HABITAT HOTLINE


SEPTEMBER 1996 NUMBER 28


TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FEDERAL

Public Hearing Scheduled

Comments Due Sept. 3
II. REGIONAL
III. WASHINGTON
IV. CALIFORNIA

Comments Due Dec. 6
V. OREGON

Comments Due Sept. 11
VI. MISCELLANEOUS

VII. UPDATES


I. FEDERAL

As the 104th Congress draws to a close, only a handful of bills that could affect fish habitat remain under consideration. It was thought that the 104th Congress would rewrite numerous laws governing the management of the Nation's natural resources. However, besides the salvage rider (See Habitat Hotline Number 24), it appears that substantial changes to natural resource management may not occur. The current Congress will resume on September 3 (Senate), and September 4 (House) and is scheduled to adjourn October 4, 1996. Remaining bills include those affecting grazing policy on federal lands, fisheries management, private property, and forest health. There is also a chance that a vote will come in the Senate to repeal the salvage logging rider through an amendment to the ongoing FY 1997 appropriations process. H.R. 3662, the "FY97 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act", also contains an amendment which would delay the implementation of the Tongass Land Management Plan.

COMPROMISE GRAZING BILL TO SENATE FLOOR?

Legislation altering the course of the Clinton Administration's "Rangeland Reform" regulations, which went into affect August 21, 1995, is still being considered by the House of Representatives. "The Public Rangelands Management Act", S. 1459, introduced by Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) passed the Senate earlier in the year (See Habitat Hotline Number 25).

It appears now that an amended "compromise" grazing bill will be voted on in mid-September. The new S. 1459, released on July 28 1996, has been referred to as the "Gingrich Grazing Bill", because of the Speaker's interest in seeing grazing legislation brought to the floor this year.

This version of the bill allows ranchers and states to hold grazing permits in inactive status for conservation use (limited to ten percent of grazing lands), provides for public participation in environmental hearings, and ensures the federal government can acquire water rights on rangelands (in accordance with state law).

REACTION:

It is believed that the cattle industry and many Western legislators will support this legislation.

In an August 2, 1996 "Dear Environmental Colleague" letter, Representatives Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) and Sherwood Boehlert (R- N.Y.), who helped broker the compromise, said this about the grazing bill: "We have now reached a compromise, which we believe addresses both the primary concerns of environmentalists and the legitimate concerns of ranchers...This is a reasonable compromise that recognizes the needs of Western Members and their constituents."

The bill is supported, somewhat surprisingly, by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA). In a letter to Representative Boehlert dated August 1, 1996, R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President of the IAFWA, said:

This proposal is a significant improvement over the Senate passed bill and contains changes which we believe will benefit fish and wildlife resources, livestock grazers, other public land users, and the American Public.

Despite its changes, opposition to S. 1459 remains. A "Dear Colleague" letter is being circulated by Representatives Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Dick Zimmer (R-N.J.). According to that letter: "The draft grazing legislation released on July 28 suffers from a number of major fiscal and environmental defects. If it is brought to the floor, it should be defeated."

Concerns noted in the DeFazio/Zimmer letter include:

Both S. 1459 and the draft bill maintain a heavily subsidized federal grazing program. Both bills mandate a grazing fee formula that would keep federal grazing fees artificially low--lower, in fact, than comparable state and private fees. According to estimates by the Bureau of Land Management, grazing fees under the draft bill would be lower between 1996 and 2002 than they were in 1994.

Both S. 1459 and the draft bill limit public participation in public land management decisions. Opportunities that the law now allows for the public--i.e., non-grazing permit holders--to participate in decisions regarding permit reviews and modifications are eliminated.

Both S. 1459 and the draft bill create new private rights on public lands. Both bills contain unprecedented provisions that would allow livestock permittees to obtain title to "range improvements." As a result, taxpayers could be required to reimburse permittees for changes in grazing management on federal lands. Grazing permittees could harm federal fish and wildlife populations by depriving them of needed water. The draft legislation does not correct these significant defects [emphasis added].

Both S.1459 and the draft bill thwart federal land managers' efforts to correct grazing-caused resource damage. Before land managers could take actions to modify harmful grazing practices, they would be required to conduct extensive monitoring under as-yet undetermined guidelines.

Trout Unlimited said of the bill:

...this latest version [of S. 1459] would still exacerbate widespread environmental destruction on federal lands caused by over-grazing, still make second class citizens of the millions of American sportsmen and women who recreate on public lands, and still severely weaken the lucrative tourism industry [that] non-ranching public lands support. A broad range of interests--413 conservation and recreation organizations--have opposed S. 1459 because of its dangerous implications. The latest "compromise" version does make improvements on the House Resource Committee-approved version of the bill. But the changes merely turn a terrible bill into a bad bill.

