Lake Roosevelt Forum 09

1
Federal Columbia River Power System Action
Agencies Operating the Columbia River for fish,
power and other purposes Holly Harwood, BPA Dave
Ponganis, Corps Kate Puckett, Reclamation
2
Topics

• Background
• FCRPS Basics
• Litigation History
• System Overhaul
• Biological Opinion and Columbia Basin Fish
  Accords
• Regional Collaboration
• The All H Approach
• Adaptive Management
• Conclusion
• Q A

3
Action Agencies

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• The Bureau of Reclamation
• The Bonneville Power Administration
• NOAA Fisheries Service (Partner with AAs)

4
Columbia River Basin
5
Pacific Northwest Hydro Characteristics

• Projects share a common fuel supply, affected by
  non-power constraints.
• Hydro operations have effects upstream and
  downstream, either immediately or in the future.
• Hydro is used for regulation and load-following,
  while thermal tends to be base-loaded.

United States Canada Treaty and Columbia River
Base System Projects
Treaty Project Dam in Canada Base System
Federal Project Base System Non-Federal
Project NOTE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES NOT
ALL PROJECTS ARE SHOWN
Hungry Horse
So. Fork Flathead River
Kerr
Flathead River
Thompson Falls
Libby
Mica
Noxon Rapids
Coeur dAlene Lake
Feet above Sea Level
Cabinet Gorge
Clark Fork River
Duncan
Albeni Falls
Brownlee
Box Canyon
Kootenay River
Revelstoke
Oxbow
Pend Orielle River
Keenleyside
Spokane River
Grand Coulee
Snake River
Chief Joseph
Columbia River
Wells
Rocky Reach
Chelan
Rock Island
Wanapum
Ice Harbor
Priest Rapids
McNary
The Dalles
John Day
Sea Level
Bonneville
OCEAN
100 200 300 400 500 600
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Miles from River Mouth
6
Average Annual Runoff and Usable Reservoir
Storage Major Western River Basins
Average Annual Runoff
Usable Reservoir Storage
MILLIONS OF ACRE FEET
Columbia at Astoria
Colorado
Missouri
RIVER BASINS
7
Minimum Elevation, same as draft for flood
control in wet year (1997) http//www.columbiabir
dresearch.org.
4
Comparison of space available for system flood
control storage
1.3
3
5
3.2
5
2
1
8
Columbia River Treaty

• The Treaty is in place to meet power and flood
  risk management needs
• Corps is one half of the U.S. Entity
• Corps is responsible for flood risk management
• Bonneville Power Administration is responsible
  for power marketing
• B.C. Hydro represents the Canadian Entity
• Bi-monthly Operating Committee meetings
• Weekly Operational Conference calls

Mica Dam in Canada
9
Flood Risk Management

• The Corps has unique responsibility in the region
  for flood risk management. This includes Federal,
  Non-Federal and Canadian Projects.
• Maximum system flood control storage is only
  about 25 of flow
• Key damage center is the Portland,
  Oregon-Vancouver, Washington area
• Half of available storage for flood protection is
  in Canadian treaty storage

10
2475
2466
2455
2319
Comparison of reservoir elevations to meet system
flood control in years with large water
supply versus drought years. Elevations are on or
about May 1
1290
1283
1208
1208
Legend
maximum elevation
drought year elevation
high water year elevation
minimum elevation
11
Hydropower

• BPA markets hydropower generation from Corps and
  Bureau of Reclamation dams
• High flow in spring and summer to aid fish
  migration has affected the hydro systems
  flexibility to meet winter demands
• Spring and summer voluntary spill for fish has
  diminished the hydro systems ability to produce
  power during the fish migration season

12
Navigation

• Serves 36 ports and carries 40 of U.S. wheat
• More than 485 miles of navigable water
• Transports 35 million tons of cargo each year
• Export import traffic exceed 12 billion
  annually

