[Fishlink] ~~>SUBLEGALS 18 July03<~~
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:37:00 EDT
--part1_160.23b1ceed.2c52e0dc_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
##########################################################
~~>SUBLEGALS 18 July03<~~
##########################################################
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. 08, NO. 03 18 JULY 2003
##########################################################
"You don't have two parties in this country. You've got a coalition of
reactionary Republicans and reactionary Democrats who are running
American politics, irrespective of what party label they wear."......
Wayne Morse
##########################################################
IN THIS ISSUE.......
Klamath River Water Plan Ruled Illegal, But Current Flow
Rates Unchanged. 8:03/01.
Klamath Refuge Reform Fails In Narrow House Vote. 8:03/02.
Judge To Order Pesticide-Free Buffer Zone Around
Salmon Streams. 8:03/03.
New Mexico Silvery Minnow Creates More Water Conflict. 8:03/04.
Senate Repeals Bristol Bay Drilling Moratorium. 8:03/09.
AND MORE......
##########################################################
8:03/01. LOWER KLAMATH WATER PLAN RULED ILLEGAL
IN MIXED DECISION: On 15 July, U.S. Federal Court Judge Saundra
Brown Armstrong ruled in a long-awaited decision that the salmon
protection measures specified in the 2002-2012 Coho Biological
Opinion (BiOp) adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) are "arbitrary and capricious, and therefore the NMFS 2002
Biological Opinion is in violation of the Endangered Species Act." This
ruling comes in a case (PCFFA, et. al. vs. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
NMFS; Northern District of California, Civil Case No. C-02-2006 SBA)
brought by commercial salmon fishermen, Congressman Mike
Thompson, a number of environmental groups, and later joined by the
Yurok and Hupa Tribes on the case in chief as well as separate Tribal
trust violation claims (see Sublegals, 8:01/07; 7:25/01; 7:24/02; 7:23/11;
7:17/13; 7:16/06; 7:15/07; 7:13/02; 7:09/03). Several lower river
counties and cities also supported the plaintiffs in amicus briefs.
In particular, the Court firmly rejected the Bureau's novel claim that
its "share" of the remedy (i.e., the additional water to be delivered to the
lower river to prevent the extinction of ESA listed coho salmon) was
only 57 percent of the total volume NMFS required (a percentage based
on its irrigated acreage in the upper basin divided by the irrigated
acreage total). "As Plaintiffs correctly note, the ESA does not provide
that an agency is only responsible for remedying its share of the harm.
Rather, the ESA mandate is simple and clear - agencies may not
undertake any action that results in jeopardy to the threatened species...
Therefore, the focus should not be on the relative amount of harm
contributed by Project actions, but simply whether, taking into account
the environmental baseline, any action by the Project will result in
jeopardy." (Ruling at 16).
The Court also invalidated sections of the BiOp that said that the
remaining 43 percent of the required water was to be obtained from
unspecified private and state sources sometime in the future as too vague
and uncertain and thus "not reasonably certain to occur." Additionally
the Court noted that the Incidental Take Permit implementing the BiOp
contained absolutely no take thresholds to trigger a reconsultation if the
measures called for were ultimately to fail, and was therefore also
invalid.
However, the Court chose not to invalidate either the ultimate "target
flows" supposed to be reached after 10 years, nor the phased-in "flows
plus water bank" scheme intended to reach those flow goals over time.
Instead, the Court deferred to the agency on these two points, thus
leaving the Biological Opinion itself in place at least as to water flows,
pending reconsultation as required by the Court.
Unfortunately, this leaves lower river coho and chinook salmon still
at high risk of another major fish kill such as that of September 2002
(see: www.klamathbasin.info/fishkill1.htm; also see Sublegals, 6:16/01;
6:15/01; 6:14/01; 6:13/01).
The Tribes also claimed that Bureau operations of the Klamath
Irrigation Project caused the massive 2002 fish kill, and that this Bureau
action thus violated their Tribal statutory and treaty rights to sufficient
water in the river to protect Tribal fisheries. In the face of a conflict of
science and facts on this issue, the Court decided to not grant the Tribe's
summary judgment motion, but instead will schedule a trial date on
these issues during a case management conference now set for 31 July.
To read the decision itself, see: www.klamathbasin.info.
For newspaper accounts of the decision see: the 18 July Oregonian
article, available on the web at: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/
oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/105852960544200.xml, also the
18 July San Jose Mercury News at:
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/6331353.htm.
8:03/02. KLAMATH REFUGE REFORM AMENDMENT FAILS
IN CLOSE HOUSE VOTE: In other Klamath news, a Klamath National
Wildlife Refuges reform amendment to the House Interior
Appropriations bill debated on the House floor on 17 July met defeat by
a narrow margin with some bi-partisan support. The amendment,
sponsored by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon), Mike Thompson
(D-California), and Chris Shays (R-Connecticut), would have prohibited
planting water-intensive commercial row crops such as onions, potatoes
or alfalfa on new agricultural leases within the Lower Klamath and Tule
Lake National Wildlife Refuges.
Located along the Oregon-California Border, the Klamath National
Wildlife Refuges are one of the few places in the country where
commercial crops are still allowed to be grown actually within a national
wildlife refuge, and in many years these crops get full water deliveries
while the surrounding refuges completely dry up. Planting less
water-intensive crops (such as grains) on the national wildlife refuges
would save water, provide more food for waterfowl, and reduce the use
of pesticides, now heavily used on commercial croplands within the
refuges. The amendment was defeated, 197-228. For more information
on the amendment, see the Seattle Post-Intelligencer 16 July Editorial at:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130920_watered.html. Also see
the 16 July Eugene Register-Guard article at:
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/07/17/d2.cr.klamath2.0717.ht
ml. For more information on the Klamath National Wildlife Refuges
see: http://www.klamathbasin.info/refuges.htm
8:03/03. JUDGE TO ORDER PROTECTIVE BUFFER ZONES
AROUND SALMON-BEARING STREAMS TO PROTECT FISH
FROM PESTICIDES: In another important victory for salmon, this
time in a federal District Court pesticide case (Washington Toxics
Coalition, et. al. vs. EPA; Western Dist. of Washington at Seattle, Civ.
