Accessible document
A NEWSLETTER ABOUT SALMON, WATERSHEDS, AND PEOPLE
Issue No. 32
Note: This text-only version of the newsletter omits photographs and illustrations. A printable version including all graphics is also available.
skip navigationOregon Sea Grant
Governor Kitzhaber is still the only elected leader in the Pacific Northwest to endorse removing the four dams on the lower Snake River as an option for recovering Snake River salmon and steelhead. The governor's position has been strongly opposed by residents in eastern Oregon and Idaho and reflects the intense public debate regarding dam removal.
Yet, many local communities, government agencies, and other interests continue to assess dam removal as an option because of the financial, public safety, and ecological variables associated with maintaining or removing local dams. A quick summary of the public safety risks can provide insight.
The American Society of Civil Engineers, for instance, in its 2001 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, noted 61 dam failures over the previous two years and estimated that approximately 2,100 dams in the United States are "unsafe." As a result, the society graded the nation's dam infrastructure with a "D" (www.asce.org/reportcard). Dam operators who face relicensing permits with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are evaluating the public safety risks from aging or poorly managed dams and the associated costs of upgrading their infrastructure. Such analysis will play an increasing role in relicensing decisions.
But public safety concerns are not the only reason municipalities and businesses are reviewing the status of local dams. Both the cost of building new fish passage facilities, especially on rivers that contain species protected under the Endangered Species Act, and the need to enhance water quality are influencing decisions about dam removal (see the winter 2000 issue of Restoration). The most recent example of this trend involves two dams on the Sandy and Little Sandy Rivers near Portland.
On November 15, Portland General Electric, supported by a broad coalition of agencies and interested parties, filed a document with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, officially signaling the utility's intention to forgo its license to operate the Bull Run project in the Sandy River basin. (The Bull Run River is a major tributary of the Sandy River and the primary water supply for the city of Portland.) Both the Marmot Dam on the Sandy River and the Little Sandy Dam on the Little Sandy River are 90-year-old structures. To date, they are the largest hydroelectric projects targeted for removal in Oregon. The coalition that joined Portland General Electric, the utility that owns much of the hydroelectric infrastructure, was made up of local, state, and federal agencies; environmentalists; elected officials; and recreational users. All supported removing the dams.
The story of why the utility, along with 22 agency and interest groups, advocated removing the dams warrants a closer look. According to Debra Nudleman, the lead facilitator who helped negotiate an agreement and develop a plan to decommission the dams, this process had "the best . . . of what one hopes a group can achieve" through a negotiated settlement. There are three reasons this agreement had broad support, said Nudleman. First, the project has a firm deadline and a short time frame in which decisions needed to be made. Second, the group had excellent technical and scientific support for questions regarding the impacts or trade-offs of making different choices. And third, the group had the "right people at the table" to help negotiate and find solutions with broad support.
"A number of people had tried to decommission these dams back in 1999 and failed," Nudleman observed. "Having known that they had failed once and this was their last chance [at decommissioning] was an incentive." Nudleman was referring to the requirement by the Federal Energy Regulatory Act that a licensee for a permitted hydroelectric project either reapply for an operating permit when the existing permit is about to expire, or "surrender" the permit to the agency that granted it, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. If neither of these options is exercised, the project becomes "orphaned." Once a project is orphaned, other interested parties can intervene or purchase the permit, thereby allowing someone else to take control of a dam and watershed. According to many involved in the negotiations, the prospect of the Sandy and Little Sandy River Dams' becoming orphaned was a great incentive for the group to reach a settlement.
A number of delicate policy and environmental issues had to be resolved before an agreement could be reached by the varied interests. For instance, the group struggled with how to continue managing the hatchery and wild fish in the Sandy River basin after Marmot Dam is removed. Marmot serves as a sorting barrier that separates the hatchery fish in the lower river from the native fish that migrate upstream of the dam. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists currently sort hatchery and wild fish at the dam. The wild fish proceed upstream, where 80 percent of the river's spawning areas are located, while the hatchery fish are prevented from such migrations. Conservationists worried about mixing wild and hatchery stocks, while fishers worried that hatchery production would be reduced or eliminated once the dam came out. An earlier decision by the state's Department of Fish and Wildlife helped resolve this conundrum. In February 2001, the department changed its Sandy Basin Fish Management Plan to help support native fish while maintaining the hatchery program. The new management plan prescribed local wild fish as the hatchery brood stock, reduced the number of hatchery fish released in the basin, and called for releasing hatchery fish farther downstream to minimize their straying into the upper river where wild fish spawn. (The management plan allows for only 10 percent straying of hatchery fish above Marmot Dam and 30 percent straying throughout the basin.) This approach helped garner the support of conservationists and recreational anglers for removing the dam.
