Meeting Minutes

Council Meeting Minutes

Hotel Lusso, Spokane, Washington
April 25-26, 2001

The Council voted to add an item to its agenda for April 25. Eric Bloch made a motion that the Council consider the Bonneville Power Administration’s proposal for funding projects to improve conditions for fish adversely affected by 2001 emergency power operations. Stan Grace seconded the motion. All council members voted aye.

1. Presentation of Independent Scientific Review Panel Review of Projects in the Mountain Columbia Province

Rick Williams, Chairman, ISRP

ISRP chair Rick Williams reported on the evaluation of 38 proposals for F&W projects in the Mountain Columbia province. In 1996, an amendment to the Northwest Power Act formalized the project review process, and the ISRP was charged with assessing projects for consistency with the Council’s F&W program, he explained. The ISRP determines whether a project is based on sound science, offers benefits for F&W in the region, provides for objective outcomes, and incorporates monitoring and evaluation (M&E), Williams said. He outlined procedures the ISRP uses to evaluate projects and suggestions the panel has offered since 1998 to improve the caliber of project submissions.

Williams told the Council the subbasin summaries it is relying on for its reviews are very helpful, but there is room for improvement. The summaries have become voluminous, he added. Are you not getting what you want in the summaries? Brogoitti asked. The information is there, but "it is scattered throughout the report" and is hard to pin down, Williams responded. Brogoitti indicated that the Council has been asked for an additional $1.6 million in funding to prepare the summaries. The summaries "are trying to serve two masters," Williams responded: they are trying to provide an overview for the ISRP to use to evaluate projects, as well as the basis for subbasin plans. One objective would lead you to include everything and the other would not, he said.

Williams offered a "logic path" for province or subbasin plans that includes: goal, objectives, limiting factors, strategy, and projects. This is what we need, but we are not seeing it explicitly, and this is the kind of analysis that is difficult "to tease out" of the subbasin summaries, he said. "I am concerned you are not getting this," Karier stated. The planning at a subbasin level is starting, but planning at the provincial level is not, Williams noted.

He described other general concerns the ISRP has with the project proposals it is seeing. M&E components of projects continue to be a concern, Williams said. "M&E is the foundation of adaptive management" and is critical to measuring progress toward the F&W program goals, he stated. We may need a resource in the region that project sponsors can use to design appropriate M&E, Williams added.

Of the 38 projects reviewed, the ISRP recommends 25 be funded; four funded on a conditional basis; and nine not be funded, he reported. Williams detailed areas of disagreement between the ISRP reviewers and funding recommendations offered by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). The ISRP is recommending against seven projects CBFWA okayed for funding, he stated.

Grace pointed out that sponsors do not have clear signals about when it is appropriate to propose an "umbrella project" that ties a number of activities together and when to submit individual projects. Williams advised sponsors to check with CBFWA or the ISRP for guidance. Some proposals are not getting adequate internal review before being submitted, and the project sponsors need to think about what information the reviewers will want and provide sufficient detail, he said. The ISRP doesn’t care whether projects are grouped or individual "as long as the information stands on its own," Williams added. "Keep it simple, keep it clear," Grace stated. He said the ISRP should take the extra step of letting people know if the review criteria have changed.

2. Update on Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority funding request for subbasin summaries

Doug Marker and John Ogan, Senior Counsel

Staffer Doug Marker reported that the F&W committee discussed a CBFWA request for an additional $1.6 million to complete the subbasin summaries. He said staff requested an update from CBFWA on the status of the summary preparation and is waiting for more information. "We need to talk about scaling the summaries back to the essential elements," Marker suggested. We believe the summaries are important, but they are interim – they are not themselves the subbasin plans or assessments, he said, adding that future summaries could be focused on particular mitigation areas. I agree with Rick Williams that we need concise contextual information and more focus in the summaries, Marker concluded.

I’d endorse the outline the ISRP provided for the summaries, Karier said. Why spend money on information we don’t need and can’t use? he asked, adding, "we should try to bring this in on budget." When will the staff make recommendations? Giacometto asked. Marker said when CBFWA reports back, the staff could make a recommendation. He also pointed out that agencies working on the summaries will soon run out of money.

CBFWA executive director Brian Allee described the budget information CBFWA is putting together for the Council staff. If you want to change the way the summaries are prepared for the last province, you could do that, but there is an issue of maintaining continuity, he said. These summaries "are good regional documents" and a quality product, Allee stated. He acknowledged that preparing the summaries has cost more than CBFWA originally estimated. It’s very important that we have better project management – if a contractor says they can deliver something at a given price, "we should put some teeth into it," Grace commented.

Carl Scheeler of the Umatillas said the summary preparers were handicapped by not having the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) data to use. "Had we had the EDT inputs when they were expected, we would have had a huge piece of information to use," he stated. Ron Boyce of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) advised caution with reducing the scope of the summaries. A lack of complete information could disadvantage future project proposals and ongoing projects, he said. There is a sense of urgency in resolving the issue because funding will run out next month, Boyce indicated.

Cassidy said the Council would look for a staff recommendation at its May meeting.

3. Decision on Oversight Board of Fish Passage Center

Bob Lohn, Director, Fish & Wildlife Division

Staffer Bob Lohn reported that at the Boise meeting in April, the Fish and Wildlife Committee recommended setting up a five-member Oversight Board for the Fish Passage Center. The members would be a representative from the National Marine Fisheries Service, a representative each from an upriver and a downriver tribe, and two Council members, he said. The Council staff is planning to meet with the recently established board and will poll Council members on issues for the board to address, according to Lohn. We will be reporting back in Helena, he said.

