HABITAT HOTLINE


JUNE 1995 NUMBER 19


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  FEDERAL                    

Clean Water Act Passes House Committee
Mining Reform
Magnuson Act Reauthorization to House Floor


II.  REGIONAL                  

NMFS Draft Recovery Plan


III.  CALIFORNIA               

Special Practice for Fish Screening Put Off to 1996


IV.  ALASKA                    

Tongass Report Released


V.  MISCELLANEOUS              

PSMFC's Pollution Prevention Program Reports Success
"Ways You Can Help" Brochure Available
Council Adopts Vital Habitat Concerns List
Trout Unlimited to Sponsor Watershed Weekend 
Salmon Video Available


VI.  UPDATES 

I. FEDERAL

CLEAN WATER ACT PASSES HOUSE

H.R. 961, a bill reauthorizing and weakening the Clean Water Act, passed the House of Representatives on May 16, 1995 by a vote of 240-185. West Coast Representatives voted as follows:

CALIFORNIA

YES Democrats: Condit, Dooley Republicans: Baker, Bilbray, Bono, Calvert, Cox, Cunningham, Doolittle, Dornan, Dreier, Gallegly, Herger, Horn, Hunter, Kim, Lewis, McKeon, Moorhead, Packard, Pombo, Radonovich, Riggs, Rohrabacher, Royce, Seastrand, Thomas.

NO Democrats: Becerra, Beilenson, Brown, Dellums, Dixon, Eshoo, Farr, Fazio, Filner, Harmon, Lantos, Lofgren, Martinez, Matsui, Miller, Mineta, Pelosi, Roybal-Allard, Stark, Torres, Tucker, Waxman

NOT VOTING Berman, Waters, Woolsey

IDAHO

YES Republicans: Chenowith, Crapo

OREGON

YES Republicans: Bunn, Cooley

NO Democrats: DeFazio, Furse, Wyden

WASHINGTON

YES Republicans: Dunn, Hastings, Metcalf, Nethercutt, Smith, Tate, White

NO Democrats: Dicks, McDermott

ALASKA

YES Republicans: Young

The bill was not significantly changed from what was passed out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, retaining its controversial sections on wetlands, stormwater management, and cost-benefit analysis (See Habitat Hotline #18). Changes to the bill on the House Floor included:

Coastal Zone Management Program: An amendment introduced by Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) passed by a vote of 224-199, removed language in H.R. 961 which repealed the Coastal Zone Management Program. Representative Boehlert's language was further amended to permit coastal states to either develop non-enforceable polluted runoff control programs under the Cleans Water Act's 319 non-point source program, or maintain their current non-point source programs under the Coastal Zone Management Program. Also, the EPA can require the states to develop a coastal zone management program if they find that the state 319 program is insufficient to protect water quality.

State Revolving Loan Fund: These federal funds, used to help states pay for construction of water treatment facilities and other water pollution control programs, were cut substantially on the floor. An amendment introduced by Representative Steve Largent (R-Okla.) cuts revolving loan funds by $200 million in each fiscal year from 1997 to 2000. This amendment completely eliminates the $500 million for states to use in developing their non-point source pollution programs.

Minimum Streamflows: A Supreme Court ruling (City of Tacoma v. the State of Washington Department of Ecology) of May 31, 1994 gives states the right to place conditions on water quality certificates issued pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This includes maintaining minimum instream flows to protect fisheries resources such as salmon and steelhead. State power to impose minimum instream flows is seen by conservationists as an important protection for fish. However, an amendment attached to H.R. 961 introduced by Representative Greg Laughlin (D-Texas), establishes a dispute resolution process for resolving differences between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the states with regard to state water quality certification of FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects. [Note: In a May 16 letter to the Congress, environmental and fisheries groups, including Trout Unlimited, Idaho Rivers United, Pacific Rivers Council, raised concerns that the Laughlin amendment language would "runs roughshod over the states' long-standing role in water quality protection," and "would establish FERC as advocate, judge, and jury in water quality certification disputes with states."]

The Senate will now take up the Clean Water Act debate. A Senate wetlands bill, S. 851, "The Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act" was introduced on May 25 by Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.). Senator Faircloth is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety. The Faircloth wetlands bill contains the same wetlands ranking system as contained in H.R. 961. However, it lacks H.R. 961's "takings" language -- where landowners are compensated for government actions that reduce the value of their property.

