StructureSpot

Can I just toss my Christmas tree on the ice for fish habitat?

When the ice comes, the temptation to place fish attractors often comes to mind especially on a farm pond. If no ice, then a boat might be used. But just weighting down a couple of Christmas trees and dropping them in, may not achieve the best results.

DNR has this to say:  There are many ways to recycle Christmas trees, but tossing on a frozen lake as a way of creating fish habitat has certain requirements — and an uncertain outcome. Instead of waiting for an iced-over lake to thaw so a single Christmas tree can sink to the bottom, Bill James fisheries section chief has this to say.

“They need to be designed, sized and placed appropriately to attract and hold fish.”  He said,  “Large hardwood brush piles work well and last for many years.  Soft woods such as pin or spruce attract fish initially but deteriorate quickly. This is especially true if use Christmas tree are placed singly or just scattered about.”

State laws may apply, depending on the body of water.  Discarding a Christmas tree on a private pond is at the owner’s discretion, but doing so on a public freshwater lake is governed by the Lake Preservation Act. 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.

I have placed Christmas trees and have seen the results a couple of years later, both on farm ponds and Lakes  when the water is down.  Christmas trees tend to lay flat on the bottom and shortly become covered with sediment , offering little cover for fish.

On the other hand, a brush pile of hardwood limbs, wired together to maintain it’s shape will be there for years if weighted enough to stay in it’s location.  For further info Google “Fish Attractors” .  There are many home-made designs that work for years and do not deteriorate.

Take a look at fishiding.com. They make artificial fish habitat out of things like reclaimed pvc siding, saving landfill space and helping future generations of fish and fisherman alike.

Hopes Raised for Lake Dredging and fish habitat

test4Lake Gregory dredging tour

Photo by Mike Harris

Lake Gregory dredging tour

Phil Krause, county park planner, points to areas on a map of Lake Gregory where silt has built up over the past few years. Krause was conducting an orientation tour of the lake on Dec. 21 for representatives from California Fish and Game, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and Lake Gregory Improvement Committee.

A major step toward getting approvals to dredge Lake Gregory was achieved Dec. 21 when representatives from regional agencies visited the lake for an orientation tour.

On hand for the tour were representatives from California Department of Fish and Game, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lake Gregory Improvement Committee and county Regional Parks Department. A representative from the Army Corps of Engineers was scheduled to attend, but canceled at the last minute. 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.

“The meeting was an excellent first step in terms of our working to get Lake Gregory dredged,” said Keith Lee, county regional parks director, who was present for the tour. “The different agencies’ representatives were incredibly helpful in providing solutions.”

The group assembled in the North Shore parking lot at 1 p.m., where Phil Krause, county park planner, started the tour with a briefing on past dredging efforts. He explained how silt and debris flowing into the lake from the silt basin near the new county library building has created large sand bars in the swimming area, limiting visitor access.

Another source for the silt is storm drains, especially those near the ball field.

After the briefing, the members walked over to the silt basin to see the area, then moved on to other areas around the lake, including areas near the Leisure Shores Community Center and the ball field where silting is a major issue.

“I think we’re moving along in a good way,” Lee added. “We won’t be able to get away from doing some California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) work, but we’re looking for ways to work together to dredge the lake and get it back to the condition that I think many in the community would like it to be in.”

Members of the Lake Gregory Improvement Committee who were on hand for the tour included Aaron Creighton, Rick Dinon (who leads the committee), Mick Hill and John Short.

“We have continually emphasized to the regulating agencies that Lake Gregory is not just a county asset, but an important asset to the Crestline and Lake Gregory community,” said Dinon. “The good news is that we’ve encountered a lot of cooperation.”

Committee member Aaron Creighton said he also was pleased with the response from the Fish and Game and Lahontan representatives who took the tour.

“We now have a vastly greater view of what needs to be done,” he said.

Creighton said that in order to get permitted by Fish and Game and Lahontan, the county has to be in compliance with CEQA.

“One of the tricky parts under CEQA is that if we remove habitat, we will have to mitigate the removal,” Creighton said. “There are two areas at Lake Gregory that need to be dredged, and the two have quite a lot of habitat.”

Part of the talk during the tour centered on creating separate habitat areas, and how it might be possible to make habitat areas protected. Other ideas included creating fish habitat areas in the deeper parts of the lake by depositing used Christmas trees weighed down by cinder blocks.

Creighton said one of the comments included that by pulling silt out of the lake, it would help improve the water quality.

“We will need an environmental impact report, and probably have to have a biological report,” he said. “We have heavy-duty problems at this lake.”

