WASHINGTON

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was originally passed in 1973. It is among the broadest and most powerful laws that provide protection for endangered fish species and their habitats. Important (and controversial) provisions of the ESA include:

Prohibition of direct "taking" of a species listed under the ESA (Section 9); and
Prohibition of actions that will jeopardize the future of any endangered species, including any threat to designated habitat (Section 7).

Attempts to reauthorize the ESA, failed in both the 103rd and 104th Congresses. On one side of this sharply divided issue are environmental groups and some fishing groups that have fought to strengthen the ESA. On the other side, property rights advocates, as well as the timber and housing industries, among others, have advocated repealing some of the ESA’s protective measures.

IN THE SENATE: According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute’s Environment and Energy Weekly*, Senators John Chafee (R-R.I.) and Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) have circulated a broad ESA reauthorization draft bill that includes the following provisions:

Increased water rights for states. The proposal says that the ESA will not affect or limit the authority of any state to establish water rights. This provision has angered environmentalists, who argue that the language would give state water rights undue leverage in species management decisions.
New cost-benefit requirements. The bill says that in developing recovery plans, priority will be given to plans that "reduce to the maximum extent practicable adverse social or economic consequences." The draft further stipulates that "if the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome elements to recover the species were rejected," an explanation of why that decision was made must be included in the final recovery plan. A Kempthorne aide says this provision guarantees that "people follow the least burdensome way to protect a species."
Changes to ESA’s consultation authority. Under existing policy, the Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS] makes initial determinations on whether a proposed federal action would harm a protected species. But under the draft bill, other agencies could determine on their own if a project they are undertaking will adversely affect endangered species, thereby removing FWS involvement unless the other agency determines that harm will be incurred.
Assistance to landowners affected by ESA requirements. Under the bill, the "Private Landowners Education and Technical Assistance Program" would be established and would provide grants of up to $10,000 per landowner to comply with ESA requirements.

*Reprinted with permission. For Further Information Contact: EESI at (202) 628-6500.

Reaction:

According to an editorial in The New York Times dated March 24, 1997:

The bill would undercut the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to review and when necessary modify Federal projects that harm species and their habitats. That job would be largely handed over to the very agencies whose projects are causing the threat--agencies like the Forest Service, which has a dismal record on environmental matters. The bill also shifts control over water rights to the states, which in many Western jurisdictions would mean serious trouble for threatened fish species like the Pacific salmon.

In February, Senator Kempthorne highlighted the goals of his Endangered Species Act reform legislation at the third annual Idaho Agriculture Summit. According to Kempthorne:

I am offering legislation that I believe will change the dynamics of how we approach the Endangered Species Act. This legislation is pro-species. It is also pro-jobs. We can do what is right for the environment and we can help species without putting people and entire communities at risk. It can happen, and I believe it will happen.

You have a government that has put the emphasis on listing a species and then you have government over-regulation telling people what they can and cannot do on their land versus a system that says ‘step forward’ to farmers and ranchers that know how to be innovative and creative and who know how to help species--where the emphasis is on recovery. If you were to have those two systems--and if I were a species--put me in that second system.

It will not be easy [referring to ESA reauthorization], I will tell you, because the Endangered Species Act is so polarized. Anybody that enters into this equation is going to be quickly labeled. Well so be it. This is what should happen, because we cannot continue on the current course.

In an "Action Alert" dated February 19, 1997, the Defenders of Wildlife said:

Among other things, [the Kempthorne/Chafee bill] would:

Let the fox guard the hen house by allowing agencies like the US Forest Service, Army Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Land Management to decide for themselves whether their actions would harm a species. Called "Self-consultation" this provision would give agencies the ability to exempt themselves from the ESA.
Prevent scientific recovery planning by allowing only those recovery actions that are the "least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome"--in effect eliminating many slightly more expensive actions (such as reintroduction), that could be much more effective in achieving recovery and delisting.
Trade away wildlife to corporations by codifying the "No Surprises" policy for Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs]. In effect, this would compound the scientific problems with HCPs by setting the terms of plans in stone for 50 or even 100 years. Even under "extraordinary circumstances" the already underfunded FWS would be forced to pay for new mitigation techniques on privately owned lands, essentially subsidizing private resource extraction.

According to the National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition*:

The ESA can be improved so that it better balances the needs of America’s citizens with the needs of the natural world. One should not take precedence over the other. Unfortunately, that is what is happening today, and it is the American citizen, the farmer, the landowner, the local governments, the water users, that are getting the short end of the stick.

*The National Endangered Species Act Reform Coalition (NESARC) is a broad industry-based national coalition dedicated solely to seeking legislative reform of the Endangered Species Act. Members include the American Petroleum Institute, Boise Cascade, and the American Farm Bureau Federation.

NOW WHAT: The Senate is in recess through April 6, 1997. It is unknown when the bill will be introduced.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: On January 21, 1997, Representatives Wally Herger (R-Calif.) and Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) introduced H.R. 478, a bill which would "…amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve the ability of individuals and local, State, and Federal agencies to comply with that Act [ESA] in building, operating, maintaining, or repairing flood control projects, facilities, or structures."

According to Greenwire, Representative Pombo has blamed massive winter flooding in California on lack of levee maintenance because of "bugs and rodents" protected under the Endangered Species Act. (The ESA-listed elderberry beetle lives in bushes sometimes found on levees.)

Specifically H.R. 478 would:

Exempt agencies from Section 7 ESA consultation and conferencing.
Allow taking of endangered species if the action in question "...consists of building, operating, maintaining, or repairing a Federal or non-Federal flood control project, facility, or structure..."

REACTION:

Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund:

Blaming elderberry beetles and giant garter snakes for the tragic flood damage in California may seem ridiculous to some, but the horror stories are grabbing attention in Washington.

The ESA contains emergency provisions that allow for replacement and repair of public facilities in Presidentially declared disaster areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently issued a policy statement clarifying how the agency is implementing these emergency provisions in the 42 California counties that have been declared Federal disaster areas. Under the policy, flood-fighting and levee repairs are automatically exempted under the ESA, if they are needed to save lives and property. In addition, any improvements or upgrades to existing structures will be given an expedited review.

Despite the emergency waiver, Mr. Pombo, along with Representative Herger (R-CA), [have] introduced a bill...to provide a PERMANENT blanket waiver for the building, operating, maintaining, or repairing of ALL dams, levees, canals, land use planning in flood plains, and a host of other activities from the safeguards and protections provided in the ESA.

NOW WHAT: There was a hearing on the bill March 19, 1997 in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. The House returns from recess on April 8.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Write Your Congressperson: U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515; and U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510; or call the House of Representatives switchboard at (202) 225-3121; and the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

To register your opinion with the President on any issue call the White House Comment Line at (202) 456-1111.

E-Mail Messages to President Clinton: president@whitehouse.gov; Vice President Gore: vice.president@whitehouse.gov.

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON ESA

On March 19, 1997 the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided that all citizens have the right to seek court review regarding the government’s implementation of the ESA for actions that economically impact them. In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that the ESA is a "double edged sword" that can be used to fight for less, not just more protection of animals and plants. The ruling also allows citizens to challenge Biological Opinions (see "CRA Sues" on page 8).

The Court’s unanimous ruling overturns a 1995 decision by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Bennett v. Spear, involved Southern Oregon ranchers and irrigation districts that sued the federal government (Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to stop them from reducing water flows into reservoirs in Oregon and Northern California. The water was needed for ESA-protected fishes: the shortnose and Lost River suckers. The plaintiffs wanted the water for agricultural purposes (alfalfa). In the March 19 decision the Court also said landowners could object to the "biological opinions" issued by the Federal government.

The decision is anticipated, according to The Oregonian, "to open a floodgate of actions against restrictions on logging, grazing and other economic activities brought by the act." However, the March 20, 1997 Land Letter said that "most environmentalists do not expect the ruling to lead to a flood of new cases against the act, though some suits are likely."

FOREST MANAGEMENT BILL IN REWRITE

The controversial issue of forest health management is being addressed through draft legislation being sponsored by Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) the "Public Land Management Responsibility and Accountability Restoration Act." So far only a draft of the bill has been circulated. According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute’s Environment and Energy Weekly*, some elements of the draft would:

Narrow the planning levels of the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to two areas: broad resource management plans and individual activities.
Allow the public to petition agencies about a decision when new information arises. If the agency disagrees with the petition, the person can bring the complaint to district court.
Impose 30-to-90 day deadlines on filing appeals and the length of time an agency has to respond to an appeal.
Set a process for which state officials can apply to Congress to manage part or all BLM lands within their states for a 10-year period.
Coordinate environmental laws. The statute change that has received the most attention is Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The draft bill would authorize Forest Service and BLM biologists to determine if a decision is acceptable under the ESA, instead of requiring a consensus among other agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and Environmental Protection Agency.

