Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Passage through Bonneville Dam in 2004

Abstract

Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Passage through Bonneville Dam in 2004iii AbstractThe Portland District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested that the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) conduct fish-passage studies at Bonneville Dam in 2004. These studies support the Portland District's goal of maximizing fish-passage efficiency (FPE) and obtaining 95% survival for juvenile salmon passing Bonneville Dam. Major passage routes include 10 turbines and a sluiceway at Powerhouse 1 (B1), an 18-bay spillway, and eight turbines and a sluiceway at Powerhouse 2 (B2).In this report, we present results of four studies related to juvenile salmonid passage at Bonneville Dam. The studies were conducted between April 15 and July 15, 2004, encompassing most of the spring and summer migrations. Studies included evaluations of 1) project fish passage efficiency and other major passage metrics, 2) B2 fish guidance efficiency and gap loss, 3) smolt approach and fate at the B2 Corner Collector (B2CC), and 4) B2 vertical barrier screen head differential. Appendices A through I are presented on the accompanying compact disk (CD). Most are in an Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF) and six large tables in Appendix E (E3-E8) are presented only as comma-separated-variable files. The CD also includes a PDF version of the report.

Re-Analysis of Hydroacoustic Fish-Passage Data from Bonneville Dam after Spill-Discharge Corrections

“…Routes of interest included the spillway, Powerhouse 1 (B1) turbines, Powerhouse 2 (B2) turbines, B1 sluiceway relative to B1, B2 Corner Collector (B2CC) relative to B2, and all non-turbine routes combined (i.e., fish-passage efficiency). For a detailed description of sampling methods by year, we refer readers to the original technical reports (Ploskey et al 2002a(Ploskey et al , 2002b(Ploskey et al , 2003(Ploskey et al , 2005(Ploskey et al , and 2006. During the re-analysis, we took the opportunity to adjust spatial expansions of spillway-passed fish to compensate for reduced hydroacoustic detectability that occurs when spill discharge through individual bays increases, something that was done for the first time in the 2006 report on 2005 data.…”

“…The first study was conducted in 2000 by the Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi (Ploskey et al 2002a). Subsequent studies in 2001 (Ploskey et al 2002b), 2002(Ploskey et al 2003), 2004(Ploskey et al 2005, and 2005 (Ploskey et al 2006) were conducted by PNNL, Richland, Washington.…”

“…Fixed-aspect hydroacoustic methods were described in detail in technical reports for 2000 (Ploskey et al 2002a where x = reported spill and y = actual spill, and we used this equation to calculate actual spill discharge rates for day and night periods. We then estimated bay-specific discharge rates by apportioning spill among bays according to the spill pattern in effect for each year, as described in the Fish Passage Plan for those years (Reservoir Control Center 2000, 2001.…”

“…For study years from 2000 through 2004, hydroacoustic detectability for all passage routes, except the spillway, remained the same as described in the original technical reports (Ploskey et al 2002a, Ploskey et al 2002b, Ploskey et al 2003, Ploskey et al 2005. However, spatial expansions for spillway passage for 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004 were scaled upward to account for decreasing detectability with increasing discharge through individual spill bays, similar to what was done to 2005 spillway data (Ploskey et al 2006).…”

Optimization of Concurrent Deployments of the Juvenile Salmon Acoustic Telemetry System and Other Hydroacoustic Equipment at John Day Dam

“…Fixed hydroacoustics are compatible with the ADCP and DIDSON (Ploskey et al 2005). The primary concern in our study was interference of fixed-aspect hydroacoustic, DIDSON, and ADCP transmissions on detection and decoding of transmissions from JSATS tags.…”