[1] Feds Say Proposed Dam Operations Would Kill More Fish, Cost $450 Million A Year

Federal attorneys said the proposal by BiOp plaintiffs to add more spill and flow to next year's dam operations on the Columbia and Snake rivers would kill more fish than operations outlined in the old 2004 BiOp. In addition, proposed changes to reservoir operations would hamstring winter power production and cost the region nearly half a billion dollars a year.

The feds say proposed changes that call for maintaining reservoir levels at their upper rule-curve elevations every other week from January through April are probably not even feasible, especially if plaintiffs think that Canadians are likely to run their reservoirs the same way.

The upshot of adding 4 million acre-feet to help migrating salmon in the spring and summer would be to shortchange other stocks that depend on steady winter flows to cover redds , such as Hanford Reach chinook and ESA-listed chum salmon below Bonneville Dam.

In their Nov. 22 response to the plaintiffs' call for more of everything filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon, the feds said biologists from both NOAA Fisheries and the Corps of Engineers agreed that adding more spill, especially later in the spring, would reduce the number of fish barged and cut survival to adulthood.

The feds have a new proposal of their own--to spill enough to keep transported and inriver migrants about equal, while boosting spill at dams where fish are not bypassed for barging.

After April 20, collector projects would cut spill to maximize barging, which is expected to increase smolt-to-adult returns for steelhead and later migrating chinook. They estimated a 16-percent boost in returns of wild chinook from the change in operations.

In order to spread the risk more evenly between barged and inriver migrating fall chinook, the feds propose spilling less during the summer than environmentalists would like, which would "substantially" increase SARS for wild spring/summer chinook and steelhead compared to the plaintiffs' proposal. They said the Court should afford substantial weight to the testimony of expert federal biologists with NOAA Fisheries and the Corps of Engineers in evaluating this strategy.

The federal scientists estimated that the plaintiffs' spill proposal, on the other hand, would reduce wild chinook and steelhead numbers by a couple of percent over BiOp operations, and cut returning adult numbers by more than 64,000 fish from what the feds expect by beginning full transport after April 20.

The federal response was also adamant that the plaintiffs have no proof that added flows improved fish survival. In fact, the response touts "best, available science," which "strongly calls into question whether there is any direct relationship between flow and survival."

Also, getting more water from Canada seems out of the question, especially on such a short time-frame, according to a declaration by BPA's Richard Pendergrass, who noted that operating reservoirs at upper rule curves would be contrary to the U.S./Canada Treaty, which was signed to optimize power and provide flood control.

He said the U.S. has no right to Canadian non-treaty storage that plaintiffs are calling for, either. But even if this were possible, declarations by Corps' personnel say the risk of flooding would increase if Canadian reservoirs were operated at upper rule curves, and would likely require lowering Grand Coulee to compensate, introducing a further set of problems.

Getting the storage from Grand Coulee would lower it seven feet more than the 10 to 12 feet already drafted for flow augmentation, which would have negative effects on cultural resources like burial sites and resident fish production.

Operating reservoirs as plaintiffs have suggested would reduce reliability of the hydro system itself, said the feds, citing the recent analysis by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council.

BPA analyst Roger Schiewe pegged the potential adverse economic impact to BPA from the plaintiffs' injunction at $347 million compared to the BiOp, if the water year turns out to be average. That's a reduction of about 640 aMW for his agency alone in the nine-month period of January through September. In his analysis of the 50 years modeled, one year's loss reached $541 million.

But the economic losses wouldn't be limited to BPA alone, Schiewe pointed out. The mid-Columbia PUDs would suffer as well, losing about $100 million a year on average in power production, which adds up to a January-September energy loss of about 770 aMW for the region.

Schiewe's analysis also suggested that ESA-listed chum below Bonneville Dam would be negatively affected by the plaintiffs' operation, with redds continuously covered in only 19 out of 50 years, while the BiOp would keep them covered in 31 out of 50 years.

Hanford fall chinook redds would also be adversely affected by keeping reservoirs at upper rule curves throughout the winter, he said. His modeling found that Hanford redds would only be continuously covered in 19 out of 50 years, while BiOp operations would provide continuous coverage in 49 out of 50 years.

