HABITAT
HOTLINEHABITAT
HOTLINETABLE OF CONTENTS
| I. FEDERAL |
| II. CALIFORNIA |
| III. WASHINGTON |
| IV. ALASKA |
| V. MISCELLANEOUS |
| VI. UPDATES |
I. FEDERAL
On June 20, 1996 S. 1730, the "Oil Spill
Prevention and Response Improvement Act" passed out of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The bill
amends the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. S. 1730 was introduced by
Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.) as a result of the North Cape
Oil Spill, which dumped an estimated 800,000 gallons of diesel
oil off the coast of Rhode Island in January 1996.
The spill severely impacted lobsters, sea birds and
other shellfish. Some elements of the bill would:
REACTION: Environmental
groups have raised concerns about the types of incentives provided
in the legislation for converting ships from single to double
hulls (i.e. weakening of financial liability). However, other
provisions in S. 1730 are seen as positive steps in improving
spill prevention and response. One representative from an environmental
group gave S. 1730 a grade of "B plus."
Now What: In the House,
companion legislation, H.R. 3573, was introduced by Representative
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on June 4, 1996 and is
still in committee.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Oil,
fuel, and other petroleum products contain many complex hydrocarbon
compounds that are toxic to aquatic life. The larvae of fish and
shellfish are extremely sensitive to low levels of these toxic
compounds. It is estimated that amounts as low as between 0.1
and 1.0 parts per million of the soluble aromatic fraction of
petroleum hydrocarbons are toxic to larval fish and shellfish.
Tanker operations, spills at terminals, bilge and
fuel oil flushing, and ship accidents account for most of the
input of petroleum products into the aquatic environment. However,
another significant source of petroleum in the aquatic environment
originates from municipal and industrial wastes and runoff.
S. 1730 is a useful
piece of legislation and should be be passed.
However, if petroleum products and other pollutants are to be
kept out of our waters, Congress and state governments need to
provide funding for new sewage treatment plants and enforce the
pollution laws that are already in existence.
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 any
issue, call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.
E-Mail Messages to President Clinton: president@whitehouse.gov;
Vice President Gore: vice.president@whitehouse.gov.
S. 1459, "The Public
Rangelands Management Act", introduced by Senator Pete
Domenici (R-N.M.), would alter the course of the Clinton Administration's
"Rangeland Reform" regulations which went into affect
August 21, 1995. The cattle industry and many Western legislators
support S. 1459, while many environmental and fishing groups
oppose it.
NOW WHAT: The Senate passed
S. 1459 on March 21 by a vote of 51-46 (See Habitat Hotline Number 25).
President Clinton has indicated that he will veto S. 1459
in its current form.
***As We Go To Press***In
the House, the bill is ready for floor action and reports
are that bill sponsors might try to attach it to the omnibus parks
package (H.R. 1296), which contains numerous popular
measures for national parks across the country. Congress comes
back from its Independence Day recess on July 8, 1996.
Interior Secretary Babbitt has reportedly told senators
he would recommend a veto of the omnibus parks package if it contains
amendments unacceptable to the Administration.
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 any
issue call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.
E-Mail Messages to President Clinton: president@whitehouse.gov;
Vice President Gore: vice.president@whitehouse.gov.
In Related News, on June 6, 1996, according to the Associated Press, U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Brimmer rejected some portions of the Department of Interior's (DOI) "Rangeland Reform." The judge asserted that the reforms would "wreak havoc" on the ranching industry and go beyond the law. The judge barred a provision that would have weakened ranchers' rights to renew their federal grazing leases. Also rejected were regulations that would have given the U.S. government title to future range improvements, allowed conservation-use permits, and made it easier for nonranchers to obtain permits. However, the judge upheld a proviso allowing DOI to determine whether permittees have met the stated terms and conditions, saying the agency had followed proper procedure in issuing the regulations.
The groups challenging the Rangeland Reform were
the National Cattlemen's Association, Public Lands Council, American
Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep Industry Association, and
the Association of National Grasslands.
The "Federal Lands Forest Health Protection
and Restoration Act", S. 391, introduced by Senator
Larry Craig (R-Idaho), was passed out of the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee on June 19, 1996. This
bill would identify the highest priority forest health problem
areas and would require agencies to take aggressive action to
restore forest health. No NEPA (National Environmental Policy
Act) documentation is required for the removal of 250,000 board
feet of green merchantable wood products or 1 million board feet
or less of salvage merchantable wood products; of roads one mile
or less; or activities that assure regeneration of harvested or
salvaged areas.
Environmental groups have criticized the bill as
environmentally dangerous. In a June 23, 1996 editorial, the Seattle
Post Intelligencer said the Senate should "dramatically
amend" the bill, and that salvage activities should not "trample
on basic environmental safeguards such as those that protect watersheds
and streams."
Now What: *** As We Go To Press, negotiations
over S. 391 continue between Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.)
and Senator Craig. The main points of contention are the buy-back
of "Section 318" sales from the 1995 Salvage Rider,
roadless areas, and the definition of salvage. Reports are that
if no agreement is reached between the two parties, S. 391
will be considered by the full Senate in mid-July. If an agreement
is reached, it will be substituted for Craig's bill on the Senate
floor.
On June 13, 1996 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the following Federal Register Notice:
[The] Assistant Administrator for Water hereby gives
notice of the availability of a Draft Framework for Watershed-Based
Trading...This framework is a companion to the Policy Statement
for effluent trading which was issued in January 1996. The framework
has been developed to encourage trading and assist in evaluating
and designing trading programs. The framework provides a background
on trading and its benefits, a series of conditions that are necessary
for trading, including those that assure protection of water quality
comparable to the protection that would be provided without trading.
The audience for the framework includes local and national community
groups, members of the regulated and nonregulated community and
governmental organizations. EPA is asking for comments on the
framework.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Comments should be addressed to:
Commentors are requested to submit an original and
3 copies of their written comment.
For Copies Of The Framework Fax:
the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
at (513) 569-7186; you must specify publication number "EPA
800-R-96-001" and title. The framework may also be accessed
on the EPA's Office of Water Home Page on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ow/watershed.
