WASHINGTON

On September 16, Senators Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho), John Chafee (R-R.I.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced the "Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997" (S. 1180).

Some elements of the bill, by topic, are as follows (source: Thomas Legislative Information, Library of Congress):

Science: Amends the Endangered Species Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce, as appropriate, where required to use the best scientific and commercial data available, to give greater weight to data that is empirical, field-tested, or peer-reviewed when evaluating comparable data.

Consultation: Directs Federal agencies, prior to commencing any action, to notify the Secretary if such action may affect an endangered or threatened species or critical habitat. Requires a Federal agency to consult with the Secretary on each action for which notification is required unless: (1) such agency determines, based on the opinion of a qualified biologist that the action is not likely to adversely affect such species or habitat [emphasis added]; (2) the agency has made such determination and provides the Secretary with the information on which the determination was based; and (3) the Secretary does not object to such determination within 60 days of receiving notification [emphasis added].

Recovery Plans: Repeals provisions regarding recovery plans. Establishes deadlines for the publication of draft and final recovery plans [draft recovery plans would be due out in 18 months]. Requires the Secretary, on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, to develop and implement plans for the conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species unless a plan will not promote the conservation of the species or an existing plan or strategy for conservation already serves as the functional equivalent of such plan. Gives priority to plans that: (1) address significant and immediate threats to the survival of a species, have the greatest likelihood of achieving species recovery, and will benefit species that are more taxonomically distinct; (2) address multiple species that are dependent on the same habitat as the endangered or threatened species; (3) reduce conflicts with construction, development projects, jobs, or other economic activities [emphasis added]; and (4) reduce conflicts with military training and operations.

Conservation Plans: Authorizes the development of multiple species conservation plans which may include measures for non-listed species. (Conservation plans are required to be developed in connection with incidental takings of species which are otherwise prohibited.) Authorizes the Secretary and the heads of Federal agencies to provide technical assistance or guidance to States or persons developing such plans. Establishes deadlines for plan approval. Allows the Secretary to issue a permit for a low effect activity authorizing an otherwise prohibited taking if the activity will have no more than a negligible effect on the species, any taking will be incidental, and the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild [emphasis added]. Requires the Secretary to minimize permitting costs by developing model permit applications that would constitute conservation plans for low effect activities.

Safe Harbor Agreements*: Authorizes the Secretary to enter into safe harbor agreements with non-Federal persons to benefit the conservation of endangered or threatened species by creating, restoring, or improving habitat or by maintaining currently unoccupied habitat for such species. Requires the Secretary, under such agreements, to permit the person to take endangered or threatened species on lands or waters subject to the agreement if the taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Prescribes a mutually agreed upon baseline requirement that will, at a minimum, maintain existing conditions for the species. Authorizes the baseline to be expressed in terms of the abundance or distribution of species, quantity or quality of habitat, or other appropriate indicators.

Incentives: Authorizes grants of up to $25,000 to individual landowners for carrying out such conservation agreements. Bars grants for actions for which a permit is required under any Federal law.

[*Note: Safe Harbor Agreements say that if a landowner enters into a voluntary agreement with the federal government to protect and conserve a listed species, in return those land owners and their plans will not be subject to additional liability under ESA.]

REACTION

White House: The bill has been endorsed by the White House.

Senator Kempthorne said (September 16, 1997):

We are completely changing the dynamics of the ESA, by making it work better and smarter so that we recover species without putting entire communities at risk. We’re spending millions of dollars, but not a single species has been saved as a result of recovery plans developed under the current ESA. Over half the species on the list don’t even have recovery plans. This bill changes that. It makes the ESA work better, while treating individuals and property owners more fairly. James McClure, Chairman: National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition*, said the following after the bill was passed out of committee: Today’s vote sends a very strong signal to the rest of the Senate that S. 1180 is a balanced and reasoned approach to ESA reauthorization. I see no reason why the rest of the Senate won’t follow the Environment and Public Works Committee’s lead and adopt S. 1180 when it is brought to the Senate floor. (*NESARC is a broad-based coalition of over 200 member organizations. Membership includes rural irrigators, municipalities, farmers, electric utilities and many other individuals and organizations that are directly affected by the ESA.)

Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, said:

The Senate bill seriously undercuts this nation’s most important environmental law—a law that the fishing industry has increasingly come to rely on to protect and recover fish stocks impaired by habitat destruction and pollution. This is the time we should be strengthening the Endangered Species Act, not weakening it. The Kempthorne bill proposes "certainty" for landowners, but the only certainty it provides is for fish extinction and for fishermen in the unemployment line. It proposes "safe harbors" for the polluters but casts fishermen and the fish out on a treacherous sea. It locks in place untested plans with little scientific information and no chance for species recovery for up to a century or more. But where are the benefits to the fish and those who for generations have relied on the bounty of the sea? Make no mistake, the Kempthorne bill is just another large corporate rip-off at the expense of our natural resources and the working men and women of this nation. According to the conservation-oriented Endangered Species Coalition (based in Washington, D.C.), the worst elements of the Kempthorne bill include:

It exempts federal actions identified in a "recovery plan implementation agreement" from the duty to avoid jeopardizing an endangered species, even in light of new information or new circumstances (commonly called "No Surprises").
The 60-day clock on self-consultation eliminates the vital checks and balances inherent in the ESA. The Kempthorne Bill allows an action agency, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, to make its own internal determination that an action, such as river dredging, is not likely to adversely affect a listed species.
It would allow the U.S. Forest Service and other forest agencies to continue charging forward with a bad forest plan for 15 months after a species becomes threatened or endangered, or critical habitat is designated.

MILLER BILL

IN THE HOUSE: The conservation community is backing H.R. 2351, the "Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997" (See Habitat Hotline Number 33) introduced by Representative George Miller (D-Calif.). Similar to the Kempthorne bill, H.R. 2351 contains measures providing incentives for landowner conservation activities and encourages multispecies conservation plans. However, S. 1180 and H.R. 2351 are far apart on many issues. H.R. 2351 does not place time limits on the agency consultation process, does not tie recovery planning to economic impacts, and would require additional conservation measures under a conservation plan if the federal government felt they were necessary for the continued existence of a species.

REACTION

Said Representative Miller upon releasing his bill (July 30, 1997):

Today, the Endangered Species Act puts species on hold and landowners in limbo. Far more species have languished for years on the endangered or threatened species list than have been recovered from it. Clearly, something is not working. My bill makes the recovery—or restoration—of the species the guiding principle behind all ESA efforts. Recovery of species benefits all sides in this dispute. Species return to their healthy status and are removed the list, which then frees up lands for uses that had been prohibited while the species were under protection. The National Wildlife Federation had this to say about H.R. 2351: The Endangered Species Recovery Act is a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. It offers a reasonable, scientifically-sound set of solutions to protecting endangered species. For years, opponents of the Endangered Species Act have argued that the law must be dramatically weakened for it to be workable for landowners and developers. This bill demonstrates that the needs of landowners and other regulated entities can be met without jeopardizing our ability to protect and recover our nation’s imperiled wildlife. NOW WHAT:

House: It is doubtful H.R. 2351 will see action. The House adjourns on November 14.

Senate: On September 30, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed Kempthorne’s S. 1180 out of committee by a vote of 14-3.

***AS WE GO TO PRESS*** A vote on the Senate Floor may come any day on S. 1180. Senate adjournment for 1997 is also targeted for November 14.

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 and Vice President Gore: vice.president@whitehouse.gov

For Further Information Contact the Office of Senator Dirk Kempthorne at (202) 224-3121; Office of Representative George Miller (202) 225-3121; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations at (415) 561-5080.