13
Irrigation

• Bureau of Reclamation has primary responsibility
  for irrigation near Grand Coulee Dam
• The Corps has limited responsibility near John
  Day Dam

14
Recreation

• 18.5 million people visit Corps recreation sites
  on the Columbia River each year

15
Fish and Wildlife
16
ESA / FCRPS Operation
17
BiOp Litigation Since early 1990s

• FCRPS compliance with the Endangered Species Act
  has been controversial and almost continuously in
  litigation, as it is now.
• NOAA Fisheries Service issued the first
  biological opinion on operation of the Columbia
  River power system in 1993.
• In 1994, a federal court rejected that BiOp.
• In response to judicial decisions, the agency
  issued new FCRPS biological opinions in 1995,
  2000, 2004 and 2008.
• While the legal process continues to move
  forward, NOAA Fisheries Service and the other
  federal agencies continue to work with the region
  to conserve and recover Pacific salmon and
  steelhead in the Columbia/Snake Basin.

18
A Major Overhaul of the FCRPS

• Surface Passage
• Spillway weirs at all four lower Snake River Dams
  
• Spillway weirs on the Columbia River at McNary,
  and John Day dams
• A corner collector at Bonneville Dam
• Spill Improvements
• Spillwall at The Dalles Dam
• Spill deflectors at 7 of 8 dams allow more spill
  and juvenile fish through spillway passage routes
• Juvenile bypass system improvements
• State-of-the-art juvenile fish monitoring
• Transportation improvements
• Turbine Improvements

19
Surface Bypass vs. Spillway Passage
20
Spillway weirs in operation
21
(No Transcript)
22
The Overhaul has Made a Difference

• Juvenile dam passage survival has improved.
• Juvenile in-river survival is nearly three times
  higher than it was in the mid-to-late 1970s.
• Adult migration rate and travel time are similar
  to levels before the Snake River dams were
  completed.

23
Bonneville Dam1995-1999 Route of Passage
Survival Estimates for Yearling Chinook
Bonneville 2
B2 survival 90
Corner Collector Survival N/A
Spillway survival 98
Spillway
Bonneville 1
B1 survival 90
Estimated Dam Survival 91.7
Route Specific Survival Estimates from PATH
Report and 2000 BiOp
Spring Spill Operations 75 kcfs day/ 120 kcfs
(Gas Cap) night
24
Bonneville DamCurrent Passage and Survival
EstimatesYearling Chinook
Bonneville 2
B2 Bypass survival 98
B2 Turbine survival 95
Corner Collector Survival 100
Spillway survival 97
Spillway
Combined Turbine Sluiceway survival 95
Bonneville 1
Dam Survival 97.1
Route Specific Survival Estimates from 2008 BiOp
Spring Spill Operations 100 kcfs 24 hrs/day
25
In-river Survival of Juvenile Chinook and
Steelhead
26
2008 FCRPS Biological OpinionReleased May 5, 2008

• Based on collaboration with sovereigns and
  Independent science review of key issues.
• Lifecycle or All H approach hydro, habitat,
  hatcheries, harvest
• Performance based actions to address each ESU
  limiting factors
• BiOp concludes that operation of the FCRPS, with
  mitigation
• avoids jeopardy for listed salmon and steelhead
• will contribute to their recovery

27

• Unprecedented 10-year agreements on fish
  improvements
• Signed May 2, 2008

27
28
Columbia Basin Fish AccordsParticipants

• Federal Agencies
• Bonneville Power Administration
• Corps of Engineers
• Bureau of Reclamation
• Support from NOAA
• States
• Montana
• Idaho
• Support from Washington Agreement out for
  public comment

• Tribes
• Umatilla
• Warm Springs
• Yakama
• Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission
• Colville
• Shoshone-Bannock

28
29
The Salmon Life Cycle
30
Hydro Actions

• Water management
• Commitment to higher performance standards
• 96 average or better survival for spring
  migrants
• 93 average for summer migrants
• Continued spill for fish passage
• Transport when the science shows its best for
  fish
• Turbine efficiency

