1

FRANK L. CASSIDY JR.

"Larry"

CHAIRMAN

Washington

Tom Karier

Washington

NORTHWEST POWER PLANNING COUNCIL

851 S.W. SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 1100

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1348

ERIC J. BLOCH

VICE CHAIRMAN

Oregon

John Brogoitti

Oregon

Mike Field

Idaho

Jim Kempton

Idaho

Fax:

503-820-2370

Phone:

503-222-5161

1-800-452-5161

Internet:

www.nwcouncil.org

Stan Grace

Montana

Leo A. Giacometto

Montana

April 30, 2001

EFFECTS OF 2001 MID-COLUMBIA HYDROPOWER OPERATIONS ON FISH:

ADDENDUM TO THE FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM ISSUE

PAPER (COUNCIL DOCUMENT 2001-9)

This addendum analyzes:

1. The total system survival of ESA-listed Upper Columbia spring chinook and steelhead

entering the Columbia River above Mid-Columbia Public Utility District dams under

various operational scenarios.

2. The effect of individual hydroprojects on juvenile survival under spill and no spill

conditions.

3. The total system survival of important non-listed populations under spill and no spill

conditions.

Methods

• The NMFS Simulated Passage Model (SIMPAS2) Version 1.0 was used for the analyses.

• The 2001 average flow was estimated by averaging 1944 and 1977 flows.

• Relative percentages of fish entering the Columbia were obtained from the 2001 NMFS

juvenile outmigration memo.1

• The base case and alternatives were analyzed under low and high transportation benefit

scenarios. D values used in the analyses are found in Table 2 of the issue paper.

• Fish passage survival estimates and spill percentages for the Mid-Columbia dams were

obtained from Chelan County PUD and Grant County PUD.

Caveats

• Fish passage survival studies for the Mid-Columbia dams are not as extensive as the

survival studies on the Snake and Lower Columbia hydroprojects. In particular, the PUD

survival estimates used in this analysis were obtained over the last three or four years

which were generally better than average water years. Since 2001 will probably be an

extremely poor water year, the actual 2001 fish survivals may be lower than the estimates

used in this analysis.

• The base case 2001 operational configurations and spill levels are significantly different

from a normal water year. The 2001 Biological Opinion operations start from

 

1

 Memo from Michael Schiewe to Donald Knowles, “Estimation of Percentages for Listed Pacific Salmon and

Steelhead Smolts Arriving at Various Locations in the Columbia River Basin in 2001.” March 22, 2001.
2

significantly reduced spill and increased transportation levels. The findings of the

analyses are applicable to 2001 water conditions and may not apply to other years.

• The analyses look at some of the important unlisted populations in the Columbia Basin.

However, there are many other unlisted stocks and species that migrate in spring and

summer, and the following analyses do not examine impacts to those fish.

1. How do changes in spill and transportation operations affect the survival of ESAlisted spring chinook and steelhead entering the Columbia River above Mid-Columbia

Public Utility District dams?

Spring-migrating spring chinook and steelhead are the only ESA-listed stocks that pass MidColumbia dams-- no listed stocks migrate in summer. Also, it is not anticipated that Douglas

PUD’s Wells Dam will change its spill operations in 2001 because its surface bypass system

is very effective in passing juveniles and uses relatively small amounts of spill. Therefore

the analysis focuses on the remaining Mid-Columbia projects-- Rocky Reach, Rock Island,

Wanapum and Priest Rapids dams. Specifically, the analysis looks at fish that start from the

Rocky Reach and Rock Island reservoirs and migrate pass the Mid-Columbia and lower

Columbia River federal dams.

To address Question 1 the staff evaluated five different spill and transportation alternatives

by comparing them to an assumed base case for 2001 operations. The base case and

alternatives are as follows:

Base Case

Mid-Columbia Base Case- Spill and transport levels contained in the draft Federal

Agencies’ 2001 FCRPS Plan Proposal and planned 2001 spring spill levels at the MidColumbia dams. The base case includes:

• 40% spill (24 hours) at The Dalles Dam

• 75 Kcfs (day) and 90 Kcfs (night) spill at Bonneville Dam

• 30 % spill (12 hours night) at John Day Dam

• No spill at McNary Dam

• 50% fish transport at McNary Dam

• 61% spill (24 hours) at Priest Rapids Dam

• 43% spill (24 hours) at Wanapum Dam

• 31 kcfs spill (24 hours) at Rock Island Dam

• 15 % spill (24 hours) at Rocky Reach Dam

Operational Alternatives

1) No Mid-Columbia Spill- No spill at Rocky Reach, Rock Island, Wanapum or Priest

Rapids dams. Maintain base case spill levels at federal dams.

