Columbia River Project Water Use Plan. Lower Columbia Fish Stranding Assessment

Transcription

1 Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Lower Columbia Fish Stranding Assessment Implementation Year 4 Reference: CLBMON-42(A) Study Period: April 2010 to April 2011 Golder Associates Ltd. 201 Columbia Avenue Castlegar, BC V1N 1A8 Canada Tel: +1 (250) July 2011

2 July, 2011 Lower Columbia River [CLBMON#42(A)] and Kootenay River Fish Stranding Assessments: Annual Summary (April 2010 to April 2011) Submitted to: BC Hydro th Street Castlegar, BC V1N 4G7 REPORT Report Number: / Distribution: 5 hardcopies-bc Hydro 1 e-copy-bc Hydro 2 hardcopies-golder Associates Ltd.

3 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Cover Photo: Three (of the approximate 350 ) young-of-the-year longnose dace and redside shiner stranded within the interstices at the outlet of a large draining pool at the Genelle Mainland LUB site, during RE , on 22 July Suggested Citation: Golder Associates Ltd Lower Columbia River [CLBMON #42(A)] and Kootenay River Fish Stranding Assessments: Annual summary (April 2010 to April 2011). Report prepared for BC Hydro, Columbia Power Corporation, and FortisBC, Castlegar, BC. Golder Report No and : 21 p. + 3 app. July, 2011 Report No /

4 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Executive Summary During the April 2010 to April 2011 fish stranding assessment, the overall objectives were to: 1) reduce the frequency and magnitude of flow reductions; 2) develop a flow reduction protocol that uses standard methods for assessment; and, 3) collect data and identify possible mitigation measures in response to observed fish stranding impacts. The revised fish stranding protocol, Canadian Lower Columbia River: Fish Stranding Risk Assessment and Response Strategy (Golder, 2011), which updates and combines the lower Columbia (BC Hydro, 2003) and Kootenay protocols (BC Hydro, 2005), focuses on reducing incidences of fish stranding throughout the study area, by using the Fish Stranding Database to direct the fish salvage efforts. The continued accumulation of fish stranding and salvage information, as it relates to location, timing and magnitude of stranding, will assist in predicting the type of events and the locations that are more likely to have significant incidences of fish stranding. As the database continues to be populated with more data, the ability to accurately identify sites likely to strand fish during flow reductions will increase. This report summarizes the information collected as a result of flow reductions from operations at Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam/Arrow Lakes Reservoir (HLK/ALH) on the Columbia River and Brilliant Dam/Expansion (BRD/X) on the Kootenay River. Stranding assessments were conducted for 19 of the 21 reduction events (REs) that occurred between 1 April 2010 and 1 April Five assessments were conducted in response to flow reductions from BRD/X and 14 assessments were in response to flow reductions from HLK/ALH. An estimated isolated or stranded fish were observed during 15 of the REs with zero fish identified as stranded during the remaining 4 events. The majority (88%) of stranded fish were observed during 6 REs that occurred during a known high stranding risk period (1 June to 30 September). The fish stranding assessment annual report is the first year that information from the two systems has been combined into a single document. This was done because fish stranding in this section of river is influenced by both systems and the same key variables that affect fish stranding and the management and methods are similar. Information that is distinct for each system has been identified and the BC Hydro Water Use Plan objectives and management questions have been evaluated. July, 2011 Report No /

5 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Table 1: CLBMON #42 Status of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam Program Objectives, Management Questions and Hypotheses. Primary Objective Secondary Objectives Management Questions Management Hypotheses Year 2 ( ) Status To determine ramping rates for flow reductions which reduce the stranding rate of fish at different times of the year. Is there a ramping rate (fast vs. slow, day vs. night) for flow reductions from HLK that reduces the number of fish stranded (interstitially and pool) per flow reduction event in the summer and winter? The number of stranded fish is independent of either the ramping rate or time of day of flow reductions in the summer and winter. Data collected and analyzed in previous studies have demonstrated that ramping rates were not considered a statistically significant predictor of fish stranding (Golder/Poisson 2010). To assess the impact of flow reductions and flow ramping rates from HLK on the native species of the lower Columbia River. To determine whether the wetted history influences the stranding rate of fish for flow reductions. To determine whether a conditioning flow reduction from HLK reduces the stranding rate of fish. To determine whether physical habitat manipulation will reduce the incidence of fish stranding. Does wetted history (length of time the habitat has been wetted prior to the flow reduction) influence the number of fish stranded (interstitially and pool) per flow reduction event for flow reductions from HLK? Can a conditioning flow (temporary, one step, flow reduction of approximately 2 hours to the final target dam discharge that occurs prior to the final flow change) from HLK reduce the stranding rate of fish? Can physical habitat works (i.e., re-contouring) reduce the incidence of fish stranding in high risk areas? Wetted history does not influence the stranding rate of fish (both interstitially and pool stranding) for flow reductions from HLK. A conditioning flow from HLK does not reduce the stranding rate of fish in the lower Columbia River. Physical habitat manipulation does not reduce the stranding rate of fish in the lower Columbia River. The number of fish salvage events can be reduced through adaptive adjustments made as a result of ongoing data collection. Wetted history does influence the stranding rate of fish. A significant increase in the number of stranded fish was observed after a 10 day wetted history although the effect size (rate of stranding as a function of days of wetted history) has not been accurately described (Golder/Poisson 2010). Due to the limited data and the preliminary stages of analysis the hypotheses cannot be rejected at this time (Golder/Poisson 2010). Data collected and analyzed in previous studies demonstrates that physical habitat manipulation does reduce the incidence of fish stranding. The affect size (rate of stranding reduction) has not been adequately quantified. There was not a reduction in the number of occurrences which required the deployment of a stranding crew in year two as there are still data gaps to be filled and there was a transition to implementation of the new lower Columbia River stranding protocol. Reduce the number of occurrences when a stranding crew would be deployed for a flow reduction. Does the continued collection of stranding data, and upgrading of the lower Columbia River stranding protocol, limit the number of occurrences when stranding crews need to be deployed due to flow reductions from HLK? July, 2011 Report No /

6 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Key Words Lower Columbia River Kootenay River fish stranding flow reduction discharge regulation July, 2011 Report No /

