Appendix A: Overview of Fish Passage and Protection Technologies in the Basin A

ABSTRACT1 Fish passage research began with the study of ommercial exploitation of Columbia the fish ladders, which passed River salmon and steelhead began in the adult migrants very successfully. During the mid-1800s. Concurrent with commer- early stages of dam construction conventional cial exploitation of adult fish was modi- wisdom was that juvenile fish were not injured C during passage through hydro turbines so smolt fication and destruction of spawning and rearing habitat by various landuse practices. In addition, passage through dams was not a topic of survivorship of downstream migrants was nega- research. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tively affected by unscreened irrigation diver- (COE) built a research laboratory at Bonneville sions and entrainment of smolt in irrigation Dam that was used for 30 years to study the water. By 1920, prior to construction of main- behavioral response of adult migrants to ele- stem dams, it was clear that the salmonid stocks ments of fish ladder design. The research con- of the Columbia River had been reduced signifi- ducted at the laboratory made major cantly. contributions to the success of fish ladders at Construction of mainstem dams created addi- other Columbia River Dams. Although adult tional challenges to the migration of adult and migration behavior research continues to the juvenile fish in addition to causing additional present, its focus is on broader ecological ques- habitat degradation. The single most significant tions. impact to Columbia River salmon stocks was the Research of juvenile fish passage began with construction of , which was development and evaluation of screens for irriga- built without fish ladders and eliminated all the tion diversions. Continued research in this area stocks originating above the dam site. for over half a century has resulted in irrigation diversion screens that are effective in preventing juvenile migrants from being entrained in irriga-

1 This appendix is derived from T.J. Carlson, “Overview of Aspects of the Development of Adult and Juvenile Migrating Fish Passage and Protection Technologies Within the Columbia River Basin,” unpublished contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, , DC, July 1995. | 121 122 | Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities

tion water. Current research efforts are focused and turbulent water, and explored parts of the on evaluation of behavioral barriers using infra- lower Columbia in the spring of 1792. It was sound that will reduce the movement of juveniles Capt. Gray who gave the river its European past the headworks of irrigation diversions. name. Several years later, in 1805, Lewis and Juvenile fish passage research at mainstem Clark traveled down the Columbia, reaching the dams has been mostly concerned with prevention Pacific Coast in November. The reports of Lewis of juveniles from passing through turbines. Since and Clark documented the many rapids and falls the early 1960s turbine intake screens have been in the Columbia River that initially were simply in development to divert juveniles from turbine hazards to navigation but later were exploited for intakes and into bypass facilities for return to the hydropower production. They also documented river or transport. Most of the mainstem dams the richness of the salmon and steelhead runs to have been equipped with intake screens, and a the river and their use by the native population major portion of the juveniles passing down the (21,43,45). Snake River are collected for transport. There has been considerable discussion of the Investigations conducted in the 1960s showed historical size of salmon and steelhead runs to that surface oriented flows were effective under the Columbia River. Estimates range from highs some conditions in attracting juvenile migrants around 35 million to lows in the region of 6 to 7 to alternative bypass routes prior to turbine pas- million. For planning purposes, the Northwest sage. Subsequent research has further developed Power Planning Council (NPPC), created by act surface collection of smolts. Surface collection of Congress in 1980 to develop and oversee has been successfully developed at Wells Dam implementation of a program for restoration of on the upper Columbia River, where over 90 per- Columbia River stocks, estimated that the histor- cent of smolts are passed by the dam through ical run sizes ranged between 12.5 to 13 million modified spill bays utilizing less than 5 percent fish (59). Current run sizes are on the order of 2.5 of the hydraulic capacity of the dam’s power- million fish, which amounts to a loss, on average, house. Major surface collection research pro- of approximately 10 million fish (43). Research grams were initiated in 1995 by private utilities continues to try to better understand the histori- and the COE. Preliminary results are very cal production of Columbia River Basin salmon encouraging and surface collection has become a and steelhead. Discussion of the historical carry- major focus for current smolt passage research. ing capacity of the Columbia River Basin is of more than academic interest as efforts to restore habitat and recover stocks begin to focus on INTRODUCTION identification of critical habitat for restoration The Columbia River is the second largest river in and targets for stocking levels. Of particular the continental United States in terms of volume, interest are recent efforts at template analyses of with a total length of over 1,200 miles. Histori- the many habitat features and climatic trends that cally, flows in the lower Columbia often exceed influence ecosystem carrying capacity and dis- 200,000 cubic feet per second, with wild fluctua- cussions of the recovery potential of discreet tions following snow melt and rains in the stocks (38). spring. The Columbia drains 258,000 square Although certainly exploited through aborigi- miles, an area larger than several states. The nal times, intensive commercial exploitation of watershed extends into four Northwest states: salmon and steelhead didn’t begin until the mid- Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho. 1800s. Early efforts at commercial exploitation Documented exploration of the Columbia of salmon by salting and shipping to eastern U.S. River by Europeans began in the late 1700s with markets were unsuccessful because of poor prod- Capt. Robert Gray, who crossed the Columbia uct quality. However, the introduction of canning River bar, a treacherous area of strong currents in 1866 provided the means to preserve salmon Appendix A: Fish Passage and Protection Technologies in the Columbia River Basin | 123

