|
BY JOSH FEIT |
|
|
On Aug. 3, when U.S. Magistrate Janice Stewart ordered the federal government to list coastal coho as an endangered species, it seemed like a wish come true for local environmentalists. But as they say, be careful what you wish for. In response to the listing, Gov. John Kitzhaber is expected to issue an executive order this week. Environmentalists worry that the order could undermine their efforts to establish new logging practices that would protect fish habitats. Kitzhaber has been trying to prevent an ESA listing for three years now. In 1996, to fend off the feds, Kitzhaber proposed that the forest and fishing industries adopt voluntary measures to restore coastal coho salmon. The timber industry had long warned that an endangered species listing and the costs of violations (fines can reach $25,000) would kill its support of the voluntary plan. But after Stewart's ruling, the Oregon Forest Industries Council surprised everyone by saying it would stay on board. Stewart's ruling and the industry's change of heart seemed to be a big victory for green advocates such as the Oregon Natural Resources Council, Oregon Trout and the Pacific Rivers Council. Environmentalists have supported the governor's coho restoration plan but have also hoped for an ESA listing to put teeth into the plan. In 1997, in fact, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the ONRC filed a lawsuit to force a federal listing. Stewart's ruling this month--coupled with the continued commitment of the timber industry--seemed to give environmentalists exactly what they wanted: the proactive approach of Kitzhaber's plan backed by the hammer of enforcement from the feds. But this week, in response to the coho listing, Kitzhaber is expected to announce some revisions to his restoration plan--and environmentalists are worried. Kitzhaber has made the restoration of coastal coho a top priority since taking office in 1995. And he wants to do the job without federal intervention. After laying out a blueprint in August 1996 that focused on state tax incentives and local watershed councils, Kitzhaber jockeyed with the feds to postpone an ESA listing while he hammered out a local voluntary plan. In April 1997 the National Marine and Fisheries Service agreed not to list coastal coho. In return, the state agreed to review its 1971 Forest Practices Act, which governs logging practices on private lands. The deal, known as a "memorandum of agreement," brought together environmental groups seeking tougher logging regulations (such as wider no-cut buffer zones along rivers) and industry representatives hoping to avoid federal law suits under the ESA. Using the memorandum as a framework for hammering out a specific coho-restoration plan, environmentalists, NMFS and representatives from the forest industry have been meeting for nine months. The road to agreement has been bumpy, to say the least. In September 1997 some of the environmentalists at the table joined a federal lawsuit to force NMFS to list the coho. It was this lawsuit that led to Stewart's ruling. In February 1998 the NMFS further angered timber representatives and the governor by proposing specific measures to tighten logging regulations. "The committee that we have now hasn't worked well," says Roy Hemingway, Kitzhaber's salmon-program manager. "There's a good deal of animosity." Despite the tension, the governor and loggers stuck by the process because the feds had promised not to list coho salmon. Stewart's ruling on Aug. 3 changed everything. Although timber representatives vowed to continue working with the governor, Kitzhaber said on Aug. 7 that he would issue an executive order to set up a new process for continuing the work. That order is expected sometime this week. The governor's office is currently running a draft of the executive order by its lawyers and would not share details with Willamette Week. Local environmentalists haven't seen the order but worry that the governor has been pressured to reward the timber industry for sticking with his plan. Specifically they fear Kitzhaber may change three key elements of last April's memorandum of agreement. 1. The Timing: Environmental advocates are worried that the current timetable will be scrapped. The memorandum calls for either the Department of Forestry or the Legislature to adopt changes in the Forest Practices Act by June 1999. Wildlife advocates believe that any delay will cause irreparable damage. Hemingway conceded that the governor is reconsidering the original time line. "We're going to make sure the executive order reflects the reality of what we're trying to do. The [original] deadlines may not have reflected what is possible." 2. The Players: Advocates worry that Kitzhaber will bow to industry demands that the composition of the restoration plan committee be altered. Specifically, there's concern that NMFS will no longer have a strong voice in the process. Hemingway acknowledged that the timber industry has been upset with NMFS. The new executive order, he says, will "work out a new relationship with NMFS." He also noted that the governor's office and the timber industry have been uncomfortable that plaintiffs in the lawsuit prompting the coho listing are at the negotiating table. In a hint of what's to come in this week's executive order, Tryg Sletteland, spokesman for the Pacific Rivers Council, says the governor's office has already asked Glen Spain, Northwest director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, to leave the negotiating committee. Spain, who could not be reached for comment, is a strong advocate for strengthening the Forest Practices Act to include changes such as those suggested by NMFS. 3. The Standards. Environmentalists are most worried about the prospect of Kitzhaber weakening the language in the memorandum of agreement that sets a high standard for adopting changes in forest practices. The current memorandum calls for changes to result in a "high probability" of coho restoration. Advocates such as Paul Ketcham, conservation director of the Portland Audubon Society, think a shift away from that language will hurt the chances for strengthening the Forest Practices Act. "If you got on an airplane that had a 'medium probability' rather than a 'high probability' of landing safely, you'd probably get your bags and get off that plane," he says. Hemingway would not say if the executive order will dilute the language. He did, however, acknowledge that the governor is not an advocate of the dramatic changes to the forest practices act that NMFS and the enviros are recommending.
originally published August 19, 1998 |
|
