 |
Meeting Minutes |
 |
|
Council Meeting Minutes
Portland, Oregon
February 6, 2002
Judi Danielson made a motion, which John Brogoitti seconded, that the Council add to its agenda a staff summary of the Scientific Evaluation of Biological Opinions on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin. Council business requires consideration of this matter and no earlier notice was possible, she said. Eric Bloch asked about the origins of the agenda item and said as a courtesy, Oregon should have been notified. Chair Larry Cassidy said he had requested the staff prepare the summary. Bloch said the item came as a complete surprise to the Oregon members. A roll call vote was taken: Seven members voted in favor, Bloch voted no.
1. Briefing on Mainstem Science Reviews
Dr. Albert Giorgi, BioAnalysts, Inc.
Dr. Al Giorgi of BioAnalysts, Inc. reported on his work to update and synthesize information on the benefits and risks of the transportation, spill, and flow augmentation strategies in the 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Biological Opinion (BiOp). We were also asked to identify the shortcomings, disputes, and critical uncertainties associated with the strategies, and the opportunities to reduce the uncertainty, he said. In our review, we focused on the most current information, Giorgi said. Since the system has changed over time in terms of operations and physical characteristics, the most recent data is most relevant, he indicated.
The objective of transportation is to remove fish from the river and place them in barges or trucks, so they avoid the hazards they would encounter in dam passage, Giorgi explained. The bottom line with data from NMFS’ 1994 to 1997 estimates is that transported wild and hatchery chinook survived at a higher rate than in-river fish, he said. The same is true using survival estimates from the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, according to Giorgi transported fish survive at a higher rate. This is particularly true for fish transported from Lower Granite and Little Goose, the uppermost federal dams on the Snake River, according to the BioAnalysts, Inc. report.
There have not been tests of the key hypotheses about why this occurs, Giorgi pointed out. In some years, small sample sizes produced poor precision with the estimates, which limits statistically defensible conclusions, he said. It is also difficult to differentiate with confidence between wild and hatchery fish performance, Giorgi said. Very small sample sizes limit our ability to conduct meaningful statistical tests, but with an increase in survival, we may see more rigorous treatment, he added. So the implication of your review of the statistics is that “transported fish do better,” Karier commented. Yes, “interpreted at face value,” that’s true, Giorgi replied.
The question is still open as to whether transporting fish impairs their homing ability, he continued. Few studies have been done, and it’s a difficult issue to investigate, Giorgi acknowledged. Homing impairment is a delayed effect that can be reflected in the smolt-to-adult returns; “some survivors may not get home,” he explained. There are indications of impairment in some species, which are evidenced by straying and migration delay, according to Giorgi. Isn’t some straying natural? Cassidy asked. Yes, but the question is whether transportation exacerbates it, Giorgi responded. He pointed out that with the current information, analysts can’t sort out straying from other forms of mortality.
The BioAnalysts’ review also turned up critical uncertainties and research opportunities, Giorgi said. There are data gaps, including a lack of studies on transport of Snake River fall chinook and mid-Columbia stocks, he explained, adding that some of these questions will be addressed in research that begins this year. Giorgi noted that the increase in the number of returning adults means better opportunities to get data related to wild fish.
The objective of spill is to maximize smolt survival “at the concrete” and to maintain acceptable water quality, Giorgi continued. Across the field of information we have, spillways are the safest passage route at the dams, he said. To generate a survival estimate, researchers take into account both direct and indirect effects, Giorgi explained. Direct effects occur at the spillway and in the turbines and bypass systems; indirect effects are things like predation and gas supersaturation that occur after passage is complete, he noted. Flow deflectors, which have been installed at many sites to break the plunge of water on the face of the dam, increase direct mortality by 1 to 3 percent, depending on the site, Giorgi reported. But because they decrease gas levels, survival increases later on, he explained.