7 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Acknowledgements Golder Associates Ltd. would like to thank David DeRosa, Trevor Oussoren, and Maureen Grainger of BC Hydro, Wendy Horan and Llewellyn Matthews of Columbia Power Corporation, and Sheila Street of FortisBC for their advice, assistance, and commitment. Golder Associates Ltd. would also like to thank Louise Porto, Rachel Keeler and Crystal Lawrence (AMEC Earth & Environmental) for their support with lower Columbia River sculpin and dace identification. The following employees of Golder Associates Ltd. contributed to the collection of data and preparation of this report. Demitria Burgoon Dana Schmidt Larry Hildebrand Bob Westcott Bob Chapman Dustin Ford Bronwen Lewis Carissa Canning David Roscoe Sarah Stephenson Chris King Steve Whitehead Megan Crozier Curtis Sherstobitoff Ron Giles Carrie McAllister Project Biologist/Author Project Director/Senior Fisheries Biologist/Limnologist/Editor Senior Fisheries Biologist/Editor Senior Environmental Biologist/Editor Senior Biological Technician Biologist/Database Manager Biologist Environmental Scientist Biologist Biologist/GIS Specialist Biological Technician Biological Technician Biological Technician Biological Technician Warehouse Technician Office Administrator July, 2011 Report No /

8 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION Scope and Objectives Management Questions Management Hypotheses Study Area METHODS Fish Stranding Risk Assessment Lower Columbia River (LCR) Fish Stranding Risk Assessment Standard Fish Stranding Assessments and Fish Salvage Methods RESULTS Operations Overview for 2010/ Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam and Arrow Lakes Generating Station (HLK/ALH) Brilliant Dam and Brilliant Expansion (BRD/BRX) Fish Stranding Assessments Fish Captured or Observed During 2010/2011 Stranding Assessments Sportfish Non-sportfish Listed Fish Species Umatilla Dace Columbia Sculpin Historic Fish Stranding Summary DISCUSSION CLBMON-#42(A) Lower Columbia River Fish Standing Assessment and Ramping Protocol Management Questions RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES CLOSURE July, 2011 Report No / i

9 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) TABLES Table 1: CLBMON #42 Status of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam Program Objectives, Management Questions and Hypotheses.... ES Table 2: Summary of Reduction Events (RE) from HLK/ALH and BRD/X 1 April 2010 to 1 April Table 3: Percentage of Fish, by Site, Stranded during the Reduction Events, 1 April 2010 to 1 April Table 4: Summary of Fish Species Captured or Observed during Fish Stranding Assessments Subsequent to Reductions in Discharge from Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam/Arrow Lakes Generating Station or from Brilliant Dam/Brilliant Expansion, 1 April 2010 to 1 April Table 5: Summary of Umatilla Dace Captured or Observed during Stranding Assessments (Data Collected between January 2000 and April 2011) Table 6: Summary of Columbia Sculpin Captured or Observed during Stranding Assessments (Data Collected between January 2000 and April 2011) Table 7: Summary of Effects and Corresponding Responses for Fish Stranding on the Lower Columbia and Kootenay Rivers from Flow Reductions from Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam and Brilliant Dam Sorted by Time of Year (Based on Data Collected between 2000 and 1 April 2011) FIGURES Figure 1: Columbia and Kootenay rivers stranding assessments study area, 1 April 2010 to 1 April Figure 2: Mean hourly discharge from HLK/ALH (solid blue line), BRD/X (solid red line) and at Birchbank (dotted black line), from 1 April 2010 to 1 April The solid vertical lines indicate the dates when a RE occurred at HLK/ALH and the dashed vertical lines indicate the dates when a RE occurred at BRD/X APPENDICES APPENDIX A Site Maps APPENDIX B Major Reduction Event Memo APPENDIX C Load Factoring Memo July, 2011 Report No / ii

10 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope and Objectives The primary objective of this monitoring program is to collect fish stranding data to assess the impact of flow reductions and flow ramping rates from Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam/Arrow Lakes Reservoir (HLK/ALH), and Brilliant Dam/Expansion (BRD/X) on the native fish species of the lower Columbia and Kootenay rivers. Secondary objectives include: 1) determining ramping rates for flow reductions that reduce fish stranding at different times of the year; 2) determining whether the wetted history influences the stranding rate of fish for flow reductions; 3) determining whether a conditioning flow reduction from HLK reduces the stranding rate of fish; 4) determining whether physical habitat manipulation reduces the incidence of fish stranding in the lower Columbia River; and, 5) reducing (through risk management strategies) the number of occurrences when stranding crews need to be deployed during flow reductions (BC Hydro, 2007). 1.2 Management Questions The key management questions identified under the Columbia Water Use Plan and addressed by this monitoring program for both the Columbia and Kootenay systems are (BC Hydro, 2007): 1) Is there a ramping rate (fast vs. slow, day vs. night) for flow reductions from HLK that reduces the number of fish stranded (interstitially and pool) per flow reduction event in the summer and winter? 2) Does wetted history (the length of time the habitat has been wetted prior to the flow reduction) influence the number of fish stranded (interstitially and pool) per flow reduction event for flow reductions from HLK? 3) Can a conditioning flow (a temporary, one step, flow reduction of approximately 2 hours to the final target dam discharge that occurs prior to the final flow change) from HLK reduce the stranding rate of fish? 4) Can physical habitat works (i.e., re-contouring) reduce the incidence of fish stranding in high risk areas? 5) Does the continued collection of stranding data, and upgrading of the lower Columbia River stranding protocol, limit the number of occurrences when stranding crews need to be deployed due to flow reductions from HLK? 1.3 Management Hypotheses For fish stranding in the lower Columbia River, the following hypotheses (BC Hydro, 2007) will be tested: Ho1: Ho2: Ho3: The number of stranded fish is independent of either the ramping rate or time of day of flow reductions in the summer and winter. Wetted history does not influence the stranding rate of fish (both interstitially and pool stranding) for flow reductions from HLK. A conditioning flow from HLK does not reduce the stranding rate of fish in the lower Columbia River. July, 2011 Report No /

11 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Ho4: Physical habitat manipulation does not reduce the stranding rate of fish in the lower Columbia River. 1.4 Study Area The study area encompasses the approximately 56 km long section of the lower Columbia River from Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam (HLK) to the US border and the lower Kootenay River from below Brilliant Dam to the Columbia River confluence (Figure 1). During the stranding assessments, the priority areas for assessment were the Columbia River from HLK to Genelle and the lower Kootenay River from the confluence with the Kootenay River to Brilliant Dam. July, 2011 Report No /