*Reprinted with permission.

REACTION: Senator Craig has said that the bill will make the U.S. Forest Service a "functioning agency" again. The timber industry is supportive of the bill, while the Clinton Administration has expressed concern over the legislation. Environmental groups are opposed to the bill.

NOW WHAT: The last workshop on this bill was held on March 25, in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. A revised bill may be out in the next month.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Please refer to the top of page 4 for information (phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.) on actions you can take.

For Further Information Contact: The Western Ancient Forest Campaign at (202) 789-2844, ext. 291; U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at (202) 224-2878.

HANFORD REACH BILL INTRODUCED

On January 23, 1997 Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced S. 200, legislation designed to protect the Hanford Reach area of the Columbia River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This legislation would place a 51-mile stretch of the Columbia River (which borders the Hanford Nuclear Reservation) under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Hanford Reach is the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River that contains healthy populations of wild fall chinook salmon runs. The importance of the Hanford Reach to the Columbia Basin’s chinook production has become especially evident over the last 10 plus years, as indicated by higher percentages of Hanford production (See Table One at right).

The purposes of S. 200 are:

To protect the natural, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources of the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River;
To encourage education and interpretation of the Hanford Reach; and
To restore and enhance the natural habitat of the rivershore immediately downstream of the Hanford Reach in the vicinity of the Tri-Cities area of the State of Washington.

REACTION: According to Rick Applegate, Director of the West Coast Conservation Office of Trout Unlimited, "This is the most productive mainstem fish habitat in the entire Columbia River system. It deserves the highest level of protection. We support Senator Murray’s bill and believe it should not be weakened. Independent scientists have called for the designation of the Hanford Reach as a salmon reserve."

NOW WHAT: According to Senator Murray’s office, Chairman Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chair of Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has agreed to a hearing on S. 200, which could take place in Eastern Washington. Reports are that Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) and Representative Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) may introduce alternative legislation which would favor local control of the Hanford Reach.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Please refer to the top of page 4 for information (phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.) on actions you can take.

Table One: Hanford Contribution to Columbia River Chinook Production

Below is a rough estimate of adult and jack fall chinook escapement to the Hanford Reach. The Hanford fall chinook number count was arrived at by subtracting the total dam counts at Ice Harbor (first dam on the Snake River) and Priest Rapids (first dam on Columbia above Hanford) from McNary (first dam below Hanford on Columbia).

YearBonneville Fall Chinook Dam Count	% Of Hanford
1963	23851	139079	17.15%
1964	28326	172463	16.42%
1965	39378	157685	24.97%
1966	39385	155445	25.34%
1967	36735	185643	19.79%
1968	33071	159247	20.77%
1969	45806	231838	19.76%
1970	31385	208902	15.02%
1971	46371	202274	22.92%
1972	30767	137486	22.38%
1973	54817	211127	25.96%
1974	51577	186328	27.68%
1975	52796	277111	19.05%
1976	75743	325312	23.28%
1977	75758	206126	36.75%
1978	36013	200404	17.97%
1979	40082	190613	21.03%
1980	28725	153466	18.72%
1981	25599	193712	13.21%
1982	40670	220151	18.47%
1983	60707	164180	36.98%
1984	95267	243756	39.08%
1985	162476	334436	48.58%
1986	205248	416739	49.25%
1987	153979	407982	37.74%
1988	136178	362758	37.54%
1989	92674	295850	31.32%
1990	67358	216673	31.09%
1991	60105	191456	31.39%
1992	57340	146444	39.15%
1993	52288	141869	36.86%
1994	88169	203353	43.36%
1995	72296	210388	34.36%

(Source: Duane Anderson, StreamNet. Website address: www.streamnet.org.)

For Further Information Contact: Marla Marvin, Office of Senator Patty Murray at (202) 224-3121.

SUPERFUND REAUTHORIZATION STILL DISTANT

The "Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act of 1997", S. 8 was introduced by Senators John Chafee (R-R.I.) and Bob Smith (R-N.H.).

The Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) program provides money for cleanup of hazardous waste sites and seeks to recover cleanup costs from those responsible for the pollution.

The environmental community and private companies have been frustrated with the 15-year old law because of the huge costs and long delays in cleaning up sites.

According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute’s Environment and Energy Weekly*, some elements of S. 8 include:

LIABILITY: S. 8...would exempt all generators and transporters at co-disposal landfills, meaning those that mostly receive municipal solid waste and sewage sludge, from Superfund liability for conduct prior to Jan. 1, 1997. The bill also relieves small businesses, or those with fewer than 30 employees or less than $3 million in gross revenues, from the statute’s liability net. Also, municipalities could see some relief under the liability scheme given that S. 8, although not specifying an amount, puts a cap on their liability.

BROWNFIELDS: Cleanup of brownfields [**] sites is one of the main components of the bill. S. 8 would provide $60 million in new funding each year to states and localities to spur the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields sites.

STATE’S ROLE: States would see an elevated role in Superfund cleanups if S. 8 were to pass. The bill gives states primary responsibility for cleanups, a duty states have long lobbied for, arguing that they clean up contaminated sites more quickly than EPA.

*Reprinted with permission.

**Brownfields are defined as "parcels of land that contain or contained abandoned or under-used commercial or industrial facilities, the expansion or redevelopment of which is complicated by the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants."

REACTION: The Committee on Environment and Public Works of the U.S. Senate held a hearing on March 5, 1997. Below are some exerpts from that hearing.

According to Carol M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

As drafted, the Administration does not believe S. 8 provides the basis for consensus based legislative reform.

The Administration’s most serious concerns are that: 1) the bill may fail to ensure long-term protection of human health and the environment; 2) it will slow down cleanups; 3) it lets polluters off the hook and shifts costs to taxpayers and consumers; and 4) it provides incomplete support for communities, States, and Tribes, and economic redevelopment. But perhaps more fundamentally, S. 8 does not reflect the current status of the Superfund program, and fails to recognize the vast changes made to this program in the last 4 years.

Karen Florini, Senior Attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, said:

While EDF supports an improved Superfund program, we believe that S. 8 would weaken rather than strengthen the program. In many instances, the bill’s "cures" are far worse than the problems they purport to address. S. 8 fails to acknowledge that the Superfund program today is faster and more streamlined than was the case in earlier years. According to EPA, cleanups have been completed (except for ongoing groundwater treatment) at some 400 sites; at nearly another 500, construction is now underway. While many of these cleanups were too long in coming, S. 8 would either retard the pace of cleanups, or make them faster by cutting out essential safeguards.

Larry L. Lockner of the American Petroleum Institute, had this to say:

The American Petroleum Institute (API) strongly supports reform of the Superfund program. Comprehensive reform of Superfund is important to accomplish during this Congress; a mere refunding of the program is insufficient. API members believe that S. 8, the "Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act of 1997," incorporates many important and necessary reforms to the program. It is an appropriate vehicle to continue the Superfund reform process.

Linda H. Biagioni, Vice President of Environmental Affairs at the Black & Decker Corporation, said:

Our own reading of S. 8 leads us to believe that it is a balanced and thoughtful attempt to resolve the crucial problems that bedevil the Superfund program. We understand that it reflects the months of negotiations between Majority and Minority staffs and the Administration last year. We commend the Committee and its staff for their diligent efforts to craft a workable approach that can attract bipartisan support.

Also in the Superfund equation is S. 18, the "Brownfields and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1997" introduced on January 21, 1997 by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.). This bill would authorize $25 million in grants to state and local governments to clean up brownfield sites.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: H.R. 1120, the "Community Revitalization and Brownfield Cleanup Act of 1997" was introduced on March 19, 1997 by Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.). This legislation provides funding to local governments to inventory and assess brownfield sites, provides liability protection for those not responsible for contamination, and increases spending for state voluntary clean-up programs.

NOW WHAT: In the Senate, negotiations on Superfund between the Clinton Administration and Senator Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chair of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, are reportedly going well.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Please refer to the top of page 4 for information (phone numbers, e-mail addresses, etc.) on actions you can take.

UPDATE ON ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (MFMCA), passed in 1996 (See Habitat Hotline Number 29), requires that the regional fishery management councils and National Marine Fisheries Service take actions to identify and conserve essential fish habitat (EFH) for council-managed fish species.

EFH WORKSHOP HELD: On February 5, 1997 the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, in cooperation with the American Fisheries Society, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Pacific Fishery Management Council held a one-day workshop on EFH in Portland, Oregon.

Participants in the event included representatives from the commercial and recreational fishing industries, as well as tribes, state, and federal government resources agencies and environmental groups. Approximately 50 people attended the workshop.

