Category Archives: Conservation

Why Is Hunting Allowed On Ossabaw Island and Why Did the Atlanta Constitution Push To Open It for Development

Sometimes the “news” amazes me. Ossabaw Island has been the subject of several articles recently. Most of them complain that Georgia is running the island as a hunting preserve and only allows hunters the privilege of going there. The articles say more people should be allowed to visit and vacation on this state owned island off our coast. They say it is not right that the general public can not go there for recreation.

Ossabaw Island is in the Heritage Preserve Program that limits its use, by state law, to “natural, scientific and cultural study, research and education, and environmentally sound preservation, conservation and management.” That law prevents recreation for the public. Hunting is used only as a management tool on the island.

During the past few years, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources has reduced the deer population by 20 per cent on the island, and tried to eliminate as many feral hogs as possible. Although hunting does provide recreation, it is used to keep the numbers of animals in check on the island, and that is specifically allowed in the law creating it.

I know the people who equate growth and progress would probably like this natural preserve to be built up like Panama City Beach or Myrtle Beach, but that kind of recreation is prohibited by state law. Ossabaw Island is preserved in a natural state for research and education, and allowing more public access for recreation would limit its use in these areas.

The reasons some papers like the Atlanta Constitution are pushing for more recreation on the island are unclear. They may have connections to developers standing to make lots of money from changing the island, or they may just hate hunters and everything associated with them. It is a shame their reporting can not be more balanced, though.

Can Idaho Sockeye Salmon Be Restored?

Once nearly extinct, endangered Idaho sockeye regaining fitness advantage

Sockeye salmon

Contributed by Michael Milstein, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA
from The Fishing Wire

Endangered Snake River sockeye salmon are regaining the fitness of their wild ancestors, with naturally spawned juvenile sockeye migrating to the ocean and returning as adults at a much higher rate than others released from hatcheries, according to a newly published analysis. The analysis indicates that the program to save the species has succeeded and is now increasingly shifting to rebuilding populations in the wild. Biologists believe the increased return rate of sockeye spawned naturally by hatchery-produced parents is high enough for the species to eventually sustain itself in the wild again.

“This is a real American endangered species success story,” said Will Stelle, Administrator of NOAA Fisheries’ West Coast Region. “With only a handful of remaining fish, biologists brought the best genetic science to bear and the region lent its lasting support. Now there is real potential that this species will be self-sustaining again. The sockeye didn’t give up hope and neither did we.”

Biologists Paul Kline of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Thomas Flagg of NOAA Fisheries’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center report the promising results in the November issue of Fisheries, the magazine of the American Fisheries Society.

These findings demonstrate that the program to save Snake River sockeye can indeed reverse the so-called “extinction vortex,” where too few individuals remain for the species to sustain itself. Some thought that Snake River sockeye had entered that vortex in the 1990s, highlighted in 1992 when the sole returning male Redfish Lake sockeye, known as “Lonesome Larry” captured national attention.

NOAA Fisheries earlier this year released a proposed recovery plan for Snake River sockeye, which calls for an average of 1,000 naturally spawned sockeye returning to Redfish Lake each year, with similar targets for other lakes in Idaho’s Sawtooth Valley. About 460 naturally spawned sockeye returned to Redfish Lake this year – the most since the program began – out of an overall record return of about 1,600.

The article in Fisheries recounts the 20-year history of the scientific program to save the Snake River sockeye. The program began with 16 remaining adult sockeye – 11 males and five females – taken into captivity from 1991 to 1998. Through advanced aquaculture techniques, the program has retained about 95 percent of the species’ remaining genetic variability, while boosting surviving offspring about 2,000 percent beyond what could be expected in the wild.

Without such advances, the scientists write, “extinction would have been all but certain.”

Spawning salmon colors

The program funded by the Bonneville Power Administration has released more than 3.8 million sockeye eggs and fish into lakes and streams in the Sawtooth Valley, and tracks the fish that return from the ocean. Hatchery fish returning as adults have also begun spawning again in Redfish Lake, increasingly producing naturally spawned offspring that are now also returning.

A new analysis of those returns shows that the naturally spawned sockeye are returning at rates up to three times higher than those released from hatcheries as smolts, and more than 10 times greater than those released as even younger pre-smolts.

The higher returns indicate the naturally spawned fish are regaining the fitness the species needs to better survive their 900-mile migration to the ocean, their years at sea, and the return trip to Redfish Lake. A salmon population must produce at least one returning offspring per adult to sustain itself. Naturally spawned sockeye have returned at more than twice that rate in some recent years, indicating that under the right conditions they can not only sustain the species but add to it.

The results also suggest that hatchery-produced sockeye may regain the fitness advantages they need to sustain their species in the wild much faster than had been previously estimated, the scientists reported. Biologists caution that the current results span only three years so far, but indicate that fitness – and, in turn, survival – can improve in as little as only one generation in the wild. “We hoped we could get returns equivalent to what you’d expect to see from a hatchery,” said Flagg, manager of the NOAA Fisheries Northwest Fisheries’ Science Center’s Manchester Research Station. “We’ve seen the population respond even better than that, which bodes well for the idea that the lakes can produce the juveniles you’d want to see to get to recovery.”

More information on Northwest Fisheries Science Center/Salmon captive broodstock programs is available at: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/efs/hatchery/salmon_captive/index.cfm

Do Forrest Buffers Provide Benefits for Waters Like the Chesapeake Bay?

Forest buffer research reveals more benefits than previously thought

Here’s food for thought for land managers all over the nation from Karl Blankenship, Editor of The Bay Journal, the great conservation publication that keeps watch over Chesapeake Bay.
from The Fishing Wire

White Clay Creek at Stroud Center has transformed from ‘impaired’ stream into habitat for trout.

By Karl Blankenship, Editor
The Bay Journal; www.bayjournal.com.

Stroud Water Research Center

The Stroud Water Research Center in Chester County, PA. (Dave Harp)

Standing amid tall trees next to White Clay Creek, listening to the forest birds sing and the water splash along rocks, roots and fallen branches, one could imagine the creek had always looked like this.

But, walking through the site one summer afternoon, Bern Sweeney pointed to a tell-tale sign that the site wasn’t as pristine as it appeared. “If you look over there,” he said, “the trees are all in rows.”

Just a bit more than three decades ago a cornfield grew right to the edge of the stream. Another section was a pasture, again to the edge of the stream.

Sweeney and other scientists from the Stroud Water Research Center planted trees on a portion of the field and the pasture, and have been watching – and studying – changes ever since.

Just a few hundred yards downstream, the creek winds through a meadow and is so narrow a person could jump across. Here, among the tall trees, it requires a bridge – even though this upstream site was carrying less water.