Now What: Reportedly House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has indicated that he will schedule a vote on S. 1459 in September. It is uncertain whether the Senate will accept the new House language.

President Clinton has indicated that he will veto the bill.

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

PRIVATE PROPERTY

On July 16, 1996 Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced S. 1954 "The Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1996." This legislation replaces S. 605, which was introduced by ex-Senator, now Presidential candidate, Robert Dole.

S. 1954 is similar to S. 605. However it differs in that it would compensate property owners when their property, or a portion of it, is devalued 50 percent or more as a result of any government regulation (under S. 605, the cutoff for compensation was 33 percent). S. 1954 also allows private property owners the opportunity for administrative appeals of wetlands decisions under the Clean Water Act, and denials of incidental take permits under the Endangered Species Act.

Groups supporting S. 1954 (including the housing industry) claim that environmental regulations are overly restrictive. In introducing the legislation, Senator Orrin Hatch said:

Americans everywhere are losing their fundamental right to property. They cannot build homes, farm land, clear ditches or cut firebreaks in property that clearly belongs to them. Often, this property has been in their family for years. The Omnibus Property Rights Act is the proper vehicle to vindicate property rights and limit arbitrary action by federal bureaucrats.

Opposition to S. 1954 includes environmental groups which charge that this bill will make it impossible for federal agencies to protect wetlands and habitat for wildlife and endangered species. According to the Clean Water Network:

This bill, which is essentially indistinguishable from the earlier takings bill (S. 605) pushed by Sen. Bob Dole, would allow any property owner to file a claim for monetary compensation based on any government action that the landowner claimed had diminished the market value of his property. So, for example, if EPA denied a landowner a permit to discharge a pollutant in certain amounts, the landowner could sue the government to recover the difference between the value of the property without pollution restrictions and the value with pollution restrictions. Similarly, if the Corps of Engineers denied a landowner a wetland permit to build a huge shopping center, the landowner could sue to recover the difference in market value between the land with a shopping center on it and the land with a marsh on it. You don't have to look very hard to see that this bill, if it became law, would either make it impossible for public officials to protect human health and the environment, or it would bankrupt the federal treasury, or both.

NOW WHAT: H.R. 925, the House of Representatives private property rights bill, was passed in 1995.

*** As We Go To Press, in the Senate, reports are that it appears questionable whether or not S. 1954 will go to the floor for a vote in the l04th Congress.

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

MAGNUSON ACT DOWN TO THE WIRE

Before the August recess, the Senate verbally agreed to compromise language on S. 39, the reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. For months, S. 39, originally introduced by Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), was held up over an allocation issue disagreement between the Congressional delegations of Alaska and Washington.

The House passed its version of the reauthorization, H.R. 39, in 1995.

Language in both the Senate and House versions of the reauthorization would make minor changes to the role that the Regional Fishery Management Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service play in protecting fish habitat. However, the Councils would not be given management authority over fish habitat. S. 39 habitat related language is as follows:

According to Sec. 109 Fishery Management Plans:

(7) describe and identify essential fish habitat for the fishery based on the guidelines established by the Secretary under section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize where practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions which should be considered to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat.

According to Sec. 305 Other Requirements and Authority:

(1)(A) The Secretary shall, within six months of the date of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, establish guidelines to assist the Councils in the description and identification of essential fish habitat in fishery management plans (including adverse impacts on such habitat) and the actions which should be considered to ensure the conservation and enhancement of such habitat, and set forth a schedule for the amendment of fishery management plans to include the identification of essential fish habitat and review and update such identification based on new scientific evidence or other relevant information.

(B) The Secretary shall provide each Council with recommendations and information regarding each fishery under that Council's authority to assist it in the identification of essential fish habitat, the adverse impacts on that habitat, and the actions that should be considered to ensure the conservation and enhancement of that habitat.

(C) The Secretary shall review programs administered by the Department of Commerce and ensure that any relevant programs further the conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat.

(D) The Secretary shall coordinate with and provide information to other Federal agencies to further the conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat.

(2) Each Federal agency shall consult with the Secretary with respect to any action undertaken, or proposed to be undertaken by such agency that may adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act.

(3) Each Council--

(A) may comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary and any Federal or State agency concerning any activity undertaken, or proposed to be undertaken, by any Federal or State agency that, in the view of the Council, may affect the habitat, including essential fish habitat, of a fishery resource under its authority; and

(B) shall comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary and any Federal or State agency concerning any such activity that, in the view of the Council, is likely to substantially affect the habitat, including essential fish habitat, of an anadromous fishery resource under its authority.

(4)(A) If the Secretary receives information from a Council or Federal or State agency or determines from other sources that an action undertaken, or proposed to be undertaken by any State or Federal agency would adversely affect any essential fish habitat identified under this Act, the Secretary shall recommend to such agency measures that can be taken by such agency to conserve such habitat.

