 |
Meeting Minutes |
 |
|
Council Meeting Minutes
Vancouver, WA
January 15-16, 2002
The meeting began at 8:10 am on Wed. January 15, 2002, and ended at 4:15 pm that same day.
On Tuesday afternoon, the Council’s Executive Committee met in executive session to discuss matters protectible under the internal personnel rules and practices exemption. The committee found that Council business required consideration of these matters and that no earlier notice was possible.
1. Briefing on 2001 Salmon and Steelhead Harvest and Adult Returns
Cindy Lefleur, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; and Mike Matylewich, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
Upriver spring chinook returns to the Columbia River took a strong upturn in 2001, with 417,000 fish returning, and 333,700 forecast to do so this year, Mike Matylewich of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission told the Council in a briefing on salmon and steelhead harvest and adult returns. Snake River wild spring chinook returns to the Columbia were “healthy” in 2001, with the final figures not yet published, and 50,500 returns are projected for 2002, he said.
We are expecting returns of 5,100 Upper Columbia wild spring chinook in 2002, stronger than what we’ve had in the past, Matylewich reported. He explained that an interim management agreement for upriver spring chinook, signed in 2001, provides harvest rates from 5.5 percent to 17 percent, depending on fish abundance.
The total harvest rate for upriver spring chinook in 2001 was 14.6 percent, of which 1.5 percent was non-Indian harvest, and 13.1 percent was Treaty Indian harvest, according to Matylewich. In 2002, with runs expected to be lower, the estimate is for 14 percent harvest, 2 percent non-Indian and 12 percent Treaty Indian, he said.
Cindy Lefleur of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) reported that the spring chinook sport fishery, using selective gear, harvested 25,700 spring chinook, with impacts to listed fish at less than 1 percent. There was a successful test of commercial fishery selective gear in 2001, and we expect the full non-Treaty fleet will use the gear in 2002, she said. Will it be used in the Treaty harvest? Karier asked. No, Lefleur replied.
Lefleur reported on other returns and projections, noting that summer chinook returns to the Columbia in 2001 were 74,000, with 77,700 forecast for 2002. Snake River wild summer chinook returns in 2002 are projected to be 6,600, she pointed out.
Sockeye returns last year were 116,000, with a drop to 39,900 forecast for 2002, according to Lefleur. The numbers aren’t out for 2001 fall chinook returns, but we guess it’s a little over 500,000, she said. 2002 projections indicate returns of about 600,000, Lefleur added.
Last year’s coho returns of just under 1 million were the best since 1986, she reported. It will be worse in 2002, Lefleur said, predicting returns of less than 500,000.
There was a real jump in chum returns to the Columbia in 2001, she stated, adding that the numbers aren’t in, but it looks like between 5,000 and 10,000 returns. And summer steelhead turned in a record return at over 600,000, the highest number since Bonneville Dam was built, Lefleur said. In 2002, more than 447,800 summer steelhead returns are projected, she added. Wild upriver summer steelhead returns were 150,000 in 2001, “the largest return in our data base,” and the 2002 forecast is for returns of 126,600, Lefleur noted.
Do we have program or location-specific data on returns directly attributable to supplementation programs? Bloch asked. A lot of the data are location-specific, and the U.S. v. Oregon parties have put in a lot of effort trying to work with the Snake River fish and that seems to have been successful, replied Matylewich. But it takes a great deal of work to sort through the data and see which returns relate to supplementation and which don’t, he said.
Cassidy said WDFW has told him there are tremendous winter steelhead returns in southwest Washington and elsewhere in the state. That’s really encouraging, he added.
How much do we know about what happened to hatchery fish in 2001 and 2002? How many of them spawned in the wild, and when will we know? asked Rob Walton of the Public Power Council. It’s not an easy answer -- it depends on what area you are looking at in the Columbia Basin, replied Lefleur. We don’t know how many spawned in the wild, she said. We have red count information, but determining which are hatchery fish and which are wild fish is a difficult step, stated Lefleur. Both Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and WDFW are taking a new posture on excess hatchery fish, noted Cassidy. But everyone’s thinking about the issue you raised, he told Walton.