“There is a lot of stuff happening here that is not happening down there,” said Sweeney, who helped plant the rows of trees as a young scientist and is now the center’s director. Despite the unnatural neat rows of trees, they have helped to transform what was once an “impaired” stream into one of the healthiest waterways in the region, with reduced pollution and improved habitat – and one that seems to keep getting better over time.

Located in Chester County, PA, the 48-year-old Stroud Center is just outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed, but its work, dating to that first planting in 1982, has greatly influenced Bay restoration efforts.

Its research was pivotal in convincing the state-federal Bay Program partnership that forested stream buffers should be a key restoration objective. That led the Bay Program in 1996 to adopt the nation’s first regional forest buffer restoration goal. That, in turn, led to the creation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which made funding available to plant buffers and resulted in the quick achievement of the initial, 2,010-mile buffer goal.

“I do not believe the Bay region would be a champion of riparian forest buffers had it not been for the early intervention and education provided by Stroud,” said Ann Swanson, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, an advisory panel representing state legislatures that was a champion of the forest buffer goal.

Sweeney and Stroud scientists showed policy-makers like Swanson how forest buffers were the last line of defense for waterways against the human activities on the watershed. They could slow runoff, absorb nutrients and trap sediment before the pollutants could reach streams.

“Their science has been crucial to our understanding of how streams work and what makes them healthy,” said Al Todd, who is now executive director of the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay but in the mid-1990s led U.S. Forest Service efforts to develop a Bay buffer policy.

“But more than just doing good science, people like Bern Sweeney have the unique ability to tell the story of riparian forests and stream health in a way that anyone can understand,” Todd said. “And Sweeney has not been timid about telling farmers or policy-makers they need to pay attention.”

More reductions than thought

One of the things that Sweeney and colleagues increasingly stress is that forest stream buffers are substantially different from other management practices used to control runoff. Not only are they highly effective at reducing nutrient runoff, but buffers also provide a host of additional stream benefits, such as stabilizing banks, regulating water temperatures and improving habitat quality.

White Clay Creek

White Clay Creek, once an “impaired” stream, is now one of the healthiest waterways in the region, and it seems to keep getting better over time. (Dave Harp)

New research by scientists at the center offers tantalizing hints that buffered streams may reduce nutrients even more than previously thought.

Furthermore, many benefits related to a forest buffter appear to increase as the buffer ages – unlike other pollution control efforts, such as grass buffers, which become less effective over time.

The center has stepped up efforts to spread the word about buffers – and helped to get more of them on the ground. It has increased research about cost-effective ways to plant buffers, and it established a new watershed restoration group to quickly translate its science into on-the-ground initiatives. “We see it as a way to directly inject science into an applied role,” Sweeney said. “And that needs to happen.”

Indeed. The rate of forest buffer plantings in the Bay watershed has dropped sharply in the last decade. Last year, just a little more than 200 miles were planted, down from a peak of more than 1,100 miles in 2002, and well short of the 900-mile-a-year goal contained in the new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

Numerous factors have contributed to the trend: High commodity prices have made farmers reluctant to take crop land out of production to plant buffers, and the bureaucracy involved with the CREP program – which funds most buffer plantings – can be difficult for landowners to navigate.

Also, state restoration programs often haven’t prioritized forest buffers. Virginia instead has prioritized stream bank fencing to keep cows out of streams, and along a narrower band than is required for an effective buffer. Maryland’s forest buffer goals are modest compared with those of other states.

In Pennsylvania, the state legislature recently sided with builders and their allies to roll back a requirement that new development in state-designated exceptional value or high-quality watersheds maintain a 150-foot buffer along streams, contending water quality objectives could be met with other pollution control technologies.

Environmental groups and the state Fish and Boat Commission – citing Stroud’s work – argued that other pollution control practices could not match the full range of stream services provided by forest buffers. They lost.

Such emphasis on pollution reduction, rather than a more holistic view of stream health, frustrates buffer advocates. “I think the segregation of the Bay goals from local water quality sometimes has not helped,” said Matt Ehrhart, director of watershed restoration at the Stroud Center, and former executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Pennsylvania office. In Pennsylvania, he noted, streams are placed on the impaired waters list based on the presence of insects and benthic organisms that generally need conditions provided by forests.

Forest buffers are not a silver bullet that eliminates the need for other pollution-control practices upland, Ehrhart cautioned. But they provide an essential part of the solution, especially when it comes to stream health.

“At the end of the day, you can reduce phosphorus, but if you don’t have cooler temperatures and the conditions that foster your stream ecology, you won’t see the local changes that we’re looking for,” Ehrhart said. “Or trout.”

Forests vs. grass buffers

When Capt. John Smith explored the “faire bay” fed by “clear rivers and brooks,” he noted the landscape was “overgrown with trees.” Smith may not have recognized that the condition of the Bay and its tributary rivers was closely linked to the trees. At the time of his explorations in 1607-08, an estimated 95 percent of the watershed was forested.

The giant trees, their expansive root system, along with understory plants, greedily absorbed available nutrients. Their roots held sediment in place, resulting in a network of clean waterways that fed the Bay. Sweeney characterized the wholesale clearing of forests following European colonization as perhaps having the most devastating impact on Eastern streams.

As forests were removed, sediment and pollution entering waterways increased. Water quality worsened, and sunlight pounded the water, making it too warm for trout. Fish and other aquatic dwellers began to disappear. Flooding increased. Soil from clear-cut uplands flooded into valleys where it was trapped by a proliferation of small dams that powered grist and saw mills, smothering floodplains.

When grasses replaced trees along streams, as in the meadow immediately downstream of Stroud’s forested research site, they proactivey extend their root systems into the water and trap sediment. The sod that is formed at the stream edge causes the stream banks to gradually creep towards one another – narrowing the stream to an unnatural configuration. That forces the stream to dig deeper, cutting a narrow, steep-sided channel through the soil. Eventually, the channel digs below the roots, and begins eating away at the banks, causing the surface to collapse into the stream, releasing sediment but, more importantly, causing instability as the stream rapidly moves in an unnatural way across its floodplain.

No trees along a stream also means no leaves to fuel the diverse variety of insects and microorganisms that evolved in the stream over thousands of years of forest cover. Steady influxes of sediment from destabilized stream banks would smother much of their bottom habitat, anyway.

Bern Sweeney

Bern Sweeney conducts a Stream and Buffer Ecology Workshop along White Clay Creek at the Stroud Water Research Center. (Dave Harp)

But along reforested sections of White Clay Creek, some of those lost functions are returning. The stream channel has widened and stabilized. Diverse stream insects thrive. Instead of a mud-covered bottom, the creek has pools, riffles and runs, offering habitat variety. Each fall, the food chain is fed by a huge influx of leaves – almost all of which are consumed before they can travel 100 yards downstream.