(B) Within 30 days after receiving a recommendation under paragraph (4)(A), a Federal agency shall provide a detailed response, in writing, to the commenting Council and the Secretary regarding the matter. The response shall include a description of measures being considered by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on such habitat. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Secretary, the Federal agency shall explain its reasons for not following the recommendations.

NOW WHAT:

A vote is expected on S. 39 in early September.

There is guarded optimism that the Magnuson Reauthorization will be completed before the 104th Congress comes to a close. By October 4, 1996, the agreed-to Senate compromise needs to go to the Senate floor for a vote, then go to a House-Senate conference committee to iron out differences between the two bills, then sent back to the two bodies for approval, and finally to President Clinton for his signature.

If work on the bill is not finalized by the October deadline, the 105th Congress will have to begin from scratch on this important fishery management legislation.

COMMENTS ON NATIONWIDE WETLAND PERMITS DUE 9/3

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to reissue the existing Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Wetland Permits (NWPs or nationwides) with some modifications, and issue four new NWPs. The new regulations will go into effect in early 1997.

Nationwide Wetland Permits: The Corps or a state with an approved wetlands program can issue a "general" permit for specified categories of wetland altering activities (discharge of dredge and fill material). Activities conducted under a general permit need not obtain an individual Section 404 permit as long as the general permit's requirements and standards are complied with. There are 37 existing nationwide permits.

Proposed Changes to the Nationwide General Permits: According the Corps, in a June 16, 1996 Federal Register notice:

We are proposing to reissue all the existing NWPs. We are also proposing to modify several existing NWPs and several NWP conditions...to clarify activities that are authorized by NWPs and those that are not. Several of the proposed clarifications are a result of the modification of the definition of discharge of dredged material...The definition was revised to clarify that certain excavation activities are regulated and included the following language: "(iii) Any addition, including any redeposit, of dredged material, including excavated material, into waters of the United States which is incidental to any activity, including mechanized landclearing, ditching, channelization, or other excavation."

We are also proposing, in accordance with the President's Wetlands Plan, four new NWPs to authorize those additional regulated activities with minimal effects that resulted from the excavation rule. These new NWPs include: A. Moist Soil Management for Wildlife; B. Food Security Act Minimal Effect Exemptions; C. Minor Mining Activities; and D. Maintenance of Existing Flood Control Projects.

REACTION: According to the Sierra Club:

The Nationwide Permits are a complex set of exemptions from individual permit requirements, which enable a wide range of impacts in wetlands and watersheds to go forward with greatly reduced review, oversight and monitoring. The Clean Water Act provides for general permits for activities which are similar in nature, will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effect on the environment. In many instances, the general permits themselves, and the manner in which they have been administered, have resulted in impacts which are ANYTHING BUT minimal.

Grady McCallie of the National Wildlife Federation has written extensive comments about this rulemaking. Excerpted below are some of those comments (note: for a copy of his entire review of the proposal, see Mr. McCallie's telephone number listed under "For Further Information"):

Overview: Clean Water Act 404(e) authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to issue general permits that provide blanket authorization to narrow categories of activities that are "similar in nature" and that have minimal individual and cumulative impacts on wetlands and other aquatic resources. However, the Corps has ignored this statutory standard, and has issued numerous nationwide permits that authorize a wide range of activities or result in significant individual and cumulative adverse impacts. The Corps argues that it can always refuse to allow the use of a nationwide for questionable activities. But Corps discretion is simply not enough of a safeguard to protect our Nation's wetlands.

General Concerns: The Corps' reissuance proposal suffers from several overarching flaws that affect all the nationwides. Most of the flaws strike at the public's (or the federal resource agencies' or the states') right to know what wetlands impacts are being authorized. The proposal to cease publishing the nationwides in the Code of Federal Regulations would mean most citizens would be unable to tell even what nationwides exist. These flaws undermine the reissuance proposal; the Corps cannot legally reissue any of the nationwides until these problems are fixed.

Information & record-keeping: The Corps has done an appalling job of keeping records on the use of the nationwide permits and on the acreage impact under them. A nationwide that truly met the minimal impact standard of 404(e) would presumably not need extensive reporting or recordkeeping, since it would authorize virtually no wetlands impacts. However, if the Corps intends to persist in issuing illegal nationwides, it must establish a system to keep meaningful records and accounts of authorized impacts. The Corps' failure to collect this data over the last ten years is evident in its inadequate environmental assessment of its reissuance proposal--a "finding of no significant impacts" (FONSI) for each of the proposed nationwides, with no supporting data.

Recommendation: The Corps should not reissue illegal nationwides. Further, the Corps should establish reporting requirements and meaningful recordkeeping procedures for every nationwide that could potentially have more than minimal impacts.

