[Fishlink] ~~>SUBLEGALS 27Dec02<~~
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:33:35 EST
--part1_ba.33c60ef5.2b4769bf_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
##########################################################
~~>SUBLEGALS 27Dec02<~~
##########################################################
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. 06, NO. 26 27 DECEMBER 2002
##########################################################
"People have the power. The power to dream, to rule, to
wrestle the world from fools." .....Patti Smith
##########################################################
IN THIS ISSUE.......
Cut in Colorado River Flows May Pressure More
Northern California Diversions, Imperil Salmon. 6:26/01
Objections Raised to Bureau of Reclamation's
Proposed Westlands Settlement. 6:26/04
Steller Sea Lion Compromise Thrown Out; NRC Report
Questions Impact of Fishing on Declines. 6:26/08
Suit Filed Challenging Establishment of MPAs at
Channel Islands. 6:26/09
British Columbia Tribes "Declare War on Fish Farms." 6:26/10
AND MORE......
##########################################################
6:26/01. CUT IN COLORADO FLOWS TO CALIFORNIA MAY
PUT MORE PRESSURE ON STATE'S NORTH COAST RIVERS TO
PROVIDE WATER FOR SOUTHLAND: The looming threat of a
cutback in flows from the Colorado River to California could increase
pressure for more diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
and the State's northern rivers to make up Southern California's projected
shortfall. This, in turn, could spell trouble for the State's salmon
populations, as well as the San Francisco Bay estuary that relies on Delta
inflows for its biological productivity. Standing before representatives of
the Colorado River Water Users Association (CRWUA) at a 16
December Las Vegas conference, U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton
made it clear that Southern California's municipal and agricultural water
users must act quickly to avoid major reductions in the amount of
Colorado River flows the state is allowed to withdraw. Currently,
California uses more water from the Colorado River than any of the six
other states in the basin.
Although other states have worked for decades to have the supplies
reallocated, nothing has been able to evoke a change in the Colorado's
diversion schedule. Nothing, that is, until the combined pressure of
prolonged population growth and recent droughts throughout the west all
but dried up the 1450-mile river. Now Norton and the Interior
Department are taking steps to end Southern California's
over-consumption of the Colorado and, in the process, causing some
concern among northern California residents.
Disputes over water are nothing new in the Golden State, but in
recent years tensions have been on the rise. This year's unprecedented
fish kill on the Klamath marked a new low for resource management in
that watershed (see Sublegals, 6:25/01; 6:20/04; 6:17/06; 6:16/01;
6:15/01; 6:14/01; 6:13/01; 6:12/07; 6:02/09; 5:23/08; 5:21/03; 5:21/03;
5:20/09; 5:18/01; 5:17/02). An expansion of the Los Vaqueros reservoir
in Contra Costa County threatens to divert even more fresh water from
the already impaired Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (see Sublegals,
6:21/07) and on the Gualala and Albion rivers, plans had been afoot for
water bagging operations to take the flows from those rivers, place them
in giant condom-shaped storage containers and tow them by tug to
Southern Californian communities (see Sublegals, 6:24/08; 6:19/08;
6:15/05; 6:14/10). What's at stake now, leading up to a 31 December
deadline, is an adjustment period that is intended to allow Southern
California's water users enough time to wean themselves off of the
Colorado's flows. Two years ago members of the seven-state CRWUA,
including California, agreed to allow the two major water users, the
Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the Metropolitan Water District
(MWD) of Southern California, to work out a plan for reallocating the
soon to be reduced Colorado flows to provide for the needs Southern
California's 17 million residents.
Under what is called the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA)
the IID and MWD faced two alternatives beginning 1 January 2003: sign
on and make the transition over 15 years or walk away from the QSA
and watch the Colorado flows disappear almost overnight.
The decision, however, is not quite that straightforward, but the
effects will be. Unfortunately, MWD officials don't seem to be in a rush
to work things out because of a two-year water surplus it has stored in
area reservoirs. The IID, on the other hand, is holding out for multiple
reasons: its irrigators don't want to lose their water rights for the future
and they fear the environmental liabilities for the effects of reduced
irrigation runoff into the already concentrated Salton Sea. All the while
people in northern California are cringing at the thought of their
neighbors to the south redirecting their thirst towards the already
over-tapped water resources within the northern parts of the state.
Nightmare scenarios involving new dams, canals and even water
bagging operations may unfortunately be seen as necessary and timely
solutions if MWD can't negotiate a sale with the Imperial Irrigators
under the QSA. However, with the 15-year adjustment period many
people believe that long-term solutions such as desalinization,
conservation and groundwater storage could be implemented to protect
northern water resources.
The QSA, of course, does not address the inflow needs of the Gulf of
California, where fish stocks have been adversely affected by the loss of
Colorado water to the estuary. For more information on Secretary
Norton's speech to the CRWUA, go to the Department of Interior
website at: http://www.doi.gov/news/front_current.html. Also see the 18
December Environment News Service report at:
http://ens-news.com/ens/dec2002/2002e-12-18-04.asp.
6:26/02. LONG BEACH LATEST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
CITY LOOKING AT DESAL TO SUPPLY WATER NEEDS: In the
midst of the brouhaha over the loss of Colorado River water to Southern
California, some of the Southland's municipalities and water districts are
giving a new look at desalination of ocean water, in addition to
conservation and recycling (see Sublegals, 6:19/09). On 6 November,
the Long Beach Press-Telegram reported the Long Beach Water
Department has begun a 3-year desalination research program, with
assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and Los Angeles
Department of Water & Power (DWP), looking at ways to reduce costs,
maximize energy efficiency and optimize drinking water quality. The
study will also explore options for managing seawater concentrate - the
elements removed from ocean water. According to the Press-Telegram
article, the "prototype desalination facility will be based at the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power's Haynes Generation Station
on the east end of the city.......The plant will process about 300,000
gallons of offshore water a day, and the desalted water will be
recombined with concentrates before being discharged." The Long
Beach Water Department serves 460,000 people, delivering 22.8 billion
gallons of drinking water per year, and 1.8 billion gallons of reclaimed
water per year. According to its planning manager, Matthew Lyons, the
Department is conserving 3.9 billion gallons annually and has spent $9.2
million on reclaimed water system expansion in the last five years.
