Meeting Minutes

Council Meeting Minutes

Boise, Idaho
April 3-4, 2001

1. Briefing on the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Applications in the Yakama river Basin

David Fast and Bruce Watson, Yakama Indian Nation

David Fast and Bruce Watson briefed the Council on how the Yakama Indian Nation is applying the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model in its fisheries program. The EDT came out of research being done in the Yakima Basin in the 1990s, and it is currently being used for planning habitat and supplementation efforts, Fast explained.

According to Watson, the Yakamas are using the EDT to identify projects and portions of the basin where efforts to enhance fisheries are most promising. Our goal is to diagnose factors that limit fish productivity, abundance, and diversity, and identify optimal enhancement strategies, he said. The EDT model is "inherently comparative" and compares circumstances today with historical populations, Watson explained, adding there has been a tremendous decline in the Yakima spring chinook. The EDT helps us to estimate the degree we could improve basinwide fisheries performance "if we could turn back the clock," he said. How do you define historical? Giacometto asked. It is pre Euro-American development, Watson responded.

The EDT identifies river reaches in terms of their potential for preservation value and restoration potential, he continued. In the Yakima Basin, 70 percent of the potential is locked up in 15 reaches, Watson reported. The EDT is also used to diagnose in which life stages fish are most severely affected by conditions in the basin and the degree of the effect, he said. Only 12 reaches in the basin contribute positively to productivity, and these are very high priority for preservation and enhancement, Watson pointed out.

The largest contributors to fish declines in the Yakima Basin are loss of habitat diversity, unnatural flow patterns, and the loss of key habitat, Watson said. He explained several causes of the habitat degradation, including disrupted floodplains due to diking, degraded riparian corridors with a lack of woody debris, an unnatural hydrograph due to reservoir operation, and sediment input from irrigation and erosion. Over time, diking, filling, and agricultural development have led to an enormous loss of channel habitat, Watson said.

Based on the EDT diagnosis, we modeled possible treatments, including reducing losses at dam outfalls, reducing the sediment load, restoring the riparian corridor, and restoring the natural hydrograph, he went on. We looked at what would happen with individual treatments and combinations of treatments, Watson explained. When you add supplementation into the mix, you triple fish abundance, he stated.

What is your view of NMFS’ concerns about EDT? Cassidy asked. NMFS’ latest report "ignores the need to integrate all of the pieces of the ecological puzzle," which EDT helps us to do, Watson responded. EDT incorporates a system in which you can use assessment information from experts if you don’t have hard data for a statistical analysis, Fast explained. With EDT you can go in and analyze and begin treatments, he said, noting that the data for traditional analyses doesn’t exist in many subbasins.

NMFS said it would be difficult to replicate the EDT analysis because of subjectivity, but the true test of a model is whether it works, Karier said. You have used EDT since 1997; can you demonstrate its success? he asked. Yes, we can, Fast responded. It’s difficult to replicate situations in the natural environment because circumstances are always changing, he indicated. We aren’t saying EDT is perfect, but it looks like it’s working, Fast stated.

What impresses me about EDT is that it allows you to go forward and start working, Bloch said. You have a tool that allows people to move forward in a reasonably scientific way, he stated.

2. Council Business

• Approval of Minutes

Eric Bloch moved and Stan Grace seconded approval of the minutes for the March 7 meeting. The Council voted unanimously to approve.

• Funding reallocations for Fiscal Year 2001 from Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority

Bloch moved to recommend Bonneville reallocate FY2001 fish and wildlife funds for the Lake Roosevelt Kokanee Net Pen Project and defer action on the Lake Creek land acquisition. According to a staff memo, the kokanee project was funded in FY 2000 with a budget of $185,000, and the net effect of the change is an additional $31,288. Tom Karier seconded the motion, and the Council voted unanimously to approve.

• Final documentation for funding recommendations during Fiscal Year 2001

Bloch moved, and John Brogoitti seconded approval of the documentation for the FY 2001 fish and wildlife funding recommendations the Council made to Bonneville. The motion passed.

• Artificial Production Review Implementation recommendations of members for Artificial Production Advisory Committee

Staffer Steve Crow explained a proposal to appoint members to the Artificial Production Advisory Committee. We have a list of members, but plan to add a couple more later, he said. In order to get the advisory committee under way, staff would like your approval of the 22 appointments made so far, Crow indicated. Bloch moved, and Grace seconded approval of the appointments.

3. Presentation of Issue paper on Fiscal Year 2001 Hydrosystem Operations and Impact on Fish Survival and Council decision on interim recommendations

Bob Lohn, Director, Fish & Wildlife division; Bruce Suzumoto, Manager, Special Projects; Dick Watson, Director, Power Planning Division; and John Fazio, Power Systems Analyst

Staffer Dick Watson delivered the bad news on the region’s 2001 hydro situation, pointing out that the runoff forecast continues to decline and could reach the lowest on record. The March 15 forecast was 57.6 million acre-feet (MAF) at The Dalles, assuming 75 percent of normal precipitation during the last two weeks of March and 100 percent of normal from April 1 on, he reported. The April "early bird" forecast has sunk even further, pegging runoff at 55.7 million acre-feet, Watson said.

