Council Meeting Minutes
West Coast Yakima Center Hotel
Helena, Montana
August 13-14, 2002
Contents
1. Presentation on Adequate, Efficient, Economic and
Reliable Power Supply
2. Release Draft Power Demand Forecast Issue Paper
3. Mainstem Amendments
4. Innovative Project Recommendations
5. Fish and Wildlife Projects
6. Fiscal Year 2004 budget and Fiscal 2003 Revisions
7. Bonneville Implementation of Council's Fish &
Wildlife Funding Recommendation
8. Presentation by Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks on StreamNet in Montana
9. Briefing on Implementation Plans for the FCRPS Biological
Opinions
10. SAIC Work and Information Management
11. Enhancing Relationship with Columbia Basin Tribes
12. Subbasin Assessments
13. Council business
The meeting began at 1:05 p.m. on August 13 and ended at 2:17 p.m. on
August 14. All members were present, except Eric Bloch, who participated
by telephone.
Decision ? To Meet in Executive Session
Judi Danielson made a motion that the Council meet in executive session
at the call of the chair to discuss matters protectible under the Council
retreat exception. Jim Kempton seconded, and the motion passed unanimously
on a roll-call vote.
Decision ? Addition of Two agenda Items
Under Council Business
Danielson made a motion that the Council add to the agenda of the
meeting two items under Council business: 1) to consider ?Characteristics
of a System to Carry Out Bonneville's Responsibilities for Conservation
and Renewables Under the Joint Customer Proposal?; and 2) Council
parliamentary procedures. John Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously on a roll-call vote.
Dick Watson, Director, Power Division
Staffer Dick Watson reported on whether the 2002 mainstem amendments
under consideration by the Council would assure an adequate, efficient,
economical, and reliable (AEER) power supply, and he said in the near
term, it appears they would. The longer term is still an open question,
which will depend on a number of issues to be addressed in the Council's
upcoming Power Plan, he said.
The Northwest Power Act establishes a ?two-way street,? a
reciprocal arrangement between the Council's fish and wildlife program
and the power system, Watson stated. He noted that the 2000 BiOp has
reduced net power system output by about 1,200 average megawatts (aMW),
costing about $260 million annually.
The current staff draft of mainstem amendments would result in some ?adjustments?
to the 2000 BiOp and have a ?minor incremental adverse impact on the
power system,? according to Watson. The Montana and Idaho proposals are
still being analyzed, but it appears they would result in ?modest
reductions in adverse impacts,? he said.
Speaking to the effects of the 2000 BiOp, Watson said the system has
?operated successfully under similar fish and wildlife constraints for
some time,? but the cost to the power system has been significant. As a
result, the Council is ?intensely interested in achieving biological
objectives at less cost,? which should help frame a research agenda that
would improve the cost-effectiveness of mainstem actions, he stated.
Bartlett said he would have a problem with any standard for operation
that said ?as long as we don?t cripple the system, it's okay.?
The question of whether you can achieve the same biological objectives at
lower cost is ?the number one concern? of the power industry,
responded Watson.
How do you account for foregone revenue when power prices are cheap?
Cassidy asked. We used average power costs in the $260 million
calculation, replied Watson.
In 2000-2001, the system was not adequate to reliably meet loads,
provide economical power, and meet fish operations objectives -- ?things
had to give,? Watson stated. Fish operations contributed to, but did not
cause the problem -- it was ?a systemic failure of the power system to
provide adequate resources for very poor water conditions,? he said.
Curtailment of fish operations was one tool used to maintain
reliability and reduce the costs to the power system, but only one,
according to Watson. We also took thousands of megawatts off the system
and paid to bring in a lot of emergency generation, he said. ?I think
the power industry gave big-time in 2000-2001,? but others don?t see
it that way, Watson added.
Cassidy asked to hear more on ?how the power industry gave.?
There was 4,000 MW of load in the region that had to go down or was
purchased down, and a lot of money was spent on emergency generation and
market purchases, Watson responded. What about lost spill? Cassidy asked.
?We hit spill hard, but we hit the power system and its customers hard
too,? replied Watson. It wasn?t a one-sided proposition that ?we
solved the power industry?s problems on the backs of the fish,? he
added.
Watson went over each component of AEER, and when it came to ?efficient,?
he noted that the Northwest has lost some of its competitiveness because
power rates have gone up. We are less competitive than we used to be, and
while fish costs are a contributor, most of it is not fish-related, Watson
said.
Bonneville is clearly financially stressed, and that is not primarily
due to fish and wildlife programs, but they are a contributing factor, he
stated. The current mainstem amendments would not worsen Bonneville's
ability to make Treasury payments, Watson noted. They would somewhat
improve the situation, but ?they wouldn?t be Bonneville's savior,?
he said.
