[Fishlink] ~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 2/15/02<~~
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
Wed, 20 Feb 2002 01:13:39 EST
--part1_103.10f52cbf.29a49893_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
##########################################################
~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 2/15/02<~~
##########################################################
A WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND
LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES
AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS
VOL. 5, NO. 07 15 FEBRUARY 2002
##########################################################
"The great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."...Anonymous
##########################################################
IN THIS ISSUE.......
CANCELLATION OF CALIFORNIA OCS LEASES IN
SWAP FOR OIL DRILLING IN GULF. 5:07.01
NMFS ACCEPTS DELISTING PETITIONS FOR PACIFIC
SALMON AND STEELHEAD. 5:07/04
SENATE FARM BILL PASSES WITH FUNDING FOR
KLAMATH, LABELING OF FARMED FISH. 5:07/05; 5:07/06
IRS RULES GROUNDFISH DISASTER RELIEF
NON-TAXABLE. 5:07/14
AND MORE......
##########################################################
This week's issue of Sublegals is available in PDF format on the web at
www.sublegals.net. We have also pasted the text below for those who
still wish to read it through your email. In the coming weeks we will be
posting all past issues as well as a search engine. In addition to this new
look, we are continuing our Sublegals Fundraiser to support the Institute
for Fisheries Resources and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations in publishing this weekly newsletter free of charge. We
have recently passed our 100th issue, with very little funding, and are
looking to our readers to sustain the continuation of this effort. Go to
www.sublegals.net to donate to this effort. Thank you for your support
of community fisheries education.
##########################################################
5:07/01. DEAL TO TERMINATE UNDEVELOPED OCS LEASE
SITES OFF CALIFORNIA?: A deal has reportedly been struck by U.S.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to terminate undeveloped offshore oil
tracts along the California coast and, in return, permit new leases in the
Gulf of Mexico. The offshore tracts in question had been leased by the
U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) between 1968 and 1984,
prior to the current moratorium on offshore oil drilling on the outer
continental shelf (OCS) along the California coast. A federal district
court last year halted development of the leases, but the Bush
Administration appealed the order, seeking to lift the ban on drilling (see
Sublegals, 5:02/01). According to a 15 February San Francisco
Chronicle article, Boxer, together with her Senate colleagues, Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA), John Breaux (D-LA) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA),
have proposed the "California Coastal Protection & Louisiana Energy
Enhancement Act," an amendment to the Senate Energy Bill authorizing
all undeveloped off-shore oil leases in the Santa Barbara Channel and
Santa Maria Basin off California to be cancelled. Oil companies, instead,
would have the option to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. The companies
would agree to drop a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed in January against
the Interior Department and to not sue in the future. The initiative would
close a loophole in the drilling moratorium on the California coast, while
giving willing Louisiana politicians the chance to lure oil companies to
the Gulf of Mexico.
"I'm announcing a measure to permanently stop the 40 offshore oil
tracts off the California coast," Boxer told the Chronicle. "We're going
to swap so the oil companies can drill where there is support for
drilling." The Act would direct Interior Secretary Gale Norton to offer
from $1 to $2.8 billion in bidding credits to the 14 oil companies that
hold existing but undeveloped oil leases off California. Additionally, the
legislation would call for creating a 360-square-mile ecological preserve
to "protect traditional fishing grounds and for conservation, scientific,
and recreational benefits." U.S. Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) will
offer a companion bill in the House of Representatives. To see the
Chronicle article, go to:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/02/
15/MN181832.DTL
5:07/02. OTTAWA READY TO LIFT CANADA'S FEDERAL
DRILLING MORATORIUM IF B.C. DOES: As California prepares to
stop once-and-for-all any new oil drilling off its coast, British Columbia
may begin going ahead. The Vancouver Province reported on 10
February that Canada's federal government in Ottawa will approve the
removal of its long-standing federal moratorium on B.C. offshore oil
development if the provincial Liberal government requests it. "If the
province feels it wants to lift its own moratorium on offshore drilling,
then it can request that the federal government do the same. Once B.C.
makes that request, we'll do the consultations," commented Canadian
Natural Resources Director Herb Dhaliwal.
Ottawa is awaiting a report by the B.C.-government appointed
offshore oil and gas scientific panel that is studying whether oil and gas
resources can safely be extracted with minimal environmental impacts.
The region targeted for exploitation is the Queen Charlotte Basin,
including Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and Queen Charlotte
Strait, with estimated reserves worth $100 billion (Canadian). Many
B.C. groups oppose offshore oil development, citing potential fisheries
damage and massive federal subsidies. The Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives has also released a study showing that west coast offshore
drilling would not bring B.C. anywhere near the wealth or jobs promised
by the industry. For the full story see:
http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory.asp?id=2C58A
170-36CB-4075-A21A-08703F560D8F. Canada has had its share of
offshore oil platform disasters, including the loss of 84 lives when the
SEDCO 706 oil platform collapsed after being hit by a rogue wave on 14
February 1982 off the coast of Newfoundland.
5:07/03. IFR, PCFFA TO MEET IN EUREKA: The Institute for
Fisheries Resources (IFR) Board of Trustees will meet Monday, 25
February, at the Woodley Island Marina, in Eureka, California. Much of
the agenda will be devoted to a review of IFR's current programs. On
the following day, the 26th, the Board of Directors of the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) will meet in the same
location. Agenda items for that meeting include crab litigation, the
upcoming salmon season, marine protected areas, and state and federal
legislation. Also the PCFFA Directors will be planning for the 30th
Annual Legislative Fisheries Forum that will be held 13 March at the
California State Capitol in Sacramento. For more information on the IFR
meeting, call (415) 561-3474; for more information on the PCFFA
meeting, call (415) 561-5080.
5:07/04. NMFS ACCEPTS DELISTING PETITIONS FOR
ESA-LISTED SALMON AND STEELHEAD: On 11 February the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) formally accepted six
petitions by various landowner, developer and property rights groups and
the Pacific Legal Foundation to completely eliminate Endangered
Species Act (ESA) protections for 14 of the 25 groups of salmon and
steelhead that are currently ESA protected on the west coast. This
formal acceptance, however, is an acknowledgement only that the
petitions "present substantial scientific and commercial information,"
and is not a ruling on their merits. NMFS now has 12 months to make a
final decision to delist or not on the basis of these petitions.
