|
|
Memo on FCRPS action agencies? proposals regarding mainstem operations
and system configuration in 2003: procedure and timing for Council review,
categories of information relevant to review of the proposals
December 12, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council Members, FCRPS Action Agency Representatives and
Other Interested Persons and Entities
FROM: John Shurts
Introduction
The Federal Columbia River Power System action agencies (Bonneville,
the Corps and Reclamation) have asked the region to consider a set of
changes to hydro operations for 2003 and to consider accelerating the
schedule for certain system configuration changes. The Council is
planning a public review of these proposals early in 2003, and may make
recommendations to the action agencies following that review. The
purpose of this memorandum is to outline the proposals, describe the
procedure and timing for the Council's review, and outline the kinds of
information about the proposals that the Council staff requests the action
agencies to provide (and that others may wish to comment on, too) to
assist the Council in undertaking its review.
List of changes proposed
2003 Operations
- eliminate spill for the March Spring Creek Hatchery release
- subject to review of daytime spill test data, eliminate spring
daytime spill at John Day Dam
- test alternative spring nighttime spill at John Day below the BiOp
level of 60% of the flow
- evaluate spill levels at Ice Harbor Dam both spring and summer to
optimize tailrace egress and project passage survival
- explore chum operation as priority over meeting the April 10 flood
control rule curve in some water conditions
Acceleration of system configuration changes
- Ice Harbor ? accelerate schedule for 2005 installation of
removable spillway weir and guidance system; then modify spill
- Lower Monumental ? accelerate schedule for 2006 installation of
removable spillway weir and guidance system; then modify spill
- The Dalles ? accelerate schedule for 2005 installation of forebay
physical guidance device; then modify spill
The action agencies will be pursuing these proposals this winter and
spring within the ?Regional Forum? for considering annual and
in-season operations -- TMT, SCT, IT, etc. The System Configuration
Team will be the focal point for consideration of the system configuration
items. We have been told that the Corps would need to make a
decision by the end of January of 2003 if it is going to accelerate the
schedules for the system configuration items. The Technical
Management Team (TMT) will be the focal point for deciding on revisions to
spill and flow levels, although study design review groups will also have
an input. The spill decisions need to be made by March; better if
earlier. The chum/April 10 operations issue apparently will need to
be decided by February.
Procedure and timing for Council review
- Council meeting, January 14-15 (Vancouver): The Council
will review and possibly make a recommendation regarding the proposal
to accelerate the removable spillway weir and forebay device
installation schedules. The Council may review and make a
recommendation regarding the proposal concerning the relative priority
of the chum operation vs. the April 10 flood control target in low
water conditions (or it may defer that proposal to the February
meeting, depending on what information is available and when the
decision must be made). On or about Wednesday, January 8, 2003
(that is, the week before the meeting), the staff, working with the
action agency representatives and others, will organize relevant
information on these proposals for the Council and produce a decision
memorandum for the Council and others to review.
During the January meeting then, the Council will review the
information on these proposals, entertain comments from interested
parties, and may decide at that time (a) to endorse the proposals; or (b)
to oppose the proposals, or (c) that more information is needed before a
decision by the Council and others should be made on these proposals; or
(d) that the Council should defer its consideration of these proposals to
another time or completely to the mainstem program amendment
process. If the Council perceives that it is able to delay a
recommendation to the action agencies on these matters until February, the
Council may issue a draft set of recommendations at the January meeting
for public review and comment, and then finalize the recommendations at
the Council's February meeting.
- Council meeting, February 18-20, 2003 (Portland): The
Council will review and possibly make recommendations regarding the
proposals for 2003 spill operations (and for the proposal to
prioritize chum operations over the April 10 elevation target, if the
Council has deferred this issue from the January meeting).
Again, about a week before the meeting, the staff, working with the
action agency representatives and others, will organize relevant
information on the proposals for the Council and produce a decision
memorandum for the Council and others to review. At the meeting,
the Council will review the information, hear the views of interested
entities, and decide how to proceed.
The Council will have the same set of options for action on the spill
proposals as on the other proposals (that is, to endorse, oppose, need
more info, or defer consideration completely to the mainstem amendment
process). But at least for some of the proposals, there may be time
for the Council to produce a set of draft recommendations for
public review and comment, with a final decision on recommendations at the
March meeting.
Categories of information relevant to review the proposal
For each proposal or related set of proposals, there are categories of
information that staff requests that the action agencies provide if
possible, as important to helping the Council undertake an informed review
of the proposals. Others may wish to provide information or comment
on these questions, too. The information needs include:
Acceleration of system configuration changes
- What would acceleration mean, in terms of what work would take place
in 2003, 2004 and 2005 that was not on the schedule? What would
the Corps budget impacts be?
- What would the implications of acceleration be for other work ?
that is, what work, if any, would have to deferred to be able to
accelerate the preferred actions?
- In more detail than the Council has seen so far, what biological
information provides a reason for accelerating these items?
- If we have a low flow year in the Snake, will that affect the
decision on whether to accelerate the schedule for the Snake RSWs (and
if so, why)?
- What are the potential savings in energy and costs from accelerating
the installation of these devices? (The Power Division staff
will independently analyze the potential energy/cost savings.)
Prioritizing chum operations over meeting April 10 flood control
target elevations
- Under what water conditions?
- What would be the physical gain for the chum spawning/rearing
conditions?
- What would be the magnitude of the deviations from the April 10
target elevations? What would the impacts be on winter and spring
flows?
- What information is there on the biological trade-offs ? impacts
to spring salmon migration? benefits to chum? benefits to
chinook spawning and rearing in the same area?
- Power system/cost impacts? (Power Division staff will
independently analyze.)
Eliminate spill for March Spring Creek Hatchery Release
- What information indicates that spill survival for these fish is no
significant greater than turbine survival for these fish through
Bonneville Dam, as action agency representatives have stated?
- What is the relative contribution of this release to adult returns
and harvest?
- Is there a relationship between re-programming production and
release of these fish and a decision to eliminate spill?
- Power system/cost impacts? (Power Division staff will
independently analyze.)
John Day and Ice Harbor spill changes
- Precisely what different spill levels will be evaluated at Ice
Harbor and for nighttime spill at John Day?
- In some detail, what is the biological information (and what were
the study designs) that indicates that reducing the spill levels at
Ice Harbor and John Day may not adversely affect and may actually
benefit migrants, the premise that seems to underlie the proposal?
- Same biological question for the proposal to eliminate daytime spill
at John Day?
- Power system/cost impacts? (Power Division staff will
independently analyze.)
^ top
|
|
