HABITAT HOTLINE
NUMBER 44     NOVEMBER 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. CONGRESS

II. FEDERAL

III. REGIONAL

IV. WASHINGTON

V. ALASKA

VI. CALIFORNIA

VII. WEATHER/OCEAN/CLIMATE

VIII. MISCELLANEOUS

IX. GRANTS

X. UPDATES


I. CONGRESS

CZMA CONTROVERSY

On August 2, 1999, the "Coastal Community Conservation Act of 1999" (H.R. 2669) was introduced by Representative Jim Saxton (R-N.J.). The bill reauthorizes the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) program for five years.

The CZMA program, which is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is a state-federal partnership aimed at coordinating federal, state and local coastal protection laws. The goal of the program is to establish a voluntary, cooperative program to encourage states to exercise their authority over their coastal areas by developing coastal zone management programs, which must meet minimal federal standards. To date, 33 of the 35 US coastal states have developed coastal management programs, including California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.

An important part of the CZMA is the Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, which was authorized by the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Nonpoint source pollution, such as runoff from urban streets, agricultural and timber lands, is a significant contributor to some fish and shellfish habitat problems.

NOW WHAT: Controversy crept into the reauthorization when, on October 6, the House Resources Committee approved H.R. 2669 with amendments that added property rights language and deleted nonpoint pollution language.

Representative Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), by a vote of 24-23, added the following property rights language to the bill (Source: Energy and Environment Daily, 10/11/99, EESI Publishing, (202) 628-6500):

The Secretary [of Commerce] shall not require a state, as a condition of any grant of funds under this title or the approval of a state plan under Sec. 306 [of the CZMA], to take any action that would constitute a use of non-federal property for a public purpose without payment of just compensation; and shall not under this title take private property for public use without payment of just compensation.

Representative Jim Hansen (R-Utah) offered an amendment (adopted by a 26-15 vote) which, according to Energy and Environment Daily, strips five parts of the bill dealing with wetlands and the Clean Water Act—language that would have encouraged states to continue to develop and implement programs to control nonpoint pollution.

REACTION:

Tim Eichenberg, Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, DC:

What we don’t need is for Congress to turn its back on the nation’s number one water quality problem while floods and hurricanes devastate coastal communities. Congress cannot use procedural excuses to shirk its legislative responsibilities. The amendments passed by this Committee today gut the bill and prevent communities from fighting pollution.

Jacqueline Savitz, The Coast Alliance, Washington, DC:

It is absolutely essential that states’ pollution prevention programs are funded and actually put into practice. But Chairman Young has stripped all of these valuable programs out of the Bill ensuring that closed beaches, dead zones, and harmful algae blooms will continue on our coasts.

US Department of Commerce (Source: Environment & Energy Daily, 10/11/99):

The [Pombo] amendment would require the department to again review all 33 federally approved state coastal management programs and possibly decertify those programs that did not remove provisions that control or manage private uses of the coastal zone...This would, for all practical purposes, render the national and state CZMA programs non-existent and ineffective. Further, the amendment would subject the department and the states to endless litigation and takings claims...

NOW WHAT: It is unclear whether further action on H.R. 2669 will occur before Congress adjourns for the year (the target adjournment date is October 29, 1999). Similar legislation in the Senate, S. 1534, introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) has not yet had a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee.

What You Can Do: Write Your Congressperson: US House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515; and US Senate, Washington, DC 20510; or call the House of Representatives switchboard at (202) 225-3121; and the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

To register your opinion with the President on any issue, call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111. E-mail messages to President Clinton at president@whitehouse.gov; or Vice President Gore at vice.president@whitehouse.gov.

For Further Information Contact the Center for Marine Conservation at (202) 429-5609, or the Coast Alliance at (202) 546-9554.


II. FEDERAL

CLINTON ANNOUNCES FOREST PROTECTION PLAN

On October 13, 1999, President Clinton announced a forest preservation plan which would prevent development and logging in remote federal forest lands. In his Executive Order, the President directed the US Forest Service (USFS) to develop a forest preservation plan—with the potential of affecting over 40 million acres of inventoried roadless areas on its 155 national forests and 20 grasslands. The plan concentrates on parcels of 5,000 acres or more, located mostly in the West. The plan broadens the 33 million acres which the USFS put off limits to road building last January while it develops a long-term forest roads policy (See Habitat Hotline Number 42 and related story below).

