HABITAT
HOTLINE HABITAT
HOTLINE NUMBER 20 AUGUST 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FEDERAL Senate Debates Wetlands Bill Budget Cutting Threatens Habitat Provisions Grazing Bills on Fast Track II. REGIONAL Tribal Salmon Recovery Plan --NMFS Extends Deadline III. CALIFORNIA Coho -- Forest Practice Concerns CVPIA Threatened IV. OREGON Umatilla Water Resolution V. IDAHO New Forest Practices to be Considered VI. MISCELLANEOUS Dioxin Reassessment Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Field School State of Coasts Report Released EPA Wetland Hotline Sea-Run Cutthroat Symposium CSE Publications Available VII. UPDATES
I. FEDERAL
S. 851, the "Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act of 1995," was introduced on May 25, 1995 by Senators J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) and Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.). This bill is very similar to the wetlands section of H.R. 961, the House of Representatives' Clean Water Act reauthorization bill passed in May (See Habitat Hotline #'s 18 and 19). Both H.R. 961 and S. 851 overhaul the wetlands protection provisions (the Section 404 Program) of the Clean Water Act. Some elements of S. 851:
Wetlands Definition: Language defines a wetland as requiring 21 consecutive days of water on or above the land surface during the growing season (part of the wetland definition under current law requires 14 days per year of water saturation on or above the surface).
Wetlands Categorization: The bill also contains a wetlands ranking system, in which wetlands are broken down into three Classes: "A", "B", and "C". "A" wetlands are those of "critical significance to the long-term conservation of the aquatic system"; "B" wetlands provide "habitat for a significant population of wetland dependent wildlife or provides other significant wetland functions;" and "C" wetlands which "serves marginal wetland functions but exists in such abundance that regulation of activity in the wetland is not necessary to conserve important wetland functions."
Permitting: Under this ranking system, Class "A" wetlands would receive the most protection. However, these wetlands could be developed after the applicant has "minimized such adverse impacts as cannot be avoided" and replaced, through mitigation, on a "one to one basis any loss of wetlands functions that cannot be avoided or minimized." For Class "B" wetlands, permit issuance will be based in part on the "foreseeable benefits (i.e. economic growth, food production) and detriments (i.e. wetland dependent wildlife, water quality) resulting from the issuance of the permit." For Class "C" wetlands, "No permit...shall be required."
Substantial Conserved Wetlands: For states with "substantial conserved wetlands," such as Alaska, permit applicants "may not be required to establish that no upland alternative site exists." In other words, degradation or alteration of a wetland could occur even if it could have been avoided. Also, this exemption would "not require the replacement of wetlands functions that cannot be avoided or minimized." This removes the current law's requirement that there be mitigation for wetlands that are degraded or altered.
General Permits: The Corps of Engineers "may issue a general permit on a state, regional, or nationwide basis for any activities in the waters of the United States for which a permit would otherwise be required..." if the Corps of Engineers "determines that the activities will only cause minimal or temporary adverse environmental impacts when performed separately, and will cause only minimal cumulative adverse environmental impacts."
Alaska Native Lands Exemption: "A general permit will be issued on land owned by Alaska Native villages for certain activities for critical infrastructure (including a water or sewer system, airport, road, communication site, fuel storage site, landfill, housing facility, hospital, medical clinic, school, or other community infrastructure in a rural Alaska Native village)..."
EPA Authority Removed: H.R. 851 removes the EPA's veto authority over permitting decisions by the Corps of Engineers or by state agencies operating under federally approved programs. The Corps would need only consult the EPA regarding the issuance of a 404 permit.
REACTION TO THE BILL: Supporters of the bill had this to say:
Senator J. Bennett Johnston said that this legislation was designed in the "spirit of compromise" and that it would bring "balance, common sense and reason" to current wetlands policy. Senator Johnston has also said that his bill does not provide a compensation mechanism for private property owners. According to the Senator, "compensation is an extraordinarily complex and controversial issue that applies to all environmental regulations, not just wetlands. So rather than attempt to resolve the compensation issue, we chose to include provisions in the bill that ensure that the Section 404 Program does not result in the 'taking' of private property in the first place."
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said, "This bill is bi-partisan recognition that the current federal wetlands regulations need a complete overhaul. Our legislation would change the wetlands regulatory program where it is inconsistent with Alaska's wetlands circumstances. Alaskans who have dealt with the wetlands program have helped draft these proposals."
Environmental and fishing groups and others have reacted negatively to the bill, saying that S. 851 would result in the destruction of thousands of acres of wetlands:
Trout Unlimited: "S. 851 drastically reduces Section 404 protection for rivers, lakes, and bays by exposing them to increased likelihood of being filled in for the purposes of dam construction and water diversion, activities that may have catastrophic consequences for fish populations and sport and commercial fisheries. The Section 404(b)(1) guidelines...contain a presumption against building a dam, or project, in any water of the United States, including wetlands. S. 851 would eliminate the presumption against filling in wetlands and other waters and scrap the practicable alternatives test. To substitute, S. 851 establishes a 'public interest review' test that would be biased strongly in favor of developers, since it would balance the financial 'benefits' of development against the less easily quantified -- but not less valuable -- benefits of protecting fisheries and clean, free flowing rivers."
