Mindy Simmons Mindy Simmons US Army Corps of Engineers US Army Corps of Engineers Dorie Welch, Daniel Spear Dorie Welch, Daniel Spear Bonneville Power Administration Bonneville Power Administration Stephanie Burchfield Stephanie Burchfield NOAA Fisheries NOAA Fisheries Chris Allen Chris Allen US Fish and Wildlife Service US Fish and Wildlife Service Willamette Project Biological Willamette Project Biological Opinions Opinions Presentation to the NW Power Council Presentation to the NW Power Council December 2008 December 2008 PORTLAND DISTRICT
58
Embed
Mindy Simmons US Army Corps of Engineers Dorie Welch, Daniel Spear Bonneville Power Administration Stephanie Burchfield NOAA Fisheries Chris Allen US Fish.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Mindy SimmonsMindy Simmons
US Army Corps of EngineersUS Army Corps of Engineers
Dorie Welch, Daniel SpearDorie Welch, Daniel Spear
Bonneville Power AdministrationBonneville Power Administration
Stephanie BurchfieldStephanie Burchfield
NOAA FisheriesNOAA Fisheries
Chris AllenChris Allen
US Fish and Wildlife ServiceUS Fish and Wildlife Service
Chinook Spawning habitat loss due to no passage at dams
0102030405060708090
100
Per
cen
t sp
awn
ing
h
abit
at b
lock
ed
Clackamas
Molalla
N. Santiam
S. Santiam
Calapooia
McKenzie
Middle Fork
Population
High extinction risk
Moderate extinction risk
All Chinook populations affected by Corps dams are populations important for long-term recovery
Listed Resident Fish in the Willamette Basin
Oregon chub
Columbia River bull trout
NO JEOPARDY
USFWS Opinion includes NMFS’ RPA in Proposed Action
Oregon Chub Current Distribution
(35 Populations)
Columbia River
Will
amet
te R
iver Clackamas R. (last observed 1963 –
reintroduction being considered)
North Santiam R. (last observed 1945)
McKenzie R. (approx. 300 adults)
Middle Fork Willamette R.Middle Fork Willamette R. (15 to 20 adults) (15 to 20 adults) rehabilitation program underway since 1998rehabilitation program underway since 1998
Willamette Basin Bull Trout Distribution
CurrentProbable Historic
South Santiam R. (last observed 1953)
Summary of Biological Opinions
• Describe Effects on Fish• Highlight Major Actions from Opinions
Willamette Reservoir System MM Major Milestone / Decision Point Detailed Design Report (DDR) Configuration / Operation Planning (COP)
Conceptual ESA Implementation Strategy AM Annual Milestone / Decision Point Construction Plans & Specification (P&S)IM Interim Mileston / Decision Point Monitoring & Evaluation Site / Concept Study
• NO winter steelhead program (winter steelhead are ESA-listed)
Willamette Basin Hatchery Facilities
5 major hatcheries
• constructed by USACE
• operated by ODFW
• Funded by USACE and ODFW
Downstream Effects: Summer Steelhead Hatchery Program
• Non-native Skamania stock summer steelhead– Popular sport fishery
• Evaluate site-specific effects on ESA-listed winter steelhead
• Modify program in collaboration with ODFW
Downstream Effects: Spring Chinook Hatchery Program
• Use hatchery fish to evaluate reintroduction of Chinook salmon back into their historic habitat above the impassable dams (e.g., NS, SS, McK, MFW)
• Implement new HGMPs for integrated programs– supported by Hatchery
Scientific Review Group– Increase percentage of natural-
origin fish in brood
• Minimize risks on stronghold wild populations (McKenzie)– Manage hatchery-origin
spawners
Action: Leaburg Fish Sorter• McKenzie Chinook is a stronghold wild population
• Leaburg Dam is located on the McKenzie River and owned and operated by Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB)
• Action Agencies will construct a sorting facility at the dam to prevent hatchery fish from straying above the dam and into wild fish sanctuary above Leaburg
• Action Agencies will work with EWEB, ODFW and NOAA to design, construct and operate the fish sorter
• BPA lead for funding design and construction (USACE and ODFW fund operation and maintenance)
• Complete by 2014
How do the Action Agencies How do the Action Agencies move forward?move forward?
Can we JUST improve habitat downstream of projects?• Flows and operations• Improve temperatures• Habitat improvement and floodplain restoration• Hatchery improvements
Dams blocked Dams blocked access to historical access to historical spawning habitatspawning habitat
Quality adult holding habitat
adequate quantities of spawning gravel
most is managed by USFS or BLM
Do we ALSO need access to habitat upstream of dams?