ESTUARY BILL

On September 25, 1997, Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.) introduced S. 1222, the "Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997". The purpose of the bill is to "establish a voluntary, community-driven, incentive-based program that will catalyze the restoration of 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat by 2010." The bill:

Creates an Estuary Habitat Restoration Collaborative Council, to be comprised of the Secretaries of the Army, Agriculture, and Transportation, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere of the Department of Commerce, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of the Interior (through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
Mandates the development of an estuary habitat restoration strategy by the Council. The purpose of the restoration strategy is "to ensure a comprehensive approach to the selection and prioritization of estuary habitat restoration projects..."
Provides partial federal funding for projects ($40 million in annual funding starting in 1999 and increases annual funding to $75 million from 2001 to 2003).
Establishes a project application process and selection criteria.

NOW WHAT: This bill is in the Committee on Environment and Public Works and has not been scheduled for a hearing.

For Further Information Contact the Office of Senator John Chafee at (202) 224-3121.

PROPERTY BILL PASSES HOUSE

The "Private Property Implementation Act of 1997", H.R. 1534, was introduced on May 6, 1997 by Representative Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.). In the Senate, similar legislation, "The Property Owners Access to Justice Act of 1997", S. 1204, was introduced by Senator Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.). These bills would allow landowners to take their claims—that their private property rights (under the fifth amendment) were violated by a "taking"—directly to federal court, thus bypassing state or local legal processes.

A summary of S. 1204 is excerpted below (source: Thomas Legislative Information, Library of Congress):

A bill to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and privileges, secured by the United States Constitution, have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies, or other government officials or entities acting under color of State law; to prevent Federal courts from abstaining from exercising Federal jurisdiction in actions where no State law claim is alleged; to permit certification of unsettled State law questions that are essential to resolving Federal claims arising under the Constitution; and to clarify when government action is sufficiently final to ripen certain Federal claims arising under the Constitution. REACTION

According to Energy and Environmental Weekly, the bill is being supported by the National Home Builders Association, and opposed by the Clinton Administration, National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 40 state attorneys general, the National Governors Association, and environmental groups.

Upon introducing S. 1204 on September 23, 1997, Senator Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.) said:

To deal with the problem of resolving all State court remedies, this bill essentially gives property owners a choice of how to assert their property rights under the Constitution. If the property owner wants to pursue action against a local or State agency that has infringed on his or her rights, the property owner can sue in State or local court, as he would now. Or, if the property owner wants to reject that route and instead pursue only a fifth amendment takings claim, the case can be heard in Federal court.

This will correct the current situation in which a property owner can be bounced between State and Federal courts for years, with the merits of their Federal claim never being heard.

The National Wildlife Federation commented: The bills would make it easier for takings claimants to challenge local, state and federal environmental laws thereby weakening local zoning and federal environmental protections. The Sierra Club said: The National Homebuilders Association is representing HR 1534 as a simple procedural, access to courts, bill, but in reality this bill opens a Pandora’s box of problems by overriding local zoning procedures, burdens local governments with lawsuits in federal courts, flooding federal courts with a litigation explosion, and harming property owners and the environment. NOW WHAT: In the Senate, S. 1204 is expected to see action in the Judiciary Committee in the near future.

What You Can Do: Please refer to page 4 for information (phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.) on actions you can take.

SPECIAL SECTION ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT UPDATE

Editor’s Note: Below is an update on the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Act). This update was prepared by Fran Recht of the PSMFC staff. It is hoped that the final EFH guidelines will be published in the coming weeks. It appears that the final rule language will not differ substantially from the April draft rule (see Habitat Hotline number 32).

BACKGROUND: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Act) was originally passed in 1976. This Act provided the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) legislative authority for fisheries regulation in the United States, in the area between three miles to 200 miles offshore and established the eight regional fishery management councils (Councils) that manage the harvest of fish and shellfish resources in these waters. The Pacific Fishery Management Council covers the area offshore of the states of California, Oregon, and Washington, while the North Pacific Council manages Alaska’s fishery resources. Councils prepare Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) to govern their management activities which are submitted to NMFS for approval.

In 1996, the Act was reauthorized and changed extensively by amendments called the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). Among other changes, these amendments are intended to emphasize the importance of habitat protection to healthy fisheries and to strengthen the ability of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Councils to protect the habitat needed by the fish they manage. This habitat is called "Essential Fish Habitat" and is broadly defined to include "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity."

NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR NMFS, COUNCILS, FEDERAL AGENCIES

In order to improve fish habitat protection, the SFA requires or authorizes new actions to be taken by NMFS, the Councils, and other Federal Agencies (see roles and responsibilities on pages 7-8).

The Act requires the Councils, after receiving recommendations from NMFS, to amend their FMPs by October 1998 to:

Identify and describe the essential habitat for the fish species managed by the Council;
Describe adverse impacts to that habitat from fishing activities;
Describe adverse impacts to that habitat from non-fishing activities; and
Recommend conservation and enhancement measures necessary to help minimize impacts and protect and restore that habitat.

For the Pacific Council, EFH must be defined and adverse effects and conservation measures identified for 4 species of salmon, 83 species of groundfish, and 5 species of coastal pelagic species such as anchovy, sardine, mackerel and squid. For the North Pacific Council, EFH information must cover 5 species of salmon, multiple species of scallop and crab, about 42 groundfish species in the Bering Sea and Aleutians and about 52 groundfish species in the Gulf of Alaska. STRENGTHENED HABITAT PROTECTION

Once the FMPs are amended with EFH information, NMFS and the Councils will be able to play a more proactive role in protecting habitat areas by alerting other federal and state agencies to areas of concern, and urging them to avoid planning projects in such areas. When projects are planned that may adversely affect EFH, NMFS and the Councils can recommend conservation measures to minimize problems. Though such habitat related comments (outside of Endangered Species Act consultations) may have had little effect in the past, the Act’s new requirements for Federal Agency consultation will help to improve matters.

The Act requires federal agencies (and other entities funded by federal dollars) that are engaging in activities that may adversely affect EFH to consult with NMFS regarding those activities. This means that NMFS (and the Councils) can make suggestions on how to better avoid or minimize habitat damage. Further, once these agencies receive NMFS’ comments, they must respond in writing within 30 days, outlining the measures they are proposing to avoid, mitigate or offset the impact of the activity on EFH. They must also explain any inconsistencies between the avoidance and mitigative actions they propose to take with the recommendations made by NMFS.

PROCESS AND SCHEDULE

NMFS is charged with gathering the necessary information on EFH, consulting with the fishing industry and others in developing this EFH information, and then, after a public hearing on these recommendations, providing that information to the Council. The information from NMFS is called a "recommendation". The Councils will then hold further public hearings to consider these recommendations and adapt the information into an "amendment" to their Fishery Management Plans.

Staff from the Northwest (Seattle) and Southwest (Long Beach) Regional Offices and Science Centers of NMFS are in the process of compiling information and developing EFH recommendations to meet the needs of the Pacific Council’s fishery management plans. Likewise, NMFS staff from the Alaska Regional Office (Juneau) and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (Seattle), in coordination with staff from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, is currently assimilating the EFH information for the North Pacific Council’s five fishery management plans. NMFS staff from the Office of Habitat Conservation in Washington, D.C. are also involved in this work.

Advice and input will be solicited by NMFS from fishermen, during the development of their recommendations as well as from Council advisory groups, Council staff and others.

Additionally, input and advice will be solicited on these recommendations from the public through public hearings and other presentations. Other opportunities for public input will occur through the Fishery Management Council process. The Councils will hold hearings regarding the proposed and final EFH amendments to their FMPs.

The following timeline for EFH work in both the Pacific and North Pacific is tentative. Actual schedules will depend on each Council’s meeting dates and their workloads.

