DECEMBER 1995 NUMBER 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FEDERAL Habitat Legislation Stalls, 96 Battle Looms Fishing Industry Responds to Clean Water Act Legislation What You Can Do II. REGIONAL Coho Recovery Efforts Will Depend on Local Efforts Products Available Through For the Sake of the Salmon III. CALIFORNIA CVPIA Repeal Bill Goes to Floor IV. WASHINGTON Sound Enhancement Group Puget Sound Education Grants Available V. MISCELLANEOUS Restoration Documents Available T-Shirt Available From PSMFC VI. UPDATES September Habitat Hotline Special Issue Now Available
HABITAT LEGISLATION STALLS, 96 BATTLE LOOMS
The 104th Congress is considering numerous bills that, if passed, would negatively impact fish habitat. Legislation includes those affecting water quality and quantity, forest, rangeland, agricultural lands, and minerals management, as well as grazing, mining, private property and endangered species regulations.
At the beginning of the year, led by the banner of the "Contract With America", it appeared that Congress would make significant changes to natural resource management in 1995.
However, as Congress gets ready to begin its holiday break, few substantial changes have been implemented. One reason for Congress's delay in weakening habitat protection laws may be that it is paying more attention to public opinion polls on environmental issues. For example, results from a nationwide Louis Harris and Associates Poll, undertaken August 3-6, 1995 found that:
Below is a brief update on the several bills, including appropriations bills, affecting fish habitat.
A. APPROPRIATIONS BILLS
Some in Congress are using the appropriations process, where funds are earmarked for the agencies responsible for natural resource management, to weaken habitat protection measures. By not funding or reducing funding for a program, its effectiveness can be reduced or eliminated. For example, because of the November 14 government shutdown, and a 10 percent reduction in its budget (effective October 1, 1995), the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Philadelphia Office was unable to perform 200 environmental inspections involving toxic waste disposal, asbestos removal, industrial air emissions, and drinking water supplies in October and November.
Some legislators insist that cuts to agencies such as the EPA are only efforts to reduce the federal deficit. However, environmental groups, many in the fishing community, and others in Congress charge that the defunding of natural resource agencies is a backdoor attempt to roll back environmental protections.
Habitat impacts of three funding bills being considered are reviewed below:
1. Department of Interior (H.R. 1977): Current language in this appropriations bill for the Department of Interior (DOI) and other related agencies would cut the DOI budget by 8 percent over last year's levels. Science agencies would face a 15 percent reduction. In addition, H.R. 1977 contains several controversial "riders" or amendments, two of which are summarized below:
Current Status: The House passed the Senate-House conference committee report, on December 13, 1995 by a vote of 244-181. On December 14, 1995 the Senate passed H.R. 1977 by a vote of 58-40. President Clinton has threatened to veto the bill in its current form.
2. Balanced Budget Act (H.R. 2491): The "Balanced Budget Act of 1995" (budget reconciliation bill), which would balance the federal budget in seven years, has language that would open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Also, H.R. 2491 contains controversial mining "reform" language stating that private companies would need to pay the federal government a net proceeds royalty of 5 percent, which would include various deductions. Bill language on "patenting" of mining claims -- where companies can acquire title to federal lands for mining purposes -- would continue to be at rates reflecting the land's surface value, not at the value of the minerals below the surface.
Current Status: On December 6, 1995 President Clinton vetoed H.R. 2491.
*******AS WE GO TO PRESS, negotiations continue.
3. Environmental Protection Agency (H.R. 2099): On December 7, 1995 by a vote of 227 - 190, a controversial spending bill for the Veteran's Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, was passed by the House. It would cut $1.5 billion in EPA spending -- a reduction of 21 percent compared to FY 1995 levels. Programs that would be especially hurt include the Superfund; Science, Research, and Technology; and Enforcement. The bill has several "riders" or amendments. One rider would remove the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's authority from the wetland permitting process, and would leave U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in sole charge of permitting authority. Also, the EPA would be prevented from adding new Superfund sites unless requested by a state governor or Indian tribal leader or if the Superfund law is reauthorized (see related story on page 9).
Current Status: The Senate approved H.R. 2099 on December 14, 1995. It appears that President Clinton will veto this bill in its present form.
B. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Contentious issues in the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) include the definition of the taking of a listed species, critical habitat designation, definition of what constitutes a species, and compensation for loss of use of private property because of presence of listed species, among others. Drawing the most attention have been three bills in the House (H.R. 2275, H.R. 2444 and H.R. 2374), and two in the Senate (S. 765 and S. 1364). Below is brief summary of those bills:
1. Young-Pombo: H.R. 2275 was introduced on September 6, 1995 by Representatives Don Young (R-Alaska) and Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). This bill removes habitat protection for endangered species on private lands, in response to the recent Supreme Court "Sweet Home" decision. (Note: this decision ruled that destruction of critical habitat, which causes indirect "harm" to an endangered species, is a violation of the ESA.) H.R. 2275 would also prohibit the designation of critical habitat without landowner compensation or permission; would require federal agencies to compensate private landowners for actions related to the ESA which devalue property by 20 percent or more; and would require peer review for proposed listing decisions.