12 Arrow Lakes Generating Station Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam UPPER SECTION Blueberry Creek Norn's Creek Castlegar Brilliant Dam Brilliant Expansion Generating Station KOOTENAY RIVER KOOTENAY SECTION ³ China Creek Champion Creek MIDDLE SECTION COLUMBIA RIVER Trail Birchbank Water Gauge Station Rock Island Beaver Creek LOWER SECTION Fort Shepherd Eddy Waneta Dam Seven Mile Dam Legend River/Stream Island Road PROJECT TITLE Scale: 1:200,000 Lower Columbia River and Kootenay River Fish Stranding Study Area Overview Kilometres REFERENCE Digital Data Sets 082F.002, 082F.003, 082F.012, 082F.013, 082F.022, 082F.023, 082F.032, 082F.033 from BC Hydro. Datum: NAD 83 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Castlegar, British Columbia PROJECT No DESIGN SS 13 Jun GIS SS 13 Jun CHECK BW 13 Jun REVIEW DS 13 Jun SCALE AS SHOWN Figure 1 REV. 0

13 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Fish Stranding Risk Assessment Lower Columbia River (LCR) Fish Stranding Risk Assessment The revised fish stranding protocol Canadian Lower Columbia River Fish Stranding Risk Assessment and Response Strategy (Golder, 2011) was being tested during the second half of the stranding surveys conducted for this summary. Similar to the previous fish stranding protocols which BC Hydro, in collaboration with Columbia Operations Fish Advisory Committee (COFAC) developed to manage fish impacts associated with flow reductions from HLK/ALH and the Kootenay system, fish stranding risk was based on current knowledge of factors known to influence fish stranding on regulated systems and the results of previous stranding assessments (Vonk, 2003, Golder/Poisson 2010). Under the previous protocols, water temperature (a proxy for fish stranding risk in the shallows) was used to delineate risk periods. Flow reduction events that occurred at a particular time were categorized into the following risk levels: moderate risk period with ascending water temperatures (between 10 C and 15 C); high risk period (when water temperatures are increasing >15 through the summer, until they decrease below 10 C); moderate risk period with descending water temperatures (between 10 C and 5 C); or, low risk period (when water temperatures are <5 C until they increase to 10 C). During the latter part of 2010 and 2011, using the new fish stranding protocol, the risk periods were defined by: Timing of Reduction- Day of Year is a proxy for fish use of nearshore habitats which is similar in timing with the previous protocol. The higher stranding risk period occurs June 1 to September 30 and the lower risk period from October 1 to May 31(Golder/Poisson 2010). There was no significantly different risk within the lower risk period that warranted separating out moderate and low risk periods. River Stage- The probability of fish stranding typically increases with reduced water levels. The substrate gradient and presence of shallow depressions at these levels results in greater risk of fish stranding. During the high risk season (1 June to 30 September) fish stranding risk is less when discharge is greater than 110 kcfs (limited data) and during the low risk season (1 October to 31 May) when discharge is greater than 60 kcfs (Golder/Poisson 2010). Note: For this summary report, all data will be presented using the new risk categories independent of when the data were collected. The Lower Columbia River Fish Stranding Database was developed to archive historic flow reduction assessment data (discharge levels, ramping rates, sites, number of pools isolated, number and species of fish/egg stranded either interstitially or within pools etc.) for use in evaluating the potential impacts of a proposed flow reduction. The data from each stranding survey is entered into a MS Access database and an operating manual for the fish stranding database was created to assist staff and consultants with the operation and maintenance of the database (Golder, 2005). July, 2011 Report No /

14 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) The Fish Stranding Database is queried to help define fish stranding risk at a particular site based on past stranding observations under similar times of year and flow conditions. The Fish Stranding Database queries the historic data and produced estimates of stranding risk at individual sites. A site defined as having an Effect under the previous classification system is a site where the maximum number of fish stranded was equal to or greater than 10 fish (all species combined) and stranding has occurred in the past. The new criteria used for the designation of an Effect is where the maximum number of fish stranded at a site at one time, is equal to or greater than 200 fish (all species combined) or there have been listed species recorded at these sites and flow levels. A stranding rate of 200 fish is not anticipated to have a population level effect as these events have been primarily comprised of young of year cyprinids (Golder, 2011). A site defined as having a projected Minimal Effect under the new classification system is a site that has a history of stranding less than 200 fish. A site defined as Recon under both present and past classification systems is a site that has been visited a few times but where there is insufficient data to classify as one of the other categories. In order of priority, the sites surveyed in were Effect sites as assigned in the database, then Recon sites, and, if time permitted, Minimal Effect sites to confirm information in the database. Information from the database review is presented in a query table called Stranding Risk Assessment Output Standard Fish Stranding Assessments and Fish Salvage Methods There were no substantive changes to the standard methodologies used during the field component for each fish stranding assessment, although data collection requirements were strengthened based on the literature review and database analysis (Golder/Poisson 2010). The primary objective was to collect information on effects of flow reduction on fish stranding with fish salvage as a secondary objective. Fish stranding and salvage assessments begin at the most upstream site identified for assessment by the Fish Stranding Database query and continued downstream following the stage recession. The crew was on site no later than one hour after the initiation of a flow reduction from HLK/ALH or BRD/X. At each site the crew conducted the following activities: 1) Documented the current conditions (date, time, weather, air and water temperature, approximate vertical drawdown of the water level, etc.) on the Stranding Field Forms. 2) Observed and recorded the number of new isolated pools (if pools were present from prior reductions and previously sampled they were not included in this tally) that were created as a result of the flow reduction. 3) Inspected each pool for fish and attempted to salvage any fish that were present using dipnets, backpack electrofishers (Smith-Root Model 12-B POW), beach seines, or a combination of these methods. 4) Transferred the captured fish into a bucket of water where each fish was identified to species and life stage and then released into the main river after recording the data. For consistency, the following life stages were recorded; egg, young-of-the-year, juvenile (1 year+ to adult), and adult. If stranded fish were numerous, subsamples of the catch were examined. If field identification to species was not possible, the crew preserved a subsample (approximately 30 fish) for positive identification in the laboratory. Samples were preserved in Prefer for identification in the laboratory or anhydrous alcohol for possible DNA analysis in the future. July, 2011 Report No /