For Further Information Call: Mahesh
Podar of the Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 260-7818.
[Editor's Note: Avian predators impact West Coast
salmon and steelhead juveniles. Below is a review on that topic
recently undertaken by PSMFC fish biologist Al Didier, that we
thought would be of interest to our readers. Al works in the PSMFC
Gladstone office, and can be reached at (503) 650-5400.]
Salmonid Behavior
Salmonids apparently react to both visual and olfactory
cues regarding predation risk. Gregory (1993) found that in the
absence of visual risk from predators, chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) oriented near the bottom under clear water
conditions, and randomly under turbid water conditions. When a
visual risk of predators was present, chinook salmon occupied
the deeper areas regardless of turbidity. Turbidity also appeared
to reduce the perceived risk of predation in juvenile chinook
salmon, because alarm responses were less marked and of shorter
duration under turbid water conditions. After a mixture of coho-
and merganser-conditioned water was introduced into their aquaria,
juvenile coho salmon (O. kisutch) significantly reduced
the distances they would travel to attack drifting prey, and significantly
decreased their aggressive behavior towards mirrors (Martel and
Dill, 1993). The authors suggested that juvenile salmon adjust
their behavior when a change in predation risk alters the balance
in the trade-off between access to food and probability of detection
by predators. For Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) at an equal
hunger level, Gotceitas and Godin (1991) found that the dominant
fish was more likely to resume foraging first after exposure to
an avian predator threat. When dominant and subordinate fish differed
in their hunger level, the hungrier fish resumed foraging first,
regardless of social status.
These responses to predation risk can be impaired
by stress or other factors which depress prey condition. Mesa
(1994) demonstrated that juvenile chinook salmon subjected to
multiple handlings to simulate hatchery practices, or to multiple
agitations to simulate dam passage, were significantly less able
to avoid fish predators during the first hour after treatment.
Lethargic behavior was common following both stressors, and multiple
agitation also caused disorientation and occasional injury. Differential
predation was not observed during longer exposures to predators,
even though some physiological parameters remained abnormal for
up to 24 hours after treatment. In their review of 37 published
studies of predation conducted since 1960 which used fish as test
animals, Mesa, et al. (1994) reported that substandard prey were
captured from test groups in higher than expected proportions
in 73% of the experiments. In nearly all cases, exposure to toxicants,
thermal shock, or physical stress produced substandard prey that
were more vulnerable to predation.
Predation in Atlantic Coast Systems
Greenstreet, et al. (1993) observed that peak Atlantic
salmon smolt emigration from the Lussa River in Scotland occurred
in late April and May, and the numbers of shags (a cormorant -
Phalacrocorax aristotelis) and common seals near the river
mouth were strongly correlated to smolt numbers. The authors thought
it unlikely that shags and seals were attracted by the increased
smolt numbers, since the numbers of smolts produced was small
compared to the daily food requirements of the birds and seals
attracted to the area. They thought it more likely that the timing
of the smolt emigration coincides with a local burst of marine
production which also attracts other fish and predators. Smolts
are of a size that predation by either shags or seals is possible,
and they arrive at the sea when the numbers of both predators
is high. Shags preferred daylight feeding and their numbers peaked
at midday, while peak daily downstream smolt movement occurred
in the early evening when most shags had left the area to roost
for the night. However, Kennedy and Greer (1988) observed significant
overall predation on hatchery and wild smolts by cormorants (P.
carbo) in an Irish river system. Their study suggested that
51-66% of the total wild smolt run and 13-28% of the hatchery
smolt release into this river during 1986 could have been consumed
by cormorants.
Marquiss and Duncan (1993) documented seasonal variation
of red-breasted mergansers (Mergus serrator) on the river
North Esk, Scotland. Birds were found near the river mouth during
winter, moved upriver in spring to breed and nest, and moved downstream
with broods into lower sections of the river by late summer. Breeding
density and total duckling production decreased with increasing
distance upstream, decreasing river width, and increasing gradient
and elevation. Estimated numbers on the river in April were variable,
and there was evidence that at least some of these birds were
migrants. The total numbers of breeding pairs and their distribution
on the river during May were similar from year to year, despite
variable numbers killed in a control program, suggesting a stable
breeding population near the upper limit supportable by the habitat.
Killing mergansers in April appeared to be an ineffective way
to reduce the population. The spatial variation in merganser breeding
density was not correlated with the density of their main spring
food, Atlantic salmon parr, but could have been related to its
availability. The fish may have been easier to catch on the lower
part of the river where the bottom substrate provided less cover.
Atlantic salmon formed the largest proportion by
mass of fish found in the stomachs of red-breasted mergansers
(M. serrator) collected during the time of smolt run on
several rivers in Scotland (Feltham, 1990). Two-thirds of this
mass was composed of parr, and smolts made up a smaller proportion
than previously predicted. The combined mass of smolts and parr,
however, was 1.5 times that previously estimated. The median lengths
of parr eaten was 70 mm; the median length of smolt eaten (115
mm) was smaller than for the smolt population as a whole. The
author suggested that larger smolts may be too difficult to catch.
Feltham (1995) estimated that goosanders (M. merganser)
on the rivers Dee and North Esk in Scotland consumed the equivalent
of 10-11 smolts and 48-52 parr daily. Annual predation by an average
population of 12 goosanders on the river North Esk during a 91-day
(mid-April to mid-June) smolt emigration was estimated to be between
8,000 and 15,000 smolts, or 3-16% of annual production.
Atlantic salmon tags (type unspecified) have been
recovered on the ground in nesting areas of several species of
seabirds, or attached to dead postsmolts that had been regurgitated
by these birds. Soikkeli (1973) used such tags to demonstrate
predation by Caspian terns (Sterna caspia) on Atlantic
salmon. Due to the relative scarcity of these birds in that area,
they were not viewed as a major salmon predator. Montevecchi,
et al. (1988) used tag recoveries to support theories of particular
Atlantic salmon postsmolt migration routes.
