Habitat
Hotline Habitat
Hotline NUMBER 25 APRIL 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FEDERAL Farm Bill Signed CZMA Goes to House Floor Senate Wetlands Hearings Letter Questions Rider Riders in FY96 Budget EPA Water Quality Comments Due May 15 Senate Grazing Legislation II. REGIONAL Salvage Logging Update III. OREGON Groups Seek Restrictions for Livestock Along Streams Sustainable Forestry Effort IV. CALIFORNIA Bay-Delta Scoping Meetings Scoping Meetings Ongoing Comments Due April 30 V. WASHINGTON Comments Due May 20 Hearings Begin April 15 VI. MISCELLANEOUS Report Cites Need for Environmental Protection Polluted Runoff Video USFWS Proposals for Partners Program Due Proposals Due May 31 Device Helps Reduce Livestock Stream Damage VI. UPDATES
I. FEDERAL
FARM BILL SIGNED BY PRESIDENT
On April 4, 1996 President Bill Clinton signed "The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act" (H.R. 2854), reauthorizing the Farm Bill. The President signed the bill reluctantly, saying it "fails to provide an adequate safety net for family farmers."
House and Senate conferees agreed to a final $47 billion Farm Bill reauthorization passed on March 21. Both Houses of Congress then passed the conference bill by relatively large margins of 318-89 in the House, and 74-26 in the Senate.
The good news is that the bill's conservation title contains many conservation programs which will benefit fish habitat (see Habitat Hotline Number 24). Some highlights of the bill include:
The Conservation Reserve Program: The bill allows up to 36.4 million acres to be enrolled in the CRP over the next seven years. It allows farmers to leave the program under certain conditions; one of the conditions being whether or not the land is environmentally sensitive. Under the CRP, the government pays farmers an annual rental fee averaging fifty dollars per acre to idle erosion-prone land.
Wetlands Reserve Program: The amount of acreage would be capped at 975,000 acres. In a change from past practices, more land will be put under temporary, not permanent, easement.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program: Provides $200 million a year for livestock and crop producers who undertake structural or land management conservation practices.
Farmland Protection: $35 million is set aside to purchase easements for protecting farmlands from conversion to urban development or other non-agricultural uses.
Flood Risk Reduction Program: Ties disaster relief or commodity payments in flood prone areas to whether or not the farmer planted flood resistant crops.
Water Rights -- Brown Amendment: What the bill did not include was also good news to fish conservationists. Senator Hank Brown (R-Colo.) withdrew his proposal which would have drastically reduced federal protection for instream flows on U.S. Forest Service lands. In its place, a provision sponsored by Representatives Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Rep. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) puts an 18-month moratorium on the U.S. Forest Service's ability to extract water rights from private users who cross agency lands to maintain reservoirs and other facilities. In the 18 month period, a "Water Rights Task Force" will be established. Its mission will be to study long-term solutions to protect instream flows for fish and state water rights.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT GOES TO HOUSE FLOOR
H.R. 1965, a bill reauthorizing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), was approved unanimously by the House Resources Committee on March 13, 1996. H.R. 1965 was introduced by Representative Jim Saxton (R-N.J.).
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 newer Nonpoint Pollution Control Program which was authorized by the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). Through CZARA and state implementation, generators of nonpoint source pollution are to address problems by applying best management practices.
Nonpoint source pollution, such as runoff from urban streets, agricultural and timber lands, is 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 contamination in water quality impaired rivers, and 45 percent of the pollution in water quality impaired estuaries.
Current Status: The bill is expected to go the House floor on April 23, 1996. The Senate is awaiting House action.
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.
To register your opinion with the President on the CZMA or any other issue call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.
For Further Information Contact: Coast Alliance, (202) 546-9554.
SENATE HOLDS WETLANDS HEARINGS
On March 14, 1996 the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on wetlands mitigation banking. These hearings were held as part of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA's Section 404 program regulates wetlands development activities. [Note: Mitigation banking is where wetlands are created, restored, or enhanced in advance to serve as "credits" that may be used or acquired by permit applicants when they are required to mitigate impacts of their activities in wetland areas.]