The accepted petitions cover Snake River spring/summer chinook;
Snake River fall chinook; Puget Sound chinook; Lower Columbia River
chinook; Upper Columbia River spring chinook; Hood Canal summer
chum; Columbia River chum; Upper Columbia River steelhead; Snake
River Basin steelhead; Lower Columbia River steelhead; Middle
Columbia River steelhead; Southern Oregon/Northern California coho;
Upper Willamette River chinook, and Upper Willamette River steelhead.
These six petitions are the first wave of several more expected to be filed
by agribusiness, development and industrial interests seeking to avoid
fish protections altogether. All of the petitions are based on the same
theory used by Pacific Legal Foundation in the Alsea Valley Alliance
case, asserting that hatchery and wild fish are genetically
indistinguishable and that since any number of hatchery fish can be
artificially produced at any time, the species would never be in danger of
extinction and do not merit ESA protection (see Sublegals 5:06/02;
4:28/19; 4:20/08; 4:19/05; 4:18/02; 4:11/02). The delisting petitions are
a way to overcome existing six-year statute of limitations problems that
prevent legal attacks on some of these listings.
Concurrent with considering the petitions, and partially to head off
similar delisting petitions, NMFS has decided on its own to review the
ESA status of 14 of the 15 petitioned stocks, plus an additional 11 more
stocks, including Sacramento River winter-run chinook, California
Central Valley spring-run chinook, California Coastal chinook; Central
California Coast coho, Southern Oregon/Northern California coho and
several others. NMFS is also reviewing its hatchery fish ESU
("evolutionarily significant unit") inclusion policy as a separate issue.
For more information, copies of the petitions, and the Federal Register
notice go to: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/occd/PetitionFindingsFRN.html.
5:07/05. SENATE FARM BILL PASSES WITH $175 FOR
KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION: On 13 February the U.S. Senate
approved its version of the $45 billion five-year Farm Bill (S. 1731) by a
margin of 58-40. The bill contains a provision sponsored by U.S.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) that would specifically reallocate $175
million from existing Department of Agriculture conservation programs
to help solve the problems in the Klamath Basin (see Sublegals 4:25/03;
4:24/06). The provision (Sec. 2 of Subtitle E of the bill) would establish
a Klamath Basin Interagency Task Force for "promoting agricultural
production and environmental quality as compatible Klamath Basin
goals," and give it one year to take public input and develop a five-year
comprehensive restoration plan for the whole Klamath Basin. The Task
Force is required also to "consult with environmental, fishing and
agricultural interests" as well as the Tribes, and to hold meetings "at
least once every 3 months in the Klamath Basin with opportunities for
stakeholder participation."
The Klamath Water Users Association opposed the Wyden provision
because it wanted statutory guarantees of water for irrigation from the
Klamath Irrigation Project, a demand nearly impossible to satisfy during
drought years. Other irrigation groups oppose its potential to allow the
repurchase of land or water rights from willing sellers. Most experts
believe, however, that the limited water available in the arid Upper
Klamath Basin cannot sustainably support the present levels of irrigation
demand. There is also an active group of willing sellers in the Klamath
Project who see overall demand reduction as the only economically
viable option for maintaining commercially viable agriculture in the
Upper Basin.
U.S. Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), who initially supported the
Wyden provision as a necessary compromise, ultimately voted against
the Farm Bill and has pledged to seek changes to the Wyden provision
on behalf of the irrigators. The House has already passed its own
version of the Farm Bill, but that version contained no similar Klamath
Basin provision and the differences between the two bills must now be
hashed out in closed-door Conference Committee, then the final
compromise adopted by both chambers. To research the bill, use the
Library of Congress THOMAS system at: http://thomas.loc.gov.
5:07/06. STATE LABELING BAN OMITTED FROM FARM BILL,
BUT COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABEL REQUIRED FOR
AQUACULTURE FISH: An amendment to the Senate Farm Bill, SA
2606, "The National Uniformity for Food Act," by Senator Tim
Hutchinson (R-AR), was tabled for further deliberation last week. This
broad amendment would prohibit states from providing information
regarding potential health risks posed by a food product. Consumers and
states would also lose the right to know whether seafood products are
farmed or wild, or where and how they are caught. Additionally,
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could not be labeled as such.
The U.S Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is still floundering about
the health impacts of GMOs, despite sufficient evidence of the need for
tighter precautionary measures around this technology, still in its
developing stages. Because the FDA has not responded to the massive
number of public comments demanding labeling and pre-market safety
testing, some states have initiated their own policies that could better
provide human health and environmental safeguards for their
constituents. These citizen protection measures would have been
nullified under the Hutchinson amendment. While the Senate tabled
language to prohibit states from enacting food labeling, it did pass an
amendment by U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) requiring
country-of-origin labeling for aquacultured fish and shellfish products,
including "fillets, steaks, nuggets, and any other flesh from a farm-raised
fish or shellfish." This labeling requirement, however, does not apply to
food service establishments. To view the Hutchinson amendment or the
Wellstone amendment, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/; for more
information on the Hutchinson amendment and seafood labeling, go to
www.ifrfish.org.
5:07/07. CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE TO LABEL GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED FOODS: An initiative is currently in circulation to
mandate the labeling of Genetically Engineered (GE) foods. Simon
Harris, of the Organic Consumers Association, is the proponent for the
initiative. It would require that all foods sold or distributed in or from
California that contain, or are produced with, "genetically engineered
material" shall bear labels stating: "Genetically engineered. NOTICE:
This product contains genetically engineered material or was produced
with genetically engineered material."
The initiative would further require labels for "genetically engineered
foods" to specify (1) changes in a food's composition, nutritional value,
or required preparation steps that are due to genetic engineering, (2)
details of any "trans-species gene transfer," and (3) details of any transfer
of animal genes into plants. If the initiative collects the required number
of signatures it will be appear on the 5 March ballot. For more
information see: www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#circulating.
For more information on the Organic Consumers Association go to:
www.organicconsumers.org.
5:07/08. EPA PESTICIDES AND SALMON LAWSUIT
SETTLEMENT TALKS IMPLODE, PESTICIDE EXPOSURE DATA
GOES PUBLIC: Recent studies by the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) indicate that pesticides may severely impact salmon
survival and reproductive capabilities, even at very low but sustained
exposure levels. These studies prompted a lawsuit by pesticide reform
advocates and PCFFA in February of 2001 (see Sublegals 3:18/02;
3:05/02). The suit mandates consultation, as required by the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
development of ways to minimize the impact of these pesticides on
salmonids. The EPA has thus far neglected to meet these consultation
requirements. Now, after months of negotiations, the Bush
Administration, under pressure from pesticide industry and agribusiness
groups, has pulled the plug on settlement talks and the case will go to
court.
