 |
Meeting Minutes |
 |
|
Council Meeting Minutes
Holiday Inn
Boise, Idaho
April 2-4, 2002
The meeting began at 8:35 a.m. on April 2, 2002.
Action – Addition of Item to Agenda
Judi Danielson moved to add to the meeting agenda funding action on the Duncan Creek project, finding that no earlier notice was possible. John Brogotti seconded, and the motion passed unanimously on a roll-call vote.
1. Council Decision to Approve Subbasin Planning Contract with Bonneville Power Administration
Brian Alee, Manager of Policy and Program Implementation.
Staffer Brian Allee discussed progress in setting up a master agreement between the Council and Bonneville for subbasin planning under which all other subbasin contracts would fit. He explained that a Regional Coordinating Group (RCG) would be created to advise the Council on overall basinwide coordination, scheduling, and budgets, but that policy matters would be kept in the hands of the Council. The RCG would have reps from the Council, tribes, Bonneville, NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the four states.
Each state gave an update on its subbasin planning activities. John Brogoitti said Oregon has hired a subbasin coordinator, come up with a plan, and reached an MOA with the tribes. “We’re ready to go,” he stated. Ed Bartlett said Montana state representatives and tribes, as co-coordinators of subbasin planning efforts, had also held successful meetings. We too are ready to proceed, he pointed out.
In Washington, we already have Salmon Recovery Boards that aligned fairly closely with the provinces so we wanted to work with those groups and not create new ones, Karier explained. Coordination in Washington will be done at the regional and provincial levels, he noted, adding that contracts for that work are about to be developed. Judi Danielson said that the Office of Species Conservation has been designated, along with the tribes, as lead entity in Idaho. There is a proposed infrastructure for statewide coordination, and people are ready to go, she added.
Allee told the Council that the tribes have asked for changes to be made to the master subbasin planning contract. The tribes asked for a month to put together their changes, noted Cassidy. Are you going to give it to them? he asked Allee. We expect to bring the changes proposed by the tribes to you by conference call, Allee replied.
“Are we going to write a new epistle here?” Danielson asked. We have got to get this planning on the ground, she stated. We have to balance the need to get things going with the need to consider the comments coming in from the tribes, Karier said. I don’t see a problem with a short delay, he added. This is the master contract, and I’m concerned about doing this by conference call -- we need a face-to-face meeting, Danielson said.
The tribes are not stakeholders, they are sovereign governments, said Don Sampson of CRITFC. We have concerns about this contract related to issues like U.S. v. Oregon, he stated. Some issues are editorial, but some are very substantive, Sampson added.
Representatives from the Umatilla, Colville, and Shoshone-Bannock tribes offered comments about the need for tribal input. Subbasin planning has a lot of issues that could diminish our treaty rights, said Lionel Boyer of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
I think we should give the tribes an opportunity to participate on the master contract, but to get it done in a very few days, said Brogoitti. We recognize tribal sovereignty, but we don’t want to frustrate those who want to implement subbasin planning and recovery, and “we don’t want to get twisted up in paperwork,” stated Danielson. What concerns me is that we are moving from a contractual document to a policy document, and I’m not sure the policy issues can be worked out in time, said Kempton.
What if the negotiations with the tribes break down? Danielson asked. We’d have a major stalemate on going forward with subbasin planning, replied Marker. Danielson asked Sampson if he is prepared to commit that this negotiation will not “prolong and postpone” subbasin planning. I’m confident we can put together comments consistent with the Council’s 2000 F&W program, but with issues such as U.S. v. Oregon, it may take more than a week to resolve, Sampson responded. But I’m confident we can do it, he added.
We’re happy to accommodate these concerns, but we are accommodating, noted Cassidy. The Council decided to hold a special meeting in Portland on April 30 or May 1 to discuss the proposed tribal changes and finish up work on the subbasin planning master contract.
Cassidy asked for feedback on whether the Council should try to set out incentives or penalties for those doing subbasin planning to make sure the process doesn’t bog down. Jim Caswell of the Idaho Office of Species Conservation said contract terms would make the subbasin planners accountable. The issue is what incentives there are for the players like local governments, state agencies, and people living in the subbasins to get the work done, he stated.
There is the question of “how to incentivize” local people to come to the table -- it’s a good idea to come up with something, Bloch said. For landowners, for example, the chance to get a mini-Habitat Conservation Plan designation is a strong incentive, like “a get-out-of-jail-free card,” noted Cassidy.
Why wouldn’t we just publicize what we are doing? Why isn’t the incentive to get or not get a project enough? Bartlett asked. I’m troubled by the idea of us saying: “here’s what you get if you play, and what you don’t, if you don’t,” he stated. I’m also concerned about setting up a penalty system, said Hines. Withholding dollars to subbasins means that citizens and F&W recovery are adversely affected, and you are not getting at the problem, he added.
Some people “don’t want to see a dogcatcher,” let alone a bunch of salmon planners coming out to their area, Cassidy said. We’ve set 24 months for subbasin planning, but I fear that once we start down this path, it could go on for three to five years and cost a lot more than we expect, he stated, adding “that’s what I’m looking to avoid.”