By Mike Harris, Reporter

Healthy Streams for TN

Fish Habitat Restoration Initiative –

  
   

JOIN THE COUNCIL IN CREATING HEALTHY STREAMS FOR WILDLIFE AND PEOPLE

The Council’s Watershed Support Center takes challenges and turns them into opportunities for Tennessee rivers and streams and waterways and the wildlife and people who enjoy them.  Thanks to a grant from the Dan and Margaret Maddox Charitable Fund, we will continue and expand our watershed support work in Middle Tennessee.  A watershed is an area of land that drains into a specific body of water.  Our work includes:

~ Planting trees to reforest the stream banks and planting live stakes to stabilize the soil and help improve water quality.

~ Installing rain gardens.  Rain gardens add beauty to the landscape and reduce flooding by allowing storm water to be absorbed by the plants and infiltrated into the ground. 

~ Installing revetments (cedar timbers wrapped in coir mat) on to the eroded bank to prevent further deterioration of the stream bank. 

~ Fish habitat restoration initiatives in the streams

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.

We schedule volunteer events each month. If you would like to join us on one of these projects visit our Events Calendar.  You may come and join our group.  We also encourage your business, youth group, or other organization to join us on one of our volunteer events.  We would be happy to schedule a special workday for your group.  Call us at 615-248-6500 or email tec(at symbol)tectn.org to schedule an outing.

Protecting the Biodiversity of Middle TN Streams
We are partnering with Harpeth River Watershed Association, municipal stormwater organizations and other non-profit organizations to complete our work and expand our reach.   The Fish Habitat Restoration initiative will take place in Middle TN including Sumner, Wilson, Davidson, Rutherford, Williamson, and Murray counties in the Duck River, Harpeth River, Stones River and Old Hickory Watershed.

National Geographic magazine recently named the Duck River in Tennessee one of the most biologically rich places in the world.  This is an important recognition bringing worldwide attention to one of our natural treasures in Tennessee, and it makes our Watershed Support work even more important.

The Duck River includes 151 different species of fish – more different types of fish than all of Europe.  The river is also home to over 50 types of mussels. The health of these amazing and diverse populations is indicative of the health of the ecosystem, and a thriving ecosystem means clean air, clean water and a healthy environment for communities.

The Harpeth River is 125 miles long with over 1,000 miles of tributaries.  The river passes through agricultural, forested and suburban areas of six counties in the greater Nashville region until it joins the Cumberland River. The Harpeth River watershed is  870 square miles.  The Harpeth is also one of the unique freshwater river systems of the Southeast which contains a greater variety of aquatic life than anywhere else in the world.

Sediment is the most common pollutant in rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and all Middle Tennessee streams and watersheds are impacted by this problem.

A Healthy Fish Habitat Means Health Drinking Water and Food Supply for People  
Urbanization and agriculture are causing degradation of fish and wildlife habitat in middle Tennessee. Our region continues attracting people and businesses who develop areas previously used for wildlife or farming. The most valuable of this habitat for fish is located in stream side areas that protect water quality and fish habitat from sediment and habitat destruction.

Roof tops and parking lots preclude the land from absorbing precipitation, and leads to increasing flooding and decreasing summertime flows by limiting groundwater recharge. Urban stormwater moves more quickly than normal because of smoother surfaces and less vegetation to capture and slow down the rain run off. This runoff also carries more trash, debris and pollutants and has a higher temperature. These traits contribute significantly to the degradation of fish and wildlife habitat in streams.  A healthy stream contributes to the health of the community through cleaner drinking water, increased biodiversity, improved recreational opportunities and more.

Success Stories
In 2009, the Duck River Opportunities Project received the Tennessee Governors Environmental Stewardship award, because of work to protect this most valuable natural resource.  Click here for more information.  In 2011 we carried out 9 volunteer restoration events, planting over 1,000 trees and stabilizing close to 1,000 feet of creek bank, reducing sedimentation, the leading cause of water pollution.

The Council also works in conjunction with Friends of Henry Horton State Park to educate 5th grade students about the Duck River Watershed training them to be stewards of the river.  Click here for more information.

The Fish Habitat Restoration Initiative is made possible through your generous donations to the Council and by a grant from the Dan and Margaret Maddox Charitable Fund and another grant from the Tennessee Department of Agriculture and the U.S. EPA.

