 |
Meeting Minutes |
Council Meeting Minutes
Red Lion Inn
Pendleton, Oregon
June 26-27, 2001
Minutes
1. Council Decision on Mountain Columbia Projects
Doug Marker, Senior Policy Coordinator; and, John Ogan, Senior Council
Marker presented a set of projects totaling about $20 million for the Mountain Columbia province (western Montana, northern panhandle of Idaho, and northeastern Washington), which the Fish Committee had approved. He said the committee asked for formal concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the Kootenai white sturgeon recovery plan will satisfy federal power system obligations under the Endangered Species Act.
Marker also brought up a general issue concerning wildlife habitat acquisition projects. The Independent Science Review Panel, he explained, is finding it difficult to evaluate these broader, programmatic wildlife projects without an understanding of the criteria for selection of individual parcels. The Albeni Falls wildlife mitigation project is an example of one of several wildlife habitat acquisition projects that received a "do not fund" recommendation from the ISRP because of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) concerns and lack of information about how subsequently acquired parcels will be evaluated, Marker said.
The Council needs to resolve this problem by working with the wildlife managers to tighten up review procedures for wildlife acquisition projects generally, rather than leaving it to project sponsors, Marker suggested. He recommended that the Albeni Falls project funding be subject to ISRP approval of a revised M&E plan. Marker also recommended that the Council, CBFWA, and Bonneville develop an agreement on a uniform process and criteria for the evaluation of individual acquisition proposals for wildlife mitigation that take place under larger, previously-Council-approved umbrella wildlife mitigation plans
Decision
- FundingBloch moved, and Brogoitti seconded, a motion approving funding for the Mountain Columbia projects. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Council Decision on Emergency Action Offset Projects
Bob Lohn, Director, Fish and Wildlife Division; Doug Maker, and John Ogan
In May, Bonneville opened a special solicitation for "Action Plan" F&W projects to mitigate for the impacts to fish stocks resulting from the power system emergency, and the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) reviewed them on a fast turnaround in June, Lohn explained. Bonneville would like a Council decision on these projects as soon as possible, he said. Lohn noted this is a one-time funding, and that the projects are to meet these criteria: increase tributary flows, improve tributary spawning and rearing habitat, screen water diversions in tributaries, or relocate or plant fish in tributaries.
Rick Williams of the ISRP presented the results of the panel’s review of 50 Action Plan proposals, noting that the review was expedited and less rigorous than what the ISRP uses for projects in the provincial reviews. He said that since 1998 when the ISRP began reviewing F&W projects for the Council, there has been a general increase in the coherency and information content of projects. But the quality of the proposals for Bonneville’s High Priority project solicitation earlier this year and for the Action Plan projects fell below that of the projects submitted in the 2001 provincial reviews and the FY 2000 annual review, according to Williams. The Action Plan proposals were overly brief and lacked such things as maps and descriptions of the location and context of the proposed work, he said.
While the short timeframe associated with the Action Plan solicitation may have contributed to the poor quality of the proposals, the ISRP recommends against having any more short-timeframe, special-circumstance solicitations, Williams stated. They risk eroding the rigor and credibility of the provincial review process, he said.
Williams pointed out that the ISRP has a hard time evaluating programmatic proposals, such as those for acquiring land for wildlife benefits, and he asked the Council for help on that issue. Land acquisitions are a good way to get benefits, but they are hard to evaluate in a short-term context and to determine whether they can produce benefits this year as the criteria for the Action Plan solicitation require, he said. Williams suggested such projects might fit better in the provincial review process.
We put four Action Plan projects on an A list and recommended immediate funding, he continued. We put 10 projects on a B list, which we thought met the criteria, but had benefits that are more likely to be realized in the long term, rather than 2001, Williams explained. We recommended that the land acquisition proposals be mostly dealt with in the provincial reviews, and we labeled 22 proposals "do not fund," because they failed to meet the criteria, he said. Many of the projects were good and would be fundable in the provinces, Williams noted, but they failed to address species impacted by this year’s power system emergency, did not offer on-the-ground benefits through a one-time funding, or failed to provide enough information for an adequate review.
The alternatives before you are to fund the A-list projects only or decide how many B-list projects you want to fund, staffer Doug Marker told the Council. The staff recommends that one project on the B list, the Chumstick Creek culvert replacement in Washington State, be moved to the provincial review, he said.
Marker said staff endorses the ISRP view that this particular solicitation and the projects it yielded are not an effective way to mitigate for the impacts of the power emergency declaration. The provincial review process has yielded work that would help stocks affected by the power emergency, and we think mitigation is the most credible and scientifically sound if it is done through the provincial reviews, he stated. Staff also recommends establishing a land and water acquisition fund, according to Marker.
The ISRP was surprised so few proposals offered things that could be done this year, said Williams. The small number and poor quality of the proposals argue that the Council is doing the right thing in having the more deliberate and measured provincial review process, he said.
The idea for the solicitation had a good start, Karier noted. Governor Locke and Steve Wright sat down and identified pressing needs for funding, he said. The problem is that the criteria are too narrow, Karier stated. The short time to do the project proposals was another problem, he said. The fact that the projects had to have immediate benefits mystifies me, Karier continued. If they could have longer-term benefits, it’s illogical to rule them out, he said.
Having heard the ISRP’s presentation, I think the Council shouldn’t make these recommendations -- I’m uncomfortable with trying to pick and choose among these projects, Karier said. Bonneville should negotiate this with the states and the governors’ offices -- the Council doesn’t have anything to add, he stated. The Council did its part by asking the ISRP to review the projects, Karier said.
The Gorton Amendment says that ISRP reviews come back to the Council, Kempton pointed out. The arguments I’m hearing are specious, he stated. Let’s use the Council’s authority, and if you want to make a recommendation different from that of the ISRP, let’s do it, Kempton said.
We’ve done what our statute tells us to do, which is to ensure that Bonneville’s F&W expenditures are made in accord with good science, stated Bloch. I think we should make recommendations on projects and use the ISRP’s guidance, except where there are compelling policy issues that cause us to deviate, he said.
