Contributors (in alphabetical order)
|
|  Yüklə 2.47 Mb.
|
SUBBASIN MANAGEMENTExisting Plans, Policies, and GuidelinesArmy Corps of EngineersThe COE is responsible for operating the lower Snake River dams and funding evaluation and mitigation for those dams and reservoirs. Table 57 provides a description of the wildlife mitigation sites idenified in Figure 18. 
Figure 18. Location of the Wildlife Mitigation Lands for the Lower Snake River Dams Table 57. Description of wildlife mitigation sites.
Natural Resources Conservation ServiceThe NRCS is obligated to assist Conservation Districts in the implementation of the District’s short and long-term goals and objectives. All practices implemented by conservation districts meet NRCS standards and specifications. The NRCS provides technical support to landowners and assists with funding projects designed to reduce soil erosion and provide streambank protection. The U.S. EPA is responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act, including ensuring that Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans are developed and implemented. Fish and Wildlife ServiceThe USFWS budgets for and administers the operation, maintenance, and evaluation of the LSRCP spring and fall chinook, steelhead, and rainbow trout programs in the Snake River subbasin. The LSRCP was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Public Law 94-587, to offset losses caused by the four Lower Snake River dam and navigation lock projects (Corps 1975). The WDFW operates the LSRCP facilities (Lyons Ferry Hatchery) in the Tucannon River Basin and they are co-managers along with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and the NPT. The USFWS also has permitting and oversight responsibilities to protect and enhance bull trout and other federally listed fish or wildlife within the subbasin under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). USFWS assists Conservation Districts in meeting their goals for not causing any negative affect on listed species. The USFWS provides funding for habitat restoration projects and is the lead agency for administering the NSRP. The NSRP also has provisions for improving habitat and other measures to benefit native fish. Columbia Fish & Wildlife AuthorityThe Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP) is an agreement among the tribal, state and federal parties with jurisdiction over Pacific salmon originating in the Columbia Basin that provides procedures whereby the parties co-manage anadromous fish harvest, production and habitat (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, CRITFC 1995). The CRFMP stems from the treaty fishing rights lawsuit, U.S. v Oregon. Although the CRFMP expired in 1999, the co-managers are working on developing another plan. The interim, short-term agreements on managing the fisheries have been entered into prior to execution of the specific fishery (spring or fall). The CRFMP, and further agreement, have all emphasized the importance of artificial propagation actions to accomplish the goals of rebuilding natural runs. Agreements struck in U.S. v Oregon forum often determine the number, purpose and location of fish released from various hatcheries. Management actions for the Tucannon artificial propagation program are often included in U.S. v Oregon agreements. Tribal GovernmentA portion of the Snake River within this subbasin is within the lands ceded to the United States in the Treaty of 1855 by the Nez Perce, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla (CTUIR) and the Yakama Tribe. The tribes reserved certain treaty fishing rights on these ceded lands as well as other usual and accustomed areas. They also retained the right to hunt and gather roots and berries on open and unclaimed land. Commensurate with the rights to hunt, fish and gather roots and berries, the tribes are responsible for protecting and enhancing these treaty resources and habitats for present and future generations. The tribes co-manage fish and wildlife with WDFW, specifically participating on review and implementation of the hatchery production activities in the subbasin. The Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish Wit: Spirit of the Salmon (CRITFC 1995)CRITFC makes institutional and technical recommendations for the Columbia Basin and presents a subbasin plan calling for a number of administrative, instream flow and passage, watershed management and artificial production actions for the subbasin. Washington Department of Fish & WildlifeThe WDFW is responsible for preserving, protecting, and perpetuating populations of fish and wildlife. Washington State laws, policies or guidance that WDFW uses to carry out its responsibilities include: Hydraulic Code (RCW 75.20.100-160): This law requires that any person, organization, or government agency that conducts any construction activity in or near state waters must comply with the terms of a Hydraulic Project Approval