Summary of Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival at 

McNary Dam—Acoustic Telemetry Studies, 2006–09

Open-File Report 2011–1179

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover: Photograph of McNary Dam on the Columbia River, near Umatilla, Oregon. 

(Photograph taken by Scott Brewer, U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington.)
Summary of Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival at 

McNary Dam—Acoustic Telemetry Studies, 2006–09 

Edited by Noah S. Adams and Scott D. Evans 

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Open-File Report 2011–1179 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Marcia K. McNutt, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its 

natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov 

or call 1-888-ASK-USGS. 

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

Suggested citation: 

Adams, N.S., and Evans, S.D., eds., 2011, Summary of juvenile salmonid passage and survival at McNary Dam—

Acoustic survival studies, 2006–09: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1179, 144 p. 
iii 

Contents 

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1. Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival at McNary Dam, 2006–09 

by Braatz, A.C., Hansen, G.S., Walker, C.E., Reagan, R.E., and Plumb, J.M.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Environmental and Biological Setting ......................................................................................................................... 2

Study Design ............................................................................................................................................................ 13

Fish Behavior ........................................................................................................................................................... 24

Fish Passage and Survival ....................................................................................................................................... 28

Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 67

References Cited ..................................................................................................................................................... 69

Chapter 2. Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival at McNary Dam, 2006–09, for Fish Released in the 

Mid-Columbia River by Walker, C.E., Brewer, S.J., Hardiman, J.M., and Counihan, T.D.

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 71

Environmental and Biological Setting ....................................................................................................................... 72

Study Design ............................................................................................................................................................ 72

Fish Behavior ........................................................................................................................................................... 80

Fish Passage and Survival ....................................................................................................................................... 87

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................ 99

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 101

References Cited ................................................................................................................................................... 111

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................................... 113

Glossary .................................................................................................................................................................... 114

Appendix A. Locations of Hydrophones in the McNary Dam Forebay, 2006–09 ....................................................... 115

Appendix B. Travel Rates for Hat Rock Released Fish, 2006–09 .............................................................................. 120

Appendix C. Travel Times and Rates for Mid-Columbia River Released Fish, 2006–09 ........................................... 123

Appendix D. Goodness-of-Fit Model Results for the Route-Specific Survival Model Used for Hat Rock Released 

Fish Passing McNary Dam, 2006, 2008–09 ............................................................................................................... 132

Appendix E. Goodness-of-Fit Model Results for the Route-Specific Survival Model Used for Mid-Columbia River 

Released Fish Passing McNary Dam, 2006–09 ........................................................................................................ 134

Appendix F. Tag Life Studies for Columbia River and Mid-Columbia River Released Fish, 2006–09 ....................... 138
iv

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Abbreviations and Acronyms

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Volume

cubic meter (m3) 264.2 gallon (gal) 

cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3)

cubic meter (m3) 1.308 cubic yard (yd3) 

Flow rate

meter per hour (m/h) 3.281 foot per hour (ft/h)

meter per day (m/d) 3.281 foot per day (ft/d)

kilometer per hour (km/h) 0.6214 mile per hour (mi/h)

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32.

Datums

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84).

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29).

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ATDL acoustic tag data loggers PIT passive integrated transponder

ATR acoustic tag receiver PUD public utility district

CJS Cormack-Jolly-Seber models rkm river kilometer

CPUD Chelan County public utility district RSSM route-specific survival model

FGE fish guidance efficiency SI modern metric system

FPE fish passage efficiency TSW temporary spillway weir

GPUD Grant County public utility district USGS U.S. Geological Survey
1 

Summary of Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival at 

McNary Dam—Acoustic Telemetry Studies, 2006–09 

Edited by Noah S. Adams and Scott D. Evans 

Abstract 

Passage and survival data were collected at McNary Dam between 2006 and 2009. These data 

have provided critical information for resource managers to implement structural and operational 

changes designed to improve the survival of juvenile salmonids as they migrate past the dam. Given the 

importance of these annual studies, the primary objectives of this report were to summarize the findings 

of these annual studies to ensure that passage and survival metrics are consistently calculated and 

reported across all years and to consolidate this information in a single document, thereby making it 

easier to reference. It is worth noting that this report does not contain all the information from all the 

annual reports. The intent of this report was to summarize the key findings from multiple years of 

research. The reader is encouraged to reference the annual reports if more detailed information is 

needed. Chapter 1 summarizes existing behavior, passage, and survival results for fish released 10 rkm 

upstream of McNary Dam and from the McNary Dam tailrace during 2006–09. Chapter 2 summarizes 

existing behavior, passage, and survival results for fish released in the mid-Columbia River and detected 

at McNary Dam during 2006–09. 

Results from 2006 indicated that higher spill discharge generally resulted in higher fish passage 

through spill, and in turn, higher fish survival through the entire dam. Within the spillway, passage 

effectiveness was highest for the south spill bays, adjacent to the powerhouse. Increased passage in this 

area, combined with detailed 3-dimensional approach paths, aided in the design and location of the 

temporary spillway weirs (TSWs) at McNary Dam prior to the 2007 migration of juvenile salmonids. 

During the 2007 study, the TSWs were tested under two spill treatments during the spring and 

summer: a “2006 Modified spill,” and a “2007 test spill.” In the spring, slightly higher discharge 

through spill bays 14–17 was the primary difference between the spill treatments tested. During the 

summer, spill treatments were characterized by a high (60 percent) and low (40 percent) percent flow of 

the total discharge going through the spillway. Flow through the TSWs represented about 7–8 percent of 

total project discharge in spring and about 10–11 percent of total project discharge in summer. Overall, 

the TSWs passed 24 percent of yearling Chinook salmon and 27 percent of subyearling Chinook 

salmon, but passed about 65 percent of juvenile steelhead. In spring, there was little evidence for an 

effect of spill treatment on either fish passage or survival, however, this was not surprising given there 

was a relatively small difference between spill treatments. For subyearling Chinook salmon during the 

summer study, high spill discharge resulted in higher fish passage through the spillway and lower fish 

passage through the powerhouse. Season wide survival (paired-release) for yearling and subyearling 

Chinook salmon was 0.98 and 0.92 (SE<0.04) through TSW 20, and 0.96 and 0.97 (SE<0.04) through 

TSW 22, respectively. Season-wide survival (single-release) for juvenile steelhead was 0.98 (SE=0.024) 

through TSW 20, and 0.90 (SE=0.02) through TSW 22. The extent to which location and structural 

design contributed to the differences observed between the two TSWs was uncertain. Nonetheless, the 
2

TSWs performed similarly to surface-oriented fish passage structures at other locations and appear to be 

a useful fish passage alternative at McNary Dam. The 2008 and 2009 studies confirmed previous results 

showing high survival for fish passing through the TSWs, especially juvenile steelhead. Although the 

number of all fish species passing through the TSWs was lower in 2008 and 2009 compared to 2007, 

fish passage efficiency for juvenile steelhead and subyearling Chinook salmon was higher in years with 

the TSWs, compared to 2006, before the TSWs were in place.

Chapter 1. Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival at McNary Dam, 2006–09

By Amy C. Braatz, Gabriel S. Hansen, Christopher E. Walker, Rachel E. Reagan, and John M. Plumb

Introduction

As juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and steelhead (O. mykiss) migrate from their natal 

streams to the ocean, they are subject to both natural and human-caused mortality. Avian and 

piscivorous predators contribute to total natural mortality, but hydroelectric projects on the Snake and 

Columbia Rivers also are sources of mortality for migrating juvenile fish. Studies conducted at McNary 

Dam between 2002 and 2005 provided baseline passage and survival information under typical dam 

operations (Axel and others, 2004a, 2004b; Perry and others, 2006, 2007a). These studies found that 

non-turbine passage routes, such as the spillway and juvenile bypass system, exhibited higher survival 

compared to the turbines. Additional studies at Lower Granite Dam showed that surface passage 

structures appear to be a safe alternative to passage through the turbines (Plumb and others, 2004; Perry 

and others, 2007b; Beeman and others, 2008; Puls and others, 2008). As a result of these studies, 

temporary spillway weirs (TSWs) were installed at McNary Dam and performance tests were conducted 

in 2007, 2008, and 2009.

This report synthesizes research conducted on fish passage at McNary Dam between 2006 and 

2009. As a single document, it should serve as a useful reference for managers during the development 

of long-term management strategies at McNary Dam.

Environmental and Biological Setting

Project Description

McNary Dam is the fourth dam upstream of the mouth of the Columbia River, located 470 river 

kilometers (rkm) upstream of the Pacific Ocean and 52 rkm downstream of the confluence of the 

Columbia and Snake Rivers. The reservoir formed by McNary Dam (Lake Wallula) extends 98 rkm 

upstream to the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River, and impounds 16 rkm of the Snake River 

upstream to Ice Harbor Dam. The river downstream of McNary Dam (Lake Umatilla) is impounded by 

John Day Dam located 123 rkm downstream of McNary Dam. The study area encompassed 482 km, 

extending from the tailrace of Wells Dam (rkm 830), the upper most release point for tagged fish, to our 

most downstream detection array located at John Day Dam (rkm 348; fig. 1-1).

McNary Dam is oriented perpendicular to the river channel with a navigation lock, spillway, 

powerhouse, and earthen dam. The spillway is 399 m long with 22 vertical lift-type spill gates that 

regulate discharge through the dam. The spillway discharges water at the ogee crest approximately 14 m 

below the water surface. The powerhouse at McNary Dam is 433 m long with 14 turbine units. Each 

turbine unit has a generating capacity of 70 megawatts and a hydraulic capacity of 16.6 kcfs (kcfs = 
1,000 ft3/s). The turbine intakes are about 19 m deep and are divided into three smaller, fully isolated 

slots. Each slot has a vertical barrier screen, trash rack (designed to prevent large debris from entering 

the turbines), and an extended-length submersible barrier screen that guides downstream migrating fish 

away from the turbine intakes and into the fish collection channel (orifice gallery). Guided fish are then 

routed through a series of pipes and channels to the juvenile fish bypass facility and held in concrete 

raceways where they await downstream transportation by barge or truck, or are routed back into the 

river to continue their migration. No study fish with PIT tags were barged during the four study years. 

Two TSW designs were tested during 2007, 2008, and 2009 (fig. 1-2). TSW design 1 was 

installed in spill bay 22 during 2007, spill bay 19 during 2008, and spill bay 4 during spring of 2009 and 

spill bay 19 during summer of 2009 (fig. 1-3). TSW design 2 was installed in spill bay 20 during all 

three study years. Each TSW was comprised of a weir crest, set atop the spill leaf gate within the spill 

bay. The weir crest extended from the top of the ogee crest to about 2.4 m below the surface, thereby 

causing water to spill from the surface of the forebay rather than from 14 m below the surface like 

conventional spill bays. Discharge over the TSWs was a function of forebay elevation, and because 

TSW design 1 was about 0.2 m deeper than TSW design 2, discharge through TSW design 1 was, on 

average, slightly greater (about 600 ft3

/s) than discharge through TSW design 2. The difference in the 

elevation of the TSWs was the result of structural differences (fig. 1-2) to test the efficacy of varying 

entrance conditions for passing juvenile salmonids. 

3 

") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")

WA

OR

Chief Joseph Dam

Wells Dam

Rocky Reach Dam

Rock Island Dam

Wanapum Dam

Priest Rapids Dam

John Day Dam McNary Dam

Ice Harbor Dam

Lower Monumental Dam

N

Grand Coulee Dam

Little Goose Dam

W 120 ̊ W 119 ̊ W 118 ̊

N 46 ̊

N 47 ̊

N 48 ̊

Scale (km): 0 50 100

Figure 1-1. Map showing Columbia and Snake Rivers and location of McNary Dam relative to other major 

hydroelectric projects in the region. 
4

Figure 1-2. Cross-sectional view of the spillway at McNary Dam showing TSW (gray shaded area) design 1 

(left side of page) and design 2 (right side of page). Water spilled over the TSW crest from the forebay (left side 

of page) to the tailrace (right side of page).
5

Figure 1-3. Plan view of McNary Dam showing locations of temporary spillway weirs (TSWs) in 2007, 2008, and 

2009. There were no TSWs in 2006.
6

River Conditions

Mean daily discharge at McNary Dam throughout the season was variable, depending upon year 

(fig. 1-4). The 10-year average (2000–2009) discharge in mid-April was about 210 kcfs, increasing to

greater than 250 kcfs by late May, then decreasing through June and July to less than 150 kcfs by 

August. Our study years followed a similar trend but were more pronounced, depending on the year. Of 

the years 2000–2009, the median daily project outflow for the spring study dates of 2006, 2009, and 

2008 ranked as the highest 3 years with 2007 ranking fifth of the 10 years. During the summer study 

dates, 2008 and 2006 were second and third highest and 2007 and 2009 ranked fifth and sixth for 

median daily project outflow.

Mean daily spill at McNary Dam from 2000 to 2009 followed a similar trend to mean daily 

discharge (fig. 1-5). Mean daily spill in mid-April, at the start of the season, averaged 80 kcfs and 

peaked in late May or early June at 125 kcfs for the 10-year average. In 2008, the average daily 

maximum spill was 250 kcfs. Daily spill typically was lowest in July, near the end of the study period, 

at an average of 50 kcfs.

Water temperature steadily increased during the study period, rising from 9°C in April to a peak 

of about 21°C in late July or early August (fig. 1-6). Water temperatures were slightly lower (1–2°C) in

2008 than in the other three study years.

Figure 1-4. Hydrograph of mean daily project outflow during acoustic telemetry study dates at McNary Dam, 

2006–09, and the 10-year average, 2000–2009. Data obtained from Columbia River DART website: 

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

04/17 05/01 05/15 05/29 06/12 06/26 07/10 07/24

Mean daily discharge (kcfs)

2000-2009 2006 2007 2008 2009
7

Figure 1-5. Hydrograph of mean daily project spill during acoustic telemetry study dates at McNary Dam, 

2006–09, and the 10-year average, 2000–2009. Data obtained from Columbia River DART website: 

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html.

Figure 1-6. Hydrograph of mean daily water temperature of the Columbia River at McNary Dam during acoustic 

telemetry study dates, 2006–09, and the 10-year average, 2000–2009. Data obtained from Columbia River 

DART website: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/river.html.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

04/17 05/01 05/15 05/29 06/12 06/26 07/10 07/24

Mean spill discharge (kcfs)

2000-2009 2006 2007 2008 2009

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

04/17 05/01 05/15 05/29 06/12 06/26 07/10 07/24

Mean daily temperature ( C)

2000-2009 2006 2007 2008 2009
8

Project Operations and Study Treatments

Several treatments and operation schemes were implemented at McNary Dam between 2006 and 

2009 (table 1-1 and figs. 1-7 and 1-8). Two treatments (Fish Passage Plan and 2006 Test Spill) were 

conducted during spring 2006. The Fish Passage Plan treatment consisted of higher discharge at the 

north end of the spillway. Conversely, the 2006 Test Spill pattern consisted of higher discharge at the 

southern end of the spillway. During spring 2007, the two treatments were a modification of the 2006 

Test Spill (hereafter called Modified 2006 Test Spill) and a 2007 Test Spill pattern. Investigations into 

dam operations based on this schedule, however, revealed few differences between the spill treatments.

Differences in spill bay- and turbine-specific discharge primarily were associated with spill bays 15, 16, 

and 17 (fig. 1-7). No treatments were planned in spring 2008 or 2009; however, we characterized two 

treatments in 2008. During the first one-half of the spring season (April 18 through May 17), discharge 

through the spillway was 40 percent, hereafter called Early Season. During the second one-half of the 

season (May 17 through June 9), spillway discharge was 50–60 percent, hereafter called Late Season.

We were unable to characterize any spill patterns in 2009.

Only two planned treatment types occurred during the summer seasons between 2006 and 2009

(fig. 1-8). For the 2006 and 2007 treatments, two dam operations were evaluated: 24-h spill at 40

percent of total river discharge, and 24-h spill at 60 percent of total river discharge. Sixty percent spill 

and 40 percent spill also were planned and implemented in 2008 in randomized 4-dimensional blocks;

however, the treatments began after July 3. Prior to July 3, high dissolved gas levels and involuntary 

spill prevented operation at the treatment level. The period of time before July 3 is hereafter called Early 

Season, which consisted of approximately 50 percent spill of total project discharge. No treatments were 

planned or characterized in summer 2009. For both spring and summer, diel periods were assigned as 

day (0600–1759 hours) and night (1800–0559 hours).
9

Table 1-1. Summary of study dates, seasonal treatment types, and seasonal mean daily project discharge for 

acoustic telemetry studies at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Discharge is measured in thousand ft3

/s. NA is not applicable]

2006 2007 2008 2009

Spring study dates Apr 26–June 07 Apr 18–June 06 Apr 18–June 09 Apr 17–June 10

Spring treatments1 Fish Passage Plan Mod. 2006 test spill Early season (40% spill) NA

2006 test spill 2007 test spill Late season (50-60% spill) NA

Mean project discharge 334.6 251.7 283.6 278.5

TSW Design 1 location NA Spill bay 22 Spill bay 19 Spill bay 4

TSW Design 2 location NA Spill bay 20 Spill bay 20 Spill bay 20

Summer study dates June 19–Jul 25 June 20–Jul 26 June 18–Aug 04 June 19–Aug 05

Summer treatments1 60% spill 60% spill Early season (~50% spill) NA

40% spill 40% spill 60% spill NA

NA NA 40% spill NA

Mean project discharge 219.2 184.0 241.0 184.9

TSW Design 1 location NA Spill bay 22 Spill bay 19 Spill bay 192

TSW Design 2 location NA Spill bay 20 Spill bay 20 Spill bay 20

1

Treatments represent proposed spill patterns or percent total project discharge. Although 2008 had no proposed treatments, 

treatments were characterized based on distinct flow patterns. 2009 had no proposed treatments and none were characterized.

2

TSW Design 1 was moved to spill bay 19 for the 2009 summer study, but passage could only be calculated for spill bays 

16–19 as a group.
2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Early season Late season

TSW 1 TSW 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test

2006

Discharge(kcfs)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Spill bay

1011121314 0123456789

Season

Turbine unit

2009

TSW 1 TSW 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Modified 2006 Test 2007 Test

2007

TSW 2 TSW 1

10

Figure 1-7. Hydrographs showing mean discharge of spill bays and turbine units by treatments or conditions 

during spring acoustic telemetry studies at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 2006 40% spill 60% spill

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 40% spill 60% spill

TSW 2 TSW 1

2007

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 2008 40% spill 60% spill Early season

TSW 1 TSW 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Spill bay

1314 1112 10 0123456789

Season

Turbine unit

2009 TSW 1 TSW 2

Discharge(kcfs)

11

Figure 1-8. Hydrographs showing mean discharge of spill bays and turbine units by treatments or conditions 

during summer acoustic telemetry studies at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 
12

Species Composition and Run Timing

Run timing from 2006 to 2009 at McNary Dam varied by species and year and generally 

followed the 10 year average in pattern but not in scale. During the spring, juvenile yearling Chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho salmon (O. kisutch), sockeye salmon (O. nerka), and 

steelhead (O. mykiss) made up the majority of the fish run, but yearling Chinook salmon and juvenile 

steelhead were the most prevalent (fig. 1-9). Subyearling Chinook salmon made up the greatest 

proportion of the fish run during the summer study periods as well as over the entire 4 year study period 

(0.566; table 1-2). On a yearly basis, the number of sockeye and subyearling Chinook salmon passing 

McNary Dam was greatest in 2007, the number of yearling Chinook salmon and juvenile steelhead 

passing McNary Dam was greatest in 2009, and the largest number of Coho salmon passed McNary 

Dam in 2008. Most fish runs that passed McNary Dam in the spring from 2006 to 2009 had higher daily 

counts than the 10-year average. Only the subyearling Chinook salmon run in 2006–09 matched the 10-

year average daily frequency, but the peak of the run during 2006–09 peaked several weeks later than 

the 10 year average.

Figure 1-9. Run timing of yearling Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, juvenile steelhead, sockeye salmon, and 

subyearling Chinook salmon through McNary Dam for the 10-year average (black line) and 2006–09 (gray 

lines). Data obtained from the Fish Passage Center (http://www.fpc.org.html).

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

4/1 4/15 4/29 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/24 7/8 7/22 8/5 8/19

Yearling Chinook salmon

10–year average

2006–2009

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

4/1 4/15 4/29 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/24 7/8 7/22 8/5 8/19

Juvenile steelhead

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

4/1 4/15 4/29 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/24 7/8 7/22 8/5 8/19

Sockeye salmon

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

4/1 4/15 4/29 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/24 7/8 7/22 8/5 8/19

Subyearling Chinook salmon

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

4/1 4/15 4/29 5/13 5/27 6/10 6/24 7/8 7/22 8/5 8/19

Coho salmon

Number of fish
13

Table 1-2. Mean numbers of juvenile fish passing McNary Dam between April 1 and December 1 by year and 

species.

[Proportion is the total number of each species divided by all of the fish passing McNary Dam. Data obtained from the Fish 

Passage Center (http://www.fpc.org.html)]

Species 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Proportion

Yearling Chinook salmon 1,559,649 2,223,432 1,299,990 2,249,069 7,332,140 0.280

Coho 102,125 99,101 168,497 127,002 496,725 0.019

Sockeye 496,470 512,994 221,747 190,747 1,421,958 0.054

Steelhead 442,984 376,449 506,527 803,445 2,129,405 0.081

Subyearling Chinook salmon 4,064,681 4,721,057 2,408,207 3,652,430 14,846,375 0.566

Total 6,665,909 7,933,033 4,604,968 7,022,693 26,226,603

Study Design

Acoustic Telemetry System

The acoustic telemetry system consisted of acoustic receivers, hydrophones, and transmitters.

All hydrophones (model 590; Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. ©, HTI; Seattle, WA) had a 290o beam 

width and were continuously monitored by either an acoustic telemetry receiver (ATR; model 290; HTI) 

or an acoustic tag data logger (ATDL; model 295-X; HTI). Depending on the year of study, 86–113 

hydrophones were linked to 5–7 ATRs and 17–20 ATDLs. In the forebay, hydrophones were mounted 

about 2 m below the water’s surface and near the bottom (greater than 18.3 m below the surface) of the 

river. Double hydrophone arrays were installed at all dam passage routes to permit the estimation of 

route-specific detection probabilities and use of the route-specific survival model (RSSM; Skalski and 

others, 2002). At remote detection arrays located upstream and downstream of the dam, hydrophones 

were deployed on floating barges or pre-existing structures (for example, bridge pilings, navigation 

markers, and navigation walls) at depths of 1.5–2.1 m, depending on the location. At locations where 

surface-mounting was not feasible, hydrophones were deployed about 1 m above the river bottom using 

steel towers. Satellite or cellular modems were deployed at each hydrophone array to establish a 

wireless network between each ATDL or ATR, and our data-processing servers at the Columbia River 

Research Laboratory. This network allowed automated transfer of data, as well as the ability to access 

and control each ATDL and ATR remotely. A detailed description of hydrophone arrays can be found in 

Adams and others (2008), Adams and Counihan (2009), and Adams and Liedtke (2009, 2010).

Although the same manufacturer and models of acoustic telemetry receiving equipment were 

used during all study years, and hydrophones were mounted to detect fish passing through any route, 

there were some differences in system deployment among years. Some of these differences were 

necessary due to changing locations of the TSWs, changing objectives, or to improve the detection 

performance of the hydrophones by locating them away from sources of noise. Appendix A portrays our 

acoustic telemetry system layout in each study year. However, some changes in deployment are not 

distinguishable on the plan views. One example includes the mounting of hydrophones 3 m lower on the 

spillway pier noses in 2007, 2008, and 2009 (compared to 2006) to decrease noise induced by flow at 

the spillway ogee. Another example, one that is distinguishable in appendix A, includes the different 

location of deep hydrophones at the powerhouse in 2009, compared to other years. In 2009, we 

deployed deep hydrophones on towers located 60 m in front of the powerhouse on the forebay floor, 
14

rather than using divers to mount the hydrophones directly to the powerhouse piernoses. This change 

was implemented at the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to reduce installation 

costs. In additional to reducing the cost, this change in deployment also reduced the amount of noise 

detected by the monitoring system and improved the performance of the system.

Transmitters

We used acoustic transmitters that operated at a frequency of 307.5 kHz with a 1.0–2.0 ms pulse 

width. Each transmitter emitted a unique acoustic signal (encoded by pulse rate), allowing simultaneous 

monitoring of multiple transmitters by a single hydrophone. In addition to the acoustic transmitter, we 

also inserted a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag (Destron-Fearing models TX1411ST and 

TXP148511B) into each fish. Only a subset of the juvenile steelhead released in the mid-Columbia

River had a PIT tag, and rather than being inserted directly into the fish, the PIT tag was incorporated 

into the acoustic transmitter. Each PIT tag emitted a unique digitally encoded signal at 134.2 kHz when 

activated by an electromagnetic field from a PIT-tag detector. Each PIT tag weighed 0.07–0.1 g in air, 

depending on model. The additional weight and volume from the PIT tag added a negligible amount of 

weight and volume to the fish relative to the acoustic transmitter.

Tag life studies were conducted by USGS in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009; CPUD in 2006, 2007, 

and 2008; and both CPUD and GPUD in 2009 (Adams and others, 2008; Adams and Counihan, 2009;

Adams and Liedtke, 2009, 2010; Steig and others, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010; Timko and others, 2010).

These studies indicated the average lifespan was between 18 and 28 days for tags implanted in juvenile 

steelhead and yearling Chinook salmon, between 14 and 22 days for tags implanted in sockeye salmon,

and between 13 and 24 days for tags implanted in subyearling Chinook salmon, depending on tag model 

and year (table 1-3).

Table 1-3. Specifications of transmitters surgically implanted in juvenile salmonids, 2006–09.

Year Site

Acoustic 

transmitter 

model

Average tag

dimensions 

(millimeters)

Average tag

weight in air 

(grams)

Average tag 

life (days) PIT tag model

Yearling Chinook salmon and juvenile steelhead

2006 Columbia 795-E 6.8 × 21.0 1.5 21 TX1411ST

2006 Mid-Columbia 795-E 6.8 × 21.0 1.5 22 NA

2007 Columbia 795-E 6.8 × 21.0 1.5 21 TX1411ST

2007 Mid-Columbia 795-E 6.8 × 21.0 1.5 22 NA

2008 Columbia 795-E 7.1 × 21.9 1.6 18 TX1411ST

2008 Mid-Columbia 795-E 6.8 × 21.0 1.5 19 NA

2009 Columbia 795-LE 6.7 × 21.1 1.4 28 TX1411ST

2009 Mid-Columbia 795-LE 6.8 × 18.0 1.5 23 NA

Juvenile steelhead with PIT

2008 Mid-Columbia 795-E/ PIT 6.8 × 21.8 1.7 26 TXP148511B 

2009 Mid-Columbia 795-E/ PIT 6.8 × 21.8 1.7 26 TXP148511B 

Sockeye salmon

2006 Mid-Columbia 795-M 6.8 × 16.5 0.8 14 NA

2007 Mid-Columbia 795-M 6.8 × 16.5 0.8 14 NA

2008 Mid-Columbia 795-M 6.8 × 16.5 0.8 17 NA

2009 Mid-Columbia 795-Lm 5.0 × 17.5 0.7 22 NA

Subyearling Chinook salmon

2006 Columbia 795-M 6.8 × 16.5 0.8 17 TX1411ST

2007 Columbia 795-M 6.8 × 16.5 0.8 17 TX1411ST

2008 Columbia 795-S 6.5 × 22.2 0.7 13 TX1411ST

2009 Columbia 795-LM 6.5 × 16.3 0.7 24 TX1411ST
15

Fish Tagging and Release

All fish were tagged and released by personnel from USGS, excluding those released in the MidColumbia River (see chapter 2). The standard methodology and protocols used were based on studies 

conducted by Adams and others (2008). The source, collection, and release sites for each species and 

release group are briefly documented in this report. A detailed description of collection, transport, and 

tagging procedures can be found in Adams and others (2008), Adams and Counihan (2009), and Adams 

and Liedtke (2009, 2010). Juvenile salmonids were collected, tagged, and held at the McNary Dam 

Smolt Monitoring Facility operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. For all 

experimental groups, handling protocols (that is, collection, transport, tagging, holding, and release) 

were standardized as much as possible among release groups to reduce the potential for bias. All 

acoustic transmitters were surgically implanted. Fish were held for 18–36 h before tagging, and for 18–

36 h after tagging. The treatment release location was approximately 10 rkm upstream of McNary Dam 

at Hat Rock State Park, Oregon. Control groups were released in the tailrace of McNary Dam, directly 

out from the downstream tip of the navigation wall. Both treatment and control groups were released 

across the main channel in three locations (north, middle, and south of main river channel) to allow 

greater distribution in the river. In order to distribute fish arrival times at the dam, we released fish 

throughout the 24-h diel cycle. Species, release dates, release sites, passage dates, and percent spill are 

documented in tables 1-4 and 1-5.
16

Table 1-4. Summary statistics of fork length and weight for acoustic-tagged juvenile salmonids released in the 

Columbia River by release site, 2006–09.

[Species: Y. Chinook, yearling Chinook salmon; Steelhead, juvenile steelhead; S. Chinook, subyearling Chinook salmon. 

Release site: HAT, Near Hat Rock State Park, Oregon, approximately 10 km upstream of McNary Dam; TAIL, 0.5 km 

downstream of McNary Dam in the tailrace directly out from the downstream tip of the navigation wall; SAC, intentionally

sacrificed fish released at the TAIL release site. N, number of fish; Min, minimum; Max, maximum]

Species Release

site Release dates N

Fork length, in 

millimeters Weight, in grams

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

2006

Y. Chinook HAT 4/27–6/4/2006 1,797 149 125 179 31.7 23.0 59.5

Y. Chinook TAIL 4/27–6/4/2006 1,213 148 133 175 31.3 22.6 49.8

Y. Chinook SAC 4/30–6/1/2006 49 148 134 174 31.7 23.0 48.7

Steelhead HAT 4/27–6/1/2006 1,005 209 122 290 78.6 31.0 236.5

Steelhead SAC 5/4–5/31/2006 50 205 158 267 73.3 30.1 152.6

S. Chinook HAT 6/20–7/19/2006 1,794 120 104 155 17.5 12.5 44.8

S. Chinook TAIL 6/20–7/19/2006 1,191 120 108 158 17.4 13.5 44.9

S. Chinook SAC 6/22–7/11/2006 50 118 112 133 16.7 13.6 25.1

2007

Y. Chinook HAT 4/19–6/7/2007 1,973 151 130 222 33.4 23.0 108.4

Y. Chinook TAIL 4/19–6/7/2007 1,310 151 133 206 33.5 23.0 78.8

Y. Chinook SAC 4/27–6/4/2007 53 151 135 179 33.2 23.7 49.9

Steelhead HAT 4/21–6/6/2007 1,118 215 160 292 84.6 27.4 207.7

Steelhead SAC 4/28–6/2/2007 50 223 178 279 93.4 43.7 166.8

S. Chinook HAT 6/20–7/25/2007 1,771 118 105 166 17.8 13.2 55.2

S. Chinook TAIL 6/20–7/25/2007 1,182 118 105 168 17.6 12.8 59.9

S. Chinook SAC 6/24–7/24/2007 50 118 110 136 17.8 13.5 32.5

2008

Y. Chinook HAT 4/19–6/3/2008 1,424 154 131 206 36.0 23.0 147.6

Y. Chinook TAIL 4/20–6/4/2008 949 153 130 200 35.5 23.0 76.7

Y. Chinook SAC 4/22–5/31/2008 50 151 134 189 34.2 24.1 63.6

Steelhead HAT 4/19–6/2/2008 1,186 211 136 289 82.8 27.5 224.0

Steelhead TAIL 4/20–6/3/2008 785 210 135 294 81.7 25.0 232.7

Steelhead SAC 4/22–5/31/2008 50 213 171 270 87.2 38.3 179.2

S. Chinook HAT 6/19–7/28/2008 1,752 116 102 158 17.1 11.8 46.8

S. Chinook TAIL 6/20–7/29/2008 1,176 117 103 155 17.1 11.8 40.7

S. Chinook SAC 6/22–7/27/2008 50 117 107 142 17.4 12.4 33.3

2009

Y. Chinook HAT 4/18–6/4/2009 1,411 164 134 240 44.4 29.0 119.0

Y. Chinook TAIL 4/18–6/4/2009 935 164 137 255 44.7 29.0 174.0

Y. Chinook SAC 4/20–5/29/2009 51 161 143 195 41.9 30.4 75.2

Steelhead HAT 4/18–6/4/2009 1,176 220 111 280 93.8 32.6 215.4

Steelhead TAIL 4/18–6/4/2009 785 220 158 283 94.7 32.4 218.0

Steelhead SAC 4/23–5/29/2009 51 216 156 254 87.4 31.5 130.0

S. Chinook HAT 6/20–7/30/2009 1,784 121 105 158 20.2 13.5 47.0

S. Chinook TAIL 6/20–7/30/2009 1,187 122 102 172 20.4 13.5 57.8

S. Chinook SAC 6/25–7/28/2009 51 118 109 148 18.8 14.0 38.2
17

Table 1-5. Number of acoustic-tagged juvenile salmonids released in the Columbia River, number (and percent of 

those released) that passed McNary Dam, range of passage dates, and corresponding percent spill of total project 

discharge over dates of passage at McNary Dam, by species, 2006–09.

[Y. Chinook, yearling Chinook salmon; Steelhead, juvenile steelhead; S. Chinook, subyearling Chinook salmon]

Species Number released Number (%) 

passed

First passage 

date

Last passage 

date Percent spill1

2006

Y. Chinook 1,797 1,717 (96) 4/27/2006 6/5/2006 50

Steelhead 1,005 944 (94) 4/27/2006 6/2/2006 48

S. Chinook 1,791 1,638 (91) 6/20/2006 7/30/2006 49

2007

Y. Chinook 1,974 1,911 (97) 4/20/2007 6/9/2007 43

Steelhead 1,118 1,086 (97) 4/22/2007 6/9/2007 41

S. Chinook 1,771 1,631 (92) 6/21/2007 8/7/2007 52

2008

Y. Chinook 1,424 1,396 (98) 4/19/2008 6/8/2008 46

Steelhead 1,186 1,186 (100) 4/19/2008 6/3/2008 47

S. Chinook 1,752 1,646 (94) 6/20/2008 8/8/2008 51

2009

Y. Chinook 1,403 1,351 (96) 4/18/2009 6/8/2009 44

Steelhead 1,170 1,107 (95) 4/19/2009 6/4/2009 43

S. Chinook 1,772 1,602 (90) 6/20/2009 8/7/2009 51

1

The percentage of project discharge spilled includes the water discharged through the temporary spillway weirs.

Signal Processing and Verification

Passage routes, approach distributions, and travel times were determined from acoustic 

transmitter signals collected by hydrophones at the dam and in the reservoir. Valid acoustic signals were 

separated from ambient noise using the HTI© software MarkTags. Files were then compiled and the 

auto-marking software identified individual tags to be verified by data technicians. Tracking parameters 

were set in the software to minimize the marking of false detections caused by noise or overlap of 

individual tags and to maximize detections of available fish (based on a tag list of all possible tags). Tag 

lists were generated for each batch based on a search duration determined by the estimated travel time 

information. Once fish records were verified by technicians, a second round of processing occurred with 

a wider parameter set and search duration and a smaller tag list to look for remaining undetected fish.

All verified fish records were then compiled and detections of individual fish were identified and given 

to data technicians for manual marking of the individual tracks. After manual marking, the MarkTags 

software was used to assign a date and time for the beginning and end of each valid acoustic track. The 

detections were then used to estimate the proximity of an acoustic transmitter to hydrophones in the 

array and to estimate the 2-D and 3-D locations of the acoustic transmitters.

Travel Times and Rates

We evaluated travel times and rates of fish as they traveled to McNary Dam and in reaches 

downstream of McNary Dam. Travel times of juvenile salmonids are often non-normally distributed, 

have a skewed distribution, and are highly variable (Giorgi and others, 1997). Much of this variability 

arises from the dispersal of fish as they travel downstream after release (Zabel, 1994; Zabel and 
18

Anderson, 1997). To account for this, we used the inverse Gaussian distribution to estimate mean travel 

times and rates and to express the variation about these estimates. For each reach, we estimated a mean 

travel time, travel rate, and rate of population spread using methods described by Zabel and Anderson 

(1997). The rate of population spread provides an indication of how fast fish disperse as they migrate.

