PROGRESS REPORT

RESEARCH ON FINGERLING MORTALITY

IN KAPLAN TURBINES - 168

by

Clifford W Long Richard F Krcma

and Frank J Ossiander

BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Biological Laboratory

2725 Mont1ake Boulevard East SeattleWashington

July 1 1968

bull

DRAFT

-RESEARCH ON FINGERLING MORTALrrY

IN KAPLAN TURBINES - 1968

Introduction

This is a preliminary rePort of researCh conducted

in the spring of 1968 at Ice Harbor Dam by the Bureaus

Fingerling-pa~s~ge l~5gr~~ located at pasco Washington

The researchmiddot this year provides strong evidence

of the interrelationsbip between turbine losses and lossesmiddot bull

from predation that occur in discrete areas of the t~i1race

bull ~ - ~~-~p~~- ~ ~ ~~

~

I middot1 I

11 Th~ resulfS reported here are based on a portion of the

data Although p~elitpinary~ we expect only minor changes

in numerical values whEm the analysis is completedbull

2

Field Conditions

This year there was very little spillway operation

a condition that will exist in the future Consequently a

large slack-water area existed below the spillway

The turbine discharge divides at the upwelling in

the tailrace into two major flows Most of the water moves

downstream as a frontroll disc~arge to form the main river

A portion of the discharge forms the backroll- ie it

flows upstream till it reaches the dam The backroll-flows

from all units then move along the damto enter the slackshy

water area below the spillway_

Methods and procedures The fish used were 1+ coho reared at Leavenworth

Hatchery Methods of handling and marking h~ve been reported

previously Tests were conducted from March 27 to May 10 e

The method in use to measure turbine losses employs

the release of test fish through the turbine and the release

of control fish in the tailrace The ratio of survivors of

the test and control groups provides a measure of the turbine

mortality Th1s ratio was determined by sampling several miles

downstream

_10 _ bullbull

3 -

Test fish were released in intake B of unit No 2 ~ - _

~ -~ ~about ten feet below the ceiling The turbine was operated

~ - shyat 115 percent overload for all tests Tailrace controls -~ -

were released (1) into the backroll flows and 2) into the

main flows moving downstream -

-~

Gear for sampling the survivors of test and control

fish included (a) purse seines and (b) beach seines both

- - - deployed about 65 miles below Ice Harbor Dam and (c) dip

nets for sampling the gatewells of McNary Dam about 45 milesmiddot f

below Ice Harbor Dam

In addition a purse seine was used in the slack-

water area in the tailrace of Ice Harbor Dam to obtain samples

of predator fisb and a migrant-dipper trap was placed in the

tailrace to sample test andcontrol fish found in the backroll

f 19WS bull

Comparison of Sampling Methods

The purse seine -and beach

seine catches made 65 miles

below Ice Harbor Dam and thegatewell catches from ~cNary

Dam were compared to determine if selectivity varied among

the recovery methods =

The ratio of fish from theT~ test and two control

groups was comparable in the catches made by all ~hree recovery

methods (table 1) Therefore all catch data were combined

for subsequent analysis

__

----

-~ t Y bullbull bull ~

Table l--Rawdata-flsh releases for elglit days and fish _ recoverie~ for season The ratio of recaptured fish from two test and two control groups was comparable for each of three fish-recovery methods

- - -~ -- ~ -~- - -- _- -- _- -- - --_ - ~-- _ - _ 0 - - ~---- - - _ - - _ - bull ~ middot-s--_middot bull w_ -

middot

~- ~

RE~OER cs ~ElEJSE NtJMBpoundR PVRSS BSAClJ ~1cJAR)

JIlTE MARl KELEASEtl Type SeuroIt-Je- 5cn~E GATEWfU TOTAL

- ~

~ -28 4- I Icf 000 middotT ISQ 25~ I 2O gt Ib IS -

3 - 28 ( I )4001 T 11~ 332 Ob Ib2f - 3 - 2~ 3 ~I 1741 -8~ 12 I 32 65t 10 12-

3 -~R 3l3 IlSJ

13~ 3middot f~ J77 lOS

___ _- - -- _

4- --I If 2- 107lS middotmiddotT~ lf1t 3) tJ- S65 13 J

t ~ I ll1l II qqb I qSO 3Qs

G1) 11 37 -

l - 31t 71b4 81- l-OR 3- ~g1 1301 tt- l 3 11 - 3q~q Br middot IbEmiddot Jlh Jq~ s~3

middot - I

f-Lt-~ I LJ- 3 10711 T~ lOI 105 7K5 151 I middot iJ-- ~b 3 I11Fl I- 1J1 455 7bO IGtf-lJshy

