Trap and Haul Strategies for Fish Passage at Multiple ... · Alternatives Analysis •...
Transcript of Trap and Haul Strategies for Fish Passage at Multiple ... · Alternatives Analysis •...
Trap and Haul Strategies for Fish Passage at Multiple Projects, Baker River Hydroelectric Project Example
March 19, 2014Nick Verretto Resource Scientist – Fisheries
Baker River Project Area
Lower Baker - 1925
Pre-Project Basin Map
Hopkins Ridge
Upper Baker - 1959
Project Description
2 Francis units 5,050 cfs - 90.7 MW
424’
728’ full pool
312’ height 736’
678’ min. pool
tailwater 443’
Intake 638’
Depth 285’ Reservoir fluctuations Load following
Upper Baker Dam
50’ range (70’ @ LB)
FSC
net
Upstream Passage ▪ Picket weir & trap ▪ Short ladder & tramway ▪ Upstream trap & haul !!Downstream Passage ▪ Entrainment ▪ Ski-jump spillway ▪ “Gulpers”
Upstream trap - 1957
Ski-jump spillway - 1955
Original Fish Passage
LB “gulper” installed 1958 ▪ Tested two years ▪ 90-cfs flow ▪ 36’ x 68’ ▪ Bypass pipeline to tailrace !!
UB “gulper” installed 1960 ▪ 165-cfs flow ▪ Bypass pipeline to tailrace ▪ 1961 Performance Evaluation =
5-139% recapture?
Lower Baker “gulper” - 1958
Upper Baker “gulper” - 1960
Downstream Passage
Hatchery 2010UB FSC 2008
Other Fish Facilities
Powerhouse 2013?LB FSC 2013 LB FSC 2013
Upstream Trap & Haul
Completed 2010
Components
Intake
Weir (angled)
Sampling
TransportBrail pond & fish lock
Trap entrances
Entrance pool
Holding pond #1 & 2
Observation platformSorting booth & gates
flow
Holding pools & crowding channel
Entrance & Holding
Sorting
Sorting
water & brail control fish ID & distribution
PIT tag detector in floor
Sampling Station
electroanesthesia
sorting chutes
HMI, holding, sampling
Holding Areas
Poor flow introduction
… Fish will let you know what you missed
Trap Sizing
• Historical run size & timing • Trap sized to 3,000 sockeye/day
Percent of Time Returns Are Less Than50 70 80 90 95 99 99.5 99.9 99.99
Dai
ly R
etur
n to
Tra
p
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Observed Maximum (20,230)40,000 Maximum to Trap80,000 Maximum with River Harvest Above 40,00080,000 Maximum to Trap
Proposed Trap Design Capacity
Projected daily returns to trap
Trap Sizing
Percent of Time Returns Are Less Than0 20 40 60 80 100
Dai
ly R
etur
n to
Tra
p
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Observed Maximum (20,230)40,000 Maximum to Trap80,000 Maximum with River Harvest Above 40,00080,000 Maximum to Trap
Proposed Trap Design Capacity
Adults Returns
Transport
Management
ManagementBAKER ADULT FISH TRAP PROTOCOL Revised: September 9, 2013 (Chinook Revisions)
Species Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Coho
Sockeye
Chinook (unmarked-no cwt)--WILD
Chinook (unmarked+cwt)--Mostly Non-Skagit Hatchery
Stray
Chinook (ad-clip, no cwt)--Non-Skagit Hatchery Stray
Chinook (ad-clip+cwt)--Likely Non-Skagit Hatchery Stray
Natural-run Steelhead
Hatchery-run Steelhead Available for WDFW (Skagit Hatchery Broodstock)
Available for WDFW (Skagit Hatchery Broodstock)
Pink
Chum
Native Char
Other, Non-Native Char (lake trout, brook trout)
Sea-run Cutthroat
Atlantic Salmon
1 Sockeye distributed to artif icial incubation program, spaw ning beaches, Baker Lake, or tribes (Sauk- Suiattle, Sw inomish, & Upper Skagit) follow ing year specif ic beach loading plan as provided by the Co-managers.
Transport to Baker Lake EXCEPT systematically sample and retain--1 out of every 5 (20%) unmarked+CWT (Baker Wild Indicator Stock) coho returning to the trap throughout the season. The 1 out of every 5 unmarked+CWT coho are systematically sampled to represent the composition of origin of the unmarked+CWT coho returning to the trap and can be retained for broodstock. Broodstock need is approximately 200. If the broodstock goal of 200 can be met using unmarked+CWT fish, continue systematic sampling and retaining (sacrif ice) 1 out of every 5 unmarked+CWT coho that returns to the trap beyond broodstock needs through the end of the season. This systematic sampling of the unmarked+CWT coho SUPERCEDES ALL other needs. Collect the snouts of the unmarked+CWT Wild Indicator Stock that w ere used for broodstock after spaw ning and send to Co-managers for CWT extraction along w ith the snouts of any sacrif iced unmarked+CWT coho. ALSO Sacrif ice and retain snouts from all Ad-clip+CWT (non-local strays) f ish and send to Co-mangers for CWT extraction. Carcasses (w ithout snout) from sacrif iced f ish can be used for Tribal distribution if in good condition, or can be used for nutrient enhancement.
Follow sockeye protocol 1
Sacrifice and retain CWT snout. Collect Scale sample.
(June 1-Aug 15) to Baker Lake (w ild Spring run)
Beginning August 16 Return to Skagit River (Wild Summer/Fall)
Sacrif ice, remove and retain Otolith, send to WDFW lab for reading.
