UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE 2015 ANNUAL REPORT"

Lydia Alisha Blair
6 years ago
Views:

1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARTICLE 103 UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE 2015 ANNUAL REPORT REPORTING PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2015 DECEMBER 31, 2015 BAKER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No November 2016 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project

2 CONTENTS CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary Introduction Activity Report Adult Fish Returns Modifications and Facility Improvements Notable Issues During the 2015 Season Documents Submitted Accounting Funding and Expenditures Prescribed by SA Adjustments... 9 List of Tables Table 1. Baker upstream fish trap operations protocol for all species Table 2. Baker upstream fish trap species count by month for January 1 December 31, Table 3. Fish captured in the Baker upstream fish trap by month for January 1 December 31, 2015 and not transported upstream... 5 Table 4. Funds allocated to upstream fish passage implementation, (license years one eight) List of Figures Figure 1. Rendering of Baker upstream fish trap, completed June Figure 2. Baker upstream fish trap adult sockeye and coho returns, PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page ii

3 1.0 Executive Summary This annual report reviews actions undertaken by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) in 2015 to implement settlement agreement article 103 (SA 103), Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan, of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project license. The report covers SA 103 implementation measures completed during the January December 31, 2015 reporting period, in accordance with the revised SA 102 Aquatics reporting schedule as detailed in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) submittal of September 11, 2014, subsequently approved by the Commission on January 16, During this period, PSE: Operated and maintained the Lower Baker upstream fish passage facilities. Transported and distributed collected fish according to the Baker upstream fish trap operations protocol. Consulted with the Aquatic Resources Group (ARG) regarding SA 103 planning and reporting, as well as operations, maintenance, issues, and modifications to the trap. Shut down and dewatered the trap from March 3 16, 2015 for routine annual maintenance activities. 2.0 Introduction This report has been prepared in consistence with SA 102 ( Aquatics Reporting ) and SA 103 of the Order on Offer of Settlement, Issuing New License and Dismissing Amendment Application as Moot (the license) for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project, issued by the Commission on October 17, The Baker River has historically supported six species of anadromous salmonids: sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), coho salmon (O. kisutch), Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), steelhead (O. mykiss), native char (bull trout - Salvelinus confluentus, previously reported as Dolly Varden - Salvelinus malma), and sea-run cutthroat trout (O. clarki clarki). Two salmon species not historically reported as present in the Baker River drainage are occasionally captured in the upstream trap and transported to the reservoirs. These are: chum salmon (O. keta) and pink salmon (O. gorbuscha). A trap-and-haul program for upstream migration continuity between the Skagit River and the Project reservoirs has been in effect in one form or another since initiation of Lower Baker dam construction in SA 103 Upstream Fish Passage Implementation Plan addresses the ongoing need for safe and effective upstream fish passage operations, and includes a requirement for the major modification of the existing upstream fish trap located downstream of the Lower Baker dam. The original fish trap began operation in July Construction of the modified trap was completed in June Upstream fish passage between Lake Shannon and Baker Lake is addressed in SA 104, Fish Connectivity Implementation Plan. PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 1

Introduction Figure 1. Rendering of Baker upstream fish trap, completed June 2010.

4 Introduction Figure 1. Rendering of Baker upstream fish trap, completed June (R2 Resource Consultants Inc., October 2008) PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 2

5 Activity Report 3.0 Activity Report Routine adult collection and transport operations were conducted at the Lower Baker trap in 2015, which was the sixth year of operation of the modified trap. During the reporting period, PSE: Operated and maintained the Lower Baker upstream fish passage facilities (figures 2 and 3). Transported and distributed fish collected in the trap according to the Lower Baker upstream trap operations protocol (tables 1 and 2). The Fish Co-managers 1 update this protocol annually, with additional periodic updates as required for consistency with basin management goals. (The most recent revision, on April 16, 2014, included the modified Chinook and sea-run cutthroat trout handling and transport directives.) The 2015 adult fish returns and trap collection data are detailed in table 3. Consulted with the ARG regarding trap operations and maintenance issues. Consulted with the ARG regarding planning and reporting relative to SA 103. Shut down and dewatered the trap from March 3 16, 2015, for routine annual maintenance activities. Fish recovered from the trap during the 2015 maintenance dewatering were returned to the river; these included 1 juvenile coho, 43 O. mykiss, and 9 sucker. Logged 151 maintenance actions. Nothing of significance occurred during the reporting period that affected daily trap operation for an extended time. Examples of routine maintenance actions in 2015 are: o Servicing of gear boxes. o Cleaning of the fish lock camera. o Repairing the loading hopper slide gate. o Inspection and repair of brail and foot crowder seals. o Making entrance weir adjustments. o Cleaning of the penstock water filters cartridges. o Repairing the Atlas Polar trash rack cleaners. o Addressing fish jumping issues in the holding and cross-channel crowding raceways. 3.1 Adult Fish Returns Transport and distribution of fish collected in the upstream fish trap are directed by annual protocols established by Fish Co-managers to reflect basin management goals. Operation of the trap during the reporting period was consistent with this protocol, which is detailed in table 1. Trap data is recorded and transmitted to the Co-managers daily. 1 The Fish Co-managers jointly manage Baker basin fisheries and is comprised of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (USIT), the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, and the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community. PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 3

