cfjljd49 (Video)
By Deirdre Fleming dfleming@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer
AVON – With a makeshift air gun fashioned with duct tape and a gas engine on a home-rigged backpack, the biologists with the Department of Marine Resources laughed as they blasted holes for hatchery eggs into a rocky tributary of the Sandy. But their work could be a part of a long-sought Atlantic salmon solution.
Paul Christman, a biologist with the Department of Marine Resources in Hallowell, places salmon eggs in a tributary of the Sandy River in Avon. With Christman are, from left, Jed Wright, with the Gulf of Maine Coastal Program, Craig Knights and Chris Domina, with U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Photos by Gregory Rec/Staff Photographer
Salmon eggs are placed in a tube, where they will sink to the river bottom and be covered over with rocks when the tube is pulled out.
Biologist Paul Christman quietly has planted Atlantic salmon eggs in Maine rivers for three years, but in another two years his project could move to the forefront of the national Atlantic salmon recovery effort. Already the project makes Maine a leader in North America in salmon recovery, said Joan Trial, Maine’s senior salmon biologist.
“Salmon restoration has been going on quite a while. Paul is coming up with a way to produce more (salmon) spending more time in a natural environment as opposed to a hatchery. There is some strong evidence that these fish may be more successful surviving out at sea. The more time they spend in their natural habitat, the more imprinted they will be to it. This could be a piece to the puzzle, and a very intriguing piece,” said Trial.
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.
Salmon were first listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000 in a small portion of Maine. Then in 2009, the list was expanded and the salmon’s status elevated to endangered.
Trial said the first few years Maine stocked fry in its rivers, there were encouraging results. But that was 10 years ago, and while the removal of dams since then has led to sea-run fish like alewives and herring running up Maine rivers once again, the salmon’s return has been slow.
In addition, those salmon returning are not all wild. And to be taken off the endangered species list, Maine must have wild Atlantic salmon returning to rivers here.
Currently the service is working on a recovery plan that maps out what is needed to delist the salmon. That plan will go to public comment later this year, said Antonio Bentivoglio, the service’s Atlantic salmon recovery coordinator in Maine.
But it will take at least 10 years for the necessary criteria to be met for the salmon to be delisted to threatened and then endangered status, Bentivoglio said.
“For delisting, we have to minimize the hatchery influence, so the hatchery won’t be stocking millions of par and smolts. Then we’ll have much great confidence that they are wild fish,” Bentivoglio said. “Once we get to threatened status, then we’ll have a plan in place to slowly decrease the number of hatchery fish that go out. We want to slowly reduce it, so we can assess the impact, and hopefully wild fish will increase.”
ON THE LIST
First the Atlantic salmon need to show returns of at least 6,000 in its historic ranges: Merrymeeting Bay, the Penobscot River and the Downeast rivers.
In 2010 in the Downeast rivers, just 164 Atlantic salmon returned; in the Penobscot River there were only 1,316; and 14 in Merrymeeting Bay (the Androscoggin and Kennebec rivers), Bentivoglio said.
So the recovery effort has a long way to go.
Whether Christman’s egg planting project can get DMR there is unknown. But there is a lot of hope in the offices at USFW and the Maine fishery agency because the salmon that result from the eggs he plants are considered “more wild” than the fry stocked from hatchery raised eggs.
The salmon that emerge from the eggs Christman plants are considered wild enough to be counted when the service considers whether to downgrade salmon from endangered to threatened, Bentivoglio said.
But the salmon’s international plight is complicated. Scientists still do not know why their marine survival is low, in some cases as low as 50 percent.
“(Christman’s eggs) should be more viable in their natural environment than the hatchery produced smolts. There should be more going out to sea. But we’re not sure what’s going on with marine survival and why marine survival has been so low. Something is going on out in the ocean that the United States, Iceland, Canada and Greenland are trying to figure out, too,” said Trial in Maine’s Bureau of Sea Run Fisheries and Habitat.
OUT TO SEA
The first egg planting done by Christman was in 2009. But in the Atlantic salmon’s life cycle, those fish won’t return to their native rivers, where the salmon emerge from the eggs until 2014. At that point, everyone at DMR will be watching to see if they do. If all goes well, lots of salmon should return.
In 2009, Christman planted 130,000 in the Sandy River; in 2010, he increased the number to 450,000; and again to 860,000 last year. This year, 1 million Atlantic salmon eggs will be planted in salmon habitat in Maine.
