|
|
[1] DAM BREACHING ISSUE AIRED BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE
Saying the debate is too often being framed as a choice between dams and fish, Washington Congressman Doc Hastings (R-WA) asked members of two House Resources Subcommittees to support a comprehensive approach to fish recovery--and his resolution to protect Northwest dams from breaching. Much of the material in this report is based on the witnesses' written testimony from a hearing held May 27 in Washington DC.
It isn't fair to put the salmon recovery issue into such general terms, Hastings told members of the House Resources subcommittees on Energy and Water and Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. He asked subcommittee members to talk about and debate the issue, rather than assume dam breaching is something that's just going to happen; look at all the factors and make a conscientious decision on whether dam breaching makes sense.
To that effect, Hastings' resolution--HCR 63-- calls for retention of the "tremendous economic and environmental benefits" the Columbia and Snake River dams provide to the US, states that plans to recover federally protected fish should not "rely on dam removal schemes," calls for addressing all the factors that affect sustainability of resident and anadromous fish in the system, and for basing any comprehensive fish recovery plan on sound data that considers "economic and social costs associated with changes to the management and use of the river infrastructure."
"Clearly we must do something to recover Northwest salmon stocks, but we need to make sure that we do the right thing for the fish and the people of the region," Hastings told the members. "The benefits of dam breaching for fish may be unknown, but the costs to the residents of the Pacific Northwest and to our nation's economy are certain."
Hastings said the emphasis on breaching four lower Snake River dams is understandable, because it's the main focus of the EIS currently being prepared by the Corps of Engineers and NMFS. But he cautioned the subcommittee members that federal dams are by no means the sole cause of salmon mortality, and that factors such as commercial and tribal harvest levels, predation and changing ocean conditions must also be taken into consideration. "These other factors may not lend themselves to easily explained, silver bullet solutions like ripping out dams, but they nevertheless have devastating impacts on endangered salmon," Hastings said.
Fellow Washington Republican George Nethercutt of Spokane spoke in support of Hastings' resolution. Nethercutt also pointed out that the Army Corps of Engineers has estimated breaching the lower Snake dams will cost the federal taxpayers about $900 million--an estimate that does not include the loss of jobs in the competitive sector, the effects of higher freight costs on commodities prices, and the impact on the agricultural community--"not only in the region, but nationwide."
Nethercutt said the Columbia River system is the largest wheat handling system in the country--43 percent of the nation's wheat exports are transported down the Snake and Columbia--and the costs of changing the system "will be felt not only by the region's wheat farmer, but certainly by those who purchase wheat products." Nethercutt said it would take about 120,000 additional rail cars per year or more than 700,000 trucks to carry the same freight as the river system. "We must look at the environmental consequences of additional trucks on the road and the cost of maintaining the railroads and highways."
Other river users expanded on the Congressmembers' points. Jim Kuntz, executive director of the Port of Walla Walla, said the Washington state Department of Transportation has estimated it would cost from $84 million to $100 million to upgrade the state's highways to handle those 700,000 additional trucks, while the cost to upgrade the rail system is in the range of $182 million to $214 million.
Kuntz also maintained that river navigation is the "most environmentally friendly mode of transportation," using less fuel per ton of cargo than rail or truck and with fewer emissions. "The environmental benefits of reduced petroleum use and emissions is significant when you consider that filling one panamax vessel with 60,000 tons of wheat takes only 16 barges as compared to 600 rail cars or 2,400 semi-trucks," Kuntz said.
Future Power Costs Outlined
Also important are the effects of dam breaching on the FCRPS. "A decision to breach the lower Snake River dams would have to be coordinated with decisions on resource replacement and transmission system changes, including siting and fuel supply considerations," pointed out Steve Wright, BPA senior vice president. "There could also be additional costs associated with mitigation for air quality changes," he warned.
Wright also noted that according to the Corps' Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup (DREW), which is assessing the benefits and impacts of various alternatives, dam breaching would reduce the federal hydropower system's capability by 11 percent, or 5 percent of the total regional system; cost BPA $263 million in lost annual power revenues; force $14 million to $20 million in added annual transmission costs for up to 50 years; and increase rates by between 3 mills/KWh to 6 mills/KWh.
"We assure you that the federal hydro system will certainly make a major contribution," Wright told the panel, "but we also reiterate that all must contribute and share the costs of salmon recovery."
Brigadier General Robert H. Griffin of the Army Corps' Northwestern Division provided more information on potential costs. He told the politicians that breaching earthen embankments at the four dams would cost $1 billion; replacement power costs would be around $300 million annually, and added transport costs due to the loss of barging would add another $40 million annually.
But Griffin also said potential recreational use from a free-flowing river could amount to $75 million a year. And if the dams were kept in place, major improvements to the system could also add up to as much as $1 billion over a five-year period.
The Corps' final EIS on the subject should be published by early 2000, Griffin told the hearing. But he also said NMFS has recognized uncertainties about the dam breaching analyses, because they are based on assumptions about fish survival that have yet to be proven. And if the EIS recommendation includes dam breaching, he said Congress would have to authorize such action.
Griffin's testimony also touched on the recent staff-level memo from some federal agencies that recommended BPA analyze two higher-cost recovery alternatives that are beyond the scope of the fish funding principles agreed upon by the region last summer. He assured the subcommittee that the Corps has not narrowed alternatives or replaced the options now being studied.
Benton County PUD Commissioner John Goldsbury reiterated the importance of the river transportation system to the region. And while the Corps' Griffin said recreation dollars could increase, Goldsbury maintained the changes in river recreation would have a huge negative impact on the economy of the Tri-Cities and the region in general. "River-related recreational activities created by the dams' reservoirs add hundreds of millions of dollars to the region's economy each year," Goldsbury said, and no one knows how the silt and sand released by breaching the dams will change that activity.
"Alternatives to dam breaching can and will meet the needs of the salmon while maintaining the economic and environmental benefits of the river system," he added.
Darryll Olsen, a consultant representing the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators, said in his written testimony that the dominant resource issue for the Northwest "will not be dam removal on the Columbia-Snake River system, but who should control and manage water throughout the region." He added that dam breaching and drawdown proposals are "charismatic public policy issues" that have created a salmon recovery industry, but the high costs of such alternatives "will likely exceed" the region's willingness to pay for uncertain fish benefits.
PATH-Pro and Con
University of Washington professor Jim Anderson explained the scientific argument over dam breaching that has polarized the region. "Irrespective of the complexity of this issue, the answer comes down to two basic choices: either it's nature's fault and the stocks are low because of poor climate and ocean conditions, or it's our fault and the salmon runs are not recovering because of something we have done to them in freshwater.