Decision – Funding A-list
Giacometto moved to fund the four A-list proposals, and Grace seconded. The ISRP said these projects meet the criteria and have immediate effects, and we should fund them, Giacometto urged. What about the B-list proposals? Kempton asked. I think Bonneville should consider all these projects, said Kempton. Some are "do not fund," but they have merit and should be funded, he stated. Giacometto’s motion passed unanimously.
Bloch moved to fund the B-list proposals, and Brogoitti seconded. Cassidy moved to amend the motion to add three other projects in Washington State to the list. Are they on the "do not fund" list? Danielson asked. No, replied Cassidy.
Danielson moved to add a project in Idaho, to transfer water users from the Lemhi River to the Salmon River to improve flows in the Lemhi, to the approval list, and Kempton seconded.
Brogoitti asked why the Council should fund one of the Washington projects, to screen the city of Yakima’s Naches water treatment plant intake. Why doesn’t the city of Yakima pay for it? he inquired. The project has an impact on migrating salmon in that area, said Karier.
So any city in the region can come in and get funding for its water project? Isn’t that a Pandora’s Box? Brogoitti asked. The offset mitigation funding by Bonneville is exclusive of funding for entities with a tax base, said Kempton.
I don’t like what we’re doing, said Giacometto. The ISRP laid out categories and now we’re trying to "mix and match," he stated. Why shouldn’t we take the ISRP’s advice to refer some projects to the provincial review? Giacometto asked.
Cassidy asked Danielson about the Lemhi project, noting that it has a "do not fund" recommendation from the ISRP. This is a good action project where we can get something on the ground for recovery, Danielson replied. She read a letter from the Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game (IDFG) that responds to the concerns raised by the ISRP. Kempton said the ISRP didn’t have the information it needed to give the Lemhi project a higher rating. He urged voting on each project separately. All recommendations should be contingent on ISRP approval, said Karier. Bonneville ultimately has the right of refusal; I’d like to get some of these projects to Bonneville to look at, said Danielson.
The motion to add the three projects from Washington and one from Idaho to the B list failed on a 5-3 vote. Cassidy, Danielson, and Karier voted yes.
Bloch moved that Bonneville fund all the B-list projects, with the exception of the Chumstick project, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Bloch moved, and Brogoitti seconded, that the Council recommend that Bonneville dedicate a fund for land and water acquisitions and immediately fund the four land acquisition projects rated fundable by the ISRP. How much do they total? asked Cassidy. Around $13 million, staff said.
Karier objected to "picking and choosing" and recommended that Bonneville negotiate with the states on the funding of the projects. The ISRP recommended that we fund these -- I favor the motion, stated Giacometto. Bloch said these projects were deemed fundable, time-sensitive, and they involve compelling policy issues that warrant stepping a bit beyond the criteria. Bloch’s motion passed unanimously.
Kempton moved that the Council recommend the Lemhi project for funding, pending a final ISRP review. Danielson seconded, and asked Williams if he had read the comments from IDFG. It answered all the questions the ISRP raised, Williams replied. The motion passed unanimously.
Karier moved that the Council recommend funding the Naches water intake plant screening project, and Cassidy seconded. This project meets the criteria, and although the ISRP said defer it to the provincial review, it’s appropriate to fund it in this category, said Karier.
Brogoitti reiterated his objection about funding a city water system. It’s no different from the irrigation districts we’ve funded in the past, responded Karier. This benefits fish in one of the biggest tributaries in my state, it came "from the bottom up," and I urge the Council to vote for it, said Cassidy.
Screening is the one thing you can do that makes a difference, and it’s certain that fish do better in the water than in an irrigation field or an intake, observed Grace. The question is, do we want to help fish or don’t we, he said.
Cassidy suggested amending the motion to say that the funding level should not exceed $1.657 million, and Karier agreed. Let’s look at what we’re opening ourselves up to, from the standpoint of ratepayer money, said Brogoitti. We could end up screening the cities of Seattle, Portland, and Boise, he added.
If a city is in a financial pinch, okay, but if a city can fund it and doesn’t, then that’s a different issue, said Giacometto. This is a simple investment that will have one of the best returns for fish, stated Karier. It’s good to get cities to compete to save fish -- we should encourage it and not penalize cities for being a new player, he added.
I’ll support this because it’s a special circumstance, but this is the only treatment plant screening I’ll support this year until we find out why cities aren’t paying for this themselves, stated Kempton. The motion passed 7-1, with Brogoitti voting no.
Williams said approving the Lemhi project for funding raises an equity question with respect to other "do not fund" projects. We should provide an opportunity for other project sponsors to respond to the ISRP’s concerns for the sake of equity, Karier agreed. Cassidy asked staff to make a recommendation on this matter.
Bloch moved that the Council recommend that Bonneville "plan on committing additional power emergency mitigation funds, over and above anticipated direct program commitments, in the provincial reviews where stocks impacted by the power emergency actions exist," and Cassidy seconded. This motion puts the Council on record saying to Bonneville that additional mitigation funds should be put into the provincial review process, Bloch explained.
I’m against this, said Giacometto. We’re looking at an astronomical rate increase -- it’s the wrong time to say we need to take more money from Bonneville, he stated. Bonneville has the resources to make this commitment to F&W, responded Bloch. With the spill reductions and hydro operations this spring that mean hundreds of millions of dollars for Bonneville, it’s only fair to help mitigate for F&W impacts, he stated.
It’s ratepayer funding, and people can’t pay their power bills now, responded Giacometto. It’s premature to do this before we look at all the provincial reviews, said Grace. I don’t want to do any more funding under the emergency hydro system procedures, Kempton added.
The vote on the motion was 4-4. Idaho and Montana voted no. "The motion dies," said Cassidy.
The next day, Lohn proposed that seven Action Plan projects, which met the criteria but were not recommended for funding because of incomplete information, be allowed to enter "a fix-it loop." Project sponsors would be given two weeks to submit an improved proposal responding to the ISRP’s concerns, he explained.