On 5 February co-plaintiffs Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
Pesticides (NCAP) and Washington Toxics Coalition published
documents taken from EPA's own files, showing that several commonly
used pesticides now occur in nearly every major salmon producing river
system on the west coast at levels well above the aquatic life criteria
maximums. The full report, "Poisoned Waters," is available on the web
at: www.pesticide.org/CleanWaterSalmon.html. In 2000, IFR, NCAP
and others co-published a scientific summary of the recent research
showing long-term and chronic pesticide impacts on salmon, which is on
the web at: http://ifrfish.org/salpest.htm.
5:07/09. 60-DAY NOTICE TO SUE FILED OVER LACK OF
OREGON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 70 POLLUTANTS:
Citing Oregon inaction, on 11 February Northwest Environmental
Advocates (NWEA) filed a 60-Day Notice To Sue under the Clean
Water Act, threatening legal action against the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to require it to promulgate water quality
standards for Oregon for at least 70 chemical pollutants. The State of
Oregon has failed to set any standards for these pollutants, many of them
commonly found in state water bodies, and the agency in charge of
setting these standards, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), has been frequently criticized for inaction and lack of
enforcement. Under the Clean Water Act, if a state does not set such
standards the EPA can assume that authority. For more information on
the letter, contact Nina Bell at: (503) 295-0490. NWEA's web site is at:
http://www.northwestenvironmentaladvocates.org.
5:07/10. NEW CALIFORNIA FOCUS ON RECYCLED WATER:
California Governor Gray Davis announced late last month the
availability of state monies totaling $88 million for state water quality
projects. These loans and grants are a result of Proposition 13, the Water
Bond Act of 2000, which authorized $2 billion in funding for clean
water and safe parks. Projects to be funded include 1) $24 million to
provide 21 million gallons of recycled water daily for irrigation
customers in Dublin-San Ramon Services District-East Bay Municipal
Utility District (EBMUD) Recycled Water Authority; 2) $5 million to
Orange County Water District; 3) $36 million for San Diego County to
substitute recycled wastewater for the fresh water currently used for
landscaping irrigation; 4) $4.4 million for the EBMUD towards
providing 700,000 gallons of recycled water daily for irrigation and
industrial uses in the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville and
Oakland. Water recycling projects are important for California's
fisheries, since they can mean less of a draw on water from rivers that is
destined for estuaries, such as San Francisco Bay (see Sublegals,
4:26/01). For more information on the program:
http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_pressroom_main.jsp?a=a.
As required by AB 331, passed by the California Legislature in 2001,
the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) will convene
the 2002 Recycled Water Taskforce for their first meeting later this
month or in March. The taskforce will advise CDWR in making
recommendations to the legislature regarding further use of recycled
water, statutes related to recycled water, and water conservation, among
other topics. Proposed recommendations are due to the legislature by
July 2003. To view a copy of the bill: www:dwr.water.ca.gov/legislation
or contact Fawzi Karajeh, Water Recycling & Desalination Program at
(916) 651-9669 or fkarajeh@water.ca.gov.
5:07/11. WASHINGTION STATE STUDY FINDS MOST
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTS FAIL: Mitigation for
development projects that destroy wetlands often depends on restoring
wetlands somewhere else. However, the success record of efforts to
recreate wetlands after natural wetlands have been destroyed is mixed.
A soon to be released study by the State of Washington, for instance,
found that only 13 percent of state-mandated wetlands mitigation
projects designed to compensate for destroyed wetlands elsewhere were
fully successful. The study, conducted by the Washington State
Department of Ecology, also found that wetlands mitigation done by
private developers is about twice as likely to succeed as projects paid for
by taxpayer dollars. Wetlands, particularly coastal wetlands, are vitally
important and serve as spawning and/or nursery habitat for an estimated
85 percent of commercially fished species, including salmon. For more
information on the report see the 2 February issue of the Everett Herald
at: http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/02/2/2/15040324.cfm.
5:07/12. CORPS COLUMBIA DREDGING PLAN LAMBASTED,
ANNOUNCEMENT TO GIVE UP TWO DUMPING SITES VIEWED
WITH CAUTION: The Daily Astorian reported 5 February that the Port
of Portland's latest plans for the Columbia River shipping channel
includes a goal to deepen the river 106 miles from Portland to Astoria,
which is reportedly too shallow for the majority of vessels in the
trans-Pacific trade. The dredging project has met widespread opposition
due to concerns over fishery resources, toxins and heavy metals, the
health of Cathlamet Bay, and poor communication between the Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) and local community members. One of the
opponents, Cyndy DeBruler, Executive Director of Columbia
Riverkeeper, has proposed the creation of a Citizen Advisory Panel
made up of stakeholders to develop an estuary restoration plan. COE
issued a revised Biological Assessment on 3 January (See Sublegals
5:02/17), but the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must give their approval and funding
must be found before any action will take place. For more information
on the Daily Astorian article, e-mail forum@dailyastorian.com To view
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Biological Assessment:
www.nwp.usace.army.mil/issues/CRCIP/pubs.htm
In related news, The Daily Astorian reported 6 February that the COE
will no longer consider the use of two ocean disposal sites for sediment
dredged from the Columbia River's mouth. However, they are taking
public comment on six additional disposal sites (2:01/15, 2:14/8,
2:06/10, 4:04/12). Dale Beasley, President of the Columbia River Crab
Fishermen's Association, called the site withdrawals "carpet-bombing for
effect." Beasley said, "They're required by law to look at the site's
impact to fisheries, and there's a tremendous amount of fishery in those
areas. It wouldn't take much to see that these sites are (illegal)." Area
crab fishermen were pleased with the decision though remaining
concerned about where dredge spoils will be dumped. Of considerable
concern is the "Deep Water Dump Site" that produces an estimated
122,000 pounds of quality Dungeness crab every year. The six-mile area,
where dredge spoils are known to amplify wave heights, is also where
the Miss Brittany incident occurred that took the lives of two
Washington crabbers last fall (4:09/15). Some of the sites still under
consideration have never undergone an environmental assessment
regarding the effects to fisheries. Eric Braun, COE project manager said
that on-shore disposal at Washington's Benson Beach, a disposal site
favored by crabbers, remains an option. For information on dredging in
the Columbia River go to the COE website:
http or, for
alternative views of the dredging, go to:
http://www.tidepool.org/features/id.addictedindex.cfm
5:07/13. FARMED B.C. SABLEFISH HIT MARKET, HALIBUT
NEXT?: A British Columbia fish farm put some of the first farmed
sablefish (black cod) on the market in January, according to a 7 February
story by Fish Information Services (FIS). However, Totem Seafoods in
Jervis Inlet, B.C. delivered the 750 five-pound sablefish more as a trial
test of the market, since the farm operations for that fish are still
experimental, but company owner Gus Angus believes there is a bright
rs last fall (4:09/15). Some of the sites stillfuture for farmed sablefish
once it hits the market in
bulk. However,
Canadian sablefish fishermen's groups, particularly the Canadian
Sablefish Association (www.canadiansablefish.com) are alarmed at
Canada's support and subsidies for sablefish farming. The Canadian
Department of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO) announced grants of $150,000
(Canadian) July 2000 to help the farm sablefish industry develop
hatchery technologies, which can also be used to farm halibut, and has
supported the development of the industry in several other ways.