REACTION:

President William Clinton:

Today, we launch one of the largest land preservation efforts in America’s history to protect these priceless, back-country lands. The Forest Service will prepare a detailed analysis of how best to preserve our forests’ large roadless areas, and then present a formal proposal to do just that. The Forest Service will also determine whether similar protection is warranted for smaller roadless areas that have not yet been surveyed.

Through this action, we will protect more than 40 million acres, 20 percent of the total forest land in America in the national forests from activities, such as new road construction which would degrade the land. We will ensure that our grandchildren will be able to hike up to this peak, that others like it across the country will also offer the same opportunities. We will assure that when they get to the top they’ll be able to look out on valleys like this, just as beautiful then as they are now.

Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) Chairman, House Resources Committee (R-Alaska) (Source: Environment & Energy Daily, 10/18/99):

If the President wanted to do something helpful and beneficial he would announce a plan for cleaning up and thinning the 40 million acres that everyone—including the administration’s own Forest Service—knows is at risk of catastrophic fires.

W. Henson Moore, President and CEO of the American Forest & Paper Association:

President Clinton’s announcement…that he would essentially build a wall around much of the National Forest, comes as no surprise to us. However, the American people may be surprised to learn that what the President is really doing is implementing a ‘burn and rot’ policy on the National Forests. These roads are used to fight fires and help scientists control disease and insect infestations. They are also used by everyday Americans who want to enjoy themselves in the forest. The Forest Service already estimates they have 65 million acres of forestland at high risk of catastrophic wildfire and disease and insect infestation, and this new policy is going to make this situation even worse.

I do not believe the President has the authority to do what he’s done. Congress is the branch of the government with the authority to set forest policy—and they have. When we woke up this morning, almost eighty percent of the National Forest System was off-limits to forest products companies. Taking more the way he has, in an end-run around the Congress, puts an unfair strain on rural economies, an unwise dependence on foreign imports, and an unbearable burden on ecosystems already fighting for survival.

Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club:

The Sierra Club wholeheartedly applauds the Clinton Administration’s vision to protect roadless areas in our National Forests. President Clinton is taking a great step to ensure future generations of Americans can enjoy healthy, productive forests. Our National Forests’ roadless areas provide opportunities for backcountry recreation, clean drinking water, and prime habitat for wildlife like salmon and grizzly bear, but most of those areas are not protected from logging and other destruction. Roadless areas are the remaining remnants of our nation’s forest heritage and deserve permanent protection.

Over half of our National Forests have already been hammered by logging, roadbuilding, mining and oil and gas development. Now we have a real chance to stop this destruction and protect these precious—and rapidly disappearing—forests. President Clinton’s bold plan could protect wildlife habitat and recreation areas, and ensure our children have National Forests to enjoy too. By protecting these roadless areas, the Clinton Administration could establish a forest protection legacy rivaling that of Teddy Roosevelt.

NOW WHAT: The President’s charge will require the Forest Service to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will include a public review and comment process. Following the EIS, the agency will prepare rulemaking for the use of the affected lands. Completion of the final EIS and rule is scheduled for late fall of 2000.

For Further Information Contact Joe Walsh of the US Forest Service at (202) 205-1134; or visit the US Forest Service website at http://www. fs.fed.us.

Preliminary estimates of roadless areas within National Forests affected by President Clinton’s Executive Order of October 13, 1999 (Source: Associated Press):

Oregon:

2,081,010 acres

Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Mt. Hood, Ochoco, Rogue River, Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umatilla, Umpqua, Wallowa-Whitman, Willamette, Winema.

Washington:

1,890,046 acres

Colville, Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Okanogan, Olympic, Wenatchee.

Alaska:

14,788,904 acres

Chugach, Tongass.

Idaho:

9,449,400 acres

Boise, Caribou, Challis, Clearwater, Idaho Panhandle, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Targhee.

California:

4,193,000 acres

Angeles, Cleveland, Eldorado, Inyo, Klamath, Lake Tahoe Basin, Lassen, Los Padres, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, San Bernardino, Sequoia, Shasta-Trinity, Sierra, Six Rivers, Stanislaus, Tahoe.

ROADLESS COMMENTS DUE 12/20

On Oct. 25, 1999, the USDA Forest Service issued a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement as the first step toward implementing President Clinton’s direction to further protect remaining roadless areas within National Forest System lands (See Habitat Hotline Number 42).