Karier said he wanted to bring up an Action Plan project for consideration, to retire PacifiCorp’s Wapatox power plant and purchase the water right to increase Naches River instream flows. It would secure significant water rights in an area with potential for salmon, and it’s a significant cost-share with the Bureau of Reclamation, he noted. Karier moved to approve it for funding, pending a final positive ISRP review, and Cassidy seconded.
How many megawatts does the plant produce? Giacometto asked. I don’t know, but "it’s a drop in the bucket in terms of regional reliability," replied Karier. The motion passed unanimously.
Karier then moved that the Council give all the "do not fund" projects a chance to respond to the ISRP’s comments, and Cassidy seconded. This goes beyond sending things back to the fix-it loop, said Bloch. It goes too far and looks like we are creating "a fix-it loop for the Council decision on Action Plan projects," he stated.
Cassidy said the Lemhi project, which had a "do not fund" recommendation, was approved yesterday. We are just asking for the same chance for other worthwhile projects, he added. Has Bonneville said how much is available for the Action Plan projects? Giacometto asked. Bob Austin of Bonneville said the projects approved by the Council thus far total about $24 million. We want to get our funding decisions out to the region as soon as possible, he stated.
Karier’s motion passed on a 6-2 vote. Bloch and Giacometto voted no.
3. Briefing Recommendations and Schedule for Mainstem Plan
John Shurts, Legal Council; and John Ogan
The amendments to the fish and wildlife (F&W) program the Council adopted last year began what eventually will be a complete revision of that program, said staffer John Ogan. One of the next phases is adopting more specific objectives and action measures for the river’s mainstem and the tributary subbasins, consistent with the program’s framework of scientific and policy principles, he explained.
In March, the Council requested recommendations for amendments to its F&W program dealing with a mainstem plan and received 22 packages of recommendations, Ogan reported. We got packages from state and tribal F&W managers, both from the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) and from individual agencies, states, and tribes, he said. We also heard from industry groups, such as irrigators, industry electrical groups, PNGC, PPC, and others, as well as from environmental groups, and a few private individuals, Ogan stated. We’re pleased with the breadth of participation we got, he added.
To give you "a flavor" of what’s come in, Ogan noted that many people who commented said that the BiOp was a good start, but doesn’t go far enough, while other recommendations said the Council should alter elements of the BiOp. A lot of recommendations dealt with different levels of flows and spills and issues related to fish transportation, he indicated. Many people said there’s not a high level of support for flows, while others say increase flows, Ogan said. Some recommendations ask the Council not to treat the mainstem solely as a migration corridor, but to think of it as habitat, he added.
The emergency power system declaration under the BiOp "has teased out" substantial recommendations from state and tribal F&W managers, but they are casting their recommendations differently than in the past, Ogan said. The emergency declaration has people addressing the efficacy of the BiOp and has caused people to talk about fish issues in power system language, he pointed out.
Can we send the recommendations to the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) for review? asked Karier. In previous years, we had in-house technical capability and models to evaluate the recommendations, replied staffer John Shurts. We no longer have modeling capability on the fish side so if the Council wants a more detailed scientific look at the recommendations, we’ll have to contract for that, he said.
The Council’s Power Plan has the notion of a resource portfolio, said staffer Bob Lohn. We have thought about using the analytic skills of our power staff to do the power analysis associated with this and also to do a kind of resource portfolio for mainstem passage, looking at the alternatives, benefits, and maybe the costs, he added.
Ogan pointed out that all the recommendations are now up on the Council’s website. They have also been put on a CD-ROM, and a few hard copies will be available, he said. Public comments on the mainstem plan recommendations are due August 1, Ogan noted. The Council plans to release a draft plan October 18, and we’re driving for adoption of a final mainstem plan in January 2002, he added.
Maia Genaux of Clarkston told the Council the region is in a fish emergency and that "the Snake River from Lewiston on down is nearly dead." The river no longer serves as a functional habitat for fish, she said.
Genaux requested two things. First, please do anything you can to convince Idaho Power to release water from its Hells Canyon dams, she said. The "custody" of Snake River water cannot be held in private, corporate hands any longer, according to Genaux. Water releases from Dworshak can’t solve the problem, she added.
Second, Bonneville, the Corps, irrigators, and the public must not take 100 percent of the Snake water for human use, Genaux stated. Twenty percent of the flow should be used to support the river and its inhabitants, she said. We need to move water past the four lower Snake dams, and the fish need the flows now, Genaux stated. If we can’t maintain the habitat, the dams most likely will have to go, she concluded
4. Update on Methow Valley Irrigation District Project
Fred Ziari, IRZ Consulting; Lynn Hatcher, Fisheries Program Manager, Yakama Nation; and Andy Dunau, Facilitator, Dunau Associates
Andy Dunau, facilitator for the Methow Valley Irrigation District (MVID) project, said his panel of speakers was bringing a "good news report" on a project in Washington that was so contentious last December there was concern "it was falling apart." In January, the MVID, Washington Dept. of Ecology, Bonneville, and Yakama Nation began a facilitation to assist the parties in determining a way to convey water to MVID from the Methow and Twisp rivers while eliminating wasteful water practices and meeting the needs of fisheries, he explained.
Facilitation was agreed to after MVID said it could not support a plan to implement 13 miles of a low-pressure piping system and groundwater wells, according to Dunau. He reported that NMFS had asked for screens to be remeshed in the project area and that has been accomplished. NMFS wanted more stream gages, and they have been installed and are working, Dunau said. We are implementing a series of "on-farm efficiencies" to eliminate wasteful water practices and have put together a water exchange plan, he noted.
In July, we’ll find out if we can bring this project in at or below the original costs, but it looks like we’re on target, Dunau stated. Besides costs, the other outstanding issue is water rights, he said. We need the Council and others to encourage us to get through some difficult processes, Dunau concluded.
Your wisdom in asking us to sit down and take a different approach to the project has had fantastic results, said Fred Ziari of IRZ Consulting. We are doing something that will benefit both the fishery and irrigated agriculture, he added.
I’m amazed how far we’ve come, said Lynn Hatcher, fisheries program manager for the Yakama Nation. This project is working, we appreciate your help, and this is just "a smiley-face, happy update," he stated.
