[Source: http://CALFED.ca.gov/current/revised_phase2/chapter1.html]
HABITAT HOTLINE
NUMBER 41 FEBRUARY 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FEDERAL
On January 12, 1999, President Clinton announced his "Lands Legacy" initiative. The proposal seeks just over $1 billion in a one-time allocation to fund wilderness, parks and coastal areas in Fiscal Year 2000 (beginning October 1, 1999). Some of the proposed funds would be spent as follows (Source: Environment and Energy Mid-Week, EESI Publishing; (202) 628-6500):
[*The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was established in 1964. The LWCF is a "trust fund" to accumulate revenues from federal outdoor recreation user fees, the federal motorboat fuel tax, surplus property sales, and oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf, for subsequent appropriation by Congress. The fund was authorized to provide up to $900 million annually for acquisition of federal park and wildlife refuge lands and to provide matching grants to states for outdoor recreation planning and development and land acquisition. However, Congress must appropriate the money before it can be spent; if appropriations are not made, the revenues are spent on other federal programs. In recent years, the LWCF has not been fully funded. On the West Coast, funds from the LWCF have been used to purchase the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams, and California’s "Headwaters", an old-growth redwood forest.]
Now What: The specifics of this proposal will be unveiled at the beginning of February as part of the President’s budget. The administration has also expressed a desire to set up a permanent funding for the LWCF starting in FY ‘01. Hopefully, a bipartisan effort will develop out of the Clinton proposal and Congressional efforts described below.
On January 19, 1999, the "Conservation and Reinvestment Act" (S. 25) was introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu, (D-La.). S. 25 would allocate about half the estimated $4-5 billion from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenue funds** to fund Outer Continental Shelf Impact Assistance (Title I), Land and Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and Recreation (Title II), and Wildlife Conservation and Recreation (Title III).
[**Since the mid-1950s, 100 percent of the revenue collected from oil and gas leases beyond the area regulated by Section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (generally over 6 miles from shore) has been sent to the Federal Treasury ($4.59 billion estimated for 2000). Conversely, onshore federal revenue accrued from oil and gas development is generally shared 50/50 with the states where development occurs.]
Now What: A hearing on S. 25 is scheduled in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on January 27. The House counterpart to S. 25 is expected to be introduced in mid-February. The Habitat Hotline will provide more information on these bills in our next issue.
II. REGIONAL
At last year’s November meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) adopted for public review a draft of Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. According to the PFMC, the Amendment (and its accompanying environmental impact statement) covers a comprehensive updating of the salmon fishery management plan (FMP). The changes are necessary to make the FMP responsive to the Sustainable Fisheries Act (also called the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) reflective of increased listings of salmon stocks under the Endangered Species Act, and inclusive of several minor issues identified in scoping sessions. In addition to new overfishing criteria, bycatch specifications, and changes to the harvest allocations north of Cape Falcon, the amendment includes a complete description and definition of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
BACKGROUND: The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Act) was originally passed in 1976. In 1996, the Act was renamed, reauthorized and changed extensively. 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" (See Habitat Hotline Numbers 30, 32 and 34).
Despite the fact that it is non-regulatory, the EFH provisions in the Amendment have been opposed by the non-fishing industry (including oyster growers, cattle ranchers, and property rights advocates), as well as some Congressional representatives. These criticisms, in part, have delayed the salmon amendment process past the Congressionally mandated October 1998 deadline. The PFMC’s other two FMPs (groundfish and coastal pelagics) were completed and submitted in 1998 to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. A decision is not expected on these two FMPs until mid-year.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: The public review draft of Amendment 14 is available from the PFMC. Public hearings have been scheduled as follows:
Written comments on the draft amendment will be accepted by the PFMC up until the Amendment is considered at the March 8-12 meeting (check with the PFMC for the exact day and time of this agenda item). Written comments received at the Council office by February 18, 1999, will be distributed in the Council’s March briefing book. Comments received after February 1 and prior to March 3, 1999 will be copied and distributed to all Council members on the first day of the March Council meeting.
Written comments should be submitted to:
For a Copy of Salmon EFH documents and for further information, contact the Pacific Fishery Management Council at (503) 326-6352.
III. CALIFORNIA
On December 18 of last year, the Department of Interior and the State of California released a Revised CALFED Phase II Report. According to the CALFED program, the Phase II Report provides a framework for restoring ecological health to the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, providing a more reliable water supply for all uses, and improving water quality in California (see "CALFED Phase II Proposals" below).
