[Fishlink] ~~>SUBLEGALS 17Jan03<~~
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:37:44 EST
--part1_107.1e9cdce6.2b66e488_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Our apologies for the last posting of this newsletter. We were having
technical problems, now resolved,with our listserver. -- Sublegals staff
##########################################################
~~>SUBLEGALS 17Jan03<~~
##########################################################
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. 07, NO. 03 17 JANUARY 2003
##########################################################
"The time comes when silence is betrayal. Even when pressed by the
demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing
their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the
human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of
conformist thought, within one's own bosom and in the surrounding
world.".......... Martin Luther King, Jr.
##########################################################
IN THIS ISSUE.......
Ninth Circuit Rules NMFS Must Allow Public
Comment On FMPs. 7:03/01
Conservation/Gear Modification Measures Pay-off
For Swordfish Driftnetters. 7:03/04
GAO Releases Report On IFQs. 7:03/05
Court Rules Against Salmon In Snake River Dams
Hot Water Dispute. 7:03/07
Del Norte County To Join PCFFA Lawsuit On
Klamath Fish Kill. 7:03/11
AND MORE......
##########################################################
7:03/01. NINTH CIRCUIT RULES NMFS MUST ALLOW PUBLIC
COMMENT ON FMPS: On 13 January, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco issued a ruling holding that the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) "must provide notice and the
opportunity for public comment before issuing specifications and
management measures" for federally managed fish stocks. The case,
Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Evans (No. 01-17143, D.C.
No. CV-01-00637-JL), arose out of a challenge by plaintiffs against the
Secretary of Commerce over the 2001 Pacific groundfish specifications
adopted by NMFS. In that instance, and virtually every year prior to that
since the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) began
developing fishery management plans (FMPs) for stocks, NMFS has
adopted final regulations for that year's fishery allowing public comment
only after the fact. NRDC complained that management measures were
subject to the notice and comment requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act, 16 USC
1801 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 533, and that
no required prior public comment opportunity is given.
The PFMC, as is the case with other U.S. regional fishery councils,
typically goes through an annual season setting process where it takes
public comment in hearings and at council meetings on a series of
alternative management measures for a fishery. Since there is often a
delay by NMFS, the states and councils in assembling the data from the
previous season quickly enough to base management measures on for the
subsequent year, NMFS claimed there is not enough time for public
comment before adoption of season specifications without delaying
implementation of new measures, which may include a season opening.
Thus, it has provided for comment only after final adoption of
management measures. NMFS argues that the annual process many
councils use provides ample time for public comment over a roughly one
to two month period before a council recommendation. The fishery
agency also argues that comments can be submitted by the public to the
Secretary of Commerce once a council has forwarded its management
measures, which may include an FMP or amendments thereto, before
approval, approval in part, or disapproval of regional council
recommendations. In essence, NMFS says comment prior to approval in
not needed. The plaintiffs, however, argued that the final package
adopted by the Secretary (in fact, NMFS) may be different than that
forwarded by a regional council and/or contain regulatory measures
developed by NMFS to implement management, so the public, therefore,
should have an opportunity to comment before, and not after, final
approval.
Presumably, the Ninth Circuit decision will now make it possible to
comment and suggest changes to a NMFS rules package for a fishery
before it becomes final. The downside of the decision could be that the
comment period might delay, or provide NMFS an excuse for delaying,
implementation of new management measures, including possible delays
in season openings. For more information on the case, contact NRDC
attorney Drew Caputo at: dcaputo@nrdc.org.
7:03/02. CALIFORNIA FISH & GAME COMMISSION FINISHES
YEAR WITH BLITZ OF ACTIONS: The California Fish & Game
Commission held a special session 20 December 2002 to take action on
a number of items that were unable to be voted on at its 5-6 December
meeting due to lack of a quorum (see Sublegals, 6:24/12). Among other
things, the Commissioners adopted the Department of Fish & Game's
(CDFG) preferred alternative for the Nearshore Fishery Restricted
Access Program (details are available at:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/proposedregs02.htm#150nsra).
The Commission approved changes to the cabezon, greenling, and
sheephead fishery, establishing cumulative trip limits of 200 pounds per
individual for cabezon, 400 pounds per individual for sheephead and 50
pounds per individual for greenlings during the two-month period of
January and February. They also acted to bring the season into
alignment with the federal regulations, closing the fishery completely in
March and April 2003. For details visit:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/proposedregs02.htm#150_06.
Finally, Commissioners received public testimony regarding the
commercial spot prawn fishery and the proposed ban on trawling for
spot prawns. The Commission instead decided to change the season
dates and requested spot prawn trawlers to develop a plan for observer
coverage that they will fund. The Commission's Fisheries Subcommittee
will meet on 28 January at its offices in Sacramento. The full
Commission will meet again 6 -7 February in Sacramento to act on a
number of items including the proposal to restrict the importation of
transgenic fish, and the adoption of the California Rockfish
Conservation Area. See meeting details at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/2003mtgs.html.
7:03/03. PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
GROUNDFISH AND SALMON MEETINGS SCHEDULED: The
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) will be holding a number
of subcommittee meetings and workshops to prepare for the 10 - 14
March Council meeting in Sacramento, California. For groundfish, a
bycatch workshop will be held 27-29 January and the Groundfish
Management Team (GMT) will be meeting 3-7 February. To see details
of these meetings go to http://www.pcouncil.org/events/csevents.html.