Control of avian salmon predators is, or has been,
practiced on both sides of the Atlantic. Due to concern over the
numbers of juvenile salmon consumed by red-breasted mergansers
and goosanders (M. serrator and M. merganser), annual
licenses to kill these birds are issued on Scottish rivers where
predation is perceived to be a problem (Marquiss and Duncan, 1993).
Some merganser control programs have apparently been successful
at increasing salmon smolt production in eastern Canada. In New
Brunswick's Pollett River, Elson (1962) compared smolt production
from five annual plantings of underyearling salmon followed by
no predator control, to that from four annual underyearling plantings
which were followed by systematic killing and trapping of mergansers
(M. merganser) and kingfishers (Megaceryle alcyon).
Mergansers were identified as the principal predator, and were
found to be more abundant in years when parr were also more abundant.
Smolt production following predator control increased from 3,000
- 5,000 per year to about 20,000 per year. To increase smolt production,
the author recommended that merganser numbers be reduced below
the rate of one bird per 15 miles of stream length and 10 yards
of width (approximately 50 acres of water). Kingfisher control
was considered unnecessary unless the frequency of birds exceeded
one bird per one-half mile of stream length and 10 yards of width
(approximately one bird per two acres of water). Anderson (1986)
attempted a similar control program on a larger river system (Restigouche
River) in New Brunswick, and successfully reduced merganser populations
to approach these target levels. Attempts to demonstrate the effectiveness
of the program through increased juvenile densities, smolt production,
or adult returns were inconclusive. Anderson (1986) noted that
bounties on predators had been eliminated. Predator control principles
were challenged by ecologists, and public perception of the methods
that were used was poor.
Shearer, et al. (1987) developed a simple steady
state model describing the effect of predation by two species
of sawbill ducks (M. serrator and M. merganser)
on the number of adult Atlantic salmon returning to the river
North Esk in Scotland as a way to examine the effect of sawbill
predator control. The authors stressed the simplicity of this
model, since it did not consider annual fluctuations in smolt
or sawbill populations, patchy distributions of predators or prey,
nor the possibility that at times trout smolts may compete with
salmon smolts in the diet of birds. Mortality rates during the
time of interaction were assumed to be constant, and the available
estimate of actual mortality was poor. Simulations with reasonable
mortality rate estimates suggested that the maximum benefit which
could be achieved through control of sawbill predation was a 35%
increase in the numbers of returning adult salmon. Actual expected
benefit was less, because it was unlikely that all sawbill predation
could be eliminated.
Predation in Pacific Coast Systems
On the Pacific coast, population trends of some piscivorous
birds such as gulls, terns, herons, and cormorants appear to be
increasing (Thompson and Tabor, 1981; Conover, 1983; Gill and
Mewaldt, 1983; Carter, et al., 1995). Much of the published research
dealing with natural avian predation in Pacific coast systems
was conducted on Vancouver Island. Wood (1985) was able to model
merganser (M. merganser) aggregation patterns during March
through June on several streams enhanced by hatcheries or spawning
channels based on fish availability and the frequency of bird
arrivals and departures. Wood (1986) demonstrated that the number
of merganser (M. merganser) broods reared on eight coastal
Vancouver island streams was highly correlated with drainage area
and total juvenile salmon production (including hatchery production).
There was no direct evidence suggesting how breeding pairs select
a nesting stream, but several possible dispersion mechanisms were
discussed. Among other possibilities, breeding pairs may choose
a nesting stream on the basis of prey availability during the
nesting season.
Daily fish consumption by merganser (M. merganser)
ducklings at three coastal Vancouver Island streams was 80% of
body weight at 10 days of age and 40% of body weight at 40 days
of age (Wood, 1987b). Broods inhabited freshwater reaches while
young, but spent progressively more time foraging on tidal waters
as they grew older. Merganser ducklings were never observed to
eat juvenile salmonids on tidal waters, but did eat them on freshwater
reaches. The estimated coho salmon (O. kisutch) consumption
by merganser broods in the Big Qualicum River from June through
August was 82,000 to 131,000 fry, equivalent to 24-65% of the
observed wild smolt production from this system, assuming that
all these fry would have survived to smolt. It is unclear whether
mergansers actually affected the eventual size of smolt emigrations,
since predation occurred during the summer and overwintering survival
at the original densities might have been limited by food or suitable
habitat. The author doubted that merganser predation limited freshwater
production of Pacific salmon (with the possible exception of steelhead)
to the same extent that it limits Atlantic salmon production,
citing the longer freshwater rearing period for Atlantic salmon,
and higher freshet mortality in Pacific versus Atlantic systems.
Wood (1987b) criticized an earlier evaluation of merganser mortality
(Elson, 1962) for its use of outplanted hatchery fry at rearing
densities higher than would occur naturally, a condition which
could be expected to attract mergansers.
Wood (1987a) estimated the maximum mortality rate
of juvenile salmonids during seaward migration using census counts
of merganser distribution on two streams enhanced by spawning
channels and hatcheries, and assumptions regarding consumption,
number and average weight of prey species. The maximum mortality
rate declined as fish abundance increased in all cases where the
effects of prey-size selection could be ignored due to an overwhelming
abundance of one prey species. Mergansers appeared to become satiated
by the numbers of fish output from spawning channels and hatcheries.
Under a variety of size-selection assumptions, maximum mortality
on a variety of species during seaward migration never exceeded
9%. Given the difficulty and expense of controlling merganser
populations, the author recommended accepting merganser predation,
increasing hatchery production 5-10% to compensate for losses,
and adopting a strategy of single, delayed mass smolt releases
to reduce the period over which fish are vulnerable to predation.