[Source: http://CALFED.ca.gov/current/revised_phase2/chapter1.html]
BACKGROUND: The Bay-Delta 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. Environmentally adapted management of the Bay-Delta region is critical to salmon and the California recreational and commercial salmon industries. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program [Source: Revised CALFED Phase II Report]:
...was established [in 1995] to reduce conflicts in the system by solving problems in ecosystem quality, water quality, water supply reliability, and levee and channel integrity. The Program seeks to do this by developing a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water supply and water supply reliability for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. The Program has crafted alternatives that improve water quality so as to protect Delta drinking water supplies and improve the quality of aquatic habitat. Maintaining and improving the integrity of Delta levees and channels will protect agricultural, urban, and environmental uses within the Delta and protect the quality of water used elsewhere in the state. Water conservation and recycling programs can assure the efficient use of existing water supplies and any new supplies developed through the Program.
The CALFED Program is a collaborative effort including representatives of agricultural, urban, environmental, fishery, business, and rural counties who have contributed to the process. The Bay-Delta Advisory Council (BDAC), a 34-member federally chartered citizens’ advisory committee, provides formal comment and advice to the agencies during regularly scheduled public meetings. In addition, the CALFED process has included members of the public in development of every Program component from ecosystem restoration to financing.
In March of 1998, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program released its "Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report" (EIS/EIR). The recently released Revised Phase II Report primarily focuses on the draft preferred program alternative (of the March Draft EIS/EIR) and includes a background, description, and implementation plan for the program. In Phase II, CALFED is developing a preferred program alternative, conducting comprehensive programmatic environmental review, and developing the implementation plan focusing on the first seven years (Stage 1) following the Record of Decision on the EIS/EIR—which is expected in early 2000.
CALFED Phase II Proposals
The preferred program alternative for the CALFED solution is assembled from hundreds of programmatic actions. To simplify the discussion of the alternative, the actions are grouped under each of the eight program elements summarized below. These will be implemented in stages utilizing adaptive management over the next 30 years:
Long-Term Levee Protection Plan—Provides significant improvements in the reliability of the Delta levees to benefit all users of Delta water and land.
Water Quality Program—Makes significant reductions in point and non-point pollution for the benefit of all water uses and the Bay-Delta ecosystem.
Ecosystem Restoration Program—Provides significant improvements in habitat, restoration of critical flows, and reduces conflict with other Bay-Delta system resources.
Water Use Efficiency Program—Provides support and incentives at the local level through expanded planning, technical, and financial assistance for efficient use of water for agricultural, urban, and environmental purposes.
Water Transfer Program—Provides a framework of actions, policies and processes to facilitate, encourage, and streamline an active yet protective water market which will allow water to move between users, including environmental uses, on a voluntary and compensated basis.
Watershed Program—Promotes locally-led watershed management activities and protections relevant to achieving the CALFED purpose through financial and technical assistance.
Storage—New storage will be developed and constructed, together with aggressive implementation of water conservation, recycling, and a protective water transfer market, as appropriate to meet CALFED Program goals. During Stage 1, CALFED will evaluate and determine the appropriate mix of surface water and groundwater storage, identify acceptable projects, and initiate permitting and construction if program linkages and conditions are satisfied.
Delta Conveyance—CALFED’s strategy is to develop a through-Delta conveyance alternative based on the existing Delta configuration with some modifications, evaluate its effectiveness, and add additional conveyance and/or other water management actions if necessary to achieve CALFED goals and objectives. For example, inability to meet CALFED program goals for drinking water quality or fishery recovery using this strategy could lead to a decision to move forward with modifications to this strategy including an isolated facility to carry a portion of export water around the Delta and/or other water management options.
REACTION TO THE RELEASE OF THE PHASE II REPORT:
Tom Graff of the Environmental Defense Fund:
Unfortunately, CALFED is leaning toward support for new dams without determining whether they are needed, what they would cost, who would pay for them, or how they could damage the environment. CALFED still hasn’t wrestled with the fact that there are cheaper alternatives, particularly water transfers, conservation, and groundwater management.
Ronnie Cohen of the Natural Resources Defense Council:
CALFED has made some inroads in addressing the water quality problems we have highlighted in the past, and their decision to delay consideration of a peripheral canal is appropriate. Now if CALFED could take the same approach on the need for new dams—and consider environmentally sensitive and cheaper alternatives—we might end up with a plan that will benefit everyone.
Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt:
We have reached substantial areas of agreement among California’s agricultural, urban, environmental and the business communities on ways to both restore the Bay-Delta and improve water management and supply throughout the state. The document we are releasing today represents a great stride forward toward solving California’s environmental and water needs, but it is still a work in progress. Additional issues remain to be worked out.
Former California Governor Pete Wilson:
Since the Bay-Delta Accord was signed in 1994, all 14 state and federal agencies involved in the CALFED process have worked hard to find the best, most equitable solution to the problems associated with the Sacramento Delta. Since two-thirds of the water consumed in California flows through that Delta at one point or another, no comprehensive water plan for this state would be complete unless it successfully addressed the Delta. The CALFED Revised Phase II Report being released today does just that. It outlines practicable steps for California to achieve continuous improvement in the quality of our drinking water, the quantity of our water supply, and the protections afforded to wildlife and habitat. And it does so through a balanced program of conservation, transfers and increased storage capacity.
Bob Perciasepe, EPA Assistant Administrator and co-chair of the CALFED Policy Group:
This framework is an important milestone on the road to a durable solution that will secure water for California’s families, farmers and fish. If we can build on the substantial progress we have all made together, and on the teamwork among federal and state agencies, we can successfully flesh out this framework, achieve consensus in the next year, and sustain it through the many years of CALFED implementation that lie ahead.
California Farm Bureau Federation President Bill Pauli:
Even though this step today has required years of discussion and months of intense work, it amounts to a starting point. [The] Farm Bureau and a broad coalition of business, labor and water organizations have been involved in this effort, and we will remain involved in any attempt to secure reliable, affordable water supplies for all of California. We are committed to continuous improvement in California’s water supply, water reliability and ecosystem health. We’re encouraged by the personal commitment shown by Secretary Babbitt and Governor Wilson to plan for the needs of our urban residents, farmers, fish and wildlife. We will continue to work with the secretary and Governor-elect Davis to realize the ultimate goal. That goal is to provide more certainty in water supplies from year to year—for both environmental and human needs—and especially to make sure the system doesn’t collapse during our next drought. A balanced approach will be needed, including more-efficient use of water, additional water recycling and water transfers, plus new places to store water in wet years.
The Environmental Water Caucus* recommends the following on CALFED direction in 1999:
[*The Environmental Water Caucus is made up of the Save San Francisco Bay Association, The Bay Institute of San Francisco, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Southern California Water Coalition, Sierra Club, and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations.]
NOW WHAT: This May, CALFED will release the full Revised Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). It will be available from CALFED (see number and web address below) and major libraries throughout the state. Phase II will end in late 1999, at the time the Final Programmatic EIS/EIR is released.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Remaining workshops on the Phase II document are scheduled as follows:
Comments: There is no official comment deadline on the Phase II document. However, CALFED staff encourages interested persons to provide input as soon as possible, preferably by the end of January.
Comments should be sent to:
For Information or questions regarding the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, contact Valerie Holcomb, Public Affairs Director, at (916) 657-2666; or visit their website at http://CALFED.ca.gov/.
For Further Information on the Environmental Water Caucus, contact Genna Olsen at (415) 977-5728.
On December 9, 1998 the Port of Los Angeles announced the following regarding a "First-of-Its-Kind" Fishery Enhancement Project:
In a creative move by the sportfishing industry, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Port of Los Angeles, a one-of-a-kind fishery enhancement project is making great progress in Los Angeles Harbor to provide habitat for fish and help conserve local sportfishing opportunities as a result of the Port’s unprecedented dredging project.
With the support of Los Angeles City Councilwoman Ruth Galanter (6th District) and Heal the Bay, low relief sportfishing areas are being created by taking rock from the Port’s main shipping channel outside the breakwater and relocating it to an 80-acre area of flat bottom nearby. Approximately 200,000 to 600,000 cubic meters of rocky material will be relocated to create the new low relief reef structure which will be an ideal environment for fish and other marine life. The work is being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ contractor, as requested by the Port of Los Angeles.
The rocky material is being dredged as part of the Port’s Pier 400 expansion project which calls for shipping channels to be deepened to accommodate the world’s largest ships. Normally, that material would be disposed of and capped at a designated disposal site south of the Port’s breakwater.
