TVA Responds to Recent Developments

[Looper Flies]

This is from the official TVA Response:

On June 20, 2008, TVA issued a final environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact for proposed changes to releases of water from Tims Ford Dam. The propose changes are aimed at improving habitat conditions for two endangered species; the boulder darter and cracking pearlymussel. They should also benefit five other endangered species and two species which are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened.

The EA considers two alternatives: 1) the No Action Alternative of continuing to operate Tims Ford Dam under historic multi-use guidelines established when the project was completed in 1970, as modified over the years to include minimum flow releases; and 2) an Adaptive Management for Multi-use Action Alternative. The Adaptive Management alternative is TVA’s preferred alternative and TVA intends to implement it in 2008. Under this alternative, TVA would use a combination of sluicing, spilling, and short generation periods from May through October. These changes would make late spring through early fall releases in the Elk River below Tims Ford Dam more closely resemble the natural free-flowing stream flows and water temperatures needed for improved native mussel and fish habitat.

The water temperatures between Tims Ford Dam and Old Dam Ford Access (Elk River Mile 119) would remain suitable for trout. The levels of Tims Ford Reservoir would not be affected by these proposed changes. Through the chosen Adaptive Management alternative, TVA seeks to balance the goal of improving habitat for endangered aquatic species with the other program interests of flood protection, water supply, water quality, recreation, and power production. The changes are a required response to a recent evaluation and consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of operating the TVA reservoir system on endangered and threatened species.

[MikeA]

The water temperatures between Tims Ford Dam and Old Dam Ford Access (Elk River Mile 119) would remain suitable for trout.

So how many miles of Trout water does that leave?

[Luke Warmwater]

Mike I don't have the exact river miles on hand, but it's about the same as before all this started. So, it looks like one of the differences in TVA's response to U.S  will be a little higher flow.

Hopefully, the changes will benefit the trout and the two endangered species; the boulder darter and cracking pearlymusselor.

[czkid]

The big question remains:  1) How are they planning to monitor those temperatures; and 2) what is the backup plan if temps start rising??

Specifics would be appreciated.......

Ralph

[Mike Hill]

I really don't think they know.  In doing research on these two organisms, none of this makes any real sense.  Unless these academics and treehuggers are hording their information on the biology of the two species for their own personal gain.  Very few hard facts can be ascertained from internet research. 

Boulder Darter - very little is known about them biologically - they were first described in the late 1980"s at about the same time as they were listed as an endangered species.  Just about any of the information about their biology is assumptions based on a surrogate species of darter (can't remember the name of the one).  More information is known now, particularly about their reproduction as they have been successfully bred in captivity and some of the young released back into the wild.  Many sources say they were widespread at one time - a statement that cannot be taken as fact since they have not been seen anywhere but the Elk, some of it's tribs, and possibly a couple of other places.   Almost all sources say they have declined (if in fact they have) due to dams.  The fluctuation of river levels, supposedly leaves the boulders they deposit their eggs on  high and dry during their possible breeding season of May-June.  In 1998 a recovery program was authored which is a bunch of academic gobbeldy goop that had no real practical recovery actions.  In 1991 and 2001 and possibly in 2003 stream habitat enhancement was implemented by putting flat rock boulders in the river at a few places and captive bred fish introduced.  These actions have been reported as being very successful.  At no time has the mention of water temperature been an issue (unless there is some horded information about the species).  To make a big issue of temperature seems ludicrous at best.  In my little Texas bred common sense, from the information available, there should be implemented a plan to install more flat boulder habitat and more consistent control of water levels, particularly in May and June.  Both things, I, as a trout angler, could endorse and it didn't take me 20 years and untold millions of dollars to figure that out.

Cracking Pearlymussel (CP)
The CP was first described in 1820, but was supposedly rare even then, as its rarity is the reason not much is known of it's biology.  It is also described as once being widespread (Ohio River Basin)- a common statement that quite often seems not to be able to be  backed up with evidence - just speculation.   The reason for it's decline is also directly related to dam construction.  In 1989 it too was put on the endangered species list and a recovery program authored that contains much of the same gobbeldy goop as the darter's report.  Apparently siltation (although the species has been collected alive in silted areas as well as sandy areas)  and stream degradation affects it for a couple of reasons.  The heavy mud and silt can likely clog up their siphons and "drown" them and cover their eggs.  Apparently the source of the main mud and silt is coal mining and tree harvesting practices.  They also need host fish for their "larva" to attach to.  Heavy mud and silt would prevent fish from being in the area when their "larva" hatch.  I have been unable to find any information that says water temperature and water levels are detrimental.  Texas bred common sense would  lead me to believe, that practices to decrease siltation (good land practices and consistent flow) and a means to increase fish population when their "larva" are present.  Again, all things that I as a trout angler (or any other type of angler) could endorse and didn't take 20 years and untold millions of dollars to figure out.  In fact the boulder stream enhancement for the boulder darter should help immensely with the CP efforts also as evidence by surveys after the placement of the boulders that showed increased mussel population at those locations. 

