HABITAT
HOTLINE HABITAT
HOTLINE NUMBER 18 APRIL 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FEDERAL Clean Water Act Passes House Committee Regulatory Reform Property Bills Clinton Signs Unfunded Mandate Legislation II. REGIONAL EPA Releases 1993 Toxics List PACFISH Implemented State and Private Lands Riparian Regulations NMFS Releases Draft Recovery Plan Other Columbia River News III. WASHINGTON Cushman Dam Update IV. MISCELLANEOUS Salmon Book Available Contaminated Sediments Meeting Commission Announces Annual Meeting IV. UPDATES
I. FEDERAL
CLEAN WATER ACT PASSES HOUSE COMMITTEE
On April 6, 1995 the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee completed its mark-up of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act reauthorization bill, introduced by Bud Shuster (R-Pa.). The bill, which drastically alters the Act, passed out of committee by a vote of 42-16. West Coast Representatives voted as follows:
For: Bill Baker (R-Calif.), Steve Horn (R-Calif.), Walter Tucker III (D-Calif.), Andrea Seastrand (R-Calif.), Randy Tate (R-Wash.), Jay C. Kim (R-Calif.), Don Young (R-Alaska).
Against: Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Norm Mineta (D-Calif.).
Below are some elements of H.R. 961 (Note: according to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, information below may be technically changed or clarified):
Wetlands: The Act's Section 404 wetlands permitting program has been significantly changed:
NonPoint Source Pollution: H.R. 961 calls for the states to administer and develop nonpoint source pollution programs that do not have to include enforceable programs or policies. After a state program is federally approved, 15 years are allowed for "further reasonable progress toward the goal of attaining water quality standards."
Toxic Pollutants -- Risk Assessment/Cost Benefit Analysis: Effluent standards shall take into account the overall risk of the pollutant, and the beneficial and adverse social and economic effects of the effluent standards, including the impact on energy resources.
Coastal Secondary Treatment Facilities: Coastal waste treatment facilities would not be required to secondarily treat their wastewater if their ocean outfall pipe is more than 4 miles offshore and more than 300 feet in depth. Also, primary treated sewage could be discharged into marine waters at least 150 feet in depth and one mile offshore; if there is an applicable ocean plan and monitoring program, and the discharge is in compliance with local and state water quality standards.
Risk Assessment/Cost Benefit Analysis: The bill contains provisions requiring risk assessments to be completed within 18 months for any standard, effluent limitation, or other requirement under the Clean Water Act (including existing requirements); or if any regulatory requirement would result in a cost increase of $25 million or more. Additionally, a cost/benefit analysis must be undertaken for actions costing $25 million or more, and include estimates of the total social, environmental, and economic benefits of the regulation.
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: H.R. 961 would repeal the Coastal Zone Management Act's (CZMA) Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. This program, created in 1990, requires each participating coastal state to implement land use management measures for controlling nonpoint source pollution, and that these programs be closely coordinated with state nonpoint programs (under section 319 of the Clean Water Act). H.R. 961 does not require coastal states to enforce controls on nonpoint source pollution.
Storm Water Management: Redefines stormwater discharges as nonpoint source discharges, instead of point-source pollution as currently defined in the Act. States will be allowed to develop stormwater management programs emphasizing voluntary measures first and site-specific permits last. Cities with populations of 100,000 people or less would be exempt from developing stormwater pollution control programs.
Watershed Management and Pollution Transfers: Under an approved watershed management program, dischargers may apply to the state for approval to offset (increase) their discharges through purchases of pollution reduction credits from other polluters.
Ocean Dredging: The bill would remove EPA authority over the dredging permit process. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be in charge of issuing dredging permits, ocean dumping permits, and designating ocean dumpsites.
State Revolving Loan Fund: A positive element of the bill is that it authorizes $3 billion for water pollution prevention and control projects, an increase over current funding levels. This money will still need to be appropriated, however.