Sweeney is cautious about using words like “pristine” or “natural” to describe the stream. That’s because there are no untouched streams in the Piedmont for comparison. “We don’t have the ultimate reference site.” And, outside the stream channel, a layer of built-up sediment remains beyond the edges of the stream, over what was once a larger floodplain.

But, it does have something it didn’t used to: a reproducing trout population.

“I would argue it is a functional stream, ecologically,” Sweeney said, noting the state now classifies it as an “exceptional value” waterway. “It is a protected stream because it is so close to being natural. It has a great community in it with reproducing trout. We know that it processes nitrogen effectively. It works.”

Lessons learned

Almost everything along the stream seems to be monitored. The creek is lined with monitoring wells on either side so scientists can test water quality at different depths as it moves through the forest along the stream. Nets over the stream even collect flying aquatic insects.

The monitoring gives scientists new information about how the stream works. As it has gotten wider and shallower, the water it carries is more likely to come into contact with the microbes and insects that dwell on the bottom. Those organisms consume, or otherwise alter material, that the stream is carrying. Bacterial communities can remove pollution-causing nitrogen compounds from the water by turning it into harmless nitrogen gas – a process known as denitrification. Others break down pollutants such as pesticides into harmless components.

Some of those functions can take place in narrower streams, but the increased amount of stream bottom, combined with the presence of rocks, riffles and roots that slow the water through wooded areas, gives those organisms a greater opportunity to “process” the streamwater.

That’s further enhanced in the fall when an influx of leaves pours into the stream, providing more surface areas for bacteria, and food to fuel their growth – the leaves themselves. “All of a sudden we see a huge increase in the stream’s ability to take up something like nitrogen,” Sweeney said. “A deforested stream is not going to have that.”

Those processes may get better with age, according to Sweeney, as the wide forest streams stabilize and the trees exert more influence over the local environment, including the microbial communities in both the soil and the water. In addition, as trees become old and begin to drop “large woody debris” into waterways, those tree limbs and trunks provide additional habitat for still more organisms, and further slow the water, allowing more processing time.

Researchers at Stroud are hard at work trying to quantify those added benefits associated with forest buffers. “We don’t have a good handle on that yet, and those are really important services that we need to quantify because it puts additional value on the buffer,” Sweeney said.

But some research by Stroud scientists about the added denitrification potential of forested streams has begun to influence policy. An expert panel reviewing the Bay Program’s assumptions about forest buffer nutrient reductions recently gave a nod to that work. Historically, the Bay Program’s estimates of forest buffer nutrient removal were based solely on what happened in the buffers. In an updated recommendation, the panel suggested that streams with forest buffers on both sides be given an additional 4 percent nitrogen reduction credit because of the in-stream processes.

Sweeney thinks research will eventually show the in-stream benefits are even greater. “In my opinion, I think at some point the in-stream aspects that are associated with a forest buffer are going to actually be greater than what we are getting from the filtration from the buffer, or at least equal to,” he said.

“We weren’t even paying attention to this back in 1990 when we started talking about buffers, and now we realize that this is a big part of the overall equation.”

Sweeney wants to see the lessons learned at Stroud transferred to technicians who work with landowners, and to policy-makers and the staffs of agencies and environmental groups. That was the impetus for the launch last year of the center’s Watershed Restoration Group which, besides Ehrhart, also employs former Pennsylvania CBF staffers David Wise and Lamonte Garber.

The disconnect between what scientists know about the function of buffers and the policies and technology that guides their implementation has had real-world consequences. Sweeney had learned from the earliest planting along White Clay Creek, that if newly planted seedlings were not protected from invasive plants and browsing deer, they were unlikely to survive. He and colleagues published a paper in 2002 showing the importance of using 5-foot tree shelters and herbicide treatments for the survival of tree plantings.

But that paper went unseen by people working in the field, and funding for those actions was not initially included in federally funded buffer planting programs. “That gap in knowledge killed a lot of trees for three years,” Ehrhart said.

Staff from the restoration group, along with scientists, conduct workshops and meet with professionals throughout the region to tout the latest information and techniques.

Meanwhile, the center is branching out into new research to better address buffer planting issues. For instance, the use of herbicides is generally considered essential to keep invasive plants from overwhelming newly planted trees. But that’s not an option for organic farmers interested in tree buffers, so they are looking into non-herbicide methods, such as placing stone around seedlings to keep plants away.

Voles, tiny mouselike animals, can be a plague on newly planted trees. The biodegradable plant shelters that are routinely placed around seedlings to protect them from deer sometimes become “vole condos” in which the trees fall victim to small mammals instead of large ones. Stroud is experimenting with a product from Europe that has a small tree tube to exclude voles within the larger tube that excludes deer. “These things are only 20 cents, and they only take a second to put on,” Sweeney said. “If they work, a big problem goes away for us.”

They are also experimenting with new, low-cost planting techniques, such as planting seeds instead of seedlings and protecting them with fences instead of individual tree shelters. While most won’t survive, the hope is that enough will to create a functional buffer. “It’s not just about success, but also about cost-effectiveness,” Ehrhart said.

Another project under way is importing large pieces of trees and placing them in a stream that is getting a new forest buffer planting. The idea is to mimic the services provided by large woody debris, and determine whether it achieves measurable benefits.

One for the biggest goals is to avoid past mistakes. Ehrhart said that one of the impediments to putting forest buffers on the ground today is the lingering effects from early failures when buffer plantings were ramped up in the late 1990s and early 2000s, often with staffs and programs ill-prepared for the challenges and maintenance required by newly planted buffers.

“There are some areas within the whole Bay region that have a lot of pushback to Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program just because it created weed patches and trees died,” Ehrhart said. “We think there is a definite incentive to not go back to that. Whatever we do, we want to know that we are going to be successful with it.”

Forest Buffer Benefits

Riparian, or streamside forests, serve as a buffer, or “last line of defense” between upland areas and streams. Research shows that forest buffers of at least 100-feet width on each side of a stream provide such benefit as:

Moderate Stream Temperature: Leafy canopies shade and cool water, especially in small streams, preventing sharp fluctuations in temperatures that can stress fish and aquatic life. Cooler, stabler temperatures also promote the growth of beneficial algae and aquatic insects and contains more oxygen.

Protect Stream Banks: Healthy riparian forests help stabilize stream banks and reduce erosion. Tree roots hold soils in place. Roots and fallen branches protect stream banks by reducing stream flow velocity.