His work has shown success with survival rates. The emergence rate from eggs is upward of 40 to 50 percent in some places, he said, which is as good as egg planting projects anywhere.
But the telltale sign will be if the salmon return in 2014. Christman thinks they will return from the sea and run up Maine rivers to where he has planted eggs.
“The idea is that they are more in tune with the river than hatchery fish. Their performance should be better, and their survival better. And from what we’re seeing, yes, they are behaving much better,” Christman said.
Staff Writer Deirdre Fleming can be contacted at 791-6452 or at:
dfleming@pressherald.com
Twitter: Flemingpph
Those responsible for the construction of a marina will have to pay heavy fines for damaging important fish habitat. (Photo: Stock File)
CANADA
Wednesday, February 01, 2012, 22:40 (GMT + 9)
On 26 January 2012 in the Provincial Court of Alberta, RJ Williscroft Contracting Ltd pled guilty to one count of a violation of subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act for “the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat”. The defendant was ordered to pay a fine and penalties totaling CAD 90,000 (USD 89,920).
The charge related to a project proposal by Shadow Creek Resort Inc (owned and directed by Mr RJ Williscroft) to construct and connect an inland marina and approaches in the community of Joussard, Alberta to Lesser Slave Lake, via a dredged channel.
The Court heard that on 15 September 2008, an environmental consultant sent applications on behalf of “Shadow Creek Resort Inc c/o RJ Williscroft Contracting Ltd” to various federal and Alberta government departments, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada, for approvals related to the construction of a proposed inland marina development on the south shore of Lesser Slave Lake. Fisheries and Oceans Canada concluded that the proposed works would likely result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, thus an authorization and environmental assessment would be necessary.
The environmental assessment began in October 2009. Aboriginal consultations with potentially affected First Nations and Métis groups began in December 2009.
In the spring of 2010, Fisheries and Oceans Canada was notified of alleged works being conducted in the lake by the defendants prior to the environmental assessment and consultation process being complete, and prior to a Fisheries Act authorization being issued. The excavation of the lakebed removed aquatic vegetation and its substrate, and damaged spawning and rearing habitat for many Lesser Slave Lake species of fish, including Northern Pike, Walleye and Yellow Perch. Lesser Slave Lake sustains a valuable commercial, recreational and Aboriginal subsistence fishery.
At the request of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Court ordered a fine of CAD 8,500 (USD 8,492) to be paid under subsection 40(1) of the Fisheries Act. Two penalties were also ordered by the Court.
An amount of CAD 500 (USD 499.56) will be paid to the Alberta Conservation Association for the creation and installation of a sign to educate the public about the fish species in Lesser Slave Lake. A total of CAD 81,000 (USD 80,928) will be paid to Environment Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund and will be used to hire an environmental consultant to consider ways to enhance fish habitat and to conduct a monitoring project in the inland marina. The remainder of the penalty will be used to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat in the Lesser Slave Lake watershed.
Prior to undertaking work in or around water, Fisheries and Oceans Canada encourages the public to avoid potential harmful impacts to Canada’s fisheries by ensuring they have obtained and are in compliance with all necessary permits, approvals or authorizations from municipal, provincial, and federal agencies and authorities. 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.
editorial@fis.com
www.fis.com
 |
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.
|
| Fisheries and Oceans Canada
|
January 31, 2012 12:00 ET
HIGH PRAIRE, ALBERTA–(Marketwire – Jan. 31, 2012) – On January 26, 2012 in the Provincial Court of Alberta, R.J. Williscroft Contracting Ltd. pled guilty to one count of a violation of subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act for “the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat“. The defendant was ordered to pay a fine and penalties totaling $90,000. The charge related to a project proposal by Shadow Creek Resort Inc. (owned and directed by Mr. R.J. Williscroft) to construct and connect an inland marina and approaches in the community of Joussard, Alberta to Lesser Slave Lake, via a dredged channel.