Reaction to the bill:
Understandably, environmental groups and many in the fishing community are shocked that this "dirty water bill" (as it has been called by the Clean Water Network) was passed out of committee. There were numerous charges that industry lobbyists helped write the bill's weakened standards. Below are some reactions to H.R. 961:
New York Times (4/2/95): "Mr. Shuster's bizarre legislative methodology is as appalling as the bill he produced. He seems to believe that the 1994 election gave him and his fellow Republicans a clear mandate to gut the Clean Water Act."
Charles Gauvin, President and CEO of Trout Unlimited: "We urge the House of Representatives, during floor consideration, to vigorously reject the bill and send it back to the Committee for the overhaul it deserves. The American people deserve much better than the dirty, polluted glass of water that they are being asked to swallow today by the majority of Committee members."
Representative Bud Shuster, Chair, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: "Like my colleagues, I firmly believe that the existing clean water program has made major improvements in the quality of our waters. But the fact is, in many areas, the Act has had unintended consequences, placing unacceptable costs and regulatory burdens on the public for, in many cases, marginal gains in water quality improvements. Clean water regulations are still expensive and sometimes of questionable benefit in terms of costs and there is still heavy-handed EPA and other bureaucratic intervention into the regulated communities."
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (prior to committee mark-up): "Title VIII of...the 'Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act' would establish a program of counterfeit wetlands protection. The bill proposes unsound methods of identifying wetlands that the Association of Wetlands managers estimates would eliminate some 60-80% of the nation's wetlands from regulatory protection..."
Robyn Roberts, Clean Water Network: "We all have to face the reality that there is a movement to weaken environmental regulations -- as illogical as that seems. This bill abandons the goals of the act, significantly reducing the protection provided for our nation's waterways and wetlands. Admittedly, the Act may need some fine-tuning that can avoid some unnecessary costs and regulatory burdens. But don't be fooled by the rhetoric -- this bill will decrease environmental protection and I cannot believe that the vast majority of Americans approve of that."
Coast Alliance (regarding Ocean Dumping provisions): "Essentially, [H.R. 961] makes the Corps [of Engineers] a self-regulating agency as it will be able to set criteria and give itself permits for dumping dredged materials. These provisions would make it nearly impossible to stop or significantly alter a dredging or disposal permit."
NOW WHAT: H.R. 961 could go to the House Floor as soon as May.
The Senate has not yet scheduled reauthorization hearings. Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.), Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is undecided whether he will seek full scale reauthorization of the Clean Water Act during this Congress. However, preliminary hearings on the wetland protection sections of the Act will likely see action in the coming months. Also, Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.) is expected to introduce a wetland bill in May that will be similar to language in H.R. 961.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: The Clean Water Act is crucial to protecting clean water, plentiful wetlands and healthy watersheds upon which the fishing industry depends. Nearly everyone in the fisheries and environmental communities agrees that the law needs strengthening, not weakening. One of the messages coming from Capitol Hill is that legislators are not hearing enough from fisheries interests regarding the Clean Water Act.
Write Your Congressperson: U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; and U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; or call: the House of Representatives switchboard at (202) 225-3121, the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
For Further Information: Coast Alliance at (202) 546-9554; Clean Water Network at (202) 624-9357; Trout Unlimited at (703) 522-0200.
REGULATORY REFORM/PROPERTY BILLS
Below is a brief synopsis of several bills which will likely impact fish habitat protections. Some are part of the "Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act" of 1995 (H.R. 9), also known as "The Contract With America."
H.R. 450: the Regulatory Transition Act, sponsored by Representatives Tom Delay (R-Texas) and David McIntosh (R-Ind.) passed the House (276-146) on February 24, 1995. It would impose a regulatory moratorium on federal regulations retroactive to November 20, 1994 and extending to December 31, 1995, or until federal agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses, risk assessments and private property impact assessments when formulating new rules.
