, , , , ,

1. COUNCIL DELAYS ACTION ON MAINSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

By Barry Espenson

Northwest Power and Conservation Council members on Wednesday postponed action on “mainstem” amendments to its fish and wildlife program, hoping to forge in the next two weeks enough agreement on water management and other issues to win the needed supermajority for passage.

This week’s meeting in Whitefish, Mont., had scheduled some nine hours of discussion of the draft amendment. After barely two hours, the Council decided that the debate could not be completed in the time allotted. Nor could consideration of proposed amendments to the draft offered by Oregon,Washington and Idaho.

“They’ve just not had time to sit down and understand each other’s drafts,” said John Shurts, NPCC general counsel.

The Council members decided instead to allow time to absorb the new information, and use the next two weeks to determine what issues might be resolved so that the debate could be better focused. A special meeting is scheduled March 27-28 that is expected to culminate with a vote on the issue.

“I want to make it clear that the Council will still be meeting in full session to discuss the amendments,” Shurts said.

Draft mainstem amendments released last year included provisions tendered by the states of Montana and Idaho that challenged federal flow targets and reservoir operational schemes intended to help migrations of salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act. The draft was offered as a trial balloon for public comment with only Oregon Councilor Eric Bloch voting against it. He has since resigned and been replaced by Melinda Eden. Oregon’s other delegate, Gene Derfler has also signed on to the Council since the draft was adopted, replacing John Brogoitti.

The mainstem amendment is the next phase in the Council’s fifth revision of the rules guiding its fish and wildlife program. The Council program was called for in 1980’s Northwest Power Act to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by hydroelectric development. The act requires that amendments developed through public processes be passed either by a supermajority (75 percent) of the eight-member Council or by a bare majority of five votes if there is at least one vote from each of the states — Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

The mainstem process was launched in March 2001 with a solicitation of recommendations from fish and wildlife managers and other interested parties. It brought in some 22 recommendations from tribal organizations, state and federal entities, conservation groups, utilities, irrigation interests and individuals. The Council is charged by the Act with weighing that advice as it prepares the program amendment, either including recommendations in the program or explaining why not in “findings” that will follow issuance of the final amendment.

The updated mainstem plan is to contain the specific objectives and action measures that the program calls on the federal operating agencies and others to implement in the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers, including especially the operations of the hydrosystem. Those measures include protection and enhancement of mainstem habitat, including spawning, rearing, resting and migration areas for salmon and steelhead and resident fish; system water management; passage spill at mainstem dams; adult and juvenile passage modifications at mainstem dams; juvenile fish transportation; reservoir elevations and operational requirements to protect resident fish and wildlife; and research, monitoring and evaluation.

The draft amendment departs in some respects both from the past mainstem provisions of the program and from federal biological opinions intended to avoid the jeopardy posed by the hydrosystem to the survival of fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Bonneville Power Administration, which markets power generated in the hydrosystem and funds the Council program, is charged with using its authorities “in a manner consistent” with the program. Bonneville and federal dam operators are to take “into account at each relevant stage of decision-making processes to the fullest extent practicable, the program,” according to the act. Those words are not exactly a clear directive that the federal agencies must follow the Council’s advice.

“To get implementation (of the amendment’s provisions) we need to have the region united,” Montana’s John Hines said of the desirability of achieving a consensus, or something close to it.

The draft amendment calls for the elimination of a BiOp requirement that requires reservoirs be held as high as possible by April 10, within flood control constraints, so as much water as possible is available to augment springtime flows for migrating salmon. The draft questions the biological benefit of those spring flows and suggests that storage reservoirs be drawn on more in midwinter for power generation. Under the Council’s proposal, reservoirs would refill by the end of June.

For the summer, the Council proposes to release augmentation water from upriver reservoirs over a longer period of time — May through September, rather than the current May through August — and at more even flow levels. It is believed that would improve habitat conditions for reservoir- and river-dwelling populations in the headwaters with little or no effect on salmon and steelhead populations that migrate to and from the ocean in September. Those storage reservoirs include behind Libby and Hungry Horse dams in Montana, Dworshak in Idaho and Grand Coulee in Washington.

The draft amendments would also limit how deeply those reservoirs could be drafted for flow augmentation for salmon and steelhead migrations as compared to the biological opinion.

The reworked document will likely at least qualify some states’ desires to change BiOp operations, including the proposed elimination the April 10 refill requirement.

“I think that it is becoming softer across the Council,” said Idaho’s Jim Kempton. Draft provisions to dismiss BiOp flow targets as irrelevant may also be altered. Instead, some on the Council are insistent that the BiOp’s assumptions be better validated scientifically before changes are made, Kempton said.