quality over the long periods required for ship- use of these rivers and streams was clear. As ping while delivering a desirable product at low early as 1848 the Oregon Territory had laws pro- cost. With this innovation the commercial hibiting obstruction of access to spawning and exploitation of salmon and steelhead started in rearing habitat by dams or other means. How- earnest. Unlike today, the large quantities of ever, the laws were not rigorously enforced and salmon available and low cost of production many dams were constructed that were barriers made salmon a cheap food for the working class to fish. By the early 1930s, prior to construction (43). of mainstem dams, it was reported that dams on Analysts partition the historical commercial the Columbia River and its tributaries had elimi- exploitation of Columbia River salmon and steel- nated access by fish to approximately 50 percent head into several phases. The period from 1866 of the most valuable salmon production areas. In to present may be divided into four phases: initial addition, because of the state of the art in design development of the fishery (1866-1888); a period and operation of fish ladders, many early of sustained harvest with an average annual catch attempts at providing passage for adult migrants of about 25 million pounds (1888-1922); were failures. An example was Sunbeam Dam, resource decline with an average annual harvest constructed on a tributary to the Salmon River to of 15 million pounds (1923-1958); and mainte- provide electric power for gold dredges. While nance at a depressed level of production of about Idaho Fish and Game evaluated the dam’s fish 5 million pounds (1958 to present) (38). Addi- ladder as useless, the dam was permitted to oper- tional declines recently may indicate a new lower ate for 20 years until 1934, earning the reputation level of production and a fifth phase of exploita- of perhaps being the primary reason for loss of tion. Another, similar analysis utilizes essentially Redfish Lake sockeye salmon, now listed as an the same periods with the exception of dividing endangered species (43). the period of decline (1923-1958) into two seg- Significant dangers also existed for down- ments bracketing the years prior to and following stream migrants beginning during the earliest mainstem dam construction (46). stages of settlement of the Columbia River Exploitation rates, the percentage of the total Basin. As early as the 1870s large losses of smolt run caught, at the height of commercial exploita- to irrigation diversions were observed. There tion are estimated to have been in excess of 80 were hundreds of larger irrigation diversions and percent compared to estimated aboriginal exploi- perhaps thousands of smaller ones as farmers tation rates of approximately 15 percent (19). withdrew water for crops. Most of these diver- Beginning with commercial exploitation and sions were unscreened, and untold millions of continuing in some cases until the mid-1940s, a smolt and other juvenile fish were annually wide range of traps, nets, and other miscella- drawn into the diversions, ultimately ending up neous fishing gear were utilized to capture fish. with the water on crops. In the early 1900s, laws As late as the 1940s, gear such as large seines passed much earlier but not rigorously enforced were used to take up to 70,000 pounds of salmon were amended, ordering irrigators and others on single days. Such gear was not outlawed by operating water diversions to comply with both Washington and Oregon until 1949 (21,43). screening laws. While many wanted to comply Coincident with commercial exploitation was with the law, screening devices to do the job widespread settlement of the Columbia River were not available. It wasn’t until 1911 that a Basin with accompanying natural resource revolving drum screening device was invented exploitation in the form of mining, logging, and and in evaluation (21). There were myriad other agriculture. Use of the many tributaries to the less obvious impacts to salmon populations from Columbia and Snake Rivers by anadromous fish agricultural practice. An example is the loss of was very obvious to the early settlers, and the riparian vegetation by logging, the conduct of potential damage to fish stocks by inappropriate farming, or destruction by cattle. Loss of riparian 124 | Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities

cover probably caused heating of stream water, During the three decades following construc- negatively impacting adult migration and tion of Grand Coulee, eight more large dams degrading the rearing environment for juveniles. were constructed on the mainstem Columbia and Review of history shows that Columbia River four on the lower Snake River. All but four of Basin salmon and steelhead stocks had been very these dams were built by the federal government. significantly reduced from historic levels prior to In 1937, near completion of construction of Bon- construction of mainstem dams. The losses neville Dam, the Bonneville Power Administra- resulted from a variety of land use practices com- tion (BPA) was created to market the power of mon at the time. Nevertheless, the result was Bonneville Dam and was later responsible for wide-scale habitat modification and destruction marketing the power of the whole Columbia concurrent with dramatic reduction in adult River federal hydropower system. The role of returns through commercial exploitation, sport BPA was changed in a very marked way in 1980 fishing, and high rates of juvenile mortality by when Congress, upon creation of the NPPC with agricultural practice. passage of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power The first dam on the mainstem Columbia Planning and Conservation Act (Public Law 96- River was , which was put into 501), charged BPA with implementation of the service in 1933. Rock Island was a private dam, Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Pro- constructed by the Washington Electric Com- gram to be developed by NPPC for restoration of pany (21). The first federal dam on the Columbia Columbia River salmon and steelhead stocks. was Bonneville Dam, completed in 1938. Bon- The design of mainstem dams was driven by neville was followed by Grand Coulee Dam in several objectives: power production, irrigation, 1941. Considerable thought was put into the flood control, recreation, and navigation. Other design of fish ladders for Bonneville Dam. It was uses were lower priority while the priority of the realized at the time that their success would major objectives changed from time to time. The depend on their ability to attract adult migrants, emphasis on power production for Bonneville so the ladder entrances were supplied with water and Grand Coulee Dams may have been a deci- in addition to that flowing through the ladders to provide attraction flow. The Bonneville design sive factor in the United States winning the Sec- was successful and was studied and used as the ond World War. The large amount of power basis for the design of many other fish ladders available permitted high-volume production of within the Columbia River Basin and elsewhere. aluminum for airplanes and diversion of large Grand Coulee Dam was another matter all amounts of power to the Hanford Works, where together. A high reservoir elevation was needed nuclear materials for the first atomic bombs were to enable pumping of water for irrigation pur- manufactured. However, the sites selected and poses, plus a high-head dam would have greater aspects of the designs of dams did have addi- power production potential. Therefore, in spite of tional negative impacts for fish. In the Snake initial congressional intention for a low-head River, lobbying by the Inland Empire Waterways dam, Grand Coulee was eventually built as a Association resulted in locating the lower Snake high-head dam, almost 550 feet tall. The problem River dams on the mainstem Snake to enable for salmon with a dam as high as Grand Coulee barge transport all the way to Lewiston, Idaho. was that fish ladders were not considered feasi- Mainstem sites were eventually selected even ble for dams over 100 feet high. As a result, fish though the economic return from navigation was ladders were not built as part of Grand Coulee considerably lower than that from power produc- Dam, and salmon runs to all of the upper Colum- tion and the potential for power production was bia River drainage, literally hundreds of miles of greater at tributary sites, which would have rivers and streams and thousands of square miles greatly reduced the impact to Columbia River of habitat, were forever cut off from access. Chinook salmon stocks (43,62). Appendix A: Fish Passage and Protection Technologies in the Columbia River Basin | 125