With the increased use of tangle nets in the commercial fishery, you decrease the number of wild and ESA fish harvested, but what happens then? Do fishermen keep more fish because there is less impact on the listed fish? Karier asked. Yes, we expect there will be more harvest due to the selectivity of the gear, replied Lefleur. So the impact on wild fish stays the same, but the impact on hatchery fish goes up? Karier asked. At least for the term of this harvest management agreement, replied Lefleur. Does the tribal harvest remain the same? Karier asked. Yes, Matylewich answered.
2. Council Decision on Council Comments on the Endangered Species Act 2002 Implementation Plan for the Federal Columbia River Power System
Doug Marker, Director Fish and Wildlife Division
Marker presented a draft comment letter to Bonneville, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Corps on their “one-year” plan for implementing the 2000 BiOp for the Columbia River power system. He said the letter stems from the Council’s continuing effort to integrate its F&W program with implementation of the BiOp. The letter, according to Marker, acknowledges improvements have been made in coordination, but also identifies remaining concerns. One is that too much implementation planning has taken place in federal-agency-only forums, he said.
In its remaining provincial reviews, the Council seeks to have “the clearest definition of BiOp implementation needs” before it makes final funding recommendations, Marker stated. He pointed out that the Council agreed to delay the mainstem project solicitation by a month in order to increase coordination with the federal agencies.
The Council is concerned the one-year plan is vague about funding sources for RPAs assigned to the Bureau and Corps, particularly for off-site mitigation, Marker said. According to the letter, the vagueness “leads to the expectation Bonneville could be left as the only funding source for the significant scope of measures that should be funded with federal appropriations.” Bonneville could become the funding source by default if there isn’t specificity about who the funding authority for BiOp implementation is, Marker stated.
I like the letter, especially its emphasis on the need for coordination, said Danielson. It would be good to have more attention put on federal funding outside of Bonneville, she added. Bloch moved to approve the Council’s comments, Bartlett seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Marker explained that staff had drafted a letter to NMFS seeking to confirm that the agency will use subbasin plans for ESA purposes and asking NMFS whether the documents the Council proposes to give to communities developing subbasin plans are adequate. The letter says the Council “expects that participation by local entities in the subbasin planning process will, to a significant extent, depend upon whether those local entities believe NMFS will consider and use the plans to address ESA requirements.”
Kempton expressed concern about the letter. He called it “a premature request” because subbasin plans haven’t been developed yet and will be different in different states. Kempton suggested each state needs to have an interface with NMFS. This is simply our way of passing along information to subbasin planners, said Bloch. If you are doing a subbasin plan in an area with ESA stocks, and your goal is to achieve regional compliance, we are saying here is the guidance NMFS has provided, he stated. If you don’t have listed stocks, or “aren’t trying to ring that particular ESA bell, okay; but if you are, this would be useful information,” Bloch said.
We’ve turned subbasin planning over to the states, responded Kempton. Sending a letter to the states suggesting they make the contact with NMFS is appropriate; for us to make it, is not, he said. I think it’s appropriate to find out what NMFS has to say, Cassidy stated.
Not to send this letter would suggest the Council has no interest in whether these plans are even capable of meeting the ESA, said Bloch. If we ask for the guidance and get the wrong answer, what’s the worst-case scenario? Danielson inquired. That would be the most useful piece of information we could get from the letter -- we are talking about $15 million of public money, stated Cassidy. So the worst case would be not sending the letter, said Bloch.
Anyone else not wanting to send the letter besides Jim? Cassidy asked the Council. After receiving no response, Cassidy said “it’s going to go.”
3. Briefing and Discussion on Alternative Project Selection Process Paper
Doug Marker; and John Ogan, Senior Counsel
Kempton and Bloch presented a proposal to change the way the Council does F&W project reviews. Cassidy called it “a strawman being introduced to the public today.” The main purpose of the revision is to have the states and tribes develop priorities among the proposed projects in whatever province is under review. It’s a way to get away from the “broad-band submission of projects without specificity” in favor of a way to identify specific, highest priority projects, Kempton stated. Under the proposal, interaction between the various project sponsors and the Council would lessen, and states and tribes would instead work with project sponsors in developing projects, he said. States and tribes would shape the package of projects submitted to the Council for its F&W program and the off-site mitigation provisions of the BiOp, according to Kempton.
A second purpose of the proposal is to describe how NMFS and Bonneville could, and should, participate early in each provincial review process, he explained. It’s a way to remedy the BiOp credit issue by front-loading the federal agency involvement, Kempton said.