The staff conducted an analysis of the power supply outlook for 2001 in two stages, he continued. The first stage went from March 1 through August 31, 2001, and it began with the reservoirs at their March 1 elevations, Watson said. We did scenario analyses for two other low-water years, 1944 (60 MAF) and 1977 (54 MAF), he explained, adding that the analysis assumed average temperatures and normal operation of thermal plants.

Watson described the operational strategies in the analysis as: maintaining normal Biological Opinion (BiOp) spills and flows; normal BiOp spill, plus unlimited use of "emergency" hydro to meet load; and three strategies with limited emergency hydro and spill reduction. The spill reduction scenarios were: no spill at federal projects; morning and evening only at John Day and Bonneville dams; and no spill at any projects. We’ve focused on spill because there is so much energy involved, he stated.

We looked at what the strategies would yield in terms of load curtailment, purchased power costs, flows, and August 31 reservoir elevations, Watson explained. Under 1944 water, the BiOp operation would lead to a curtailment of 5,606 MW-months of energy and over $1 billion in imported energy costs, he reported. The reservoir contents on August 31 would be 100 percent of the BiOp, Watson said. Under 1977 water, the BiOp operation would lead to a curtailment of 7,993 MW-months of energy and $1.4 billion in imported energy costs, he continued. Under 1944 water with spill reduction, we can manage curtailments successfully, Watson said, but with 1977 water, "the problems get bigger."

With regard to flows, spring flows are generally increased from BiOp levels for the operating strategies used because each involves some emergency drafting; however, summer flows are lower because the system is in refill mode, according to the analysis. Depending on the strategy, not all of the energy represented by spill is needed to meet load, and it could be used instead to restore some spill, fill reservoirs higher, or generate electricity for additional revenues or power exchanges, Watson said. The latter option could have the effect of holding down market prices, he pointed out.

For Stage 2 of the analysis, reservoir starting elevations were the primary variable, Watson explained. The staff ran a standard Monte Carlo analysis, with 300 possibilities that incorporated a random selection of water conditions, temperatures, and forced outages, he went on. In this stage, we were looking at the probability and magnitude of winter loss of load and April 15, 2002 reservoir elevations, Watson said. "This is not a reliable system to begin with," he stated, and with reservoir elevations starting at BiOp levels, in 20 percent of the 300 winter cases run, there was some level of unserved load, Watson reported. When reservoirs were started at lower elevations, 39 to 45 percent of the winter cases experienced some amount of unserved load, with seasonal averages as high as 1,700 to 1,900 MWa, he said.

The analysis also showed that with reservoirs starting at low levels August 31, the expected contents in April 2002 would be from 2 to 6 MAF below the BiOp, Watson pointed out. That means less water for flow augmentation in 2002, he said.

Staff concluded that operating to BiOp spills and flows would result in large curtailments and/or purchased power costs, Watson said. Operating strategies that leave reservoirs well below August 31 BiOp elevations significantly increase the risk of winter reliability problems and assure April 15 reservoir contents at well below the BiOp, he said. To meet summer loads and return reservoirs to August 31 BiOp levels, spill would need to be reduced significantly, in addition drafting would need to be limited above spring and summer target elevations, Watson stated. The additional revenues from power generation if spill is reduced could be used to help mitigate some of the biological impacts to fish, he said.

Decisions on spill must be made soon but can be revisited later if conditions change, Watson went on. If spring spill is maintained, energy is lost and more stringent and expensive steps may be needed later, he said. If spill is reduced now, it could be restored later if things improve or other resources become available, Watson said. With regard to winter 2002, the outlook calls for increased attention to load reduction, conservation, and new generation, he said. We haven’t got a reliable system, and we need to reduce loads in the short term and invest in conservation, Watson concluded.

Staffer Bruce Suzumoto summarized a draft Council issue paper entitled Analysis of 2001 Federal Columbia River Power System Operations on Fish Survival. The analysis looks at how spill and transportation changes would affect survival, using the National Marine Fisheries Service’s SIMPAS model, he said. Our analysis addressed three questions, Suzumoto explained: Given full implementation of the 2000 BiOp for 2001 water conditions, how will additional spill reductions at federal dams change the total system survival of migrating ESA-listed juveniles? How will juvenile transportation at McNary Dam affect the survival of the upper Columbia ESA-listed stocks? How will adult returns be affected by changes in spill and fish transportation operations?

In the analysis, the base case is no spill at Lower Granite, Little Goose, and Lower Monumental, with full transport and no summer spill at McNary, he said. Alternatives 1 and 2 are variations on spill and Alternative 3 is no spill at federal projects, Suzumoto explained. Starting with a sample of 1,000 Snake River spring chinook juveniles at Lower Granite Dam, 987 juveniles would survive through the system under the base case, and 983 fish would survive under Alternative 3, he said. The difference in total system survival is four fish, according to Suzumoto. The reason for the small difference is that most of the fish would be transported and not exposed to river conditions, he said.