To review the 2003 PFMC groundfish management measures, go to:
http://www.pcouncil.org/newsletters/2002/fall02.pdf. Also, the Pacific
Council's Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT) will
meet 30-31 January; that meeting notice is at:
http://www.pcouncil.org/events/2003/cpsmt0103.html
The PFMC's Salmon Technical Team (STT), meanwhile, has
announced a series of preseason public work sessions and hearings to be
held over the next four months. The first work session will be held on
21-24 January to draft the "Review of 2002 Ocean Salmon Fisheries"
and to consider other estimation or methodology issues pertinent to the
upcoming 2003 season. The next scheduled event is a work session to
draft the "Preseason Report I-Stock Abundance Analysis for 2003 Ocean
Salmon Fisheries" and to consider other estimation or methodology
issues pertinent to the 2003 season. Both of these meeting will be held
at the PFMC's West Conference Room; 7700 NE Ambassador Place,
Suite 200, in Portland, Oregon 97220-1384; (503) 820-2280. On 5
February, a work session of the STT and the Scientific & Statistical
Committee's (SSC) Salmon Subgroup is scheduled at the Holiday Inn
Airport in Portland to review changes made to the chinook and coho
Fishery Regulation Assessment Models (FRAM). Public hearings on
proposed ocean salmon fishery management options will be held 31
March and 1 April in Westport, Washington; Coos Bay, Oregon; Eureka,
California (along with Moss Landing, California) followed by the full
PFMC meeting of 7 - 11 April in Vancouver, Washington to adopt
management measures for the 2003 season. Fishermen and members of
the public can now sign-up for meeting announcements and updates
from PFMC by contacting Kerry Aden at: kerry.aden@noaa.gov. For
more details on the meetings, go to:
http://www.pcouncil.org/events/2002/salproc03.html#additional.
7:03/04. CONSERVATION/GEAR MODIFICATION MEASURES
PAY-OFF FOR SWORDFISH DRIFTNETTERS, FISHERY
PROPOSED FOR RECATEGORIZATION: Measures implemented by
the swordfish and thresher shark driftnet fishery offshore California to
protect marine mammals and sea turtles is apparently paying off with the
fleet successfully able to avoid sea turtles altogether this past season.
The measures taken by the fleet, working with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), have included the use of "pingers" on the
gear allowing marine mammals to detect and avoid the nets, as well as
setting the nets at depths to avoid sea turtles and avoiding areas
frequented by sea turtles. Pacific Coast swordfish stocks are regarded as
healthy and the driftnet thresher shark fishery, conservatively managed
by the State of California, is regarded as one of the few sustainable shark
fisheries in the world. As a result of the measures taken by the fleet and
the positive results that have been attained, NMFS has proposed
recategorizing the swordfish/shark driftnet fishery from Category I to
Category II (meaning less impact on marine mammals) under the U.S.
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The change is recommended
in NMFS's annual proposed list of fisheries under the MMPA. Written
comments on the recommended recategorization can be made to: Chief,
Marine Mammal Conservation Division; Attn: List of Fisheries; Office
of Protected Resources; NMFS; 1315 East-West Highway; Silver
Spring, MD 20910. The deadline for comment is 10 February.
7:03/05. GAO RELEASES REPORT ON IFQs: On 10 January, the
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) released its report on individual
fishing quota (IFQ) systems. The report, which was requested by U.S.
Senators John Kerrey (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), examined
the three systems currently operating in the U.S. that were put in place
prior to the 1996 Congressional moratorium. Those are the Mid-Atlantic
surfclam/ocean quahog fishery, the South Atlantic wreckfish fishery, and
the Alaska halibut and blackcod (sablefish) fishery. According to a 10
January Associated Press story, the GAO found the programs had
resulted in industry consolidation, where in "the Alaska halibut and
sablefish fishery, the number of quota holders decreased by 27 and 15
percent, respectively.....................The number of wreckfish quota
holders
declined by 49 percent from 1992-2002; and the number of surfclam and
ocean quahog quota holders decreased by 17 and 34 percent,
respectively, from 1990-2002.........However, in surfclams and ocean
quahogs, consolidation was even greater than the NMFS data indicated,
because different quota holders are actually part of the same family or
corporation...........For 2002, for instance, consolidation of quota in the
surfclam program was about twice that indicated by NMFS data, and one
entity alone controlled over a quarter of the quota, GAO said."
The GAO report went on to say NMFS "should require the regional
councils to define what constitutes excessive share for fisheries in future
quota programs." That is important since the Congressional moratorium
on IFQs expired in September (see Sublegals, 6:23/06; 6:17/03) and
currently there are no national standards in place for IFQ programs.
IFQs are being considered for a number of fisheries around the U.S.,
including the herring and red crab fisheries in New England, the Gulf of
Mexico snapper fishery, Pacific groundfish and the North Pacific crab
fishery (see Sublegals, 6:17/04; 5:24/01). In Alaska, the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council approved in June 2002, subject to the
expiration of the moratorium, a controversial "two-pie" IFQ system that
would give control of 90 percent of the fishery to a handful of processors
- mostly foreign owned (see the November 2002 issue of the Fishermen's
News article, Can't We Just Get Along? Finding an Accord on IFQs, at
www.pcffa.org/fn-nov03.htm). The GAO report also contradicted a State
of Alaska report issued last year claiming fish processors were hurt by
IFQs for fishermen. Processors used the state report to argue for their
own quota shares. Legislation to impose national standards for IFQ
programs, which PCFFA among others has called for, is expected to be
taken up in the 108th Congress. For more on the GAO report, see the 15
January Liz Ruskin article in the Anchorage Daily News at:
http://www.adn.com/business/story/2464395p-2511992c.html
7:03/06. WEST COAST'S "LARGEST COMMERCIAL FISHING
GEAR SWAPMEET" SET FOR 1 MARCH: The Small Boat
Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association (SBCSFA) has announced
that its annual fishing gear swapmeet - the largest on the U.S. west coast
- will be held this year on Saturday, 1 March in Oakland, California at
the Teamster's Union Hall on 70 Hegenberger Road. To reserve space,
contact Yvette Hudson at: mike@hudsonfish.com.
7:03/07. COURT RULES AGAINST SALMON IN SNAKE RIVER
DAMS HOT WATER DISPUTE: On 10 January, U.S. District Court
Judge Helen Frye ruled in favor of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), holding that while the Corps was bound by the Clean Water Act
(a holding of her two prior cases), nevertheless it was currently in
compliance with the Clean Water Act by adhering to a 2001 Biological
Opinion (BiOp) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS). The BiOp, issued for operation of Snake River dams, provided
only minimal temperature mitigation measures and COE was challenged
on it as a violation of the U.S. Clean Water Act.