The resulting environmental impact statement (EIS) will analyze the effects of eliminating road construction in the remaining un-roaded areas of the National Forest System. In addition, the EIS will analyze the effects of establishing social and ecological values that will guide the management of roadless areas.

The draft EIS and a proposed rule are expected to be available for public review and comment in spring 2000. A final EIS and rule will follow.

Comments are due by December 20, 1999. Written comments on the proposed rulemaking should be sent to:

USDA Forest Service-CAET
Attention: Roadless Areas NOI
P.O. Box 221090
Salt Lake City, UT 84122

E-mail comments may be sent to: roadless/wo_caet-slc@fs.fed.us. All comments will be part of the public record.

For Further Information Contact Joe Walsh of the US Forest Service at (202) 205-1134; or visit the US Forest Service website at http://www. fs.fed.us.

REPORT CRITICIZES CORPS’ WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

In August, the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) released a report charging that federal wetland protection policy is failing at a "gross rate." The group claims that the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the federal agency charged with protecting wetlands under the aegis of the Clean Water Act, has made enforcement of laws protecting the nation’s wetlands its lowest priority. According to the Report:

REACTION:

John Studt, Chief of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, responded to the charges by PEER:

The group used words from Corps memos out of context and drew inaccurate conclusions from our statistics. PEER obtained data about the Corps’ regulatory program showing an increase in the use of nationwide and regional permits. The group says this means wetlands are less protected. But using general permits means a decrease in paperwork, not protection. Legal mandates strictly define the environmental measures necessary to get a nationwide permit. Fewer applicants are using lengthy individual permits, because they know how to meet the environmentally restrictive general permit requirements and design their projects accordingly. Despite the permit type, the Corps individually scrutinizes every project which could potentially impact more than a third of an acre of wetlands [emphasis added].

In its press release commenting on the report, the Corps also said:

PEER’s report falsely states Corps headquarters instructed subordinate district offices that funding and staffing will be based solely on issuing development permits and that enforcing laws protecting wetlands is the agency’s lowest priority. This is where the group has used a memo’s sentence out of context. The Corps has, in fact, maintained a national record of requiring 1.5 to 2 acres in mitigation to every one acre lost to development. In 1998, 47,000 acres of wetland mitigation were required as compensation for 31,000 impacted.

Responding to the Corps’ criticism of their studies’ findings, Jeff Ruch, PEER Executive Director, said the Corps (and the Environmental Protection Agency) does not sufficiently enforce compliance to wetlands regulations and that the Corps’ mitigation program numbers are "highly inflated" and that its mitigation program is "a failure."

For a Copy of the Report Contact PEER at (202) 265-7337 or visit their website at http://www. peer.org/corps.

For Further Information on the Corps’ response to the PEER study contact Carol Sanders at (202) 761-1802; or visit their website at http:// www.usace.army.mil and click on "news" and "news releases."


III. REGIONAL

CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT COMMENTS DUE 11/22

The comment period on the "Final Integrated Feasibility Report for Channel Improvements and Environmental Impact Statement: Columbia and Lower Willamette River Federal Navigation Channel" has been extended until November 22, 1999. Comments on the EIS should be sent to:

Washington Level Review Center
7701 Telegraph Road
Alexandria, VA 22315-3861

Copies of the report (including the appendices) are available on request from the District Engineer, Portland District, CENWP-EC-E, ATTN: Steven J. Stevens, P.O. Box 2946, Portland, OR, 97208-2946, or by e-mail at the following address: steven.j.stevens@usace.army.mil. The main report/EIS is also available on the Internet at http:// www.nwp.usace.army.mil/pm/projects/crnci/final_crs.htm.

For Further Information Contact Steve Stevens of the Corps at (503) 808-4768. For further information on concerns raised about the impact to salmonids and other aquatic resources, contact the Columbia River Estuary Study Task Force at (503) 325-0435.

