Council Meeting Minutes
Riverhouse Hotel and Convention Center
Bend, Oregon
June 11-12, 2002
Contents
1. ISAB review of Giorgi report on mainstem passage
2. Mainstem plan amendments
3. Within-year funding
4. Funding projects on federal land
5. BiOp and RPA 151
6. Habitat issues
7. Revised ISAB charter
8. Ocean survival
9. Deschutes Basin
10. Subbasin planning
11. Council business
The meeting began at 3:10 pm on 6/11 and ended at 2:30 pm on 6/12.
Decision ? To Meet in Executive Session
Danielson made a motion that the Council meet in executive session at
the call of the chair to discuss matters protectible under the civil
litigation exception. John Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously on a roll-call vote.
Chip McConnaha, Manager Program Analysis and Evaluation.
Staffer Chip McConnaha presented the results of the Independent
Scientific Advisory Board?s (ISAB) review of the report, ?Mainstem
Passage Strategies in the Columbia River System: Transportation,
Spill, and Flow Augmentation,? by Al Giorgi and others. In
general, the ISAB ?applauded the Giorgi report for summarizing the state
of the science and concurred with most of what Giorgi told the Council,?
he said.
They did add some caveats, according to McConnaha, for example, the
distinction between something that is proven and a general indication in
some direction. The ISAB would say that the premises behind the
major mainstem strategies have not been proven and that there are
indications in certain directions, but that nothing warrants a major
change in terms of mainstem operations, he said.
McConnaha went through the ISAB?s conclusions on three mainstem
strategies. He said the ISAB and Giorgi agree there is better
survival for yearling chinook with transportation than without, but the
jury is still out on the benefits of transportation for steelhead.
They also agree that the benefit of transportation for fall chinook is an
unknown, McConnaha noted.
Spill. Both Giorgi and the ISAB conclude that spill
remains the most benign way of getting fish past a hydro project, although
the mechanisms associated with that survival are not understood, he
said. The ISAB adds that another benefit of spill is speed -- it
accelerates passage ?through the concrete,? McConnaha pointed
out. Spill offers less delay than a bypass system, and over several
dams, the time-savings could be substantial, according to the ISAB.
Flow Augmentation. McConnaha summed up what the ISAB said
here by telling the Council there are two paradigms to describe the
Columbia River. The old paradigm, prevalent in the 1980s and early
1990s, considered the river to be ?a pipe,? and you flush fish down
the pipe, he said. The ?new paradigm,? which came into currency
when the ?Return to the River? report was published, is that the river
is a river, and as such, has complexities of habitat, velocities, and the
like, McConnaha explained.
The ISAB was mildly critical of the Giorgi report for looking at things
from the perspective of the old paradigm, he said. The ISAB is
cautious in its conclusion about flow augmentation, noted McConnaha.
They say they don?t see a strong relationship between flow, travel time,
and survival; but in keeping with the new paradigm, they find it difficult
to say flow has no impact because flow is a key characteristic of a river,
he said. Both the ISAB and Giorgi emphasize the need for better
studies, McConnaha added.
John Brogoitti asked about the ISAB?s comments on the need for
testing the effects of flow on survival. The ISAB isn?t saying the
science is so conclusive that the program or operations need overhaul at
this time, replied McConnaha. They say there is a strong need for
additional studies on flow and how it affects river conditions, he added.
Since the ISAB says there is no need for wholesale changes, does that
mean small changes are necessary? Hines asked. The ISAB is not
recommending large or small changes -- they recommend an experiment to
understand more about flow so that large or small changes can be decided
on, replied McConnaha.
How dead is the flow-increases-survival hypothesis? Bloch asked.
Is there more study to be done on the travel-time issue -- if we did more
flow, would the effects be more scientifically detectable? he
inquired. Under the old paradigm, the only part of flow we?ve
really investigated is the question of if you increase flow, thus
decreasing travel time for fish, does it affect survival, replied
McConnaha. The ISAB says that simplistic model from the 1980s
shouldn?t be used to investigate flow questions, he added. The
ISAB report recommends that the Council, with advice from NMFS, ?specifically
solicit proposals that clearly state existing and novel hypotheses for the
effects of flow on smolt survival and provide experimental designs for
testing them.?
Given the data that has been collected since the 1970s, some of it by
NMFS, what's the basis for the Council to accept ?as scientific dogma?
the conditions specified in the 2000 BiOp? Kempton asked. there's
a body of science out there that Giorgi summarized, and the ISAB is
emphasizing that it needs improvement, replied McConnaha. NMFS
looked at the body of science and concluded that the set of operations in
the BiOp was what was needed, he added.