"If it's nature's fault, then dam removal may be of little or no benefit, and it may ultimately be detrimental to the fish because it would divert valuable resources away from other salmon recovery efforts.
"If it's our fault, then dam removal is only of benefit if the major cause of the fish mortality in the ocean is a result of fish passing through the hydrosystem. If the ocean mortality results from other factors such as hatchery fish over-production, over-harvest, or poor rearing habitat, then dam removal does not address the problem."
Though a member of the PATH process himself, Anderson said the results have underestimated uncertainties in the science. He pointed to recent remarks by two members of the four-person PATH review panel, who expressed concerns about the results that support dam breaching in PATH's 1998 year-end report. One independent reviewer, Saul Saila, raised questions about the possibility that his own panel may have under-estimated the effects of climate on the fish stocks, and that the structure of the PATH analysis itself may have introduced "structural uncertainty."
Anderson quoted another reviewer, University of British Columbia Prof. Carl Walters, who recently clarified his latest review for PATH members by saying he didn't trust any of the recovery predictions, under any option. "This arises," Walters wrote, "from seeing that none of the mean trajectory predictions would be for continuation of historical decline, meaning there is a basic (and quite possibly wrong) optimism somewhere in the survival calculation chain independent of the passage models."
Anderson also pointed out that several signs may be pointing to an increase in stocks from factors outside the range of the region's recovery efforts. He cited above average precipitation over the last few years, a change in the Gulf of Alaska weather pattern to a cool/wet regime, declines in Alaska catches, which historically correspond to increased West Coast catches; "and a record return of Columbia River jack salmon this year."
Another member of PATH, Earl Weber of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, testified from another angle. He said that without addressing hydropower factors and only looking at hatchery, habitat and harvest issues, it was unlikely that Snake River stocks would recover. Weber's written testimony took issue with the recent NMFS 'A-Fish Appendix' that looked at PATH results and found the analysis was not comporting with recent NMFS research that showed in-river survivals of juveniles higher than PATH models estimated, raising the possibility that PATH undervalued the strategy of fish transportation.
Weber questioned many points in the NMFS analysis, and said it "presents an incomplete and fragmented collection of PATH results to justify continuation of the NMFS transportation program. The pieces do not form an effective plan for restoring Snake River salmon stocks."
He also pointed to comparisons of survivals for upriver and downriver stocks that he claimed do not point to a regime shift that is a main factor in Snake River declines. "In my opinion, it is illogical to believe either that the ocean is the problem or that by doing nothing the stocks will rebound."
But Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), who attended the hearing, cautioned that it was important to keep all of the options open. However, DeFazio also said if it's determined the dams should be breached, then the federal government should pay for dam removal.
The hearing on HCR 63 was "one of the first venues on the House side" to air the dam removal debate, said one staffer. The next step is for the Resources Committee to decide whether to mark up Hastings' resolution, a spokeswoman for the Congressman said. - Jude Noland, Bill Rudolph and Ben Tansey
[2] JACK COUNTS RUNNING RECORD HIGH AT DAMS
Jack salmon, the precocious chinook that return to native streams a year or two ahead of their more normal relatives, are still returning to the Columbia River in record numbers. Far upriver at Lower Granite Dam, more jacks than adults are being counted daily. At Priest Rapids Dam on the mainstem Columbia, jack counts are doing well, too, with about 300 by the end of last week.
A good run of jacks usually presages a good return of adults the following year. This run of jacks is so high that biologists say it's possible that next year's return of spring/summer chinook to the Snake could top two percent of the outmigration--up ten times over last year's smolt-to-adult return. A return of two percent is generally accepted as a goal that could lead to recovery.
By June 1, 8,800 jacks had passed Bonneville Dam, ten times last year's number, with more than 1,500 already over Lower Granite, and another 500 on the way from Ice Harbor. The numbers could signal an astonishing run of spring chinook for the spring of 2000. Counts are expected to slow as the freshet builds over the next few weeks.
When biologists compare this year's jack return to previous years, they are cautiously optimistic. The 1998 outmigration, which is responsible for this year's high jack numbers, was only about one-half the size of the 1995 Snake outmigration of 1.8 million smolts. If the trend continues, next year's spring and summer run at Bonneville could top 200,000 fish, definitely one for the record books. - B. R.
[3] US-CANADA SALMON TREATY CLOSE AT HAND
A 10-year agreement over salmon harvests between the US and Canada is about to be announced, sources said last week. Negotiators, including the new US special advisor to the talks, Lloyd Cutler, met in Juneau last week to hash out more particulars.
It was reported that Alaska had actually agreed to terms over two weeks ago, but southern area issues, including Fraser sockeye interceptions by US fishermen, and catches off Vancouver Island and in Georgia Strait that harvest listed Puget Sound chinook, were still being worked out by press time.
Alaska will cut its SE Alaska troll catch of chinook by around 25 percent, in return for an abundance-based management approach that allows for fewer cuts when more fish are available. That could mean Columbia River tribal fishermen would be able to fish for another 50,000 fall chinook every year.
It was also reported that around $150 million would be available to both northern and southern areas of the US and Canada for fish restoration, which could include a buyback of Puget Sound commercial fishermen at a cost of $30 million.
It's still not official, but the word on the street was that a salmon agreement between the US and Canada was imminent when negotiators were meeting at a Seattle motel the week of May 17. It never quite materialized.
The rumor of a settlement had surfaced even earlier, before Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles dropped a new condition on the table May 5. He said salmon stocks should be guaranteed "safe passage" to and from spawning grounds to help protect the resource. As treaty talks with Canada resumed in early May, Knowles said that any long-term agreement about salmon should include a habitat restoration and protection plan "that will ensure that southern rivers and streams cease to be a 'killing field' and instead are returned to productive salmon spawning and rearing habitat."
Treaty observers said it seemed like a new condition that Alaska wants to impose on other parties before the state will talk about reductions in its own chinook harvest. Most chinook caught in Southeast Alaska are from Canada, Washington and Oregon, including listed chinook from the Snake, lower Columbia and Willamette rivers.
Some federal agencies have floated the idea to buy out the Alaska troll fishery, which would give Columbia River tribal fishermen more fall chinook to catch in their fishery. In a recent memo to BPA, some federal agencies pegged the cost at $15 million a year. Meanwhile, BPA was probing the idea in a different way, possibly by paying Alaska fishermen to forego a portion of their traditional chinook fishery each year. The value of the Southeast Alaska chinook fishery is presently around $4 million to $5 million a year.
