Port authority says bye, bye birdies

[scotto]

Posted with permission from the Hamilton Spectator
______________________________________________
Farr Island to disappear

April 10, 2010
Eric McGuinness
The Hamilton Spectator
(Apr 10, 2010)
Hundreds of double-crested cormorants will have to find a new nesting place when the Hamilton Port Authority turns an artificial island into an underwater shoal next fall.

Plans are to make the 30-by-35-metre Farr Island disappear by spreading out the crushed rock with which it was built until it disappears beneath the waves. More stone will then be added to expand the resulting shoal to create a spawning bed for lake herring, whitefish, smallmouth bass, walleye and other warm-water fish species.

The cost of the expansion will be covered by a $150,000 grant announced yesterday by the U.S.-based Sustain Our Great Lakes Program, financed by ArcelorMittal, parent of Hamilton steelmaker ArcelorMittal Dofasco.

John Hall, co-ordinator of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP), applauded the multinational company for its grant, saying, "This money coming out of the U.S. recognizes on an international level that our harbour has a role to play in the fishery of all western Lake Ontario."

Jim Bowlby, a biologist working for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, says it's estimated the harbour once had 3.5 square kilometres of shoals. Those on the south shore were lost to filling while 19th-century stone-hooking vessels are thought to have hauled up shale along the Aldershot shore for building material.

A new fisheries management plan says harbour cleanup is bringing back a healthy sport fish population, but that will increase angling pressure.

It also says fish spawned in the harbour will contribute to the health of the fishery around the whole west end of the lake.

Farr Island was created as a platform for a long-gone hydro tower about 250 metres out from the mouth of Burlington's Indian Creek in the northeast corner of the harbour.

Shoreline residents won't miss the cormorants, whose smelly waste prompted a vigilante to trap and kill several with a grid of fine fishing line strung across the island in 2008.

Bowlby and other members of the fish and habitat steering committee of the RAP say they considered keeping a portion of the island for terns, another water bird, but determined that fish habitat was needed more. Besides, young fish will have a better chance of survival away from hungry predators.

Marilyn Baxter, environmental manager for the port authority, said only one tender was submitted for demolition of the island last fall, but expects more interest in the larger project this year.

Money from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program is also going this year to the Credit River Anglers Association to build a fish ladder at the Norval Dam to allow passage of American eel, Atlantic salmon and other fish.

 

[epiphany]

So keep the fish? get rid of the birds???

Well say what you will but considering at least 1000 birds a year die on the beach strip--because of hydro lines --so now we are getting rid of a little island they use because of the mess???? and its better for the fish??? Human logic baffles me --it really does..... When are we going to do something for the birds that are constantly dying on the strip??? Just keep quiet and hope no ones notices???? Why isnt the company donating money for research to help them? and they should replace that island with another one for them --somewhere else in the area.....I am not impressed with companies grant or this idea....

 

[scotto]

Well say what you will but considering at least 1000 birds a year die on the beach strip--because of hydro lines --so now we are getting rid of a little island they use because of the mess???? and its better for the fish??? Human logic baffles me --it really does..... When are we going to do something for the birds that are constantly dying on the strip??? Just keep quiet and hope no ones notices???? Why isnt the company donating money for research to help them? and they should replace that island with another one for them --somewhere else in the area.....I am not impressed with companies grant or this idea....

Well it's not really a company, it is the Hamilton Port Authority and they have been a pain in the side of the Beach for a very long time. Just have a look at the mess they over on Eastport Drive.
I guess the people who live close to that one island wanted it removed, the smell gets very strong on some days. And the bigger islands near CCIW will stay, so there is still room for the birds.

 

[Paul_G]

All this will do is cause hardship and disruption for the birds of the area, cormorants are not the enemy but the MNR have made one as they are disliked by some fishermen just like hunters dislike coyotes wolves and are always calling for more to be killed.

The cormorants who come annualy are not the source of the 'problem" and if you think about it the cormorants do modify their habitat to suit their needs to some degree and are protective of their homes so they will more than likely be forced to take over new habitat possibly displacing more birds and becoming more of a "problem" for local residents than they already were.

The island was fine the way it is and any gain for fish is minimal at best and the PA cannot even articulate what that benefit is!!
Leave the island and the birds alone. This kind of attitude is what caused cormorants to be endangered once aupon a time.