No. C01-132C), on 16 July Federal U.S. District Court Judge John
Coughenour issued an order granting interim injunctive relief in the
form of mandatory stream buffer zones to protect salmon from
pesticides. Fifty-four pesticides known to kill salmon, and also known to
occur in west coast rivers at levels exceeding federal aquatic life
standards, will be outlawed within these buffer zones until permanent
protective measures have been established by the federal agencies.
This case arises out of a ruling on 2 July 2002 that the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had long been violating the
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to consult with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on ways to minimize the
impact of these 54 compounds on ESA-listed salmon and steelhead (see
Sublegals, 6:01/05; 5:07/08; 3:18/12; 3:05/02). That consultation
process, now ongoing in accordance with the Court's prior ruling, is
expected to take several years. In the meantime, these pesticides
continue to enter west coast rivers where they damage salmonids, and so
the plaintiffs asked the court to impose interim protective buffers zones
around salmon-bearing streams until the EPA and NMFS determines
whether additional product use restrictions or other protective measures
are appropriate. PCFFA and IFR are co-plaintiffs in that case. Actual
buffer sizes will be determined for each chemical in a special hearing
scheduled for 14 August.
For more information, see the 18 July Associated Press story,
reprinted on the web at:
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=64853. Also go to the
Earthjustice Newsroom web page at:
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=635 for a case fact
sheet and to obtain the Order.
8:03/04. SILVERY MINNOW SPARKS WESTERN WATER
WARS, MORE ESA BLAME GAMES: The legal controversy over a
small fish facing extinction in a dried up river, the Rio Grande silvery
minnow, has triggered a water war in southern New Mexico that
threatens to spill over to west coast salmon restoration efforts in the
Klamath Basin and California Central Valley, and has become the
current poster child issue in efforts to repeal the federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
On 12 June, the Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled in a
long-standing case (Rio Grande Silvery Minnow vs. Keyes,
Consolidated Case Nos. 02-2254, 02-2255, 02-2267, 02-2295 &
02-2304) that the federal Bureau of Reclamation does indeed have the
legal discretion, when required under the federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA), to partially reallocate water from pre-existing irrigation
contracts and release it back into the Rio Grande River if deemed
necessary to prevent the fish's extinction. Since New Mexico water law
still does not recognize keeping water in the river for fish and wildlife
needs as a legally valid "beneficial use" of water, this also means that
the Appeals Court's ruling puts federal ESA-driven water requirements
at least on an equal par with directly conflicting state water laws. In
other words, according to the ruling, the Bureau of Reclamation must
now give endangered species sufficient water to prevent their extinction,
not just whatever water may be left over (in this case usually nothing)
after all other water contracts and irrigation users have been satisfied.
The Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA), which represents
the interests of Upper Klamath Basin federal water users, filed an
amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit New Mexico case, arguing that federal
water contracts are private property rights that cannot be diminished
without legal compensation, and that state water permits must always
prevail over water needs even for endangered fish. The same issue has
already been decided against the KWUA in the Ninth Circuit, in
Klamath Water Users Association vs. Patterson (204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir.
1999)), which also ruled that ESA-driven water needs legally preempt
Bureau of Reclamation water contracts, and between the two Circuit
Court rulings that is now the law in western states. Water users are now
pinning their hopes on an appeal of the silvery minnow case to the U.S.
Supreme Court in an effort to overturn those precedents.
The issue is being used as fuel in Congress for water users and
agribusiness interests seeking to overturn or repeal the ESA entirely.
New Mexico Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are now
floating around amendment "riders" to the House Interior
Appropriations Bill that would effectively nullify the decision, many of
these riders with major implications for western water management far
outside of New Mexico. Opponents point out that years of federal
mismanagement and poor water conservation practices are the real
causes of the New Mexico water conflict, the ESA listings being only a
symptom of this underlying problem as it is with many other western
water projects.
And finally, New Mexico Republican Congressman Steve Pierce has
jumped on the anti-ESA bandwagon to file H.R. 2603, which would
reverse the decisions of both Circuit Courts by changing federal law in
ways that would always give irrigation water contracts priority over
needs of fish and wildlife. Such a bill would, among other nationwide
impacts, make it impossible to restore water to salmon-bearing river
systems under the ESA, which has driven much needed water reforms
necessary to help save the billion dollar west coast salmon fishing
industry from ruin. For a copy of the 10th Circuit's ruling in the silvery
minnow case see: http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/circuit/02-2254.pdf.
To review H.R. 2603, use the Library of Congress's THOMAS
system at: http://thomas.loc.gov. For a Fishermen's News article from
PCFFA about the need to maintain a strong ESA for west coast salmon
restoration, see: www.pcffa.org/fn-jan95.htm.
8:03/05. AGENCIES RELEASE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR MAJOR FISH PROTECTION PROGRAM:
Five federal and state agencies in California have recently published a
draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for
the CALFED Environmental Water Account (EWA). Public comments
on the documents will be accepted through 15 September 2003. The
EWA, as agreed to by agencies and stakeholders in the CALFED Record
of Decision, is intended to give water managers the authority and
resources to protect the native fishes of California's San Francisco
Bay/Delta ecosystem, while allowing for the needs of water users.
Since its first year of operation in 2001, the EWA has struggled to
provide the necessary protections for Bay/Delta fish species, including
20,000 winter-run chinook that were killed by diversion pumps in the
Delta that first year. Now agency water managers are attempting to
better define the role of the EWA in light of increasing demand from
water users. Public workshops to learn more about the Draft EIR/EIS
will be held throughout the central valley between July 16 and July 29.
