HABITAT HOTLINE
DECEMBER 1999 NUMBER 45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
After seven-and-a-half years and 45 issues, this marks the last issue of the Habitat Hotline. We will be unable to continue the Hotline because of funding cutbacks from the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration Program (also known the "Wallop-Breaux" program). We are extremely grateful to the USFWS for their support of this publication over the years. In its early years, the Hotline was also supported by the Norcross Wildlife Foundation, so thanks also go to them. Thank you to those (who are too numerous to mention) who have contributed information and insight to the Hotline. The newsletter’s goal of spreading information on the importance of clean water and healthy watersheds to the fishing industry would not have been possible without input from you, our readers.
Stephen Phillips
Editor
I. REGIONAL
COLUMBIA MANAGEMENT AT CROSSROAD
In the next two months, documents will be released by the Clinton Administration (i.e. a group of federal agencies called the "Federal Caucus," which includes the National Marine Fisheries Service) which could determine the survival of salmon and steelhead runs in the Columbia River Basin. Recreational and commercial salmon fishermen along the West Coast, already severely impacted by declining salmon populations, should be scrutinizing the upcoming decision-making processes with much interest. Currently, there are 12 salmon and steelhead stocks listed as "threatened" or "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act in the Columbia River Basin. Without significant improvements in these stocks, the outlook for the fishing industry and fishing dependent communities is all but too obvious.
One of the driving forces behind Columbia Basin fish recovery efforts is a court mandated long-term recovery plan for listed Snake River salmon that was supposed to be ready by the end of 1999. In November, though behind their deadline, the Clinton Administration released the "The Four-H Working Paper: Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish, Building a Conceptual Recovery Plan with the Four Hs." The Working Paper is a precursor to the full Four-H document due out in mid-December.
Also in December, the US Army Corps of Engineers will release the "Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement." The Columbia Basin Multi-Species Framework is also scheduled to be released this month. Described below are synopses of these soon to be released documents.
Adding fire to the salmon recovery issue has been the debate over the fate of the Snake River dams. Conservation groups contend that the current strategy that includes fish barging is a proven failure over the last 20 years, and the scientific consensus for restoring salmon is to return to more natural river conditions (i.e., removing the lower four Snake River dams). On the other side of the issue, industries that depend on electricity, transportation, and water from the Columbia River, contend that dam removal will ruin the economy of the Columbia Basin (especially upriver east of the Cascades) (see related story below).
The Four-H (Habitat, Hatcheries, Harvest, and Hydropower) Working Paper outlines a range of alternatives that could be implemented to recover salmon in the Columbia River Basin. An example of possible options and integrated alternatives from the Four-H working paper can be found on page 3.
According to the Federal Caucus:
Last year, nine federal agencies formed a Federal Caucus to examine opportunities the region has in each of the Hs for recovering listed salmon, steelhead and resident fish. Our intent was to develop a conceptual recovery plan that could guide future federal actions. This Working Paper examines several of the basic options for future management in each of the Four Hs. These options are not intended to be exhaustive. Using these options, the Federal Caucus developed a set of integrated alternatives, or packages of Four-H options, which mix and match the various options. These integrated alternatives are intended to illustrate the type of integrated strategies that will be required.
REACTION: Reaction to the working draft of the Four-H paper has been voluminous:
Will Stelle, National Marine Fisheries Service’s Northwest Regional Director (Source: Seattle Times, 11/16/99):
The status of the fish runs in the Snake are very bad, and if we don’t make changes, they are at real and immediate risk of extinction. If we chose to duck the tough issues because they are too hard, then that choice means a number of these stocks will likely go extinct. Are the governments of the region willing to make commitments necessary to recover these (fish) stocks without removing the dams? That’s an open question. The major question is whether this region has the fortitude to rebuild habitat productivity.
Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) (Source: Seattle Times, 11/16/99):
I’ve always supported and encouraged a broad-based approach to salmon restoration. I believe that if local communities, state officials and federal agencies work together, a solution will be reached to effectively restore the runs.
Bruce Lovelin, Columbia River Alliance (a coalition of northwest navigation, agricultural, labor, community, forest products, industry and electric utility organizations) (Source: Seattle Times, 11/16/99):
Frankly, this could mean a regional civil war. The good news is from the science they don’t have to do breaching. But it doesn’t mean we are off the hook. It could be onerous.
Darryll Olsen, Irrigation Representative, Kennewick, Washington (Source: Seattle Times, 11/16/99):
The dam-removal debate is over. The technical data just doesn’t support it. What this means is [in] the next 10 years [we] will be arguing over water policy. That means pressure on irrigators, municipalities, industrial users, and suburban users. It’s turning the debate in another direction. Everyone’s been infatuated with the charismatic gesture of dam removal. But the real issue isn’t dams. It’s water.
Brian Gorman, National Marine Fisheries Service (Source: Seattle Post Intelligencer, 11/16/99):
If you’re talking purely about biology, about how to bring back salmon, dam-breaching would in many ways be a no-brainer, because it clearly returns the river to the way (the fish) evolved. But that’s a specious argument, because that’s not the way the world is run. Dam-breaching is as lively and debatable an alternative as it was a year ago.