Izaak Walton League: "S. 851 weakens the federal wetlands program. First, it imposes an unrealistic deadline for permit review that will ensure the process is little more than a rubber stamp. It contains a biased administrative appeals process that will cut concerned citizens out of the process. It allows a landowner to request a delineation even if the landowner has not submitted a permit, which will gobble up scarce resources from federal agencies' shrinking budgets."
National Wildlife Federation: "After first eliminating most wetlands from federal protection, S. 851 then goes on to the wholesale destruction of wetlands by weakening current law because it: 1) Establishes an unscientific and enormously costly classification scheme to divide wetlands into high, medium, and low value wetlands -- only high value wetlands would receive significant protection; 2) Exempts all wetlands that are a 1/2 acre or less, regardless of their value to wildlife, flood control, or water purification; 3) Gives a free hand to a variety of industries that impact wetlands such as concentrated animal feeding operations (pig farms), mining, industry, forestry, and oil and gas operations; and 4) Weakens federally linked state wetlands programs by requiring that states place the demands of any one property owner who wants to destroy wetlands above other goals such as controlling flooding, purifying water, and protecting critical wildlife habitat."
Ken Bierly, Wetlands Program Team Leader, Division of State Lands, State of Oregon: "S. 851 is deregulation by meat-ax. The bill totally ignores the National Academy of Science's findings. There is no basis in science for the bill's delineation criteria and wetlands classification scheme."
NOW WHAT: On July 19, a hearing was held on S. 851 in the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety. Glenn Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations testified at that hearing. Said Spain at the hearing:
We are a wetlands dependent industry. An estimated seventy-one (71%) percent of this nation's entire fish and shellfish resource are wetlands dependent. These resources generate approximately $111 billion/year to our nation's economy. To this nation's oldest industry -- the commercial fishing industry -- the protection and restoration of wetlands, therefore, is about protecting our jobs. It's about food production and food on America's tables. It's about coastal economies and coastal employment. And finally, it's about commerce and exports.
As we go to press, a committee vote on the bill has not been scheduled. Another subcommittee hearing is scheduled for August 2. It is unclear if a Senate passed S. 851, in addition to the wetlands sections of H.R. 961, would go to a conference committee for final resolution. Also, it is possible that S. 851 language will be attached to another bill, possibly a Senate appropriations bill.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: The importance of clean water, uncontaminated sediments and healthy abundant wetlands to the fishing industry cannot be overstated. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates, by value, 70, 40, and 76 percent of Northwest, California and Alaska commercially landed fish species, respectively, are inshore-dependent. While salmon is an important fish for both the recreational and commercial fishing industries, other species such as sturgeon, lingcod, shad, striped bass, oysters, clams, and Dungeness crabs also spend part or all of their life in estuaries, and associated wetlands. Protecting their habitat, then, is an important economic consideration.
If you have not been active in expressing your views on fish habitat issues, it's time to get involved.
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; and the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
For Further Information: Kathy Nemsick, Clean Water Network at (202) 624-9357; Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited at (703) 522-0200, Hedrick Belin of the Izaak Walton League at (301) 548-0150.
IN RELATED NEWS: A recently released study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service estimates the portion of wetlands in each state which would be removed from protection under S. 851's wetlands classification and permitting system. According to the study, about 60-75 percent of wetlands nationwide would lose Clean Water Act protection. The percentage of wetlands which would be removed from protection in Western states are as follows:
Alaska 75 Percent
California 80 Percent
Idaho 80+ Percent
Oregon 74 Percent
Washington 80+ Percent
IN OTHER NEWS: On July 28, by a vote of 212-206, amendment language to the the EPA appropriations bill for FY 1996 was defeated. The language would have placed numerous restrictions on the implementation of the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts -- including denying funds for EPA to implement or enforce the stormwater permitting program, combined sewer overflow, and wetlands protection programs. The bill still contains language reducing the EPA's budget by one-third. Also, the Superfund program budget was cut by 34 percent and, unless the Superfund law is reauthorized by December 31, 1995, no new cleanup sites could be added to the Superfund National Priorities List. Superfund provides money for cleanup of hazardous waste sites and seeks to recover cleanup costs from those responsible for the pollution.
*****AS WE GO TO PRESS, the House may vote again as soon as July 31 to restore language restricting Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act implementation.
IN RELATED NEWS: On July 12, 1995 the Clinton Administration announced that it will propose to streamline the wetlands permitting process (under the Clean Water Act), and homeowner land-use restrictions (under the Endangered Species Act). Under the proposed changes, small property owners of less than 5 acres would be exempt from ESA regulations which restrict habitat disturbance. Changes to the Clean Water Act 404 Program will allow homeowners to "disturb or fill" up to one-half acre of non tidal wetland for uses such as home construction.
