GBTU Report , 01OCT07

[lowwall]

First TU Meeting for me, Meet with Steve H, Otter, Tom Jutras, Mark Seymour , Sean Smith and others from the board that I may have forgotten
from the board.

First impressions from the meeting is that these guys are a busy bunch doing everything from kids and ladies only FF clinics to trout stocking, CFR Events etc.. I went to the meeting to get some info on trying to do what they did to the Lamprey to the Pemi. My Take away was that it is allot of work and that it cannot be done with a few guys on a internet board. We Need TU behind this or it will be sunk. Will be hitting the Pemi Chapter meeting the 16th, hopefully we can get some interest. If not these guys have plenty of projects that we can sink our teeth into.

The presentation for the evening was from Warren Winders, Guy has been working on restoring Red brook in MA for years. Great talk, with lots of pictures. My original thinking was ( Block your Ears TU) was to forget about restoration, maintain the water quality we have now and stock fish that can thrive in the mess that we made. This guy showed that Brookies can bounce back with some work pretty quickly into a self sustaining population.

The talk brought me back to when I lived in MA, Fished the cape for sea run browns all winter. Never saw one and never meet anyone that did, they were my white whale for a few years.
My most memorable experience fishing for them was when I Fell into a 6ft hole full of stinky bog mud in Falmouth in January, Fun ride home 1 ½ in my underwear , The folks at the drive through D&D had a few laughs.

I still have a MA licence and I am feeling the old urge again. Will bring a change of clothes with me this time!

GBTU, Keep up the good work!
Thanks
Mike

[s2ary]

I was there last night as well; it is too bad we didn’t meet.

I walked away last night with a strong feeling of there is no reason why we can’t do that in every waterway in southern NH.

From a restoration contracting perspective there are two keys to success;

First and for most, is to abate thermal retention in the watershed. That’s doable.

The second is to remove the sediments from the system, and if you can get the dams out, the sediments will not redeposit and become self-sustaining.

After that it is letting the ‘Heritage’ trout do there thing. If the trout are in fact extirpated, than that is where the Aggie’s Brookie Restoration Stock can come in.

This fits in as a solution to something that has become a growing concern with me. My fear is that if we continue to stand on the sidelines, the ‘Natives’ campaign will lead us to fisheries similar to the fisheries in England. If we do not restore our resources so they can sustain populations of traditional sportfish we will end up fishing for roaches, yellow bullheads and shiners. As of now the interest groups leading these campaigns have no romantic notions of one species’ worth over another. My fear is as the story unfolds, put and take stockings, and fisheries improvements will become harder and harder to accomplish because they will impact existing native rough fish populations. Think about that for a minute, these non sustaining fisheries like the Lamprey, the Cocheeco, the Isenglas, etc, could potentially be lost because stockings negatively impact native fisheries that are currently self-sustaining in these water bodies. It is no where near as crazy as you are thinking. Look at all of the other absurd restraints that frivolous litigation has imposed on you today. It’s not getting any better is it?

Well that’s enough soap boxing for today. :lol: Does the GBTU have any sort of a restoration committee or anything?

[Banks10]

First and for most, is to abate thermal retention in the watershed. That’s doable.



How is it possible to abate thermal retention in Southern NH waters?
I don't know a lot about this topic, but I would like to learn more. I think it would be a great thing if our rivers could maintain a wild population.
Any suggested readings that I could learn more from?

[lowwall]

I am no expert at any of these subjects and to want to learn more to.

The examples given in this last TU meeting was a small Stream feed by a spring and a pond. The Stream also Had Big ponds dug along the stream.

The pond was not originally feeding the stream, the stream was spring fed The ponds contributed to warming the water. The pulling down of dams increased flow and helped fill in the dug ponds, also helped scrub the bottom of sediment revealing the gravely bottom of the stream. Also the increased flow probably helped mix the spring water with the pond water-cooling it a bit. The Planting of vegetation along the stream also would cooling to.

This type of examples is great, No way we would get away with draining ponds with cottages etc around the, But getting rid of dams is a different story, as well as planting vegetation. The example given is in cape cod. Which may be a surprise to some is much less populated than Southern NH. Also never had allot of heavy industry, and at least on most of the ponds the houses are not piled on top of each other. Live Free and Enforce No Building Code should have bee our states moto. so the water quality is probably allot better to.

The presentation showed that within weeks of making small improvements measurable results could be made. So every little bit we can do will help!