“We can recognize the flow targets for what they are,” Kempton said of BiOp demands for flow augmentation that he said can, in many years, go beyond the available supply and beyond state law. At other times BiOp provisions may conflict, such as when benefits of Dworshak Dam’s releases of cool water — intended to improve conditions for fish — are negated by tepid releases from Hells Canyon that are intended to increase flow volume.

Among the Council’s struggles is a definition of program amendments’ relationship to the federal BiOps. The BiOp serves well as a baseline for listed anadromous stocks, Hines said. But it was Montana’s intent to balance that baseline with program amendments that address the needs of resident fish, including white sturgeon and bull trout, which are ESA listed, and struggling populations of burbot, as well as non-listed species.

The draft’s call for a reduction in augmentation flows drew volumes of written and oral criticism from fish managers and others as being potentially harmful to migrating salmon and steelhead. Those critics included the state of Oregon.

The amendments to the draft proposed by Washington’s Tom Karier and Larry Cassidy suggest a more measured approach to resolving scientific uncertainty and testing the flexibility of the BiOp. Instead of saying the “Council does not support” BiOp spring and summer targets, the Washington proposal says the Council “does not at this time adopt” those standards.

“Instead we support additional testing to determine the level of flow that is beneficial to fish and determine where flow augmentation provides those benefits,” the Washington proposal says.

“We’re ready to try some of the Montana and Idaho proposals” on water management, Cassidy said. The Washington delegation agrees that there is a need to accommodate the needs of resident fish. But Karier and Cassidy would prefer measures, such as the proposed elimination of flow targets and the April 10 refill target, not be written into the final amendment. Rather they would like to see research to determine what impact the reduction in overall spring and summer flows would have on salmon and steelhead populations.

Montana’s Ed Bartlett, and Hines, said they welcomed that acknowledgement of upriver needs and that they expected the Council’s many reasonable heads to prevail.

“My feeling is that we are going to come up with a meaningful and comprehensive plan for the region,” Bartlett said. They also said they expected the late March will likely include some rancor.

“Flow augmentation is still a significant issue that we’re trying to get some resolution on,” Hines said.


Link information:
NWPPC: http://www.nwcouncil.org/
BPA: http://www.bpa.gov/indexmain.shtml
CBFWA: http://www.cbfwa.org/Default.htm

/0 Comments/by
, , , , ,

4. USFWS DENIES ESA LISTING FOR KOOTENAI RIVER BURBOT

By Mike O’Bryant

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declined this week to list burbot, a species of freshwater cod located in the Kootenai River in Idaho, as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.

But work by a coalition of parties to develop a conservation agreement for the species will continue and that may result in better circumstances for the species than if it were listed.

American Wildlands and the Idaho Conservation League petitioned USFWS on Feb. 7, 2000, to list the fish and followed that with a lawsuit in January 2002 to force the agency to complete a status review of the burbot by March 1, 2003 (USFWS completed its review by March 3). They said that two genetically distinct species of the fish live in the Kootenai River, those in the river above Kootenai Falls and those in the lower river, and that these were genetically distinct populations, according to a Congressional Record posting by USFWS. They also said that the burbot’s loss at the southern edge of their range would be a loss of a rare population.

USFWS’s Bob Hallock confirmed that a recent sampling in the river found only seven burbot, but when reviewing a species under the ESA the agency had to look at its full range, which is across many northern states, including Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and North and South Dakota, and especially further north in Canada and it is even circumpolar (although the ESA review is limited to only the United States).

“Extinction is going on in spots of a species’ range all the time,” Hallock said. “There is a continual waxing and waning of wide-ranging species, but the question is what rises to the top to list as endangered? This is a tough decision.”

USFWS said burbot in the lower Kootenai River are physically separate from other burbot populations, but that the population is not a separate and distinct population, as required by the ESA.

Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo said the USFWS’ decision will actually help the fish and allow more time for a collaborative group consisting of the Kootenai Tribes, the Boundary County Commission, Idaho’s congressional staff, the Idaho Conservation League, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air protection, BC Hydro and the Bonneville Power Administration, to finish developing a conservation agreement for the species.

Crapo, who chairs the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over changes in the ESA, met in Boundary County last year with the burbot working group, according to information from his office.

“I have met and corresponded with several federal agencies, the Kootenai Tribe, the Idaho Conservation League, Bonners Ferry Mayor Darrell Kerby, and the Boundary County Commissioners regarding the burbot,” Crapo said. “It is encouraging that federal agencies are working to give this local recovery plan the time needed to succeed.”

“Backing local decision-making when everyone is at the table is critical to avoid top-down directives from federal agencies,” Crapo continued. “Both the conservation groups and federal agencies deserve credit for staying at the table and working closely with this process.”

