Council Meeting # 282 November 2, 2000 Lewiston, Idaho Approved Minutes

Call to order

1. Council Decision of Fiscal Year 2001 Budget for Regional Fish and Wildlife Activities
Bob Lohn, Director, Fish and Wildlife Division

We've received requests from Bonneville customers and from agencies and tribes to extend the time to comment on the proposed FY 2001 budget amounts, Lohn said. I support the extension, but I'd like to see the program get wrapped up and begin the solicitation for high-priority projects, stated Karier. Maddock and Bloch agreed. Sarah McNary of Bonneville said Bonneville supports proceeding rapidly on the solicitation for high-priority projects and that Bonneville intends to fund the projects selected through the solicitation. The Council recommended at least $15 million as an amount for high-priority projects, she noted. We responded that Bonneville has been looking at something between $10 million and $15 million, but the funding could be higher, depending on what comes back in the solicitation, McNary said.

Ray Thayer, general manager of Clearwater Power Company, a co-op located in Lewiston serving 9,000 members in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, said Clearwater buys most of its power from Bonneville. Since Bonneville has historically funded nearly 100 percent of the efforts to restore fish runs, we are extremely interested in and concerned with the Council's plan, he stated.

Thayer commended the Council for its new emphasis on accountability for fish and wildlife projects over the past couple of years. This accountability for the expenditure of ratepayer funds and meeting program goals is much needed, and your efforts in this area are very much appreciated, he said.

You have made some much needed, but politically unpopular, decisions on which projects to fund and which ones not to fund, and I thank you on behalf of my ratepayers for doing that, Thayer continued. I am concerned your proposed amendments would increase the costs of the fish and wildlife program by about $49 million, an increase of nearly 40 percent, he said. Have you made all reasonable efforts to have state and federal entities and others share in this funding, or are you going after Bonneville for the money just because it's the easiest target? Thayer asked.

Bonneville concluded a rate case this spring in which it proposed a 4 percent rate increase, but now the agency is backing away from that proposal and suggesting 22 percent in additional rate increases through two additional Cost Recovery Adjustment Clauses (CRAC), he said. There is also a proposed third CRAC of an unspecified amount to "bail out" Bonneville if needed, Thayer pointed out. In addition, Bonneville's Transmission Business Line is raising rates to us by 24 percent on October 1, 2001, he said.

I realize that your proposed amendments would only apply to the FY 2001 budget, but they would decrease Bonneville's reserves and increase the probability of Bonneville's proposed array of CRACs triggering, Thayer stated. I question the reasonableness of proposing a nearly 40 percent increase in funding requirement with only 10 days for comment, and I'm especially concerned when the descriptions of the projects are extremely brief, he said.

Thayer urged the Council to delay the process until complete descriptions of the projects are made available, and there is adequate time for the Council to discuss the budget with power industry representatives. He also told the Council to be very certain all the projects for which it is requesting funding have explicit quantitative, measurable goals that can be rigorously evaluated and that projects not meeting their goals should be reconsidered.

The Bonneville cost increase doesn't have to do with increased fish and wildlife costs -- it has to do with increased demand for power and high power costs, said Karier. We share your concern for quantitative goals, and in our new program, we've been active in asking for federal government funding for the shares of the program that are not the responsibility of ratepayers, he added.

Bonneville only has so much money, responded Thayer. When it puts out unbudgeted funds for fish and wildlife, it lowers its reserves, which increases the probability of triggering the CRACs, he said.

You and your colleagues are in a position to drive the idea that Bonneville can pay only so much, observed Etchart. I'd encourage the ratepaying community to get in touch with the delegation and be firm on that point, he said.

What's happening with your customers in the current environment? What are your ratepayers faced with over the next year or two? asked Maddock. We're faced with a double-digit rate increase next year, Thayer replied. Unlike other parts of the region, the economy in our area is not doing very well, he stated. When people who don't have jobs face a double-digit rate increase, it puts them in a real bind, Thayer said.