The purpose of the workshop was to provide comments to the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding its "Framework for the Description, Identification, Conservation, and Enhancement of Essential Fish Habitat" (See Habitat Hotline Number 30).

EFH OUT SOON? By April 11, 1997 the National Marine Fisheries Service is required to develop guidelines to assist the Councils in describing and identifying EFH (including adverse affects to EFH) and conservation and enhancement measures.

*** AS WE GO TO PRESS *** NMFS staff now predicts that the proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register in mid-April. There will then be a 30-day comment period.

Copies of the February 5 workshop’s "Summary of Comments" are available from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission at (503) 650-5400.

For Further Information Contact: Lee R. Crockett, National Marine Fisheries Service at (301) 713-2325; Cathryn Poff, National Marine Fisheries Service at (503) 231-2316.

II. REGIONAL

COLUMBIA RIVER MIGRATION SEASON DECISIONS

Below is a brief update on some issues surrounding management of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) and its impact on ESA-listed Snake River chinook (listed as "threatened") and sockeye salmon (listed as "endangered").

LEGAL DECISION DUE: On March 31, 1997 arguments in a lawsuit over the Clinton Administration’s management of the FCRPS were heard by U.S. District Court Judge Malcolm Marsh in Portland, Oregon. The suit was filed in December of 1996 by ten Northwest sportfishing, commercial fishing, and conservation groups. The groups claim that NMFS did not operate the FCRPS adequately to protect ESA-listed salmon species.

At issue in the current suit is the 1995 NMFS Biological Opinion (BiOp). (Note: A biological opinion states whether a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species listed under the Endangered Species Act or if the action will result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. In effect, it governs river operation decisions by federal agencies. For the FRCPS, the National Marine Fisheries Service is the agency rendering the BiOp.)

The current suit is the third filed by the groups since Snake River salmon were listed under the ESA in 1991. The members of the group are: American Rivers, Idaho Rivers United, Oregon Natural Resources Council Action, Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Federation of Fly Fishers, Trout Unlimited, and Sierra Club.

NOW WHAT: Judge Marsh is expected to rule on the summary judgement motion by mid-April.

CRA SUES: In related news, the Columbia River Alliance, a coalition of northwest navigation, agricultural, labor, community, forest products, industry and electric utility organizations, recently filed a 60-day notice in federal court saying it will sue the federal government over federal efforts to save Columbia River salmon. The potential suit comes on the heels of a recent Supreme Court ruling (See page 4) allowing those who are economically impacted by the ESA to legally contest ESA mandated protection for listed species. River management strategies such as spill and drawdowns can reduce the amount of electricity produced by the dams, and affect some barge traffic and irrigation pumping.

1997 RIVER MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO BE MADE SOON: On April 4, 1997 the salmon "Executive Committee", which is made up of state, tribal and federal government policy makers, will meet in Portland, Oregon to determine the 1997 FCRPS management. Important river management decisions to be made by the committee include: how many downstream migrating juvenile salmon are barged and trucked versus how many are left in the river, the spill program, and reservoir levels.

REACTION: In a letter dated February 11, 1997 to NMFS, a coalition of fishing and environmental groups* advocated the following migration plan:

This spring and summer, the federal hydroelectric system should be managed to provide the maximum benefit for in-river migrating fish. First, there will be very low numbers of outmigrating fish, especially from ESA-listed stocks, which need all the help we can give them. Second, the Northwest and West are again awash in electricity, thus allowing fish needs to take primacy over energy generation needs in management of the system.

1997 migration management should be guided by the authoritative conclusions of the Independent Scientific Group. The ISG’s recent report, "Return to the River," recommends that juvenile fish barging be employed only for experimental purposes, that spill be the primary means of passing fish across dams, and that gas abatement be a primary goal of dam operations. These should be adopted as guiding policies for the 1997 migration.

1997 is the best time yet to let Snake and Columbia salmon and steelhead return to the river--NOT be put in barges. In-river conditions will be good this spring due to high natural flows, and good this summer due to large releases planned from Dworshak Reservoir for dam repairs. Spill, with aggressive gas abatement, can provide both spring and summer migrants safe passage across the dams. The best recent science concludes that years of high flow and spill, with most fish in the river, produce the best adult returns. It is time for the Clinton Administration to move decisively away from the failed technological fix of juvenile fish barging by NOT barging fish when flow targets are being met, unless the fishery agencies and Tribes say otherwise.

All mainstem turbines must be operating during high flows, so that gas levels from uncontrolled spill can be abated to the extent possible. The Administration should no longer tolerate the Army Corps of Engineers’ continuing inability to keep its turbines in service. And advance planning must assure that, during fish migration, turbines are not shut down to avoid generating energy. Neither mechanical failure nor non-production of energy should be allowed to remove mainstem turbines from service this spring.

The Administration’s legally-established flow and spill targets should be MET. For four straight years, the Administration has failed to meet its own legally established target flows and target fish passage efficiencies for spill in the Snake and Columbia. It is time to meet them.

*Idaho Rivers United, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Sawtooth Wildlife Council, Idaho Conservation League, Natural Resource Defense Council, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Sierra Club, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Oregon Natural Desert Association, American Rivers, Boulder-White Clouds Council, and Friends of the Earth.

On the other side of the issue, industries that depend on the Columbia River’s electricity and transportation system say that the spill program is doing more harm than good, that harvest rates on Idaho chinook are too high, and that the benefits of barging fish are underestimated.

NOW WHAT: The Executive Committee decision on FCRPS migration conditions is expected by April 10, 1997.

For Further Information Contact: Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition at (206) 622-2904; National Marine Fisheries Service at (206) 526-6150.

IDAHO STEELHEAD PLAN

On January 3, 1997 the State of Idaho (Governor Phil Batt) released its comments on the "Proposed Listing of Snake River Steelhead Under the Endangered Species Act" to the National Marine Fisheries Service. The document is also referred to as the "Blueprint" for steelhead recovery. According to the document:

The State of Idaho does not believe listing Snake River steelhead is necessary if existing opportunities for recovery are aggressively pursued.
Wild Snake River steelhead are imperiled. Just 30 years ago over 60,000 wild steelhead returned to Idaho and northeast Oregon. Last year only 8,000 returned, providing very few spawners to support numerous local populations within the A and B run races of Snake River steelhead. Maintaining this population structure and race differentiation is crucial to avoiding extinction and rebuilding anadromous fisheries in Idaho.
The State of Idaho agrees with NMFS that only native, naturally reproducing steelhead should be considered part of the Snake River steelhead Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU).
There is a direct link between the productivity of wild Snake River steelhead and listed wild Snake River salmon. As with salmon, eight dams and reservoirs on the lower Snake and Columbia rivers are the primary man-made constraints to recovery of wild Snake River steelhead. Addressing this altered link in the fish’s ecosystem is vital to their recovery and should be the primary management focus.
Although the hydropower system may have the single greatest impact, the harvest of wild steelhead in mixed stock commercial fisheries is also a serious concern. Existing harvest management in the mainstem of the Columbia River does not adequately consider the conservation needs of wild steelhead and must be reformed.

Governor Batt’s steelhead Blueprint gained the support of fishing and environmental groups, including Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited (ISSU) and Idaho Rivers United. According to Mitch Sanchotena, Executive Coordinator of ISSU:

The Governor’s steelhead plan is much closer to scientific findings of the needs of steelhead restoration than the Clinton Administration’s. The Governor has incorporated some very key needs of steelhead, while at the same time considering the needs of other stakeholders in salmon and steelhead recovery.

Idaho’s fish advocates liked the Blueprint’s endorsement of an expeditious drawdown of John Day Reservoir and allowing two-thirds of spring time downstream migrating salmon (spring and summer chinook) and steelhead to remain in-river.

The Blueprint was updated on March 27, when the Batt Administration released its "Measures to Enhance Salmon and Steelhead Migration Success During 1997." While part of the March measures include allowances for two-thirds of Idaho’s fish to remain in the river, language supporting John Day drawdown was altered.

According to Pat Ford of the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition:

The language for an expeditious drawdown of John Day was weakened, which was disappointing, but at least the governor stood firm on his call for leaving two-thirds of the fish in the river.

Oregon and Washington Conservation groups are not happy with Batt’s treatment of water flow issues for Snake River fall chinook. At issue is the allocation of flows later in the year when fall chinook juveniles are migrating downstream. Historically, Idaho’s water policy has favored agricultural interests. Therefore, it chooses to save water for agricultural uses rather than sending its water downstream in the dry part of the year. More water later in the year would help downstream migrants by reducing potentially lethal high river temperatures.

REACTION:

Senators Helen Chenoweth and Larry Craig, in a joint press release dated January 23, 1997 said, regarding the Blueprint, that:

The proposals announced by Batt last week may lean too much toward restoring natural flows through drawdowns of reservoirs at the expense of barging and other artificial means of helping fish migrate.