By and large, smolt survival does not vary with the volume of water spilled, but at some projects, particularly The Dalles, higher levels of spill actually reduce survival, according to Giorgi. The variations in survival that occur with the timing of spill are very site-specific, he said. Giorgi noted that it is difficult, using the passage computer models, to isolate the effects of spill from other processes.
The Biological Opinion establishes a target for gas saturation of 120 percent or less, which is generally achievable, he went on. But in high flow years, saturation levels go above 120 percent, and that’s why there has been a move to flow deflectors, Giorgi explained. There is some evidence that high spill levels may cause delay and fallback for adult migrants, but the evidence is not conclusive, he stated.
There are critical uncertainties to study with spill, Giorgi said, including evaluating spill scenarios with updated passage models and designing in situ experiments. “I’m not that optimistic you can disentangle the spill effects from other processes,” he acknowledged. More research is needed to clarify the effects of spill on adult migration, Giorgi added.
The rationale for flow augmentation is to increase the water velocity in reservoirs and the smolt migration speed, and to decrease water temperature in the summer to improve rearing and migration conditions, Giorgi explained. The level of flow affects species differently, he said, pointing out there is no clear evidence of a flow/survival relationship with yearling chinook or steelhead. But in 2001, there was a pronounced decrease in steelhead survival, apparently due to low flow and early warming conditions, Giorgi said. With fall chinook, the variables of flow, temperature, and turbidity need to be sorted out from one another in order to understand the effects of each, he indicated.
This may be the most important result for the mainstem rulemaking, Karier said. “I’m surprised by that – flow level has no influence on survival,” Bloch commented. For this data set, 1993 to 2001, that is true, Giorgi responded.
Flow augmentation is also used to reduce water temperature, and operators release water from Dworshak Dam to cool the system in late summer, he explained. According to a 1991-93 study, these releases effected temperature changes at Lower Granite and Ice Harbor, Giorgi said. But, he added, the colder water tends to sink and does not cool uniformly.
The region is lacking comprehensive evaluations of flow augmentation, and they are overdue, he pointed out. We need studies to document the volume and shape of flow augmentation and to describe the changes in water velocity and temperature, Giorgi advised. Using that information, you can predict a change in smolt speed and survival, he explained. Studies should focus on key populations, Giorgi added. In particular, we need to design experiments targeting Snake River fall chinook and the effects of manipulating the water from Dworshak and Hells Canyon, he said. And I would encourage the region to continue to monitor mainstem survival, Giorgi concluded.
2. National Marine Fisheries Service Presentation on Juvenile Survival Studies
John Williams, Bill Muir and Steve Smith, National Marine Fisheries Service; Margaret Filardo, Fish Passage Center; and Chuck Peven, Chelan County PUD.
Bill Muir of NMFS gave the Council an update on the agency’s ongoing nine-year juvenile survival study, laying out the 2001 results. All of the survival estimates are based on PIT-tag data, he said. NMFS PIT-tagged and released hatchery and wild steelhead above Lower Granite Dam for the study, and also used PIT-tag data collected by other agencies at traps and hatcheries within the hydropower system, according to Muir. The researchers tracked the migrants’ progress from one detection site to the next, he explained. Due to low flow conditions in 2001, travel times for spring and summer chinook and steelhead from Lower Granite to Bonneville Dam were much longer than usual, Muir reported.
He laid out the survival rates from site to site, noting that the steelhead survival rate in 2001 was “alarmingly low” between Lower Monumental and McNary. The cause is a tern colony on Crescent Island near the confluence of the Snake and Columbia rivers, Muir explained. PIT tags found on the island in 2001 represent 14.2 percent of the steelhead and 4.1 percent of the yearling chinook that left Lower Monumental, he said. And not all tags are recovered, Muir added.
A comparison of 1970 survival statistics with data from 1995 to 2000 shows that changes to system operations and project configuration are having a positive effect, he indicated. Because of the improvements, the direct survival is as high or higher now through eight federal dams, as it was through four dams in the 1970s, Muir said.
