Table of Contents:

I. FEDERAL

• EFH Interim Final Rule Takes Effect on 1/20
• NMFS Interim Final Rule on EFH
• NMFS EFH Technical Meetings
• NPFMC Draft EFH Report
• Fishing Gear Impact Briefings
• Comments on NWP Due 2/24
• Federal legislation for 1998

• El Nino Waning??
• Columbia River Dredging Comments Due 2/23

• Grazing Comments Due 2/19
• CSRI Battle Looms
• Correction
• OR Steelhead Plans
• Habitat Restoration Applications Due 3/2

• CVPIA DEIS Released - Comments Due 2/6
• CVPIA Water Decision
• CVPIA Draft PEIS Alternatives
• CALFED Due in February

• Grays Harbor Prison Fight Continues
• Water Quality Grant Applicatoins Due 2/27

• Comments on Alaska Oil Reserve Due 2/10

• Salmon Restoration Workshop 2/12-15
• Mercury Conference 2/16-17

I. FEDERAL

On December 17, 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released its interim final rule to implement the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. For selected changes, modifications and clarifications on the final rule, see pages 3-4.

Upon releasing the Interim Final Regulations, Rollie Schmitten, director of NMFS said:

In 1996, the Act was reauthorized and changed extensively by amendments called the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). Among other changes, these amendments were 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."

The release of the interim final rule concludes 14 months of public comments on the proposed EFH regulations. According to NMFS, the interim final rule reflects full consideration of more than 220 comments received during the 77-day public comment period, as well as public comments received during six public meetings held across the country.

CONGRESS/INDUSTRY QUESTION EFH: Non-fishing industry interests (e.g. utilities, timber, and mining) have challenged the rule for the past year. Industry is concerned that NMFS is exceeding its authority regarding non-fishing activities granted under the Act, and that the EFH regulations will affect private property rights. (Note: several environmental groups commented that the rule needed to be strengthened.)

On November 5, 1997, a group of Senators and House members wrote to Commerce Secretary William Daley requesting a detailed briefing by NMFS staff on the EFH regulations. The signatories to the letter were Representatives Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho), Michael Crapo (R-Idaho), and Don Young (R-Alaska); and Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho), and Slade Gorton (R-Wash.). These legislators were concerned about the essential fish habitat draft rule and technical document (released by NMFS April 23, 1997). Below is an excerpt from that letter:

There are now concerns that the necessary funding for effective EFH implementation may not be forthcoming from Congress. This possible unwillingness to fund the EFH measures contradicts the overwhelming support the Act received when it was passed in 1996 (the Act passed by wide margins in both the Senate [99-0] and in the House [388-37]).

What You Can Do: NMFS will be accepting comments on the interim final rule through February 17, 1998.

Comments should be sent to:

Further Information on the EFH Interim Final Regulations 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, or call them at (503) 326-6352. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council can be reached at (907) 271-2809, and their web site can be found at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/npfmc.htm.

On December 17, 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released the "Interim Final Regulations" to implement the Essential Fish Habitat mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The complete interim final rule, including NMFS’ complete responses to public comments (approximately 90 double spaced pages long), can be accessed on the Internet at http://www.nmfs.gov/rschreib/habitat.html or call NMFS’ Habitat Conservation Office at (301) 713-2325. Some selected changes, modifications, and explanations by NMFS to final rule have been summarized below:

