1 1 2 3 REGIONAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL MEETING 4 JANUARY 19 & 20, 2011 5 6 7 VOLUME II OF II 8 9 10 11 LOCATION: 12 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 13 400 WEST SUMMIT HILL DRIVE 14 KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE 37902 15 16 17 18 19 20 REPORTED BY: 21 KIMBERLY J. NIXON, RPR NATIONAL REPORTING AGENCY 22 1255 MARKET STREET CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 37402 23 WWW.NATIONALREPORTING.COM 423.267.8059 24 423.266.4447 (FAX) 25 2 1 MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL 2 *MR. WILSON TAYLOR (FACILITATOR) 3 *MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE (COUNCIL CHAIR) 4 *MRS. CAROL DOSS 5 *MR. KARL W. DUDLEY 6 MRS. JEAN KELLEMS ELMORE 7 ZEE ENIX 8 *MR. BILL FORSYTH 9 MR. JAMES H. FYKE 10 MR. MICHAEL GOODMAN 11 *MR. MARK HOMMRICH 12 MRS. RENEE V. HOYOS 13 MR. LARRY KERNEA 14 *MR. GEORGE B. KITCHENS 15 MR. W. C. NELSON 16 *SENATOR ARTHUR ORR 17 MR. WES ROSENBALM 18 *DR. KELLY TILLER 19 *MR. BILL TITTLE 20 *MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND 21 *MR. JOHN WILBANKS 22 *MRS. DEBORAH K. WOOLLEY 23 *MS. KIM GREENE 24 25 *PRESENT FOR THE MEETING 3 1 2 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER 3 4 MS. ANDA A. RAY, DFO SENIOR MANAGER, OE&R 5 TVA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 6 400 WEST SUMMIT HILL DRIVE KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE 37902 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I think 3 we're going to go ahead and get started, and I want 4 to welcome everybody back. I certainly want to thank 5 whoever was responsible for putting together the meal 6 last night, it was an outstanding meal in and of 7 itself, and we appreciate the opportunity to interact 8 with the TVA Board. That was just a first-class 9 thing, and I want to express my personal appreciation 10 on behalf of the Council. 11 DFO ANDA RAY: Thank you. And thank 12 you to Beth Keel who made all the arrangements, 13 fantastic job. 14 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: What we 15 would like to do today is we're going to kind of walk 16 through -- the goal of this is -- as those 17 fifth-termers should remember is to essentially come 18 to some consensus as to what we can agree on relative 19 to the questions that have been presented. 20 And as we talked about yesterday, we 21 need to have everyone here, the fifth-termers here as 22 we vote on consensus recommendations. So we're going 23 to try to get through that. 24 We do have a public comment period. I 25 don't know at this point if we've had anybody 5 1 identify themselves, but we have reserved this space. 2 As we normally do, if nobody shows up for that we 3 will just continue through our discussions with 4 regards to these recommendations. 5 So we're going to open up. Wilson is 6 going to talk a little bit about the process that 7 he's going to be using to help facilitate. Randy has 8 some updated information based on looking at some 9 additional forms, and he's going to talk about that, 10 and then we're going to proceed to our discussion 11 with regards to the questions. 12 So Wilson. 13 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Thanks, 14 Tom. First off, we had a lot of good information 15 shared yesterday by the presenters. We want to use 16 that information today as Randy gives us a recap of 17 the information that you gave on the weightings, plus 18 the information that was added to that that Michael 19 updated. 20 What I was telling Tom this morning is 21 that it might be helpful if we can look at the four 22 questions and maybe spend 15 minutes on each one once 23 we get to the questions and just have a time limit on 24 each one and then just spend 15 minutes and go to the 25 next question. If we need to go back we can do that 6 1 so that we can at least have some time to devote to 2 each question. 3 Before we do that, since there was a 4 lot of discussion and energy around the weighting and 5 the information that Randy presented yesterday, we 6 wanted Randy to come back to talk about that 7 information again. 8 Also, we wanted to direct each of you 9 to the presentations that were made yesterday in the 10 four areas of biological resources, cultural 11 resources, water resources, and recreation. So just 12 look at those items and the information under those 13 tabs as Randy is sharing that with us. So we're 14 going to spend a few minutes doing that. 15 Randy. 16 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: Should I speak 17 from here? 18 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah, 19 probably. 20 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: Well, I certainly 21 can't be accused of overpreparing for this. Tom and 22 Wilson asked that I kind of recap the day yesterday. 23 Let me start -- and by the way, sir, 24 we have a couple of slides my colleague gave you if 25 you can find them. 7 1 Let me start kind of at the broader 2 sense. What we wanted to get out of today, or 3 yesterday rather and actually today as well, is input 4 and advice and counsel from this group. That was the 5 purpose of the day, and I thought we achieved that in 6 spades. 7 We spent -- we structured the agenda 8 such that we spent 75 percent of the time talking 9 about the actual programs within each resource area. 10 I mean, that's the fundamental thing we're here to 11 talk about, which is why we devoted, you know, 75 12 percent of the time to it. 13 I felt like we got great input from 14 this group that I won't try to recapture, but, you 15 know, give a couple of examples. You know, Tom made 16 the excellent point when we thought about -- and 17 others as well, that when we thought about water 18 resource management we need to make sure that we're 19 coordinating with the states in terms of their 20 planning and monitoring processes and some of the 21 processes they may be doing and they need to be -- 22 you know, great input, that's the kind of input we 23 wanted. 24 Somebody made the comment about, well, 25 maybe the public comment period, you know, once the 8 1 draft is produced, ought to be extended, great point. 2 You know, some of the comments on cultural resources, 3 great point. So that was the purpose of the day, and 4 I thought we accomplished that very well. 5 I do want to come back to the process 6 discussion for a minute and then -- as Tom suggested 7 and then talk about this weighting exercise one last 8 time, but I want to remind us all that the process 9 is -- we spent some time talking about the mechanics 10 of scenario planning, which is the matrix up there at 11 the top, but I will remind us all that is but one 12 part of the process. 13 The process includes, and actually a 14 more important part of the process, are these four 15 blue boxes here, the input from this group, from the 16 public, the other strategic considerations, the 17 agency feedback that we got back in the fall when we 18 visited them, the one we're going to get in the 19 spring when we go back there, the comments that we're 20 going to get during the open comment period, both the 21 open sessions that we intend to have across the 22 Valley in March, as well as the comments we will get 23 when the draft hits the street. So that's a much 24 more important part of the process. 25 And the strategic -- the scenario 9 1 planning creates a context to inform those 2 discussions. So when you think about the process and 3 you think about the validity of the process, think of 4 this whole page and the process that we're going to 5 go through. 6 And again, we're going to produce a 7 draft and then there's seven months before it goes to 8 the Board that there will be a lot of dialogue around 9 it, so that's the summary of the process, and 10 ultimately produce a Natural Resource Plan. 11 And then an EIS, again, I will remind 12 us that it's coming out in draft at the end of 13 February and then they will be finalized in August. 14 So there will be a draft EIS and a final EIS, a draft 15 NRP and a final NRP. 16 If I can go to the next page, I will 17 come back to this construct on -- because this leads 18 into the last slide I have got, which is the 19 weighting discussion. 20 Again, the construct of the NRP will 21 be the following: We've talked about 65 different 22 programs across those four resource areas yesterday. 23 They will ultimately be prioritized in the following 24 way, you know, the custodial stuff is priority 1 or 25 priority 1 over here, and that's the stuff that 10 1 absolutely has to be done for legal and regulatory 2 and policy requirements. 3 The second thing, which is quite 4 frankly one thing I -- Wilson, you said to devote 15 5 minutes to each question, the second question kind of 6 addresses what does this body think ought to be in 7 category B, I might suggest expanding that a little 8 bit more than 15 minutes, if I may. I think that's a 9 central part of what we can get out of today. 10 But the second strata is, what are the 11 strategic priorities? You know, scenario planning, 12 arithmetic aside, what does this body -- what is the 13 advice that this body would give to TVA resource area 14 by resource area after having sat through this five 15 or six hours of discussion on specific programs, and 16 what boundaries of custodial and the flagship are 17 being considered, what does the Council -- from this 18 Council -- the advice from this Council to TVA on, 19 what are those things that are most important to the 20 RRSC, and I think that would be a great thing to 21 focus on today and that would be great input into the 22 process from this group, and that then is Strata B. 23 So Strata B will be developed from the advice of this 24 group, and similar discussions will be going on 25 inside TVA with the subject matter experts, some of 11 1 the resource specialists, and TVA leadership as to 2 what they view as key strategic priorities, and that 3 will form Strata B. 4 Then Strata C are all of those other 5 things that we talked about are still under 6 consideration. They are not being eliminated from 7 consideration, this is a 20-year plan, but they are 8 being placed as the third priority, the third 9 priority. 10 So priority A, B, and C, and those 11 will be prioritized at a highest level by that -- you 12 know, by that weighting exercise that we -- that we 13 asked for your help in doing. 14 Again, I will just summarize very 15 quickly the mathematics behind that. With each 16 program, each of these 65 programs we talked about, 17 we got a natural resource economist to determine 18 values across the six dimensions for those programs, 19 and then the question we put to this group and the 20 question we put internally is just, how do you weight 21 those values? Do you weight them equally? Do you -- 22 are some more important than others? 23 That's the whole purpose of the 24 weighting process is just to help us -- to help 25 inform the thinking about the relative priorities of 12 1 this group on the weighting of those benefits the 2 natural resource economist has told us the benefits 3 fall into. 4 So with that, maybe we will talk about 5 the weighting exercise, understanding it only informs 6 this strata. We will talk about the weighting 7 exercise itself just for a minute. 8 I might get my colleague Michael 9 Anckner, if I may introduce him, into the discussion, 10 Tom. 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Sure. 12 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: He helped -- we 13 generated the numbers last night based on some new 14 data, and quite frankly, I have yet to see them. I 15 told you I could not be accused of overpreparing 16 today. 17 I'm sorry, Anda. Did you have a 18 comment? 19 DFO ANDA RAY: Can you mention, to 20 reduce the stress that this is some final answer, how 21 this answer is used. 22 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: Great point. 23 Would you like to make that point? 24 I mean, this ultimately is all being 25 used to produce a draft that will be published in 13 1 February. This is the point that we talked about 2 last night. 3 The thing is -- I mean, again, this is 4 getting taken to the Board in August. So this will 5 be producing a draft. We have to develop a way of 6 prioritizing programs heavily informed by this group 7 such that we can produce a draft. 8 Then that's when the real fun starts 9 because then that's when a lot of dialogue with this 10 group is -- I think Tom is planning on trying to 11 reconvene this group while the draft is still on the 12 street to have some discussion about it. There will 13 be public comments written. There will be public 14 meetings, et cetera. 15 So everything we're talking about is 16 such that we can produce a draft, then to have 17 dialogue around what that draft is telling us, and to 18 engage the reaction from across the Valley. So thank 19 you for reminding me of that, but that's a great 20 point. 21 With that, again, my colleague Michael 22 Anckner can maybe lead us through the weighting 23 discussion, understanding that it is to kind of 24 prioritize this bucket C such that we can produce a 25 draft. 14 1 Michael, do you want to -- 2 MR. MICHAEL ANCKNER: Yeah. Thank 3 you, Randy. 4 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Do you need 5 a drum roll? 6 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: A drum roll, 7 please. 8 MR. MICHAEL ANCKNER: I surprise 9 everyone with these. Go to the next slide, please. 10 Good morning, everyone. As Randy 11 said, we took some time last night and this morning 12 and re-ran the numbers with everyone's input. So, 13 thank you, to everyone yesterday who did this during 14 the day. I know it wasn't the easiest thing to do on 15 the fly. 16 One note, you know, we gave the 17 opportunity for anyone to do this as a second time, 18 and I guess everyone was comfortable with it because 19 nobody decided to do that. So all of these represent 20 the first run or, excuse me, these scores represent 21 the first run of everyone from the fifth-term 22 Council. 23 So you see here the numbers and how 24 they came out. As you look at these, a couple of 25 conclusions to draw. First, recreation and the 15 1 visitor-benefit use and the water resources tend to 2 float a little bit to the top. And if I looked at 3 those, I would say they tend to show that they are a 4 bit more important in the Council's eyes. 5 But the point that Randy was making 6 and that Anda was making was, you know, we don't want 7 to look at this and we're not going to say, you know, 8 recreation and visitor-benefit use is 8 percent more 9 important than species, habitat, conservation, that's 10 not the point of this exercise. 11 The point of this exercise was to 12 start the discussion for the Council around -- at a 13 very relative level. Which of these is a priority? 14 Do we want to weight those programs that score highly 15 in water resource benefits? Do we want to move those 16 up, the prioritization? Should it be cultural 17 resources? 18 Equally important, you know, are all 19 of these balanced out in the Council's eyes? Do you 20 feel that all of these are important for TVA to take 21 into consideration? 22 So any programs which we presented 23 yesterday that score highly across the board, those 24 are the ones that should move up the priority list. 25 So that was really the purpose of this exercise was 16 1 to start the discussion around -- at a very relative 2 level of how should we analyze the programs that you 3 heard about yesterday. 4 So when we get to that discussion, 5 please keep that in mind, and we will be happy to 6 answer more questions. 7 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: The only other 8 point I would add to this is that this is not the 9 answer. This is -- as with all of this analysis, 10 this is the framework for the discussion. 11 Question No. 4 is this question: Do 12 these weights accurately reflect the weightings or 13 the relative priority that this group would put on 14 these categories of benefits that -- the definitions 15 of which are in your notebook that the natural 16 resource economist gave us. 17 So this is the starting point for the 18 discussion. And if this group says no, there ought 19 to be 100 divided by 6, you know, 16.67 percent on 20 every category, that's a very valid point, that's 21 what they will be. So this is the starting point for 22 the discussion for questions No. 4. So that's the 23 preamble to that. 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Thank you, 25 Randy, for -- you and Michael for doing that for us. 17 1 And I guess what I would like to do 2 is, first of all, throw open the floor in the sense, 3 does anybody have any questions relative to what 4 Randy and Michael have presented this morning? Does 5 anybody have any comments or things they want to 6 raise? 7 Then hearing none, what I would like 8 to do is I'm going to call on Wilson to sort of walk 9 us through the questions, and as we typically do -- 10 you know, what we have done through yesterday is 11 provide a lot of informal input. 12 We went through each of the specific 13 program areas and the criteria of going from good 14 into best, and we provided a lot of informal input 15 into the TVA staff process, but this is the point 16 where we provide a more formalized input process. 17 So just as a reminder, we're going 18 to -- I want the floor to be completely open to both 19 the fifth-term and sixth-termers. If you have a 20 question for the sixth-termers, just raise your hand 21 and we will get to you. The fifth-termers, just put 22 your placard on the end. But as we vote on specific 23 recommendations or comments, please limit that to 24 fifth-termers only for this meeting. 25 I guess with that said, does anybody 18 1 have any comments or questions on the process we're 2 going to undertake? 3 Hearing none, I guess I will turn it 4 over to Wilson and we will start on the process of 5 going through the specific questions. 6 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. If 7 we could call up the questions, please, the 8 discussion questions. 9 Well, as we said earlier, we would 10 like to spend just a few minutes on each question. 11 And recognizing Randy's comment about maybe 15 12 minutes may not be adequate for each one, what I 13 would like to do is just draw your attention to the 14 first question because we really would like to get 15 the advice of this Council to factor into the NRP 16 process. 17 So looking at question one, based on 18 what you heard yesterday, any feedback or thoughts 19 you would like to include? 20 And we're going to add this to this 21 document as we go along, and I will be watching the 22 time here and I will call time and then we will go to 23 the next question and do the same thing. 24 So based on what you heard yesterday 25 and what you heard this morning from Randy, comments 19 1 on question one that we need to incorporate? 2 DFO ANDA RAY: Can I ask a quick 3 question? 4 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Sure. 5 DFO ANDA RAY: A process check. When 6 Randy alluded to the fact that we were going to 7 provide more than 15 minutes to look over the 8 weighting, which question is that? 9 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Question 10 two, right? 11 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Question 12 four, the last question. 13 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: I meant question 14 two. 15 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And 16 question two, you know, essentially it's not a 17 numerical question. Question two looks at the 18 program categories that are listed in the front of 19 each of those four basic tabs. 20 What Randy has expressed to me is the 21 desire to see, are there program options in there 22 that there is a consensus that are more important 23 than others? 24 You don't have to rate it numerically, 25 just within those listings of the various program 20 1 elements, are there some that you feel are more 2 significant or more important to the TVA mission and 3 should have a higher priority in the NRP? 4 Randy, anything you want to elaborate 5 with that? 6 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: No. I think you 7 said it very well, but it was question two. If I 8 said four, I was mistaken. It was question two. 9 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Question 10 two goes through that more general, looking at, are 11 there strategic program elements that need to be 12 considered more strongly. Then question four looks 13 specifically at this rating exercise and are the 14 numbers appropriate. So we will talk about each of 15 those. 16 Kelly. 17 DR. KELLY TILLER: So just to clarify, 18 what we are looking at is -- I think the number 19 yesterday was there was 65 different program options 20 and then each of them at three levels. So it's those 21 65 things and kind of assigning them -- not assigning 22 but evaluating the three bucket options for each of 23 those, is that correct? 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Well, I 25 don't know that we have to assign the buckets. 21 1 DR. KELLY TILLER: No. No. No. I 2 don't mean individually. I just meant that's what 3 we're looking at, correct? 4 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Within 5 those 65 elements, are there, you know, one or two 6 within each of the four broad categories that really 7 stand out to the Council? 8 Russell. 9 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Are we ready to 10 start talking about No. 1? 11 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Yes. 12 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: If we are, I 13 think one thing that may help, you know, there was -- 14 in the whole process, besides the weighting exercise, 15 there were public input and things like that and then 16 agency input. 17 I think what may help give enhanced 18 credibility to the weighting exercise is if another 19 step was added in the TVA process where TVA perhaps 20 expanded the regression analysis to include experts 21 within each of the four or six categories. 22 Because I think when you talk about 23 cultural resources, I was talking to Eric Howard 24 yesterday, I am probably the only person on the 25 Council that is familiar with ARPA and familiar with 22 1 some of the cultural resource protections, other than 2 just in a chitchat kind of way. 3 And so when you add me into the 4 weighting exercise with my concerns about cultural 5 resources, it's always just going to be a statistical 6 outlier. And in fact, any one of us that makes a 7 comment, it's still within the standard deviation. 8 So it doesn't -- to me it doesn't seem that we have 9 asked enough people these questions. 10 And I think to really help TVA make 11 informed decisions, they ought to go talk to -- you 12 know, give this -- find 100 water resource people in 13 the Army Corps of Engineers and the BLM and other 14 federal agencies and have them go over this weighting 15 exercise, how would they look at the importance of 16 these resources and the handling of things. 