habitat due to development that has removed shoreline structure.  Such habitat projects are common, and usually appear to be successful, but most go unmonitored.  Hopefully Vermont Fish and Wildlife continues to monitor this project to determine if similar stream improvement provide benefits equal to or greater than their cost. 

See the story here