DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001

FCRPS Operations Plan Proposal

April 13, 2001
DRAFT

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 3

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4

II. Background ............................................................................................................... 4

III. Water Supply Forecast .............................................................................................. 7

IV. Emergency Criteria ................................................................................................... 7

V. Spring Operations...................................................................................................... 12

VI. Summer Operations................................................................................................... 19

VII. Other Operations ....................................................................................................... 21

VIII. Updates/Process ........................................................................................................ 21

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix C ........................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix D ........................................................................................................................... 28
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 3

Executive Summary

This operations plan has two major elements. First is an evaluation of Federal Columbia River

Power System (FCRPS) conditions relative to the emergency criteria included in the “Federal

Agencies’ Criteria and Priorities for 2001 FCRPS Operations.” Second is a summary of

operations that will be implemented this year, including a decision process for determining

spring and summer spill levels.

FCPRS Conditions Relative to the Criteria

CRITERION 1: Sufficient Resources to meet near-term power system demand

54 million acre feet (MAF) is the threshold at which Bonneville Power Administration

(BPA) cannot meet spring and summer power system demands without drafting reservoirs

and impacting 2001-2002 system reliability. A forecast buffer is added to address the risk

associated with forecast error. The May forecast error buffer is 4.5 MAF.

SUMMARY RESULT: A 58.5 MAF May Final forecast is needed to have confidence near-term

reliability can be maintained.

CRITERION 2: Sufficient Resources to maintain a 5 percent loss of load probability in future

months

NWPPC analysis indicates the Pacific Northwest region currently has a 26 percent chance of

not meeting power system demand in the December through January period of 2001-2002.

Additional analysis indicates that storage of up to 1,500 megawatts-month (MW-mo) could

reduce this probability to 20 percent and also significantly reduce the amount of load

curtailment.

SUMMARY RESULT: 1,500 MW-mo (approximately 1.5 MAF) of additional storage is

necessary to maximize the reduction of the loss of load probability

CRITERION 3: Sufficient Cash Reserves to maintain reliability

Current BPA analysis finds that there are no months in the coming 12 months that are at or

above 20 percent probability of zero reserves. In fact, the greatest probability is 13.5 percent.

A preliminary conclusion suggests the possibility that some reserves could be used this year

to: (a) fund implementation of offset actions; or (b) purchase power from extra-regional

sources to reduce the amount of storage needed for next winter or to further reduce next

year’s loss of load probability.

SUMMARY RESULT: No additional revenues are necessary to achieve the insufficient reserve

criterion.

Spring/Summer Operations

• Spill start date and spill levels will be determined based on volume forecasts. May final

volume forecast would need to be equal to or greater than 60 MAF for spill to be considered

in May. Project priority for any spill that may be available is included on page 16.

• Transport up to 50 percent of juvenile migrants at McNary Dam in the Spring.

• Surging operation at Lower Granite to move juveniles through the pool.

• Allow for consideration to reduce bull trout minimums at Libby to aid in refill.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 4

I. Introduction

The year 2001 is shaping up to be one of the lowest water years on record with unprecedented

increases in the cost of power. Under these conditions, BPA has been forced to periodically

declare power system emergencies in order to maintain the reliability of the power system. The

Federal Agencies have made and will continue to have to make deliberate and careful choices

about how to use the system’s limited flexibility to achieve multiple objectives.

Purpose: The Action Agencies intend to implement the biological opinions issued by National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in

December 2000. This 2001 Operations Plan provides a framework for development of a Water

Management Plan for operation of the FCRPS in consideration of these biological opinions.

Objective: The plan is intended to outline an operation that will both meet the reliability criteria

in the Federal Agencies Criteria and Priorities (Appendix A) while making best efforts to

minimize adverse impacts to fish.

II. Background

A. West Coast Power Market

The West Coast power market does not currently have sufficient generation and transmission

infrastructure to meet demand. This is evidenced by the blackouts experienced in California and

the increase in West Coast wholesale prices. The above average water conditions in recent years

have insulated Northwest utilities from these effects. However, beginning in November of 2000,

below average streamflows in the Northwest contributed to a sharp escalation in prices. This

poor precipitation and streamflow pattern has continued through March resulting in one of the

lowest runoffs in the 70-year record. The poor water conditions in the Northwest have

exacerbated the West Coast’s generation and transmission inadequacies resulting in wholesale

electricity prices 10 times historical average.

Monthly Average DJ Mid-C On-Peak

-

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

550.00

600.00

1997 16.25 10.02 11.15 12.73 15.78 11.00 11.69 16.97 19.73 17.89 18.26 19.83 15.11 

1998 19.27 14.10 18.28 23.80 13.72 13.44 25.26 47.89 38.82 30.27 28.06 30.84 25.31 

1999 18.02 18.03 16.16 24.20 26.25 23.39 24.48 29.91 31.78 44.81 31.41 26.59 26.25 

2000 26.56 26.84 27.79 27.20 59.80 181.43 122.25 213.44 134.80 103.69 171.98 554.38 137.51 

2001 278.30 287.37 280.35 282.01 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 5

B. Northwest Water Supply

The first volume forecast in early January projected 80.4 MAF runoff at The Dalles. The

forecast has continued to deteriorate, with the current forecasted runoff at The Dalles down to

56.1 MAF, which would be the second lowest runoff on record.

JANUARY-JULY 2001 RUNOFF VOLUME FORECASTS

GCL LWG TDA

Date (Forecast) MAF % MAF % MAF %

01/09 (Jan FF) 48.8 77 23.6 79 80.4 76

02/07 (Feb FF) 41.2 65 18.8 63 66.4 63

03/07 (Mar FF) 37.6 59 16.3 55 58.6 55

04/06 (Apr FF) 37.5 59 14.1 47 56.1 53

Source: NWS-RFC & USDA-NRCS

% = Percent of 1961-90 Normals

EB= Early Bird

FF= Final

MM= Mid-month

C. Actions by BPA to avoid emergencies

In mid-December, the Federal Agencies recognized that below average conditions were likely to

persist through January. Under such conditions, BPA would not have sufficient hydro resources

to meet its load obligations. Historically in low water conditions, BPA has purchased upwards

of 1,200 MW from California during the winter, in order to meet this shortfall. However, this

winter California did not have sufficient resources to meet its own demand and market prices for

power were 10 times the historical average limiting BPA’s financial ability to secure sufficient

resources.

Therefore, BPA pursued more creative ways of reducing load obligations and increasing supply.

A summary of the measures undertaken by BPA to reduce potential power supply deficits and

avoid or reduce declarations of emergencies follows:

• Energy Exchanges with California—2 for 1 exchanges provided BPA with additional

500 MW-mo of energy.

• Acquisition of Power from Industries—BPA secured over 2,300 MW-mo of load reduction at

a cost of more than $500 million.