If there are inconsistencies in this complex area of study, why shouldn?t
the Council consider recommendations outside of the current BiOp?s flow
augmentation specifications? Kempton asked. that's a decision for
the Council, and if you want to do that, that's fine, McConnaha
answered.
it's important to acknowledge the strong support the ISAB provides
for the Giorgi report, observed Karier. They both reinforce the idea
that we don?t know the proper level of operations for fish and that we
have to do large-scale experiments that turn these operations on and off
and see what happens, he stated. that's a politically difficult
thing to do, but this calls for the Council to show leadership, Karier
said. Our mainstem draft is oriented to research to test these
hypotheses -- the ISAB has given us good guidance, and we can do a lot
with it, he added.
Doug Marker, Director, Fish and Wildlife division; and John Shurts,
General Counsel.
Staff served up a first draft of the 2002 mainstem plan amendments, but
the Council wasn?t satisfied, and when the markups ended, it was clear
the mainstem menu at the Yakima meeting would feature both editorial
tidbits and major policy bites. Staffer John Shurts said the draft?s
introduction points out two differences with previous versions of the
amendments. The first is that past programs specified system
operations for fish and wildlife (F&W), but now those are covered in
the federal agencies? Biological Opinions (BiOps), he noted.
The second difference is that for the first time, the draft mainstem
plan includes power planning provisions relating to the operation and
development of the federal system, Shurts explained. Under these
provisions, the Council will recommend actions for federal agencies and
others that aim to assure the system is better able to provide the
specified operations for F&W and meet appropriate load demands, he
said.
At the moment, the staff draft only has a placeholder for the section
on how to assure an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable power
supply (AEERPS), Shurts stated. In the next version of the document,
we will try to frame this issue, he said.
At the Power Committee meeting the day before, staffer Dick Watson
addressed the question of what it means to protect, mitigate, and enhance
F&W affected by the hydro system and assure an AEERPS. If there
are to be tradeoffs, it is possible some F&W measures might be found
to be too costly or have too great an impact on reliability, he
said. The Council's legal staff?s opinion, according to Watson,
is that the F&W program is not a ?hard? constraint on the power
system, but a ?firm? constraint. The Council has to protect,
mitigate, and enhance AND assure an AEERPS, but that doesn?t mean the
Council has to achieve both all the time, he said. We don?t plan
for a 100 percent reliable power system, and we don?t have to achieve
100 percent reliability in meeting F&W targets, but the treatment
should be comparable, Watson explained.
Watson parsed the meaning of ?adequate,? ?efficient,? and ?economical,?
calling the latter ?the most slippery of the criteria.? He
asked, for example, ?if F&W measures cause power to cost as much or
more than power in other states, is it not economical?? As in the
past, we?ll look at this question from a regional standpoint, Watson
said, pointing out that the near-term impacts are likely to be different
from the long-term impacts.
In the near term, the next two to three years, we?re probably okay
for adequacy and reliability, but the upcoming Power Plan needs to deal
with the long-term issues, he stated. The fundamental question
underlying the Power Plan is whether the policies and mechanisms are in
place to assure an AEERPS, with or without F&W measures, Watson
noted. We?ll incorporate the near-term look into the 2002 mainstem
amendments, but ?we can?t rush the longer-term look into them,? he
said.
The draft mainstem amendments say the Council does not intend to
duplicate the detailed operating plans of the federal agencies under the
BiOps, Shurts continued. In this, ?we are signing on in general?
to the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) in the BiOps, he
stated.
I thought this language meant the Council won?t propose significant
changes to issues such as flow or spill, stated John Hines. The BiOp
has specific spill operations for fish, but the Council's mainstem plan
could say there are issues about whether BiOp-specified spill operations
for fish are appropriate, Shurts said. I would be concerned if we
were to preclude that kind of discussion up front in the amendments, Hines
stated. We abdicate our responsibility if we say we won?t address
those issues, he added.
To me, this draft says the Council's program won?t talk about dates
or volumes of spill because that's the BiOp level of detail, but we can
address spill, flow, and transportation on a policy level, even though
there are pieces of science that need to drive that discussion, Eric Bloch
said. Tom Karier suggested deleting language in the introduction
that said, ?Nor does the Council intend to declare a set of
countermeasures for what may be more appropriate operations for listed
fish species,? and Shurts said he would.
