Naiads

Water: law/policy/politics/ethics/art/science


by Leave a comment

Part 2: New Dams & Diversions in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness?

Part 2:  The Eightmile Lake Storage Proposal

This is the second of a four-part series regarding proposals to re-build a dam and increase water diversions from as many as seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.  Part 1 describes the genesis and functioning of the Icicle Work Group, the entity which is proposing the water projects. Part 3 examines the Upper Klonaqua Lake Pipeline proposal, and Part 4 examines the Alpine Lakes Automation-Storage project.

In a nutshell, the Department of Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River has funded Chelan County to investigate how to solve water problems in the Wenatchee River watershed.  The primary focus of the effort is to increase water storage and diversions from seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpines Lakes Wilderness.

This article discusses the proposal to rebuild a dam at Eightmile Lake and make more water available for the City of Leavenworth and other downstream uses.

Eightmile Lake nonfunctioning dam Sept 15 2013 by Karl Forsgaard

Nonfunctional dam at Eightmile Lake in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness (Photo: Karl Forsgaard)

The Eightmile Lake Restoration-Storage proposal evaluates the ability to increase water storage in Eightmile Lake by increasing the pool level and/or drawing the lake down further.

The original dam and control works for the lake have collapsed and current usable capacity is 1,375 acre-feet of water.

The Eightmile Lake Restoration Draft Appraisal Study (Nov. 2014) evaluates four options for increasing storage capacity: 2,000, 2,500 (2 options), and 3,500 acre-feet.  All four options include re-building the dam to its original height, or higher, as well as drawing down Eightmile Lake pool below its current, semi-natural outlet.  The Eightmile Lake proposal is based on assumptions about water rights and easements held by the Icicle and Peshastin Irrigation Districts (IPID), which actively manage four of the Alpine Lakes to serve water to about 7,000 acres of orchards and converted lands in the Wenatchee Valley.

IPID holds water rights dating from 1926 that allow the district to store water in and divert from the lakes.  The Eightmile Lake water right was adjudicated in 1929 at 2500 acre-feet annual volume, and 25 cfs rate of diversion.   However, the Eightmile dam collapsed at some point in the past and IPID has not used the full (artificial) storage capacity for many years.  There are questions about relinquishment of water rights over and above what IPID needs and has used in the past.  At a minimum, the Department of Ecology would have to issue water rights for new and increased uses.

Eightmile Lake Easements (Aspect Nov. 2014)

Eightmile Lake easements held by IPID are shown in blue (Aspect Consulting, Nov. 2014)

IPID holds easements that allow it to “store” water in several of the Alpine Lakes, although the scope of the easement for Eightmile Lake does not cover the entire lake.  As described in a Review of Eight Mile Lake Storage Authority (Aspect Consulting, 3-5-14), IPID’s easements cover only  a portion of the lake.

Any increase in storage capacity would require, at a minimum, U.S. Forest Service approvals.  Section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 requires Presidential approval to establish and maintain reservoirs within wilderness areas.

The appraisal study hypothesizes that the easement language will allow and perhaps even require the Forest Service to approve an expansion of the reservoir:  “In performing maintenance, repair, operation, modification, upgrading and replacement of [Eightmile Lake] facilities, [IPID] will not without prior written consent of the Forest Service, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld, materially increase the size or scope of the facilities.”

Min & Max Inundation for Option 2 (Aspect Nov. 2014)-2

Minimum and Maximum Inundation Levels for Eightmile Lake Restoration, Option 2 (Aspect Consulting, Nov. 2014)

The Eightmile Lake proposal raises questions about the scope of impacts on riparian zones and wilderness surrounding the lake, including trails, campsites and other public amenities.

Trout Unlimited has published a study evaluating increase in storage at Eightmile Lake to provide water to improve instream flows in Icicle Creek.  That study includes a brief review of impacts to campsites and trails around the lake.

Eightmile Lake is one of the most popular trails and destinations in the Icicle Creek region of the Alpine Lake Wilderness, partly because of its easy accessibility.  To date, however, the U.S. Forest Service has not provided a public position regarding proposals to expand or draw down Eightmile Lake.

 


by 1 Comment

New Dams & Diversions in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness?

