IPC is an investor owned utility formed in 1915. On October 1, 1998, IPC adopted a holding company structure with the formation of IDACORP, Inc. which serves as the parent company of IPC. IPC owns and operates 16 hydroelectric plants on the Snake River and its tributaries that are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). It also holds an interest in three coal-fired generating stations. IPC provides electric service to approximately 380,000 customers within a 20,000 square-mile service area covering portions of southern Idaho, eastern Oregon and northern Nevada.
The largest hydroelectric facility on the IPC system is the Hells Canyon Complex (HCC) consisting of the Brownlee, Oxbow and Hells Canyon dams. By opinion and order issued by the Federal Power Commission (now FERC) on August 4, 1955, IPC was granted a license to construct and operate three hydropower projects in the Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River. While separate applications were filed for each of the projects, the three were consolidated in the order issuing the license and have since been collectively referred to as the HCC, FERC Project No. 1971. The three facilities are located at RM 247-Hells Canyon Dam, RM 273-Oxbow Dam and RM 285-Brownlee Dam. The Brownlee facility, uppermost of the three, is the primary storage reservoir for IPC. The HCC is located on the Snake River upstream from Lewiston, Idaho and four lower Snake River federal dams (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, & Lower Granite).
The current FERC license for the HCC expires in 2005. IPC is presently engaged in a relicensing process initiated in accordance with applicable FERC regulations. As part of this process IPC has initiated a collaborative process involving state and federal resource agencies, Native American Indian Tribes and numerous smaller public and private interests. In preparation for the filing of a license application, IPC has also initiated various aquatic studies relating to the HCC. These studies were developed in accordance with FERC regulations with input from collaborative team members, including some of the agencies represented on the Federal Caucus. IPC anticipates that the majority of the studies will be completed by 2001 in order to allow for the preparation of a draft license application by late that year or early 2002.
In general, IPC believes that the draft FCRPS BO and All-H Paper commit three principal errors. First, the premise that flow augmentation from the upper Snake River is efficacious is wrong. Second, a party's responsibility for any loss of the fishery should correlate with its contribution to recovery efforts. Third, as to the HCC and Upper Snake, theory has been allowed to outstrip science.
Flow Augmentation
The National Marine Fisheries Service and other members of the Northwest Federal caucus have consistently advocated flow augmentation from the Upper Snake River as a key component of salmon recovery. They have done so even in the face of studies by their own agency and by some state government officials that indicate the contrary. The assertion that flows from the Upper Snake River are efficacious is wrong - it is wrong both generally, in terms of the alleged correlation between flows from all of Idaho and fish survival, and specifically in its assertion that the HCC operations could substantially assist salmon survival in the lower Snake and Columbia rivers. IPC has reviewed previous comments submitted by the Idaho Water Users Association and Committee of Nine to the draft FCRPS BO and All-H Paper and supports their prosition that the use of Upper Snake River water for flow augmentation will neither reverse the decline nor aid in the recovery of listed species. IPC also concurs with the State of Idaho's comments to on the All-H paper denouncing flow augmentation as a valuable tool for salmon recovery.
This is not to say that flows in Snake River may not affect anadromous and native fish in the Snake River. In 1991, IPC implemented the Fall Chinook Recovery Plan to address flow and operational issues that might affect fall chinook habitat below the HCC. IPC is also presently conducting a study in connection with relicensing (Hells Canyon Instream Flow Assessment) to explore issues relating to flows and operations at the HCC and the effects upon not only fall chinook but also white sturgeon and native salmonids (bull and redband trout) present in the Hells Canyon reach. This study, together with other studies and analysis, will be completed through the HCC relicensing process and will provide a scientific and reasoned basis upon which to assess the effects of the of flows and the HCC on fishery resources.
