Council quarterly

8 Pages·2003·0.31 MB·English

by  Northwest Power and Conservation Council (U.S.)

Summer 2005
Striking a Balance Between Energy and the Environment in the Columbia River Basin
Biological Opinion Litigation Affects Only One
What’s Inside
Part of Larger Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Effort
June federal court Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, includes
A ruling invalidating the actions to improve fish survival in the NW/Q&A: Marilyn Showalter, 3
federal government’s hydropower system, at hatcheries, through Executive Director, Public
operations plan for the harvest management and in habitat. The Power Council
Columbia and Snake framework calls for:
river dams created Council Plans Level Funding 4
• Completing subbasin plans as guides for
uncertainty but did not for Fish and Wildlife Projects
prioritization of projects for funding and
derail a broader regional strategy for pro-
in 2006; Prepares for 2007
as the basis for locally led recovery plan-
tecting and enhancing fish and wildlife in
ning under the Endangered Species Act
the Columbia River Basin. Success Stories – Yakima River 5
• Relying on local leadership and state and
The regional strategy, which comprises
Fish Managers Assess Lower 6
tribal collaboration
a framework of actions, responds to recom-
than Expected Spring
mendations of the four Northwest gover-
• Measuring progress with a regional Chinook Run
nors, who asked in 2003 that their offices
monitoring strategy
collaborate with the Northwest Power
and Conservation Council, regional federal One component of the regional strat-
executives and Columbia Basin Indian tribes egy is the federal river operations blueprint,
to develop common objectives and strate- the 2004 Biological Opinion. U.S. District
gies for protecting and enhancing fish and Council Decisions
wildlife. The resulting framework, which
(continued on page 2)
integrates the Council’s Columbia River
Conservation costs
May
The Bonneville Power Administra-
tion released for public comment its
Draft Closeout Report for the Power
Function Review, which is intended
to help establish Bonneville’s costs
for the 2007-2009 rate period. After
reviewing the draft report, the Coun-
cil agreed to send a comment letter
expressing concern that the proposed
With the ramifications of federal district Judge Redden’s decision to invalidate the level of funding for energy conserva-
2004 Biological Opinion (see story above) still largely unknown, stakeholders in tion is unlikely to achieve Bonneville’s
fish and wildlife recovery efforts are struggling to understand where we go from here. share of the regional conservation
The rejection of the federal government’s rationale for its river operations plan places target in the Council’s Fifth Northwest
the fractious debate over dams and fish front and center. Power Plan.
Amidst so much uncertainty, what is clear is the need for the kind of open,
honest, and balanced discussion of the choices before us. This is not an impossible
(continued on page 4 (continued on page 7)
Litigation Doesn’t Affect Larger Mitigation Effort
(continued from front page)
wrote the invalidated biological opinion,
Judge James Redden invalidated the bio-
Through the Council’s plans to use subbasin plans to guide future
logical opinion on June 10 in response to a
implementation of the biological opinion
legal challenge to its policy framework.
program, many of the and form the foundations of recovery plans
While this caused temporary uncer- for federally protected species.
tainty, it has not affected other elements short-term habitat stra-
Through the Council’s program, many
of the regional strategy. The Council
of the short-term habitat strategic goals
participated as a friend of the court in the tegic goals in the 2000
established by NOAA Fisheries for the
litigation to support its fish and wildlife
biological opinion have been achieved.
program. The Council’s program is the Biological Opinion have
Recently the Council also completed a sys-
source of some of the actions in the biolog-
tematic review of hatchery performance
ical opinion, particularly those that would been achieved.
and now is engaged in prioritizing habitat
occur away from the dams (described in the
protection and restoration, guided by the
plan as “offsite mitigation”) but contribute
scientifically reviewed subbasin plans. The
to improving the survival of fish in con- Meanwhile, the Council continues to
Council also is working to prioritize hatch-
junction with actions at the dams. Thus, collaborate with federal agencies on salmon
ery performance improvements, fund a
implementation of the Council’s fish and and steelhead recovery. Recently the Coun-
regionally integrated monitoring and evalu-
wildlife program, which addresses hydro- cil completed amending its fish and wild-
ation infrastructure and address estuary and
power impacts on all fish and wildlife of life program with 58 plans for individual
mainstem predation measures. CQ
the Columbia River Basin including listed subbasins of the Columbia and Snake rivers.