Error in the estimates were expressed by calculating 95 percent confidence intervals about the mean 

travel rate (Zabel, 1994 2002; Zabel and Anderson, 1997). We chose to compare mean travel rates 

among reaches as a way to standardize across release sites, because mean travel time is dependent on 

reach length and mean travel rate is not. The rate of population spread and 95 percent confidence 

intervals about the mean travel rate are shown in appendixes B and C.

Diel Depth Distribution 

The depth distribution for yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and subyearling 

Chinook salmon was estimated over the 24-h diel cycle. For each species, mean hourly depth was 

calculated for each fish and then averaged among fish for each hour over the study period. 

Passage Determinations 

Fish were assigned to one of four passage routes at McNary Dam; turbine, bypass, spillway, or 

TSW (bay-specific passage was determined). The PIT-tag detectors in the bypass facility were used to 

determine if fish passed through the bypass system. Because some fish released in the mid-Columbia 

did not have PIT tags, we could not distinguish if they passed through the turbines or the bypass system.

As a result, these fish were assigned to three passage routes: powerhouse (includes both turbine and 

bypass routes), spillway, or TSW passage. The TSW passage route only applies to the 2007, 2008, and 

2009 study years because the TSWs were not installed in 2006. In 2009, there was an unplanned 

relocation of TSW1 from spill bay 4 in the spring to spill bay 19 in the summer. Monitoring equipment 

was not deployed to accommodate this change. As a result, we could not assign passage to bay 19 and 

instead assigned passage to the group of bays 16–19 during summer 2009. Passage routes were 

determined using the last two hydrophones an acoustic-tagged fish was nearest to that clearly defined a 

route. In some instances, passage route could not be determined due to excessive noise, data gaps (faint, 

intermittent track), and/or conflicting information (for example, between primary and secondary pulse, 

among systems). For these fish, it was necessary to determine passage manually. If insufficient or 

conflicting information still existed then passage was categorized as unknown. In addition to the manual 

determinations, a number of random fish records were manually interrogated as a quality-assurance 

procedure to verify that the passage route assignments made by the SAS program were correct. Once the 

final dataset was compiled, we conducted a series of data checks to verify detection records. All last 

detections were examined for any negative travel times from release to the dam or to downstream 

arrays; events that indicated the possibility of a false record. Records also were examined visually when 

passage was assigned by proximity if the last two hydrophone detections were more than 2 minutes 

apart.

Survival Model 

In Chapter 1, we used the route-specific survival model (RSSM; Skalski and others, 2002) to 

estimate passage and survival probabilities for yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon and juvenile 

steelhead. In 2006 and 2007, juvenile steelhead passage and survival probabilities were estimated using 

the single release-recapture model because juvenile steelhead were only released at the treatment release 

location near Hat Rock State Park. Variation about the estimates also was estimated and reported as 95-
19

percent profile likelihood confidence intervals and the standard error. The foundation of the RSSM is 

based on the single release-recapture models of Cormack (1964), Jolly (1965), and Seber (1965; CJS 

model), and the paired release-recapture model of Burnham and others (1987). The RSSM partitions 

survival among reservoir and route-specific components and uses a branching process to estimate 

conditional route-specific passage probabilities (tables 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8; fig. 1-10). We employed an 

expanded version of the RSSM to incorporate diel periods or treatments into the analysis by adding an 

additional branching process. The additional branching process estimates the probability of passing the 

dam during a particular diel period or treatment. The model also expresses parameters below the dam as 

a function of each release group.

Because of the branching process employed by the RSSM to accommodate multiple variables 

(passage routes, treatments, and diel period), and the way the paired release-recapture model calculates 

concrete survival, it is possible for rounding error to be incorporated into the estimate. One way to 

examine the extent of rounding error is to divide the single release survival estimate (all routes survival) 

by the control survival estimate, and then compare the resulting value to the paired-release estimate of 

concrete survival. In cases where rounding error was not problematic, the new value will be equal to 

concrete survival as estimated by the model. If rounding error was problematic, then the new value will 

be different (usually about 1 percent) and can be considered the more accurate estimate. We conducted 

these calculations for all estimates of concrete survival and provided the alternative value as a footnote 

if the new estimate differed from the original by 0.5 percent or more.

We estimated season wide passage and survival with respect to diel periods (that is, day and 

night) and treatments under which the fish passed the dam. Day and night periods for analysis were 

dictated by when spill operations typically changed rather than by sunrise and sunset; day was 

considered 0600–1759 hours, and night was considered 1800–0559 hours. Fish were assigned to 

treatments and diel periods based on their time of passage at McNary Dam. For the turbines and the 

spillway passage routes (including the TSWs), time of passage was assigned to the last detection of fish 

within the route of passage. For fish passing through the juvenile bypass system, passage was assigned 

using the first detection on the PIT tag detection coils.

We assessed model fit by examining residuals of observed versus expected capture history 

counts (appendixes D and E).
20

Table 1-6. Definitions of fish detection parameters for fish released near Hat Rock State Park and McNary Dam 

tailrace estimated using the route-specific survival model, 2006–09.

[Parameter: Detect. Prob., detection probability; Source: MLE, maximum likelihood estimate]

Parameter Source Definition

Turbine Detect. Prob. Derived Overall detection probability of the turbines.

Bypass Detect. Prob. Derived Overall detection probability of the bypass.

Spillway Detect. Prob. Derived Overall detection probability of all conventional spill bays.

TSW1 Detect. Prob.1 Derived Overall detection probability of TSW1.

TSW2 Detect. Prob. 1 Derived Overall detection probability of TSW2.

Detect. Prob. for 

Treatment Release Group

MLE Probability of the treatment release group being detected at the first 

detection array downstream of McNary Dam.

Detect. Prob. for Control

Release Group

MLE Probability of the control release group being detected at the first 

detection array downstream of McNary Dam.

λ Treatment Fish MLE Joint probability of treatment fish surviving and being detected by 

all detection arrays downstream of first detection array downstream 

of McNary Dam.

λ Control Fish MLE Joint probability of control fish surviving and being detected by all 

detection arrays downstream of first detection array downstream of 

McNary Dam.

1

Parameter was not estimable in 2006 because TSWs were not present.
21

Table 1-7. Definitions of fish passage probabilities and passage metrics for McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

Parameter Estimate Definition

Overall Definition Estimate reported for each species for the entire study period.

Day Definition Estimate reported for each species for 0600–1759 hours during the 

entire study period.

Night Definition Estimate reported for each species for 1800–0559 hours during the 

entire study period.

Treatment 1 Definition Estimate reported for each species for one treatment or condition 

during the entire study period. Treatments are listed on each table 

for each year.

Treatment 2 Definition Estimate reported for each species for the second treatment or 

condition during the entire study period. Treatments are listed on 

each table for each year.

Treatment 3 Definition Estimate reported for each species for the third treatment or 

condition during the entire study period. Treatments are listed on 

each table for each year. Treatment 3 operated only during summer 

of 2008.

TSW1 Definition TSW Design 1 (See figure 3 for TSW spill bay location by year and 

season).

TSW2 Definition TSW Design 2 (TSW2 was installed in spill bay 20 during the study 

periods from 2007 to 2009).

Turbine Passage Unconditional probability of passing through the turbines.

Bypass Passage Probability of bypass passage, conditional on the fish not passing 

through the turbines.

Spillway (also Spillway

Passage Efficiency) 

Passage Probability of spillway passage, conditional on the fish not passing 

through the powerhouse. This is also called spillway passage 

efficiency (SPE).

TSW11 Passage Probability of TSW1 passage, conditional on the fish not passing 

through the powerhouse or spillway.

TSW21 Passage Probability of TSW2 passage, conditional on the fish not passing 

through the powerhouse, spillway, or TSW1.

Fish Passage Efficiency Metric FPE. Probability of passing through non-turbine routes.

Fish Guidance 

Efficiency

Metric FGE. Probability of passing through the juvenile bypass system 

given fish passed the powerhouse.

Powerhouse 

Effectiveness

Metric The ratio of the proportion of fish passing through the powerhouse 

(turbine+bypass) to the proportion of water being discharged 

through the powerhouse.

Spillway Effectiveness Metric SPS. The ratio of the proportion of fish passing through the spillway

to the proportion of water being spilled through the spillway.

TSW1 Effectiveness 1 Metric SOS1-Surface Outlet Effectiveness for TSW1. The ratio of the 

proportion of fish passing through TSW1 to the proportion of water 

being spilled through TSW1.

TSW2 Effectiveness 1 Metric SOS2-Surface Outlet Effectiveness for TSW2. The ratio of the 

proportion of fish passing through TSW2 to the proportion of water 

being spilled through TSW2.

Both TSWs 

Effectiveness 1

Metric SOSBoth-Surface Outlet Effectiveness for TSW1 and TSW2. The 

ratio of the proportion of fish passing through TSW1+TSW2 to the 

proportion of water being spilled through TSW1+TSW2.

TSW and Spill 

Effectiveness 1

Metric SPS+SOS. The ratio of the proportion of fish passing through the 

entire spillway to the proportion of water being spilled through the 

entire spillway.

1

Parameter was not estimable in 2006 because TSWs were not present.
22

Table 1-8. Definitions of fish survival parameters for fish released near Hat Rock State Park and McNary Dam

tailrace, 2006–09.

[Single-Release, Single-release survival estimate; Paired-Release, Paired-release survival estimate. Estimates were obtained 

using paired- and single-release, route-specific survival model]

Parameter Estimate Definition

All Routes Single-Release Survival probability from the upstream boundary of McNary Dam

(the dam face) to the first downstream detection array as a weighted 

average for all routes. Note: this is similar to the paired-release 

estimate of concrete survival with the exception that it includes the 

section of river from the tailrace to the first downstream detection 

array.

Control Single-Release Survival probability from control group release location, located at 

the downstream tailrace boundary, to the first downstream detection 

array.

Pool Single-Release The probability of survival from Hat Rock State Park (rkm 480, 10 

rkm upstream of McNary Dam) to the upstream boundary of the 

forebay (rkm 472).

Forebay Single-Release The probability of survival from the upstream forebay boundary 

(rkm 472) to passage at McNary Dam (rkm 470).

Turbine Single-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through the turbine to the 

first downstream detection site.

Bypass Single-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through the bypass to the 

first downstream detection site.

Spillway Single-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through conventional

spill bays to the first downstream detection site.

TSW11 Single-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through TSW1 to the 

first downstream detection site.

TSW21 Single-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through TSW2 to the 

first downstream detection site.

Concrete Paired-Release The probability of survival from the upstream boundary of McNary 

Dam (the dam face) to the downstream boundary of the tailrace 

where the reference group is released; it includes all routes of 

passage and the tailrace of McNary Dam. The probability of survival 

through each route of passage is weighted by the probability of

passage through each route. NOTE: The 2008 FCRPS Biological 

Opinion terms this parameter “dam survival”.

Project Paired-Release The probability of survival from Hat Rock State Park (rkm 480, 10 

rkm upstream of McNary Dam) to the downstream boundary of the 

McNary tailrace. Includes survival through the reservoir from the 

treatment release location, forebay, dam, and tailrace.

Turbine Paired-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through the turbine to the 

release location of the tailrace reference group.

Bypass Paired-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through the bypass to the 

release location of the tailrace reference group.

Spillway Paired-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through conventional 

spill bays to the release location of the tailrace reference group.

TSW11 Paired-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through TSW1 to the 

release location of the tailrace reference group.

TSW21 Paired-Release The probability of survival for fish passing through TSW2 to the 

release location of the tailrace reference group.

1

Parameter was not estimable in 2006 because TSWs were not present.
23

Figure 1-10. Schematic of “full” route-specific survival model whereby survival and detection probabilities are separated among river reaches 

upstream and downstream of McNary Dam, diel periods, treatment, passage routes, and the release group (Treatment release group, Control

release group). A single-release version of this model would only include parameters associated with the treatment release group. A third set of 

branches was used for the 2008 summer model where three treatments were evaluated.

Treatment release

Pool Survival

Detection Probability at McNary Dam Forebay

Forebay Survival

Treatment 1

Treatment 1 Day

River 

flow

(1-Treatment 1 Day) or 

Treatment 1 Night

(1-Treatment 2 Day) or 

Treatment 2 Night Treatment 2 Day

(1-Treatment 1) or 

Treatment 2

Control 

Rel. 

TSW1 

Pass. 

Prob.

(1-Turbine Pass. Prob.)

(1-Bypass Pass. Prob.)

Spillway 

Pass. 

Prob.

Spillway 

Survival

TSW1 

Survival

Bypass 

Survival

Detect. Prob. For

Treatment Fish

λ Treatment Fish 

Control 

Survival

TSW2 

Survival

Spillway 

Detect. 

Prob. 

TSW1 

Detect. 

Prob. 

TSW2 

Detect. 

Prob. 

Bypass 

Detect. 

Prob. 

Turbine 

Detect. 

Prob. 

(1-Spillway Pass. Prob.)

(1-TSW1 Pass. Prob. )

Bypass 

Pass. 

Prob.

Detect. Prob. for 

Control Fish 

λ Control Fish

Turbine 

Survival

Turbine 

Pass. 

Prob.

TSW2 

Pass. 

Prob.

TSW1 

Pass. 

Prob.

Control 

Rel. 

(1-Turbine Pass. Prob.)

(1-Bypass Pass. Prob.)

Spillway 

Pass. 

Prob.

Spillway 

Survival

TSW1 

Survival

Bypass 

Survival

Detect. Prob. For

Treatment Fish

λ Treatment Fish 

Control 

Survival

TSW2 

Survival

Spillway 

Detect. 

Prob. 

TSW1 

Detect. 

Prob. 

TSW2 

Detect. 

Prob. 

Bypass 

Detect. 

Prob. 

Turbine 

Detect. 

Prob. 

(1-Spillway Pass. Prob.)

(1-TSW1 Pass. Prob. )

Bypass 

Pass. 

Prob.

Detect. Prob. for 

Control Fish 

λ Control Fish

Turbine 

Survival

Turbine 

Pass. 

Prob.

TSW2 

Pass. 

Prob.

Control 

Rel. 

TSW1 

Pass. 

Prob.

(1-Turbine Pass. Prob.)

(1-Bypass Pass. Prob.)

Spillway 

Pass. 

Prob.

Spillway 

Survival

TSW1 

Survival

Bypass 

Survival

Detect. Prob. For

Treatment Fish

λ Treatment Fish 

Control 

Survival

TSW2 

Survival

Spillway 

Detect. 

Prob. 

TSW1 

Detect. 

Prob. 

TSW2 

Detect. 

Prob. 

Bypass 

Detect. 

Prob. 

Turbine 

Detect. 

Prob. 

(1-Spillway Pass. Prob.)

(1-TSW1 Pass. Prob. )

Bypass 

Pass. 

Prob.

Detect. Prob. for 

Control Fish 

λ Control Fish

Turbine 

Survival

Turbine 

Pass. 

Prob.

TSW2 

Pass. 

Prob.

Control 

Rel. 

TSW1 

Pass. 

Prob.

(1-Turbine Pass. Prob.)

(1-Bypass Pass. Prob.)

Spillway 

Pass. 

Prob.

Spillway 

Survival

TSW1 

Survival

Bypass 

Survival

Detect. Prob. For

Treatment Fish

λ Treatment Fish 

Control 

Survival

TSW2 

Survival

Spillway 

Detect. 

Prob. 

TSW1 

Detect. 

Prob. 

TSW2 

Detect. 

Prob. 

Bypass 

Detect. 

Prob. 

Turbine 

Detect. 

Prob. 

(1-Spillway Pass. Prob.)

(1-TSW1 Pass. Prob. )

Bypass 

Pass. 

Prob.

Detect. Prob. for 

Control Fish 

λ Control Fish

Turbine 

Survival

Turbine 

Pass. 

Prob.

TSW2 

Pass. 

Prob.
24

Fish Behavior

Travel Times and Rates

Fish traveled to the entrance gate located 2 km upstream of McNary Dam (rkm 472) relatively 

quickly following release at Hat Rock State Park (rkm 480), regardless of species or year of study.

Yearling Chinook salmon had the shortest travel times after release (7–8 h), followed by juvenile 

steelhead (9–10 h), and subyearling Chinook salmon (9–14 h; table 1-9). These travel times translate to 

travel rates of 13.84–26.59 km/d, depending on year and species, in the 8 km reach from the release 

point to the entrance gate. Travel rates slowed considerably as fish approached the forebay of McNary 

Dam, ranging from 4.79–12.88 km/d for yearling Chinook salmon, 4.36–7.73 km/d for juvenile 

steelhead, and 7.65–9.55 km/d for subyearling Chinook salmon, depending on year (table 1-9). Travel 

rates increased after fish passed the dam, ranging from 29.06–45.24 km/d for yearling Chinook salmon, 

46.48–74.43 km/d for juvenile steelhead, and 42.31–64.70 km/d for subyearling Chinook salmon, 

depending on year (table 1–9).

Although travel rates decreased as fish approached the forebay of McNary Dam, the time fish 

resided in the last 160 m (near dam area) before passing the dam was relatively short. Overall, fish 

resided in the forebay between 0.22 and 1.75 h, depending on species and year (table 1-10). Juvenile 

steelhead spent the greatest amount of time (0.53–1.75 h) in the forebay during all years except 2006.

Yearling Chinook salmon had the second longest duration time in the forebay (0.22–0.69 h), and 

subyearling Chinook salmon spent the least amount of time in the forebay before passing (0.28–0.84 h).

During 2006, both species had shorter forebay residence times during the 2006 Test treatment (higher 

discharge through south spill bays) than during the Fish Passage Plan treatment (higher discharge 

through north spill bays), especially juvenile steelhead (table 1-10). Subyearling Chinook salmon had 

shorter forebay residence times during 40 percent spill than during 60 percent spill. During 2007, 

although little difference in discharge was observed between the two treatments, both species had 

shorter forebay residence times during the 2007 Test treatment than during the Modified 2006 Test 

treatment (table 1-10). Subyearling Chinook salmon had shorter forebay residence times during 40

percent spill than during 60 percent spill, similar to 2006. During 2008, both yearling Chinook salmon

and juvenile steelhead had much shorter forebay residence times during Late Season (50–60 percent

spill) than during Early Season (40 percent spill; table 1-10). Subyearling Chinook salmon had longer 

residence times during 40 percent spill, unlike 2006 and 2007. Forebay residence times were longer 

during the day, compared to night, for juvenile steelhead during all years and treatments (table 1-11).

Conversely, residence times were longer during the night, compared to day, for subyearling Chinook 

salmon during all years and treatments. Yearling Chinook salmon residence times in the forebay varied 

by year, treatment, and diel period (table 1-11). Regardless of species or year, fish that passed through 

the spillway had the shortest forebay residence times, followed closely by both TSWs. Fish that passed 

through the turbines or bypass had the longest forebay residence times (table 1-12).
25

Table 1-9. Mean and median travel time (d) and mean travel rate (km/d) for USGS active-tagged juvenile 

salmonids at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

Year

Release→entrance gate (8 km) Entrance gate→dam (2 km) Dam→downstream gate 1 (24 km)1

Mean 

travel 

time (d)

Median 

travel 

time (d)

Mean 

travel rate 

(km/d)

Mean 

travel 

time (d)

Median 

travel 

time (d)

Mean 

travel rate 

(km/d)

Mean 

travel 

time (d)

Median 

travel 

time (d)

Mean travel 

rate (km/d)

Yearling Chinook salmon

2006 0.36 0.26 22.36 0.17 0.08 11.89 0.80 0.54 29.83

2007 0.30 0.26 26.59 0.16 0.08 12.88 0.83 0.56 29.06

2008 0.34 0.25 23.36 0.36 0.10 5.63 0.74 0.54 32.49

2009 0.35 0.28 23.06 0.42 0.13 4.79 0.49 0.38 45.24

Juvenile steelhead

2006 0.41 0.30 19.46 0.26 0.11 7.73 0.51 0.30 47.51

2007 0.39 0.35 20.74 0.29 0.17 6.86 0.44 0.31 55.08

2008 0.43 0.35 18.53 0.42 0.22 4.77 0.52 0.33 46.48

2009 0.40 0.33 19.82 0.46 0.26 4.36 0.30 0.25 74.43

Subyearling Chinook salmon

2006 0.58 0.37 13.84 0.23 0.12 8.84 0.53 0.41 45.14

2007 0.53 0.35 15.12 0.21 0.10 9.55 0.57 0.45 42.31

2008 0.39 0.30 20.33 0.26 0.08 7.76 0.42 0.38 57.27

2009 0.46 0.34 17.46 0.26 0.10 7.65 0.34 0.32 64.70

1

Distance for 2009 Dam→downstream gate 1 (22 km), mean travel rate accounts for varying distances

Table 1-10. Median residence times (h) overall and by treatment for USGS acoustic-tagged juvenile salmonids in 

the near dam area (within 160 m) of McNary Dam, 2006–09.

Year Treatment and Season Yearling Chinook 

salmon

Juvenile 

steelhead

Subyearling 

Chinook salmon

Spring Summer

2006 Overall Overall 0.22 0.53 0.84

Fish Passage Plan 60% 0.23 0.70 0.93

2006 Test 40% 0.20 0.45 0.71

2007 Overall Overall 0.41 1.75 0.34

Modified 2006 Test 60% 0.41 1.87 0.38

2007 Test 40% 0.38 1.61 0.26

2008 Overall Overall 0.31 1.12 0.24

Early Season Early Season 0.55 2.42 0.13

Late Season 60% 0.12 0.20 0.29

NA 40% NA NA 0.37

2009 Overall Overall 0.44 1.06 0.31
26

Table 1-11. Median residence times (h) overall and by treatment for each diel period for USGS acoustic-tagged 

juvenile salmonids in the near dam area (within 160 m) of McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[NA, not applicable]

Year Treatment and Season Yearling Chinook 

salmon

Juvenile steelhead Subyearling Chinook 

salmon

Spring Summer Day Night Day Night Day Night

2006 Overall Overall 0.25 0.20 2.15 0.26 0.81 1.00

Fish Passage Plan 60% 0.28 0.21 3.52 0.26 0.91 1.01

2006 Test 40% 0.22 0.19 1.26 0.25 0.68 0.94

2007 Overall Overall 0.34 0.58 1.97 1.13 0.26 0.46

Modified 2006 Test 60% 0.36 0.55 2.69 0.98 0.34 0.58

2007 Test 40% 0.34 0.62 1.66 1.34 0.22 0.41

2008 Overall Overall 0.39 0.25 1.77 0.51 0.22 0.29

Early Season Early Season 0.57 0.52 3.84 1.17 0.11 0.18

Late Season 60% 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.18 0.26 0.36

NA 40% NA NA NA NA 0.35 0.44

2009 Overall Overall 0.51 0.39 2.72 0.53 0.28 0.35

Table 1-12. Median residence times (h) overall and by passage route for USGS acoustic-tagged juvenile salmonids 

in the near dam area (within 160 m) of McNary Dam, 2006–09.

Species Route 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearling Overall 0.22 0.41 0.31 0.44

Chinook Turbine 0.27 0.46 0.53 0.56

salmon Bypass 0.33 0.96 0.74 0.93

TSW 1 NA 0.48 0.40 0.40

TSW 2 NA 0.26 0.60 0.53

Spillway 0.18 0.22 0.15 0.25

Juvenile Overall 0.53 1.75 1.13 1.06

steelhead Turbine 0.58 6.19 0.74 0.84

Bypass 0.57 4.25 1.9 2.18

TSW 1 NA 1.92 1.04 0.80

TSW 2 NA 1.03 2.36 1.23

Spillway 0.51 0.70 0.37 0.66

Subyearling Overall 0.84 0.34 0.24 0.31

Chinook Turbine 1.07 0.55 0.45 0.47

salmon Bypass 1.05 0.55 0.32 0.48

TSW 1 NA 0.29 0.23 NA

TSW 2 NA 0.24 0.36 0.36

Spillway 0.72 0.19 0.16 0.22

Spill Bays 16-19 NA NA NA 0.24
27

Vertical Passage Distributions

The depth of acoustic-tagged fish within 60 m of the dam varied between species and year and 

changed over the 24-h diel period. The mean depth of yearling Chinook salmon was between 4 and 9 m

during all years, and varied only 2–3 m in any given year (fig. 1-11). Diel distribution in 2007 and 2008 

was shallower during the night than during the day. The mean depth of juvenile steelhead over the 24-h 

diel period was similar among all four study years. Juvenile steelhead generally were shallower (< 5 m) 

during the day and deeper (6–8 m) during the night. Subyearling Chinook salmon were slightly deeper 

during the day than during the night and were shallowest during the crepuscular periods. Differences in 

depths between the species were most apparent during the day and less apparent during the night, 

especially during the crepuscular periods. Because the TSWs are a surface-oriented passage route (the 

TSW crest was set about 2.4 m below the water surface), species and temporal differences in depth 

likely influence the passage performance of these structures.

Figure 1-11. Mean depth of acoustic tagged salmonids for each hour of the day that fish were detected within 

60 m of McNary Dam 2006–09. Light and dark areas designate diel periods of day and night, respectively.

Yearling Chinook salmon

Juvenile steelhead

Hour

Subyearling Chinook salmon

Depth (m)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2006 2007 2008 2009

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14
28

Fish Passage and Survival

Route-Specific Passage Probabilities 

Route-specific passage probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon varied by year, diel period, 

and treatment. In 2006, about 60 percent of fish passed through the spillway, regardless of diel period or 

treatment (table 1-13). Once the TSWs were installed in 2007, spillway passage declined to between

24.9 and 47.9 percent in 2007, 2008, and 2009 overall and by diel period, but was still the prominent 

passage route. TSW2, installed in spill bay 20, passed about 7.6 percent of fish overall in 2007 and 2008 

with more passing during the day than night. In 2009, 9.1 percent of yearling Chinook salmon passed 

through TSW2 with more passing during the night than the day. TSW1 passed twice as many fish as 

TSW2 in 2007 while installed in spill bay 22 by diel period and overall. Passage through TSW1 in spill 

bay 19 was about 10 percent in 2008, but only about 4 percent in 2009 when it was installed in spill bay 

4. Similar to the diel patterns of TSW2 passage, day passage through TSW1 was about 2 percent higher 

during the day in 2008, and 2 percent lower during the day in 2009. Overall, 21–32 percent of yearling 

Chinoook salmon passed though the bypass, and 13–14 percent passed through the turbines during all 

study years. More fish passed through either the bypass or turbines during the night than the day in 

2006, 2007, and 2008. There was little difference in passage between the Fish Passage Plan treatment 

and the 2006 Test Spill treatment in 2006. More fish were bypassed during the 2007 Test Spill treatment 

than during the Modified 2006 Test Spill treatment and fish passing all other routes passed in greater 

numbers during the Modified 2006 Test Spill treatment in 2007. During 2008, powerhouse and TSW 

passage was greater during the Early Season, and spillway passage increased by 42 percent during the 

Late Season. Spillway passage was always greater during the day than the night when comparing 

treatments, except in the 2008 Late Season when 77.6 percent of fish passed during the night, compared 

to 69.6 percent during the day (table 1-14). When the TSWs were installed and treatments were 

operating, more fish passed through both TSWs during the day than during night except for TSW1 in 

both treatment periods in 2007. Regardless of diel period, treatment, or TSW availability, yearling 

Chinook salmon passed more readily through the spillway and bypass.

Route-specific passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead were similar to probabilities for 

yearling Chinook salmon. In 2006, about 65 percent of steelhead passed through the spillway (table 1-

15). Spillway passage declined for steelhead to between 14 and 34 percent after the TSWs were 

installed but, unlike for yearling Chinook salmon, TSW passage (65 percent) exceeded spillway passage

(14 percent) in 2007. Overall, between 4 and 10 percent of juvenile steelhead passed through the 

turbines, and between 17 and 25 percent passed through the bypass, during all years of study. Passage 

probabilities between each treatment in 2006 and 2007 were similar. During the Early Season in 2008,

when flows were lower, 51.6 percent of juvenile steelhead passed through the TSWs while only 13.5

percent passed through the TSWs during the Late Season when a greater percent of water passed 

through the spillway. In 2007 and 2008, juvenile steelhead passed in greater numbers through the 

turbines, bypass, and spillway during the night, compared to day. Passage through the TSWs was higher 

during the day than during the night, during all years of study. During the day of Early Season in 2008, 

65.8 percent of fish passed through both TSWs and 34.8 percent passed during the night of Early 

Season. Following a similar trend, four times as many fish passed during the day of Late Season 

compared to the night of Late Season. Juvenile steelhead used deeper passage routes (turbine and 

bypass) during the night, but overall passed through conventional and TSW spill bays in high numbers 

depending on flow.
29

Passage probabilities for subyearling Chinook varied by year, diel period, and treatment, similar 

to the other species. In 2006, more than one-half of subyearling Chinook salmon passed through the 

spillway, and more fish passed through the turbines than the bypass (table 1-17). In 2007 and 2009, 34–

37 percent of fish passed through the spillway, and 27 percent passed through both TSWs. However, in 

2008, when spill discharge was higher than other years, about one-half of subyearling Chinook salmon 

passed through the spillway, and only 17 percent passed through both TSWs. Over the diel cycle, 

passage through the TSWs was relatively unchanged, more fish consistently passed through the turbines 

at night, and through the spillway and bypass during the day. Subyearling Chinook salmon followed 

flow in 2006 and 2007, passing the spillway in greater numbers during 60 percent spill than during 40

percent spill. In 2007, TSW1 (located in spill bay 22) passed almost twice as many fish during 60

percent spill compared to 40 percent spill. In contrast, passage was higher through TSW2 than TSW1

(located in bay 19) during 2008. During the Early Season of 2008, 59.5 percent of fish passed through 

the spillway and 31.3 percent of fish passed through the powerhouse. During the 60 percent spill 

treatment in 2006, turbine passage increased during the night and spillway passage increased during the 

day (table 1-18). During the 60 percent treatment in 2007 and 2008, passage increased during the day 

through the spillway and TSW1. Bypass passage was higher during the day in 2007 and during the night 

in 2008. Passage trends during the 40 percent treatment diel periods were different between 2007 and 

2008. In 2007, passage was higher during the night through the turbines and TSW1, while spillway and

TSW2 passage was unchanged between the diel periods. In 2008, passage was higher during the night 

through the bypass, TSW1, and TSW2. The probability of passage through the spillway during the day 

was more than double than passage at night. During the Early Season of 2008, passage was higher 

during the day through the bypass and TSW1, but was unchanged between diel periods for fish passing 

through TSW2. The probability of subyearling Chinook salmon passing through the TSW was 

influenced by treatment, but was relatively constant when combined over treatment and diel period.
30

Table 1-13. Route-specific passage probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon overall, by diel period, and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Standard error is shown in parentheses; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night Treatment 1 Treatment 2

2006 Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill

Turbine 0.125 (0.008) 0.089 (0.010) 0.164 (0.013) 0.137 (0.012) 0.113 (0.011)

Bypass 0.240 (0.010) 0.235 (0.014) 0.247 (0.015) 0.202 (0.014) 0.276 (0.015)

Spillway1 0.635 (0.012) 0.677 (0.016) 0.589 (0.017) 0.661 (0.016) 0.611 (0.016)

TSW1 NA NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Turbine 0.142 (0.008) 0.145 (0.010) 0.140 (0.015) 0.147 (0.011) 0.138 (0.011)

Bypass 0.288 (0.010) 0.255 (0.012) 0.368 (0.020) 0.255 (0.014) 0.320 (0.015)

Spillway1 0.327 (0.011) 0.358 (0.013) 0.249 (0.018) 0.341 (0.016) 0.313 (0.015)

TSW1 0.168 (0.009) 0.161 (0.010) 0.183 (0.016) 0.176 (0.012) 0.160 (0.012)

TSW2 0.076 (0.006) 0.081 (0.007) 0.061 (0.010) 0.082 (0.009) 0.070 (0.008)

2008 Early Season Late Season

Turbine 0.131 (0.009) 0.119 (0.011) 0.151 (0.016) 0.179 (0.013) 0.055 (0.010)

Bypass 0.212 (0.011) 0.207 (0.014) 0.237 (0.019) 0.257 (0.015) 0.143 (0.015)

Spillway1 0.478 (0.013) 0.479 (0.017) 0.458 (0.020) 0.313 (0.016) 0.738 (0.019)

TSW1 0.102 (0.008) 0.112 (0.011) 0.088 (0.013) 0.146 (0.012) 0.031 (0.007)

TSW2 0.077 (0.007) 0.083 (0.009) 0.066 (0.011) 0.105 (0.010) 0.033 (0.008)

2009 NA NA

Turbine 0.147 (0.010) 0.147 (0.013) 0.146 (0.015) NA NA

Bypass 0.316 (0.013) 0.329 (0.017) 0.299 (0.019) NA NA

Spillway1 0.402 (0.013) 0.405 (0.017) 0.398 (0.020) NA NA

TSW1 0.045 (0.006) 0.037 (0.007) 0.055 (0.010) NA NA

TSW2 0.091 (0.008) 0.082 (0.010) 0.102 (0.013) NA NA

1

The probability of passing through the spillway also is termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).
31

Table 1-14. Route-specific passage probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon by treatment and diel period at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Standard error is shown in parentheses; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1- Day Treatment 1- Night Treatment 2- Day Treatment 2- Night

2006 Fish Passage Plan Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill 2006 Test Spill

Turbine 0.105 (0.016) 0.164 (0.017) 0.073 (0.012) 0.164 (0.019)

Bypass 0.206 (0.021) 0.198 (0.019) 0.262 (0.020) 0.293 (0.023)

Spillway1 0.689 (0.024) 0.638 (0.023) 0.665 (0.021) 0.543 (0.025)

TSW1 NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Turbine 0.138 (0.013) 0.168 (0.023) 0.151 (0.014) 0.112 (0.018)

Bypass 0.218 (0.016) 0.356 (0.030) 0.291 (0.018) 0.380 (0.028)

Spillway1 0.380 (0.019) 0.233 (0.027) 0.336 (0.019) 0.263 (0.026)

TSW1 0.171 (0.014) 0.188 (0.024) 0.151 (0.014) 0.179 (0.022)

TSW2 0.092 (0.011) 0.055 (0.014) 0.071 (0.010) 0.067 (0.014)

2008 Early Season Early Season Late Season Late Season

Turbine 0.166 (0.016) 0.206 (0.024) 0.047 (0.013) 0.063 (0.014)

Bypass 0.228 (0.018) 0.315 (0.027) 0.173 (0.023) 0.115 (0.019)

Spillway1 0.342 (0.020) 0.255 (0.026) 0.696 (0.029) 0.776 (0.025)

TSW1 0.153 (0.015) 0.133 (0.020) 0.046 (0.013) 0.017 (0.008)

TSW2 0.111 (0.013) 0.091 (0.017) 0.038 (0.012) 0.028 (0.010)

20092 NA NA NA NA

1

The probability of passing through the spillway also is termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).