The Council decided to ask staff to draft something up on incentives and penalties for further consideration.
2. Remarks by the Honorable James A. McClure, former US Senator from Idaho
Former Senator James McClure of Idaho offered his perspectives on the intent of Congress when it passed the Northwest Power Act in 1980. The debate about public power versus private power had been going on for years before the Act passed, he noted. At that time, there were predictions of power shortages in the Northwest due to population growth, McClure stated. There was thought to be a one-to-one relationship between economic growth and energy consumption, and it was assumed that for every 1 percent of economic growth, there would be a 1 percent increase in energy consumption, he said.
The population growth in the Northwest was outstripping other parts of the country, except the Sunbelt, and there was optimism the future would be bright and the economy would continue to grow, McClure recalled. It was thought there was a need for major new sources of energy supply, and the Washington Public Power Supply System was born, he said. But the growth turned out to be not as fast, and the WPPSS debacle became a regional and national problem, McClure stated. Against that backdrop, we realized something had gone wrong in the planning process and that changes needed to be made, he said.
Debate centered around the Columbia River system, energy consumption, and the environment, according to McClure. We tried to write a law that would create a planning process for the region as a whole to look at regional requirements, he said. We didn’t know we had created a compact -- the courts told us that later, McClure noted.
He credited former Senator Mark Hatfield with putting the emphasis on conservation and renewables in the Act. It doesn’t mandate their use, but it gives them a 10 percent advantage over other alternatives, McClure said.
There was a debate over the composition of the Council, he recalled. As an upstream state, we always resented the downstream states and thought at times they were ignoring us, McClure said. We wanted the rights of the upstream states, which furnish all the water recognized. In the Act, the upstream states got an equal voice, he said.
The question that plagues the Council today, according to McClure, is: “how do you balance the authority of the Council with that of other federal and state agencies?” [Former Washington senator] Scoop Jackson thought the Council should have authority over everyone but Bonneville, and Hatfield was also a defender of Bonneville, he noted. There are lots of statutes that give federal and state agencies authority, and there is the question of whether the Council can overrule other agencies, McClure said.
We debated the question endlessly and came to the position that the Council should take into account other statutes, but not be bound by them, he said. That position is subject to the courts, and there can be disagreements about what language in the laws means, according to McClure. For example, I think the Endangered Species Act needs reform -- when the law was written, Congress didn’t foresee how it would be applied, he stated.
Congress didn’t create an autonomous board, McClure said. The Council must listen to other agencies, describe the factual basis of its decisions, the tradeoffs considered, and the reasons why it didn’t do what an agency recommended, he stated. The question is what the Council does when the other agencies disagree among themselves, McClure added.
What’s the historical perspective on how the balance between fish and power came into the Act? Cassidy asked. The conflict between fish and other values in the Northwest is apparent now, and it was to us then, McClure replied. I thought the Act should balance them from the beginning, he said.
Karier asked about the Gorton amendment. I didn’t think the Gorton amendment was necessary because the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) made it clear that economic impact is a consideration in making a decision, McClure replied. Economic tradeoffs are as important as any other, he said.
3. Briefing on Issues for Mainstem Plan Amendments
Doug Marker, Director, Fish & Wildlife Division; John Shurts, General Counsel; and Bruce Suzumoto, Manager, Special Projects.
Shurts said the staff is getting ready to put together a draft mainstem plan for the Council to consider at its May meeting. The approach we propose, he stated, would follow the format of the 2000 F&W program, with an added section on power supply findings and recommendations. The draft would adopt the measures in the BiOps as the baseline for federal F&W operations, Shurts noted.
He said the draft plan would “bring three important things to a mainstem table set by the BiOps”:
- A set of principles and considerations for what it means to treat the mainstem as habitat in a habitat-based program, and to make decisions that benefit all the F&W important to the Council’s program, not just listed species, “which at times may drive the Council to recommend operations different from BiOp operations.”
- Recommendations for not only how to address research, monitoring, and evaluation priorities in the mainstem, but especially how to make better decisions based on this information.
- Power supply considerations, including near-term and longer-term recommendations, for how the management of the hydro system can be part of an evolving adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power supply, while also providing appropriate conditions for F&W.
Calling the power supply discussion a “critical” piece of the mainstem plan, Shurts said the past two years have created a different dynamic. We are getting recommendations on mainstem operations that are power supply recommen-dations, he noted. The mainstem plan has to address the power-supply issue and how to deal with another power emergency, Shurts said. And it has to address whether we are on the path in the long run to satisfy load requirements in all water years and meet F&W needs, he added. This won’t take the place of the Power Plan, but it should flow into that plan, Shurts said.
One of the biggest disconnects between the Giorgi report and the BiOp involves the efficacy of spring flows, said Karier. There isn’t much use of stored water for spring flow augmentations in the 2000 BiOp, and the Giorgi report underlines the BiOp to a great extent, replied Shurts. Karier suggested that the Council’s plan could be more explicit on those kinds of operations and the limits on their value, and Shurts agreed.
4. Briefing on U. S. Forest Service Budget
Doug Marker; Jeff Uebel, U. S. Forest Service.