These numbers do not take into account delayed mortality, or the D value, Suzumoto continued. Delayed mortality may be the result of the stress of transportation, natural mortality, or the timing of transportation, he said, adding that "it’s probably a combination of all of these factors." Suzumoto explained how the D value is derived and noted that in the BiOp, it ranges from 0.24 to 1.0, depending on the species and transportation site. For this analysis, the D value was .63, he said. When the D value is taken into account, the total survival under the base case would be 628 fish, Suzumoto reported.

In the analysis, staff calculated survival statistics by fish stock and by hydro project. The mortality at the projects varies a lot depending on the type of bypass system, Suzumoto pointed out. The Dalles is the only one of eight federal projects in the analysis that does not have fish passage, and you could increase survival there by adding surface spill to the operation, he said. According to the analysis, upper Columbia spring chinook and steelhead survivals would be affected most by eliminating spill at the lower Columbia River dams.

The effect of the changes in spill and transport on adult returns is calculated in terms of the smolt-to-adult ratio (SAR) for each stock, Suzumoto explained. NMFS’ estimates of outmigration for ESA-listed stocks range from 1.1 million for Snake River spring and summer chinook to 34,000 for lower Columbia steelhead, he pointed out. Based on the outmigration, Council analysts estimated a general range of SARs, Suzumoto said. Middle Columbia steelhead lose the most adults over all of the scenarios, with as much as an 11.5 percent loss above the base case, he reported.

Suzumoto offered several recommendations based on the results of the analysis: stop spill at Ice Harbor and McNary dams; maximize transportation at all federal collector dams, including McNary; utilize surface sluiceway spill at dams to pass juveniles; if water is available for spill, focus it to optimize benefits for middle Columbia steelhead; and accelerate the development of surface-oriented bypass systems.

Eric Bloch suggested the analysis would be more helpful if it evaluated the spill and no-spill cases according to the effect on in-river fish, as opposed to both in-river and transported fish. The transported fish experience completely different conditions, he pointed out. You are talking about an analysis of in-river survival only, Suzumoto said. In this analysis, we were comparing the base case with the no-spill case to get to a decision about spill, he added.

We are proposing the Council release this issue paper and put out these recommendations as preliminary, staffer Bob Lohn clarified. You would take comments on the paper and make final recommendations at your April work session, he said.

The Council sees the power situation as extremely dire, and we agree, Scott Bosse of Idaho Rivers United said. But we disagree with the impacts of abandoning spill – your analysis is "too rosy," he stated. Bosse contended that the science in the analysis is flawed. It uses NMFS reach-survival data, which contrasts with data from the states and tribes, he said. We also think the D values you use are unrealistically high, Bosse said. We have two proposals, he stated: consult with the states and tribes before you adopt final recommendations, and consider alternatives that have not been pursued, such as obtaining additional water from the upper Snake basin.

I share Scott’s view – "we need to take off the rose-colored glasses," stated Tom Stuart of Idaho Rivers United. The impact of no spill on Snake River stocks is severe, and a conclusion that the impacts are negligible is not true, he said. We suspect, based on our data, losses of Snake River stocks could be 50 percent, much of which is a result of stranding, Stuart said. Eleven of the 12 listed stocks are spring migrants, he continued. If any water can be obtained, "spring spill is paramount," Stuart stated.

I don’t think anyone here is looking at this through rose-colored glasses, Chairman Larry Cassidy commented. We know this is not the best treatment for fish, but we are looking for a balance between fish and power, Cassidy added.

"What do you say gents?" Cassidy asked, moving on to the proposed Council recommendations on 2001 hydrosystem operations. We should adopt the recommendation calling for full transportation, Stan Grace stated. The Council decided to take up the recommendations in the order listed on a staff memo.

Decision –Release Issue Paper

The first recommendation, release the issue paper for comment through April 20, 2001, was adopted unanimously, with Leo Giacometto moving for adoption and Bloch seconding the motion. Mike Field moved to adopt the second recommendation, calling for full transportation of juvenile salmon and steelhead in spring and summer when that option is available. Giacometto seconded. The issue seems more complicated than this, Tom Karier stated, asking for clarification. We are proposing you adopt this as a preliminary recommendation and have NMFS offer its advice and opinion on when the transportation option is available, Lohn clarified.

In response to Karier’s question, Brian Brown, assistant regional administrator for NMFS, said fish were transported from McNary in the summers of 1995 and 1996, but research showed there was no benefit. "We would still approach McNary transport this spring with caution," he stated. We should flag that concern in our recommendations and say this is a preliminary recommendation and that all actions should be carefully monitored and evaluated, Karier suggested. The immediacy of the need drives my thinking on this, Grace said. The recommendation is needed to get the federal agencies to act; this is the time for decision, he urged.

Brown acknowledged that the research from McNary in 1995 and 1996 was a surprise to NMFS. The results didn’t bear out what was found in the 1980s, he said. What would be the impact of our preliminary recommendations? Bloch asked. We have not made a final decision on transportation at McNary, Brown replied. We are considering amending the Section 10 permit to allow transportation from McNary, and we will address it in a timely way, he added.