Steve Fick, Salmon For All President, Astoria, Oregon (Source: Seattle Post Intelligencer, 11/16/99):
The numbers speak for themselves. Where you had viable runs prior to construction of the dams, immediately after you put the dams in, you got serious declines in salmon stocks. We want a win-win solution. Their jobs aren’t any more important up there than our jobs are down here.
Liz Hamilton, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association (Source: Seattle Post Intelligencer, 11/16/99):
It’s clear you can do all sorts of things and you won’t recover the salmon unless you breach the dams.
Rob Masonis, American Rivers, Seattle, Washington (Source: Environmental News Network, 11/19/99):
If we don’t remove the dams, the region will be covered by the dark cloud of uncertainty. We would trade the best recovery option with known, affordable costs for a bag of severe new harvest reductions and undefined habitat actions with scant scientific support, no timelines and no price tag. That is a dangerous gamble when several stocks are at immediate risk of extinction."
Save Our Wild Salmon/Trout Unlimited (Source: The Columbia-Snake Current, 11/22/99):
…the 4H Working Paper also performed a valuable and long overdue service. It clearly demonstrated that there is no free lunch; no easy choices for Columbia Basin salmon remain. Politicians who do not want to remove dams must face the facts of additional restrictions on timber, agriculture, and other land and water use, draconian cuts in tribal, sport and commercial fishing, and a potential increase in federal regulation of non-federal lands. More fish in barges and trucks or additional mechanical "chutes and ladders" at the dams won’t cut it. Even NMFS’ new scientific team says that further "techno-fixes" will provide little improvement in salmon survival. The price for avoiding dam removal will be paid by farmers, timber workers, fishermen, Native American tribes, and state and local governments.
Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) (Source: Seattle Times, 11/16/99):
It sounds like the administration has decided it has lost the battle over whether or not it should take down dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers. [But t]he battle over dam removal is far from over.
Options Outlined in the Four-H Working Paper
(Source: Federal Caucus, November 1999)
Options for Habitat
|
Option 1: |
Make modest improvements to protect and restore habitat, primarily through increased federal coordination and federal money. |
|
Option 2: |
Increase the efforts of state, tribal and local governments. Increase federal funding of habitat improvements, particularly by tying funds to water-quality compliance efforts. |
|
Option 3: |
Increase regulation by federal agencies on non-federal land, if state and local governments are unable to ensure adequate habitat restoration programs. |
|
Options for Harvest |
|
|
Option 1: |
Implement the recently completed Pacific Salmon Treaty. Hold harvest at 1999 levels with modest increases if fish populations go up. |
|
Option 2: |
Implement the treaty. Hold in-river harvest rates at the 1999 level until recovery goals are reached. |
|
Option 3: |
Implement the treaty. Further reduce harvest to "crisis levels" for 10 years and then shift to Option 1 or 2. |
|
Options for Hatcheries |
|
|
Option 1: |
Continue current mix of production for harvest and for boosting the number of wild fish. |
|
Option 2: |
Continue production for harvest purposes and increase production of wild stocks. |
|
Option 3. |
Substantially decrease production for harvest and increase production of wild stocks. |
|
Options for Hydropower |
|
|
Option 1: |
Continue present path of making improvements to the system. |
|
Option 2: |
Substantially increase investment in physical improvements to the hydropower system. |
|
Option 3: |
Breach the dams that block salmon passage in the Snake River. |
Sample of Integrated Alternatives
Alternative A (Dam Removal)
Hydro Option 3 Breach lower Snake dams
Habitat Option 1 Increase federal program coordination
Hatcheries Option 1 Continue currently planned programs
Harvest Option 1 Increase harvest during recovery
Alternative B (Harvest Constraints)
Hydro Option 1 Continue currently planned programs
Habitat Option 1 Increase federal program coordination
Harvest Option 3 Increase conservation production; substantially decrease fish for harvest
Harvest Option 3 Further restrict harvest for 10 years
Alternative C (Aggressive Non-breaching)
Hydro Option 3 Aggressively increase non-breaching efforts
Habitat Option 2 Coordinate regional efforts
Hatcheries Option 2 Increase conservation programs
Harvest Option 2 Hold in-river harvests at 1999 levels
Alternative D (Maximum Protection)
Hydro Option 3 Breach lower Snake dams
Habitat Option 3 Increase federal regulation
Hatcheries Option 3 Increase conservation production; reduce production for harvest
Harvest Option 3 Increase harvest cutbacks
NOW WHAT: According to the Federal Caucus, the Four-H paper also considers the possibility of deferring a decision on whether to breach these dams, if (1) the science is incomplete at this time to justify major changes to the hydropower system, or (2) it seems likely the fish runs could be restored through other measures. The full Four-H document will be released in mid-December. Beginning in February of next year, public meetings will be held throughout the region on the Four-H Paper.
For Further Information on the Four-H process, call the Federal Caucus at (509) 358-7415, or go to their web page (note: this page can be used to access all information discussed below) at http://www.bpa.gov/Power/PL/FederalCausus/fcspl.shtml.