Moreover, a recent study prepared for the Canadian government shows
that once farmed sablefish get up to volume it could depress the wild
fish market by 40 percent of the current price for the fish, driving many
ocean fishermen out of business. A private firm, Island Scallops Ltd., is
already hatching sablefish for sale to grow-out sites, and company
President Robert Saunders believes there is huge potential in sablefish
aquaculture. "I think there is lots of risk, but obviously we are continuing
to push ahead with production," he said. The report also predicted that
B.C. production of farmed sablefish could hit 16,000 tons by 2021.
More information is available by date at: http://www.fis.com.
5:07/14. IRS RULES THAT GROUNDFISH DISASTER RELIEF
IS NON-TAXABLE; BILL INTRODUCED TO ALLOW FISHERMEN
TO USE CCF MONEY FOR RETIREMENT: At the urging of U.S.
Representative Darlene Hooley (D-OR), whose district includes much of
the Northern Oregon coast, and of Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who
played a key role in getting economic disaster relief funds for west coast
groundfish fishermen, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ruled that
those relief payments are non-taxable and do not have to be declared as
income. The Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program (GDOP), primarily
Wyden's initiative, provides transition income directly to fishermen in
the amount of $1,000/month for single fishermen, and $1,500/month for
married fishermen, for a maximum of nine months for those who are out
of work because of groundfish quota cutbacks. The IRS ruling applies to
both the original payments in FY 2001 as well as those being distributed
currently.
Wyden, along with Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), has also
introduced a bill to allow commercial fishermen in the collapsed
groundfish fishery to draw on their Capital Construction Fund (CCF)
savings for non-fishing purposes without incurring severe tax penalties.
The bill, called the "Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal
Act," (S. 1962) allows fishermen to retire with their funds instead of
requiring them to buy or refit another fishing vessel in an already
overcapitalized fishery. The CCF savings program has often been
criticized for creating incentives to increase fishing capacity, and
currently participants lose as much as 70 percent in tax penalties if they
withdraw their money from the CCF for non-fishing purposes. The bill
is much the same as Section 6 of Wyden's Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Preservation Act (S. 973), but has been broken off as a separate
bill without the prior bill's more controversial provisions, making it
much more likely to pass on its own. For more information on either of
these initiatives, go to:
http://www.senate.gov/~wyden/webpressreleases.htm.
NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,
comments or any corrections to Allison Vogt, Editor at:
ifrfish@pacbell.net or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a
source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000
(Northwest Office).
##########################################################
"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To
find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can
subscribe yourself automatically at:
http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink
If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact
PCFFA/IFR directly at: <fish1ifr@aol.com>.
##########################################################
--part1_103.10f52cbf.29a49893_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>##########################################################
<BR> ~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 2/15/02<~~
<BR>##########################################################
<BR> A WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND
<BR> LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES
<BR> AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S
<BR> ASSOCIATIONS
<BR>
<BR> VOL. 5, NO. 07 15 FEBRUARY 2002
<BR>##########################################################
<BR>"The great tragedy of science: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
<BR> by an ugly fact."...Anonymous
<BR>##########################################################
<BR>IN THIS ISSUE.......
<BR>
<BR>CANCELLATION OF CALIFORNIA OCS LEASES IN
<BR>SWAP FOR OIL DRILLING IN GULF. 5:07.01
<BR>
<BR>NMFS ACCEPTS DELISTING PETITIONS FOR PACIFIC
<BR>SALMON AND STEELHEAD. 5:07/04
<BR>
<BR>SENATE FARM BILL PASSES WITH FUNDING FOR
<BR>KLAMATH, LABELING OF FARMED FISH. 5:07/05; 5:07/06
<BR>
<BR>IRS RULES GROUNDFISH DISASTER RELIEF
<BR>NON-TAXABLE. 5:07/14
<BR>
<BR>AND MORE......
<BR>##########################################################
<BR>This week's issue of Sublegals is available in PDF format on the web at
<BR>www.sublegals.net. We have also pasted the text below for those who
<BR>still wish to read it through your email. In the coming weeks we will be
<BR>posting all past issues as well as a search engine. In addition to this new
<BR>look, we are continuing our Sublegals Fundraiser to support the Institute
<BR>for Fisheries Resources and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
<BR>Associations in publishing this weekly newsletter free of charge. We
<BR>have recently passed our 100th issue, with very little funding, and are
<BR>looking to our readers to sustain the continuation of this effort. Go to
<BR>www.sublegals.net to donate to this effort. Thank you for your support
<BR>of community fisheries education.
<BR>##########################################################
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/01. DEAL TO TERMINATE UNDEVELOPED OCS LEASE
<BR>SITES OFF CALIFORNIA?: A deal has reportedly been struck by U.S.
