[2] Decision Near On Dissolved Gas Waiver
Washington and Oregon water quality agencies have released a synopsis of technical information gathered from other regional agencies that echoes the continuing debate over modeling fish survival and spill that will soon be heard in the next round of BiOp litigation.
The Corps of Engineers is applying for a new 5-year waiver of Clean Water Act standards to allow spill at dams as called for in the new BiOp. But added spill usually boosts total dissolved gas (TDG) levels above the legal limit of 110 percent. Until now, the waiver has capped forebay limits at 115 percent and tailrace limits at 120 percent.
All parties support the waiver, but salmon advocates, and some conservation and fishing groups are lined up behind technical reviews supplied by the Fish Passage Center that have concluded taking out the forebay monitors would allow more spill and provide a significant boost to juvenile fish survival. And for years, state fish agencies and tribes have argued that because of their location, some of the monitors aren't producing reliable TDG readings.
However, processes to change standards are different for the two states. If Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality decides to remove the 115-percent requirement, it would only require the current total dissolved gas waiver be modified by order, undergo a 30-day public comment period, and possibly be issued in December.
For Washington to remove the 115-percent requirement, the state's Department of Ecology would have to change its water quality standards, which would require a rule change, APA requirements, public hearings, and EPA/ESA approval.
However, just because the states may throw out the 115-percent forebay limits doesn't mean dam operators have to run the river that way. But it could supply plaintiff environmental and fishing groups, and the state of Oregon with more legal ammunition in their upcoming challenge to the latest hydro BiOp and 2008 flow and spill operations.
The smart money is betting that the states will probably relent, even though analyses by both NOAA Fisheries' COMPASS model and the Corps of Engineers say the increased spill would have a slightly beneficial effect for some stocks like spring chinook, and a slightly negative effect on steelhead returns.
However, it's likely to be a tiny impact on overall fish returns and lost in the decimal dust, staffers say.
Both agencies also take issue with another part of the FPC analysis they say hugely overstates the amount of spill available to help juvenile fish pass the dams.
The FPC modeled an additional hydro scenario to the two in question--the current spill program with 115-percent forebay/120-percent tailrace limits, and spill with only a 120-percent tailrace limit. Depending on the dam, the change could be significant between the two operations, especially at Lower Monumental Dam on the Snake, and Bonneville in the lower Columbia.
The FPC analysis also looked at what could be gained in fish survival from an operation that spilled to 120 percent TDG limits, but is not constrained by what the FPC called "planned operations," a situation they never clearly defined in their submissions.
They said such a scenario could boost spring chinook survival to more than 90 percent from 65 percent under the scenario that was limited by planned operations.
BPA power analyst Roger Schiewe told NW Fishletter that the FPC's analysis had stripped out what is called "excess generation spill," spill that might occur from lack of marketing or needed when turbines go out. In other words, it doesn't reflect the reality of real-time hydro operations.
In Aug. 21 comments submitted to the water quality agencies, BPA said its own hydro model "properly reflects the reality of the hydro system. At times, the hydro system can produce more energy than can be safely transmitted to serve load in the region or distant power markets. In addition, there are times when the hydro system can generate power in excess of demand. It would be irresponsible for these realities to be ignored and would distort the results."
Back in March, the Corps of Engineers said the FPC methodology left out many of the factors that its own hydro model included, and called the FPC result "unreliable." It came up with a maximum amount of additional spill that was about half of the FPC's 58 MAF that could occur if all limitations but the 120-percent tailrace limit for TDG were removed (minimum generation).
In high water years, the Corps figured that another 6 MAF could be spilled if the 115-percent TDG standard was removed. In low water years, that went down to 5.2 MAF.
More important, they said the kind of water year (low versus high) made more than an 11-MAF difference in the additional spill volume that could occur.
The Corps and NOAA never modeled the FPC's added scenario because they felt it didn't reflect a reasonable possibility. But for operations in a high-flow year, they estimated only a 1.9-percent boost in spring chinook survival if dams were managed without the 115-percent forebay limit, compared to the FPC's estimate of a 13-percent increase in survival.
NOAA Fisheries' COMPASS model estimated the 120-percent-only scenario would produce only a 0.922-percent increase for Snake spring chinook, and a 1.1-percent decline in survival of Snake steelhead because the slight increase in spill meant fewer of them would be routed to barges.
Comments are due soon. It's likely the Corps won't support any change that might reduce steelhead survival by as much as one percent. They also have pointed to possible adverse effects on adult passage from more spill. They say using performance standards for dam passage survival are better tools than managing spill with gas caps.
Of course, BiOp plaintiffs and Oregon fish agency officials have criticized the COMPASS model since it was built and calibrated to PIT-tag survival data over the past dozen years, to weigh the benefits of hydro options under consideration the latest BiOp collaboration.
Despite the fact the feds' model has been blessed by the region's independent science panel, ODFW still says COMPASS leaves out too much latent mortality of migrating fish--another issue the science panel said was something the region should quit arguing about and simply concentrate on measuring the survival differences between barged fish and those migrating inriver.
However, the state of Oregon may not be really interested in its own water quality agency getting to the bottom of this spill/survival issue at all.
In June, 2007, when the states were just beginning to wrestle with the new waiver, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski's natural resource advisor Mike Carrier sent a letter to DEQ chair Stephanie Hallock outlining the governor's position.
Carrier said if the two states' adaptive management group couldn't resolve the issues, he supported suspending the use of the forebay monitors and using only the 120-percent TDG criteria to manage spill. He said over the last 15 years, monitoring and research has shown little risk to fish, while "potential biological benefits from increased spillway passage and reduction in fish transportation would be substantial. In the near term, there are few if any opportunities to enhance fish survival associated with dam passage, other than increased spill."
Several parties to the waiver process have told NW Fishletter they are afraid the letter, which was originally passed around at an Oregon Water Quality Commission meeting, may have had a bullying effect on the Oregon DEQ staff.
These parties are also afraid Oregon will support any dam operation for fish that adds to ratepayers' costs, hoping to keep lower Snake dam-breaching in the public view as a more cost-effective way to recover listed stocks. -B. R.
The following links were mentioned in this story:
Synopsis of technical information
Subscriptions and Feedback
Subscribe to the Fishletter notification e-mail list.
Send e-mail comments to the editor.
THE ARCHIVE :: Previous NW Fishletter issues and supporting documents.
NW Fishletter is produced by Energy NewsData.
Publisher: Cyrus Noë, Editor: Bill Rudolph
Phone: (206) 285-4848 Fax: (206) 281-8035