For Further Information on the conservation community’s views on this issue, contact: Chris Zimmer of Save Our Wild Salmon at (206) 622-2904, e-mail: chris@wildsalmon.org; Jeff Curtis of Trout Unlimited at (503) 827-5700, e-mail: jcurtis@tu.org; Rob Masonis of American Rivers at (206) 213-0330, e-mail: rmasonis@amrivers.org.
The "Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmon Migration Feasibility Study" focuses on ways to modify the four lower Snake River dams to improve migration of juvenile salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act. Pathways under consideration include maintaining the existing system, making major system improvements, and natural river drawdown and/or dam breaching. This study is important because it factors into the decision-making process on management of the Columbia-Snake system.
NOW WHAT: The Draft Feasibility Study is expected to be released in December 1999.
For Further Information on the feasibility study contact: Nola Conway of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District at (509) 527-7019; or on the web go to http://www.nww.usace. army.mil/html/offices/pl/er/studies/lsrpublic/lsrmain.htm.
The Multi-Species Framework is a collaborative project of the Northwest Power Planning Council (representing the four northwest states), the Columbia River Basin’s Indian Tribes, and the federal government. The framework describes its mission as:
The Multi-Species Framework was initiated by the region’s governments and decision-makers to bring a sense of order, openness, and clarity to the debate about the future of the Columbia River System. The project seeks to link Columbia Basin fish and wildlife restoration policy to a basin-wide vision, based on a scientific foundation that recognizes that the river and its species are interrelated parts of a whole. Once it is developed, the Framework will provide system-wide direction and specific strategies for fish and wildlife recovery, and objectives by which results can be evaluated.
NOW WHAT: This preliminary framework document, due out in December 1999, will provide an analytical base for the Four-H Paper. It will describe the "structure and components of the Columbia River ecosystem, and the biological, economic and social effects of a range of general recovery management approaches."
For Further Information on the Columbia Basin Multispecies Framework, visit their website at http://www.nwframework.org or call them at (503) 222-5161 or (800) 452-5161.
On November 3, 1999, Trout Unlimited and the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund released a study which shows the region will benefit economically in the long-term as a result of dam removal, particularly if it adopts strategies to enhance the positive impacts of a bypass while offsetting the negative effects. According to the study:
The study used and analyzed data collected by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers’ Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup (DREW) in reaching its conclusions. DREW estimated that over 24,000 short-term and 4,700 long-term jobs would be created as a result of bypassing the Lower Snake River dams. In this case, "short-term" refers to the nine-year construction phase of dam bypass. Further, DREW estimated that approximately 6,200 long-term jobs would be lost.
The study, conducted by ECONorthwest, of Eugene, Oregon, examined and analyzed the economic impacts of partially removing the dams and considered the opportunities and steps necessary to offset the negative economic impacts that may occur as a result of that action. Its findings were that not only would bypassing create widespread economic benefits including the creation of more than 3,100 long-term jobs in the recreation industry alone and countless benefits to Native American tribes and the commercial fishing industry, but that the negative impacts that will occur can be addressed and offset through sensible and feasible measures.
By economic sector, the study found:
Construction. Bypassing the dams will generate about 12,000 new jobs during the nine-year bypass phase. The impacts on those currently involved in operation of the dams—estimated to be between 1,193 and 1,651 jobs—could be offset through targeted and affordable worker-retaining programs.
Tribal. Bypassing the dams would provide significant employment and economic benefits for regional Native American tribes. Bypassing will also prevent costly compensation to tribes for failed treaty obligations due to an insufficient number of salmon.
Recreation. Within 20 years after the dams are bypassed, over 3,100 recreation-related jobs worth about $200 million in sales per year will be created.
More importantly, bypassing the dams will restore quality-of-life assets that will return large and widespread economic benefits to the local and regional economy that extend far beyond recreation.
Commercial fishing. While DREW’s analysis of the impact of bypassing the dams on the commercial fishing industry is not complete, the draft report found that increasing salmon populations as a result of bypassing the four Lower Snake River dams will generate positive economic impacts on the commercial fishing industry from California to Alaska.
Irrigated agriculture. If all 13 farm operations that are currently using irrigation systems that rely on the Ice Harbor reservoir cease operating and don’t convert to ground water irrigation, as many as 2,256 jobs could be impacted by bypassing the Lower Snake River dams. In many cases, however, irrigation water lost after dam bypass may be offset through a combination of changes to extend existing wells, investments in irrigation infrastructure and purchase of lower return value operations at fair-market price.
Moreover, the study found that targeting worker retraining programs to farm workers would create long-term benefits to the region and to individual families by helping these workers move from low-skill employment to higher skill, higher paying jobs.
Transportation. While bypassing the Lower Snake River dams will increase transportation costs by approximately $18.6 million per year, steps such as expanding the successful Grain Train program could offset those costs. In addition, a net increase of 236 long-term jobs will be created by expansion in the trucking and rail industries and expanded rail and highway infrastructure will create between 2,554 and 4,362 short-term jobs. Benefits of bypassing also include the end to the US taxpayer-funded subsidies of the Lower Snake River transportation system which currently amount to $10 million per year. Residents of the region also will benefit from the improvements made to the transportation infrastructure.
