I. FEDERAL

• Estuary Bill

II. REGIONAL

• PFMC to Discuss EFH
• Hearings on Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic EFH Amendments
• NPFMC Adopts EFH
• Clarification
• El Niño Goes: La Niña to Follow?

III. WASHINGTON

• Cushman License
• Mining Rule Hearings
• 636 Polluted Lakes and Streams in Washington State

IV. OREGON

• NMFS Lists Oregon Coho

V. IDAHO

• Commission Backs Natural River

VI. CALIFORNIA

• Restoration Proposals Due 10/7

VII. MISCELLANEOUS

• Restoration Conference

VIII. UPDATES

I. FEDERAL

ESTUARY BILL

The "Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997" (S. 1222) was passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 22, 1998. This legislation, introduced by Senator John Chafee (R-R.I.) would establish a voluntary, community-driven, incentive-based program designed to catalyze the restoration of 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat by 2010. Amended to the bill prior to passage out of committee were measures regarding Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound and the deadly organism Pfiesteria piscicida.

Major Elements of S. 1222 include:

• Estuary habitat restoration strategy: The bill establishes a Federal Interagency Council (Council), which would be responsible for developing a national estuary habitat restoration strategy within one year of enactment of this legislation. The strategy, which would be subject to public notice and comment, brings together existing Federal, State, and local estuary restoration plans, programs and studies.

• Selection of restoration projects: The Council would be also responsible for selecting the projects (to be sponsored by non-Federal entities), that would receive funding under S. 1222.

• Monitoring and research: The bill requires the monitoring of habitat restoration projects. It also directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to maintain a database of restoration projects carried out nder this bill and would require the Council to publish a biennial report to Congress on the habitat restoration program.

• National Estuary Program: The bill expands the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to provide grants for estuaries of national significance. Under current law, EPA is authorized to provide grants for the development of management plans for estuaries of national significance. [West Coast estuaries in the program include Puget Sound, Columbia River, Tillamook Bay, San Francisco, Morro Bay, and Santa Monica.] Title I allows EPA to provide grants for developing and implementing CCMPs (Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans). It also reauthorizes the National Estuary Program at $25,000,000 per year through fiscal year 2000.

Now What: S. 1222 has no companion legislation in the House.

For Further Information Contact the Office of Senator John Chafee at (202) 224-3121.

PFMC TO DISCUSS EFH

In June, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC or Council) reviewed proposed Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) amendment language to its Salmon, Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). At that meeting, the Council adopted draft amendments to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP (Amendment 11) and Coastal Pelagic Species FMP (Amendment 8), including the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) EFH recommendations. Both documents were sent out for public comment (See below).

However, unlike with the Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics amendments, the Council delayed action on the Salmon FMP (Amendment 14), in part because of controversy surrounding the EFH provisions.

BACKGROUND: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Act) was originally passed in 1976. The Act provided NMFS with legislative authority for fisheries regulation in the United States in the area between three miles to 200 miles offshore. It also established the eight regional fishery management councils (Councils) that manage the harvest of fish and shellfish resources in these waters.

The PFMC covers the area offshore of the states of California, Oregon, and Washington, while the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) manages Alaska’s fishery resources. Councils prepare FMPs to govern their management activities, which are then submitted to NMFS for approval.

In 1996, the Act was reauthorized and changed extensively. Among other changes, these amendments were intended to emphasize the importance of habitat protection to healthy fisheries and to strengthen the ability of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Councils to protect the habitat needed by the fish they manage. This habitat is called "Essential Fish Habitat" and is broadly defined to include "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity."

The deadline for the PFMC and NPFMC to submit their EFH amendments to the Secretary of Commerce is October 11, 1998.

The first draft of the salmon EFH amendment language was presented to the PFMC in March of 1998. The draft contained descriptive language on the adverse impacts that activities such as mining, forestry, and aquaculture have on EFH. The document also proposed detailed measures for avoiding or minimizing those impacts (such as, for example, cattle must be denied access to streams during salmon spawning).

However, the March draft received vociferous opposition from the non-fishing industry (including oyster growers, cattle ranchers, and property rights advocates) as well as some Congressional representatives. The non-fishing industry claimed that they were not sufficiently consulted during the drafting of the salmon EFH guidelines. Despite the fact that the EFH is non-regulatory, objections were also raised over the draft conservation and enhancement measures, which, they thought were overly restrictive.

Prior to the June PFMC meeting, in response to the concerns raised, NMFS decided to scrap both the detailed descriptions of potential adverse effects and the specific conservation and enhancement language from the March draft. In its place, NMFS presented to the Council a "toned down" document typified by more generic conservation measures. However, NMFS’ June submittal to the PFMC caused dissatisfaction in the environmental community and some fishing groups. In response to these concerns raised, the PFMC’s Habitat Steering Group recommended that the Council reinstitute the more detailed descriptions and conservation and enhancement measures from the March draft.

The Council decided the salmon plan amendments were not ready for the public hearing process, in part because of the conflicts over EFH language. The Council directed its staff, in cooperation with National Marine Fisheries Service, to redraft the document to include more specific conservation and enhancement measures, similar to the March 26 draft document. The Council also directed staff to revise NMFS’ EFH recommendations, and to consider public comments received before and during the June Council meeting.

NOW WHAT: A revised draft of the salmon plan amendments, including EFH, is now available. If the Council decides at its September 14-18 meeting in Sacramento that the draft salmon amendments are ready for public comment, public hearings will then be held sometime in October.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: The Council is scheduled to take up the salmon EFH issue on Tuesday, September 15. Public comment will also be accepted. The Council meeting will take place at:

For a copy of salmon EFH documents and for further information contact the Pacific Fishery Management Council at (503) 326-6352.

