[Fishlink] ~~>SUBLEGALS 09May03<~~
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
Thu, 15 May 2003 14:37:35 EDT
--part1_5a.1c73c14f.2bf5386f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
##########################################################
~~>SUBLEGALS 09May03<~~
##########################################################
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. 19 9 MAY 2003
##########################################################
"We should all strive to manage uncertainty reasonably, instead of
being unreasonably certain."......................... Harald Schraeder
##########################################################
IN THIS ISSUE.......
San Francisco Passes Measure to Support Local,
Sustainably Harvested Seafood. 7:19/01
Federal Court Rules for Salmon on Columbia, Reopens
Issue of Snake River Dams. 7:19/04
New Evidence Reveals Dams More Damaging to Fish
Than Thought. 7:19/07
Hydroelectric Companies Plot in Congressional Bill to
Kill More Fish. 7:19/08.
Graham Amendment to Senate Energy Bill Aimed at
Protecting OCS Moratorium Areas. 7:19/10
AND MORE.......
##########################################################
7:19/01. SAN FRANCISCO PASSES RESOLUTION CALLING
FOR RESTAURANTS AND MARKETS TO SERVE LOCALLY
CAUGHT AND SUSTAINABLY HARVESTED SEAFOOD, OTHER
GOVERNMENTS TO FOLLOW?: The City and County of San
Francisco became the first urban municipality in the U.S. to pass a
resolution calling on its restaurants and markets to serve locally-caught
and sustainably harvested seafood. In addition to throwing their support
behind the local fishing community and fish conservation, the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors also voted on 6 May to encourage its
seafood restaurants and markets to "take a pass on Chilean sea bass."
San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval was the author of both
resolutions. The two measures were sponsored by a broad coalition,
including PCFFA and IFR, the National Environmental Trust (NET),
The Ocean Conservancy, and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association
(see Sublegals, 7:16/03).
The first resolution encourages local restaurants and markets to
support local fisheries and provide information to consumers about the
sustainability of the seafood product and the health benefits and risks.
This measure was aimed at supporting some of San Francisco's leading
restaurants, including Jardinere, Farallon, Scoma's, Hayes Street Grill
and Acme Chophouse that have been emphasizing locally-produced
foods and sustainable fisheries on their menus, and to encourage other
restaurants and markets to promote local and sustainably-caught fish.
The measure's sponsors hope to take a message to some of the City's
restaurants that still serve imported farmed salmon and other fish, when
local and sustainably harvested seafood is available from fishermen and
wholesalers (see Sublegals, 7:17/01). It further calls for better health
information about different types of fish including risks (e.g., mercury in
tilefish, colorants in farmed salmon) and benefits (e.g., Omega-3s in
wild salmon and sardines).
The second resolution calls on all chefs, retailers, wholesalers and
consumers to stop serving, selling, buying or consuming Patagonian and
Antarctic toothfish, sold as Chilean Sea Bass, until illegal fishing is
stopped and effective conservation measures are in place. On 7 May, a
day after the San Francisco Board action, an announcement came out of
Brussels that a new international alliance of legal Patagonian toothfish
harvesters had formed to protect sustainable toothfish resources. Among
its first actions, the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO)
offered a reward of $100,000 (US) for information leading to the
conviction of fishermen, companies, directors or employees involved in
illegal fishing operations. For more information on the Toothfish
organization, go to www.colto.org. For more information on the San
Francisco resolutions, call Natasha Benjamin at (415) 561-3474 or go to:
www.sfgov.org.
7:19/02. PORTLAND HOSTS FIRST FISHERMAN-CHEF
CONNECTION CONFERENCE: The first "Fisherman-Chef Connection
Conference" was held 21 April at the Natural Capital Center in Portland,
Oregon. Hosted by the Portland Chapter of the Chefs Collaborative,
Ecotrust, and the Pacific Marine Conservation Council, the event was
planned as the beginning of "an annual gathering designed to build direct
markets and foster collaboration between fishermen, chefs, and retailers
committed to expanding and strengthening local, seasonal, and
sustainable fisheries." In addition to Portland, sponsors hope to hold
similar events next year in California and Washington. The conference
coincided with a number of other sustainable seafood promotional
events going on this year, including the "Wild About Salmon" promotion
sponsored by the Seafood Choices Alliance that will be taking place this
summer (see Sublegals, 7:14/01), the "Cooking for Solutions" program
being sponsored by the Monterey Bay Aquarium on 30-31 May
(www.montereybayaquarium.org), and the "Taste the Difference" series
of dinners hosted by San Francisco's Acme Chophouse featuring organic
foods and wild fish (www.acmechophouse.com).
According to the sponsors, "It is important to build direct markets
since the West Coast fishing industry has consolidated at an alarming
rate, disenfranchising many local fishermen and fishing communities
whose livelihoods and economies have historically depended on marine
resources. The consolidation has occurred in the processing and
distribution sectors of the industry. Processors and distributors decide on
which fishermen to buy from, what price will be paid and what the
quality standards for fishing methods and fish quality will be. This
globalized system leaves fewer and fewer buyers worldwide forcing
some of the best stewards of our oceans, the local fishermen, to go out of
business or make compromises in business practices that can drastically
impact their efforts and the health of the fishery in the long run." This
year's conference was made possible by a grant from the David & Lucille
Packard Foundation. For more information, go to:
http://www.ecotrust.org/foodfarms/fisherchef.html. Also see:
http://www.tidepool.org/original_content.cfm?articleid=76256.
7:19/03. CALIFORNIA SALMON COUNCIL GRANT RECIPIENT
FOR TRADE MISSION TO JAPAN: The California Department of
Food & Agriculture has announced the California Salmon Council as
one of this year's recipients of the California International Market
Promotion for Agriculture (CIMPA) competitive grant program. The
Salmon Council's award is to conduct a trade mission to Japan
promoting wild troll-caught king salmon. For information on the grant:
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/cimpa/cimpa_awards.asp. For information
about the California Salmon Council, go to: www.calkingsalmon.org.