The Court heard that on September 15, 2008, an environmental consultant sent applications on behalf of “Shadow Creek Resort Inc. c/o R.J. Williscroft Contracting Ltd.” to various federal and Alberta government departments, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada, for approvals related to the construction of a proposed inland marina development on the south shore of Lesser Slave Lake. Fisheries and Oceans Canada concluded that the proposed works would likely result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, thus an authorization and environmental assessment would be necessary. The environmental assessment began in October 2009. Aboriginal consultations with potentially affected First Nations and Métis groups began in December 2009. In the spring of 2010, Fisheries and Oceans Canada was notified of alleged works being conducted in the lake by the defendants prior to the environmental assessment and consultation process being complete, and prior to a Fisheries Act authorization being issued. The excavation of the lakebed removed aquatic vegetation and lakebed substrate and damaged spawning and rearing habitat for many Lesser Slave Lake species of fish, including Northern Pike, Walleye and Yellow Perch. Lesser Slave Lake sustains a valuable commercial, recreational and Aboriginal subsistence fishery.
At the request of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Court ordered a fine of $8,500 to be paid under subsection 40(1) of the Fisheries Act. Two penalties were also ordered by the Court. An amount of $500 will be paid to the Alberta Conservation Association for the creation and installation of a sign to educate the public about the fish species in Lesser Slave Lake. A total of $81,000 will be paid into Environment Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund and will be used to hire an environmental consultant to consider ways to enhance fish habitat in the inland marina and to conduct a monitoring project in the inland marina. The remainder of the penalty will be used to conserve and protect fish and fish habitat in the Lesser Slave Lake watershed. 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.
Prior to undertaking work in or around water, Fisheries and Oceans Canada encourages the public to avoid the potential for any harmful impacts to Canada’s fisheries by ensuring they have obtained and are in compliance with all necessary permits, approvals or authorizations from municipal, provincial, and federal agencies and authorities.
FOR BROADCAST:
Fines were handed out in provincial court today after R.J. Williscroft Contracting Ltd. of Alberta pled guilty to damaging fish habitat in Lesser Slave Lake. The defendant was ordered to pay a total of $90,000 in fines and penalties for violating the federal Fisheries Act. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has requested that $81,000.00 of the penalties be directed to Environment Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund for fish habitat enhancement and monitoring in the inland marina and area.
Nightmare mosaic photo from a raid in the King Range National Conservation Area. Photo courtesy Brad JobI’ve been fascinated by water and the organisms that live in it since I was a child. When three years of sea duty made me fall in love with the ocean, I decided to pursue a degree from HSU in Environmental Resources Engineering, which I completed in 1993.
Since then, my career has focused on water quality and water resources. For the past 10 years I have had the honor and privilege of being part of a team of professionals that steward some of our nations’ most spectacular public land. In this occupation I have also been witness to many environmental sins that have occurred as a result of marijuana cultivation.
As a pragmatic environmentalist, it is not my job to deride marijuana or its use. But, similar to the environmental effects of logging, the problem is not necessarily that one grows pot, it’s about how one grows pot.
Regardless of how one feels about marijuana and its legal status, anybody that understands just a little about aquatic ecosystems has to admit that widespread cultivation has bad consequences for fish. It degrades the quality of our rivers and streams, which to me, are the core of what makes northwest California special. 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.
In reference to one of last week’s cover stories about illegal excavation and un-engineered fill(‘Shocking’ environmental damage from outdoor grows, Eye, Jan. 18) I can attest that the additional input of sediment eroded from grow-related excavations permanently damages habitat for imperiled salmon and trout populations and undoes the benefits of millions of dollars’ worth of watershed restoration work.
However, increased sedimentation is not the only or necessarily the worst environmental consequence of rapacious pot growing out in the hills.
The giant hunk of failing fill is located right above Bear Creek where it exits the King Range NCA could not be in a worse spot as far as fish habitat goes (notice the clear creek in the upper right corner).Recent research has shown that 80 to 90 percent of the nitrogen in coastal watersheds historically came from the ocean, much of it in the form of return runs of salmon and steelhead. However, dwindling fish populations and environmentally oblivious pot growers have turned that dynamic on its head.
Now, growers dump hundreds of tons of excess fertilizer into these watersheds annually. The most obvious consequence of fertilizer overuse is increased algal growth, which is most likely why toxic concentrations of blue-green algae have been observed in the Eel River in recent summers. Excessive algal growth kills fish and the organisms that they feed upon.
In addition, outdoor grows frequently discharge rodenticides, insecticides and fungicides into the environment; divert springs and creeks for long distances; and leave vast quantities of trash and black poly-pipe behind.