MAKE A DONATION TODAY TO SUPPORT OUR WORK.  CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

Pictured Above:
1.  5th Grade Students from Chapel Hill Elementary plant trees as part of a watershed education project sponsored by Friends of Henry Horton State Park and presented by The Council.
2.  Kevin Burke inspects revetments designed to protect the stream bank and encourage re-vegetation and prevent further erosion.
3.  A group of volunteers from Mars Petcare at Jerry Erwin Park in Spring Hill planted hundreds of trees to improve the health of the Duck River Watershed in October 2011.
4. This crawfish is a great example of the biodiversity found in the Duck River Watershed.

Click here to see more pictures.

25% Off Fish Habitat Year End Blowout!!

Fishiding artificial fish habitats are coming to a lake or pond near you. With fish attractors, more is usually better and that is good for the fish and the fisherman alike.

With continued growth and products in over 40 states, we need to clear the shelves of remaining inventory in order to expand. Most models are still available with no limit on quantities purchased. 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.

The 25% off sale ends December 31st 2011 so order your habitat today!

More and more lake and pond owners and fisherman are utilizing the long term benefits of artificial fish structure like the products made by fishiding.com

Made from reclaimed PVC, all the various sizes and textures of habitat are made here in the USA. The textured surface allows exceptionally fast algae growth and the models with wide limbs create shade unlike any other self installing fish structure.

Each unit comes ready to sink in it’s own black PVC, weighted “stump” of a base. The rigid yet flexible limbs, can be bent out on any/all angles and creased to retain their shape and position.

When you like the shape of the habitat unit, simply toss it in the lake and it sinks standing upright. The habitat will cover in algae and begin the fish holding potential.

Get a group of fishiding habitat today and begin to hold fish where you want them. Provide cover to grow your forage fish fat to feed those hungry predator fish.

Lake Fork sportsmen and state work together to help create fish habitat

Members of the Lake Fork Sportsman’s Association partnered with the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department’s Inland Fisheries Division staff in making fish habitat improvements at Lake Fork last week.

They took advantage of drought-induced low water levels that have exposed shorelines and they planted 400 buttonbush plants around the lake.

Buttonbush is a native woody shrub commonly called “buckbrush,” and it was chosen to establish woody cover for fish.

When covered by water, it helps provide great bass fishing, a TP&W press release said.

Michael Rogge, president of the Lake Fork group, said approximately 15 members of the association and 15 members of the TP&W, spent approximately three hours planting 400 of the plants in two separate locations.

Rogge said the shrubs are adapted to “wet environments” like willow trees and that they will grow to about six to eight feet and be quite “bushy.”

“They will sprout new plants as seeds drop off,” in the future, and “become pretty dense,” which in turn creates fish habitat, he said.

Rogge said 200 of the plants were introduced in Glade Creek and another 200 in Big Caney.

According to a parks and wildlife spokesman, Lake Fork has had a long history of relatively stable water levels. This has been advantageous in that it has mostly translated into stable aquatic habitat and fish production. However, during the recent drought the disadvantage of this stability became evident. The lake elevation has dropped to an all-time record low, exposing shorelines and reducing cover which provides young fish shelter from predators. 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.

The state said Lake Fork will likely be subject to more water level fluctuations in the future as the City of Dallas increases pumping operations on the lake, especially if the current drought persists.

In lakes where there are prolonged draw-downs, plants will grow in the newly expanded shoreline.

These include aquatic plants such as smartweed, sedges and rushes, along with a variety of other plants including shrubs and trees. Woody plants such as willows will grow rapidly along the shore, and when it rains and the lake elevation rises enough, the plants can become partially or totally covered.

The plants provide shelter for fish and for the establishment of many organisms that fish eat.

Some of the woodier plants are persistent and will survive for many years and provide benefits to the ecosystem.

The first step in this habitat enhancement plan materialized in March when the association purchased 1,000 bare-root buttonbush plants from a local tree nursery and planted them at selected locations throughout the reservoir. Survival of these small plants, most less than two feet in length, was low. At some of the planting sites they were trampled by feral hogs.

The second stage in the Lake Fork organization’s habitat project began to take shape this past summer. The opportunity to purchase larger plants presented itself when a fish farmer in Columbus, Texas, approached TP&WD looking for potential customers for 400 two-year-old buttonbush plants.

The TP&W press release said these larger plants should experience better survival. The LFSA agreed to underwrite the majority of the $1,900 purchase price, and TP&WD contributed $650. Bushes were planted at different elevations to hedge against future water-level changes.

Mineral exploration is exploding, is the government assessing the environmental impact?

Critics claim mineral exploration in B.C. needs more accountability

Campaigning for the B.C. Liberal Party leadership, Christy Clark promised to put the controversial Prosperity Mine project back into play.

