Pacific Northwest Electric Power
and
Conservation Planning Council
June 29-30, 1999
Red Lion Inn
Astoria, Oregon
Members Present:
Eric Bloch (OR) Mike Field (ID)
John Brogoitti (OR) Stan Grace (MT)
Larry Cassidy (WA) Tom Karier (WA)
John Etchart (MT) Todd Maddock (ID)
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chairman Todd Maddock. All members were present except Member Grace, who was absent due to plane difficulties, and who participated by conference phone. Chairman Maddock commented that the Council took a tour this morning of Rice Island and East Sand Island to see the work being done on relocation of the Caspian tern colony and that it was a very good trip. He said today’s session would be an informal discussion between the staff and Council on how the Council plans to transition from the framework process to the Council’s program amendment process. Member Brogoitti welcomed everyone to Oregon.
Member Bloch reported on the Fish and Wildlife Committee meeting yesterday where it was discussed that additional work might be needed to help make the Artificial Production Review a higher quality and more user-friendly product. There was also discussion on how to structure some of the work regarding the project proposals and the prioritization process with the Council’s amendment process. He said the recently issued ISRP report on the FY 2000 project proposals was an important milestone in the process.
John Shurts, Acting General Counsel, noted that the Council might hold an executive session at the end of today to discuss how staff will handle the process internally. He went onto explain that Section 4(h) of the Act highly structures the Council’s program amendment process. What begins the amendment process is the Council sending out in writing a notice to the fish and wildlife agencies and tribes and others requesting recommendations for amendments to the program. He said the Act structures very heavily around that 90-day period for the recommendations to come in. He emphasized that timing will be important in that this will occur at the same time as other federal processes. After receipt of the recommendations, the Council must analyze the recommendations, put them out for public notice. These recommendations must be analyzed and applied to a set of standards in the Act. As a result of receiving these recommendations, analyzing them, and applying the standards of the Act to them, the Council has developed a fish and wildlife program that is primarily a collection of measures from different agencies and tribes throughout the basin. Mr. Shurts said one of the significant scientific criticisms of the program was that it doesn’t hold together in terms of a comprehensive scientific foundation and policy framework. The Council is involved in a process now to develop a framework on which to hang pieces of the program on. He said it will be critical to decide how the framework process will transition into the program amendment process. The Council may want to put out a structured notice requesting recommendations for a program amendment process that focuses on a policy and biological framework. Mr. Shurts cautioned that this would be a different approach for the Council rather than just opening the door for recommendations. There will be a lot of work between now and September or October, when the framework process, finishes to craft a policy and biological understanding of the fish and wildlife program.
Chairman Maddock said this was not a new issue – the Council has been discussing the need for some type of structure and a common goal. He assumed the work being done under the framework would allow the Council to do that. While there may be a lot of work to do before September or October, he hoped much could be gained from the framework process. Mr. Shurts replied that the Council might not know until September or October what will result from the analysis from the framework. Member Field asked whether the Council can review projects for FY 2001 based on the framework even if the Council has not gone through the rulemaking process. Bob Lohn, Director, Fish and Wildlife Division, replied that within the current structure, the Council could do that. He said one of the ISRP criticisms was that within a watershed, the projects are not well related. He said the Council could, even without a rulemaking being completed, request that projects be recommended on a watershed by watershed basis.
Member Etchart asked what the law said regarding the Council’s discretion to restrain or direct recommendations. Mr. Shurts replied that the law doesn’t say anything. He said the Council can, from the Act, emphasize development of a scientific and biological framework – to take a systemwide approach. The Council won’t reject other recommendations now, but will look first at those that are directed at a scientific and biological framework. Member Etchart asked if there was a formal process that the Council adopts to provide direction on the recommendations. The Council would decide to send out a notice stating what the Council was asking for, Mr. Shurts said, and it would put a high premium on the Council working closely with those who make the recommendations during the framework process. Member Etchart commented that it also would make the framework process "all the more precious". Member Field suggested that the Council should spend some time with those who would be offering recommendations to get the controversy out prior to the notice being sent. Mr. Shurts replied that one of his worries about the coming summer was the potential for conflict over recommendations this year. He said the last amendment of the program was done before the 1996 Power Act amendment and other Congressional authorizations, so the program was not structured to feed into these annual project and independent science reviews. The program needs to have an approach and criteria for project review that allows implementation decisions to be made on the various funding processes. Member Karier noted that if the Council is going to provide guidance for the recommendations, the Council needs to be more specific than the framework alternatives. He suggested that the Council should provide guidance on where the financial focus of the program should be. Mr. Shurts agreed that the broadscale alternatives would not provide that guidance and what the Council would do was give specific direction in terms of objectives and priorities for the program.
Member Brogoitti asked about the timeframe. Mr. Shurts said much of the schedule would correlate with the federal 4(h) processes and biological opinion. It would start in October and finish with a biological framework in the spring. Peter Paquet, Manager, Wildlife and Resident Fish, added that the Council will have a better idea in September or October as to what alternatives make the most sense. At that time, the range will narrow, which then becomes the focus of the first phase of the rulemaking. Member Bloch asked for an example of an outcome from the framework process – what will it tell us? Mr. McConnaha replied that the framework adopted by the Council would be the structure for a logically ordered set of policies and strategies to which people can respond. The main benefit from the framework is that it will produce measurable biological objectives that will structure and guide the development of measures being recommended by the fish and wildlife managers. He said the framework will contain a vision for the fish and wildlife program, a set of biological objectives and a set of general strategies for the region to consider. Member Bloch asked what the definition of a strategy was within that structure. Mr. McConnaha responded that a strategy accomplishes some biological objective, such as increasing the productive capacity of fall chinook in the river. A strategy is a broad category of actions to accomplish an objective. Member Field said the Council sets the vision or goal and the strategies, and the project sponsors submit the measures – correct? Mr. McConnaha replied that happens with the assistance and consultation from the Council. Mr. Shurts cautioned that there was one caveat – the Act states that when the Council goes out for recommendations, it’s not precluded from rejecting any measures whose implementation will be decided in the annual or multi-year implementation forums based on a set of principles and criteria.
Member Brogoitti said he was unclear as to how the framework will drive the amendment process. He was under the impression that the framework was a tool to shape the recommendations rather than driving the process. Member Cassidy asked whether there would there be any value in looking at the present program and sorting out the effective and non-effective concepts or policies. Mr. Shurts responded that there basic approaches in the current program that were valid – it was not that any particular piece was invalid inasmuch as the whole program doesn’t hang together as a consistent science-based program. Member Cassidy said his hope was to have a fish and wildlife program that would be used in the region.
Mr. Lohn went onto explain the Council’s role in all of this. The Council launched into the framework process because the ISAB had consistently told the Council that it did not have a clear, comprehensive vision for the fish and wildlife program. The Council wanted to explore how it might find those guidelines and involve the region in the formation of them.
He said the framework process has narrowed down to a set of seven options, but many of them are similar and can be clumped into the four H’s. Mr. Lohn said the hydro system is where there is the greatest disagreement and habitat has the least disagreement. By September or so, the framework should have completed the analysis of the various alternatives that will show the limiting attributes for recovering fish and what the opportunities for mitigation are. As an example, with regard to habitat, to help fish in the Grande Ronde, the temperature problems will have to be solved. Mr. Lohn said there will also be insights on the mainstem, but most of them have been hard, so there won’t be much new information. On harvest, the information from the Pacific Salmon Treaty that promises to guarantee more fish will be available. And on hatcheries, the Artificial Production Review will provide guidance on a range of potential actions for using hatcheries or not using them.