Cassidy asked about minimum instream flows. In this project, we can adjust how much we are taking from each river, replied Dunau. We can use adaptive management and make adjustments with respect to instream flows, he said.
If you complete this, will it satisfy the consent decree that MVID and NMFS signed on flow velocities and management practices? Cassidy asked. We will ask NMFS to endorse our plan, but we don’t know what they will say, replied Dunau.
The Council is trying to push projects into the provincial review process, noted Karier. You are in the Mountain Cascade province, and we hope your timing will fit that review, he said. It’s critical this is not put into that process, responded Hatcher. That could cause a year’s delay that we can’t have due to the court order, he stated. We can’t delay what we are doing, Hatcher said.
When we saw you didn’t have a consensus last time, we voted to fund a facilitator, and that has borne fruit, observed Bloch. It demonstrates the value of facilitation as we go into the subbasin process, he added
5. Presentation by Energy Northwest of Feasibility Study for Completion of Plant #1
Rod Webring, Vice President of Operations Support, Energy Northwest
Rod Webring of Energy Northwest updated the Council on what is being done to set the stage for WNP-1 completion. He said Energy Northwest’s current facilities include:
- the Columbia Generating Station (WNP-2)
- the 27-MW Packwood Lake hydroelectric project, which he said is recognized by the Bonneville Environmental Foundation as one of the three "green" generating resources in the region
- the 50-MW Nine Canyon wind project near Kennewick, which will be online late next spring
- a 600-MW combustion turbine to be built on the former WNP-3 site at Satsop, which Energy Northwest is working on with Duke Energy
- A 50-kilowatt solar power demonstration project, being developed with Bonneville and others on the Hanford Reservation and slated to be in service in the next six to nine months.
We are not advocating the completion of WNP-1; we are in the study phase now, Webring said. In May, Representatives Doc Hastings and George Nethercutt sent us a letter asking us to look at what it would cost to complete WNP-1, he explained, noting that the plant is 65 percent complete now and would produce about 1,250 MW of power.
To illustrate some of the benefits a nuclear plant has over fossil fuels, Webring pointed out that the Columbia Generating Station annually avoids 62,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 5.3 million tons of carbon dioxide, and 28,000 tons of nitrous oxides. Bloch asked about nuclear waste disposal. There is a spent-fuel problem we have to deal with, but we also wanted to call your attention to the positive side of nuclear power, Webring stated.
He said the three main components of the WNP-1 feasibility study are:
- A completion cost and schedule study by Bechtel,
- An independent assessment by R.W. Beck, and
- An independent review team.
Webring noted that Bechtel was the engineering contractor when the plant was mothballed in 1982. The cost and schedule study will: assess the existing plant design for constructability; review equipment condition; look at the nuclear plant licensing process and how it has changed; recommend a project completion approach; and provide comparisons with new nuclear plant designs currently being proposed elsewhere, he said.
The R.W. Beck assessment will review the Bechtel study’s results and Energy Northwest’s costs and financing plans and provide a risk assessment, according to Webring. It will look at market prices and conditions, including the prices of gas and coal over the next 10 to 15 years, and prepare opinions on project feasibility, he said.
The Energy Northwest executive board will charter the independent review team, Webring indicated. It will review all cost, schedule, and financing estimates and the materials produced by the two contractors and report its conclusions to the board, he said. We are looking for a team leader now, Webring noted.
We expect our feasibility study to be done in the fall, and we’ll begin a public process if the results indicate completion is feasible, he said. A private utility may decide to buy the facility and complete it, Webring pointed out.
Do you have all the reactor components? Giacometto asked. Yes, Webring replied. He noted that the new nuclear plant designs that have come out have not been built in the United States. We’ll ask Bechtel to study a plant design that would have maximum energy output, Webring said. We will also include all the expected costs of construction and operation in the cost estimate, including on-site dry-cask storage beyond the 20-year capacity of the spent fuel pool, and all decommissioning and financing costs, he noted.
Karier asked about permitting and the members of the review team. The review team will be like a blue-ribbon panel, replied Webring. The executive board will select the panel from people in the region knowledgeable about power and economics, and it could include academics, retired politicians, and business leaders, he said. We have all the permits in place we need and have applied for an extension of our construction permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Webring said.
Would this draw water from the Columbia? Karier asked. Yes, and the permits are in place for that, replied Webring. Does Bonneville have any obligation to buy power from this plant? Karier asked. The net-billing arrangement has terminated, and there is no future agreement, Webring responded.
Is it Energy Northwest’s decision whether to finish the plant or not? Karier asked. Yes, replied Webring. What’s the Council’s role? Karier asked. Once the study is completed and the public process starts, the Council would be involved as a resource, said Webring. We think the completion is feasible, but costs and schedule are the issues we need to understand more about, he added.
6. Briefing on Federal Hydropower Operations
Steve Wright, CEO, Bonneville Power Administration
Acting Bonneville Administrator Steve Wright told the Council Bonneville is getting close to a big transition, he told the Council. On Friday, Bonneville will announce its new rates, but I want to report to you today that our load reduction program has been "a stunning success," Wright said. We had a goal of 2,400 megawatts (MW), and we hit 2,270 MW -- 95 percent of our goal, he pointed out.
This represents a contractual commitment for a 10 percent reduction in the region’s
load, Wright said. And we did it by Bonneville, the Council, the governors, utilities, industries, and all of us in the region working together, he stated.
We’ve worked through the hydro system operations issues fairly well this year too, Wright reported. We are down to one big issue: what to do about summer spill, he said. One of the key factors is the impact of spill on reliability, and the analysis that’s been done says it’s too close to call -- it’s a judgment call, Wright noted. Other factors are financial impacts associated with spill and its biological effects on listed and non-listed fish, he said.
Only one ESA-listed stock, Snake River fall chinook, will be in the river in the summer spill period, Wright stated. If offsetting measures, such as a deeper summer draft at Dworshak, were taken to mitigate effects to that stock, then the summer spill decision would be more of a Northwest Power Act issue than an ESA issue, he stated. The question, then, is the biological value for non-listed stocks relative to the costs of spill, Wright said.