7:19/04. A VICTORY FOR SALMON ON THE COLUMBIA,
FEDERAL COURT DOESN'T THINK SNAKE RIVER DAMS
SACRED: On 7 May, a U.S. District Court in Oregon ruled in favor of
salmon, overturning the Bush Administration's controversial Columbia
River Recovery Plan. That plan was an attempt to get around dam
removal (i.e., four lower Snake River dams) or dam re-engineering. The
court's decision in this case, National Wildlife Federation, et. al., v.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), (D. Or., No. CR01-640-RE),
reopens the question about how best to save salmon in the Columbia
Basin, where nearly every run is now listed as threatened or endangered
under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Wild salmon runs in
the Columbia, once some of the largest in the world, have been hovering
around 2 percent of their historic size for several years and are nearly
extinct in the Snake River, the Columbia's major tributary. The ruling by
Federal District Court Judge James Redden, is the second time the
federal government's Columbia River salmon recovery plan has been
tossed out. In that first case, Idaho Department of Fish & Game v.
NMFS, 850 F. Supp. 886 (D. Or. 1994) the Court held, "[T]he process is
seriously, 'significantly,' flawed because it is too heavily geared towards
a status quo that has allowed all forms of river activity to proceed in a
deficit situation - that is, relatively small steps, minor improvements and
adjustments - when the situation literally cries out for a major overhaul."
(IDFG at 900).
Most scientists, including the American Fisheries Society (AFS), and
some federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)), have expressed the opinion that threatened and endangered
salmon and steelhead, at least in the Snake River, cannot be recovered
without bypassing the four lower Snake River dams (see Sublegals,
1:17/02). These dams kill a large number of fish that, in turn, devastates
lower-river and coastal fishing economies. Numerous studies have found
the dams themselves provide only nominal or easily replaceable
economic benefits.
In response to the earlier ruling, in December 2000 NMFS and the
other federal agencies came up with what they called the "aggressive,
non-breach option." This option avoided the issue of breaching the lower
four Snake River dams and, instead, pledged to do as much as possible
to restore habitat, retrofit fish passage and other measures in the hopes
these actions combined would make up for the damage done by the
dams. Much of NMFS' plan was speculative, however, based on highly
optimistic recovery assumptions. It was criticized, too, as more a "plan
to do planning" rather than a substantive recovery effort, and assumed a
number of highly speculative future conservation measures and
non-federal actions would occur that never materialized.
Moreover, the "aggressive, non-breaching" restoration measures were
grossly under-funded by Congress and the Bush Administration. Added
to that, many of the measures were ignored when the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) overrode the plan to produce more power during
the recent energy crunch (see Sublegals, 3:24/02; 4:08/02; 4:15/04);
BPA is cutting salmon restoration funding (see Sublegals, 6:22/06)
rather than expanding it.
Fishing and conservation groups, including PCFFA and IFR,
challenged NMFS' plan as insufficient. The court ruled the NMFS
Biological Opinion (BiOp) supporting the plan was "arbitrary and
capricious" because, among other reasons, it relied heavily on off-site,
non-federal actions that are not certain to occur, many unfunded, and
over which the federal agencies lacks any control. This ruling reopens
the debate on how best to restore damaged salmon and steelhead runs
within the heavily dammed Columbia River basin, including bringing
the issue of breaching of the four lower Snake River dams squarely back
on the table. Thus far the Bush Administration has stated that
decommissioning dams in the Columbia would not be acceptable, but
still has provided no legally viable alternative, nor has it fully funded
even the alternatives it was proposing in the now-failed recovery plan.
For more information on the ruling, see the 8 May Seattle Times article
by Linda Mapes at:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/
display?slug=salmon08m&date=20030508&query=Columbia. The
decision can be found at:
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/5-03/salmonplan.pdf.
7:19/05. NMFS FORMALLY APPROVES 2003 PACIFIC
SALMON SEASON REGULATIONS: On 6 May, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) published in the Federal Register (Vol. 68,
No. 87, pp. 23913-23923) announcing the regulations for the 2003 ocean
salmon season offshore California, Oregon and Washington. Specific
fishery management measures vary by fishery and by area (see
Sublegals, 7:17/01, 7:15/01; 7:11/01). "The measures establish fishing
areas, seasons, quotas, legal gear, recreational fishing days and catch
limits, possession and landing restrictions, and minimum lengths for
salmon taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ)(3-200 nm)....."
announced NMFS. The regulations took effect on 1 May and comments
are due by 21 May. Comments (including on the Environmental
Assessment) should be sent to: Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator,
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200,
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, FX (562) 980-4018; or Robert Lohn,
Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point
Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, FX: (206) 526-6376. For more
information, go to: www.pcouncil.org.
7:19/06. DAM REMOVAL RESULTS IN THOUSANDS OF
SALMON FOR ONE WASHINGTON WATERSHED: "Providing
sustainable fisheries on chum and coho are major goals for the Squaxin
Island Tribe," according to Tribal fisheries biologist Joseph Peters. 18
months after removing a 118 year-old dam on Goldsborough Creek in
Washington State's southern Puget Sound region, the Tribe seems
headed down the right road. The dam, which was owned by the Simpson
Timber Company for water diversion to mills a few miles away, had
been the object of a removal campaign for about twenty years, and a
flood in 1996 finally disabled the barrier. By November 2001 the dam
was gone and 25 miles of stream were once again open to migrating
salmon. In the first year Tribal fisheries biologists counted more than
15,000 chum salmon leaving the reach for the ocean. As of 18 April this
year nearly 200 coho had been counted on their way out of the reach,
after spending their first year holding in the stream.
In California, PCFFA has been working to see a similar restoration of
critical winter-run and spring-run chinook habitat through dam removals
on Battle Creek, Butte Creek and other salmon watersheds. For more on
Goldsborough Creek dam removal, see the 18 April Olympian article at:
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030418/southsound/45141.s
html.
7:19/07. NEW EVIDENCE REVEALS DAMS MORE DAMAGING
THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT: Researchers in Canada, the world's
largest producer of hydroelectricity, have discovered that dams can also
be a significant source of mercury pollution in riparian and terrestrial
ecosystems. As a result, they have recommended that pregnant women
and children avoid eating fish caught near dams after tests showed toxic
levels of mercury accumulation in some fish. The contamination results
from a chemical reaction by which naturally occurring, trace amounts of
mercury are transformed into methyl mercury, which is easily absorbed
by plants and animals, after being churned in the tail-waters of a dam.