In a March 27, 1997 press release, members of the Idaho Congressional delegation said the following:

Senator Larry Craig:

I applaud the work of Governor Batt on behalf of the state to place Idaho in the driver’s seat on the recovery effort of the salmon. I am still dedicated to the Governor’s approach of a regional solution, and I will continue to work in that direction.

Representative Mike Crapo:

This policy balances economic, cultural, and environmental interests while providing a framework to accelerate scientific and economic understanding of this issue.

Senator Dirk Kempthorne:

Governor Batt has taken a very difficult issue and used his pragmatic approach to strike a balance that lets Idaho speak with one voice.

Representative Helen Chenoweth:

I appreciate the Governor’s unwavering insistence that we complete an Idaho plan for salmon and steelhead migration in 1997, rather than allowing the federal government to dictate how we will use our resources. I remain concerned that too much emphasis is being placed on increased river flows, which continues to draw differing scientific conclusions on its effectiveness. Our Idaho fish are the only species on the endangered list that can be legally harvested, and I think that factor needs to be dealt with first.

NOW WHAT: The National Marine Fisheries Service must decide whether to list steelhead coastwide by August 8, 1997. Steelhead stocks under consideration for the listing decision are in California, Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Decisions on the number of fish that will be barged in 1997 versus left in-river will be made in early April (See article above).

For Further Information Contact: Office of Governor Phil Batt at (208) 334-2100; Idaho Steelhead and Salmon Unlimited at (208) 345-4438; Save our Wild Salmon at (208) 345-9067.

CRABBERS RILED BY COLUMBIA RIVER DREDGING PROJECT

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will soon approve a temporary expansion of sites for the disposal of dredge material off the mouth of the Columbia River. Use of the sites (permitted to last up to 4 years) will be allowed under Sections 102 and 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA).

The Corps is responsible for keeping the Columbia River navigation channel, with its $12 billion in commerce, functioning. Four to five million cubic yards of sediments per year will be disposed of in two sites--"B" and "E" (See map on page 12). What makes this decision controversial is the fact that the Corps is planning on significantly expanding the two current ocean disposal sites.

One reason for site expansion is that past disposal practices have resulted in the development of mounds. The Corps says that the mounds "threaten to create a hazardous condition for large and small craft due to waves refracting from and breaking over the mounds."

The Corps says that this temporary expansion and continued use of the sites will be conditioned on "continuation of joint Corps/EPA studies and development of a long-term solution for disposal of dredged material..."

According to the Corps/EPA, in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Expansion of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Sites B and E for Mouth of Columbia River (MCR), Oregon Washington, December 26, 1996, the "Expansion of Sites B and E is not expected to significantly effect important biological resources," and:

Benthic organisms at the expanded sites would be subjected to burial and slight changes in sediment texture. The larger disposal areas can reduce burial effects by spreading placement in thinner layers. Larger disposal areas would also reduce frequency of disposal at any one site allowing longer recovery periods between events. Site B contains large areas of fine-rained sediments which would have a short term impact on benthic organism distribution as well as food sources for demersal fish and shellfish.

In general, the dredged material disposal sites are repopulated by benthic organisms which either burrow up through the substrate or migrate into the site from the adjacent shelf. Benthic sampling following disposal at Site B has shown little change occurring in overall species abundance or diversity (Hinton et al., 1992; and Hinton and Emmett, 1994, 1996).

Demersal finfish within the MCR disposal sites are not subjected to increased turbidity, toxic materials, or burial by released dredged materials. Dredged sentiments sink rapidly without significantly increasing suspended particulate concentrations, and therefore suffocation of finfish by gill-clogging is not expected. Because of their mobility, demersal finfish can prevent burial by escaping from released dredged materials. Durkin and Lipovsky (1997, p. 141) state "sediment removal from the navigation channel annually exceeds 4,000,000 cubic meters, but deposition at Sites B and F in prior years revealed no apparent lasting effect on the diversity and number of finfish."

Effects of disposal on shellfish, particularly Dungeness crabs, are unclear (Durkin and Lipovsky, 1997), although no significant impact was evident. Natural seasonal variations in shellfish abundance are greater than predisposal or post disposal changes. Chang and Levings (1978), who evaluated the effects of burial on Dungeness crab viability in the laboratory, claim that "exposed crabs are able to avoid burial except during extremely rapid deposition" and can escape from up to 10 cm of sediments. Crabs directly beneath the path of the hopper dredge, where sediment deposition exceeds 10 cm may suffocate. The maximum bottom accumulation resulting from any single disposal at Site B is estimated to be less than 12 cm.

(Map of the Proposed Dump Sites)

However, the greatest impact could be on crabs during the molting stage of their lifecycle. It is during molting (softshell) that they are most vulnerable to burying-related mortality from dredge material. (Note: According to John Malek of the EPA, the final Environmental Assessment for the project will contain more information on the project’s impacts on Dungeness crab.)

REACTION:

This proposed expansion has raised concerns among local fishermen, particularly Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association (CRCFA). The CRCFA is fighting the site expansions because they say it will harm crab and bottomfish habitat. According to the group:

CRCFA realizes that safe navigation on the Columbia River, our economic artery, is necessary. The COE/EPA actions must be tempered by Safety, Essential Habitat, and Resource Preservation. CRCFA’s primary position is that all ocean dumping should be off the continental shelf, in an area that is not as biologically sensitive. The expansion of dumpsite B should not go forward, due to adverse impacts on fisheries and shellfish beds. Relevant data is needed to make informed decisions, before critical fish habitat and fisheries resources are destroyed. Analysis of the Dungeness crab resource and effects of direct burial of juvenile crabs in the soft-shell condition must be made to develop findings of fact consistent with decision-making requirements. In the past CRCFA has tolerated dumpsite B because of its size...The proposed site B expansion to 8 square miles (not including a buffer zone), is untenable. Burial of critical habitat will only exacerbate the decline of fisheries resources. The COE/EPA must be held accountable for a resource destruction of this magnitude. A less invasive site for disposal must be found off the continental shelf. Between the resources of the EPA, COE, NMFS, USDFW, State of Oregon, State of Washington, and the Fishing Industry, there must be a vehicle to find a suitable dumpsite that will fill the needs of all parties including COE.

In a February 7, 1997 letter to the Corps of Engineers, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development said:

Without more specific evidence to the contrary, the state must conclude that the disposal in the nearshore portion of site B has the potential to directly impact an economically important species [crabs] and the habitat on which the species depends. Furthermore, the state cannot conclude that disposal at site B, particularly in the nearshore portion, would [be] consistent with goal 19 [*] requirements for the long-term protection of renewable ocean resources (habitat and shellfish) and the protection of commercial fish and shellfish areas.

*Goal 19 of Oregon’s statewide planning goals mandates conservation of ocean resources, requires minimization of conflicts between user groups, and gives priority to the proper management and protection of renewable resources versus non-renewable resources. In addition to Goal 19, the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan (TSP) applies to activities in the territorial sea. The TSP, which received approval as part of the Oregon Coastal Management Plan (OCMP) in 1995, establishes mandatory measures and standards for implementing Goal 19 requirements.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, in an October 28, 1996 letter to the Corps of Engineers, expressed their concerns with disposal at Site B:

We do not however support the use of site B. Almost no sand (less than 10 %) will enter the littoral system if disposed...offshore.

This area is at the westward edge of the littoral zone, where depths are sufficient to protect the bed from wave action, making this one of the most productive areas for fish life [emphasis added]. Detritus necessary for productivity, especially for Dungeness crab, falls to the bottom in this area. This results in excellent fishing and heavy utilization by crab fishermen. This is also a productive area for bottomfish. Disposing in this area would both reduce productivity and waste sand.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, in a February 25, 1997 letter to the Corps, stated that:

Potential impacts to crabs and the crab fishery concerns our department. There remains a substantial degree of uncertainty as to the risk to crabs from disposal at expanded areas and the significance of that risk.

NOW WHAT: *** AS WE GO TO PRESS *** The latest word is that the Corps and EPA are discussing with the State of Washington how Site B will be used. The disposals for 1997 may only include the outward portion of Site B, with more material going into Site E (a total of one to two million cubic yards). Additional biological studies ("spot surveys") are also being discussed. Corps and EPA-initiated "necessary studies to develop a long-term dredged material management plan, with expected completion in late 1999" are also being discussed.

If Corps/EPA discussions with the State of Washington do not result in an agreement with the federal government, then the issue may be elevated to the Governors of Oregon and Washington. However, it is more likely that the EPA will issue a "concurrence" (under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act) for the expansions in the next two weeks, at which time the U.S. Army Corps can proceed with dredging.