Jeff Uebel of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) gave a presentation on USFS work in the Columbia River Basin and the agency’s programs for habitat management and aquatic conservation to protect salmon. He pointed out that there is key fish habitat in the national forests. Uebel explained USFS techniques for watershed analysis and restoration, and the agency’s work to enable fish passage at road crossings in the Pacific Northwest.
We have worked extensively with states to implement their fish and watershed plans, he pointed out, describing a variety of efforts, including monitoring, aquatic habitat inventory, recovery planning, water management, “all-H” activities, and land exchanges and acquisitions. USFS direct expenditures in the Columbia River Basin to benefit fish have been $15 million to $20 million a year, Uebel said, adding that the agency’s funding for 2003 and beyond is likely to be level and then decline in future years.
Brogoitti asked what the USFS does when it decommissions a road. It varies from pulling culverts to physically reconstituting the site, depending on the terrain, replied Uebel. The costs can vary tremendously, he said.
Hines asked about USFS involvement with subbasin planning. We are trying to communicate what subbasin planning is to our personnel, replied Linda Ulmer of the USFS. We’re working internally to raise the degree of awareness and to show its benefits, she said.
5. Remarks by the Honorable Dirk Kempthorne, Governor of Idaho
Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne said he has been impressed with the Council’s work in balancing the needs of F&W with the region’s demand for reliable energy. Three years ago, I told you the solutions to many of the issues you are dealing with would not be solved by Congress, he stated. Your leadership and our regional approach are proving that the states can solve their own problems as equal partners with the federal agencies, Kempthorne said. The governor said Jim Connaughton, chair of the federal Council on Environmental Quality, told him, “When the Northwest speaks as a region, you have our undivided attention.”
There is no easy solution -- no silver bullet to our problems, Kempthorne said. But I’m convinced our continued cooperation, collaboration, and coordination on matters of endangered species, regional power planning, and other issues of mutual concern will lead to real success in the short term, while setting the stage for long-term solutions, he stated.
Our state has developed a good working relationship with our five Idaho tribes on environmental issues, Kempthorne said. With their support and participation, the subbasin planning process is moving forward, he added. Kempthorne reported on Idaho’s management plans for grizzly bears and wolves and said the state, working in a strong partnership with the Nez Perce Tribe, is now one step closer to the delisting of these species, and two steps closer to giving Idaho the ability to properly manage its wildlife.
He cited several successful collaborative projects in his state, including the Little Salmon River project, the first-ever state water plan that will protect anadromous fisheries in the basin, with 68 miles of Idaho streams now protected. If the Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville can lease water from our irrigators, we’ll realize energy savings and protect private property rights, Kempthorne stated. In all these, we are not “studying”-- we are implementing, he added.
The Boise Basin snowpack is about 95 percent of normal, but that isn’t the case in eastern Idaho, Kempthorne said. The upper and middle Snake Basins are only around 80 percent of normal, and coming off one of the driest years in a century, we don’t expect these reservoirs to fill to capacity, he stated. Even so, we have once again reauthorized the 427,000 acre-feet of water for flow augmentation “in a show of good faith,” and if the water is available, it may be used on a willing-buyer/willing-seller basis, Kempthorne said. But before “Idaho’s life-giving water” is sent downstream, there must be a scientifically defensible study that documents the specific benefits of flow augmentation, he stated. We need to get the facts on this controversial issue, Kempthorne urged.
I am convinced that one of the keys to protecting Idaho’s interest in salmon recovery is to reach across state and party lines, he said. This approach has proven successful through the four governors’ recommendations on salmon recovery, Kempthorne indicated. We have a plan on which we all agree, and the key is to fully implement the federal BiOp, he said.
Kempthorne reported he has asked that Idaho be included in future allocations of the Pacific Salmon Coastal Recovery Fund. In the past, Idaho was overlooked despite the fact our anadromous fish also take up residency in the Pacific Ocean, he said. We would use the money to implement on-the-ground projects to produce immediate improvements for anadromous fish stocks, Kempthorne stated.
On May 1, the four governors will meet again, he noted, “to reaffirm the success of our regional approach and look ahead to what comes next.” Anytime the governors from our four states agree, we’re four times as powerful, Kempthorne said.
Whether addressing energy generation and transmission or tackling endangered species issues, we must continue in this process that respects local control, honors the role of the states and tribes, and brings results, he continued. As we do, I hope that cooperation, not litigation, is the theme of our efforts, Kempthorne said. We can have a functioning ecosystem and protect our environment and our species while providing for the needs of our citizens, he concluded.
6. Council Decision on Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provincial Review
Doug Marker; John Ogan, Senior Counsel; and Mark Fritsch, Fish Production Coordinator.
The Council approved $36.3 million for three-year funding of projects in the Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake provinces, which cover parts of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Marker explained the disposition of several programmatic issues associated with the funding package. For example, the Council decided that Bonneville funding of Hatchery and Genetics Management Plans be contingent on integrating that work with the Council’s Artificial Production Review and subbasin planning, he said.