Schiewe also analyzed the new federal proposal to adjust spill between early and late spring. He said it had no adverse affects on chum and Hanford chinook redds, nor did it change flow requirements for other species at risk like bull trout and white sturgeon. But it would cost, on average, another $43 million to implement the change compared to BiOp operations.

All in all, Schiewe concluded, the plaintiffs had incorrectly assessed impacts to other federal dam operations, power production and revenues.

The states of Montana, and Washington, along with the Spokane, Colville and Coeur d'Alene Tribes and the BPA Customer Group, filed a joint response as a "regional coalition" supporting the federal position. Idaho and the Kootenai Tribe filed separate responses, standing firmly with the feds on interim operations.

Only the state of Oregon seemed content to stay out of the fray, on a day, Nov. 22, when defendants and amici filed 40 responses and declarations. In September, along with other Northwest states, Oregon had supported a stance that called for collaborating with plaintiffs to develop interim dam operations using current BiOp mandates as a starting point. -Bill Rudolph

[2] BiOp Plaintiffs Ready To Square Off In Court

BiOp plaintiffs filed their reply to the thousand or so pages of federal agency arguments against their proposed hydro operations on Dec. 7, conjuring up a Stars Wars-like defense of their proposal. The proposal calls for a more natural-like spring freshet and less reliance on techno-fixes. They quoted from a popular science fiction movie to make their point.

"Even Yoda, in advising Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back, aptly noted in words applicable here, 'You must unlearn what you have learned,'" they said, arguing for more "normative" river operations, citing a 10-year-old report to make their case for more flow and spill in 2006.

The environmental and fishing groups in the litigation downplayed concerns of upriver tribes over adverse effects from any further drawdown of the pool behind Grand Coulee. They used a new declaration by Bob Heinith, policy analyst with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission to make their case. He claimed such impacts would be "temporary."

Heinith's latest declaration also took issue with the feds' assertion that their research has shown that any flow-survival relationship is weak and inconsistent at best. Rather, he said increased flow conditions will improve fish survival.

The plaintiff groups also said federal authorities have no excuse for not asking Canada for more water or requesting that they operate their reservoirs in a manner that would add more water to flows for US fish.

The groups also say the federal analysis that predicts higher returns of Snake River fish by concentrating on barging fish after April 20 is "fundamentally flawed," its selective use of data "misleading," and will likely "cause far more harm than the spring spill relief NWF seeks."

They also took issue with the federal analysis that said the NWF proposal would uncover fall chinook redds in the Hanford Reach in most years and short water needs of spawning chum below Bonneville Dam, saying that the feds' modeling effort was based on "incorrect implementation" of the proposal. And they also said Montana shouldn't worry about its own resident fish needs; the NWF proposal would satisfy their concerns.

The plaintiffs said the feds had made errors and used inappropriate assumptions in their economic analysis of the NWF proposal, which calls for operating US reservoirs in a more restrictive way to save water, but would reduce flexibility of winter power operations, especially in January.

Citing declarations by Kyle Dittmer, CRITFC hydrologist-meteorologist and consultant Ed Sheets, they admitted that impacts will be mostly due to foregone power revenue, "which may have a total dollar value that is large but that will have actual economic effects on regional ratepayers and others that are quite modest." They estimated the added spring spill from their proposal would cost a minority of ratepayers less than $3 a month. Citing past BPA actions, Sheets also claimed that the injunction may not raise power rates at all.

The arguments will be aired in BiOp judge James Redden's courtroom on Dec. 15. The judge had earlier quashed the feds' call for an evidentiary hearing on the complicated issues of fish survival and hydro operations, but he and his technical advisor, retired fisheries professor Dr. Howard Horton, attended a Nov. 22 informational meeting by federal officials to explain how the hydro system worked.

Some attendees came away from the meeting in a state of near panic, after some of Dr. Horton's questions revealed what they called an alarming lack of knowledge about the federal system of dams and reservoirs in the Northwest. Horton has helped federal judges sort out issues in assorted BiOp cases for ten years or more, having worked with Oregon federal judge Malcolm Marsh, who upheld the 1995 BiOp in a lawsuit filed by many of the same environmental and fishing groups that challenged the last ones.

