Meeting Minutes

Council Meeting Minutes

Council Central Offices
851 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100
Portland, OR 97204

March 7, 2001

1. Presentation on watershed planning in Washington

Joe Williams, Acting Deputy Director, Washington Dept. of Ecology

Joe Williams of the Washington Dept. of Ecology described watershed planning activities going on in Washington since the passage of the Watershed Planning Act in 1998. The purposes of the Act, he said, are to develop a thorough and cooperative method of determining the current water resource situation in watersheds and provide citizens the opportunity to participate in water resources management and development.

So far $12.9 million has been spent to support local watershed planning; $7.2 million of this has gone to efforts in the Columbia Basin, Williams pointed out. Forty out of Washington’s 62 watersheds are engaged in such planning, he said.

The assessment phase involves collecting data and information and based on priorities, determining which data gaps to fill, according to Williams. Watershed plans are required to identify strategies for increasing water supplies, and the objective is to supply water in sufficient quantities to satisfy the flows for fish and for future out-of-stream uses, he said.

The planning efforts involve working with the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to conduct flow studies, Williams noted. This is difficult and controversial and has to be done through a collaborative process working with the local people who will be affected, he said.

Williams described how watershed planning coordinates with activities being conducted under Washington’s Salmon Recovery Act. Is there a way to get subbasin planning done by combining the Salmon Recovery Groups and the watershed planning units? Cassidy asked. It’s happening now in many parts of the state, replied Williams.

Does a county have veto authority over a plan? Cassidy asked. A county can reject a plan and send it back to the planning group, replied Williams. What if Ecology and WDFW object to part of a plan approved by a county? Karier asked. The plans are developed by consensus, and if a state agency had an objection, I’d hope the group would work to resolve the concern, Williams replied.

If there’s any way we can work with the Council so we are not duplicating efforts, we want to, he continued. The Council needs to be sure it covers its mission under the Power Act without duplicating what the state agencies are doing, Karier said. It’s a complicated juggling act, and we hope to be able to get it resolved in the next few months, he added.

2. Update on Western Power Supply Outlook and Near-term Power Strategy for the Northwest

Dick Watson, Director, Power Division

The outlook for the hydro system has continued to deteriorate, raising concerns about regional reliability for this summer and into next fall and winter, said Dick Watson as he presented the Council’s first analytical look at the power supply situation from March through the end of the summer. The Council’s study employed the Genesys model and began with the reservoirs reset to March 1 contents, he explained. We used a random temperature selection and drew a sample of streamflows from the poorest water years on record, Watson said. We took into account random forced outages of thermal generation, current DSI load reductions, and tried to incorporate new emergency generation, such as Tacoma’s diesel farm, he indicated.

Reliability is our first objective in the analysis, Watson said. The other three major considerations are: getting August 31 reservoir contents as close to the BiOp level as possible; summer flows; and how reducing spill affects the cost of purchased power and value of additional generation, he noted. The latter has an effect on the regional economy and the finances of the region’s utilities, including Bonneville, Watson said.

We have three tools to get through the summer and fall, according to Watson:

• Spill reduction
• Imports (off-peak spring)
• Emergency hydro -- we can draft reservoirs beyond BiOp levels to get more energy, but this will impair our ability to meet flows later on, he stated.

Watson explained that the staff’s study used 1944 water and looked at four spill reduction scenarios, ranging from the base case (essentially the BiOp) to no spill at federal projects. The very preliminary results indicate that under the base case, there would be deficits of 1,100 MW in April, 2,000 MW in May, and 2,500 MW in June, he stated. This takes normal plant outages into account, although these days it is harder to find out what a generator’s maintenance schedule is, Watson said. We know about WNP-2, but basically we are guessing about the other units, he added.

Under the Level 2 spill reduction scenario (no spill at Lower Snake projects or McNary, plus a 50 percent reduction at The Dalles and Bonneville), without using imports or emergency hydro, we found that we get all the deficit covered in April, half in May, and 40 percent in June, Watson explained. So you don’t solve the problem entirely, but you make it significantly better, he said.

Imports from California and the Desert Southwest have been hard to come by this winter, Watson pointed out. We think there will be imports available in the off-peak months, spring into June, but that’s without saying anything about price, he said.

We looked at the effect of making purchases of 1,250 MW per month and found with base-case spill and no emergency hydro, the deficit would be covered fully in April, more than half covered in May, and less than half in June, Watson explained. So with this tool, we’ve lessened the problem, but haven’t made it go away, he stated.