Since their construction in the 1970's, river water temperatures at the
four mainstem lower Snake River Dams and their associated slack-water
reservoirs have been elevated into lethal ranges for migrating salmon for
parts of each year, greatly increasing stress and mortality. As a result,
all
12 of the once abundant runs of salmon and steelhead that once passed
through the Snake River are seriously depressed and now federally
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA requires
the COE to consult with NMFS on the impacts of its dam operations and
to follow guidelines provided by NMFS in a written BiOp to mitigate for
any harm done to listed fish. The COE has adopted various measures
called for in the 2001 BiOp, and the Judge ruled that, at least as to legal
requirements, this was enough. Those measures (mostly studies and
planning), however, have been criticized as grossly inadequate to
actually solve the temperature problem.
Although a setback for salmon protection, the case, National Wildlife
Federation, et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US Dist. Court of
Oregon, Civil No. 99-442-FR), did hold that the COE is bound by the
Clean Water Act. Prior to this litigation the Corps took the position that
it was not. Judge Frye had also ruled in a prior opinion that there was
evidence that the COE was violating the Clean Water Act by routinely
allowing river temperatures to exceed 68 degrees F. (20 degrees
Celsius), which is the water temperature maximum under the law. The
court, however, refused to go the last step, noting the case was not a
Clean Water Act enforcement case but a challenge to agency process,
and ruled the agency was not making a "clear error" or acting in a
manner that was "arbitrary and capricious" in relying solely on the
minimal mitigation measures recommended by NMFS in its BiOp. The
Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho was a co-plaintiff in the action, and the State of
Oregon filed amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs. A separate lawsuit
challenging the legal and biological insufficiency of the BiOp itself is
still pending. PCFFA and IFR are co-plaintiffs in both cases. For more
information see the Associated Press report in the 14 January Seattle
Times at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/
134615082_snakeriver14m.html. The ruling itself can be found at:
http://www.wildsalmon.org/library_files/Opinion583_SJ_3.pdf.
7:03/08. COHO SALMON - STATES HAVE OBLIGATION TO
UPHOLD FEDERAL ESA, JUDGE RULES: Not only must federal
agencies comply with the U.S. Clean Water Act as held by District Judge
Helen Frye in the National Wildlife Federation et al. v. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers case (see 7:03/07 above), but state agencies have to comply
with the federal Endangered Species Act. That was the holding of U.S.
District Judge Anna J. Brown in Portland, Oregon during Christmas
week when she ruled that Oregon's Department of Forestry must "ensure
that the private logging projects it approves adhere to" the ESA, reported
the 2 January Oregonian. The court found that the ESA "clearly
prohibits anyone from harming protected species" and "by its plain
terms, this prohibition extends to governmental entities (including the
state) and makes them liable in the same manner as private parties." The
decision came after 5 conservation groups sued Oregon for "routinely"
violating the ESA by approving clear-cut logging on private land that
"leads to landslides and erosion harmful to protected coho salmon." The
ruling came out of a lawsuit filed in February by the Native Fish Society,
Pacific Rivers Council and three other plaintiffs against State Forester
James Brown, who reviews all logging operations in the state for
compliance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act. Plaintiffs alleged he
"routinely violated" the federal ESA by approving clear-cut logging in
Northwest Oregon that leads to landslides and erosion harmful to
protected coho salmon. The state had argued that it was the duty of
loggers, not the State Forester, to assure compliance with the ESA.
Plaintiffs were represented by Earthjustice. For the Oregonian article, go
to: http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/
1041512148253271.xml.
7:03/09. AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY SCOPING
COMMENTS DEADLINE EXTENDED TO 3 FEBRUARY: The
deadline for comments on the proposed Bush Administration
amendments to the "Aquatic Conservation Strategy" of the Northwest
Forest Plan (NFP) has been extended to 3 February. The current
amendments have been criticized because they would dilute or eliminate
many salmon protections on federal lands throughout the west coast. The
NFP was adopted in April 1994 by the Clinton Administration as a way
to settle the "timber wars" which had wracked the Northwest and
Northern California for several years before. A fundamental part of that
Plan was the "Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)," intended to protect
and restore damaged salmon habitat on federal lands. The proposed
changes, although characterized by the Bush Administration as mere
technical changes to clarify language and "restore the original intent" of
the Northwest Forest Plan, would eliminate current requirements under
the ACS to protect or prevent damage to salmon habitat at any particular
place in a watershed. This process is one prong of what has become a
multi-faceted attack by the Bush Administration on current fish and
wildlife protections on federal lands generally (see Sublegals, 6:22/01).
The proposed changes to the ACS are specifically intended to
overturn a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case
brought by commercial fishermen and others, PCFFA, et al. v. National
Marine Fisheries Service, 265 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court of
Appeals in that case blasted the U.S. Forest Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) for systematically ignoring site-specific
impacts on salmon, and for rubber-stamping Biological Opinions
(BiOps) approving timber operations which even agency biologists
considered too risky for salmon. The Bush Administration's position
now is that, instead of following the rules and doing it right, it will
simply change the rules themselves, through these "clarifying
amendments," to eliminate all requirements for any site-specific analysis
of impacts, in effect making salmon protections on federal lands optional
instead of mandatory. The scoping notice is in the 25 November Federal
Register (Vol. 67, No. 227, pp. 70575-70576), requesting public
comments on its plan to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) on the new rule changes. It is available at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access
.gpo.gov/2002/02-29951.htm. Written comments concerning the scope
of the analysis must now be received in writing or by e-mail by 3
February, and sent to: Comments, SEIS for Aquatic Conservation
Strategy, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208. Copies of the original
Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD) and Attachment A to
the ROD as referred to in the notice are available on the Internet at:
http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newsandga.pdf. Comments can also
be emailed to Joyce Casey, SEIS Communications Specialist, at:
Jcasey01@fs.fed.us. There will be no public hearings and no other
opportunity for public comment on the scoping process. PCFFA has
provided or joined in written comments on the proposed ACS changes,
which are posted at the top of the PCFFA website at: www.pcffa.org.
7:03/10. SUIT FILED TO REQUIRE DISCHARGE PERMITS FOR
LOGGING OPERATIONS AROUND SALMON-BEARING
STREAMS: The Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
and the Humboldt Watershed Council filed a lawsuit this past week to
overturn a recent California North Coast Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) decision to exempt logging operations from acquiring
pollution discharge permits. Plaintiffs argue that exemption for the
timber companies comes at the expense of local landowners and native
fish populations, including federally-protected coho salmon, that face
increased risk of flooding as well as pollution from sediment and
herbicides. The RCQWB decision to issue timber waivers is not new.