However, for Jim Myron, conservation director for Oregon Trout, these issues have not been entirely resolved. Myron acknowledged that the dam removal agreement is "a win" for the basin. However, he still has questions about the project. "One of the glitches with the Little Sandy River, in particular, is how do you keep the hatchery fish from overwhelming the native fish?"
"The problem from our perspective," Myron continued, "Is that here's a real opportunity to facilitate the restoration of a wild run where steelhead have been blocked for 90 years. . . . We would prefer to see wild native steelhead from the Sandy basin recolonize the Little Sandy and keep the hatchery fish entirely out." Another issue that needs resolution, according to Myron, is how or whether to manage hatchery summer steelhead in the basin. He noted that summer steelhead are not indigenous to the river and advocated their removal, yet the state fisheries agency is continuing to release 75,000 steelhead from Skamania River brood stock into the river. This issue, according to Myron, must be resolved next year to eliminate the risk that returning adult hatchery summer steelhead could stray into the upper river after the dam is removed. According to Jim Muck, the district biologist for the Department of Fish and Wildlife in the Sandy basin region, a "strong public interest" to save the hatchery fishery exists in the region. "If fishermen thought the Marmot removal also meant [Skamania summer steelhead] hatchery removal," Muck said, "then the Marmot removal [decision] never would have occurred."
As a result, the department intends to monitor the stray rate of hatchery steelhead past the dam site through 2005. If it finds a high stray rate, the department will reevaluate whether the steelhead hatchery program should stay. A unique component of the settlement agreement includes funds from Portland General Electric to help the Department of Fish and Wildlife monitor the hatchery program. Given how financially strapped the department is, without such outside funding there would be no monitoring of stray rates. Other environmental representatives have been effusive in their support for the Sandy River agreement. American Rivers, a national river conservation group, has characterized the Sandy River Dam removal project as a "model for dam removal for the rest of the nation." Brett Swift, associate director for the Northwest Hydro Power Program for American Rivers, said the group was active in this negotiated settlement because "American Rivers was interested in how to remove the dam in an environmentally responsible manner."
"The manner in which PGE has agreed to remove the dam is part of what makes this such a good model for dam removal," Swift said. The utility is "not just removing the dam, they are also removing other facilities of the hydro project." The utility owns and operates a series of canals, penstocks, a holding lake, and a power house, known collectively as "the Bull Run project." This project contributes 22 megawatts, or about .5 percent, out of a total of 4,000 megawatts supplied to the Portland region by the utility.
Swift also noted that the settlement included the utility's willingness to pay for a sediment analysis that preceded the dam removal process. This analysis helped fisheries biologists assess the impacts of dam removal during the negotiations and develop a monitoring program to ensure that removing the dam won't create passage barriers for fish as the sediment behind the dam is released. In addition, Swift noted, Portland General Electric donated its water right for instream purposes.
Transferring water rights for instream purposes such as fish habitat, water quality, and other environmental uses is increasing. However, these water rights often have junior priorities because the instream right was filed long after homesteaders, municipalities, and farmers filed for permits. Such junior rights allow senior water rights holders the opportunity to exercise their entire water allotment before water is reserved for instream purposes. In many western streams where water is overappropriated, this means that the instream right doesn't translate to a benefit for fish, wildlife, or water quality.
In contrast, Portland General Electric's water right will be transferred for instream purposes while retaining its priority date. According to Julie Keil, director of hydro licensing for the utility, transferring Portland General Electric's water right was "complicated." The utility will transfer its pre-1909 water right to the Water Resources Department as a "claim" (since the basin is "unadjudicated"1). The Water Resources Department will essentially hold the claim with its pre-1909 priority until the state adjudicates the Sandy basin's water rights. The claim will then be transferred to a certificated water right with the early priority date. Asked if this is a precedent-setting agreement, Keil said she knew of "no other group that had dealt with an unadjudicated water right in this fashion."
According to Brett Swift of American Rivers, the transferred water right will result in approximately 600 cubic feet per second of water for the Sandy River and 200 cubic feet per second for the Little Sandy allocated as instream rights with pre-1909 priority dates.
Finally, as part of the settlement, Portland General Electric will transfer about 1,500 acres of project land, including 15 miles of riverfront property, and other nearby holdings (approximately 500 acres) to the Western Rivers Conservancy, a nonprofit land trust based in Portland. This land transfer will form the foundation of a planned 5,000-acre conservation area on the Sandy, Little Sandy, and Bull Run Rivers, dedicated for fish and wildlife protection and public recreation.