Power market prices have fallen radically in the last few weeks, from $300/MWh a month ago to about $75, he stated. In light of that, Wright posed these four questions about summer spill to the Council:
- What is the Council’s view of the region’s reliability situation relative to the Federal Agencies’ Operations Plan criteria?
- Would the Council support a deeper summer draft at Dworshak if it provides benefits to ESA-listed stocks that are comparable to or better than lower river spill, given this year’s unique conditions?
- Given the biological analysis of the benefits of various spill levels to non-listed stocks and the cost of spill under current prices, what spill action would the Council recommend?
- Given the biological analysis of the benefits of various spill levels to non-listed stocks and the cost of spill under a $50 market price, what spill action would the Council recommend?
Greg Delwiche of Bonneville said the system spilled 600 MW-months of energy between mid-May and mid-June and that Bonneville still faces water supply uncertainty in making a decision on summer spill. In April, Bonneville designed a summer spill trigger of 59.5 MAF, he noted. The current water supply forecast is for 55.9 MAF, lower than the trigger amount, but load has decreased from
what we thought it would be in April, and as a result, the water supply threshold in our current analysis is 53.7 MAF, Delwiche said. After that figure is adjusted for the spring spill, the summer spill trigger is between 55.2 and 55.8 MAF, he explained.
The current analysis contemplates 600 MW-months of summer spill, if the decision were made to spill, Delwiche said. But there are uncertainties, he stated. The analysis assumes normal temperatures and the restart of WNP-2, Delwiche said, noting that WNP-2 is still offline even though it was supposed to come back online last week.
Delwiche said Bonneville’s financial situation "is fluid" and that the agency would have a new analysis of cash flows and reserves under various scenarios later in the week. He indicated that the current analysis indicates Bonneville would be well within the power emergency financial criteria if there were no additional spill, while 600 MW-months of summer spill would put Bonneville on the boundary of not meeting the financial criteria.
Market prices have dropped dramatically, and that has a huge influence on the value of energy if we spill, Delwiche stated. Assuming market prices a month ago, 600 MW-months of summer spill would be valued at $135 million, but with current prices, the cost would be $33 million, he noted. If market prices dropped to $50, the summer spill cost estimate goes down to $22 million, Delwiche said. He listed two actions with immediate benefits for ESA-listed summer migrants: Dworshak draft below 1,520 feet and increasing the Northern Pikeminnow bounty. Columbia storage drafts and increasing the Pikeminnow bounty would have immediate benefits for other summer migrants, Delwiche said.
Jim Ruff of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) presented an analysis of the effects of 2001 water conditions and alternative summer spill operations on juvenile fish survival through the FCRPS. NMFS analyzed expected survival for both ESA-listed and non-listed juvenile salmon using the Simulated Passage (SIMPAS) spreadsheet model, which was the model used in the 2000 Biological Opinion (BiOp), he said. The study compared fish survival expected from full implementation of the 2000 BiOp, including the NMFS spill program, given likely 2001 water conditions, with juvenile salmon survival expected from three alternative spill operations, as well as a no-spill alternative, Ruff explained.
Our analysis shows that in-river survival rates for summer migrating fish in 2001 would be much lower than the survival rates projected in the 2000 BiOp because of the extreme low-flow conditions, Ruff said. Low flows prolong the migration time through the reservoirs, increasing the exposure of juvenile salmon to predation and higher water temperatures, and high temperatures increase the susceptibility of salmon to disease, he explained.
If spill operations are reduced from BiOp levels, in-river survival rates of listed Snake River fall chinook would be lower by over 1 to nearly 7 percent, depending on the amount of spill reduction, compared to survival under BiOp spill levels, Ruff said. If summer spill is eliminated, in-river survival would be reduced by 16 to17 percent, he stated.
For Hanford Reach fall chinook, a non-listed stock, in-river survival rates would drop 1 to 4 percent under the reduced spill operations, and 14 percent if no spill were provided, Ruff continued. In-river survival for Deschutes River fall chinook, a non-listed summer migrating stock, would go down 1 percent under the reduced spill operations and 11 percent with no spill, he said. For Umatilla fall chinook, in-river survival would be 1 to 2 percent lower under the spill alternatives and 14 percent lower with no spill, according to Ruff.
Based on total system survival (transported and in-river, including some delayed effects of transportation), there is little difference among any of the alternative spill operations for Snake River fall chinook, he said. That’s because the fish that survive to Lower Granite Dam will be transported by barge, and that affects system survival estimates, Ruff noted.
NMFS wants to see actions taken to offset the impacts of reducing summer spill, he said. NMFS estimates that deeper drafts of Dworshak this summer would result in a 5 to 6 percent survival improvement for Snake River fall chinook, Ruff added.
Eric Bloch asked about mortality associated with migration delays at dams caused by lack of spill. It’s not easy to quantify the decrease in survival, but some research shows delays in passing dams in the no-spill condition, Ruff replied.
I’ve read spill reduction is helping the migration of adults, commented Tom Karier. At the BiOp and reduced levels of spill, NMFS expects little or no effect on adults, replied Ruff, adding that adult fish are moving through the system well this year.
I know Idaho Power’s concerns with respect to spill and that the company would expect compensation in real-time dollars for spill, said Jim Kempton. Bonneville had a shaping contract with Idaho Power from 1996 to 2000 that said if Idaho Power had to spill when the federal agencies wanted more water from Hells Canyon, Bonneville would return the energy, said Delwiche. The goal of the agreement was to make Idaho Power whole, he added. That agreement has expired, and NMFS is in active consultation with FERC about the operation of the Hells Canyon complex, Delwiche noted. Bonneville hasn’t pursued a new contract with Idaho Power because of that, he added. Ruff pointed out NMFS is no longer a party to those license talks and said they "are being held at the highest levels in Washington, D.C."