Mineral exploration is exploding in B.C., but critics claim the provincial government isn’t assessing the environmental impact.

Soaring global demand for metal has caused a surge in mining and exploration in British Columbia, and Premier Christy Clark has promised to open eight new mines by 2015. However, recent reports from B.C.’s auditor general and the UVic Environmental Law Centre suggest the provincial environmental-assessment office is not up to the task.

Mines, typically subject to both federal and provincial reviews, are extremely complex. They often require hundreds of millions of dollars in investment capital and promise high-paying jobs and a windfall in tax revenue, but their environmental footprint is equally dizzying, with potential long-term impacts on fish-and-wildlife habitat. See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader in science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Currently, the 50-person staff at the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) is weighing the socioeconomic benefits and environmental impacts of 60 projects, half of them for new mines, mine expansions, or old mines being resurrected, thanks to recent high mineral prices. Among them are projects like the Ajax Mine, a proposal by Abacus Mining and Exploration Corporation (in partnership with Polish mining giant KGHM Polska Miedz S. A.) for a massive 500-million-tonne (over 23 years) low-grade-copper property that was operated by Teck Cominco in the 1980s and 1990s but abandoned when copper prices were low.

This open-pit project on the doorstep of Kamloops is worth $550 million in capital investment, and is expected to have a 400-person full-time work force. It is undergoing both federal and provincial environmental assessments and has dominated public debate in this city of almost 90,000, just as the divisive Prosperity Mine, approved by the province but rejected by the feds, did and continues to do in the community of Williams Lake.

Vancouver-based environmental lawyer Mark Haddock, author of a report titled Environmental Assessment in British Columbia, published by the UVic Environmental Law Centre in November 2010, believes citizens have good reason to be wary of the process.

“I don’t think the B.C. assessment process is equipped to deal with these proposals,” Haddock says.

In his critique, Haddock called B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Act “weak and discretionary”, and wrote that decisions by the environment minister are often arbitrary and sometimes run counter to advice from government biologists and technical experts. Furthermore, the fact that the BCEAO hasn’t rejected a single proposal since 1995 further undermines public confidence in the process, according to Haddock.

For many, the Prosperity copper-gold mine, being proposed by Taseko Mines Limited for a site 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake on the Chilcotin Plateau, is the poster child for what’s wrong with B.C.’s environmental-assessment process.

The story of Prosperity is convoluted. Given the mine’s considerable potential impacts on the Tsilhqot’in aboriginal people and on Fish Lake—home to more than 80,000 rainbow trout—which Taseko proposed to use for waste-rock impoundment, the mine met the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s requirements for a joint review panel that would unite federal and provincial authorities in a single entity.

However, in 2008 Taseko Mines wrote a letter to federal and provincial officials criticizing the joint-review-panel process for putting “the future of a billion-dollar project in the hands of three unelected, unaccountable individuals” and placing an “excessive emphasis on established or asserted Aboriginal rights and title”.

Soon after receiving this letter, the province opted out of the joint review and decided to conduct its own independent assessment. Consequently, Tsilhqot’in leaders and environmental groups such as the Friends of the Nemiah Valley (FONV) boycotted the provincial process, claiming that Victoria was biased in favour of the proponent. In January 2010, acting on recommendations from the executive director of the BCEAO—and despite concerns raised by provincial biologists about impacts on grizzly-bear and fish habitat—the province approved Prosperity.

Meanwhile, the federal review was still under way, participants poring over a raft of First Nations cultural and environmental concerns. Almost a year after the province rendered its green light for Prosperity, the feds rejected the mine and Taseko’s plans to replace Fish Lake with an artificial fish habitat, among other concerns. In a strongly worded decision, Jim Prentice, federal environment minister at the time, called the mine’s impacts on fish of “high magnitude and irreversible”, and wrote that the project would destroy “an important cultural and spiritual area for the Tsilhqot’in people”. The company went back to the proposal stage.

Two processes, two dramatically different results, Haddock says.

“The feds and the province were using the same data but with a different set of criteria,” he says. “It’s important that these assessments appear credible, and when you have two very different decisions, as in the case of Prosperity, it raises some very serious doubts in the minds of the public and participants.”

David Williams, FONV president, agrees, and he says it’s the reason his group didn’t participate in the provincial process.

“We didn’t take part in the provincial review because we didn’t think there was any point,” Williams says.

