Bishes Rayamajhi, profile picture
Uploaded byBishes Rayamajhi
342 views

Systematic Review of JSATS Passage and Survival Data at Bonneville and The Dalles Dams during Alternate Turbine and Spillbay Operations from 2008- 2012

This document presents a systematic review of juvenile salmonid passage and survival data at Bonneville and The Dalles dams from 2008 to 2012, focusing on the impact of turbine and spillway operations. It analyzes survival rates in relation to different operating efficiencies and conditions, highlighting findings related to spillway survival and turbine efficiency. The results contribute to understanding the effects of dam operations on fish survival, which is crucial for environmental management efforts.

Embed presentation

Download to read offline
Systematic Review of JSATS Passage and Survival Data at Bonneville and The Dalles Dams during Alternate Turbine and Spillbay Operations from 2008- 2012 MARK WEILAND, BISHES RAYAMAJHI, JINA KIM, CHRISTA WOODLEY, GENE PLOSKEY, JON RERECICH1 AND BRAD EPPARD1 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 1U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, OR
Introduction: BON Operation of Bonneville Dam to reduce fish injury B2 operation at low to mid range of 1% peak efficiency Improve conditions for guided fish in the gatewell May result in unfavorable conditions for turbine passed fish B1 increase flow to offset reduced discharge at B2 Compare survival within to above the 1% operating range Best operating point (range) as identified by TSP Spillway survival variability Erosion of stilling basin or ogees in several spill bays and accumulation of rock 2
Objectives: BON Analyze 2008-2012 JSATS and operations data to examine survival rates for juvenile salmonids at BON B2 Turbine Survival Comparison: Examine survival for fish passing turbines operating across the 1% peak efficiency range B1 Turbine Survival Comparison: Examine survival for fish passing turbines operating within the 1% peak efficiency range and above the upper limit of the 1% operating range Bonneville Spillway: Examine spillway survival by spillbay with focus on those bays where erosion of the ogee or stilling basin immediately downstream had occurred 3
Methods: BON B1 turbines Lower quarter of 1% efficiency (Q1) Lower middle quarter of 1% efficiency (Q2) Upper middle quarter of 1% efficiency (Q3) 1% of peak efficiency (Q4) Best operating point/range (BOP) Above best operating point to generator limit (ABOP) B2 turbines Lower quarter of 1% efficiency (Q1) Lower middle quarter of 1% efficiency (Q2) Upper middle quarter of 1% efficiency (Q3) 1% of peak efficiency (Q4) BON spillway By bay Group bays 4
Methods: B1 and B2 Binned Operating Ranges 5 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 67 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) B1 Turbine Operating Range Best Op Point UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% Above BOP Best Operating Point Q4 Q3 Q1 Q2 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 67 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) B2 Turbine Operating Range (w/STS) UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1%Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
BON B1 Survival By Species and Operation 6
Analyses: BON B1 CH1 Passage Distribution 7 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) Best Op Range UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% Best Op Range Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Above BOR 2010 2011 2012
Analyses: BON B1 CH1 Survival by Operating Condition Survival Survival 4933321603 1935 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 LL to UL LL to BOP UL to BOP ABOP 22 1008215235 145 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Analyses: BON B1 STH Passage Distribution 9 2010 2011 2012 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) Best Op Range UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% Best Op Range Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Above BOR
Analyses: BON B1 STH Survival by Operating Condition Survival Survival 4933341861 2195 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 LL to UL LL to BOP UL to BOP ABOP 21 204 1199306 152 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Analyses: BON B1 CH0 Passage Distribution 11 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) Best Op Range UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% 2010 2011 2012 Best Op Range Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Above BOR
Analyses: BON B1 CH0 Survival by Operating Condition Survival Survival 3801407 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 LL to UL LL to BOP UL to BOP ABOP 1787 3 118711647 57 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
BON B1 Survival at Lower & Upper BOP 13
7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 52 62 72 VR_B1_T_CH1_UBOP VR_B1_T_CH1_LBOP Best Op Point UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 Above BOP Best Op Point Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Analyses: BON B1 CH1 Survival within BOP 14
Analyses: BON B1 STH Survival within BOP 15 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 52 62 72 VR_B1_T_STH_UBOP VR_B1_T_STH_LBOP Best Op Point UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 Above BOP Best Op Point Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
Analyses: BON B1 CH0 Survival within BOP 16 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 52 62 72 VR_B1_T_CH0_LBOP Best Op Point UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% Above BOP Best Op Point Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
BON B2 Survival By Species and Operation 17
Analyses: BON B2 CH1 Passage by Quartile 18 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1%
19 Analyses: BON B2 CH1 Survival by Operating ConditionSurvival 24 759 574 267 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 469
Analyses: BON B2 STH Passage Distribution 20 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1%
Analyses: BON B2 STH Survival by Operating Condition 21 14 202541 376 146 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Survival
Analyses: BON B2 CH0 Passage Distribution 22 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1%
Analyses: BON B2 CH0 Survival by Operating Condition 23 22 1444298 501 384 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Survival
B2: STS vs No STS, 2008 & 2011 CH1 Estimate s.e. Count 2008 With STS_Q4 0.9320 0.0414 69 Without STS_Q4 0.8299 0.0617 61 2011 With STS_Q4 0.9414 0.0495 50 Without STS_Q4 0.9369 0.0601 37 With STS_Q3_Q4 0.9511 0.0338 125 Without STS_Q3_Q4 0.9771 0.0494 50 STH Estimate s.e. Count 2008 With STS_Q4 0.9339 0.071 29 Without STS_Q4 1.0417 0.2039 24 2011 With STS_Q4 0.9000 0.0987 15 Without STS_Q4 0.9231 0.0739 13 With STS_Q3_Q4 0.8907 0.0553 45 Without STS_Q3_Q4 0.9790 0.0527 22