This problem is not limited to Canada. In the U.S., for example,
recreational fishing is commonly promoted by dam advocates in
reservoirs behind dams as well as in river reaches below the structures.
The damage from pollution from dams is not limited to upstream
areas. A 4 May article by Michael Milstein in the Oregonian exposed
the problem of unregulated oil spills originating from federal dams on
the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Operating without permits for potential
oil spills, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has taken a guarded
approach to working with environmental enforcement officials from
Oregon and Washington State. COE has rejected repeated efforts by
both states to investigate the frequency and volume of spills. The U.S.
Coast Guard, however, reports that in the past five years, 35 oil spills
have occurred at federally operated dams on the Snake River. The spills
ranged in size from a few ounces to 1,000 gallons to "unknown
quantities." State officials do know that some of the larger facilities
require hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil to operate, but the Corps
refuses to allow access to even basic information about their dam's
machinery, citing a lack of jurisdiction and the "potential for terrorist
attacks." For more information on oil pollution emanating from these
dams, see the Oregonian at: http://www.oregonlive.com/search/
index.ssf?/base/front_page/1052049524241130.xml?oregonian?fpfp
7:19/08. HYDROELECTRIC POWER COMPANIES PLOTTING
TO KILL MORE FISH: Power companies may be on the brink of
gaining greater control of rivers, from New England to the Pacific
Northwest, and in the name of saving money killing far more fish! The
reason is a small provision of S. 71, a bill that is to scheduled to reach
the U.S. Senate floor on 12 May, sponsored by "National Hydropower
Association Legislator of the Year " Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). The
measure is supported by the Bush Administration, and by senior officials
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and has already
cleared the House. The bill would make it much easier for hydropower
operators to avoid paying for costly repairs to make their dams less
destructive to fish populations.
In the last two decades, conservation and fishing groups have used
the federal dam re-licensing process to force power companies to install
fish ladders, and make other fish-friendly changes. Nowadays, getting
re-licensed may take up to ten years and $10 million dollars for the
companies. In the next fifteen years, licenses for half of the U.S.
nonfederal hydroelectric dams must be renewed, which they say could
spell big trouble for the industry. If the hydropower provision in S. 71
becomes law, power companies would be granted special rights to
appeal conditions on dam operations imposed by federal agencies such
as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Services (NMFS) and the Forest Service. The bill would give
power companies, at the end of the license renewal process, a right to
submit their own alternative plans for operating dams.
Under the proposed law, experts in the fish agencies would have to
evaluate a dam operator's alternative not only for its impact on fish, but
also to weigh environmental concerns against energy needs, recreational
value, flood control and air quality issues. If the agencies reject a dam
operator's alternative plan as bad for fish, the bill would allow the
operators to appeal directly to the Secretaries of Interior, Commerce or
Agriculture; however, other stakeholders, such as the Tribes or
conservation and fishing groups, would not have any right to appeal. For
information see the 3 May Washington Post article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/
A11064-2003May3.html or visit Senator Craig's website at:
http://www.senate.gov/~craig/releases/pr040803b.htm.
7:19/09. SENATE ENERGY BILL ON FLOOR -- PROPOSED
GRAHAM AMENDMENT WOULD PREVENT SEISMIC
EXPLORATION OFFSHORE, PROTECT COAST AND FISHERIES:
The U.S. Senate has taken up this past week its Energy Bill (see
Sublegals, 7:15/09; 7:14/01). As currently drafted, it would require the
use of seismic survey "airgun" explosions and other invasive
technologies to explore for offshore oil and gas on all portions of the
U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
The use of airguns has been found to "spook" fish, driving them away
from their grounds, can cause serious hearing damage to larger fish and
kill smaller forage fish. The required exploration activities would be
undertaken in coastal areas, including some of the nation's prime fishing
grounds, that have been preserved by an annual Congressional
prohibition on new offshore oil and gas leasing for over 22 years. These
same waters have also been protected since 1990 by a separate Executive
Order put in place by former President George H.W. Bush, and
subsequently extended by President Bill Clinton to the year 2012. The
exploration authorization provision in the Senate Energy Bill also
contradicts the current White House Budget Document for Fiscal Year
2004, which calls for continued protection of sensitive areas of the OCS
during the upcoming year.
In addition to requiring oil exploration within the protected
moratorium areas, the Senate Energy Bill mandates that the Department
of Interior (DOI) identify "impediments" to development of offshore
petroleum resources. This part of the energy bill language specifically
targets "moratoria, lease terms and conditions, operational stipulations,
approval delays by the federal government and coastal states, and local
zoning restrictions for onshore processing facilities and pipeline
landings." The requirements for pursuing this "inventory" and
"identification of impediments" were removed from the House version
of the energy bill by a floor amendment last month.
Fishing and conservation groups and local governments are lending
support for an amendment by Senators Bob Graham (D-FL), Dianne
Feinstein (D-CA), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
aimed at protecting the California coast, and the shorelines of Oregon,
Washington, southwest Florida, plus the entire U.S. East Coast and
Alaska's Bristol Bay, from offshore drilling. In addition to the
Democratic backing for the Graham amendment, some coastal
Republicans, including Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Gordon Smith
(R-OR), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) are lending
support for the amendment to protect their coasts and fishing industry.
Action by the Senate on the Energy Bill is expected this month. For
more information, e-mail: rcharter@environmentaldefense.org.
7:19/10. MORE ON OCS -- OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING TAX
INCENTIVES HARD ON STATE BUDGETS, ANWR
DEVELOPMENT TO BE TRADED FOR BEAUFORT SEA
EXPLORATION?: On 8 May, a coalition of 20 consumer and
environmental groups released a report finding oil and gas incentives in
the Energy Bill being considered in the Congress "would squander
public money and pinch states that already are struggling to balance their
budgets," according to a New Orleans Times-Picayune article. The
petroleum industry and oil state legislators claim, said the article, "the
tax breaks are necessary to encourage companies to take the financial
risk of drilling for deposits hidden deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico or
miles below the Earth's surface."