BUDGET CUTTING THREATENS HABITAT PROVISIONS
On July 18, the House of Representatives passed its Interior Appropriations bill for FY 1996 by a vote of 244 - 181. Funding was cut for numerous fish habitat measures. Below are listed some of those cuts for the House of Representatives and current status in the Senate:
1) San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan Study: Money to study restoration of a salmon fishery and other habitat along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam was deleted from the 1996 House federal budget. A $1 million allocation for this study, which was part of salmon restoration efforts, was called for in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992. However the House Committee report in the FY 1996 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill directs the Secretary of the Interior not to fund the study during FY 1996. Funding for the study is now in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
2) Endangered Species: In the House budget, funding for listing and prelisting activities under the Endangered Species Act is effectively zeroed out in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Budget for the coming fiscal year. (The National Marine Fisheries Service has also lost significant funding for ESA implementation in their budget.) If this becomes law, the current moratorium on listing new species would last another year. Current language in the Senate appropriations bill contains no new money for listing of species and cuts funding for ESA recovery plans. A Senate floor vote is expected by August 11.
3) PACFISH and Eastside Strategy: funding has been halted on three important salmon and steelhead habitat protection measures: PACFISH, the Upper Columbia Basin Assessment -- also known as the Eastside Strategy, and INFISH. Implemented in eastern Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and portions of California in March of 1995, PACFISH restricts logging, roadbuilding, and cattle grazing activity in areas outside the range of the spotted owl on U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands (See Habitat Hotline #18).
The Eastside Strategy is a result of a 1993 Presidential directive to develop a scientifically sound ecosystem based strategy for management of Eastside forests. Another casualty of the Appropriations bill is INFISH. INFISH was to be implemented this summer, and contains habitat protection measures for bull trout and the native fish in the upper Columbia River Basin in Oregon, Northern Idaho, and Montana.
FISHING GROUPS RESPOND: In a July 12, 1995 letter to Congress, a coalition of recreational and commercial fishing groups called on Congress to restore funding to PACFISH, the Eastside Strategy, and INFISH. Below is an excerpt from that letter:
These programs are vitally important to maintaining the fishing industry throughout the entire western U.S. Full funding for these programs should be restored!!
The PACFISH program, for instance, is the only thing standing between many salmon and steelhead runs and further extinction. Salmon are already extinct in almost half of their historic range in the Northwest. As a result, the salmon fishing industry has lost an estimated 72,000 family wage jobs in the Northwest over the last 20 years. A major factor in salmon declines is the long-term loss of key spawning and rearing habitat. The PACFISH program is intended to halt these declines and to proactively prevent more salmon species from going on the ESA in the future.
Scientists have now identified more than 214 distinct Northwest salmon and steelhead runs which they deem "at risk of extinction" or "of special concern." Thus it makes both biological and economic sense to prevent these commercially valuable (and irreplaceable) salmon and steelhead runs from further depletion. This will also altogether avoid the need for their ESA protection at a later date. This is precisely the goal of the PACFISH program. Restoring this program will help recapture many of these 72,000 lost family wage salmon jobs -- thus benefiting the entire region's economy. On the other hand, eliminating PACFISH would only continue declines leading to job losses in the community.
Groups that signed onto the letter were: The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Trout Unlimited, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Salmon for All, Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited, Columbia Pacific Anglers, Oregon Trout, California Trout, Inc., Oregon Guides & Packers, Federation of Fly Fishers, Westport Charter Boat Association, The Salmonid Restoration Federation, and Fishermen Involved in Saving Habitat (F.I.S.H.).
NOW WHAT: The Senate Interior appropriations bill is expected to go to floor the first week of August. Language in the Senate bill would also compromise the PACFISH program. According to David Bayles of the Pacific Rivers Council, "Senate action in Interior appropriations makes sound salmon protection optional by leaving riparian management decisions up to each forest supervisor."
WHAT YOU CAN DO: 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, and the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.
Congress is legislatively seeking to alter the course of the Clinton Administration's (led by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt) Rangeland Reform regulations (See Habitat Hotline # 15). The reforms are set to be implemented August 21, 1995. The bills are S. 852, "The Livestock Grazing Act", introduced by Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), and H.R. 1713 introduced by Representative Wes Cooley (R-Ore.). This legislation applies to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Lands and would undo the Rangeland Reform package, and some of its measures to protect the environment from grazing impacts. The legislation is supported by the livestock industry, who say Rangeland Reform goes too far in restricting cattle grazing on public lands.
In a July 20 resolution, The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies was critical of the legislation and said S. 852 and H.R. 1713 would have the following effects:
REACTION: According to Bureau of Land Management Director Mike Dombeck, this legislation "protects bad stewards" and is a "major step backwards."
R. Max Peterson of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, in Washington D.C. said, "Unfortunately we believe S. 852 will impede rather than advance...efforts...[to maintain, restore and improve the condition of public rangelands]...by apparently giving grazing permittees inappropriate priority over all other users and uses on public land, as well as giving permittees the primary voice in future management of lands."