For Further Information: Kathy Nemsick, Clean Water Network, (202) 624-9357; Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited (703) 522-0200.

In related news: On May 9, 1995 the National Research Council released its much awaited study on wetlands classification. The study was the result of a 1993 request by Congress that the National Academy of Sciences provide, through a committee formed by the National Research Council, an assessment of the adequacy and validity of wetlands definitions, the basis for applying definitions through delineation manuals, present knowledge of the structure and function of wetlands, and regional variation among wetlands. The study concludes:

The federal regulatory system for protection of wetlands is scientifically sound and effective in most respects, but it can be more efficient, more uniform, more credible with regulated entities, and more accurate in a technical or scientific sense through constructive reforms of the type suggested in this report.

For a copy of the National Research Council's report, "Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries" call (202) 334-2000.

MINING REFORM

Legislation to reform the General Mining Law of 1872, S. 506, introduced by Senators Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is expected to be marked-up in the Senate Energy Committee soon after the Memorial Day recess. This important legislation will regulate private access to unreserved federal lands, mostly in the West, to prospect for and produce gold, silver, copper, zinc, and other "hard-rock" minerals.

Conservation interests have been arguing for years that the current law does not explicitly require mining lands to be restored after production is finished. According to the American Fisheries Society,

Thousands of miles of western waters have been, and continue to be, impacted by mining. Many streams where habitat and water quality were damaged by mining more than a century ago remain degraded. Discharges from mine adits [mine entrances] and releases of mine wastes from dams and tailing ponds associated with abandoned mines continue to cause large volumes of sediments, acids, and other toxic wastes to enter natural waters, killing fish, degrading habitat, and sometimes, threatening human health.

According to the Mineral Policy Center, 77 percent of the heavy metals (copper, zinc, and cadmium) in the Sacramento Valley's rivers and streams come from inactive mines.

S. 506 is backed by the mining industry and contains provisions for a three percent royalty on profits from mining, and directs one-third of the royalty receipts to states for abandoned mine cleanup. It does not contain specific federal mine reclamation standards.

S. 506 is opposed by environmental groups including the Mineral Policy Center and National Wildlife Federation. According to Cathy Carlson of the National Wildlife Federation:

H.R. 506 provides no meaningful environmental standards. There is nothing to improve upon the current weaknesses of existing state regulatory programs that are either weak on the environment or not enforced. The inspection and enforcement provisions are meaningless, and do not have to be followed by states under a cooperative agreement anyway. The mining companies can continue to patent the land. The royalty provision will amount to no more than a trickle, if that, to the federal treasury or an abandoned mine land program.

Environmental groups are backing S. 504, introduced by Senator Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), which sets a minimum eight percent royalty, establishes an Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund, and has detailed reclamation standards. It appears, however, that S. 504 will not be considered by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Now What: Negotiations are under way between Senators J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), Murkowski, and Craig to work out a compromise that is agreeable to the majority of the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee. These negotiations may result in some meaningful environmental provisions being added to the bill, such as post mining land reclamation activities and increased protection of water quality.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: The Committee could vote on S. 506 as soon as June 14. West Coast Senators on the Energy and Natural Resource Committee are: Frank H. Murkowski (R-Alaska, Chair), and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), and Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.). Whether S. 506 is passed out of committee may in part depend on how Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) votes. He, in addition to Senators James Jeffords (R-Vt.) and J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) have been reportedly unwilling to back S. 506 unless changes are made.

To Write a Senator: The Honorable_______, U.S. Senate, Washington D.C. 20510

To Contact Your Congressperson by phone call (202) 224-3121.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Mineral Policy Center at (202) 887-1872; Cathy Carlson, National Wildlife Federation (202) 797-6861.

MAGNUSON ACT REAUTHORIZATION TO HOUSE FLOOR

The reauthorization the Magnuson Fishery Management and Conservation Act, which regulates fishing in U.S. waters, continues. On May 10, the House Resources Committee passed H.R. 39 (introduced by Representative Don Young {R-Alaska}).

While bycatch (incidental take of non-target species), Individual Transferable Quotas, and overfishing have received much of the attention in the reauthorization process, both fishing and environmental groups have called for stronger habitat language in the Act, citing the importance of habitat protection to the health of the fishing industry.