species, is coordinated with actions in the The plans, developed over a two-year
biological opinion. Judge Redden asked period by fish and wildlife agencies, Indian
parties to the biological opinion litigation tribes and watershed council, will guide
to discuss disputed matters this summer future implementation of the program.
and return to court in September. NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency that
Together, the Council’s Program and the Biological Opinion used Specific Actions
for the Off-site Mitigation Strategy, Including:
• Developing a regional water brokerage to secure instream flow improvements from willing sellers. In 2004 there were 24 trans-
actions yielding 319 cubic feet per second of instream flow and 32,000 acre-feet of water. A similar rate of effort is anticipated for
2005 and 2006.
• Installing irrigation screens and fish-passage improvements in tributaries and securing productive habitat. Through one project
in Idaho’s Salmon River drainage, 26 miles of habitat have been opened for access since 2002, and 14 miles are planned in
2006. In Washington’s Yakima River, two screens were installed in 2004 yielding 40,000 acre-feet of water and 116 cubic feet
per second of instream flow. Also in the Yakima basin, 920 acres of habitat have been protected since 1997, and opportunities
for further habitat protection that have been identified are pending resolution of Bonneville financial policies.
• Enrolling landowners in federal land protection programs to reduce sedimentation and water temperatures through incen-
tive payments. In Oregon’s John Day River Basin, 224 acres and 14.5 miles of riparian buffers have been protected in Wheeler
County, and the goal is for 35 landowner agreements in 2006.
2
NW/Q&A: Marilyn Showalter, Executive Director, Public Power Council
M
arilyn Showalter became the (IndeGO, RTO West, Grid West) and noth-
executive director of the Public ing has panned out as more cost-effec-
Power Council in April. The PPC tive or more politically accountable than
represents the Pacific Northwest’s consumer- what we’ve got. We should give up on
owned utilities on important issues within the grand plans and turn our attention to
the region and in Washington, D.C. with ongoing, real-world solutions—and that is
a particular focus on the Bonneville Power what TIG is doing.
Administration.
The Comprehensive Review, the
Prior to her current position, Ms. Show- NWPCC’s power plan, and Bonneville’s
alter served for six years as chairwoman of own policies recommend that the agency
the Washington Utilities and Transportation be relieved of the responsibility of meeting
Commission. The commission regulates the load growth of public utilities, except
investor-owned utilities. She is also immedi- on a bilateral and incremental cost basis.
ate past president of the National Associa- What are your views on this policy?
tion of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
tion” will solve all problems. Instead, we There are two parts to this idea: first, that
A graduate of Harvard College and Har- should proceed incrementally along several we should secure the benefits of Bonne-
vard Law School, Ms. Showalter has served fronts—scheduling, coordinating reliability ville’s hydro-base system for the Northwest
in a number of governmental capacities in and security requirements, and planning for over as long a term as possible—up to 20
the state of Washington, including counsel to expansions of the transmission system—by years. And second, that utilities will need to
the governor, chief clerk of the state House of using our existing institutions in improved plan for the remainder of their needs, either
Representatives, counsel to the state House ways. I am speaking of the Transmission through Bonneville (at incremental cost) or
Appropriations Committee, and senior deputy Improvements Group (TIG) process, which on their own.
prosecuting attorney. She has also practiced has examined carefully what we can gain
law privately and taught law school courses. without creating a new, untested, FERC- In order to make either part work, we need
confidence in the future of Bonneville and
jurisdictional utility such as Grid West.