With emergency hydro, we could eliminate curtailment, but by the end of August, reservoir contents would be 2.9 MAF below the BiOp, which translates into 4,000 MW-months of energy, according to Watson. If you had to replace that energy, at a price of $300/MWh, there would be a $860 million hole to be filled, he said.

The study indicates it will take a combination of the three tools to get through the summer and keep the reservoirs in acceptable condition, Watson summed up. And we know solving the problem will be expensive, he added.

Watson’s final chart compared the value of spill and cost of imports. Level 2 spill reduction would mean the ability to generate 4,047 MW-months of energy, which, if priced at $300/MWh, translates to a value of $874 million, he said. Level 3 (no spill at federal projects) would produce 7,671 MW-months, translating to $1.6 billion. As for imports, Watson indicated that imports of 3,646 MW of energy at $300/MWh would cost the region $788 million.

We are purchasing load back from the aluminum industry because the value of the electricity exceeds the value of metal production, he noted. We’ve reached mutually beneficial deals with the DSIs, Watson said. The question is: is there a mutually beneficial deal that could be reached with fish and wildlife (F&W) interests that would meet the power deficits and the needs of the salmon? he stated.

Even if we have no spill, that won’t meet the demands on Bonneville, observed Giacometto. By reducing spill and using emergency hydro, you could get through the summer, said Watson. What’s the likelihood imports will be available? Cassidy asked. We only assumed imports offpeak in the spring before the hot weather hits, replied Watson.

Your message is good -- there is no one tool in our toolbox that will get us there, and we will need to combine tools, said Bloch. Also, the more we can conserve and do demand reduction, the smaller the hole we need to fill, he stated.

Cassidy asked about the mortality on outbound migrants if there is no spill. This year, it’s not really fish versus power, it’s fish versus weather, said staffer Bob Lohn. There is likely to be greater predation, higher temperatures, and there’s also been an association between poor ocean conditions and poor weather, so there could be lower ocean survival, he noted. Spill is the most favored of the bypass routes around dams, Lohn continued. With spill, survival is about 98 to 99 percent, although it varies by project, he said.

Staffer Bruce Suzumoto made a brief presentation on calculating spring chinook survival rates relative to spill, based on NMFS’ 2001 outmigration estimates of ESA-listed fish from the Snake and upper Columbia. Several Council members questioned the numbers from NMFS, and Suzumoto said some of the numbers are preliminary. Suzumoto stated that his preliminary analysis shows that as spill levels are reduced, survival rates of juvenile spring chinook go down until you get to no spill, where you get about 25 percent survival. With respect to adult fish returns, assuming 1 percent ocean survival, the analysis indicates if about a million fish are released, there would be a loss of 40 adult spring chinook in the Snake River, he said.

This analysis is a good companion to the power analysis, stated Bloch. We are engaged in a huge balancing act, and "we’re working without a net," he observed. If we tip too much to one side, we could have blackouts, and if we tip too much the other way, we could have the decimation of an entire year class of salmon that we have been spending billions on to protect, Bloch said. He requested staff complete work on the biological analysis and put it out to the region for comment. Then we should present the analysis and the region’s comments to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) for review, Bloch suggested.

One percent is not bad ocean survival, said Giacometto. But we know our reservoirs are low and that rolling blackouts in the Northwest will have a different impact here than in California due to home heating with electricity, he stated. We need to be pointed in saying to the region: we’ve got a low water year, and we need to do something about it, Giacometto said. We should put PIT-tags on fish to get information on survivals during this dry year, Mike Field said.

I don’t see anything here that says we are going to decimate an entire year class of fish, said Grace. I didn’t say this analysis indicates we’d be decimating a year class of spring chinook, responded Bloch. I said we should get the best analysis we can and put it out to the region, he added.

In this analysis, we are looking at the Snake River, noted Suzumoto. The upper Columbia River stocks are not getting as much transportation as the Snake fish, and you have to keep that in mind in looking at this, he said.

The bottom line is, your numbers aren’t solid yet, summed up Cassidy. We need to get good numbers on the biological impacts if we are going to decide whether or not to spill, he added.

3. Presentation of Report on Choices on Mainstem Operations

John Pizzimenti, Harzar Engineering Company

Lohn said the Council asked Harza Engineering to review hydro system operational alternatives in an effort to highlight key choices and the potential biological impacts of those choices. Dr. John Pizzimenti of Harza said it’s obvious what a serious situation we are in with regard to fish and power in the Columbia Basin, but we don’t know if we’re in it for just one year, or if we’re in year one of a multiyear drought. Right now, we’re acting like we’re looking through a car windshield trying to avoid a deer in the highway, he stated. I’ve heard things like the Columbia River will flow 57 percent lower this year and that water deliveries will be cut to irrigators in the Yakima Basin, Pizzimenti noted. The question is what are we going to do about the situation, he said.