The Board has been deferring water quality oversight of timber
harvesting operations to the California Department of Forestry under the
California Forest Practices Act since 1987. However, under the U.S.
Clean Water Act, 85 percent of California's north coast watersheds have
been listed as "impaired" since the very same year, 1987. An attorney
for the plaintiffs hopes to have a hearing for the case in three or four
months. For more see the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat article at:
http://www.pressdemo.com/local/news/18log_b2.html, or the Eureka
Times-Standard article at:
http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%257E2896%257E1
117748,00.html?search=filter.
7:03/11. DEL NORTE COUNTY TO JOIN PCFFA LAWSUIT ON
KLAMATH FISH KILL: On 14 January, the Del Norte County Board of
Supervisors voted unanimously to file an amicus brief in support of the
litigation brought by PCFFA and a host of other plaintiffs against the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) over the operations of the Klamath
Irrigation Project that resulted in a massive fish kill this past summer
(see Sublegals, 7:02/01; 6:17/06; 6:16/01; 6:15/01; 6:13/03; 6:13/02;
6:13/01; 6:12/07; 6:02/09; 5:26/08). This northernmost California
County thus joins Humboldt County, the municipalities of Eureka,
Fortuna, Arcata, the Yurok and Hupa Tribes and U.S. Representative
Mike Thompson (D-CA) in this suit, reported the Eureka
Times-Standard on 16 January. The suit was originally filed in early
2002, then it was amended and refiled after the fish die-off due to low
flows in the Klamath last fall that killed hundreds of federally-protected
coho salmon, in addition to an estimated 33,000 chinook. To see the
Eureka Times-Standard article by John Driscoll for more details, go to:
http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%257E2896%257E1
114973,00.html
7:03/12. REMINDER - COMMENTS DUE ON EPA
AQUACULTURE EFFLUENT RULES: Comments on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft aquaculture effluent
guidelines are due 27 January (see Sublegals, 6:25/02). EPA's Office of
Water is focusing new efforts to help reduce nutrient loadings from
commercial agricultural and industrial operations nationwide. Among
those efforts is a new activity to develop pollutant controls in the form of
nationally applicable discharge standards (known as effluent limitations
guidelines and standards) for commercial and public aquaculture
operations. For more, see the Federal Register notice at:
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2002/September/Day-12/w21673.
htm. Written comments should be submitted to: Ms. Marta Jordan,
Office of Water, Engineering & Analysis Division (4303T), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460, or by e-mail
to: aquaticanimals@epa.gov. Additional information can be found at:
www.epa.gov/ost/guide/aquaculture.
Paying Attention? The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
recently released its report on Individual Fishing Quotas. Which of the
following was not one of its findings:
A) IFQs have resulted in a consolidation of permits.
B) The State of Alaska erred in its IFQ report by overestimating
financial impacts on processors.
C) NMFS should require the Regional Councils to allocate quota
shares through an auction system.
D) In surfclams and ocean quahogs, consolidation was even greater
than the NMFS data indicated,
because different quota holders are actually part of the same
family or corporation.
E-Mail your answer by no later than Friday, 24 January, to: "Editor" at:
sublegals@ifrfish.org.
And Last Week's Winner is...... Paul Belz is the winner of last week's
"Paying Attention?" with the correct answer of "B) A group seeking to
dump old car tires off the California coast, calling them artificial fishing
reefs." He receives an "Order of the Fringehead" certificate and a
handsome gray shirt with the cuddly Sarcastic Fringehead Sublegals
logo.
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!
##########################################################
MADE YOUR PLEDGE? GOT YOUR SARCASTIC FRINGEHEAD
SHIRT? GO TO: www.ifrfish.org
##########################################################
--part1_107.1e9cdce6.2b66e488_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">Our apologies for the last posting of this newsletter. We were having<BR>
technical problems, now resolved,with our listserver. -- Sublegals staff<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
~~>SUBLEGALS 17Jan03<~~<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. 07, NO. 03 17 JANUARY 2003<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"The time comes when silence is betrayal. Even when pressed by the<BR>
demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing<BR>
their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the<BR>
human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of<BR>
conformist thought, within one's own bosom and in the surrounding<BR>
world.".......... Martin Luther King, Jr.<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
IN THIS ISSUE.......<BR>
<BR>
Ninth Circuit Rules NMFS Must Allow Public <BR>
Comment On FMPs. 7:03/01<BR>
<BR>
Conservation/Gear Modification Measures Pay-off <BR>
For Swordfish Driftnetters. 7:03/04<BR>
<BR>
GAO Releases Report On IFQs. 7:03/05<BR>
<BR>
Court Rules Against Salmon In Snake River Dams <BR>
Hot Water Dispute. 7:03/07<BR>
<BR>
Del Norte County To Join PCFFA Lawsuit On <BR>
Klamath Fish Kill. 7:03/11<BR>
<BR>
AND MORE......<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
7:03/01. NINTH CIRCUIT RULES NMFS MUST ALLOW PUBLIC<BR>
COMMENT ON FMPS: On 13 January, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of<BR>
Appeals in San Francisco issued a ruling holding that the National<BR>
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) "must provide notice and the<BR>
opportunity for public comment before issuing specifications and<BR>
management measures" for federally managed fish stocks. The case,<BR>
Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Evans (No. 01-17143, D.C.<BR>
No. CV-01-00637-JL), arose out of a challenge by plaintiffs against the<BR>
Secretary of Commerce over the 2001 Pacific groundfish specifications<BR>
adopted by NMFS. In that instance, and virtually every year prior to that<BR>
since the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) began<BR>
developing fishery management plans (FMPs) for stocks, NMFS has<BR>
adopted final regulations for that year's fishery allowing public comment<BR>
