Preliminary Data Summary for Ice Harbor Dam, 2000–2006

Reviews

Tags

Preliminary Data Summary for Ice Harbor ..., 2000–2006, Data Summary, Best Management Practices, storm water, urban storm, Urban Stormwater, effluent guidelines, New Publications, Industrial Laundries

Stats

views:: 3
rating:: not rated
reviews:: 0
posted:: 6/7/2009
language:: English
pages:: 0

Public Domain

PNWD-3869 Preliminary Data Summary for Ice Harbor Dam, 2000–2006 DRAFT KD Ham CII Arimescu JP Duncan MA Chamness MA Simmons RH Krieg February 2008 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, Washington Under Biological Services Contract W9127N-06-D-0005 Delivery Order 0002 PNWD-3869 Preliminary Data Summary for Ice Harbor Dam, 2000–2006 DRAFT KD Ham CII Arimescu JP Duncan MA Chamness MA Simmons RH Krieg February 2008 Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, Washington Under Biological Services Contract W9127N-06-D-0005 Delivery Order 0002 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Acknowledgements We acknowledge valuable feedback provided by Ann Setter, Marvin Shutters, and Tim Wik of the Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District. We acknowledge the assistance of many researchers who provided electronic version of their documents for ease of inclusion in this summary document. Thanks also to Mark Plummer, Ice Harbor Dam, for providing the collection counts. iv Acronyms and Abbreviations BiOp BRZ cfs CENWW CFE CI COP FCRPS FGE FPE GBT HA IHR JBS kcfs LGR LMO MCN NMFS PDT PIT PTAGIS PSMFC PST RPE RPS RSW RT SE SMP SPE SPS STS TDG VBS Biological Opinion Boat Restricted Zone cubic feet per second Corps of Engineers Walla Walla clean fish estimate Confidence Interval Configuration and Operations Plan Federal Columbia River Power System fish guidance efficiency fish passage efficiency gas bubble trauma hydroacoustic Ice Harbor Dam juvenile bypass system thousand cubic feet per second Lower Granite Dam Lower Monumental Dam McNary Dam National Marine Fisheries Service Pacific Daylight Time Passive Integrated Transponder PIT Tag Information System Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Pacific Standard Time removable spillway weir passage efficiency removable spillway weir passage effectiveness removable spillway weir radiotelemetry standard error Smolt Monitoring Program spill passage efficiency spill passage effectiveness submersible traveling screen total dissolved gas vertical barrier screen v Glossary 2000 BiOp 2004 BiOp 2005 Court Order The Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) issued in 2000. The Biological Opinion for the FCRPS issued in 2004. Court order issued by the U.S. District Court that required spill at transport projects on the Snake River during summer periods when spill was historically shut off to increase collection for transport. Court order issued by the U.S. District Court that required continuing summer spill at transport projects on the Snake River. Tag consisting of a balloon that inflates after a time delay, allowing recovery of test fish after passage through hydropower projects. A pattern of spill where fewer bays are operated with larger gate openings. The proportion of fish without visible passage-related injuries, loss of equilibrium, and/or scale loss. Survival of fish after passing Ice Harbor Dam relative to reference groups released downstream from the dam The confidence interval is the range that is expected to include the real value in a specified percentage of trials. Survival from the upstream limit of the forebay relative to the survival of reference groups released downstream from the dam. Proportion of fish entering the turbine intakes that are guided by screens into the juvenile bypass system. A pattern of spill where relatively uniform gate openings are used at all spillbays. Time elapsed from the arrival of fish in the forebay to the time of passage. Spill required when total discharge exceeds powerhouse capacity and planned spill. Fish that enter the turbine intakes and are diverted by screens into the juvenile bypass system are considered to have been guided by the screens. Proportion of fish passing via non-turbine routes. Spill required when total discharge exceeds powerhouse capacity and planned spill. Spill intended to improve tailrace egress. Passive integrated transponder tag. Detected by equipment in the juvenile bypass system. Spillway discharge plunges into the stilling basin. 2006 Court Order balloon tag bulk spill clean fish estimate concrete survival confidence Interval dam survival fish guidance efficiency flat spill forebay residence time forced spill guided fish passage efficiency involuntary spill training spill PIT tag plunging flow vi relative survival Survival from detection within a passage route (spillbay, turbine, or juvenile bypass system) at Ice Harbor Dam and release location of reference groups downstream. Survival of juvenile salmonids detected within a passage route relative to survival of reference fish groups released downstream from the dam. RSW passage efficiency is the percentage of fish passing via the RSW relative to total fish passage. The ratio of the proportion of fish passing over the RSW to the proportion of flow passing over the RSW. A structural addition to a spillway that allows water to be discharged over a weir crest, rather than under a spillgate. Standard error is a measure of the possible error in an estimate. The mean plus or minus 2 standard errors roughly approximates the 95% confidence interval. A data acquisition device released into fish passage routes to characterize the physical conditions experienced by fish during dam passage. Spillway discharge skims across the surface of the stilling basin. Proportion of fish passing over the spillway. The volume or proportion of total river flow discharged over the spillway. The distribution of spill discharge among spill bays. The period during which the majority of juvenile salmonids passing the dam are yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead. The ratio of the proportion of fish passing by spill routes to the proportion of flow spilled. A type of screen located within the turbine intake to divert fish away from turbine passage and into the juvenile bypass system. The period during which the majority of juvenile salmonids passing the dam are subyearling Chinook salmon. Radial-style spill gates. Elapsed time from dam passage to exit from the tailrace. Total dissolved gas, reported as percent of saturation. Deepest part of the river channel. Spillway discharge creates undulations in the stilling basin. Fish that pass through turbines because they were not diverted by the screens into the juvenile bypass system. A tagging method that allows visual identification of tagged individuals. Screen in the gatewell that allows water to reenter the turbine while diverting fish to orifices that lead into the bypass channel. The planned passing of water over the spillway of a dam to facilitate passage of juvenile salmon past the project. route survival RSW passage efficiency RSW passage effectiveness removable spillway weir standard error sensor fish skimming flow spill passage efficiency spill level spill pattern spring passage period spill passage effectiveness submerged traveling screen summer passage period Tainter gate tailrace egress time total dissolved gas thalweg undular flow unguided fish passage visual implant tagging vertical barrier screen voluntary spill vii Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................... Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... Glossary ................................................................................................................................................ 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................... 1.2 Report Contents and Organization ....................................................................................... 2.0 Overview of Ice Harbor Dam Features and Configurations ......................................................... 2.1 Major Dam Features............................................................................................................. 2.1.1 Powerhouse ............................................................................................................... 2.1.2 Spillway..................................................................................................................... 2.1.3 Navigation Lock........................................................................................................ 2.1.4 Fish Passage Facilities............................................................................................... 2.2 Ice Harbor Dam Configuration Changes.............................................................................. 3.0 River Conditions and Dam Operations......................................................................................... 3.1 River Discharge.................................................................................................................... 3.2 Spill ...................................................................................................................................... 3.2.1 Spill Discharge and Spill Proportion......................................................................... 3.2.2 Treatments................................................................................................................. 3.3 Total Dissolved Gas ............................................................................................................. 3.3.1 Forebay Total Dissolved Gas .................................................................................... 3.3.2 Tailrace Total Dissolved Gas .................................................................................... iv v vi 1.1 1.1 1.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.4 Water Temperature............................................................................................................... 3.12 3.5 Water Elevation.................................................................................................................... 3.12 3.5.1 Forebay Elevation ..................................................................................................... 3.12 3.5.2 Tailwater Elevation ................................................................................................... 3.12 4.0 Species Composition and Run Timing ......................................................................................... 5.0 Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival...................................................................................... 5.1 Juvenile Fish Passage and Survival Studies ......................................................................... 5.2 Juvenile Fish Passage and Survival Study Results............................................................... 5.2.1 Forebay Approach Distributions ............................................................................... 5.2.2 Forebay Residence Time ........................................................................................... 5.2.3 Fish Passage Distributions ........................................................................................ 4.1 5.1 5.1 5.5 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.2.4 Fish Passage Metrics ................................................................................................. 5.12 5.2.5 Dam Passage Survival............................................................................................... 5.17 5.2.6 Tailrace Egress Time................................................................................................. 5.23 6.0 Juvenile Salmonid Reach Survival, Travel Time and Predation .................................................. 6.1 viii 6.1 Reach Survival and Travel Time Studies ............................................................................. 6.1.1 Reach Survival Estimates.......................................................................................... 6.1.2 Travel Time and Migration Rate ............................................................................... 7.0 Juvenile Salmonid Direct Injury................................................................................................... 7.1 Direct Injury Studies ............................................................................................................ 7.2 Direct Injury Study Results .................................................................................................. 8.0 Literature Cited............................................................................................................................. Appendix A – Spill Patterns and Dam Operations at Ice Harbor Dam................................................. Appendix B – Figures Showing Approach Distributions, Residence Times, Passage Distributions, Tailrace Egress Times, and Annual Plots .............................................................. Appendix C – Tables Listing Estimates of Reach Survival, Travel Time, and Migration Rate ........... 6.1 6.4 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.5 8.1 A.1 B.1 C.1 6.2 Predation .............................................................................................................................. 6.11 ix Figures 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 4.1 4.2 Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum River Discharges at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997−2006................................................................................................................................. Daily Mean River Discharges for the 2000 Through 2006 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam ............................................................................................................................... Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Spill at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997−2006..... Daily Mean Spill Volume and Spill Proportion During the 2000 Through 2003 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam........................................................................................... Daily Mean Spill Volume and Spill Proportion During the 2004 Through 2006 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam........................................................................................... Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Percent Daily Dissolved Gas Levels in the Forebay of Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997−2006............................................................................ Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Percent Daily Dissolved Gas Levels in the Tailrace of Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997−2006............................................................................ 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.9 Daily Mean Forebay Total Dissolved Gas Saturation Percentages During the 2000 Through 2006 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam ........................................................... 3.10 Daily Mean Tailrace Total Dissolved Gas Saturation Percentages During Fish Passage Periods from 2000 through 2006 at Ice Harbor Dam ................................................................ 3.11 Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Temperature at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997 Through 2006 ............................................................................................................................ 3.12 Daily Mean Temperature During the 2000 Through 2006 Fish Passage Period at Ice Harbor Dam ............................................................................................................................... 3.13 Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Water Elevation at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997 Through 2006 ................................................................................................................... 3.14 Daily Mean Forebay Elevation During the 2001 Through 2006 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam ............................................................................................................................... 3.15 Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Tailwater Elevation at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997 Through 2006 ......................................................................................................... 3.16 Daily Mean Tailwater Elevation During the 2000 Through 2006 Fish Passage Period at Ice Harbor Dam ............................................................................................................................... 3.17 Species Composition at Ice Harbor Dam During 2000 through 2003....................................... Species Composition at Ice Harbor Dam During 2004 through 2006....................................... 4.2 4.3 x Tables 1.1 1.2 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 5.1 5.2 Studies of Juvenile Fish Passage at Ice Harbor Dam, 2000–2006............................................. Matrix of Reports Including Biological Data for Ice Harbor Dam 2000–2006......................... Overview of Ice Harbor Dam Configuration Modifications, 1996–2006 ................................. Ice Harbor Dam Average Discharge by Year for Spring and Summer Periods ........................ Ice Harbor Dam Average Spill Volume and Spill Proportion by Year for Spring and Summer Periods......................................................................................................................... Spill Treatments Implemented During Juvenile Fish Passage at Ice Harbor Dam from 2000 Through 2006 ............................................................................................................................ 1.2 1.3 2.2 3.3 3.6 3.7 Ice Harbor Average Water Temperature by Year Expressed as Percent for Spring and Summer and as a Percent of the 10-Year Average in Parentheses ............................................ 3.14 Median Forebay Residence Time at Ice Harbor Dam ............................................................... Route-Specific Passage of Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon with Respect to Spill Treatment in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005, of Radio-Tagged Steelhead Salmon in 2005, and of Radio-Tagged Subyearling Chinook Salmon in 2004 and 2005 at Ice Harbor Dam ..... 5.7 5.8 5.3 5.4 Fish Passage Efficiencies Obtained from Radiotelemetry and Hydroacoustic Studies During Spring and Summer at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003, 2004, and 2005 ................................ 5.13 Spill Passage Efficiency and Effectiveness Obtained from Radiotelemetry and Hydroacoustic Studies During Spring and Summer at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003, 2004, and 2005 ........................................................................................................................................... 5.14 RSW Passage Efficiency and Effectiveness from Radiotelemetry and Hydroacoustic Evaluations at Ice Harbor Dam in 2005 .................................................................................... 5.15 Fish Guidance Efficiencies Estimated by Radiotelemetry and Hydroacoustic Studies at Ice Harbor Dam ............................................................................................................................... 5.16 Dam Survival for Yearling Chinook salmon, Steelhead, and Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam During 2001 and 2003 through 2005 .......................................................... 5.18 Concrete Survival for Yearling Chinook salmon, Steelhead, and Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam During 2005................................................................................... 5.19 Average Spillway Survival Estimates for Yearling Chinook salmon, Subyearling Chinook salmon, and Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam with Respect to Spill Treatment Based on Radiotelemetry and PIT-Detection Methodologies, 2000 Through 2005 ................................. 5.20 Survival Estimates for Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon Released into Spillbays 3, 5, and 7 at Ice Harbor Dam in 2000 ...................................................................................... 5.20 Juvenile Bypass System Survival for Yearling Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam ..................................................................... 5.22 Turbine and Collection Channel Survival Estimates for PIT-Tagged Hatchery Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam During 2003. ........................................ 5.23 Tailrace Egress Times for Fish Passing Ice Harbor Dam from 2001 Through 2005 ................ 5.24 Number and Species of Fish Used in Reach Survival Studies from 2000 through 2003 .......... Weighted Mean Reach Survival Probabilities for the Lower Monumental to McNary Reach ......................................................................................................................................... 6.5 6.6 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 6.1 6.2 xi 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Weighted Mean Survival Estimates for the Reaches from Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor and from Ice Harbor to McNary.................................................................................... Reach Survival Estimates for Partitioned Sections of the Reach Between Ice Harbor Dam and McNary Dam. ..................................................................................................................... 6.7 6.8 Travel Times and Migration Rates from Lower Monumental Dam to Ice Harbor Dam and Ice Harbor Dam to McNary Dam .............................................................................................. 6.10 Percentage of PIT-Tagged Juvenile Salmon Detected at Lower Monumental Dam and Recovered from McNary Pool Bird Colonies ........................................................................... 6.12 Estimated Predation Rates in 2004 by Crescent Island Terns on In-River PIT-Tagged Salmonid Smolts Detected at Lower Monumental Dam ........................................................... 6.13 Overview of Conditions and Operations for the Direct Injury Studies at Ice Harbor Dam, 2003 Through 2006 ................................................................................................................... Summary of Clean Fish Estimates, and 1-Hour and 48-Hour Survival Estimates at Ice Harbor Dam During 2003.......................................................................................................... Summary of Clean Fish Estimates and 1-Hour and 48-Hour Survival Estimates at Ice Harbor Dam During 2004.......................................................................................................... Summary of Clean Fish Estimates and 1-Hour and 48-Hour Survival Estimates at Ice Harbor Dam During 2005.......................................................................................................... Summary of Clean Fish Estimates and 1-Hour and 48-Hour Survival Estimates at Ice Harbor Dam During 2006.......................................................................................................... 7.2 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.8 xii 1.0 Introduction The Walla Walla District of the Corps of Engineers (Corps) continually seeks to improve the conditions juvenile fish experience when passing through dams on the lower Snake and Columbia rivers. In 2005, the Corps committed to completing Configuration and Operations Plans (COPs) for each of the dams to justify and document the decision basis for its future investments in dam improvements. In 2007, the Corps reaffirmed this commitment in the Biological Assessment (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers et al. 2007), a key input into the Biological Opinion (BiOp) currently under development. The COPs, which include recommendations for the configuration and operation of each dam, will be developed in collaboration with other federal action agencies to include Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service, which is the federal agency responsible for management of endangered anadromous salmon under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, the Corps works with a number of management entities and stakeholders that include specific Native American tribes (the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indians, of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Spokane Tribe of Indians), the states (Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Montana), and interested parties such as irrigators, power purchasers, conservation organizations, barging interests, and others. As part of its planning efforts, the Corps selected Battelle-Pacific Northwest Division to help develop the process and methods for completing COPs for each of the five dams it operates on the lower Snake and Columbia rivers: Ice Harbor, Little Goose, Lower Granite, Lower Monumental, and McNary. This document is one of a series of preliminary summaries of biological data that will be completed for each dam. 1.1 Purpose and Scope This report provides a summary of the available biological data on migrating yearling Chinook salmon, steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon passing Ice Harbor Dam during calendar years 2000 through 2006. A summary of hydroacoustic, telemetry, direct injury, and Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag studies, as well as data on juvenile steelhead and salmon behavior, passage distributions, delay, injury, and survival through each route of the dam are discussed. A general description of the operations during each year including river discharge, spill levels, spill patterns, and total dissolved gas levels are provided when available. The summary of biological data provided in this document is intended to provide context and background information for developing and evaluating alternative future configurations or operations to improve fish passage conditions and survival probabilities at Ice Harbor Dam. Table 1.1 contains a bibliographical list of reports of investigations performed at Ice Harbor Dam from 2000 through 2006. Table 1.2 lists the reports delineated by study parameters to include species, season, dam configuration and modifications, fish passage conditions, study technique, injury and survival. Information from draft reports was not included. 1.1 Table 1.1. Studies of Juvenile Fish Passage at Ice Harbor Dam, 2000–2006 Year DeHart 2001 2000 Eppard et al. 2002 Morril et al. 2001 Zabel et al. 2001 Axel et al. 2003 2001 DeHart 2002 Zabel et al. 2002 DeHart 2003 2002 Eppard et al. 2005b Muir et al. 2003 Absolon et al. 2005 Carlson et al. 2004 DeHart 2004 2003 Eppard et al. 2005c Moursund et al. 2004 Muir et al. 2004 Normandeau Associates Inc. 2004 Smith et al. 2004 Azel et al. 2005 Collis et al. 2006 DeHart 2005 2004 Eppard et al. 2005a Normandeau Associates Inc. and Skalski 2005 Ogden et al. 2005 Smith et al. 2005 Axel et al. 2007 DeHart 2006 2005 Moursund et al. 2007 Normandeau Associates Inc. 2006 Ogden et al. 2007 Smith et al. 2006 DeHart 2007 2006 2000-2006 1998-2001 2000-2003 Ham et al. 2007 Normandeau Associates Inc. and Skalski 2006 Faulkner et al. 2007 Smith et al. 2002 Williams et al. 2005 Study Reference Number 7 15 20 37 2 8 36 9 16 23 1 5 10 17 22 24 25 34 4 6 11 14 27 30 32 3 12 21 26 29 33 13 19 28 18 31 35 1.2 Table 1.2. Matrix of Reports Including Biological Data for Ice Harbor Dam 2000–2006 Focus Area Yearling Chinook Steelhead Subyearling Chinook Coho Sockeye Hydroacoustic Radiotelemetry Methods PIT Tagging Sensor Fish Balloon Tagging Ice Harbor Dam Spill Treatment Tests Forebay Dam Passage and Survival Dam Passage Dam Survival Tailrace Egress Reach Survival, Migration Time/Rate Predation Direct Injury 15, 20 2 2 2 2 2, 8, 18, 7, 18, 31, 31, 35, 35, 37 36 18 2, 18 16 16 9, 16, 18, 23, 35 16, 18 2 2, 8, 18, 7, 15, 18, 31, 35, 31, 35, 37 36 16 9, 16, 18, 23, 35 2000 2001 2002 9, 16, 18, 23 2003 2004 2005 2006 7, 15, 18, 2, 8, 18, 20, 37 36 1, 10, 17, 6, 11, 14, 3, 12, 18, 13, 18, 18, 22, 25, 18, 27, 32 21, 26, 33 19, 28 34 18, 22, 34 1, 22, 24, 25 4, 6, 18, 32 6, 18, 30 3, 18, 21 ,33 21, 29 18, 19 19 Species 7, 18, 20, 8, 18, 36 18, 23 37 15, 20, 31 31 20 20, 35 35 35 35 22 17 6 21 4, 14, 30 3, 29 19 * 1,10, 17, 6, 11, 18, 12, 18, 33 13, 18 18, 24, 34, 32 35 5 25 1, 5, 17, 22, 25 17 17, 22 1, 17 17 * 27 * 26 * 28 4, 14, 27, 3, 21, 26, 19, 28 30 29 4, 14, 30 4, 14, 30 4, 14, 30 3, 29 * 3, 21, 28, 19 29, 33 3, 29 * * 4, 14, 30 3, 29 10, 18, 24, 4, 11, 18, 3, 12, 18, 13, 18 34, 35 32 33 18 25 4, 6, 18, 30 27 18 26 18 28 Shaded cells indicate a lack of studies * indicates studies performed but not included in this report because the final report was not completed 1.2 Report Contents and Organization The ensuing sections of this report describe the major features of Ice Harbor Dam (Section 2.0) and typical project operations (Section 3.0) for the period from 2000 through 2006. The trends in river discharge, spill discharge, spill proportion, forebay and tailwater total dissolved gas, water temperature, and forebay water elevation are compared with a 10-year average (1997-2006). Spill levels and patterns also are provided for each study year between 2000 and 2006. Information on species composition and run timing (Section 4.0) for migrating juvenile salmonids is scarce at Ice Harbor Dam because fish are not transported from this location and a high proportion of spill results in a low proportion of migrating fish being collected or detected in the recently implemented PIT-tag detection system. 