15 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) 5) Visually estimated the number of larva and alevins present if sample methods were ineffective at capturing these life stages. 6) Inspected interstitial stranding areas and salvaged any fish present. 7) Photographed representative areas of the site at the flow condition at the time of sampling and/or photographed representative or unusual fish species where appropriate. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Operations Overview for 2010/ Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam and Arrow Lakes Generating Station (HLK/ALH) From 1 April 2010 to 1 April 2011, the Columbia River mean hourly discharge from HLK/ALH ranged from a minimum of 15.0 kcfs (8 June 2010) to a maximum of 55.0 kcfs (17 January 2011). During the study period, there were 16 operational flow reduction events (REs) from HLK/ALH that affected flows in the lower Columbia River (Figure 1). Using the new fish stranding protocol definition of risk periods, 5 of the 16 REs occurred during the high risk period and 11 of the 16 REs occurred during the low risk period. The magnitude of flow reductions from HLK/ALH during the 2010/2011 REs ranged from 2.0 to 18.5 kcfs Brilliant Dam and Brilliant Expansion (BRD/BRX) From 1 April 2010 to 1 April 2011, the Kootenay River mean hourly discharge from BRD/BRX ranged from a minimum of 12.0 kcfs (17 April 2010) to a maximum of 78.0 kcfs (16 June 2010). During the study period, there were 5 operational flow reduction events (REs) from BRD/BRX (Figure 1) outside of the hydrograph recession post -freshet and load factoring periods. Using the new fish stranding protocol definition of the risk periods, 1 of the 5 REs occurred during the high risk period and 4 of the 5 REs occurred during the low risk period. The magnitude of flow reductions from BRD/X during the 2010/2011 REs ranged from 2.0 to 20.0 kcfs. Load factoring from Brilliant Dam occurred during April, May, July and December. The maximum reduction was 20.0 kcfs and occurred as a result of load factoring on 20 July Fish Stranding Assessments Fish stranding assessments were conducted during 19 of the 21 REs between 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011 (Figure 2, Table 2). The Discharge Change Coordinator did not deploy stranding crews for 2 reduction events (RE and RE ) associated with flow reductions from HLK/ALH. A stranding assessment was not conducted for RE because of the low fish numbers from the previous reduction assessment (RE on 11 Dec 2010), the overall stranding risk at that time of year, the query results, and the proposed operations (short duration of low flow periods). A night-time assessment was initially considered during this RE, but was not conducted due to poor visibility that would limit the value of the information gained. A stranding assessment was not conducted for RE because there was a limited wetted history and low number of fish stranded during the previous event. In total, 22 different sites were assessed at least once during the 2010/2011 stranding assessment period (Table 3). July, 2011 Report No /

16 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Figure 2: Mean hourly discharge from HLK/ALH (solid blue line), BRD/X (solid red line) and at Birchbank (dotted black line), from 1 April 2010 to 1 April The solid vertical lines indicate the dates when a RE occurred at HLK/ALH and the dashed vertical lines indicate the dates when a RE occurred at BRD/X. July, 2011 Report No /

17 Table 2: Summary of Reduction Events (RE) from HLK/ALH and BRD/X 1 April 2010 to 1 April Reduction Event No. Reduction Date Concern Category Crew Dispatched? Mean Daily Water Temp ( C) Birchbank Max. Q (kcfs) Min. Q (kcfs) Magnitude of Reduction (kcfs) Brilliant Dam/BRX Prev Q (kcfs) Resulting Q (kcfs) Magnitude of Reduction (kcfs) No. Ramped Flow Reductions Avg. Ramping Rate (kcfs) Prev Q (kcfs) HLK/ALGS Resulting Q (kcfs) Magnitude of Reduction (kcfs) No. Ramped Flow Reductions Avg. Ramping Rate (kcfs/hr) Pools Formed Interstitial Stranding Fish Stranded Sites Visited Purpose of flow reduction BRD/X Apr-10 Low Yes N/A N/A Yes No 90 4 System operations on the Kootenay River were modified to achieve IJC targets on Kootenay Lake. HLK/ALH Jun-10 High Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes 2 9 HLK generally backs off during this period as the Kootenay increase due to freshet. 20-Jul N/A N/A Yes Yes BRD/X 21-Jul N/A N/A Yes Yes a High Yes 22-Jul Yes Yes Onset of load factoring 26-Jul N/A N/A Yes Yes 0 3 HLK/ALH b 1-Aug-10 High Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. HLK/ALH Aug-10 High Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. HLK/ALH HLK/ALH HLK/ALH BRD/X HLK/ALH HLK/ALH HLK/ALH HLK/ALH Aug-10 High Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. 4-Sep-10 High Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Lower than normal inflows so HLK discharge was reduced. 8-Oct-10 Low Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. 20-Oct-10 Low Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Short term maintenance reduction. 23-Oct-10 Low Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes 8 7 Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. 20-Nov-10 Low Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. 11-Dec-10 Low Yes N/A c N/A N/A Yes Yes 8 11 Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. 14-Dec-10 Low No d N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A US request to help Chum flows in US Lower Columbia HLK/ALH Jan-11 Low Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes 0 12 Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. BRD/X Jan-11 Low Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes 0 10 Ramp down of spill during SPOG outage, will maintain IJC rquirements without spill HLK/ALH BRD/X HLK/ALH HLK/ALH HLK/ALH HLK/ALH Jan Feb-11 5-Mar Mar Mar-11 Low Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes 49 8 Release of Provisional Draft requirements Low Yes N/A Low Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes 0 10 Provisional draft requirements Low Yes N/A N/A Low No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. 31-Mar N/A N/A Yes Yes Low Yes 1-Apr N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes 2.5 Yes Yes Yes Maintain freefall at COR Adjustments to meet Treaty requirements. Establishment of rainbow trout protection flows. a Memo report generated October 2010 "Assessment of Fish Stranding Associated with Brilliant Dam Load Factoring Operations, Reduction Event on 20, 21, 22, and 26 July 2010". b Memo report generated August 2010 "Assessment of Fish Stranding Associated with Flow Reductions from Arrow Lakes Reservoir (ALR); Reduction Event , 1 August 2010". c Flows increased.