I am assuming the temperature modulating is a new thing based on an assumption that water temperature was at one time warmer in the Elk before the dam was built.  I wonder if that is true or not and by how much.  In my humble opinion "Jack Horner" type assumptions can be very wrong and possibly dangerous to the current populations of fauna and to the species being protected.  On the other hand it could be from hard empirical data collected by the aquarium and/or hatchery raising the captive bred replacements.  Wish I could find the answer.  But, since the darters have been observed (possibly thriving) around and using the added boulders and in the current temperatures, it would seem more effort needs to be put into more boulders, better enforcement of land practices, and better control of the water levels - all items wished for for a long time.

2 cents

[Luke Warmwater]

CZ here is the link to the findings, which address your questions. Your questions mirror my questions.

http://www.tva.gov/environment/reports/timsford2/TimsFord_FEA.pdf

They are going to place a real time probe at Old dam Ford to monitor the water temps.

and,

This seems to answer the question of the back up plan.

Page 8- TVA will adjust releases from Tims Ford Dam through a combination of spilling, sluicing, or generating to provide water temperatures appropriate for the warm-water endangered species and the trout by monitoring temperature throughout the tailwaters of Tims Ford Dam. The appropriate water temperatures vary seasonally. A predictive hydrothermal model (similar to those employed to ensure thermal compliance at TVA power plants) would be developed to plan releases on a weekly
basis. Target temperature ranges are those suitable for trout immediately below Tims Ford Dam, transitioning to those ranges suitable for boulder darters and the mussels further downstream.

To meet temperature goals, TVA may need to use combinations of sluicing and spilling non-generation flows from May 1 - October 15. Use of the large turbine would be limited during this period to shorter duration pulses than observed under previous No Action Alternative operations. Sluicing the minimum flows would ensure that temperatures in the upper tailwater do not become too warm for trout. During the May 1 to October 15 period, if there is adequate water supply, TVA would increase allowable non-generation flow at the dam to 200 - 300 cfs (possibly more) in order to move water through the system. A minimum flow of 80 cfs would continue to be implemented during low inflow conditions. Non-generation flows
might vary to higher ranges in response to large rainfall events. The Adaptive Management process would be used to determine appropriate non-generation flows, with water supply needs and flood-protection needs being balanced against the needs of recreational users (anglers and small non-motorized watercraft) to access the river.

[czkid]

They need multiple temperature measuring sources to preclude problems.  Given you have 1 (one) each temperature measuring device at Old Dam Ford... and it goes to hell... how do they intend to respond... how do they know what's going on in the river... measuring at the dam... not hardly.  There are simply too many variables in a game like this to rely on a single measuring point.

I'm sorry... I'm an engineer that designs experiments every day for complex situations... and this report is not worthy of the TVA.  There is no mention of what specifically triggers a response, what that response is, and whom is responsible.

If this is supposed to be an executive summary of the plan, then I'd like to see a detailed implementation plan for the modified approach.  Otherwise the plan is vague and fraught with potential for failure.

Ralph

[Luke Warmwater]

Tell 'em your thoughts. That's exactly what a lot of us have already done.

Tina M. Tomaszewski, NEPA Resources
Tennessee Valley Authority
1101 Market Street, LP 5U
Chattanooga, TN 37402
tmtomaszewski@tva.gov
Phone: 423-751-7291

[Mike Hill]

If this is supposed to be an executive summary of the plan, then I'd like to see a detailed implementation plan for the modified approach.  Otherwise the plan is vague and fraught with potential for failure.

Ralph

If you think these are vague, you ought to read the original recovery recommendations!  I'm SURE that there is a lot of information that "they" have that we don't have access to.  However, I would like to know how it was decided that temperature was the problem, AND how "they" determined it, when most reports (going back to the 1980's) I have seen target, polluted runoff, siltation, bad land use practices, wildly unnatural and variable water flows, and loss of acceptable habitat.  What I've read of the report, it doesn't address these problems, except the water flows.  But I suppose it is a report by and for the TVA and probably is out of the scope.  But who is addressing these problems - PROBABLY THE MAIN PROBLEMS?  It has supposedly been determined that added boulder habitat is necessary, and it has been determined how that habitat should be sized and oriented and it has been determined that man-made products don't work,  I think this is a step in the right direction - but one that is common sensical.  It's funny or should I say disgusting that the government has spent 20 years and countless $$$ for a report that just about any one of us could have written just from common sense.  And to boot it all, it doesn't even address all or possibly even the major problems. 