PART 1:  Genesis of the Icicle Work Group

Enchantment Zone Icicle ID Instream Flow Improvement Options Analysis (7-22-14)

Enchantment Lakes targeted for new dams and water diversions (Graphic from Icicle Irrigation District Instream Flow Improvement Project (Forsgren Assoc. & Trout Unlimited, 7-22-14)

The Department of Ecology’s Office of the Columbia River is funding and sponsoring proposals to increase water diversions from seven lakes in the Enchantment Lakes region of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness that flow into Icicle Creek:  Colchuck, Eightmile, Upper and Lower Snow, Nada, Upper Klonaqua and Square Lakes.

This post is Part 1 of a 4-part Naiads series describing the Alpine Lakes proposed projects.  Part 2 discusses the Eightmile Lake Restoration-Storage project.  Part 3 discusses the Upper Klonaqua Lake pipeline proposal.  Part 4 discusses the Alpine Lakes Automation-Storage project.

In 2012, the Office of the Columbia River funded Chelan County to form a “collaborative work group” to address Icicle Creek water quantity issues.  Ostensibly the purpose of the Icicle Work Group (IWG) is to solve instream flow problems in Icicle Creek while obtaining more water from the system for out-of-stream uses.

The impetus for creating the work group comes from a lawsuit filed by the City of Leavenworth against the Department of Ecology regarding its quantification of the city’s water rights.  The Chelan County Court decision was issued in 2011.  The case is on hold in the Court of Appeals while Ecology uses the IWG process to attempt to find water for Leavenworth (see Settlement Position Paper, Initial Status Report, 2nd status report and 3rd status report).  If the effort fails and the lawsuit moves forward, a court decision could undermine Ecology’s authority to quantify water rights that pre-date the 1917 water code.  The statewide implications are substantial; presumably Ecology would prefer to settle and vacate the lower court orders.

Funding the IWG

To implement the Leavenworth settlement efforts, the Office of the Columbia River entered into a $700,000 contract with Chelan County Natural Resources Department to run the IWG and pursue water development projects.

Chelan County subcontracted with Aspect Consulting (Dan Haller, principal) for $506,000 of investigations and Dally Environmental Service (Lisa Dally Wilson, principal) for  $16,000 of meeting facilitation.   Also subcontracted is Cascadia Law Group (Jay Manning, principal) ($$ unknown) and the Icicle Peshastin Irrigation District ($25,000 per year for two years).

The Office of the Columbia River is now seeking another $3.5 million to continue the IWG work into the 2015-17 biennium.  (Gov. Inslee has proposed a smaller budget for the OCR, but details relating to the IWG are not available.)

Icicle Work Group Goals

In addition to finding water for Leavenworth, the IWG process has several goals embodied in its Operating Procedures.  These include improving instream flows in Icicle Creek, helping create a sustainable Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery, protecting tribal rights to fish at the hatchery, improving water reliability for agriculture, and improving ecosystem health.

All this must occur while achieving compliance with state and federal laws, including the Wilderness Act  –  no small feat.

The IWG is a “quid pro quo” process.  This raises the question whether ecosystem benefits, including water quality improvements and restoration of instream flows for endangered species, may only be achieved if new water supply is provided for Leavenworth (along with other IWG goals).  This in turn raises questions about whether and to what extent state and federal laws (for example, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act permits) may be superceded by a stakeholder-based collaborative process.  What is the role of the Department of Ecology and NOAA Fisheries, agencies who are tasked with issuing permits for the Leavenworth Fish Hatchery, for example?

Overview of the Alpine Lakes Water Projects

According to IWG studies, the primary source of water supply for new municipal/domestic/agricultural uses will come from the seven lakes in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.

Eightmile Lake forest at west end Sept 15 2013 by Karl Forsgaard

Forested west end of Eightmile Lake. Proposals for raising the lake pool have not studied the impacts on riparian and wilderness resources. (Photo: Karl Forsgaard)

At present, three proposals relate to the Alpine Lakes:  (1) the Eightmile Lake Restoration-Storage project; (2) the Upper Klonaqua Lake pipeline proposal; and (3) the Alpine Lakes Automation-Storage project.  These projects are discussed in Parts 2, 3, and 4 of this series.  The latest studies can also be found on the Chelan County NRD website.