Mr. Lohn said the findings from the framework would be written up sometime in October. The information from the framework will narrow the region’s focus, showing where the alternatives are the same, where they are different, and what the reasons are. From the framework, the Council will offer a general outline or foundation for the next rulemaking – what it thinks is the vision along with a set of objectives and a set of strategies. One of the strategies will set up a process, such as the annual prioritization process or a process that emphasizes planning within each province. One of the areas where the current program is both strong in recognizing a need and weak in not having that need fulfilled is the treatment given to what happens in the tributaries. He noted that Section 4(g)(3) of the Act encourages the cooperation and participation of federal and state agencies, state political subdivisions and tribe and allows Bonneville to fund the development of fish and wildlife objectives by these entities. Such objectives, if adopted, may be submitted to the Council and incorporated as part of the plan. He indicated that watershed councils would fall under the definition of a subdivision. This section of the Act, he said, offers the chance to use watershed level building blocks as part of what the Council wants to do.
On the federal side, Mr. Lohn said, it would be useful and helpful for the Council to link up and exercise both regional authority and responsibility for ESA issues. But, he said, the Council brings its greatest strength when it acts independently and produces the best program possible with an eye toward fitting it with the ESA.
He said the federal agencies or caucus were in the midst of developing a plan for the ESA. One component includes the Corps’ lower Snake feasibility study that looks at what should happen on the lower Snake River dams. The federal caucus is also working to develop a plan by late 1999 or early 2000 that deals with the impact of the hydroelectric system on endangered salmon and steelhead. It will have scenarios for the four H’s. As they move forward, they will do some of their own analysis looking at populations and trends, using the Council’s data sets and the modeling from the framework, and produce a modeling product that will show trends and impacts on fish. In October or November, Mr. Lohn said, NMFS will shop a draft biological assessment (BA) for the hydro system around the region. NMFS consults with the federal action agencies and tells them whether their proposed actions will or won’t create jeopardy. Then those agencies prepare an analysis of their actions, and NMFS comments on that analysis. What it will likely show is that the hydro system has adverse effects and offsite mitigation will be necessary in each of the other three H’s. This draft BA will be released at the same time with a 4-H paper, which describes what should be done across-the-board in the Columbia River for endangered salmon and steelhead.
Member Field asked why the federal agencies have to do both a draft BA and a 4-H paper. Mr. Lohn replied that by having both, they will have a package that results in no jeopardy. NMFS says that the hydro system is bad, but these other things are good, so on balance, one will offset the damage done by the other. He said the federal agencies will be looking eagerly to see what the region and the Council will suggest as possible, such as the analysis being done in the framework. They are very interested in the Council program as something they can rely on. He felt that Bonneville would use the Council’s fish and wildlife program to provide much of the offsetting mitigation.
Mr. Lohn said timing and regional process was another issue. If NMFS and the federal agencies have their proposal in October or November, there is a strong desire to have the Council’s proposal at the same time and have a single public involvement process. The Council has an invitation to combine the two for public involvement. If the Council did that, it would want to have a description of the vision, objectives and strategies for the next fish and wildlife program. Member Bloch commented that this was significant because for the first time, NMFS and the federal agencies were entertaining the concept of using offsite mitigation, such as improvements in habitat, harvest and hatcheries, as a means of securing a no jeopardy opinion and as permission to operate the hydro system in a particular fashion. In the past, the operating agencies submitted a proposal for operation of the hydro system and were limited to using the hydro system as a means to modify the operations and to receive "operational clearance" under the ESA. This is a more holistic approach that looks at all four causes of mortality. Member Bloch commented, though, that this underscores the need for a strong plan that provides for substantial reductions in mortality in all four H’s. If Bonneville and the other operating agencies propose to operate the hydro system in a particular manner that they don’t think will pose jeopardy to the listed stocks due to what is being done in the hatcheries, habitat and harvest, and NMFS agrees, that means that the ESA, at that point, requires those particular things to be done. This has implications, Member Bloch said, for the Council. If the Council doesn’t work in concert with the federal agencies and integrate our vision with NMFS’ direction, there will be a "major disconnect" because the Council doesn’t have the latitude to tell the federal agencies to do things that are different from what the ESA requires.
Chairman Maddock commented that if the federal agencies move ahead with their BA and the draft 4-H paper, and if the Council is not working closely with them and begins the rulemaking process six months later, the Council’s plan could become irrelevant. Member Bloch said the Council needs to make sure that everyone is shooting at the same target. If the Council’s target is different from the NMFS target, the timing could be perfect, but we’d still miss one another.
Member Karier noted that NMFS has always made the point that any plan they support has to have a high likelihood of meeting a recovery standard and a high likelihood of being implemented. If the Council endorsed the steps in the 4-H paper, there would be a higher likelihood of it being implemented and it would meet the standards that NMFS applies. Mr. Paquet said a major issue of the federal caucus is funding and implementation. Currently, the major source of funding is from Bonneville and access to that funding is through the Council program. It’s a bit of a thorny issue, but helps pull the two processes together.
Mr. Lohn said staff was asking for Council guidance on three products. The first product is a framework product that would be a concluding paper that discusses the result of the modeling. The second product is a concept paper that would explain what the Council’s next program will look like, and which would be used at the hearings with NMFS. The third product is preparing to enter rulemaking early next year after hearing public comment in October or early November. Mr. Lohn said it might be an abbreviated rulemaking since many of the comments would have been heard during the consultations. At the same time the Council came out with the concept paper, it could call for recommendations to the fish and wildlife program. Mr. Shurts noted that 90 days was the minimum allowed in the Act between the call for recommendations and the beginning of rulemaking. Member Karier felt the process outlined today made sense, but the most important piece was to have a well developed and thought out concept paper. He suggested that one name should be picked for this paper – he has heard it called a provisional framework, white paper, or concept paper.
Member Etchart said he understood the importance of the Council scheduling and conducting its work complementary with the ESA agencies. But, he hoped the Council wasn’t designing a "derivative exercise" when there wasn’t a high enough congruence between what the Council should be accomplishing under the Act and what the ESA agencies were doing to recover the listed stocks. Mr. Lohn said there would likely be a lot of congruence in the artificial production and habitat areas between the Council and the federal agencies who will likely be looking toward the Council’s ideas. What the feds may be modeling is high, medium and low in terms of benefit from habitat. The Council’s modeling would be more specific in terms of what can be done, but it won’t be in conflict. Where there will be strong disagreement will be with what the feds may propose on hydro system operations. He suggested that if the Council can develop a package of measures across all the H’s that deals responsibly with the Council’s program and shows that weak stocks will be protected and the ESA can be met, there was a compelling reason to go the feds and say the Council has a plan with regional support and that is readily implementable. The challenge would be to see if the Council’s plan could supplant the federal agencies’ plan with one that that can reach the goals more successfully. He said he didn't want to predict conflict between the Council and NMFS on hydro measures, but it has been a source of conflict in the past, and it won’t go away.
Mr. Lohn noted that there were some legal caveats on what was discussed today with some paths having more risk. He suggested it would be useful to have a short executive session to talk about those risks. Vice Chairman Cassidy moved that the Council meet in executive session at the call of the Chair to consider matters protectible under the civil litigation and internal personnel exception. Seconded by Member Brogoitti, motion was adopted unanimously with a roll call vote. Voting aye were Members Field, Etchart, Brogoitti,, Karier, Bloch, Cassidy and Maddock.
Recess
The meeting was recessed at 4:15 p.m. at which time the Council went into executive session.