Exisiting Habitat Authority: Though the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has an active habitat committee that tracks habitat issues (see page 11) and comments on land use issues. Current law gives the Council no habitat related regulatory authority. That is, they have little ability to halt activities that threaten fish habitat.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has some regulatory authority to protect fish habitat (usually associated with endangered species). More fish habitat regulatory authority lies with those agencies that manage the land and water such as the U.S. Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and state environmental quality commissions and departments. This fact has been frustrating to many in the salmon fishing industry, who have seen the Council restrict their fishing seasons, while being unable to protect the habitat upon which salmon (and other fishery resources) depend.

Habitat Language in H.R. 39:

1) The role that the regional Fishery Management Councils play in habitat issues will be expanded slightly under H.R. 39:

2) The Secretary of Commerce (SOC), through the National Marine Fisheries Service, also becomes somewhat more involved in habitat issues:

The Senate, reauthorization bill, S. 39, introduced by Senators Frank Murkowski {R-Alaska}, Ted Stevens {R-Alaska} and John Kerry ({D-Mass.} is in the process of field hearings. Committee action on the bill is not expected until later this summer.

II. REGIONAL

NMFS 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). A final recovery plan is due out in early 1996.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Remaining public hearings on the draft recovery plan are as follows:

June 6 National Marine Fisheries Service, NW Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E., Seattle, WA

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

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

525 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.

III. CALIFORNIA

SPECIAL PRACTICE FOR FISH SCREENING PUT OFF TO 1996

In California's Central Valley alone, there are an estimated 800 unscreened diversions within the Sacramento River System, with at least 300 unscreened diversions along the mainstem alone. The National Marine Fisheries Service has estimated the annual loss of anadromous fry in the Sacramento at approximately 10 million fish. The good news is that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has significant funding under The Central Valley Project Improvement Act for the installation of fish screens. Understandably, the Bureau has chosen to target the larger diversions along the mainstem and tributaries for screening financial assistance. But this means that smaller (less than 25 cfs) diverters will not likely receive assistance under this program within the near future.

One solution to the lack of funding for the small diversion screening problem may lie in a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). The ACP is administered by the Consolidated Farm Services Agency (CFSA), an arm of USDA.

According to ???? John M. Lowrie, California Salmon Coordinator of the Natural Resources Conservation Service "ACP is available to agricultural producers to help cover part of the cost to install on-farm erosion and sediment control practices, water conservation measures, fish and wildlife enhancement practices, as well as other natural resource conservation measures."

The primary purpose for the small diversion screening program will be to protect Federally listed endangered species, in particular the Sacramento River winter run chinook. A secondary purpose would be to protect other potentially listed species, i.e., Sacramento River spring run chinook.

Before the ACP moneys can be used for fish screening though, this use must first be approved by the county committees of Consolidated Farm Service and the State Review Group, and finally by the National Review Group of the USDA in Washington D.C. For this year, several county committees of the CFSA in the Central Valley (Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Butte, Sutter, Yolo and Shasta) as well as the State Conservation Review Group of the CFSA approved ACP funding for fish screen installation. Unfortunately, it appears that the National Review Group has decided not to fund the $250,000 fish screening request.

For 1996, it appears the ACP screening program has a good chance of being funded. This is in part because the National Review Group is being eliminated and the State Review Group will now make the final determination on whether to approve ACP projects. And, according to sources in the CFSA, because of support from the agricultural and fishing communities, the screening program has a very good chance of getting funded -- albeit at a reduced level. (With budget cutting mania gripping the Congress, it's a safe bet that less money will be available in FY 1996 for the ACP.) According to Forrest Reynolds of the California Department of Fish and Game, it appears that California will also have some matching money available for the project in FY 1996.

For Further Information Contact: John Lowrie, Natural Resources Conservation Service at (916) 757-8301, Forrest Reynolds of the California Department of Fish and Game at (916) 653-4729.

IV. ALASKA

TONGASS REPORT RELEASED

The management of Alaska's 17 million acre Tongass National Forest is a hot topic again. In April 1995, the U.S. Forest Service submitted its report to Congress concerning salmon and steelhead habitat protection on the Tongass National Forest. The report was a result of an amendment to the 1993 Federal appropriations legislation exempting implementation of PACFISH regulations (see Habitat Hotline #18) on the Tongass National Forest. However, the amendment also mandated that a study be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of current procedures for protecting fish habitat and if any additional fish habitat protection is needed.