Filter Pollution: In many settings, forest buffers are among the most effective controls for reducing runoff. Their soils trap and remove nutrients moving in surface flows, while their deep roots absorb nitrogen in shallow groundwater. Depending on the setting, the Bay Program estimates forest buffers remove 19-65 percent of the nitrogen; 30-45 percent of the phosphorus; and 40-60 percent of the sediment that would otherwise enter the stream. Additional amounts of these pollutants can be removed by in-stream processes promoted by forest buffers.

Sustaining Aquatic Habitats: Orga-nic material entering the stream from the forest, whether from fallen leaves or organic matter collected by water flowing through the forest floor, provides the food needed to feed stream organisms that evolved to live in forested settings over thousands of years.

Source: State of the Chesapeake Forests / Chesapeake Bay Program

Karl Blankenship

About Karl Blankenship

Karl Blankenship is editor of the Bay Journal and Executive Director of Chesapeake Media Service. He has served as editor of the Bay Journal since its inception in 1991.

Does Florida Track Trophy Bass Releases?

Florida Trophy Catch Logo

TrophyCatch tracker
from The Fishing Wire

Florida is now wrapping up the second year of what has turned out to be a highly successful effort to encourage anglers to release trophy-quality largemouth bass, thus allowing them to grow even larger while at the same time growing the state’s reputation as a destination for bass anglers. Here’s an update from the FFWCC:

Many of our readers already know that in 2012 the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) launched TrophyCatch, a new incentive-based conservation program designed for anglers who catch-and-release largemouth bass heavier than eight pounds, in Florida. Goals of this new initiative include providing verified catch data about trophy bass to guide conservation-management strategies, encouraging live release, and recognizing and rewarding anglers for participating in this citizen-science effort. This will ultimately increase trophy bass fishing opportunities and add to our knowledge of these valued fish.

Check out TrophyCatchFlorida.com now to register for free for the 3rd year’s boat drawing and to learn how to submit your catch, so the data can contribute to the future of bass fishing in Florida and you can earn great rewards from our sponsors. While there, check out the Gallery of Catches, or do a search to find where trophy bass have been caught near you. Meanwhile, be sure to “like” us on FaceBook.com/TrophyCatchFlorida to keep up with the latest developments.

The first year of TrophyCatch (Oct. 1, 2012 – Sep. 30, 2013) wrapped up a year ago. Here were some highlights from TrophyCatch year one:

– 1,941 registrants.

– Almost 200 verified largemouth bass Lunker, Trophy, and Hall of Fame Club winners.

– Phoenix bass boat powered by Mercury awarded to random-drawing finalist Frank Ay from N Lauderdale (on left in photo).

– $10,000 from Experience Kissimmee awarded to Peter Perez for the largest bass caught in Osceola County (second from right).

– TrophyCatch Champion Ring awarded to Bob Williams from Alloway, NJ for the largest entered TrophyCatch bass, 13 lbs., 14 oz.

– Over $70,000 total in prizes awarded.

As TrophyCatch continued into its second year, FWC announced simplified submission requirements and increased prizes. The largest change in submitting a bass is that only one photo, of the entire fish on a scale with the weight clearly legible, is required. However, photos of the length, girth, angler holding fish, and release are encouraged. Phoenix and Mercury again provided a bass boat package for year two, this time including a Power-Pole anchor. The big winners of this year’s major prizes haven’t been announced at time of writing, but will be included in the next issue. In the meantime, here are the latest TrophyCatch statistics as of September 2014:

– Over 8,000 total registrants.

– Nearly 1,000 verified largemouth bass Lunker, Trophy, and Hall of Fame Club winners.

– More than $102,000 in prizes awarded during Year 2.

Stay tuned for the 2013-14 winners, and for exciting prizing updates for the new 2014-15 TrophyCatch year! For more information, and to register or submit fish, visit TrophyCatchFlorida.com.

Does the Ohio River Have Trophy Catfish?

Catfish from the Ohio River

New Study Launched to Track Trophy Catfish in the Ohio River

Ohio Division of Wildlife
from The Fishing Wire

The popularity of catfish angling has increased tremendously in recent years and the large sizes that catfishes can attain make them especially popular with anglers seeking trophy-sized fish. Trophy-sized catfishes can be found in many lakes, rivers, and reservoirs throughout Ohio, as evidenced by the state records for flathead catfish (76.5 pounds from, Clendening Lake) and channel catfish (37.6lbs from LaDue Reservoir). However, the Ohio River is the premier destination for Buckeye State catfish anglers pursuing some of Ohio’s biggest fish. The state record blue catfish (92lbs) was caught in the Markland Pool of the Ohio River in 2009. In recent years, however, anglers have reported decreasing catches of large flathead and blue catfishes in the Ohio River, particularly in the Markland and Meldahl pools.

Large Ohio River catfishes present some unique challenges for state agencies responsible for managing the fishery (Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois). The Ohio River is a massive system, spanning 981 miles and having 19 lock and dam complexes from its origin in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to the confluence with the Mississippi River at Cairo, Illinois. The size and complexity of the Ohio River makes it difficult for biologists to estimate how many large catfish are present and the sizes available for anglers. Also, fishing regulations vary among some Ohio River states for anglers and commercial fishers. In fact, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois permit the commercial harvest of Ohio River catfishes, but Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania do not. In addition, little is known about how commonly large catfishes move between Ohio River pools and between state jurisdictions and move into, or out of, the commercial harvest zone.

In 2014 the Ohio Division of Wildlife initiated a 5-year study with the goal of learning about the movements of large (>25″) catfishes in the Ohio River. Specifically, the study aims to determine how much these large fish travel between pools and how widely they wander within the river and its tributaries. Information for this study will be collected through angler reports and through the use of specialized telemetry equipment and results will help agencies along the river better manage the catfish fishery.

Large flathead and blue catfish will be marked with an external tag inserted near the dorsal spine and released back into the Ohio River. Each of these tags will be imprinted with a toll-free “1-800” number that anglers can call to report catching one of these fish. Catch reports should provide a location of where the fish was caught and the unique identification number on the tag. Anglers that report catching one of these fish will receive a reward (valued at $10-100 and will be entered into a drawing for a $1,000 cash prize at the end of the study. This information will be used to estimate the catch and harvest of large flathead and blue catfish by anglers and commercial fishers.

A subset of these tagged fish will also be implanted with a transmitter (picture) that emits an ultrasonic signal that can only be detected by specialized equipment, called hydrophones. Hydrophones are underwater microphones specifically designed to “listen” for these tags. Each time a hydrophone detects a signal from one of these transmitters, it records the date, time, and the identification number of the tag. So each time a fish with a transmitter swims by one of these hydrophones, we will know when that particular fish was in the vicinity of that hydrophone. Biologists will use the detection history for each fish to track the movements of these large catfish over the next few years. For example, when the same fish is repeatedly detected by a single receiver, we will know that it remained in that area over that time. Conversely, if the same fish is subsequently detected by a receiver in another area of the river, we will know that the fish was moving upstream or downstream at that time.