Phillip Wallin, president of the Western Rivers Conservancy, said the organization has already assembled 1,500 acres of the protected area from other landowners (including a permitted gravel mine next to the river that the previous owners tried to activate). The conservancy also purchased properties that link the Portland General Electric properties into a contiguous piece.
Wallin noted that approximately 11 miles on the Sandy River and 4 miles on the Little Sandy that adjoin the downstream end of the national forest will be purchased. Wallin is most excited about the Little Sandy River property. "PGE totally dewatered the Little Sandy at the dam and put all the water into its flume," Wallin said. "The Little Sandy hasn't seen water since about 1912." The purchase and transfer of the utility's property will restore approximately 8 miles of previously blocked habitat in the Little Sandy, Wallin said. The Western Rivers Conservancy will purchase a total of 3,000 additional acres from willing landowners in the Sandy and Little Sandy basins. Given the success the conservancy has had with purchasing land so far, Wallin was confident that it will reach its goal of creating a 5,000-acre preserve. "By the end of the decade, we will have created one of Oregon's great scenic natural resources. No other metropolitan area in the world can boast a wild river preserve so accessible to its people."
Asked what the conservancy will do with the property once it has accumulated all 5,000 acres, Wallin said it will "probably pass the lands on to the BLM as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern." He expects that public interest groups in the area will help manage the preserve. "We don't need to be a watchdog for this," Wallin concluded. Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt declared in 1993 that, "Dams are not America's answer to the pyramids of Egypt. We do not build them for religious purposes." Babbitt often grabbed headlines in the press as he took a sledgehammer to small dams around the West. Although such fervor for dam removal may have subsided, many local citizens, along with federal, state, and local agencies, continue to scrutinize what to do with nearby dams whose permits are expiring under the Federal Energy Regulatory Act. The agreements reached for removing the Sandy River and Little Sandy River Dams -- and the process that led up to those agreements -- may provide insight for other groups struggling over whether their local dams should be relicensed or surrendered.
1Adjudication is a formal judicial process conducted by the state of Oregon that certifies water rights and establishes official dates for those rights. Oregon began recording water rights in 1909.
By John Baur
"In Wilderness is the preservation of the World," wrote Henry David Thoreau back in 1862.
That belief has kept civilization returning to the wild and bringing pieces of the wild back into our cities, mostly in the form of parks designed to help us free ourselves from the trammels and stress of urban life and enjoy nature. But almost as long ago as Thoreau wrote, we have also known that the human need for wilderness can have negative impacts on nature. By our very use of nature, we can endanger it.
It is with that in mind that the organization Salmon Safe entered into a partnership in 2001 with the city of Portland to create a set of standards for park planning and management. The first draft of these standards has been completed and submitted to a scientific panel for review.
Salmon Safe is a private nonprofit organization promoting healthy land-management practices that keep rivers clean and safe for salmon to spawn and thrive. Originally founded in 1995 as part of the Pacific Rivers Council, it split off into an independent body in 2000.
Most of Salmon Safe's energy and efforts have been aimed at forging coalitions with agricultural industry groups to mitigate and reverse the impact of farming practices on rivers. Using standards developed to restore water quality and improve salmon habitat, Salmon Safe's independent, professional consultants have certified more than 30,000 acres in critical Northwest agricultural watersheds, including the Willamette and Hood River basins in Oregon, the Feather River in California, and the White Salmon watershed in Washington. In partnership with the Oregon wine industry, the organization has also helped develop and apply Salmon Safe standards for viticulture (see the October 2002 issue of Restoration). Growers who have been certified gain the advantage of having their products bear the Salmon Safe logo, and the organization conducted a two-year retail education program to bring that distinction to the attention of Northwest consumers.
In 1998 Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber called Salmon Safe "the best example yet of the cooperative voluntary approach that is needed to prevent the extinction of the wild salmon." But the organization came to realize that agricultural practices in rural areas were not the only factor affecting fish habitat in Northwest waterways. Cleaning the rivers through the countryside is good, but there's a certain degree of futility if that river immediately becomes fouled when it passes through urban areas.
Salmon Safe forged its partnership with the city of Portland out of this analysis. According to Deborah Lev, the Portland Parks and Recreation employee who helped develop the standards with Salmon Safe, the city was seeking ways to ensure it was following the best possible management practices for its thousands of acres of parks at the same time the organization was seeking ways to extend its impact. "The city was looking for opportunities to respond to the endangered species listing of the fish here. We were looking for opportunities to make sure we as a city were setting a good example and doing the best we can," she said.
Portland is an ideal test case for developing such a plan, Lev said. The city boasts a wealth of parks, ranging in size from Forest Park, which at 5,090 acres is the largest forested city park in the United States, to a patch of land only a few square inches near the waterfront, designated as the smallest city park in the world. Some parks are sprawling sports facilities. Others are small neighborhood parks or rose gardens.
