Trap and Haul Strategies for Fish Passage at Multiple Projects, Hydroelectric Project Example

Nick Verretto Resource Scientist – Fisheries March 19, 2014 Baker River Project Area Project Description

Pre-Project Basin Map

Lower Baker - 1925

Upper Baker - 1959

Hopkins Ridge

312’ height 736’ 728’ full pool

50’ range (70’ @ LB) FSC 678’ min. pool

net

Intake 638’ Depth 285’ 2 Francis units Reservoir fluctuations 5,050 cfs - 90.7 MW Load following

tailwater 443’ 424’ Original Fish Passage

Upstream trap - 1957 Upstream Passage ▪ Picket weir & trap ▪ Short ladder & tramway ▪ Upstream trap & haul ! ! Downstream Passage ▪ Entrainment ▪ Ski-jump spillway ▪ “Gulpers”

Ski-jump spillway - 1955 Downstream Passage

LB “gulper” installed 1958 ▪ Tested two years ▪ 90-cfs flow ▪ 36’ x 68’ ▪ Bypass pipeline to tailrace

! Lower Baker “gulper” - 1958 ! UB “gulper” installed 1960 ▪ 165-cfs flow ▪ Bypass pipeline to tailrace ▪ 1961 Performance Evaluation = 5-139% recapture?

Upper Baker “gulper” - 1960 Other Fish Facilities

UB FSC 2008 Hatchery 2010

LB FSC 2013 LB FSC 2013 Powerhouse 2013? Upstream Trap & Haul

Completed 2010 Components

Observation platform Entrance pool Sorting booth & gates Intake

Holding pond #1 & 2 Holding pools & crowding channel

Sampling Trap entrances Transport Brail pond & fish lock Weir (angled) flow Entrance & Holding Sorting Sorting

water & brail control fish ID & distribution

PIT tag detector in floor Sampling Station

sorting chutes

electroanesthesia

HMI, holding, sampling Holding Areas

Poor flow introduction

… Fish will let you know what you missed Trap Sizing

• Historical run size & timing • Trap sized to 3,000 sockeye/day Trap Sizing

8000 8000

Observed Maximum (20,230) Observed Maximum (20,230) 7000 40,000 Maximum to Trap 7000 40,000 Maximum to Trap 80,000 Maximum with River 80,000 Maximum with River 6000 Harvest Above 40,000 6000 Harvest Above 40,000 80,000 Maximum to Trap 80,000 Maximum to Trap p p a a r r 5000 5000 T T

o o t t

n n r r u u 4000 4000 t t e e R R

y Proposed Trap Design Capacity y Proposed Trap Design Capacity l l i i 3000 3000 a a D D 2000 2000

1000 1000

0 0 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.5 99.9 99.99 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of Time Returns Are Less Than Percent of Time Returns Are Less Than

Projected daily returns to trap Adults Returns Transport Management Management

BAKER ADULT FISH TRAP PROTOCOL Revised: September 9, 2013 (Chinook Revisions)

Species Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Transport to EXCEPT systematically sample and retain--1 out of every 5 (20%) unmarked+CWT (Baker Wild Indicator Stock) coho returning to the trap throughout the season. The 1 out of every 5 unmarked+CWT coho are systematically sampled to represent the composition of origin of the unmarked+CWT coho returning to the trap and can be retained for broodstock. Broodstock need is approximately 200. If the broodstock goal of 200 can be met using unmarked+CWT fish, continue systematic sampling and retaining (sacrifice) 1 out of every 5 unmarked+CWT coho that Coho returns to the trap beyond broodstock needs through the end of the season. This systematic sampling of the unmarked+CWT coho SUPERCEDES ALL other needs. Collect the snouts of the unmarked+CWT Wild Indicator Stock that w ere used for broodstock after spaw ning and send to Co-managers for CWT extraction along w ith the snouts of any sacrificed unmarked+CWT coho. ALSO Sacrifice and retain snouts from all Ad-clip+CWT (non-local strays) fish and send to Co-mangers for CWT extraction. Carcasses (w ithout snout) from sacrificed fish can be used for Tribal distribution if in good condition, or can be used for nutrient enhancement.

Sockeye Follow sockeye protocol 1

Chinook (unmarked-no cw t)-- (June 1-Aug 15) to Baker Lake Beginning August 16 Return to (Wild Summer/Fall) WILD (w ild Spring run) Chinook (unmarked+cw t)-- Mostly Non-Skagit Hatchery Sacrifice and retain CWT snout (mostly Non-Skagit hatchery strays, but could be Skagit hatchery spring-run)-- Collect scale sample Stray Chinook (ad-clip, no cw t)-- Return to Skagit River Non-Skagit Hatchery Stray

Chinook (ad-clip+cw t)--Likely Sacrifice and retain CWT snout. Collect Scale sample. Non-Skagit Hatchery Stray

Natural-run Steelhead Returned to Skagit River (returns to Skagit River released @ Hamilton w hen possible, default to Baker mouth)--Collect Scale sample

Available for WDFW (Skagit Available for WDFW (Skagit Hatchery-run Steelhead Removed from system (for treaty or non-treaty use as determined in-season)--Collect scale sample Hatchery Broodstock) Hatchery Broodstock) First 5,000 fish trapped haul to Baker lake. After 5,000 return to Pink Skagit River.