2. Gorton: S. 768 was introduced in the Senate on May 5, 1995 by Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.). Under this bill, incidental take permits would be issued for a wide range of activities including routine operation of any structure, building, road, dam, airport or other facility, or for irrigation or construction in progress at the time a species is determined to be threatened or endangered. Critical habitat would be redefined to mean only the specific area occupied by the species when it is listed and only if the area is essential to the survival of the species for 50 years. Habitat protections could no longer be extended to areas where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of protecting the area, unless it is determined based on "best scientific and commercial data," that failure to designate the area as critical habitat will create an imminent threat to the species' existence.
3. Kempthorne: S. 1364 was introduced by Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) on October 25, 1995. Protection would be limited to species that are likely to become extinct in two human generations or 40 years, and those likely to become endangered in 100 years. If private property is diminished in value by the ESA, owners could seek federal compensation for the portion of the property that is affected. It is illegal to modify critical habitat if that modification results in a species being injured or killed. Once the decision to list has been made, an Endangered Species Commission would be named to propose a conservation objective ranging from full recovery to no federal action other than enforcing illegal takings.
4. Gilchrest: H.R. 2374 was introduced on September 21, 1995 by Representative Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD). It is a more moderate ESA reauthorization bill. It would require that critical habitat be designated at the time of the species listing; would leave the "harm" and "species" definitions intact.
5. Saxton: H.R. 2444, another moderate ESA reauthorization bill, was introduced on September 29, 1995 by Representative Jim Saxton (R-N.J.). This bill would allow states to negotiate with the federal government on a recovery plan; and would not change the current law's definition of "harm."
CURRENT STATUS: H.R. 2275 passed the House Resources Committee by a vote of 27-17 on October 12, 1995. However, passage of H.R. 2275 on the House floor is in doubt because of what many are calling the bill's extreme positions. It is rumored that Representatives Saxton and Gilchrest, other moderate Republicans, and Speaker Newt Gingrich may offer a more moderate bill on the House Floor when it comes to a vote in 1996. Also on October 12, the Resources Committee voted against H.R. 2374 by a vote of 28-17.
It could be late April before House Floor action occurs.
In the Senate, further hearings have not been scheduled for either S. 768 or S. 1364.
C. CLEAN WATER ACT -- HOUSE
A bill reauthorizing and weakening the Clean Water Act (CWA), H.R. 961, passed the House of Representatives on May 16, 1995 by a vote of 240-185 (See Habitat Hotline #18 and #19 for more details). Some elements of H.R. 961:
D. CLEAN WATER ACT, WETLANDS -- SENATE
The "Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act of 1995," S. 851, was introduced on May 25, 1995 by Senators J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) and Lauch Faircloth (R-N.C.). This bill has similar language to the wetlands section of H.R. 961, the House of Representatives' Clean Water Act reauthorization bill that passed in May, 1995. Some elements of S. 851 are summarized below (See Habitat Hotline #20 for more detail):
CURRENT STATUS: The Senate has scheduled a hearing for December 13, 1995 to begin their work reauthorizing the Clean Water Act. The hearing will cover municipal issues including stormwater permitting, combined sewer overflows, and the State Revolving Loan Fund. Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has indicated that the committee will work on the Clean Water Act in early 1996. It is unknown whether wetlands will be part of the Chafee Committee's reauthorization bill, or whether it will be considered separately.
FISHING INDUSTRY RESPONDS
TO CLEAN WATER ACT
On September 15, 1995, fifty three commercial and recreational fishing organizations, fishing industry representatives, and fishing conservation organizations from across the country sent a letter to the U.S. Senate calling for the rejection of bills that would effectively gut the Clean Water Act. The text of the letter can be found on pages 10-11.
The groups are deeply concerned that the current anti-regulatory fervor gripping the Congress would strip away vital fish habitat protections. Specifically three bills have caught the fishing groups' attention:
(over for more)
1. H.R. 2099, the Appropriations Bill for the Veteran's Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency;
2. H.R. 961, referred to by conservation groups as the "Dirty Water Bill"; and
3. S. 851 "The Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act".
According to Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited's Director of Governmental Affairs, "The letter was a powerful signal that American fishermen will not tolerate ill-conceived Congressional efforts to destroy fish habitat. The tide is turning in Congress, and fishermen are leading the way."
Fishing interests know that plentiful wetlands, healthy watersheds, clean water, and uncontaminated sediments are all fundamental to sustaining fish stocks and a prosperous fishing industry. Seventy-five percent of commercially and recreationally caught marine fish are wetland and estuarine-dependent species. The commercial and recreational catches of these fish and shellfish annually contribute billions of dollars to the U.S. economy.
West Coast fishing groups are concerned about the Clean Water Act because of its impact on struggling salmon and steelhead stocks. According to Zeke Grader of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, "The Clean Water Act is essential to the recovery of salmon and steelhead in Oregon, California, Idaho and Washington. It's crazy to believe that we can restore these magnificent fish without having a strong law in place to protect against bad land-use practices and the discharge of pollutants into our salmon streams. Those that are fighting to weaken the Clean Water Act are stealing from this country and future generations a truly unique resource, and robbing coastal communities of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars. "
IN RELATED NEWS: On November 2, 1995 the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, at its 54th annual meeting, adopted a motion opposing H.R. 961 and S. 851.