4. Briefing on Bonneville Funded Off-site Mitigation

John Shurts, General Council; and Doug Maker, Senior Policy Coordinator

Lohn called the Council’s attention to a memorandum relating to Bonneville’s offset mitigation proposal. The Council agreed to read the memo over lunch and discuss it when Bonneville made its presentation later in the day.

5. Panel Presentation on Surface Spill Techniques at Lower Columbia Dams

Representatives of US Corps. of Engineers and National Marine Fisheries Service

One of the preliminary hydro system recommendations the Council adopted in Boise relates to surface spill, staffer Bob Lohn said. He introduced John Kranda of the Corps of Engineers and Jim Ruff of NMFS, both of whom joined the meeting by phone to brief the Council on surface spill. Ruff said NMFS believes spill is the preferred method of passing juvenile fish at the dams, but is concerned about implementing surface spill. He indicated NMFS is particularly concerned about tailrace conditions with surface spill, but predation and passage injury are also concerns. We need to make sure the available passage routes with surface spill are better than bypass systems at the dams, Ruff stated.

Given that we have a limited time to make these decisions, how would we get such a study of impacts? Kempton asked. Ruff said there is no research set up currently to get the information. Our research from the 1990s indicates predation in the tailrace can be a big factor in survival, he said. Ruff said a greater volume of water than what would be available with surface spill may be needed to draw fish away from the powerhouse at a dam. To assure safe passage, NMFS would recommend at least 50 kcfs of spill at Bonneville Dam, and 30 percent spill at The Dalles and John Day dams, he said.

Ruff described ongoing research related to sluiceway passage at the dams, adding that the outcome will help determine what is effective for the future. In summary, while surface spill operations offer an alternative passage route, the focus is on forebay collection, and our concern is about safe tailrace passage, he stated. We do foresee the possibility of surface spill in the future, depending on what the research tells us, Ruff concluded.

We have an immediate decision to make, Giacometto pointed out. With the low-water conditions this year and no spill, should we transport as many fish as we can? he asked. We will transport fish from all three Snake River collector projects, and there is a proposal to transport 50 percent of the time this spring from McNary and all of the time in the summer, Ruff replied. We will be evaluating the benefits of transportation from McNary, he added. Why risk leaving fish in the river this year? Giacometto asked. We can’t transport all of the fish, but we will get 80 to 90 percent, Ruff replied. At McNary, we have no recent studies to evaluate the effectiveness of transportation, he explained. Our proposal is to collect 50 percent of the fish as "a salvage operation," and keep a certain percent of fish in the river, Ruff said.

There are fish runs that come into the Columbia where there is no opportunity for transporting fish, Cassidy pointed out. None of the ESA-listed or other fish that come into the system below McNary Dam will be transported, Ruff concurred. Given the water levels, let’s transport as many as we can, Giacometto urged. We don’t have the water this year for spill, and we have a crisis now with the fish, he indicated.

If we can’t have the levels of spill you recommend, would it be better not to spill at all? Grace asked. I’m not saying that, Ruff answered. If we have flexible system storage, it can be used for spill, storage, or producing power revenues, he said. NMFS would like to see flexible storage used for spring spill to help the upper river listed fish, Ruff stated.

As to surface spill, you will use The Dalles sluiceway for passage, Lohn summed up. But in order to maintain adequate tailrace conditions, you are saying we need conventional spill to move the fish, he stated. Yes, 50 kcfs at Bonneville and 30 percent spill at The Dalles, Ruff agreed. In the federal agencies’ proposal, the highest priority is on The Dalles because there is no juvenile bypass system there, followed by Bonneville, John Day, McNary, and Ice Harbor, he stated.

6. Remarks by The Honorable John Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon

This year presents challenges "of historic proportions" due to low runoff conditions and high electricity prices, Governor John Kitzhaber of Oregon told the Council on Wednesday morning. At the same time, we are seeing high numbers of returning salmon and steelhead as a result of good conditions in the recent past, and because of the region’s work on salmon recovery, he noted. Kitzhaber said the Council’s preliminary recommendations on 2001 hydro operations and the federal agencies’ draft operations plan "are heavily weighted toward assuring the electricity demands of Northwest customers are satisfied," but fail to use the tools available to continue salmon and steelhead restoration. "That is unacceptable," he charged.

The Northwest Power Act instructs the Bonneville Administrator and other federal operating agencies to adequately protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife (F&W) and give them equitable treatment with other purposes of the hydro system, Kitzhaber continued. The Council and federal agency plans would provide an 80 percent probability of meeting power needs, but operators of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) would not do any salmon operations in the spring and summer, he stated.

Under the plans, Bonneville will have spent little or nothing to mitigate the harm to salmon, including obtaining water from storage reservoirs and importing electricity from outside the region, according to Kitzhaber. Bonneville will have raised rates significantly, and at the same time may accumulate reserves of up to a billion dollars, he said. The electricity reliability comes at an unnecessarily high cost to salmon, Kitzhaber stated.