How are you enjoying your new role? Is it confidence in the long-term, larger struc-
what you expected? Some advocates for Grid West argue that ture in which Bonneville and all of us oper-
1) our current system is not building needed ate. (I like the word “confidence” more
It’s all I expected—and more. I took this transmission and 2) Grid West will be better than “certainty,” which is unachievable.)
job because I believe in the values of public at getting it built. I don’t think either propo- PPC and others are working on several
power, and because I think now is a critical sition holds up. ways to increase customer confidence in
time to protect those values. Public power Bonneville as a good financial and manage-
has been good for the people and economy It’s important to note that every inch of rial bet for the future, in order to increase
of the Northwest, and will continue to serve transmission thus far built in the Northwest the likelihood that utilities will want to sign
them well in the future, if we can secure the has been built without a new regional long-term contracts for Bonneville’s base-
basic structure within which public power transmission entity. Further, the North- system power.
can thrive. west’s recent track record of building trans-
mission compares favorably to any region Utilities must have equal confidence,
The job is “more” than I expected in many in the country. According to FERC’s “State though, in their ability to secure their
senses: more issues that need immediate of the Market 2004,” the Northwest was remaining generation needs, be it from BPA
attention, more dimensions and intensity far and away the leader in 2004 in circuit or elsewhere. And they won’t have that
to the work, more nuances among differ- miles built. Notably, no transmission was confidence unless they know they have
ent utilities’ interests, and potentially more built in ISO New England, ISO New York, or adequate long-term transmission rights
rewarding if we succeed in forging a region- the Midwest ISO region—hardly a ringing necessary for obtaining incremental genera-
ally supported approach to the future. endorsement for the efficacy of new RTOs, tion. And that brings us back to whether
which have shown themselves to be costly Grid West will help or hurt that confidence.
The NWPCC’s power plan, and the
and cumbersome. As I’ve already explained, I think Grid West
[regional representatives working on] Grid
will cast more doubt on the future of trans-
West, have identified a number of prob-
In my view, if we press ahead with Grid mission rights and costs, and therefore will
lems with the operation of the regional
West now, we will merely invite everyone hinder and delay the ability of the North-
transmission system. How do you think
to watch and wait until it gets going, or west to meet its long-term needs.
they should be resolved?
tries to get going, and we will delay, not
hasten, improvements in transmission. For
I think we need to avoid “big think” in
nearly a decade, the region has tried to
which an idealized notion of the “big solu- (continued on page 6)
devise some grand plan for transmission
3
Council Plans Level Funding for Most Fish and Wildlife Projects in 2006;
Prepares for 2007
F
iscal Year 2006 will be a transition salmon and steelhead populations. Those
year for projects funded by the Despite the uncertainty projects are going ahead despite the deci-
Bonneville Power Administration to sion in June by Judge James Redden of the
implement the Council’s Columbia River surrounding the biologi- U.S. District Court in Oregon to invalidate
Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Current the 2004 Biological Opinion on Hydropower
funding for projects will end, and a new cal opinion, the Council Operations. The projects were included in
three-year project-funding cycle will begin the Updated Proposed Action of the now-
in 2007. The Council is working with determined a planning invalid biological opinion.
Bonneville to establish a target fish and wild-
life spending level for the next electricity rate budget of $160 million Despite the uncertainty surrounding the
period, 2007-2009. biological opinion, the Council determined
a planning budget of $160 million in direct
in direct spending
For 2006, the Council’s fish and wildlife spending and $36 million in capital fund-
staff reviewed the purposes, budgets and ing would be consistent with the responses
accomplishments for all projects currently review process for projects to fund in Fiscal and budget requests provided by the
funded through the program. The Council Year 2007 will begin later this year. project sponsors. The Council anticipates
anticipates that most projects will be funded that actual expenditures in 2006 would be
For 2006, the Council asked sponsors to
next year at the 2005 level with the excep- significantly below the planning budget
explain their projects, their accomplishments
tion of those that have extraordinary circum- targets and would be consistent with
to date and their budget requests for the
stances that necessitate additional funding Bonneville’s intended spending of about
coming year. The sponsors also were asked
or are nearing completion. $143 million in direct expenditures and $36
to describe what they planned to achieve in
million in capital projects in 2006, the last
The Council plans that the selection of 2006 and how their projects are consistent year of the current rate case.
future habitat and production projects and, with subbasin plans, if relevant. The Coun-
as a result, funding levels, will be directed cil received 352 responses from sponsors The Council plans to make its project-
by subbasin plans. The Council did not con- requesting funding for around 300 projects. funding recommendations to Bonneville
duct a project solicitation for 2006 funding The responses from project sponsors, includ- later this summer. The fiscal year begins on
because subbasin plans were not available ing accomplishments, have been gathered October 1. CQ
in time to be used for that purpose. As well, and published on the Council’s website,
membership on the Independent Scientific www.nwcouncil.org.