1.3 Study results are organized into three main sections: Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival (Section 5.0), Juvenile Salmonid Reach Survival, Travel Time and Predation (Section 6.0), and Juvenile Salmonid Direct Injury (Section 7.0). Within these sections studies and results are introduced chronologically by year. Section 5.0 reports studies that cover fish approaching, passing, and departing the dam. This includes forebay approach distribution, forebay residence time, passage distribution, survival at the dam as a whole and by passage route, gas bubble trauma, juvenile bypass system passage and survival, turbine passage and survival, and tailrace egress time. Section 6.0 reports results for fish passing through larger river reaches from dams upstream to dams below Ice Harbor Dam. This includes reach survival estimates, travel times, migration rates, and predation. Section 7.0 reports the results of direct injury studies of specific routes or structures at the dam. This includes clean fish estimate values and 1-hour and 48-hour survival estimates. Supplemental information is contained in appendixes. Appendix A contains detailed spill patterns for 2000 through 2006. Appendix B contains tables and figures pertaining to the distribution of fish as they approach the dam, residence times, passage distributions, and tailrace egress times. Appendix C contains weekly estimates of reach survival, travel time, and migration rate. 1.4 2.0 Overview of Ice Harbor Dam Features and Configurations Ice Harbor Dam, located on the Snake River at river mile 9.7, is the first hydroelectric dam on the Lower Snake River upstream of its confluence with the Columbia River. The original dam project was authorized in 1945 by Section 2 of the River and Harbor Act (Public Law 79-14, 79th Congress, 1st Session) and approved on March 2, 1945, in accordance with House Document 704, 75th Congress, 3rd Session. Construction of the dam began in December 1955 and project operations began in December 1961. The initial structure contained three turbine units; three additional units were added and were operational by January 1976.1 Lake Sacajawea, the reservoir behind Ice Harbor Dam, extends 32 miles upstream to Lower Monumental Dam. 2.1 Major Dam Features The dam structure at Ice Harbor, a concrete gravity type, is 2,822 ft long, 100 ft high, and consists of a powerhouse containing six Kaplan type turbine units, a 10-bay spillway, a navigation lock, two fish ladders, and an earth-filled section. 2.1.1 Powerhouse The Ice Harbor powerhouse is 671 ft long and contains three 90,000-kilowatt turbine units (1 through 3) and three 111,000-kilowatt turbine units (4 through 6). All six turbines are Kaplan, six-blade units. Units 1 through 3 rotate at 90.0 revolutions per minute, while units 4 through 6 rotate at 85.7 revolutions per minute. Power generation through September 1994 was 73.81 billion kilowatt hours. Standard-length submersible traveling screens (STSs) are present in all turbine intake bays. 2.1.2 Spillway The spillway is 590 ft long, 139 ft wide at the base (elevation 392 ft above msl), and 141 ft high (from foundation to deck). It contains 10 bays with a crest elevation of 391 ft above msl and a gate seal elevation of 389 ft above msl. Spill is controlled by radial (Tainter-style) spill gates that are 50 ft wide by 53 ft high. A concrete-lined stilling basin extends 590 ft wide and 168 ft long with a floor elevation of 304 ft above msl downstream along the river bottom. The spillway has a peak flood discharge of 850,000 cfs. To reduce total dissolved gas super saturation, deflectors (concrete sills) were installed at spillbays 1 through 10 over 3 years: 1996 (bays 2 through 5), 1997 (bays 6 through 9), and 1998 (bays 1 and 10). In 1996 and 1997, 15-foot radius deflectors were installed at an elevation of 338 ft above msl, and in 1998, 15-foot radius deflectors and divider walls were installed at an elevation of 334 ft above msl. The deflectors were designed to reduce total dissolved gas by causing spilled water to skim across the water surface rather than plunging to the bottom of the stilling basin. In 2005, a removable spillway weir (RSW)—a surface flow outlet intended to pass a high proportion of fish per proportion flow and result in a high survival rate—was installed in spillbay 2. The RSW is 105 ft tall, 70 ft wide, and weighs 1.7 million pounds.2 1 2 http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/dpn/dpn_project.asp?project_id=59 (Accessed on 2/6/2008) http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/spillway_weir/SW_FctShtMay05.pdf (Accessed on 2/6/2008) 2.1 2.1.3 Navigation Lock The navigation lock is a single-lift lock that is 675 ft long by 86 ft wide, with a 16-foot minimum depth and a 103-foot maximum depth. The upstream gate is a radial type measuring 25 ft in height. The downstream gate is a vertical lift gate that is 91 ft tall. Although a small proportion of juvenile migrants pass through the lock, its operation is not managed for juvenile fish passage. 2.1.4 Fish Passage Facilities Facilities for juvenile fish passage consist of standard-length STSs, vertical barrier screens, two 1-ft gatewell orifices, collection channel and dewatering structures, sampling facilities, and a bypass flume/pipe that transports fish to the sampling facilities and the tailrace below the dam. As of 2005, the facilities also PIT-tag detectors that allow fish to be detected during full flow bypass operations. There are two adult fish passage facilities, one on the north shore and the other on the south shore. The facility on the north shore has a fish ladder, a small collection system, and an auxiliary water supply system. The south-shore facilities contain a fish ladder, a powerhouse collection system, and an auxiliary water supply system. 2.2 Ice Harbor Dam Configuration Changes Major Ice Harbor Dam improvements from 1996 through 2006 are listed in Table 2.1. Between 2000 and 2006 two major improvements were completed; a full-flow bypass PIT-tag system and a removable spillway weir in 2005. The full-flow bypass PIT-tag system was completed by April 19, 2005 and an evaluation report was completed (Downing and Axel 2007). The system allows detection of PIT tags in fish as they are returned to the river downstream, and it does not require that fish be collected for examination and tag detection. The RSW installation was completed before the spring juvenile salmonid migration period of 2005. RSW fish passage and survival performance was tested against a Bulk spill treatment where the RSW was not operational (Moursund et al. 2007; Axel et al. 2007; Ogden et al. 2007). Table 2.1. Overview of Ice Harbor Dam Configuration Modifications, 1996–2006 Year Juvenile Passage Improvements 1996 Powerhouse bypass system consisting of submerged traveling screens (STSs) and vertical barrier screens (VBSs) put in each turbine intake, 1-ft orifices drilled from gatewell to bypass channel in old sluiceway, evaluation/marking facilities at bottom of bypass flume to carry juveniles to the tailrace. 1996 Four deflectors installed at spillbays 2, 3, 4, and 5; 338 ft above msl and 15-ft radius 1997 Four deflectors installed at spillbays 6, 7, 8, and 9; 338 ft above msl and 15-ft radius 1998 Two deflectors installed at spillbays 1 and 10; 334 ft above msl and 15-ft radius and divider walls 2005 PIT-tag detection on main bypass flume implemented on April 19 by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) 2005 RSW installed at spillbay 2 Purpose Increase the percentage of fish diverted from the turbines Reduce total dissolved gas (TDG) levels Reduce TDG levels Reduce TDG levels Allows PIT-tag monitoring with lower potential for stress More efficient spillway passage, reduce delay in the forebay 2.2 3.0 River Conditions and Dam Operations Project operations distribute the discharge of river water to the different passage routes at the dam. This distribution of flow strongly influences the routes used by fish passing through the dams, which influences their probability of survival. Thus, it is important to understand how environmental conditions and project operational choices influence the routing of water through the dam. Within-year trends in river discharge, spill levels and patterns, water temperature, and total dissolved gas levels at Ice Harbor Dam for 2000 through 2006 are described below. 3.1 River Discharge River discharge at Ice Harbor Dam varies from year to year and throughout the passage season (Figure 3.1). Operational flexibility is greatest at moderate discharge levels. Discharge levels that exceed powerhouse capacity and planned spill can lead to unplanned or forced spill. High discharge levels often arise for periods in the spring as runoff from melting snow enters the river system. Low flows in late summer may provide too little water to meet the minimum operational needs at the powerhouse while still meeting planned spill levels. Summer discharge levels are typically low, sometimes to the extreme. Between these extremes, varying discharge levels result in a redistribution of flow among fish passage routes through the dam. That redistribution can affect fish passage conditions and survival probabilities. 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Spring Summer Average Minimum Maximum Outflow (kcfs) Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3.1. Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum River Discharges at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997−2006. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html Figure 3.2 shows the trends in river flow for the each year from 2000 through 2006 contrasted with the 10-year average (1997–2006). In general, river flows for 2000 through 2006 were below the 10-year average except for the spring of 2006 (Table 3.1). For the spring fish passage season, flows ranged from 51% of the 10-year average in 2001 to 131% in 2006. During the summer fish passage season, 2001 was again a low flow year, with outflow being 63% of the 10-year average. Summer flows in 2002 were 99% of the average. 3.1 200 160 120 80 40 0 2000 200 160 120 80 40 0 200 160 120 80 40 0 200 160 120 80 40 0 2001 2002 River Discharge (kcfs) 2003 2004 2005 2006 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 Figure 3.2. Daily Mean River Discharges for the 2000 Through 2006 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam. The solid blue line represents yearly discharge and the dashed red line represents the 10-year average (1997–2006). The solid vertical line separates the spring and summer study periods. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html. 8/21 3.2 8/21 Table 3.1. Ice Harbor Dam Average Discharge by Year for Spring and Summer Periods. The value expressed as a percent of the 10-year average is enclosed in parentheses. Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Spring kcfs 88 (90%) 50 (51%) 86 (88%) 91 (94%) 74 (76%) 68 (70%) 127 (131%) Summer kcfs 37 (88%) 26 (60%) 43 (101%) 32 (75%) 35 (83%) 33 (76%) 37 (86%) 3.2 Spill River discharge in excess of powerhouse capacity must be spilled, whether or not spill is planned. At levels of river discharge below powerhouse capacity, voluntary spill is used to encourage fish to pass over the spillway instead of through the powerhouse. Thus, the volume and proportion of water spilled is a function of the total river discharge and the operational choices made at the dam. Figure 3.3 illustrates the average and range of daily spill volume for the years 2000 through 2006. 140 120 Spill (kcfs) 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan Feb Mar Spring Summer Average Minimum Maximum Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3.3. Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Spill at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997−2006. Note: minimum spill was generally zero. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html Spill efficiency (the proportion of fish approaching a project that pass via the spillway) and spill effectiveness (spill efficiency divided by the proportion of total river flow passing over the spillway) for juvenile salmonids are influenced by the percentage of river flow spilled, spill pattern, time of day, and species. Since 2001, typical spill levels at Ice Harbor Dam during the juvenile fish passage season (April 1 through October 31) have been 45 thousand cubic feet per second (kcfs) between 0500 and 1800 hours (day) and spill up to approximately 120% of saturation for total dissolved gas (TDG) levels between 1800 and 0500 hours (night). Water quality standards restrict TDG to 110% of saturation, but 3.3 waivers are in effect to allow up to 120% of saturation to allow greater spill for fish passage. Gas cap spill refers to the volume of water that is expected to achieve levels allowed by TDG waivers, specifically, the 120% tailrace TDG criterion, and the downstream forebay 115% TDG criterion. Many factors, including temperature, influence gas saturation, and the actual levels of TDG vary during nominal spill to the gas cap. Those factors and the range of flows in a given year result in considerable variation in spill among years. Alternative spill levels and patterns were tested from 2003 through 2006 as part of an ongoing program to optimize passage conditions and survival. The results of these tests are discussed in the subsequent sections, which provide data from studies reporting on fish passage and survival. 3.2.1 Spill Discharge and Spill Proportion Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5 show the trends in spill level and percent proportion for each year, 2000 through 2006, contrasted with the 10-year average. In 2001, no water was spilled at Ice Harbor Dam due to low flows, except on May 19 as an emergency measure to move the fish past the dam following the breakdown of a juvenile fish transportation barge and the subsequent release of fish into the forebay at Ice Harbor Dam. The emergency spill had little influence on studies of fish passage and survival. The influence of alternating experimental spill treatments becomes obvious in 2003 and following years. The most striking differences are evident in 2005, when spill proportions differed greatly among treatments. Table 3.2 illustrates how seasonal spill volume values varied relative to the 10-year average. 3.2.2 Treatments Experimental treatments are designed to contrast spill level, spill pattern, dam structures, or combinations of those factors. Table 3.3 lists the treatments implemented at Ice Harbor Dam from 2000 to 2006 for each season. Special conditions implemented for short periods during direct injury tests are covered in Section 7.0. At Ice Harbor Dam, the principal configuration change affecting juvenile salmonid passage and survival has been the implementation of the RSW at spillbay 2 in 2005. The spill level for fish passage at Ice Harbor Dam has typically been specified as a discharge rate independent of total river discharge. For example, the 2000 BiOp spill specified an instantaneous spill level of 100 kcfs (120% TDG limit) during the nighttime and 45 kcfs during the day. A lower proportion of spill, 30% in 2006, was tested in association with the RSW, because surface passage routes have often been found to attract more fish per unit of water spilled. A list of spill levels for each year and spill patterns implemented is found in Table 3.3. 3.4 120 100 Spill (kcfs) 80 60 40 20 0 120 100 Spill (kcfs) 80 60 40 20 0 120 100 Spill (kcfs) 80 60 40 20 0 2000 Spill Proportion (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 2000 2001 Spill Proportion (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 2001 2002 Spill Proportion (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 2002 120 100 Spill (kcfs) 80 60 40 20 0 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 2003 Spill Proportion (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 2003 8/21 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 Figure 3.4. Daily Mean Spill Volume (left) and Spill Proportion (right) During the 2000 Through 2003 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam. The solid blue lines represent spill volume or proportion and the dashed red lines represent 10-year averages (1997–2006). 3.5 8/21 120 100 Spill (kcfs) 80 60 40 20 0 120 100 Spill (kcfs) 80 60 40 20 0 120 100 Spill (kcfs) 80 60 40 20 0 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 2004 Spill Proportion (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 2004 2005 Spill Proportion (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 2005 2006 Spill Proportion (%) 100 80 60 40 20 0 2006 8/21 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 Figure 3.5. Daily Mean Spill Volume (left) and Spill Proportion (right) During the 2004 Through 2006 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam. The solid blue lines represent spill volume or proportion and the dashed red lines represent 10-year averages (1997–2006). Table 3.2. Ice Harbor Dam Average Spill Volume and Spill Proportion by Year for Spring and Summer Periods. The value expressed as a percent of the 10-year average is enclosed in parentheses. Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Spring Spill Volume 62 (113%) 0 (0%) 57 (104%) 52 (96%) 46 (85%) 40 (73%) 62 (115%) Spring Spill Proportion 71 (132%) 0 (0%) 65 (123%) 57 (107%) 62 (114%) 58 (108%) 49 (92%) Summer Spill Volume 29 (112%) 0 (0%) 32 (122%) 14 (52%) 26 (98%) 20 (74%) 22 (81%) Summer Spill Proportion 78 (133%) 0 (0%) 75 (129%) 42 (72%) 73 (124%) 59 (101%) 59 (101%) 3.6 8/21 Table 3.3. Spill Treatments Implemented During Juvenile Fish Passage at Ice Harbor Dam from 2000 Through 2006 Spill Treatment Year 2000 Spill Pattern BiOp (Spring & Summer) Spill Levels 45 kcfs (day) / approximately 100 kcfs or up to 120% total dissolved gas limit (night) No spill (except on May 19) 9.8 kcfs (0500 to 1100 PST) 45 kcfs (day) / approximately 100 kcfs or up to 120% total dissolved gas limit (night) 45 kcfs (day) / 100 kcfs, spill to gas cap (night) 50% of total outflow (24 hours) High gate opening minimum of 6 and maximum of 10, few spill bays, 45 kcfs (24 hours) No spill 20 kcfs (24 hours) 45 kcfs (day) / spill to gas cap (night) High gate opening >6, fewer spillbays, 45 kcfs (24 hours) Small gate opening >3, all spillbays, 45 kcfs (24 hours) 45 kcfs (day) / spill to gas cap (night) High gate opening >5, 25% to 35% of total flow (24 hours) High gate opening >5, 45 kcfs (24 hours) 45 kcfs (day) / spill to gas cap (night) 30% of total outflow (24 hours) 25% to 35% of total outflow (24 hours) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RSW non operational RSW operational RSW non operational RSW operational RSW operational RSW operational Configuration NoSpill (Spring & 2001 Summer) May 19 Spill 2002 BiOp (Spring & Summer) BiOp (Spring & Summer) Spill50 (Spring & 2003 Summer) Bulk (Summer) NoSpill (Summer) 2004 BiOp (Spring) 2004 BiOp (Summer) Bulk (Summer) Flat (Summer) BiOp (Spring & Summer) 2005 RSW (Spring & Summer) Bulk (Spring & Summer) 2006 BiOp (Spring & Summer) Spill30 (Spring) RSW (Spring) N/A = No configuration change implemented. Spill patterns describe how each level of total spill discharge is to be distributed among individual spillbays. The typical spill pattern at Ice Harbor Dam had been to distribute spill uniformly among all of the spillbays (Appendix A, Figure A.1). Spill patterns have changed over time as new information has been incorporated to improve passage conditions for migrating juvenile and adult salmonids. Recent tests have evaluated spill patterns with large spill gate openings and patterns have been altered to accommodate the operation of the RSW structure in spillbay 2. 3.7 Prior to 2003, spill pattern designs distributed flows more or less uniformly across spillbays 2 through 9, with spill in bays 1 and 10 at night to encourage adult passage. Beginning with 2003, various versions of a Bulk spill pattern were tested to investigate the potential benefits of passage conditions created by larger gate openings at fewer spillbays (Appendix A, Figure A.3, Table A.1). In 2004, a new Bulk spill pattern was tested (Appendix A, Figure A.6, Table A.2). Spill treatment experiments conducted in the spring contrasted Bulk and Flat (opening more spill gates at smaller openings) spill patterns. The flow discharge during Bulk spill was intended to improve passage conditions downstream of the spill gate, which was expected to improve survival. In 2005, the addition of the RSW at spillbay 2 initiated the creation of new spill patterns combining Bulk flow discharge at the unmodified spillbays with the operation of the RSW (Appendix A, Figure A.6, Figure A.7, Table A.3). The treatments included one pattern where the RSW was operational and another where it was not operational. In 2006, operation of the RSW during the Spill30 treatment was contrasted to BiOp spill level with the RSW (Appendix A, Figure A.8, Figure A.9, Table A.4). Both treatments incorporated bulk flow into their spill patterns. 3.3 Total Dissolved Gas Total dissolved gas levels are monitored in the forebay and tailrace at Ice Harbor Dam. Water quality standards limit the maximum TDG that can be generated downstream to 110% of saturation. Waivers are in effect to allow up to 120% of saturation to allow more spill for fish. Factors including temperature and wind influence gas saturation as well. Forebay TDG values typically increase with high spill discharge at upstream dams in the spring and decrease as spill discharge decreases in the summer (Figure 3.6). Tailrace TDG values reflect changes in spill discharge at Ice Harbor Dam (Figure 3.7). 130 125 Forebay TDG (%) 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 Jan Feb Mar Spring Summer Average Minimum Maximum Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3.6. Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Percent Daily Dissolved Gas Levels in the Forebay of Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997−2006. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html 3.8 135 130 Tailrace TDG (%) 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 Jan Feb Mar Spring Summer Average Minimum Maximum Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3.7. Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Percent Daily Dissolved Gas Levels in the Tailrace of Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997−2006. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html 3.3.1 Forebay Total Dissolved Gas Figure 3.8 shows the trends in forebay TDG for the each year from 2000 through 2006, contrasted with 10-year averages. In general, forebay TDG levels were higher in the spring than in the summer. In 2005, relatively low flows during the spring resulted in below-average values for TDG. Higher-thanaverage summer TDG values reflect the fact that 2005 was the first year of court-ordered spill during the summer. In 2006, the TDG measured at the forebay was consistently higher during spring and summer seasons compared to the 10-year average, which reflects the influence of high spring discharge and courtordered summer spill. 3.3.2 Tailrace Total Dissolved Gas Total dissolved gas levels at Ice Harbor Dam are dependent upon spill discharge. Figure 3.9 shows the TDG levels as reported by Columbia River DART for each year, 2000 through 2006, together with associated 10-year averages. Tailrace TDG levels have been fairly consistent over the years except for 2005, when levels were around 100%. 3.9 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 2000 2001 2002 Forebay TDG (%) 2003 2004 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 2005 2006 8/21 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 Figure 3.8. Daily Mean Forebay Total Dissolved Gas Saturation Percentages During the 2000 Through 2006 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam. The solid blue line represents TDG percentages and the dashed red line represents the 10-year average (1997–2006). The solid vertical line separates the spring and summer study periods. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html. 3.10 8/21 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 125 120 115 110 105 2000 2001 2002 Tailrace TDG (%) 100 95 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 2005 2006 2003 2004 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 8/21 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 Figure 3.9. Daily Mean Tailrace Total Dissolved Gas Saturation Percentages During Fish Passage Periods from 2000 through 2006 at Ice Harbor Dam. The solid blue line represents TDG percentages and the dashed red line represents the 10-year average (1997–2006). The solid vertical line separates the spring and summer study periods. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html. 3.11 8/21 3.4 Water Temperature Water temperature typically increases through the spring and early summer fish passage periods, then begins to decline in late July (Figure 3.10). The 10-year maximum and minimum typically range about 2°C from the mean for each day of the season. 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Jan Average Minimum Maximum Temperature (oC) Spring Feb Mar Apr May Jun Summer Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3.10. Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Temperature at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997 Through 2006. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html Figure 3.11 represents the daily mean temperatures for the each year, 2000 through 2006, along with associated 10-year averages as reported in the Columbia River DART database. The spring 10-year average was 11.9°C, while during the summer passage period the 10-year average was 20.3°C. For the years 2000 through 2006, the coolest year was 2002 with a spring average of 11.0°C and a summer average of 19.7°C (Table 3.4). The warmest years were 2001 and 2004 (low flow years) with average spring temperatures of 12.4°C and 12.5°C, respectively, and an average summer temperature of 20.8°C. 3.5 3.5.1 Water Elevation Forebay Elevation Forebay elevations at Ice Harbor Dam under normal operations range from 437 ft to 441 ft above msl during the spring and summer. The normal operating pool is 440 ft above msl. Minimum, mean, and maximum forebay elevations are shown in Figure 3.12 for the 10-year average (1997–2006). Figure 3.13 shows daily mean forebay elevations for each year, 2000 through 2006, and their associated 10-year averages as reported in the Columbia River DART database. 3.5.2 Tailwater Elevation Tailwater elevation at Ice Harbor Dam is dependent on river discharge. This relationship is evident in the trends displayed above for annual as well as 10-year average, 10-year minimum, and maximum. During low river discharge (<50 kcfs), tailwater elevation is <341 ft above msl. During high river discharge (>100 kcfs), tailwater elevation is >345 ft above msl. Normal operations at Ice Harbor Dam result in tailwater elevations from 339 ft above msl to 345 ft above msl. 3.12 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2000 Temperature (°C) 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 2005 8/21 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 4/03 2006 8/21 Figure 3.11. Daily Mean Temperature During the 2000 Through 2006 Fish Passage Period at Ice Harbor Dam. The solid blue line represents temperature and the dashed red line represents the 10-year average (1997–2006). The solid vertical line separates the spring and summer study periods. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html 3.13 Table 3.4. Ice Harbor Average Water Temperature by Year Expressed as Percent for Spring and Summer and as a Percent of the 10-Year Average in Parentheses. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Spring 12.5 (105%) 12.5 (105%) 11.0 (93%) 11.8 (99%) 12.7 (106%) 12.1 (102%) 12.1 (102%) Summer 20.5 (99%) 20.9 (102%) 19.7 (96%) 21.1 (103%) 20.9 (102%) 20.2 (99%) 20.7 (101%) 440.5 Forebay Water Elevation (ft) 440.0 439.5 439.0 438.5 438.0 437.5 437.0 Jan Feb Mar Spring Summer Average Minimum Maximum Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3.12. Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Water Elevation at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997 Through 2006. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html 3.14 439.5 439.0 438.5 438.0 437.5 437.0 439.5 439.0 438.5 2000 2001 2002 Forebay Elevation (ft MSL) 438.0 437.5 437.0 439.5 439.0 438.5 438.0 437.5 437.0 439.5 439.0 438.5 438.0 437.5 437.0 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 8/21 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 8/21 2003 2004 2005 2006 Figure 3.13. Daily Mean Forebay Elevation During the 2001 Through 2006 Fish Passage Periods at Ice Harbor Dam. The solid blue line represents forebay elevation and the dashed red line represents the 10-year average (1997–2006). The solid vertical line separates the spring and summer study periods. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html. 3.15 353 Tailwater Elevation (ft) 351 349 347 345 343 341 339 337 Jan Feb Mar Spring Summer Average Minimum Maximum Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 3.14. Daily Mean, Minimum, and Maximum Tailwater Elevation at Ice Harbor Dam for the Years 1997 Through 2006. Source: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html 3.16 353 351 349 347 345 343 341 339 337 353 351 349 347 2000 2001 2002 Tailwater Elevation (ft MSL) 345 343 341 339 337 353 351 349 347 345 343 341 339 337 353 351 349 347 345 343 341 339 337 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 8/21 4/03 4/17 5/01 5/15 5/29 6/12 6/26 7/10 7/24 8/07 8/21 2005 2006 2003 2004 Figure 3.15. Daily Mean Tailwater Elevation During the 2000 Through 2006 Fish Passage Period at Ice Harbor Dam. The solid blue line represents tailwater elevation and the dashed red line represents the 10-year average (1997–2006). The solid vertical line separates the spring and summer study periods. Source: http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/ 3.17 4.0 Species Composition and Run Timing Because the juvenile bypass system (JBS) at Ice Harbor Dam is not used to collect fish for transport, sampling has been less frequent (bi-weekly to every 3 to 4 days) than at dams where fish are collected and held for transport (daily). Those counts are not incorporated into regional databases, and PIT tag detection was only recently implemented. More important than the frequency of sampling is that the relatively high proportion of water spilled also limits the proportion of fish passing the dam that are available for sampling within the JBS. For these reasons, information on species composition and timing of passage at Ice Harbor is limited, relative to other Snake River dams. Sampling at Ice Harbor Dam is designed to evaluate species composition, not run timing. We have chosen to plot relative abundance within days instead of counts, because the sample counts are not closely correlated with the number of fish passing the dam (Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2). Yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead were dominant in the spring and that dominance extended into the summer of 2001 and 2002. In other years, subyearling Chinook salmon were the dominant species throughout the summer period. 