The Northwest Power and Conservation Council this week debated how deeply they should plunge into a pool of issues that would be addressed for the first time in its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

The Council is in the process of amending its program, a set of guidelines describing what it wants to achieve and what strategies should employed to reach those desired ends. The four-state compact is charged under the Northwest Power Act with developing a program to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the development of the basin's federal hydro system. The Power Act requires federal agencies to act in a manner "consistent" with the Fish and Wildlife Program.

Toxic chemicals in the Columbia River have been documented as having negative effects on salmon, steelhead and other fish. And climate change and invasive species, if they advance as some predict, would likely also make the river ecosystem a less friendly place for native fish.

But potential problems from these impacts are not caused by the hydro system.

Members were split this week over what role the Council should take – via new amendments – on the three issues. Some argued that the amendments should merely acknowledge the potential problems. Others wanted that, as well as specific calls to action.

The debates took place during scheduled amendment work sessions held in concert with the NPCC's Monday-Wednesday meeting in Kalispell, Mont.

The Council has targeted its August meeting for completion of draft amendments, which would be followed by a public comment period and regional hearings from mid-September to mid-October. The revised and updated Fish and Wildlife Program is scheduled to be adopted in December. For more information about this "Amendment" process go to http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/program/2008amend/Default.asp

The Council is made up of two members each appointed by the governors of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. The program has been funded in recent years at $143 million annually for project expense. The program is funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, which markets the power generated in the hydro system.

A NPPC staff recommendation on climate change triggered debate. It would include language explaining the issue and list specific actions, such as studies, the staff felt are necessary to better understand phenomenon's potential impact on the region, the hydro system and fish and wildlife.

The inclusion of specific actions goes too far, according Idaho's Bill Booth, the Council chair.

"That would be a funding decision in my view," he said. The Council typically amends the program about every five years in an attempt to keep up with scientific and other developments. It has in the past included few specific projects, instead making funding recommendations on an annual, or in some cases a three-year, basis.

The NPPC's manager for mainstem passage and river operations, Jim Ruff, said that a project is ongoing to determine how changes in temperature would affect snowpack runoff and river flows and that the Council staff was already working with BPA on climate change issues.

"I understand that but I think the Council should be involved in those funding decisions," Booth said.

Oregon Councilor Melinda Eden noted that elsewhere in the program the Council was poised to "make a blanket decision" adopting memorandums of agreement that list numerous specific projects. The MOAs were signed earlier this year between BPA and four basin tribes and the states of Idaho and Montana.

Idaho's Jim Yost questioned the need for addressing the climate change issue at all.

"I understand what you're trying to do with the recommendation but I don't want them in the program. I don't agree with it," Yost said. "You haven't convinced me that there's significant climate change."

"We as a staff believe that the preponderance of evidence" is that the climate is warming, Tony Grover, NPCC fish and wildlife director said. He acknowledged that "society at large" is not in total agreement on the topic.

Booth and Yost both stressed that the program needed to heed the directive requiring that projects have a "nexus" to the power system.

Yost said he was willing to acknowledge the issue "but the dams didn't cause climate change, they didn't cause invasive species."

Washington Councilor Tom Karier said he agreed that the hydro system does not contribute to global warming, in fact it "has helped to minimize CO2 emissions" – a primary greenhouse gas blamed for the warming phenomenon.

But Karier said, "it would be foolish to be putting out fish from hatcheries and restoring habitat" without considering potential change in the environment.

Chairman Booth ultimately directed the staff to redraft the proposed amendment language to strengthen the explanation of the issue "but not include specific requirements" that the program fund specific projects.

Similar nexus arguments ensued regarding toxics contamination and invasive species, with the same result. Discussions of draft amendments will continue over the next two months.

Booth said that the threat posed by invasive species "is something that we need to pay attention to," suggesting that the Council adopt two explanatory paragraphs "without getting into specifics elsewhere in the program." Montana's Rhonda Whiting said she agreed.

Washington member Dick Wallace also agreed, saying the individual states are focused on such potential threats as the invasion of zebra/quagga mussels.

But he pointed out that "a lot of the things we fund, that are important to us," can be negatively affected by such an invasion. Fast-growing mussel populations can clog diversion screens intended to keep fish out of irrigation projects, as an example.

"There is a very direct nexus," he said. "We need a range of options, which are real, and then have a discussion."

Oregon's Joan Dukes said that invasive plant species can literally destroy habitat work funded through the program.

Yost said that a multi-state group has been formed to address the mussel threat.

"We don't need to do much until they ask for something," he said.

Likewise, toxic contamination "is an EPA issue, not a Council issue," Yost said. He said the amendments should acknowledge the issue but await a better definition of the potential problem.

Wallace said "It's clear that toxics do have effects on salmonids," citing an earlier presentation by NOAA Fisheries Service scientists.

Karier too noted the mounting evidence that in-river contamination is harming fish.

"It could be one of the reason's we're not seeing more success with our program," he said.