Hallock said the group had a near-final conservation agreement about 2 1/2 years ago in hopes that such a plan could avert a listing. “This is essentially the same process USFWS would have done under the ESA, but maybe more, because harvestable surplus is the expectation under the strategy, not just recovery,” he said.

The Kootenai Tribe’s Fish and Wildlife Program Director, Sue Ireland, touts the local effort and said the collaborative group will not stop now.

“We all agree that the fish need to be recovered and we all want to do the right thing,” Ireland said about the local effort. “I don’t expect that anyone will walk away from the table. We’re not stopping now because of this determination by the Service. We’re all still very committed and the best chance for recovery is to continue to focus our efforts on the conservation agreement.”

She said the tribe had decided long ago to continue the local collaborative, proactive process regardless of the outcome of USFWS’ status review.

Crapo helped get $150,000 in federal funding so the local working group can continue to work on the conservation agreement and he asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last year for operational flexibility at Libby Dam to supply lower and slower water to enable the burbot to travel to spawning areas, according to Crapo’s office.

“An ESA designation by one federal agency should not be required for other agencies to take the proper action,” Crapo said. “Burbot may not be listed but the community has made a commitment to do the right thing and develop a conservation agreement strategy for the fish.”

Burbot is the world’s only known species of freshwater cod. In the Kootenai River system, the fish often migrate long distances (up to 110 kilometers) to spawning grounds in tributaries during the winter when flows were historically more stable, colder (about 1 degree Centigrade) and lower than they have been since 1972, when the dam was built. However, the fish’s body shape is not conducive to speed or endurance when swimming, so the higher water velocity from the dam during the winter makes a difference on the burbot’s ability to make the journey.

In November 2002, the Bonneville Power Administration said it could not spend the $400,000 to $1.5 million it would cost for special flows to aid burbot spawning downstream from Libby Dam, but it did offer flows for a more limited time to help the slow moving fish move upstream to spawning areas. Some Technical Management Team fisheries managers, including USFWS, had asked BPA in late September to consider limiting flows from the Montana dam to near drought levels between mid-December and the end of January or longer.

Hallock, who supported TMT’s request for the special December and January operations, at Libby Dam, said that BPA was and continues to be in a dire financial situation. In addition, he said the lower flows would have reduced the amount of power the agency needed to fill power contracts it essentially had sold the year before, so BPA actually had little flexibility to lower flows.

In addition, BPA has helped in the burbot recovery effort since at least 1993, including monitoring, and it has funded work by the Kootenai Tribes and the IDFG. “Because of their help, we now have a better understanding of the population,” Hallock said. “And, they are continuing to participate on the plan.

Scott Bettin of BPA said the agency never abandoned burbot, nor the effort to develop a conservation agreement and that it is working now with the agencies to rekindle the effort and to restore burbot in Idaho through the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife program.

Hallock said despite not being listed, the conservation agreement process for burbot will keep going forward at the grassroots level. “We’re looking for new ways to do business in the ESA,” he said. The fact that Sen. Crapo has helped get funding for the process is not insignificant, he added.

Links:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: www.fws.gov
Bonneville Power Administration: www.bpa.gov
Senator Crapo’s Office: www.senate.gov/~crapo/


/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

7. CAPITALIZATION OF BPA LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS HASHED OVER

By Barry Espenson

The issue of whether the Bonneville Power Administration is willing, and able, to borrow money to fund the acquisition of fish and wildlife habitat became more pointed this week with project sponsors urging a policy shift so the agency can follow through with prior commitments.

The capitalization of land purchases has become a central issue as the federal power marketing agency attempts to rein in its costs, including those associated with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Columbia River basin fish and wildlife program.

Late last year BPA Administrator Steve Wright called on the NPCC to provide assurances that fiscal 2003 program spending would not shoot past a $139 million “expense” spending cap. A variety of factors have resulted in BPA estimates that it could absorb as much as a $1.2 million loss before the end of fiscal 2006 if it does not cut costs and/or raise wholesale power rates.

The federal agency estimated that the fish and wildlife program was on track to spend as much as $168 million, an amount that included commitments made for that year and an accumulation of bills expected from prior years’ commitments.

The Council on Feb. 21 recommended a strategy it said would hold spending below the cap. The plan deferred some scheduled 2003 work and asked that about $20 million in planned land acquisitions be “capitalized” or paid off over time instead of being forced under the $139 million expense cap.

BPA officials have balked at capitalizing land purchases because they say the agency has not adequately documented the policy via an official wholesale power rate proceeding or in its reportings to Congress. Agency officials also say that it has not been determined whether it is an acceptable financial accounting practice and has insisted that an acceptable strategy for “crediting” any wildlife mitigation to the agency must be established before purchase can be capitalized.