The "Green Scissors 2003" report focused on two provisions in the
House Energy Bill relating to oil and gas royalties, the payments that
companies make to the federal government in exchange for the rights to
drill on public lands. One provision of the House bill would expand
so-called "in-kind" royalties, which are paid in the form of marketable
oil and gas products, instead of cash. A General Accounting Office
(GAO) report, however, raised questions about whether in-kind
payments are a good deal for taxpayers. Another provision of the bill
suspends royalties on low-producing "marginal" oil and gas wells and
those sunk deep in the Gulf of Mexico. But oil companies are already
sinking deep-water wells; the federal money isn't needed to prompt
them. States, such as Louisiana and California, share in a portion of the
royalties received from leases on the federal Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) and a waiver of these royalties or a failure to adequately account
for and collect the royalties thus impacts state budgets. To see the 9 May
Times-Picayune article, go to: http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/
washington/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1052463419250600.xml.
The Christian Science Monitor, meanwhile, reported on 6 May that
while the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (AWWR) may be spared
from development under provisions in the Senate Energy Bill, the U.S.
Department of Interior is poised to open up leases in the Beaufort Sea off
Alaska. "Depending on the outcome of what could be a fiery partisan
exchange in the Senate, the Interior Department could open nearly 10
million acres of Arctic barrier islands and ocean to energy exploration by
the middle of summer," said the Monitor article.
"Estimates of commercially recoverable oil in the Beaufort Sea range
from four to 12 billion barrels...............and there is believed to be
between 13 and 63 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - a commodity that
would become more attractive if a proposed natural-gas pipeline from
northern Alaska is built.....Relatively few exploration wells, perhaps 30,
have been drilled recently in the Beaufort, and only one major
development exists parallel to the several hundred miles of coastline.
But Congressional action could set the stage for a much larger
infrastructure of drilling platforms, pipelines, ship traffic, and roads
onshore," according to the Monitor.
The Monitor article, "Alaskan Oil Battle May Shift Offshore," went
on to say, "opening the Beaufort Sea to expanded exploration, however,
is just part of a broader Administration plan, which includes temporarily
suspending mandatory federal royalty payments for companies that go
looking for new deposits of oil and gas..........While taken as a whole, the
2003 version of energy legislation offers less than the $38 billion in
subsidies to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries offered two years
ago, observers say it lays out a more ambitious strategy to ease
regulatory restrictions on drilling.... One of the most controversial
proposals calls for new efforts to identify and map commercial
development potential along coastal regions that are currently off limits
to drilling such as California, Florida, Oregon, Washington, and the
Eastern seaboard." To see the article, go to:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0506/p01s01-ussc.htm.
*****
Paying Attention? The U.S. Senate is currently taking up the Energy
Bill. Which one of the following provisions is included in the bill?
A) A tax incentive for the development of a "smart-gun" for ocean
seismic exploration, using hip-hop music for the sound generation,
claimed to attract, not drive away, juvenile fish.
B) Language to allow exploration in coastal areas covered by the current
OCS moratorium.
C) The granting of an exclusive OCS lease to Halliburton, coupled with
a sole-source $7 billion contract, to develop oil tracts in the Beaufort and
Bering Seas and Bristol Bay.
D) A Tom DeLay-sponsored provision awarding oil royalty revenues to
members of the Texas Legislature in Austin, while that body's
Democratic members are holed up in Oklahoma.
E-Mail your answer to "Editor" at: sublegals@ifrfish.org. One winner is
drawn each week from a list of those submitting the correct answer.
And the Winner is.........ANNE MOSNESS, who correctly answered last
week's question of "What reason was given by the Government of
Canada for the total closure of the nation's east coast cod fishery?" with
"D) Research shows that the number of spawning codfish remains in
sharp decline even after more than a decade of dramatically reduced
harvests." She 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 Sara Randall, 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 news
service. 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_5a.1c73c14f.2bf5386f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">######################################################=
####<BR>
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; ~~>SUBLEGALS 09May03<~~<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>
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
ASSOCIATIONS<BR>
<BR>
VOL. 07, NO. 19 =
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; 9 MAY 2003<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"We should all strive to manage uncertainty reasonably, instead of <BR>
being unreasonably certain."......................... Harald Schraeder=
<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
IN THIS ISSUE.......<BR>
<BR>
San Francisco Passes Measure to Support Local, <BR>
Sustainably Harvested Seafood. 7:19/01<BR>
<BR>
Federal Court Rules for Salmon on Columbia, Reopens <BR>
Issue of Snake River Dams. 7:19/04<BR>
<BR>
New Evidence Reveals Dams More Damaging to Fish <BR>
Than Thought. 7:19/07<BR>
<BR>
Hydroelectric Companies Plot in Congressional Bill to <BR>
Kill More Fish. 7:19/08. <BR>
<BR>
Graham Amendment to Senate Energy Bill Aimed at <BR>
Protecting OCS Moratorium Areas. 7:19/10<BR>
<BR>
AND MORE.......<BR>
########################################################## <BR>
<BR>
7:19/01. SAN FRANCISCO PASSES RESOLUTION CALLING<BR=
>
FOR RESTAURANTS AND MARKETS TO SERVE LOCALLY<BR>
CAUGHT AND SUSTAINABLY HARVESTED SEAFOOD, OTHER<BR>
GOVERNMENTS TO FOLLOW?: The City and County of San<BR>
Francisco became the first urban municipality in the U.S. to pass a<BR>
resolution calling on its restaurants and markets to serve locally-caught<BR=
>
and sustainably harvested seafood. In addition to throwing their support<BR>
behind the local fishing community and fish conservation, the San<BR>
Francisco Board of Supervisors also voted on 6 May to encourage its<BR>
seafood restaurants and markets to "take a pass on Chilean sea bass."<BR>
San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval was the author of both<BR>