HEARINGS ON GROUNDFISH AND COASTAL PELAGIC EFH AMENDMENTS

At its June meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council sent out for public review Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy Fishery Management Plan (also called the draft FMP for Coastal Pelagic Species) and Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Included in the amendments are the Essential Fish Habitat requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. For further information about the hearings and related documents, contact the Pacific Fishery Management Council at (503) 326-6352.

Hearing Dates, Times, and Locations are as follows:

NPFMC ADOPTS EFH

At its June meeting in Dutch Harbor, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) adopted amendments to incorporate EFH provisions to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska Groundfish, Salmon, Crab, and Scallop FMPs. According to the NPFMC, these provisions included: identification and description of EFH (including habitat areas of particular concern); identification of research and information needs; and identification of potential adverse effects on EFH due to fishing and non-fishing activities. The NPFMC adopted Alternative 2, which designates EFH as described by general distribution.

For Further Information Contact Dave Witherell of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council at (907) 271-2809.

CLARIFICATION

The June issue of the Habitat Hotline, the story titled "Columbia River Dredge Suit" described the potential impacts that the thin layer disposal method of dredge spoil material has on Dungeness crab, especially molting (softshell) crab. According to the article:

...there is evidence that the thin layer disposal will impact Dungeness 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: Molting crabs do not crawl out from under the new sediments and thus perish; non-molting (hardshell) crabs are more apt to crawl out.

We received a comment on the above statement from John Malek, of EPA’s Region 10 Sediment Management Program. According to Malek:

There is suspicion, but no evidence either way that the thin layer disposal would impact molted crabs. That is why the crab study is being done in La Jolla this summer. We believe that spot dumping would impact molted crabs (though again there is no evidence) and expect that the thin-layer placement would not.

EL NIÑO GOES: LA NIÑA TO FOLLOW?

A graph of the seven strongest most recent El Niño events since 1950, and of the seven strongest La Niña events since 1949, including the most recent event, can be found below. On August 11, 1998, the Climate Prediction Center/National Centers for Environmental Prediction issued the following El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) "Cold Phase" Diagnostic Advisory:

Cold (La Niña) episode conditions continued to develop in the equatorial Pacific during July, as negative sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies strengthened in the central Pacific. SSTs along the equator were more than 2ºC below average between 130ºW and 160ºW...The rapid cooling that occurred during May in the central equatorial Pacific was replaced in July by a more gradual cooling, which is slightly greater than the average seasonal rate in the central equatorial Pacific and close to the average seasonal rate in the eastern equatorial Pacific...Consistent with the strengthening negative SST anomalies, the oceanic thermocline remained much shallower than average in the east-central equatorial Pacific, with subsurface temperatures as much as 8ºC below average. Accompanying these conditions, low-level equatorial easterlies were stronger than average over the western and central Pacific and near average over the eastern Pacific. Also, the SOI [Southern Oscillation Index] became significantly positive (+1.3) for the first time since early 1997.

The latest NCEP coupled model predictions indicate strengthening cold episode conditions in the tropical Pacific during the remainder of 1998, with cold episode conditions continuing through the boreal spring 1999. Other statistical and coupled model forecasts indicate a similar evolution.

How does the 1997/98 event compare against the six previous biggest El Niño events since 1950? The first three events (1957/58, 65/66, and 72/73) all featured early warming in the far eastern Pacific and reached their standardized peak by the end of the first year. The more recent events (1982/83, 86/87, and 91/92) took longer to mature, lacking the early warming in the eastern Pacific, and typically reached their peak in the spring of the second year or even later. During 1997, the latest El Niño event had more in common with the first three events than the more recent events. During 1998, the latest event has occasionally resembled the 1982/83 El Niño, but is now fading fast. Its peak values of nearly +2.9 in July/August 1997 and February/March 1998 have only been surpassed in early 1983 (for further discussion go to the recent anomaly maps). Source: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/~kew/MEI/#comparison

The 1997/98 El Niño event has now dropped below any reasonable threshold for El Niño conditions, so we are back to near neutral for the first time since March/April 1997. Its duration above 2 sigma (a full year, from May/June 1997 through April/May 1998) surpassed the 1982/83 benchmark of nine bi-monthly seasons. The recent drop of the MEI [Multivariate ENSO Index] is every bit as unprecedented in its size as the rise towards El Niño conditions one year ago. Given the consensus of publicly available forecasts for La Niña conditions by the end of 1998, we are including a comparison figure of historic La Niña events since 1949. As in the El Niño category, only strong events (above 1.4 sigma) are included in this comparison figure. Note how all big La Niña events got off to an early start - if we are to witness a strong one this year, the transition would have to continue awfully fast. Source: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ ~kew/MEI/#comparison

III. WASHINGTON

CUSHMAN LICENSE

On July 29, 1998, the Federal Energy Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) offered a license to Tacoma Power for the operation of the heretofore unlicensed Cushman hydroelectric project facilities located on the North Fork of the Skokomish River and Skokomish Reservation. Conditions of the 40-year license include increasing river flow in the North Fork to 229 cubic feet per second (28% of historic flows). The Skokomish Tribe, the State of Washington, federal agencies, conservation groups (e.g. American Rivers), and Tacoma Power are all unhappy with the license requirements.

BACKGROUND: The licensing process for the Cushman project’s hydroelectric facilities goes back to 1974, when Tacoma Public Utilities submitted its application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Skokomish River Basin was once the biggest producer of salmon in the Hood Canal Basin of Puget Sound. These stocks have been reduced to critically low numbers and some have been lost forever. The South Fork Skokomish watershed has been seriously degraded by forest practices. The North Fork, historically the most productive, has been impacted by hydroelectric development.

In 1930, the City of Tacoma completed the Cushman Project (consisting of two dams) which blocked fish passage to 84 percent of the North Fork Skokomish watershed. Until 1988, the project diverted the entire North Fork of the watershed to a remote power plant. Since 1988, the project has released flows of only 30 cubic feet per second (cfs), or about 4 percent of the river’s natural average annual flow.