only after the fact. NRDC complained that management measures were<BR>
subject to the notice and comment requirements of the<BR>
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act, 16 USC<BR>
1801 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 533, and that<BR>
no required prior public comment opportunity is given.<BR>
<BR>
The PFMC, as is the case with other U.S. regional fishery councils,<BR>
typically goes through an annual season setting process where it takes<BR>
public comment in hearings and at council meetings on a series of<BR>
alternative management measures for a fishery. Since there is often a<BR>
delay by NMFS, the states and councils in assembling the data from the<BR>
previous season quickly enough to base management measures on for the<BR>
subsequent year, NMFS claimed there is not enough time for public<BR>
comment before adoption of season specifications without delaying<BR>
implementation of new measures, which may include a season opening.<BR>
Thus, it has provided for comment only after final adoption of<BR>
management measures. NMFS argues that the annual process many<BR>
councils use provides ample time for public comment over a roughly one<BR>
to two month period before a council recommendation. The fishery<BR>
agency also argues that comments can be submitted by the public to the<BR>
Secretary of Commerce once a council has forwarded its management<BR>
measures, which may include an FMP or amendments thereto, before<BR>
approval, approval in part, or disapproval of regional council<BR>
recommendations. In essence, NMFS says comment prior to approval in<BR>
not needed. The plaintiffs, however, argued that the final package<BR>
adopted by the Secretary (in fact, NMFS) may be different than that<BR>
forwarded by a regional council and/or contain regulatory measures<BR>
developed by NMFS to implement management, so the public, therefore,<BR>
should have an opportunity to comment before, and not after, final<BR>
approval.<BR>
<BR>
Presumably, the Ninth Circuit decision will now make it possible to<BR>
comment and suggest changes to a NMFS rules package for a fishery<BR>
before it becomes final. The downside of the decision could be that the<BR>
comment period might delay, or provide NMFS an excuse for delaying,<BR>
implementation of new management measures, including possible delays<BR>
in season openings. For more information on the case, contact NRDC<BR>
attorney Drew Caputo at: dcaputo@nrdc.org. <BR>
<BR>
7:03/02. CALIFORNIA FISH & GAME COMMISSION FINISHES<BR>
YEAR WITH BLITZ OF ACTIONS: The California Fish & Game<BR>
Commission held a special session 20 December 2002 to take action on<BR>
a number of items that were unable to be voted on at its 5-6 December<BR>
meeting due to lack of a quorum (see Sublegals, 6:24/12). Among other<BR>
things, the Commissioners adopted the Department of Fish & Game's<BR>
(CDFG) preferred alternative for the Nearshore Fishery Restricted<BR>
Access Program (details are available at:<BR>
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/proposedregs02.htm#150nsra). <BR>
<BR>
The Commission approved changes to the cabezon, greenling, and<BR>
sheephead fishery, establishing cumulative trip limits of 200 pounds per<BR>
individual for cabezon, 400 pounds per individual for sheephead and 50<BR>
pounds per individual for greenlings during the two-month period of<BR>
January and February. They also acted to bring the season into<BR>
alignment with the federal regulations, closing the fishery completely in<BR>
March and April 2003. For details visit:<BR>
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/proposedregs02.htm#150_06. <BR>
<BR>
Finally, Commissioners received public testimony regarding the<BR>
commercial spot prawn fishery and the proposed ban on trawling for<BR>
spot prawns. The Commission instead decided to change the season<BR>
dates and requested spot prawn trawlers to develop a plan for observer<BR>
coverage that they will fund. The Commission's Fisheries Subcommittee<BR>
will meet on 28 January at its offices in Sacramento. The full<BR>
Commission will meet again 6 -7 February in Sacramento to act on a<BR>
number of items including the proposal to restrict the importation of<BR>
transgenic fish, and the adoption of the California Rockfish<BR>
Conservation Area. See meeting details at<BR>
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fg_comm/2003mtgs.html.<BR>
<BR>
7:03/03. PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL<BR>
GROUNDFISH AND SALMON MEETINGS SCHEDULED: The<BR>
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) will be holding a number<BR>
of subcommittee meetings and workshops to prepare for the 10 - 14<BR>
March Council meeting in Sacramento, California. For groundfish, a<BR>
bycatch workshop will be held 27-29 January and the Groundfish<BR>
Management Team (GMT) will be meeting 3-7 February. To see details<BR>
of these meetings go to http://www.pcouncil.org/events/csevents.html.<BR>
To review the 2003 PFMC groundfish management measures, go to:<BR>
http://www.pcouncil.org/newsletters/2002/fall02.pdf. Also, the Pacific<BR>
Council's Coastal Pelagic Species Management Team (CPSMT) will<BR>
meet 30-31 January; that meeting notice is at:<BR>
http://www.pcouncil.org/events/2003/cpsmt0103.html<BR>
<BR>
The PFMC's Salmon Technical Team (STT), meanwhile, has<BR>
announced a series of preseason public work sessions and hearings to be<BR>
held over the next four months. The first work session will be held on<BR>
21-24 January to draft the "Review of 2002 Ocean Salmon Fisheries"<BR>
and to consider other estimation or methodology issues pertinent to the<BR>
upcoming 2003 season. The next scheduled event is a work session to<BR>
draft the "Preseason Report I-Stock Abundance Analysis for 2003 Ocean<BR>
Salmon Fisheries" and to consider other estimation or methodology<BR>
issues pertinent to the 2003 season. Both of these meeting will be held<BR>
at the PFMC's West Conference Room; 7700 NE Ambassador Place,<BR>
Suite 200, in Portland, Oregon 97220-1384; (503) 820-2280. On 5<BR>
February, a work session of the STT and the Scientific & Statistical<BR>
Committee's (SSC) Salmon Subgroup is scheduled at the Holiday Inn<BR>
Airport in Portland to review changes made to the chinook and coho<BR>
Fishery Regulation Assessment Models (FRAM). Public hearings on<BR>
proposed ocean salmon fishery management options will be held 31<BR>
March and 1 April in Westport, Washington; Coos Bay, Oregon; Eureka,<BR>
California (along with Moss Landing, California) followed by the full<BR>