In the near term, the next two to three years, we think we have an AEER
power system due to reduced loads, new generation, and the ?small
adverse or somewhat positive effect? of mainstem amendment alternatives,
Watson reported. In the long term, assuring the region an AEER power
supply will depend on how successfully we resolve power system issues that
emerged in 2000-01, he said, adding that these will be addressed in the
Fifth Power Plan. We need to reduce the probability and severity of
adequacy problems and improve our management of them when they happen,
Watson stated. One thing that would help is better information and
information flows on loads and resources, including export and import
commitments, from utilities, marketers, and IPPs, he added.
We need to consider if there is a better way of making explicit how you
balance power and fish values in ?real-time? decisions, Watson said.
And as part of the ?two-way street,? we need to determine if the
biological objectives of the fish and wildlife program are being met as
efficiently as possible and whether the objectives could be achieved with
less impact on the power system, he concluded.
Karier suggested more work be done to express the costs of fish and
wildlife operations, such as the $260 million attributed to the 2000 BiOp,
in terms of percentages of Bonneville's rates and of the retail rates of
utilities. You hear that fish and wildlife is ?x? percentage of rates,
and the Council could be helpful in pinning those numbers down, he said.
Dick Watson
Decision ? Release the Draft Forecast of
Electricity Demand
Watson said the Council discussed the Draft Forecast of Electricity
Demand for the Fifth Power Plan at the previous meeting and that the Power
Committee has recommended it be sent out for public comment. Danielson
moved to release the document, Karier seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
John Shurts, Legal Counsel; Doug Marker, Director, Fish and Wildlife
Division; and, John Fazio, Senior Power Systems Analyst
The staff draft of the 2002 mainstem plan amendments uses Biological
Opinion (BiOp) operations as its baseline and overlays onto that
perspectives from the Council's 2000 fish and wildlife program, such as
thinking of the mainstem as habitat and consideration of all fish and
wildlife populations, not just listed species, explained staffer John
Shurts. Montana and Idaho have now submitted their mainstem proposals, he
said.
Montana's proposal reflects the state's interest in finding ways to
achieve the same or greater biological benefits, but at a lower cost, John
Hines said. The proposal is consistent with the flexibility within the
BiOp that allows specific measures for achieving biological performance
standards to be modified as new scientific information becomes available,
he stated.
Hines explained that Montana's proposal would change three general
areas of hydro operations and modify how in-season management takes place.
It calls for incorporating into the amendments the latest science
available, including the Giorgi report and the Independent Scientific
Advisory Board (ISAB)?s review of that report, he said.
Hines went over key elements of Montana's proposal, noting for
example, that it calls for shifting spring flow augmentation to summer,
and assuring a 95 percent probability that Hungry Horse and Libby
reservoirs would refill by the end of June or late July, as well as
implementation of Integrated Rule Curve operations. We ask for studies at
each dam of the most biologically effective spill levels, and until those
studies are completed, we recommend spill be managed to produce a
dissolved gas level of 115 percent or the state standard, he said.
Montana would like the Council to improve the representation of all
parties in the region in the current in-season management process
conducted by the Technical Management Team and the Implementation Team,
Hines continued. He said it is critical for the Council, given its unique
responsibilities to protect, mitigate, and enhance listed and non-listed
fish, to be willing to recommend changes to mainstem operations, if the
biological benefits justify such changes.
Where would the money come from for the dam-by-dam studies you call
for? Council chairman Larry Cassidy asked. This would be a top-priority
item, and for those who think spill is a high priority, they would want to
push for the analyses to be done right away, replied Hines. The studies
would be done by the Corps of Engineers, but paid for by Bonneville, so we
would need to work with Bonneville to prioritize that funding, added
staffer Doug Marker.
Jim Kempton presented highlights of Idaho's proposal, pointing out
Idaho did not make recommendations on operations at Montana reservoirs,
nor does it necessarily support what the staff draft currently says about
them. Idaho's proposal would revise operations at Dworshak Dam to meet
specified minimum monthly summer/fall elevation targets in order to comply
with water quality standards, and maintain Dworshak elevation at or above
1,520 feet, he said. Idaho would like the Independent Economic Advisory
Board (IEAB) to prepare a report on how operation of Dworshak to meet NMFS
BiOp requirements has disadvantaged the Clearwater County economy, Kempton
stated.
Idaho calls on Bonneville and other federal agencies to consult with
state fish and wildlife agencies, Indian tribes, and others to ?assure
that flow and spill operations are optimized to produce the greatest
biological benefits with the least adverse effects on resident fish while
assuring an AEER power supply,? he said. Idaho's proposal would extend
the timeline for the resident fish substitution strategies/determinations
for blocked areas, established in the Council's 1994-95 fish and
wildlife program, until subbasin plans have been adopted for the blocked
areas, Kempton noted.
Idaho proposes limiting total dissolved gas saturation to 120 percent,
and requiring federal agencies to report estimates of fish mortalities if
the limit is exceeded, he said. Kempton explained that Idaho wants to see
a comprehensive study conducted of flow targets and flow augmentation,
including their benefits and scientific validity.