I have never heard our biologists say that in a drought year "we should not transport all the fish we can get our hands on," Field stated. I have a concern that we could forego the opportunity to change things with spill later on, John Brogoitti said. Cassidy said that was addressed later in the recommendations. There was a call for the vote, and the motion passed unanimously.

I received a letter from Governor Kitzhaber to enter into the record, Cassidy reported. The letter says we face dire choices with the BiOp, and he recommends dedicating instream water flows to fish and creating a mitigation fund with the additional power sales revenue Bonneville earns as a result of curtailing spill.

Decision – Adopt Recommendations

Field made a motion to adopt recommendation three, which calls for limited surface spill at John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville dams whenever there are substantial indications that fish passing the project are being significantly delayed or harmed. Karier proposed amending the language to assure selective spill is used only "if there are high and measurable benefits to fish or until conditions improve" and adding a sentence that says "the default is to have no spill." Brogoitti seconded the amendment. The federal agencies should provide a list of priorities for the use of spill, Grace suggested. The Council voted unanimously for Karier’s amendments. Bloch proposed requesting the federal agencies and fish and wildlife managers to work with the Council on a plan for spill. Brogoitti seconded the amendment, and it passed. The Council voted unanimously to adopt recommendation three.

Giacometto made a motion to adopt recommendations 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Brogoitti seconded. Karier proposed changing the language in recommendation 4, which refers to establishing a mitigation fund, to state "as a first priority, this fund would be used for opportunities to increase flows in the river and tributaries" and deleting "this spring and summer" from the statement. Brogoitti seconded Karier’s amendment, and the Council unanimously agreed. The Council voted unanimously to adopt items 4, 5, 6, and 7.

4. Update on Alternatives for Annual Hydro Operations and Potential Impact on Fisheries

Greg Delwiche, Vice President for Generation Supply, Bonneville Power Administration; Donna Darm, Acting Regional administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service; Doug Arndt, Chief, Salmon Coordination Division, US. Army Corps of engineers; and other federal executives.

The federal agencies hold a teleconference every week to discuss this season’s hydro operations, and they have invited the states and tribes to participate every other week, staffer Steve Crow said, noting that the next meeting with all participants is April 13. He introduced representatives from several federal agencies, who briefed the Council on 2001 hydro operations.

Greg Delwiche, Bonneville’s vice president of generation supply, went over the 2001 power and operations outlook. We are moving close to the 53 MAF floor that we told you about in February and March, he said. We won’t actually know until the middle of June exactly what the runoff is, Delwiche said, adding that on April 13, the federal agencies will roll out a proposed operating plan for the season. Any water leaving the system now to boost flows, spill, or generate power won’t be available later in the year, and "we have to carefully husband what we have," he stated.

We have determined that a 53 MAF runoff is the threshold at which Bonneville can no longer maintain its financial solvency, meet load, and maintain any spill for fish without drafting reservoirs below their summer limits, Delwiche said. "We are creeping ever closer to that precipice," he stated. If the runoff is greater than 53 MAF, the region has more choices about how to operate, Delwiche explained.

In addition, we have an unfolding situation with storage, especially in Canada, he continued. Failure to refill reservoirs to BiOp levels will impact power system reliability in 2002, and the region needs to "self-insure its power supply going into next year," Delwiche stated.

The January-July runoff forecast for 2001 continues to decline, and on a ranking of runoff years, it is almost at the bottom, he pointed out. In January, the final forecast was 80.4 MAF; in February, it was down to 66.4, and in March, it had dropped to 58.6, Delwiche reported. The "early bird" forecast for April is 55.7 MAF, he said. That is just over half of average; by comparison, we had almost 160 MAF in 1997, Delwiche said.

The federal agencies have been working on principles and priorities for 2001 federal power system operations, which define criteria for declaring a power emergency, he stated. A power system emergency was declared yesterday; spill was to have started at Ice Harbor and did not, Delwiche said. He explained that the criteria for declaring a system emergency include: a reliability emergency due to near-term insufficiency; a reliability emergency due to forecasted insufficiency; and a reliability emergency due to Bonneville having inadequate cash reserves to acquire sufficient generation and to maintain programs, including fish and wildlife (fish and wildlife) efforts. An insolvent Bonneville means you have an unreliable system – insolvency was part of the problem in California, Delwiche pointed out.

He went over the process the federal agencies used to develop the criteria and priorities, noting that meetings to solicit comments from the states and tribes took place March 16 and 30. We got comments "at both ends of the spectrum" on reliability, Bonneville’s financial picture, and fish operations, Delwiche said. We have set the priorities, but we will operate using adaptive management – things will change as conditions warrant, he indicated.

The agencies established three risk parameters for 2001 operations, Delwiche continued: biological harm to fish, power system reliability, and Bonneville’s financial health. With regard to biological harm, survival levels under alternative operations scenarios will be evaluated using NMFS’ SIMPAS model, he said. The power system reliability parameter would not be met if there is a near-term insufficiency of generation to meet Pacific Northwest load or a forecast of greater than 5 percent probability of loss of load, Delwiche explained. The financial health parameter would not be met if there is a forecast of greater than 20 percent probability that Bonneville’s financial reserves would be zero or less for any of the next 12 months, he said. As the spring and summer unfolds, we’ll evaluate where we are with these risk parameters, Delwiche said.