Marker explained the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s (ISRP) concern that supplementation be treated as an experimental strategy. He said supplementation is being used as a strategy in the basin in concert with habitat restoration, and the staff does not think it should always be treated as an experiment.
Marker noted the issue of “Safety-net Artificial Production Programs,” or SNAPP, which are ESA-based artificial production initiatives for at-risk populations, created by the BiOp. The ISRP has questioned whether the SNAPP program is scientifically justified, he said. We are going to do more work on this with Bonneville and NMFS, Marker stated.
He explained that the proposed Northeast Oregon Hatchery recommendations pointed up the need for the Council, Bonneville, and F&W managers to develop a capital plan that identifies anticipated large capital costs, and that staff recommends establishing a reserve of unallocated funds for large projects. The Council discussed and agreed to several editorial changes for the provincial funding document.
Council members also went over the projects to be funded in the two provinces. Karier asked about projects the ISRP had rated not fundable. Staffer John Ogan said the Idaho supplementation projects will be going back to the ISRP with answers to the questions the ISRP raised.
Decision – Approval of Staff Recommendations & Funding of Projects.
Danielson made a motion to approve the staff recommendations regarding programmatic issues, with editorial changes made during the meeting, and to fund the list of recommended projects in the Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake provinces. Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
7. Presentation on Analysis of Mainstem Recommendations
John Fazio, Senior Power systems Analyst.
Staffer John Fazio said he used the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) 2000 Biological Opinion (BiOp) as a baseline to compare the costs and impacts of recommendations to change mainstem hydro operations. The recommendations, submitted as amendments to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife (F&W) Program, generally fall into three groups, he noted: those that back away from current F&W constraints; those that propose significant changes, including dam breaching; and, those that propose less significant changes to current operations.
The analysis looked at short-term measures that could be implemented over the next one to five years and so did not cover dam breaching. It measured impacts on hydropower generation, costs to the power system, reservoir elevations, river flows, and nutrient retention time at Grand Coulee. Fazio’s study sums up the recommendations as follows:
- The Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association, which calls for reducing flow augmentation and using the savings to fund non-mainstem recovery activities, would save the region about 280 average megawatts (aMW) and $60 million per year.
- The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), which proposes changing flood control to allow more storage of water, increasing spring and summer flows, and reshaping river flows to match the natural hydrograph, would reduce annual energy production by about 570 aMW and cost $160 million per year.
- Idaho Water Users, seeking to eliminate all flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River Basin and abolish flow targets at Lower Granite, would save about 10 aMW of energy and $2 million per year.
- Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game (IDFG), which would implement Integrated Rule Curves (IRC) at all federal reservoirs and make several other specific operational changes, would save about 130 aMW and $60 million per year.
- Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, with a long list of changes to reservoir draft limits and flow objectives, and maximum spill, would result in virtually no annual change in energy or costs.
- Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, which would add IRC operations to the 2000 BiOp, would also result in essentially no energy or cost impacts.
- Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, which propose current BiOp operations, but changes to operations at Grand Coulee to increase nutrient retention time to benefit resident fish, would save about 25 aMW and increase revenues by about $1 million annually.
- Spokane Tribes, which also seek changes to increase nutrient retention times at Grand Coulee, would result in no change to annual generation or costs.
- Federal agencies (Bonneville, NMFS, and the Corps of Engineers), which would implement the 2000 BiOp, would reduce annual energy production by about 1,200 aMW and cost the region $260 million per year, compared to a pre-Power Council (power-optimized) operation.
Fazio indicated only three proposals (CRITFC, Columbia-Snake Irrigators, and IDFG) would cause a significant change in the annual average regional energy picture or costs. Two (CRITFC going up and irrigators going down) would change spring flows significantly, he said. Most of the proposals would have a measurable effect on summer flows, Fazio explained, pointing out that summer flows are more sensitive to operational changes because natural flows are much lower. The ODFW operation shows the greatest increase in summer flows, he noted.
Only the CRITFC and irrigators’ recommendations would have significant effects on spring reservoir content, Fazio said, indicating CRITFC would increase storage for the spring migration period, while the irrigators would use more water for power. Both the CRITFC and irrigators’ proposals would leave reservoirs lower by over one million acre-feet than the BiOp on June 30, he noted. All of the recommendations, except those of the Spokane Tribes, would leave federal reservoirs with more water in storage than the 2000 BiOp on August 31, Fazio said.
He explained that the CRITFC recommendation for providing greater spring and summer flows, as well as higher reservoir elevations in August, is based on releases from Arrow and Mica dams in Canada.
Montana council member, John Hines, at his inaugural meeting, asked whether there had been any discussion of how the changes CRITFC proposes at Arrow Dam could be achieved. It can be done, but whether it can be done every year, I don’t know, Fazio replied. I modeled what was physically possible, not what was institutionally possible, he added.
What are your assumptions on power prices? Eric Bloch asked. I used numbers from two years ago -- $27.7/MW-hour, with a summer peak price of $39 and a secondary peak price of $34 in winter, Fazio answered, adding that the numbers are being revised now.