BON Spillway Surival 25
576 791 783 650 559 385 384 387 309 320 350 317 346 385 454 600 729 351 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Yearling Chinook Analyses: BON Spillway CH1 and STH Survival by Bay 26 SurvivalSurvival 521 623 650 493 459 301 332 322 330 350 318 333 379 450 620 333 717 552 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Steelhead
Analyses: BON Spillway CH1 and STH Survival, Grouped Bays 27 2150 1978 1683 1185 1680 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1794 1585 1653 1162 1889 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Survival Survival Steelhead Yearling Chinook
Analyses: BON Spillway Survival by Grouped Bays 28 371 340 242 244 319 479 365 323 260 339 776 617 641 423 712 524 656 477 258 310 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Bay01-03 Bay04-07 Bay08-12 Bay13-15 Bay16-18 2008 2010 2011 2012 Survival Yearling Chinook 335 315 276 262 295 344 235 306 178 300 677 524 623 426 861 438 511 448 296 433 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Bay01-03 Bay04-07 Bay08-12 Bay13-15 Bay16-18 2008 2010 2011 2012 Steelhead Survival
Analyses: BON Spillway CH0 Survival by Bay 29 Survival 496 548 668 1021 599 503 404 322 293 357 425 326 362 310 437 574 622 331 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Subyearling Chinook
Analyses: BON Spillway CH0 Survival, Grouped Bays 30 1712 2527 1723 1109 1527 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Survival
Analyses: BON Spillway Survival by Bays, CH0 31 509 513 493 265 499 477 422 326 204 358 726 1592 904 640 670 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Bay01-03 Bay04-07 Bay08-12 Bay13-15 Bay16-18 2008 2010 2012 Sub-Yearling Chinook Survival
Analyses: BON Spillway CH1 and STH Survival by Discharge 32 808 3279 175 356 311 193 507 141 137 218 214 241 154 184 134 235 286 269 261 363 209 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Discharge (kcfs) Yearling Chinook Survival 603 2765 158 333 321 269 469 118 121 283 259 211 134 178 122 273 310 245 303 418 190 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Discharge (kcfs) Survival Steelhead
Analyses: BON Spillway CH0 Survival by Discharge 33 1279 873 536 495 937 457 1192 870 868 303 100 214 129 256 89 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 y = 0.0004x + 0.8979 R² = 0.6299 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Survival Discharge (kcfs) Survival Discharge (kcfs)
BON Survival by Tailwater Elevation 34
90 236 706 928 780 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m 92 165 623 862 708 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m Analyses: BON B1 Survival by Tailwater Level Yearling Chinook Survival Steelhead Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.9868 1.0378 0.9358 6m 1.0052 1.0350 0.9754 7m 0.9643 0.9800 0.9486 8m 0.9635 0.9766 0.9504 ≥ 9m 0.9652 0.9915 0.9389 Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.8575 0.9408 0.7742 6m 0.9403 0.9732 0.9074 7m 0.9369 0.9551 0.9187 8m 0.9468 0.9617 0.9319 ≥ 9m 0.9306 0.9559 0.9053 35 Survival TimeatTWEL TimeatTWEL
103 132 568 815 172 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m Analyses: BON B1 Survival by Tailwater Level Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.8939 0.9537 0.8341 6m 0.9811 1.0070 0.9552 7m 0.9604 0.9776 0.9432 8m 0.9517 0.9668 0.9366 ≥ 9m 0.9483 0.9816 0.9150 Survival 36 Sub-Yearling Chinook TimeatTWEL
1067 367 243 216 106 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m Analyses: BON B2 Survival by Tailwater Level Survival Survival 37 TimeatTWEL TimeatTWEL Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.8596 0.8819 0.8373 6m 0.8955 0.9288 0.8622 7m 0.9846 1.0052 0.9640 8m 0.8953 0.9378 0.8528 ≥ 9m 0.9144 0.9775 0.8513 Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.877 0.0089 1547 6m 0.951 0.0106 556 7m 0.958 0.0102 490 8m 0.960 0.0091 534 ≥ 9m 0.917 0.0222 264 Yearling Chinook Steelhead 1547 556 490 534 264 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤5m 6m 7m 8m ≥9m
1227 280 398 1375 315 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.8720 0.8910 0.8530 6m 0.9440 0.9712 0.9168 7m 0.9454 0.9685 0.9223 8m 0.9522 0.9640 0.9404 ≥ 9m 0.9663 0.9867 0.9459 Analyses: BON B2 Survival by Tailwater Level Survival 38 TimeatTWEL Sub-Yearling Chinook
1197 1678 1518 1886 2397 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m 892 1413 1385 1955 2490 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m Analyses: BON Spillway Survival by Tailwater Level Survival Survival Bin S. Estimate + 95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.9333 0.9482 0.9184 6m 0.9505 0.9638 0.9372 7m 0.9331 0.9460 0.9202 8m 0.9434 0.9550 0.9318 ≥ 9m 0.9461 0.9624 0.9298 Bin S. Estimate + 95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.9474 0.9641 0.9307 6m 0.9543 0.9686 0.9400 7m 0.9339 0.9474 0.9204 8m 0.9378 0.9496 0.9260 ≥ 9m 0.9613 0.9750 0.9476 39 TimeatTWEL TimeatTWEL Yearling Chinook Steelhead
996 683 2478 4031 410 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m 40 Analyses: BON Spillway Survival by Tailwater Level Bin S. Estimate + 95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.9050 0.9234 0.8866 6m 0.9210 0.9418 0.9002 7m 0.9508 0.9598 0.9418 8m 0.9672 0.9729 0.9615 ≥ 9m 0.9709 0.9872 0.9546 Survival TimeatTWEL Sub-Yearling Chinook
BON Egress 41
BON: CH1 Tailrace Egress B1 and B2 42 BON ROUTE Treatment Mean StdErr Min Max Median N B1 ABO 4.23 0.70 0.21 200.41 0.30 485 BOP 5.90 1.67 0.24 281.36 0.37 286 Q4 3.55 0.57 0.24 273.35 0.37 860 Q3 2.43 0.82 0.23 110.46 0.38 189 Q2 3.36 1.15 0.28 102.24 0.44 136 Q1 6.40 2.10 0.27 280.27 0.46 234 <1% 15.43 14.73 0.25 310.11 0.53 21 B2 Q4 5.92 0.29 0.25 42.82 6.79 340 Q3 3.85 0.35 0.29 14.63 0.75 166 Q2 3.52 0.26 0.25 33.28 0.71 452 Q1 4.29 0.27 0.28 61.72 0.71 685 <1% 8.92 0.79 0.58 18.77 8.45 26
BON: STH Tailrace Egress B1 and B2 BON ROUTE Treatment Mean StdErr Min Max Median N B1 ABO 15.11 2.21 0.20 415.51 0.42 476 BOP 23.96 3.49 0.25 404.61 0.58 282 Q4 17.14 1.39 0.24 419.08 0.52 1013 Q3 7.75 2.10 0.26 225.21 0.63 146 Q2 9.84 4.57 0.25 589.93 0.57 146 Q1 8.51 1.69 0.25 254.90 0.60 301 <1% 6.61 4.55 0.31 87.32 0.77 19 B2 Q4 5.95 0.33 0.22 21.13 6.95 165 Q3 5.08 1.13 0.21 105.44 0.83 116 Q2 3.68 0.48 0.22 138.40 0.82 333 Q1 3.40 0.24 0.26 48.20 0.79 492 <1% 5.98 0.86 0.25 10.24 6.74 14
BON: CH0 Tailrace Egress B1 and B2 BON ROUTE Treatment Mean StdErr Min Max Median N B1 BOP 4.33 0.68 0.27 127.56 0.40 363 Q4 3.81 0.68 0.24 622.50 0.40 1148 Q3 1.67 0.53 0.25 44.93 0.39 116 Q2 1.22 0.56 0.32 31.24 0.44 56 Q1 2.17 1.45 0.29 68.26 0.46 47 <1% 0.81 0.13 0.56 0.97 0.90 3 B2 Q4 3.62 0.13 0.19 32.29 0.72 1320 Q3 4.98 1.47 0.21 530.52 0.74 364 Q2 4.07 0.24 0.22 18.89 0.79 411 Q1 6.39 0.32 0.29 26.43 7.45 266 <1% 11.35 1.64 1.03 27.60 11.01 14