Chum Return to River at Hamilton to discourage trap re-entry w hen possible, default location at Baker mouth. Adults (>300 mm) : If carrying PIT tag, transport to Baker Lake if Upper Baker origin or unknow n origin, to Lk. Shannon if Sulphur Cr. origin, or to Skagit R. if out-of-basin origin. If not carrying PIT tag, take scales & tissue Native Char sample, PIT tag, record #, and return to Skagit R. Sub-adults/Juveniles (<300 mm): If carrying PIT tag, transport same as adults. If not carrying PIT tag, estimate approximate length (record w ith inserted comment) and release to Skagit R. Other, Non-Native Char (lake Sacrifice and Examine for positive species identification. trout, brook trout) Sea-run Cutthroat Return to Skagit River

Atlantic Salmon Sacrifice, remove and retain Otolith, send to WDFW lab for reading.

1 Sockeye distributed to artificial incubation program, spaw ning beaches, Baker Lake, or tribes (Sauk- Suiattle, Sw inomish, & Upper Skagit) follow ing year specific beach loading plan as provided by the Co-managers. 2013

Sulphur Upper Baker Other Skagit Basin Populations Unassigned Baker Lake A J 5 1 Adult/sub-adult (A) 1 Juvenile (J) 8 46 1 8 A J • UpBaker (2) • Downey • Bacon • Cascade 19 22 3 3 • Goodell 1 • Sulphur • Bacon • Cascade

A

1 3 Upstream Fish Trap 3 Management How Did We Get There?

• Committed to ALP slog • Organization, process, rules, relationships • >100 people in WGs Initial Reticence

• Rough spots early on • Hired facilitator (mediator?) • Collaborative negotiation training for all • Interest-based process Studies

Coho, Fish 2162, Release 1, Low Pool, Generation ON Plan View

Elevation View Oblique View

Water quality Behavior

Migration characteristics Limnology Alternatives Analysis

• Brainstorming – 9 alternatives: combinations of trap-and- haul, locks, lifts, trams and ladders, (and dam removal) • Filter & fatal flaw analyses using 31 goals/criteria • Site visits & information on other facilities – physical and biological limitations and costs • Conceptual designs developed to allow comparison • Volitional (ladder) of ~24mi, >700’ elev gain, $187 million was rejected (world’s highest ladder, at ~1/4 that elev. gain had failed) Alternatives Analysis

Filter Volitional Passage Alternatives Trap and Haul Alternatives Combination Alternatives Media Goals U1.1 U1.2 U1.3 U2.1 U2.2 U3.1 U3.2 U3.3 1 Ability to provide upstream passage from Lower Baker Not proven Not proven Not proven Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Evaluate adult returns for final disposition (sorting 2 No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes capability) Optimize production and take advantage of spawning 3 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes habitat in both reservoirs and tributaries 4 Establish spawning populations in Lk. Shannon tribs Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 Interbasin migration for all species and life stages Not proven Not proven No No Limited Limited Limited Limited 6 Evaluate non-salmonid migration options Yes? Yes? No Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 7 Passage for all life stages and species Not known Not known Not known Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 8 Volitional Passage Not proven Not proven Not proven No No No No No 9 Adequate Attraction into the Baker River Yes Yes No Yes? Yes Yes Yes Yes 10 Provide Passage from the Little Baker River Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? Yes? 11 Minimize delay Not known Not known Not known Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12 No injury to migrating fish Yes Yes Yes Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 13 Minimize risk of mechanical failure Yes Yes Yes Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited 14 Minimize risk of poaching Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Optimize release locations for optimal production and 15 No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes minimized mortality 16 Minimize necessary costs capital and operating No No No Yes Yes No No No 17 Interbasin migration for all species and life stages Not known Not known No No No No No No Be able to conduct routine maintenance with minimal 18 Limited Limited No No No No No No disruption to fish migrations 19 Harden facilities to flood conditions Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20 Minimize handling stress Yes Yes Yes No No No No No 21 Optimize operations for flow conditions Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 22 Meeting ESA needs Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes Limited Limited Limited 23 Year-round transport capability No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mitigating effects of auxiliary water on downstream 24 Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes migrants (e.g., intake screening) 25 Redundancy for systems No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 26 Worker and public safety Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 27 Improved public education and access opportunities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 28 Disease treatment capability No No No Yes Yes No No No 29 Incorporate other facilities goals (i.e., acclimation ponds) No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

30 Balance between manual and automatic operations Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes No No No 31 Constructability –vs- continuity of existing facilities Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes No No No Alternatives Analysis

• Built administrative record of analyses, decisions, from several filtering exercises, Expert Choice • Upstream passage settlement reached – 2 yrs

Alternatives Evaluated - 36 Criteria, 7 Categories Licensing Timeline

• Settlement • $15 million / 5 yrs • 24 settling parties • 400+ meetings • 1,200 pages of application, EA & settlement documents • 83,000 pages of studies • 50-yr license in under 8 yrs Lessons Learned / Take-Home Messages

• Inclusiveness enhances outcomes & certainty, transparency = trust • Identify & honor everyone’s interests • Respect others’ input, seek their contributions • Collaborate, try to ensure that everyone wins • Partnership & trust pay dividends • A good facilitator can help smooth the path • Don’t let potential areas of conflict slide Lessons Learned / Take-Home Messages

• Build a strong & structured decision-making team, a well-informed team = good decisions • Run a fully integrated process throughout • Ask hard questions – all the time, embrace VE • If something doesn’t seem right, it probably isn’t • Admit to mistakes, learn and move on • The decision is sometimes the easy part – the administrative record is the tough part ! ! We’ve come a long way … Good Luck, Have Fun!

PSE Contacts: ▪ Nick Verretto, 425-462-3441 ▪ Doug Bruland, 360-424-2920 ▪ Tom Flynn, 425-457-5868