status of columbia river salmon and links to flow: what we do and do not know
DESCRIPTION
Status of Columbia River salmon and links to flow: What we do and do not know. Presentation to Northwest Power Planning Council December 11, 2002. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]. Outline. Historic flow, juvenile travel time and - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Status of Columbia Riversalmon and links to flow:What we do and do not
knowPresentation to Northwest Power Planning Council
December 11, 2002
[email protected]@[email protected]@noaa.gov
• Historic flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns
Outline
• Historic flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns• Present flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns
Outline
Outline
• Historic flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns• Present flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns• Present stock status and link to flow
Outline• Historic flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns• Present flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns• Present stock status and link to flow• Uncertainties
Historic conditions
Salmonids evolved to migrateunder flow conditions with a natural hydrograph. Due to the small size of smolts, the limited ability to store energy reserves, and the long distance they must travel, fish rely tremendously on flow (water velocity)to move them to the ocean.
The Dalles Dam
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1926-58
1959-75
1926-581959-75
May June
Ave
rag
e f
low
(kc
fs)
Historic estimated juvenile chinook traveltime from Lewiston to Bonneville Dam
(after Raymond 1979)
0
10
20
30
40 no dams
Low flow Moderate flow High FlowSnake R. (35-53 kcfs) (71-106 kcfs) (106-177 kcfs)
Columbia R. (141-177 kcfs) (212-318 kcfs) (353-494 kcfs)
Tra
vel t
ime
(d
ays
)
Historic estimated juvenile chinook traveltime from Lewiston to Bonneville Dam
(after Raymond 1979)
0
10
20
30
40 no dams4 dams
Low flow Moderate flow High FlowSnake R. (35-53 kcfs) (71-106 kcfs) (106-177 kcfs)
Columbia R. (141-177 kcfs) (212-318 kcfs) (353-494 kcfs)
Tra
vel t
ime
(d
ays
)
A strong and consistent relationship
exists between flow (water velocity) and
travel time
Travel time impacts arrival toand through the hydropowersystem and thus, timing to theestuary and ocean.
1965 1970 1975 1980
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1995 2000
Snake River chinook salmon
Outmigration year
Est
imat
ed h
ydro
pow
ersy
stem
sur
viva
l
35 65 95 125 155 18530
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
77
7475
79
73
Flow (kcfs)
Est
imat
ed p
er-p
roje
ctsu
rviv
al (
%)
7876
Snake River chinook salmon
After Sims and Ossiander
Wild Snake River spring-summerchinook salmon
60 70 80 90 000
1
2
3
4
5
Outmigration year
Sm
olt-
to-a
du
lt re
turn
Present conditions
The Dalles Dam
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1926-58
1959-75
1926-581959-75
May June
1976-941976-94
Ave
rag
e f
low
(kc
fs)
The Dalles Dam
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1926-58
1959-75
1926-581959-75
May June
1976-941976-94
Ave
rag
e f
low
(kc
fs)
1995-021995-02
Estimated yearling chinook travel time -Lewiston to Bonneville Dam
0
10
20
30
40no dams4 dams8 dams
Low flow Moderate flow High FlowSnake R. (35-53 kcfs) (71-106 kcfs) (106-177 kcfs)
Columbia R. (141-177 kcfs) (212-318 kcfs) (353-494 kcfs)
Tra
vel t
ime
(d
ays
)
Chinook salmon
1965 1970 1975 1980
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1995 2000
Nodata
Outmigration year
Est
imat
ed h
ydro
pow
ersy
stem
sur
viva
l
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1995 1996
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.51997 1998
60 100 140 180 2200.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.51999
60 100 140 180 220
2000
30 45 60 75 900.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2001
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val p
roba
bilit
y LG
R-M
CN
Flow exposure index (kcfs)
Yearling chinook salmon 1995-2001.
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1995 1996
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.51997 1998
60 100 140 180 2200.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1999
60 100 140 180 2200.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
2000
30 45 60 75 900.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2001
Flow exposure index (kcfs)
Steelhead 1995-2001.
50 100 150 2000.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
50 100 150 2000.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
Yearling chinook salmon 1995-2001.
Steelhead 1995-2001.
In 2001, little to no spill at all dams. In other years, spill to 2000 BiOp levels or to the gas cap.
50 100 150 2000.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
S = 0.790
96.4 kcfsE
stim
ated
sur
viva
l
50 100 150 2000.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
S = 0.713
101 kcfs
Est
imat
ed s
urvi
val
Yearling chinook salmon 1995-2001.
Steelhead 1995-2001.
In 2001, little to no spill at all dams. In other years, spill to 2000 BiOp levels or to the gas cap.
• Above some threshold average survival appears to vary little, is relatively high, and does not correlate with flow.
• Above some threshold average survival appears to vary little, is relatively high, and does not correlate with flow.• Below the threshold, survival is lower.
• Above some threshold average survival appears to vary little, is relatively high, and does not correlate with flow.• Below the threshold, survival is lower.• The relationship between flow and survival at the lower range is not strong.