• Acquisition of Market Energy—Secured several hundred MW-mo of market energy.

• Acquisition of irrigation load—Secured approximately 600 MW-mo of irrigation load.

• Conservation of Energy-Expedited the implementation of conservation credit.

• Oregon and Washington Calls for Conservation—Assisted governors in call for 10 percent

reduction in consumption.

• Sold any surplus generation resulting from chum and Vernita Bar operations to reduce

probability of future power emergencies.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 6

D. Winter Operations

Throughout the fall, the system was operated to provide spawning habitat for chum salmon

below Bonneville dam. In early January, spawning was complete and a minimum flow was

provided during incubation of the redds. The Biological Opinion (BO) recognized that under

poor water conditions there will always be a trade-off between the fall chum operation and

meeting refill targets; however, the Opinion leans toward abandoning the chum operation in

favor of meeting refill. Given the power situation, in early January the Federal Agencies decided

to pursue an operation that combined chum and power needs for mutual benefit. It was

acknowledged that in the absence of the chum operation, levels equal to or higher than the

minimum flow required for chum would be needed to meet federal load obligations. Despite this

combined power and chum operation, BPA declared two multi-day power emergencies in

January and February due to insufficient power on the wholesale market to meet federal load

obligations.

E. 2000 NMFS BO and Allowance for Variations in Water Conditions and for

Emergencies

In its BO issued on December 21, 2000, NMFS recommended a reasonable and prudent

alternative (RPA) for avoiding jeopardy to listed salmonid species and adverse destruction or

modification of their critical habitat. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Bureau of

Reclamation (Reclamation), and BPA are relying on this and prior biological opinions as they

make operational decisions in 2001.

The 2000 NMFS BO presents a long-term RPA for avoiding jeopardy that, combined with other

improvements by others, are likely to ensure a high likelihood of survival and a moderate-to-high

likelihood of recovery. To avoid jeopardy, the RPA requires satisfaction of performance

standards. To satisfy the performance standards, the RPA requires development of one- and

five-year implementation plans to define and revise particular measures for implementation. The

implementation plans include water management plans to define how to operate the FCRPS to

achieve applicable performance standards. The RPA then presents an initial set of measures and

actions designed to meet the performance standards, subject to revision through the one- and

five-year planning process. To ensure progress toward the performance standards, the RPA

provides for midpoint reviews in 2003, 2005, and 2008.

Applicable performance standards may not be met in all years. The 50-year historical record of

water years shows a wide range of water conditions. Consequently, the NMFS BO recognizes

that meeting flow objectives and refilling reservoirs “may not be possible every year, especially

in low water years.”

The NMFS BO anticipated that there could be circumstances when the power grid would require

extraordinary support, and it allows for variations in case of unforeseeable power system, flood

control, or other emergencies. Given current forecasts of volume runoff and power market

prices, this year may turn out to have an extended period of such extraordinary circumstances.

As demonstrated by actions taken to date, the Federal Agencies view emergency actions as a last

resort and do not intend to use emergency declarations in place of long-term investments that

would allow fish operations while maintaining other purposes, such as an adequate and reliable

power system.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 7

III. Water Supply Forecast

• The April Final January through July runoff forecast at The Dalles is 56.1 MAF, 53 percent

of normal. There is a 50 percent likelihood of being above 56.1 MAF.

• There is a 95 percent likelihood of being above 42.5 MAF, 70 percent likelihood of reaching

at least 51.8 MAF and 60 percent likelihood of reaching 54 MAF or higher.

 April 2001 Final Runoff Volume Forecasts

Location April Final

(MAF)

% of

Normal

April Final

Grand Coulee (Apr-Jul) 32.90 60%

Lower Granite (Apr-Jul) 10.0 46%

The Dalles (Jan - Jul) 56.1 53%

IV. Emergency Criteria

This section quantifies the status of the FCRPS and BPA reserves relative to the Federal

Agencies’ power emergency criteria. The criteria are:

1. Operational Power System Reliability due to near-term insufficiency. Defined as

insufficiency of electrical generation to meet Pacific Northwest electrical near-term demand.

An indicator of resource scarcity may be a quick rise in prices over a few hours or days.

2. Planning Power System Reliability due to a forecasted insufficiency. The reliability criterion

is exceeded when the probability of insufficient generation to meet load exceeds 5 percent for

any of the next 12 months.

3. Power System Reliability due to inadequate BPA reserves. Reserves are needed to acquire

sufficient electrical generation and maintain other BPA-funded activities, including programs

to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife. The financial criterion for a power system

emergency is exceeded when the probability of FCRPS financial reserves being $0 or less

after meeting all expected financial obligations exceeds 20 percent for any of the next

12 months.

CRITERION 1: Near-Term Insufficiency

Two analyses are used to measure achievement of this criterion:

1. NWPPC reliability study: The results of the NWPPC reliability study show that under a

53.8 MAF condition, the Northwest region may suffer load curtailments even without any

fish spill this spring and summer season unless water was borrowed from some future period.

2. BPA inventory analysis: Inventory analysis results presented in the table below reach a very

similar conclusion in that BPA cannot meet firm load in the 52.6 MAF year without

borrowing approximately 1,100 MW-mo of storage from next year (2002). However, in the

54.2 MAF condition, BPA can meet firm load. The combination of these two BPA scenarios

is consistent with the Council analysis indicating that approximately 54 MAF is required to

meet firm load.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 8

The RFC April Final Forecast indicates a 40 percent probability of having an actual runoff of

54 MAF or less. If the Federal Agencies commit to spill based on a volume forecast that does

not materialize, reservoirs will have to be drafted deeper than traditional end of summer reservoir

elevations to meet load. This will affect 2001-2002 winter reliability and could affect cultural

resources, resident fish, and anadromous fish protection in 2002. Given these consequences, the

Federal Agencies find this 40 percent probability too high to take management actions such as

spill without taking forecast error into account. Therefore, the Federal Agencies propose a

forecast error buffer that would reduce the probability of a 54 MAF condition to less than

25 percent.

The National Weather Service’s River Forecast Center forecast procedure shows that in order to

have no greater than a 25 percent chance of less than 54 MAF, the following final forecasts must

be observed:

May: 58.5 MAF (54 MAF + 4.5 MAF Buffer)

June: 58 MAF (54 MAF + 4 MAF Buffer)

July: 57.5 MAF (54 MAF + 3.5 MAF Buffer)

SUMMARY RESULT: Actual volume of approximately 54 MAF is necessary to achieve the

near-term sufficiency criterion. In addition, an allowance is needed in each of the final forecasts

to ensure no greater than a 25 percent probability of being less than 54 MAF, which will be

handled by using a forecast error buffer of 4.5 MAF in May, 4 MAF in June, 3.5 MAF in July.

