adult pacific lamprey: known passage challenges and opportunities
TRANSCRIPT
Adult Pacific lamprey: Known passage challenges and opportunities for improvement
Matthew Keefer1, Christopher Caudill1 & Mary Moser2
Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences
University of Idaho
2Northwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Fisheries
Presentation objectives• Pacific lamprey are not Pacific salmon. . . . • Adult passage challenges
– What we’ve learned – Passage barrier types
• Adult passage solutions – Structural fixes – Operational fixes
Basin-scale fidelity
Natal Site Fidelity Site Infidelity
Anadromous Fish Migrations
Regional fidelity? Opportunistic
spawners
Precise homing
Migration system and “success”Homing Natal Stream
15 % Unsuccessful
Obstruction
85% Successful
SF Salmon River Chinook salmon
Migration system and “success”Homing: Natal Stream
15 % Unsuccessful
Obstruction
Site infidelity:
15 %
Obstruction
85%
Breeding Population
Breeding Population
85%
Lamprey are not salmon. . . .
• How we measure ‘success’ differs • However, there are clear passage problems and human-‐created migration barriers
USFWS 2012
Research and Monitoring Programs
Passage Challenges
Main stem dams• Research: USACE – NOAA – UI – Tribal -‐ PUD • Multiple strategies
– Radio + acoustic telemetry – PIT tags – Challenge experiments
Adaptive management: 1) Identify passage problems 2) Implement, test solutions
Dam
BO TD JD MN IH PR
Perc
ent p
ast (
%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 20052006200720082009201120122013
Main stem ‘escapement’
High attrition at dams
PIT-‐tag monitoring project
Keefer et al. 2009 (N Am J Fish Manag)
Long-‐term monitoring indicates
modest improvements
Weight (g)
200-2
50
250-3
00
300-3
50
350-4
00
400-4
50
450-5
00
500-5
50
550-6
00
600-6
50
650-7
00>7
00
Perc
ent p
ast B
ON
(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
20122013
Bonneville passage by lamprey size
Weight (g)
200-2
50
250-3
00
300-3
50
350-4
00
400-4
50
450-5
00
500-5
50
550-6
00
600-6
50
650-7
00>7
00
Perc
ent (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
1002005 (n = 841)2006 (n = 2000)2007 (n = 757)2008 (n = 608)2009 (n = 368)
2005-2009 Results
Size matters: dams present significant challenges
for smaller lamprey
2013
Dam-‐wide dam passage efficiency
Dam
Bonne
ville
John
Day
Ice H
arbor
Ice H
arbor
McNary
The D
alles
McNary
Pas
s / A
ppro
ach
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2684
665
204
5315812
21
10 years of Radio-tagged lamprey: # Pass / # Approach
Keefer et al. 2012 (Technical Synthesis Report)
Far lower than salmon performance
Bonneville bottlenecks (RT)
Turbulent, high velocity
Keefer et al. 2013 (CJFAS)
Tributary barriersSmall, low-‐head
diversion dams can be lamprey barriers
Umatilla dams
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
3-Mile Boyd's Maxwell Dillon Westland Feed Stanfield
Mea
n Fi
tted
Prob
abili
ty o
f Pas
sing
Jackson and Moser 2013 (N Am J Fish Manag)
7 Umatilla River diversion damsVariable – and sometimes very low passage success
Tributary barriers
Stillwater Sciences 2014
Culverts, road crossings, hydraulic jumps
Potential Passage Solutions
• Structural fixes at dams – Lamprey passage system (LPS) – Lamprey flume system (LFS) – Wetted wall
• Concrete rounding, vertical step removal • Open access to low-‐velocity routes • Velocity-‐reducing ‘bollards’ on fishway floors
Keefer et al. 2010 (N Am J Fish Manag)
Moser et al. 2011 (Fish Manag Ecol)
Keefer et al. 2011 (Fish Manag Ecol)
LPS, LFS
Moser et al. 2011 (Fish Manage Ecol)
>30,000 lamprey have used the BON LPS’s
BON LFS-LPS
BON LPS
Diversion dam LPS
Umatilla River
Threemile Creek
LPS is a proven structural solution
Wetted wall
Bradford Island fishway
Existing LPS
Velocity-‐reducing ‘bollards’
Bollard Field
John Day Dam N Fishway Entrance
Flow
Lamprey movement in the JDD bollard field
Acoustic video imagery: 100s of lamprey
Operational solutions• Reduced night-‐time fishway velocity
– Bonneville experiment was successful – Improved lamprey access to fishways
Johnson et al. 2012 (Trans Am Fish Soc)
High day velocity
Low night velocity
Jackson and Moser 2012 (N Am J Fish Manag)
Barrier removal: Boyd’s diversion damBefore removal
After removal
Passage efficiency = 81%
Passage efficiency = 32%
Conclusions• Lamprey passage challenges are complex
– Many types of barriers – Site-‐specific issues and seasonal variability – No ‘one size fits all’ solutions
• Sustained ‘adaptive management’ effort has greatly improved our understanding
• The solution tool box has expanded • Many opportunities for incremental change
Jeremy Red Star Wolf, Umatilla Tribe
http://www.uidaho.edu/cnr/research/researchprograms/FERL/publications!
• Jackson and Moser. 2012. Low-‐elevation dams are impediments to adult Pacific lamprey spawning migration in the Umatilla River, Oregon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:548-‐556. !
• Johnson et al. 2012. Movement of radio-‐tagged adult Pacific lampreys during a large-‐scale fishway velocity experiment. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141:571-‐579.
!• Keefer et al. 2009. Effects of body size and river environment on the upstream migration of adult Pacific lampreys. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 29:1214-‐1224.
!• Keefer et al. 2010. Testing adult Pacific lamprey performance at structural challenges in fishways. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 30:376-‐385.
!• Keefer et al. 2011. Behaviour of adult Pacific lampreys in near-‐field flow and fishway design experiments. Fisheries Management and
Ecology 18:177-‐189.
!• Keefer et al. 2012. Adult Pacific lamprey passage: data synthesis and fishway improvement prioritization tools. Technical Report 2012-‐8.
!• Keefer et al. 2013. Fishway passage bottleneck identification and prioritization: a case study of Pacific lamprey at Bonneville Dam.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 70:1551-‐1565.
!• Moser et al. 2011. Development of Pacific lamprey fishways at a hydropower dam. Fisheries Management and Ecology 18:190-‐200.
Acknowledgements
E. JohnsonT. Clabough
M. JepsonT. Dick
J. Rerecich
R. O’Connor
S. Tackley T. Mackey
S. Lee
S. HemstromM. Fox
Additional support
Field and data management
D. Queampts
NWFSCNMFS
C. BoggsL. Martinez-Rocha
C. Noyes
C. Baker
C. Erdman J. Renner M. Kirk
C. Peery