From the earliest days of fish harvest and nat- icy Act and the Endangered Species Act. Federal ural resource utilization within the Columbia legislation has been augmented up to the present River Basin, there were always advocates for fish by the results of litigation such as the Boldt deci- and investigators working to find ways to lessen sion and the United States v. Oregon (21, 43). the impact of human activities on the fish. How- ever, funding for fish passage research was very ❚ Adult Fish Passage scarce in the early years, partially because state The early years of fish passage research were and federal agencies failed to appreciate the focused on assisting upstream migration by value of systematic fish passage research. Most adults. The first products of this effort were the progress in addressing fish passage issues was successful fish ladders at Bonneville Dam (75). through trial and error experimentation by a A very important factor during the early years of small number of dedicated biologists. Fish pas- sage research was also not given a higher priority fish passage research was the existence of a fish because there was widespread belief that artifi- passage laboratory at Bonneville Dam. The ini- tial focus of the laboratory was to understand the cial propagation of salmon and steelhead could apparent success of the Bonneville fish ladders, overcome habitat losses. It was common during the dam-building decades for habitat lost through their success being a surprise to almost everyone dam construction to be mitigated by construction involved. At the time of construction of the Bon- and operation of fish hatcheries. It would not be neville ladders and, for that matter, a significant until the 1980s that the failings of this strategy period following, virtually nothing was known about the design of fish ladders at the scales were better understood. required for large dams that migrants would react favorably to and use. To meet these research OVERVIEW OF COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN needs the COE built the Bonneville Fisheries FISH PASSAGE RESEARCH: PAST TO Engineering Research Laboratory in 1955. Sig- PRESENT nificant amounts of fish passage research were Well-funded fish passage research did not really conducted at the laboratory until its demise in begin in the Columbia River Basin prior to initia- 1985. Almost all of this work was basic fish tion of construction of large mainstem dams. behavioral research. Typical questions addressed This came about because of an increasing real- included: the rate at which fish ascend fishways; ization in the 1930s by the public that the Colum- maximum swimming velocities of fish; the opti- bia River fish stocks were in serious trouble. mum physical dimensions for fish ladders and Incentive for fish passage research came from other facilities; etc. (20). The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act which Work on aspects of the migration of adult fish was passed in 1934 and amended in 1946 and has been continuous over the intervening years 1958. Initially the act required the U.S. Army and continues to the present. There has been a Corps of Engineers (COE) and other water gradual transition from focus on issues related to development agencies to consult with the states the design and operation of fish ladders to resolu- and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about tion of uncertainties existing within a broader damage to natural resources. The later amend- ecological context. Issues being addressed at ments placed increasing emphasis on natural present at several locations within the Columbia resources, with the 1958 amendment requiring River Basin include habitat use, delays in pas- water development agencies to give conservation sage at irrigation diversions, migration rates, and enhancement of fish and wildlife equal con- substock separation, spawner success and pro- sideration with other project objectives. Later in duction, including causes of prespawning mortal- the 1970s, further emphasis was placed on fish ity, and response of adults to factors such as flow and wildlife by the National Environmental Pol- manipulation for irrigation or power production, 126 | Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities

increased turbidity, and general decreased water tion in delay during outmigration. While listed as quality due to irrigation (17,18,33,34,69). Adult discreet juvenile fish passage concerns, there are passage work has been greatly assisted by devel- interdependencies in the basic biology and opments in radio telemetry and the global posi- behavior of juvenile fish between these elements. tioning system. Improved instrumentation and These interdependencies make experimentation deployment methods now permit adult migrants to isolate an individual element quite difficult to be tracked over long distances with high spa- and also have resulted in overlap between tial and temporal resolution. This work is permit- research programs targeted on specific elements. ting identification of problems that are limiting This overview will be restricted to elements 1) recovery of stocks as well as proving essential in and 2), with emphasis on diversion from turbine developing strategies for other aspects of stock passage by surface collection. restoration. For example, an element of restora- The volume of research conducted in these tion of specific stocks may be hatchery supple- areas, and others, to improve downstream pas- mentation. However, facilities for capture and sage for smolt has been huge. Literally hundreds holding of adult migrants must be located so that of studies, almost all field studies, have been the stock of interest can be segregated from oth- conducted within the last 40 years throughout the ers. Fish tracking studies permit identification of Columbia River Basin. These studies have those places within a watershed where a particu- greatly increased the knowledge base of the lar stock might be isolated for such purposes. behavior and factors influencing the survivorship A system where wide adult migrant radio of smolt. The following sections will provide a tracking study is to be performed beginning in brief overview of this work. This is not intended 1996. The study will be funded by the COE and to be a synoptic review but rather an abbreviated performed primarily by the National Marine guide to provide context for discussion of Fisheries Services with cooperation by various research currently in progress or planned for the other state and federal agencies, universities, and immediate future. private utilities. The primary objective of the study is to observe the migratory behavior of Irrigation Diversion Screening adult salmon as they move through the hydro- As mentioned previously, it was apparent to all power system and onto their spawning grounds who looked back to as early as the mid- to late- (25). Of particular interest are the delay of 1800s that juvenile migrants were being migrants at dams, fallback, straying, and entrained in irrigation diversions and killed on prespawning mortality. The scope of the study farmers’ fields. Early records also show tension includes the hydropower system as a whole, a between the states and the federal government considerable expansion in scope over most previ- during this time. Although the states of Washing- ous studies which tended to be project-specific, ton and Oregon had irrigation diversion screen- thereby very localized in comparison. ing laws as early as 1894, the federal government was not required to comply with the laws. In ❚ 1911, Oregon petitioned the federal government Juvenile Fish Passage for compliance with Oregon state irrigation Protection of juvenile fish during downstream diversion screening laws (21). migration has historically focused in several As an element of the Fish and Wildlife Pro- areas. The areas of major investment in juvenile gram, NPPC has identified screening of irriga- fish passage research have been: 1) protection tion diversions as a priority (58). Irrigation from entrainment in irrigation diversions, 2) diversions range from small, a few cubic feet per diversion from turbine intakes, 3) reduction in second, to large, thousands of cubic feet per sec- mortality due to predation, 4) reduction in expo- ond. Irrigation diversion screens are typically sure to high levels of dissolved gas, and 5) reduc- located downstream from the headworks for the Appendix A: Fish Passage and Protection Technologies in the Columbia River Basin | 127