1. Healthy Ecosystems Definition: In response to comments requesting clarification, this interim final rule provides additional guidance by listing the general attributes of a healthy ecosystem in a definition. The linkage between a healthy ecosystem and EFH has been clarified to mean the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species contribution to a healthy ecosystem.
2. Expanded Consultation: The rule has been clarified to address this comment. Expanded consultation is appropriate when a proposed action may have substantial adverse impacts on EFH. The action agency determines the appropriate level of consultation. However, if NMFS feels that a proposed action will have substantial effects on EFH and its concerns are not receiving proper consideration, NMFS may request expanded consultation.
3. EFH Definition—Historic Habitat: This interim final rule continues to allow the identification of historic or degraded habitat as EFH but further clarifies that "historic habitat" must currently be an aquatic area before it can be identified as EFH and that restoration must be technologically and economically feasible. Therefore, dry land could not be identified as EFH.
4. EFH and Riparian Areas: …NMFS may comment on federal or state actions which take place within riparian areas or hydrological basins if they may have a reasonably foreseeable adverse impact on EFH. In this rule, NMFS has confined EFH to include only aquatic habitat because the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of EFH limits it to "waters." However, NMFS believes that areas important to a sustainable fishery necessarily include riparian and upland areas, as well as aquatic areas, particularly in the case of anadromous species. Areas that NMFS considers important are illustrated in the critical habitat designation for Snake River chinook.
5. Types of Information to be Used in Describing and Identifying EFH: The interim final rule has been modified to provide more flexibility with regard to the data used, e.g. 1) Sensitive life stages; 2) reproductive and dispersal patterns; 3) information generated from spatial, temporal, and fishing gear experiments; 4) historical information for each data level; 5) carrying capacity, habitat availability, quality, and utilization; and 6) spawning structures and structural complexity.
6. Role of Councils in the EFH Coordination, Consultation and Recommendation Process: NMFS included a specific section on coordination between the Councils and NMFS in the interim final rule. The Councils are viewed as integral partners in the entire EFH process. Councils will have a significant role in describing and identifying EFH, in considering threats to EFH, and in selecting conservation measures to enhance EFH. The rule encourages the establishment of agreements between the Secretary and appropriate Council(s) to facilitate provision of Council EFH conservation recommendations to federal and state agencies.
7. Overfished Species and EFH: The rule also clarifies that, for overfished species, all habitats currently used, and certain historic habitats, should be identified as EFH only if habitat loss or degradation may be contributing to the species’ being identified as overfished.
8. EFH and Critical Habitat (ESA): The interim final rule includes a minor modification to the language that helps distinguish between critical habitat and EFH and reiterates that EFH is aquatic only. EFH includes habitats for all life history stages of a species, while for some anadromous salmonids listed under ESA, adult marine habitats have not been identified as critical habitat. NMFS does recognize that critical habitat may contain terrestrial areas and has modified the interim final rule to clarify that those areas may not be considered EFH.
9. Fishing Gear Assessments and Impacts: The effects of fishing practices or gear types is habitat-dependent. NMFS has modified the rule to direct that during the assessment of fishing equipment (gear) impacts, the relative effect of different equipment types or techniques on different habitat types should also be assessed. This will help the Councils focus research and management efforts on those habitats that require the most attention. Assessments and subsequent research should be conducted on all types of fishing impacts, including recreational and commercial fishing equipment or practices, however relative impacts should be prioritized and management and research should address needs accordingly. NMFS also emphasizes in the rule that the fishing equipment assessment should be conducted periodically with subsequent review or revision. As new equipment is developed, techniques are changed, or additional research is conducted, new information on effects on EFH will be developed. Language has been added to the rule to clarify that Councils should assess all new information regarding EFH, including new assessments of fishing equipment impacts, to determine when an amendment needs to be updated. EFH amendments are to be reviewed and revised as appropriate, but at least once every 5 years. New information regarding equipment effects on EFH should be incorporated, as it’s made available, into any updates of EFH amendments.
10. Fishing Impacts—Cumulative Effects: NMFS assumed that all forms of adverse impacts, including those from fishing, were included as cumulative impacts on EFH. However, NMFS has modified the rule to further clarify this intent. Impacts of fishing and non-fishing activities should be considered when a cumulative impacts analysis is conducted. This may be particularly important where fishing gear of one fishery impacts the habitat of another fishery. Furthermore, cumulative impacts analysis should consider synergistic effects of both fishing and non-fishing impacts on habitat, and should give additional consideration to cumulative impacts affecting HAPC [Habitat Areas of Particular Concern].
11. Regulation of Fishing Activities that Adversely Impact EFH: The language of the proposed rule was not meant to raise the threshold of damage from fishing impacts higher than that intended in the statute. The language was intended to provide guidance to assist Councils in determining when they are required to take action on a fishing impact. NMFS believes that the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to regulate fishing gears or techniques that reduce an essential habitat’s capacity to support marine resources, not practices that produce inconsequential changes in the habitat. Therefore, NMFS continues to support this concept but has deleted the word "substantial" from the rule and added new language to clarify this concept. Impacts from fishing practices that justify the implementation of management actions should be "identifiable" (i.e., both more than minimal and not temporary in nature).
12. Marine Protected Areas: The interim final rule continues to advocate research closure areas and other measures, as appropriate, to evaluate the impact of fishing equipment and techniques on EFH. The regulations continue to encourage Councils to consider time/area closures as management tools for minimizing impacts of fishing gears on EFH. The language in the preamble of the proposed rule, "...that the intent [of the regulation] is not to preclude fishing in areas identified as EFH," but was intended to confirm that identification of an area as EFH did not automatically bring restrictions on fishing in the area. NMFS altered the language in the interim final rule to clarify that Councils are encouraged to consider marine protected areas as management tools for habitat conservation as well as management of fishing practices. Currently established federal and state research areas (e.g., National Marine Sanctuaries or Estuarine Research Reserves) should be evaluated as logical locations for additional studies.
13. Cumulative Impacts Analysis: NMFS has clarified the cumulative impacts analysis requirements in the rule. Cumulative impacts analysis is intended to monitor the effect on EFH of the incremental impacts, occurring within a watershed or marine ecosystem context, that may result from individually minor but collectively significant actions. The assessment of ecological risks is intended in a generic sense to examine actions occurring within the watershed or marine ecosystem that adversely affect the ecological structure or function of EFH. The assessment should specifically consider the habitat variables, previously noted while describing and identifying EFH, that control or limit a managed species’ use of a habitat. It should consider the effects of all impacts that affect either the quantity or quality of EFH. The term "ecological risk assessment" was not meant to be interpreted in the stricter toxicological sense. NMFS will continue to develop further criteria for conducting an ecological risk assessment.
14. Options for Conservation and Enhancement: The section has been revised in the interim final rule to clarify that the intent of the section is to provide examples of proactive and reactive measures to conserve and enhance EFH. The revisions focus on avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for impacts on EFH derived from activities both inside and outside of EFH and the need for Councils to provide recommendations to address those impacts. The management measures listed in this section are intended to be optional. Certain actions may have positive or negative impacts on EFH depending on the location and the purpose of the action. The effect of actions should be judged within the context of watershed planning and/or by ecosystem considerations.
15. Vulnerable Habitat Changed to Habitat Areas of Particular Concern: Comments on the Framework indicated a need for prioritizing the habitats and determining which should be given greatest attention in the coordination and consultation process when little is known about a species’ distribution. The vulnerable habitat provision was added to the proposed rule to address these concerns. After consideration of comments on the proposed rule, NMFS has refined this concept to include ecological function of the habitat along with considerations of vulnerability. In the rule, NMFS renamed vulnerable habitats as "habitat areas of particular concern". In determining HAPCs, Councils should consider ecological value of a type or area of EFH, its susceptibility to perturbation from both anthropogenic (human-caused) sources and natural stressors, and whether it is currently stressed or rare. HAPC criteria are outlined in the interim final rule. NMFS will elaborate on these criteria in internal technical guidance. These HAPCs can be used to focus the conservation, enhancement, management, and research efforts of NMFS and the Councils, as well as the consultation requirements of the federal action agencies and EFH conservation recommendations. These areas should be a primary focus to provide insight into relationships between key habitat characteristics and ecological productivity or sustainability and the ways in which human activity adversely affects such habitat and its contribution to population productivity.
16. Existing Consultation: The proposed rule included a provision that EFH consultation may be consolidated with other existing consultation and environmental review processes. To clarify that it is NMFS’ intention to use existing processes whenever appropriate, the interim final rule contains language strongly encouraging the use of existing consultation and environmental review processes to fulfill the EFH consultation requirements. The procedures will not be duplicative because only one review process will be used. Existing federal statutes such as the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) already require consultation or coordination between NMFS and other federal agencies. Therefore, the need for federal agencies to evaluate the effects of their actions on fish and fish habitat is not a new requirement imposed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is in the process of developing recommendations on EFH for West Coast salmon and Pacific Coast groundfish Fishery Management Plans, in accordance with recent amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

EFH recommendations will be presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council for amendments to the Pacific Coast groundfish and salmon FMPs. Species covered under the salmon FMP are coho, chinook, pink and sockeye. The regional fishery management councils must amend their FMPs by October 1998.

Both the groundfish and salmon FMPs will include a description of EFH for the species managed by the FMP; a description of adverse effects to EFH, including fishing and non-fishing threats; and a description of measures to ensure the conservation and enhancement of EFH.

To assist in the drafting of the EFH information, NMFS has formed technical teams to provide technical input and advice on the development of the NMFS recommendations. The teams consist of individuals from the fishing industry, environmental, state, tribal, and federal interests and agencies.

The groundfish technical team will meet on January 30 and again in early March. The purpose of the January 30 meeting will be to review EFH descriptions for groundfish and adverse effects on groundfish EFH. The meeting is open to the public, and the public will have an opportunity to comment. EFH documents will be available at the meeting.

The January 30 technical team meeting will focus on the description of EFH and will be held at the:

For Further Information on the Groundfish EFH Meeting Contact: Yvonne deReynier, NMFS, (206) 526-6120.

The purpose of this meeting will be to review EFH descriptions for salmon and adverse affects on salmon EFH. The meeting will be held February 10 at the:

The EFH description for salmon will be posted at http://www.psmfc.org/efh.html

For Further Information About the Salmon EFH Meeting Contact: Joe Scordino, NMFS, (206) 526-6143.

Preliminary EFH reports for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (NPFMC) five FMPs (Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands groundfish, Gulf of Alaska groundfish, Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Tanner crab, Alaska scallops, and salmon) have been completed. Comments on these documents were accepted through January 23.

NOW WHAT: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council will review the draft EFH amendments at their meeting the week of the April 20 in Anchorage, and make a final decision on the amendments at their meeting in Dutch Harbor the week of June 8.

For Further Information Contact: Dave Witherell the North Pacific Fishery Management Council at (907) 271-2809; Cindy Hartmann of the National Marine Fisheries Service at (907) 586-7585.