Shurts pointed out that the ?vision? section of the draft mainstem
plan draws from the Council's 2000 F&W program and emphasizes a ?habitat-based?
approach. Jim Kempton questioned language that said the vision
includes providing conditions within the hydro system for fish that more
closely approximate ?the natural physical and biological conditions
these fish evolved in.? We seem to be straying toward some kind of
?pristine, natural biological condition,? he commented. The key
point here is that concepts from the ?Return to the River? report,
such as thinking of the river as habitat, were adopted into the 2000
F&W program, noted staffer Doug Marker. Shurts said he would
remove any inconsistencies between the language in the vision and the 2000
F&W program.
Turning to the biological objectives section, Kempton objected to the
word ?restore,? as in restoring habitat or fish populations. ?The
Act directs us to protect, enhance, and mitigate, but `restore? is a
whole different ball game -- why are we using that?? he asked.
Because we used it in the 2000 F&W program, Shurts replied.
To restore habitat takes it back to its original condition; enhance
means something quite different, responded Kempton. I wouldn?t
think ?enhance? would satisfy Endangered Species Act (ESA)
requirements, said Cassidy. I recommend continuing to use the term,
but clarifying it in other parts of the document, Shurts stated.
Bloch suggested defining ?restore? in a footnote, and Kempton
suggested adding a glossary to the document.
In the section on migration/passage conditions, Judi Danielson said she
wanted more information before she would approve the goal of ensuring 80
percent Fish Passage Efficiency (FPE) for juvenile migrants between 2001
and 2004, and 90 percent FPE after 2004. Several Council members
asked about the line that said ?improve adult migration survival through
the system by __ percent.? Discussion centered around the
desirability of including such a percentage, and Shurts said he would
rework the section.
Shurts said the strategies portion of the document addresses the BiOps
from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and states that the Council defers to their
recommendations and adopts the measures in them, ?as far as concerns
what are the appropriate operations for listed fish species.?
Kempton objected to the language about deferring to the
recommendations. Hines said the language raises the question of
whether the Council wants to have some flexibility. Why couldn?t
we say ?we accept the measures of the BiOp, except where they are
inconsistent with the Council's mainstem program,? suggested
Bloch. Shurts promised a rewrite.
Kempton asked why there is an item to evaluate the feasibility of
reintroducing anadromous fish into blocked areas, including above Chief
Joseph and Grand Coulee dams, and Cassidy told Shurts to meet with Kempton
on the issue. Danielson questioned what was meant by ?natural
river? in language that said ?survival in the natural river should be
the baseline against which to measure the effectiveness of other passage
methods.? What time period will we use to define the natural
river? Kempton asked. There were extinction issues before the hydro
system was built -- we?re trying to get to survival in existing rivers,
he said. Shurts said he would revise the section.
Shurts noted the three highest priorities for juvenile transportation
studies in the mainstem plan were pulled from the Al Giorgi report.
They are: 1) evaluate whether the survival benefits from transport
from McNary Dam are sufficiently greater, at least under certain
circumstances, than in-river passage to justify continuing (or increasing)
the transport effort from that dam; 2) conduct a mass transportation study
that targets Snake River fall chinook; and 3) more clearly determine what,
if any, delayed survival effects occur due to transport, including
especially adverse effects on homing behavior.
?Putting fish on barges and shipping them downriver is something we
feel we have to do until we improve habitat and the system,? said
Bloch. One day, I hope we won?t have to do that -- that's my
goal, he added. My end goal is a viable fish population, stated
Hines. How it is achieved is not of paramount concern -- ?if it
requires an escalator, that's okay with me,? he said.
Proceeding on a basis that locks in transportation isn?t desirable,
responded Bloch. it's a tough question, observed Cassidy, adding
that ?a good part of our constituent base would have us eliminate
transportation today.? There are those who say, ?if it's not
natural, it's not good,? but I don?t know what ?natural? is on
this system, said Hines.
Shurts pointed out that the text describing spill strategies uses
language from the Giorgi report. It calls for a rigorous evaluation
of the costs and effectiveness of spillway passage at each project, he
noted. It also says the goal of the study should be to ?determine
if it is possible to achieve the same or greater levels of survival and
biological benefit to migrating fish as currently achieved while reducing
the amount of water spilled, thus decreasing the adverse impact on the
region's power supply,? Shurts indicated.
How will we get this evaluation done? asked Cassidy. The Corps
would do most of the research, and we can subject the results to a review
by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), replied Marker.
If this language is still in the plan when it is finally approved, the
Council and NMFS should sit down with the Corps and discuss how the
research will get done, suggested Karier.
There are new ways to do spill -- how do we make sure they get studied?