Congress is legislatively seeking to alter the course of the Clinton Administration's Rangeland Reform regulations (See Habitat Hotline #15 and #20). These reforms, which were spearheaded by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, were implemented this past summer.
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 rescind some of the provisions contained in Rangeland Reform, including some of its measures to protect the environment from grazing impacts. These bills would raise grazing fees by 30 percent, extend the life of a livestock grazing permit from 10 to 15 years, restrict federal water rights, limit membership in grazing and resources advisory groups, and elevate grazing as the dominant use on public lands.
In a November 29, 1995 letter from Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to Senate Energy Committee, Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), Babbitt wrote:
Since the original bill [S. 852] was reported out of Committee, the Department of the Interior's grazing regulations have gone into effect. The Resource Advisory Councils are up and running and have begun to provide the positive cooperative results we expected. None of the doom and gloom predicted by the opponents of rangeland reform has occurred or appears likely to occur. The substitute bill would set us back to the beginning of the rule-making process; it would delay by another three years getting on with the business of improving grazing management on public lands.
While some efforts have been made to sand off the rough edges of S. 852, this new version still fails to address adequately the three major areas of concern that led us to oppose the original bill. Like its predecessor, this bill:
CURRENT STATUS: The National Parks, Forests, and Lands Subcommittee of the Resources Committee marked up H.R. 1713 on September 12, 1995. It now awaits full committee action in 1996.
S. 852 was originally passed out of the Senate from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in July. However, because of objections, the bill was redrafted and submitted to the committee again. On November 29, 1995 S. 852 was passed once again out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. S. 852 could move to the Senate Floor any time.
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 would dissuade ranchers from making improvements to public land, such as developing water sources for livestock. On October 2, 1995 the livestock industry asked a federal court for a quick decision in its lawsuit to stop Clinton's "Rangeland Reform." However, the court issued no order to stop the policy before it took affect.
In the Senate Energy Committee, S. 506, legislation to reform the General Mining Law of 1872, was introduced by Senators Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Harry Reid (D-Nevada). A similar bill in the House, H.R. 1580, was introduced by Don Young (R-Alaska).
This legislation would 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 (See Habitat Hotline #19).
Conservation interests have been arguing for years that the current law does not explicitly require mining lands to be restored after production is finished. Environmental groups are more supportive of S. 504, introduced by Senator Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), and H.R. 357 introduced by Nick Rahall (D-W.V.). These bills would: Set a minimum eight percent royalty; establish an Abandoned Minerals Mine Reclamation Fund; and have detailed reclamation standards.
CURRENT STATUS: In the Senate, S. 506 is in the Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land Management. In the House, H.R. 1580 is in the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. It appears that S. 504 will not be considered by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and that H.R. 357 will be blocked in committee in the House.
Mining legislation is on hold until H.R. 2491, the budget reconciliation bill, is settled (see page 3). If mining reform language is stripped out of H.R. 2491, expect action on mining legislation in 1996. Conservation groups hope that S. 506 and H.R. 357 will be modified so that stronger environmental provisions are added, such as post-mining land reclamation activities and increased protection of water quality.
G. MAGNUSON ACT
On October 18, 1995 the House passed H.R. 39, introduced by Representative Don Young (R-Alaska), by a 388 - 37 margin. While bycatch (incidental take of non-target species), individual transferable quotas (a form of limited entry where a fixed share of catch is assigned to each fisherman), 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.
Habitat protection language is strengthened in H.R. 39 by expanding the role that the regional Fishery Management Councils play in habitat issues (See Habitat Hotline #19). Changes to the current habitat language would ensure that Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) must include a description of essential habitat and conservation and management measures necessary to minimize adverse impacts on habitat caused by fishing. The Secretary of Commerce (SOC), through the National Marine Fisheries Service, would assist the Councils by establishing guidelines in the description of essential fishery habitat in fishery management plans. Also, other federal agencies would need to consult with the SOC if their proposed actions would result in the destruction or adverse modification of essential fish habitat. While Federal agencies do not have to modify their actions based on the SOC comments, they would have to state why they would not be following the SOC recommendations.
Current Status: The Senate reauthorization bill, S. 39, introduced by Senators Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), and John Kerry (D-Mass.). A Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee draft bill is expected in the near future.
The Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) program provides money for cleanup of hazardous waste sites and seeks to recover cleanup costs from those responsible for the pollution. There has been much frustration with the 15-year old law in both the environmental community and private companies because of huge costs and long delays in cleaning up sites. Since 1980, only about 200 of 1,320 sites on the National Priorities List have been cleaned up --at an average cost of $25 million per clean up.
In the House, H.R. 2500, introduced by Representative Mike Oxley (R-Ohio), would pre-empt applicable state cleanup standards. State standards currently have primacy over federal law if they are more stringent. In addition, H.R. 2500 would repeal retroactive liability for certain types of responsible parties and categories of sites. Retroactive liability is where a responsible party must pay for the clean up of sites that were contaminated before the Superfund came into law in 1980.
The Senate Superfund reauthorization bill, S.1285, introduced by Senator Bob Smith (R-N.H.), also modifies liability standards. It includes a 50 percent tax credit for responsible parties who pay for pre-1980 cleanups.
Current Status: H.R. 2500 was passed out of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials in November, and is currently in the Science Committee. The Clinton Administration is on record opposing H.R. 2500 in its current form.