NMFS will hold public meetings to brief the Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and interested parties on the results of a synthesis of available scientific information on fishing gear impacts on habitat entitled: "The Indirect Effects of Fishing," by Peter J. Auster and Richard W. Langton. Following a presentation there will be an opportunity for questions and comments. NMFS requests that comments be limited to those concerning the adequacy of the synthesis, i.e., what scientific studies are missing, and any disagreements with the scientific conclusions.

The meetings will be held at the following dates and locations:

1. Anchorage, Alaska: 2/4/98 (7:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.) Hilton Hotel, 500 West 3rd Avenue (in conjunction with the NPFMC meeting).
2. Pacific Grove, California: 2/5/98 (2:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.) NMFS Pacific Environmental Laboratory, Conference Room, 1352 Lighthouse Avenue.
3. Portland, Oregon: 2/9/98 (7:00 p.m.-10:00 p.m.) at the Doubletree Downtown Hotel, Multnomah Falls Room, 310 SW Lincoln.

In December of 1996, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) announced that they would phase out Nationwide Wetlands Permit 26 (NWP 26).

The Corps can authorize nationwide and general wetlands discharge of dredge and fill permits (under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) for the specific categories of activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material determined to have minimal adverse environmental effects. There are currently 36 nationwide permits and 13 general permits. Nationwide Permit 26 applies to discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters or isolated waters, provided the discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of wetlands.

According to the Corps:

1. The expiration of NWP 26 on December 13, 1998;
2. The prohibition against filling or excavating more than 500 linear feet of stream bed under NWP 26; and
3. The prohibition against using other NWPs with NWP 26 to authorize the loss of more than 3 acres of waters of the United States.

The Clean Water Network (CWN), an environmental and fishing group coalition, strongly supports the Corps’ decision to revoke NWP 26, calling it "the most important step forward in wetland protection in twenty years." In addition, according to the CWN:

For a Copy of the Proposed Changes see the Federal Register of November 26, 1997 [Volume 62, Number 228, Pages 63223-63225] at your local library. Internet: Go to http://www.access.gpo. gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html and use the information above to locate the notice.

Comments on the proposed changes to NWP 26 should be sent to:

For Further Information Contact: Mr. David Olson or Mr. Sam Collinson, of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (202) 761-0199; the Clean Water Network at (202) 289-2395.

The 105th Congress returns for its second session on January 27, 1997. Here is a brief overview of some legislation that could affect fish habitat:

1. Endangered Species Act

While indications are that the current El Niño event is lessening, it will still impact West Coast weather for at least the next several months. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (January 12, 1998)*:

Figure 1: The graph above shows deviation in the Southern Oscillation Index and Temperature index over time since 1980. Some definitions can be found below:

Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO): The TAO array consists of approximately 70 ATLAS and current meter moorings in the Tropical Pacific Ocean, telemetering oceanographic and meteorological data in realtime via the Argos satellite system. Designed to improve detection, understanding, and prediction of El Niño, TAO is a major component of the global climate observing system. The array is presently supported by an international consortium, involving cooperation between the United States, France, Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

The Southern Osciallation Index (SOI) is defined as the normalized difference in surface pressure between Tahiti, French Polynesia and Darwin, Australia. It is a measure of the strength of the trade winds, which have a component of flow from regions of high to low pressure. A high SOI (large pressure difference) is associated with stronger than normal trade winds and La Niña conditions, and low SOI (smaller pressure difference) is associated with weaker than normal trade winds and El Niño conditions.

[Source: TAO Project Office/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory /NOAA, on the Internet go to http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/toga-tao/realtime.html for this graph.]

In other El Niño news:

1. California Squid Fishermen report low catches of squid off the California Coast. Historically, the squid fishing season starts in September and lasts through March. About 70,000 tons of squid per year have been harvested the last 3 years. However, according to fishermen, only 200 tons have been harvested this season. Fishermen are calling for federal disaster relief because of the harvest shortfall caused by El Niño.
2. Mammals: On December 11, the Associated Press reported that Southern California sea lion population mortalities have increased because warmer water has driven food fish away. The story reported that thousands of California sea lions and northern fur seals have died since midsummer 1997.
3. DFO Summer ‘97 Survey: The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) reports that during the summer 1997, survey work was undertaken in the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, and coastal waters from northern Oregon to the northern tip of Vancouver Island. Sardines were common throughout the study area, but were most abundant off the southwest coast of Vancouver Island. Sardine catches were many times higher than those in 1992-3 and appeared to be in fishable concentrations. Chub mackerel were most abundant off the Washington coast, yet they still had good catches off Vancouver Island. Approximately 525 mackerel stomachs were examined, with no salmon remains found, but they did report finding remains of sardines. These are the largest mackerel catches that DFO researchers have seen since 1992, when mackerel first entered the Canadian 200-mile zone in any quantity, and they appear to be widely dispersed all along the Canadian southern coast. According to DFO, it is apparent there was a major shift in mackerel and sardine distribution that occurred prior to the predicted El Niño. [Source: Dick Beamish and Sandy McFarlane, North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Newsletter.]

In December 1997, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Portland District (Corps) released the "Draft Columbia River Dredged Material Management Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)."

According to the Corps, the SEIS describes and evaluates alternative measures to improve dredged material management practices for the existing Columbia and Lower Willamette River Federal Navigation Channel. The SEIS supplements the original EIS, which was prepared in 1975 for construction and maintenance of the existing 40-foot channel. A proposed alternative is identified in this document, which represents a composite of environmental, technical and economic considerations.

All comments received during the public review period will be considered in the final plan selection. Comments should be sent to:

For Further Information or for a Copy of the SEIS Contact: Mr. Steve Stevens of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (503) 808-4768.

III. OREGON

On December 15, 1998, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) announced a rulemaking proposal for Amendments to water quality rules relating to the Clean Water Act’s Section 401 certification of Grazing Activities on Federal Lands.

Background:

According to the DEQ/ODA release:

According to the Oregon Natural Desert Association:

For Further Information or for a Copy of the Proposed Rule contact Debra Sturdevant of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality at (503) 229-6691; Oregon Natural Desert Association at (541) 330-2638.

Internet: Information can also be obtained at the Oregon Department of Ecology’s Homepage (under "Public Participation") at http://www.deq. state.or.us/

In Related News, On November 5, 1997, The Oregonian reported that a coalition of conservation groups sued the Bureau of Land Management for streamside grazing that they say violates the federal Clean Water Act. Groups involved in the lawsuit are the Western Environmental Law Center, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Oregon Wildlife Federation, the Oregon Natural Resources Council and the Oregon Natural Desert Association. The groups say the Clean Water Act requires a state certification of grazing along damaged waterways, such as the John Day River, in order to ensure that cattle don’t trample streamside vegetation and break down stream banks vital to fish and other aquatic life. The lawsuit is similar to a legal action filed against the U.S. Forest Service (see above). However, because the federal ruling cited above is under appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with a decision expected in the spring/summer of 1998, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had wanted to wait for the appeals court ruling before submitting its grazing permits to state review. The environmental groups in the BLM suit are now pushing for an expedited schedule.