Idaho's proposal would eliminate spring flow augmentation at Lower
Granite Dam when Snake River flows above 85 kcfs have been achieved, he
said. Kempton also went over sections of the proposal that deal with
research on ?ocean effects on flow augmentation survival benefits? and
recommendations from the Idaho Water Users and irrigators? associations.
There is a lot of substance in these two proposals, and they raise
questions that we need to answer systematically, commented Tom Karier. We
in Washington State want to know how these proposed operations would
affect Grand Coulee, and we may need to define similar operations there
that would protect resident fish, he said. We also need to know the power
impacts of these operations, Karier added.
Shurts walked the Council through a matrix comparing the main water
management actions proposed in the staff draft and the Montana and Idaho
proposals, noting that all three take a similar approach, along the lines
of the Council's 2000 fish and wildlife program. He said staff is
analyzing the power system impacts of the mainstem proposals. Those
studies will provide reservoir elevations, flows, megawatts lost or
gained, and the monetary impacts of changes in operations, Shurts
indicated.
It is much harder to analyze the biological benefits and risks, he
acknowledged. Why is that so difficult -- is it the staff doesn?t have
the expertise, or are there no methods for such an analysis? Hines asked.
it's difficult to determine quantitatively, replied staffer Bruce
Suzumoto. But staff will lay out possible benefits and risks of some of
the proposed actions as best we can, he said. Montana's proposal aims to
have money spent on programs where there are clear biological benefits,
Hines noted.
Shurts recommended that staff assemble a new composite draft of
mainstem amendments, which would show the different options in key areas
from the three proposals. The draft we ultimately release to the public
may still have alternatives in key areas for people to comment on, he
stated. We need to get this out for comment as soon as possible, said
Kempton. Once we get comments from fish and wildlife managers and others,
we can resolve the issues, he stated. Oregon and Washington may yet offer
their own proposals, Shurts noted.
Cassidy asked about timing. If the draft goes out after the September
meeting, we?re looking at a decision in January, but the draft may not
be ready until October because of the analyses that need to be done,
Shurts said.
I?d like to see some detailed discussion in September on Grand
Coulee, Ed Bartlett stated. We need to know the impacts of the Montana and
Idaho proposals on Grand Coulee, and Washington needs to provide its
thinking to us so we can make some progress on this issue, he said.
Let?s shoot to get the draft out in September, urged Judi Danielson.
We?ll do that, but October?s ?our drop-dead date,? said Cassidy.
Rob Walton of the Public Power Council (PPC) complimented Montana and
Idaho on the ?excellent work? they have done on their mainstem
proposals. He said his reaction to the proposals is positive, and he
offered the support of the utility industry in helping to work through
mainstem issues. Walton noted that the Corps has just completed a study on
a removable spillway weir at Lower Granite that seems promising. He urged
incorporating that information into the mainstem amendments, if further
results prove positive.
Doug Marker
In response to the ISRP, the Council and Bonneville earmarked $2
million in FY 2002 for ?innovative? fish and wildlife projects, such
as those that demonstrate new technologies, Marker said. He presented a
roster of 10 projects deemed fundable and said staff recommends the
Council fund the first eight of them.
Bonneville submitted comments on these projects last week and
recommended against funding four of them because they don?t address BiOp
or RM&E requirements, Marker explained. it's not our charge to only
fund projects that implement the BiOp, said Hines. Bonneville and the
Council both signed off on the solicitation for these projects, and for
Bonneville to now come back and insert the BiOp as the first criterion
doesn?t make sense, commented Danielson.
Do we have a policy on funding projects by a private company? Karier
asked. If the technology would become proprietary, we think it is not
appropriate for Bonneville funding, replied Marker. We don?t want to
fund development of something the region would then have to turn around
and pay for again, he said, adding it's a future issue the Council has
to address. ?It seems like a slap at private enterprise to me,? stated
Brogoitti.
Karier recommended holding an annual conference on innovative projects.
Cassidy suggested that next year, the Council endeavor to get projects
that are ?really innovative.? it's still a question for the
2003 budget as to whether the Council wants to keep doing this, Marker
said.
Decision ? Recommend Funding
Danielson moved that the Council recommend that Bonneville fund for FY
2002 the first eight projects listed in Table 1 of the packet materials,
and Brogoitti seconded. Brogoitti proposed amending the motion to include
projects 34023 and 34005, stating they are both worthwhile projects.
Bartlett seconded, and the motion to amend passed unanimously. Danielson's
original motion then passed unanimously.
Doug Marker; and Mark Fritch, Fish Production Coordinator
- Echo Meadows Funding
Marker brought a trio of fish and wildlife projects for within-year
funding consideration to the Council, starting with the Echo Meadows
Project, sponsored by IRZ Consulting, which is a test of using cooler
water stored in aquifers to supplement summer streamflows. It requests
funding approval to allow the sponsor to get started on this experimental
project this winter, he said.