<BR>Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to terminate undeveloped offshore oil
<BR>tracts along the California coast and, in return, permit new leases in the
<BR>Gulf of Mexico. The offshore tracts in question had been leased by the
<BR>U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) between 1968 and 1984,
<BR>prior to the current moratorium on offshore oil drilling on the outer
<BR>continental shelf (OCS) along the California coast. A federal district
<BR>court last year halted development of the leases, but the Bush
<BR>Administration appealed the order, seeking to lift the ban on drilling (see
<BR>Sublegals, 5:02/01). According to a 15 February San Francisco
<BR>Chronicle article, Boxer, together with her Senate colleagues, Dianne
<BR>Feinstein (D-CA), John Breaux (D-LA) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA),
<BR>have proposed the "California Coastal Protection & Louisiana Energy
<BR>Enhancement Act," an amendment to the Senate Energy Bill authorizing
<BR>all undeveloped off-shore oil leases in the Santa Barbara Channel and
<BR>Santa Maria Basin off California to be cancelled. Oil companies, instead,
<BR>would have the option to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. The companies
<BR>would agree to drop a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed in January against
<BR>the Interior Department and to not sue in the future. The initiative would
<BR>close a loophole in the drilling moratorium on the California coast, while
<BR>giving willing Louisiana politicians the chance to lure oil companies to
<BR>the Gulf of Mexico.
<BR>
<BR> "I'm announcing a measure to permanently stop the 40 offshore oil
<BR>tracts off the California coast," Boxer told the Chronicle. "We're going
<BR>to swap so the oil companies can drill where there is support for
<BR>drilling." The Act would direct Interior Secretary Gale Norton to offer
<BR>from $1 to $2.8 billion in bidding credits to the 14 oil companies that
<BR>hold existing but undeveloped oil leases off California. Additionally, the
<BR>legislation would call for creating a 360-square-mile ecological preserve
<BR>to "protect traditional fishing grounds and for conservation, scientific,
<BR>and recreational benefits." U.S. Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) will
<BR>offer a companion bill in the House of Representatives. To see the
<BR>Chronicle article, go to:
<BR>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/02/
<BR>15/MN181832.DTL
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/02. OTTAWA READY TO LIFT CANADA'S FEDERAL
<BR>DRILLING MORATORIUM IF B.C. DOES: As California prepares to
<BR>stop once-and-for-all any new oil drilling off its coast, British Columbia
<BR>may begin going ahead. The Vancouver Province reported on 10
<BR>February that Canada's federal government in Ottawa will approve the
<BR>removal of its long-standing federal moratorium on B.C. offshore oil
<BR>development if the provincial Liberal government requests it. "If the
<BR>province feels it wants to lift its own moratorium on offshore drilling,
<BR>then it can request that the federal government do the same. Once B.C.
<BR>makes that request, we'll do the consultations," commented Canadian
<BR>Natural Resources Director Herb Dhaliwal.
<BR>
<BR> Ottawa is awaiting a report by the B.C.-government appointed
<BR>offshore oil and gas scientific panel that is studying whether oil and gas
<BR>resources can safely be extracted with minimal environmental impacts.
<BR>The region targeted for exploitation is the Queen Charlotte Basin,
<BR>including Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and Queen Charlotte
<BR>Strait, with estimated reserves worth $100 billion (Canadian). Many
<BR>B.C. groups oppose offshore oil development, citing potential fisheries
<BR>damage and massive federal subsidies. The Canadian Centre for Policy
<BR>Alternatives has also released a study showing that west coast offshore
<BR>drilling would not bring B.C. anywhere near the wealth or jobs promised
<BR>by the industry. For the full story see:
<BR>http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory.asp?id=2C58A
<BR>170-36CB-4075-A21A-08703F560D8F. Canada has had its share of
<BR>offshore oil platform disasters, including the loss of 84 lives when the
<BR>SEDCO 706 oil platform collapsed after being hit by a rogue wave on 14
<BR>February 1982 off the coast of Newfoundland.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/03. IFR, PCFFA TO MEET IN EUREKA: The Institute for
<BR>Fisheries Resources (IFR) Board of Trustees will meet Monday, 25
<BR>February, at the Woodley Island Marina, in Eureka, California. Much of
<BR>the agenda will be devoted to a review of IFR's current programs. On
<BR>the following day, the 26th, the Board of Directors of the Pacific Coast
<BR>Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) will meet in the same
<BR>location. Agenda items for that meeting include crab litigation, the
<BR>upcoming salmon season, marine protected areas, and state and federal
<BR>legislation. Also the PCFFA Directors will be planning for the 30th
<BR>Annual Legislative Fisheries Forum that will be held 13 March at the
<BR>California State Capitol in Sacramento. For more information on the IFR
<BR>meeting, call (415) 561-3474; for more information on the PCFFA
<BR>meeting, call (415) 561-5080.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/04. NMFS ACCEPTS DELISTING PETITIONS FOR
<BR>ESA-LISTED SALMON AND STEELHEAD: On 11 February the
<BR>National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) formally accepted six
<BR>petitions by various landowner, developer and property rights groups and
<BR>the Pacific Legal Foundation to completely eliminate Endangered
<BR>Species Act (ESA) protections for 14 of the 25 groups of salmon and
<BR>steelhead that are currently ESA protected on the west coast. This
<BR>formal acceptance, however, is an acknowledgement only that the
<BR>petitions "present substantial scientific and commercial information,"
<BR>and is not a ruling on their merits. NMFS now has 12 months to make a
<BR>final decision to delist or not on the basis of these petitions.
<BR>
<BR> The accepted petitions cover Snake River spring/summer chinook;
<BR>Snake River fall chinook; Puget Sound chinook; Lower Columbia River
<BR>chinook; Upper Columbia River spring chinook; Hood Canal summer
<BR>chum; Columbia River chum; Upper Columbia River steelhead; Snake
<BR>River Basin steelhead; Lower Columbia River steelhead; Middle
<BR>Columbia River steelhead; Southern Oregon/Northern California coho;
<BR>Upper Willamette River chinook, and Upper Willamette River steelhead.
<BR>These six petitions are the first wave of several more expected to be filed
<BR>by agribusiness, development and industrial interests seeking to avoid
<BR>fish protections altogether. All of the petitions are based on the same
<BR>theory used by Pacific Legal Foundation in the Alsea Valley Alliance
<BR>case, asserting that hatchery and wild fish are genetically
<BR>indistinguishable and that since any number of hatchery fish can be
<BR>artificially produced at any time, the species would never be in danger of
<BR>extinction and do not merit ESA protection (see Sublegals 5:06/02;
<BR>4:28/19; 4:20/08; 4:19/05; 4:18/02; 4:11/02). The delisting petitions are
<BR>a way to overcome existing six-year statute of limitations problems that
<BR>prevent legal attacks on some of these listings.