4.1 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2000 100% 80% 60% 2001 Relative Abundance 40% 20% 0% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 5/25 Steelhead 6/1 6/8 Coho 6/15 6/22 6/29 7/6 7/13 Yearling Chinook Sockeye Subyearling Chinook 2003 2002 Figure 4.1. Species Composition at Ice Harbor Dam During 2000 through 2003. Dashed vertical line indicates the nominal start of summer. Source: Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District. 4.2 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 100% 80% 60% 2004 2005 Relative Abundance 40% 20% 0% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 4/6 4/13 4/20 4/27 5/4 5/11 5/18 5/25 Steelhead 6/1 6/8 Coho 6/15 6/22 6/29 7/6 7/13 Yearling Chinook Sockeye Subyearling Chinook 2006 Figure 4.2. Species Composition at Ice Harbor Dam During 2004 through 2006. Dashed vertical line indicates the nominal start of summer. Source: Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District. 4.3 5.0 Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival The spillway is considered one of the safest routes of passage through Snake and Columbia River dams. Pursuant to the 2000 BiOp, the volume and pattern of spill have been designed to maximize spillway passage by migrating juvenile salmonids. Passage via the spillway, powerhouse, JBS, and RSW has been evaluated using PIT tags, radiotelemetry, and hydroacoustics. Survival has been evaluated using PIT tags and radiotelemetry. 5.1 Juvenile Fish Passage and Survival Studies 2000 Fish survival through the spillway of Ice Harbor Dam was evaluated in 2000. In previous years, survival past Ice Harbor Dam had been estimated based on fish survival rates at the Lower Monumental to McNary dams. No changes in configuration were implemented for the 2000 migration year, and no specific operating conditions were requested for 2000 survival studies. The operations prescribed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the 2000 BiOp were designed to maximize spillway passage by migrating juvenile salmonids. In recent years, project operations at Ice Harbor Dam have relied on increased spill volumes to reduce the proportion of fish passing through turbines. The NMFS conducted a study in 2000 to evaluate the passage and survival of river-run hatchery yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon at Ice Harbor Dam (Eppard et al. 2002). The objectives of the study were to estimate project survival and to compare PIT-tag and radiotelemetry methodologies for estimating survival. However, the radio transmitters malfunctioned, causing the postponement of the study until 2001. In 2000, NMFS also evaluated the survival of PIT-tagged fish through spillbays 3, 5, and 7 relative to the survival of fish released 0.8 km downstream from the dam (Eppard et al. 2002). River-run hatchery yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon were collected at Lower Monumental Dam, PIT tagged, and transported to Ice Harbor Dam. The study released 22,607 PIT-tagged hatchery yearling Chinook salmon between May 4 and May 31, 2000, and 17,805 PIT-tagged hatchery subyearling Chinook salmon between May 31 and July 6, 2000. Fish were released into spillbays 3, 5, and 7 via a hose or released mid-channel, 0.8 km downstream of the dam. The major objective of the study was to estimate the survival of fish passing through spillbays at Ice Harbor Dam. Between April 11 and June 13, 2000, sampling to monitor for gas bubble trauma (GBT) was performed at Ice Harbor Dam. A total of 932 salmonids (482 yearling Chinook salmon and 450 steelhead) were evaluated (Morrill et al. 2001). Fish were monitored for descaling, injury, and disease at the juvenile bypass facility as a component of the dam’s Smolt Monitoring Program from April 11 through July 7, 2000 (Morrill et al. 2001). A total of 2228 fish including 920 clipped yearling Chinook salmon, 661 clipped steelhead, 295 unclipped steelhead, 250 unclipped yearling Chinook salmon, 41 clipped subyearling Chinook salmon, 41 unclipped subyearling Chinook salmon, 9 unclipped coho, 8 clipped coho, 2 unclipped sockeye, and 1 clipped sockeye were sampled. 5.1 2001 No modifications were made to Ice Harbor Dam between the 2000 and the 2001 fish passage seasons. River flows in 2001 were the fifth lowest level on record. At Ice Harbor Dam, no water was spilled with the exception of 9.8 kcfs on May 19 as an emergency measure to move the fish past the dam following the breakdown of a juvenile fish transportation barge and the subsequent release of fish into the forebay at Ice Harbor Dam. Fish passage was limited to turbine and fish bypass. In response to the low flows, approximately 93% of unmarked Chinook salmon arriving at upper Snake River dams were transported (Axel et al. 2003), leaving few fish in the river to pass through Ice Harbor Dam. In 2001, NMFS conducted a study to evaluate survival, approach, and passage behavior of river-run hatchery yearling Chinook salmon at Ice Harbor Dam (Axel et al. 2003). No specific operating conditions were requested for the survival study. The objectives of the study were to 1) estimate dam and bypass survival; 2) estimate survival through partitioned reaches between Ice Harbor Dam and McNary Dam; 3) evaluate approach and passage behavior; and 4) compare PIT-tag and radiotelemetry methodologies for estimating survival. Yearling Chinook salmon were collected at Lower Monumental Dam (May 1 through May 27), tagged either with a PIT tag or with both a PIT tag and a radio tag, and released either 5 km upstream from Ice Harbor Dam or into the bypass outfall pipe downstream from the dam. Reach survival was estimated for radio-tagged fish from detections at radiotelemetry receiver transects located in the forebay and the tailrace of Ice Harbor Dam, Strawberry Island, Sacajawea Park at the mouth of the Snake River, Port Kelley, McNary Dam, and at the mouth of the Umatilla River. Tagging methodologies were compared using PIT-tag detections from McNary, John Day, and Bonneville dams and detections in the Columbia River estuary from the NMFS PIT-tag detector trawl. 2002 While overall flow conditions during 2002 were similar to the 10-year average (1997–2006), river flows in the first half of May were considerably lower than the 10-year average and were 20% lower than flows in 2000 during the same period (average daily flows of 85.1 kcfs and 68.4 kcfs for 2000 to 2002, respectively). In addition to the lower flows, the average water temperatures were lower during spring releases than the average summer by 5°C. No configuration changes were made to the dam between the 2001 and 2002 fish passage periods. The spill treatments implemented during the spring and summer study period were BiOp Day with a 45-kcfs spill level and BiOp Night with a 100-kcfs spill level. In 2002, NMFS conducted a study to evaluate the survival of yearling and subyearling hatchery Chinook salmon at Ice Harbor Dam (Eppard et al. 2005b). Three groups of fish were released and detected as follows; PIT-tagged yearling Chinook salmon May 3 through June 4, PIT-tagged and radiotagged yearling Chinook salmon May 5 through June 4 and PIT-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon June 28 through July 10. All study fish were released directly upstream from individual spillbays at a depth of approximately 3 m. Reference fish were released 0.5 km downstream from the dam. The objectives of the study were to 1) estimate relative spillway survival for all PIT-tagged and radio-tagged hatchery yearling Chinook salmon during daytime and nighttime operations; 2) partition reach survival between Ice Harbor and McNary dams for radio-tagged hatchery yearling Chinook salmon; 3) determine tailrace egress times for radio-tagged hatchery yearling Chinook salmon released into the spillway at Ice Harbor Dam; 4) compare relative survival estimates and timing for PIT-tagged and radio-tagged hatchery yearling Chinook salmon; and 5) estimate relative spillway passage survival for PIT-tagged hatchery subyearling Chinook salmon during daytime and nighttime operations at Ice Harbor Dam. The spill 5.2 patterns implemented during the study period were BiOp Day with spill level of 45 kcfs (0600 to 1800 PDT) and BiOp Night with spill level at or near 100% (up to the 120% gas cap, 100 kcfs). The range of spill volume per bay for release groups for yearling Chinook salmon in the spring was 3.4 kcfs to 5.3 kcfs during the day and 3.5 kcfs to 13.5 kcfs during the night. The range of spill volume per bay for subyearling Chinook salmon released in summer was 3.4 kcfs to 4.3 kcfs during the day and 3.4 kcfs to 8.5 kcfs during the night. 2003 Three studies examining dam passage and survival were performed at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003. Dam configuration was unchanged. From April 26 through June 23 two spill treatments were selected to evaluate of juvenile fish passage; BiOp and Spill50. The dam was operated in 4-day blocks with 2 days of BiOp and 2 days of Spill50 in each block (Table A.1). The spill pattern was a flat pattern during both spill treatments (Figure A.3). From June 24 to July 24 two spill treatments were compared: Bulk and NoSpill (Table A.1). A fixed-location hydroacoustic study to evaluate changes in the passage distribution and timing for yearling subyearling Chinook salmon and steelhead was conducted between April 26 and July 21, 2003 (Moursund et al. 2004). The major objectives of the study were 1) to describe the horizontal and vertical distribution of fish passage at the spillway and the powerhouse with respect to diel period, spill levels, and spill treatment for the spring and summer, and 2) to estimate juvenile salmon fish passage efficiency (FPE), spill passage efficiency/effectiveness (SPE)/(SPS), and fish guidance efficiency (FGE) for BiOp (skimming) versus Spill50 (plunging) spill treatments during the spring and summer periods, emphasizing the potential placement of an RSW. A radiotelemetry study was conducted between April 28 and June 2 to monitor the distribution of fish as they approach the dam, forebay residence time, horizontal fish passage distribution, route-specific fish passage metrics, tailrace egress time, and survival of tagged hatchery yearling Chinook salmon under the two spill treatments (Eppard et al. 2005c). Fish were PIT-tagged and gastrically implanted with radio tags. The primary objectives of the study were to 1) estimate overall dam survival and spillway passage survival, 2) estimate FPE, SPE, SPS, and FGE, 3) describe the horizontal distribution of fish approaching and passing through the powerhouse and spillways, and 4) estimate forebay residence time and tailrace egress. A PIT-tag study addressing yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon turbine survival was conducted in 2003 (Absolon et al. 2005) between April 29 and May 24 under BiOp and Spill50 treatments and between June 24 and July 12 under a Bulk treatment. The objectives of the study were to evaluate the relative survival of 1) yearling hatchery Chinook salmon released into the collection channel and two turbine units (slots 1A and 3A), and 2) hatchery subyearling Chinook salmon released into the collection channel, a turbine unit (1A), and upstream of the spillway. 2004 Studies performed in 2004 assessed passage and survival prior to the installation of an RSW. No significant changes to the configuration of Ice Harbor Dam were implemented prior to the 2004 fish passage season. Spring and summer studies at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 contrasted two treatments: Bulk and Flat. 5.3 Radiotelemetry evaluations were conducted in 2004 to contrast fish passage and survival for yearling Chinook salmon (Eppard et al. 2005a), steelhead (Axel et al. 2005) and subyearling Chinook salmon (Ogden et al. 2005) under Bulk and Flat spill treatments. Evaluations were conducted using a 4-day block study design, a bulk spill pattern for 2 days followed by 2 days of a flat spill pattern (Table A.2). The objectives of the study were to evaluate the 1) relative spillway and dam passage survival, and 2) behavior and timing of fish as they entered the forebay, approached and passed the powerhouse, and exited the tailrace. Fish were collected at Lower Monumental Dam, PIT tagged, and surgically implanted with radio tags. The study at Ice Harbor dam relied upon yearling Chinook salmon released into the forebay or tailrace of Lower Monumental Dam as part of a concurrent passage survival study. Reference groups were released at the upstream end of Goose Island, approximately 2 km downstream from Ice Harbor Dam. Steelhead were released in the Lower Monumental Dam and Ice Harbor tailraces, and subyearling Chinook salmon were released in the Ice Harbor Dam forebay and tailrace. 2005 Two significant changes to the configuration of Ice Harbor Dam were implemented prior to the 2005 fish passage season: a PIT-tag interrogation system was installed in the JBS to allow PIT-tagged fish passing Ice Harbor Dam to be detected upon entering the JBS, and an RSW was installed at spillbay 2. The PIT-tag interrogation system installation was completed on April 19, 2005. The RSW was operational in 2005 for the juvenile migration period. However, low flows during the 2005 fish passage season drove operations at other dams to maximize the collection and transport of migrating juvenile salmonids, resulting in few migrants passing through Ice Harbor Dam. Spring and summer studies at Ice Harbor Dam in 2005 contrasted Bulk and RSW treatments that differed in spill level, spill pattern, and operation of RSW. The RSW was closed during the Bulk spill treatment, which followed the BiOp spill levels (45 kcfs daytime spill and 100% nighttime spill up to the gas cap) and imposed a five-stop minimum for conventional spill gates. The RSW was operated during the RSW treatment and spill levels were reduced, also with a five-stop minimum for conventional spill gates. Studies conducted during the 2005 sampling period included a hydroacoustic passage evaluation during spring and summer and radiotelemetry passage and survival studies for yearling Chinook salmon, steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon. The hydroacoustic study evaluated all dam passage routes and assessed changes in the passage distribution and run timing for spring and summer migrants (Moursund et al. 2007). The objectives of the study included 1) estimating the distribution of passing fish among the powerhouse, conventional spillbays, and RSW; 2) contrasting fish passage metrics (FPE, FGE, SPE, SPS, RSW passage efficiency, RSW pass effectiveness) between experimental spill treatments; and 3) describing horizontal, vertical, and diel distributions of fish passage. Radiotelemetry studies were conducted in 2005 to evaluate passage behavior and estimate relative survival following the installation of the RSW. The study followed a 2-day random block design, with a high volume of spill discharged during the Bulk spill treatment as one block, and a lower volume of bulk spill using the RSW as the second block. The Bulk spill treatment typically used six or more spill bays with spillway gates for each bay open at least 5 stops. Median spill volume during Bulk was 91.4 kcfs while the median spill volume during RSW was 29.6 kcfs. Subyearling Chinook salmon (Ogden et al. 5.4 2007) and yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead (Axel et al. 2007) were collected at Lower Monumental Dam, PIT tagged, and surgically implanted with radio tags. The objectives of the evaluations were to 1) estimate the relative passage rates through the powerhouse, conventional spillbays, RSW, and JBS; 2) estimate passage metrics (FPE, SPE, SPS, FGE) for the bulk spill treatment and RSW passage effectiveness for the RSW spill treatment; 3) evaluate the percentage of fish passing the spillway, JBS, turbine, and RSW; 4) report the horizontal distributions of fish approaching and passing through the powerhouse, spillway, and RSW; and to 5) evaluate the relative survival estimates for the dam, spillway, RSW, and JBS. Yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead were released in the Lower Monumental Dam and Ice Harbor Dam tailraces between May 3 and May 28, and subyearling fish were released 4 km upstream from Ice Harbor Dam and into the tailrace of Ice Harbor Dam between June 9 and June 29. 2006 River discharge during the spring 2006 fish passage season was well above average. Spillbay 1 was not operational due to relatively low survivals estimated for that route in 2005. The Bulk treatment included spill as specified in the 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp): 45 kcfs during daytime and spill as much as possible without exceeding the limits for total dissolved gas at night. The Spill30 treatment reduced spill levels to 30% of total project outflow. The RSW was operated at a discharge of approximately 7.9 kcfs during both treatments. Spill patterns for both treatments had a 5-stop minimum of conventional spill gates. Each spill treatment was randomly assigned to the first or last two consecutive days within four-day blocks. During the early spring and late summer, only the Bulk treatment was implemented. From May 1 through June 19, treatment blocks included both GasCap and 30% Spill treatments. Ham et al. (2007) conducted a study to evaluate juvenile salmonid passage via the Ice Harbor Dam RSW using fixed-aspect hydroacoustic methods. The primary objective of the study was to determine the vertical and horizontal distribution of emigrating juvenile salmonids as they passed over the crest of the RSW using Bulk spill and Spill30 treatments during the spring and summer passage periods. Each spill treatment was randomly assigned to the first or last 2 consecutive days within 4-day blocks (Appendix A, Table A.4). A second objective was to compare seasonal and diel passage distributions. Some reports from studies conducted in 2006 have not been finalized as of this writing, so they are not incorporated into this report. Reports in progress include radiotelemetry passage and survival studies for yearling Chinook salmon, steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon. 5.2 Juvenile Fish Passage and Survival Study Results Results from juvenile fish passage and survival investigations are presented in the order that migrating juvenile salmon would encounter area, i.e., forebay residence time, dam approach, dam passage, and tailrace passage. Survival data are grouped by route of passage through Ice Harbor Dam. Results are arranged by year. 5.2.1 Forebay Approach Distributions The approach to the dam structure through the forebay was evaluated using radiotelemetry methods. 5.5 2003 Aerial and underwater antennas were used to monitor radio-tagged salmonids as they approached Ice Harbor Dam. An upper forebay transect (river kilometer [rkm] 538.5) and a lower forebay transect (rkm 534.2) were used in the detection analyses (Appendix B, Figure B.1). Eppard et al. (2005c) analyzed forebay distributions for yearling Chinook salmon with respect to randomized 2-day sampling blocks of BiOp spill and the Spill50 treatment. The distribution in the upper forebay transect differed little between treatments and was concentrated at the mid-channel (Appendix B, Figure B.2). Distributions at the lower transect were analyzed using diel measurements for each treatment (Appendix B, Figure B.3). Fish passage was somewhat higher during the daytime for the BiOp spill treatment and somewhat higher during the nighttime for the Spill50 spill treatment. Horizontal spillway distributions were concentrated at the middle of the spillway. 2004 Eppard et al. (2005a) analyzed forebay distributions for yearling Chinook salmon with respect to randomized 2-day sampling blocks of flat and bulk spill. Ogden et al. (2005) analyzed the approach patterns of subyearling Chinook salmon. Aerial and underwater antennas were used to monitor forebay entrance, approach, and exit from Ice Harbor Dam passage routes (Appendix B, Figure B.4). Of the 2882 radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon detected in the forebay 1829 (63.5%) were detected on the lower forebay transect buoys. Of these 1829, 898 (49.1%) were detected during Bulk spill and 906 (49.5%) during Flat spill; the remaining 25 (1.4%) were detected during the NoSpill treatment. For the 898 fish detected on the lower forebay transect during Bulk spill operations, 79.3% were first detected on buoys located in front of the spillway versus 20.7% on buoys in front of the powerhouse (Appendix B, Figure B.5). For the 906 fish detected on the lower forebay transect during Flat spill operations, 64.3% were first detected on buoys in front of the spillway versus 35.7 % on buoys in front of the powerhouse (Eppard et al. 2005a). Of the 2121 radio-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon released above Ice Harbor Dam, 1,375 were detected entering the forebay. Based on the time of first detection, 774 (56.3%) of these fish entered the forebay during the Bulk spill and 601 (43.7%) during Flat spill. Of these same 1375 fish, 871 (63.3%) were detected on the approach transect, with 488 (56.0%) detected during the Bulk spill treatment and 383 (44.0%) during the Flat spill treatment. For fish entering the immediate forebay during Bulk spill treatment, 74.4% were first detected on the approach transect buoys in front of the spillway, and 25.6% on buoys in front of the powerhouse (Appendix B, Figure B.6). During Flat spill treatment, 68.7% were first detected on the approach transect buoys in front of the spillway and 31.3% on buoys in front of the powerhouse (Ogden et al. 2005). 2005 Axel et al. (2007) reported forebay distributions for yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead with respect to Bulk spill during a 2-day random block design operation, with a high volume of spill discharged in a Bulk spill pattern as one block and a lower volume of bulk spill using the RSW as the second block. Similarly, Ogden et al. (2007) analyzed the approach patterns of subyearling Chinook salmon. Aerial and underwater antennas were used to monitor forebay entrance, approach, and exit from Ice Harbor Dam passage routes (Appendix B, Figure B.7). For both yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead, the first approach under a Bulk spill treatment was primarily at the spillway, with very few fish 5.6 being directed towards the powerhouse. During RSW spill treatment, the amount of flow through the spillway was greatly reduced and shifted to the powerhouse, which resulted in higher percentages of fish approaching the powerhouse and spill bay 1 (Appendix B, Figure B.8) (Axel et al. 2007). For subyearling entering the immediate forebay during Bulk spill operations, 95.2% were first detected approaching in front of the spillway, of which 18.8% approached the RSW, and 4.8% were first detected in front of the powerhouse (Appendix B, Figure B.9) (Ogden et al. 2007). During RSW spill treatment 84.1% were first detected approaching in front of the spillway, of which 37.5% approached the RSW, and 15.9% were first detected in front of the powerhouse. 5.2.2 Forebay Residence Time Median forebay residence times ranged from 1.1 to 7.3 hours and varied with species and spill treatment (Table 5.1). Table 5.1. Median Forebay Residence Time (hours) at Ice Harbor Dam Spill Treatment Yearling Chinook salmon BiOp(a) 7.3(a) BiOp 1.1 2003 Spill50 1.8 Bulk 1.4 2004 Flat 2.4 Bulk 1.4 2005 RSW 2.3 (a) No spill except for May 19 (BiOp spill pattern). N/A = Insufficient fish detected or data not provided. Year 2001 Steelhead N/A N/A N/A 1.8 3.1 1.5 1.9 Subyearling Chinook salmon N/A N/A N/A 3.0 4.3 4.0 5.0 2001 Median forebay residence time for radio-tagged fish in 2001 with known entrance and passage routes was 7.3 hours at Ice Harbor Dam and ranged from 0.4 to 159.8 hours (Axel et al. 2003). There was no spill in 2001 due to a severe drought. Schools of yearling Chinook salmon were observed holding within the immediate forebay of the dam on a daily basis throughout the study period. 2003 Eppard et al. (2005c) reported median forebay residence times of 1.1 hours for fish that entered the forebay during BiOp spill treatment and a slightly higher value of 1.8 hours for fish that entered the forebay during Spill50 spill treatment. Fish that entered during BiOp but passed during Spill50 had a median forebay residence time of 4.6 hours. The forebay residence time for fish entering the forebay during Spill50 but passing during BiOp was slightly higher at 9.6 hours (Appendix B, Figure B.10). 2004 Median forebay residence time for yearling Chinook salmon was 1.4 hours during the Bulk spill treatment and 2.4 hours during Flat spill treatment in 2004 (Eppard et al. 2005a) (Appendix B, Figure B.11). Median forebay residence times for subyearling Chinook salmon were 3.0 hours during Bulk and 4.3 hours during Flat (Ogden et al. 2005) (Appendix B, Figure B.12). Median forebay residence 5.7 time for juvenile steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam during Flat spill treatment was 3.1 hours, nearly twice as long as for those approaching during Bulk spill treatment (1.8 hours); however, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.065) (Axel et al. 2005) (Appendix B, Figure B.13). 2005 Median forebay residence time for yearling Chinook salmon passing Ice Harbor Dam was 2.3 hours during the RSW spill treatment and 1.4 hours during the Bulk spill treatment (Axel et al. 2007). Median forebay residence time for steelhead was 1.9 hours during the RSW spill treatment and 1.5 hours during the Bulk spill treatment. For subyearling Chinook salmon, the median residence time was 4 hours during Bulk spill treatment and 5 hours during RSW spill treatment (Ogden et al. 2007). 5.2.3 Fish Passage Distributions Horizontal passage distributions typically report the distribution of fish among the various sections of the dam or passage routes. This can include turbine, spillway, RSW, and JBS passage routes (Table 5.2). Vertical distributions typically indicate the depths at which fish are distributed as they approach a passage route. Table 5.2. Route-Specific Passage of Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon with Respect to Spill Treatment in 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2005, of Radio-Tagged Steelhead Salmon in 2005, and of Radio-Tagged Subyearling Chinook Salmon in 2004 and 2005 at Ice Harbor Dam Passed Dam via Undetermined Route (%) 25.9(a) 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 Dam Passage Not Detected (%) 1.4(a) 0.0 0.0 5.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 10.2 0.0 0.0 Spillway JBS Spill Passage Passage Species Year Treatment (%) (%) 2001 No Spill(a) 0.0 63.8(a) BiOp 93.1 4.1 2003 Spill50 82.1 8.8 Yearling Chinook Bulk 92.2 1.3 2004 Salmon Flat 81.4 6.9 RSW 47.9(b) 15.5 2005 Bulk 97.4 1.1 Bulk 99.0 1.0 2004 Flat 82.0 17.0 Steelhead RSW 29.0(b) 20.0 2005 Bulk 96.0 2.0 Bulk 78.1 1.3 2004 Subyearling Flat 84.1 3.0 Chinook (b) RSW 27.0 8.0 Salmon 2005 Bulk 98.0 1.0 (a) No spill except for May 19 (BiOp spill pattern). (b) Training spill only when RSW is open. N/A = RSW not installed. N.O. = RSW not operated. Turbine Passage (%) 4.6(a) 2.8 9.2 0.2 1.8 6.6 0.4 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 5.0 1.0 RSW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28.9 N.O. N/A N/A 47.0 N.O. N/A N/A 60.0 N.O. No Passage (%) 4.3(a) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 2001 Axel et al. (2003) characterized passage behavior of radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon in 2001. Of the 882 fish released 5 km upriver from Ice Harbor Dam, 870 were detected at the dam. Of these, 563 (63.8%) passed through the JBS, 41 (4.6%) passed through a turbine unit, 228 (25.9%) had unknown routes of passage, 38 (4.3%) were detected in the forebay but never detected below the dam, and 12 (1.4%) were never detected after their release. The large percentage of fish using the JBS was the result of no spill in 2001. 2003 Eppard et al. (2005c) provided the horizontal distribution of fish passage through the spillway and the powerhouse for radio-tagged fish with respect to Spill50 spill treatment and BiOp spill treatment (Appendix B, Figure B.14). Fish passage was concentrated at spillbays near the powerhouse (units 1 and 2) during Spill50. Passage-route distribution during BiOp spill was 93.1% through the spillway, 4.1% through the JBS, and 2.8% through turbines. Passage-route distribution during Spill50 was 82.1% through the spillway, 8.8% through the JBS, and 9.2% through turbines. Moursund et al. (2004) provided horizontal fish distributions obtained using hydroacoustic methods for the spring and summer seasons with respect to treatment and time of day. During spring, fish tended to pass in greatest number near the thalweg (i.e., center of the channel/dam), but also passed in high proportion at bays and units nearest the shore at both the powerhouse and spillway (Appendix B, Figure B.15). In summer, fish also passed in greatest numbers at the thalweg and at units nearest the shore (Appendix B, Figure B.16). The horizontal distribution of fish passage was not closely correlated with the BiOp or Spill50 spill treatments during spring or summer and fewer fish passed through the powerhouse than the spillway. During Bulk spill in the summer, most of the river flow was sent over the spillway and the majority of fish approaching the dam passed through the spillway. A greater proportion of fish passed spillbay 3 than water, but otherwise passage proportion appeared to be consistent with flow proportion. During the NoSpill summer treatment condition, fish passed via the end turbine units (1 and 6) in a greater proportion than water (Appendix B, Figure B.17). 2004 Spillway passage distribution for yearling Chinook salmon during Bulk and Flat spill treatments as evaluated by Eppard et al. (2005a) indicated that during Bulk spill 1438 (92.2%) passed via the spillway, 20 (1.3%) via the JBS, and 3 (0.2%) through turbines. Of the remaining fish, 80(5.1%) were never detected downstream from Ice Harbor Dam, and 19 (1.2%) passed the project through an undetermined route. During Flat spill, 1069 (81.4%) passed the dam through the spillway, 91 (6.9%) through the JBS, and 24 (1.8%) through turbines at Ice Harbor Dam. Of the remaining fish, 93 (7.1%), last detected in the forebay during Bulk spill were never detected downstream, and 36 (2.7%) passed the project through an undetermined route. Spillway passage distribution favored the south half of the spillway (spillbays 1 through 5) under both spill operations, with 57.4% and 66.6% of radio-tagged fish passing through the spillway during Bulk and Flat spills, respectively (Appendix B, Figure B.18). A total of 87% of the radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon passed through the spillway. 