Wayne McCrory, a bear biologist and cofounder of the Valhalla Wilderness Society, also boycotted the provincial process but, like FONV, made submissions to federal reviewers. He says the contempt for unbiased scientific opinion that he believes underpinned the B.C. approval of Prosperity is something he has seen before: when, in 2004, the province approved the contentious Jumbo Glacier Resort project in the Purcell Mountains east of Kootenay Lake after a lengthy process that started when the proponent first filed an application in 1996.

“In the case of Jumbo, 11 biologists on the former grizzly-bear scientific advisory committee wrote a letter to the minister, opposing Jumbo. I was one of those members,” McCrory tells the Georgia Straight over the phone from his home in the Slocan Valley. “Valhalla [Wilderness Society] hired independent biologist Dr. Brian Horejsi to do an impact study on grizzly bears related to Jumbo. He did an extensive job, including a CEA [cumulative effects assessment]. A number of Ministry of Environment biologists were also opposed.”

McCrory says he believes the province’s biggest weakness is in assessing cumulative effects, which, by the federal government’s definition, are “changes to the biophysical, social, economic and cultural environments caused by the combination of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions”. McCrory believes that if the BCEAO conducted thorough CEAs, it would never have authorized the Prosperity Mine and the destruction of a culturally and environmentally significant water body like Fish Lake.

Although the BCEAO is finding few friends in the environmental and conservation community, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is considered more robust than its provincial counterpart, the last line of defence for the environment. It was the CEAA that ultimately rejected the proposed Kemess North copper-gold mine in 2007 as well as Prosperity, in both cases citing impacts on fish-and-wildlife habitat and significant conflicts with aboriginal rights and titles.

However, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the CEAA is under attack, according to Josh Paterson, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law. He says the Conservatives buried profound changes to environmental-assessment legislation deep within the 900-page March 2010 budget bill, giving the federal environment minister far more discretionary power to exempt projects from full environmental reviews. Then, last summer, the feds took the scalpel to the CEAA’s budget.

“The federal government is now cutting funding to the environmental-assessment agency,” Paterson says, referring to a more than 40-percent cut announced in the June 3, 2011, speech from the throne.

Paterson shares McCrory’s concern about the province’s incomplete approach to assessing the cumulative effects of major projects. However, in fairness to the BCEAO, he says he believes that this type of analysis is complex and may be beyond the current capacity of the office, especially with metal mines that may face technically challenging and costly cleanup of toxic mine waste for years after they cease operation.

Though many critics are lamenting the weakening of environmental-assessment capacity at both federal and provincial levels, mineral exploration and mine development continue to explode. Developing economies like China have an insatiable appetite for metal, and we need it for the cars we drive, our electronic gadgets, and the appliances in our homes. According to Lyn Anglin, president and CEO of Geoscience B.C., the province has plenty of untapped mineral wealth. Geoscience B.C. is an industry-led organization created in 2005 to undertake geological-data-gathering projects with the hope of attracting more mining investment to the province.

Currently, the organization is spearheading surveys of the Quesnellia Terrane, a chunk of central B.C. rich in copper-gold porphyry and extending from the Gibraltar and Mount Polley mines near Williams Lake to the Mount Milligan copper-gold property northwest of Prince George. According to Anglin, the 2007 announcement of the project, which Geoscience B.C. dubbed QUEST, resulted in a frenzy of online claim-staking.

Zoë Younger, vice president of corporate affairs for the Mining Association of B.C., says the province hasn’t seen this much excitement around mining since the 1860s Cariboo gold rush. Regarding environmental assessments, Younger says she believes in a robust regulatory framework, but she is primarily concerned about wasteful duplication of efforts, which she says was the case with Prosperity. That’s why the association is cheering September’s B.C. Jobs Plan, which included a commitment of $24 million in funding to natural-resources ministries with the goal of reducing the time it takes to get decisions on permits and approvals.

Younger says industry opponents often overstate the environmental impact of mining and understate its economic importance. According to 2008 government figures, metal mining alone contributed $2.6 billion to the provincial economy, and that excludes what was generated from coal mining and other fossil-fuel extraction.

“The [environmental] footprint of a mine relative to its economic contribution to GDP is much lower than other resource industries,” Younger says, referring to industrial logging and commercial fishing.

Industry boosters like Geoscience B.C. and the mining association can rest assured they have the support of the provincial government. Christy Clark promised to put the Prosperity Mine back in play when she was campaigning for the B.C. Liberal Party leadership, and she has made mining one of the pillars of her jobs plan.