Decision - Comment Period

Bloch moved the Council extend the comment period on the proposed FY 2001 budget until December 1, 2000, schedule additional opportunities for public comments and consultations, and close all the other amendments to the fish and wildlife program. Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed.

Decision - Request for Proposals

The Council also passed a motion, initiated by Bloch and seconded by Brogoitti, to authorize the release of a request for proposals for high-priority projects. According to Lohn, the solicitation will go out in a week, with 30 days allowed for responses. We would try to get Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and CBFWA review of the projects done by the end of January, followed by a comment period, and then present the projects for Council decision in mid or late-February, he said.

2. Presentation of Recent Scientific Data on flow Augmentation
Karl Dreher, Director, Idaho Department of Water Resources

Karl Dreher, director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, presented an analysis his department and the Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game and University of Idaho did on data collected by NMFS, USFWS, and the Nez Perce Tribe from 1995 through 1998. NMFS studies of the data correlated hatchery fish survival with flow augmentation, but the Idaho agencies' work raises doubt about the viability of flow augmentation, Dreher stated. What we found, he said, is that average Snake River flows at Lower Granite have not changed much since 1916. Given that, it's difficult to conclude that flow depletions have contributed to the decline of salmon, or that we should expect flows to be a significant contributor to salmon recovery, according to Dreher.

While flows haven't changed much, average velocities have changed significantly, he said. The hypothesis for flow augmentation is, if velocity is a function of flow, wouldn't flow augmentation be a viable means to speed the travel of fish to the ocean, Dreher stated. We agree there's an incremental velocity that can be achieved, but the question is: are these small changes an aid in the recovery of fish, he asked.

NMFS has said there's no statistically significant correlation between survival and flow for spring chinook, but for fall migrants, the data show a strong correlation between survival and flow, Dreher continued. But, he said, a correlation doesn't equate to a cause-and-effect relationship. For example, I could plot the NASDAQ index and salmon survival and could find that as the NASDAQ went up, salmon declined, but just because there's a correlation, it doesn't mean there's a cause and effect, Dreher stated.

NMFS used flow indices in its studies, and the way NMFS determined those indices doesn't represent the flow conditions most of the surviving fish were exposed to, he said. NMFS did it to show a correlation; in other words, things aren't always what they appear, stated Dreher.

It's unfortunate NMFS isn't here to hear this, said Bloch. Have you asked NMFS why they did it this way? he inquired. We aren't criticizing NMFS for doing it this way, Dreher replied. NMFS responded to us, but their response wasn't clear, he added.

Dreher showed an annual hydrograph for 1996 and charts of 1996 arrival dates for Clearwater fish releases plotted against survival and flows that year. There's a significant decrease in survival and that happens to correlate to the decreases in flow, he said. As the flows decreased, fish travel times also decreased, so fish traveled faster under lower flows than higher flows, which is exactly contrary to the flow hypothesis, Dreher indicated. Showing charts of 1996 travel times for Clearwater releases, he said, if flow augmentation is the way to speed outmigration, this data doesn't show that's true, so there must be something else at work.

Dreher said date of release is the strongest correlation in the whole data set. It's possible, at certain times, the fish were ready to go, but weren't released, and at other times, they may have been released before they were ready to go, he stated. There's a question of "readiness to migrate" of hatchery fish, and the NMFS study made no effort to address "readiness to migrate," other than using size of the fish, Dreher said.

Why didn't you put up a correlation with temperature effects? asked Karier. Temperature's effect on outmigrating fish is not clear, replied Dreher. There's no relationship between fish travel time and flow and no relationship between fish travel time and temperature, he said. In a general sense, in a good water year, fish survival is better, Dreher continued. That doesn't mean you can create a better water year by simply dumping more water in the mainstem in a bad water year, he stated.

Why are you talking about fall chinook when those aren't the most important fish to Idaho? Cassidy asked. The ongoing call for flow augmentation is to benefit fall chinook, and that's what causes the effects on Idaho's water, replied Dreher.