REPORT QUESTIONS IMPACT OF DAM REMOVAL

By late 1999, the Clinton Administration (National Marine Fisheries Service) is supposed to choose a long-term plan to restore Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead (though now there are indications that this decision may be delayed). The decision will include how many salmon and steelhead are to be left in-river versus transported around the Columbia River Basin dams by truck or barge. Variables to be considered in the recovery plan could include dam removal, reservoir drawdown, dam modifications (including adult passage improvements), and juvenile bypass improvements (including spilling the fish over the dams). The option of removing the four lower Snake River dams has been extremely controversial. Fishing and environmental groups, tribes, and others see dam removal as a critical element in recovering salmon and steelhead. However, dam removal is an anathema to industries that depend on the river’s electricity and transportation system. (Note: For a list of West Coast anadromous salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act, please refer to page 7.)

Adding to the dam removal debate is an October 1, 1999, report released by the environmental group American Rivers, which says that investing in highway and rail infrastructure would keep grain transportation rates affordable if the four lower Snake River dams are removed. The report was written by Dr. G. Edward Dickey, a former Corps of Engineers official. According to the report:

The fear of substantial shipping rate increases brought on by closure of the Snake River waterway has gripped the agricultural community in eastern Washington and Idaho. These fears need not come pass. Prudent investment in transportation infrastructure will minimize potential transportation rate increases.

This report presents a conceptual plan for how to identify, fund, and execute rail and highway infrastructure upgrades that could be in place at the time that the waterway is closed. This would ensure a timely and efficient transition to an affordable alternative commodity transportation system. Ultimately, the goal is to maintain a vibrant agricultural economy in the affected region and the restoration of healthy salmon and steelhead runs in the Snake River.

Closing the Snake River waterway would significantly alter the way in which commodities are shipped in the lower Snake River Basin. The most obvious impact would be shifting the head of navigation from Lewiston, ID (on the Snake River) to the Tri-Cities, WA (on the Columbia River). Eliminating barge traffic on the Snake would mean that the commodities currently being shipped on the Snake River would have to be shipped via other modes. There are two primary transportation alternatives: 1) rail service from grain elevators to deepwater ports; and 2) truck from farm/elevator to Columbia River barge port and then by barge to deepwater port. Farmers who rely on the waterway to ship grain are concerned that these alternatives will result in substantially higher shipping rates, potentially rendering their operations uneconomic. However, prudent, timely investment in rail and highway infrastructure could provide an affordable transportation alternative to the lower Snake River waterway.

REACTION:

Justin Hayes, American Rivers (Source: Environmental News Network 10/05/99):

Economists have said that if you have to remove dams, take out the lower Snake River dams because they provide fewer benefits to the region than Columbia River dams...You can have a very vibrant agricultural economy in eastern Washington where grain moves without the Salmon River Waterway, if we make prudent investments in upgrading truck and railroad infrastructure. What makes this very unique among all of the reports available, is that this is the only report trying to figure out how to minimize the impact dam removal might have on communities.

Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.):

This is more voodoo economics from another D.C. based special interest group which takes great pleasure in telling the people and families of the Northwest how to live their lives. It’s a short-sighted survey that overlooks three important factors of removing Snake River dams:

  1. The power production lost by removing those dams would raise residential bills for Northwest families and especially hurt senior citizens on fixed incomes, with the cost to the region hovering at roughly $291 million a year.
  2. Irrigation to the 37,000 acres of farmland served by the Snake River dams would be lost, displacing thousands of families to the tune of $9.2 million annually.
  3. Most importantly, the people of the Northwest don’t want dam removal—the region should debate and decide this issue—not groups based in Washington, D.C. who don’t have to live with the consequences.

Dr. G. Edward Dickey, author of the report:

The public and private infrastructure upgrades required for a transition plan are affordable. The agricultural community fears that removing the dams will make transporting grain too expensive. But this fear need not come to pass.

For Further Information and a Copy of the Report Contact Rob Masonis of American Rivers’ Northwest Office at (206) 213-0330; or visit their website at http://www.amrivers.org/snake.html.

Click here to download "Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmonids" (in PDF format) Source: NOAA’s web site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/index.htm


IV. WASHINGTON

COMMENTS SOUGHT ON SALMON STRATEGY ACTIONS

In September, the State of Washington’s Salmon Recovery Team released a working draft of its Summary Early Action Plan—actions that state agencies are proposing to take during the coming year to implement "Extinction is Not an Option: Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon" (Strategy). A summary of the latest iteration of the State’s salmon recovery Strategy was also released. According to the Joint Natural Resources Cabinet and Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office (09/21/99):

The Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon is intended to be a guide for what needs to be done to recover salmon. We recognize that the process of salmon recovery will continue to remain dynamic as well as difficult. It will take all levels of government, business, environmentalists, and the public working together if we are to be successful. The Strategy will provide all these interests with the kinds of information they need to make informed decisions about how they want to address the critical task of restoring our salmon runs.