The Ohio Division of Wildlife, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR), West Virginia Division of Wildlife (WVDNR) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have been working together over the last year to deploy dozens of these hydrophones throughout the Ohio River and the primary tributaries to study movements of invasive Asian carp. This hydrophone “array” will also benefit this catfish research as well.

In addition to identifying the areas most frequently used by large catfishes and measuring their movements throughout the Ohio River, this study is anticipated to provide information on catch and harvest rates for these fish. This information will help biologist better understand the dynamics of large flathead and blue catfishes in the Ohio River and potentially identify the need for new strategies to more effectively manage these fishes.

Should Anglers Keep Some of the Fish They Catch?

Encouraging anglers to keep fish

Editor’s Note: In many states, it’s been a long, uphill battle to convince anglers to release fish so that more can reach larger sizes. But in certain types of habitat-smaller waters with average low temperatures and minimal food production-the only way to get more big fish is to harvest lots of small fish, thus leaving more food for the survivors. Utah is currently working towards this type of a solution for many of their waters. Here’s the story, from the UDWR.

——-

Wildlife Board approves rule changes for 2015

SALT LAKE CITY – Biologists hope rule changes approved by the Utah Wildlife Board will encourage anglers to keep more fish in Utah.

you should keep fish in some cases

Keeping the fish you catch – up to your legal limit – is the key to providing fish with the food they need to grow.
Photo by Richard Hepworth

“A chance to catch a larger fish is the number one thing active Utah anglers have told us they want,” says Drew Cushing, warm water sport fisheries coordinator for the Division of Wildlife Resources. “Unfortunately, at many of the state’s waters, anglers are releasing too many fish. If they’ll start keeping fish, up to their legal limit, the growth rate of the remaining fish should improve.”

Cushing says when a water has too many fish in it, the fish run out of food. And that limits how big each fish can grow. “In addition to helping the fish population,” Cushing says, “keeping fish will add something to your diet that’s extremely healthy and good to eat.”

To encourage anglers to keep more fish, the Wildlife Board recently approved several rule changes for the 2015 season. The changes take effect Jan. 1, 2015.

You can see all of the changes the board approved in the 2015 Utah Fishing Guidebook. The free guidebook should be available online by early November.

No home possession limit

Members of the board hope eliminating the ‘home’ possession limit-the number of fish an angler can have in his or her freezer at home-will help anglers develop a new ‘mindset’ that encourages them to keep more fish.

DWR biologists originally recommended that the possession limit be eliminated for every fish in Utah except salmonoids-trout, kokanee salmon, whitefish and grayling. The board, however, eliminated the home possession limit for every fish species in the state.

A creel survey, which measures the number of fish anglers keep, was completed at Willard Bay Reservoir in 2011. A similar survey will wrap up at Starvation Reservoir this fall. The DWR will conduct creel surveys at both waters in 2015. Results of the earlier surveys will then be compared with results of the 2015 surveys to see if eliminating the possession limit made a difference in the number of fish anglers kept.

No yellow perch limit at Fish Lake

The board also approved a DWR recommendation to eliminate the daily yellow perch limit at Fish Lake.

“In surveys,” Cushing says, “anglers have indicated that the number one reason they go to Fish Lake is to catch big lake trout. Right now, the yellow perch population in the lake is so large that trying to introduce a species for lake trout to feed on isn’t going to work.”

Cushing says reducing the number of yellow perch will increase the amount of zooplankton available for other species to eat, including kokanee salmon that biologists want to introduce to the lake. A self-sustaining population of kokanee salmon would provide an excellent food source for lake trout in the lake.

The idea to eliminate the yellow perch limit originated with an advisory group of anglers assembled by the DWR.

Brook trout limit increased at Boulder Mountain reservoir

The board also approved a recommendation to increase the daily brook trout limit at Oak Creek Reservoir, one of 80 lakes and reservoirs on the Boulder Mountains in southern Utah.

Starting Jan. 1, the limit at Oak Creek will increase from four brook trout a day to 16 brook trout a day.

“The reservoir has an increasing population of brook trout, and fish are growing much slower,” Cushing says. “The fish are not getting as big. When the limit increases on Jan. 1, we hope anglers will take advantage of the increased limit and remove some additional fish. If they don’t remove enough fish, we’ll have to chemically treat the reservoir and then restock it with sterile brook trout that can’t reproduce.”

Another change on the Boulder Mountains involves placing limits on each of the mountain’s 80 lakes and reservoirs. Currently, lakes and reservoirs are grouped together, based on where on the mountain they’re located. Then, a limit is applied to every lake or reservoir in the group.

“Listing each water that has a limit that’s different from the general statewide limit, and what the limit is for that specific water, will eliminate a lot of confusion among anglers regarding what the limit is at each water,” Cushing says.

An advisory group of anglers who enjoy fishing on the Boulder Mountains helped the DWR draft the proposal the board approved.

Why Do Sport and Commercial Fishermen Differ On Striped Bass Management?

Sport, commercial fishermen differ over striped bass options

Decline in population raises concerns over how much and how quickly to reduce the harvest.

By Karl Blankenship, Editor
Bay Journal
www.bayjournal.com
from The Fishing Wire

Striped Bass

The striped bass population along the East Coast has been declining in the last decade. (Dave Harp)

For years, striped bass were a textbook example of successful fishery management.

After a dramatic population crash in the early 1980s, a painful harvest moratorium was put in place. As hoped, the population rebounded. By 1995, it was declared “recovered” – and even then the population continued to climb.

By the early 2000s, commercial fishermen and recreational anglers were seeing more large striped bass than at any time in recent memory.

Fast forward another decade, to 2014, and the picture is starkly different. The spawning population is at about the same level it was in 1995, when it was declared recovered, but instead of trending upward, it’s been declining for a decade.

It is expected to drop below the “recovered” threshold level next year.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which regulates the management of migratory fish species and includes representatives from all East Coast states, is weighing options that range from a 25 percent harvest reduction next year to phasing in a smaller, 7 percent annual reduction over three years – or even doing nothing at all.

“This is the premier fisheries management success story,” said John M.âR. Bull, commissioner of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. “I don’t think anybody wants to jeopardize that success.”

But, views about what the ASMFC should do to maintain that success when it meets in late October – and even the seriousness of the current situation – vary widely.

Some groups representing recreational anglers are leading the charge for aggressive, and quick, action.