Sept 1997 - Feb 1998: Development of EFH information; technical consultation; public hearings;
April 1998 - June 1998: NMFS recommen-dations presented to Council;
April 1998 - June 1998: Council holds hearings on FMP amendments; and
September 1998: Council submits FMP amendment to Secretary of Commerce.

EFH ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

The roles of NMFS, the Councils, and Federal Agencies in protecting EFH is detailed below, with citations provided to the appropriate section of the SFA (Public Law 104-267). (Source: Proposed guidelines published April 23, 1997; Final guidelines will be published in the coming weeks):

Requires NMFS to:

Develop guidelines, by regulation, to assist the Councils in description and identification of EFH in FMPs (including adverse impacts on EFH) and consideration of actions to ensure conservation and enhancement of EFH by April 11, 1997. (Section 305(b)(1)(A))
Develop schedules for amending FMPs for EFH, and for future periodic review of EFH amendments. (Section 305(b)(1)(A))
Provide each Council with recommendations and information regarding EFH for each fishery under that Council’s authority. (Section 305(b)(1)(B))
Review programs administered by the Department of Commerce and ensure that relevant programs further the conservation and enhancement of EFH. (Section 305(b)(1)(C))
Consult with federal agencies regarding any activity, or proposed activity, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. (Section 305(b)(2))
Coordinate with and provide information to other Federal agencies to further the conservation and enhancement of EFH. (Section 305(b)(1)(D))
Recommend conservation measures for any action undertaken by any state or Federal agency that may adversely affect EFH. (Section 305(b)(4)(A))

Requires or authorizes Councils to:

Councils are required to submit FMP amendments to the Secretary to implement the EFH and other new FMP requirements, by October 11, 1998.
FMPs must describe and identify EFH for the fishery based on the guidelines established by NMFS, minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH. (Section 303)
Councils may comment on and make recommendations to NMFS and any Federal or state agency concerning any activity, or proposed activity, authorized, funded, or undertaken by any Federal or state agency that may adversely affect the habitat, including EFH, of a fishery under its authority. (Section 305(b)(3)(A))
Councils must comment on, and make recommendations to, NMFS and any Federal or state agency concerning an activity that is likely to substantially affect the habitat, including EFH, of an anadromous fishery. (Section 305(b)(3)(B))

Requires Federal agencies to:

Federal agencies must consult with NMFS regarding any activity, or proposed activity, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. (Section 305(b)(2))
Within 30 days of receipt of a recommendation, Federal agencies are required to provide NMFS and any Council that comments on an activity, or proposed activity, with a written description of the measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. If this response is inconsistent with NMFS recommendations, the agency must explain why it is inconsistent. (Section 305(b)(4)(B))

Further Information on EFH Guidelines can be accessed via the Internet through the NMFS Homepage: http://kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov (under "Office of Habitat Protection"). To obtain a copy of the EFH Guidelines call: NMFS’ Office of Habitat Protection at (301) 713-2325. Information on the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) can also be accessed on their web site at: http://www.pcouncil.org

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/HEARINGS

The following table lists the meetings that have so far been scheduled for presentations and hearings on EFH in the Pacific Northwest. (For information on North Pacific Salmon, Groundfish, Crab and Scallop EFH presentations and hearings contact: Cindy Hartmann, EFH Team Coordinator, NMFS, Juneau at (907) 586-7235.

Pacific Salmon and Groundfish EFH Public Meetings and Hearings
Type of Meeting	Location and Event	Date/Time
Informational—NMFS presentation on work to date	PFMC Meeting, Sheraton Airport Hotel, Portland, Oregon	Tuesday Nov. 4 3 p.m.
Informational—NMFS presentation on work to date	Fish Expo, Rm. 310,Washington Convention Center, Seattle, Washington	Saturday Nov. 22 10:30-noon
Public Hearing on NMFS recommendation	PFMC Meeting, Clarion Hotel, Millbrae, California (San Francisco area)	March 9-13, 1998
Other public hearings on NMFS recommendations	To be scheduled in Washington, Oregon	March, 1998
Council decides whether to adopt Proposed Plan Amendment for PFMC process	PFMC Meeting, Columbia River Double Tree, Portland, Oregon	April 6-10, 1998
Public comments accepted at PFMC meeting regarding adopting final Amendment	PFMC Meeting, Double Tree, Seattle Airport, Seattle, Washington	June 22-26, 1998

II. REGIONAL

STEELHEAD LISTED

On August 11, 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed several Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) (populations) of steelhead as "threatened" (meaning they are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future) or "endangered" (meaning they are at risk of becoming extinct in the foreseeable future) under the Endangered Species Act (see map on page 11).

Endangered Steelhead ESUs listed are:

Upper Columbia River: from the Yakima River upstream to Chief Joseph Dam; and
Southern California: from the Santa Maria River to just south of Malibu Creek, north of Los Angeles.

Threatened Steelhead ESUs listed are:

Snake River Basin (encompassing parts of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon);
Central California Coast; and
South-Central California Coast.

Deferred: In addition, NMFS announced it would defer, for six months, a decision on five other steelhead ESUs in Oregon, Washington and California. The reason given for the delay was because there "is considerable scientific disagreement about the status of the stocks." The five deferred ESUs are:

Lower Columbia River;
Oregon Coast;
Klamath Mountains;
Northern California Coast; and
Central Valley California.

Candidate: Also, NMFS announced that the Upper Willamette River ESU is a "candidate species." A further determination on this ESU could be made on February 9, 1997.

REACTION

The group Idaho and Salmon and Steelhead Unlimited (ISSU) had this to say about the decision to list Idaho steelhead (source: ISSU News and Views, September 1997):

This listing angers ISSU, and should anger every fisherman, conservationist, fishing business, and citizen in Idaho. NOT at the ESA, but at the Clinton Administration for its lack of leadership in implementing a sensible ESA plan for salmon—which also would have protected steelhead—and at the northwest Congressional delegation for its lack of incentive to restore this renewable fishery resource.

It is time that Idaho anglers start demanding that Idaho’s Congressional delegation get in the face of the feds on juvenile salmon and steelhead barging and stay there until Idaho’s juvenile steelhead and salmon are kept out of the barges and allowed to migrate in the river. The river must also be made much more friendly for juvenile as well as adult fish migration. Politicians must not be allowed to compare today’s in-river migration statistics to barging. The lower Snake is not a river by any stretch of the imagination. It is a series of slack warm water reservoirs that are as lethal to migrating juveniles as barging is to them. To compare barging juvenile steelhead and salmon survival to current slack water reservoir migration survival is like comparing arsenic and cyanide. Both are a sure road to extinction.

California State Secretary for Resources Doug Wheeler welcomed the federal decision to delay a listing of steelhead trout in three areas of California. Wheeler said: The decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to defer a steelhead listing will enable us to proceed with programs and plans for improving and restoring stream habitat that will make future listing of steelhead and other anadromous species unnecessary in these area[s] [al]together. We plan to enlighten the NMFS as to the broad array of activities and public and private investments already in place in California and determine what additional actions may be needed. NOW WHAT: On August 11, NMFS also announced it would extend the effective date of the listing to 60 days, to give states time to make changes to bring them into agreement with the new listing. NMFS will issue another decision regarding the deferred decisions on February 9, 1998.

For Further Information Contact Jim Lynch of the National Marine Fisheries Service at (503) 230-5422; Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited at (208) 345-4438.

EL NIÑO

Below are several El Niño stories that may be of interest to you. A graph depicting the standard deviation of the Southern Oscillation Index can be found on page 12.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation? The Associated Press reported on October 15, 1997 that researchers at the University of Washington said they had found evidence of a Pacific weather pattern that has many of the characteristics of El Niño but is spread over decades. According to the article:

The phenomenon, which they call the Pacific decadal oscillation or PDO, appears to take 20 to 30 years to shift between warm and cold phases. The climatic trend, the researchers say, may help explain why ocean water has been warmer than usual off the West Coast, why winters have been wetter than usual in the South, and why salmon have been scarce in the waters off Washington and British Columbia, but plentiful in Alaska.