In a March 15 letter to Framework Process manager Roy Sampsel, Alaska Fish & Game Deputy Commissioner Dave Benton said he believed that a buyout, as put forward in several of the fish and wildlife alternatives under discussion, was a "foolish and misguided idea." He suggested that any workshops to discuss the issue be conducted in several Southeast Alaska fishing communities. "When you do so," wrote Benton, "we also want to remind you that the people you will want to have at the workshops fish for a living, and so you should coordinate your activities such that they are in town and not out fishing." - B. R.
[4] TWO OREGON DAMS SLATED FOR REMOVAL
Portland General Electric, the city of Portland and the state of Oregon announced last week they'll be working together to remove two Sandy River basin dams owned by PGE in an effort to restore Sandy River basin habitat for salmon. Removal of the dams--the Marmot on the Sandy River and the Little Sandy Dam on the Little Sandy River--will cost a total of about $22 million. The Sandy River system is home to both summer and winter steelhead, coho and spring chinook.
"We can do this because Governor Kitzhaber has agreed to help us find $10 million up front to retire these early," said PGE senior vice president Walt Pollock.
The two dams involved were built around 1912 and are due for FERC relicensing in 2004. Pollock said PGE "would have had to decide what to do at that time." And it's likely FERC would have required environmental mitigations that would make the projects uneconomical to operate over the long term. The Governor's promise of $10 million made dam removal now the more economic and environmentally sound solution.
Pollock said PGE and the city of Portland will cover the remaining $12 million cost by renegotiating and refinancing power purchase contracts involving the city's Bull Run project. That project, which provides most of the city's water supply, includes two water supply reservoirs on the Bull Run River between PGE's Bull Run hydro plant and the Little Sandy dam. PGE buys the output from Portland Hydro Projects One and Two at the city's reservoirs--a total of 36 MW of capacity--under a long-term contract. That deal was refinanced and extended for four years, through 2017, at cost rather than market rates. In addition, about $7 million in replacement and repair reserves will also be made available, said Bob Durston, spokesman for Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten.
As for the 22 MW capacity and 11 aMW of power provided by PGE's Bull Run project, the utility intends to replace that through purchases on the open market. "The Sandy River basin is big and complex, but compared to the main stem [Columbia River] it's pretty simple," Pollock said. Deciding how best to address mitigation issues related to the listing of several basin salmon stocks as threatened under the ESA was a "manageable-sized problem" for the utility, the city and the state, he added. "That doesn't mean dams should come out elsewhere," Pollock emphasized, "but that you should go through the process to decide what should happen. I'm encouraged that it's possible to do that."
As the project is now configured, PGE diverts water from the upper Sandy River at Marmot Dam, where it's directed into Little Sandy Dam and moved via sluiceway to Roslyn Lake. The artificial lake is used to provide water for the utility's Bull Run power plant, which is on the lower reaches of the Bull Run River. The future of Roslyn Lake after removal of the project is unclear, but a city/utility fact sheet indicates PGE will investigate whether the lake can be maintained without the water supply from its projects and "will work closely with the community to determine the future of the lake and its adjacent park."
Removal of the PGE dams, related canals and flumes will return 22 miles of the Sandy and Little Sandy rivers to near-natural conditions and will provide salmon and steelhead with unimpeded access to about 100 miles of spawning and rearing habitat.
The plan announced last week is the result of a commitment in principle reached last November by PGE, the city of Portland and NMFS to develop a coordinated, basin-wide effort to address ESA and Clean Water Act issues in the Bull Run/Little Sandy watershed. In March 1998, NMFS determined that steelhead trout, which reside in the Bull Run/Little Sandy watershed, are a threatened species under the ESA. Since then, the agency has added chum and chinook to the threatened list.
Elements of the initial agreement in principle included improving conditions for steelhead and other fish species in the Bull Run, Sandy and Little Sandy rivers; identifying potential habitat restoration opportunities throughout the basin that will provide the most short- and long-term benefits for fish; and evaluating the ESA steelhead listing "as an opportunity to accelerate actions that make the most sense for fish, water supply and power generation and then reconfigure the operations in the watershed on this basis."
As part of its commitment at that time, Portland General agreed to consider removing its Little Sandy Dam on the Little Sandy River. After some evaluation and analysis, removal of Marmot Dam was added to the equation. Removing just the Little Sandy dam would have reduced capacity at PGE's Bull Run plant, and PGE would have had to undertake significant re-engineering of the project to make it work on Marmot Dam alone. That turned out to be costly, said PGE spokesman Mark Fryburg; and when weighed against the additional environmental benefits of opening so much upstream drainage for fish habitat, it was more economic to decommission both dams than to continue their operation.
"We are stressing that time is of the essence here," Fryburg added. "We need to work quickly to restore habitat." PGE hopes to have both dams removed within two years--well before they could have been decommissioned or changed under FERC relicensing.
But the proposal depends on Governor Kitzhaber's commitment to secure $10 million dollars to cover the rest of the project costs. "There are no guarantees of getting that money," said Kitzhaber spokesman Bob Applegate. He said the governor will go to Washington, DC and talk to the Department of the Interior, the White House, the delegation--"to whoever he can."
Applegate added there may also be money available from the state and from a proposed federal four-state salmon fund. "We have some time to do this, and you won't get the money if you don't go out and look for it and ask for it," he said. "It's not gonna be easy; it's not gonna be simple. But there are pools of money out there."
PGE's Fryburg said the utility has complete faith in the Governor's ability to come up with the promised $10 million. "Over the next two years, we think he can do it."
"To find the $10 million means restoring a larger piece of the watershed--from the Pacific Ocean to Mt. Hood," said Rosemary Menard of the Portland Bureau of Water Works. She added the plan is part of efforts to look at a basin-wide solution that will cover ESA issues on the Sandy River and its two tributaries, the Bull Run and Little Sandy.
There are no fish ladders at the city's reservoirs, Menard said, and at times of high water use, the Bull Run River has dried up below the city projects. With removal of Marmot and Little Sandy, fish swimming up the Sandy River will be able to continue past the Bull Run River and up the Little Sandy. She added that the city of Portland will make some test releases on the Bull Run this summer as work continues on fisheries issues in the basin. - Jude Noland
[5] STAKEHOLDERS TAKE ISSUE WITH FEDS' F&W COST MEMO
A long list of commercial stakeholder groups in the Columbia Basin fired off an angry letter to Deputy Energy Secretary T.J. Glauthier last week, criticizing a recent memo DOE received from four federal agencies. The memo recommended BPA raise its rates to account for the possibility of fish and wildlife costs higher than those contemplated in its upcoming rate case. With the power rate case slated to begin soon, the economic stakeholders urged that BPA stay the course with the fish and wildlife cost estimates hammered out last year in a set of principles that were approved and announced by Vice President Al Gore.