Desalination by Long Beach could help reduce demand on Northern
California rivers and aid in saving salmon. The Press-Telegram article is
at: http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/
0,1413,204%257E23170%257E975148,00.html?search=filter.
6:26/03. PUBLIC COMMENTS SOUGHT FOR WASHINGTON
STATE MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS TO PROTECT FISH AND
WILDLIFE: Like many western states, the State of Washington does not
have established minimum instream flow standards to maintain water in
its rivers to support salmon populations, other fish and wildlife. State
law and Washington's new Strategy for Salmon Recovery, however, now
require each basin in the State to have a water management plan which
contains minimum instream flows as reserved river volumes (i.e., not
available for appropriation) for fish and wildlife. Many of these plans
are due for approval by late 2003. The Washington Department of
Ecology (DEQ) now has a website devoted to the instream flow setting
process, with draft guidelines and standards as well as key dates and
work plan timelines. Each watershed plan will be available to public
input, including that from fishery representatives, as it is developed, and
then for public comment. The DEQ website for this watershed planning
program is at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isflowhome.html.
6:26/04. OBJECTIONS RAISED OVER WESTLANDS
SETTLEMENT: The Fresno Bee reported 20 December that opponents
of the proposed Westlands Water District settlement have asked the
court to give the public more "time to understand the implications" of a
$140 million settlement agreement (see Sublegals, 6:24/02; 6:22/09).
The agreement, announced 13 December, would initially have the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) pay the money to retire 33,000 acres of
cropland within the water district located on the west side of California's
San Joaquin Valley. The settlement is intended to resolve a 14-year old
case where Federal District Court Judge Oliver Wanger sided with
plaintiff growers demanding BOR pay for construction of a drainage
system to take toxic, selenium and pesticide-laden agricultural
wastewaters and dump them in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The
planned drain drew fire from fishing groups and conservationists who
said the ag waste water was potentially poisonous to the second largest
run of Pacific salmon in the lower 48, which migrate through the Delta.
BOR decided it was cheaper to retire the lands than build the drain.
Westlands is the most junior water rights holder in the Central
Valley, but its members receive federally subsidized Central Valley
Project (CVP) water to grow crops in that arid region. Under the terms
of the proposed agreement, BOR agreed to pay the landowners $107
million in damages, and Westlands agreed to pay $33 million and would
obtain ownership of the 33,000-plus acres. The district would also retain
the water rights. Opponents of the settlement, including the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Bay Institute, Contra Costa
County and the Contra Costa County Water Agency, raised a number of
objections to the proposed settlement:
* It would take money from the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA) restoration fund that is earmarked for environmental purposes.
The CVPIA, however, does not authorize the use of restoration funds to
settle damage claims against the United States.
* There is no information on how the retired land may be used in the
future or whether such uses would be consistent with habitat restoration
mandates under the CVPIA.
* It implies CVP water users outside of Westands Water District may be
assessed to pay the costs of the settlement.
* The 19 grower families that own the 33,000 acres have repeatedly
violated reclamation law, which limits "the lawful recipients of
taxpayer-subsidized water to farm operations of 960 acres or less."
* The government obligation to build a drainage system for the
600,000-acre Westlands Water District, ordered by Wanger, does not go
away with the settlement agreement.
For the Fresno Bee article by Jerry Bier, see:
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/politics/story/5644785p-6619489c.html
6:26/05. WASHINGTON STATE ADOPTS NEW SHORELINE
PROTECTION RULES: After three years and three mediators,
Washington State interests from all sides of the negotiations have agreed
to new shoreline protection rules that affect coastal development and
port infrastructure as well as improve public access and help control
erosion, pollution and flooding in fragile coastal environments. Original
draft rules issued in 1999 met widespread condemnation as either too
strict or too lax. A new set of rules approved in November 2000 were
knocked down as a result of lawsuits by business interests and agencies,
and a successful appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board.
The compromise reached this month takes a middle ground,
emphasizing a "no net loss of ecological function" policy and stricter
pollution and erosion controls sought by conservation groups. Rural
counties who feared increased planning costs will be able to tap into a $2
million state fund in Washington Governor Gary Locke's proposed
budget. The rules are not without problems, however, particularly an
exemption for farming activities in the coastal zone that can be major
contributors to erosion.
For more information see the 22 December Boston Globe article on
the agreement, located at: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/356/
nation/After_wrangle_groups_reach_pact_on_shoreline_protection+.sht
ml. For the new rules themselves and background information on how
they will apply see:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMA/guidelines/newguid.htm.
6:26/06. $100 (US) MILLION PURCHASE OF CARGILL SALT
PONDS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY FOR LARGEST WETLANDS
ACQUISITION WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI: One of the largest
"un-developed" parcels of land along San Francisco Bay was purchased
earlier this month for restoration as wetlands. According to a 17
December report in the Napa Valley Register, the "$100 million
purchase has been finalized of the former Cargill salt ponds property,
much of it along the Napa River, but information about the purchase is
still secret. Environmental assessments of the property, details of
Cargill's responsibilities for site cleanup, the agreement regarding the
phase-out of salt-making operations and a full summary of the sale
agreement won't be made available to the public until
January........Appraisals will remain secret until after the deal is
complete......The agreement is contingent on a vote by the California
Wildlife Conservation Board."
The Board is to take the matter up at its 11 February meeting. San
Francisco Bay is considered the most important estuary on the west coast
of North and South America and supports populations of salmon,
Dungeness crab, herring and numerous other fish and wildlife resources.
Prior to modern development along the Bay, it also supported a major
oyster and shrimp fishery.
The Register reports the "full funding package includes $100 million
for acquisition and $35 million for five years of initial stewardship and
restoration planning.....Funding for acquisition includes $72 million
from the State of California, $8 million from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service and $20 million from a consortium of the Hewlett, Moore, and
Packard foundations and the Goldman, and Resources Legacy Funds.
The private foundations are also providing $15 million toward the cost
of initial stewardship and restoration planning.....The remaining $20
million will come from both the federal and state governments
to be provided over a five-year period. The parties have jointly
developed a plan to maintain existing habitat and prevent a buildup of
salt in the ponds while long term restoration planning is underway. This
plan, which will require permits from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and other agencies, envisions reopening the ponds to San
Francisco Bay to allow water to circulate in and out. During the interim
period, the California Coastal Conservancy's San Francisco Bay program
will estimate the costs of restoration, identify potential sources of
funding, outline a schedule, prepare environmental documents and
obtain permits for restoration."