2

There were no treatments in 2009.
32

Table 1-15. Route-specific passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead overall, by diel period, and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Standard error is shown in parentheses; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night Treatment 1 Treatment 2

2006 Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill

Turbine 0.102 (0.010) 0.094 (0.017) 0.107 (0.013) 0.101 (0.015) 0.103 (0.015)

Bypass 0.250 (0.014) 0.164 (0.020) 0.302 (0.019) 0.213 (0.018) 0.289 (0.021)

Spillway1 0.648 (0.016) 0.742 (0.024) 0.590 (0.020) 0.686 (0.021) 0.608 (0.023)

TSW1 NA NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Turbine 0.043 (0.006) 0.023 (0.006) 0.078 (0.014) 0.043 (0.009) 0.044 (0.009)

Bypass 0.172 (0.011) 0.063 (0.009) 0.364 (0.025) 0.154 (0.015) 0.192 (0.017)

Spillway1 0.138 (0.011) 0.114 (0.012) 0.173 (0.020) 0.135 (0.015) 0.141 (0.016)

TSW1 0.468 (0.015) 0.583 (0.019) 0.277 (0.023) 0.470 (0.021) 0.466 (0.022)

TSW2 0.179 (0.012) 0.217 (0.016) 0.109 (0.016) 0.198 (0.017) 0.158 (0.016)

2008 Early Season Late Season

Turbine 0.083 (0.011) 0.076 (0.018) 0.090 (0.013) 0.091 (0.015) 0.064 (0.013)

Bypass 0.172 (0.011) 0.091 (0.011) 0.275 (0.020) 0.158 (0.013) 0.206 (0.022)

Spillway1 0.342 (0.014) 0.310 (0.018) 0.378 (0.021) 0.235 (0.015) 0.595 (0.026)

TSW1 0.166 (0.011) 0.222 (0.017) 0.096 (0.013) 0.210 (0.014) 0.060 (0.013)

TSW2 0.237 (0.013) 0.300 (0.019) 0.160 (0.016) 0.306 (0.017) 0.075 (0.014)

2009 NA NA

Turbine 0.070 (0.008) 0.087 (0.014) 0.057 (0.009) NA NA

Bypass 0.242 (0.013) 0.173 (0.017) 0.293 (0.018) NA NA

Spillway1 0.342 (0.014) 0.279 (0.020) 0.390 (0.019) NA NA

TSW1 0.103 (0.009) 0.109 (0.014) 0.098 (0.012) NA NA

TSW2 0.243 (0.013) 0.351 (0.022) 0.163 (0.015) NA NA

1

The probability of passing through the spillway also is termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).
33

Table 1-16. Route-specific passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead by treatment and diel period at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Standard error is shown in parentheses; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1- Day Treatment 1- Night Treatment 2- Day Treatment 2- Night

2006 Fish Passage Plan Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill 2006 Test Spill

Turbine 0.105 (0.025) 0.100 (0.018) 0.083 (0.022) 0.116 (0.020)

Bypass 0.170 (0.028) 0.236 (0.024) 0.158 (0.027) 0.372 (0.029)

Spillway1 0.725 (0.035) 0.664 (0.027) 0.759 (0.033) 0.513 (0.030)

TSW1 NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Turbine 0.026 (0.008) 0.083 (0.021) 0.021 (0.008) 0.073 (0.017)

Bypass 0.051 (0.011) 0.389 (0.037) 0.075 (0.015) 0.338 (0.031)

Spillway1 0.129 (0.018) 0.151 (0.028) 0.097 (0.018) 0.196 (0.028)

TSW1 0.556 (0.025) 0.271 (0.034) 0.612 (0.029) 0.282 (0.030)

TSW2 0.238 (0.022) 0.106 (0.024) 0.195 (0.023) 0.111 (0.021)

2008 Early Season Early Season Late Season Late Season

Turbine 0.083 (0.025) 0.099 (0.015) 0.061 (0.017) 0.069 (0.021)

Bypass 0.082 (0.013) 0.248 (0.022) 0.113 (0.022) 0.338 (0.039)

Spillway1 0.177 (0.019) 0.305 (0.024) 0.625 (0.034) 0.552 (0.041)

TSW1 0.281 (0.022) 0.126 (0.017) 0.083 (0.019) 0.028 (0.014)

TSW2 0.377 (0.024) 0.222 (0.021) 0.118 (0.023) 0.014 (0.010)

20092 NA NA NA NA

1

The probability of passing through the spillway also is termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).

2

There were no treatments in 2009.
34

Table 1-17. Route-specific passage probabilities for subyearling Chinook salmon overall, by diel period, and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Standard error is shown in parentheses; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

2006 60% Spill 40% Spill NA

Turbine 0.265 (0.011) 0.237 (0.013) 0.329 (0.021) 0.220 (0.017) 0.290 (0.014) NA

Bypass 0.195 (0.010) 0.210 (0.012) 0.161 (0.016) 0.110 (0.013) 0.244 (0.013) NA

Spillway1 0.540 (0.012) 0.552 (0.015) 0.510 (0.023) 0.669 (0.020) 0.466 (0.015) NA

TSW1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

2007 60% Spill 40% Spill NA

Turbine 0.178 (0.009) 0.157 (0.011) 0.216 (0.017) 0.140 (0.012) 0.218 (0.015) NA

Bypass 0.211 (0.010) 0.234 (0.013) 0.171 (0.015) 0.129 (0.011) 0.297 (0.016) NA

Spillway1 0.341 (0.012) 0.344 (0.015) 0.334 (0.020) 0.425 (0.017) 0.250 (0.016) NA

TSW1 0.174 (0.009) 0.176 (0.012) 0.171 (0.016) 0.219 (0.014) 0.127 (0.012) NA

TSW2 0.096 (0.007) 0.090 (0.009) 0.109 (0.013) 0.086 (0.010) 0.107 (0.011) NA

2008 Early Season 60% Spill 40% Spill

Turbine 0.190 (0.010) 0.189 (0.011) 0.194 (0.018) 0.141 (0.014) 0.125 (0.014) 0.303 (0.019)

Bypass 0.141 (0.008) 0.120 (0.009) 0.193 (0.017) 0.172 (0.016) 0.092 (0.012) 0.156 (0.015)

Spillway1 0.498 (0.012) 0.530 (0.014) 0.416 (0.021) 0.595 (0.020) 0.590 (0.021) 0.311 (0.019)

TSW1 0.093 (0.007) 0.091 (0.008) 0.098 (0.013) 0.048 (0.009) 0.110 (0.013) 0.123 (0.014)

TSW2 0.078 (0.007) 0.070 (0.007) 0.098 (0.013) 0.045 (0.009) 0.083 (0.012) 0.107 (0.013)

2009 NA NA NA

Turbine 0.188 (0.010) 0.168 (0.012) 0.216 (0.016) NA NA NA

Bypass 0.167 (0.009) 0.168 (0.012) 0.165 (0.014) NA NA NA

Spillway1 0.371 (0.012) 0.398 (0.016) 0.334 (0.018) NA NA NA

Spill bays 16–19 0.143 (0.009) 0.127 (0.011) 0.165 (0.014) NA NA NA

TSW2 0.131 (0.008) 0.139 (0.011) 0.120 (0.012) NA NA NA

1

The probability of passing through the spillway also is termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).
35

Table 1-18. Route-specific passage probabilities for subyearling Chinook salmon by treatment and diel period at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Standard error is shown in parentheses; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1- Day Treatment 1- Night Treatment 2- Day Treatment 2- Night Treatment 3- Day Treatment 3- Night

2006 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill NA NA

Turbine 0.202 (0.020) 0.270 (0.035) 0.257 (0.016) 0.363 (0.027) NA NA

Bypass 0.108 (0.015) 0.115 (0.025) 0.269 (0.016) 0.188 (0.021) NA NA

Spillway1 0.689 (0.022) 0.616 (0.039) 0.474 (0.019) 0.450 (0.027) NA NA

TSW1 NA NA NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA NA NA

2007 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill NA NA

Turbine 0.128 (0.014) 0.165 (0.022) 0.188 (0.018) 0.269 (0.026) NA NA

Bypass 0.136 (0.014) 0.116 (0.019) 0.339 (0.021) 0.229 (0.024) NA NA

Spillway1 0.432 (0.021) 0.413 (0.031) 0.251 (0.021) 0.250 (0.026) NA NA

TSW1 0.225 (0.018) 0.207 (0.024) 0.123 (0.015) 0.133 (0.020) NA NA

TSW2 0.080 (0.011) 0.098 (0.018) 0.100 (0.013) 0.119 (0.019) NA NA

2008 Early Season Early Season 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill

Turbine 0.149 (0.018) 0.125 (0.024) 0.097 (0.015) 0.195 (0.031) 0.318 (0.023) 0.265 (0.035)

Bypass 0.180 (0.019) 0.156 (0.026) 0.057 (0.012) 0.176 (0.030) 0.120 (0.016) 0.247 (0.034)

Spillway1 0.574 (0.025) 0.637 (0.035) 0.652 (0.024) 0.441 (0.039) 0.368 (0.024) 0.167 (0.029)

TSW1 0.051 (0.011) 0.042 (0.014) 0.117 (0.016) 0.094 (0.023) 0.108 (0.015) 0.160 (0.029)

TSW2 0.046 (0.011) 0.042 (0.014) 0.078 (0.014) 0.094 (0.023) 0.086 (0.014) 0.160 (0.029)

20092 NA NA NA NA NA NA

1

The probability of passing through the spillway also is termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).

2

There were no treatments in 2009.
36

Fish Passage Efficiency, Guidance Efficiency, and Passage Route Effectiveness

Passage metrics for yearling Chinook salmon varied by diel period, treatment, and year. Fish 

Passage Efficiency (FPE) and Fish Guidance Efficiency (FGE) were both higher during the day than 

during the night. Additionally, FGE was higher during the 2006 Test Spill treatment than during the 

Fish Passage Plan (FPP) treatment (table 1-19). In 2007, TSW1 (spill bay 22) was twice as effective at 

passing fish as TSW2 (spill bay 20), regardless of treatment or diel period, and TSW and spillway 

effectiveness combined was 0.405–0.480 higher than spillway effectiveness, depending on treatment 

and diel period. Due to the high probability of passing through the four non-turbine routes, FPE was 

more than 85 percent in all 3 years with the TSWs installed and FGE was around 66 percent (0.589–

0.725). In 2008, when the TSWs were installed in adjacent spill bays, effectiveness of each TSW was 

similar, but higher through TSW1 (spill bay 19). TSW and spillway effectiveness combined in 2008 was 

similar to 2007 and was between 0.199 and 0.403 higher than spillway effectiveness; however, the

TSWs did not increase combined effectiveness during the Late Season spill period of 2008 (table 1-19).

During 2009, TSW2 (spill bay 20) was more than twice as effective as TSW1 (spill bay 4). The 

difference between TSW and spillway effectiveness combined and TSW effectiveness was only 0.113–

0.195, depending on treatment and diel period. Overall spillway effectiveness of yearling Chinook 

salmon was 1.267 in 2006 (before the TSWs were installed) and increased by only 0–0.138 (based on

TSW and spillway effectiveness combined) in the 3 years when the TSWs were operating, although 

over a range of operating condition.

Trends were evident in yearling Chinook salmon passage metrics by diel period and treatment

combined (table 1-20). The highest fish passage efficiency was during the day when the 2006 Test Spill

treatment was occurring. It also was high during the day and night when the 2008 Late Season treatment

was occurring. Fish passage efficiency was lowest during the night when the 2008 Early Season

treatment was tested. Fish guidance efficiency was higher during the night than day during both 

treatments in 2007 and the Early Season in 2008. However, FGE was higher during the day during the 

high flows of the 2008 Late Season. TSW and spillway effectiveness combined ranged from 1.171 to 

1.571 in 2007 and 2008 and was higher during the day for all treatments except for the Late Season in 

2008. TSW1 effectiveness during the 2008 Late Season at night was 0.838 less than spillway

effectiveness but was greater during all other years and diel periods.

Passage metrics of juvenile steelhead were similar to those of yearling Chinook salmon. Fish 

passage efficiency was 0.898–0.977 depending on year, treatment, or diel period (table 1-21). Fish 

guidance efficiency was greater at night than during the day (0.093–0.208 higher). There was no 

difference in FGE between the 2006 or 2007 treatments, but FGE was greater during the 2008 Late 

Season than during the 2008 Early Season. For all years, TSW1 and TSW2 effectiveness during the day 

was more than double the effectiveness at night except when TSW1 was located in spill bay 4 during 

spring 2009. Durning this time, the effectiveness was only 1.15 times higher. The effect of the addition 

of the TSWs on overall spillway effectiveness was 0.872–1.895 in 2007, 0.141–1.127 in 2008, and 

0.429–0.924 in 2009, depending on treatment and diel period.

Passage metrics by treatment and diel periods combined show differences for juvenile steelhead.

Regardless of treatment, FGE was always higher at night (table 1-22). Fish passage efficiency was the 

same between diel periods and treatments in 2006 and 2008, but higher during the day during both 

treatments in 2007. TSW1 and TSW2 effectiveness during the day were more than double the 

effectiveness during the night. The effect of the addition of the TSWs on the overall TSW and spillway 

effectiveness combined was an increase of 0.88–1.920 in 2007 and 0–1.496. The two TSWs did not 

increase the combined TSW spillway effectiveness during the 2008 Late Season at night.
37

Passage metrics of subyearling Chinook salmon were fairly consistent within, and even across, 

years, treatments, and diel periods over the course of the four study years. Fish passage efficiency 

ranged from 0.671 to 0.843, depending on diel period, and was higher during the day than during the 

night (table 1-23). After installation of the TSWs, FPE increased from 0.735 overall in 2006 to 

approximately 0.815. Fish guidance efficiency was higher during the day and ranged from 0.411 to 

0.527 overall from 2006 to 2009. Effectiveness of both the TSWs was around 2, but TSW and spillway 

effectiveness combined was 1.2–1.3; only 0.142–0.376 higher than spillway effectiveness alone.

Spillway effectiveness and FPE were higher during 60 percent spill, but FGE and powerhouse 

effectiveness were higher during 40 percent spill. In spite of the vast difference in flow between

treatments, there was no difference in combined TSW and spillway effectiveness between treatments.

Few differences were observed between diel periods for summer treatments. During 60 percent

spill, powerhouse effectiveness was greater at night and spillway effectiveness was greater during the 

day (table 1-24). During 40 percent spill, FPE and FGE were higher during the day in 2006 and 2007, 

but higher at night during 2008. Combined TSW and spillway effectiveness was similar between diel 

periods in 2007, but was higher during the day during 60 percent spill in 2008.
38

Table 1-19. Passage metrics of yearling Chinook salmon overall, by diel period, and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night Treatment 1 Treatment 2

2006 Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.875 (0.008) 0.911 (0.010) 0.836 (0.013) 0.863 (0.012) 0.887 (0.011)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.654 (0.019) 0.726 (0.027) 0.602 (0.026) 0.596 (0.029) 0.709 (0.025)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.733 (0.023) 0.636 (0.031) 0.836 (0.035) 0.704 (0.034) 0.759 (0.032)

Spillway Effectiveness 1.267 (0.023) 1.375 (0.032) 1.153 (0.034) 1.283 (0.032) 1.253 (0.034)

TSW1 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.858 (0.008) 0.855 (0.010) 0.860 (0.015) 0.853 (0.011) 0.862 (0.011)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.667 (0.016) 0.638 (0.021) 0.725 (0.026) 0.635 (0.025) 0.698 (0.022)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.729 (0.019) 0.677 (0.023) 0.860 (0.036) 0.680 (0.027) 0.776 (0.027)

Spillway Effectiveness 0.919 (0.042) 1.053 (0.039) 0.753 (0.056) 1.008 (0.046) 0.928 (0.045)

TSW1 Effectiveness 4.192 (0.213) 4.025 (0.249) 4.577 (0.408) 4.395 (0.309) 3.995 (0.294)

TSW2 Effectiveness 2.098 (0.169) 2.335 (0.216) 1.748 (0.294) 2.053 (0.223) 2.143 (0.253)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 3.478 (0.140) 3.463 (0.166) 3.486 (0.259) 3.684 (0.203) 3.278 (0.193)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.399 (0.028) 1.465 (0.033) 1.231 (0.053) 1.468 (0.039) 1.333 (0.039)

2008 Early Season Late Season

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.869 (0.009) 0.881 (0.011) 0.849 (0.016) 0.821 (0.013) 0.945 (0.010)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.640 (0.023) 0.634 (0.029) 0.612 (0.035) 0.589 (0.026) 0.721 (0.043)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.624 (0.023) 0.601 (0.031) 0.694 (0.037) 0.737 (0.029) 0.447 (0.038)

Spillway Effectiveness 1.177 (0.035) 1.176 (0.044) 1.094 (0.055) 0.979 (0.050) 1.451 (0.037)

TSW1 Effectiveness 2.456 (0.201) 2.845 (0.291) 1.930 (0.279) 3.225 (0.266) 1.244 (0.297)

TSW2 Effectiveness 2.068 (0.199) 2.312 (0.281) 1.681 (0.280) 2.472 (0.247) 1.432 (0.332)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 2.254 (0.134) 2.566 (0.192) 1.808 (0.188) 2.837 (0.167) 1.334 (0.218)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.405 (0.028) 1.450 (0.036) 1.293 (0.047) 1.382 (0.042) 1.441 (0.031)

2009 NA NA

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.853 (0.010) 0.853 (0.013) 0.854 (0.015) NA NA

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.683 (0.019) 0.690 (0.024) 0.672 (0.029) NA NA

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.835 (0.024) 0.861 (0.032) 0.800 (0.037) NA NA

Spillway Effectiveness 1.058 (0.035) 1.059 (0.046) 1.055 (0.054) NA NA

TSW1 Effectiveness 1.293 (0.162) 1.082 (0.197) 1.581 (0.272) NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness 2.795 (0.239) 2.577 (0.306) 3.092 (0.381) NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness 2.038 (0.139) 1.835 (0.178) 2.314 (0.223) NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.205 (0.030) 1.172 (0.040) 1.250 (0.047) NA NA
39

Table 1-20. Passage metrics of yearling Chinook salmon by diel period and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1-Day Treatment 1-Night Treatment 2-Day Treatment 2-Night

2006 Fish Passage Plan Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill 2006 Test Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.895 (0.016) 0.836 (0.017) 0.927 (0.012) 0.836 (0.019)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.663 (0.043) 0.548 (0.039) 0.781 (0.032) 0.642 (0.036)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.617 (0.047) 0.777 (0.049) 0.654 (0.041) 0.890 (0.049)

Spillway Effectiveness 1.389 (0.048) 1.194 (0.042) 1.364 (0.043) 1.116 (0.052)

TSW1 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness NA NA NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.862 (0.013) 0.832 (0.023) 0.849 (0.014) 0.888 (0.018)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.611 (0.031) 0.679 (0.040) 0.659 (0.028) 0.773 (0.034)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.603 (0.031) 0.888 (0.053) 0.749 (0.033) 0.833 (0.048)

Spillway Effectiveness 1.119 (0.055) 0.707 (0.081) 0.989 (0.054) 0.797 (0.078)

TSW1 Effectiveness 4.285 (0.358) 4.690 (0.610) 3.772 (0.348) 4.466 (0.542)

TSW2 Effectiveness 2.305 (0.275) 1.368 (0.355) 2.364 (0.333) 1.675 (0.353)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 3.766 (0.240) 3.462 (0.383) 3.169 (0.231) 3.509 (0.349)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.571 (0.045) 1.190 (0.078) 1.361 (0.047) 1.272 (0.071)

2008 Early Season Early Season Late Season Late Season

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.834 (0.016) 0.794 (0.024) 0.953 (0.013) 0.937 (0.014)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.579 (0.033) 0.604 (0.040) 0.788 (0.054) 0.647 (0.067)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.665 (0.035) 0.882 (0.050) 0.500 (0.058) 0.399 (0.051)

Spillway Effectiveness 1.062 (0.062) 0.813 (0.082) 1.357 (0.056) 1.537 (0.049)

TSW1 Effectiveness 3.480 (0.342) 2.711 (0.410) 1.843 (0.520) 0.699 (0.310)

TSW2 Effectiveness 2.719 (0.321) 1.976 (0.370) 1.670 (0.518) 1.216 (0.424)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 3.077 (0.214) 2.355 (0.260) 1.760 (0.359) 0.947 (0.257)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.486 (0.050) 1.171 (0.072) 1.392 (0.046) 1.486 (0.041)

20091 NA NA NA NA

1

There were no treatments in 2009.
40

Table 1-21. Passage metrics of juvenile steelhead overall, by diel period, and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night Treatment 1 Treatment 2

2006 Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.898 (0.010) 0.906 (0.017) 0.893 (0.013) 0.899 (0.015) 0.897 (0.015)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.707 (0.026) 0.636 (0.053) 0.738 (0.029) 0.677 (0.040) 0.738 (0.034)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.711 (0.032) 0.509 (0.047) 0.833 (0.041) 0.659 (0.045) 0.765 (0.045)

Spillway Effectiveness 1.284 (0.031) 1.507 (0.048) 1.149 (0.040) 1.320 (0.041) 1.247 (0.047)

TSW1 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.957 (0.006) 0.977 (0.006) 0.922 (0.014) 0.957 (0.009) 0.956 (0.009)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.798 (0.026) 0.731 (0.058) 0.824 (0.029) 0.782 (0.039) 0.815 (0.035)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.365 (0.021) 0.146 (0.018) 0.749 (0.043) 0.333 (0.028) 0.399 (0.031)

Spillway Effectiveness 0.573 (0.052) 0.334 (0.037) 0.523 (0.060) 0.402 (0.044) 0.423 (0.048)

TSW1 Effectiveness 11.694 (0.379) 14.58 (0.476) 6.916 (0.568) 11.745 (0.529) 11.64 (0.548)

TSW2 Effectiveness 4.903 (0.323) 6.219 (0.467) 3.171 (0.477) 4.957 (0.422) 4.846 (0.493)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 9.234 (0.208) 11.435 (0.222) 5.503 (0.354) 9.544 (0.287) 8.904 (0.306)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.926 (0.031) 2.229 (0.026) 1.395 (0.063) 1.970 (0.041) 1.880 (0.046)

2008 Early Season Late Season

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.917 (0.011) 0.924 (0.018) 0.910 (0.013) 0.909 (0.015) 0.936 (0.013)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.674 (0.035) 0.545 (0.071) 0.753 (0.031) 0.636 (0.047) 0.763 (0.044)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.476 (0.026) 0.314 (0.036) 0.684 (0.040) 0.420 (0.030) 0.609 (0.054)

Spillway Effectiveness 0.916 (0.039) 0.748 (0.046) 1.007 (0.059) 0.741 (0.048) 1.166 (0.052)

TSW1 Effectiveness 3.979 (0.272) 5.476 (0.422) 2.128 (0.295) 4.646 (0.320) 2.407 (0.509)

TSW2 Effectiveness 6.026 (0.331) 7.982 (0.511) 3.564 (0.356) 7.204 (0.389) 3.247 (0.613)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 4.933 (0.188) 6.620 (0.281) 2.824 (0.212) 5.833 (0.210) 2.810 (0.381)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.681 (0.033) 1.875 (0.047) 1.439 (0.048) 1.840 (0.044) 1.307 (0.043)

2009 NA NA

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.930 (0.008) 0.913 (0.014) 0.943 (0.009) NA NA

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.775 (0.023) 0.665 (0.044) 0.836 (0.025) NA NA

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.562 (0.025) 0.471 (0.037) 0.629 (0.034) NA NA

Spillway Effectiveness 0.904 (0.037) 0.730 (0.053) 1.035 (0.051) NA NA

TSW1 Effectiveness 2.972 (0.261) 3.219 (0.418) 2.786 (0.333) NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness 7.515 (0.395) 10.971 (0.680) 4.925 (0.440) NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness 5.221 (0.214) 7.085 (0.350) 3.824 (0.254) NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.545 (0.031) 1.654 (0.045) 1.464 (0.042) NA NA
41

Table 1-22. Passage metrics of juvenile steelhead by diel period and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1-Day Treatment 1-Night Treatment 2-Day Treatment 2-Night

2006 Fish Passage Plan Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill 2006 Test Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.895 (0.025) 0.900 (0.018) 0.917 (0.022) 0.884 (0.020)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.619 (0.074) 0.703 (0.047) 0.657 (0.077) 0.763 (0.038)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.546 (0.069) 0.721 (0.058) 0.470 (0.064) 0.949 (0.058)

Spillway Effectiveness 1.462 (0.070) 1.243 (0.051) 1.557 (0.067) 1.054 (0.061)

TSW1 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness NA NA NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.974 (0.008) 0.917 (0.021) 0.979 (0.008) 0.927 (0.017)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.667 (0.086) 0.825 (0.042) 0.786 (0.077) 0.823 (0.039)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.130 (0.023) 0.800 (0.065) 0.162 (0.029) 0.696 (0.055)

Spillway Effectiveness 0.378 (0.052) 0.457 (0.085) 0.286 (0.052) 0.593 (0.085)

TSW1 Effectiveness 13.903 (0.633) 6.781 (0.854) 15.30 (0.714) 7.059 (0.742)

TSW2 Effectiveness 5.958 (0.540) 2.653 (0.591) 6.496 (0.772) 2.781 (0.516)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 11.349 (0.298) 5.391 (0.532) 11.527 (0.331) 5.623 (0.463)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 2.252 (0.033) 1.321 (0.096) 2.206 (0.042) 1.473 (0.082)

2008 Early Season Early Season Late Season Late Season

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.917 (0.025) 0.901 (0.015) 0.939 (0.017) 0.931 (0.021)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.498 (0.091) 0.715 (0.040) 0.651 (0.081) 0.831 (0.049)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.280 (0.044) 0.588 (0.042) 0.395 (0.061) 0.910 (0.091)

Spillway Effectiveness 0.549 (0.057) 0.971 (0.076) 1.219 (0.066) 1.093 (0.082)

TSW1 Effectiveness 6.383 (0.504) 2.563 (0.350) 3.334 (0.774) 1.103 (0.544)

TSW2 Effectiveness 9.191 (0.597) 4.821 (0.467) 5.131 (0.984) 0.599 (0.421)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 7.648 (0.315) 3.656 (0.259) 4.195 (0.586) 0.862 (0.344)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 2.045 (0.064) 1.595 (0.060) 1.474 (0.048) 1.073 (0.074)

20091 NA NA NA NA

1

There were no treatments in 2009.
42

Table 1-23. Passage metrics of subyearling Chinook salmon overall, by diel period, and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

2006 60% Spill 40% Spill NA

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.735 (0.011) 0.763 (0.013) 0.671 (0.021) 0.780 (0.017) 0.710 (0.014) NA

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.411 (0.018) 0.470 (0.022) 0.329 (0.030) 0.333 (0.033) 0.456 (0.021) NA

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.869 (0.024) 0.837 (0.028) 0.949 (0.046) 0.799 (0.047) 0.909 (0.026) NA

Spillway Effectiveness 1.135 (0.027) 1.169 (0.032) 1.052 (0.048) 1.142 (0.033) 1.130 (0.037) NA

TSW1 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA NA

2007 60% Spill 40% Spill NA

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.822 (0.009) 0.843 (0.011) 0.784 (0.017) 0.860 (0.012) 0.782 (0.015) NA

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.527 (0.021) 0.599 (0.024) 0.442 (0.033) 0.480 (0.033) 0.577 (0.024) NA

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.779 (0.025) 0.780 (0.031) 0.781 (0.043) 0.691 (0.039) 0.874 (0.031) NA

Spillway Effectiveness 0.814 (0.039) 0.828 (0.039) 0.829 (0.053) 0.840 (0.034) 0.818 (0.053) NA

TSW1 Effectiveness 3.290 (0.176) 3.514 (0.231) 2.855 (0.262) 4.149 (0.270) 2.373 (0.221) NA

TSW2 Effectiveness 1.925 (0.145) 1.790 (0.175) 2.172 (0.258) 1.723 (0.192) 2.141 (0.219) NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness 2.618 (0.106) 2.652 (0.135) 2.545 (0.171) 2.958 (0.154) 2.254 (0.145) NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.190 (0.025) 1.182 (0.031) 1.200 (0.041) 1.198 (0.025) 1.181 (0.044) NA

2008 Early Season 60% Spill 40% Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.810 (0.010) 0.811 (0.011) 0.806 (0.018) 0.859 (0.014) 0.875 (0.014) 0.697 (0.019)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.438 (0.022) 0.389 (0.025) 0.498 (0.036) 0.549 (0.037) 0.423 (0.045) 0.340 (0.029)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.662 (0.023) 0.722 (0.034) 1.090 (0.068) 0.640 (0.039) 0.557 (0.045) 0.786 (0.036)

Spillway Effectiveness 1.130 (0.029) 1.208 (0.034) 0.926 (0.048) 1.308 (0.045) 1.135 (0.041) 0.942 (0.059)

TSW1 Effectiveness 2.276 (0.176) 2.281 (0.213) 2.291 (0.311) 1.642 (0.303) 2.462 (0.300) 2.746 (0.308)

TSW2 Effectiveness 2.052 (0.175) 1.898 (0.206) 2.450 (0.333) 1.635 (0.314) 1.968 (0.281) 2.558 (0.310)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 2.170 (0.119) 2.107 (0.144) 2.352 (0.212) 1.652 (0.214) 2.217 (0.195) 2.655 (0.204)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.313 (0.023) 1.353 (0.027) 1.207 (0.044) 1.344 (0.038) 1.290 (0.029) 1.301 (0.050)

2009 NA NA NA

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.812 (0.010) 0.832 (0.012) 0.784 (0.016) NA NA NA

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.470 (0.021) 0.500 (0.028) 0.433 (0.031) NA NA NA

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.726 (0.024) 0.685 (0.032) 0.782 (0.038) NA NA NA

Spillway Effectiveness 1.092 (0.035) 1.160 (0.047) 0.999 (0.054) NA NA NA

Spill bays 16–19 Effectiveness 1.172 (0.071) 1.070 (0.092) 1.312 (0.113) NA NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness 2.665 (0.171) 2.898 (0.236) 2.344 (0.244) NA NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.263 (0.023) 1.302 (0.030) 1.208 (0.036) NA NA NA
43

Table 1-24. Passage metrics of subyearling Chinook salmon by diel period and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1-Day Treatment 1-Night Treatment 2-Day Treatment 2-Night Treatment 3-Night Treatment 3-Night

2006 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill NA NA

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.798 (0.020) 0.730 (0.035) 0.743 (0.016) 0.637 (0.027) NA NA

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.349 (0.041) 0.299 (0.058) 0.511 (0.026) 0.341 (0.035) NA NA

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.749 (0.054) 0.935 (0.095) 0.888 (0.031) 0.957 (0.048) NA NA

Spillway Effectiveness 1.178 (0.038) 1.044 (0.066) 1.163 (0.046) 1.056 (0.064) NA NA

TSW1 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness NA NA NA NA NA NA

2007 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill NA NA

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.872 (0.014) 0.835 (0.022) 0.812 (0.018) 0.731 (0.026) NA NA

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.515 (0.041) 0.412 (0.055) 0.644 (0.029) 0.460 (0.041) NA NA

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.676 (0.048) 0.721 (0.069) 0.892 (0.039) 0.844 (0.050) NA NA

Spillway Effectiveness 0.847 (0.042) 0.826 (0.062) 0.809 (0.068) 0.832 (0.088) NA NA

TSW1 Effectiveness 4.491 (0.351) 3.458 (0.405) 2.470 (0.295) 2.211 (0.327) NA NA

TSW2 Effectiveness 1.601 (0.227) 1.969 (0.355) 1.992 (0.268) 2.388 (0.375) NA NA

Both TSWs Effectiveness 3.046 (0.194) 2.781 (0.253) 2.231 (0.188) 2.292 (0.229) NA NA

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.207 (0.030) 1.178 (0.044) 1.156 (0.056) 1.224 (0.072) NA NA

2008 Early Season Early Season 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill

Fish Passage Efficiency 0.851 (0.018) 0.875 (0.024) 0.903 (0.015) 0.805 (0.031) 0.682 (0.023) 0.735 (0.035)

Fish Guidance Efficiency 0.547 (0.044) 0.556 (0.068) 0.371 (0.063) 0.475 (0.065) 0.274 (0.033) 0.482 (0.055)

Powerhouse Effectiveness 0.673 (0.049) 0.573 (0.067) 0.388 (0.046) 0.966 (0.100) 0.751 (0.042) 0.874 (0.067)

Spillway Effectiveness 1.259 (0.055) 1.409 (0.078) 1.256 (0.047) 0.841 (0.075) 1.111 (0.072) 0.514 (0.090)

TSW1 Effectiveness 1.769 (0.385) 1.384 (0.480) 2.649 (0.371) 2.006 (0.493) 2.451 (0.349) 3.489 (0.627)

TSW2 Effectiveness 1.710 (0.394) 1.483 (0.514) 1.895 (0.332) 2.143 (0.527) 2.092 (0.338) 3.732 (0.671)

Both TSWs Effectiveness 1.773 (0.273) 1.408 (0.338) 2.286 (0.237) 2.050 (0.337) 2.278 (0.230) 3.607 (0.412)

TSW and Spill Effectiveness 1.311 (0.047) 1.408 (0.064) 1.401 (0.030) 1.021 (0.062) 1.350 (0.059) 1.178 (0.095)

20091 NA NA NA NA NA NA

1

There were no treatments in 2009.
44

Route-Specific Survival Probabilities (Single-Release)

Single-release route-specific survival probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon varied by year 

and diel period. Overall survival through the pool and forebay was high (98–100 percent), and similar 

between years, but the control group had lower survival in 2006 and 2009 (table 1-25). Survival of 

yearling Chinook salmon through the turbines was 0.043–0.106 lower than survival through the bypass 

or spillway during all years. Survival through the TSWs varied by location, design, and water year. The 

highest survival through TSW1 was in 2009 when it was located in spill bay 4 (0.984), and the highest 

survival through TSW2 was in 2008 when it was located in spill bay 20 (0.965). Turbine survival was 

higher during the night and spillway survival was higher during the day for all years. Survival through 

all routes was highest during the 2006 Test Spill and 2008 Late Season and lowest during both 

treatments in 2007 (table 1-26). Turbine survival was less than 0.835 during the Fish Passage Plan

treatment of 2006, Modified 2006 Test Spill, and during both 2008 study periods. Fish survival through 

the TSWs was less than or equal to 0.900 during 2007 Test Spill for TSW1 and 2008 Early Season for 

TSW2, but greater than 0.933 during the other treatments in 2007 and 2008.

When comparing single-release survival by diel period by treatment for yearling Chinook 

salmon, few trends were evident. Survival through all routes was higher at night for the 2006 Fish 

Passage Plan, Modified 2006 Test Spill, and the 2008 Early Season, but was higher during the day for 

the remaining treatments in each of the years (table 1-27). Survival of control fish was similar between 

diel periods and treatments except in 2006 when survival was higher at night. Similar to overall 

survival, survival through the turbines was higher during the night, and survival through the spillway 

and bypass was higher during the day during all treatments. There were few differences in survival 

through the TSWs by treatment and diel period for yearling Chinook salmon.

Single-release survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead at McNary Dam differed very little

overall, by diel period, or by treatment. Overall survival through all routes was lower in 2007 than in the 

other three study years, and survival through the pool and forebay were similar between years (fig. 1-12;

table 1-28). Survival through the TSWs was lowest through TSW1 in 2007, but similar between 2008 

and 2009 and for TSW2 in all years. Although survival was low through the turbines for juvenile 

steelhead, passage probability through the turbines was less than 0.102. High passage through the 

spillway in 2006 resulted in high survival estimates and the highest survival through all routes among 

the 4 years. Similar to yearling Chinook salmon, turbine survival for juvenile steelhead was higher 

during the night and bypass and spillway survival were higher during the day. Survival through all 

routes differed between treatments in 2006, but was similar in 2007 and 2008 (table 1-29). Turbine, 

bypass, and spillway survival were lowest during the Modified 2006 Test Spill and 2007 Test Spill and 

turbine survival also was low during the 2008 Early Season.

Single-release survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead by treatment by diel period were 

similar during all four study years. Survival through all passage routes differed only between diel 

periods during the 2007 Test Spill (day was higher), and the 2008 Early Season (night was higher; table 

1-30). Survival of juvenile steelhead after passing through the turbines was lowest during the day of 

Modified 2006 Test Spill (0.415) and 2008 Early Season (0.420), and during the night of 2007 Test 

Spill (0.609). Bypass survival was lowest during the day of 2007 Test Spill (0.754) and highest during 

the remaining 5-day treatments, night 2006 Test Spill, and night 2008 Late Season. Spill survival was 

greater than 0.931 for all diel treatments except during both 2007 night treatments when survival was 

less than 0.88. Survival through the TSWs was lowest for TSW1 during Modified 2006 Test Spill at 

night. Small sample sizes of juvenile steelhead lead to a wide variation in single-release survival 

estimates.
45

Single-release survival of subyearling Chinook salmon varied by year, diel period, and 

treatment. Survival through all routes of passage, pool, and control, were similar among years, but 

lowest during 2009, and at night during all years (table 1-31). Trends in survival among passage routes 

were similar during the four study years. Turbine survival in 2008 was higher during the night, but was 

similar between diel periods in all other years. Bypass survival was higher during the night in 2006, 

2007, and 2008, but was higher during the day in 2009. Survival through TSW2 (spill bay 20) was 

highest during the day in all 3 years but survival through TSW1 was higher during the day, compared to 

night, only in 2007. Only survival through the spillway and TSW2 differed between treatments in 2007; 

both were higher during 60 percent spill than during 40 percent spill (table 1-32). During the Early 

Season in 2008, all survival estimates except TSW2 survival were substantially higher than during 

either 60 percent spill or 40 percent spill.