18 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Table 3: Percentage of Fish, by Site, Stranded during the Reduction Events, 1 April 2010 to 1 April Site a Total Number of Visits Total number of Fish Stranded % Stranded Fish by Site Fort Shepherd Launch RUB b Genelle Mainland LUB b Kootenay River LUB Kootenay River RUB Norn's Creek Fan RUB Gyro Boat Launch RUB Bear Creek RUB Tin Cup Rapids RUB Lions Head RUB Casino Road Bridge LUB (downstream) CPR Island Mid Millennium Park LUB Beaver Creek RUB 6 6 <0.1 Fort Shepherd Eddy LUB 2 2 <0.1 Zuckerberg Island LUB 8 1 <0.1 Millennium Bridge LUB Blueberry Creek LUB Genelle Upper Cobble Island Mid Genelle Lower Cobble Island Mid Casino Road Bridge LUB (upstream) Trail Bridge RUB Beaver Creek LUB a Appendix A; Figures A1 through A8 b LUB=left upstream bank; RUB=right upstream bank 3.3 Fish Captured or Observed During 2010/2011 Stranding Assessments Isolated pools were identified during all REs for which a stranding assessment was conducted. Stranded fish were not observed during four surveys: RE , RE , RE , and RE (Table 2). During the 19 REs in which fish stranding assessments were conducted, a total of fish were found stranded (Table 2). The majority (88%) of these fish were observed during the 6 RE assessments conducted during the high risk period (June 1 to September 30). The total number of fish observed or captured for each RE ranged from 0 to 7513 (Table 2).The majority of the isolated fish were identified from pools located at the Fort Shepherd Launch RUB (38.1%), Genelle Mainland LUB (20.0%), Kootenay River RUB (17.0%) and Kootenay River LUB sites (9.0%) (Table 3). The remaining 15.9% of the isolated fish were found at the Norn's Creek Fan RUB, Gyro Boat Launch RUB, Bear Creek RUB, Tin Cup Rapids RUB, Lions Head RUB, Casino Road Bridge LUB (downstream), CPR Island Mid, Millennium Park LUB, Beaver Creek RUB, Fort Shepherd Eddy LUB and July, 2011 Report No /

19 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) the Zuckerberg Island LUB sites (Appendix A; Figure A1 through A8 for site locations). Fish were not found stranded at the remainder of the sites visited during the monitoring period (Table 3). Over 90% of the stranded fish recorded at the Fort Shepherd Launch RUB site were young-of-the-year smallmouth bass observed during RE and RE Two adult smallmouth bass were also observed in isolated pools during these REs. A detailed memo summary was prepared for RE as per the reporting requirements for a major stranding event (>5000 fish observed) and is included in Appendix B (Golder, 2010b). Similarly, 92% of the stranded fish from the Kootenay River LUB site were observed during RE (an assessment related to Kootenay load factoring) and a separate memo was provided and is attached in Appendix C (Golder, 2010a). The majority (81%) of the fish stranded during RE were larval cyprinids and catostomids. Subsamples (n=117) collected and preserved during this RE were identified as larval sucker species, longnose dace, and redside shiner. The majority (90%) were sucker species. As with previous years, assessment efforts were concentrated on the sites upstream of, and including, the Genelle Mainland LUB site as outlined in the Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Monitoring Program Terms of Reference- Lower Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CLBMON-42 Lower Columbia River Fish Stranding Assessment and Ramping Protocol, 31 August 2007) that are known areas of higher fish stranding risk. These sites were also assessed more often as a result of the database queries to identify areas where fish stranding was most likely to occur, based on historic results; therefore, sample efforts were biased towards sampling at those sites. Site access and length of daylight hours during certain times of year also limited the number of sites that could be assessed on any given day. This specifically effected the sites downstream of the Genelle Mainland LUB site on the right upstream bank (Gyro Boat Launch RUB, Beaver Creek RUB, Trail Bridge RUB, Casino Bridge LUB (upstream), Casino Bridge LUB (downstream), Bear Creek RUB and Fort Shepherd Launch sites) and the sites accessed using the Fort Shepherd Conservancy Area access road on the left upstream side of the Columbia River (Beaver Creek LUB and Fort Shepherd Eddy LUB sites) (Appendix A; Figures A5 to A8). Fish species recorded during the 2010/2011 stranding assessments in descending order of abundance were: unidentified larval cyprinids and catostomids; smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu); sucker species (Catostomus spp.); longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae); larval whitefish species (Prosopium spp.); rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss); redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus); northern pikeminnow (Ptychochelius oregonesis); torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus); dace species (Rhinichthys spp.); Umatilla dace (Rhinichthys umatilla); sculpin species (Cottus spp.); peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus); and prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) (Table 4). One of each of the following species were also recorded during the stranding assessments; carp (Cyprinus carpio), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and Columbia sculpin (Cottus hubbsi) (Table 4). July, 2011 Report No /

20 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Table 4: Summary of Fish Species Captured or Observed during Fish Stranding Assessments Subsequent to Reductions in Discharge from Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam/Arrow Lakes Generating Station or from Brilliant Dam/Brilliant Expansion, 1 April 2010 to 1 April 2011 Species Total Stranded and/or Captured Percent of Total Stranded and/or Captured (%) Number of Mortalities Number Salvaged Species Classification SARA a COSEWIC b CDC c Sportfish Nonsportfish Rainbow trout N/A N/A Yellow Whitefish species N/A N/A Yellow Dace species N/A d N/A d N/A d Longnose dace N/A N/A Yellow Umatilla dace Schedule 3 Threatened Red Northern pikeminnow N/A N/A Yellow Peamouth N/A N/A Yellow Redside shiner N/A N/A N/A Sculpin species N/A d N/A d N/A d Columbia sculpin 1 < Special Concern Special Concern Prickly sculpin N/A N/A N/A Torrent sculpin N/A N/A Yellow Common carp 1 < N/A N/A N/A Smallmouth bass N/A N/A N/A Yellow perch 1 < N/A N/A N/A Sucker species N/A e N/A e N/A e Unidentified f N/A d N/A d N/A d Totals Blue a Species at Risk Act; Species that were designated at risk by COSEWIC (the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) before the creation of the Species at Risk Act must be reassessed according to the new criteria of the Act before they can be added to Schedule 1. These species are listed on Schedules 2 and 3, and are not yet officially protected under SARA. (COSEWIC 2010) b Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada c Conservation Data Centre; Red=ecological communities and indigenous species and subspecies that are extirpated, endangered or threatened in British Columbia; Blue= ecological communities and indigenous species and subspecies of special concern in British Columbia; Yellow= ecological communities and indigenous species and subspecies that are not at risk in British Columbia d Fish identified to family level or other high level taxa may potentially be species of concern under the classification systems listed. e No species are listed from this region that are found under any of the classification criteria for species of concern. f Not identified to species because they were larval or young-of-the-year life stages or observed but not captured. July, 2011 Report No /

