View
216
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Survival of Migrating Salmonid Smolts in the Snake and Lower
Columbia Rivers, 2009
Technical Management TeamDecember 11, 2009Lessons Learned 2009
Bill Muir bill.muir@noaa.govJim Faulkner jim.faulkner@noaa.gov
Outline• Juvenile travel time and survival
through the hydropower system
Outline• Juvenile travel time and survival
through the hydropower system• Percentage transported
Outline• Juvenile travel time and survival
through the hydropower system• Percentage transported• Factors affecting travel time and
survival
Travel Time and Survival for PIT-tagged Spring Migrants
0
50
100
150
200
Apr 9
Apr 16
Apr 23
Apr 30
May 7
May 14
May 21
May 28
1997
Weekly Mean Flow (kcfs)Lower Granite Dam 1997-2009
2004 20072001
2009
2008
Mean
2006
Date at Lower Granite Dam
Mea
n F
low
(k
cfs)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Apr 9
Apr 16
Apr 23
Apr 30
May 7
May 14
May 21
May 28
2001
Weekly Mean %SpilledLGR, LGS, LMN 1997-2009
20062008
2004
2007
2005
2009
Mean
Date
Per
cen
tag
e S
pil
l
6
8
10
12
14
16
Apr 9
Apr 16
Apr 23
Apr 30
May 7
May 14
May 21
May 28
2001
Weekly Mean TemperatureLittle Goose Dam 1997-2009
2002
20072004
2009
1998
2008
Mean
Date
Tem
per
atu
re ( C
)
Bonnevill
e
The D
alle
s
John D
ay
Hells Canyon
OxbowBrownlee
Priest Rapids
Wanapum
Rock Island
Rocky Reach
Wells
Chief Joseph
Grand Coulee
McN
ary
Ice H
arb
or
Litt
le G
oose
Low
er
Gra
nit
e
Low
er
Monum
enta
l
Juvenile detectorsSnake R. trap
Hatchery &Trap Releases
PIT-tag Data Sources
Hatchery stream type Chinook (1998-2009)
0 200 400 600 800
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
KooskiaImnaha R. weir
Rapid RiverMcCallPahsimeroiSawtooth
Dworshak
R2=0.874, p=0.002
Distance to Lower Granite Dam (km)
Surv
ival
Rele
ase
to L
GR
Stream Type ChinookSnake River Basin Hatcheries
Mean of Index Groups
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 20080.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
X = 61.0%59.0%
Sur
viva
lRel
ease
to
LGR
Yearling ChinookUpper Columbia River Hatcheries
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090.4
0.5
0.6
49.3%
Su
rviv
alR
elea
se t
o M
CN
SteelheadUpper Columbia River Hatcheries
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20090.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
52.1%
Su
rviv
alR
elea
se t
o M
CN
Stream-type Chinook Median Travel TimeLower Granite to Bonneville (461 km)
0
10
20
30
40
50
12 Apr 2 May 22 May 11 Jun
20082001
2009
2004
Date Leaving Lower Granite Dam
Tra
vel
Tim
e (d
ays)
Steelhead Median Travel TimeLower Granite to Bonneville (461 km)
0
10
20
30
40
50
12 Apr 2 May 22 May 11 Jun
2008
2001
2009
2004
2006
Date Leaving Lower Granite Dam
Tra
vel
Tim
e (d
ays)
91.0
95.1
BON TDA
ICE
94.198.586.582.4 (90.7) 95.785.3
94.993.192.089.181.8 (90.4) 87.8MCNJDA LMO LGRLGO SRTBON
JDAMCN
LMO LGOLGR
SRT
Stream-typeChinook salmon reach survival
91.0
95.1
BON TDA
ICE
94.198.586.582.4 (90.7) 95.785.3
94.993.192.089.181.8 (90.4) 87.8MCNJDA LMO LGRLGO SRTBON
JDAMCN
LMO LGOLGR
SRT
Stream-typeChinook salmon reach survival
93.7
91.6
BON TDA
ICE
97.793.795.091.0 (95.4) 100.287.0
96.392.189.577.969.1 (83.1) 73.1MCNJDA LMO LGRLGO SRTBON
JDAMCN
LMO LGOLGR
SRT
Steelhead reach survival
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
X = 72.6%
78.8%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
X = 62.4%
80.0%
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val
Lower Granite to McNary
SteelheadStream-type Chinook
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
X = 69.3%
70.6%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
X = 59.5%
86.4%
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val
McNary to Bonneville
SteelheadStream-type Chinook
