The effects of summer flow augmentation on the migratory behavior and survival of juvenile Snake

River fall Chinook salmon

Project 199102900

Hells Canyon Complex No temperature control

Clearwater River

Dworshak Dam Selector gates

Lower Granite Dam and Reservoir

*

*9.0 to 11.0 C18.4 to 20.8 CLayered

Temperaturekey:

oo

Snake River

Overview of Summer Flow Augmentation

Objective 1) Provide information to fishery managersto maximize the effectiveness of summer flow augmentation

PIT Tagging Studies

In-season Analyses

In season analyses

18-May

28-May

07-Jun

17-Jun

27-Jun

07-Jul

17-Jul

27-Jul

06-Aug

16-Aug

26-Aug

05-Sep

15-Sep

25-Sep

05-Oct

15-Oct

25-Oct

Date

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Cumulative passage (%)

Observed Forecast 90% intervals

NAJFM (20:651-660)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, based on my education, experience and professional judgment. Executed July 20, 2004, at Ahsahka, Idaho.________________________William P. Connor, Ph.D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

02-May 14-May 26-May 07-Jun 19-Jun 01-Jul 13-Jul 25-Jul

Passage Date Lower Granite Dam 2004

0

50

100

150

200

Nu

mb

er p

asse

dIn season data (PITTAGIS and DART)

Post-season Analyses

Post-season evaluation on flow effects

Baseline JulyAugust

01-Jul 15-Jul 29-Jul 12-Aug 26-Aug

Date

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Flow (m3/s)

Observed

NAJFM 23:362-375NAJFM 23:362-375

Post-season evaluation temperature effects

Baseline JulyAugust

01-Jul 15-Jul 29-Jul 12-Aug 26-AugDate

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

Temperature (oC)

Observed

NAJFM 23:362-375NAJFM 23:362-375

Post-season evaluation of survival effects

—— Estimated survival to the Estimated survival to the tailrace of Lower Granite tailrace of Lower Granite Dam for groups of fish Dam for groups of fish called “cohorts”called “cohorts”

— — Four cohorts per yearFour cohorts per year

— — Years 1998 to 2003Years 1998 to 2003

NAJFM 23:362-375 NAJFM 23:362-375

Post-season evaluation of survival effects

NAJFM 23:362-375NAJFM 23:362-375

1 2 3 4

Cohort

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Survival (%)

BaselineObserved

** **

Post-season evaluation of survival effects

NAJFM 23:362-375NAJFM 23:362-375

1 2 3 4

Cohort

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Survival (%)

ObservedJuly-August

Objectives:

1) Determine how fish respond to the cool water provided by summer flow augmentation from Dworshak reservoir

2) Determine the relationship between flow, water velocity, and juvenile fall Chinook salmon migration rates

Behavioral Studies

Temperature effects of Flow Augmentation

Red WolfRed Wolf BridgeBridge

24

14

22

20

18

16

Fis

h T

emp

(C

)

0

4

8

12

16

Dep

th (

ft) Fish

River Bottom

BlueBlueBridgeBridge

Example of Temperature Selection by a Radio-tagged Fall Chinook Salmon

2003 Snake River Releases

Downstream

Tem

per

atu

re (

oC

)

16

18

20

22 < 1 oC decrease

1-5 oC decrease

>5 oC decrease

n = 6

n = 3

n = 6

2003 Clearwater River Releases

Tem

per

atu

re (

oC

)

12

14

16

18

20> 5oC increase

1-5 oC increase

< 1 oC increase

n = 7

n = 14

n = 4

Clearwater River Released Fish

Tem

per

atu

re (

oC

)

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Snake River Released Fish

Distance (km)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Tem

per

atu

re (

oC

)

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Velocity effects ofFlow Augmentation