 

[scotto]

The island was fine the way it is and any gain for fish is minimal at best and the PA cannot even articulate what that benefit is!!
Leave the island and the birds alone. This kind of attitude is what caused cormorants to be endangered once aupon a time.

Paul;
Well it's good to see someone sticking up for the wildlife and that they do have friends. As for the PA, I doubt you will get any straight answers out of them. But I will try, this one island is very close the homes on the north shore area of Burlington, these people maybe the driving force behind the decision to remove the island. The benefit the Port gets in return is that if they add fish habitat in the harbour, they can now fill in elsewhere and in my opinion, it won't be for the birds.
Thanks for the post....

 

[Sharla1]

I have contacted a person who is very involved with the Ontario Birders Assoc. but so far no reply from him on this matter. But he is busy working another bird related issue due to the oil spill.

 

[Paul_G]

This situation is very bad for the cormorants. There have been no studies to figure on the impact and they just seem to expect them to "go away". their is no thought to the increased competition or the possibility they may take over Neare island. their "public meeting" only had 14 people and among their list of experts who support the removal at least two were not even asked the question and do not support the action.
Given it is a native species whose primary diet are small invasive fish species we should not have anyway their potential loss is not good. The only stdy they do reveal on the project mentions using a chemical to reduce the smell and proposes island modification as an alternative, not the full removal.

 

[Paul_G]

I would also add the manmade Farr Island was intended to hold a hydro tower and is not endangered greenspace and while they do modify their habitat their true impact has not been studied. The use of this island also kept the changes from occuring elswhere that may be more sensitive.
Cormorants have been attacked as long as settlers have lived here and is why it appears they only showed up in the 20th century because pressure eased until the mid century where we almost lost them again to procecution and pesticides like DDT.

 

[scotto]

It isn't over yet Paul...

Farr from decided
Ron Albertson/The...Farr Island
The Hamilton Spectator
Farr Island, near Hamilton Harbour, is under threat as authorities seek to sink it to improve fish habitat. But critics fear an attempt to discourage cormorants from besting in the area is the real reason. They're trying to save the island.
A fight over the fate of a little artificial island in the northeast corner of Hamilton Harbour has landed in federal court.

On the one side are Hamilton environmentalists who want to submerge the gravelly mound beneath the waves to create a bigger reef for spawning fish. On the other is an animal-rights activist from London, Ont., who says the only purpose of sinking the island is to destroy habitat of “hated” double-crested cormorants.

AnnaMaria Valastro, 48, has asked the federal court for a temporary injunction to halt the sinking of Farr Island, a former hydro tower platform owned the Hamilton Port Authority. The 30-by-35-metre island, about a quarter of a kilometre out from the mouth of Burlington’s Indian Creek, has become home to a large cormorant colony.

The project is part of the Hamiton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that aims to create spawning beds for lake herring and whitefish, which have disappeared from the western end of Lake Ontario.

But Valastro, a co-director of environmental advocacy group PeacefulParks.org, says the port authority is pretending to build habitat when it’s really just trying to get rid of cormorants because they’re perceived as smelly and environmentally destructive.

“If they think the cormorants are a nuisance, then they should say the cormorants are a nuisance,” Valastro said yesterday. “Don’t tell the public that they are doing something really valuable to the harbour when the reality is that they hate the birds.

“It’s dishonest. This injunction is about a group of people that have misrepresented the case to the public because they know they won’t win public support if all they want to do is get rid of a bunch of birds they don’t like.”

Turning Farr Island into new fish and bird habitat has been in the works for years, said HPA president and CEO Bruce Wood, and has been approved by Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the province’s Ministry of Natural Resources and McMaster University researchers.

“There has been a wide breadth of consultation and the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan is a partner in this development,” he said.

“This has almost been a 10-year process.”

Jim Hudson, executive director of the Bay Area Restoration Council, says Valastro’s injunction application is without merit.

“Cormorants, in my mind, around here have become a nuisance species,” Hudson said.

While double-crested cormorants are native to North America, they are only recent colonizers of the Great Lakes, he said.

“They are here following another invasive species called the round goby, which they love to eat.

