144 



attonal releases during the summer {and increased flow for 

 fish). However, this is an unproven benefit for Whitewater. 

 While it may provide more dependable summer flows, it 

 may eliminate the natural spring drawdown flows that now 

 exist. 3) Raising the winter pool level will make it easier for 

 the Corp, to reach its summer pool elevation. Reaching sum- 

 mer pool is a requirement for fall recreational releases. A 

 new pool level could allow the Corps lo provide fall releases 

 in dryer years (like the drought of 1988) 4) The awesome 

 put-in for the Upper Gauley wUl be lost forever. New pen- 

 stocks will replace the existing tubes, and water will flow 

 through the powerhouse and be released directly into the 

 river. 



Until the study is completed, the benefits from raising 

 the winter pool is mostly guesswork. AWA will continue to 

 monitor the situation, get involved in the study process, 

 fight for Whitewater, and report back when we have more 

 information. ■ 



Sullivan Greek Hydro Proposal (Wa) 



On March 20th, the FERC held a public scoping meeting to 

 help prepare an EIS for the Sullivan Creek Hydro project near 

 Metaline Falls, Washington. 



The Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) of Pend Oreille 

 County has proposed adding hydro generation to an existing 

 dam. Currently, the PUD drains Sullivan Lake in October at 

 about 500 cfs. which provides a boatable flow for the 1 Smile 

 Class II upper run (Mill Pond to N.F. Sullivan Creek) and the 2 

 mile Class V Sullivan Creek Gorge Run (around 200 foot per 

 mile gradient). 



The AWA expects to intervene in this project, and to study 

 how power generation either hurts or might improve 

 Whitewater boating. The deadline for comments was April 22, 

 but we would appreciate any boater information we can get. 

 Please call AWA at (301) 589-9^53-B 



Recreation Excise Tax Moves Ahead 



by Rich Borers, AWA Conservation Director 



I 



n 1994, American Whitewater reporte(i 

 that the International Association of 

 Fish & WUdlife Agencies (lAFWA), 

 was pushing for an excise tax on outdoor 

 equipment to fund the efforts of state fish 

 and wildlife agencies. The money raised by 

 this tax (approximately $350 million per 

 year from sales of kayaks, climbing gear, 

 hiking boots, etc.) would be spent to im- 

 prove non-game wildlife habitat. 



More recently this tax, referred to as the Teaming with 

 Wildlife Initiative has been gathering support among wildlife 

 advocates and other conservation groups (including many 

 groups that are working along with AWA on river conserva- 

 tion). If this proceeds at the present schedule, testimony on the 

 merits of this program may be presented before Congressional 

 Representatives as early as may be the time this issue hits your 

 door, a legislative proposal, the Fish & Wildlife Conservation 

 Enhancement Act of 1996, may already be working its way 

 through Congress. Since the beginning, the AWA has opposed 

 this tax because: 1. It is yet another tax without representation 

 (in this case outdoor recreationists), and 2. The fees generated 

 will not provide for the needs of those paying the bill. 



Perhaps the most irritating issue is that bill proponents con- 

 tinuously try to separate outdoor recreation users from conser- 

 vation issues. This guilt-trip tactic says that if you use the out- 

 doors, then you owe something back to nature. Actually, many 

 people and organizations agree with this. Including the AWA 

 (its why we spend 80% of our budget on conservation). How- 

 ever, this initiative steps far beyond, and says that what we owe 

 (millions annually) should be dedicated to funding only a nar- 



row range of lAFWA priorities (fish and wUdlife). 



Continually, we hear that recreation users are not paying 

 their way. That other recreation based user funds (like the 

 Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act) have been successful 

 in the past. But these efforts have limned funding to projects di- 

 rectly impacting those paying for them. This initiative takes 

 the shotgun approach to a narrow target - in the case of conser- 

 vation, just the tip of the iceberg. 



1. Tax Without Representation 



This bill IS perhaps two months away from being introduced 

 into Congress. Yet most of those who will pay the blU are un- 

 aware that It exists, or how it will affect them. Even bill propo- 

 nents are unsure exactly how much it wiU cost! 



To be fair, the LAFWA and other proponents have spent 

 time trying to include recreationists in this initiative. How- 

 ever, this IS an impossible task when the bill is this far along, 

 when the programs to be funded have already been locked it. 

 and when these programs are so narrowly focused. 



According to recent literature, this initiative will benefit 

 outdoor users by: securing additional lands for hikers, bikers, 

 canoeists and others: involving fish and wildlife agencies with 

 non-traditional user groups (like boaters), and: providing im- 

 proved access to lands and waters. 



Unfortunately, in many cases these benefits are either non- 

 existent or mis directed. For instance, nothing in the draf^ pro- 

 posal guarantees that recreationists will be able to use this 

 land. The Sportsman's Caucus (a strong alliance of fishing and 

 hunting advocates. Including many Congressional Representa- 

 tives) has stated, up front, that it will support no bUl that does 

 not retain hunting and fishing on any public land acquired 

 through the use of these funds. Access, as defined in this bill, 

 relates only to boat ramps, and there is absolutely no mention 

 of how fish and wildlife agencies will be directed to change 

 years of work habits - many of which have been harmful rather 

 than helpful to recreation. 



2. Mis-directed funding 



The real problem is not an issue of recreation v. conserva- 

 . but of a tax that funds only one small aspect of the prob- 



American \Vhilcwaief 



V 



May / Junt 1996 