permit issued by WDFW. State waters include all marine waters and fresh waters. The law’s purpose is to ensure that needed construction is done in a manner that prevents damage to the state’s fish, shellfish, and their associated habitat(s). Strategy to Recover Salmon (part of Extinction is not an Option): The strategy is intended to be a guide, and it articulates the mission, goals, and objectives for salmon recovery. The goal is to restore salmon, steelhead, and trout populations to healthy harvestable levels and improve those habitats on which the fish rely. The early action plan identifies specific activities related to salmon recovery that state agencies will undertake in the 1999-2001 biennium and forms the first chapter in a long-term implementation plan currently under development. The early actions are driven by the goals and objectives of the Strategy. Many of the expected outcomes from the early actions will directly benefit regional and local recovery efforts. The Bull Trout and Dolly Varden Management Plan: Describes the goal, objectives and strategies to restore and maintain the health and diversity of self-sustaining bull trout and Dolly Varden stock and their habitats. The Wild Salmonid Policy for Washington describes the direction the WDFW will take to protect and enhance native salmonid fish. The document includes proposed changes in hatchery management, general fish management, habitat management and regulation/enforcement. The Draft Steelhead Management Plan describes the goals, objectives, policies and guidelines to be used to manage the steelhead resource. The Washington Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) is a guide to management of fish and wildlife "critical areas" habitat on all State and private lands as they relate to the Growth Management Act of 1990. The recommendations address upland as well as riparian habitat and place emphasis on managing for the most critical species and its habitat. The Draft Snake River Wild Steelhead Recovery Plan is an assessment of problems associated with the continuing decline in natural steelhead populations within the Snake River basin and includes recommendations to reverse the decline. The WDFW manages fisheries and fish populations to provide diverse recreational opportunity and conserve or enhance indigenous populations. The Lower Snake River Compensation Plan: is funded by BPA and the USFWS through the LSRCP office, and the WDFW administers and implements the Washington portion of the program. The program mitigates for the loss of fish populations and recreational opportunities resulting from construction of the four lower Snake River dams. Specific mitigation goals include “in-place” and “in-kind” replacement of adult salmon and steelhead. The WDFW Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan (FMEP): is required by NMFS for all fisheries in the Snake River and its tributaries in Washington. The plan is an assessment of fisheries effects on listed anadromous salmonids. Enforcement measures to insure compliance with state fish passage and surface water diversion screening laws will be implemented consistent with multiple existing salmon recovery plans to ensure adequate steps are taken to provide greater protection to listed species. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)The WDNR manages state land throughout the subbasin. These lands are generally located in sections 16 and 36 within each township. The main goal of the WDNR is to maximize monetary returns from state lands in order to fund school construction. This type of management often reduces the habitat value for wildlife on WDNR lands. The WDNR also enforces and monitors logging practices on private lands. Washington Department of EcologyThe WDOE is charged with managing water resources to ensure that the waters of the state are protected and used for the greatest benefit. The WDOE allocates and regulates water use within the subbasin. Permits are required to divert surface water and ground water withdrawals in excess of 5,000 gallons per day. The WDOE also acts as trustee for instream trust water rights issued to the State of Washington and held in trust. The WDOE regulates surface and ground water quality within the subbasin. The 1972 Federal Clean Water Act authorizes and requires states to establish water quality standards for specific pollutants. Every two years, the WDOE is required to list in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act those water bodies that do not meet surface water quality standards. The WDOE utilizes data collected by agency staff as well as data from tribal, state, local governments, and industries to determine whether or not a waterbody is listed on the 303(d) list. Total Maximum Daily Loads must be completed for every parameter that exceeds state water quality standards on listed water bodies. The WDOE proposes several changes to surface water quality standards and the classification