“We don’t have a shortage of cormorants just like we don’t have a shortage of Canada geese. We do have a shortage of fish habitat in the harbour thanks to years of infilling, so recreation of additional fish habitat is, in my mind, welcome.”

Hudson said the cormorants do not make good neighbours because not only is their guano vile-smelling, it’s also so acidic it kills vegetation.

According to Environment Canada, double-crested cormorants historically nested from Alaska, through Alberta and James Bay to the Gulf of Mexico, but are not thought to have colonized the Great Lakes until the early 20th century. The first pair is thought to have nested on western Lake Superior in 1913 and spread east from there.

In her injunction request, Valastro argues the Hamilton Port Authority chose to avoid consultation with people and organizations that campaign for the protection of avian species.

She argues in her injunction motion that while port authority posted a public notice on the Canadian Environmental Registry, it did not let the public know that the project “would result in the destruction of migratory bid habitat and likely disperse the birds to other jurisdictions, placing an undue burden on other undisturbed colonial water bird colonies.”

Her injunction motion will be heard in federal court in Toronto on Oct. 18.

pmorse@thespec.com

905-526-3434

 

[Paul_G]

thanks, I know Anna Maria she is a good person with solid research but it will be a tough one. The joke in this article is calling the Port Authority and Arcelor Mittell "environmentalists". BARC may do some good work but they are heavily tied to the Port Authority to have an unbiased approach here.

I wrote something that is on Raise the Hammer here:
http://raisethehammer.org/article/1178/#comment-48098

 

[scotto]

thanks, I know Anna Maria she is a good person with solid research but it will be a tough one. The joke in this article is calling the Port Authority and Arcelor Mittell "environmentalists". BARC may do some good work but they are heavily tied to the Port Authority to have an unbiased approach here.

I wrote something that is on Raise the Hammer here:
http://raisethehammer.org/article/1178/#comment-48098

We do have a shortage of fish habitat in the harbour thanks to years of infilling

Yes who are "evironmentalists" who did all the infilling and are still filling in the harbour?

 

[Paul_G]

Losing the island will not raise the habitat significantly (even they do not know what the net impact will be) and we shouldn't be sacrificing one species for another. If they need more shoals they can still create them and maybe open up some of the heavily developed parts of the harbour. Barring the Indian Creek itself is where existing species are at a lower levels. They say it is 10 years in the making but it is really only last year for this particular endeavor and still have not done any real impact studies.

 

[scotto]

maybe open up some of the heavily developed parts of the harbour.

As I have seen in the past, it won't happen without some arm twisting. Again, IMO the Port will remove this island and use this removal to fill in elsewhere, not to create fish habitat.

 

[Paul_G]

It is is interesting to note that in the documentation, there is a request from the Port Authority to remove restrcitions from the Fall Season claiming there are only warm water fish in the area yet all the species they claim will use the new habitat do live there and are cold water fish. More proof fish are not the aim or intent at all. There are times in the Spring and Fall depending on species that are protected as it is their spawning time which fish would have been using these new shoals to do and removing the island now would be disruptive to fish as well.

 

[scotto]

Paul in the Spec.....

Paul Glendenning, Hamilton Mon Sep 27 2010
Cormorants native to our harbour
THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR
(Sep 27, 2010)
Re: 'Farr from decided, isle lands in court; Artificial island pits animal rights activist against environmentalists' (Sept. 23)

Who exactly are the environmentalists referred to in the article on Farr Island? The Hamilton Port Authority, which is destroying this man-made island? ArcelorMittal, which is funding it? BARC, which, while having done some great work, includes the HPA and ArcelorMittal on its board?

The destruction is about social acceptance rather than science. There are no studies pointing to a scientific need to rid the harbour of the cormorant habitat, and there is no study quantifying the impending shoal's gain to local fish.

Further, while evidence is sketchy due to long persecution of the birds, we do know there are records in Ontario going back to at least the 1790s and in Hamilton to at least 1859. What some research has found is it is likely the birds were original residents but were all but eliminated by settlers with sentiments similar to what can be found today, as many still believe cormorants eat primarily commercial fish, which is untrue. In fact, today's cormorants feed primarily on small invasive species that are not native to Lake Ontario.