At that time, opponents of implementing PACFISH regulations in the Tongass argued that there was currently enough protection for fisheries resources. In 1993, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), stated, "Alaska is not Washington State. We have gone to great lengths to preserve fish habitats in the Tongass this year. Our stocks are increasing, not decreasing."

Current buffers provided by Alaska's Forest Practice regulations (see Habitat Hotline #18), are 66 feet on private lands, and 100 feet on state lands (south of the Alaska Range). For federal lands, the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) mandated riparian buffer requirements of 100 feet on fish bearing streams.

Despite these buffers, the "Report To Congress -- Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment" by the U.S. Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research Station, Alaska Region, raises a number of concerns about fish habitat protection. The document also reports on some successes:

Current procedures and their application have improved the way fish habitats on the Tongass are managed, compared to past protective procedures. Protection of streams and riparian zones has improved rapidly [i.e. active protection of class I (salmon and steelhead) and class II (resident fish) streams post-Tongass Timber Reform Act] since the late 1980's and has continued to improve since passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act.

Concerns raised by the report include:

The cumulative information resulting from the literature review, the expert field review, the three watershed analyses, peer review, and other sources provides a consistent message that current procedures and their implementation on the Tongass National Forest to protect fish habitat are not fully effective to prevent habitat degradation or fully protect salmon and steelhead stocks over the long term. The largest deficiencies in current procedures are related to protecting headwater streams and their watersheds (class III streams, unclassified intermittent and ephemeral streams, and unstable soils), which to a large degree determine the productivity of downstream fish habitats. The results of these studies, and other information, provide an early diagnosis of symptoms indicating that fish habitat is in decline in some areas as a result of logging, and that longer term application of current procedures could lead to stock declines.

The report also makes numerous recommendations for the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP), currently undergoing a revision -- a draft of which is expected to be released in the fall of 1995, and finalized in the fall of 1996:

Current direction for anadromous fish habitat protection on the Tongass National Forest is less than fully effective, and additional protection is needed to make timber harvest more compatible with maintaining high-quality fish habitat and long-term conservation of anadromous fish stocks. The highest risks to fish habitat productivity and viability are in watersheds already intensively logged. The strength of the concern resulting from these findings warrants improving fish habitat protection efforts under current procedures prior to completion of the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision.

Specific improvements recommended for examination in the TLMP revision include:

Now What: According to the U.S. Forest Service's Alaska Region, "The report does not set new Forest Service policy. It makes no change in acres available for timber harvest on the Tongass." The earliest opportunity to implement the report's recommendations to increase fish habitat protection probably won't occur until The Tongass Land Management Plan undergoes its revision.

Changes to the Tongass Land Management Plan to increase fish habitat protection could be difficult, however. Senator Stevens said this about the report, "The PACFISH policy would have virtually ended logging in the Tongass. I applaud this report to the extent it validates the fact that PACFISH isn't necessary in the Tongass."

On the other side of the issue are environmental groups and fishing interests. According to Bart Koehler of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, "This is an important step in the right direction, we look forward to swift adoption of the report's recommendations. Protecting Tongass fish habitat is critical to the long-term future of the commercial fishing industry, a vital component of the Southeast Alaska economy. If we want to promote the long term sustainability of this region, we absolutely have to protect our salmon and our salmon fishermen."

For Further Information about the report: Tavia Hollenkamp, USFS - Alaska Region, at (907) 586-8806; Southeast Alaska Conservation Council at (907) 586-6942.

In related news, the Rescission Bill H.R. 1158, has language which would in effect nullify a March 1995 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision halting numerous timber sales on the Tongass. As we go to press, it appears that the rescission bill will be vetoed by President Clinton. Senator Ted Stevens introduced the amendment language "to keep hundreds of people working in Southeast Alaska." The lawsuit was filed by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (representing the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association, the Organized Village of Kake, and the Wilderness Society). The environmental, tourism and tribal government coalition charged that the U.S. Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act in the Tongass when it gave out timber contracts. The suit contends that the forest service should have considered protection of multiple uses of the areas slated for timber harvest for hunting, fishing, tourism, recreational, and subsistence purposes. A final ruling in the case is expected in September, 1995.