The proposal recognizes the need to get federal input on the table sooner than the current process allows, since it has become clear there is going to be greater integration between the BiOp and F&W program implementation, Bloch stated. Also, since the Council has moved to rolling provincial reviews for F&W projects, we questioned whether it makes sense to have all the basin’s F&W managers making decisions on project priorities for a province, he said. In other words, “given the small geographic area of a province, do we need everyone around the table,” Bloch stated. Instead, we propose to bring together those with authority and responsibility for F&W in a province and let them determine what the priorities really are, he said.
I would like to see an in-depth staff analysis of this proposal, stated Bartlett. The question is, “what are we fixing, and does this fix it? How far does this proposal take us from the status quo?” he said. One reaction I’ve heard, Bartlett added, is that “the Council should set the priorities,” and this document could be interpreted as “giving that responsibility to someone else.” The Council won’t be “rubberstamping” priorities, responded Bloch. But we are trying to find a way to get “good, focused input” from the people who are working on the ground, he said.
I like a lot of this proposal, stated Karier. The concept of early federal input is something we’ve sought for quite a while, he said. This is “a big important document,” and “from this point forward, it’s in play,” stated Cassidy.
Kempton suggested internal review and revision of the document so it is ready by the next meeting for a Council decision on releasing it for public comment.
4. Presentation on the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s Review of Project Proposals in the Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provinces
Dr. Rick Williams, Chair, ISRP
Dr. Rick Williams of the ISRP said the panel reviewed 142 F&W project proposals from the two provinces, the Mountain Snake in Idaho and the Blue Mountain in Oregon. The proposals being submitted are getting better, but there are some continuing problem areas, such as not enough reporting of past accomplishments, he said.
In the two provinces, the ISRP rated 40 percent of the projects submitted “fundable,” and 25 percent with some part fundable; the costs of those projects are way beyond the available funding, Williams stated. He listed several programmatic issues the ISRP raised in its review.
The first is stock assessment (counting fish). There’s a lack of consensus in the region over uniform stock assessment protocol, yet stock inventory is key to management decisions on the appropriate tools for recovery, Williams said. Second, there’s no real agreement on a uniform approach to watershed assessment and analysis, he stated.
Third is the question of land and habitat acquisition. The Salish-Kootenai Tribes’ habitat acquisition and restoration plan on the Flathead River could serve as a useful model for other proposals, Williams suggested.
Supplementation is another key programmatic issue, he noted. The Basin’s large investment doesn’t add up to a coherent test of major hypotheses about supplementation, Williams said. The ISRP thinks that a larger experimental framework is needed, linking all the supplementation programs in the basin in a way that could test major hypotheses and reduce uncertainties, he pointed out.
The ISRP report seems to have a bias toward planning and research versus on-the-ground work, Danielson stated. Land managers have always said, “don’t do more planning, just give us the money and we’ll get going,” replied Williams. But some things we thought were good for stream restoration in the past have turned out not to work, he said. We need quality monitoring and evaluation to see why things work, Williams added.
You are saying we don’t have a basinwide program to tell us how supplementation programs are working together, said Bloch. I’m concerned about that because of the costs of supplementation, he stated. Supplementation is a highly significant issue, and we need to get some experiments under way to answer the questions about it, Bloch commented.
5. Update on Schedule for Next Power Plan
Dick Watson, Director, Power Division
We are starting on “the forced march” to revise our Power Plan, Watson told the Council. The process is expected to take about 18 months, wrapping up by September of 2003, he said. The development of the Plan gives the Council an opportunity to engage the region on important policy issues affecting the ability to assure an adequate, efficient, economic, and reliable power supply, and the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of F&W resources, Watson noted.
Stage 1 of the plan’s development involves assembling basic information on fuel price and demand forecasts and a profile of the region’s resource characteristics, as well as the identification of key policy issues, he said. In Stage 2, we will assess conservation potential and evaluate resource strategies against alternative scenarios for demand, fuel prices, volatility, and environmental regulation, according to Watson. The metrics we’ll look at are system costs, reliability, prices, and environmental measures, he added.
Stage 2 is “where the heavy lifting takes place,” Watson said. Most of the information we have on how electricity is used is outdated, he noted. One thing we’ll concentrate on is getting data on how the commercial sector uses electricity and the potential there for savings, Watson indicated. We are hoping to get funding for this fieldwork, but if we can’t, we’ll have to “conjure up the numbers” one way or another, he said.