Then on 25, 26 and 28 of August, public hearings to receive comments
will be held in Sacramento, Red Bluff and Fresno, respectively. Copies
of the draft document can be found at www.dwr.water.ca.gov or
www.mp.usbr.gov. For more information contact Ted Thomas, (916)
653-9712, or Jerry Johns, (916) 651-7051, both of the California
Department of Water Resources.
8:03/06. BISHOPS BOIL HOLY WATER TO PROTECT THE
FISH: A gathering of holy leaders in Norway decided to boil their holy
water for a ceremony that culminated with pouring the water into the
river, because they feared the water might otherwise harm the fish
through contamination. Reuters reported that an official in Norway,
where the holy leaders met for their "unity" ceremony, said that, "The
danger was probably small but we had to be cautious about pouring
water brought from all around Europe into a salmon river." Reuters
reported that on 3 July, the gathering of 126 Christian leaders each
boiled flasks of holy water from their respective diocese for ten minutes
to kill any bacteria they might contain before pouring it into the Nidaros
River. For more information se the 3 July Reuters article at:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=757&e=
7&u=/nm/20030703/od_nm/environment_holy_dc.
8:03/07. STUDY FINDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY FISH ARE
HIGHLY FIRE RETARDANT: A recently released study found that
California's San Francisco Bay fish now contain very high levels of a
toxic flame retardant, called polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE).
The study, released by the Environmental Working Group, found that
since 1997 PBDE' s levels have doubled in halibut and tripled in striped
bass, and also found that the level of PBDE has been steadily raising in
Bay Area women's breast tissue and breast milk as well. The data for the
survey was collected from September to November 2002. Researchers
collected fish from fishermen on fishing boats, private boats, and charter
boats around South San Francisco and San Pablo Bay. PBDE's can cause
thyroid problems and may harm brain development in children.
California Assemblywoman Wilma Chan (D- Oakland) has written a bill
(AB 302) that would ban two types of PBDE by 2008. For more
information on the Chan bill go to:
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a16/legislation2.html. For
information on the study see: http://www.ewg.org.
8:03/08. GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS FOR SHARKS: On 14
July, the National Marine Fisheries Service released its latest population
assessment and management recommendations for the Atlantic Spiny
Dogfish Shark, and it doesn't look so good. The assessment shows a
seventy-five percent decline in mature females since 1989, when the
fishery targeting them began. The fish are late maturing, leaving them
susceptible to overfishing. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) earlier this year raised the dogfish quota in state
waters (first three-miles off shore) to more than twice the level
recommended by scientists and dictated by the 2002 ASMFC rebuilding
plan. The campaign to raise the quotas was led by Massachusetts, as it
has the largest US dogfish fishery. To see the 14 July Ocean
Conservancy press release on this matter, go to:
http://www.oceanconservancy.org/dynamic/press/releases/archive.htm?i
d=030714 or for the assessment itself search the NMFS website
beginning at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov.
The good news for sharks is that the European Union (EU) has
recently outlawed the practice of slaughtering sharks for their fins. Shark
meat is of little market value, but fins are used in soups in many parts of
Asia. The demand for shark fin has led to overfishing to the tune of 100
million sharks each year, and the practice of finning it, and then
throwing it back in the ocean to die. The practice has been banned in the
U.S. already. The new EU ban will prohibit ships that operate in EU
waters to land or sell shark fins that are removed on board, unless the
fisherman can prove that he is making efficient use of all the shark parts.
The ban will start sixty days from July 7, 2003. For more information on
the ban see the 7 July Reuters report at:
http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=21417.
8:03/09. US SENATE COMMITTEE REPEALS BRISTOL BAY
DRILLING MORATORIUM: A provision to extend the 17-year
moratorium on oil drilling in and around Alaska's Bristol Bay has been
removed from the U.S. Senate's FY 2004 Interior Appropriations Bill. A
corresponding committee in the House of Representatives has already
passed a version of the same bill, which retains the moratorium.
Therefore it is likely that the measure will be resolved in conference
between the two chambers later this summer. The Senate decision to
remove the moratorium was strongly supported by Senator Ted Stevens
(R-AK). Additional support from the Bristol Bay Native Corporation
(BBNC) for onshore drilling also seems to have been critical to the
proposed policy change (see Sublegals, 8:01/13). The BBNC decided to
advocate for an end to the moratorium largely due to the weakened local
salmon fishing economy. For more information contact Richard Charter
of Environmental Defense at: 510-658-8008.
8:03/10. FROM CATFISH TO SALMON - US POLICIES ON
TRADE DON'T ADD UP: Talk of free trade and open markets may
soon take a backseat to domestic allegiances with an upcoming ruling
from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) regarding
"catfish" filets imported from Vietnam. The issue centers on accusations
made by U.S. catfish farmers of unfair price deflation by the Vietnamese
catfish industry, whose stake in the domestic catfish filet market has
risen from 3 percent to 20 percent in the past five years.
Last month the Commerce Department affirmed these claims by
ruling that Vietnam's "non-market economy" had allowed farmers in that
country to export their local catfish products at prices lower than their
real costs of production, seriously depressing US markets.
Compensation for those inequities, the Department decided, would
require import duties of between 37 and 64 percent. Now the USITC
must decide whether and how much domestic catfish producers,
primarily in four southeastern states, have suffered because of those past
depressed prices.
The issue highlights a consistent disconnect in the trade policies of
the current U.S. Administration. In some cases the policy rhetoric
focuses on fair and open global markets (i.e. genetically modified foods
(see Sublegals, 7:25/09, 7:22/04, 7:20/01, 7:07/09)), while at other times
the stated rationale is the importance of protecting local industries (i.e.
catfish and steel import duties). In almost all cases the common thread
has been the drive to protect U.S. domestic industries. The sole
exception to this rule has been the Administration's promotion of
imported farmed salmon from Chile, which now accounts for
approximately 40 percent of all fresh salmon sold in this country, at the
expense of the west coast's sustainable salmon fisheries (see Sublegals,
7:24/15, 7:22/04; 4:17/03). For more on the catfish import duty see the
13 July Washington Post article at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46460-2003Jul12.ht
ml. For more on the U.S. promotion of farmed salmon from Chile see
Sublegals 7:24/15 at: http://www.fishsniffer.com/fishlink/062303.html.