CRITERION 2: Forecasted Insufficiency

Northwest Power Planning Council reliability analysis is used to measure achievement of this

criterion. BPA's initial reliability analyses focused on near-term reliability through the current

fiscal year (FY 2001). As the Northwest's volume runoff forecast deteriorated, regional

attentions were drawn to the question of whether we could borrow water from next year to

enhance conditions for this year. As part of that analysis, an understanding of FY 2002

reliability was needed. The results outlined below indicate that due to poor reliability conditions

in the winter of 2001-2002 there is no additional storage to borrow from next year. In fact, the

analysis suggests that we should store water from this year in order to improve the reliability

conditions for next winter.

The preliminary NWPPC reliability study concludes that there is a 20 percent probability of load

loss this winter if the federal hydro projects start the next operating year at their traditional

reservoir elevations. The NWPPC's revised studies better reflect the expected conditions of the

Canadian reservoirs, which results in an increase in this probability to 26 percent. After running

several sensitivities, the conclusion is that storing 1,500 MW-mo into next year can reduce the

loss of load probability to 20 percent. More importantly, the magnitude of the load misses is

greatly diminished. Storing more than 1,500 MW-mo has little impact on either the loss of load

probability or the magnitude of load loss.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 9

Additional Storage Loss of Load Probability Illustrative Feb Day-Avg Load Miss

0 MW-mo 26% 1,825 aMW

750 MW-mo 22% 1,250 aMW

1,500 MW-mo 20% 350 aMW

2,250 MW-mo 19% 300 aMW

*more information on the NWPPC reliability study is included in Appendix B

Consistent with the discussion in Criterion 3 below, there may be consideration given to

purchase a portion of the 1,500 MW-mo from extra-regional power sources rather than store the

entire quantity. The amount purchased will depend on available cash reserves, extra-regional

power availability, and wholesale power market prices, but is unlikely to be more than

400 MW-mo.

SUMMARY RESULT: 1,500 MW-mos (approximately 1.5 MAF) of additional storage is

necessary to maximize the reduction of the loss of load probability.

CRITERION 3: Insufficient Reserves

BPA cash flow analysis is used to measure achievement of this criterion. The latest cash flow

analysis shows that with current runoff and market price projections, BPA achieves the goal of

avoiding a greater than 20 percent chance of negative cash reserves in any of the next 12 months.

Meet Load 

and Base 

Marketing

Meet Load 

and 

Marketing 

Scenario

Apr-01 0.0% 0.0%

May-01 0.0% 0.0%

Jun-01 0.0% 0.0%

Jul-01 3.9% 3.9%

Aug-01 5.5% 5.5%

Sep-01 6.6% 6.6%

Oct-01 7.4% 7.4%

Nov-01 13.7% 8.6%

Dec-01 7.6% 7.7%

Jan-02 4.0% 5.9%

Feb-02 7.2% 9.3%

Mar-02 11.0% 14.1%

Sep-01 10.8% 10.8%

Sep-01 52.0% 52.0%

Assumptions:

1. Cal ISO/PX don't pay anything due.

2. 4H10c credits applied monthly starting in Febru

3. Rate increase in Base is 248% for FY2002.

4. Rate increase in Scenario is 68% for FY2002.

(Probability of < $650M Reserves)

Cash Flow

(Probability of < $0 Reserves)

(Probability of < $300M Reserves)

FY2001 Ending Reserve Levels

FY 2001 & 2002 Comparison of Expected Value Reserves

(55.9 MAF in 2001)

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Apr-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Oct-01 Dec-01 Feb-02

Months

Cash Reserves ($millions)

Meet Load

Base

Scenario

FY 2001 FY 2002
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 10

If runoff and market prices projections remain in their current range some level of reserves might

be available this year for expenditures such as:

• Implement offset actions.

• Secure extra-regional purchases to meet the 1,500 MW-mo storage requirement and reduce

the threshold for spill decisions.

• Secure extra-regional purchases for next winter in addition to the 1,500 MW-mo of storage to

further reduce next winter’s loss of load probability.

SUMMARY RESULT: No additional reserves are necessary to achieve the insufficient reserve

criterion.

ANALYSIS: Meeting All Three Criteria

The objective of the following analysis is to determine the conditions under which each of the

three criteria are simultaneously met.

STEP 1:

The first step in this analysis is to determine what amount of water is needed to meet federal load

obligations assuming minimal purchases. In this analysis, the system was operated to meet load

and any water not needed to meet firm load obligations is stored in the system.

If available storage is 0 it means there is no water in excess of that required to meet load. If

available storage is negative, the system would need to be drafted below target levels or

purchases would be needed to meet load. As this table indicates, 54 MAF is the volume

threshold upon which federal load obligations are met. The amount of available storage has an

implied band of uncertainty due to load overrun/underrun, shape of the runoff or unplanned

outages of large generators.

Summary of Meet Load Studies

Jan-Jul Vol. Available Storage After Meeting Load (MW-mos)

52.6 MAF -1100

54.2 MAF 550

55.7 MAF 1200

57.5 MAF 3900

59.2 MAF 3350

*For detailed information about these studies, please see Appendix A

In those conditions where volume exceeds what is needed to meet load, storage available can be

used as follows:

• Store excess water to improve ability to meet Criterion 2.

• Generate energy and revenue to build reserves and improve ability to meet Criterion 3.

• Spill to improve fish passage and survival.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 11

STEP 2:

As stated in the threshold for Criterion 1, a forecast error buffer is added to the volume forecasts

to minimize risk associated with the volume forecast error. The following table shows the result

of adding the 4.5 MAF forecast error buffer for the May Final Forecast:

Available Storage Conclusions for May Final Forecast

Adj. Jan-Jul Vol. Available Storage After Meeting Load (MW-mo)

57.1 MAF -1,100

58.7 MAF 550

60.2 MAF 1,200

62.0 MAF 3,900

63.7 MAF 3,350

The table confirms the earlier information that a May Final Volume Forecast of approximately

58.5 MAF is required to meet load and provide a less than 25 percent chance of having an actual

volume of at least 54 MAF.