BON: CH1 Tailrace Egress Spillway SP10 Mean StdErr Min Max Median N 70 0.83 0.16 0.38 3.07 0.53 18 80 1.76 1.13 0.33 306.51 0.51 271 90 1.54 0.13 0.32 16.68 0.48 472 100 1.88 0.09 0.19 157.14 0.43 2992 110 0.86 0.21 0.29 26.45 0.39 146 120 1.14 0.18 0.26 38.92 0.38 288 130 0.39 0.03 0.26 6.73 0.35 251 140 0.53 0.12 0.26 12.85 0.34 126 150 1.69 0.16 0.23 18.30 0.33 352 160 0.32 0.00 0.24 0.51 0.31 113 170 3.84 0.86 0.25 68.85 0.35 84 180 2.59 0.26 0.23 17.49 0.33 176 190 6.35 0.31 0.22 42.81 6.41 175 200 4.32 0.29 0.20 16.78 5.25 199 210 5.15 0.30 0.13 16.17 6.03 119 220 6.02 0.18 0.22 20.18 6.05 154 230 3.62 0.37 0.01 12.29 5.11 89 240 2.84 0.33 0.01 12.26 0.40 105 250 0.56 0.13 0.02 11.04 0.28 125 260 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.94 0.27 136 270 0.29 0.02 0.02 2.11 0.27 110 280 0.29 0.01 0.01 1.14 0.28 129 290 0.26 0.02 0.01 0.61 0.26 39 300 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.70 0.28 16
BON: STH Tailrace Egress Spillway SP10 Mean StdErr Min Max Median N 70 0.50 0.08 0.39 0.65 0.47 3 80 0.66 0.05 0.35 7.76 0.47 163 90 2.21 0.34 0.31 91.65 0.45 411 100 1.97 0.28 0.28 614.65 0.42 2537 110 0.64 0.10 0.29 6.62 0.38 123 120 1.95 0.17 0.27 11.14 0.38 292 130 0.57 0.07 0.26 7.17 0.35 252 140 0.53 0.09 0.25 11.92 0.32 175 150 1.40 0.13 0.23 12.13 0.33 321 160 0.46 0.07 0.25 5.74 0.31 105 170 3.18 0.34 0.22 13.22 3.05 73 180 2.57 0.20 0.11 10.49 0.38 213 190 5.17 0.37 0.22 70.37 5.14 205 200 3.41 0.22 0.05 14.68 4.46 167 210 4.38 0.25 0.19 11.32 4.94 95 220 5.10 0.13 0.19 9.19 5.13 132 230 3.85 0.34 0.10 16.41 4.89 75 240 2.04 0.24 0.11 7.43 0.42 90 250 0.57 0.14 0.01 13.65 0.30 116 260 0.33 0.02 0.02 2.15 0.29 133 270 0.55 0.22 0.03 22.94 0.31 103 280 0.31 0.02 0.01 1.73 0.29 142 290 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.70 0.29 39 300 0.30 0.05 0.01 0.53 0.33 8
BON: CH0 Tailrace Egress Spillway SP10 v StdErr Min Max Median N 80 6.72 0.29 0.40 18.00 6.88 130 90 6.34 0.15 0.34 40.68 7.15 985 100 1.67 0.11 0.31 21.46 0.47 814 110 5.75 0.22 0.31 47.89 6.91 474 120 1.08 0.10 0.27 11.91 0.38 471 130 2.69 0.16 0.26 26.07 0.37 860 140 2.85 0.22 0.26 24.85 0.36 408 150 0.99 0.08 0.23 50.35 0.33 1130 160 1.38 0.11 0.23 23.80 0.31 801 170 1.71 0.13 0.23 23.51 0.31 744 180 1.26 0.80 0.22 217.95 0.30 275 190 0.44 0.11 0.23 10.71 0.28 99 200 3.36 0.40 0.21 22.72 0.29 205 210 0.35 0.04 0.21 4.13 0.28 126 220 0.29 0.02 0.19 4.40 0.26 242 230 0.29 0.02 0.19 1.06 0.25 78
Conclusions: BON 48 B1 There was not a difference in survival for salmonids passing within the 1% of peak operating efficiency and salmonids passing at operations above the upper 1% operating efficiency B2 Lower survival for CH1 in Q4 range No difference in survival for STH across operating range No difference in survival for CH0 across operating range Spillway No obvious bay affect Lower survival of CH1 and STH above 290 kcfs discharge Trend of lower survival for CH0 at low discharge levels
Introduction: TDA Introduction High flows forced spill discharge at bays outside the new tailrace spillway wall. Concern of lower survival due to predation Objective Examined spillway passage survival for juvenile salmonids passing on the north (spillbays 1-8) and south (spillbays 9-23) of the new spill wall at TDA 2010-2012 JSATS datasets 49
6021 487 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay01-08 Bay09-22 Analyses: TDA Survival Within and Outside of Spill Wall 50 Yearling Chinook Survival Survival Steelhead 6594 666 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay01-08 Bay09-22 5040 141 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay01-08 Bay09-22 Subyearling Chinook Survival Bay09-23 Bay09-23 Bay09-23
435 231 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay09-12 Bay13-22 Survival 304 183 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay09-12 Bay13-22 Analyses: TDA Survival Outside of Spill Wall, Grouped Bays 51 Yearling Chinook Survival Steelhead Subyearling Chinook Survival Bay13-23 Bay13-23 Bay13-23
1589 2360 1976 730 1080 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=72k 96k 120k 144k >=168k 1350 2523 2249 946 1320 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=72k 96k 120k 144k >=168k Analyses: TDA Survival Grouped by Flow 52 Survival %TimeatDischarge Survival %TimeatDischarge Steelhead Yearling Chinook
710 646 3600 915 889 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=72k 96k 120k 144k >=168k Analyses: TDA Survival Grouped by Flow 53 Subyearling Chinook Survival %TimeatDischarge
TDA Spillway 54
Analyses: TDA Survival by Bay for All Years 55 513 704 710 808 892 925 1034 2150 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay 01 Bay 02 Bay 03 Bay 04 Bay 05 Bay 06 Bay 07 Bay 08 Survival Yearling Chinook Steelhead Survival 581 727 715 787 747 980 1113 2740 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay 01 Bay 02 Bay 03 Bay 04 Bay 05 Bay 06 Bay 07 Bay 08
Analyses: TDA Survival by Bay for All Years 56 410 654 750 787 833 901 864 1561 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay 01 Bay 02 Bay 03 Bay 04 Bay 05 Bay 06 Bay 07 Bay 08 Survival Sub-Yearling Chinook
Analyses: TDA Survival by Flow, 2010, 2011, 2012 57 816 773 502 1488 890 996 563 191 335 1181 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=70k 80k 90k 100k 110k 120k 130k 140k 150k >=160k Survival %TimeatDischarge 769 581 507 1546 1071 1158 599 224 436 1497 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=70k 80k 90k 100k 110k 120k 130k 140k 150k >=160k Survival %TimeatDischarge Steelhead Yearling Chinook
298 412 314 153 466 986 2436 562 152 981 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=70k 80k 90k 100k 110k 120k 130k 140k 150k >=160k Analyses: TDA Survival by Flow, 2010, 2011, 2012 58 Sub-Yearling Chinook Survival %TimeatDischarge
TDA Egress 59
TDA: CH1 Tailrace Egress Spillway 60 CH1 SP24 Min Max Mean StdErr Median N TR_EGR_TIME 48 0.28 153.02 1.69 0.83 0.47 210 72 0 367.24 1.14 0.35 0.36 1233 96 0 475.07 2.14 0.69 0.27 858 120 0.01 156.4 0.9 0.34 0.21 663 144 0.1 120.33 0.49 0.26 0.16 464 168 0.11 0.44 0.16 0 0.14 227 312 0.14 0.14 0.14 0 0.14 2
TDA: STH Tailrace Egress Spillway STH SP24 Min Max Mean StdErr Median N TR_EGR_TIME 48 0.27 201.79 1.63 1.05 0.42 192 72 0 24.1 0.44 0.03 0.33 1060 96 0 52.84 0.43 0.08 0.25 1006 120 0 55.83 0.31 0.07 0.2 838 144 0.1 3.81 0.21 0.01 0.15 610 168 0.1 0.78 0.16 0 0.14 338 312 0.14 0.14 0.14 0 0.14 2
TDA: CH0 Tailrace Egress Spillway CH0 SP24 Mean StdErr Min Max Mean N TR_EGR_TIME 48 5.98 5.39 0.26 194.7 5.98 36 72 0.73 0.15 0.16 65.88 0.73 560 96 0.8 0.29 0.11 145.41 0.8 586 120 0.57 0.13 0.12 324.61 0.57 3436 144 0.84 0.42 0.11 324.19 0.84 870 168 1.82 0.98 0.11 449.89 1.82 648 216 18.26 12.55 0.17 324.49 18.26 36 240 0.24 0.01 0.15 0.48 0.24 84 312 0.18 0 0.12 0.54 0.18 168
Conclusions: TDA There was not a difference in survival of juvenile salmonids passing at spillbays 1-8 and spillbays 9-23 There was lower survival of CH0 at discharge below 72 kcfs 63