Electrical consumers. The increase in residential electric rates will average $1.07 to $5.30 per month meaning that, for the vast majority of electrical users, bypassing the dams will still allow electricity consumers in the Pacific Northwest to pay some of the least expensive electrical rates in the nation. For those on fixed incomes and irrigated agricultural producers, affordable steps can be taken to offset the increased costs of electricity.
Water Users. Modification of private, industrial and municipal wells will cost approximately $68 to $111.6 million, affecting approximately 95 of 225 wells within one mile of the Lower Snake River. These modifications will create 1,467 short-term jobs.
For a Copy of the Report, on the web go to http://www.tu.org/library/conservation.html; or call the numbers below.
For Further Information Contact: Jeff Curtis of Trout Unlimited at (503) 827-5700, e-mail: jcurtis@tu.org; Todd True of Earthjustice at (206) 343-7340.
II. FEDERAL
On November 2, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announced the reopening of a public comment period to assist in the development of a final rule for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). According to NMFS, the interim final rule established guidelines to assist the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in the description and identification of EFH in fishery management plans, including the identification of threats and conservation measures. The interim regulations also detailed the procedures that the Secretary, other Federal agencies, state agencies, and the Councils should use to coordinate, consult, or provide recommendations on Federal and state actions that may adversely affect EFH.
NMFS now requests additional comments on four specific issues as follows:
(a) Given the statutory definition of EFH in section 3(10) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act…what suggestions do you have for improving the regulatory guidance regarding the description and identification of EFH, including the breadth of EFH designations, in section 600.815(a)(1) and (2) of the interim final rule?
(b) Section 600.815(a)(3) of the interim final rule addresses fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH. What additional guidance, if any, should the final rule contain on how Councils should document their efforts to minimize the effects of fishing on EFH, to the extent practicable, as required by section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act...?
(c) Has the use of existing environmental review procedures as described in section 600.920(e) of the interim rule been an effective way to handle EFH consultations? What additional guidance, if any, should the final rule provide on how to use existing environmental reviews to satisfy EFH consultation requirements?
(d) Federal action agencies are required by section 600.920(g) of the interim rule to prepare an EFH Assessment as part of the consultation process. How, if at all, should the EFH Assessment requirement be revised in the final rule?
REACTION: According to the Marine Fish Conservation Network, the EFH rule is under attack:
A coalition of industry groups ranging from forest products, to cattle, to electric generators, to homebuilders has been aggressively lobbying NMFS and Congress to gut the EFH regulatory program and its legal underpinnings. They successfully prevented the agency from issuing final regulations in December 1997 and have now cajoled it into entering another round of public comment. This new comment period is designed to delay finalization of the EFH regulations until the opponents are successful in repealing or gutting the law.
As the Federal agency charged with carrying out this law, it is critical that NMFS aggressively protect fish habitat in the following ways:
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Comments on the EFH interim final rule are due 12/23/99. Comments should be sent to:
EFH Coordinator
Office of Habitat Conservation
NMFS
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
Comments can faxed to (301) 713-1043
For a Copy of the interim final rule, go to NMFS’s Office of Habitat Conservation homepage at http://www.nmfs.gov/habitat/.
For Further Information Contact: Jon Kurland of NMFS at (301) 713-2325, fax: (301)-713-1043, e-mail: jon.kurland@noaa.gov; Lee Crockett of the Marine Fish Conservation Network at (202) 543-5509, e-mail: lcmfcn@mindspring.com.
The deadline for public comments on the proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations has been extended until January 20, 2000.
Under the Clean Water Act, every two years, states are required to list their polluted water bodies (called a 303(d) list) and then set priorities for their clean-up through watershed restoration program plans called a Total Daily Maximum Load for each impaired water body. The proposed rule would require states to regulate water pollution by focusing on bodies of water, instead of individual discharges. Federal and state agencies have generally enforced discharge limits on factories and municipal water treatment plants without measuring the quality of the bodies of water involved.
According to the EPA, the proposed regulatory revisions to the TMDL program would:
…address issues of fundamental importance to cleaning up our Nation’s polluted waters. Listing impaired and threatened waters and establishing TMDLs are fundamental tools for identifying remaining sources of water pollution and achieving water quality goals. Clean-up plans [were] developed consistent with these regulatory proposals will help to restore the health of thousands of miles of river and shoreline and make millions of lake acres safe for their designated uses.
The proposed revisions would strengthen EPA’s TMDL requirements to help restore 20,000 waterways nationwide. Under the proposed rule, states will:
REACTION:
President Clinton:
We’re taking new action to ensure that every river, lake and bay in America is clean and safe. The EPA will work in partnership with states to assess the state of all our waterways—to identify the most polluted waters, and to develop strong, enforceable plans to restore them to health. These steps will chart a course to clean up 20,000 waterways and ensure that they remain safe for generations to come.
Carol M. Browner, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator:
To address the remaining water pollution challenges we must now focus our efforts river by river; lake by lake; beach by beach; community by community. Recognizing that no two pollution challenges are identical, EPA is proposing to require site-specific cleanup plans for all remaining polluted waterbodies.