Brogoitti read a statement into the record indicating he has known
about the proposed project for some time and has sought support for it in
the past ?before I had my differences with my governor.? He said
his support for the project ?is not based on comments that Fred Ziari
[head of IRZ Consulting] has made in support of me in my conflict with the
governor.?
Marker said the Council had funded the project?s first year, that the
ISRP deems the project fundable, and that further questions about it could
be answered during the contracting period. CBFWA wants the sponsor to
answer the ISRP?s questions before it is funded, he noted. Marker
recommended deferring funding of the project ?until we can work out
competing demands for funds.?
We need to give this sponsor an answer -- the December-January
timeframe is crucial for this, stated Brogoitti. The Council voted to fund
the project not to exceed $506,000 over two years.
Decision ? Recommend Funding of Echo
Meadows Project
Danielson moved that the Council recommend for funding the Echo Meadows
Project, not to exceed $506,000 over the remaining two years of the
project. Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
- Request for the Walla Walla Juvenile
and Adult Fish Passage Improvements Project 1996-011-00
Decision ? Change in Scope of Project
Staffer Mark Fritsch said the Umatilla Tribes have requested a
within-year scope modification for the Walla Walla Juvenile and Adult Fish
Passage Improvements Project 1996-011-00 to purchase pre-construction
materials for the Milton Ditch consolidation project. He said staff
recommends approval of the scope change, conditioned on the understanding
that it represents no obligation to authorize future funding for this
project. These are funds that have already been allocated; it's not a
cost increase, said Brogoitti. Danielson moved to approve a change in the
scope of the project, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
- ISRP Review of Monitor and Evaluate
Yearling Snake River Fall Chinook Released Upstream of Lower Granite Dam
Project 1998-010-04
Fritsch brought up a Nez Perce Tribe-sponsored project, Monitor and
Evaluate Yearling Snake River Fall Chinook Released Upstream of Lower
Granite Dam, and reported that the ISRP had raised concerns about the
project. He said the ISRP has now reported to the Council that the project
sponsor has fully addressed the ISRP concerns and staff now recommends
funding.
Decision ? Inform Bonneville to Proceed
with Funding of the Project
Danielson moved that the Council acknowledge that the conditions
imposed on project 1998-010-04 in its Mountain Snake provincial review
have been satisfied, and that Bonneville be informed to proceed with
funding the project. Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
Sharon Ossmann, Business Manager
Staffer Sharon Ossmann asked for approval of the Council's draft FY
2004 budget of $8,499,000 and the FY 2003 revised budget of $8,493,000. We
sent them out for public comment, but didn?t get any, she reported.
Cassidy pointed out that the Council wants to have a zero-based budget for
FY 2004, and Ossmann said staff is working on putting that process
together. She suggested that any changes as a result of that process could
be incorporated in the revised FY 2004 budget.
Decision ? Adoption of 2004 Budget and 2003
Revised Budget
Danielson moved that the Council adopt the draft FY 2004 budget of
$8,499,000; adopt the FY 2003 revised budget of $8,493,000; and authorize
the reprogramming of available FY 2002 funds for unanticipated FY 2002
costs, such as personnel actions and increased medical claims costs. Hines
seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Doug Marker
Marker made a presentation aimed at illustrating circumstances under
which Bonneville has deviated from carrying out Council recommendations
for fish and wildlife project funding and what issues those departures
represent. He said the Council and Bonneville ?had come a long way? in
the provincial review process. We?ve defined a new $186 million budget
target and had to try to integrate BiOp implementation with the Council's
program, which has created some ?significant tension? with project
sponsors, Marker pointed out.
By and large, Bonneville is implementing the Council's
recommendations, but there have been significant departures, and those ?are
developing in an ad hoc way,? he said. Bonneville has been trying to
come in and articulate BiOp requirements to the Council sooner, and that
has been helpful, Marker acknowledged.
He recalled that as part of the provincial review process, the Council
established the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), created a role
for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA), and under the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), delivered fish and wildlife projects for
funding to Bonneville that had undergone scientific review and were within
the budget. Marker said Bonneville was implementing the full list of
projects recommended by the Council in the 2001 reviews of the Columbia
Gorge and Intermountain provinces.
But in the Mountain Columbia province, Bonneville cut $1.8 million from
the Council's recommendations for a wildlife habitat acquisition project
sponsored by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, he stated. This
is the first time we?ve had Bonneville say to us ?we aren?t going to
fund a project,? Marker said.
Bonneville cut the funding because of conflicts over the Montana
wildlife agreement, he noted. This has started a precedent of ?post-funding-decision
discussions? about projects with Bonneville, Marker said.
