 |
Meeting Minutes |
Council Meeting Minutes
Holiday Inn Downtown
Helena, Montana
May 16, 2001
Chair Larry Cassidy called the meeting to order at 8 a.m. Members present: Stan Grace, Leo Giacometto, Larry Cassidy, Tom Karier, Jim Kempton, John Brogoitti. Judi Danielson and Eric Bloch joined the meeting by phone.
1. Update on Analysis of Regional Power Supply Outlook
Dick Watson, Director, Power Division
I had hoped to be able to discuss our latest analysis of the May 2001-April 2002 power supply outlook, but we aren’t comfortable talking about the results we’re coming up with yet, staffer Dick Watson told the Council. I can outline what will be different about this analysis than what we’ve done before, he said. We’ll again do the analysis in two stages, spring-summer (May through August) and fall-winter (September through April), but this time the spring-summer analysis will begin with actual May 1 reservoir contents, Watson noted. Instead of using just two scenarios based on the 1977 and 1944 water years, we’ll use seven "synthetic water years," he stated.
The problem with the two-water-year approach was that we could not estimate how probable different outcomes might be, Watson explained. Using synthetic water years makes it possible to assess the probability of different outcomes and the effects of different runoff shapes, he said.
Synthetic water years start out with the known snow pack, and then we apply different "weather years" for May through August, according to Watson. The precipitation and temperatures associated with these weather years determine inflows into the reservoirs, he said. The analysis will run a large number of simulations, sampling water years,
temperatures, and thermal forced outages according to their probability distributions, Watson stated. It will evaluate different operational strategies for the summer, including operating to the BiOp for spills and flows, no spill, and limited spill, he said.
We will also analyze the effects of provisional storage in the Canadian reservoirs, Watson continued. We will look at generating power in the U.S. system and providing it to BC Hydro so additional water can be stored behind Arrow, which the Northwest could use next winter, he said. The tradeoff would be additional energy for next winter versus less energy for meeting load or less spill this summer, Watson pointed out.
Why would you store at Arrow? Grace asked. Because of its strategic location and because there’s a lot of storage available, replied Watson.
The objectives of the study, he noted, are to: satisfy demand through the spring and summer while providing "reasonable circumstances" for salmon migration; improve or at least not worsen fall and winter reliability; and limit the impacts of wholesale power purchase costs on the region’s economy. For the May-August stage of the study, we expect answers to these questions, Watson said: "what is the probability and amount of summer curtailment we might experience?" "What’s the amount of provisional storage we might be able to store in the system to help us out next winter?" For the September-April stage, the outcomes will be the probability and amount of winter curtailment and where we would leave the reservoirs in April, he stated.
Besides a different treatment of water years, the new analysis will contain updated load reduction and generation assumptions, as well as updated estimates of the end-of-summer conditions in the Canadian reservoirs, Watson explained. The analysis will include results of a survey of utilities in the region on what they have done with respect to buying power back from their customers, he noted. This information includes irrigation buybacks, buybacks from industrial customers, and shutdowns of facilities that have found it too expensive to operate, Watson said.
Our numbers reflect the hard work BPA and utilities have done to try to bring loads into line with the kind of situation we face, he noted. The "squishiest" set of numbers deals with price response -- utilities’ estimates of load reduced in response to rate increases, Watson stated. Overall, what we’ve come up with in this analysis is "a fairly substantial chunk" of load reduction that was not reflected in our previous study, he said.
Watson pointed out there is additional load reduction in the form of "demand exchange" arrangements. We estimate there could be up to another 800 MW of load reduction through such programs, but we’re not clear how to model it, so at the moment, we’ve left it out of the analysis, he said.
Our assumptions about new generation are changing almost every day, Watson stated. The new generation includes gas-fired combined-cycle units, as well as various smaller-scale activities, such as new single-cycle turbines and leasing diesels, he said. In Montana, they have hooked locomotives up to the grid, Watson noted.