Washington Post Editorial (08/18/99):
The EPA proposes to require the not always willing states to enforce a long-neglected part of the act involving what are known as TMDLs—the total maximum daily loads of given pollutants that a body of water can absorb and still meet the definition of clean. States will have to inventory their lakes and streams, identify—worst cases first—those that, despite the industrial and municipal cleanup that has occurred thus far, are still not clean enough, and figure out how much more each pollutant needs to be reduced to get them clean. Then comes the hard part. The states would have to allocate the further reductions among classes of polluters—so much to come from agriculture, so much from urban areas, so much more from factories and municipal facilities already regulated. Then they would have to come up with plans providing "reasonable assurance" that the reductions would actually occur. Among much else, the regulation envisions a market in pollution reduction, in which those able to reduce pollution more than the law required could sell their excess ability to others having to struggle to comply.
The government was driven to act in part by a series of mostly successful lawsuits by environmental and other private plaintiffs, insisting, in more than half the states, that the TMDL provision be enforced. There is almost sure to be resistance in both courts and Congress. The argument in the courts will be that the EPA lacks the power under the act to regulate generalized urban and agricultural pollution. The effort in Congress will meanwhile be to strip it of such power in the future. The House passed legislation in 1995—it ultimately died in the Senate—that would have weakened the EPA’s enforcement power, and that was well before the administration took the action it now has.
The TMDL proposal provides the framework for accomplishing a necessary task. But enforcement is the key, and ultimately that becomes a political question, or a long string of them. The regulation is unlikely to take formal effect until about the time the Clinton administration is leaving town.
Clean Water Network: In August, members of the Clean Water Network* signed onto a letter to EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Office of Management and Budget Administrator John Spotila asking them to strengthen the proposed regulations. Excerpts from that letter can be found below:
It is critical that EPA’s new TMDL regulations comply with the letter and spirit of the Clean Water Act, and ensure the full restoration of the quality of our nation’s waters. Unfortunately, we understand that the Office of Management and Budget seeks to weaken the proposed regulations in at least the following critical areas. We urge you to ensure that this does not happen.
First, the regulations must make clear that the TMDL program—like the water quality standards program it is designed to implement—applies to non-point sources as well as point sources of pollution. It cannot be disputed that non-point sources cause the vast majority of water quality violations in the nation’s waters and in degrading aquatic habitat. Thus, it is both logical and necessary for the TMDL regulations to establish meaningful mechanisms to trigger the use of EPA’s existing authorities and programs to control non-point source pollution.
Second, the regulations must require that each TMDL include an Implementation Plan that will be reviewed and approved by EPA. Implementation Plans are an essential link between the quantitative, scientifically-based analysis of the TMDLs and the real world actions that must be developed and undertaken by state, local, and federal agencies under other authorities and incentive programs to clean up the pollution.
Third, the regulations must make clear that air deposition is one of the many non-point sources that must be addressed by the TMDL program. The Clean Water Act does not allow EPA to ignore waters impaired by atmospheric depositions merely because the pollution falls from the sky.
Fourth, the regulations must require the completion of TMDLs for all currently listed waters as quickly as possible, and in no event beyond the 8 to 15 year timeline recommended by the Federal Advisory Committee. The pace of TMDL development to date has been so vastly out of step with the mandates of the Clean Water Act that there simply are no more excuses for not rapidly moving forward to meet the goals set for our nation’s waters over 27 years ago.
*The Clean Water Network is a 1,000 strong coalition of groups that advocate the need for strong cleanwater safeguards in order to protect public health and the environment. The Clean Water Network includes a variety of organizations representing environmentalists, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, surfers, boaters, farmers, faith communities, environmental justice advocates, labor unions, urban communities, consumers, recreationists and others. For further information contact Kathy Nemsick, national coordinator at (202) 289-2395 or by e-mail at knemsick@nrdc.org; or visit their website at http://www.cwn.org/.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Written comments on the proposed regulatory revisions to the TMDL program should be sent to:
Comment Clerk for the TMDL Rule
Water Docket (W-98-31)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
***Comments Are Due January 20, 2000 ***
Comments will also be accepted electronically at the following Internet address: ow-docket@ epa.gov.
For a Copy of the TMDL Rule or refer to the Federal Register of August 23, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 162, Page 46011); or on the Internet go to http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/.
For Further Information Contact: Hazel Groman of the EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (4503F), 401 M St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20640, at (202) 401-4078.
IN RELATED NEWS, the EPA is also proposing revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Water Quality Standards (WQS) Regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA). According to the EPA:
The purpose of the proposed revisions to the NPDES and water quality standards regulations is to achieve reasonable further progress toward attainment of water quality standards in impaired waterbodies after listing and pending TMDL establishment, and to provide reasonable assurance that TMDLs, once completed, will be adequately implemented. EPA may also, in the future, promulgate federal water quality standards for states, pursuant to section 303(c)(2)(B), to ensure consistent, nationwide application of the new requirements in the period between listing and TMDL establishment.
Written comments on the proposed regulatory revisions to the NPDES and water quality standards programs should be sent to:
Comment Clerk for the TMDL Rule
Water Docket (W-99-04)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
For Further Information on the NPDES and water quality standards revisions, go to the Internet address above; or refer to the Federal Register of August 23, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 162, Page 46057).
