The House action followed on a tactic Congressional opponents of offshore oil developed in the 1980's when successive Interior Secretaries James Watt and Donald Hodel tried to push offshore oil leases around the U.S. coast. Led by then-Representatives Leon Panetta (D-CA), Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Les AuCoin (D-OR), along with Senators Alan Cranston (D-CA) and Pete Wilson (R-CA), language was inserted annually into the Interior Appropriations bill blocking offshore drilling. The push for drilling ceased during the George Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. By that time the movement, which had started in California among environmentalists, commercial fishermen, local government and coastal businesses, had spread to other parts of the nation, stopping drilling off the Pacific Northwest, Bristol Bay, Florida and Georges Bank. Representative Capps' office said "sponsors hope that the amendment will pave the way for an administration buyback, similar to what happened in Florida in May, and the buybacks that followed legislation preventing development off the coasts of Alaska and North Carolina" according to an Environment & Energy Daily report by Brian Stempeck. To see the 18 July San Francisco Chronicle article, go to: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/ 2002/07/18/MN245215.DTL.

6:03/02. HOUSE NARROWLY REJECTS KLAMATH AMENDMENT ON CROPS IN WILDLIFE REFUGES TO INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL: On the same day the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the 2003 Interior Appropriations bill blocking oil drilling offshore California, it narrowly rejected language aimed at making crops grown in wildlife refuges in the Klamath Basin more fish and wildlife friendly. The amendment, offered by Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Mike Thompson (D-CA), would have helped make farming on the Klamath Wildlife Refuges more consistent with farming on other refuges by prohibiting the growing of pesticide and water-intensive row crops and alfalfa. The amendment, supported by the Klamath Coalition, which includes PCFFA, would have had several beneficial effects on Klamath River flows, including: (1) increasing available water for critical Spring and early Summer out-migrations of salmon, when downriver flows are most biologically important; (2) increasing total storage of water in the system through restoration of some of the currently used leaselands back into natural wetlands (which would add perhaps 2-3 acre feet of water for each acre converted back to wetlands); (3) decreasing the use of the many pesticides and fertilizers that contribute to water quality problems in the upper basin and; (4) increasing the pollutant filtration capacity of the system through wetlands restoration, which helps break down agricultural chemicals.

Representative George Miller (D-CA), a leading House member working for western water reform, spoke in favor to the amendment, saying "It doesn't make sense to keep raising alfalfa in a desert." The amendment, nevertheless, was defeated on a 201-223 vote. Only a week before, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) had announced it was cutting water releases into the Klamath River, further jeopardizing the survival of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed coho salmon, as well as the chinook salmon that support important tribal, commercial and sport fisheries (see Sublegals, 6:02/09). On the same day of the House floor vote on HR 5093, it was announced that Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had issued a permit to the Klamath Irrigation District to apply acrolein (a very toxic aquatic herbicide) in its Klamath Basin canals (see Sublegals, 6:01/06). It is not known whether the permit is in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.

6:03/03. KLAMATH BASIN LANDOWNERS VOICE SUPPORT FOR WILLING SELLER BUYOUT: On 16 July, Greenwire reported "landowners representing one-eighth of the farmland in the Klamath Irrigation Districts announced support for a willing seller buyout program." The statement contradicts claims made by members of the Klamath Water User Association (KWUA) who have fought any Congressional proposal for a willing seller buyout program to address the overcapitalization of irrigated agriculture in the basin. In normal to dry years there is not enough water to support fish, wildlife, tribal water rights and the amount of irrigated crops currently being grown in the arid Klamath Basin. The landowners have accused KWUA of being "dominated by agribusinesses and tenant farmers."

6:03/04. DEBATE ON WHETHER TO REMOVE OR LADDER YUBA RIVER DAMS: On 13 July, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on the growing debate on whether to remove dams on the Yuba River or install fish ladders to facilitate fish passage on the Yuba River, which has supported the largest natural spawning run of fall-run chinook in the Sacramento River system. The principle bone of contention is Daguerre Point, 25-foot-high dam located 20 miles east of Marysville, California (see Sublegals, 6:02/10). The cost of removal is estimated at $60 to $100 million by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (costs that are usually inflated) with the main sticking point being the disposal of mining debris behind the dam, although some farmers still claim the dam is needed to channel the river for irrigation. Dam supporters are arguing instead for building ladders to provide for fish passage. "Taking out Daguerre Point Dam and the much larger Englebright Dam 11 miles upstream would open nearly 65 miles of the Yuba River. Englebright Dam, at 260 feet high, also provides hydroelectric power and recreational uses in the reservoir it forms, and is considered an unlikely candidate for removal," said the Chronicle article. PCFFA has supported the removal of both dams unless satisfactory means can be provided for safe fish passage around them. To see the full 13 July San Francisco Chronicle article, go to: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ news/archive/2002/07/13/state1439EDT0064.DTL.