Such expenditure must have the effect of “extinguishing existing obligations” for fish and wildlife mitigation, said Therese Lamb, acting BPA vice president for Environment, Fish and Wildlife.

“The direct result is that Bonneville is currently not implementing critical portions of the Council’s adopted fish and wildlife program,” NPCC Chair Judi Danielson said in the Feb. 21 letter to Wright. BPA’s CEO has yet to respond to the Council’s February letter, but NPCC staff and Bonneville officials are engaged in discussions regarding the capitalization, crediting and “carryover” issues. The Council has said that it believes the program should be able to reserve funds that go unspent in one year so they can be used when a delayed project’s bills come due, such as was the case with this year’s anticipated $168 million in accruals. Bonneville says no carryover will be allowed.

“Bonneville estimates its costs for the direct fish and wildlife program when it sets its rates. It collects rates to meet those estimated obligations,” Danielson’s letter says. “When fish and wildlife project obligations stay within the planned levels, and rates are collected to pay for those fish and wildlife obligations, it is unacceptable that funds are not available when those obligations come due.”

Much of Tuesday’s NPCC meeting in Whitefish, Mont., was devoted to discussion of capitalization and crediting issues. Since the crediting debate has festered for more than a decade, the Council would like it and the capitalization issue separated so commitments to purchase habitat can move forward. But given the need to sift through policy, accounting and rate case reporting issues as well as crediting, there is little chance of capitalization for the balance of the fiscal year, said Bob Austin, BPA deputy fish and wildlife director.

“We have six months to work through this so we can begin working on some of these projects in October,” Austin said. BPA would like to insert capitalization language in a rate case proceeding that it will consider launching later this month. That would allow the agency to capitalize land purchases provided the other issues are resolved. That proceeding would take several months.

In a prior rate case that established initial rates for the 2002-2006 period, BPA official have said the agency allowed in its cost assessment an average annual expense accrual of $139 million and capital expenditures of $36 million annually for the NPCC program. BPA officials have said that construction projects, such as hatcheries, are the only category of fish and wildlife projects that now qualify for capitalization. The NPCC and fish and wildlife managers are vexed that the capital category was virtually untapped last year. Karl Weist of the NPCC’s Oregon office said the capital category was underspent by $28 million last year and that amount would ultimately be lost under BPA’s no-carryover policy.

A couple of examples of the Council’s perceived need for land purchase acquisition capitalization are planned Fisher River conservation easement and Weaver/McWinegar Slough riparian habitat purchases in Montana’s Blackfoot and Flathead subbasins. Both made it though scientific review and the NPCC’s provincial review process to win the Council’s endorsement in 2001. But neither of the $1 million items has made it through Bonneville’s contracting processes.

The agency feels that, through prior purchases, it has satisfied obligations outlined in an agreement with the state of Montana to mitigate for wildlife losses resulting from federal hydropower construction. Austin said the two purchases could potentially be eligible for resident fish crediting.

A credit ledger has been established for Columbia Basin wildlife for construction and inundation losses, but not for losses resulting from hydrosystem operations. Neither has a sum total of credits owed been established for resident fish. But the Council and BPA disagree about how much credit the federal agency should get for each habitat unit that is protected or improved. The Council program, as amended in 2000, maintains that two acres should be protected or improved for each unit lost because of hydrosystem construction. BPA has always maintained that the ratio should be 1-to-1. Council acceptance of the 1-to-1 ration would require a program amendment.

“We’re trying to separate those issues,” said Doug Marker, the NPCC’s fish and wildlife director. The Council staff believes that enough unfulfilled wildlife obligation credits exist — in areas such as the in the Willamette River in Oregon and around Lake Washington in Washington — to allow wildlife purchases. Planned purchases would remain well within BPA’s 1-to-1 limit while allowing the crediting debate to continue, Marker said.

That is not the case, however, for the Montana projects. Representatives of the Flathead Land Trust and others testified Tuesday that the delays in funding could result in opportunities lost and human energies being misspent.

Attorney Don Murray called the McWinegar slough project a “shining example of collaboration” between disparate entities — private landowners, federal and state agencies, local groups, affluent people, six other grantors, and others. Those entities have worked together to “protect some critical wildlife habitat,” Murray said.

“If it doesn’t come to fruition because the Bonneville component isn’t there, it will send out quite a negative message,” Murray said.

He and Chuck Mercord of the Flathead Lakers, a citizen’s group focused on preserving the lake’s attributes, stressed that the funding request is fairly unique among program projects in that the $1 million request is only one-sixth of the total cost of the project. The BPA funding would leverage $5 million from the other grant organizations.