The standards are based on five factors, Lev said, which lay out the biological basis for the program. The factors and the activity they are designed to curb are
For a park system to become certified, it needs to address six key management categories that collectively deal with these impacts:
Lev pointed out that the standards are aimed primarily at management, rather than the specific existing conditions at any given park. "The guidelines are what Salmon Safe calls 'high level' guidelines," she said. "They are not specific to any one kind of park. They are applicable to different kinds of parks."
"The main focus is how we're managing our parks," she said. "We want to make sure we're doing the best job we can, using the best management practices, making sure our impact on listed species is as little as possible."
There is a section on restoration of existing parks, Lev said, and any new park development would have to meet the Salmon Safe standards. But the draft recognizes that the city parks already exist, and it doesn't demand immediate changes. Instead, it calls for "significant progress" in addressing landscape design and infrastructure features that degrade salmon habitat, such as pavement areas, road crossings, or concrete-lined streams.
For the plan's purposes, progress can include a prioritized list for projects throughout the park system, master plans for specific projects, and other planning documents.
Certification requires that progress in correcting any deficiencies be shown over a five-year period and that the progress be based on priority for salmon and feasibility for the park system as a whole.
"Many parks were developed long before our sensitivities to these issues had grown," Lev said. It's what a city does with what it already has that matters. "A lot of our parks have baseball fields," she said. "The standards talk about the best way to manage that ball field so it will have minimal impact on the habitat. They don't insist that we move the field."
Some infrastructure may need to be changed before a park system can be certified, she said, but mostly such issues are noted for future improvements. The draft plan calls for "significant progress."
According to Dan Kent, executive director of Salmon Safe, the draft criteria now being reviewed by scientists should become a standard for any park system anywhere. That suits Deborah Lev just fine. Part of Portland's motivation for taking part in the program, after all, was to become an example, a standard to which other cities can aspire in managing their own parks.
"We like being held up as a good example," she said. "We're also interested in other cities using the same standards. We're doing this in part to make sure we're doing the best we can and we're following the best management practices that the scientific community can come up with, and we're getting recognition for it. We're asking our citizens to change their behavior (in how they use the parks), and we're hoping our example can prompt other cities to do the same."
To that end, while the scientific review is going on, Lev is involved with Kent in helping to call attention to the new criteria. Interest has been expressed throughout the Northwest, including from the parks departments of Seattle, Eugene, Salem, and Corvallis. An electronic copy of the standards is available at the Salmon Safe Web site, www.salmonsafe.org.
OPINION
By Michael Blumm
The Northwest Power Planning Council, the interstate agency charged by Congress to develop a restoration plan for Columbia Basin salmon while maintaining an adequate regional power supply, is poised to return the Columbia River largely to pre-1982 flow conditions. This reversal comes after two decades of maintaining mainstem flows designed to support salmon. The council has proposed to amend its Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program in what it calls its "mainstem plan." [1]
The council released the proposed mainstem plan in October and expects to approve it, after considering public comments, in early 2003.
Salmon flows have been controversial since they were instituted in 1982 by the council. For years the Corps of Engineers found ways not to supply the flows, because of perceived adverse effects on the hydroelectric system. Nonetheless, the council eventually increased its flow objectives by approximately 2 percent in its 1991 and 1994 amendments with the intent of helping salmon migration. These amendments also authorized the beginning of an experiment designed to test the efficacy of inriver migration of juvenile salmon versus removing them from the river and transporting them downstream below the dams in trucks and barges. In short, the council aimed to determine whether a technological fix--artificial transport--was an antidote for the hostile, but improving, river environment for salmon that the hydroelectric system had created.
The council's latest mainstem flow proposal envisions a 41-megawatt increase in average water years from eliminating the salmon flows. This would increase the hydroelectric system's average production of 16,500 annual megawatts, about .25 percent. According to the council, this paltry benefit is worth the risk to migrating salmon because the science supporting spring and summer salmon flows is unclear and because eliminating the salmon flows would benefit resident fish in and below upper basin reservoirs. [2] The state of Oregon and the four Columbia Basin Indian tribes with treaty fishing rights vigorously oppose the council's mainstem proposal. But the council now seems to be firmly controlled by upper basin interests who view flow augmentation for salmon migration as a waste of water that would be better used to maintain upper basin reservoir levels during the summer, even though the salmon flows have had no effects on any water rights.