PFMC meeting of 7 - 11 April in Vancouver, Washington to adopt<BR>
management measures for the 2003 season. Fishermen and members of<BR>
the public can now sign-up for meeting announcements and updates<BR>
from PFMC by contacting Kerry Aden at: kerry.aden@noaa.gov. For<BR>
more details on the meetings, go to:<BR>
http://www.pcouncil.org/events/2002/salproc03.html#additional. <BR>
<BR>
7:03/04. CONSERVATION/GEAR MODIFICATION MEASURES<BR>
PAY-OFF FOR SWORDFISH DRIFTNETTERS, FISHERY<BR>
PROPOSED FOR RECATEGORIZATION: Measures implemented by<BR>
the swordfish and thresher shark driftnet fishery offshore California to<BR>
protect marine mammals and sea turtles is apparently paying off with the<BR>
fleet successfully able to avoid sea turtles altogether this past season. <BR>
The measures taken by the fleet, working with the National Marine<BR>
Fisheries Service (NMFS), have included the use of "pingers" on the<BR>
gear allowing marine mammals to detect and avoid the nets, as well as<BR>
setting the nets at depths to avoid sea turtles and avoiding areas<BR>
frequented by sea turtles. Pacific Coast swordfish stocks are regarded as<BR>
healthy and the driftnet thresher shark fishery, conservatively managed<BR>
by the State of California, is regarded as one of the few sustainable shark<BR>
fisheries in the world. As a result of the measures taken by the fleet and<BR>
the positive results that have been attained, NMFS has proposed<BR>
recategorizing the swordfish/shark driftnet fishery from Category I to<BR>
Category II (meaning less impact on marine mammals) under the U.S.<BR>
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The change is recommended<BR>
in NMFS's annual proposed list of fisheries under the MMPA. Written<BR>
comments on the recommended recategorization can be made to: Chief,<BR>
Marine Mammal Conservation Division; Attn: List of Fisheries; Office<BR>
of Protected Resources; NMFS; 1315 East-West Highway; Silver<BR>
Spring, MD 20910. The deadline for comment is 10 February.<BR>
<BR>
7:03/05. GAO RELEASES REPORT ON IFQs: On 10 January, the<BR>
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) released its report on individual<BR>
fishing quota (IFQ) systems. The report, which was requested by U.S.<BR>
Senators John Kerrey (D-MA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), examined<BR>
the three systems currently operating in the U.S. that were put in place<BR>
prior to the 1996 Congressional moratorium. Those are the Mid-Atlantic<BR>
surfclam/ocean quahog fishery, the South Atlantic wreckfish fishery, and<BR>
the Alaska halibut and blackcod (sablefish) fishery. According to a 10<BR>
January Associated Press story, the GAO found the programs had<BR>
resulted in industry consolidation, where in "the Alaska halibut and<BR>
sablefish fishery, the number of quota holders decreased by 27 and 15<BR>
percent, respectively.....................The number of wreckfish quota holders<BR>
declined by 49 percent from 1992-2002; and the number of surfclam and<BR>
ocean quahog quota holders decreased by 17 and 34 percent,<BR>
respectively, from 1990-2002.........However, in surfclams and ocean<BR>
quahogs, consolidation was even greater than the NMFS data indicated,<BR>
because different quota holders are actually part of the same family or<BR>
corporation...........For 2002, for instance, consolidation of quota in the<BR>
surfclam program was about twice that indicated by NMFS data, and one<BR>
entity alone controlled over a quarter of the quota, GAO said."<BR>
<BR>
The GAO report went on to say NMFS "should require the regional<BR>
councils to define what constitutes excessive share for fisheries in future<BR>
quota programs." That is important since the Congressional moratorium<BR>
on IFQs expired in September (see Sublegals, 6:23/06; 6:17/03) and<BR>
currently there are no national standards in place for IFQ programs. <BR>
IFQs are being considered for a number of fisheries around the U.S.,<BR>
including the herring and red crab fisheries in New England, the Gulf of<BR>
Mexico snapper fishery, Pacific groundfish and the North Pacific crab<BR>
fishery (see Sublegals, 6:17/04; 5:24/01). In Alaska, the North Pacific<BR>
Fishery Management Council approved in June 2002, subject to the<BR>
expiration of the moratorium, a controversial "two-pie" IFQ system that<BR>
would give control of 90 percent of the fishery to a handful of processors<BR>
- mostly foreign owned (see the November 2002 issue of the Fishermen's<BR>
News article, Can't We Just Get Along? Finding an Accord on IFQs, at<BR>
www.pcffa.org/fn-nov03.htm). The GAO report also contradicted a State<BR>
of Alaska report issued last year claiming fish processors were hurt by<BR>
IFQs for fishermen. Processors used the state report to argue for their<BR>
own quota shares. Legislation to impose national standards for IFQ<BR>
programs, which PCFFA among others has called for, is expected to be<BR>
taken up in the 108th Congress. For more on the GAO report, see the 15<BR>
January Liz Ruskin article in the Anchorage Daily News at:<BR>
http://www.adn.com/business/story/2464395p-2511992c.html<BR>
<BR>
7:03/06. WEST COAST'S "LARGEST COMMERCIAL FISHING<BR>
GEAR SWAPMEET" SET FOR 1 MARCH: The Small Boat<BR>
Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association (SBCSFA) has announced<BR>
that its annual fishing gear swapmeet - the largest on the U.S. west coast<BR>
- will be held this year on Saturday, 1 March in Oakland, California at<BR>
the Teamster's Union Hall on 70 Hegenberger Road. To reserve space,<BR>
contact Yvette Hudson at: mike@hudsonfish.com. <BR>
<BR>
7:03/07. COURT RULES AGAINST SALMON IN SNAKE RIVER<BR>
DAMS HOT WATER DISPUTE: On 10 January, U.S. District Court<BR>
Judge Helen Frye ruled in favor of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers<BR>
(COE), holding that while the Corps was bound by the Clean Water Act<BR>
(a holding of her two prior cases), nevertheless it was currently in<BR>
compliance with the Clean Water Act by adhering to a 2001 Biological<BR>
Opinion (BiOp) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service<BR>
(NMFS). The BiOp, issued for operation of Snake River dams, provided<BR>
only minimal temperature mitigation measures and COE was challenged<BR>
on it as a violation of the U.S. Clean Water Act. <BR>
<BR>
Since their construction in the 1970's, river water temperatures at the<BR>
four mainstem lower Snake River Dams and their associated slack-water<BR>
reservoirs have been elevated into lethal ranges for migrating salmon for<BR>
parts of each year, greatly increasing stress and mortality. As a result, all<BR>