STEP 3:

As stated in the threshold for Criterion 2, 1,500 MW-mo of the storage available after meeting

load will be retained in the system to maintain reliability for Winter 2001-2002. The following

table shows the Resulting Fish Storage that may be used for spill after reducing the initial storage

quantities by 1,500 MW-mo:

Available Storage Conclusions

Jan-Jul Vol. Available Storage After Load and Reliability (MW-mos)

57.1 MAF -2600

58.7 MAF -950

60.2 MAF -300

62.0 MAF 2400

63.7 MAF 1850

As the table indicates, a May final volume forecast of approximately 60 MAF is required to meet

load and store sufficient volume to maintain reliability for next winter.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 12

CONCLUSION

CRITERIA FORECAST

REQUIRED

ASSUMPTIONS

Criterion 1:

Near-Term Insufficiency

(< 25% Probability of < 54 MAF)

May--58. 5 MAF

June--58 MAF

July--57.5 MAF

Actual--54 MAF

May--4.5 MAF Buffer

June--4 MAF Buffer

Jul--3.5 MAF Buffer

Actual--54 MAF

Criterion 2:

Long-Term Insufficiency

(< 5% Loss of Load Probability)

1.5 MAF*

1.5 MAF is used as a

proxy for the

1,500 MW-mo of storage

needed.

Criterion 3:

Insufficiency Due to Inadequate Reserves

(< 20% Probability of $0 Reserves)

0 MAF

TO MEET ALL CRITERIA MAY--60 MAF

JUNE---59.5 MAF

JULY--59 MAF

ACTUAL--55.5 MAF

*1.5 MAF is used as a proxy for the 1,500 MW-mo of storage needed for reliability purposes. Depending on the

location and shape of the volume, the MAF requirement to provide the MW-mo could change.

As stated previously, the amount of storage available for each volume has an implied band of

uncertainty due to load overrun/underrun, shape of the runoff or unplanned outages of large

generators. For that reason, the analysis included in the previous sections will be updated with

new data upon receipt of new Final Volume Forecasts.

V. Spring Operations (April-June)

A. Spring Spill for Fish Passage

The NMFS 2000 BO calls for spill to be implemented at all three Snake River collector projects

"when seasonal average flows are projected to meet or exceed 85 kcfs." Since current water

supply forecasts and flow models indicate that the 85 Kilo of cubic feet per second (kcfs)

seasonal average is unlikely to be met in Spring 2001, no spill is planned at the three Snake

River collector dams.

Depending upon volume forecasts, the Federal Agencies will evaluate available storage in the

hydropower system this year that may be available for spring spill at the Lower Columbia dams.

The decision process for spring spill is illustrated in Figure 1. For each decision point, three
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 13

illustrative levels of spring spill are allocated among lower Columbia River hydropower projects

as outlined in Table 1 below, based on: (a) the project spill priority list below; (b) the passage

timing data displayed in Figures X and Y; and (c) three illustrative levels of available storage

450 MW-mo, 800 MW-mo, and 1,200 MW-mo.

Available spill will be allocated to the following dams in order of priority:

1. The Dalles - This project has the lowest calculated survival rate of the lower Columbia

River projects. Turbine intakes for this project are not screened. and turbine survival

rates are quite low at this project.

2. Bonneville - This project has the second lowest calculated survival rate of the lower

Columbia River projects. Juvenile guidance at this project is poor, which results in a

high rate of turbine passage at this project.

3. John Day - This project has the second highest survival rate of the lower Columbia River

projects. Standard length screens at this project are moderately effective at providing

yearling migrants a route of non-turbine passage route.

4. McNary - This project has the highest calculated survival rate of the lower Columbia

River projects. Extended length screens at this project are very effective in providing

yearling migrants a route of non-turbine passage. Transportation is also an option from

this project.

5. Ice Harbor - Few fish remain in the lower Snake River due to the collection and

transportation of fish from the upper three projects.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 14

Figure 1

PROPOSED DECISION PROCESS FOR 2001 SPILL OPERATIONS PROPOSED DECISION PROCESS FOR 2001 SPILL OPERATIONS MAY JUNE

YES NO

YES NO

JULY

YES NO

YES NO

NO SPILL

AUGUST

IS VOLUME FORECAST > 60 MAF?

CONSIDER WHAT AMOUNT OF STORAGE

IS AVAILABLE FOR SPILL?

IS VOLUME FORECAST > 59.5 MAF?

IS VOLUME FORECAST > 59 MAF?

IS ACTUAL VOLUME > 55.5 MAF?

CONSIDER WHAT AMOUNT OF STORAGE

IS AVAILABLE FOR SPILL?

CONSIDER WHAT AMOUNT OF STORAGE

IS AVAILABLE FOR SPILL?

CONSIDER WHAT AMOUNT OF STORAGE

IS AVAILABLE FOR SPILL?
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 15

Table 1. Spill Levels Provided Under 3 Levels of Flexible Fish Storage

NOTE: This table represents where spill would be allocated and rough estimations of the levels

of targeted spill given the MW-Months provided. Projects and dates of spill are flexible.

Decision Date* Spill Level Provided

May Decision 450 MW-mo

(May 1-31)

800 MW-mo

(May 1-June 7)

1200 MW-mo

(Apr 24-June 7)

1. The Dalles 30% for 24 hours 40% for 24 hours 40% for 24 hours

2. Bonneville 50 Kcfs for 24 hours 75 Kcfs (day)/

90 Kcfs (nite)

75 Kcfs (day)/

90 Kcfs (nite)

3. John Day 0 0 30% for 12 hours at

night

4. McNary 0 0 0

5. Ice Harbor 0 0 0

June Decision 400 MW-mo

(June 1-30)

800 MW-mo

(June 1-30)

1200 MW-mo

(June 1-30)

1. The Dalles 30% for 24 hours 40%, 24 h/d 40%, 24 h/d

2. Bonneville 50 Kcfs for 24 hours 50/50k 75/120k

3. John Day -- -- 40%, 12 h/d

4. McNary -- -- --

5. Ice Harbor -- -- 35k, 24 h/d

July Decision 400 MW-mo

(July 7-Aug 7)

800 MW-mo

(July 7-Aug 7)

1200 MW-mo

(July 7-Aug 7)

1. The Dalles 40%, 24 h/d 40%, 24 h/d 40%, 24 h/d

2. John Day 30%, 12 h/d 30%, 12 h/d 40%, 12 h/d

3. Bonneville -- 50/50k 75/120k

4. McNary -- -- --

5. Ice Harbor -- -- 35k, 24 h/d

6. Dworshak Spill

for Flow Aug

Remaining MW-mo Remaining MW-mo Remaining MW-mo

August Decision 400 MW-mo

(Aug 1-31)

800 MW-mo

(Aug 1-15)

1200 MW-mo

(Aug 1-31)

1. The Dalles 40%, 24 h/d 40%, 24 h/d 40%, 24 h/d

2. John Day 30%, 12 h/d 30%, 12 h/d 40%, 12 h/d

3. Bonneville -- 75k, 24 h/d 75/120, 24 h/d

4. McNary -- -- --

5. Ice Harbor -- -- 35k, 24 h/d

6. Dworshak Spill

for Flow Aug

Remaining MW-mo Remaining MW-mo Remaining MW-mo

*Table assumes No Spill occurs in months prior to the Decision Date.