_________________________________________________________________________________
SECOND DAY June 30, 1999
_________________________________________________________________________________
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 8:32 a.m. by Chairman Maddock.
Update on Artificial Production Review Report to Congress
John Shurts explained that the draft policy statement for the Artificial Production Review (APR) has been out for public comment and there have been a number of discussions and a workshop held to receive public input. Staff feels comfortable that the substance is right and do not anticipate revising the document significantly. He said the Council had been scheduled to adopt a final report in July, but has decided to wait until October or November. The delay will allow time to work on developing performance standards that will evaluate how consistent hatcheries are with the policies. Public comment had been received saying that performance standards should be included in the final report. The delay also has to do with recommendations for implementation and will allow time to re-evaluate why and how hatcheries are used for fish recovery. Mr. Shurts said that by September, it will be known how the framework, the Council’s amendment process, ESA planning and other processes like U.S. v. Oregon will fit together. He said the APR report doesn’t need to coincide with a Congressional budget cycle and it was felt that it was more critical for the Council to send a comprehensive report. This was discussed with the Fish 4 on Monday and they approved this schedule.
Vice Chairman Cassidy asked how the Science Review Team (SRT) report would be incorporated into the review. Mr. Shurts replied that it would be attached to the review. He explained that the policies and scientific principles were derived from and consistent with the SRT, and the performance standards will be consistent with the guidelines from the SRT.
Mark Fritsch, Fish Production Coordinator, discussed the comment that has been received from meetings held with agencies and tribes and different organizations. To date, the Council has received seven written comments. Comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state entities were generally supportive with some concern expressed about the role of the Council in the implementation section of the report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife expressed concern about statements in the report about the experimental nature of artificial production. Washington Trout submitted letter with editorial remarks about the inconsistent use of "environment" and "ecosystem". They also commented that the economic component needed to be brought in more strongly. Native Fish Society echoed Washington Trout’s comments. The Spokane Tribe commented on the anadromous and resident fish balance and the qualification made in the report about dealing with a different ecosystem and that native fish aren’t adapted to deal with that.
Mr. Shurts discussed the agency comments concerned with the implementation section and the role of the Council in "trying to take over the world". He said it was written to require these funding reviews because they have been a critical tool in bringing public and independent scientific review to demand that standards for artificial production facilities be met. Every hatchery, except for the Mitchell Act hatcheries, undergoes the Council’s funding review and process. In defense of the Council, the Council’s role was not to claim the world as much as there was an existing tool that was valuable. So the recommendation was also made to bring Mitchell Act production into the same comprehensive review. Mr. Shurts said staff feels comfortable with this recommendation, but it has caused some heartburn. Member Etchart asked whether the heartburn would be alleviated by using a euphemism and suggested using "independent scientific review" instead of saying the Council’s annual funding review.
Vice Chairman Cassidy commented that Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife made a strong case about losing control of their hatcheries. He didn’t see that being the case because what the Council was trying to do was lay down a set of common goals and objectives. The Council approves huge amounts of public funds for this process, and it was acting responsibly to approve them in a quality way. Change was very hard to effect, he said.
Mr. Fritsch added that some of the state and tribal entities expressed concern about the burden placed on them by all the processes and different workgroups and that there would be a need to have some funding to help them participate in implementing the report.
Since the Council was ahead of schedule, Chairman Maddock said the Council would take up the agenda item on the Leavenworth Hatchery.
Council Decision on FY 99 Project Selection Issues – Leavenworth Hatchery Supplemental Funding
Bob Lohn explained that this was not a funding request for direct program funds, but was for the reimbursable category which are expenditures paid out by Bonneville of $40 million per year over six years. Doug Marker, Senior Policy Coordinator, explained that the Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) committed funds for the reimbursable programs, but did not provide a mechanism to shift surplus available funds from one program to another as the need might be identified. He said an informal staff working group, the MOA workgroup, meets periodically to identify problems arising with the MOA implementation and proposes ways to solve those problems.
Last year, Mr. Marker said, when an initial shortfall was identified at Leavenworth Hatchery, the MOA workgroup recommended a mechanism be developed so that competing methods could be identified and brought together in one place and recommended through the CBFWA process. While these programs are federal, they generally fund state and tribal activities, and the CBFWA process ensures that the regional fish and wildlife managers can look at the competing needs and weigh the priorities. Mr. Marker said he outlined this process in a memo, asking the federal agencies involved to identify any other needs they had. No other needs were brought forward besides Leavenworth, so CBFWA recommended that this funding go ahead.
Mr. Lohn explained that this specific request originates with the BOR through the USFWS. While CBFWA managers have reviewed and approved it, it has not been fully discussed by the Fish 4. The request for funding is related to health and safety needs at the Leavenworth Hatchery, and from a polling of Council members, the question arose as to how specific these needs were. Mr. Lohn said the questions for the Council were whether to approve these expenditures as part of its MOA role which is different from its direct program role, whether there are really health and safety needs and whether this was an investment the Council wanted to make in an older, existing facility when there is some uncertainty about the role of artificial production facilities. He noted that to the extent these are health and safety related issues, the Council needs to look carefully at protecting the well-being of people at the hatchery, even though the hatchery might not have a permanent function. The Leavenworth Hatchery has been a long existing hatchery funded as part of the Grand Coulee project and has a specific place in federal law. So, Mr. Lohn said, it was unlikely that the facility would close in the next few years.
Mr. Lohn said the Council should treat these as measures that would or would not have benefit for the short term. If the Council had continuing concerns, this issue could be held over to another meeting. Member Karier commented that in principle, health and safety issues were very important and should be expedited, but at the same time, the Council needed to provide oversight to make sure the expenditures were necessary and worthwhile. Council members continued discussing the nature of the cost estimates. Member Bloch noted that the health and safety violations were identified 10 months prior to the USFWS request. If there was a real emergency, why did it take 10 months to request the money. Mr. Marker replied that the Bureau wrote to the Council in January about this issue, but at that time, there wasn’t a mechanism to reallocate funds within the reimbursables category to look at other competing needs in the region. The request was reviewed by the MOA work group in April, referred to CBFWA in May and then came before the Fish 4 in June.
Vice Chairman Cassidy asked Stacy Horton from his staff about these costs and additional costs for the Leavenworth Hatchery. Ms. Horton said she talked to the Bureau who indicated that the Leavenworth complex was in need of about $10 million of repairs. The concern at the time was that the water intake structure could fail at any time.
Chairman Maddock, noting that this issue will need additional time, suggested that the Fish 4 make a recommendation to the Council in Spokane. Member Etchart questioned whether the Council belonged in this role. He tried to recall if the Council has been in the business before of approving human health and safety claims it doesn’t understand or can validate. Mr. Marker responded that when the process was developed, it was not to review the specifics but to serve as a forum to air competing needs within the reimbursable category. Member Etchart commented that this struck him as establishing a category that invites projects to make health and safety claims to get something done. He also stated that the Council needed to find a way to avoid being put in the place of judging whether or not an expenditure will result in the electrocution of school children.
Update on Caspian Tern Project
Gustavo Bisbal, Fisheries Research Coordinator, said Council members and staff took a tour yesterday to Rice and East Sand islands to take a firsthand look at the pilot study to relocate part of the tern colony. He introduced a panel to brief the Council on the study: Dan Roby and Ken Collis, Oregon State University; USFWS/CRITFC Research Team; Carol Schuler, USFWS; and Ben Meyer, NMFS.