The stakeholders told Glauthier they "want to convey in the strongest terms possible our dissatisfaction with the document's portrayal of what is happening in the Northwest. Equally important, we want to state our objection that portions of the "Federal Family" are willing to deliberately conduct their business in such an uncoordinated and dysfunctional manner. It is clear that the document's proponents are trying to advance certain perspectives using selected, rather than balanced, arguments while excluding other key federal agencies in developing the document."
The memo they criticized, which seeped into public view two weeks ago, was put together by NMFS, EPA, USFWS--three of the nine "Federal Family," or Federal Caucus, agencies--and the Treasury Department. Danny Consenstein, NMFS' Columbia Basin coordinator, told NW Fishletter that the 17-page memo was part of staff-to-staff "internal" discussions that expressed some agencies' concerns over uncertainties about future fish costs and whether BPA's coming rate case was sufficient to cover them.
One Big Federal Family?
A spokesperson for the Federal Caucus, BPA's Caroline Whitney, acknowledged the three agencies did not tell representatives of the other six agencies about the memo, even though they meet about once a week in Portland. The purpose of those meetings--noted another informed observer--is to "coordinate decision-making."
Over the past two or three months, Whitney said, the three agencies have been meeting separately with Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget to talk about fish funding in BPA's rate case. Bonneville's Lee Johnson has been the agency's main representative at those meetings, whereas Lorri Bodi is BPA's main rep at Federal Caucus meetings.
Whitney said the topic of the memo's release did not come up at last week's Federal Caucus meeting, but even so there was "agreement in the Federal Caucus that the Federal Caucus has not developed alternatives, so the memo was a mischaracterization of work the Federal Caucus has done."
Asked about the memo's work on areas in which an agreement already existed, Whitney said "the staff of those agencies are saying there is new information since we agreed to the principles," especially with respect to the Clean Water Act and new salmon listings under the ESA. "The agency heads may not agree" with the staff, she noted.
Whitney said BPA administrator Judi Johansen spent part of last week meeting with the regional heads of the three agencies "to get clear on intent" and to ask "didn't we have an agreement in principle?" She said the outcome of those meetings will determine whether BPA responds to the memo, and whether it decides to recalculate the fish cost scenarios. But BPA still maintains that "the package we put together in the rate case provides adequate funding" to meet the future fish funding principles. The timing for the start of the rate case was also contingent on the meetings, she added.
The agencies' memo cited concern that future fish and wildlife costs will be higher than previously estimated, and focused on two "refined" long-term fish and wildlife alternatives--breaching the four lower Snake dams to restore a natural river, and an even more expensive option that would modify dams to meet Clean Water Act standards.
The second alternative's refined costs pushed the upper limit of future fish and wildlife costs up another $60 million annually from the $721 million figure that was spelled out in BPA's funding principles that regional interests agreed upon last September. The principles, approved by the White House, are meant to serve as guidelines in the upcoming rate case to develop BPA's power rates for the 2002-2006 period.
The federal memo said higher than anticipated costs could reduce the probability that BPA would meet its Treasury payments, resulting in a large rate increase in 2007. It suggested that BPA could increase rates two to three mills per kilowatt hour, redesign its cost recovery adjustment clause to save for future costs, and/or work out a deal with Treasury to create a special reserve account to be used for "authorized fish and wildlife expenses, or to accelerate Treasury debt," which in turn would help BPA "to meet higher fish and wildlife costs and be more competitive in the future."
The stakeholders' letter was signed by John Saven of Northwest Irrigation Utilities, Steve Waddington of Reynolds Metals, Jerry Leone of the Public Power Council, Ken Canon of Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, and representatives of irrigation and agricultural groups, towboaters, and labor unions. The heads of PNGC, the Washington PUD Association and the Washington Rural Electric Cooperative Association were also among the signatories.
They made several points to Glauthier, noting that the BPA funding principles were incorporated into the December 1998 Record of Decision on BPA's Subscription Strategy after a year-long public process, with the results announced by Vice President Gore.
New Developments, Old Politics?
They also pointed out that the federal memo, though it included a section called "New Developments," left out important new findings. They quoted from the recent NMFS Fish Appendix that stressed uncertainties about the benefit of dam breaching:
"In addition, if this transportation mortality is as low as the most recent estimates, then the average advantage of breaching can fall to as low as 2% for certain assumptions about extra mortality. This highlights the value of resolving uncertainty about transportation mortality in conjunction with sources of extra mortality."
"Many customer groups do not agree that the PATH model, which NMFS relies upon for this study, is the best available analysis," the stakeholders added. "But even using PATH, NMFS suggests that the 'cost of delaying' a decision while more information is gathered with respect to survival standards is a mere 8 percent."
They pointed to alternatives being developed in the Framework process and assurances from NMFS that the federal fish agency will not unilaterally make decisions that prejudice the outcome.
"In contrast to the deliberative approach of the Framework process, the authors of the document appear to be unilaterally pushing for two specific alternatives they have crafted: Natural River and Experimental Management Prior to System Changes. These are identified at $658 million and $783 million on average for 2002-2006. In rate case workshops, BPA staff identified $521 million for the weighted cost of all 13 alternatives. If BPA power is priced at 20 mills, and 1 mill represents about $60 million, then BPA would likely have to raise the proposed 2002-2006 power rates by 10 percent to 22 percent.
"The document references committees and group discussions, as if these proposals have procedural and substantive legitimacy. The fact that BPA and its customers were not asked to participate or review the document should speak to the quality of the effort and the intent of the drafters. The authors imply that BPA is well below market forecasts for the 2002-2006 period, and, therefore, it is no big deal to jack up the BPA rates to pursue their preferred alternatives. We disagree."
The letter said BPA's long-term competitive position was at stake. "A number of traditional BPA customers are facing the squeeze of international competition, for example in the agricultural sector. We are willing to meet regional obligations for fish and wildlife mitigation, and doubt there will be much help from federal coffers. We do not want to weaken BPA by squandering financial resources on unproven strategies that lack sufficient scientific and economic justification.
"The proponents of the document seem to adopt a philosophy that a big war chest in cash reserves should be built up at BPA during the 2002-2006 period. These large cash reserves would of course increase the threat of sale of the PMA. We believe you are familiar enough with the stresses and strain BPA faces among customer groups in the Subscription Strategy to appreciate what it would mean to add these costs to BPA's rate proposal."