If Bonneville could pay Idaho Power for shaping, why isn’t that an essential component of spill before we consider drawing down Dworshak? Kempton asked. We’re not in the licensing discussions, and we have to make decisions on spill soon, said Wright. The primary survival consideration with Dworshak is water temperature, noted Delwiche. It’s not a Brownlee versus Dworshak choice, he said, adding that Brownlee water is quite warm. Isn’t there also a problem with Dworshak water? Kempton asked. The cooler water can sink in the Lower Granite pool, and once it goes through the powerhouse, it’s mixed in with other water as it goes downstream, said Ruff. He said the drawdown could be done without violating water quality standards.
We’re pleased with your efforts to reduce demand and rates, Leo Giacometto told Wright. But demand reduction also goes back to job and business losses, he said. We want to see the Columbia Falls plant back up and running, and we want to see jobs and economic development increase, Giacometto stated. The load reduction strategy is a short-term strategy, and like the addition of diesel generators, it makes sense in a crisis, Wright responded. But they are no substitute for a long-term strategy for infrastructure investment in the region, he said.
I’ve been asked, Wright noted, "is it your goal to execute the aluminum industry?" The answer is no, he said. For the post-2006 period, Bonneville is encouraging the DSIs to develop their own resources so they can move off Bonneville’s system -- that’s part of the long-term plan, Wright stated. You should start airing that long-term plan, Giacometto advised.
What impacts on reliability and recreation does a deeper draft at Dworshak have? Larry Cassidy asked. There’s an 80-foot draft in the summer, and we are discussing drawing it down 20 to 30 feet more, Delwiche replied. We’d have less water in the reservoir going into the winter, and we’d have to offset the draft with Canadian water for reliability, he added. As for recreation, I don’t know if it takes more boat ramps out of service, Delwiche said. We would be going from an 80 percent to a 70 percent probability of the reservoir being full next April for spring flows, he added.
Where does the spill exchange agreement with the Mid-Columbias stand? Cassidy asked. Grant PUD has been reserved about whether to use it due to tribal opposition so our analysis doesn’t assume it, replied Wright.
You’ve laid out two alternatives, drafting Dworshak and buying power out of the region -- can you talk more about them? asked Karier. To have the temperature and survival benefits, we need 200 to 300 MW-months of spill at Dworshak, Delwiche said. We are looking at releases from Dworshak as a means to provide benefits for ESA-listed stocks that are comparable to or better than lower river spill, he noted. As for purchases, we’ve made some to cover the week WNP-2 was down when we expected it to be online, and there has been energy to buy at night and on weekends, Delwiche said. There may be less available when temperatures rise this summer, he added.
It’s hard for the Idaho delegation to support drawdown of Dworshak below 1,520 feet, given the discussions we had in the spring about releasing water, said Kempton. It’s a chain of events that has occurred because federal agencies aren’t coordinating with other federal agencies, he stated. NMFS supports spill in the lower river for non-listed stocks, and there’s no consensus among the federal agencies on that, replied Wright. We’ll be discussing it with the tribes and federal agencies, he said.
Staffer Dick Watson said not much has changed in the staff analysis since he last briefed the Council. There’s been further load reduction on the system and spill has been reduced at the mid-Columbias, he said. On the other hand, with lower market prices, diesel generators that were in our analysis are getting "priced out of the regime," so that’s about a 1,500 MW loss, Watson noted. But when you add these things up, it’s about where we were a few weeks ago, he said.
We’re not on a "knife edge" with power supply, it’s more like "a rounded pivot," Watson stated. There’s a fair degree of imprecision in this analysis, he added. We don’t have all the conservation in the analysis yet, and lower market prices imply there is supply in the system, Watson said. On the other side are questions like how long WNP-2 is going to stay down, and what if industrial loads come back on in response to lower energy prices, he noted.
When Bonneville’s wholesale rate comes in, there’s the question of whether it will mean more conservation or if those savings are already reflected in the analysis, Watson said. We’d like to be clear and unambiguous on the reliability and supply issues, but these spill questions are a policy call that you’ll have to make, he told the Council.
7. Council Decision on Recommendations Regarding Summer Spill
Dick Watson, Director, Power Division; Bruce Suzumoto, manager, Special projects; and Jim Ruff, national marine Fisheries Service
Turning to the first question posed by Bonneville, Cassidy pointed out that the Council passed a policy on spring spill in March. He suggested the Council use that as a cornerstone to address the summer issues. The Council has emphasized that we shouldn’t decrease reliability, and if there is flexibility above that, Bonneville could act in certain ways, said Karier. "The reliability issue continues to be front and center," he noted. What we saw today in the NMFS analysis is that any spill in excess of 200 MW-months has very little biological benefit, Karier said.
Stan Grace said he is concerned about the effect of the request to draft Dworshak on reservoir refill. Our current spill policy leaves some questions unanswered, said Bloch. We haven’t defined the "appropriate level of electrical reliability" or formally adopted the staff’s power analysis, he added. If we can spill a little and add a 3 percent risk of load loss, while providing a 3 percent value to fish, that’s an issue we need to face, Bloch said.
We’re trying to address what the Council’s view of the regional reliability situation is, said Cassidy. With respect to summer reliability, our analysis says we’re okay for the summer under the current runoff forecasts, stated Watson. The question is how much can you store for next winter, he said. The 1,500 MW-month storage target was arrived at because going any further didn’t seem to give us any more reliability, Watson added.
The Council’s position is clear, said Kempton. If streamflows improve, maybe there could be spill, but we aren’t there now, he noted. Spill could come about if there were an agreement with Idaho Power to get the spill and the utility could be paid for shaping that power, Kempton said. I don’t see where we can get additional storage, I don’t favor drawing down Dworshak, and I don’t see where extra spill can come from, he stated.
There are lots of unknowns, but the Council can provide a principle, said Karier. He made a motion to amend the existing spill policy to say "the summer operating plan should not decrease the currently forecast level of electrical reliability." Giacometto seconded, saying the motion covers reliability as well as fish. If we try to do good for fish this year, we may not have any water to help fish next year, he stated.
What is the percentage range of reliability we are talking about here? Kempton asked. Slightly under 12 percent across the winter, replied Watson. Kempton moved to amend the motion to say the "loss of load probability would remain in the range of 12 percent as forecast by the Council." Grace seconded. Our old study showed 24 percent, and now we are saying 12 percent, said John Brogoitti. The industry standard is 5 percent, said Grace. What makes me skittish is now we’re saying the Council says 12 percent is acceptable, Giacometto said.