[czkid]

In essence this report says "Trust me, I know what I'm doing."  I don't have that kind of track record with TVA, to just say "Yep, go for it!!"  Unfortunately, my admittedly limited experience tends to say; "Be careful... be VERY careful."

[bd]

Mike, you keep suggesting that people are hoarding information for "personal gain."  What do you mean?

It sounds to me like the biologists leading the recovery effort are most likely salaried government employees.  To the extent that there's non-government employees involved, I can guarantee you that nobody's getting rich off of grant money to study darters.

"Texas common sense" aside, nearly every warmwater fish I know of - stripers, bass, shad, creek minnows, crappie, etc - has a spawning period that is influenced by water temperature.  If you keep the Elk below 60 degrees year-round, I don't see how we could expect that not to have a suppressive effect on reproduction for any fish that's spawn is triggered by springtime warming.

bd

[Mike Hill]

BD, I'm not suggesting personal monetary gain.  Lets just say I don't trust much in government, especially the current majority and it's leaders in Congress and I certainly don't believe all that the TVA or the Corps says.  History is studied because History does repeat itself.  I am suggesting ulterior motives.  From the suggestion of Fishing bans in some saltwater locations to the attacks on gun ownership and hunting that I am expecting, our sport is never without peril.  Give an inch - they take a foot.  Anglers and the TWRA have been advocating for more consistent water flow, etc.. for decades.  And although changes have been made, I doubt anyone is thoroughly happy.  I guess I'm a little bitter that many (including the TWRA) have been advocating just what this proposal advocates, with little response, and now the "green team" moves in and action results.  That scares me.  They had to spend lots of our tax dollars to do what many have told them they needed to do for years.  The TVA is of course a federally owned corporation that has done a lot of good for the Southeast, but it has been essentially granted "free" use of public waters and land in return for several "services".  It is a bastardized economic entity that I'm glad is there, but in dealings with - I am wary of.  Not increasing their costs to the detriment of others is apparently a norm - much like any other corporation.  But I expect more from this federally mandated protected monopoly.  Why have they not repaired the damaged generator at Tims Ford Dam?  Why have they not replaced the gate (due for Center Hill) that they sent to Kentucky (I can get an entire steel building fabricated in weeks)?  All that aside, the main issue for me is why the import put on water temperature and flow now, almost to the exclusion of other remedies.!  It is said in the report and other reports that the "likely" breeding time for the boulder darter is May/June.  Why are they proposing to control the flows from May to October?  Is it because the boulder darter larva is susceptible to low water temps?  Then why only October?  Are they only susceptible for only 4 months?  Or is it that by October the water temperatures are going to go lower anyway?   I understand that many fish's reproduction is effected by temperature, but also important are factors such as structural habitat, accessibilty of hosts, water quality, siltation, pollution, moon phases, duration of daylight, etc...   I have not read every word of this study, but it seems not to address any of those problems.  Is it because this study is only aimed at TVA?  If I remember correctly the reports states that one of the main problems was the lose of boulder strewn stretches of Tennessee Valley rivers due to their damming.  The promulgation of that reason and the apparent past success with the addition of boulder habitat would lead me to believe that it should be addressed in this report, especially since TVA was "at fault" for the loss.  The report went to great lengths to explain the water flows and the impact all up and down the river, but then apparently only have one temperature monitoring station.  Per the report, there is a reported population of boulder darters about 100 river miles below the dam.  Why are they concentrating so much effort in the upper reaches, when at least some effort should be aimed at improving the habitat for the lower river population.  Yes, I understand the "Butterfly Effect", but how much of what they are proposing will effect the lower river population?  I doubt much.  Believe me I think this is a great step and should help improve the river, but why only water temperature and flow when previous reports and their own report stipulate the problem is greater than just water flow and temperature.    If I remember correctly, hasn't the Clinch been under better regulated flows for a time now, and there has been a marked increase in mussel populations?   I wonder how the regs have affected the various fish populations? 

And yes, I do believe that academia hordes information.  I'm sure they don't think we dumb us'ns are capable of understanding, but perhaps more importantly, like the medieval church whose practices caused Martin Luther to respond with his 95 theses and resulted n the Protestant Revolution, keep the masses in the dark and you can pull anything over their eyes. 

[adamtn]

So how many miles of Trout water does that leave?

that is the stretch that most of the trout currently reside in, about 14-16 miles