S. 219: Introduced by Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) passed the Senate 100-0 on March 29, 1995. It requires agencies to submit to Congress cost-benefit analyses when proposing major rules (regulations). Rules costing more than $100 million would be suspended for 45 days so that Congress could review (and veto) any rule. Any member of Congress could disapprove the rule for any reason. If disapproved, the rule then goes to appropriate Congressional committee. If the committee disapproves the rule, then it is sent back to the floor for a vote. If passed with less than a two-thirds majority, the President may veto the resolution of disapproval. If the resolution of disapproval is signed by the President, the rule is sent back to the agency for rewriting. There are provisions in the bill allowing Congress to veto "significant" rules issued since November 9, 1994.
An example of a "significant" rule is the San Francisco Bay-Delta Standards Agreement signed December 15, 1994. The agreement contains some important new water quality standards benefiting California's Central Valley salmon (see Habitat Hotline #16).
An amendment to S. 219 offered by Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and David Pryor (D-Ark.) regarding agency actions involving hunting, fishing, or camping was attached to this bill. Essentially, this good amendment allows fishing regulations to proceed without delay.
NOW WHAT: The House and the Senate will now try to iron out their differences between S. 219 and H.R. 450. The biggest difference is the regulatory freeze (moratorium) language in H.R. 450 that is not in S. 219.
H.R. 9 (Title III) passed the House on March 2, 1995. It requires that federal agencies conduct risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses for all rules and regulatory programs that cost the public and private sectors $25 million or more annually. Risk assessments conducted for rules that cost $100 million or more annually will be subject to peer review panels, which would include public (industry) sector representation.
S. 343: "The Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act", introduced by Senator Bob Dole (R-Kan.), would give Congress 45 days to review final rules and veto them if they were found to be overly "burdensome." It would require cost-benefit analyses for major rules -- defined as having a $50 million impact. S. 343 makes allowances for individuals to request that agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses for existing regulations.
S. 291: Introduced by Senator William Roth Jr. (R-Del.), S. 291 applies to a rule or a "group of closely related rules" that would cost $100 million or more annually in direct or indirect expenditures, or having a significant economic impact. Also, numerous federal agencies would have to submit annually to Congressional recommendations for amending, repealing, or enacting laws to eliminate or enhance mandates related to the environment, human health and safety.
NOW WHAT: S. 343 and 291 are expected to go to the Senate Floor in May.
H.R. 925: The "Private Property Protection Act of 1995," introduced by Representative Charles Canady (R-Fla.), passed the House on March 3, by a vote of 277-148. It requires that the federal government compensate landowners when the value of an affected portion of the owner's property is reduced by 20 percent as a result of an agency action under the Endangered Species Act, federal wetlands protection programs, and certain water allocation laws. The bill states that payment to affected landowners come from the agency taking the action, and not the general federal fund.
S. 605: the "Omnibus Property Rights Act" of 1995 was introduced on March 23, 1995, by Senator Robert Dole (R-Kan.). This bill mirrors other property rights bills introduced into the Senate and includes compensation for property owners for losses of property value of one-third or more as a result of an agency action. The bill also contains language limiting restrictions on takings to agency actions made under the Endangered Species Act or federal wetlands programs under the Clean Water Act. S. 605 does not include takings resulting from farm bill wetlands programs or water allocation laws as covered by H.R. 925.
Now What: The Senate Judiciary Committee began consideration of S. 605 on April 6.
CLINTON SIGNS UNFUNDED MANDATE LEGISLATION
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (S. 1) was signed into law by President Clinton on March 22, 1995. The new law requires that Congress take a separate vote on any measure that would impose unfunded obligations on state and local governments that would cost more than $50 million to implement. If a federal regulation is expected to cost $100 million to state or local governments combined, or the private sector, federal agencies must explain the costs, expected benefits, and economic implications of the regulations.