"This project is an environmental plus," said Council member Galanter, "because it creates rocky areas for sportfishing and puts to good use the dredged material that otherwise would have served no useful purpose. It makes good sense all around and shows that the Port, environmental groups, sportfishing industry and other agencies can work together."
Port Executive Director Larry Keller added, "With the Councilwoman’s support, this project has really taken shape and is progressing nicely. Upon its completion next year, we will have relocated and enhanced a fishery in the Horseshoe Kelp area, creating further opportunities for the sportfishing community and a deeper shipping channel to Pier 400."
Tom Raftican, president of United Anglers, added, "The cooperative effort will benefit not only Southern California anglers, but it also will enhance currently strained fisheries."
The fishery enhancement project is a result of the combined efforts of the Port of Los Angeles, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, United Anglers, Southern California Sportfishing Association, the Harbor Navigation and Safety Committee and the dredging contractor, Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. In addition, the Port has worked out an agreement with the project partners and Heal the Bay to monitor the progress of the colonization of the reef for five years upon the project’s completion. The monitoring contract is expected to go before the Los Angeles Harbor Commission for approval in spring 1999.
"Heal the Bay hopes that the Port’s monitoring program will demonstrate that the creation of artificial reefs in the Horseshoe Kelp area will be of great benefit to local fish populations," said Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay.
The Pier 400 project is the nation’s largest dredging and landfill project. The material dredged from channel construction will be used to add nearly 600 acres to the Port to help accommodate an expected growth in cargo.
For Further Information Contact Barbara Yamamoto of the Port of Los Angeles at (310) 732- 3506.
IV. OREGON
On January 8, 1999, Governor John Kitzhaber issued an executive order to departments with programs affecting salmon to establish work plans to help salmon and steelhead. Some highlights of the Executive Order be can be found on page 9.
The order is the latest step in a long political struggle to recover not only Oregon’s coho salmon, but all salmon species in the state, many of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act. All sides in the salmon recovery debate have expressed tentative support for the Governor’s latest action. However, some fish interests are concerned that the Executive Order’s goal of restoring salmon to "adequate escapement levels" (page 17 of the E.O.) is inadequate. Rather the goal should be to restore populations to "harvestable surpluses."
BACKGROUND: In April 1997, instead of listing the Oregon Coast coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act, the federal government postponed the decision and struck an agreement with the State of Oregon to implement its Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI or the Oregon Plan). 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 Oregon Plan.
Recognizing the need to revisit Oregon’s forest practice regulations, the MOA set up a process, including an ad hoc advisory committee, to review Oregon’s forest practice rules for state and private lands (see Habitat Hotline Number 35). The MOA also established 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 Plan.
However, the Earth Justice Legal Defense Foundation, representing environmental (e.g., Oregon Natural Resources Council, Native Fish Society, Portland Audubon Society) and fishing groups (Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations), sued NMFS over the decision not to list coho. The groups contended that the Plan’s reliance on voluntary measures would not stop poor land use practices, and that enforceable measures were needed as provided under the Endangered Species Act. In a blow to the Plan, U.S. Magistrate Janice M. Stewart ruled in June 1998 that the National Marine Fisheries Service’s April 1997 decision not to list Oregon coastal coho had no legal basis. Following this decision, on August 3, 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Oregon Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
NOW WHAT: According to Governor Kitzhaber’s Executive Order 99-01 of January 8, 1999:
Through this Executive Order, the State of Oregon reaffirms its intent to play the leading role in protecting and restoring Oregon Coast coho and other salmonids through the implementation of the Oregon Plan. This Executive Order provides the framework and direction for state agencies to implement (to the extent of their authorities) the Oregon Plan in a timely and effective manner. This Executive Order also provides a framework for extending the state’s efforts beyond a focus on Oregon Coast coho, to watersheds and fisheries statewide. Consistent with the principle of adaptive management, this Order applies the experience gained to date in implementing the Oregon Plan to provide additional detailed direction to state agencies. Finally, this Executive Order establishes a public involvement process to prioritize continuing efforts under the Oregon Plan.
Below are some of the elements of the Oregon Plan For Salmon and Watersheds’ Executive Order:
(d) Actions that state agencies take, fund and/or authorize that are primarily for a purpose other than restoration of salmonids or the habitat they depend upon will, considering the anticipated duration and geographic scope of the actions: (A) to the maximum extent practicable minimize and mitigate adverse effects of the actions on salmonids or the habitat they depend on; and (B) not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of salmonids in the wild.