There’s a fair amount of new generation that wasn’t reflected in our earlier analysis, he stated. For example, it didn’t have the 300-400 MW of emergency generation we are now seeing in the April-June time frame, Watson explained. Additional generation in the late winter of 2002 that wasn’t reflected in the earlier studies will appear in this analysis, he said.
Net imports "is kind of a hole" in our analysis, Watson continued. There’s a relatively high level of uncertainty in this area, he said. In some cases, a purchaser may not know where its supply is coming from, Watson pointed out. We’ve sent out requests for information on net imports to utilities and will be sending out more, he indicated.
As for prices, we expect high peak prices to continue through the summer and fall, Watson noted, showing a chart projecting prices in the third quarter of the year at a low of $360/MWh and a high of $400, and in the fourth quarter, between $240 and $255. For the calendar year 2002, prices drop back to between $135 to $150.
It looks like this analysis will have "somewhat better" results, but we don’t know for sure yet, Watson said. The wild card is Canadian operations and whether there will be as much water coming out of Canada as we’ve assumed, he noted.
When will the analysis be done? asked Bloch. We hope in another week, Watson replied. Bloch urged getting the information out as quickly as possible. The important thing is that we have confidence in the results we are getting, said Watson.
2. Council Decision on Project Funding Reallocations for Fiscal Year 2001
Bob Lohn, Director, Fish and Wildlife Division
Staffer Bob Lohn explained a proposed project submitted by the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) to create a "Collaborative Center for Applied Fishery Science at the University of Idaho’s Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station." He said the Fish Committee recommended Council approval of funding for preliminary design of the project on a 3-1 vote. They conditioned that recommendation on having a later Council decision on further funding when the design work is completed and more is known about future costs, Lohn explained. An Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) review would also be required before the Council would approve further funding, he said.
Staff has constructed this recommendation to give the Council a way to have a sequenced approval of the facility, said staffer Doug Marker. Yesterday the Council received a letter from CRITFC addressing issues raised at the Fish Committee meeting, but it did not provide a firm estimate of design costs, he indicated. NMFS has endorsed this project, but we would still like to know more about costs, Marker added.
Roy Sampsel of CRITFC said the Fish Committee was given a document prepared by FishPro, an independent design firm, which sets out a budget between $178,000 and $200,000. I think that’s where the costs are going to end up, he said. Normally, BPA assigns a contracting representative who works with the architecture and engineering firm to firm up the actual figures, Sampsel stated.
This project is important from the university’s standpoint, said Dr. Ernie Brannon of the University of Idaho. We acquired this facility from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in 1985, and it has allowed us to expand our research on fisheries technologies and genetics, he stated. We were pleased when CRITFC approached us to have this as a collaborative research center, and we look on it as a real asset to the university, Brannon said.
Could having this facility lead to the resolution of some of our supplementation issues? Grace asked. Yes, there are a lot of questions about supplementation and hatchery fish, and our research will look at that, Brannon replied.
I think this project is not ready for approval, said Karier. At $2.6 million, it would be one of the largest projects the Council envisions, and before we fund it, we need to establish our research priorities, he stated. The Council has spent $330 million on research in the region, but we don’t know what questions we’ve answered and where the research gaps are, Karier said. I have questions about the need for lab and dormitory space and the need for scholarships in this curriculum at the University of Idaho, he stated. I have questions about paying for FTEs without identifying products, Karier said.
I’m also concerned about the process -- this recommendation says, approve the project, and then do the science review; that seems to be the wrong order, he continued. This is rushing through, using a process outside our normal channels, and I can’t support it, Karier concluded.
Is it your intent at this research facility to address the distinctions needed in hatchery production to meet the tributary needs of spawning salmonids? asked Kempton. There’s always been a debate about hatchery fish, the moving of stocks, and the "a-fish-is-a-fish mentality," replied Brannon. Some hatcheries have followed "the Johnny Appleseed approach," as opposed to being stream-specific, he said. We are focusing on how we make hatcheries more effective, Brannon stated. A major benefit is the objectivity the lab can give to those questions, he added.