2) No Spill- No spill at Rocky Reach, Rock Island, Wanapum, Priest Rapids, McNary, John

Day, The Dalles or Bonneville dams.

3) Maximum Transportation Operations at McNary Dam- Draft federal proposal calls for

transporting approximately half of the juveniles collected at McNary. This alternative looks
3

at transporting all juveniles collected at McNary Dam. Base case spills are maintained in this

alternative.

4) No Mid-Columbia Spill and Maximum Transportation Operations at McNary Dam.

5) No Spill and Maximum Transportation Operations at McNary Dam.

Results

Tables 10 through 15 summarize the results of implementing the various alternatives.

Table 10. Total system survival of 1,000 juvenile spring chinook from Rocky Reach and Rock Island

pools to below Bonneville Dam under Mid-C base case and alternatives 1 and 2. Low and high transport

benefits.

SPRING CHINOOK

NO. OF FISH SURVIVING

TO BELOW BONNEVILLE

NO. OF FISH LOST OR

GAINED FROM BASE

CASE

% CHANGE

FROM BASE

CASE

Low Transport

Benefit

Base Case 340

1) No Mid-C Spill 304 -36 -10.6

2) No Spill 288 -52 -15.3

High Transport

Benefit

Base Case 435

1) No Mid-C Spill 389 -46 -10.6

2) No Spill 373 -62 -14.3
4

Table 11. Total system survival of 1,000 juvenile steelhead from Rocky Reach and Rock Island pools to

below Bonneville Dam under Mid-C base case and alternatives 1 and 2. Low and high transport benefits.

STEELHEAD

NO. OF FISH SURVIVING

TO BELOW BONNEVILLE

NO. OF FISH LOST OR

GAINED FROM BASE

CASE

% CHANGE

FROM BASE

CASE

Low Transport

Benefit

Base Case 344

1) No Mid-C Spill 308 -36 -10.5

2) No Spill 291 -53 -15.4

High Transport

Benefit

Base Case 482

1) No Mid-C Spill 431 -51 -10.6

2) No Spill 414 -68 -14.1

Table 12. Total system survival of 1,000 juvenile spring chinook from Rocky Reach and Rock Island

pools to below Bonneville Dam under Mid-C base case and alternative 3 (maximize transport @ MCN).

Low and high transport benefits.

SPRING CHINOOK

ALTERNATIVE

NO. OF FISH SURVIVING

TO BELOW BONNEVILLE

NO. OF FISH LOST OR

GAINED FROM BASE

CASE

% CHANGE

FROM BASE

CASE

Low Transport

Benefit

Base Case 340

3) Maximize

Transport at McNary 375 34 10.1

High Transport

Benefit

Base Case 435

3) Maximize

Transport at McNary 564 129 29.7
5

Table 13. Total system survival of 1,000 juvenile steelhead from Rocky Reach and Rock Island pools to

below Bonneville Dam under Mid-C base case and scenarios 3 and 4 (maximize transport @ MCN). Low

and high transport benefits.

STEELHEAD

ALTERNATIVE

NO. OF FISH SURVIVING

TO BELOW BONNEVILLE

NO. OF FISH LOST OR

GAINED FROM BASE

CASE

% CHANGE

FROM BASE

CASE

Low Transport

Benefit

Base Case 344

3) Maximize

Transport at McNary 337 -7 -2.1

High Transport

Benefit

Base Case 482

3) Maximize

Transport at McNary 612 130 27.0
6

Table 14. Total system survival of 1,000 juvenile spring chinook from Rocky Reach and Rock Island

pools to below Bonneville Dam under Mid-C base case and alternatives 4 and 5. Low and high transport

benefits.

SPRING CHINOOK

ALTERNATIVE

NO. OF FISH SURVIVING

TO BELOW BONNEVILLE

NO. OF FISH LOST OR

GAINED FROM BASE

CASE

% CHANGE

FROM BASE

CASE

Low Transport

Benefit

Base Case 340

4) No Mid-C Spill

and Max. Transport

@ McNary

335 -6 -1.7

5) No Spill and Max.