Cassidy asked. If you want to set research priorities for the Corps,
we need to work at the policy level and not leave it to the technical
people, Marker advised. We should work with the Congressional
delegation, said Bloch. If we recommend changed spill, there will be
opposition, and we?ll need as much political support as we can get, he
added.
Shurts said he would redraft the sections the Council worked through
and present a new package for review at the next meeting.
Mark Fritsch, Fish Production Coordinator
Expanded Scope for Klickitat Watershed
Restoration Study
Staffer Mark Fritsch presented three requests for within-year
reallocations of funds, noting that all three had been approved by the
Fish Committee. The first item was a no-cost request from the Yakama
Nation to expand the scope of a Lower Klickitat project.
Decision ? Recommend Bonneville Expand
Scope
Danielson moved that the Council recommend that Bonneville accept the
request of CBFWA to expand the scope of Project 1997-056-00, Lower
Klickitat River Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project, to
include the entire Klickitat subbasin, provided the objectives and tasks
and funding as approved in the provincial review remain unchanged.
Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed. Bloch was not present for
the vote.
Cutthroat Trout Survey
Fritsch explained that the next project is a request for funds from the
anadromous program unallocated placeholder by the U.S. Geological Survey
to do surveys in tributaries to evaluate the status of coastal cutthroat
trout in the Columbia River Basin above Bonneville Dam.
Decision ? Recommend Bonneville Reallocate
Funds to Evaluate Status of Cutthroat Trout
Danielson moved that the Council recommend Bonneville reallocate
$240,926 in FY 2002 funds and $253,038 in FY 2003 funds for Project
2002-007-00, Evaluate Status of Coastal Cutthroat Trout in the Columbia
River Basin above Bonneville Dam. Brogoitti seconded, and the motion
passed unanimously.
Habitat Evaluation Procedure Funding (subject
to Fish & Wildlife Committee approval)
The third project is a request from CBFWA to expand the scope of a
project to include funding of a Regional Habitat Evaluation Procedures
Team in FY 2002, Fritsch said. Hines asked what the team would
do. It would standardize measurement techniques and provide baseline
information, replied staffer Peter Paquet.
Decision ? Recommend Bonneville Reallocate Funds to Expand Scope
of Project
Danielson moved that the Council recommend that Bonneville reallocate
$93,000 for Project 1989-062-01, F&W Program Implementation, to expand
the scope of the project to fund a Regional Habitat Evaluation Procedures
Team in FY 2002. Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
Doug Marker; and John Ogan, Senior Counsel
Marker reported that Bonneville wants to work with Council staff to
revise its proposed policy for funding habitat improvement projects on
federal lands and present another draft to the Council at its next
meeting. In light of this, Marker proposed the Council defer sending
its comments on the current proposed policy to Bonneville. Our
position is that we support cost sharing, and that there are specifics in
the policy that we want changed, Cassidy stated.
The Council and Bonneville ?weren?t thinking on the same plane on
this,? commented Ed Bartlett. Are some of the matters getting
resolved -- would another month help get them resolved? he asked.
there's been general agreement from Bonneville that the draft policy was
overly broad and could be tightened up, replied Marker. there's a
basis to continue to talk with Bonneville on cost-sharing and other
matters, but we haven?t gotten to specifics yet, he added.
The problem was that the policy wasn?t developed collaboratively with
the Council and others in the basin, said Bloch. It scared a lot of
people, he added. We have some good suggestions and can help bring
the region along on this, if Bonneville commits to work with us, Bloch
stated. We need a commitment that 30 days will actually result in a
better policy Bonneville is willing to embrace, he said. Austin said
there had been a lot of ?misunderstandings? about the draft, and that
Bonneville wants to clarify and streamline the policy and get it done as
quickly as possible
Dan Daley, Bonneville Power Administration
Dan Daley of Bonneville and Jim Athearn of the Corps of Engineers
briefed the Council on the federal action agencies? recently released
report on BiOp implementation in 2001, titled ?ESA 2001 Progress Report
for the FCRPS.? Daley said the 2001 report is the first attempt to
document how the agencies are meeting the requirements of the 2000
BiOp. NMFS will be issuing a ?findings? letter to present its
view of how consistent the agencies? actions were with the BiOp, he
noted.
The progress report is the beginning of a 10-year commitment to further
the recovery of listed fish and meet the performance standards in the NMFS
BiOp, Daley said. Our goal is to implement the Bonneville part of
the BiOp entirely through the Council's program, ?if we can get there,?
he stated. it's not clear how we?ll do that yet, Daley added.
2001 was an odd year -- it turned out to be ?the perfect storm,?
with low water and ?power markets going crazy,? he continued. In
hindsight, we did a lot of things that maybe we shouldn?t have done, but
we tried to take public comment into account and to coordinate with the
Council, Daley added.