The wetland purchase comes on the heels of the planned NOAA/IFR
partnership for San Francisco Bay restoration (see Sublegals, 6:07/06).
The program involves the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration's Restoration Center in a three-year partnership with the
Institute for Fisheries Resources to assist with citizen projects, including
those of fishermen, to restore the Bay. The partnership came out of
IFR's "Herring & Oysters & Crabs" program and part of its early focus
will be on eel grass restoration and rejuvenating native oyster
populations. For more information, go to: www.ifrfish.org. More
information on the NOAA Restoration Center is at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration. To see the Register
article, go to:
http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id
=52DCA540-6FF1-402E-8C93-57F2B7432EAC.
6:26/07: HERRING LANDINGS SLOW FOR DECEMBER SAN
FRANCISCO BAY FISHERY: The San Francisco Bay "DH" gillnet
fishery, which began the evening of 1 December, closed on the afternoon
of 20 December with only 188.4 tons of the December platoon's 1,016
quota being taken. The roe count of 10.4 percent was low, due to a high
male count in the tests on the 19th. Herring began showing in the Bay
the last week of the fishery, but fishing was impeded when federal
government "rent-a-cops" closed a prime fishing area near Hunter's Point
in the Bay, an area that had been open the past seven years. California
Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) officials along with representatives
of the California Herring Association and PCFFA are working to get this
area reopened. The Odd and Even platoons begin fishing on 5 January
with quotas of 1,108 tons for the Even Platoon and 1,138 tons for the
Odd group (see Sublegals, 6:19/11). This season, the Even platoon
fishes first (starting 5 January) and the Odd platoon fishes second
(starting 12 January). If both platoons are able to reach their quotas
before the season closure on 14 March, the DH platoon will be permitted
to fish for the balance of its quota. The San Francisco Bay herring roe
fishery is the largest on the Pacific Coast (North America) south of
British Columbia. For more information on the fishery, go to:
www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/herring.
6:26/08. ALASKA STELLER SEA LION COMPROMISE
THROWN OUT BY COURT; NRC STUDY SAYS FISHING ONLY
ONE OF MANY FACTORS LEADING TO DECLINES: On 18
December, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly rejected the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) protection plan for Alaska's
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed Steller sea lions. The
Judge sent the proposed rule back to the agency to redo them "in
accordance with the law and the science." NMFS's revised protective
measures, which allowed groundfishing in sea lion critical habitat, were
prepared by the federal agency after Senate Appropriations Chair Ted
Stevens (R-AK) held up a NMFS' funding bill in late December 2000
until the agency agreed to pull back on proposed new fishing closures
that would have primarily targeted Alaska's factory trawler fleet (see
Sublegals, 2:24/17; 2:23/09). Conservation groups challenged the
revised protective measures in federal court, which held the politically
motivated protection plan was "arbitrary and capricious." The Zilly
ruling also found NMFS evaluation of groundfishing impacts on the sea
lions' food chain "inadequate."
Steller sea lions prey on the same fish preferred for commercial
harvests. Under court order, commercial groundfish harvests have been
curtailed in Alaska in recent years to reduce their impact on Steller sea
lion food chains. However, NMFS designated critical habitat areas only
from shore to 20 miles out, and allowed harvests only in the outside
areas from 10 to 20 miles offshore, resulting in restrictions that have
been criticized as unfairly targeting the smaller shore-based fleet (which
has a much smaller impact) and forcing small boats further offshore
where safety hazards are greater, while letting factory trawlers continue
harvesting largest portion of the groundfish biomass further out at sea
(see Sublegals, 4:22/17; 4:08/16; 3:03/20; 2:25/15; 2:23/09; 2:22/02;
2:20/15; 2:11/15; 2:04/09; 2:03/06). This inequity was among the flaws
in the NMFS Biological Opinion that was highlighted as "arbitrary and
capricious" by the court's ruling. The case is Greenpeace v. NMFS
(Western Dist. of WA at Seattle, Civ. No. C98-492Z). Judge Zilly's
ruling is at: http://www.oceana.org/uploads/ZillyOrder.pdf. The Home
Page for the Court, to obtain additional court documents, is at:
http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
Steller sea lions have declined in Alaska by more than 90 percent, and
are now protected under the ESA. Commercial fishing has often been
blamed for their declines because of widespread depletion of their prey
species, primarily by factory trawlers. However, a Congressionally
mandated National Research Council (NRC) study has recently
concluded that while the Steller sea lion population has plummeted in
Alaska, and that while industrial scale commercial fishing is indeed a
contributing factor, commercial fishing is probably not the main culprit.
The NRC report finds that the impact of fishing has been
overemphasized compared to other factors such as predation by killer
whales, illegal shootings, fatal disease, underestimates of subsistence
harvesting impacts, and environmental factors such as major ocean
regime shifts, although it is likely that commercial fishing was a bigger
factor from 1985 to 1990 when sea lion numbers declined precipitously
by more than 15% a year. A prepublication copy of the Executive
Summary of the report, "The Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan
Waters," is available at the NRC web site at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10576.html
6:26/09. LAWSUIT FILED CHALLENGING ADOPTION OF
CHANNEL ISLANDS MPAS: On 3 December a lawsuit was filed in
California Superior Court in Ventura County challenging the
establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) at the Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary offshore Southern California (see Sublegals,
6:17/01, 6:15/11). The case, Ventura County Commercial Fishermen's
Association, et al. v. California Fish & Game Commission, Case No.
CIV 215942, requests, among other things, a Preliminary Injunction and
possible Temporary Restraining Order to halt implementation of the
closed fishing areas until there has been a "full and complete court
review and court hearing." In addition to the Ventura Fishermen's
Association, plaintiffs include United Anglers of Southern California,
the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Inc., the Recreational
Fishing Alliance, Southern California Commercial Fishing Association,
Sea Urchin Harvesters Association, California Lobster & Trap
Fishermen's Association, the Sportfishing Association of California and
PCFFA. Plaintiffs are represented by San Francisco Attorney Ilson New.