The province estimates that projects worth a potential $30 billion in capital investment are piled up in the BCEAO system. Of the 222 projects that the environmental-assessment office has handled since 1995, only one was rejected, while 115 were approved and the remainder either are still under review, have been withdrawn, or have been determined to be exempt from environmental assessments. Yet the annual budget of the BCEAO is telling: at only $8,754,000, it’s one-third less than what the province gave to Geoscience B.C. last May.

The provincial government may be able to dismiss criticism of its environmental-assessment record from NGOs and environmental lawyers, but it’s harder to ignore the words of its own auditor general. Last July, John Doyle, then auditor general of B.C., released a critical report on the BCEAO, saying that “adequate monitoring and enforcement of certified projects is not occurring, and follow-up evaluations are not being conducted.” He also said that information being supplied to the public is insufficient “to ensure accountability”. But what’s even more troubling is what Doyle referred to as the government’s “hostility” toward environmental assessments, as revealed in the February 2010 throne speech, during which the Speaker called the CEAA a “Byzantine bureaucratic process” that holds “jobs and investment hostage”.

John Mazure, the BCEAO’s executive director, says that although he would have preferred a “glowing report” from the auditor general, his office is taking it seriously. However, he takes issue with critics who continually point to the office’s green-light track record as a sign of fallibility. He admits that most applications that make it to the minister’s desk get approved, but he says that what’s missing from this statistic is the number of projects that are altered and improved in consultation with government specialists as they work through the assessment. Mazure calls it an “iterative process”, which is described on the BCEAO website as being intended “to address all issues satisfactorily such that there are no residual adverse impacts that would prevent an EA certificate from being issued”.

“I’ve heard everything, that we rubber-stamp projects without looking at them, but that’s simply not the case. What people don’t realize is that once a project reaches the minister, we’ve had a pretty good kick at it,” Mazure says. “Our specialists work with the proponents throughout the process on mitigative measures.”

The Prosperity Mine proposal, positioned as an economic lifeboat for the struggling Cariboo region, is like a festering wound for the province. The federal government’s rejection of Prosperity was a huge embarrassment for then-premier Gordon Campbell, who had been a vocal and enthusiastic supporter of Taseko’s bid. This fiasco also nags the BCEAO. Mazure refuses to second-guess his predecessor at the BCEAO, who recommended approval of Prosperity in spite of what appeared to be glaring environmental concerns.

He also says observers forget that the federal and provincial environmental-assessment agencies have different mandates: the former is focused primarily on environmental impacts and aboriginal rights and title, while the latter weighs economic, social, health, heritage, and environmental factors. However, Mazure admits that the mining boom has the potential to stretch the BCEAO’s resources.

“Fifty percent of our projects right now are mines,” he says. “It’s one thing assessing a mine that’s not near a water body, but when it’s metres from a water body, the environmental impacts are complex. They are very complicated and they take more of our resources. We’re very dependent on specialists from other ministries. And in these processes, not everybody will be pleased with the outcome. One side will be complaining, the other side will be celebrating.”

David Williams, of the Friends of the Nemiah Valley, belonged to one of those sides. He was heavily involved in fighting the Prosperity Mine and is now preparing for a renewed battle, as Taseko Mines has submitted a retooled proposal that could spare Fish Lake.

“Honestly, I think the Environment Ministry has been so watered down that they lack the capacity to handle these issues,” Williams says.By Andrew Findlay

Dry Creek fish habitat restoration plan approved

Nov. 21–The first stage of a habitat makeover for Dry Creek coho salmon and steelhead is one step closer to construction.
Sonoma County officials will unveil plans next summer to install side channels, boulders and logs to offer greater shelter for the endangered and threatened fish.

The work is part of a 2008 federal order to improve conditions for the two species in the Russian River watershed. On Dry Creek, which the county uses to deliver water for 600,000 customers but where fish are in need of more slow-water habitat, the efforts would cover six of the stream’s 14 miles and cost $36 to $48 million.

County supervisors last week approved the first phase of that project, on a one-mile stretch of the stream bisected by Lambert Bridge Road.

Eleven landowners in the area are working with the county to provide access to the creek for construction and future maintenance and repair. Total building cost is estimated at $6 million to $8 million, with an additional $413,000 for the purchase of short- and long-term easements.

County officials hope the work, including collaboration with an initial group of landowners, will lay the foundation for the rest of the project, which would run through 2020 if the early stages are successful.

The alternative is a costlier $150 million to $200 million fix that would lower flows in the creek through a parallel water pipeline running from Lake Sonoma to Healdsburg.

“To say the success of the first mile (of habitat improvement) is critical to the entire project is an understatement,” said Supervisor Mike McGuire, who represents the area. “Failure is not an option.”