We can never return Hamilton Harbour to its original state or the wildlife to their original numbers. We've done too much damage for that. So restoring our harbour should not be like gardening, picking and choosing what we like and removing what we don't.

We should be trying to protect our remaining native species and natural areas and this includes cormorants.

______________________________________

I have added a link to the Spec letter as there are now comments added;

http://www.thespec.com/opinion/letters/article/261768--cormorants-native-to-our-harbour

 

[Sharla1]

I finally heard back from the person involved with the Ont. Birders Assoc. about this matter. This was his reply to the message below that was in the spec.

"This person does not understand ecological balance in the slightest. Like most observers, he or she misinterprets & exaggerates the cormorant population dynamics as a threat, rather than as an indicator of a healthy ecosystem. I could go on & on ... "
_______________________________________________________
Cormorants in the harbour
Re: Cormorants native to our harbour (Letters, Sept. 27)
The Hamilton Spectator


This letter seems to overlook many facts.

Yes, it is possible that cormorants, which are sea birds native to the ocean, came down into the Great Lakes and were here in the 1700s.

But so were all the predators that helped control them like wolfs, foxes, weasels, cougars, etc. It's called the balance of nature. We have upset it and therefore must take some responsibility to restore it. Just because a species is pleasant to look at does not mean it is beneficial in a totally uncontrolled state. Rattlesnakes are beautiful so let's reintroduce the Timber Rattler into Princess Point and the RBG.

The statement that cormorants primarily feed on small invasive species is untrue and shows a total lack of knowledge of the bird. Cormorants eat any fish they can catch which includes small bass, pike, sunfish, perch, trout and lots of them! The bird is a fish eating machine and if not controlled, will wipe out the Great Lakes fishery.

Without a natural balance, a single species will destroy an ecology. Remember what rabbits did in Australia? Also remember, man is a predator. Man, as a predator, is part of the balance of natural. So if man hunts out the predators of an area, he must also logically hunt out that predators game.

Then there is the damage done by the massive nesting sites. Cormorants are a result of a species out of control without natural enemies.

I have lived around the bay area all my life. Since the cormorants have increased so dramatically in numbers, there is a visible reduction in many of the fish species in the harbour. Soon a fishery in Hamilton Harbour will be another lost memory. The interesting part is that when the cormorants wipe out the fishery, they will also leave to destroy another area that lacks proper control.

L.J. Howarth, Burlington
http://www.thespec.com/opinion/article/263112--cormorants-in-the-harbour

 

[scotto]

Another from today...

Mon Oct 4 2010
Cormorants are part of our ecosystem
Re: 'Cormorants in the harbour' (Letter, Sept. 30)
Hamilton Spectator
Double-crested cormorants may be abundant and may kill vegetation that is subjected to their guano and they may displace other nesting birds under some circumstances. However, they are nowhere near as abundant and destructive as human beings. They have a bad rap and it is based on speculation and hearsay. Others share some of the misconceptions in the above-mentioned letter.

Double-crested cormorants are generally not affected by terrestrial mammalian predators. They nest in trees and on islands to avoid these predators. Mainland colonies are typically deserted, likely in response to predation by raccoons.

Available historic records (pre-1900) indicate cormorant numbers were very high and colonies were commonly located in the interior regions of North America. Their use of the Great Lakes and other fresh water bodies is by no means unusual or recent.

The population of Great Lakes cormorants is now recovering because of reduced use of DDT, protection from human persecution, abundance of food in the form of invasive fish species, increased nesting habitat and other factors.

Double-crested cormorants feed on locally abundant fish and most published works find no significant impacts on commercial or sports fish stocks. The species eaten varies by location. Published research by my students and me shows that cormorant chicks in Hamilton Harbour are fed alewife and round gobies almost exclusively. Both species are invasive non-natives in the Great Lakes. Of 848 identifiable samples taken from cormorant chicks over eight days, one was a perch, one was a salmon smoult, and 775 were alewife or round gobies. Sports fish and commercial fish were almost never found in these samples. This finding is not unusual.

Double-crested cormorants are a natural part of the ecosystem. Their main "mistake" is that they don't "suit" some humans.