diversion, sometimes a considerable distance, sage through hydro turbines. By the 1940s it was e.g., several hundreds of meters. Screening facil- clear that passage conditions for fish through tur- ities for midsize and larger diversions typically bines could range from good to awful. Initial have capability at the screening facility for sepa- experiments indicated that direct mortalities ration of smolt from irrigation water. Following through turbines typical of the Columbia River separation, smolt are returned to the mainstream hydropower system were in the range of 15 per- via a fish return conduit. The tolerances for the cent (43). Subsequently, considerable research of mechanical and hydrodynamic elements of fish passage through turbines was conducted in screening facilities are quite tight and must be Europe and the United States (2,24,44). As a kept in tolerance if the facility is to function consequence of this work, operating criteria for properly and protect migrants. Evaluations con- Columbia River hydrosystem turbines was ducted to date indicate that screening facilities developed, the most significant being the man- kept in tolerance do provide high levels of pro- date for operation of turbines at peak efficiency tection to migrants (1,23,35,47,48,49,50,51). during periods of smolt passage. Present research of irrigation diversion screen- There is currently a renewed interest in the ing includes development and evaluation of conditions fish face during passage through tur- behavioral barriers to reduce the number of bines. Both the federal government and private migrants passing through headworks and into utilities are performing studies to reassess inju- diversion canals. The reason for wanting to ries to smolt during passage through turbines. reduce the number of smolt entering the diver- Recent experiments indicate 90-96 percent sur- sion canal is to reduce handling of migrants. vival of juvenile salmon during turbine passage While screening facilities are effective, they do and that the majority of injuries observed are due require that smolt be passed through facilities to to mechanical strike (63,64,65). As a result of separate them from irrigation flow, concentrated study findings, the owners of into a smaller volume of water, and returned to are having the runners of a turbine modified to the mainstream. The effects on smolt behavior reduce the gap between the runner and the hub. and health of these actions are not clear, but the This gap has been identified as the probable general assessment is to avoid them if possible. source for many, perhaps the majority, of The Bonneville Power Administration, in coop- mechanic injuries to juvenile fish during passage eration with COE, has funded research beginning (22). In a comparable effort, COE is in the plan- in 1995 into behavioral barriers. An objective of ning stage of a program to develop turbines that this research is to evaluate the use of infrasound minimize the mortality of juvenile fish (72). to divert smolt at the headworks of irrigation Interest in providing a safer passage environment diversion canals (52). Initial laboratory experi- for juvenile fish is due to the fact that turbine ments recently completed have demonstrated bypass measures have not been and are unlikely avoidance by juvenile Chinook salmon and steel- to prove 100 percent effective. This means that head of high-intensity, high-particle-displace- some percentage of smolt will always pass ment 10-Hz sound. In addition, limited through turbines. Under some conditions and for observations at a small irrigation diversion on the some species more so than others, a considerable Umatilla River during the 1995 smolt outmigra- proportion of a species may pass through tur- tion have shown repulsion of Chinook salmon bines even when turbine bypass measures are smolt from entering the irrigation canal (68). fully implemented because of variation in migra- tory behavior between species and behavioral Turbine Intake Passage and Diversion responses to turbine bypass guidance mecha- At the time of construction of Bonneville Dam, nisms. conventional wisdom was that there was little Upon discovery that hydro turbines could kill danger of juvenile fish being injured during pas- and injure juvenile fish, considerable effort was 128 | Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities

made to develop methods to divert fish from tur- There is considerable contention about the bine intakes. Early studies of the vertical distri- desirability of handling and transporting juvenile bution of smolt entering turbine intakes showed fish. While development, evaluation, and instal- that many juvenile fish were located in the upper lation of turbine intake screens continue, other third of turbine intakes (39), although it was clear bypass alternatives are also being evaluated and, that smaller fish of all species and one or two in the case of spill, utilized on a wide scale. The species in total tended to be more deeply distrib- injury to fish during spill is thought to be signifi- uted (30,37). Experience with irrigation diver- cantly less than turbine passage and potentially sion screens and other similar screens led to even less than for fish diverted by intake screens development of a screen to be deployed in tur- and placed into bypass channels or otherwise bine intakes. Development continued through the handled (67). However, comparisons of the 1960s, resulting in testing in 1969 of a prototype direct injury to smolt passing through turbines, turbine intake screen at Ice Harbor Dam (40). spillways, and bypass systems have not been Studies of prototype screens demonstrated that made at most dams. Assessment of smolt injury large numbers of juvenile fish could be diverted passing through dams via these various routes is by turbine intake screens. When it was found that an element of Phase II of the COE System Con- juvenile fish could be diverted and concentrated figuration Study Program which is at startup in 1995 (25). into bypass facilities, studies were initiated to evaluate the feasibility of transporting the juve- Also an element of Phase II of the COE Sys- niles to below Bonneville Dam, thereby eliminat- tem Configuration Study is assessment of surface ing their exposure to downstream dams. Initial collection as a means of passing juvenile migrants past dams. The idea behind surface col- evaluations showed positive results, and in 1971 lection is to present a flow stimulus to down- a prototype collection and transportation system stream migrants that will take advantage of their was evaluated at Little Goose Dam (43). At the natural outmigration behavior and lead them into present time, collector dams on the Columbia a bypass leading around the dam or into collec- and Snake Rivers collect a significant portion of tion facilities for transport. Surface collection is the total outmigration for transportation by truck not a new concept and has been extensively tested and barge to below Bonneville Dam. with mediocre to poor success at scales consider- Development and evaluation of turbine intake ably smaller than those required at mainstem screens continues to the present as the operation Columbia River dams (27,28,61,66,70,74,73). of those already installed is optimized and the The impetus for retaining surface collection as design of those to be installed is refined. While a viable fish passage measure for mainstem most appear to be operating satisfactorily, not all Columbia and Snake River dams has been obser- intake screens are as effective as the vertical dis- vations over the years of the high effectiveness tribution of juvenile fish would imply. In gen- and efficiency of ice and trash sluiceways, eral, it appears that juvenile fish respond to the present at many Columbia River dams, under modification of flow resulting from the presence certain conditions as a means for bypassing of the intake screens, which, in at least the case migrants. Early investigation of the ice and trash of Rocky Reach Dam, rendered intake screening sluiceway at Bonneville Dam indicated that dur- ineffective as a turbine bypass option (31,32). ing the day a large portion of total migrant pas- Visual observations of the behavior of smolt sage was through the sluiceway, even through upon encounter with turbine intake screens has sluiceway flows were less than 5 percent of led to the hypothesis that the screens may act as project total flow (41). This study lead to the rec- hydromechanical sources of infrasound, which is ommendation that the ice and trash sluiceways at detectable by salmonids and may be the stimulus other projects be evaluated for downstream fish for avoidance response (53,54). passage. In subsequent years similar studies were Appendix A: Fish Passage and Protection Technologies in the Columbia River Basin | 129

performed at The Dalles and Ice Harbor Dams to the depth of the bypass slots. It appears that (5,42,55,60). The findings in all these studies during both day and night periods at least 80 per- were similar. The sluiceways were very effective cent of the smolt approaching Wells Dam are in passing migrants during the day, with effec- located at depths less than 70 feet (71). tiveness decreasing very markedly at night. During the smolt outmigration of 1995, Public While up to 80 percent of migrants passing the Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County tested a dam during the day might pass in sluiceway surface collection prototype at its Rocky Reach flows, sluiceway passage would drop to 20 per- Dam. Characteristics of the operation of the cent or less of total passage at night. It soon Rocky Reach prototype surface collector are became apparent that there were changes in the modeled after the Wells Dam bypass but utilize a vertical distribution of migrants day to night and completely different approach since Rocky that there were probably other aspects of smolt Reach is a classical hydropower dam with sepa- behavior as well that determined the proportion rate powerhouse and spill. The evaluation of this of fish passing through sluiceways. prototype is still underway at the writing of this During the 1980s, in parallel with federally report, but initial evaluation appears favorable. funded research to evaluate ice and trash sluice- Preliminary data indicates that the surface collec- ways, Douglas County Public Utility District was tor prototype may have passed more than an evaluating modifications to its hydrocombine order of magnitude more smolt than the proto- units at Wells Dam that might serve as a means type bypass based on turbine intake screens eval- to bypass smolt without using turbine intake uated in previous years (over 1 million smolt screens. A hydrocombine is a unique design for a compared to 75,000). Based on this favorable hydropower dam where the spill bays are located performance, Chelan County expects to expand directly over the turbine units. Early studies of the coverage of the powerhouse by the prototype the distribution and passage behavior of smolt at for the 1996 outmigration and continue evalua- Wells Dam indicated that the fish might pass in tion (22). modified spill flows (3,4,5). Over the years Also during the 1995 smolt outmigration, between 1984 and 1993, Douglas County was Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County able to develop a design for modification of spill evaluated a surface collection prototype at bays and operation of the modified bays to achieve in on the mainstem Columbia excess of 90 percent passage of smolt in modified River. The design of this surface collector is dif- spill using approximately 5 percent of powerhouse ferent from both the Wells Dam bypass and the hydraulic capacity (8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,36). Rocky Reach prototype but it still utilizes the Wells Dam has become the model for down- water velocities at the entrance to the collector stream migrant passage using surface collection found effective for the Wells Dam bypass in concepts. The characteristics of the modified addition to other elements of the Wells bypass. hydrocombine spill bays have become the basis The evaluation of this prototype was just ending for other efforts. The combination that proved at the time of writing this report and no prelimi- successful was a slot 16 feet wide and approxi- nary estimates of effectiveness are available. It is mately 70 feet deep, located at the face of the expected that Grant County will continue experi- dam upstream of the spill gate. The spill gate mentation with surface collection next year since downstream of the slot is operated so that veloci- the benefits to both fish and hydropower genera- ties through the slot average approximately 2 feet tion are well worth the effort and cost if a suc- per second. As in the case of the successful Bon- cessful design and operating criteria can be neville Dam fish ladder 50 years earlier, it is not found. understood why the Wells Dam smolt bypass The year 1995 is also the startup year for the system works. There are some clues, one of COE Surface Collection Program. As elements which is the vertical distribution of smolt relative of this program, surface collector prototypes are 130 | Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities

being evaluated at The Dalles and Ice Harbor and the flow field its operations generate must Dams by the Portland and Walla Walla Districts attract, or at least not repel, smolt. Considerable of COE, respectively. A variety of slot configu- effort has gone into review of available informa- rations and operation criteria is in evaluation. tion about the behavior of smolt as they approach Preliminary data about the effectiveness and effi- the various mainstem dams. Such information is ciency of the various designs were not available critical to locating surface collectors so that the at the writing of this report. The Corps’ Surface opportunity for discovery by smolt of the flow Collection Program is scheduled to continue fields generated by their operation is maximized. through fiscal year 1998 and to expand to include However, review of information provided by other mainstem dams. Advanced planning for previous studies of smolt behavior have been dis- engineering designs continues. Harza Northwest appointing. Unambiguous models of smolt recently submitted a report of general concepts behavior on approach to a dam cannot be devel- for surface bypass at Bonneville Dam (29). oped, and information about the behavior of The success of the Wells Dam bypass, the smolt in accelerating flow fields is almost nonex- apparent success of the Rocky Reach surface col- istent (26). Large scale radio tracking studies are lector prototype, and the history of the high being considered to provide the necessary smolt effectiveness and efficiency of sluiceway bypass behavior information. during the day assures that testing of surface col- lection will continue well into the future. Surface REFERENCES collection is a very attractive bypass option 1. Abernethy, C.S., Neitzel, D.A. and Lusty, because of the possibility of passing a high pro- E.W., Velocity Measurements at Six Fish portion of smolt using a relatively small amount Screening Facilities in the Yakima River of water, leaving the rest for power production, Basin, Washington, Summer 1989 (Port- and working with, not against, the natural behav- land, OR: Bonneville Power Administration, ior of smolt. Within the group of biologists and 1989). engineers working with surface collection in the Columbia River Basin there is a desire to con- 2. Bell, M.C., Revised Compendium on the duct controlled experiments under larger-scale Success of Passage of Small Fish Through laboratory conditions, following the model of the Turbines (Portland, OR: North Pacific Divi- Bonneville Fisheries Engineering Laboratory. In sion, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990). general, it is the feeling of most concerned that 3. BioSonics, Inc., Hydroacoustic Assessment some laboratory testing is needed to understand of Downstream Migrant Salmon and Steel- why surface collection, or more precisely, flow head at Wells Dam in 1981 (Wenatchee, attraction, works. The challenge at this time is WA: Douglas County Public Utility District, that no facility exists within the Columbia River 1982). Basin suitable for such work. In lieu of such 4. BioSonics, Inc., Hydroacoustic Assessment facilities, and the need to move forward aggres- of Downstream Migrant Salmon and Steel- sively with smolt passage improvements, the head at Wells Dam in 1982 (Wenatchee, needed observations of fish behavior are being WA: Douglas County Public Utility District, obtained at field scales using hydroacoustic, 1983). radio tracking, and video monitoring technolo- 5. BioSonics, Inc., Hydroacoustic Assessment gies. of Downstream Migrant Salmon and Steel- For successful surface collection at least two head at Wells Dam in 1983 (Wenatchee, things that depend upon the behavior of smolt WA: Douglas County Public Utility District, must occur. One of these is that the smolt must 1984). be able to locate the collector, and the second is 6. BioSonics, Inc., Hydroacoustic Evaluation that the physical characteristics of the collector of the Efficiencies of the Ice and Trash Appendix A: Fish Passage and Protection Technologies in the Columbia River Basin | 131

Sluiceway and Spillway at Ice Harbor Dam (Wenatchee, WA: Douglas County Public for Passing Downstream Migrating Juvenile Utility District, 1992). Salmon and Steelhead, 1982 and 1983 16. BioSonics, Inc., Evaluation of the Smolt (Walla Walla, WA: Walla Walla District, Bypass System at Wells Dam in 1992 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984). (Wenatchee, WA: Douglas County Public 7. BioSonics, Inc., Hydroacoustic Assessment Utility District, 1993). of Downstream Migrant Salmon and Steel- 17. Bjorn, T.C., and Perry, C.A., A Review of head at Wells Dam in 1983 (Wenatchee, Literature Related to Movements of Adult WA: Douglas County Public Utility District, Salmon and Steelhead Past Dams and 1984). Through Reservoirs in the Lower Snake 8. BioSonics, Inc., Hydroacoustic Assessment River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North of Downstream Migrant Salmon and Steel- Pacific Division, Technical Report 92-1, head at Wells Dam in 1984 (Wenatchee, Portland, OR, 1992. WA: Douglas County Public Utility District, 18. Bjorn, T.C., et al., Migration of Adult Chi- 1985). nook Salmon and Steelhead Past Dams and 9. BioSonics, Inc., Hydroacoustic Assessment Through Reservoirs in the Lower Snake of Downstream Migrant Salmon and Steel- River and into Tributaries, U.S. Army Corps head at Wells Dam in 1985 (Wenatchee, of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Tech- WA: Douglas County Public Utility District, nical Report 94-1, Portland, OR, 1994. 1986). 19. Chapman, D., “Salmon and Steelhead Abun- dance in the Columbia River in the Nine- 10. BioSonics, Inc., Hydroacoustic Assessment teenth Century,” Transactions of the of Downstream Migrant Salmon and Steel- American Fisheries Society, 115:662-670, head at Wells Dam in 1986 (Wenatchee, 1986. WA: Douglas County Public Utility District, 20. Collins, G.B. and Elling, C.H., “Fishway 1987). Research at the Fisheries-Engineering 11. BioSonics, Inc., Hydroacoustic Assessment Research Laboratory,” U.S. Fish and Wild- of Downstream Migrant Salmon and Steel- life Service, Circular 98, 1956. head at Wells Dam in 1987 (Wenatchee, 21. Costello, R.J., A Historical Perspective and WA: Douglas County Public Utility District, Information for Activities and Actions 1987). Affecting the Pacific Salmon Species, Rela- 12. BioSonics, Inc., The Smolt Monitoring Pro- tive to Development and Management of gram and Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Land and Water Resources Within the Characteristics of the Smolt Bypass System Columbia River Basin, During the Period of at Wells Dam in 1988 (Wenatchee, WA: 1792-1967 (Portland, OR: Bonneville Power Douglas County Public Utility District, Administration, 1995, draft report). 1988). 22. Christman, B., Hydraulic Engineer, Public 13. BioSonics, Inc., The Smolt Monitoring Pro- Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, grams at Wells and Zosel Dams in 1989 Wenatchee, WA, personal communication, (Wenatchee, WA: Douglas County Public July 7, 1995. Utility District, 1990). 23. Easterbrooks, J.A., Juvenile Fish Screen 14. BioSonics, Inc., Evaluation of the Smolt Design Criteria: A Review of the Objectives Bypass System at Wells Dam in 1990 and Scientific Data Base (Yakima, WA: (Wenatchee, WA: Douglas County Public State of Washington Department of Fisher- Utility District, 1991). ies, Habitat Management Division, 1984). 15. BioSonics, Inc., Evaluation of the Smolt 24. Eicher Assoicates, Inc., Turbine-Related Bypass System at Wells Dam in 1991 Fish Mortality: Review and Evaluation of 132 | Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities

Studies (Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Radio-Telemetry Study: Steelhead, 1989-93 Research Institute, 1987). (Portland, OR: Bonneville Power Adminis- 25. Ferguson, J., Fish Passage Biologist, U.S. tration, 1995). Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR, 35. Hosey and Associates, Easton Facility Eval- personal communication, June 29, 1995. uation: Evaluation of Effectiveness of Fish 26. Giorgi, A.E., and Stevenson, J.R., “A Protection Facilities (Yakima, WA: U.S. Review of Biological Investigations Bureau of Reclamation, 1990). Describing Smolt Behavior at Portland Dis- 36. Johnson, G.E., Sullivan, C.M., and Erho, trict Corps of Engineer Projects: Implica- M.W., “Hydroacoustic Studies for Develop- tions to Surface Collection Systems,” U.S. ing a Smolt Bypass System at Wells Dam,” Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR, Fisheries Research, Vol.14, 1992. 1995. 37. Krcma, R.F., Swan, G.A., and Ossiander, 27. Graban, J.R., Evaluation of Fish Facilities at F.J., Fish Guiding and Orifice Passage Effi- Brownlee and Oxbow Dams (Boise, ID: ciency Tests with Subyearling Chinook Idaho Fish and Game Department, 1964). Salmon, McNary Dam, 1984 (Seattle, WA: 28. Haas, J.B., “Fishery Problems Associated National Marine Fisheries Service, North- with Brownlee, Oxbow, and Hells Canyon west and Alaska Fisheries Center, 1985). Dams on the Middle Snake River,” Investi- 38. Lichatowich, J.A. and Mobrand, L.E., Anal- gational Report No.4, Fish Commission of ysis of Chinook Salmon in the Columbia Oregon, Portland, OR, 1965. River from an Ecosystem Perspective (Port- 29. Harza Northwest, Inc., ENSR, Consulting land, OR: Bonneville Power Administration, and Engineering, and Fisheries Consultants, 1995). “Surface Bypass at Bonneville First Power- 39. Long, C.W., “Diel Movement and Vertical house 30 Percent Submittal—General Con- Distribution of Juvenile Anadromous Fish in cepts,” Portland District, U.S. Army Corps Turbine Intakes,” Fisheries Bulletin, 66:599- of Engineers, Portland, OR, 1995. 609, 1968. 30. Hays, S., “Determination of the Depth Dis- tribution of Juvenile Salmonids in the Tur- 40. Long, C.W., et al., Further Research on a bine Intakes at Rocky Reach and Rock Fingerling Bypass for Low Head Dams Island Dams,” (Wenatchee, WA: Chelan (Seattle, WA: National Marine Fisheries County Public Utility District No.1, 1984). Service, Northwest and Alaska Fisheries 31. Hays, S., “Developmental Testing of a Pro- Center, 1970). totype Fish Guidance System for Turbine 41. Michimoto, R.T., and Korn, L., A Study of Intakes at the Rocky Reach Hydroelectric the Value of Using the Ice and Trash Sluice- Project,” (Wenatchee, WA: Chelan County way for Passing Downstream Migrant Public Utility District No. l, 1986). Salmonids at Bonneville Dam (Portland, 32. Hays, S., “Rocky Reach Prototype Fish OR: Fish Commission of Oregon, 1969). Guidance System—1986 Developmental 42. Michimoto, R.T., Bonneville and The Dalles Testing,” (Wenatchee, WA: Chelan County Dams Ice and Trash Sluiceway Studies, Public Utility District No.l, 1987). 1971 (Portland, OR: Fish Commission of 33. Hockersmith, E., Vella, J., Stuehrenberg, L., Oregon, 1971). Iwamoto, R.N., and Swan, G., Yakima River 43. Mighetto, L.M., and Ebel, W.J., Saving the Radio-Telemetry Study: Spring Chinook Salmon: A History of the U.S. Army Corps of Salmon, 1991-92 (Portland, OR: Bonneville Engineers’ Role in the Protection of Anadro- Power Administration, 1994). mous Fish on the Columbia and Snake Riv- 34. Hockersmith, E., Vella, J., Stuehrenberg, L., ers (Portland, OR: U.S. Army Corps of Iwamoto, R.N., and Swan, G., Yakima River Engineers, 1993). Appendix A: Fish Passage and Protection Technologies in the Columbia River Basin | 133