In the Columbia Plateau province, the Council recommended $37 million
in projects, and Bonneville did not fund about $2 million of them, he
indicated. Plus, Bonneville decided to fund $800,000 in projects not
recommended by the Council, but which Bonneville felt addressed BiOp
requirements, Marker stated. Wildlife crediting issues caused Bonneville
to oppose funding certain projects in the province, he explained. In
addition, Bonneville began to raise the issue of how monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) programs would be integrated with BiOp requirements,
Marker said.
Are NMFS and the other federal agencies saying they have to do their
own M&E even if the Council is doing it too? asked Cassidy. Yes, they
say ?we?re on the hook for this,? replied Marker. it's a major
problem because we wouldn?t want to fund two M&E efforts, he said.
In March of this year, the Council recommended $10.7 million for the
Blue Mountain province, and Bonneville opposes or wants to defer $1.3
million of those funds, Marker continued. In the Mountain Snake province,
the Council recommended $24 million, and Bonneville opposes or wants to
defer $560,000, he said.
Marker summed up the ?major themes? that developed with Bonneville
in 2002 over project funding as follows:
- Wildlife crediting ? ?we?re exploring alternative approaches
to allow habitat acquisitions to go forward.?
- Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) responsibilities ? ?there
are issues regarding resident fish projects, projects on federal
lands, and the ?in lieu? question.?
- Integration of research and M&E with BiOp implementation.
- Continuing dispute over the Montana wildlife agreement.
- How and when Bonneville brings its issues into the Council's fish
and wildlife project selection process.
In the Upper Snake, Bonneville says some projects are not FCRPS
responsibilities, Marker stated. We see Bonneville attempting to draw
lines on what is FCRPS responsibility and what is not, but the discussion
?is not occurring at the Council table,? and that's a problem, he
said.
We are going into the 2003 funding process with these issues
unresolved, Marker told the Council. Of particular concern are the
questions of what the power system is responsible for, and how to
integrate the BiOp ?without sending the message that's all the Council
cares about,? he said.
Now, the issue of Bonneville's financial condition has arisen, Marker
continued. Bonneville needs to manage its program on a cash basis and
wants the Council to be able to forecast what the cash requirements of the
fish and wildlife program will be, he stated. In addition, Bonneville
wants the Council to indicate what spending will be capital and what will
be expense, Marker noted.
We need to sit down with Bonneville and try to resolve these funding
issues, he stated. And there's lot of work to be done to monitor and
help resolve Bonneville's cash-flow crisis, Marker added.
If we are going to help Bonneville by identifying fish and wildlife
efficiency reductions, we need to know what Bonneville intends to spend in
2002 and 2003, said Karier. If they can?t come forward with those basic
financial requirements, I don?t see how we can help them or how the
region can help them, he stated.
The Council approved the Salish and Kootenai Tribes? project a year
ago, noted Bartlett. We?ve worked on it a year and have reached ?a
level of high frustration,? he stated. what's frustrating is ?Bonneville's
second-guessing of the Council,? Bartlett said. Bonneville's financial
condition is important, but it's a topic that's come up just recently,
while the Salish-Kootenai project is within the budget and has been
waiting a year, he continued. Isn?t there something the Council can do
to move this project along? he asked.
This project illustrates the issue of Bonneville ?moving the target
after the fact,? commented Hines. The criteria keep changing, and
Bonneville is developing major policies in the approval and disapproval of
project funding, he said. We want Bonneville to come to the table and
resolve these issues before projects are approved, Hines added.
Brian Lipscomb of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes said ?there's
a need to protect the integrity of the Council's process.? Our
frustration with the ESA is that it is single-species-oriented, while the
Council's fish and wildlife program is much broader than that, he
stated.
The Council has established a broad, consensus-based process that has
the support of the region, according to Lipscomb. Bonneville can?t ?nitpick
at your process? at the last minute, he said. If it continues to do
that, people will get frustrated and walk away, and if that happens, we?ll
have to go back to the Power Act and try to find a new way for regional
involvement, Lipscomb stated.
The Council will find out from Bonneville what is holding up the
project funding, Cassidy told Lipscomb. Bloch said he and John Brogoitti
just met with Bonneville about the EMAP project in Oregon, and they
requested Bonneville send a letter stating exactly why that project is not
being funded, despite Council and ISRP recommendations to fund it. We said
to Bonneville ?tell us what you need and how we can demonstrate that,?
Bloch stated. At least that way the ?Chinese water torture? that we,
and it sounds like the Salish and Kootenai Tribes, have been going through
will be over, he said.
Guy Dodson of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes said they are in a similar
predicament with project funding. He suggested Bonneville make more cost
reductions or increase power rates. Bonneville is selling under market to
the aluminum companies, Dodson said. There are lots of things that can be
considered rather than ?banging on the fish and wildlife program,? he
stated. ?Don?t let Bonneville change the rules before the game is
finished,? Dodson concluded.