He went over a graph depicting Bonneville’s cash reserve picture. There is a $900 million difference between operating the hydro system only to meet load and achieving the BiOp flow and spill targets in full, Delwiche said. Conditions in March were better than we expected; loads were less than forecast and because we were keeping flows up at Bonneville Dam to protect chum reds, there were times when we were surplus, which brought in revenue, he explained.

Another graph indicated that if Bonneville starts next fiscal year with $400 million, it is possible cash flow could dip below zero because of the timing of the payment on the WPPSS net-billing agreements, Delwiche pointed out. Is this a likely or worst-case scenario? Karier asked. It’s the average of 2,000 model runs, Delwiche replied. What happens if this occurs? Karier asked. We would be in the position of testing the U.S. Treasury’s ability to help us out, but there is risk in doing that, Delwiche responded. A short-term note is also a possibility, he stated.

With regard to federal storage, we expect the system to be refilled to 66 percent on September 30, 2001, Delwiche said. In other words, we’ll be starting the year "with the tank two-thirds full," he stated. Treaty storage in Canada has a significant effect on projected federal storage, and we don’t expect Canada to refill, Delwiche explained. Under normal conditions, treaty storage would be 14.6 MAF, but this year, we expect 4.5 to 9 MAF, which is 30 to 60 percent full, he said. Refill failure is a big problem for system reliability, and "we are alarmed about next year," Delwiche acknowledged, adding that he agreed with the analysis Council staff presented on the power outlook.

Delwiche said Bonneville ran studies of water supply conditions in the system and how much "flexible storage" would be available. Based on our previous analysis, a 53 MAF year would give us no April to June inventory of water that could be stored beyond June and negative flexible storage, he stated, adding that the analysis was being updated. There are runoff conditions under which Grand Coulee would refill and there would be surplus that could not be stored, Delwiche said. If there is surplus in the spring, it would be small relative to full BiOp spill, he added.

If a greater than 53 MAF condition materializes, the region has several choices about how to operate the system, Delwiche continued. We could generate energy and revenue to build cash reserves; spill to improve fish passage and survival; or store excess water for FY 2002, he stated. Who would make that decision? Cassidy asked. It would be a collaborative decision among the federal action agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NMFS, Delwiche replied.

He outlined the federal agencies’ fishery operations priorities list for 2001, noting that the first item, power/chum flows, ended in mid March. Transportation, with full transport in the Snake River and possible transport from McNary, is next on the list, followed by spring spill, Delwiche said. The spring spill operation calls for balancing spill for ESA-listed stocks at federal mainstem dams with the uncertainty over the volume forecast, he explained.

Delwiche acknowledged "a key caveat" in that much of the spring will have passed before the agencies know what the actual runoff will be and how much flexibility will materialize in the system. If there is any spill to allocate, the agencies have prioritized the projects as follows, beginning with the top priority, he said: The Dalles, Bonneville, John Day, McNary, and Ice Harbor.

"A surging operation" is next on the list of operations, which, according to Delwiche, refers to pulsing flows to enhance collection and transportation at Lower Granite Dam. The other fishery priorities are: balancing summer flow augmentation and spring spill operations; operating at minimum operating pool (MOP) on the Snake River and at John Day; the Vernita Bar operation; other spill; and spring flow. If there is any spring flow, it will be shaped into May, Delwiche added.

The federal agencies are developing an operational plan for the migration season and will discuss it with the states and tribes on April 13, he summed up. According to Delwiche, the highlights of the FCRPS operation for the next two weeks, while the plan is being completed, are to maintain Vernita Bar flows through the first week in April; canceling spill during the first half of April; and evaluating spring transportation at McNary in coordination with a spill operation.

We’ve heard there are concerns about whether we will be called upon to help California, he acknowledged. Next week we are going to meet with representatives of the California governor’s office and officials from the state water resources agency, Delwiche reported. Our preliminary thinking is that we will entertain the idea of an exchange this summer if it does not affect what we are doing for fish, he said. We are thinking about a predelivery of power to be stored in Northwest reservoirs, which could go back to California if they have an emergency, Delwiche explained.

Brown commented on three major differences between the Council staff’s and NMFS’ survival analyses. With regard to the Snake River populations, there will be fish in the river, and NMFS calculates a 12 to 15 percent decrease in survival, he said. As for spring transport at McNary, we are cautious about attributing any benefits, Brown stated. "We are looking at it as a salvage operation," he said, adding that NMFS will study the effects of transporting from McNary. Do you have a recommendation from your scientists on McNary transport? Grace asked. They have said to proceed with the study, and our study plan calls for transporting on alternating days, Brown responded. What do the scientists recommend? Don’t you have to have fish being transported to do the study? Grace asked. Brown indicated that was a given.

