1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
| |
1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program |
| Council document 94-55 | |
|
|
Contents
1.1 The Northwest Power Act and the Region's Fish and Wildlife
1.2 Historical Perspective
1.3 Costs and Responsibilities
1.4 Council Commitments
1.5 Other Responsibilities
1.6 Indian Rights
1.7 Water Rights
1.8 Assuring the Region an Adequate, Efficient, Economical and Reliable Power Supply
1.9 Summary
?The Council shall promptly develop and adopt...a program to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife, including related spawning grounds and habitat, on the Columbia River and its tributaries...affected by the development, operation and management of [hydroelectric projects] while assuring the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply.?
--Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980
Ever since the Northwest Power Act was passed in 1980, the Columbia River Basin's fish and wildlife have been the subject of increasing attention, not just from groups that are dependent on the river or its fish, but from the public at large. A major goal of the Act is to address the impacts that the region's hydroelectric dams have had on fish and wildlife. The Act pays particular attention to anadromous fish -- salmon and steelhead -- and the impact of hydroelectric dams on these fish. The Columbia Basin's anadromous fish, the Act says, ?...are of particular significance to the social and economic well-being of the Pacific Northwest and the Nation and are dependent on suitable environmental conditions substantially obtainable from the management and operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System and other power generating facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries.? During the past decade, significant efforts and money have been spent to protect and rebuild the affected populations.
But those efforts have not been enough to rescue some species. Some of the region's salmon and steelhead runs have been declining at alarming rates, so alarming that, since 1990,certain populations have been the focus of national, as well as regional attention. In mid-November 1991, to no one's surprise, the National Marine Fisheries Service officially declared Snake River sockeye salmon an endangered species. In April 1992, the Fisheries Service designated Snake River spring/summer and fall chinook as threatened species. In August 1994, these fish were reclassified as endangered species. The 1992 declarations triggered a set of actions required under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. One of these actions is the development of recovery plans. The National Marine Fisheries Service assembled a team of experts who developed recommendations for a Snake River salmon recovery plan in May 1994. The Fisheries Service plans to prepare its recovery plan in early 1995.
The urgent need for adequate efforts to rebuild the dwindling Snake River salmon populations is underscored by the condition of the runs themselves. These populations are at perilously low numbers. Consider these figures reported by the Oregon and Washington departments of fish and wildlife. In 1975, these agencies estimated the Snake River sockeye population at 255 adult fish returning to the mouth of the Columbia River to begin the journey to spawn. In 1993, the number was 19 fish. In 1986, the departments estimated the Snake River fall chinook population at 2,796 fish returning to the mouth of the Columbia. In 1993, the number was 1,636. After subtracting harvest and an estimate of the losses to other causes, only 742 of these fish are believed to have passed all eight dams on the journey to spawn above Lower Granite Dam. In 1994, the estimate was even lower -- 400 to 500 fish.
Historically, these runs have been declining. River velocities generally have been declining as well during the critical spring migration period for juvenile salmon, although some of these declines in water velocity have been offset by the water budget called for in this program. Additionally, salmon are cold-water fish that are particularly susceptible to changes in water temperature, yet average water temperatures in the Columbia -- measured at Bonneville Dam -- have been rising steadily since the 1940s, according to the Washington and Oregon fisheries departments (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
All of this is bad news for the salmon, and for steelhead as well, which support popular recreational fisheries in the Columbia and Snake. These facts, combined with the Endangered Species Act, send a clear message that the region must redouble its efforts to protect its fish, especially those that spawn naturally in rivers rather than in hatcheries. The Northwest Power Planning Council's concern is not just for those runs that have been placed on the national endangered species list, but for all salmon runs in the Columbia Basin.
The Council was created in part to give the region an opportunity to design and implement a program for protection of all anadromous and resident fish and wildlife in the Columbia Basin, rather than having narrowly focused recovery programs developed in Washington, D.C., or in federalcourt. The Council believes that if its program is fully implemented, future Endangered Species Act listings could be unnecessary. Full implementation of the program also could help keep contentious fish and energy disputes out of court. An effective fish and wildlife rebuilding effort must go beyond the immediate listed stocks if our region ever is to get off the Endangered Species Act treadmill.
In addition, the region has other legal obligations that must be met regarding fish and wildlife, and which are complemented by the Council's program. These include: tribal treaty fishing rights, Executive Order tribal rights, salmon rebuilding obligations of the Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada and requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. These necessitate measures beyond those to remove listed salmon stocks from the Endangered Species list.