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs will identify and review existing mandates and make recommendations to the President and Congress to allow flexibility for state, local, and tribal governments in complying with federal mandates which are "unnecessarily rigid" or "complex"; suspend or eliminate unfunded mandates that are "duplicative, obsolete or lacking in practical utility." Federal mandates which are "not vital to the public health and safety and which compound the fiscal difficulties in State, local and tribal governments" would be suspended on a temporary basis.
II. REGIONAL
Industrial releases of toxic chemicals are on the decrease in Alaska, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon according to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI report was issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on March 27, 1995. The GOOD NEWS is that nationally, industrial releases of toxic chemicals in the United States declined by 406 million pounds during 1993, for a drop of 12.6 percent, double the rate of the decline during 1992.
"To maintain this Administration's common-sense approach and commitment to a long term sustainable environment and economy, we hope to see reductions in the rate at which American businesses generate wastes," according to Deputy Administrator for the EPA Fred Hansen.
This announcement marks the third year EPA and the states have collected data on pollution prevention and recycling efforts. The new data indicate some facilities are choosing to recycle toxic chemicals instead of releasing them to the environment. However, EPA has not seen the same dramatic declines in waste generation as seen in environmental releases during the early years of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
INSERT EPA TABLE
Since 1988, the Toxic Release Inventory program requires more than 20,000 industries across the country to submit annual reports, each July 1, about their releases during the previous year of more than 300 toxic substances to the environment. TRI data for the ten industrial facilities with the most toxic releases in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska can be found on page 6.
For Further Information: To learn how to gain access to any of the TRI data, call EPA's TRI User Support Service at (202) 260-1531; or Phil Wong E.P.A. Region 10 at (206) 553-4016.
On February 24, 1995, The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released its "Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California [PACFISH]". The intent of PACFISH is to provide an 18 month interim management strategy of all Pacific anadromous "at risk" stocks in national forests, while long-term management strategies are developed.
PACFISH calls for buffers of 300 feet on fish bearing streams and lakes, and 150 feet on permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams. PACFISH restricts logging, road building and cattle grazing activities in areas outside the range of the spotted owl on U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands. According to USFS/BLM:
We want to make every effort to see that nothing done by the Agencies in the next 18 months would lead to the extinction or further endangerment of anadromous fish stocks, or otherwise limit options that will be considered in the environmental analyses for long-term management. This action does not apply to areas that are subject to the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, which provides a comprehensive aquatic conservation strategy for those areas.
The implementation of PACFISH is a positive and welcome step towards recovery and protection of salmon and steelhead. However, there are criticisms of the interim rule. The National Marine Fisheries Service, under its duties as mandated by the Endangered Species Act (Section 7), reviewed the PACFISH strategy. They concluded that PACFISH "is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered Snake River salmon species or result in the destruction of adverse modification of their designated critical habitat." However, their comments are worth noting:
PACFISH is a commendable effort by the action agencies to develop an interim approach to addressing concerns for degraded salmon habitat that exist on USFS and BLM lands. By improving protective measures for riparian and aquatic habitats, PACFISH should help reduce adverse effects to listed species and designated critical habitat from future land management actions in many instances, relative to what might have occurred by following the existing guidance in LRMPs [Land Resource Management Plans, which the USFS uses to manage their lands in each region] and LUPs [Land Use Plans used by the BLM on their lands].
However, there are a number of problems remaining with the RMO [Riparian Management Objectives] approach:
The Pacific Rivers Council, which has closely watched the PACFISH process, notes:
Despite the conclusion of no jeopardy, the agency [NMFS] repeatedly acknowledges the severe limitations of the protection provided by PACFISH. These measures will not hold the line, nor turn the trajectory towards recovery. They do not substitute adequate protection, even for the interim. We expect these interim measures to be strengthened after the 18 month period.