For Further Information Contact: the Oregon Natural Desert Association at (541) 330-2638.

In April 1997, instead of listing the Oregon Coast coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act, the federal government postponed the listing and struck an agreement with the State of Oregon to implement its Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI or the Oregon Plan). The federal government will review the state program by May of 2000. At that time, another decision will be made on whether to list the fish, or allow the State to continue with its recovery program.

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Oregon and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established the terms and conditions for the collaborative process during implementation of the Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. Some of those terms and conditions included the establishment of an Independent Multidisiplinary Science Team (IMST) to ensure use of the best scientific information available as the basis for implementation of and for adaptive changes in the CSRI. The IMST was appointed in the fall of last year. Its first priority will be to review the freshwater habitat needs of Oregon coastal coho and the relationship between population levels, escapement levels, and habitat characteristics. The IMST has held several meetings to date.

A point of controversy in coho recovery has been land use practices, chiefly forestry. In 1994, Oregon revised its forest practice regulations. Improvements to the rules included increased riparian zone tree retention requirements. At the time of its passage, conservationists said that the rules didn’t go far enough, especially for small fish bearing streams.

Recognizing the need to revisit Oregon’s forest practice regulations, the MOA set up a process to review Oregon’s forest practice rules for state and private land. An excerpt of the MOA can be found below:

REACTION

According to Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association:

Strengthening Oregon’s forest practice regulations to benefit anadromous fish will be a challenge for the Oregon Board of Forestry, which is dominated by timber interests, and has historically fought substantial regulatory changes. However, if no significant changes come out of the Board of Forestry through the MOA process, the likelihood of a federal listing Oregon coastal coho can only increase.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: The next meeting of the ad hoc Forest Practices Advisory Committee will be on February 3, from 12-4 p.m. at the Oregon Department of Forestry, 2600 State Street, Salem.

For Further Information Contact: Ted Lorenson of the Department of Forestry at (503) 945-7478; Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association at (503) 631-8859; Glen Spain of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations at (541) 689-2000.

For Further Information on the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team Contact: Dr. Logan Norris, Oregon State University, Department of Forestry at (541) 737-6557.

On Page 9 of the November 1997 (Issue 34) of the Habitat Hotline, we listed the Upper Willamette Steelhead ESU as a "candidate species" under the Endangered Species Act. It should have been listed as "not presently warranted" for listing, as indicated on the map on page 11 of the issue. Please note however that based on concerns raised by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, NMFS is again reviewing the Upper Willamette Steelhead ESU for possible listing, and a decision on this steelhead ESU will likely be made by February 9, 1998 (Note: please see related article below).

By February 9, 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service must decide whether the lower Columbia River, Oregon Coast, Klamath Mountains Province, Central Valley, and Northern California steelhead Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act.

In an effort to hold off a federal listing, on December 18, 1997, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber and representatives from the states of California and Washington presented "complimentary" steelhead restoration plans to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Said Governor John Kitzhaber about the state plans:

Now What: The National Marine Fisheries Service will soon decide whether to list the above mentioned steelhead populations. In making its steelhead decision, NMFS will take into account conservation measures proposed by the three states. Will Stelle is on record saying that "We’ll probably end up listing some of the stocks and not listing others" [Source: Joan Laatz Jewett, January 21, 1998, The Oregonian].

For Further Information on the Oregon Plan and Steelhead Supplement, call the Governor’s Natural Resources and Watershed Enhancement Board Offices at (503) 378-8582, or visit their website at http://www.oregon-plan.org

For Further Information on the Federal Listing Status of Steelhead Contact Jim Lynch of NMFS at (503) 230-5422.

The Oregon State Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is soliciting project proposals for the Oregon "Partners for Wildlife" Program. Projects must be on private or non-federal ownerships within the boundaries of the State of Oregon, excluding Baker, Klamath, Malheur, Union, and Wallowa Counties.

Specific goals of the Partners for Wildlife program are:

1. To implement on-the-ground habitat restoration, establishment, enhancement, and management projects on non-Federal and tribal lands;
2. To develop partnerships with private landowners, other Federal and State agencies, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Tribes, Watershed Councils;
3. To restore biological diversity on non-Federal and tribal lands for the benefit of Federal trust species;
4. To maximize the Service contribution by combining program efforts between the "Partners" Program and similar non-Service voluntary habitat programs to more efficiently implement specific projects.

If you are Interested in Receiving a Proposal Application Contact: Maureen Smith at (503) 231-6179; or write Oregon State Office/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, c/o Maureen Smith, 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266.

IV. CALIFORNIA

On November 7, 1997, the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) was released for comment. The purpose of the PEIS is to address the potential impacts of implementation of the CVPIA, as mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act. A summary of the PEIS’s alternative can be found on page 19.

The release of the PEIS comes five years after the CVPIA was passed by Congress and signed by then President George Bush in 1992. This landmark legislation ordered water (see related story on page 17) to be provided immediately for the restoration of waterfowl, salmon and other natural resources in the San Francisco Bay Estuary and in Central Valley rivers.

According to the PEIS:

According to Nat Bingham, Habitat Conservation Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations:

Comments on the PEIS should be sent to:

In other CVPIA news, on November 20, 1997, the Department of Interior (Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) announced how it intends to comply with the statutory mandate to dedicate and manage the water dedicated to fish and wildlife pursuant to of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Section 3406(b)(2)). This section of the CVPIA directs the Secretary of Interior to dedicate and manage annually eight hundred thousand acre feet of Central Valley Project yield for the primary purpose of achieving the fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration goals of the Act.

In its decision, Interior admits that that there has been "considerable debate" on the issue of how the 800,000 acre feet may be used in the Delta and how it should be accounted for. Some important elements of the final proposal include:

Below are the Central Valley Project Improvement Act’s Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement’s four draft alternatives. To see the 15 supplemental analyses of the four main alternatives, visit the Bureau of Reclamation’s Internet site (listed on page 17) or call for a copy.

The four main Alternatives and 15 supplemental analyses (not included below) combine to make the 19 alternatives in the DPEIS. The alternatives were developed in a building block fashion to reflect various levels of implementation that may occur depending on the level of willingness to participate and partner in the CVPIA programs. The supplemental analyses were analyzed to determine the impacts similar actions would have on the main Alternatives. Many of the supplemental analyses actions are similar, but their outcomes differ depending on the main alternative with which they are combined.

Alternative 1: This main Alternative relies primarily on the Core Programs to meet CVPIA objectives. The Core Programs, implemented in all four main Alternatives, address contract renewal, water measurement and conservation, modification of various facilities to protect fish, seasonal field flooding and land retirement, and increased flows on the Trinity River. In addition to Core Programs, Alternative 1 uses reoperation of the project to provide greater benefit to fish and wildlife. Alternative 1 uses (b)(2) Instream Components. Alternative 1 also implements Contract-to-Full-Cost tiered pricing rate, which begins at the contract rate for the first 80%, the average between contract and full-cost rates for the next 10% of water, and full-cost for the final 10% of water. Alternative 1 does not acquire water for instream flow improvements or make permanent structural improvements to Old River Barrier or Georgiana Slough, but it does provide Level 2 refuge supplies with a shortage provision based on the Shasta inflow index.