The Icicle-Peshastin Irrigation District (IPID) holds grandfathered easements and water rights that allow it to store and divert water from the Alpine Lakes. Leavenworth Fish Hatchery (owned by US Bureau of Reclamation, operated by US Fish & Wildlife Service) also holds a water right for Snow & Nada Lakes.  The scope of these interests is a matter for evaluation as well.

The Alternative Conservation Proposal

Rather than divert additional water from the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, water solutions for Icicle Creek could be found through more sustainable approaches.  Approximately 117 cfs of new instream flow could be added to a 6-mile length of Icicle Creek (downstream of Snow Creek) by moving the Icicle Peshastin Irrigation District’s take-out point downstream to the Wenatchee River.

Water conservation opportunities are substantial.  Rather than looking to the Alpine Lakes as the first option, the City of Leavenworth should adopt an aggressive water conservation plan, as should other users in the valley.  These actions, combined with promoting water markets that facilitate selling and trading water rights, could supply future water uses.  However, these approaches have received minimal consideration to date.

Public Outreach & Environmental Study Processes

Manipulating lake levels and allocating new water rights from the Alpine Lakes is likely to impact the public’s interest in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, and could be controversial.  Although the IWG was asked to create a Wilderness Advisory Group to solicit immediate input on these proposals, that idea was eliminated without discussion at the Dec. 2014 IWG meeting.

Chelan County did hold a public meeting in Seattle in 2012, from which the perception arose that the environmental community is not concerned about the Alpine Lakes water storage and diversion proposals.  A similar meeting may be held in January 2015.  Meanwhile, scoping under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) will be scheduled for spring or summer 2015.  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes are unknown at this time.

In addition to the Alpine Lakes storage and water right proposals, the Icicle Work Group is evaluating several other projects to improve instream flow and habitat in Icicle Creek.  There is also movement afoot by other water users in the Wenatchee Valley to capture Icicle Creek (including Alpine Lakes) water for downstream uses.

The ultimate “package” of projects will involve trade-offs that require public scrutiny and input.

For more information about the Icicle Work Group, see the Chelan County website, and read Parts 2, 3 and 4 of this series.

 

 

 

 


by Leave a comment

New Eastern Washington Water Projects Simply Not Affordable

Aerial view of Grand Coulee Dam, Washington. Columbia Basin Project, WA.

Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia Basin Project beyond (USBR)

The following guest editorial was printed in the Spokesman-Review on Sunday, January 4, 2015, discussing conclusions from two recent reports evaluating the economics of the Columbia Basin and Yakima irrigation projects.

The bottom line:  eastern Washington farmers have not repaid even 10% of the portion of these projects that are allocated to agriculture (notwithstanding huge public subsidies).  Future, concrete-intensive projects will fare no better.

For more information about the questionable economics of eastern Washington irrigation projects, visit the CELP website and Naiads.  And taxpayers, keep an eye  on your wallet.

January 4, 2015

Guest opinion: Public can’t afford to subsidize new water projects

John Osborn and Ken Hammond
Special to The Spokesman-Review
Water is political currency. Politicians hold hostage worthy public programs in exchange for public funding of money-losing water supply projects.  A case in point is the Central Arizona Project or CAP – the largest, most expensive aqueduct in the United States.

In the 1960s, President Lyndon B. Johnson horse-traded approval of CAP in exchange for votes to enact civil rights legislation. While LBJ’s goals were worthy, it is a fact that taxpayers got stuck with most of the bill for CAP.

Similar subsidies apply to federal projects all over the West, including Eastern Washington.

To protect the public purse, objective economic analysis of water projects is a powerful tool. Two recent studies shine light on Eastern Washington’s two major federal irrigation projects: the Columbia Basin Project and the Yakima Project. Productive irrigated agriculture and local economies depend on these federal mega-projects. But the two projects have not paid for themselves – far from it. State and federal budget leaders should take heed.

A 2014 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“Availability of Information on Repayment of Water Project Costs Could Be Better Promoted”) evaluated irrigation district repayment for 130 federal water projects in the Western U.S.

At Grand Coulee Dam, the Columbia Basin Project pumps uphill 3.3 million acre-feet of river water for delivery to 670,000 acres across the Columbia Plateau.  This massive project cost $2.4 billion to construct. (In today’s dollars, the cost would be enormously higher.) Of that, $685 million was allocated to irrigated agriculture. But $495 million – nearly 75 percent – has been written off for payment by Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers, socializing the costs to millions of people paying their utility bills.