17 Cultural resources, kind of gear it 18 towards specific groups of experts so you get a 19 greater percentage and you get a larger sample size 20 of informed people commenting and kind of adding 21 that. 22 Because what I am afraid is I am 23 afraid we're ultimately going to tell TVA that 24 whatever the numbers are of those weighting exercises 25 are that and the Council kind of supports this or 23 1 that about it, and ultimately it won't provide the 2 decision-makers enough detail to make a really 3 informed decision about prioritization. 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: George. 5 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Just one 6 comment. As we move forward toward the draft in 7 February, toward the public comment periods and so 8 on, just thinking out loud a little bit, it might be 9 useful, especially for the public input, to give them 10 some sense of the things that TVA already does. I 11 mean, everything we have seen it seems is in addition 12 to things that TVA is already doing. 13 Many of those things have to do with 14 permits around the power plants, river operations, 15 and so on, but it might be beneficial for the public 16 to know that you're already doing a lot and these 17 things are in addition to that. 18 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 19 Kelly. 20 DR. KELLY TILLER: I think that's an 21 excellent point, George. And in addition, and this 22 is most troubling, I think, for the public, I am not 23 sure that -- while some of these compliance issues or 24 regulatory requirements, I am not sure the public 25 understands what things are not optional. So just 24 1 making sure the public -- it's very clear what things 2 there's no room for maneuvering in. 3 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 4 That's back to the category of A, B, C that Randy was 5 talking about, these things that we have to do, some 6 of these things we have to do, some strategic, and 7 then the others are considerations. 8 Any particulars that you think about 9 specific items? 10 DR. KELLY TILLER: Well, I think it's 11 just a slight difference, but this is more things 12 that are mandated, required from a regulatory 13 perspective. 14 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 15 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: If it had to do 16 with water quality, that you're -- the one comes to 17 mind since it's in our back yard with the water 18 temperature on Wheeler Lake during the summer. Until 19 we get the cooling tower finished at Browns Ferry, it 20 impedes your ability to operate that plant full out 21 during the summer when you really need that power. 22 And, you know, not everybody is going to be aware 23 that you already have some things that you're doing 24 to water -- to monitor the water quality with regard 25 to temperature and things of that sort. 25 1 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 2 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: I mean, you have 3 got to do, that's your permit. 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: So be more 5 proactive in communicating? 6 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Yeah. 7 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 8 Thanks. 9 Deborah. 10 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think on the 11 compliance and mandated, if I remember from what was 12 said yesterday, that baseline or bottom category 13 wasn't -- whatever compliances are mandated you have 14 got to do, but it's also the things that TVA is 15 already doing. 16 You know, this isn't a vote to take 17 away programs or to say because we have done this 18 historically, although it's not required, but it's 19 just what we're going to build on and the directions 20 we're going to build. 21 So I think it's compliance and 22 mandated existing is -- you don't want to go out with 23 the thought process, I think, that people look at 24 this and say, oh, we're going to pick out what TVA 25 does and we might lose some of the things they are 26 1 already doing because it's really -- I don't -- to me 2 it doesn't seem to be that. 3 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: All right. 4 Thanks. 5 So, again, other areas in the process 6 that need to be strengthened, in the NRC process, or 7 some other opportunities that we need to consider at 8 TVA, thoughts on that? Question one. 9 DFO ANDA RAY: Can we expand? I know 10 we're getting your comments. But clarifying on what 11 Deborah said, can we capture the comment that it's 12 clarifying -- Deborah and Kelly -- clarifying what's 13 in that custodial because it's not all hard legal 14 requirements and it's not everything that we're 15 doing. So I think we need a clarification of what's 16 in the custodial. 17 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Anda, building 18 on that, I think -- and I don't know, just from the 19 discussion I hear and how I kind of switched on, I 20 think we need a real clear clarification in laymen's 21 terms of what this is. 22 I mean, you know, it's -- the IRP is 23 real simple. It's the power plan for the future. 24 This isn't your environmental plan for the future 25 exactly. It's a little bit different animal. It's a 27 1 stewardship-type thing. 2 I think how well you bring what you're 3 asking, what you're doing, and where you're going 4 will go a long ways towards the quality of comments 5 you get that are relative to it. To me, I am a 6 little confused, I think, when I started into it and 7 then you start talking about the Environmental Impact 8 Statement that goes with it and you start saying, 9 whoa, what is all of this? 10 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Other 11 thoughts on question one? 12 Let's go ahead and go to question two. 13 Oh, Kelly. 14 DR. KELLY TILLER: Well, you know, I 15 don't how all of these comments are being 16 incorporated, but this seems to be where the comment 17 yesterday about looking at the time frame for public 18 comment and whether that should be -- so if there's a 19 need to actually capture that, this seems like this 20 might be the appropriate place. 21 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. So 22 was that issue around expanding the public comment 23 period? 24 DR. KELLY TILLER: I'm not -- I'm just 25 asking, is this the place? If that's something that 28 1 everybody says, is that the place? 2 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: This is 3 the place, yes. I think it would be appropriate to 4 put that there. 5 So are you recommending that we add 6 that to the advice? 7 DR. KELLY TILLER: No. I'm just 8 recommending, I guess, that we discussed it 9 yesterday. 10 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: There was a 11 comment yesterday that two were going out at the same 12 time and that you might need longer to be able to 13 look at both the EIS and the -- 14 DR. KELLY TILLER: So all we did 15 yesterday, I think, was bring it up. So I'm just 16 saying that maybe we should discuss it and decide 17 whether that is a recommendation or not. 18 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I think the 20 point was made that 45 days is the minimum under the 21 NEPA statute. The question I think -- the schedule 22 may call for 60 -- somewhere between 45 and 60 days, 23 and I guess we will just throw open, does the Council 24 feel there's a consensus that it should be some set 25 period of time longer than that? How do y'all feel? 29 1 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Tom, I would 2 just flip back to the time line chart that was at the 3 back of the tab on planning and next steps, slide 4 six, just eyeballing it, it looks like we have got a 5 public comment period that exceeds 60 days, if the 6 yellow bar are actually to scale, already. 7 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Given that, 8 does that appear to be adequate? 9 Russell. 10 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: And you know, I 11 made the point, again, that I think it's in TVA's 12 best interest or I made the point yesterday and will 13 make it again that I think for the public to comment 14 adequately to the EIS, to make it the EIS an adequate 15 document, they have to have the NRP to review to 16 comment on. 17 So we need to -- I believe I would 18 recommend that TVA release the draft NRP and provide 19 the public enough opportunity to review it before 20 that public period and public comment period starts 21 on the EIS, that's my recommendation there. 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Although, 23 currently they are working parallel, correct? Both 24 are released, comment periods for both. And I guess 25 my question to that would be, given this extended 30 1 period above and beyond the 45 days, do you feel 2 that's adequate to capture that ability to do? 3 Yeah, Kelly. 4 DR. KELLY TILLER: Well, you know, my 5 understanding, I guess, of the way it works is that 6 the -- you have to have the plan in order to know 7 what your estimating impacts are, and vice versa, 8 knowing what those impacts would be potentially is 9 part of how you evaluate is this a reasonable plan or 10 not. 11 So, you know, I guess it seems to me 12 they actually are a hand and glove. It's, you know, 13 two parts of one whole. So, you know, if they are 14 released at the same time, it's up to an individual 15 of how they choose to look at those two parts and 16 come to a whole. 17 So perhaps the extended period of time 18 would allow -- you know, allow them to do it 19 sequentially if an individual wants to view it that 20 way, but it seems to me they are very closely linked. 21 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Other 22 comments or questions? 23 So I will just throw sort of that out 24 there, what George has raised, the schedule that's 25 indicated on the slide represents a time period well 31 1 beyond the 45-day minimum. Does the Council have a 2 strong feeling that that's inadequate or needs to be 3 lengthened? 4 MR. MARK IVERSON: Mark Iverson. It 5 looks like that it also includes TVA response period. 6 So I just -- from the staff perspective I'm just 7 curious if this is enough -- 60 days for public 8 comment, that looks to be about 75 days total, that 9 yellow bar, is that enough time for a staff response 10 or does that push the whole timetable out? 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Is there 12 any staff response to that? 13 MS. HELEN RUCKER: Helen Rucker. 14 Previously managing the NEPA program, one of the 15 things that we can do is as responses come in we are 16 already working on them instead of waiting and then 17 starting. So we're doing this concurrently. 18 So if we extend the comment period two 19 weeks, I would say we would extend probably the whole 20 project by two weeks, but we could probably condense 21 that if we are proactive in working on the responses 22 as they come in. 23 There again, it's always a wild card. 24 If there's an issue that we didn't anticipate and we 25 have to stop and step back and do some analysis, that 32 1 could impact the schedule, but I think we're pretty 2 well versed in what we think the issues are. 3 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Thank you. 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Tom, just 5 a question on that last bullet on one, just to have 6 everybody look at that, did we agree to include that? 7 I think I heard Russell -- 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. I 9 think we had two perspectives on that point, the idea 10 that Russell alluded to, a suggestion that the plan 11 be released prior to the EIS. Yet, we had another 12 perspective that they really do work together. 13 So is there -- given the fact that the 14 EIS -- you know, this is a little different from an 15 EIS standpoint. A lot of us who look at EIS's are 16 looking at a specific proposal as opposed to a more 17 general programmatic EIS that's much broader in 18 scope. So keep that in mind as well with this 19 process, that this is not a -- sort of a traditional 20 project EIS. 21 But with that said, I guess I'd throw 22 out, is there consensus on this idea that they need 23 to be separated or under the current proposal where, 24 in fact, they are linked on a parallel track, does 25 that seem to make sense among the Council? 33 1 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Russell. 2 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I guess my 3 understanding is that if they -- if TVA didn't need 4 two documents they would just produce the EIS, and so 5 the NRP is separate from the EIS. 6 The NRP is a guidance document that 7 TVA will use over the next 20 years to guide their 8 stewardship activities. 9 The EIS is an EIS to tell the federal 10 government, in general, and Congress that the 11 guidance document that TVA is using meets 12 environmental standards and concerns, that 13 undertakings dictated in the NRP will not adversely 14 impact the environment or significantly impact the 15 environment. 16 So to me we have one document saying, 17 this plan is not going to impact the environment, and 18 what the public primarily is going to be commenting 19 on is the EIS, whether they agree with that. So they 20 need to be familiar with the plan. 21 If TVA -- if everything that is 22 written in the plan is also written in the EIS, then 23 just use the EIS as the guidance document and just 24 produce one document. If they really are concurrent, 25 you don't need two. 34 1 If they both -- if they serve two 2 different purposes, then I think you need to treat 3 them differently. I think the public needs to treat 4 them differently. 5 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Other 6 comments? 7 George. 8 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: I have got one 9 just from ignorance and not being very familiar with 10 how all of this would work. 11 But typically if a particular project, 12 you know, we have zeroed down on we're going to do a 13 mile of shoreline remediation work, at that point in 14 time -- I mean, this being a general broad thing with 15 the Natural Resource Plan were doing, at the time you 16 decide to perhaps do that mile on shoreline 17 remediation work, at that point in time, and this is 18 more for staff just because I don't know, wouldn't 19 that be the point in time when a very close 20 environmental assessment or EIS would be done so that 21 you could specifically identify the stuff on the 22 ground right there and what you're doing and how it's 23 impacted? 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. 25 Helen, is there anything you want to jump in here on 35 1 and add to the discussion? 2 MS. HELEN RUCKER: Because this is a 3 programmatic review, we haven't planned to get into 4 those detailed discussions right now because we would 5 have to go out and analyze 11,000 -- approximately 6 11,000 miles of shoreline. 7 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Helen, that's 8 the point I was trying to make. 9 MS. HELEN RUCKER: So what we would 10 like to do is this provides programmatic coverage, 11 and then as we go and do -- identify specific 12 projects we would tier off of this and then go and 13 review the site specific impacts at that time. 14 Does that answer your question? 15 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Yeah. I mean, 16 that's the sort of thing I was getting is that the 17 level of detail in the EIS to accompany the Natural 18 Resource Plan would not be as specific and in-depth 19 as what you would have on a project-specific basis. 20 MS. HELEN RUCKER: Yes, correct. We 21 would be doing this for ten years. 22 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Deborah. 23 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I just 24 wanted -- I was kind of playing off what Helen said. 25 What I'm understanding then is we're doing -- I mean, 36 1 obviously TVA made a decision to put the staff 2 recommendation, to put the two together. So I was 3 trying to figure out the advantages and disadvantages 4 of that. 5 Can you kind of tell me why you see 6 it's good putting the two together and then why you 7 might hesitate and do them separately like Russell is 8 suggesting, just so I can understand? 9 MS. HELEN RUCKER: Well, actually 10 up-to-date we have used the NEPA process as a 11 mechanism for collecting public input and organizing 12 it, and the draft plan is actually our proposed 13 action in the NEPA document. 14 But I think Russell brings out an 15 excellent idea that's never occurred to me. The fact 16 that it is such a huge volume of information and you 17 dump it all at one time, I can understand where the 18 public is going, well, which one do I read and how 19 does this work? 20 So I think maybe sending the plan out 21 there for a week or two for people to begin to digest 22 it and then -- but communicate to them an EIS will 23 come out in two weeks or three weeks, and then we use 24 the EIS to collect comments on the preferred action, 25 which is the plan, and they also have the benefit of 37 1 the technical analysis in the EIS to start saying, 2 well, maybe you should look at this program versus 3 this one. 4 So I think we can accommodate that, 5 and it might be a good way to message and start 6 directing people so they understand the volume of 7 information that's coming -- that we're asking them 8 to look at. So there's flexibility. 9 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And you can 10 do that without detrimentally impacting the current 11 program schedule? 12 MS. HELEN RUCKER: Project manager. 13 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: That's a question 14 that requires careful examination, may I answer it 15 that way? 16 SENATOR ARTHUR ORR: You sound like a 17 politician. 18 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Would it be 19 appropriate that we might recommend the staff 20 consider that as a process, that looking at a 21 staggered release process to allow people to digest 22 the strategic directions and priorities that the plan 23 might represent with the knowledge that the EIS will 24 then provide the impact detail about the broad 25 generalized impacts associated with that vision? 38 1 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: And did I 2 understand from what Helen said that the comments 3 would all be on the EIS? 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Question. 5 MR. RON FUGATT: Ron Fugatt. One 6 element of this planning process we have not 7 discussed at all is this big block up here that says 8 program cost, and I just wondered does the -- what 9 you're going to produce have any costs associated 10 with it that the public is going to comment on. 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And I think 12 the answer to that would be part of what we heard 13 Barbara yesterday, Barbara Wyse, in terms of the 14 valuation, there are -- and what we heard was, I 15 think, 20 percent of the elements have some level of 16 cost, is that -- 17 MR. RON FUGATT: No. I think every 18 program has a cost. 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Well, yeah, 20 but I am talking about -- well, go ahead. I will 21 let -- 22 DFO ANDA RAY: We're trying to 23 prioritize with economics. 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. Is 25 there anything you want to say to that, Randy? 39 1 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: I will. You're 2 right, we did not talk about costs yesterday. 3 Each of these programs has costs. 4 They require resources, of course. That will go into 5 TVA leadership's assessment, again, of that 6 prioritization, the A, B, and C, TVA leadership are 7 taking that into account. 8 We're still estimating costs around 9 these different programs. Obviously, the resources 10 aren't limitless, but it is not the intention to 11 share that cost estimation information publicly, to 12 answer your question, but that will go into TVA 13 leadership's prioritization thinking. 14 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 15 Kelly. 16 DR. KELLY TILLER: My question has 17 been answered. 18 MR. RON FUGATT: Well, they are the 19 ones paying for it. I don't understand why they 20 don't get to know what it is before they comment on 21 it. 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: The public, 23 you mean? 24 MR. RON FUGATT: Yes. 25 DFO ANDA RAY: Yeah. And Randy, you 40 1 might want to clarify. I think you might have been 2 talking about the individual programs and how much it 3 costs to go from custodial to enhanced. 4 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: Right. 5 DFO ANDA RAY: But there's some cost 6 element in the NRP, isn't there, that at least says, 7 here's what we're spending on programs and this 8 option B, the prioritized list, is estimated around 9 this amount of money, I mean, they have to have 10 some -- 11 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: We haven't 12 finalized the answer to that question. Yeah, sure, 13 we have talked in a broad level maybe about, you 14 know, broadly bracketing costs, and perhaps that is 15 something that could and should be shared with the 16 public. We didn't want to get to the real granular 17 discussion of each program option there. 18 DFO ANDA RAY: You may want to make 19 that into a recommendation if you have something else 20 you want to add, Ron. 21 MR. RON FUGATT: What's that? 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Is there 23 proposed language in terms of making that point in 24 our formal response that you would suggest? 25 MR. RON FUGATT: Well, I mean, from 41 1 what I've heard so far there wasn't any mention of 2 costs, that's the point I was making, and whatever 3 the -- and I do agree that it's going to be hard to 4 break it down on whether this is custodial or 5 whatever, but there ought to be some relationship to 6 this program that what is being -- what is the cost 7 now, what are our requirements that we have to spend 8 so much money based on, you know, the agreements that 9 was made some years ago when this was voted under and 10 the ratepayers began to pay it, those are -- those 11 are some things that appears to me that would be part 12 of the public's view on this. 13 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: So does 14 that last bullet capture that, the essence of what 15 you're saying? 16 MR. RON FUGATT: Yes. 17 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. If 18 we might -- Kelly. 19 DR. KELLY TILLER: So perhaps another 20 recommendation just for how the process can be 21 strengthened and to capture some of that is, you 22 know, the -- this is TVA's programmatic planned 23 recommendation, but the reality is TVA is responsible 24 for being good stewards, both of taxpayer and 25 ratepayer dollars, as well as the natural resources 42 1 and the environment. 2 So with that stewardship obligation, 3 the reality is there are limited resources. I mean, 4 TVA doesn't have, you know -- and someone does have 5 to pay these. So perhaps a more explicit recognition 6 of the fact that everything TVA does has both a 7 financial and an environmental impact. 