Subyearling Chinook salmon survival by diel period by treatment is shown in table 1-33. During 

the 60 percent spill treatment in 2006, 2007, and 2008, all survival probabilities were higher during the 

day than night, except in 2008 for the turbines (0.572 day; 0.911 night), and TSW1 (0.829 day; 0.874 

night). Similarly, all 40 percent spill treatment survival probabilities were equal or higher during the day 

than during the night, except in 2008 for the turbines (0.670 day; 0.755 night), bypass (0.803 day; 0.837 

night), and TSW1 (0.894 day; 0.936 night), however, sample sizes were small in each 2008 group.
46

Table 1-25. Route-specific (single-release) survival probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon overall and by diel 

period at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival 

model; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night

2006

All Routes 0.938 (0.007) 0.942 (0.009) 0.933 (0.010)

Pool 0.978 (0.004; 0.970, 0.984) NA NA

Forebay 0.990 (0.003; 0.984, 0.994) NA NA

Control 0.977 (0.006) 0.957 (0.009) 0.998 (0.007)

Turbine 0.839 (0.026) 0.735 (0.052) 0.892 (0.028)

Bypass 0.945 (0.012) 0.950 (0.017) 0.941 (0.018)

Spillway 0.954 (0.007) 0.966 (0.009) 0.941 (0.012)

TSW1 NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA

2007

All Routes 0.921 (0.011) 0.919 (0.013) 0.926 (0.018)

Pool 0.987 (0.003; 0.981, 0.993) NA NA

Forebay 0.991 (0.003; 0.984, 0.995) NA NA

Control 0.991 (0.012) 1.002 (0.014) 0.980 (0.015)

Turbine 0.824 (0.029) 0.781 (0.036) 0.933 (0.044)

Bypass 0.916 (0.018) 0.917 (0.023) 0.916 (0.028)

Spillway 0.960 (0.016) 0.971 (0.017) 0.923 (0.034)

TSW1 0.935 (0.022) 0.933 (0.027) 0.941 (0.037)

TSW2 0.922 (0.033) 0.919 (0.038) 0.936 (0.063)

2008

All Routes 0.943 (0.007) 0.937 (0.009) 0.958 (0.010)

Pool 0.989 (0.003; 0.983, 0.994) NA NA

Forebay 0.999 (0.001; 0.996, 1.001) NA NA

Control 0.989 (0.005) 0.984 (0.008) 0.993 (0.007)

Turbine 0.903 (0.024) 0.861 (0.037) 0.960 (0.026)

Bypass 0.946 (0.015) 0.945 (0.019) 0.954 (0.022)

Spillway 0.956 (0.009) 0.964 (0.011) 0.950 (0.016)

TSW1 0.906 (0.026) 0.872 (0.035) 0.990 (0.024)

TSW2 0.965 (0.020) 0.954 (0.028) 0.980 (0.032)

2009

All Routes 0.946 (0.006) 0.946 (0.008) 0.944 (0.010)

Pool 0.978 (0.004; 0.970, 0.985) NA NA

Forebay 0.996 (0.002; 0.990, 0.999) NA NA

Control 0.972 (0.006) 0.962 (0.009; 0.942, 0.978) 0.984 (0.006; 0.969, 0.994)

Turbine 0.879 (0.023) 0.851 (0.034; 0.777, 0.909) 0.918 (0.030; 0.847, 0.965)

Bypass 0.955 (0.010) 0.959 (0.013; 0.930, 0.979) 0.950 (0.017; 0.910, 0.976)

Spillway 0.954 (0.009) 0.970 (0.010; 0.947, 0.986) 0.932 (0.017; 0.894, 0.960)

TSW1 0.984 (0.016) 0.967 (0.034; 0.858, 1.000) 11.000

TSW2 0.961 (0.018) 0.940 (0.030; 0.864, 0.982) 0.985 (0.017; 0.929, 1.001)

1

Survival probability and confidence limits were not estimable using maximum likelihood methods because we detected 100 

percent of the fish passing this route at downstream detection arrays. Although the modeling software could not produce an 

estimate, our best estimate of survival is 100 percent. Variance from parameter not accounted for in other estimates derived 

from this parameter.
47

Table 1-26. Route-specific (single-release) survival probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon by treatment at 

McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable]

Passage route Treatment 1 Treatment 2

2006 Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill

All Routes 0.925 (0.010) 0.949 (0.008)

Control 0.983 (0.007) 0.972 (0.008)

Turbine 0.782 (0.040) 0.902 (0.032)

Bypass 0.947 (0.019) 0.943 (0.016)

Spillway 0.948 (0.011) 0.960 (0.010)

TSW1 NA NA

TSW2 NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

All Routes 0.923 (0.014) 0.919 (0.015)

Control 0.994 (0.014) 0.987 (0.015)

Turbine 0.834 (0.039) 0.927 (0.024)

Bypass 0.917 (0.026) 0.944 (0.017)

Spillway 0.956 (0.021) 0.929 (0.017)

TSW1 0.933 (0.030) 0.900 (0.028)

TSW2 0.943 (0.042) 0.967 (0.022)

2008 Early Season Late Season

All Routes 0.932 (0.010) 0.959 (0.010)

Control 0.982 (0.007) 0.998 (0.008)

Turbine 0.815 (0.041) 0.782 (0.079)

Bypass 0.915 (0.024) 0.953 (0.028)

Spillway 0.965 (0.022) 0.974 (0.011)

TSW1 0.937 (0.031) 0.950 (0.058)

TSW2 0.898 (0.051) 0.951 (0.054)

20091 NA NA

1

There were no treatments in 2009.
48

Table 1-27. Route-specific (single-release) survival probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon by diel period and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival model; NA, not applicable; Day is 

0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours; No yearling Chinook salmon were released in 2009]

Passage route Treatment 1-Day Treatment 1-Night Treatment 2-Day Treatment 2-Night

2006 Fish Passage Plan Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill 2006 Test Spill

All Routes 0.927 (0.014) 0.924 (0.014) 0.955 (0.011) 0.942 (0.013)

Control 0.953 (0.014; 0.922, 0.976) 1.013 (0.005; 0.998, 1.022) 0.962 (0.012; 0.935, 0.982) 0.983 (0.011; 0.957, 1.001)

Turbine 0.633 (0.077; 0.477, 0.773) 0.863 (0.042; 0.769, 0.932) 0.872 (0.058; 0.734, 0.960) 0.919 (0.037; 0.831, 0.975)

Bypass 0.961 (0.025; 0.897, 0.996) 0.935 (0.029; 0.867, 0.979) 0.943 (0.022; 0.890, 0.978) 0.944 (0.024; 0.888, 0.981)

Spillway 0.962 (0.014) 0.936 (0.016) 0.969 (0.011) 0.947 (0.017)

TSW1 NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

All Routes 0.917 (0.016) 0.939 (0.025) 0.922 (0.017) 0.913 (0.024)

Control 0.993 (0.019; 0.953, 1.029) 0.995 (0.019; 0.956, 1.029) 1.009 (0.018; 0.972, 1.042) 0.965 (0.022; 0.919, 1.006)

Turbine 0.788 (0.049; 0.685, 0.877) 0.936 (0.058; 0.802, 1.027) 0.775 (0.050; 0.671, 0.867) 0.929 (0.065; 0.777, 1.027)

Bypass 0.908 (0.033; 0.838, 0.967) 0.933 (0.041; 0.843, 1.002) 0.924 (0.030; 0.862, 0.978) 0.901 (0.038; 0.820, 0.968)

Spillway 0.963 (0.022; 0.916, 1.003) 0.923 (0.051; 0.808, 1.008) 0.980 (0.024; 0.929, 1.023) 0.922 (0.044; 0.826, 0.996)

TSW1 0.926 (0.035; 0.849, 0.987) 0.952 (0.053; 0.829, 1.034) 0.941 (0.039; 0.856, 1.008) 0.929 (0.051; 0.812, 1.012)

TSW2 0.928 (0.047; 0.821, 1.006) 1.010 (0.075; 0.785, 1.090) 0.908 (0.060; 0.772, 1.007) 0.877 (0.093; 0.662, 1.016)

2008 Early Season Early Season Late Season Late Season

All Routes 0.918 (0.012) 0.962 (0.014) 0.967 (0.013) 0.952 (0.016)

Control 0.979 (0.010; 0.955, 0.996) 0.986 (0.009; 0.963, 1.000) 0.993 (0.014; 0.958, 1.015) 1.003 (0.009; 0.980, 1.016)

Turbine 0.893 (0.035; 0.814, 0.950) 0.981 (0.024; 0.912, 1.011) 0.676 (0.138; 0.392, 0.894) 0.854 (0.090; 0.638, 0.979)

Bypass 0.934 (0.023; 0.879, 0.972) 0.959 (0.025; 0.898, 0.996) 0.969 (0.031; 0.881, 1.006) 0.931 (0.051; 0.800, 1.001)

Spillway 0.928 (0.020; 0.884, 0.962) 0.932 (0.033; 0.854, 0.982) 0.991 (0.011; 0.962, 1.008) 0.960 (0.017; 0.921, 0.988)

TSW1 0.862 (0.038; 0.777, 0.926) 0.989 (0.026; 0.903, 1.016) 0.929 (0.081; 0.691, 1.009) 11.000

TSW2 0.964 (0.027; 0.893, 0.999) 0.977 (0.038; 0.855, 1.014) 0.912 (0.096; 0.637, 1.008) 11.000

20092 NA NA NA NA

1

Survival probability and confidence limits were not estimable using maximum likelihood methods because we detected 100 percent of the fish passing this route 

at downstream detection arrays. Although the modeling software could not produce an estimate, our best estimate of survival is 100 percent. Variance from 

parameter is not accounted for in other estimates derived from this parameter.

2

There were no treatments in 2009.
49

Table 1-28. Route-specific (single-release) survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead overall and by diel period at 

McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival 

model; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night

2006

All Routes 0.973 (0.010) 0.979 (0.014) 0.970 (0.012)

Pool 0.967 (0.006; 0.955, 0.978) NA NA

Forebay 0.995 (0.003; 0.988, 1.000) NA NA

Control NA NA NA

Turbine 0.887 (0.040) 0.833 (0.078) 0.912 (0.045)

Bypass 0.976 (0.016) 1.000 0.969 (0.020)

Spillway 0.986 (0.011) 0.993 (0.016) 0.981 (0.013)

TSW1 NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA

2007

All Routes 0.897 (0.013) 0.918 (0.015) 0.866 (0.021)

Pool 0.980 (0.005; 0.970, 0.988) NA NA

Forebay 0.995 (0.003; 0.987, 1.000) NA NA

Control NA NA NA

Turbine 0.684 (0.072) 0.607 (0.127) 0.762 (0.081)

Bypass 0.859 (0.029) 0.807 (0.068) 0.879 (0.032)

Spillway 0.891 (0.031) 0.959 (0.027) 0.828 (0.052)

TSW1 0.906 (0.017) 0.914 (0.019) 0.868 (0.038)

TSW2 0.967 (0.020) 0.973 (0.022) 0.948 (0.044)

2008

All Routes 0.954 (0.011) 0.940 (0.018) 0.972 (0.010)

Pool 0.981 (0.004; 0.972, 0.988) NA NA

Forebay 1.008 (0.008; 0.996, 1.040) NA NA

Control 0.964 (0.009) 0.973 (0.012) 0.955 (0.012)

Turbine 0.664 (0.085) 0.543 (0.132) 0.785 (0.063)

Bypass 0.992 (0.011) 1.000 0.990 (0.016)

Spillway 0.987 (0.010) 0.965 (0.017) 1.010 (0.010)

TSW1 0.972 (0.016) 0.983 (0.016) 0.941 (0.038)

TSW2 0.967 (0.014) 0.964 (0.017) 0.974 (0.024)

2009

All Routes 0.943 (0.007) 0.943 (0.012) 0.944 (0.009)

Pool 0.969 (0.005; 0.958, 0.978) NA NA

Forebay 0.997 (0.003; 0.990, 1.003) NA NA

Control 0.947 (0.008) 0.961 (0.010; 0.938, 0.977) 0.937 (0.012; 0.909, 0.958)

Turbine 0.808 (0.051) 0.780 (0.079; 0.607, 0.906) 0.839 (0.061; 0.699, 0.933)

Bypass 0.957 (0.012) 0.954 (0.023; 0.894, 0.986) 0.959 (0.015; 0.924, 0.982)

Spillway 0.942 (0.012) 0.942 (0.020; 0.894, 0.974) 0.942 (0.015; 0.908, 0.966)

TSW1 0.967 (0.017) 0.982 (0.019; 0.921, 1.000) 0.954 (0.027; 0.882, 0.989)

TSW2 0.961 (0.012) 0.966 (0.014; 0.931, 0.987) 0.954 (0.021; 0.902, 0.984)
50

Figure 1-12. Passage (top plate) and single-release survival probabilities (bottom plate) of juvenile steelhead by 

passage route at McNary Dam, 2006–09. Whisker bars represent the standard error.
51

Table 1-29. Route-specific (single-release) survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead by treatment at McNary 

Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error are shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable]

Passage route Treatment 1 Treatment 2

2006 Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill

All Routes 0.953 (0.013) 0.995 (0.014)

Control NA NA

Turbine 0.888 (0.053) 0.886 (0.060)

Bypass 0.942 (0.027) 1.001 (0.018)

Spillway 0.966 (0.014) 1.011 (0.017)

TSW1 NA NA

TSW2 NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

All Routes 0.907 (0.016) 0.887 (0.017)

Control NA NA

Turbine 0.691 (0.100) 0.676 (0.103)

Bypass 0.904 (0.038) 0.821 (0.042)

Spillway 0.911 (0.040) 0.871 (0.046)

TSW1 0.895 (0.023) 0.918 (0.022)

TSW2 0.980 (0.024) 0.949 (0.033)

2008 Early Season Late Season

All Routes 0.938 (0.015) 0.992 (0.010)

Control 0.961 (0.010) 0.969 (0.015)

Turbine 0.597 (0.099) 0.889 (0.075)

Bypass 0.985 (0.016) 1.006 (0.014)

Spillway 0.975 (0.016) 0.999 (0.013)

TSW1 0.969 (0.017) 1.000 (0.000)

TSW2 0.965 (0.015) 0.986 (0.039)

20091 NA NA

1

There were no treatments in 2009.
52

Table 1-30. Route-specific (single-release) survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead by diel period and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival model; NA, not applicable; Day is 

0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1-Day Treatment 1-Night Treatment 2-Day Treatment 2-Night

2006 Fish Passage Plan Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill 2006 Test Spill

All Routes 0.951 (0.020) 0.954 (0.016) 1.009 (0.021) 0.986 (0.017)

Control NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.771 (0.110; 0.525, 0.938) 0.956 (0.051; 0.817, 1.019) 0.915 (0.106; 0.646, 1.052) 0.873 (0.073; 0.704, 0.985)

Bypass 11.000 0.919 (0.037; 0.834, 0.979) 11.000 1.002 (0.023; 0.947, 1.040)

Spillway 0.966 (0.021) 0.966 (0.018) 1.021 (0.024) 1.001 (0.020)

TSW1 NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

All Routes 0.917 (0.018) 0.884 (0.029) 0.919 (0.020) 0.846 (0.028)

Control NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.415 (0.161; 0.151, 0.726) 0.889 (0.097; 0.643, 1.013) 0.864 (0.158; 0.463, 1.029) 0.609 (0.124; 0.367, 0.827)

Bypass 0.881 (0.083; 0.679, 0.997) 0.911 (0.042; 0.814, 0.980) 0.754 (0.099; 0.542, 0.914) 0.839 (0.046; 0.740, 0.920)

Spillway 0.930 (0.046; 0.821, 1.000) 0.873 (0.076; 0.693, 0.985) 11.000 0.791 (0.071; 0.637, 0.911)

TSW1 0.912 (0.024; 0.861, 0.956) 0.812 (0.063; 0.674, 0.919) 0.915 (0.026; 0.859, 0.961) 0.926 (0.040; 0.833, 0.990)

TSW2 0.981 (0.026; 0.919, 1.022) 0.979 (0.057; 0.806, 1.042) 0.964 (0.036; 0.874, 1.018) 0.916 (0.065; 0.753, 1.008)

2008 Early Season Early Season Late Season Late Season

All Routes 0.920 (0.025) 0.960 (0.013) 0.987 (0.013) 1.000 (0.015)

Control 0.978 (0.013; 0.948, 1.000) 0.943 (0.016; 0.908, 0.971) 0.959 (0.026; 0.898, 1.000) 0.977 (0.018; 0.934, 1.005)

Turbine 0.420 (0.139; 0.184, 0.695) 0.774 (0.072; 0.618, 0.895) 0.943 (0.081; 0.702, 1.024) 0.823 (0.130; 0.515, 0.992)

Bypass 11.000 0.979 (0.022; 0.923, 1.010) 11.000 1.008 (0.021; 0.940, 1.033)

Spillway 0.931 (0.033; 0.854, 0.982) 1.005 (0.013; 0.968, 1.022) 0.987 (0.018; 0.942, 1.015) 1.016 (0.014; 0.973, 1.034)

TSW1 0.981 (0.018; 0.936, 1.008) 0.936 (0.042; 0.832, 0.996) 1.000 (0.000) 11.000

TSW2 0.961 (0.019; 0.918, 0.992) 0.974 (0.024; 0.912, 1.008) 0.985 (0.042; 0.852, 1.028) 11.000

20092 NA NA NA NA

1

Survival probability and confidence limits were not estimable using maximum likelihood methods because we detected 100 percent of the fish passing this route 

at downstream detection arrays. Although the modeling software could not produce an estimate, our best estimate of survival is 100 percent. Variances from 

parameter not accounted for in other estimates derived from this parameter.

2

There were no treatments in 2009.
53

Table 1-31. Route-specific (single-release) survival probabilities for subyearling Chinook salmon overall and by diel 

period at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival 

model; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night

2006

All Routes 0.885 (0.009) 0.897 (0.010) 0.855 (0.017)

Pool 0.955 (0.005; 0.944, 0.964) NA NA

Forebay 0.991 (0.003; 0.984, 0.996) NA NA

Control 0.934 (0.008) 0.963 (0.011) 0.910 (0.013)

Turbine 0.739 (0.022) 0.745 (0.028) 0.728 (0.037)

Bypass 0.921 (0.017) 0.909 (0.036) 0.924 (0.019)

Spillway 0.943 (0.009) 0.952 (0.010) 0.920 (0.020)

TSW1 NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA

2007

All Routes 0.863 (0.013) 0.906 (0.015) 0.782 (0.022)

Pool 0.968 (0.005; 0.959, 0.976) NA NA

Forebay 0.983 (0.004; 0.975, 0.991) NA NA

Control 0.926 (0.015) 0.935 (0.020) 0.918 (0.020)

Turbine 0.744 (0.031) 0.854 (0.037) 0.603 (0.049)

Bypass 0.869 (0.025) 0.806 (0.049) 0.893 (0.029)

Spillway 0.921 (0.020) 0.949 (0.023) 0.862 (0.035)

TSW1 0.881 (0.027) 0.913 (0.032) 0.821 (0.049)

TSW2 0.828 (0.038) 0.851 (0.048) 0.792 (0.062)

2008

All Routes 0.875 (0.009) 0.879 (0.010) 0.867 (0.016)

Pool 0.975 (0.004; 0.966, 0.981) NA NA

Forebay 0.994 (0.003; 0.989, 0.999) NA NA

Control 0.899 (0.013) 0.926 (0.012) 0.895 (0.013)

Turbine 0.763 (0.024) 0.725 (0.030) 0.853 (0.038)

Bypass 0.845 (0.025) 0.826 (0.040) 0.859 (0.031)

Spillway 0.918 (0.011) 0.928 (0.011) 0.888 (0.025)

TSW1 0.889 (0.026) 0.872 (0.033) 0.926 (0.040)

TSW2 0.912 (0.026) 0.962 (0.024) 0.825 (0.057)

2009

All Routes 0.823 (0.010) 0.871 (0.011) 0.758 (0.017)

Pool 0.934 (0.006; 0.922, 0.945) NA NA

Forebay 0.974 (0.004; 0.965, 0.981) NA NA

Control 0.920 (0.008) 0.955 (0.009; 0.935, 0.970) 0.873 (0.014; 0.844, 0.899)

Turbine 0.679 (0.027) 0.753 (0.035; 0.681, 0.817) 0.600 (0.041; 0.519, 0.677)

Bypass 0.855 (0.022) 0.879 (0.031; 0.809, 0.931) 0.838 (0.030; 0.774, 0.891)

Spillway 0.875 (0.014) 0.934 (0.013; 0.905, 0.957) 0.777 (0.028; 0.720, 0.829)

Spill bays 16–19 0.822 (0.025) 0.827 (0.035; 0.752, 0.888) 0.816 (0.037; 0.737, 0.881)

TSW2 0.847 (0.025) 0.911 (0.025; 0.853, 0.953) 0.744 (0.049; 0.641, 0.831)
54

Table 1-32. Route-specific (single-release) survival probabilities for subyearling Chinook salmon by treatment at 

McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error are shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable]

Passage route Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

2006 60% Spill 40% Spill NA

All Routes 0.900 (0.014) 0.876 (0.011) NA

Control 0.919 (0.015) 0.943 (0.010) NA

Turbine 0.728 (0.040) 0.745 (0.026) NA

Bypass 0.918 (0.038) 0.922 (0.019) NA

Spillway 0.954 (0.013) 0.934 (0.013) NA

TSW1 NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA

2007 60% Spill 40% Spill NA

All Routes 0.894 (0.017) 0.829 (0.018) NA

Control 0.928 (0.020) 0.924 (0.020) NA

Turbine 0.769 (0.047) 0.727 (0.040) NA

Bypass 0.892 (0.043) 0.858 (0.030) NA

Spillway 0.943 (0.023) 0.880 (0.033) NA

TSW1 0.881 (0.034) 0.882 (0.044) NA

TSW2 0.886 (0.053) 0.778 (0.054) NA

2008 Early Season 60% Spill 40% Spill

All Routes 0.946 (0.012) 0.852 (0.016) 0.825 (0.017)

Control 0.959 (0.013) 0.876 (0.017) 0.864 (0.019)

Turbine 0.946 (0.029) 0.726 (0.055) 0.691 (0.036)

Bypass 0.898 (0.033) 0.787 (0.059) 0.818 (0.042)

Spillway 0.963 (0.015) 0.880 (0.019) 0.901 (0.024)

TSW1 0.943 (0.049) 0.840 (0.049) 0.910 (0.036)

TSW2 0.903 (0.064) 0.941 (0.038) 0.895 (0.041)

20091 NA NA NA

1

There were no treatments in 2009.
55

Table 1-33. Route-specific (single-release) survival probabilities for subyearling Chinook salmon by diel period and treatment at McNary Dam, 

2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival model; NA, not applicable; Day is 

0600-1759 hours; Night is 1800-0559 hours]

Passage 

route

Treatment 1-Day Treatment 1-Night Treatment 2-Day Treatment 2-Night Treatment 3-Day Treatment 3-Night

2006 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill NA NA

All Routes 0.918 (0.015) 0.850 (0.030) 0.885 (0.013) 0.858 (0.021) NA NA

Control 0.952 (0.019; 0.909, 0.984) 0.895 (0.021; 0.851, 0.932) 0.969 (0.012; 0.941, 0.990) 0.920 (0.016; 0.887, 0.948) NA NA

Turbine 0.757 (0.048; 0.657, 0.843) 0.668 (0.074; 0.516, 0.801) 0.739 (0.034; 0.670, 0.802) 0.753 (0.042; 0.667, 0.829) NA NA

Bypass 0.940 (0.040; 0.839, 0.997) 0.862 (0.086; 0.655, 0.980) 0.920 (0.022; 0.872, 0.958) 0.926 (0.038; 0.835, 0.983) NA NA

Spillway 0.963 (0.014) 0.928 (0.030) 0.943 (0.015) 0.913 (0.026) NA NA

2007 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill NA NA

All Routes 0.938 (0.020) 0.804 (0.030) 0.872 (0.021) 0.759 (0.030) NA NA

Control 0.931 (0.025; 0.879, 0.979) 0.925 (0.027; 0.869, 0.976) 0.941 (0.029; 0.882, 0.994) 0.911 (0.026; 0.858, 0.959) NA NA

Turbine 0.842 (0.057; 0.722, 0.944) 0.654 (0.079; 0.498, 0.801) 0.863 (0.047; 0.763, 0.946) 0.570 (0.061; 0.451, 0.688) NA NA

Bypass 0.946 (0.047; 0.843, 1.025) 0.766 (0.088; 0.581, 0.919) 0.870 (0.035; 0.798, 0.934) 0.828 (0.058; 0.707, 0.930) NA NA

Spillway 0.981 (0.026; 0.927, 1.029) 0.862 (0.045; 0.768, 0.942) 0.891 (0.041; 0.804, 0.964) 0.863 (0.055; 0.746, 0.958) NA NA

TSW1 0.910 (0.039; 0.827, 0.980) 0.819 (0.063; 0.687, 0.930) 0.919 (0.052; 0.804, 1.005) 0.824 (0.076; 0.662, 0.953) NA NA

TSW2 0.923 (0.063; 0.782, 1.027) 0.824 (0.090; 0.628, 0.973) 0.789 (0.070; 0.642, 0.912) 0.763 (0.085; 0.587, 0.911) NA NA

2008 Early Season Early Season 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill

All Routes 0.951 (0.014) 0.935 (0.024) 0.856 (0.018) 0.844 (0.030) 0.827 (0.019) 0.820 (0.031)

Control 0.938 (0.022; 0.889, 0.976) 0.980 (0.014; 0.946, 1.002) 0.906 (0.020; 0.862, 0.942) 0.833 (0.029; 0.772, 0.884) 0.941 (0.020; 0.896, 0.973) 0.867 (0.023; 0.818, 0.909)

Turbine 0.934 (0.038; 0.842, 0.990) 0.975 (0.042; 0.844, 1.018) 0.572 (0.082; 0.411, 0.725) 0.911 (0.054; 0.774, 0.984) 0.670 (0.042; 0.585, 0.749) 0.755 (0.068; 0.610, 0.870)

Bypass 0.905 (0.039; 0.815, 0.967) 0.882 (0.063; 0.730, 0.974) 0.825 (0.083; 0.632, 0.947) 0.756 (0.083; 0.577, 0.892) 0.803 (0.058; 0.676, 0.900) 0.837 (0.061; 0.699, 0.934)

Spillway 0.976 (0.015; 0.942, 1.000) 0.938 (0.031; 0.863, 0.986) 0.892 (0.020; 0.848, 0.928) 0.836 (0.045; 0.735, 0.912) 0.915 (0.024; 0.861, 0.955) 0.826 (0.076; 0.652, 0.943)

TSW1 0.920 (0.069; 0.738, 1.005) 11.000 0.829 (0.057; 0.700, 0.922) 0.874 (0.089; 0.648, 0.985) 0.894 (0.048; 0.778, 0.966) 0.936 (0.053; 0.792, 1.002)

TSW2 0.909 (0.076; 0.710, 1.003) 0.891 (0.119; 0.564, 1.011) 0.975 (0.033; 0.868, 1.007) 0.874 (0.089; 0.648, 0.985) 0.980 (0.028; 0.888, 1.008) 0.780 (0.084; 0.595, 0.914)

20092 NA NA NA NA NA NA

1

Survival probability and confidence limits were not estimable using maximum likelihood methods because we detected 100 percent of the fish passing this route 

at downstream detection arrays. Although the modeling software could not produce an estimate, our best estimate of survival is 100 percent. Variances from 

parameter not accounted for in other estimates derived from this parameter.

2

There were no treatments in 2009.
56

Route-Specific Survival Probabilities (Paired-Release)

Paired-release survival probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon generally followed similar trends

to the single-release survival probabilities. Overall concrete and project survival probabilities were lowest 

in 2007 (concrete 0.926, project 0.918) and highest in 2009 (concrete 0.973, project 0.969; fig. 1-13 and 

table 1-34). For the three main passage routes, survival probabilities were lowest for the turbines during all 

years and equal for spillway and bypass except in 2007 when spill survival was higher than bypass.

Although survival through the turbines was low, passage probabilities through the turbines also were low.

When the TSWs were operating, survival probabilities ranged from 0.922 (TSW1 in 2008) to 1.011 

(TSW1 in 2009), but passage probabilities were less than 0.17. Concrete survival was similar between day 

and night during 2007, 2008, and 2009, but was higher during the day than night, during 2006. During all 

years of study, survival through the turbines and TSWs were both higher during the night than the day, 

spillway survival was higher during the day than night, and bypass survival was similar between day and 

night. All survival estimates in 2006 were higher during 2006 Test Spill than during the Fish Passage Plan 

treatment. All survival estimates in 2007 and 2008 were nearly equal between treatments except for 

turbine survival in 2008, which was 0.944 during Early Season, and only 0.782 during Late Season.

Paired-release survival probabilities generally were higher during the night for all treatments and years,

except for spillway survival, which was higher during the day (table 1-35).

Paired-release survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead were only calculated for 2008 and 2009 

when control releases occurred. In 2006 and 2007, no steelhead were released as control fish downstream 

of the dam. Overall concrete and project survival were equal between years, and survival through each 

individual passage route was about 1.000, except for the turbines which was 0.693 in 2008, and 0.851 in 

2009 (table 1-36). In general, survival probabilities were similar during the day and night. The exceptions 

were for the turbines in both years, which had much higher survival during the night, and for the TSW1 in 

2008, which had 8 percent higher survival during the day than night. Survival was high and similar by 

treatment in 2008 except turbine survival was 0.625 during the Early Season and 0.920 during the Late 

Season. Paired-release survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead were very similar between day and 

night for each treatment in 2008, with the following exceptions: (1) Concrete survival was 8 percent higher 

at night during Early Season, (2) turbine survival was 39 percent higher at night during Early Season and 

14 percent lower at night during Late Season, and (3) spillway survival was 11 percent higher at night 

during Early Season (table 1-37).

Paired-release survival probabilities for subyearling Chinook salmon varied by year, diel period, 

and treatment. Concrete and project survival were similar and greater than 91 percent in 2006, 2007, and 

2008 but both estimates were less than 90 percent in 2009 (fig. 1-14; table 1-38). Overall survival 

probabilities through individual routes of passage generally were lower in 2009 than in other years. Fish 

passing during the day had higher concrete survival in 2007 and 2009 whereas concrete survival was 

similar between diel periods during 2006 and 2008. Turbine survival was higher during the day in 2007 

and 2009 but higher during the night in 2008. Spillway survival was higher during the day in 2007 and 

2009 and bypass survival was higher during the night in 2008. TSW1 survival was higher during the night 

in 2008 and TSW2 survival was higher during the day in 2009. All other survival estimates were similar 

between diel periods. Nearly all paired-release estimates of survival were higher during 60 percent spill 

than during 40 percent spill during all years of study. Paired-release survival probabilities by treatment by

diel period were often similar among years (table 1-39), but sample sizes were low. Survival probabilities 

were higher during the 2007 day treatment compared to the night treatment for concrete, turbines, and 

bypass during 60 percent spill and concrete and turbines during 40 percent spill. In 2008, concrete and 

spillway survival probabilities were higher during the day during the Early Season (about 50 percent spill)

but higher at night during 60 percent spill. Turbine survival was highest at night during 60 percent spill,

TSW1 survival was highest at night during 40 percent spill, and TSW2 survival was highest during the day 

during 60 percent spill.
57

Figure 1-13. Passage (top plate) and paired-release survival probabilities (bottom plate) of yearling Chinook 

salmon by passage route including concrete survival at McNary Dam, 2006–09. Whisker bars represent the 

standard error.

'06'07'08'09 '06'07'08'09 '06'07'08'09 '07'08'09 '07'08'09 '06'07'08'09

Survival probability

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Passage probability

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Turbine Bypass Spill TSW1 TSW2 Concrete
58

Table 1-34. Route-specific (paired-release) survival probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon overall, by diel period, and treatment at McNary Dam, 

2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–

0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night Treatment 1 Treatment 2

2006 Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill

Concrete 0.959 (0.009; 0.943, 0.977) 0.983 (0.013) 0.935 (0.011) 0.940 (0.012) 0.978 (0.012)

Project 0.950 (0.009) NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.851 (0.027) 0.768 (0.055) 0.894 (0.029) 0.786 (0.040) 0.925 (0.033)

Bypass 0.968 (0.014) 0.993 (0.020) 0.943 (0.019) 0.963 (0.021) 0.971 (0.019)

Spillway 0.976 (0.010) 1.008 (0.013) 0.943 (0.013) 0.965 (0.013) 0.990 (0.013)

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Concrete 0.926 (0.013; 0.902, 0.952) 0.918 (0.015) 0.945 (0.021) 0.929 (0.018) 10.924 (0.017)

Project 0.918 (0.013) NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.829 (0.029) 0.779 (0.036) 0.953 (0.046) 0.839 (0.040) 0.818 (0.042)

Bypass 0.923 (0.019) 0.916 (0.024) 0.935 (0.031) 0.923 (0.028) 0.923 (0.026)

Spillway 0.964 (0.017) 0.970 (0.019) 0.942 (0.036) 0.962 (0.024) 0.967 (0.024)

TSW1 0.941 (0.023) 0.931 (0.028) 0.960 (0.039) 0.939 (0.032) 0.943 (0.033)

TSW2 0.927 (0.034) 0.918 (0.039) 0.956 (0.065) 0.949 (0.044) 0.903 (0.052)

2008 Early Season Late Season

Concrete 0.954 (0.009; 0.937, 0.972) 0.952 (0.012) 0.964 (0.012) 0.950 (0.012) 0.961 (0.013)

Project 0.953 (0.009) NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.918 (0.025) 0.874 (0.038) 0.967 (0.026) 0.944 (0.025) 0.782 (0.079)

Bypass 0.960 (0.016) 0.960 (0.021) 0.960 (0.023) 0.962 (0.019) 0.956 (0.030)

Spillway 0.964 (0.011) 0.979 (0.014) 0.957 (0.017) 0.948 (0.019) 0.975 (0.013)

TSW1 0.922 (0.027) 0.886 (0.036) 0.996 (0.025) 0.917 (0.030) 0.954 (0.059)

TSW2 0.981 (0.022) 0.970 (0.030) 0.987 (0.033) 0.986 (0.024) 0.954 (0.055)

2009 NA NA

Concrete 0.973 (0.009; 0.956, 0.991) 0.983 (0.013) 0.960 (0.011) NA NA

Project 0.969 (0.009) NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.905 (0.025) 0.884 (0.036) 0.933 (0.031) NA NA

Bypass 0.984 (0.012) 0.997 (0.016) 0.965 (0.018) NA NA

Spillway 0.982 (0.011) 1.008 (0.014) 0.947 (0.018) NA NA

TSW1 1.011 (0.018) 1.005 (0.037) 1.016 (0.006) NA NA

TSW2 0.988 (0.019) 0.977 (0.032) 1.001 (0.018) NA NA

1

Value is 0.931 after correcting for rounding error.
59

Table 1-35. Route-specific (paired-release) survival probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon by diel period and treatment at McNary Dam,

2006–09. 