5.9 Overall passage distributions for radio-tagged juvenile steelhead through spillway, bypass, and turbine routes were 88.1%, 8.6%, and 0.4%, respectively (Axel et al. 2005). Approximately 2.9% of the fish passed the project by an unknown route, and an additional 85 fish entered the forebay but did not pass the dam. During Bulk spill treatment 99% (348) of the fish passed via the spillway with the other 1% (5) going through the JBS. During Flat spill treatment 82% (240) of the fish passed via the spillway, 17% (50) through the JBS, and 1% (2) through the turbines (Appendix B, Figure B.19). Overall passage distributions for radio-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon through spillway, bypass, and turbine routes were 80.5%, 2.0%, and 0.9%, respectively (Ogden et al. 2005). Of the 527 radiotagged fish last detected in the forebay during Flat spill operations, 443 (84.1%) passed the dam through the spillway, 16 (3.0%) through the JBS, and 5 (0.9%) through turbines. Of the remaining fish, 54 (10.2%), were never detected downstream of Ice Harbor Dam, and 9 (1.7%) passed through an undetermined route. During Bulk spill 612 (78.1%) passed through the spillway, 10 (1.3%) through the juvenile bypass, and 7 (0.9%) through turbines. Of the remaining bulk-passed fish, 127 (16.2%) were never detected downstream from Ice Harbor Dam, and 28 (3.6%) passed through an undetermined route. During Flat spill treatment, 443 (84.1%) passed the dam through the spillway, 16 (3.0%) through the JBS, and 5 (0.9%) through turbines. Of the remaining fish, 54 (10.2%), were never detected downstream of Ice Harbor Dam, and 9 (1.7%) passed through an undetermined route (Appendix B, Figure B.20). 2005 Horizontal fish distributions with respect to treatment and time of day were obtained by means of hydroacoustic methods (Moursund et al. 2007). Fish distribution was found to be influenced by the horizontal distribution of water discharge among passage routes. During spring, fish tended to pass near the center of the project, which was near the thalweg of the river and the location of the RSW. Fish did not pass the spillway uniformly during the spring Bulk spill treatment, even though flows were fairly uniformly distributed. Passage through the spillway was concentrated in the middle of the spillway, with the highest passage found at spillbay 6. Daytime use of the RSW in spring was evident (Appendix B, Figure B.21). Summer distributions were toward the thalweg with highest passage at spillbay 3. Daytime passage through the RSW during summer also was apparent (Appendix B, Figure B.22). Overall passage distributions for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon during the RSW spill treatment were 76.8% (1145) through the spillway (28.9% (431) of which passed through the RSW bay), 15.5% (231) through the JBS, 6.6% (99) through turbine routes, and 1.1% through undetermined routes (Axel et al. 2007). During Bulk spill treatment 97.4% (1180) of the fish passed via the spillway, with 1.1% (13) passing through the JBS, 0.4% (5) passing through the turbine units, and 1.2% through undetermined passage routes (Appendix B, Figure B.23). Overall passage distribution for radio-tagged juvenile steelhead was 88.1% through the spillway, 8.6% through the JBS, and 0.4% through turbines. During Bulk spill treatment 96% (599) of the fish passed via the spillway with the other 2% (14) going through the JBS, 1% (5) through the turbines, and 1% through an undetermined route. For the periods of RSW spill 47% (330) of the fish passed via the RSW, 29% (206) through the training spill, 20% (144) through the JBS, 2% (15) through the turbines, and 1% (16) through an undetermined route (Appendix B, Figure B.24) (Axel et al. 2007). Horizontal fish passage distribution for subyearling Chinook salmon during bulk spill was 98% through the spillway, 1% through the JBS, and 1% through turbines. Fish passage distribution for RSW 5.10 spill was 60% through the RSW, 27% through the training spill, 8% through the JBS, and 5% through turbines (Appendix B, Figure B.25) (Ogden et al. 2007). 2006 Horizontal fish distribution within the RSW was obtained by means of hydroacoustic methods (Ham et al. 2007). Fish passage was found to not be uniformly distributed across the RSW. Results from the RSW deployment indicate that a greater proportion of fish entered at the south, or powerhouse, side of the RSW in the spring, with a more uniform distribution across the RSW in the summer. During the spring, there was a slight shift in passage toward the south side during the Spill30 spill treatment at the RSW deployment as well. This shift may reflect the larger proportion of flow through the powerhouse during the Spill30 treatment. 5.2.3.1 Vertical Fish Passage Distributions at the Dam Vertical fish passage distributions and trajectories for spillbays and powerhouse were determined using hydroacoustic methods. 2003 Moursund et al. (2004) determined vertical distributions and trajectories for fish approaching the spillways for the spring and summer seasons with respect to spillgate opening. At low flows (low gate openings) there was only a slight seasonal difference in the vertical distribution. The seasonal difference increased as gate opening increased, until reaching the 8-ft gate opening. At the 8-ft opening, fish passed notably higher in the water column in spring than in summer. At the 9-ft gate opening the seasonal difference is less evident (Appendix B, Figure B.27). At low gate openings, fish must pass through an opening only a few feet high causing their vertical distribution to be compressed and deep in the water column. At higher gate openings, fish are distributed through more of the water column at the sample location and are drawn from higher in the water column. In addition, vertical distributions of fish differ by season and/or species composition. This difference is most obvious at 7- and 8-ft gate openings, with the summer run of fish passing the sample volume deeper than the spring run (Moursund et al. 2004). Vertical distributions at the powerhouse show fish distributed near the turbine intake ceiling, with unguided fish passing near the screen tip (Appendix B, Figure B.28). 2005 Vertical distributions for fish passing via conventional spillbays by season and spill treatment show that passage was deeper in the water column during the summer compared to the spring (Moursund et al. 2007). The seasonal trend of summer fish traveling deeper in the water column was most pronounced for passage through the RSW (Appendix B, Figure B.29). The vertical distribution for both guided and unguided fish through the turbine intake show that fish were distributed at shallower depths during the spring and summer seasons under the RSW spill treatment (Appendix B, Figure B.30) (Moursund et al. 2007). 5.11 2006 Vertical fish distributions with respect to treatment and time of day were obtained by means of hydroacoustic methods (Ham et al. 2007). The vertical distributions of fish passing through the RSW varied seasonally; treatment differences were relatively small (Appendix B, Figure B.31). Fish entering the RSW during the summer at the RSW deployment were distributed lower than fish at the same location in the spring. Seasonal differences in vertical distribution of fish passing the RSW may be related to differences in several factors, including species composition, flow volume, temperature, or RSW proportion of total flow. Cumulative distributions indicate that fish were distributed slightly higher in the water column during the Spill30 treatment in spring. Fish passing during the Spill30 spill treatment of the summer study were distributed slightly lower in the water column than fish passing during the Bulk spill treatment. Ham et al. (2007) also evaluated the vertical distributions of fish passage at the RSW to determine whether results from direct injury studies could be applied to the run at large by extrapolation of data from the pipe location to transducer sampling locations. Direct injury fish were released approximately 10 ft upstream of the RSW crest, at depths of approximately 1.5 ft (deep) and 6.5 ft (shallow). Results from the RSW deployment indicated that 11% of the fish passed below the deep release location in spring and 27% in summer. The fractions estimated to be passing below the shallow release location were 69% and 80% in the spring and summer, respectively, at the RSW deployment. 5.2.4 Fish Passage Metrics Several fish passage performance measures have been developed to summarize various aspects of fish passage distribution. Fish passage efficiency (FPE) is the proportion of fish that pass through nonturbines routes at the dam. Spill passage efficiency (SPE) is the proportion of fish that pass via the spillway. FPE and SPE are unit-less ratios that are reported as a percentage to avoid confusion with spill effectiveness. Spill passage effectiveness (SPS) is the ratio of the proportion of fish passing over the spillway versus the proportion of water passing over the spillway; it is intended to describe the relative effectiveness that a particular passage route has at passing fish per unit of water. Fish guidance efficiency (FGE) is the proportion of fish guided into the JBS by the intake screens. Two additional metrics, RSW passage efficiency (RPE), the proportion of fish that pass via the RSW, and RSW passage effectiveness (RPS), the ratio of the proportion of fish passing through the RSW versus the proportion of water passing over the RSW, are now applicable with the installation of the RSW at Ice Harbor Dam. The following sections use the preceding metrics to compare and contrast passage among years, seasons, or treatments. 5.2.4.1 Fish Passage Efficiency Table 5.3 summarizes FPE results for studies conducted in 2003, 2004, and 2005 using radiotelemetry and hydroacoustic methods. 2003 Moursund et al. (2004) calculated FPE for summer and spring with respect to spill treatment period using hydroacoustic data. The original report also estimates values for day and night periods. FPE was consistently high at Ice Harbor Dam, approximately 95% overall (Table 5.3). 5.12 Eppard et al. (2005c) calculated FPE for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon during the spring with respect to spill treatment. Overall FPE was higher for radio-tagged fish passing during BiOp spill (97.5%) than for fish passing during the Spill50 treatment (90.0%) 2004 Eppard et al. (2005a) estimated Ice Harbor Dam FPE for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon for Bulk and Flat spill treatments. Overall FPE was higher for fish passing during Bulk spill (98.6%) than for fish passing during Flat spill (94.9%). Fish passage efficiencies for subyearling Chinook salmon during the summer season was 0.948 (SE = 0.016, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.904-0.991) for Bulk spill and 0.970 (SE = 0.016, 95% CI 0.920-1.020) for Flat spill (Ogden et al. 2005). Fish passage efficiency for radio-tagged steelhead was 100% during Bulk spill and 99% during Flat spill (Axel et al. 2005). 2005 Moursund et al. (2007) estimated FPE for fish passage during the spring season (yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead) as well as the summer season (subyearling Chinook salmon) with respect to treatment and time of day for both spring and summer fish passage periods. Fish passage efficiency averaged 98% for the project, was higher during the day than night, and was slightly higher during the spring for RSW spill treatment than Bulk spill treatment and higher for Bulk spill during the summer. Axel et al. (2007) estimated FPE for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead with respect to spill treatment. Fish passage efficiency was 99.6% during Bulk spill and 93.3% during RSW spill for yearling Chinook salmon. Steelhead FPE was also higher for Bulk spill (99.2%) than RSW spill (97.8%). The FPE for subyearling Chinook salmon was 95.1% (95% CI 88.8-101.6) for RSW spill and 99.4% (95% CI 98.6-100.5) for Bulk spill (Ogden et al. 2007). Table 5.3. Fish Passage Efficiencies Obtained from Radiotelemetry (RT) and Hydroacoustic (HA) Studies During Spring and Summer at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003, 2004, and 2005 Yearling Chinook Spill Steelhead Spring Run at Year Treatment Salmon (RT) (RT) Large (HA) BiOp 97.5 N/A 97.4 Spill50 90.0 N/A 94.3 2003 Bulk N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NoSpill N/A Bulk 98.6 100.0 N/A 2004 Flat 94.9 99.0 N/A Bulk 99.6 99.2 97.5 2005 RSW 93.3 97.8 97.6 N/A = Estimates not available due to insufficient fish or no study conducted. Subyearling Chinook Salmon (RT) N/A N/A N/A N/A 94.8 97.0 99.4 95.1 Summer Run at Large (HA) 96.9 92.7 98.8 87.7 N/A N/A 98.9 97.8 5.2.4.2 Spill Efficiency and Effectiveness Spill passage efficiency (SPE) and effectiveness (SPS) were estimated for studies conducted in 2003, 2004, and 2005 using radiotelemetry and hydroacoustic methods. 5.13 2003 Moursund et al. (2004) estimated SPE and SPS for summer and spring with respect to all treatments and diel period. In spring, SPE was 81.4% for BiOp spill and 56.0% for the Spill50 treatment (Table 5.4). Summer SPEs were not significantly different, with 76.4% for BiOp spill and 65.4% for Spill50. Spill passage effectiveness differed significantly among treatments only in the summer, with an SPS of 1.07 for BiOp spill and 1.27 for the Spill50. Spring SPS was 1.12 for BiOp spill and 1.01 for Spill50. Eppard et al. (2005c) estimated SPE and SPS for yearling Chinook salmon with respect to spill treatment during the spring. Overall SPE for radio-tagged fish passing Ice Harbor Dam during BiOp spill was 93.4%; significantly higher than the 82.0% SPE during Spill50 (t = 3.25, p = 0.006). During BiOp spill, SPE was not different between daytime and nighttime operations (t = 1.42, p = 0.178); however, during Spill50, the nighttime estimate was higher than the daytime estimate, and the difference was significant (t = 4.19, p = 0.001). The SPS for radio-tagged fish passing during BiOp spill was 1.4 and was significantly different from the 1.6 estimated during Spill50 operations (t = 2.65, p = 0.020). Spill effectiveness estimates for fish passing during daytime and nighttime hours were statistically different during both BiOp spill (t = 4.04, p = 0.001) and Spill50 (t = 4.30, p = 0.001). 2004 Eppard et al. (2005a) estimated Ice Harbor SPE and SPS in spring for Bulk and Flat spill treatments using radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon. Overall SPE was higher for fish passing during Bulk spill (97.7%) than for fish passing during Flat spill (87.5%). Spill passage effectiveness was higher for Flat spill (1.5) than Bulk spill (1.2). Axel et al. (2005) estimated SPE and SPS for steelhead. Spill passage efficiency was 99% under Bulk spill and 82% during Flat spill. Mean SPE was 1.00 for Bulk spill and 1.08 during Flat spill. The SPE estimated during summer for subyearling Chinook salmon was 0.933 (SE = 0.015, 95% CI 0.891-0.975) and 0.933 (SE = 0.018, 95% CI 0.876-0.989) for Bulk and Flat spills, respectively. The SPS was 1.15 (SE = 0.04, 95% CI 1.05-1.25) and 1.19 (SE = 0.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.34) for Bulk and Flat spills, respectively (Ogden et al. 2005). Table 5.4. Spill Passage Efficiency and Effectiveness Obtained from Radiotelemetry (RT) and Hydroacoustic (HA) Studies During Spring and Summer at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003, 2004, and 2005 Yearling Chinook Spring Run at Steelhead (RT) Salmon (RT) Large (HA) Spill Year Treatment SPE SPS SPE SPS SPE SPS BiOp 93.4 1.40 N/A 81.4 1.12 2003 Spill50 82.0 1.60 N/A 56.0 1.01 Bulk N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bulk 97.7 1.20 99.0 1.00 N/A 2004 Flat 87.5 1.50 82.0 1.08 N/A Bulk 98.5 1.19 96.9 1.17 88.7 1.06 2005 RSW 77.6 2.27 77.0 2.24 61.9 1.54 N/A = Estimates not available due to insufficient fish or no study conducted. Subyearling Chinook Salmon (RT) SPE SPS N/A N/A N/A 93.3 1.15 93.3 1.19 98.5 1.17 87.3 1.90 Summer Run at Large (HA) SPE SPS 76.4 1.07 N/A N/A 65.4 1.27 N/A N/A 92.0 1.17 77.4 1.98 5.14 2005 Moursund et al. (2007) estimated SPE and SPS for fish passage during the spring (yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead) as well as the summer (subyearling Chinook salmon). The SPE was significantly higher under the RSW treatment during both seasons. The SPS was significantly higher during the RSW spill treatment in both spring and summer. Axel et al. (2007) estimated SPE and SPS for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead with respect to spill treatment. Yearling Chinook salmon SPE was 98.5% under Bulk spill and 77.6% during RSW spill. Mean SPS was 1.19 for Bulk spill and 2.27 during RSW spill. For juvenile steelhead, SPE was 96.9% under Bulk spill and 77.0% during RSW spill. Mean spill effectiveness was 1.17 for Bulk spill and 2.24 during RSW spill. The SPE for subyearling Chinook salmon was 98.5% (95% CI, 96.1-100.8) for Bulk spill and 87.3% (95% CI, 76.9-97.8) for RSW spill. The SPS was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.12-1.23) and 1.90 (95% CI, 1.40-2.40) for Bulk and RSW spills, respectively (Ogden et al. 2007). 5.2.4.3 Spill Efficiency and Effectiveness through the RSW RSW spill efficiency (RPE) is defined as the proportion of fish that pass via the RSW, and RSW passage effectiveness (RPS) is the ratio of the proportion of fish passing through the RSW versus the proportion of water passing over the RSW. The RPE and RPS were estimated for radiotelemetry and hydroacoustic studies conducted in 2005 (Table 5.5). Table 5.5. RSW Passage Efficiency (RPE) and Effectiveness (RPS) from Radiotelemetry (RT) and Hydroacoustic (HA) Evaluations at Ice Harbor Dam in 2005 Yearling Chinook Steelhead (RT) Salmon (RT) RPE RPS RPE RPS 29.0% 3.15 47.0% 5.09 Spring Run at Large (HA) RPE RPS 28.4% 5.30 Subyearling Summer Run at Chinook Salmon Large (RT) (HA) RPE RPS RPE RPS 60.0% 3.40 38.4% 3.20 Year 2005 Treatment RSW spill 2005 Moursund et al. (2007) estimated RPE and RPS during the spring (yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead) as well as the summer (subyearling Chinook salmon) by treatment, time of day, and season using hydroacoustic methods. There was no seasonal trend observed for RPE, because approximately the same proportion of fish used the RSW in both the spring and summer seasons. However, RPE was higher during the day than during night. The RPS estimates were higher in the spring than summer, most likely due to fish passing deeper in the water column during the summer (Moursund et al. 2007). The RPS was also higher during the day. Axel et al. (2007) estimated RSW efficiency and effectiveness for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead with respect to spill treatment. The RPE was estimated as 29% for yearling Chinook salmon and 47% for steelhead during the RSW spill treatment. The RPS was 3.15 and 5.09 for yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead, respectively. Ogden et al. (2007) estimated RSW efficiency and effectiveness for subyearling Chinook salmon as 60% and 3.40, respectively. 5.15 5.2.4.4 Fish Guidance Efficiency Fish guidance efficiency, the proportion of fish entering the turbine intake that are diverted into the JBS by the intake screens, was estimated for hydroacoustic and radiotelemetry studies conducted during 2001, and 2003 through 2005 (Table 5.6). Table 5.6. Fish Guidance Efficiencies Estimated by Radiotelemetry (RT) and Hydroacoustic (HA) Studies at Ice Harbor Dam Yearling Spring Subyearling Summer Chinook Run at Large Chinook Salmon Run at Large Year Spill Treatment Steelhead (RT) Salmon (RT) (HA) (RT) (HA) (a) 2001 NoSpill 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A BiOp spill N/C N/A 85.1 N/A 81.5 Spill50 N/C N/A 85.6 N/A 77.8 2003 Bulk N/A N/A N/A N/A 93.2 NoSpill N/A N/A N/A N/A 87.7 Bulk 87.0 100.0 N/A N/C N/A 2004 Flat 79.1 96.0 N/A N/C N/A Bulk 72.2 73.7 67.7 62.5 84.3 2005 RSW 70.0 90.6 92.5 61.5 89.1 (a) No spill with the exception of spill on 19 May 2001 during emergency release. N/A = Estimate not available due to insufficient fish detected or no study conducted. N/C = Not calculated. 2001 Fish guidance efficiency (FGE) for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon at Ice Harbor Dam in 2001 ranged from 33.3% to 77.1%, with an overall FGE of 67.7% (Axel et al. 2003). 2003 Moursund et al. (2004) estimated FGE for summer and spring by treatment and diel period using hydroacoustic methods. The FGE ranged from 77.8% to 93.2%, but did not differ significantly among treatments for any of the combinations tested. Eppard et al. (2005c) did not calculate FGE during 2003 because the number of radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon (76) that passed through the powerhouse during the study period was too small to produce an accurate estimate. 2004 Axel et al. (2005) estimated overall FGE for juvenile steelhead as 95% (95% CI 90-96%), 100% during Bulk spill and 96% during Flat spill. Eppard et al. (2005a) estimated the FGE for yearling Chinook salmon during Bulk and Flat spill treatments. During Bulk spill, 20 fish (87.0%) were guided by standard-length screens into the JBS; during Flat spill, 91 fish (79.1%) were guided into the JBS. 5.16 2005 Moursund et al. (2007) calculated FGE for fish passage during the spring (yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead) and summer (subyearling Chinook salmon) by treatment and diel period using hydroacoustic methods. Overall FGE averaged 91% and did not show any strong trends between diel periods or seasons. However, FGE decreased with increasing spill, which was attributed to a greater probability of attracting surface-oriented fish to spill passage at higher rates than those passing lower in the water column. Presumably, this would result in a larger proportion of remaining fish passing at elevations too low to be guided at the powerhouse. Axel et al. (2007) estimated the FGE for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead during RSW and Bulk spill. The FGE for yearling Chinook salmon was 72.2% under Bulk spill and 70.0% during RSW spill. Steelhead values were higher, with 73.7% under Bulk spill operations and 90.6% during RSW spill. Ogden et al. (2007) estimated FGE for subyearling Chinook salmon as 62.5% (95% CI 24.0-101.1) for Bulk spill and 61.5% (95% CI, 46.4-76.7) for RSW spill. 5.2.5 Dam Passage Survival Dam passage survival is intended to estimate the impact of passing the dam, not the reaches upstream or downstream of the dam. Dam passage survival can be broken down further, depending upon the objectives of the study. Studies may estimate survival for passage through the region encompassing the forebay to tailrace (dam survival), all passage routes combined without forebay losses (concrete survival), or for specific routes of passage, such as the JBS, RSW, or spillway. 5.2.5.1 Survival of Fish Passing the Dam Dam survival estimates were calculated from data collected using radiotelemetry in 2001 and 2003 through 2005 (Table 5.7). Dam survival is estimated from detection at the forebay boat restricted zone (BRZ) relative to reference groups released in the tailrace. 2001 During the 2001 migration season, no spill occurred at the Snake River dams. A large proportion of fish were transported prior to reaching Ice Harbor Dam. Fish migrating down the Snake River passed the dams either through the turbines or bypass facilities. Axel et al. (2003) estimated dam survival for yearling Chinook salmon released 5 km upstream from Ice Harbor Dam to be 0.936 (95% CI: 0.895-0.977). 2003 Eppard et al. (2005c) estimated dam survival of yearling Chinook salmon during a radiotelemetry study to be 0.948 (95% CI, 0.923-0.972) under BiOp spill and 0.927 (95% CI, 0.875-0.983) under Spill50 treatment. 5.17 Table 5.7. Dam Survival for Yearling Chinook salmon, Steelhead, and Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam During 2001 and 2003 through 2005 Yearling Chinook Salmon (95% CI) 93.6 2001 NoSpill (89.5-97.7) 94.8 BiOp (92.3-97.2) 2003 92.7 Spill50 (87.5-98.3) 93.0 Bulk (86.4-99.7) 2004 89.5 Flat (84.5-94.5) 94.5 RSW (92.5-96.5) 2005 92.8 Bulk (90.7-95.0) N/A = Insufficient fish detected or data not provided. Year Spill Treatment Steelhead (95% CI) N/A N/A N/A 87.0 (83.8-90.2) 90.8 (87.7-93.9) 93.2 (90.0-96.4) Subyearling Chinook Salmon (95% CI) N/A N/A N/A 86.2 (69.2-107.5) 84.6 (73.6-97.2) 95.1 (87.0-104.0) 96.0 (92.0-97.8) 2004 Eppard et al. (2005a) estimated dam survival for yearling Chinook salmon during Bulk and Flat spill treatments to be 93% (95% CI, 86.4-99.7) and 89.5% (95% CI, 84.5-94.5), respectively. Estimates for radio-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon passing during Bulk spill was 86.2% (95% CI, 69.2-107.5) compared to 84.6% (95% CI, 73.6-97.2) during Flat spill (Ogden et al. 2005). Dam survival estimates for juvenile steelhead by spill treatment could not be determined due to insufficient numbers of tagged fish passing through the powerhouse (Axel et al. 2005). However, overall dam survival was estimated to be 87.0% (95% CI, 83.8-90.2). 2005 Axel et al. (2007) estimated the dam survival for yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead during RSW and Bulk spill treatments in 2005. Dam survival was 92.8 (95% CI, 90.7-95.0) during Bulk spill and 94.5 (95% CI, 92.5-96.5) during RSW spill for yearling Chinook salmon. Dam survival for steelhead during Bulk spill was 93.2 (95% CI, 90.0-96.4) and 90.8 (95% CI, 87.7-93.9) during RSW spill. Ogden et al. (2007) estimated the dam survival for subyearling Chinook salmon to be 96.0% (95% CI, 92.0-97.8) during Bulk spill compared to 95.1% (95% CI, 87.0-104.0) for RSW spill. 5.2.5.2 Concrete Survival Concrete survival was estimated for radio-tagged salmonids passing through all passage routes of the dam during 2005 (Table 5.8). Concrete survival is the survival of fish detected passing the dam by all routes relative to reference groups of fish released downstream. 5.18 Table 5.8. Concrete Survival for Yearling Chinook salmon, Steelhead, and Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam During 2005 Year 2005 Bulk Spill Treatment RSW Yearling Chinook Salmon (95% CI) 97.0 (95.0-100.0) 96.8 (97.0-102.0) Steelhead (95% CI) 97.3 (94.6-100.1) 99.3 (96.5-102.1) Subyearling Chinook Salmon (95% CI) 98.6 (93.0-104.0) 99.9 (98.0-102.0) 2005 Axel et al. (2007) estimated the concrete survival for yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead during RSW and Bulk spill treatments in 2005. Concrete survival for yearling Chinook salmon was 96.8% (95% CI, 94.9-98.8) during Bulk spill and 96.1% (95% CI, 94.2-98.1) during RSW spill. Concrete survival for steelhead was 97.3% (95% CI, 94.6-100.1) for RSW spill and 99.3 (95% CI, 96.5-102.1). Ogden et al. (2007) estimated the concrete survival for subyearling Chinook salmon to be 99.9% (95% CI, 98.0-102.0) during Bulk spill compared to 98.6% (95% CI, 93.0-104.0) during RSW spill. 5.2.5.3 Spillway Survival Spillway survival is the ratio of survival for fish passing the spillway to that of relative to reference groups of fish released downstream. Spillway survival was estimated using PIT-detection or radiotelemetry methodologies during 2000 and 2002 through 2005 (Table 5.9). All the studies implemented a paired-release study design for PIT-tagged and radio-tagged fish, released at two sites; upstream (treatment) and downstream (reference) from Ice Harbor Dam spillway. The paired-release study design should have minimized any bias associated with increased vulnerability to avian predation and other mortality factors, in that the treatment and reference groups would have been similarly affected. The single-release model was used to estimate survival and detection probabilities for individual release groups. Spillway passage survival is the ratio of spillway (treatment) to tailrace (reference) survival estimates. Average survival estimates were calculated using the weighted geometric means. 2000 Eppard et al. (2002) estimated spillway survival for PIT-tagged yearling Chinook salmon and subyearling Chinook salmon (Table 5.9). Survival estimates for the individual spillbays 3, 5 and 7 for yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon are listed in Table 5.10. The estimates were not statistically different for either the hatchery yearling Chinook salmon (range, 96.4 – 98.8, p = 0.896) or subyearling Chinook salmon (range, 85.8 – 92.7, p = 0.095). No correlations were identified between spillbay survival and tailwater elevation, release date, spill proportion, total river flow, water temperature, fish size, or spillway gate position for yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon (Eppard et al. 2002). 5.19 Table 5.9. Average Spillway Survival Estimates (%) for Yearling Chinook salmon, Subyearling Chinook salmon, and Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam with Respect to Spill Treatment Based on Radiotelemetry (RT) and PIT-Detection (PIT) Methodologies, 2000 Through 2005 Yearling Chinook Yearling Chinook Spill Salmon (RT) Salmon (PIT) Year Treatment (95% CI) (95% CI) 97.8 2000 BiOp N/A (94.1-101.8) 84.8 89.5 BiOp Day (80.8-88.8) (82.5-96.4) 2002 87.8 89.0 BiOp Night (82.8-92.8) (81.2-96.8) 2003 Bulk Bulk N/A N/A Subyearling Subyearling Chinook Salmon Chinook Salmon Steelhead (RT) (PIT) (RT) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) N/A N/A N/A N/A 97.7 (94.8-100.7) 97.7 (92.6-102.8) 98.0 (95.1-101.0) 100.0 (97.2-102.7) 88.5 (85.6-91.5) 87.6 (82.8-92.4) 91.5 (85.5-97.5) 96.4 (90.5-102.6) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97.2 (90.3-104.5) 93.3 (88.2-98.6) 98.9 (94.5-104.0) 100 (98.0-102.0) 97.4 N/A (93.6-101.1) 2004 95.2 Flat N/A (93.0-97.4) 95.8 RSW N/A (93.7-97.9) 2005 97.1 Bulk N/A (95.2-99.0) N/A = Insufficient fish detected or data not provided. Table 5.10. Survival Estimates (%) for Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon Released into Spillbays 3, 5, and 7 at Ice Harbor Dam in 2000 (Eppard et al. 2002) Location Spillbay 3 Spillbay 5 Spillbay 7 SE = standard error Yearling Chinook Salmon (SE) 98.1 (3.4) 98.8 (3.6) 96.4 (3.9) Subyearling Chinook Salmon (SE) 92.7 (2.4) 86.5 (2.6) 85.8 (2.6) 2002 Eppard et al. (2005b) estimated spillway survival of radio-tagged hatchery yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon as well as PIT-tagged hatchery yearling Chinook salmon with respect to two spill treatments; BiOp Day and BiOp Night (Table 5.9). The two treatments differed with respect to spill patterns (Figure A.2, Figure A.1) and spill levels (45 kcfs daytime, 100 kcfs nighttime). No significant difference in survival estimates were observed between day and night releases for radio-tagged yearling, PIT-tagged yearling, or PIT-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon (paired t-test; t=0.94, p=0.355, t=0.09, p=0.929 and t=1.00, p=0.327, respectively). Overall spillway survival was 86.5% (95% CI, 83.3-89.7) for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon, 89.2 (95% CI, 84.0-94.4) for PIT-tagged yearling Chinook salmon, and 89.4% (95% CI, 85.6-93.2) for PIT-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon (Eppard et al. 5.20 2005b). Comparisons of survival obtained using PIT and radiotelemetry tagging methodology resulted in no significant difference (p=0.382). For both yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon, only weak correlation was found between spillway survival and total dam discharge, spill volume, tailwater elevation, release date, fork length at tagging, and water temperature. 