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