Considerations:
PROBLEM: Inadequate or nonexistent upstream passage facilities
• Upstream passage currently provided only at Foster and Fall Creek dams (trap-and-haul)
• Fish ladders are likely infeasible– High-head dams
– Variable forebay fluctuations
• Existing hatchery facilities designed for broodstock collection
SOLUTION: Use Willamette Basin Hatchery Fish Facilities as “trap-and-haul” for adult fish
Adult Collection
DEXTER DAM
Adult Sorting; load on to truck for transport
SOLUTION: Use hatchery spring Chinook to evaluate potential for reintroduction in upstream habitat
Upstream Fish Passage Actions
• Continue adult “outplanting” program
• Construct Trap at Cougar Dam (McK):2009
• Improve or replace adult fish traps:Minto (N. Santiam): 2012Foster (S. Santiam): 2013Dexter (Middle Fk Willamette):
2014Fall Creek: 2015
• Develop 4 to 6 adult release sites above reservoirs by 2012Outplanting adult spring
Chinook also provides prey base for bull trout
Cougar Fish Trap Plans
PROBLEM: Downstream Passage is Challenging
Regulating Outlets (“spill”)
Power Turbines
Spill gates (rarely used)
• Long reservoirs
• Predators
• Deep intakes to passage routes (very little surface spill)
Cougar Dam and ReservoirSouth Fork McKenzie River
Photo Courtesy of Portland District USACE
PowerhouseRegulating
Outlet
Photograph of the instruments located in the RO channel
Regulating Outlet
Willamette Project “spill”
• Measures to improve passage through reservoirs and dams until permanent facilities are built– Fall Creek drawdown for Chinook outmigration– Test other measures: reservoir drawdown, pulsing flows, spill,
other outlets– Implement feasible alternatives (“simple” by 2009; more
“complex” by 2011)
• Head-of-Reservoir juvenile collection prototype– Evaluate feasibility – complete by end of 2010– Construct prototype by 2014– Biological and physical evaluations 2015 & 2016– If effective, include in design alternatives for downstream
passage at other Project dams
• Evaluate fish passage survival, injury, delay, timing and distribution at 8 Project dams and reservoirs, 2008 - 2015
Biological Opinion Actions: Step-wise Approach to Downstream Passage
Biological Opinion Actions: Step-wise Approach to Downstream Passage
• Downstream fish passage facilities Construction complete by:
• Cougar - 2014
• Lookout Point/Dexter - 2021
• Detroit/Big Cliff - 2023
• Evaluate for use at additional dams
• Analyze feasibility, alternatives, design through the COP study
Configuration Operation Plan“COP”
• Reconnaissance Phase Study due 2009• Feasibility phase to assess alternatives• All major structural modifications will be
evaluated for:– Biological benefit
– Technical feasibility
– Economic viability
– Consistency with overall recovery strategies
Research, Monitoring & Evaluation
• Willamette is data-poor relative to mainstem Columbia– Very little monitoring
infrastructure• Developing comprehensive
program, to feed into COP– Site-specific field studies– Coordinated through WATER
• Currently included in AFEP Annual Review– Expanded outyear efforts in
separate process in Willamette
Implementation Coordination: Willamette Action Team for Ecosystem Restoration
Manager’s Forum
Steering Team
Flow Management
Team
Fish Passage and Hatchery Management
Team
Environmental Coordination for
Construction Projects
HabitatRM&E Oversight
Team
“WATER” Federal and State agencies, Tribes
Charter/guidelines completed by December 2008Adaptive
Management
Funding Strategy• Most large structural modifications will be funded out of the Columbia
River Fish Mitigation Fund (CRFM)
• Authority: Original project authorities, such as 1950 Flood Control Act (as is the original CRFM Project)
• Proposal to use CRFM appropriation made with 2008 budget submittal to Congress (including $800k in funding to initiate actions)
• Future Corps budget proposals will account for most critical needs to meet BiOp commitments in both programs
• The System Configuration Team (SCT) provides input on priorities for Columbia/Snake program – WATER group will perform a similar function for the Willamette
component
Need downstream habitat for rearing
Different effects on fishWillamette dams different than mainstem Columbia dams
The Willamette Project Summary
Need to use hatchery program to evaluate reintroduction into spawning habitat upstream of
dams
Evaluate feasibility of long-term actions
Short-term improvements and actions:
•Habitat
•Temperature
•Flow operations
•Hatcheries
Long-term structural modifications may be critical to
success
The Willamette Project Approach
Improve hatchery collection facilities as trap-and-haul
Questions?
Willamette Hatchery Mitigation Program
Facilities
• North Santiam– Marion Forks Hatchery– Minto Ponds
Collection/acclimation (nr Big Cliff)
• South Santiam– South Santiam Hatchery– Foster Dam (Collection)
• McKenzie– McKenzie Hatchery– Leaburg Hatchery– Leaburg Dam (EWEB) (some