Riparian Management: Both PACFISH and the Clinton Forest Plan mandate riparian management widths of 300 feet on fish bearing streams and 150 feet on non-fish bearing streams. PACFISH differs from the Clinton Plan in that "Non-Key" watersheds receive 50 foot riparian management zones, "Key" watersheds 100 feet. In the Clinton plan, intermittent streams receive 100 foot riparian zones. Timber harvest (salvage and firewood) in riparian areas is allowed under both PACFISH and the Clinton Plan if watershed analysis determines that present and future coarse woody debris needs are met and other Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (Clinton Forest Plan) or Riparian Management Objectives (PACFISH) are not adversely affected.
For Further Information: Pacific Rivers Council, (503) 345-0119; Gordon Haugen, USFS at (503) 326-4929.
STATE AND PRIVATE LANDS RIPARIAN REGULATIONS
In related news, much has been written, litigated and legislated about federal lands management and its impact on salmon, the spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. Sometimes overlooked in watershed management is the importance of private and state lands management. Coastal coho salmon in Washington, Oregon and California often spawn and rear exclusively on private and state lands.
With the National Marine Fisheries Service expected soon to announce that coho salmon will be listed under the Endangered Species Act, watershed based protection and recovery measures must include sufficient riparian management measures on state and private lands.
It is clear the 100-300 foot buffers mandated in PACFISH and the Clinton Plan offer more watershed protection than nearly any state or private standard. Private and state riparian management regulations for the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California and Alaska are summarized in a table (See page 9). The table compares stream shade and conifer retention requirements.
Comparisons between state regulations is difficult because each state uses different criteria for stream protection. For example, Oregon uses a conifer retention requirement of basal square area per 1000 feet, California uses a shade standard only, Alaska has a no-harvest zone, Washington uses number of trees per 1000 feet INSERT STATE TABLE
of stream, dependent on substrate, and Idaho uses a leave tree requirement per 1000 feet of stream.
Economic considerations and pressures explain, in part, the differences between federal, state, and private riparian management regulations. For example, from 1992-1994, Oregon went through a rulemaking process to strengthen their riparian management regulations. An environmental and fishing group coalition proposed a 100 foot no-cut buffer for all fish-bearing streams. The coalition felt that 100 feet was the minimum distance that would provide sufficient protection for fish. Also 100 feet was politically more palatable than the 300 foot buffers called for by aquatic scientists who wrote the Clinton Plan.
However, during hearings in 1992 and 1993, the Oregon Board of Forestry (BOF) refused to consider the 100 foot request. Leaving harvestable trees in the riparian zone was considered economically difficult for private timber companies. Claims by the fishing industry that increased protection would result in more fish, thus more income for all Oregonians, did not carry enough weight in this process. The good news was that the Oregon BOF eventually adopted rules leaving more trees in the riparian management zone (see page 9 for specifics).
The question that now remains is how can state and private regulations be strengthened in an antiregulatory political climate? After sitting through the Oregon forest practices process, David Moskowitz, who worked for both the Association of Northwest Steelheaders and Oregon Trout (where he is currently employed), has some ideas. He suggests that private and state land regulations need to be considered separately: "The state must be responsible for managing in trust all the resources of its citizens. Therefore a higher state standard is needed -- a standard that is closer to the more stringent federal standards."
Moskowitz also feels that while private lands regulations usually will provide less protection to fish-bearing streams and waters, that does not mean they should be so weak that fish and wildlife protection is negligible. To achieve additional protection on private lands, Moskowitz adds, "a tax incentive system or a system where private riparian lands are traded for upland federal lands is needed on a broad scale."
NMFS RELEASES DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN
In March, The National Marine Fisheries Service released its proposed plan to restore endangered Snake River sockeye (listed in 1991) and chinook salmon (listed as threatened in 1992 and reclassified as endangered in 1994). Much of the 500 page document is based in large part on the recommendations made to the fisheries service in May, 1994 by the Snake River Salmon Recovery Team (see Habitat Hotline #13). Some highlights of the plan include:
Harvest Management: Increase the number of adult salmon that return to the spawning grounds by modifying the existing ocean and inriver harvest management rules, developing alternative harvest methods, and initiating a program to buy back fishing permits, gear and vessels in the Oregon and Washington commercial troll and mainstem Columbia River non-treaty gill net fisheries.