q-~ -3- 13middot -7t)lP middotmiddotF 1)8 41) bGLI- - SllI-

shy If -~ ~IL~ 3193 Bmiddotlmiddot~middot middotmiddot3~ 73 ltit] SIO

~-3 14 tI 0112 T 57J ljfO lOS

-3 ~~cJ I JQamp]fmiddot T 51~ st)5 bOO 714shy

1-3 )LI- middot7998 F 1lt LJ39 ~I 1310

1-3 334- 367~ B r IS7 ~)~ -1- 313

1-1 ~LI J07Q1 T tilt- 1-c2 5 661 JSOO

tf-J 3b I II qs I T ~OI Ill 7 (J1 1177 Lj-J tf I I 7Q18 F 50S If-ll 6G7 1613

- If 131 31CJb Bmiddot 152 flJ-t J ~ I tJ 15

bull

DRAFT

-RESEARCH ON FINGERLING MORTALrrY

IN KAPLAN TURBINES - 1968

Introduction

This is a preliminary rePort of researCh conducted

in the spring of 1968 at Ice Harbor Dam by the Bureaus

Fingerling-pa~s~ge l~5gr~~ located at pasco Washington

The researchmiddot this year provides strong evidence

of the interrelationsbip between turbine losses and lossesmiddot bull

from predation that occur in discrete areas of the t~i1race

bull ~ - ~~-~p~~- ~ ~ ~~

~

I middot1 I

11 Th~ resulfS reported here are based on a portion of the

data Although p~elitpinary~ we expect only minor changes

in numerical values whEm the analysis is completedbull

2

Field Conditions

This year there was very little spillway operation

a condition that will exist in the future Consequently a

large slack-water area existed below the spillway

The turbine discharge divides at the upwelling in

the tailrace into two major flows Most of the water moves

downstream as a frontroll disc~arge to form the main river

A portion of the discharge forms the backroll- ie it

flows upstream till it reaches the dam The backroll-flows

from all units then move along the damto enter the slackshy

water area below the spillway_

Methods and procedures The fish used were 1+ coho reared at Leavenworth

Hatchery Methods of handling and marking h~ve been reported

previously Tests were conducted from March 27 to May 10 e

The method in use to measure turbine losses employs

the release of test fish through the turbine and the release

of control fish in the tailrace The ratio of survivors of

the test and control groups provides a measure of the turbine

mortality Th1s ratio was determined by sampling several miles

downstream

_10 _ bullbull

3 -

Test fish were released in intake B of unit No 2 ~ - _

~ -~ ~about ten feet below the ceiling The turbine was operated

~ - shyat 115 percent overload for all tests Tailrace controls -~ -

were released (1) into the backroll flows and 2) into the

main flows moving downstream -

-~

Gear for sampling the survivors of test and control

fish included (a) purse seines and (b) beach seines both

- - - deployed about 65 miles below Ice Harbor Dam and (c) dip

nets for sampling the gatewells of McNary Dam about 45 milesmiddot f

below Ice Harbor Dam

In addition a purse seine was used in the slack-

water area in the tailrace of Ice Harbor Dam to obtain samples

of predator fisb and a migrant-dipper trap was placed in the

tailrace to sample test andcontrol fish found in the backroll

f 19WS bull

Comparison of Sampling Methods

The purse seine -and beach

seine catches made 65 miles

below Ice Harbor Dam and thegatewell catches from ~cNary

Dam were compared to determine if selectivity varied among

the recovery methods =

The ratio of fish from theT~ test and two control

groups was comparable in the catches made by all ~hree recovery

methods (table 1) Therefore all catch data were combined

for subsequent analysis

__

----

-~ t Y bullbull bull ~

Table l--Rawdata-flsh releases for elglit days and fish _ recoverie~ for season The ratio of recaptured fish from two test and two control groups was comparable for each of three fish-recovery methods

- - -~ -- ~ -~- - -- _- -- _- -- - --_ - ~-- _ - _ 0 - - ~---- - - _ - - _ - bull ~ middot-s--_middot bull w_ -

middot

~- ~

RE~OER cs ~ElEJSE NtJMBpoundR PVRSS BSAClJ ~1cJAR)

JIlTE MARl KELEASEtl Type SeuroIt-Je- 5cn~E GATEWfU TOTAL

- ~

~ -28 4- I Icf 000 middotT ISQ 25~ I 2O gt Ib IS -

3 - 28 ( I )4001 T 11~ 332 Ob Ib2f - 3 - 2~ 3 ~I 1741 -8~ 12 I 32 65t 10 12-

3 -~R 3l3 IlSJ

13~ 3middot f~ J77 lOS

___ _- - -- _

4- --I If 2- 107lS middotmiddotT~ lf1t 3) tJ- S65 13 J

t ~ I ll1l II qqb I qSO 3Qs

G1) 11 37 -

l - 31t 71b4 81- l-OR 3- ~g1 1301 tt- l 3 11 - 3q~q Br middot IbEmiddot Jlh Jq~ s~3

middot - I

f-Lt-~ I LJ- 3 10711 T~ lOI 105 7K5 151 I middot iJ-- ~b 3 I11Fl I- 1J1 455 7bO IGtf-lJshy