NWP 26 - Isolated and headwater wetlands: The most damaging of all the nationwides, NWP 26 authorizes the destruction of up to 1 acre of isolated or headwater wetlands with no notice to anyone, and up to 10 acres of isolated or headwater wetlands with notice to the Corps. In addition to authorizing more than minimal individual and cumulative impacts, NWP 26 focuses on categories of waters rather than categories of activities, and thus violates all the elements of CWA §404(e). The Corps' reissuance proposal solicits comments on the possibility of keeping the NW 26 thresholds at 10 and 1 acre, lowering them to 5 and .5 acres, or lowering them to 3 and .3. However, given the basic illegality of NWP 26 and its history of abuse, the Corps should really eliminate NWP 26 completely.

Recommendation: The Corps should not reissue NWP 26.

NWP 29 - Single family housing/half acre impacts: Opposed by many Corps field personnel but issued as a political concession to anti-wetlands forces in Congress last year, NWP 29 encourages the destruction of up to .5 acres of wetlands for the construction of a single family dwelling. NWP 29 is hedged with inadequate conditions and is unsupported by the administrative record. To keep the official count of impacts permitted under NWP 26 low, Corps districts have made an effort to authorize projects that fit under NWP 29 under other NWPs instead. Nonetheless, NWP 29 is bad for wetlands and bad for homeowners, and it violates the Clean Water Act.

Recommendation: The Corps should not reissue NWP 29.

Proposed NWP B - Swampbuster minimal effects exemptions: Proposed NWP B is one of the lowlights of the reissuance proposal, on a par in potential destructiveness with NWP 26. Under the 1996 Farm Bill, the Natural Resources Conservation Service must issue regulations explaining how certain activities can be made exempt from Swampbuster. These regulations will not be issued until late 1996, but there is a fair possibility that NRCS will let state technical committees, dominated by agribusiness interests, set the exemptions. Proposed NWP B would essentially import these exemptions into 404. It makes no sense to even consider a proposal like NWP B until after the Swampbuster regulations have been issued and have the kinks worked out of them. Further, importation of Swampbuster exemptions into the Clean Water Act could devastate protection of small, isolated wetlands.

Recommendation: Proposed NWP B should be rejected.

Proposed NWP C - Recreational mining: Proposed NWP C is actually two different nationwides packaged together. One half of NWP C exempts sand and gravel miners who were in production before fall 1993, when a court case established that the Corps has to regulate their activities. The other half authorizes recreational mining, in which individuals drive trucks up to edge of small streams and vacuum the stream bottoms and sides in a search for gold or gems. Only a few hundred people pursue this hobby nationwide, and the Corps doesn't want the trouble of regulating them. However, this kind of "mining" ruins water quality and destroys fish habitat in prime fishing streams. Both parts of NWP C violate the minimal impact standard for nationwide permits.

Recommendation: Proposed NWP C should be rejected.

Conclusion: We will urge the Corps to correct the overarching problems with the reissuance proposal and the nationwide program--particularly by instituting genuine monitoring and enforcement of nationwide conditions. We will advise the Corps not to reissue the nationwides that violate the Clean Water Act, and to explicitly proscribe the practice of "stacking" nationwides that allow projects with significant wetlands impacts to escape meaningful environmental review.

Finally, we will note that a major effect of the nationwides, whether intentional or inadvertent, has been to shut the public, the federal resource agencies, and the states out of the wetland protection process. The Clean Water Act assigns special oversight roles to the public, the federal resource agencies, and the states, and we will urge the Corps to overhaul the nationwide permit system to reflect and respect those roles.

Editor's Note: Support of Nationwide Permits: There is undoubtedly support for the NWP program in the construction and agriculture industries. However, we were unable to find statements in support of NWPs before going to press.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: The final West Coast hearing on this proposal will take place on September 5, 1996:

3:00 - 9:00 pm

Holiday Inn, Financial District

750 Kearny Street

San Francisco, CA

Written comments should be mailed to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Office of Chief Engineers

Attention: CECW-OR

20 Massachusetts Avenue NW

Washington D.C. 20314-1000

***COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED***

BY SEPTEMBER 3, 1996

***Comments can also be faxed to***

(202) 761-5096

For Further Information Contact: Mr. Tim Zimmerman, Regulatory Branch, Office of the Chief of Engineers at (202) 761-0199; Grady McCallie, National Wildlife Federation, (202) 797-6832; David Ortman, Friends of the Earth, (206) 633-1331.


II. REGIONAL

SALVAGE RIDER UPDATE

The most controversial piece of environmental legislation passed by the 104th Congress has been the salvage rider, a part of the 1995 Rescissions Bill (H.R. 1158). The salvage rider suspended environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Forest Management Act, and National Environmental Policy Act on numerous timber sales--many of them old growth sales, including healthy trees. It also allowed, in "Section K" of the law, the logging of "318 sales." These old growth sales had been held up for the past five years because of environmental concerns over listed spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat.