Spill, at those projects where it occurs, will be managed to the level of 120 percent TDG in tailraces and

115 percent in the forebays of the next project downstream, where variances to the 110 percent standard are in

effect.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 16

B. Spring Transport Operations

1. McNary Transport

Based on the anticipated reductions in spill and expected low river flows at lower Columbia

River dams creating adverse inriver passage conditions in that reach, the Federal Agencies will

implement a program of collection and transportation of spring migrants at McNary Dam.

In addition, the biological benefits of transporting Upper Columbia spring migrants from

McNary Dam will be evaluated in 2001. Under these special circumstances in 2001, up to

50 percent of spring migrants arriving at McNary Dam would be collected and transported to

release sites below Bonneville Dam.

The proportion of the bypass-routed fish to be transported from McNary will be determined by

the need to keep a certain proportion of the mid-Columbia Passive Integrated Transponder

(PIT)-tagged fish in-river to ensure adequate downstream detections for the Public Utility

Districts’ comparative survival studies and the availability of space in the barges coming from

the Snake River.

2. Snake River Transport

Spring transport from Snake River projects commenced on March 27, 2001. The benefit of

transporting spring migrants from the Snake River has been well demonstrated (NMFS 2000

Transport White Paper). All Snake River juvenile fish collected will be transported to below

Bonneville Dam in 2001 due to the expected low flows and adverse inriver passage conditions

(NMFS 2000 BO Action 40, page 9-76).

C. Spring Flow Objectives at Lower Granite and McNary

Flows lower than the objectives will occur most weeks during the migration due to the extremely

low hydrologic conditions and the need to refill headwater storage projects to their minimum

elevation targets. Average spring flows at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River are estimated

to be 50-55 kcfs this year, and average flows at McNary Dam on the Columbia River are

expected to be 140-145 kcfs.

D. Lower Granite Surging Operation

During late April and May, the Federal Agencies are proposing to conduct a Lower Granite pool

surging operation which, when combined with a limited spring flow augmentation using

Brownlee and/or Dworshak storage, is anticipated to help move juveniles through the Lower

Granite pool, as well as the other Lower Snake pools, to the collection facilities for

transportation. The pool surging and refill operation using Brownlee or Dworshak would occur

for up to 4 weeks during the spring migration and would be monitored and evaluated for

biological effects. The Federal Agencies have approached IPC and they have indicated they will

operate for power purposes unless otherwise compensated. The use of Brownlee to support this

operation is still an issue under discussion and has yet to be resolved.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 17

E. Spring Flow Objective for the Mid-Columbia River

The recommended average flow objective in the NMFS 2000 BO at Priest Rapids is 135 kcfs

during the April 10 through June 30 period. Any flexibility to shape spring flows that is

available after meeting load will be guided by the following considerations: (a) the desire to

refill Grand Coulee reservoir to a minimum elevation of 1,285 feet by June 30th; (b) the timing

and magnitude of the juvenile migration; (c) water temperature, spill and total dissolved gas

levels; (d) adult fish; (e) other requirements for improved survival of listed fish; and (f) power

system reliability requirements. Flows lower than the objective will occur most weeks during

the migration due to the extremely low hydrologic conditions and the need to refill headwater

storage projects to their minimum elevation targets. Average spring flows at Priest Rapids Dam

are estimated to be __ kcfs this year.

F. Spring Bull Trout Minimum Flow Requirements

The Federal Agencies will endeavor to maintain minimum discharges at Hungry Horse and

Libby as called for in the USFWS 2000 BO for bull trout protection and habitat productivity.

G. Vernita Bar Flows

Given current conditions, BPA and NMFS propose to maintain Vernita Bar protection level

flows of at least 65 Kcfs through April 30. However, the Federal Agencies want to preserve the

option of having the flexibility to reduce the Vernita Bar minimum protection flow level if:

(a) runoff or meteorological conditions warrant such a reduction; and (b) a significant volume of

water could be stored in Grand Coulee as a result. Increased refill of Grand Coulee could

provide additional water for subsequent flow augmentation or spill operations for listed salmon

and steelhead.

H. Minimum Operating Pool

Beginning April 12, as coordinated through Technical Management Team (TMT) on April 11,

Little Goose and Lower Monumental reservoirs in the lower Snake River will be operated within

one foot of the minimum operating pool (MOP) until small numbers of juvenile fish are present

and adult fall chinook salmon begin entering the lower Snake River (in late August). Lower

Granite and Ice Harbor pools will be operated one foot above MOP this year to maintain

navigation through both reservoirs.

In the lower Columbia River, John Day reservoir will be operated within a 1.5 foot range of the

minimum level that provides irrigation pumping from an April 10 planning date through

September. Projects may operate outside of pool restrictions if there are capacity constraints on

the power system.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 18

I. Spring Reservoir Operations

The proposed minimum elevation refill targets by June 30th in order of project priority are:

Headwater

Storage Project

Priority

Targeted

Elevation

Probability of

Achieving

(4/10

Estimate)

Reason for Priority

1. Dworshak 1580* 69% • Temperature Control in Snake River

• Snake River Summer Flow Augmentation

2. Libby 2439 40% • Columbia River Summer Flow

Augmentation

• Minimum Flow Requirements for Bull

Trout

3. Hungry

Horse

3540 22% • Columbia River Summer Flow

Augmentation

• Minimum Flow Requirements for Bull

Trout

Run of River

Storage Project

Priority

Targeted

Elevation

Probability of

Achieving

(4/10

Estimate)

Reason for Priority

Grand Coulee 1280 N/A • Columbia River Summer Flow

Augmentation

• Tribal Trust Responsibilities

Due to the low level of storage in headwater storage projects this spring, the FCRPS will be

operated to fill storage reservoirs to less than full pool reservoir elevations by June 30th. The

probabilities of reaching minimum elevation targets will be reviewed and updated with each new

runoff forecast and expected operations.

1. Dworshak Operations

Refill of Dworshak to 1,580 has been a top priority. However, given low flows in the Snake

River this spring, the Federal Agencies are considering a surging operation to help move

juveniles through Lower Granite Pool. Although Federal Agencies would prefer to use

Brownlee to assist in this operation, IPC has indicated they are not willing to operate consistent

with the needs of the surging operation. Therefore, the Federal Agencies are considering use of

Dworshak for this operation. The Federal Agencies are seeking input on this through the

Regional Forum Process.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 19

2. Grand Coulee Operations

Grand Coulee will be operated to achieve elevations in May that allow sufficient irrigation

deliveries to the Columbia Basin Project without drawing Banks Lake below elevation

1,565 feet.