As reported by the GAO, of the $190 million left to be repaid by the irrigators, only $60 million has been paid, with payments stretched over 50 years at zero interest. On balance, irrigators have paid less than 5 percent of their share.

The Yakima Project stores and diverts 1.2 million acre-feet of water from five reservoirs in the Cascade Mountains, serving irrigation districts in Kittitas, Yakima and Benton counties. Here, construction costs total $286 million, with $149 million allocated to irrigators. The GAO reports slightly better repayment. Still, Yakima Valley irrigators have paid less than 10 percent of the total costs.

Crops grown in these federal projects don’t pay for the existing water supply infrastructure, loudly signaling that expanding these irrigation projects won’t cover costs either. Nonetheless, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has partnered with Washington’s Office of the Columbia River to pursue multibillion dollar expansions of both the Columbia Basin and Yakima projects.

Fortunately for taxpayers, federal guidelines now prohibit federal funding for water projects when costs exceed benefits. A recent economic study of expanding the Columbia Basin Project into the Odessa Subarea forced the bureau to decline funding that project.

Instead, the Office of the Columbia River has stepped into the gap to assess whether, and how much, Odessa Subarea farmers can pay to pump and deliver water to their farms. Depending on size, state subsidies of several hundred million or a few billion dollars would be needed to replace groundwater with river water for this small group of potato farmers.

The proposed Yakima water projects are similar. To expand in the Yakima, large state subsidies will be required to replace traditional federal subsidies to pay for the excess of costs over benefits.

In 2013, the cash-strapped Washington Legislature wisely tasked independent economists to study the latest Yakima Basin proposal.  In December, a team of Washington State Water Resource Center economists concluded that costs of water supply projects in the Yakima Basin – including new dams – outweigh benefits by 90 percent or more. In contrast, proposed fisheries enhancement projects of importance to tribes and the general public are cost effective. (Read: “Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan Projects.”)

Public subsidy for new irrigation projects needs to end. Dust Bowl-era justifications no longer apply to an increasingly corporate agricultural sector. Governments struggle to pay for public necessities such as education, health care and even maintenance backlogs for existing dams and water projects. New and expanded water projects are simply not affordable.

We are at the end of the water frontier. Water-project proponents in Washington, D.C., and Olympia must acknowledge that federal irrigation projects in Eastern Washington don’t pencil out. It is time to end wasteful feasibility studies, close the chapter and move on. There are more affordable means of sustaining profitable agriculture in Eastern Washington.

John Osborn is a Spokane physician and conservationist with the Center for Environmental Law & Policy and the Sierra Club. See celp.org.  Ken Hammond is retired professor and chairman of the department of geography at Central Washington University and has been active for decades in water planning.


by 2 Comments

My letter on behalf of the Spokane River

November 6, 2014

To the Washington Department of Ecology

These are my personal comments on the Spokane River instream flow rule.

Spokane River Sunset 11-6-14I live in the West Central neighborhood of Spokane, and walk along the north shore of the Spokane River between the Monroe dam and TJ Meenach bridge most days of the year, usually on the Centennial Trail. I also frequently walk the river in Riverside State Park on a south-side trail between Bowl & Pitcher and Devil’s Toenail.

The Spokane is an exquisitely beautiful river as it runs through the Spokane Gorge and through the state park. It is geologically unique, and much of this reach is free flowing.

My primary use and appreciation of the Spokane River is of its scenic qualities.   These qualities very much include how much water is flowing in the river.   The river in the reach between Monroe dam and Nine Mile pool is exceptionally beautiful when it runs between 2,500 and 3,500 cfs.  At these flows, riparian vegetation emerges at the edges and on the willow-strewn sandbars, and at the confluence of Hangman Creek.   The river looks full, but not overflowing or flooding.  Peering down from the Westlink pedestrian bridge at these flows we often see fish in the river.  Many people are boating, especially when the weather is hot (as in July-August of 2014).   Many people are fishing.