Reportedly, the hearings are part of an ongoing attempt to include Senator Lauch Faircloth's (R-N.C.) "Wetlands Regulatory Reform Act" (S. 851) into a larger Senate Clean Water Act bill (See Habitat Hotline Number 20). In 1995 the House passed its version of the Clean Water Act, H.R. 961. This bill was adamantly opposed by environmental and fishing groups (See Habitat Hotline Number 19).
According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, the Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.), has expressed concern over S. 851's wetlands definition and classification system. Senators Chafee and Faircloth have been discussing possibilities of a "compromise" bill on wetlands for months. However, odds run against an agreement because the two Senators are so far apart. Both Senators have reportedly expressed interest in mitigation banking as a potential centerpiece of any wetlands bill Senator Chafee introduces this session.
Below is a summary of the March 14 hearing (source: Clean Water Network):
The hearing consisted of three panels: 1. federal, state, & county governments; 2. academics & developers; and 3. interest groups. Overall many witnesses sang the praises of mitigation banking, calling it a "win-win" for the resource and the regulated community. However the academic and the environmental community witnesses carefully outlined the many problems and uncertainties associated with mitigation banks. Senator Chafee expressed the most skepticism of the Senators present and asked some very tough questions of the witnesses.
The regulated community witnesses asked for the following: federal incentives like state revolving loan funds for banking; advanced credit sales; use of state or public land as a source for a bank; single agency leadership, preferably the Corps; ability to establish banks in different watersheds; bank management not to be granted to state/local governments (the developers didn't like the competition); [and] a codification by Congress of banking in a Clean Water Act reauthorization.
Concerns noted by members of the academic and environmental community included the fact that banking has not been proven to work [emphasis added] and that banking is extremely expensive, and therefore, a bond system must be large enough and ironclad. They also noted that any wetland mitigation program should 1) not allow creation, enhancement or preservation in a bank; 2) begin with small pilot programs; 3) not allow advance credits; and 4) include citizen involvement, enforcement, oversight, as well as long-term monitoring and scientific system of debits & credits. The group also noted that much more research must be done to see if this could ever work.
Now What: Congress goes back into session the week of April 15, 1996. The latest talk is that a Senate Clean Water Act reauthorization bill will be undertaken only after the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee finishes work on Superfund and Endangered Species Act bills. Even then, only the wetlands provisions of the Clean Water Act could be addressed in the 104th Congress.
LETTER QUESTIONS WETLANDS RIDER
In Related News: Togo West, Secretary of the Army (the official in charge of the Army Corps of Engineers) and Carol Browner, Chief of the Environmental Protection Agency recently wrote a joint letter defending the current wetlands permitting system in which the EPA has veto authority in the wetlands permitting process.
[Note: A rider in the FY 1996 budget, H.R. 3019, still being debated by Congress, would remove the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority from wetlands permitting decisions.]
An excerpt of the letter explaining their concerns regarding removal of EPA's wetlands regulatory authority can be found below:
We strongly agree that implementation of Section 404(c), like the Section 404 program itself, requires a balance to ensure protection of the nation's waters while effectively guarding the property rights of private landowners. The President's Wetlands Plan, developed in 1993, reflects this commitment to make the Section 404 program more fair and flexible. Many of the constructive improvements identified in the President's Wetlands Plan have been implemented, and tangible benefits of these actions are being realized. Moreover, information collected as part of a recent Corps of Engineers survey of their field offices demonstrates that EPA's Section 404(c) authority is not being used in a threatening way, but constructively and with considerable discretion. Repeal of EPA's Section 404(c) authority is unnecessary to make the Section 404 program more fair and flexible but would invariably erode its ability to protect human health and the environment. We cannot support this result [emphasis added].
Says the Clean Water Network about the West/Browner letter:
West's letter is very significant -- since the Corps would gain regulatory power from the wetlands rider, it should be expected to support the rider. The fact that it actually opposes it suggests that the rider is bad policy...
NOW WHAT: Congress returns from its spring recess April 15. The appropriation bill's environmental riders are expected to continue to be a point of contention.
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.
To register your opinion with the President on wetlands or any other issue, call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.
For Further Information Contact: Kathy Nemsick of the Clean Water Network at (202) 624-9357.