For Further Information Contact: John Malek, Environmental Protection Agency at (206) 206-553-1286; Steve Stevens, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (503) 326-6133; Dale Beasley, Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association at (360) 642-3942.

PACFISH REVIEW

To address declining fish stocks in Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed a management strategy, known as PACFISH, that addresses the habitat needs of all Pacific anadromous "at risk" stocks in National Forests.

PACFISH, implemented in 1995, restricts logging, road building, and cattle grazing activity in areas outside the range of the spotted owl on BLM and USFS lands in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and California. PACFISH calls for buffers of 300 feet on fish bearing streams and lakes, 150 feet on permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams.

In the Fall of 1996, the USFS and BLM conducted PACFISH field reviews in BLM Resource Area and USFS Forests in the Columbia River Basin.

Some excerpts from the field reviews have been reprinted below:

Boise/Payette/Sawtooth National Forests, September 9-12, 1996:

General Concerns: As a result of field observations and subsequent discussions, Team members continue to raise concerns as to the range of commitment among the Forests to written directions in both the PACFISH and INFISH* documents and the adequacy and specificity of documentation that has been used as rationale for adjusting RHCAs [Resource Habitat Conservation Areas] or as rationale in completing INFISH screens. They also voiced concerns as to the aversion to using watershed analysis as a management tool to assist in supporting management decisions for activities in RHCAs.

Concerns And Recommendations: Based on PACFISH reviews conducted in 1995 and observations made by the team during the Boise/Payette/Sawtooth NFS review, there still remains a difference of understanding (philosophy) among and between Forest staff on the rigor by which PACFISH is to be implemented.

Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests, October 1-4, 1996:

Summary: Interpretation of the intent, objectives, standards, and guidelines in PACFISH and INFISH by both line officers and staff continues to be inconsistent both between and within Forests.

Malheur National Forest, October 30-31, 1996:

The future appears bright for the Malheur National Forest’s Long Creek and Prairie City Ranger Districts given the levels of understanding and comprehension of PACFISH/INFISH, and their enthusiasm and commitment to excellence.

1996 Prineville District, November 5-7, 1996:

Summary: The relatively brief review time did not allow for a full analysis of PACFISH implementation on the Prineville District. Nonetheless, field reviews, written reports and conversations with District staff indicate a strong commitment to the PACFISH strategy.

Wenatchee Resource Area PACFISH Implementation Field Review, November 6-7, 1996:

Summary: The relatively brief review time did not allow for a full analysis of PACFISH implementation on the Wenatchee Resource Area. Nonetheless, field reviews…reports and conversations with Resource Area staff indicate a strong commitment to the PACFISH strategy.

*INFISH requires habitat protection measures for native fish in the Upper Columbia River Basin.

For Further Information Contact: Gordon Haugen, Columbia River Basin/PACFISH Field Coordinator for the U.S. Forest Service at (503) 326-4929; or Mike Crouse of the Bureau Land Management at (503) 952-6068.

III. OREGON

MILLTOWN HILL DAM

A proposed dam by Douglas County in the Umpqua River Watershed’s Elk Creek Subbasin in southern Oregon has raised concerns because of its potential impact on "endangered" searun cutthroat trout, as well as the ESA candidate species coho salmon and steelhead. If the project is constructed without fish passage facilities, it has been estimated it would block 50 coho and 50 steelhead from their spawning grounds. Late in 1996, Douglas County agreed to include fish passage as part of the project, if required (see story on page 17).

The purpose of the Milltown Hill Project is to fulfill a portion of the existing and projected needs of urban and rural water users in Yoncalla and Scotts Valley, the cities of Yoncalla and Drain in Douglas County, Oregon. The project would create a 24,143 acre-foot reservoir in Elk Creek, and inundate 4-6 miles of spawning habitat.

The mitigation plan for the project includes increased flows, gravel supplementation, and addition of instream structures (logs, gabions, rootwads). In October, 1996 a Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for Douglas County on the project entitled "Potential Effects of the Milltown Project on Umpqua River Cutthroat Trout, Oregon Coast Coho Salmon, Oregon Coast Steelhead, and Umpqua River Chinook Salmon." The BA was prepared by S.P. Cramer and Associates, a Portland-based fisheries consulting group. According to that document, the combined effects of increased flows, reduced temperatures, added gravel, and instream structures for fish habitat have been predicted to increase spawning fish populations by 50 searun cutthroat trout, 1,450 winter steelhead, 1,450 coho, and 220 fall chinook.

The project developer (Douglas County) says that the year round cold water releases from the dam will improve instream flows in Elk Creek and Yoncalla Creek, especially summer flows, for chinook salmon. The Galesville Project (on Cow Creek, a tributary of the Umpqua River) is cited as an example of the potential benefit of these types of projects for anadromous fish. The Galesville Project was built in the mid-1980s. In recent years, fall chinook abundance has increased in Cow Creek, and there is some evidence that the increased flows may be in part responsible for the increase in chinook.

However, chinook numbers have gone up elsewhere in the Umpqua drainage as well. Chinook hatchery releases throughout the South Umpqua may also obfuscate potential beneficial interpretation of the Galesville data.

According to the before-mentioned Biological Assessment:

There is likely to be take of individual fish from the populations of Umpqua River cutthroat trout, the Oregon coast coho, and the Oregon coast steelhead in the Elk Creek drainage. A few fish may be affected during the relatively short construction period, but these impacts will be minimized through appropriate precautionary measures. Once the project is completed, the productivity of resident cutthroat trout in the reservoir should increase. Direct loss of productive habitat for anadromous fishes due to inundation should be small, and new habitat will be created in the reservoir. Finally, the increase in habitat quality below the dam resulting from flow and water quality enhancement, from placement of gravel and instream structures, and from riparian area fencing is likely to contribute favorably to the productivity of anadromous fisheries resources located below the proposed project. The net affect of the proposed project on anadromous fisheries resources should be substantially favorable.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife supports the project. The regional ODFW fish biologist in Roseberg says the project will have significant benefits for the fish and wildlife in the Elk Creek Basin.

REACTION:

In a January 17, 1997 response to the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the October 1996 Biological Assessment, the Western Environmental Law Center, which represents numerous environmental groups*, said:

The BA concludes that the Milltown Hill project "may affect, and is likely to adversely affect" the Umpqua River cutthroat trout, an endangered species. This assessment is correct. The BA goes on to conclude, however, that the net effect of the project will be favorable. This conclusion is not correct for three reasons: (1) it is scientifically unsupported; (2) it is based on an inadequate analysis of the current habitat conditions and fish populations in the Elk Creek basin; and (3) it completely fails to consider the impacts that the dam will have on the watershed as a whole system. The National Research Council summarizes contemporary scientific thinking:

Dams have greatly reduced wild runs of salmon by impeding salmon migration, changing the timing of river flows and changing flow velocities, water chemistry, and temperatures. Although there are no plans for new dam construction in the works, the committee pointed out that any new dams would make matters worse, and suggested that existing dams should have adequate fish passage facilities before being relicensed.

(*Umpqua Watershed Council, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Rivers Council, Oregon Trout, American Rivers, Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, WaterWatch, and the National Wildlife Federation.)

Paul Engelmeyer, Northwest Policy Analyst for the National Audubon Society and member of the Salmon Advisory Subpanel, Pacific Fishery Management Council had this to say:

This is just one more example of death by a thousand cuts. It appears as if ODFW and the Governor are not communicating with the Bureau of Land Management.

The Watershed Analysis recently completed by the BLM clearly speaks to the need to protect the Elk Creek basin. The area planned to be inundated has been identified as having the highest quality habitat with the greatest diversity of fish. The analysis goes on to state: "The fish in upper Elk Creek and Ward Creek, if protected, could serve as a seed population for surrounding areas."

The fact that Oregon’s laws which mandate fish passage are being attacked for this project as well as other water impoundments sites throughout the state does not fare well for our salmon. There is no way this project should move forward.

A March 10, 1997 editorial in the Eugene Register Guard, said:

The Milltown Hill Dam seems glaringly out of place--or, more precisely, out of time. It’s a 1950s-style irrigation project that Douglas County is attempting to graft onto the economic and environmental sensibilities of the 1990s.

NOW WHAT: The National Marine Fisheries Service is currently in consultation with the applicant (Douglas County) and the Bureau of Reclamation. NMFS has "major concerns" with the project. Providing fish passage is a "non issue" according to NMFS, whose main concerns include the loss of habitat from the flooded reaches upstream of the dam, alterations of flow, mercury contamination, and the adequacy (or lack thereof) of the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures.

A final decision on the project is not expected until May 9, 1997.

LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE FISH PASSAGE REQUIREMENT?