In effect, the council proposes to substantially increase the burden of scientific proof necessary to demonstrate the efficacy of salmon flows. Conversely, this level of scientific proof has never been required of the technological fixes at the center of the Columbia Basin salmon restoration program: artificial transport by truck and barge, and the reliance on hatcheries, which produce upwards of 80 percent of the Columbia's salmon. Neither the transportation program nor the hatchery program has ever been required to scientifically demonstrate its efficacy,[3] and both programs' ability to contribute to salmon recovery remains unknown, despite the council's longstanding commitment to them.
This apparent inequality of treatment of restoration measures is just one
issue that might draw public attention in the ongoing comment period. A second
is the council's apparent unwillingness to give deference to the views
of the fishery agencies and Indian tribes, who overwhelmingly support continuation,
even increases, in salmon flows. The courts have ruled that the council owes
these views "a high degree of deference," meaning that the council
must "heavily rely" on their recommendations, including their scientific
opinions and statutory interpretations.[4] It is hardly
clear that the proposed mainstem plan satisfies this judicial directive.
A third problem with the council's proposal concerns its elevation of
resident fish and wildlife to a status apparently coequal with salmon. Although
the Northwest Power Act aims to restore all fish and wildlife populations adversely
affected by the development and operation of the Columbia Basin hydroelectric
system, it singles out salmon for special attention.[5]
And there is little question that the statute's drafters had salmon in
mind when they called for a comprehensive systemwide restoration program.[6]
Yet the council's proposal calls for reducing salmon protection largely
to benefit reservoir fish,[7] which would not exist but for the hydroelectric
system itself. Such a result was hardly the intent of Congress in enacting the
Northwest Power Act.
A fourth problem with the proposed mainstem plan is that it will make the council's program appear incoherent on its face. In 2000, the council adopted an amendment that apparently embraced a goal of preserving and restoring ecological function. The program declared its vision of a Columbia Basin ecosystem that sustained "an abundant, productive, and diverse community of fish and wildlife," providing "abundant opportunities" for the exercise of treaty and nontreaty fishing and for the recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act because of the operation of the Columbia Basin hydroelectric system. The 2000 program amendments also proclaimed that these goals would be reached, "wherever feasible, . . . by protecting and restoring the natural ecological functions, habitats, and biological diversity of the Columbia River Basin."[8] How the mainstem proposal, which deprives salmon of the small fraction of their historic spring and summer flows restored beginning in 1982,[9] is consistent with the council's asserted commitment to restoring ecological functions, is anyone's guess.
The foregoing issues will likely be the subject of litigation if the council persists in terminating the two-decade old salmon flows. A fifth issue will concern the definition of "best available scientific knowledge," which Congress required the council to observe.[10] The science behind the proposal may turn out to be the key issue if the dispute is litigated, and one issue will be the efficacy of the inriver smolt migration experiment.
The new mainstem proposal would eliminate the experiment of assisting inriver
smolt migration by reducing river flows, making them once again, as they had
been in the era before 1982, the product of concerns unrelated to salmon, chiefly
hydropower production. The council's reasoning is that the science of
flow augmentation is unable "to measure the extent of the benefits gained
and [has led] to great differences of opinion as to the value of continuing
these actions."[11] One might wonder whether such
reasoning satisfies Congress's directive that the council employ the best
available science.
The scientific justification of flow augmentation may be equivocal, but so is
the science underlying artificial transportation or hatchery production as techniques
to restore ESA-listed salmon populations. The council proclaimed that there
was "a lack of evidence" supporting spring and summer salmon flows,
given "reservoir and other constraints."[12]
One response might be that, given the relatively clear evidence that the extreme
low flows of 2001 produced disastrous juvenile salmon survival rates,[13]
the council's statement is contrary to recent history. (The 2001 low flows
were aided by "power emergencies" declared by the Bonneville Power
Administration, enabling the power agency to release stored water otherwise
reserved for salmon flows.) But the majority of fishery agencies and Indian
tribes also claim that the council's position is grounded on a selective
and misleading use of scientific data.
Perhaps the best statement of the fishery agencies and tribes concerning flow augmentation is contained in a joint technical staff memorandum signed by representatives of six agencies in March 2002.[14] The memorandum was in response to a report (the Giorgi report) that the council commissioned on the state of the science underlying mainstem passage (flows, spills, and transportation), which concluded that there was "little evidence" correlating increased flows to increases in salmon survival.[15] The Giorgi report presumably was why the mainstem proposal could confidently proclaim there was a "lack of evidence" that flow augmentation increased survival.[16]
The joint memorandum of the agencies and tribes considered the Giorgi report
to be based on "selective use of information" and a flawed analysis
of the flow/survival relationship.[17]
In particular, the agencies and tribes claimed the Giorgi report ignored studies
that strongly suggested there was a positive flow/survival relationship for
both spring and fall chinook as well as for steelhead. They also pointed to
"serious flaws" in the Giorgi report's per-project survival
estimates, since reach survival estimates do not "reflect the full influence
of flow or water velocity on survival." For example, restoring a small
portion of the spring freshet provides important habitat, sediment movement,
modification of side channels, and production of diverse food webs necessary
to promote salmon productivity.