Each agency will implement an appropriate monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of their programs and measures in meeting the objectives set forth in the Oregon Plan on an annual basis.
For 1999, the Oregon Transportation Commission will be asked to fund approximately $4.0 million for culvert modification. ODOT [Oregon Department of Transportation] and the Commission will continue to examine means to speed restoration of fish passage and to coordinate priorities with ODFW [Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife].
(g) The State of Oregon has developed interim aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement guidelines for 1998. State agencies involved with restoration activities (ODFW, ODF, DSL, ODA, DEQ, and GWEB*) will continue to develop and refine the interim guidelines for final publication in April 1999. The guidelines will be applied in restoration activities funded or authorized by state agencies. The purpose of the guidelines will be to define aquatic restoration and to identify and encourage aquatic habitat restoration techniques to restore salmonids. [*Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Forestry, Division of State Lands, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Quality, and the Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board.]
(h) ODA and ODF have each entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality relating to the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and Water Quality Management Area Plans (WQMAPs). ODA will adopt and implement WQMAPs (through the Healthy Streams Partnership) and ODF will review the adequacy of forest practices rules to meet water quality standards. ODF and ODA will evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in achieving water quality standards on a regular basis and implement any changes required to meet the standards.
(a) The State of Oregon and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have entered into a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). This cost-share program, one of the first of its kind, will be used to reduce the impacts of agricultural practices through water quality and habitat improvement.
(b) ODF will work with non-industrial forest landowners to administer the Stewardship Incentive Program and the Forest Resources Trust programs to protect and restore riparian and wetland areas that benefit salmonids.
(c) The Oregon Board of Forestry will determine, with the assistance of an advisory committee, to what extent changes to forest practices are needed to meet state water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids.
(i) ODFW will expedite its applications for instream water rights and OWRD will process such applications promptly where flow deficits are identified as adversely affecting salmonids, and where such rights are not already in place. The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) and the Oregon Water Resources Commission (OWRC) will also seek to facilitate flow restoration targeted to streams identified by OWRD and ODFW as posing the most critical low-flow barriers to salmonids. In addition, where necessary, OWRD will continue to work with the Oregon State Police to provide enforcement of water use. Where illegal water uses are identified, OWRD will ensure outcomes consistent with maintenance and restoration of flows.
(j) The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) and DEQ will evaluate and will make every effort to utilize their authorities to continue to provide additional protection to priority areas (as determined under section 1(f) of this Executive Order), including in-stream flow protection under state law, and antidegradation policy under the federal Clean Water Act (including Outstanding Resource Waters designations and high quality waters designations).
(l) DSL will seek the advice of the IMST regarding whether gravel removal affects gravel and/or sediment budgets in a manner that adversely affects salmonids.
(n) DLCD [Division of Land Conservation and Development], DEQ, ODF, ODA, ODFW, and DSL and their respective boards and commissions will evaluate and implement programs to protect and restore riparian vegetation for the purposes of achieving statewide water quality standards and protecting and restoring aquatic habitat for salmonids.
New Forestry Committee
The Governor’s Executive Order directs the Board of Forestry set up an advisory committee to determine what, if any changes to forest practices are necessary to meet water quality standards and to protect and restore salmonids. This committee replaces the MOA Forest Practices committee. The make-up of the committee is as follows:
Now What: The committee will make recommendations to the Board of Forestry by June of this year. According to the Department of Forestry, recommendations could be in the form of incentives and other voluntary actions, new or changes to existing legislation, and/or changes to forest practice rule requirements. The committee also will begin its work on either fish passage or forest roads and sediment, building on the work of the previous MOA committee.
Their recommendations could be influenced by the IMST, which is currently preparing a soon to be released report regarding the role of forest practices and forest habitat in protecting and restoring wild salmon, steelhead and trout.
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. Unfortunately, regulations governing how may trees need to be left in the riparian zone on state and private lands in Oregon may well be insufficient for long term watershed recovery (see Habitat Hotline Number 36, NMFS Forest Practices Recommendations).