resolutions. The two measures were sponsored by a broad coalition,<BR>
including PCFFA and IFR, the National Environmental Trust (NET),<BR>
The Ocean Conservancy, and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association<BR>
(see Sublegals, 7:16/03).<BR>
<BR>
The first resolution encourages local restaur=
ants and markets to<BR>
support local fisheries and provide information to consumers about the<BR>
sustainability of the seafood product and the health benefits and risks.<BR>
This measure was aimed at supporting some of San Francisco's leading<BR>
restaurants, including Jardinere, Farallon, Scoma's, Hayes Street Grill<BR>
and Acme Chophouse that have been emphasizing locally-produced<BR>
foods and sustainable fisheries on their menus, and to encourage other<BR>
restaurants and markets to promote local and sustainably-caught fish.<BR>
The measure's sponsors hope to take a message to some of the City's<BR>
restaurants that still serve imported farmed salmon and other fish, when<BR>
local and sustainably harvested seafood is available from fishermen and<BR>
wholesalers (see Sublegals, 7:17/01). It further calls for better health<BR>
information about different types of fish including risks (e.g., mercury in<=
BR>
tilefish, colorants in farmed salmon) and benefits (e.g., Omega-3s in<BR>
wild salmon and sardines). <BR>
<BR>
The second resolution calls on all chefs, retailers=
, wholesalers and<BR>
consumers to stop serving, selling, buying or consuming Patagonian and<BR>
Antarctic toothfish, sold as Chilean Sea Bass, until illegal fishing is<BR>
stopped and effective conservation measures are in place. On 7 May, a<BR>
day after the San Francisco Board action, an announcement came out of<BR>
Brussels that a new international alliance of legal Patagonian toothfish<BR>
harvesters had formed to protect sustainable toothfish resources. Among<BR>
its first actions, the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO)<BR>
offered a reward of $100,000 (US) for information leading to the<BR>
conviction of fishermen, companies, directors or employees involved in<BR>
illegal fishing operations. For more information on the Toothfish<BR>
organization, go to www.colto.org. For more information on the San<BR>
Francisco resolutions, call Natasha Benjamin at (415) 561-3474 or go to:<BR>
www.sfgov.org.<BR>
<BR>
7:19/02. PORTLAND HOSTS FIRST FISHERMAN-CHEF<BR>
CONNECTION CONFERENCE: The first "Fisherman-Chef Connection<BR>
Conference" was held 21 April at the Natural Capital Center in Portland,<BR>
Oregon. Hosted by the Portland Chapter of the Chefs Collaborative,<BR>
Ecotrust, and the Pacific Marine Conservation Council, the event was<BR>
planned as the beginning of "an annual gathering designed to build direct<BR=
>
markets and foster collaboration between fishermen, chefs, and retailers<BR>
committed to expanding and strengthening local, seasonal, and<BR>
sustainable fisheries." In addition to Portland, sponsors hope to hold=
<BR>
similar events next year in California and Washington. The conference<BR>
coincided with a number of other sustainable seafood promotional<BR>
events going on this year, including the "Wild About Salmon" promotion<BR>
sponsored by the Seafood Choices Alliance that will be taking place this<BR>
summer (see Sublegals, 7:14/01), the "Cooking for Solutions" program<BR>
being sponsored by the Monterey Bay Aquarium on 30-31 May<BR>
(www.montereybayaquarium.org), and the "Taste the Difference" series<BR>
of dinners hosted by San Francisco's Acme Chophouse featuring organic<BR>
foods and wild fish (www.acmechophouse.com). <BR>
<BR>
According to the sponsors, "It is important t=
o build direct markets<BR>
since the West Coast fishing industry has consolidated at an alarming<BR>
rate, disenfranchising many local fishermen and fishing communities<BR>
whose livelihoods and economies have historically depended on marine<BR>
resources. The consolidation has occurred in the processing and<BR>
distribution sectors of the industry. Processors and distributors decide on<=
BR>
which fishermen to buy from, what price will be paid and what the<BR>
quality standards for fishing methods and fish quality will be. This<BR>
globalized system leaves fewer and fewer buyers worldwide forcing<BR>
some of the best stewards of our oceans, the local fishermen, to go out of<B=
R>
business or make compromises in business practices that can drastically<BR>
impact their efforts and the health of the fishery in the long run." This<BR=
>
year's conference was made possible by a grant from the David & Lucille<=
BR>
Packard Foundation. For more information, go to:<BR>
http://www.ecotrust.org/foodfarms/fisherchef.html. Also see:<BR>
http://www.tidepool.org/original_content.cfm?articleid=3D76256.<BR>
<BR>
7:19/03. CALIFORNIA SALMON COUNCIL GRANT RECIPIENT<=
BR>
FOR TRADE MISSION TO JAPAN: The California Department of<BR>
Food & Agriculture has announced the California Salmon Council as<BR>
one of this year's recipients of the California International Market<BR>
Promotion for Agriculture (CIMPA) competitive grant program. The<BR>
Salmon Council's award is to conduct a trade mission to Japan<BR>
promoting wild troll-caught king salmon. For information on the grant:=
<BR>
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/cimpa/cimpa_awards.asp. For information<BR>
about the California Salmon Council, go to: www.calkingsalmon.org. <BR>
<BR>
7:19/04. A VICTORY FOR SALMON ON THE COLUMBIA=
,<BR>
FEDERAL COURT DOESN'T THINK SNAKE RIVER DAMS<BR>
SACRED: On 7 May, a U.S. District Court in Oregon ruled in favor of<BR>
salmon, overturning the Bush Administration's controversial Columbia<BR>
River Recovery Plan. That plan was an attempt to get around dam<BR>
removal (i.e., four lower Snake River dams) or dam re-engineering. The<BR>
court's decision in this case, National Wildlife Federation, et. al., v.<BR>
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), (D. Or., No. CR01-640-RE),<BR>
reopens the question about how best to save salmon in the Columbia<BR>
Basin, where nearly every run is now listed as threatened or endangered<BR>
under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Wild salmon runs in<BR=
>
the Columbia, once some of the largest in the world, have been hovering<BR>
around 2 percent of their historic size for several years and are nearly<BR>
extinct in the Snake River, the Columbia's major tributary. The ruling by<BR=
>
Federal District Court Judge James Redden, is the second time the<BR>
federal government's Columbia River salmon recovery plan has been<BR>
tossed out. In that first case, Idaho Department of Fish & Game v.=
<BR>
NMFS, 850 F. Supp. 886 (D. Or. 1994) the Court held, "[T]he process is<BR>
seriously, 'significantly,' flawed because it is too heavily geared towards<=
BR>
a status quo that has allowed all forms of river activity to proceed in a<BR=
>