And then there are the diesel dope grows. These operations often improperly and illegally store large quantities of diesel in plastic tanks that are prone to failure. And those that do use metal tanks almost never have secondary containment and often have leaks and spills.
A pile of dumped cannabis root balls, surely laden with fertilizers and other soil amendments, cascades down the banks of Liscom Slough into sensitive marine habitat last week. Photo courtesy Ted HalsteadIt is worth noting that fuel distributors that dispense fuel into such tanks are also committing a felony. If anyone wants to observe the environmental consequences of petroleum spills in aquatic ecosystems, they need only to travel to an urban stream to witness the reduced abundance and diversity of invertebrate species, which are the base of most aquatic food webs.
Then consider the water diversions, air and noise pollution from inefficient generators, and the random dumping of fertilizer-laden potting soil. And I can hardly bear to ponder the sad irony of burning fossil fuel to make light to grow plants in a manner that is literally 99 percent inefficient, all while it is warm and sunny outside.
As long as the marijuana status quo and large profit margins remain, it appears inevitable that some of the worst crimes at marijuana gardens will be environmental ones.
The citizen’s suit provision in the Clean Water Act might be a big enough hammer to change some landowners’ behavior if a motivated team of attorneys and environmental scientists were to respond to a specific incident.
However, the sad fact remains that the underground economy is creating really bad consequences for the increasingly fragile ecology of our rivers and streams. But, if this letter makes only one grower reduce their fertilizer and agricultural chemical use or cause less erosion, the time it took to write it will have been well spent.
Sincerely,
Brad Job, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Arcata
The Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (CMA) is working along the Goulburn River between Seymour and Nagambie in the coming weeks to increase the amount of large woody habitat, or snags, in the Goulburn River, with the aim to increase in the native fish population and diversity in this section of the river.
Funded by the Victorian Government, through revenue from Recreational Fishing Licenses to improve recreational fishing in Victoria and the Goulburn Broken CMA, the snags are being placed in the Goulburn River, downstream of the Hume Freeway Bridge near Seymour. The works that are being carried out will lead to an increase in habitat for native fish in the area and an improvement in catch rates for recreational fishers.
Goulburn Broken CMA River Health Projects Coordinator, Mr Jim Castles explains, “Native fish rely heavily upon instream habitat such as tree roots, logs and branches called ‘snags’. Since European settlement, our streams and rivers have been de-snagged, in the belief this would increase water flow and quality. We now know this is not the case.”
Native fish ecologists from the Murray Darling Basin Authority estimate that fish populations have declined by 90% since European settlement. There have been many threats to native fish including removal of in-stream and riparian habitat and flow modification.
Snags are the inland equivalent of coastal reefs and provide habitat for native fish and other animals such as tortoises and native water rats. Native fish use them to shelter from fast currents and sunlight and take refuge from predation. Native fish also use snags as feeding and spawning sites, and as nursery areas for juvenile fish.
Recent fish surveys within the Murray Darling Basin have found that 80% of Murray Cod are found within 1 metre of a snag. All large bodied freshwater native fish use snags as habitat.
“Re-snagging is a sound management intervention we can use to restore native fish habitat to our waterways, and results so far suggest that native fish populations respond strongly as a result. Re snagging on its own, however, is unlikely to be the sole driver in native fish recovery in the Goulburn River. The key is to better manage our riparian zones by fencing to restrict stock access and protect native vegetation, and revegetating degraded areas so there will be a constant natural supply of snags in the future” says Mr. Castles. 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 areas to be re-snagged have been identified via in-stream habitat mapping undertaken in 2011 by scientists from the Arthur Rylah Institute (ARI) in the Goulburn River between the Mitchellstown and Hume Freeway Bridges to identify areas that have a low density of snags. The sites where the Goulburn CMA carry out re-snagging are being selected based on priority zones identified by ARI as a result of this mapping, and access to the waterway within these zones.
The fallen trees used for the re-snagging project have been sourced from a number of nearby locations, including the Nagambie Bypass and a public reserve in Seymour. The Goulburn Broken CMA and its contractors work to rigorous guidelines that have been developed in other locations where re-snagging has been carried out over many years.
“The snags will be secured safely and positioned in a way that does not block the river channel to ensure fishing boats can still travel along the river,” explains Mr Castles “The snags will have very little or no net impact on water flow and will enhance native fish habitat, thereby leading to a more robust native fish community, which will result in huge benefits for recreational fishers in our region.”