In the past, fishing and environmental groups have pushed for minimum no-cut riparian buffer strips of 100 feet on large fish bearing streams (Note: On federal lands many streams receive protection of up to 300 feet on large fish-bearing streams). Timber owners claim that further expansion of current riparian regulations on private lands will cost them tens of millions of dollars in income state wide.
For Further Information visit the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds’ home page, located at http://www.oregon-plan.org, or contact Roy Hemmingway of the Governor’s Office at (503) 378-3548; or the Oregon Department of Forestry at (503) 945-7200.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
The Salmonid Restoration Federation will hold its Seventeenth Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference at the Brookdale Lodge in Brookdale, California, February 18-21, 1999.
Conference Workshops Include (2/18-19):
Conference Concurrent Sessions Include (2/20-21):
For More Information Contact: Salmonid Restoration Federation, PO Box 4260, Arcata, CA 95518, at (707) 444-8903, Email: salrestfed@aol.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and several other organizations recently announced the Five-Star Restoration Challenge Grant Program. The Program is an outgrowth of President Clinton’s Clean Water Action Plan, and provides modest financial assistance to support community-based wetland and riparian restoration projects, to build diverse partnerships, and to foster local natural resource stewardship.
The Program is one of several initiatives supported by EPA to implement the Plan and to address pollution problems which are beyond the scope of existing environmental programs. Projects must therefore involve diverse partnerships of ideally five organizations that contribute funding, land, technical assistance, workforce support, and/or other in-kind services.
Awards will be between $5,000 and $20,000. Projects must include a strong on-the-ground habitat restoration component, and may also include education, outreach, and community stewardship. Projects must demonstrate ecological, educational, and/or socio-economic benefits resulting from the completion of the project. The projects must be completed within a one-year time-frame but may be a discrete part of a larger restoration effort.
How to apply: The Five-Star Restoration Challenge Grant program is open to any public or private entity. Applicants should complete an application form, including project narrative and budget request.
Applications should be sent to epa and must be postmarked by FEBRUARY 1, 1999. Projects will be evaluated to the extent by which the above guidelines are met. Applicants will be notified of their awards by mid-March. For more information, including an application form, go to the EPA Five-Star Restoration Program’s website at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/.
Last year, the Environment Defense Fund unveiled a new Internet service that allows anyone to enter a zip code and see a map highlighting local sources of pollution—and to send inquiries straight to those sources. Below is an example of a pollution locator map for Southern California.
[Source: http://www.scorecard.org/]
According to EDF, the site contains full information on the health effects of thousands of polluting chemicals, as well as instant rankings based on pollution loads and health hazards for 17,000 manufacturing facilities across the country. It identifies the individual chemicals involved, highlights the top-ranked hazards, and shows multi-year emission trends.
By bringing up local street maps on the computer screen, the user can see the location of every facility reporting chemical emissions to air or water. A click on that spot on the map (shown above) produces a report on the facility, including its ranking as compared with all others in the same state and throughout the country. Special "take action" options allow users to send individualized letters by fax (for free and without leaving the screen) directly to officials of high-polluting facilities. They can also send e-mail to the head of Environmental Protection Agency, get information on how to prevent pollution, and find names of groups already active in their area that they can contact or join.
For Further Information visit the EDF Chemical Scorecard site on the Internet at http://www. scorecard.org, or call EDF at (510) 658-8008.
Below are the results from the December 1998 Habitat Hotline survey. Also included are responses from similar questions in our 1995 survey (questions 2-7). Thank you to each of the 109 readers who responded.