The third difference between the NMFS and Council studies relates to SARs, Brown said. We did not try to use estimates of juvenile migrants to determine SARs, he explained. We did not feel that calculation would be reliable or precise, Brown stated. Generally, do you agree with our staff? Cassidy asked. Yes, Brown replied.

We will be using Libby and Dworshak to follow load, stated Doug Arndt, chief, salmon coordination division, Corps of Engineers. Our transportation facilities "are up and running," and next week, we’ll move to barging – we are ready to transport as much as NMFS and other agencies request, he said. Arndt pointed out that without spill, the Corps will not be conducting dissolved gas studies and that work on a low water year plan is under way, which will affect the number of lockages that take place in a day.

Hungry Horse is on minimum outflow to capture water, Jim Fodrea, regional hydro coordinator for the Bureau of Reclamation, reported. Grand Coulee is running to meet load and the Vernita Bar agreement, whichever is higher, he continued. We are also evaluating the potential for getting water from the upper Snake, Fodrea said. The winter snowpack is 30 to 50 percent of average, and it is highly unlikely we will be able to provide 427,000 acre-feet – it’s probably more like half of that, he stated. And Hungry Horse probably won’t refill, Fodrea added.

Bloch asked if Reclamation is working to secure more water from irrigators in the upper Snake. Fodrea said Idaho Power and Bonneville are taking the lead in that effort.

When the legislature authorized the 427,000 acre-feet, it said it was unlikely the water would be available, Jim Kempton said. He pointed out that Idaho water law governs the water acquisitions. Rather than have these discussions now, let’s have the appropriate state agency people here, Kempton advised.

Doug Ancona, manager of natural resources for Grant County PUD, briefed the Council on the current spill program for Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams. He began with a comment on the success of the PUD’s efforts to prevent stranding of fall chinook in the Hanford Reach. We re-regulate the river to avoid stranding, and last year, we saw mortality of only 400 fish out of the entire run, Ancona said.

The spill agreement Grant PUD signed last year with a number of fisheries interests, including NMFS, calls for spilling at Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams beginning April 16, he explained. On average, "we will spill 50 percent of the river from April 16 to August 30," seven days a week, 24 hours a day, according to Ancona. A handout he provided shows that when the percentages in the agreement are converted to megawatt-hours (MWh), Grant PUD will spill the equivalent of 854,678 MWh in the spring and 803,434 MWh in the summer. The spill agreement is currently before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and if it becomes an amendment to the PUD’s operating license for the Priest Rapids project, it means we will do the spill regardless of how the federal agencies decide to operate, he explained. It’s a lengthy process to get a FERC order relaxed, Ancona pointed out.

He said Grant intends to carry out spring spill and will be talking to NMFS, the tribes, and Bonneville in the next few weeks about the spill operation. It represents a substantial amount of money and generation, Ancona said. He also said Grant wants a survival analysis to get a picture of the effectiveness of the spill program.

FERC has issued an order to dam licensees asking for ideas on ways to increase generation, Ancona continued. We have responded with a suggestion that FERC enact an emergency article that would enable licensees to talk about reducing or changing a spill operation if conditions warrant it, he reported. If Grant needs relief from a FERC requirement, it won’t happen without regional support, Ancona said. Sixty-four percent of the power generated at Priest Rapids and Wanapum is wholesaled at cost to purchasers around the region, serving customers in Portland, Seattle, and other areas, he said.

So you would like support from us for relief from a FERC requirement, Cassidy summed up. If we were to give it, we’d have to go through some analyses and consider what that would mean for power and revenues, he indicated. Grant has no intention of profiting from pulling back spill, Ancona responded. He noted that Grant is adding diesel generators to add to its energy supply. Would you be open to putting revenues from generation in lieu of spill into a mitigation fund? Bloch asked. Ancona indicated Grant would probably cut back on power purchases from Bonneville and serve its own load.

5. Presentation on the Department of Energy Hydropower Research Program

Peggy Brookshier, Department of Energy; Garold Somers, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; Brad Bird, US Army Corps of Engineers; Ed Meyer, national Marine Fisheries Service; Steve Brown, Grant County PUD; and Dick Fisher, Voith Hydro

Peggy Brookshier of the Department of Energy (DOE) introduced five panelists, who briefed the Council on DOE’s Advanced Hydropower Turbine System Program and recent advances in turbine passage technology. She said a number of agencies are cooperating in DOE’s research effort, and there is a lot of synergy among participants.

According to a DOE information packet, hydropower generates about 8 to 10 percent of the nation’s electricity, but environmental and regulatory constraints are putting existing generation in jeopardy. With 220 hydropower licenses expiring by 2010, DOE is looking into ways to understand and overcome environmental barriers, the packet states.

Garold Sommers of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) described the involvement of DOE laboratories in the turbine research. INEEL provides

engineering support, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee provides environmental support, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland, Washington offers the biological support, he said. PNNL has a fish lab where such things as turbine shear and dissolved gas can be tested, Sommers explained. Our intent is to find out what is going on in the turbine environment and then design better systems, he stated.