Pizzimenti said Harza looked at spring and fall chinook; eight dams, from Bonneville to Lower Granite; and three principal tools: transportation, voluntary spill, and flow augmentation. The study’s focal points of concern are: hydrology and hydraulics; meeting flow targets; what to expect with respect to in-river survival and in-river water quality; monitoring and evaluation; and costs, benefits, and risks, he explained.

We found, using the 1977 water year, that we won’t meet BiOp flow targets in the spring or summer in the Columbia, and it’s even worse in the Snake, Pizzimenti stated. From June to October, we’ll see suboptimal to potentially lethal temperature conditions for fish, he added.

We believe in a bad situation, if you can’t save everything, you should set priorities, Pizzimenti continued. Harza thinks spring chinook adult fish should be the number one priority, he said. It will be a large run, and these fish should be protected, Pizzimenti stated. The second priority should be spring chinook juveniles, the third fall chinook juveniles, and the fourth fall chinook adults, he said.

For spring chinook, we recommend no spill and maximum transportation, Pizzimenti continued. Because we’ll have terrible conditions in the river in terms of velocity, temperature, and fish passage, the rationale is get the fish out of the river and transport them, he stated. It’s going to be worse for fall chinook migrants, Pizzimenti predicted. These fish use current and flow as a guide, and with the low flows, their migration will be "like finding your way out of a burning building in a blindfold," he said. We recommend no spill and maximum transportation at Lower Granite, Little Goose, Lower Monumental, and McNary, Pizzimenti said.

We recommend some spill in the lower Columbia, John Day (12-hour nighttime) and The Dalles (24-hour @30 percent plus sluice), he stated. We recommend spill at Bonneville II, which has the best bypass system, and that Bonneville I be shut down, Pizzimenti said.

We recommend no flow augmentation in the Snake or Columbia in the spring, based on the need to save water for the summer and for fall chinook minimum flows, he said. Harza recommends some summer flow augmentation, such as using hydraulic pulses out of Dworshak, Pizzimenti stated.

He offered several suggestions with respect to passage facilities, including making sure there are back-up alarm systems and emergency action plans, and anticipating and mitigating for warm water. Pizzimenti suggested ways to monitor adult fish movement and juvenile passage. "The idea of suspending PIT-tag operations this year is ludicrous," he said. If survivals in the river "are in the toilet," we need to know that, not pretend it didn’t happen, according to Pizzimenti.

He said if Harza’s recommendations were carried out, there would be a large cash windfall of about $250 million. That money should be used to purchase storage and instream flows in tributaries, Pizzimenti suggested. We should think about saving 2001 water for 2002 because we don’t know if there will be a drought next year, he advised.

Are you saying we should do PIT-tag studies to compare in-river versus transportation this year? Bloch asked. There’s a camp that says "have no transportation," and there’s a camp that says always use it, Pizzimenti replied. I think when there are low flows, we should maximize transportation, and we should also try to find out where "the tipping points" are for in-river versus transportation, he said. And since there is also the idea that the region is on a path to make a decision about dam removal in the future, we suggest conducting an experiment with PIT-tags that simulates dam removal, Pizzimenti added.

4. Presentation on Alternatives for Annual Hydrosystem Operations and Potential Impacts on Fisheries

Steve Wright, Administrator, Bonneville Power Administration; and others

Things have continued to get worse and worse in our forecasts, Acting Bonneville Administrator Steve Wright told the Council. We are looking at the second worst water year on record and are concerned that actual volumes may be lower than 59 million acre-feet (MAF), he said. We are looking at scenarios for that situation, Wright stated, noting that 53 MAF is the worst water year ever. He called 53 MAF "rock bottom," the threshold at which Bonneville cannot simultaneously maintain financial solvency, meet firm load, maintain any spill for fish, and keep reservoirs from drafting below summer limits.

Anything above 53 MAF will create "interesting public policy dilemmas," according to Wright, involving how much to draft reservoirs, how much to spill, the extent to which Bonneville generates energy and revenue to build cash reserves, and how Bonneville positions itself for reliability, fish conditions, and cash flow in 2002. Even with a substantial rate increase on October 1, 2001, Bonneville has a cash flow problem in the first six months of the new rate period, he said.