The Idaho agencies' study concludes that there is a strong relationship between time of release and survival, with survival rates ranging from 50 percent to 70 percent for early releases, and less than 10 percent for later releases, he said. Based on currently available PIT-tag data, survival may only be coincidentally related to historical flows during this time period, Dreher stated. Here's the bottom line, he said: we are not saying we can show flow augmentation didn't produce benefits, but we are saying that NMFS shouldn't use this data to justify flow augmentation for survival because the data doesn't hold up.

You have reached a conclusion that is antithetical to the conventional wisdom about the value of flow augmentation, said Etchart. Would NMFS agree with your conclusion? he inquired. Their scientists would, replied Dreher. Have you sought peer review for your work? asked Etchart. We submitted this as comment on the draft BiOp, and we'll submit our report to the NMFS Science Center for review, said Dreher. Etchart suggested asking the Independent Science Advisory Board (ISAB) to review the report. We have no problem with that, said Dreher.

You've reached a fairly narrow conclusion -- it's not as sweeping as John [Etchart] suggests, said Bloch. This points to our need for more high-quality research on questions such as flow augmentation, he stated. I look forward to asking NMFS to come and discuss the results of Idaho's study, Bloch added. The Council has asked NMFS to present information on the benefits of flow augmentation, and this study helps us move forward on considering that question, said Mike Field. Let's have the ISAB review this study, he agreed.

3. Update on the Fish and Wildlife Provincial Review Process and Schedule
Bob Lohn; Doug Marker, Senior Policy Coordinator; and, John Ogan, Senior Council

Staffer Doug Marker explained that the Council is in a transition from annual project selection decisions to "rolling" provincial reviews and that the ISRP has completed reviewing project proposals in the Columbia Gorge and Intermountain provinces. He noted that the Council is ready to solicit project proposals in the Mountain Columbia province.

The Fish Four has asked how this sequence of reviews fits with the BiOp and All-H paper, Marker stated. We think we can meet the needs of the BiOp with the high-priority project solicitation we are embarking on and continue at the same time to move through the provincial reviews, he said.

The Fish Four also asked about the Council's response to the BiOp and the issue of "who's driving?" Marker noted. The key is for Bonneville, NMFS, and USFWS to establish upfront their requirements for satisfying the BiOp, and we've establish-ed a staff committee to help get that done, he said. Marker also indicated that the Council would be integrating its review of the reimbursable programs of the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation into the provincial reviews.

The Council needs to invite more involvement of state and local governments, stakeholders, landowners, and others in the provincial reviews, he said. Due to the "Herculean" amount of work involved in the reviews, Marker said the end date may extend two weeks longer than scheduled. Karier asked why two provinces in Washington are scheduled in the last go-round of provincial reviews. The sequence is established by who's ready, balancing the workload, and the key thing is scheduling the ISRP reviews, Marker replied.

4. Update on the Artificial production Review Performance Standards
Bruce Suzumoto, Manager, Special Projects

Bruce Suzumoto presented a progress report on artificial production standards and indicators being developed by a work group of state, federal, and tribal fish managers, chaired by Brian Allee. He said draft performance standards were included in the Council's Artificial Production Review (APR) report submitted to Congress last year. The work group has now revised the standards, after receiving suggestions from the ISAB, Suzumoto noted.

The standards are to: help translate broad APR policies into measurable quantities; assess success in approaching goals; promote accountability; help select and implement new actions; and help guide future research, he said. Suzumoto explained what an indicator is, e.g., total dissolved gas (TDG) levels below dams, and what a standard is, e.g., 110 percent TDG. Indicators tell us where to look in establishing standards, he said.

The standards will be used to indicate what constitutes success, according to Suzumoto. We need to establish goals and objectives, such as abundance -- how many fish do we want to come back to a particular subbasin? -- and then decide on critical indicators to be monitored based on the goals and objectives, he said. Then you can establish specific performance standards and strategies and treatments, Suzumoto explained. The Independent Economic Analysis Board (IEAB) and resident fish managers are commenting on the standards, and we expect to have them approved at the Council's December meeting, he said.

We've worked hard on this regional effort to measure the success of hatchery programs and to take the mystery out of the rhetoric, commented Allee. Cassidy asked if state agencies have participated in developing the standards. Yes, replied Suzumoto.