They said the two alternatives discussed in the memo "cast doubt" that the region would participate in the shaping of its own future and that the two strategies outlined in the memo were "fundamentally contrary" to some Northwest governors' policy interests.
The letter said the Northwest Congressional delegation appreciated the need for a balanced fish and wildlife plan that fulfills environmental responsibilities while recognizing the importance of BPA and other public purposes of the river, and noted that everyone in the Northwest will eventually pay for rate increases.
"In contrast, we are disappointed by the recent tactics related to the document. This was a disservice to BPA and to the many interest groups in the Northwest who believed these agencies had committed to work with the region in good faith. The BPA rate case has now been delayed unnecessarily, and we are concerned that carefully crafted plans for the region could be jeopardized.
"We seek your support in getting BPA's subscription process back on track as quickly as possible. The Administration needs to show that BPA is authorized to fulfill its statutory obligations in the 21st century for providing cost-based power, including environmental mitigation. You have a solid proposal from BPA and should proceed with the rate case."
Memo Bobs to Surface
"I just want to be dealt with fairly," Saven said after the letter was sent. He added that he first became aware of the federal memo at the Framework workshop held May 11-12 in Portland.
Corps of Engineers salmon coordinator Doug Arndt said he saw it there, too. "Agencies and tribes know more about the paper than the feds," Arndt said, half-joking, last week.
But others had seen it before that.
Stan Grace, Power Planning Council member from Montana, said he saw the memo a few days prior to the meeting. He said it was clear that the document came from consultant Ed Sheets' computer. "That is clearly Ed Sheets' social and political agenda," said Grace. But he had hard words for federal agencies involved as well. "They've lost more trust and credibility," said Grace.
Sheets, who once served as executive director of the Power Planning Council, declined comment about the memo and referred all queries to NMFS coordinator Consenstein.
Lately, Sheets has been working as a consultant for EPA, USFWS, and the Bureau of Reclamation through a contract coordinated by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Before that, he consulted with NMFS on decision process timeline issues.
Back in early November 1997, Sheets was briefing policymakers on the Three Sovereigns process and the multi-year implementation plan at the monthly IT meeting. Though he admitted they were his own numbers, he said at that time that total fish and wildlife costs could be as high as $637 million annually from 2002-2008, after the current MOA ran out in 2001, with a low range around $484 million. The current cap is $435 million. According to Sheets at the time, the lowest annual costs were associated with an expanded fish transportation option. - Bill Rudolph, Ben Tansey
[6] NMFS OK WITH BPA'S FUTURE FISH COSTS
The National Marine Fisheries Service's Will Stelle last week recommended to the Federal Caucus that the region proceed with the existing rate package BPA developed to fund future fish and wildlife program costs. The recommendation is a complete reversal from that advocated in a memo prepared several weeks ago by mid-level staff from several federal agencies, including NMFS.
While noting that BPA's obligations for fish and wildlife and for environmental mitigation are likely to "increase substantially" over the next rate period, "BPA has provided firm and explicit assurances that it will meet these costs across a wide range of assumptions, with substantial supporting documentation," Stelle wrote in a May 26 memo to the regional executives of the eight other Federal Caucus members--BPA, the Corps, BuRec, EPA, USFWS, BLM, BIA, and the US Forest Service. "We see no basic remaining disagreement about these analyses or conclusions."
The sentiment in the memo seemed to comport with BPA's somewhat more general comments last week that progress had been made in administrator Judi Johansen's discussions with some of the regional heads of three Federal Caucus agencies--NMFS, EPA and USFWS. Those discussions came in the aftermath of the leak of a May 7 memo, prepared by those agencies and the Treasury department, containing proposals for two new expensive fish cost scenarios that threatened to delay and blow open BPA's rate case, as well as exposing a serious disagreement that had been festering for months within the Federal Caucus over the adequacy of BPA's strategy to fund future fish costs.
A number of BPA customer groups and others blasted the federal memo as a "unilateral" attempt on the agencies' part to push for their own alternatives.
"Dam removal was the prominent action in the earlier federal agency staff paper," noted the Columbia River Alliance. "Although this most recent Stelle memo attempts to rein in his staff," added CRA executive director Bruce Lovelin, "I believe mid- and upper-level managers are laying the foundation for dam removal during the next ten years." He complained that "public disclosure was the principal reason this latest effort was derailed, providing yet another example of why the region should be skeptical of federal agency assurances."
At least one Federal Caucus insider lamented that the handling of the federal memo played into the hands of those waiting to pounce on any sign of alleged "federal takeovers."
Funding Package Clarified
Meanwhile, Federal Caucus spokeswoman Carolyn Whitney said Johansen's intent in the discussions with regional agency heads was to "clarify" the existing future F&W funding package, with the idea that over previous months, "perhaps we didn't do the best job describing it and the level of funding available" under it. She said the discussions also covered "issues of protocol about communication and apologies about how the [May 7 memo] was handled.
"Bonneville believes that funding is robust enough to cover the options discussed last spring" and memorialized in the agreement on future fish funding principles on which the agencies had already signed off, she said.
A similar if stronger message was being relayed in Washington DC. Steve Wright, BPA senior corporate VP, told a congressional hearing that there have recently "been suggestions that the federal agencies may be reconsidering the fish and wildlife funding principles. This is not the case. The fish and wildlife funding principles remain the foundation for planning Bonneville's future fish and wildlife mitigation costs in the agency's rate case and subscription process." He also noted BPA firmly believes that "all federal agencies must speak collectively as we approach critical decisions related to the biological and economic impacts of operating the Federal hydrosystem..."
Whitney said NMFS, EPA and USFWS were concerned that new data and events--particularly those relating to implementation of the Clean Water Act and the proposed listing of about a dozen new species of fish--may have superceded the 13 future fish cost scenarios developed a year ago and on which the future funding principles agreement was based. But even with these considerations, "We believe the package is robust enough to cover whatever decision is made," she said.
In addition, some of those responsible for the federal memo said that in view of the likely increase in post-2006 costs, the recommendation to up rates was meant as a way to ease rate shock between the coming rate periods.
Whitney said BPA was hopeful it would have a definitive statement on the disposition of the federal memo by the end of this week.
In another sign that the memo will not throw a wrench into the process after all, BPA currently expects that it will publish its initial rate case proposal in mid-June, which is likely sooner than if it were expecting to have to recalculate its initial proposal to integrate the federal memo's alternatives.