6:03/05. ELK CREEK DAM REVIVAL SOUGHT: The U.S. House of Representatives' Energy & Water Development Committee draft Report for Fiscal Year 2003 includes a stealth provision, inserted at the request of U.S. Representative Greg Walden (R-OR), to once again save the never completed Elk Creek Dam, located on the Rogue River in Walden's district in Southern Oregon, from "notching" to allow fish passage of threatened coho salmon, now on the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) list. The dam, only one third finished, has been repudiated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) as unnecessary and cost ineffective. COE no longer wants to complete it, and instead wants to free up the river trapped behind it to allow fish passage. But the dam's partial demolition program has been periodically blocked by the various members of Congress from that district for several years, against the advice of COE, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and opposition from Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber (see Sublegals 4:20/14; 3:05/08) among many others. Fish are now artificially transported around the dam for an amount that far exceeds the costs of opening up the uncompleted structure for free passage. NMFS has also ruled that the current trap and haul transportation system poses a "jeopardy" to the species and thus is also in violation of the ESA. PCFFA, IFR and several other groups have sued to have the dam notched to freely allow fish passage (see Sublegals 1:13/01; 1:01/07). The draft provision, on page 61 of the current Draft Conference Report, would prohibit use of federal funds "for any further work on the Corps of Engineers proposal to remove a section of the dam for fish passage" and require funds to be used only for a permanent trap and haul facility that federal biologists have already said violates the ESA. On 20 June, Governor Kitzhaber wrote Representative Sonny Callahan, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development, saying "Negative economics is the real obstacle to completion of the Elk Creek Lake Dam. While the Corps has received criticism for over-estimating the benefits of projects, the Corps has always maintained that Elk Creek's cost would exceed its benefits.... Please continue to fund implementation of the notch and set-aside further attempts to divert the funding to less fiscally and biologically sound forms of fish passage at Elk Creek Lake Dam. Each delay in constructing the fish passage corridor is truly tragic. Delay guarantees the loss of more coho and other salmon species and nullifies the efforts of local citizens to restore them." For more information on Kitzhaber's letter contact: Richard Bechtal, Office of the Governor, State of Oregon, at: rbechtel@sso.org.

6:03/06. COUNTIES THREATEN SUIT TO BLOCK CONDIT DAM REMOVAL: In what may become an important legal test for dam decommissioning, the Washington State counties of Skamania and Klickitat are threatening to sue to block the decommissioning of Washington's Condit Dam if the Washington State Department of Ecology (DEQ) grants permission to PacifiCorp (the owner of the dam) to decommission and remove the dam as recommended by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (see Sublegals 6:01/08). The aging 125-foot high dam, built in 1913, would be the highest dam ever removed in the U.S., and would be removed pursuant to a settlement agreement reached because the cost of retrofitting the dam for fish passage and modern safety upgrades exceeds its value. The Condit Dam blocks the White Salmon River, a tributary to the Columbia River in Eastern Washington.

The Washington DEQ must assess the long-term benefits of opening up fish passage and restoring the natural hydrology of the river against the intensive but short-term deficits of releasing between 451,000 and 897,000 cubic yards of trapped sediment that will take a few years to wash through the river system. Department officials acknowledge that granting a permit might be a stretch, but say that the Clean Water Act provides a basis for restoring river systems and fish passage in the long-term at a high short-term cost in sediment loads and water quality. "If that weren't the case, we couldn't build bridges, couldn't dredge," commented Tom Webb, Water Quality Section Manager for DEQ's Central Region. "We try to mitigate that. In this case, it's going to be at a grand scale." For more information, see the 11 July issue of the Columbian at: http://www.columbian.com/07112002/clark_co/ 298160.html.

6:03/07. WASHINGTON STATE'S NOT-SO-SUSTAINABLE OYSTER GROWERS: Among aquacultured organisms, oysters have long been regarded as sustainable. For hundreds of years they have been grown off France's Brittany coast (c.f., The Oysters of Locmariaquer by Eleanor Clark), and around many other areas of the world such as Japan, as well as in the U.S. along both the Gulf and West Coasts for a century or more. Unlike some other aquaculture operations, such as salmon and shrimp farming that have been destructive of the natural environment and placed wild fish stocks at risk, oyster growing has always been regarded as benign. True, non-native stocks have been used in many areas, but these have generally not been seen as a threat to remnant native oyster populations. In Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, Washington, however, oyster growers have taken to applying the pesticide carbaryl to eradicate burrowing shrimp that stir up the bottom where the oysters are set out. They have been doing so quietly since the 1960's, generally after the 4th of July holiday when the tides are lowest, poisoning the bays for a month or more. Carbaryl is not only toxic to the burrowing shrimp, but to Dungeness crab and salmon as well.