21 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) The majority (n= or 77%) of stranded fish found during the 2010/2011 study were found during 3 reduction events (RE with 25%; RE with 37%; and RE with 15%). These REs occurred during the latter part of July (RE was in response to the onset of BRD/X load factoring) and at the beginning of August (Table 3). Approximately half (45%) of these fish were young-of-the-year smallmouth bass from the Fort Shepherd RUB site found during RE (Table 4). Determining the species of larval fish in the field has been an on-going challenge; therefore, subsamples of larval fish were collected during stranding assessments in the high risk period. Species positively identified in the laboratory (n=175) were (in descending order of abundance) sucker spp. (n=143), longnose dace (n=21), northern pikeminnow (n=9), and redside shiner (n=2). Additional samples that were collected and preserved in anhydrous ethanol for DNA analysis to confirm species identification were not analyzed at the time of this writing. Based on this distribution, cyprinid and catosotomid species likely made up the bulk of the unidentified larval fish (n=7022; Table 4). Over 90% of the unidentified larval fish were documented as either mortalities or not salvaged. Existing salvage methods are ineffective at capturing larval fish (i.e., beach seining is not effective in pools with cobble substrate bottoms and the backpack electrofisher is not effective at attracting and immobilizing very small bodied fish) Sportfish All whitefish species recorded during the 2010/2011 stranding assessments were larval fish associated with 2 reduction events that occurred in early spring (RE and RE ). The small body size and fragility of these fish made any salvage methods or efforts unsuitable. These fish were located at four sites (Norn s Creek Fan RUB, Kootenay River LUB, Kootenay River RUB and Genelle Mainland LUB sites; See Appendix A; Figure A1, A2 and A4 for site locations). Approximately 90% of the rainbow trout recorded during the stranding assessments were found at sites upstream of the Columbia and Kootenay river confluence (Appendix A; Figure A1 and A2). All of these rainbow trout were classified as either juvenile or young-of-the year fish Non-sportfish The majority of non-sportfish found during the 2010/2011 stranding assessments were smallmouth bass (n= 7006) and the second most numerous species recorded were juvenile sucker species (n=3461) (Table 4). The preliminary data from the laboratory identification of the subsamples of unidentified larval fish indicate a high percentage (~90%) of sucker species. All smallmouth bass were observed at the Fort Shepherd RUB site (Appendix A; Figure A8). The one juvenile yellow perch was captured at the Kootenay River RUB site (Appendix A; Figure A2). The one juvenile common carp was captured at the Gyro Boat Launch RUB site (Appendix A; Figure A5) Listed Fish Species Columbia sculpin, shorthead sculpin (Cottus confusus), Umatilla dace, and white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) are the four listed resident species in the study area. The Columbia sculpin and Umatilla dace have been documented during past stranding programs. A summary of these listed species (numbers and July, 2011 Report No /

22 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) locations) from previous stranding assessments in the study area (January 2000 to April 2011) was completed by reviewing the stranding database. White sturgeon or shorthead sculpin have not been found stranded to date. During the 2010/2011 stranding assessments, one positively identified adult Columbia sculpin was salvaged from the Norn s Creek Fan RUB site during RE Approximately 70 unidentified sculpin species were captured or observed and subsamples were preserved for identification purposes (results pending); therefore, some of these fish may potentially be Columbia or shorthead sculpin. Over the 2010/2011 assessment period, 154 Umatilla dace and 137 dace species were observed or captured. There was the potential for some of the unidentified dace to be Umatilla dace. Most of the Umatilla dace were from the 2 sites on the Kootenay River (67%) and the Fort Shepherd Launch RUB site (29%). The remainder were from the Tin Cup Rapids RUB, Genelle Mainland LUB and Gyro Boat Launch RUB sites (See appendix A; Figure A1 through A8 for all site locations) Umatilla Dace The range of Umatilla dace in Canada includes the Columbia River below HLK, the Slocan River, the Kootenay River below the Bonnington Falls, and parts of the Similkameen and Kettle rivers (McPhail, 2007). Umatilla dace was designated as a species of Special Concern in April In 2011, the status was changed to Threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (BCCDC 2011). This species is also provincially red listed by the BC Ministry of Environments Ecosystems Branch. From January 2000 to April 2011, 1610 Umatilla dace have been recorded at 10 different sites on the Columbia and Kootenay rivers (Table 5). This total also includes Umatilla dace stranded at sites prior to re-contouring (shaded cells in Table 5). Most (96%) of the stranded Umatilla dace were recorded during stranding assessments completed during the low risk period (30 September to 1 June; Table 5). The number of Umatilla dace recorded may not reflect the actual number of this species that were stranded at these sites (or at other sites where Umatilla dace were not recorded) because of a large number of unidentified larval cyprinids that were collected during different times of the year (i.e., the periods of 1 May to 1 June and 1 June to 30 September may be under-represented). Most of the larval fish observed or collected were entered into the database as unidentified. There were also approximately 1600 dace identified to family, either because their early life stage or small body size made it too difficult to identify them to species or they were observed in a pool but not captured. Some of these fish may have been Umatilla dace. Most (60%) of the Umatilla dace were from the 2 sites on the Kootenay River. The remaining 40% were from 8 sites on the Columbia River. Most of the Umatilla dace from the Columbia River sites were found at the Fort Shepherd Launch RUB (15%); the Genelle Mainland LUB (before and after re-contouring (10%)); the Gyro Boat Launch RUB (10%); and the Bear Creek RUB (3%) sites (Table 5; Appendix A; Figures A1 through A8). July, 2011 Report No /

23 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Table 5: Summary of Umatilla Dace Captured or Observed during Stranding Assessments (Data Collected between January 2000 and April 2011). Site a b Total Number of Risk Period Visits Number of Visits with Stranded Umatilla Dace Number of Stranded Umatilla Dace Norn s Creek Fan RUB Low Tin Cup Rapids RUB High Kootenay River LUB Low High Kootenay River RUB Low Millennium Park LUB Low Genelle Mainland Low LUB High Genelle Mainland Low LUB (Before Recontouring) High Gyro Boat Launch RUB Low Trail Bridge RUB Low Bear Creek RUB Low Fort Shepherd Low Launch RUB High Total 1610 a Appendix A; Figure A1 through A8 for site locations. b Low= 30 September to 1 June; High= 1 June to 30 September Columbia Sculpin The Columbia sculpin was recognized as a species distinct from the mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) in The Columbia sculpin was assigned COSEWIC and SARA designations of Special Concern due to habitat loss. During stranding assessments conducted between January 2000 and April 2011, 191 Columbia sculpin were captured at 7 different sites on the Columbia and Kootenay rivers (Table 6).This total includes fish stranded at sites prior to re-contouring (shaded cells in Table 6). Most (77%) of these fish were from the Genelle Mainland LUB site before and after re-contouring. Approximately 10% were from the Kootenay River LUB site with the other 13% dispersed fairly evenly between the remaining 5 sites. Similar to the Umatilla dace numbers, most of the Columbia sculpin (99%; Table 6) were observed or captured during stranding assessments conducted during the low risk period (30 September to 1 June). The number of Columbia sculpin recorded may not reflect the actual number of this species that were stranded at these sites (or at other sites where Columbia sculpin were not recorded) because of a large number of unidentified sculpin species (n=26 000) that were recorded during stranding assessments. July, 2011 Report No /