|
ANSWER |
1998 PERCENT |
|
Yes |
65% |
|
No |
8% |
|
Don’t have enough information to make decision |
27% |
|
ANSWER |
1995 PERCENT |
1998 PERCENT |
|
|
Too Lax |
77% |
65% |
|
|
Too Strict |
1% |
4% |
|
|
About Right |
19% |
27% |
|
|
No Opinion |
3% |
2% |
|
|
Don’t Know |
2% |
||
|
ANSWER |
1995 PERCENT |
1998 PERCENT |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
6% |
4% |
|
|
Agree |
7% |
8% |
|
|
Strongly Disagree |
54% |
57% |
|
|
Disagree |
31% |
30% |
|
|
Don’t Care |
2% |
1% |
|
|
ANSWER |
1995 PERCENT |
1998 PERCENT |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
85% |
76% |
|
|
Agree |
12% |
21% |
|
|
Strongly Disagree |
1% |
1% |
|
|
Disagree |
1% |
3% |
|
|
Don’t Care |
1% |
0% |
|
|
ANSWER |
1995 PERCENT |
1998 PERCENT |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
8% |
5% |
|
|
Agree |
9% |
8% |
|
|
Strongly Disagree |
45% |
31% |
|
|
Disagree |
30% |
56% |
|
|
Don’t Care |
7% |
0% |
|
|
ANSWER |
1995 PERCENT |
1998 PERCENT |
|
|
Strongly Agree |
17% |
20% |
|
|
Agree |
22% |
24% |
|
|
Strongly Disagree |
22% |
26% |
|
|
Disagree |
30% |
30% |
|
|
Don’t Care |
9% |
0% |
|
|
ANSWER |
1995 PERCENT |
1998 PERCENT |
|
|
$0 |
1% |
7% |
|
|
$1-10 |
10% |
7% |
|
|
$10-25 |
23% |
22% |
|
|
$25-100 |
36% |
29% |
|
|
$100+ |
30% |
35% |
|
VI. CLIMATE/WEATHER/OCEAN
Last December, researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies reported that Global surface temperatures in the 1998 meteorological year (Dec. 1, 1997 to Dec. 1, 1998) set a new record for the period of instrumental measurements. The global temperature (see below) exceeds that of the previous record year, 1995, by such a wide margin that the 1998 calendar year is certain to also set a new record. And unlike many recent years, the warmth is beginning to hit home; the United States this year is experiencing its warmest year in the past several decades. Furthermore, according to the report:
The global warming is believed by many researchers, including the NASA scientists, to be at least partly a consequence of increasing human-made gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, which arises from the burning of coal, oil and gas. The 1998 warmth was associated partly with a strong El Niño that warmed the air over the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean in the first half of the year and in turn affected weather around the world.
The largest temperature anomalies in 1998 were in North America...in a pattern that commonly occurs in El Niño years. But almost the entire world was warmer than normal in 1998. The El Niño, by itself, cannot account for either the observed long-term global warming trend or the extreme warmth of 1998. Because the Pacific Ocean temperature has returned to a more normal level, it is anticipated that the global temperature in 1999 will be less warm than 1998 but will remain well above the long-term mean for the period of climatology, 1951-1980.
The rapid global warming since the mid 1970s exceeds that of any previous period of equal length in the time of instrumental data...The increase of the 5-year mean temperature since 1975 is about 1/2°C or almost 1°F. This warming occurs during the time when greenhouse gases increased most rapidly, and thus, according to [NASA scientist] Dr. James Hansen "the rapid warming of the past 25 years undercuts the argument of ‘greenhouse skeptics’, who have maintained that most of the global warming occurred early this century while greenhouse gases were increasing more slowly—in fact, the fastest warming is occurring just when it is expected".
For Further information Contact the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies at (212) 678-5500; or visit their website at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/.
On November 9-10 of last year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) convened an international workshop in Seattle, Washington on the Bering Sea ecosystem. According to NOAA, the workshop was prompted by many rarely observed conditions which occurred in the Bering Sea during the summers of 1997 and 1998, including extensive die-offs of seabirds, rare algal blooms, unanticipated low salmon runs, warmer than usual ocean temperatures, and altered ocean currents and atmospheric conditions. Below is the executive summary on the workshop report, entitled Draft Report of the FOCI* International Workshop on Recent Conditions in the Bering Sea. [*Fisheries-Oceanography Coordinated Investigations]
According to the report’s executive summary:
During the workshop it was established that the springs and summers of 1997 and 1998 were in fact very unusual in a number of ways. The most direct human impact of these conditions was the unanticipated low returns of sockeye and chinook salmon. Although escapement goals of these fisheries were met, the low commercial and subsistence catches created considerable economic hardship. Atmospheric conditions over the eastern Bering Sea in spring and summer 1997 included light winds, warm temperatures, and clear skies. These caused a shallow mixed layer; nutrients above the pycnocline were quickly depleted, leading to the largest coccolithophore bloom ever seen in the area. The links between these events and the low salmon runs and other ecosystem anomalies such as the extensive seabird die-offs, remain unclear. Although spring of 1998 was much stormier than 1997, and stratification and the spring bloom were delayed, a coccolithophore bloom occurred again, as did low salmon runs.