In his update on the water situation, Wright presented these facts:

• As of March 1, the weighted Columbia Basin snowpack was 53 percent of average. The historic low year of 1977 had a slightly lower March 1 overall snowpack.
• The March early bird forecast for the January-July runoff at The Dalles is only 58.6 MAF (55 percent of normal). If this forecast materializes, it will be the second lowest runoff in the 72-year record, beaten only by 1977 (53.8 MAF).
• Since November, the observed streamflows have ranked (using the 72-year record) as follows: November - tenth lowest; December - sixth lowest; January - third lowest; and February - third lowest.

Bonneville has taken extraordinary actions to reduce load, Wright reported. We wouldn’t have gotten this far in meeting loads in the region without them, he said. Bonneville has:

• Sponsored ads in 17 Northwest newspapers to inform the public about conservation measures.
• In January, contracted for a total of 1,300 megawatts (MW) in market purchases and DSI load reductions at a cost of $200 million.
• In February, made market purchases and DSI load reductions totaling 460 average megawatts (aMW) at approximately $42 million.
• Developed initial strategies for pursuing voluntary purchases of irrigation pumping loads.
• Assisted the Northwest governors in their call for a 10 percent reduction in energy consumption.
• Accelerated implementation of a $200 million conservation investment and renewable resources development incentive program.

Wright explained how two operational scenarios, a "proposed contingency operation" and a "meet-load" scenario with no spill, would affect Bonneville’s finances. With 59 MAF, under the meet-load scenario, Bonneville faces a 16.2 percent probability of ending FY 2001 with less than $300 million in reserves, and under the proposed contingency operation, that probability is 69.3 percent, he noted. When we were above 60 MAF, we saw surplus power sales later in the year, but as the MAF goes down, those go away, Wright said.

If the volume forecast drops to 52.7 MAF, there is the potential to trigger the cost recovery adjustment clause (CRAC) under the meet-load scenario, and under the proposed contingency operation, Bonneville would lose more than $1.5 billion this year and would see big problems next year, he explained. There is a 4.2 percent chance of ending FY 2001 with less than $300 million in reserves under the meet-load scenario, and under the proposed contingency operation, there is a 100 percent probability, Wright said.

He presented a chart showing several different starting levels of reserves for fiscal year 2002. We think that starting with a $100 million reserve level in the face of this wholesale power market is wholly inadequate, Wright said. We now think a level of $400 million to $600 million in reserves is needed, he noted.

Wright said no spring or summer spill was included in the meet-load study. In the model, storage reservoirs were operated to store or draft as needed to meet load (with no surplus or deficits). He explained what he called "a new concept," KSFD, a measurement of the amount of flexibility there is on the hydro system. KSFD is the amount of stored water beyond what is needed to meet reservoir elevation requirements; it can be used for purposes such as spill or flow augmentation.

Wright summed up his presentation by saying "we’re going to have difficult tradeoffs to make in the region." He noted that the federal agencies have drafted "Proposed Principles for 2001 FCRPS Operations" that contain suggested operational priorities for 2001. The basic risk-management objective in the principles, Wright said, is to avoid failure in three areas: biological harm to fish, power system reliability, and Bonneville’s financial health.

The principles offer an opportunity to engage the region in these tradeoff questions, he noted. We are seeking Council input on the principles and are looking for better ways to involve not only the Council, but the tribes and the governors’ offices in the critical public policy questions that lie ahead, Wright stated.

Is the Technical Management Team/Implementation Team (TMT/IT) a good forum to use to make decisions in the crisis we are facing? asked Stan Grace. We’ve had difficulty using the TMT/IT in making real-time decisions, replied Wright. I think the public policy choices are of such magnitude that we can’t just rely on the TMT/IT -- we need outreach to the Council, governors’ offices, and others, he said.

Should we explore better ways to communicate with each other? Grace asked. We’d like to focus on week-to-week decisions for the TMT/IT and find ways to work with you and others on strategic decisions, replied Wright.

Bonneville has been active in buying down DSI and irrigators’ loads, said Tom Karier. Will Bonneville put out similar offers to utilities, giving them incentives to reduce their loads on Bonneville? he asked. We’ll think about that and get back to you, replied Wright.

Karier asked what would happen if the Northwest makes the hard decisions necessary to refill the reservoirs and then rolling blackouts occur in California. What are Bonneville’s and the region’s obligations if California’s problems jeopardize our reservoirs? he inquired. The less surplus we have in our system, the less we can help, replied Wright. If there were severe problems in California, we would try to help if we could, but there would have to be compensation, he stated. We want to try to put a proactive strategy in place and work out agreements ahead of time so we don’t have to choose between putting the lights out in California or being accused of price gouging, Wright continued. Maybe the governors should engage on this, he suggested.