24 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Table 6: Summary of Columbia Sculpin Captured or Observed during Stranding Assessments (Data Collected between January 2000 and April 2011). Site a b Total Number of Risk Period Visits Number of Visits with Stranded Columbia Sculpin Number of Stranded Columbia Sculpin Norn s Creek Fan Low RUB High CPR Island (Mid) Low Tin Cup Rapids RUB Low Kootenay River LUB Low Kootenay River RUB Low Millennium Park LUB (Before Recontouring) Low Genelle Mainland LUB Low Genelle Mainland LUB (Before Low Recontouring) Trail Bridge RUB Low Total 191 a Appendix A; Figure A1 through A8 for site locations. b Low= 30 September to 1 June; High= 1 June to 30 September Historic Fish Stranding Summary The results of fish stranding assessments conducted between January 2000 and April 2011 have been summarized by site, water elevation and risk period in Table 7. This table can be used as a tool for personnel managing flow reductions to readily identify sites, flows, and seasons of high stranding risk. The new risk period criteria (based on season) were used to update this table. The classification of sites where listed species have been previously identified was also included (yellow highlighted cells) for this annual summary. The format of the summary of effects and corresponding responses in Table 7 has changed slightly to incorporate the revised fish stranding protocol; the fish numbers are now presented as the maximum number of fish observed stranded at each site during a single assessment, rather than a cumulative number of fish stranded at each site. Sites that are no longer visited (i.e., REA Side Channel and Rock Island), have been removed. The continued collection of data at sites with no data or insufficient data will continue to help identify sites that pose a higher risk of fish stranding during flow reductions, so salvage and assessment efforts can be more focussed. July, 2011 Report No /

25 Table 7 Summary of effects and corresponding responses for fish stranding on the lower Columbia River from flow reductions at Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam and Brilliant Dam sorted by time of year. (Based on data collected between 2000 and 2011) Time of Year 15 Dec to 1 May 1 May to 1 Jun 1 Jun to 30 Sep 30 Sep to 15 Dec Resultant Birchbank Discharge (kcfs) Lions Head Max. fish visits Norn's Creek Fan Max. fish visits Observed Effect Columbia River Kootenay River Columbia River CPR Island Max. fish visits Tin Cup Rapids Max. # of fish visits Millennium Park Max. fish visits Kootenay River (LUB) Max. fish visits Kootenay River (RUB) Max. fish visits Zuckerberg Island Max. fish visits Kinnaird Rapids Max. fish visits Blueberry Creek Max. fish visits Genelle Mainland Max. # of fish 30 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools 0 1 No Pools No Pools No Pools 0 1 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools >120 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools 30 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools >120 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools 30 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools 12 1 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools 0 2 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools 20 1 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools >120 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools 1 1 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools 0 1 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools >120 No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools No Pools visits Genelle Upper Cobble Island Max. fish visits Genelle Lower Cobble Island Max. fish visits Gyro Boat Launch Max. fish visits Trail Bridge Max. fish visits Casino Road Bridge, Trail (u/s) Max. fish visits Casino Road Bridge, Trail (d/s) Max. fish visits Bear Creek Max. fish visits Beaver Creek (RUB) Max. fish visits Beaver Creek (LUB) Max. fish visits Fort Shepherd Eddy Max. fish visits Fort Shepherd Launch Max. fish visits Code Description No Pools Minimal Effect No Data or Insufficient Data Effect Unlikely Discharge Range Listed species were captured or observed. Does not include data pre-recontoring. Includes all visits and fish for until 1 April Definition and Response Site has been previously surveyed; pools have not been recorded at or near these flows. No Response. Site has been previously surveyed; isolated pools were observed; less than 200 fish were recorded during each reduction event under similar conditions (minimum of 5 visits under similar conditions). No Response. Site has been previously surveyed less than five times at or near these flows; less than 200 fish were recorded during each reduction event under similar conditions. Reconnaissance Survey. Site has been previously surveyed; isolated pools were observed; more than 200 fish were recorded during a single reduction event under similar conditions. Stranding Survey. Birchbank discharge has not been recorded at these levels during the specified time period (based on discharge data collected between 2000 and 2010). During at least one of the visits at these sites listed species were captured or observed, during these resultant discharge levels.

26 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) 4.0 DISCUSSION CLBMON-#42(A) Lower Columbia River Fish Standing Assessment and Ramping Protocol Management Questions The first 4 management questions from the BC Hydro Water Use Plan terms of reference were addressed using the same data that was used during the annual summary for as there was no additional information collected to address these questions. Since the new protocol was implemented, the process for answering question 5 is in progress. The management questions are addressed as follows: 1) Is there a ramping rate (fast vs. slow, day vs. night) for flow reductions from HLK that reduces the number of fish stranded (interstitially and pool) per flow reduction event in the summer and winter? Information regarding ramping rates was obtained through a review of the fish stranding database for the lower Columbia and lower Kootenay rivers. There has been a trend for increased stranding with increased ramping rates displayed in the data collected during ramping experimentation in the Columbia, Kootenay and lower Duncan River river systems; however, this trend is not statistically significant. Therefore, the ramping rates within the previously used ranges were not considered a statistically significant predictor for defining fish stranding risk (Golder/Poisson, 2010). 2) Does wetted history (length of time the habitat has been wetted prior to the flow reduction) influence the number of fish stranded (interstitially and pool) per flow reduction event for flow reductions from HLK? Previous analysis has shown a statistically significant increase in the number of fish stranded during assessments conducted after a wetted history of greater than 10 days versus a wetted history of less than ten days (Poisson, 2009). However, there is insufficient data to define the size of the effect (proportion of the population affected and the response to wetted histories of variable lengths greater than 10 days). 3) Can a conditioning flow (temporary, one step, flow reduction of approximately 2 hours to the final target dam discharge that occurs prior to the final flow change) from HLK reduce the stranding rate of fish? At this time, conditioning flow reductions are not being considered as a management tool to reduce fish stranding. Two key concerns regarding an assumption that conditioning flow reductions reduce fish stranding were identified in a recent literature review document (Golder and Poisson 2010). The first concern was the limited amount of data collected and preliminary stages of research on the suitability of conditioning flows for use on the Columbia and Kootenay river systems. The second concern was with the actual effectiveness of the method (i.e., some fish may leave the area but the conditioning reduction may cause significant mortality within a short period of time, which would reduce the practicality of the method; Golder and Poisson 2010). 4) Can physical habitat works (i.e., re-contouring) reduce the incidence of fish stranding in high risk areas? Over the past 10 years, 4 of the previously identified high risk stranding sites have been re-contoured in an attempt to mitigate the occurrence and severity of fish stranding. The Genelle Lower Cobble Island site was re-contoured in 2001, Millennium Park site in September 2001, Norn s Creek Fan site in 2002, and Genelle Mainland site in Analysis of data from these sites showed that re-contouring did reduce the incidence of fish stranding in high risk areas (Golder/Poisson, 2010). No additional re-contouring work has been completed since However the effect size (the proportion of the population or the relative number of fish not stranded as a result of the physical habitat works) has not been defined because of limited data. July, 2011 Report No /