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 20080.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
X = 48.8%
53.2%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 20080.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
??X = 38.3%
69.3%
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val
Snake River Trap to Bonneville
SteelheadStream-type Chinook
Yearling ChinookUpper Columbia River Hatcheries
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
84.3%
Su
rviv
alM
CN
to
BO
N
SteelheadUpper Columbia River Hatcheries
2005 2006 2007 2008 20090.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
Su
rviv
alM
CN
to
BO
N
72.5%
SockeyeRedfish Lake Creek Trap
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
2007 2008 2009
Rel to LGR LGR to MCN LGR to BON
Reach
Su
rviv
al
SockeyeSawtooth Trap
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Rel to LGR LGR to MCN LGR to BON
2007 2008 2009
Reach
Su
rviv
al
Sockeye fall releases
• Alturus Lake, Pettit Lake, and Redfish Lake
Sockeye fall releases
• Alturus Lake, Pettit Lake, and Redfish Lake
• Survival to Lower Granite, 2009 – 10-37%
Sockeye fall releases
• Alturus Lake, Pettit Lake, and Redfish Lake
• Survival to Lower Granite, 2009 – 10-37%
• 2007 and 2008, – 12-28%
Spill, Transport,In-River PopulationSize, and Survival
Preliminary estimates of transport % for 2009 based on PIT-tag data:
• 40% wild Chinook• 38% hatchery
Chinook• 46% wild steelhead• 43% hatchery
steelhead
96 98 00 02 04 06 08 090
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
96 98 00 02 04 06 08 090
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Per
cen
t T
ran
spo
rted
Percent Transported to Below Bonneville
SteelheadStream-type Chinook
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 20080.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6Chinook - open circlesHatchery fish -----
Outmigration year
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f fi
sh t
o b
elo
wM
cNar
y n
on
-det
ecte
d a
tS
nak
e R
iver
co
llec
tor
dam
s
Bonnevill
e
The D
alle
s
John D
ay
OxbowBrownlee
Priest Rapids
Wanapum
Rock Island
Rocky Reach
Wells
McN
ary
Ice H
arb
or
Litt
le G
oose
Low
er
Gra
nit
e
Low
er M
onum
enta
lCrescent Island
Minimum Estimate of Mortality from Avian
Predation• Percentage of PIT-tagged
steelhead detected at LMN eventually recovered on nesting colonies1998 4% 2004 19%
1999 5% 2005 9%2000 4% 2006 5%2001 21% 2007 4%2002 10% 2008 5%2003 4% 2009 4%
0 5 10 15 20 250.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
R2 = 0.93, P < 0.001
Minimum % avian predation
Est
imat
ed s
urv
ival
LM
O D
am t
o M
CN
Dam
Steelhead
Maximumtransport
Transportwith spill
Conclusions
• In low-spill (high transport) years, lower survival results, in part, simply from fewer fish in the river
Conclusions
• In low-spill (high transport) years, lower survival results, in part, simply from fewer fish in the river– In-river survival would have been
higher if non-tagged bypass fish had been returned to the river
Conclusions
• In low-spill (high transport) years, lower survival results, in part, simply from fewer fish in the river– In-river survival would have been
higher if non-tagged bypass fish had been returned to the river
• Converse is also true: in-river survival increases with increasing spill through indirect effect of reducing individual vulnerability to predation
Conclusions
• Direct or indirect effects of increased spill may not improve smolt-to-adult survival for the population
Conclusions
• Direct or indirect effects of increased spill may not improve smolt-to-adult survival for the population
– Cumulative effect must offset effect of transporting fewer steelhead
So why was steelhead survival so high in 2009?