Overall, for the 2001 spring migration, survival to the first dam in the study, Lower Granite, was about average for Snake River hatchery fish, he reported. But total system travel times were greatly increased, and survival through the hydro projects was lower than in past years, Muir said. As for the limited spill that took place in the lower river in 2001, it’s difficult to quantify the benefits, he acknowledged.
For Snake River fall hatchery chinook, survival was highly correlated with flow, temperature, turbidity, and release date, Muir reported. Flow provides directional cues and speeds migration; temperature affects smolt growth and predator metabolism; turbidity provides refuge for the smolts from predation; and the release date indicates whether the smolts were traveling during the pre-spill, spill, or post-spill periods. All of the variables affect survival, and sorting out the effects of each will require manipulative experiments, he added.
NMFS considered how the poor migration conditions in 2001 might affect future adult returns, Muir continued. He noted that since 1997, there has been an increase in adult returns independent of system survival estimates for juveniles. Adult returns have increased while juvenile survival has stayed the same or decreased, according to NMFS’ graphs. It looks like ocean conditions have improved, Muir said. We don’t know what it will be like for adult returns given the experience of the 2001 migrants, but it may not be as bad as some have predicted, he said.
Why can’t you forecast the returns since you have the figures for in-river survival and the ocean survival rates from 2001? Karier asked. There doesn’t seem to be a correlation between in-river survival and smolt-to-adult returns, Muir stated. He indicated that the effect of the ocean conditions on survival is very apparent in the returns of recent years.
3. Council Discussion of Draft Call for Program Amendments to Adopt Subbasin Plans
Doug Marker, director, fish and wildlife division; and John Ogan, senior counsel.
The Council’s newly appointed fish and wildlife director, Doug Marker, explained that staff is working on a formal request for amendments to the fish and wildlife program that will cover the subbasin plans. The plans will provide the specifics of the program at the subbasin level and must be formally adopted by the Council, he said. Marker called the Council’s attention to several parts of the request where changes have been made, beginning with the budget for preparing subbasin plans. The Council and Bonneville have worked out a two-year $15.2 million budget, and we’re working with Bonneville to get contracts in place to pay for the plans, he explained.
The schedule included in the request for amendments, which we will confirm when the document is issued, calls for subbasin plans in the Columbia Gorge, Inter-Mountain, and Mountain Columbia provinces to be submitted by November 1, 2002, Marker said. We want the next round of provincial reviews to be based on the subbasin plans, he explained.
It appears Oregon is ready to go, but Washington is not, Cassidy observed. Why not let Oregon get started? he asked. Marker said the subbasin plans need to be linked with other activities, including NMFS’ recovery plans. We’re ready to go, with the lead agencies designated, Bloch confirmed, but until you have all of the subbasin plans within a province completed, it will be difficult to summarize the priorities in each. Karier said he is concerned about the schedule. Subbasin assessments were supposed to be done months ago, and they need to be available to the planners for their work, he noted.
Marker said staff has asked NMFS and others to review the subbasin overview and technical guidelines to be sure they include everything that is needed. Should we designate in this request that these are “optional” guidelines? Karier asked. “That is an irritant to Bonneville and NMFS,” Marker replied. They would like to see plans that are uniform across the subbasins, he said.
Cassidy asked the staff to assure that the characterization of the documents reflects as closely as possible the language in the Council’s motion when the overview and guidelines were approved.
Marker continued his description of the request for amendments, pointing out changes in the section on the informational workshops that staff made to reflect sensitivity about having local people in charge. We are working with Bonneville to add the criteria Bonneville will use to distribute the planning funds, he added.
Jim Kempton noted that language in the funding criteria pertaining to relationships among in-state entities is ambiguous. Be prepared for a discussion on that, he said. Danielson suggested the Council think ahead to what will happen in the case of subbasins that cross state boundaries. We see that issue coming, she added.