James S. Quinn, Professor, Biology Department, McMaster University

__________________________________________________________

I'm sure there will be some comments in the Spec, so I have attached the link
http://www.thespec.com/opinion/letters/article/264301--cormorants-are-part-of-our-ecosystem

 

[scotto]

Pier plans would sink Farr Island

Submerging a cormorant refuge is not about birds, or even fish; it's about filling in more shoreline
Jim Howlett
The Hamilton Spectator

(The Spectator's Paul Morse reported last month that Hamilton environmentalists want to submerge the 30-by-35-metre island, about a quarter of a kilometre out from the mouth of Burlington's Indian Creek. The former hydro tower platform owned by the Hamilton Port Authority has become home to a large colony of cormorants. The project is part of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and would create a bigger reef for spawning fish. But AnnaMaria Valastro, an animal-rights activist from London, Ont., has asked federal court for a temporary injunction to halt the sinking. She says the only purpose of sinking the island is to destroy habitat of "hated" double-crested cormorants.)

However, habitat compensation is the issue. It means that if an entity proposes to fill in a section of our harbour - to build a pier, breakwall or artificial land - an equal or greater amount of aquatic habitat must be created elsewhere in the harbour. In other words, the same amount of land must be removed that is being filled in to make the new land. There must be no net decrease in aquatic habitat in the harbour. Ever again. This is all regulated by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

So why is the Hamilton Port Authority (HPA) the lead agency in removing Farr Island to create fish habitat? HPA's sole mandate is to develop and maintain infrastructure for shipping and navigation. Why would they spend large amounts of staff time and dollars to remove a tiny artificial island in an area that is unsuitable for shipping because of its shallow depth?

The answer is they have struck a deal with DFO to fill in part of the Pier 22 lands they purchased from Stelco in 2006. This 103-acre parcel of land along Burlington Street includes Harris Inlet (the place with the large turtles that the HPA prefers for political reasons to call Hobson's Pond) and Secord's Bog - one of the only places in the east harbour that abounds in wildlife.

After a public outcry, the HPA announced Harris inlet would be left alone. They were silent over Secord's Bog. Originally, HPA had proposed to do habitat compensation in the Cootes Paradise area in order to get a fill permit from DFO for Pier 22. This was halted after the injustice of West Hamilton receiving the payment for East Hamilton's loss was highlighted. The harbour may be one body of water, and Hamilton one city, but the east harbour needs greater attention.

So the HPA was pressured to relocate habitat compensation to the east harbour. As it happened, Farr Island has been a thorn in the nose of wealthy North Shore Boulevard residents in Burlington for some time. The odour from cormorants is very strong for them in the summer when the wind is right. Their councillor has been lobbying for them for years about Farr Island.

Interestingly, RAP had arranged years ago for the construction of several artificial islands adjacent to Farr - for cormorants. These are the little islands near Canada Centre for Inland Waters with the steel nesting trees (cormorant droppings destroy trees).

It had been determined that the ideal number of cormorants the harbour needed was

up to 200 pairs, but cormorants tend to move around, and if Farr is removed there is no guarantee they will not simply relocate to the tree-covered bluffs of Carroll's Point or Woodland Cemetery. That would cause a potential tragedy of deforestation by displaced avian refugees. Serious thought must be given on how to deal, long term, with cormorants and other birds in our harbour.

So there may be a reduction in the number of cormorants feeding on the spawning shoals to be created around Farr (a necessary nurturing effort if we are to re-establish our harbour fishery), but the only sure thing that removing Farr will accomplish is a permit to fill in some of the wetlands and harbour at Pier 22. The fish habitat can be created around Farr without removing it.

DFO, RAP, and Bay Area Restoration Council are all convinced that the only way to fund the fish habitat project is to link it to the removal of the island in exchange for a fill permit at Pier 22. So the removal of Farr is mostly about filling in habitat of much greater value in the east harbour, which the animal rights group is unaware of.

These are the behind-the-veil machinations of the authorities that are working in our harbour and they reveal that things are not as cohesive as the polished press releases show. The Farr Island fisheries project has, like Randle Reef, been planned for decades. Finding funding and permits to accomplish it has been very problematic and will likely continue to be so.

It is likely a good time to remind the people of RAP that it was unpaid people with "divergent opinions" who created the Remedial Action Plan, and the group has now become a place where paid representatives from government and industry - convergent thinkers - formed the dominant group. If RAP had been open about the behind-the-scenes dealmaking, it wouldn't be in court with environmentalists opposing the project.