I. FARM BILL
First passed in 1985, the Food Security Act, or Farm Bill, was an important step in putting environmental guidelines and funding incentives into agricultural practices. The Swampbuster and Wetlands Reserve Program provides wetlands protection, Sodbuster discourages cultivation of "new" highly erodible soil, and the Conservation Compliance Program, which is similar to Sodbuster, encourages conservation of existing highly erodible soils.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) encourages farmers to enroll highly erodible land into reserve for 10-15 years. It is the Farm Bill element receiving the most attention from the conservation community. It is estimated that the CRP has resulted in the saving of nearly 700 million tons of soil and reductions of nitrogen run-off by 123 million tons each year; runoff that could end up in streams, reducing their fish producing capacity. According to the Soil and Water Conservation Society, the national economic benefits yielded through the CRP have been estimated at $13.4 billion annually, with $8.6 billion attributed to fish and wildlife benefits.
H.R. 2542, introduced by Representative Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), would make numerous changes to some of the farm bill's conservation programs, including:
This bill also amends the Federal Land Policy and Management Act provision that requires the Forest Service and BLM to provide at least minimal flows for streams and rivers by handing over to the states and private water users nearly all federal authority to allocate and manage water on public lands.
In the Senate, S. 1373, introduced by Senators Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), contains similar conservation program language to H.R. 2542.
CURRENT STATUS: H.R. 2542 was passed out of the Resource Conservation, Research and Forestry Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee on November 8, 1995. In the Senate, it is unknown when S. 1373 will go to committee.
J. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
H.R. 1965, a bill reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), was introduced by Representative Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) on June 29, 1995. The CZMA, which is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is a state-federal partnership aimed at coordinating federal, state and local coastal protection laws. The goal of the program is to establish a voluntary, cooperative program to encourage states to exercise their authority over their coastal areas by developing coastal zone management programs, which must meet minimal federal standards. To date, 29 of 35 coastal states nationally have developed coastal management programs. On the West Coast, California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska have developed CZMA programs.
An important part of the CZMA is the Nonpoint Pollution Control Program which was authorized by the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Nonpoint source pollution, such as runoff from urban streets, agricultural and timber lands, are a significant contributor to some fish and shellfish habitat problems. The Environmental Protection Agency, says that pollution from nonpoint sources may exceed that from point discharges. In 1988, the EPA reported that nonpoint sources contributed 65 percent of all (continued on page 12)
September 15, 1995
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Conserve Our Fish and Our Jobs: Oppose Bills That Would Gut the Clean Water Act:
The signatory commercial and recreational fishing groups and industry representatives below urge you to reject the above-referenced bills that are now pending before you. Each of these bills would seriously undermine the Clean Water Act, which is the most important piece of legislation protecting our nation's fish stocks.
The fisheries resources upon which we depend must have clean water and productive wetlands to survive and thrive. Collectively, sport and commercial fishing in the United States are worth $110 billion in revenue annually, yielding 1.5 million jobs. The economic value derived from sustainable fisheries resources will be squandered if Congress weakens the Clean Water Act. The House-passed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appropriations bill (H.R. 2099) would do great damage to the Clean Water Act. This bill would cut EPA funding by 34%. It also contains 17 legislative riders that would eliminate or limit the following environmental programs:
We understand that one of the purposes of the H.R. 2099 is to give an ultimatum to the Senate to reauthorize the Clean Water Act, or these programs will expire. However, consider the following: 40% of our nation's streams and rivers are not yet "swimmable or fishable;" 100 people died in Milwaukee due to the water-borne pathogen, Cryptosporidium; and once-abundant salmon and trout populations are on the brink of extinction. Based on these facts, we strongly believe that it is completely unacceptable to endanger EPA funding, the Clean Water Act, and other essential environmental programs. H.R. 961 and S. 851 now await action in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Both bills would be disastrous to our nation's waters and wetlands. H.R. 961:
S. 851 is solely focused on wetlands and amendments to Section 404. Unfortunately, its provisions are nearly identical to the wetlands/Section 404 amendments to H.R. 961, including all those mentioned above.
Provisions of these bills are a direct threat to us, the fisheries resources upon which we depend, and water quality across the country. The nation must move forward toward improving water quality and conserving fish habitat. Passage of these bills would be a huge step backwards, and is totally unacceptable to us. We are willing to work closely with the Senate in order to fine-tune the Clean Water Act to improve its permitting processes and make it more "user-friendly." However, we cannot abide lowering its standards.
We urge you to reject these bills and to work carefully through the normal legislative process to improve the Clean Water Act.