The subbasin plans will be subject to scientific review, Marker said. According to the draft request, the Independent Scientific Review Panel will conduct the reviews. Kempton objected to the idea that subbasin planners would have to demonstrate that alternate management responses have been adequately considered. If the plan meets all of the other objectives, why would you subject the planners to documenting all of the other management alternatives? he asked. That just adds work that doesn’t need to be there, Kempton stated. Marker said he agreed, and after some discussion, the Council decided to drop that element from the list of evaluation criteria.
As soon as we have the contracts in place, we’d suggest releasing this call for amendments, Marker summed up. Cassidy said the Council isn’t comfortable with the technical budget section, and Marker said he would provide a new version next week.
Not all of the subbasins have assessments, and we said the planners would have them to do their work, Bloch noted. We should have a list of what the planners need, including the assessment and recovery goals, so we can hand it off to them, he suggested. According to Marker, the request for amendments will be completed over the next month and a final presented at the Council meeting in March.
4. Briefing on Columbia Basin Salmon Restoration Programs and Budgets of the Bureau of Reclamation
Bill McDonald, Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation.
Bill McDonald, regional director for the Bureau of Reclamation, described the agency’s role in the region, including operation of over 30 hydro projects for water supply, irrigation, and power production. Two Reclamation projects, Hungry Horse and Grand Coulee, are the “work horses” of the system, making up 45 to 50 percent of total generation and active storage capability in the FCRPS, he said.
In addition to its historic responsibilities, Reclamation puts much effort toward protecting and mitigating fish and wildlife in the region, McDonald said. These activities take many forms, but “are increasingly driven by the requirements of the ESA,” he stated. Eighty to ninety percent of every dollar we spend on fish and wildlife is driven by ESA, according to McDonald.
Of the $185 million budget for Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Region, between $70 million and $71 million comes from Congressional appropriations, with the rest coming via a direct-funding agreement with Bonneville and from user fees, he continued. In fiscal year 2002, we will spend over a third of the Congressional appropriation – $26 million – “for regulatory-driven ESA requirements,” McDonald reiterated.
He offered the Council a state-by-state breakdown of Reclamation’s regional ESA activities, and described a number of specific budget items, including Reclamation’s Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. Reclamation has habitat work going on in 16 subbasins and will be moving into new subbasins over the next several years, McDonald reported. Our expertise is in screening diversions and eliminating passage barriers, he added.
McDonald pointed out that Reclamation does not have statutory authority to make grants to others. We are authorized to work with non-federal entities, but we don’t have grant authority, he said. We want to have that authority and are working to get it, McDonald indicated. In the meantime, Reclamation is working with other parties on planning and design of projects, he said.
McDonald described Reclamation’s work in the Yakima River Basin, noting that the agency has funded conservation plans for seven irrigation districts, which has resulted in conserving 180,000 acre-feet of water annually. Proposed measures in the Yakima include upgrading canal and delivery systems, and relocating diversions or substituting pumps for diversions, he said. We’re making progress, McDonald said, adding that the budget for the Yakima is $11 million in 2002 and $11.9 million in 2003.
We’ve heard that although the statute doesn’t require a match of funds, Reclamation requires one, Bloch said. That can create impediments, he added. As a policy throughout the West, we require a cost-share, McDonald responded. That is an agency-wide policy, he stated. How does Reclamation decide whether to use funds from the Yakima Enhancement Project or go after ratepayer money for a project in that area? Bloch asked. It depends on the project and what the budget year looks like, McDonald responded.
He pointed out that in addition to the Columbia River and Yakima, Reclamation funds other ESA and fish and wildlife activities in the region. If you dig deep, you’ll find some ESA compliance in every hydro project budget, McDonald indicated.
It looks like you do a lot of work related to ESA, Karier observed. How can Reclamation projects be coordinated through the Council, so we’re not following separate processes? he asked. I’m always open to coordination and cooperation, McDonald replied.
5. Briefing on NMFS Recovery Science Review Panel Report on Harvest
Bruce Suzumoto, manager, special projects; and John Shurts, general counsel.