2003 Absolon et al. (2005) estimated spillway survival for subyearling Chinook salmon using PIT-tag methods. Spillway survival was 96.4% (95% CI, 90.5-102.6) during the Bulk spill treatment. 2004 Eppard et al. (2005a) estimated spillway survival for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon during Bulk and Flat spill treatments to be 97.4% (95% CI, 93.6-101.1) and 95.2% (95% CI, 93.0-97.4), respectively. Spillway survival for juvenile steelhead was 97.7% (95% CI, 94.8-100.7) for Bulk spill and 97.7% (95% CI, 92.6-102.8) for Flat spill (Axel et al. 2005). Estimates for radio-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon passing during Bulk spill was 97.2% (95% CI, 90.3-104.5) compared to 93.3% (95% CI, 88.2-98.6) during Flat spill (Ogden et al. 2005). 2005 Axel et al. (2007) estimated the spillway survival for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead during RSW and Bulk spill treatments. Spillway survival for yearling Chinook salmon was 97.1 (95% CI, 95.2-99.0) during Bulk spill and 95.8 (95% CI, 93.7-97.9) during RSW spill. Spillway survival for steelhead was 100.0% (95% CI, 97.2-102.7) for Bulk spill and 98.0 (95% CI, 95.1-101.0) for RSW spill. Ogden et al. (2007) estimated the spillway survival for subyearling Chinook salmon to be 100.0% (95% CI, 98.0-102.0) during Bulk spill compared to 98.9% (95% CI, 94.5-104.0) for RSW spill. 5.2.5.4 RSW Survival Survival through the newly installed RSW was estimated using radiotelemetry. RSW survival is the ratio of the survival of fish passing through the RSW to that of reference groups of fish released downstream. 2005 RSW survival was estimated for yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead during RSW spill treatment in 2005 (Axel et al. 2007). The RSW survival was 97.0% (95% CI, 94.2-99.9) and 98.5% (95% CI, 92.9101.6) for yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead, respectively. Ogden et al. (2007) estimated the RSW survival for subyearling Chinook salmon to be 99.7% (96.0-104.0). 5.2.5.5 Juvenile Bypass System Survival Survival through the JBS was evaluated in 2001 and 2005 using radiotelemetry (Table 5.11). JBS survival is the ratio of the survival of fish passing through the JBS to that of reference fish released downstream. 5.21 Table 5.11. Juvenile Bypass System Survival for Yearling Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam Yearling Chinook Salmon 99.6 2001 JBS (94.7-104.55) Collection 97.5 2003 Channel 91.3-102.2) 99.7 2005 JBS (96.8-102.7) N/A = Insufficient fish detected or data not provided. Year Segment Survival (95% CI) Steelhead Subyearling Chinook Salmon N/A N/A 101.5 (97.6-105.5) N/A 99.7 (95.9-103.6) 98.8 (91.6-106.1) 2001 The JBS survival for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon released 5 km upstream from the dam, detected in the Ice Harbor JBS, and subsequently detected at Strawberry Island, was estimated to be 99.6% (95% CI, 94.7-104.55) (Axel et al. 2003). 2003 Absolon et al. (2005) estimated survival for PIT-tagged yearling Chinook salmon during spring through the powerhouse collection channel. During the summer, survival estimates were calculated for subyearling Chinook salmon. Collection channel survival does not reflect passage through the entire JBS survival, because fish released in the collection channel would not encounter the guidance screens or gatewell conditions. 2005 While insufficient numbers of tagged yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead passed through the powerhouse during the Bulk spill treatment to estimate survival through the JBS, dam operations during the RSW spill treatment directed a larger portion of fish toward the powerhouse, allowing JBS survival estimates to be calculated (Axel et al. 2007). JBS survival rates during RSW spill treatment were 99.7% (95% CI, 96.8-102.7) and 101.5% (95% CI, 97.6-105.5) for yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead, respectively. The survival rate for subyearling salmon passing through the JBS was 98.8% (95% CI, 91.6-106.1) (Ogden et al. 2007). 5.2.5.6 Turbine Survival Turbine survival estimates were calculated for yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon in 2003. Turbine survival is the ratio of the survival of fish passing through turbines to that of reference fish released downstream. 2003 Absolon et al. (2005) estimated overall turbine survival for PIT-tagged yearling Chinook salmon during spring through turbines 1A and 3A. During the summer, turbine survival estimates were calculated for subyearling Chinook salmon with respect to Bulk and NoSpill spill treatments (Table 5.12). Mean turbine survival for yearling Chinook salmon was 87.1% compared to 89.3% for subyearling Chinook salmon. 5.22 Table 5.12. Turbine and Collection Channel Survival Estimates for PIT-Tagged Hatchery Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam During 2003. Species River-Run Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon River-Run Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon River-Run Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon River-Run Hatchery Subyearling Chinook Salmon River-Run Hatchery Subyearling Chinook Salmon River-Run Hatchery Subyearling Chinook Salmon Spill Treatment 1A 3A BiOp & Spill50 Bulk NoSpill Bulk & NoSpill Turbine Survival (95% C.I.) 0.888 (0.840-0.939) 0.855 (0.812-0.900) 0.871 (0.832-0.913) 0.910 (0.854-0.970) 0.886 (0.799-0.982) 0.893 (0.849-0.941) 5.2.5.7 Gas Bubble Trauma Gas bubble trauma (GBT) in fish examined in the sampling facility of a dam reflects prior exposure to supersaturated conditions for total dissolved gas. 2000 Results for gas bubble trauma (GBT) evaluations conducted at Ice Harbor Dam in 2000 indicated that only 6 (1.2%) of the Chinook salmon and 8 (1.8%) of the steelhead exhibited symptoms of GBT (http://www.fpc.org/smolt/gbtqueries/GBTwebsum_query.html; accessed 1/7/2008). 5.2.6 Tailrace Egress Time Tailrace egress was measured from the last known detection location through the Ice Harbor Dam (spillway, turbine, or bypass system) to telemetry transects located downstream (Table 5.13). Two different downstream transects were used between 2000 and 2006. The first was approximately 1 km downstream of the dam, while the second was at Goose Island approximately 2 km downstream from the dam. 2001 Axel et al. (2003) calculated median tailrace egress time to a point 1-km downstream of the dam for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon to be 9.3 minutes. 2002 Eppard et al. (2005b) measured tailrace egress between spillbay release at Ice Harbor Dam and the first detection at Goose Island, approximately 2 km downstream from the dam (Table 5.13). Median egress time for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon was 30 minutes (16 and 152 minutes for the 10th and 90th percentiles, respectively). Fish released at night had slightly faster egress times (27 minutes) than fish released during the day (32 minutes). The fastest egress times were recorded for fish released into spillbays 4 through 8, while spillbays 9 and 10 had the longest egress times (Appendix B, Figure B.32). 5.23 Table 5.13. Tailrace Egress Times (minutes) for Fish Passing Ice Harbor Dam from 2001 Through 2005 Year 2001 Treatment (a) Yearling Chinook Salmon (b) Steelhead Subyearling Chinook Salmon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.40(e) 5.90(e) 4.22(e) 3.19(e) No Spill 9.30 N/A BiOp Day 27.00(c) N/A 2002 (c) N/A BiOp Night 32.00 BiOp 21.00(c) N/A 2003 (c) Spill50 22.00 N/A Bulk 23.00(c) 3.00(d) 2004 4.40(d) Flat 22.00(c) RSW 2.80(c) 2.50(d) 2005 (c) Bulk 3.10 3.10(d) (a) Spill only on May 19. (b) Downstream detection location not specified. (c) Downstream detection at Goose Island, distance approximately 2 km from dam. (d) Downstream detection at telemetry transect approximately 1 km from dam. (e) Downstream detection at tailrace exit transect, distance not specified. N/A = Insufficient fish detected or data not provided. 2003 Eppard et al. (2005b) provided tailrace egress times for radio-tagged hatchery Chinook salmon during two spill treatments (BiOp and Spill50). Tailrace egress was measured between Ice Harbor Dam and the first detection at Goose Island, approximately 2 km downstream from the dam. Median egress time was 0.36 hours (95% CI, 0.34-0.37) during BiOp spill and 0.37 hours (95% CI, 0.36-0.40) during the Spill50 treatment, and the difference was not significant (p = 0.188) (Appendix B, Figure B.33). 2004 Eppard et al. (2005a) estimated tailrace egress time for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon between Ice Harbor Dam and the first detection at Goose Island, approximately 2 km downstream from the dam. Observed median tailrace egress times were 23 and 22 minutes for Bulk and Flat spill treatments, respectively. Median egress times for fish passing through the JBS and turbines were 56 and 50 minutes, respectively. Of the 109 fish that passed through the JBS, 11 entered the tailrace during Bulk spill, 85 during Flat spill , and 13 during the NoSpill treatment. Median tailrace egress times for these fish were 298, 41, and 163 minutes for fish exiting the JBS during Bulk spill, Flat spill and NoSpill treatments, respectively (Appendix B, Figure B.34). Axel et al. (2005) estimated tailrace egress for radio-tagged juvenile steelhead between Ice Harbor Dam and telemetry transects approximately 1 km downstream. The median tailrace egress was significantly longer for juvenile steelhead that passed during the Flat spill treatment (4.4 minutes) than those that passed during the Bulk spill treatment (3.0 minutes) (paired 50th percentile, p = 0.003). The difference between the two treatments becomes insignificant as times approach the 90th percentile (p = 0.294) (Appendix B, Figure B.35). Ogden et al. (2005) estimated tailrace egress for radio-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon between Ice Harbor Dam and telemetry transects approximately 1 km downstream. Median tailrace egress times were 4.4 and 5.9 minutes for Bulk and Flat spill treatments, respectively (Appendix B, Figure B.36). 5.24 2005 Axel et al. (2007) estimated tailrace egress time for radio-tagged yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead between Ice Harbor Dam and the first detection at Goose Island, approximately 1 km downstream. The median tailrace egress time for yearling Chinook salmon was 2.8 minutes during the RSW spill treatment and 3.1 minutes during the Bulk spill treatment (Appendix B, Figure B.37). This difference is not significant (p = 0.246) in comparisons of egress time between spill treatments using paired t-tests on the 50th percentile. The difference between the treatments becomes highly significant as egress times approach the 9th percentile (p = 0.001). The median tailrace egress was longer for juvenile steelhead that passed during the Bulk spill treatment (3.1 minutes) than for those that passed during RSW spill treatment (2.5 min) (Axel et al. 2007). This difference was found to be significant (p = 0.060) in comparisons of egress time between spill treatments using paired t-tests on the 50th percentiles of temporal replicate treatment groups. The difference between the two treatments became non-significant as tailrace egress times approach the 90th percentile (p = 0.340) (Appendix B, Figure B.38). Ogden et al. (2007) estimated tailrace egress time for radio-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon between Ice Harbor Dam and the first detection at Goose Island, approximately 1 km downstream. The median egress time was significantly longer for the RSW spill treatment at 4.22 minutes than the Bulk spill treatment at 3.19 minutes (50th percentile, p = 0.033). 5.25 6.0 Juvenile Salmonid Reach Survival, Travel Time and Predation Several multi-year studies have been conducted to look at reach survival, travel times, and migration rates of juvenile salmonids through the Snake and Columbia River hydrosystem. The studies relevant to Ice Harbor Dam are discussed below. 6.1 Reach Survival and Travel Time Studies Numerous studies have been conducted using tagged fish to look at reach survival, travel times, and migration rates. However, PIT-tag detection was not implemented at Ice Harbor Dam until 2005 when interrogation equipment was installed. Dam operations prevented data collection until 2006. As a consequence, it is only since 2006 that the reach between Lower Monumental Dam and McNary Dam could be split at Ice Harbor Dam. Studies providing data for reaches from Lower Monumental to McNary (119 km), Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor (51 km), and Ice Harbor to McNary (68 km) are discussed below. Methods for estimating reach survival probabilities, travel times, and migration rates were consistent across studies. The Single-Release Model (also known as the Cormack-Jolly-Seber Model) was used to estimate reach survival from the tailrace of one dam to the tailrace of the next dam. Detection probabilities are given in most of the cited reports. Travel time was calculated for each fish detected at both dams bounding a reach as the number of days between the last detection at the upstream dam and the first detection at the downstream dam. Because detectors are usually in the JBS, the fish typically pass to the tailrace within minutes of detection, and travel times are usually considered to be measured from the tailrace of the upstream dam to the tailrace of the next downstream dam. Consequently, travel times include time spent actively moving downstream as well as any residence time in the pool or forebay. Dividing the travel time by the length of the reach gives the migration rate in kilometers per day through that reach. In some studies, reach survival or travel times were interpolated for the latter two reaches by either taking the geometric mean of the value for the Lower Monumental to McNary reach, or dividing that reach value proportionally based on the lengths of each reach. We chose not to include interpolated estimates. Seven studies provided reach estimates and/or travel time and migration rate data, as described below. 1. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the University of Washington (referred to as the NMFS/UW study here) initiated a 15-year passage study in 1993 to study the reach survival and travel times of juvenile salmon passing through dams and reservoirs on the Snake and Columbia rivers. They wanted to look at individual reaches, as well as larger stretches of the two rivers, particularly the entire hydrosystem from points of release on the Snake River to Bonneville Dam. The NMFS/UW team studied wild and hatchery yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead every year from 2000 through 2006 and juvenile hatchery coho and sockeye 2002 through 2006. Some of the fish were caught in the JBS at Lower Granite Dam and PIT tagged, while others were tagged and released for other studies above the dam, detected in the Lower Granite JBS, and released with this study’s fish to the Lower Granite Dam tailrace. From there, fish were detected at interrogation sites 6.1 in the JBSs at various dams, allowing calculation of survival and travel times from tailrace to tailrace for reaches within the Snake and Columbia rivers. The fish tagged above Lower Granite Dam and used in the NMFS/UW study were released from traps, hatcheries, or a variety of other release points that often varied from year to year. Fish were released daily and grouped into daily tailrace groups that were subsequently combined into weekly groups (Zabel et al. 2001; Zabel et al. 2002; Muir et al. 2003; Smith et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2005; Smith et al. 2006; and Faulkner et al. 2007). 2. Working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nez Perce Tribe, the NMFS conducted another multiyear study to investigate the survival of subyearling Chinook salmon passing through the Snake River hydrosystem. Lyons Ferry Hatchery fish were PIT tagged and released at several sites, including Billy Creek and Pittsburg Landing on the Snake River (at rkm 265 and 346, respectively) in 2000 and 2001 and Pittsburg Landing and Couse Creek (rkm 254) in 2003. These fish were detected in the JBSs of dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers and pooled into weekly groups. Reach survival estimates and travel times for the daily releases and weekly groups were calculated using the same methods as the NMFS/UW study. The timing of the releases above Lower Granite Dam in June and July was designed to coincide with movement of wild subyearling Chinook salmon through the dam. Results are reported by Smith et al. (2002) and Muir et al. (2004), the latter reports daily and weekly travel times and survival rates, detection probabilities and an additional summation of all years of the study. 3. Two additional NMFS studies (Axel et al. 2003, 2005) conducted in 2001 and 2004 are described in detail in Section 5.1. Both studies specifically looked at passage and reach survival at Ice Harbor Dam. The 2001 study collected yearling Chinook salmon at Lower Monumental Dam and tagged them with PIT tags or both PIT and radio tags. In 2001, the fish were released either 5 km above Ice Harbor Dam or into the bypass outfall pipe. Reach survival for partitioned sections between Ice Harbor Dam to McNary Dam and for the entire reach was estimated for radio-tagged fish using detections at radiotelemetry receiver transects located in the forebay and tailrace of Ice Harbor Dam, Strawberry Island, Sacajawea Park at the mouth of the Snake River, Port Kelley, McNary Dam, and the mouth of the Umatilla River. The 2004 study collected juvenile steelhead at Lower Monumental Dam, tagged them with PIT and radio tags, released them to either the Lower Monumental or Ice Harbor tailraces, and tracked them to McNary Dam. Axel et al. 2005 partitioned the reach between Ice Harbor and McNary dams into three sections: Ice Harbor Dam to Sacajawea Park, Sacajawea Park to Port Kelley, and Port Kelley to the forebay of McNary Dam. Reach survival probabilities were estimated from these data using the Single-Release Model. 4. A technical memorandum issued by NMFS (Williams et al. 2005) evaluated the direct and indirect impacts of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) on salmon stocks. All data used in this report were retrieved from the PTAGIS database without any knowledge of the details of the studies for which they were tagged, and Williams et al. (2005) warn that their survival estimates may not be representative of the untagged fish population. They estimated reach survival and travel times for a variety of stocks that were PIT tagged and released to both the Snake and Columbia rivers. Data for some reaches compare the survival and travel times to river conditions such as temperature. 5. The Fish Passage Center (www.fpc.org) produces annual reports that include independent estimations of reach survival and travel times using PIT-tag data from numerous studies conducted on the Snake and Columbia rivers (DeHart ; 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007; DeHart et al. 2003). The Center also uses the single-release model to estimate reach survival from one tailrace to the next, using 6.2 interrogation data collected in the JBS at each dam bounding the reach. Travel times were calculated in the same way as the NMFS/UW study and include any residence time in the pools or forebays. 6. As part of their 2003 study of the survival of yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon through different components of Ice Harbor Dam, Absolon et al. (2005) estimated travel times from Ice Harbor to McNary Dam. They do not describe the method used to calculate travel times or migration rates. 7. Similar to study methods reported by Axel et al. (2003; 2005), Eppard et al. (2005b) released yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon that had either PIT tags or both PIT and radio tags to the Ice Harbor Dam spillway or to the tailrace to evaluate spillway passage survival in 2002. Eppard et al. (2005b) estimated survival for both treatment and reference fish using the Single-Release Model. They divided the reach from Ice Harbor to McNary into three partitions by deploying receivers to detect radio tags at Sacajawea Park at the Snake River mouth and at Port Kelley and estimated the survival of radio-tagged fish daily for each of the three partitions. Daily survival estimates were calculated for fish grouped by type of tag release location, date, and day or night releases as well as a pooled estimate for all dates. Reach survivals and travel times may be influenced by factors such as river discharge, spill, and river temperature. The following paragraphs describe factors that may have may have impacted reach survival or travel times between 2000 and 2006. Discharge in 2000 was below average and spill hours were increased at Lower Monumental Dam (DeHart 2001). Most untagged smolts were transported from one of several dams on the Snake River in 2000, leaving primarily PIT-tagged fish in-river. 2001 was a very low flow year, with no spill at any Snake River dams during the migration period and 99% of Snake River yearling Chinook salmon and juvenile steelhead having been transported from Snake River collection projects (DeHart 2002). Consequently, avian predation in the McNary pool may have reduced survival for the Lower Monumental to McNary reach. Increased temperatures also may have caused more steelhead than usual to remain in the reservoir, leading to an apparent decrease in survival rate (Zabel et al. 2002). Cool weather resulted in delayed runoff in 2002, but spills were improved over 2001. Flows were low during yearling Chinook salmon passage, but had improved by the time most steelhead emigrated. Lower Monumental Dam was operated in full-bypass mode for the first few weeks of the migration season, and there was no PIT-tag detection during that period. Fish tagged at Lower Granite Dam as part of the transportation evaluation study were excluded because inconsistent sampling at Lower Monumental dam resulted in biased estimates of annual average survival (Muir et al. 2003). Weather was cool early in 2003 and flow volumes were relatively low until later in the spring. The higher late spring flows may have benefited juvenile steelhead but arrived near the end of the spring Chinook salmon migration period. Spring spill levels were similar to those in 2002 (Smith et al. 2004). Flows were low again in 2004, causing curtailed spill at the Snake River dams. Transportation was maximized for most of the spring migration season, leaving mostly tagged fish in-river (Smith et al. 2005). River flows improved in 2005 and 2006. The pre-season flow estimates for 2005 were low enough to trigger maximum transport operations for the early part of the juvenile fish passage period, but in-season flows were high enough that spill was initiated May 17 (Smith et al. 2006). 6.3 6.1.1 Reach Survival Estimates Data are provided here for three reaches: Lower Monumental to McNary, Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor, and Ice Harbor to McNary. Reaches bound by Ice Harbor dam are reported only for years when PIT tag detection was in place at the dam. Reach survivals are included to provide an assessment of how passage conditions or fish health differ among years, and they are not necessarily directly associated with treatment conditions at Ice Harbor Dam. Table 6.1 lists the numbers and species of fish used in the studies discussed here. All fish were released into the Snake River basin from a number of different locations. The fish were used to calculate reach survival and/or travel times and migration rates for at least one of the three reaches of concern in this report. 6.1.1.1 Lower Monumental to McNary Reach Survival Table 6.2 contains the annual weighted means of survival probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon and juvenile steelhead released to the Snake River, detected between Lower Monumental Dam and McNary Dam, 2000 through 2006 across all studies. Some of the data listed in Table 6.2 were extracted from Faulkner et al. (2007), who compared reach survival estimates from 1993 through 2006; some of the estimates may have been recalculated from those given in the original annual reports. Faulkner et al. (2007) also provide a comparison of reach survival for yearling Chinook salmon and steelhead from 1993 through 2006. The NMFS/UW annual reports provide hatchery coho and sockeye reach survival probabilities for the years from 2002 through 2006, but the relatively small numbers of fish released and the relatively large standard errors make these data less informative so they are not included here. Weekly survival estimates for each year are listed in Appendix C, Table C.1 through Table C.8, and daily survival estimates are provided in the annual reports. The only data for subyearling Chinook salmon for the Lower Monumental to McNary reach have been extracted from a study by Muir et al. (2004). Weekly survival estimates are provided in Appendix C, Table C.4. The authors did not provide an annual weighted mean probability. Williams et al. (2005) estimated weighted mean reach survival probabilities for sockeye from 2000 through 2003 that are provided in Table 6.2. The Fish Passage Center reports do not specifically discuss reach survival for any of the reaches of interest here, but they do provide reach survival probabilities in their appendices each year. These probabilities are provided in Table 6.2. 6.1.1.2 Survival in Reaches from Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor and from Ice Harbor to McNary The high spill proportion at Ice Harbor Dam in 2005 resulted in low numbers of fish entering the JBS, resulting in low detection probabilities for PIT-tagged fish, and no reach survival data are available for that year. High spill rates again in 2006 limited fish use of the JBS. As part of the NMFS/UW study, Faulkner et al. (2007) estimated an annual survival probability for the reaches from Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor and from Ice Harbor to McNary for combined wild and hatchery yearling Chinook salmon and combined wild and hatchery steelhead (Table 6.1 and Table 6.3). They did not estimate reach survival for individual stocks as had been done for other reaches in previous years. Weekly reach survival probabilities for 2006 for the two reaches are given in Appendix C, Table C.8. Interpolated reach survivals were also reported for both reaches for every year from 1993 through 2006, but those are not included here (Faulkner et al. 2007, Table 41). 6.4 Table 6.1. Number and Species of Fish Used in Reach Survival Studies from 2000 through 2003 Year Study Zabel et al. 2001 (NMFS/UW study) 2000 Number Released 92,607 113,900 496 164,021 4,208 14,053 882 22,689 50,196 610 207,199 4,205 24,334 537 32,258 24,882 262 206,135 49,742 33,709 69,802 60,057 6,684 679 320,822 1,856 69,068 55,028 217,002 102,514 48,819 197,451 197,621 41,372 283,100 Species yearling Chinook salmon (72% wild and 28% hatchery) steelhead (68% wild and 32% hatchery) sockeye yearling Chinook salmon steelhead PIT-tagged yearling Chinook salmon radio- and PIT-tagged yearling Chinook salmon yearling Chinook salmon (76% hatchery and 24% wild) steelhead (70% hatchery and 30% wild) sockeye yearling Chinook salmon steelhead PIT-tagged hatchery yearling Chinook salmon radio- and PIT-tagged hatchery yearling Chinook salmon yearling Chinook salmon (94% hatchery and 6% wild) steelhead (93% hatchery and 7% wild) sockeye yearling Chinook salmon hatchery yearling Chinook salmon hatchery subyearling Chinook salmon yearling Chinook salmon (33% hatchery and 67% wild) steelhead (41% hatchery and 59% wild) subyearling Chinook salmon sockeye yearling Chinook salmon radio-tagged juvenile steelhead yearling Chinook salmon (68% hatchery and 32% wild) steelhead (73% hatchery and 27% wild) yearling Chinook salmon yearling Chinook salmon (81% hatchery and 19% wild) steelhead (75% hatchery and 25% wild) yearling Chinook salmon yearling Chinook salmon (92% hatchery and 8% wild) steelhead (62% hatchery and 38% wild) yearling Chinook salmon Williams et al. 2005 DeHart 2001 Axel et al. 2003 2001 Zabel et al. 2002 (NMFS/UW study) Williams et al. 2005 DeHart 2002 Eppard et al. 2005b 2002 Muir et al. 2003 (NMFS/UW study) Williams et al. 2005 DeHart et al. 2003 Absolon et al. 2005 2003 Smith et al. 2004 (NMFS/UW study) Muir et al. 2004 Williams et al. 2005 DeHart 2004 Axel et al. 2005 Smith et al. 2005 (NMFS/UW study) DeHart 2006 Smith et al. 2006 (NMFS/UW study) DeHart 2006 Faulkner et al. 2007 (NMFS/UW study) DeHart 2007 2004 2005 2006 6.5 Table 6.2. Weighted Mean Reach Survival Probabilities for the Lower Monumental to McNary Reach. (See Table 6.1 for correlation between study and year.) Survival Probability(a) Species Wild & Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon Wild & Hatchery Steelhead Hatchery Chinook Salmon Wild Chinook Salmon Hatchery Steelhead Wild Steelhead Sockeye 2000 2001 2002 2003 0.904 (0.017) 0.708 (0.018) 0.911 (0.036) 0.887 (0.020) 0.723 (0.031) 0.713 (0.042) 0.829 (0.164) 1.0338 (0.1536) 0.9157 (0.0894) 0.8899 (0.1038) 1.1468 (0.1511) 0.9851 (0.1238) N/A 2004 0.818 (0.018) 0.519 (0.035) 0.782 (0.024) 0.873 (0.020) 0.521 (0.059) 0.502 (0.046) N/A 0.7569 (0.0804) 0.878 (0.2901) 0.854 (0.1401) 0.8979 (0.1981) 0.7857 (0.1834) N/A 2005 0.903 (0.010) 0.722 (0.023) 0.913 (0.018) 0.856 (0.020) 0.727 (0.029) 0.700 (0.054) N/A 0.922 (0.03) 0.899 (0.026) 1.02 (0.054) 0.956 (0.072) 0.954 (0.025) N/A 2006 0.887 (0.008) 0.808 (0.017) 0.885 (0.008) 0.860 (0.017) 0.795 (0.026) 0.843 (0.037) N/A 0.98 (0.07) 0.941 (0.045) 0.878 (0.067) 0.957 (0.094) 0.86 (0.026) N/A NMFS/UW Study 0.928 0.708 0.837 (0.016) (0.007) (0.013) 0.842 0.296 0.652 (0.016) (0.010) (0.031) 0.917 0.716 0.819 (0.037) (0.016) (0.009) 0.930 0.728 0.870 (0.016) (0.020) (0.041) 0.793 0.306 0.638 (0.034) (0.016) (0.043) 0.858 0.282 0.699 (0.018) (0.021) (0.055) 0.884 0.623 0.584 (0.251) (0.275) (0.142) Fish Passage Center 1.03963 0.64883 0.8363 (0.06768) (0.03195) (0.0273) 0.83723 0.69794 0.832 (0.05541) (0.01456) (0.0222) 0.86494 0.75079 0.8533 (0.08885) (0.01971) (0.0284) 0.65521 0.8037 N/A (0.05847) (0.0406) 0.83346 0.69319 0.8048 (0.04449) (0.01273) (0.0163) 0.91892 0.25574 N/A (0.16684) (0.0204) McCall Chinook Salmon Rapid River Chinook Salmon Imnaha Chinook Salmon Catherine Creek Chinook Salmon Dworshak Chinook Salmon Dworshak Steelhead (a) Standard error in parentheses. N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. 