Athearn reported on actions related to the hydropower system that the
agencies undertook in 2001, noting that water levels were much lower than
normal so flows for juvenile fish migration fell short of the objectives
in the BiOp. But we were able to release water to help chum salmon
establish redds in the fall and protect the redds until most young fish
emerged in the spring, he said. Water releases also helped the
non-listed fall chinook in the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River and
below Bonneville Dam, Athearn pointed out.
Fish passage systems continued to operate at all eight dams through the
migration season, and the Corps maximized the use of juvenile fish
transportation in the Snake River, as called for in the BiOp during
low-flow years, he reported. On the Snake, 90 to 95 percent of
migrating juvenile fish were transported in 2001, and in the spring at
McNary, 40 percent of the fish were also transported, Athearn said.
In the summer, there was maximum transportation everywhere, he
noted.
Spring and summer spills for fish, although limited, were targeted to
optimize juvenile fish passage benefits, Athearn reported. He
pointed out that the Corps made a number of improvements at the dams,
including installation of a removable weir at Lower Granite to concentrate
spill. It appears to work well, Athearn said.
As for adult fish passage, construction began at Ice Harbor Dam to
upgrade passage facilities to increase their reliability, and the agencies
installed and tested an adult PIT-tag detection system at Bonneville Dam,
he indicated. To improve the environment for salmon, cool water
stored in the Dworshak reservoir was released to lower the temperature in
the lower Snake River, Athearn said.
Daley reported on habitat actions taken in the mainstem, estuary, and
tributaries. The ISAB recommended that we give priority to removing
barriers to fish passage and increasing water in streams, and we did that,
he said. Daley also outlined hatchery actions, including marking
hatchery fish to differentiate them from wild fish and initiation of a
Safety Net Artificial Propagation Program; and harvest actions, such as
programs to evaluate the use of tangle-tooth and floating trap nets to
help protect wild fish caught incidentally and a study of the numbers of
lost fishing nets in the Columbia.
Several projects in 2001 involved monitoring fish populations and the
effectiveness of programs to benefit ESA-listed fish, and we hope the
Council's mainstem project solicitation will address these efforts, he
said. Delayed mortality is one of the key critical uncertainties,
Daley noted.
Adult fish returns in 2001 were really high, but the bad news is that
the hydro system had very little to do with it, he said. Spill was
reduced, which can help returning adults at some projects, but it
contributed to low in-river survival for migrating juvenile fish,
especially in the Columbia River, Daley continued. The Snake River
wasn?t so bad because most fish were transported, he said.
Bloch mentioned an RPA dealing with long-term habitat protection that
calls for Bonneville and NMFS to establish criteria and pointed out the
Council's program calls for similar action. We wrote Bonneville a
year ago to say we had draft criteria for this RPA, and Bonneville never
responded, he said. We need high-level assurances Bonneville, NMFS,
and the other agencies will do ?a heck of a lot better? in
coordinating with the Council, Bloch stated. We haven?t touched
base with NMFS on the long-term habitat criteria because we?ve ?been
ensnarled with NMFS? over what ?long-term? means, replied
Daley. Landowners don?t want it to be more than 15 years, while
NMFS thinks it should be longer, he said. We intend to come to the
Council with those criteria in the future, Daley added.
it's important to do an annual report like this, but it would be more
useful if these evaluations could be done more quickly, observed
Karier. Also, the reports should be more quantitative and contain
population numbers on the 12 ESUs, compared to target levels, he
recommended.
There is an absence of budget and financial information on such
questions as how much Bonneville spent on hydro operations, Karier
continued. This report is too qualitative to make an assessment of
whether the agencies did well or poorly, he added. We made a
conscious decision to leave that kind of information out of the report,
but we?ll take heed of your suggestions, Daley responded.
Bloch asked why only $1.7 million of the $28 million in high-priority
and action plan projects the Council recommended to Bonneville to mitigate
for spill reduction have been funded. Bob Austin of Bonneville said
more than $1.7 million of projects had been funded and that he would
report back with the latest numbers.
A lot of those water projects weren?t ripe for funding due to the
complexities of state water laws and permitting requirements, Daley told
Bloch. Daley pointed out that RPA 151 calls for the establishment of
a water brokerage and that Bonneville is about to sign a contract with the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to serve as the regional water
entity under the RPA. It will be able to qualify local entities that
can bring water projects that are ready for funding to Bonneville, he
said. Danielson asked for a further report on this subject at the
next meeting.