12 of the once abundant runs of salmon and steelhead that once passed<BR>
through the Snake River are seriously depressed and now federally<BR>
protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA requires<BR>
the COE to consult with NMFS on the impacts of its dam operations and<BR>
to follow guidelines provided by NMFS in a written BiOp to mitigate for<BR>
any harm done to listed fish. The COE has adopted various measures<BR>
called for in the 2001 BiOp, and the Judge ruled that, at least as to legal<BR>
requirements, this was enough. Those measures (mostly studies and<BR>
planning), however, have been criticized as grossly inadequate to<BR>
actually solve the temperature problem.<BR>
<BR>
Although a setback for salmon protection, the case, National Wildlife<BR>
Federation, et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US Dist. Court of<BR>
Oregon, Civil No. 99-442-FR), did hold that the COE is bound by the<BR>
Clean Water Act. Prior to this litigation the Corps took the position that<BR>
it was not. Judge Frye had also ruled in a prior opinion that there was<BR>
evidence that the COE was violating the Clean Water Act by routinely<BR>
allowing river temperatures to exceed 68 degrees F. (20 degrees<BR>
Celsius), which is the water temperature maximum under the law. The<BR>
court, however, refused to go the last step, noting the case was not a<BR>
Clean Water Act enforcement case but a challenge to agency process,<BR>
and ruled the agency was not making a "clear error" or acting in a<BR>
manner that was "arbitrary and capricious" in relying solely on the<BR>
minimal mitigation measures recommended by NMFS in its BiOp. The<BR>
Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho was a co-plaintiff in the action, and the State of<BR>
Oregon filed amicus briefs supporting plaintiffs. A separate lawsuit<BR>
challenging the legal and biological insufficiency of the BiOp itself is<BR>
still pending. PCFFA and IFR are co-plaintiffs in both cases. For more<BR>
information see the Associated Press report in the 14 January Seattle<BR>
Times at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/<BR>
134615082_snakeriver14m.html. The ruling itself can be found at:<BR>
http://www.wildsalmon.org/library_files/Opinion583_SJ_3.pdf.<BR>
<BR>
7:03/08. COHO SALMON - STATES HAVE OBLIGATION TO<BR>
UPHOLD FEDERAL ESA, JUDGE RULES: Not only must federal<BR>
agencies comply with the U.S. Clean Water Act as held by District Judge<BR>
Helen Frye in the National Wildlife Federation et al. v. U.S. Army Corps<BR>
of Engineers case (see 7:03/07 above), but state agencies have to comply<BR>
with the federal Endangered Species Act. That was the holding of U.S.<BR>
District Judge Anna J. Brown in Portland, Oregon during Christmas<BR>
week when she ruled that Oregon's Department of Forestry must "ensure<BR>
that the private logging projects it approves adhere to" the ESA, reported<BR>
the 2 January Oregonian. The court found that the ESA "clearly<BR>
prohibits anyone from harming protected species" and "by its plain<BR>
terms, this prohibition extends to governmental entities (including the<BR>
state) and makes them liable in the same manner as private parties." The<BR>
decision came after 5 conservation groups sued Oregon for "routinely"<BR>
violating the ESA by approving clear-cut logging on private land that<BR>
"leads to landslides and erosion harmful to protected coho salmon." The<BR>
ruling came out of a lawsuit filed in February by the Native Fish Society,<BR>
Pacific Rivers Council and three other plaintiffs against State Forester<BR>
James Brown, who reviews all logging operations in the state for<BR>
compliance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act. Plaintiffs alleged he<BR>
"routinely violated" the federal ESA by approving clear-cut logging in<BR>
Northwest Oregon that leads to landslides and erosion harmful to<BR>
protected coho salmon. The state had argued that it was the duty of<BR>
loggers, not the State Forester, to assure compliance with the ESA.<BR>
Plaintiffs were represented by Earthjustice. For the Oregonian article, go<BR>
to: http://oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/<BR>
1041512148253271.xml. <BR>
<BR>
7:03/09. AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY SCOPING<BR>
COMMENTS DEADLINE EXTENDED TO 3 FEBRUARY: The<BR>
deadline for comments on the proposed Bush Administration<BR>
amendments to the "Aquatic Conservation Strategy" of the Northwest<BR>
Forest Plan (NFP) has been extended to 3 February. The current<BR>
amendments have been criticized because they would dilute or eliminate<BR>
many salmon protections on federal lands throughout the west coast. The<BR>
NFP was adopted in April 1994 by the Clinton Administration as a way<BR>
to settle the "timber wars" which had wracked the Northwest and<BR>
Northern California for several years before. A fundamental part of that<BR>
Plan was the "Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS)," intended to protect<BR>
and restore damaged salmon habitat on federal lands. The proposed<BR>
changes, although characterized by the Bush Administration as mere<BR>
technical changes to clarify language and "restore the original intent" of<BR>
the Northwest Forest Plan, would eliminate current requirements under<BR>
the ACS to protect or prevent damage to salmon habitat at any particular<BR>
place in a watershed. This process is one prong of what has become a<BR>
multi-faceted attack by the Bush Administration on current fish and<BR>
wildlife protections on federal lands generally (see Sublegals, 6:22/01).<BR>
<BR>
The proposed changes to the ACS are specifically intended to<BR>
overturn a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case<BR>
brought by commercial fishermen and others, PCFFA, et al. v. National<BR>
Marine Fisheries Service, 265 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court of<BR>
Appeals in that case blasted the U.S. Forest Service and National Marine<BR>
Fisheries Service (NMFS) for systematically ignoring site-specific<BR>
impacts on salmon, and for rubber-stamping Biological Opinions<BR>
(BiOps) approving timber operations which even agency biologists<BR>
considered too risky for salmon. The Bush Administration's position<BR>
now is that, instead of following the rules and doing it right, it will<BR>
simply change the rules themselves, through these "clarifying<BR>
amendments," to eliminate all requirements for any site-specific analysis<BR>
of impacts, in effect making salmon protections on federal lands optional<BR>