31
(No Transcript)
32
BPA Funding Commitments for Fish and Wildlife (
in millions/year)
With BiOp Accords FY 2010-2011
Before 2008 FCRPS BiOp Accords FY 2009
Total
33
(No Transcript)
34
Hydro Actions

• Water management
• Commitment to higher performance standards
• 96 average or better survival for spring
  migrants
• 93 average for summer migrants
• Continued spill for fish passage
• Transport when the science shows its best for
  fish
• Turbine efficiency

35
(No Transcript)
36
Spillwall at The Dalles Dam
37
Bonneville B2 Surface Bypass (Corner Collector
Outfall)
38
Pacific Lamprey Passage

• Adult passage evaluations have been under way
  since 1996
• Testing prototype ladder passage improvements
• Significant juvenile passage research dependant
  on future tag development
• Entered into MOA with Tribes committing to a
  10-year program to make improvements
• Currently developing the 10-year plan

39
(No Transcript)
40
Roles of Grand Coulee

• Uses
• Flood Control
• Irrigation
• Generation
• Fish operations
• Lake Roosevelt recreation
• Gas cap protection for downstream projects

41
GRAND COULEE FISHERY OPERATION TIMELINE
TARGET FULL ELEVATION BY JUN30
DRAFT LIMIT BY AUG 31
TARGET FLOOD CONTROL REFILL BY APR10
MEET CHUM FLOW OBJECTIVES
MEET MCNARY SPRING FLOW OBJECTIVES
MEET CHUM FLOW OBJ.
REFILL FOR KOKA-NEE
MEET MCNARY SUMMER FLOW OBJECTIVES
MEET VERNITA BAR FLOW OBJECTIVES
MEET PRIEST RAPIDS FLOW OBJECTIVES
MEET VERNITA BAR FLOW OBJECTIVES
DEC
NOV
OCT
SEP
AUG
JUL
JUN
MAY
A PR
MAR
FEB
JAN
42
Coulee BiOp Operations for Fish

• Flow Augmentation
• Manage Lake Roosevelt elevations to maximize
  migration flows below dam
• Utilize Banks Lake for summer migration flows
• Help firm up flows for chum, fall Chinook
• Resident Fish
• Refill Lake Roosevelt to 1283 by Sept 30 for
  kokanee

43
Columbia Basin Fish AccordsFish Will Benefit

• Hundreds of habitat projects with demonstrated
  biological benefits for ESA listed fish
• New hatchery actions to promote recovery and
  regional fisheries, without impeding recovery of
  listed fish

43
44
Extensive Habitat Programs

• Target populations most in need
• Project selection
• Demonstrated biological benefits

45
Lower Stokes Diversion--Before
46
Lower Stokes Diversion--After
47
Panama--Before
48
Panama--After
49
Hatchery Actions

• Support wild stocks and provide fish for harvest
• Safety net programs
• Conservation programs assist in promoting
  recovery
• Funding criteria

50
Predation Management

• Sea Lions
• Avian (estuary and inland)
• Caspian Terns
• Double-crested cormorants

51
Adaptive Management

• Research, monitoring and evaluationto answer key
  uncertainties, refine and improve actions
• Annual progress reports and check-ins at 2013 and
  2016
• All H contingency back-up plan if performance
  standards not met
• Regional oversight group with states and tribes

52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
(No Transcript)
58
(No Transcript)
59
(No Transcript)
60
QUESTIONS?
61
FISHERY OPERATION TIMELINE
DEC
NOV
OCT
SEP
AUG DRAFT LIMIT BY AUG 31 EXCEPT DWR (IN SEP)
JUL
JUN TARGET FULL ELEVATION BY JUN30
MAY
A PR TARGET FLOOD CONTROL REFILL BY APR10
MAR
FEB
JAN