James Harvey
Environmental Seminars
Instructor Khan-Bureau
3/28/14
Brian Murphy
Brian Murphy is a senior fisheries habitat biologist of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a member of the American Fisheries Project and Stream Restoration Efforts in Eastern Connecticut.
Brian began by stating that numerous man-made alterations to CT stream channels are resulting in habitat loss and degradation. These occurrences are mostly urban as well and they have very significant impacts. Streams modified by dam construction can block upstream fish passages and cause a loss of river connectivity. Brian also stated that ponds/lakes can connect sediments and they impact water quality and increase water temperature in downstream areas. He then stated that Streams are buried underground within culverts. We travel roads ever day crossing over streams conveyed by roadway culverts and many of them block fish passage. Fortunately, they are working on fish gliders and baffle systems to get fish upward along the passages.
Furthermore, an example that he used was the Blackledge River Watershed that has 53 road crossings and 16 dams which play a part in the dilemma. Brian also mentioned streambanks and the impacts that they can have when they are eroded. The erosion can cause sedimentation of valuable habitats, which can reduce the populations of aquatic insects, which is a food source for fish. It can also cause the loss of vegetation, which can shade a stream and cool water temperatures. According to Brian, without shading, sunlight can increase surface water temperatures and negatively affect the survival of coldwater fish such as trout. However, some habitat degradation isn’t that noticeable as watershed development can increase impervious surfaces, create shallow and wide channels, and even diminish the quantity of the fish habitat.
With these problems in mind, why would it be good to restore or enhance habitat? Brian stated that habitat quantity and quality often positively correlate with fish density if the quality is good enough. He then explained that there were three case history examples of habitat restoration/enhancement projects and those are: culvert removal, dam removal, and stream channel restoration. One project happened in Ashford, CT where there needed to be emergency culvert repairs in October 2005 because of flooding and road wash that created “perched” conditions at the outlet and blocked upstream fish passage. These perched culverts also fragment the brook trout population according to Brian and they can no longer access over 2.94 miles of upstream habitats. Brian also stated that fish cannot jump and swim through shallow water culverts known low flows and they also cannot pass through high velocity waters known as high streamflows because they will be pushed back from the excess force. To solve these problems, they restored the fish passage by replacing existing twin culverts with a clear span timber bridge, restored ad stabilized 60 feet of instream and streambank habitat at the road crossing location, and restored 125 feet of the brook trout habitat in the channelized section downstream; all of this costing them $50,000 dollars.
Other projects had them removing a dam in Hebron, CT that blocked fish passage and access to over 16 miles of riverine habitats for migratory species, according to Brian. The removal of this dam restored those 16 miles and restored 300 ft. of stream channel, costing them $71,000. The last project was the Mount Hope River Restoration Project in Ashford, CT. There was severe streambank erosion at 1,000 ft from past poor agricultural practices and unrestricted cattle access. The erosion also caused sedimentation of instream habitats and an unstable, over-widened channel. Lack of a vegetated ripar9ian one and poor instream fish habitats also resulted. However, according to Brian, the project restored and stabilized the streambank and channel, restored riparian area with the vegetation that it needed, excluded cattle with fencing, but gave them an area where they could drink and graze, and restored the diversity of instream fish habitats. They even incorporated debris like wood and other things for a healthy fish habitat.
In conclusion, before these projects, the population of native fish was rather low according to Brian, but they heightened over time as the projects enhanced of repaired the damaged habitats. I was surprised by the prices of the projects as well. Considering what they were trying to do, I expected them to cost nearly half a million dollars, but I wasn’t even close as they didn’t even break the $200,000 mark. I was also surprised that they actually use debris to help improve fish habitats. However, I also think that it is unfortunate that these problems exist and it raises the question of if people are aware of streams or not. If they were, could there be a way to build around streams of ensure that less damage could be inflicted on them? It all seems to come down to awareness and what people are willing to do about the issues and we are fortunate to have people that are willing to create projects like these.