The Methow Valley Background
The Upper Columbia River ESU featured endangered Steelhead and spring-run Chinook. As of September 1999, the Central Valley of California and the Upper Columbia were the only West Coast basins to contain two listed salmonid species. With regard to enforcement challenges, the Methow Valley in Okanogan County was one of only two areas within the Northwest Region where the taking of listed fish was strictly prohibited* [25,26].
In the summer of 1998, OLE began meeting with WDFW counterparts to address ESA-listed fish protection concerns in the Upper Columbia River ESU. By late fall of 1998, the two enforcement programs had identified a total of 56 gravity-fed irrigation ditches in the valley that either: (1) lacked properly functioning fish screens meeting jointly adopted WDFW and OLE juvenile fish protection criteria; and/or (2) blocked fish passage to historic spawning habitats. Both situations were violations of state law and could be considered a take under the ESA. Many (23) of these known diversions were in a tributary of the Methow River (Beaver Creek). Although the diversions in Beaver Creek were clearly not in compliance with state fish screening laws, they were not considered immediate potential take violations because a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) highway culvert blocked fish passage near the entrance to the stream. The remaining 33 stream diversions were located throughout the Twisp and Methow River drainages of the Methow Valley. These 33 ditches and the WSDOT Beaver Creek culvert became the focus for the OLE and the WDFW enforcement program within the Upper Columbia River ESU.
Fish protection in the Upper Columbia River ESU entails dealing with difficult water-related issues involving a triad of concerns, including fish screens, fish passage, and in-stream flow levels. The issue of in-stream flows had been a contentious subject in the Methow Valley for over a decade prior to the ESA listings. In the late 1980s a collaborative process referred to as the Chelan Agreement questioned the established pattern of having irrigators operating in the Methow, an area where water right claims had not yet been perfected through the process termed adjudication. Referring to these alleged wasteful practices, the Colville Confederated Tribes and Yakama Indian Nation filed suit in 1991 against the largest water diverter in the Methow basin, the Methow Valley Irrigation District (MVID), asserting that the district's water distribution practices were having a detrimental effect on anadromous Salmon and Steelhead
* The prohibition on take is immediate when a species is listed as endangered. When an animal is listed as threatened, the Secretary shall issue such regulations, as he or she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species.
populations. It was asserted that the MVID was infringing on tribal treaty fishing rights by its irrigation practices. In settling this lawsuit, the MVID agreed to seek an alternative water source.
By 1997, an alternative water source and new delivery system (a series of wells, pumps, and pressurized pipes) had been developed for MVID use. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) had been completed, and funding (in excess of $6 million) had been secured for the project through the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), and the WDFW. In the final hour, however, a special election conducted by MVID stakeholders recalled the MVID Commissioners who had brokered this deal and a new Commission was seated. In February 1999, the newly elected Commission withdrew the previous commitment and announced its intention to retain the status quo system utilizing gravity-fed ditches to deliver water to its customers.
It was against this general backdrop of contentious water allocation history, lack of compliance with state fish screening and passage laws, and new regulatory burdens under the ESA that OLE and the WDFW staff began meeting in the spring of 1999. These agency law enforcement officials sought to formulate an action plan specifically to address state and federal compliance objectives for the protection of ESA-listed fish in the Methow Valley. The guideposts available for use by staff at those meetings were the goals of the OLE Protection Plan and the WDFW ROE initiative.
From February to April 1999, WDFW and OLE and policy staff labored in various workshops to formulate an Okanagon County Action Plan. Field level staff representing multiple disciplines—including enforcement, biologists, and educators from multiple agencies including the WDOE, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. First and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and county governments— met and developed an Interagency Action Plan for Okanogan County and the Methow Valley. Using a 9-step Action Team process, the Okanogan County Action Plan consisted of two primary components. The first entailed the monitoring of conditions placed upon Special Use Permits issued by the USFS for conveyance of water by irrigation ditches, while the second required addressing the passage and screening compliance issues identified in the Beaver Creek tributary to the Methow River. Bridging these two components would require active monitoring to address potential take violations. The 4-step compliance plan for addressing ESA-related enforcement issues in Okanogan County consisted of a process designed to:
1. Seek Voluntary Compliance by Affected Parties
2. Initiate Follow Up Contacts with Holdouts
3. Issue Written Warnings and Establish Deadlines for Action
4. Achieve Final Accountability through Court Action if Necessary
In order to initiate the plan, local WDFW Officers were assigned the task of contacting all surface water users within the Methow Basin to:
■ Identify issues and problems
■ Use a District Team to develop solutions and funding proposals
■ Present funding options to users where possible
■ Monitor for take, permitting violations, and compliance
■ Determine schedule for Biological Opinion completions
Post a comment