44. Monten, E., Fish and Turbines: Fish Injuries Program Rationale (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. During Passage Through Power Station Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Turbines (Stockholm, Sweden: Vattenfall, Station, 1995). 1985). 53. Nestler, J. and Davidson, R., Imaging Smolt 45. Moulton, G.E. (ed.), The Journals of the Behavior on Screens, and a Vertical Barrier Lewis and Clark Expedition, 7 vols., (Lin- Screen at McNary Dam in 1992 (Vicksburg, coln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, MS: U.S. Corps of Engineers, Waterways 1988). Experiment Station, 1995). 46. Mundy, P.R., “The Role of Harvest Manage- 54. Nestler, J. and Davidson, R., Imaging Smolt ment in Determining the Status and Future Behavior on an Extended-Length Submerged of Pacific Salmon Populations: Controlling Bar Screen and an Extended-Length Sub- Human Behavior to Enable the Persistence merged Traveling Screen at The Dalles in of Salmon,” D. Stouder (ed.), Proceedings of 1993 (Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Corps of Engi- Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems (Seat- neers, Waterways Experiment Station, tle, WA: University of Washington Center for Streamside Studies, College of Forest 1995). Resources, College of Ocean and Fisheries 55. Nichols, D.W., Young, F.R., and Junge, Sciences, in press). C.O., Evaluation of Ice and 47. Neitzel, D.A., et al., A Fisheries Evaluation Trash Sluiceway as a Downstream Migrant of the Sunnyside Canal Fish Screening Bypass System During 1977 (Portland, OR: Facilities, Spring 1985 (Portland, OR: Bon- Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, neville Power Administration, 1985). 1978). 48. Neitzel, D.A., Abernethy, C.S., and Lusty, 56. Nichols, D.W., Passage Efficiency and Mor- E.W., “A Fisheries Evaluation of the Rich- tality Studies of Downstream Migrant land and Toppenish/Satus Canal Fish Salmonids Using The Dalles Ice and Trash Screening Facilities, Spring 1986,” (Port- Sluiceway During 1978 (Portland, OR: Ore- land, OR: Bonneville Power Administration, gon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1979). 1987). 57. Nichols, D.W., Development of Criteria for 49. Neitzel, D.A., et al., A Fisheries Evaluation Operating the Trash Sluiceway at The of the Richland and Wapato Canal Fish Dalles Dam as a Bypass System for Juvenile Screening Facilities, Spring 1987 (Portland, Salmonids, 1979 (Portland, OR: Oregon OR: Bonneville Power Administration, Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1980). 1988). 58. Northwest Power Planning Council, Fish 50. Neitzel, D.A., Abernethy, C.S., and Lusty, and Wildlife Program (as amended) (Port- E.W., A Fisheries Evaluation of the Toppen- land, OR: Northwest Power Planning Coun- ish Creek, Wapato, and Sunnyside Fish cil, 1984). Screening Facilities, Spring 1988 (Portland, OR: Bonneville Power Administration, 59. Northwest Power Planning Council, Council 1990). Staff Compilation of Information on Salmon 51. Neitzel, D.A., Abernethy, C.S., and Lusty, and Steelhead Losses in the Columbia River E.W., A Fisheries Evaluation of the West- Basin (Portland, OR: Northwest Power Plan- side Ditch and Wapato Canal Fish Screen- ning Council, 1986). ing Facilities, Spring 1990 (Portland, OR: 60. Parametrix, Inc., Hydroacoustic Evaluation Bonneville Power Administration, 1990). of Downstream Migrating Salmonids at Ice 52. Nestler, J., et al., Developing Acoustic Tech- Harbor Dam in Spring 1986 (Walla Walla, nologies for Improving Fish Passage and WA: Walla Walla District, U.S. Army Corps Protection in the Columbia River Basin: of Engineers, 1986). 134 | Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities

61. Quistorff, E. “Floating Salmon Smolt Col- 68. Schreck, C., Professor, Fisheries and Wild- lectors at Baker River Dams,” Washington life, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, Department of Fisheries, 2(4):39-52, 1966. personal communication, June 29, 1995. 62. Reisner, M., Cadillac Desert (New York, 69. Schreck, C.B., et al., Migratory Behavior of NY: Penguin Books, 1993). Adult Spring Chinook Salmon in the Wil- 63. RMC Environmental Services, Inc., and lamette River and its Tributaries (Portland, Skalski, J.R., Survival of Yearling Spring OR: Bonneville Power Administration, Chinook Salmon Smolts (Oncorhychus 1994). tshawytscha) in Passage Through a Kaplan 70. Stockley, C., “Merwin Dam Downstream Turbine at the Rocky Reach Hydroelectric Migrant Bypass Trap Experiments for Dam, Washington (Wenatchee, WA: Chelan 1957,” Washington Dept. of Fisheries, County Public Utility District No.1, 1994). Olympia, WA, 1959. 71. Sverdrup Corporation, A Review of the 64. RMC Environmental Services, Inc., and 1981 to 1992 Hydroacoustic Studies of the Skalski, J.R., Survival of Juvenile Fall Chi- Wells Dam Juvenile Fish Bypass System nook Salmon Smolts (Oncorhychus tshaw- (Ephrata, WA: Grant County Public Utility ytscha) in Passage Through a Fixed Blade District No. 2, 1995). Propeller Turbine at the Rocky Reach 72. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Columbia Hydroelectric Dam (Wenatchee, WA: River Salmon Mitigation Analysis System Chelan County Public Utility District No.1, Configuration Study Phase 1. Appendix F: 1994). System Improvements Technical Report 65. RMC Environmental Services, Inc., Mid- Lower Columbia River (Portland, OR: U.S. Columbia Consulting, Inc., and Skalski, Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, J.R., Turbine Passage Survival of Spring 1994). Migrant Chinook Salmon (Oncorhychus 73. Wagner, E., and Ingram, P., Evaluation of tshawytscha) at Lower Granite Dam, Snake Fish Facilities and Passage at Foster and River, Washington (Walla Walla, WA: U.S. Green Peter Dams on the South Santiam Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla Dis- River Drainage in Oregon (Portland, OR: trict, 1994). Fish Commission of Oregon, 1973). 66. Rozenthal, F. and Rees, W.H., “The Passage 74. Wayne, W.W., “Fish Handling Facilities for of Fish Through Mud Mountain Dam,” Baker River Project,” Journal of The Power Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Olympia, Division, Proceedings of American Society WA, 1957. of Civil Engineers, 87:23-54, 1961. 67. Schoeneman, D.E., Pressey, R.T., and 75. Willinghan, W.F., Army Engineers and the Junge, Jr, C.O., “Mortalities of Downstream Development of Oregon: A History of the Migrant Salmon at McNary Dam,” Transac- Portland District U.S. Army Corps of Engi- tions of the American Fisheries Society neers (Washington, DC: U.S. Government 90(1):58-72, 1961. Printing Office, 1992).