On the Columbia River, Ruggerone (1986) estimated that gulls (primarily ring-billed gulls, Larus delawarensis) foraging below the turbine area of Wanapum Dam consumed 111,750 to 119,250 salmonids during the 25-day peak smolt emigration period of 1982. This consumption was 2% of the total estimated spring emigration through that dam. While some of the salmonids consumed by gulls had already been killed by the turbines, the author suggested that some were healthy fish which had been stunned, disoriented, and carried close to the surface by upwelling water below the turbines. Cumulative impacts of similar foraging at all Columbia and Snake River dams could be substantial, and the author recommended use of monofilament lines strung across the turbine tailrace area and night-oriented hatchery release strategies to reduce predation by gulls. Predation has also been documented at other Columbia River dam sites. There are reports that gulls foraging below The Dalles Dam consumed 11 of 97 (11.3%) of radio-tagged yearlings and 4 of 71 (4.1%) of radio-tagged subyearlings in one experiment during 1995 (J. Snelling, Oregon State University, cited in: Roby and Collis, 1996)
Other Studies
Montevecchi, et al. (1988) reported that preliminary
plans were being made to use metal detectors to search for metallic
salmon tags among cormorant colonies in British Columbia. Actually,
an unsuccessful attempt was made to recover coded-wire tags using
a strong magnet from droppings at colonies of rhinoceros auklets
(Cerorhinca monocerata) on the west coast of Vancouver
Island (Dr. Alan E. Burger, U. Victoria, Victoria, B.C., pers.
comm.). No tags were recovered, and it was later determined that
juvenile salmon were not a major component of the auklet diet.
There were no published reports of this work.
Dan Roby (OSU Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit)
and Ken Collis (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission) are
proposing a multi-year study on the Columbia River to evaluate
bird predation (Roby and Collis, 1996). In the first phase, they
propose to identify areas on the Columbia and Snake rivers were
piscivorous birds (primarily gulls, cormorants, and terns) are
most abundant and determine the locations and approximate sizes
of breeding colonies; gather preliminary data on foraging behavior
and diets of these birds; and determine whether populations of
these birds may be growing. Later phases of the program will determine
the taxonomic composition of fish prey; assess the magnitude of
avian predation on juvenile salmonids through direct observation,
recovery of fish tags at bird colonies, and bioenergetics models;
describe foraging strategies of avian predator populations; and
identify and evaluate potential management practices to reduce
avian predation. Should sufficient Bonneville Power Administration
funding be available, the program could begin in 1996 and last
for up to five years. Funding for a feasibility study to detect
PIT tags at bird colonies during 1996 has been obtained.
[Note: A listing of references cited in this document
are available upon request by calling the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission at (503) 650-5400]
II. CALIFORNIA
Work has begun on the removal of four oil rigs off
the California Coast. The Chevron Oil Company, owner of the rigs,
will reportedly spend $35 million on the project, the most expensive
rig removal ever undertaken off California. The removal and onshore
disposal of the rigs is expected to be complete by this summer.
The removals mark the beginning of a series of oil
platform demolitions off the California Coast. Charter and recreational
fishermen in the area want to see the four rigs dropped to bottom
of the sea floor instead of being landfilled or sold as scrap.
The structures attract fish and become an artificial reef, thus
the name "rigs-to-reefs." (See Habitat Hotline Numbers
16 and 17).
Sportfishing groups advocating the rigs-to-reefs
concept, include the Sportfishing Association of California
and the American Sportfishing Association. The California
Department of Fish and Game has also expressed an interest
in the project. Rigs-to-reefs projects have been carried out in
the Gulf of Mexico for more than a decade and have had much support
in the recreational fishing and diving communities.
However, some commercial fishing groups in California
are opposed to the rigs-to-reefs project. Trawlers want the current
group of four oil rigs, which are located 1-3 miles offshore in
90-140 feet of water, totally removed so that they can fish once
again for halibut in these areas (See Habitat Hotline Number 17).
NOW WHAT: According to
Dave Parker of the California Department of Fish and Game:
In the next 4-5 years, offshore rigs are scheduled
for removal off the Pt. Conception and Pt. Arguello areas. The
cost associated with these future removals will be expensive because
they are in federal waters at depths approaching 600 feet. Because
of this expense, the rigs-to-reefs option is of obvious interest
to Chevron, the rig owners. If they secure the proper permits
to leave the oil rigs partially or wholly in place, then part
of the savings could maybe be directed into a fund for construction
of artificial reefs closer to shore.
In Related News, the California
Department of Fish and Game is seeking permits for reef projects
(to be constructed of concrete rubble and quarry rock, among other
materials) in two areas off the Southern California Coast. The
reef sites will be in a three square mile area in and around the
Big Sycamore Canyon Marine Reserve, a no fishing area (located
between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles). If the permits are granted,
research will be conducted on how different types of materials
function as artificial reefs. Also, the impact of fishing pressure
on artificial reef biomass will be investigated. A permit is expected
to be granted by the Fall of 1996.
For Further Information Contact: Dave
Parker of the California Department of Fish and Game at (310)
590-5129.
III. WASHINGTON
The Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE) recently
submitted an application to the Environmental Protection Agency
to conduct an in situ test burn of crude oil in the ocean
off the Southwest Washington Coast. Besides WADOE, the other applicants
are: the Northwest Area Committee, the Regional Response Team
[which is comprised of federal and state emergency response experts]
and Clean Sound Cooperative.
Below are some excerpts from the application:
In 1995, the people responsible for cleaning up oil
spills in the Pacific Northwest adopted a policy governing the
use of a promising new response tool, controlled in situ
or "in place" burning. This tool involves corralling
part of an oil spill inside a special flame resistant containment
boom and purposely setting it on fire. While in situ burning
can be an effective response tool, removing up to 98 percent of
the oil collected for burning, the ability to use it in an emergency
spill situation in the Northwest has been questionable. Members
of the region's oil spill response community have recognized the
need to conduct further training and research in order to maximize
the environmental protection capabilities of in situ burning
and insure that human health is protected.
There is a need to secure the region's capability
to conduct a safe, effective and efficient in situ burn.
On May 29, 1996, the Washington State Department of Ecology, in
conjunction with the Northwest Area Committee, the Regional Response
Team,...and Clean Sound Cooperative, submitted an application
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.,
to conduct four, small-scale test burns 9.5 to 12 miles off the
southern Washington coast. If EPA approves the application, the
burns will all occur on one day between September 9 and September
30, 1996. Each burn will involve about 2,500 gallons of Alaska
North Slope Crude oil - a total of approximately 10,000 gallons.
Each burn will last about 30-45 minutes and cover a 600-800 square
foot area. The two sites, a primary site 12 nautical miles west
of Grayland, Wash., and an alternate site 9.5 nautical miles west
of Ocean City, Wash., were selected because of their limited impacts
on area wildlife and natural resources.
