1

Mainstem Passage Strategies In The Columbia River System: Transportation, Spill and Flow Augmentation

Presented By:

Albert Giorgi, Ph.D.

2

ASSIGNMENT

Transportation, Spill and Flow Augmentation

1. Update And Synthesize Information On Benefits And Risks

2. Identify Shortcomings, Disputes, And Critical Uncertainties

3. Opportunities to Reduce Uncertainty

3

FOCUS

1. Information Gathered Since ~ 1990

2. Emphasize Most Recent Analyses and Estimates

4

TRANSPORTATION

• Objective of Smolt Transportation

– Offset mortality incurred during migration by

avoiding expanses of the hydro-system.

5

6

KEY ESTIMATES

• Survival (Smolt-to-Adult) = SAR

• Survival Ratio (transport/inriver) = TIR

• Delayed Transport Effects = D

• Smolt Survival Inriver = Vc

7

CONNECTIONS

• SART/SARI TIR (TIR)(Vc) D

• 2%/1% 2.0 (2.0) (0.5) 1.0

• 1.5%/1% 1.5 (1.5) (0.5) 0.75

8

INTERPRETING ESTIMATES

Managers:

• TIR > 1.0 –Transport Survival greater than Inriver Controls

Analysts:

• D > 1.0– No Delayed Effects

• 1.0 > D > Vc—Delayed effects but transport survival greater than inriver controls

• D<Vc– Delayed effects severe, control survival greater than transport

9

TIR:1993-1999 (NMFS & CBFWA)

• Yearling chinook

• Annual TIR Estimates– Generally 1.0 at Lower Granite and Little Goose

dams.– Transport at Lower Monumental and McNary

dams is questionable.

10

NMFS ESTIMATES (1994-1997)

2.58

0.981.00

1.73

1.28 1.32

2.43

0.79

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

1994 1995 1996 1997Year

Tra

nsp

ort

Inri

ve

r R

atio

(T

IR) Wild Chinook (TIR) Hatchery Chinook (TIR)

*Data from Sandford and Smith (In press)

11

CBFWA ESTIMATES, (1997-1999)

1.40

1.701.56 1.57

1.181.29

1.19 1.26

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

1997 1998 1999 GM

Year

Tra

nsp

ort

Inri

ve

r R

atio

(T

IR)

LGR Transported (Tlgr/Co) All Transported (To/Co)

*Data from Bouwes et al. (2001)

12

HYPOTHESIS TESTS

TIR > 1.0 , D >Vc

• None Explicitly Conducted Yet

• Some Years, Small Sample Size (n) Produce

Poor Precision

• Limits Statistically Defensible Conclusions

13

SAR-TREND

1.47

2.37

1.27

0.77

1.21

1.76

1.05

0.60

1.07

1.40

0.600.85

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

1997 1998 1999 GM

Year

Pe

rce

nt

SA

R

LGR Transported (Tlgr)

All Transports (To)

Never Detected Inriver (Co)

*Data from Bouwes et al. (2001)

14

WILD FISH PERFORMANCE

• Difficult to Ascertain with Confidence

• Very small Sample Sizes (n) Produce Poor Precision

15

HOMING IMPAIRMENT

• Form of Delayed Effect

• Can be reflected in SAR to Lower Granite Dam

• Evidence for impairment in some species– Steelhead, Sockeye, and Fall Chinook– Straying and Migration Delay– Radio telemetry studies

16

CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

• Data Gaps

– Snake River Fall Chinook Evaluations (2002)

– Mid-Columbia Stocks at McNary Dam (2002)

• Continue Research

– Snake River Evaluations (SAR )

– Adult Passage (Radio tags/PIT tags)

17

SPILL

• Objective of Spill– Maximize smolt survival at dams– Maintain acceptable water quality

18

ARE SPILLWAYS THE SAFEST PASSAGE ROUTE?

• Collective information =Yes

• Survival magnitude can vary by site and species

• Estimates reflecting total effects are most instructive

19

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS PASSAGE EFFICIENCY

20

DO FLOW DEFLECTORS AFFECT SMOLT SURVIVAL?