***As We Go To Press, riders in the omnibus FY 1996 spending bill, H.R. 3019, would remove the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory authority from wetlands permitting decisions, sustain logging in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, and extend the moratorium on the listing of endangered species. In the Senate, H.R. 3019 was passed on March 20 by a vote of 79-21. In the House, H.R. 3019 was passed by a vote of 209-206 on March 7. The bill is currently in Conference Committee.
NOW WHAT: Reportedly, negotiations include the environmental riders. The federal government is still operating on a continuing resolution, which expires April 24. President Clinton continues to say he will veto the bill if it contains the riders.
In Related News, on March 28, thirty four Senators signed a "Dear Colleague" letter urging the Senate to remove anti-environment policy riders from H.R. 3019. According to Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), "These provisions have bogged down the process of funding the government for far too long." There appears to be enough Senators to sustain a veto by the President if the bill is passed with the riders.
In Other Related News, the Environmental Protection Agency recently released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on its water quality standards regulation. According to Tudor T. Davies, Director of the Office of Science and Technology of the EPA:
Subsequent publication of the ANPRM in the Federal Register will begin a review of the water quality standards regulation in a public forum. EPA seeks a water quality standards program that protects the nation's waters as envisioned in the CWA, that ensures healthy and sustainable ecosystems, and that is flexible enough for States and Tribes to ensure water quality is protected and at the same time avoid costly requirements that have little or no environmental benefit. With this goal in mind, EPA with help from the public will try to identify possible amendments to the regulation and new guidance or policy that may be needed to address three distinct objectives:
1) eliminate any barriers to State and Tribal implementation of holistic and integrated watershed-based water quality planning and management;
2) enhance State and Tribal capability to incorporate current criteria and water quality assessment science into their water quality standards programs, and;
3) improve the regulation so that it may be implemented more effectively. If we meet these three objectives, I believe we will facilitate further water quality improvements locally and nationally.
NOW WHAT: Says Davies, "After publication of the ANPRM in the Federal Register in September [1996], we plan to hold several public meetings to allow a full opportunity for public discussion of the issues. EPA has not decided whether it will proceed with a notice of proposed rulemaking on the water quality standards regulation, new policy or new guidance. We intend to base those decisions on the outcome of the dialogue that the final ANPRM will generate."
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Written comments on the 250 page draft should be sent to:
U.S. EPA
Water Quality Standards Branch
Attention: Rob Wood (4305)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
*** Comments are due May 15, 1996 ***
To Obtain a Copy of the Draft ANPRM, or if you have any questions on the draft, contact: Rob Wood of the Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 260-9536.
SENATE PASSES GRAZING LEGISLATION
On March 21, 1996, by a vote of 51-46, the Senate passed S. 1459, "The Livestock Grazing Act", introduced by Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). This legislation alters the course of the Clinton Administration's (led by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt) Rangeland Reform regulations (See Habitat Hotline # 15), which went into affect August 21, 1995. This legislation applies to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands.
How Your Senators Voted:
FOR: Hatfield (R-Ore.), Gorton (R-Wash.), Murkowski (R-Alaska), Craig (R-Idaho), Kempthorne (R-Idaho).
AGAINST: Boxer (D-Calif.), Feinstein (D-Calif.), Wyden (D-Ore.), Murray (D-Wash.).
Some elements of the S. 1459 include (source: "Public Rangelands Management Act Fact Sheet"):
Public Participation: Anyone who expresses an interest can receive notice and the opportunity for "informal consultation" on selected site-specific grazing actions, but that is all. Opportunities to take action on permits would be denied. The public will not be allowed to protest decisions, and the public's rights to challenge agency action or inaction are severely limited. The current regulations provide that members of the public can fully participate in grazing decisions, and can protest and appeal those decisions.
NEPA Compliance: All on-the-ground grazing actions and decisions are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including the development of standards and guidelines, and allotment management plans. Grazing decisions, development of standards and guidelines, and allotment management plans are currently subject to NEPA.
Conservation Use: Through the codification of existing regulations, the livestock permittee must be in the livestock business to obtain a permit, and is prohibited from leaving the grazing allotment to rest for more than two (2) consecutive years. The current BLM regulations authorize any one to hold a grazing lease, and the land can be rested from grazing for up to ten (10) years without losing a privilege of holding a grazing permit.