Jim Kempton asked Brian Brown of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) about the numbers of fish that would be lost if there were no spill. We’ve looked at various alternatives, but we haven’t analyzed the alternatives Bonneville just presented, Brown replied. Our earlier analyses showed about a 2-3 percent reduction in migrants, but we were using an alternative that had greater spill than the proposed contingency operation, he pointed out. When can you have an analysis of these alternatives done? Kempton asked. In a week, replied Brown.

Idaho has taken the position that the water behind the dams does not count in the definition of surplus for power sales, Kempton pointed out. Under the Northwest Power Act, what avenues are available for surplus sales? he asked. We are not planning to change our calculation of firm surplus availability, replied Wright. Our number one priority will be meeting load in this region, he said.

Who proposed the contingency operation? Eric Bloch asked. A lot of work was done by Bonneville, but in conjunction with the other agencies, replied Wright. Given its effect on Bonneville’s reserves, have you given up advocating it? Bloch asked. That’s right; the forecasts keep dropping like a stone, replied Wright.

At some point, we have to marry up the hydro impacts and biological impacts in our analysis, stated Bloch. We are being asked to make a lot of tough choices on how to operate the system and manage water, he said. The Northwest is reconciled to making those choices, but when we do, we’ll expect to reap the benefits of the choices we make, Bloch continued. If we reserve water to refill reservoirs to meet fish and power needs in the future and an emergency then develops in California, it’ll be "a real different reality" for us to deal with, he said.

Does California owe us on megawatts? asked Leo Giacometto. Yes and no, replied Wright. They have returned all the exchanges, but there were sales earlier this year we haven’t been paid for, he said. How much are they worth? asked Giacometto. About $80 million, replied Wright.

What is NMFS’ plan for PIT-tag studies to help us understand the effects of the poor water situation on fish? Mike Field asked. Some PIT-tag studies may not make sense in this situation, but some studies to evaluate survival and transport have been planned, Brown replied.

Giacometto asked about Bonneville taking water out of the reservoirs to comply with the federal emergency order to sell to California. If you get another order, would you take more water out? he asked. We never took an action to the detriment of the Northwest, stated Wright. Under the statute, it’s the Northwest first, he noted. But if a reliability problem occurs in California, the question is how bad it would get and how long it would last, Wright said. I want to emphasize that there are transactions that could be put into place with California that would help California’s reliability and also help the Northwest, but we need to be proactive in working out such a strategy, he stated.

If we turn off fish measures, NMFS would not want to see water left in the system at the end of the season, said Brown. So NMFS would draft lower for fish survival? Kempton asked. It’s not NMFS’ position that deeper drafts of the reservoirs for fish are off the table, replied Brown.

Where does that put EPA? asked Cassidy. There will be some temperature problems, replied Dan Opalski of EPA. EPA has a standard it wants to reach in the mainstem in a drought, said Field. Wouldn’t a sliding scale be better? he asked. We are talking about state standards, replied Opalski. Are you saying EPA would be flexible on this issue if states request it? Field asked. To some degree, it’s built into the standards adopted by the states, replied Opalski.

What kind of contingency plans are there for the release of water for the agricultural community in the Columbia Basin? John Brogoitti asked. Generally, most of the Bureau of Reclamation’s water users will have a full supply, except in the Yakima Basin, where only senior rights holders will have a full supply, replied Ken Pedde of Reclamation. It will be nip and tuck throughout the basin and junior rights holders will find themselves in short supply, he added.

We need to see operating scenarios for all the agencies, urged Karier. It would be best if the agencies all evaluate the same scenarios, and we may need to generate scenarios even more quickly as the situation keeps changing, he said. We’ve been burning up our staff with these studies and giving the Council analysis results within 48 hours, responded Wright. We’re now getting closer to the bottom in terms of knowing the precipitation we can expect, he added.

I wrote to Bonneville last week asking for the Council and the governors’ offices to be included in the regional federal executives’ meetings, said Cassidy. We are looking into the legal implications of that and trying to figure out how to make it work, stated Wright. If we do that, we also need to involve the tribes, he added.

Should we expand the TMT/IT membership? Cassidy asked. We’d love to see greater involvement in the TMT/IT process, replied Brown. Giacometto commended Wright for how he has handled a difficult situation in the last few months. Wright said he accepted the compliment on behalf of all the federal agencies that have been involved.