Dan Roby, one of the co-leaders of the pilot study, said the study has been very successful even though there has been some negative spin in the press. He presented slides of Rice Island during the last breeding season. This year, with an enormous effort from the Corps, NMFS and other governmental agencies to silt-fence the area, they have deterred the terns from nesting on about three-quarters of the colony used last year. The colony was designed to hold about 1,000 pairs of terns in one acre, but about 7,000 pairs have attempted to nest there. What they’ve learned from this is that the terns are more motivated to nest on Rice Island than was anticipated. Their nesting success in previous years has been low because of predation by seagulls on Caspian eggs and chicks.
To attract terns to East Sand Island, they needed to recreate the habitat conditions that attract them, namely, bare sand. The Corps completely bulldozed the whole eastern end of the island, clearing an area of 16 acres. To attract the birds, they used plastic decoys and outdoor patio speakers that broadcast Caspian tern’s "greatest hits" from the Rice Island colony. Very soon after this was done, the terns came in, and now there are over 3,000 birds, including 1,000 active nesting pairs.
Mr. Roby said they have been monitoring the diet of the terns on Rice Island and East Sand Island. They have identified over 3,500 individual prey items at each colony site. On Rice Island, they found that 84 percent of the prey were juvenile salmonids, but on East Sand Island, the proportion of salmonids in the diet was significantly lower, at 55 percent – there they found a high proportion of marine fishes such as herring. To study the foraging ecology of both colonies, they used radio tags on adult terns that showed differences in foraging range and distribution. The East Sand Island colony has a more marine component in their distribution. Mr. Roby said they were also concerned about 7,000 pairs of gulls that nest on East Sand Island which prey on Caspian tern eggs and chicks. He said about 160 gulls have been removed with .22’s and they have been extremely successful in limiting the amount of gull predation on the terns.
Mr. Roby said the Rice Island colony will be difficult to micromanage – once they start nesting on the old colony site, they are strongly motivated to pack in in high densities. To shift the terns to East Sand Island and other potential colony sites, it will be necessary to fill in the core area with silt is fencing. In addition, the new colony on East Sand Island will have to be maintained because of vegetation encroachment and some gull control will be needed. He added it would also be beneficial to reestablish former colonies in the Columbia River Estuary in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor and in Tacoma in Commencement Bay. A potential issue is the disposal of dredge material without providing more attractive nesting areas for the terns and other fish-eating water birds.
Mr. Roby showed a slide of a Superfund site in Commencement Bay with nesting terns. The site has sand bags that hold down tarps, and every sand bag that has broken open has its own pair of nesting terns. He said it was a remarkable testimony of how limited the terns are in terms of available nesting habitat and how you can provide them with anything and they will move in.
Carol Schuler from the USFWS said they provided technical assistance on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and play an advisory role on Caspian tern conservation and avian predation. As a member of the Caspian Tern Working Group, they have provided assistance on the relocation effort. They have supported it as an emergency experimental measure to address aviation predation on listed salmonids. They believe the relocation effort was successful and in one season, new nesting habitat has been created and a core population established. In addition, the predation of salmonids has been reduced 30-35 percent.
Ms. Schuler said the USFWS continues to advocate a science-based approach for aviation predation. They feel that focusing on avian predation will not have a very large effect on salmon recovery. For example, the 1999 run of jack chinook was the highest recorded in the last 10 years, which coincided with high rates of predation by the terns. That suggests that ocean conditions affect survivorship more than avian predation. She said PATH’s recent analysis on different management options for salmon recovery also factored in avian predation. PATH found that avian predation, under any of the management scenarios, did not have a substantial benefit for salmon recovery. Given the lack of scientific information on avian predation as well as the fact that other factors may have a greater impact on recovery, the USFWS questions trying to eliminate avian predation in the Columbia River system. They plan to continue support of the relocation effort at East Sand Island, but believe that terns and other seabirds have a role in the Columbia ecosystem and their ability to nest in the river system should not be eliminated.
Ben Meyer, NMFS, and Chair of the Caspian Tern Working Group, stated that NMFS feels the 10-15 million smolts being consumed by the Caspian tern colony was unacceptable. They have worked with the Corps and were able to get the funding to do the relocation project this year which has been very successful. They continue to believe that even if the whole colony was successfully relocated to East Sand Island, the predation numbers would still be too high. Consequently, they are in favor of breaking the colony up, moving it and spreading it out to alleviate having a high concentration in one area. He said Caspian terns were not in the estuary prior to 1984, and NMFS would prefer to go back to that same level which could support a small colony.
Bob Willis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, explained that Rice Island was created in 1962 with dredge material disposal and that it was critical for channel maintenance. Without Rice Island, their costs would substantially increase and it would be difficult to maintain the navigation channel. They expect NMFS to continue to call on the Corps to keep the terns off Rice Island, and the Corps will comply with that, but the question becomes what happens with the terns. He said while East Sand Island is currently owned by the Corps, they are looking at excessing it. The Corps has several authorities available to work with other agencies for habitat development in other areas.
Member Karier questioned whether by moving the terns to Grays Harbor or Willapa Bay, another problem would be created of terns consuming endangered salmon. Mr. Meyer answered that was right, so it was important to look at multiple sites. Member Karier asked who was responsible for the policy decisions because it seems like the terns can be more successfully managed than salmon – was it the working group, NMFS, or who? Mr. Meyer said that was a hard question. The regional executives (Corps, USFWS and NMFS) formed the working group and tasked it to develop a long-term management plan and runs in concert with NMFS’ biological opinion on the continued maintenance dredging. NMFS will have to evaluate what the Corps is doing to maintain the colony within the river and what that would do to the stocks, so in a sense, NMFS is pushing some of the policy in the Columbia River Basin, he said. But when the birds are looking to be relocated, the role becomes more technical. They are fisheries biologists, not bird biologists, and to figure out what the birds need falls under the USFWS – so a joint effort is needed.
Carol Schuler added that NMFS clearly has the lead on salmon recovery issues. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was altered so that any federal agency can take action to affect a migratory bird and not require a permit from the USFWS. USFWS’s role has been to provide technical assistance to consider the needs of the birds. She said it must be remembered that some juvenile salmon mortality has always occurred and will continue to occur. Irregardless of whether the birds took them, those same fish may die for some other reason.
Vice Chairman Cassidy questioned whether the USFWS was stating that the terns were not an issue with regard to returning adult salmon. Ms. Schuler replied that because salmon were listed, the USFWS sees a need to help reduce predation to a certain degree. They do not totally support eliminating predation. She explained that terns were a nomadic species depending on the availability of food sources and nesting requirements, so it was normal for them to move around to different areas.
Vice Chairman Cassidy asked about Rice Island. Mr. Willis replied that NMFS’ biological opinion will continue to ask them to keep terns off Rice Island. To do that, they will need additional discussions with the Caspian Tern work group about the procedure. From this year, they learned that vegetation doesn’t work, that fencing works and harrassment was very effective. He said the harrassment this year was somewhat limited and if more could be done with that, they could keep the birds off Rice Island. Member Grace asked why the lower end of the island couldn’t be filled with dredge spoils to keep the birds off. Mr. Willis replied that they have talked about putting dredge materials on that site, but that would not necessarily make Rice Island unattractive to the terns. Member Karier noted that there was enough ability to manage the population so we would not want to create another "record-setting" population in the estuary at East Sand Island. Mr. Roby responded that the primary interest was to move as many of the terns from Rice Island to East Sand Island. He said the size of the colony on East Sand Island could be controlled by the amount of habitat. East Sand Island is a stepping stone to moving the terns out of the estuary.