Plaintiffs used Marsh's own words in their final remarks, when he noted in another case (IDFG v. NMFS) 10 years ago that the hydro system "literally cries out for a major overhaul." Since then, spill at dams has been boosted, millions of acre-feet of water set aside for flow augmentation, with BPA now spending close to $700 million a year on fish recovery actions. -B. R.

[3] Talks Begin On How To Break Up Fish Passage Center

Discussion began last week in earnest on how to transfer operations from the controversial Fish Passage Center to other regional entities. A Dec. 2 conference call between the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's fish and wildlife committee and the Bonneville Power Administration picked up the beat, beginning a new debate that's likely to last through the winter.

The FPC will cease functioning in March, after a few months of temporary funding runs out. BPA has footed the cost, now at $1.3 million a year, since its beginnings in the 1980s, when it was created to help the Corps of Engineers make decisions on when to use extra water for migrating fish.

Since then, the Center has become more than a data collection agency, and has evolved into the analyzing arm of state fish agencies and tribes, providing long-standing support for more flow and spill throughout the federal hydro system to help migrating salmon and steelhead, despite scientific uncertainty over some of these strategies.

But the Center incurred the wrath of Idaho Sen. Larry Craig after its analyses of fish survival were used by environmental groups in their successful push to get a federal judge to boost spill at federal dams last summer. Craig added language to a spending bill that called on BPA to stop funding FPC operations in 2006.

Despite a furious attempt by environmental groups and tribes to have the language stricken, the language survived through conference committee and has become law, signed by President Bush Nov. 19.

"Idaho's water should not be flushed away on experimental policies based on cloudy, inexact assumptions," said Craig on Nov. 10 after the House passed the spending bill. "I will continue to look for ways to ensure that dams and salmon can coexist and thrive, rather than give in to the myth that the Northwest can only have one or the other. This is the first step in getting the region back on track to salmon recovery."

The language calls on BPA and the Power Council "to ensure that an orderly transfer of the Fish Passage Center functions (warehouse of smolt monitoring data, routine data analysis and reporting and coordination of the smolt monitoring program) occurs within 120 days of enactment of this legislation. These functions shall be transferred to other existing and capable entities in the region in a manner that ensures seamless continuity of activities."

Greg Delwiche, who heads BPA's Fish and Wildlife Division, told participants at the Dec. 2 discussion that his agency was nearly ready to send out Requests-For-Proposals in the three areas mentioned in the congressional language that would deal with them "in a broad way."

What has state agencies and tribes concerned most is whether an analytical function will be maintained in the future.

NPCC Chair Melinda Eden said her state of Oregon and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission are also developing an alternative because they both want the functions to be kept together. She said they all had to be careful not to eliminate one of the functions the FPC has performed [analysis], but she appreciated the concern over what Delwiche called the "perceived advocacy" of the FPC.

Power Council members said they would try to schedule a meeting of the full Council later this week to accommodate more discussion of these sensitive issues.

But three Northwest senators already have problems with that directive. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sent a Nov. 29 letter to BPA and the Council that urged the two agencies to make sure all the "current responsibilities and functions of the FPC" are not divided up among existing entities, but are transferred to a single entity. Among other things, they want the new entity to be housed independently of BPA, the Council or any other existing agency, or university.

That may come into conflict with what is most likely to happen, that the job of data collection will be taken over by the University of Washington's Columbia Basin Research group, which already runs the extensive DART [Data Analysis in Real Time] database on fish numbers and hydro conditions.

Craig's language leaves out any mention of the analysis task, which the other senators say should be part of the new entity's responsibilities, and available to the public at no cost.

Scott Corwin, vice-president of the Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative, said the senators' letter seems to request the creation of the same entity that was just de-funded. "Why would Congress add report language to create the same agency," he asked. And he wanted to know why Washington state senators wouldn't approve of the transfer of data collection duties going to a reputable institution like the UW.