Another objective is to enhance Native American educational opportunities to get into fisheries management, Brannon said. This is a critical need that’s been missed for the last 30 years, he stated.
I want to do things in an orderly process, but on this occasion because of the questions that could be answered by this project, I support preliminary funding for it, said Grace. But I hope the questions Tom [Karier] raised will be answered before further funding is authorized, he added.
Why are you pushing for this to happen so quickly? Brogoitti asked. The university has a schedule for construction we are trying to meet, replied Sampsel.
Brogoitti moved to approve FY 2001 funding of up to $200,000 for the planning, design, and permitting for the Collaborative Center for Applied Fishery Science, and Grace seconded. I’m not comfortable with how this is headed, commented Cassidy. We haven’t really answered the questions about this, he added. I’m concerned what the ongoing annual costs beyond the $2.6 million would be for this facility, Cassidy stated. And I think once we approve preliminary design, we rarely cancel a project, he added.
We’re only funding the planning and design now -- we can take up the other questions later, said Bloch. We can still approve the preliminary funds and then put the project into the mainstem project review process and assess it against other projects, he stated. This work can put us on track to resolve critical uncertainties, and this facility would play a critical role in the region’s research needs, according to Bloch.
The motion passed on a 6-2 vote; Cassidy and Karier voted no. We’ll work with you and your staff to define the questions raised by the Washington Council members and others, said Sampsel. I’d like to know how this fits in with all the other state and federal fish facilities in the region, Cassidy said.
The Council approved a change in the project focus for the Lake Creek Land Acquisition Project in Idaho, which would allow funds to be used for other properties in the Lake Creek area that have F&W benefits. Giacometto moved to make the change, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed.
3. Council Decision on CBFWA Subbasin Summary Funding
Bob Lohn
The Council held a brief discussion about funding for the preparation of Subbasin Summaries. A Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) memo indicates the FY 2001 cost for preparing the summaries at $1,469,873. I don’t think we’ve looked at enough alternatives for this work, said Cassidy. Oregon is looking at other options, and we’ll bring them to the June meeting, said Bloch.
The key is to come to grips with the amount of review the ISRP will do, said Kempton. I hope there will be "a pretty good potpourri of things" for us to consider at the next meeting, he added. Cassidy asked about a private-sector contractor doing the work. Summaries have been prepared by various entities, including private contractors, subbasin coordinators, and agencies and tribes, said Lohn.
The question is how to get this done at a value the Council is comfortable with, said Cassidy. If the Council specifies the information it wants in the summaries and what it will spend, then we can leave it to the states to decide how to get the job done in the different subbasins, said Bloch. It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation, he added.
4. Presentation by Fish Bypass Channels
Jean Johnson and Gordon Burns, Natural Solutions
Jean Johnson and Gordon Burns, owners of Natural Solutions, made a presentation on what they call a solution for endangered salmon and steelhead in the Snake River that doesn’t require breaching or drawing down dams. Johnson described how a natural bypass river for fish to use to migrate around the dams could be constructed using gunnite (shotcrete). The gunnite, which allows us to replicate the bedrock of a natural riverbed, is the key component of this system, she said. The gunnite would allow for the formation of rapids, waterfalls, shelves, and undercut embankments, all in a natural contour, Johnson explained.
Juvenile salmon would be encouraged to use the bypass river through a combination of methods that take advantage of their natural tendencies, she said. The use of behavioral guidance structures would encourage fish to use the passive side of the reservoir and enter the river system, Johnson stated. During the migration, lake outlet flows can be increased to create a positive current, she said. The riverbed would be 50 to 100 feet wide, depending on biological need, and six to eight feet deep on the average, with deeper pools to serve as holding water, according to Johnson. The bypass river would also help in the migration of other species, such as bull trout, lamprey, and sturgeon, she stated.
