May 19, 2000

VIA EMAIL recommendations@nwcouncil.org

AND US MAIL

Mark Walker
Director of Public Affairs
Northwest Power Planning Council
851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100
Portland, OR 97204

Re: Fish and Wildlife Program Comments

Dear Mr. Walker:

Enclosed please find the comments of Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington concerning the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. A copy of our comments was also provided by email.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. You may reach me by phone at 509-663-8121, by fax at 509-664-2879, and by email at .

Very truly yours,

PUBLIC UTILTIY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF CHELAN COUNTY

By ____________________________

Richard A. Nason
Executive Director of Corporate Services
Enclosure

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the Northwest Power Planning Council’s (the "Council") Fish and Wildlife Program amendment process. Over the years, Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington ("Chelan") and the Council have enjoyed a good working relationship. We look forward to continuing our relationship long into the future.

As part of your planning effort, we would like to bring to your attention the facts that Chelan and Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington currently have comprehensive Anadromous Fish Agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans (the "Agreements") pending before the National Marine Fisheries Service for the issuance of incidental take permits under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. In the near future, these Agreements along with a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be released for public comment.

The Agreements establish a "No Net Impact" ("NNI") standard for the survival of salmon and steelhead through the Wells, Rocky Reach and Rock Island Hydroelectric Projects. NNI consists of two parts. First, 91% Project Survival, which means that 91% of the salmon and steelhead, juvenile and adult combined, survive the effects of each project. 91% Project Survival includes an independent standard of 95% Juvenile Dam Passage Survival, which means that 95% of the juvenile salmon and steelhead over 95% of each species migration survive migration through each project’s forebay, dam and tailrace.

Second, 9% compensation of the unavoidable mortality at each project. This compensation is provided through hatchery and tributary programs, with 7% compensation provided through hatchery programs and 2% compensation provided through tributary program. The Agreements continue the "coordinating committees" that have worked so well in the Mid-Columbia, and establish detailed dispute resolution procedures to assure the timely resolution of disputes.

Our Agreements and your April 11, 2000 "strawman" appear to strongly complement each other. Once our Agreements become effective, we intend to contact you and request that these Agreements be incorporated into your Fish and Wildlife Plan as part of your sub-basin plan for the Columbia Cascade Province. Our comments primarily flow from our experience in developing the Agreements, and to assure that the Agreements and your amended Fish and Wildlife Program will work together to help protect, mitigate and enhance the Columbia River for salmon and steelhead.

In providing these comments we reviewed your April 11, 2000 "strawman", and your form for providing recommendations. We support amending your Fish and Wildlife Program in a manner consistent with the "strawman". Accordingly, our comments are limited to providing specific comments to various portions of the "strawman".