A hearing date has not yet been set.
6:26/10. B.C. NATIVE TRIBES "DECLARE WAR" ON FISH
FARMS: British Columbia aboriginal Tribes have "declared war on fish
farms" and Tribal leaders say they are willing to risk jail to keep those
farms from expanding as they work to close several down, reports the 19
December Vancouver Sun. Fourteen boats carrying 60 protesters from
the Tribes, joined by supporters from the commercial fishing industry
and environmental groups, picketed a $15 million Atlantic salmon
hatchery facility on 18 December to prove their point, resulting in one
arrest. "We've declared war on the fish farming industry," said Ed
Newman, a Heiltsuk Nation Elder. "They might have to throw a lot of
us in jail, but we don't care. We have to protect our way of life. We
don't want the central coast to become the garbage dump for the Atlantic
salmon farming industry. This territory is our food basket."
Environmentalists, commercial fishermen and the Tribes have united
in recent month in opposition to B.C. fish farm expansion. The Coastal
Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR) was recently formed in B.C.
as a result. The CAAR informational web site can be found at:
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org.
In late September 2002, after intensive political pressure by the
aquaculture industry, B.C.'s incoming Liberal government lifted a
five-year moratorium on new fish farm permits, despite numerous
recommendations by scientists, Tribes and the government's own
biologists to maintain the moratorium (see Sublegals, 6:11/11; 5:05/09;
5:02/11; 3:26/09). There is a long history of salmon farm operation
Atlantic salmon escapes in British Columbia, and Atlantic salmon
(which cannot interbreed with Pacific salmon but can out compete them
for food) have now successfully colonized several streams in British
Columbia. Diseases have also spread to the wild salmon populations
from local fish farms. For instance, wild pink salmon populations have
recently plunged in B.C.'s Broughton Archipelago by 96 percent, a
decline directly attributed to sea lice infestations spread from the local
open-ocean salmon aquaculture net pens in the area (see Sublegals
6:25/12). For the 19 December Vancouver Sun article go to:
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=4891c3d8-cabc-4604-8220
-ef505681943e.
In addition to the growing opposition to salmon farms in Canada,
opposition is also growing in Chile against aquaculture operations (see
Sublegals, 6:25/09). Chile is the world's second largest producer of
farmed salmon. In his "Letter From Chile" in the 16 December issue of
The Nation (pp.20-22), Jerry Langman writes, that "while the average
salmon company rakes in as gross earnings about 74 percent of its
revenues after labor costs, little is paid to society for the multitude of
eco-problems it provokes, like the high levels of water pollution
underneath salmon pens, overuse of antibiotics, slaughter of sea lions
and overfishing to supply the fishmeal to feed the salmon." For more, go
to: www.thenation.com.
6:26/11. PSMFC PUBLISHES GUIDE TO FISHING
ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES: The Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission has put together its online Directory of Fishing
Groups & Fishing Agencies to aid people in locating fishing associations
(both sport and commercial) as well as Tribal, state, and federal agency
officials. For more information, contact Fran Recht at:
fran_recht@psmfc.org. To view the directory, go to:
http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/allgrps.html.
NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,
comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, 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>.
##########################################################
"Fishlink" and "Sublegals" are registered trademarks of the Institute for
Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are
reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced
and circulated without copyright restriction. If you are receiving this
as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues.
Subscribers who wish to post or circulate hard copy of Sublegals or
have no access to the Internet may receive fax subscriptions by faxing
their request, with their fax number to: (415) 561-5464. Thanks!
##########################################################
BEST WISHES FOR A HAPPY AND PRODUCTIVE NEW YEAR!
##########################################################
--part1_ba.33c60ef5.2b4769bf_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">##########################################################<BR>
~~>SUBLEGALS 27Dec02<~~<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. 06, NO. 26 27 DECEMBER 2002<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"People have the power. The power to dream, to rule, to <BR>
wrestle the world from fools." .....Patti Smith<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
IN THIS ISSUE.......<BR>
<BR>
Cut in Colorado River Flows May Pressure More <BR>
Northern California Diversions, Imperil Salmon. 6:26/01<BR>
<BR>
Objections Raised to Bureau of Reclamation's <BR>
Proposed Westlands Settlement. 6:26/04<BR>
<BR>
Steller Sea Lion Compromise Thrown Out; NRC Report <BR>
Questions Impact of Fishing on Declines. 6:26/08<BR>
<BR>
Suit Filed Challenging Establishment of MPAs at <BR>
Channel Islands. 6:26/09<BR>
<BR>
British Columbia Tribes "Declare War on Fish Farms." 6:26/10<BR>
<BR>
AND MORE......<BR>
########################################################## <BR>
6:26/01. CUT IN COLORADO FLOWS TO CALIFORNIA MAY<BR>
PUT MORE PRESSURE ON STATE'S NORTH COAST RIVERS TO<BR>
PROVIDE WATER FOR SOUTHLAND: The looming threat of a<BR>
cutback in flows from the Colorado River to California could increase<BR>
pressure for more diversions from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta<BR>
and the State's northern rivers to make up Southern California's projected<BR>
shortfall. This, in turn, could spell trouble for the State's salmon<BR>
populations, as well as the San Francisco Bay estuary that relies on Delta<BR>
inflows for its biological productivity. Standing before representatives of<BR>
the Colorado River Water Users Association (CRWUA) at a 16<BR>
December Las Vegas conference, U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton<BR>
made it clear that Southern California's municipal and agricultural water<BR>
users must act quickly to avoid major reductions in the amount of<BR>
Colorado River flows the state is allowed to withdraw. Currently,<BR>
California uses more water from the Colorado River than any of the six<BR>
other states in the basin. <BR>
<BR>
Although other states have worked for decades to have the supplies<BR>