Joe Maroney of the Kalispel Tribe expressed concern that not all the
projects in the Intermountain and Mountain Columbia provinces are being
fully funded. There is $6 million over two years that Bonneville has not
funded, he said. Four of five Coeur d?Alene Tribe projects haven?t
been contracted, Maroney stated.
Of the $29 million for projects in blocked areas above Grand Coulee,
only $7 million has been contracted for, he said. Bonneville has held up
projects for ?nitpicky? reasons, such as ?the changes you made in
blue are supposed to be in red,? according to Maroney.
Bonneville is ?changing policies midstream? -- not funding projects
recommended by the Council and funding BiOp requirements the Council didn?t
recommend, he said. Everything has an ESA-BiOp focus, and that's not
what the Council's program is intended to be, Maroney stated, adding the
resident fish people ?are fearful we?ll be left by the wayside.?
Hines asked Maroney if the funding allocation of 70 percent for
anadromous fish, 15 percent for resident fish, and 15 percent for wildlife
is holding up these days. We haven?t figured that out, but we think
resident fish funding is decreasing, replied Maroney.
The Council can help Bonneville if it will come to us and talk frankly
about its concerns, Hines said. It can?t be done on a project-by-project
basis, he added.
Let?s take these policy issues on, Cassidy urged. The question of
FCRPS responsibility is ?a big deal,? but Bonneville is answering it
on an ad hoc basis, he said. The Council agreed the issue should be ?teed
up? and put on the calendar for further action.
Janet Hess-Herbert, Montana Department of fish, Wildlife and Parks
Janet Hess-Herbert of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks (MFWP) explained the history and evolution of the Montana Rivers
Information System, which is part of the StreamNet program. StreamNet in
Montana was built on the MFWP Stream Classification System, a program
developed in 1959 to assess and rate Montana's streams and rivers, she
said.
Hess-Herbert demonstrated the program?s website and discussed how
they use funding provided by the Council. StreamNet is fully integrated
into MFWP programs, she said. It is used to centralize data, provide
standards for data collection, and provide the region and citizens with
reliable and up-to-date information for planning and recreation, according
to Hess-Herbert.
Karier asked if she has been working with SAIC, the Council/NMFS
contractor that is gathering information on a regional data management
system. I?ve heard of them, replied Hess-Herbert. there's a high level
of frustration with the inability of the basin to make decisions about
data management, she said. I think that effort may be ?reinventing a bit
of a wheel,? Hess-Herbert stated. We don?t need another level of
program development -- we just need to listen to one another, she added.
We hope the SAIC work will build on what we have and not reinvent the
wheel, so bear with us, responded Karier.
The data system you have put together will be helpful to the Council in
working with subbasin planning in Montana, said Hines. This will provide a
great starting point, he added.
Bob Austin, Bonneville Power Administration; Jim Athearn, Corps of
Engineers; and, Ron McKown, Bureau of Reclamation
Ron McKown of the Bureau of Reclamation led off a panel assembled to
update the Council on implementing the BiOps. He said the federal action
agencies have issued a draft 2003-07 BiOp implementation plan and are
meeting with states, tribes, public interest groups, river users, and
others about it. We?ll complete the meetings in September, receive
comments, and then put out a final version of the plan, McKown stated.
Jim Athearn of the Corps of Engineers said this year, the agencies
combined the one-year and five-year plans into one document, which allows
for better integration and evaluation of multi-year projects and more
flexibility for adaptive management. The 2003-07 plan takes an All-H
approach, with a focus on check-ins, he said. The first check-in for the
strategies and the priorities contained within them is September 2003,
Athearn noted.
We are trying to get research, monitoring, and evaluation (RM&E) up
to speed with the rest of the program, he stated. When we do, that should
lead to improved performance standards, better linkage of priorities and
the work plan, and possibly our recommending changes to the BiOp, Athearn
said. He explained how the plan's performance standards are organized
and said the plan anticipates that over time the standards will enable the
documentation of progress toward recovery. Athearn described the
hydrosystem, habitat, hatchery, harvest, resident fish, and RM&E
strategies in the plan.
Bob Austin of Bonneville pointed out that Bonneville is relying on the
Council's process for prioritizing off-site measures and for science
reviews. We are not trying to be duplicative, he stated. We are trying to
get our concerns about fish and wildlife projects out as early as possible
and to work with the Council and the tribes, Austin said.
The issue of how to do RM&E has been with the region for many
years, and it is still being worked on, he continued. We hope we can get
it resolved, Austin said. Cassidy asked for assurance that if the Council
needs until sometime in September to put together its comments on the
draft plan, they will still be considered by the agencies. The federal
reps said they didn?t have a problem with the Council submitting
comments after the August 31 comment deadline.
Danielson complained about the federal agencies coming in ?at the 11th
hour? and requiring consultation on a project being conducted on private
land. The state and the landowners agreed to do this work, and then we
have to go back and tell the landowners ?we can?t implement it -- that
frustrates participation,? she said.
