1
CSS Oversight CommitteeISAB
November 15, 2013
Comparative Survival Study Outcomes –
Experimental Spill Management
2
Topics for today
• CSS study• Long term survival studies• Background on spill• Experimental Spill Management
Design• Simulation results and next steps
Comparative Survival Study
• A regional collaborative salmon and steelhead life cycle monitoring program
• Successfully implemented since 1998• Annually reviewed by the NPCC Independent
Scientific Advisory Board and the region• Analyses published in peer reviewed scientific
journals
Background
• 40- 60 years of historical run reconstruction data
• 15 years of Comparative Survival Study Data
• 15 years of spill and dissolved gas data and effects on juvenile migrants
• Analyzed multiple lines of evidence
4
NPCC Smolt-to-Adult Survival Goal- Recovery
• Achieve SARs averaging 4% for Snake River Chinook salmon and steelhead
SAR
NPCC Smolt-to-Adult Survival Goal- Recovery
• Achieve SARs averaging 4% for Snake River Chinook salmon and steelhead
SAR
NPCC Smolt-to-Adult Survival Goal- Recovery
• Achieve SARs averaging 4% for Snake River Chinook salmon and steelhead
SAR
3 4 5 6 7 8 dams
Decline in Snake R. Chinook & steelhead associated with dams…
Key Concepts:Is there evidence linking estuary and early-ocean mortality to the migration experience through the hydrosystem?
DELAYED Hydrosystem MORTALITY• Similar concept to smoking/lung cancer
Potentia
lly 8 D
ams
9
ApproachWeight of evidence Multiple lines of evidence for relative importance of major factors influencing survival rates
CSS SARs (Chin & Sthd)
SARs (run rec. - Snake Chin & Sthd)
Spawner:recruit (Snake & John Day Chin)
3 4 5 6 7 8dams
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Environmental Contrast
Life cycle
Life stage
Prec
isio
n &
Spe
cific
ity
Key Studies
• Petrosky and Schaller 2010 – Spill, water velocity and ocean conditions influence SARs
• Haeseker et al. 2012– Spill, water velocity and ocean conditions influence SARs
• Schaller et al. in press– Spill, water velocity and ocean conditions influence
Recruits/Spawner and SARs
• Over a dozen peer reviewed publications
Chinook
Steelhead
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 20090%
1%
2%
3%
4%
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 20090%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
SAR
Relative Variable Importance
SAR
Day N.Spill WTT Screens PDO0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 20090%
1%
2%
3%
4%
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 20090%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5% Steelhead
Chinook
SAR
Relative Variable Importance
SAR
+- --
+- --Day N.Spill WTT Screens PDO
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
+
+
Delayed Hydrosystem Mortality• Multiple lines of evidence- – 3 fold decline in marine survival rate for Chinook– 2 fold decline in marine survival rate for Steelhead
• CSS Workshop 2011– “The evidence presented for … delayed
mortality arising from earlier experience in the hydrosystem is strong and convincing.”
– “ It is difficult to imagine how [other factors] would align so well both in time and space with the establishment of the hydro system.”
14
Summary of 2011 Workshop
• Survival (in freshwater and marine) increases: • faster water velocity• increased spill • lower % transported
•Current FCRPS configuration:• Little ability to speed water velocity• Opportunity to further manage spill combined with surface passage to
reduce powerhouse passages
• Promising approach - management experiment to evaluate improvements to SARs by increasing voluntary spill- Adaptive Management approach
In-river Passage RoutesNon-powerhouse = Spill (traditional or surface spillway weirs)
Powerhouse = Turbine or juvenile collection/bypass
Submersible traveling screen
Collection channel
(3) Turbine
Forebay
Tailrace
(1) Spillway Reservoir
(2) Juvenile Bypass Systems
Gatewell
Spill Benefits
• Historic data has consistently shown a juvenile survival advantage.
• Spill is a mitigation measure that can be provided in every flow year.
• Spill can be provided without impact to reservoir elevations.
Risk Based Spill Program
• Survival benefits of spill > potential TDG related mortality
• Adaptive Management approach-supported by empirical observations:– Juvenile survival– SARs– TDG effects
Variability of Spill 1995-2012
5
Summary of GBT Samples (1995-2012)
as a function of TDG
100 to 105 106 to 110 111 to 115 116 to 120 121 to 125 126 to 130 130 to 1390%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0.2% 0.3%0.9% 0.6%
2.5%
4.9%
7.7%
PctFinGBTPctRank1PctRank2PctRank3PctRank4
Upstream Tailwater TDGS
Perc
ent o
f Fis
h w
ith F
in G
BT
223,921 fish examined
In Preparation for 2013 Workshop
• Develop estimates of the amount of water that could be spilled (spill caps) at each of the hydroprojects on the Lower Snake and Columbia rivers for the various scenarios modeled for the 2013 workshop.
• Choose representative flow years for prospective modeling.
Summary of 2013 Workshop• Reviewed historical dissolved gas effects
• Characterized spill incorporating surface passage
• Presented and reviewed draft Experimental Spill Management Design.
• Evaluated four spill levels:• Biological Opinion-current• 115/120% - lowest increase• 120% Tailrace -moderate increase• 125% Tailrace - greatest increase
23
Plan for measuring response to a treatment
- Treatment = increase in spill for fish passage
- Response = change in survival
- Plan = implement CSS monitoring methods
What is experimental design?
24
- Large contrast (perturbation)
- High precision of measured response variable
- High degree of replication
- Minimize and account for confounding factors
Elements of “good” experimental design
Summary of 2013 Workshop
• Applied peer-reviewed models to spill levels
26
Prospective tools – integrating across river and ocean conditions
• Summarize distributions relative to desired goals (e.g., population viability)
-1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Projected SARs
Freq
uenc
y
Undesirable
27
• Summarize distributions relative to desired goals (e.g., NPCC SAR goals, Recovery)
-1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Projected SARs
Freq
uenc
y
Desirable
Prospective tools – integrating across river and ocean conditions
Probability
Chinook- Undesirable (< 1% SARS)
125 120 115/120 BIOP0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Spill Treatment 28
60%Since ‘98: 65%
Probability
Chinook- Desirable (> 2% SARS)
Spill Treatment
125 120 115/120 BIOP0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
29
14%Since ‘98: 10%
Summary of 2013Workshop
• Applied peer-reviewed models to spill levels
Summary of 2013Workshop
• Applied peer-reviewed models to spill levels
125% 120% 115/120% BiOp Observed0
1
2
3
4Steelhead
125% 120% 115/120% BiOp Observed0
1
2
3
4Chinook salmon
SAR
Summary:• Definition of spill scenarios for simulations based on what appears
technically possible with current FCRPS configuration
• Biological Planning tool indicates 125% spill level most likely to achieve SAR objectives
• Ongoing CSS analyses provide rigorous monitoring framework to evaluate Experimental Spill Management
• Expected benefits to Upper- & Mid-Columbia stocks – These stocks provide for additional monitoring/learning
• Simulations are encouraging in terms of:– expected response (conservation benefit)– likelihood of detecting response (learning)
Questions?
Top Related