Responsibility Counts
IPC believes the FCRPS BO and All-H paper are mis-focused and as a result and will fail in their intended goal to restore listed endangered fish as prescribed by the Endangered Species Act. The documents rely too heavily on habitat improvements in Idaho and on the unproven experiment of flow augmentation measures from Idaho's Upper Snake River and de-emphasize the impact on downstream impacts. Existing spawning habitat in Idaho is in good condition and is adequate to support recoverable levels of listed species. While habitat improvements may be of obvious benefit, improvements in this area will not result in the intended recovery levels desired by the documents or the ESA. IPC believes the documents should direct more intense efforts on downstream activities such as estuary improvements, fish passage improvements at the four lower snake dams, predation, and commercial and tribal harvest.
In this context, those interests who have not adversely impacted the fisheries resources should not be made to bear a disproportionate amount of the pain for assisting in their recovery. The draft FCRPS BO and All H Paper, however, propose in large part to assign equal responsibilities for remediation to all members of the Snake River's community. This is inequitable for all Idaho interests. IPC has addressed past effects of the HCC on fishery resources through the 1980 Settlement Agreement and continues to address current or potential effects of the HCC through the Fall Chinook Plan and ongoing studies initiated in the connection with relicensing. It has also cooperated with the implementation of measures under the 1995 Biological Opinion which were intended to avoid jeopardy of the FCRPS. (IPC has been reimbursed for some, but not all, of the costs associated with these latter efforts because the measures implemented were to mitigate for impacts not attributable to the development and operation of the HCC. 16 U.S. C. . 839(h)(11)(A).)
Another example of using a broad brush in assessing contribution without addressing responsibility relates to the general federal goals for a regional fish recovery plan. In large part, the goals are in conflict, at least in the context of ESA recovery concepts. One goal is to conserve the species - avoid extinction and foster long-term survival and recovery. Another is to assure Tribal fishing rights - restore salmon and steelhead over time to a level that provides a sustainable harvest. Neither the draft FCRPS BO nor the All-H Paper specifies the level of recovery necessary to achieve either of these goals, but it seems likely that the level necessary to sustain a tribal harvest is far greater than that necessary for conservation of the species. This raises serious questions as to whether non-federal interests can be compelled to contribute to recovery goals that may go beyond necessary conservation measures and address federal trust or treaty responsibilities to Native American Indian Tribes.
Theory Should Not Outstrip Science
While conceptual planning is important, the draft FCRPS BO and All-H Paper have a tendency to allow theory to outstrip study efforts that were designed to formulate in a careful, cooperative manner a plan to address fisheries issues on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data. This ignores the dynamic, interactive character of the processes unfolding in the basin. Prejudgment is neither good science nor prudent politics, both of which are essential in crafting an appropriate and acceptable approach to the difficult questions our region's fisheries present. IPC would urge the federal interests to not allow the process of building a conceptual recovery plan to outstrip other federal, state or regional processes that are proceeding parallel to that effort and that may, if considered, aid in identifying viable recovery and conservation alternatives. This is even more critical in light of the electrical energy situation in the northwest and west in general. Clearly, recent events of this past year in California and northwest markets have indicated that the region is short of electrical supply. This has obvious effects on energy prices and negative reverberations in the economy. According to the Northwest Power Planning Council, the region needs an additional 3,000 megawatts of generating resources by 2003 to lesson the risk of critical power shortages during peak periods. Hydropower plays a critical role in the northwest energy markets as a whole and plays an equally critical role in maintaining reliability because of its unique nature to follow load and ancillary ability to maintain voltage support. With this situation not likely to correct itself any time soon, putting federal and non-federal hydropower at risk by recommending unsound scientific remedies is irresponsible.
Summary
The draft FCRPS BO and All-H paper attempt to recover listed fish by expanding beyond the federal hydropower system and implement a strategy based on improvements to hatcheries, habitat, and harvest. Unfortunately, the strategy places too much emphasis on improved habitat in the upstream spawning areas where excellent habitat already exists. The plan also falters by attempting to implement what is largely a political strategy by continuing to call for additional upper Snake river flow augmentation water even though the science concludes other wise. The documents need to be amended to focus on areas where immediate improvements will have the greatest and more immediate chance to meet recovery goals, such as Lower Snake and Columbia fish passage improvements, such as those suggested by the four Northwest governors. The documents should also focus on mixed stock harvest issues, estuary habitat improvements and predation.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments on this paramount issue for the northwest's future.