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 builds on Alternative 1 by acquiring, from willing sellers, 60,000 AF [Acre Feet] of water on both the Stanislaus and Tuolumne rivers, 50,000 AF on the Merced River, and an undetermined amount to the Upper Sacramento River Tributaries. Refuge water supplies are increased to Level 4, subject to hydrologic shortages, through water purchase from willing sellers. The acquired water will be used to improve fishery conditions on river tributaries to the Delta. In addition to assisting in meeting target flows for the streams, the water would also be used to increase flows through the Delta and would not be exported.

Alternative 3: Alternative 3 continues to build on the previous main Alternatives by retaining all of Alternative 1 and the Refuge Water Supply provision of Alternative 2, and adds to the volume and number of streams on which water is acquired. Alternative 3 will acquire 200,000 AF on each of the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers; 30,000 AF on the Calaveras River; 70,000 AF on the Mokelumne River; and 100,000 AF on the Yuba River. An undetermined amount of water will also be acquired on Upper Sacramento River Tributaries. Alternative 3 is further distinguished from Alternative 2 in that acquired water is not specifically used to increase in-Delta Flows. As a result, acquired water is available for export under Alternative 3 once requirements of the Bay-Delta Accord have been met.

Alternative 4: Alternative 4 builds from Alternative 3 by adding the Delta Component of the AFRP to the reoperation and (B)(2) water program and using the acquired water for Delta flow increases. Acquired water is not available for export from the Delta. This Alternative completes the upper range of water acquisition and instream use. It provides the same acquisition levels in all streams as Alternative 3 and provides no export of acquired water as in Alternative 2.

Background: 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. The system consists of an intricate web of waterways created at the junction of the San Francisco Bay, 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."

In February, CALFED will release the much-anticipated draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (PEIR/PEIS). Following the release this spring, CALFED will proceed with a series of public hearings on the draft PEIR/PEIS, to solicit input on the draft’s three potential solutions. Then, in late summer, CALFED will choose a preferred alternative. The timeline for final approval by the Governor and the Secretary of the Interior remains late 1998.

For Further Information on the CALFED program contact: Judy Kelly at (916) 657-2666. Information can also be obtained from the CALFED Internet website at http://calfed.ca.gov/

V. WASHINGTON

The Washington Department of Corrections is planning to build a prison (Stafford Creek Corrections Center) near Aberdeen, Washington in the Grays Harbor watershed. The 1,936-bed facility, scheduled to open in the year 2000, is to be constructed on a 210-acre site. The prison construction plan also includes building a 5-mile utility line corridor (gas, sewer, and water) to the city of Aberdeen.

On November 18, 1997, the Washington Department of Corrections (Corrections) submitted a revised mitigation plan for the prison project as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. According to the mitigation plan, prepared by Pentec Environmental:

REACTION

Supporters see the 600 jobs to be created by the prison as a boon to job-poor Grays Harbor County. However, concerns have been raised about the environmental impact of the proposed project on fishery and aquaculture resources and the harbor’s water quality by the Friends of Grays Harbor (FOGH), a Grays Harbor citizens group made up of crabbers, fishers, and oyster growers. Despite the latest changes to the mitigation plan, FOGH is still steadfast in its opposition to the project. According to Brady Engval, a member of FOGH and local oyster grower:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: In a December 29 letter, the Corps denied the Correction’s request for a 404 permit saying:

Washington Department of Ecology (DOE): On December 17, DOE issued a requisite Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit for the utility pipeline.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommended in August to the Corps that the original permit be denied, saying that:

The Environmental Protection Agency recommended that the original permit be denied, saying that the project could be achieved through less environmentally damaging alternatives.

Senator Patty Murray said in a November 21, 1997, letter, "I believe we must protect wetlands and natural areas and sustain resource-based industries. Therefore I will continue to follow this with interest."

Aberdeen Mayor Chuck Gurrad said, "This (the prison) is more than just important. We need those jobs. But no one wants to risk what we already have here" [Source: Jack Broom, Seattle Times 12/14/97].

Washington State Senator Sid Snyder said, "I think it would be a crime to give up on that site." noting that the state has already spent millions clearing ground at Stafford Creek [Source: Ryan Teague Beckwith, Aberdeen Daily World, 1/9/98].

Kent Nugen, Washington Department of Corrections said, "We believe that with sound engineering, we are minimizing the impacts of the project." [Source: ibid]

NOW WHAT: The project cannot go forward without approval from the Corps. In its letter quoted above, the Corps requested that the Department of Corrections prove that Stafford Creek is the best spot for the prison.

It appears that Corrections is intent on sticking to the Stafford Creek site. According to Kent Nugen of the Washington Department of Corrections: "We’re not looking at alternative sites at this point. We’ve committed ourselves. Our decision was not just based on wetlands. We looked at a number of issues." [Source: Aberdeen Daily World, 1/9/98]

For Further Information Contact: Mr. Kent Nugen, Washington Department of Corrections at (360) 586-6131; Friends of Grays Harbor at (360) 648-2254.

On January 5, 1998, the Washington State Department of Ecology (WADOE) announced that $56 million in grants and low interest loans are available to help address critical water quality problems in Washington. The purpose of the grants and loans is to improve and protect water quality for uses such as fishing, swimming, drinking, industry and aquatic habitat for healthy fish stocks and salmon species that are threatened or in danger of becoming extinct.

According to WADOE, the funding programs that are available include:

1. The Centennial Clean Water Fund, which the state legislature established in 1986 to help local governments and Indian tribes with grants and loans to plan, design and construct water pollution control facilities and implement activities to improve and protect water quality;
2. The State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, a state and federal loan program authorized under the Clean Water Act to assist local governments and Indian tribes with upgrading and expanding wastewater treatment facilities and addressing nonpoint sources of pollution; and
3. The Federal Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Fund, a federal grant program to help reduce and control pollution from sources such as stormwater, agricultural practices and runoff from urban development.

For Further Information Contact: Steve Carley, (360) 407-6572 or Mary Getchell, of (360) 407-6157 of the Washington Department of Ecology. Internet: The Washington Department of Ecology home page is http://www.wa.gov/ ecology/, go to the "Water Quality" section, and then to "Water Quality Grants and Loans."

VI. ALASKA

In December 1997, the Bureau of Land Management released the Draft Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A IAP/EIS). According to the document:

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Comments on the DEIS should be sent to:

Internet: Comments can also be submitted on the Internet at http://aurora.ak.blm.gov/npra/

For Further Information or for a copy of the DEIS: Contact Gene Terland (907) 271-3344; e-mail: gterland@ak.blm.gov; or Jim Ducker (907) 271-3369, email: jducker@ak.blm.gov of the Bureau of Land Management. The DEIS is also available on the Internet at the address listed above.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS

The Salmonid Restoration Federation will hold its Sixteenth Annual Restoration Conference February 12-15 at Sonoma State University and the Flamingo Resort Hotel in Santa Rosa, California.

The workshop portionof this event, to be held February 12 and 13, will include the following topics:

1. A new direction in hatchery management: minimizing the deleterious impact of hatchery operations on wild salmon stock recovery efforts;
2. Citizen water quality monitoring;
3. Watershed restoration: South and Central Coast cooperative efforts;
4. Restoring critical ecological processes in the Russian River watershed: Problems and solutions; and
5. Watershed education workshop: the next generation.

