Compact could impact bull trout evaluation
Bureau of Indian Affairs Attorney Duane Mecham speaks about how the proposed Confederated Salish and Kootenai Water Compact and environmental re-evaluation of the bull trout could intersect in 2015.
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
POLSON – Federal officials said Dec. 10 that approval of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Water Compact by the Montana Legislature could also have influence in the ongoing environmental reassessment of bull trout habitat impacted by the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project.
The evaluation will be conducted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and overseen by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2015. It will determine the irrigation project’s impacts on the threatened bull trout population and provide mitigation recommendations for protecting bull trout habitat, including provisions that determine interim in-stream flows that must be maintained before the irrigation project receives water.
“The arrangement that will be put in place as part of this compact will not raise the interim in-stream flows,” Bureau of Indian Affairs Attorney Duane Mecham said. “It will also, if ratified by the state legislature, be a program that the BIA can discuss with the Fish and Wildlife Service that the programs and improvements under the compact can work to cover the project’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act as the compact continues to get implemented.”
A previous evaluation of the irrigation system’s impact on the fishery gave a list of 30 steps the project should take to come under compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Federal officials told irrigators in November that only one of those suggestions have been followed through with since the document was issued in 2009. All the while, scientific evidence gathered has indicated interim in-stream flows should be increased to protect the fish, Mecham said.
That likely means less water for irrigators unless some mitigation is done.
Project Manager Peter Plant told irrigators in November that people often call and ask why the project operators don’t start filling reservoirs earlier in the season to save more irrigation water. The answer is simple, according to Plant. The project legally can’t start filling the reservoirs until the court-mandated in-stream flows are met.
The in-stream flows protect habitat for bull trout populations impacted by the project. The construction of the project has eliminated 62 miles of spawning and rearing habitat of the trout with most of the fish affected by the project living in the Jocko River and Mission Creek.
Population surveys of the North Fork of the Jocko River have found between five and 55 live bull trout, but numbers of spawning nests, also known as redds, in the river have been relatively low, with a maximum of four redds found in 2003.
The Middle Fork of the Jocko River might have a resident population, but the 2009 Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said if there are bull trout in there, their numbers are extremely low. The South Fork of the Jocko River has more of the fish, with annual surveys finding between 14 and 38 individuals per year. The USFWS estimated there are less than 500 fish per mile in the southern fork.
The USFWS has singled out the construction of the irrigation project as a major cause of loss of habitat in two other water bodies.
“Historically, Mission Creek and Post Creek were important spawning tributaries and supported both resident and migratory bull trout populations that were connected to the lower Flathead River and Clark Fork River,” officials wrote in the 2009 Biological Opinion. “Construction of FIIP irrigation diversion structures and water management systems (e.g., reservoirs and canals) created physical barriers to population connectivity and reduced habitat conditions such that only these small and isolated local populations remain from the Mission Creek system.”
There are an estimated 58 effective bull trout living in Post Creek and 3.3 of the reproducing trout are thought to live in Dry Creek, according to the Biological Opinion.
While bull trout population numbers might be small, the price tag for rehabilitating the project for fish protection is not. An engineering firm estimated the cost of installing fish screens and ladders on the system’s infrastructure to be $79 million in 2005. Almost a decade later, most inflation calculators indicate that amount would be around $98 million.
State Representative and irrigator Dan Salomon of Ronan said irrigators likely won’t be able to pay for the rehabilitation themselves. He looks to the Klamath Basin in Oregon as a situation he’d like to avoid.
There, the Klamath Tribes were able to prevail and receive senior water rights, even though they don’t have title to land in the form of a reservation. The Klamath Tribes winning the water rights battle was the second of a one-two punch to irrigators, who have faced shut-offs of water because of the Endangered Species Act since 2004. Agriculture has crashed in the basin, with some estimating that property values have fallen more than $500 million.
Salomon said the threat of the Endangered Species Act was the topic of extensive study by the Montana Reserved Water Compact Commission, a state legislative committee, and federal and tribal teams in negotiation of the water compact.
He said the state’s compact commission worked to help mitigate the impact of the Endangered Species Act through provisions of the compact. The compact will settle the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ water claims, as many as 10,000 of which will be fought in the state’s water court if the legislature does not pass the measure by June 30.
“These things are going to come up,” Salomon said. “It’s one of those facts of life, like death and taxes. It’s going to come up, and it’s not going to go away. We were able to do some things through the negotiation process that buy some time and some money to deal with these issues.”
Written within the compact is $55 million of state funding that will help implement the document, including some measures that will help rehabilitate the irrigation project and make it more efficient. The federal government will also provide funds to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in the settlement, but the exact amount of how much funding will be made available will not be known until the document heads to the United States Congress for final approval.
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have agreed to earmark parts of the anticipated funding for rehabilitation and betterment of the project.
“They have indicated strongly that they are going to put a substantial amount of the federal contribution toward fish,” Salomon said. “What we’ve done with the compact is create a priority list of things that will be funded with the federal money. At the top of the list is efficiencies. Second or third down the list are things that have to be done for the fishery.”
Funds for upkeep of the Flathead River pumping station are also earmarked in the project, Salomon said. A well-functioning pumping station will hopefully be able to move water to areas where in-stream flows aren’t always met under current management.
“Making sure the pumping plant is absolutely up snuff is a priority,” Salomon said. “A lot of this has to do with making sure in-stream flows are met at the right times through adaptive management. A huge part of that is making sure the pumping plant is functioning, has enough capacity and is reliable.”
Salomon sees the compact as irrigators’ best chance at mitigating the impacts of the Endangered Species Act.
“If we don’t take care of it through this compact, through this ability to take some of this federal money, irrigators are going to have to pay for it,” Salomon said. “Why would you not try to deal with this now?”
The state legislature will convene Jan. 5 to consider the compact. The Bureau of Indian Affairs intends to spend much of 2015 evaluating in-stream flows.