Mercord pointed out that the BPA had trumpeted, in an April 2002 press release, its intent to spend some $6.6 million in Montana that year. The total included the Weaver-McWinegar Slough project. Montana Gov. Judy Martz was quoted in the press release, saying she was pleased with BPA’s efforts.

“You put the leader of our state out on a limb and now you are cutting it off,” Mercord said. He urged the federal agency to adopt policies that would allow the capitalization of land purchases so that it could follow through on its commitments of funds for such projects.

Rebecca Mann of Montana Sen. Max Baucus’ office called the inaction on the purchase commitments “an unfortunate way of doing business with people that have put a lot of faith into the process.”

Montana Councilor Ed Bartlett said he appreciated the comment and the Council would work to see those obligations satisfied.

“The issue is how are they going to get funded and when,” said Bartlett, chairman of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Committee. He said the Montana projects’ funding dilemma is one faced by others across the Columbia basin.

Weaver Slough and McWinegar Slough project has as a goal protecting a range of natural resources compromised by rapid subdivision and development of the area. Acquisition of purchased easements on five properties will extend private protection of Flathead River riparian corridor. The Thompson-Fisher project aims to purchase of perpetual conservation easement or similar agreement on thousands of acres of Plum Creek Timber Company (PCTC) lands in Thompson and Fisher River basins, which would preclude subdivision/commercial development.

Link information:
NWPPC: http://www.nwcouncil.org/
BPA: http://www.bpa.gov/indexmain.shtml
CBFWA: http://www.cbfwa.org/Default.htm

/0 Comments/by
, , , , , , , ,

5. FED AGENCIES PUSH FOR SPEEDY FUNDING DECISIONS ON RM&E

By Barry Espenson

Pressured by biological opinion deadlines, the Bonneville Power Administration and its federal partners are pushing for speedy funding and scientific decisions that, to the distress of others involved, go outside the normal process for choosing Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife projects.

The federal power marketing agency on March 14 issued a solicitation — a request for proposals — for projects to fill “gaps” that it and other federal agencies identified in the research, monitoring and evaluation program required by a December 2000 NOAA Fisheries Federal Columbia River Power System BiOp. That document prescribes 199 actions that agency feels necessary to avoid jeopardizing the survival of salmon and steelhead stocks. The RM&E program is intended to track implementation progress, and whether various measures are improving survival.

In January the agency estimated that filling those RME gaps with new projects could add as much as $7 million to Northwest Power and Conservation Council fish and wildlife program costs during fiscal 2003, $10.5 million in 2004 and $13 million in 2005. The expansion of existing program projects to meet BiOp RME needs could cost another $8 million in 2003, $11.7 million in 2004 and $13.2 million in 2005.

Those cost estimates are continually being refined and likely will be lower, Sarah McNary, BPA fish and wildlife division director, said this week. For instance, with fiscal 2003 nearly half elapsed, the agency is now estimating that less than $4 million will actually be spent this year on new gaps projects.

The NPCC staff, and its independent science panel, worry that their project selection process is being circumvented and the program budget is about to explode. Bonneville has asked for expedited Independent Scientific Review Panel and Council reviews of the RFP language and of the projects themselves when they are submitted in answer to solicitation.

The ISRP in a Feb. 28 review criticized three of the four RFPs submitted, saying such things as “the solicitation document is only partially sufficient to elicit proposals needed to address the gaps” or urging that a different proposal, “be substantially rewritten and redirected.” A third RFP target could be answered by expanding an existing project, the ISRP said.

The four proposed RFPs reviewed by the ISRP are:
— studies to determine reproductive success of hatchery spawners;
— development of an analytical approach/method/model to determine the effects of hatchery reforms and conservation hatcheries on extinction risk and recovery;
— reproductive success of natural-origin, hatchery-origin, and reconditioned kelt steelhead, and
— extra mortality.

The ISRP said the extra mortality proposal is premature and should not be undertaken at all at this time.

McNary said Wednesday that the RFPs to solicit only proposals to address the hatchery-related questions.

“We addressed those issues,” McNary said of the concerns expressed by the ISRP concerning the three hatchery related RFPs.. The extra mortality issue is still simmering.

“We felt there was enough there that we needed to discuss it further with NOAA Fisheries,” McNary said, before proceeding with a solicitation to address delayed mortality questions.

The ISRP used the occasion again to press its concern about “equity and allocation problems” being produced by the requests from the federal agencies for expedited scientific review and funding process.