NOW WHAT: A more detailed Early Action Plan, and Strategy will be released in November.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Comments on the working draft Early Action Plan and the summary Strategy are due November 19, 1999 and should be sent to:

Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office
PO Box 43135
Olympia, WA 98504-3135

For Further Information and to Obtain a Copy of both the "Early Action Plan" and the "Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon", contact Sandi Snell of the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office at (360) 902-2229; or by e-mail: salmon@esa.wa.gov.

V. ALASKA

BP FINED

On September 23, 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said that BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. pleaded guilty to one felony count related to the illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaska’s North Slope, and it agreed to spend $22 million to resolve the criminal case and related civil claims. According to the EPA:

BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., or "BPXA," admitted in US District Court in Anchorage that it failed to immediately notify authorities of a release of hazardous substances to the environment, and it agreed to pay the maximum criminal fine of $500,000. As part of the plea agreement, BPXA also admitted that it failed to provide adequate oversight, audits and funding to ensure proper environmental management on Endicott Island, Alaska.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, the US subsidiary of BP Amoco p.l.c.—the third largest oil company in the world—will establish an environmental management system at all of BP Amoco’s facilities in the United States and Gulf of Mexico that are engaged in the exploration, drilling or production of oil. This system will be the first of its kind in the oil industry to result from a federal prosecution.

"This has been one of largest and most complex criminal investigations ever conducted in Alaska," said Robert Bundy, US Attorney for the District of Alaska. "The case underscores our commitment to investigate and prosecute violations of environmental laws. Corporations that benefit from Alaska’s resources must also be good stewards of Alaska’s environment."

The federal government and BPXA…also agreed to a civil settlement involving related environmental claims. The settlement, filed in federal court in Anchorage, requires BPXA to pay $6.5 million in civil penalties to resolve allegations that BPXA illegally disposed of hazardous waste and also violated federal drinking water law.

The criminal plea and civil claims stem from the injection of hazardous wastes on Endicott Island over a three-year period beginning in 1993. The manmade, gravel island northeast of Prudhoe Bay was built for the purpose of extracting and processing oil reserves under the Beaufort Sea. Endicott Island is operated by BPXA, which contracts with Doyon Drilling Inc. to drill oil-producing wells there.

From 1993 to 1995, Doyon Drilling employees illegally discharged waste oil and hazardous substances by injecting them down the outer rim, or annuli, of the oil wells. BPXA failed to report the illegal injections as soon as it learned of the conduct, in violation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. The illegally injected wastes included paint thinner and toxic solvents containing lead and chemicals such as benzene, toluene and methylene chloride.

In April 1998, Doyon Drilling pleaded guilty to 15 counts of violating the Oil Pollution Act. Doyon agreed to pay a $1 million fine and spend $2 million to develop an environmental compliance program and environmental training program for employees. Three Doyon employees were convicted in 1998, and one was sentenced to a year in jail.

BPXA spent approximately $5 million to improve environmental management within Alaska during the criminal investigation, and the corporation has taken steps to cooperate with the government’s continuing investigation. Because of these efforts, additional criminal charges relating to the illegal injections were not filed, in accord with the Department of Justice’s 1991 Voluntary Disclosure Policy, which grants prosecutors the discretion to forego prosecution when certain conditions—including cooperation, remedial measures, and the existence of an adequate compliance program—are met, according to US Attorney Bundy.

As a result of the criminal plea agreement, BPXA must use best environmental practices to protect workers, the public, and the environment. The court will appoint an environmental monitor to oversee BPXA’s nationwide implementation of the $15 million management system during a five-year probation. Both the civil settlement and the plea agreement must be approved by the court before they become final.


VI. CALIFORNIA

TRINITY COMMENTS DUE 12/8

On October 7, 1999, the Department of Interior (DOI) (i.e., the US Bureau of Reclamation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service) announced the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration. In addition to the DOI, the Hoopa Valley Tribe and Trinity County also helped prepare the DEIS/EIR.