III. WASHINGTON
For a number of years, efforts have been made to station a dedicated rescue tug at the mouth of the Strait of San Juan De Fuca. Proponents of the rescue tug, including the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, argue that an environmental disaster awaits if action is not taken soon. For example, during the November 1998 through April 1999 winter period, at least five vessels went adrift in Washington waters, including one fishing boat, two oil barges, and two cargo/container ships. Four of the incidents occurred off the Washington coast, and one in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Most recently, it appears that a resolution to the tug issue may be forthcoming. In mid-November Vice President Gore and US Representative Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) announced they had assembled taxpayer funding to place a Navy rescue tug at Neah Bay. This is an important victory for protection of the marine ecosystem of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Following the announcement, Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound, and Fred Felleman, northwest representative of Ocean Advocates, met with Vice President Al Gore and the Washington Governor Gary Locke and gave them a letter detailing concerns that must be answered to assure that "the right boat with the right assignment will be put in place." Some excerpts from that letter are reprinted below:
We appreciate your commitment that there will be a rescue tug stationed at Neah Bay by mid-December. Now come the important issues that will ensure that the right boat with the right assignment will be put in place:
For Further Information Contact: People for Puget Sound at (206) 382-7007.
The State of Washington is currently considering proposed changes to their forest practices rules. According to the Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Division, the proposed emergency rules are intended to better protect Washington salmon and other endangered fish from habitat-degrading forest practices while still maintaining a viable timber industry.
As required by the 1999 Legislature, proposed changes are drawn from the recommendations of the "Forests and Fish Report," an April 29, 1999 document developed over two years by representatives of federal, state and local governments, landowners and most of Washington’s tribes. The proposed rule:
NOW WHAT: At its November 16, 1999 meeting, the Forest Practices Board deferred action on adopting the proposed emergency rule. The rule now will be considered by the board at a January 20, 2000 special meeting.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: The special meeting of the Forest Practices Board is scheduled for January 20, 2000 beginning at 9:00 a.m. in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. SE, Olympia.
Public comments on the proposed rule are still being accepted. Comments should be sent to:
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Forest Practices Division
1111 Washington Street SE
Olympia, WA 98504-7000
For Further Information Contact: Judith Holter, Forest Practices Board Rules Coordinator, DNR-Forest Practices Division at (360) 902- 1412.
For a Copy of the 90-page document detailing all proposed changes and fact sheets of what the rules would do is available by calling the number above, and on the Forest Practices Board web site at: www.wa.gov/dnr, then click on "Forestry Module: Forests and Fish Report."
IV. OREGON
On Sept. 8, 1999, the Independent Multi-Disciplinary Scientific Team (IMST*), appointed by the Oregon State Legislature to review scientific issues related to salmon restoration, issued a 90-page analysis of the sufficiency of the Oregon Forest Practices Act. The report is entitled "Recovery of Wild Salmonids in Western Oregon Forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act Rules and the Measures in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Technical Report 1999-1" (note: the IMST will be issuing similar reports on other land use practices in the future).
[*Members of IMST are: Logan Norris, Team Chair, Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University; John Buckhouse, Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University; Wayne Elmore, Bureau of Land Management, US Department of Interior; Stanley Gregory, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University; Kathleen Kavanagh, Extension Service and Forest Resources, Oregon State University; James Lichatowich, Alder Fork Consulting; William Pearcy, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University.]
On the question whether current forest practice rules and measures with regard to riparian buffers, large wood, sedimentation, and fish passage at road-stream crossings adequate to achieve the mission of the Oregon Plan, the IMST concluded:
…that current rules for riparian protection, large wood management, sedimentation, and fish passage are not adequate to reserve depressed stocks of wild salmonids. They are not adequate because they are dominated by site- and action-specific strategies. While these are important as an initial step in accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan, they are not sufficient for the recovery of critical habitat for wild salmonids.
The IMST provided recommendations that "are intended to both reinforce and enhance the site-specific Rules of the OFPA [Oregon Forest Practices Act] and measures of the Oregon Plan and provide a bridge to management that incorporates a landscape perspective." Recommendations regarding the existing forest policy framework are as follows:
Recommendation 3. Treat non-fish-bearing streams the same as small, medium, and large fish-bearing streams when determining buffer-width protection.
Recommendation 4. Provide increased riparian protection for the 100-year floodplains and islands.
Recommendation 5. Increase the conifer basal-area requirement and the number-of-trees requirement for RMAs, with increases in these requirements for medium and small streams regardless of fish presence.
Recommendation 6. Complete the study of the effectiveness of the OFPA rules in providing large wood for the short- and long-term.
Recommendation 7. Provide enhanced certainty of protection for "core areas."
Recommendation 8. Develop and implement standards or guidelines that reduce the length of roadside drainage ditches that discharge into channels.
Recommendation 9. Implement the standards and guidelines for the length of roadside drainage ditch between cross-drainage structures, especially on steep-gradient roads.
Recommendation 10. Require the flow capacity of cross-drainage structures and stream-crossing structures and culverts to meet current design standards.