Member Field said he has heard from USFWS that this was not their problem, rather, it was NMFS’ problem because NMFS was responsible for the salmon. He felt the USFWS should participate and for everyone to work together. Ms. Schuler said the USFWS supports the effort, but is careful about how far it will go with the effort and questions how significant the predation really is. Member Field commented it would be crucial to have USFWS support even though the USFWS wasn’t "in charge" because the working group doesn’t do anything that USFWS doesn’t allow. Ms. Schuler said the USFWS was pursuing development of a seabird management plan for the Pacific Coast and was seeking funding from Congress for it.
Member Bloch noted that there was no agreement among the working group for what the goal for the appropriate number of nesting pairs of Caspian terns should be for 2000. He also stated that on the tour, they learned that the sand from East Sand Island was not as good as the sand on Rice Island and it was suggested that the Corps take the sand that was dredged and deposit it on East Sand Island. Mr. Willis replied that in order to facilitate the work this year, the Corps created the habitat on East Sand Island, but it was not their intent to be in the wildlife management business. He said they don’t need East Sand Island and will be excessing it, so it will be available to another agency that wants to use it for management.
Mr. Meyer stated that an expedited process was needed to develop a long-term plan, particularly for next year. He said that the Caspian terns taken between 6 and 30 percent of the outmigrating smolts. By saving one out of 200 fish from Caspian terns and improving production and habitat by 10 percent, there would be a 4 percent annual rate of returns. He said NMFS believes that terns are part of the picture and should be addressed.
Chairman Maddock said the Council was not intending to remove all predation in the Columbia, but a plan must be developed to create a balance and reduce the mortality occurring throughout the lifecycle of the salmon. Predation was one example and in this instance, it was a man-caused situation that has created an imbalance of what nature might have permitted. While each agency has different goals, it troubled him that there was no common place to draw together these various perspectives and develop policies reflecting all the goals. Lacking that, Chairman Maddock said, it was important to have a specific plan that has each agency’s participation.
Council Decision on Charter and Membership for the Regional Technical Forum (RTF)
Dick Watson, Director, Power Planning Division, and Tom Eckman, Manager, Conservation Resources, reported to the Council by conference phone. Mr. Watson explained that the Council authorized the staff to proceed with formation of the Regional Technical Forum (RTF) to carry out the directives from Congress and Comprehensive Review, and in the near term to provide recommendations to Bonneville on implementation of its conservation and renewable discount.
Mr. Eckman outlined the major goals and objectives contained in the charter with regard to the Comprehensive Review’s recommendations and which will help Bonneville in implementing its conservation and renewable discount.. The basic charter has the RTF established as a scientific and statistical advisory committee to the Council. He would be acting as chair and Jeff King would be vice chair. Staff has received 17 recommendations for members who will be full voting members and a list of corresponding members with special expertise who can be tapped as needed.
Member Etchart noted that the names on the roster did not have much geographical distribution and asked whether there was anyone in Idaho or Montana who could serve. Mr. Eckman replied that staff did not receive any applicants from either Idaho or Montana. Member Etchart asked whether that wasn’t a problem. Mr. Eckman responded that there was representation through associations, including a representative from the Public Power Council. He said it was difficult to find people with technical expertise who also could donate time to the effort. Mr. Watson noted that in the original issue paper on the RTF, staff tried to construct it so it was a representative and technical body. There was a lot of comment received that said to forget about representation and make this a technical forum. Member Etchart commented that people with associations should take seriously their regional responsibilities. Member Brogoitti asked about the funding and budget for the RTF. Mr. Watson said that Bonneville and the Council were sharing the funding responsibilities with a budget of about $200,000.
Vice Chairman Cassidy moved that the Council approve the charter for the Regional Technical Forum presented by staff with any changes approved by the Members at today’s meeting and appoint the members recommended by the staff. Seconded by Member Etchart, motion adopted unanimously.
Update on Pacific Salmon Treaty
John Shurts explained that the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations have been going on for sometime. On June 3, the United States and Canada reached agreement on new fishing regimes under the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty designed to protect and rebuild salmon stocks while ensuring that fishers from both countries have a fair share of harvest opportunities. He said the Treaty was not being renewed or up for re-negotiation and that it contains some basic commitments for managing harvest and has several annexes attached to it that apply to the different fisheries. Mr. Shurts said when the Council packet went out, staff had not seen the text of the agreement and just received it yesterday. Staff has just begun to go through it, and it is dense and difficult. The purpose today was to highlight some of the elements of that agreement. Staff can return and give a more in-depth discussion of the agreement later. The agreement represents a delicate balance of different ocean fisheries that originate in different places and have different impacts. The focus today on would be on Columbia River fisheries.
Mr. Shurts explained that the new agreement separate marine fisheries into two broad categories: aggregate abundance-based management and individual stock-based management. Three of the main fishing areas, Southeast Alaska, Northeast British Columbia, and the west side of Vancouver Island have been shifted to these abundance based management regimes. It is a graduated step of fishing rates depending on the abundance related to biologically-based escapement objectives.
With regard to impact on fish in Columbia River, Mr. Shurts said the goal is to have harvest that allows for a healthy, sustainable run in the river. John Harrison, Public Information Officer, said that although staff can’t give numbers right now, the change to an abundance-based management plan ought to yield more fish returning to the Columbia. So, generally, that’s a good thing for our fish.
Mr. Shurts went onto say that the agreement created two endowment funds – the northern boundary restoration enhancement fund and the southern boundary restoration enhancement fund – with $140 million provided by the U.S. to restore and enhance spawning and rearing habitat, and also to improve scientific understanding of factors affecting salmon production in both freshwater and marine environments. These funds will be jointly managed by panels appointed by the two countries, said Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Harrison said the two countries agreed to establish this abundance-based management plan for ocean harvest in the mixed stock ocean fisheries by 2004. They also agreed, in less clear language, to adopt a new approach to calculate incidental take. In the transboundary section, the agreement states that the parties shall consult to develop a more practicable arrangement for setting escapement targets for transboundary chinook in the Columbia. He said staff can arrange for a panel of experts to come to talk to the Council on this later.
Member Brogoitti asked why British Columbia was not included in these discussions. Mr. Harrison replied that this was considered to be a federal fisheries issue and British Columbia was not happy with being left out. They do not like what they see as the national government giving away more of its fish.
Chairman Maddock noted that this was an agreement in principle and asked what the steps were to finalize it. Mr. Shurts replied that the two governments have to approve this proposal and that Congressional authorization for the fund was still needed. Member Bloch said his understanding of discussions with people who were at the negotiating table was that early number crunching showed that there will be significant improvements in returns for Columbia River stocks, ranging from a couple of percent to as much as 40 or 50 percent. This certainly represented some movement in the right direction, so that was good news, he said. Member Bloch also pointed out that this negotiation had been "stuck in the mud" and was helped by the State of Washington stepping up and agreeing to a 40 percent reduction in the non-Treaty sockeye fishery on the Fraser River. It was a significant action by Governor Locke and the State of Washington. He also noted that when he was in Washington, D.C., he heard that funding for the Treaty was in jeopardy and suggested that the Council send a letter to the committee chairs urging that the money be appropriated. Mark Walker, Director, Public Affairs Division, replied that it was a good idea to send a letter. He explained that the Treaty was predominantly funded through appropriations from the State Department with assistance from Interior.
Member Karier said we should expect to see a larger benefit to the fall chinook from the agreement. He asked whether the abundance-based formula was agreed upon in order to improve escapement to spawning areas of fish or whether it was approved based on a more equal distribution between ocean and river harvest. Mr. Shurts replied that the purpose was to introduce harvest regimes that are based on abundance, designed to meet maximum sustained yield or other agreed biological-based escapement objectives. He said there was a commitment beyond what is done in the southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia fisheries to improve escapement.