The idea of intentionally spilling 10,000 gallons of oil on the water and then burning it is no small matter. If approved, the test burns will cause some water and air pollution. A virtual flotilla of spill response vessels will be at the site to make sure environmental impacts are kept to a minimum. The test burn will not occur if wind, weather, and other conditions outlined in the application are unsuitable. The minor, short-term environmental impacts of the test are heavily outweighed by the benefits of advancing in situ burning. If approved, this research and training exercise will provide a much greater degree of environmental protection during future spills. While in situ burning will not replace mechanical recovery tools such as booming and skimming, there may be some situations where in situ burning is the most viable alternative for combating an oil spill.
There are a number of reasons for conducting the
in situ test burn, including:
Safeguards
A wide variety of safeguards have been identified
which will keep human health and environmental impacts to a minimum.
Prior research has shown that concentrations of pollutants in
an oil fire smoke plume are generally within safe levels beyond
three miles downwind of the source. The two test sites are 9.5
and 12 miles offshore, well beyond the safe, three mile limit
so onshore populations will not be affected by the smoke. The
Coast Guard will establish a five-mile security zone around the
test site for boaters and issue a 10-mile diameter, 10,000-foot
ceiling flight restriction for aircraft. In addition, an array
of response vessels and equipment will be at the test site to
collect any oil that escapes from the containment boom. Two support
vessels, for example, will tow 500 feet of conventional oil boom
200-250 yards behind the fire boom to collect light oil sheens.
Several oil skimmers will also be on hand to collect any free
oil. A small support boat will work with recovery vessels to collect
small quantities of free oil and any oil left in the fire boom.
Hazing techniques may be used to keep birds or sea mammals out
of the area. An on-scene Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife biologist will call for delaying, moving or canceling
the burn if it appears that wildlife will be significantly harmed
by the burn. Finally, there are number of physical limitations
which will restrict conducting the test burns including weather
conditions, wind speed, wave height, oil type, and how much the
oil has mixed with water.
REACTION: Fran Recht,
the Habitat Education Coordinator of Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission and member of the Pacific Oil Spill Prevention
Education Team, expressed her concern when she heard of the test,
saying:
This type of technology can only work under ideal
conditions, calm waters where the oil doesn't quickly mix with
sea water and where spill response is exceedingly rapid. There
is only a small window of opportunity to use in-situ burning--ideally
not much more than four hours. Before such large amounts of crude
oil are spilled for testing, I'd like to affirm if rapid spill
response--with proper equipment--can ever realistically be expected
to occur in real spill incidents. What is our record of spill
response time in the region?
Fred Felleman, Washington State Advisor to the Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission and Northwest Representative
of the organization Ocean Advocates, had this to say:
While I am supportive of adding in situ burning
to our region's oil spill response capabilities, I have reservations
about its practical application and policy implications. The fact
of the matter is Washington State has an excellent marine safety
system in the more populated parts of Puget Sound, but not in
the waters west of Port Angeles or off the coast. We still need
to fill a major gap in both our ability to prevent and respond
to spills in this region. Tankers travel 70 miles along Juan de
Fuca Strait without tug escorts, pilots, speed limits or weather
restrictions. No shipping industry or clean up cooperative has
an oil spill contingency plan which has been approved by the State
for these waters, despite the fact that the response requirements
are the least stringent in this area. After years of pressure,
the industry has recently stationed significant amounts of oil
spill boom in Neah Bay, but has yet to station a vessel to provide
for its timely deployment. The region's most capable high seas
skimmer remains stationed in Puget Sound.
If allowing a test burn to occur means that the
industry will be more motivated to station a rescue tug with spill
prevention and response capabilities at Neah Bay--I'm all for
it. But if this is just another technology which is not going
to be strategically stationed, they can save us all a lot of time
and energy and cancel the drill.
NOW WHAT: Before it can
proceed with the test burn, the Washington Department of Ecology
et al. must receive a permit from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Section 110 of the Clean Water Act. However,
EPA staff in Washington D.C. said that issuing the permit in time
to do the burn this year will be difficult because of time
constraints.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Meetings Planned:
Public meetings on the proposed burning have been scheduled as
follows:
To Comment or to Receive Further Information
about the proposed burn, contact Lin Bernhardt at (360) 407-6963
or Curt Hart at (360) 407-6973, of the Washington Department
of Ecology, or write to them at:
The Washington State "Marine Waters and Salmon Habitat Initiative" (I-188), seeks to ensure protection of Puget Sound and coastal state waters from petroleum and other forms of pollution.
According to its sponsors, led by the environmental
group People For Puget Sound, the purpose of this legislative
initiative is to protect the health of Washington's marine waters
and their contribution to economic vitality by restoring and maintaining:
(a) clean water; (b) healthy, diverse and sustainable native fish
and wildlife populations; and (c) sustainable and safe recreational,
commercial and traditional uses of the shellfish, fish, wildlife,
and scenic resources of the marine waters of the state.
Major components of the Initiative include:
Oil Spill Prevention: Disabled Vessel Emergency Response System:
...If the federal government has not established
a disabled vessel emergency response system that meets the minimum
requirements of subsection (2) of this section, the administrator
of the office of marine safety shall establish an emergency response
system for the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Permanent Ban on Off-Shore Oil Drilling:
There shall be no off-shore oil drilling, nor any
leasing of Washington's tidal or submerged lands extending from
mean high tide seaward twelve miles along the Washington Coast
from Cape Flattery south to Cape Disappointment, nor in Grays
Harbor, Willapa Bay, or the Columbia river downstream from the
Longview bridge, for purposes of oil or gas exploration, development,
or production, until after the ability to do so has been submitted
to, and approved by, a vote of the people of this state.
Citizen Oversight for Protection of Marine Waters:
The powers, duties, and functions of the Puget Sound
action team* are transferred to the Puget Sound council, hereby
renamed the marine waters protection council...