Fortunately, the Northwest did not lose time debating whether Snake River sockeye and the other listed runs -- spring, summer and fall chinook -- are in fact threatened or endangered. Building on its decades of experience with salmon, the Northwest began developing its own regional plan in 1991 for those species that are most critically depleted, as well as for other salmon and steelhead populations basinwide.
Important groundwork for the salmon rebuilding effort was laid in a Salmon Summit convened in late 1990 by the region's Governors and Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield. The summit, made up of the user, policy and interest groups connected with the Columbia Basin's waterways, came up with critical short-term measures that were implemented in 1991 to stem further decline. Those measures bought the region time.
From there, development of a regional salmon rebuilding plan moved to the arena of the Northwest Power Planning Council, the interstate body that has provided a regional forum for the past 12 years through its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The Council, whose members are appointed by the Governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington, develops its program under the Northwest Power Act.
Just as the endangered species petitions for Snake River salmon underscored the critical condition of some Columbia Basin salmon runs, the petitions also highlighted the need to address impacts on salmon at every stage of their life cycle. After the Salmon Summit, the Governors asked the Council to expand its focus to address all activities that impact salmon, not just the hydroelectric system.
The Council took up where the Salmon Summit left off in the spring of 1991 by initiating a process to amend its fish and wildlife program. The result was the 1992 Strategy for Salmon.
That strategy was challenged in lawsuits filed by environmental groups, industries and an Indian tribe. In September 1994, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over lawsuits filed against the Council, issued its opinion. In short, the court remanded the Strategy for Salmon to the Council with instructions to make clear findings in the program on recommendations for program measures, while observing that the Council should take bolder actions to protect the fish and give greater deference to the region's fish agencies and Indian tribes when they submit recommendations for program measures.
Earlier in 1994, pursuant to commitments made in the Strategy for Salmon, the Council had begun a process of amending the strategy. Thus, the court's opinion provided valuable assistance in that process.
This document, the 1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, resulted from the amendments, which were approved in a 6-2 vote. A minority opinion can be found in Appendix E. In the 1992 Strategy for Salmon, the Council concluded that additional measures would be needed to enhance salmon survival in the Snake and Columbia rivers, and the Council committed to seek improved information about those measures and consider them in the 1994 amendment process. These additional actions, including a phased strategy for implementing reservoir drawdowns, are detailed in Section 5 of the 1994 program. The Council intends that the elements of this program be adapted as needed and as new information becomes available. Not only has the Council provided flexibility to make changes as appropriate, it has designed the program to add to the region's knowledge of fish and wildlife.
Such a program, developed with regional input, should prove to be an essential guide for federal agencies in devising recovery plans for fish or wildlife listed under the Endangered Species Act. Without it, the federal government or courts would be left to impose a plan of their own. A regional plan, based on extensive input from all the basin's interest groups as well as Northwest citizens, has the advantage of reflecting the unique values, perspective and interests of the region.
But this document represents much more than a guide to recovery actions. It is the first truly comprehensive strategy for fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin. It is a long-range plan to amend river operations, increase productivity, repair habitat and refine harvests. It is designed to balance competing river uses while strengthening and rebuilding fish runs throughout the basin. The Council's aim is to make future Endangered Species Act petitions unnecessary and ultimately to produce healthy and harvestable populations of salmon and steelhead, as well as protect resident fish and wildlife.
Regarding resident fish -- those that don't migrate to the ocean during their lives -- this program recognizes that these fish suffered from many of the same impacts as salmon. In 1994, for example, the Kootenai River white sturgeon was added to the federal endangered species list. The Council's goal for resident fish is to recover and preserve the health of populations that were injured by the hydropower system, where feasible. If it is not feasible to mitigate losses where they occurred, then these losses will be mitigated elsewhere in the basin.
The Council's goal for wildlife is similar. Some flood plain and riparian habitats that are important to wildlife were inundated when reservoirs behind the dams filled with water. A number of other dam-related impacts altered land and streamside areas where wild birds and animals live. The goal for wildlife in this program is to achieve and sustain levels of habitat and species productivity that fully mitigate wildlife losses resulting from the construction of dams.
Funding for resident fish and wildlife mitigation proceeded at low levels in the past, and the Council expects these activities will get a higher percentage of the Bonneville Power Administration's fish and wildlife program budget in the future. Bonneville, as the region's federal electrical power marketing agency, funds the majority of actions called for in this program, using revenues from the sale of electricity. The Council adopted a level of approximately 15 percent of the fish and wildlife budget for resident fish and 15 percent for wildlife -- leaving 70 percent for salmon -- as an appropriate budget planning target.