Former Idaho Governor and Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus said, in a July 27 article in The Oregonian newspaper, "[T]he measure doesn't deserve to be passed. There is no place in the country for sweetheart legislation that blatantly disregards the public interest in favor of a private few."
NOW WHAT: S. 852 recently passed out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is expected to go to the Senate Floor in the near future. On July 11, the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands, held a hearing on H.R. 1713. It is expected to be voted on either August 3 or 4.
***** AS WE GO TO PRESS: It appears that these two bills will not be passed in time to halt the implementation of Rangeland Reform -- set for August 21. However, there is a chance that an amendment will be attached to the Senate Appropriations bill to halt Rangeland Reform from taking effect.
IN RELATED NEWS, on July 27, 1995 ranchers (including the National Cattlemen's Association) sued the government over the soon to be implemented Rangeland Reform rules. The ranchers say Rangeland Reform could force up to 60 percent of those holding federal grazing permits off public land; would allow environmental or recreational organizations to rent public land to keep it free of livestock; and will dissuade ranchers from making improvements to public land, such as developing water sources for livestock.
II. REGIONAL
TRIBAL SALMON RECOVERY PLAN --NMFS EXTENDS DEADLINE
On June 15, 1995 the members of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (the Warm Springs, Nez Pierce, Umatilla, and Yakama tribes) released their Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan. The official title of the draft is "Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa-Kish-Wit, Spirit of the Salmon. Some habitat highlights of the Plan can be found on page 7. There are now three recovery plan archetypes: the recently released tribal plan, the Northwest Power Planning Council's (NPPC) "Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program" (See Habitat Hotline #15), and the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) "Proposed Recovery Plan For Snake River Salmon" (See Habitat Hotline #18). [Note: In addition, environmental and fisheries groups, as well as industrial river users (the Direct Service Industries) have Snake River salmon recovery plans.]
Comments on the draft tribal restoration plan are due by August 20. A final plan is due out by September 15, 1995.
IN OTHER NEWS: The comment period on the National Marine Fisheries Service's draft "Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan" has been extended. ****As we go to press, the new comment deadline has not been set. However, it appears that it may extended to mid-November, 1995. The reason for the extension is to accommodate people who need more time to comment on the document. To date, about 2,000 comments have been received.
Also, NMFS received numerous requests to generate economic estimates on salmon recovery costs. To answer those requests, NMFS will provide information on direct agency costs for salmon recovery. This information is expected in early October. Also, the University of Washington is conducting a more extensive economic analysis of the costs of salmon recovery.
COURTS: On July 11, 1995 environmental and fish groups (including Idaho Rivers United, American Rivers, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Trout Unlimited, Idaho Salmon and Steelhead Unlimited, the Washington Trollers Association, Federation of Flyfishers, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations) submitted a 60 day notice of intent to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service over the inadequacy of its 1995-1998 biological opinion on the Columbia River hydro-operations. This possible new litigation was brought forth because on June 1, 1995, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the landmark IDFG versus NMFS court case over the 1993 biological opinion (the "Marsh Decision") had become moot. (The 1993 biological opinion has elapsed and has been replaced by the new 1994-1998 opinion.)
The possible suit, which was filed on behalf of the environmental and fishing groups by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, is over the 1994-1998 biological opinion. The groups charge that, once again, the Army Corps of Engineers ignored state and tribal biological advice and, is not enough to protect endangered chinook and sockeye salmon.
The groups are upset because of this year's inadequate conditions for in-river juvenile salmon migration. In 1995, state and tribal biologists wanted to see more fish being left in the river and spilled over the dams instead of barged and put though the turbines. This year, it was hoped that 50 percent of the fish would be spilled, and the other half trucked and barged. However, the goal of spilling 50% of the juvenile salmonids fell well short.
The Corps of Engineers, which operates the Snake River dams, said that unusually high flow conditions caused it to miss the spill objective.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: The deadline for comments on the NMFS "Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon" has not been finalized -- though mid-November has been mentioned as a deadline possibility. Comments 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 NMFS Proposed Recovery Plan, Contact: Rob Jones, National Marine Fisheries Service, at the above address, or call (503) 230-5429.
For A Copy of the Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes, Contact: the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission at (503) 238-0667.
For Further Information Contact: Rob Jones, National Marine Fisheries Service at the above number; Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission at the above number; Save Our Wild Salmon at (206) 622-2904.
III. CALIFORNIA
COHO -- FOREST PRACTICE CONCERNS
On July 19, 1995 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced that it will propose to list as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, three coastal wild coho salmon population segments from Monterey Bay, California, north to the Columbia River. Two population segments of Washington State coho will be regarded as candidate species for a threatened listing, and will receive continued monitoring. NMFS now has one year to collect information before making a final decision. California wild coho salmon are of particular concern, with some estimates of remaining adult wild fish numbering in only the thousands for the entire state. Habitat protection for these dwindling numbers of coho, then, must be a priority if they are to recover to fishable levels.