In related news, present Oregon law requires that "if game fish, food fish or anadromous fish are present at a dam or artificial obstruction, the requirement for fish passage is absolute and may not be waived" (Source: Oregon Department of Justice). However, the Oregon legislature is working on legislation which would provide exemptions to Oregon’s fish passage requirement for the Milltown Hill Project and Joe Ney Project.

OREGON HOUSE: H.B. 2607 would waive fish passage requirements at the Joe Ney/Upper Pony Creek Expansion Project located on the Joe Ney and Pony Creek tributaries of Coos Bay, as long as "alternative mitigation" is provided that is acceptable to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. The proposed project would block coho and winter steelhead spawning habitat and threaten wetland habitat in the Joe Ney drainage.

NOW WHAT: A hearing on H.B. 2607 was held on April 1, 1997. At that hearing, ODFW raised concerns about the project’s impact on coho rearing habitat. The bill will now reportedly be amended to try and accommodate ODFW concerns and will be voted on in the coming weeks.

Governor John Kitzhaber has not taken a position on this legislation.

OREGON SENATE: S.B. 598 would grant "a waiver from the requirement to provide a fishway" for the Milltown Hill project as long as "(1) The sponsor of the project provides alternative mitigation activities acceptable to the State Fish and Wildlife Commission; and (2) The alternative mitigation conditions are set forth in an agreement between the project sponsor and the State Fish and Wildlife Commission."

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife testified in support of this bill.

NOW WHAT: S. 598 passed the Senate on March 25, 1997 by a vote of 25 to 5. The bill now goes to the House, where it is expected to pass.

Governor John Kitzhaber has not taken a position on this legislation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact: Western Environmental Law Center at (541) 485-2471; S.P. Cramer & Associates at (503) 699-0133; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife at (503) 229-5410.

OREGON COHO PLAN AWAITS DECISION BY FEDS

On March 25, 1997 Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber signed three bills passed by the Oregon legislature (HB 5042, HB 3700, and SB 924) which appropriate funds for the Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Plan.

Said Kitzhaber at the bill signing ceremony:

This is an historic day for the state. Today, we are putting in place a plan that is cooperative and bi-partisan in the best Oregon tradition. I want to commend all the people who worked so hard to overcome their differences and who are responsible for crafting this plan: legislators, the timber, agriculture, ranching and fishing industries, environmentalists and concerned coastal residents.

The state will allocate $30 million to implementing the restoration plan. A portion of the funding will come from a "voluntary contribution" from the timber industry collected through increased timber harvest tax revenues. Not suprisingly, the timber money is dependent on a "no list" ESA decision.

The plan relies heavily on a "voluntary public-private partnership" to restore dwindling stocks of coho salmon, which are proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act (See Habitat Hotline Number 29).

Now What: The National Marine Fisheries Service will decide by April 25, 1997 whether to list the two populations (ESUs) of coho--"Southern Oregon/Northern California" and "Oregon Coast."

For Further Information Contact: Office of Governor John Kitzhaber at (503) 378-3111.

IN RELATED NEWS: On April 3, 1997 the Pacific Rivers Council issued a press release stating that:

PRC believes that all existing scientific information compels a listing of Oregon’s coho notwithstanding the unprecedented, substantial and visible efforts of Governor John Kitzhaber to develop and fund a state driven recovery.

According to PRC senior aquatic ecologist Charles Dewberry:

The science is clear. There is absolutely no scientific uncertainty about the biological status of the coho in Oregon and northern California. On the contrary, there is an overwhelming consensus on most key issues: half of the original wild populations of coho salmon that once spawned in streams south of the Canadian border are already extinct, and two-third to three-quarters of the remaining populations are in danger of extinction.

PRC Chief Executive Officer, Tryg Sletteland, said:

The Governor’s plan alone is insufficient to protect coho. First, it relies on voluntary actions; second it fails to restrict land uses that have caused the coho’s decline, such as logging and roadbuilding in steep and fragile watersheds; third, it would not govern actions on federal lands; and fourth, protection under the [ESA] cannot be denied on the basis of a plan whose benefits for the imperiled species are speculative.

However, not all conservation groups are pro-listing. According to Geoff Pampush of Oregon Trout:

While Oregon Trout considers the federal Endangered Species Act among the most important laws protecting our natural heritage, we also believe that conservation is ultimately a local responsibility. If Oregon is to realize a day when coho and other salmon return to our rivers at levels will require thousands of individual decisions in support of that future -- and sustained political will.

We are going to ask the National Marine Fisheries Service to withhold listing the Northern Oregon coho as threatened and engage in a partnership of ongoing technical assistance and auditing the state plan.

If the state plan falls short, we will support an endangered-species listing. But lets give the citizens of Oregon the next two years to prove that local conservation efforts work.

IV. WASHINGTON

GROUP FIGHTS PRISON LOCATION

The Washington Department of Corrections is planning on building a prison (Stafford Creek Corrections Center) near Aberdeen, Washington. The 1,936-bed facility is scheduled to be constructed on a 210-acre site in the Grays Harbor Watershed.

Concerns have been raised by the group Friends of Grays Harbor (FOGH) about the environmental impact of the proposed project on the harbor’s water quality. Friends of Grays Harbor is a "broad based citizens group made up of crabbers, fishers, oyster growers and caring citizens throughout Grays Harbor."

According to the group, there are 5,128 acres of farmed oyster lands in Grays Harbor. Combined with Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor oyster revenues are estimated to be at $20 million annually. Salmon fishing, crabbing, commercial offshore and in-shore vessels, processing plants and charter boats provide over 5,500 jobs in the area. According to FOGH:

The location of the prison at Stafford Creek is inappropriate and will contribute to the further degradation of Grays Harbor Bay. This can be avoided by the relocation of [the] prison to some other location within Grays Harbor that will be less sensitive to the health and vitality of the estuary.

After a March 10, 1997 hearing on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) prepared for the project, Brady Engvall, a Grays Harbor oyster grower and member of Friends of Grays Harbor, had these observations:

We are promoting the idea that Corrections [will] bring some money to town and fix Aberdeen’s and Hoquiam’s Sewage Treatment systems, before the prison is built at Stafford Creek, if they must do it. The two issues that are the most troubling to FOGH are the lack of Sewage Treatment and the destruction of wetlands. The City of Aberdeen has been by-passing [dumping raw sewage] into the harbor for so long that the people who live on the flats know that at times they can’t flush. Preliminary data (provided by Evergreen College students) suggest that the two cities’ record keeping is not the best and that at any given time all the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits may be out of compliance. Grays Harbor is already on the EPA’s 303d list and is soon scheduled for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies. It is critical to the long-term health of the estuary we look at the cumulative effects of what is happening to the Bay, BEFORE we add something that may tip the balance over the edge.

NOW WHAT: Comments on the DSEIS were accepted through March 11, 1997. According to the Department of Corrections (DOC), a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is due out any day. The SEIS will be considered by DOC in its decision regarding it preferred course of action and mitigation of potential impacts.

The Friends of Grays Harbor is planning on asking the Corps of Engineers to undertake another environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act.

For Further Information Contact: Mr. Kent Nugen, Washington Department of Corrections at (360) 586-6131; Friends of Grays Harbor at (360) 648-2254.

V. CALIFORNIA

NAVIGATION HAZARD LEGISLATION SOUGHT

On February 27 Congressmen George Miller (D-Calif.) introduced H.R. 882 the "San Francisco Bay Shipping and Fisheries Enhancement Act of 1997." The purpose of this bill is to reduce the risk of oil pollution and improve the safety of navigation in San Francisco Bay by removing hazards to navigation, and for other purposes.

The act will allow the lowering of a set of sharp rocks in the Bay that are 38 feet below the surface at low tide. The concern is that oil tankers, which can draw more than 50 feet of water, will hit the rocks causing a catastrophic oil spill.

REACTION:

Congressman George Miller said:

This legislation will protect both the economy and the environment of the San Francisco Bay Area by taking preventative action to reduce the chances of a catastrophic oil spill in this irreplaceable body of water.

According to Zeke Grader of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations:

The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is the single most important estuarine system biologically on the West Coast of North and South America. The protection of the Bay from oil spills and pollution is absolutely critical to the productivity of our most valuable fisheries.

NOW WHAT: On March 13, 1997 the bill was referred to the subcommittees on Water Resources and Environment and on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation. No hearings have been scheduled.

For Further Information Contact: Office of Congressman George Miller at (202) 225-2095; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations at (415) 561-5080.

VI. ALASKA

ALASKA WETLANDS BILL

On January 21, 1997 Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced S. 49, the "Alaska Wetlands Conservation Act."