We intend to put out issue papers on our electricity price forecast and on the main policy issues associated with the plan, Watson noted. He said he expects the draft plan to go out for public review in May 2003.
Our Power Plan has emerged as the leading document on what’s happening, observed Cassidy. We’ll raise a lot of key questions in the plan, such as the relationship between new generation and transmission, and how to ensure we are not headed toward another energy crisis, said Karier.
It seems like Stage 1, the inputs, will be done 15 or 16 months before we deliver the plan, stated Bloch. What if things change six months after the resource assessment is done -- how do we correct for that? he asked. The forecast is likely going to be wrong, replied Watson. We recognize there’s uncertainty, and that’s why we look at several different demand scenarios, he said.
6. Briefing on Net Pen Transportation Project
William Strong, Fred Simmons and George Kiepke
William Strong, Fred Simmons, and George Kiepke, Washington state residents, made a presentation on using floating net pens to transport juvenile salmon in the Columbia River, arguing that their proposal would reduce many of the problems that affect the migration of salmon smolt downriver to the ocean. Kiepke said the potential for improved survival of salmon barged in net pens is thought to be substantial.
He explained the project would involve the release of four brood years of PIT-tagged spring chinook smolt from a Washington hatchery. A net pen barge with four compartments for separate nets has been designed to transport the fish, Kiepke noted. He added that it’s not a barge, it’s a “skeleton float” with a rigid bow, while the rest of the structure is “open like a skeleton” to allow free flows of water.
Our project would simulate the natural migration pattern of smolt and in the net pens, the fish will be in continuous circulation of river water, Kiepke stated. The floating net pen project will monitor, feed, and protect salmon smolt through the most sensitive stages of the life cycle, and we believe we’ll be able to deliver a healthier smolt to the ocean, he said.
We could use the commercial fishing fleet, which is in desperate need of work, on this project, Kiepke suggested. Cassidy explained the Council’s upcoming project solicitations under which the proposal could compete for funding.
Danielson asked about mortality that had occurred in their previous tests of the net pen system. The mortality in the Youngs Bay enhancement program was considerably less than it is with the current fish transportation program, Kiepke replied, explaining that the mortality that did occur was attributed to the smolt being delivered by truck.
What are the costs and benefits between using barges or net pens? Karier asked. This provides a more natural migration pattern than barging, fish confinement is not as extreme, and some say the current barging system adds more stress on the fish, Kiepke replied. We are not trying to replace the current barging system, we’re trying to enhance it, said Strong.
7. Council Decision on Conservation Power Plant Issue Paper- Council Document 2001-26
Dick Watson
Last fall the Council released the issue paper, “An Efficiency Power Plant -- An Interim Goal for the Northwest,” which staffer Dick Watson said was motivated by the observation that utility investment in efficiency has followed a “roller-coaster” path: investing at levels below cost-effective rates of acquisition when power costs are low and instituting “crash programs” when prices are high. The next Power Plan will address how to achieve a sustained regional investment in efficiency, but in the meantime, staff has proposed an interim regional efficiency target of 100 average megawatts (aMW) per year for the next three years, the rough equivalent of the output of a large combined-cycle combustion turbine, he said.
The Council received a lot of comment on the issue paper, most of it positive, but some along the lines of “we don’t like you telling us what to do,” Watson reported. He went over criticisms from the Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities (ICNU), for example, their comment that the target level is too high and does not take into account consumer-initiated conservation. Watson said concerns about the target being too high do not seem warranted, given there is ample conservation potential available at below 2.0 cents per KWh to achieve the 300 aMW “power plant” goal over three years. Since the region’s utilities undershot the Council’s targets by about half in four out of the past five years, it is unlikely we have used up this potential since the Fourth Power Plan’s estimates were developed, he added.
The staff proposal, according to Watson, is for the Council to: adopt an interim conservation goal of 100 aMW per year for three years; encourage regional utilities, conservation administrators, and direct access customers to voluntarily do “their share” of energy efficiency based on their share of regional load; and track regional conservation budgets and accomplishments and report annually. Karier said the Power Four strongly supports the proposal.