“The ‘rush to meet the first check-in’ motivation is not a compelling enough reason to dedicate scarce FWP research funds to hastily constructed and reviewed proposals,” the ISRP wrote. The NPCC has struggled over the past two months to fit as many projects as possible under a BPA-imposed annual spending cap of $139 million for the program. Projects rated as fundable by the ISRP and of high priority by the Basin’s fish and wildlife managers have far outstripped the available funding.

“In addition, the diminished presence of state and tribal participation and coordination is troubling. Although we are supportive of targeted solicitations in general, the Council and BPA should be cognizant of the threat that special allocations such as these could undermine the legitimacy of the review process and the program that the region has worked so diligently to develop,” the ISRP wrote.

The Council has nearly completed the first round of its new provincial review process in which proposed projects within specific geographical areas — provinces — are judged scientifically every three years. The managers, through the auspices of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, also evaluate the projects.

The ISRP questioned whether it is necessary for the RFP process to ask “for funding decisions on an expedited basis while other proposals in the mainstem/systemwide project selection process are still under consideration.” The Council is scheduled to make its mainstem/systemwide funding recommendations in May.

The only province that has not reached the point of receiving a NPCC funding recommendation is the systemwide/mainstem province, which normally would house the type of projects needed to fill the BiOp gaps. It does include many projects that do help fill the federal RM&E bill. Some of those projects also need to be expedited to satisfy a list of needs for BiOp implementation before a major September 2003 “check-in.” Check-ins in 2003, 2005 and 2008 are intended to determine whether the BiOp is being implemented and doing its job of improving the survival of salmon and steelhead stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act. The BiOp actions include both hydrosystem passage and work “off-site” such as improvements to habitat, hatchery operations and harvest regimes.

Much of the funding for off-site work is coming from the Council’s program. BPA funds the program, which is called for in the 1980 Northwest Power Act, as mitigation for impacts to all fish and wildlife, not just listed species, from construction and operation of the federal hydrosystem. As one of three “action agencies (along with the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation),” BPA also has responsibilities for implementing the BiOp.

McNary said it is necessary, for BiOp compliance, to launch projects aimed at answering the hatchery questions as soon as possible.

Doug Marker, the Council’s fish and wildlife director, in briefings to the Council’s fish and wildlife committee, expressed budgetary and other concerns.

“In the outyears, it’s (the RM&E projects budget impact) enormous,” Marker said. He along with the ISRP is stressing the need to “get as much use out of existing projects as possible.” That integration of the RM&E needs and efforts of state and tribal managers with those of the federal agencies is essential to make best use of the money available, he said.

Marker said that he is also concerned about the skirting of the process, something he called “disturbing.” He said the Council wants BiOp implementation to proceed apace, but is concerned that the ISRP have enough time to properly review the projects.

McNary pointed out that funding for the program has grown considerably. During the term of a 1996-2001 federal memorandum of agreement, BPA provided $127 million annually for capital and project expense. It now says it will pay up to $139 million annually for project expenses and as much as $36 million for capital projects.

“The budget was set with not only the Northwest Power Act, but with ESA in mind,” McNary said.

Marker said discussions are ongoing about that integration, with BPA and CBFWA. Non-federal managers have in many cases objected to the federal agencies assumed of the envisioned regional RM&E program.

“My frustration is that there should not be sides,” Marker said. A regional program is needed to monitor progress for both listed and non-listed species and all managers would necessarily have to participate.

“It’s not like you can hire federal marshals to go out and monitor the projects,” Marker said.

McNary said that the federal agencies must comply with the BiOp, and to do that they need to shepherd through specific RM&E strategies that monitor the effectiveness of off-site work. And a lot of the work will undoubtedly be carried out by the region’s fish and wildlife managers.

“Clearly the fish and wildlife managers will have a pivotal role,” McNary said. She feels the RM&E development process is moving in the right direction.

“This is an opportunity to get our arms around what’s going on in the Basin,” she said, and coordinate those efforts to address all needs.

Any gap project proposals are due by 3 p.m. on April 11. A review of those projects by the ISRP and a panel put together by Bonneville will take place from April 14-25. The Council is expected to review the proposals and potential make funding recommendations during its May 6-7 meeting in Walla Walla, Wash.

BPA will then announce on May 9 which proposed studies best meet the stated objectives. The agency says that project implementation would begin June 20.

Link information:
NWPPC: http://www.nwcouncil.org/
BPA: http://www.bpa.gov/indexmain.shtml
CBFWA: http://www.cbfwa.org/Default.htm


/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

1. FEDERAL AGENCIES LAY OUT SALMON RECOVERY BUDGETS

By Mike O’Bryant

Federal agencies this week revealed that overall they will spend more in 2003 and 2004 for Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead recovery activities than they did in 2002.