REACTION:

Gordon James, Tribal Chairman, Skokomish Tribe said the environmental safeguards proposed by FERC are "totally inadequate to protect the Tribe and the general public." In addition, according to James*:

The FEIS mentions but otherwise ignores the Commission’s trust/fiduciary responsibility to the Skokomish Tribe, and ignores the Commission’s duty under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act to ensure any license issued the City is consistent with the purposes of the Skokomish Indian Reservation

The FEIS persists in applying relicense rules to project facilities the Commission admits have never previously been licensed, thus forever evading original licensing provisions of the Federal Power Act.

The FEIS uses existing unlicensed, unregulated project-degraded environmental conditions as the baseline for analysis, and then inappropriately uses continuation of unlicensed, unregulated project operations [rather than no license] as the "no-action" alternative, thus "disappearing" all continuing project adverse environmental impacts and creating misleading illusion that marginal changes in severely degraded conditions protect tribal and general public interests.

The FEIS persists in using the DEIS [Draft Environmental Impact Statement] double standard of economic evaluation that egregiously biases the analysis in favor of Tacoma and against the Tribe and general public. "Net benefit" of licensing is defined as the economic benefit to Tacoma, which would be obtained at the continued expense of the Tribe and general public.

*Source: July 28 letter to David P. Boergers, Acting Secretary, Federal Energy Commission from Gordon James, Tribal Chariman, Skokomish Tribe.

On the other side of the issue, Tacoma Power and Light is fearful that the license requirements will cause the utility to lose money as compared to current operations. According to Steve Klein, Utility Superintendent for Tacoma Power and Light:

This is truly frustrating. On one hand Congress is pushing electric utilities into a new, competitive market...while on the other hand actions like this will make our power too expensive to sell. (Source: Ross Anderson, Seattle Times, 07/30/98)

NOW WHAT: On July 29, 1998, the Skokomish Tribe announced that they would challenge the license issues by FERC for the Cushman project and file claims in federal court against the federal government and the City of Tacoma for economic damage** to the Tribe. The Tribe has asked FERC to reconsider the license (via a rehearing) and revise the environmental requirements. Federal agencies (Departments of Interior, Commerce and the Environmental protection Agency) and the State of Washington are also asking FERC to reconsider the license.

Tacoma Power has also asked for a rehearing on the license. A decision on whether to grant a rehearing could take several months, however, regardless of whether a hearing is granted or not, expect more court action.

For Further Information Contact Vic Martino, Skokomish Tribe at (206) 842-5386; John McEachern of FERC at (202) 219-3056.

(**Note: In a July 1998 study, the Tribe release the report "Estimated Economic Damage to the Skokomish Indian Tribe From Unregulated Construction and Operation of the City of Tacoma’s Cushman Hydroelectric Project, 1926-1997." The report, prepared by consultants Ed Chaney and Victor Martino, says that the economic damage of the project over time is at a minimum of $5.7 billion. Much of that loss (~$1.48 billion) is attributed to loss of production potential in the North Fork Skokomish River.)

MINING RULE HEARINGS

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is revising the rules for mineral prospecting and placer mining as required by Substitute House Bill 1565, which was passed in 1997 by the state legislature. Five public workshops, listed below, will be held throughout the state in September and October. Details of the proposed changes to the rules will be explained and public comments on the changes will be taken at the workshops.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: In October, following the workshops, the Department will submit the draft rules to the Washington Code Revisor’s Office for publication.

Written comment on the draft rules will then be accepted by the Department. Public testimony will be solicited at the December Commission meeting prior to rule adoption. The Mineral Prospecting Rules Public Workshop schedule is listed below.

For Further Information: A preliminary draft of the rules is available online at http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/goldfish.htm, by calling (360) 902-2534, or by mailing a written request to:

 

The Mineral Prospecting Rules Public Workshop schedule is as follows:
City, State	Date	Time	Location
Vancouver WA	September 21, 1998	6 - 10 pm	Clark College 1800 E McLoughlin Blvd., Foster Auditorium
Des Moines WA	September 22, 1998	6 - 10 pm	Highline Community College 2400 S 240th St, Building 7
Olympia WA	September 24, 1998	6 - 10 pm	Natural Resources Building 1111Washington St SE, Room 172
Spokane WA	October 7, 1998	6 - 10 pm	Spokane Falls Community College Student Union Building 3410 W Fort George Wright Drive, Lounge A & B
Ellensburg WA	October 8, 1998	6 - 10 pm	Hal Holmes Community Center 201 N Ruby, Auditorium

636 POLLUTED LAKES AND STREAMS IN WASHINGTON STATE

In June, the Washington Department of Ecology released its biannual list of waterways receiving some pollution as required by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (See page 9 for listed watersheds). The list identifies 636 lakes, streams and estuaries in Washington as not meeting water-quality standards.

As required by the federal Clean Water Act, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted the list to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. "The amount of polluted water in our state is simply unacceptable," said Ecology Director Tom Fitzsimmons. "We need clean water for our human population, as well as for fish, wildlife and many economic uses. Our entire quality of life is in question."

According to Ecology:

Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, every two years, Ecology is required to prepare a list of waters not meeting standards. Ecology puts water bodies on the list that either do not meet standards currently or which are not expected to meet standards within two years, and more needs to be done to control pollution. Water quality standards are measurements to indicate whether the water can be used for activities such as recreation, industry, fish and aquatic life habitat and drinking water.

Since last August, Ecology has been compiling the list with information from more than 60 industries, local and state governments, Indian tribes and others. Of the 1,099 water bodies that Ecology considered, 636 are on the final list—about 2 percent of the waters in Washington.

The list indicates that the primary water quality problems are temperature and fecal coliform bacteria. Both problems are generally associated with "nonpoint-source" pollution, which comes from many, diffuse sources.