8:03/11. ATLANTIC SALMON FOUND COLONIZING
WASHINGTON'S THURSTON COUNTY CREEK: Several hundred
juvenile Atlantic salmon have been spotted in a Thurston County,
Washington, creek near a commercial hatchery that breeds the nonnative
species for fish farms, the State Department of Fish & Wildlife said 18
July. Washington law bans the introduction of nonnative fish into the
state's waters, but only for willful violation. Tens of thousands of
juvenile Atlantic salmon have escaped by accident over the last few
years in that state. See the 18 July Seattle Post-Intelligencer at:
http://p-i.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA+Escap
ed+Salmon.
8:03/12. LOUISIANA GOVERNOR VETOES BILL THAT
WOULD HAVE DEREGULATED, EXPANDED FISH FARMS: On
11 July, Louisiana Governor M. J. "Mike" Foster, Jr. vetoed a bill (H.B.
2013), passed by the Legislature, that would have considerably loosened
restrictions on commercial fish and shrimp farms in that state, but which
opponents had said would increase the dangers of farmed fish escaping
into the state's ecosystems, with unknown but potentially serious
consequences from the introduction of new species. The bill would have
transferred authority over the fish farms from the State Fish & Wildlife
Department, where it is more strictly regulated, to the far less restrictive
Department of Agriculture. For more information, go to the New
Orleans Times-Picayune 17 July article on the issue, which is available
on the web at: http://www.nola.com/news/ataglance/t-p/index.ssf?/
base/news-0/1058421844221010.xml.
8:03/13. CALIFORNIA GOP BUDGET BILL WOULD
DISMANTAL COASTAL WATCHDOG: The California Legislature's
Senate Republicans, in a flurry of budget proposals to plug the state's
budget deficit, have inserted a provision to dismantle the California
Coastal Commission, the agency that acts as an environmental watchdog
over the California coastline. The move would open up some of
California's most scenic vistas and estuaries to real estate development,
urban sprawl and potentially also offshore oil development that is now
carefully regulated and controlled by that agency. For more, see the 9
July San Francisco Chronicle article at:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/09/MN237337.DTL.
For information about, or to contact, the California Coastal Coalition
see: www.calcoast.org.
************
Paying Attention? What was one part of the Klamath River BiOp that
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong didn't have issues with?
A) The part where 43% of the Klamath River flow will come from
unspecified sources, sometime in the near future.
B) The part where BOR said they should only be held 57% liable for
the fish kill.
C) The part where a taxpayer supported "Water Bank" will supply
the flows.
D) The part where the Incidental Take Permit implementing the BiOp
contained no measures to make sure a reconsultation would take place if
standards put in place were to fail.
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.........TERRENCE HOLLINGSWORTH, who
correctly answered, "D) Who knows, BOR isn't disclosing how the
taxpayer money was spent or where the water went," to the question of,
"What happened to the Klamath Water Bank that was to provide
summer fish flows?" He will receive 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_160.23b1ceed.2c52e0dc_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 18 July03<~~<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. 08, NO. 03 =
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; 18 JULY 200=
3<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
"You don't have two parties in this country. You've got a coalition of=
<BR>
reactionary Republicans and reactionary Democrats who are running<BR>
American politics, irrespective of what party label they wear."......<BR>
Wayne Morse<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
IN THIS ISSUE.......<BR>
<BR>
Klamath River Water Plan Ruled Illegal, But Current Flow <BR>
Rates Unchanged. 8:03/01.<BR>
<BR>
Klamath Refuge Reform Fails In Narrow House Vote. 8:03/02.<BR>
<BR>
Judge To Order Pesticide-Free Buffer Zone Around <BR>
Salmon Streams. 8:03/03.<BR>
<BR>
New Mexico Silvery Minnow Creates More Water Conflict. 8:03/04. <BR>
<BR>
Senate Repeals Bristol Bay Drilling Moratorium. 8:03/09.<BR>
<BR>
AND MORE......<BR>
##########################################################<BR>
<BR>
8:03/01. LOWER KLAMATH WATER PLAN RULED ILLEG=
AL<BR>
IN MIXED DECISION: On 15 July, U.S. Federal Court Judge Saundra<BR>
Brown Armstrong ruled in a long-awaited decision that the salmon<BR>
protection measures specified in the 2002-2012 Coho Biological<BR>
Opinion (BiOp) adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service<BR>
(NMFS) are "arbitrary and capricious, and therefore the NMFS 2002<BR>
Biological Opinion is in violation of the Endangered Species Act." Thi=
s<BR>
ruling comes in a case (PCFFA, et. al. vs. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,<BR>
NMFS; Northern District of California, Civil Case No. C-02-2006 SBA)<BR>
brought by commercial salmon fishermen, Congressman Mike<BR>
Thompson, a number of environmental groups, and later joined by the<BR>
Yurok and Hupa Tribes on the case in chief as well as separate Tribal<BR>
trust violation claims (see Sublegals, 8:01/07; 7:25/01; 7:24/02; 7:23/11;<B=
R>
7:17/13; 7:16/06; 7:15/07; 7:13/02; 7:09/03). Several lower river<BR>
counties and cities also supported the plaintiffs in amicus briefs. <BR>
<BR>
In particular, the Court firmly rejected the Bureau=
's novel claim that<BR>
its "share" of the remedy (i.e., the additional water to be delivered to the=
<BR>
lower river to prevent the extinction of ESA listed coho salmon) was<BR>
only 57 percent of the total volume NMFS required (a percentage based<BR>
on its irrigated acreage in the upper basin divided by the irrigated<BR>
acreage total). "As Plaintiffs correctly note, the ESA does not provid=
e<BR>
that an agency is only responsible for remedying its share of the harm. <BR>
Rather, the ESA mandate is simple and clear - agencies may not<BR>