Charles Gauvin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Trout Unlimited, Arlington, Virginia; Charlie Johnson, Executive Director, New York Sportfishing Federation, Oakdale, New York; Jerry McCune, President, United Fishermen of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska; John Sanchez, Executive Director, Monroe County Commercial Fishermen, Inc., Marathon, Florida; Tom Fote, Legislative Chairman, Jersey Coast Anglers Association, Toms River, New Jersey; Roger Thomas, President, Golden Gate Fishermen's Association, Sausalito, California; Greg McMillan, Past President, Anglers Club of Portland, Portland, Oregon; Jud Ellinwood, Executive Director, Salmonid Restoration Federation, Arcata, California; Gary Benson, Dennis VavRosky, Co-Presidents, Association of Northwest Steelheaders, Milwaukie, Oregon; Stan Griffin, National Resource Board Director, Trout Unlimited of California, Richmond, California; Rob Ross, Executive Director, California Fisheries and Seafood Institute, Sacramento, California; Tom Posey, President, Tom Posey, Co., and President, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Portland, Oregon; Jim Dahlstrom, Executive Director, Oregon Anglers, Portland, Oregon; Robert Fletcher, President, Sportfishing Association of California, San Diego, California; Jerry Sansom, Executive Director, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Satellite Beach, Florida; Mike McCorkle, President, Southern California Trawlers Association, Santa Barbara, California, and President, Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Summerland, California; Byron Leydecker, Chairman, Friends of the Trinity River, Mill Valley, California; Barry Ross, Chairman, Idaho Council of Trout Unlimited, Boise, Idaho; Guy Thornburgh, Chairman, Fishermen Involved in Saving Habitat (F.I.S.H.), Seattle, Washington; Keith Jefferts, Director, Fishery Management Foundation, Seattle, Washington, and President, Northwest Marine Technology, Inc., Shaw Island, Washington; Steve Beyerlin, Vice President, Oregon Guides and Packers, Region 3, and Legislative Chairman, Curry Guides Association, Gold Beach, Oregon; Nicholas D. Croce, Executive Vice President-Conservation, Southwest Council, Federation of Fly Fishers, Southern California; Liz Hamilton, Executive Director, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Oregon City, Oregon; John Thomas, President, White Salmon Steelheaders, White Salmon, Washington; Zeke Grader, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Sausalito, California; Lanny Pillatos, President, Puget Sound Gillnetters Association, Everett, Washington; Dave Becker, President, Friends of the Cowlitz, Toledo, Washington; Bruce Cole, President, McNabb Expositions, Inc., Rockport, Maine; Joe Rohleder, Government Affairs Director, Oregon Outdoors Association, Waldport, Oregon; Tom Weselow, North Coast Manager, California Trout, Inc., McKinleyville, California; Charles Bucaria, Vice President of Conservation, Northern California, Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, Sacramento, California; Duncan MacLean, Vice President, Half Moon Bay Fishermen's Marketing Association, Half Moon Bay, California; Jackie Jacobsen, President, Umpqua Commercial Fishermen's Wives Association, Winchester Bay, Oregon; Robert Fletcher, President, Sportfishing Association of California, San Diego, California; Tom Wolf, Chairman, Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited, Hillsboro, Oregon; Bob Eaton, Executive Director, Salmon For All, Inc., Astoria, Oregon; Jim Dahlstrom, Executive Director, Oregon Anglers, Portland, Oregon; Francis Clark, Vice President, Northwest Gillnetters Association, Chinook, Washington; Paul Glenn, Executive Director, Atlantic Coast Conservation Association of Georgia, Savannah, Georgia; Mark Cedergreen, President, Westport Charterboat Association, Westport, Washington; Scott Boley, Chairman, Oregon Salmon Commission, Lincoln City, Oregon; Frank Warrens, President, Nautilus-Northwest Charters, Portland, Oregon; Brady Engvall, Owner, Brady's Oysters, Westport, Washington; Bruce Harpole, President, Oregon Fishing Club, Albany, Oregon; Arnold Leo, Secretary, East Hampton Town Baymen's Association, Inc., East Hampton, New York; Jim Childs, Editor, North Coast Sportfishing News, Blue Lake, California, and Board Member, United Anglers, Klamath Management Zone Chapter, Samoa, California; Steve Watrous, President, Columbia Pacific Anglers, Vancouver, Washington; Ed Owens, Director of Government Relations, Coalition of Washington Ocean Fishermen, Olympia, Washington; Alan Hollingsworth, Vice President, Grays Harbor Gillnetters Association, Aberdeen, Washington; Melvin Shepard, President, Southeastern North Carolina Watermen's Association, Sneads Ferry, North Carolina; Bob Lake, President, Willapa Bay Gillnetters Association, Grayland, Washington; Dick Shelton, President, Columbia River Crab Fishermen's Association, Ocean Park, Washington; Don McAfee, President, Pacific Rim Outdoor Adventures, Milton, Washington; John Bracke, Owner, Bracke's Guide Service, and Vice President, Oregon Guides and Packers, Region 1, Beaverton, Oregon.
contamination in water quality impaired rivers, and 45 percent of the pollution in water quality impaired estuaries.
Current Status: In October, H.R. 1965 was approved unanimously by the House Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans Subcommittee of the House Resources Committee. The bill will not go to the full committee until 1996.
K. PRIVATE PROPERTY
The "Omnibus Property Rights Act" of 1995, S. 605, 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 would also limit government "takings" made under the Endangered Species Act or Clean Water Act (Section 404). S. 605 does not include takings resulting from farm bill wetlands programs or water allocation laws as covered by H.R. 925, the House-passed private property rights bill law (See Habitat Hotline #18).
STATUS: H.R. 925 was passed March 3, 1995. S. 605 is in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
***AS WE GO TO PRESS, mark-up of S. 605 could happen the week of December 11, 1995.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
All of the legislation outlined above is crucial to protecting clean water, plentiful wetlands and healthy watersheds upon which the fishing industry depends. One of the messages coming from Capitol Hill is that legislators are not hearing enough from fishing interests regarding these critical pieces of legislation. If you have not been expressing your views on fish habitat issues, it is time to get involved!