NMFS Still Concerned
But while Johansen's efforts appear to have satisfied the agencies' concerns for now, Stelle's memo was careful not to overstate his agency's comfort level. He said that "strictly from a fish and wildlife perspective, NMFS sees no reason to conclude that BPA will not be able to cover anticipated costs. In addition, NMFS recognizes BPA has built into its proposal some ability to make adjustments if warranted."
But Stelle also said there "are remaining questions about the adequacy of these tools" and that "In light of the uncertainties mentioned above, NMFS further recommends BPA consider strengthening its proposed contingencies, such as the cost recovery adjustment clause, during the rate case and prior to a final decision."
And with "respect to post-2006 costs, there are many policy questions about the best financial strategies for BPA to pursue long term," Stelle added. "We prefer to acknowledge this as something for BPA and the financial agencies to consider, and to be prepared to support whatever solutions are reached at that level." -Ben Tansey
[7] WA LEGISLATURE PASSES IMPORTANT SALMON BILLS
In special session last month, both houses of the Washington Legislature passed versions of a bill that spells out how the state's timber industry will deal with ESA-listed salmon for the next 50 years. Lawmakers reached a compromise on the measure by May 10, and the bill was sent to the governor's office. Legislators also passed a two-year, $119 million spending bill aimed at aiding salmon stocks listed by NMFS in March.
The new legislation, passed with the blessing of federal agencies, is the result of a two-year consultation involving the state, NMFS, tribes, private timber interests and environmentalists. It includes guidelines for limiting timber harvest around streams in return for tax cuts. An estimated two billion dollars' worth of timber would stay along streams and steep hills in return for a cut in the annual timber excise tax that would save the industry about $6 million a year. Timber companies would also fix roads that threaten salmon streams. Smaller landowners would be compensated for half the value of timber they leave standing.
Some legislators said the bill would keep NMFS happy, but weren't so sure how good it would be for fish. Environmentalists, who pulled out of the negotiations last year, said they would challenge the agreement in court.
The Washington Environmental Council tried to stop passage of the timber bill for several reasons. The Council said new legislation would undermine authority of the state's Forest Practices Board and assurances that the bill will lead to long-term salmon recovery are unwarranted. The WEC also said no independent scientific or economic review has been done to back up such claims.
NMFS has promised that parts of the new timber pact will be incorporated into their Section 4(d) ruling of the ESA to protect the industry from third-party lawsuits.
The legislature created an independent board to oversee spending of $119 million in state and federal matching funds to aid salmon over the next two years. A scientific advisory committee will also be created to help the ten board members, half of whom would be appointed by the governor. The rest of the board would represent state agencies and have non-voting status.
The timber agreement is a major part of Gov. Locke's proposed plan for salmon recovery. But another part of that plan--an attempt to re-write state water law to improve salmon habitat--didn't get far with legislators this year. Some Puget Sound tribal leaders said they may go to court to force the state to improve water management and add stream flows for salmon. - B. R.
[8] KITZHABER OPPOSES REPEAL OF WILD FISH POLICY
Legislation [HB 3609] backed by Indian tribes that would exempt all Oregon streams above Bonneville Dam from the state's wild fish policy went to the House floor after passing out of the Joint Stream Restoration and Species Enhancement Committee on May 18. The House passed it 41-19 and sent it on to the Senate.
Not only would the bill exempt over half of Oregon from its wild fish policy, it would also give the tribes authority over waters outside of reservation lands.
The proposed legislation was initiated by the Columbia River Treaty Fishing Tribes and introduced by Jason Atkinson (R-Jacksonville). Opposition comes from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Native Fish Society, Oregon Trout , Washington Trout, Trout Unlimited, Sierra Club, and the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. The National Marine Fisheries Service may also oppose the bill.
In his testimony, Olney Patt, Jr., Chairman of the Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, said "Despite the Treaty promises, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has unilaterally written rules that would restrict Tribes' ability to restore salmon and steelhead runs in the Ceded Areas streams. HB 3609 acknowledges our Treaty Rights to co-management of salmon and their habitat in the Columbia Basin above Bonneville Dam."
Oregon Trout spokesman Jim Myron said if the bill passed, the legislature would be giving away state authority over fish policy. "The bill also asserts that Columbia River treaty tribes have co-management responsibilities on all streams within ceded lands. While the courts have granted the treaty tribes the right to 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of salmon in the Columbia Basin and have granted a co-management role to tribes on streams within and adjacent to tribal lands, the courts have never granted the tribes a co-management role over fish management on ceded lands. As worded, this bill expands the tribes' fish management role far beyond what the state has agreed to and what the courts have determined."
In a letter to the Washington State Attorney General's office, ODFW attorney Steve Sanders wrote "...section one (of the bill) would exempt from the wild fish policy 'areas ceded by treaty to and subject to co-management with' certain tribes. The assumption underlying this language is false. There are no 'areas' 'subject to co-management with' tribes. Tribes do not have a right to 'co-manage' any 'areas' outside Indian reservations, no matter how fervently the tribes may believe otherwise ...the tribes in Washington have been pushing hard to get a veto power over all decisions concerning natural resources that state and local governments...make."
Governor Opposes Bill
In a letter to the full Senate, Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber made it clear that he does not support repeal of the Wild Fish Policy. "The protection of wild fish is an important goal of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Without this protection, we can expect to have more federal government involvement in Oregon to protect the listed species that inhabit all the streams listed in the bill. I do not believe this result is good for our state. I urge you to vote "no" on HB 3609."
A major concern of the tribes is the number of fish available for harvest. They oppose classification of fish into wild and hatchery categories, because it could be used to limit their harvest and hatchery practices.
According to NMFS spokesman Rob Jones, "NMFS doesn't consider every fish to be the same, and, through their conservation policy, they are trying to preserve stock structure that has proven to be successful." He said the tribes don't agree "and fear that any distinction given a run of fish such as calling them hatchery and wild, native, or exotic, will place more pressure on the fishery and reduce fishery opportunities."
In his letter to the Senate, Kitzhaber came to a similar conclusion. "HB 3609 is the result of an inherent conflict between the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Tribal treaty rights.
"The treaties speak to harvestable levels of fish. Fish hatcheries have been a significant factor in providing harvestable levels. Under the ESA, however, only wild fish stocks are designated for special protection. This protection often leads to a reduction in the number of fish produced in hatcheries, making it difficult to meet treaty obligations."
The tribes' testimony stressed their concern about reduced stocking of hatchery fish and the uncooperative state fish and wildlife agency. However, in 1997, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife released over 8.5 million salmon and steelhead from hatcheries above Bonneville Dam. The number of hatchery fish released is considerably larger than that when the releases from Washington and Idaho are included.