Sen. Cantwell's office did not respond to questions by press time. It was also reported that Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) had also sent a letter expressing their views on how the issue should be handled.

Power Council member Larry Cassidy told participants in the Dec. 2 discussion that he didn't think it "would be that difficult to comply with most parts of those letters."

Besides the data collection, other main duties of the FPC included a smolt monitoring program that could be taken over by several other entities in the region like the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, or possibly even the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory at Richland, Wash.

The ongoing fish survival study could be taken over by NOAA Fisheries, or just "junked," as some have suggested, because of its flawed assumptions.

There has also been talk of developing a university-based consortium to do the statistical work that has been found wanting in much of the FPC results. No doubt, discussions will continue at the NWCC meeting in the middle of December.

There will be plenty of pressure from long-time FPC supporters to develop a new entity along the line of the old one. In fact, the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority was still stumping for the Center after the FPC's fate was all but sealed.

In a Nov. 15 letter to all members of the Northwest congressional delegations, CBFWA (sans NOAA Fisheries and USFWS, which both abstained) called the Center an "essential" technical resource that provided essential services to fish and wildlife managers and their own limited staffs.

They said it was essential that the FPC remain intact "as presently structured and retain its full suite of responsibilities." But a day earlier, both houses of Congress had approved the conference report on the water and appropriations bill and sent it to the White House.

However, FPC director Michele DeHart is still garnering support for her side of the dispute. In a Nov. 30 story in the Washington Post, DeHart professed amazement at the situation. When reporter Blaine Harden asked if she was mad at Sen. Craig, she responded this way.

"What's the point?" She was quoted in the Post. "I have never met the man," she said. "Never talked to him. No one from his office ever contacted us. I guess I am flabbergasted. We are biologists and computer scientists, and what we do is just math. Math can't hurt you."

However, Dan Whiting, communications director for Sen. Craig, said a Craig staffer had made several contacts with DeHart in September, before the report language became final a couple of months later, including a "substantive" discussion on Sept. 12 that was at least a half-hour long.

But it was the years of strong advocacy analyses that finally brought the FPC down, despite the continued support from state and tribal fishery agencies. For years, some regional scientists have butted heads with DeHart and her co-workers, and fought their zeal for more flows and spill to improve salmon survival, despite any data to the contrary.

Critics have long called much of the FPC's analyses both biased and shoddy. In the last few weeks, BPA and NOAA Fisheries delivered scathing criticism of an ongoing fish survival study supervised by the FPC that the feds say short-changed the benefits of fish barging and survival in general.

The FPC took another hit in a declaration filed Nov. 22 in the BiOp litigation, when NOAA Fisheries Assistant Regional Administrator Bruce Suzumoto pointed out scientific flaws in an FPC memo that was used by plaintiffs to show proof that the summer spill program was a success. Suzumoto said the small sample sizes used in the analysis "does not reflect a biologically sound analysis useful for decision making."

But the Center has a long history of trying to sway policy. Back in 1993, University of Washington professor Don Bevan led a team of regional scientists and economists to develop the first recovery plan for listed stocks. He and fellow team member Prof. Ted Bjornn asked DeHart for some new survival information about spring chinook that was under wraps at the FPC. DeHart refused to turn over the data, telling him that the recovery team would misuse it.

Another member of the original recovery team, consultant Jim Litchfield, confirmed this story last week. Litchfield told NW Fishletter that the data they had sought turned out to be some of the earliest PIT-tag survival research conducted in Lower Granite Reservoir on juvenile spring chinook. He said it clearly showed that the fish experienced much higher survival through the reservoir than commonly accepted at the time, and that their survival did not correlate to flows.

Litchfield said the venerable Bevan, who died in 1996, had two main recommendations to make about the salmon recovery mess. First, the region needed a scientific "court" to sort out differences of opinion and research. That's now in place with the ISAB, the Independent Scientific Review Board that reports the NMFS and the Power Council.

Bevan thought the data on salmon were so critical, Litchfield said, that his second main recommendation was that they should be housed in an independent university setting, where they could be available to anybody. That may happen soon. -B. R.