Tony Friedrich, executive director of the Coastal Conservation Association in Maryland, said he supports a 25 percent reduction, but only because the ASMFC’s options don’t include a greater cut.

The fish “are in a lot of trouble,” he said, citing angler surveys showing that interactions with fish – basically how often they catch a striped bass – have fallen 75 percent since 2006.

“If you talk to a lot of people on the East Coast, they are up in arms,” Friedrich said. “They want to go a step beyond 25 percent.”

In comments to the ASMFC, the group Stripers Forever contends “the signs of diminishing abundance have been ignored for years.” It calls for a 25 percent harvest reduction effective next year, but said even that is “too little too late.”

On the other hand, Billy Rice, a commercial fisherman who has worked 46 years on the Potomac River and Maryland tributaries, said striped bass will soon become more abundant in the Bay as a result of a strong reproduction in 2011. Fish born that year will soon reach legal size in the Chesapeake, and shortly thereafter along the coast.

“We need to keep a close eye on it, but I wouldn’t even come close to calling it a crisis,” said Rice, who is a member of both the Potomac River Fishery Commission and an advisory panel to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

Absorbing a 25 percent reduction in a single year, he said, “would virtually cripple our commercial fishing industry.”

Rice contends that, given time, striped bass will bounce back, and that it’s not realistic to think that any stock can be consistently maintained at record-high levels. “Fish naturally go through cycles, no matter how well you manage them,” he said. “We are not going to stop the natural cycle that has been going on since the beginning of time.”

The different perspectives reflect, in part, longstanding tension between recreational and commercial interests, which compete for the same fish.

Commercial fishermen, equipped with large boats, nets and often decades of individual and community knowledge, are efficient. They typically can catch their given quota despite competition from recreational anglers, as long as the stock is at a healthy level.

Recreational fishermen do best when fish are very abundant. The fish are more easily found, and the commercial quota typically takes a smaller portion of the available population. As the population declines, recreational anglers with fishing lines are less efficient than watermen with nets, and have a harder time finding fish – even if the stock is still considered to be at a sustainable level.

“When abundance is down, the recreational anglers are the ones whose catch is going to go down the most,” said Bill Goldsborough, director of fisheries for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “By the same token, when abundance is up, their catch goes up the most. The recreational catch is tied very closely to abundance.”

That’s reflected in ASMFC figures which show spikes in recreational harvests when the striped bass population hit its peak in the early 2000s. In fact, the estimated dead discards from the recreational fishery along the coast – those fish that are caught and released, but die anyway (about 9 percent of the released fish) – exceeded the entire commercial catch as recently as 2006.

As abundance has declined, though, the commercial catch – which is based on a quota and therefore fluctuates less from year to year – has overtaken the recreational catch in the Bay and in some other states that have a commercial striped bass fishery.

So, for recreational fisheries, the situation can look bleak – but the stock itself is not in peril, Goldsborough said.

“From a biology standpoint, I think we are OK,” he said. “We do need to tighten the belt and ensure that we turn that trajectory back up for the spawning stock biomass. I don’t think it is a crisis, but there definitely is a need to act..”

The more difficult question, said Goldsborough, who is also a member of the ASMFC, is weighing management impacts on commercial and recreational sectors.

“It is really the age-old issue for fisheries management, and that is resolving the difference between managing for commercial fishing objectives and managing for recreational fishing objectives in a shared stock,” he said.

The reason for the decline in striped bass abundance over the last decade, scientists say, has been a series of years with poor reproduction.

In the 13-year span from 1993 through 2005, reproduction was at or above the long-term average 10 times, including the three best years on record in 1993, 1996 and 2001, as measured by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Young-of-Year index. The Chesapeake Bay is where the vast majority of striped bass found along the East Coast are spawned.

But reproduction has been below average in six of eight years since then, including some of the poorest years since the 1980s.

Successful reproduction typically requires two things: lots of eggs produced by females and weather conditions that promote the survival of their young.

Because they can’t control the weather, fishery managers try to keep the abundance of adult female fish high with the hope that when the spawning fish mesh with the right conditions, they will produce a large “year class” of young fish. With striped bass, above-average year classes have been particularly important for overall abundance.

The spawning stock biomass peaked at around 170 million pounds a decade ago, and dropped to an estimated 128 million pounds last year, just 1 million pounds above the minimum threshold of 127 million pounds set by ASMFC. It is on a trajectory to fall below that threshold next year.

But the significance of crossing that threshold is less clear. In fishery management, such thresholds are typically a biologically established minimum. Falling below that number risks a stock crash.

In the case of striped bass, the spawning stock biomass is not set at a danger level. Rather, it is set at its 1995 level, when the stock was declared recovered by ASMFC. It is about 12 times higher than the population’s low point in the early 1980s.

“We don’t feel the population is at a biological risk,” said Tom O’Connell, fisheries director with the Maryland DNR. “Yes, it is lower than stakeholders want, and lower than managers want. But it is not at a biological risk.”

The higher threshold, fishery managers say, reflects the fact that striped bass are considered a marquee species both in the Bay and along the coast.

As a result, O’Connell and some other fishery managers say, the question is not whether something should be done, but rather how much – and how quickly.

While reproduction in most recent years has been low, the 2011 year class was the fourth strongest since Maryland’s Young-of-Year index began in 1956. Those fish will soon reach catchable size – 18 inches – in the Bay, and will shortly thereafter migrate to coastal waters where they typically need to be larger before they can be caught.

“If we did nothing, but we kept fishing mortality at the current level, we would probably see that population come back up, but it may take three, four, five, six years,” O’Connell said.

“We should react, because the management plan and the stakeholders prefer that this species be at a higher abundance level,” he said. But, he added, “we don’t have to react in one year.”

Some recreational anglers, like Friedrich, worry that delaying or spreading out cuts only delays the potential comeback. Friedrich also contended that managers are putting too much stock on the 2011 year class which, he said “are about to go into the meat grinder” as they hit legal catch sizes in the Bay and along the coast.

“That 2011 class is where all the fishing pressure is going to fall,” he said. “It may be the most pressured year class in history.”

But sharp, single-year cutbacks would hit the commercial fishery hard, particularly in the Bay: Maryland and Virginia have the highest commercial quotas of East Coast states.

“In one year, that would be devastating,” said Bull, the VMRC commissioner. “I believe that it is very important, for the commercial fishery here in Virginia, to phase in the impact.”

Fishery managers from the Bay states also contend that new regulations could unfairly hit the Chesapeake.

After spawning, the Bay serves as a nursery for striped bass before they migrate to the coast. Fishery managers say females – which make up the spawning stock – leave the Bay earlier than males, so most of the Bay catch consists of male fish. Sharply reducing the catch on those males does little to boost spawning stock biomass, they say.