5. Council Decision on High-priority Fish and Wildlife Projects

Bob Lohn, Director, Fish and Wildlife Division; and Doug Marker, Senior Policy Coordinator

Doug Marker said 96 project proposals were received in response to the Council’s call in November for actions that could be implemented immediately to assist Endangered Species Act-listed anadromous fish in the basin. Bonneville has said it is willing to commit $10 million to $15 million to fund these high priority projects, he noted. Yesterday the Fish and Wildlife Committee endorsed a group of projects totaling about $16 million, Marker said.

Cassidy suggested restoring two fish habitat projects the Fish and Wildlife Committee had eliminated the day before, one in the Salmon, ID subbasin ($320,000) and one in the Clearwater, ID subbasin ($420,000).

Decision - Funding

Bloch moved that the Council recommend Bonneville fund the list of Fish and Wildlife Committee recommendations for high priority projects, including the two previously eliminated projects. Grace seconded, and the motion passed.

I think we should also fund the Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation project, Karier said, but at $2.5 million, instead of what the sponsors requested ($3.7 million). NMFS said this project meets the BiOp criteria, and it was well reviewed by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), he noted. This is a good project for Bonneville to point to as mitigation for the effects of the hydro system, Karier added.

I’m not convinced this is the best use of the available money, said Grace. Can you quantify the benefits of buying this conservation easement? I think we are shooting in the dark here, he stated. I support this project at the reduced funding level, said Cassidy. We are getting riparian protection and shoreline access for the public as benefits, he added. The ISRP said this is critical habitat for salmon, and we are purchasing long-term protection for this area, Karier said.

Decision - Funding

Karier moved to add the Arrowleaf project to the Council’s recommended list of high priority projects for Bonneville funding; Bloch seconded. Six members voted yes; Grace and Giacometto voted no. With this, our recommended high priority projects total $19,349,863, Cassidy noted.

6. Update on Fish Run Estimates and Harvest Management Plan for 2001

Bruce Suzumoto, Manager, Special Projects

Suzumoto said the 2001 forecast for upriver spring chinook coming back to the Columbia Basin this year is 364,600, six times the 10-year average and twice the number last year. It’s an outstanding forecast, he stated. The Snake looks good too, Suzumoto said. The projected total Columbia River returns for spring chinook, sockeye, steelhead, fall chinook, and coho for 2001 is 1.3 million, compared to 550,700 in 2000, he reported. Suzumoto introduced a panel of harvest managers to update the Council on the harvest management plan for 2001.

If the dams are as lethal as some portray, why would we have upper Snake and Columbia River runs like this? Field asked. 1999 was a good water year, and we had a turnaround in ocean conditions, replied Guy Norman of the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). "The record needs to reflect that we have these runs with the federal system intact," stated Field.

Norman said the 2001 harvest plan reflects the idea that in years of high abundance, harvest can be increased, but in years with low run sizes, harvest rates are decreased. He said the managers have agreed to a 15 percent total harvest rate on upriver spring chinook this year.

What was the harvest rate under the previous management plan? Kempton asked. Between 9 percent and 11 percent, Norman replied. Under last year’s plan, there would have been a 30 percent harvest rate on this year’s run because of the high numbers of fish, he noted.

So you are increasing the catch of endangered fish from 9 percent to 15 percent? Karier asked. We are looking at the harvest on a multiyear basis, Norman replied. With the drought and the problems with the hydro system, there will be a decision whether to save these fish at a very high price tag, and we’ll be asking people to conserve energy and water, said Karier. At the same time, you are increasing the harvest to 15 percent -- there’s a credibility problem here, he stated. It’s how to convince irrigators, farmers, and others working to conserve energy that their efforts aren’t being offset by the fish harvest, Karier said.

The sacrifices people are making now will manifest themselves in two years when the fish going out this year come back, said Mike Matylewich of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). The Snake River salmon run is the largest projected escapement of wild fish to Idaho since 1979, he pointed out. Will the drought affect returning adults? Karier asked. The drought can have an effect, replied Matylewich. We’ll have large numbers of fish spawning, and the low water will make conditions more difficult in some tributaries, he stated.

We’re trying to balance a lot of things -- treaty rights and economic interests, including the economy of the fishing industry, which is flat on its back, said Bloch. We have an abundant year, and this harvest schedule is more protective than in years with lower abundance, he stated. This increased level of fish harvesting will be targeted at specific stocks, Bloch continued. The Oregon and Idaho governors’ offices were involved in developing the harvest agreement, he noted. The only people asked to be at the table that weren’t were representatives from the Washington governor’s office so if Washington has problems with this agreement, we didn’t get that feedback, Bloch said. I think this is a balanced, long-term approach, and I strongly support it, he stated.

