Date post: | 20-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | maximilian-carson |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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