Because of the coho's plight, recent questions raised about timber harvest impacts on Northern California salmon streams by the American Fisheries Society's (AFS) Humboldt Chapter are particularly pertinent. The Chapter's area covers watersheds from the Russian River north to the Oregon border. According to Pat Higgins, Chair of AFS's Humboldt Chapter Policy and Resolution Committee:
If...timber harvest continues at its current rapid rate on private land in northwestern California, options for restoring coho salmon populations will be severely diminished by the time the National Marine Fisheries Service begins recovery planning. No interim protection for coho habitat from potentially damaging timber harvest practices has been instituted.
The Humboldt Chapter has repeatedly commented to the California Board of Forestry on the need for stronger forest practice rules and for watersheds where Pacific salmon stocks are at risk to be designated as "sensitive." According to Higgins,
No one [at the Board of Forestry] acknowledged the letters nor were their suggestions ever integrated into amended rules. However, we do feel that the Chapter comments to the EPA and State Water Resources Control Board, both of which have regulatory oversight authority, have increased awareness that many streams are so impaired that they cannot provide beneficial uses such as fisheries
It is time to turn up the burner since the Environmental Protection Agency has recognized its responsibilities under the Clean Water Act to set total maximum daily loads for sediment and temperature for streams and that it restricts activities when the temperature and loading limits are out of compliance. We're aware of many streams, such as Yager Creek in the Eel River Basin, that are over biological thresholds. Some of the water temperatures are in lethal ranges for salmonids, but management activities haven't changed."
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) has had similar frustrations with the Board of Forestry. CDF&G staff have the opportunity, but not the ability, to review all Timber Harvest Plans (THPs). However, because of staff limitations, CDF&G reviews very few of the numerous THPs. According to Ken Moore, a biologist with CDF&G in Eureka, "In the past, of those THPs that we were able to review, many of them 'nonconcurred' because, among other things, they did not provide enough protection for fish and wildlife resources, including salmon resources. Currently however, we are so overwhelmed with endangered species [marbled murrelet, spotted owl] consultations that we have very little time to review THPs."
Another issue is whether the Board of Forestry modified THPs based on CDF&G's concerns. Over the past several years, of those THPs that CDF&G has had time to review, it turns out that THP modification (because of a finding of nonconcurrance) was rare. Furthermore, California forestry regulations allow CDF&G to appeal to the Board of Forestry if they ignore CDF&G findings of nonconcurrance. However, CDF&G has never used the appeal process.
Jim Culver, former California Board of Forestry member, says when it comes to protecting aquatic resources, California's timber harvest rules for private lands are (in most instances) sufficient. However, adds Culver:
The rules themselves are not the problem. It is the implementation of those rules that is the problem. There are, for example, provisions for mitigating the impacts on aquatic habitats that are critical to coho survival but we simply choose not to implement them. The Board of Forestry has the authority to list the coho as a sensitive species under the Forest Practices Act; triggering mitigation that focuses specifically on the protection of that species habitat needs, but it lacks the will to make that designation."
LAW SUIT: In April, 1995, the frustration over logging practices on private lands resulted in a lawsuit being filed by the Environment Protection Information Center and the Bald Eagle and Salmon Restoration Group. The purpose of the lawsuit was to seek an injunction to halt several proposed timber harvests in the Yager Creek watershed on Pacific Lumber Company lands. The groups charged that the watershed was already overcut, that roads and culverts were failing, stream temperatures were too high, and sediment loads were excessive.
According to Pat Higgins, who served as a technical advisor to the plaintiffs, "over ninety percent of the stream canopy cover was already gone. The watershed could not sustain any more harvests -- especially considering that these harvests were proposed along Yager Creek and its tributaries.
While the plaintiffs claimed that substantial evidence existed that these cuts would negatively impact fish and wildlife resources, including clearly compromised coho runs, no state court to date has been willing to stop the logging in order to hear the case. Since the lawsuit, many of the protested timber harvests have now already been cut -- which has the plaintiffs very concerned. According to Sharon Duggan, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, "You can kiss the coho goodbye on Yager Creek."
For Further Information Contact: Pat Higgins, (707) 822-9428; Ken Moore CDF&G at (707) 441-5670; Jim Culver at (415) 331-4505.
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (the CVPIA or the Miller-Bradley water reform bill), was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 1992. This landmark legislation ordered water to be provided immediately for the restoration of waterfowl, salmon and other natural resources in the San Francisco Bay Estuary and in Central Valley rivers. However, The Central Valley Project Reform Act (H.R. 1906), introduced in the current Congress, threatens to undo the fisheries habitat benefits resulting from the CVPIA.
Introduced by Representative John Doolittle (R-Calif.), H.R. 1906 caps the amount of water that can be used for environmental uses (flows). The CVPIA mandated that up to 800,000 acre-feet of water can be used for fish and wildlife purposes. However H.R. 1906 states that any water used in complying with other environmental statutes (such as the Clean Water Act) would count toward the 800,000 acre-feet level. The bill would also repeal the 1992 San Joaquin River Comprehensive Plan, which requires a "reasonable, prudent, and feasible" plan to address fish and wildlife concerns on the San Joaquin. The bill sponsors say that H.R. 1906 will end the uncertainty for farmers over water availability.