A new year-round natural fishery could be achieved through the creation of the bypass river, Johnson said. She indicated the costs of the proposal compare favorably with the Corps of Engineers’ planned system improvements. We can have dams and a free-flowing river suitable for salmon to survive, Johnson summed up.
Have you looked at this in comparison with spill? Grace asked. In the juvenile migration season, our system could dramatically reduce the amount of water needed, compared to what is being used for spill today, Burns replied. How does one year of spill compare with your system? Leo Giacometto asked. It’s a 12-to-1 ratio; what would be spilled in one month, we would do in a year, replied Burns.
How would this create a better attraction system for fish than what we have now? Karier asked. Juveniles get confused when they go into the forebays, said Burns. Our inlet would entrain them into the bypass system before they could become confused, he stated. How would they get into the system? Karier asked. They would be guided by their own natural tendency to migrate -- we designed our system based on the fish’s natural tendencies, Burns replied.
Cassidy asked how the system would work in Lower Granite reservoir. The channel would start 1.5 to 2 kilometers above the dam, responded Burns. Fish won’t enter anything darkened, he noted. Here we propose what’s "almost like entering a candy store," Burns said. In the reservoirs, we’ve lost that river environment, and the fish are searching for it, he said.
This proposal seems like pretty good common sense, said Giacometto. This is a doable thing -- "we intend to build a river and would like to do the Snake," Johnson stated. There has been a lot of money invested in new and more hatcheries, said Burns. This system could build a tributary for the Snake River where we can make a natural hatchery and where fish will return to spawn, he stated. These fish would be "riverwise" so predation would be lower, Burns said.
This is a good idea that should be explored, Cassidy agreed. What’s the next step? he asked. Giacometto suggested giving the proposal to the staff for review and asking for support from Idaho Fish and Game (IDFG). We could consider this in the mainstem project review, said Bloch. I suggest Gordon and Jean work with staff in order to move a feasibility study forward, he added. It’s a good idea, agreed Brogoitti. I’ve been intrigued by the concept for some time, said Kempton.
Karier asked staff to make a recommendation as to where this should go next. Johnson asked if Kempton would help them contact IDFG. He said he would, and Cassidy volunteered help with Washington Fish and Game.
5. Briefing on Federal Hydropower Operations
Steve Wright, Chief Executive Officer, Bonneville Power Administration
Acting BPA Administrator Steve Wright flew in with three topics to discuss with the Council: load reduction, system operations, and long-term issues. BPA is on a path toward a 250 percent rate increase, he said, unless it can take actions to get off the path, including shutting down aluminum plants for up to two years, and obtaining 10 percent load reductions from public utility customers and 10 percent reductions in load or benefits from IOU customers. We are having good discussions with all of these parties, Wright stated.
Today we are announcing our first agreement with an aluminum company, Alcoa Aluminum, for a shutdown involving a 400 average megawatt (MWa) reduction in load, Wright said. Alcoa is the largest aluminum company in the region and has the largest take from BPA for the post-2001 contracts, he noted. The company has committed to pay its workers with the money from BPA and also to pay its state and local taxes, Wright stated. We are extremely proud of this agreement and hope it will set a precedent for other companies, he said.
We have excellent discussions going on with the IOUs, Wright reported. They are "willing to put in their fair share," but their biggest concern, as it has been with our public utility customers, is "they don’t want to be the suckers," he said. So BPA is working out contingency clause agreements in contracts for IOU and public utility customers, Wright stated. The contingency clauses provide that if a customer signs up early for load reduction and nobody else does, the customer can walk away from the deal, he said. That encourages everybody to sign up, which is what we want -- we are trying to encourage early signers, Wright emphasized.
In this environment, there is the temptation to do the politically easy thing, which is to try to reduce costs in the near term and shift costs into the future, but we are doing everything we can to resist that, he continued. We will sign some contracts where we levelized costs across the five years, but we’re trying to do that for a very small amount of the portfolio of resources we are acquiring, Wright said. Our goal is to solve the supply/demand problem by getting the infrastructure investments made, and then we can bring the prices down, he stated.