In still other news, on May 18, 1995 the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the timber contracts in the Tongass. Senator Frank Murkowski, Chair of that Committee, may be interested in rewriting the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act.

V. MISCELLANEOUS

PSMFC'S POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM REPORTS SUCCESS

There are hundreds of publicly and privately owned fishing ports and marinas on the Northwest coast and in the Puget Sound, as well as many thousands of commercial fishing vessels, charter boats, and recreational fishing boats in the region.

Because marinas are located in estuaries, the nursery habitat of many important fish and shellfish species, it is imperative that attention be paid by vessel operators to control contaminant input. Oil-based contaminants are of special concern as these products float and concentrate in the water surface "microlayer," where the eggs and young of many fish and shellfish develop or feed. These early life stages are sensitive to even extremely low levels of hydrocarbon pollutant -- in the range of 0.1 - 1.0 parts per million.

To help fishermen and boaters to address their contribution to water pollution, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) conducted a fishing industry pollution prevention project. The project worked with the region's sport and commercial fishermen and their marinas. The project involved research into the impacts of small petroleum discharges in marina areas, testing and using spill prevention devices, and education about best management practices. Financial support for the project was provided by the Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Research Center and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Pollution may result from the following vessel-related operations garbage handling, marine toilet discharges, outboard engine operation, fueling and oil changing, bilge pumping, and vessel maintenance (e.g. paint and varnish removal & application, use of cleaners, solvents, antifreeze).

PROGRAM METHODOLOGY: The program distributed simple but effective petroleum spill control devices to ports and fishermen:

The education element of this program was designed to increase fishermen's awareness of how pollution from vessel operations could harm fish and their habitats and to encourage fishermen about ways to eliminate pollution during vessel operations. Best management practices for marinas where also promoted and the use of spill cloths or tarps, brooms, and power sanders with vacuum attachments during painting and sanding operations, and wiping up rather than washing off cleaning products from the deck. Other practices that were encouraged included: providing oil recycling facilities with adequate containment safeguards in case of spills, recycling used antifreeze, filtering and re-using solvents, and eliminating or minimizing use of toxic materials for cleaning and maintenance.

Spill Reporting: The education program also emphasized spill reporting, both as a means to help ports and fishermen meet regulatory requirements if they spilled and to help increase the awareness and concern necessary to help curtail spills, realizing that if a spill occurred it was likely to be reported. PSMFC worked with federal and state agencies and trade groups in the region to establish a uniform and easy to remember state spill reporting number 1-800-OILS-911 and launch a "Spills Aren't Slick" promotional campaign.

RESULTS: Marina operators were surveyed regarding their observations about the frequency of oil spills and other pollution problems. Surveys were conducted in October 1992 and again in November 1994. The survey results indicate that fewer fueling spills are being noticed, that there is more demand from their users for bilge water pumping facilities, increased awareness of sewage impacts, and increased use of educational materials at the ports.

NOW WHAT: Because of the positive response by fishermen and their ports to this project's educational outreach efforts, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission has decided to keep pollution prevention education an on-going and important part of its habitat education program and has helped the Great Lakes and Atlantic States Fisheries Commissions initiate similar pollution prevention programs.

A full report of the project is available from the Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Research Center, 1326 5th Ave, Suite 650, Seattle, WA 98101. For further information on vessel or port, best management practices spill prevention and reporting contact: Fran Recht, PSMFC, P.O. Box 221, Depoe Bay, Depoe Bay, OR 97341. (503) 765-2229.

"WAYS YOU CAN HELP" BROCHURE AVAILABLE

PSMFC's is often asked for easy to read salmon conservation materials that can be handed out to the general public as well as fishermen. "Twenty Easy Ways You Can Help Restore Salmon to the Northwest" is a brochure series which lists steps that citizens can take to help restore salmon to the Pacific Northwest. There are three 14 brochures in all: "While Visiting Our Area" "From Your Own home," and "In Your Spare Time."