1. Part 1, Section A.2, Bullet 5, first sentence. "Actions to improve juvenile and adult fish passage … should favor solutions that best fit natural behavior patterns and river processes." This sentence should be qualified with a phrase like "to the extent possible". This addition is requested to acknowledge the existence of the hydro system. The hydro system prevents completely natural behavior patterns and river processes.
2. Part 1, Section A.2, Bullet 5, second sentence. "Spill should be the baseline against which to measure the effectiveness of other passage methods." Spill is a single method that can be employed at hydro projects to "protect, mitigate and enhance fish". The "survival" of fish is a better baseline for policy decision making at the "basin level". The effectiveness of spill in increasing survival varies by the project. For example, spill is a very good means of increasing survival at Rock Island, but a very poor means of increasing survival at Rocky Reach due to fish behavior and the orientation of the powerhouse. The choice of methods to increase survival should be left to specific projects at the sub-Basin level. This change is also consistent with the proposed use of "performance standards" in the draft "Columbia Plateau Province" level plan that was distributed for review on April 11, 2000.
3. Part 1, Section A.2, Bullet 8, first sentence. "There is an obligation to provide fish and wildlife mitigation where habitat has been permanently lost … In those cases, artificial production will be used to replace capacity…" In situations where human activities leads to unavoidable mortality, mitigation can be provided not only through artificial production (i.e., hatcheries), but also through habitat enhancement in the streams and in the estuaries.
4. Part 1, Section A.2, Bullet 12, second sentence. "Management actions should strive to help those species accommodate a variety of ocean conditions by providing a sufficient level of productivity and a wide range of biological diversity." What do the phrases "sufficient level of productivity" and "wide range of biological diversity" mean? To what degree should limited resources be focused upon these concepts? Without qualification, these concepts seem inconsistent with a biological objective that focuses on "currently productive fish and wildlife populations and communities". See Part 1, Section B, Second Paragraph item (1).
5. Part 1, Section B, Second paragraph Item 4, and Sub-Section 1.(1). These sections require the identification of "focal fish and wildlife" species at the basin level. The concept of managing around a "focal" or indicator species is very good. However, provinces and sub-basis need the flexibility to establish their own "focal" species. "Focal" species change depending upon where you are looking in the Columbia Basin. For example, take chum salmon and bull trout. Both are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Chum salmon may be a focal species for a stream in the lower Columbia, but they do not exist in the Upper Columbia. Whereas, bull trout may be a focal species for a high mountain stream in the Upper Columbia, but of little concern to a lower Columbia stream. At the basin level, the Council should simply encourage ecosystem management.
6. Part 1, Section B, Sub-Section 2.(3). "Expand habitat and ecosystem functions … well above the recovery level." First, this objective should be limited to the management of species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Otherwise, the concept is taken out of context. Second, how will this concept be managed during the period between listing and the establishment of a recovery plan. Third, is it realistic to expect that management can occur "well above" the recovery level? We suggest shifting the focus of this sentence so that management will lead to the recovery and de-listing of the species.
7. Part 1, Section B, Sub-Section 2.(4). "Viable anadromous fish populations should … maintain abundance even during poor ocean conditions." How will "abundance" be quantified? In periods of poor ocean conditions survival will be different from periods with good ocean conditions. This difference needs to be recognized. Also, how does this objective relate to the Endangered Species Act. For a non-listed species, does this mean that a species will be managed to avoid listing or to withstand a certain level of human mortality? For a listed species, does this mean management to achieve recovery?
8. Part 1, Section C.1.b., Third Paragraph, Last Sentence. "Most important, passage standards … must ultimately be related to increases in adults back to the spawning grounds, not just the survival of juveniles (or adults) through the federal Columbia River hydropower system." It is important for all decisions in the basin to be coordinated to increase the effectiveness of returning adults to their spawning grounds. However, it is not realistic to manage each hydroelectric project by this standard. All that a specific hydroelectric project can do is minimize the unavoidable morality associated with the project. This is measured by the survival of juveniles and adults through each project. An adult may not reach the spawning ground, or may reach them and still not spawn for reasons completely unrelated to a specific project.
9. Part 3, Section A, Second Paragraph, Third sentence. "Subbasin plan should also provide an opportunity for the integration and coordination of projects and programs funded by others than Bonneville." Coordination of subbasin activities should be occur whenever feasible.
10. Part 3. Section A. This section generally discusses subbasin planning. The Fish and Wildlife Plan should identify who is responsible for the development of the subbasin plans, who must agree to each subbasin plan, what happens to a subbasin plan in the event an agreement cannot be reached, when the development of the subbasin plan must be completed, and the consequence for failing to prepare a subbasin plan. Each of these issues has a significant effect on the dynamics of creating a subbasin plan. Also, until these questions are answered it is difficult to comment on the identified subbasin planning objectives. The subbasin planning objectives may be too rigid, or the Council should be prepared to liberally grant exceptions for negotiated subbasin plans.
11. Part 3, Section A, Paragraph 4, 4^th sentence. "Rather, the template, or structure of subbasin plans will need to be relatively fixed from one area to the next if they are to fulfill the multi-scale planning role …" This requirement does not facilitate negotiated plans. In order to achieve a negotiated package, those involved in the negotiation have to be creative in the manner in which they find common understandings. There should be a preference for supporting negotiated solutions. The fact that a negotiated solution does not create an entire subbasin plan, or is different from the vision for the basin, province, or subbasin should not be a reason to reject a plan that otherwise has a strong level of support.
12. Part 3, Section A, Paragraph 6. Who is responsible for the preparation of the three components of the subbasin plan? It will be very expensive and time consuming to create a biological assessment, inventory of existing projects, and management plan for an entire subbasin.
13. Part 3, Section B, Paragraph 4, first sentence. "The Council recognizes the major on-going efforts of state and local agencies in the development of watershed assessments and plans." This sentence should be expanded to include settlement agreements, habitat conservation plans, and biological opinions.
14. Part 3, Section C, Paragraph 1, first sentence. "The Council will request that subbasin plans be reviewed by an independent science panel …" This requirement should stay discretionary. Otherwise, it may create redundant scientific reviews.
15. Part 4. A clarification should be added to this section to make clear that it applies only to those programs to be funded by BPA.
16. Part 5, Attachment: Examples of Biological Objectives, Section A.(2). What does "energy" mean?
17. Part 5, Attachment: Examples of Biological Objectives, Section B.(2), Bullet 2. "Redirect present restoration efforts, which focus almost exclusively on week, remaining satellite populations…". How is this objective possible when a species is managed under the Endangered Species Act? There needs to be an analysis of how this objective and the objectives of the ESA will be reconciled. Otherwise, it appears that the two define mutually exclusive goals.
18. Part 5, Attachment: Examples of Biological Objectives, Section B.(5), Bullet 4. "A viable population that includes naturally spawning hatchery fish … at a natural return ratio at 1.0 or higher." This return ratio is established without regard to a species or population. Depending upon the species or population such a return ratio may not be realistic to achieve.
19. Glossary, "Wetland communities". What does the term "aywatic" mean?

Again thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. We believe that your "strawman" represents a responsible manner in which to manage Columbia River fish and wildlife issues. We hope that our comments will assist your efforts in amending your Fish and Wildlife Plan.

Go to top | Go to index