Hatcheries: The draft plan calls for use of captive rearing of natural fish to preserve remaining gene pools, create gene banks, and use hatchery propagation to increase natural fish abundance, minimize interactions between natural and hatchery-reared fish to reduce cross breeding, competition, predation, and disease transfer.
Hydropower: Hydropower measures in the draft recovery plan are based on the NMFS Biological Opinion (Bi-Op) released on March 1 (see Habitat Hotline #17). Inriver migration conditions should be improved to the maximum extent possible using techniques such a increased flows, increased spill, physical improvement of the dams, and aggressive surface bypass development and testing. Significant improvements should also be made in transportation operations.
Habitat: NMFS proposes a three-part approach: 1) protect remaining high quality habitat by ceasing activities that would degrade ecosystem functions and values that listed fish need, 2) restore degraded habitats, and 3) provide connectivity between high quality habitats.
Comments about the draft plan:
William Stelle, Director of the fisheries service's Northwest region in Seattle: "This recovery plan proposes a range of comprehensive and fundamental conservation strategies for salmon recovery, instead of relying on uncertain, piece-meal mitigation schemes that have been tried, without much success, in the past. It offers immediate benefits through steps that can be taken as early as this spring. And it holds out the promise of long-term salmon protection by allowing us to change and refine our plans as important scientific information becomes available in the future."
Steve Moyer, Government Affairs Director at Trout Unlimited: "Commercial and sportfishing families have made tremendous sacrifices - years of fishing restrictions and complete closures of many areas to salmon fishing. The NMFS plan does not even pretend to rebuild these runs to harvestable levels. NMFS has once again turned its back on sport and commercial fishing families in favor of big business."
Michael Rossotto, Executive Director of the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition: "The NMFS has come up with yet another Band-Aid when we need a tourniquet. We've known Columbia Basin salmon have been in decline since 1978; now 17 years later we see the first federal draft recovery plan - a plan which does little for salmon until the turn of the century. The government's window of opportunity to do something for salmon is now."
Liz Hamilton, Executive Director of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association: "The plan depends on a government program which hasn't been effective since its inception 20 years ago. It takes salmon out of the water, puts them on barges and trucks, and hauls them to the ocean. We need definitive, immediate action to save wild salmon in the Northwest. That means drawing down reservoirs and spilling salmon safely over the dams, which we know can be done affordably. If we can put a man on the moon, we can restore salmon and have affordable electricity."
Idaho Salmon and Steelhead Unlimited: "The new federal plan for endangered salmon will bring government gridlock, endless study, and extinction. It is government at its worst. Especially when a fair and workable plan [the Northwest Power Planning Council's "Strategy For Salmon"] has already been created by regional decision-makers."
WHAT YOU CAN DO: A schedule of Public hearings on the draft recovery plan are listed later: click here to go to schedule
Each hearing will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
***Comments are due July 17, 1995 and should be submitted to:
Rob Jones
Recovery Plan Coordinator
National Marine Fisheries Service
45 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97232
For a Copy of the Draft Recovery Plan, Contact: Rob Jones, National Marine Fisheries Service, at the above address, or call (503) 230-5429.
For Further Information: National Marine Fisheries Service at the above number; Save Our Wild Salmon at (206) 622-2904.
Fishing Industry Letter To Hatfield: Nearly 70 sport and commercial associations, businesses, and fishing dependent businesses sent a letter to Senator Mark Hatfield asking for his help with the Columbia River salmon crisis (see page 13 for a copy of the letter). The letter was submitted to Hatfield at a March 15 Senate Appropriations hearing on BPA competitiveness. Those testifying at the hearing included Columbia River hydropower, irrigation, aluminum, transportation groups, Tribes (Umatilla, Spokane) and environmental groups (Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club). Lacking from the witness list were salmon industry businesses that have been decimated by Columbia River hydropower operations.