Bloch moved that the Council adopt an interim conservation goal of 100 aMW per year for three years; encourage regional utilities, conservation administrators, and direct access customers to pursue their share of energy efficiency; direct the staff to track regional conservation efforts and accomplishments and report annually; and stand ready to revise the conservation target, should analysis or tracking data so suggest. Karier seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
8. Council Decision on Letter Supporting Extension of the Production Tax Credit for Renewable Resources
Jeff King, Senior Resource Analyst
Staffer Jeff King said the renewable energy production tax credit and incentive, created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, have been instrumental in encouraging the development of wind and other renewable energy forms. The tax credit expired at the end of 2001, and the incentive is set to expire in September 2002, he pointed out.
Staff recommends the Council write to members of the Northwest Congressional delegation and the Senate Finance Committee supporting five-year extensions to the production tax credit and the incentive, King stated. The letter also supports a transferable tax credit as an alternative to the renewable energy production incentive, which he said could be a better method for extending federal production incentives to tax-exempt entities.
Brogoitti moved, and Karier seconded, a motion the Council approve the letter to the Congressional delegation. The motion passed, and Kempton suggested sending copies to the state legislatures in case they wish to take similar actions.
9. Council Decision on Fiscal Year 2002 Funding Recommendattions from the Fish and Wildlife Committee
Doug Marker; and Mark Fritsch, Fish Production Coordinator
Staffer Mark Fritsch explained a proposal, requested by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority and recommended by the Fish Committee, for a FY 2002 funds reallocation to provide an additional $28,250 to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildife and Parks for an analysis of native westslope cutthroat trout.
Brogoitti moved that the Council recommend that Bonneville fund the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks proposal to evaluate the stock origin of native westslope cutthroat trout as part of Project 199101903, the Hungry Horse Mitigation Program. Giacometto seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Request for Reallocation of Funds for Rattlesnake Slope Addition Land Acquisition
Staffer Doug Marker explained a proposal to shift previously committed funds from an earlier approved land acquisition in Washington state that fell through to another land purchase in Washington involving the McWhorter Ranch. There are likely to be additional discussions with Bonneville about crediting, he noted. There is a lot of support from people in the area for this project, said Karier.
Brogoitti moved that the Council recommend that Bonneville reallocate previously available funds in the amount of $1,645,000 for the purchase of the McWhorter Ranch in Washington state. Karier seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Response to ISRP Review of Arrowleaf Conservation Easement Project Proposal
Bonneville was about to fund the Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Project, for which the Council recommended funding of $2.5 million as part of the High Priority project solicitation, when it was learned that the Methow River streambed adjoining the property dewatered more frequently than had originally been thought, staffer Doug Marker explained. As a result, Bonneville and the Council asked the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) to do an additional review of the project, he said.
The Council distributed the ISRP’s January 11, 2002 “final review” of the project, which concludes that “no new information has been provided that would call for a change in our original recommendation to fund this project,” but it also featured a large photo on its cover showing the dry Methow River streambed in October, 2001.
In the public comment period, Ken Sletten, a Methow Valley resident, urged the Council not to let this “unnecessary, politically motivated” project go forward. What needs to be protected there is already protected, and other projects could use the $2.5 million, he stated. Sletten said he thought Bonneville funding was supposed to go to mitigation for power projects, that EIS rules were not followed, and he noted the loss of property tax revenues that would result from the acquisition.
John Hayes, a land use planner in Okanogan County, said the Arrowleaf property is important because “it’s at our headwaters.” Conservation does work well with the local economy, and it’s essential this project stay together so the area can be safeguarded from subdivision, he stated. Kempton asked him if there have been hydrologic studies done in the area, and Hayes replied, “Arrowleaf is the most studied property in the whole state of Washington."
If there are listed fish in the stream, and someone tried to develop the property, wouldn’t NMFS give the developer “a hotfoot?” Bloch asked. If a sizable development was proposed, the larger agencies could probably kill it, Hayes acknowledged. But if this project falls apart, he warned the property could be split into five-acre parcels with wells on each. The way this piece of property is proposed to be protected right now works for the area ecologically and economically, Hayes said.
The Arrowleaf property has a long history of controversy and debate, said Karier. It’s gone through another ISRP review because the water goes subsurface in some years, he stated. The ISRP said the benefits are still there, and it has passed the ISRP twice, Karier pointed out. We have the money in the budget, NMFS supports it, and when we see a project with all those things falling in line, we shouldn’t turn it down, he stated.