How about a Reading list from some of our resident experts, I would prefer them in Syllabus form, General To Specific Subject

[s2ary]

One of the deals with being ahead of the curve is you stand in the face of fire. By that I mean you do not have much to back you up but theories.

I think the key to restoring our fisheries is a watershed perspective. It is a no brainer that shading a stream and the adjacent stream bank cools the stream. What if that shading effect was extended across the watershed, the entire contributing watershed is then measurably cooler.

OK that is pretty easy to grasp, not as much sun hitting the surface, any rain that hits the ground then does not absorb that heat and bring it into the existing streams, wetlands, and percolation areas. Therefore the temperatures of our streams are buffered from these effects.

But what about the primary sources of water for our streams? New England hydrology is based on a ‘gaining model’, meaning that the ground water is the primary source of the water that sustains our waterways. Out west, in arid regions the water in the stream channels weep out and sustain the groundwater, the longer a channel runs the more water it loses through groundwater recharge. In New England we are blessed with water and the opposite is true. Along the entire length of a stream channel groundwater discharges into the stream, and in certain areas high input ‘springs’ make significant contributions. This is a major factor in water and sewer management, ground water is constantly infiltrating the underground piping. (Don’t drink the water :lol: :lol: )

Historically New England was a forested region with a deep leaf litter. These types of soil types readily percolate precipitation. You can easily stick you finger deep into mature forest floors. As a result ground water supplies were high.

Currently, our developed watersheds allow for little to no groundwater recharge. Paved and impervious surfaces dominate the landscape. Even the soils in a grass lawn compact to the point that little water can penetrate the soil, try to stick your fingers in. We have lost the permeability of our landscape.

Stormwater runoff is diverted to holding ponds where the majority of the water evaporates away. Or runoff is dumped into the waterways in large slugs after rain events, where these flashy flood plains have a hard time maintaining the stable growing conditions needed for woody species. As a result the receding waters in the flood plains bake in the sun. To further complicate the matter we have high yield wells that pump off the groundwater as for public drinking supplies.

This relates to fisheries in two ways. The regional below ground temperature of the earth in our area is approximately 55 degrees F. Ground water absorbs this thermal energy and maintains itself at 55 degrees. In the past when we had a more permeable landscape ample quantities of 55 degree groundwater discharged along the entire path of our waterways. Today, because we no longer have a permeable landscape, our groundwater supply is considerably less than what it used to be. Therefore our streams are supplied by the runoff water from the impervious watershed. The water heats up when it hits the ground, and bakes in the sun as it recedes out of the floodplains and the detention systems of a developed watershed.

It is a very simple concept, but way ahead of what the current literature is able to support. So who is ready to stand in the face of fire? Paper thin egos need not apply. :lol:

[Banks10]

Makes sense to me. Though I don't know a lot about the topic I can see a correlation.
Is there any realistic way to mitigate or at least improve the flow and temperature of our rivers, especially in southern NH, where waters become very warm and shallow in the summer?

The topic of fish restoration to our waters is very interesting to me. As a history buff and new resident of Manchester I have read some histories of the city. The folks who first settled the area did so due to the abundance of Atlantic Salmon, Shad and Herring. All I can think about is how amazing it would be if these fish still ran up our rivers and streams.

With the population of our state increasing every day - lands being clear cut for new development, new roads etc. etc. is it even possible for fish to thrive in our waters unless we dynamite every dam and let the forrests overgrow for 50 years?

[s2ary]

I know we absolutly can, but the wheels of progress move slow.

There is always an on the ground project that will need to be done, but the watershed perspective is an advocacy campaign with universal gains including mitigating air quality. By educating people, it will become the standard that they look to achieve.

What we need to do is agree on a campaign front, develope good media to express this idea, and then join forces with other groups with common ground intrests like the State, Audubon, CCA, ect.

It would be nice to have TU another national group leading this with us.

[Steve H.]

s2ary, I'm pleased to say that while checking out the NH F&G website today I found the following surprising news:

• We don't usually associate wild brook trout with southeastern New Hampshire. That is why we were so surprised at the number of wild brook trout and hatchery holdovers that we found in the Oyster River, in Lee, during our surveys for American brook lamprey.

In an different thread I expressed my doubt that wild brook trout exist anywhere in the Great Bay drainage and even mentioned the Oyster by name. I've spent some time on the Oyster (and most of the Great Bay rivers) while a student at UNH. (Didn't see any trout myself, but WOW what a run of alewives.) Goes to show you how little I know about trout in NH!!