Groups and Businesses that signed onto the letter included: Yakima Bait/Wordens Lure, Luhr Jenson, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Alumaweld Inc., G.I. Joes, Bi-Mart, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Northwest Fishermen's Wives Association, Trout Unlimited, The Recreational Fishing Coalition, Idaho Salmon and Steelhead Unlimited, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, American Sportfishing Association, Alaska Trollers Association, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor Gillnetters Associations, Friends of the Cowlitz, Coalition of Washington Ocean Fishermen, The Reel News, Garbaldi Marina, Westport Charterboat Association, and many more.
Federal Funding and Spills: In some good news, the Clinton Administration on March 15, pledged to pay $90-$100 million of the $160 million in expected cost increases for changing the Columbia and Snake River dam operations and improving the rivers for salmon survival. Part of that money will go for paying the costs associated with one tool in the recovery process -- spilling water over the dams. Spilling juvenile salmon over the dams, instead of sending them though the dam's turbines, is estimated to increase survival by a much as 10 percent per dam.
Oregon Ok's Spill: In more good news, the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission granted a waiver on April 14 to allow the National Marine Fisheries Service to begin spilling water over Snake and Columbia River dams. The waiver was necessary because spill elevates dissolved nitrogen in the water to levels potentially dangerous to salmon. Downstream migrating salmon will be monitored for gas bubble disease, which can kill fish when nitrogen levels are too high. The Washington Department of Ecology has already agreed to the waiver. Idaho's waiver expires May 5.
Biological Opinion Finalized: The Biological Opinion (Bi-Op) on the operation of the federal Columbia River Power System and Juvenile Transportation Program in 1994-1998 was sent to Judge Malcolm Marsh in early March. The draft Bi-Op (see Habitat Hotline #17) was changed slightly before being finalized. Language in the final Bi-Op allows more fish to be left in the river versus being barged. As we go to press it appears that the Judge will not overrule the operations plan.
INSERT HATFIELD LETTER
III. WASHINGTON
The Skokomish River Basin was once the biggest producer of salmon in the Hood Canal Basin of Puget Sound. These stocks have been reduced to critically low numbers and some have been lost forever. The South Fork Skokomish watershed has been seriously degraded by forest practices. The North Fork, historically the most productive, has been impacted by hydroelectric development. On April 18, 1995 the environmental group American Rivers announced that the Skokomish River was one of the top ten endangered rivers in North America for 1995.
In 1930, the City of Tacoma completed two dams which blocked fish passage to 84 percent of the North Fork Skokomish watershed (the Cushman Project). Until 1988, the project diverted the entire North Fork to a remote power plant. Since 1988, the project has released flows of only 30 cubic feet/second, or about 4 percent of the river's natural average annual flow.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is presently in the final stages of evaluating the City of Tacoma's major license application for the Cushman hydroelectric project. The City's application proposes to continue diverting the North Fork Skokomish River. FERC is expected to release its Draft Environmental Impact Statement sometime in June, 1995. Public comment on the DEIS will be crucial to ensure a decision consistent with public interest in fish restoration.
The Skokomish Tribe, state, federal and local resource agencies, as well as conservation groups have recommended to FERC that any future project license require substantial restoration of flow to the Skokomish River and estuary on Hood Canal. This is required to restore ecosystem functions, reduce flood hazard, and to bring the project into compliance with today's laws and standards. Detailed studies have determined that restoring near natural flow is practical and that power could be economically developed from water releases to the channel.
The coalition of private groups supporting restoration of river flow includes: Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, Friends of the Earth, Washington Trout, the Mountaineers, Tacoma Audubon, Federation of Fly Fishers, Olympic Park Associates, and the Rivers Council of Washington.