By far, temperature is the most prominent water quality problem for the water bodies, with 315 waters listed due to temperature problems. Elevated water temperature generally occurs in areas where loggers or developers have removed trees for timber harvesting or land development, taking away shade that is necessary to keep the water temperature low and healthy for fish.

Excessive amounts of fecal coliform bacteria were found in 288 of the waters on the list. It is found in sewage and animal waste, such as failing septic systems and improperly managed dairy-cattle waste.

NOW WHAT: The EPA is reviewing Washington’s 303(d) list. The list of polluted waters is also used for developing and implementing water cleanup plans. These plans, which also must be approved by EPA, must include an analysis of how much pollution a lake, river, or marine water can receive and still remain healthy. The plans also identify sources of pollution, and how much is coming from each. In addition, they require management plans be developed to curtail inputs from these sources.

Below is the 1998 Section 303(d) List (by Water Resource Inventory Area) for the State of Washington. An example of a map showing segments within the Duwamish-Green Watershed (78 KB) where pollution problems were identified.

 

Nooksack Watershed San Juan Watershed Lower Skagit-Samish Watershed Upper Skagit Watershed Stillaguamish Watershed Island Watershed Snohomish Watershed Cedar-Sammamish Watershed Duwamish-Green Watershed Puyallup-White Watershed Nisqually Watershed Chambers-Clover Watershed Deschutes Watershed Kennedy-Goldsborough Watershed Kitsap Watershed Skokomish-Dosewallips Watershed Quilcene-Snow Watershed Elwha-Dungeness Watershed Lyre-Hoko Watershed Solduc-Hoh Watershed Queets-Quinault Watershed

Lower Chehalis Watershed Upper Chehalis Watershed Willapa Watershed Grays-Elokoman Watershed Cowlitz Watershed Lewis Watershed Salmon-Washougal Watershed Wind-White Watershed Klickitat Watershed Rock-Glade Watershed Walla Walla Watershed Lower Snake Watershed Palouse Watershed Middle Snake Watershed Esquatzel Coulee Watershed Lower Yakima Watershed Naches Watershed Upper Yakima Watershed Alkali-Squilchuck Watershed) Lower Crab Watershed Grande Coulee Watershed)

Upper Crab-Wilson Watershed Moses Coulee Watershed Wenatchee Watershed Entiat Watershed Chelan Watershed Methow Watershed Okanogan Watershed Foster Watershed Nespelem Watershed Sanpoil Watershed Lower Lake Roosevelt Watershed Lower Spokane Watershed Little Spokane Watershed Hangman Watershed Middle Spokane Watershed Middle Lake Roosevelt Watershed Colville Watershed Kettle Watershed Upper Lake Roosevelt Watershed Pend Oreille Watershed

For Information about waters listed in Washington State contact Alison Beckett, (360) 406-6456, or visit Ecology’s web site at http://www.wa.gov/ecology/wq/ 303d.

NMFS LISTS OREGON COHO

On August 3, 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the Oregon Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act. The action comes after U.S. Magistrate Janice M. Stewart ruled in June that the National Marine Fisheries Service’s April 1997 decision not to list Oregon coastal coho had no legal basis. In her ruling, the judge said that "NMFS was unwilling to make the hard choices required by the ESA," and that:

Neverless, for the same reason that the Secretary [of Commerce] may not rely on the future actions, he should not be able to rely on unenforceable efforts. Absent some method of enforcing compliance, protection of a species could never be assured. Voluntary actions,like those planned in the future, are necessarily speculative...Therefore, voluntary or future conservation efforts by a state should be given no weight in the listing decision. Instead, the NMFS must base its decision on current, enforceable measures.

BACKGROUND: In April 1997, instead of listing the Oregon Coast coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act, the federal government postponed the listing and struck an agreement with the State of Oregon to implement its Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI or the Oregon Plan). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Oregon and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established the terms and conditions for the collaborative process during implementation of the Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative.

Some of those terms and conditions included the establishment of an Independent Multidisiplinary Science Team (IMST) to ensure use of the best scientific information available as the basis for implementation of and for adaptive changes in the CSRI. Also last year, the Oregon Board of Forestry set up the ad hoc Forest Practices MOA Advisory Committee (MOA Committee) to evaluate forest practices concerns outlined in the Memorandum of Agreement and make specific recommendations to the Board of Forestry by the Fall of 1998. The MOA Committee was comprised of the timber industry, fishing groups (Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations), Environmental groups (Oregon Trout, Portland Audubon Society), and others.

To fund the CSRI, in February 1997, the state legislature approved $32 million—$13.6 million dollars coming from forest landowners (raised through Timber Harvest Tax funds)—a portion of these monies has been distributed to watershed groups for restoration projects.

However, the Earth Justice Legal Defense Foundation, representing environmental (e.g., Oregon Natural Resources Council, Native Fish Society, Portland Audubon Society) and fishing groups (Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations), sued NMFS over the decision not to list. The groups contended that the Plan’s reliance on voluntary measures would not stop poor land use practices, and that enforceable measures were needed as provided under the Endangered Species Act.

REACTION TO THE LISTING:

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber said:

The point of the Oregon Plan was never simply to avoid a listing, it was to help recover coastal coho. That’s what our plan does and we are going to do everything we can to implement it. A listing does not change the fact that Oregon’s Plan for Salmon and Watersheds is the best way to recover these fish. We will proceed to demonstrate that state conservation efforts with locally developed solutions and voluntary contributions can work. And we will continue to work as cooperatively as possible with our federal partners.

Terry Garcia, U.S. Commerce Department’s assistant secretary for oceans and atmosphere, commented:

We are steadfast in our commitment to the people and resources of Oregon and we look forward to working with Governor Kitzhaber in implementing the elements of the Oregon plan. Now, more than ever, we’ve got to stay focused on the goal of salmon preservation and habitat restoration. We will continue to explore and develop cooperative efforts with states and regional authorities in order to protect and restore our natural resources.