We have what I’ve described before as a "pig in a python," Wright said. There are some very high costs we need to swallow for a couple of years, and then we can get back to the system we’ve had of lower costs, he stated. We want to try to avoid making power purchases so we don’t incur those high costs now, Wright indicated. We want to continue to have a viable system that can support the economy of the region beyond years one and two in the five-year rate period, he said.
We think we’ve saved Northwest ratepayers more than a billion dollars with the actions we’ve taken so far this year, Wright reported. We declared power system emergencies in January, February, and April, he noted. We are still in one and are likely to stay in that situation most of the summer, Wright said. We are operating to a set of criteria to assure reliability and financial solvency for BPA, he stated. We are not making decisions on a random basis based on what input we get each day -- we are really trying to stick to the criteria, Wright said. We appreciate the work Dick Watson and his staff have been doing -- it is the foundation we are using for our reliability determinations, he added.
BPA is also seeking to minimize its long-term mitigation and litigation exposure, Wright pointed out. There has been a lot of controversy about the issue of spill, he stated. "We are deeply divided as a region on the spill question," Wright said. For some, any spill would be a big mistake, and for others, anything less than what’s called for in the Biological Opinion (BiOp) is a big mistake, he pointed out.
BPA may do some spill this summer, but we will be driven by the financial and reliability criteria and trying to minimize our long-term exposure, he explained. We may do some spill in May; in fact, we may spill this evening because we’ve worked hard to come up with a spill transfer agreement, Wright said. I appreciate the Council’s support for it, he stated. We have worked out the final agreements with Grant County PUD and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and will make a filing today with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), asking for its support for the spill transfer program, Wright said.
We are now in the critical weeks for the juvenile salmon migrants, he noted. It looks like we have some excess energy on the system, and it is possible we’ll proceed with some spill today, Wright reported. Where? asked Council chairman Larry Cassidy. At Bonneville and The Dalles, replied Wright. The tribes have requested we consider spill at John Day, he noted. We have said we’ll talk with them about that, but at least for now, we’ll go with the initial agreement, Wright said.
Based on what I’ve seen in the last couple of weeks, I’m optimistic about the long term, Wright stated. The fundamental problem here is supply and demand, and the way to get out of the problem is with infrastructure investment, he said. We see a tremendous amount of money coming into this region for developing the infrastructure on the generation side, and BPA has a strong commitment to building on the transmission side, Wright indicated. Right now, we have 28,000 MW in the queue for transmission generation integration studies, he said. "Not all of that is real, but we only need a small fraction of it to be real to get to where we need to get to," according to Wright.
I’m encouraged by the estimates I’ve seen coming out of the Council and our staff that indicate about 2,000 MW are going to be on line this winter that weren’t on line before, he said. Given 2,000 MW of new energy and next year’s potential, which looks like another 1,000 to 1,500 MW, that amount of supply will go a long way toward bringing down wholesale power prices, Wright stated. We’ve talked in the past about being in a one-to-three-year time frame for this difficult situation, but if we can continue this sort of growth in resource development and get the transmission to support it, I think we’re going to be closer to one year than three years, he said.
Wright asked the Council to give some thought to two long-term issues. First, what is the region’s energy future? I think this is a great role for the Council to take the lead on and provide guidance to the region, he said.
The second issue, according to Wright, is: How does the region get to a true regional fish and wildlife (F&W) plan? We’ve had a lot of debate about Endangered Species Act (ESA) obligations and Northwest Power Act obligations, and there has been a lot of work to bring the two together, but we’re not there yet, he stated. There are synergies that can be gained from bringing these programs together, Wright said. We want a vibrant F&W program, but one that is as low cost as possible, and the way to get that is to find the synergies between the different obligations, he stated.