deficit situation - that is, relatively small steps, minor improvements and<=
BR>
adjustments - when the situation literally cries out for a major overhaul."<=
BR>
(IDFG at 900). <BR>
<BR>
Most scientists, including the American Fisheries S=
ociety (AFS), and<BR>
some federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency<BR>
(EPA)), have expressed the opinion that threatened and endangered<BR>
salmon and steelhead, at least in the Snake River, cannot be recovered<BR>
without bypassing the four lower Snake River dams (see Sublegals,<BR>
1:17/02). These dams kill a large number of fish that, in turn, devast=
ates<BR>
lower-river and coastal fishing economies. Numerous studies have found<BR>
the dams themselves provide only nominal or easily replaceable<BR>
economic benefits.<BR>
<BR>
In response to the earlier ruling, in December 2000=
NMFS and the<BR>
other federal agencies came up with what they called the "aggressive,<BR>
non-breach option." This option avoided the issue of breaching the lower<BR>
four Snake River dams and, instead, pledged to do as much as possible<BR>
to restore habitat, retrofit fish passage and other measures in the hopes<BR=
>
these actions combined would make up for the damage done by the<BR>
dams. Much of NMFS' plan was speculative, however, based on highly<BR>
optimistic recovery assumptions. It was criticized, too, as more a "pl=
an<BR>
to do planning" rather than a substantive recovery effort, and assumed a<BR>
number of highly speculative future conservation measures and<BR>
non-federal actions would occur that never materialized. <BR>
<BR>
Moreover, the "aggressive, non-breaching" restorati=
on measures were<BR>
grossly under-funded by Congress and the Bush Administration. Added<BR=
>
to that, many of the measures were ignored when the Bonneville Power<BR>
Administration (BPA) overrode the plan to produce more power during<BR>
the recent energy crunch (see Sublegals, 3:24/02; 4:08/02; 4:15/04);<BR>
BPA is cutting salmon restoration funding (see Sublegals, 6:22/06)<BR>
rather than expanding it.<BR>
<BR>
Fishing and conservation groups, including PCFFA an=
d IFR,<BR>
challenged NMFS' plan as insufficient. The court ruled the NMFS<BR>
Biological Opinion (BiOp) supporting the plan was "arbitrary and<BR>
capricious" because, among other reasons, it relied heavily on off-site,<BR>
non-federal actions that are not certain to occur, many unfunded, and<BR>
over which the federal agencies lacks any control. This ruling reopens<BR>
the debate on how best to restore damaged salmon and steelhead runs<BR>
within the heavily dammed Columbia River basin, including bringing<BR>
the issue of breaching of the four lower Snake River dams squarely back<BR>
on the table. Thus far the Bush Administration has stated that<BR>
decommissioning dams in the Columbia would not be acceptable, but<BR>
still has provided no legally viable alternative, nor has it fully funded<BR=
>
even the alternatives it was proposing in the now-failed recovery plan. <BR>
For more information on the ruling, see the 8 May Seattle Times article<BR>
by Linda Mapes at:<BR>
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/<BR>
display?slug=3Dsalmon08m&date=3D20030508&query=3DColumbia. The=
<BR>
decision can be found at:<BR>
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/5-03/salmonplan.pdf.<BR>
<BR>
7:19/05. NMFS FORMALLY APPROVES 2003 PACIFIC<BR>
SALMON SEASON REGULATIONS: On 6 May, the National Marine<BR>
Fisheries Service (NMFS) published in the Federal Register (Vol. 68,<BR>
No. 87, pp. 23913-23923) announcing the regulations for the 2003 ocean<BR>
salmon season offshore California, Oregon and Washington. Specific<BR>
fishery management measures vary by fishery and by area (see<BR>
Sublegals, 7:17/01, 7:15/01; 7:11/01). "The measures establish fishing<BR>
areas, seasons, quotas, legal gear, recreational fishing days and catch<BR>
limits, possession and landing restrictions, and minimum lengths for<BR>
salmon taken in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ)(3-200 nm)....."<BR>
announced NMFS. The regulations took effect on 1 May and comments<BR>
are due by 21 May. Comments (including on the Environmental<BR>
Assessment) should be sent to: Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator,<BR>
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200,<BR>
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, FX (562) 980-4018; or Robert Lohn,<BR>
Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point<BR>
Way, NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, FX: (206) 526-6376. For more<BR>
information, go to: www.pcouncil.org. <BR>
<BR>
7:19/06. DAM REMOVAL RESULTS IN THOUSANDS OF<BR>
SALMON FOR ONE WASHINGTON WATERSHED: "Providing<BR>
sustainable fisheries on chum and coho are major goals for the Squaxin<BR>
Island Tribe," according to Tribal fisheries biologist Joseph Peters. 18<BR>
months after removing a 118 year-old dam on Goldsborough Creek in<BR>
Washington State's southern Puget Sound region, the Tribe seems<BR>
headed down the right road. The dam, which was owned by the Simpson<BR>
Timber Company for water diversion to mills a few miles away, had<BR>
been the object of a removal campaign for about twenty years, and a<BR>
flood in 1996 finally disabled the barrier. By November 2001 the dam<B=
R>
was gone and 25 miles of stream were once again open to migrating<BR>
salmon. In the first year Tribal fisheries biologists counted more tha=
n<BR>
15,000 chum salmon leaving the reach for the ocean. As of 18 April thi=
s<BR>
year nearly 200 coho had been counted on their way out of the reach,<BR>
after spending their first year holding in the stream. <BR>
<BR>
In California, PCFFA has been working to see a simi=
lar restoration of<BR>
critical winter-run and spring-run chinook habitat through dam removals<BR>
on Battle Creek, Butte Creek and other salmon watersheds. For more on<BR>
Goldsborough Creek dam removal, see the 18 April Olympian article at:<BR>
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030418/southsound/45141.s<BR>
html.<BR>
<BR>
7:19/07. NEW EVIDENCE REVEALS DAMS MORE DAMAGING<BR=
>
THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT: Researchers in Canada, the world's<BR>
largest producer of hydroelectricity, have discovered that dams can also<BR>
be a significant source of mercury pollution in riparian and terrestrial<BR>
ecosystems. As a result, they have recommended that pregnant women<BR>
and children avoid eating fish caught near dams after tests showed toxic<BR>
levels of mercury accumulation in some fish. The contamination results=
<BR>
from a chemical reaction by which naturally occurring, trace amounts of<BR>
mercury are transformed into methyl mercury, which is easily absorbed<BR>
by plants and animals, after being churned in the tail-waters of a dam. <BR>
This problem is not limited to Canada. In the U.S., for example,<BR>
recreational fishing is commonly promoted by dam advocates in<BR>