More Related Content

PDF
Cartridge valve
byCunicoCorp
 
PDF
Propulsion%20system %203rd[1]
bykmsu
 
PPTX
Dam removal sediment transport using hecras
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
PPTX
Methods and Overview for Compliance Studies at McNary and John Day Dams, 2014
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
PPTX
Evaluation of Steelhead Kelt Migration Success through The Dalles and Bonnevi...
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
PPTX
Ranking mahoning river low head dams for removal
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
PPTX
Should Fish Passage through Culverts be a Concern for Midwest Engineers and P...
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
PPTX
Verifying the accuracy of JSATS tagged fish location AFS 2013
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
Cartridge valve
byCunicoCorp
 
Propulsion%20system %203rd[1]
bykmsu
 
Dam removal sediment transport using hecras
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
Methods and Overview for Compliance Studies at McNary and John Day Dams, 2014
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
Evaluation of Steelhead Kelt Migration Success through The Dalles and Bonnevi...
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
Ranking mahoning river low head dams for removal
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
Should Fish Passage through Culverts be a Concern for Midwest Engineers and P...
byBishes Rayamajhi
 
Verifying the accuracy of JSATS tagged fish location AFS 2013
byBishes Rayamajhi
 

Recently uploaded

PPT
Microsoft_SQL_ServerConsolidationTWP.ppt
byssuser8c3398
 
PDF
chapter one introduction to Probability theory.pdf
bySeid42
 
PPTX
Organizational Structure and Design Topic 4
bydavenieralayaay
 
PPTX
Top Institute for Data Analyst Course in Navi Mumbai
byPatil sagar
 
PDF
Unlocking the Future of Logistics & Supply Chain
byKunal Suri
 
PPTX
Lecture 14- Introduction to Hypothesis Testing.pptx
bygbadamosiayomide
 
PDF
Columbus Data and Analytics Wednesday - People Analytics 101: Making Sense of...
byTim Wilson
 
PPTX
End to End Supply Chain Management- Analytics Case Study.
byNandhuNandha1
 
PDF
US Digital Fan Engagement Index 2026: Benchmarking Online Demand for Sports T...
byHyperset Group Ltd
 
PDF
LECTURE - Overcoming the AI Failure Rate - AIG, DQM.pdf
bySami Laine
 
PDF
Khan Traders Fish Meal – MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
byKhan Traders Karachi
 
PDF
PathRAG rag pipeline PathRAG rag pipeline .pdf
byhotslix023
 
PDF
WORLD-LITERATURE-2ND-SEMESTER2025-2026.pdf
byCHERIEMAYCAMO
 
PDF
Trustworthy AI : Governance of AI through Ethics
byKarim Baïna
 
PDF
Understanding Data Analytics: Concepts, Types, and Use Cases
byThe IoT Academy
 
PPTX
The Singularity Sprint (2026): Neuralink + the AI Arms Race — Ridwan Sassman
byridwansassman
 
PDF
Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27: Major Announcements and their Impact
byDeeshiPavecha
 
PPT
data collection tool ppt.ppttttdataadfttg
byMuhammadodil
 
DOCX
Data Analyst Training Course | Advanced Data Analytics Certification | GVT Ac...
byGVT Academy
 
PPTX
Social Media Audit of Starbucks Coffee Company.pptx
bydiviap21
 
Microsoft_SQL_ServerConsolidationTWP.ppt
byssuser8c3398
 
chapter one introduction to Probability theory.pdf
bySeid42
 
Organizational Structure and Design Topic 4
bydavenieralayaay
 
Top Institute for Data Analyst Course in Navi Mumbai
byPatil sagar
 
Unlocking the Future of Logistics & Supply Chain
byKunal Suri
 
Lecture 14- Introduction to Hypothesis Testing.pptx
bygbadamosiayomide
 
Columbus Data and Analytics Wednesday - People Analytics 101: Making Sense of...
byTim Wilson
 
End to End Supply Chain Management- Analytics Case Study.
byNandhuNandha1
 
US Digital Fan Engagement Index 2026: Benchmarking Online Demand for Sports T...
byHyperset Group Ltd
 
LECTURE - Overcoming the AI Failure Rate - AIG, DQM.pdf
bySami Laine
 
Khan Traders Fish Meal – MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
byKhan Traders Karachi
 
PathRAG rag pipeline PathRAG rag pipeline .pdf
byhotslix023
 
WORLD-LITERATURE-2ND-SEMESTER2025-2026.pdf
byCHERIEMAYCAMO
 
Trustworthy AI : Governance of AI through Ethics
byKarim Baïna
 
Understanding Data Analytics: Concepts, Types, and Use Cases
byThe IoT Academy
 
The Singularity Sprint (2026): Neuralink + the AI Arms Race — Ridwan Sassman
byridwansassman
 
Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27: Major Announcements and their Impact
byDeeshiPavecha
 
data collection tool ppt.ppttttdataadfttg
byMuhammadodil
 
Data Analyst Training Course | Advanced Data Analytics Certification | GVT Ac...
byGVT Academy
 
Social Media Audit of Starbucks Coffee Company.pptx
bydiviap21
 

Featured

PDF
2024 Trend Updates: What Really Works In SEO & Content Marketing
bySearch Engine Journal
 
PDF
Storytelling For The Web: Integrate Storytelling in your Design Process
byChiara Aliotta
 
PDF
Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition – SCHREPEL – June 2024 OECD dis...
byOECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs
 
PDF
How to Leverage AI to Boost Employee Wellness - Lydia Di Francesco - SocialHR...
bySocialHRCamp
 
PDF
2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot
byMarius Sescu
 
PDF
Everything You Need To Know About ChatGPT
byExpeed Software
 
PDF
Product Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage Engineerings
byPixeldarts
 
PDF
How Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental Health
byThinkNow
 
PDF
AI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdf
bymarketingartwork
 
PDF
Skeleton Culture Code
bySkeleton Technologies
 
PDF
PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024
byNeil Kimberley
 
PDF
Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)
bycontently
 
PPTX
How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024
byAlbert Qian
 
PDF
Social Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie Insights
byKurio // The Social Media Age(ncy)
 
PDF
Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024
bySearch Engine Journal
 
PDF
5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary
bySpeakerHub
 
PDF
ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd
byClark Boyd
 
PDF
Getting into the tech field. what next
byTessa Mero
 
PDF
Google's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search Intent
byLily Ray
 
PDF
How to have difficult conversations
byRajiv Jayarajah, MAppComm, ACC
 
2024 Trend Updates: What Really Works In SEO & Content Marketing
bySearch Engine Journal
 
Storytelling For The Web: Integrate Storytelling in your Design Process
byChiara Aliotta
 
Artificial Intelligence, Data and Competition – SCHREPEL – June 2024 OECD dis...
byOECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs
 
How to Leverage AI to Boost Employee Wellness - Lydia Di Francesco - SocialHR...
bySocialHRCamp
 
2024 State of Marketing Report – by Hubspot
byMarius Sescu
 
Everything You Need To Know About ChatGPT
byExpeed Software
 
Product Design Trends in 2024 | Teenage Engineerings
byPixeldarts
 
How Race, Age and Gender Shape Attitudes Towards Mental Health
byThinkNow
 
AI Trends in Creative Operations 2024 by Artwork Flow.pdf
bymarketingartwork
 
Skeleton Culture Code
bySkeleton Technologies
 
PEPSICO Presentation to CAGNY Conference Feb 2024
byNeil Kimberley
 
Content Methodology: A Best Practices Report (Webinar)
bycontently
 
How to Prepare For a Successful Job Search for 2024
byAlbert Qian
 
Social Media Marketing Trends 2024 // The Global Indie Insights
byKurio // The Social Media Age(ncy)
 
Trends In Paid Search: Navigating The Digital Landscape In 2024
bySearch Engine Journal
 
5 Public speaking tips from TED - Visualized summary
bySpeakerHub
 
ChatGPT and the Future of Work - Clark Boyd
byClark Boyd
 
Getting into the tech field. what next
byTessa Mero
 
Google's Just Not That Into You: Understanding Core Updates & Search Intent
byLily Ray
 
How to have difficult conversations
byRajiv Jayarajah, MAppComm, ACC
 

Systematic Review of JSATS Passage and Survival Data at Bonneville and The Dalles Dams during Alternate Turbine and Spillbay Operations from 2008- 2012