Water Rights: The bill provides for the livestock industry to establish private water rights on public lands. The federal agencies are then precluded from taking any action to limit or impose any restriction on the use of that water on public lands. The Forest Service currently does not allow water rights to be claimed for water developments on National Forests.
The bill was passed despite a letter opposing it from over 150 conservation groups. Fishing groups signing onto the letter included: the American Sportfishing Association, Trout Unlimited, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Federation of Fly Fishers -- Southwest and Northern California Councils, Sportsmen's Council of Central California, and the California Sport Fishing Protection Alliance. A copy of the letter can be found on page 7.
S. 1459 is supported by the livestock industry, who say Rangeland Reform goes too far in restricting cattle grazing on public lands.
In the House: Following passage, S. 1459 was referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Another bill, H.R. 1713, introduced on May 25, 1995 by Representative Wes Cooley (R-Ore.), would also undo Clinton's Rangeland Reform. This bill is still in the Committee on Resources.
NOW WHAT: Reportedly, House fiscal conservatives will try to attach higher grazing fees to the Senate bill. This may result in opposition to the bill by more than just environmental interests. President Clinton has indicated that he will veto the grazing legislation passed by the Senate.
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.
To register your opinion with the President on grazing legislation or any other issue call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.
For Further Information Contact: Jim Myron of Oregon Trout at (503) 222-9091.
II. REGIONAL
Legislative attempts to overturn the salvage rider have failed to date. In a key Senate vote, an attempt by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to overturn the Salvage Rider (See Habitat Hotline Number 24) failed by a vote of 54 to 42 on March 14, 1996. The appropriations bill still contains language extending the salvage rider deadline (sponsored by Senators Slade Gorton [R-Wash.] and Mark Hatfield [R-Ore.]) and allows the Administration to negotiate buy-outs or timber trades.
In Related News, on March 29, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman signed an order giving the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) the go ahead to work with timber operators that hold rights to log certain section 318 old-growth sales. The USFS will have the authority to substitute timber located outside of an original sale area. Reuters reported Glickman as saying, "I believe that with this new authority, the tools are in place to head off the immediate threats to fisheries, soils, streams and threatened and endangered species that would result from harvesting these section 318 sales."
In Other Related News: On April 5, 1996, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked an order from a federal judge in Oregon that would have allowed logging in threatened marbled murrelet old growth habitat. The order affects 77 old growth timber sales.
March 5, 1996
Re: Public Rangelands Management Act (S. 1459) -- February 8, 1996 review draft version
Dear Senator:
The undersigned organizations represent the diverse interests of millions of citizens who currently participate in the multiple use of America's public lands (National Forests, National Grasslands, and BLM-managed public lands). On their behalf, we strongly urge you to oppose S. 1459, the Public Rangelands Management Act, including the February 8, 1996 version now being circulated by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM). This latest version of the bill, like previous versions, is an attack on balanced, multiple use management of our public lands, resource protection, and public participation. We have the following serious reservations about this draft:
If enacted, the latest version of S. 1459 would set public range management and public range conditions back decades. Do not allow the Public Rangelands Management Act to turn America's public lands over to the grazing industry. Support responsible land management, prudent resource conservation, and continued multiple use of these national lands. Please oppose S. 1459, including the February 8 version.
III. OREGON
GROUPS SEEK RESTRICTIONS FOR LIVESTOCK ALONG STREAMS
Signatures are currently being gathered for the "Oregon Clean Stream Initiative." This initiative would restrict livestock grazing in Oregon's streams on state, private and federal lands." As of April 6, the following groups had endorsed the Initiative:
American Canoe Association Northwest Division, American Rivers, Audubon Society of Portland, Blue Mountain Native Forest Alliance, Cascade Canoe Club, Coast Range Association, Corvallis Audubon Society, Columbia River United, Earth and Spirit Council Eugene Natural History Society, Federation of Fly Fishers Oregon Council, Headwaters Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Lane County Audubon Society, McKenzie Flyfishers, National Parks and Conservation Association, Native Fish Society, Native Plant Society of Oregon, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Northwest Rafters Association, Obsidians, Oregon Anglers, Oregon league of Conservation Voters, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Oregon Peaceworks, Oregon Trout, Oregon Wildlife Federation, Salem Audubon Society, Sierra Club Oregon Chapter Society Advocating Natural Ecosystems, Soda Mountain Wilderness Council, Umpqua Valley Audubon Society.