This project is funded by the Department of Primary Industries Recreational Fishing Licence Grants Scheme, which uses revenue raised from the sale of recreational fishing licences to fund projects that directly improve recreational fishing in Victoria.
Snags on the riverbank prior to placement. Photo: Jim Castles, Goulburn Broken CMA
Approximately 280,000 cubic metres of gravel accumulated in the active channel of the river, this was largely offset by significant losses (4 million cubic meters) of over-bank sand on islands and river edges, resulting in little net gain of sediment. (Credit: janheuninck via Flickr)
B.C.’s Fraser River has become the battleground for the gravel industry and conservation groups fighting to protect one of the world’s most productive fish habitats. 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 Fraser has been a source of gravel for B.C. construction for decades. However, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) placed a moratorium on gravel extraction in the mid 1990s due to concerns about fish and fish habitat. Not long after the freeze, the B.C. Provincial government began to argue that gravel removal from the Fraser was necessary for flood protection as “massive” gravel accumulations were, allegedly, causing the river bed to rise. A series of public meetings was held to debate the issue and experts were called in to assess the scope of the problem.
Dr. Michael Church, a professor of Geography at the University of British Columbia, provided the most compelling testimony on how gravel and sand enter and move through the gravel reach. He estimated that while approximately 280,000 cubic metres of gravel accumulated in the active channel of the river, this was largely offset by significant losses (4 million cubic meters) of over-bank sand on islands and river edges, resulting in little net gain of sediment.
The B.C. government and proponents of the gravel industry incorrectly interpreted this to mean that 280,000 cubic meters of gravel and sand entered the gravel reach each year and merely “piled up” in the river causing a rise in riverbed elevation that would, over time result in increased flood risk. These groups argued that lives and property were at risk and pushed for DFO to lift the moratorium on gravel extraction.
In 2004, a five-year federal-provincial agreement was reached to allow removal of up to 500,000 cubic metres of gravel in each of the first two years and up to 420,000 cubic metres in the following three years. The agreement was touted as a long-term plan for reducing the flood hazard risk in the lower Fraser River.
Critics argued that gravel removal was only taking place in areas where it was easily accessible to industry and that removal from the targeted areas provided no flood protection benefits whatsoever. In addition, fish and fish habitat were paying the price. In one case, at a location known as Big Bar, removal operations undertaken in 2006 resulted in the de-watering of thousands of salmon redds (nests) and the demise of possibly millions of young salmon which were just about to emerge from the gravel. There was evidence to suggest that similar losses of fish had occurred at other sites as well.
The Fraser River is also home to the white sturgeon, listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as endangered, with gravel removal identified as one of the key threats affecting this species.
By David Suzuki.org
PITTSFIELD — Jim Ryan stood with Ray Colton on the banks of the Tweed River on Oct. 7 and shook his head, more in resignation than disbelief. He’d seen too many places like this in the last month.
“What a mess,” he said. He made a note in his notebook: “Colton’s mill site: Site is hammered.”
The river running past Colton’s firewood mill looked more like an abandoned gravel pit than a babbling brook.
On Aug. 28, Tropical Storm Irene had ravaged this stretch of the Tweed, a scenic stream that borders Vermont 100 between Killington and Stockbridge. Highway crews compounded the damage. Desperate for gravel to repair the washed-out highway and its broken bridges, they drove excavators and dump trucks into the river and scooped out tons of stone.
The tracks of heavy equipment could still be seen as ridged indentations on gravel bars. Much of the river’s water ran in a stony ditch gouged out by the road crews, but the rest trickled in multiple threads through the gravel islands.
Just upstream, the river had jumped its bank, eating up the field behind Sarah and Gordon Gray’s house and carving a new channel that barely missed Colton’s mill. More than 100 feet of riverbank snowmobile trail had disappeared.
Colton was worried about what would happen in the next high water.
“I’m afraid the river wants to come right through the yard,” he said, referring to his millyard with its stacks of logs. He’d spent the night of Irene sleeping in a camper at the mill to keep an eye on the river.
Ryan shared Colton’s concern about damage from a future flood, but had other worries as well.
“From a water quality and fish habitat perspective, the conditions were just horrible,” he said later. “Think about fish trying to stay cool in the middle of summer. Instead of deep shaded pools, they would have this shallow, braided stream.