The agencies and tribes called attention to an alternative method employed by the Fish Passage Center that did show a positive flow/survival relationship. Moreover, the agencies and tribes cited a recent study showing that 92.3 percent of the variability in survival of Snake River fall chinook was due to flows and temperature (which is often the product of flows). Summer flow augmentation reduced the travel time of Snake River fall chinook up to five days and increased survival by up to 24 percent. Even the council's Independent Scientific Advisory Board concluded that flow augmentation should continue, calling for more testing of the effects of flow augmentation on survival and a return to the flow strategy outlined in the council's 1994 program.[18]
The agencies and tribes also faulted the Giorgi report's failure to
illustrate the significant uncertainties regarding transportation, including
data suggesting that there is no benefit to collecting and transporting fish
at the two lower basin collector dams, Lower Monumental and McNary.[19]
Finally, the agencies and tribes agreed with the Giorgi report that spill remains
the safest and most effective route of downstream passage for juvenile salmon,
but cautioned that studies of incremental benefits of spills at particular projects
are difficult to conduct with precision and do not capture the cumulative benefits
of spill. [20]
There are thus serious questions about both the legality and the scientific underpinnings of the mainstem proposal's attempt to terminate spring and summer salmon flows. From a policy perspective, one issue is whether the costs of depriving salmon of the roughly 2 percent of river flows that have been dedicated to salmon migration for the past 20 years is worth increasing hydroelectric production by an average of about .25 percent. Another issue is whether the alleged benefits to reservoir fish from the new mainstem proposal are warranted or legally justified. The public may submit comments on the council's proposal until February 7. Comments may be submitted by e-mail (comments@nwppc.org) or by mail (Mark Walker, Public Affairs, Northwest Power Planning Council, 851 SW 6th Ave., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97204). Please reference "Draft Mainstem Amendments" or Document 2002-16.
1 Northwest Power Planning Council,
Draft Mainstem Amendments to the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program (Doc. #2002-16, Oct. 2002). Technically, the mainstem plan would
not by itself reduce river flows unless the National Marine Fisheries Service
(now NOAA Fisheries) were to amend or reinterpret its biological opinion on
Columbia Basin hydroelectric operations for 2001–05 under the Endangered
Species Act. The council apparently believes that NMFS could approve the changes
the mainstem plan calls for "consistent with the flexibility" built
into the BiOp. Id. at 20. The council's current fish and wildlife program
has several provisions that have never been implemented, including drawdowns
of Lower Snake River reservoirs and a 1.427 million acre-foot program of water
purchases designed to meet flow objectives the council now seeks to discard.
2 Id. at 6 ["Scientific and policy uncertainty continue
to plague a number of mainstem actions intended to benefit anatropous fish,
leading to an inability to measure the extent of the benefits gained and to
great differences of opinion as to the value of continuing these actions. Moreover,
some of these actions have adverse impacts on resident fish and wildlife and
high costs [sic] to the power system."]
3 Independent Scientific Group, Return to the River
2000 at 42, 47 (Northwest Power Planning Council Doc. #2000-12, March 15,
2000).
4 Northwest Resource Information Center v. Northwest Power
Planning Council, 35 F.3d 1371, 1394 (9th Cir. 1994) (the court included "reasonable
inferences and predictions" in the scientific opinions of the fishery
agencies and tribes to which the council owed deference).
5 16 U.S.C. sis. 839(2)(6) (purpose of the statute), 839b(4)(h)(6)(E)
(calling both for improved salmon survival passing mainstem dams and river flows
to improve migration and survival meet sound biological objectives).
6 It was the devastating salmon losses caused by low flows
in the 1970s, especially the low flow years of 1973 and 1977, that induced Congress
to authorize a comprehensive, system wide fish and wildlife restoration program
in the Northwest Power Act. See H.R. Rep. No. 96-976, pt.1, 96th Cong., 2d Sass.
47 (1980) (noting that virtually the entire flow of the river was put through
power turbines, helping to produce salmon mortalities of 95 percent in 1973).
7 Draft Mainstem Amendments (cited in note 1),
at 13, 16-17.
8 Northwest Power Planning Council, 2000 Amendments
to the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 13 (Doc. #2000-19,
nod.), repeated in Draft Mainstem Amendments (cited in note 1), at 13 (and immediately
contradicted by a pledge to limit reservoir draw downs at Libby and Hungry Horse
Dams to "local inflows" to benefit reservoir fish first and provide
only incidental benefits to downstream salmon).