8 And while, you know, it might not be 9 possible in all cases to very carefully assign dollar 10 values, just making sure the public really 11 understands and it's very -- in laymen's terms very 12 clear that everything costs. 13 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 14 MR. RON FUGATT: Excuse me, 15 Dr. Tiller, but I would correct you, to my knowledge 16 TVA gets no taxpayer money. 17 DR. KELLY TILLER: That's true. 18 That's exactly right. 19 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Karl. 20 MR. KARL DUDLEY: Yeah, I just wanted 21 to -- I guess Ron took my thunder there, but I just 22 wanted to reiterate that we need to make it clear to 23 the public that all costs incurred by TVA are added 24 to the electric bill. I don't think there's people 25 in Congress that understand that, and I know there's 43 1 a lot of people in the Valley that do not understand 2 that. 3 For the last 11 years that has been 4 the case. We can do a lot of great things, but we 5 need to understand that there is a cost and it will 6 be on your electric bill. 7 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: So can we 8 add that to that last bullet, that cost comment about 9 all the costs are added to the electric bill, some 10 type of language, Helen? 11 Okay. Now, what I would like to do 12 now is go to question two the second time. So let's 13 go ahead and call up question two. Are the program 14 options appropriate, comprehensive, and easily 15 understood? Are there flagship ideas that you have 16 seen elsewhere that TVA should consider incorporating 17 into the NRP? 18 Thoughts or comments on question two? 19 DFO ANDA RAY: I thought we were going 20 to be a little bit more structured on this. 21 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Well, what 22 I was going to say is looking at those four listings 23 behind each of the main tabs, the biological, 24 recreation, water, cultural, looking at those program 25 areas, are there one or two -- maybe the way to start 44 1 this is, are there one or two within each area that 2 seem to deserve a higher emphasis? 3 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: Tom, may I make a 4 suggestion? 5 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Go ahead. 6 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: If I may make a 7 suggestion, as we discussed this morning that maybe 8 one way to go through this, Tom, as you recall is -- 9 as everyone recalls, we talked through each of these 10 resource areas in great detail with the program 11 yesterday. Maybe if we spend ten minutes or so in 12 each resource area looking at the programs and just 13 asking this group quickly, you know, what are the two 14 or three or four or five, you know, top priority 15 programs that this Council might, you know, propose. 16 For example, if you go to the 17 biological resources tab, just about the fourth or 18 fifth tab, go to page 2 and 3, this lists all of the 19 programs down the right-hand side. Here's the 20 program categories down on the left-hand side. These 21 down the right-hand side are what the biological 22 resource specialists talked through in detail 23 yesterday, these down the right-hand side, the 20 or 24 so down pages 2 and 3. 25 So I would invite this Council to look 45 1 at the programs down on the right-hand side and just 2 are there -- everything can't be priority one. Are 3 there two or three or four or five things that this 4 Council would really propel forward? Maybe that's 5 the way to do it. 6 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Thank you, 7 Randy. 8 DFO ANDA RAY: Thank you, Randy. 9 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: Then maybe go to 10 other the ones. 11 DFO ANDA RAY: What TVA really, really 12 needs is to understand after you have sat through all 13 of those meetings yesterday, which one of these 14 programs on the right-hand side do you think need to 15 be carried out at a higher level than custodial? 16 That's another way of saying what Randy said, what's 17 your priority? 18 Which one of these programs on the 19 right-hand side do you think need to be carried out 20 at a higher level than custodial? 21 So they will all be carried out at the 22 minimum required level, but which one is higher than 23 custodial? That's what we really appreciate. 24 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Just a comment 25 before we get to that level of in-depth, my reaction, 46 1 after listening to them yesterday and hearing the 2 different category areas, is that there was somewhat 3 a lack of consistency in how the tone of which some 4 things were presented with, and I think that came out 5 in some of the discussions where we were kind of 6 confused about where it fit or why it fit or why did 7 this sound this way or why there wasn't a custodial. 8 I think to put it out in any format that was almost 9 kind of like we saw it is going to be detrimental to 10 you. 11 Then the other concern I had, and it 12 came out a little bit in the discussion yesterday, is 13 there is and should be some overlap, but when they 14 are just listed as individual programs within 15 different things, it starts looking like the right 16 hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. 17 I think you diminish the presentation 18 of what you're saying you're going to do because 19 people are going to be looking and saying, you're 20 going about this funny, you know, it's strange. 21 So I think -- and this is, again, up 22 at 40,000 foot level, but I think relooking at how 23 this is presented, how the verbiage is, making sure 24 in every case that we know we're not talking about 25 whether or not we should be complying or doing 47 1 something, how all of that comes together, I think, 2 would be real important, and then we can vote on what 3 you want. 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Mitch. 5 MR. MITCH JONES: Okay, Wilson. I'm 6 Mitch Jones. I have not spent the last two years 7 going through this NRP process and over the last 8 year, Wilson, but if you had a focus -- and I go back 9 to recreation and water resource benefits as your top 10 two, I'm trying to drill down on this for you, 11 Wilson, but that's occupying about 50 percent of the 12 effort that's in this room. 13 And I will not take away from cultural 14 resources, that is a very important item. What was 15 said yesterday by Russell is profound. 16 But you have 50 percent of your effort 17 coming from staff and this Council focused on two 18 areas. So if I could drill down in those two areas 19 on what would be flagship opportunities, and purely 20 those two areas for a moment, and come out with some 21 successes over the next eight to ten to twelve 22 months, then I could then deliver a clear and concise 23 message to the public that said, within a cost 24 structure, and I like people that ask questions that 25 make oxygen leave the room like cost. It's always a 48 1 great question to ask. It makes people 2 uncomfortable. 3 So if there's a way that you can drill 4 down in those two areas, have some successes that you 5 can deliver, announce, propounder that evidence to 6 the public that says, these are the things that we're 7 doing and we're working real hard at up here and 8 here's the evidence of our successes, it seems to me 9 that there may be some specifics in just those two 10 categories and to be specific for a moment. 11 If there was a way to flagship keeping 12 commercial operations clean inside their campground 13 and marinas, you're serving two purposes; one is 14 water quality obviously, and two, we have a 15 recreational benefit to the public involved with 16 that. 17 If there's a way to tell a story that 18 justifies the costs that's associated with those two 19 programs, I think you might have a little success 20 there, just a point. 21 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Good point. 22 DFO ANDA RAY: Can I clarify? 23 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yes. 24 DFO ANDA RAY: Thank you. I think 25 that you have set up a really good suggestion for the 49 1 process. 2 Let me just address the elephant in 3 the room here for a second. When TVA lost 4 appropriated funds back in 2000, lost, gave up 5 appropriated funds back in 2000, Congress directed 6 that TVA would continue to spend the same level of 7 funding and you would fund it through the ratepayers 8 that we were doing back in -- prior to 2000. 9 Well, right before that TVA had been 10 over hundred million dollars in its stewardship 11 program. Right when they made declaration it was 12 down to 80, 85, 87, with no provision that it had to 13 be -- had to be increased with inflation or any other 14 kind of cost adjustment. 15 Part of that stewardship obligation 16 includes all of those functions that a utility 17 wouldn't have to do if it wasn't TVA. So that 18 includes things like navigation, flood control, 19 recreation, the stewardship programs, dam and safety 20 inspection, et cetera. 21 So those programs come right now to 22 about -- and it's in the 10K that we issue every 23 quarter and year. It comes to about 85, 86, 87 24 million dollars. 25 The programs we're talking about today 50 1 in the NRP come to about $9 million. So custodial 2 costs the ratepayers $9 million. 3 As you go through this next few 4 minutes and you say, what things should we do that 5 are more than custodial, that's where we have to go 6 back and say, can some of those overlap, like Deborah 7 was talking about maybe, and therefore, maybe it 8 stands alone, you know, it's $500,000, but when you 9 combine it with a program that's in water, it's 10 really only an incremental 250. So we can't answer 11 that right now until we see what the combination of 12 programs looks like. 13 But that's what we're talking about is 14 somewhere in the estimate of 9 million for custodial, 15 and I am taking guess now, a swag, 20 million for 16 flagship, something in that range, that's the amount 17 of money that you're talking about. 18 A 1 percent rate increase, and you're 19 going to have to help me, Karl, is around a 20 $300 million increase of -- 21 MR. RON FUGATT: That's 900. 22 DFO ANDA RAY: 900. Sorry. 23 MR. RON FUGATT: I mean, our customers 24 pay about $50,000 a year for this $9 million. 25 DFO ANDA RAY: How did you come -- you 51 1 just divided it by 8 million? 2 MR. RON FUGATT: It's a tenth of a 3 percent of TVA's $9 million -- $9 billion efforts. 4 DFO ANDA RAY: Okay. And I think we 5 look at a 100 -- about a 100 -- I think it is about 6 200 to $250 million that's a 1 percent rate increase 7 in your -- that's another way to look at it as 8 opposed to dividing it up, but that's what you're 9 talking about. 10 MR. MITCH JONES: Can we go back to 11 the calculations just for a second? 12 I'm sorry. Mitch Jones. 13 Can we go back to the calculation for 14 a second, the 85 to 100 million in allocations for 15 these -- for stewardship resources that are not part 16 of -- take a Duke Energy or somebody, that they don't 17 have to do what you have to do as part of the 18 appropriations language in 2000, is that the way I 19 understand it? 20 DFO ANDA RAY: Correct. And that's 21 why they set up this group is to ensure that we 22 continue to get good advice. 23 So you actually have navigation and 24 flood control, that's why you have provided advice on 25 those other areas. This is a sub set of that 87 to 52 1 $100 million, which is the equivalent of 9 million. 2 So these programs represent 9 million of that 3 responsibility. 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Thanks, 5 Anda. 6 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: That helped. 7 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Just a 8 real -- Tom, back to the question. What I would like 9 to do, in addition to getting some of the detailed 10 information, is just back to Randy's point, in 11 looking at those different program options, the 65 12 program options, are they appropriate, comprehensive 13 and easily understood? 14 I think that's what we're trying to 15 get to now is to figure out, does this really make 16 sense what you heard from the staff yesterday? 17 That's what I understood the question to be, not in 18 as much detail, but based on what I have looked at in 19 these four categories does this make sense? 20 So I think that's what we're trying to 21 drive at. Any other comments on that? 22 Russell. 23 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I think Deborah 24 made a good point earlier that as far as public 25 consumption goes you probably need to have a better 53 1 explanation concerning what's custodial and, you 2 know, where we say not applicable we need to 3 understand that -- you know, what that means, you 4 know, and why they are not utilizing that category. 5 When it comes to cultural resources, I 6 believe that the way it was presented yesterday, 7 there's not enough detail explaining why these 8 actions are custodial and what's covered under 9 custodial. 10 I think Eric did a good job of 11 explaining what each of the categories was, but I 12 think there needs to be more explanation of why TVA 13 has to do any of those categories, you know, why do 14 they have to do Native American consultation? 15 I don't know that the public is going 16 to appreciate a rate increase for talking to tribes 17 that don't live here anymore unless they understand 18 fully why that process is required to take place, 19 that's my concern on that issue. 20 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. And 21 they have added a bullet at the bottom, identify why 22 certain actions are custodial and required, anything 23 else you want to add there? 24 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Yeah, and 25 explain -- and I guess more detail about what actions 54 1 are custodial. So like within the custodial 2 category, give more explanation to what activities 3 take place and why that is required. 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 5 Thanks, Russell. 6 Deb. 7 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Going back and 8 picking up on the multiple use because I think -- to 9 me I have a hard time voting on these. I have a hard 10 time understanding the full impacts of any of these. 11 I can pick one out, like the clean marina, and say it 12 goes different ways. 13 I think the multiple resource benefit 14 is critical and should be a guiding principle. I 15 also think that some kind of risk benefit assessment 16 that there's -- it's not required, it's not needed to 17 do, but if the trends continue like they are, our not 18 doing it or our not starting that program or starting 19 to address that becomes then a higher cost, a risk, 20 something we need further down the road. 21 And I think there's always things 22 bubbling up out there, whether they are environmental 23 or whether they are cultural or whether they are 24 stewardship-based, that the public is going to come 25 to expect or the government is going to come to 55 1 require, and if we could kind of look in the crystal 2 ball, which is hard to do, and say, okay, if we don't 3 start and put these on our table, we're going to look 4 like the big, bad guy that doesn't do it unless they 5 come and tell us or we're going to have to -- it's 6 going to cost us more to catch up. 7 So I would like to see that as part of 8 a -- also, I hate to even mention the word, but going 9 back to the weighting thing and looking at that, two 10 of the categories, the data collection and the public 11 outreach, really seem to me like implementation 12 strategies and how much those could be woven into the 13 successful implementation of the actual categories 14 where you want to deliver something. 15 I think take some of the pressure off 16 that table and let you address those because I think 17 the public outreach is the lowest but probably the 18 most critical in the long run. If you have got to go 19 to the ratepayers for the money, you have got to have 20 trust, you have got to have Congress supporting you. 21 So I think it goes into implementation and they 22 become a part of everything, and justifiable. 23 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: So they 24 are adding a bullet, Deb, at the bottom. See if 25 we're capturing what you just said. 56 1 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think it's 2 the data collection, database. It's also the public 3 outreach is an implementing activity. It's not -- 4 you know, you don't create a public outreach program 5 just for the benefit of having a public outreach. 6 You create it to accomplish something. Then whatever 7 you're accomplishing becomes whatever it fits in and 8 then that could very easily become multiple benefits 9 and sometimes triple benefits, you know, just really 10 big. 11 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Other 12 thoughts or comments? 13 Kelly. 14 DR. KELLY TILLER: I just wanted to 15 follow up on that. You know, one of the things I 16 think we're trying to -- that you're asking for input 17 on is, you know, where can we get the biggest bang 18 for buck in terms of things in this plan. 19 So one of the things we heard 20 yesterday was -- to follow up on Deb's point, you 21 know, one of the biggest things people are looking 22 for is just they want to know, where can we go hunt, 23 where can we access the water, where can we camp, you 24 know, all of these things that are part of 25 implementing these various strategies. 57 1 So I just want to agree with Deb that 2 I think that's part of how you implement as much as 3 it is a strategy in and of itself. 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. We 5 have added a bullet at the end at the bottom, is 6 there -- we've got a technical term, biggest bang for 7 the buck, is there any other language you want to -- 8 DR. KELLY TILLER: I don't know that 9 that's actually advice or a suggestion. I just think 10 that's a perspective. As we look at this and in 11 answering these questions, that's one perspective we 12 take. 13 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Can we say 14 where we get the most benefit or something? How 15 would you say that? 16 Yes, sir. 17 MR. RON FUGATT: I think I agree with 18 Dr. Tiller. The way I look at it going back to the 19 costs, I think that -- I don't know whether there's 20 any demographics, but I have a strong suspicion that 21 most of the people that use these facilities that TVA 22 makes available in water resources and obviously 23 water and also the recreation and some of the other 24 things are also those people that pay the electric 25 bills. So I really don't have a great deal of 58 1 consternation about people paying for what they use. 2 And I would say that I think what 3 she's saying is that one of the things to add to this 4 is, yes, it costs, but look at the people that 5 benefit from it and then look at the people that use 6 it. 7 Then I think the other thing, and I 8 thought it was taking in some action items, was that 9 TVA staff was going to look at maybe we can advertise 10 more by linking more with some of those tourism 11 agencies that are available in each state. 12 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 13 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Just sort of a 14 little contrary to what Ron just said, TVA does have 15 service area that reaches down into areas like 16 Bessemer, Alabama, that's sort of attached to 17 Birmingham, Terrence (phonetic) City, areas that are 18 economically deprived, and whose residents that pay 19 their power bills in to TVA every month but will 20 likely never use any recreation facility or benefit 21 from crystal clear water, directly benefit from 22 crystal clear water in the Tennessee River system, 23 but yet, they are paying for it. So let's just keep 24 all of this stuff in mind as we work through this 25 thing. 59 1 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Deborah. 2 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I also think in 3 looking at all of this, and this is kind of another 4 little tangent, in picking what you do I think you 5 have got -- you have got to do it smart. You have 6 got to do it cost-effectively. You have got to do it 7 efficiently. As you roll out a stewardship plan, I 8 think it's important to have some things that you 9 have immediate big successes that reach out. 10 But beyond that, getting to Ron's 11 point and everybody else's, about the costs, it needs 12 to be layered. I mean, I think I heard in each of 13 these different areas about the need to collect data, 14 the need to map resources, you know, that's not sexy, 15 and probably half the public says, you aren't doing 16 that, you don't know what you own, you haven't marked 17 it, you haven't got a map, but doing something like 18 that is -- which is you go out and do the little 19 things you get attention for. 20 Then you take on something like that 21 because once you have done that, then I start 22 thinking of the things that can build off of it, 23 whether it's cultural, whether it's clean water, 24 whether it's recreation, whether it's where to go on 25 a hike, and then you have done it cost-effectively 60 1 and you have done it not in a shotgun manner but have 2 built on it. 3 So I think, again, trying to pick the 4 best programs. I can think of some principles like 5 that to follow, but I can't tell you a program that 6 starts reaching out and doing it in that way because 7 I don't know what you have, what you don't have, and 8 how it could be done. And it's 20 years, we're not 9 looking for something -- it doesn't all have to be 10 done in the first two years. 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And I'm 12 kind of wrestling with the same thing, Deb, in terms 13 of looking at this laundry list and trying to say, 14 okay, this is -- you know, this is a super priority 15 program. 16 Maybe a way to think about it is, are 17 there elements here that can be maximized for 18 efficiency in the sense that you partner with 19 somebody and you get -- it goes back to the bang for 20 the buck theory where if you look at -- if you look 21 at each of these four areas, are there program 22 elements which represent partnership opportunities to 23 extend? 24 In other words, if TVA makes an 25 investment, other state or private agencies or 61 1 entities will step up and multiply that investment. 2 So rather than looking at specific programs, maybe we 3 develop a prioritized approach in terms of looking at 4 those elements. 5 And then I think Deb makes a great 6 point, are there other areas which may not be 7 partnership but that represent investment where if we 8 invest in this area it will lead to benefits 9 downstream, so to speak? 10 So you look at these program elements 11 through a prism, if you will, rather than trying to 12 identify specific elements based on the current 13 listing strategy. I will just throw that out. 14 Russell. 