William Stelle, Jr., regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Northwest Regional office, had this to say:

Certainly June’s court ruling won’t force us to change our fundamental position that steady and effective implementation of the Oregon salmon plan is the right thing to do. It was good for the fish last year and it remains good for the fish today. We look forward to the continuing hard work of the many people who are making this landmark effort a reality, notwithstanding the order of the district court or today’s action.

NOW WHAT: The listing decision for Oregon coastal coho becomes effective October 9. As a result of the listing, $6 million of future funding collected from the Timber Harvest Tax will not be forthcoming. However, according to an August 3 press release from the Governor’s office, industrial timber growers have voted to support reinstating the timber tax to provide funds despite the listing action by NMFS. New sources of funding to replace the shortfall could be instituted if there is a special session of the Oregon Legislature this Fall.

In the press release, Kitzhaber also stated:

We will continue to look for federal dollars now that a listing has occurred, but the core support for the recovery plan will continue to come from Oregon.

In addition, the State of Oregon and the National Marine Fisheries Service are currently reassessing their working relationship for coho recovery. Reports are that the Governor will issue an executive order in the near future, spelling out the post-listing state-federal relationship.

For Further Information, visit the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds’ home page, located at http://www.oregon-plan.org, or contact Roy Hemingway of the Governor’s Office at (503) 378-3548.

COMMISSION BACKS NATURAL RIVER

At its May meeting, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission passed a policy statement endorsing the "natural river option" as the best method for recovering Idaho salmon and steelhead.

BACKGROUND: By late 1999, the Clinton Administration has said that it will choose a long term plan to restore Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead. (For a listing of West Coast anadromous salmonid species protected under the Endangered Species Act, including Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead, please refer to http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1protres/1pg898.pdf Source: NMFS, Northwest Region.) NMFS’ decision will include how many salmon and steelhead are to be left in-river versus transported by truck or barge.

Variables to be considered could include dam removal, reservoir drawdown, dam modifications (including adult passage improvements), and juvenile bypass improvements (including spilling the fish over the dams). Conservation groups contend that fish barging is a proven failure over the last 20 years, and the scientific consensus for restoring salmon is more natural river conditions. 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.

In its May 8, policy statement, the Idaho Fish and Game Commission said:

At this time, based on available information, the Commission considers the "natural river option" to be the best biological choice among 1999 Decision Point options for recovery of Idaho’s wild salmon and steelhead. Available information indicates that the natural river option is the only option that can meet Commission recovery standards, defined as a normative river providing 2-6% smolt-to-adult survival for inriver migrants. Therefore, the Commission supports continued state and regional consideration of the natural river option so that a fully informed decision can be made by the region in 1999.

The Commission recognizes some outside disagreement that smolt transportation has not compensated for adverse impacts of the dams. The Commission directs staff to continue working in PATH [Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses] and other regional forums to help refine and analyze options and ensure the 1999 Decision Point is not deferred. If the regional process finds convincing new evidence or develops new alternative recovery plans, the Commission will evaluate that information to determine if recovery of Idaho’s salmon and steelhead can be accomplished.

The Commission is committed to giving the natural river option and all others the best possible consideration through the 1999 Decision Point process. This will require an open and active discussion of social, economic and political issues, and a thorough assessment of social and economic mitigation options to best preserve Idaho’s interests.

The Commission directs the Department to make a preliminary assessment of "next best" strategies both as to interim applicability and fall-back in the event the natural river option is not adopted. At this time, the Commission does not consider Snake River spillway crest drawdown or large-scale flow augmentation to be viable long term recovery options.

REACTION: The conservation group, Idaho Rivers United (IRU) called the unanimous Commission decision "a stunning victory for fish advocates." Despite opposition to the policy statement from dam supporters (e.g. aluminum companies, water users, grain growers), IRU said the Commission:

...refused to buckle under tremendous political pressure to further delay a decision," and had finally "embraced the science of its own department and set a precedent by separating biology from politics.

For Further Information Contact the Idaho Department of Fish and Game at (208) 334-3700; Idaho Rivers United at (208) 343-7481.

IN RELATED NEWS: on August 21, 1998 the Idaho Department of Fish and Game issued the following news release:

Correcting an error in scientific information on salmon recovery has strengthened the Idaho Fish and Game Commission’s position in favor of "natural river" migration.

Anadromous Fisheries Biologist Ed Bowles explained to the Commission earlier this month that scientists working in the Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses (PATH) had corrected an error in one study that has made smolt transportation appear a favorable option for recovering Idaho’s salmon runs. Path has studied two approaches to salmon recovery—one called CriSP that favors smolt transportation (barging) and another with the acronym FLUSH, under which the natural river choice is more favorable to salmon.

With this correction in the science, the natural river option outperforms smolt transportation no matter which model—CRiSP or FLUSH—is used.

"The natural river option is now the best biological choice regardless of which aggregate hypothesis (model) is used." Bowles told the Commission. "The natural river option is the only recovery strategy that is robust for the fish under both aggregate hypotheses and a variety of assumptions."

Bowles said later that "these results strongly counter those claiming ‘there is no guarantee that the natural river option will save the fish.’ The natural river option shows a remarkable likelihood of success no matter which side of the scientific debate you are on. The veil of scientific uncertainty is getting thinner and thinner."

RESTORATION PROPOSALS DUE 10/7

The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is requesting proposals for fishery restoration work throughout California. Because of legal constraints on expenditure of funds allocated for this work, emphasis for funding will be on proposals for restoration of salmon and steelhead. Work to be considered for funding includes:

1. In-stream Habitat Restoration;
2. Watershed and Riparian Habitat Restoration;
3. Watershed Evaluation, Assessment, and Planning, including Multi-year Grants for Watershed Planning;
4. Project Maintenance and Monitoring following Project Implementation, including Multi-year Grants for Project Monitoring and Evaluation;
5. Watershed Organization Support and Assistance;
6. Private Sector Technical Training and Education Project Grants;
7. California Forest Incentive Program (CFIP) Projects meeting CFIP Guidelines;
8. Cooperative Fish Rearing;
9. Public Education, including Watershed and Fishery Conservation Education Projects.

