Comments due April 20 (see below for details)
[Thank you to Richard James and The Coastodian for this reminder.]
Get involved: Humboldt Bay's eelgrass beds are irreplaceable and the species dependent on them do not have an alternative location. A permit for Coast Seafood's proposed expansion into this critical marine habitat should not be approved by the Corps of Engineers. You can make a difference, but you have to engage.
[Note: A separate permit approved by the Humboldt Bay Harbor District is being challenged in court by the California Audubon and the California Waterfowl Association, represented by attorneys from Earthjustice. See April 3 post for details, or click here for case information.]
Above and below,
Humboldt Bay is critical
(See US Fish and Wildlife
for more information.)
Important: All comments should reference the PN file number and be submitted by the Response Required Date on the PN. Public Notice # is 2002-26912N. [Note: Comments should be directed to environmental impacts from expanded oyster cultivation in eelgrass.]
See Public Notice 2002-26912N here [Note: The comment period has been extended to April 20]:
See project description here:
Coast Seafood's existing
and proposed expansion
Richard James of The Coastodian reminds people who wish to stop the expansion by Coast Seafoods into the critical eelgrass beds of Humbold Bay the Corps of Engineers will accept comments through April 20. [click here to read Mr. James' post]
Comment letter from California Audubon/EarthJustice/Oceana - September 16, 2016:
the Project and its impacts remain enormous. The Project encompasses 622 acres of eelgrass and other sensitive tideland habitats, in addition to Coast‘s existing 300 acre footprint of operations, much of which also occupies eelgrass habitat.
the best available information indicates that the proposed Project would result in a loss of eelgrass density on the order of 89-92 percent in the existing footprint (2.5-ft longline spacing) and of 45-67 percent in the expansion areas (10- ft. longline spacing).
analysis of the Project‘s effects on eelgrass is fundamentally flawed, and the conclusions based on that analysis are wrong
Comment letter from the National Marine Fisheries Services:
the analysis does not consider the current operations despite ongoing impacts to eelgrass from existing culture. [current operations cover 290+ acres]
does not adequately address effects to federally listed species (green sturgeon, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead) and their designated critical habitat and does not incorporate information provided by NMFSComment letter from the Corps:
the Corps cannot agree with the determination that aquaculture longline operations set apart at 10-ft spacing will have a neutral/beneficial effect on eelgrass habitat.
it appears that many of the proposed conservation and mitigation measures do not address the potential impacts that they are intended to be addressing.