15 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Tom, to that 16 end, going back to culture resources because that's 17 what I know, but in Eric's presentation he talked 18 about a number of things. I would rate some things, 19 like ARPA enforcement and NAGPRA as very high 20 priorities, but he also listed opportunities like 21 field school and public outreach, and those 18 tribes 22 that TVA deals with would make excellent partners in 23 those kinds of research opportunities in public 24 outreach. 25 The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 62 1 has money to contribute towards these programs. You 2 know, if Eric wanted to do a field school we could 3 finance that field school, and then we're getting 4 research data that we need about the Tennessee 5 Valley. Then we might talk to another tribe, the 6 Chickasaws, who might partner with us to make that 7 data available in a lay publication. 8 I think there's all kinds of 9 opportunities there in cultural resources alone for 10 TVA to reach out to the public entities, whether it's 11 tribes or other federal agencies, like the Army 12 Corps, and partner up to impact our knowledge of the 13 Tennessee Valley archeology and history and then 14 disseminate that information. So I don't know if 15 that's along the lines of what you're talking about. 16 I would rate other cultural resource 17 issues as more imperative, but there's certainly an 18 opportunity. And, you know, I think TVA looks to the 19 tribes as advisors, and I think we can be more 20 partners. 21 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think what 22 you're saying, Russell, is amazingly excellent, I 23 mean, because I think what it lets you do is it lets 24 you identify ways you can move ahead very quickly 25 with some good -- some meaningful stuff that are good 63 1 victories that lets you internally still have time to 2 invest in some of the longer-range stuff that's going 3 to come in a different way or be different and -- 4 those partnerships are on the road in so many 5 different ways. 6 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I agree, Deb. 7 I just think it's so important. I would recommend 8 that TVA not strictly look at tribes as sources of 9 information but potentially sources of funds as well, 10 and I think the tribes should look forward to those 11 opportunities because then we could help broadcast to 12 the ratepayers that we have a stake in this as well 13 and we're willing to help cover the costs. So I 14 wouldn't hesitate to do that in the future. 15 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: That's great. 16 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: On that 17 last bullet, Russell, you mentioned the tribes 18 particularly, but based on Tom's comment, are you 19 saying that identify partners, not just the tribes, 20 but other entities? 21 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: That's right. 22 I think we can do it across the board. I just know 23 cultural resources, but I think on water resources it 24 could be done. I think there are organizations that 25 could help out, wildlife, all of those kinds of 64 1 things. 2 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I think 3 within each of these four broad categories you could 4 go through and name some very specific opportunities 5 to extend the magnitude of benefits associated with 6 making sort of flagship investments, the key to 7 developing criteria in looking at those program 8 elements and flagship options, where do those -- 9 where are those maximized? 10 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I agree. 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: But at the 12 same time not being exclusive, you know, looking 13 at -- Deb pointed to two key areas. One is 14 investment, those programs that represent an 15 opportunity to enhance or save money down the road. 16 Then the other elements Deb mentioned 17 was risk and looking at those elements and to what 18 degree risk can be quantified or characterized if we 19 don't do it. 20 Bill, did you have something? 21 MR. BILL TITTLE: I am reminded of the 22 saying, people think you're a fool and you speak up 23 and remove all doubt. 24 Obviously, you see all of us wrestling 25 with this, and it's tough to get your arms around. I 65 1 think a couple of points. 2 I think it is confusing for the 3 Environmental Impact Statement and the Natural 4 Resource Plan to come out together, that it might 5 simplify, certainly for the public, to separate that 6 a little bit. 7 I think with this Natural Resource 8 Plan, I mean, it's obvious how much thought and work 9 has gone into the process, and I think the process is 10 good. I think what you're asking us to do is to take 11 this process and then fine tune it a little bit and 12 set some priorities and this weighted thing. 13 We did that a little bit with the 14 exercise that we all struggled with trying to 15 understand and go through, and we saw the results of 16 that both yesterday and then an upgraded one today. 17 I think to get where you want to get, 18 we almost would have to do that with each one of 19 these categories, that we would have to give more 20 detailed thought to it, we would have to look at the 21 cost-benefit analysis that Kelly is talking about. 22 We have seen things like the cultural 23 statement that Russell made that was profound, but we 24 have seen a lot of other things, too. I think the 25 partnership that someone mentioned, we have seen the 66 1 results of that. 2 When we went to Tellico we saw 3 excellent results of someone sharing the costs for 4 obtaining some of these goals, i.e., the Ducks 5 Unlimited or Quail Unlimited, the farmer who was 6 taking care of some of the land around the reservoir 7 by raising his own crop, and the Boy Scouts doing 8 maintenance on a trail near one of the reservoirs. 9 So we have seen a lot of those things in the past. 10 I think it's very difficult in a short 11 time to do the weight that you're really wanting us 12 to do without going through one step at a time in a 13 process like we did with the questionnaire. 14 Does that make sense? 15 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Uh-huh. 16 Other comments? 17 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think as you 18 go the partnership route, it's imperative that you 19 keep your share of the credit. I think a lot of the 20 partnerships TVA has done now they give away their 21 good name in doing it because they don't keep that 22 credit out there. 23 So from a public perception PR side, 24 if it's truly a partnership, then it needs -- the 25 public needs to know that, and I think it can 67 1 strengthen it both ways. I think a lot of our 2 partnerships now have been project based. They have 3 served a purpose, but they haven't really -- if we 4 hadn't toured Tellico and looked at a lot of that 5 stuff, we wouldn't have known a lot of those roles in 6 it. 7 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Tom, can I 8 ask a question here? 9 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Sure. 10 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Based on 11 Bill -- go ahead, Bill. I'm sorry. 12 MR. BILL TITTLE: One other comment. 13 I do think the definition of custodial and flagship, 14 I think you need to look at that maybe in this 15 process and rename those. 16 And Anda said that everything that is 17 custodial is not federally mandated or -- and I think 18 there needs to be some separation of that of what is 19 the baseline standard of the present operation, 20 whether it's mandated or TVA's decision to do it that 21 way, and then change the name of flagship to desired 22 level of performance or something more easily 23 understood by the public. 24 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Thanks, 25 Bill. That's what I was going to go back to, to the 68 1 top of the question. 2 You made a comment about, you know, 3 going through each one of the items and how could we 4 do that. Certainly, there won't be time today to do 5 that. There will be additional opportunities when 6 the NRP comes out, and the EIS, but it was a real 7 good point you just made about what does flagship 8 mean. 9 So let's go back to the question or 10 the program options as you look at those, 11 appropriate -- the appropriate ones, the 12 comprehensive, and can people understand what they 13 are looking at when they get these documents, 14 whenever they get those? 15 And then back to the flagship or 16 whatever it's renamed, are there others that TVA 17 should consider in the NRP? 18 Again, we're going to keep using 19 flagship for today since we have that. 20 MR. BILL TITTLE: I understand. 21 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Are there 22 other thoughts or comments on that question? 23 Kelly. 24 DR. KELLY TILLER: One comment is just 25 that, you know, I think we have to keep in mind that 69 1 this is a 20-year guidance planning document. So I 2 think we had a lot of questions, and I still have a 3 lot of -- you know, I don't know what it means to do 4 four projects versus five projects. Well, until you 5 know what the project is, it's hard to evaluate, but 6 that's not the purpose of this. 7 You know, this is to give very high 8 level strategic direction. So, you know, personally 9 when I look at this, while it raises probably more 10 questions than it gives answers, I do think it's an 11 appropriate level for that general direction 12 guidance. 13 So in answer to the question, are they 14 comprehensive, appropriate, yes. Easily understood 15 well, that's probably an impossible task, but I think 16 it is appropriate. 17 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Thank you. 18 And with that, Tom, what I'd like to do is go to 19 question three. 20 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Let me make 21 one suggestion. I am trying to see in the bullet 22 where we have got identify guiding principles, like 23 the fourth or fifth from the bottom, if that's mine, 24 you know, I guess my point there was to emphasize 25 opportunities for partnerships, investment, and 70 1 looking at risks as sort of those guiding principles. 2 So I just wanted to capture that essence in that 3 bullet as part of those guiding principles for the 4 staff to consider. 5 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: So we will 6 reword that, too. 7 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. I 8 would just -- these principles would include 9 partnership opportunities, investment options or 10 investment opportunities, and risk potential. 11 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: And I think 12 also the multiple benefit. 13 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah, 14 multiple -- yeah, cross-program multiple benefits. 15 DFO ANDA RAY: Actually, if we could 16 take an action that -- I have written down what I -- 17 I think guiding principles would be wonderful to come 18 out of here, and I have about eight in listening to 19 you yesterday and today. If I can have the staff 20 type those while we're going on to the other 21 questions and then come back to those and see if we 22 have captured your bullets so you don't have to 23 reiterate all of those right now, would that be 24 acceptable? 25 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Could we 71 1 highlight that bullet, Helen, just highlight that one 2 so we can remember to come back? Anda is going to 3 specifically talk about that one. 4 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Don't 5 forget adding Deb's cross-program benefit to that 6 area as well. 7 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Go ahead. 9 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Question 10 three, is the natural resource's economic valuation 11 process clear and credible? 12 Again, that's going to be a tough one. 13 Randy, any thoughts on that in terms of the 14 valuation? 15 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: What was the 16 question again? 17 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Question 18 three. 19 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: Can you repeat the 20 question again? 21 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Is the 22 natural resource economic's valuation process clear 23 and credible? 24 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: Well, I think that 25 refers to the valuation that was done by the natural 72 1 resource economist that TVA hired. 2 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Right. 3 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: And they went 4 through that process. They drew upon precedent 5 information and published information to develop that 6 roster of benefits for each program, and I think that 7 question is aimed towards that, is that clear and 8 credible? 9 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: That's 10 right. What I wanted to do is offer an opportunity 11 for the Council to ask any questions or clarifying 12 questions based on your understanding of what Barbara 13 Wyse presented. 14 Any comments or questions? 15 John. 16 MR. JOHN WILBANKS: I have some 17 problems with some of the assumptions that are made 18 and really building that information off of a lot of 19 assumptions of no material at all, very little 20 material provided by TVA. 21 I think TVA -- you know, we don't know 22 what the visitation is. You know, we are just making 23 these assumptions based on maybe Corps information or 24 whatever, but I really question it. 25 Like they made an assumption for one 73 1 like for wildlife watching, now, they may be able to 2 define what wildlife watching is, but maybe sitting 3 around a campfire watching a squirrel run up and down 4 trees is wildlife watching, I don't know, but I 5 just -- looking at all of that and looking at how 6 much they had to assume out of all the data, I just 7 have to question whether or not how reliable that 8 information is. 9 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Thanks, 10 John. 11 Russell. 12 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I share John's 13 concerns there. I also -- once again, you know, I 14 have real problems with valuing some of these 15 activities with any kind of dollar amount, and my 16 concern is when this is printed or presented to the 17 decision-makers at TVA, I think it would be very 18 awkward for some programs to show a beneficial dollar 19 amount, a dollar value, and other programs to have an 20 ambiguous dollar value or no dollar value associated 21 with the more negative dollar value because I think 22 that can cloud judgment when it comes to 23 prioritization. 24 So I think if you're going to use any 25 kind of dollar valuation, you either have to use it 74 1 as assumptions across the board and find a way to 2 assign it to everything or you shouldn't use it at 3 all because, otherwise, I think you bias the 4 decision-makers about what programs really are 5 beneficial and important. It's very difficult to 6 define benefits. I think there are a lot of 7 ambiguous and intangible benefits. 8 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Deborah. 9 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I have a hard 10 time even answering this question because I think the 11 presentation we had was probably a very 12 oversimplification of the whole economic model they 13 went through. 14 I know in sitting through other 15 economic models and things I have worked with on 16 that, I have a hard time believing that was all the 17 elements they had looked at or which programs they 18 applied it to. 19 But having said that, one of the 20 concerns I had was from a question that I asked, 21 which was how they were factoring risks into the 22 economic model, and they talked about it in terms of 23 cost avoided to TVA for not doing it. 24 Really to me when you're looking at 25 risks in modeling and trying to associate a value, 75 1 and it can be perception risk from not doing a 2 cultural thing, it can be an actual cost risk further 3 down, you have got to try to quantify some risks in 4 not doing it that is -- so you can weigh that against 5 it. 6 That may be in there. Like I said, I 7 just feel like it was such an oversimplification in 8 the presentation, that I am not real sure how to 9 evaluate the model they used. 10 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Kelly. 11 DR. KELLY TILLER: So at the risk of, 12 you know, losing my card to be an economist here, I 13 will just say that -- and we have all heard the 14 jokes, you know, economists, well, on one the hand, 15 on other hand, you know. 16 The reality is it is -- we are not -- 17 this body, none of us, have the -- either the 18 information or really the skills to determine -- to 19 answer that, is it credible. You know, I mean, 20 that's why you have peer review journals and that's 21 why you do academic kinds of things. It's not 22 appropriate to ask a group like this to say was 23 that -- you know, give that a grade. Does that get 24 an A or does that meet the bill? 25 So I think one of the things that we 76 1 need to do is to communicate that that was -- and the 2 reality is if you ask two or three different 3 consulting groups to do this same kind of evaluation, 4 you would have probably gotten two or three different 5 results, not that any of them would have been wrong, 6 it just -- you know, there are multiple ways to skin 7 the same cat. 8 So I think to -- the more appropriate 9 question is not is it credible but it's, how is this 10 to be used. So one thing, I think as a result of our 11 discussion, is we have all said that this needs to be 12 taken in context and it needs to be one piece of 13 information that informs everything else, but those 14 numbers, in and of themselves, and that particular 15 evaluation, cannot stand alone. 16 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Thanks, 17 Kelly. 18 Just to ask this question, would you 19 want to take out credible or just reword that 20 question or put another word there? 21 DR. KELLY TILLER: Well, either that 22 or actually, you know, make a bullet point that we 23 cannot assess that, that that's an impossible task -- 24 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 25 DR. KELLY TILLER: -- for this group 77 1 or for this body. 2 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Discussion 3 on that? 4 MR. RON FUGATT: I think I was going 5 to add to what Kelly said and what others have said. 6 Being an engineer I put down numbers a lot, as you 7 can see, but it sort of struck me as -- and then I -- 8 and I didn't say anything about it at the time 9 because I thought, well, this is a relative, you 10 know, valuation, but to say that 90 miles of trails 11 is worth $18 million a year in value, I found that a 12 little questionable because, boy, you would spend a 13 lot of money to go out and add another mile because 14 you're going to get that kind of benefit out of it. 15 So I don't know -- I understand this 16 is not absolute, it's relative, but it did give me 17 some rise to the valuation, at least those that they 18 could do an economic valuation, that seemed a little 19 bit skewed to me. 20 MR. MARK IVERSON: I guess I would 21 kind of add to that whole conversation, at the end of 22 the day is it going to really provide clarity for the 23 public to make that comment. And if it's a matter of 24 debate it's -- we're already kind of wondering, you 25 know, is that a good number or a bad number, if maybe 78 1 two or three different firms had different approaches 2 and you get different answers, is that really going 3 to provide clarity to the process for comments? 4 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: How is this 5 going to be used in the process, as part of the 6 document, part of the internal decision-making? 7 Where does it fit in? 8 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: As you recall in 9 that strata of priorities, A, B, and C, that third 10 strata where those things are prioritized in broad 11 groups, and they are prioritized by benefits that 12 this natural resource economist has identified for 13 these programs, and so that's the primary use of 14 that. 15 Again, TVA made the decision that as 16 all of these 65 programs and different options within 17 each of these are being evaluated, there may be value 18 in having a third-party natural resource economist 19 assess the value of those, and that was the driver 20 behind it and that's how they are going to be used. 21 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: But does this 22 go in the public comment document? Does it go in 23 the -- 24 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: I'd just add to 25 what Dr. Tiller said, I think she makes a brilliant 79 1 point about this needs to be kept in context with all 2 of the other aspects of the process, I think that's a 3 brilliant point. 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: One 5 question I still have is Kelly's point about the word 6 credible and putting a bullet in that we can't 7 respond to that or would it be more appropriate to 8 take that language out of the question. 9 The question would be back to Mark's 10 point about is this clear. Using John's comment 11 about the assumptions that were made, will the public 12 have clarity in what they see, is that really the 13 more appropriate question? 14 I heard several things, you know, that 15 there was some assumptions made that maybe we 16 wouldn't necessarily all agree to because we're all 17 different economists. 18 But is it clear, as Mark said, is that 19 really what the issue is? 20 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: If I may make a 21 suggestion. 22 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Yes, sir. 23 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: I might even 24 reword the question. How might the valuation by the 25 natural resource economist most appropriately be 80 1 used, kind of some broader questions. So the 2 valuation has been made and how best would it 3 appropriately be used? 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 5 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: I think much of 6 the dialogue has been in that question. 7 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think if you 8 use that kind of question, then it let's you address 9 very much what Kelly was saying, that you -- not only 10 in how can (sic) it be used, you then explain the 11 pluses and minuses of it, the limitations and 12 positives, and you can help people understand the 13 role it has in the process more than just, here's a 14 set of numbers and are they going to be a determining 15 factor. 16 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: So let's 17 change the question. 18 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Get that 19 point captured, what Deb just said. 20 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 21 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: So we have 22 talked about rephrasing the question or tilting the 23 question. So part of the answer to that new question 24 then is -- Deb, go ahead and say again so we capture 25 that point. 