He said the region should acknowledge the biological risk to fish and fund mitigation. The Council recommends establishing a mitigation fund, and Bonneville and the other federal agencies should heed that recommendation, Kitzhaber went on. He said Bonneville should set aside a specific amount to mitigate the effects of the drought on fisheries. The region should continue to seek federal funds to assist with fish recovery and should also buy flow augmentation water from irrigators and from Idaho Power’s Brownlee Reservoir, lower the runoff threshold for providing spill in May, and use any excess water in the system for the benefit of fish, Kitzhaber urged.

We should purchase more power from outside the region, Kitzhaber stated. Bonneville should plan and budget for power purchases, he said, noting that the federal operations plan assumes no power imports. Bonneville should buy back power from commercial sources, including irrigated agriculture, Kitzhaber advised. Oregon has the statutory tools to make sure water purchased from irrigators and other sources stays in the river for salmon and electricity production, he pointed out.

"The citizens of the region expect us to safeguard the two invaluable benefits of the Columbia River, salmon and hydroelectricity," Kitzhaber said. Finding a way to accommodate salmon and electricity "honors the values of the Northwest," he stated.

The region must learn from this crisis and plan for the long term, Kitzhaber summed up. We need a comprehensive study of the economics of having robust salmon recovery, he said. And we need to address "the systemic problems" of how power is generated and marketed on the Columbia River, Kitzhaber stated, pointing out that various entities have claims to federal power, which has forced Bonneville to oversubscribe the federal resources. My staff is working on a proposal for an alternative course, he indicated.

Kitzhaber voiced support for the Council, saying it represents the best way to achieve the goals in the Northwest Power Act. The Council’s mandate under the Act gives us wide latitude to be proactive in situations like the one we face this year, he concluded.

7. Update on Federal Agencies’ Proposal for 2001 Hydro System Operations

Alexandra Smith, Vice President, Environment, Fish & Wildlife, Bonneville; and representatives of the Federal Caucus

Lorri Bodi of Bonneville led off a panel on the federal agencies’ draft 2001 operations plan by detailing the current power outlook. The April mid-month runoff forecast is 57.7 million acre-feet (MAF), she said, adding that it has risen over the last month.

The feds’ plan has two major components, Bodi explained: evaluation of the FCRPS conditions relative to the emergency criteria established, and a summary of operations to be implemented this year. "The operations continue to be a work in progress – we are continually watching the water," she stated. The plan is designed around three criteria – near-term electricity sufficiency, long-term electricity sufficiency, and adequate financial reserves, Bodi continued. She went over the runoff volumes that would be required to meet the criteria through the spring and pointed out that the plan incorporates a margin of safety for meeting the region’s power load "if the volume forecast doesn’t materialize."

Is a 75 percent probability of meeting load an acceptable amount of risk to Bonneville? asked Leo Giacometto, referring to the near-term sufficiency criterion. Yes, we are saying it is an acceptable risk, Bodi responded. Has it been cleared with other regional officials? Shouldn’t you consult on that with elected officials? Stan Grace asked. We looked at a lot of information in developing that criterion, Bodi answered. This is more an issue of forecasting than of utility practice, she added. This proposal is out for comment right now, Jim Fodrea of the Bureau of Reclamation pointed out.

The Council’s study identified a 25 percent chance of a load loss in any winter, Tom Karier commented. We will need to reconcile your 5 percent figure with our study, he added, referring to the long-term sufficiency criterion in the federal agencies’ plan. The Council study assumed you would end the season at the reservoir elevations in the Biological Opinion (BiOp), Fodrea said. Our plan says we need to have an additional 1.5 MAF in storage to reduce the probability to 5 percent, he explained.

"The devil is in the details," Grace observed. The acceptable risk depends "on where you go black," he stated. "You have to have enough buffer to take care of people," Grace stated. I’m uncomfortable with the 25 percent, Giacometto agreed. I don’t know that I want "to look the public in the eye" and say there is a one-in-four chance of not meeting load in the winter, he said.

Bodi outlined the decision process for determining whether there is enough runoff to have spill. "A spill option is still on the table, depending on runoff," she stated. Bodi summarized the spring/summer operations as follows:

1. Spill is dependent on monthly final volume runoff forecasts. The draft operations plan says some spill may be available if the May forecast is greater than 60 MAF.
2. Juvenile salmon will be collected and transported from three Snake River dams and from McNary Dam on the Columbia River.
3. Summer flow augmentation will be emphasized over spring augmentation.
4. Conditions are dynamic, and operations will be adjusted as conditions change.

The draft plan has been out for comment since April 13, and we have received a wide range of comments, Bodi said. She went over the major themes of the comments, which range from concerns about reliability to Bonneville’s obligation for mitigating the drought. The next steps are to continue the state and tribal meetings; revise and update the operations plan; solicit proposals for offset actions; and develop criteria for an acute biological emergency, Bodi reported.

Karier said the operations plan is missing a study proposal to assess what will happen with the changed operations. That must be written down and then executed, he recommended. We see this operations plan as pertaining to this year alone – it won’t inform the future, Karier added. I can assure you that is the case, Bodi stated. Our plan is to implement the BiOp, she said.

Bonneville has been considering ways to mitigate for the power emergency and has bought back 1,900 MW-months of industrial load and purchased 2,850 MW-months of energy in the market, Bodi said. In addition, Bonneville has purchased about 100 MW of irrigation pumping load, she reported. In the Columbia Basin Project, we have secured irrigation reductions on 91,000 acres and have worked to limit the effects on local communities, Bodi added. Bonneville has also made two-for-one power exchanges with California, and any future transactions will be similar, she said.