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1- Day Treatment 1- Night Treatment 2- Day Treatment 2- Night

2006 Fish Passage Plan Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill 2006 Test Spill

Concrete 0.973 (0.021) 0.912 (0.014) 0.993 (0.016) 0.958 (0.017)

Turbine 0.664 (0.082) 0.852 (0.042) 0.907 (0.062) 0.935 (0.039)

Bypass 1.009 (0.030) 0.923 (0.029) 0.980 (0.026) 0.961 (0.027)

Spillway 1.010 (0.020) 0.924 (0.017) 1.008 (0.017) 0.964 (0.021)

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Concrete 0.923 (0.022) 0.944 (0.029) 0.913 (0.021) 0.947 (0.031)

Turbine 0.793 (0.051) 0.941 (0.060) 0.768 (0.051) 0.963 (0.070)

Bypass 0.914 (0.036) 0.937 (0.043) 0.915 (0.032) 0.935 (0.043)

Spillway 0.969 (0.027) 0.928 (0.054) 0.971 (0.027) 0.956 (0.049)

TSW1 0.932 (0.039) 0.957 (0.055) 0.932 (0.040) 0.963 (0.056)

TSW2 0.934 (0.050) 1.016 (0.077) 0.899 (0.061) 0.909 (0.098)

2008 Early Season Early Season Late Season Late Season

Concrete 0.937 (0.016) 0.976 (0.017) 0.974 (0.019) 0.948 (0.017)

Turbine 0.912 (0.037) 0.995 (0.026) 0.681 (0.139) 0.851 (0.090)

Bypass 0.954 (0.026) 0.973 (0.027) 0.976 (0.034) 0.928 (0.052)

Spillway 0.948 (0.023) 0.946 (0.034) 0.999 (0.018) 0.957 (0.019)

TSW1 0.880 (0.040) 1.003 (0.028) 0.936 (0.083) 0.997 (0.009)

TSW2 0.984 (0.029) 0.991 (0.040) 0.919 (0.098) 0.997 (0.009)

20091 NA NA NA NA

1

There were no treatments in 2009.
60

Table 1-36. Route-specific (paired-release) survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead overall, by diel period, and treatment at McNary Dam, 

2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–

0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night Treatment 1 Treatment 2

2006 Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill

Concrete NA NA NA NA NA

Project NA NA NA NA NA

Turbine NA NA NA NA NA

Bypass NA NA NA NA NA

Spill NA NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Concrete NA NA NA NA NA

Project NA NA NA NA NA

Turbine NA NA NA NA NA

Bypass NA NA NA NA NA

Spill NA NA NA NA NA

TSW1 NA NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA NA

2008 Early Season Late Season

Concrete 0.991 (0.015; 0.985, 1.018) 0.966 (0.022) 1.017 (0.010) 0.976 (0.019) 1.026 (0.020)

Project 0.998 (0.012) NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.693 (0.089) 0.558 (0.136) 0.785 (0.063) 0.625 (0.104) 0.920 (0.079)

Bypass 1.034 (0.016) 1.028 (0.013) 0.990 (0.016) 1.033 (0.021) 1.035 (0.021)

Spill 1.027 (0.015) 0.992 (0.021) 1.010 (0.010) 1.019 (0.020) 1.034 (0.022)

TSW1 1.004 (0.019) 1.011 (0.020) 0.941 (0.038) 1.000 (0.021) 1.039 (0.023)

TSW2 1.002 (0.017) 0.991 (0.021) 0.974 (0.024) 0.999 (0.019) 1.027 (0.048)

2009 NA NA

Concrete 0.996 (0.012; 0.974, 1.020) 0.981 (0.016) 1.008 (0.017) NA NA

Project 0.993 (0.012) NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.851 (0.054) 0.812 (0.082) 0.896 (0.066) NA NA

Bypass 1.014 (0.017) 0.993 (0.026) 1.024 (0.021) NA NA

Spill 0.997 (0.016) 0.980 (0.023) 1.005 (0.021) NA NA

TSW1 1.020 (0.020) 1.023 (0.022) 1.018 (0.032) NA NA

TSW2 1.010 (0.015) 1.005 (0.018) 1.018 (0.026) NA NA
61

Table 1-37. Route-specific (paired-release) survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead by diel period and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1-Day Treatment 1-Night Treatment 2-Day Treatment 2-Night

2006 Fish Passage Plan Fish Passage Plan 2006 Test Spill 2006 Test Spill

Concrete NA NA NA NA

Turbine NA NA NA NA

Bypass NA NA NA NA

Spillway NA NA NA NA

2007 Modified 2006 Test Spill Modified 2006 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill 2007 Test Spill

Concrete NA NA NA NA

Turbine NA NA NA NA

Bypass NA NA NA NA

Spillway NA NA NA NA

TSW1 NA NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA NA

2008 Early Season Early Season Late Season Late Season

Concrete 0.940 (0.029) 1.018 (0.022) 1.029 (0.031) 1.023 (0.024)

Turbine 0.429 (0.142) 0.821 (0.078) 0.983 (0.089) 0.843 (0.134)

Bypass 1.023 (0.014) 1.038 (0.029) 1.043 (0.028) 1.032 (0.028)

Spillway 0.952 (0.036) 1.065 (0.023) 1.029 (0.033) 1.040 (0.023)

TSW1 1.003 (0.023) 0.992 (0.047) 1.043 (0.028) 1.023 (0.019)

TSW2 0.983 (0.023) 1.032 (0.031) 1.027 (0.052) 1.023 (0.019)

20091 NA NA NA NA

1

There were no treatments in 2009.
62

Figure 1-14. Passage (top plate) and paired-release survival probabilities (bottom plate) of subyearling Chinook 

salmon by passage route including concrete survival at McNary Dam, 2006–09. Whisker bars represent the 

standard error.
63

Table 1-38. Route-specific (paired-release) survival probabilities for subyearling Chinook salmon overall, by diel period, and treatment at McNary 

Dam, 2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–

0559 hours]

Passage route Overall Day Night Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

2006 60% Spill 40% Spill NA

Concrete 10.934 (0.012; 0.910, 0.959) 0.931 (0.014) 0.939 (0.023) 20.961 (0.021) 30.919 (0.015) NA

Project 0.926 (0.012) NA NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.783 (0.024) 0.773 (0.030) 0.799 (0.042) 0.779 (0.045) 0.784 (0.029) NA

Bypass 0.967 (0.020) 0.959 (0.023) 0.999 (0.042) 0.980 (0.043) 0.963 (0.022) NA

Spill 0.996 (0.014) 0.989 (0.015) 1.010 (0.026) 1.017 (0.022) 0.979 (0.017) NA

2007 60% Spill 40% Spill NA

Concrete 0.928 (0.018; 0.893, 0.965) 0.969 (0.024) 0.852 (0.028) 0.962 (0.025) 40.892 (0.026) NA

Project 0.913 (0.018) NA NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.801 (0.035) 0.914 (0.042) 0.657 (0.054) 0.828 (0.053) 0.782 (0.045) NA

Bypass 0.933 (0.030) 0.955 (0.035) 0.878 (0.055) 0.960 (0.049) 0.920 (0.038) NA

Spill 0.991 (0.025) 1.016 (0.030) 0.940 (0.042) 1.015 (0.031) 0.947 (0.040) NA

TSW1 0.949 (0.032) 0.976 (0.038) 0.895 (0.055) 0.949 (0.040) 0.949 (0.051) NA

TSW2 0.892 (0.043) 0.910 (0.054) 0.863 (0.069) 0.954 (0.059) 0.838 (0.060) NA

2008 Early Season 60% Spill 40% Spill

Concrete 50.952 (0.013; 0.926, 0.979) 0.949 (0.016) 0.969 (0.023) 60.994 (0.021) 70.965 (0.025) 80.898 (0.023)

Project 0.947 (0.013) NA NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.832 (0.028) 0.783 (0.034) 0.954 (0.044) 0.996 (0.035) 0.841 (0.067) 0.751 (0.041)

Bypass 0.922 (0.029) 0.927 (0.035) 0.923 (0.047) 0.946 (0.039) 0.909 (0.071) 0.903 (0.049)

Spill 0.994 (0.016) 1.003 (0.018) 0.993 (0.031) 1.011 (0.023) 0.988 (0.028) 0.969 (0.031)

TSW1 0.978 (0.031) 0.942 (0.038) 1.035 (0.047) 0.992 (0.055) 0.948 (0.058) 0.998 (0.043)

TSW2 1.004 (0.031) 1.039 (0.029) 0.922 (0.065) 0.950 (0.069) 1.067 (0.047) 0.981 (0.048)

2009 NA NA NA

Concrete 0.894 (0.013; 0.868, 0.919) 0.912 (0.014) 0.868 (0.023) NA NA NA

Project 0.870 (0.013) NA NA NA NA NA

Turbine 0.740 (0.030) 0.789 (0.037) 0.687 (0.048) NA NA NA

Bypass 0.931 (0.025) 0.878 (0.032) 1.006 (0.039) NA NA NA

Spill 0.945 (0.017) 0.978 (0.017) 0.890 (0.035) NA NA NA

Spill bays 16–19 0.899 (0.029) 0.866 (0.038) 0.934 (0.045) NA NA NA

TSW2 0.915 (0.028) 0.955 (0.028) 0.852 (0.058) NA NA NA

1

Value is 0.948 after correcting for rounding error. 2Value is 0.979 after correcting for rounding error. 3Value is 0.929 after correcting for rounding error.

4

Value is 0.897 after correcting for rounding error. 5Value is 0.973 after correcting for rounding error. 6Value is 0.986 after correcting for rounding error. 7

Value is 0.973 after correcting for rounding error. 8Value is 0.955 after correcting for rounding error.
64

Table1-39. Route-specific (paired-release) survival probabilities for subyearling Chinook salmon by diel period and treatment at McNary Dam, 2006–

09. 

[Standard error is shown in parenthesis; NA, not applicable; Day is 0600–1759 hours; Night is 1800–0559 hours]

Passage route Treatment 1- Day Treatment 1- Night Treatment 2- Day Treatment 2- Night Treatment 3- Day Treatment 3- Night

2006 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill NA NA

Concrete 0.965 (0.025) 0.949 (0.041) 0.913 (0.018) 0.932 (0.027) NA NA

Turbine 0.795 (0.053) 0.746 (0.085) 0.763 (0.036) 0.818 (0.047) NA NA

Bypass 0.987 (0.046) 0.962 (0.098) 0.949 (0.026) 1.006 (0.044) NA NA

Spillway 1.011 (0.025) 1.036 (0.042) 0.973 (0.020) 0.993 (0.033) NA NA

2007 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill NA NA

Concrete 1.008 (0.032) 0.869 (0.040) 0.927 (0.035) 0.833 (0.040) NA NA

Turbine 0.905 (0.065) 0.707 (0.087) 0.917 (0.056) 0.626 (0.069) NA NA

Bypass 1.016 (0.056) 0.828 (0.098) 0.925 (0.045) 0.909 (0.068) NA NA

Spillway 1.055 (0.038) 0.931 (0.054) 0.947 (0.051) 0.948 (0.065) NA NA

TSW1 0.978 (0.048) 0.886 (0.072) 0.977 (0.062) 0.905 (0.086) NA NA

TSW2 0.992 (0.072) 0.891 (0.101) 0.839 (0.078) 0.838 (0.096) NA NA

2008 Early Season Early Season 60% Spill 60% Spill 40% Spill 40% Spill

Concrete 1.014 (0.028) 0.954 (0.028) 0.945 (0.029) 1.013 (0.050) 0.879 (0.028) 0.945 (0.044)

Turbine 0.996 (0.047) 0.995 (0.045) 0.631 (0.092) 1.094 (0.075) 0.712 (0.047) 0.870 (0.081)

Bypass 0.965 (0.047) 0.900 (0.066) 0.910 (0.094) 0.908 (0.104) 0.853 (0.064) 0.964 (0.075)

Spillway 1.040 (0.029) 0.958 (0.035) 0.984 (0.031) 1.003 (0.065) 0.972 (0.033) 0.953 (0.091)

TSW1 0.981 (0.077) 1.020 (0.015) 0.915 (0.067) 1.049 (0.112) 0.950 (0.055) 1.079 (0.068)

TSW2 0.969 (0.084) 0.909 (0.122) 1.075 (0.044) 1.049 (0.112) 1.042 (0.037) 0.899 (0.100)

20091 NA NA NA NA NA NA

1

There were no treatments in 2009.
65

Tailrace Egress

Tailrace egress rates for juvenile salmonids varied by year and passage route. We did not 

measure egress to the I-82 Bridge (located 2 km downstream of McNary Dam) in 2006. For yearling 

Chinook salmon, the egress rate was fastest for fish passing through either TSW (> 2.5 km/h; fig. 1-15).

The rate of leaving the tailrace after passing though the spillway in 2007 or 2008, or through the 

powerhouse in any year, was about one-half the egress rate of fish that passed either TSW. There was 

greater variability in rates of egress, among year, for juvenile steelhead. Egress rates in 2007 were 

higher for fish passing through the spillway or either TSW than in 2008 or 2009. However, this trend 

did not apply to juvenile steelhead passing through the powerhouse, which had egress rates of less than 

2 km/h in all years (fig. 1-16). Egress rates of subyearling Chinook salmon followed a similar trend to 

the yearling Chinook salmon. Powerhouse and spillway egress was less than 2.1 km/h but TSW passage 

was greater than 3 km/h except for TSW1 in 2008 (fig. 1-17). Overall, egress after passing through the 

powerhouse was highest in 2009 and egress after passing the spillway or TSWs varied by species and 

year but was usually greater than 2 km/h.

Figure 1-15. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) for yearling Chinook salmon released near Hat Rock State 

Park from time of passage at McNary Dam to first detection at the I-82 Bridge, by year and passage route, 

2007–09.

'07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2
66

Figure 1-16. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) for juvenile steelhead released near Hat Rock State Park 

from time of passage at McNary Dam to first detection at the I-82 Bridge, by year and passage route, 2007–09.

Figure 1-17. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) for subyearling Chinook salmon released near Hat Rock 

State Park from time of passage at McNary Dam to first detection at the I-82 Bridge, by year and passage route, 

2007–09.

'07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2

'07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2
67

Summary

Forebay Behavior

McNary Dam and the reduced flow and altered hydraulics it creates, slows the migration of 

juvenile salmonids, reducing their rate of travel by between 36 and 94 percent compared to travel rates 

exhibited upstream and downstream of the dam. However, residence times within 160 m of the dam 

were relatively short; fractions of an hour for yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon and between 0.5

and 3.0 hours for juvenile steelhead. Forebay residence times were similar during day and night for all 

species, shorter during high spill (50–60 percent of project discharge) treatments for yearling Chinook 

salmon and juvenile steelhead, but longer during high spill treatments (60 percent of project discharge)

for subyearling Chinook salmon. Forebay residence times typically were shortest for fish that passed 

through the spillway and TSWs and longest for fish that passed through the powerhouse.

The depth of fish in the forebay varied by species and diel period. Vertical distributions of fish 

within 60 m of the dam face were 4–9 m for yearling Chinook salmon, 2–8 m for juvenile steelhead, and

4–12 m for subyearling Chinook salmon. Juvenile steelhead were shallower during the day than night,

and both yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon varied their depth little during day and night but 

were shallower during the crepuscular periods.

Passage Probabilities

Route-specific passage probabilities for juvenile salmonids at McNary Dam held the same 

pattern across all years of study. The majority of fish (33–65 percent), regardless of species, year, diel 

period, or treatment, passed through the spillway. One major exception to this occurred in 2007 when 

64.7 percent passed through the TSWs (46.8 percent passed through TSW1 in bay 22 alone). The 

addition of the TSWs at McNary Dam benefited juvenile steelhead the greatest and resulted in a 

spillway and TSW combined passage probability of between 69 and 79 percent compared to the 

spillway probability of 64.8 percent observed in 2006 before installation of the TSWs. Although far 

fewer yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon used the TSWs than juvenile steelhead, spillway and 

TSW passage combined for salmon was similar to (for yearlings), or slightly higher (for subyearlings) 

than, spillway passage prior to installation of the TSWs. Further, the spillway and TSW combined 

passage rates were achieved using less water than was used with conventional spill alone. Probabilities

of passage through the turbines and bypass were variable, but typically low during all study years 

ranging from 4 to 27 percent and 14 to 32 percent, respectively.

Passage Efficiency, Guidance Efficiency, and Passage Route Effectiveness

Fish passage efficiency showed similar trends over the four study years for each fish species.

Fish passage efficiency was highest in 2007, followed by 2009, 2008, and was lowest in 2006, for both 

juvenile steelhead and subyearling Chinook salmon. Fish passage efficiency for yearling Chinook 

salmon differed little among the four study years, but was at least 6 percent higher in 2006, when there 

were no TSWs, than in any year with the TSWs. During all years, juvenile steelhead had the highest 

FPE (range 0.898–0.957), followed by yearling Chinook salmon (range 0.853–0.875), and subyearling 

Chinook salmon (range 0.735–0.822). Fish passage efficiency typically was highest for all species

during the day, and during treatments that consisted of higher discharge through the south spill bays and 

60 percent spill.
68

Fish guidance efficiency also followed similar trends over the four study years. Fish guidance 

efficiency was highest for all species during 2007 and 2009 (the two years with the lowest project 

discharge), and lowest during 2006 and 2008 (the two years with the highest project discharge). Fish 

guidance efficiency was highest for juvenile steelhead (range 0.674–0.798), followed by yearling 

Chinook salmon (range 0.640–0.667), and subyearling Chinook salmon (range 0.411–0.527). Both 

yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon had higher FGE during the day than night. Conversely, 

juvenile steelhead had much higher FGE during the night than day. Similar to FPE, estimates of FGE 

for yearling Chinook salmon and juvenile steelhead were highest during treatments with increased 

discharge through the south spill bays and 60 percent spill. Fish guidance efficiency for subyearling 

Chinook salmon, however, was higher during 40 percent spill than during 60 percent spill.

Effectiveness of the various passage routes followed similar trends among years for all species.

Spillway effectiveness was highest for all species during 2006, followed by 2008, 2009, and 2007; 

project and spill discharge also was highest in 2006, followed by 2008, 2009, and 2007. Effectiveness of 

TSW1 for all species was highest in 2007 and 2008 and lowest in 2009. Effectiveness of TSW2 for all 

species was highest in 2009. Effectiveness varied by year between the two TSW designs but was 

substantially higher during 2007, for all species, compared to any other year. Effectiveness of both 

TSWs combined was also highest for all species in 2007, when project and spillway discharge were the 

lowest of all study years. The TSWs were most effective for juvenile steelhead (range 2.972–11.694),

followed by yearling (range 1.293–4.192) and subyearling (range 1.925–3.290) Chinook salmon.

Effectiveness of the TSWs varied by day and night for both yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon 

but was always much higher during the day, than night, for juvenile steelhead. Passage effectiveness of 

the TSWs on a diel basis was influenced by the vertical distribution of fish. Because juvenile steelhead 

were distributed shallow in the water column during the day and deeper at night, more juvenile 

steelhead passed through the shallow TSWs during the day. The TSWs were less effective for yearling 

and subyearling Chinook salmon, both overall and during day or night, likely because both salmon 

migrants were distributed deeper in the water column. Between spill treatments, TSW effectiveness was 

highest during 40 percent spill for yearling Chinook salmon and juvenile steelhead but highest during 60 

percent spill for subyearling Chinook salmon. 

Survival Probabilities

Estimates of concrete and project survival were similar among years but varied by species.

Concrete and project survival were both typically greater than 90 percent and ranged from 97 to 100 

percent for juvenile steelhead, from 92 to 97 percent for yearling Chinook salmon, and from 87 to 95 

percent for subyearling Chinook salmon. Concrete survival was similar between diel periods for 

juvenile steelhead but variable between diel periods for both yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon.

Concrete survival was higher for all species of fish during 60 percent spill than during 40 percent spill. 

Route-specific survival estimates were highly variable among year and species but were 

typically greater than 90 percent. The spillway and TSWs generally provided the highest survival and 

the turbines the lowest, for all species. The spillway typically provided higher survival during the day 

than night for all species, and likewise for the TSWs for juvenile steelhead and subyearling Chinook 

salmon. However, for yearling Chinook salmon, survival through the TSWs was higher during the night 

than day.
69

References Cited

Adams, N.S., and Counihan, T.D., eds., 2009, Survival and migration behavior of juvenile salmonids at 

McNary Dam, 2007: Final report of research prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, 

for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Washington, Contract W68SBV70178419, 

Walla Walla, Washington. 

Adams, N.S., and Liedtke, T.L., eds., 2009, Juvenile salmonid survival, passage, and egress at McNary

Dam during tests of temporary spillway weirs, 2008: Final report of research prepared by U.S. 

Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, 

Washington, Report number 2008-W68SBV80448890.

Adams, N.S., and Liedtke, T.L., eds., 2010, Juvenile salmonid survival, passage, and egress at McNary 

Dam during tests of temporary spillway weirs, 2009: Final report of research prepared by U.S. 

Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, 

Washington, Report number 2009-W68SBV90070150.

Adams, N.S., Plumb, J.M., Hatton, T.W., Jones, E.C., Swyers, N.M., Sholtis, M.D., Reagan, R.E., and 

Cash, K.M., 2008, Survival and migration behavior of juvenile salmonids at McNary Dam, 2006: Final 

report of research prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Walla Walla District, Washington, Report number 2006-W68SBV60478899.

Axel, A.G., Hockersmith, E.E., Eppard, M.B., and Sanford, B.P., 2004a, Passage and survival of hatchery 

yearling Chinook salmon at McNary Dam, 2002: Final report of research by National Marine Fisheries 

Service to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Contract W68SBV92844866.

Axel, A.G., Hockersmith, E.E., Eppard, M.B., and Sanford, B.P., 2004b, Passage and survival of hatchery 

yearling Chinook salmon at McNary Dam, 2003: Final report of research by National Marine Fisheries 

Service to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Contract W68SBV92844866.

Beeman, J.W., Fielding, S.D., Braatz, A.C., Wilkerson, T.S., Pope, A.C., Walker, C.E., Hardiman, J.M., 

Perry, R.W., and Counihan, T.D., 2008, Survival and migration behavior of juvenile salmonids at Lower 

Granite Dam, 2006: Final report of research by the U.S. Geological Survey to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Walla Walla District, Contract W68SBV60378208.

Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., White, G.C., Brownie, C., and Pollock, K.H., 1987, Design and Analysis 

Methods for Fish Survival Experiments Based on Release-Recapture: American Fisheries Society 

Monograph 5.

Cormack, R.M., 1964, Estimates of survival from the sighting of marked animals: Biometrika, v. 51, p. 

429–438.

Fish Passage Center, 2010, Fish Passage Center website, accessed March 10, 2010, at http:// 

www.fpc.org/smolt/historicsmpsubmitdata.html.

Giorgi, A.E., Hillman, T.W., and Stevenson, J.R., 1997, Factors that influence the downstream migration 

rates of juvenile salmon and juvenile steelhead through the hydroelectric system in the mid-Columbia 

River Basin: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 17, p. 268–282.

Jolly, G.M., 1965, Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigrationstochastic model: Biometrika, v. 52, p. 225–247.

Perry, R.W., Braatz, A.C., Fielding, S.D., Lucchesi, J.N., Plumb, J.M., Adams, N.S., and Rondorf, D.W.,

2006, Survival and migration behavior of juvenile salmonids at McNary Dam, 2004: Final report of 

research prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Walla Walla District, Washington, Contract W68SBV40271050.

Perry, R.W., Braatz, A.C., Novick, M.S., Lucchesi, J.L., Rutz, G.L., Koch, R.C., Schei, J.S., Adams, N.A., 

and Rondorf, D.W., 2007a, Survival and migration behavior of juvenile salmonids at McNary Dam, 

2005: Final report of research prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, for the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Washington, Contract W68SBV50407617.
70

Perry, R.W., Kock, T.J., Novick, M.S., Braatz, A.C., Fielding, S.D., Hansen, G.S., Sprando, J.M., 

Wilkerson, T.S., George, G.T., Schei, J.L., Adams, N.S., and Rondorf, D.W., 2007b, Survival and 

migration behavior of juvenile salmonids at Lower Granite Dam, 2005: Final report of research by the 

U.S. Geological Survey to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Contract 

W68SBV50498133.

Plumb, J.M., Braatz, A.C., Lucchesi, J.N., Fielding, S.D., Cochran, A.D., Nation, T.K., Sprando, J.M., 

Schei, J.L., Perry, R.W., Adams, N.S., and Rondorf, D.W., 2004, Behavior and survival of radio-tagged 

juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead and performance of a removable spillway weir at Lower Granite 

Dam, Washington, 2003: Final report of research by the U.S. Geological Survey to the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Contract W68SBV00104592.

Puls, A.L., Counihan, T.D., Walker, C.E., Hardiman, J.M., and Duran, I.N., 2008: Survival and migration 

behavior of subyearling Chinook salmon at Lower Granite Dam, 2007: Final report of research by the 

U.S. Geological Survey to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Contract 

W68SBV70198655.

Seber, G.A.F., 1965, A note on the multiple recapture census: Biometrika, v. 52, p. 249–259.

Skalski, J.R., Townsend, R., Lady, J., Giorgi, A.E., Stevenson, J.R., and McDonald, R.S., 2002, 

Estimating route-specific passage and survival probabilities at a hydroelectric project from smolt radio 

telemetry studies: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 59, p. 1385–1393.

Steig, T.W., Nealson, P.A., Kumagai, K.K., Rowdon, B.J., Klein, L.S., and McFadden, B.D., 2007, Routespecific passage of juvenile steelhead and sockeye salmon using acoustic tag methodologies at Rocky 

Reach and Rock Island Dams in 2006. Final report for Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1 by 

Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Steig, T.W., Nealson, P.A., Kumagai, K.K., Rowdon, B.J., Klein, L.S., and McFadden, B.D., 2008, Routespecific passage of juvenile Chinook and sockeye salmon using acoustic tag methodologies at Rocky 

Reach and Rock Island Dams in 2007: Final report for Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1 by 

Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Steig, T.W., Nealson, P.A., Kumagai, K.K., Rowdon, B.J., Selleck, J.R., and McFadden, B.D., 2009, 

Route specific passage of juvenile Chinook, sockeye and juvenile steelhead salmon using acoustic tag 

methodologies at Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dams in 2008: Final report for Chelan County Public 

Utility District No. 1 by Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Steig, T.W., Nealson, P.A., Kumagai, K.K., Rowdon, B.J., Selleck, J.R., and Tunnicliffe, C., 2010, Route 

specific passage of juvenile Chinook, sockeye and juvenile steelhead salmon using acoustic tag 

methodologies at Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dams in 2009: Final report for Chelan County Public 

Utility District No. 1 by Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Timko, M.A., Sullivan, L.S., Wright, C.D., Rizor, S.E., O’Connor, R.R., Skalski, J.R., Townsend, R.L., 

Fitzgerald, C.A., Meagher, M.M., Kukes, T.J., and Stephenson, J.D., 2010, Behavior and survival 

analysis of juvenile steelhead and sockeye through the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project in 2009: Final 

report for Grant County Public Utility District No. 2 by Blue Leaf Environmental.

University of Washington, 2010, Columbia River DART website, accessed March 30, 2010, at 

http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/dart.html. 

Zabel, R.W., 1994, Spatial and temporal models of migrating juvenile salmon with applications: Seattle, 

Wash., University of Washington, Ph.D. dissertation.

Zabel, R.W., 2002, Using “travel time” data to characterize the behavior of migrating animals: The 

American Naturalist, vol. 159, p. 372–387.

Zabel, R.W., and Anderson, J.J., 1997, A model of the travel time of migrating juvenile salmon, with an 

application to Snake River spring Chinook salmon: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 

v. 17, p. 93–100.
71

Chapter 2. Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival at McNary Dam, 2006–09,

for Fish Released in the Mid-Columbia River

By Christopher E. Walker, Scott J. Brewer, Jill M. Hardiman, and Tim D. Counihan

Introduction

Hydroelectric projects on the Snake and Columbia Rivers are major sources of mortality for 

migrating juvenile fish. Impoundments caused by dams may indirectly contribute to mortality by 

slowing the migration of juvenile salmonids (Raymond, 1968, 1979; Plumb and others, 2006), thus 

increasing exposure to predators and disease in reservoirs. Passage through dams is a direct source of 

mortality (Mesa, 1994; Whitney and others, 1997) and is cumulative for populations negotiating 

multiple dams. Few studies have been conducted using acoustic telemetry techniques encompassing 

long reaches and passage through multiple hydroelectric projects. The technology implemented in the 

Columbia and Snake Rivers made it possible to collect detailed information at dams as well as estimate 

survival in smaller reaches throughout the Columbia River.

In spring 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) applied acoustic telemetry technology at 

McNary Dam to obtain approach, passage, and survival information of yearling Chinook salmon and 

juvenile steelhead (Adams and others, 2008). Results from that study indicated that higher spill 

discharge generally resulted in higher fish passage through the spillway, and in turn, higher fish survival 

through the entire dam. In addition, the combination of detailed 3-dimensional (3-D) approach paths of 

fish and high passage effectiveness estimated for the south spill bays, aided in the design and location of 

future surface bypass structures installed for the 2007 migration study period.

Using acoustic telemetry technology, the USGS conducted behavioral and survival studies

during 2007, 2008, and 2009 at McNary Dam to assess the performance of the new temporary spillway 

weirs (TSWs) during various spill operations. In 2007, a “2006 Modified spill” and “2007 Test spill” 

were planned for evaluation of TSW performance. During the spring of 2007, however, the USGS 

observed few differences in spill operations between the two spill treatments. Consequently, no 

measurable differences in fish passage and survival were observed between the spill treatments. No spill 

treatments were planned in spring 2008 or 2009; however, in 2008, two distinct flow conditions were 

evident. The flow conditions were characterized by 40 percent of project discharge spilled during the 

first one-half of the spring season and 60 percent of project discharge spilled during the second one-half.

Results indicated that more yearling Chinook salmon and juvenile steelhead passed through the TSWs 

during 40 percent spill compared to the 60 percent spill. However, spillway survival and survival 

through all routes were slightly higher for both species during 60 percent spill. Fish passage efficiency 

(FPE) for yearling Chinook salmon was higher during the higher spill treatment.

In addition to the acoustic-tagged fish released specifically for studies at McNary Dam, several 

thousand additional fish migrated past McNary Dam every year that were tagged and released from 

dams in the mid-Columbia River by Grant and Chelan County Public Utility Districts (PUDs). Because 

the tags implanted in mid-Columbia released fish were compatible with the acoustic receivers used by 

USGS at McNary Dam, it was possible to obtain movement information on mid-Columbia released fish 

at McNary Dam. We estimated travel time, passage, and survival for yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile

sockeye salmon (hereafter referred to as sockeye salmon), and juvenile steelhead released in the midColumbia River and passing McNary Dam from 2006 to 2009. A subset of fish also was implanted with 
72

passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, which allowed these fish to be monitored in the bypass 

system at McNary Dam and determine if they passed through the turbines or the juvenile bypass system. 

The information contained in this report was made possible by sharing data from the PUDs, allowing 

the USGS to process the detection data at and downstream of McNary Dam. The USGS was able to 

estimate passage and survival of these fish at McNary Dam during these years and compare passage and 

survival probabilities to the tagged salmonids that USGS released 8 km upstream of McNary Dam. 

Environmental and Biological Setting

Project Description

Please refer to the Project Description section in Chapter 1

River Conditions

Please refer to the River Conditions section in Chapter 1.

Project Operations and Study Treatments

Please refer to the Project Operations and Study Treatments section in Chapter 1.

Species Composition and Run Timing

Please refer to the Species Composition and Run Timing section in Chapter 1.

Study Design

Acoustic Telemetry System 

Please refer to the Acoustic Telemetry System section in Chapter 1.

Transmitters

Please refer to the Transmitters section in Chapter 1.

Fish Tagging and Release

The mid-Columbia River released fish were tagged and released by personnel from 

Hydroacoustic Technologies Incorporated, LGL Limited, Chelan County Public Utility District

(CPUD), and Grant County Public Utility District (GPUD). The standard methodology and protocols 

used were based on studies conducted in 1999 and 2000 (Stevenson and others, 2000; Skalski and 

others, 2001). The source, collection, and release sites for each species and release group are briefly 

documented in this report. A detailed description of collection, transport, and tagging procedures can be 

found in Steig and others (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010), Sullivan and others (2009), and Timko and others

(2007, 2008, 2010). Juvenile salmonids were collected from the Turtle Rock Hatchery in 2006, Rocky 

Reach juvenile surface collector and gate well dipping from Wanapum Dam in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 

2009, and from Priest Rapids Dam in 2006, 2007, and 2009 (table 2-1). For all mid-Columbia 

experimental groups, handling protocols (including, collection, transport, tagging, holding, and release) 

were standardized as much as possible among release groups to reduce the potential for bias (Stevenson 
73

and others, 2000; Skalski and others, 2001). All acoustic transmitters were surgically implanted. Fish 

were typically held for 24–48 hours before tagging to ensure evacuation of stomach contents and for

24–48 hours after tagging to allow for recovery from the tagging procedures, to remove any posttagging mortalities, and to identify any early acoustic tag failure. Species, collection sources, release 

dates, number of fish per release, and release sites are documented in table 2-1.

Tagging and release procedures were similar to those used in the lower Columbia and Snake 

Rivers by the USGS, although differences were observed. In addition to releasing fish from boats, fish 

released from the mid-Columbia River also were released from a helicopter. Another notable difference 

from USGS procedures was that fish released by CPUD were held for up to 48 hours post-tagging and 

fish released by GPUD were held 24 hours post-tagging. Fish released by USGS were held 18–34 hours 

post-tagging. Detailed tagging and release procedures for USGS released fish are described by Adams 

and others (2008), Adams and Counihan (2009), and Adams and Liedtke (2009, 2010).

Juvenile salmonids were tagged and released from the mid-Columbia River release sites from 

April 20–June 3, 2006, April 20–May 31, 2007, April 24–June 6, 2008, and April 25–June 8, 2009 

(tables 2-1 and 2-2). These release dates overlapped the releases made by the USGS at Hat Rock State 

Park, 10 rkm upstream of McNary Dam, from April 26–June 3, 2006, April 19–June 7, 2007, April 18–

June 4, 2008, and April 17–June 2, 2009. Passage dates for mid-Columbia released fish at McNary Dam 

coincided with the majority of the population run timing for each species (68–94 percent) at McNary 

Dam according to the Fish Passage Center Smolt Indices 

(http://www.fpc.org/smolt/historicsmpsubmitdata.html). Passage date range, the percent spill observed 

during passage period, and, consequently, the time period and percent spill associated with passage and 

survival estimates, are presented for each species in table 2-3. Survival analyses for mid-Columbia 

River released fish were conducted on the following numbers of fish detected passing McNary Dam:

293 yearling Chinook salmon, 1,493 juvenile steelhead, and 1,339 sockeye salmon in 2006; 1,097 

yearling Chinook salmon, 650 juvenile steelhead, and 1,224 sockeye salmon in 2007; 539 yearling 

Chinook salmon, 1,888 juvenile steelhead, and 1,084 sockeye salmon in 2008; 1,860 juvenile steelhead

and 3,578 sockeye salmon in 2009. 
74

Table 2-1. Summary of species, collection sources, release dates, release numbers per day, and release sites for 

acoustic-tagged juvenile salmonids released in the mid-Columbia River by Chelan and Grant County PUDs.

[Species: Y., yearling. Collection source: PG, Priest Rapids Dam Gatewells; RC, Rocky Reach Collector; WG, Wanapum 

Dam Gatewells. Release site: PR, Priest Rapids Dam; RC, Rocky Reach Collector; RI, Rock Island Dam; RR, Rocky Reach 

Dam; WA, Wanapum Dam; WE, Wells Dam; VB, Vantage Bridge] 

Species Collection source Release dates Fish per release Release site

Y. Chinook Turtle Rock Hatchery May 2–June 3, 2006 19–24 WA

Steelhead RC,WG, PG April 20–June 2, 2006 19–34 WE, RR, RI, WA, PR

Sockeye RC May 5–May 29, 2006 19–23 WE, RR, RI

Y. Chinook RC April 20– May 31, 2007 21–39 RR, RI, WA

Steelhead RC, WG April 27–May 27, 2007 12–42 RI

Sockeye RC May 7–May 31, 2007 20–22 WE, RR

Y. Chinook WG May 8–June 5, 2008 30–80 VB

Y. Chinook RC April 24–May 30, 2008 21–27 RR

Steelhead WG May 8–June 3, 2008 8–26 RI, WA, PR

Steelhead RC April 24–June 1, 2008 23–27 RR

Sockeye RC May13–June 6, 2008 6–24 WE, RR, RI

Y. Chinook RC April 25–May 11, 2009 19–29 RR

Steelhead WG, PG May 2–May 25, 2009 20–53 RI, WA, PR

Steelhead RC April 27–May 11, 2009 19–32 RR

Sockeye WG, PG May 14–June 1, 2009 30–52 RI, WA, PR

Sockeye RC May15–June 8, 2009 29–41 WE, RC, RR

Table 2-2. Summary statistics of fork length and weight for acoustic-tagged juvenile salmonids released in the 

mid-Columbia River, 2006–09.