The issue of the use of carbaryl began coming to a head a few years ago, when nearby organic oyster growers began quietly raising objections. The carbaryl use meant a loss of markets for them of one to two months each year, before the oysters could purge themselves of the poison. The response from the Pacific Oyster Growers Association, the trade group representing the West Coast oyster industry, was to kick the dissenters off its board. In a 30 June 2002 letter to the editor of the Chinook Observer, fishery scientist Bill Kier, who works closely with the Institute for Fisheries Resources, wrote, "no forward-thinking community would ever use a product like carbaryl directly in the water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency explicitly bans its use anywhere near water, the stuff is so poisonous. These two or three Oysterville producers have apparently used their political drag to get some kind of dispensation to use carbaryl to kill the local shrimp because the shrimp burrow and loosen up the bay bottom where the producers want the oyster spawn to attach. Meanwhile, those Oysterville producers that want to sell good, clean, chemical-free oysters apparently have to wait weeks for the carbaryl to dissipate.... In all other West Coast bays I know of where oysters are produced, with the possible exception of Grays Harbor, great care is taken to keep the areas free of biological and chemical toxins. What a shame, that with the Long Beach Peninsula's wonderful, rich oyster history there should be this one-eyed practice of poisoning native bay creatures still going on."

In 2001, a federal court ruled that the Washington Department of Ecology was required to issue a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the use of carbaryl by the oyster growers. Ecology, heavily influenced by the oyster growers, then proceeded to issue a permit allowing growers to spray 800 acres of tideflats for the next four years. Then, on 5 July, the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board on a 2-1 vote issued a stay, barring growers in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor from using carbaryl. The stay was requested by the organic oyster growers and the Washington Toxics Coalition. "The board finds that the potential for irreparable harm to the environment outweighs the potential economic impact to the oyster growers if carbaryl spraying were allowed to proceed this summer," the majority Board opinion said, reported The Olympian in its 7 July issue. The Pollution Control Hearings Board decision, however, was overturned on 19 July, when Thurston County Superior Court Judge Paula Casey ruled "the multimillion dollar hit to the industry from the loss of the oysters outweighs the environmental harm." The question now is what harm will come to the area's oyster growers when consumers get wind of the fact the Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor oyster growers are poisoning crab, salmon and other aquatic animals. To see The Olympian article, go to: http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/ 20020706/southsound/9333.shtml. For more information on carbaryl, go to: http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pestcide/carbary.html. For more information from the Washington Toxics Coalition, go to: www.watoxics.org.

6:03/08. TRANSGENIC CROPS MAY POSE THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH: As the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) prepares to decide on whether to allow the commercialization of transgenic salmon in finfish aquaculture operations (see Sublegals, 6:02/06, 5:09/01; 5:04/11; 5:02/12; 5:01/05; 4:16/13; 4:02/06; 3:19/03; 3:15/19; 3:12/09; 3:07/15; 3:05/15; 2:16/11), Reuters' Planet Ark reported on 19 July (via Grist Magazine), that researchers in Great Britain reported this week that DNA from transgenic crops can find its way into the bacteria that dwell in the human intestines. In a study by scientists at the University of Newcastle, seven volunteers (all of whom had earlier had their lower bowels removed in unrelated surgeries) were given a single meal consisting of a burger and milkshake containing genetically modified soy. Intestinal bacteria from three of the seven volunteers later tested positive for trace levels of an herbicide-resistance gene from the soy. Although most GM material in foods is not thought to pose a risk to human health, many GM crops contain antibiotic-resistant marker genes as well, which critics fear could compromise the human immune system. To see the Planet Ark article, go to: http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16941/ story.htm.

6:03/09. OREGON INITIATIVE TO LABEL TRANSGENIC FOODS APPEARS HEADED FOR NOVEMBER BALLOT: The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods reports that over 101,000 signatures have been gathered as of 12 July for a ballot initiative to require the labeling of all genetically altered or "transgenic" foods sold in Oregon (see Sublegals, 5:26/02). 66,786 validated signatures are required to place a measure on the State's November ballot. An announcement on whether the measure qualifies is expected by 4 August. In the meantime, the Oregonian reported, "the Coalition Against the Costly Label Law announced its effort to defeat the proposal to require labeling of genetically engineered food. The coalition includes the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, the Oregon State Grange, Oregon Grocery Industry Association, Oregon Restaurant Association, Grocery Manufacturers of America and other organizations." For more information, go to: http://www.thecampaign.org. To view the Oregon initiative (No.23 -2002 election), go to: www.sos.state.or.us/elections/elechp.htm.