Bonneville has developed a draft policy to follow in soliciting proposals for actions that would offset the effects of the power emergency, Bodi said. Our focus on the power emergency, rather than the drought, relates to the BiOp, which assumes there will be dry years, she explained. "There is no black and white line to show where the power emergency starts and the drought stops," Bodi acknowledged. This year’s experience has made us think about drought years and the need for additional planning, she added.

I’m not sure there is a line between the power emergency and the drought, Eric Bloch said. "If you are trying to limit your liability, it seems there are more straightforward ways to do it," he added. The focus links to performance standards in the BiOp, Bodi replied. The BiOp assumes there might be drought, but it doesn’t assume there might be power emergencies, she said. Under the offset policy, our top mitigation priority is ESA-listed stocks, following from the BiOp, but we are not ignoring other stocks, Bodi said.

Bonneville proposes to consider actions that result in more water in the river system, address other imminent risks to the survival of affected fish, and remove power load from the system, she explained. We are not looking for staffing or planning activities, and we want to get beyond existing programs, Bodi said. According to the draft policy, proposed offset actions must be ready for on-the-ground implementation this year.

Alex Smith of Bonneville went over an April 25 draft solicitation of offset proposals. These are offsets for the power system emergency impacts on ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, she explained. According to Smith, the scope of the solicitation includes tributary flow increases, passage improvements, diversion screening, and stock relocation and outplanting. Bonneville also plans to review for possible funding projects that were submitted in response to the "high-priority" solicitation and categorized by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) as "B list projects," she said. The projects selected for funding as BiOp offset actions will require National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) concurrence, Smith added.

Can NMFS move fast enough on this? Council chair Larry Cassidy asked. We are hopeful they can, Smith responded. Bob Austin of Bonneville said NMFS has already reviewed the high-priority projects. "We believe NMFS is being responsive and presume they will act quickly," he stated.

Austin outlined the process Bonneville planned to use to solicit proposals. We will send out a solicitation and ask for responses within two weeks; this will all be done by e-mail, he stated. We plan to get a quick ISRP review of the projects and have the Council take public comment on them, Austin continued. The Council would report back to us, and Bonneville would establish the budget and do the contracting, he said.

Will the deal you made with the state of Washington be an exception to these rules? Will there be other exceptions? Grace asked. "If we are going to have exceptions, we are establishing meaningless criteria," he stated. "We took heat over the high-priority project process" – maybe the Council should not get involved in this, Grace commented.

We realized if Bonneville was going to be involved with water acquisitions we needed to involve the states, Smith responded. The idea was that these types of projects would come up as intermittent opportunities and not come together as a package, she said. Smith indicated that Bonneville agreed to have money on account if the state of Washington brought forward water acquisition opportunities. So far there have been no projects, she added. If projects do come to the forefront, we need to have that dialogue, Smith acknowledged. This should have been done more openly, Grace admonished.

Oregon projects have to pass this scrutiny, but Washington has already gotten money, John Brogoitti said. No money has changed hands, Smith responded. The Department of Ecology wanted to go out and begin negotiating water acquisitions, and they wanted to know that the money would be available, she explained. But "no money has been transferred, and no projects have come forward," Smith stated.

We are also buying water from Bonneville for use on some orchards, Cassidy said. Then Bonneville is mitigating for the effects of the drought, which is what they said they weren’t going to do, Bloch pointed out. He indicated that Bonneville Administrator Steve Wright called Governor Kitzhaber about water projects, and four were offered. "The best way to go is with one program with all of the right pieces in place – that is the safe ground," Bloch stated. If we open the solicitation window for two weeks and water projects are negotiated after that deadline, should we say no to them? Smith asked. I don’t see that we need a hard and fast deadline, Bloch responded.

You have said no money was transferred to Washington, but will it be? Giacometto asked. If projects come in that meet the criteria, the money would be transferred, Smith replied.

The total budget we suggested was up to $1.5 million for water acquisitions in key tributaries, she reported. Should that agreement with Washington go through the Council? Giacometto asked. If you want to do it that way, Smith responded. But does Bonneville believe it should happen that way? Giacometto pressed. I’d like to talk to Steve Wright about this, Smith said.

It’s a good thing for planning purposes for Bonneville to signal budget amounts, Karier said. He suggested Bonneville ought to also signal how much it intends to spend for the offset solicitation. Karier advised Bonneville to look at a recent Independent Economic Analysis Board report regarding water acquisitions. It addresses the pitfalls and issues, he added.

Why didn’t the other states know this money was available? Giacometto asked. I’d like to know Wright’s opinion on this, he said. "Everybody was caught a little off-guard," Smith acknowledged. There were no procedures in place at the time – this was not meant to circumvent the Council process, she stated. It would be nice to know what Bonneville thinks about whether this is our authority – this will come up again, Giacometto stated. I’d hope we can work through this – we’ve worked successfully through hundreds of millions of dollars of projects, Smith responded.

I’d urge you to provide as much clarification as possible in this solicitation in terms of budgets and types of projects, Bloch advised. We’ve tried to focus this as clearly as possible, Austin replied. I get nervous about you saying that NMFS must concur in the projects, Jim Kempton said. I’d suggest you put NMFS’ involvement in terms of "NMFS rejecting for cause," he counseled.