81 1 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think what it 2 would allow us to do if we look at it this is then in 3 the communication process with the plan and with the 4 study, it would allow us to explain the role it has 5 in it, the position it takes it in the -- in helping 6 to make decisions, and we can put it more into the 7 context in which it should be evaluated and used. 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And I was 9 going to add that you might want to as part of that 10 process, did we capture -- first of all, did we 11 capture the essence here? 12 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Yeah. I think 13 it brings clarity to the role of the -- it's an 14 education and a clarity process and -- to the role of 15 this. Because if we're getting the questions we are 16 getting, you can imagine it hitting the public and 17 the reaction, and then nobody will believe it. 18 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Then what I 19 was going to do was amplify that a little bit and say 20 that we need to make sure in the explanation of this, 21 to the degree it's communicated to the public, that 22 we talk about the limitations of this valuation 23 process, its dependence on assumptions, and then 24 clearly explaining those assumptions so the public 25 can see how this methodology or how these estimates 82 1 are developed in a very laymen's term, I heard that 2 used earlier, but a very clear communication process 3 of those assumptions. 4 Russell. 5 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I think that 6 the trend towards rewording the question to deal with 7 some of the things that Dr. Tiller and Deb brought up 8 are good, and I think we need to do that. 9 But when I think about credibility and 10 I think about the economics that were applied to 11 cultural resources, like ARPA site valuation, that 12 don't really ever approach true cultural value, they 13 are market artifact values and in their restoration 14 of site condition values, and they don't really get 15 to the heart of why an archeological site is 16 important. They don't get to the heart of why you 17 would want to preserve or excavate an archeological 18 site. 19 So I would say when it comes to 20 culture resources, you can't call the valuation 21 credible because it can't really assign a value to -- 22 it can't ever assign a value to what the thing is 23 really worth. It would be like me saying, I am going 24 to walk to work tomorrow, so I am going to walk two 25 and a half miles to work, and I am going to hire me 83 1 an economist to calculate my miles per gallon in gas. 2 Well, that's not credible because I am not using any 3 gas, you know. It's apples and oranges, I think. 4 So I think you can say on one level it 5 is not credible, but I do believe if you reword the 6 question you can get to some value out of the study. 7 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Can we use 8 Randy's question, if he can remember it? 9 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: You would have to 10 read back the transcript. I think the last way we 11 phrased it for your consideration is, how might the 12 natural resource economist's valuation most 13 appropriately be used? 14 Because I feel like that that's what 15 much of the dialogue is about, it needs to be 16 quantified, it needs to be explained, the limitations 17 needs to be clearly identified. It needs to be 18 presented as a valuation with limitations that's one 19 of many inputs into the thought process. So perhaps 20 that's the way I might suggest we phrase it. 21 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. I 22 think that's it. 23 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: And we 24 will work on that some more. Okay. Thank you. 25 Any more comments or questions on 84 1 three? 2 MR. KARL DUDLEY: I guess I am like 3 Bill, I wish I had kept my mouth shut, but as we -- 4 as we carry the value of this plan to the public, I 5 guess I would just like to mention this one thing 6 from the power side because back in 2000 when we gave 7 up the appropriations, we understood at that point on 8 the power side that there's no way we can operate the 9 power system without control of the Tennessee River. 10 One of the things TVA does and does an 11 excellent job, and I have only come to appreciate 12 this in the last eight or so years I have been on 13 this Council, they do a great job with the amount of 14 water that they have satisfying all of the 15 stakeholders in the Valley. 16 The real value of the Tennessee River, 17 as it relates to those folks that may use it from 18 time to time, is that we can control it to the best 19 benefit of generations for all of the Valley. So, 20 therefore, if we have the control of that river, we 21 also have the responsibility of that river that came 22 with it. 23 When we told Congress we want the 24 river and we will accept these other things, we will 25 accept the -- all the cultural obligations that we 85 1 have. We will accept the campgrounds. We will take 2 care of those things that Duke does not do. 3 When we do that, we need to do it in 4 such a way that people will be proud of the 5 facilities that we have because, otherwise, it looks 6 like to the public that we are just trying to strip 7 something down just to end up with the water. 8 So I don't know what I'm saying here, 9 except to say that when I evaluate this thing as it 10 relates to the public, I am not sure I would evaluate 11 the trail or the camping or anything else. 12 The real value that we have in the 13 Valley for the Tennessee River is in the production 14 of electricity. If you don't think that's so, just 15 go back to last August or the August before that and 16 see that the nuclear plants were shut down or had 17 reduced output because we did not have enough water. 18 So whatever we do in the Valley and 19 whatever we need to do to maintain the standards of 20 all of the facilities, whatever we do, we cannot give 21 up the river. So I think it behooves us, Anda, for 22 y'all to do a great job with what you do. 23 And if you're spending 80 or $90 24 million, which is 1 percent or less, that's total 25 money. So when you look at it on that scale, we need 86 1 to invest whatever we need to to have first-class 2 facilities for the public to use, and I guess -- I 3 don't guess that's a question, is it? 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: It sounds 5 like a statement to me, Karl. Thanks, Karl. 6 So question four, we will put that 7 under there in terms of the benefits weighting 8 exercise, but the question says, the benefits 9 weighting exercise provided input for cost benefit 10 analysis of the NRP. Do you agree with the overall 11 priorities as determined by the weighting? 12 And that's what we talked about 13 yesterday, had a period of discussion, and then I 14 think Randy updated it this morning, he and Michael 15 updated us with that information this morning. 16 Any other comments on that benefits 17 weighting exercise and what you saw in the exercise? 18 And number two, the understanding that 19 it's just one piece of information that goes into the 20 whole and it's not any -- you know, one item that's 21 going to be an overriding item that decides anything, 22 it's just one piece of data. 23 DFO ANDA RAY: Can we get the rest of 24 Karl's comment before we go on? It talks about the 25 real value is the production of electricity as the 87 1 stewardship, but then he said along with that comes 2 the responsibility to manage those stewardship 3 activities in a first-class manner, that's the part 4 that I don't think we quite got. Along with that 5 comes the responsibility to manage the -- the river 6 and shoreline, I guess, would be the best way to say 7 that, water and shoreline. 8 MR. MITCH JONES: Anda, he also said 9 that you are doing that. 10 DFO ANDA RAY: Say that again. 11 MR. MITCH JONES: He also said that 12 you, TVA, are doing a fine job of it. 13 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: All right. 14 He did -- Thank you, Anda. So we need to keep the 15 river, is that part of it? 16 Okay. Anything else, Anda? 17 MS. HELEN RUCKER: It's just difficult 18 for us to hear all of the conversations and get -- 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: To manage 20 that in a first-class manner, I think, was the gist 21 of what Karl was saying, manage the river in a 22 first-class manner. 23 DFO ANDA RAY: No. It was the river 24 and associated shorelines, river and associated 25 shorelines. 88 1 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Mark. 2 MR. MARK HOMMRICH: Well, I would just 3 like to sort of amplify what Karl said. All of the 4 programs are important, and on some level it's hard 5 to put one above the other, but I think the one that 6 sort of bubbled to the top in what the Council 7 presented in the weighting exercise was the water 8 resource program. 9 I think this region of the country is 10 extremely blessed with the water resources that we 11 have. As you read the papers, both national and 12 international, about the importance of water to all 13 of us, you know, and the lack of resources in an area 14 and a lot of areas of the world and the country, you 15 know, it's -- we're really blessed to have what we 16 have here, and I think that, you know, that has to be 17 the top priority that we take care of what we have 18 and manage it properly. 19 So I guess I'm saying that I think the 20 water resources program that showed up in the 21 weighting exercise is rightly so at the top. 22 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 23 Thank you, Mark. 24 Other thoughts on that? Do you agree 25 with overall priorities as determined by the 89 1 weightings? 2 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Russell. 3 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: The one comment 4 that I wanted to make on this question is a comment I 5 have made again and again, and I want to put it on 6 record here, is that I think TVA needs to look 7 closely at their non-renewable resources and weigh 8 the protection of those non-renewable resources the 9 most highest. 10 I don't know that the public -- I 11 don't know that each of us individually knows enough 12 about non-renewable resources, the kinds of various 13 impacts that can occur to comment successfully, and I 14 think it's important that TVA leadership look at that 15 and really think what resources do we lose forever if 16 we fail in our stewardship abilities. 17 And, you know, of course, 18 archeological sites comes to mind, whether they are 19 being eroded or looted, they can never be put back 20 together again. Wild turkeys can disappear from a 21 site A, but you can reintroduce wild turkeys to site 22 A, but if MR40 on the Little Tennessee River gets 23 destroyed you're never putting it back. You're never 24 recapturing that data. 25 So I think, I mean, TVA would be well 90 1 served to remember those non-renewable resources and 2 give those priority. 3 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Russell, I 4 think that's -- when I made the comment earlier up 5 there about the risk if you don't do it, if you make 6 that guiding a principle, a non-renewable resource 7 becomes a much greater risk than something that can 8 be reintroduced or something done like that. 9 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: That's a good 10 point. 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: That's the 12 way I had kind of interpreted what you said. 13 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Other 14 comments or thoughts on this question four? 15 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I guess 16 what I would propose is we -- I have had a couple of 17 people express the need to leave a little early. And 18 I don't guess we have got public comments. Is Beth 19 here? Nobody had indicated public comments. 20 So what I would like to do is kind of 21 go through all four questions again, let's refresh 22 ourselves with the comments that have been made and 23 see if there's any edits we want to make to those, 24 and then go ahead and take some votes and see if we 25 can kind of lock these in. So go back to question 91 1 one. 2 DFO ANDA RAY: After that can we take 3 a look at voting on the guiding principles? We will 4 have those up. 5 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Sure. 6 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Tom, too, you 7 might want to look at question two because I think 8 what we ended up answering in question two was not 9 the question that question two proposed. We kind of 10 went into a different -- 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. It 12 sort of gets into the principles that they are trying 13 to get transmitted. 14 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: But not into 15 have we seen other ideas or anything like that and 16 so -- 17 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I tell you 18 what, let's take like a five-minute break, if we 19 could. I guess I was getting people telling me -- 20 let's take a five-minute break, a restroom break. 21 Realize that we have a pretty tight schedule. 22 (Brief recess.) 23 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: If we could 24 start gathering back together, please. What I would 25 like to do is Anda has worked with the staff to help 92 1 articulate some of these guiding principles that 2 become sort of the general criteria. We're going to 3 show those. 4 DFO ANDA RAY: Helen, we're needing 5 guiding principles up, if you can. Thanks. 6 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Is there 7 anything you want to say? 8 DFO ANDA RAY: Can you put them all -- 9 if you put them on the screen at once, I will need 10 Mitch, John, and Karl to tell me if you can see them, 11 and Mark. Okay. I was trying to get them all on 12 this at one time. 13 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Try and take the 14 scale back to about 120 or something. 15 DFO ANDA RAY: Increase the margins. 16 Sorry. Make the margins bigger and you've got it 17 all. There you go. 18 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. The 19 idea here is to look at these principles and let 20 those sort of be an overlaying layer to this concept 21 of our input on this issue, given the difficulty we 22 have wrestled with on looking at trying to prioritize 23 or identify enhanced elements. 24 DFO ANDA RAY: Why don't you start 25 with one and see if they have any comments and just 93 1 kind of -- 2 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: The idea 3 here is -- I guess I am trying to think procedurally 4 how best to proceed, but what I would throw out to 5 the Council for consideration is that we look at 6 these and look at them individually, but develop 7 these as principles to recommend to the staff for 8 consideration in the development of the draft NRP. 9 So what we will do is we will vote on 10 these principles as you may want to consider 11 modification, and then that would become essentially 12 a fifth question or fifth input into the process or 13 maybe we could say this is -- in lieu of some of the 14 details in question two, we will submit this. 15 So just looking at No. 1 there, 16 priority and programs that leverage partnerships with 17 others, utilizing their strength and capabilities, 18 i.e., tribal partnerships, integration with existing 19 state programs such as water planning monitoring, 20 advertising, et cetera. So a priority on programs 21 that leverage partnerships. 22 Any suggested word changes to that 23 concept? 24 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I know it's 25 just an example, but we list tribal and then we list 94 1 state. I don't know if there's another phrase you 2 can put in there that takes in states, local, 3 not-for-profits, you know, the whole broad spectrum 4 of organizations. 5 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Including 6 public private partnerships. 7 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Yeah. You are 8 free to look at any productive defensible 9 partnerships. You know, you've got your 10 not-for-profits, you have got Boys Club, a lot of 11 different -- individual farmers. There's just a lot 12 of opportunities. 13 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. 14 Other suggestions? 15 Kelly. 16 DR. KELLY TILLER: Can we also add 17 federal? One thing I noticed yesterday is when we 18 talked about these various -- we talked a whole lot 19 about state, TDEC, and things like that, but there 20 are federal -- like Natural Resource Conservation 21 Service. Just yesterday there was a farm service 22 agency announcement about a new conservation program, 23 cost share. So it's federal as well. 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. Good 25 point. And since this is an official -- I think we 95 1 have our quorum of 11 in here, what I would ask is 2 our standard thumbs up. If you agree or you're okay 3 with the wording in No. 1, just indicate with a thumb 4 up. If you have a question or a comment or a 5 concern, thumb down. 6 I see all thumbs up. Okay. 7 No. 2, managing the river comes with 8 the responsibility along with the TVA mandated 9 mission of stewardship to do a first-class job of 10 managing the water, shoreline, and natural resources. 11 That kind of goes along the lines of what Karl 12 suggested. 13 Any suggested edits? 14 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Just a question 15 or, I guess, a point more than anything else. First 16 class is going to mean different things to different 17 people. So I don't have a suggestion to fix it, but 18 it's just a cautionary statement. 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Given you 20 can't be flagship on everything. 21 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Successfully. 22 DR. KELLY TILLER: If I could, I 23 actually think it's okay because this is only one of 24 the principles and it goes with the others. So the 25 next one we're going to talk about is, you know, 96 1 looking at that return on investment and -- so, you 2 know, it recognizes that you can't be everything to 3 all people. So every single bullet doesn't have to 4 encompass that, but all taken together they do and it 5 might be okay. 6 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. All 7 votes? 8 All thumbs up. 9 Do I see a thumb down? 10 Okay. That's No. 2. 11 No. 3, continue to invest biggest 12 successes, public-use benefit, to garner public 13 support, i.e., bang for the buck. 14 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Tom. 15 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yes, sir. 16 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: I would like to 17 lose bang for the buck. You know, we're bright 18 people in the room. If we could say maximize the 19 return on investment or something instead, I could 20 get real happy with that, and we avoid the 21 sensitivities associated with the recent tragedy in 22 Tucson. Now, in that same vein, everybody can take 23 shots at that now. 24 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Ouch. 25 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. 97 1 Other comments? Ready to vote? 2 All votes. 3 I see none. 4 No. 4, the cost of all programs are 5 borne by ratepayers and must be balanced with TVA's 6 low cost. 7 DFO ANDA RAY: Keep going. 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Low cost 9 energy mission and economic development. 10 Any suggestions? 11 Hearing none, a vote. Thank you. 12 No. 5, where possible and appropriate 13 integrate and leverage programs with each other into 14 a portfolio, i.e., water quality reservoir 15 improvement, clean marinas, in other words, cross 16 program benefits. I think Deb has alluded to that 17 several times. 18 Any suggested edits? 19 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Why not put the 20 word cross-program benefits in there somewhere? 21 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I agree with 22 that, yeah. 23 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. 24 DFO ANDA RAY: So where possible and 25 appropriate, leverage cross-program benefits. 98 1 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Good 2 discussion. 3 Any other comments? 4 Okay. No. 5, vote. I do not see any 5 thumbs down. Thank you. 6 No. 6, recognizing some activities, 7 i.e., public outreach, data management, boundary 8 markings, et cetera, are part of a program 9 implementation and not stand-alone programs. 10 Any suggested edits? 11 Hearing none, a vote. 12 This means you did a very good job 13 capturing our sentiments. 14 No. 7. 15 DR. KELLY TILLER: Can we go back? 16 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Sure. 17 DR. KELLY TILLER: Could we consider 18 adding evaluation into that? I think that's part of 19 it, too. So public outreach, data management, 20 evaluation, boundary markings, just as another 21 example. 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And are you 23 referring to program evaluation or outreach? 24 DR. KELLY TILLER: Well, it's several 25 different kinds. I mean, it's just that you have to 99 1 occasionally stop and look where you are to know, and 2 that's one of those -- just part of the ultimate 3 program. 4 DFO ANDA RAY: Like program 5 evaluation, assessments, you are -- 6 DR. KELLY TILLER: Well, it can be 7 lots of different kinds of evaluations. 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. Any 9 other comments. 10 Okay. Call for a vote. Seeing none. 11 No. 8, I'm sorry, No. 7, TVA needs to 12 let the public know what is already done. Don't give 13 up the recognition. 14 Any suggestions on that point? 15 Could you say your name? 16 MR. JOHN MATNEY: Accomplishments. 17 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: What is 18 already done, what is already being accomplished, 19 accomplishments. Okay. Just delete that. Yeah. 20 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: I like that. 21 DFO ANDA RAY: This is the only one 22 that has TVA as the subject of the guiding principles 23 and is the only one that could potentially look like 24 it's self-serving as opposed to the public guiding 25 principles. Is there a way to say why this is 100 1 important to the public, not why it's important to 2 TVA? 3 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I mean, it's 4 creating awareness among the public of TVA's 5 accomplishments and activities and plans moving ahead 6 or something. 7 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I think it 8 informs the public of the activities TVA does that 9 are far beyond generating energy, and I think that's 10 really what the public needs to understand is there's 11 a set of responsibilities in this set of activities 12 that is associated some with responsibilities and 13 some just by being a good neighbor that TVA does all 14 the time that the ratepayer may not be aware of. 15 They may never go fishing. They may 16 never use boat ramps. They may never bird watch. 