[* As of June 30, 1996, the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority no longer exists. It has been replaced
by the Puget Sound Action Team. The action team, created by the
1996 Washington legislature, will assume many of the authority's
responsibilities and its $1.3 million budget. The 13-member action
team will include state agency heads from the departments of Ecology,
Agriculture, Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, Community,
Trade and Economic Development, Health, Transportation, Parks,
the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, the Conservation
Commission, as well as county and city representatives.]
Expansion of Council Membership:
...The membership of the marine waters protection
council shall include all members of the Puget Sound council and
four additional people appointed by the governor to allow for
representation from the general public, commercial and recreational
fishing interests, the shellfish industry, business, agriculture,
the environmental community, Indian tribes, and counties and cities,
and to ensure geographic diversity throughout Puget Sound and
coastal communities in southwest Washington.
Action Team:
...The governor shall establish [a] team of all agency
directors whose agencies are responsible for the implementation
of marine waters protection plans, to propose to the council coordinated
work plans and budgets to fully carry out the Puget Sound management
plan and other marine waters protection plans...
Monitoring:
...The marine waters protection council is accountable
to the public for restoring and maintaining the health of Washington's
marine waters, and shall prepare a biennial state of the estuaries
report summarizing the results of scientific monitoring, evaluating
progress toward achieving the purposes and goals of chapter...,
Laws of 1997 (this act), and identifying the specific steps necessary
to correct problems and to accelerate progress. These specific
steps shall be reflected in subsequent work plans and budgets.
Interjurisdictional Agreements:
...The council shall work with British Columbia and
Oregon to develop and implement cross-border agreements and actions
to protect and restore the health of shared marine waters.
Coastal Areas:
...In cooperation with local jurisdictions and any
existing marine waters protection efforts, the council shall carry
out a marine waters monitoring program in Grays Harbor, Willapa
Bay, and the lower Columbia River modeled after the Puget Sound
ambient monitoring program.
Property Tax Credit with Salmon Habitat Enhancement:
...It is the intent of the chapter..., that a program
be created to improve and restore the habitat of aquatic and wildlife
species of streams, rivers, and riparian areas located on privately
owned land and that owners of land abutting streams and rivers
be allowed a credit against the state portion of property taxes
levied on such land for expenditures made to improve, restore,
rebuild, or rehabilitate the habitat of streams, rivers, and riparian
areas.
REACTION:
Fish and shellfish groups backing the initiative
include: Washington Trout, Wesport Charterboat Association,
Willapa/Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association, Washington Dungeness
Crab Fishermen's Association, Columbia River Crab Fishermen's
Association, and Brady's Oyster Company.
One of the proponents of I-188 is Brady Engvall.
Mr. Engvall owns Brady's Oysters, which is located in Grays Harbor
near Westport, Washington. Engvall says his oyster operation,
and in fact the entire harbor, was closed to shellfish harvesting
by the Washington Department of Health 10 times in 1995 because
of water quality problems. The sources of contamination in Grays
Harbor are from the Weyerhaeuser Paper Company in Cosmopolis,
as well as City sewage plants in Aberdeen and Hoquiem. Clean water
is a must to an oyster grower, whose business depends on a contaminant
free product. Says Engvall, "perception is everything when
it comes to food, it is greater than reality."
One of the benefits of this initiative is that it
strengthens the existing marine protection councils and creates
monitoring programs in coastal areas and the lower Columbia River.
Says Engvall:
Currently, water quality data for Grays Harbor is
lacking, so the marine waters monitoring program is an extremely
positive step. The monitoring program will give us more tools
to work with when problem polluters, like the local pulp mill,
renew their discharge permits.
NOW WHAT: The initiative
sponsors have until December 1996 to collect the needed 182,000
signatures. Once the signatures are gathered and validated, the
initiative will be sent to the 1997 Washington State legislature.
The legislature will then either: (1) adopt the initiative as
written, (2) ignore the initiative--meaning that it would go on
the 1997 November ballot as an initiative to the people; or (3)
the legislature can pass an alternative to I-188. If an
alternative is passed, it would go on the November 1997 ballot
along with the original measure.
For Further Information Contact: People For Puget
Sound, (206) 382-7007.
IV. ALASKA
The Tongass National Forest encompasses 17 million
acres, making it the largest National Forest in the United States.
A Revised Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision (Revised Supplement)
was released in April 1996. The Revised Supplement "describes
alternatives for managing the resources and uses of the Tongass
National Forest, and discloses the potential effects of implementing
those alternatives."
The Tongass is an important producer of anadromous
fish species for both the commercial and sport fishing industries.
According to the Revised Supplement, 85 percent of Southeast Alaska's
sport fishing occurs in the vicinity of the Tongass. Anadromous
fish habitat includes 10,800 stream miles and 4,100 lakes and
ponds and another 12,200 stream miles and 4,700 lakes and ponds
provide non-anadromous fish habitat.
According to the Revised Supplement:
Three options [see below] for streamside (riparian)
habitat management are available [for consideration], all in the
form of riparian forest-wide standards and guidelines.
Option 3 is similar to
the Stream and Lake Protection LUD [Land Use Designation, as used
in the Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, a defined area of
land specific to which management direction is applied] used in
the 1991 SDEIS for most alternatives (and also used, but called
Riparian Area, in the unpublished 1992 FEIS or Alternatives P
and D++).
Option 2 basically represents
the protection called for in the Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment*
[see box below] (AFHA)... Option 2 provides greater protection
than Option 3, which does not include all measures recommended
by AFHA to provide long-term protection.
Option 1 is the most protective,
incorporating additional measures over Option 2 to reduce the
risk to fish habitat.
*In April 1995, the "Report
to Congress -- Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment" was submitted
to Congress by the U.S. Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research
Station, Alaska Region. The report reviews salmon and steelhead
habitat protection on the Tongass National Forest. The report
was a result of an amendment to the 1993 federal appropriations
legislation exempting implementation of PACFISH regulations in
the Tongass (see Habitat Hotline #18).
However, the amendment also mandated that a study be undertaken
to determine the effectiveness of current procedures for protecting
fish habitat and if any additional fish habitat protection would
be needed.
Current buffers provided by Alaska's forest practice
regulations, are 66 feet on private lands, and 100 feet on state
lands south of the Alaska Range (see Habitat Hotline #18).