5. Council Decision on Funding of Fiscal Year 2001 Deferred Fish and Wildlife Projects
Doug Marker and John Ogan

Marker said the funding being recommended for the Clearwater Focus Watershed Projects, sponsored by the Nez Perce Tribe and Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, hews to the Council's guidance to hold to FY 2000 budget levels while continuing implementation. Is this work different than subbasin assessments? asked Karier. These assessments were begun before the Council defined what it meant by assessment, replied Lohn. The work is in greater detail than we would ask for today, but this is under way and seems to be good work, so there's no sense in terminating it because it's more accurate than we need, he said.

Decision - Funding

Bloch moved, and Maddock seconded, to fund three elements of the projects as follows: $196,000 for watershed coordination; $300,000 for watershed assessment; and about $1.5 million for 11 other watershed restoration projects. The motion passed

Decision - Funding

The Council approved, on Bloch's motion and Brogoitti's second, a funding increase of $150,000 for the Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project to enable the Nez Perce Tribe to investigate an alternative water supply for a hatchery and support supplementation of 100,000 Johnson Creek smolts.

Lohn said the $2,030,000 in funding sought by the Colville Tribes for projects in the Salmon Creek watershed would keep the work going while a series of studies are done. This is a very promising project -- there has been a lot of cooperation between the irrigation district and the Colvilles to put water in the streams, said Karier. The total budget is around $20 million, with Bonneville's contribution being about a third, he stated. We need to do the right reviews early on to help us in getting funding from other entities later on, Karier noted. We should ask the EDT modelers to identify the biological value of putting more water into the streams in this area, he recommended.

For projects of this scale that involve a series of elements and a significant amount of dollars, we ought to develop a protocol and require that other funding sources become involved, Bloch said.

Decision - Funding

On Bloch's motion and Grace's second, the Council recommended that Bonneville reserve $2,030,000 for the Salmon Creek project, with a long series of provisos, including that the project be submitted immediately to the IEAB for review of the cost-effectiveness of its objectives and strategies.

The Council decided to ask Bonneville to do a financial and management audit of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission's Northern Pike Minnow Management Program between now and March of next year. The Fish Four was concerned about the costs of the project, for which $3.3 million is being requested, Cassidy said.

6. Briefing on Proposal for Fish and Wildlife Recovery Forum Process
Sherman Reese and Darren Coppock, Oregon Wheat Growers League; Rick George and Alanna Farrow-Nanegos, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Alanna Farrow-Nanegos of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) explained that the Oregon Wheat Growers League sent the CTUIR a letter in 1999 proposing a collaboration on salmon recovery solutions. We met and talked about how we all want to protect our tradition and cultures, whatever they are, and our irritation with the current bureaucratic processes going on for salmon recovery, she said. We decided to have a people-led process modeled after the Umatilla Basin Project, Farrow-Nanegos stated.

Daren Coppock of the Oregon Wheat Growers said the CTUIR and Oregon and Washington wheat growers associations approved a joint-values document in August and plan to convene a citizens' forum to come up with solutions to the salmon crisis. The goals of both salmon recovery and preserving the economy of the Northwest have to be met if we are to succeed, he stated. Besides wheat growers and tribal representatives, we intend to involve representatives from Umatilla Electric Co-op, a port, a barge company, a religious organization, an environmental group, and others, Coppock noted.

In the Umatilla Basin Project, the people took on the most difficult issue, and that was water rights, said Rick George of the CTUIR. We chose the issue that was key, and we need to do the same thing in this project -- to bring in the people who have the most to lose and ask them to work together to come up with a fix, he stated. We are asking for your support, expertise, and funding, George told the Council. The proposed budget, including mediation services, is about $52,000, he said.

Cassidy urged them to make sure this effort ties in with work being done by other Washington state agencies and citizens groups. What would be a successful product from this effort? Bloch asked. We said to the tribes, how do we save the fish without breaching, and the tribes said to us, we want to breach, but we also want to hold economic interests harmless, so we decided we'd work on two plans, one with breaching, and one without, Coppock replied. We're looking at putting together a plan that has the buy-off of the people in the region, something that at this point no plan has, added George.