Cassidy said Council members would mull the offset proposal over and make a decision on the solicitation later in the meeting.

8. Presentation on surface Spill Operations at Mid-Columbia Projects

Doug Ancona, Grant County PUD

Staffer Bruce Suzumoto presented the results of a preliminary analysis of smolt survival at the Mid-Columbia (Mid-C) dams under various spill and transportation scenarios. The federal agency proposal is to transport every other day from McNary, he said.

The analysis measured survival from Rocky Reach Dam to below Bonneville Dam under the base case and two other scenarios, Suzumoto explained. The base case is 2001 BiOp level spill at federal projects and 2001 planned Mid-C spill, and the two other spill scenarios are no spill at the Mid-C projects and no spill at either the Mid-C or federal dams, he said. The analysis did not include stocks other than those listed under the ESA and incorporated only spring chinook and steelhead as ESA-listed migrants that would pass the Mid-C dams, Suzumoto said. He noted that survival data in the analysis is from recent years that had better than average water conditions. Survivals in 2001 may be less because of the low-water conditions, Suzumoto cautioned.

Why did we limit our analysis to ESA-listed stocks? Bloch asked. I’m working on an analysis of the other stocks now, Suzumoto answered. He described the study methods, pointing out that he used outmigration estimates from NMFS and Mid-C project survival data from Chelan County and Grant County PUDs. The "D values" that represent delayed mortality from transportation are those used in the NMFS BiOp, Suzumoto said.

According to the analysis, inriver chinook mortality increases 10.2 percent from the base case with no spill at the Mid-Cs, and it increases 20.1 percent with no spill at any projects; steelhead mortality is similar at 10.7 percent and 19.8 percent. When you factor in transportation and assign a low transportation benefit, the chinook losses decrease for the BiOp-related alternatives, but where there is no spill at the Mid-Cs, the losses are greater, particularly when there is only 50 percent transport at McNary, the results indicate. If there is full transportation, the losses are significantly lower, according to the tables in Suzumoto’s analysis. When you assign a high benefit to transportation, the results indicate between 12 and 51 percent more chinook would survive, and 8 to 42 percent more steelhead would survive, depending on the alternative. The D value, low or high, makes a large difference in the outcome, Suzumoto explained.

Manager Don Godard said Grant County PUD will implement the Vernita Bar Agreement to keep redds from drying out and will operate its Priest Rapids project to prevent smolts from being stranded when pool elevations fluctuate. During the spring, we will also spill to the level required by a 1994 FERC interim order, he reported, which means spilling about 50 percent of the flow that comes into the Priest Rapids project (Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams). According to an analysis provided by the PUD, that spill means foregoing 904 MW-months of generation.

In the summer, Grant PUD plans to spill to the level in the interim order, Godard said. That will mean foregoing about 430 MW-months of generation, according to the PUD’s analysis. In total, the PUD will spill over 1,300 MW-months of energy in the spring and summer months, the analysis indicates.

The levels of spill required under the 1994 interim order are less than those in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Grant PUD entered last year with state and federal fishery agencies, tribes, and other interests, known as the Joint Fisheries Parties, the analysis states. The MOA was submitted to FERC, but has not been acted on; if the MOA spill level were implemented, the lost generation would be 2,149 MW-months over the spring and summer, according to the analysis.

FERC has asked its licensees to propose changes to operations that would increase the amount of generation, Godard said. Grant PUD will not propose to reduce spill below the level in the interim order without a regional consensus that it should do so, he stated. If there is a consensus, we will take the proposal to FERC, Godard indicated.

The MOA between the Joint Fisheries Parties and Grant PUD calls for 50 percent spill for four and one-half months, Doug Ancona, Grant’s manager of natural resources and regulatory affairs, told the Council. He explained that the PUD’s proposal on how to operate through the spring and summer protects spring steelhead and chinook and provides 50 percent spill during the spring. We saw that we could gain in generation by reducing spill in the summer, when the power would be useful to the region and the operation would not pose a risk to endangered species, Ancona said. Our proposal lives up to the MOA on listed species and lives up to the FERC interim order on unlisted species, he stated.

If we want to drop spill beyond what is in the FERC interim order, we have to have a regional consensus that includes the Council, the agencies, and the tribes, Ancona said. "That and that only would convince FERC to reduce our spill requirement below the FERC order level in the spring and summer," he stated.

You are on the right track with approaching your partners and developing a consensus, Bloch said. The obstacle is logistics; do you have a process in mind? he asked.

To get to the operation I reported on, it took a lot of discussion with the parties, and I’ve since learned it is unlikely to be an acceptable position for them, Ancona responded. We will continue to talk to see if there is any flexibility to get more generation into the system, but I don’t know if there will be, he said. "More than anything, we need leadership from a regional standpoint," Ancona stated. If a regional organization weighs in to offer leadership, it might be very helpful, he added. The regional view on this is being ignored, and someone needs to bring it to the fore, Ancona urged.

People will want to look at the damage to F&W as a regional issue too, Giacometto commented, asking about where the additional power would go.

The additional generation could benefit fish, Bonneville, and the 12 other entities that buy power from our project, Godard responded. We are seeing the roughly 1,500 MW as a regional resource, he said. "Somebody has to think outside the box," Godard said. Governor Kitzhaber talked about buying water from Brownlee – you could generate at Priest Rapids and Wanapum and replace the water with a purchase from Brownlee, he suggested.