The Council recessed for lunch at 11:35 a.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Presentation on ISRP Recommendations Regarding FY 2000 Fish and Wildlife Project Selection Process
Rick Williams and six members of the ISRP made a presentation on the ISRP’s review of the FY 2000 fish and wildlife projects, including Dennis Lettenmeir, Jim Lichatowich, Nancy Huntly, Dan Goodman, and Richard Whitney.
Dr. Williams explained that the 1996 amendment to the Northwest Power Act formalized a peer review process to look at funding of projects by the Council based on their scientific merit and consistency with the Council’s program (see overheads, Exhibit A). The ISRP views this as an evolving process which has resulted in recommendations on two levels – looking at incoming projects to see how they can be of higher quality and secondly, programmatic concerns about the process. As a result of this evolving process, he said, the rigor and scrutiny has increased each year. This year’s level was equivalent to the scrutiny given to other major federal funding programs. The ISRP review this year was augmented with 27 peer review group members (PRG) as directed by the Power Act amendment.
Dr. Williams explained that FY 98 was the ISRP’s first review. Out of approximately 100 project proposals, they reviewed 100 and found them to be generally superficial and inadequate for scientific review. They provided recommendations to improve proposal content and quality and numerous broad programmatic recommendations. Some of those programmatic recommendations included the need for an integrated ecological framework for fish and wildlife; increased coordination in habitat restoration projects and programs; a comprehensive review of artificial production; and an inventory of remaining native resident fish populations.
In FY 99, to their surprise, Dr. Williams said, there were 403 individual project proposals. That took most of the ISRP’s effort and they were able to do very little in the programmatic arena. They realized that they did not have the details on how to use the PRG members, so the Panel did most of the review itself. In that year, they placed each proposal into one of three categories: adequate; inadequate; or inadequate, but with an adequate purpose. At least 40 percent of the proposals fell into the two inadequate categories. Dr. Williams said in that year, they recommended that: artificial propagation proposals be deferred, habitat restoration projects should be guided by a watershed assessment; a multi-year funding process should be pursued; progress toward the program’s goals was not reported in CBFWA’s AIWP and should be; and that innovative proposals should be encouraged.
Dr. Williams said for the FY 2000 review this year, the ISRP used 27 peer review group members to assist them in looking at the 397 proposals and 40 umbrella proposals. The PRG members came from within and outside the region and brought a broad background of scientific and technical expertise. They also came from diverse communities, including academic and consulting communities as well as federal and state fisheries management agencies. Having the aid of the peer review group members enabled the ISRP to develop in-depth comments on each proposal. He said in the review process with the PRG, they were struck by the very strong agreement between the reviews of the ISRP members and those projects reviewed by the PRG. They also noted that the reviews out of this year strongly agreed with last year’s reviews.
This year, Dr. Williams said, rather than judging projects as adequate or inadequate, they developed recommendations for every proposal which fell into five different categories: fund; do not fund; fund for one year (provide critical information for FY 2001 review); fund in part (fund only the scientifically sound part); and delay funding (qualified, but do not fund until critical information is provided). They judged 49 proposals to be technically adequate and recommended them for a multi-year review cycle. Thet will not be reviewed in FY 2001, unless the project is significantly modified. He added that these multi-year projects came from a full spectrum of project types from mainstem and hatchery research to habitat restoration to wildlife acquisition.
Dr. Williams stated that the majority of the proposals failed to get a funding recommendation because they were either not based on sound science or they did not demonstrate a benefit to fish and wildlife. They recommended not funding 50 proposals placed by CBFWA in Tier 1 and Tier 2. He said a striking feature of this group of proposals was that the review comments made by the CBFWA evaluation teams usually agreed with those of the PRG.
Comparing his year’s review to last year, Dr. Williams said 41 percent were judged as inadequate this year with 40 percent last year. In FY 1999, the ISRP agreed with CBFWA on funding of about 55 percent of the proposals and deferred 20 percent. In FY 2000, the ISRP agreed with CBFWA about 60 percent. On funding of ongoing proposals, the ISRP recommended 68 percent for funding while CBFWA recommended 94 percent. He said the vast majority of funding requests in the Basin approach $90 million for projects to support artificial production and watershed and habitat restoration. The ISRP recommended fewer artificial production projects than CBFWA but recommended more habitat restoration projects be funded.
Dennis Lettenmaier noted this was his first year in the review process. There has been a general increase in the coherency and information content of the proposals since 1998, but there were still continuing problems, he said. Typical problems include failure to identify well defined objectives and their associated tasks, insufficient reporting of past accomplishments and lack of clear plans for monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Member Etchart asked why the quality of proposals wasn’t up to what he saw elsewhere. Mr. Lettenmeier responded that the project sponsors don’t have a history of having to write proposals in a competitive environment for funding.
The ISRP felt that not enough attention was being paid to M&E and recommended against funding projects that didn’t include M&E. Mr. Lettenmeier noted this was the first year that umbrella proposals were used in an attempt to develop some coherence among the projects. The umbrella proposals allow the review panels groups to see how different projects were related, especially geographically, and the ISRP hopes to see better overviews that describe the pertinent historical and biological linkages between projects. Another programmatic recommendation, Mr. Lettenmaier said, was for use of pilot projects to test new ideas and experimental methods before stepping up to full-scale implementation. The ISRP also recommended that a plan for regular site review of projects be developed and implemented in FY 2000. Regular site reviews would contribute to enhanced program coordination and evaluation of progress toward meeting the fish and wildlife program’s goals. Finally, Mr. Lettenmaier said many of ISRP and PRG members noticed that many of the projects showed no peer-reviewed publications. He said since there was a large amount of funding involved that resulted in significant scientific work, they recommend sponsoring a journal devoted to Columbia River fish and wildlife issues.
Nancy Huntly discussed watershed assessment and coordination. The ISRP noted that many of the proposals lacked coordination of watershed projects within major subbasins of the Columbia and Snake rivers. Also, much of the work done on habitat/watershed proposals was not preceded by a watershed assessment. The ISRP recommends that the Council solicit innovative proposals in the area of watershed assessment. She said the ISRP found that many of the proposals call for land acquisition and management of land. Land acquisition proposals need to have a clear description of the land to be acquired and a demonstration of its priority for the program. Also, she said, many of the habitat and wildlife projects included substantial resources for control of non-native plant species. The ISRP recommends that the Council solicit innovative proposals for development, testing and evaluation of cost-effective passive methods for control of non-native species.
Ms. Huntly pointed out that the ISRP’s review of artificial production review was only one of several ongoing regional reviews of artificial production activities in the basin. The ISRP recommends that the Council continues its ongoing basinwide review of hatchery effectiveness and that its results be used to form the basis for future hatchery funding decisions. She said supplementation efforts in the basin would benefit from a coordinated programmatic level review by the ISRP.
On captive brood technology, Ms. Huntly said this type of hatchery program showed up conspicuously in this year’s proposals. Many reviewers were concerned that captive brood technology was viewed more positively than was warranted. Although it is a good short-term technique for preserving genetic stock, it is very risky and uncertain. The ISRP recommends that all captive brood projects undergo a coordinated programmatic-level review by the ISRP. The Council should terminate captive brood projects if they do not provide evidence that they are addressing the root problems and taking coordinated actions to solve them – otherwise, they are a waste of money.