Why is it the responsibility of this Council to fix laws that aren’t in place in the state of Washington? Brogoitti asked. He then made a motion to “rescind the affirmative funding recommendation for the Arrowleaf project” and recommend that Bonneville use the dollars freed up for placeholder funding for RPA 151 tributary water acquisition projects. Giacometto seconded.
Why don’t you want to fund this? Cassidy asked the Oregon members. We have new information and now find the project has less benefit than we originally thought, replied Bloch. We have to make choices on allocating F&W funding and ask whether spending $2.5 million on this is the best use of those dollars, he added. Bonneville has a mandate to fund RPA 151 projects, and the BiOp compels Bonneville to do that at about $2.5 million, Bloch continued. Where is that money going to come from? he asked. This is a difficult decision, but on balance, RPA 151 is a better use for this money, and if we do that, it won’t further constrict our provincial budgets, Bloch said.
If the ISRP had said the benefits weren’t there, that would be different, said Cassidy. We have approved this project, it has had two science reviews and approval from NMFS, he stated. When people look at this proposal and see the dry riverbed photo on the front of the ISRP report, there’s a concern about what the Council is doing, said Kempton. He quoted parts of the ISRP report that use conditional words like “might” and “could.” I think the ISRP was “backed into a corner” without being able to get enough information for its review, Kempton commented. I have a concern about the lack of ISRP objectivity, he added.
The motion to withdraw funding from the Arrowleaf project passed on a 5 to 3 vote. Cassidy, Karier, and Bartlett voted no.
Follow-up to Columbia Plateau Recommendations
Fritsch presented information about two Columbia Plateau projects that require additional Council action. He said the Council had objected at its November meeting to the high costs of fencing ($40,000 per mile) WDFW had recommended for the Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area project. WDFW and Bonneville have worked with staff on this matter and Bonneville now recommends subcontracting for the fencing for the project.
Bloch moved that the Council recommend that Bonneville adjust the funding of Project 199404400, “Enhance, Protect, and Maintain Shrubsteppe Habitat on the Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area,” and subcontract the fencing component of the project in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per mile. Karier seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Fritsch said Project 25002 had been left off the list of projects to fund in the Columbia Plateau by mistake. It is part of the Washington Wildlife Agreement and has been an ongoing project since 1997, he noted.
Bloch moved that the Council recommend that Bonneville fund, at the fiscal year 2001 budget level, with an annual 3.4 percent increase as approved in the Council’s three-year workplan, Project 25002, “Protect, Enhance, and Maintain Habitat on the Sunnyside Wildlife Area to Benefit Wildlife and Fish Assemblages.” Karier seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
10. Comments on Subbasin Planning and Listed Species Status Review
Bob Lohn, Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service
Lohn called his visit “an informal check-in,” stating that he wanted to outline NMFS’ intention to rely on subbasin planning and to provide greater certainty and legal assurance for those who complete subbasin plans. He described a meeting he attended in December in Washington, D.C. with James Connaughton, chair of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, “out of which came a further commitment to subbasin planning.”
Lohn listed five principles the CEQ has set forth. The first is stewardship, he said, indicating the Administration’s intention to “take good care of the environment” and empower local people to do that. The other principles are: science-based decisionmaking, federalism, innovation, and compliance. We need to know what it means to be in compliance and to assure stakeholders of how they can be in compliance, Lohn stated.
He said he told the group in Washington, D.C. that subbasin planning is the best way to ensure that these principles get carried out in the Columbia River Basin. Subbasin planning is the right tool to flesh out the Biological Opinion (BiOp) and salmon matters in the Northwest, according to Lohn. I told them what the Council is doing with subbasin planning and that subbasin plans are implementable in a reasonable amount of time.
Lohn outlined attributes of a subbasin plan. It needs to be a locally supported, scientifically credible plan to address local needs, and it needs to have a solid assessment of limiting factors, he said. There also needs to be a way to implement it, to have it be “a doable thing,” Lohn added. NMFS would like to use these kinds of subbasin plans as the major building block for recovery planning in an area, he said. We intend to provide assurances while a plan is being fulfilled that it can be relied on and that investments associated with it are well placed, Lohn added.
He suggested one tool is to convert subbasin plans into short-term Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). While HCPs have a history of being big and expensive, we want to see how we can make them less costly and unwieldy and their approval more timely, he stated. We’ll work with state, federal, and local major landowners to assure that the plans are reasonable and comprehensive, Lohn said.