According to the Federal Register notice concerning the document:

Construction of the Trinity River Division (TRD) of the Central Valley Project (CVP) was completed in 1963. The primary function of the TRD is to store Trinity River water for regulated diversion to the Central Valley of California for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses. Construction and operation of the TRD resulted in the diversion of up to 90 percent of the average annual discharge in the Trinity River at Lewiston, and blocked access to 109 miles of salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. Reduced river flows, combined with excessive watershed erosion and encroachment of the river channel by riparian vegetation, caused major changes in the channel morphology resulting in the simplification and degradation of the remaining salmon and steelhead habitat of the Trinity River below the Lewiston. This, in turn, resulted in rapid declines of salmon and steelhead populations following completion of the TRD.

In response to declining fisheries and degraded habitat conditions, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) decided in 1981 to increase flows in the Trinity River ranging from 140,000 acre-feet to 340,000 acre-feet annually, with reductions in dry and critically dry years. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service was directed to undertake a Flow Evaluation Study to assess fish habitat at various flows, summarize the effectiveness of other instream and watershed restoration activities, and recommend appropriate flows and other measures necessary to better maintain favorable habitat conditions. The Flow Evaluation Study began in October 1984 and was completed in June 1999. In October 1984, the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act (Management Act) (Pub. L. 98-541) was enacted by Congress with the goal of restoring fish and wildlife populations to pre-TRD levels. The Act provided funding for construction, operation, and maintenance of the 11-item action plan developed by the Trinity River Task Force in 1982.

In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) (Public Law 102-575) was passed. Section 3406(b)(23) of the CVPIA provides, through the TRD, an instream release of not less than 340,000 acre-feet of water into the Trinity River to meet Federal trust responsibilities to protect fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and to meet the fishery restoration goals of Management Act. The recommendations for mainstem Trinity River fishery restoration will be developed after appropriate consultations with Federal, State, Tribal, local agencies, and affected interests, and after completion of the Flow Evaluation Study.

To restore the natural production of anadromous fish in the Trinity River in accordance with the 1981 Secretarial Decision, the Management Act, and the CVPIA, the DEIS/EIR analyzes the impacts of:

  1. Increased instream releases into the Trinity River to provide anadromous fish habitat and restore fluvial processes,
  2. Implementation of a channel rehabilitation program,
  3. Implementation of a spawning gravel supplementation program,
  4. Implementation of a watershed rehabilitation program, and
  5. Implementation of an Adaptive Management Program.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Comments on the DEIS are due December 8, 1999, and should be addressed to:

Mr. Joe Polos
US Fish and Wildlife Service
1125 16th Street, Room 209
Arcata, CA 95521
FAX: (707) 822-8411

Public Hearings have been scheduled as follows:

  1. Tuesday, November 16, 1999 at the Holiday Inn Appaloosa Room, 1900 Hilltop Drive, Redding, California.
  2. Thursday, November 18, 1999 at the Sacramento Grand Ballroom, 629 J Street, Sacramento, California.
  3. Tuesday, November 23, 1999 at the Eureka Inn Colonnade Room, 518 7th Street, Eureka, California.

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors will also hold a California Environmental Quality Act meeting to receive public comment on December 7, 1999, from 7-9 p.m. at Trinity County Library, 211 N. Main St., Weaverville, California.

The Technical Appendixes (TA) for the DEIS/EIR are available on compact disk and in hard copy upon request from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Office, 1125 16th Street, Room 209, Arcata, CA 95521; (707) 822-7201. The DEIS/EIR will be available at the Fish and Wildlife Service website at http://www.ccfwo.r1.fws.gov.

For Further Information Contact Joe Polos of the US Fish and Wildlife Service at (707) 822-7201.


VII. WEATHER/OCEAN/CLIMATE

LA NIÑA PERSISTS

On October 7, 1999, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center said that ongoing La Niña conditions in the central tropical Pacific will impact temperature and precipitation patterns across the Pacific Northwest region of the United States during the next six months. La Niña conditions developed in May-June 1998, and have persisted since that time.