Distance from Lower Granite Dam (km)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Mea

n w

ater

vel

oci

ty (

cm/s

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

y = 10.4919 + 2.11xy = 8.1354 +1.006xy = 2.6134 + 0.7079xy = 5.1048 + 0.4077xy = 1.3547 + 0.2127xLines of best fit

r2 = 0.90r2 = 0.88r2 = 0.87r2 = 0.93r2 = 0.80

172 kcfs

83 kcfs

49 kcfs

32 kcfs

16 kcfs

Reservoir River

Mean water velocity (km/d)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Med

ian

fis

h t

rave

l rat

e (k

m/d

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Early July 2002Late July 2002

y = 4.5087 + 0.8716xr2 = 0.99

y = -0.2343 + 0.8448xr2 = 0.99

Mean water velocity (km/d)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Med

ian

fis

h t

rave

l ra

te (

km/d

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Late June 2003

y = 25.7108 -0.0269xr2 = 0.005

Flow (kcfs)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Vel

oci

ty (

cm/s

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Upper Reservoir (y = 0.8623x + 1.2778; r2 = 0.98)

Mid Reservoir (y = 0.2829x + 4.4433; r2 = 0.95)

Forebay (y = 0.1102x + 1.193; r2 = 0.99)

Effects of flow on fish travel rates

30*30*

44**44**

46.4***46.4***

21.221.2

30.830.8

32.432.4

3030

4444

46.446.4

3030

4444

46.446.4

10.010.0

13.113.1

13.713.7

3.33.3

4.54.5

4.84.8

Flow (kcfs) Flow (kcfs) Rate (km/d) Rate (km/d)

Upper Reservoir

Mid Reservoir

Forebay

Cross-sectional velocity profiles

* Hypothetical base flow** Base flow + 14 kcfs from Dworshak*** Base flow + 14 kcfs + 2.4 kcfs from Brownlee

Behavioral effects of Flow Augmentation

LGRDam

Example of an upstream excursion made by aExample of an upstream excursion made by aradio-tagged juvenile fall Chinook salmonradio-tagged juvenile fall Chinook salmon Forebay

Granite Point

WaterCanyon

SteptoeCanyon

Redwolf Bridge

BlueBridge

CouseCreek

Note: Blue circles indicate Note: Blue circles indicate locations of radio-telemetry locations of radio-telemetry detection sitesdetection sites

Upstream Excursions

25 fish (17%) wandered back and forth between Lower25 fish (17%) wandered back and forth between Lower Granite Dam and our forebay detection sites (1.5 km Granite Dam and our forebay detection sites (1.5 km upstream) in 2003upstream) in 2003

Median forebay residence time was 47 hMedian forebay residence time was 47 h

9% of all fish tagged in 2002 and 2003 made excursions 9% of all fish tagged in 2002 and 2003 made excursions upstream of the forebayupstream of the forebay

Most excursions were initiated from the forebayMost excursions were initiated from the forebay

Excursion distances ranged from 5 to 33 kmExcursion distances ranged from 5 to 33 km

Excursion times ranged from 3 to 92 hExcursion times ranged from 3 to 92 h

Some fish made multiple upstream excursionsSome fish made multiple upstream excursions

Future Direction of Project 199102900

Continue to provide managers with in season PIT-tag data Continue to provide managers with in season PIT-tag data and post season analyses.and post season analyses. Increase the number of fish PIT tagged to extend analyses Increase the number of fish PIT tagged to extend analyses further downstream to help understand issues such as further downstream to help understand issues such as summer spill. summer spill.

Collect at least one additional year of data on radio-tagged Collect at least one additional year of data on radio-tagged fish to clarify the relationship between flow, velocity, and fish to clarify the relationship between flow, velocity, and fish migration ratefish migration rate

Smaller tags, currently being developed, will allow us to Smaller tags, currently being developed, will allow us to better represent the juvenile fall Chinook population in better represent the juvenile fall Chinook population in future radio telemetry studiesfuture radio telemetry studies

Determine if the cool water provided by summer flowDetermine if the cool water provided by summer flow augmentation enable some fish to delay their migrationaugmentation enable some fish to delay their migration until the following springuntil the following spring