For federal lands, the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) mandated
riparian buffer requirements of 100 feet on fish bearing streams,
with "personal use woodcutting" allowed in this buffer
zone.
Despite these buffers, the 1995 report raises a number
of concerns about Tongass fish habitat protection:
The cumulative information resulting from the literature
review, the expert field review, the three watershed analyses,
peer review, and other sources provides a consistent message that
current procedures and their implementation on the Tongass National
Forest to protect fish habitat are not fully effective to prevent
habitat degradation or fully protect salmon and steelhead stocks
over the long term. The largest deficiencies in current procedures
are related to protecting headwater streams and their watersheds
(class III streams, unclassified intermittent and ephemeral streams,
and unstable soils), which to a large degree determine the productivity
of downstream fish habitats. The results of these studies, and
other information, provide an early diagnosis of symptoms indicating
that fish habitat is in decline in some areas as a result of logging,
and that longer term application of current procedures could lead
to stock declines.
The report recommended specific improvements for examination in the Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) revision, including:
The Revised Supplement's nine alternatives and the
"Preferred Alternative" are summarized below:
Alternative 1: This alternative
emphasizes National Forest resource uses and opportunities associated
with undeveloped, natural settings. All geographic areas identified
in public comments as deserving of protection, and all identified
recreation places, are assigned natural setting land use designations.
Alternative 1 allows uneven-aged timber harvesting in some areas,
but does not schedule any harvest.
Alternative 2: This alternative
provides a mix of National Forest uses and activities, including
scenery, recreation, tourism, subsistence uses, and timber production.
Alternative P from the unpublished 1992 Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Tongass Forest Plan Revision is the basis of
this alternative.
Alternative 3: This alternative
provides a mix of National Forest uses and activities similar
to Alternative 2, with additional emphasis on fish and wildlife
habitat protection and the karst [irregular limestone typified
by fissures, sinkholes, underground streams and caverns] and caves
resource. A system of large, medium, and small old-growth forest
reserves is added to Alternative P from the unpublished 1992 Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Tongass Forest Plan Revision.
Alternative 4: This alternative
provides a mix of National Forest uses and activities similar
to Alternative 2, with additional emphasis on fish and wildlife
habitat protection and the karst and caves resource. The even-aged
timber harvest of Alternative P from the unpublished 1992 Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Tongass Forest Plan Revision
is replaced with two-aged and uneven-aged management.
Alternative 5: This alternative
provides a mix of National Forest uses and activities similar
to Alternative 2, with additional emphasis on fish and wildlife
habitat protection and the karst and caves resource. The even-aged
timber harvest of Alternative P from the unpublished 1992 Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Tongass Forest Plan Revision
is replaced with two-aged and uneven-aged management using a 200-year
harvest rotation. Large, medium, and small old-growth forest reserves
are added in four biogeographic provinces.
Alternative 6: This alternative
provides a mix of National Forest uses and activities similar
to Alternative 2, with additional emphasis on fish and wildlife
habitat protection and the karst and caves resource. The even-aged
timber harvest of Alternative P from the unpublished 1992 Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Tongass Forest Plan Revision
is replaced with two-aged and uneven-aged management using a 100-year
harvest rotation. Large, medium, and small old-growth forest reserves
are added in four biogeographic provinces.
Alternative 7: This alternative
emphasizes an economic supply of timber from National Forest lands
intended to meet Southeast Alaska timber industry demand. Alternative
D++, an alternative considered but eliminated from detailed study
in the unpublished 1992 Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the Tongass Forest Plan Revision, is the basis of this alternative.Alternative
8: This alternative emphasizes an economic supply of timber
from National Forest lands, while also emphasizing fish and wildlife
habitat protection and the karst and caves resource. A system
of large, medium, and small old-growth forest reserves is added
to Alternative D++, an alternative considered but eliminated from
detailed study in the unpublished 1992 Final Environmental Impact
Statement for the Tongass Forest Plan Revision.
Alternative 9: This alternative
provides mix of National Forest uses and activities while maintain
a supply of timber comparable to or greater than the last 15 years.
This alternative is the current Tongass Land Management Plan (1979,
amended 1986 and 1991).
The preferred alternative, developed by the Tongass
Forest Supervisors (Ketchikan, Stikine, and Chatham Areas), is
based on Alternative 3 with "three minor modifications."
A description of the Preferred Alternative's Riparian Management
measures are excerpted below [Note: the Preferred Alternative
does not include Option 1 protection]:
Option 2 protection, which
substantially expands current protection for important fish habitat,
incorporates all the AFHA [Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment]
stream-buffer recommendations, and exceeds some of them. In land-use
allocations where timber harvest is permitted, option 2 standards
and guidelines would be applied to those watersheds with the highest
fish values. About 60 percent of Class I stream mileage (i.e.,
streams containing anadromous or high-value resident fish) is
either protected by option 2, or is in land-use allocations where
no timber harvest is allowed and thus receives maximum protection.
Option 3 protection would
be applied on all other streams in areas where timber harvest
is allowed. Option 3 includes the riparian guidelines from the
unpublished 1992 FEIS as recommended by AFHA and some of the additional
AFHA stream-buffer recommendations, and substantially expands
current stream-protection direction.
The Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
says this about the fish habitat protection measures in the Preferred
Alternative:
In its revised Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP),
the Forest Service will make decisions that will guide the management
of fish habitat on the Tongass for the next 10 to 15 years. The
public has until July 26 to comment on the draft TLMP plan. Since
the impacts of logging on fish habitat can persist for 100 years
after an area has been logged, we, the public, have...to say what
kind of salmon resource we want to leave for our children and
our grandchildren.
Twenty years ago, the Pacific Northwest had record
runs of salmon. Today, due to the combined effects of logging,
dams, and irrigation, 50 percent of historic salmon runs in California,
Washington, and Oregon are extinct or are at high risk of extinction.
Dams are not the only cause: undammed coastal streams in Oregon
and Washington, heavily impacted by logging and roadbuilding,
also have stocks in serious trouble.