17 All they may think about TVA is when they flip on a 18 light switch. They need to understand that in the 19 Tennessee Valley, TVA is being a good steward in 20 natural resources. 21 I don't think that's self-serving to 22 inform the public of those activities. They may want 23 to become involved. It may make them change the way 24 they view the Valley. 25 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Well, it's great 101 1 to create that awareness, too, and to let the public 2 know that this Natural Resource Plan, the draft plan 3 that comes out, is just an expansion and a planning 4 document for things that are already ongoing and that 5 TVA's already doing in many cases. 6 DFO ANDA RAY: Can you capture area 7 awareness and inform the public of TVA's non-power? 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Go ahead, 9 Kelly. 10 DR. KELLY TILLER: I think consider 11 maybe deleting that last phrase. Don't give up the 12 recognition, I mean, that's more of an editorial 13 comment on what the bullet says. 14 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I agree. 15 Just delete that last segment. 16 Any other suggestions for No. 7? 17 I'd ask you to vote. Seeing none. 18 No. 8, look at the risks of doing/not 19 doing priority on protecting non-renewable resources, 20 i.e., cultural. 21 Any comments? 22 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Yeah, I 23 think -- I mean, I think it's very strong cultural, 24 very strong or perceived leadership roles. It's 25 public perception. It's potential for regulation 102 1 that might come down. I don't think whether you need 2 the other examples or not. 3 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Speak up 4 so Helen can hear you. 5 MS. HELEN RUCKER: You want to add 6 examples and which ones? 7 DFO ANDA RAY: It's up to you. It's 8 going to be a public document. 9 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I would add 10 some other examples. 11 MS. HELEN RUCKER: Threatened and 12 endangered species? 13 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: That's 14 probably a good one, yes. Priority on protecting 15 non-renewable resources, i.e., or, e.g., threatened 16 and endangered species, cultural. 17 Okay. Any other suggestions? 18 Russell. 19 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Tom, I might 20 just add look at risks of doing or not doing 21 stewardship activities or required stewardship 22 activities or additional stewardship activities, 23 however, so it just -- so we would know what we're 24 saying when we say doing or not doing. 25 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I guess I 103 1 would tend to stay away from required, but look at 2 the risks of not doing enhanced. 3 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Just 4 undertaking stewardship activities. 5 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Just 6 stewardship activities, I think that's fine. 7 DFO ANDA RAY: And Russell, do the 8 public understand that the -- cultural, what it 9 means? Is there -- are there other words? 10 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Archeological. 11 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Archeological, 12 historical resources, you know. 13 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I would put 14 historical resources. 15 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: But the public 16 doesn't also understand that those are non-renewable. 17 They think that -- they don't really think about 18 destroying context is destroying information. 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. Good 20 point. Okay. 21 Any other suggestions? 22 Okay. Pose a vote. Seeing no 23 opposition. 24 And the last, be clear and concise in 25 communicating the NRP with the public. Clarify 104 1 custodial, the valuation process. 2 I think we've made it clear the N/A 3 that's used has to be -- I would say don't use that 4 term. Clarify or explain. 5 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Drop the word 6 plan after P because we're communicating the Natural 7 Resource Plan plan with the public. 8 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: George is a 9 detail man. 10 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think 11 that's -- 12 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Let's go to 13 Kelly and then come back to Deb. 14 DR. KELLY TILLER: This may be 15 incorporated in clear and concise, but I think it's 16 also important that the public understands the 17 context for this, you know, what it is, what it's 18 supposed to do, how it's to be used. 19 So maybe that's part of being clear 20 and concise, but I think we might want to think about 21 adding in they understand the context for it and what 22 it is. 23 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: And what it is 24 and what it isn't, you know, that maybe goes down in 25 that parenthetical. 105 1 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yes, I am 2 trying to think of a way to elaborate the fact that 3 this is a living document. 4 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Be clear and 5 concise on communicating the NRP with the public, 6 including explaining the purpose of the plan and how 7 it would be used or the role of the plan or something 8 like that. 9 DFO ANDA RAY: If I could suggest that 10 may be a No. 10. That's really important that 11 you-all think it needs to be refreshed more than 12 looking at it 20 years from now, that's an important 13 recommendation from you. 14 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Let's try 15 this, Helen, No. 10. 16 MR. RON FUGATT: I was just going to 17 suggest, one of the things, and maybe this is not the 18 appropriate place for this, but since these are the 19 principles for this whole thing, it appears to me 20 this idea of allowing adequate public input or 21 comments or something along those lines is a 22 principle this Council would want to make sure they 23 include in their guiding principles. 24 MR. JOHN MATNEY: John Matney. Just a 25 question. If you are clarifying custodial, don't you 106 1 need to clarify flagship? 2 This is a fairly broad going from one 3 point to another point. 4 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. I 5 think we're kind of talking multiple -- let me make 6 sure. 7 No. 9, I think that's a good point. 8 Go ahead and clarify custodial with flagship. 9 Then No. 10 essentially represents the 10 importance of the public, the opportunity for public 11 comment and input. 12 DFO ANDA RAY: Hold on. I think it 13 was incorporate public comment. You had a timing 14 issue to allow sufficient time and opportunity for 15 public comment into the NRP. 16 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. And 17 then No. 11, just capture this, and then we will come 18 back and vote on it individually. Explain the 19 process and purpose of NRP, its limitations and 20 opportunities for reassessment. 21 DFO ANDA RAY: Refreshing. 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Maybe 23 refreshing is a better term. Okay. I don't think -- 24 has anybody else got any comments? 25 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Over here. 107 1 Mark. 2 MR. MARK HOMMRICH: Yeah. Just on No. 3 9, in terms of context, I don't know whether this is 4 fully captured anywhere else, we sort of alluded to 5 it in a couple of bullets, but just at the outset 6 maybe in an opening paragraph or introduction to this 7 plan I think it needs to be made clear because we 8 have said before I don't think a lot of people 9 understand that TVA has statutory obligations for a 10 lot of these programs and, you know, a lot of people 11 think that TVA is a power company. So I think we 12 need to make that clear. 13 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: John. 14 MR. JOHN WILBANKS: I think there 15 ought to be stand-alone regarding updates in the 16 plan. It's very important that this plan be updated 17 timely and in an appropriate manner when the 18 circumstances change, because circumstances will 19 change, and this needs to be a continuing review of 20 this. 21 I think that's a very important thing 22 to keep it -- we say it's a living document, to keep 23 it a living document. We don't want it dying on the 24 shelf and it needs to be continually monitored and 25 updated to keep it relevant. 108 1 DFO ANDA RAY: Under No. 11 I think 2 they are looking for the words living document. 3 MR. BILL TITTLE: In No. 10 I wanted 4 to suggest adding encourage public comment, but I 5 don't know how you can do that, encourage and 6 incorporate, and then the following part of that 7 sentence, that doesn't tie in, but it would be nice 8 to encourage appropriate comment. We definitely 9 would like to see that. 10 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I think you can 11 say that right before incorporate, encourage and 12 incorporate public comment. 13 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I think 14 that works. 15 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: And then just 16 say allowing sufficient time instead of to allow. 17 MR. MARK IVERSON: Does allow 18 sufficient time and opportunity need to be the first 19 part of that phrase? 20 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I'd put a comma 21 after NRP and just say allowing sufficient time and 22 opportunity to comment. 23 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Mark, does 24 that kind of get what you're trying to express? 25 MR. MARK IVERSON: It just seemed 109 1 awkward. 2 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. 3 Going back to No. 9, does anybody have any edits or 4 suggestions for No. 9? 5 I think No. 9, it sort of overlaps 6 with 11 in the sense that the context I think we were 7 referring to with the NRP was both the context of the 8 evaluation process and then the process of the NRP 9 and the fact that it's going to be a living document. 10 So I hope that communicated -- it appears to 11 communicate to me what we were discussing there. 12 Okay. No. 9, any suggestions? 13 Votes, all in favor signify. I see no 14 down thumbs. 15 Okay. No. 10, encourage and 16 incorporate public comment into the development of 17 the NRP allowing for sufficient time and opportunity 18 to comment. 19 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: What if you 20 change the first comment to input just to get rid of 21 the two comments? 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. 23 Yeah. Good edit. 24 Any others? 25 Okay. Vote on No. 10, seeing no 110 1 negatives. 2 No. 11, explain the purpose and 3 process of the NRP, its limitation and opportunities 4 for updates. I still like the refresh, I think that 5 conveys the -- 6 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: What about 7 reassessment? 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. 9 Reassessment, that's a good one. Its limitations and 10 opportunities are requirements for reassessment. 11 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: John, you said 12 that going back to that of whether these two should 13 be together or whether we need to ensure that the 14 public understands the purpose, process, and 15 utilization of the NRP, and then we have another one 16 that assures that it will be regularly reassessed, 17 refreshed at current intervals during the 20 years 18 because I think they are equally strong and they are 19 not really connected. Then we have an even dozen. 20 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Say that 21 again now. 22 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Then you have 23 an even dozen. I mean, I think you have got two 24 things here. You want to clearly explain the purpose 25 and the context, how it's going to be used, what it 111 1 is, and then you want to ensure that it will be 2 reviewed at regular intervals during the 20-year 3 lifespan or however you want to say that. 4 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Why don't we 5 change regular intervals to appropriate. 6 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Yeah. 7 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: You know, we may 8 have to modify the Natural Resource Plan in response 9 to an action by the EPA or Congress and, you know, we 10 don't want to be out of compliance because we're 11 locked into a plan document that's not relevant at 12 that point. 13 DFO ANDA RAY: Why don't you just say 14 review it no less than five years or sooner, if 15 appropriate. 16 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. At 17 appropriate intervals, but no less than five years, 18 something like that, or no more than five years. 19 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Bill 20 Tittle. 21 MR. BILL TITTLE: Would it be proper 22 to add review and revision, that you will add the 23 word revision, does that change the tone of that? 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: That's 25 fine. 112 1 DR. KELLY TILLER: Well, I like the 2 words living document that we had before which I 3 think imply that it would be -- you know, as 4 appropriate it would be updated. So if we can work 5 that in somehow, that might take care of it. 6 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: You could say 7 maintain NRP's role as a living document through 8 regular review as appropriate, something like that. 9 I think it's a good PR -- I think it's a good 10 educational comment. 11 DR. KELLY TILLER: If these are kind 12 of guiding principles, we can make declarative 13 statements. So maybe we just say the NRP is a living 14 document and as such should ensure, you know, a 15 review as appropriate or it -- I mean, that's kind of 16 back to the updates. 17 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: It's 18 simpler. 19 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Kelly is smart. 20 DFO ANDA RAY: Let's hold on. I know 21 you guys in the back typing are having a hard time. 22 Let's kind of start with Kelly's then that the NRP is 23 a living document. 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. Make 25 it two separate -- NRP is a living document, period. 113 1 Ensure a revision and review as appropriate, kind of 2 capture that. 3 DR. KELLY TILLER: Actually I think 4 it's review and revision. 5 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Or revise. 6 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: You can 7 delete NRP since we tied it to that first sentence. 8 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: It's not likely 9 that you could review and not revise. You could 10 review and assume that it's on time. So I'm just 11 hesitant to put out there that we will automatically 12 revise because it sets an expectation that -- 13 DFO ANDA RAY: Right. Right. Review 14 and revise as needed. Ensure review and revise or 15 ensure review, comma, and revise as needed at 16 appropriate intervals. Ensure review, comma, and 17 revise as needed. Take off after five years, the 18 phrase after five years, the last part of the 19 sentence. 20 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: No less than 21 five years or no more than five years. 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: The 23 intervals should be no more than five years, do it 24 within five years or less. 25 DR. KELLY TILLER: Another thing you 114 1 could say is at appropriate intervals not to exceed 2 five years. 3 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: That's 4 probably a better way to say it. 5 DFO ANDA RAY: You're right, she is 6 smart. 7 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Now, 8 hopefully I have kept track of this, I am not sure I 9 did, but I think we voted through 11. Although, we 10 have now modified 11. So maybe the idea is looking 11 at the new 11 and the new 12, taking the 11 first, 12 does anybody have any suggestions? 13 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Can I be 14 difficult? 15 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Sure. 16 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: That wasn't 17 necessary, George. 18 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: I was really 19 reacting to his sure. 20 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I like 11 a 21 lot. I am just wondering if by making 11 22 stand-alone, if you go up to 9 you really take along 23 with context because that's what you're saying in 11. 24 So what you're saying in 9 then is just how you 25 communicate clear and concise, to the point, straight 115 1 up, make sure that you're explaining the purpose of 2 the process. These aren't in a good flowing order. 3 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And you're 4 not being difficult, I think I agree with that. 5 Any other comments? 6 Kelly. 7 DR. KELLY TILLER: I think that some 8 of the things about, you know, what's statutory and 9 what's not, that's part of the context. So I don't 10 know about -- to me it might be important to leave 11 that in because that does say something a little bit 12 different. Although, it could be captured in being 13 clear, that's what being clear and concise is. 14 DFO ANDA RAY: I thought you were 15 saying combine 11 and 9. 16 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think they 17 need to be combined or they need to be totally 18 separate. I think 11 -- I think they are two 19 different things. 20 I think in 9 we were talking at great 21 length about custodial and flagship and what's 22 statutory. It's the methodology of communicating the 23 plan. 24 No. 11 is basically saying whether 25 it's at the beginning or throughout the plan. Make 116 1 sure the people understand totally what the purpose 2 of this plan is, how it will be used, what its 3 positives are, what its limitations are, you can do 4 that and still mess up No. 9 if you aren't consistent 5 or concise or clear. 6 I think Kelly is right, statutory goes 7 into both because in some of the things, I think, in 8 the programs we saw some statutory requirements mixed 9 in with them and then we saw others that weren't or I 10 was just being difficult. 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Given that, 12 Kelly. 13 DR. KELLY TILLER: I think this is 14 fine. 15 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I guess 16 procedurally we need to revote 9. Does anybody have 17 any objection to the rewording of No. 9? Indicate 18 with a thumbs up if you're okay with it. 19 No. 10, indicate with a thumbs up. 20 No. 11, thumbs up. 21 And then No. 12, any objections? 22 Okay. I see thumbs up. 23 John, you sort of had a thumbs up? 24 MR. JOHN WILBANKS: Yes. 25 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: But I am 117 1 looking at thumbs. 2 MR. JOHN WILBANKS: Yeah. 3 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Kelly. 4 DR. KELLY TILLER: Can I make one more 5 comment? 6 You know, I don't think when we were 7 doing these, these were in any ranked order. By 8 having the numbers, you know, it kind of sounds like 9 1 is more important and 2 is more important than 3. 10 If we just make this a bulleted list, you know, 11 unless we want to stay until tomorrow, and I don't 12 think we want to rank them. 13 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: No, I don't 14 think we want to rank them. 15 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: If we're doing 16 that, you'd maybe want to move 12 or some of those. 17 No, no, this is not important. 18 DFO ANDA RAY: I think I will try that 19 the next time I have a deposition. 20 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: You just found 21 it works. 22 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: It works. 23 Counsel had no additional questions. I'm done. 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: As Deb 25 alluded to, we have an even dozen guiding principles. 118 1 I think these to me are really helpful to me as I 2 wrestle with the complexity of the input that we have 3 been asked to provide. 4 So with that in mind, what I would 5 propose is kind of refresh ourselves back through 6 what we had proposed for the question responses, and 7 in light of these principles, look and see if there's 8 anything we want to change on what was captured for 9 the previous questions. 10 So if we could go back to question 1. 11 Do we want to say consider inclusion 12 of analysis of additional technical experts? 13 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Kelly. 14 DR. KELLY TILLER: I wonder if we want 15 the number 100 in there, you know, I think that was 16 just -- 17 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. 18 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Take that out. 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I'm sorry. 20 I didn't mean to -- on the question to -- 21 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Maybe instead 22 of 100 put statistically significant. 23 DR. KELLY TILLER: And just for 24 clarity, we may in that parenthetical just say, for 25 example, statistically significant number of water 119 1 resource specialist because it's not just water 2 resource, you know, it's broader than that. 3 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: So inside 4 the paren. 5 DR. KELLY TILLER: Inside. 6 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. 7 DR. KELLY TILLER: And I think it's a 8 statistically significant number of water resource 9 specialists. 10 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Just for 11 clarification, would that analysis be analyses? 12 DR. KELLY TILLER: Yes. 13 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: I think 14 Russell is alluding to more. 15 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Could we maybe 16 instead of analysis just include input of technical 17 experts instead of analysis? 18 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I don't -- what 19 I was concerned with is if we provide the weighting 20 analysis as it is, we don't have statistically 21 significant numbers to actually make it meaningful to 22 TVA management. So I think you kind of have to redo 23 these analyses or the particular analysis with the 24 appropriate experts and statistically significant 25 numbers of them if TVA truly intends to use it as a 120 1 tool, that's my suggestion, and that's what I meant 2 to convey. 3 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: No. 4 4 relates directly to the weighting exercise. 5 MR. MARK HOMMRICH: Yeah. 6 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Russell, do 7 you have any problem moving that? 8 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I don't. The 9 question is, what is -- are there areas of the 10 process that need to be strengthened, and I think 11 that analysis is one of the areas of the process that 12 needs to be strengthened. I don't really care where 13 we strengthen it, No. 1 or No. 4. 