Environmental and fish groups, as well as government agencies have charged that the sales threaten critical fish habitat of listed and proposed to be listed fish species under the ESA.

An indication of the rider's legal strength came on July 31, 1996 when, just two days after the Umpqua cutthroat trout was listed as "endangered", a federal appeals court approved logging in the Umpqua National Forest (Pinestrip, Snog, Roughneck, and Watchdog sales) in watersheds containing the searun cutthroat trout. Environmental groups, including Oregon Natural Resources Council, sought to stop the sales by arguing that the Forest Service, in overriding its own biologist's conclusion that more logging in the area would harm the cutthroat trout, had acted arbitrarily, in violation of a law governing all federal agencies. However, according to the Associated Press, the court said the claim was "legally irrelevant" because Congress has barred all court challenges to the agency's environmental decisions to approve the logging.

Elsewhere, on August 12, a three-member federal appeals court in Idaho rejected a challenge of a salvage logging operation (Thunderbolt) in the Salmon River watershed. The Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposed the sale. The Idaho Sporting Congress (ISC) had challenged the Thunderbolt salvage sale, saying that it would cause harm to listed chinook salmon.

According to the Associated Press:

[Judge Edward Leavy] rejected the ISC's argument that the Forest Service had violated a directive signed by President Clinton. The directive told agencies to implement the salvage rider in an 'environmentally sound manner' using existing forest management plans and environmental laws other than those barred by the rider. Because the salvage rider expressly exempts such projects from environmental laws, Leavy said, 'we have no authority to review the presidential directive' as a source of environmental standards for the Forest Service's decision.

On the other side of the issue, the timber industry has been attempting to extend the portion of the law which expires September 30, 1996. On July 30, 1996, the Northwest Forest Resource Council (NFRC), a timber industry group, asked US District Judge Michael Hogan in Eugene, Oregon, to extend the deadline for cutting the rider's "Section K" 318 old growth sales until the end of 1996.

However, on August 6, 1996, Hogan turned down NFRC's request.

*** As We Go To Press, conservation groups are still seeking to amend the FY 1997 Senate Interior Appropriations bill to overturn the portions of the rider (salvage timber sales) prior to its December 31, 1996 expiration date.


III. WASHINGTON

OCEAN BURN PUT OFF TO 1997

In a July 29, 1996 press release, the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE) announced that a proposal to test burn oil off the Southwest Washington Coast will be postponed. The decision to delay the spill was in part based on numerous concerns raised in July public meetings in Westport and Ocean Shores, Washington. The WADOE had originally planned to conduct four test burnings of 2,500 gallons of crude oil, 9.5 and 12 miles off the Southwest Washington Coast. According to WADOE, the controlled burns would last 30 to 45 minutes and cover a 600-800 square foot area (See Habitat Hotline Number 27).

At the July 23 Westport public hearing, concerned citizens (including local fishermen), spoke out against the test burn. About 50 people attended the hearing. Ernie Summers, President of the Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen's Association said this about the proposed burn:

This burn seems unrealistic, if a real spill occurred you would not have everything there [booms] to get on the burn, it would take hours to get everything in place. Most oil spills I know of, occurred in bad weather when this technique wouldn't work. It looks like you could find a better place to try this experiment then on our prime fishing grounds.

There was some support for the test burn at the hearing.

In postponing the burn, Greg Sorely, head of WADOE's Spill Response Program, said:

We know that, under the right conditions, burning spilled oil as a response tool would greatly reduce impacts of sea life and fouling of Washington's beaches. Prevention is the key, but we will still have to face the grave threat of damaging oil spills.

NOW WHAT: By postponing the burn, WADOE says that it will give co-sponsors more time to prepare the test burn, refine detailed monitoring plans, and most importantly, allow time to consider developing an environmental impact statement.

For 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.


IV. CALIFORNIA

DRAFT EIR/EIS RELEASED

On August 14, 1996 the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) released their draft environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) for the Interim South Delta Program (ISDP). According to a DWR press release:

The ISDP predates the creation of CalFed, the coalition of state and federal agencies now working to develop long-term solutions to Delta water problems of supply and quality. The ISDP seeks similar objectives to those of CalFed's Bay-Delta Program but on a much more limited basis. Both the Bay-Delta Program and the ISDP seek to improve the Delta environment and fish habitat while ensuring that the Delta remains a productive source of high quality water for California's population. Since both programs address agriculture, fisheries, and water supply needs in the Delta, the ISDP could complement a long-term Delta solution.