reallocated, nothing has been able to evoke a change in the Colorado's<BR>
diversion schedule. Nothing, that is, until the combined pressure of<BR>
prolonged population growth and recent droughts throughout the west all<BR>
but dried up the 1450-mile river. Now Norton and the Interior<BR>
Department are taking steps to end Southern California's<BR>
over-consumption of the Colorado and, in the process, causing some<BR>
concern among northern California residents. <BR>
<BR>
Disputes over water are nothing new in the Golden State, but in<BR>
recent years tensions have been on the rise. This year's unprecedented<BR>
fish kill on the Klamath marked a new low for resource management in<BR>
that watershed (see Sublegals, 6:25/01; 6:20/04; 6:17/06; 6:16/01;<BR>
6:15/01; 6:14/01; 6:13/01; 6:12/07; 6:02/09; 5:23/08; 5:21/03; 5:21/03;<BR>
5:20/09; 5:18/01; 5:17/02). An expansion of the Los Vaqueros reservoir<BR>
in Contra Costa County threatens to divert even more fresh water from<BR>
the already impaired Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (see Sublegals,<BR>
6:21/07) and on the Gualala and Albion rivers, plans had been afoot for<BR>
water bagging operations to take the flows from those rivers, place them<BR>
in giant condom-shaped storage containers and tow them by tug to<BR>
Southern Californian communities (see Sublegals, 6:24/08; 6:19/08;<BR>
6:15/05; 6:14/10). What's at stake now, leading up to a 31 December<BR>
deadline, is an adjustment period that is intended to allow Southern<BR>
California's water users enough time to wean themselves off of the<BR>
Colorado's flows. Two years ago members of the seven-state CRWUA,<BR>
including California, agreed to allow the two major water users, the<BR>
Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the Metropolitan Water District<BR>
(MWD) of Southern California, to work out a plan for reallocating the<BR>
soon to be reduced Colorado flows to provide for the needs Southern<BR>
California's 17 million residents. <BR>
<BR>
Under what is called the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA)<BR>
the IID and MWD faced two alternatives beginning 1 January 2003: sign<BR>
on and make the transition over 15 years or walk away from the QSA<BR>
and watch the Colorado flows disappear almost overnight. <BR>
<BR>
The decision, however, is not quite that straightforward, but the<BR>
effects will be. Unfortunately, MWD officials don't seem to be in a rush<BR>
to work things out because of a two-year water surplus it has stored in<BR>
area reservoirs. The IID, on the other hand, is holding out for multiple<BR>
reasons: its irrigators don't want to lose their water rights for the future<BR>
and they fear the environmental liabilities for the effects of reduced<BR>
irrigation runoff into the already concentrated Salton Sea. All the while<BR>
people in northern California are cringing at the thought of their<BR>
neighbors to the south redirecting their thirst towards the already<BR>
over-tapped water resources within the northern parts of the state. <BR>
Nightmare scenarios involving new dams, canals and even water<BR>
bagging operations may unfortunately be seen as necessary and timely<BR>
solutions if MWD can't negotiate a sale with the Imperial Irrigators<BR>
under the QSA. However, with the 15-year adjustment period many<BR>
people believe that long-term solutions such as desalinization,<BR>
conservation and groundwater storage could be implemented to protect<BR>
northern water resources.<BR>
<BR>
The QSA, of course, does not address the inflow needs of the Gulf of<BR>
California, where fish stocks have been adversely affected by the loss of<BR>
Colorado water to the estuary. For more information on Secretary<BR>
Norton's speech to the CRWUA, go to the Department of Interior<BR>
website at: http://www.doi.gov/news/front_current.html. Also see the 18<BR>
December Environment News Service report at:<BR>
http://ens-news.com/ens/dec2002/2002e-12-18-04.asp.<BR>
<BR>
6:26/02. LONG BEACH LATEST SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA<BR>
CITY LOOKING AT DESAL TO SUPPLY WATER NEEDS: In the<BR>
midst of the brouhaha over the loss of Colorado River water to Southern<BR>
California, some of the Southland's municipalities and water districts are<BR>
giving a new look at desalination of ocean water, in addition to<BR>
conservation and recycling (see Sublegals, 6:19/09). On 6 November,<BR>
the Long Beach Press-Telegram reported the Long Beach Water<BR>
Department has begun a 3-year desalination research program, with<BR>
assistance from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and Los Angeles<BR>
Department of Water & Power (DWP), looking at ways to reduce costs,<BR>
maximize energy efficiency and optimize drinking water quality. The<BR>
study will also explore options for managing seawater concentrate - the<BR>
elements removed from ocean water. According to the Press-Telegram<BR>
article, the "prototype desalination facility will be based at the Los<BR>
Angeles Department of Water and Power's Haynes Generation Station<BR>
on the east end of the city.......The plant will process about 300,000<BR>
gallons of offshore water a day, and the desalted water will be<BR>
recombined with concentrates before being discharged." The Long<BR>
Beach Water Department serves 460,000 people, delivering 22.8 billion<BR>
gallons of drinking water per year, and 1.8 billion gallons of reclaimed<BR>
water per year. According to its planning manager, Matthew Lyons, the<BR>
Department is conserving 3.9 billion gallons annually and has spent $9.2<BR>
million on reclaimed water system expansion in the last five years.<BR>
Desalination by Long Beach could help reduce demand on Northern<BR>
California rivers and aid in saving salmon. The Press-Telegram article is<BR>
at: http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/<BR>
0,1413,204%257E23170%257E975148,00.html?search=filter.<BR>
<BR>
6:26/03. PUBLIC COMMENTS SOUGHT FOR WASHINGTON<BR>
STATE MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS TO PROTECT FISH AND<BR>
WILDLIFE: Like many western states, the State of Washington does not<BR>
have established minimum instream flow standards to maintain water in<BR>
its rivers to support salmon populations, other fish and wildlife. State<BR>
law and Washington's new Strategy for Salmon Recovery, however, now<BR>
require each basin in the State to have a water management plan which<BR>
contains minimum instream flows as reserved river volumes (i.e., not<BR>
available for appropriation) for fish and wildlife. Many of these plans<BR>
are due for approval by late 2003. The Washington Department of<BR>
Ecology (DEQ) now has a website devoted to the instream flow setting<BR>
process, with draft guidelines and standards as well as key dates and<BR>
work plan timelines. Each watershed plan will be available to public<BR>
