Fish habitat destruction feared

[Spiel]

Fish habitat destruction feared

 

by Eric McGuiness,

The Hamilton Spectator December 28, 2007

 

Lake Ontario waterkeeper Mark Mattson believes the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) can -- and should -- stop construction at Pier 22 until the Hamilton Port Authority consults the public about destruction of fish and wildlife habitat at Harris Inlet.

 

Mattson doesn't accept "excuses" offered by DFO and the federal port authority for skipping public input.

 

"First and foremost, there is a lot of public concern about this sort of work in Hamilton Harbour. So many feeder creeks and streams from the escarpment have been filled in, the last few gems have to be saved.

 

"DFO has the authority and ability to stop this tomorrow -- today -- and needs to be reminded of its responsibility. If others have pointed out the destruction of fish habitat and the need for public consultation, DFO can clearly put it on hold until all these legislative hurdles are overcome."

 

Mattson, a lawyer who heads the non-profit waterkeeper organization, doesn't accept an interpretation of the Canada Marine Act that holds port authorities exempt from provincial and municipal jurisdiction, but if it is valid, it's wrong and the act should be changed.

 

"Port authorities shouldn't be above the law," he said, reacting to a Spectator story that revealed a dredging and dockwall construction project for a new Pier 22 began in September after an environmental assessment held there was no need for public input because the area between Strathearne and Kenilworth avenues was industrial.

 

The assessment noted the presence of large ponds, mature trees, a beaver lodge, coyote dens, turtles, fish and other wildlife, but no endangered species.

 

DFO fish habitat biologist Rick Kiriluk said the current project does not include the Harris Inlet waterway or a large, connected pond considered to be fish habitat. He said the authority had rejigged its plans to exclude that area, but plans to make a separate proposal for it.

 

On the issue of public input, he said: "As the Hamilton Port Authority is the lead federal agency on this project, it is at their discretion as to whether or not they conduct public consultation."

 

Councillor Chad Collins, a member of the Hamilton Conservation Authority, says staff accepted too readily the notion the conservation agency has no jurisdiction on federal land. The board now wants staff to determine just how far the authority's regulatory power extends and, if it has none on Pier 22, "there's still an advocacy role for us to play."

 

Collins noted the port authority is prepared to spend $3 million to restore habitat it destroyed at Sherman Inlet, "while going in the opposite direction at Harris Inlet," where a stretch of the all-but-vanished Harris Creek survives.

 

Habitat preservation there "would be an ideal project for the conservation authority, which has taken a leadership role at Sherman Inlet and has expressed intent to take a more proactive role in inner-city Hamilton, especially brownfield industrial sites" such as the 42-hectare Pier 22 property, where Stelco operated its No. 2 Rod Mill.

 

Kiriluk said no DFO authorization was needed for the first phase of pier development, because fish habitat is not affected, but "any further works on the site that involve infilling or alterations to the existing pond and associated connecting channel may require a Fisheries Act authorization and fish habitat compensation."

 

[email protected]

 

905-526-4650

 

Pier plan to clear trees, fill ponds and dredge not in port's report

 

The Hamilton Port Authority hired an environmental manager in August 2006, proclaiming its "commitment to environmental responsibility." But its first environmental report to the public, issued last May, failed to mention the Pier 22 environmental assessment begun two months before. Environmental manager Marilyn Baxter was unavailable to explain the omission. Board chair Al Peckham, the only city appointee on the seven-member federal authority, did not return a call from The Spectator last week. A May 2 news release said the report contained an "overview on the HPA's environmental activities, as well as details on environmental programs, projects, operations and community engagement," yet the 13-page document nowhere mentioned the plan to clear trees, fill ponds and dredge eight hectares of harbour bottom to create a multimillion-dollar pier and 15 hectares of cargo-handling space. The Pier 22 Wharf Completion Project Environmental Assessment Screening Report produced by Stantec Consulting Ltd. says environmental assessment began March 20, six weeks before Baxter's report was produced. Section 7.6, titled consultation with the public, says: "Due to the site- specific nature of the project in an already industrialized area, formal public consultation was not deemed necessary as part of this assessment. The project is in conformance with the principles of the Hamilton Port Authority Land Use Plan, 2002, which was developed with public and stakeholder input."