Write your Congresspersons: U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; and U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510.
To Contact Your Congresspersons by Phone, Call (202) 224-3121.
COHO RECOVERY WILL DEPEND ON LOCAL EFFORTS
On July 25, 1995 the National Marine Fisheries Service issued a proposed rule to list three populations (evolutionary significant units) of West Coast coho salmon as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. Public hearings were held in October, with the written comment period ending on October 23, 1995.
The National Marine Fisheries Service will release a listing determination and designate critical habitat in July of 1996. NMFS sources say that they are well-aware that an important step in recovery planning will involve working with local watershed groups. NMFS has already taken an important step in the coho recovery process by being a major supporter of "For Sake of the Salmon."
For the Sake of the Salmon is a regional initiative to protect and restore salmon. It was kicked off on September 15, 1995 at a signing ceremony in Seattle, Washington. Signing the For the Sake of Salmon charter were Governors Mike Lowry of Washington and John Kitzhaber of Oregon, representatives from the recreational and commercial fishing industries, environmental community, private industry (including timber and power industries), local, federal and tribal government agencies (see below).
According to For the Sake of the Salmon Executive Director Bill Bradbury, "For the Sake of the Salmon is not a new bureaucracy or government agency. The organization will assist existing local watershed restoration groups and help resolve conflicts getting in the way of expanding those efforts. It will also serve as an unaffiliated forum for the discussion and resolution of salmon management issues including hatcheries, harvest, and hydropower."
For the Sake of the Salmon will encourage and support the work of local watershed groups. These groups, composed of such diverse parties as farmers, foresters, fishermen, environmentalists, government workers, and scientists have been getting positive results by coming up with their own plans for habitat restoration.
Adds Bradbury, "In Southern Oregon's Coos and Coquille watersheds, for example, young coho salmon are finding haven from the swift winter currents by hiding in wetlands, small side channels, and even temporary flooded pastures provided for them by the area's landowners. Interested ranchers have been given fencing and assistance to protect the creeks and salmon that run through their land. In Northwest Washington's Nooksack watershed, landowners have donated equipment and money for restoration efforts."
At the signing ceremony, Oregon Governor Kitzhaber called the charter signing "a new day of cooperation."
NOW WHAT: Less than two weeks after the signing of the charter in Seattle, the For the Sake of the Salmon Conservation Council, made up of all the members of For the Sake of the Salmon, met in Olympia. The Council dealt with a wide variety of issues. The Council decided how an Executive Committee will be selected by the member groups, and emphasized the importance of establishing a regional salmon protection and restoration fund.
Executive Committee Members Selected: There are seven constituency groups that make up For the Sake of the Salmon. Each group selected a representative to the Executive Committee, as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service
Washington Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
Alternate: Jim Martin
Oregon Governor's Office
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
County of Mendocino, California
Northwest Sportfishing Industry Assn.
Alternate: Glen Spain
Pacific Coast Fed. of Fishermen's Assns.
Alternate: Terry Flores
Pacific Rivers Council
PRODUCTS AVAILABLE THROUGH
FOR THE SAKE OF SALMON
Regional Watershed List Available: A list of many of the watershed groups in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California is now available from For the Sake of the Salmon. Fran Recht compiled the list of watershed groups and has conducted a survey of many of those groups to discover what they are doing and what they need. This list is the first step in providing comprehensive service to watershed groups throughout the region. If you would like a copy of the list, call For the Sake of the Salmon at the number below.
Incentive Programs: An inventory of existing incentive programs that encourage private landowner participation in salmon protection and restoration is being compiled. Completion is awaiting final enactment of the federal fiscal year 1996 budget. The incentives inventory will describe the various programs, how they are used (with examples on the ground), how much money is available, and who to contact for more information about the program. This document will be ready in January 1996.
Regional Science Forum: For the Sake of Salmon will soon hold a regional science forum that will include stakeholders from all constituency groups. This forum will focus on defining what it is that salmon need to survive and prosper.
For further information about this organization, including becoming a member, contact: For the Sake of Salmon, 45 S.E., 82nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027, phone (503) 650-5400.
CVPIA REPEAL BILL GOES TO FLOOR
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (the CVPIA), 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 (originally H.R. 1906, now H.R. 2738), introduced by Representative John Doolittle (R-Calif.), threatens to undo the fisheries habitat benefits resulting from the CVPIA by capping 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. 2738 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. 2738 would end the uncertainty for farmers over water availability.
Reaction to the bill by the fishing industry and others has been harsh. In a July 18 letter to Representative John Doolittle, Stan Dixon, Chair of the Humboldt Board of Supervisors, wrote regarding H.R. 1906:
In our view, HR 1906 is nothing more than a cynical attempt by a greedy minority of CVP water users to intentionally sacrifice the equitable reforms in the CVPIA that require the protection and restoration of public trust salmon and steelhead fishery resources of the Trinity, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Rivers in order to profit from regaining control of the CVP's water.