input, including that from fishery representatives, as it is developed, and<BR>
then for public comment. The DEQ website for this watershed planning<BR>
program is at:<BR>
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isflowhome.html.<BR>
<BR>
6:26/04. OBJECTIONS RAISED OVER WESTLANDS<BR>
SETTLEMENT: The Fresno Bee reported 20 December that opponents<BR>
of the proposed Westlands Water District settlement have asked the<BR>
court to give the public more "time to understand the implications" of a<BR>
$140 million settlement agreement (see Sublegals, 6:24/02; 6:22/09).<BR>
The agreement, announced 13 December, would initially have the U.S.<BR>
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) pay the money to retire 33,000 acres of<BR>
cropland within the water district located on the west side of California's<BR>
San Joaquin Valley. The settlement is intended to resolve a 14-year old<BR>
case where Federal District Court Judge Oliver Wanger sided with<BR>
plaintiff growers demanding BOR pay for construction of a drainage<BR>
system to take toxic, selenium and pesticide-laden agricultural<BR>
wastewaters and dump them in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The<BR>
planned drain drew fire from fishing groups and conservationists who<BR>
said the ag waste water was potentially poisonous to the second largest<BR>
run of Pacific salmon in the lower 48, which migrate through the Delta.<BR>
BOR decided it was cheaper to retire the lands than build the drain. <BR>
<BR>
Westlands is the most junior water rights holder in the Central<BR>
Valley, but its members receive federally subsidized Central Valley<BR>
Project (CVP) water to grow crops in that arid region. Under the terms<BR>
of the proposed agreement, BOR agreed to pay the landowners $107<BR>
million in damages, and Westlands agreed to pay $33 million and would<BR>
obtain ownership of the 33,000-plus acres. The district would also retain<BR>
the water rights. Opponents of the settlement, including the Natural<BR>
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Bay Institute, Contra Costa<BR>
County and the Contra Costa County Water Agency, raised a number of<BR>
objections to the proposed settlement:<BR>
<BR>
* It would take money from the Central Valley Project Improvement Act<BR>
(CVPIA) restoration fund that is earmarked for environmental purposes.<BR>
The CVPIA, however, does not authorize the use of restoration funds to<BR>
settle damage claims against the United States.<BR>
<BR>
* There is no information on how the retired land may be used in the<BR>
future or whether such uses would be consistent with habitat restoration<BR>
mandates under the CVPIA.<BR>
<BR>
* It implies CVP water users outside of Westands Water District may be<BR>
assessed to pay the costs of the settlement.<BR>
<BR>
* The 19 grower families that own the 33,000 acres have repeatedly<BR>
violated reclamation law, which limits "the lawful recipients of<BR>
taxpayer-subsidized water to farm operations of 960 acres or less."<BR>
<BR>
* The government obligation to build a drainage system for the<BR>
600,000-acre Westlands Water District, ordered by Wanger, does not go<BR>
away with the settlement agreement.<BR>
<BR>
For the Fresno Bee article by Jerry Bier, see:<BR>
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/politics/story/5644785p-6619489c.html<BR>
<BR>
6:26/05. WASHINGTON STATE ADOPTS NEW SHORELINE<BR>
PROTECTION RULES: After three years and three mediators,<BR>
Washington State interests from all sides of the negotiations have agreed<BR>
to new shoreline protection rules that affect coastal development and<BR>
port infrastructure as well as improve public access and help control<BR>
erosion, pollution and flooding in fragile coastal environments. Original<BR>
draft rules issued in 1999 met widespread condemnation as either too<BR>
strict or too lax. A new set of rules approved in November 2000 were<BR>
knocked down as a result of lawsuits by business interests and agencies,<BR>
and a successful appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board. <BR>
<BR>
The compromise reached this month takes a middle ground,<BR>
emphasizing a "no net loss of ecological function" policy and stricter<BR>
pollution and erosion controls sought by conservation groups. Rural<BR>
counties who feared increased planning costs will be able to tap into a $2<BR>
million state fund in Washington Governor Gary Locke's proposed<BR>
budget. The rules are not without problems, however, particularly an<BR>
exemption for farming activities in the coastal zone that can be major<BR>
contributors to erosion.<BR>
<BR>
For more information see the 22 December Boston Globe article on<BR>
the agreement, located at: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/356/<BR>
nation/After_wrangle_groups_reach_pact_on_shoreline_protection+.sht<BR>
ml. For the new rules themselves and background information on how<BR>
they will apply see:<BR>
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMA/guidelines/newguid.htm.<BR>
<BR>
6:26/06. $100 (US) MILLION PURCHASE OF CARGILL SALT<BR>
PONDS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY FOR LARGEST WETLANDS<BR>
ACQUISITION WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI: One of the largest<BR>
"un-developed" parcels of land along San Francisco Bay was purchased<BR>
earlier this month for restoration as wetlands. According to a 17<BR>
December report in the Napa Valley Register, the "$100 million<BR>
purchase has been finalized of the former Cargill salt ponds property,<BR>
much of it along the Napa River, but information about the purchase is<BR>
still secret. Environmental assessments of the property, details of<BR>
Cargill's responsibilities for site cleanup, the agreement regarding the<BR>
phase-out of salt-making operations and a full summary of the sale<BR>
agreement won't be made available to the public until<BR>
January........Appraisals will remain secret until after the deal is<BR>
complete......The agreement is contingent on a vote by the California<BR>
Wildlife Conservation Board." <BR>
<BR>
The Board is to take the matter up at its 11 February meeting. San<BR>
Francisco Bay is considered the most important estuary on the west coast<BR>
of North and South America and supports populations of salmon,<BR>
Dungeness crab, herring and numerous other fish and wildlife resources. <BR>
Prior to modern development along the Bay, it also supported a major<BR>
oyster and shrimp fishery.<BR>
<BR>
The Register reports the "full funding package includes $100 million<BR>
for acquisition and $35 million for five years of initial stewardship and<BR>
restoration planning.....Funding for acquisition includes $72 million<BR>
from the State of California, $8 million from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife<BR>
