NEWSHOMEOPINIONLOCAL INTERESTRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKS |
Methow Valley News February 24, 2000 Endangered Species Coverage Planning unit proposal goes to legislators By Lee Hicks A new proposal aims to protect basin water rights, gain an "interim incidental take permit" for endangered or threatened fish and provide greater local control of salmon recovery efforts. The draft Methow Basin Planning Unit Agreement was hammered out in a series of meetings that concluded last week. County officials reviewed and transmitted it to state legislators who support local watershed planning in salmon recovery efforts. "Basically we are giving our approval to the intent of the plan," Okanogan County Commission chairman Dave Schulz said Friday. Representatives Linda Parlette, R-Wenatchee, and Gary Chandler, R-Moses Lake, were expected to go over the draft before presenting it to officials of National Marine Fisheries Service. Parlette, Chandler and other legislators contacted NMFS on behalf of Okanogan County and the planning unit after an earlier proposed memorandum of agreement (MOA) met overwhelming opposition at a Nov. 17 public meeting attended by more than 400 people in Twisp. Parlette said Monday she was trying to set up a meeting with the governor’s office, state agencies and NMFS, "to talk about the proposal—what next and when." In the new proposal, the county and basin planning unit would each have a representative on a steering committee along with a member each for NMFS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the state departments of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology. In a "recital of purpose," the draft reads that NMFS, USFWS, the state agencies, county and the planning unit "share the understanding that collaborative and volunteer efforts should eliminate the need for regulatory and enforcement measures..." The interim "take" permit would commit all parties to work on a short-term habitat conservation plan, or HCP. That action would meet provisions of Section 10 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, which provides protection under the act for harming listed species while recovery efforts are underway, the proposal maintains. NMFS officials have previously balked at issuing an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act until an HCP is completed, generally considered to take up to three or more years. The planning unit proposal makes a distinction between short and long-term HCPs, while allowing for the take permit to "provide an incentive for water users to make immediate conservation commitments when found by the planning unit to be beneficial to native fish." If "conditions...that make this agreement impossible to implement," result in failing to achieve goals, other measures that "balance human need and the needs of listed fish," in conserving water must be considered, according to the draft. The document appears to represent a precarious navigation through potential issues that NMFS and USFWS have said must be addressed—including as yet undefined target flows in basin streams. NMFS has insisted on setting specific objectives for flows in basin streams, arguing that irrigation and other activities have depleted water needed in streams for fish. But NMFS officials have conceded they need better data to set the target flows. And state Department of Ecology officials have acknowledged that the agency’s Yakima claims registry includes outdated and conflicting water claims for much property in the basin. A planning unit committee has begun working with the DOE to help update the registry. Unlike the ill-fated MOA, the planning unit proposal places emphasis on developing baseline hydrological information. Among objectives would be to determine how much water is now being used in the basin and what streamflows are optimal for fish survival and recovery. Beginning this year and through 2003, the proposal outlines "milestones" to achieve each year. The steps include identifying fish screen and passage needs, installing ditch flow gauges, development of hydrological models, public education, voluntary conservation programs and implementation of a trust water rights program. "Base flows" for sub-basins would be set in 2003 after conservation efforts and fish barrier projects have begun and early results analyzed. In several early versions of the MOA, achieving a percentage of target flows for streams through water conservation was the yardstick for "sufficient progress" to avoid penalties or enforcement action by NMFS or USFWS. If objectives weren’t met, NMFS wanted DOE to stop any new appropriations of water in the basin and possibly to begin adjudication of water rights—a lengthy process that could lock up water decisions indefinitely. The MOA unveiled last November included provisions for voluntary contributions to a trust water rights program. If streamflows dropped and more conservation was needed, those in the program could either volunteer more of their water right or drop out of the program. The planning unit draft concludes that progress cannot be determined, "simply by measuring instream flows." Instead it sets nearly a dozen criteria for the steering committee to consider in judging progress. Some planning unit representatives expressed concern at the Feb. 16 planning unit meeting that the new proposal would be turned down. "I fully believe that every agency involved here is going to have some problems with this," noted Hilary Lyman, representing the Colville Tribes on the planning unit. But other members argued that the draft would be a point to begin negotiations with NMFS and would establish a position to protect water rights. Putting the document on the table could also give the unit standing to receive state salmon recovery funds, some members said. Editor’s note: The complete text of the planning unit proposal will be posted on the Methow Valley News web site this week. Opinion | Sports |
Local Interest |