Ms. Huntly said many of the proposals concerned replacement of native stocks that have been lost or endangered by non-native stocks. The ISRP recommends that resident fish mitigation focus on native resident fish stocks, rather than substituting non-native stocks. Priority should be given to projects that use or explore use of native stocks. She said there were also some proposals for recovery of white sturgeon and Pacific lamprey. The ISRP recommends that umbrella proposals be developed for all white sturgeon and Pacific lamprey projects. Finally, the ISRP recommends that CBFWA be urged to report past accomplishments at the watershed, regional and basinwide levels.
Dr. Williams said the FY 98 review recommended use of targeted RFPs to resolve critical and controversial uncertainties. The FY 99 experience with this kind of approach was promising, and the ISRP recommends expanded use of targeted RFPs to fill information gaps in the current fish and wildlife program. He said in FY 98, the ISRP recommended encouragement of submission of innovative proposals, and the Council set aside $2 million be set aside to fund new research or innovative alternatives to existing work in FY 2000. Out of the 150 new proposals, the ISRP identified 16 that offered promising new concepts. The ISRP recommended funding for 13 of the 16 proposals while CBFWA recommended funding only two of those. He said this was indicative of the hurdle that new projects from outside of CBFWA have to overcome.
Finally, Dr. Williams explained that Volume II of the ISRP’s review dealt exclusively with the summary reviews and recommendations for each of the 397 FY 2000 proposals. They represent the ISRP’s formal recommendations to the Council on FY 2000 funding decisions.
Member Etchart asked about the review process for those projects that fell into the do not fund category. Dr. Williams replied that the proposals were first categorized by subbasin, proceeded through three reviews and then was looked at again on three different occasions to verify the review results.
Member Karier stated that the Council authorized $300,000 to CBFWA to improve its annual implementation work plan that would provide a watershed context for the projects and a discussion of past accomplishments in that watershed. He asked if that effort fell short. Ms. Huntly replied that it fell short, but that was not to say that an effort wasn’t made, and it was a difficult thing to do.
Member Field remarked that there were a few "hot" issues associated with the ISRP review, such as the recommendations for supplementation. He asked whether the reviews for hatcheries were consistent between the ISRP and CBFWA. Dr. Williams replied that he did not remember specifics, but they had been struck by the consistency. Member Field asked how to resolve the difficult question of what to do with the hatcheries. Dr. Williams said the ISRP’s recommendation for site review visits provided a vehicle to resolve those differences. Both the ISRP and the PRG were struck by the large and ambitious nature of some of the projects, particularly the supplementation projects. But the lack of presentation in the proposals and convincing justification were not apparent in the proposals. An independent site review team could be setup to look at all the supplementation projects. Member Field asked how long it would take to do a review of the Clearwater subbasin. Mr. Lettenmaier replied that it would take six months at the most. Dr. Williams added that the concept of site review teams to look at these sub-programmatic issues was a way to get through the impasse.
Vice Chairman noted that the ISRP clearly rejected the Nez Perce hatchery project and asked how a site review team could resolve the issues. Dr. Williams replied he did not know either, but a site review team would look at the project and some dialogue would occur. Clearly, a re-submission of that project in its current state would not work. The recommendations of the site review team should form the basis for a revised proposal, which could then move forward. Daniel Goodman added that in the broader scientific discipline of managing threatened and endangered species, it was the consensus among the scientists that supplementation was not a good idea. So, the burden of proof in a supplementation project was on a proposer to explain that it won’t cause damage to wild populations and that it will work.
Member Bloch congratulated and thanked the panel and the peer review groups for an outstanding job which has given the Council essential scientific information to move on and make decisions. He asked why there were still fundamental problems in designing sound monitoring and evaluation programs. Dr. Williams replied that M&E was an issue that the basin has struggled with for a long time. Before hearing responses from other panel members, Dr. Williams thanked the Council for its comments on the report and acknowledged the contribution of Erik Merrill from the Council staff. Dick Whitney commented that a problem with M&E since Day One could be summed up in one word – fragmentation. He said it may be inherent in the way Bonneville funds projects individually rather than fitting them into a package. Jim Lichatowich agreed that M&E has plagued the basin for a long time, and fragmentation of management and among projects is a major impediment to developing a unified M&E program. He said the one prediction about salmon in the Columbia salmon that has come true was made by the Washington State Senate in 1943. The committee report stated that "we will be hopelessly prevented from solving the problems of salmon fisheries in the Columbia Basin until we get rid of the problem of fragmentation of management." Ms. Huntly added that one problem that can prevent people from doing effective M&E was the fear to be wrong – it’s okay to have short-term scientific failure and to accept that it is adaptive long-term learning.
Mr. Goodman felt that it was an institutional problem. He explained that adequate M&E on the success of a habitat project in a subbasin was not on the habitat work itself, but on the response of the salmon. He said ensuring that there are marked fish originating at the right time and right place and adult return monitoring were important, but just seeing more fish or fewer fish coming back does not answer the question. What you want to know is whether the change in the numbers was because of what was done in the watershed or something that happened miles away. All of this, Mr. Goodman said, has to be coordinated. So, Member Bloch said, the key to an effective M&E program was for it to be basinwide. A project has to have M&E "unto itself" but needs to be designed on a level that integrates it with others and still provide a "big picture". He asked if it was fair to ask project proponents to get together and design M&E, and whether that doesn’t cry out for a more organized effort by the Council or the scientific panel to structure and bring about. The scientists all replied "definitely". Dr. Williams noted, however, that was not the standard by which the ISRP judged individual proposals on M&E. They were judged on whether M&E was in place relative to the goals of the project.
Vice Chairman Cassidy asked whether the Council was using the ISRP in the right way – was the intended goal of the ISRP to review projects. Dr. Williams replied that the project review was important, but it consumed about 90 percent of their time. They feel it is not in the program’s best interest because it keeps them from getting into the larger, programmatic questions. There is a role for the ISRP in the big picture arena and amendment language supports that role. He said the ISRP plans to discuss more of how to do this. Member Grace thanked the panel for its work. His concern was on supplementation and asked how to mitigate Treaty obligations without some form of supplementation. He hoped the ISRP would work with the Council on resolving that issue. Member Field commented that since there were some difficult projects to deal with, he recommended that staff start on a site review for the Nez Perce and Umatilla projects.
Brian Allee, Executive Director, CBFWA, gave a brief response to the ISRP report (see handouts, Exhibit ). He said CBFWA takes the ISRP comments very seriously, and he described a process to respond to the ISRP which will culminate in release of the second edition of their FY 2000 Draft Annual Implementation Work Plan. They are interested in working together collaboratively with the Council and the ISRP to resolve the issues.
Mr. Allee said CBFWA suggests that a "triage" approach be used for dealing with the 400 proposals. The proposals would be dealt with under one of three approaches. Where there is concurrence between the ISRP and CBFWA on Tier 1 (fund) and Tier 3 (do not fund), that they be moved off the table and moved to expedited Council review this summer. The second approach is on proposals which the ISRP clearly recommends more information is needed. They want to get going on providing the information and moving the process ahead. The third approach deals with proposals on which there are major differences, and CBFWA will work collaboratively to resolve policy issues. He said they will have their revised AIWP on August 20.
Public Comment on Draft Council Budget for FY 2000 Revised and FY 2001
No public comment was made.
Council Business
Notice of Council member financial disclosure -- Bill Hannaford, Senior Counsel, explained that the Council’s financial disclosure policy calls for annual disclosure of members’ earned outside income. He said Member Maddock reported earned outside income from serving on a bank advisory committee and Member Cassidy reported earned outside income from a personal business. Mr. Hannaford noted that certain portions of the financial disclosure forms were available to the public upon request by July 15.