What would you do with the two plans? Etchart asked. Our hope is that we'd be able to come to a consensus on one plan, replied George. We could bring our plan to the Council, the congressional delegation, and tribal and state governments, he added.

This is a new and innovative approach, and the tribes and the agricultural community getting together is a groundbreaking event, observed Brogoitti. This is a great grass-roots approach, said Maddock. The question is how to structure the subbasin planning we are doing so it captures the same level of enthusiasm you have, and how to fit what you are doing into our basinwide plan, he stated. I recommend the project go through the Council's normal process for funding approval, Field said. He added that if the individuals involved are not committed enough to fund the effort, they may not be committed enough to solve the problem.

I suggest you bring a full list of the participants in the forum to us, said Cassidy. Bloch suggested the Oregon members work with the group to determine how their product would link up with the Council's process. You can then submit a formal proposal, or the executive director has some latitude for funding outside the normal process that might be called on, he said.

7. Status Report of Diversion Consolidation Alternatives for the Methow Valley Project
Fred Ziari, IRZ Consulting; and Lynn Hatcher, Fisheries Program Manager, Yakama Indian Nation

Lohn said there has been a longstanding project to increase flows in the Methow Valley in Washington, centered on working with the Methow Valley Irrigation District to allow more water to stay in streams. The Yakama Indian Nation has taken a leadership role in helping move this forward, he noted, introducing a panel to give an update on the project.

Lynn Hatcher, fisheries manager for the Yakamas, said recent efforts on the design for the project involving the irrigation district and fish managers have made it stronger and better. The fish managers sought removal of all the diversion dam structures, he said, adding "if we can't get the dams out of the Snake, we'll get them out in the Methow." The irrigation district wanted payments for various changes, to keep the canal system, and to have adequate water for farming, Hatcher noted.

Working together, we came up with 14 points we agreed on, and the bottom line is that this is a larger and more expensive project, Hatcher said. Fred Ziari of IRZ Consulting said the recent agreement opens a new chapter after a bad period of lawsuits. We've found more and better things to do in the Methow Valley, and we feel there are immediate actions that could be implemented now, he stated.

What's the new cost of the project? Cassidy asked. We'll get you the numbers once we get your blessing, said Ziari. We want you to see the same vision as we have that it's a good project, he stated. Our funding process has a placeholder for the Methow Valley project, and I support doing what it takes, said Cassidy. It's a very big issue that is getting attention at the highest levels in Washington state, he added.

Does the new design require more NEPA work? asked Brogoitti. A Bonneville representative said the agency doesn't think an entirely new Environmental Assessment needs to be done, and that the agency would expedite as much as possible. Lohn said the project sponsors will bring a detailed proposal to the Council's December meeting.

8. Council Business

IEAB Appointments

Morlan presented a recommendation to appoint four members to the IEAB. Two, Dr. Ken Casavant and Dr. Daniel Huppert, are reappointments. The new members would be Dr. Roger Mann, a consultant in natural resource economics from Davis, California, and Dr. Hans Radtke, an Oregon State economist with expertise in fisheries economics and analysis of the impacts of fisheries on communities, Morlan said.

Decision - Appointments

Bloch moved to approve the appointments, Brogoitti seconded, and the motion passed.

Council Decision on SAIC Initial Survey

Lohn presented a recommendation from Karier to fund a $150,000 contract for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to: conduct an assessment of regional information needs; develop the scope of a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to be offered to regional entities to establish principles for data management coordination; and to develop for Council approval a draft RFP to implement the recommendations of the needs assessment. The work would be modeled on data coordination methods and agreements used in the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Karier said the Council was impressed with SAIC's presentation on the Chesapeake Bay data system. He noted that the contract is not for SAIC to do a data system, but to write a report on what the Council's data system should look like.

Decision - Funding Bloch moved approval, Karier seconded, and the motion passed.
 

Approved ________________, 2001
 
 

_____________________________ Vice-Chairman

^ top