6.6 Table 6.3. Weighted Mean Survival Estimates (%) for the Reaches from Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor and from Ice Harbor to McNary. Sources: Eppard et al. (2005b); Axel et al. (2003); and Faulkner et al. (2007). Survival Probability LMO-IHR Species Wild & Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon(b) Wild & Hatchery Steelhead(b) Juvenile Steelhead(a,c) 2004 N/A N/A 0.841 (0.817–0.865) 2006 0.912 (0.005) 0.918 (0.014) N/A Survival Probability IHR-MCN 2002 N/A N/A N/A 2006 0.968 (0.009) 0.899 (0.028) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon, Day Release 0.940 N/A N/A to Tailrace (PIT tagged)(b) (0.034) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon, Night Release 0.881 N/A N/A to Tailrace (PIT tagged)(b) (0.043) 0.959 Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon, Day Release N/A N/A (0.014) to Tailrace (Radio tagged) 0.964 Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon, Night Release N/A N/A (0.016) to Tailrace (Radio tagged) (a) 95% confidence interval in parentheses. (b) Standard error in parentheses. (c) From Lower Monumental tailrace to Ice Harbor forebay, not to IHR tailrace as are other data. LMO = Lower Monumental; IHR = Ice Harbor; MCN = McNary; N/A = not applicable. Axel et al. (2003) estimated reach survival probabilities (Table 6.4) for yearling Chinook salmon (Table 6.1) released 5 km upstream from Ice Harbor Dam and into the Ice Harbor Dam outfall pipe. Detectors were deployed in the Ice Harbor forebay and bypass, at Strawberry Island (8.5 km below the dam), Sacajawea Park (15.7 km below the dam), Port Kelley (36.7 km below the dam), and McNary Dam (67.7 km below the dam). Low survival probabilities for the two reaches between the Snake River mouth and McNary Dam are thought to be caused by avian predation (see Section 6.2 for more on predation). Axel et al. (2003) also provide data on dam operations and discharge conditions during releases. Reach survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead (Table 6.1) estimated by Axel et al. (2005) from Lower Monumental Dam to Ice Harbor Dam are given in Table 6.3. They did not provide a survival estimate for the entire reach between Ice Harbor and McNary dams, but instead provided reach survival probabilities for three partitions of that reach: the Ice Harbor tailrace to the mouth of the Snake River, the Snake River mouth to Port Kelley, Port Kelley to the McNary Dam forebay (Table 6.4). Low survival estimates for the partition between Port Kelley and McNary dam are thought to have been caused by avian predation (see Section 6.2). 6.7 Table 6.4. Reach Survival Estimates for Partitioned Sections of the Reach Between Ice Harbor Dam and McNary Dam. Reach Length (km) 67.7 67.7 73.0 73.0 5.0 0.5 8.5 7.2 21.0 31.0 Not reported Not reported Not reported 15.7 21.0 31.0 Survival Probability(a) Released Above Released to Dam Outfall N/A N/A 0.724 (0.708-0.740) 0.744 (0.715-0.773) 0.991 (0.979-1.003) 0.954 (0.952-0.956) 0.980 (0.939-1.021) 0.982 (0.933-1.031) 0.905 (0.856-0.954) 0.904 (0.861-0.947) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.784 (0.739-0.829) 0.801 (0.774-0.828) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.965 (0.926-1.004) 0.979 (0.930-1.028) 0.915 (0.868-0.962) 0.927 (0.888-0.966) 0.961 (0.008) 0.860 (0.011) 0.905 (0.010) 0.944 (0.932-0.956) 0.760 (0.736-0.784) 0.840 (0.814-0.866) Study Reach Yearling Chinook Salmon, Ice Harbor Tailrace to McNary Forebay, PIT tagged(a) Yearling Chinook Salmon, Ice Harbor Tailrace to McNary Forebay, Radio and PIT tagged(a) Yearling Chinook Salmon, 5 km Above Ice Harbor to McNary Forebay, PIT tagged(a) Yearling Chinook Salmon, 5 km Above Ice Harbor to McNary Forebay, Radio and PIT tagged(a) Yearling Chinook Salmon, 5 km Upstream from Ice Harbor Dam to Ice Harbor Forebay(a) Yearling Chinook Salmon, Ice Harbor Forebay to Ice Harbor Dam(a) Yearling Chinook Salmon, Ice Harbor Dam Tailrace to Strawberry Island(a) Yearling Chinook Salmon, Strawberry Island to Snake River Mouth(a) Yearling Chinook Salmon, Snake River Mouth to Port Kelley(a) Yearling Chinook Salmon, Port Kelley to McNary Dam(a) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon, Radio tagged, Ice Harbor Dam Tailrace to Snake River Mouth(b) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon, Radio tagged, Snake River Mouth to Port Kelley(b) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon, Radio tagged, Port Kelley to McNary Dam JBS(b) Juvenile Steelhead, Ice Harbor Tailrace to Snake River Mouth(a) Juvenile Steelhead, Snake River Mouth to Port Kelley(a) Juvenile Steelhead, Port Kelley to McNary Forebay(a) (a) 95% Confidence interval in parentheses. (b) Standard error in parentheses. N/A = Not applicable. 2004 (Axel et al. 2005) Eppard et al. (2005b) 2001 (Axel et al. 2003) Eppard et al. (2005b) released yearling Chinook salmon with either PIT tags or both PIT and radio tags in 2002 to the Ice Harbor spillway and tailrace. These releases for their spillway passage survival study occurred during both daytime and nighttime. Their survival estimates for the reach between Ice Harbor and McNary dams for day and night releases of PIT-tagged yearling Chinook salmon released to the Ice Harbor tailrace are given in Table 6.3. While their report does not explicitly say that the estimates are for the entire reach from Ice Harbor Dam to McNary Dam, this is assumed because the next PIT-tag detector is in the McNary Dam JBS. Their survival estimate for all fish released at Ice Harbor, e.g., fish released to both the spillway and the tailrace, is not given here. The Ice Harbor to McNary Reach was 6.8 partitioned into three sections with radiotelemetry detector transects deployed at each partition, similar to those used by Axel et al. (2005), and reach survival estimated for radio-tagged fish through each partition (Table 6.4). They also estimated reach survival separately for PIT-tagged yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon for each release, grouped by release location, date, day/night release times, and a pooled value that combines all dates. 6.1.2 Travel Time and Migration Rate Most studies that estimated reach survival also calculated travel times and/or migration rates, including the NMFS/UW multiyear study, the subyearling Chinook salmon report by Muir et al. (2004), and the Ice Harbor Dam studies by Axel et al. (2003, 2005, 2007). Travel times and migration rates are impacted by the same conditions that impact reach survival that are discussed above. Yearling Chinook salmon travel times are generally shorter than those of steelhead, because yearling Chinook salmon often emigrate when flows are higher. Flows in 2001 were unusually low, and travel times were much slower for both species than in other years. Data are provided here for three reaches: from Lower Monumental to McNary, Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor, and Ice Harbor to McNary. Results were used to assess the passage conditions for entire reaches, and are not necessarily directly associated with conditions at Ice Harbor Dam. Table 6.1 lists the numbers and species of fish used in the studies discussed here. All fish were released into the Snake River basin from a number of different locations. The numbers and species of fish were used to calculate reach survival and/or travel times and migration rates for at least one of the three reaches of concern in this report. The lengths of the reaches discussed below are 51 km for the reach from Lower Monumental Dam to Ice Harbor Dam, 68 km for the reach from Ice Harbor Dam to McNary Dam, and 119 km for the reach from Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam. 6.1.2.1 Lower Monumental to McNary Travel Time and Migration Rate The NMFS/UW series of reports estimated travel times and migration rates only for combined wild and hatchery yearling Chinook salmon and combined wild and hatchery steelhead. These reports provide no annual summary data for travel times or migration rates. Weekly travel times and migration rates are listed in Appendix C, Table C.10 and Table C.11. Smith et al. (2002) and Muir et al. (2004) estimated median travel times for each group of hatchery subyearling Chinook salmon released from acclimation facilities above Lower Granite Dam in 2000, 2001, and 2003 (Appendix C, Table C.9). Low numbers of fish detected and low detection probabilities at Lower Monumental Dam may limit the usefulness of the data. The Fish Passage Center studies did not calculate travel times or migration rates for this reach. 6.1.2.2 Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor and Ice Harbor to McNary Travel Times and Migration Rates Axel et al. (2003) calculated travel times and migration rates for the reach between Ice Harbor and McNary dams for yearling Chinook salmon released above Ice Harbor Dam and through the Ice Harbor 6.9 outfall pipe (Table 6.5). Fish receiving both a radio tag and a PIT tag tended to be larger than those receiving only a PIT tag. The report gives estimated reach survival probabilities for the following partitioned sections of the reach between Ice Harbor and McNary dams: Strawberry Island (8.5 km downstream), the Snake River mouth at Sacajawea Park (15.7 km downstream), Port Kelley (36.7 km downstream), and McNary Dam forebay (67.7 km downstream). The report also provides data on dam operations and discharge conditions during releases. Avian predation may have impacted reach survival; up to 6.6% of the radio tags were later found on Crescent Island (see Section 6.2 for more information on predation). Table 6.5. Travel Times and Migration Rates from Lower Monumental Dam to Ice Harbor Dam and Ice Harbor Dam to McNary Dam. Source: Axel et al. 2003, Eppard et al. 2005b, and Axel et al. 2005. Study Year Release Point at Ice Harbor Ice Harbor Outfall Pipe to McNary Forebay 5 km Above Ice Harbor Dam to McNary Forebay Ice Harbor Tailrace to McNary Dam JBS, Day Release Ice Harbor Tailrace to McNary Dam JBS, Night Release Ice Harbor Tailrace to McNary Dam JBS, Day Release Ice Harbor Tailrace to McNary Dam JBS, Night Release Tailrace 1 km Below Ice Harbor Dam Tailrace 1 km Below Ice Harbor Dam Tracking Method Radio and PIT tags PIT tags Radio and PIT tags Radio and PIT tags Radio and PIT tags PIT tags Reach Length (km) 68 73 73 NP Number Of Fish Detected 549 7,538 536 76 Median Travel Time (days) 2.7 4.2 3.6 2.0 Median Migration Rate (km/day) 25.1 17.6 20.3 NP Species Yearling Chinook Salmon 2001 2002 Hatchery Chinook Salmon NP 85 1.9 NP NP 76 2.0 NP PIT tags NP 85 1.8 NP 2003 Yearling Chinook Salmon Subyearling Chinook Salmon PIT tags NP 17,801 2.1 NP PIT tags NP 21,102 2.5 NP Lower Monumental Radio and 51 Tailrace to Ice PIT tags Juvenile (a) Harbor Forebay 2004 Steelhead Ice Harbor Tailrace Radio and 68 to McNary Forebay PIT tags (a) Migration rates were calculated for this report using travel time and reach length. NP = Not provided in report 935 921 1.6 1.5 32.1 45.3 Travel times and migration rates for juvenile steelhead released to either the Lower Monumental Dam tailrace or the Ice Harbor Dam tailrace and detected at the McNary Dam forebay entrance are listed in Table 6.5. Releases were made evenly throughout the day and night periods, but no significant differences in travel times related to day or night releases were noted. The tags of up to 17% of the fish released for this study were later found on Crescent Island in the Caspian tern colony. 6.10 Absolon et al. (2005) calculated median travel times and migration rates for yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon released to the Ice Harbor Dam tailrace 1 km below the dam and detected at McNary Dam (Table 6.5). Their report also provides median travel times for each release date and release point by day, night, and both combined. Eppard et al. (2005b) also calculated median travel times for yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon for the reach between Ice Harbor and McNary dams. They only provide daily travel time estimates for both yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon (Appendix Tables A2 and A6, respectively, in their report) grouped by date, day or night, and spillway or tailrace that are not shown here. They also provide an overall comparison of travel times for PIT-tagged versus radio- and PIT-tagged yearling Chinook salmon released to the Ice Harbor tailrace, with day and night releases combined (Table 6.5). 6.2 Predation Avian predation has been documented in the reach between Ice Harbor and McNary dams where piscivorous bird colonies are found on several islands in the McNary pool. Monitoring efforts have focused on evaluating predation due to the Caspian tern population on Crescent Island, located approximately 12.9 km downstream from the mouth of the Snake River. Because PIT-tag detectors were not consistently available at Ice Harbor until 2005, most of the predation information is available for the Lower Monumental to McNary Dam reach. Faulkner et al. (2007) noted that estimates for survival of steelhead and yearling Chinook salmon were similar in the reach from Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor Dams, but were about 7% lower for steelhead than for yearling Chinook salmon in the reach from Ice Harbor to McNary Dam, suggesting that most predation in the reach between Lower Monumental and McNary Dams occurs below Ice Harbor Dam. Crescent Island Caspian terns were identified as the primary predators, but there are also colonies of American white pelican, cormorants, and gulls in the McNary pool. PIT tags and radio tags from fish detected at Lower Monumental Dam were found on these islands in the McNary pool and provide a minimum estimate for predation rate. Predation estimates also are affected by other factors, such as transportation (barging of fish) from dams upstream of the McNary pool that removes many non-tagged fish from predation risk (leading to over-estimation of predation for the run), and the fact that not all tags are deposited on the islands and not all deposited tags are found (leading to under-estimation of predation). Faulkner et al. (2007) summarized data collected by NMFS researchers from islands containing bird colonies in the McNary pool (Table 6.6). PIT-tag data were selected from the PTAGIS database for tags retrieved from the islands and were compared to detections at Lower Monumental Dam. This comparison may not be adjusted for bias due to tag collision (when two tags are close together and interfere with each other’s signals) and detection efficiency. Factors such as turbidity may influence the effectiveness of visual predators such as Caspian terns. Higher predation of steelhead may be due in part to lower turbidity later in the spring when they emigrate. 6.11 Table 6.6. Percentage of PIT-Tagged Juvenile Salmon Detected at Lower Monumental Dam and Recovered from McNary Pool Bird Colonies Species Yearling Chinook Salmon Steelhead Steelhead Yearling Chinook Salmon, Radio Tagged, Released to IHR Outfall Yearling Chinook Salmon, Radio Tagged, Released 5 km Above IHR Yearling Chinook Salmon, PIT Tagged, Released 5 km Above IHR Yearling Chinook Salmon, Day & Night, PIT Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon, Day & Night, Radio Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon, Day Release to Spillway, Radio Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon, Day Release to Tailrace, Radio Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon, Night Release to Spillway, Radio Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon, Night Release to Tailrace, Radio-Tagged Subyearling Chinook Salmon, Radio Tagged, Released to IHR Forebay Subyearling Chinook Salmon, Radio Tagged, Released to IHR Tailrace Steelhead 2000 2001 2002 2003(a) 2004(b) 2005 1.37 9.15 N/A 2006 0.92 4.81 N/A Report Faulkner et al. 2007 Axel et al. 2005 Lower Monumental to McNary Dam 0.98 5.59 1.62 1.06 2.08 3.66 21.06 10.09 3.71 19.42 N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 Ice Harbor to McNary Dam N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.6 5.1 3.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.1 7.7 9.2 7.4 6.4 7.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.7 5.0 14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ogden et al. 2005 Axel et al. 2005 Eppard et al. 2005b Axel et al. 2003 (a) Only the Crescent Island Caspian tern colony was sampled. (b) Only Crescent and Foundation island bird colonies were sampled. N/A = not applicable. Axel et al. (2003) evaluated predation of their study fish in 2001 by the Caspian tern and gull colonies on Crescent Island by physical recovery of radio transmitters that were visible on the island and by PITtag detection. The authors calculated minimum predation for both release points and the type of tag (Table 6.6). The proportion of radio tags on Crescent Island was higher for fish released to the outfall at night than those released during the day or 5 km above the dam. Caspian terns preyed on tagged fish as far as 39 km downstream from their colonies. Axel et al. (2005) released radio- and PIT-tagged juvenile steelhead to the tailraces of Lower Monumental and Ice Harbor dams in 2004 and estimated minimum avian predation by searching for the tags on Crescent Island in the fall after the birds had left. In 2002, Eppard et al. (2005b) released yearling Chinook salmon with either PIT tags or a combination of radio and PIT tags to the Ice Harbor spillway and tailrace. Releases for their spillway 6.12 passage survival study occurred during both daytime and nighttime. At the end of the nesting season, they searched Crescent Island for tags and calculated a minimum predation rate for fish grouped by release point, time of release, and type of tag (Table 6.6). The authors also tabulated minimum estimates of avian predation on yearling Chinook salmon for each day of release, separated into blocks by release location and day versus night that are not shown here (Table 14 in Eppard et al. 2005b). Ogden et al. (2005) radio-tagged and released 1375 subyearling Chinook salmon to the Ice Harbor Dam forebay as treatment fish and radio-tagged and released an additional 2111 subyearling Chinook salmon to the Ice Harbor Dam tailrace as reference fish. In fall 2004, radio tags and PIT tags were recovered from the Caspian tern colony on Crescent Island after the birds left. The percentage of tags found on the island is shown in Table 6.6. There is no mention of whether these values are adjusted for bias related to ability to detect or find the tags. Smith et al. (2005) noted that although the size of the Caspian tern colony had not recently increased, predation of both steelhead and yearling Chinook salmon was higher in 2004 than in 2003 (Table 6.6). They suggest either an increased susceptibility of smolt to avian predation or a change in system operations as the likely cause. Several of the studies above provide predation data related to the evaluation of passage survival at Ice Harbor Dam, while others provide data related to more general reach survival estimates for the reach and hydrosystem. Collis et al. (2006) conducted a study in 2004 to look at consumption of salmonids by piscivorous birds colonizing islands in the McNary pool. PIT tags from fish detected at Lower Monumental Dam were found on the islands, and estimated predation rates were adjusted to account for bias caused by tag collision (when two tags are so close together that their signals interfere or cancel each other out) and detection efficiency. These values (listed in Table 6.7) vary from those provided by Smith et al. (2005) and in Table 6.6 because of the adjustments for bias. Table 6.7. Estimated Predation Rates in 2004 by Crescent Island Terns on In-River PIT-Tagged Salmonid Smolts Detected at Lower Monumental Dam. Estimates adjusted for bias due to tag collision and detection efficiency. Source: Collis et al. (2006) Released In-River Species Steelhead Subyearling Chinook Salmon Yearling Chinook Salmon Sockeye (a) Standard deviation in parentheses. Hatchery 41,784 36,455 205,210 4,714 Wild 32,150 1,995 82,967 616 Average Predation Rate(a) Hatchery % 10.8 (±5.5) 0.8 0.3 (±0.2) 0.0 Wild % 4.8 (±4.5) 0.0 0.2 (±0.2) 0.0 6.13 7.0 Juvenile Salmonid Direct Injury 7.1 Direct Injury Studies Direct Injury Studies typically are short-term evaluations of specific conditions or structures. At Ice Harbor Dam, direct injury studies were conducted from 2003 through 2006 to test the impact of RSW operation, spill volume, spill patterns, deflector elevation, and tailwater elevations on fish approaching and passing the dam at various depths in the water column. In 1996, deflectors were installed at an elevation of 338 ft above msl at spillways 2 through 9 at Ice Harbor Dam to mitigate total dissolved gas in the spill discharge as it entered the stilling basin. In 1998, deflectors were installed in spillbays 1 and 10, at an elevation of 334 ft above msl, approximately 4 ft lower than the other spillways. Direct injury tests evaluated the influence of those deflectors on fish injury in combination with an array of tailrace conditions. The RSW was installed in spillbay 2 and a direct injury test was conducted prior to the 2005 fish passage season. The test conditions for all direct injury studies are compared in Table 7.1. 2003 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (2004) conducted a direct injury study to evaluate passage survival of juvenile Chinook salmon at two spill volumes using balloon tag methodology. The main objectives for the study were 1) to estimate the survival of yearling Chinook salmon within ≤ ± 0.03, 90% of the time of passage at shallow and deep release elevations under Spill50 treatment, BiOp spill treatment, and a special spill treatment during the spring high tailwater conditions; 2) to estimate survival of subyearling Chinook salmon within ≤ ± 0.05, 90% of the time, under Bulk and Flat spill treatments during low tailwater in summer; and 3) to determine the extent and types of injuries incurred by spillway-passed juvenile salmonids under spring and summer conditions to better understand the injury mechanisms to assist in possible spillway/deflector modifications for enhanced fish survival. The study was performed during the spring (April 23 through May 2) under high tailwater conditions and during the summer in July under low tailwater conditions. Controls were released downstream of spillbay 1 during the spring and via the juvenile fish facility bypass pipe during the spring and summer. Fish were released 16 ft upstream of the spill gate. Two release depths were evaluated: 3 ft (deep) and 7 ft (shallow) above the ogee for each hydraulic condition, with the exception of the Spill50 and Flat spill treatments, where only the deep release was tested. In a concurrent study, Carlson and Duncan (2004) sampled the conditions live treatment fish may be exposed to using Sensor Fish devices, which measure and record conditions during dam passage. The Sensor Fish records a pressure and acceleration history that can then be equated to the hydraulic conditions that fish experience when traveling through the same route. The study was conducted from April 22 through May 2 (spring) at spillbay 5, concurrently with the spring balloon-tag direct injury study, where Spill50 and BiOp spill treatments were compared. As with the live fish evaluation, shallow and deep release elevations were tested. 7.1 Table 7.1. Overview of Conditions and Operations for the Direct Injury Studies at Ice Harbor Dam, 2003 Through 2006. Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Skalski (2005) and Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Skalski (2006). Spillbay 1 Year 2004 Condition Tested 8 ft above ogee (deep) 8 ft above ogee (deep) 20 ft above ogee (shallow) Spill Volume (kcfs) 3.4 5.1 11.9 Total Spill Volume River Flow (kcfs) (kcfs) March (Spring) 3.4 46.7-58.4 5.1 36.1-73.9 11.9 30.1-90.9 April (Spring) 17.0 17.2 17.3 April (Spring) 61.0 61.3 64.8 Forebay Elevation (ft) 438.4-438.7 438.0-439.2 438.0-439.9 Tailwater Elevation (ft) 342.1-343.4 341.0-345.0 341.1-346.2 Net Head (ft) 95.3-96.6 93.7-97.9 93.7-97.0 2 (RSW) Spillbay 3 opened 5 ft 6.5 ft above RSW (mid) 1.5 ft above RSW (deep) Spillbay 4 opened 5 ft 2005 1.5 ft' above RSW (deep) RSW (Spillbay 2) opened 5 ft 8 ft above ogee (mid) 3 ft above ogee (deep) 50% spill 3 ft above ogee (deep) 100% spill 7 ft above ogee (shallow) & 3 ft above ogee (deep) Special spill 7 ft above ogee 2003 (shallow) & 3 ft above ogee (deep) Bulk spill 7 ft above ogee (shallow) & 3 ft above ogee (deep) Dispersed spill 3 ft above ogee (deep) 2004 8 ft above ogee (deep) 8 ft above ogee (deep) 20 ft above ogee (shallow) 8.5 8.5 8.5 438.4 438.5 438.7 342.0 342.0 342.4 96.4 96.4 96.3 7.2 3 5 5 8.5 8.5 3.4-5.1 4.25-8.5 8.5 17.1 66.4 17.2 61.8 April/May (Spring) 31.0-50.7 62.5-101.4 42.3-79.0 44.4-45.4 July (Summer) 60.6-92.8 63.3-71.5 438.6 438.5 438.4-438.9 438.0-438.8 438.6-438.7 342.3 342.0 342.7-345.9 342.2-344.7 342.2-343.0 96.3 96.5 92.7-95.7 93.5-96.3 95.7-96.5 13.6 3.4 3.4 5.1 11.9 13.6-45.0 30.5-37.1 14.4-56.1 40.0-48.1 438.2-439.4 438.5-438.7 438.4-438.7 436.7-439.7 438.4-439.3 338.3-341.1 339.9-340.3 342.1-343.4 340.8-344.8 339.1-343.9 97.7-100.3 98.2-98.6 95.1-96.4 92.5-98.8 95.1-99.8 March (Spring) 3.4 47.1-58.7 5.1 35.8-76.7 11.9 12.1-62.2 Table 7.1. (contd) Spillbay Year Condition Tested 3 ft above ogee (deep) 8 ft above ogee (deep) 3 ft above ogee (deep) 20 ft above ogee (shallow) Plunging 8 ft above ogee (mid) Plunging 3 ft above ogee (deep) Skimming 8 ft above ogee (mid) 2006 Skimming 3 ft above ogee (deep) Undular 8 ft above ogee (mid) Undular 3 ft above ogee (deep) New Undular 8 ft above ogee (mid) New Undular 3 ft above ogee (deep) Spill Volume (kcfs) 4.3 4.3 11.9 11.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Total Spill Volume (kcfs) May (Spring) 45.0 45.0 40.0-91.0 40.0-91.0 March (Spring) 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.3 15.2 15.3 15.2 25.6 25.6 59.1 59.1 88.6 86.5 107.5 107.6 439.0 438.8 439.0 438.9 439.4 439.3 439.0 439.2 337.1 337.0 342.1 342.1 345.1 345.1 346.6 342.3 102.0 101.8 96.9 96.8 94.3 94.2 92.3 97.0 73.1-104.7 70.1-99.6 50.1-95.3 64.3-100.7 438.3-438.9 438.3-438.9 438.1-438.9 438.2-438.9 343.3-346.3 343.0-345.8 341.4-344.2 341.9-344.8 92.3-95.5 93.0-95.6 94.3-96.9 93.8-96.5 River Flow (kcfs) Forebay Elevation (ft) Tailwater Elevation (ft) Net Head (ft) 7.3 2004 Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Skalski (2005) conducted a direct injury study to evaluate deflector elevation and tailwater elevation on fish passage survival at spillbays 1 and 5 in March under low tailwater elevation conditions, and at spillbay 5 in May during high tailwater, using balloon tags. A hydroacoustic study performed by Moursund et al. (2004) during 2003, concluded that the median entrained fish would pass close to 8 ft and 20 ft above the ogee at a spill gate opening of 3 ft (5.1 kcfs) and 7 ft (11.9 kcfs), respectively. Release depths and spill volumes for the direct injury study were selected based on these observations. The primary objectives were to 1) assess the effects of differential spill volume on fish condition and survival, 2) to estimate direct survival probabilities within ≤ ± 0.03, 90% of the time, and 3) to better understand the injury mechanism to assist in possible spillway or flow deflector modifications for enhanced fish survival. Controls were released through the JBS for both treatment releases. Although the study was designed to evaluate the trends in fish passage survival and condition at two spillbays at different spill volumes, all treatments were not duplicated in March and May and thus the results are not directly comparable. The primary emphasis was on obtaining precise estimates of direct passage survival through each spillbay and to evaluate trends. In March, under low tailwater conditions, fish were released 16 ft upstream of the spill gate into spillbays 1 and 5 at release depths of 8 ft and 20 ft above the ogee, respectively, at spill volumes of 5.1 kcfs (3 stops) and 11.9 kcfs (7 stops). A secondary release was conducted in March at spillbays 1 and 5 under spill volumes of 3.4 kcfs (2 stops) and 11.9 kcfs (7 stops) at a release depth of 8 ft above the ogee. For the secondary release, the survival estimates were within a precision level of ≤ ± 0.02, 90% of the time. In May, fish were released 16 ft upstream of the spill gate into spillbay 5 under high tailwater conditions. Fish were released at three different depths: 3 ft, 8 ft, and 20 ft above the ogee under two different spill volumes―3.4 kcfs (2 stops) and 11.9 kcfs (7 stops). 2005 During April 2005, Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Skalski (2006) conducted a direct injury study to assess the condition of Chinook salmon smolts following passage through the newly installed RSW at spillbay 2 or spillbay 3 using balloon tags. The primary study objective was to assess whether the RSW would be a relatively safe passage route for naturally emigrating juvenile salmonids by comparing direct injury and survival estimates for juvenile Chinook salmon passing through the RSW to estimates for those passing under an existing spill gate at spillbay 3. The precision level expectation for direct survival probabilities was ≤ ± 0.03, 90% of the time. Fish were released at two depths within each passage route: 1) 1.5 ft above RSW crest (deep) and approximately 6.5 ft above RSW crest (mid), and 2) at 8 ft above ogee (mid) and 3 ft above ogee (deep) for spillbay 3; 4 ft upstream of the RSW and 15 ft upstream of the spill gate, respectively. Spillbay 3 was opened during mid- and deep- releases through the RSW. A second spill treatment was evaluated whereby spillbay 4 was opened during RSW deep releases, rather than spillbay 3. Spill operational configurations were RSW open and discharging approximately 8.5 kcfs, and spillbay 3 or 4 opened approximately 5 ft, producing a spill volume of about 8.5 kcfs. 2006 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (2006) conducted a direct injury study of juvenile salmon passing the spillway under various tailwater conditions (plunging, skimming, undular, and “new undular”) in March at spillbay 5 using balloon tags. Spill was maintained at 15 kcfs across spillbays 4, 5, and 6, with 5 kcfs discharge for each bay. Total project discharge was 25.6 kcfs, 59.1 kcfs, 88.6 kcfs, and 107.5 kcfs during 7.4 plunging, skimming, undular, and new undular conditions, respectively. Powerhouse discharge was 10.4 kcfs, 44.0 kcfs, 71.4 kcfs, and 92.3 kcfs during plunging, skimming, undular, and new undular treatments. Controls were released through the bypass pipe with dam operations at 57.3 kcfs discharge, 2.8 kcfs total spill, 54.5 kcfs powerhouse discharge, and net head 97.0 ft. The primary objectives of the study were to 1) determine direct survival estimates within a precision level of ≤ ± 0.03, 90% of the time for plunging, skimming, undular, and new undular conditions for both deep-released (3 ft above the ogee) and mid-released (8 ft above the ogee) Chinook salmon smolts, and 2) to estimate injury rates and to detect differences of ≥ 5% at the p = 0.10 level between treatments. Fish were released at two depths, 3 ft (deep) and 8 ft (mid) above the ogee, and approximately 15 ft upstream of the spill gate of spillbay 5. 