Reaction to the bill by the fishing industry and others has been harsh. At the time of its passage, CVPIA was touted as a major victory for the fishing industry.
According to a June 23 editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle:
The long and destructive California water war, which was quieted by a sensible legislative cease-fire three years ago, is on the verge of unquenchable greed and incurable myopia of Central Valley agricultural interests and their water-carriers in Congress.
The new declaration of war comes in the form of legislation introduced this week by Representative John Doolittle and other Central Valley representatives that seeks to overturn the 1992 Central Valley Project Implementation Act, signed into law by President Bush. That law brought badly needed reform to an archaic and expensive system of subsidized farm irrigation that had wreaked disaster on the aquatic environment and nearly destroyed the commercial fishing industry.
In a June letter to Representative Doolittle, Pietro Parravano, President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, had this to say:
The salmon fishery one of California's oldest industries, has suffered immense losses as the CVP has lavished water on new crops -- many of which could not be grown absent subsidized water or federal price supports. The decline in the fisheries, meanwhile, has cost tens of thousands of jobs in California's coastal communities; the extinction of San Joaquin salmon resulted in hundreds of job losses to Delta communities as well. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost annually to the state's coastal economy from the resultant decline in commercial and sport salmon fisheries, fish processing and tourism. It has also resulted in a loss of exports of a food product (salmon) that requires no subsidy.
In addition to reforming the Central Valley Project by finally making the protection of fish and wildlife a project purpose, the CVPIA brought some balance into CVP operations by dedicating 800,000 acre-feet of water for fish and wildlife restoration and requiring the doubling of natural spawning fish populations. It was extremely modest in its balancing, however, falling short of a restoration of fish populations to pre-project levels or returning the San Joaquin to one of the west's premiere salmon rivers (from its current dry creek bed condition).
The fishing industry has always been willing to sit down and work out legitimate problems growers and others may have with the CVPIA. Every major piece of legislation has glitches. But let's be clear, your bill is not about fine tuning the CVPIA; you are not using a screw driver and a set of sockets to make it run better; you're using a sledge hammer to destroy it.
NOW WHAT: A hearing was held July 20 on H.R. 1906. As we go to press, no other action has been scheduled for this bill.
For Further Information: Call Share the Water at (510) 452-9261; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations at (415) 332-5080.
IN RELATED NEWS: The CALFED Bay-Delta Program will hold its first public meeting on Wednesday August 16, 1995. The meeting will take place at the Holiday Inn on 300 J Street in Sacramento, California. Other meetings are planned for October 18 in the San Francisco Bay Area, and December 6, in Sacramento -- both at locations to be decided.
The CALFED Bay-Delta program "is a joint state-federal effort to develop long-term solution to the problems of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay-Delta Estuary." The Bay-Delta Advisory Council (BDAC) has been established as an official citizen advisory council to advise CALFED about program objectives and potential alternatives.
For Further Information Contact: The CALFED Bay-Delta Program Hotline at (916) 654-9924.
IV. OREGON
Water Spreading is defined as the unauthorized use of federally developed water project facilities or water supplies on lands not approved by Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for such use. As far back as 1983, Reclamation reported that water in the Western United States was being illegally spread over hundreds of thousands of acres, providing unintended financial benefits of millions of dollars to water users who did not have to pay the full costs of supplying the water used to irrigate ineligible lands.
Water spreading can impair the quantity and timing of irrigation return flows, harming stream flows needed to support fish and public uses of water. The issue has been on the front burner in the Umatilla basin, as environmental groups and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla have been negotiating with irrigators (including the Westlands Irrigation District) to end water spreading. The Westlands Irrigation District for years has sold water to lands outside its boundaries without the necessary state water right or Bureau of Reclamation contract, arguing that past state and federal actions allowed the practice. WaterWatch and the Umatilla Indian Tribes have condemned water spreading and called on the Bureau to reallocate illegally used water to meet fishery and tribal needs.
GOOD NEWS: On July 11, in a deal which temporarily resolves the West's most notorious case of water spreading, irrigators and the environmental group WaterWatch of Oregon agreed on a package of new water rights involving the Bureau of Reclamation's McKay Reservoir near Pendelton. These new rights will allow the reservoir to release water instream for fish, in support of efforts to restore salmon and steelhead to the Umatilla River. The rights will also authorize irrigation of certain lands which have been receiving McKay water without the proper rights. The Oregon Water Resources Department approved the new rights.
IN RELATED NEWS: Tribal, environmental, and fishing interests have become frustrated at Reclamation's apparent refusal to address the water spreading issue. Below are some highlights of a June 28 letter to Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt from the Pacific Fishery Management Council:
In view of the fishery habitat concerns specified in the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Council supports the considerable effort that went into the Bureau of Reclamation's preparation of a Draft Water Spreading Policy in 1994. Unfortunately, we have recently learned that Reclamation is not inclined to follow through with a final policy, which should have been completed by October 1994.