It is all too easy to fall into the trap of stereotyping the leaders of RAP as insensitive ideologues, or the animal rights activists as bleeding hearts with big wallets, yet both are branches from the same good tree.

It is perhaps time for them to sit down together and look at what habitat has been marginalized in our harbour - and then amend the RAP in a newer light.

Jim Howlett is director, Hamilton Halton Source Protection Authority. He has long been involved in harbour issues.

 

[scotto]

Judge denies legal bid to block sinking of cormorant-ruled Farr Island

Hamilton Port Authority plans to turn artifical Farr Island into harbour shoals. The little island that was at the centre of a legal challenge can be seen on this map, at the top, left.
A last-ditch attempt to block the sinking of an artificial gravel island in Hamilton Harbour now home to a colony of migratory cormorants has failed.

Environmental and animal activist AnnaMaria Valastro had asked a federal court for a temporary injunction to halt the sinking of Farr Island, a former hydro tower platform owned by the Hamilton Port Authority. The HPA wants to turn Farr into an enlarged artificial shoal to create spawning beds for lake herring and whitefish, which have disappeared from the western end of Lake Ontario.

The 30-metre-by-35-metre cobble island is a quarter of a kilometre straight out from the mouth of Burlington’s Indian Creek.

Federal Court Judge Judith Snider denied Valastro’s injunction request on Oct. 19 for two key reasons.

The first was that Valastro had not launched any court action or application against the sinking, which is “a prerequisite to an interim injunction,” Snider ruled.

Secondly, Snider decided Valastro had not shown there would be “irreparable harm” if the injunction was denied.

“The irreparable harm alleged by Ms Valastro is that the cormorants that would otherwise nest and breed on Farr Island would lose their habitat,” the judge said in a written decision. Valastro’s injunction application “is not supported by any expert reports … Ms Valastro is a very knowledgeable citizen, but not a scientist or an expert.”

Valastro, an animal-rights activist from London, Ont., and co-director of environmental advocacy group PeacefulParks.org, had argued losing the island would mean double-crested cormorants would lose a nesting site and be forced to move elsewhere.

“The evidence before me is that, while the cormorant population in the Great Lakes region was decimated in the 1960s and 1970s, to a low of 135 nests, cormorants have made an amazing recovery,” Snider wrote.

“As of 2005, it was estimated that there were about 113,000 nesting cormorants; they are not an endangered or at-risk species. Indeed, the evidence shows that the rapid population growth has resulted in public concerns regarding the impact to the environment.”

Valastro said that, as a self-litigant at court, she didn’t realize her case would have several legal tests to be eligible for an injunction.

“It was a very difficult process.… The federal court isn’t really for members of the public unless somehow they are under arrest,” she said.

The port authority’s environmental manager, Marilyn Baxter, said the project is set to resume. “We’ve got to get everybody lined up, but we expect to have everything finished by the end of the year.”

The HPA told the judge that it cost $87,000 to fight Valastro’s injunction request, and asked the judge to award them $50,000 in court costs.

But in an unsubtle rebuke of HPA’s lawyers’ billing, Snider wrote that “costs of $50,000 to oppose a motion that was clearly without merit are far in excess of any reasonable costs award … I am not prepared to award any costs to the HPA.”

Phase 1 will turn the artificial island, which sits in about two metres of water, into three shoals about a metre below the surface. Phase 2 will create a new fourth shoal about 15 metres away.

To regrade Farr Island, a large excavator on a barge parked on the island’s deep side will scoop off the top of the cobble mound, swing 180 degrees and drop the material into about three metres of depth to create a shoal 35 metres long and 15 metres wide. Then the excavator will dig a trench in the original island down to the harbour floor, effectively turning the original island into two shoals.

In Phase 2, new rock will be positioned about 15 metres away farther out into the harbour to create a new 70-metre-long and 15-metre-wide artificial shoal.

Project manager Farhad Salehi said the work should be finished by year’s end, barring storm delays.

pmorse@thespec.com

905-526-3434

 

[scotto]

The end is near...

The barge was parked near the island today, I guess they couldn't get very close due to the shallow waters.