For years, harvest levels for striped bass in the Chesapeake were set separately from those along the coast. That was reflected in 2013, fishery managers said, when catch limits in the Bay were 14 percent below those in 2012, reflecting a decline in larger fish in the Bay.

But after a recent stock assessment, the ASMFC failed to set a Bay specific target, citing a lack of adequate information, even as it acknowledged differences between the Bay and coastal stocks.

If the Chesapeake is subjected to the same across-the-board reduction as the rest of the coast, managers say, it will not only hurt the fishing industry, but provide little benefit to the spawning stock.

“It is really misleading to the public to think that this level of reduction in the Chesapeake Bay is going to rebuild the female spawning stock biomass, because our fishery is predominantly males outside the spring trophy season,” O’Connell said.

Karl Blankenship

About Karl Blankenship
Karl Blankenship is editor of the Bay Journal and Executive Director of Chesapeake Media Service. He has served as editor of the Bay Journal since its inception in 1991.

Where Do Tournament Caught Bass Go When Released?

After Lake Champlain Fish Tournaments: Study Finds Where the Fish Go
from The Fishing Wire

Today’s feature, an interesting study on where bass go after being released at weigh-ins, comes to us from Lake Champlain International; www.mychamplain.net.

By Daniel Kelly

The Crew

The Lake Champlain bass dispersal project crew (Credit: Lake Champlain Research Institute, SUNY Plattsburgh)

Lake Champlain has been a popular bass fishing spot for some time, made so by its size, surrounding scenery and abundant fish habitat, especially in its northern end. The lake’s expansive tributaries also draw in anglers who like to rev up their fishing boats and make waves.

But with prized bass there getting more and more attention, scientists with the Lake Champlain Sea Grant wanted to know what impacts all the activity was having on the fishery.

“There are probably 75 tournaments on this lake each year,” said Mark Malchoff, aquatic resources specialist with the Sea Grant. “And about four to six of them are big ones with sometimes 100 boats.”

Malchoff, along with investigators from the Lake Champlain Research Institute at the State University of New York – Plattsburgh, wanted to quantify the impacts of catch-and-release policies at the competitions and how bass disperse after they’ve been released back into the water.

Their study began with tagging fish. Some were fitted with radio transmitters, but a vast majority were tagged with T-bars: tiny tags inserted between spines in dorsal fins. All of those had Malchoff’s phone number and email address on them.

“You sort of release them and hope someone finds one, but there’s no guarantee,” said Malchoff. “It’s a classic letter in a bottle.”

Inserting Tracklng Device

Surgery underway on a Lake Champlain bass (Credit: D. Garneau, SUNY Plattsburgh)

The approach was useful because two tag methods allowed researchers to find if one was more reliable for tracking and if there were any effects caused by the tags themselves. Malchoff says there was good agreement between the two, with both helping researchers track bass movement through Lake Champlain during and after tournaments.

Largemouth bass, researchers found, are especially affected during tournament time. They experience more stress than smallmouth, as judged by a series of indicators including bloody fins, hook wounds or fin damage. A lot of the stress comes from being housed in livewells, which takes its toll. They may also be targeted more as competition labors on.

“With tournaments – the big ones at least – by day three, only the Top 10 to 20 anglers are still fishing,” said Malchoff. “At that point, they’re targeting the biggest fish they can find.” And with live fish valued more at weigh-in time, fishermen try to keep fish swimming. “But the farther you move them (in livewells), the more likely it is they’ll get beat up,” said Malchoff.

A post-op tagged smallmouth (Credit: Lake Champlain Research Institute, SUNY Plattsburgh)

Released Smallmouth

Smallmouth bass also exhibited signs of stress, but not as much as largemouths. Both bass types appeared more prone to bloody fins as water temperatures increased. And after they had been released back into Lake Champlain, researchers found that bass swam toward the north side. There is plenty of high-quality habitat on that end, says Malchoff, and going north saves a trip over deep-water areas to reach the southern end.

All the findings boil down to a few things fishermen and tournament organizers can do to protect and conserve bass in Champlain. “Don’t transport them as far (in livewells), and lake temperature – in a lot of places, waters are warmest in late July or early August – avoid scheduling tournaments at those times if at all possible,” said Malchoff.

Researchers also provided evidence against a commonly held notion that many types of fish stress could be attributed to barotrauma, or damage caused to them by sudden pressure changes. Fish that don’t maintain equilibrium don’t always need to have their air bladders deflated, Malchoff says, something that tournament anglers often do.

“My real interest is looking at tournaments as a sustainable resource,” said Malchoff. “And like a lot of things, there’s always room for improvement.”

Funds for Gulf of Mexico Restoration

The BP Windfall–Funds for Gulf Restoration

By Frank Sargeant, Editor
from
The Fishing Wire

In one of the more bizarre turns of events in environmental history, the calamitous BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico may turn out to have been historically a good thing for many portions of the shores of this American sea.

Deep Water Horizon on fire

While the enormous outpouring of oil, variously estimated at up to 4.7 million barrels (about 200 million gallons over 87 days), was the greatest manmade environmental disaster in history, killing fish, marine mammals, bottom fauna and sea birds in untold numbers as well as fouling hundreds of miles of shoreline and virtually wiping out an entire tourist season in many communities surrounding the Gulf, it now appears that the enormous fines and lawsuit penalties levied against British Petroleum and associates may wind up giving a historic infusion of cash for environmental projects that stood no chance of being funded or even planned without the giant cash cow suddenly available.

Those of us who have spent time around the Gulf oil rigs fishing know that they are not the demonic towers of environmental destruction that some folks seem to think they are: In fact, there are more fish per square foot around these towers than anywhere else in the Gulf, with both reef species like snapper and grouper and pelagics like kingfish and yellowfin tuna swarming around many. On the other hand, the BP disaster shows the potential for great harm that’s inherent in pulling industrial quantities of petroleum out of the sea floor anywhere in the world, and hopefully has taught the entire civilized world a lesson in the need for careful control of this harvest. And the huge fines resulting have hopefully taught a lesson to the companies extracting the oil, as well.

On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed the RESTORE Act into law, establishing a trust fund within the Treasury Department, with 80 percent of the civil penalties to be paid by parties responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. To date, civil penalties and interest deposited into the trust fund exceed $653 million.

That could be a drop in the bucket. The Justice Department has found “gross negligence” against BP, which means penalties under the Clean Water Act will swell to $4,300 per barrel, making the determination of how many barrels were released critical in settling what the ultimate civil fine will total. The fine reportedly could have been as low as $1,100 a barrel had BP not cut so many corners in regards to the safety of its workers and the health of the Gulf. If BP’s estimate for barrels spilled is accurate, the fine will be about $10 billion for its gross negligence. That total could be in excess of $18 billion if the Justice Department is right. Either way, it’s an enormous amount of money.