But it certainly is encouraging news and I'm really intrigued by the plans you've discussed on this forum.

[s2ary]

That's cool man, I wish I was as net savy as all you guys.

Plus it is better to hang with nay sayers then sheep. :lol:

[OTTER]

lowwall,Good to meet you at the GBTU meeting. s2ary, did I meet you there?

As for wild Brookies. My kids and I lived in Durham and fished every little tributary of the Oyster River as well as many of the Lamprey and other area tributaries. Many of us have known for decades that wild brookies abound in the area ( and probably in almost every square mile of NH if there is a brook or ditch.)

I know the 7 rivers that enter Great Bay. In my mind without question the one river that would be able to be restored to a native or wild brook trout fishery is the Oyster. I say this for many reasons.
1) It has a trmendous number of wild fish in the tributaries right now and we have caught small wild brookies in the main stem.
2) It is not subject to the wild swings of flow, especially the wild flooding, of the other rivers such as the Lamprey and Cocheco.
3) It has a bottom with many areas of sand and gravel which are excellent for spawning; which is why there are so many small wild fish there. ( Although we once caught a 16 inch holdover whose picture is on the wall as I type.) The Cocheco, for example, has little sand or gravel. It gets scoured by the spring floods.
4) It contains very few pickerel or bass which would inhale the young brookies. About 25 years ago I caught a pickerel that was less than 12 inches long. When I cut it open it had 5 salmon smolt in its gut. That was in the days of the Coho experiment. It is well known that there are pickerel in excess of 24 inches many miles upstream of Wiswall dam where we stock as well as downstream .

All the Oyster River needs to get started is to stop stocking and change the rule to catch and release. The wild fish would start to fill up the main stem. Of course stream bank improvement, cover, etc would help. Much of the river is in woods owned by UNH.

Futhermore if the two dams were removed; the Mill Pond dam and the College Woods dam, I believe salters would evolve from this genetic stock. This is my estimate or opinion based on decades of exploring with my kids many nooks and crannys of the Oyster; as well as reports from older guys than me who caught brookies in the salt water pools many years ago.

Enough for now.

[s2ary]

Hey Otter,

That's awesome, and that is the kind of information that you can't buy at any cost.

Something we may want think about in the future is how not to make our efforts a wild trout fishing guide for southern nh. Is there a way TU handles this kind of stuff?

[OTTER]

s2ary, Great Bay TU is in the process of deciding on a stream to work on in the wild brookie program. I just heard that they would like a smaller and simpler project than the Oyster River, partly because of the two dams and the resulting thermal pollution.

So I have just recommended the following (below) which I just sent to the board. I have also been advised by Commissioner Kalter to get in touch with Diane Emerson, Fisheries Biologist at NHF&G, who is heading up the Eastern Brook Trout Initiative. Apparently southeastern NH has the least amount of information about wild populations and they might like to tap my memory before I croak.
============================================

For a smaller stream I recommend the Mallego Brook which crosses Route 125 a half mile South of Route 9. I have explored this brook a lot. A couple of weeks ago using a small nymph I coaxed a few tiny wild brookies from their hiding places. Only one was big enough to actually get it in its mouth and get hooked. This brook is loaded with wild brookies and has incredible gravel and is fed by numerous cold springs.

Until recently, I despaired of saving this brook since these shallow gravel beds were constantly riled by ATVs zooming up and down the stream bed; not merely crossing the brook. However, the Barrington Conservation Commission ( I believe that is the proper name ) has obtained conservation easements since I was last there. It is well marked by them with signs stating NO ATV,s Permitted. The destruction they caused in the past was already partly repaired. And there was no sign of ATV's trespassing on this land recently.

NHF&G has stocked this brook at Route 125 in past years; but most of the fish I have caught over the past decades ( a month after stocking ) have been wild brookies of all sizes from 3 inches to one fish post spawning gaunt spent male of 12 inches in October. And over the years I have caught scores of wild brookies there.

This smaller stream simply needs to have a catch and release rule; and no more stocking. I would be happy to take anyone there to look the place over.

[s2ary]

That's good stuff Otter.

It is nice to hear your first hand accounts. Down south where I grew up, the rivers have been degraded to the point that the wild fish are gone. Your accounts are vital in determining what scale the development impacts are in S. NH. This gives everyone a starting point.