undertake any action that results in jeopardy to the threatened species...<B=
R>
Therefore, the focus should not be on the relative amount of harm<BR>
contributed by Project actions, but simply whether, taking into account<BR>
the environmental baseline, any action by the Project will result in<BR>
jeopardy." (Ruling at 16). <BR>
<BR>
The Court also invalidated sections of the BiOp tha=
t said that the<BR>
remaining 43 percent of the required water was to be obtained from<BR>
unspecified private and state sources sometime in the future as too vague<BR=
>
and uncertain and thus "not reasonably certain to occur." Additionally=
<BR>
the Court noted that the Incidental Take Permit implementing the BiOp<BR>
contained absolutely no take thresholds to trigger a reconsultation if the<B=
R>
measures called for were ultimately to fail, and was therefore also<BR>
invalid.<BR>
<BR>
However, the Court chose not to invalidate either t=
he ultimate "target<BR>
flows" supposed to be reached after 10 years, nor the phased-in "flows<BR>
plus water bank" scheme intended to reach those flow goals over time. <BR>
Instead, the Court deferred to the agency on these two points, thus<BR>
leaving the Biological Opinion itself in place at least as to water flows,<B=
R>
pending reconsultation as required by the Court. <BR>
<BR>
Unfortunately, this leaves lower river coho a=
nd chinook salmon still<BR>
at high risk of another major fish kill such as that of September 2002<BR>
(see: www.klamathbasin.info/fishkill1.htm; also see Sublegals, 6:16/01;<BR>
6:15/01; 6:14/01; 6:13/01).<BR>
<BR>
The Tribes also claimed that Bureau operations of t=
he Klamath<BR>
Irrigation Project caused the massive 2002 fish kill, and that this Bureau<B=
R>
action thus violated their Tribal statutory and treaty rights to sufficient<=
BR>
water in the river to protect Tribal fisheries. In the face of a confl=
ict of<BR>
science and facts on this issue, the Court decided to not grant the Tribe's<=
BR>
summary judgment motion, but instead will schedule a trial date on<BR>
these issues during a case management conference now set for 31 July. <BR>
To read the decision itself, see: www.klamathbasin.info.<BR>
<BR>
For newspaper accounts of the decision see: t=
he 18 July Oregonian<BR>
article, available on the web at: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/<BR>
oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/105852960544200.xml, also the<BR>
18 July San Jose Mercury News at:<BR>
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/6331353.htm.<BR>
<BR>
8:03/02. KLAMATH REFUGE REFORM AMENDMENT FAIL=
S<BR>
IN CLOSE HOUSE VOTE: In other Klamath news, a Klamath National<BR>
Wildlife Refuges reform amendment to the House Interior<BR>
Appropriations bill debated on the House floor on 17 July met defeat by<BR>
a narrow margin with some bi-partisan support. The amendment,<BR>
sponsored by Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon), Mike Thompson<BR>
(D-California), and Chris Shays (R-Connecticut), would have prohibited<BR>
planting water-intensive commercial row crops such as onions, potatoes<BR>
or alfalfa on new agricultural leases within the Lower Klamath and Tule<BR>
Lake National Wildlife Refuges. <BR>
<BR>
Located along the Oregon-California Border, the Kla=
math National<BR>
Wildlife Refuges are one of the few places in the country where<BR>
commercial crops are still allowed to be grown actually within a national<BR=
>
wildlife refuge, and in many years these crops get full water deliveries<BR>
while the surrounding refuges completely dry up. Planting less<BR>
water-intensive crops (such as grains) on the national wildlife refuges<BR>
would save water, provide more food for waterfowl, and reduce the use<BR>
of pesticides, now heavily used on commercial croplands within the<BR>
refuges. The amendment was defeated, 197-228. For more informati=
on<BR>
on the amendment, see the Seattle Post-Intelligencer 16 July Editorial at:<B=
R>
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130920_watered.html. Also see<BR=
>
the 16 July Eugene Register-Guard article at:<BR>
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/07/17/d2.cr.klamath2.0717.ht<BR>
ml. For more information on the Klamath National Wildlife Refuges<BR>
see: http://www.klamathbasin.info/refuges.htm<BR>
<BR>
8:03/03. JUDGE TO ORDER PROTECTIVE BUFFER ZONES<BR>
AROUND SALMON-BEARING STREAMS TO PROTECT FISH<BR>
FROM PESTICIDES: In another important victory for salmon, this<BR>
time in a federal District Court pesticide case (Washington Toxics<BR>
Coalition, et. al. vs. EPA; Western Dist. of Washington at Seattle, Civ.<BR>
No. C01-132C), on 16 July Federal U.S. District Court Judge John<BR>
Coughenour issued an order granting interim injunctive relief in the<BR>
form of mandatory stream buffer zones to protect salmon from<BR>
pesticides. Fifty-four pesticides known to kill salmon, and also known to<BR=
>
occur in west coast rivers at levels exceeding federal aquatic life<BR>
standards, will be outlawed within these buffer zones until permanent<BR>
protective measures have been established by the federal agencies.<BR>
<BR>
This case arises out of a ruling on 2 July 2002 tha=
t the US<BR>
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had long been violating the<BR>
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to consult with the<BR>
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on ways to minimize the<BR>
impact of these 54 compounds on ESA-listed salmon and steelhead (see<BR>
Sublegals, 6:01/05; 5:07/08; 3:18/12; 3:05/02). That consultation<BR>
process, now ongoing in accordance with the Court's prior ruling, is<BR>
expected to take several years. In the meantime, these pesticides<BR>
continue to enter west coast rivers where they damage salmonids, and so<BR>
the plaintiffs asked the court to impose interim protective buffers zones<BR=
>
around salmon-bearing streams until the EPA and NMFS determines<BR>
whether additional product use restrictions or other protective measures<BR>
are appropriate. PCFFA and IFR are co-plaintiffs in that case. A=