We need a balance between harvest and the sacrifices other people are being called on to make along the way, said Karier. It’s the harvest rate on endangered fish that is a concern, not on the hatchery fish, he added.

When we talked with the U.S. v. Oregon parties, one thing we said is that the agreement had to be tied to the abundance of the listed fish, Larry Rutter of NMFS said. States and the tribes worked on this and were able to come up with a five-year agreement that met the objectives, he noted.

What’s really the problem with protecting wild stocks while letting people catch hatchery fish? Field asked. The selective harvest gear needed to do that would require commercial fishermen to make big investments, and since the industry has been down so long, fishermen are not in a position to make them, replied Matylewich. Also, the treaty fishing right is for all fish, not just hatchery fish, he said.

NMFS must have made assumptions about streamflows in its fish run estimates, said Kempton. What about the upcoming years when there will be minimal streamflows? he asked. We did not factor in low flow assumptions and judge this agreement in light of that, replied Rutter. There should have been consideration of adjusting the harvest schedule on a year-by-year basis if you find that streamflows have changed, stated Kempton.

We considered the effects over time in developing this schedule, and I don’t think this approach impedes the recovery effort at all, said Bloch. As much as a sliding scale makes sense, you’ll still hit the weaker stocks harder in good years, Karier said. That gets into an analysis of how much the runs co-vary, said Norman. We had to convince ourselves this agreement affords as much protection as a 9 percent rate did, he added.

7. Council Decision on Request for Recommendations for Mainstem Hydrosystem Amendments

John Shurts, General Counsel

The Council needs to decide whether to issue a request now for recommendations on a plan for the mainstem of the Columbia and Snake Rivers, or delay issuing the request two to six months, staffer John Shurts said. We sent out an issue paper on the timing of the amendment process and most of the comments we received supported a delay, he reported. Staff has been tilting toward recommending a delay due to the power supply crisis, Shurts noted.

Darryll Olsen and Tom Mackay, representing the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association (CSRIA), urged the Council to proceed immediately with the rulemaking. The water management plan, including the flow augmentation plan, needs to be amended, said Mackay. We need to act now -- the longer we put it off, the longer we’ll have problems, he added.

Bob Alberts, Public Works Director for the City of Pasco, said the management of the Columbia River affects cities, but cities haven’t been represented in the Council’s discussions. The city has applied to get a water right, but it is in conflict with the flow plan on the Columbia River, he stated. If we can’t take water out of the Columbia, where are we going to get water for the future? Alberts asked. We don’t believe there’s a lack of water for both us and the fish, he continued. We think the flows over McNary can be lowered to accommodate our needs, Alberts said.

The CSRIA has proposed a set of recommendations for changing water management in the Columbia Basin, said Olsen. We hope our Washington members on the Council will support launching into the mainstem rulemaking, he stated. Let’s show some leadership and get on with it, Olsen urged.

Why isn’t the Pasco aquifer a source for the city’s water needs? Cassidy asked. The best water for our customers is soft water like what is in the river, rather than groundwater, replied Alberts. There is some conflict over who owns the aquifer, added Olsen.

What percentage change in flows are you seeking? Giacometto asked. We are talking about eliminating spring flow augmentation and limiting summer flow augmentation to the amount of water put out in 1994, a level lower than the present BiOp, according to Olsen.

What about water markets? asked Karier. We are working with the water markets in Benton County, said Olsen. Water marketing is just one leg of the stool -- there’s a whole gamut of actions needed, replied Mackay.

This is a fundamentally important issue, and it’s time to move, said John Saven of the Northwest Irrigation Utilities. I don’t buy the reason that folks are too busy with the power crisis, he indicated. In the Council’s Framework process, we spent a lot of time making recommendations and they "went into the sunset," Saven said. We raised questions about spring and summer flows, and we wanted the Council to look at the CSRIA’s new water management alternative, he noted.

The folks I represent are "really, really struggling these days," Saven continued. I’m not recommending the hydro system is the place we go versus developing new resources, but we need to work on the issues associated with flow and spill, he said. The Council has the responsibility to find a balance, and now’s a good time to exercise it, Saven stated. If you want to engage, we’re prepared to help, he added.

I think it’s time to go ahead with this, said Grace. The power crisis won’t go away in six months -- it’s time to face the problem, he added. It’s very appropriate we move ahead, said Brogoitti, and Field agreed.