This is a parallel situation to that on the federal system, Karier pointed out. The role of FERC is different, of course, and that’s an arena the Council hasn’t been involved with, he noted. Given the amount of power at stake, Karier said the Council should look further into the situation. We could put Bruce’s latest Mid-C survival analysis out for comment, too, he suggested. Bruce’s work describes half the story, Godard said. If you didn’t spill, you have so much value in the water or the power you could do a lot of good things for fish, he said. We’re the perfect body to look at this, Grace said. In Montana, we are concerned about the power system – the Council ought to take the lead and go out for comments on this balance between fish and power, he suggested.

FERC is paying attention, Ancona said, adding that the MOA is pending FERC action. We are trying to give them as much information as we can, he said. We think it will take a proposal with emphasis and support behind it to be successful, Ancona concluded.

9. Public Comment on 2001 Federal Columbia River Power system Operations Issue Paper (Council document 2001-06)

Maia Genaux of Clarkston, Washington said she opposes the Bonneville plan and Council recommendations that abandon fish in favor of power interests. We have a moral obligation and responsibility to protect the species, she said. Genaux decried the situation in California and said it should not color decisions in the Northwest. In its recommendations, the Council is heading toward an unbalanced solution – I want to see a balanced conscientious approach to managing the Snake River fish, she stated. I’d recommend spill at every dam, Genaux concluded.

Ron Boyce of ODFW said he shared the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission’s (CRITFC) concerns about the Council’s recommendation to pull back spill and maximize transport. He urged the Council not to base its decision on its staff analysis, which he said is flawed.

Consultant Jim Litchfield submitted an independent fish biologist’s review of the Council staff’s survival analysis, which said the staff’s use of the SIMPAS model is a reasonable approach. Litchfield highlighted other findings in the study by Steven Cramer & Associates, including evidence that that there are positive benefits from transportation, even in high-water years, and that spill is not causing a dramatic change in smolt survival through the mid-Columbia. "I’m asking you to take a look at the Mid-C spill," Litchfield stated. The amount of water extracted from Montana reservoirs is dictated by electricity load – if we use water for spill, it’s an additional amount that comes from those reservoirs and it could affect electricity reliability next winter, he said.

We need to store as much water as possible – 1,500-MW months is what the region needs and that’s about the amount Don Godard said they’d save at the Priest Rapids project without spill, according to Litchfield. The Mid-C spill represents a loss of water and a loss of about $144 million in economic value, he continued. Unless you take a leadership position on this, we won’t find "the immaculate consensus" that Grant County needs to go to FERC, Litchfield said. He urged the Council to release its staff analysis of Mid-C spill for comment and send another letter to FERC to update them on the region’s power situation.

Grant didn’t ask to stop spill, Bloch said. You won’t get a FERC licensee asking to change something in its license, Litchfield replied. But you could write to FERC and ask them to prohibit spill due to the power emergency, he said.

Rob Walton of the Public Power Council supported the Council staff’s survival analysis. The power community has been skeptical of spill for some time, and Bruce Suzumoto raised the question of value, he said. How valuable is spill in a crisis? Walton asked. The power community is responsible for seeing that customers can keep their lights on at a reasonable cost, he said. I agree with Jim Litchfield’s comment about the risk of spilling now and facing reliability problems later, Walton stated. The power system is not abandoning salmon – we are comparing the risks to public safety with limited benefits for fish, he said.

A FERC licensee is put in a bad spot, Walton continued. It is not in their interest to volunteer to terminate spill, he pointed out. If Grant generates power, it is distributed around the region, and it goes to many other communities, according to Walton. I support you putting your Mid-C analysis out for public comment, he said. There has been criticism of the staff’s survival analysis, but at least the critics have had an opportunity to comment, Walton said. The fish managers increased harvest from 9 to 15 percent, which we know will lead to increased mortality to listed fish, but that was not done in a public forum, he stated. "We are not asking to stop spill so we can make money" – it’s in the public interest, Walton concluded.

"We see this as an economic crisis," Paul Lumley of CRITFC stated. He suggested Bonneville has options such as deferring its Treasury payment, restructuring rates, making investments in conservation, and seeking additional appropriations for implementing the BiOp.

Bob Heinith of CRITFC said he thought 2001 conditions would be like those in 1977, a year in which the region provided spill and flow augmentation for fish. He suggested a "spread the risk" approach to operations in which there would be "limited, selective spill" for four hours at night and flow augmentation in late May and early June.

Roy Sampsel of CRITFC said the Council recommendations would serve as guidance to the federal agencies. At times, the tribes are seen as a group apart from others in the region, but they pay energy bills too, he pointed out. They have a unique position because of their Treaty rights, Sampsel said.

Steve Marshall of Puget Sound Energy said he agreed with Jim Litchfield’s comments about the staff’s analysis. The region has to look at its problems as unique to this year – we’re talking about the suspension of spill for one year, he stated. Marshall commended the Council’s April 10 letter to FERC. We agree with Grant PUD that the region needs regional leadership, "and this is the right group," Marshall stated. We want to strike appropriate balances with these regional resources, he said.