ctual<BR>
buffer sizes will be determined for each chemical in a special hearing<BR>
scheduled for 14 August.<BR>
<BR>
For more information, see the 18 July Associated Pr=
ess story,<BR>
reprinted on the web at:<BR>
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=3D64853. Also go to the=
<BR>
Earthjustice Newsroom web page at:<BR>
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=3D635 for a case fact<BR>
sheet and to obtain the Order.<BR>
<BR>
8:03/04. SILVERY MINNOW SPARKS WESTERN WATER<=
BR>
WARS, MORE ESA BLAME GAMES: The legal controversy over a<BR>
small fish facing extinction in a dried up river, the Rio Grande silvery<BR>
minnow, has triggered a water war in southern New Mexico that<BR>
threatens to spill over to west coast salmon restoration efforts in the<BR>
Klamath Basin and California Central Valley, and has become the<BR>
current poster child issue in efforts to repeal the federal Endangered<BR>
Species Act (ESA).<BR>
<BR>
On 12 June, the Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appe=
als ruled in a<BR>
long-standing case (Rio Grande Silvery Minnow vs. Keyes,<BR>
Consolidated Case Nos. 02-2254, 02-2255, 02-2267, 02-2295 &<BR>
02-2304) that the federal Bureau of Reclamation does indeed have the<BR>
legal discretion, when required under the federal Endangered Species<BR>
Act (ESA), to partially reallocate water from pre-existing irrigation<BR>
contracts and release it back into the Rio Grande River if deemed<BR>
necessary to prevent the fish's extinction. Since New Mexico water law=
<BR>
still does not recognize keeping water in the river for fish and wildlife<BR=
>
needs as a legally valid "beneficial use" of water, this also means that<BR>
the Appeals Court's ruling puts federal ESA-driven water requirements<BR>
at least on an equal par with directly conflicting state water laws. I=
n<BR>
other words, according to the ruling, the Bureau of Reclamation must<BR>
now give endangered species sufficient water to prevent their extinction,<BR=
>
not just whatever water may be left over (in this case usually nothing)<BR>
after all other water contracts and irrigation users have been satisfied.&nb=
sp; <BR>
<BR>
The Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA), which r=
epresents<BR>
the interests of Upper Klamath Basin federal water users, filed an<BR>
amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit New Mexico case, arguing that federal<BR>
water contracts are private property rights that cannot be diminished<BR>
without legal compensation, and that state water permits must always<BR>
prevail over water needs even for endangered fish. The same issue has<=
BR>
already been decided against the KWUA in the Ninth Circuit, in<BR>
Klamath Water Users Association vs. Patterson (204 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir.<BR>
1999)), which also ruled that ESA-driven water needs legally preempt<BR>
Bureau of Reclamation water contracts, and between the two Circuit<BR>
Court rulings that is now the law in western states. Water users are n=
ow<BR>
pinning their hopes on an appeal of the silvery minnow case to the U.S.<BR>
Supreme Court in an effort to overturn those precedents.<BR>
<BR>
The issue is being used as fuel in Congress for wat=
er users and<BR>
agribusiness interests seeking to overturn or repeal the ESA entirely. <BR>
New Mexico Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are now<BR>
floating around amendment "riders" to the House Interior<BR>
Appropriations Bill that would effectively nullify the decision, many of<BR>
these riders with major implications for western water management far<BR>
outside of New Mexico. Opponents point out that years of federal<BR>
mismanagement and poor water conservation practices are the real<BR>
causes of the New Mexico water conflict, the ESA listings being only a<BR>
symptom of this underlying problem as it is with many other western<BR>
water projects.<BR>
<BR>
And finally, New Mexico Republican Congressman Stev=
e Pierce has<BR>
jumped on the anti-ESA bandwagon to file H.R. 2603, which would<BR>
reverse the decisions of both Circuit Courts by changing federal law in<BR>
ways that would always give irrigation water contracts priority over<BR>
needs of fish and wildlife. Such a bill would, among other nationwide<=
BR>
impacts, make it impossible to restore water to salmon-bearing river<BR>
systems under the ESA, which has driven much needed water reforms<BR>
necessary to help save the billion dollar west coast salmon fishing<BR>
industry from ruin. For a copy of the 10th Circuit's ruling in the silvery<B=
R>
minnow case see: http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/circuit/02-2254.pdf. <BR=
>
<BR>
To review H.R. 2603, use the Library of Congress's=20=
THOMAS<BR>
system at: http://thomas.loc.gov. For a Fishermen's News article from<=
BR>
PCFFA about the need to maintain a strong ESA for west coast salmon<BR>
restoration, see: www.pcffa.org/fn-jan95.htm. <BR>
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; <BR>
8:03/05. AGENCIES RELEASE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL<BR>
IMPACT REPORT FOR MAJOR FISH PROTECTION PROGRAM: <BR>
Five federal and state agencies in California have recently published a<BR>
draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for<BR>
the CALFED Environmental Water Account (EWA). Public comments<BR>
on the documents will be accepted through 15 September 2003. The<BR>
EWA, as agreed to by agencies and stakeholders in the CALFED Record<BR>
of Decision, is intended to give water managers the authority and<BR>
resources to protect the native fishes of California's San Francisco<BR>
Bay/Delta ecosystem, while allowing for the needs of water users. <BR>
<BR>
Since its first year of operation in 2001, the EWA=20=
has struggled to<BR>
provide the necessary protections for Bay/Delta fish species, including<BR>
20,000 winter-run chinook that were killed by diversion pumps in the<BR>
Delta that first year. Now agency water managers are attempting to<BR>
better define the role of the EWA in light of increasing demand from<BR>