We believe that Reclamation's June 1994 draft policy made a good start toward resolving the water spreading problem, following through on the Clinton Administration's commitment to our nation's natural resources. However, it is doubtful that these cases will ever be resolved at the Reclamation field office level without a strong commitment from the Headquarters level.
Therefore, we urge that Reclamation Headquarters oversee the water spreading issue and not simply pass the problem along to the next Administration. Further, we request that you apprise the Council of the specific details of Reclamation's latest plans to resolve water spreading.
In closing, we believe that where water spreading occurs fish production will continue to suffer and uncertainty will continue for farmers until the problem is permanently resolved. It is very important that Reclamation continue to receive regional input in this process, including tribal and fishing interests, as well as water uses. We look forward to your cooperation in a positive and timely resolution of this issue.
WaterWatch, Idaho Rivers United, American Rivers, and the Natural Resources Defense Council in a July 18 letter to Secretary Babbitt had this to say:
By backing off on water spreading, Reclamation will allow massive illegal water uses to continue at a time when Pacific Northwest salmon runs -- and aquatic species throughout the West -- are crashing. You will allow continued misuse of a vital public resource, and an inappropriate expansion of taxpayer subsidies, despite the imperative to reduce waste, fraud and abuse of government funds. And you will renege on Interior's repeated promises to halt water spreading and comply with the law.
Now What: The larger issue of a federal policy correcting water spreading is still on hold. While a draft "Water Spreading Policy" was released by Reclamation in June 1994, no further action has been taken, and according to sources familiar with the situation, no action is expected soon. Complicating the matter further, is that Dan Beard, the head of the Bureau of Reclamation, resigned effective September 1, 1995.
For Further Information Contact: Reed Benson at WaterWatch (503) 295-4039.
V. IDAHO
NEW FOREST PRACTICES TO BE CONSIDERED AUGUST 8
The Idaho Forest Practices Act Advisory Committee met June 29 and completed its final rule recommendations to present to the Idaho Land Board for adoption. The committee approved a 30-foot stream protection zone (SPZ) for Class II streams (usually headwater streams). Current protection rules mandate only 5 foot buffers on Class II streams (Habitat Hotline #18). The SPZ does not apply to Class II streams that do not flow into Class I streams (streams used for domestic water supply or that are important for the spawning, rearing or migration of fish). For these Class II streams, the current 5 foot SPZ remains in place.
Another proposed change to the rules modifies the leave-tree requirements (trees left uncut along a stream bank). For Class I streams, the rule changes state that the smallest leave trees must be in the 3 to 7.9 inches dbh (diameter of the tree at 4.5 feet above the ground). Current rules require smallest trees to be 0 - 7.9 inches dbh. The result of this change will preclude clearcutting across streams. Also, on Class II streams with the 30 foot SPZ, the proposed rules require that 140 trees in the 3 - 7.9 inch dbh range must be left. Currently Class II streams have no leave-tree requirements.
NOW WHAT: The Idaho Land Board will consider the proposed changes at their August 8 meeting. Before becoming final, the rules must be approved by the Idaho legislature, making the effective date of the rule change in the spring of 1996.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: The Land Board meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. in Boise, Idaho. Call the Idaho Department of Lands at (208) 334-0200 for the exact meeting location.
For Further Information Contact: Jim Colla, Forest Practices Coordinator, Idaho Department of Lands, (208) 769-1525.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
In 1991, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would undertake a scientific reassessment of the health risks of exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and similar chemical compounds known as dioxin. A chlorine based chemical, dioxin enters the environment through various industrial and combustion processes including garbage incineration, some kinds of paper manufacturing, and automobile exhaust. For a number of years, environmental groups have pressed the government to eliminate discharges form pulp mills and have opposed the construction of garbage incinerators because of the threat posed by dioxin. While the precise degree of risk dioxin poses is debated, dioxin is thought to be highly carcinogenic and can cause hormonal problems in humans. Fish subjected to dioxin in laboratory studies have shown negative reactions. Lake trout eggs containing 55 parts per trillion of TCDD showed increased egg and sac fry mortality.
In December 1994, the National Wildlife Federation, and over 160 other environmental groups, stated in their comments on the proposed reassessment:
The science clearly demonstrates that dioxins are a serious threat to human health and the environment. We expect the EPA will respond to the legitimate and scientifically documented concerns of our members about the public health threat posed by dioxins and phaseout dioxins from known sources. The time has come when we can no longer debate whether a phaseout of dioxins is necessary. We must begin the process of implementing a phaseout.
NOW WHAT: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the draft documents May 15 and 16 in public session. The draft document will be revised, and according to the sources in the EPA, some chapters will have major changes. Because of these changes, the revised document may have another public comment period. A final document will be issued, possibly as early as December 1995 (though early 1996 is more likely).
Copies of the draft "Health Assessment for...dioxin and Related Compounds" and "Estimating Exposure to Dioxin Like Compounds" documents are available until supplies run out, call the U.S. EPA at (513) 569-7562.
For Further Information: Rick Spencer, National Wildlife Federation at (202) 797-6635; Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 260-7315.