According to the Initiative's sponsors:
Many of Oregon's waters are polluted and livestock are a major source of pollution. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) statewide inventory of 29,109 river miles found that over half of the river miles assessed did not support, or only partially supported beneficial uses such as water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, agriculture, and recreation. The DEQ found that livestock grazing was the primary cause of stream degradation in over 9,300 river miles, and that grazing has impacted more river miles than any other non-point source of "non-industrial" pollution.
Livestock defecate and urinate in rivers and streams, trample and graze streamside vegetation, and destabilize streambanks. They increase stream sedimentation, erosion and runoff, reduce shade and increase water temperature, and encourage the invasion of undesirable plants, all of which destroy water quality, as well as fish and wildlife habitat.
Unlike dairy operations and forest practices, livestock grazing along streams remains totally unregulated, as are most feedlots on streams east of the Cascades. In 1993, the state legislature tried but failed to pass a livestock grazing act, similar to Oregon's Forest Practices Act. Because of opposition from the Oregon Cattleman's Association and Oregon Farm Bureau, the bill died in committee without even a vote.
What the Initiative Would Do:
The initiative is designed to keep livestock out of rivers and streams and out of riparian areas if the waterway is designated as "Water Quality Limited" by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The draft list includes about 900 stream segments (about 15,000 miles or 15% of all streams in the state) in the following river basins: Deschutes, Grande Ronde, Hood River, John Day, Malheur, Snake, Rogue, Umatilla, Umpqua, Willamette, Owyhee, as well as numerous coastal rivers.
If the initiative becomes law, it would be illegal for persons to "graze livestock in water quality limited waters except as allowed by an approved water quality management plan."
Under Section 6, this Act will become law as follows:
1. On public land, which includes federal lands:
a. On January 1, 1997 for waters of the state that supply drinking water or constitute salmon, steelhead or trout habitat; and
b. On January 1, 2002, for all other waters of the state.
2. On private land:
a. On January 1, 2002, for waters of the state that supply drinking water or constitute salmon, steelhead or trout habitat; and
b. On January 1, 2007, for all other waters of the state.
NOW WHAT: As of April 10, 1996, Initiative sponsors say that they have 15,000 of the 90,000 signatures necessary to qualify for the November 1996 election. The signatures are due at the Oregon Secretary of State's office July 5, 1996.
If the necessary signatures are gathered, the key to its passage will probably lie in the ensuing media campaign. A 1994 ballot initiative that sought mining restrictions in Oregon failed, in part, because of a 3 million dollar media campaign sponsored by the mining industry. The question is: Will the opponents of the Clean Streams Initiative, and backers for that matter, be able to raise enough money to undertake a television media campaign? Though the livestock industry does not have the resources of the mining industry, they will undoubtedly mount a fight against the initiative.
What You Can Do: The Oregon Clean Stream Initiative needs assistance in their efforts.
For Further Information Contact: the Oregon Clean Stream Initiative at either (541) 389-8367 (Bend); or (503) 232-8581 (Portland).
SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY INITIATIVE
The group Oregonians For Sustainable Forestry is gathering signatures for a November 1996 ballot initiative entitled, "The Sustainable Forestry Initiative of 1996."
This initiative would do the following:
For Further Information Call: Oregonians For Sustainable Forestry at (541) 344-5406 (Eugene); (541) 432-1035 (La Grande); or (503) 233-8441 (Portland).
IV. CALIFORNIA
THE CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a joint state-federal effort to develop solutions to the problems of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary. This area supplies drinking water for two-thirds of the state and irrigates more than 4 million acres of farmland. It is also the West Coast's largest estuary, with 70,000 acres of wetlands. The management of the Bay-Delta has negatively impacted numerous fish species including delta smelt (listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act) and winter run-chinook salmon (listed as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act).