For Further Information Contact: Vic Martino, Skokomish Tribe at (206) 842-5386; American Rivers at (206) 545-7133; John Blair, FERC E.I.S. Coordinator at (202) 219-2845.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
SALMON BOOK AVAILABLE
The return of the salmon from the ocean to the inland river of their birth to spawn once and die has inspired legend, sustained communities, and fueled commerce for thousands of years. But the fuel is dwindling. In the days of Lewis and Clark, Pacific salmon returned to the rivers of the Pacific Rim and from Mexico to Japan in numbers now only seen in a few rivers in British Columbia, Alaska, and Russia.
In REACHING HOME: PACIFIC SALMON, PACIFIC PEOPLE (Alaska Northwest BooksTM, $37.95) three powerful voices join to celebrate the Pacific salmon and examine its recent decline. Award-winning photographer Natalie Fobes presents compelling images of the remarkable salmon and the peoples bound to them. Tom Jay and Brad Matsen's eloquent essays of their personal experiences with salmon provide a powerful testament to the fact that now is truly the time of the salmon and its people.
To Order: Send $37.95 plus $5.00 shipping and handling to Alaska Northwest Books, Box 10306, 3019 N.W. Yeon, Portland, Oregon 97210, or call (503) 226-2402 or 1-800-452-3032. (Washington residents add 6% sales tax.) The book is also available at the following bookstores, Portland: Barnes and Noble, Powells, and Borders; San Francisco: San Francisco Aquarium; Juneau: Hearthside Books; Seattle: Elliot Bay Books and the University Book Store.
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS MEETING
The Coast Alliance will be hosting a national meeting on contaminated sediments from Sunday, July 16 through Tuesday, July 18, 1995 in Washington D.C. The first two days of the meeting are sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency and will include presentations on the following topics: human health impacts, decontamination technologies, disposal options, fish and wildlife impacts, administrative and legislative initiatives, and more.
The third day of the conference, Tuesday, July 18th, will be a citizens summit -- an opportunity for open discussion and strategy on a national sediments campaign. The summit is being sponsored by the Coast Alliance.
For Further Information on this meeting, call the Coast Alliance at (202) 546-9554.
COMMISSION ANNOUNCES ANNUAL MEETING
The 48th Annual Meeting of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission will be held September 30 - October 3, 1995, at the Regal Alaska Hotel in Anchorage, Alaska. For Further Information Contact PSMFC at (503) 650-5400.
___________
EDITOR'S NOTE: We welcome information on habitat news in your area. Information should pertain to habitat of marine, estuarine, or anadromous fish or shellfish. We especially are looking for information from southern California, Alaska, and Idaho. Feel free to fax us newspaper articles, copies of letters, public hearing notices, etc., to (503) 650-5426. Funding for this publication comes in part from Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this publication, or about our habitat education program, please contact: Stephen Phillips, Editor, Habitat Hotline, 45 SE 82nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522. Phone: (503) 650-5400, Fax: (503) 650-5426. Layout by Liza Bauman. Printed on 100% recycled sheet with minimum 50% post consumer fiber.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
45 S.E. 82nd Drive
Suite 100
Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522
FIRST CLASS
SALMON BOOK AVAILABLE Schedule of Public Hearings for the NMFS Draft Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon
DATE BUILDING ADDRESS CITY/STATE
May 15 City Community Bldg. 1424 Main Lewiston, ID
May 17 Interagency Fire Center 3905 Vista Ave. Boise, ID
Auditorium
May 18 Stanley Community Center Stanley, ID
May 23 Eastern Oregon State College LaGrande, OR
May 24 Richland Federal Bldg. 825 Jadwin Ave. Richland, WA
May 25 Columbia River Maritime Museum Astoria, OR
May 31 Federal Complex Auditorium 911 NE 11th Ave. Portland, OR
June 6 National Marine Fisheries 2725 Montlake Blvd. Seattle, WA
Service, NW Fisheries Science E.
Center
June 6 Civic Center Ketchikan, AK
June 9 Centennial Building 333 Harbor Drive Sitka, AK
June 17 High School Theater 610 13th Street Columbia Falls, MT