However, Northwest tribes said the agency budgets are far from enough to fund all the biological opinion measures contained in NOAA Fisheries’ 2000 BiOp of the Federal Columbia River Power System and that may threaten the dam operators’ ability to meet the three and five year check-in requirements contained in the BiOp.

The budgets were shared among federal agencies and tribes at a Federal Caucus meeting Wednesday in Portland.

According to figures provided by the Office of Management and Budget, the total proposed in the president’s fiscal year 2003 budget for direct and indirect salmon funding spread across 11 federal agencies is $575.4 million, an increase from 2002 actual expenditure of $512.6 million. Although it is early in the FY 2004 budget cycle, expenditures for that year are projected to be $572.3 million.

However, in its recent testimony in the Bonneville Power Administration’s rate case, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission said the agencies would have to spend $1.203 billion in FY 2003 and $1.913 billion in FY 2004 in order to fully fund the aggressive non-breach strategy of the BiOp.

In addition, Roy Sampsel, representing CRITFC, said the budgets don’t tie dollars directly to individual BiOp measures. He said that detail will be needed — the direct connection between a budget item and a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative from the BiOp — if the region is ever going to get additional funding from Congress.

“The piece that’s missing is the logical trail to follow in the implementation strategy. In other words, we do this in a subbasin to meet this RPA,” Sampsel said. “We will need that level of detail when we tell Congress the level of funding needed to make a difference.”

He added that the Federal Caucus meeting Wednesday gives the agencies, the states and the tribes an opportunity to begin planning for such a meeting with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, as well as with members of Congress.

“We will need to evaluate all the holes and gaps needed for each RPA,” Sampsel said. “We can do that as part of this exercise.” He wants to have such an evaluation completed by April, which is when the tribes will visit Congress, and he asked that agency representatives participate.

“If we don’t do this by April, then our ability to influence the ’04 budget cycle begins to evaporate,” Sampsel said, adding the federal government’s 2005 budget cycle begins in early summer. “We can’t continue to guess about the implementation and funding levels. I suggest we develop this together as a common agenda.”

In his opening remarks to the Federal Caucus, NOAA Fisheries regional administrator Bob Lohn said that the meeting was to discuss funding of Northwest salmon recovery activities, not about the progress made towards meeting BiOp requirements. He did say that in meetings this week with 23 Northwest congressional offices, he found as a common theme a concern whether funding is adequate to meet BiOp requirements. However, the federal government is operating in what he described a “restrained fiscal environment.”

“The general pitch that we need more money is probably not going to be as successful as it has been in the past,” Lohn said. “However, there is broad support and interest in salmon recovery, not just in the BiOp, but in having healthy watersheds. The congressional members also recognize the need for sustained support.”

He also supported early in the meeting what Sampsel asked for later. “The salmon program is strongest for them (congressional delegation) when we can show clear results and that the product of the measures lead to those results,” Lohn said. “A failure to link improvements to budget measures makes it difficult to get funding.”

He added that the region wants to invest in salmon recovery, but that it is also a region with “many passions.” To get further funding, the region would have to act in a “thorough coordinated manner to buttress our case.”

Agency funding:

** The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers discretionary funding for FY 2002 was $108.75 million. That will rise to $128.2 million for FY 2003 and will drop to $125.1 million, according to the President’s current FY 2004 budget.

Witt Anderson, chief, Fish Management Office Northwestern Division, Army Corps of Engineers, said FY 2002 actual spending amounted to $98 million and that, while the budget request for FY 2003 was $128.24 million, the enacted 2003 budget amounts to $113.52 million. That includes

–$73.8 million for the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Project for juvenile and adult fish passage at eight mainstem Columbia and lower Snake river dams;
— $500,000 to get the Chief Joseph Dam gas abatement project under way, one of only two new projects for the Corps this year;
— $2 million for Lower Columbia River ecosystem restoration, the other new Corps project this year;
— $4 million for the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Comprehensive Plan;
— $8 million for Willamette River temperature control;
— a little more than $1 million for general investigations; and
— $45.33 million for operations and maintenance related to fish operations.

** Department of Interior funding for the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Geological Survey amounted to $23.3 million in FY 2002. That will rise to $27.1 million in FY 2003 and to $31.9 million in FY 2004.

** The BOR budget for salmon recovery includes $11 million in FY 2002, $15 million in FY 2003 and $19 million in FY 2004. Speaking about the $19 million in the FY 2004 budget, Jim Fodrea, BOR, said $6.4 million is for water acquisition, National Environmental Policy Act activities and other activities. Some $3 million to $4 million of that is to acquire water from the Snake River to provide 427,000-acre feet of water for summer flow augmentation. The budget for to subbasin improvements is $10.45 million.