In an attempt to fix the problems associated with water management, water quality standards to protect the San Francisco Bay and Delta were finally adopted on December 15, 1994. The agreement on state standards was a result of years of wrangling between state and federal government agencies and user groups, including fishermen and farmers, and consists of:
Because of the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon "endangered" status, the 1996 California sport and commercial fisheries may be significantly reduced to protect the winter run by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). [Note: On April 9, over 150 fishermen held a rally at the PFMC meeting in San Francisco. The purpose of the rally was to protest the reduction of the California ocean salmon season, and to point out the need for protection of winter-run chinook habitat.]
While fisheries closures will save some fish, fixes in the Bay-Delta water management system are needed if recovery efforts are to be effective. One of the main problems with the Bay-Delta is the insufficient amount of fresh water allowed to enter the estuary. In past years, up to 80 percent of the inflow was diverted (pumped) from the estuary, changing its delicate ecological balance. It is hoped that increased fresh water flow will help migrating chinook juveniles move more quickly through the Delta and avoid its high water temperatures and unscreened diversions. (The maximum fresh water export will be 65 percent July through January, and 35 percent February through June.)
In a recent letter to National Marine Fisheries Service Director Rolland Schmitten, Zeke Grader, of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, said:
The major factors, listed by the American Fisheries Society in its petition to limit Sacramento winter-run chinook under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, contributing to the decline of these fish since 1969 (when the run was approximately 117,000 spawners), included:
NMFS is the federal agency charged with the recovery of these fish, but other than a proposal to cut the fishery -- which costs the agency nothing -- we see no effort at NMFS to develop a program, to devise a budget, or put forward an appropriation request to improve our understanding of these fish, to improve the success of the fish's spawning or the survival of its progeny.
NOW WHAT: The CALFED Bay/Delta Advisory Committee (BDAC) has drafted ten possible alternative solutions for "fixing" the Bay-Delta (see page 11). They are seeking input so that they can narrow the list down and start the environmental review process. Information is sought as to what should be addressed in the upcoming Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). The draft EIS/EIR is due out in June of 1998.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: A schedule of the public "scoping" meetings is listed below.
****Comments are due April 30, 1996 ***
For Further Information Contact: Mary Kelley, of the CALFED Bay Delta Program at 916-657-2666; Zeke Grader, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations at (415) 332-5080; The Bay Institute at (415) 331-2303.
SCHEDULE OF SCOPING MEETINGS
Community Date/Time Location
Sacramento Mon., April 15, 7:00 pm - 9:00 Red Lion Inn, 2001 Point West Way
pm
San Diego Tues., April 16, 7:00 pm - Red Lion Hotel/San Diego, 7450 Hazard Center
9:00 pm Drive
Long Beach Wed., April 17, 1:00 pm - 3:00 Long Beach Renaissance Hotel, 111 E. Ocean
pm Blvd.
Pasadena Wed., April 17, 7:00 pm - 9:00 Holiday Inn, 303 East Cordova
pm
Bakersfield Thurs., April 18, 7:00 pm - Red Lion Inn, 3100 Camino Del Rio Court
9:00 pm
* The CALFED Bay Delta Program technical workshop is on Monday, April 15, from 9 am to 5 pm at the Clarion Hotel, 700 Sixteenth Street, in Sacramento. It's open to the public. Call (926) 657-2666 for a pre-workshop packet.
V. WASHINGTON
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
On January 3, 1996, thirty-four independent economists from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and California released a consensus report entitled Economic Well-Being and Environmental Protection in the Pacific Northwest. The report is the outcome of six months of work to determine if there was a consensus among economists on the relationship between environmental protection and economic viability in the Northwest.
Some of the key conclusions are:
For a Copy of the Report Contact: Pacific Rivers Council at (541) 345-0119.
VIDEO EXAMINES POLLUTED RUNOFF
"We All Live Downstream", a new half-hour educational video released by the Oregon State University Extension Service, examines urban and rural runoff and the problems it creates for surface and groundwater.
Nonpoint source pollution is carried by rain, snowmelt and irrigation that moves across the landscape. It flows from a variety of sources including farms, forests, city streets, construction sites, mines and septic systems. Experts say America's growing population has made urban and rural runoff the most serious threat to our nation's drinking water supplies.
"We All Live Downstream" was videotaped primarily in Oregon's Tualatin River basin, but Ron Miner, OSU Extension Water Quality Specialist, says the program has implications for most every watershed in the country.