6 Activity Report Table 1. Baker upstream fish trap operations protocol for all species. This version was in effect as of April 16, 2014, and through BAKER ADULT FISH TRAP PROTOCOL Revised: April 16, 2014 (Steelhead Revisions) by Co-managers, sent by BB 06/27/14 Line Species Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 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 (sacrifice) 1 out of every 5 unmarked+cwt coho that 1 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. 2 Sockeye Follow sockeye protocol 1 3 Chinook (unmarked-no cwt) Return to Skagit River 4 Chinook (unmarked+cwt) Remove from system (for treaty or non-treaty use as determined in-season) Collect Scale sample, retain CWT snout. 5 Chinook (ad-clip, no cwt) Remove from system (for treaty or non-treaty use as determined in-season)--collect scale sample 6 Chinook (ad-clip+cwt) 7 Natural-run Steelhead 8 Hatchery-run Steelhead Remove from system (for treaty or non-treaty use as determined in-season) Collect Scale sample, retain CWT snout. Returned to Skagit River (returns to Skagit River Hamilton)--Collect Scale sample; inspect adults for VEI in eye, scan adults & juveniles for PIT tag (record #), collect length/ wt/scales for juveniles, e- mail data to Co-managers Remove from system (for treaty or non-treaty use as determined in-season)--collect scale sample 9 Pink First 5,000 fish trapped haul to Baker lake. After 5,000 return to Skagit River. 10 Chum Return to River at Hamilton to discourage trap re-entry. 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 11 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. 12 Other, Non-Native Char (lake trout, brook trout) Sacrifice and Examine for positive species identification. 13 Sea-run Cutthroat Adults (>= 12") send to Baker Lake. Return juveniles to Skagit River 14 Atlantic Salmon Sacrifice, remove and retain Otolith, send to WDFW lab for reading 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. 17 ARG: Explore implications of Native Char protocol. 18 hidden comment in Chinook (unmarked+cw t) cell: Bob McClure - We have a spring indicator group. All summers are clipped. PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 4

7 Activity Report Fish collected in and primarily transported upstream from the trap in the 2015 calendaryear reporting period totaled 34,913, and are enumerated by month in table 2. Table 3 lists juvenile and other fish that were identified in the comments column within the daily spreadsheet, but for which the Co-managers annual protocol gave no directive regarding handling or transport destination. These fish were predominantly diverted to the stress-relief ponds for release back into the Baker River. PSE is cooperating with the USIT in the development of a Microsoft Access database to replace the present Excel spreadsheet. In future reporting years, the database will contain a more detailed record of all fish entering the upstream trap. Table 2. Baker upstream fish trap species count by month for January 1 December 31, Month Sockeye Coho Chinook Steelhead Chum Pink Native Cutthroat Char Other a Total w/o Total w/ other other Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 4, ,055 4,178 Jul 22, ,769 23,387 Aug 2, ,885 3,811 Sep 1, ,141 1,929 4,070 Oct 1, ,220 1,932 4,152 Nov ,893 1,184 3,077 Dec Total 32,735 1, ,451 34,913 43,364 a The Other column contains juvenile fish which are usually returned to the river and thus are not included in the Total column. Note: Jan-May data (in blue) are from the spreadsheet, Jun-Dec data (in red) are from the spreadsheet for 2015 calendar year due to trap records based on water year (i.e., June May, or overlapping years). Table 3. Fish captured in the Baker upstream fish trap by month for January 1 December 31, 2015 and not transported upstream. These are primarily juveniles noted in the Comments column, and are not enumerated in the adult upstream transport spreadsheet; instead they are returned to the river via the stress-relief pond. Month rainbow cutthroat whitefish peamouth sculpin nativ char brook tr sucker shad N pike minnow coho sockeye Chinook Total Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep , ,141 Oct , ,220 Nov , ,893 Dec Total 1, , ,451 Note: Jan-May data (in blue) are from the spreadsheet, Jun-Dec data (in red) are from the spreadsheet for 2015 calendar year due to trap records based on water year (i.e., June May, or overlapping years). PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 5