If we open the recommendation period today, we’ll get some recommendations that could help in addressing the crisis we face in the next several months, said Bloch. We’ve delayed already by not including this piece in our program -- we should get it open and get the job done, agreed Karier.

Decision – Release Request for Recommendations for Mainstem Plan Amendments

Bloch moved the Council release the request for recommendations for mainstem plan amendments to the fish and wildlife program, and Grace seconded. Kempton moved to amend the motion to require that the Council write a letter extending the call on the operating agencies not to move forward with unimplemented measures in Section 5 of the 1994-95 program until a mainstem plan is in place. The 2000 fish and wildlife program can be read to say this recommendation to the operating agencies expires after October 2001, and the letter would extend the recommendation in the event the mainstem amendment process goes past that deadline, Shurts pointed out. Field seconded Kempton’s motion, and it passed. Bloch’s original motion to approve the release of the request for recommendations passed.

8. Briefing on Federal Agencies’ Budgets for Implementation of the Biological Opinion

Mark Walker, Director, Public Affairs Division; and Doug Marker

Mark Walker reported on a recent trip he and Marker took to Washington, D.C. to discuss ideas on federal agency appropriations to complement Bonneville’s share of funding BiOp implementation. Last month staff assembled a draft proposal identifying where funds could be added to federal agency accounts for additional BiOp funds for FY 2001 and 2002, he noted. The intention was to identify specific alternatives in the BiOp that, if funded, could get money on the ground quickly and result in survival improvements, Walker said.

We hope a package can be developed in the coming weeks that will get the support of the Council, and the states, tribes, industry, and other interests, and that the package can be promoted to the Administration and Congressional delegation in this year’s appropriations process, he stated. We "tested the waters" for this approach during our D.C. visit and got unanimous, positive feedback, Walker said. We are looking to get the Council’s blessing to put a package like this together, he added.

Walker presented the following funding recommendations:

Bureau of Reclamation: $1 million in FY 2001 and $10 million in FY 2002 for water conservation, fish passage, and screens Corps of Engineers: $5 million in FY 2002 for demonstration projects to improve habitat near water diversions US Fish & Wildlife Service: $10 million in FY 2002 for irrigation diversion screens NMFS: $6 million in FY 2002 for Mitchell Act irrigation diversion screens USDA Farm Service Agency: $4.4 million in FY 2001 and $15.7 million in FY 2002 for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).

The BiOp sets aggressive targets for implementation, and one performance standard is funding, Marker pointed out. He said he has been working to make sure the implementation of the Council’s program and the BiOp stay linked. This package wasn’t just choosing parts of the BiOp; it is our view of what’s ready to fund, Marker said.

Field asked to be kept abreast of the work with Reclamation. There are lots of dollars in the CREP program that haven’t been used, he said. We need to adapt that program so it can be of use to the people in the Northwest, Field stated. The Council should try to get the program’s regulations changed, he said, suggesting the Council appoint a committee to work on that.

Do we have a general sense of approval that this is what you want us to pursue? Walker asked. In Oregon, the governor has developed his own strategy for getting BiOp funding, Bloch stated. I’m not comfortable now with saying, this is the right number or the only number, he said. These categories are the most closely related to our program, while Governor Kitzhaber’s are more comprehensive, Marker stated.

9. Briefing on Status of Data Management Funding

Bob Austin, Bonneville Power Administration

Bob Austin of Bonneville reported on a meeting with NMFS and Council reps in February to develop a statement of work for the $150,000 contract with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to conduct an assessment of regional data needs. We hope to finalize language for the statement of work within a week, he said. We’ve been trying to hammer out this language since October, noted Karier.

10. New Pikeminnow Project

Steve Crow, Executive Director

Decision - Funding

Steve Crow said the Fish Four recommended funding of $2,779,992 from the FY 2001 budget for the Northern Pikeminnow Project. The budget for the project was reduced by $340,000, he noted. Bloch moved to approve Bonneville funding for the project; Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed.

11. Council Business

Adoption of Minutes

Decision – Minutes Approved

Bloch moved to approve the minutes of the Council meeting held in Vancouver, Washington, on January 17, 2001. Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed.

Update on Findings and Response to Comments for the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program

John Shurts said he has given Council members the first piece of this massive document, which will be 350-400 pages long when it is done. A second piece will be sent out next week, he stated. Shurts asked the states to have their staff go through the tome and get feedback to him so the Council will be able to adopt the document at its April meeting.

The meeting adjourned 4:40 p.m.

Approved March 7, 2001

________________________________
Vice-Chairman

^ top