According to a press release issued by the Office of Senator Ted Stevens dated January 21, 1997, the "Alaska Exemption" would

Prevent Alaskans from having to obtain wetlands fill permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act to continue existing activities related to airport safety, logging, mining, ice pads and roads, and snow removal and storage.
Require Alaskans who must apply for wetlands fill permits to minimize adverse impacts, but eliminate the existing requirements to mitigate for unavoidable impacts or prove that no alternative sites are available.
Require the Secretary of the Army to come up with a new, customized permitting process for lands conveyed to the State of Alaska under the Alaska Statehood Act and to Alaska Native Corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that does not include burdensome mitigation, avoidance and other requirements which apply nationally.
Allow general wetlands permits to be established for the development of rural Alaska infrastructure (such as water and sewer systems, airports, roads, fuel storage sites, schools) without the existing requirement that the activity be determined not to add to the cumulative loss of wetlands nationally.
Require the Army Corps of Engineers to approve general wetlands permits at the request of the State of Alaska for categories of activities such as small mining operations, erosion prevention, and forestry activities, to simplify the permitting process.

REACTION:

According to Senator Stevens:

We have developed less than one-tenth of one percent of our wetlands in Alaska. The national wetlands policy under the Clean Water Act does not work in Alaska--it was designed for the Lower 48, where 53 percent of the wetlands have already been developed.

Tony Turrini of the National Wildlife Federation had this to say:

This is an identical bill to what was introduced in the 104th Congress. Nobody expects S. 49 to go very far based on the fact that: 1) the bill was unable to move under favorable circumstance in last year’s Congress; and 2) Environmental legislation from extreme viewpoints are getting less play in the 105th Congress.

NOW WHAT: No hearings have been scheduled for this bill at this time.

For Further Information Contact: Office of Senator Ted Stevens at (202) 224-2131; Tony Turrini, Alaska Natural Resources Center, National Wildlife Federation at (907) 258-4800.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS

RESTORATION FUNDING AVAILABLE

A recent announcement from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) regarding the availability of funds for four watershed restoration programs in southern Oregon and northern California is reprinted below:

This is a request for ecosystem restoration proposals. Anyone is eligible to apply for these watershed restoration funds.

All four programs are included in this package to improve efficiency and streamline the process for applicants and the federal agencies. Project proposals may be funded by one or more of the following programs: 1) USFWS Jobs-In-The-Woods Program ($620,000), 2) USFWS Hatfield Restoration Program which includes funds for Information and Education projects (~$795,000), 3) USBR Klamath Area Office Restoration Program (~$250,000), and 4) USFWS Partners for Wildlife Program (~$70,000). Each of the programs has different goals and eligibility requirements for funding and are explained within the color-coded sections of this application package.

Proposals that provide for cost sharing and/or in-kind contributions will achieve maximum benefits for resources and affected communities will rank higher. The USFWS Partners for Wildlife Program has a specific cost share requirement.

Applications that meet all the eligibility requirements for at least one funding source may be field-reviewed, evaluated, and ranked by a technical review and rank committee. To facilitate timely evaluation by this committee and to reduce the need for additional photocopying, applicants must provide one (1) SINGLE-SIDED ORIGINAL and 24 DOUBLE-SIDED COPIES of each proposal submitted. If possible, also submit your proposal on a 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 or better. After proposals are reviewed and ranked they will be forwarded with recommendations to the funding agencies.

Proposals must be postmarked or received at the Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office by:

*** FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1997 ***

For An Application Contact:

Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration Office

6600 Washburn Way

Klamath Falls, Oregon 97603

(541) 885-8481; Fax: 885-7837

For Further Information on restoration projects or this application process contact Curt Mullis or Akimi King at (541) 885-8481.

NATIONAL WATER SUMMARY ON WETLAND RESOURCES RELEASED

In March the U.S. Geological Survey released the "National Water Summary on Wetland Resources United States Geological Survey Water Supply" (Paper 2425). This 431 page report details "the role of wetlands in providing habitat for wildlife, reducing floods and erosion and improving water quality...as part of a comprehensive state-by-state assessment of the nation’s wetlands compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey."

The USGS wetlands report "provides overviews of wetland protection legislation, research by federal agencies related to wetlands, a discussion of the functions and values of wetlands, as well as an historic look at gains and losses of wetlands across the nation since the time of European settlement."

The report was prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the former National Biological Service, which became the Biological Resources Division of the U. S. Geological Survey on October 1, 1996.

Below are highlights from the state summary sections of the report for the five member states of PSMFC:

Washington

Wetlands cover only about 2 percent (939,000 acres) of Washington, but they benefit the State both ecologically and economically. Wetlands are nursery and feeding areas for anadromous fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. About 75 percent of the State’s wetlands contain freshwater and include forested and shrub swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, wet prairies and meadows, vernal pools, and playas. About 25 percent are estuarine or marine and include marshes, tidal flats, beaches, and rocky shores. Estimates of wetland loss in Washington range from 20 to 50 percent; causes of loss or degradation include agricultural conversion, urban expansion, siting of ports and industries, logging, and invasion of nonnative plants and animals.

Oregon

Wetlands are economically and ecologically valuable to Oregon and can be found statewide. Oregon had nearly 1.4 million acres of wetlands as of the mid-1980’s, a decline of more than one-third over the previous 200 years. Most of the losses were due to conversion to agricultural uses, primarily in the Willamette River Valley and Upper Klamath Basin. To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Oregon’s efforts to conserve, restore, and protect wetlands; the State has developed the Wetland Conservation Strategy. The strategy is based on the recommendations of advisory committees representing Federal, State, and local agencies and interest groups.

Idaho

Most of Idaho’s 386,000 acres of wetlands are in flood plains and riparian areas along streams and other water bodies. Since about 1860, when mining and farming began in the State, wetland acreage has decreased by 56 percent. The Idaho State Water Plan states that, insofar as is possible, the State should assume responsibility for wetland management and protection. Policy plans made by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game for 1991 to 2005 focus land-acquisition efforts on wetland areas where habitat protection is critical. Many private organizations and groups have participated in projects involving wetland acquisition and restoration.

California

California’s wetlands have significant economic and environmental value, providing benefits such as water-quality maintenance, flood and erosion attenuation, prevention of saltwater intrusion, and wildlife habitat. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta regularly harbors as much as 15 percent of the waterfowl on the Pacific Flyway. California has lost as much as 91 percent of its original wetlands, primarily because of conversion to agriculture. Flooded rice fields, which are converted wetlands, covered about 658,600 acres in the mid-1980’s. Rice farmers, State and university researchers, and private organizations are cooperatively studying the feasibility of managing rice fields for migratory waterfowl habitat. Wetland protection is identified as a goal of The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Alaska

Alaska has more area covered by wetlands--about 170 million acres--than the other 49 States combined. More than 70,000 swans, 1 million geese, 12 million ducks, and 100 million shorebirds depend on Alaskan wetlands for resting, feeding, or nesting. Freshwater Alaskan wetlands include bogs, fens, tundra, marshes, and meadows; brackish and saltwater wetlands include flats, beaches, rocky shores, and salt marshes. Most of the State’s freshwater wetlands are peatlands (wetlands that have organic soils), and cover as many as 110 million acres. Alaska’s coastal wetlands are cooperatively protected and managed by local governments, rural regions, and the State.

For Further Information: Selected articles and highlights of the report are available on the Internet by accessing: http://water.usgs.gov/ lookup/get?WSP2425.

Copies of the 431-page, full color report, "National Water Summary on Wetland Resources," (published as USGS Water-Supply Paper 2425) are available for $49 each from the Government Printing Office. To have an order form faxed to you, call 703-648-4888, select option 3, then option 2 and enter document number 5100. An individual State summary can be obtained from the USGS office in that State.

