 |
Meeting Minutes |
Council Meeting Minutes
Airport Ramada Inn
Spokane, WA
May 11, 2001
The Council held a brief meeting on May 11 at the Airport Ramada Inn in Spokane, Washington, to make decisions on three issues: revised findings for the 2000 Fish and Wildlife (F&W) Program; BPA’s 2001 power emergency "offset actions" solicitation; and spill at the mid-Columbia projects. Seven members participated in the 11 a.m. meeting, with Eric Bloch and Leo Giacometto joining by phone.
1. Decision on Adoption of Revised Findings on Recommendations Submitted for the 2000 Fish & Wildlife Program
Staffer John Shurts said the Council previously adopted findings for its F&W program, which made reference to an appendix that was to be added. As it turns out, there will not be an appendix, so the original findings need to be revised and again adopted by the Council, he explained. I can simply delete the references to an appendix in the text, but in one case, there is a more substantive change, Shurts said, adding that he had rewritten the discussion about priorities for resident fish funding.
John Brogoitti moved the Council approve the revised findings, and Stan Grace seconded. The Council accepted Tom Karier’s slightly amended language on pages 11 and 17, adding the word "substitution" to the mitigation discussion. The revised findings were adopted on a roll call vote. Six Council members voted for Brogoitti’s motion; Bloch was absent for the vote.
2. Decision on Council and ISRP Involvement in 2001 Power Emergency ESA "Offset Actions" Solicitation
BPA has released a solicitation, with a base budget of $10 million, for actions to offset the 2001 power emergency, Council chair Larry Cassidy explained. At our last meeting, we defeated a motion relating to the criteria for the offset solicitation, and now the issue is back, he said. How does the Council want to go on this? Cassidy asked.
I’d like to offer a "two-part motion" in response to BPA’s proposal, Karier stated. We need to clarify the Council’s position on scientific review of the actions proposed – "that seems essential," he said. Karier moved the Council request the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) review the proposals submitted to BPA. Second, he continued, the ISRP findings should be made available to the public for comment, with comments to be directed to the Council and BPA "on an expedited basis." Grace seconded the motion.
"I concur in the motion," Cassidy stated. We need scientific review, and the ISRP is a very important part of the program, he said.
Once the ISRP findings are submitted to the Council, we should make recommendations on the projects to be funded, Jim Kempton stated. He moved to amend Karier’s motion to include a direction to the Council to offer funding recommendations to BPA, and Grace seconded the amendment.
I’d like to offer "a friendly amendment" to that language to address any potential criticism that our review and recommendations would "bog things down," Bloch said. He moved to add language that says the Council’s review and recommendations would be made "contemporaneous" with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) review. This gives us a proper review role, but removes any argument that the Council is delaying projects from getting under way, Bloch explained. Brogoitti seconded Bloch’s amendment, and Kempton said he supported it.
Cassidy suggested the amendment changes the Council’s usual project selection process. This is "a different animal" and would not apply to our normal F&W program process, Bloch responded. This applies only to this limited situation, he added. How does the Council’s review affect the NMFS review that will be going on at the same time? Giacometto asked. I don’t see it affecting NMFS – "we will be reviewing based on what we care about under the Northwest Power Act," Bloch replied. NMFS has a different charge and will review projects relative to the Endangered Species Act, he indicated. Both perspectives are relevant to BPA in selecting projects, Bloch said. On a split vote, the Council adopted the amendment.
The most important thing here is the ISRP review so projects funded under the offset actions are treated comparably to the other projects in the basin, Karier stated. We lost our opportunity when BPA asked us to review the criteria and we voted not to, he said. It would have been better if we had made a recommendation on the criteria, Karier stated, adding that now the criteria fall short in some areas, including habitat. Since we were not involved in developing the criteria, we should not be involved in recommending projects to meet them, he indicated. I oppose the motion, Karier stated. The motion, as amended by Kempton, passed five to two, with Karier and Cassidy voting against it.
3. Decision on Recommendations on spill at the Mid-Columbia projects
Grace offered a motion regarding spill reduction at Grant County PUD’s mid-Columbia dams. If the federal agencies decide to spill at The Dalles and Bonneville dams, then the Council recommends that FERC approve a corresponding reduction in spill at the Grant PUD projects, according to the motion. Brogoitti seconded.
Why is our motion contingent on what the federal agencies do? Karier asked. We had scientific studies by our staff, and we released those studies for comment, he pointed out. Why do we have to make our recommendation for the mid-Columbias contingent on the federal actions? Karier repeated.
This would be "a small carve-out issue" from the larger spill question, Bloch responded. There has been a proposal from the federal agencies to do a small amount of spill, he explained. The proposal is for BPA to spill in May, and if an equivalent amount of energy is needed for reliability purposes later on, that would be swapped for a reduction of spill at the Grant PUD projects, Bloch said.
By virtue of a May 9 request, Grant PUD has a docket open at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on spill, consultant Al Wright pointed out. The motion before you pertains only to a narrow issue related to spill and comes from a Grant/BPA proposal, he said. Other spill issues will be brought up in the two weeks the spill docket is open before FERC, Wright said.
I have read Grant’s May 9 request to FERC and have been trying to see how it relates to this motion, Karier said. I’d amend this with language from the Grant proposal to say we would make the recommendation if Grant PUD gets approvals from other parties in the region, including the Governor of Washington, NMFS, and tribes, he offered. Grace seconded the amendment.
The amendment is unnecessary and could impede what we are trying to accomplish here, Bloch stated. FERC is going to want to hear from those other parties before it acts, so we should just express where the Council is on the issue – I would not support the amendment, he said. This motion doesn’t preclude us from saying something more on spill in the future at FERC, Bloch added.
We are endorsing an action by FERC in advance of an agreement among these parties, Karier said. With the amendment, we are asking FERC to be sure these other entities are part of the settlement, he said. Grace agreed with Karier.
FERC will want to check with those other parties, Bloch reiterated. The amendment would have us saying, "we’re for it if everybody else is for it," he contended. The question before the Council is, "if there is spill in the lower river, should the power system be held harmless," Bloch stated. And my amendment says, "this is not finished yet – other parties need to be involved," Karier replied.
A number of parties participated in the spill negotiations with Grant PUD, Roy Sampsel of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) pointed out. All of the parties who negotiated the spill Memorandum of Agreement with Grant should be named in this motion, he urged. After discussions among all of the parties over the last week, there has not been an accommodation reached, Sampsel added. Karier suggested revising the language in his amendment to refer generally to "parties to the relevant spill agreement." The amendment passed on a split vote.
Grace’s amended motion regarding spill reduction at the Grant PUD projects passed on a six to one vote.
Approved June 27, 2001
__________________________________
Vice Chairman