The University of Washington researchers reported that the PDO is much more subtle than El Niño—a shift of only about 2 degrees in surface ocean temperatures over a period of years. But, according to the article, this shift is enough to cause atmospheric changes that affect freezing levels, mountain snowpacks, stream flows and water supplies. It’s also enough to influence what kind of creatures thrive in Pacific coastal waters. The article references John Wallace, a University of Washington professor of atmospheric sciences who says that the Pacific Northwest has been in a warm phase since 1977, with a previous cold phase of the PDO starting just after World War II and lasting until 1977.

Overstated El Niño? According to an October 21, 1997 article in the on-line publication Environmental News Network*:

When climatologists began noticing that the weather phenomenon known as El Niño was building up in the tropical Pacific Ocean back in April the news media got excited. Early estimates of the size and scope of this particular El Niño painted a newsworthy picture of torrential rains and devastating floods. California could receive 500 percent above normal rainfall, according to worst-case scenarios pumped out by climate-modeling computers. The news media saw disaster lurking around the corner and lapped it up.

However, climatologists have begun checking their facts and fine tuning their forecasts. According to Jan Null, a forecaster at the National Weather Service’s Monterey, Calif., office, El Niño is simply not going to be as devastating as the media has made it out to be.

Current forecasts are putting this year’s El Niño on equal footing with the one in 1982-83. That El Niño produced 180 percent of normal rainfall in the Bay Area. Average for type one years* is 137 percent above normal. [*Note: A "type one" El Niño classification is the strongest of the El Niño weather patterns.]

Though these figures suggest that the [San Francisco] Bay Area is in store for a wetter than normal winter, "three to four times normal is not possible," said Null. "Looking at climatology, we are not going to see extravagant numbers."

Null also pointed out that the warming of California’s coastal waters is not the direct result of warmer waters from South America, but rather the effect of weakened onshore winds. Typically strong onshore winds cause an up welling in the ocean currents that in turn keeps the water temperatures cool. In the absence of a strong onshore flow, the waters become warmer.

(*Article is courtesy of the Environmental News Network, October 21, 1997. The ENN can be reached at http://www.enn.com. ENN also has an El Niño Special Report which can be found at http://www.enn.com/specialreports/).

Current Status: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released the following on October 21, 1997*:

Strong warm episode (El Niño) conditions have persisted in the tropical Pacific since July 1997. Sea surface temperatures throughout the equatorial east-central Pacific increased during April and May, when normally temperatures decrease in this region. During August and September ocean surface temperatures reached near record levels in many sections of the equatorial Pacific. Departures from normal exceeded +4°C along the equator east of 120°W, and were greater than +5°C near the Galapagos Islands and along the coast of northern Peru. Over the past few seasons…model predictions have consistently indicated the development and persistence of strong warm episode conditions. The latest NCEP forecasts indicate that strong warm episode oceanic conditions, comparable to those observed during 1982-83, will continue throughout the remainder of 1997 and into early 1998. (*Source: NOAA, El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO); address: http://nic.fb4.noaa.gov:80/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/index.html

Above is a plot of the six biggest historic El Niño events since 1950. The first three events (1957/58, 65/66, and 72/73) all featured an early warming in the far eastern Pacific and reached their standardized peaks before the end of the first year. The more recent El Niño events (1982/83, 86/87, and 91/92) took longer to mature, typically reaching their peaks in the spring of the second year. Early 1983 was the peak of the biggest El Niño of the century so far, but 1997 appears to be right on its heels, seemingly poised to reach its peak before the end of this year. (Text and figures prepared by Klaus Wolter [kew@cdc.noaa.gov] (303) 492-4615 Source: Wolter and Timlin {1993, 1997}).

Note: ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation or El Niño) is a change in the ocean-atmosphere system in the eastern Pacific which contributes to significant weather changes around the world.

III. OREGON

OREGON SALMON UPDATE

In April 1997, instead of listing the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU under the Endangered Species Act, the Federal government struck an agreement with the State of Oregon to implement its Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI or the Oregon Plan). Below is some current information on the CSRI.

Science Team Appointed Governor Kitzhaber and the Oregon Legislature finally agreed to the makeup of the seven-member independent science team to review implementation of the Oregon Plan and healthy streams program. The science team will include:

Wayne Elmore, BLM National Riparian Service Team;
Jim Lichatowich, Alder Fork Consulting;
Stan Gregory, OSU Dept. of Fish and Wildlife;
John Buckhouse, OSU Dept. of Rangeland Resources;
Kathleen Kavanagh, OSU Dept. of Forest Resources-Forestry Extension;
Logan Norris, OSU Dept. of Forest Sciences; and
William Pearcy, Dept. of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences.

Steelhead Comments Due The recently released steelhead supplement to the Oregon Salmon Plan focuses on restoring steelhead runs on the Oregon Coast and in the lower Columbia River, and steelhead and spring chinook runs in the upper Willamette River.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Community Briefings on the steelhead draft supplement to the Oregon salmon plan have been taking place. Remaining meetings are as follows:

Salem, Wednesday, November 5, 7 to 9 p.m. at Salem City Council Chambers, Salem Civic Center, 555 Liberty St. SE.
Portland, Thursday, November 6, 7 to 9 p.m. at Metro Council Chambers, 600 NE Grand St.

Written Comments: Comments on the Draft Supplement on Steelhead should be sent to: Oregon Plan Steelhead Review Capitol Building Salem, Oregon 97310 *** Comments are Due November 24, 1997 ***

The draft supplement on steelhead is available for viewing at state agencies, watershed councils, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, county offices, and libraries. A listing of locations for viewing the plan can be found at http://www.oregon-plan.org/view-sites.html

Internet: A copy of the supplement is also available on the World Wide Web at http://www.oregon-plan.org/Steelhead.html

For Further Information on the Oregon Plan and steelhead supplement call (503) 378-8582 ext. 800.

Report Questions Restoration Strategy The Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative is in part relying on habitat restoration projects to restore depleted coastal coho salmon stocks. Thirty million dollars has been dedicated by the State and private industry for restoration projects.

An article by two Oregon State University scientists in the May 1997 issue of Fisheries (a publication of the American Fisheries Society), says that "...the widespread practice of engineered structural modifications to streams with little or no scientific evidence of biological benefits represents a management paradox of immense proportions."

The authors also point to another study from 1994 indicating that instream enhancement projects (active restoration) throughout the region provide "little or no positive fisheries response to structural approaches." The authors favor "passive restoration" techniques, such as removing cattle from riparian areas, as the "critical first step in successful restoration projects." One of the authors, Robert L. Beschta, was quoted in The Oregonian as saying "One basic component for restoration to really take place is to ask what caused the problem and then remove that. It’s an incredibly simple concept" but for economic and political reasons "it’s extremely difficult to accomplish."

However, Jim Martin, salmon advisor to the governor, disagrees that active restoration is a waste of time. Short-term projects that add structure to the stream have been shown to double stream smolt production, says Martin. Also, he continues, it is crucial that we have a long-term ecosystem plan built around the short-term active management projects for salmon restoration to be successful. As an example, Martin points to coastal Oregon streams whose riparian zones are often dominated by alder stands and lack instream large woody debris such as Douglas fir. "We can’t just leave these alder corridors, we need to feed the streams with some large woody debris in the short term, and in the long term convert the alder to conifer."

SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM

The Rogue River’s Savage Rapids Dam has come under severe criticism for killing both upstream and downstream migrating salmon and steelhead. The federal government, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, and numerous fish and environmental groups want the dam removed. In lieu of the dam, water would be provided to the Grants Pass Irrigation District (GPID) through the installation of pumps at the current dam site.

Dam History: In 1994, dam removal was apparently to become a reality when the GPID voted for removal of the dam and replacement with pumps. The cost of the pump option is estimated at $11.2 million, versus the estimated $17.6 million it would cost to retain the dam and fix its fish ladders. However, in May 1995, the dam removal alternative was put on hold when the Oregon Legislature (led by two Grants Pass legislators State Senator Brady Adams and Representative Bob Repine) and Governor John Kitzhaber cut a deal for a one-year study to determine alternative ways the GPID could improve fish passage and more efficiently use diverted water. An 18-member task force composed of "diverse interest groups" made up the panel. In October of 1996 the task force issued its final report, but failed to reach consensus. The majority of the group recommended repairing and keeping the dam in place and improving fish passage. Three task force members (including the groups WaterWatch and the Rogue Flyfishers) dissented from the report’s conclusions, calling for dam removal.

In 1997, several events have occurred to revive the dam removal option. First, in March, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) issued its Record of Decision for the "Fish Passage Improvements at Savage Rapids Dam..." and recommended dam removal. However, at the time its decision, BOR said that it would not pursue congressional action to authorize or fund the preferred alternative because the GPID wished to pursue "a different course of action." Secondly, in April, Rogue River coho salmon were listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. Following the coho listing, in July, The National Marine Fisheries Service wrote to the GPID saying that the best choice for minimizing incidental take of ESA listed coho at the Savage Rapids Dam would be dam removal.

Despite pressure from the federal government for dam removal, on July 22, 1997, the GPID voted to keep the dam, and install new fish ladders. However, in August GPID changed its mind and voted 3-1 to remove Savage Rapids Dam and provide irrigation water to its customers with pumps. More recently, on October 2, the Oregon Water Resources Commission met and voted to impose a timeline for dam removal.

However, some local interests, especially those living around the lake behind the dam, want to keep it in place. Oregon State Senate President Brady Adams has also been a dam retention proponent.

Now What: According to Reed Benson, Executive Director of WaterWatch, a Portland-based environmental water policy group:

The commission’s October 2 action is a very positive step. However, this issue is far from settled. We expect the save the dam forces to continue to work hard for dam retention. There is also the question of public funding. We stand a much better chance of attracting federal and state dollars if there is broad agreement on dam removal. And there should be broad agreement, because dam removal is best for the taxpayers, the district, and the fish. For Further Information Contact WaterWatch at (503) 295-4039.

IV. WASHINGTON

PUGET SOUND MARINE SPECIES INTERNATIONAL MEETING

In May, 1992 the governments of British Columbia and Washington signed the "Environmental Cooperation Agreement." This Agreement committed the state and the province to work together on transboundary environmental problems. The Environmental Cooperation Council (ECC) was established out of the agreement. The ECC is composed of the Washington Department of Ecology Director and the Deputy Minister of the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, as well as observers from the regional offices of the U.S. EPA, Environment Canada, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada. The ECC created five task forces to coordinate cross-border efforts in five priority areas; the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force (Task Force) is one such group. The Task Force is composed of state, federal, tribal, and provincial resource agencies.

Most recently, the Task Force’s Washington Protect Marine Life Work Group developed draft recommended actions to protect marine plants and animals (this document in part focuses on non-salmonid species including ling cod, Pacific cod, and demersal rockfish). According to the draft document, the common types of actions to reverse the declining trends in a variety of resources can be summarized as follows:

Management plans for 11 species subject to significant levels of harvest;
Fishery-independent measure of population size;
Public education to develop sensitivities to resource issues and improve resource protection; and
Research to define the threats to the resources and to develop solutions.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: The Protect Marine Life Work Group is seeking comments on the recommended actions for the recovery of certain species. The work group is hosting a public forum to discuss a draft list that it has compiled to date.

The public forum will cover three major groups: marine invertebrates, fish (excluding salmon) and seabirds/marine mammals.

The Protect Marine Life Work Group Public Forum will be held:

November 12, 1997 7:00-9:00pm Port of Seattle, Pier 69 Commissioners’ Chambers

This list of recommendations will be presented to the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force (Task Force) at their January 1998 meeting. After endorsement from the Task Force, the list will be presented to the Environmental Cooperation Council.

Written Comments: Written comments on the draft list of the Marine Life Group’s recommended actions should be submitted to:

Mary Lou Mills Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife PO Box 43144 Olympia, WA 98504-3144 *** The deadline for written comments is November 19, 1997 ***

For Further Information or for a copy of the draft list, contact Holly Schneider Ross, Washington Liaison Officer for the Task Force, at (360) 407-6453.

Internet: The Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Transboundary Website can be reached at: http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound/shared/shared.html

PIE FUND REQUESTS DUE 1/15/98

The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team is requesting proposals for the Public Involvement and Education (PIE) Projects Fund. More than $500,000 in contracts will be awarded during this round of funding to projects relating directly to the cleanup and protection of Puget Sound.

Any Washington resident, business or community organization, tribal or local government or school may receive PIE funds. State colleges, universities and community colleges may also apply. Maximum funding is $40,000 per project. Workshops to assist applicants in writing proposals will be held December 1-4, 1997 at various locations and attendance at one of them is highly recommended by the action team. The locations of the workshops are as follows. All workshops are from 7-9 pm.

Monday, December 1, 1997, Port of Seattle, Commission Chambers, 2711 Alaskan Way, Pier 69, Seattle, WA
Tuesday, December 2, 1997, Washington Department of Ecology Headquarters, Auditorium ROA-34 and ROA-36, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA
Wednesday, December 3, 1997, Public Utilities Building, 1415 Freeway Drive, Mt. Vernon, WA
Thursday, December 4, 1997, Cascade Natural Gas, 6313 Kitsap Way, Bremerton, WA

*** Proposals are due to the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team January 15, 1998 ***

Funding preference will be given to projects that focus on the priorities for protecting and restoring water quality and biological resources as identified in the 1997-99 Puget Sound Water Quality Work Plan, including:

Fixing and preventing pollution and flooding problems from stormwater;
Fixing and preventing pollution problems from on-site sewage systems;
Preventing pollution of certified shellfish growing areas and restoring contaminated beds;
Implementing local watershed action plans;
Improving fish passage and fish and wildlife habitat; and
Working with British Columbia to promote protection of Puget Sound and the Georgia Basin.

For Further Information on how to apply for PIE funds, call the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team at (800) 54-SOUND or (360) 407-7300.

Internet: More information is available from the Action Team’s web site at http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound

V. CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO WINTER-RUN COMMENTS DUE 12/7 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Southwest Region, is currently accepting comments on the Proposed Recovery Plan for the Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon.

Winter run chinook salmon were originally petitioned for listing by the California-Nevada Chapter of the American Fisheries Society on November 7, 1985. After legal and administrative wrangling at the state and federal level, NMFS published an emergency rule on August 4, 1989 listing the species as "threatened." On January 4, 1994, the winter-run was reclassified as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act. Winter-run chinook numbers have plummeted in the last 30 years as evidenced below (estimates are from the Red Bluff diversion dam):

YEAR 1969: 1973: 1975: 1978: 1980: 1983:

COUNT 117,808 24,079 23,430 24,862 1,156 1,831

YEAR 1986: 1989: 1991: 1994: 1995: 1996:

COUNT2,464 533 191 189 1,361 940

According to NMFS, the primary causes for the decline of the winter-run chinook include:

Construction and operation of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam;
The adverse temperature conditions created by the operation of the Shasta Dam (particularly in dry years); and
A variety of other human activities that collectively degraded spawning and rearing habitat.