NMFS empanelled a Recovery Science Review Panel (RSRP) to assist with ESA recovery planning, according to staffer Bruce Suzumoto. Last year, the RSRP issued a report on the Northwest’s salmon harvest management theory and practices, he said. Suzumoto summarized the report in which the panel recommended NMFS carefully re-examine the procedures by which allowable harvests are suggested and approved.
The RSRP “was mystified” about the scientific justification for current allowable harvest rates on ESA-listed salmonid populations,” he reported. They cited the increase in in-river harvest of Snake River spring and summer chinook, which went from less than 5 percent of returns in 1995 to more than 12 percent in 2001, and the substantial harvest of lower Columbia chinook and Snake River fall chinook, which is about 50 percent of the adults per year, Suzumoto said. In addition, the RSRP pointed out the difficulty in obtaining information about historical harvest rates and recommended creating a publicly accessible database with those statistics, he said.
Suzumoto said the panel pointed out that fish managers are not using models that account for population uncertainty, which the RSRP said would encourage more conservative harvest levels. The panel said NMFS should promote more terminal fisheries where listed stocks mix with healthy stocks in the ocean, he continued.
The panel said work on harvest is not well integrated with work in the other Hs and indicated NMFS’ regional office is organized in a way that inhibits that integration, Suzumoto said. In conclusion, the RSRP recommended NMFS look into whether the ESA supersedes the legal and policy constraints on harvest management set out in Indian Treaty rights and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, he stated.
Suzumoto pointed out that the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) sent a letter to NMFS criticizing the report, particularly the legal and policy issues with regard to Treaty rights. Giacometto noted that Suzumoto’s memo indicates NMFS disagrees with its own panel. Why is that? he asked. It may be an instance of scientists versus managers, where scientists look at what needs to be done and managers face the reality of having to balance interests, Suzumoto replied.
It looks like NMFS took some actions, had them scientifically reviewed, and they were not found to be adequate, Karier observed. From my contact with harvest issues, I see things in the panel’s report that don’t seem right, Bloch said. The WDFW complaints may be justified – the report is heavily infused with legal and policy issues, he added.
Shurts reported that a lawsuit, Washington Trout v. Lohn, has challenged NMFS’ approval of the harvest plan for ESA-listed chinook. There is potential for broad ramifications from that lawsuit, he said. The “take prohibitions” in the ESA apply to endangered, not threatened species, Shurts explained. When NMFS lists a species as endangered, it says the take provisions apply, unless you meet certain criteria, one of which is having a NMFS-approved harvest plan, he said. NMFS approved the harvest on Puget Sound chinook, so Washington Trout sued, according to Shurts. The complainant says there are both ESA and National Environmental Policy Act issues at stake, and that NMFS can’t give blanket approval to harvest plans, he summed up.
Staffer Gustavo Bisbal reported that the Oregon and Washington fisheries agencies have decided to continue their experiment on using tangle nets for commercial fish harvesting in the Columbia River. The agencies hope to determine whether the nets, which capture fish by tangling in their teeth, improve the survivability of ESA-listed species trapped in fish nets, he explained. A funding request of $659,368 would add a monitoring component to the experiment, Bisbal said.
A tribal representative told the Council the tribes are concerned about the project and do not support selective fisheries. The nets would add a lot of work for small catches and could cause damage to the mouths of the fish trapped in them, he indicated.
6. Council Decision on Funding within Year Reallocations and Other Adjustments
Doug Marker
- Funding request to continue experimental selective fishery project
Judi Danielson made a motion that the Council recommend Bonneville continue to fund Project 200100700, which is evaluating the use of tangle nets for commercial fisheries on the Columbia River. The funding request for fiscal year 2002 is $659,368. John Brogoitti seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
- Additional funding for Comparative Survival Study (CSS)
Judi Danielson made a motion that the Council recommend Bonneville fund a $60,238 FY 2002 increase request for Project 199602000, Comparative Smolt Survival Study. Brogoitti seconded the motion. Staff member Doug Marker explained that the fish committee voted two to one not to approve a $791,388 version of the project, and staff had also recommended against it because they felt it would be more appropriate as part of the total review of mainstem projects. The sponsors subsequently downsized the project to under $61,000, he said. Tom Karier asked if there is a problem with PIT tagging 13,000 wild fish, and staff said NMFS has given the go-ahead. The motion passed unanimously.