reservoirs behind dams as well as in river reaches below the structures. <BR=
>
<BR>
The damage from pollution from dams is not limited=20=
to upstream<BR>
areas. A 4 May article by Michael Milstein in the Oregonian exposed<BR=
>
the problem of unregulated oil spills originating from federal dams on<BR>
the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Operating without permits for potential=
<BR>
oil spills, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has taken a guarded<BR>
approach to working with environmental enforcement officials from<BR>
Oregon and Washington State. COE has rejected repeated efforts by<BR>
both states to investigate the frequency and volume of spills. The U.S=
.<BR>
Coast Guard, however, reports that in the past five years, 35 oil spills<BR>
have occurred at federally operated dams on the Snake River. The spill=
s<BR>
ranged in size from a few ounces to 1,000 gallons to "unknown<BR>
quantities." State officials do know that some of the larger facilitie=
s<BR>
require hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil to operate, but the Corps<BR=
>
refuses to allow access to even basic information about their dam's<BR>
machinery, citing a lack of jurisdiction and the "potential for terrorist<BR=
>
attacks." For more information on oil pollution emanating from these<B=
R>
dams, see the Oregonian at: http://www.oregonlive.com/search/<BR>
index.ssf?/base/front_page/1052049524241130.xml?oregonian?fpfp<BR>
<BR>
7:19/08. HYDROELECTRIC POWER COMPANIES PLOTTING<BR>
TO KILL MORE FISH: Power companies may be on the brink of<BR>
gaining greater control of rivers, from New England to the Pacific<BR>
Northwest, and in the name of saving money killing far more fish! The<=
BR>
reason is a small provision of S. 71, a bill that is to scheduled to reach<B=
R>
the U.S. Senate floor on 12 May, sponsored by "National Hydropower<BR>
Association Legislator of the Year " Senator Larry Craig (R-ID). The<B=
R>
measure is supported by the Bush Administration, and by senior officials<BR>
at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and has already<BR>
cleared the House. The bill would make it much easier for hydropower<BR>
operators to avoid paying for costly repairs to make their dams less<BR>
destructive to fish populations. <BR>
<BR>
In the last two decades, conservation and fishing g=
roups have used<BR>
the federal dam re-licensing process to force power companies to install<BR>
fish ladders, and make other fish-friendly changes. Nowadays, getting<BR>
re-licensed may take up to ten years and $10 million dollars for the<BR>
companies. In the next fifteen years, licenses for half of the U.S.<BR>
nonfederal hydroelectric dams must be renewed, which they say could<BR>
spell big trouble for the industry. If the hydropower provision in S. 71<BR>
becomes law, power companies would be granted special rights to<BR>
appeal conditions on dam operations imposed by federal agencies such<BR>
as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine<BR>
Fisheries Services (NMFS) and the Forest Service. The bill would give<BR>
power companies, at the end of the license renewal process, a right to<BR>
submit their own alternative plans for operating dams. <BR>
<BR>
Under the proposed law, experts in the fish agencie=
s would have to<BR>
evaluate a dam operator's alternative not only for its impact on fish, but<B=
R>
also to weigh environmental concerns against energy needs, recreational<BR>
value, flood control and air quality issues. If the agencies reject a dam<BR=
>
operator's alternative plan as bad for fish, the bill would allow the<BR>
operators to appeal directly to the Secretaries of Interior, Commerce or<BR>
Agriculture; however, other stakeholders, such as the Tribes or<BR>
conservation and fishing groups, would not have any right to appeal. For<BR>
information see the 3 May Washington Post article at:<BR>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/<BR>
A11064-2003May3.html or visit Senator Craig's website at:<BR>
http://www.senate.gov/~craig/releases/pr040803b.htm.<BR>
<BR>
7:19/09. SENATE ENERGY BILL ON FLOOR --=
PROPOSED<BR>
GRAHAM AMENDMENT WOULD PREVENT SEISMIC<BR>
EXPLORATION OFFSHORE, PROTECT COAST AND FISHERIES: <BR>
The U.S. Senate has taken up this past week its Energy Bill (see<BR>
Sublegals, 7:15/09; 7:14/01). As currently drafted, it would require t=
he<BR>
use of seismic survey "airgun" explosions and other invasive<BR>
technologies to explore for offshore oil and gas on all portions of the<BR>
U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).<BR>
<BR>
The use of airguns has been found to "spook" fish,=20=
driving them away<BR>
from their grounds, can cause serious hearing damage to larger fish and<BR>
kill smaller forage fish. The required exploration activities would be<BR>
undertaken in coastal areas, including some of the nation's prime fishing<BR=
>
grounds, that have been preserved by an annual Congressional<BR>
prohibition on new offshore oil and gas leasing for over 22 years. The=
se<BR>
same waters have also been protected since 1990 by a separate Executive<BR>
Order put in place by former President George H.W. Bush, and<BR>
subsequently extended by President Bill Clinton to the year 2012. The<=
BR>
exploration authorization provision in the Senate Energy Bill also<BR>
contradicts the current White House Budget Document for Fiscal Year<BR>
2004, which calls for continued protection of sensitive areas of the OCS<BR>
during the upcoming year. <BR>
<BR>
In addition to requiring oil exploration within the=
protected<BR>
moratorium areas, the Senate Energy Bill mandates that the Department<BR>
of Interior (DOI) identify "impediments" to development of offshore<BR>
petroleum resources. This part of the energy bill language specifically<BR>
targets "moratoria, lease terms and conditions, operational stipulations,<BR=
>
approval delays by the federal government and coastal states, and local<BR>
zoning restrictions for onshore processing facilities and pipeline<BR>
landings." The requirements for pursuing this "inventory" and<BR>
"identification of impediments" were removed from the House version<BR>
of the energy bill by a floor amendment last month. <BR>
<BR>
Fishing and conservation groups and local governmen=
ts are lending<BR>
support for an amendment by Senators Bob Graham (D-FL), Dianne<BR>
Feinstein (D-CA), Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA)<BR>
aimed at protecting the California coast, and the shorelines of Oregon,<BR>
Washington, southwest Florida, plus the entire U.S. East Coast and<BR>
Alaska's Bristol Bay, from offshore drilling. In addition to the<BR>
Democratic backing for the Graham amendment, some coastal<BR>
Republicans, including Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Gordon Smith<BR>
(R-OR), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) are lending<BR>