Return to Skagit River
Sacrifice and retain CWT snout (mostly Non-Skagit hatchery strays, but could be Skagit hatchery spring-run)-- Collect scale sample
Returned to Skagit River (returns to Skagit River released @ Hamilton w hen possible, default to Baker mouth)--Collect Scale sample
First 5,000 f ish trapped haul to Baker lake. After 5,000 return to Skagit River.
Removed from system (for treaty or non-treaty use as determined in-season)--Collect scale sample
Return to Skagit River
Sacrifice and Examine for positive species identification.
Adults (>300 mm) : If carrying PIT tag, transport to Baker Lake if Upper Baker origin or unknow n origin, to Lk. Shannon if Sulphur Cr. origin, or to Skagit R. if out-of-basin origin. If not carrying PIT tag, take scales & tissue sample, PIT tag, record #, and return to Skagit R. Sub-adults/Juveniles (<300 mm): If carrying PIT tag, transport same as adults. If not carrying PIT tag, estimate approximate length (record w ith inserted comment) and release to Skagit R.
Return to River at Hamilton to discourage trap re-entry w hen possible, default location at Baker mouth.
SulphurUpper Baker
UnassignedOther Skagit Basin Populations
Adult/sub-‐adult (A) Juvenile (J)
2013
Upstream Fish Trap
8
3
1Lake Shannon
Baker Lake
A
J
2219
13
A J
3 31
A
846
511
• Sulphur • Bacon • Cascade
• UpBaker (2) • Bacon • Cascade • Goodell
• Downey
Management
How Did We Get There?
• Committed to ALP slog • Organization, process,
rules, relationships • >100 people in WGs
Initial Reticence
• Rough spots early on • Hired facilitator (mediator?) • Collaborative negotiation
training for all • Interest-based process
Coho, Fish 2162, Release 1, Low Pool, Generation ON
Oblique View
Plan View
Elevation View
Studies
Water quality
Migration characteristics
Behavior
Limnology
Alternatives Analysis
• Brainstorming – 9 alternatives: combinations of trap-and-haul, locks, lifts, trams and ladders, (and dam removal)
• Filter & fatal flaw analyses using 31 goals/criteria • Site visits & information on other facilities – physical and
biological limitations and costs • Conceptual designs developed to allow comparison • Volitional (ladder) of ~24mi, >700’ elev gain, $187 million was
rejected (world’s highest ladder, at ~1/4 that elev. gain had failed)
Alternatives AnalysisFilter
Media Goals U1.1 U1.2 U1.3 U2.1 U2.2 U3.1 U3.2 U3.31 Ability to provide upstream passage from Lower Baker Not proven Not proven Not proven Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Evaluate adult returns for final disposition (sorting capability)
No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 Optimize production and take advantage of spawning habitat in both reservoirs and tributaries
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 Establish spawning populations in Lk. Shannon tribs Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes5 Interbasin migration for all species and life stages Not proven Not proven No No Limited Limited Limited Limited6 Evaluate non-salmonid migration options Yes? Yes? No Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited7 Passage for all life stages and species Not known Not known Not known Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited8 Volitional Passage Not proven Not proven Not proven No No No No No9 Adequate Attraction into the Baker River Yes Yes No Yes? Yes Yes Yes Yes
10 Provide Passage from the Little Baker River Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes?11 Minimize delay Not known Not known Not known Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes12 No injury to migrating fish Yes Yes Yes Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited13 Minimize risk of mechanical failure Yes Yes Yes Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited14 Minimize risk of poaching Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited
15 Optimize release locations for optimal production and minimized mortality
No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
16 Minimize necessary costs capital and operating No No No Yes Yes No No No17 Interbasin migration for all species and life stages Not known Not known No No No No No No
18 Be able to conduct routine maintenance with minimal disruption to fish migrations
Limited Limited No No No No No No
19 Harden facilities to flood conditions Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes20 Minimize handling stress Yes Yes Yes No No No No No21 Optimize operations for flow conditions Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes22 Meeting ESA needs Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes Limited Limited Limited23 Year-round transport capability No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
24 Mitigating effects of auxiliary water on downstream migrants (e.g., intake screening)
Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
25 Redundancy for systems No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes26 Worker and public safety Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No27 Improved public education and access opportunities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No28 Disease treatment capability No No No Yes Yes No No No
29 Incorporate other facilities goals (i.e., acclimation ponds) No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
30 Balance between manual and automatic operations Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes No No No31 Constructability –vs- continuity of existing facilities Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes No No No
Volitional Passage Alternatives Trap and Haul Alternatives Combination Alternatives
Alternatives Analysis
• Built administrative record of analyses, decisions, from several filtering exercises, Expert Choice
• Upstream passage settlement reached – 2 yrs
Alternatives Evaluated - 36 Criteria, 7 Categories
Licensing Timeline
• Settlement • $15 million / 5 yrs • 24 settling parties • 400+ meetings • 1,200 pages of application, EA &
settlement documents • 83,000 pages of studies • 50-yr license in under 8 yrs
Lessons Learned / Take-Home Messages
• Inclusiveness enhances outcomes & certainty, transparency = trust
• Identify & honor everyone’s interests • Respect others’ input, seek their contributions • Collaborate, try to ensure that everyone wins • Partnership & trust pay dividends • A good facilitator can help smooth the path • Don’t let potential areas of conflict slide
Lessons Learned / Take-Home Messages
• Build a strong & structured decision-making team, a well-informed team = good decisions
• Run a fully integrated process throughout • Ask hard questions – all the time, embrace VE • If something doesn’t seem right, it probably isn’t • Admit to mistakes, learn and move on • The decision is sometimes the easy part – the
administrative record is the tough part !
!
We’ve come a long way …
PSE Contacts:
▪ Nick Verretto, 425-462-3441
▪ Doug Bruland, 360-424-2920
▪ Tom Flynn, 425-457-5868
Good Luck, Have Fun!