This is the most complex BiOp ever written, observed McKown. It
involves a lot of species, and they all use the same resource, he said. it's
complex because the process has evolved -- we?ve worked over the years
to recover salmon, and we can?t seem to get there, McKown stated. it's
complex because performance measures that need to be met are built in and
because we have a baseline that's always moving, he said.
These plans allow us to keep hold on where we are and what we?re
doing, McKown continued. But we are trying to work with NMFS and set up a
programmatic consultation so we don?t run into those kinds of delays, he
added. If we have to have ESA consultation on private lands, maybe you
could set up a ?strike force? that can go in and help get the work
done early, Danielson suggested.
Is ?least-cost? an actual consideration in the hydrosystem
strategies? Danielson inquired. We need to look at all the tools, such as
spill and flow, that can help us meet the performance standards, replied
Austin. We are still developing the standards for off-site measures, he
noted. Cost is important, but cost isn?t the only consideration, and
thus far, we haven?t had a good process for weighing alternatives,
Austin stated.
The IEAB said there's a range in cost for a fish between $12 and
$68,000 -- who decides what price to pay -- is it the Federal Caucus?
Danielson asked. These are tough questions, and one of the issues is
Bonneville's financial condition, replied Austin. We are trying to find
how to meet the standards as cost-effectively as possible, but ?we?re
not there yet,? he said.
How does what you are doing change the Council's process for
reviewing fish and wildlife projects -- are you going to go through it or
bypass it? Karier asked. The action agencies met with the ISRP about the
RM&E issue and discussed how to give input on project proposals early
and how to integrate our needs into the Council's process so we don?t
duplicate, replied Athearn.
The next time the Federal Caucus meets I would ask that it consider the
fact that subbasin planning goes beyond the BiOp, said Danielson. Our
responsibilities are broader, and ?I ask the Caucus to discuss that,?
she added.
Danielson asked if the panel had a definition of the phrase ?meaningful
exercise of tribal fishing rights.? Our role is to try to help in
reviewing and assessing harvest impacts and how they affect listed and
non-listed fish, replied Athearn. I?m glad to hear you are trying to
find out what the impacts are -- ?the states want to get their arms
around those issues,? Danielson responded.
All your plan talks about are listed resident fish, observed Kempton.
There are policy issues related to the distinctions between the ESA and
the Power Act and to when and where the federal agencies ?find it
reasonable to follow Council actions,? he said.
We would like more explicit confirmation that the project funding
recommendations we?ve made do indeed meet BiOp needs, said Marker. that's
something the Administration wants to see demonstrated by the Council, he
added.
Tom Karier, Washington Council Member; and, Peter Paquet, Manager,
Wildlife and Resident Fish
Two years ago, the Council set aside $900,000 to start funding the
development of a data management system in the Columbia Basin, Karier
said. Since then, we?ve signed an MOA with NMFS on using that money to
develop a single system, he pointed out.
Working with NMFS, we?ve developed two contracts, Karier explained.
The first is with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to
help sort out data needs and problems, to identify what data exists and
where there are gaps, and to make recommendations on how to design a data
system for the Northwest, he said. We have also contracted with the
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife to develop a single set of standards
to measure habitat improvement, Karier reported. SAIC is conducting a
survey about data needs using the Council's website, he noted.
SAIC has been holding focus groups and has met with NMFS, EPA, and
others, said staffer Peter Paquet. We hope to have a workshop based on the
results of SAIC?s work, he said. We expect to get a final report and
close out the contract by January, Paquet concluded.
Steve Crow, Executive Director
At the Yakima meeting, the Council discussed Governor Kitzhaber?s
proposal to amend the Council's bylaws regarding consultation with
Indian tribes, but decided to table consideration of the proposal until
the Helena meeting. Crow proposed several procedural and substantive
changes the Council could make to improve its relationships with the
tribes.
Better Access to Information. We heard at our last meeting that
it would be helpful to have earlier notice of meetings, so we have decided
to post a draft meeting agenda on our website on the Monday of the week
prior to the Council meeting, Crow said. He asked if Council members would
favor having their ?packet material? posted on the website the day
after they receive it from staff so tribal representatives and others
could get more information about the topics to be discussed. Council
members endorsed the idea.
Improved Participation. Crow said information flow is a
two-way street and that the Council would appreciate receiving earlier
notice and information on meetings that others in the region hold,
specifically mentioning the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
(CRITFC), PNUCC, and the PPC. He noted that tribes want ?improved
opportunities? to testify at Council meetings, with agendas that clearly
indicate when testimony will be taken. We?ll do that and we?ve asked
staff to put tribal presentations closer to the top of the Council's
agendas when all members are sure to be present, Crow said.
I hope it's not ?a guarantee of the first three agenda items? --
we should be flexible, said Danielson. ?To guarantee the first three
spots is overindulgence,? she added.