I think we could have a subset of the Council’s plan that meets ESA requirements, suggested Stan Grace. The Council plan would be all-encompassing for all the mitigation, while the subset would be geared to the ESA, he said. That makes sense, responded Wright, adding that he wouldn’t want the creation of the subset to result in a separate plan. My idea is that you rewrite the plan, but you make certain that within a chapter or portion of that plan the ESA obligations are met, said Grace. We initially envisioned one big plan, but I think what will evolve will entail a subset of ESA-type projects that might have a different review process, said Tom Karier.
What’s the period of time for the Alcoa agreement? Karier asked. It’s for two years, and we’ve agreed that we will revisit it every six months, Wright replied.
What’s the status of BPA’s seeking additional borrowing authority to support new transmission development? Karier inquired. We are discussing it with the Administration, and we’ll see what comes out in the President’s energy plan tomorrow, replied Wright. It will also need Congressional review, and we are hoping the process can conclude by September of this year, he added.
Karier asked about the status of wind power projects. Wind power is looking to be attractive, Wright said. The fundamental problem with wind has always been the shaping and the cost of shaping services, he noted. The challenge is to try to figure out how much wind you can do relative to the cost of shaping, Wright said. We would provide shaping with the hydro system, but a lot of our shaping capability has been taken away because of fish operations, he noted.
I agree with you on the possible synergies of combining the different interests of the organizations involved with the ESA, said Jim Kempton. The problem is that we don’t have a decision matrix under the BiOp, he stated. We’re always asking "do we get credit for this or that," and it is the wrong question, Kempton said. It would be better if we could make decisions and if there were occasional faults in our thinking, NMFS could reject for cause, he suggested. Until we get a template or decision matrix under the current BiOp, it is hard for people to make decisions on what programs go toward the credits, which have never been defined anywhere, Kempton said.
I give Judi Johansen a lot of credit for trying to create performance-based standards in the BiOp, Wright responded. That effort is aimed at getting us to an understanding of where the goal line is so we know how much progress we are making as we take individual actions, he said. The BiOp gets us part way there, and the Implementation Plan will take us another step, but not all the way, Wright noted. We want to work with the Council to define the goal line and keep moving the ball forward, he added.
I’ve been pushing for the integration of ESA and Power Act-related obligations for some time, said Bloch. The region deserves that we break down the artificial institutional barriers preventing us from achieving the synergies with F&W efforts under the Power Act and the ESA, he stated. It sounds like you are making progress on mitigation strategies with the IOUs, DSIs, and public utilities, Bloch said. Is there anything the Council or the governors can do to help you? he asked. Any support for the load reduction campaign you can give would be helpful, replied Wright. The advantage for the region lies in acting collectively, he stated. I’m trying to get this message across: "through collective action, we will all be better off," Wright said. Your support and support from elected officials would help us a lot, he added.
Unless we reach recovery under the ESA, BPA may never get full credit for the actions it has taken, observed Grace. I hope the hydro system will meet its level of responsibility; I can‘t speak to whether all the other Hs will contribute their fair share, Wright replied.
Karier cited an example of the difficulty of coordination between a recovery plan and the Council plan. I’ve been working with NMFS on the development of a data system for the Columbia Basin, which involves a very small contract that we have still not been able to conclude, he said. We have now decided to take a step back to see what needs to be coordinated, Karier pointed out. I’ll help you get the contract issue fixed if I can, but we only want to have one data system, Wright said. Our concern about the contract involves whether two systems might be created, he added. The contract is just to assess the data systems out there and bring us information on what’s available, noted Cassidy. We need to develop this background information and what the broader needs are from the Council’s perspective, Karier said.
If the Grant PUD spill agreement is approved, will there still be any consideration for California emergencies? Grace asked. We have discussed with parties in California how we’ll do business with them this summer, and we have reached an agreement that defines the exchange ratios, which are based on the value of energy, replied Wright. In addition, if we interrupt spill to serve California, they would pay a premium of half-a-kilowatt-hour when they return the energy, he explained. We think this will enable a mutually beneficial arrangement, Wright said.