- 2002 budget for Salmon Creek (Okanogan) restoration and enhancement project
Judi Danielson made a motion that the Council recommend Bonneville provide interim FY 2002 funds in the amount of $353,790 for Project 199604200, Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish in Salmon Creek. Brogoitti seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
7. Council Decision to Release Alternative Project Selection Process Issue Paper for Public Comment
Doug Marker.
[No Discussion]
8. Council Decision to Release Power Plan Issues Paper for Public Comment
Dick Watson, director, power division.
Staffer Dick Watson set the stage for the issue paper on the Power Plan by describing the “mixed power market” that exists in the region. We have a loosely regulated wholesale market, in which prices are determined by the market and resource development is private, and a largely regulated retail market, he explained. We need solutions that work in this mixed context, Watson said, suggesting the region’s experience of the last few years ought to shed some light on developing a new plan.
First, we had a period of limited investment in new resources, in which there was excess capacity and low prices, he explained. Good hydro conditions were masking the Pacific Northwest’s diminishing reserve margins, Watson pointed out. Those years were followed by a period of tight supplies and soaring prices, which led in 2001 to load buyouts, emergency conservation, and reduced spill for fish, he continued. The situation stimulated development of new generation, but with prices now down again, further investment in generation is in doubt, Watson added. If we don’t address the mixed market structure and find ways to make it function more efficiently and effectively, we could be setting ourselves up for a new cycle of supply and price problems, he said.
Watson posed several questions to consider for planning how to moderate the roller coaster cycles. Does the current market provide adequate signals for resource development? If not, what are the options to remedy this? How can we better link wholesale and retail markets and send timely price signals to consumers? Should investment in energy efficiency continue to be driven by the market price of electricity? If not, what is the best alternative? Is there adequate market information available, and if not, how can the situation be improved?
The Council’s mainstem amendments to the fish and wildlife (fish and wildlife) program are intended to lead to more effective hydro operations for fish, Watson continued. Our success in dealing with some of the issues stated earlier should eliminate shortages that led to the 2001 difficulties, but conflicts between fish and power are still possible, he said. We need to consider whether there are strategies to minimize the effects of a power shortage on F&W, Watson added.
Transmission policy and planning have a greater effect on power choices than in the past, he said, adding that there are more players than before trying to make “coherent decisions.” Many transmission issues are being addressed in RTO West, but it will be years before the RTO comes on line, and in the meantime, decisions about pricing and system expansion will have to be made, Watson pointed out. We need to explore the policy questions and implications, he stated.
As for resource diversity, most new generation “looks the same,” and it is not being located close to loads, Watson said. We need to consider the region’s dependence on natural gas for new generation and the rationale for resource diversity, he explained. And we need to identify the barriers to developing alternative forms of generation, Watson said. Another issue to explore is the value of distributed generation, he added.
The future role of Bonneville in the Pacific Northwest is an issue that is “most close to home” and important, Watson went on. Bonneville is obligated to serve public loads at cost, even when it means acquiring new resources, he said. This obligation could expose the region to some risk in retaining the benefits of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), Watson explained. In addition, some people argue that Bonneville distorts the operation of a competitive market – Bonneville is often in the market selling and buying in a big way, he pointed out.
There are discussions going on among Bonneville customers about limiting Bonneville’s obligation and allocating the existing system, Watson said. If new proposals come out of these discussions, the Council could analyze them and help the public and the region’s decision makers understand and judge them, he suggested.