8. Presentation on Sensitivity Analysis of Mainstem Actions
John Fazio
Spill is the most costly component of the BiOp, Fazio stated, presenting the results of his evaluation of the costs and energy impacts of current F&W operations. He said the analysis was done to: ascertain where best to spend research money; help prioritize F&W measures in the event some have to be curtailed for power emergencies; and, help the Council choose between alternatives that achieve the same biological objectives.
The components of a F&W operation are flow augmentation, reservoir elevation, and bypass spill, according to Fazio. Bonneville reviewed his analysis and suggested some cautions, pointing out that the costs of various scenarios can be underestimated by just adding up the components of an operation, he said.
Spill represents two-thirds to three-quarters of the cost of the BiOp, so it would be a good idea to have research dollars focus on spill, Fazio stated. He said, for example, that John Day summer spill costs between $25 million to $30 million annually, and he told the Council “spending some research money to study spill at John Day, Bonneville, and The Dalles dams would be money well spent.”
Fazio pointed out that the cost of spill depends on what the flows are. More research needs to be done to see if there are optimum spill operations or devices that can limit spill in a way that can save money, he said.
The Giorgi report [Mainstem Passage Strategies in the Columbia River System: Transportation, Spill and Flow Augmentation by Al Giorgi et al in January 2002] also highlighted that spill is one of the most costly operations, stated Tom Karier. The information you present here goes well with the needs pointed out in the Giorgi report, he said.
9. Presentation on Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) Proposed River Operations Plan for 2002
Bob Heinith, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.
Bob Heinith of CRITFC presented a 2002 River Operations Plan, which he said is based on a normative hydrograph that would give anadromous fish migrations a natural peaking flow regime. We want to look at the mainstem as habitat, he stated, noting that some of the plan’s concepts come from the Return to the River report. We need a new look at energy in the region -- “we need to get the hydro system off the backs of the salmon,” Heinith added.
Among the plan’s key points are:
- Spill enhancement by extending the season from March 20 to September 15.
- Spring daytime spill at Snake River and McNary dams and extension of summer spill at McNary and Snake River dams, except Lower Monumental.
- Biweekly flow and reservoir elevation recommendations at various index points in the basin instead of seasonal target flows.
- Flood control flexibility using better forecast methods and historical trends. “The Corps has already flushed 7-8 MAF down the river this spring,” he said.
- Additional “pockets of water” from upper basin storage, such as 1.5 MAF from Canadian storage and 947 KAF from the Upper Snake.
- Available storage and runoff shaped to meet peaking, normative hydrographs at Priest Rapids, Lower Granite, The Dalles, and other index points, while assuring refill of reservoirs by June 30.
- Integrated rule curves at Libby and Hungry Horse without compensating drafts at Lake Roosevelt.
The plan proposes that the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) be the regional decisionmaking forum for federal hydro operations, Heinith noted. The definition of “emergency” must be recast for 2002 to exclude any Bonneville financial problems, he said.
The BiOp compels the Corps to initiate a process to re-examine flood control curves -- what’s that process and “how many decades will it take?” Bloch asked. The Corps thinks it needs $14 million from Congress to do the assessment, replied Heinith. We think that’s too expensive and that they could do it in-house, he said.
Do you think that adding water to the system in the spring is the best use, compared to holding the water back and using it when natural flows are far less? Bloch asked. We want to fill all the reservoirs, and at the same time, create a natural hydrograph, said Heinith.
10. Public Comment on Scientific Report on Mainstem Passage Strategies by Dr. Al Giorgi
In public comment on the Giorgi report, Bert Bowler of Idaho Rivers United said “adaptive management” should be a big component of the Council’s mainstem plan. He advised the Council to adhere to the Return to the River report and “the normative process” as a critical component in developing mainstem amendments.
“Al did a pretty good job,” but his report has “a narrow focus” and is incomplete in its treatment of survival, Bowler stated, urging the Council’s consideration of comments on the report by CRITFC and state agencies. We are concerned the Council is inclined to use the Giorgi report and to recommend relaxing flow and spill and relying on transportation, contrary to what state F&W agencies think should be done, he said.
Is there more recent data that is not in the Giorgi report? Bloch asked. You need to concentrate on the full life cycle of the fish, replied Bowler. The state agencies say that there’s good pre-1993 data that is applicable, and you should look at that, as well as the post-1993 data, he said.
Tom Stewart of Idaho Rivers United said the balance sought in the Northwest Power Act hasn’t yet been achieved. The Council has shown more courage than the federal agencies did with the BiOp, he stated. You acknowledged that the mainstem is important and that depending on offsite mitigation for hydro impacts is not appropriate, Stewart commented.
Stewart said he shares Bowler’s “reverence” for the Return to the River report. It provides the fundamental concepts that can lead you to success, he stated. The recovery of Idaho salmon and steelhead does not depend on subbasin plans -- it depends on mainstem actions, according to Stewart.
I’m troubled that the federal family is moving away from a more natural river process, he continued. In the Snake, we are not spreading the risk -- we’re collecting and transporting 70 percent of species in the best of conditions, and in the worst of conditions, we’re doing it for 95 percent of species, Stewart said. To create a more natural flow sequence, we’ll have to overhaul flood control and rely on spill and probably have to use water rentals and acquisitions, he stated. The federal family talks about flows, but hasn’t had much success in achieving them, Stewart said.