q-~ -3- 13middot -7t)lP middotmiddotF 1)8 41) bGLI- - SllI-

shy If -~ ~IL~ 3193 Bmiddotlmiddot~middot middotmiddot3~ 73 ltit] SIO

~-3 14 tI 0112 T 57J ljfO lOS

-3 ~~cJ I JQamp]fmiddot T 51~ st)5 bOO 714shy

1-3 )LI- middot7998 F 1lt LJ39 ~I 1310

1-3 334- 367~ B r IS7 ~)~ -1- 313

1-1 ~LI J07Q1 T tilt- 1-c2 5 661 JSOO

tf-J 3b I II qs I T ~OI Ill 7 (J1 1177 Lj-J tf I I 7Q18 F 50S If-ll 6G7 1613

- If 131 31CJb Bmiddot 152 flJ-t J ~ I tJ 15

2

Field Conditions

This year there was very little spillway operation

a condition that will exist in the future Consequently a

large slack-water area existed below the spillway

The turbine discharge divides at the upwelling in

the tailrace into two major flows Most of the water moves

downstream as a frontroll disc~arge to form the main river

A portion of the discharge forms the backroll- ie it

flows upstream till it reaches the dam The backroll-flows

from all units then move along the damto enter the slackshy

water area below the spillway_

Methods and procedures The fish used were 1+ coho reared at Leavenworth

Hatchery Methods of handling and marking h~ve been reported

previously Tests were conducted from March 27 to May 10 e

The method in use to measure turbine losses employs

the release of test fish through the turbine and the release

of control fish in the tailrace The ratio of survivors of

the test and control groups provides a measure of the turbine

mortality Th1s ratio was determined by sampling several miles

downstream

_10 _ bullbull

3 -

Test fish were released in intake B of unit No 2 ~ - _

~ -~ ~about ten feet below the ceiling The turbine was operated

~ - shyat 115 percent overload for all tests Tailrace controls -~ -

were released (1) into the backroll flows and 2) into the

main flows moving downstream -

-~

Gear for sampling the survivors of test and control

fish included (a) purse seines and (b) beach seines both

- - - deployed about 65 miles below Ice Harbor Dam and (c) dip

nets for sampling the gatewells of McNary Dam about 45 milesmiddot f

below Ice Harbor Dam

In addition a purse seine was used in the slack-

water area in the tailrace of Ice Harbor Dam to obtain samples

of predator fisb and a migrant-dipper trap was placed in the

tailrace to sample test andcontrol fish found in the backroll

f 19WS bull

Comparison of Sampling Methods

The purse seine -and beach

seine catches made 65 miles

below Ice Harbor Dam and thegatewell catches from ~cNary

Dam were compared to determine if selectivity varied among

the recovery methods =

The ratio of fish from theT~ test and two control

groups was comparable in the catches made by all ~hree recovery

methods (table 1) Therefore all catch data were combined

for subsequent analysis

__

----

-~ t Y bullbull bull ~

Table l--Rawdata-flsh releases for elglit days and fish _ recoverie~ for season The ratio of recaptured fish from two test and two control groups was comparable for each of three fish-recovery methods

- - -~ -- ~ -~- - -- _- -- _- -- - --_ - ~-- _ - _ 0 - - ~---- - - _ - - _ - bull ~ middot-s--_middot bull w_ -

middot

~- ~

RE~OER cs ~ElEJSE NtJMBpoundR PVRSS BSAClJ ~1cJAR)

JIlTE MARl KELEASEtl Type SeuroIt-Je- 5cn~E GATEWfU TOTAL

- ~

~ -28 4- I Icf 000 middotT ISQ 25~ I 2O gt Ib IS -

3 - 28 ( I )4001 T 11~ 332 Ob Ib2f - 3 - 2~ 3 ~I 1741 -8~ 12 I 32 65t 10 12-

3 -~R 3l3 IlSJ

13~ 3middot f~ J77 lOS

___ _- - -- _

4- --I If 2- 107lS middotmiddotT~ lf1t 3) tJ- S65 13 J

t ~ I ll1l II qqb I qSO 3Qs

G1) 11 37 -

l - 31t 71b4 81- l-OR 3- ~g1 1301 tt- l 3 11 - 3q~q Br middot IbEmiddot Jlh Jq~ s~3

middot - I

f-Lt-~ I LJ- 3 10711 T~ lOI 105 7K5 151 I middot iJ-- ~b 3 I11Fl I- 1J1 455 7bO IGtf-lJshy