system. The revised standards must be applied so that they support the same uses covered under the current classification structure. Changes to the surface water quality standards will affect many programs, including monitoring, permits, TMDLs and the 303(d) list. Garfield County CommissionThe Garfield County Board of Commissioners has no known management program pertaining to fish and wildlife in Garfield County. The County works with the PCD, WDFW, and NRCS in meeting existing policies and guidelines. Columbia County CommissionColumbia County Commissioners have adopted a county comprehensive management plan developed through the Growth Management Act (GMA) process. Columbia County ordinance #93-07 as amended and adopted January 18, 1994 and the Columbia County Shoreline Master Program, June 1975 and have a “draft” comprehensive flood hazard management plan, December 2000. Columbia County Commissioners have also designated Columbia Conservation District as the lead entity for watershed planning and implementation. The Columbia Pomery Conservation DistrictsThe Districts are the counties’ designated lead agency for watershed planning and implementation. The Districts are responsible for the implementation and management of the Washington State Salmon Recovery Act within their respective counties. The Columbia County Weed BoardThe weed board conducts a cost share program with public and private landowners to control infestations of Washington State Class-A weeds. The program includes biological, chemical, and mechanical/hand control strategies. The weed board would like to expand cost share programs for more landowner involvement in rangeland and riparian protection and enhancement, as well as, restoration demonstration projects. Lower Snake River Compensation PlanThe Lower Snake River Project was authorized by Congress on March 2, 1945 by Public Law 14, 79th Congress, First Session. The project was authorized under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945. It consists of Ice Harbor Dam, completed in 1962; Lower Monumental Dam, 1969; Little Goose Dam, 1970 and Lower Granite Dam, 1975. The project affected over 140 miles of the Snake River and tributaries from Pasco, Washington to upstream of Lewiston, Idaho. The authorized purposes of the project were primarily navigation and hydroelectric power production. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (48 Stat. 401, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. as amended) requires an analysis of fish and wildlife impacts associated with federal water projects as well as compensation measures to avoid and/or mitigate for loss of or damage to wildlife resources (refer to Section 662 (b) of the Act). The original authorizing legislation for the project made no mention of fish and wildlife measures needed to avoid or otherwise compensate for the losses or damage to these important resources. Therefore, in order to be in compliance with the Coordination Act the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in 1975 wrote a report introducing t The first two items are commonly referred to as Land Acquisition Elements X (8,400 acres for upland bird hunting) and Y (15,000 acres for Chukar Partridge Hunting access). Wildlife mitigation measures in Idaho were not included in the Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan (LSRCP). Congress authorized the LSRCP as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-587). The wildlife compensation features of the original LSRCP included the following: Acquisition of approximately 400 acres of riparian habitat in fee and 8,000 acres of farmland in perpetual easement surrounding these riparian lands to provide partial compensation for project-caused upland game bird hunting losses and additional hunting opportunity as a substitute for nongame species. Acquisition of approximately 15,000 acres of land in perpetual easement to provide hunter access as partial compensation for project-caused losses to chukar partridge. The Corps would enter into an agreement with the Washington Department of Game to provide 20,000 game birds per year for 20 years to stock project and acquired off project lands for compensation of lost hunter-day use and lost animals caused by the project construction. There have been several changes made to the wildlife features of the original Plan since 1975. Development of wildlife habitat on project lands land surrounding the project reservoirs administered by the Corps received little emphasis in the LSRCP. However, subsequent studies identified habitat development potential on project lands and the LSRCP was amended to include development of selected areas. In 1979 fifty-four management units were classified as wildlife lands. Ten Habitat Management Units (HMIJs) would be intensively developed (irrigation systems and plantings), 25 units moderately developed (dryland development with guzzlers, fencing, etc.) and the remaining 19 units