Adoption of minutes -- Member Cassidy moved that the Council approve the minutes of Council meeting #267 subject to changes approved today. Seconded by Member Brogoitti, motion adopted unanimously.
Proposal for IEAB and ISAB review of Pend Oreille projects – Steve Crow, Executive Director, explained that Member Karier has asked for an ISRP and IEAB review of an alternative net pen proposal on the current lake level study at Lake Pend Oreille. He said the Council has received a letter from Washington Congressman George Nethercutt, the Kalispel Tribe and the Pend Oreille Public Utility District in support of this proposal. He said the current proposal by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game would elevate winter water levels at Lake Pend Oreille by four feet to see whether it would increase spawning habitat for kokanee.
Member Karier explained that he did a site visit to northeastern Washington and talked to farmers and PUD members. Their concern is that the Council’s project to raise the lake level could have third party impacts on them, such as foregone revenue for the PUD and increasing the risk of flooding for the farmers. While he was on the visit, he became aware that the Kalispel Tribe and Pend Oreille PUD had an alternative proposal to raise kokanee in Lake Pend Oreille which they felt would be as effective and far less costly. Member Karier felt it would be a good idea to have both proposals reviewed by the ISRP in terms of the science and biological aspects, and by the IEAB to compare the costs. He said this information would help the Council make a decision on the IDFG proposal in September. The Council might decide to support the original proposal or the alternative, but it would be useful to have this comparison.
Vice Chairman Cassidy moved that the Council approve IEAB and ISRP review of a proposal of the Kalispel Tribe and the Pend Oreille PUD for an alternative strategy for raising kokanee in Lake Pend Oreille. In addition, the biological and economic aspects of the proposal should be assessed relative to IDFG’s proposal to raise the lake level of Lake Pend Oreille. Seconded by Member Brogoitti.
Member Etchart asked whether the Council wasn’t in the mid-range of a three-year testing of the effectiveness of IDFG’s lake level project. He asked what effect this analysis would have if we were in the mid-range of this test period. Member Karier agreed that there was a three-year test, with the third year being this winter. But, he said, one year was a flood year that was not useful for the experiment, so the question became whether to extend the test to four years to cover that lost year. At this point, Member Karier said, if there was an a cheaper alternative that would meet the same biological goals with far less impact on the power system and less risk of flooding of the farmers, the Council should consider it. Doug Marker explained that the three-year study was extended to four years because of flood events. The current proposal from IDFG was to extend the experiment for 10 years, which the ISRP has reviewed and suggested it be funded for a longer period. (See attached memorandum from Doug Marker.) So, he said, the Council’s action will be to extend the study.
Member Field explained some of the background of this project. Several years ago, previous to Council involvement in the project, Senator McClure funded pumps to be used by the farmers because their land was below the reservoir level of the PUD. One of the problems over the last three years, Member Field said, was there has been an inordinate amount of flow, so the pumps can’t keep up with the snowmelt. Bigger pumps were needed, and they were in the pipeline, but the PUD spoke out against it and killed it. His concern was there was a process in place, and the PUD and the Tribe could have submitted their proposal in a timely way. He did not feel it should be injected into the process now and set a precedent for other projects.
Vice Chairman Cassidy said he supported the motion. There were people in Washington in trouble, and it was the Council’s job to deal with it. What Member Karier was asking for was a comparison of the proposals. Member Brogoitti was while he was not against the motion, he felt the farm income loss identified in the loss statement was highly inflated. Their calculation states a cost of $14,500 per mile for fencing and their hay costs were way out of line. Vice Chairman Cassidy pointed out that the Council was not approving reimbursement to farmers.
Chairman Maddock said the motion doesn’t preclude the agreement to follow through with the original draw-up on the lake. He asked whether passage of this motion would jeopardize any action being taken this year because the goal was to improve kokanee numbers in Lake Pend Oreille. Member Karier replied that the alternative proposal was a way to meet the same biological objective, and he would like to have the experts make a judgment about the impacts. His goal was for the Council to have more information to make a better cost-effective decision. He said funding for additional pumps to mitigate the impact remained a possibility, but Congress was less interested in funding it because they thought it was a Bonneville project, and that is why it died. Member Bloch stated that developing additional information didn’t necessarily obligate the Council to do anything. Rather, it preserved the ability to head in a different direction. The Council, he said, can justify different treatments when it looks at alternative proposals. This situation was unique because it has third-party impacts, such as flooding that has brought people to the brink of bankruptcy. Member Bloch said he supported the additional review, but it should be done in a manner that allows the Council to proceed with the IDFG proposal. Member Brogoitti asked what guarantee there was that the ISRP would look at this. Mr. Marker replied that the ISRP was done with the FY 2000 review, and the Council has been fairly stern about closing the proposals off in December. He said the alternative proposal has not been developed nor reviewed by the ISRP or CBFWA. Mr. Marker said the question could be framed to the IEAB on an ad hoc basis. He said if there was a desire to start a new project that the Council ask for a CBFWA review and identify the funding priority.
Member Karier stated that having the review was not to throw this alternative into the process. The question is whether there is an alternative that could meet the biological goal and be significantly less costly. Member Field expressed concern about being asked to consider an alternative to one of the projects. He stated it was not fair to any project to have someone come in with an idea to be compared with a project that was approved by both the ISRP and CBFWA. Mr. Crow said there was a process problem here and suggested delaying this decision until staff had time to look at this to see how it would fit into the current process. Chairman Maddock said he would vote against this. What was being proposed had merit, but he was worried about violating what was agreed to in development of priorities and acceptance of projects on a timely basis. If this were for FY 2001, he would vote for it. Member Karier said this alternative proposal wasn’t being thrown into the process. It will offer more insight on what should be done in Lake Pend Oreille, and need not be part of this year’s funding process. He pointed out that the proposal to raise the lake level was submitted to the Corps and did not come through the project proposal process, and the Council needs to consider whether it supports raising the lake level.
Member Etchart commented that Member Karier’s idea had merit, but protecting a process that the Council has labored on was a worthwhile goal. Mr. Marker stated that the Council’s decision in September will be whether to fund the IDFG project, and the Corps is waiting for the Council’s recommendation to decide how it will operate the lake next winter. Today, we have been arguing against introducing a competing proposal into the process at this stage. One alternative would be to vote on the IDFG proposal in September and do a Request for Proposal for alternative ways to meet the same biological objective later.
Member Bloch said he did not believe the Council was opening up its process by supporting this motion. What the Council was doing was a courtesy to Dr. Karier and the state of Washington to use the Council’s scientific and economic resources that would provide the Council with information to help make a better funding recommendation on the IDFG proposal. If the IEAB validates the economic losses and the ISRP or ISAB validates the scientific approach of using net pens, then that meant the IDFG proposal has an economic downside and there was an alternative biological method to get the same result. If the IEAB and ISRP says the net pen proposal doesn’t work, then the Council should go forward with the IDFG project.
Member Brogoitti felt the Council was being inflexible and he was in favor of the motion and called for the question. The motion was passed. Voting aye were Brogoitti, Karier, Bloch, and Cassidy; voting no were Maddock and Field. Member Etchart abstained, and Member Grace was not available for the vote. Chairman Maddock said he was disappointed the Council had to have a vote like this. It was a good idea, but his concern was that it came in at the 11th hour and eroded a process that the Council has supported.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Approved
Larry Cassidy
Vice Chairman