In this emergency we are having, I’d like to see Grant be able to curtail spill without transferring spill to BPA, said Grace. I’m concerned about the impacts on human welfare of this crisis, he stated. We’ve managed the system pretty hard to preserve reliability, responded Wright. For April and May, the BiOp called for 2,000 MW-months of spill, he said. We did no spill in April, and we’ve missed a lot of the May season, so the amount of spill we’re doing relative to what’s in the BiOp is a small fraction, Wright stated. What I’m saying is "I’m not in a compromise mode in a time of crisis," said Grace.
Wright explained his efforts to balance long-term exposures with fish benefits and take into account both reliability and financial solvency. We can’t control when the water comes off the hills, he noted. We’re getting a lot of flow now, and today we have more water than we know what to do with, Wright said. When unpredictable things happen, we have to make short-term operational decisions to deal with them, and in fact you could say "we have to go with the flow," he quipped.
There has to be a premium for interrupting spill, said Karier. When you interrupt spill, there’s a huge environmental impact so it is appropriate to include that in the financial consideration, he noted. Foregone spill also needs to be factored in, Karier stated. If we interrupt spill, besides the premium I mentioned, we are also requiring a 24-hour return, Wright pointed out.
What are you doing with all the water today? John Brogoitti inquired. We are trying to store as much as we can; in fact, in the criteria for the spill decision we said we are trying to store an additional 1,500 MW-months to get the reservoirs back to the level where they started the current year, Wright replied. So where we can store, we do, but the storage capability is limited, he noted. The storage capability of the Columbia system is 30 percent of the average annual runoff, while the capability of the Mississippi is 300 percent, Wright explained.
Are you pretty well up to capacity, storagewise? Brogoitti asked. No, we’re not up to capacity -- we’d love to fill Grand Coulee more, replied Wright. That’s not the area where you are getting the runoff? inquired Brogoitti. If we get runoff below Grand Coulee and Dworshak, there is not a lot of storage capacity in the dams below, Wright said.
Is the water you’re getting bypass out of the irrigation systems? Kempton asked. That water is going into Brownlee, replied Wright. Our problem right now is in the lower Snake, he added.
We had a "huge success" last week in concluding the funding process for high priority projects to provide immediate help to ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in the region, Wright reported. This is a great sign of collaborative efforts between our agency and NMFS, and I hope we can build on that for the future, he concluded.
6. Briefing on Offsite Fish and Wildlife Mitigation
[This item was deleted from the agenda]
7. Council Decision to Release the Draft Fiscal Year 2002 Revised Budget and Fiscal Year 2003 proposed budget for Public Comment
Jim Tanner, Administrative Officer
Staffer Jim Tanner presented the Council’s draft revised FY 2002 budget, noting there has been an increase of about $393,000 from the 2002 budget adopted a year ago. The increase includes $155,000 for power division contracting, $105,000 for central office services, and $113,000 for state budget increases, he said. The Council’s draft FY 2003 budget has an increase of about $86,000, or 1 percent higher than the revised FY 2002 budget, Tanner noted. There will be about 60 days of review, and we’ll present the budgets for adoption at the August meeting, he said.
Some state offices are holding down their budgets and others are ramping up, observed Karier. We need to discuss this issue among the states, he said.
The Council has cut back on its budgets in years past, and now we’re coming back up; can you explain that? Brogoitti asked. In 1997, the Council agreed to make budget cuts totaling approximately $5.4 million in the years 1998 through 2001, Tanner said. Current projects show the Council will achieve about 99 percent of the targeted savings, and these were achieved in the first three years of that four-year period, he noted. In the fourth year, some of the cuts were restored, and recently the Council’s role and workload with respect to power resource planning and reliability analysis and accountability for F&W spending have increased, Tanner said.
The Council has been very accountable in the last few years as to its budgets, stated Brogoitti. Giacometto moved to release the draft budgets for public comment, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed.
8. Council Business
Karier moved to approve the minutes of the meeting held in Boise, Idaho on April 3-4, 2001. Grace seconded and the motion passed.
Approved June 27, 2001
__________________________________
Vice Chairman