When we redo our analysis in a month, who knows where the probability will be, noted staffer John Fazio. He recommended not stating a percentage in the policy. We are talking about what is an acceptable level of reliability for this year as a cutpoint to provide some benefits for fish, stated Bloch. It’s a question of how much risk to the power system we’re willing to accept, and it’s a marginal increase in the risk of loss of load to benefit unlisted stocks, he said. The Council alone has the statutory authority to care about these fish, and if we don’t, no one does, Bloch stated. We’re not talking about "if we spill, the lights go out," he added.
We are also charged with assuring an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply, said Grace. In the good water years, we’ve erred on the side of fish, he stated. Maybe fish have to take a backseat to the needs of humanity in this unusual year, Grace said. Kempton withdrew his motion.
In this motion, we’re encouraging creative endeavors that could improve conditions for fish without impairing reliability, Karier stated. The motion’s intent is to say, don’t do any more harm to reliability or the BiOp levels for next year, said Giacometto. It says, do what you have to do, but don’t make it worse than it is today, and that’s why I support the motion, he stated.
Karier’s motion, affirming the existing spill policy and adding "The summer operating plan should not decrease the currently forecast level of electrical reliability" passed on a 6-2 vote. Bloch and Kempton voted no.
The Council moved on to the next question from Bonneville involving deeper summer draft at Dworshak. What we just passed answers that, Karier said. This is too much detail -- these are implementation questions, he added. There’s value to being more specific with respect to the fourth question, suggested Bloch.
I need more information to make a decision about Dworshak, said Cassidy. You can’t spill at Dworshak without lowering reliability, said Grace. If we kick these three questions back to Bonneville, I want it clear that Idaho doesn’t support the Dworshak drawdown provision, Kempton stated.
Bloch made a motion to recommend to Bonneville that if the cost of spill is under a $50 market price, that Bonneville make the power purchases necessary to allow for limited spill this summer, and Brogoitti seconded.
Is a $50 market price a condition for the action to take place? Kempton asked. The figure is intended to suggest a certain level that the Administrator is seeking guidance on, said Bloch. We could say "approximately," he added. Watson suggested saying spill that could be done "without violating Bonneville’s financial health criteria."
I’m against this, said Giacometto. Bonneville doesn’t need to "use the Council as a cover" for it to go out and make purchases, he stated. If Bonneville can justify it, they can buy it, and anything Bonneville buys increases rates, Giacometto said. We may maintain reliability, but increase ratepayer costs, added Kempton.
We’ve dealt with the reliability issue, said Karier. If we could improve the survival of four major stocks by 9 to 10 percent for $7 million, we’d jump at the chance to do that, he added. But we don’t know how the spill will match the timing of the migration, said Grace. Bloch withdrew the earlier motion and offered a replacement that says "Bonneville should purchase spill this summer if it is consistent with Bonneville’s established financial criteria and the currently forecast level of electrical reliability." Brogoitti seconded. The motion passed on a 5-3 vote. Giacometto, Grace, and Judi Danielson voted no.
Later Kempton moved that the Council formally indicate it does not support a deeper summer draft at Dworshak, and Danielson seconded. We haven’t had any biological analysis of this, and state fish managers haven’t had a chance to comment on it, said Bloch.
The Council is on record against a drawdown if it impairs reliability, noted Karier. What’s the problem with it if it doesn’t? he asked. Idaho simply cannot support additional spill from Dworshak beyond BiOp levels, Kempton stated. Part of it has to do with refill considerations, and we would need additional information about what benefits it would provide, he said. This proposal could threaten water for fish stocks next year, added Danielson. We can’t give up any option that might be available to help fish, said Bloch.
The motion failed on a 4-4 vote, with Idaho and Montana voting yes.
8. Update on Northeast Oregon Hatchery Proposal
Mark Fritsch, Fish Production Coordinator; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Nez Perce Tribe Fish and Wildlife staff.
Jaime Pinkham, fisheries manager for the Nez Perce Tribe, explained that when the Council approved the master plan for the Northeast Oregon Hatchery (NEOH) for spring chinook salmon populations in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Rivers last September, the ISRP and the Council asked for several issues to be resolved prior to the project’s submitting plans for Step 2 preliminary design work. Becky Ashe, the project leader, described its history and went over responses to each of the issues raised by the ISRP.
The Council asked that the co-managers develop an MOU outlining their respective responsibilities and identifying relationships between NEOH and the facilities and goals developed for the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) program, she noted. We are resolving those issues and will have a series of options for you to review when you get the Step 2 proposal, Roy Sampsel of CRITFC told the Council. A major policy issue is how to deal with the new capital costs related to retrofitting existing facilities, he noted.
Mort McMillen of Montgomery Watson explained what the Council will be asked to approve for funding in the Step 2 proposal to be submitted in August. He said the total program capital cost would be about $22.2 million.
The history of this project has been "long and tortured," commented Bloch. In the past year, we’ve gotten back on track and you are demonstrating progress, he said. Do you have a strategy for seeking other funding besides Bonneville dollars for repairs at the existing facilities? Bloch asked. There are some funding options, and we’ll have them fleshed out for you with the Step 2 submission, replied Sampsel.
9. Presentation on Integration of Cultural Resources with Fish and Wildlife Projects
Adeline Fredin, Coville Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Brent Hicks, an archeologist for the Colvilles, said the tribes’ heritage in the form of cultural resources has been decimated by many things, including federal and state agency F&W programs. The Council’s review of proposed F&W projects does not consider impacts on cultural resources, but it should, he said. Hicks suggested the costs of not complying with laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act can be considerable. If the costs of compliance are not included in Council-recommended projects to Bonneville, the costs aren’t realistic, he stated.
It is inevitable that F&W projects will encounter cultural resources since many projects are along streams, Hicks said. It’s cheaper to include cultural resource compliance costs in proposals than it is to have the issue arise after the fact, he advised. Hicks offered the services of the Colville Tribal historic preservation office to help the Council gain a better understanding of the issue.