Construction is set to begin in June and run through October, taking advantage of the dry season.

Excavators will carve out four channels off the main creek for backwater habitat, while workers in other areas embed boulder clusters and about 2,000 logs in the stream to slow water and provide holding pockets for fish.

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Non-native plants will also be removed and native bushes and trees installed.

The goal is about 114,000 square feet of improved habitat, said David Manning, principal environmental specialist for the county Water Agency, which is overseeing the project.

One grape grower participating in the project said the efforts were part of a renewed focus on fish-friendly farming in the area.

“We’re looking forward to working with the agency on Dry Creek projects now and in the future,” said Ned Horton, vineyard manager at Quivira Vineyards and Winery.
By Brett Wilkison, The Press Democrat, Santa Rosa, Calif.

Big Musky caught on Fishiding artificial habitat in Minnesota

Customer Comments

IMG_2082.JPG

Hey David,

Attached is a fish I caught right off the deep edge of the structure
you sent me…52 inch mama in September.  Caught a few more casting
the deep side of the structure layout…needless to say I am sold on
your products and I will be getting more in the spring.  I didn’t get
to fish much in October and that is usually my favorite month (too
many work and kid things going on)  I am thinking your structures will
have the greatest benefit in early spring and late fall fishing
applications.  These are the times when weed growth is low and your
artificial products will offer bait fish a shelter…and attract our
bass, pike, and muskies!

What benefits if any have folks seen placing them for ice fishing?
Maybe even in deeper water for walleyes or crappies in the winter?  My
brain will be processing good spots to place structure…right now 25
yards off the end of my dock comes to mind so we can hammer sunfish
and bass with the kids.  Would that be cheating? Hahaha

See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

Take care,
Paul

Legends Guide Service
Hunting, Fishing, and Outdoor Adventures
legendsguide@gmail.com
www.legendsguideservice.com

Army Corps attempts to improve fish habitat

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have administered improvements to the fish ladder at Daguerre Point Dam in an effort to facilitate spawning for two endangered fish species that hatch eggs in the upper reaches of the Yuba’s South Fork.See the dozens of unique artificial fish habitat models, fish attractors and fish cover used at fishiding.com, the industry leader and only science based, man made and artificial fish habitat, proven to provide all fish with cover they prefer to prosper.

The Corps has installed metal grates on the top of fish ladders for two principal reasons: To stop poaching and to prevent fish from jumping out of the fish ladder as they proceed upwards, said Doug Grothe, Englebright Lake Park Manager for the Corps.

“I think that a fish has missed the mark and jumped outside the ladder only once that we know of,” Grothe said. “But once is too many when you’re dealing with an endangered species.”

The species in question, including the spring-run Chinook Salmon and the Central Valley steelhead trout, typically spawn in the autumn, Grothe said. Both species are anadromous, meaning they return to freshwater to spawn after spending their adult lives in the ocean.

Both species are listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Whereas female salmon die soon after spawning, steelhead are iteroparous, meaning they are able to spawn several times, each time separated by months.

The populations of both fish species have been adversely affected by the installation of dams on the rivers that filter down from the Sierra, Grothe said.

Thus, the Corps is attempting to improve their population girth by installing various fish ladders where possible.

The Daguerre Point Dam is only 26 feet high and was built in 1906 to capture sediment siphoning through the Yuba as a result of hydraulic mining operations. The installation of a fish ladder was an easy solution, Grothe said.

Englebright Dam is 260 feet high, which precludes fish ladders, although officials are attempting to formulate exotic solutions to the impasse such as catching the fish and physically delivering them to the reaches of the river above the dam and then collecting their spawn and physically delivering them back to the lower reaches.

“That’s pretty expensive and labor intensive,” Grothe said.

For now, the Corps is content to concentrate on areas just below the Englebright Dam.

In an effort to further bolster fish habitat, the Corps injected more than 5,000 tons of gravel into the river to provide better spawning habitat for the fish, which like to lay eggs in loose sediment at the bottom of the river. That section of river consisted of bedrock before the injection, Grothe said.

“We are just now studying the effects of that project, but it looks promising,” he said.

The South Yuba River Conservation League issued a statement on their website which simultaneously praised the Corps for addressing the issues, while chastising the group for what it perceived as “decades of neglect.”

“As a result of SYRCL’s lawsuit, the Corps put grates on top of the fish ladders to finally stop poaching and lethal jumps out of the ladders,” the statement reads.