  • 1.
    Systematic Review ofJSATS Passage and Survival Data at Bonneville and The Dalles Dams during Alternate Turbine and Spillbay Operations from 2008- 2012 MARK WEILAND, BISHES RAYAMAJHI, JINA KIM, CHRISTA WOODLEY, GENE PLOSKEY, JON RERECICH1 AND BRAD EPPARD1 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 1U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, OR
  • 2.
    Introduction: BON Operation ofBonneville Dam to reduce fish injury B2 operation at low to mid range of 1% peak efficiency Improve conditions for guided fish in the gatewell May result in unfavorable conditions for turbine passed fish B1 increase flow to offset reduced discharge at B2 Compare survival within to above the 1% operating range Best operating point (range) as identified by TSP Spillway survival variability Erosion of stilling basin or ogees in several spill bays and accumulation of rock 2
  • 3.
    Objectives: BON Analyze 2008-2012JSATS and operations data to examine survival rates for juvenile salmonids at BON B2 Turbine Survival Comparison: Examine survival for fish passing turbines operating across the 1% peak efficiency range B1 Turbine Survival Comparison: Examine survival for fish passing turbines operating within the 1% peak efficiency range and above the upper limit of the 1% operating range Bonneville Spillway: Examine spillway survival by spillbay with focus on those bays where erosion of the ogee or stilling basin immediately downstream had occurred 3
  • 4.
    Methods: BON B1 turbines Lowerquarter of 1% efficiency (Q1) Lower middle quarter of 1% efficiency (Q2) Upper middle quarter of 1% efficiency (Q3) 1% of peak efficiency (Q4) Best operating point/range (BOP) Above best operating point to generator limit (ABOP) B2 turbines Lower quarter of 1% efficiency (Q1) Lower middle quarter of 1% efficiency (Q2) Upper middle quarter of 1% efficiency (Q3) 1% of peak efficiency (Q4) BON spillway By bay Group bays 4
  • 5.
    Methods: B1 andB2 Binned Operating Ranges 5 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 67 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) B1 Turbine Operating Range Best Op Point UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% Above BOP Best Operating Point Q4 Q3 Q1 Q2 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 32 37 42 47 52 57 62 67 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) B2 Turbine Operating Range (w/STS) UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1%Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
  • 6.
    BON B1 SurvivalBy Species and Operation 6
  • 7.
    Analyses: BON B1 CH1Passage Distribution 7 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) Best Op Range UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% Best Op Range Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Above BOR 2010 2011 2012
  • 8.
    Analyses: BON B1 CH1Survival by Operating Condition Survival Survival 4933321603 1935 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 LL to UL LL to BOP UL to BOP ABOP 22 1008215235 145 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
  • 9.
    Analyses: BON B1 STHPassage Distribution 9 2010 2011 2012 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) Best Op Range UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% Best Op Range Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Above BOR
  • 10.
    Analyses: BON B1 STHSurvival by Operating Condition Survival Survival 4933341861 2195 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 LL to UL LL to BOP UL to BOP ABOP 21 204 1199306 152 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
  • 11.
    Analyses: BON B1 CH0Passage Distribution 11 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) Best Op Range UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% 2010 2011 2012 Best Op Range Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Above BOR
  • 12.
    Analyses: BON B1 CH0Survival by Operating Condition Survival Survival 3801407 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 LL to UL LL to BOP UL to BOP ABOP 1787 3 118711647 57 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
  • 13.
    BON B1 Survivalat Lower & Upper BOP 13
  • 14.
    7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 5262 72 VR_B1_T_CH1_UBOP VR_B1_T_CH1_LBOP Best Op Point UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 Above BOP Best Op Point Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Analyses: BON B1 CH1 Survival within BOP 14
  • 15.
    Analyses: BON B1 STHSurvival within BOP 15 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 52 62 72 VR_B1_T_STH_UBOP VR_B1_T_STH_LBOP Best Op Point UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 Above BOP Best Op Point Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
  • 16.
    Analyses: BON B1 CH0Survival within BOP 16 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 32 42 52 62 72 VR_B1_T_CH0_LBOP Best Op Point UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1% Above BOP Best Op Point Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
  • 17.
    BON B2 SurvivalBy Species and Operation 17
  • 18.
    Analyses: BON B2 CH1Passage by Quartile 18 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1%
  • 19.
    19 Analyses: BON B2 CH1Survival by Operating ConditionSurvival 24 759 574 267 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 469
  • 20.
    Analyses: BON B2 STHPassage Distribution 20 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1%
  • 21.
    Analyses: BON B2 STHSurvival by Operating Condition 21 14 202541 376 146 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Survival
  • 22.
    Analyses: BON B2 CH0Passage Distribution 22 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 9000 11000 13000 15000 17000 19000 21000 32 42 52 62 72 Discharge(cfs) HEAD (ft) UL_Q4 = UL_1% UL_Q3 UL_Q2 UL_Q1 LL_Q1 = LL_1%
  • 23.
    Analyses: BON B2 CH0Survival by Operating Condition 23 22 1444298 501 384 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 <1% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Survival
  • 24.
    B2: STS vsNo STS, 2008 & 2011 CH1 Estimate s.e. Count 2008 With STS_Q4 0.9320 0.0414 69 Without STS_Q4 0.8299 0.0617 61 2011 With STS_Q4 0.9414 0.0495 50 Without STS_Q4 0.9369 0.0601 37 With STS_Q3_Q4 0.9511 0.0338 125 Without STS_Q3_Q4 0.9771 0.0494 50 STH Estimate s.e. Count 2008 With STS_Q4 0.9339 0.071 29 Without STS_Q4 1.0417 0.2039 24 2011 With STS_Q4 0.9000 0.0987 15 Without STS_Q4 0.9231 0.0739 13 With STS_Q3_Q4 0.8907 0.0553 45 Without STS_Q3_Q4 0.9790 0.0527 22
  • 25.
  • 26.
    576 791 783 650 559 385 384 387 309 320 350317 346 385 454 600 729 351 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Yearling Chinook Analyses: BON Spillway CH1 and STH Survival by Bay 26 SurvivalSurvival 521 623 650 493 459 301 332 322 330 350 318 333 379 450 620 333 717 552 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Steelhead