He also pointed to other activities not included in the federal salmon budget, totaling $23.194 million in FY 2004 that will also benefit salmon. Those include $12.73 million for the Yakima River Basin Watershed Enhancement project, $6.626 million for operation and maintenance activities, and more than half a million dollars for bull trout activities, among others.

** Bill Shake of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said his agency’s budget was $10 million, which includes about $4 million to implement the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act, part of which doesn’t go directly to Columbia River Basin activities. The FY 2003 budget is $9.7 million and is likely to be $10.5 million in 2004.

Most of the remaining budget goes to support the NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife BiOps and for hatchery operations, which includes hatchery upgrades. The USFWS also has $179 million in its 2003 and 2004 budgets for Columbia River estuary restoration.

** Sampsel said the $400,000 budgeted for salmon activities by the Bureau of Indian Affairs is inadequate.

“The fact is the BIA is essentially not funded for these statutory requirements,” Sampsel said. “It’s a question of funding of tribal government participation in these multi-agency efforts and an increase in this funding should be on the table. $400,000 for 13 tribes is not an adequate response.”

** NOAA Fisheries’ budget, which spent $24.6 million in FY 2002, will rise to $36.6 million in FY 2003 and to $39.7 million in FY 2004. Brian Brown of NOAA Fisheries said the agency requested about $10 million more for monitoring and evaluation activities in preparation for a “fairly intense scientific process” prior to the check-ins, but was denied. That may also affect NOAA Fisheries’ participation in subbasin planning, he said.

“Why is it that the lead agency for ESA compliance doesn’t get any dollars for monitoring just before the three year check-in?” Sampsel asked.

Brown said the reason might be that the level of funding for monitoring and evaluation at other agencies “contributes to a perception that there is a lot going on there already.” He added that the budget denial means that NOAA Fisheries will not be able to staff its Science Center as the agency had hoped.

** The Department of Agriculture FY 2002 funding for the U.S. Forest Service and the National Resource Conservation Service was $84.4 million. That falls this year to $78.5 million (all of the change is in the Forest Service budget) and to $76.8 million in FY 2004. The Forest Service budget for FY 2002 was $56.5 million, $50.6 million in FY 2003 and $48.9 million in FY 2004.

** The Environmental Protection Agency budget is flat across all three years at $18.3 million. Mary Lou Soscia of EPA said the agency delegates much of its funds as grants to the states to implement the Clean Water Act. It gave $3.7 million in 2002 to support tribes and will maintain that support in 2003. About $5.7 million goes to non-point source management plans, $3.297 million to support developing Total Maximum Daily Load plans, and $4.4 million for 49 people assigned to Columbia River Basin activities.

** All discretionary federal spending (budgets from all agencies described above) amounted to $259.3 million in FY 2002. This year that spending is expected to be $288.7 million and in FY 2004 it will rise to $291.8 million.

** The only mandatory federal funding category is with the Bonneville Power Administration. Direct fish costs at BPA for FY 2002 were $253.3 million. That rises this year to $286.7 million, but falls in FY 2004 to $280.5 million. Sarah McNary of BPA said that the total is higher if the agency includes its Treasury repayment. For FY 2003, the total with repayment is $367.9 million and $370.6 million for FY 2004.

The budget items include $150 million in FY 2003 for Offsite Mitigation, or the payments BPA makes to other agencies for activities under the ESA and Northwest Power Act (including the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s fish and wildlife program). McNary said the actual budget figure for FY 2003 is now $139 million, but the $150 million amount was reported to the OMB earlier and has yet to change. FY 2004 expenditure will be $139 million and that will continue through FY 2006, which is the end of BPA’s rate case period.

The BPA budget also includes funding for operations and maintenance for the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan and other O&M activities, as well as funding for the Pacific Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the Offsite Mitigation capital expense, repayment to the Treasure and transmission costs associated with BiOp RPAs.

The cost of spill would add an additional $303 million to Bonneville’s total cost for salmon operations. That includes $162 million in lost revenues when the agency spills water instead of uses the water to generate electricity, and $141 million to purchase energy to make up for that loss. With average 50-year water, the loss amounts to 982 annual average megawatts. According to BPA budget information, the “loss in energy production due to fish restoration and protection is .about 10 percent.”

Links:
Federal Caucus: www.salmonrecovery.gov
CRITFC: www.critfc.org


/0 Comments/by

newsroom@staging.columbiabasinbulletin.org

The American Whistleblower is proudly produced by Virtuoso Media LLC

Produced by Virtuoso Media LLC

© Copyright 1997-2025 - The Columbia Basin Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.