[4] Federal Scientists Slam FPC Survival Study

Scientists from NOAA Fisheries' Science Center in Seattle say the Fish Passage Center's latest draft survival study of hatchery and wild chinook in the Columbia and Snake rivers is misleading because its analyses are incomplete and don't "fully support" the findings in the Comparative Survival Study's executive summary.

The FPC draft has already been cited in court documents filed by BiOp plaintiffs a few weeks ago in their pursuit of more flow and spill for spring and summer dam operations.

"In our view," says the feds' Nov. 10 letter to the Fish Passage Center, "the important issues facing this region with respect to salmon recovery and hydropower operations warrant more in-depth analyses and a broader discussion of all relevant data concerning the nature and extent of hydropower system effects on salmonid stocks."

The feds' main gripes echo their own analyses that were previously published in an extensive technical memo, released in final form last February, that found PIT-tagged fish do not represent the untagged population.

So when the FPC study points out that smolt-to- adult return rates [SARs] seldom meet the 2 percent level previously identified by an earlier group of scientists (PATH) as minimum targets for recovery, it is "inadequate" on two counts, according to the feds. First, the PIT-tag SARs don't measure the SARs of the untagged population because they tend to underestimate survival of the population at large.

Secondly, recovery goals are still under development, so the FPC implies that any SAR below 2 percent is too low for stocks to recover. Technical teams are now developing criteria for recovering stocks, including SARs.

The Science Center also says the data is only partially analyzed, which fails to provide a "comprehensive evaluation" of the pros and cons of comparisons made between stocks from different regions and with different migration histories.

The feds say available evidence clearly shows that the benefit of transporting fish varies within each season, which is likely the result of fish size and the number transported, differences in predation rates, and changing conditions within the hydro system, estuary and near-ocean.

But the FPC analysis, based on annual survival results, "provides limited information and possibly misinforms managers about how to manipulate the system to provide the greatest benefits to fish," say the feds.

The Science Center points out that the draft Comparative Survival Study (CSS) ignores this altogether. The study is also at odds with earlier CSS results from a 2004 workshop that found SARs varied seasonally, the Center's critique says.

The feds took issue with statements in the CSS study's executive summary that implied transportation harmed wild fish because the average SAR of transported fish was lower than that of inriver migrants.

The feds pointed out that in 5 of 10 years, the point estimate of annual SARs for transported wild chinook was higher than inriver migrants.

They also said the CSS summary appears biased since it concluded that transportation had little or no benefit for wild chinook, yet it neglected to mention the overall 40-percent benefit of transportation for hatchery chinook and wild steelhead. They said that adds up to tens of thousands more hatchery chinook and 5,000 to 10,000 more adult wild steelhead that would not have returned had they not been transported.

The feds also said the analyses in the draft study don't reflect a consistent, statistically appropriate approach.

They say another potential bias arises from comparing non-detected fish to transported fish or others marked at dams. Since the non-detected fish pass lower Snake dams through the spillway or the turbines, they may be larger on average, as federal scientists have demonstrated in previous research, which suggests that these fish have different physiological traits than do detected fish, which can lead to differences in SARs.

Several years ago, federal scientists published findings that size alone correlated SARs, with smaller fish having correspondingly lower SARs.

The Science Center said the CSS treatment of upstream and downstream stocks "seems particularly biased," and asked why more downriver hatcheries weren't used in the comparisons. Since returns to upriver hatcheries vary considerably, they wondered if that wasn't true for downriver hatcheries as well. And, the feds point out, Idaho's McCall hatchery had much higher SARs for several years than did the downriver facility at Carson, near Bonneville Dam. -B. R.

[5] Council Hears Comment On How To Replace Controversial Fish Passage Center

The Northwest Power and Conservation Council held a special session Dec. 7 to take public input on how best to replace the Fish Passage Center, slated for demolition by language in a congressional spending bill by Mar. 21. It gave supporters of the Center one last chance to grouse about Idaho Sen. Larry Craig's successful attempt to kill the agency's funding by the Bonneville Power Administration.