VI. Summer Operations (July-August)

A. Summer Spill for Fish Passage

As stated above, spill at non-collector dams is a high priority, with spill provided at the following

dams in order of priority:

1. The Dalles - This project has the poorest subyearling passage survival rate of the lower

Columbia River projects. Turbine intakes for this project are not screened. and turbine

survival rates are quite low at this project.

2. John Day - This project has the second poorest subyearling passage survival rate of the

lower Columbia River projects. Standard length screens at this project are not very

effective at guiding subyearling migrants. Spill at this project is effective at moving a

good percentage of juveniles.

3. Bonneville - This project has the second highest subyearling passage survival rate of the

lower Columbia River projects. Standard length screens at this project are not very

effective at guiding subyearling migrants. However, minimum spill requirement at this

project is slightly higher than John Day’s requirement, given this year’s flow forecast.

4. McNary - This project has the highest subyearling passage survival rate of the lower

Columbia River projects. Extended length screens at this project are moderately effective

in providing subyearling migrants a route of non-turbine passage. Transportation is also

an option from this project.

5. Ice Harbor - Few fish remain in the lower Snake River due to the collection and

transportation of fish from the upper three projects.

Depending upon volume forecasts, the Federal Agencies will evaluate available storage in the

hydropower system that may be available for summer spill. The decision process for summer

spill is illustrated in Figure 1. For each decision point, three illustrative levels of summer spill

are allocated among lower Columbia River hydropower projects as outlined in Table 1 above,

based on: (a) the project spill priority list above; (b) the passage timing data; and (c) three

illustrative levels of available storage -- 450 MW-mo, 800 MW-mo, and 1,200 MW-mo.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 20

B. Summer Transport Operations

To improve overall juvenile fish survival through the FCRPS, all juvenile fish collected will be

transported from the three Snake River and McNary collector dams. This transport operation is

consistent with actions 42-44 in the NMFS 2000 BO. The summer transport strategy is to

maximize collection and transportation due to low inriver survival rates.

C. Summer Flow Objective at Lower Granite and McNary

Flows lower than the objectives will occur most weeks during the summer migration due to the

extremely low hydrologic conditions and the fact that some storage projects will not refill.

Average summer flows at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River are projected to be about

30 kcfs this year, and average flows at McNary Dam on the Columbia River are expected to be

105 kcfs.

Storage in Dworshak Reservoir and the use of its selective withdrawal facilities provides both

flow and temperature control for Snake River subyearling chinook. Dworshak will begin

drafting in late June or early July when water temperatures at Lower Granite forebay approach

the state water quality standard of 68 °F.

D. Summer Bull Trout Minimum Flow Requirements

The Federal Agencies will endeavor to maintain minimum discharges at Hungry Horse and

Libby as called for in the USFWS 2000 Biological Opinion for bull trout protection and

productivity. However, as the season progresses, consideration may be given to reducing the

bull trout minimums at Libby Dam to 4,000 cubic feet per second in favor of meeting refill

objectives.

E. Summer Reservoir Operations

1. Storage Reservoir Operations

Generally, federal storage projects will be drafted to the following 2000 BO elevations by

August 31 for summer flow augmentation: Dworshak to 1,520 feet; Libby to 2,439 feet or as

needed for minimum flows for bull trout; Hungry Horse to 3,540 feet or as needed for minimum

flows for bull trout; and Grand Coulee to 1,278 feet and Banks Lake to elevation 1,565 feet.

These levels may be modified as necessary to store additional water that is needed to achieve the

forecasted insufficiency criterion.

2. Upper Snake Reservoir Operation

Less than 60 thousand acre feet (kaf) is currently available for flow augmentation from firm

Reclamation sources above Lower Granite Dam. There is a possibility that an additional 50 kaf

will become available for flow augmentation from Reclamation projects in Idaho during 2001.

In addition, Idaho Power Company (IPC) has acquired energy associated with an estimated

109 kaf of diversion that is considered a cumulative effect of irrigation/power actions. Delivery
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 21

of water from Reclamation sources will be managed through the TMT process. With respect to

the delivery of augmentation water below IPC’s Hells Canyon Complex, this is still an issue

under discussion and has yet to be resolved.

3. Brownlee Operation

The Federal Agencies have approached IPC on potential shaping operations. They have

indicated they will operate for power purposes unless otherwise compensated. This is still an

issue under discussion and has yet to be resolved.

VII. Other Operations

A. Fish Facility Operations

Operate all juvenile and adult fish passage facilities to criteria agreed to in the 2001 Fish Passage

Plan. Operating fish facilities within their criteria will ensure adequate juvenile and adult fish

passage conditions at all mainstem dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers.

B. Water Quality – Temperature and Total Dissolved Gas

Continually monitor water temperature and total dissolved gas levels in the Snake and Columbia

rivers. Consider operational effects on water quality fish passage.

C. Treaty Fishery Operations

Regarding stable pool elevations during Zone 6 fishing, the COE has agreed to operate the

Bonneville project forebay near the top one and one half feet of the operating range, while

maintaining some operational flexibility in the other Zone 6 pools to meet other project needs.

D. Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation

2001 presents an important opportunity to learn as much as possible about juvenile and adult fish

passage behavior and survival in a low water year. Various research and monitoring evaluations

have been designed to evaluate the biological effects of 2001 migration conditions.

VIII. Updates/Process

A. Connection to Water Management Plan, TMT Guidelines

The “Federal Agencies Criteria and Priorities for 2001 FCRPS Operations” serves as the

overarching framework to this more detailed 2001 Operational Plan. Through defining the

parameters within which operations must fall this year, the 2001 Operational Plan will then

provide guidance to the TMT for its development of the 2001 Water Management Plan. The

2001 Water Management Plan will be more detailed and will be adapted in season to meet the
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 22

needs of fish migration, power, and changing water conditions within the parameters set by the

2001 Operations Plan.

B. Coordination on Updates

The financial and reliability analyses that drive the operational parameters will be updated on a

regular basis throughout the migration season. If results of revised analyses warrant a change to

the operational parameters, the 2001 Operations Plan will be updated to reflect such changes.

The Federal Agencies may update the 2001 Operations Plan throughout the season if the Federal

Executives recommend changes in the operating priorities. The Federal Agencies may update

the Emergency Criteria of the 2001 Operations Plan when changes in priorities or conditions

warrant update of the technical input. Meetings will be convened on an as needed basis.