Recommendation 11. Provide for the stabilization of roads not constructed to current standards (including "old roads and railroad grades") in critical locations. Stabilization means reduction or elimination of the potential for failure. It includes a variety of strategies ranging from removal to abandonment, entirely or of sections, by which specific roads and railroad grades become a much less important source of sediment.
Recommendation 12. Require durable surfacing on wet-season haul roads and require that hauling cease before surfaces become soft or "pump" sediment to the surface.
Recommendation 13. Retain trees on "high risk slopes" and in likely debris torrent tracks to increase the likelihood that large wood will be transported to streams when landslides and debris torrents occur.
Recommendation 14. Continue to apply the current best management practices (BMP) approach to the management of forest lands with significant landslide potential, and develop a better case history basis for evaluating the effectiveness of BMP in this area.
Recommendation 15. Modify culverts and other structures to permit the passage of juvenile and adult salmonids upstream and downstream at forest road-stream crossings.
NOW WHAT: In January 1999, pursuant to Governor John Kitzhaber’s executive order on salmon and watersheds, the Oregon Board of Forestry created the Ad Hoc Forest Practices Advisory Committee (Committee) on Salmon and Watersheds to evaluate forest practices concerns. Made up of representatives of an array of interests, the Committee is charged with making recommendations to the Oregon Department of Forestry and the board on any revisions to the Oregon Forest Practices Act or changes in incentive or voluntary approaches that could improve salmon habitat safeguards. The Committee is scheduled to present their recommendations and reports to the Oregon Board of Forestry in April of next year. The board will then deliberate on the Committee’s report through next spring and summer and decide if and what regulatory changes are needed.
IN RELATED NEWS, in a November 12 letter to Governor Kitzhaber and the Oregon legislature, the IMST responded to questions posed to its September report by the Ad Hoc committee and the Oregon legislature’s Joint Interim Committee on Stream Restoration and Species Recovery. In response to the question:
The Report seems to emphasize regulations as the strategy for accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan. Is this the intent of the Team?
The IMST answered as follows:
The Team believes that accomplishing the mission of the Oregon Plan will require a combination of voluntary and regulatory strategies. Complete reliance on either one is not likely to be successful.
For Further Information regarding the Ad Hoc Committee, contact: Cassandra Webber of the Department of Forestry at (503) 945-7424.
For a Copy of the IMST report on the web go to http://www.oregon-plan.org/reports.html.
V. CALIFORNIA
On October 20, 1999, a coalition of environmental and fishing groups announced that as the result of a lawsuit, the National Marine Fisheries Service has agreed to issue protective regulations for California’s populations of steelhead trout. All steelhead populations in California are either listed as "threatened," "endangered" or as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Please refer to the steelhead listing map on page 15.
The coalition which sued NMFS includes the Center for Biological Diversity, Alameda Creek Alliance, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Northern California Council Federation of Flyfishers, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Salmon Protection And Watershed Network, South Yuba River Citizen’s League, and the Coastside Habitat Coalition. The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys Brendan Cummings of Berkeley and Lawrence Sanders of Nevada City. Below is a press release on the agreement by the coalition:
The agreement affects coastal steelhead runs from the Russian River in Sonoma County, south to the Santa Maria River in San Luis Obispo County, as well as the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. "Finally, a bit of good news for stream protection," said Jeff Miller, spokesperson for the Alameda Creek Alliance, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "It’s important to get these regulations in place, to stop the kinds of fish kills, habitat destruction, and de-watering events we’ve seen in steelhead streams throughout California. The next step is to ensure that these protective regulations adequately address the major threats to steelhead: dams, water diversions, and habitat destruction."
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) agreed to issue protective regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for Central Valley, Central California Coast, and South-Central California Coast populations of steelhead. The regulations will protect numerous steelhead streams around the state where there have been recent fish kills or habitat destruction; including the Sacramento River, the Yuba River in Yuba County, Lagunitas Creek in Marin County, Alameda Creek in Alameda County, the Guadalupe River in Santa Clara County, Gazos Creek in San Mateo County, the Carmel and Salinas Rivers in Monterey County, and Santa Rosa and Arroyo Grande Creeks in San Luis Obispo County.
"We’re moving along the road to recovery for steelhead," said Peter Galvin, Conservation Biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. "The regulations are a necessary step if we want future generations to be able to enjoy watching steelhead return to local streams."
Historically, steelhead likely numbering in the millions once migrated up California streams each year during spawning season. Impacts from the construction of dams and water diversions, as well as logging, grazing, and gravel mining had reduced annual steelhead numbers in the areas covered by the lawsuit to about 150,000 in the 1960s. It is estimated that currently less than 20,000 of the fish return to these same areas (Central Valley, and central and south-central coast) each year.
Eight steelhead advocacy groups had filed suit in San Francisco Federal District Court on June 22, charging NMFS with unreasonable delay in issuing protective regulations (known as "take" prohibitions) mandated under section 4(d) of the ESA. NMFS listed central and south-central California coast populations of steelhead as threatened species in August 1997, and Central Valley populations in March 1998. The lawsuit documented fish kills resulting from water diversions or de-watering events, insufficient stream flows, barriers to migration, and destruction of steelhead habitat that had occurred in 34 California streams with threatened steelhead since the ESA listings.