Sen. Craig's attack on the FPC was triggered by environmental and fishing groups' use of some of the center's analyses on dam operations and fish survival in ongoing litigation (NWF v. NMFS) over the hydro BiOp, which was seen by some to be biased towards more flow and spill, without adequate scientific support. Those same BiOp plaintiffs were using the latest FPC memos and studies in court papers filed Dec. 7 to argue against the federal agencies' latest proposal on how to operate dams in 2006.

But others were ready to move ahead, especially those administrators saddled with the job of replacing the 11-person center by the end of March. BPA's Fish and Wildlife division head Greg Delwiche said his agency will be ready to issue an RFP within a day or two, to deal with three main areas--fish counting, analysis and smolt monitoring.

Delwiche said the state of Oregon and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission have had several sessions with the BPA to help develop their own proposal-which would create a single entity to deal with all three basic tasks. Delwiche said he had asked them to provide input to help his agency write the RFP but, so far, he hasn't heard from them on the subject.

He said Oregon and CRITFC had asked the power agency to hold off on the RFP until they had a chance to continue development of their own proposal and seek broader support for it, hoping that BPA would feel "comfortable enough" to make a sole source decision that would not need the RFP process. Delwiche said the joint proposal has become more broadly based and that the Columbia Fish and Wildlife Authority is playing a pivotal role in its development. He said it has promise, but the governance, neutrality and oversight elements need to be much more broadly "fleshed out." But Delwiche was clear that the process for developing the request for proposals would not be slowed. He said special concern was needed to make sure that any future entity was truly neutral.

Brian Lipscomb, director of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, explained the main elements of the proposal Oregon and CRTIFC have been working on, which he thought would satisfy both short-term and long-term needs.

He said it includes five basic elements. First, the FPC data functions would go into the Authority. Second, technical expertise would be added to address hydrosystem operations on resident fish. Third, an oversight board that has jurisdiction over these functions within CBFWA, with the role of establishing policy guidance and accountability.

Lipscomb also called for creation of a technical oversight board that would develop protocols for scientific review and then provide peer review of the data and its interpretation.

Lastly, he proposed a sub-contract with a neutral third party that could help provide some facilitation to the oversight board in developing the governance and to do the performance audit of the functions, "so it is done out in the open, and clear and at a neutral third-party location," he said, such as the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. He said the proposal should be fleshed out in the next two weeks.

Many long-time FPC supporters seemed ready to line up behind the yet-to-be-seen CBFWA proposal. Katherine Brigham of the Warm Springs Tribes, said, "It's really disturbing to have this legislation," referring to Sen Craig's move to end BPA funding for the FPC. "We need a center that speaks for the fish'" she told the Council.

Rhonda Whiting, NPCC member from Montana, said, as a member of an upriver tribe in the region herself, every tribe should have a voice, including those that have only resident fish concerns.

John Platt of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, responded to a question regarding the lack of peer review of FPC analyses. He said the Center had undergone several reviews from independent science panels as well as audits of its functions, "which were all positive," he added, noting that most FPC reports were reviewed by other agencies in the region as a matter of course.

Sharon Kiefer, anadromous fish manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said the analyses provided by the FPC had been able to extend the staff of her own agency when dealing with technical analyses. She said any new entity should provide the same key help, with both the data and analyses functions remaining "highly integrated."

But Jim Yost, natural resource advisor for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, said what must not be done is to create a new entity that is pretty much the same as the old FPC. He likened that situation to standing on the dock with a return trip ticket on the Titanic.

However, Idaho river guide Jim Norton said the trust in the public process was violated when the FPC was canned because it was only doing its job too well. "Don't let Larry Craig be the only voice for Idaho," he said. He called for a single, independent entity with all the functions of the FPC restored.

Idaho Council member Jim Kempton, reminded the forum that, in 2002, the Independent Scientific Advisory Board gave the FPC high marks for technical work, but criticized how the Center reached preliminary conclusions actually used by fish managers to challenge the Council's work on the subject of flows in its mainstem amendment process. More recently, Kempton said the CSS and summer spill analysis have both been used in court before they were even final documents and peer-reviewed, which has highly politicized the documents.