DWR and USBR are coordinating with CalFed to ensure that ISDP actions do not prejudice the outcome of the CalFed Bay-Delta Program's solution development process.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Copies of the Executive Summary or the entire DEIS/EIR are available by contacting Judy Fong, Department of Water Resources at (916) 653-3496, fax (9l6) 653-6077.

***Comments on the DEIS/EIR must***

be received by December 6, 1996.

***Comments should be sent to:***

Mr. Stephen Roberts

Department of Water Resources

1416 Ninth Street, Room 215-20A

Sacramento, CA 95814

WORKSHOPS: Two workshops and two public hearings will be held in late October or early November in Tracy and Sacramento, California. Places and times will be announced at a later date.

For Further Information Contact: Stephen Roberts, Department of Water Resources at (916) 653-2118; or Al Candlish, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at (916) 989-7255.

GUADALUPE RIVER ACTION FILED

The Guadalupe River flows through the City of San Jose and into the South San Francisco Bay. The river supports runs of steelhead and fall chinook salmon. The run of chinook, which in some years number in the hundreds, spawn in reaches which are in the middle of downtown San Jose. Some fish have been found spawning at Hillsdale Avenue as well, which is south of downtown. The downtown river reach however, has the cooler and deeper water and has been populated with greater numbers of spawning chinook.

The Guadalupe is currently undergoing some significant changes in the form of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control project and construction of a city park. Fishing, and environmental groups as well as the Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District, have requested that the ongoing flood control/park project be modified to protect anadromous salmonids (See Habitat Hotline Number 26).

In the latest action, on July 12, 1996, the Natural Heritage Institute on behalf of the Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District filed a complaint against the Santa Clara Valley Water District with the State Water Resources Control Board. According to the complaint:

The Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District ("GCRCD") brings this Complaint against the Santa Clara Valley Water District ("SCVWD") for unlawful appropriations of waters from the Guadalupe River, Coyote Creek, and Stevens Creek, which are tributary to the San Francisco Bay near San Jose.

SCVWD's appropriations cause significant harm to the public trust values of these streams and their tributaries. The appropriations have degraded the populations and distributions of steelhead trout, chinook salmon, red-legged frog and the southwestern pond turtle, and other fish and wildlife resources.

SCVWD fails to release sufficient water to maintain fisheries in good condition downstream of its storage and diversion facilities. These facilities also block fish passage. SCVWD has further degraded the riparian vegetation, channel forms and substrates, and water quality of these streams.

To prevent further unlawful harms to the fish and wildlife resources and other public trust values of the affected streams, GCRDC requests the Water Board to provide four forms of relief. First, we ask that the Water Board undertake an investigation of certain factual issues pertinent to our claims that SCVWD is appropriating water in violation of the specified laws. Second, we ask that the Water Board order SCVWD to cease and desist operating any of its facilities in a manner which does not maintain a continuous flow downstream to the next storage or diversion facility, or to the San Francisco Bay, as applicable. Third, we ask that, on the basis of that investigation, hearing, and other appropriate proceeding, the Water Board amend SCVWD's licenses to specify flow schedules which assure adequate protection of fish and wildlife resources and other public trust values of these streams. Finally, we ask that the Water Board direct SCVWD to undertake restoration of degraded channels and riparian corridors, including appropriate arrangements for fish passage at its various facilities subject to these licenses.

For Further Information Contact: The Natural Heritage Institute at (415) 288-0555; Nancy Bernardi, Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District at (408) 288-5888.

RESTORATION BLUEPRINT RELEASED

In Related News, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), The Bay Institute (TBI), and the Center for Sustainable Resource Development at the University of California, Berkeley, recently released a report entitled Restoration of the Bay-Delta-River System: Choosing Indicators of Ecological Integrity. The authors say that this document is a blueprint for scientifically testing the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta River system--and for figuring out how to improve it. It describes a series of tests that can be used to give the ecological system a health check-up. In addition, the measurements can be used to design a program to restore the ecological integrity of this complex system.

"Ecological indicators can not only provide a more objective basis for decision-making, but they also help to keep all parties at the table by highlighting the way everyone's actions affect the system, throughout the entire landscape and out to the sea," said EDF scientist Dr. Rod Fujita.

The indicators report was financed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and CalFed--the state/federal consortium charged with developing a restoration and management plan for the San Francisco Bay-Delta as a result of the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord (See Habitat Hotline Number 16), a landmark agreement reached by environmentalists, water users, and government officials. The report is advisory to CalFed and will be used in the development and implementation of CalFed's ecosystem restoration program. EDF and TBI expect to release information early next year showing the status of key indicators of the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta-River system and how these values compare to historic conditions.

Copies of the report can be ordered for $10.00 from: Center for Sustainable Resource Development, c/o Emery Roe, University of California at Berkeley, 112 Giannini Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-3100.