q-~ -3- 13middot -7t)lP middotmiddotF 1)8 41) bGLI- - SllI-

shy If -~ ~IL~ 3193 Bmiddotlmiddot~middot middotmiddot3~ 73 ltit] SIO

~-3 14 tI 0112 T 57J ljfO lOS

-3 ~~cJ I JQamp]fmiddot T 51~ st)5 bOO 714shy

1-3 )LI- middot7998 F 1lt LJ39 ~I 1310

1-3 334- 367~ B r IS7 ~)~ -1- 313

1-1 ~LI J07Q1 T tilt- 1-c2 5 661 JSOO

tf-J 3b I II qs I T ~OI Ill 7 (J1 1177 Lj-J tf I I 7Q18 F 50S If-ll 6G7 1613

- If 131 31CJb Bmiddot 152 flJ-t J ~ I tJ 15

3 -

Test fish were released in intake B of unit No 2 ~ - _

~ -~ ~about ten feet below the ceiling The turbine was operated

~ - shyat 115 percent overload for all tests Tailrace controls -~ -

were released (1) into the backroll flows and 2) into the

main flows moving downstream -

-~

Gear for sampling the survivors of test and control

fish included (a) purse seines and (b) beach seines both

- - - deployed about 65 miles below Ice Harbor Dam and (c) dip

nets for sampling the gatewells of McNary Dam about 45 milesmiddot f

below Ice Harbor Dam

In addition a purse seine was used in the slack-

water area in the tailrace of Ice Harbor Dam to obtain samples

of predator fisb and a migrant-dipper trap was placed in the

tailrace to sample test andcontrol fish found in the backroll

f 19WS bull

Comparison of Sampling Methods

The purse seine -and beach

seine catches made 65 miles

below Ice Harbor Dam and thegatewell catches from ~cNary

Dam were compared to determine if selectivity varied among

the recovery methods =

The ratio of fish from theT~ test and two control

groups was comparable in the catches made by all ~hree recovery

methods (table 1) Therefore all catch data were combined

for subsequent analysis

__

----

-~ t Y bullbull bull ~

Table l--Rawdata-flsh releases for elglit days and fish _ recoverie~ for season The ratio of recaptured fish from two test and two control groups was comparable for each of three fish-recovery methods

- - -~ -- ~ -~- - -- _- -- _- -- - --_ - ~-- _ - _ 0 - - ~---- - - _ - - _ - bull ~ middot-s--_middot bull w_ -

middot

~- ~

RE~OER cs ~ElEJSE NtJMBpoundR PVRSS BSAClJ ~1cJAR)

JIlTE MARl KELEASEtl Type SeuroIt-Je- 5cn~E GATEWfU TOTAL

- ~

~ -28 4- I Icf 000 middotT ISQ 25~ I 2O gt Ib IS -

3 - 28 ( I )4001 T 11~ 332 Ob Ib2f - 3 - 2~ 3 ~I 1741 -8~ 12 I 32 65t 10 12-

3 -~R 3l3 IlSJ

13~ 3middot f~ J77 lOS

___ _- - -- _

4- --I If 2- 107lS middotmiddotT~ lf1t 3) tJ- S65 13 J

t ~ I ll1l II qqb I qSO 3Qs

G1) 11 37 -

l - 31t 71b4 81- l-OR 3- ~g1 1301 tt- l 3 11 - 3q~q Br middot IbEmiddot Jlh Jq~ s~3

middot - I

f-Lt-~ I LJ- 3 10711 T~ lOI 105 7K5 151 I middot iJ-- ~b 3 I11Fl I- 1J1 455 7bO IGtf-lJshy

q-~ -3- 13middot -7t)lP middotmiddotF 1)8 41) bGLI- - SllI-

shy If -~ ~IL~ 3193 Bmiddotlmiddot~middot middotmiddot3~ 73 ltit] SIO

~-3 14 tI 0112 T 57J ljfO lOS

-3 ~~cJ I JQamp]fmiddot T 51~ st)5 bOO 714shy

1-3 )LI- middot7998 F 1lt LJ39 ~I 1310

1-3 334- 367~ B r IS7 ~)~ -1- 313

1-1 ~LI J07Q1 T tilt- 1-c2 5 661 JSOO

tf-J 3b I II qs I T ~OI Ill 7 (J1 1177 Lj-J tf I I 7Q18 F 50S If-ll 6G7 1613

- If 131 31CJb Bmiddot 152 flJ-t J ~ I tJ 15

__

----

-~ t Y bullbull bull ~

Table l--Rawdata-flsh releases for elglit days and fish _ recoverie~ for season The ratio of recaptured fish from two test and two control groups was comparable for each of three fish-recovery methods

- - -~ -- ~ -~- - -- _- -- _- -- - --_ - ~-- _ - _ 0 - - ~---- - - _ - - _ - bull ~ middot-s--_middot bull w_ -

middot

~- ~

RE~OER cs ~ElEJSE NtJMBpoundR PVRSS BSAClJ ~1cJAR)

JIlTE MARl KELEASEtl Type SeuroIt-Je- 5cn~E GATEWfU TOTAL

- ~

~ -28 4- I Icf 000 middotT ISQ 25~ I 2O gt Ib IS -

3 - 28 ( I )4001 T 11~ 332 Ob Ib2f - 3 - 2~ 3 ~I 1741 -8~ 12 I 32 65t 10 12-

3 -~R 3l3 IlSJ

13~ 3middot f~ J77 lOS

___ _- - -- _

4- --I If 2- 107lS middotmiddotT~ lf1t 3) tJ- S65 13 J

t ~ I ll1l II qqb I qSO 3Qs

G1) 11 37 -

l - 31t 71b4 81- l-OR 3- ~g1 1301 tt- l 3 11 - 3q~q Br middot IbEmiddot Jlh Jq~ s~3

middot - I

f-Lt-~ I LJ- 3 10711 T~ lOI 105 7K5 151 I middot iJ-- ~b 3 I11Fl I- 1J1 455 7bO IGtf-lJshy