Scientists from the Forest Service say we need 'a
quantum leap in fish habitat protection' on the Tongass if we
are to avoid the fate of Oregon and Washington's salmon fisheries.
The Forest Service's Preferred Alternative adopts
Option 2 protection on high-value watersheds and Option 3 on all
other watersheds.
The Preferred Alternative fails to follow the advice
of the Report to Congress and the best scientific information
available on the Tongass.
SEACC recommends that "at a minimum, the highest
level of fish protection for fish habitat (Option 1) in high value
watersheds, and nothing less than the next level of protection
for the remaining watersheds."
On the opposite side of the Tongass issue is the
Alaska Congressional delegation and the timber industry. Senators
Stevens and Murkowski and Representative Young
have criticized the U.S. Forest Service for not cutting enough
timber in the Tongass. Representative Don Young said the following
on June 13, 1996 about the Revised Supplement upon introducing
a bill related to Tongass management, H.R. 3659*:
With its command and control approach to federal
land management decisions, Washington, D.C. has failed Alaskans
and those in other states. It has failed because the promise of
the land base to support timber has been eroded by administrative
action, laws, and lawsuits. The latest administrative proposal
is to withdraw an additional 600,000 acres from the land available
for timber harvesting. That means more land withdrawn by that
single administrative action than has been harvested in the Tongass
since 1909. There have been so many failures by the federal government
regarding laws and decisions on the Tongass and the 75,000 people
who live there are tired of it.
[*Note: H.R. 3659, the "Environmental
Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act," amends the Tongass
Timber Reform Act to "ensure the proper stewardship of publicly
owned assets in the Tongass National Forest in the State of Alaska,
a fair return to the United States for public timber in the Tongass,
and a proper balance among multiple use interests in the Tongass
to enhance forest health, sustainable harvest, and the general
economic health and growth in southeast Alaska and the United
States."]
Comments on the Revised Supplement should be to
be sent to:
TO OBTAIN A COPY of the
draft revised supplement contact the U.S. Forest Service at (907)
586-8700.
For Further Information Contact:
U.S. Forest Service, at (907) 586-8700; Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council at (907) 586-6942.
The San Francisco Estuary Project announces the "Third
Biennial State of the Estuary Conference," to be held October
10, 11, and 12, 1996 at the Golden Gate Club, Presidio of San
Francisco.
This conference will update attendees on the current
state of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary through technical
presentations, policy discussions, poster sessions, Dr. Science,
innovative management programs, and an implementation report card.
Initial co-sponsors include: the Bay Area Dischargers
Association, Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association,
CALFED, Friends of the San Francisco Estuary, San Francisco Estuary
Institute, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
For more information,
call the San Francisco Estuary Project at (510) 286-0460.
Puget Sound is an estuary of regional and national
significance. Its wide range of habitats provides a home for a
multitude of fish, birds, mammals, plants, and other life. It
is a unique ecosystem that encompasses sandy beaches, rocky shores,
eelgrass beds, tidal wetlands, and the watersheds of streams and
rivers. However, Puget Sound faces serious challenges. Nine salmon
stocks have gone extinct and fish harvests are at their lowest
level in 50 years. Much of this decline in the health of Puget
Sound has been attributed to the loss of critical stream, marsh
and shoreline habitat, and continuing habitat loss has been identified
as the most pressing environmental problem facing the region.
"The Puget Sound Habitat Conference" will
take place at Seattle University on September 28, 1996.
The Puget Sound Habitat Conference is an opportunity for attendees
to take action on:
To Receive Conference
Registration Information, contact: People for Puget
Sound at (206) 382-7007 or 1-800-People-2.
The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission has
produced a set of three thirty-minute videos, referred to as the
Chinook Trilogy, that are available for purchase. The videos
may be ordered separately or as a complete set.
The first video, entitled, My Strength Is From
the Fish, features interviews from tribal members as they
explain why the salmon are such an important part of tribal culture
in the Northwest for the last 11,000 years.
Empty Promises, Empty Nets,
the second video in the series, outlines the endless legal battles
the tribes have had to struggle against in order to protect their
treaty rights.
The last video, Matter of Trust, examines
the pressures and encroachments that have affected salmon survival
and abundance, and offers social, political and biological strategies
that can help to bring about salmon recovery in the Columbia River.
Each video includes Che Wana Tymoo, a 20-page
booklet which provides an abbreviated history of treaty fishing
on the Columbia River, information on the salmon lifecycle, specific
suggestions for putting fish back into the rivers, questions and
answers on treaty rights, and a list of activities of what you
can do to help.
The videos can be purchased individually for $39.95,
or as a complete set for $115.00, (price does not include shipping
and handling).
If you are interested in ordering the videos by
phone, call 1-800-WLD-HARE, or write to
Wild Hare Media at P.O. Box 3854, Portland, Oregon 97208.
On July 27-29, Trout Unlimited will be sponsoring
a stream restoration project in cooperation with the Mt. Hood
National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and Wolftree. The
project will enhance instream habitat in the Salmon River, and
a small tributary, which are home to chinook and coho salmon,
steelhead, and resident trout.
The project site is near Welches, Oregon off Highway
26. If you reserve a spot before July 22, TU will supply food
for you. This is a family event, and kids, dogs, etc. are all
welcome.
For More Information or to Volunteer, Contact:
Tom Wolf, Trout Unlimited, 22875 NW Chestnut, Hillsboro,
OR 97124-6545; (503) 640-2123; or via e-mail at "Tmilowolf@aol.com".
VI. UPDATES
____________
EDITOR'S NOTE: We welcome
information on habitat news in your area. Information should pertain
to habitat of marine, estuarine, or anadromous fish or shellfish.
Feel free to fax us newspaper articles, copies of letters, public
hearing notices, etc., to (503) 650-5426. Funding for this publication
comes in part from Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration. If you
have any questions regarding the contents of this publication,
or about our habitat education program, please contact: Stephen
Phillips, Editor, Habitat Hotline, 45 SE 82nd Drive,
Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522. Phone: (503) 650-5400,
Fax: (503) 650-5426. 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: 7/3/96.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
45 S.E. 82nd Drive
Suite 100
Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522
FIRST CLASS