V. OREGON

REQUESTS FOR RESERVED WATER

The Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD) is seeking pubic comment on its proposal to adopt rules establishing "reservations" of unappropriated water in the Hood, John Day and Umatilla basins. According to the WRD:

This rulemaking would affect the availability of water for future allocations of water in the Hood River, John Day and Umatilla Basins. Adopting the proposed reservation will, in many subbasins, fully appropriate most of the affected streams. Currently, most new water uses are dependent on construction of reservoirs and storage of water because of the lack of available water during low flow periods. The reservations would focus reservoir planning on the subbasin in which the water is reserved. The proposed reservations allocate water for future storage projects, which is expected to assist project sponsors to acquire the financing necessary for water supply development. Existing water rights will not be affected by the proposed reservations.

REACTION: According to the environmental group WaterWatch:

These proposed rules cover only a portion of the requests filed by the Oregon Dept. of Agriculture and the Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development to reserve more than 4.3 million acre-feet of unallocated water from rivers and streams, existing storage reservoirs and "future" storage reservoirs in the Columbia Basin. The water would be set aside for "future economic development," with about 75 percent of this water designated for agricultural use.

The reservation process will dictate how the last available water will be used in many of Oregon's Columbia Basin rivers. Unless the public demands that through this process, water is also protected for fish, water quality and other instream needs, there won't be water in the future to designate for these uses.

What You Can Do: Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to:

Oregon Water Resources Department

Planning Program

158 12th St. NE, Salem, OR 97310

fax: (503) 378-8130

***Comment Deadline is***

September 11, 1996

For Further Information Contact: Greg Nelson, Oregon Department of Water Resources at (800) 624-3199 (ext. 285); Reed Benson or Karen Russell of WaterWatch at (503) 295-4039.


VI. MISCELLANEOUS

49TH ANNUAL MEETING

The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission will host its 49th Annual meeting at SunRiver, Oregon (near Bend) September 28-October 1, 1996. (See page 14 for a draft agenda of the meeting.)

For Further Information on How to Register, Contact: PSMFC at (503) 650-5400.

FISHERIES AND POLLUTION CONFERENCE

On November 8-9 1996: "Fisheries and Pollution 1996--the Second Annual Conference Population Level Effects of Marine Contamination" will take place at the Bodega Marine Laboratory, Bodega Bay, California.

This conference will focus on the following areas in the context of population-level effects and marine contamination:

Habitat Quality: This session explores the link between habitat quality and fishery resource health.

Biomarkers: This session evaluates the utility of biomarkers for monitoring fish population health and for ecological risk assessment.

Policy, Management and Communication: This session explores the transfer of scientific information to environmental managers, policymakers and the public.

For Further Information Contact: Daniel Grosse, Rifkin and Associates, at (410) 962-1401. E-mail: dgrosse@access.digex.net

NWF SURVEY POINTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

A national survey released August 6, 1996 by the National Wildlife Federation shows the environment to be an important priority for most voters in the upcoming November elections. The survey, jointly conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates and Research/Strategy/ Management Inc., surveyed 1,000 voters between July 16-18 about how their beliefs about the environment will influence their vote and about their opinions on several controversial environmental issues. Some findings of that survey can be found below:

For Further Information about this survey Contact: Naomi Paiss, Public Affairs Department, National Wildlife Federation at (703) 790-4084.

In Related News, on July 25, 1996, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) "a pro-market, public policy group committed to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government" released a separate survey relating to environmental issues. The 1,000-voter survey was conducted from June 29-July 2 by The Polling Company. The CEI survey found that 65 percent of voters said state or local governments would do a better job with environmental protection than the federal government. Also 64 percent of respondents said government should compensate landowners "when environmental regulations prevent landowners from using their property." Fewer than 5 percent of voters identified environmental concerns as "the single most important problem facing the country."

For Further Information about the CEI call: (202) 331-1010.

SALMON CRISIS BOOK

"The Salmon Crisis in the Pacific Northwest has generated an image of the unthinkable--a Columbia River without salmon," writes William L. Lang in The Northwest Salmon Crisis: A Documentary History.

This book, edited by Joseph Cone and Sandy Ridlington, is billed as the "first documentary history of the salmon crisis, knowledgeable observers of salmon history have chosen and commented upon the documents that they feel most clearly reveal the causes and early warning signs of today's crisis."

The topics covered include natural resource law, biology, tribal and Northwest history, and anthropology. The eighty documents collected here address such issues as habitat, hatcheries, hydropower, fisheries, Indian fishing rights, and watershed management. Historic photographs and other images complement the text.

Contributing authors include Bill M. Bakke, Michael C. Blumm, F. Lorraine Bodi, Douglas W. Dompier, Stanley V. Gregory, Robert Kentta, William L. Lang, James A. Lichatowich, William G. Robbins, and Courtland L. Smith.