A total of 35 percent of the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund is divided equally among the five states for ecological and economic restoration. The states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas each receive a share for projects and programs they select. In Florida, the state’s allocation goes to 23 coastal counties for projects they choose. A second Interim Final Rule finalizes an additional allocation for 20 parishes in Louisiana.

Treasury will also provide grants for centers of excellence research programs using 2.5 percent of the trust fund, divided equally among the five Gulf Coast States.

On Sept. 15, Treasury posted the funding opportunity announcement for these grants as well. The centers of excellence will focus on science, technology, and monitoring. In addition to these grant programs, the Interim Final Rule published in August describes requirements for RESTORE Act programs administered by other federal agencies. Treasury is just one of several federal entities working to implement the RESTORE Act.

The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, a federal council composed of the five Gulf Coast States and six federal agencies, will use 30 percent of the trust fund for projects selected by the council, and administer grants to the states pursuant to council-approved state expenditure plans using an additional 30 percent.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will use the remaining 2.5 percent of the trust fund for a program focused on advancements in monitoring, observation, and technology. For more information on the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, visit http://www.restorethegulf.gov/.

In short, it’s by far the greatest infusion of money into an environmental restoration project in U.S. or world history, an unimaginable windfall that if spent wisely should bring tremendous benefits to the Gulf estuarine and beach areas for decades to come–and some very nice added benefits to the anglers who chase the millions of fish that will be produced in these restored areas.

To be sure, the Gulf is likely to face issues in coming decades if sea level rise continues as many scientists predict–while wetlands, mangroves and marshes like wet feet, too much water can kill out these nursery areas, which are absolutely essential to preserving the chain of life that ultimately results in everything from gamefish to porpoises and whales.

The public has an opportunity for input on projects that need funding from this money. This Wednesday, Oct. 22, a public webinar will run from 6 to 8 p.m. EST.

Advance registration is required. Go here: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/338981370

To be sure, the road to full recovery of the Gulf from the BP incident is still somewhere in the future, but the restoration projects already underway and those planned for the future may well bring the resource to a level that is even better than before the disaster, for the fish and marine life, for anglers and boaters, and for the general public which enjoys this uniquely American resource.

What Is Being Done To Restore the Gulf of Mexico

NOAA, Partners Announce Major Progress on Gulf of Mexico Restoration
from The Fishing Wire

More than $600 million in new projects will offset damage from Deepwater Horizon oil spill

NOAA and its fellow Natural Resource Damage Assessment trustees in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill have announced the signing of a formal Record of Decision to implement a Gulf restoration plan. The 44 projects, totaling an estimated $627 million, will restore barrier islands, shorelines, dunes, underwater grasses and oyster beds.

This announcement marks the largest suite of Gulf early restoration projects selected thus far in the wake of the 2010 oil spill. The projects aim to address a range of injuries to natural resources and the subsequent loss of recreational use.

“Preserving, protecting, and restoring natural resources is an integral part of our efforts to foster resilience in communities nationwide, including those affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,” said Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “These projects reflect an earnest commitment to the Gulf and will enhance the region’s economic, social, and ecological resilience in the future.”

As outlined in the Final Programmatic and Phase III Early Restoration Plan and Early Restoration Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, NOAA is supporting an overall Early Restoration plan that includes both ecological and human use projects. It is also fully supporting 44 specific projects to address injury across the Gulf. Of those, NOAA is directly involved in the implementation of four projects.

Map of Gulf of Mexico restoration

Locations of Phase III Deepwater Horizon early restoration projects in which NOAA is participating. (Photo: NOAA)

The largest NOAA project partnership will be with Louisiana to fund and execute restoration of beach, dune, and back-barrier marsh habitat on Chenier Ronquille, a barrier island off the state’s coast. Chenier Ronquille is one of four barrier islands proposed for restoration as part of the Louisiana Outer Coast Restoration Project that will be implemented by NOAA, the U.S. Department of Interior and Louisiana. The total cost to restore the four barrier islands is expected to be $318 million.

Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and NOAA will partner to undertake three “living shorelines” projects. These projects involve a blend of restoration technologies used to stabilize shorelines and restore fish and wildlife habitat. The three projects are:

Alabama: NOAA will work with the state to fully implement the Swift Tract Living Shoreline Project. This project, costing $5 million, will construct approximately 1.6 miles of breakwaters covered with oyster shell to reduce shoreline erosion, protect salt marsh habitat, and restore ecosystem diversity and productivity in Mobile Bay. Restoration experts expect that over time, the breakwaters will develop into reefs, providing added reproductive and foraging habitat and shelter from predators. The 615-acre state-owned Swift Tract site is located in Bon Secour Bay and is part of the NOAA-supported Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Florida: NOAA will partner with Florida for the Florida Pensacola Bay Living Shoreline Project to restore shoreline at two sites along the Pensacola waterfront. Project Greenshores Site II is located immediately west of Muscogee Wharf in downtown Pensacola. Restoration at PGS Site II has been planned in conjunction with the Sanders Beach site, three miles to the west. Both proposed sites feature breakwaters that will provide four acres of reef habitat and protect the 18.8 acres of salt marsh habitat that will be created through this project. The Pensacola project is expected to cost about $11 million.

Mississippi: NOAA will partner with the state to improve nearly six miles of shoreline as part of the proposed Hancock County Marsh Living Shoreline Project. The goal of the project is to reduce shoreline erosion by dampening wave energy and encouraging reestablishment of habitat in the region. The estimated cost is $50 million.

As the largest phase of early restoration efforts, Phase III sets a strategic approach for these and additional early restoration activities. The trustees received thousands of public comments that were instrumental in its development, and has issued a guide to the plan and projects.

These projects will be funded through the $1 billion provided to the trustees by BP, as part of the 2011 Framework Agreement on early restoration.

Ten early restoration projects already are in various stages of implementation as part of the first two phases of early restoration. Updates on these projects are available in an interactive atlas.

Early restoration provides an opportunity to implement restoration projects agreed upon by the trustees and BP prior to the completion of the full natural resource damage assessment and restoration plan. BP and other responsible parties are obligated to compensate the public for the full scope of the natural resource injury and lost use caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the cost of assessing such injury and planning for restoration.

For more than 20 years, NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program has worked cooperatively with federal and state agencies, tribes, industry, and communities to respond to oil spills, ship groundings, and toxic releases. During that period NOAA has protected natural resources at more than 500 waste sites and 160 oil spills, securing more than $2.3 billion from responsible parties.

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Join us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and our other social media channels.

About Fishing

Welcome To About Fishing