1. Putting the Public Trust Doctrine and ESA to work: Tools for the recovery of California’s endangered salmonids;
2. Responsible in-stream structure construction: Work-place safety, preparation for medical emergencies, and preventing work-related environmental damage;
3. Developing essential ESA listed fish population information: Fish/Farm/Forest Communities, and Coho presence/absence and relative abundance sampling protocols; and
4. Overview of state-of-the-art up-slope condition assessment methodologies currently used in California.

LODGING: A block of rooms has been reserved the Flamingo Resort Hotel in Santa Rosa. Reservations can be made by phoning (707) 545-8530. To receive the group discount, tell them when making your reservations that you are attending the Salmonid Restoration Federation Conference.

For Further Information Contact: Jud Ellinwood at (707) 444-8903 or by email @ salrestfed@aol.com

Internet: Information on the conference can be accessed at the Salmonid Restoration Federation homepage at http://www.northcoastweb.com/srf/

The group Coastal Advocates will hold their Third Annual Mercury Discussion Group February 16 and 17, 1998 at the Asilomar Conference Center Pacific Grove, California (Monterey Bay). The meeting has the following goals:

1. To describe environmental impacts from mercury mine pollution in the central coast region of California and EPA Region IX (with an emphasis on Monterey Bay, the SF-Bay Estuary, and Morro Bay),
2. To encourage the development of a long-range theoretical and applied research agenda, emphasizing California as an emerging center for mercury research,
3. To move toward an environmental clean-up and restoration program and away from a sense of intractability in the remediation of mercury mining sites in California and other western states, and
4. To encourage the development of innovative approaches to non-point pollution assessment and control in our watersheds. Ample question and answer periods, and informal group discussions will be scheduled and encouraged.

For Further Information Contact Kathleen Van Velsor of Coastal Advocates at (408) 395-9116 or visit their webpage at http://www.coastaladvocates. com/

VIII. UPDATES

• According to a 11/21/97 Mineral Policy Center Legislative Update:

• On 11/18/97, the Bloomberg Business News in Washington reported that federal regulations to make companies pay damages for the THEORETICAL LOSS OF VALUE to the environment from OIL SPILLS, in addition to the actual cost in lost recreation or fishing activities, were UPHELD IN COURT. On 11/18/97, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit turned away complaints by major manufacturers, oil and chemical industry trade groups, and insurers, who objected that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) regulations could force companies to pay for speculative damage to natural resources. General Electric Co., the American Petroleum Institute, the Chemical Manufacturers Association and trade groups for maritime insurers, among others, had asked the appeals court to throw out NOAA regulations that were devised to implement the 1990 Oil Pollution Act. Passed by Congress in the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, the law sets up a procedure for appointment of trustees to oversee the restoration of land or water contaminated by an oil spill. Under regulations announced by NOAA last year, those trustees can make the parties responsible for a spill pay for the environmental restoration work, after assessing the amount of damage.
• On 1/22/98, the Clinton Administration (U.S. Forest Service) proposed an 18-month MORATORIUM ON ROAD BUILDING in National Forest roadless areas (approximately 33 million acres: the U.S. Forest Service controls 191 million acres in 44 states). The policy will exempt "spotted owl" forests in Oregon, Washington, and California; and the Tongass National Forest.

• On the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act last October, Vice President Al GORE launched a new STRATEGY to address CLEAN WATER issues "of the next generation." According to the Vice President, the challenges that remain to move the Clean Water Act forward include: 1) Strengthening public health protection; 2) Preventing polluted runoff; and 3) Ensuring community-based watershed management. Some specifics of the Gore strategy include:

• Identifying major sources of nitrogen and phosphorous and identifying actions to address these sources;
• Achieving a net gain of 100,000 acres of wetlands nationwide by the year 2005;
• Ensuring that 1,000 "critical" rural watersheds have the technical and financial assistance they need to abate polluted run-off;
• Ensuring that final regulations for polluted run-off from stormwater are in place by March 1, 1999; and

• Developing an action oriented strategy to comprehensively address coastal nonpoint source pollution.

• In November 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released data on state PARTICIPATION in the WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM (WRP). The WRP was established in the 1990 Farm Act to restore prior-converted wetlands through the purchase of conservation easements from willing sellers. For West Coast states, the WRP enrollment for the period 1992-1997, in acres, is as follows: Alaska: 0; Washington: 5,965; Oregon: 2,503; Idaho: 1,861; California: 25,335. Louisiana led the nation in enrollment acres with 79,077.
• On 10/2/97, the Environmental Protection Agency released the first "INDEX OF WATERSHED INDICATORS" which it billed as a comprehensive assessment of U.S. watersheds. The data from this study indicate that: 16 percent of watersheds have good water quality; 36 percent have moderate water quality; 21 percent have more serious problems; and sufficient data are lacking to fully characterize the remaining 27 percent. The EPA cautioned that one in 14 watersheds in all areas are vulnerable to further degradation from pollution, primarily from urban and rural run-off. To access the watershed database on the Internet go to http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi/, or contact the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information, P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419; phone: (513) 489-8190; fax: (513) 489-8695. The publication number of the "Index of Watershed Indicators" is EPA-841-R-97-010.

• On 12/11/97, the Clean Water Network, on behalf of the Mineral Policy Center, reported that the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) is working on a Good Samaritan proposal to encourage CLEANUP OF ABANDONED OR INACTIVE MINES. The WGA’s proposal is a package of amendments to the Clean Water Act that would allow parties that are not liable for an abandoned or inactive mine site but have an interest in seeing the site cleaned up to engage in reclamation activities without assuming liability for the site. The governors have asked for input from the environmental community. It is anticipated they will want to move on their proposal in February when Congress reconvenes. The Mineral Policy Center is coordinating discussions about this proposal among environmental groups and other concerned organizations in January. While the proposal has some merit, according to the release, the groups that have reviewed it thus far have raised concerns that would need to be addressed, and are seeking broad-based participation. For further information contact the Mineral Policy Center at (202) 887-1872.

• On November 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced the proposed "CRITICAL HABITAT" rule for the Central California Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California COASTAL COHO Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs). Both of these populations are listed by NMFS as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. The comment period on the proposal closed on January 25. For further information contact Steve Stone of the National Marine Fisheries Service at (503) 231-2317.

• In November of last year, a coalition of fishing and environmental groups petitioned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeking to correct FERC’s failure to hold the Idaho Power Company accountable under the Endangered Species Act for the impact of HELLS CANYON DAMS (Hells Canyon, Brownlee, and Oxbow) on endangered Snake River salmon and steelhead. According to the petition, FERC has ignored two letters from the National Marine Fisheries Service and one from the State of Oregon. The letters ask FERC to consult with NMFS (as required by the Endangered Species Act) about the effects of the dams on endangered salmon and steelhead. Recreational fishing groups involved in the petition include Trout Unlimited and the Federation of Fly Fishers. If FERC does not address the group’s petition, court action could follow.
• On 12/7/97, The Oregonian released the results of a COLUMBIA BASIN SALMON SURVEY. According to the statewide survey, respondents felt the following about the importance of preserving salmon runs on the Columbia River: "very important" (49%), "somewhat important" (36%), "not too important" (9%), not at all important (9%), "don’t know/no response" (1%). Also, 60% responded that improving salmon runs should have a higher priority than commercial uses of the river (e.g. barging, electricity generation), while 26% felt commercial uses should have a higher priority than salmon.