10. Decision on Council Recommendations for 2001 Federal Columbia River Power System Operations (Council Document 2001-6)

Bob Lohn; Dick Watson, Director, Power Division; and Bruce Suzumoto, Manager, Special Projects

Lohn said the Council adopted preliminary recommendations on 2001 federal hydro system operations in Boise, and the order of business now is to decide if changes are in order and if the recommendations should be made final. Is the staff recommendation to leave them as they are for the final? Cassidy asked. That is the starting point, Lohn explained, adding that a recommendation related to operations at the Mid-C dams is also up for consideration.

Giacometto moved that the Council adopt the preliminary recommendations as final; Grace seconded the motion. Bloch suggested the Council go over the recommendations one at a time, acknowledging that Oregon had circulated a document proposing several changes.

The Council determined the first preliminary recommendation, which dealt with releasing the issue paper, was no longer relevant, and moved to recommendation 2, calling for "full transportation of juvenile salmon and steelhead in spring and summer where that option is available." Bloch suggested an additional sentence stating that fish be transported from McNary in the spring and summer, pending an immediate evaluation of the effectiveness of spring transport. Don’t we need a statement about leaving enough fish in the river to evaluate the operations? Karier asked. The Council agreed to add language that makes an exception to transportation for populations of fish marked for in-river studies. The Council also agreed to add language recommending the federal agencies develop a study plan to evaluate the 2001 operations and submit it to the Council and the Independent Scientific Advisory Board for review.

Bloch suggested substantial changes to recommendation 3, which in its preliminary form allows for "limited surface spill at John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville Dams," and says "the default position is no spill except where a compelling case can be made for selective spills with high measurable benefits for fish or until conditions improve." My recommendation calls for the federal agencies to implement an adaptive spill plan that we would ask our staff to develop in consultation with others, he explained. Bloch moved to substitute his language for the preliminary 3, while acknowledging that the Oregon language was still being crafted. Brogoitti seconded Bloch’s motion.

Our preliminary recommendations are what we put out for public comment, and I don’t see any problems with 3 that require deleting the entire text, Karier stated. I would not support the motion, Kempton added. It’s hard to decide without seeing the exact language, Grace commented. The motion was defeated, with Bloch alone voting in favor of it. Bloch said he would craft precise language and bring the matter up again.

Recommendation 4, which relates to Bonneville establishing a mitigation fund, sailed through with a unanimous vote, on a motion made by Giacometto and seconded by Grace. The Council agreed its staff should make editorial changes to clarify the recommendations as needed.

Karier moved to adopt a new recommendation relating to reservoir refill. Refill of reservoirs to BiOp target levels by August 31 must be a priority to assure electricity system reliability and the ability to implement future fish operations, he proposed. Giacometto seconded, and the Council voted unanimously in favor of the recommendation.

Bloch offered several new recommendations. The first calls on Bonneville to plan and budget for power purchases and continued irrigation buy-backs. We are seeking to include the idea that Bonneville should attempt to purchase power when it’s available at reasonable rates, he said. "The more we purchase, the more we can conserve water," Bloch stated. The Council wordsmithed the proposal; in particular, they wanted to be clear that Bonneville should purchase or exchange power so long as it is financially prudent. The recommendation was eventually unanimously approved.

A second Bloch recommendation calls on Bonneville to seek and obtain available in-stream water rights. After minor wordsmithing, including the addition of "willing buyer/willing seller" language, the recommendation passed unanimously. A third Bloch proposal urging the operating agencies to keep the Council closely informed as the recommendations are implemented was also unanimously adopted.

The discussion returned to Oregon’s recommendation regarding spill. Bloch moved that the original preliminary recommendation 3 be deleted and replaced with the Oregon language, which calls for the Council staff to develop a spill plan. Kempton took issue with the designation "important fish," asking how that would be defined. If we accepted this, how much time would it take to get that plan together? Giacometto asked. It would depend on how much guidance we get from the Council, Lohn responded, adding that with maximum staff effort, it could probably be accomplished in a week.

I’d still stick with our original recommendation, Karier stated. Let’s turn to amending our original recommendation 3 – this proposal doesn’t do it, he said. There was a call for the question, and the Oregon recommendation was defeated five to two, with Bloch and Brogoitti voting for and the others against.

Giacometto moved that the original recommendation 3 be adopted and Grace seconded. Karier proposed language related to assuring electricity system reliability and deploying additional water storage to assure the best benefit for fish. The Council voted to accept Karier’s new language, with Kempton voting against it. The Council also voted to accept a sentence on the priority for spill, which said it should be targeted to fish that are central to the biological objectives in the Council’s program. Giacometto voted against adding the language. In the end, the amended recommendation 3 was unanimously adopted.

Karier offered a new recommendation related to the Mid-Cs, which calls on staff to complete and release for comment an analysis on the impacts of ceasing spill at the Mid-C projects, draft a status report to FERC following up an April 10 letter, and develop draft recommendations on the issue for the Council’s next meeting. Karier moved for adoption of the recommendation and Grace seconded. Bloch said he was uncomfortable with the Council confining its analyses to ESA-listed stocks. "That’s not our mandate," and I feel strongly we need to have non-listed stocks in this analysis, he stated. Lohn pointed out that information on listed stocks is more readily available. But we could get estimates of the effects on other species and get it into the analysis, he offered. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the recommendation.

Grace offered a motion to approve Bonneville’s offset policy and solicitation; Brogoitti seconded. I want you to know exactly what you are approving, staffer John Shurts told the Council. The proposed projects won’t come back to you for approval, he stated. Shurts acknowledged there is a difference of opinion between Bonneville and Council attorneys over the authorities reflected in the policy.