  • 27.
    Analyses: BON Spillway CH1and STH Survival, Grouped Bays 27 2150 1978 1683 1185 1680 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1794 1585 1653 1162 1889 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Survival Survival Steelhead Yearling Chinook
  • 28.
    Analyses: BON Spillway Survivalby Grouped Bays 28 371 340 242 244 319 479 365 323 260 339 776 617 641 423 712 524 656 477 258 310 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Bay01-03 Bay04-07 Bay08-12 Bay13-15 Bay16-18 2008 2010 2011 2012 Survival Yearling Chinook 335 315 276 262 295 344 235 306 178 300 677 524 623 426 861 438 511 448 296 433 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Bay01-03 Bay04-07 Bay08-12 Bay13-15 Bay16-18 2008 2010 2011 2012 Steelhead Survival
  • 29.
    Analyses: BON Spillway CH0Survival by Bay 29 Survival 496 548 668 1021 599 503 404 322 293 357 425 326 362 310 437 574 622 331 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Subyearling Chinook
  • 30.
    Analyses: BON Spillway CH0Survival, Grouped Bays 30 1712 2527 1723 1109 1527 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Survival
  • 31.
    Analyses: BON Spillway Survivalby Bays, CH0 31 509 513 493 265 499 477 422 326 204 358 726 1592 904 640 670 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Bay01-03 Bay04-07 Bay08-12 Bay13-15 Bay16-18 2008 2010 2012 Sub-Yearling Chinook Survival
  • 32.
    Analyses: BON Spillway CH1and STH Survival by Discharge 32 808 3279 175 356 311 193 507 141 137 218 214 241 154 184 134 235 286 269 261 363 209 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Discharge (kcfs) Yearling Chinook Survival 603 2765 158 333 321 269 469 118 121 283 259 211 134 178 122 273 310 245 303 418 190 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 Discharge (kcfs) Survival Steelhead
  • 33.
    Analyses: BON Spillway CH0Survival by Discharge 33 1279 873 536 495 937 457 1192 870 868 303 100 214 129 256 89 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 y = 0.0004x + 0.8979 R² = 0.6299 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Survival Discharge (kcfs) Survival Discharge (kcfs)
  • 34.
    BON Survival byTailwater Elevation 34
  • 35.
    90 236 706 928 780 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 ≤5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m 92 165 623 862 708 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m Analyses: BON B1 Survival by Tailwater Level Yearling Chinook Survival Steelhead Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.9868 1.0378 0.9358 6m 1.0052 1.0350 0.9754 7m 0.9643 0.9800 0.9486 8m 0.9635 0.9766 0.9504 ≥ 9m 0.9652 0.9915 0.9389 Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.8575 0.9408 0.7742 6m 0.9403 0.9732 0.9074 7m 0.9369 0.9551 0.9187 8m 0.9468 0.9617 0.9319 ≥ 9m 0.9306 0.9559 0.9053 35 Survival TimeatTWEL TimeatTWEL
  • 36.
    103 132 568 815 172 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m7m 8m ≥ 9m Analyses: BON B1 Survival by Tailwater Level Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.8939 0.9537 0.8341 6m 0.9811 1.0070 0.9552 7m 0.9604 0.9776 0.9432 8m 0.9517 0.9668 0.9366 ≥ 9m 0.9483 0.9816 0.9150 Survival 36 Sub-Yearling Chinook TimeatTWEL
  • 37.
    1067 367 243 216 106 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m7m 8m ≥ 9m Analyses: BON B2 Survival by Tailwater Level Survival Survival 37 TimeatTWEL TimeatTWEL Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.8596 0.8819 0.8373 6m 0.8955 0.9288 0.8622 7m 0.9846 1.0052 0.9640 8m 0.8953 0.9378 0.8528 ≥ 9m 0.9144 0.9775 0.8513 Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.877 0.0089 1547 6m 0.951 0.0106 556 7m 0.958 0.0102 490 8m 0.960 0.0091 534 ≥ 9m 0.917 0.0222 264 Yearling Chinook Steelhead 1547 556 490 534 264 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤5m 6m 7m 8m ≥9m
  • 38.
    1227 280 398 1375315 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m Bin S. Estimate +95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.8720 0.8910 0.8530 6m 0.9440 0.9712 0.9168 7m 0.9454 0.9685 0.9223 8m 0.9522 0.9640 0.9404 ≥ 9m 0.9663 0.9867 0.9459 Analyses: BON B2 Survival by Tailwater Level Survival 38 TimeatTWEL Sub-Yearling Chinook
  • 39.
    1197 1678 1518 1886 2397 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤ 5m6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m 892 1413 1385 1955 2490 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m 7m 8m ≥ 9m Analyses: BON Spillway Survival by Tailwater Level Survival Survival Bin S. Estimate + 95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.9333 0.9482 0.9184 6m 0.9505 0.9638 0.9372 7m 0.9331 0.9460 0.9202 8m 0.9434 0.9550 0.9318 ≥ 9m 0.9461 0.9624 0.9298 Bin S. Estimate + 95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.9474 0.9641 0.9307 6m 0.9543 0.9686 0.9400 7m 0.9339 0.9474 0.9204 8m 0.9378 0.9496 0.9260 ≥ 9m 0.9613 0.9750 0.9476 39 TimeatTWEL TimeatTWEL Yearling Chinook Steelhead
  • 40.
    996 683 2478 4031 410 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 ≤ 5m 6m7m 8m ≥ 9m 40 Analyses: BON Spillway Survival by Tailwater Level Bin S. Estimate + 95 CI -95 CI ≤ 5m 0.9050 0.9234 0.8866 6m 0.9210 0.9418 0.9002 7m 0.9508 0.9598 0.9418 8m 0.9672 0.9729 0.9615 ≥ 9m 0.9709 0.9872 0.9546 Survival TimeatTWEL Sub-Yearling Chinook
  • 41.
  • 42.
    BON: CH1 TailraceEgress B1 and B2 42 BON ROUTE Treatment Mean StdErr Min Max Median N B1 ABO 4.23 0.70 0.21 200.41 0.30 485 BOP 5.90 1.67 0.24 281.36 0.37 286 Q4 3.55 0.57 0.24 273.35 0.37 860 Q3 2.43 0.82 0.23 110.46 0.38 189 Q2 3.36 1.15 0.28 102.24 0.44 136 Q1 6.40 2.10 0.27 280.27 0.46 234 <1% 15.43 14.73 0.25 310.11 0.53 21 B2 Q4 5.92 0.29 0.25 42.82 6.79 340 Q3 3.85 0.35 0.29 14.63 0.75 166 Q2 3.52 0.26 0.25 33.28 0.71 452 Q1 4.29 0.27 0.28 61.72 0.71 685 <1% 8.92 0.79 0.58 18.77 8.45 26
  • 43.
    BON: STH TailraceEgress B1 and B2 BON ROUTE Treatment Mean StdErr Min Max Median N B1 ABO 15.11 2.21 0.20 415.51 0.42 476 BOP 23.96 3.49 0.25 404.61 0.58 282 Q4 17.14 1.39 0.24 419.08 0.52 1013 Q3 7.75 2.10 0.26 225.21 0.63 146 Q2 9.84 4.57 0.25 589.93 0.57 146 Q1 8.51 1.69 0.25 254.90 0.60 301 <1% 6.61 4.55 0.31 87.32 0.77 19 B2 Q4 5.95 0.33 0.22 21.13 6.95 165 Q3 5.08 1.13 0.21 105.44 0.83 116 Q2 3.68 0.48 0.22 138.40 0.82 333 Q1 3.40 0.24 0.26 48.20 0.79 492 <1% 5.98 0.86 0.25 10.24 6.74 14
  • 44.
    BON: CH0 TailraceEgress B1 and B2 BON ROUTE Treatment Mean StdErr Min Max Median N B1 BOP 4.33 0.68 0.27 127.56 0.40 363 Q4 3.81 0.68 0.24 622.50 0.40 1148 Q3 1.67 0.53 0.25 44.93 0.39 116 Q2 1.22 0.56 0.32 31.24 0.44 56 Q1 2.17 1.45 0.29 68.26 0.46 47 <1% 0.81 0.13 0.56 0.97 0.90 3 B2 Q4 3.62 0.13 0.19 32.29 0.72 1320 Q3 4.98 1.47 0.21 530.52 0.74 364 Q2 4.07 0.24 0.22 18.89 0.79 411 Q1 6.39 0.32 0.29 26.43 7.45 266 <1% 11.35 1.64 1.03 27.60 11.01 14
  • 45.