Education. The tribes have suggested more education for
Council members and staff about tribal legal rights, and there may be a
program at Portland State we can use for this, Crow stated. We think it
would be helpful to hold orientation sessions on a number of issues, such
as utility concerns and the Northwest Power Act, he said.
Consultation. We heard the need for more consultations with
allthe tribes and also for more informal meetings and visits, Crow
indicated. He suggested Council members and tribal representatives talk
more about this and come up with specific things that can be done.
Don Sampson of CRITFC said there are benefits when the tribes and the
Council work closely together, and that in the long run, it will save
time, money, and effort. Consultation with the tribes is of the utmost
importance, and Gov. Kitzhaber?s bylaws amendments provide an
opportunity to open the dialogue on the issue, he stated.
We?d like to sit down with staff and try to develop some options for
the Council to consider at its September meeting, Sampson said. We want to
work in a positive way with you to develop solutions, he added.
Brogoitti asked Sampson if he is ?still pushing? for the bylaws
change recommended by Gov. Kitzhaber. That would be one option for the
Council to consider, but there are others, replied Sampson. I think it
would be appropriate to have the additional proposals developed with
tribal staff, guided by tribal policies, said Bloch.
I?m pleased with CRITFC?s willingness to work with us on developing
options, said Cassidy. What should we do with the motion we tabled at the
last meeting? he asked.
We should postpone the matter further so we can consider all the
options, Bartlett stated. Changing the bylaws is only one option, and we
need to consider all the alternatives, agreed Brogoitti. ?However, we
can clean this up without pushing a bylaws change at this time, we should
do it,? he said.
Decision ? Table Motion Regarding governor's
Proposal for By-law Amendments
?The governor has been in government long enough to know that you
make a proposal and it's a starting point, a way to raise important
issues,? commented Bloch. That has been accomplished, and maybe in the
future, we can vote on the governor's proposal as one option of several,
he said. Danielson moved to table the tabled motion to ?a date forward.?
Kempton seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
So ?it's officially in limbo? till we pull it off the table,
summed up Cassidy. He told staff to meet with CRITFC and report back.
Karier recommended meeting with all tribes.
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
- Adoption of Minutes
Decision ? Approval of Minutes
Danielson moved that the Council approve the minutes for its July
16-18, 2002 meeting; Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
- Draft Letter to Congress
supporting Federal Appropriations for the Corps of Engineers Columbia
River Estuary Project
Marker asked for approval of a letter from the Council to Congress
asking for restoration of $2 million for the Corps? Columbia River
Estuary Project that was not included in the Administration's FY 2003
budget request. He noted that the Council's recommendation to Bonneville
to provide $1 million for estuary habitat restoration is contingent on the
$2 million appropriation as leverage for the region's investment. The
Council approved sending the letter.
- Annual Disclosure of Members?
Earned Outside Income and Notice of Availability of Financial Disclosure
Forms
Shurts explained that Council policy calls for annual disclosure of
members? earned outside income. Cassidy reported income from consulting
contracts with a company he used to own, and former Council member Leo
Giacometto had reported income from the National Guard and consulting for
several telecommunications firms, Shurts stated.
- Approval of Charter of
Systems Analysis Advisory Committee
Staffer Steve Crow said the Power Committee has recommended creation of
a Systems Analysis Advisory Committee (SAAC) to review the computer models
associated with the upcoming new power plan. The costs would be about
$5,000 a year, and it would be chaired by staffer Michael Schilmoeller, he
said.
Decision ?Approval of the Charter for
SAAC
Danielson moved to approve the charter for the SAAC, Kempton seconded,
and the motion passed unanimously.
- Characteristics of a System to
Carry Out Bonneville's Responsibilities for Conservation and Renewables
Under the Joint Customer Proposal
Karier distributed a paper, ?Desirable Characteristics of a System to
Carry Out Bonneville's Responsibilities for Conservation and Renewables
under the Joint Customer Proposal,? and asked Council members to read it
and provide comments to him. The draft paper sets forth 12 characteristics
the Council believes are important to achieving a successful transfer of
conservation and renewables responsibilities from Bonneville to its
customers.
- Council Parliamentary
Procedures
Shurts said there's ?an itch to scratch? when it comes to rules
and guidelines for Council voting, after last month?s meeting. He
proposed to work with staffer Bill Hannaford to draft ?a set of simple
rules? to govern the making of motions at Council meetings.
We?ll bring these to you for approval, and if they are acceptable, we?ll
designate Hannaford as ?official parliamentarian? to advise the
Council, Shurts said. Everyone liked the idea and told staff to proceed.
We do need some kind of standard to follow, stated Brogoitti, as he
handed out a pocket-sized copy of Robert?s Rules of Order to each
Council member.
Approved September 11, 2002
s/s Judi Danielson
Vice-Chairman
^ top
|
home