[Species: Y., yearling. CPUD, Chelan County Public Utility District; GPUD, Grant County Public Utility District. Release 

site: PR, Priest Rapids Dam; RC, Rocky Reach Collector; RR, Rocky Reach Dam; RH, Rock Island Hydro Park; RI, Rock 

Island Dam; WA, Wanapum Dam; WE, Wells Dam. mm, millimeter; g, grams; Min, minimum; Max, maximum]

Species Release group Release site Number

of fish

Fork length (mm) Weight (g)

Mean Min Max Mean Min Max

2006

Y. Chinook GPUD WA 652 189 150 237 76 36 181

Steelhead GPUD RI, WA, PR 2,520 199 150 250 73 30 155

Steelhead CPUD WE, RI, RR 1,501 183 104 235 56 17 144

Sockeye CPUD WE, RR, RI 3,493 116 100 148 15 8 28

2007

Y. Chinook GPUD WA 1,001 171 149 215 52 32 104

Steelhead GPUD RI 1,402 188 146 230 52 29 118

Y. Chinook CPUD RR, RI 1,000 167 132 260 47 20 114

Sockeye CPUD WE, RR 2,500 114 100 153 15 8 37

2008

Y. Chinook CPUD RR, RI 949 161 114 224 43 24 119

Steelhead CPUD RR 498 187 149 230 58 29 104

Sockeye CPUD WE,RC,RR,RH 2,002 117 100 147 16 10 29

Steelhead GPUD RI,WA,PR 2,201 186 143 220 59 30 98

2009

Steelhead CPUD RR 175 193 145 228 67 32 121

Sockeye CPUD WE,RC,RR 2,031 123 100 158 19 10 49

Steelhead GPUD RI,WA,PR 2,096 192 144 220 66 31 90

Sockeye GPUD RI,WA,PR 1,943 127 104 210 20 13 86
75

Table 2-3. Number of acoustic-tagged juvenile salmonids released in the mid-Columbia River, number (and percent 

of those released) that passed McNary Dam, range of passage dates, and corresponding percent spill of total 

project discharge over dates of passage at McNary Dam, by species, 2006–09.

[Percent spill is the percentage of project discharge spilled and includes the water discharged through the temporary spillway 

weirs. Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; Y., yearling]

Species Period Number 

released

Number 

passed

(percent)

First passage date

Last

passage

date

Percent Spill

2006

Y. Chinook Overall 652 293 (45) May 06 June 07 51

Steelhead Overall 4,021 1,493 (37) April 26 June 08 50

Sockeye Overall 3,493 1,339 (38) May 10 June 11 52

2007

Y. Chinook Overall 2,001 1,097 (55) April 25 June 12 41

Steelhead Overall 1,402 650 (46) May 01 June 09 41

Sockeye Overall 2,500 1,224 (49) May 11 June 14 41

2008

Y. Chinook Overall 949 539 (57) April 30 June 12 54

Early NA 182 (19) April 30 May 17 45

Late NA 357 (38) May 17 June 12 58

Steelhead Overall 2,699 1,888 (70) April 30 June 17 54

Early NA 412 (15) April 30 May 17 45

Late NA 1,476 (55) May 17 June 17 57

Sockeye Overall 2,002 1,084 (54) May 18 June 21 57

Early NA 0 (0) NA NA NA

Late NA 1,084 (54) May 18 June 21 57

2009

Steelhead Overall 2,271 1,860 (82) May 02 June 12 49

Sockeye Overall 3,974 3,578 (90) May 18 June 20 50

Signal Processing and Verification

Please refer to the Signal Processing and Verification section in Chapter 1.

Travel Times and Rates

Please refer to the Travel Times and Rates section in Chapter 1.

Passage Determinations 

Please refer to the Passage Determinations section in Chapter 1. The only difference in 

determining passage for mid-Columbia River released fish, compared to Hat Rock released fish, is that 

passage through the turbines and bypass could not be distinguished for fish that were not implanted with 

a PIT tag. Therefore, mid-Columbia released fish without an implanted PIT tag, were assigned 

powerhouse passage, not turbine or bypass passage.
76

Survival Model 

We used a single-release, route-specific survival model (RSSM) to estimate passage and survival 

probabilities (Skalski and others, 2002). The foundation of this model is based on the single releaserecapture models of Cormack (1964), Jolly (1965), and Seber (1965; CJS model). The RSSM partitions 

survival among reservoir, forebay, and route-specific components and uses a branching process to 

estimate route-specific passage probabilities (table 2-4; figs. 2-1 and 2-2). The route-specific model 

used in 2006 included two routes—the spillway and powerhouse (fig. 2-1), and the model used in 2007, 

2008, and 2009 included four routes—the spillway, powerhouse, and two TSWs (fig. 2-2). For subsets 

of juvenile steelhead that were implanted with PIT tags in 2008 and 2009, a route-specific survival 

model that incorporated five routes was used where the powerhouse was split into bypass and turbine 

passage routes.

We estimated season-wide passage and survival with respect to diel periods (in other words, day 

and night) in 2009, and spill treatments in 2008, under which the fish passed the dam. Day and night 

periods for analysis were dictated by when spill operations typically changed rather than by sunrise and 

sunset; day was considered 0600–1759 hours and night was considered 1800–0559 hours. Fish were 

assigned to treatments and diel periods based on their time of passage at McNary Dam. For the turbines 

and the spillway, including the TSWs, time of passage was assigned to the last detection of fish within 

the route of passage. For fish passing through the juvenile bypass system, passage was assigned using 

the first detection on the PIT-tag detection coils.

We assessed model fit by examining residuals of observed versus expected capture history 

counts (appendix E).
77

Table 2-4. Definitions of fish detection, passage, and survival parameters for McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Estimates were obtained using a single release, route-specific survival model and represent the survival probability from 

detection in front of the route to the first detection array downstream of McNary Dam. Parameter: PH, powerhouse; SP, 

spillway; TSW temporary spillway weir; PR, unconditional probability; P, detection probability; S, survival probability. 

Source: MLE, maximum likelihood estimate]

Parameter Source Definition

PH MLE Unconditional probability of powerhouse passage (turbines and bypass combined).

SP MLE Probability of spillway passage, conditional on the fish not passing the powerhouse.

This is also spillway passage efficiency.

TSW1 1 MLE Probability of TSW design 1 passage, conditional on the fish not passing the 

powerhouse or spillway.

TSW2 1 MLE Probability of TSW design 2 passage, conditional on the fish not passing the 

powerhouse or spillway.

PRPh Derived Unconditional probability of powerhouse passage (same as PH above).

PRSp Derived Unconditional probability of spillway passage.

PRTSW1

1 Derived Unconditional probability of TSW design 1 passage.

PRTSW2

1 Derived Unconditional probability of TSW design 2 passage.

PFb MLE Detection probability of the forebay entrance site.

PPh1 MLE Detection probability of first powerhouse array.

PPh2 MLE Detection probability of second powerhouse array.

PPh Derived Overall detection probability of the powerhouse.

PSp1 MLE Detection probability of first spillway array.

PSp2 MLE Detection probability of second spillway array.

PSp Derived Overall detection probability of the spillway.

PTSW11 1 MLE Detection probability of first TSW design 1 array.

PTSW12 1 MLE Detection probability of second TSW design 1 array.

PTSW1

1 Derived Overall detection probability of TSW design 1.

PTSW21 1 MLE Detection probability of first TSW design 2 array.

PTSW22 1 MLE Detection probability of second TSW design 2 array.

PTSW2

1 Derived Overall detection probability of TSW design 2.

PTSW 12 MLE Overall detection probability of TSW design 1 and TSW design 2 (estimated from 

downstream detection arrays under the CJS model).

PR MLE Detection probability of the first detection array downstream of McNary Dam.

λ MLE Lambda. Joint probability of surviving and being detected by all detection arrays 

downstream of the first detection array downstream of McNary Dam.

SPool MLE Pool survival probability. Survival probability from upstream boundary of reservoir to

detection at the forebay entrance.

SFb MLE Forebay survival probability. Survival probability from point of detection at forebay 

entrance to point of detection within a passage route.

SAll_routes Derived Survival probability through all passage routes. The probability of survival from the 

upstream boundary of the dam (dam face) to detection at the first downstream detection 

array; it includes all routes of passage, the tailrace, and section of river to the first 

downstream detection array. The probability of survival through each route of passage 

is weighted by the probability of passage through each route (that is, (SSpill × PSpill) + 

(SBypass × PBypass) + (STurbine × PTurbine)) where “S” is the probability of survival and “P” 

is the probability of passage. Similar to concrete survival but uses single-release model. 

SSp MLE Spillway survival probability.

SPh MLE Powerhouse survival probability.

STSW1 1 MLE TSW design 1 survival probability.

STSW2 1 MLE TSW design 2 survival probability.

1

Parameter was not estimable in 2006 because TSWs were not present.

2

Parameter was estimated in 2007 only due to absence of double array at TSWs in 2007. 
78

Figure 2-1. Schematic of a single release, route-specific survival model whereby survival and detection 

probabilities are separated among available routes and river reaches upstream and downstream of

McNary Dam, 2006. Release sites in the mid-Columbia River are represented by R. Circled numbers 

indicate passage route codes used in detection histories for each fish. Lambda (λ) is the joint probability 

of surviving and being detected by telemetry arrays downstream of the first detection array downstream 

of McNary Dam.

SPool

1-Ph

Ph

McNary Dam

Powerhouse 

PPh

2

SPILLWAY 

PSp

3

Sfb

R

Pfb

Alder Creek & Heppner

Arlington

Rock Creek & John Day Dam

 SSp SPh

P4

λ

Big Blalock Island
  

SPool

1-Sp

SPILLWAY 

PSp

Powerhouse 

PPh

Sp

1-Ph

Ph

McNary Dam

3 2

TSW 1 

PTSW 1 

4

Sfb

R

Pfb

TSW 1 1-TSW 1

TSW 2 

PTSW 2 

5

1st Downstream 

Detection Array

Subsequent 

Downstream Arrays

 SSp STSW 1 STSW2 SPh

P4

λ

79

Figure 2-2. Schematic of a single release, route-specific survival model whereby survival and detection 

probabilities are separated among available routes and river reaches upstream and downstream of McNary 

Dam, 2007–09. Release sites in the mid-Columbia River are represented by R. Circled numbers indicate 

passage route codes used in detection histories for each fish. Lambda (λ) is the joint probability of surviving 

and being detected by telemetry arrays downstream of the first detection array downstream of McNary 

Dam. For subsets of juvenile steelhead that were implanted with PIT tags in 2008 and 2009, a route-specific 

survival model that incorporated five routes was used where the powerhouse was split into bypass and 

turbine passage routes. 
80

Fish Behavior

Travel Times and Rates

Average travel times from release to McNary Dam were 2–3 days from Priest Rapids Dam, 3–4 

days from Wanapum Dam, 4–8 days from Rock Island Dam, 5–9 days from Rocky Reach Dam, and 6–

8 days from Wells Dam (table 2-5). The mean travel rates from release to McNary Dam ranged from 

37.0 to 64.1 km/d in 2006, 30.3 to 54.1 km/d in 2007, 37.5 to 69.5 km/d in 2008, and 33.1 to 92.4 km/d 

in 2009 for all species. Travel rates were greatest in 2008 for all species and release locations. Within 

each year, sockeye salmon had the highest rates of travel, followed by juvenile steelhead, and then 

yearling Chinook salmon. As fish traveled downstream, mean travel rates decreased in the near dam 

area of McNary Dam with average rates ranging from 10.50 to 19.03 km/d in 2006, 5.47 to 14.94 km/d

in 2007, 4.24 to 18.57 km/d in 2008 and 4.19 to 21.46 km/d in 2009 (table 2-6). However, these travel 

rates in the last 160 m of river before passing the dam represent relatively short average forebay 

residence times of 2.9 to 4.8 h for yearling Chinook salmon, 2.9 to 11.5 h for juvenile steelhead, and 2.2 

to 11.3 h for sockeye salmon, depending on year. Travel rates increased in reaches downstream of the 

dam and were similar to observed travel rates in the reach (in other words, pool) upstream of the dam

(table 2-7 and appendix C). Little difference was observed in travel rates of fish through the near dam 

area (within 160 m of the dam face) when analyzed by route of passage, with the exception of sockeye 

salmon which had much higher (2-3 times) rates of travel through the forebay in 2009 for fish that 

passed through the spillway or either TSW, compared to the powerhouse (figs. C1–C3). Tailrace egress 

rates generally were higher for all species passing through the spillway or either TSW, than for fish 

passing through the powerhouse (figs. C4–C6). Similarly, travel rates of all species from passage at 

McNary Dam to the detection array located 24 km downstream in 2006–08, and 22 km downstream in 

2009, generally were higher for fish passing through the spillway or TSWs, compared to fish passing 

though the powerhouse (figs. C7–C9).

Passage Distribution by Diel Period

Mid-Columbia River released fish passed McNary Dam during all hours of the day and nearly 

equal proportions of all species passed during the day and night (figs. 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6). Based on 

the last detection in the forebay of McNary Dam, 45–54 percent of yearling Chinook salmon, 46–54 

percent of juvenile steelhead, and 51–55 percent of sockeye salmon passed McNary Dam during the day 

(0600–1759 hours) and the remainder passed during the night (1800–0559 hours). Passage of all species 

during all years gradually increased over the 24-hour period and generally peaked between 1700 and 

2300 hours.
81

Table 2-5. Mean and median travel times and mean travel rates from release to first detection in the McNary Dam forebay for juvenile salmonids 

released in the Mid-Columbia River, 2006–09.

[d, days; km, kilometers; km/d, kilometers per day; Rock Is., Rock Island]

Species Distance Mean travel time (d) Median travel time (d) Mean travel rate (km/d)

Release location (km) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearling Chinook salmon

Rocky Reach Dam 290.0 — 8.55 7.73 — — 7.91 7.03 — — 33.92 37.53 —

Rock Island Dam 254.0 — 8.38 — — — 7.88 — — — 30.30 — —

Wanapum Dam 197.5 3.68 4.13 — — 3.49 3.91 — — 53.72 47.82 — —

Juvenile steelhead

Wells Dam 358.0 7.79 — — — 7.30 — — — 45.93 — — —

Rocky Reach Dam 290.0 6.46 — 6.03 8.76 5.79 — 5.55 7.93 44.87 — 48.10 33.10

Rock Island Dam 254.0 6.86 6.40 5.38 7.53 5.97 5.88 4.95 6.97 37.04 39.67 47.23 33.75

Wanapum Dam 197.5 4.05 — 3.34 4.31 3.44 — 3.02 3.98 48.76 — 59.05 45.82

Priest Rapids Dam 167.0 2.61 — 2.40 3.24 2.37 — 1.99 2.67 64.09 — 69.53 51.53

Sockeye salmon

Wells Dam 358.0 6.10 6.62 5.60 5.97 5.95 6.22 5.28 5.73 58.71 54.09 63.92 59.95

Rocky Reach Dam 290.0 5.11 5.70 4.48 4.88 4.85 5.31 4.12 4.68 56.74 50.90 64.75 59.43

Rock Is. Hydro Park 280.0 — — 4.25 — — — 4.04 — — — 65.90 —

Rock Island Dam 254.0 4.82 — 3.91 4.75 4.38 — 3.57 4.46 52.72 — 65.01 53.44

Wanapum Dam 197.5 — — — 2.83 — — — 2.70 — — — 69.68

Priest Rapids Dam 167.0 — — — 1.81 — — — 1.81 — — — 92.35
82

Table 2-6. Mean and median travel times and mean travel rates from first detection in McNary Dam forebay until passage, by release location, for 

juvenile salmonids released in the Mid-Columbia River, 2006–09.

[d, days; km/d, kilometers per day]

Species Mean travel time (d) Median travel time (d) Mean travel rate (km/d)

Release location 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearling Chinook salmon

Rocky Reach Dam — 0.13 0.20 — — 0.09 0.09 — — 14.94 10.01 —

Rock Island Dam — 0.15 — — — 0.10 — — — 13.01 — —

Wanapum Dam 0.12 0.18 — — 0.08 0.08 — — 16.83 11.27 — —

Juvenile steelhead

Wells Dam 0.17 — — — 0.07 — — — 11.96 — — —

Rocky Reach Dam 0.12 — 0.14 0.33 0.07 — 0.08 0.21 16.25 — 13.82 6.03

Rock Island Dam 0.19 0.37 0.36 0.41 0.08 0.14 0.07 0.19 10.50 5.47 5.53 4.83

Wanapum Dam 0.19 — 0.13 0.48 0.08 — 0.06 0.25 10.63 — 15.46 4.19

Priest Rapids Dam 0.13 — 0.19 0.44 0.07 — 0.07 0.21 15.87 — 10.78 4.59

Sockeye salmon

Wells Dam 0.11 0.19 0.38 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.07 18.05 10.59 5.30 19.80

Rocky Reach Dam 0.11 0.26 0.40 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.06 18.09 7.60 5.02 19.88

Rock Island Hydro Park — — 0.47 — — — 0.06 — — — 4.24 —

Rock Island Dam 0.11 — 0.29 0.09 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 19.03 — 6.79 21.46

Wanapum Dam — — — 0.13 — — — 0.06 — — — 14.86

Priest Rapids Dam — — — 0.12 — — — 0.06 — — — 16.05
83

Table 2-7. Mean and median travel times and mean travel rates from passage at McNary Dam until detection at first detection array downstream of 

McNary Dam, by release location, for juvenile salmonids released in the mid-Columbia River, 2006–09.

[d, days; km/d, kilometers per day]

Species Mean travel time (d) Median travel time (d) Mean travel rate (km/d)

Release location 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009

Yearling Chinook salmon

Rocky Reach Dam — 0.64 0.75 — — 0.36 0.41 — — 37.34 31.80 —

Rock Island Dam — 0.74 — — — 0.47 — — — 32.35 — —

Wanapum Dam 0.34 0.48 — — 0.26 0.37 — — 71.25 50.24 — —

Juvenile steelhead

Wells Dam 0.46 — — — 0.28 — — — 52.49 — — —

Rocky Reach Dam 0.66 — 0.41 0.56 0.24 — 0.26 0.26 36.25 — 58.23 39.63

Rock Island Dam 0.48 0.55 0.47 0.28 0.25 0.30 0.26 0.23 49.70 43.35 51.33 78.83

Wanapum Dam 0.43 — 0.41 0.32 0.25 — 0.27 0.24 55.40 — 59.06 69.78

Priest Rapids Dam 0.44 — 0.40 0.27 0.25 — 0.26 0.24 54.50 — 60.41 82.39

Sockeye salmon

Wells Dam 0.50 0.51 0.54 0.26 0.25 0.36 0.53 0.18 47.92 46.76 44.25 84.65

Rocky Reach Dam 0.38 0.58 0.64 0.30 0.26 0.34 0.55 0.19 63.51 41.03 37.41 74.42

Rock Island Hydro Park — — 0.85 — — — 0.54 — — — 28.33 —

Rock Island Dam 0.43 — 0.57 0.30 0.26 — 0.53 0.19 55.69 — 41.79 72.64

Wanapum Dam — — — 0.29 — — — 0.20 — — — 75.03

Priest Rapids Dam — — — 0.31 — — — 0.20 — — — 71.65
84

Hour of day

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

Percent of fish

0

2

4

6

8

10

Yearling Chinook salmon 

Sockeye salmon 

Juvenile steelhead 

Figure 2-3. Graphs showing frequency distribution of the last detection hour at McNary Dam for midColumbia River released juvenile salmonids in 2006.
85

Percent of fish

0

2

4

6

8

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

Sockeye salmon 

Yearling Chinook Salmon 

Hour of day

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

0

2

4

6

8

10

Juvenile steelhead 

Figure 2-4. Graphs showing frequency distribution of the last detection hour at McNary Dam for midColumbia River released juvenile salmonids in 2007. 
86

Yearling Chinook Salmon

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Percent of fish

0

2

4

6

8

10

Juvenile steelhead

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

0

2

4

6

8

10

Sockeye salmon

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

0

2

4

6

8

10

Hour of day

Figure 2-5. Graphs showing frequency distribution of the last detection hour at McNary Dam for midColumbia River released juvenile salmonids in 2008.
87

Figure 2-6. Graphs showing frequency distribution of the last detection hour at McNary Dam for midColumbia River released juvenile salmonids in 2009.

Fish Passage and Survival

Route-Specific Passage Probabilities 

Passage Probabilities 2006

During 2006, passage probability was higher for all species passing through the spillway 

compared to the powerhouse (table 2-8). Passage probabilities for the spillway were 0.528, 0.659, and 

0.672 for yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and sockeye salmon, respectively. Passage 

probabilities for the powerhouse were 0.472, 0.341, and 0.328 for yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile 

steelhead, and sockeye salmon, respectively.

Passage Probabilities 2007

During 2007, the first year that the TSWs were tested, passage probabilities varied among the 

three fish species (table 2-8). Passage probability was highest through the powerhouse for yearling 

Chinook salmon (0.360) and sockeye salmon (0.398) but, for juvenile steelhead, passage probability 

was highest through TSW1 (0.498). The probability of passing through TSW1 was 0.274 for yearling 

Chinook salmon and 0.312 for sockeye salmon. Spillway passage probabilities were 0.302 for yearling 

Chinook salmon, 0.207 for juvenile steelhead, and 0.244 for sockeye salmon. Passage probabilities were 

lowest for TSW2, ranging from 0.046 to 0.069, depending on species.
88

Passage Probabilities 2008

For yearling Chinook salmon in 2008, the spillway was the passage route with the highest 

passage probability overall (0.651), as well as during the late period when a higher proportion of 

discharge was spilled (0.765; tables 2-8 and 2-9). In comparison, during the lower spill levels of the 

early period, the probability of passing through the spillway (0.406) was much lower and most fish 

passed through the powerhouse (0.441). Although the probability of passage through each TSW during 

the early period was only 0.076, this was 2–3 times their efficiency during the higher spill levels of the 

late period (0.025 and 0.036 for TSW1 and TSW2, respectively; table 2-9).

Juvenile steelhead had a similar overall passage pattern to yearling Chinook salmon, with the 

highest passage probability being the spillway (0.617), followed by the powerhouse (0.184), TSW2 

(0.110), and TSW1 (0.089; table 2-8). However, unlike Chinook salmon, which shifted their passage to 

the powerhouse during the low spill of the early period, juvenile steelhead passage increased through the 

TSWs during lower spill levels. The route with the second highest probability of passage during the 

early period for juvenile steelhead was TSW2 (0.239; table 2-9). Similar to yearling Chinook salmon, 

spillway passage probability for juvenile steelhead nearly doubled during the late period, when percent 

spill increased from 40 percent of total project discharge to 60 percent.

A subset of juvenile steelhead implanted with both a PIT tag and an acoustic tag enabled 

estimation of passage and survival probabilities for fish that passed through turbines, as well as for fish 

that passed through the juvenile bypass system. Passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead implanted 

with an acoustic and a PIT tag were similar to passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead implanted 

with only an acoustic tag (tables 2-8 and 2-10). The passage route with the highest probability of 

passage was the spillway (0.699) followed by the juvenile bypass (0.122), the turbines (0.067), TSW2 

(0.064), and TSW1 (0.048). Fish guidance efficiency (FGE) for juvenile steelhead implanted with a PIT 

tag and acoustic tag was 0.647 and fish passage efficiency (FPE) was 0.933.

Passage probabilities for sockeye salmon were similar to the other species (table 2-8). The 

spillway had the highest probability of passage (0.744), followed by the powerhouse (0.189), TSW1 

(0.045), and TSW2 (0.021).

Passage Probabilities 2009

Juvenile steelhead released from the mid-Columbia River in 2009 had the highest probability of 

passage at McNary Dam through the powerhouse, both overall (0.367) and during the day (0.378; tables 

2-8 and 2-11). The spillway had the second highest probability of passage overall, but during the day, 

TSW2 provided the second highest passage probability. At night, the spillway had the highest passage 

probability (0.402), followed by the powerhouse (0.354), TSW2 (0.164), and TSW1 (0.080).

A subset of juvenile steelhead implanted with both a PIT tag and an acoustic tag enabled 

estimation of passage probabilities for fish that passed through turbines, as well as for fish that passed 

through the juvenile bypass system. Passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead implanted with an 

acoustic/PIT tag were nearly identical to passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead implanted with 

only an acoustic tag (tables 2-8 and 2-10). The passage route with the highest probability of passage was 

the spillway (0.341) followed by the juvenile bypass (0.326), TSW2 (0.238), TSW1 (0.055), and the 

turbines (0.040). Fish guidance efficiency (FGE) for juvenile steelhead implanted with a PIT/acoustic 

tag was 0.889 and fish passage efficiency (FPE) was 0.960.

Passage probabilities for sockeye salmon were highest at the spillway (0.475), followed by the 

powerhouse (0.366), TSW2 (0.123), and TSW1 (0.036; table 2-8). The same pattern existed for passage 

probabilities during day and night periods (table 2-11).
89

Table 2-8. Route-specific passage probabilities for mid-Columbia released juvenile salmonids in 2006–09.

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival model; NA, not applicable]

1

The probability of passing through the spillway is also termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).

Passage route Yearling Chinook salmon Juvenile steelhead Sockeye salmon

2006

Powerhouse 0.472 (0.029) 0.341 (0.011) 0.328 (0.011)

Spillway1 0.528 (0.029) 0.659 (0.011) 0.672 (0.011)

TSW1 NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA

2007

Powerhouse 0.360 (0.014) 0.226 (0.015) 0.398 (0.013)

Spillway1 0.302 (0.013) 0.207 (0.014) 0.244 (0.012)

TSW1 0.274 (0.014) 0.498 (0.019) 0.312 (0.014)

TSW2 0.064 (0.008) 0.069 (0.011) 0.046 (0.008)

2008

Powerhouse 0.259 (0.018) 0.184 (0.008) 0.189 (0.010)

Spillway1 0.651 (0.020) 0.617 (0.011) 0.744 (0.012)

TSW1 0.042 (0.008) 0.089 (0.006) 0.045 (0.005)

TSW2 0.049 (0.009) 0.110 (0.007) 0.021 (0.004)

2009

Powerhouse NA 0.367 (0.011) 0.366 (0.008)

Spillway1 NA 0.338 (0.011) 0.475 (0.008)

TSW1 NA 0.055 (0.005) 0.036 (0.003)

TSW2 NA 0.240 (0.009) 0.123 (0.005)
90

Table 2-9. Route-specific passage and survival (single-release) probabilities for mid-Columbia released juvenile salmonids during early (40 percent 

spill) and late (60 percent spill) spring, 2008.

[%, percent; Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival model]

1

The probability of passing through the spillway also is termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).

2

Survival probability and confidence limits were not estimable using maximum likelihood methods because we detected 100 percent (14/14) of the fish passing 

this route at downstream detection arrays. Although the modeling software could not produce an estimate, our best estimate of survival is 100 percent. Variance 

from parameter not accounted for in other estimates derived from this parameter.

Yearling Chinook salmon Juvenile steelhead

Passage route 40% spill 60% spill 40% spill 60% spill

Passage probabilities

Powerhouse 0.441 (0.037) 0.174 (0.019) 0.214 (0.020) 0.177 (0.009)

Spillway1 0.406 (0.036) 0.765 (0.021) 0.369 (0.024) 0.677 (0.011)

TSW1 0.076 (0.020) 0.025 (0.008) 0.178 (0.019) 0.067 (0.006)

TSW2 0.076 (0.020) 0.036 (0.009) 0.239 (0.021) 0.079 (0.007)

Single-release survival probabilities

Powerhouse 0.868 (0.053; 0.758, 0.968) 0.828 (0.061; 0.701, 0.942) 0.892 (0.067; 0.768, 1.051) 0.847 (0.036; 0.780, 0.926)

Spillway 0.894 (0.053; 0.783, 0.994) 1.004 (0.031; 0.946, 1.072) 0.939 (0.040; 0.863, 1.026) 0.971 (0.019; 0.935, 1.011)

TSW1 21.000 0.883 (0.141; 0.551, 1.078) 0.970 (0.065; 0.849, 1.125) 0.889 (0.054; 0.790, 1.019)

TSW2 0.775 (0.132; 0.493, 0.986) 0.788 (0.135; 0.502, 1.003) 0.907 (0.052; 0.807, 1.026) 0.909 (0.044; 0.828, 1.010)

All routes 0.881 (0.037) 0.962 (0.030) 0.927 (0.027) 0.939 (0.015)
91

Table 2-10. Route-specific passage and survival (single-release) probabilities for mid-Columbia released juvenile steelhead implanted with an acoustic 

tag and a PIT tag during spring, 2008 and 2009.

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival model]

1

The probability of passing through the spillway is also termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).

Passage route 2008 2009

Passage probabilities

Turbine 0.067 (0.011) 0.040 (0.005)

Bypass 0.122 (0.014) 0.326 (0.011)

Spillway1 0.699 (0.020) 0.341 (0.011)

TSW1 0.048 (0.009) 0.055 (0.005)

TSW2 0.064 (0.010) 0.238 (0.010)

Fish guidance efficiency 0.647 (0.047) 0.889 (0.012)

Fish passage efficiency 0.933 (0.011) 0.960 (0.005)

Single-release survival probabilities

Forebay 1.007 (0.010; 0.985, 1.025) 0.999 (0.003; 0.992, 1.003)

Turbine 0.780 (0.086; 0.603, 0.934) 0.819 (0.045; 0.722, 0.896)

Bypass 0.898 (0.058; 0.777, 1.005) 0.940 (0.012; 0.914, 0.961)

Spillway 0.936 (0.033; 0.873, 1.007) 0.968 (0.007; 0.952, 0.981)

TSW1 0.822 (0.096; 0.618, 0.987) 0.917 (0.028; 0.852, 0.961)

TSW2 0.956 (0.068; 0.801, 1.073) 0.977 (0.008; 0.960, 0.990)

All routes 0.917 (0.030) 0.952 (0.006)
92

Table 2-11. Route-specific passage and survival (single-release) probabilities) for mid-Columbia released juvenile salmonids during the day and night, 

spring 2009.

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival model]

1

The probability of passing through the spillway also is termed spillway passage efficiency (SPE).

2

Survival probability and confidence limits were not estimable using maximum likelihood methods because we detected 100 percent (33/33) of the fish passing 

this route at downstream detection arrays. Although the modeling software could not produce an estimate, our best estimate of survival is 100 percent. Variance 

from parameter not accounted for in other estimates derived from this parameter.

Juvenile steelhead Sockeye salmon

Passage route Day Night Day Night

Passage probabilities

Powerhouse 0.378 (0.015) 0.354 (0.015) 0.387 (0.011) 0.338 (0.012)

Spillway1 0.276 (0.014) 0.402 (0.016) 0.465 (0.011) 0.488 (0.012)

TSW1 0.032 (0.005) 0.080 (0.009) 0.026 (0.003) 0.051 (0.005)

TSW2 0.314 (0.014) 0.164 (0.012) 0.122 (0.007) 0.124 (0.008)

Single-release survival probabilities

Powerhouse 0.947 (0.016; 0.910, 0.974) 0.905 (0.016; 0.871, 0.933) 0.921 (0.012; 0.896, 0.942) 0.944 (0.010; 0.923, 0.961)

Spillway 0.990 (0.008; 0.970, 1.002) 0.952 (0.011; 0.928, 0.970) 0.961 (0.006; 0.948, 0.972) 0.956 (0.007; 0.940, 0.969)

TSW1 21.000 0.889 (0.035; 0.808, 0.946) 0.967 (0.024; 0.897, 0.996) 0.930 (0.028; 0.862, 0.972)

TSW2 0.980 (0.009; 0.958, 0.995) 0.983 (0.010; 0.955, 0.997) 0.939 (0.015; 0.906, 0.964) 0.943 (0.016; 0.905, 0.970)

All routes 0.971 (0.007) 0.936 (0.008) 0.943 (0.006) 0.949 (0.005)
93

Route-Specific Survival Probabilities

Survival Probabilities 2006

Forebay survival was estimated to be between 0.957 and 0.990, depending on species (table 2-

12). The passage route with the highest survival for both yearling Chinook salmon (0.927) and juvenile

steelhead (0.930) was the spillway (table 2-12). For sockeye salmon, the powerhouse had the highest

survival probability (0.926). Survival through all routes was highest for juvenile steelhead (0.911), 

followed by yearling Chinook (0.867) and sockeye salmon (0.866).

Survival Probabilities 2007

During the first year of testing of TSWs, forebay survival was 1.010 for yearling Chinook 

salmon, 1.015 for juvenile steelhead, and 0.967 for sockeye salmon; 1–3 percent higher than in 2006, 

depending on species (table 2-12). Similarly, survival through all routes and route-specific survival 

estimates were higher in 2007 than in 2006, especially for yearling Chinook salmon passing the 

powerhouse and sockeye salmon passing the spillway. Survival in 2007 was highest through the 

spillway for all species, lowest through TSW2 for yearling Chinook and sockeye salmon, and lowest 

through the powerhouse for juvenile steelhead.

Survival Probabilities 2008

Forebay survival for mid-Columbia released yearling Chinook salmon was 0.984. Survival 

probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon were highest at the spillway (0.982), followed by TSW1 

(0.951), the powerhouse (0.849), and TSW2 (0.781; table 2-12). Similar patterns in survival 

probabilities among passage routes were exhibited during early and late periods and wide confidence 

intervals indicated there may have been little difference in survival between the two periods. However, 

differences in point estimates of TSW1 and spillway survival were greater than 10 percent between the 

two periods (table 2-9).

Survival in the forebay for the mid-Columbia River released juvenile steelhead was 0.996. The 

passage route with the highest survival was the spillway (0.968), followed by TSW1 (0.921), TSW2 

(0.909), and the powerhouse (0.857; table 2-12). A similar pattern was seen for both early and late 

periods, but due to high variance associated with survival estimates, we could not distinguish any 

difference in survival among routes between periods. Furthermore, differences in point estimates of 

survival between early and late periods were small (less than 0.040) except for the difference in survival 

through TSW1, which was 0.081 (table 2-9).

Survival probabilities for sockeye salmon were similar to the other species (table 2-12). The 

spillway had the highest probability of survival (0.925). Survival through other routes ranged between 

0.819 and 0.866. Forebay survival was 0.997 and survival through all routes was 0.907 for sockeye 

salmon.
94

Survival Probabilities 2009

Forebay survival of juvenile steelhead was estimated at 0.998 and survival through all routes

was 0.954. Survival overall was highest at TSW2 (0.981), followed by the spillway (0.968), the 

powerhouse (0.927) and TSW1 (0.921; table 2-12). During the day, survival of juvenile steelhead was 

highest through TSW1 (1.000), followed by the spillway (0.990), TSW2 (0.980), and the powerhouse 

(0.947; table 2-11). Survival at night followed the same pattern as the overall estimates. Survival at 

night was highest at TSW2 (0.983), followed by the spillway (0.952), the powerhouse (0.905), and 

TSW1 (0.889). Differences in survival between day and night were generally small (less than 0.040) 

with the exception of TSW1 where survival during the day was 0.111 higher than during night. 

A subset of juvenile steelhead implanted with both a PIT tag and an acoustic tag, enabled 

estimation of survival probabilities for fish that passed through turbines, as well as for fish that passed 

through the juvenile bypass system. Survival was highest through TSW2 (0.977) and the spillway 

(0.968), followed by the juvenile bypass (0.940), TSW1 (0.917), and turbines (0.819; table 2-10).

Forebay survival was 0.999 and survival through all routes was 0.952.

Forebay survival for sockeye salmon was estimated at 1.00 and survival through all routes was 

0.945. Over the entire season, the spillway provided the highest survival (0.959) of all available routes, 

followed by TSW1 (0.945), TSW2 (0.941), and the powerhouse (0.930; table 2-12). During the day, 

survival was highest through TSW1 (0.967), followed closely by the spillway (0.961), then TSW2

(0.939) and the powerhouse (0.921; table 2-11). At night, the spillway had the highest survival (0.956), 

followed by the powerhouse (0.944), TSW2 (0.943), and TSW1 (0.930).