It became apparent that the Bering Sea ecosystem is a complex and highly variable environment. Atmospheric forcing on several temporal scales (e.g., Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Niño, Global Climate Warming) effects the physical oceanography of the area, which in turn cascades through the ecosystem, although we do not understand the exact mechanisms. The sum of all of these influences produces the conditions observed at any given time. Our understanding of this system is limited by lack of historical data.
Recommendations from the workshop included long-term monitoring of key physical and biological parameters at a number of locations in the eastern Bering Sea. Establishing the linkages between the physics and biology of the area will require effective interdisciplinary research in a variety of modes: modeling, process-oriented, monitoring and retrospective. Mechanistic understanding of the recruitment processes of a number of key species is needed. In some cases we have seen correlations between climatic trends and recruitment trends, but do not know the mechanisms responsible for the correlations. It is crucial to know the mechanisms because experience has taught us that correlations break down when the system is altered dramatically.
With our present level of understanding, we will not be able to predict events such as the unusual occurrences of 1997-1998. This will hamper effective management of living marine resources in this productive region.
For Further Information: A summary of the workshop and a copy of the Draft Science Plan for the Bering Sea Ecosystem are available on NOAA’s Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean web site at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/bering. For specific information, contact Allen Macklin, FOCI Coordinator, NOAA/PMEL, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, (206) 526-6798.
VII. UPDATES
For further information contact Sandi Snell of the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office at (360) 902-2229; or visit the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office website at http://www.wa.gov/esa/.
The Campaign for the Northwest coalition includes 1,000 Friends of Washington, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, Pacific Rivers Council, People for Puget Sound, Save Our Wild Salmon, Sierra Club, Washington Environmental Alliance for Voter Education, Washington Environmental Council, and Washington Public Interest Research Group. For further information contact the Washington Environmental Council at (206) 622-8103; People for Puget Sound at (206) 382-7007; or Save Our Wild Salmon at (206) 622- 2904.
Using data collected by shoreline stewards, CSI’s goal is to map and record detailed information for the 2,100 miles of Puget Sound shoreline. Volunteer stewards monitor 150-foot lateral sections of beach and record information on location, physical characteristics, vegetation, invasive species, bluff ecology, streams and outfalls (including signs of pollution), shoreline structures, adjacent land use and wildlife sightings, and take a photo of the site. The completed data forms are returned to Adopt a Beach for cataloging, then forwarded to People for Puget Sound for conversion into a Geographic Information System (GIS) map and database. A demonstration is on SoundWeb at http://www.pugetsound.org/csi. For more information on the citizen Shoreline Atlas, contact Zach Schwartz at (206) 382-7007 or via email zschwartz@pugetsound.org. For more information about volunteering as a shoreline steward, contact Siri Dale at (206) 382-7007 or email her at sdale@pugetsound.org.
Recent listings of coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead (O. mykiss) populations throughout California as threatened or endangered Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act...have led to controversy and confusion about the use of electrofishing as a fisheries management tool for population surveys and scientific studies.
Fisheries professionals have used electricity in freshwater habitats to capture fish, legally and otherwise, since the 1930s, when automobile batteries and electric generators were used as fishing techniques. Compared with the earlier alternatives of dynamite and poison used to capture fish, the introduction of electrofishing appeared a humane, effective technical improvement that was adopted and further developed by the scientific fisheries community. However, a dialogue on potential harm to the aquatic community due to electrofishing started early in the development of this technology.
Electrofishing as currently practiced by fish biologists may pose significant potential risks to wild fish populations, including some not currently listed as threatened or endangered under federal or state laws. All electrofishing activity should be carefully evaluated for cost and benefits that result from its use.
For further information, contact the American Fisheries Society at (301) 897-8621.
A single animal factory can generate the waste equivalent of a town. As this report documents, manure lagoons have spawned environmental disasters in many states, spilling disease-causing bacteria into neighboring rivers and leaching manure into groundwater used for drinking. The volume of manure is so enormous that a single spill from the lagoon of an animal factory can be devastating to the health of a nearby river and the fish that live within it.
Policy recommendations of the report include:
The report is available on the Internet at http://www.nrdc.org/, under "Publications"; or contact the NRDC Publications Department at (212) 727-4486 for ordering information.
____________
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, press releases, 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 to Stephen_Phillips@psmfc.org. Editorial assistance and layout by Liza Bauman. Printed on 100% recycled post-consumer paper. Date of Issue: 1/25/99.