Bloch asked whether Bonneville does a review for each F&W project under the National Historic Preservation Act. If each project is looked at alone, that is "segmenting" and fails to consider the effects of all the projects as a whole, replied Hicks.
10. Briefing on Technical Recovery Team Process
Elizabeth Gaar, National Marine Fisheries Service
Elizabeth Gaar of NMFS, in a briefing on NMFS’ recovery plan requirements and approach, said NMFS will be setting up a Technical Recovery Team (TRT) to work on integrating recovery and subbasin planning. Under the FCRPS BiOp requirements, NMFS needs to have Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)-wide recovery strategies in place by 2003, she pointed out. The BiOp recognizes reliance on off-site mitigation such as subbasin planning, Gaar said.
She explained that in Phase I of recovery planning, the TRT would develop goals, and in Phase II, NMFS would have a Policy Forum with TRT input to refine the goals and define measures to meet the goals. The TRT will identify and characterize populations, identify measurable goals for viable populations, do habitat assessments, and look at "ESU viability" and "factors for decline," according to Gaar.
How does this fit with subbasin planning? she asked. The answer is "there’s a lot of overlap, and that’s by design on our part," Gaar replied. We’ve been trying to structure integration and overlap as much as possible, she said.
Why do we need a TRT? Gaar asked. Because we need one body of scientists who will take a consistent look at populations and ESUs in the provinces, she said. The TRT needs to interact with the experts in the subbasins and work with them on subbasin assessments and plans for monitoring and evaluation, Gaar stated. She provided a graphic titled "subbasin planning overview," which she said shows how the technical and policy work of the Council, NMFS, and local subbasin groups can fit together.
So the TRT will "scratch a particular itch" relating to the ESA, and NMFS will feed that technical information into the subbasin planning process? asked Bloch. Yes, that’s the only way it can work, replied Gaar.
How do we avoid the scenario of dueling scientists? asked Kempton, referring to the TRT and the ISRP. Each will have specific tasks, and their work will be complementary, replied Gaar. The ISRP helps the Council make project decisions, and the TRT identifies populations, characterizes them, and develops goals for them, she said. TRT products will be heavily peer-reviewed and be developed with subbasin planning groups, according to Gaar. There will be different regional processes because each state has different laws and will take different actions, she said. The salmon recovery boards in the states could put the pieces together, Gaar suggested.
NMFS should have developed these goals a long time ago, commented Cassidy. We should have done it nine or 10 years ago, Gaar agreed. The information you need is technical, and I don’t see how that works with the bottom-up watershed groups, said Cassidy. You are superimposing an additional process on what’s going on -- how will the two processes comport? he asked. The TRT needs to be closely aligned with the fish managers in the subbasin and we’d like TRT members to work with local committees, Gaar replied. The TRT won’t decide what site-specific actions will be taken, she added.
Danielson asked what NMFS means when it says the TRT will use "policy input" to develop goals. With respect to recovery goals, there may be a bottom line to avoid a stock going extinct, but the policy question is what does society want beyond what is needed for harvestable surpluses and treaty goals, Gaar replied.
How many people will be on the TRT? Danielson asked. It’ll be 10-12 members, Gaar replied. Some states have asked for more time to make nominations, and that's okay with us, she said.
This looks like a costly endeavor, observed Danielson. Is it funded by a special appropriation from Congress? she asked. Funding was written into the BiOp, and Bonneville and the Corps will fund TRT products, Gaar replied.
Are you saying you are setting recovery levels that will include harvestable surpluses? Will you put that out to the region for discussion? Bloch asked. The TRT will identify bottom-line delisting criteria under the ESA, and we’ll work with tribes to see what is needed to meet trust obligations for tribal harvest, Gaar replied. Beyond that, it’s less clear because decisions about commercial and recreational harvests are societal decisions and values, she said.
We don’t need to bog down with scientific assessments that are already done, Karier said. The quantitative recovery goals are conspicuously absent, and I’d like to see someone from NFMS spell them out, he continued. We’d like those instead of year-long processes that may come up with them, Karier said. Because we don’t have goals, that’s why so little has begun, he added. The timeline calls for the TRT to have the recovery goals in place by 2003, Gaar responded. Looking at the Council schedule for the next round of provincial reviews, we’re not that far off your schedule, she said. That’s like saying "you are right on time for the train, but you missed the first five trains," responded Karier. We could have used the goals much earlier, he stated.
What will the TRT process cost? Cassidy asked. About $800,000, and NMFS is providing a quarter of a million, Gaar replied. I hope there is not a bias toward process with this, but instead a bias toward active management and getting to the end result, said Danielson.
11. Council Decision on Within-Year Funding Requests, Including Chumstick Project
Bob Lohn; Mark Fritsch and Doug Marker
Lohn said the Fish Committee recommends deferring action on funding the Chumstick Creek Culvert Fish Barrier Replacement Project in the Wenatchee subbasin until the provincial review begins in July. He also recommended deferring action on an $89,670 project for aerial surveys in the Salmon River to estimate spawning levels of listed spring chinook salmon. The Council agreed with his recommendations.
Decision – Fund PIT Tag Detectors
A project to install adult PIT tag detectors at mainstem dams to track returning adults has become ready earlier than expected, Lohn said.
It will provide an additional year of data if we fund it now, he noted. Bloch moved to approve $759,000 for the budget, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
The Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife has asked that funds be restored to CBFWA to complete subbasin summaries, Lohn said. Bloch moved that $35,901 be restored for that purpose, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
12. Council Decision on Appointment of Members for Artificial Production Advisory Committee
Bruce Suzumoto
Bloch moved to name Brian Allee of CBFWA, Bill Wiles of the Upper Columbia United Tribes, and Ian Flemming of Oregon State University to the Artificial Production Advisory Committee. Giacometto seconded, and the motion passes unanimously.
13. Council Business
Bloch moved to approve the minutes of the May 11 and May 16 Council meetings. Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed.
Approved August 7, 2001.
__________________________________
Vice-Chairman