Geoff Pampush, The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy, a 1-million-member organization across the
United States, has the conservation of aquatic and terrestrial
biodiversity as its goal, said Geoff Pampush of the Conservancy, kicking
off a presentation on the organization's planning approach and
tools. We come seeking a partnership with you and we offer our
services -- we want to see if we can engage with the Council in a way we
haven?t before, he stated.
Cathy Macdonald explained the Conservancy?s ?Conservation by Design?
approach, pointing out they are developing conservation plans for all
habitat and all viable native species. We see a lot of overlap with
the Council's subbasin planning, she said.
We do planning on the basis of ecoregions and sites, which are roughly
equivalent to the provinces and subbasins the Council uses, Macdonald
noted, describing the model they have developed to determine the most
efficient actions to meet their goals. Our missions are
complementary, Pampush stated. We?re open to sharing the
foundation of our modeling process with your staff -- our least-cost
approach could be useful to you, he added.
I see ways we could clearly benefit, responded Karier. He
suggested as an area of collaboration the effort under way in the region
to assess data needs in preparation for development of a data management
system. Bloch agreed, saying Oregon is ?ready, willing, and able?
to use the information the Conservancy has.
Brogoitti asked what the Conservancy has found out about landowners?
preferences on lengths of contracts. Bonneville has said 15 years,
and I don?t buy that, he added. When we work with landowners to
purchase development rights, we find most transactions we do are long-term
(30 to 99 years) or permanent, replied Pampush.
Chip McConnaha, Manager, Program Analysis and Evaluation
McConnaha presented a revised charter for the ISAB, noting that the
tribes would now be equal partners with the Council and NMFS in the
management of the board. The terms of the new charter would be
effective for a trial period of one year, during which the effectiveness
of the three-party oversight arrangement can be evaluated, he said.
The tribes in the basin have agreed on Don Sampson of the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission as their designee during the trial
period.
The new charter has also been updated to reflect the Council's most
recent F&W program, McConnaha noted. Cassidy asked if changes
were made in the ?Bias and Conflict of Interest? section. The
provisions in the charter are those used by the National Research Council,
replied McConnaha. Karier raised questions about the definition of
?bias? in the charter, and after a discussion, it was agreed that
staff would reword the section to clarify the provisions.
Decision ? Approval of Revised Charter for
the ISAB Pending Final Review
Danielson moved that the Council approve the revised charter for the
ISAB, subject to a final review of the language in the ?Bias and
Conflict of Interest? section. Karier seconded, and the motion
passed. Bloch was absent for the vote.
Dr. Mike Schiewe; Dr. Ed Casillas; and Dr. William Peterson, National
Marine Fisheries Service
Bill Peterson of NMFS in Newport, Oregon, reported on his studies of
ocean currents and conditions and how they affect salmon abundance.
Ocean currents are highly variable, and their strength depends on an
Aleutian low-pressure system in the winter, he said. We?ve
discovered that some ocean conditions can persist for 20 to 25 years, and
then change abruptly, Peterson said, calling the phenomenon ?Pacific
decadal oscillation? (PDO). These cold and warm cycles have a big
impact on salmon, he explained.
From 1948 to 1975, the regime in the Pacific was cold, and then in
1976, it changed to warm and stayed that way for the next 20 years,
Peterson said. In 1998, the PDO changed again, and for the past four
years, it has been cold, he pointed out.
?We don?t know if the PDO will change tomorrow, next month, or 15
years from now,? Peterson stated, adding that an El Nino is predicted
for later this year. He also explained wind patterns off coastal
Oregon, noting that the spring transition of winds is important for
salmon.
Peterson reported on 12 years of temperature and zooplankton (floating
aquatic animals) studies he did in conjunction with his PDO work.
When ocean conditions are cool, more zooplankton can be found in the North
Pacific off the coast of Oregon, providing food for salmon, and when the
ocean is warm, zooplankton is much scarcer, he noted. Peterson's
studies show that the survival of coho correlates with the higher levels
of zooplankton.
If scientists know the PDO (cold or warm), they can predict fish
survival a year in advance, he stated. Peterson predicted a 10
percent survival rate for coho this fall, based on his model. He
said other models agree with this prediction, and one predicts an 8
percent survival rate for coho next year.
Peterson said there is a correlation between the number of coho
returning in the autumn and the number of fish captured the previous
June. The number of fish caught in June 2001 suggests there will be
a low return this year, he stated.