"There has been no decision," said Kempton, "no opportunity to have an analysis of either one of those studies before they were introduced into the court--that's politicizing the issue." Norton agreed that using such documents before they were completed was inappropriate, but such things didn't justify the "evisceration" of the Fish Passage Center.

Jack Glass, representing the Northwest Steelheaders Association, said the data collected from the FPC was vital to fisheries management on the river, and any new entity should keep all the information in one place.

Kevin Banister, spokesman for PNGC, BPA's fourth largest customer, said his group has long supported the best available, peer-reviewed science in fish analyses. PNGC supported Craig's language, but said the transfer of functions must be made to entities that are unbiased and fair. Banister said there have been questions raised about the advocacy role of the FPC for a long time. He said the issue was mentioned in a history of the Corps of Engineers' efforts to improve Columbia /Snake salmon runs published in 1995.

Nicole Cordan, representing the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, said Craig's move to kill the FPC was a bad way to conduct public policy. She said SOWS was "gravely concerned" about the future of the Fish Passage Center and that Craig's action may actually increase fish costs in the region and hinder salmon recovery. She called on the Council to transfer all the FPC functions to a single new entity, a position taken by several NW senators and five congressmen, including Washington congressman Norm Dicks, who had earlier declined to sign an August letter circulated among the Northwest Democratic delegation that called for saving the Center.

Idaho Council member Judi Danielsen reminded everyone that the entire Northwest congressional delegation voted to support the appropriations bill that ended the Fish Passage Center, but the letters coming out now don't seem to reflect that.

But Cordan said the report language added by Craig was not voted on by most Northwest members. Danielsen said she had "heard enough of taking the senator's [Craig] name in vain. I really have." Her fellow Council member Jim Kempton said he would object to any further testimony that castigated his state's senator.

Lee Corum, a biologist with the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, said the region can't afford any speed bumps in salmon tracking trends. He stressed the use of peer review and transparency of data in the development of a replacement for the FPC. "I want to get my data from someone who doesn't have a stake in the fight," he told the Council.

Oregon Council member Joan Dukes asked if a new entity shouldn't primarily do analyses for states and tribes, as the FPC had done, and was originally intended to do. Korum said any BPA-funded operation should be available to be used by everybody.

Terry Flores, executive director of the Northwest RiverPartners, a large coalition of BPA customers, said the stakes were huge in developing cost-effective salmon recovery. She said the clear intent of the law was not to create another Fish Passage Center, and there are regional institutions now available that can perform the needed functions in an unbiased way, like the University of Washington. Her group supported the BPA process and urged the Council to develop a central storage place for all salmon data, and make sure all studies be independently reviewed before they are funded.

John Saven, executive director of Northwest Requirements Utilities, which represents 50 utilities in seven states, said, as a former budget director in a very large city, change is always difficult. "I honestly believe that we need a source of objective information that everyone can rely upon in the region," he told the Council, but until now, for one reason or another, the region has not been getting the type of information that a "significant portion of the community could rely on for the purposes of doing work, and I think that's inexcusable, frankly," Saven commended the Council and BPA for developing a new proposal, noting that the most important question is how "whatever is created going to be governed or directed in the future."

Another federal agency even showed up to make comments. But after USFWS spokesman Mark Bagdovitz finished his comments, he took heat from Montana Council member Bruce Measure by neglecting to mention resident fish in his analysis of the necessary functions of an entity to replace the FPC.

Liz Hamilton, representing the Northwest Sportsfishing Industry Association, and a member of the FPC's oversight board that was created by the Council in 2000 to deal with concerns over the advocacy role of the Center, took a few parting parts at critics like Danielsen, who said the board hadn't done its job. Hamilton said the Power Council had the opportunity to insert some "professional, personal, and agency integrity into this hideous, indecisive, shameful situation we find ourselves in," and called on the Council to work with BPA to delay the RFP process until the CBFWA proposal is ready.

Larry Cassidy, Washington council member, who chaired the FPC Oversight Board, said most of the board's members, including himself, didn't have the technical qualifications to make judgments on the technical and scientific analyses done by the Center. He said when the board was created, "I don't think the Council fully understood how complicated that technical part was, and here we are today." -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