8 Activity Report Sockeye Adult Returns in 2015 A total of 32,736 sockeye entered the upstream trap during the 2015 season. When adjusted for terminal harvest, the total return was 50,845 sockeye, which included an estimated harvest of 18,109 fish taken in the treaty (commercial and take-home) fisheries. Test fisheries and the terminal sport river and lake fisheries have not yet been reported. The pre-season forecast was for a return of 46,268 adult sockeye. As indicated by WDFW and tribal surveys, an unidentified number bypassed the Baker River and spawned in Upper Skagit River tributaries, possibly due to region-wide elevated water temperatures in Escapement goals for adult sockeye were met by transporting and distributing fish returning to the trap to the Upper Baker fish hatchery and artificial incubation facility in accordance with the Co-managers weekly distribution protocol (see the annual report for SA 101); 2,200 sockeye were distributed to the spawning beaches and 4,101 were distributed for artificial incubation during the 2015 reporting period. After escapement goals and allotments for the hatchery were met, 24,033 sockeye were released into Baker Lake, enabling the sixth recreational lake fishery on record. The Skagit River recreational fishery also opened in June Historic Sockeye Escapement Sockeye salmon populations vary over time; however, an evaluation of adult migration data indicates an increasing population trend over time (figure 2). The lowest return on record was observed in 1985, when only 99 adult sockeye were collected at the trap. The highest sockeye collections on record have occurred in recent years, such as 22,767 in 2010, 37,264 in 2011, and 48,014 in These numbers include fish that were transported to the Upper Baker hatchery and spawning beach, those transported to Baker Lake, and those that were harvested during recreational and in-river tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. The return of 50,845 adult sockeye in 2015 was above the pre-season forecast, well in excess of the long-term average, and indicates the likely range of future interannual variation. PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 6

Activity Report Figure 2. Baker upstream fish trap adult sockeye and coho returns, 19

9 Activity Report Figure 2. Baker upstream fish trap adult sockeye and coho returns, Coho Adult Returns A total of 1,856 coho adults returned to the Baker River trap in 2015, of which 208 were removed from the trap for the supplementation program. This small group was held at the Upper Baker rearing facility until sexually mature and then spawned, after which the coded wire tags were recovered from the carcasses for stock identification. 3.2 Modifications and Facility Improvements The refurbishment and improvement of the trap below the Lower Baker Development that began in spring 2008 in compliance with SA 103 was completed June No facility improvements were made during the 2015 reporting period. 3.3 Notable Issues During the 2015 Season The UFT entrance weir was found to be out of adjustment on June 17 th during a facility tour by the Northwest Power Conservation Council (conducted as part of their deliberations over implementing fish passage past the five dams of the upper Columbia River). The entrance weir adjustments were immediately addressed. PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 7

10 Accounting An O 2 failure occurred in the 2,000-gallon (large) fish transport truck on July 2 nd after loading it with 200 adult sockeye for release to Upper Baker. After considering available options, PSE alerted WDFW staff, and the two parties agreed to release fish back to the river to avoid potential mortality. Numerous discussions were held regarding the decision, but it was ultimately considered the correct response by field staff and to be in accordance with the emergency response protocols, which state that the immediate concern for failure of a loaded fish transport truck is preventing fish mortality and that fish may be removed from the pools and returned to the river to help prevent mortality or injury. Thermal stress concerns due to elevated regional water temperatures were the focus of considerable discussion during the July sockeye return. Topics included the potential for thermal stress related to surface temperatures at release sites, access to thermal refuge, surface mixing and cooling mechanisms, pathologist s review of data and risks, upstream trap entry delay and potential for delayed mortality, and transport schedule adjustment to avoid releases during peak periods of solar radiation. 3.4 Documents Submitted The 2014 annual report was submitted for ARG review on August 25, (It was subsequently resubmitted to the ARG in accordance with SA 102, Aquatics Reporting, and then to the FERC as the 2014 annual report for SA 102.) 4.0 Accounting Puget Sound Energy, pursuant to settlement agreement articles 102, 201, 301, 501, and 602, is required to provide an annual summary of expenditures made during the preceding year, as well as an accounting of funding expenditures, any interest earned, disbursements made as required by any article, and adjustments for inflation. This section provides an accounting of all expenditures made during the reporting period. All disbursement adjustments and relevant calculations were determined using the guidelines provided in settlement agreement article Funding and Expenditures Prescribed by SA 103 Prescribed annual funding made available for beneficial modifications to the upstream trap and related facilities has accrued at $20,000 per year since the date of license issuance, escalated from 2006 dollars. Annual funding for the upcoming year is made available on the anniversary date of license issuance (e.g., October 17, 2008 for the 2009 funding year). No expenditures were made against prescribed funds during the reporting period. The balance is reflected in the following table. PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 8

11 Accounting Table 4. Funds allocated to upstream fish passage implementation, (license years one eight). Year Amount Allocated Amount Spent Amount Carried Over Interest Remaining (1) ,020 0 NA 15 21,035 (2) , , ,194 (3) , , ,530 (4) , , ,482 (5) , , ,816 (6) , , ,302 (7) , , ,137 (8) ,000 a 0 153,137 b 173,137 Total 172, , ,137(+) a Annual allocation of $20,000 occurs in October of the reporting period, escalation from 2006 dollars is applied in February, and interest is accrued the following October. b Not including interest that will be accrued in October Note: table incorporates adjustments based on the latest accounting review; rounding error may cause slight discrepancy. 4.2 Adjustments There were no adjustments to the funding for SA 103 during the reporting period. PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker River Hydroelectric Project Page 9

UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ARTICLE 103 UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE 2013 ANNUAL REPORT REPORTING PERIOD JUNE 1, 2013 MAY 31, 2014 BAKER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC No. 2150 January 2015 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Baker