While hatchery fish releases have increased to about 200 million annually, the number of fish coming back has been declining, and tribal fisheries have been constrained by conservation concerns for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead.
Furse Lobbies For Tribes
In their attempt to win votes in the legislature, the tribes asked former U.S. Representative Elisabeth Furse (wife of John Platt, counsel for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission) to represent their interests. Furse has long been an advocate of the tribes and of salmon. In correspondence with a member of the Native Fish Society, Furse said she believed "that existing protocols and agreements on supplementation will protect the runs and will result in increased natural production of an endangered species. Why anyone should be opposed to such a policy is beyond me, especially those who call themselves fisheries advocates. In all the time I have worked, I have not seen credible science to support the hatchery v. wild fish argument."
ODFW Native Fish Program Leader Mark Chilcote views the issue differently. "Using hatchery fish to help rebuild depressed wild populations," he says, "is an unproven and risky methodology. The failure of (hatchery) supplementation programs to rebuild wild populations is not restricted to...studies in Oregon..." He cited 13 other studies, including the findings of the Independent Scientific Group.
The Scientific Review Team for the Columbia River salmon recovery effort published a recent report to Congress that reviewed the findings of three independent scientific panels, the Independent Scientific Group, the National Research Council, and the National Fish Hatchery Review Panel. The team said "The three panels were in general agreement on three important points: (1) in spite of some success, hatcheries generally failed to meet their objectives, (2) hatcheries have contributed to the decline of wild salmon, and (3) the region's salmon managers have failed to conduct adequate monitoring and evaluation to determine if the hatchery objectives were achieved."
Tribes Criticize State's 'Rigid' Policy
But the tribes say they are seeking to change hatchery practices. Patt says, "The salmon won't survive the rigid, bureaucratic wild fish policy used by ODFW. The tribes have long been in the forefront of the effort to save our native salmon. Because of careful management the Warm Springs River ranks among the healthiest and most productive rivers in Oregon. In the Warm Springs, the Tribes manage exclusively for wild fish above the National Fish hatchery... The Warm Springs Hatchery has never been a supplementation hatchery." Mr. Patt may have forgotten that when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency that built and paid for the hatchery, wanted to turn it into a supplementation hatchery, both ODFW and conservation groups joined with the tribes to defeat the plan.
But Patt says the Hood River hatchery program, paid for by the Bonneville Power Administration as a cooperative project with the ODFW, is different. The Hood River project was established to rebuild depleted runs. The Wild Fish Policy has not restricted the Hood River project, but the tribes are afraid that some time in the future, it will.
Umatilla tribal spokesman Gary James told the joint committee that "...the tribes value natural fish production. Mother Nature does produce the best and cheapest product." In the Umatilla River basin, James says, "The tribes in cooperation with ODFW are also experiencing a rare result. Fish returns and harvest opportunities...are stable or increasing. The Oregon Wild Fish Policy has not exercised limitations on the Umatilla program to date but we are experiencing adult steelhead returns near 50% hatchery reared fish, therefore some returning adults may soon be prohibited from spawning."
In comments to the Oregon Legislature, ODFW noted that while the hatchery steelhead in the Umatilla are increasing, the wild steelhead are declining. The agency says, "Prior to supplementation with hatchery fish, 2,000 to 3,000 wild steelhead returned each year to the Umatilla River. At the present time, the number of wild steelhead returning ...has declined to less than 1,000 fish."
"What we seek by supporting this bill," James told the joint committee, "is more flexibility in deciding how best to use the hatchery tool to responsibly preserve and rebuild Columbia Basin salmon in a manner that is more sensitive to the current status of the fish, their precipitous decline, and their potential for extinction." - Bill Bakke
[9] COURT DISMISSES DSI 1995 BIOP COMPLAINT
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed the DSIs' petition for a review of BPA's decision accepting modifications NMFS recommended as part of its 1995 biological opinion that FCRPS operations jeopardized the survival of listed salmon species.
"Although the BPA itself quarreled with some of NMFS's conclusions, in the end, the BPA determined that NMFS's overall approach...was reasonable and responsible," the court wrote in its May 10 decision. "The DSIs now invite us to second-guess the BPA's final decision. We decline to do so."
DSI attorney Paul Murphy said he was dissatisfied with the decision for three main reasons. "The decision allows BPA to defer to NMFS over its power responsibilities," said Murphy. He pointed out that, "while it's not the responsibility of the court to make scientific judgments in the face of conflicting scientific information, there is a legal standard based on the 'best, available science.'" In addition, Murphy said the ruling could be interpreted to say that, without a recovery plan in place, any action that was done to improve conditions for a threatened or endangered species could be judged inadequate because it was not enough to save the fish.
BPA's reaction was brief. "The court respected the reasonable discretion of an agency to exercise its best judgement as to how to avoid jeopardy," said BPA attorney Bill Kinsey.
"We are gratified by the decision of the court once again upholding" the 1995 BiOp, said Will Stelle, NMFS regional administrator. "This important decision by the 9th Circuit drives home the lesson, once again, that we should focus our efforts and attention on developing durable solutions. Rushing to the courthouse time and again is neither good for the fish nor for the region," he said in a press release.
NMFS adopted BiOps for 1992, 1993 and 1994-98 that found FCRPS operations posed "no jeopardy" to endangered salmon. A district court disapproved the latter two BiOps, leading to a new consultation that resulted in a "1995 and future years" BiOp that found FCRPS operations did jeopardize the listed salmon's existence, and recommended a set of both short- and long-term "reasonable prudent measures" to avoid jeopardy. The record of decision that BPA subsequently adopted, which accepted those recommendations, was the subject of the DSI's petition for review.
The court's language appeared to reflect some impatience with the petitioners. "While cloaking their challenge in terms of the obligation to use 'the best scientific and commercial data available,'" the ruling said, "the DSIs' arguments are essentially an effort to rehash the multi-year scientific debate that culminated in the adoption of the 1995 BiOp."
For example, the court noted, the DSIs accused NMFS of ignoring data on smolt transportation. "Far from disregarding relevant scientific information, however, NMFS engaged in a detailed analysis of these issues and weighed the available data," the Niners said. As well, "the DSIs take issue with the choice NMFS made between competing computer models, but again, the DSIs do no more than present a dispute previously resolved by the expert agency. In fact, the DSIs' complaint appears unfounded because NMFS expressly placed 'greater weight' on the results of the Columbia River Salmon Passage ("CRiSP") computer model preferred by the DSIs.
