[7] Flow Proposal Gets Nixed For Second Time

A proposal by the state of Montana to flatten flows out of two of its large reservoirs has been nixed for the second year in a row by regional policy makers who run the Columbia River.

This year's proposal called for reducing July and August flows from Montana that add water for migrating ESA-listed salmon in the Columbia River, to allow for higher releases in September. Montana officials want more stable summer flows to benefit resident fish populations, including ESA-listed bull trout.

Armed with the findings of an independent science panel that looked at the Montana proposal last year, consultant Jim Litchfield, representing the state, presented the finalized operational request at the July 6 meeting of the technical management team that governs weekly river operations. At a seminar hosted by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council last fall, the Independent Scientific Advisory Board had concluded that any decrease in Columbia River flows from the Montana proposal would not likely be measurable, and survival differences to juvenile fish from the operational changes would likely be "indiscernible." (See NW Fishletter 190)

In addition, the Montana request said experiments were designed and ready to begin the evaluation of biological changes from stabilizing flows. Both the Kootenai and Salish Kootenai tribes supported the Montana proposal.

But a competing operations request from Columbia Basin salmon managers called for maintaining BiOp flows through the end of August. Without citing any particular survival research, the managers said the reservoirs' draft through August would benefit both listed and unlisted fall chinook.

Both proposals were discussed at the July 6 TMT meeting. NMFS representative Paul Wagner said his agency couldn't support the Montana proposal from a policy perspective because it wasn't likely the preference of plaintiffs in the BiOp litigation, since it went outside the base operations outlined in the BiOp. Without consensus from TMT members, NMFS could not support Montana, Wagner said.

BPA agreed with NMFS, and the Bureau of Reclamation said it couldn't support the proposal without NMFS signing off on it.

Wagner said the NMFS passage model found a slight decrease in fish survival with the Montana flow proposal, about 2 percent, but an increase in fish survival in September, with a slight increase in water temperatures at McNary--a tenth of a degree.

Idaho representative Russ Kiefer said his state couldn't support the SOR because he hadn't seen any information that showed resident fish would get enough benefit to justify adverse impacts to salmon. Oregon remained neutral, but USFWS representative Dave Wills said he wasn't convinced, and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission opposed Montana's plan.

Without consensus, the state elevated the issue to the Implementation Team where policy decisions are handled, but looped back to the TMT the following week where the Corps of Engineers offered two alternative operations that could ramp down flows to improve habitat conditions over the BiOp action, but still be legal. Most members supported the first alternative that ramped down flows in fewer steps, which was expected to have less effect on an ongoing nutrient study by the Kootenai tribe. But Montana stuck to its guns and stayed with its own original proposal. Without consensus, the issue went up to the IT again.

On July 21, Litchfield made his last pitch, noting the proposal to flatten flows had been something the state had been working on for 10 years. But USFWS representative Howard Schaller said both his agency and CRITFC had analyzed flow projections and had concluded that BiOp actions should be maintained for 2005.

However, Bruce Measure, one of the Montana members of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, told the group that other USFWS policymakers he had discussed the issue with couldn't point to any benefits for salmon from maintaining the BiOp action. He said they told him that their own SOR was based on maintaining river conditions to benchmark certain operations for study.

But Schaller said he didn't think that was his agency's perspective. He said his agency has said numerous times that they believe implementing the BiOp flow targets would be beneficial to migrating stocks, especially this year with so many fish in the river from the added spill.

However, Measure wanted to know why it was so important to get 6 to 7 kcfs from Montana when the ISAB said the impact on Snake River fish wasn't measurable.

Schaller said the ISAB supported the flow targets, and everything possible to help reach them would be an incremental benefit. But Litchfield noted that the small flow boost from Montana may not help reach the 200 kcfs summer flow target at McNary Dam, since flows are declining through August, anyway. Corps representative Kathy Hlebechuk said average flows would be about 160 kcfs for the month, about 40 kcfs below the target.

Neither side would budge and the end result was a Corps operation that began to cut Libby outflows in two steps to reach the BiOp-mandated elevation by the end of the month.

The experience had Council member Measure vowing to put the issue back on the table next year. By then, he said more data should be available to make it more conducive to supporting the state's proposal. He told NW Fishletter that in recent conversations with CRITFC executive director Olney Patt Jr, the commission director had said CRITFC would support the Montana proposal if Montana supported the Fish Passage Center, whose budget has been penciled out in the Senate version of a congressional spending bill. Fish agencies and environmental groups have mounted an extensive campaign to have the bill language excised during conference sessions after the August recess. -B. R.

Subscriptions and Feedback
Subscribe to the Fishletter notification e-mail list.
Send e-mail comments to the editor.

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