14 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. And 15 I guess No. 4 relates to our perspective of the 16 weighting. So maybe it's appropriate to leave it 17 here. 18 Any other comments relative to the 19 bullets on No. 1? 20 I would say the third bullet from the 21 bottom it should be consider, not past tense, staff 22 consider. 23 Any other suggestions for No. 1? 24 Okay. I will call for a vote. All 25 indicate with your thumb up if you're okay with these 121 1 bullets. 2 I don't see any thumbs down. Okay. 3 In light of No. 2 and the guiding 4 principles that we have established, let's look 5 through these bullets and see if we should modify. 6 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Tom, I don't 7 mean to distract, and this may be sufficient, there 8 are specific things I'm sure each one of us could 9 address and whether we want -- I mean, I'm sure we 10 don't have time to do it now. 11 Is there some way TVA would like us to 12 respond to particular program elements that we 13 thought were important or to prioritize particular 14 things or are we just going to kind of let those 15 guiding principles direct TVA? 16 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Go ahead. 17 DFO ANDA RAY: From a TVA perspective, 18 any comments you want to provide to us as individuals 19 would be considered as kind of input from the public. 20 What you're doing with this is saying that this is 21 the official FICA recommendation to TVA. So I would 22 assume these would -- if you want something to be 23 officially in the record, it needs to be up here, but 24 we take your comments at any time on individuals. 25 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: What I would 122 1 say would probably actually be best given to TVA 2 under tribal consultation, through channels of tribal 3 consultation. 4 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: The other 5 thing to ensure we all recognize, and for those of us 6 that are on the next Council, the sixth term, you, 7 know, the process will be that this document will be 8 distributed in draft and we will have an opportunity 9 to review that, and then at the next meeting you will 10 have a physical product in front of you to make 11 further comment and consideration of. So this is not 12 by any stretch the end of this process. 13 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: This is just a 14 process question because I am never really sure how 15 all of this gets used, publicized or whatever, but 16 there is obviously parts of this question that we are 17 just not answering. 18 Does that mean we need to acknowledge 19 that? Do we need to change the question or is it 20 okay that we just not -- I'm thinking about when it 21 gets out there in the public record and when people 22 look at it, I don't know, I mean, I don't have a 23 clue. 24 DFO ANDA RAY: It's up to you. 25 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I don't know. 123 1 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I guess 2 what I was thinking is in reference to that, in 3 looking at that bullet where we say the guiding 4 principles and make a reference to the guiding 5 principles as our recommendation for identifying 6 flagship programs, in other words, without 7 specifically -- it gets to an answer without 8 specifically answering. 9 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think that's 10 a good idea. Right now we're just ignoring half of 11 the question. 12 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: So the 13 bullet that's got an asterisk there probably needs to 14 be put at the top and then say, the Council endorses 15 the attached guiding principles, maybe something like 16 that. 17 MS. HELEN RUCKER: Can you repeat 18 that? 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. The 20 Council endorses the attached guiding principles as 21 the opening sentence for that. Endorses the attached 22 guiding principles and recommends they be used in 23 evaluating flagship program recommendations. I will 24 just throw something out there. 25 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Tom. 124 1 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yes, sir, 2 George. 3 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: There is very 4 little in those guiding principles that relates at 5 all to what might be flagship programs, just food for 6 thought there. 7 I mean, the guiding principles speak 8 more to the holistic Natural Resource Plan than they 9 do to what elements of the NRP might be upgraded to 10 flagship status. So I just didn't want us to toss 11 around stuff that maybe wasn't addressed out there. 12 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Should we leave 13 out the word flagship? 14 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I guess my 15 thought was, you know, what we have done is said 16 we're wrestling with this idea of how we prioritize 17 specific elements within each of these four broad 18 categories and we have essentially said we're -- we 19 don't really feel comfortable in doing that, but in 20 looking at the staff can you prioritize the flagship 21 options and emphasize some of the areas that are 22 expressed in the principles, for example, 23 partnerships and risks and investment areas. So I do 24 think we try to get to it. We just don't specify the 25 specific elements that may be included in that. 125 1 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Particularly if 2 you base it on the assumption that custodial programs 3 are things that will be done period. 4 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Kelly. 5 DR. KELLY TILLER: My comment was a 6 little bit different. So backing up. Right now it 7 says the Council endorses. I wonder if we could say, 8 the Council created and endorses because, otherwise, 9 it kind of sounds like we just read something and 10 said, yeah, that was a good idea. 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Or adopts. 12 DR. KELLY TILLER: Yeah. 13 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Created is 14 fine. 15 DR. KELLY TILLER: Adopts is fine, 16 that encompasses it. 17 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Anda. 18 DFO ANDA RAY: Just a clarification, 19 the question said are there flagship ideas, remember 20 that flagship is the gold standard, the top of the 21 line, and there is something in between the top of 22 the line in custodial, which we didn't discuss 23 because what we're trying to get from you is a 24 direction should we do something more than custodial. 25 So when we are asking, are there 126 1 flagship ideas, it means, did we describe the top of 2 the line appropriately? Is there something we're 3 leaving out? 4 So you really didn't answer that 5 question, and I'm not saying that you should try to 6 answer it now. So don't artificially put in the word 7 flagship if that's not what we actually discussed is 8 probably a recommendation to you-all. 9 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Just a 10 question back to George's comment about taking out 11 flagship, Anda, are you -- George, do you still have 12 that thought about leaving that in or taking that 13 out? 14 DFO ANDA RAY: I think what Tom -- and 15 excuse me. Tom, what you were trying to say is to 16 use the guiding principles to evaluate your program 17 prioritization? 18 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. 19 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: I like that. I 20 am very good with that. 21 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: All right. 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Evaluating 23 program prioritization. Delete that whole section. 24 I think you could delete the next sentence entirely. 25 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Tom, I'm going 127 1 to be difficult again. To me what the guiding 2 principles did were help evaluate program 3 prioritization, but they also provided a lot of input 4 on how the plan should be communicated, presented, 5 and laid out. So it might be a little bit broader 6 than just program prioritization. 7 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: How about 8 NRP process, is that adequate, to evaluate program 9 prioritization and NRP process? 10 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Process, 11 communication, whatever. 12 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Kelly. 13 DR. KELLY TILLER: So I think I may be 14 misunderstanding something here too because, you 15 know, what really is the question? 16 To me, if I look at the question, are 17 the program options appropriate, comprehensive, and 18 easily understood, and we talked about that and said, 19 basically, yes, they are, given all the complexities. 20 Then the second part, I don't think it 21 asks us to evaluate which ones should be flagship. 22 What it says is, are there flagship ideas you have 23 seen elsewhere that TVA should consider 24 incorporating? So what it really says is, did we 25 miss something? 128 1 What TVA said is, here are the 2 flagship options, was there something missing or do 3 we know some best practices or examples that should 4 be added to the list? 5 I think that's what the question said 6 to me, and it actually did not say rank and 7 prioritize and tell us which flagships are most 8 important. 9 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Can I just 10 ask this question just to -- if you're silent on that 11 response, then that's an answer, right? Is that an 12 answer? If you don't add any flagship items, is that 13 an answer? 14 DR. KELLY TILLER: Then basically what 15 we have said is the program options are 16 comprehensive. 17 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Yes. 18 Which is the answer. 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And what I 20 have tried to do relative to that subject was look 21 back over yesterday and see if somebody brought 22 something up when we talked about specific programs, 23 and I could not recall where there was an idea 24 expressed that sort of expanded that flagship or sort 25 of answered that specific issue, but certainly if 129 1 somebody else has a recollection to ensure that it 2 gets included in the official minutes here. 3 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I can't 4 remember any. I do remember Russell saying, for 5 example, that he could look at some of the programs 6 and maybe have some other ideas. 7 So maybe we could just add a bullet 8 that encourages individuals and external parties to 9 submit additional flagship programs and ideas as they 10 see appropriate or something because, I mean, I think 11 many of us -- I couldn't sit here and vote on one and 12 know that another idea is good, but from each of our 13 own perspectives we might know of something that we 14 could communicate directly in. 15 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: How do we 16 get that thought expressed? 17 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Or I just mean 18 that we add the question and lose that last half of 19 it and then we don't have to talk about it. 20 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Russell. 21 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: To that effect, 22 Deb, what I think I will do is I will offer to TVA 23 through tribal consultation with the other tribes the 24 idea that a couple of the resource -- the cultural 25 resource flagship issues should be prioritized one 130 1 way or another and that there may be an issue about 2 law enforcement partnerships, that they haven't 3 considered maybe partnering with tribal law 4 enforcement, having tribal law enforcement interns 5 come and work shifts for TVA, something like that, 6 which would be kind of a flagship program within 7 cultural resources that hasn't been considered, but I 8 don't think it's up to this board to do that. That's 9 not the place I would do that. 10 So I am comfortable submitting some of 11 my ideas through a different channel. I think what 12 we have provided TVA as the Council is good, is 13 pretty good on question 2. 14 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: So should 15 we say -- just to amplify what Deb said, should we 16 make a bullet in terms of encouraging flagship idea 17 contributions or something? That's kind of the gist 18 of what you were saying, isn't it, Deb? 19 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Yeah. I guess 20 it goes back to my original question, if we don't 21 answer that part do we leave a conclusion like Kelly 22 says that says there's no more because we didn't have 23 anything to add? Can we just choose to ignore part 24 of the question? 25 I don't know getting into the legal 131 1 and formal record what the message is if we do or 2 don't deal with that part of it. 3 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And if we 4 deal with it by saying the public process should 5 encourage opportunities for flagship ideas, is -- 6 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Identification 7 of other flagship programs or something. 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Just make 9 that a new bullet underneath that, the public process 10 should -- the public input process should encourage 11 contribution of flagship idea concepts. The public 12 process should encourage flagship idea concepts, 13 flagship initiative concepts, does that kind of 14 express that well? 15 Kelly. 16 DR. KELLY TILLER: I am still not 17 exactly sure how this advice is used, but the way it 18 is right now biological resources at higher than 19 custodial level, that's the very first thing, and 20 it's above our comment about guiding principles. And 21 we talked certainly about a lot of things, including 22 that, but I would maybe recommend that we just move 23 that down so it's kind of more in -- 24 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I actually 25 think we put that up there as a category to start 132 1 going down and then we left that quickly. 2 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Do we need 3 it in there? Can we delete it? Does anybody have 4 any objection to deleting that because I think 5 that's -- it was put in as a lead-in for discussion? 6 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: We were going 7 to start talking about biological resources. 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: So I'm 9 going to propose that we delete that first indented 10 bullet. 11 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I didn't want 12 to lose that second sentence, the one about the 13 principles, where we say these principles -- 14 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yes, I 15 think we can. So delete the biological resources 16 bullet, and then delete the second sentence in that 17 bullet since I think we captured that more in the 18 guidelines. Maybe the public input process should 19 encourage submission of flagship ideas. 20 In terms of the third bullet, didn't 21 we capture that in the guidelines when we talked 22 about cross-program benefits? So can we delete that 23 bullet? 24 Consider presenting integrated 25 programs, delete that bullet. I am kind of going 133 1 fast here. If you have a concern or comment, please 2 jump in here. I think that's -- the next one, I 3 think, is still appropriate. Yeah. 4 The next bullet, identify programs 5 with multiple resource benefits, again, we have 6 referenced that in the guidelines, but I am not sure 7 there's any reason to delete it. 8 The next bullet, data and collection 9 activities, I think that's still a -- I think it was 10 Jeff's comment again that those are all 11 implementation concepts. I am just reading through 12 these next bullets and so if you have got a 13 comment -- 14 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Tom, do we need 15 the multiple resource benefits as guiding principles? 16 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And the 17 risk assessment, yeah, I think we can delete that. I 18 think that's a good point. 19 Any concern with that? 20 Okay. Beth, the multiple resource 21 benefits bullet? 22 MS. BETH KEEL: Yes, sir. 23 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Can we 24 delete that? 25 We captured the risk discussion. 134 1 Identify where we can get the most benefit in 2 implementation, I think that's the investment idea 3 that was also expressed -- 4 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: That's in the 5 principles. 6 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: -- in the 7 principles. So can we delete that? 8 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: I think so. 9 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I think so. 10 So can we delete -- yeah, there we go. 11 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Gone. Tom, on 12 down, I think that identify partners thing is pretty 13 well addressed in the -- 14 MR. RON FUGATT: I am Ron Fugatt. If 15 this document goes out to the public, the only thing 16 they are going to read is that you're going to 17 increase fees the way that's written. I think I was 18 the one that said, you know, I believe that people 19 should pay for what they use, but I think we're going 20 to have to put some wording in there where 21 appropriate or something because all that's going to 22 be read into that is this Council recommended that 23 TVA start charging a fee for everything. 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: John, can 25 you speak up? 135 1 MR. JOHN WILBANKS: I think I remember 2 what you said. You said as an example that the guys 3 out boating is probably a TVA ratepayer anyway and so 4 he's paying for that activity indirectly. 5 MR. RON FUGATT: I think George 6 brought up that there are some distributors that are 7 not next to the river, like most all the rest of them 8 are, and there may be some -- of course, there's 9 people coming from out of state also, but I think 10 that, you know, considering, you know, fees where 11 appropriate or something may be an appropriate thing 12 to say, but the way it's worded right there, that's 13 all we would hear is this Council recommends that TVA 14 charge everybody to use the river. 15 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: And your phone 16 would be ringing. 17 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Yeah. 18 Eliminate that second sentence. 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: As you 20 talked about, the next bullet we have kind of 21 captured the guidelines. Does anybody have any 22 problem eliminating that identify partners bullet? 23 Okay. The next bullet, need more 24 time, detailed information, including costs, to 25 provide better recommendations for the staff, I'm 136 1 not -- well, I will see, what is the wishes of the 2 Council here? 3 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I thought that 4 was our comment about what we needed to be able to 5 find recommendations, and we decided not to provide 6 them. 7 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I agree. 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I think we 9 can delete that. 10 Kelly, did you -- 11 DR. KELLY TILLER: Yeah. Before we 12 delete it, oops, I was just going to say -- back to 13 the question. 14 The question is, are these program 15 options appropriate, comprehensive, and easily 16 understood? 17 So the Council is saying we don't have 18 all of -- you know, we can't fully address that 19 question because, you know, we don't have all -- 20 everything we need to be able to do that. So I think 21 it may be appropriate as part of the Council's 22 statement to just recognize publicly that we can't 23 make -- we can't do a better job at this, given the 24 limited time and information that we have. 25 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. Can 137 1 you just hit undo and take us back? 2 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Building on 3 what you're saying, Kelly, you have got to be real 4 careful that we talk about what was available to us 5 in this meeting versus what TVA comprehensively has 6 because we did not see the whole ENTRIX study, for 7 example, program-by-program, staff will, right? 8 MR. RANDY MCADAMS: Correct. 9 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Kelly, can 10 I ask a question here. In terms of the program 11 options, are we talking about those 65 options that 12 were presented? 13 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Uh-huh. 14 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: I think 15 it's -- are we answering that question anywhere there 16 that, in general, does the Council think that those 17 items or those options are appropriate, 18 comprehensive, and easily -- it's not complete at 19 this point, but in general can we get an answer in 20 there on that question? 21 DR. KELLY TILLER: So I would suggest 22 that given the information we had and the, you know, 23 natural limitations of this body's ability to assess 24 that, then yes. 25 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Okay. 138 1 DR. KELLY TILLER: But I mean, that's 2 my -- 3 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: With a 4 modifier on the front of it? 5 DR. KELLY TILLER: Yeah. You need to 6 put it into the setting. 7 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: So given 8 the limitations of time and information. 9 DR. KELLY TILLER: You can even leave 10 in the parenthetical including costs because that was 11 kind of a big missing component. 12 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Because of this 13 we did the principles, not the recommendations. 14 DFO ANDA RAY: Right. 15 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Should this 16 become a statement under why we created the 17 principles instead of a stand-alone thing down here? 18 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Can we 19 complete this because I think that would be helpful? 20 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Council 21 concurs or agrees with the program options presented. 22 DR. KELLY TILLER: Perhaps we say that 23 we agree with the program options presented or 24 developed by the staff. 25 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. 139 1 Delete the rest of that sentence. I would say, as 2 Deb talked about, consider moving that up either 3 underneath the first one or right below it. 4 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I would leave 5 it there, the way it's worded. 6 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. So 7 make that the second bullet. Okay. 8 Then the last one, I think we have 9 talked about that. If there's not a problem, I don't 10 see leaving that in there. 11 So the question would be, are there 12 any other suggestions for inclusion in the response 13 to this question? 14 Thank you for that. I guess let's 15 take a vote. We didn't vote on this, did we? 16 MS. KELLY LOVE: Mr. Chairman, we 17 don't have a quorum at the moment. 