C. In-Season Decisionmaking

In-season decisionmaking on real-time implementation of the Water Management Plan will

remain the responsibility of the TMT. As the Federal Executives are more active in the

decisionmaking process in 2001, the TMT in-season schedule should adapt to the Executives’

schedule. Using the Columbia River Regional Forum decisionmaking construct, the Federal

Executives are the final dispute resolution body during 2001. To meet this schedule, the TMT

should meet on Wednesday morning during the same week as scheduled Federal Executive

meetings. Therefore, if dispute resolution from TMT is needed, the IT may convene on

Thursday, and the Executives will be available Friday.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 23

Appendix A

Federal Agencies’ Criteria and Priorities for 2001 FCRPS Operations

March 30, 2001

BACKGROUND

Poor water conditions in the Columbia River basin coupled with an extraordinary power market

on the West Coast have caused an unprecedented river management situation this year. In

recognition of obligations to operate FCRPS projects to meet multiple purposes consistent with:

(1) authorizing legislation, (2) additional laws including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the

Clean Water Act (CWA), Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act,

Reclamation Laws, and cultural resource laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act and

the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, (3) treaties and executive orders

with Pacific Northwest Indian tribes and the Federal Government’s trust responsibilities, and

(4) existing Biological Opinions for the operation of hydroelectric reservoir projects in the

FCRPS and the marketing and transmission of power from those projects, these principles are

proposed by the regional offices of the following federal agencies: Bonneville Power

Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Marine

Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency. These

principles recognize that achieving the objectives of the system’s multi-purpose operation this

year is made more difficult by the continuing poor water conditions, and that the unprecedented

power market conditions this year may result in emergency operations of the FCRPS. The six

Federal agencies agree to seek consensus on emergency operations that minimize variations from

the operations described in existing Biological Opinions, by considering priorities for fish

operations to minimize effects on listed and unlisted fish populations, and to seek offsetting

measures sufficient to achieve the objectives of the Opinions.

Existing Biological Opinions recognize that water management actions may change due to

unforeseeable power system, flood control or other emergencies. Emergencies may include a

power emergency; one based on insufficient power supply to meet demand in the Pacific

Northwest. There may also be West Coast demand involving health and human safety that

requires an emergency response. Emergency actions should be viewed as a last resort, and will

not be used in place of long-term investments necessary to allow full, uninterrupted

implementation of the required reservoir operations while maintaining other project purposes,

such as an adequate and reliable power system.

It is recognized that federal agencies may, through adaptive management, adjust FCRPS

operations over time, as there are deteriorating or improving changes in circumstances, for

example water supply, economic outlook, power market conditions, conditions affecting listed

fish, fish and wildlife, water quality, cultural resources, or project uses. Continued coordination

will ensure federal agencies have current information and appropriate input from all interested

parties on which to base their decisions.

These principles are not intended to and do not alter or affect the statutory and other legal rights,

authorities, responsibilities, and obligations of the federal agencies and the right and authority to
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 24

interpret and implement other statutory authority. These principles are intended only to improve

the coordination of the federal agencies in their management of the FCRPS, and are not intended

to, nor do they create any right, benefit, or new trust responsibilities, substantive or procedural,

enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any

person.

ACTIONS PRECEEDING AND DURING A POWER SYSTEM EMERGENCY

DECLARATION

In order to meet Pacific Northwest load requirements, the following actions will be taken prior to

declaring and throughout a power system emergency:

1. Provide for voluntary conservation;

2. Implement conservation measures, to the extent possible;

3. Exercise contract provisions that reduce firm load obligations;

4. Pursue purchase of load reductions consistent with criterion 3 below;

5. Pursue purchases consistent with criterion 3 below; and

6. Pursue acquisition of irrigation pumping load consistent with criterion 3 below;

POWER EMERGENCIES: CRITERIA AND PROCESS

Assuming an adjustment in FCRPS operations is required to maintain the reliability of the

FCRPS, the following criteria will be used for determining a risk to reliability and a declaration

of a power emergency. The criteria are:

1. Operational Power System Reliability due to near-term insufficiency. Defined as

insufficiency of electrical generation to meet Pacific Northwest electrical near-term demand.

An indicator of resource scarcity may be a quick rise in prices over a few hours or days.

2. Planning Power System Reliability due to a forecasted insufficiency. The reliability criterion

is exceeded when the probability of insufficient generation to meet load exceeds 5 percent for

any of the next 12 months.

3. Power System Reliability due to inadequate reserves to acquire sufficient electrical

generation and maintain other BPA funded activities, including programs to protect, mitigate

and enhance fish and wildlife. The financial criterion for a power system emergency is

exceeded when the probability of FCRPS financial reserves being $0 or less after meeting all

expected financial obligations exceeds 20 percent for any of the next 12 months.

These planning criteria will be estimated using statistical distributions of estimated future values

for streamflows, revenues, power prices and similar inputs to cashflows, and will also take into

account expected benefits of tools which are reliably available to mitigate cashflow problems,

such as monthly 4(h)(10)(c) credits.

All power emergencies will be declared consistent with TMT’s Interim Protocols for Emergency

Operations dated September 22, 2000, or as subsequently amended, including, as soon as

practicable, notice to states and tribes. The Protocols may be found at:

http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/TMT/2000/ManPlan/emerprotocl0922.PDF.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 25

FISHERY OPERATIONS PRIORITIES FOR 2001

1. Recognizing conditions may change, the following are the priorities for fishery operations for

January through August of 2001.

a) Power/Chum Flows through a minimum of 65 percent emergence

b) Full fish transportation in the Snake River

c) Transport evaluation from McNary Dam in the spring

d) Balance spring spill operations for ESA listed stocks (wild and hatchery) at mainstem

FCRPS dams with uncertainty associated with volume forecast error

Allocate any spill available within the following project priority

i) The Dalles (with a consistent operation for study purposes)

ii) Bonneville

iii) John Day

iv) McNary

v) Ice Harbor

e) Lower Granite surging operation targeted to move fish through pool to Lower Granite

f) Balance summer flow augmentation (June 30 refill) and spring spill operations

i) Refill of Dworshak has highest priority for providing fish flow and water

quality benefits

ii) Ensure sufficient water in Hungry Horse and Libby to provide bull trout

minimum flows

g) Minimum Operating Pool on the Snake River and John Day within 11⁄2 foot of minimum

level for irrigation pumping.

h) Balance Vernita Bar protection level and Grand Coulee Elevation

Consider reducing protection flows if the reduced protection flows, combined with

forecasts of BPA loads or streamflows below Grand Coulee provide a high confidence of

benefit in Grand Coulee elevation

i) Summer spill operations at mainstem FCRPS dams for ESA listed stocks (wild and

hatchery)

j) Targeted spring spill for non-listed hatchery releases

k) Targeted summer spill for non-listed hatchery releases

l) Spring system flow augmentation, with emphasis on May

2. Monitor and evaluate (with EPA technical assistance) and consider effects on water quality

and any applicable water quality standards, in determining priorities.