"The video's message is easy to understand and should interest anyone who is concerned about healthy watersheds and clean water supplies," said Miner. "It explores how Oregon residents and government officials are trying to reduce nonpoint source pollution, and offers a variety of tips that can help Americans protect their drinking water sources."
TO ORDER: The video costs $30 (including shipping) and may be ordered by mail from: Publications Orders, Agricultural Communications Office, Oregon State University, A422 Administrative Services Building, Corvallis, OR 97331-2119. Checks, money orders, or purchase orders should be made out to: "Oregon State University." Orders may also be faxed to (541) 737-0817.
1996 PROPOSALS DUE FOR PARTNERS FOR WILDLIFE PROGRAM
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Oregon Office is soliciting project proposals for funding in Fiscal Year 1996 (October 1, 1995 through September 30, 1996). Please note that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is currently operating under a Continuing Resolution and does not as yet have an approved operating budget. Although funding allocations may be reduced for the "Partners for Wildlife" Program for Fiscal Year 96, submitted proposals that meet program objectives will be given priority in the 1997 fiscal year.
Specific goals of the "Partners" program are: 1) to implement habitat restoration projects in partnership with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2) to restore biological diversity on private lands and Farm Service Agency (formerly Farm Home Administration) easement and fee title transfer properties, 3) to assist in the conservation and restoration of biological diversity on National Wildlife Refuges by conserving and restoring the ecosystems in which they are located, and 4) to restore habitat through partnerships with private landowners.
Although the Program emphasizes wetlands and private lands, ranking and funding approval will be based on overall benefits to the habitat base and the species that use it. The Service encourages cooperative efforts and partnerships. There is no match requirement unless the Service's cash contribution is greater than $10,000. The bottom line is getting restoration done on-the-ground through shared funding, in-kind services, materials, and commitment by all parties.
Projects need to be located on private or non-federal ownerships within the boundaries of the State of Oregon, but outside of the Klamath River watershed.
For Further Information: If you are interested in submitting a proposal for consideration for 1996 or 1997 funding, and want to receive a proposal package, please write or call Maureen Smith at:
Oregon State Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
c/o Maureen Smith
2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97266
(503) 231-6179
**All proposals are due by May 31, 1996**
STREAM DAMAGE
The benefits of keeping livestock out of streams has been well documented. However, effective solutions to excluding livestock from streams, such as fencing, are often costly. Fencing also requires maintenance, because cattle will knock fencing down to get to water sources. This is especially a problem in the summer, when water becomes increasingly scarce. While livestock ponds can be used to keep cattle away from streams, getting water to the pond often requires pumps, which also can be expensive.
An inexpensive solution to pump water out of stream to where cattle will not damage the riparian corridor may be the Aquamat Meadow Pump, or "Nose pump". This product has been used in Europe for more than twenty years, and was recently brought to the United States. Not requiring electricity, the nose pump works by "cow power." Cattle or horses smell the water in the nose pump's trough, and when they nose into it, they push down a plunger, pumping their own water.
According to Doug Fenwick of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, "Livestock are looking for easily accessible water. They prefer water made available by the nose pump instead of having to travel down a steep creek embankment."
The cost of the nose pump is about $300. It can pump water to a height of 21 feet. One pump is recommended for twenty head of cattle. According to the distributor of the pump, Hans Butschun, a Centralia, Washington farmer, "The nose-pump should be used in conjunction with fencing of riparian areas. It is a solution to the problems associated with riparian fencing, such as maintenance."
For More Information on how to purchase the Nose Pump, call Hans or Suzanne Butschun of Blue Skies West at (360) 736-2475 (discounts are available for bulk purchases).
For Further Information Contact: Doug Fenwick, Natural Resources Conservation Service, at (360) 696-7631.
VII. UPDATES
____________
EDITOR'S NOTE: PSMFC's mission is to promote the conservation, development and management of Pacific coast fishery resources through coordinated regional research, monitoring and utilization. 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. Messages can also be E-mailed at Habitat.Hotline@PSMFC.org. 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. Date of Issue: 4/12/96.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
45 S.E. 82nd Drive
Suite 100
Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522
FIRST CLASS