• On 1/6/98, the Associated Press and the San Joaquin Valley News reported that the Environmental Protection Agency announced that a chicken and animal byproducts processing plant may have knowingly violated the federal Clean Water Act by illegally dumping ANIMAL WASTE into the TUOLUMNE RIVER. According to the story, EPA officials found an underground pipe that had animal byproducts and red liquid resembling blood running from MODESTO TALLOW COMPANY to the river, according to an affidavit and search warrant. Officials also reported finding bones and feathers from various animals along the riverbank and pools of unknown liquids draining into the river.
• On 10/20/97, the Associated Press reported that wine industry giant E&J Gallo’s plan to set up a VINEYARD near the RUSSIAN RIVER is under attack because of the project’s scale and the environmental upheaval it might cause. Critics say the project is both too big and invasive, and will adversely affect nearby Porter Creek, a coho salmon and steelhead spawning stream, and potentially worsen flooding in the Russian River because of increased runoff from the reconfigured hill. Gallo officials say the size of their vineyards and the reconfigurations are not only more efficient but also prevent erosion and soil loss, common on many standard hillside vineyards. In addition, they say, their operations are environmentally sensitive. The article also reported that Gallo had withdrawn a 175-acre timber harvest plan to cut conifers on the property after the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expressed concern. The agencies said the proposed logging could require an extensive environmental impact report because of potentially adverse affects on federally listed coho salmon and steelhead and because the Twin Valley Ranch watershed empties into the river through Porter Creek near Sonoma County Water Agency’s intake wells. Even with the harvest plan withdrawn, Gallo can still cut hardwood trees on a substantial portion of the land. CDF has only minimal control over the tree cutting, which meets county approval under its right-to-farm regulations. According to Gallo, the article says that Gallo has spent over $200,000 in restoration and has also set aside at least half the ranch as habitat.
• On 11/11/97, the Associated Press reported that a 4,540 gallon OIL SPILL in northern California’s HUMBOLDT BAY killed hundreds of birds, including a brown pelican and marbled murrelets, both listed as endangered species. The spill occurred when a cargo vessel accidentally rammed a dock. The oil reached local oyster beds, prompting a major supplier to cancel sales until Christmas.
• On 12/17/97, the publication Greenwire reported that in a move that "infuriated environmentalists," San Diego air pollution authorities on 12/12 reversed their previous ruling and approved a plan for a Navy contractor to dredge sand and silt from the SAN DIEGO BAY. However, the project hit an immediate snag when the California Coastal Commission sued to stop it. On 12/12/97, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District Board gave Navy contractor Stuyvesant Dredging Co. permission to continue dredging. The board granted an emergency variance—effective immediately—that allows the firm to exceed NITROGEN OXIDE (NO) emissions from diesel-powered dredging equipment. According to the Greenwire report, the Coastal Commission was expected to seek a temporary injunction in U.S. District Court in San Diego that could tie up the project over an issue separate from the NO matter. The Commission wants the Navy to discontinue dumping at sea the munitions-laced sand that it has dredged. Its suit aims to enforce its 11/97 ruling requiring the Navy to screen or purify the sand and resume its beach replenishment effort.

• On 11/26/97, a Japanese freighter ran aground in the ALEUTIAN ISLANDS. Estimates are that as much 41,000 GALLONS OF OIL may have leaked from the freighter. The freighters owner Kuroshima Inc. of Tokyo, has indicated that they will pay for cleanup costs [Source: Greenwire, 12/4/97].
• On 12/24/97, the Juneau Empire reported that Senator Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Representative Don Young (R-Alaska), in a letter to Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck, the letter expressed concerns (and asked for an explanation as to why) that the federal government may set TIMBER SALE levels in the TONGASS National Forest too low.

• The publication Fishermen’s News reported in their November 1997 issue that NJARDVIK, INC., a Seattle SEAFOOD PROCESSING COMPANY, pleaded no contest in a state court in Unalaska, Alaska to one misdemeanor charge of POLLUTING STATE WATERS with raw domestic sewage. The violation involved Njardvik’s fishing and seafood processing vessel Maria N in April of 1997. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) health director Janice Adair said:

• On 12/19/97, the publication Greenwire reported that a committee of ALASKA LAWMAKERS REJECTED a proposal to spend money from the EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL SETTLEMENT FUND on sensitive wetlands in Homer, Alaska. According to the story, conservation groups, the city of Homer, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly had backed a plan to spend nearly $1 million to purchase a 107-acre beach and stopping point for migratory shorebirds. Property owners and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council had agreed to the transaction. But the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, which must approve state spending decisions when lawmakers are not in session, postponed action until the 1998 legislative session begins on January 12. Committee Chair State Senator Randy Phillips echoed Senator Frank Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) complaints that too much of the Exxon settlement money had been spent on land and suggested the money be spent on wildlife and people who had been hurt by the spill.

• On 11/2/97, Matthew L. Wald of the Sacramento Bee reported that NUCLEAR WASTE has leaked out of the giant underground tanks at the HANFORD nuclear reservation and flowed deeply into the soil, and some experts are convinced that it has reached UNDERGROUND WATER SUPPLIES and is flowing toward the Columbia River. According to the article, for years, the Energy Department argued that any radioactive material that leaked would be chemically bound to the soil and would not flow, but recent measurements show that cesium and other materials have moved farther than expected. According to the article, a group of outside experts brought in by the Energy Department said in January that the model the department had used to calculate the spread of underground materials was "inadequate and unrealistic." Concerns have been raised in the fishing industry and elsewhere that if the contaminated water reaches the Columbia River through ground water, radioactive material would eventually be incorporated into the FOOD CHAIN, including salmon, not to mention the health risk posed to humans.
• On 1/6/98, the Washington Department of Ecology estimated that several thousand gallons of OIL SPILLED from a Russian cargo vessel at the PORT OF TACOMA on New Years day [Source: Sandi Doughton, Tacoma News Tribune].

• The group Willamette Riverkeeper recently released its 1997 report, "State of the Willamette: Floods and Floodplains." The primary message of the report is, let the Willamette act more like a river. "Floods and Floodplains" provides a brief historical account of WILLAMETTE FLOOD POLICIES. It also offers recommendations to revamp flood policies and reinvigorate Willamette River protection and restoration efforts. For further information contact Willamette Riverkeeper at (503) 280-5488.
• On 10/10/97, Governor John Kitzhaber, Speaker Lynn Lundquist and Senate President Brady Adams unanimously appointed members to the HEALTHY STREAMS PARTNERSHIP (HSP), a 15-member group which includes representatives from industry, local governments, environmental interests and others who are directly involved in salmon restoration and stream quality enhancement. The intent of the Healthy Streams Partnership is for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to work with stakeholders, including ranchers and farmers, to develop a "healthy streams" alternative to the temperature standard. This standard protects and restores beneficial uses based on the entire range of characteristics of a fully functioning stream.