3. Convene TMT to seek input on the timing of implementation and provide greater definition

to these priorities, with elevation to Implementation Team or Regional Federal Executives, as

necessary.

(Italics indicate operations that have already been implemented and completed.)
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 26

Appendix B

Study Assumptions for BPA Analysis

To do these studies, BPA’s 90-Day model was used with five different streamflow traces ranging

from a January-July volume at The Dalles of 52.6 MAF to 59.2 MAF, with a mean of 55.9 MAF.

Note that these studies run through September, so the fact that the 57.5 MAF case has more

Flexible Storage than the 59.2 MAF case is due to differences in August-September streamflows.

All federal hydro projects were initialized to their April 1 elevations and were operated

according to the assumptions discussed in the Appendix. Furthermore, no fish spill was assumed

in these studies and the federal hydro projects achieved their BO elevations by the end of the

Summer.

• Study assumptions

 Projects initialized to their April 1 elevations

 Maintain Vernita Bar through May 7 (forced surplus for 1 week in the 57.5 MAF year)

 No fish spill (but includes sluiceway spill)

 No additional water or load loss due to irrigation buyouts.

 LIB: 4 kcfs through June

6 kcfs min in July-Aug or higher to achieve 2439' by end of August

4 kcfs min in Sep or higher to achieve 2432' by end of September

 HGH: min (.4 kcfs) or C Falls min (3.2 kcfs)

Run harder in July-Aug if we can reach 3540’ by end of August

 DWR: min until July 1 or until 1580’ is reached (keep filling if GCL gets full)

July: run 10 kcfs until 1520' is reached, then run at min

 Arrow: maintain trout spawning flow of 30 kcfs through June. Pick up flows mid-May if

GCL needs the water, but stay above TSR elevation

Operate to TSR or higher elevation July-Sep (this is where water is stored for

Flexible Storage)

 BRN: Pass-inflow through June (2075')

July: draft to 2064'; Aug: draft to 2045'; Sep: draft to 2040'

 Mica: TSR for each ESP flow

 Dun: TSR for each ESP flow

 Koot: Fill to 1745.3' by June (try to maintain 20 kcfs May-Aug)

Evenly draft to 1743.3 by end of August

Pass-inflow in Sep

 Kerr: Min until full (2893'), then pass-inflow

 GCL: Operate as necessary to meet load and Vernita Bar while trying to achieve at least

1280’ sometime in July

End September at 1283'
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 27

Appendix C

Additional Information from the NWPPC Reliability Study

Study Assumptions:

• Loads and purchase quantities/prices consistent with previous NWPPC analysis

• Previous studies indicated risk of September problems, which required further drafts from

storage. This study was initialized on October 1 and assumed no additional drafts were

required in September. This will be looked into further

• DSI load assumption generally consistent with the BPA’s rate mitigation proposal

• 0 percent load growth assumed for Oct-Dec 2001

• 2 percent load growth assumed for Jan-Mar 2002 (relative to 2000)

• run for 500 simulations, with Dec through March run daily with 4 demand sub-periods each

day

• Temperature years were sampled randomly from the 1929-2000 historical record.

• Water years were sampled randomly from your specified water year set.

• Stochastic treatment of thermal forced outage was used in these studies.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 28

Appendix D

Figure 1. Combined Yearling Chinook -- Passage Indices Outmigration Timing Characteristics

FPC Passage Index Data at McNary Dam

----------------------- Passage Dates -----------------------

Year First 1% 5% 10% 50% 90% 95% Last

1992 03/26 04/04 04/06 04/16 05/10 05/23 05/27 06/11

1993 04/15 04/18 04/26 05/03 05/18 05/31 06/04 10/05

1994 04/09 04/13 04/24 05/03 05/19 06/03 06/13 09/08

1995 03/28 04/08 04/22 04/27 05/13 05/28 06/02 10/27

1996 04/19 04/19 04/21 04/23 05/12 05/30 06/05 10/26

1997 04/05 04/06 04/17 04/24 05/10 05/27 06/01 11/21

1998 03/30 04/05 04/08 04/20 05/07 05/27 05/31 12/14

1999 03/30 04/05 04/08 04/18 05/13 05/27 05/30 11/30

2000(1) 04/01 04/10 04/22 04/28 05/15 06/02 06/08 08/08

Mean(2) 04/04 04/10 04/16 04/24 05/13 05/28 06/03 10/15

Middle 80% Total

 Duration MCN

Year (3) Passage

1992 38 2514319

1993 29 1729010

1994 32 2572338

1995 32 2879069

1996 38 1240878

1997 34 1184530

1998 38 1727071

1999 40 3692944

2000(1) 36 1986380

 

(1) Current year 2000 passage dates and durations are predicted by the Real-Time Forecaster; yearly totals are to date.

(2) Mean of historical years.

(3) Duration of middle 80% of run in days.
DRAFT

Federal Agencies’ 2001 Operations Plan Proposal

Page 29

Figure 2. Combined Steelhead -- Passage Indices Outmigration Timing Characteristics

FPC Passage Index Data at McNary Dam

----------------------- Passage Dates -----------------------

Year First 1% 5% 10% 50% 90% 95% Last

1994 04/09 04/19 04/26 04/29 05/11 05/31 06/07 09/06

1995 03/28 04/05 04/25 05/01 05/16 05/25 06/01 11/02

1996 04/19 04/20 04/22 04/25 05/12 05/27 06/01 10/26

1997 04/05 04/19 04/22 04/25 05/08 05/24 06/01 11/14

1998 03/30 04/16 04/20 04/22 05/10 05/30 06/01 12/10

1999 03/30 03/30 04/02 04/22 05/21 06/01 06/03 12/15

2000(1) 04/01 04/09 04/11 04/12 05/10 06/06 06/12 11/28

Mean(2) 04/04 04/13 04/19 04/26 05/13 05/28 06/02 11/07

Middle 80% Total

 Duration MCN

Year (3) Passage

1994 33 106520

1995 25 734878

1996 33 792462

1997 30 1234024

1998 39 571119

1999 41 1004348

2000(1) 56 617482

 

(1) Current year 2000 passage dates and durations are predicted by the Real-Time Forecaster; yearly totals are to date.

(2) Mean of historical years.

(3) Duration of middle 80% of run in days.