He asked the Council how NMFS can strengthen the Council’s ability to move forward. We’ve received proposals to aid subbasin planning from Bonneville and from Battelle, he noted, and he encouraged the Council to take a look at them.
Cassidy asked if NMFS would have interim recovery goals by February. I think we will for the Columbia Basin, but it may take longer for the Puget Sound area, Lohn replied. Cassidy asked if they will include the coast of Oregon, and Lohn said yes.
Cassidy noted that the Council is going to ask NMFS to indicate whether the three documents it intends to use for subbasin planning are adequate in NMFS’ eyes for ESA purposes. Lohn endorsed having a short overview document that states what is to be achieved, and he said NMFS will try to be flexible about the contents of the assessment template.
Kempton said NMFS “guidance” should not take “a cookie-cutter approach.” He asked whether NMFS should send information on its subbasin planning expectations directly to local groups in the various states or whether NMFS should send it to the Council and have the Council distribute it. “I’d rely on your advice on that,” replied Lohn. I want to give you something you can use to help the people in your state, he added. Each state will organize to get the job done in a different way, and anything I can do to make it clear there’s flexibility, I’ll do it, Lohn said.
What is NMFS doing about looking at ocean conditions? Giacometto asked. That’s a primary area of interest for the NMFS science center, replied Lohn. We want to put together a rough “ocean index” to help us separate out “which part of fish conditions the ocean did and which we did,” he stated. Giacometto said he would like to see more ocean research, funded by federal appropriations, not ratepayer dollars. I’ll have someone from our science center brief the Council on what we are doing, Lohn responded.
We appreciate the better level of communication between the Council and NMFS, said Karier. In the fish and wildlife (F&W) project approval process, there’s an interest in finding out whether projects will meet specific RPAs (Reasonable, Prudent Alternatives in the 2000 BiOp), he noted. Is Bonneville, NMFS, or the Council the one to do that? Karier asked. Asking the RPA question should be a subset of the question, “is this a good project or the right project?” replied Lohn. There needs to be a subbasin plan to provide a context -- if you don’t have a blueprint, you don’t know what you need, he said. We have talked with Bonneville about “who puts a checkmark by the RPA box,” Lohn continued. All of the 199 RPAs are good things to do, and some are mandatory, he stated. But with some RPAs, you can’t know if they are the best thing to do without the context, Lohn said.
We used certain RPAs as the basis for our funding decisions in the Columbia Plateau, but then we were startled when Bonneville told us we should have used different RPAs, said Cassidy. I’ll talk with Bonneville about that, Lohn responded.
Danielson asked if the Administration is aware of the region’s struggle to implement subbasin planning without enough funding to do the job. Funding has been the subject of much discussion, replied Lohn. There’s a willingness to support more funding if something is clearly needed -- the Administration was “remarkably forthcoming” on that, he said. There’s a sense among some in Congress that the Northwest is “a money pit,” so we need to make a stronger case on what we will get for money spent, but the Council’s project review makes the process more credible, Lohn stated.
So you sense in the Administration a “bias for action, not punitive action?” Danielson asked. Yes, Lohn replied.
When the Council was formed, there was a commitment to all fish stocks, Bloch said. What we’ve seen is that more and more ratepayer dollars are going to address ESA-listed stocks, he noted. That is not fulfilling the intent of the Northwest Power Act and doesn’t reflect the way the funding burden ought to be allocated, Bloch said. There ought to be an appropriate level of federal dollars, he stated.
As for subbasin planning, the Council committed to it in the summer of 2000, and NMFS committed to it in the BiOp, Bloch said. Now it’s 2002, and “we need to get this thing moving,” he stated. I ask NMFS and Bonneville to focus in the next month or two on the things that need to be addressed to get subbasin planning going and then, “let’s start,” Bloch said. I couldn’t agree more, responded Lohn. Let me know what we can do to help, he added.
11. Council Business
Approval of 2002 Meeting Schedule
Staffer Steve Crow presented a proposal to eliminate work sessions and hold one Council meeting a month. Karier indicated he thought the original schedule worked fine. The new schedule will mean cost savings and more time to prepare for meetings, Crow said.
Bloch moved, and Brogoitti seconded a motion to approve the revised meeting schedule for the year 2002. The motion passed on a 7-1 vote, with Karier voting no.