I have walked this stretch of the Spokane River for 15 years, since I moved to my home in 1999. Every year, I observe the flows drop during late summer.  I often look at USGS gage information on the web, showing instantaneous flows at the Spokane gage. As the flows drop below 2500 cfs, the rocks emerge, pools are created and isolated, and fewer people are boating.   Fishing, however, doesn’t change much, presumably because the fish become easier to catch as they are crowded into smaller spaces – something I worry about.

I am troubled that the proposed flows for the Spokane River will not protect these many instream uses. One can observe that 850 cfs is an extremely low flow for the river, and does not look healthy.

I’ve included a photo of the river that I took during my walk this evening, during sunset. The flow is approximately 2100 cfs.   You can see the outline of rocks along the shoreline.   You can also see the wild beauty of the river, just one mile from downtown Spokane.

Beyond my concerns for the aesthetic values, I know the Spokane River is a critical ecological resource.  Sandra Postel and Brian Richter have said it well in their book “Rivers for Life – Managing Water for People and Nature”:

“We need and value rivers for a host of reasons – some spiritual, some aesthetic, some practical. Yet only recently has scientific understanding of what constitutes a healthy river enabled us to grasp just how critical intact rivers are to the functioning of the natural world around us.  Rivers are more than conduits for water.  They are complex systems that do complicated work. They include not just the water flowing in their channels, but the food webs and nutrient cycles that operate within their beds and banks, the pools and wetlands that form on their floodplains, the sediment loads they carry, the rich deltas they form near their terminus, and even parts of the coastal or inland seas into which they empty. Along with their physical structures, river systems include countless plant and animal species that together keep them healthy and functioning.”

The Spokane River provides an enormous array of social, economic and ecological benefits to our community, which the draft instream flow rule does not respect. I ask that you please study all of the values of the Spokane River for all of the people and species and processes that depend on it.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

~ Rachael Paschal Osborn


by Leave a comment

Washington State Proposes “Water Right” for the Spokane River

Spokane River at Low Flow

As reported in a previous post, the Washington Department of Ecology commenced formal rulemaking to create an instream flow rule for the Spokane River.  Public comments are needed by November 7th, and a public workshop and hearing will be held on October 22nd.

As with many of the Department of Ecology’s efforts, the Spokane River rule is both good news and bad news.   Instream flow rules create a “water right for the river” that prevents allocation of future water rights that harm streamflows.   It is important and necessary that Washington state create such a water right for the Spokane River.

But Ecology has low-balled the proposed instream flow numbers, proposing to protect no more than 850 cfs below Monroe St. dam in summer months.   This proposal fails to give the Spokane River the real protections that it needs.

There are several issues around the numbers Ecology has picked.  First, these flows (which change with the seasons) are not sufficiently protective of the important redband trout fish that live in the river.   Ecology and the Dept of Fish & Wildlife have offered some excuses along the lines of “fish need less water.”  Don’t believe it.

These flows also fail to recognize the Spokane River’s popularity as a recreational resources for boaters.   Ecology engaged in zero research or outreach as to what kind of flows boaters and paddlers need.

Second, Washington and Idaho are slowly building toward an interstate dispute over how much water each state is entitled to use (both instream and out of stream).  By picking low numbers, Ecology is giving away the barn, the horses, the tractors, and the hay.   It is not clear why our state public servants feel they have the authority to make such a giveaway.  Who’s in charge here?  This is an important interstate sovereignty issue that has received no attention whatsoever from Governor Inslee’s office.

Finally, Ecology’s instream flow scientists recently reported on the methods they use to establish instream flow numbers.  The bottom line – in all other watersheds in Washington, Ecology is using very conservative numbers that protect flows in rivers nine years out of ten.   Not the Spokane though, where the flows give 50% or less protection.   Why, particularly given the interstate issues, is the Spokane singled out for LESS protection than other rivers around the state?

Citizens who care about the Spokane River need to get involved.  Keep an eye on this blog and www.celp.org for more information about how to comment and act to protect the Spokane River.

 

 

 

 


by 1 Comment

Columbia River Treaty – 50th Anniversary

The Columbia River Basin Image Courtesy of Bill Layman

September 16 marks the 50th anniversary of the Columbia River Treaty coming into force, and is the first date by which the U.S. or Canada could inform the other nation that it intends to terminate the Treaty in 2024.   Many activities have been undertaken to review and consider Treaty updates, none of them contemplating termination.  Rather many parties have focused on how to update the Treaty to include modern principles of ecosystem and justice for all affected communities and peoples.