q-~ -3- 13middot -7t)lP middotmiddotF 1)8 41) bGLI- - SllI-

shy If -~ ~IL~ 3193 Bmiddotlmiddot~middot middotmiddot3~ 73 ltit] SIO

~-3 14 tI 0112 T 57J ljfO lOS

-3 ~~cJ I JQamp]fmiddot T 51~ st)5 bOO 714shy

1-3 )LI- middot7998 F 1lt LJ39 ~I 1310

1-3 334- 367~ B r IS7 ~)~ -1- 313

1-1 ~LI J07Q1 T tilt- 1-c2 5 661 JSOO

tf-J 3b I II qs I T ~OI Ill 7 (J1 1177 Lj-J tf I I 7Q18 F 50S If-ll 6G7 1613

- If 131 31CJb Bmiddot 152 flJ-t J ~ I tJ 15

0

~ ~

Table 1--Raw data-fish releases for eight days and fish recoveries for season The ratio of recaptured fish from two test and two control groups was compara~le shyfor each of three fish-recovery methods -- contlnuedbullbull _

jO _ ~ j bull _ bullbull__ _ bullbull__ _Z bull c z 0 - = middot bull t

~ -~- -- ~ - - - - -- -=- shy0

shy

~ELeuroASE Ut-t~CR PURsEmiddot ~poundACt1 Md-3fl~X -ItTt MARK REUt7poundO TYPE SE)JE SfNE GTE~ TOT1L

-

t-S lttf J 10115 T S1s (87 I 1731 0

IJ -s 36lt qq4~ T - (3l1 731 lf7J lit-1 middot

f- b 7914- F 570 703 stb 7W~-I Jt

tf -5 l 3l ~q1b fgt ~Jt Dl7t f~ I 6Glf If --~ tll3 lo~ S~ E I c 617 1770

0

4-1 3b3 119)b Tmiddot - 715 763 17S8 1-9 1 13 7107 --F--- ~3~ 1)3 -b30 178b shy

1f~1 IJJ3 379~ BJ- 5c2 1)1 b~ q~ -I middot

q -10 2 tiLl- 10 bll T 17h 51q 533 12-23 LJ -10 364- IlbiS T Of 570 SIS J211

q -- 0 iflL- 7b1S F 17tJ Q61 l63 HOb

I L[~ 10 13 tJ 3901 ~ BJ~ 51 JI-b 30i

-

-TYP~ T UR~ JE ) EsT middotRELE1~~-

fJz- Bile I( R2)L L _RE L-F-Il$ E

t middoteArKROLL Rpoundl poundt)SE

F ) FRC MfROLmiddot Rt ttcst

shy

0

~

~

4

comp~rtson of control Groups

The controlgroups released in the backrollsuffered -

a statistically sigrdficant loss of 33 percerimiddott by comparison

with the controlgroupsreleased in the frontroll or main ~~

rivermiddot flows (table 2) This loss was presumed to be from ~ ~l~ ~

preda~ion -- - bull

middotEvidence of predation

Both seagulls and fish were obviously feeding upon ~

experimental fish in the slack water areas Purse seine -

catches in the area took mostly squaw~ish Up to 37 percent

of the squawfisht~kenlrrimediatelY after the daytsrelease

of coho had identifiable~oho in their stomachs A total of

54 percent had fish ill -their stomachs

comparison of Test and Control Group~ I

The test groups suffered a statistically significant ~

loss of 32 per~entpound by comparison w1th the frontroll controls - -

a loss of the s~e nlcignitude as the backrol1 control groups

(table 2)

- -~

- - = bull ~

i

-

~-----~-- ~--~---------~--------------

i ---- - Table 2 -R~W data-~ea-~~middot s ~~~~~e~y ~f middott~tmiddot ~~d c~ntrol fish for r

eight ~est days Ratio of recovered fish show a total I loss of about 32 percent of the fish passed through the i turbines and 33 percent of the con~rol groups released t into the backrol1 by comparison Wlth con~rol _groups -

=---------- bullbull Jo - bull - - - - - - - - __S- z__ -=-~~~r-eI-e--a~1~ntgtthe~ ontro~

i

LESE

lATE j

) -~ i-middot - ~ tmiddot - I b lt11-001

~ ~

~ ~er741 ~ ~

1251

~ -

4- -I

-l - I ~ ~ - -

ft -1 y -H

l bull

130

~ ~- ~ -~

4- - l ID 1CJ lSIll i

4- l I mck~~lt bull HQ4 ~ ~ ~ -7qqD I SILf1I-- t

~ lJ -~il ~9fr3 siD

4-3 07Qt lOSgt

4-3 Iqq~ 174 ~qD~-3 7198

lJ-middot3 3678 383 shy

Ll--y I07QQ SOD

4-Y 15J ILf 77 L- 11- 7q18 lbq3

4-+ 3911 qS

shy

Table 2--Raw data-seasons recovery of test and control fish for eight t~st days Ratio of recovered fish show a total 10ss of a1~ut 32 percent~ of the fish passed through the turbines and 33 percent of the control groups releaseamp

into the)ackroll by comparison wit~ contro~ groups ~-~-----=----_~~tgtolt~leased 1otQtheJrontroll -- CQntinued