• On 12/15/97, Joan Laatz Jewitt of The Oregonian reported that three conservation groups PETITIONED the state to designate nine rivers and one lake as "OUTSTANDING RESOURCE" under the Clean Water Act. The water bodies are: North Fork of the Trask, Steamboat Creek, North Fork of the John Day River; Kilchis River, Elk River, Little North Santiam River, Upper North Santiam River, Donner and Blitzen River, Salmonberry River, and Waldo Lake. The proposal will first be considered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). If designated outstanding (a process that could take up to three years), the rivers would receive additional water quality protections. The groups requesting the petition are the National Wildlife Federation, Oregon Trout, and Northwest Environmental Advocates. However, it became clear to the groups that the petition might be rejected by the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, because the Oregon DEQ recommended it be denied. Therefore the petition was pulled and now the groups are negotiating with the DEQ to select some of the above listed rivers as an outstanding resource, as well as identifying a process to move the petitions forward. For further information contact at Pete Frost of the National Wildlife Federation at (503) 230-0421.
• On 10/22/97, The Oregonian reported that a Clatsop County Oregon LOGGER was CONVICTED in Clatsop County Circuit Court of DESTROYING SALMON HABITAT. The charges included first degree criminal mischief (felony), and three charges of driving logging equipment through a fish bearing channel (misdemeanors). The logger, Edward Horceny, destroyed 10 salmon nests in 1996 and 1997 on the North Fork of the Nehalem River. Horceny, who has a history of logging violations since the 1970’s, was sentenced to two years of supervised probation, and 10 days in the county jail.

• On 12/21/97, the New York Times reported that:

• On 1/9/98, Joby Warrick of the Washington Post reported that WORLDWIDE TEMPERATURES in 1997 climbed to their HIGHEST LEVELS since record-keeping began, continuing a steady, upward march that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists described as powerful evidence that people are changing Earth’s climate. Last year was not only the warmest on record, but it was part of "exceptionally sultry" decade that witnessed nine of the 11 hottest years this century.
• "GOLDEN DREAMS, POISONED STREAMS" is a new report from Mineral Policy Center. This book assesses the destructive impact HARDROCK MINING has on water resources, provides an expert scientific and legal framework that concerned citizens can use to understand the problem, and recommends what can be done to stop mining pollution. This book offers a factual account of how mining affects water quality. It should be read by anyone who cares about the health and future of our natural environment. For a copy of this report, send a check or money order for $24.95 (payable to Mineral Policy Center) to: Golden Dreams, Poisoned Streams, Mineral Policy Center, 1612 K Street, NW, Suite 808, Washington, D.C. 20006 or call (202) 887-1872.

• Double-Hull Ship: On 09/12/97, the Journal of Commerce reported that the first double-hull ship designed to transport petroleum products in U.S. waters was unveiled in September by Mobil Corporation in Newport News, Virginia. The tanker meets standards set by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which requires double hulls on all ships carrying oil products in U.S. waters by the year 2015. The ship is one of nine new tankers to be built by Newport News Shipbuilding Inc.
• The Coos River System Habitat opened with help from a $28,600 Fish Restoration and Enhancement Program grant and lots of work from Salmon Trout Enhancement Program volunteers, a dream of to open miles of prime coho salmon and winter steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in the Coos River system became a reality this fall with the completion of a 180-foot fish ladder on Fall Creek. Fall Creek is a tributary of the Coos River in Coos County, Oregon. A forty-foot high falls at its mouth prevented steelhead and salmon from exploiting its prime habitat. In the 1950s, ODFW biologists stocked cutthroat trout above the falls, and established a resident population. The stream still held potential as habitat for the coho salmon and winter steelhead that ascend the Coos River each fall and winter. Since the early 1980s, volunteers from the Salmon Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) had been spawning coho and steelhead and planting their young above the falls, hoping that by the time the fish returned from the ocean in three or four years, there would be a structure in place to help the fish pass over the falls. Under the direction of ODFW STEP biologist Tom Rumreich, it took 95 volunteers six weeks to pour the concrete fish ladder. Its 30 jumps will take the fish 42 vertical feet over the falls to eight miles of prime spawning and rearing habitat. For further information on Oregon’s Salmon Trout Enhancement Program call (503) 872-5252. [Source: Jim Yuskavitch, Oregon Fish Works, Fall 1997. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.]

• Duwamish River Restoration Project: People For Puget Sound has adopted a piece of intertidal habitat in the industrial Duwamish River and is carrying out restoration of emergent marsh vegetation at the site. The site is located behind the Federal Center South Building just south of the Diagonal Way S. Street-end Park. While the site is small (roughly half an acre), it is functionally important because it represents some of the last remaining intertidal marsh/mudflat habitat in the Duwamish system. Mike Sato, author of "The Price of Taming a River," notes that "the Duwamish has lost 98% of its original intertidal habitat over the last 100 years, losing much of its capacity to support historically abundant populations of fish and wildlife." "The new site is in desperate need of attention," says U.S. Army Corps of Engineers biologist Pat Cagney. According to Cagney, "boat wakes and floating debris in the river have killed much of the original vegetation (on the site) and now threaten to wash away the underlying mudflat." For more information about this project and other People For Puget Sound restoration and stewardship opportunities, call volunteer coordinator Erica Bentley at (206) 382-7007 or send email to ebentley@pugetsound.org. [Source; People For Puget Sound, Jacques White Sound & Straits, Volume 7, Number 4, November 1997]

Editor’s Recipe: Steamed salmon with spinach and hazelnuts*

1 lemon, cut in half
6 sprigs thyme
6 cloves garlic
4 salmon fillets, 6 ounces each
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 small onion, chopped
2 shallots, chopped
1 teaspoon chopped fresh thyme
2 teaspoons chopped fresh basil
2 tablespoons red wine vinegar
1 pound spinach, stems removed
1 teaspoon cracked black pepper
1/2 cup toasted, ground hazelnuts
Salt to taste

To steam the salmon, place lemon halves, thyme sprigs and 3 of the garlic cloves in 2 cups of water in a large sauté pan. Bring to a boil. Place the salmon fillets in a large bamboo steamer, put the lid on the steamer, and place over the boiling water. Steam the salmon for 8 to 10 minutes, or until just barely done. While the salmon is steaming, chop the remaining 3 cloves garlic, and heat the olive oil in a large sauté pan. Add onion, shallots and chopped garlic. Sauté until you can smell the aroma. Add the thyme, basil and vinegar. Add spinach and sauté just until it starts to wilt, 1 or 2 minutes. Do not overcook.

Remove from heat, season with pepper and add the hazelnuts. Season with salt to taste. Place spinach on a platter and placed steamed salmon on top of the spinach. Serve hot. Serves 4.

[*Source: Chef Caprial Pence. To see other recipes from Caprial Pence and to order her books visit her website at http://www.pacificharbor.com/caprial/]

_________________

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. Editorial assistance and layout by Liza Bauman. Printed on 100%-recycled sheet with minimum 50% post consumer fiber. Date of Issue: 01/26/98.