In the draft document, NMFS outlines actions that should be implemented immediately to avoid extinction of winter-run chinook. These actions include:

Providing suitable water temperature in the upper Sacramento River;
Reducing pollution from the Iron Mountain mine;
Improving juvenile fish passage and survival in the Upper Sacramento River through the Delta;
Improving adult fish passage at the Red Bluff Diversion dam;
Minimizing adult straying; and
Reducing ocean harvest impacts.

The proposed recovery plan says that: ...it is not feasible at this time to completely eliminate such prime sources of mortality. Hence to effectively recover winter-run chinook salmon, it is necessary to minimize adverse effects of the larger sources of mortality while addressing many other smaller sources of mortality such as the Suisan Marsh Salinity Control Structure, dredging operations, and toxic discharges. WHAT YOU CAN DO: Comments on the proposed plan should be submitted to: National Marine Fisheries Service 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325 Santa Rosa, California 95404 *** Comments Are Due By December 7, 1997 ***

For a copy of the proposed plan write NMFS’ Santa Rosa office, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa Rosa, California 95404, or call (707) 575-6050.

Internet: The proposed plan may be obtained by accessing the NMFS Southwest Region Internet Web Site at: http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/recweb.htm

For Further Information on the proposed recovery plan, contact Lisa Holsinger, National Marine Fisheries Service at (707) 575-6064; or Craig Wingert at (562) 980-4021.

VI. IDAHO

WATER HEARINGS 11/5 AND 11/6

The Idaho Water Resource Board has set special public meetings to provide information about applications for minimum stream flow water rights on the Bruneau, Jarbidge and Salmon rivers.

All three applications were originally filed in May 1994 by the environmental group Idaho Rivers United. The Board now wants to be sure there is sufficient local support for the applications to warrant beginning the administrative approval process required for water right approvals. If there is sufficient public support, the Board will request that the Director of the Department of Water Resources schedule hearings for 1998 to move the process forward.

The minimum streamflow proposal has the support of the conservation community. Idaho Rivers United requested minimum streamflows for the Jarbidge, Bruneau and the Lower Salmon Rivers, because they felt the Wild and Scenic eligible rivers deserved "some level of protection" while they waited for Idaho’s congressional delegation to act legislatively. The Lower Salmon is the primary migration corridor for Idaho’s remaining chinook and sockeye salmon, as well as steelhead. According to Marti Bridges of IRU, "part of the purpose of the minimum flows are to maintain levels for ESA-listed chinook salmon and steelhead."

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Meetings on the Salmon River minimum stream flow application will be held as follows:

Riggins, Idaho: November 5, at 7:00 p.m. at the Riggins City Hall.
Salmon, Idaho: November 6, at 7:00 p.m. at the Stagecoach Inn on Highway 93.

Written Comments should be submitted to: Idaho Water Resource Board 1301 North Orchard St. Boise, Idaho 83706-2237

For more information, contact John Beal of the Idaho Water Resource Board at (208) 327-7992; Marti Bridges of Idaho Rivers United at (208) 343-7481.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS

1997 SALMON HOMECOMING FORUM

A diverse group of people—all concerned about the future of salmon—met in Seattle on September 13 for the 1997 Salmon Homecoming Forum. The 150 participants and speakers represented the wide range of groups who have a stake in the future of Northwest salmon: Indian Tribes and First Nations (Canada), timber companies, local governments, state fish agencies, federal fish agencies, watershed organizations, the U.S. Coast Guard, philanthropic agencies, environmental groups, Canadian Consulate officials, hatchery operators, representatives of British Columbia, Washington State Senators and Representatives, community groups, and more.

The Forum theme, "Moving Salmon up the Political Agenda," was a unique opportunity for participants to hear from those involved with the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty and salmon recovery efforts in British Columbia and Washington state. Participants heard from 16 speakers including:

Elizabeth Furse, US House Representative, Oregon;
James Pipkin, Special Negotiator for Pacific Salmon and Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior;
Bud Graham, Canadian alternate, Pacific Salmon Commission;
Will Stelle, Director, Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service;
Billy Frank, Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission;
Bill Wilkerson, Chair, Washington Forest Protection Association, and
Lorraine Bodi, Co-Director of the Northwest Regional Office of American Rivers.

Those who attended the forum left with a better understanding of the sensitive issues we must all face together in conserving salmon for future generations. Comments from those who attended were very positive.

The forum was organized by For the Sake of the Salmon and the Sustainable Fisheries Foundation.

For Further Information Contact:

For the Sake of the Salmon. This is a regional organization whose mission is to restore salmon to levels which ensure healthy, sustainable natural populations and support productive fisheries. For the Sake of the Salmon has among its highest priorities supporting the work of local watershed organizations and providing a forum for its members to find common ground on ways to protect and restore Pacific salmon. In the past year, the organization has provided partial funding to support watershed coordinators in 33 watersheds in California, Oregon, and Washington. For Further information on For the Sake of the Salmon contact them at (503) 650-5447 or visit their website at http://www.4sos.org
Sustainable Fisheries Foundation. With offices in British Columbia and Washington State, the SFF is working to provide government agencies, First Nations and Tribal organizations, conservation and community groups with a framework for sustainable management of our shared fisheries resources. Through Forums on Sustainable Fisheries, the Foundation is refining a Sustainable Fisheries Strategy and benchmarks to measure the strategy’s success. For more information about the Sustainable Fisheries Foundation, call (425) 670-3584.

VIII. UPDATES FEDERAL

On 10/30/97 the House of Representatives hammered out compromise language and passed an amended version of H.R. 2493, legislation affecting grazing policy, by a vote of 242-182. H.R. 2493 was introduced by Representative Bob Smith (R-Ore.). There is no companion bill in the Senate.

On 9/25/97 THE OCEANS ACT OF 1997 (H. R. 2547 and S. 1213), was introduced by Senators Ernest Hollings (D-SC) and Representative Sam Farr (D-CA). The purpose of these bills are "To develop and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national policy with respect to ocean and coastal activities that will assist the Nation in meeting specified objectives, and for other purposes." The bill creates a COMMISSION ON OCEAN POLICY that would study coastal and ocean issues for two years and make policy suggestions. This legislation was in response to the recent outbreaks of the toxic microbe Pfiesteria piscicida on the Maryland and Virginia coasts.

Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that between 1985-1995, the AVERAGE NET LOSS OF WETLANDS was 117,000 acres per year, down from 290,000 acres per year in the previous decade.

REGIONAL

The COMMENT PERIOD on the EASTSIDE AND INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN DEIS’S has been EXTENDED until February 8, 1998. The Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project is part of a 1993 Presidential directive to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for management of federal lands east of the Cascades (See Habitat Hotline Number 33). For further information on the Eastside DEIS visit their website at http://www.icbemp.gov/html/new_items.html or call Rex Holloway of the ICBEMP at (509) 522-4046; and for the Upper Columbia River Basin DEIS contact Andy Brunelle of the ICBEMP at (208) 334-1770, Ext. 120.

The 1998 Interior Appropriations bill, on its way to President Clinton, reportedly contains language requiring an economic impact study be undertaken and other information developed before the INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN Ecosystem Management Project is finalized. If this language is adopted, it would cause a significant delay in the implementation of the project. ***AS WE GO TO PRESS*** Reportedly, the White House is considering a veto of the 1998 Interior Appropriations bill.

CALIFORNIA

In September, a House-Senate conference committee agreed to provide funding for two important habitat protection projects in the San Francisco Bay and Delta.