Wild Snake River spring-summerchinook salmon
60 70 80 90 000
1
2
3
4
5
2-oceanonly
Mean
Outmigration year
Sm
olt-
to-a
du
lt re
turn
Estimated smolt-to-adult returns
60 70 80 90 000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2-oceanonly
Outmigration year
Sm
olt-
to-a
du
lt re
turn
Wild steelhead
Wildchinook
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 20000.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
Jack return rate (solid line)
Hatchery SAR (dashed line)
Snake River spring-summer chinook salmon
*
*only 2-ocean returns
Year of outmigration
SA
RP
ercentage of hatchery releasereturning as jacks
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
15-A
pr
22-A
pr
29-A
pr
6-M
ay
13-M
ay
20-M
ay
27-M
ay
3-Ju
n
10-J
un
17-J
un
24-J
unDate
Ou
tflo
w a
t B
on
ne
vill
e D
am
(k
cfs
)
1996199719981999200020012002
Snake River spring-summer chinook salmonjack returns (hatchery and wild combined) to Ice
Harbor Dam through 11 August
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 20000.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Year of outmigration
Per
cent
age
of h
atch
ery
rele
ase
retu
rnin
g as
jack
sA
verage sp
ring
(15 Ap
ril - 30 Jun
e)flo
w at B
on
neville D
am (kcfs)
Flow
Jackreturn
Outmigration years 1986-2001
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
R2 = 0.02
Average spring (15 April - 30 June) flow atBonneville Dam (kcfs)
Per
cent
age
of h
atch
ery
rele
ase
retu
rnin
g as
jack
s
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3Composite Snake River
estimated wild chinook salmon(escapement + catch)
(63,000)
(23,500)
(4,300)
(7,700)
(5,700)
(878)
(2,100)
(13,500)
(37,800)
BroodYear
Ln
(b
roo
d y
ea
r/b
roo
d y
ea
r)
Wild Snake River spring-summerchinook salmon
1999
31 Mar 20 Apr 10 May 30 May 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Transported
Non-transported
Date marked at Lower Granite Dam
SA
R(5
-day
run
ning
ave
rage
)
Wild Snake River spring-summerchinook salmon
2000
31 Mar 20 Apr 10 May 30 May 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Transported
Non-transported
Date marked at Lower Granite Dam
SA
R(5
-day
run
ning
ave
rage
)
Wild Snake River steelhead1999
31 Mar 20 Apr 10 May 30 May 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Transported
Non-transported
Date marked at Lower Granite Dam
SA
R(5
-day
run
ning
ave
rage
)
Wild Snake River steelhead2000
31 Mar 20 Apr 10 May 30 May 0
1
2
3
4
5
Transported
Non-transported
Date marked at Lower Granite Dam
SA
R(5
-day
run
ning
ave
rage
)
We presently can not predict the window of good
estuary/ocean conditions
Spring-summer chinook salmonTransported/non-transported (marked above LGR)_________________________________________
Year Hatchery Wild _________________________________________
1995 1.73 (26) 0.89 (9)1996 1.28 (6) 0.48 (2)1997 1.32 (232) 1.16 (4)1998 1.25 (896) 0.77 (17)1999 1.53 (1211) 1.10 (73)2000 1.79 (1002) 0.55 (48)Geo. Mean = 1.51 = 0.86 (Bolded data)Geo. Mean = 1.47 = 1.07 (All data)
SteelheadTransported/non-transported (marked above LGR)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Year Hatchery Wild_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1995 0.83 (22) no data1996 1.05 (7) 3.50 (2)1997 3.00 (10) 2.24 (2)1998 0.49 (8) 0.30 (2)1999 0.74 (14) 1.13 (10)2000 2.57 (17) 1.73 (18)2001 0.31 (1) 0.29 (3)Geo. Mean = 1.48 = 1.40 (Bolded data)Geo. Mean = 1.05 = 0.96 (All data)
Conclusions• Construction of dams has decreased water velocities and increased juvenile travel time.
Conclusions• Construction of dams has decreased water velocities and increased juvenile travel time.• Under low-flow conditions, juvenile survival decreases.
Conclusions• Lack of a strong flow survival relationship from LGR-MCN under generally good flow conditions is not surprising given the high estimated juvenile survival in this reach.
Conclusions• Lack of a strong flow survival relationship from LGR-MCN under generally good flow conditions is not surprising given the high estimated juvenile survival in this reach.• Most losses from LGR-MCN occur from dam passage, leaving little mortality in the reservoirs where flow would affect survival the most.
Conclusions• Lack of a strong flow survival relationship from LGR-MCN under generally good flow conditions is not surprising given the high estimated juvenile survival in this reach.• Most losses from LGR-MCN occur from dam passage, leaving little mortality in the reservoirs where flow would affect survival the most.• Lack of a strong flow/survival relationship in this short reach does not support an end to flow augmentation.
Conclusions
• Adult returns vary widely depending on timing of the juvenile migration through the estuary and into the ocean.
• We can not presently predict when favorable estuary/ocean conditions will exist.
• Adult returns vary widely depending on timing of the juvenile migration through the estuary and into the ocean.
Conclusions
Conclusions• In recent years and over a broad range of flows, SARs have increased and brood year to brood year ratios (calculated as escapement to Lower Granite Dam plus catch) are above 1; however, SARs are below levels estimated for the 1960s
• NMFS is presently conducting research to relate juvenile migration history and experience (including flow) within the hydropower system to adult returns.
Conclusions
Conclusions
• NMFS is presently conducting research to relate juvenile migration history and experience (including flow) within the hydropower system to adult returns.
• This includes research to understand the relationship among time of ocean entry, physical, and biological characteristics of the estuary and plume environment, and adult return rates.