9 Return to the River (cited in note 3), at 236
(noting that the salmon flows in the council's program amounted to 4.64
million acre-feet (mad), over slightly over 2 percent of the average annual
runoff of the Columbia Basin of 198 mad).
10 16 U.S.C. s. 1539b(h)(5)(B).
11 See note 2.
12 Draft Mainstem Amendments (cited in note 1),
at 30. See also id. at 36 (concerning summer flows). The council made no mention
of whether such constraints were legally binding ones.
13 See Barry Swenson, Pit-Tags Show Snake River Steelhead
In-River Survival Lags, Columbia Basin Bulletin #3 (Nov. 22, 2002) (Snake
River juvenile steelhead survival through the eight mainstem dams during 2001
was just 3.8 percent, compared to 26.7 percent during 2002, a year with more
normal flows).
14 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Common, Idaho Dept.
of Fish and Game, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and Yakima Indian Nation, Joint
Technical Staff Memorandum (March 19, 2002). The National Marine Fisheries Service
subsequently agreed with most of what the joint memo said about flow augmentation,
Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serve., Comments on the Giorgi report (May 29,
2002), at 4-5.
15 Albert Giorgi, Mark Miller & John Stevenson, Mainstem
Strategies in the Columbia River System: Transportation, Spill, and Flow Augmentation
80 (report of Biocatalysts, Inc. for the Northwest Power Planning Council, January
31, 2002).
16 Draft Mainstem Amendments (cited in note 1),
at 30, 36.
17 Joint Technical Staff Memorandum (cited in note 14),
at 6. The remainder of the statements in this paragraph are from id. 6-9. The
Fish Passage Center is the entity established by the council's fish and
wildlife program to monitor salmon migration and control fish flows and spills.
18 Independent Scientific Advisory Board, Review of
the Giorgi Report, at 9 (June 4, 2002)
19 Id. at 3.
20 Id. at 5
By Geoff Huntington
Since our last conference, [watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts] have submitted applications to fund over 1,250 restoration projects totaling over $116 million. In seven grant cycles, OWEB awarded 650 grants totaling $54 million. Of this, 343 grants were for restoration projects totaling $31 million. The remainder went to project activities like monitoring, council support, and technical assistance grants. In addition, the Department of Agriculture administers approximately $3.5 million in lottery fund grants for [soil and water conservation districts] and the noxious-weed grant program.
This level of investment represents a huge collective effort with district and council projects occurring in every county in the state on a fairly regular basis. In fact, in one-third of Oregon's 36 counties, the level of investment by OWEB in restoration activities on privately owned lands exceeded $1 million in 2002.
Our records also show that, on average, every public dollar OWEB invests is matched at a ratio of better than 2:1 by the receiving entity. While this includes both in-kind and cash match, the fact remains that the investment of public restoration funds leverages substantial private investment as well. In the commercial timber industry alone, we estimate that over $50 million of private funds have been invested since 1997, with a commitment of an additional $80 million in private investment before 2007.
As we thought about this at OWEB, we wondered how much of this investment stays in the local economy where the project occurs. We asked the University of Oregon to examine our grant files and give us a sense of what these investments of dollars in restoration projects might also mean in economic terms. The results shed some light on the value of your restoration work to Oregon's economy -- particularly in rural parts of the state.
Based on a statistical sample of all of OWEB's grants, the University of Oregon found that over 80 cents of each OWEB grant dollar stays in the county where the project activity occurs, and over 96 cents of every dollar spent stays in the state's economy. Both in the sale of goods and supplies and in creating jobs, restoration project dollars invest in the local economy.
In addition, researchers noted that, on average, every dollar spent on restoration activities can be assumed to indirectly generate an additional $1.68 to $2.50 in spending in the county as those original grant dollars are respent in the economy by those who directly receive them for their association with the original restoration project.
Edited by George Wuerthner and Mollie Matteson 368 pp. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 2002. $45 (paper)
A coffee table book might seem an unlikely format for a work titled Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West, but as the writer Joy Press says of coffee table books in general (the Village Voice, Dec. 4, 2002), the "oversized, gratuitous nature" of the format "seems to invite" impassioned content. In the case of this book, there is even more justification for a generous size: the landscape of the American West is immense and so is the destruction visited upon it by hordes of livestock, particularly cattle and sheep.