All sites on the Columbia River are amenable to improvements offered in the Kaplan turbine rehabilitation research project, according to Dick Fisher of Voith Siemens Hydro. The goal of the project is 98 percent fish survival, he said, adding that the turbine rehabs also offer greater generating efficiency. Fisher described the operation of a Kaplan turbine and why it creates an unfriendly environment for fish. In the research, we map out the zones in the turbine that are risky to fish biology, and try to find ways to redesign them, he explained. Portions of the Kaplan rehabilitation process were tested at Bonneville Dam, and the results showed the new units, which had minimum gap runner blades, resulted in a significant reduction in injuries to fish, Fisher stated.

The Kaplan rehabilitation concept is ready for use now; it’s a win-win opportunity, but implementation has been limited, he acknowledged. Regulatory issues and questions about the testing methods have introduced "a cloud of uncertainty" and greater monetary risks for turbine operators, Fisher said.

What kind of increased generating efficiency do rehabilitated turbines offer? Giacometto asked. There would be a 20 percent increase in efficiency at Wanapum Dam, where turbine research has also taken place, the panelists responded. The new turbines "swallow more water and produce energy more efficiently," Fisher said. What are the monetary risks? Brogoitti asked. The cost for the turbine rehabilitation at Wanapum Dam would be $90 million, according to Steve Brown of Grant County PUD. The FERC process for gaining approval for such a change is lengthy, he added.

Kempton asked what the problems are in the FERC process. We submitted a rehab application in 1996, and FERC asked for comments on our application, Brown explained. It would have taken us a couple of years of work to respond to the comments and resolve them, he said. There were suggestions that we install one turbine and see how it worked, which would be costly, and other comments expressed concern about what would happen downstream if the rehabilitated turbines were installed at Wanapum, Brown elaborated.

Brown went on to describe another approach to turbine redesign, the Alden/NREC advanced hydroturbine. This turbine technology is most appropriate for plants of 1,000 MW or less, smaller than the Columbia River projects, he pointed out. The design is based on research and computations, and there have been no tests yet, Brown said. A pilot test at the Alden research facilities is scheduled for later this spring, he said. Does this design also yield more power? Giacometto asked. Brown said the efficiency gain would be less with the Alden/NREC turbine, but would depend on how a hydro project is currently operating. You’d have to look at it dam by dam, he added.

The Corps’ focus is on planned rehabilitations at our hydro projects, Brad Bird of the Corps told the Council. Most of our funding is through the Columbia River Fish Mitigation Program, and we get most of our direction on fish passage from NMFS, he said. The goals of our program are to understand the internal turbine environment, optimize existing operations, and identify modifications and redesigns that would benefit fish passage and power, Bird said. We want to incorporate what we learn into scheduled rehabilitations at our projects, he stated.

Bird described the Corps’ progress, noting that researchers have developed research tools, including a surrogate fish. In the future, we plan to do more work on direct survival, adult passage, and what is occurring in the tailrace, he said. Our program emphasizes coordination, regionally and nationally, and we are focused on fish survival and power production, Bird indicated. We’ve made progress, but there is more to do, he concluded.

What issues would you like us to address with FERC? Kempton asked. Brown pointed out that FERC won’t allow a licensee to make major improvements if a relicensing proceeding is pending, which is the case with Grant PUD’s Priest Rapids project. If there were a way to make the improvements, that would be of benefit, he said.

6. Briefing on Irrigation and Industrial Load Buyback Programs in Idaho

Ric Gale, Idaho Power Company; Bill Eastlake, Idaho Public Utilities Commission; and Bud Tracy, Raft River Cooperative

Rod Aho of Bonneville was the first of four panelists to describe efforts in the region to buy down load. Bonneville has a two-pronged approach, one in which utilities operate a program under contract with Bonneville, and another in which Bonneville contracts directly with irrigators, he explained. The buyback idea is a fairly recent development and "we had to scramble to put a program together," Aho acknowledged. Bonneville will pay $75 per MWh under the utility-operated program; the utility will subtract its administrative costs, and the rest will flow back to the irrigators, he said. The program begins May 1 and goes through the end of September, according to Aho. We will be paying more to irrigators who pump directly from the Snake or Columbia rivers, he added. Under our direct program, we will pay $330 per acre taken out of production in the Columbia Basin Project area, Aho reported.

I’ve heard complaints that Bonneville’s program is unfair because it pays irrigators in Washington differently from those in Oregon, Brogoitti said. Irrigation water in the Columbia Basin Project is pumped twice, first into Banks Lake, and then again to the irrigator, Aho responded.

Neil Colwell of Avista said his utility has made buyback offers to its irrigation customers in Washington and Idaho. We are offering 10 cents per kilowatt-hour to irrigators who use over 50,000 kwh per season, May to September, he said. Customers in Idaho have until April 15 to sign on, Colwell stated. We expected about 20 percent participation, but so far, it has been about 40 percent, he said. We also have an industrial load buyback program, and in a week, Avista will file a tariff to give a bill credit to residential customers who cut consumption by at least 10 percent from a year ago, Colwell said.