"We view the DSIs' challenges as reflecting primarily a difference of opinion among experts concerning the cause of the listed species' decline and the appropriate methods for improving their chances for survival," the Niners opined. "Such disagreement does not establish a lack of adequate foundation for the conclusions reached in the 1995 BiOp or the BPA's decision to adopt it."
The court also rejected the DSI argument that BPA failed to balance its obligations under the ESA against the NW Power Act's directive to assure an "adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply" for the Northwest. That goal in the Power Act, the court said, "does not supplant the BPA's obligation to comply with environmental mandates."
"Given the factors it must weigh," the court also wrote, "the BPA cannot be said to have struck an improper balance between salmon and economical hydropower."
The court also disposed of the DSI's complaint that BPA did not prepare an EIS on its BiOp ROD by noting "the final EIS issued by the Corps, the Bureau and the BPA in November 1995 renders the DSIs' claim moot."
BPA, BuRec and the Army Corps issued a final EIS on the Columbia River System Operation Review. BPA's Kinsey said that EIS was used to support several operational decisions, including the 1995 BiOp ROD.
Petitioners in the case were Alcoa, Columbia Aluminum Corp., Columbia Falls Aluminum Co., Elf Atochem NA, Inc., Intalco Aluminum Corp., Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., Northwest Aluminum Co., Reynolds Metals Co. and Vanalco. - Ben Tansey
[10] TRIBES SAY ONLY DAM BREACHING MEETS TREATY OBLIGATIONS
Columbia Basin tribes have concluded that breaching lower Snake dams would represent a significant step toward meeting federal treaty and tribal trust obligations and redressing "environmental injustice." But maintaining the status quo would only maintain what they call "Treaty-breaking actions that have been a feature of the last 144 years in the Columbia/Snake River system."
These conclusions are contained in a draft report released by the Corps of Engineers last week on the tribal perspective of the Corps' lower Snake feasibility study. It's part of the work being done by the Drawdown Regional Economic Workgroup that is developing comprehensive social and economic analyses for the different alternatives being examined for the future of the Snake River dams.
The report builds on results of the controversial PATH process, in which regional modelers found that the best chance of rebuilding endangered Snake River fish runs would be breaching the four lower Snake dams. Some PATH participants disavowed the findings, however, and two of four independent scientists who reviewed the results had serious doubts about them.
The tribal alternatives report said that drawdown "would increase present meager tribal catches of salmon and steelhead from the Columbia/Snake system by an estimated 29 percent, within 25 years. This represents a small fraction of tribal Treaty entitlement--and does not approach the levels of salmon and steelhead lost due to construction and operation of the lower Snake dams."
The report said continuing status quo operations or improving fish transport would only improve catches by eight percent. The tribes said a strategy committed to further study and delay "in enacting more substantial recovery measures also commits to continued suffering, ill health and death for the peoples of the Nez Perce Tribe, the Yakama Indian Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Nation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the Shoshone and Bannock Bands of Idaho--all at unconscionable levels."
The draft report also found that drawdown could restore tribal access to "usual and accustomed" fishing places and lead to restoration of treaty rights to hunt and gather on ceded public lands along restored river sides. It would also return to tribal hands individual allotment lands that are now inundated by reservoirs and deed uncovered reservoir lands to tribes as partial compensation for prior damages from the dams.
The report represents a two-year, $400,000 study funded by the Corps and directed by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp., the Corps' contractor, sub-contracted the study to CRITFC. Meyer Resources of Davis, CA completed the analysis, which covered the importance of Snake River salmon from the 1700s to the present day.
Corps senior economist Dennis Wagner said the draft report is still subject to change, based on comments from other DREW participants. - Bill Rudolph
[11] PATH PROCESS MEETS THE MID-C'S
The mid-Columbia region will soon be the subject of more intensive salmon scrutiny, under the PATH process developed for Snake River issues--the years-long effort by regional modelers to identify, quantify, and evaluate strategies for recovering ESA-listed stocks.
But according to Steve Hays, Chelan PUD director of fish and wildlife, everyone involved in the upcoming assessment is aware of mistakes in the PATH process "that nobody wants to repeat again." PATH, said Hays, "was not an open process." Furthermore, he added, participants don't want the study to be as complicated as the PATH process turned out.
Hays said the effort is called the "Quantitative Analysis Report." But others have already dubbed it "McPATH," referring to the mid-Columbia PUDs' involvement. The report's purpose is to provide ESA Sec. 7 determinations of whether proposed actions are likely to jeopardize listed species. Different detailed management options are likely to be available by September.
Hays said the overall plan would involve the same type of Bayesian analysis as PATH used, but that it is likely most computer modeling will be performed by NMFS scientists. The PATH effort has been facilitated by ESSA Technologies.
"NMFS now has a world-class ecologist and modeler in Peter Kareiva," said Hays. Kareiva, a University of Washington zoology professor and recent NMFS hire, has already helped the federal agency put together its recent "anadromous fish appendix" that evaluated PATH results about Snake River stocks.
But the effort will still share some basic concerns that PATH has had to deal with, said Hays. In some cases, there is a wealth of data, in other areas, much less. Results will be developed for unique combinations across the four H's of habitat, harvest, hatcheries and hydro.
NMFS scientist Tom Cooney said he hoped all the pieces for the new effort could be laid out by the end of next month, so that by September, participants can "test the tool" and develop a pretty general set of analyses in order to assess the importance of different factors on listed spring salmon and steelhead in the mid-Columbia region.
Cooney said much of the PATH methodology will be used, like picking several index stocks to study and making comparisons with some lower river stocks. He said there is good information on mid-Columbia spring chinook populations, but steelhead data is limited, partly because of their complex life history. - B. R.
Subscriptions and Feedback
Link/Document AnnexLINKS/DOCUMENTS FROM NW FISHLETTER 082:: Below are listed links and documents referred to in the text of NW Fishletter issue 082.
THE ARCHIVE :: Previous NW Fishletter issues and supporting documents.
NW Fishletter is produced by Energy NewsData. Publisher: Cyrus Noë, Editor: Bill Rudolph,
Phone: (206) 285-4848 Fax: (206) 281-8035
Contributing Editors: Bill Bakke and Jude NolandIf you would like to be notified when the next NW Fishletter is published online, send an e-mail message to webmaster.com with "Subscribe NW Fishletter" in the subject line and your name and e-mail address in the body.
Please contact webmaster.com,
with questions or comments on this site.
Copyright ©2002 Energy NewsData Corporation