7.2 Direct Injury Study Results Direct injury studies were performed in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 using balloon tag methods. Studies evaluated the effects of spill volumes and spill patterns on flow characteristics, as well as the effects of tailwater elevation on fish survival and injury. The RSW was evaluated in 2005 as to its reliability as a safe route of passage to salmonid emigration. 2003 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (2004) reported 1-hour and 48-hour survival estimates and clean fish estimates for Chinook salmon smolts (Table 7.2). The objectives of the study were accomplished, with the exception of the summer 48-hour survival estimates, because of relatively high mortality (>20%) of experimental and control fish during holding (Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2004). Estimated immediate survival rates (1 hour) were higher in April and May (all ≥ 98.7%) than in July, where they ranged from 88.9% (Bulk spill, shallow release) to 97.8% (dispersed spill, deep release). The 48-hour survival estimates for spring releases also exceeded 98% (ranging from 98.7 to 99.0%) with little difference either between spill patterns or between release sites. Unacceptable holding mortality in both the treatment (32 to 42%) and control (about 31%) groups precluded reliable estimations of 48-hour survival for the summer season. Fish entrained deeper within the discharge jet had higher visible injury rates (16.5 to 20.0%) than fish that likely passed higher in the jet. Fish that passed via the shallower (7 ft above the ogee) release pipe were possibly provided a better “water cushion” than those that passed via the deeper pipe. Causal mechanisms of injuries were primarily shear and collisions with hard objects in the stilling basin. Results suggest that potentially injurious hydraulic conditions exist in the immediate vicinity of the flow deflector (Carlson and Duncan 2004). The Sensor Fish device provided an insight into the conditions fish may experience as they pass over the spillway into the tailrace. Results indicated that the most likely injury mechanisms were collision and shear, and that the probability of exposure to these injury mechanisms was greater for sensors deployed at lower spill discharges, which is consistent with the conclusions presented by Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2004). Injury exposure conditions as measured by the Sensor Fish were observed to be highest at the deflector. During low spill discharge, the surfaces of the spill chute and spillway deflector are regions of concern. 7.5 Table 7.2. Summary of Clean Fish Estimates, and 1-Hour and 48-Hour Survival Estimates at Ice Harbor Dam During 2003 (Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2004) Year Spillbay Condition Tested CFE (SE) April/May (Spring) Spill50 3 ft above ogee (deep) BiOp spill 3 ft above ogee (deep) BiOp 7 ft above ogee (shallow) 2003 5 Special 3 ft above ogee (deep) Special 7 ft above ogee (shallow) 0.793 (0.023) 0.878 (0.027) 0.987 (0.013) 0.783 (0.053) 0.917 (0.036) July (Summer) Bulk 3 ft above ogee (deep) Bulk 7 ft above ogee (shallow) Flat 3 ft above ogee (deep) SE = standard error. 0.813 (0.056) 0.951 (0.026) 0.796 (0.044) 0.923 (0.037) 0.889 (0.031) 0.978 (0.019) Insufficient fish Insufficient fish Insufficient fish 0.987 (0.008) 1.000 (0.004) 0.990 (0.013) 0.987 (0.017) 1.000 (0.004) 0.987 (0.008) 0.997 (0.008) 0.990 (0.013) 0.987 (0.017) 0.987 (0.017) 1-Hr Survival (SE) 48-Hr Survival (SE) 2004 Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Skalski (2005) reported 1-hour and 48-hour survival estimates and clean fish estimates (CFEs) for Chinook salmon smolts evaluated in 2004 (Table 7.3). The 48-hour survival rates ranged from 93.7 to 100% between spillbays at the three spill volumes (3.4, 5.1, and 11.9 kcfs) and three entrainment depths (3 ft, 8 ft, and 20 ft above the ogee) while differences in CFEs were more pronounced and ranged from 87.6 to 100%. Within spillbay 1, CFEs appeared to be positively correlated with increasing spill volume; estimates for deep released fish were highest (1.00) at 11.9 kcfs and lowest (0.944) at 3.4 kcfs. Within spillbay 5, CFEs varied slightly between spill volumes with the lowest (0.876) occurring at 4.3 kcfs and highest (1.00) at 11.9 kcfs; however, if fish passed close to the ogee (3 ft release) the spill volume had much less beneficial effect. Clean fish estimates were only 0.899 at a spill of 11.6 kcfs when the fish were released 3 ft above the ogee. In general, fish condition was found to improve as spill volume increased and when fish were entrained higher in the water column. The most common injury types observed were hemorrhaged or damaged eyes with a maximum injury rate of 11.3% for fish released 8 ft above the ogee and spill volume of 4.3 kcfs through spillbay 5. Shear forces were the most likely cause of hemorrhaged or damaged eyes as well as operculum and gill damage. Physical contact with spillbay surfaces or stilling basin structures, such as the flow deflector, baffle blocks, or the end sill, was the most likely cause of bruises to the head or body. 7.6 Table 7.3. Summary of Clean Fish Estimates and 1-Hour and 48-Hour Survival Estimates at Ice Harbor Dam During 2004 (Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Skalski 2005) Year Condition Tested CFE (SE) Spillbay March (Low Tailwater) 0.934 1 (0.025) 0.953 5 (0.022) 0.977 1 (0.010) 0.961 5 (0.013) 0.987 1 (0.009) 0.982 5 (0.010) 1.00 1 (N/A) 0.977 5 (0.023) May (High Tailwater) 0.876 5 (0.021) 0.908 5 (0.018) 0.899 5 (0.018) 0.963 5 (0.012) 1-Hr Survival (SE) 0.997 (0.010) 0.988 (0.014) 0.991 (0.009) 0.991 (0.009) 0.997 (0.008) 0.997 (0.008) 1.00 (N/A) 1.00 (N/A) 1.013 (0.013) 0.979 (0.016) 0.965 (0.017) 0.973 (0.016) 48-Hr Survival (SE) 0.988 (0.014) 0.988 (0.014) 0.979 (0.011) 0.986 (0.010) 0.997 (0.008) 0.997 (0.008) 1.00 (N/A) 1.00 (N/A) 1.013 (0.014) 0.937 (0.020) 0.950 (0.018) 0.965 (0.017) 3.4 kcfs 8 ft above ogee (deep 5.1 kcfs 8 ft above ogee (deep) 11.9 kcfs 20 ft above ogee (shallow) 2004 11.9 kcfs 8 ft above ogee (deep) 4.3 kcfs 3 ft above ogee (deep) 4.3 kcfs 8 ft above ogee (deep) 11.9 kcfs 3 ft above ogee (deep) 11.9 kcfs 20 ft above ogee (shallow) SE = standard error. N/A = Model restraints precluded the calculation of SE. Table 7.4. Summary of Clean Fish Estimates and 1-Hour and 48-Hour Survival Estimates at Ice Harbor Dam During 2005 (Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Skalski 2006) Year Spillbay Condition Tested CFE 1-Hr Survival (SE) (SE) April (Spring) Spillbay 3 Open (5 Stops) 0.977 0.992 (0.011) (0.008) 0.839 0.975 (0.020) (0.009) Spillbay 4 Open (5 Stops) 0.864 0.989 (0.018) (0.007) RSW Open 0.978 0.986 (0.011) (0.010) 0.841 0.989 (0.019) (0.007) 48-Hr Survival (SE) 6.5 ft above RSW (mid) 2 (RSW) 2005 1.5 ft above RSW (deep) 8.5 kcfs 8 ft above ogee (mid) 8.5 kcfs 3 ft above ogee (deep) SE = standard error. 1.5 ft above RSW (deep) 0.992 (0.008) 0.961 (0.011) 0.969 (0.010) 0.986 (0.010) 0.989 (0.007) 3 7.7 2005 Normandeau Associates, Inc. and Skalski (2006) reported 1-hour and 48-hour survival estimates and CFEs for Chinook salmon passing over the RSW and through spillbay 3 (Table 7.4). The survival of mid-released fish (0.992, SE=0.008) was significantly higher than deep-released fish within the RSW with spillbay 3 open, and the survival of RSW deep-released fish with spillbay 3 open (0.961, SE=0.011) was significantly lower than for those entrained deep in spillbay 3 (0.989, SE=0.007). Differences between survival of mid-depth releases in RSW and spillbay 3 were not significant (p>0.10). The precision (ε) of survival estimates was within ± 0.018; the pre-specified precision (ε) criterion of ≤ ± 0.03, 90% of the time. Deep-released fish at both the RSW and spillbay 3 incurred significantly higher injury rates: 9.8% mechanical and 5.0% shear-related injuries. Common injuries were hemorrhaged eyes and scrapes on the head, which were attributed to mechanical or shear forces; mechanically inflicted injuries were approximately twice as prevalent as shear-inflicted injuries. Temporal variability was evident in visible injury rates of deep-released fish between daily trials, particularly for the RSW with spillbay 3 open. Injury rates for deep-released fish in the RSW with spillbay 3 open was 10.2% during the first six daily trials (April 5 through 10) and 22% in the subsequent six trials (April 12 through 17); the difference was significant (p<0.01). Hydraulic conditions did not appear to account for this variability. 2006 Normandeau Associates, Inc. (2006) reported 1-hour and 48-hour survival estimates and CFEs for Chinook salmon passing through the Ice Harbor Dam spillway under plunging, skimming, undular, and new” undular tailwater conditions (Table 7.5). Table 7.5. Summary of Clean Fish Estimates and 1-Hour and 48-Hour Survival Estimates at Ice Harbor Dam During 2006 (Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2006) Year Spillbay Condition Tested Plunging 8 ft above ogee (mid) Plunging 3 ft above ogee (deep) Skimming 8 ft above ogee (mid) 2006 5 Skimming 3 ft above ogee (deep) Undular 8 ft above ogee (mid) Undular 3 ft above ogee (deep) New Undular 8 ft above ogee (mid) New Undular 3 ft above ogee (deep) SE = standard error. CFE (SE) March (Spring) 0.931 (0.021) 0.713 (0.028) 0.903 (0.026) 0.755 (0.027) 0.910 (0.031) 0.757 (0.033) 0.920 (0.022) 0.724 (0.028) 1-Hr Survival (SE) 0.976 (0.014) 0.992 (0.007) 0.988 (0.011) 0.991 (0.007) 0.992 (0.012) 1.003 (0.003) 0.996 (0.007) 0.991 (0.007) 48-Hr Survival (SE) 0.976 (0.014) 0.972 (0.011) 0.988 (0.011) 0.991 (0.007) 0.969 (0.019) 1.003 (0.003) 0.996 (0.007) 0.991 (0.007) 7.8 Statistical analysis did not show significant differences (p>0.10) in survival between depths or spill jets. Survival probabilities exceeded 0.98 (standard errors ≤0.01) except at the plunging flow for deepand mid-released fish (0.972 and 0.976, SE=0.011 and 0.014) and undular deep-released fish (0.969, SE=0.019). The effects of entrainment depth on visible injury rates on recaptured fish were evident within each spill flow characteristic with deep-released fish incurring significantly higher (p<0.05) injury rates than mid-released fish. Across the four spill conditions, the mid-released fish injury rates ranged from 6.9% to 9.7% and from 24.1% to 28.7% for the deep-released fish. Common injuries included hemorrhaged eyes and scrapes on the head that were attributed to shear or mechanical forces. Shear injuries were more common in all treatment groups. The CFEs for deep-released fish were significantly (p<0.001) lower than for mid-released fish. However, from an operational standpoint no one spill operational type performed significantly (p>0.10) better than another. 7.9 8.0 Literature Cited Absolon RF, BP Sandford, BM Eppard, DA Brege, KW McIntyre, EE Hockersmith, and GM Mathews. 2005. Relative Survival Estimates for PIT-tagged Juvenile Chinook Salmon Passing Through Turbines, Collection Channels, and Spillways at Ice Harbor Dam, 2003. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract W68SBV92844866. Axel GA, EE Hockersmith, BM Eppard, BP Sandford, SG Smith, and DB Dey. 2003. Passage Behavior and Survival of Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon Passing Ice Harbor and McNary Dams During a Low Flow Year, 2001. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA under Contract W68SBV92844866. Axel GA, EE Hockersmith, DA Ogden, BJ Burke, KE Frick, and BP Sandford. 2007. Passage Behavior and Survival for Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon and Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam, 2005. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA under Contract W68SBV92844866. Axel GA, DA Ogden, EE Hockersmith, BM Eppard, and BP Sandford. 2005. Partitioning Reach Survival for Steelhead between Lower Monumental and McNary Dams, 2004. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract W68SBV92844866. Carlson TJ and JP Duncan. 2004. Characterization of Spillway Passage Conditions at Ice Harbor Dam, Snake River, Washington, 2003. PNWD-3462, prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract DACW68-02-D-0001 DO 0006. Collis K, DD Roby, C Couch, G Dorsey, K Fischer, DE Lyons, AM Myers, SK Nelson, JY Adkins, AF Evans, and M Hawbecker. 2006. Piscivorous Waterbird Research on the Columbia River, Final 2004 Season Summary. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA. Available through the internet at http://www.columbiabirdresearch.org. DeHart M. 2001. Fish Passage Center, Annual Report 2000. Prepared by Fish Passage Center of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Portland, OR, for Bonneville Power Administration Portland, OR, under Contract 94-033. DeHart M. 2002. Fish Passage Center, Annual Report 2001. (BPA Report DOE/BP-15377-4), prepared by Fish Passage Center of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Portland, OR, for Bonneville Power Administration Portland, OR, under Contract 1999FG15377, Project 199403300, (316 electronic pages). DeHart M. 2004. Fish Passage Center, Annual Report 2003. Prepared by Fish Passage Center of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Portland, OR, for Bonneville Power Administration Portland, OR, under Contract 94-033. 8.1 DeHart M. 2005. Fish Passage Center, Annual Report 2004. Prepared by Fish Passage Center of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Portland, OR, for Bonneville Power Administration Portland, OR, under Contract 94-033. DeHart M. 2006. Fish Passage Center, Annual Report 2005. Prepared by Fish Passage Center of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Portland, OR, for Bonneville Power Administration Portland, OR, under Contract 21186, Project 1994-033-00. DeHart M. 2007. Fish Passage Center, Annual Report 2006. Prepared by Fish Passage Center of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Portland, OR, for Bonneville Power Administration Portland, OR, under Contract 25247, Project 1994-033-00. DeHart M, T Berggren, M Filardo, L Basham, D Benner, H Franzoni, S Rassk, J McCann, D Wood, C McCary, and D Watson. 2003. Fish Passage Center, Annual Report 2002. Prepared by Fish Passage Center of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Portland, OR, for Bonneville Power Administration Portland, OR, under Contract 94-033. Downing S and GA Axel. 2007. Evaluation of Full-Flow PIT Tag Interrogation System at Ice Harbor Dam, 2005. (BPA Report DOE/BP-00030330-1), prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, under Contract 22361, Project 200100300, (33 electronic pages). Eppard BM, EE Hockersmith, GA Axel, DA Ogden, and BP Sandford. 2005a. Passage Behavior and Survival for Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam, 2004. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract W68SBV92844866. Eppard BM, EE Hockersmith, GA Axel, and BP Sandford. 2002. Spillway Survival for Hatchery Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon Passing Ice Harbor Dam, 2000. Prepared by National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract W68SBV92844866. Eppard BM, BP Sandford, EE Hockersmith, GA Axel, and DB Dey. 2005b. Spillway Passage Survival of Hatchery Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam, 2002. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract W68BV92844866. Eppard BM, BP Sandford, EE Hockersmith, GA Axel, and DB Dey. 2005c. Spillway Passage Survival of Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam, 2003. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract W68SBV92844866. Faulkner JR, SG Smith, WD Muir, DM Marsh, and JG Williams. 2007. Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs, 2006. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, under Contract 00026472, Project 199302900. 8.2 Ham KD, SP Titzler, SP Reese, and RA Moursund. 2007. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Passage Distribution at the Ice Harbor Removable Spillway Weir, 2006. PNWD-3862, prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract DACW68-020D-0001. Morrill C, LM Spencer, and RL Tudor. 2001. 2000 Ice Harbor and McNary Smolt Monitoring Programs. Prepared by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Olympia, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, under Contract 00-42, Project 87-127. Moursund RA, KD Ham, and SP Titzler. 2007. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Passage at Ice Harbor Dam with a Removable Spillway Weir in 2005. PNWD-3711, prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, WA, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract DACW68-020D-0001. Moursund RA, KD Ham, SP Titzler, and F Khan. 2004. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of the Effects of Spill Treatments on Fish Passage at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003. PNWD-3420, prepared by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract DACW68-020D-0001, Task Order 05. Muir WD, RA McNatt, GA Axel, SG Smith, DM Marsh, and JG Williams. 2004. Survival of Subyearling Fall Chinook Salmon in the Free-Flowing Snake River and Lower Snake River Reservoirs in 2003 and From McNary Dam Tailrace to John Day Dam Tailrace in the Columbia River From 1999 to 2002, Technical Report 1999-2003. (BPA Report DOE/BP-00004922-5), prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, under Contract DE-AI79-93BP10891, Project 199302900, (60 electronic pages). Muir WD, SG Smith, RW Zabel, DM Marsh, and JR Skalski. 2003. Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs, 2002. (BPA Report DOE/BP-00004922-3), by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, under Project 1993-02900. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2004. Juvenile Salmonid Direct Survival/Injury in Passage Through the Ice Harbor Dam Spillway, Snake River. Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc., Drumore, PA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract DACW68-02-D-0002, Task Order 0006. Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2006. Direct Survival and Injury of Juvenile Salmon Passing Ice Harbor Spillway Under Plunging, Skimming and Undular Tailwater Conditions. Prepared by Normandeau Associates Inc., Drumore, PA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Project 18880.018. Normandeau Associates, Inc. and JR Skalski. 2005. Effects of Differential Spill Volume and Entrainment Depth on Survival and Injury of Juvenile Salmonids at the Ice Harbor Dam Spillway, Snake River. Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc., Drumore, PA and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract DACW68-02-D0002, Task Order 0013. 8.3 Normandeau Associates, Inc. and JR Skalski. 2006. Comparative Direct Survival and Injury Rates of Juvenile Salmon Passing the New Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) and a Spillbay at Ice Harbor Dam, Snake River, Washington. Prepared by Normandeau Associates, Inc., Drumore, PA and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA. Ogden DA, EE Hockersmith, GA Axel, BJ Burke, K Frick, and BP Sandford. 2007. Passage Behavior and Survival for River-Run Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam, 2005. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract W68SBV92844866. Ogden DA, EE Hockersmith, BM Eppard, GA Axel, and BP Sandford. 2005. Passage Behavior and Survival for River-Run Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam, 2004. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District, Walla Walla, WA, under Contract W68SBV92844866. Smith SG, WD Muir, DM Marsh, JG Williams, and JR Skalski. 2005. Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs, Annual Report 2004-2005. (BPA Report DOE/BP-0004922-6), prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, under Project 199302900, (107 electronic pages). Smith SG, WD Muir, DM Marsh, JG Williams, and JR Skalski. 2006. Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs, 2005. (BPA Report DOE/BP-00004922-7), prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, under Contract DE-AI79-93BP10891, Project 199302900. Smith SG, WD Muir, RW Zabel, EE Hockersmith, GA Axel, WP Conner, and Arnsberg Billy D. 2002. Survival of Hatchery Subyearling Fall Chinook Salmon in the Free-Flowing Snake River and Lower Snake River Reservoirs, 1998-2001. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, under Contract DE-AI79-93BP10891, Project 93-29. Smith SG, WD Muir, RW Zabel, DM Marsh, RA McNatt, JG Williams, and JR Skalski. 2004. Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs, 2003. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, under Contract DE-AI79-93BP10891, Project 199302900. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration, and USDoI Bureau of Reclamation. 2007. Biological Assessment for Effects of Federal Columbia River Power System and Mainstem Effects of Other Tributary Actions on Anadromous Salmonid Species Listed Under the Engandered Species Act. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, WA. Williams JG, SG Smith, RW Zabel, WD Muir, MD Scheuerell, BP Sandford, DM Marsh, RA McNatt, and S Achord. 2005. Effects of the Federal Columbia River Power System on Salmonid Populations. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Available from Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA. 8.4 Zabel RW, SG Smith, WD Muir, DM Marsh, JG Williams, and JR Skalski. 2001. Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids Through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs, 2000. (BPA Report DOE/BP-10891-10), prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA and University of Washington, Seattle, WA for Bonneville Power Administration Portland, OR, under Contract 1993BP10891, Project 199302900, (62 electronic pages). Zabel RW, SG Smith, WD Muir, DM Marsh, JG Williams, and JR Skalski. 2002. Survival Estimates for the Passage of Spring-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids Through Snake and Columbia River Dams and Reservoirs, 2001. (BPA Report DOE/BP-00004922-1), prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA and University of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR, under Project 1993-02900. 8.5 Appendix A Spill Patterns and Dam Operations at Ice Harbor Dam Appendix A Spill Patterns and Dam Operations at Ice Harbor Dam The amount and distribution of spill is affected by a number of factors. First, the river discharge sets upper and lower limits on spill, given the operational limits of the dam. Second, the fish passage plan details the amount and pattern of spill, as long as flows are within operational limits. Third, experimental treatments can be implemented to test amounts or patterns of spill that differ from those specified in the Corps’ fish passage plan. This section details the spill patterns and experimental treatments used during the juvenile fish migration at Ice Harbor Dam from 2000 through 2006. A.1 Figure A.1. BiOp Spill Pattern Implemented in 2000 and 2002 at Ice Harbor Dam for Juvenile Salmon During the Night A.2 Figure A.2. BiOp Spill Pattern Implemented in 2000 and 2002 at Ice Harbor Dam for Adult Salmon During the Day A.3 Figure A.3. BiOp Spill Pattern Implemented in 2003 at Ice Harbor Dam A.4 Figure A.4. Uniform Spill Pattern Implemented in 2004 at Ice Harbor Dam A.5 Figure A.5. Bulk Spill Pattern Implemented in 2004 at Ice Harbor Dam A.6 Figure A.6. Bulk Spill Pattern Implemented in 2005 at Ice Harbor Dam. The RSW is in Bay 2. A.7 Figure A.7. RSW Spill Pattern Implemented in 2005 at Ice Harbor Dam. The RSW is in Bay 2. A.8 Figure A.8. Spill30 Pattern (30% Spill) Implemented in 2006 at Ice Harbor Dam. The RSW is in Bay 2. A.9 Figure A.9. Bulk Spill Pattern Implemented in 2006 at Ice Harbor Dam A.10 Table A.1. 2003 Nominal Treatment Schedule at Ice Harbor Dam. Transition from Spring to Summer Occurred on June 7. Month April April April April April April April April May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May Day 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Block Test BIOP BIOP BIOP BIOP SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP Month May May May May May May May May June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June Day 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Block 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 Test SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP BIOP SP50 SP50 BIOP Month June June June June June June June July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July Day 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Block 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 22 Test Bulk Bulk NoSpill NoSpill Bulk Bulk NoSpill NoSpill Bulk Bulk NoSpill Bulk Bulk NoSpill NoSpill Bulk NoSpill Bulk Bulk* Surv Surv Surv NoSpill Bulk* Bulk* Bulk* Bulk* Bulk* Bulk* Bulk* Bulk* 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 A.11 Table A.2. 2004 Nominal Treatment Schedule at Ice Harbor Dam Month April April April April April April April April April April April April April April April April May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May Day 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Treatment Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP Month May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May May June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June Day 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Treatment FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk Month June June June June June June June June June June June June June June June July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July Day 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Treatment FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP Bulk Bulk FPP FPP A.12 Table A.3. 2005 Nominal Treatment Schedule at Ice Harbor Dam. Transition from Spring to Summer Occurred on June 2. Date 25-Apr 26-Apr 27-Apr 28-Apr 29-Apr 30-Apr 1-May 2-May 3-May 4-May 5-May 6-May 7-May 8-May 9-May 10-May 11-May 12-May 13-May 14-May 15-May 16-May 17-May 18-May 19-May 20-May 21-May 22-May 23-May 24-May Block # 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 Treatment Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW RSW RSW Date 25-May 26-May 27-May 28-May 29-May 30-May 31-May 1-Jun 2-Jun 3-Jun 4-Jun 5-Jun 6-Jun 7-Jun 8-Jun 9-Jun 10-Jun 11-Jun 12-Jun 13-Jun 14-Jun 15-Jun 16-Jun 17-Jun 18-Jun 19-Jun 20-Jun 21-Jun 22-Jun 23-Jun Block # 8 8 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 Treatment Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap Date 24-Jun 25-Jun 26-Jun 27-Jun 28-Jun 29-Jun 30-Jun 1-Jul 2-Jul 3-Jul 4-Jul 5-Jul 6-Jul 7-Jul 8-Jul 9-Jul 10-Jul 11-Jul 12-Jul 13-Jul 14-Jul 15-Jul 16-Jul 17-Jul 18-Jul 19-Jul 20-Jul 21-Jul Block # 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 Treatment RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW RSW RSW Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap Gas Cap RSW RSW A.13 Table A.4. 