Service and $20 million from a consortium of the Hewlett, Moore, and<BR>
Packard foundations and the Goldman, and Resources Legacy Funds.<BR>
The private foundations are also providing $15 million toward the cost<BR>
of initial stewardship and restoration planning.....The remaining $20<BR>
million will come from both the federal and state governments<BR>
to be provided over a five-year period. The parties have jointly<BR>
developed a plan to maintain existing habitat and prevent a buildup of<BR>
salt in the ponds while long term restoration planning is underway. This<BR>
plan, which will require permits from the Regional Water Quality<BR>
Control Board and other agencies, envisions reopening the ponds to San<BR>
Francisco Bay to allow water to circulate in and out. During the interim<BR>
period, the California Coastal Conservancy's San Francisco Bay program<BR>
will estimate the costs of restoration, identify potential sources of<BR>
funding, outline a schedule, prepare environmental documents and<BR>
obtain permits for restoration." <BR>
<BR>
The wetland purchase comes on the heels of the planned NOAA/IFR<BR>
partnership for San Francisco Bay restoration (see Sublegals, 6:07/06). <BR>
The program involves the National Oceanic & Atmospheric<BR>
Administration's Restoration Center in a three-year partnership with the<BR>
Institute for Fisheries Resources to assist with citizen projects, including<BR>
those of fishermen, to restore the Bay. The partnership came out of<BR>
IFR's "Herring & Oysters & Crabs" program and part of its early focus<BR>
will be on eel grass restoration and rejuvenating native oyster<BR>
populations. For more information, go to: www.ifrfish.org. More<BR>
information on the NOAA Restoration Center is at:<BR>
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration. To see the Register<BR>
article, go to:<BR>
http://www.napanews.com/templates/index.cfm?template=story_full&id<BR>
=52DCA540-6FF1-402E-8C93-57F2B7432EAC.<BR>
<BR>
6:26/07: HERRING LANDINGS SLOW FOR DECEMBER SAN<BR>
FRANCISCO BAY FISHERY: The San Francisco Bay "DH" gillnet<BR>
fishery, which began the evening of 1 December, closed on the afternoon<BR>
of 20 December with only 188.4 tons of the December platoon's 1,016<BR>
quota being taken. The roe count of 10.4 percent was low, due to a high<BR>
male count in the tests on the 19th. Herring began showing in the Bay<BR>
the last week of the fishery, but fishing was impeded when federal<BR>
government "rent-a-cops" closed a prime fishing area near Hunter's Point<BR>
in the Bay, an area that had been open the past seven years. California<BR>
Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) officials along with representatives<BR>
of the California Herring Association and PCFFA are working to get this<BR>
area reopened. The Odd and Even platoons begin fishing on 5 January<BR>
with quotas of 1,108 tons for the Even Platoon and 1,138 tons for the<BR>
Odd group (see Sublegals, 6:19/11). This season, the Even platoon<BR>
fishes first (starting 5 January) and the Odd platoon fishes second<BR>
(starting 12 January). If both platoons are able to reach their quotas<BR>
before the season closure on 14 March, the DH platoon will be permitted<BR>
to fish for the balance of its quota. The San Francisco Bay herring roe<BR>
fishery is the largest on the Pacific Coast (North America) south of<BR>
British Columbia. For more information on the fishery, go to:<BR>
www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/herring.<BR>
<BR>
6:26/08. ALASKA STELLER SEA LION COMPROMISE<BR>
THROWN OUT BY COURT; NRC STUDY SAYS FISHING ONLY<BR>
ONE OF MANY FACTORS LEADING TO DECLINES: On 18<BR>
December, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas S. Zilly rejected the<BR>
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) protection plan for Alaska's<BR>
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed Steller sea lions. The<BR>
Judge sent the proposed rule back to the agency to redo them "in<BR>
accordance with the law and the science." NMFS's revised protective<BR>
measures, which allowed groundfishing in sea lion critical habitat, were<BR>
prepared by the federal agency after Senate Appropriations Chair Ted<BR>
Stevens (R-AK) held up a NMFS' funding bill in late December 2000<BR>
until the agency agreed to pull back on proposed new fishing closures<BR>
that would have primarily targeted Alaska's factory trawler fleet (see<BR>
Sublegals, 2:24/17; 2:23/09). Conservation groups challenged the<BR>
revised protective measures in federal court, which held the politically<BR>
motivated protection plan was "arbitrary and capricious." The Zilly<BR>
ruling also found NMFS evaluation of groundfishing impacts on the sea<BR>
lions' food chain "inadequate." <BR>
<BR>
Steller sea lions prey on the same fish preferred for commercial<BR>
harvests. Under court order, commercial groundfish harvests have been<BR>
curtailed in Alaska in recent years to reduce their impact on Steller sea<BR>
lion food chains. However, NMFS designated critical habitat areas only<BR>
from shore to 20 miles out, and allowed harvests only in the outside<BR>
areas from 10 to 20 miles offshore, resulting in restrictions that have<BR>
been criticized as unfairly targeting the smaller shore-based fleet (which<BR>
has a much smaller impact) and forcing small boats further offshore<BR>
where safety hazards are greater, while letting factory trawlers continue<BR>
harvesting largest portion of the groundfish biomass further out at sea<BR>
(see Sublegals, 4:22/17; 4:08/16; 3:03/20; 2:25/15; 2:23/09; 2:22/02;<BR>
2:20/15; 2:11/15; 2:04/09; 2:03/06). This inequity was among the flaws<BR>
in the NMFS Biological Opinion that was highlighted as "arbitrary and<BR>
capricious" by the court's ruling. The case is Greenpeace v. NMFS<BR>
(Western Dist. of WA at Seattle, Civ. No. C98-492Z). Judge Zilly's<BR>
ruling is at: http://www.oceana.org/uploads/ZillyOrder.pdf. The Home<BR>
Page for the Court, to obtain additional court documents, is at:<BR>
http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov.<BR>
<BR>
Steller sea lions have declined in Alaska by more than 90 percent, and<BR>
are now protected under the ESA. Commercial fishing has often been<BR>
blamed for their declines because of widespread depletion of their prey<BR>
species, primarily by factory trawlers. However, a Congressionally<BR>
mandated National Research Council (NRC) study has recently<BR>
concluded that while the Steller sea lion population has plummeted in<BR>
Alaska, and that while industrial scale commercial fishing is indeed a<BR>
contributing factor, commercial fishing is probably not the main culprit.<BR>
The NRC report finds that the impact of fishing has been<BR>
overemphasized compared to other factors such as predation by killer<BR>