water users. Public workshops to learn more about the Draft EIR/EIS<BR=
>
will be held throughout the central valley between July 16 and July 29. <BR>
Then on 25, 26 and 28 of August, public hearings to receive comments<BR>
will be held in Sacramento, Red Bluff and Fresno, respectively. Copies=
<BR>
of the draft document can be found at www.dwr.water.ca.gov or<BR>
www.mp.usbr.gov. For more information contact Ted Thomas, (916)<BR>
653-9712, or Jerry Johns, (916) 651-7051, both of the California<BR>
Department of Water Resources. <BR>
<BR>
8:03/06. BISHOPS BOIL HOLY WATER TO PROTECT THE<BR>
FISH: A gathering of holy leaders in Norway decided to boil their holy=
<BR>
water for a ceremony that culminated with pouring the water into the<BR>
river, because they feared the water might otherwise harm the fish<BR>
through contamination. Reuters reported that an official in Norway,<BR>
where the holy leaders met for their "unity" ceremony, said that, "The<BR>
danger was probably small but we had to be cautious about pouring<BR>
water brought from all around Europe into a salmon river." Reuters<BR>
reported that on 3 July, the gathering of 126 Christian leaders each<BR>
boiled flasks of holy water from their respective diocese for ten minutes<BR=
>
to kill any bacteria they might contain before pouring it into the Nidaros<B=
R>
River. For more information se the 3 July Reuters article at:<BR>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=3Dstory&cid=3D573&ncid=3D757&a=
mp;e=3D<BR>
7&u=3D/nm/20030703/od_nm/environment_holy_dc.<BR>
<BR>
8:03/07. STUDY FINDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY FISH ARE<BR>
HIGHLY FIRE RETARDANT: A recently released study found that<BR>
California's San Francisco Bay fish now contain very high levels of a<BR>
toxic flame retardant, called polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE).<BR>
The study, released by the Environmental Working Group, found that<BR>
since 1997 PBDE' s levels have doubled in halibut and tripled in striped<BR>
bass, and also found that the level of PBDE has been steadily raising in<BR>
Bay Area women's breast tissue and breast milk as well. The data for the<BR>
survey was collected from September to November 2002. Researchers<BR>
collected fish from fishermen on fishing boats, private boats, and charter<B=
R>
boats around South San Francisco and San Pablo Bay. PBDE's can cause<BR>
thyroid problems and may harm brain development in children.<BR>
California Assemblywoman Wilma Chan (D- Oakland) has written a bill<BR>
(AB 302) that would ban two types of PBDE by 2008. For more<BR>
information on the Chan bill go to:<BR>
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a16/legislation2.html. For<BR>
information on the study see: http://www.ewg.org.<BR>
<BR>
8:03/08. GOOD NEWS AND BAD NEWS FOR SHARKS: O=
n 14<BR>
July, the National Marine Fisheries Service released its latest population<B=
R>
assessment and management recommendations for the Atlantic Spiny<BR>
Dogfish Shark, and it doesn't look so good. The assessment shows a<BR>
seventy-five percent decline in mature females since 1989, when the<BR>
fishery targeting them began. The fish are late maturing, leaving them<BR>
susceptible to overfishing. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries<BR>
Commission (ASMFC) earlier this year raised the dogfish quota in state<BR>
waters (first three-miles off shore) to more than twice the level<BR>
recommended by scientists and dictated by the 2002 ASMFC rebuilding<BR>
plan. The campaign to raise the quotas was led by Massachusetts, as it<BR>
has the largest US dogfish fishery. To see the 14 July Ocean<BR>
Conservancy press release on this matter, go to:<BR>
http://www.oceanconservancy.org/dynamic/press/releases/archive.htm?i<BR>
d=3D030714 or for the assessment itself search the NMFS website<BR>
beginning at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov. <BR>
<BR>
The good news for sharks is that the European Union=
(EU) has<BR>
recently outlawed the practice of slaughtering sharks for their fins. Shark<=
BR>
meat is of little market value, but fins are used in soups in many parts of<=
BR>
Asia. The demand for shark fin has led to overfishing to the tune of 100<BR>
million sharks each year, and the practice of finning it, and then<BR>
throwing it back in the ocean to die. The practice has been banned in the<BR=
>
U.S. already. The new EU ban will prohibit ships that operate in EU<BR>
waters to land or sell shark fins that are removed on board, unless the<BR>
fisherman can prove that he is making efficient use of all the shark parts.=20=
<BR>
The ban will start sixty days from July 7, 2003. For more information on<BR>
the ban see the 7 July Reuters report at:<BR>
http://www.planetark.org/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=3D21417.<BR>
<BR>
8:03/09. US SENATE COMMITTEE REPEALS BRISTOL=20=
BAY<BR>
DRILLING MORATORIUM: A provision to extend the 17-year<BR>
moratorium on oil drilling in and around Alaska's Bristol Bay has been<BR>
removed from the U.S. Senate's FY 2004 Interior Appropriations Bill. A=
<BR>
corresponding committee in the House of Representatives has already<BR>
passed a version of the same bill, which retains the moratorium. <BR>
Therefore it is likely that the measure will be resolved in conference<BR>
between the two chambers later this summer. The Senate decision to<BR>
remove the moratorium was strongly supported by Senator Ted Stevens<BR>
(R-AK). Additional support from the Bristol Bay Native Corporation<BR>
(BBNC) for onshore drilling also seems to have been critical to the<BR>
proposed policy change (see Sublegals, 8:01/13). The BBNC decided to<B=
R>
advocate for an end to the moratorium largely due to the weakened local<BR>
salmon fishing economy. For more information contact Richard Charter<B=
R>
of Environmental Defense at: 510-658-8008.<BR>
<BR>
8:03/10. FROM CATFISH TO SALMON - US POLICIES=
ON<BR>
TRADE DON'T ADD UP: Talk of free trade and open markets may<BR>
soon take a backseat to domestic allegiances with an upcoming ruling<BR>
from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) regarding<BR>