In the past year, both countries have undertaken concerted review of the Treaty.  In December 2013, the two U.S. agencies in charge of managing the Columbia River dams (BPA and ACOE) issued a cover letter and recommendation for updating the Treaty.

Last spring, British Columbia issued its “decision” on the CRT including 14 principles.  B.C.’s bottom line is “do not terminate but seek improvements within the existing Treaty framework.”  The B.C. view is informed by its June 2013 evaluation of the benefits that the U.S. receives from the Treaty, many of which are not recognized.

In December 2013 the B.C. Local Governments Committee issued its recommendations on both international and domestic issues associated with the Treaty.

The Columbia Basin Tribes Coalition has provided great leadership in moving Treaty modernization toward a new model of ecosystem restoration and shared governance, starting with 2010 issuance of the Common Views document.   The Tribes are pushing the Corps of Engineers to re-evaluate flood risk management of the Columbia River, and seek consultation as sovereigns with the U.S. Department of State, reportedly the only U.S. agency that lacks a formal policy to implement its trust relationship with U.S. Tribes.

In February 2014, all of the Tribes and First Nations jointly issued a policy paper and sponsored two conferences to discuss how to bring salmon and other migratory fish species back to the Upper Columbia River, which would benefit watersheds and people in both countries.

Sierra Club and CELP are jointly pursuing the Ethics & Treaty Project working with religious and indigenous leaders and communities.  The goal is to ensure that changes to the Treaty have a foundation in stewardship and justice.  The Declaration on Ethics and Modernizing the Treaty is circulating for signature by all interested parties.

With the 50th anniversary at hand, and in the face of climate change impacts on water, it is time for the governments of Canada and the United States to work with the people of the Columbia River Basin to usher in a new era of principled river management.

 


by 1 Comment

When Will Salmon Return to the Spokane?

Salmon Chief Spokane Falls (Luke Wiley photo)

Salmon Chief sculpture at Spokane Falls. Artist Smoker Marchand. Photo by Luke Wiley Photography, http://law.aminus3.com/

Not just sockeye, but wild sockeye, are returning to the Washington and British Columbia Okanogan country in record-breaking numbers, right now.  Lynda Mapes tells the wonderful story in yesterday’s Seattle Times, “On Columbia, ‘just add water’ seems to be working.”

Water flows are critical to salmon’s ability to get up the river, around the dams, and home to natal spawning grounds.  For Okanogan sockeye, the water spills at Columbia River dams ordered by Judge Redden, as part of the epic Columbia hydropower system Endangered Species Act lawsuits, are proving their merit this year with sockeye’s return.  And just as critical, the Native Nations of the Okanogan Nation Alliance have been the leaders in calling the salmon home — through hard work, collaboration, negotiation, and faith.

When will salmon — in this case Chinook and steelhead — return to the Spokane River?  The “calling home” has begun, with official discussions of fish passage at Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams, with the Spokane City Council’s endorsement of the NW Power Council’s proposal for return of salmon to the Upper Columbia, and even with the Salmon Chief sculpture installed at the base of the Spokane Falls in May.

And maybe, just maybe, the Washington Department of Ecology will come to understand its role to ensure enough water in a critical spawning and rearing area for our future salmon, when it adopts an instream flow for the Spokane River later this year.   So far, Ecology has not seen its place in this calling of the salmon home.

But it’s not too late.

Salmon will return to the Spokane.  People with vision, please visit here.

 

 

 


by Leave a comment

Washington State Odessa Water Project Threatens Columbia River Treaty

Image

Grand Coulee dam and the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project, where Odessa diversions will take water from the river. Photo: National Park Service

Continue reading →


by 2 Comments

Tribes & First Nations Issue Columbia Fish Passage Paper

Fish Passage White Paper (2-14-14) Cover Page

Fish Passage & Reintroduction Into the U.S. & Canadian Upper Columbia River (2014)

A new analysis issued by Columbia Basin Tribes and First Nations surveys historic salmon migration to the Upper Columbia and proposes a four-step process to study reintroducing salmon via fish passage at Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams in the U.S., and Keenleyside, Brilliant and Waneta dams in British Columbia.