<BR>
<BR> Concurrent with considering the petitions, and partially to head off
<BR>similar delisting petitions, NMFS has decided on its own to review the
<BR>ESA status of 14 of the 15 petitioned stocks, plus an additional 11 more
<BR>stocks, including Sacramento River winter-run chinook, California
<BR>Central Valley spring-run chinook, California Coastal chinook; Central
<BR>California Coast coho, Southern Oregon/Northern California coho and
<BR>several others. NMFS is also reviewing its hatchery fish ESU
<BR>("evolutionarily significant unit") inclusion policy as a separate issue.
<BR>For more information, copies of the petitions, and the Federal Register
<BR>notice go to: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/occd/PetitionFindingsFRN.html.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/05. SENATE FARM BILL PASSES WITH $175 FOR
<BR>KLAMATH BASIN RESTORATION: On 13 February the U.S. Senate
<BR>approved its version of the $45 billion five-year Farm Bill (S. 1731) by a
<BR>margin of 58-40. The bill contains a provision sponsored by U.S.
<BR>Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) that would specifically reallocate $175
<BR>million from existing Department of Agriculture conservation programs
<BR>to help solve the problems in the Klamath Basin (see Sublegals 4:25/03;
<BR>4:24/06). The provision (Sec. 2 of Subtitle E of the bill) would establish
<BR>a Klamath Basin Interagency Task Force for "promoting agricultural
<BR>production and environmental quality as compatible Klamath Basin
<BR>goals," and give it one year to take public input and develop a five-year
<BR>comprehensive restoration plan for the whole Klamath Basin. The Task
<BR>Force is required also to "consult with environmental, fishing and
<BR>agricultural interests" as well as the Tribes, and to hold meetings "at
<BR>least once every 3 months in the Klamath Basin with opportunities for
<BR>stakeholder participation."
<BR>
<BR> The Klamath Water Users Association opposed the Wyden provision
<BR>because it wanted statutory guarantees of water for irrigation from the
<BR>Klamath Irrigation Project, a demand nearly impossible to satisfy during
<BR>drought years. Other irrigation groups oppose its potential to allow the
<BR>repurchase of land or water rights from willing sellers. Most experts
<BR>believe, however, that the limited water available in the arid Upper
<BR>Klamath Basin cannot sustainably support the present levels of irrigation
<BR>demand. There is also an active group of willing sellers in the Klamath
<BR>Project who see overall demand reduction as the only economically
<BR>viable option for maintaining commercially viable agriculture in the
<BR>Upper Basin.
<BR>
<BR> U.S. Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), who initially supported the
<BR>Wyden provision as a necessary compromise, ultimately voted against
<BR>the Farm Bill and has pledged to seek changes to the Wyden provision
<BR>on behalf of the irrigators. The House has already passed its own
<BR>version of the Farm Bill, but that version contained no similar Klamath
<BR>Basin provision and the differences between the two bills must now be
<BR>hashed out in closed-door Conference Committee, then the final
<BR>compromise adopted by both chambers. To research the bill, use the
<BR>Library of Congress THOMAS system at: http://thomas.loc.gov.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/06. STATE LABELING BAN OMITTED FROM FARM BILL,
<BR>BUT COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABEL REQUIRED FOR
<BR>AQUACULTURE FISH: An amendment to the Senate Farm Bill, SA
<BR>2606, "The National Uniformity for Food Act," by Senator Tim
<BR>Hutchinson (R-AR), was tabled for further deliberation last week. This
<BR>broad amendment would prohibit states from providing information
<BR>regarding potential health risks posed by a food product. Consumers and
<BR>states would also lose the right to know whether seafood products are
<BR>farmed or wild, or where and how they are caught. Additionally,
<BR>genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could not be labeled as such.
<BR>The U.S Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is still floundering about
<BR>the health impacts of GMOs, despite sufficient evidence of the need for
<BR>tighter precautionary measures around this technology, still in its
<BR>developing stages. Because the FDA has not responded to the massive
<BR>number of public comments demanding labeling and pre-market safety
<BR>testing, some states have initiated their own policies that could better
<BR>provide human health and environmental safeguards for their
<BR>constituents. These citizen protection measures would have been
<BR>nullified under the Hutchinson amendment. While the Senate tabled
<BR>language to prohibit states from enacting food labeling, it did pass an
<BR>amendment by U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) requiring
<BR>country-of-origin labeling for aquacultured fish and shellfish products,
<BR>including "fillets, steaks, nuggets, and any other flesh from a farm-raised
<BR>fish or shellfish." This labeling requirement, however, does not apply to
<BR>food service establishments. To view the Hutchinson amendment or the
<BR>Wellstone amendment, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/; for more
<BR>information on the Hutchinson amendment and seafood labeling, go to
<BR>www.ifrfish.org.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/07. CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE TO LABEL GENETICALLY
<BR>ENGINEERED FOODS: An initiative is currently in circulation to
<BR>mandate the labeling of Genetically Engineered (GE) foods. Simon
<BR>Harris, of the Organic Consumers Association, is the proponent for the
<BR>initiative. It would require that all foods sold or distributed in or from
<BR>California that contain, or are produced with, "genetically engineered
<BR>material" shall bear labels stating: "Genetically engineered. NOTICE:
<BR>This product contains genetically engineered material or was produced
<BR>with genetically engineered material."
<BR>
<BR> The initiative would further require labels for "genetically engineered
<BR>foods" to specify (1) changes in a food's composition, nutritional value,
<BR>or required preparation steps that are due to genetic engineering, (2)
<BR>details of any "trans-species gene transfer," and (3) details of any transfer
<BR>of animal genes into plants. If the initiative collects the required number
<BR>of signatures it will be appear on the 5 March ballot. For more
<BR>information see: www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#circulating.