To Order The Northwest Salmon Crisis: A Documentary History, Call: Oregon State University Press at (541) 636-3166. Cost: $29.95 plus $3.50 shipping and handling for the first book and $.75 for each additional copy.

DRAFT AGENDA

PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION

49th ANNUAL MEETING

SunRiver, Oregon

September 28, 29, 30, October 1, 1996

Date/TimeEvent Speaker, Affiliation
Saturday, September 28
10:00 amRegistration/Open House
Sunday, September 29
7:30 amOpening Remarks Randy Fisher, PSMFC
8:00 amLegislative Updates Brad Gilman, Attorney at Law
10:30 amAtlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Jack Dunnigan, ASMFC

Paul Sandifer, ASFMC

Larry Simpson, GSMFC

Corky Perret, GSMFC

11:30 amLunch - Internet Demonstration
1:00 pmMarine Mammals Joe Scordino, National Marine Fisheries Service

Robin Brown, Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

Suzanne Iudicello, Center for Marine Conservation

State Director Panel

2:30 pmMass Marking Update Ken Johnson, PSMFC
3:00 pmPSMFC Exhibits Open
7:00 pmDinner - Presentation of PSMFC Award Robert Jacobson, Newport, Oregon
Monday, September 30
7:30 amWest Coast Squid Management TBA
8:30 amNational Marine Fisheries Service Rollie Schmitten, NMFS

Dick Schaefer, NMFS

John Oliver, NMFS

Paul Perra, NMFS

William Price, NMFS

12:00 pmLunch Admiral David Spade, U.S. Coast Guard
1:30 pmIn-State Meetings
7:00 pmDinner Speaker TBA
Tuesday, October 1
7:30 amPSMFC Business Meeting


FORUM ON SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES

On September 14-15, 1996, in Seattle Washington, a workshop will be hosted by For the Sake of the Salmon and The Sustainable Fisheries Foundation entitled "Forum on Sustainable Fisheries." The event will be held in conjunction with the Salmon Homecoming Celebration (September 13-15, 1996).

According to the Forum's sponsors:

Fisheries management must change if it is to successfully cope with the myriad factors that are responsible for the recent declines in salmon and steelhead populations throughout the Pacific Northwest. To this end, the Sustainable Fisheries Foundation, the American Fisheries Society, Save Our Wild Salmon, For the Sake of the Salmon, British Columbia Wild Salmon Coalition, Coastal Salmon Restoration Group, and many other organizations are participating in the development of a Sustainable Fisheries Strategy for Pacific salmonids.

The Strategy will help us achieve our common goals for revitalizing salmon-dependent communities, protecting and restoring salmonid habitat, maintaining and enhancing salmonid production, balancing conservation and use of salmon and steelhead, and reforming management structures and institutions. The first draft of the Strategy has now been completed. The new challenge will be to develop implementation plans that translate the vision articulated by conference participants into specific actions that reverse the decline of salmon and increase their abundance in the rivers and lakes of the Pacific Northwest.

Forum Program: The program consists of three main elements which will focus on 1) the principles for sustainable fisheries, 2) recent initiatives that advance sustainable fisheries objectives, and 3) successful fisheries restoration projects.

For The Sake of Salmon Press Event Scheduled: On it first anniversary, besides co-sponsoring the Forum on Sustainable Fisheries, For The Sake of Salmon will also hold a press event on Friday, September 13 at 11 a.m. at piers 62/63 north of the Seattle Aquarium. At the press event, For the Sake of the Salmon will talk about watersheds and salmon recovery--showing off their map of "organized" watersheds in California, Oregon, and Washington. Watershed representatives from each state will attend the event.

For Further Information about the Forum and the Press Event Call: For the Sake of the Salmon at (503) 650-5447.

For Further Information about the Salmon Homecoming, Contact the Seattle Aquarium Society at (206) 682-FISH.


VII. UPDATES

According to the Defenders of Wildlife: "The Tongass rider undermines the entire forest planning process required under the National Forest Management Act, tosses aside the public participation that went into developing TLMP, and delays development of a sustainable blueprint intended to protect the viability of wildlife species in the forest. Similar provisions on the Tongass were among the most contentious issues in the FY 1996 budget stalemate."

____________

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.org. Layout by Liza Bauman (E-mail address: Liza_Bauman@psmfc.org). Printed on 100% recycled sheet with minimum 50% post consumer fiber. Date of Issue: 08/26/96.


If you would like to have the Habitat Hotline (formatted in Microsoft Word only) E-mailed to you, please fax or mail us the following information:

Your E-Mail address: ___________________________________________________________

Your name: ___________________________________________________________

(if not indicated on your mailing label below)

Your telephone number: ( )

Area Code



Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

45 S.E. 82nd Drive

Suite 100

Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522















FIRST CLASS