Norm Semanko of the Idaho Water Users Association said his group agrees with the Giorgi report’s recommendation that a comprehensive evaluation of the flow augmentation program is badly needed and long overdue. We have been willing to participate in the rental and use of storage water from willing sellers, pursuant to state law, while waiting for a thorough evaluation of the flow program to be conducted, he stated. The few evaluations that have been done indicate the flow augmentation program has not been very successful, which “raises grave concerns” about accountability for those taxpayer and ratepayer funds that have been spent on flow augmentation, Semanko said.
“A low water year cannot be made into a good water year through flow augmentation,” and the difference between what Mother Nature provides in a good year and what she provides in a bad year greatly exceeds what limited storage we have in the Upper Snake River Basin, he stated. Low-water conditions still prevail in eastern Idaho and reservoirs were largely depleted last year, Semanko said, adding that the prospects for this year are also slim. He commended the report for recognizing that any flow augmentation program must be shown to improve survival of the listed species to aid recovery and that focusing on relationships with travel time is not adequate.
“To avoid a Klamath-type situation in southern Idaho, we urge you to retain the willing seller and state law conditions of the current flow augmentation program,” Semanko said. This is the single most important message that I can leave you with, he added.
11. Briefing by Wildlife Managers on Wildlife Crediting
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Wildlife Crediting, Chaired by Judi Danielson.
A panel of wildlife managers gave a briefing on wildlife crediting, using the yellow warbler and its habitat to explain the crediting methodology. We believe Bonneville’s approach to wildlife crediting is inconsistent with the Council’s F&W program, said Karl Scheeler of CBFWA.
Where in the Power Act does it say habitat will be mitigated, rather than the species itself? Kempton asked. This methodology, which takes a habitat approach, has been federally recognized, replied Scheeler. The Act doesn’t specify habitat or populations, noted Ogan. The Council decided in the late 1980s to use habitat as the currency in its F&W program to deal with wildlife mitigation, he said.
Is the problem with Bonneville that it has never accepted the habitat standard as the basis for funding mitigation? Kempton inquired. The disagreement between Bonneville and the Council is over whose obligation it is to decide what the scope of the wildlife mitigation effort is, replied Ogan.
Bloch asked about the credit Bonneville would get for purchasing a parcel of land versus enhancing what’s on that land. The question is whether full credit should be given for the protection action, if no enhancement action is taken, said Susan Barnes of the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. It isn’t that Bonneville hasn’t moved to protect wildlife, stated Maureen Smith of the USFWS. But we don’t think full credit should be given for a simple acquisition, maybe a partial credit, she stated.
The “take-home message,” according to Smith, is that “1 Habitat Unit (HU) credit for 1 HU protected does not replace habitat value lost.” To get credit, you need to increase the carrying capacity of the land for existing populations and enhance the likelihood of increasing the populations, she stated.
12. Panel and Public Comment on the Power Plan Issue Paper
Randy Budge, Racine Olson Nye, Budge & Bailey, representing various irrigation and industrial customers in Idaho; Bud Tracy, Raft River Electric Cooperative; Gerald Fleischman, Idaho Department of Water Resources, Energy Division; and Ric Gale, Idaho Power Company.
Bud Tracy, general manager of Raft River Rural Electric Cooperative, questioned whether it is realistic for the Council to jump into the middle of contentious transmission issues. The extent of the need for Council involvement may become a little clearer later this spring as the RTO West filing takes shape, he said. If the Council decides to make recommendations on transmission issues, we hope you remember the concepts important to smaller and geographically isolated utilities, Tracy stated, noting that Raft River “is literally at the end of the line out there in southern Idaho.”
When we say an “efficient” transmission system, we mean one that does not require paying the fully embedded costs across multiple transmission ownerships as a function of delivering power to the end consumer, he noted. Any recommendations regarding transmission should recognize the history of the General Transfer Agreements (GTAs) that “have saved the region from duplicative construction of transmission lines and allowed remote systems to get the power to our consumers at a reasonable cost,” according to Tracy. We also have concerns about the need to protect against cost shifts to transmission-dependent utilities, he added.
Future Role of Bonneville. Our industry has changed a great deal since the Power Act was passed, and it may no longer make sense to view Bonneville as the single entity charged with regional resource acquisition and management, Tracy stated. Any approach for the future treatment of Bonneville’s obligations should align and secure customer interests in the output of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS), he said. The approach should create greater stability through long-term contracts and limit Bonneville’s role in the market, Tracy stated.
The issue paper takes a reasonable approach to the role of the Council and its power plan in the region’s future, he said. That role would be for the Council to coordinate with customer groups, analyze proposals developed by customers, and gather a broader set of comments on those proposals, Tracy indicated. But the Council should not duplicate what Bonneville needs to do to reach a record of decision on a matter, he added.
Water and Fish. Creating a balance between the existing FCRPS and environmental obligations is an important role for the Council, Tracy pointed out, reminding the members that the Power Act calls for the Council to look not just at environmental costs and benefits, but also at the overall cost-effectiveness of recommended measures or resources. One of the most cost-effective measures we could take to create more generation without harm to the environment is to revisit the spill and flow augmentation regimes that have been accepted on faith for far too long, he said.