VIII. UPDATES

FEDERAL

On 1/23/97 US District Court Judge Stanley Harris threw out a wetland protection regulation known as the "TULLOCH RULE." The rule, adopted by the federal government in 1993, had allowed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency to regulate excavation practices used to drain wetlands. The decision is seen as a triumph for developers. The Tulloch Rule is considered a "major" loophole in the Clean Water Act, because it allows landowners to drain their property prior to development (once drained, the property then is no longer considered a wetland and can then be developed). According to the Clean Water Network, "The judge’s ruling creates a senseless situation. As a result of the decision, it is illegal to destroy a wetland by filling it without a permit, but it is perfectly legal to destroy a wetland by draining it." In response to the ruling, Representative Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.) in addition to West Coast Representatives Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), Ronald Dellums (D-Calif.), Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.) and Steve Horn (R-Calif.) sent letters to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice expressing their opposition to the ruling.
In other wetland news, the Clean Water Network reports that "the National Wetlands Coalition (NWC) group of anti-wetland business and industry interests is circulating a supposedly ‘moderate’ WETLANDS BILL among members of Congress. The bill contains nearly all the extreme anti-environmental, unscientific provisions contained in the NWC’s discredited legislation from the 104th Congress (H.B. 961 and S. 851)." For further information contact the Clean Water Network at (202) 289-2395.
In January 1997 Secretary of the Interior of Bruce Babbitt ordered new environmental regulations for MINING. According to the Mineral Policy Center, the Babbitt initiative is in response to "lack of legislative progress on Mining Law reform." A Task Force has been created to review and amend hardrock-mining regulations. The Task Force is planning public workshops in May 1997. On the West Coast, tentative meeting dates are May 15 in the following locations: Spokane, Phoenix, and Anchorage or Fairbanks. For further information contact the Mineral Policy Center at (202) 887-1872.
A recent study released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "gives the first comprehensive view of how nutrient inputs affect water quality from North Carolina to Florida." The "ESTUARINE EUTROPHICATION SURVEY: South Atlantic Region" reviews 16 key indicators of healthy coastal waters related to the input of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Another report on the Mid-Atlantic region will be released sometime in 1997 with a report on PACIFIC ESTUARIES to follow later. For further information contact Robert Hansen of NOAA Constituent Affairs at (202) 482-4594.

REGIONAL

On 03/25/97, USA Today and Greenwire reported that "At least 250,000 ABANDONED MINES throughout the West pose potentially serious hazards, and attempts to clean and seal them up have taken on a new urgency in the ever-more populated region. States are scrambling to plug the most dangerous mines with concrete or dirt, but cleanup efforts are torturously slow. Mine reclamation efforts in the West are poorly funded, if funded at all. Metals-excavating mines are governed by the 1872 Mining Act, which carries no cleanup provisions."

CALIFORNIA

In March 1997 Governor Pete Wilson released "CALIFORNIA’S OCEAN RESOURCES: An Agenda for the Future." The document provides "a first ever overview of California’s ocean ecosystem and its relationship to state and Federal laws, economies, jurisdictional designations and the complex system of reserves, refuges, sanctuaries, and other marine managed area that exist to protect and manage this critical resource." For further information contact the Office of Governor Pete Wilson at (916) 445-2841.
On 12/22/96 the Sacramento Bee published a special report entitled "Pacific Blues." According to the newspaper, "…Pulitzer Prize winner Tom Knudson and Nancy Vogel learned that what humans have done to some forests and deserts and other bodies of water, we have done to the ocean. Many species are now endangered, the water has been polluted and the Pacific is overexploited and underregulated." The story is available on the Internet at: http://www.sacbee. com/news/projects/pacificblues.

WASHINGTON

On March 27, 1997 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) released its "WILD SALMONID POLICY." The draft policy calls for creation of local watershed councils statewide. The councils would work with WDFW and other state agencies to "determine habitat and other goals needed to protect and perpetuate fish runs." The draft policy also calls for strict limits on wild fish harvests, marking hatchery fish so they can readily be identified from wild ones, and refraining from planting hatchery fish where they could have a significant impact on wild runs. The agency’s preferred course of action is only one of a number of alternatives presented in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which is called the Wild Salmonid Policy. According to WDFW Director Bern Shanks, "Wild salmon are in crisis. We have talked about troubled fish runs in Washington State for years. All the compromises have been made and wild salmon continue their downward spiral. Wild salmon have been here thousands of years. They are a heritage as well as a resource. The only ethical response is to shift this agency’s focus to their recovery." Public meetings are scheduled on the following dates: Spokane: 4/29; Walla Walla: 4/30; Yakima: 5/1; Wenatchee: 5/6; Bellingham: 5/7; Port Angeles: 5/13; Tacoma: 5/14; Vancouver: 5/15; Olympia: 5/20; Seattle: 5/21. All meetings will be held from 7:00 to 9:30 p.m. For further information and exact meeting locations, contact WDFW’s Jeff Weathersby at (360) 902-2256, or Chuck Bolland at (360) 902-2255.
On 1/30/97 the State of Washington and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed a Habitat Conservation Plan covering 1.6 million acres. The agreement is in effect for 70-100 years and includes protections for endangered species. Some environmental groups have criticized the agreement. According to Brian Vincent of the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, "The Clinton Administration has rushed through an agreement that is filled with loopholes for logging interests while closing the door on the very species it claims to be protecting." Timber groups reportedly say the deal locks up too much timber. In response, the Washington state legislature is considering legislation which would require legislative approval of HCPs.
In December of 1996, People for Puget Sound released "Toxic Soup, a Report on Industrial POLLUTION in PUGET SOUND." According to the report: "Copper contamination in urban areas is probably high enough to affect the hatching of floating fish eggs and the growth of phytoplankton. Zinc, lead and mercury have been associated with altered bottom-dwelling communities in contaminated urban sediments. English sole collected from toxic hotspots in Puget Sound have high rates of liver tumors, which were correlated with concentrations of metals. The immune systems of juvenile chinook salmon from the Duwamish Waterway are more impaired than those of salmon from cleaner areas. Coho salmon near pulp mill pollution are more susceptible to parasites. Organochlorides discharged by pulp mills can bioaccumulate in organisms and cause cancer, harm to the immune and reproductive systems, and birth defects." For a copy of the report contact People For Puget Sound at (206) 382-7007.

IDAHO

In January, 1997 the Idaho Watersheds Project, an environmental group, won a GRAZING LEASE on 320 acres, but expects to have its bid overruled by the Idaho Land Board, according to the publication Greenwire. "The environmental group has been working for several years to lease the state land, ‘to demonstrate that stream quality could be improved by keeping cattle out.’ The group will take the State to court if the land board gives the winning bid to the current leaseholder..."
In October 1996, according to the Mineral Policy Center, the "Hecla Mining Company announced that GROUSE CREEK GOLD MINE in central Idaho, located just northeast of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, will be closing this spring. The open-pit vat leach mine, which has been operating for several years, has suffered from a landslide, cyanide spills, and most recently a proposed $85,000 EPA fine for water quality violations." But, according to the Mineral Policy Center, "It has primarily been a lack of gold that is responsible for Hecla’s decision. The Boulder-White Clouds Council, which has tried to monitor the project closely, believes the mine has presented a serious threat to the nearby Salmon River." For further information contact the Mineral Policy Center’s Bozeman Office at (406) 585-9009.

MISCELLANEOUS

Greenwire, the journal Nature and the Washington Post recently reported that "High concentrations of dust in the atmosphere may cause abrupt shifts in GLOBAL CLIMATE, such as the sudden thaw that ended the last Ice Age...While climatologists usually associate atmospheric dust with cooler temperatures, research has indicated that dust can cause local warming in higher latitudes. ‘The findings could be significant for 21st century humans, who will contribute to climate change through greenhouse-gas emissions and sulfate dust from coal-burning plants,’ said David Rind of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies."
On 02/04/97 the 1997 "Green Scissors" report was released by the GREEN SCISSORS coalition. The report "identifies up to $36 billion in wasteful, environmentally destructive government projects." The coalition is led by Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common $ense, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The report can be accessed on the Internet at http://www. taxpayer.net/greenscissors.html. For further information contact Mary Anne McConnel at (202) 546-8500, extension 110.
On March 28, 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published notice in the Federal Register of the availability of its reports on scientific investigations to determine whether CALIFORNIA SEA LIONS and Pacific harbor seals were having significant negative impacts on the recovery of certain salmonid stocks or on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. These reports were required as part of the 1994 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and are being made available for public review and comment. Comments on the document are due June 26, 1997. At that time these documents, along with the public comments, will be submitted as a combined report to Congress. Neither the fishing industry nor the environmental community had an opportunity to participate in the preparation of either report, this public comment period is the opportunity for both groups to register their opinions on the accuracy, appropriateness, and adequacy of the scientific report and the proposed recommendations.

To order a copy of the scientific report and the recommendations contact:

William Stelle, Jr., Administrator,

NMFS Northwest Region

7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Bin C15700

Seattle, WA 98115

Attn: West Coast Pinniped Report

Phone: (206) 526-6150

____________

EDITOR’S NOTE: We welcome information on habitat news in your area. Information should pertain to habitat of marine, estuarine, or anadromous fish or shellfish. Feel free to fax us newspaper articles, copies of letters, public hearing notices, etc., to (503) 650-5426. Funding for this publication comes in part from Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this publication, or about our habitat education program, please contact: Stephen Phillips, Editor, Habitat Hotline, 45 SE 82nd Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, Oregon 97027-2522. Phone: (503) 650-5400, Fax: (503) 650-5426. Messages can also be E-mailed at Stephen_Phillips@psmfc.org. Editorial assistance and layout by Liza Bauman. Printed on 100%-recycled sheet with minimum 50% post consumer fiber. Date of Issue: 4/4/97.