• Typically 1-3% increase in mortality

• Depending on site and tool

21

DOES SMOLT SURVIVAL VARY WITH DISCHARGE?

• At some dams

• The Dalles Dam has the most dramatic decrease in survival

22

Survival X Spill Discharge

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

Project/Age Class/Year

Su

rviv

al Low

Medium

High

23

SPILL EVALUATIONS(Passage Models)

• Update parameters, post-PATH

• Models are practical tools for evaluating different spill scenarios

• Reflect responses at population level (smolts)

• Difficult to isolate spill effects in field studies (Zabel et al. in press)

24

INCIDENTAL EFFECTS OF SPILL

• Total Dissolved Gas (TDG)

• Adult passage

25

INCIDENTAL EFFECTS

• 120% saturation target is generally achievable with BO spill schedule, and mid-Columbia River operations

• Adult Passage– Some evidence that high spill levels may

exacerbate delay and fallback– But, no convincing quantitative relationships

26

TDG – Mid-Columbia, 2000

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

1-Apr

15-Apr

29-Apr

13-May

27-May

10-J un

24-J un

8-J ul

22-J ul

5-Aug

19-Aug

2-Sep

16-Sep

30-Sep

Date

PRD

WAN

RIS

RRH

WEL

27

CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES & RESEARCH NEEDS

• Evaluate spill scenarios with updated passage models.

• Consider well-designed in situ experiments when river conditions are controllable (summer, or low flow)

• Clarify spill effects on adult fallback and migration delay.

28

FLOW AUGMENTATION

• Objectives

– Increased H2O velocity (reservoirs)

• Increases smolt migration speed

• Increases reservoir survival

– Decrease H2O temperature (summer)

• Improves rearing / migratory conditions

• Increases survival (juveniles, adults

29

30

FLOW EFFECTS ON MIGRATION SPEED

• Influential variables– Steelhead = Flow– Sockeye = Flow– Yearling Chinook = Smolt development,

Flow– Sub-yearling Chinook = Flow, temp.,

turbidity, size (confounded)

31

FLOW EFFECTS ON SMOLT SURVIVAL

• Yearling Chinook, 1993-2001 (NMFS)– No apparent flow relationship

• Steelhead– No apparent flow relationship 1993-2000– But, pronounced decrease in survival, 2001

• Low flows and early warming implicated

• Fall Chinook– Complex of variables implicated (confounded)

• Flow, temperature, turbidity

32

CAN FLOW AUGMENTATION-

• Substantively alter estuary and ocean plume characteristics within a year?

• Optimize timing of ocean entry?

33

Water Temperature Reduction

• Snake River Summer– Adult steelhead, fall chinook– Juvenile fall chinook

• < 20º C is advantageous

• > 20º C often occurs (Aug.- early Sept.)

34

Dworshak - Cooling Effects

• ~ 1-4º C at LGR, 0.5-1º C at IH

• Cool H2O sinks

• Deeper refugia

• Mixing at dams

35

COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATIONS

• Generally lacking

• Few at best

– SOR

– 1991-1995 (BPA-funded study)

• Flow/speed/survival relationships evaluations

36

FEATURES OF EVALUATIONS

• Document Volume and shape of FA

• Describe change in H2O velocity and temp.

• Predict change in smolt speed and survival

• Focus on key populations

37

CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES & RESEARCH NEEDS

• Conduct comprehensive FA evaluations through 2001

• Design experiments targeting Snake River fall chinook– Manipulate Dworshak and HC– Survival

• Continue mainstem survival monitoring

38

Estimated increase in water velocity attributable to flow augmentation springs (10 April – 20 June) and summers

(21 June – 31 August) 1991-1995

39

Percent decrease in estimated smolt travel times for yearling chinook using base flows. Asterisk in 1993 indicates that the CRiSP model predicted no change in travel time associated with flow augmentation.

40

41