NAVIGATION SAFETY, SAN FRANCISCO BAY: Under the conference language, $100,000 will be provided for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the lowering of several rock barriers that present a serious hazard to oil tankers and other deep draft vessels in the Bay. According to the Congressman Miller’s Office, the feasibility study is the first step in the removal process as envisioned in H.R. 882, the Bay Shipping and Fisheries Enhancement Act. H.R. 882 was introduced by Representative Miller on February 27, 1997 in response to last October’s oil spill in San Francisco.

Conferees also agreed to provide $85 million to help support the BAY-DELTA AGREEMENT on improving water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. According to Miller’s Office, the agreement is a key component of the CALFED process through which state and federal officials, together with farmers, environmentalists and others, are attempting to implement the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act and other federal environmental statutes. In addition, the committee approved $1.5 million to begin construction of FISH SCREENS for the Contra Costa Water District’s intake at Rock Slough. According to Miller’s office, the screens are needed to reduce the number of fish drawn into the system’s pumping and storage facilities which can jeopardize the species’ survival in the Delta. For further information contact the Office of Congressman George Miller (202) 225-6065.

The CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM was initiated in 1995 by the State of California and the federal government "to address environmental and water management problems associated with the Bay-Delta system, an intricate web of waterways created at the junction of the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and the watershed that feeds them." The mission of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to "develop a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system." The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is holding public meetings in November. Each meeting will feature informational materials, one-on-one talk with Program staff, and a prepared general presentation about the Program. Remaining meetings are as follows:

Tuesday, Nov. 4, Walnut Grove, Jean Harvie Community Center, 14273 River Rd.
Thursday, Nov. 6, Bay Area, Commonwealth Club, 595 Market St., San Francisco
Wednesday, Nov. 12, Fresno, Ramada Inn, Room Shaw A, 324 E. Shaw Ave.
Tuesday, Nov. 18, Santa Barbara, Radisson Hotel, 1111 E. Cabrillo Blvd., Santa Barbara
Wednesday, Dec. 3, Los Angeles Area, Holiday Inn, Cypress Room, 303 E. Cordova St., Pasadena
Thursday, Dec. 4, San Diego, Vacation Inn, Cabrillo Room, 3900 Old Town Ave.
Tuesday, Dec. 9, Chico Area, Durham Memorial Hall, Faber & Midway, Durham.

For further information contact the CALFED Bay-Delta Program at (916) 657-2666 or visit their website at http://calfed.ca.gov

In other CALFED news, a draft programmatic environmental impact report/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT containing the draft preferred alternative for the CALFED program is expected to be released in JANUARY 1998. According to Lester Snow, executive director of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program:

Our goal in narrowing the alternatives is to give thoughtful, informed analysis of the options we’ve developed, and then to provide that analysis to the public. The complexity and interconnectedness of the problems we’re dealing with make it crucial that we provide a solid foundation for an informed public debate.
For further information on the CALFED program contact Judy Kelly at (916) 657-2666.

On 07/29/97 the Associated Press reported that "the number of young STRIPED BASS in the Delta has plummeted to another all-time low," according to the California Department of Fish and Game. The "abundance index" of young fish in the Delta and Suisun Bay is at its lowest since 1959. Adult striped bass also have declined in number. In 1970, the Delta had about 1.6 million adult stripers.

According to the October 1997 issue of California Sea Grant Sea Grant Briefs:

Most Pacific estuaries have been lost to land development over the past century, and now an introduced CORDGRASS, Spartina alterniflora, threatens to invade much of the remaining mudflat habitat. Research by Donald Strong and Curtis Daehler of the UC Bodega Marine Laboratory using genetic markers plus field observations has established that native California cordgrass (S. foliosa) and the introduced species can produce vigorous hybrids, which may recruit more successfully and grow lower in the intertidal than the native plant. If this is the case, hybrids would be likely to alter the character of San Francisco Bay’s coastal wetlands, leading to a transformation of many open mud habitats into Spartina meadows.
Single copies of the 1997 Strong/Daehler paper, "Hybridization Between Introduced Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora; Poaceae) and Native California Cordgrass (S. foliosa) in San Francisco Bay, California, USA" (American Journal of Botany, Vol. 84) are available upon request from California Sea Grant at (619) 534-444.

On 9/29/97 20,000-40,000 gallons of CRUDE OIL LEAKED from an offshore platform’s (Irene) undersea pipeline and fouled a 4-mile-by-2-mile area of ocean off the central coast of California. The spill was about a half-mile from shore at its closest point, but seas were calm and weather was favorable for cleanup efforts by a fleet of boats, officials said. Torch Operating Co. operates Platform Irene for the Nuevo Energy Co. of Houston. Oil flowed from a break in the pipeline midway between Platform Irene, which stands in about 245 feet of water three miles from shore, and a shoreline terminal at Point Argello. The cause of the leak from the 20-inch-diameter pipe was unknown.

ALASKA

The State of Alaska has purchased 17 more acres of KENAI RIVER land to protect critical fish and game habitat from encroaching development. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game recently closed the deal on property near Beaver Creek in Kenai. It is a parcel in the river’s tidally influenced grassy wetlands, about 10 miles upstream from Cook Inlet. The cost of the purchase was $49,400. The purchase comes a month after closing a $448,000 deal for 23 acres near the "Big Eddy" fishing hole in Soldotna. Funding for the acquisitions came from a $1.2 million pool of money dedicated specifically for Kenai River land purchases from the $50 million EXXON VALDEZ CRIMINAL SETTLEMENT (Source Jon Little, Anchorage Daily News, Peninsula Bureau).

The following article is from the Alaska Clean Water Alliance (ACWA) publication Hot Water! (Summer 1997):

On July 8th in Federal District Court, EPA’s regulation allowing the use of unapproved state water quality standards in federal discharge permits was found to be in violation of the Clean Water Act. The ruling will prohibit the application of state adopted standards prior to the EPA determination that the new standards in fact meet the minimum requirements of the Clean Water Act.

The case was brought by Trustees for Alaska and the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund on behalf of ACWA and the Alaska Center for the Environment. At the time the lawsuit was filed, EPA had failed for more than two years to review the standards adopted by the State of Alaska on the last day of former Governor Walter Hickel’s administration. Many of the State standards under Hickel had been significantly weakened in response to pressure from Alaska’s worst industrial polluters. In addition to not reviewing the standards, EPA was applying the standards in permitting decisions—therefore without determining if the standards were consistent with the Clean Water Act as required by the federal law.

The ruling is already having national impact. ACWA has been receiving calls (and congratulations!) from groups across the U.S. that have been frustrated with the EPA’s routine use of unapproved standards. By striking down the EPA’s regulation, the court clarified that all future changes to Alaska’s—and all other states’—water quality regulations must undergo EPA scrutiny before being applied in Clean Water Act permits. The ruling will help prevent states from changing standards in response to industry requests for more relaxed pollution regulations for individual polluters. Our congratulations and thanks go out to Steve Koteff, attorney for Trustees for Alaska, who successfully argued the case.

For further information contact the Alaska Clean Water Alliance at (907) 766-2296. WASHINGTON

On 09/23/97 the Skokomish Indian Tribe filed a claim with the City of Tacoma seeking $100 million in compensation for past damages caused by the CUSHMAN hydroelectric project located on the North Fork of the SKOKOMISH RIVER (See Habitat Hotline Number 24). Until 1988, the project diverted the entire North Fork to a remote power plant. Since 1988, the project has released flows of only 30 cubic feet/second (cfs), or about 4 percent of the river’s natural average annual flow. The Skokomish Tribe, in addition to fishing and environmental groups, have been pressing the FERC to restore the North Fork Skokomish River to near natural flow conditions.