Transport @ McNary 331 -10 -2.9

High Transport

Benefit

Base Case 435

4) No Mid-C Spill

and Max. Transport

@ McNary

504 69 15.9

5) No Spill and Max.

Transport @ McNary 500 65 14.9
7

Table 15. Total system survival of 1,000 juvenile steelhead from Rocky Reach and Rock Island pools to

below Bonneville Dam under Mid-C base case and alternatives 4 and 5. Low and high D transport

benefits.

STEELHEAD

ALTERNATIVE

NO. OF FISH SURVIVING

TO BELOW BONNEVILLE

NO. OF FISH LOST OR

GAINED FROM BASE

CASE

% CHANGE

FROM BASE

CASE

Low Transport Benefit

Base Case 344

4) No Mid-C Spill

and Max. Transport

@ McNary

302 -42 -12.3

5) No Spill and Max.

Transport @ McNary 298 -46 -13.5

High Transport Benefit

Base Case 482

4) No Mid-C Spill

and Max. Transport

@ McNary

548 66 13.7

5) No Spill and Max.

Transport @ McNary 544 62 12.9

Summary

When compared to base case conditions:

• For spring chinook and steelhead, stopping spill at Mid-Columbia dams decreases

survivals by about 10.6 percent.

• For spring chinook and steelhead, stopping spill at Mid-Columbia and federal dams

decreases survival by approximately 14 to 15 percent.

• For spring chinook, maximizing transportation at McNary and maintaining base case

spills increases survival between 10 and 30 percent.

• For steelhead, maximizing transportation at McNary and maintaining base case spills

creates a change in survival between a decrease of two percent to a gain of 27 percent.

• For spring chinook, stopping spill at the Mid-Columbia dams and maximizing

transportation causes a change in survival between a decrease of two percent to a gain of

16 percent.

• For steelhead, stopping spill at the Mid-Columbia dams and maximizing transportation

causes a change in survival between a decrease of 12 percent to a gain of 14 percent.

• For spring chinook, stopping spill at all dams and maximizing transportation causes a

change in survival between a decrease of three percent to a gain of 15 percent.

• For steelhead, stopping spill at all dams and maximizing transportation causes a change

in survival between a decrease of 13.5 percent to a gain of 13 percent.
8

Survival decreases and increases are summarized in Table 16.

Table 16. Summary of results for each alternative: Range of percent survival changes from the base case

for spring chinook and steelhead.

ALTERNATIVE

CHANGE IN % SURVIVAL

FROM BASE CASE:

SPRING CHINOOK

CHANGE IN % SURVIVAL

FROM BASE CASE:

STEELHEAD

1) No Mid-Columbia Spill -10.6 -10.5 to -10.6

2) No Spill At Any Dam -14.3 to -15.3 -14.1 to -15.4

3) Maximize Transport at

McNary/Maintain Base Case

Spills

10.1 to 29.7 -2.7 to 27.0

4) No Mid-Columbia

Spill/Maximize Transport at

McNary

-1.7 to 15.9 -12.3 to 13.7

5) No Spill at Any

Dam/Maximize Transport at

McNary

-2.9 to 14.9 -13.5 to 12.9

2. What effect do individual hydroprojects have on juvenile survival under base case

spill and no spill conditions?

Staff analyzed the effect of stopping spill at individual Mid-Columbia PUD and lower

Columbia federal projects. The tables below describe the survival of 1000 spring chinook

and steelhead juveniles passing various dams under the Mid-Columbia base case and no spill

alternative. For example, at Bonneville Dam with base case spill, 963 out of 1000 fish

survive to below the dam. With no spill at Bonneville, only 938 out of 1000 fish survive to

below the dam. The difference between 963 fish and 938 fish is a loss of 25 fish or a

negative 2.6 percent change from the base case.
9

Table 17. The survival of 1,000 juvenile spring chinook to below each dam under the base case and no

spill alternative.