“Yes, the river might have healed itself, but it could have taken decades. Something needed to be done,” he said.
Irene had jerked Ryan, a stocky, soft-spoken man, from his job as a state watershed coordinator to join the state’s lightly staffed River Management Program. He had spent the weeks since criss-crossing the White River watershed to survey river damage and to provide guidance to towns about rebuilding bridges and culverts in more flood-resistant ways.
Before the arrival of Ryan and his peers, road crews had torn up river channels across central and southern Vermont. Vermonters were treated to the surreal site of excavators, backhoes and dump trucks chugging through trout streams to remove whole shoals of gravel.
Much of this post-Irene emergency work did not just destroy fish habitat. It left rivers unstable — prone to severe erosion of their banks and sudden changes in course during high water — and thus potentially dangerous.
The challenge facing Ryan at Colton’s mill and elsewhere was: What do we do now? How do we restore a river? How do we resolve the conflict between the laws of physics governing a river’s natural behavior with the need to protect homes, roads and businesses on the bank?
And how do we do all this given shortages of money, manpower and work days before winter?
The traditional Vermont response to flood damage has been to dredge out new gravel deposits and to keep water moving past private property by digging out a straight river channel with banks armored in stone.
Over the last 20 years, river scientists have learned that such “solutions” come with a cost and often do not work. At best, a channelized, armored river will need frequent maintenance. At worst, the river’s potential for damage will simply move downstream.
“The idea is you don’t want to fight to create a river channel that the forces of nature will constantly work against,” says Shayne Jaquith, the state’s river restoration scientist.
After looking at the Tweed, Ryan persuaded Colton not to insist on a quick, Band-Aid fix that would be unlikely to last. Then he won agreement from Colton, the state Transportation Agency and the town of Pittsfield to share the cost of some restoration.
Ryan hoped to resculpt 1,800 feet of river, giving it something close to the form, slope and dimensions the river would find, in time, if it were left alone.
If the design worked, the river would be stable, that is, powerful enough to move sediment downstream — one of a river’s jobs — but not so powerful it cut a deeper and deeper channel or collapsed its banks.
But “stable” in a river system doesn’t mean unchanging. Rivers naturally migrate across a valley landscape, eroding earth from the outside of bends, depositing dirt and stones on the inside of bends where water moves more slowly.
Compromise would be necessary. Here, as farther downstream, the Tweed could not be allowed to migrate willy-nilly because that would endanger the highway and buildings on its banks.
Meanwhile, across Vermont, river management engineers were facing dozens of similar situations — rivers used as gravel mines, landowners calling for new river channels to be moved away from their homes, anglers complaining about the destruction of fish habitat.
Winter loomed. Towns, already facing million-dollar road repair bills, were unable to undertake expensive river restoration projects. The state lacks sufficient staff to design and carry out multiple complicated restorations.
Compromise was required everywhere. Mike Kline, director of river management for the state, compared the dilemma to the building of a new home on a limited budget: The first priority is to get the superstructure right; interior details can wait.
“The basic work we could do was to get people to stop digging — stop digging an 80-foot-wide channel in a 30-foot-wide stream! We would redirect them to fill back in to get the dimensions of the channel right. Get that superstructure right. With that, the river can rebuild over time,” he said.
On the Tweed, Ryan had commitments for funding that he hoped would allow him to do a more complete restoration.
He and Jaquith assembled a survey crew to spend a day creating a topographical map of the river, measuring the width, depth and slope of the post-Irene channel.
They compared their measurements to what river science, and data about the Tweed watershed, indicated should be the stream’s natural dimensions. They also used U.S. Geological Survey data to determine how much “bedload” — gravel and sediment — the river should have the capacity to move downstream.
It was clear that big changes were needed.
At the point in the watershed where Colton’s mill sits, the Tweed’s channel should be about 45 feet wide and 2.5 feet deep, as measured from the top of one bank to the top of the opposite bank.
The post-Irene, post-dredging, channel was more than twice as wide and half as deep. The river had lost some of its bend, so it flowed at too steep a slope.
In the end, Jaquith designed a new path for the Tweed much like the one the river had chosen for itself in the years before Irene.