Kempton suggested the policy and procedures proposed for the offset mitigation are "a new mode" for established planning processes. Bonneville has identified a need to do some emergency mitigation this year, Shurts said. Your role is to say whether this proposal is consistent or inconsistent with our F&W program, he explained. I don’t see this as inconsistent with our program, Shurts added.

Austin said Steve Wright is thinking of a budget of about $10 million for the offset projects. Kempton said he is wary of getting involved in decisions coming from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or NMFS, and he said he did not necessarily want to be party to some of the actions suggested in the policy, such as removing irrigation dams. The actions "would not be the product of a reasoned Council process," Kempton contended, adding that he could not support Bonneville’s proposal.

I’m uncomfortable with Bonneville’s line between the drought and the power emergency, and I’m not comfortable with the focus on ESA-listed fish, Bloch said. "I think the money figure is ridiculously low," he added. You have a situation that is regionwide, and if this is what Bonneville thinks will cover the offset mitigation, I can’t agree, Bloch indicated. I am with Mr. Kempton – "I’d prefer to stay out of this swamp," he stated.

This is not inconsistent with the Council’s F&W program, Karier stated. There is no indication "Bonneville is planning to get rich in this emergency," he said in defense of the $10 million budget. "It’s a good step forward – I see no reason we shouldn’t support it," Karier added. I’d also urge us to support it, Cassidy stated. I haven’t heard that this is the maximum amount of mitigation Bonneville will put forward – this is an immediate, short-term proposal, he said.

Brogoitti called for the vote, and the motion was defeated five to two, with Karier and Cassidy voting in favor.

Smith asked for guidance about how Bonneville ought to proceed with offset mitigation. You support water acquisitions, which are a part of our proposal, but now how do we move those acquisitions through the Council? she asked. The Council has said it doesn’t want this process, Cassidy responded. You need to work with the states on water acquisitions, Kempton advised. You have the strength to do this working with the states, he added. It has been our intention to have the states bring forth projects, Smith pointed out.

If this proposal had "a reasonable price tag," I would not have a problem, Bloch stated, adding that the proposed budget suggests to him "it’s not a real effort." The budget has not been established, Smith responded. I’m concerned about the timing of getting this under way now – Bonneville will have to sort it out and see how we’ll work on emergency mitigation, she conceded.

We have a very serious problem this summer, Karier stated. We’re willing to work with Bonneville, he said. We have a difference in understanding of Bonneville’s funding authorities, Kempton said. "I don’t want the Council on this train when we haven’t defined what the stops are," he said.

11. Decision on Council Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2002 Federal Agency Budgets

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

Staffer Mark Walker said he and Marker would be sending out information on the Bush Administration’s 2002 budget proposals that relate to funding regional F&W programs and implementation of NMFS’ 2000 BiOp. Doug and I are tentatively planning to go to Washington D.C. in two weeks to brief the Congressional delegation and appropriate staff, he reported.

12. Presentation by Chelan PUD on Evaluation of Supplementation Hatcheries

Chuck Peven, fish & Wildlife Supervisor, Chelan County PUD; and Representatives of Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Chuck Peven, F&W supervisor at Chelan County PUD, introduced staffers Kristine Petersen and Andrew Murdoch from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for a presentation on the ongoing hatchery supplementation program in the Wenatchee Basin. As part of our license settlement agreement, we have built a supplementation hatchery program, Peven explained, adding that the presentation would focus on data collection and evaluation efforts.

Petersen went over the sockeye and spring chinook programs, identifying questions the researchers aim to answer regarding the hatchery fish that return to the spawning tributaries in the basin. She said the researchers are looking at such issues as over-winter survival and the optimum time and size for releasing smolts into the river. Murdoch explained the methods and issues in the steelhead program, including how the progeny of the wild steelhead differ from that of hatchery steelhead, the best way to acclimate fish to the river before release, and whether release location influences spawning location.

Are you surprised by any of the results so far? Karier asked. Some of this research has never been done before, so we didn’t know what to expect, Murdoch responded.

13. Update on Analysis of Regional Power Supply Outlook

Dick Watson

This item was dropped from the agenda.

14. Council Business

Decision on Federal Appliance Standards

The Council decided to invite a panel of industry experts to Helena in May to make a presentation on appliance efficiency standards. Before the Council votes on whether to join litigation to challenge the proposed roll-back of federal efficiency standards for air conditioners, we should find out more about the issue, Giacometto advised. He suggested including a person from DOE on the panel. We ought to hear from someone at DOE before we take a position objecting to their roll-back proposal, Giacometto said.

Marker reported that the F&W Committee recommended deferring a decision on CBFWA’s request to reallocate funds within the year.

The Council voted unanimously in favor of a recommendation that Bonneville discontinue funding for the Shoshone-Bannock/Shoshone-Paiute Joint Culture Facility. Bloch moved that the funding be discontinued and the funds be returned to the appropriate accounts, and Grace seconded. Staffer Mark Fritsch explained that the ISRP recommended not funding the project because the application was inadequate and the design for the facility is flawed. The Council’s F&W committee requested that the ISRP provide more information and clarification to the project sponsors so they could create a better proposal in the future, he reported. That request was also part of the motion the Council approved.

The Council meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday.
Approved June 27, 2001

____________________________
Vice-chairman

^ top