SPRING CHINOOK

PROJECT

BASE CASE

SPILL

NO. OF FISH

SURVIVING TO

BELOW DAM

NO SPILL

NO. OF FISH

SURVIVING TO

BELOW DAM

NO. OF FISH

LOST

 % CHANGE

FROM BASE

CASE

Rocky Reach 966 963 -3 -0.3

Rock Island 962 940 -22 -2.3

Wanapum 970 930 -40 -4.1

Priest Rapids 970 930 -40 -4.1

McNary 933 933 0 0.0

John Day 965 958 -7 -0.7

The Dalles 895 835 -60 -6.7

Bonneville 963 938 -25 -2.6

Table 18. The survival of 1,000 juvenile steelhead to below each dam under the base case and no spill

alternative.

STEELHEAD

PROJECT

BASE CASE

SPILL

NO. OF FISH

SURVIVING TO

BELOW DAM

NO SPILL

NO. OF FISH

SURVIVING TO

BELOW DAM

NO. OF FISH

LOST

% CHANGE

FROM BASE

CASE

Rocky Reach 966 963 -3 -0.3

Rock Island 962 940 -22 -2.3

Wanapum 970 930 -40 -4.1

Priest Rapids 970 930 -40 -4.1

McNary 933 933 0 0.0

John Day 972 968 -4 -0.4

The Dalles 895 835 -60 -6.7

Bonneville 963 938 -25 -2.6

The analysis identifies those projects that have the largest biological impact if spill is

stopped.2 Eliminating spill has the greatest fish impact at The Dalles, Priest Rapids and

Wanapum dams. Spill elimination has intermediate fish impacts at Bonneville and Rock

Island, and little fish impacts at John Day and Rocky Reach dams. Under the base case there

is no spill at McNary so there is no net fish loss.

 

2

 The analysis only evaluates the number of fish lost as a result of passing each dam structure. Spill may also

help to disperse predators reducing juvenile mortality. The effect that spill may have on predator dispersal was

not evaluated in the analysis.
10

3. What is the total system survival of important non-listed salmon populations under

spill and no spill conditions?

There are several important naturally spawning populations that are not listed under the ESA.

While these populations remain relatively healthy they will also be affected by changes in

mainstem operations. Probably three of the most important naturally spawning populations

are the John Day spring chinook, Deschutes spring chinook and Hanford Reach fall chinook.

Staff examined the effect of spill elimination and transportation changes on these populations

of fish.

Each population is affected by a different series of dams. John Day spring chinook pass John

Day, The Dalles and Bonneville dams. Deschutes spring chinook pass The Dalles and

Bonneville dams. Hanford Reach fall chinook pass McNary, John Day, The Dalles and

Bonneville dams. Of these populations only the Hanford Reach fall chinook will be

transported to below Bonneville. Because all these populations lie below Priest Rapids Dam,

changes in spill operations at the Mid-Columbia dams will not affect their survival. Table 19

summarizes the results of the analysis.

Table 19. Total system survival of 1,000 juvenile John Day, Deschutes and Hanford Reach chinook to

below Bonneville Dam, under Mid-C base case and alternative 2 (No Spill). D value applied to Hanford

Reach fall chinook.

POPULATION

NO. OF FISH SURVIVING

TO BELOW BONNEVILLE

NO. OF FISH LOST OR

GAINED FROM BASE

CASE

% CHANGE

FROM BASE

CASE

John Day Spring

Chinook

Base Case 539

No Spill 487 -52 -9.6

Deschutes Spring

Chinook

Base Case 701

No Spill 638 -63 -9.0

Hanford Reach Fall

Chinook

Base Case 243

No Spill 232 -11 -4.5

Decreasing spill at the Mid-Columbia PUD dams will affect several stocks and species of

non-listed fish. These stocks include, hatchery-reared spring chinook, steelhead, sockeye,

summer/fall chinook and coho. Also, non-listed natural populations of summer/fall chinook

and sockeye pass Mid-Columbia dams.
11

During the spring outmigration season, non-listed hatchery spring chinook and steelhead will

pass Mid-Columbia projects. It is assumed that these fish will survive at about the same rate

as the listed fish outlined in Tables 10 through 18. Non-listed, spring migrating summer/fall

chinook and sockeye and summer migrating summer/fall chinook will also be affected by

spill reductions. Unfortunately, there is little data on the survival of these fish through the

Mid-Columbia projects so survival estimates could not be made.

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

c:\documents and settings\lohn\local settings\temporary internet files\olk17\midcaddendum1.doc (Bob Lohn)