Global climate change is a long-term uncertainty in power planning, Watson said. The scientific opinion has coalesced, and the view is that climate change is a real issue, he explained. Global warming could have a number of effects on the future, from the resource choices we make, if lawmakers were to move to reduce carbon emissions, to local effects, if precipitation patterns were to change in our hydro-dependent region, Watson stated.
Should we get each state to make input on the demand forecast in the plan? Leo Giacometto asked. We decided we would not redo the forecast, but would work on a few areas that need adjustment, staffer Terry Morlan responded. I’d like to see a copy of the forecast sent to each Governor with a letter asking if it will address the needs in the state, Giacometto said. I’d like to put the states on point and force them to take a position, he urged. We don’t compile the forecast by state, Morlan explained, but we’ll try to find ways to interface with the states. What does the Power Committee think about that? John Brogoitti asked. I agree, we need to involve the state energy offices, Tom Karier said.
Decision – Approve Release of Paper
Are we all in agreement on releasing the paper? Cassidy asked. He concluded that heads were nodding affirmatively for releasing the paper for public comment. The Council will take comment on the issues through Friday, March 15, 2002, and will accept public comment at its March 6 meeting in Eugene, Oregon, Watson noted.
9. Council Decision on Letter to Congress Regarding Federal Energy Legislation
Dick Watson; and Mark Walker, director, public affairs division.
[No Discussion]
10. Council Business
Judi Danielson made a motion, which Brogoitti seconded, to approve the minutes for the December 11-12, 2001 Council meeting. The Council voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
11. Klamath River Basin (added to agenda)
Staffer John Shurts said he was asked to review an interim report prepared by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on water management issues in the Klamath Basin. The Bureau of Reclamation has facilities in the Upper Klamath Basin to divert water for irrigators, and there are existing water rights in the basin, he explained. In Upper Klamath Lake, there are two species of suckers listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and in the Klamath River, there are ESA-listed coho salmon, Shurts said. There is also water in the upper basin that goes to a wildlife refuge, he added.
Last year, the basin experienced low water, and at the same time, the Section 7 consultations required in the ESA came to fruition, producing Biological Opinions for the suckers and the coho, Shurts continued. In response to the consultations, Reclamation made recommendations on its operations, including a higher lake level at Upper Klamath Lake to protect the suckers and increasing the flows in the lower river to protect the coho, he said.
Everyone recognized there was uncertainty about the science behind the Biological Opinion measures, but under the ESA, uncertainty must be resolved in favor of the species, Shurts said. So Reclamation operated in 2001 to achieve a higher reservoir level and to increase lower river flows, he explained.
Reclamation subsequently turned to NAS for a review of its water management activities in the basin, and NAS created a 12-member committee, which recently completed an interim peer-reviewed report, Shurts said. The committee evaluated the science in the context of last year’s operations, looking only at the situation related to ESA-listed fish, he clarified.
The committee looked at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s reasonable and prudent actions on behalf of the suckers and concluded that science supported many of them, including screening irrigation diversions, Shurts said. But the panel did not find a direct correlation between higher lake levels and sucker survival, he stated. The NAS scientists concluded there is no sound science presently for lake levels higher than in the 1990 to 2000 period, but they also said there is no science to support operating below the lake levels during that period either, Shurts explained.
With regard to NMFS and the coho salmon, the committee said there was no clear support for increasing the minimum flows beyond what they were between 1990 and 2000, he reported. They did not see that the higher flows would increase habitat, and the water would be very warm in low water years, Shurts elaborated. At the same time, the committee concluded that reducing the mainstem flows could not be justified either, he said. In other words, the committee did not see a scientific reason for increasing or decreasing flows, Shurts stated. The committee also said the problems facing these fish exist independent of the operation of Reclamation’s water projects, he concluded.
12. Executive Session
Judi Danielson made a motion that the Council meet in Executive Session to discuss matters protectible under the retreat exceptions. Ed Bartlett seconded the motion, which passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
The Council will meet in closed session at 9 a.m. on Thursday, February 7, 2002, to discuss Council organization, structure, procedure and personnel issues.