Given that we?ve had ?fabulous ocean conditions? in the past
year, if only the ocean mattered, we?d have record runs of coho this
fall, Peterson said. But we won?t, and the question is why, he
stated. We had one of the driest winters on record so there was a
small ?plume? in the Columbia River in June 2001, according to
Peterson. [Plume refers to how far freshwater extends into the
ocean.] The fish got into the plume in the river, but it wasn?t
big enough, so they may have starved or been subject to predation and
never made it to the ocean, he suggested.
Why weren?t the chinook affected by the small plume? asked
Karier. The fish coming back this year went out a few years ago,
replied Ed Casillas of NMFS. Of those that went out last year (when
the plume was small), we don?t know yet how they will be affected, he
said.
The ocean?s in great shape right now, but we need a great river to
get the fish there, Peterson continued, adding that ?fortunately,
drought years are not common.? In a drought, does that change the
number of hatchery fish put in the plume? Cassidy asked. No, but
releasing more water may be a strategy, replied Peterson.
Casillas said salmon are associated with ?hot zones? of ocean
productivity, which are actually places with cool water and lots of
plankton. The Columbia River plume varies from year to year, and
1999 was a good year, with a big plume, he explained. There was a
smaller plume in 2000, and with low flows in 2001, it was almost
nonexistent, Casillas said, adding that in 2002, normal flows have
produced a larger plume. There is anecdotal evidence that salmon
occupy this coastal marine plume habitat, he noted.
NMFS is trying to prove four hypotheses about the role of the plume in
salmon productivity, according to Casillas:
- The plume ?seeds early ocean productivity,? meaning the plume
environment contains more things for salmon to eat than the non-plume
environment.
- The plume affects juvenile salmon dispersion. If fish are
concentrated in a small plume, there's a higher potential for
predation.
- The plume creates habitat features beneficial to salmon, including
the concentration of food resources.
- The plume provides critical growth habitat, meaning it serves as a
refuge for juveniles to grow bigger before they move on.
If we know where the salmon go, we can define what habitat they occupy
and construct models to predict how climate and ocean conditions and
changing the river would affect that habitat, Casillas said. We
could then ask the model, when we change flows, how would that affect the
plume and fish habitat? he stated. We hope we can do this in the
next 10 to 15 years, Casillas added.
Are you looking at the timing of flows and how that influences habitat?
Hines asked. Yes, our research includes studies of weekly flows,
Casillas replied.
Karl Weist, Western Oregon Council Office
Deschutes groundwater mitigation and
Deschutes water exchange
Kyle Gorman and Lisa Nye, Deschutes Resources Conservancy
The upper Deschutes River Basin is one of the fastest growing regions
in the country, said Kyle Gorman of the Oregon Water Resources Department
(OWRD), leading off a panel that extolled F&W recovery efforts under
way in the basin. A recent study of the region's groundwater
conducted with the U.S. Geological Survey found that groundwater and
surface water are directly linked and that removal of groundwater would
ultimately diminish streamflow, he stated. The research concluded
that future groundwater pumping would likely injure existing water rights,
and as a result, the OWRD could not issue new groundwater permits in much
of the basin without mitigation to protect water rights and prevent
reductions in scenic waterway flows, according to Gorman.
Is the Deschutes legally over-appropriated? Cassidy asked, and Gorman
said yes. Beginning in 1999, a group of citizens started working
with the OWRD to figure out a way to allow further groundwater
development, Gorman said. Their efforts led to the development of a
set of proposed rules for the basin, which we hope to adopt in September,
he noted.
Lisa Nye of the Deschutes Resources Conservancy explained the Deschutes
Water Exchange (DWE), which is designed to create a market mechanism to
allow water users in the basin to trade among themselves to meet their
needs over time. The DWE exists to advance the mission of the
Conservancy: to restore streamflow and improve water quality, she
said. The intent of the DWE is to allow conservation buyers the
tools they need to acquire water rights efficiently for streamflow
restoration, and also to allow other new water uses to be met without
increasing total water withdrawals, Nye stated.
We are just getting started with this, but we hope to develop four
products, she said: water information services, brokerage services,
an annual water leasing program, and a groundwater mitigation
program. We hope we?ll succeed because we?ve got good community
involvement, and we?ll see in 10 years how it works out, Nye added.
what's the average price paid for water? Brogoitti asked. About
$55,000 per cfs, or about $7 per acre-foot, replied Nye. If the
river is over-appropriated, and you get more water as a result of your
efforts, how can you protect the water from junior water rights holders
taking it out? Hines asked. We will rely on gages to check, and the
irrigation districts will be giving us information on who's getting how
much water, Nye replied.
Oregon Climate Trust
Jeff Rolla, president of the Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation
District.