Unlike endangered species, a "threatened" listing designation affords no federal protection from "take" under the ESA until 4(d) regulations are issued. 4(d) rules define take and prohibit harm to the fish either by direct killing or by adverse modification of their habitat.
Environmentalists and fishing groups have been pushing for the protective regulations since the listings.
The agreement, signed by Federal District Court Judge Susan Illston, provides that NMFS will issue a proposed 4(d) rule no later than December 15, 1999, and issue a final rule for the protective regulations by June 19, 2000.
A similar agreement for protective regulations has been reached regarding threatened populations of steelhead in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, in response to a concurrent lawsuit brought by conservation groups in those states.
For Further Information Contact: Jeff Miller of the Alameda Creek Alliance at (510) 845-4675; Peter Galvin of the Center For Biological Diversity at (510) 841-0812; Brendan Cummings, Attorney for Plaintiffs at (510) 848-5486.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
National River Cleanup Week will be June 3-10, 2000. Each year, National River Cleanup Week promotes the importance of keeping rivers and streams clean and encourages cleanups of local waterways. In 1999, more than 30,000 volunteers took part in the cleanup. This experience helps communities focus attention on neglected waterways and stimulates cleanups of blighted areas. Civic clubs, businesses, paddlesports enthusiasts, fishing groups, outfitters and conservation groups join together in many areas to organize and execute cleanups of their selected streams.
"Diverse groups often work together and that’s one of the most rewarding aspects of a stream cleanup," said David Brown, Executive Director of America Outdoors. America Outdoors coordinates National River Cleanup Week by assisting local groups with information on how to conduct a successful river cleanup. Groups that register their cleanups with America Outdoors are also eligible to receive free trash bags if their cleanups fall during the specified week. America Outdoors also provides educational materials and safety tips on conducting cleanups of waterways. A video on How to Conduct and Organize a River Cleanup, narrated by former CBS News White House correspondent Bob Pierpoint, is available for $9.95.
For Further Information Contact: America Outdoors by phone at (423) 558-3595, or by e-mail at amoutdoors@aol.com.
WEST COAST SALMON AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
STEELHEAD LISTING STATUS MAP
* An Evolutionarily Significant Unit or "ESU" is a distinctive group of Pacific salmon, steelhead, or sea-run cutthroat trout.
Source: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1salmon/salmesa/stlhesum.htm
The Portland-based River Network recently released "The Clean Water Act, An Owners Manual." This 157-page document explains crucial sections of the Clean Water Act, and, according to the River Network Executive Director Ken Margolis, makes the "Clean Water Act comprehensible and usable for every American working to protect or restore a watershed."
The manual contains case studies to put some "flesh on the bones" of dry legal and administrative description. It also contains avenues for citizen involvement in decision-making and the relationship between the Clean Water Act and other federal legislation. It also has a set of references.
The cost of the manual is $20 for River Network Partners, $25 for non-partners, plus two dollars for shipping and handling. It can be ordered by writing the River Network at 520 SW Sixth Ave, Suite 1130, Portland Oregon 97204-1535, or call (503) 241-3506, e-mail: cdays@reivernetwork.org.
VII. UPDATES
Now What: On 11/23/99, Jonathan Brinckman of The Oregonian reported that Will Stelle, regional director of NMFS, hinted in a November Portland news conference that the dredging project could face increased scrutiny. Stelle was quoted as saying "Any major disruption in the lower river that could disrupt the rearing habitat really needs to be looked at." As required by the Endangered Species Act, the US Army Corps of Engineers is required to consult with NMFS on projects that impact on ESA listed species.
ESA-listed species in the Methow River include Upper Columbia River Basin steelhead and spring-run chinook salmon stocks (both "endangered").
Last summer, according to the article, irrigators were enraged over the shutdown of ditches that flow on federal land last summer to protect lists salmon and steelhead and are fearful of more ditch closures will occur this summer. According to the article, many at the hearing questioned the science behind increasing water flow levels in the streams, the legality of closing irrigation ditches, and raised concerns as to whether similar actions are being taken with hydroelectric dams and fishermen. Pete LaRock, a Twisp irrigator, pointed to a 1992 US Fish and Wildlife Service study that indicated irrigation ditches help fish productivity in the Methow River because they return water to the system during low flow, and add warmer water to the coldest system in the region. "The more we irrigate, the better it is for fish," he said.
According to the article, Tom Fitzsimmons, director of the State’s Department of Ecology, said in the absence of an agreement, Ecology will probably stop issuing water rights changes or transfers, and may stop all well drilling in the Methow Valley. He said a reevaluation of water rights in the basin would probably begin. Bob Turner of NMFS said if the Okanogan County commissioners don’t sign on, enforcement of the Endangered Species Act will continue, and the federal agency will come up with target flow levels with less input from local residents. The final agreement could be ready by mid-December.
The Staff of Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission wishes you a joyous holiday season and a safe new millenium!
______________
EDITOR’S NOTE: 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: 12/08/99.