Better Water Quality Not Yet Evident From Conservation Practices

No consistently detectable reductions in nutrient pollution are being found in bass fisheries and other waters across the country, despite conservation practices.

That’s the conclusion of a recent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study that analyzed 133 large agricultural watersheds associated with conservation tillage and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Researchers discovered no significant improvements in water quality from common practices designed to reduce soil runoff and nutrient loss.

"When you look at it on a large watershed scale, we clearly are not seeing the effects of conservation practices yet," said Lori Sprague, the lead author of the report, which was recently published in the Journal of Environmental Quality.

One possible explanation is that improvements in water quality could lag significantly behind implementation of conservation practices.

"Current nutrient conditions in streams may still be reflecting agricultural practices that were in place prior to the implementation of the conservation practices,” she said.

If improvements do lag the implementation of conservation practices, nutrient levels may be reduced in years beyond the scope of the study. Consequently, the agency plans to continue to monitor watersheds to see if that's the case, Sprague added.

Meanwhile, the Farm Service Agency, which administers the CRP program for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, insists that practices do reduce sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus runoff.

“At the surface, we know we’ve succeeded,” said spokesman Kent Politsch.

"We can extrapolate that eventually the evidence will show up at the (stream level). It does take time for that evidence to show up."

(This article appeared originally in B.A.S.S. Times.)

Report Invasive Species Through USGS Hotline

northern snakehead

Help minimize the damage done to our fisheries by Asian carp, snakeheads, zebra mussels and other aquatic invasive species.

If you see an invader, report it to the Aquatic Invasive Species Hotline. The toll-free number for this voluntary reporting system maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is 877-786-7267 (877-STOP-ANS).

Or you can go here to find a contact for your state.

Not sure that you can recognize an invader when you see one?

USGS provides photos and fact sheets at this site.

Incredibly, in the fishes listing, USGS documents 715 marine and freshwater species. Some are exotics; others are native to the United States, but have been introduced outside their natural ranges.

Activist Angler Exclusive: Mystery Fish Caught in Columbia

Light ring on fish was caused by wire trap.

Here’s an invasive species story exclusive to The Activist Angler:

Up on the Columbia River near Woodland, Wash., Howard Warrus recently caught a fish that he couldn’t identify in his crawfish trap.

“He reported the first one to Washington Fish and Game,” says Bruce Holt. “But they just said that it was probably someone’s aquarium fish and never got back to him.”

Warrus then caught six more, all from the same location.

Holt, communications director at G.Loomis and an angler who loves the Columbia, is concerned. He asks, “If he’s taken seven from a very small area, how many more are there in the river?”

I am worried too. We’ve seen what exotics can do, courtesy of zebra mussels and Asian carp, just to name a few.

I’ve done a little research and I believe that this invader is the Oriental weatherfsh, also known as the weather loach or Japanese weatherfish. If I'm wrong in my identification, the fact remains that this fish is one more exotic threatening our waterways.

Mystery fsh has six barbels, just like weatherfish.

Many of the invaders now causing problems in our aquatic systems were introduced by ballast water from ocean-going ships or commercial fish farmers.

But the aquarium trade --- and irresponsible pet owners --- deserves most of the credit for this one, if it is the weatherfish.

The weatherfish appears to be a fairly innocuous bottom-dweller that grows to about 10 inches. So why should we be concerned?

Here is what the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has to say:

“Potential Impact: Predation on native species, transmission of disease, competition with native-species trout, juvenile Coho and Chinook for food and habitat.”

And USGS adds:

“Impact of Introduction: It may reduce populations of aquatic insects important as food to native fishes.”

And then there are the unforeseen consequences that we are beginning to experience more and more:

Flying silver carp that injure boaters and anglers, as well as crowd out native species. 

Thousands of loons and other fish-eating birds dead from botulism, likely contracted by eating round gobies, an exotic species that absorbed the toxin from consuming zebra mussels, another exotic.

Eagles dead from avian vacuolar myelinopathy because of hydrilla. The raptors eat coots and other birds that feed on the exotic plant, which harbors an alga containing neurotoxins.  Since its discovery in 1995, AVM has killed hundreds of eagles across the Southeast.

And the weatherfish and hundreds of other exotics now infesting our fisheries?  We’ll just have to wait and see.

Are Lionfish Warning of More Invaders to Come?

The rapid spread of lionfish throughout the Caribbean, into the Gulf, and up the Atlantic coast is unprecented, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Nothing like this has been seen before in these waters,” said Dr. Pam Schofield, a biologist with the Southeast Ecological Science Center.  “We’ve observed sightings of numerous non-native species, but the extent and speed with which lionfish have spread has been unprecedented; lionfish pretty much blanketed the Caribbean in three short years.”

She added, “This invasion may constitute a harbinger of the emerging threat of non-native marine fishes to coastal systems."