FINAL WORKSHOP: The final public workshop to assist the public in preparation of proposals will be held September 9, 1998, at the U.S. Forest Service Headquarters Office in Yreka, 1312 Bear Lane Road, in the Fir Room.

For Further information Contact Mary Brawner of DFG’s Coastal Watershed Restoration Program at (916) 654-5628. Or visit their website at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/dfghome.html and click on "Salmon and Steelhead Restoration RFP."

RESTORATION CONFERENCE

The Society for Ecological Restoration’s Northwest Chapter Conference (SERNW) and Annual Meeting, titled "Ecosystem Restoration: Turning the Tide," will take place October 28-30, 1998, at the Sheraton Hotel and Convention Center in Tacoma, Washington.

According to the conference sponsors, the 1998 SERNW Annual Meeting will explore a wide range of issues that will set the restoration agenda in "Cascadia" for years to come. Over 17 general sessions will be held covering restoration topics relating to forest, prairies, estuaries, beaches and dunes, wetlands, and wilderness, as well as sessions on watershed planning, restoration philosophy, education, volunteerism, geographic information systems, and tribal perspectives.

Costs: The cost for the three day event ranges from $145-$265. Conference fees are discounted if you register before September 23.

For Further Information about the conference, contact Sono Hashisaki, Conference Co-Chair and Program Coordinator at (206) 545-1117 or visit the SERNW web site at http:www.halcyon.com/sernw/.

• Unless there is a flurry of activity in the final days of the 105th Congress, it appears that no major bills affecting fish habitat will be passed by the 10/9/98 adjournment date. Bills on forest management, mining, grazing, clean water, wetlands, and property rights are either still in committee, have been defeated (property rights), or, if passed, face possible Presidential veto (grazing). The Public Lands News and the Environment and Energy Study Institute both report that legislation aimed at reforming the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT may be "finished" and "dwindling." The "Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997" (S. 1180), was once thought to be a sure bet for passage in the Senate. It was introduced by Senators Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho), John Chafee (R-R.I.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Bill language would change how federal agencies consult on activities that affect listed species, establish deadlines for recovery plans, set up a streamlined habitat conservation plan process for private landowners, and allow safe harbor agreements (see Habitat Hotline Number 34).

• On 7/13/98, the Senate defeated the "Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998," S. 2271, by a vote of 52-42. This vote effectively kills property rights legislation in the 105^th Congess.

• Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) has attached controversial language (in a rider) to the Department of Interior appropriations bill. The rider would prohibit, unless authorized by Congress, federal or state agencies from taking actions that would remove, breach, or diminish the Congressionally authorized uses (i.e. flood control, electrical generation) of any dam on the Federal Columbia Power System or any dam on the COLUMBIA OR SNAKE RIVERS or their tributaries licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The rider language is similar to legislation contained in Gorton’s bill amending the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (see Habitat Hotline Number 37). Conservation groups fear that Gorton’s amendment language could severely restrict efforts to make the Columbia and Snake River dams more fish-friendly. Gorton has responded to the criticism of his proposed legislation by saying his legislation is "designed to protect the Pacific Northwest from outside forces in Washington DC, who want to make decisions for us." (Source: Seattle Times, 08/04/98) As we go to press, the Senate could vote on the Department of Interior Appropriations bill the week of September 7th. The Clinton Administration has expressed dissatisfaction with the Gorton amendment.

REGIONAL

• On 07/08/98, the ForestWater Alliance (a coalition of 13 conservation groups) FILED SUIT, asking a federal court to order the Clinton Administration to keep the promises it made four years ago to protect the region’s forests under the CLINTON FOREST PLAN (also known as FEMAT). The plaintiffs, represented by the Western Environmental Law Center, charge that more than 20 percent of the timber being cut on public lands is coming from areas designated in l994 as "reserves." Though required by law, little—if any—monitoring or surveying has been done to study the effects of the logging on imperiled species, the lawsuit alleges. Joe Scott, conservation director of Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, in Bellingham, Washington (a plaintiff in the suit), said water quality and salmon and trout populations have continued to decline since the Northwest Forest Plan was adopted after a Clinton-convened timber summit in April l994. "The President’s Forest Plan is turning out to be a timber industry plum," Scott said. "It’s supposed to pave the way to species preservation—not serve as a road map to extinction." Other groups in the suit include the Oregon Natural Resources Council, the Portland and Pilchuck Chapters of the Audubon Society, and the California Wilderness Coalition. For further information contact Andy Ryan of the ForestWater Alliance at (425) 486-0977.

• On 07/22/98, the 9th U.S. Circuit COURT OF APPEALS, by a 3-0 vote, ruled that STATES CANNOT REGULATE WATER POLLUTION FROM CATTLE GRAZING on federal lands. The ruling overturns a 1996 decision by U.S. District Judge Ancer Haggerty, who ruled that the federal government must have state approval before allowing cattle to graze along polluted streams in Oregon on U.S. Forest Service land. The result of the 1996 Haggerty ruling was that the State was able to exercise its authority when cattle grazing permits are up for renewal.

• On 08/18/98, John Hughes of The Associated Press reported that Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) attached a provision to an Army Corps of Engineers project bill, which, if enacted, would find ways to relocate a colony of Caspian terns in the Columbia River estuary. A recently released study found that the terns, whose colony is located on the man-made Rice Island, have been consuming millions of juvenile salmonids per year (See Habitat Hotline Number 37). According to the story, possible solutions to the tern "problem" include the use of decoys and recordings of tern calls to attract the birds to an island closer to the ocean, where they would find a greater assortment of fish to eat. Another idea is to place dogs on leashes onto the island and have them harass the terns into leaving.