In a December 4 letter to Representative Don Young, Chairman of the House Resources Committee, The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations had this to say about H.R. 1906:
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, representing working men and women in the west coast commercial fishing industry, respectfully urges your Resource Committee to oppose HR 1906 by Mr. Doolittle.... This bill 1) eliminates jobs in the salmon fishing industry along the California and Oregon coast, and continues the depletion of Central Valley salmon stocks and the devastation of the salmon fishing economy; 2) undercuts the peace established by the December 1994 State-Federal Bay-Delta Accord [See Habitat Hotline #16], and 3) is totally unnecessary.
The single largest factor contributing to the decline of Central Valley salmon over the past half century, including winter-run chinook -- the first Pacific salmon to be listed on the federal Endangered Species Act, has been the Central Valley Project. The CVP destroyed the Pacific coast's first salmon fishery-- the commercial net fishery of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, which Jack London wrote about -- through the extinction of San Joaquin River spring-run chinooks in the late 1940's and early 1950's. However, it has been over the past 15 years that the impacts of CVP operations on the fish stocks and consequently, on the fishing industry have become increasingly severe, as more and more water has been diverted from the rivers and the fish and fishing industry have been made to solely bear the brunt of droughts as CVP users made record profits. Indeed, the only good seasons California salmon fishermen have seen over the past 15 years have been those following floods. 15 years ago there were over 50,000 people employed in our salmon fishery; there are now slightly more than 10,000. 15 years ago there were 5,700 vessels with California salmon permits, there are now slightly more than 2,300.
CURRENT STATUS: H.R. 2738 passed the House Natural Resources Committee on December 13. It could go to the House floor in early 1996. In the Senate, CVPIA legislation has not been introduced.
H.R. 2738 also has language pertaining to the Trinity River Basin Fish And Wildlife Management Act of 1984 (H.R. 2243). (H.R. 2243 was passed by the House on December 12 by a vote of 412 - 0). The next issue of the Habitat Hotline will look at the Trinity River Act, and how H.R. 2738 would affect H.R. 2243.
What You Can Do: The passage of the CVPIA was a landmark for the fishing industry. It is vital that the invaluable fish habitat provisions in the CVPIA remain intact. The CVPIA also was important because it ended huge government subsidies to large corporate water users.
Write Your Congresspersons: 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: Call Share the Water at (510) 452-9261; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations at (415) 332-5080; Friends of the Trinity River at (415) 389-1300.
SOUND ENHANCEMENT GROUP
Washington State's Regional Fish Enhancement Groups were created by the state legislature in 1990. The purpose of these 12 groups is to provide funds for restoration and enhancement of anadromous fish populations. While slow to get started, some solid accomplishments are now being reported as the program enters its fifth year.
The Mid-Puget Sound Fish Enhancement Group (MPSFEG) has been particularly active in salmon habitat restoration activities. In 1995, the MPSFEG undertook habitat restoration work in Newaukum Creek in East King County and Salmonberry Creek in Kitsap County. The Newaukum project created salmon habitat through placement of root wads and logs. These structures created hiding areas, pool habitat, and spawning gravel. Before the enhancement work, the unimproved stream sections were devoid of woody debris and associated pool habitat.
According to David Burger, Director of the MPSFEG, "Once the habitat was created, our surveys found that coho salmon fry and cutthroat trout moved right in. We were especially pleased that the structures held in place in the recent heavy rains and very high river flows."
Other participants in the Newaukum project included Weyerhaeuser, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Chevrolet-Geo Environmental, the Seattle Aquarium, and Trout Unlimited.
In another project on a tributary of Salmonberry Creek, the MPSFEG rerouted a stream, added woody debris and spawning gravel. Following completion, salmon took advantage of the project with 20 spawning coho counted in the improved area, where none had spawned before.
For Further Information about this project and the Mid-Puget Sound Fish Enhancement Group, contact David Burger at (206) 386-4308.
If you are a Washington resident and are interested in finding out more about the Regional Fish Enhancement Group in your area, contact: Richard Kolb, or Steve Jenks, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife at (360) 902-2260.
PUGET SOUND EDUCATION GRANTS AVAILABLE
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) recently released a request for proposals for its Public Involvement and Education (PIE) Funds. According to the PSWQA, PIE Funds are an innovative program to encourage citizens who are interested in protecting Puget Sound to contract with the State of Washington. PIE contractors provide education and public involvement projects that help local audiences and solve local or regional water quality problems.
The PIE Fund is one of the educational strategies of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. It is intended to increase understanding of Puget Sound's resources, the effect of human activities, and to facilitate public involvement in decisions to clean up and protect the Sound.
The PIE Fund is not a typical grants program. Rather, through personal services contracts funded by the PIE Fund, the Water Quality Authority obtains the services of individuals and organizations to directly serve residents of Puget Sound as they carry out the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The Authority's role in the PIE Program is to provide guidance about managing a state contract, as well as other technical information and advice needed.
***** PROPOSALS ARE DUE *****
JANUARY 31, 1996
For a copy of the "Request For Proposals -- Round 10" document contact: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, PO Box 40900, Olympia, WA 98504-0900; Phone: (360) 407-7300.
RESTORATION DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE
1. Vegetated Buffers In the Coastal Zone (1994) is published by the Coastal Resources Center, in Narragansett Rhode Island. This 71 page document is a bibliography of the effectiveness of vegetated buffers, critical variables affecting pollutant removal, and the use of vegetative buffers in the coastal zone. It also reviews state coastal buffer programs. It contains numerous graphs and tables showing the relationship between buffer width and pollution removal effectiveness.