Jeff Rolla of the Deschutes Soil & Water Conservation District
described the Deschutes Riparian Restoration Project to restore and
protect about 1,800 acres of riparian ecosystems, the result of a grant
from the Oregon Climate Trust. Under the project, the Deschutes
Resources Conservancy will provide 233,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
over the next 55 years, he said, adding it will be paid for by offsets
from Seattle City Light. The project should demonstrate how riparian
reforestation projects can be carried out across a large area of mixed
public and private ownership to provide carbon sequestration and benefits
to endangered F&W habitats, according to Rolla.
Subbasin Planning
Particia Gainsforth, Chair of the Deschutes Soil and Water
Conservation District; and Patty O?Toole, Fisheries Program Manager
for the Confederate Tribes of the Warm Springs.
Patty O?Toole, fisheries program manager for the Warm Springs Tribes,
and Patricia Gainsforth, chair of the Deschutes Soil & Water
Conservation District, updated the Council on subbasin planning work in
the basin, including a Memorandum of Understanding that will lead to the
development of a subbasin workplan. O?Toole said the Deschutes
subbasin planning group intends to raise additional funds to support its
work.
Are you going outside the Council because our subbasin planning funds
are not sufficient? Hines asked. We need more funding because what
we are doing is so complex and involves so many parties, O?Toole
replied.
Back to Home Waters
Brad Chalfant, Director or the Deschutes Basin Land Trust.
Brad Chalfant of the Deschutes Basin Land Trust described an effort
called Back to Home Waters, to reintroduce native steelhead trout,
chinook, and sockeye salmon fisheries in the upper Deschutes River
Basin. The runs have been absent from the upper basin due to the
construction of dams at Warm Springs, he said. The operators of the
dams are renewing their licenses from FERC, and the process is expected to
result in fish passage above the dams for the first time in 40 years,
according to Chalfant.
Back to Home Waters will work with private landowners on restoration of
upstream fish habitat to aid the successful reintroduction of the
anadromous fishery, he noted. We?ll need help from the Council
down the road with some of this work, Chalfant added.
Terry Cortney of the Warm Springs Tribes described problems in the
basin, noting that in drought years, ?our fisheries take a beating.?
He expressed support for the work the panel envisioned. ?I hope we
can pat ourselves on the back in two to five years,? Cortney
added.
Brian Allee, Manager of Policy and Program Implementation; and Lynn
Palensky, Subbasin Planning Coordinator
Staffer Brian Allee reported that master contracts for subbasin
planning at the regional, statewide/provincial/tribal, and subbasin level
have been signed, and everyone was so happy about it, they had a
party. The first Regional Coordinating Group (RCG) meeting will be
held June 27 in Portland, he said. The RCG, which includes
representatives from tribal coordinating groups, federal agencies, and
regional recovery groups, will provide advice to the Council on
large-scale regional issues in the basin, such as climate change and human
population growth, Allee explained.
We want to be sure what the RCG does won?t duplicate what's going
on elsewhere, said Danielson. The RCG will deal with truly regional
issues, and it is only advisory, Allee replied, adding that the RCG may
not meet that frequently.
Allee told the Council to expect a presentation on the EDT model, which
is supporting subbasin planning, at its July meeting. We intend to
show you the Web-based EDT, including what subbasin planners will be able
to see from EDT on the Web, said Marker. The EDT was supposed to be
finished before we went into subbasin planning, stated Karier. The
upcoming presentation needs to show what's been done, what hasn?t been
done, and when it will be done, he added.
Allee distributed the Flathead River Subbasin Workplan, the first
subbasin planning contract to be ready for review by the Council. He
said ?it's a nice piece of work? and could be a good model for other
subbasins.
Approval of Letter to Citizens of the
Northwest from Steve Wright, Bonneville; and, Larry Cassidy
The Council passed a motion approving a letter to ?citizens of the
Pacific Northwest? from Cassidy and Bonneville's Steve Wright seeking
public discussion of questions related to Bonneville's future and the
allocation of Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) benefits after
2006.
Decision ? Approval of letter for Signature
Danielson moved that the Council approve for the signature of the chair
the letter setting out a joint process with Bonneville regarding the
long-term role of Bonneville, subject to approval of technical editorial
changes by the chair of the Power Committee. Karier seconded, and
the motion passed.
Approval of Minutes
Decision ? Approval of May Meeting
Minutes
Danielson moved that the Council approve the minutes for the May
Council meeting held in Whitefish, Montana; Brogoitti seconded, and the
motion passed unanimously.
Approved July 17, 2002
s/s Judi Danielson
Vice-Chair
^ top
|
home