whales, illegal shootings, fatal disease, underestimates of subsistence<BR>
harvesting impacts, and environmental factors such as major ocean<BR>
regime shifts, although it is likely that commercial fishing was a bigger<BR>
factor from 1985 to 1990 when sea lion numbers declined precipitously<BR>
by more than 15% a year. A prepublication copy of the Executive<BR>
Summary of the report, "The Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan<BR>
Waters," is available at the NRC web site at:<BR>
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10576.html<BR>
<BR>
6:26/09. LAWSUIT FILED CHALLENGING ADOPTION OF<BR>
CHANNEL ISLANDS MPAS: On 3 December a lawsuit was filed in<BR>
California Superior Court in Ventura County challenging the<BR>
establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) at the Channel Islands<BR>
National Marine Sanctuary offshore Southern California (see Sublegals,<BR>
6:17/01, 6:15/11). The case, Ventura County Commercial Fishermen's<BR>
Association, et al. v. California Fish & Game Commission, Case No.<BR>
CIV 215942, requests, among other things, a Preliminary Injunction and<BR>
possible Temporary Restraining Order to halt implementation of the<BR>
closed fishing areas until there has been a "full and complete court<BR>
review and court hearing." In addition to the Ventura Fishermen's<BR>
Association, plaintiffs include United Anglers of Southern California,<BR>
the Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, Inc., the Recreational<BR>
Fishing Alliance, Southern California Commercial Fishing Association,<BR>
Sea Urchin Harvesters Association, California Lobster & Trap<BR>
Fishermen's Association, the Sportfishing Association of California and<BR>
PCFFA. Plaintiffs are represented by San Francisco Attorney Ilson New. <BR>
A hearing date has not yet been set.<BR>
<BR>
6:26/10. B.C. NATIVE TRIBES "DECLARE WAR" ON FISH<BR>
FARMS: British Columbia aboriginal Tribes have "declared war on fish<BR>
farms" and Tribal leaders say they are willing to risk jail to keep those<BR>
farms from expanding as they work to close several down, reports the 19<BR>
December Vancouver Sun. Fourteen boats carrying 60 protesters from<BR>
the Tribes, joined by supporters from the commercial fishing industry<BR>
and environmental groups, picketed a $15 million Atlantic salmon<BR>
hatchery facility on 18 December to prove their point, resulting in one<BR>
arrest. "We've declared war on the fish farming industry," said Ed<BR>
Newman, a Heiltsuk Nation Elder. "They might have to throw a lot of<BR>
us in jail, but we don't care. We have to protect our way of life. We<BR>
don't want the central coast to become the garbage dump for the Atlantic<BR>
salmon farming industry. This territory is our food basket." <BR>
<BR>
Environmentalists, commercial fishermen and the Tribes have united<BR>
in recent month in opposition to B.C. fish farm expansion. The Coastal<BR>
Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR) was recently formed in B.C.<BR>
as a result. The CAAR informational web site can be found at:<BR>
http://www.farmedanddangerous.org.<BR>
<BR>
In late September 2002, after intensive political pressure by the<BR>
aquaculture industry, B.C.'s incoming Liberal government lifted a<BR>
five-year moratorium on new fish farm permits, despite numerous<BR>
recommendations by scientists, Tribes and the government's own<BR>
biologists to maintain the moratorium (see Sublegals, 6:11/11; 5:05/09;<BR>
5:02/11; 3:26/09). There is a long history of salmon farm operation<BR>
Atlantic salmon escapes in British Columbia, and Atlantic salmon<BR>
(which cannot interbreed with Pacific salmon but can out compete them<BR>
for food) have now successfully colonized several streams in British<BR>
Columbia. Diseases have also spread to the wild salmon populations<BR>
from local fish farms. For instance, wild pink salmon populations have<BR>
recently plunged in B.C.'s Broughton Archipelago by 96 percent, a<BR>
decline directly attributed to sea lice infestations spread from the local<BR>
open-ocean salmon aquaculture net pens in the area (see Sublegals<BR>
6:25/12). For the 19 December Vancouver Sun article go to:<BR>
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=4891c3d8-cabc-4604-8220<BR>
-ef505681943e.<BR>
<BR>
In addition to the growing opposition to salmon farms in Canada,<BR>
opposition is also growing in Chile against aquaculture operations (see<BR>
Sublegals, 6:25/09). Chile is the world's second largest producer of<BR>
farmed salmon. In his "Letter From Chile" in the 16 December issue of<BR>
The Nation (pp.20-22), Jerry Langman writes, that "while the average<BR>
salmon company rakes in as gross earnings about 74 percent of its<BR>
revenues after labor costs, little is paid to society for the multitude of<BR>
eco-problems it provokes, like the high levels of water pollution<BR>
underneath salmon pens, overuse of antibiotics, slaughter of sea lions<BR>
and overfishing to supply the fishmeal to feed the salmon." For more, go<BR>
to: www.thenation.com. <BR>
<BR>
6:26/11. PSMFC PUBLISHES GUIDE TO FISHING<BR>
ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES: The Pacific States Marine<BR>
Fisheries Commission has put together its online Directory of Fishing<BR>
Groups & Fishing Agencies to aid people in locating fishing associations<BR>
(both sport and commercial) as well as Tribal, state, and federal agency<BR>
officials. For more information, contact Fran Recht at:<BR>
fran_recht@psmfc.org. To view the directory, go to:<BR>
http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/allgrps.html. <BR>
<BR>
NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,<BR>
comments or any corrections to Editor at: sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call<BR>
the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415)<BR>
561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office). <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>
"Fishlink" and "Sublegals" are registered trademarks of the Institute for <BR>
Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of these trademarks are <BR>
reserved to IFR. This publication, however, may be freely reproduced <BR>
and circulated without copyright restriction. If you are receiving this <BR>
as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues. <BR>
Subscribers who wish to post or circulate hard copy of Sublegals or <BR>
have no access to the Internet may receive fax subscriptions by faxing <BR>
their request, with their fax number to: (415) 561-5464. Thanks! <BR>
##########################################################<BR>
BEST WISHES FOR A HAPPY AND PRODUCTIVE NEW YEAR!<BR>
##########################################################</FONT></HTML>
--part1_ba.33c60ef5.2b4769bf_boundary--