Passage Route Effectiveness

A useful criterion for judging the performance of passage routes at dams is passage route 

effectiveness. Passage route effectiveness is the proportion of fish passed through a particular route

relative to the proportion of water that is passing through that route. Effectiveness of the powerhouse 

was lowest among all passage routes and ranged between 0.564 and 0.963 for yearling Chinook salmon, 

0.381 and 0.720 for juvenile steelhead, and 0.444 and 0.726 for sockeye salmon, depending on the year 

of study (table 2-13). The spillway provided the next highest effectiveness at between 0.889 and 1.337 

for yearling Chinook salmon, 0.612 and 1.315 for juvenile steelhead, and 0.722 and 1.412 for sockeye 

salmon. The TSWs provided the highest effectiveness of all available routes of passage. Combined, the 

two TSWs had an effectiveness of between 1.655 and 4.761 for yearling Chinook salmon, 3.685 and 

8.217 for juvenile steelhead, and 1.404 and 5.114 for sockeye salmon. Of the two TSWs, TSW1 

provided the highest effectiveness for all species in 2007 and TSW2 provided the highest effectiveness 

for all species in 2009. In 2008, TSW2 provided the highest effectiveness for yearling Chinook salmon 

and juvenile steelhead, whereas TSW1 provided the highest effectiveness for sockeye salmon. 

Regardless of TSW design or location, TSW effectiveness was higher for juvenile steelhead than for the 

other species during all years of study.
95

Table 2-12. Route-specific survival probabilities (single-release) for mid-Columbia released juvenile salmonids in 2006–09. 

[Standard error and 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals are shown in parenthesis if estimable by the survival model; NA, not applicable]

Passage route Yearling Chinook salmon Juvenile steelhead Sockeye salmon

2006

Forebay 0.990 (0.007; 0.972, 0.998) 0.986 (0.006; 0.972, 0.998) 0.957 (0.019; 0.921, 0.996)

Powerhouse 0.799 (0.036; 0.724, 0.865) 0.874 (0.020; 0.834, 0.912) 0.926 (0.026; 0.877, 0.978)

Spillway 0.927 (0.025; 0.872, 0.970) 0.930 (0.016; 0.899, 0.961) 0.836 (0.030; 0.778, 0.896)

TSW1 NA NA NA

TSW2 NA NA NA

All routes 0.867 (0.022) 0.911 (0.013) 0.866 (0.025)

2007

Forebay 1.010 (0.004; 1.000, 1.018 ) 1.015 (0.012; 0.987, 1.037) 0.967 (0.014; 0.939, 0.994)

Powerhouse 0.944 (0.037; 0.877, 1.023) 0.900 (0.046; 0.813, 0.998) 0.986 (0.064; 0.877, 1.134)

Spillway 1.002 (0.038; 0.933, 1.084) 0.958 (0.046; 0.872, 1.057) 1.043 (0.070; 0.923, 1.202)

TSW1 0.948 (0.041; 0.871, 1.035) 0.914 (0.042; 0.836, 1.007) 1.028 (0.073; 0.900, 1.193)

TSW2 0.893 (0.071; 0.748, 1.025) 0.906 (0.080; 0.737, 1.053) 0.834 (0.125; 0.595, 1.084

All routes 0.959 (0.033) 0.919 (0.036) 1.006 (0.063)

2008

Forebay 0.984 (0.008; 0.964, 0.997) 0.996 (0.004; 0.987, 1.004) 0.997 (0.010; 0.977, 1.015)

Powerhouse 0.849 (0.040) 0.857 (0.032) 0.858 (0.032; 0.795, 0.922)

Spillway 0.982 (0.027) 0.968 (0.018) 0.925 (0.023; 0.882, 0.973)

TSW1 0.951 (0.060) 0.921 (0.042) 0.819 (0.062; 0.689, 0.932)

TSW2 0.781 (0.094) 0.909 (0.033) 0.866 (0.085; 0.680, 1.009)

All routes 0.937 (0.024) 0.937 (0.013) 0.907 (0.021)

2009

Forebay NA 0.998 (0.003; 0.992, 1.003) 1.000 (0.002; 0.997, 1.004)

Powerhouse NA 0.927 (0.011) 0.930 (0.008)

Spillway NA 0.968 (0.007) 0.959 (0.005)

TSW1 NA 0.921 (0.026) 0.945 (0.020)

TSW2 NA 0.981 (0.007) 0.941 (0.011)

All routes NA 0.954 (0.005) 0.945 (0.004)
96

Table 2-13. Passage route effectiveness for mid-Columbia released juvenile salmonids in 2006–09. 

[NA, not applicable]

Passage route Yearling Chinook salmon Juvenile steelhead Sockeye salmon

2006

Powerhouse 0.963 0.683 0.689

Spillway 1.035 1.315 1.282

2007

Powerhouse 0.607 0.381 0.672

Spillway 0.899 0.612 0.722

TSW1 7.405 13.833 8.667

TSW2 1.882 2.091 1.353

Both TSWs 4.761 8.217 5.114

TSW and Spillway 1.572 1.902 1.475

2008

Powerhouse 0.564 0.404 0.444

Spillway 1.337 1.262 1.412

TSW1 1.500 3.179 1.875

TSW2 1.885 4.231 0.955

Both TSWs 1.655 3.685 1.404

TSW and Spillway 1.372 1.500 1.411

2009

Powerhouse NA 0.720 0.726

Spillway NA 0.788 1.075

TSW1 NA 1.774 1.333

TSW2 NA 8.276 4.556

Both TSWs NA 4.917 2.944

TSW and Spillway NA 1.292 1.278
97

Tailrace Egress

Tailrace egress rates of juvenile salmonids varied by year and passage route. We did not measure 

egress to the I-82 Bridge (located 2 km downstream of McNary Dam) in 2006. For yearling Chinook 

salmon, the egress rate was fastest for fish passing through either TSW in any year. Egress also was 

high in 2008 for fish passing through the spillway in 2008 (> 3.8 km/h; fig. 2-7). The rate of fish leaving

the tailrace after passing though the spillway in 2007 or 2009, or through the powerhouse in any year,

was about one-quarter, or less, the rate that fish exited the tailrace after passing through either TSW or 

the spillway in 2008. There was greater variability in rates of egress for both juvenile steelhead and 

sockeye salmon (figs. 2-8 and 2-9). However, the pattern was similar to egress rates for yearling 

Chinook salmon in that egress was lowest for fish that passed through the powerhouse and highest for 

fish that passed through the TSWs. Egress rates were low for all species after passing through TSW1 in 

2007 and egress rates for fish passing the spillway were highest in 2007 and 2009 for juvenile steelhead 

and sockeye salmon; years that egress rates were low for yearling Chinook salmon that passed through 

the spillway. 

Figure 2-7. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from passage at McNary Dam to first detection at the 

I82 Bridge located 2.4 km downstream of McNary Dam, by passage route, for yearling Chinook salmon 

released in the mid-Columbia River, 2006–09.

'07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2
98

Figure 2-8. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from passage at McNary Dam to first detection at the 

I82 Bridge located 2.4 km downstream of McNary Dam, by passage route, for juvenile steelhead released in 

the mid-Columbia River, 2006–09.

Figure 2-9. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from passage at McNary Dam to first detection at the 

I-82 Bridge located 2.4 km downstream of McNary Dam, by passage route, for Sockeye salmon released in 

the mid-Columbia River, 2006–09.

'07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

2

4

6

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2

'07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

-2

0

2

4

6

Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2
99

Discussion

During all 4 years of study, we were able to assess passage and survival of acoustic-tagged 

juvenile salmonids at McNary Dam that were released by Grant and Chelan County PUDs in the MidColumbia River. These post-hoc analyses conducted on fish released from between 167 and 358 km

upstream of McNary Dam provide data that can be compared with passage and survival data for fish 

released only 10 km upstream of McNary Dam. Additionally, this study provides 4 years of passage and 

survival data for juvenile sockeye salmon at McNary Dam, a species for which there is less information.

Comparisons of Mid-Columbia and Hat-Rock Released Fish

Below we discuss differences and similarities between the results from mid-Columbia River 

released fish and fish released near Hat Rock State Park, located 10 rkm upstream of McNary Dam 

(Adams and others, 2008; Adams and Counihan, 2009; Adams and Liedtke, 2009, 2010; Chapter 1 of 

this report). These comparisons were not part of either study plan and differences between the studies 

may confound direct comparisons made between the mid-Columbia and McNary release groups.

Potential confounding factors include: differences in the source of the test fish, differences in tagging 

and release protocols, annual differences in dam operations and configurations, differences in how the 

survival models were constructed (that is, number of routes that could be estimated given the number of 

fish detected), and the number and length of reaches included in the analysis. These caveats aside, we 

believe it is still worthwhile to examine and discuss general trends among the various release groups to 

provide insight into the passage and survival of a group of fish that would otherwise be unattainable.

Passage and Survival 2006

During 2006, for yearling Chinook salmon, spillway passage probability was lower and 

powerhouse passage probability was higher, for fish released at Wanapum Dam than for fish released 

near Hat Rock State Park (fig. 2-10). All other passage probabilities were similar between MidColumbia released fish and Hat Rock released fish (figs. 2-10 and 2-11). Forebay survival was lower for 

Mid-Columbia released juvenile steelhead and sockeye salmon, but similar for yearling Chinook 

salmon, compared to Hat Rock released fish. Little difference was observed between release groups for 

powerhouse or spillway survival, largely due to high variance associated with the point estimates (figs. 

2-12 and 2-13). Survival through all routes for both yearling Chinook salmon (0.867, SE=0.022) and 

juvenile steelhead (0.866, SE=0.025) released from the Mid-Columbia River were lower than the 

estimated single release survival probabilities for yearling Chinook salmon (0.938, SE=0.007) and 

juvenile steelhead (0.973, SE=0.010) released at Hat Rock State Park (figs. 2-12 and 2-13). Because 

survival is typically lower for powerhouse passage compared to spillway passage, and since we 

observed higher passage through the powerhouse for Mid-Columbia River released yearling Chinook 

salmon than for Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon, this could result in lower survival overall 

through McNary Dam. However, this would not be the case for juvenile steelhead, which passed equally 

through the powerhouse between release groups.
100

Passage and Survival 2007

In general, route-specific passage probabilities were very similar between the mid-Columbia 

River released fish and the Hat Rock released fish in 2007. For both yearling Chinook salmon release 

groups, the highest proportion of fish passed via the powerhouse followed by the spillway, TSW1, and 

TSW2 (fig. 2-14). For sockeye salmon, the route with the highest probability of passage also was the 

powerhouse, followed by TSW1, the spillway, and TSW2 (fig. 2-14). Hat Rock released yearling 

Chinook salmon had a higher probability of passage through the powerhouse (turbine and bypass routes 

combined; Adams and Counihan, 2009) than mid-Columbia released fish, which could be a result of 

higher detections of Hat Rock fish due to PIT tag detections within the bypass system. However, it was 

infrequent that fish were detected only in the bypass system and were not detected at the face of the 

powerhouse. None of the mid-Columbia River released fish had PIT tags and therefore we were not able 

to discern turbine passage from bypass passage. The most notable difference in passage between Hat 

Rock and mid-Columbia released fish was the relatively low passage probability through TSW1 for Hat 

Rock released Chinook salmon compared to mid-Columbia River release groups (fig. 2-14). This may 

be the result of fish approaching the dam in the transition area between the TSWs and the powerhouse 

and getting entrained into the powerhouse, where we observed relatively higher passage for Hat Rock 

released fish versus the other two groups. Higher passage was observed at TSW1, compared to TSW2, 

for all groups and relatively few fish passed through TSW2. The probability of passage through TSW1 

was much higher for juvenile steelhead than for other species and was the highest probability of all 

routes for both release groups. Passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead through other routes were

similar for both release groups through the powerhouse, higher for mid-Columbia juvenile steelhead at 

the spillway, and higher for Hat Rock juvenile steelhead at TSW2 (fig. 2-15).

All species of mid-Columbia River released fish had higher survival through the powerhouse, 

spillway, TSW1, and all routes combined compared to Hat Rock released fish (figs. 2-16 and 2-17).

This could lead one to question whether the Hat Rock released fish were displaying an immediate 

negative tagging effect, which the mid-Columbia River released fish would have experienced earlier.

However, the variance about these estimates makes it difficult to discern any true differences between 

these point estimates. Point estimates of forebay survival and survival through TSW2 were about equal 

among species and release groups. Overall, the mid-Columbia River fish followed the same passage and 

survival trends as the Hat Rock released fish. It also appears that sockeye salmon had very similar 

results to yearling Chinook salmon in passage and survival probabilities.

Passage and Survival 2008 

During 2008, the passage probability of fish passing through the spillway was higher for all 

species released from the mid-Columbia River than for fish released near Hat Rock State Park (figs. 

2-18 and 2-19). For all other routes, fish released from Hat Rock State Park had higher probabilities of 

passage than mid-Columbia River released fish. These differences could be explained by the timing of 

passage of each group. The majority (81–100 percent) of mid-Columbia fish passed McNary Dam 

during 60 percent spill and the majority (61–69 percent) of Hat Rock released fish passed during 40 

percent spill. Because a higher proportion of the mid-Columbia fish passed during higher spillway 

discharge, fish were more likely to pass through the spillway. Conversely, since a higher proportion of 

Hat Rock fish passed during lower spillway discharge, these fish had a higher probability of passing 

through non-spill routes. Point estimates of survival probabilities were lower for mid-Columbia released 

fish and highly variable, compared to Hat Rock released fish, for all species and for all routes, with two 

exceptions: Yearling Chinook salmon that passed through the spillway and TSW1 (fig. 2-20). However, 

low detection probabilities (30–50 percent) and small sample size of mid-Columbia released fish 
101

resulted in relatively high variance about the point estimates. The high variance resulted in overlap of 

the confidence intervals for all survival estimates, indicating there may have been little difference in 

survival between release groups. In addition to the relatively small number of sockeye salmon detected, 

the transmitter for these fish also had a relatively high tag failure rate (about 8 percent, appendix C), 

which could bias the results. Nonetheless, the high variance observed would likely mask any tag bias 

effects.

Passage and Survival 2009

During 2009, passage probabilities within routes generally were very similar for the midColumbia River released fish and the Hat Rock released fish. Among routes, for both yearling Chinook 

salmon and juvenile steelhead release groups, the majority of fish passed through the powerhouse and 

spillway (probabilities were similar between powerhouse and spillway) followed by TSW2 and TSW1 

(figs. 2-22 and 2-23). Although the TSWs individually had lower probabilities of passage (0.036–0.243) 

compared to the powerhouse (0.315–0.464) or spillway (0.338–0.475), when combined the two TSWs 

accounted for 14–35 percent of fish passage. Survival estimates by route and all routes combined were 

nearly identical among release groups and species (figs. 2-24 and 2-25). Although slight differences in 

point estimates existed for some routes, confidence intervals overlapped, indicating there was likely no 

difference in the estimates of survival between release groups.

Summary

Over the course of the four study years, 3,602 yearling Chinook salmon, 10,393 juvenile 

steelhead, and 11,969 sockeye salmon were released from the mid-Columbia River with acoustic tags 

that were compatible with monitoring equipment deployed at McNary Dam. Of these fish, 1,929 (54 

percent) yearling Chinook salmon, 5,891 (57 percent) juvenile steelhead, and 7,225 (60 percent) 

sockeye salmon were detected passing McNary Dam. Travel times to McNary Dam were relatively 

short, ranging from 3 to 9 days, depending on the release site, which translated to travel rates ranging 

from 30.3 to 92.4 km/d, depending on year. Travel rates slowed considerably when fish reached the 

forebay of McNary Dam and ranged from 4.19 to 21.46, depending on year. However, these slower 

rates in the last 160 m before passing the dam represent relatively short mean forebay residence times of 

2.2–11.5 h, depending on species and year. Travel rates increased in reaches downstream of the dam and 

were similar to travel rates observed for fish traveling from the release sites to the forebay. Travel rates 

of mid-Columbia released fish in the forebay and downstream of McNary Dam were similar to travel 

rates of Hat Rock released fish.

All species of mid-Columbia released fish passed McNary Dam throughout all hours of the diel 

cycle and were about equally distributed between the day and night. These results were similar to those 

for Hat Rock released fish. The majority of all species of fish passed through the spillway in 2006 and 

2008, when total river discharge and spillway discharge were high. In 2007, when both total river 

discharge and spillway discharge were the lowest of all four study years, the majority of both salmon 

species passed through the powerhouse, but over half of the steelhead passed through the TSWs.

Passage of fish through the powerhouse and spillway was similar during 2009, when total river 

discharge and spillway discharge were moderate. TSW passage was highest during 2007 (a low water 

year relative to the 10-year average) for all species. TSW1 (located in spill bay 22 in 2007) passed 

substantially more fish than any other TSW configuration during the four study years: 27–50 percent of 

all fish, depending on species, compared to 2–12 percent for other TSW configurations.
102

Forebay survival was high for all species and years, ranging between 96 and 100 percent. The 

spillway provided the highest survival (93–100 percent) of all routes for all species and years except for 

sockeye salmon in 2006 when survival was 93 percent through the powerhouse and 84 percent through 

the spillway. TSW1 generally provided the second highest survival for all species and years, followed 

by TSW2, and the powerhouse. Survival through all routes combined was lowest (87–91 percent) for all 

species in 2006, before installation of the TSWs. Survival through all routes was highest in 2007 for 

yearling Chinook (96 percent) and sockeye salmon (100 percent). For juvenile steelhead, survival 

through all routes combined was highest (95 percent) in 2009.

Comparison of passage and survival of mid-Columbia released fish with fish released from Hat 

Rock State Park, located 10 km upstream of McNary Dam, revealed few differences. Differences that 

were observed include: 

1. In 2006, mid-Columbia released yearling Chinook salmon had a 10 percent higher probability of 

passing through the powerhouse and an 11 percent lower probability of passing through the 

spillway compared to Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon; 

2. In 2006, mid-Columbia released sockeye salmon also had 3 percent lower forebay survival than 

yearling Chinook salmon released from either Hat Rock or the mid-Columbia River;

3. In 2007, Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon had a 10–14 percent lower probability of 

passing through TSW1 than yearling Chinook and sockeye salmon released from the midColumbia River;

4. In 2007, Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon also had 13–21 percent lower survival 

through the powerhouse, spillway, TSW1, and all routes combined, compared to salmon released 

from the mid-Columbia River; 

5. In 2008, mid-Columbia released juvenile steelhead had a 27 percent higher probability of 

passing through the spillway, 8 percent lower probability of passing through TSW1, and 13 

percent lower probability of passing through TSW2, compared to Hat Rock released juvenile 

steelhead; and 

6. During both 2008 and 2009, Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon had a 9–16 percent 

higher probability of passing through the powerhouse and an 8–26 percent lower probability of 

passing through the spillway, compared to mid-Columbia released salmon. 

All other point estimates of passage and survival for mid-Columbia River and Hat Rock released fish 

were very similar or confidence intervals overlapped making differences between the point estimates

indistinguishable. It should be noted that we can not discern whether any differences in survival 

estimates are due to direct mortality at the dam or potential indirect effects such as a prolonged period 

from the time of tagging to the time of detection at the dam, varying tag life, or other potential 

differences in fish handling or source of test fish between release groups. Despite this, we note that the 

similarity of estimates between release groups provides valuable information and indicates that, for fish 

that make it to McNary Dam, increased migration time or migration distance likely are not causing any 

differences in survival.
103

Figure 2-9. Graph showing passage probabilities for Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon (Ch1, 

black circles) and mid-Columbia River released yearling Chinook salmon (open circles), and sockeye 

salmon (Soc, black triangles) through individual passage routes at McNary Dam during 2006. Error bars 

represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals. 

Figure 2-10. Graph showing passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead (Sth) released at Hat Rock State 

Park (black circles), and the mid-Columbia River (open circles) through individual passage routes at McNary 

Dam during 2006. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Passage route

Powerhouse Spillway

Passage probability

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Hat Rock Ch1

Mid-Columbia Ch1

Mid-Columbia Soc

Passage route

Powerhouse Spillway

Passage probability

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Hat Rock Sth

Mid-Columbia Sth
104

Figure 2-11. Graph showing survival probabilities for Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon (Ch1, 

black circles) and mid-Columbia River released yearling Chinook salmon (open circles), and sockeye 

salmon (Soc, black triangles) through individual passage routes at McNary Dam during 2006. Error bars 

represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals. 

Figure 2-12. Graph showing survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead (Sth) released at Hat Rock State 

Park (black circles), and the mid-Columbia River (open circles) through individual passage routes at McNary 

Dam during 2006. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Passage route

Forebay Powerhouse Spillway All Routes

Survival probability

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

Hat Rock Ch1

Mid-Columbia Ch1

Mid-Columbia Soc

Passage route

 Forebay Powerhouse Spillway All Routes

Survival probability

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

Hat Rock Sth

Mid-Columbia Sth
105

Figure 2-13. Graph showing passage probabilities for Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon (Ch1, 

black circles) and mid-Columbia River released yearling Chinook salmon (open circles) and sockeye 

salmon (Soc, black triangles) through individual passage routes at McNary Dam during 2007. Error bars 

represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals. 

Figure 2-14. Graph showing passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead (Sth) released at Hat Rock State 

Park (black circles), and the mid-Columbia River (open circles) through individual passage routes at McNary 

Dam during 2007. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Passage route

Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2

Passage probability

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Hat Rock Ch1

Mid-Columbia Ch1

Mid-Columbia Soc

Passage route

Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2

Passage probability

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Hat Rock Sth

Mid-Columbia Sth
106

Figure 2-15. Graph showing survival probabilities for Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon (Ch1, 

black circles) and mid-Columbia River released yearling Chinook salmon (open circles) and sockeye 

salmon (Soc, black triangles) through individual passage routes at McNary Dam during 2007. Error bars 

represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals. 

Figure 2-16. Graph showing survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead (Sth) released at Hat Rock State 

Park (black circles), and the mid-Columbia River (open circles) through individual passage routes at McNary 

Dam during 2007. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Passage route

Forebay Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2 All routes

Survival probability

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

Hat Rock Ch1

Mid-Columbia Ch1

Mid-Columbia Soc

Passage route

Forebay Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2 All routes

Survival probability

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

Hat Rock Sth

Mid-Columbia Sth
107

Figure 2-18. Graph showing passage probabilities for Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon (Ch1, 

black circles) and mid-Columbia River released yearling Chinook salmon (open circles) and sockeye 

salmon (Soc, black triangles) through individual passage routes at McNary Dam during 2008. Error bars 

represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals. 

Figure 2-19. Graph showing passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead (Sth) released at Hat Rock State 

Park (black circles), and the mid-Columbia River (open circles) through individual passage routes at McNary 

Dam during 2008. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

 Powerhouse TSW1 TSW2 

Passage probability

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Hat Rock Ch1 

Mid-Columbia Ch1 

Mid-Columbia Soc 

Passage route

 Spillway

 Powerhouse TSW1 TSW2

Passage probability

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Hat Rock Sth

Mid-Columbia Sth

Passage route

 Spillway
108

Figure 2-20. Graph showing survival probabilities for Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon (Ch1, 

black circles) and mid-Columbia River released yearling Chinook salmon (open circles) and sockeye 

salmon (Soc, black triangles) through individual passage routes at McNary Dam during 2008. Error bars 

represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals. 

Figure 2-21. Graph showing survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead (Sth) released at Hat Rock State 

Park (black circles), and the mid-Columbia River (open circles) through individual passage routes at McNary 

Dam during 2008. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Passage route

Forebay Powerhouse Spillway TSW1

Survival probability

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Hat Rock Ch1 

Mid-Columbia Ch1 

Mid-Columbia Soc 

 TSW2 All routes 

 TSW2 All routes

Passage route

Forebay Powerhouse Spillway TSW1

Survival probability

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Hat Rock Sth

Mid-Columbia Sth
109

Figure 2-22. Graph showing passage probabilities for Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon (Ch1, 

black circles) and mid-Columbia River released sockeye salmon (Soc, open circles) through individual 

passage routes at McNary Dam during 2009. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood 

confidence intervals. 

Figure 2-23. Graph showing passage probabilities for juvenile steelhead (Sth) released at Hat Rock State 

Park (black circles), and the mid-Columbia River (open circles) through individual passage routes at McNary 

Dam during 2009. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

 Powerhouse TSW1 TSW2

Passage probability

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Hat Rock Ch1 

Mid-Columbia Soc 

Passage route

 Spillway

 Powerhouse TSW1 TSW2

Passage probability

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Hat Rock Sth

Mid-Columbia Sth

Passage route

 Spillway
110

Figure 2-24. Graph showing survival probabilities for Hat Rock released yearling Chinook salmon (Ch1, 

black circles) and mid-Columbia River released sockeye salmon (Soc, open circles) through individual 

passage routes at McNary Dam during 2009. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood 

confidence intervals. 

Figure 2-25. Graph showing survival probabilities for juvenile steelhead (Sth) released at Hat Rock State 

Park (black circles), and the mid-Columbia River (open circles) through individual passage routes at McNary 

Dam during 2009. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals. 

Passage route

Forebay Powerhouse Spillway TSW1

Survival probability

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Hat Rock Ch1 

Mid-Columbia Soc 

TSW2 All routes

 TSW2 All routes

Passage route

Forebay Powerhouse Spillway TSW1

Survival probability

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Hat Rock Sth

Mid-Columbia Sth
111

References Cited

Adams, N.S., and Counihan, T.D., eds., 2009, Survival and migration behavior of juvenile salmonids at 

McNary Dam, 2007: Final report of research prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, 

for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Washington, Contract 

W68SBV70178419, Walla Walla, Washington. 

Adams, N.S., and Liedtke, T.L., eds., 2009, Juvenile salmonid survival, passage, and egress at McNary 

Dam during tests of temporary spillway weirs, 2008: Final report of research prepared by U.S. 

Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, 

Washington, Report number 2008-W68SBV80448890.

Adams, N.S., and Liedtke, T.L., eds., 2010, Juvenile salmonid survival, passage, and egress at McNary 

Dam during tests of temporary spillway weirs, 2009: Final report of research prepared by U.S. 

Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, 

Washington, Report number 2009-W68SBV90070150.

Adams, N.S., Plumb, J.M., Hatton, T.W., Jones, E.C., Swyers, N.M., Sholtis, M.D., Reagan, R.E., and 

Cash, K.M., 2008, Survival and migration behavior of juvenile salmonids at McNary Dam, 2006: 

Final report of research prepared by U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Washington, Report number 2006-W68SBV60478899.

Cormack, R.M., 1964, Estimates of survival from the sighting of marked animals: Biometrika, v. 51, p. 

429–438.

Cowen, L., and Schwarz, C.J., 2005, Capture-recapture studies using radio telemetry with premature 

radio-tag failure: Biometrics, v. 61, p. 657–664.

Elandt-Johnson, R.C. and Johnson, N.L., 1980, Survival models and data analysis: Wiley, New York, 

457 p.

Jolly, G.M., 1965, Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigrationstochastic model: Biometrika, v. 52, p. 225–247.

Mesa, M.G., 1994, Effects of multiple acute stressors on the predator avoidance ability and physiology 

of juvenile Chinook salmon: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 123, p. 786–793.

Plumb, J.M., Perry, R.W., Adams, N.S., and Rondorf, D.W., 2006, The effects of river impoundment 

and hatchery rearing on the migration behavior of juvenile steelhead in the Lower Snake River, 

Washington: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 26, p. 438–452.

Raymond, H.L., 1968, Migration rates of hatchery Chinook salmon in relation to flows and 

impoundments in the Columbia and Snake Rivers: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 

97, 356–359.

Raymond, H.L., 1979, Effects of dams and impoundments on migrations of juvenile Chinook salmon 

and juvenile steelhead from the Snake River, 1966 to 1975: Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society, v. 108, p. 505–529.

Seber, G.A.F., 1965, A note on the multiple recapture census: Biometrika, v. 52, p. 249–259.

Seber, G.A.F., 1982, The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters: New York, New 

York, Macmillan, 654 p.

Skalski, J.R., Stevenson, J.R., Lady, J., Townsend, R., Giorgi, A.E., Miller, M., and English, K.E., 2001, 

An assessment of project, pool, and dam survival for Chinook and juvenile steelhead smolts at Rocky 

Reach and Rock Island dams using radio telemetry and PIT-tag techniques, 2000: Columbia Basin 

Research to Chelan County Public Utility District Report.

Skalski, J.R., Townsend, R., Lady, J., Giorgi, A.E., Stevenson, J.R., and McDonald, R.S., 2002, 

Estimating route-specific passage and survival probabilities at a hydroelectric project from smolt 

radio telemetry studies: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 59, p. 1385–1393.
112

Steig, T.W., Nealson, P.A., Kumagai, K.K., Rowdon, B.J., Klein, L.S., and McFadden, B.D., 2007, 

Route-specific passage of juvenile steelhead and sockeye salmon using acoustic tag methodologies at 

Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dams in 2006. Final report for Chelan County Public Utility District 

No. 1 by Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Steig, T.W., Nealson, P.A., Kumagai, K.K., Rowdon, B.J., Klein, L.S., and McFadden, B.D., 2008, 

Route-specific passage of juvenile Chinook and sockeye salmon using acoustic tag methodologies at 

Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dams in 2007: Final report for Chelan County Public Utility District 

No. 1 by Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Steig, T.W., Nealson, P.A., Kumagai, K.K., Rowdon, B.J., Selleck, J.R., and McFadden, B.D., 2009, 

Route specific passage of juvenile Chinook, sockeye and juvenile steelhead salmon using acoustic tag 

methodologies at Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dams in 2008: Final report for Chelan County Public 

Utility District No. 1 by Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Steig, T.W., Nealson, P.A., Kumagai, K.K., Rowdon, B.J., Selleck, J.R., and Tunnicliffe, C., 2010, 

Route specific passage of juvenile Chinook, sockeye and juvenile steelhead salmon using acoustic tag 

methodologies at Rocky Reach and Rock Island Dams in 2009: Final report for Chelan County Public 

Utility District No. 1 by Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Stevenson, J.R., Skalski, J.R., Lady, J., Townsend, R., Giorgi, A.E., and McDonald, R., 2000, A pilot 

study assessing the feasibility of using radio telemetry and PIT-tag techniques to estimate project, 

pool, and dam survival of juvenile steelhead smolts at Rocky Reach and Rock Island dams, 1999: 

Report to Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1 by BioAnalysts.

Sullivan, L.S., Wright, C.D., Rizor, S.E., Timko, M.A., Fitzgerald, C.A., Meagher, M.L., Skalski, J.R., 

and Townsend, R.L., 2009: Analysis of juvenile Chinook, steelhead and sockeye salmon behavior 

using acoustic tags at Wanapum and Priest Rapids dams, 2008: Final report for Grant County Public 

Utility District No. 2 by Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Timko, M.A., Brown, L.S., Wright, C.D., O’Connor, R.R., Fitzgerald, C.A., Meager, M.L., Rizor, S.E.,

Nealson, P.A., and Johnston, S.V., 2007, Analysis of juvenile Chinook, steelhead, and sockeye 

salmon behavior using acoustic tags at Wanapum and Priest Rapids Dams, 2006: Final report for 

Grant County Public Utility District No. 2 by Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Timko, M.A., Brown, L.S., Wright, C.D., Rizor, S.E., Fitzgerald, C.A., O’Connor, R.R., and Meager, 

M.L., 2008, Analysis of juvenile Chinook, steelhead and sockeye salmon behavior using acoustic tags 

at Wanapum and Priest Rapids dams, 2007: Draft report for Grant County Public Utility District No. 2 

by Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc..

Timko, M.A., Sullivan, L.S., Wright, C.D., Rizor, S.E., O’Connor, R.R., Skalski, J.R., Townsend, R.L., 

Fitzgerald, C.A., Meagher, M.M., Kukes, T.J., and Stephenson, J.D., 2010, Behavior and survival 

analysis of juvenile steelhead and sockeye through the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project in 2009:

Final report for Grant County Public Utility District No. 2 by Blue Leaf Environmental.

Townsend, R.L., Skalski, J.R., Dillingham, P., and Steig, T.W., 2006, Correcting bias in survival 

estimation resulting from tag failure in acoustic and radio telemetry studies: Journal of Agricultural, 

Biological, and Environmental Statistics, v. 11, p. 183–196. 

Whitney, R.R., Calvin, L.D., Erho, M.W., Jr., and Coutant, C.C., 1997, Downstream passage for salmon 

at hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River Basin—Development, installation, and evaluation: 

Northwest Power Planning Council Report No. 97–15.
113

Acknowledgments

We thank Ann Setter, Brad Eby, Bill Prewitt, and individuals in the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers for their cooperation and assistance on the project. We are especially grateful to Rosanna 

Mensik and individuals working for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for their 

assistance in collecting fish for the studies summarized in Chapter 1. We also thank Grant and Chelan 

County PUDs, Hydroacoustic Technology Inc., and Blueleaf Environmental for sharing their data.

Without their cooperation and hard work, this analysis could not be performed. Further, we thank Leah 

Sullivan and Tracey Steig for being so helpful with the data and information sharing process. We also 

greatly appreciate the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Portland District of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Washington Department of Transportation for permission to 

install acoustic telemetry equipment on their property. We thank all of our colleagues at the Columbia 

River Research Laboratory for their assistance and dedication. Funding for this project was provided by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Washington, Contract W68SBV93504107.
114

Glossary

CH1 Yearling Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

CH0 Subyearling Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

Forebay Area of Columbia River extending from McNary Dam to 2 km upstream.

Near Dam Area of Columbia River extending from McNary Dam to approximately 160 m 

upstream; the area monitored by hydrophones placed from the upstream face of 

McNary Dam to 60 m upstream, including an average detection range of 100 m.

PIT Passive integrated transponder.

Powerhouse Turbine and Bypass (units 1–14).

RKM River kilometer.

Spillway Conventional spill bays (bays 1–22 excluding bays 20 and 22 in 2007, 19 and 20 

in 2008, 4 and 20 in spring 2009, and 19 and 20 in summer 2009).

STH Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries 

Service.

SOC Sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka).

Tailrace Area of Columbia River extending from McNary Dam to 2.4 km downstream.

TSW Temporary Spillway Weir.

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers.

USGS United States Geological Survey.
115

Appendix A. Locations of Hydrophones in the McNary Dam Forebay, 2006–09.

Figure A1. Schematic of hydrophones in the McNary Dam forebay during 2006.
116

Figure A2. Schematic of hydrophones in the McNary Dam forebay during 2007.
117

Figure A3. Schematic of hydrophones in the McNary Dam forebay during 2008.
118

Figure A4. Schematic of hydrophones in the McNary Dam forebay during spring 2009.
119

Figure A5. Schematic of hydrophones in the McNary Dam forebay during summer 2009.
120

Appendix B. Travel Rates for Hat Rock Released Fish, 2006–09.

Figure B1. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) for yearling Chinook salmon released near Hat Rock State Park from 

first detection in the forebay to time of passage at McNary Dam, by passage route, 2006–09. Error bars represent 

the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Figure B2. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) for yearling Chinook salmon released near Hat Rock State Park from 

time of passage at McNary Dam to first detection at the first downstream site, by passage route, 2006–09. Error 

bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2
121

Figure B3. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) for juvenile steelhead released near Hat Rock State Park from first 

detection in the forebay to time of passage at McNary Dam, by passage route, 2006–09. Error bars represent the 

95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Figure B4. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) for juvenile steelhead released near Hat Rock State Park from time 

of passage at McNary Dam to first detection at the first downstream site, by passage route, 2006–09. Error bars 

represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2
122

Figure B5. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) for subyearling Chinook salmon released near Hat Rock State Park 

from first detection in the forebay to time of passage at McNary Dam, by passage route, 2006–09. Error bars 

represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Figure B6. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) for subyearling Chinook salmon released near Hat Rock State Park 

from time of passage at McNary Dam to first detection at the first downstream site, by passage route, 2006–09.

Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2
123

Appendix C. Travel Times and Rates for Mid-Columbia River Released Fish,

2006–09.

Table C1. Mean and median travel times (d), mean travel rates (km/d), and the mean rate of population spread 

(km2/d) by river reach of yearling Chinook salmon (CH1), juvenile steelhead (STH), and sockeye salmon 

(SOC) released in the Mid-Columbia river during 2006.