The study, “Fish Passage and Reintroduction Into the U.S. and Canadian Upper Columbia River” is authored by several intertribal organizations representing 15 Native American Tribes in the U.S. Columbia basin, and several First Nations in British Columbia.   The study provides a brief history of the construction and management of Columbia River dams and the consequent devastating impact on salmon populations and the native peoples who depended on salmon for food, trade, and culture.

Prior to dam construction, 1.1 million sockeye, Chinook, steelhead and coho salmon returned to the rivers above Grand Coulee, of which about 644,000 fish were harvested by tribal members.  Total salmon consumption ranged from 6.8 to 13.1 million pounds per year.  Salmon was a key component of the diet of Upper Columbia Tribes and First Nations prior to extirpation.

The survey of rivers and lakes that once supported salmon species is impressive. In the U.S. that list includes the Spokane, Little Spokane, Hangman, Sanpoil, Kettle, Colville, Pend Oreille, and Kootenai Rivers.  In British Columbia, salmon inhabited the Kootenay, Slocan, and Salmo Rivers, and the Columbia River lakes all the way to the headwaters, including the Lower and Upper Arrow, Windermere and Columbia  Lakes, and others.

The Tribes propose a multi-step process to evaluate fish passage technology, donor fish stocks,  the quantity and quality of habitat, and hydrosystem operating changes that would be necessary to accommodate salmon reintroduction.   Studies would also evaluate the socio-economic benefits of returning salmon to the Upper Columbia basin, for Tribes and First Nations, and non-native peoples, including recreational, subsistence and commercial fishers.

The study was prepared as part of the preparation for negotiations over the Columbia River Treaty between the United States and Canada, expected to get underway this year.


by Leave a comment

Water and an Open Door Will Bring Wild Salmon Home

Elwha River salmon range map (Nat'l Park Service)

Seven salmonid species will return to Elwha River headwaters now that the dams are out.
(National Park Service graphic)

The time has arrived to restore healthy population of wild salmon to the Columbia River watershed.   Four articles published in newspapers around the region in recent days discuss essential ingredients for salmon restoration throughout the Columbia River watershed (including in Canada):  water and passage.

Tom Stuart, chair of the Save Our Wild Salmon coalition, explains why water spills at dams are needed in order to bring wild salmon back to Idaho in meaningful numbers.  Failure to breach the 4 lower Snake dams has created a crisis, and more flow over the dams is essential to push the juvenile salmon downstream.  See “Idaho and its chinook deserve an expansion of water spills” (Idaho Statesman, Jan. 27, 2014).

Dan Chasan at Crosscut.com analyzes the federal government’s latest salmon recovery opinion for the Columbia River’s gauntlet of dams.   The last 4 versions of this plan have been struck down by the courts, and the latest draft doesn’t cut the mustard either.   At issue is the competition between putting water through hydropower turbines versus spilling it over the top to speed juvenile salmon on their way to the ocean.  Under the federal plan, once again, hydropower wins and salmon lose.  “Fed’s latest Columbia River plan: play me an old-fashioned melody,” (Daniel Jack Chasan, Crosscut.com, Jan. 27, 2014).   Why have the courts let the feds off the hook for nearly 20 years?

From British Columbia, a recent interview with tribal fisheries policy experts Bill Green and Paul Lumley examines how an updated Columbia River Treaty could help get salmon up and over Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams into Canada (past the Canadian dams) and on to the headwaters.  As Green notes, the smashingly successful return of sockeye to the B.C. Okanagan “is a testament to the power of salmon when you give them an opportunity to do wonderful things.”  See “Canadian Columbia River salmon reintroduction emerges as Columbia River Treaty review issue” (Aaron Orlando, Revelstoke Times Review, Dec. 27, 2013).

And if that’s not enough positive salmon thinking for you, consider that the last chunk of Glines Canyon dam was blasted out of the Elwha River yesterday, freeing up passage for Chinook and steelhead to migrate into Olympic National Park. “Demolition blast expected at Glines Canyon Dam” (Jeremy Schwartz, Peninsula Daily News, Jan. 26, 2014).  (You can watch John Gussman’s video of the blast if you’re into that sort of thing.)

The fish are there, just waiting for the water and an open door to push on through . . . .