J~~ Recovr fty ~ TyrE- C ~be-I j r

L--s

If-- S

tt -5

q-S

4-- q q-q

LJ-1 If-1

4--fO

q -0 4--10 If -10

10115 -) 731

ent- ~~lt~~~X gt8laquot1

7191 b6Lt

3196

II Cflb middotmiddot~gtt 1758 - - ~~~iJ~~~ +~ c bull7197 J7~b

311~

nob 3tf01 i~~~~J gt 3D3

bull jshy

-

~

~

4

comp~rtson of control Groups

The controlgroups released in the backrollsuffered -

a statistically sigrdficant loss of 33 percerimiddott by comparison

with the controlgroupsreleased in the frontroll or main ~~

rivermiddot flows (table 2) This loss was presumed to be from ~ ~l~ ~

preda~ion -- - bull

middotEvidence of predation

Both seagulls and fish were obviously feeding upon ~

experimental fish in the slack water areas Purse seine -

catches in the area took mostly squaw~ish Up to 37 percent

of the squawfisht~kenlrrimediatelY after the daytsrelease

of coho had identifiable~oho in their stomachs A total of

54 percent had fish ill -their stomachs

comparison of Test and Control Group~ I

The test groups suffered a statistically significant ~

loss of 32 per~entpound by comparison w1th the frontroll controls - -

a loss of the s~e nlcignitude as the backrol1 control groups

(table 2)

- -~

- - = bull ~

i

-

~-----~-- ~--~---------~--------------

i ---- - Table 2 -R~W data-~ea-~~middot s ~~~~~e~y ~f middott~tmiddot ~~d c~ntrol fish for r

eight ~est days Ratio of recovered fish show a total I loss of about 32 percent of the fish passed through the i turbines and 33 percent of the con~rol groups released t into the backrol1 by comparison Wlth con~rol _groups -

=---------- bullbull Jo - bull - - - - - - - - __S- z__ -=-~~~r-eI-e--a~1~ntgtthe~ ontro~

i

LESE

lATE j

) -~ i-middot - ~ tmiddot - I b lt11-001

~ ~

~ ~er741 ~ ~

1251

~ -

4- -I

-l - I ~ ~ - -

ft -1 y -H

l bull

130

~ ~- ~ -~

4- - l ID 1CJ lSIll i

4- l I mck~~lt bull HQ4 ~ ~ ~ -7qqD I SILf1I-- t

~ lJ -~il ~9fr3 siD

4-3 07Qt lOSgt

4-3 Iqq~ 174 ~qD~-3 7198

lJ-middot3 3678 383 shy

Ll--y I07QQ SOD

4-Y 15J ILf 77 L- 11- 7q18 lbq3

4-+ 3911 qS

shy

Table 2--Raw data-seasons recovery of test and control fish for eight t~st days Ratio of recovered fish show a total 10ss of a1~ut 32 percent~ of the fish passed through the turbines and 33 percent of the control groups releaseamp

into the)ackroll by comparison wit~ contro~ groups ~-~-----=----_~~tgtolt~leased 1otQtheJrontroll -- CQntinued

J~~ Recovr fty ~ TyrE- C ~be-I j r

L--s

If-- S

tt -5

q-S

4-- q q-q

LJ-1 If-1

4--fO

q -0 4--10 If -10

10115 -) 731

ent- ~~lt~~~X gt8laquot1

7191 b6Lt

3196

II Cflb middotmiddot~gtt 1758 - - ~~~iJ~~~ +~ c bull7197 J7~b

311~

nob 3tf01 i~~~~J gt 3D3

bull jshy

-

i ---- - Table 2 -R~W data-~ea-~~middot s ~~~~~e~y ~f middott~tmiddot ~~d c~ntrol fish for r

eight ~est days Ratio of recovered fish show a total I loss of about 32 percent of the fish passed through the i turbines and 33 percent of the con~rol groups released t into the backrol1 by comparison Wlth con~rol _groups -

=---------- bullbull Jo - bull - - - - - - - - __S- z__ -=-~~~r-eI-e--a~1~ntgtthe~ ontro~

i

LESE

lATE j

) -~ i-middot - ~ tmiddot - I b lt11-001

~ ~

~ ~er741 ~ ~

1251

~ -

4- -I

-l - I ~ ~ - -

ft -1 y -H

l bull

130

~ ~- ~ -~

4- - l ID 1CJ lSIll i

4- l I mck~~lt bull HQ4 ~ ~ ~ -7qqD I SILf1I-- t

~ lJ -~il ~9fr3 siD

4-3 07Qt lOSgt

4-3 Iqq~ 174 ~qD~-3 7198

lJ-middot3 3678 383 shy

Ll--y I07QQ SOD

4-Y 15J ILf 77 L- 11- 7q18 lbq3

4-+ 3911 qS

shy

Table 2--Raw data-seasons recovery of test and control fish for eight t~st days Ratio of recovered fish show a total 10ss of a1~ut 32 percent~ of the fish passed through the turbines and 33 percent of the control groups releaseamp

into the)ackroll by comparison wit~ contro~ groups ~-~-----=----_~~tgtolt~leased 1otQtheJrontroll -- CQntinued