"catfish" filets imported from Vietnam. The issue centers on accusatio=
ns<BR>
made by U.S. catfish farmers of unfair price deflation by the Vietnamese<BR>
catfish industry, whose stake in the domestic catfish filet market has<BR>
risen from 3 percent to 20 percent in the past five years. <BR>
<BR>
Last month the Commerce Department affirmed these c=
laims by<BR>
ruling that Vietnam's "non-market economy" had allowed farmers in that<BR>
country to export their local catfish products at prices lower than their<BR=
>
real costs of production, seriously depressing US markets. <BR>
Compensation for those inequities, the Department decided, would<BR>
require import duties of between 37 and 64 percent. Now the USITC<BR>
must decide whether and how much domestic catfish producers,<BR>
primarily in four southeastern states, have suffered because of those past<B=
R>
depressed prices. <BR>
<BR>
The issue highlights a consistent disconnect in the=
trade policies of<BR>
the current U.S. Administration. In some cases the policy rhetoric<BR>
focuses on fair and open global markets (i.e. genetically modified foods<BR>
(see Sublegals, 7:25/09, 7:22/04, 7:20/01, 7:07/09)), while at other times<B=
R>
the stated rationale is the importance of protecting local industries (i.e.<=
BR>
catfish and steel import duties). In almost all cases the common threa=
d<BR>
has been the drive to protect U.S. domestic industries. The sole<BR>
exception to this rule has been the Administration's promotion of<BR>
imported farmed salmon from Chile, which now accounts for<BR>
approximately 40 percent of all fresh salmon sold in this country, at the<BR=
>
expense of the west coast's sustainable salmon fisheries (see Sublegals,<BR>
7:24/15, 7:22/04; 4:17/03). For more on the catfish import duty see th=
e<BR>
13 July Washington Post article at:<BR>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46460-2003Jul12.ht<BR>
ml. For more on the U.S. promotion of farmed salmon from Chile see<BR>
Sublegals 7:24/15 at: http://www.fishsniffer.com/fishlink/062303.html.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
8:03/11. ATLANTIC SALMON FOUND COLONIZING<BR>
WASHINGTON'S THURSTON COUNTY CREEK: Several hundred<BR>
juvenile Atlantic salmon have been spotted in a Thurston County,<BR>
Washington, creek near a commercial hatchery that breeds the nonnative<BR>
species for fish farms, the State Department of Fish & Wildlife said 18<=
BR>
July. Washington law bans the introduction of nonnative fish into the<BR>
state's waters, but only for willful violation. Tens of thousands of<B=
R>
juvenile Atlantic salmon have escaped by accident over the last few<BR>
years in that state. See the 18 July Seattle Post-Intelligencer at:<BR>
http://p-i.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=3D6420&slug=3DWA+Escap<B=
R>
ed+Salmon.<BR>
<BR>
8:03/12. LOUISIANA GOVERNOR VETOES BILL THAT<=
BR>
WOULD HAVE DEREGULATED, EXPANDED FISH FARMS: On<BR>
11 July, Louisiana Governor M. J. "Mike" Foster, Jr. vetoed a bill (H.B.<BR>
2013), passed by the Legislature, that would have considerably loosened<BR>
restrictions on commercial fish and shrimp farms in that state, but which<BR=
>
opponents had said would increase the dangers of farmed fish escaping<BR>
into the state's ecosystems, with unknown but potentially serious<BR>
consequences from the introduction of new species. The bill would have=
<BR>
transferred authority over the fish farms from the State Fish & Wildlife=
<BR>
Department, where it is more strictly regulated, to the far less restrictive=
<BR>
Department of Agriculture. For more information, go to the New<BR>
Orleans Times-Picayune 17 July article on the issue, which is available<BR>
on the web at: http://www.nola.com/news/ataglance/t-p/index.ssf?/<BR>
base/news-0/1058421844221010.xml.<BR>
<BR>
8:03/13. CALIFORNIA GOP BUDGET BILL WOULD<BR>
DISMANTAL COASTAL WATCHDOG: The California Legislature's<BR>
Senate Republicans, in a flurry of budget proposals to plug the state's<BR>
budget deficit, have inserted a provision to dismantle the California<BR>
Coastal Commission, the agency that acts as an environmental watchdog<BR>
over the California coastline. The move would open up some of<BR>
California's most scenic vistas and estuaries to real estate development,<BR=
>
urban sprawl and potentially also offshore oil development that is now<BR>
carefully regulated and controlled by that agency. For more, see the 9=
<BR>
July San Francisco Chronicle article at:<BR>
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=3D/c/a/2003/07/09/MN237337.DTL.<BR>
For information about, or to contact, the California Coastal Coalition<BR>
see: www.calcoast.org.<BR>
&nbs=
p; &n=
bsp; =
************<BR>
<BR>
Paying Attention? What was one part of the Klamath River BiOp that<BR>
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong didn't have issues with? <BR>
<BR>
A) The part where 43% of the Klamath River flow will come from<BR>
unspecified sources, sometime in the near future.<BR>
B) The part where BOR said they should only be held 57% liable for <BR>
the fish kill.<BR>
C) The part where a taxpayer supported "Water Bank" will supply <BR>
the flows.<BR>
D) The part where the Incidental Take Permit implementing the BiOp<BR>
contained no measures to make sure a reconsultation would take place if<BR>
standards put in place were to fail. <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.........TERRENCE HOLLINGSWORTH, who<BR>
correctly answered, "D) Who knows, BOR isn't disclosing how the<BR>
taxpayer money was spent or where the water went," to the question of,<BR>
"What happened to the Klamath Water Bank that was to provide<BR>
summer fish flows?" He will receive an "Order of the Fringehead"<BR>
certificate and a handsome gray shirt with the cuddly Sarcastic<BR>
Fringehead Sublegals 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<BR>
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>
##########################################################<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_160.23b1ceed.2c52e0dc_boundary--