<BR>For more information on the Organic Consumers Association go to:
<BR>www.organicconsumers.org.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/08. EPA PESTICIDES AND SALMON LAWSUIT
<BR>SETTLEMENT TALKS IMPLODE, PESTICIDE EXPOSURE DATA
<BR>GOES PUBLIC: Recent studies by the National Marine Fisheries
<BR>Service (NMFS) indicate that pesticides may severely impact salmon
<BR>survival and reproductive capabilities, even at very low but sustained
<BR>exposure levels. These studies prompted a lawsuit by pesticide reform
<BR>advocates and PCFFA in February of 2001 (see Sublegals 3:18/02;
<BR>3:05/02). The suit mandates consultation, as required by the Endangered
<BR>Species Act (ESA), between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
<BR>(EPA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
<BR>development of ways to minimize the impact of these pesticides on
<BR>salmonids. The EPA has thus far neglected to meet these consultation
<BR>requirements. Now, after months of negotiations, the Bush
<BR>Administration, under pressure from pesticide industry and agribusiness
<BR>groups, has pulled the plug on settlement talks and the case will go to
<BR>court.
<BR>
<BR> On 5 February co-plaintiffs Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to
<BR>Pesticides (NCAP) and Washington Toxics Coalition published
<BR>documents taken from EPA's own files, showing that several commonly
<BR>used pesticides now occur in nearly every major salmon producing river
<BR>system on the west coast at levels well above the aquatic life criteria
<BR>maximums. The full report, "Poisoned Waters," is available on the web
<BR>at: www.pesticide.org/CleanWaterSalmon.html. In 2000, IFR, NCAP
<BR>and others co-published a scientific summary of the recent research
<BR>showing long-term and chronic pesticide impacts on salmon, which is on
<BR>the web at: http://ifrfish.org/salpest.htm.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/09. 60-DAY NOTICE TO SUE FILED OVER LACK OF
<BR>OREGON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 70 POLLUTANTS:
<BR>Citing Oregon inaction, on 11 February Northwest Environmental
<BR>Advocates (NWEA) filed a 60-Day Notice To Sue under the Clean
<BR>Water Act, threatening legal action against the U.S. Environmental
<BR>Protection Agency (EPA) to require it to promulgate water quality
<BR>standards for Oregon for at least 70 chemical pollutants. The State of
<BR>Oregon has failed to set any standards for these pollutants, many of them
<BR>commonly found in state water bodies, and the agency in charge of
<BR>setting these standards, the Oregon Department of Environmental
<BR>Quality (ODEQ), has been frequently criticized for inaction and lack of
<BR>enforcement. Under the Clean Water Act, if a state does not set such
<BR>standards the EPA can assume that authority. For more information on
<BR>the letter, contact Nina Bell at: (503) 295-0490. NWEA's web site is at:
<BR>http://www.northwestenvironmentaladvocates.org.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/10. NEW CALIFORNIA FOCUS ON RECYCLED WATER:
<BR>California Governor Gray Davis announced late last month the
<BR>availability of state monies totaling $88 million for state water quality
<BR>projects. These loans and grants are a result of Proposition 13, the Water
<BR>Bond Act of 2000, which authorized $2 billion in funding for clean
<BR>water and safe parks. Projects to be funded include 1) $24 million to
<BR>provide 21 million gallons of recycled water daily for irrigation
<BR>customers in Dublin-San Ramon Services District-East Bay Municipal
<BR>Utility District (EBMUD) Recycled Water Authority; 2) $5 million to
<BR>Orange County Water District; 3) $36 million for San Diego County to
<BR>substitute recycled wastewater for the fresh water currently used for
<BR>landscaping irrigation; 4) $4.4 million for the EBMUD towards
<BR>providing 700,000 gallons of recycled water daily for irrigation and
<BR>industrial uses in the cities of Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville and
<BR>Oakland. Water recycling projects are important for California's
<BR>fisheries, since they can mean less of a draw on water from rivers that is
<BR>destined for estuaries, such as San Francisco Bay (see Sublegals,
<BR>4:26/01). For more information on the program:
<BR>http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_pressroom_main.jsp?a=a.
<BR>
<BR> As required by AB 331, passed by the California Legislature in 2001,
<BR>the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) will convene
<BR>the 2002 Recycled Water Taskforce for their first meeting later this
<BR>month or in March. The taskforce will advise CDWR in making
<BR>recommendations to the legislature regarding further use of recycled
<BR>water, statutes related to recycled water, and water conservation, among
<BR>other topics. Proposed recommendations are due to the legislature by
<BR>July 2003. To view a copy of the bill: www:dwr.water.ca.gov/legislation
<BR>or contact Fawzi Karajeh, Water Recycling & Desalination Program at
<BR>(916) 651-9669 or fkarajeh@water.ca.gov.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/11. WASHINGTION STATE STUDY FINDS MOST
<BR>WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTS FAIL: Mitigation for
<BR>development projects that destroy wetlands often depends on restoring
<BR>wetlands somewhere else. However, the success record of efforts to
<BR>recreate wetlands after natural wetlands have been destroyed is mixed.