J~~ Recovr fty ~ TyrE- C ~be-I j r

L--s

If-- S

tt -5

q-S

4-- q q-q

LJ-1 If-1

4--fO

q -0 4--10 If -10

10115 -) 731

ent- ~~lt~~~X gt8laquot1

7191 b6Lt

3196

II Cflb middotmiddot~gtt 1758 - - ~~~iJ~~~ +~ c bull7197 J7~b

311~

nob 3tf01 i~~~~J gt 3D3

bull jshy

-

Table 2--Raw data-seasons recovery of test and control fish for eight t~st days Ratio of recovered fish show a total 10ss of a1~ut 32 percent~ of the fish passed through the turbines and 33 percent of the control groups releaseamp

into the)ackroll by comparison wit~ contro~ groups ~-~-----=----_~~tgtolt~leased 1otQtheJrontroll -- CQntinued

J~~ Recovr fty ~ TyrE- C ~be-I j r

L--s

If-- S

tt -5

q-S

4-- q q-q

LJ-1 If-1

4--fO

q -0 4--10 If -10

10115 -) 731

ent- ~~lt~~~X gt8laquot1

7191 b6Lt

3196

II Cflb middotmiddot~gtt 1758 - - ~~~iJ~~~ +~ c bull7197 J7~b

311~

nob 3tf01 i~~~~J gt 3D3

bull jshy

-

i I

[ ~

I

I5 j IbullAssessment of Turbine Loss I

I A group of fish passing through a turbine enter

I

I

either the backroll or frontrollflows or the group may 1

divide a percentage entering both flows The parameters r I l-tdetermining the destination of a fisb are (1) the segment of

-I ~flow containing the fish approaching the turbine and (2) the ~turbine load at the time J t

The total loss of test fish in this experiment -

(32 percent) presumably included both losses from the turbine L

and losses from predationmiddot If a turbine loss of less than t

32 percent and 9r~ater than 00 percent is presumed then t 1

only a portion of the survivors of test fish were entering ~o bull

the backroll flows where they suffered an additional loss p

from predation at a 33 percent rate The block diagram in

figre 1 gives an example of how turbine and predation losses i

i i

can combine to affect total surviv~~

The mortality occurr~n9 in the turbine was estimated

by assessing the mortality due to predation eg the total i

loss (32 percent) less predation loss equals turbine loss

Determining the loss due to predation required an

estimate of thenumhe~ of t~st fish entering the backroll

The dipper trap was used to sample fish in the backroll The

control groups released directly into the backroll provided

an estimate of the efficiency of the trap eg if 10 percent

of the backroll controls were taken by the trap then the

bullbull _ bull _ bull ______ __ __________ ____ ___ ___ -__~ _~ -1-~ ~

--

bull ~ I 6 _

100 TEST FISH

90 FISH SURVIVE

--

lt ~~~-~ ltgt

60 FISH ENTER BACKROLL

~ - ~ - gt

I

30 FISH

ENTER FRONTROLLI - - bull 0middotmiddot bullJ

-

~ ~ - --

- -40 FISH SURVIVAL

100 SURVIVE

TOTAL SURVIVAL 70 FISH

(30 MORTALITY)

Figure l--Total loss of fish includes turbine mortality

and predation mortality Total loss from predation

depends upon division of fish between backroll and

frontroll flows in the tailrace

6

number of test fish caught was taken as 10 percent of the

number of test fish in the backroll Only the test fish in

the backroll were exposed to the 33 percent rate of predation

A complication arose when we found that different

release locations of controls in the backroll produced

different estimates of trap efficiencies (thus resulting in

different estimates of the percent of test fish entering the

backroll)o Tests were run therefore with several release

locations in the backrollThe extremes of trap-efficiency

estimates were used to compute a ma~imum and a minimum

turbine loss Results imply that turbine mortality lies beshy

tween 10 and 19 percent (table 3)

Discussion

The loss of test fish (32 percent) is not necessarily

comparable to the loss of naturally distributed fish that

pass through turbines Although the turbine loss on test

fish is presumed similar for that of naturally distributed

fish the predation loss varies with the exit point of fish

at the tailrace~ ie the percentage of fish that enter the

backroll Because the test fish were released in a discrete

portion of the intake flows we must presume the division of

this group between the backroll and frontroll flows is

different from that of naturally distributed fish

- - 1- ~- --- ~--- 4 - 11 lI- - bullbull ----bullbull J bullbull backroll Dipper trap samples of control and test fish in backro11 indicate a minimum predation loss of 13 percent and a maximum predation loss of 22 percent of the test fish ThQr~fore the turbine loss fallsmiddot ~ between 10 and 19 percent

aaca _ c bull 1

VNT bull -3 CpURrtS~ lAwn)