The book's many contributors leave few aspects of their subject untouched. They start by debunking myths of the range and in doing so, introduce the themes to be found in the rest of the book. For example, in response to the claim that ranchers are good stewards of the land, the authors point out that more than 410 million acres of public and private U.S. rangeland -- 21 percent of the continental United States -- are in "unsatisfactory ecological condition." And addressing the often-heard statement that public lands grazing supports the family rancher, the authors show how grazing subsidies disproportionately benefit large landholders.
In other sections of the book, the authors analyze the economics of ranching, not only the subsidiary advantages to ranchers, who often use their permits as collateral, but the health costs of meat itself; challenge the optimistic argument that public lands can be saved through holistic management; and explore ways to restore the West and its wildlife. But the heart of the book is section IV, "A Century of Trashing Public Lands," in which writers in 19 essays address the ecological impacts of running livestock on the fragile, arid lands of the West. In other words, as the editors put it, they give us "a witnessing of the facts." And grim facts they are: riparian zones stripped of flora; human drinking water rich in pollutants from animal waste; declining diversity in wildlife species.
Nearly all the photographs in Welfare Ranching are at least 111/2 by 131/4 inches. The effect is powerful, even sometimes overwhelming. It remains to be seen whether a book such as this can make a difference, but the photos and text in this big, thoughtful book make an argument no reader will be able to ignore.
Edited by James E. Meacham and Erik B. Steiner University of Oregon Press, Eugene, Oregon. $49.95 (CD-ROM)
The second edition of the Atlas of Oregon, published last year as a coffee table book by the University of Oregon Press, is now available in a two-disc CD-ROM format. The layout and organization of the digital version is similar to that of the book. Both formats organize information into three major sections: "Human Geography," "The Economy," and "Physical Geography." The publication includes information about human settlement, from the prehistoric migration patterns of settlers 11,000 years ago to the more recent settlement of the Oregon Territory in the mid- 1800s. Wildlife populations, climate information, business and employment data, and Oregon's rivers, watersheds, and ecoregions are also covered.
The digital version also includes a zoom feature on maps and animation that shows changes in demographics and other impacts over time. Whereas the hardbound, oversized book sells for about $100, the CD-ROM sells for $49.95. The CD is designed for cross-platform applications, so it's compatible with both Macintosh and IBM PC/ Windows-based systems. If you like using your computer to look up information and want the added features of zoom and animation to show trends, then the CD is a good investment. Available at the University of Oregon Press Web site: www.uopress.com and at bookstores.
The Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security released a report earlier this year, titled The New Economy of Water, that addresses the dangers and benefits of water privatization and outlines ways to improve privatization deals. The authors are not opposed to privatization, but they raise questions about the social, cultural, and ecological roles that domestic water supplies play in society. They also raise questions about the role of market forces in this larger context. Furthermore, they suggest guidelines that citizens, municipalities, and other interests could use as private companies work to privatize water systems. These suggestions include guaranteeing all residents basic access to water, reserving water for ecosystems, and maintaining strong government oversight of private companies. The report can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.pacinst.org/reports .
On May 22, 2002, the River Cities 2002 conference convened representatives from Willamette Basin communities to explore what it means to be a Willamette River City in the 21st Century. Communities shared their visions, described project by project how they are advancing on that vision, and explained the lessons they have learned in terms of planning, funding, and the practicalities of riverfront revitalization.
Experts on river ecology, river history, river tourism, and riverfront revitalization provided insights into the Willamette of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
The Conference Proceedings and River Re- Connection Resource CD is intended to be a helpful tool for Willamette River communities in their effort to renew their relationship with the Willamette River and restore the river's health. The Willamette Restoration Strategy and Oregon Plan Tool Box have been included in this CD.
To receive a CD, e-mail willamette_ restoration@or.blm.gov and indicate that you are requesting a River Cities 2002 conference CD and provide your name and postal mailing address. You can view sections of the CD and the contents at http://www.oregonwri.org/River- Conference.html.
The Seminar Group is sponsoring a two-day conference on wetland regulatory issues, targeted at those dealing with major development projects. The conference includes presentations by lawyers, technical experts, and others involved in wetlands management, mitigation, and regulation. For more information, contact the Seminar Group at www.theseminargroup.com, or call 800-574- 4852.
The Watershed Enhancement Board's deadlines for upcoming grant applications are listed below. Any "person or public or private agency or organization may request funding, advice or assistance from OWEB in developing a watershed project," according to OWEB's Web site (http://www.oweb.state.or.us/grantapps). The Watershed Enhancement Board's application forms include instructions that guide applicants through the application process.
Note: This is an accessible version of a document originally produced for the Web in .pdf format. While it contains all significant content of the original print document, it may omit layout and graphic elements which contribute to the look and feel of the original, and make the .pdf version more suitable for printing.
Contact us: sea.grant.web@oregonstate.edu