On 08/04/97 the Department of Interior (DOI) wrote to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with its conditions for the adequate protection and utilization of the SKOKOMISH Indian Reservation. In their letter, the DOI places flow conditions for the North Fork Skokomish River:

For the adequate protection and utilization of the Skokomish Indian Reservation, the Licensee, in consultation with the Skokomish Tribe, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shall operate the Cushman Project so that an instantaneous minimum base flow of not less than 240 cubic feet per second (cfs) is established below Dam No. 2 at Gage No. 12058800 on the North Fork Skokomish River. Minimum base flows shall be adjusted pursuant to concepts of adaptive management as required in the Skokomish River Flow Report and condition no. 10. The 240 CFS FLOW is a minimum that may be exceeded due to the flow requirements...

In a 09/15/97 press release, Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) announced a partial turnaround in his opposition to the removal of the ELWHA RIVER DAMS. According to Gorton, he has "almost always has sided against dam removal" because of the loss of power generation, potential damage to the City of Port Angeles’s water supply, and costs. Gorton conditioned his decision to support removal of the lower Elwha River dam removal upon a proposed 12-year impact study to determine the impact upon fish populations before considering the removal of Glines Canyon dam (Glines Canyon Dam is 8.5 miles above the Elwha Dam). Also, Gorton’s conditions include a moratorium on Columbia and Snake River dam removal.

On 10/09/97 a hearing was held in the Subcommittee on National Parks and Lands on two bills dealing with the future of the HANFORD REACH—H.R. 1477 and H.R. 1811. S. 200, introduced by Senator Patty Murray in January, 1997, would place a 51-mile stretch of the Hanford Reach under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a "Recreational River" under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (H.R. 1477 is the companion bill to S. 200, and was introduced by Representative Norm Dicks). H.R. 1811, introduced by Representative Doc Hastings in June of 1997, directs the State of Washington to enter into a joint agreement with Benton, Franklin, and Grant Counties to establish a Hanford Reach Protection and Management Commission. Hastings’ district includes the Hanford Reach. Conservation groups are supporting the Murray Bill because of the protection it provides to this important fish habitat area, the last free flowing stretch of the Mainstem Columbia River (see Habitat Hotline Number 31).

In other HANFORD REACH news, at its September 1997 meeting, the PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL passed a RESOLUTION supporting the designation of the Hanford Reach section of the Columbia River as a "Recreational River" under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

IDAHO

On 07/22/97 The Environmental Protection Agency announced that a set of modifications and additions to IDAHO WATER QUALITY STANDARDS were finalized. According to the EPA:

Included in the rule are provisions intended to provide protection for Idaho’s BULL TROUT in areas where they spawn and in those sections of water bodies where juveniles are reared. In those areas, EPA has set a standard of 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) as the water temperature that is not to be exceeded during the months of June through September. That standard applies only to spawning and rearing areas, and—unlike the standard as EPA proposed it in April [1997]—it does not apply to larger water bodies or lowland segments of rivers or streams that are home to adult bull trout, nor does it pertain to migratory corridors used by the fish.

Today’s signing brings to a close a process that began in April with the publication of the additions and modifications as proposals by EPA. EPA proposed the modifications and additions because of an order issued in February by U.S. District Court Judge William L. Dwyer. In a case brought against EPA by the Idaho Conservation League and the Idaho Sporting Congress, Dwyer agreed that EPA was taking too long to correct certain aspects of state water quality standards that EPA earlier had disapproved because they had not met the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. Dwyer told EPA it had until today to get the standards on the books.

For further information contact Lisa Macchio of the EPA’s Office of Water at (206) 553-1834 or (800) 424-4372.

On 10/03/97 the Western Ancient Forest Campaign (WAFC) reported the following:

The Forest Service released the CLEARWATER NATIONAL FOREST roads report which confirms that 58% of the 900 SLIDES from the winter of 95-96 resulted from logging roads and another 12% from logging. Conservationists had charged that Forest Service officials were hiding this information implicating roads and logging as the cause of mudslides on the Clearwater NF. "The Forest Service was dragging its heels in releasing this report on the mudslides, which they said would be out last October," said Larry McLaud, member of the Wild Clearwater coalition. An estimated 2,000 mudslides occurred in the Clearwater National Forest in 95-96. More than 1,000 slides also occurred in the Clearwater basin on private land owned by timber corporations.
For further information contact WAFC at (202) 879-3188. OREGON

On 9/3/97 the Associated Press reported that the Douglas County Board of Commissioners voted to sue the federal government for alleged failure to use the best scientific information available in its listing of Umpqua River searun CUTTHROAT trout as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act. The Commissioners believe the Umpqua fish are a viable population and seek to have them removed from the list of Endangered and Threatened Species.

On 10/03/97 Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber announced a plan for "breaking the deadlock on the COLUMBIA RIVER’S SALMON quandary. According to Kitzhaber:

We must break through the futility of the last 15 years to come up with new approaches and new ideas for preserving wild salmon in the Columbia. Today, I will tell you why I believe we have this opportunity—why now is the time to act. Then, I will propose a way in which we can break this problem into a more manageable framework. First, a plan for how BPA [Bonneville Power Administration] will sell its power in a competitive marketplace that is in keeping with the fact that it is a federal agency, not a private competitor. Second, legislation that will prevent BPA from using its transmission system monopoly to keep competitors out of the Northwest power market. Third, a cost control plan for BPA including a mechanism for collecting any costs that Bonneville cannot recover in selling power in the marketplace. Fourth, a new decision-making structure for governing the Columbia River and planning what fish recovery actions must be taken. That’s no simple task. But inherent in everything I say today is the assumption that we who live in the Northwest must find a new way to manage the Columbia. Editor’s Recipe (Source: Associated Press) Seafood Lasagna with Spaghetti Squash and Broccoli

1 tablespoon olive oil; 1 tablespoon minced garlic; 2 to 4 cloves; 1 cup minced shallots; 16 small mushrooms, halved; 1 teaspoon dried thyme; 3 tablespoons flour; 2 cups dry white wine or chicken broth; 1 cup bottled clam juice; 1/4 teaspoon freshly ground nutmeg; Ground pepper, to taste; 1 1/2 pounds cooked seafood mixture of scallops (sliced, if large, do not overcook) and firm fish such as salmon fillet, no skin or bones, cut into bite-sized pieces; 6 lasagna noodles, cooked and drained; 4-ounce package (1 1/2 cups to 2 cups) stuffing mix; 10-ounce package frozen chopped broccoli, thawed; 1 pounded shredded Jarlsberg Lite cheese; 3 cups cooked spaghetti squash.

Over medium-high heat, sauté in the olive oil the garlic, shallots, mushrooms and thyme for 3 to 4 minutes, or until they begin to brown. Add flour and cook, 2 to 3 minutes. Add wine, clam juice, nutmeg and ground pepper. Boil 3 minutes to reduce liquid. Add fish pieces and simmer 3 minutes. Add scallops, remove from heat; set aside.

Arrange three lasagna noodles to cover bottom of 3 1/2-quart rectangular baking dish. Evenly sprinkle on stuffing mix. Spoon on fish mixture, reserving 1 cup sauce. Cover evenly with broccoli, then two-thirds of the cheese, then cover with 2 cups of the spaghetti squash. Cover with remaining lasagna noodles, remaining one-third cheese, reserved sauce and spaghetti squash. Pat down. (Recipe can be made ahead at this point. Bring to room temperature before baking.)

Tent lightly with foil and bake at 350 degrees F in center of oven for 45 to 50 minutes or until heated through. Serve with warm crusty bread and a green salad. Makes 10 servings.

Tip: Spaghetti squash may be cooked ahead (with other things in the oven). For best flavor, cook it whole on a baking tray in a 350-degree F oven for one hour, until tender. When cool, cut in half, remove seeds and lift out strands with two forks. Refrigerate until needed.

______________

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 and editorial assistance by Liza Bauman. Printed on 100% recycled sheet with minimum 50% post consumer fiber. Date of Issue: 10/30/97.