[Species: CH1, yearling Chinook salmon; STH, juvenile steelhead; SOC, sockeye salmon. Release site: WE, Wells Dam; 

RR, Rocky Reach Dam; RI , Rock Island Dam; WA, Wanapum Dam; PR, Priest Rapids Dam; N, number of fish; CI, 

confidence interval; pop., population. Reach length is in kilometers. Reach 1 is defined from release to McNary Dam 

forebay; Reach 2 is defined from McNary Dam forebay to McNary Dam passage; Reach 3 is defined from McNary Dam 

passage to 1st detection array downstream of McNary Dam; Reach 4 is defined from 1st detection array downstream of 

McNary Dam to 2nd detection array downstream of McNary Dam]

Species

Release 

site Reach

Reach 

length N

Mean 

travel 

time

Median 

travel 

time

Mean travel rate 

(±95% CI)

Mean rate of pop. 

spread (±95% CI)

CH1 WA 1 198 264 3.68 3.49 53.72 (1.87) 29.52 (2.27)

2 2 259 0.12 0.08 16.83 (1.63) 4.58 (0.35)

3 24 200 0.34 0.26 71.25 (4.49) 18.65 (1.62)

4 22 147 0.44 0.39 49.90 (3.12) 12.61 (1.26)

STH WE 1 358 130 7.79 7.30 45.93 (2.40) 38.51 (4.05)

2 2 118 0.17 0.07 11.96 (2.50) 5.59 (0.61)

3 24 81 0.46 0.28 52.49 (8.89) 27.03 (3.47)

4 22 42 0.35 0.33 63.18 (4.97) 9.29 (1.55)

STH RR 1 290 142 6.46 5.79 44.87 (2.56) 39.07 (3.95)

2 2 120 0.12 0.07 16.25 (2.52) 4.88 (0.53)

3 24 90 0.66 0.24 36.25 (9.40) 36.33 (4.46)

4 22 59 0.50 0.35 44.12 (7.61) 20.46 (2.99)

STH RI 1 254 270 6.86 5.97 37.04 (1.83) 39.84 (3.03)

2 2 225 0.19 0.08 10.50 (1.78) 5.91 (0.49)

3 24 177 0.48 0.25 49.70 (6.49) 30.30 (2.78)

4 22 102 0.50 0.37 44.02 (5.26) 18.85 (2.20)

STH WA 1 198 108 4.05 3.44 48.76 (4.06) 42.60 (4.85)

2 2 89 0.19 0.08 10.63 (2.71) 5.55 (0.69)

3 24 82 0.43 0.25 55.40 (8.94) 26.62 (3.40)

4 22 47 0.37 0.34 58.71 (4.66) 9.61 (1.54)

STH PR 1 167 446 2.61 2.37 64.09 (1.97) 34.18 (2.07)

2 2 386 0.13 0.07 15.87 (1.35) 4.81 (0.31)

3 24 311 0.44 0.25 54.50 (4.80) 28.53 (2.04)

4 22 198 0.36 0.35 60.44 (2.25) 9.65 (0.84)

SOC WE 1 358 383 6.10 5.95 58.71 (1.29) 31.75 (2.06)

2 2 185 0.11 0.06 18.05 (2.57) 5.89 (0.53)

3 24 99 0.50 0.25 47.92 (8.91) 31.47 (3.72)

4 22 36 0.45 0.36 49.14 (7.77) 15.15 (2.69)

SOC RR 1 290 822 5.11 4.85 56.74 (0.97) 32.06 (1.46)

2 2 406 0.11 0.06 18.09 (1.68) 5.72 (0.36)

3 24 245 0.38 0.26 63.51 (5.13) 25.01 (1.99)

4 22 83 0.51 0.38 43.19 (5.43) 17.66 (2.24)

SOC RI 1 254 219 4.82 4.38 52.75 (1.98) 32.50 (2.72)

2 2 114 0.11 0.06 19.03 (3.27) 5.69 (0.63)

3 24 78 0.43 0.26 55.69 (10.20) 29.50 (3.85)

4 22 17 0.40 0.39 54.78 (7.29) 8.71 (2.02)
124

Table C2. Mean and median travel times (d), mean travel rates ( km/d), and the mean rate of population spread 

(km2/d) by river reach of yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and sockeye salmon released in the 

Mid-Columbia river during 2007.

[Species: CH1, yearling Chinook salmon; STH, juvenile steelhead; SOC, sockeye salmon. Release site: WE, Wells Dam; 

RR, Rocky Reach Dam; RI , Rock Island Dam; WA, Wanapum Dam; N, number of fish; CI, confidence interval; pop., 

population. Reach length is in kilometers. Reach 1 is defined from release to McNary Dam forebay; Reach 2 is defined from 

McNary Dam forebay to McNary Dam passage; Reach 3 is defined from McNary Dam passage to 1st detection array 

downstream of McNary Dam; Reach 4 is defined from 1st detection array downstream of McNary Dam to 2nd detection array 

downstream of McNary Dam]

Species

Release 

site Reach

Reach 

length N

Mean 

travel 

time

Median 

travel time

Mean travel 

rate (±95% CI)

Mean rate of pop. 

spread (±95% CI)

CH1 RR 1 290 97 8.55 7.91 33.92 (1.89) 27.30 (3.25)

2 2 94 0.13 0.09 14.94 (2.62) 4.65 (0.56)

3 24 29 0.64 0.36 37.34 (10.99) 22.75 (4.38)

4 31 13 1.23 0.57 25.22 (16.15) 28.47 (7.22)

CH1 RI 1 254 97 8.38 7.88 30.30 (1.79) 25.55 (3.04)

2 2 96 0.15 0.10 13.01 (2.36) 4.55 (0.54)

3 24 32 0.74 0.47 32.35 (9.34) 21.95 (4.07)

4 31 19 0.55 0.52 56.64 (6.24) 9.32 (2.09)

CH1 WA 1 198 332 4.13 3.91 47.82 (1.40) 26.36 (1.83)

2 2 331 0.18 0.08 11.27 (1.43) 5.56 (0.39)

3 24 91 0.48 0.37 50.24 (5.10) 16.82 (2.06)

4 31 52 0.57 0.51 54.05 (5.24) 14.11 (2.17)

STH RI 1 254 266 6.40 5.88 39.67 (1.58) 33.07 (2.53)

2 2 254 0.37 0.14 5.47 (1.03) 5.02 (0.39)

3 24 97 0.55 0.30 43.35 (30.02) 110.24 (13.13)

4 31 51 0.69 0.51 44.79 (7.34) 21.51 (3.33)

SOC WE 1 358 121 6.62 6.22 54.09 (2.43) 34.55 (3.74)

2 2 108 0.19 0.09 10.59 (2.31) 5.23 (0.60)

3 24 25 0.51 0.36 46.76 (12.21) 20.77 (4.22)

4 31 4 0.74 0.73 42.06 (26.86) 12.55 (4.34)

SOC RR 1 290 495 5.70 5.31 50.90 (1.27) 34.21 (1.97)

2 2 453 0.26 0.09 7.60 (1.03) 5.70 (0.34)

3 24 67 0.58 0.34 41.03 (7.76) 24.15 (0.35)

4 31 19 0.61 0.52 51.22 (9.88) 15.50 (3.47)
125

Table C3. Mean and median travel times (d), mean travel rates (km/d), and the mean rate of population spread 

(km2/d) by river reach for yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and sockeye salmon released in the 

Mid-Columbia river during 2008.

[Species: CH1, yearling Chinook salmon; STH, juvenile steelhead; SOC, sockeye salmon. Release site: WE, Wells Dam; 

RR, Rocky Reach Dam; RH, Rock Island Hydro Park; RI , Rock Island Dam; WA, Wanapum Dam; PR, Priest Rapids Dam; 

N, number of fish; CI, confidence interval; pop., population. Reach length is in kilometers. Reach 1 is defined from release to 

McNary Dam forebay; Reach 2 is defined from McNary Dam forebay to McNary Dam passage; Reach 3 is defined from 

McNary Dam passage to 1st detection array downstream of McNary Dam; Reach 4 is defined from 1st detection array 

downstream of McNary Dam to 2nd detection array downstream of McNary Dam]

Species

Release 

site Reach

Reach 

length N

Mean 

travel 

time

Median 

travel 

time

Mean travel rate 

(±95% CI)

Mean rate of 

pop. spread 

(±95% CI)

CH1 RR 1 290 142 7.73 7.03 37.53 (1.96) 32.77 (3.32)

2 2 134 0.20 0.09 10.01 (2.04) 5.33 (0.55)

3 24 108 0.75 0.41 31.80 (5.90) 26.75 (3.04)

4 31 57 0.52 0.54 59.47 (21.01) 56.65 (8.40)

STH RR 1 290 159 6.03 5.55 48.10 (2.31) 36.09 (3.48)

2 2 155 0.14 0.08 13.82 (2.12) 5.08 (0.49)

3 24 116 0.41 0.26 58.23 (7.29) 25.34 (2.80)

4 31 65 0.47 0.47 66.15 (15.47) 42.40 (5.96)

STH RI 1 254 353 5.38 4.95 47.23 (1.51) 33.42 (2.25)

2 2 308 0.36 0.07 5.53 (1.24) 6.64 (0.48)

3 24 219 0.47 0.26 51.33 (5.36) 27.44 (2.29)

4 31 133 0.48 0.47 64.96 (11.83) 47.48 (4.94)

STH WA 1 197.5 233 3.34 3.02 59.05 (2.68) 37.86 (3.08)

2 2 195 0.13 0.06 15.46 (2.31) 5.86 (0.52)

3 24 142 0.41 0.27 59.06 (6.12) 23.44 (2.37)

4 31 85 0.44 0.47 69.95 (16.14) 49.53 (6.24)

STH PR 1 167 393 2.40 1.99 69.53 (2.59) 40.44 (2.59)

2 2 344 0.19 0.07 10.78 (1.48) 6.01 (0.41)

3 24 240 0.40 0.26 60.41 (4.90) 24.22 (1.94)

4 31 137 0.42 0.45 74.54 (12.67) 48.18 (4.95)

SOC WE 1 358 134 5.60 5.28 63.92 (3.05) 42.07 (4.36)

2 2 111 0.38 0.06 5.30 (2.49) 8.09 (0.91)

3 24 70 0.54 0.53 44.25 (6.90) 21.15 (2.88)

4 31 59 0.82 0.10 37.89 (25.14) 86.51 (12.65)

SOC RR 1 290 314 4.48 4.12 64.75 (1.96) 37.33 (2.65)

2 2 234 0.40 0.05 5.02 (1.64) 8.04 (0.65)

3 24 177 0.64 0.55 37.41 (4.65) 25.02 (2.30)

4 31 164 0.24 0.09 129.07 (22.30) 70.65 (6.71)

SOC RH 1 280 95 4.25 4.04 65.90 (3.36) 33.87 (4.07)

2 2 78 0.47 0.06 4.24 (2.65) 8.01 (1.05)

3 24 62 0.85 0.54 28.33 (8.41) 30.23 (4.33)

4 31 48 0.26 0.09 121.53 (40.84) 70.30 (11.16)

SOC RI 1 254 187 3.91 3.57 65.01 (2.69) 36.82 (3.30)

2 2 143 0.29 0.06 6.79 (2.36) 7.73 (0.78)

3 24 120 0.57 0.53 41.79 (5.91) 24.67 (2.68)

4 31 100 0.25 0.10 125.53 (27.57) 68.71 (8.08)
126

Table C4. Mean and median travel times (d), mean travel rates (km/d), and the mean rate of population spread 

(km2/d) by river reach for juvenile steelhead and sockeye salmon released in the Mid-Columbia river during 

2009.

[Species: STH, juvenile steelhead; SOC, sockeye salmon. Release site: WE, Wells Dam; RR, Rocky Reach Dam; RI , Rock 

Island Dam; WA, Wanapum Dam; PR, Priest Rapids Dam; N, number of fish; CI, confidence interval; pop., population.

Reach length is in kilometers. Reach 1 is defined from release to McNary Dam forebay; Reach 2 is defined from McNary 

Dam forebay to McNary Dam passage; Reach 3 is defined from McNary Dam passage to 1st detection array downstream of 

McNary Dam; Reach 4 is defined from 1st detection array downstream of McNary Dam to 2nd detection array downstream of 

McNary Dam]

Species

Release 

site Reach

Reach 

length N

Mean 

travel 

time

Median 

travel time

Mean travel rate 

(±95% CI)

Mean rate of 

pop. spread 

(±95% CI)

STH RR 1 290 64 8.76 7.93 33.10 (2.23) 26.24 (3.71)

2 2 64 0.33 0.21 6.03 (1.59) 3.63 (0.51)

3 22 71 0.56 0.26 39.63 (9.33) 29.16 (3.95)

4 27 65 0.55 0.55 49.16 (2.88) 8.55 (1.20)

STH RI 1 254 367 7.53 6.97 33.75 (0.96) 25.51 (1.69)

2 2 352 0.41 0.19 4.83 (0.76) 4.66 (0.31)

3 22 488 0.28 0.23 78.83 (3.17) 18.80 (1.09)

4 27 463 0.53 0.47 51.15 (1.63) 12.98 (0.77)

STH WA 1 197.5 266 4.31 3.98 45.82 (1.57) 26.89 (2.06)

2 2 256 0.48 0.25 4.19 (0.75) 4.22 (0.33)

3 22 337 0.32 0.24 69.78 (4.24) 22.16 (1.53)

4 27 323 0.50 0.47 54.19 (1.49) 9.59 (0.67)

STH PR 1 167 645 3.24 2.67 51.53 (1.57) 36.56 (1.87)

2 2 620 0.44 0.21 4.59 (0.54) 4.55 (0.24)

3 22 786 0.27 0.24 82.39 (2.13) 15.69 (0.73)

4 27 765 0.51 0.47 52.98 (1.13) 11.32 (0.53)

SOC WE 1 358 304 5.97 5.73 59.95 (1.33) 28.81 (2.08)

2 2 270 0.10 0.07 19.80 (1.99) 5.27 (0.40)

3 22 321 0.26 0.18 84.65 (5.54) 25.70 (1.81)

4 27 325 0.43 0.41 62.71 (1.72) 10.31 (0.72)

SOC RR 1 290 585 4.88 4.68 59.43 (1.17) 31.80 (1.70)

2 2 517 0.10 0.06 19.88 (1.59) 5.82 (0.33)

3 22 629 0.30 0.19 74.42 (4.06) 28.20 (1.46)

4 27 618 0.45 0.43 59.84 (1.28) 10.84 (0.56)

SOC RI 1 254 609 4.75 4.46 53.44 (1.12) 30.58 (1.60)

2 2 565 0.09 0.06 21.46 (1.49) 5.50 (0.30)

3 22 718 0.30 0.19 72.64 (3.58) 26.86 (1.30)

4 27 702 0.44 0.42 61.77 (1.14) 10.19 (0.50)

SOC WA 1 197.5 433 2.83 2.70 69.68 (1.64) 29.16 (1.79)

2 2 423 0.13 0.06 14.86 (1.71) 6.56 (0.41)

3 22 520 0.29 0.20 75.03 (4.11) 25.78 (1.45)

4 27 516 0.45 0.42 60.41 (1.44) 11.15 (0.63)

SOC PR 1 167 945 1.81 1.81 92.35 (0.97) 20.35 (0.87)

2 2 915 0.12 0.06 16.05 (1.09) 5.95 (0.26)

3 22 1,105 0.31 0.20 71.65 (2.78) 26.12 (1.03)

4 27 1,090 0.45 0.41 60.45 (1.01) 11.40 (0.45)
127

Figure C1. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from first detection in the forebay to time of passage at McNary 

Dam, by passage route, for yearling Chinook salmon released in the Mid-Columbia River, 2006–09. Error bars 

represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Figure C2. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from first detection in the forebay to time of passage at McNary 

Dam, by passage route, for juvenile steelhead released in the Mid-Columbia River, 2006–09. Error bars represent 

the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2
128

Figure C3. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from first detection in the forebay to time of passage at McNary 

Dam, by passage route, for sockeye salmon released in the Mid-Columbia River, 2006–09. Error bars represent 

the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Figure C4. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from passage at McNary Dam to first detection at I82 Bridge located 

2.4 kilometers downstream of McNary Dam, by passage route, for yearling Chinook salmon released in the MidColumbia River, 2006–09. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2

'07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Turbine Spillway TSW1 TSW2
129

Figure C5. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from passage at McNary Dam to first detection at I82 Bridge located 

2.4 kilometers downstream of McNary Dam, by passage route, for juvenile steelhead released in the Mid-Columbia 

River, 2006–09. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Figure C6. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from passage at McNary Dam to first detection at I82 Bridge located 

2.4 kilometers downstream of McNary Dam, by passage route, for Sockeye salmon released in the Mid-Columbia 

River, 2006–09. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

'07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

2

4

6

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2

'07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

-2

0

2

4

6

Turbine Spillway TSW1 TSW2
130

Figure C7. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from passage at McNary Dam to detection array located 24 km 

downstream of McNary Dam, by passage route, for yearling Chinook salmon released in the Mid-Columbia River, 

2006–09. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

Figure C8. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from passage at McNary Dam to first detection at array located 24 

kilometers downstream of McNary Dam, by passage route, for juvenile steelhead released in the Mid-Columbia 

River, 2006–09. Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

1

2

3

Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

1

2

3

4

Turbine Bypass Spillway TSW1 TSW2
131

Figure C9. Graph showing mean travel rate (km/h) from passage at McNary Dam to detection array located 24 km 

downstream of McNary Dam, by passage route, for sockeye salmon released in the Mid-Columbia River, 2006–09.

Error bars represent the 95-percent profile likelihood confidence intervals.

'06 '07 '08 '09 '06 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09 '07 '08 '09

Travel rate (km/h)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Powerhouse Spillway TSW1 TSW2
132

Appendix D. Goodness-of-Fit Model Results for the Route-Specific Survival 

Model Used for Hat Rock Released Fish Passing McNary Dam, 2006, 2008–09.

Figure D1. Plots showing observed versus expected counts for the route-specific survival model of passage and 

survival of yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon at McNary Dam during 

spring 2006. The dashed lines in plots are the 1:1 line.

Figure D2. Plots showing observed versus expected counts for the route-specific survival model of passage and 

survival of yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon at McNary Dam during 

2007. The dashed lines in plots are the 1:1 line.

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Yearling Chinook salmon

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Juvenile steelhead

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Subyearling Chinook salmon

Observed count Observed count Observed count

Expected count

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Yearling Chinook salmon

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Juvenile steelhead

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Subyearling Chinook salmon

Observed count Observed count Observed count

Expected count
133

Figure D3. Plots showing observed versus expected counts for the route-specific survival model of passage and 

survival of yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon at McNary Dam during 

2008. The dashed lines in plots are the 1:1 line.

Figure D4. Plots showing observed versus expected counts for the route-specific survival model of passage and 

survival of yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon at McNary Dam during 

2009. The dashed lines in plots are the 1:1 line. Expected count

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Yearling Chinook salmon

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Juvenile steelhead

0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Subyearling Chinook salmon

Observed count Observed count Observed count

Observed count

0 100 200 300 400 500

Expected count

0

100

200

300

400

500

Observed count

0 100 200 300 400 500

Observed count

0 100 200 300 400 500

Yearling Chinook salmon Juvenile steelhead Subyearling Chinook salmon
134

Appendix E. Goodness-of-Fit Model Results for the Route-Specific Survival 

Model Used for Mid-Columbia River Released Fish Passing McNary Dam, 

2006–09.

0 100 200 300 400

0

100

200

300

400

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Expected count

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Observied count

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

A)

B)

C)

Figure E1. Graphs of observed versus expected counts for the route-specific survival model of passage and survival of 

yearling Chinook salmon (A), sockeye salmon (B), and juvenile steelhead (C), at McNary Dam for fish released in 

the Mid-Columbia River during spring 2006. The lines in plots are the 1:1 line.
135

0 100 200 300 400

0

100

200

300

400

0 200 400 600 800

Expected count

0

200

400

600

800

Observied count

0 200 400 600 800

0

200

400

600

800

A)

B)

C)

Figure E2. Graphs of observed versus expected counts for the route-specific survival model of passage and survival of 

yearling Chinook salmon (A), sockeye salmon (B), and juvenile steelhead (C), at McNary Dam for fish released in 

the Mid-Columbia River during spring 2007. The lines in plots are the 1:1 line.
136

A)

0 100 200 300 400

0

100

200

300

400

B)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

C)

Observed count

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Expected count

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

D)

0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

200

Figure E3. Graphs of observed versus expected counts for the route-specific survival model of passage and survival of 

yearling Chinook salmon (A), sockeye salmon (B), juvenile steelhead (C), and juvenile steelhead also implanted 

with a PIT-tag allowing use of a route-specific model with 5 routes (D), at McNary Dam for fish released in the MidColumbia River during spring 2008. The lines in plots are the 1:1 line.
137

A)

Observed count

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Expected count

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

B)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Figure E4. Graphs of observed versus expected counts for the route-specific survival model of passage and survival of 

juvenile steelhead (A) and sockeye salmon (B), at McNary Dam for fish released in the Mid-Columbia River during

spring 2009. The lines in plots are the 1:1 line. 
138

Appendix F. Tag Life Studies for Columbia River and Mid-Columbia River 

Released Fish, 2006–09.

Introduction

Tag life studies were conducted to test the assumption of the survival model that all tags are 

correctly identified and detections are not lost during the study due to tag failure. In the case of acoustic 

telemetry, when a transmitter fails the detections is lost. Significant premature failure of transmitters can 

negatively bias survival estimates, since survival models will interpret tag failure as mortality. However, 

if the rate of tag failure is known, survival estimates can be adjusted to correct for tag failure (Townsend 

and others, 2006; Cowen and Schwartz, 2005). Therefore, it is important to conduct a tag life study to 

assess the potential of introducing bias into the survival model due to tag failure. If a tag life study is not 

conducted, there is little recourse for accurately adjusting survival estimates after conducting a study 

and finding that tags failed prematurely. Premature tag failure may occur through a number of 

mechanisms including batch-specific manufacturer defects or long travel times of fish due to low flows. 

Thus, it is important to conduct a tag life study using a random sub-sample of transmitters that will be 

implanted in fish and test their performance under ambient field conditions during the study period. We 

used the methods of Townsend and others (2006) to achieve the following goals of the tag life study 1) 

to estimate the probability that a tag was alive at any point in time after it was turned on, 2) to estimate 

the probability of tags being in the study area at any given point in time after release, and 3) to estimate 

the average probability of a tag being alive when passing telemetry arrays used for survival analysis. 

Given this information, we then determined whether the tag failure rate was high enough to warrant 

correction of survival estimates.

Methods

The tag life studies in 2006–09 were conducted to estimate the tag life of transmitters implanted 

in yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, sockeye salmon, and subyearling Chinook salmon 

during passage and survival studies in the Mid-Columbia River and at McNary Dam on the Columbia 

River. Studies in the Mid-Columbia River were conducted by Grant and Chelan County Public Utility 

Districts (PUDs) and studies at McNary Dam were conducted by USGS. A random sample of about 50–

100 tags per tag type were evaluated for life expectancy during each study season. We received the tag 

life data and then estimated the probability of a tag being alive at any given point in time. The lifetime 

of each tag was calculated as the elapsed time between the time a tag was turned on and the time that the 

last detection was recorded by the data logging receiver. We then fit a survival distribution function to 

the tag life data to estimate the probability of a tag operating for a given amount of time. Although many 

forms of survival distribution functions can be fit to this data, we chose to use the Gompertz distribution 

(Elandt-Johnson and Johnson, 1980; Townsend and others, 2006) for Mid-Columbia and Hat Rock 

released fish in 2006 and 2007 and for Hat Rock release fish in 2008 and 2009. For 2008 and 2009 MidColumbia released fish, the Kaplan-Meier distribution was used because it better fit the data. The 

Gompertz survival distribution function takes the form:

(1 ) ( )

t e

St e

β α

α −

= (F1)

where S(t) is the probability of a tag surviving to time t, and α and β are parameters to be estimated by 

fitting the model to the tag life data. We used nonlinear least squares methods to fit the Gompertz 
139

survival distribution function to the empirical tag survival data. The empirical survival distribution 

function is simply the proportion of tags surviving to time t.

The Kaplan-Meier survival distribution function takes the form: 

S(t) = Pr{T>t} (F2)

where S(t) is the probability of a tag surviving to time t. We used maximum likelihood methods to fit 

the Kaplan-Meier survival distribution function to the empirical survival distribution function. The 

empirical survival distribution function is simply the proportion of tags surviving to time t.

The probability that a tag is alive when it arrives at a detection array is dependent on the travel 

time of the tag to each detection array used in the survival analysis. For the route-specific survival 

model, the travel times of interest are from time of release to the time of detection at McNary Dam, 

from time of release to the time of detection at first downstream gate, and from the time of release to the 

time of first detection at any one of the remaining downstream arrays used for survival analysis. In 

addition to fish travel time, the travel time of the tag must include all elapsed time that the transmitter 

was operating prior to fish release. Therefore the duration of time from activation to release was 

calculated and added to the travel time of fish to each detection array. We then plotted the empirical 

cumulative travel time distribution, which is simply the proportion of fish arriving at a given detection 

array at time t, against the survival distribution function to understand whether most fish passed the 

detection arrays prior to tag failure.

To quantify the rate of tag failure we calculated the average probability that the tag was 

operational for the ith release group to the jth detection array (Townsend and others, 2006):

∑=

=

ij k

x

ijx

ij

ij S t

k

P L

1

( ) ˆ 1 ( ) ˆ (F3)

where ( ) ˆ

P Lij = average probability that a tag is alive at the jth detection array from the ith release group.

( ) ˆ

S hijx = the estimated probability that a tag is alive at time tijx for the x

th fish arriving at the jth 

detection array for the ith release group. ( ) ˆ

S hijx is calculated simply by plugging into the survival 

distribution function the travel time of each tag to each detection array.

kij = the total number of fish detected at the jth detection array for the ith release group.

Results and Discussion—Columbia River Fish

Tag life for each model of tag varied by year and species of interest at McNary Dam. The tag life 

data for model 795-E transmitters used in spring fish ranged between 8.1–34.5 days in 2006, 6.6–40.6 in 

2007, 9.8–26.7 days in 2008, and for model 795-LE from 1.0 to 54.8 days in 2009 (table F1). The lifeexpectancy for transmitters used in subyearling Chinook salmon ranged 6.7–16.6 days in 2006 (model 

795-M), 8.4–16.1 days in 2007 (model 795-M), 2.2–16.7 days in 2008 (model 795-Ss), 5.0–16.8 days in 

2008 (model 795-Se) and 2.1 to 31.7 days in 2009 (model 795-LM). The mean operational life of model 

795-E transmitters was 11.7–20.2 days depending on year, while the mean for model 795-LE was 28.2 

days. The mean operational life for summer transmitters was 12.9–23.6 days, depending on year and 

model.
140

Table F1. Descriptive statistics of life expectancy in days for transmitters released in the Columbia River used in 

yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon during 2006–09 at McNary 

Dam.

Year Tag type Number

of tags

Mean

tag life

Standard 

deviation

Minimum

tag life

Maximum

tag life

Yearling Chinook salmon

2006 795-E 50 12.5 2.15 8.1 18.3

2007 795-E 49 20.2 6.21 6.6 40.6

2008 795-E 100 18.3 2.95 9.8 26.7

2009 795-LE 100 28.2 13.10 1.0 54.8

Juvenile steelhead

2006 795-E 50 16.3 4.17 12.4 34.5

2007 795-E 49 11.7 2.02 7.3 16.8

2008 795-E 100 18.3 2.95 9.8 26.7

2009 795-LE 100 28.2 13.10 1.0 54.8

Subyearling Chinook salmon

2006 795-M 50 11.9 1.85 6.7 16.6

2007 795-M 50 13.7 1.32 8.4 16.1

2008 795-Ss 47 13.1 3.49 2.2 16.7

2008 795-Se 25 12.9 3.24 5.0 16.8

2009 795-LM 50 23.6 5.34 2.1 31.7

By comparing the survival distribution function to the cumulative travel time distributions of the 

transmitters, we found that nearly all transmitters passed the detection arrays at the dam before tag 

failure became substantial and that most tagged fish arrived at downstream survival arrays before there 

was substantial tag failure. Tag failure was less than one percent for all species released detected at 

McNary Dam from Hat Rock State Park release site (<0.45 percent, table F2). Across all years, tag 

failure was highest for yearling Chinook salmon and juvenile steelhead (1.69 percent) at the 

downstream arrays regardless of release site in 2009. For subyearling Chinook salmon, tag failure was

highest in 2009 and in 2008 with the transmitter model 795-Se, although less than 0.26 percent.

Townsend and others (2006) found that adjusted survival estimates changed very little from the 

unadjusted estimate when the probability of a tag being operational at downstream detection arrays was 

high (>98). Cowen and Schwarz (2005) found that survival estimates that do not account for tag failure 

have potential to be biased, especially when failure rates exceed 10 percent. Our tag failure rates were 

between 1–2 percent for all fish so we feel that correcting the estimates using the tag life data would be 

inconsequential.
141

Table F2. Mean probability of transmitters released in the Columbia River being operational [ ] when passing 

telemetry detection sites used in the survival study conducted at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

( ) ˆ

P Lij

Year Detection site Mean SD

Yearling Chinook salmon

2006 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9981 0.0046

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9942 0.0258

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9978 0.0031

2007 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9955 0.0029

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9902 0.0083

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9927 0.0059

2008 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9985 0.0284

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9987 0.0036

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9993 0.0025

2009 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9986 0.0133

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9831 0.0071

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9881 0.0045

Juvenile steelhead

2006 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9991 0.0080

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9995 0.0006

Control release site to downstream arrays NA

2007 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9989 0.0013

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9960 0.0139

Control release site to downstream arrays NA

2008 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9985 0.0284

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9987 0.0036

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9993 0.0025

2009 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9986 0.0133

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9831 0.0071

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9881 0.0045

Subyearling Chinook salmon

2006 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9994 0.0042

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9989 0.0072

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9997 0.0004

2007 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 1.0000 0.0001

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9999 0.0010

Control release site to downstream arrays 1.0000 0.0000

2008 model 795-Ss Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9989 0.0140

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9990 0.0122

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9998 0.0001

2008 model 795-Se Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9985 0.0039

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9975 0.0074

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9986 0.0034

2009 Hat Rock State Park release to McNary Dam 0.9987 0.0083

Hat Rock State Park release to downstream arrays 0.9974 0.0015

Control release site to downstream arrays 0.9981 0.0013
142

Results and Discussion—Mid-Columbia Fish

The tag life data for model 795-E transmitters ranged between 2.3–48.6 days in 2006, 10.1–33.5 

in 2007, 4.3–42.6 days in 2008, and from 6.0 to 49.0 days in 2009 (table F3). The life-expectancy for 

model 795-M transmitters ranged between 9.2–18.5 days in 2006, 9.5–18.0 days in 2007, 3.5–19.5 days

in 2008, and 4.9 to 30.5 days in 2009. The mean operational life of model 795-E transmitters was 20.9–

26.4 days, depending on year, excluding the 795-E tag with the faster pulse rate (mean life=10.9 days) 

used in 2006 for yearling Chinook salmon (table F3). The higher ping rate (1000–1500 ms) for the 

yearling Chinook salmon transmitter in 2006 decreased the average tag life considerably compared to 

the juvenile steelhead tag with a ping rate range of 5000–8000 ms. The mean operational life for model 

795-M transmitters was 15.0–19.5 days, depending on year.

Table F3. Descriptive statistics of life expectancy in days for model 795-E transmitters, used in yearling Chinook 

salmon and juvenile steelhead, and model 795-M transmitters, used in sockeye salmon during 2006–09 for 

fish released in the Mid-Columbia River.

Year Tag type Number

of tags

Mean

tag life

Standard 

deviation

Minimum

tag life

Maximum

tag life

2006 795-E1 49 10.9 3.1 2.3 23.4

2006 795-E2 99 24.9 7.7 3.1 48.6

2006 795-M 50 15.0 2.1 9.2 18.5

2007 795-E 44 21.2 3.7 10.1 33.5

2007 795-M 42 15.4 1.8 9.5 18.0

2008 795-E 100 20.9 5.2 4.3 42.6

2008 795-M 51 15.7 3.7 3.5 19.5

2009 795-E 50 26.4 7.2 6.0 49.0

2009 795-M 107 19.5 4.9 4.9 30.5 1

Pulse rate of tag was 1000–1500 ms. 2

Pulse rate of tag was 5000–8000 ms.
143

By comparing the survival distribution function to the cumulative travel time distributions of the 

transmitters, we found that nearly all transmitters passed the dam detection arrays before tag failure 

became substantial and that most tagged fish arrived at downstream survival arrays before there was 

substantial tag failure (table F4). During 2006, yearling Chinook salmon had the highest tag failure rate 

at the dam (9.7 percent) and at the downstream gates (11.5 percent) while juvenile steelhead and 

sockeye salmon had a tag failure rate of 3.9 percent or less at the dam and less than 5.4 percent at the 

downstream gates for all release groups. Tag failure rates during 2007, for model 795-E tags ranged 

from 0.2–4.4 percent at the downstream gates and from 1.5–4.9 percent for tag model 795-M. Tag 

failure rates in 2008 were highest for model 795-M tags (7.3–7.6 percent) but only 1.1–3.0 percent for 

795-E tags. Tag failure rates for 795-M tags improved substantially in 2009, to only 2.2–2.9 percent, 

similar to the failure rate of 795-E tags (2.2–2.7 percent).

Townsend and others (2006) found that adjusted survival estimates (0.9387) changed very little 

from the unadjusted estimate (0.9339) when the probability of a tag being operational at downstream 

detection arrays was high (>98). Cowen and Schwarz (2005) found that survival estimates that do not 

account for tag failure have potential to be biased, especially when failure rates exceed 10 percent. Our

tag failure rates were between 1–5 percent for all fish except sockeye salmon in 2008 (which still had a 

tag failure rate well below 10 percent). We feel that the variance was high enough for uncorrected 

survival estimates that correcting the variance using the tag life data would be inconsequential. We feel 

that this is likely true even for the high probability of tag failure occurring for the 2008 sockeye salmon

since this was a relatively smaller data set and the variance about these estimates is relatively high.
144

Table F4. Mean probability of transmitters released in the Mid-Columbia River being operational [ ( ) ˆ

P Lij ] when 

passing telemetry detection sites used in the survival study conducted at McNary Dam, 2006–09.

[Release site: PR, Priest Rapids Dam; RC, Rocky Reach Collector; RI, Rock Island Dam; WA, Wanapum Dam; WE, Wells 

Dam; Release sites were combined for analysis in 2008 and 2009. SD, standard deviation] 

Year Release site Detection site Mean SD

Yearling Chinook salmon

2006 WA McNary Dam 0.903 0.087

WA All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.885 0.103

2007 RC McNary Dam 0.975 0.045

RC All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.956 0.073

RI McNary Dam 0.981 0.036

RI All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.960 0.078

WA McNary Dam 0.998 0.002

WA All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.996 0.007

2008 Combined McNary Dam 0.977 0.053

Combined First detection site downstream of McNary Dam 0.977 0.040

Combined Second, 3rd, and 4th detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.970 0.050

Juvenile steelhead

2006 WE McNary Dam 0.961 0.032

WE All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.949 0.051

RC McNary Dam 0.973 0.023

RC All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.961 0.050

RI McNary Dam 0.968 0.035

RI All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.957 0.049

WA McNary Dam 0.984 0.010

WA All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.977 0.023

PR McNary Dam 0.991 0.004

PR All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.988 0.009

2007 RI McNary Dam 0.989 0.028

RI All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.977 0.083

2008 Combined McNary Dam 0.989 0.019

Combined First detection site downstream of McNary Dam 0.989 0.017

Combined Second, 3rd, and 4th detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.984 0.037

2009 Combined McNary Dam 0.978 0.029

Combined First detection site downstream of McNary Dam 0.978 0.018

Combined Second, 3rd, and 4th detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.973 0.042

Sockeye salmon

2006 WE McNary Dam 0.991 0.004

WE All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.988 0.009

RC McNary Dam 0.962 0.047

RC All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.946 0.084

RI McNary Dam 0.975 0.059

RI All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.967 0.060

2007 WE McNary Dam 0.964 0.125

WE All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.951 0.126

RC McNary Dam 0.985 0.066

RC All detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.973 0.078

2008 Combined McNary Dam 0.927 0.101

Combined First detection site downstream of McNary Dam 0.924 0.101

Combined Second, 3rd, and 4th detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.926 0.049

2009 Combined McNary Dam 0.978 0.021

Combined First detection site downstream of McNary Dam 0.975 0.025

Combined Second, 3rd, and 4th detection sites downstream of McNary Dam 0.971 0.033
Heading 1 2

Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the 

Director, Western Fisheries Research Center

U.S. Geological Survey

6505 NE 65th Street

Seattle, Washington 98115

http://wfrc.usgs.gov/
Adams and Evans — Summary of Juvenile Salmonid Passage and Survival at McNary Dam—Acoustic Telemetry Studies, 2006–09 —Open File Report 2011-1179

Printed on recycled paper