A year and a half ago, I applauded the Council’s recognition in its F&W plan of the need for more accountability with these measures, Tracy noted. Today, I applaud you for getting more of the real facts out on the table for all to see, he said. The Giorgi report “clearly displays large holes in the science behind these measures,” according to Tracy. “The effects of flow and spill should be much better quantified before there are any more demands for large volumes of water that my customers use to grow the food we eat, or before there are any more demands for water spilled over dams costing ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said.
Tracy urged the Council in its Power Plan and mainstem plan to “aggressively seize the opportunity to bring some common sense back into river operations.” Only with a firm scientific foundation can we properly balance the needs of fish with the serious needs for generation and system reliability, he stated.
Conservation. Tracy said Raft River is committed to conservation for the long term and supports the Council’s analysis of the potential value of having a more sustained level of conservation effort in the region. As part of our power management through PNGC Power, we have joined with 14 other utilities to build conservation programs that are sustainable over the long term, he indicated.
We are much more interested in arrangements that create incentives and opportunities to change behavior than we are in extra charges to raise funds or new organizations to manage those funds, Tracy pointed out. Conservation only becomes a reality when people change their behavior, and those changes do not occur by developing institutions or programs that are disconnected from the people, he added.
Kempton asked him to elaborate on his reservations about the Council jumping into the transmission debate. Things are changing daily with RTO West, with new rulings expected from FERC, Tracy replied. He suggested the Council wait until those come out before deciding what to do on transmission.
Gerald Fleischman of the Idaho Dept. of Water Resources Energy Division gave a presentation on wind power, noting the technology is advancing fast globally. The top wind leaders are Germany, the United States, Denmark, and Spain, he said. In Denmark, 20 percent of their power comes from wind, and “somehow, they deal with the issue of intermittency,” Fleischman stated.
The Department of Energy’s goal for wind power is 80,000 MW by 2020, he reported. The production tax credit is important in promoting additional use of wind power, Fleischman said. The size of wind turbines is getting larger, while the costs are projected to go down, he noted.
The Northwest’s hydro system has a big advantage in using wind power because it can store energy, Fleischman continued. He said the price of wind power is 3 cents/kWh, including O&M. Have you done any evaluation of firming costs associated with wind power? Hines asked. Fleischman said he had not, but he noted there is a need for programs that encourage innovation in the power industry.
Betsy Galtney, Regulatory Affairs Representative for Idaho Power, said generation additions aren’t keeping pace with demand, despite projections that by 2020, electricity consumption will increase by 43 percent, and that 355 gigawatts of new generation capacity will be needed. Until FERC market and RTO issues are settled, the wholesale market is going to be fraught with uncertainty for independent developers, she stated.
Generation is also developed under a regulated and vertically integrated model, which is what we have in Idaho, Galtney noted. Uncertainty stems from whether regulators will allow utilities to recover their resource planning initiatives in rate base, she said. It would be beneficial for the Council’s upcoming Power Plan to evaluate the incentives for generation development under both models, she suggested.
Regardless of the model, without some market mechanism or regulatory requirement for excess capacity, new generation is less likely to be built, Galtney said. A Council investigation into an efficient solution to encourage new capacity construction would be informative, she stated.
Increasing Price Responsiveness of Demand. Energy providers are under a lot of pressure from FERC, federal legislators, commissioners, and the metering and demand-management industry to institute demand-response programs, Galtney pointed out. Real-time price signals can be an important piece of a well-functioning energy market, and well-structured demand-response programs can yield significant benefits, she said. But program designers need to proceed with caution because free-ridership, subsidization, valuation, and effectiveness measurement are all concerns, Galtney noted.
Idaho Power’s experience has shown that the most effective demand-response programs are implemented at the utility, rather than the RTO, level; that programs that most closely mimic supply-side options are the most useful for shaping load; and that short-term contracts are preferable to long-term contracts, she stated. In investigating demand response in the Northwest, the Council should consider: cost recovery, appropriate incentives for all parties, and avoiding regulatory subsidies, Galtney advised.
Sustained Investment in Conservation or Energy Efficiency. Stable and predictable conservation planning and funding preserves continuity in the promotion and support of energy efficiency, she observed. Divorcing conservation from market considerations is not appropriate, but a long-term market view would support sustained investment, Galtney said. An unbiased Council evaluation of the benefits of sustained investment would inform the debate and perhaps gain broader acceptance for tariff riders, she suggested. Galtney cautioned that while new technology applications will lead to additional energy-efficiency improvements, these won’t be enough to satisfy the future energy needs of the Northwest.
Transmission Policy and Planning. Regulatory uncertainty, siting difficulties, and transmission ratemaking policies have created roadblocks to expanding needed transmission facilities, Galtney said. A recent FERC report found that transmission bottlenecks cost consumers more than $1 billion over the past two years, she pointed out. Galtney said the Council’s intent to address transmission issues in its Power Plan is timely, and she said she hoped the Council would support the RTO West model.