instead of mandatory. The scoping notice is in the 25 November Federal<BR>
Register (Vol. 67, No. 227, pp. 70575-70576), requesting public<BR>
comments on its plan to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact<BR>
Statement (SEIS) on the new rule changes. It is available at:<BR>
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access<BR>
.gpo.gov/2002/02-29951.htm. Written comments concerning the scope<BR>
of the analysis must now be received in writing or by e-mail by 3<BR>
February, and sent to: Comments, SEIS for Aquatic Conservation<BR>
Strategy, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208. Copies of the original<BR>
Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (ROD) and Attachment A to<BR>
the ROD as referred to in the notice are available on the Internet at:<BR>
http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newsandga.pdf. Comments can also<BR>
be emailed to Joyce Casey, SEIS Communications Specialist, at:<BR>
Jcasey01@fs.fed.us. There will be no public hearings and no other<BR>
opportunity for public comment on the scoping process. PCFFA has<BR>
provided or joined in written comments on the proposed ACS changes,<BR>
which are posted at the top of the PCFFA website at: www.pcffa.org.<BR>
<BR>
7:03/10. SUIT FILED TO REQUIRE DISCHARGE PERMITS FOR<BR>
LOGGING OPERATIONS AROUND SALMON-BEARING<BR>
STREAMS: The Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)<BR>
and the Humboldt Watershed Council filed a lawsuit this past week to<BR>
overturn a recent California North Coast Water Quality Control Board<BR>
(RWQCB) decision to exempt logging operations from acquiring<BR>
pollution discharge permits. Plaintiffs argue that exemption for the<BR>
timber companies comes at the expense of local landowners and native<BR>
fish populations, including federally-protected coho salmon, that face<BR>
increased risk of flooding as well as pollution from sediment and<BR>
herbicides. The RCQWB decision to issue timber waivers is not new. <BR>
The Board has been deferring water quality oversight of timber<BR>
harvesting operations to the California Department of Forestry under the<BR>
California Forest Practices Act since 1987. However, under the U.S.<BR>
Clean Water Act, 85 percent of California's north coast watersheds have<BR>
been listed as "impaired" since the very same year, 1987. An attorney<BR>
for the plaintiffs hopes to have a hearing for the case in three or four<BR>
months. For more see the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat article at:<BR>
http://www.pressdemo.com/local/news/18log_b2.html, or the Eureka<BR>
Times-Standard article at:<BR>
http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%257E2896%257E1<BR>
117748,00.html?search=filter.<BR>
<BR>
7:03/11. DEL NORTE COUNTY TO JOIN PCFFA LAWSUIT ON<BR>
KLAMATH FISH KILL: On 14 January, the Del Norte County Board of<BR>
Supervisors voted unanimously to file an amicus brief in support of the<BR>
litigation brought by PCFFA and a host of other plaintiffs against the<BR>
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) over the operations of the Klamath<BR>
Irrigation Project that resulted in a massive fish kill this past summer<BR>
(see Sublegals, 7:02/01; 6:17/06; 6:16/01; 6:15/01; 6:13/03; 6:13/02;<BR>
6:13/01; 6:12/07; 6:02/09; 5:26/08). This northernmost California<BR>
County thus joins Humboldt County, the municipalities of Eureka,<BR>
Fortuna, Arcata, the Yurok and Hupa Tribes and U.S. Representative<BR>
Mike Thompson (D-CA) in this suit, reported the Eureka<BR>
Times-Standard on 16 January. The suit was originally filed in early<BR>
2002, then it was amended and refiled after the fish die-off due to low<BR>
flows in the Klamath last fall that killed hundreds of federally-protected<BR>
coho salmon, in addition to an estimated 33,000 chinook. To see the<BR>
Eureka Times-Standard article by John Driscoll for more details, go to:<BR>
http://www.times-standard.com/Stories/0,1413,127%257E2896%257E1<BR>
114973,00.html <BR>
<BR>
7:03/12. REMINDER - COMMENTS DUE ON EPA<BR>
AQUACULTURE EFFLUENT RULES: Comments on the U.S.<BR>
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) draft aquaculture effluent<BR>
guidelines are due 27 January (see Sublegals, 6:25/02). EPA's Office of<BR>
Water is focusing new efforts to help reduce nutrient loadings from<BR>
commercial agricultural and industrial operations nationwide. Among<BR>
those efforts is a new activity to develop pollutant controls in the form of<BR>
nationally applicable discharge standards (known as effluent limitations<BR>
guidelines and standards) for commercial and public aquaculture<BR>
operations. For more, see the Federal Register notice at:<BR>
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2002/September/Day-12/w21673.<BR>
htm. Written comments should be submitted to: Ms. Marta Jordan,<BR>
Office of Water, Engineering & Analysis Division (4303T), U.S. EPA,<BR>
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20460, or by e-mail<BR>
to: aquaticanimals@epa.gov. Additional information can be found at:<BR>
www.epa.gov/ost/guide/aquaculture. <BR>
<BR>
Paying Attention? The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)<BR>
recently released its report on Individual Fishing Quotas. Which of the<BR>
following was not one of its findings:<BR>
A) IFQs have resulted in a consolidation of permits.<BR>
B) The State of Alaska erred in its IFQ report by overestimating<BR>
financial impacts on processors.<BR>
C) NMFS should require the Regional Councils to allocate quota<BR>
shares through an auction system.<BR>
D) In surfclams and ocean quahogs, consolidation was even greater<BR>
than the NMFS data indicated, <BR>
because different quota holders are actually part of the same<BR>
family or corporation.<BR>
E-Mail your answer by no later than Friday, 24 January, to: "Editor" at:<BR>
sublegals@ifrfish.org. <BR>
<BR>
And Last Week's Winner is...... Paul Belz is the winner of last week's<BR>
"Paying Attention?" with the correct answer of "B) A group seeking to<BR>
dump old car tires off the California coast, calling them artificial fishing<BR>
reefs." He receives an "Order of the Fringehead" certificate and a<BR>
handsome gray shirt with the cuddly Sarcastic Fringehead Sublegals<BR>
logo.<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>
MADE YOUR PLEDGE? GOT YOUR SARCASTIC FRINGEHEAD <BR>
SHIRT? GO TO: www.ifrfish.org <BR>
##########################################################<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_107.1e9cdce6.2b66e488_boundary--