support for the amendment to protect their coasts and fishing industry.<BR>
Action by the Senate on the Energy Bill is expected this month. For<BR>
more information, e-mail: rcharter@environmentaldefense.org. <BR>
<BR>
7:19/10. MORE ON OCS -- OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING TAX<B=
R>
INCENTIVES HARD ON STATE BUDGETS, ANWR<BR>
DEVELOPMENT TO BE TRADED FOR BEAUFORT SEA<BR>
EXPLORATION?: On 8 May, a coalition of 20 consumer and<BR>
environmental groups released a report finding oil and gas incentives in<BR>
the Energy Bill being considered in the Congress "would squander<BR>
public money and pinch states that already are struggling to balance their<B=
R>
budgets," according to a New Orleans Times-Picayune article. The<BR>
petroleum industry and oil state legislators claim, said the article, "the<B=
R>
tax breaks are necessary to encourage companies to take the financial<BR>
risk of drilling for deposits hidden deep beneath the Gulf of Mexico or<BR>
miles below the Earth's surface." <BR>
<BR>
The "Green Scissors 2003" report focused on two pro=
visions in the<BR>
House Energy Bill relating to oil and gas royalties, the payments that<BR>
companies make to the federal government in exchange for the rights to<BR>
drill on public lands. One provision of the House bill would expand<BR>
so-called "in-kind" royalties, which are paid in the form of marketable<BR>
oil and gas products, instead of cash. A General Accounting Office<BR>
(GAO) report, however, raised questions about whether in-kind<BR>
payments are a good deal for taxpayers. Another provision of the bill<BR>
suspends royalties on low-producing "marginal" oil and gas wells and<BR>
those sunk deep in the Gulf of Mexico. But oil companies are already<BR>
sinking deep-water wells; the federal money isn't needed to prompt<BR>
them. States, such as Louisiana and California, share in a portion of the<BR=
>
royalties received from leases on the federal Outer Continental Shelf<BR>
(OCS) and a waiver of these royalties or a failure to adequately account<BR>
for and collect the royalties thus impacts state budgets. To see the 9 May<B=
R>
Times-Picayune article, go to: http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/<BR>
washington/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1052463419250600.xml. <BR>
<BR>
The Christian Science Monitor, meanwhile, reported on 6 M=
ay that<BR>
while the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (AWWR) may be spared<BR>
from development under provisions in the Senate Energy Bill, the U.S.<BR>
Department of Interior is poised to open up leases in the Beaufort Sea off<B=
R>
Alaska. "Depending on the outcome of what could be a fiery partisan<BR=
>
exchange in the Senate, the Interior Department could open nearly 10<BR>
million acres of Arctic barrier islands and ocean to energy exploration by<B=
R>
the middle of summer," said the Monitor article. <BR>
<BR>
"Estimates of commercially recoverable oil in the B=
eaufort Sea range<BR>
from four to 12 billion barrels...............and there is believed to be<BR=
>
between 13 and 63 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - a commodity that<BR>
would become more attractive if a proposed natural-gas pipeline from<BR>
northern Alaska is built.....Relatively few exploration wells, perhaps 30,<B=
R>
have been drilled recently in the Beaufort, and only one major<BR>
development exists parallel to the several hundred miles of coastline.<BR>
But Congressional action could set the stage for a much larger<BR>
infrastructure of drilling platforms, pipelines, ship traffic, and roads<BR>
onshore," according to the Monitor. <BR>
<BR>
The Monitor article, "Alaskan Oil Battle May Shift=20=
Offshore," went<BR>
on to say, "opening the Beaufort Sea to expanded exploration, however,<BR>
is just part of a broader Administration plan, which includes temporarily<BR=
>
suspending mandatory federal royalty payments for companies that go<BR>
looking for new deposits of oil and gas..........While taken as a whole, the=
<BR>
2003 version of energy legislation offers less than the $38 billion in<BR>
subsidies to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries offered two years<BR=
>
ago, observers say it lays out a more ambitious strategy to ease<BR>
regulatory restrictions on drilling.... One of the most controversial<=
BR>
proposals calls for new efforts to identify and map commercial<BR>
development potential along coastal regions that are currently off limits<BR=
>
to drilling such as California, Florida, Oregon, Washington, and the<BR>
Eastern seaboard." To see the article, go to:<BR>
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0506/p01s01-ussc.htm. <BR>
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
*****<BR>
Paying Attention? The U.S. Senate is currently taking up the Energy<BR=
>
Bill. Which one of the following provisions is included in the bill? <BR>
<BR>
A) A tax incentive for the development of a "smart-gun" for ocean<BR>
seismic exploration, using hip-hop music for the sound generation,<BR>
claimed to attract, not drive away, juvenile fish.<BR>
B) Language to allow exploration in coastal areas covered by the current<BR>
OCS moratorium.<BR>
C) The granting of an exclusive OCS lease to Halliburton, coupled with<BR>
a sole-source $7 billion contract, to develop oil tracts in the Beaufort and=
<BR>
Bering Seas and Bristol Bay.<BR>
D) A Tom DeLay-sponsored provision awarding oil royalty revenues to<BR>
members of the Texas Legislature in Austin, while that body's<BR>
Democratic members are holed up in Oklahoma. <BR>
<BR>
E-Mail your answer to "Editor" at: sublegals@ifrfish.org. One winner is<BR>
drawn each week from a list of those submitting the correct answer. <BR>
<BR>
And the Winner is.........ANNE MOSNESS, who correctly answered last<BR>
week's question of "What reason was given by the Government of<BR>
Canada for the total closure of the nation's east coast cod fishery?" with<B=
R>
"D) Research shows that the number of spawning codfish remains in<BR>
sharp decline even after more than a decade of dramatically reduced<BR>
harvests." She 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 Sara Randall, Editor at:<BR>
sublegals@ifrfish.org, or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a<BR>
source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000<BR>
(Northwest Office). <BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink news<BR=
>
service. To find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed<BR>
and you can 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 <B=
R>
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 thi=
s <BR>
as a subscriber, please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues. =20=
<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>
##########################################################</FONT></HTML>
--part1_5a.1c73c14f.2bf5386f_boundary--