SALMONID STREAM HABITAT RESTORATION FIELD SCHOOL
The Salmonid Restoration Federation (SRF), in cooperation with state and federal resource agencies, watershed groups, and the Federation of Flyfishers, is holding a Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Field School September 18-23, and September 25-29, at the SRF Field School near Quincy, California in Plumas County.
Topics To Be Taught:
Session 1 (September 18-23) -- Watershed Assessment, Prevention and Treatment of Road-Related Erosion Sources -- includes watershed analysis and problem assessment, culvert design and maintenance, road alignment and stream crossing, and road closure and obliteration.
Session 2 (September 25-29) -- Watershed Assessment and Treatment of Streambank and Riparian Erosion Sources -- includes bank stabilization-bioengineering methods, head cut and gully erosion treatments, and revegetation of streambanks and riparian areas.
School instructors are from the California Department and Fish and Game (CDF&G), the U.S. Forest Service, Bioengineering Associates, Pacific Watershed Associates, and the Plumas Corporation.
Tuition: The cost per session is $800. The fee covers all student expenses, including textbooks, handouts, and room and board. Deadline for registration is August 30, 1995.
For further information call (916) 284-7277 or fax (916) 284-7056.
STATE OF COASTS REPORT RELEASED
In June, The Coast Alliance, a public interest group dedicated to "raising public awareness about our priceless coastal resources" released its "State of the Coasts -- A State by State Analysis of the Vital Link Between Healthy Coasts and a Healthy Economy." The report provides a state by state breakdown of the economic values of healthy coastal resources. This report also describes what challenges the coasts face. It also looks at the need to continue the nation's coastal protection laws: the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program. This 161 page document contains a section on the Pacific Coast (Oregon, Washington, California, Hawaii, Alaska).
For a Copy of the Report Contact: The Coast Alliance, 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Third Floor, Washington D.C. 20003; or call (202) 546-9554.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Wetlands Information Hotline is a toll-free telephone service that responds to requests for information about the value and function of wetlands and options for their protection. The Hotline also acts as a point of contact for the wetlands division within EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and provides information on wetlands protection efforts involving EPA, the states, and other organizations. The Hotline operates from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday at 1-800-832-7828.
The objective of this three day symposium, "Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout Biology, Management, and Future Conservation" is to educate policy-makers, fisheries professionals and the general public about the sea-run cutthroat trout of the Pacific Northwest. It also seeks to encourage the development of a coordinated recovery plan for sea-run populations. It is sponsored by the Lower Umqua Flycasters in association with the Oregon Council of the Federation of Flyfishers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, and the Oregon State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.
The symposium will take place October 12-14 in Reesdsport Oregon. For Further Information Contact: John Crocker at (503) 271-5640; fax: 271-4058.
The Center for the Study of the Environment (CSE) was established in 1992 as a private, not-for-profit organization "to provide critical information, analysis and optimal solutions to environmental problems." CSE conducts applied environmental research and policy analysis. The CSE "seeks objective, rational, scientifically-based solutions. CSE research bridges the gap between basic academic investigation and real-life application."
The CSE has a series of publications available entitled: "Status and Future of Salmon of Western Oregon and Northern California." The individual reports are on the following subjects:
Findings and Options, a discussion of the findings and options of the study, this report reviews all of the material the panel of experts found to be of significance in their two-and-a-half-year examination of the status of salmon in western Oregon and northern California. (Cost: $30.)
Overview of Findings and Options, presents the central ideas of the main report in a brief format. (Cost: $15.)
Rationale for a New Approach, is a discussion of major changes that are taking place in the perception of environmental issues, in our ability to deal with these issues, and in the context within which these issues are viewed. (Cost: $10.)
Analysis of Fish Models, is a report that discusses models in use or under development today for the study and management of salmon in the Pacific Northwest. (Cost: $10.)
Forecasting Spring Chinook Runs, presents a new method for forecasting river-specific escapement of spring chinook salmon, which can be used to project salmon runs three to four years in advance based on water flow. (Cost: $10.)
Available Data on Fish Populations, is an up-to-date listing and discussion of available data on fish populations in western Oregon and northern California. (Cost: $10)
Available Data on Land Use, is a report that provides descriptions of 183 data sets on sources of information on conditions and uses of land, streams, and coastal ocean waters in western Oregon and northern California. (Cost: $10.)
Management of the Riparian Zone for the Conservation & Production of Salmon, is a report that presents a plan for management and conservation of salmon based on consideration of habitat needs of the fish within the riparian zone. (Cost: $10.)
Related Studies, is the most thorough compilation of studies of salmon and their habitats in the Pacific Northwest, this report provides descriptions of 25 studies and programs in Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. (Cost: $10.)
To Order the Publications Contact: The Center for the Study of the Environment, P.O. Box 6945, Santa Barbara, CA 93160, or call (805) 963-5088.
VII. UPDATES
_________
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. 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. 7/31/95
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
45 S.E. 82nd Drive
Suite 100
Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522
FIRST CLASS