Speaking at the La Niña Forum during the annual Media and Emergency Management Workshop sponsored by the National Weather Service, Seattle-Tacoma, Ants Leetmaa, director of the Climate Prediction Center, noted that La Niña conditions will likely persist into March 2000. He noted that the La Niña will be a weak-to-moderate episode, and strong enough to impact weather patterns across the Pacific Northwest later this winter. According to Leetmaa:

The Pacific Northwest can expect an increased likelihood of above-normal precipitation during the upcoming winter season. Some areas, including the mountains and intermountain region, may see above-normal snowfalls as a result of an expected La Niña-related increase in storminess across the region. We also expect an increased likelihood of normal to below-normal temperatures in the Pacific Northwest this winter.

IN RELATED NEWS: on October 14, 1999, the Climate Prediction Center issued the following advisory:

At the present subsurface oceanic conditions continue to reflect the ongoing cold episode with no signs of an evolution toward a pre-warm episode state. Thus, it is likely that cold episode conditions will continue for the next several months. This assessment is supported by the most recent NCEP coupled model forecasts and other available coupled model and statistical predictions indicating cold episode conditions persisting through March 2000.

Please refer to the graphic below, comparing current conditions with other La Niña events.

For Further Information on NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center and its forecasts, log onto http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov.

ENSO (El Niño/Southern Oscillation phenomenon) Index: Comparison of current conditions with La Niña events

Source: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/enso.mei_index.html


VIII. MISCELLANEOUS

WATER QUALITY PUBLICATION

The US Geological Survey (USGS) has made available the publication "The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides." This report summarizes major findings of the USGS’s National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). The report presents findings on nutrients and multiple pesticides in surface and ground water from agricultural and urban sources and begins to address aquatic ecosystem health and drinking water issues that stem from these findings. West Coast basins in the study include San Joaquin-Tulare Basin, Willamette Basin, Central Columbia Plateau, and Upper Snake River Basin.

For a Copy of the Report write to the USGS, NAWQA Program, 413-N National Center, Reston, VA 20192; call Tim Miller of the USGS at (703) 648-5716; e-mail nawqa_info@usgs.gov; or visit the USGS homepage at http://www.usgs.gov.

SALMON FRIENDLY POWER

Portland General Electric (PGE) will soon submit a proposal to the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) to offer customers Salmon Friendly Power™—electricity generated from salmon-friendly sources such as low-impact hydropower and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy. Under PGE’s proposed plan, you can choose to have a portion of your power come from salmon-friendly sources starting in January of 2000. Salmon Friendly Power (SFP) will be one of PGE’s green energy choices.

If approved by the OPUC, you will be able to buy up to two 100-kilowatt blocks of SFP. The typical household uses about 1000 kilowatts per month. Each SFP block will cost an additional $5 per month. Half of that money will go to salmon habitat restoration projects in the Tualatin, Clackamas, Santiam, Sandy, Willamette, Johnson Creek and other local Oregon watersheds. The other half will go to pay for the costs associated with producing SFP.

PGE’s partner in the SFP project is For the Sake of the Salmon. For the Sake of the Salmon will be in charge of distributing the proceeds to salmon habitat improvement projects.

For Further Information Contact For the Sake of the Salmon at (503) 223-8511; by e-mail at info@4sos.org; or visit their website at http:// www.4sos.org.


IX. GRANTS

EPA FUNDING PROPOSALS DUE 11/22

Applications are being taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for grants that can be used to develop "innovative ways" to educate the public about the environment. Schools, universities, not-for-profit organizations, tribal education agencies, and state and local governments are eligible for the grants. Applications fall into two categories—those for grants of more than $25,000, and those for less. Grants for the larger amounts are made by EPA headquarters; the smaller grants are made by EPA’s regional offices.

EPA gives special encouragement to applications for grants of $5,000 or less. In 1998, EPA funded projects in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska that had the following goals: Training teachers to be better environmental educators; building state, local and tribal capacity to better design and deliver environmental education; and motivating the public to become more environmentally conscious, and helping them to make responsible and informed environmental decisions.

Applications for the next round of grants must be postmarked by November 22, 1999.

For Further Information and for application forms, write or call:

Environmental Education Grants
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue (EXA-142)
Seattle, WA 98101
(800) 424-4372

For Further Information about the grants program, contact Pam Emerson of EPA’s regional environmental education program in Seattle at the 800 number above or (206) 553-1287; information is also available on the web at http://www.epa.gov/ enviroed/grants.html.


X.UPDATES

CONGRESS

WASHINGTON

OREGON

MISCELLANEOUS

______________

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: 10/27/99.