were to remain undeveloped except for fencing (Corps 1979). A total of 4,254 acres of project land were identified for wildlife management purposes. Subsequently, the Corps entered into an agreement with WDFW to develop and maintain the identified wildlife management lands. In 1983 the Corps was required to report to Congress on the status of the LSRCP and make recommendations of additional measures needed to complete compensation. It was recommended that LSRCP be changed to allow land acquisition by fee title or easement (prior to this change only 400 acres of riparian habitat was allowed to be purchased in fee title). In addition, it was recommended that the game bird production strategy using farm raised birds be redirected to developing a program of habitat development with private landowners (referred to as Game Farm Alternative). This latter change to the LSRCP was further refined in 1986 with a request to pay WDFW $2,125,000 to provide game birds by the alternative method of enlisting private landowners in southeastern Washington, by appropriate lease or other agreement, to provide and establish on their lands, upland gamebird habitats with public hunting". This program was funded ($2,571,512) in April of 1989 to be implemented for an 18-year period with WDFW crediting the Corps two years for game bird stocking conducted on project lands. These changes were authorized through the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). Corps management actions to implement the LSRCP include the following: Approximately 1,000 acres of land on 9 of the HMIJ s has been intensively developed using irrigation. This effort was started by the Corps and WDFW in 1980 and the maintenance of these areas was later contracted to a private company in 1987. Maintenance of these lands continues today. The LSRCP also included Land Acquisition Element Z which involved 700 acres in Washington and 50 acres in Idaho for fisherman access. To date, 64 acres have been acquired in Washington and 22 acres in Idaho. These features are being handled under other programs and will not be discussed further. In 1986 a perpetual hunting easement was acquired on 3,986 acres of the Bailie Memorial Youth Ranch and portions were subsequently developed by WDFW for wildlife habitat through funding by the Corps (Element X). In 1989 the Corps was authorized to pay WDFW a lump sum of $2,571,512 to initiate the Game Farm Alternative Program. The WDFW is currently implementing the program. Wildlife compensation efforts in Idaho have been addressed separately. In 1978 Pengelly and McClelland reviewed mitigation needs in Idaho and provided recommendations. They recommended that a portion of Hells Gate State Park be managed for wildlife. A management plan was subsequently written and a Memorandum of Agreement signed between the Corps, IDFG, and Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation in 1983. The MOA created the Hells Gate HMU which it was agreed would be developed and maintained by the Corps in a similar manner to the HMTJ s in Washington. The Corps agreed to develop the HMU within 5 years following the lease amendment, dependent on sufficient funds. IDFG agreed that no further wildlife mitigation would be requested if Hells Gate HMU was developed according to the management plan (WDFW 1984). The Corps prepared specifications and design for an irrigation system in 1987 (Corps of Engineers 1987) and is currently awaiting funding to implement a development plan (C. Christensen, COE, pers. commun.). In addition to habitat development at Hells Gate, the Corps agreed to develop and maintain two goose pastures along the north bank of the Clear Water River. Compensation Objectives and the 1989 Letter of Agreement (LOA)The Plan establishes specific mechanisms (e.g. land acquisitions, project land development) whereby wildlife compensation objectives can be achieved. Compensation was defined as "... the maintenance of habitat and production of game animals which will sustain the hunting pressure, (and) appreciative use which would have occurred if the projects had not been constructed, and the maintenance of nongame animals at pre-project levels" (COE 1975a:8l). Since project-related wildlife losses were described in terms of animal numbers (COE 1975a) subsequent efforts to evaluate compensation progress were also measured in these terms (Mudd et. al. 1980). However, problems with this evaluation surfaced due to general disagreement between agencies as to the accuracy of the original loss estimates and differences in the size of the study areas to be used (Lutz, unpublished report). During this period wildlife mitigation planning efforts throughout the country were beginning to shift from an animal number replacement basis to a habitat replacement emphasis. Two important reasons for this shift included (1) animal populations fluctuate seasonally and annually with several years of data necessary to establish baseline as