Approval of Memorandum of Understanding on Data Management
The Council approved a memorandum of understanding with NMFS for development of a cooperative information system. This memorandum has been under discussion for quite some time, noted Karier. We are trying to get to standardized measurements and ultimately, a web-based data management system, he said. Brogoitti moved that the Council approve a memorandum of understanding between the Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service for development of a Cooperative Information System for the Columbia River Basin. Bloch seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Bloch moved that the Council approve the minutes for the November 7-8, 2001 Council meeting, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Amendment of Council Bylaws Regarding Election of Officers – Term of Office
January is the month for electing new Council officers, and this year a debate about Council bylaws preceded that vote. Leo Giacometto moved to amend the bylaws to remove any limitation on successive terms of office for the chair and vice-chair, and Tom Karier seconded. I want all the options before us when we pick our leadership, Giacometto said. We need to clear up any misunderstandings there might be about succession and term lengths in the bylaws, he added. Larry Cassidy opened the floor for public comment.
Amie Wexler of Save Our Wild Salmon said her group objects to the bylaws change and that it is being made without sufficient time for “public reflection” or public involvement. It’s a good idea to have the chairmanship move among the states to allow for more diversity of views, she indicated. David Moryc of American Rivers and Sam Mace of Trout Unlimited called for “more robust public input” on the decision. Liz Hamilton of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association said the bylaws change would hurt the Council’s public image, and she urged the members to “keep processes in place people are familiar with.”
Cassidy asked staff if the Council had complied with notice provisions, and the answer was yes. Former Council member Stan Grace phoned in a comment, saying that attempts in past years to have artificial limits on electing Council officers haven’t worked well. Having leadership that is supported by the current members is important for a cohesive Council, he stated.
I think this change will undercut the credibility of the Council, said Eric Bloch, the current vice-chair. What we are doing is not an academic exercise -- we are debating a bylaws change, and 30 seconds after it passes, we’ll apply it, he stated. It’s highly inappropriate on procedural grounds and abuses the bylaws to accomplish a narrow and short-term purpose, Bloch said.
Bloch read a letter into the record from Oregon Governor Kitzhaber to the other governors, which said, among other things, “I find it highly inappropriate for a public entity to make such governance changes with the effect, and arguably the intent, of achieving the very specific and immediate goal of preserving the entity’s current leadership.” Kitzhaber urged his fellow governors to oppose the bylaws change “to preserve the Council as a serious and credible regional institution.” The Council bylaws and the election decisions themselves, “must reflect the overriding policy need to create a feeling of ‘ownership’ of the council within our four states by promoting a sharing of the Council chair,” Kitzhaber said.
I see this as “removing an anomaly” from the bylaws that is an unnecessary restriction on the Council’s activity, stated Karier. I think the change will enhance the ability of this Council and future Councils to make decisions, he added. Jim Kempton listed four reasons why he accepts the need for a change in the bylaws, including flexibility, the fact the bylaws do not require any minimum amount of time between making a change and taking action based on the change, and that “regional esteem for the Council is not achieved by rotation of the chair,” but by cooperation among the states, which the chair can help bring about.
Ed Bartlett said he supported the change because it offers the Council flexibility and because the chair’s term of office would still only be one year. If I thought we were doing this for a “one-time fix,” I wouldn’t support it, he stated. Flexibility is great, but if that’s your main concern, why have any bylaws whatsoever? Bloch said. The purpose of bylaws is to restrict flexibility so organizations have rules that govern what they do -- “it’s why we have a Constitution,” he stated. The Constitution has been amended many times, responded Giacometto, adding “we should pick the best person to lead us.”
Giacometto moved that the Council amend the Bylaws to remove any limitation on successive terms of office for the Chair and Vice-Chair, by striking the second sentence in Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4, and Karier seconded. The motion passed on a roll-call vote as follows: Cassidy, yes; Karier, yes; Danielson, yes; Kempton, yes; Bartlett, yes; Giacometto, yes; Brogoitti, no; and Bloch, no.
Karier nominated Cassidy for chair, calling him “hardworking, accessible, knowledgeable, and a straight-shooter.” Giacometto seconded, and the vote was 7-1, with Bloch voting no. Kempton nominated Judi Danielson as vice-chair, pointing out how quickly she has gotten up to speed on Council issues and how well her qualifications and experience match the job. Bartlett seconded, and the vote for Danielson was unanimous.
Approved March 6, 2002
__________________________
Vice-Chairman