These brochures were developed by Native Salmon Forever (a salmon conservation private business started by Guy Faust), in cooperation with the PSMFC's F.I.S.H. Habitat Education Program, has produced the brochures. Native Salmon Forever has a catalogue of salmon art and other products available. Catalogues cost one dollar, and a percentage of all proceeds from items sold go to watershed group restoration efforts. For a copy of the catalogue contact: Native Salmon Forever, Box 1568, Newport, OR 97365. For a copy of the brochure contact PSMFC, 45 SE 82nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522. Phone: (503) 650-5400, Fax: (503) 650-5426.

COUNCIL ADOPTS VITAL HABITAT CONCERNS LIST

The Pacific Fishery Management Council's strategy for dealing with long-standing fishery habitat issues includes the development of an annual list of the most damaging actions to fishery habitat in the Pacific coast region. Following through on that strategy, at its April meeting, the PFMC adopted the "Vital Habitat Concerns List". This report, prepared by the PFMC Habitat Committee, is an assessment of the most critical habitat issues affecting West Coast marine fish resources. This document emphasizes anadromous salmonid habitat because numerous stocks of salmon and steelhead are at record low levels. Loss of habitat has been identified as one of the main reasons for the salmon's decline.

Information is presented on instream flows, screening of water diversions, timber harvest and road building, mining, grazing, hydroelectric development, agriculture, urban growth and land conversion. The importance of nearshore coastal wetlands and the threats posed to aquatic resources by contaminants, polluted runoff, combined sewer overflows and stormwater runoff are also discussed. In the offshore marine environment section, oil and gas exploration, dredge spoil disposal, and ocean mining are briefly examined.

For a copy of the "Vital Habitat Concerns List", contact Dr. John Coon at the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 S.W. Fifth Ave, Suite 224 Portland, Oregon 97201; (503) 326-6352.

TROUT UNLIMITED TO SPONSOR WATERSHED WEEKEND

On July 15 & 16, Trout Unlimited will be sponsoring a watershed volunteer work weekend in cooperation with the Malheur National Forest. The project will be to close and obliterate roads in the Middle Fork John Day River Basin, which is home to spring Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. Logging slash will be spread to prevent motorized access to the roads. If you reserve a spot before July 1, food will be supplied. This is a family event and kids can help with spreading grass seed. Help is also needed in the camp kitchen. For more information or to volunteer, contact Tom Wolf, Trout Unlimited, 22875 NW Chestnut, Hillsboro, OR 97124, (503) 640-2123.

SALMON VIDEO AVAILABLE

Oregon Sea Grant recently released an excellent new videotape on watershed groups and restoration in the region. The video is entitled, "The Return of the Salmon -- Restoring the fish to rivers and watersheds." To obtain a copy of this 30 minute video, send a check for $30 to: OSU, Sea Grant Communications, Administrative Services, A402, Corvallis, OR 97331-2134.

VI. UPDATES

In February, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, on behalf of ALASKA Clean Water Alliance, United Fishermen of Alaska and the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association, filed a petition asking the Alaska Governor Tony Knowles to suspend or repeal the anti-clean water provisions to THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (WQS). Concerns the groups have with the standards, which were implemented under the former administration of Governor Walter Hickle, include: (1) allowing conversion of naturally existing State waters into treatment facilities toxic waste, (2) removing regulation for some petroleum hydrocarbons, (3) removing "total suspended solids" from the definition of sediment, (4) adopting the weakest possible cancer risk protection allowable under Federal law, and (5) permitting the ADEC to grant mixing zones for carcinogens.

Governor Knowles will decide by MID-JUNE whether to support or deny all or part of the petition to repeal the WQS. For Further Information Contact: call Alaska Clean Water Alliance at (907) 766-2296.

Please note the following corrections to Habitat Hotline # 18:

1) Page 9: Forest Practice Riparian Regulations --

Oregon:

a) "Type F", "Large fish bearing" streams should read "> 10 cfs avg. annual flow" (not < 10 cfs)

b) "Type F", "Medium fish bearing" streams should read "2 - 10 cfs average annual flow" (not 2<10)

Footnotes: [5] "When determined necessary at least 25 trees > 6" dbh within 25' of the stream" (not 6' dbh)

2) Page 12: The correct address to submit comments on the National Marine Fisheries Service's Draft Recovery Plan For Snake River Salmon is: Rob Jones, Recovery Plan Coordinator, 525 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 500, Portland Oregon, 97232.

We apologize for any inconveniences caused by these errors.

__________

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