well as population levels in subsequent years and (2) compensatory influences on animal populations not related to project-caused effects can significantly affect any measure of mitigation or compensation progress. Examples of this latter problem are harvest management regulations that influence population structure and numbers in the vicinity of a project area and land use changes that influence animal distribution in the general vicinity of the project area. Recognizing the problem of using animal numbers to establish compensation goals and as a measure of compensation progress, the Corps and the Service began discussions in 1986 on defining compensation in terms of habitat. These discussions resulted in a Letter of Agreement (LOA) between the three agencies, which was signed in 1989. This LOA outlines the procedures whereby compensation is to be defined and measured on a habitat basis. The LOA Has Four Purposes:
CriteriaA modified HEP will be used in the implementation of the Plan. Signatories agree to work as a HEP team to establish compensation objectives, coordinate mitigation recommendations, and evaluate mitigation actions. Objectives for wildlife compensation under the LSRCP will be based on Habitat Units (HU s) derived from the HEP described in this report. HU s derived from the pre-project condition (based on 1958 aerial photography) will constitute the compensation objectives for the LSRCP. Compensation progress to date for on-project lands will similarly be determined using 1987 aerial photography. Compensation will be met through present and future on-project habitat developments, acquisition of off-project lands and subsequent development, or riparian/wetland habitat protection. Future expected HU s gained through development activities will be fully credited to the LSRCP immediately following the completion of habitat development. The signatories agree to focus acquisition on lands having minimal existing HU s, but good potential for habitat development. Off-project acquisitions will receive credit toward compensation for 50% of their existing HU s for evaluation species. If high quality riparian/wetland habitat on a given acquisition is potentially threatened by land use changes or practices, 100% of the existing HU s for evaluation species associated with riparian/wetland habitats will be credited toward compensation. This is a departure from standard mitigation policy for both WDFW and USF&WS and applies only to this agreement. Each potential acquisition and/or habitat management action will be evaluated based on a cost/benefit comparison using potential HU s derived from the proposed action. Habitat development progress will be monitored on each parcel to determine the HU s achieved to help guide future efforts. "Interim" compensation will be fully satisfied through the implementation of the GFA program and through the perpetual easement purchase and development of the Bailie Memorial Youth Ranch. The RU s resulting from habitat developments on the Bailie Ranch will be credited toward compensation under the LSRCP. Wildlife compensation measures implemented through the Plan will be accomplished within presently authorized acreage and cost levels. A General Plan for the Lower Snake River Project will be prepared following completion of the HEP analysis. ObjectivesThe objectives of this evaluation are to:
This evaluation does not discuss wildlife compensation efforts in Idaho since they were addressed in separate negotiations from the LSRCP. The IDFG negotiated for about 50 acres of fishermen's access of which they obtained about 34 acres. It has been agreed between the USACOE and the IDFG to enhance several hundred acres of land surrounding Hells Gate State Park in Lewiston. A total of 28,354.9 acres has been acquired by the USACOE to mitigate wildlife impacts under the LSRCP authorizations. A total of 21,140.9 acres were purchased out side of the Lower Snake River canyon as off site mitigation. The LSRCP originally called for 24,150 acres fishing access, riparian habitat w/ surrounding upland and upland chukar habitat. After the acreage goals were established, 750 acres of fishing access, 8400 acres of riparian and associated upland, and 15,000 acres of upland chukar habitat, the ACOE, USFWS, and WDFW proceeded to perform a HEP on all the land acquired under the LSRCP. It was found that the purchases made by the ACOE fell short of full mitigation using the HEP method of evaluation. The NPT requested the HU's short of full mitigation be amended into the Northwest Power Planning Council’s (NWPPC or Council) Program and be mitigated for under the Council’s Program. Once amended into the program the NPT entered into a contract with BPA to provide between 5,000 and 10,000 HUs as replacement for losses caused by the inundation of lands by the development of hydropower. The Tribe was eventually authorized to acquire up to 16,500 acres of land in NE Oregon and SE Washington. |