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

March 19, 2014Nick Verretto Resource Scientist – Fisheries

Baker River Project Area

Lower Baker - 1925

Pre-Project Basin Map

Hopkins Ridge

Upper Baker - 1959

Project Description

2 Francis units 5,050 cfs - 90.7 MW

424’

728’ full pool

312’ height 736’

678’ min. pool

tailwater 443’

Intake 638’

Depth 285’ Reservoir fluctuations Load following

Upper Baker Dam

50’ range (70’ @ LB)

FSC

net

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

Upstream trap - 1957

Ski-jump spillway - 1955

Original Fish Passage

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

UB “gulper” installed 1960 ▪ 165-cfs flow ▪ Bypass pipeline to tailrace ▪ 1961 Performance Evaluation =

5-139% recapture?

Lower Baker “gulper” - 1958

Upper Baker “gulper” - 1960

Downstream Passage

Hatchery 2010UB FSC 2008

Other Fish Facilities

Powerhouse 2013?LB FSC 2013 LB FSC 2013

Upstream Trap & Haul

Completed 2010

Components

Intake

Weir (angled)

Sampling

TransportBrail pond & fish lock

Trap entrances

Entrance pool

Holding pond #1 & 2

Observation platformSorting booth & gates

flow

Holding pools & crowding channel

Entrance & Holding

Sorting

Sorting

water & brail control fish ID & distribution

PIT tag detector in floor

Sampling Station

electroanesthesia

sorting chutes

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

Percent of Time Returns Are Less Than50 70 80 90 95 99 99.5 99.9 99.99

Dai

ly R

etur

n to

Tra

p

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Observed Maximum (20,230)40,000 Maximum to Trap80,000 Maximum with River Harvest Above 40,00080,000 Maximum to Trap

Proposed Trap Design Capacity

Projected daily returns to trap

Trap Sizing

Percent of Time Returns Are Less Than0 20 40 60 80 100

Dai

ly R

etur

n to

Tra

p

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Observed Maximum (20,230)40,000 Maximum to Trap80,000 Maximum with River Harvest Above 40,00080,000 Maximum to Trap

Proposed Trap Design Capacity

Adults Returns

Transport

Management

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

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

Coho

Sockeye

Chinook (unmarked-no cwt)--WILD

Chinook (unmarked+cwt)--Mostly Non-Skagit Hatchery

Stray

Chinook (ad-clip, no cwt)--Non-Skagit Hatchery Stray

Chinook (ad-clip+cwt)--Likely Non-Skagit Hatchery Stray

Natural-run Steelhead

Hatchery-run Steelhead Available for WDFW (Skagit Hatchery Broodstock)

Available for WDFW (Skagit Hatchery Broodstock)

Pink

Chum

Native Char

Other, Non-Native Char (lake trout, brook trout)

Sea-run Cutthroat

Atlantic Salmon

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

Transport to Baker Lake 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 (sacrif ice) 1 out of every 5 unmarked+CWT coho that 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 sacrif iced unmarked+CWT coho. ALSO Sacrif ice and retain snouts from all Ad-clip+CWT (non-local strays) f ish and send to Co-mangers for CWT extraction. Carcasses (w ithout snout) from sacrif iced f ish can be used for Tribal distribution if in good condition, or can be used for nutrient enhancement.

Follow sockeye protocol 1

Sacrifice and retain CWT snout. Collect Scale sample.

(June 1-Aug 15) to Baker Lake (w ild Spring run)

Beginning August 16 Return to Skagit River (Wild Summer/Fall)

Sacrif ice, remove and retain Otolith, send to WDFW lab for reading.

Return to Skagit River

Sacrifice and retain CWT snout (mostly Non-Skagit hatchery strays, but could be Skagit hatchery spring-run)-- Collect scale sample

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

First 5,000 f ish trapped haul to Baker lake. After 5,000 return to Skagit River.

Removed from system (for treaty or non-treaty use as determined in-season)--Collect scale sample

Return to Skagit River

Sacrifice and Examine for positive species identification.

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 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.

Return to River at Hamilton to discourage trap re-entry w hen possible, default location at Baker mouth.

SulphurUpper  Baker

UnassignedOther  Skagit  Basin  Populations

Adult/sub-­‐adult  (A)  Juvenile  (J)

2013

Upstream Fish Trap

8

3

1Lake Shannon

Baker Lake

A

J

2219

13

A J

3 31

A

846

511

• Sulphur • Bacon • Cascade

• UpBaker (2) • Bacon • Cascade • Goodell

• Downey

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

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

Oblique View

Plan View

Elevation View

Studies

Water quality

Migration characteristics

Behavior

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 AnalysisFilter

Media Goals U1.1 U1.2 U1.3 U2.1 U2.2 U3.1 U3.2 U3.31 Ability to provide upstream passage from Lower Baker Not proven Not proven Not proven Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2 Evaluate adult returns for final disposition (sorting capability)

No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

3 Optimize production and take advantage of spawning habitat in both reservoirs and tributaries

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

4 Establish spawning populations in Lk. Shannon tribs Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes5 Interbasin migration for all species and life stages Not proven Not proven No No Limited Limited Limited Limited6 Evaluate non-salmonid migration options Yes? Yes? No Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited7 Passage for all life stages and species Not known Not known Not known Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited8 Volitional Passage Not proven Not proven Not proven No No No No No9 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 Yes12 No injury to migrating fish Yes Yes Yes Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited13 Minimize risk of mechanical failure Yes Yes Yes Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited14 Minimize risk of poaching Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited

15 Optimize release locations for optimal production and minimized mortality

No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

16 Minimize necessary costs capital and operating No No No Yes Yes No No No17 Interbasin migration for all species and life stages Not known Not known No No No No No No

18 Be able to conduct routine maintenance with minimal disruption to fish migrations

Limited Limited No No No No No No

19 Harden facilities to flood conditions Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes20 Minimize handling stress Yes Yes Yes No No No No No21 Optimize operations for flow conditions Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes22 Meeting ESA needs Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes Limited Limited Limited23 Year-round transport capability No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

24 Mitigating effects of auxiliary water on downstream migrants (e.g., intake screening)

Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

25 Redundancy for systems No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes26 Worker and public safety Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No27 Improved public education and access opportunities Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No28 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 No31 Constructability –vs- continuity of existing facilities Limited Limited Limited Yes Yes No No No

Volitional Passage Alternatives Trap and Haul Alternatives Combination Alternatives

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 …

PSE Contacts:

▪ Nick Verretto, 425-462-3441

▪ Doug Bruland, 360-424-2920

▪ Tom Flynn, 425-457-5868

Good Luck, Have Fun!