Idaho Power pioneered the irrigation buyback program, according to Rick Gale of Idaho Power. Irrigation is a huge part of our load, and we filed a program in Idaho to purchase load reduction, paying in cents per kwh, he said. Idaho Power expects to drop about 250 MWa of load through the program, Gale said, noting that Idaho will soon be offering the program to its customers in Oregon. He added that the buybacks began with "an enterprising irrigator," who came to Idaho Power with the idea. Idaho Power has also bought down the load of a large phosphorus producer, Gale said. The customer had contractual rights to 120 MW of power, and we’ve negotiated a 50 MW around-the-clock decrease for two years, he said. In addition, we have proposed a program aimed at "super peak hours," under which we would buy down usage at those times, Gale indicated.

Bill Eastlake, a policy advisor to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, noted that PacifiCorp is also proposing to reduce irrigation load from June 1 to September 15. The company’s offer is aimed at 16 horsepower or larger pumps, he said. The PacifiCorp proposal pays a higher rate if an irrigator completely disconnects the pump, Eastlake said. The irrigator’s projected savings have to come in on target, and if they don’t, the irrigator pays a penalty, he stated.

Eastlake acknowledged that one of the regulators’ concerns with the load-reduction proposals is that "people might be paid for what they would have done anyway." There is tremendous interest in the programs from the agricultural community, and the comment we’ve heard has been almost 100 percent positive, he reported. Idaho Power has made a point of distancing itself from the idea of buying water; they’ve said, we are buying kilowatt-hours, not water, Eastlake noted. Legislators have expressed some concern about the effect of the programs on local economies, he said. From the PUC standpoint, our interest is to maximize the savings on purchased power costs and costs that would otherwise go to all customers, Eastlake stated.

Bloch asked about the impacts of the buybacks on water. There is no assurance the programs will keep water in the river since junior water rights holders may use water that is surrendered, he said. It’s very uncertain, Eastlake agreed. We didn’t touch water rights, Aho said. We are potentially losing some of the benefits because the water is not protected instream, Bloch stated.

State law in Idaho does not recognize the diversion of water for instream use, and a junior rights holder can take the water out, Kempton stated. There is not a provision in state law for the water to remain instream, he said, adding that water remaining instream can be appropriated via the state’s water pool. But other states do allow for instream protection, Bloch said. Is there an estimate of the impact of junior rights holders taking the water? Karier asked. The junior rights holder will be looking at higher pumping prices, Gale said, noting that Idaho Power has filed for a rate increase.

7. Council Decision on Schedule for soliciting and Reviewing Projects and Proposals for System-wide project Measures

Doug Marker

Decision – Adopt Schedule

Staffer Doug Marker said 42 of the 2001 fish and wildlife projects, totaling over $27 million, do not fit into the context of the provincial reviews. Because of their broad scope, they won’t be reviewed in any of the other geographic provincial reviews, he said. We have designated these projects as "mainstem" or "systemwide," and we have proposed a separate schedule for completing a review of them, Marker explained. They include major program support efforts, such as the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, Streamnet, and the Independent Scientific Review Panel, according to a staff memo. Bloch made a motion to approve a staff recommendation to review the projects beginning in October, with a goal of completing the work in April or May 2002. Giacometto seconded, and the motion passed.

8. Council Decision on findings or process for approving Findings for 2000 Fish & Wildlife Program

John Shurts, General Council

Decision – Adopt Findings

Staffer John Shurts explained that the fish and wildlife Program is not considered complete until the Council adopts a set of findings. If the Council rejects a recommended program amendment, it must explain its reason for doing so in the findings, he said. We gave you the draft findings two months ago, and a few changes have since been made, but nothing substantive, Shurts pointed out. The vote to adopt the findings must be approved by "a supermajority" of the Council, he added. Bloch moved to adopt the findings, and Brogoitti seconded. On a roll call vote, all Council members voted aye.

9. Council Decision on Data Management Memorandum of Agreement

Doug Marker, Senior Policy Coordinator

Decision – Enter into MOA with NMPS

The Council voted unanimously to authorize the Council chair to enter a Memorandum of Agreement to work cooperatively with NMFS to develop a data and information system. Karier asked that the motion, offered by Bloch and seconded by Grace, be amended to make the agreement conditional on Bonneville signing a final contract with Science Applications International Corporation to conduct an information needs assessment for the project. He also agreed to serve on the executive committee that will lead the effort.

10. Discussion on Decision Diagram Presented on March 30 at the Federal Executives Meeting with the States and Tribes

Kempton

Decision – Document Review

Kempton raised objections to the decision diagram presented at the March 30 federal executives’ meeting with states and tribes. I have a problem with the states being listed below the federal agencies on this chart, he said. Kempton offered a motion asking staff to review documents from the federal executives’ process and make recommendations to the Council. Brogoitti seconded.

Cassidy pointed out that Council members are participating in the process. Bloch said the process doesn’t seem to differentiate between the state participation and the Council participation, adding that it is not always the same thing. The Council unanimously approved Kempton’s motion.
 

Approved May 16, 2001

__________________________________
Vice Chairman

^ top