• On 08/26/98, Denis Cuff of the Contra Costa Times reported that a TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT of $4.8 million has been reached over excessive SELENIUM DISCHARGES from two East San Francisco Bay oil refineries. The settlement is with Tosco and Exxon. In the lawsuit settlement, Unocal (who sold to Tosco), owner of the Rodeo refinery until 1997, agreed to contribute $3.87 million to restore and enhance bay fisheries, wetlands, and water quality. Tosco, the new owner of the Rodeo refinery and the company that came up with the pollution fix, would pay $100,000. Exxon, the owner the refinery in Benicia, would pay $900,000 for bay environmental projects. The settlement also binds the two refineries to daily and yearly discharge limits.

• On 07/30/98, Marilee Enge of the San Jose Mercury News reported that SAN MATEO COUNTY VIOLATED FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS when it sent bulldozers into GAZOS CREEK, a coastal salmon stream, to haul away logs and debris dumped by the winter’s El Niño storms. According to the story, an Environmental Protection Agency investigation found that a contractor hired by the county public works department to clear logjams and shore up eroding banks in Gazos Creek, dumped dirt, rocks and vegetation into the creekbed in about 22 locations, working without the permits required under the federal Clean Water Act. Gazos Creek, near Año Nuevo State Reserve, is home to one of the last healthy runs of endangered coho salmon on the central California coast. Biologists said the creek work took place during the vital spring hatching season in May and probably did LONG-TERM DAMAGE to fish habitat. The EPA ordered the county to come up with a plan to complete emergency restoration work before 10/15/98, and follow up with a program for long-term recovery of the stream.

• On 07/21/98, Christine Hanley of The Associated Press reported that federal prosecutors in the nation’s top milk-producing state are expanding their SCRUTINY OF DAIRIES. According to the story, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Fresno has assembled a second team to help identify and punish farmers in the lower Central Valley who are not complying with state or federal water quality regulations. The move is among the latest measures being taken to address slack oversight of California’s $3.6 billion dairy industry, and its potential to pollute soil and drinking water supplies with salts and nitrates. The southern Central Valley—or San Joaquin Valley—is being targeted because 1,500 of the state’s 2,308 dairies are concentrated in the corridor, generating about as much waste as a city of 21 million people.

• On 05/22/98, Representatives Frank Riggs (R-Calif.) and Wally Herger (R-Calif.) introduced legislation to reauthorize and amend the TRINITY RIVER Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act of 1984 (H.R. 3973) for eight more years and to increase the program’s funding. H.R. 3973 is currently in the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.

• On 07/14/98, a wood and concrete DAM was removed on BUTTE CREEK, which enters the Sacramento River near the town of Chico. The removal is part of a $10 million project to restore 20 miles of spring chinook habitat, unused since the 1920’s, when the dam was constructed. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt participated in the dam removal ceremony.

• On 06/10/98, California Sea Grant reported that:

• In November, Oregon voters will vote on Ballot Measure 64, which, if passed, would BAN CLEAR-CUT logging and pesticide use on private, state and federal lands. Measure 64 is opposed by Governor John Kitzhaber.

• On 07/15/98, Jeff Barnhard, of The Associated Press, reported that work to breach the 12 foot high JACKSON STREET DAM on Bear Creek, began this summer to allow for easier fish passage. This tributary of the Rogue River has restricted access to 20 miles of habitat for coho and steelhead since its construction nearly 40 years ago. This $1.8 million project, which also includes riparian and irrigation improvements, is expected to be completed in time to benefit this year’s run of fish. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt participated in the dam removal event.

• On 07/27/98, the Alaska Forest Association released a study concluding that the RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT system on private timberlands in coastal Alaska is ADEQUATELY PROTECTING SALMON HABITAT near timber harvest areas. The study, titled "The Effectiveness of Riparian Buffer Zones for Protection of Salmonid Habitat in Alaska Coastal Streams," monitored streams in both logged and unlogged watersheds. It focused particularly on the effect stream buffers have on the amount of large woody debris (LWD) that gets into or will likely get into streams after logging takes place nearby. The study looked at data taken over four years, 1994-97. Some of the studies findings and conclusions included:

  • Most large woody debris—94 percent at unlogged areas and 75 percent at standard buffer zones—was derived from the inner portion of the zone, within 10 meters of the stream.
  • Trees beyond 20 meters contributed no more than 4 percent of large woody debris. Therefore, tree removal from more than 20 meters away from the stream will not affect the potential supply of large woody debris.
  • The study looked at selective harvest of timber in standard buffer zones. A harvest of 1-12 percent of the original stand, as well as the windthrow that followed logging, did not significantly diminish the potential supply of large woody debris in the inner part of the buffer zone, zero to 10 meters from the stream.
  • A 20-meter buffer zone is more effective for providing large woody debris than a wider buffer zone or an unlogged area. The outer portion, 10-20 meters, of a buffer zone will provide more trees to streams several years after logging as a result of elevated windthrow activity than unlogged areas.

• On 05/31/98, the Juneau Empire reported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) has recommended a MORATORIUM ON LOGGING along the Kelsall River and Nataga Creek drainages, saying salmon spawning there is in decline because of timber harvesting. According to the story, ADFG habitat biologist Clayton Hawkes said declining numbers of king salmon returning to the drainages are attributed to the loss of habitat from logging. Of particular concern is the lower Kelsall, where flows have become more channelized in recent years, losing the slower, braided features of good salmon streams.