He called for the new channel cut by the river across the Grays’ field to be filled in. The ditch excavated post-Irene would disappear. Mathematical formulas determined the radius and frequency of three new bends that would send the river past the Grays’ house and Colton’s mill in a series of lazy curves.
Those meanders decreased the slope of the river, slowing down the force of the water. In one place, a bend would bring the river against immovable ledges on the far side of the narrow valley, a place where a good fishing hole might develop. Where another bend curved toward Colton’s mill, riprap would protect the bank from erosion.
The newly carved river channel would be 45 feet across. The rest of the 150-foot-wide gravel bed left after Irene would become the river’s new floodplain, a pressure relief valve to hold water during spring snowmelt and moderate floods.
At the tail end of November, the excavators went to work.
As the heavy equipment finished its work on Dec. 2, the river landscape looked raw, as though newly scraped by a glacier. A wide expanse of gravel, the new floodplain, stretched up-river in the place of the Irene flood channel.
Out beyond the gravel plain, the river meandered gracefully back and forth across the valley within well-defined banks. Driftwood tree trunks had been anchored in the riverbank, their root systems sticking out into the water where they would absorb some of the force of the water and thus protect the banks from erosion. Rocks protected the stretch of shore beside Colton’s mill.
“In the end, I was satisfied,” the mill owner said last week, although he said it had been necessary for him to rein in the river scientists’ plans to import boulders to place in the stream to dissipate more stream energy and create fish habitat. 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 paid my share, it got done and the river looks pretty good,” he said.
Jaquith and Ryan were satisfied they had done the best they could, within the constraints of an $11,000 budget and — ironically — a shortage of gravel to better define the channel edges at the far end of the 1,800-foot reach. Too much gravel had been dredged out of the waterway.
“What I saw there, that first day, was an ugly thing — I remember thinking, ‘How can someone do something like this to a river, even though it wasn’t done in malice?’ — but what came out of it I hope can be a model,” Ryan said last week.
“We restored a river in a collaborative way. All the parties responsible for the damage came together and did the right thing. We didn’t have to fine anybody or go through environmental enforcement. We have a better stream for stability, for protecting infrastructure, for fish.
“It wasn’t a perfect fit, but it was a good start,” he said.
Future fisheries panel to meet today
The 14-member Future Fisheries Improvement Program’s Citizen Review Panel will meet today at Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in Helena, 1420 East Sixth Ave., beginning at 8:30 a.m.
The panel will review project applications for the winter funding cycle and prepare recommendations that the FWP Commission will review in March.
The future fisheries panel is appointed by the governor and makes recommendations on funding for projects to restore or improve Montana’s wild and native fish habitat. 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 panel will review 13 applications requesting about $380,000. The public may attend this meeting, or review and comment on the grant applications on the FWP website at fwp.mt.gov, click on the Fishing page. To comment, select “Public Comment.”
Individuals or groups with opportunities to restore or improve wild and native fish habitat may apply for Future Fisheries Improvement Program funds. Landowners and other project partners usually share project costs, which extends Future Fisheries Improvement Program dollars. Applicants are encouraged to work with local area FWP fisheries biologists. The next deadline to submit project applications is June 1.
For more information on the Future Fisheries Improvement Program, call 444-2432, or send an email tomlere@mt.gov.
%20with%20lawyers%20arguing%20over%20the%20admissibility%20of%20expert%20evidence%20from%20Dr.%20John%20Volpe%20of%20the%20University%20of%20Victoria%20and%20defendant%20Don%20Staniford%20expected%20to%20take%20the%20stand%20this%20afternoon%20(or%20tomorrow).%20Events%20start%20at%2010am%20in%20courtroom%20#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 <http://salmonfarmingkills.com/blog> . Speaking exactly one year ago today when launching the 'Salmon Farming Kills' campaign (31 Jan 2011), Don Staniford said <http://salmonfarmingkills.com/press-releases> : "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/â?laxodling-dodarâ?/> " - published last week (26 January) included: http://www.superheroes4salmon.org/sites/default/files/images/Don in Swed ish fishing magazine.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 in NRK% 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 on Terr y.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 on Terr y 2.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-368 8619.html> (click the orange play icon). http://www.superheroes4salmon.org/sites/default/files/images/TV2 on laws uit 2(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." Online in full via: http://salmonfarmingkills.com/blog/going-viral-salmon-farming-kills-spreadin g-isa){kind=link}