To Order: Send a check for $7.00 made out to "RI Sea Grant/URI" to: Rhode Island Sea Grant, Communications Office, URI Bay Campus, Narragansett, RI 02882-1197. Ask for Vegetated Buffers In the Coastal Zone.
2. Indexed Bibliography on Stream Habitat Improvement was compiled by the U.S. Forest Service, University of Utah, and Trout Unlimited. This bibliography contains 2,085 entries of published and unpublished references related to stream habitat improvement. Entries are categorized into 20 subject areas relating to both instream and streambank-riparian structural and non-structural improvement. References relate to coldwater and warmwater fish species.
To order a copy of the Indexed Bibliography on Stream Habitat Improvement, send a check for $10 made out to: "Account # 6-48990 C/O Dr. L. H. Wullstein." to:
Account # 6-48990
c/o Dr. L.H. Wullstein
Stream Habitat Improvement Bibliography
Department of Geography
270 Orson Spenser Hall
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
3. The Road-Ripper's Handbook, is an instructive manual to help activists restore wilderness through the elimination of roads on U.S. public lands. The Handbook contains three guides which teach activists to monitor and petition federal land agencies to close and revegetate roads in the National Forests, and prevent and eliminate roads in the National Parks. In addition, the Handbook includes "Resources for Road-Rippers," with a Road Impact Assessment Guide, a bibliography of recommended books and articles, plus information about the ecological effects of roads, the Freedom of Information Act, ROAD-RIP and other groups working on wildland road issues. The Handbook comes in binder form to allow inclusion of new materials. In addition to periodic updates, Handbook owners will receive ROAD-RIP's forthcoming guides to National Wildlife Refuges and the BLM when they become available.
To Order: The Road-Ripper's Handbook is available for $12, including book-rate shipping, from ROAD-RIP, P.O. Box 7516, Missoula, MT 59807, (406) 543-9551. Make checks out to "Road-Rip/TWP."
T-SHIRT AVAILABLE FROM PSMFC
"It is a Little Known Fact That Fish Grow on Trees" is the theme of the popular T-Shirt available from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
The T-shirt design has been featured as part of a public service advertisement campaign. The purposes of the shirt and media messages are to remind people of the connection between trees and fish and to encourage maintenance and restoration of streamside trees and vegetation. PSMFC is making these media messages available for all groups to use. Your group's name and phone may appear on the public service advertisement.
For More Information Contact: Fran Recht, PSMFC, at (503) 765-2229.
To Order a T Shirt, send $12 (Make checks out to "PSMFC") to:
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
45 S.E. 82nd Drive, Suite 100
Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522
Sizes: Large, X-Large, XX-Large, XXX-Large in the following colors: moss green, dark green and natural (tan). Please specify an alternate color preference if your first choice is not available.
On 12/7/95, REPRESENTATIVE ELIZABETH FURSE, introduced H.R. 2745, the "Restoration of Natural Resources Laws on Public Lands Act of 1995." If enacted, this bill would REPEAL THE EMERGENCY SALVAGE LOGGING RIDER of the FY 1995 Rescissions Law, signed by President Clinton last April. In a statement Representative Furse said, "We were told over and over that the rider was an emergency measure to remove dead and dying trees. But instead......the 'lawless logging' rider is being used to clearcut healthy forests, some as old as 500 years. We were told that the rider wouldn't harm threatened wildlife or the Northwest's efforts to revive our fast-dwindling salmon runs and the billion dollar fishing industry they once supported. But instead, timber is being clearcut on steep slopes next to streams in forests that are home to salmon, steelhead, marbled murrelets, and other rare wildlife. Warnings by the agencies own biologists are being ignored. So I join 30 of my colleagues and more than 300 organizations from across the country in calling upon the Congress and President Clinton to do a very simple thing: Repeal the lawless logging and OBEY THE LAW." *****AS WE GO TO PRESS, Representative Furse is still searching for a sponsor in the Senate.
SEPTEMBER HABITAT HOTLINE
SPECIAL ISSUE NOW AVAILABLE
The September issue of the Habitat Hotline entitled, "1995 State Laws Affecting Fish Habitat In Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington" is now available. This issue of the Habitat Hotline outlines state laws passed in the 1995 state legislatures which affect fish habitat.
Many of the laws reviewed in this document include those activities affecting water quality and quantity. Examples of the legislation that are reviewed include bills affecting timber, grazing, mining, water diversions (water law), and hydroelectric projects.
To Order: If you would like to receive a copy of this special issue, please fill out the information below, and mail it to: 45 S.E. 82nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027; or fax it to us at (503) 650-5426.
Note: If you have already ordered this issue, it will be mailed to you the week of 12/18/95.
City, State, Zip: ___________________________
THE STAFF OF THE
PACIFIC STATES MARINE
WISHES YOU A
PEACEFUL HOLIDAY SEASON!!
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. Messages can also be E-mailed at Stephen_Phillips@PSMFC.Gov. Layout by Liza Bauman. Printed on 100% recycled sheet with minimum 50% post consumer fiber. Date of Issue: 12/15/95.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
45 S.E. 82nd Drive
Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522