Lower Granite DamYearling Chinook
Apr 10 Apr 30 May 20 Jun 90
50
100
150
200
250
300
2009
20082007
Sm
olt
In
dex (
x 1
,000)
Steelhead
Apr 10 Apr 30 May 20 Jun 90
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
200920082007
Day of Year
Sm
olt
In
dex (
x 1
,000)
Survival, Flow, Passage IndexSteelhead 2009
Apr 10 Apr 20 Apr 30 May 10 May 20 May 300.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175Survival
Psg. Index
Flow @LGO
(Spline)
PIT Index
Day of year
Est
. S
urv
& N
orm
. P
I Flow
(kcfs) @ LG
O
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4505
10
15
20
25
30
35
Average Flow at MCN
Med
ian
Tra
vel
Tim
eL
GR
Dam
to
B
ON
Dam R2 = 0.52, P = 0.005
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 405
10
15
20
25
30
35
Average %spill
Med
ian
Tra
vel
Tim
eL
GR
Dam
to
BO
N D
am R2 = 0.81, P < 0.0001
Steelhead Travel Time LGR to BON
Travel Time vs. #SBC
Travel Time vs. %SpillTravel Time vs. Flow
0 1 2 3 4 5 65
10
15
20
25
30
35
Number of Surface Collectors
Med
ian
Tra
vel
Tim
eL
GR
Dam
to
B
ON
Dam
R2 = 0.18, P = 0.15
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 4500.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Average Flow at MCN
Est
imat
ed S
urv
ival
LG
R D
am t
o
BO
N D
am
R2 = 0.36, P = 0.050
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Average %Spill
Est
imat
ed S
urv
ival
LG
R D
am t
o B
ON
Dam R2 = 0.61, P = 0.004
Steelhead Survival LGR to BON
Survival vs. Travel Time
10 15 20 25 30 350.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Median Travel Time LGR to BON (days)
Est
imat
ed S
urv
ival
LG
R D
am t
o
BO
N D
am R2 = 0.79, P = 0.0002
0 1 2 3 4 5 60.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Number of Surface Collectors
Est
imat
ed S
urv
ival
LG
R D
am t
o
BO
N D
am
R2 = 0.33, P = 0.062
Survival vs. #SBC
Survival vs. %SpillSurvival vs. Flow
Effect of Number of Dams with Surface Collectors on Migration Rate
Steelhead
After accounting for day of release, flow, and spill percentage in a multiple regression model, each additional surface collector was associated with an increase in median migration rate from Lower Granite to Bonneville of 1.8 km/day (P < 0.0001).
Effect of Number of Dams with Surface Collectors on Migration Rate
Steelhead
After accounting for day of release, flow, and spill percentage in a multiple regression model, each additional surface collector was associated with an increase in median migration rate from Lower Granite to Bonneville of 1.8 km/day (P < 0.0001).
Stream-type Chinook
There was no evidence for an effect of number of surface collectors on migration rate for stream-type Chinook after accounting for these factors (P = 0.38)
Steelhead Predicted Median Travel Time by Number of Dams with Surface Collectors
Effect of Number of Dams with Surface Collectors on Survival
Steelhead
After accounting for temperature, flow, %spill, and %bird predation in a multiple regression model, each additional surface collector was associated with an increase in estimated mean survival from Lower Granite to McNary of 1.85% (P = 0.0125).
Effect of Number of Dams with Surface Collectors on Survival
Steelhead
After accounting for temperature, flow, %spill, and %bird predation in a multiple regression model, each additional surface collector was associated with an increase in estimated mean survival from Lower Granite to McNary of 1.85% (P = 0.0125).
Stream-type Chinook
For Chinook, each additional surface collector was associated with an increase in estimated mean survival from Lower Granite to McNary of 1.01% (P = 0.0013).
Conclusions
• Juvenile steelhead survival was the highest yet measured
Conclusions
• Juvenile steelhead survival was the highest yet measured
• Contributing factors include relatively high flow and spill rates, cool water temperatures, early migration, increased number of surface passage structures, and more fish left inriver
Conclusions
• Juvenile steelhead survival was the highest yet measured
• Contributing factors include relatively high flow and spill rates, cool water temperatures, early migration, and an increased number of surface passage structures
• Reduced steelhead residualization?
Questions
Recommended