StructureSpot

Habitat restoration bill passes

 
  • The process of restoring coho salmon habitat may get a bit easier for local landowners willing to undertake voluntary projects along Siskiyou County streams and rivers.
  • By John Bowman Yreka, CA
 
  • The process of restoring coho salmon habitat may get a bit easier for local landowners willing to undertake voluntary projects along Siskiyou County streams and rivers with the California legislature’s passage of Assembly Bill 1961, introduced by Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D–San Rafael). Dozens of unique habitat models at fishiding.comThe bill passed its final legislative hurdle on Aug. 27 with its approval by the California Assembly and now heads to the governor’s desk for his signature. First introduced in February, AB 1961 would expedite the approval process for voluntary habitat restoration projects by implementing a 30-day approval process and eliminating many of the usual regulatory hurdles for such in-stream projects.

    “Coho salmon cannot afford to wait and neither can the communities where these restoration projects would provide much needed jobs,” said Huffman. “This bill lets us work together in a new way so that immediate actions can yield near-term results.”

    Coho salmon generally have a three year life cycle. In 2010, the California Department of Fish and Game declared that two of the three brood years of Shasta River coho were functionally extinct, meaning there are no longer enough adults returning to the river in those years to sustain a viable population.

    According to the text of the bill, “An urgency exists due to the extraordinarily small numbers of coho salmon remaining in California. In order to prevent their extinction from northern California waters, it is imperative that habitat restoration efforts be expedited and increased as soon as possible.”

    Siskiyou County landowners and Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) have cumulatively implemented millions of dollars worth of habitat restoration projects since coho were listed as threatened by both California and the federal Endangered Species Act in 1997. State and federal agencies say much more work must be done to aid the recovery of the species, though many landowners and stakeholders have complained that the permitting and regulatory processes create too many roadblocks.

    AB 1961 directs state agencies to “expedite and streamline the permitting and approval of coho salmon habitat enhancement projects, including, in particular, large woody debris restoration projects, in northern California streams.”

    The three main categories of projects eligible for the expedited process are as follows:

    • Modification of existing water crossings for the purposes of eliminating a barrier to fish passage;
    • Restoration of eroded or denuded streambanks by utilizing nonrock bioengineering practices and revegetating stream corridors with native riparian species; and
    • Wood placement that benefits naturally reproducing fish stocks by creating or enhancing fish habitat, increasing stream complexity, or both.

    The bill stipulates, “Within 30 days after the [Department of Fish and Game] receives a written request to approve a coho salmon habitat enhancement project containing the information required pursuant to subdivision (c), the director shall determine whether the coho salmon habitat enhancement project is consistent with subdivision (a). If the director determines within that 30-day period, based upon substantial evidence, that the coho salmon enhancement project is consistent with subdivision (a), no further departmental approval shall be necessary.”

    Executive director of the Scott River Water Trust Sari Sommarstrom has worked on many local habitat restoration projects and said, “Expediting state permitting was one of the few issues that everyone could agree on at the legislative hearing on coho last year. I’m glad that some cooperative progress in Sacramento was finally made, but the bill’s provisions are pretty limited. More progress from the state is still needed for those of us trying to help coho.”

Gravel mine and fish habitat collide

Watching the Sound: More Scrutiny Called for Gravel Mine

written by Damien Gillis
Local Governments, Citizens Want More Scrutiny of Proposed Howe Sound Gravel Mine 
by Damien Gillis l The Canadian.org
Regional politicians in jurisdictions along Howe Sound are calling for a bigger role in the review of a major proposed gravel mine at McNab Creek. Several Sunshine Coast regional directors and councilors have recently stepped forward with concerns about the lack of local government involvement in the project’s environmental review – currently being carried out under the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Burnco Rock Products, Ltd. of Calgary wants to build a 77 hectare, 55 metre deep gravel and sand pit in acknowledge fish and wildlife habitat. The company estimates it can extract 1 – 1.6 million tonnes of gravel per year for 20-30 years from the property, rising to as much as 4 million tonnes in some years.
The size and potential environmental impact of the proposal have local politicians and citizens raising red flags. A local citizens’ group, The Future of Howe Sound Society, is also concerned the project has slid under the radar thus far and is urging the public to comment on the proposal by the end of the week, when the first public comment phase closes.

Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District expressed surprise at a January 19 meeting that the public comment period for the project was already underway. “We’ve got a huge thing going on, and we find out about it in the newspaper, when we have already registered quite a strong degree of concern,” West Howe Sound director Lee Turnbull told the meeting, according to the Coast Reporter. “The extent of this — this is going to be bigger than Sechelt. I’m not kidding. This is bigger than the [Lehigh] construction aggregate and it’s going to be running out of Howe Sound.”

The Future of Howe Sound Society has been warning the public about the project since last year. In November they issued a media release calling for more public involvement in the federal government’s process:

Howe Sound is only now recovering from the environmental damage and pollution caused by past mining and other industrial activities. Dolphins and whales are returning to Howe Sound for the first time in a generation and fish numbers are increasing. To now allow new industrial projects without a comprehensive land use plan would be short sighted and tragic. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the leader in  science based, proven, fish protection.

Public participation is necessary to ensure that any review conducted through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency goes beyond that and examines the overall impact on marine life, residents and users of Howe Sound.

The project was first proposed by Burnco in 2009 but faced a series of setbacks when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sent it back to the drawing board with some key unanswered questions. The company says it’s addressed DFO’s concerns about potential impact on nearby fish habitat – which supports coho, chum, Chinook, pink and steelhead salmon and resident and sea-run cutthroat trout – but not everyone is convinced.

Councilor Dan Bouman told the Gibsons council meeting on January 17, “I’ve been aware of this project for about three years. I’m wondering: [DFO] is the key agency that has statutory authority to grant or not grant authority to do habitat damage. They’re saying it’s too much. Why are we going into environmental assessment?”

A report submitted on behalf of the company to the federal review process acknowledges a number of important wildlife values as well – listing 24 different blue and red listed species that may occur in the area of the proposed project. The report suggests about half of these species likely don’t use the specific area of the proposed pit, but acknowledges potential impacts to others:

[Species at Risk] confirmed to occur in the Property include coastal tailed frog (in Harlequin Creek), herons (forage in the spawning channel and McNab Creek mainstem), and barn swallow (nests in abandoned buildings). Other SAR that could potentially occur on the Property include red-legged frog, northern goshawk, band-tailed pigeon, coastal western screech-owl, sooty grouse, olive-sided flycatcher, and pine grosbeak.

The Future of Howe Sound Society is also concerned about the massive mine’s potential impacts on the broader region of the Sound – including whales and dolphins and other community values register its concerns about the project this week, saying on its website, “The aim of the Society is to protect the future of Howe Sound through the development of a comprehensive and holistic land and water use plan,” which the region currently lacks.

The group is urging citizens from the region and beyond to weigh in on the public comment process this week, saying, “If you do not make your views known, please understand this project and it’s predictable destruction in the Sound will take place unchallenged just at a time when the dolphins and whales have returned to the Sound.”

Damien Gillis is a Vancouver-based documentary filmmaker with a focus on environmental and social justice issues – especially relating to water, energy, and saving Canada’s wild salmon.
‘Salmon Farming Kills’ Spreading Like ISA

written by Press Release
Going Viral – ‘Salmon Farming Kills’ Spreading Like ISA
by Don Staniford l Salmon Farming Kills.com
Day 12 of the ‘Salmon Farming Kills’ lawsuit in Canada kicks off today (31 January) with lawyers arguing over the admissibility of expert evidence from Dr. John Volpe of the University of Victoria and defendant Don Staniford expected to take the stand this afternoon (or tomorrow). Events start at 10am in courtroom #52 (Hornby/Nelson St. entrance) with Justice Elaine Adair presiding – the trial is scheduled for 20 days (until 10 February) – read more details online here.Speaking exactly one year ago today when launching the ‘Salmon Farming Kills’ campaign (31 Jan 2011), Don Staniford said:

“Salmon farming kills around the world and should carry a global health warning. As good global citizens we need to face the fact that salmon farming seriously damages human health, the health of our global ocean and the health of wild fish. Salmon farming is spreading in Norway, Chile, Scotland, Canada, Ireland, the Faroes, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and now in Russia like a malignant cancer on our coasts. Quit salmon farming now and help stub out farmed salmon from the face of our precious planet.”