Review Panel, which assesses all projects
While the Council does not intend to
proposed for funding through the Council’s
solicit new projects for Fiscal Year 2006,
program, is changing — seven of the 11
Bonneville has set aside funding in its
members are being replaced as their terms
fish and wildlife budget for new projects
expire. With subbasin plans in place and the
required under the Endangered Species Act
ISRP membership settled, a solicitation and
to protected threatened and endangered
Notes from the Chair
(continued from front page)
task. For over a year, the Council worked
the development of these plans will provide projects like habitat restoration to fish pas-
with federal and state agencies, tribal
the impetus to work toward common goals sage improvements at dams. We remain
governments, landowners, and watershed
in other areas as well. committed to this approach as the most
groups on fish and wildlife enhancement
effective way to help salmon and steelhead
plans. This summer the Council concluded When a species is in crisis, results, not
in the basin. CQ
its approval of 58 plans from throughout rhetoric, are the remedy. The Council and
the Columbia River Basin. The biological many other interests in the Northwest have
opinion—and therefore Judge Redden’s worked hard toward a shared vision that
decision—pertains to the operation of the requires the health of our watersheds, but
federal hydropower system. In contrast, also acknowledges that human activities
the Council’s subbasin plans are habitat are part of the equation, too. Over the
based. Because they were developed col- course of 25 years, the Council has helped
laboratively, they reflect the priorities and build a network of partnerships that bring
objectives of local communities and enjoy tangible benefits to fish and wildlife, from
wide support. The cooperation forged in
4
Success Stories – Yakima River
Steelhead Kelt Recondition-
ing Project
S
teelhead trout, considered part of the
salmon family and currently a listed
population under the Endangered Spe-
cies Act, are unique from other anadromous
fish in this respect: They have the ability to
spawn more than once. Fish managers for
the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Com-
mission hope that this characteristic, called
iteroparity, can be encouraged to enhance
steelhead populations and restore an impor-
tant life history pattern in the Columbia
River Basin. The Kelt Reconditioning Project,
sponsored by CRITFC, is providing valuable
research to support this premise.
The project began in 1999 when
CRITFC, in collaboration with the Yakima/
Klickitat Fisheries Project, captured wild
emigrating kelt steelhead from the Yakima
River to test the possibility that “recondi-
tioning” post-spawn fish would improve Recently, a collaborative study to measure 300,000 to 600,000 additional eggs at an
their ability to spawn again. Post-spawn the reproductive success of reconditioned estimated 3,000 eggs per female) each year
steelhead, or kelts, are kept in a captive kelt steelhead has been initiated by CRITFC in the Yakima River.
environment and nurtured to encourage and cooperating tribes. Using parentage
It’s still too early to know what the total
their feeding, growth, and redevelopment analysis based on DNA-typing the studies
contribution of reconditioning will be in
of reproductive organs. The techniques will determine if artificial reconditioning
rebuilding populations of steelhead in the
were initially developed for Atlantic salmon affects reproductive success.
basin. But these early results are encourag-
and sea trout.
Initial research established that kelt ing and provide important clues about a
Although historical rates of iteroparity reconditioning not only worked, it sub- life history strategy that may be one key to
for Columbia River steelhead are not well stantially bolstered the number of repeat increasing the number of listed steelhead in
documented, from 1956 to 1964 outmi- spawners in the Yakima River. During 2000, the Columbia River Basin.
grating steelhead averaged 50 percent of the Yakama Nation collected 512 wild kelts
the total upstream runs in the Clackamas (38 percent of the subbasin’s run that year)
River. Current rates for Columbia River for reconditioning at Prosser Hatchery. Kelt
Basin steelhead are considerably lower due rematuration rates in captivity have been
largely to the high mortality of downstream 21 percent in 2001, 50 percent in 2002,
migrating kelts at dams. Fish passage facili- and 85 percent in 2003.