2006 Nominal Treatment Schedule at Ice Harbor Dam. Transition from Spring to Summer was May 25. Date Study Day Block Treatment # Date Study Block Treatment Day # Date Study Block Treatment Day # 4/14/2006 104 GasCap 5/17/2006 137 5 GasCap 6/19/2006 170 13 30% 4/15/2006 105 GasCap 5/18/2006 138 5 GasCap 6/20/2006 171 13 GasCap 4/16/2006 106 GasCap 5/19/2006 139 5 30% 6/21/2006 172 13 GasCap 4/17/2006 107 GasCap 5/20/2006 140 5 30% 6/22/2006 173 14 GasCap 4/18/2006 108 GasCap 5/21/2006 141 6 30% 6/23/2006 174 14 GasCap 4/19/2006 109 GasCap 5/22/2006 142 6 30% 6/24/2006 175 14 30% 4/20/2006 110 GasCap 5/23/2006 143 6 GasCap 6/25/2006 176 14 30% 4/21/2006 111 GasCap 5/24/2006 144 6 GasCap 6/26/2006 177 15 GasCap 4/22/2006 112 GasCap 5/25/2006 145 7 GasCap* 6/27/2006 178 15 GasCap 4/23/2006 113 GasCap 5/26/2006 146 7 GasCap 6/28/2006 179 15 30% 4/24/2006 114 GasCap 5/27/2006 147 7 30% 6/29/2006 180 15 30% 4/25/2006 115 GasCap 5/28/2006 148 7 30% 6/30/2006 181 16 30% 4/26/2006 116 GasCap 5/29/2006 149 8 30% 7/1/2006 182 16 30% 4/27/2006 117 GasCap 5/30/2006 150 8 30% 7/2/2006 183 16 GasCap 4/28/2006 118 GasCap 5/31/2006 151 8 GasCap 7/3/2006 184 16 GasCap 4/29/2006 119 GasCap 6/1/2006 152 8 GasCap 7/4/2006 185 17 30% 4/30/2006 120 GasCap 6/2/2006 153 9 30% 7/5/2006 186 17 30% 5/1/2006 121 1 GasCap 6/3/2006 154 9 30% 7/6/2006 187 17 GasCap 5/2/2006 122 1 GasCap 6/4/2006 155 9 GasCap 7/7/2006 188 17 GasCap 5/3 2006 123 1 30%* 6/5/2006 156 9 GasCap 7/8/2006 189 18 30% 5/4/2006 124 1 30% 6/6/2006 157 10 GasCap 7/9/2006 190 18 30% 5/5/2006 125 2 30% 6/7/2006 158 10 GasCap 7/10/2006 191 18 GasCap 5/6/2006 126 2 30% 6/8/2006 159 10 30% 7/11/2006 192 18 GasCap 5/7/2006 127 2 GasCap 6/9/2006 160 10 30% 7/12/2006 193 19 30% 5/8/2006 128 2 GasCap 6/10/2006 161 11 GasCap 7/13/2006 194 19 30% 5/9/2006 129 3 GasCap 6/11/2006 162 11 GasCap 7/14/2006 195 19 GasCap 5/10/2006 130 3 GasCap 6/12/2006 163 11 30% 7/15/2006 196 19 GasCap 5/11/2006 131 3 30% 6/13/2006 164 11 30% 7/16/2006 197 20 GasCap 5/12/2006 132 3 30% 6/14/2006 165 12 GasCap 7/17/2006 198 20 GasCap 5/13/2006 133 4 GasCap 6/15/2006 166 12 GasCap 7/18/2006 199 20 30% 5/14/2006 134 4 GasCap 6/16/2006 167 12 30% 7/19/2006 200 20 30% 5/15/2006 135 4 30% 6/17/2006 168 12 30% 5/16/2006 136 4 30% 6/18/2006 169 13 30% Shaded cells were dropped from treatment comparisons because treatment conditions were not met. A.14 Appendix B Figures Showing Approach Distributions, Residence Times, Passage Distributions, Tailrace Egress Times, and Annual Plots Appendix B Figures Showing Approach Distributions, Residence Times, Passage Distributions, Tailrace Egress Times, and Annual Plots Figure B.1. Overview of the Lower Transect Radiotelemetry Detections Zones at Ice Harbor Dam During 2003 (Eppard et al. 2005c, Figure 3). Dashed ovals represent underwater antennas; dashed triangles represent aerial antennas. B.1 Figure B.2. Horizontal Distribution Across the Upper Forebay of Ice Harbor Dam During 2003 Based on First Detections on the Upper Forebay Transect Receivers During the Spill50 Treatment and the BiOp Spill Treatment (Eppard et al. 2005c, Figure 7) B.2 Figure B.3. Forebay Approach During BiOp and Spill50 Treatments and Spillway and Turbine Passage for Yearling Chinook in 2003 at Ice Harbor Dam (Eppard et al. 2005c, Figure 8). Orientation is from north (7) to south (1). B.3 Figure B.4. Overview of the Lower Transect Radiotelemetry Detections Zones at Ice Harbor Dam (Ogden et al. 2005, Figure 3). Dashed ovals represent underwater antennas; dashed triangles represent aerial antennas for 2004 B.4 Figure B.5. Approach Patterns for Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 (Eppard et al. 2005a, Figure 6). Orientation is from north (5) to south (1). Figure B.6. Approach Patterns for Radio-Tagged Subyearling Chinook Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 (Ogden et al. 2005, Figure 6). Orientation is from north (5) to south (1). B.5 Figure B.7. Overview of the Lower Transect Radiotelemetry Detections Zones at Ice Harbor Dam (Eppard et al. 2005a, Figure 3). Dashed ovals represent underwater antennas; dashed triangles represent aerial antennas for 2005. B.6 Figure B.8. Percent of Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon (Top) and Juvenile Steelhead with First Approach Location at Ice Harbor Dam During Two Spill Treatments in 2005 (Axel et al. 2007 Figure 5, 6). Orientation is from south to north. B.7 Figure B.9. Percent of Radio-Tagged Subyearling Chinook Salmon with First Approach Location at Ice Harbor Dam During Two Spill Treatments in 2005 (Ogden et al. 2007, Figure 6). Orientation is from south to north. B.8 Figure B.10. Distribution of Forebay Residence Time for Yearling Chinook Salmon During BiOp or Spill50 from Detection at the Upper Forebay Transect to Detection in a Spillbay, Turbine, or the Juvenile Bypass System of Ice Harbor Dam in 2003 (Eppard et al. 2005c). B.9 Figure B.11. Forebay Residence Time of Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 (Eppard et al. 2005a, Figure 7) Figure B.12. Forebay Residence Time of Radio-Tagged Subyearling Chinook Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 (Ogden et al. 2005, Figure 7) Figure B.13. Forebay 90th Percentile Residence Time of Radio-Tagged Steelhead Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 (Axel et al. 2005, Figure 8) B.10 Figure B.14. Spillway and Turbine Passage for Yearling Chinook Salmon during BiOp and Spill50 Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003 (Eppard et al. 2005c, Figures 10 & 11). Orientation is from north to south. B.11 A B C Figure B.15. Horizontal Passage Distribution and Flow During Day or Night in the Spring and Treatment-Specific BiOp (left) and Spill50 (right) at Ice Harbor Dam During 2003 (Moursund et al. 2004 Figure 3.15 [A], Figure 3.29 [B,C]). Orientation is from south to north. B.12 A B C Figure B.16. Horizontal Distribution of Passage and Flow During Day and Night in the Summer (A) and Treatment-Specific BiOp Spill (B) and Spill50 (C) at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003 (Moursund et al. 2004 Figure 3.15 (A), Figure 3.28 (B,C). Orientation is from south to north. B.13 A B Figure B.17. Horizontal Distribution of Passage and Flow During Day and Night in the Summer During Bulk BiOp (A) and No Spill (B) Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003 (Moursund et al. 2004, Figure 3.33). Orientation is from south to north. B.14 Figure B.18. Forebay Passage Distribution of Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 (Eppard et al. 2005a, Figure 9). Orientation is from north to south. B.15 Figure B.19. Spillway Passage Distribution of Radio-Tagged Steelhead Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 (Axel et al. 2005 Figure 9). Orientation is from south to north. Figure B.20. Passage Distribution of Radio-Tagged Subyearling Chinook Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments in 2004 (Ogden et al. 2005, Figure 9). Orientation is from north to south. B.16 A 40% 40% 30% Passage 30% Flow 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% RSW T01 T02 T03 T04 T05 T06 S01 S03 S04 S05 S06 S07 S08 S09 S10 0% Day B Night Night Flow Day Flow C Figure B.21. Horizontal Distribution of Passage and Flow During Day and Night in the Spring (A) and Treatment-Specific GasCap Spill (B) and RSW Spill (C) at Ice Harbor Dam in 2005 (Moursund et al. 2007, Figure 3.21 [A], Figure 3.47 [B], Figure 3.48 [C]). Orientation is from south to north. B.17 A 40% 40% 30% Passage 30% Flow 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% RSW T01 T02 T03 T04 T05 T06 S01 S03 S04 S05 S06 S07 S08 S09 S10 0% Day B Night Day Flow Night Flow C Figure B.22. Horizontal Distribution of Passage and Flow During Day and Night in the Summer (A) and Treatment-Specific GasCap Spill (B) and RSW Spill (C) at Ice Harbor Dam in 2005 (Moursund et al. 2007, Figure 3.22 [A], Figure 3.49 [B], Figure 3.50 [C]). Orientation is from south to north. B.18 Figure B.23. Horizontal Passage Distribution for Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam During Bulk Spill and RSW Spill Treatments in 2005 (Axel et al. 2007, Figure 17). Orientation is from south to north. Figure B.24. Horizontal Passage Distribution for Radio-Tagged Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam During Bulk Spill and RSW Spill Treatments in 2005 (Axel et al. 2007, Figure 20). Orientation is from south to north. B.19 Figure B.25. Horizontal Passage Distribution for Radio-Tagged Subyearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam During Bulk Spill and RSW Spill Treatments in 2005 (Ogden et al. 2007, Figure 8). Orientation is from south to north. Figure B.26. Horizontal Distribution of Fish Passage Through the RSW at Ice Harbor Dam in 2006 (Ham et al. 2007, Figure 3.19) B.20 B.21 Figure B.27. Vertical Distribution of Fish Abundance at Various Gate Openings at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003 (Moursund et al. 2004, Figures 3.42-3.46) Figure B.28. Vertical Distribution of Fish Abundance at Guided and Unguided Powerhouse Deployments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003 (Moursund et al. 2004, Figure 3.41) B.22 Figure B.29. Vertical Distributions by Season and Treatment for Fish Passing Through Spillbays (top) and the RSW (bottom) at Ice Harbor Dam in 2005, Shown as Both Relative (left) and Cumulative (right) Fish Abundance by Elevation (Moursund et al. 2007, Figures 3.53 and 3.54) B.23 Figure B.30. Vertical Distributions by Season and Treatment for Guided Fish (top) and Unguided Fish (bottom) Shown as Both Relative (left) and Cumulative (right) Fish Abundance by Elevation at Ice Harbor Dam in 2005 (Moursund et al. 2007, Figures 3.51 and 3.52) B.24 A B Figure B.31. Relative (Top) and Cumulative (Bottom) Vertical Distributions by Spill Treatment at the RSW (A) and Crest (B) Deployments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2006 (Ham et al. 2007, Figure 3.21 (A) and Figure 3.22 (B) B.25 Figure B.32. Median Tailrace Egress Times for Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam in 2002 (Eppard et al. 2005b, Figure 5). Orientation is from north to south. Figure B.33. Tailrace Egress Timing for Radio-Tagged Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon Passing Through the Spillway at Ice Harbor Dam in 2003 (Eppard et al. 2005c, Figure 12) B.26 Figure B.34. Tailrace Egress Time of Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 (Eppard et al. 2005a, Figure 10) Figure B.35. Paired 50th Percentile Tailrace Egress Time of Radio-Tagged Steelhead Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments at Ice Harbor Dam in 2004 (Axel et al. 2005, Figure 11) B.27 Figure B.36. Tailrace Egress Time of Radio-Tagged Subyearling Chinook Salmon During Bulk and Flat Spill Treatments in 2004 (Ogden et al. 2005 Figure 10) A B Figure B.37. Paired 50th (A) and 90th (B) Percentile Tailrace Egress Time for Radio-Tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon at Ice Harbor Dam During Bulk Spill and RSW Spill Treatments in 2005 (Axel et al. 2007, Figure 23) B.28 A B Figure B.38. Paired 50th (A) and 90th (B) Percentile Tailrace Egress Time for Radio-Tagged Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam During Bulk Spill and RSW Spill Treatments in 2005 (Axel et al. 2007, Figure 26) B.29 Appendix C Tables Listing Estimates of Reach Survival, Travel Time, and Migration Rate Table C.1. Weekly Weighted Means Reach Survival Probabilities and Number of Fish Detected (N) for Fish Detected or Released at Lower Granite Dam and Emigrating from Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam in 2000. Source: Zabel et al. 2001. Date at Lower Granite Dam 3/30 – 4/5 4/6 – 4/12 4/13 – 4/19 4/20 – 4/26 4/27 – 5/3 5/4 – 5/10 5/11 – 5/17 5/18 – 5/24 5/25 – 5/31 6/1 – 6/7 6/8 – 6/14 Weighted Survival Mean (a) Wild & Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N N/A 574 17,849 14,426 19,825 15,297 10,422 3,725 3,357 3,790 1,661 Survival N/A 0.845 (0.117) 0.956 (0.023) 0.904 (0.031) 0.911 (0.033) 0.870 (0.045) 0.956 (0.073) 1.106 (0.112) 0.941 (0.116) 0.938 (0.120) 1.175 (0.214) (a) Wild & Hatchery Steelhead N 1,586 5,094 21,948 20,753 21,947 21,898 8,935 6,940 3,512 N/A N/A Survival (a) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N N/A 51 2,480 4,553 5,488 8,224 2,872 1,619 599 56 41 Survival N/A 1.548 (0.709) 1.032 (0.091) 0.809 (0.063) 0.902 (0.080) 0.915 (0.077) 0.872 (0.167) 1.018 (0.184) 0.967 (0.304) N/A N/A 0.917 (0.037) (a) Hatchery Steelhead N 829 828 1,785 4,153 5,930 9,152 5,132 4,765 2,475 N/A N/A Survival (a) Wild Yearling Chinook Salmon N N/A Survival N/A (a) Wild Steelhead N Survival(a) 757 0.462 (0.130) 4,266 0.809 (0.059) 20,163 0.912 (0.030) 16,600 0.846 (0.024) 16,017 0.838 (0.040) 12,746 0.797 (0.063) 3,803 0.867 (0.257) 2,175 0.694 (0.189) 1,037 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.709 (0.067) 0.753 (0.048) 0.916 (0.028) 0.840 (0.021) 0.822 (0.032) 0.748 (0.044) 0.900 (0.142) 0.812 (0.146) 2.455 (1.697) N/A N/A 0.842 (0.017) 0.749 (0.077) 0.568 (0.070) 0.938 (0.075) 0.816 (0.042) 0.767 (0.055) 0.690 (0.062) 0.856 (0.159) 0.915 (0.221) 1.548 (1.044) N/A N/A 523 0.795 (0.114) 15,369 0.945 (0.023) 9,873 0.933 (0.035) 14,337 0.898 (0.036) 7,072 0.822 (0.053) 7,550 0.968 (0.080) 2,106 1.121 (0.136) 2,732 0.911 (0.123) 3,720 0.950 (0.122) 1,611 1.135 (0.210) 0.930 (0.016) C.1 0.928 (0.016) 0.793 (0.034) 0.858 (0.018) (a) Standard error in parentheses. Standard error in parentheses. N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. Table C.2. Weekly Weighted Means Reach Survival Probabilities and Number of Fish Detected (N) for Fish Detected or Released at Lower Granite Dam and Emigrating from Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam in 2001. Source: Zabel et al. 2002. Date at Lower Granite Dam 4/6 – 4/12 4/13 – 4/19 4/20 -4/26 4/27 – 5/3 5/4 – 5/10 5/11 – 5/17 5/18 – 5/24 5/25 – 5/31 6/1 – 6/7 Wild & Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 413 655 2,475 8,834 3,056 5,289 771 579 197 Survival (a) Wild & Hatchery Steelhead N 177 431 2,644 12,557 9,668 10,824 7,979 2,930 1,447 Survival (a) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 268 459 1,668 7,136 2,363 4,425 475 271 49 Survival (a) Hatchery Steelhead N 158 404 2,023 7,235 6,213 7,461 6,339 2,426 1,294 Survival (a) Wild Yearling Chinook Salmon N Survival (a) Wild Steelhead N N/A N/A Survival(a) N/A N/A 0.697 (0.070) 0.705 (0.035) 0.746 (0.020) 0.740 (0.012) 0.715 (0.024) 0.646 (0.018) 0.614 (0.065) 0.368 (0.061) 0.282 (0.208) 0.587 (0.282) 0.311 (0.060) 0.323 (0.021) 0.279 (0.011) 0.309 (0.014) 0.310 (0.021) 0.170 (0.023) 0.079 (0.028) 0.148 (0.089) 0.744 (0.104) 0.681 (0.043) 0.732 (0.022) 0.741 (0.013) 0.717 (0.028) 0.633 (0.020) 0.626 (0.101) 0.299 (0.076) 0.267 (0.262) 0.522 (0.253) 0.322 (0.066) 0.348 (0.025) 0.300 (0.015) 0.325 (0.020) 0.250 (0.025) 0.152 (0.027) 0.069 (0.035) 0.158 (0.096) 145 0.646 (0.094) 196 0.763 (0.058) 807 0.790 (0.041) 1,698 0.734 (0.026) 693 0.708 (0.044) 864 0.694 (0.040) 296 0.608 (0.078) 308 0.406 (0.086) N/A N/A 621 0.249 (0.042) 5,322 0.253 (0.015) 3,455 0.285 (0.018) 3,363 0.367 (0.032) 1,640 0.202 (0.041) 504 0.107 (0.047) N/A N/A 0.282 (0.021) C.2 Weighted 0.720 (0.009) 0.296 (0.010) 0.716 (0.016) Survival Mean(a) (a) Standard error in parentheses. Standard error in parentheses. N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. 0.306 (0.016) 0.728 (0.020) Table C.3. Weekly Weighted Means Reach Survival Probabilities and Number of Fish Detected (N) for Fish Detected or Released at Lower Granite Dam and Emigrating from Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam in 2002. Source: Muir et al. 2003. Wild & Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 126 319 4,310 2,040 2,881 13,687 4,388 4,006 293 146 62 Survival (a) Date at Lower Granite Dam 3/30 – 4/5 4/6 – 4/12 4/13 – 4/19 4/20 – 4/26 4/27 – 5/3 5/4 – 5/10 5/11 – 5/17 5/18 – 5/24 5/25 – 5/31 6/1 – 6/7 6/8 – 6/14 Wild & Hatchery Steelhead N N/A 571 1,432 2,183 4,026 5,081 4,591 3,735 1,987 1,075 201 Survival N/A 0.908 (0.207) 0.616 (0.071) 0.831 (0.074) 0.556 (0.042) 0.536 (0.045) 0.653 (0.058) 0.583 (0.061) 0.770 (0.135) 0.601 (0.155) 0.184 (0.108) (a) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 113 266 3,851 1,754 2,721 13,312 4,279 3,718 219 100 37 Survival (a) Hatchery Steelhead N N/A 567 1,141 1,985 3,944 4,834 4,325 3,139 1,819 1,016 N/A Survival N/A 0.913 (0.209) 0.593 (0.076) 0.858 (0.081) 0.556 (0.043) 0.528 (0.046) 0.662 (0.061) 0.554 (0.067) 0.770 (0.134) 0.609 (0.165) N/A 0.638 (0.043) (a) Wild Yearling Chinook Salmon N N/A Survival N/A (a) Wild Steelhead N N/A N/A Survival(a) N/A N/A 0.680 (0.175) 0.967 (0.125) 0.823 (0.026) 0.856 (0.038) 0.824 (0.033) 0.803 (0.017) 0.825 (0.039) 0.847 (0.043) 1.205 (0.388) 0.554 (0.173) 0.857 (0.290) 0.709 (0.196) 0.972 (0.147) 0.828 (0.028) 0.833 (0.040) 0.832 (0.036) 0.803 (0.018) 0.823 (0.040) 0.832 (0.045) 1.304 (0.501) 0.591 (0.215) 0.667 (0.244) 53 1.056 (0.226) 459 0.782 (0.081) 286 0.992 (0.110) 160 0.767 (0.086) 375 0.824 (0.087) 109 0.857 (0.261) 288 1.038 (0.168) 74 0.969 (0.569) N/A N/A N/A N/A 291 0.893 (0.224) 198 0.605 (0.171) 82 0.503 (0.186) 247 0.654 (0.184) 266 0.572 (0.164) 596 0.762 (0.150) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C.3 Weighted Survival 0.837 (0.013) 0.652 (0.031) 0.819 (0.009) Mean(a) (a) Standard error in parentheses. Standard error in parentheses. N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. 0.870 (0.041) 0.699 (0.055) Table C.4. Weekly Weighted Means Reach Survival Probabilities and Number of Fish Detected (N) for Fish Detected or Released at Lower Granite Dam and Emigrating from Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam in 2003. Sources: Smith et al. 2004 and Muir et al. 2004. Date at Lower Granite Dam 3/30 – 4/5 4/6 – 4/12 4/13 – 4/19 4/20 – 4/26 4/27 – 5/3 5/4 – 5/10 5/11 – 5/17 5/18 – 5/24 5/25 – 5/31 6/1 – 6/7 6/8 – 6/14 6/15 – 6/21 6/22 – 6/28 6/29 – 7/5 7/6 – 7/12 7/13 – 7/19 Wild & Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N Survival(a) 126 0.680 (0.175) 319 0.967 (0.125) 4,310 0.823 (0.026) 2,040 0.856 (0.038) 2,881 0.824 (0.033) 13,687 0.803 (0.017) 4,388 0.825 (0.039) 4,006 0.847 (0.043) 293 1.205 (0.388) 146 0.554 (0.173) 62 0.857 (0.290) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wild & Hatchery Steelhead N N/A Survival(a) N/A Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 113 Survival(a) 0.709 (0.196) N N/A Hatchery Steelhead Survival(a) N/A Wild Yearling Chinook Salmon N N/A Survival(a) N/A Subyearling Chinook Salmon N N/A N/A Survival(a) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wild Steelhead N N/A Survival(a) N/A N/A 571 0.908 (0.207) 1,432 0.616 (0.071) 2,183 0.831 (0.074) 4,026 0.556 (0.042) 5,081 0.536 (0.045) 4,591 0.653 (0.058) 3,735 0.583 (0.061) 1,987 0.770 (0.135) 1,075 0.601 (0.155) 201 0.184 (0.108) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 266 0.972 (0.147) 3,851 0.828 (0.028) 1,754 0.833 (0.040) 2,721 0.832 (0.036) 13,312 0.803 (0.018) 4,279 0.823 (0.040) 3,718 0.832 (0.045) 219 1.304 (0.501) 100 0.591 (0.215) 37 0.667 (0.244) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 567 0.913 (0.209) 1,141 0.593 (0.076) 1,985 0.858 (0.081) 3,944 0.556 (0.043) 4,834 0.528 (0.046) 4,325 0.662 (0.061) 3,139 0.554 (0.067) 1,819 0.770 (0.134) 1,016 0.609 (0.165) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 53 1.056 (0.226) N/A 459 0.782 (0.081) 286 0.992 (0.110) 160 0.767 (0.086) 375 0.824 (0.087) 109 0.857 (0.261) 288 1.038 (0.168) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 291 0.893 (0.224) N/A 198 0.605 (0.171) N/A 82 0.503 (0.186) N/A 247 0.654 (0.184) N/A 266 0.572 (0.164) N/A 596 0.762 (0.150) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C.4 74 0.969 (0.569) N/A 42 0.825 (0.383) 292 0.777 (0.160) 1,394 0.989 (0.092) 2,604 0.736 (0.070) 1,508 0.633 (0.088) 536 0.548 (0.118) 226 0.380 (0.139) 82 0.359 (0.226) N/A Weighted Survival 0.928 (0.016) 0.842 (0.017) 0.917 (0.037) Mean(a) (a) Standard error in parentheses. Standard error in parentheses. N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. 0.793 (0.034) 0.930 (0.016) 0.858 (0.018) Table C.5. Weekly Weighted Means Reach Survival Probabilities and Number of Fish Detected (N) for Fish Detected or Released at Lower Granite Dam and Emigrating from Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam in 2004. Source: Smith et al. 2004. Date at Lower Granite Dam 3/30 – 4/5 4/6 – 4/12 4/13 – 4/19 4/20 – 4/26 4/27 – 5/3 5/4 – 5/10 5/11 – 5/17 5/18 – 5/24 5/25 – 5/31 6/1 – 6/7 6/8 – 6/14 6/15 – 6/21 6/22 – 6/28 Wild & Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 506 1,759 6,948 13,265 8,429 12,652 9,084 6,810 10,293 3,714 462 235 266 Survival (a) Wild & Hatchery Steelhead N 87 2,206 4,206 4,107 5,681 7,111 9,468 13,899 9,270 4,016 N/A N/A N/A Survival (a) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 280 229 823 3,884 3,842 5,650 5,432 1,779 991 107 113 41 52 Survival (a) Hatchery Steelhead N N/A 1,062 1,688 2,505 4,095 4,205 4,143 3,036 2,624 1,191 N/A N/A N/A Survival N/A 0.694 (0.121) 0.863 (0.122) 0.760 (0.094) 0.683 (0.074) 0.635 (0.055) 0.702 (0.053) 0.843 (0.091) 0.784 (0.064) 0.505 (0.077) N/A N/A N/A 0.723 (0.031) (a) Wild Yearling Chinook Salmon N Survival (a) Wild Steelhead N N/A Survival(a) N/A 0.813 (0.115) 0.875 (0.088) 0.819 (0.043) 0.847 (0.041) 0.840 (0.055) 0.889 (0.041) 0.822 (0.036) 0.900 (0.025) 0.962 (0.028) 0.908 (0.048) 0.799 (0.092) 0.519 (0.129) 0.607 (0.117) 0.651 (0.387) 0.783 (0.107) 1.000 (0.106) 0.739 (0.076) 0.719 (0.069) 0.668 (0.048) 0.637 (0.032) 0.713 (0.034) 0.757 (0.044) 0.513 (0.059) N/A N/A N/A 0.571 (0.174) 1.328 (0.252) 0.656 (0.111) 0.923 (0.076) 1.040 (0.093) 0.960 (0.070) 0.846 (0.045) 0.880 (0.041) 1.028 (0.091) 1.203 (0.291) 0.567 (0.110) 0.778 (0.713) 1.100 (0.765) 226 0.949 (0.148) 1,530 0.794 (0.096) 6,125 0.860 (0.046) 9,381 0.821 (0.050) 4,587 0.691 (0.068) 7,001 0.832 (0.050) 3,652 0.778 (0.056) 5,031 0.907 (0.032) 9,302 0.954 (0.030) 3,607 0.892 (0.048) 349 0.925 (0.134) 194 0.466 (0.110) 214 N/A 1,144 0.885 (0.193) 2,518 1.143 (0.180) 1,602 0.672 (0.143) 1,586 0.899 (0.190) 2,906 0.791 (0.106) 5,325 0.614 (0.050) 10,863 0.689 (0.036) 6,646 0.722 (0.059) 2,825 0.522 (0.091) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C.5 Weighted Survival 0.904 (0.017) 0.708 (0.018) 0.911 (0.036) Mean(a) (a) Standard error in parentheses. Standard error in parentheses. N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. 0.887 (0.020) 0.713 (0.042) Table C.6. Weekly Weighted Means Reach Survival Probabilities and Number of Fish Detected (N) for Fish Detected or Released at Lower Granite Dam and Emigrating from Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam in 2005. Source: Smith et al. 2006. Date at Lower Granite Dam 3/30 – 4/5 4/6 – 4/12 4/13 – 4/19 4/20 – 4/26 4/27 – 5/3 5/4 – 5/10 5/11 – 5/17 5/18 – 5/24 5/25 – 5/31 6/1 – 6/7 6/8 – 6/14 6/15 – 6/21 Wild & Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 68 744 2,097 5,152 17,278 52,978 13,575 4,243 2,515 2,366 986 485 Survival N/A 0.790(0.072) 0.880(0.050) 0.882(0.037) 0.944(0.029) 0.910(0.014) 0.875(0.027) 0.883(0.047) 0.896(0.063) 0.700(0.047) 0.635(0.085) N/A (a) Wild & Hatchery Steelhead N 107 435 1,130 3,906 8,418 15,177 9,140 4,712 2,828 1,754 1,089 N/A Survival (a) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 28 212 692 2,593 13,807 48,060 12,111 3,082 1,392 1,033 198 179 Survival (a) Hatchery Steelhead N 87 335 895 3,447 6,854 10,986 6,657 3,390 1,903 1,269 814 N/A Survival (a) Wild Yearling Chinook Salmon N 40 Survival N/A (a) Wild Steelhead N 20 Survival(a) N/A 0.655(0.580) 0.644(0.222) 0.711(0.131) 0.595(0.047) 0.779(0.047) 0.828(0.033) 0.672(0.029) 0.603(0.049) 0.424(0.088) 0.563(0.296) N/A N/A 0.820 (0.332) 0.872 (0.133) 0.804 (0.096) 0.941 (0.067) 0.945 (0.033) 0.911 (0.015) 0.898 (0.031) 0.893 (0.060) 0.987 (0.103) 0.584 (0.059) 0.531 (0.185) 1.171 (0.110) 0.671 (0.587) 0.766 (0.292) 0.701 (0.144) 0.631 (0.055) 0.818 (0.056) 0.814 (0.038) 0.660 (0.032) 0.606 (0.061) 0.409 (0.109) 0.549 (0.367) N/A N/A 532 0.765 (0.085) 1,405 0.913 (0.059) 2,559 0.832 (0.042) 3,471 0.925 (0.058) 4,918 0.890 (0.033) 1,464 0.756 (0.053) 1,161 0.860 (0.074) 1,123 0.810 (0.076) 1,333 0.799 (0.074) 788 0.669 (0.101) N/A N/A 100 0.171 (0.127) 235 0.703 (0.286) 459 0.349 (0.070) 1,564 0.579 (0.076) 4,191 0.860 (0.069) 2,402 0.711 (0.068) 1,267 0.588 (0.078) 918 0.423 (0.135) 479 0.498 (0.403) 275 N/A N/A N/A C.6 Weighted Survival 0.903(0.010) 0.722(0.023) 0.913 (0.018) Mean(a) (a) Standard error in parentheses. Standard error in parentheses. N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. 0.727 (0.029) 0.856 (0.020) 0.700 (0.054) Table C.7. Weekly Weighted Means Reach Survival Probabilities and Number of Fish Detected (N) for Fish Detected or Released at Lower Granite Dam and Emigrating from Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam in 2006. Source: Faulkner et al. 2007. Date at Lower Granite Dam 3/30 – 4/5 4/6 – 4/12 4/13 – 4/19 4/20 – 4/26 4/27 – 5/3 5/4 – 5/10 5/11 – 5/17 5/18 – 5/24 5/25 – 5/31 6/1 – 6/7 6/8 – 6/14 Wild & Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 798 1,782 1,674 27,426 66,936 64,487 32,031 1,578 474 284 151 Survival (a) Wild & Hatchery Steelhead N 26 374 2,142 6,590 9,446 9,186 6,014 3,424 2,273 1,626 271 Survival N/A 0.870 (0.100) 0.882 (0.041) 0.808 (0.025) 0.898 (0.028) 0.712 (0.027) 0.843 (0.054) 0.758 (0.050) 0.522 (0.050) 0.689 (0.134) 1.081 (0.417) (a) Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 711 1,210 752 23,430 62,330 61,980 30,884 727 80 75 11 Survival (a) Hatchery Steelhead N 19 130 1,566 3,426 5,002 6,154 4,137 2,266 1,654 1,186 148 Survival N/A 1.065 (0.230) 0.879 (0.047) 0.785 (0.031) 0.857 (0.035) 0.715 (0.033) 0.836 (0.060) 0.714 (0.056) 0.551 (0.065) 0.661 (0.137) 0.635 (0.236) (a) Wild Yearling Chinook Salmon N 87 572 922 3,996 4,606 2,507 1,147 851 394 209 140 Survival (a) Wild Steelhead N N/A 244 576 3,164 4,444 3,032 1,877 1,158 619 440 123 Survival(a) N/A 0.791 (0.108) 0.890 (0.084) 0.840 (0.040) 0.950 (0.045) 0.695 (0.047) 0.830 (0.114) 0.830 (0.101) 0.455 (0.077) 0.864 (0.450) N/A 0.985 (0.128) 0.884 (0.058) 0.837 (0.045) 0.886 (0.012) 0.886 (0.010) 0.882 (0.017) 0.776 (0.033) 1.072 (0.132) 0.884 (0.190) 0.944 (0.365) 0.503 (0.184) 0.923 (0.134) 0.873 (0.083) 0.760 (0.071) 0.891 (0.014) 0.891 (0.010) 0.885 (0.018) 0.779 (0.035) 0.887 (0.194) 0.554 (0.395) 0.375 (0.171) N/A 1.235 (0.380) 0.886 (0.078) 0.879 (0.058) 0.857 (0.026) 0.838 (0.026) 0.866 (0.053) 0.783 (0.114) 1.180 (0.176) 0.923 (0.209) 0.992 (0.433) 0.523 (0.197) C.7 Weighted Survival 0.887 (0.008) 0.808 (0.017) 0.885 (0.008) Mean(a) (a) Standard error in parentheses. Standard error in parentheses. N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. 0.795 (0.026) 0.860 (0.017) 0.843 (0.037) Table C.8. Weekly Weighted Means Reach Survival Probabilities and Number of Fish Detected (N) for Fish Detected or Released at Lower Granite Dam and Emigrating from Lower Monumental Dam to Ice Harbor and Ice Harbor to McNary Dam in 2006. Source: Faulkner et al. 2007 Date at Lower Granite Dam 3/30 – 4/5 4/6 – 4/12 4/13 – 4/19 4/20 – 4/26 4/27 – 5/3 5/4 – 5/10 5/11 – 5/17 5/18 – 5/24 5/25 – 5/31 6/1 – 6/7 6/8 – 6/14 Weighted Mean Lower Monumental to Ice Harbor Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N 798 1,782 1,674 27,426 66,936 64,487 32,031 1,578 474 284 151 Survival (a) Ice Harbor to McNary Hatchery Yearling Chinook Salmon N Survival (a) Hatchery Steelhead N Survival (a) Hatchery Steelhead N 26 Survival(a) NA 0.953 (0.101) 0.885 (0.043) 0.939 (0.040) 0.922 (0.010) 0.897 (0.010) 0.931 (0.020) 0.919 (0.034) 0.901 (0.060) 1.004 (0.226) 0.540 (0.225) 0.513 (0.291) 0.912 (0.005) 26 1.286 (1.081) 374 0.910 (0.070) 2,142 0.948 (0.030) 6,590 0.935 (0.023) 9,446 0.918 (0.020) 9,186 0.913 (0.034) 6,014 0.956 (0.043) 3,424 0.882 (0.033) 2,273 0.762 (0.051) 1,626 0.494 (0.098) 271 0.851 (0.306) 0.918 (0.014) 798 1.022 (0.147) 1,782 0.991 (0.069) 1,674 0.890 (0.053) 27,426 0.955 (0.015) 66,936 0.983 (0.013) 64,487 0.964 (0.024) 32,031 0.904 (0.046) 1,578 1.125 (0.141) 474 0.948 (0.268) 284 1.700 (0.817) 151 0.943 (0.510) 0.968 (0.009) 374 0.955 (0.123) 2,142 0.940 (0.049) 6,590 0.875 (0.032) 9,446 0.978 (0.034) 9,186 0.784 (0.038) 6,014 0.892 (0.065) 3,424 0.887 (0.059) 2,273 0.660 (0.070) 1,626 1.386 (0.353) 271 1.171 (0.529) 0.899 (0.028) (a) Standard error in parentheses. C.8 Table C.9. Median Travel Times and Migration Rates for Subyearling Chinook Salmon from Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam. Sources: Smith et al. 2002 and Muir et al. 2004 Year Release Site Release Date 6/1 6/8 6/15 6/29 7/6 6/1 6/8 6/15 6/22 6/29 5/30 6/6 5/23 5/30 6/6 6/20 5/29 6/4 5/28 5/30 6/2 6/3 6/5 Number Detected 17 3 4 1 2 33 9 7 7 6 2 1 16 8 2 1 135 44 90 95 119 85 135 Travel Time (days) 4.6 6.1 6.8 5.2 32.9 5.5 5.3 7.9 16.1 8.8 8.9 7.3 14.7 13.6 15.4 8.7 4.5 5.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 5 4.6 Migration Rate (km/day) 25.9 19.5 17.4 22.9 3.6 21.7 22.5 15 7.4 13.5 13.4 16.3 8.1 8.7 7.7 13.7 26.2 22.1 26.4 26.5 26.3 23.7 25.9 Pittsburg Landing 2000 Big Canyon Creek Pittsburg Landing 2001 Big Canyon Creek Pittsburg Landing 2003 Couse Creek C.9 Table C.10. Median Weekly Travel Times and Number of Fish Detected (N) for the Lower Monumental Dam to McNary Dam Reach. Sources: Zabel et al. 2001, Zabel et al. 2002, Muir et al. 2003, Smith et al. 2004, Smith et al. 2005, Smith et al. 2006, and Faulkner et al. 2007. Date at 2000 2001 Lower Species Granite Days N Days N Dam 3/30 – 4/5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4/6 – 4/12 3.9 28 7 55 4/13 – 4/19 4.7 1,194 6.6 195 4/20 – 4/26 4.4 704 6.9 771 4/27 – 5/3 3.6 530 6 2,386 5/4 – 5/10 4 260 5.7 674 5/11 – /17 3.5 139 5.4 945 5/18 – /24 3.1 173 5.4 108 5/25 – 5/31 3.8 77 6.9 39 6/1 – 6/7 4 83 14.2 5 6/8 – 6/14 4.3 39 N/A N/A 6/15 – 6/21 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6/22 – 6/28 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/30 – 4/5 3.7 57 N/A N/A 4/6 – 4/12 3.2 160 8.6 14 4/13 – 4/19 3 712 8.9 35 4/20 – 4/26 3.2 1,260 8 273 4/27 – 5/3 3 701 6 999 5/4 – 5/10 3.2 385 5.1 769 5/11 – 5/17 3.1 120 5.4 513 5/18 – 5/24 3 102 6.7 129 5/25 – 5/31 3.6 27 8.6 13 6/1 – 6/7 N/A N/A 7.6 9 6/8 – 6/14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. Hatchery and Wild Steelhead Hatchery and Wild Yearling Chinook 2002 Days 5.6 4.9 4.4 3.9 3.6 3.2 2.9 3 2.7 2.9 3.6 N/A N/A N/A 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.2 3 2.6 N 7 24 477 358 429 1,717 476 392 17 4 7 N/A N/A N/A 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.2 3 2.6 2003 Days 5.5 5.7 4.5 4.3 4 3.6 3.6 2.7 2.8 3.3 3.3 4.5 5.2 3.8 4.2 3.9 4.1 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 N/A N 20 33 138 161 103 176 188 422 419 212 45 14 17 3 36 56 67 87 164 224 428 248 157 N/A 2004 Days 6 5.6 5.2 4.2 3.6 3.4 3.7 3 3.2 3.4 3.8 3.8 5.2 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.2 3.6 3 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.7 N 65 132 387 81 177 875 484 478 285 228 137 78 37 8 12 101 36 89 196 304 477 265 103 30 Days 5.6 5.2 5.3 4.6 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.4 4.2 4 3.2 N/A 5.3 3.7 3.8 3.4 3 3 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 3 2005 N 15 92 284 492 1,343 5,739 1,481 494 286 216 41 1 N/A 4 27 68 292 641 1,349 941 357 118 20 3 Days 4.9 4.3 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.6 3.6 2.1 2.8 N/A N/A 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.3 2006 N 52 180 231 3,581 7,266 2,982 610 79 23 3 5 0 N/A 2 51 304 843 1,159 686 238 153 78 29 4 C.10 Table C.11. Median Migration Rates and Number of Fish Detected (N) for the Lower Monumental to McNary Reach. Sources: Zabel et al. 2001, Zabel et al. 2002, Muir et al. 2003, Smith et al. 2004, Smith et al. 2005, Smith et al. 2006, and Faulkner et al. 2007. 2000 2001 Date at Lower Granite km/day N km/day N Dam 3/30 – 4/5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4/6 – 4/12 30.4 28 17 55 4/13 – 4/19 25.2 1,194 18 195 4/20 – 4/26 27.2 1,408 17.3 771 4/27 – 5/3 32.9 530 19.8 2,386 5/4 – 5/10 29.4 520 20.7 674 5/11 – 5/17 34.2 278 22.2 945 5/18 – 5/24 38.8 173 22 108 5/25 – 5/31 31.4 77 17.2 39 6/1 – 6/7 29.8 83 8.4 5 6/8 – 6/14 27.4 39 N/A N/A 6/15 – 6/21 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6/22 – 6/28 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3/30 – 4/5 31.8 57 N/A N/A 4/6 – 4/12 37.2 160 13.8 14 4/13 – 4/19 39.7 712 13.3 35 4/20 – 4/26 37.4 1,260 14.8 273 4/27 – 5/3 39.7 701 19.8 999 5/4 – 5/10 36.7 385 23.3 769 5/11 – 5/17 38.6 120 21.8 513 5/18 – 5/24 39.8 102 17.8 129 5/25 – 5/31 32.7 27 13.8 13 6/1 – 6/7 N/A N/A 15.6 9 6/8 – 6/14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A = insufficient fish detected or data not provided. Species Hatchery and Wild Steelhead Hatchery and Wild Yearling Chinook 2002 km/day 21.2 24.1 27.2 30.8 33.3 37.2 41.5 40.2 43.4 41.2 33.1 N/A N/A N/A 35.8 30.5 32.7 31.1 38.8 43.3 45.4 53.1 40.2 45.2 N 7 24 477 358 429 1,717 476 392 17 4 7 N/A N/A N/A 6 27 174 215 213 209 198 71 25 3 2003 km/day 21.6 21 26.6 27.6 29.5 33.5 32.9 44.4 43.3 36.3 35.8 26.4 23.1 31.3 28.5 30.2 29 32.1 36 42.3 55.3 50.4 46.7 N/A N 20 33 138 161 103 176 188 422 419 212 45 14 17 3 36 56 67 87 164 224 428 248 157 N/A 2004 km/day 19.7 21.4 22.7 28.5 32.6 34.5 32.4 39 36.8 35.5 31.5 31.1 5.2 28.8 27.2 25.9 28.3 32.7 39.1 43.4 47.6 46.7 44.7 32.4 N 65 132 387 81 177 875 484 478 285 228 137 78 37 8 12 101 36 89 196 304 477 265 103 30 2005 km/day 21.2 23.1 22.6 26.2 35 38.4 37.3 35.4 35.4 28.3 30 37.8 N/A 22.3 32.2 30.9 35.3 39 40.3 41.9 41.2 41.5 43.9 39.3 N 15 92 284 492 1,343 5,739 1,481 494 286 216 41 1 N/A 4 27 68 292 641 1,349 941 357 118 20 3 2006 km/day 24.1 27.4 26.0 28.9 31.6 37.3 47.8 44.9 33.2 55.9 43.3 N/A N/A 39.7 38.1 37.4 40.8 43.4 41.8 55.1 57.5 49.0 55.9 52.4 N 52 180 231 3,581 7,266 2,982 610 79 23 3 5 0 N/A 2 51 304 843 1,159 686 238 153 78 29 4 C.11