Resource Diversity. New generation is heavily weighted to natural gas, Galtney noted. There is a need for public policy that would provide incentives for investment in technologies that increase conversion efficiencies at natural gas plants, and maintain incentives or remove disincentives for hydroelectric and nuclear power generation facilities, she said. Such policies could ease concerns over supply risk, fuel price escalation, supply diversity, and reduce CO2 emissions, Galtney added.
Future Role of Bonneville. Idaho Power is involved in ongoing discussions with Northwest utilities to settle litigation and resolve issues regarding the allocation of FCRPS benefits, she reported. Idaho Power hopes people in the Northwest will work together to support this settlement and create a Northwest solution to the future of Bonneville, Galtney concluded.
How are the settlement discussions going? Bloch asked. The negotiations have produced a white paper, which is to be reviewed by the regulatory commissions and Bonneville shortly, Galtney replied.
13. Briefing on Issues for Mainstem Plan Amendments
Doug Marker; John Shurts, and Bruce Suzumoto.
Staffer Bruce Suzumoto presented a “conceptual framework” aimed at determining how the Council’s mainstem plan should focus research dollars and how research results could be used in the Council’s decisionmaking. He said the framework tries to look at “win-wins,” in contrast to the years and years energy and fish interests have spent in a “win-lose” situation.
Suzumoto presented a matrix of low-to-high energy benefits and F&W benefits, indicating that people interested in F&W tend to focus on the quadrant with high F&W benefits and low energy benefits, while power-oriented groups focus on the quadrant with high energy benefits and low F&W benefits. But the Council has a dual purpose, exemplified by the quadrant with high energy benefits and high F&W benefits, and that’s where research efforts should focus, he said.
Suzumoto said Fazio’s analysis indicates spill is the measure that “poses the real problem” for energy impacts. If spill has a high F&W benefit and a low energy benefit, the question is, how do we move spill into the high-energy benefit quadrant, he said. There are new surface collection technologies and removable spillway weirs that use less spill, but are a safer means to pass fish, and they could be looked into as part of the Council’s research, Suzumoto suggested.
We don’t know what the relationship of spill and survival is at the different projects, he continued. A study at The Dalles showed that spill increased survival initially, but then a peak was reached beyond which decreases in survival started to occur, according to Suzumoto. To optimize spill, you would need to look at each project, with its different configuration and bypass system, and try to see where you can get maximum survival for the least amount of spill, he stated.
Why is there higher mortality with higher spill? Is it nitrogen levels? asked Council chair Larry Cassidy. Yes, and also there is physical damage to the fish that takes place, replied Suzumoto.
Suzumoto sketched out an approach to decisionmaking that could be used once the mainstem research is completed. Council members said the approach would need to be framed in terms of the goals of the F&W program.
The Giorgi report laid out a lot of research topics, and we need to do something with them, Karier stated. We need to prioritize all the research questions and also consider how measures could be implemented and by whom, he added.
Staffer John Shurts said that Jim Kempton has requested Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) review of the Giorgi report, and in addition, some ISAB members have indicated they would like to comment on the report. The Council decided to ask the ISAB to review the report and comments the Council has received on the report. The ISAB’s review can be done fairly quickly, staffer Doug Marker said.
14. Public Comment on the Proposed Alternative Project Selections Process
Ray Entz of the Kalispel Tribe said the proposed alternative project selection process seems to be closely aligned with subbasin planning, and there are problems to be resolved with subbasin planning. We agree that the subbasin is the right level for the planning, but there are federal and state agency and tribal mandates that need to be met and can’t be addressed in the subbasin planning process, he stated. The Power Act doesn’t allow the Council to breach its obligations to tribes, Entz said.
Kempton told Entz the draft of the alternative project selection process that was sent out to the public omitted a cross-border issue, and that the issue will be put back into the proposal. We honor cross-border trusts and treaties, but we do need to discuss some issues with the tribes and managers, and I look forward to receiving your written comments, he stated.
15. Council Business
Danielson moved that the Council approve the minutes for the February Council meeting, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Danielson moved that the Council approve the minutes for the March Council meeting, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Review of Membership of Fuel, Demand Forecast, and Generation
The Council voted to approve the membership rosters for three committees to advise in the development of next Power Plan: a 27-member Natural Gas Advisory Committee; a 10-member Demand Forecasting Advisory Committee; and a 21-member Generating Resources Advisory Committee.
Staffer Steve Crow said the Power Committee has reviewed and recommended the membership lists of the three advisory committees. Karier moved, and Cassidy seconded, to accept the proposed membership of the committees. The motion passed unanimously.
Staffer Doug Marker said the Fish Committee had recommended funding to
initiate monitoring and evaluation for the Duncan Creek project in
Washington State. Danielson made a motion, seconded by Bloch, that
the Council approve, and recommend that Bonneville use $20,000 in
carry-over funds for, Project 200105300, Re-Introduction of Lower Columbia
River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek, for the monitoring and evaluation
activities proposed. The motion passed unanimously.
The Council Meeting was adjourned at 11:00 am on April 4, 2002.
Approved May 15, 2002
s/s Judi Danielson
Vice-Chair