18 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Oh. Then 19 we will hold off. 20 Kelly, did you have something you 21 wanted to add? 22 DR. KELLY TILLER: Well, I just wanted 23 to ask, I guess, whether we -- that very last one, 24 rename custodial and flagship, was that encompassed 25 in the guiding principles where we talked about 140 1 clarifying that or do we need to make sure that's 2 separate and called out here? 3 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I will 4 defer to others. I think you can do it either way. 5 Is there a strong sentiment? 6 I think we did address it in the 7 guidelines. I mean, maybe we need to be sensitive to 8 being redundant with the guidelines in these sort of 9 general bullets. 10 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: While we're 11 waiting on a quorum, this might be the appropriate 12 time to ask if it should go on public record that I 13 like magnets and I think we should have more stuff on 14 magnets because they are pretty fun. 15 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: George found 16 out that it wiped out his key in a minute. 17 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Pens versus 18 magnet. 19 DFO ANDA RAY: She's writing all of 20 this down. 21 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yes, I 22 know. 23 DFO ANDA RAY: Can we go off the 24 record a minute? 25 (Brief recess.) 141 1 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: I am all the way 2 in. 3 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: We're voting. 4 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: So going 5 back to question 2, now that we have a quorum, I am 6 seeing 11 thumbs. So we're voting on question 2. We 7 have our consensus agreement. 8 Now we will go to 3 and talk about the 9 responses. This relates to the valuation process 10 that ENTRIX performed for TVA. I will just open it 11 up in general to whether you have specific comments 12 on either bullet or wish to add a bullet? 13 MR. MARK HOMMRICH: The first bullet, 14 should we take out awkward and put inconsistent? 15 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Yes. 16 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. 17 Inconsistent, change awkward to inconsistent. 18 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: And I might add 19 to the end of that, if we don't capture it someplace 20 else, something like some programs do not, comma, and 21 this could create bias in the decision-making 22 process. 23 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: So a comma 24 at the end of that sentence. We will just get the 25 thought down and then we will talk about the wording. 142 1 A comma at the end of that sentence that this could 2 create bias in a decision-making process, is that the 3 gist of this? 4 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Yes. 5 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Now, 6 specifically does anybody want to adjust that 7 wording? Okay. 8 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Tom, could 9 we take one step back up to the question that I think 10 Randy had given us earlier to clarify that it's a new 11 question, however we want to word that, a new 12 revision, new question, and then clarify that 13 question that we're using here. 14 Is that okay? 15 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Sure. 16 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Russell, the 17 comment that you just added, is that going to imply 18 that we're trying to either force a dollar value on 19 everything or do we want a recognition that some 20 programs have dollar values and some don't and in the 21 evaluation process they have to be looked at 22 differently? 23 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Yes, Deborah, 24 that was my original thinking was that if this 25 information is passed upstairs and some things have a 143 1 dollar value assigned and others either do not or 2 have costs, then there could be a bias created in the 3 decision-making where the things with the benefit or 4 a dollar-value benefit are the things that get 5 favored, and we want to avoid that. 6 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yeah. I'm 7 trying to think how we capture that thought, and I 8 guess one thought here is go to a new second bullet 9 and say something like, the Council recognizes -- and 10 it's really capturing that thought, that some 11 programs can be evaluated with economic analysis or 12 on a dollar basis and some cannot and that the 13 evaluation processes should be adjusted or should 14 incorporate this difference. 15 MR. BILL TITTLE: Could we add the 16 word where appropriate when you're talking about cost 17 benefit analysis? Would that help solve Russell's 18 concern? 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: In terms of 20 eliminating a potential new bullet and modifying the 21 first bullet, is that what you're suggesting? 22 Let me capture the words here. So on 23 the second bullet say, the Council recognizes that 24 some programs can be evaluated on an economic basis 25 while others cannot and that decision processes 144 1 should be adjusted accordingly, I will just throw 2 that out for discussion. 3 MR. BILL TITTLE: Without bias. 4 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Tom. 5 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Russell. 6 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I think in 7 light of some of the other bullets that follow that 8 that -- that the total picture can be gleaned or 9 attained. 10 I think one of the things that goes 11 hand-in-hand with that is the point that John made 12 about the assumptions made and, you know, we're 13 saying that some things can be assigned a dollar 14 value and some things can't be. 15 I think this Council should recognize 16 that in some cases we can assign a $10 walking value 17 or a $10 value to an hour spent walking a trail per 18 pen or whatever, but that in itself we're making 19 assumptions, the ambiguous assumptions, and we may 20 not all agree with the dollar amounts assigned. 21 So I think when you kind of add these 22 up, it kind of says that we have got some serious 23 concerns about the way dollar values have been 24 assigned and the way this evaluation will be 25 presented to the TVA leadership, and all of those 145 1 kinds of issues I think are summed up there. 2 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Can we 3 capture that thought in the fourth bullet down where 4 we talk about the assumption process to something 5 like, the Council understands the significance of 6 methodologies and assumptions used in making the 7 economic analysis or conducting the economic 8 analysis? 9 And I'm trying to think how we provide 10 an input relative to that thought. Essentially it 11 captures we're aware that the economic analysis is 12 significantly dependent upon those assumptions and so 13 they are critical in looking at those dollar value 14 estimates. 15 So this was not really -- I guess the 16 bullet would not be just geared towards the 17 presentation, it's the broader concept of the 18 economic valuation. 19 Could you say, the Council is 20 concerned about the broad assumptions and 21 methodologies used with regards to the economic 22 valuation? 23 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: I like that. 24 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Does that 25 get us there? 146 1 So that statement would be a -- under 2 concern about oversimplification is, the Council is 3 concerned about the broad methodologies and 4 assumptions used in making the economic -- 5 methodologies and assumptions used in making the 6 economic valuations, and then delete the rest of that 7 and I will throw that out for consideration. 8 Hearing none, we will kind of move on. 9 Do we need the next bullet? 10 DR. KELLY TILLER: Tom. 11 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yes. I'm 12 sorry. 13 DR. KELLY TILLER: Part of I think the 14 answer to that question is a -- I am still not sure I 15 am totally clear how -- whatever this document is, 16 how it gets used. 17 So if the only way that that would be 18 captured is up in the top it says, revise, new 19 revision, then I don't think that really captures -- 20 just because it's been changed doesn't capture why it 21 was changed. 22 So if -- depending on how it's used, I 23 would suggest maybe keeping it because I think it 24 explains why it's been revised. But if that's not 25 how the document is used, then that's, you know, a 147 1 different question. 2 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: So maybe 3 change this question to the original question, 4 assuming we will explain in the final product the 5 original and a revised question? 6 DR. KELLY TILLER: No. I think -- all 7 I'm saying is if you delete that bullet point, then 8 it's not really reflected in this official public 9 record here why it was we revised it because it 10 wasn't appropriate for this group to be -- you know, 11 we're not a body -- we didn't have all the 12 information to do it. 13 So I would say just for completeness 14 to leave it in because it does explain why it is you 15 wound up with a different -- asking a different 16 question. 17 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. 18 That's a good point. 19 Any other comments? 20 You were talking about the -- are you 21 talking about whether reasserting it or the next 22 bullet? 23 DR. KELLY TILLER: No, I was actually 24 down. 25 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: So we can 148 1 continue with the deletion of the end of that bullet. 2 We are -- our discussion was relative to the next 3 bullet. I think Kelly's point was, given the nature 4 of changing the question, we can leave that in. 5 And maybe change it to suggested the 6 rewording, make that past tense since we did, in 7 fact, reword the question and provided a new answer. 8 I think we could delete that portion of the sentence. 9 Okay. The next bullet, does the 10 clarification -- does the evaluation study provide 11 clarity to the NRP process? I don't think we ought 12 to answer a question with a question. So I would be 13 open to -- does anybody feel strongly we ought to 14 include this? 15 So I am going to propose we delete it. 16 Hearing none. 17 Okay. The next one, the valuation 18 study needs to be kept in context and needs to be 19 kept in context with other parts of the process, 20 comments on this? 21 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: Keep it in. 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Keep it in. 23 Okay. The next bullet suggests 24 revised question, how the -- I think we can delete 25 that since we have revised the question already. 149 1 I am thinking that last bullet we have 2 answered in the new second bullet. Although, the 3 first part there about how it's used in the decision 4 process needs to be -- I think we need to reword the 5 first part of that sentence and keep that in and then 6 delete the rest of it. 7 So something to the effect of, the 8 communication process should clarify or explain the 9 role or the communication process should explain the 10 role of the valuation and how it's used in the 11 decision process, then maybe a period. 12 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: That's good. 13 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. Then 14 delete the rest of that since we carried that on. 15 MS. HELEN RUCKER: Do you want all of 16 it deleted? 17 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yes. We 18 have got some language up top about the assumption 19 issue. 20 Okay. Given that, does anybody have 21 anything they want to add to question 3? 22 Hearing none, I will call for a vote 23 on that input. Seeing no down thumbs, we have 24 adopted that. 25 Question 4, this relates to the 150 1 weighting exercise. I will let everybody read those 2 bullets and kind of open it up for any comments or 3 edits. 4 Any comments or suggestions? 5 For the purposes of discussion, I will 6 throw the last one out and say, did we capture that 7 adequately in the guidelines or do we need to include 8 it again here? 9 Russell. 10 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: My feeling is 11 it deals specifically with question 4 in this, you 12 know, not just an overarching response to 13 non-renewable resources, but this speaks specifically 14 to the test that we did, the analysis that we did. 15 So I feel it should stay in here. 16 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. 17 Other comments? 18 MS. HELEN RUCKER: During the earlier 19 discussion of this group it was said we need to keep 20 the river, do we need to add that? 21 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Karl, I 22 guess, does this reflect the comments that you made 23 relative to the recognition of the role of the river 24 and TVA's stewardship role? Are you okay with these 25 words? 151 1 I thought it sort of captured the 2 sentiment you expressed. 3 DR. KELLY TILLER: Tom. 4 MR. KARL DUDLEY: Go ahead, Kelly. 5 DR. KELLY TILLER: One thing I thought 6 I heard you say is that the real value is the 7 production of electricity and the river is central to 8 that. 9 MR. KARL DUDLEY: Absolutely. 10 DR. KELLY TILLER: So I wonder if we 11 might want to just insert that. 12 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. The 13 real value is the production of electricity and the 14 role -- 15 DR. KELLY TILLER: And the river is 16 central. 17 MR. KARL DUDLEY: The control of the 18 river is central to that. 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: And the 20 control of the river is central to that. Then do 21 we -- 22 MR. KARL DUDLEY: I don't know if we 23 need to leave the first-class part in there. 24 What do y'all think of this? 25 There's got to be a way of saying this 152 1 without specifying the quality of the product. I 2 don't know. 3 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Kelly. 4 DR. KELLY TILLER: One thought is, 5 yeah, I agree, I don't have a suggestion. I 6 recognize the issue. 7 In the guiding principles, if you take 8 all of those together, you know, you can't be 9 first-class in everything because it's too expensive. 10 So by having those it might give enough -- you know, 11 you're saying it's important and then -- but you have 12 got to consider everything together as another piece 13 of it. 14 So perhaps it's okay to leave it 15 because we have already said we have got to take 16 everything else into consideration. 17 MR. KARL DUDLEY: So we can possibly 18 delete that second sentence then, I guess, in that 19 statement. 20 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I would leave 21 it. 22 MR. KARL DUDLEY: Huh? 23 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I would leave 24 it. 25 MR. KARL DUDLEY: Okay. 153 1 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Okay. Can 2 you delete the second T-O, to, in the last sentence? 3 MRS. DEBORAH WOOLLEY: I think if 4 we're playing with the word first class, I think in 5 the first usage it's very defensible. I think in the 6 second it sets a standard that everybody will define 7 differently. So there's got to be some sort of 8 synonym or high quality or high-quality facilities 9 for the public to use or something like that. 10 MR. KARL DUDLEY: My thought was is 11 that we will lose the control of river through 12 politics if we don't do a good job of maintaining all 13 of the responsibilities of the river, including all 14 of those things that come with it, and I don't know 15 how you say that. 16 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Mark. 17 MR. MARK HOMMRICH: Yeah. I guess 18 could you amplify what you mean by control because, I 19 guess, when I see that I think of control of the flow 20 of the river which is outside the realm of what we're 21 doing here, that's in the ROS. So would protection 22 be a more appropriate word there or does that -- 23 DFO ANDA RAY: If I can -- 24 MR. MARK HOMMRICH: I mean, it kind of 25 elevates electricity too, and there's multiple 154 1 benefits of the river, including flood control and 2 navigation. 3 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Anda. 4 DFO ANDA RAY: I think what Karl may 5 be referring to is that there have been times in 6 TVA's history where the control of integrating the 7 river for navigation, flood control, and recreation 8 was looking to be turned over to the Corps because 9 they could manage the entire integrated 10 performance -- could they -- let me -- could they 11 manage it better than TVA, all of the shoreline? 12 I think what Karl is saying that if 13 you don't do the responsibility part, they may go 14 ahead and take that and the control part and now in 15 total it does definitely affect the Valley's power 16 rates. So he is talking control. 17 MR. RUSSELL TOWNSEND: Okay. 18 MR. BILL TITTLE: I'm afraid of -- 19 Anda, I'm afraid to say what I was going to say. No, 20 I am teasing. I was going to suggest possibly the -- 21 substitute the word management for control, but that 22 may soften it too much, Anda, from what you just 23 said. If you like control and Karl likes it, we 24 probably ought to leave it in there. 25 DFO ANDA RAY: It's called integrated 155 1 river management. Not my decision. 2 FACILITATOR WILSON TAYLOR: Would 3 responsibility be a compromised word, responsibility 4 for the river? Is that too weak? 5 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I think 6 it's okay the way it reads personally. 7 MR. BILL TITTLE: Okay. 8 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I am open 9 to -- if there's a consensus to change it, but I 10 think it transmits that theme that we're -- I feel 11 like we're trying to express. 12 Okay. I guess with that I will just 13 say, is there any edits or changes to any of these 14 bullets that anybody would propose? 15 With that, I will call for a question 16 or for everybody to vote on question 4. Indicate 17 with your thumb up. 18 MS. KELLY LOVE: Mr. Chairman. 19 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Yes. 20 MS. KELLY LOVE: We're lacking a 21 quorum. 22 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Who left? 23 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Deb. Not my 24 fault this time. 25 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: I think we 156 1 have re-established our quorum, is that right? 2 So the answer to question 4, please 3 indicate with voting with your thumb up. 4 For the purposes of procedural 5 compliance, let's go back to question 2 because I am 6 not sure we did this with a quorum. So given the 7 summary of bullets on question 2, can you scroll back 8 up to the question 2 bullets? 9 DFO ANDA RAY: You did. 10 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Did we 11 vote? 12 DFO ANDA RAY: He came back in. 13 MR. GEORGE KITCHENS: Yes, we did. 14 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Then I 15 stand corrected. We, therefore, have submitted an 16 adoption. 17 Does anybody have any suggested 18 comments or general inputs they would like to make in 19 terms of our recorded response? 20 With that, I thank you very much for 21 what has been a very informative and in-depth 22 process. This has been very fruitful, I hope. I 23 hope, I will say that. 24 I guess with regards to that, what 25 remains for us as we get ready to depart is 157 1 essentially trying to set the parameters for the next 2 meeting. We're looking at April the 27th and 28th, 3 which is a Wednesday and Thursday, for those of you 4 that are on the sixth term. 5 Beth will be making the logistical 6 arrangements, but the staff has asked that we mark 7 those on our calendars and, if possible, indicate 8 your ability to comply with that. 9 As we have talked about, there will be 10 a focus on looking at the draft NRP document that 11 will have been distributed by then and further 12 opportunities to comment on both the documents and 13 the public response to the documents, the plan and 14 EIS. 15 I guess with that, I will turn it back 16 to you to see if there's any comments you want to 17 make as we prepare to adjourn. 18 DFO ANDA RAY: Well, even though we 19 didn't get exactly what we wanted, which was a 20 prioritization, I think what you helped us to do was 21 clarify what we were asking for may not have been 22 given -- that you have not been given all the 23 information. 24 But getting the guiding principles, I 25 think there will be a lot of mileage out of those, 158 1 and that's a lot for a group of this size to 2 accomplish in a couple of days. We thank you for 3 your patience. 4 What will happen next is we will 5 provide more details so that you will have that. You 6 will probably get that in the mail. You will also 7 get a copy of the draft NRP when that -- depending on 8 what the timing is for all of that when it goes out. 9 The next time we meet I think we will 10 end up reviewing with you the public comments and 11 doing some refining and making sure we answer any of 12 your other comments, but you will get more from us 13 than you have in the past between this meeting and 14 the next meeting because you are a stakeholder group 15 and we need a little more input. We recognize that 16 individually those will be individual public 17 comments, but we still value that. 18 So with that, I think you're going to 19 talk about the schedule for the next meeting. 20 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Well, we 21 had proposed the dates and I threw those out and 22 asked everybody to let Beth know if you have a 23 conflict with that. 24 There's lunch, I guess. 25 Where is Beth? 159 1 MS. BETH KEEL: Here. 2 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: Is it 3 available and ready to go? 4 MS. BETH KEEL: It's right out there, 5 box lunches to go for those who want to take off. If 6 you would like to eat it, the room is also available 7 for lunch. 8 DFO ANDA RAY: So be safe, drive 9 carefully, get over the mountains before the snow. 10 MS. BETH KEEL: Leave me your gold 11 badge. 12 CHAIR MR. TOM LITTLEPAGE: With that, 13 I think we're adjourned. 14 END OF MEETING 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 160 1 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 STATE OF TENNESSEE 4 5 I, Kimberly J. Nixon, RPR, the officer before whom the foregoing meeting was taken, do 6 hereby certify that the foregoing transcript was taken by me in machine shorthand, and thereafter 7 reduced to typewriting by me; 8 That the transcript is true and accurate and that the transcript was prepared under my 9 supervision, and attached to this certificate is a true, accurate, and complete transcript, as provided 10 by law; 11 That I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this action; 12 and I further certify that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the 13 parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action; and that 14 the foregoing transcript is complete and accurate in all particulars, as provided by law. 15 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my 16 hand this______day of___________________, 2011. 17 18 19 _______________________________ 20 KIMBERLY J. NIXON, RPR MY NOTARY EXPIRES 4/18/2012. 21 22 23 24 25