Texas tree top habitat causes Govenor intervention

[peepaw]

Dear friends,
I was recently contacted by J Harmon, President of the Protect lake Dunlap association in New Braunfels,Texas. He explained to me their struggle with the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority over existing small diameter standing timber being hazardous to recreation use. Apparently, The GBRA has denied the cutting of these stumps to protect fish habitat and recommends marking these areas off to boat use which has the residents upset. The PLDA's plan is to draw down the reservoir and shorten the existing hazards about eight feet from normal surface elevation. I'm told there are hundreds of them and already have caused many accidents and property damage.

J says the average depth is about 15 feet, so when cut, they would still stick up about 6-8 feet off the bottom, root ball intact.After cutting, they plan to set one of our PVC habitat units on the remaining stump and fasten it there for good. This would increase the square footage of surface area approximately three times. The thinking is, with our units within six feet of the surface as water fluctuates, boats, skiers and water craft will be safe, including the fish. J and the group understand the benefits of not only keeping as much existing habitat as possible but to continue to add more habitat. The cut off tops would be kept and fastened to the remaining trunk too.They have a full understanding of the science behind periphyton, nutrient removal and fish production and feel unwavering in their decision to work with only us in their efforts.

Senator Jeff Wentworth supports PLDA. With his intervention and the phone call from Gov. Rick Perry, GBRA's action item #8 was tabled. The PLDA has been granted 30 days, (less now) to present their case for a final decision of what will be allowed. The General Manager and staff continue to meet with representatives of Lake Dunlap, enforcement officers, and fishery experts to evaluate the current no-wake area designation and alternative options to provide water safety and assure a balance of all uses including the preservation of fishery habitat and funding mechanisms, and to continue to review and develop alternatives that address congestion and lake boating conflict uses on Lake Dunlap and to report back to the Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting in August 2012.

What I'm asking of you once again is your opinion, hopefully your support. Can you find any adverse effects of removing these hazardous stumps as long as the habitat is replaced in other ways/forms? Can you comment on the benefits of the artificial habitat we produce and results you have seen? What can we expect to see in a 300 % increase in available cover for the fishery? With our help, the PLDA intends to present their plan for approval as a landmark decision for the state of Texas. Safety for the residents and fish is the priority of both sides, in that order. All parties involved want to save and increase fish habitat. Wood is good, just not where people get hurt.
Send replies to either Jarod or myself at or simply post here.

Here are some links to the information as well as Jerod Harmon's contact information:
news story:http://www.ksat.com/news/Lake-Dunlap-res...rz/-/index.htmlhttp://www.plda.org/index.html http://www.gbra.org/
jrharmon123@yahoo.com713-202-8870

Here's a few responses back from some familiar respected professionals:

David,I would suggest cutting the stumps even lower than 8 feet as the vinyl structures will actually benefit fish more lower in the water column and be even safer yet for boaters and skiers. Standing tree trunks are actually pretty terrible fish habitat in my opinion so putting 'simulated branches' on them will help tremendously.

Probably though if 8' is your max depth for cutting them for whatever reason than just simply place the artificial habitat on the ground next to them or figure out a good way to fasten them to the sides of the trees as opposed to the tops.


Thanks,
Nate Herman(309)-303-5691www.hblakemanagement.comNate's Fishing Blog

Hello J,
In support of your efforts on Lake Dunlap I would like to note the following: Surface area and circulation are the fundamental paths to high water quality. Stewardship of these two critical variables can lead to both very high fish production and water clarity. Today we have the science and the practitioners with which to steward water towards health and productivity. David Ewald's system is an example of such. Cycling nutrients into fish at a rate that corresponds with both, inflow nutrients and inventoried nutrient load is both achievable and fundamental to a waterway's health. Perhaps the best outcome of all is that, in your multiple use waterway, everybody can win. For more information, including science journal articles, case studies and range of other articles, I refer you to http://www.floatingislandinternational.com and http://structurespot.com/crappie-habitat...utrophication/.

Best Regards,Bruce Kania@ Floating Island Int.

Hello David,
Here is my perspective on the issues raised in your emails:While the existing stumps/trees in the waterway represent habitat for fish, they are BY FAR not the optimal structure for the lake. There are several reasons for this. These include:They are organic and are putting an oxygen demand on the waterway as they break down. I am assuming that these stumps are in the waterway as a result of the original development of the impoundment flooding this area. As such, these trees are not part of a natural aquatic ecosystem. While they are delivering a benefit in terms of increased surface area, my opinion is that the cost of the additional biological oxygen demand contributing to anoxic zones and internal nutrient loading in the waterway probably outweighs the benefit.While the stumps are adding surface area for periphyton development, the are not efficient vehicles for this because they are singular, solid objects and their ratio of surface area to volume, weight and bio-mass is low compared to inorganic artificial substrates. The efficiency of the nutrient filtering capability of the surface area can be dramatically increased with the plan that you propose. This will add more surface area for periphyton development, create more food for the fish food chain and provide better cover for fish. It will also cycle more nutrients away from the algal food chain and into the fish food chain.This area of the reservoir is a natural concentration point for fish. Harvesting fish on a responsible basis is one of the best ways for harvesting nutrients out of a waterway. If the area is closed to boats, you will be dramatically reducing the opportunity to responsibly provide a beneficial recreational opportunity to community members that, when done properly, will help clean the waterway of excess nutrients.For these reasons, I would fully support the replacement of the stumps with fish structure that has the following characteristics:Is inorganic and therefore will not contribute additional organic nutrients to the system or create an oxygen demand due to the gradual decomposition of the substrate over time.Provides a higher ratio of surface area per weight and volume of the substrate.Provides an opportunity for people to safely access the area to harvest fish from this area of the waterway responsibly.Thank you for the opportunity to lend my perspective on these issues. I hope that I have helped in some small way. I am available anytime via return email or by phone at (269) 330-0925.

Best Regards,John J. TucciPresident, Lake Savers,
www.lake-savers.com

[Mike Cork]

David where is this at right now?

[peepaw]

Here's the update and a resolution for now. Seems the group cut a bunch of timber without permission already which we sure don't agree with. Bottom line is IF and WHEN timber is determined to have to be removed, our products can be a good choice to replace what is lost. We don't agree with removing any habitat unless it HAS to go.


http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Speed-limit-lifted-on-Lake-Dunlap-3773413.php