• At its June meeting, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted a Fishery Management Plan amendment to PROHIBIT BOAT ANCHORING AND FISHING for groundfish, halibut, and scallops in a 4-mile by 4-mile pinnacle area off Sitka (Cape Edgecumbe Pinnacles). This amendment was originally proposed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as a means to protect important habitat for rockfish and lingcod, and was later incorporated into the EFH amendment package (see page 4). The Council reviewed the material and decided to separate the pinnacle closure from EFH provisions, and adopt it as a separate amendment (tentatively assigned Amendment 59 to the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish FMP). In the future, the pinnacle area will be re-evaluated for consideration as a HABITAT AREA OF PARTICULAR CONCERN. An option of prohibiting recreational and commercial salmon fishing in the pinnacle area was considered, but not adopted. The Council will discuss the salmon issue with the Alaska Board of Fisheries at its committee meeting in July. For further information contact Dave Witherell of the NPFMC at (907) 271-2809.

• On 08/03/98, Jim Clarke of The Associated Press reported that federal judge Russel Holland, for the second time in three years, has rejected Exxon Corp.’s request for a new trial in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case. Allegations that a court guard coerced the jury into its $5.3 billion verdict are unfounded, the judge said. The EXXON VALDEZ went aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons into Prince William Sound.

• On 08/13/98, the publication Greenwire reported the dispute over the planned reopening of the TULSEQUAH CHIEF MINE on the Alaska/Canada border is one of British Columbia’s "increasingly polarized struggles over the future of wilderness areas." Vancouver, BC-based Redfern Resources wants to build a 100-mile-long road through the Taku River watershed and open the $97.8 million Tulsequah Chief Mine at the site of a former Cominco Ltd. mine that closed in the 1950s.

• On 06/26/98 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that:

• In June, The Associated Press reported that the Washington Contract Loggers Association, the Northwest Forestry Association, Skamania County, and two private landowners FILED SUIT in Thurston County Superior Court. The suit challenges regulations passed by the WASHINGTON FOREST PRACTICES BOARD that restrict timber harvesting in riparian areas for the purpose of protecting steelhead trout. According to the story, the lawsuit argues that the Board acted illegally in adopting emergency regulations to protect STEELHEAD. The new rule (adopted in May) requires additional environmental review to harvest trees or to build forest roads within 200 feet of fish-bearing rivers and streams in critical habitat areas. The rule applies to private and state forestlands in southwest, southeast and north-central parts of the state that drain into the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

• In May and June, Washington Governor Gary Locke, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Representative Jack Metcalf (R-Wash.) all asked the Clinton Administration for MANDATORY TUG ESCORTS for all oil tankers entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca, or additional rescue tugs stationed at Neah Bay and the San Juan Islands. For a number of years, efforts have been made to station a dedicated rescue tug at the mouth of the Strait of San Juan De Fuca. The fear is that if a boat were to lose power in or near the straits, rescue vessels could not get to it in time (the nearest rescue tugs are located in Port Angeles), thus threatening the productive nearshore water of Washington’s Coast, including the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. (Note: At its annual meeting in 1994, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission passed a resolution calling for the stationing of such a emergency vessel at the mouth of the straits.)

• In June, the CITY OF ABERDEEN was FINED $10,000 by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) for an ILLEGAL DISCHARGE FROM THE MALINOWSKI DAM located on the Wishkah River. Malinowski Reservoir is the city’s chief source of drinking water. Ecology levied the penalty after city workers released tons of mud and debris while attempting to repair the dam’s sluice gate in April 1998.

• Immediately cease any further discharge of sediments that violate water quality standards from Malinowski Dam into the Wishkah River.

• File a full report within 30 days with steps that have been taken to control the release of sediments from the reservoir, including an evaluation of sediment build-up in the reservoir.

• Acquire all necessary permits and notify Ecology and any affected downstream users at least 48 hours prior to any work to be done in or near the water at the three dams that could cause turbidity or a discharge of sediments into the Wishkah River.

• Update its operations and maintenance manual for the dam to include water-quality protection measures.

• Develop a maintenance plan for Dam 3 that prevents future failure.

• On 08/31/98, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Klamath Basin Ecosystem Restoration office announced the following:

• On 06/04/98, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment released a report, titled "Our Ocean Future: Themes and Issues Concerning the Nation’s Stake in the Ocean." The report outlines the issues affecting the FUTURE OF THE OCEAN and, consequently, the nation’s economic and environmental future. The consensus report was prepared by a steering group representing industry, government, academia, and environmental organizations. After consulting with 200 ocean and coastal leaders, the steering group concluded that:

• On 06/11/98, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) handed out its "Environmental Hero Awards." The recipients of the Awards are recognized for their "tireless efforts to preserve and protect the nation’s environment." One of the award recipients was given posthumously to NAT BINGHAM. Bingham, habitat protection director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, was cited in the award as one of the nation’s most effective fisheries conservation advocates (See Habitat Hotline Number 37).

• In March, the Alexandria, Virginia-based Terrene Institute released a new poster that gives 20 easy tips for making golf courses ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY. By "playing" the nine-hole course on "GOLF and the Environment: What Partners!" information is provided how to turn a golf course into a model for ecosystem management that will increase its value to the community. Developers can track an environmentally friendly course from design through construction to long-term maintenance on this poster—as golfers experience what ecosystem management can mean for their course. The 18"x24" poster is designed for posting in club houses or community centers. The cost of the poster is $5 + $3.50 shipping, with quantity discounts available. For further information contact the Terrene Institute at (703) 548-5473, or visit their homepage at http://www.terrene.org.

• On 06/14/98, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced a new INTERNET SERVICE offered by six FEDERAL AGENCIES. The site, located at http://Fedpage.doi.gov, takes Internet users to a central site with breaking news from the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service. The site highlights major news releases, decision documents (like environmental impact statements and records of decisions), upcoming public meetings and ongoing public comment periods for each agency.

• In the 04/21/98 issue of Eos, a publication of the American Geophysical Union, authors W. James Ingraham Jr., Curtis C. Ebbesmeyer, and Richard A Hinrichsen reported the following:

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 to Stephen_Phillips@psmfc.org. Editorial assistance and layout by Liza Bauman. Date of Issue: 09/03/98.