Global coverage of the ‘Salmon Farming Kills’ lawsuit is spreading like wildfire all over the world. The more the Norwegian giant Cermaq (owned by Norway’s Ministry of Trade and Industry) attempts to browbeat and bully defendant Don Staniford into silence the more the global backlash against salmon farming. And the more money flows into the coffers to pay Staniford’s lawyer David Sutherland (please support the cause online here <http://www.gofundme.com/donstaniford> ).

“When it comes to shooting themselves in the feet, few industries are as adept as <http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/01/06/salmon-lam-fish-farms-suffering- spate-escapes> industrial aquaculture,” writes Barry Estabrook in Take Part (30 January).

Fishing lodges across British Columbia stepped up to the plate yesterday (30 January). “Fishing lodges are circulating this poster, challenging other lodges to help pay Don Staniford’s  <http://www.gofundme.com/donstaniford> legal costs,” wrote Alexandra Morton in her blog. “More and more people realize if we want wild salmon it is up to us.”

In Sweden, the fishing magazine Fiske Journalen is supporting the fight against Norwegian-owned salmon farming. An article – “Laxodling dödar <http://fiskejournalen.se/%e2%80%9dlaxodling-dodar%e2%80%9d/> ” – published last week (26 January) included:

http://www.superheroes4salmon.org/sites/default/files/images/Don%20in%20Swedish%20fishing%20magazine.jpg

In Norway too support is growing with 60,000 NOK ($10,000 donated) by a salmon fishermen’s group called Reddvillaksen
<http://www.reddvillaksen.no/2012/01/reddvillaksen-no-stotter-don-staniford-i-rettsaken-mot-mainstream-cermac-med-60-000-nok/> . The donation was featured by Norway’s state broadcaster NRK in a news story <http://www.nrk.no/kanal/nrk_sapmi/1.7957119>  (17 January).

http://www.superheroes4salmon.org/sites/default/files/images/Don%20in%20NRK%202.jpg

Yesterday (30 January) Norwegian TV (TV2) broadcast another news story on the growing opposition to salmon farming in British Columbia. The news report featured footage from the mass rally for wild salmon in Victoria in 2010 with the chant “No more fish farms, no more fish farms” ringing out.

http://www.superheroes4salmon.org/sites/default/files/images/TV2%20on%20Terry.jpg”Enough is enough,” said Terry Dorward from Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. “If the Government’s not going to do it then I believe the people will. People will stand up and the people will shut these farms down. It’s that much of an important issue that people will go and fill up those jails.”

http://www.superheroes4salmon.org/sites/default/files/images/TV2%20on%20Terry%202.jpg

Watch online here
<http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/utenriks/trusler-mot-norsk-lakseoppdrett-tas-ikke-alvorlig-3696035.html>  (click on the orange play icon)

This followed a TV2 news report on the ‘Salmon Farming Kills’ lawsuit (21 January) – including footage from outside the Supreme Court of British Columbia and interviews with Don Staniford and his lawyer David Sutherland – watch online here
<http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/magasinet/don-kjemper-mot-norsk-lakseoppdrett-3688619.html>  (click the orange play icon).

http://www.superheroes4salmon.org/sites/default/files/images/TV2%20on%20lawsuit%202(1).jpg

Read more via ‘Norway’s TV 2 Lands in Vancouver: Mainstream/Cermaq SLAPP Suit Goes International’

Speaking today (31 January) before he is scheduled to take the witness stand, Don Staniford said: “Wild salmon and all the other species which depend upon healthy wild salmon populations need to hear our voice. If we want wild Pacific salmon in British Columbia then we must stand up and fight against the Norwegian-owned multinationals who are farming disease-ridden Atlantic salmon here in the Pacific. Speak up now for wild salmon or they will go the way of the buffalo and East coast cod.”

Scroll to Top