<BR>A soon to be released study by the State of Washington, for instance,
<BR>found that only 13 percent of state-mandated wetlands mitigation
<BR>projects designed to compensate for destroyed wetlands elsewhere were
<BR>fully successful. The study, conducted by the Washington State
<BR>Department of Ecology, also found that wetlands mitigation done by
<BR>private developers is about twice as likely to succeed as projects paid for
<BR>by taxpayer dollars. Wetlands, particularly coastal wetlands, are vitally
<BR>important and serve as spawning and/or nursery habitat for an estimated
<BR>85 percent of commercially fished species, including salmon. For more
<BR>information on the report see the 2 February issue of the Everett Herald
<BR>at: http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/02/2/2/15040324.cfm.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/12. CORPS COLUMBIA DREDGING PLAN LAMBASTED,
<BR>ANNOUNCEMENT TO GIVE UP TWO DUMPING SITES VIEWED
<BR>WITH CAUTION: The Daily Astorian reported 5 February that the Port
<BR>of Portland's latest plans for the Columbia River shipping channel
<BR>includes a goal to deepen the river 106 miles from Portland to Astoria,
<BR>which is reportedly too shallow for the majority of vessels in the
<BR>trans-Pacific trade. The dredging project has met widespread opposition
<BR>due to concerns over fishery resources, toxins and heavy metals, the
<BR>health of Cathlamet Bay, and poor communication between the Army
<BR>Corps of Engineers (COE) and local community members. One of the
<BR>opponents, Cyndy DeBruler, Executive Director of Columbia
<BR>Riverkeeper, has proposed the creation of a Citizen Advisory Panel
<BR>made up of stakeholders to develop an estuary restoration plan. COE
<BR>issued a revised Biological Assessment on 3 January (See Sublegals
<BR>5:02/17), but the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National
<BR>Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must give their approval and funding
<BR>must be found before any action will take place. For more information
<BR>on the Daily Astorian article, e-mail forum@dailyastorian.com To view
<BR>the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Biological Assessment:
<BR>www.nwp.usace.army.mil/issues/CRCIP/pubs.htm
<BR>
<BR> In related news, The Daily Astorian reported 6 February that the COE
<BR>will no longer consider the use of two ocean disposal sites for sediment
<BR>dredged from the Columbia River's mouth. However, they are taking
<BR>public comment on six additional disposal sites (2:01/15, 2:14/8,
<BR>2:06/10, 4:04/12). Dale Beasley, President of the Columbia River Crab
<BR>Fishermen's Association, called the site withdrawals "carpet-bombing for
<BR>effect." Beasley said, "They're required by law to look at the site's
<BR>impact to fisheries, and there's a tremendous amount of fishery in those
<BR>areas. It wouldn't take much to see that these sites are (illegal)." Area
<BR>crab fishermen were pleased with the decision though remaining
<BR>concerned about where dredge spoils will be dumped. Of considerable
<BR>concern is the "Deep Water Dump Site" that produces an estimated
<BR>122,000 pounds of quality Dungeness crab every year. The six-mile area,
<BR>where dredge spoils are known to amplify wave heights, is also where
<BR>the Miss Brittany incident occurred that took the lives of two
<BR>Washington crabbers last fall (4:09/15). Some of the sites still under
<BR>consideration have never undergone an environmental assessment
<BR>regarding the effects to fisheries. Eric Braun, COE project manager said
<BR>that on-shore disposal at Washington's Benson Beach, a disposal site
<BR>favored by crabbers, remains an option. For information on dredging in
<BR>the Columbia River go to the COE website:
<BR>http or, for
<BR>alternative views of the dredging, go to:
<BR>http://www.tidepool.org/features/id.addictedindex.cfm
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/13. FARMED B.C. SABLEFISH HIT MARKET, HALIBUT
<BR>NEXT?: A British Columbia fish farm put some of the first farmed
<BR>sablefish (black cod) on the market in January, according to a 7 February
<BR>story by Fish Information Services (FIS). However, Totem Seafoods in
<BR>Jervis Inlet, B.C. delivered the 750 five-pound sablefish more as a trial
<BR>test of the market, since the farm operations for that fish are still
<BR>experimental, but company owner Gus Angus believes there is a bright
<BR>rs last fall (4:09/15). Some of the sites stillfuture for farmed sablefish once it hits the market in
<BR>bulk. However,
<BR>Canadian sablefish fishermen's groups, particularly the Canadian
<BR>Sablefish Association (www.canadiansablefish.com) are alarmed at
<BR>Canada's support and subsidies for sablefish farming. The Canadian
<BR>Department of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO) announced grants of $150,000
<BR>(Canadian) July 2000 to help the farm sablefish industry develop
<BR>hatchery technologies, which can also be used to farm halibut, and has
<BR>supported the development of the industry in several other ways.
<BR>Moreover, a recent study prepared for the Canadian government shows
<BR>that once farmed sablefish get up to volume it could depress the wild
<BR>fish market by 40 percent of the current price for the fish, driving many
<BR>ocean fishermen out of business. A private firm, Island Scallops Ltd., is
<BR>already hatching sablefish for sale to grow-out sites, and company
<BR>President Robert Saunders believes there is huge potential in sablefish
<BR>aquaculture. "I think there is lots of risk, but obviously we are continuing
<BR>to push ahead with production," he said. The report also predicted that
<BR>B.C. production of farmed sablefish could hit 16,000 tons by 2021.
<BR>More information is available by date at: http://www.fis.com.
<BR>
<BR> 5:07/14. IRS RULES THAT GROUNDFISH DISASTER RELIEF
<BR>IS NON-TAXABLE; BILL INTRODUCED TO ALLOW FISHERMEN
<BR>TO USE CCF MONEY FOR RETIREMENT: At the urging of U.S.
<BR>Representative Darlene Hooley (D-OR), whose district includes much of
<BR>the Northern Oregon coast, and of Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who
<BR>played a key role in getting economic disaster relief funds for west coast
<BR>groundfish fishermen, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has ruled that
<BR>those relief payments are non-taxable and do not have to be declared as
<BR>income. The Groundfish Disaster Outreach Program (GDOP), primarily
<BR>Wyden's initiative, provides transition income directly to fishermen in
<BR>the amount of $1,000/month for single fishermen, and $1,500/month for
<BR>married fishermen, for a maximum of nine months for those who are out
<BR>of work because of groundfish quota cutbacks. The IRS ruling applies to
<BR>both the original payments in FY 2001 as well as those being distributed
<BR>currently.
<BR>
<BR> Wyden, along with Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), has also
<BR>introduced a bill to allow commercial fishermen in the collapsed
<BR>groundfish fishery to draw on their Capital Construction Fund (CCF)
<BR>savings for non-fishing purposes without incurring severe tax penalties.
<BR>The bill, called the "Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal
<BR>Act," (S. 1962) allows fishermen to retire with their funds instead of
<BR>requiring them to buy or refit another fishing vessel in an already
<BR>overcapitalized fishery. The CCF savings program has often been
<BR>criticized for creating incentives to increase fishing capacity, and
<BR>currently participants lose as much as 70 percent in tax penalties if they
<BR>withdraw their money from the CCF for non-fishing purposes. The bill
<BR>is much the same as Section 6 of Wyden's Pacific Coast Groundfish
<BR>Fishery Preservation Act (S. 973), but has been broken off as a separate
<BR>bill without the prior bill's more controversial provisions, making it
<BR>much more likely to pass on its own. For more information on either of
<BR>these initiatives, go to:
<BR>http://www.senate.gov/~wyden/webpressreleases.htm.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,
<BR>comments or any corrections to Allison Vogt, Editor at:
<BR>ifrfish@pacbell.net or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a
<BR>source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000
<BR>(Northwest Office).
<BR>
<BR>##########################################################
<BR>"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To
<BR>find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you can
<BR>subscribe yourself automatically at:
<BR>
<BR>http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink
<BR>
<BR>If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact
<BR>PCFFA/IFR directly at: <fish1ifr@aol.com>.
<BR>##########################################################
<BR></FONT></HTML>
--part1_103.10f52cbf.29a49893_boundary--