ties have never been designed for down-
stream moving adult steelhead, however In addition, the research is giving fish
large numbers of steelhead are seen every managers a greater understanding of kelt
year in the juvenile bypass systems on the husbandry, food type preference, condi-
mainstem dams. This project is seizing the tion, and rearing environments. Since the
opportunity to rejuvenate wild fish that project’s beginning, 20 to 30 percent of the
would have died so they can contribute total annual steelhead migration has been
again to the spawning run. successfully reconditioned, and radio telem-
etry studies have demonstrated successful
The project has investigated a vari- spawning migrations and redd construc-
ety of reconditioning and transportation tion. In terms of numbers, an additional
strategies to evaluate a suite of poten- 100 to 200 reconditioned steelhead females
tial steelhead management alternatives. could spawn a second time (a projected
55
Fish Managers to Assess Reasons for the Lower than Expected Spring
Chinook Run
A
disappointing spring Chinook fish. This year’s count of 5,000 jacks is Ehlke, a Washington Department of Fish
salmon run concluded in June, about half the 10-year average. and Wildlife biologist. “We’ll be doing a lot
leaving fish managers still per- of review and looking at multiple areas as
Fish managers are predicting a run of
plexed by the lower than forecasted to why the return was so much lower than
62,400 for summer Chinook salmon, with
numbers. Managers had determined a anticipated. Once the numbers are final-
an escapement goal of 29,000. The alloca-
preseason forecast of 254,100; by mid- ized, we’ll be looking at our forecast meth-
tion for both treaty and non-treaty fisheries,
June only 100,340 had been counted at ods and things like ocean temperature,
based on the preseason forecast, is 15,150.
Bonneville Dam. The 10-year average is food in the ocean, and out-migration,”
Fishing opened on June 16 for the summer
160,149. explains Ehlke. “It’s likely that a combina-
run and continues through the end of July.
tion of factors played a part.” CQ
When it became apparent that the
As for the case of the missing spring
spring run would be much lower than
Chinook, fish managers will attempt to
expected, officials closed the sport fishing
explain the discrepancy in the months to
season around mid-April. The forecast is
come. “It’s still a mystery,” says Robin
based on last year’s jack count of over 9,000
NW/Q&A: Marilyn Showalter, Executive Director, Public Power Council
(continued from page 3)
The NWPCC’s power plan has identified Independent power producers are now a able, reliable electricity for businesses and
an aggressive acquisition of conservation factor in the region’s energy system. What consumers into the future. These are the
as the priority action for the region over do you think is their appropriate role? If values of public power. CQ
the next few years. How do you expect they are to play an important role, how can
customer-owned utilities to respond to this this be facilitated?
challenge? What should Bonneville’s role
IPPs can play an important and profitable
be in this effort? What do you see as the
role in the region if they fit themselves to a
keys to helping customer-owned utilities
wholesale and retail system that supports
achieve these goals?
end-use (retail) customers. Utilities look-
Conservation is a resource—a way to ing to meet new demand may also want
meet demand—and is highly valuable to to diversify their resources. They may want
the region. As consumer-owned utilities a mix of owned and contracted resources,
assume more responsibility for meeting a mix of long-term and medium-term con-
their own load growth, they will evaluate tracts, a mix of BPA and non-BPA contracts,
conservation as an alternative to acquiring and a mix of fuel sources. IPPs can be com-
more generation. And as Bonneville cus- petitive in meeting many of these needs.
tomers they will continue their involvement IPPs should be wary, however, of re-structur-
with Bonneville’s conservation programs. ing proposals that appear to be helpful to
It’s also important to analyze the costs and them but which actually will destabilize the
practicality of administering conservation ability of utilities to make long-term commit-
programs, and do it in a way that allows ments, including commitments to IPPs.
“buy-in” from all quarters of our region. In
other words, some flexibility for smaller utili- We will all benefit from a system that pro-
ties to implement conservation that works vides long-term financial and political stabil-
best for them ultimately will help the whole ity. That is what will induce the investment
region conserve. and commitment necessary to secure afford-
6
Calendar
Calendar of Council Meetings and Other Events:
August 18-19: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland. Contact Sandra Peterson, 503-238-0667.