6:03/10. CALIFORNIA FISH & GAME TO HOLD HEARINGS ON GROUNDFISH OPTIONS: The California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) has announced it will hold a series of 3 hearings along the coast to receive comments on options for the 2003 groundfish fishery in federal waters (3-200 miles), as well as the regulation of federally-managed groundfish stocks in state waters (0-3 miles), and California's own Nearshore Fishery Management Plan (see Sublegals, 5:25/01; 5:23/01). The hearings are scheduled as follows:

• Tuesday, 23 July, Humboldt County Courthouse, 825 Fifth Street, Eureka, 1900-2200 HRS
• Wednesday, 23 July, Elihu Harris State Building, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, 1900-2200 HRS
• Thursday, 24 July, CDFG Field Office, 4665 Lampson Avenue, Los Alamitos, 1900-2200 HRS

Comments from the hearings will be submitted to the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) for its 9-13 September meeting in Portland, Oregon where the regional council is to adopt recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce for the 2003 groundfish fishery. Written comments to the PFMC are due by 1 September; for more information, go to: www.pcouncil.org. California's Nearshore Plan is scheduled for adoption at the 30 August Fish & Game Commission meeting. For a detailed list of all options for California's recreational and commercial groundfish fisheries, go to the Department of Fish & Game's website at: www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/groundfish_options.html.

6:03/11. CALIFORNIA FISH & GAME COMMISSION TO TAKE UP COHO LISTING, DUNGENESS CRAB TRAP MODFICATIONS AT AUGUST HEARING: The California Fish & Game Commission will meet 1-2 August at the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street in San Luis Obispo. The following are the principle fishery issues of interest at the Thursday-Friday session: On Thursday, the 1st, the Commission will take up -

• Consideration of Petition to List Coho Salmon under California Endangered Species Act (CESA) as an endangered species and consider a recovery plan (#5).
• Receipt of testimony on Draft Nearshore Fishery Management Plan (#7). On Friday, the 2nd, the Commission will take up -
• Request by PCFFA and Fishermen's Marketing Association for modification of escape panels in Dungeness crab traps (#16).
• Request by California Lobster & Trap Fishermen's Association for repeal of lottery for new permits and reduction of capacity goal from 225 to 150 permittees (#17).
• Receipt of testimony for changes in herring regulations (#19).
• Receipt of report on bycatch recommendations for spot prawn fishery (#20).
• Update on PFMC Groundfish Regulations, Conformance of state regulations for prawn, shrimp, sea cucumber and California halibut trawl fishery (#21).

6:03/12. MORE FALLOUT OVER NPFMC GIVING 90 PERCENT OF BERING SEA CRAB TO PROCESSORS: The anger of Alaskan fishermen over the 11 June decision by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to allocate 90 percent of the Bering Sea crab fishery to fish processors (about half of which are foreign-owned) continues to build (see Sublegals, 6:01/02; 5:24/01). The following letter was sent by well-known False Pass halibut fisherman Buck Luakitis to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News:

"How does granting market share to processors benefit Alaska? Well, the Alaska delegation and Gov. Tony Knowles appear hard at work to ensure that Alaska remains a resource colony for the multinational fish companies well into the 21st century. At last week's House Resource Committee, after several tries to allow processor quota shares failed for the rest of the nation's fisheries, Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington offered a North Pacific amendment to allow processors quota, while Rep. Don Young was conspicuously absent for the most contentious issue in the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization. So processor quotas couldn't pass the red face test anywhere else, but why not try the "ol' Alaska exemption" -- not only for crab, but all groundfish, halibut and, presumably, eventually herring and salmon as well. So how does granting the existing processors guaranteed market share without ever having to face another competitor, never having to innovate or change product form, and never having to pay fair ex-vessel prices to fishermen benefit Alaska? Things are tough in the fishing industry right now. Maybe independent entrepreneurial fishermen are a thing of the past. Fishermen face the negative side of free trade agreements with Chileans dumping salmon in the U.S. market, and now we face the twisted irony of having no free markets to sell our fish in Alaska."

NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items, comments or any corrections to Michelle Wallar, Editor at: mw_ifr@pacbell.net or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000 (Northwest Office).

"Fishlink" is a registered trademark of the Institute for Fisheries Resources. All rights to the use of this trademark are reserved to IFR.

Last Week