UrJ1T 2 r~I~Dep~~ SOD ~

129b

~ shy

MI ~~D~P~ ~Noa H 172~ J3b bullbullR bullbull a

VtHT 1 ~ [)RFAct 50011- 1797 Og 60 l

5 TAN DAP)cd r-t(~ DL 1296 1~3 f 41

1297 53 1 11-0

3 lgt~J1T - - pUfltAct AWA) 21gl- 63 2~

oNrt 2 ~EEP i~oRT1i IS71l [15 53

STANt ARtgt (~NTRC L 2lb8 350 ~ bl j

1272- 1J51 3b

I

------ - _----~~-- ---------------------~---~-------

bull bull

-

- 7 ~

Implications

The results obtained this year imply that bypassing

fish aroundturbinesmay be the best approach to the problem

of protecting these f~shmiddot Even if turbines we~e made

completely safe significant numbers of fingerlings may be

- shyplaced in backrollflows to suffer losses frompreda~ion

Fingerlings bypassedaround turbines howeverbull also can be

bypassed around concentrations of predators

bull

bull

~~------------------- shy

6

number of test fish caught was taken as 10 percent of the

number of test fish in the backroll Only the test fish in

the backroll were exposed to the 33 percent rate of predation

A complication arose when we found that different

release locations of controls in the backroll produced

different estimates of trap efficiencies (thus resulting in

different estimates of the percent of test fish entering the

backroll)o Tests were run therefore with several release

locations in the backrollThe extremes of trap-efficiency

estimates were used to compute a ma~imum and a minimum

turbine loss Results imply that turbine mortality lies beshy

tween 10 and 19 percent (table 3)

Discussion

The loss of test fish (32 percent) is not necessarily

comparable to the loss of naturally distributed fish that

pass through turbines Although the turbine loss on test

fish is presumed similar for that of naturally distributed

fish the predation loss varies with the exit point of fish

at the tailrace~ ie the percentage of fish that enter the

backroll Because the test fish were released in a discrete

portion of the intake flows we must presume the division of

this group between the backroll and frontroll flows is

different from that of naturally distributed fish

- - 1- ~- --- ~--- 4 - 11 lI- - bullbull ----bullbull J bullbull backroll Dipper trap samples of control and test fish in backro11 indicate a minimum predation loss of 13 percent and a maximum predation loss of 22 percent of the test fish ThQr~fore the turbine loss fallsmiddot ~ between 10 and 19 percent

aaca _ c bull 1

VNT bull -3 CpURrtS~ lAwn)

UrJ1T 2 r~I~Dep~~ SOD ~

129b

~ shy

MI ~~D~P~ ~Noa H 172~ J3b bullbullR bullbull a

VtHT 1 ~ [)RFAct 50011- 1797 Og 60 l

5 TAN DAP)cd r-t(~ DL 1296 1~3 f 41

1297 53 1 11-0

3 lgt~J1T - - pUfltAct AWA) 21gl- 63 2~

oNrt 2 ~EEP i~oRT1i IS71l [15 53

STANt ARtgt (~NTRC L 2lb8 350 ~ bl j

1272- 1J51 3b

I

------ - _----~~-- ---------------------~---~-------

bull bull

-

- 7 ~

Implications

The results obtained this year imply that bypassing

fish aroundturbinesmay be the best approach to the problem

of protecting these f~shmiddot Even if turbines we~e made

completely safe significant numbers of fingerlings may be

- shyplaced in backrollflows to suffer losses frompreda~ion

Fingerlings bypassedaround turbines howeverbull also can be

bypassed around concentrations of predators

bull

bull

~~------------------- shy

- - 1- ~- --- ~--- 4 - 11 lI- - bullbull ----bullbull J bullbull backroll Dipper trap samples of control and test fish in backro11 indicate a minimum predation loss of 13 percent and a maximum predation loss of 22 percent of the test fish ThQr~fore the turbine loss fallsmiddot ~ between 10 and 19 percent

aaca _ c bull 1

VNT bull -3 CpURrtS~ lAwn)

UrJ1T 2 r~I~Dep~~ SOD ~

129b

~ shy

MI ~~D~P~ ~Noa H 172~ J3b bullbullR bullbull a

VtHT 1 ~ [)RFAct 50011- 1797 Og 60 l

5 TAN DAP)cd r-t(~ DL 1296 1~3 f 41

1297 53 1 11-0

3 lgt~J1T - - pUfltAct AWA) 21gl- 63 2~

oNrt 2 ~EEP i~oRT1i IS71l [15 53

STANt ARtgt (~NTRC L 2lb8 350 ~ bl j

1272- 1J51 3b

I

------ - _----~~-- ---------------------~---~-------

bull bull

-

- 7 ~

Implications

The results obtained this year imply that bypassing

fish aroundturbinesmay be the best approach to the problem

of protecting these f~shmiddot Even if turbines we~e made

completely safe significant numbers of fingerlings may be

- shyplaced in backrollflows to suffer losses frompreda~ion

Fingerlings bypassedaround turbines howeverbull also can be

bypassed around concentrations of predators

bull

bull

~~------------------- shy

bull bull

-

- 7 ~

Implications

The results obtained this year imply that bypassing

fish aroundturbinesmay be the best approach to the problem

of protecting these f~shmiddot Even if turbines we~e made

completely safe significant numbers of fingerlings may be

- shyplaced in backrollflows to suffer losses frompreda~ion

Fingerlings bypassedaround turbines howeverbull also can be

bypassed around concentrations of predators

bull

bull

~~------------------- shy

~~------------------- shy