August 21-24: Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Annual Meeting, Girdwood, Alaska. Information at www.psmfc.org
September 11-17: International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 95th Annual Meeting, Nashville, Tennessee.
Information at www.iawfa.org.
September 13-15: Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Spokane, Washington. Information at www.nwcouncil.org.
September 15-16: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland. Contact Sandra Peterson, 503-238-0667.
September 18-23: Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland. Information at www.pcouncil.org.
September 19-22: Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Annual Conference, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.
Information at www.atnitribes.org.
Council Decisions
(continued from front page)
ISRP appointments now includes more than 100 scientists. able contributions to fish harvest
Peer Review Groups assist the ISRP as and conservation.
needed. The Council appoints ISRP
June
members based on recommendations • Identify hatchery programs as
The Council appointed six scientists from the National Research Council. either integrated with wild fish or
to the 11-member Independent Scientific segregated from them and describe
Review Panel, which reviews projects pro- how hatchery fish and wild fish will
posed for funding through the Council’s Artificial Production contribute to long-term fish-man-
Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife agement objectives.
Review and
Program. The scientists, their places
• Implement hatchery reforms to
of employment and specialized knowl-
Evaluation align with basinwide fish-manage-
edge include: Richard Alldredge, Ph.D.
ment goals and objectives, giving
(Washington State University, statistics),
priority to biological benefits and
Linda Hardesty, Ph.D. (Washington State The Council completed its basin-
cost-effectiveness.
University, range management/biological wide review of fish hatcheries, a multi-
diversity of eastern Washington), Colin year task that included a thorough
• Monitor, review and regularly
Levings, Ph.D. (Fisheries and Oceans examination of the management, func-
report progress of each hatchery
Canada, marine environment and habi- tion and performance of more than
toward long-term fish-manage-
tat), Katherine Myers, Ph.D. (University of 220 fish hatcheries and fish-production
ment objectives.
Washington, high seas salmon research), programs in the Columbia River Basin,
Tom Poe, M.S. (consulting fisheries sci- and voted to send its recommenda-
entist, behavioral ecology of fishes), and tions to Congress for use in future
Bruce Ward (British Columbia Ministry funding decisions. The Council’s four
of Water, Land and Air Protection, also key recommendations are:
University of British Columbia, population
dynamics, aquatic ecosystems, interna- • Establish long-term management
tional fisheries). In addition, the Council objectives for hatchery and wild
appointed 42 scientists to the pool of ISRP stocks of fish describing measur-
Peer Review Group members. The pool
7
Northwest Power and Conservation Council Members
Central Office Oregon Spokane:
Northwest Power and Milton-Freewater: W. 705 First Avenue, MS-1
Conservation Council 410 N. Main Spokane, Washington 99201-3909
851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 645 Telephone: [phone]
Portland, Oregon 97204-1348 Milton-Freewater OR 97862-0645 Council Member:
Telephone: [phone] Telephone: [phone] Tom Karier
Toll Free: 1-800-452-5161 Council Member:
Melinda S. Eden, Council chair
Council Quarterly
Idaho
Portland: is produced four times a year by
450 West State
851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1020 the Public Affairs Division
Boise, Idaho 83720-0062
Portland, Oregon 97204-1347 of the Northwest Power and
Telephone: [phone]
Telephone: [phone] Conservation Council.
Council Members:
Council Member:
Judi Danielson
Joan M. Dukes
Jim Kempton, Council vice chair
Washington
Montana
Vancouver:
1301 Lockey
110 “Y” Street
Helena, Montana 59620-0805
Vancouver, Washington 98661
Telephone: [phone]
Telephone: [phone]
Council Members:
Council Member:
Bruce Measure
Frank L. Cassidy Jr. “Larry”
Rhonda Whiting
PRSRT STD
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
PERMIT NO. 11
PORTLAND, OR
851 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Suite 1100
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: [phone]
Toll free: 800-452-5161
Web site: www.nwcouncil.org