“These actions are small steps of improvement compared to the ultimate solution — removing this archaic dam,” the statement continued. “Nonetheless, these actions reflect a new era where wild salmon of the Yuba are finally getting the attention they deserve.”Matthew Renda

New pier for Tahoe Beach Club development improves fish habitat

 sets up plans

Submitted by Editor on Fri, 10/14/2011 – 9:45am

A new pier installation at Tahoe Beach Club www.beachclubtahoe.com will underscore the lakefront lifestyle at the first fully-owned residential lakefront development on Lake Tahoe in 25 years, and mark initial phase construction at the eagerly awaited project.

According to a news release, the new 159-foot pier will be just one of the few floating piers on Lake Tahoe. Constructed with recycled materials, a 90 foot section of the pier will raise and lower with lake level to allow for littoral drift features conducive to the lake’s sensitive fish habitat, water quality and natural environment. Completion is planned for summer 2012.

The pier has generated renewed enthusiasm and inquiries at the 20-acre site situated on prime beach front property at Stateline, Nevada. The location is the hub of recreation and nightlife activity in the heart of South Tahoe, between Edgewood Tahoe Golf Course, major casinos and Heavenly Mountain Resort. Ownership of the Tahoe Beach Club units is being offered through an exclusive priority reservation program, according to the release.

Tahoe Beach Club plans include 143 luxury villas and estate homes. The private Beach Club (the heart and soul of the development) will include amenities featuring an indoor/outdoor pool, boat-accessible beachfront restaurant, health club with work-out facilities, spa and locker rooms, concierge services, and a business center. In recent months, more than 150 potential buyers have stepped forward expressing interest in having ownership in this gated lakefront community, the release states.

The First Phase will include 39 luxury units (villas and estate homes), ranging in size from 1,250 square feet to 4,000 square-feet. Lake Tahoe’s feel and charm will be prevalent in the 14 separate buildings associated with the development, including a gatehouse and carriage house with the newest Green-Built Design architecture highlighting Tahoe’s best attributes.

A model for environmental design, the project was unanimously approved in 2008 by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Complementing the aesthetics plans also include construction as a green building and design toward Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), promoting energy conservation. The plan will also restore two acres of stream environment zone and enhance the natural eco-system of the Burke Creek-Rabe Meadow area, the release states.

For sales information visit the sales office at 170 Highway 50 next to Lakeside Inn & Casino, call 775-589-2643 or see us online at www.beachclubtahoe.com.

About South Shore Tahoe, LLC
South Shore Tahoe is a privately-held real estate development firm with offices in Stateline, Nevada. For more information on the Tahoe Beach Club, visit www.beachclubtahoe.com.


Sponsor Showcase


Peace of Mind Float Spa

Peace of Mind Float Spa L.L.C. is Lake Tahoe’s premiere Sensory Deprivation (Float Tank) destination. We provide 2 float tanks as well as a Far Infared Sauna and an Aroma Therapy Oxygen Bar to enhance your complete flotation experience. Operated by Karin and Darin Nobriga, long time Tahoe locals. We provide the most relaxing mind and body experience in the Tahoe basin.

We’re located at 290 Kingsbury Grade, Stateline, Nevada next to the Goal Post and a quarter mile from the Stateline casinos. We offer local and casino employee discounts and encourage those who haven’t floated, to try the most relaxing experience of their lives.
What is Floating?
Floating is a therapeutic treatment that isolates the user from environmental stimulus, greatly reducing stress, and easing the body into a state of equilibrium. Floating is also known as flotation therapy, floating therapy, float therapy, restricted environmental stimulation therapy (or REST), and Epsom salt hydrotherapy. The flotation tank is referred to as an isolation tank, sensory deprivation chamber, float tank, floating tank, and rest tank.

The flotation tank itself is a sensory deprivation pod with 10 inch deep water warmed to 93.5 degrees and enriched with 800 pounds of Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate). The tank has an advanced filtration/purification system that operates according to regulations from the State of Nevada.

The space inside is approximately 8 feet long by 4 feet wide. Although some may be wary of feeling claustrophobic the first time they float, the tank door opens freely and you are in complete control. You can come and go as you wish. You can also float with the door open. For those who would like audio stimulation, relaxing music is available.
The experience of floating is unique. Inside the tank you’ll float effortlessly on the surface of 93.5 degree water. Floaters feel a sense of weightlessness. That weightlessness, the temperature of the water, and the dark, quiet space of the tank allow the brain to ease into a theta* brain wave state. This usually happens in the second half hour of a one hour float session. First time floaters should not expect instant results. Generally it takes more than one float to completely “let go” and fully experience flotation.

Scroll to Top