    BON: CH1 TailraceEgress Spillway SP10 Mean StdErr Min Max Median N 70 0.83 0.16 0.38 3.07 0.53 18 80 1.76 1.13 0.33 306.51 0.51 271 90 1.54 0.13 0.32 16.68 0.48 472 100 1.88 0.09 0.19 157.14 0.43 2992 110 0.86 0.21 0.29 26.45 0.39 146 120 1.14 0.18 0.26 38.92 0.38 288 130 0.39 0.03 0.26 6.73 0.35 251 140 0.53 0.12 0.26 12.85 0.34 126 150 1.69 0.16 0.23 18.30 0.33 352 160 0.32 0.00 0.24 0.51 0.31 113 170 3.84 0.86 0.25 68.85 0.35 84 180 2.59 0.26 0.23 17.49 0.33 176 190 6.35 0.31 0.22 42.81 6.41 175 200 4.32 0.29 0.20 16.78 5.25 199 210 5.15 0.30 0.13 16.17 6.03 119 220 6.02 0.18 0.22 20.18 6.05 154 230 3.62 0.37 0.01 12.29 5.11 89 240 2.84 0.33 0.01 12.26 0.40 105 250 0.56 0.13 0.02 11.04 0.28 125 260 0.29 0.01 0.01 0.94 0.27 136 270 0.29 0.02 0.02 2.11 0.27 110 280 0.29 0.01 0.01 1.14 0.28 129 290 0.26 0.02 0.01 0.61 0.26 39 300 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.70 0.28 16
  • 46.
    BON: STH TailraceEgress Spillway SP10 Mean StdErr Min Max Median N 70 0.50 0.08 0.39 0.65 0.47 3 80 0.66 0.05 0.35 7.76 0.47 163 90 2.21 0.34 0.31 91.65 0.45 411 100 1.97 0.28 0.28 614.65 0.42 2537 110 0.64 0.10 0.29 6.62 0.38 123 120 1.95 0.17 0.27 11.14 0.38 292 130 0.57 0.07 0.26 7.17 0.35 252 140 0.53 0.09 0.25 11.92 0.32 175 150 1.40 0.13 0.23 12.13 0.33 321 160 0.46 0.07 0.25 5.74 0.31 105 170 3.18 0.34 0.22 13.22 3.05 73 180 2.57 0.20 0.11 10.49 0.38 213 190 5.17 0.37 0.22 70.37 5.14 205 200 3.41 0.22 0.05 14.68 4.46 167 210 4.38 0.25 0.19 11.32 4.94 95 220 5.10 0.13 0.19 9.19 5.13 132 230 3.85 0.34 0.10 16.41 4.89 75 240 2.04 0.24 0.11 7.43 0.42 90 250 0.57 0.14 0.01 13.65 0.30 116 260 0.33 0.02 0.02 2.15 0.29 133 270 0.55 0.22 0.03 22.94 0.31 103 280 0.31 0.02 0.01 1.73 0.29 142 290 0.32 0.03 0.03 0.70 0.29 39 300 0.30 0.05 0.01 0.53 0.33 8
  • 47.
    BON: CH0 TailraceEgress Spillway SP10 v StdErr Min Max Median N 80 6.72 0.29 0.40 18.00 6.88 130 90 6.34 0.15 0.34 40.68 7.15 985 100 1.67 0.11 0.31 21.46 0.47 814 110 5.75 0.22 0.31 47.89 6.91 474 120 1.08 0.10 0.27 11.91 0.38 471 130 2.69 0.16 0.26 26.07 0.37 860 140 2.85 0.22 0.26 24.85 0.36 408 150 0.99 0.08 0.23 50.35 0.33 1130 160 1.38 0.11 0.23 23.80 0.31 801 170 1.71 0.13 0.23 23.51 0.31 744 180 1.26 0.80 0.22 217.95 0.30 275 190 0.44 0.11 0.23 10.71 0.28 99 200 3.36 0.40 0.21 22.72 0.29 205 210 0.35 0.04 0.21 4.13 0.28 126 220 0.29 0.02 0.19 4.40 0.26 242 230 0.29 0.02 0.19 1.06 0.25 78
  • 48.
    Conclusions: BON 48 B1 There wasnot a difference in survival for salmonids passing within the 1% of peak operating efficiency and salmonids passing at operations above the upper 1% operating efficiency B2 Lower survival for CH1 in Q4 range No difference in survival for STH across operating range No difference in survival for CH0 across operating range Spillway No obvious bay affect Lower survival of CH1 and STH above 290 kcfs discharge Trend of lower survival for CH0 at low discharge levels
  • 49.
    Introduction: TDA Introduction High flowsforced spill discharge at bays outside the new tailrace spillway wall. Concern of lower survival due to predation Objective Examined spillway passage survival for juvenile salmonids passing on the north (spillbays 1-8) and south (spillbays 9-23) of the new spill wall at TDA 2010-2012 JSATS datasets 49
  • 50.
    6021 487 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay01-08 Bay09-22 Analyses:TDA Survival Within and Outside of Spill Wall 50 Yearling Chinook Survival Survival Steelhead 6594 666 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay01-08 Bay09-22 5040 141 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay01-08 Bay09-22 Subyearling Chinook Survival Bay09-23 Bay09-23 Bay09-23
  • 51.
    435 231 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay09-12 Bay13-22 Survival 304183 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay09-12 Bay13-22 Analyses: TDA Survival Outside of Spill Wall, Grouped Bays 51 Yearling Chinook Survival Steelhead Subyearling Chinook Survival Bay13-23 Bay13-23 Bay13-23
  • 52.
    1589 2360 1976730 1080 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=72k 96k 120k 144k >=168k 1350 2523 2249 946 1320 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=72k 96k 120k 144k >=168k Analyses: TDA Survival Grouped by Flow 52 Survival %TimeatDischarge Survival %TimeatDischarge Steelhead Yearling Chinook
  • 53.
    710 646 3600 915 889 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=72k 96k120k 144k >=168k Analyses: TDA Survival Grouped by Flow 53 Subyearling Chinook Survival %TimeatDischarge
  • 54.
  • 55.
    Analyses: TDA Survival byBay for All Years 55 513 704 710 808 892 925 1034 2150 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay 01 Bay 02 Bay 03 Bay 04 Bay 05 Bay 06 Bay 07 Bay 08 Survival Yearling Chinook Steelhead Survival 581 727 715 787 747 980 1113 2740 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay 01 Bay 02 Bay 03 Bay 04 Bay 05 Bay 06 Bay 07 Bay 08
  • 56.
    Analyses: TDA Survival byBay for All Years 56 410 654 750 787 833 901 864 1561 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 Bay 01 Bay 02 Bay 03 Bay 04 Bay 05 Bay 06 Bay 07 Bay 08 Survival Sub-Yearling Chinook
  • 57.
    Analyses: TDA Survival byFlow, 2010, 2011, 2012 57 816 773 502 1488 890 996 563 191 335 1181 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=70k 80k 90k 100k 110k 120k 130k 140k 150k >=160k Survival %TimeatDischarge 769 581 507 1546 1071 1158 599 224 436 1497 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=70k 80k 90k 100k 110k 120k 130k 140k 150k >=160k Survival %TimeatDischarge Steelhead Yearling Chinook
  • 58.
    298 412 314 153 466 986 2436 562152 981 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 <=70k 80k 90k 100k 110k 120k 130k 140k 150k >=160k Analyses: TDA Survival by Flow, 2010, 2011, 2012 58 Sub-Yearling Chinook Survival %TimeatDischarge
  • 59.
  • 60.
    TDA: CH1 TailraceEgress Spillway 60 CH1 SP24 Min Max Mean StdErr Median N TR_EGR_TIME 48 0.28 153.02 1.69 0.83 0.47 210 72 0 367.24 1.14 0.35 0.36 1233 96 0 475.07 2.14 0.69 0.27 858 120 0.01 156.4 0.9 0.34 0.21 663 144 0.1 120.33 0.49 0.26 0.16 464 168 0.11 0.44 0.16 0 0.14 227 312 0.14 0.14 0.14 0 0.14 2
  • 61.
    TDA: STH TailraceEgress Spillway STH SP24 Min Max Mean StdErr Median N TR_EGR_TIME 48 0.27 201.79 1.63 1.05 0.42 192 72 0 24.1 0.44 0.03 0.33 1060 96 0 52.84 0.43 0.08 0.25 1006 120 0 55.83 0.31 0.07 0.2 838 144 0.1 3.81 0.21 0.01 0.15 610 168 0.1 0.78 0.16 0 0.14 338 312 0.14 0.14 0.14 0 0.14 2
  • 62.
    TDA: CH0 TailraceEgress Spillway CH0 SP24 Mean StdErr Min Max Mean N TR_EGR_TIME 48 5.98 5.39 0.26 194.7 5.98 36 72 0.73 0.15 0.16 65.88 0.73 560 96 0.8 0.29 0.11 145.41 0.8 586 120 0.57 0.13 0.12 324.61 0.57 3436 144 0.84 0.42 0.11 324.19 0.84 870 168 1.82 0.98 0.11 449.89 1.82 648 216 18.26 12.55 0.17 324.49 18.26 36 240 0.24 0.01 0.15 0.48 0.24 84 312 0.18 0 0.12 0.54 0.18 168
  • 63.
    Conclusions: TDA There wasnot a difference in survival of juvenile salmonids passing at spillbays 1-8 and spillbays 9-23 There was lower survival of CH0 at discharge below 72 kcfs 63