27 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) 5) Does the continued collection of stranding data, and upgrading of the lower Columbia River stranding protocol, limit the number of occurrences when stranding crews need to be deployed due to flow reductions from HLK? The continued collection of stranding data up to this point has not had an effect on the number of occurrences when a stranding crew was deployed for flow reductions from HLK during the 2010/2011 assessment period. This may be because there is still the requirement to fill in data gaps (Table 7) but the expectation is that more data will reduce the number of flow reduction events that require the deployment of a stranding crew in future. As mentioned in the methods section, half of the stranding assessments this year occurred prior to the establishment of the new Lower Columbia River Stranding Protocol. Therefore, it was not possible to fully assess this hypothesis. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Use the revised Canadian Lower Columbia River: Fish Stranding Risk Assessment and Response Strategy as well as the Columbia River Fish Stranding Database as tools to streamline the fish stranding management associated with flow reductions from HLK/ALH and BRD/X and to mitigate the impacts on fish downstream of these facilities. The fish stranding database requires revisions along with an update of the manual to reflect changes to risk assessment decision making. 2) Fish species identification should continue to be a priority during stranding assessments, including larval fish identification. Continued coordination with AMEC staff during the current sculpin/dace monitoring study will improve fish identification (especially for sculpin species). When large numbers of fish are encountered, the collection of sub-samples for positive identification is recommended. When a large number of fish are observed in a pool and species identification is not possible due to field conditions and constraints (i.e., too large of pool to effectively sample), a voucher sample should be taken. This would assist in the effort to reduce the amount of unidentified species entered into the database. Golder also recommends improving tools/methods used to identify larval and young-of the year fish during the high risk period. 3) Flow reduction event numbers should be designated by BC Hydro personnel, and identified during the flow reduction notification process. The current system only identifies flow reduction events when stranding crews are dispatched. This means that only flow reductions which trigger a response from Golder are given a reduction event number. Having a BC Hydro initiated flow reduction tracking system in place would aid in documenting, tracking, and analyzing the data for all future flow reduction events on the Columbia River system. This could be accomplished by having the fish stranding database and the reduction event folder available though a SharePoint site; this would allow BC Hydro to query the database and identify REs that do not require a stranding crew. The reduction would then receive a RE number and the appropriate documentation and response would be recorded. July, 2011 Report No /

28 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) 4) Re-contour Kootenay RUB site to assist in the draining of Kootenay Oxbow. This would help reduce stranding at a very public and logistically difficult place to salvage fish (very large, shallow pools with cobble substrate bottoms). Over the past 16 years there have been approximately fish isolated in pools at this site. In the period between 2007 and 2011 there were approximately fish isolated, with the majority identified as juvenile sucker species (47%) and unidentified cyprinid species (38%) in this same location. During the summary period, 123 Umatilla dace were observed isolated at this site and re-contouring of this area may help reduce stranding of this listed species. A cost/benefit analysis of this recommendation as well as looking at other alternatives that will minimize fish stranding should be considered. This area is important wildlife habitat and any changes to the oxbow structure must also consider wildlife impacts. 5) Conduct additional re-contouring at the Genelle Mainland LUB site to reduce incidents of fish stranding: a) to improve drainage between the access road and the Whispering Pines Trailer Park; and, b) to make improvements to previously re-contoured area by removing the berm created by the deposition of fines. 6) Re-contour the Lion s Head RUB site to reduce the incidence of fish stranding. This site has numerous artificial depressions that are prone to fish stranding. 7) Re-contour the Gyro Park Launch RUB site to reduce incidence of fish stranding. The site has a large artificial depression (potential storm drain exit) that is prone to fish stranding. 8) Attempt to access sites designated as reconnaissance sites by the database query in order to continue to fill in data gaps. Sites that have not been visited within the previous two years (even if they are minimal effect or no pools ) should be re-visited to confirm the validity of the database queries. This would include boat access to stranding locations that do not have vehicle access (i.e., Upper and Lower Cobble Island sites in Genelle), to evaluate stranding risk in these areas. This could be done in conjunction with other work in the area (i.e. during rainbow protection flow surveys). 6.0 REFERENCES B.C. Conservation Data Centre (BCCDC) BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Ministry of Environment Victoria, B.C. Available: (accessed Jan 10, 2011). COSEWIC COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Umatilla Dace Rhinichthys umatilla in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xii + 37 pp. ( BC Hydro Kootenay River Fish Salvage Protocol Draft. Report prepared for the CPA Operating Committee. BC Hydro Columbia River Project, Water Use Plan, Monitoring Program Terms of Reference: Lower Columbia River Fish Management Plan. 37 p + 2 appendices. July, 2011 Report No /

29 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) Golder Associates Ltd Canadian Lower Columbia River Fish Stranding Database Operating Manual BC Hydro Stranding Database Operating Manual for the Kootenay Generation Area, B.C. Report prepared for BC Hydro, CPC and FortisBC. Castlegar, B.C. Golder Report No D: 10 p. + 3 appendices. Golder Associates Ltd. 2010a. Assessment of Fish Stranding Associated with Brilliant Dam Load Factoring Operations, Reduction Event 2010, on 20, 21, 22 and 26 July Memo report prepared for BC Hydro, CPC and FortisBC. Castlegar, BC. Golder Report No Golder Associates Ltd. 2010b. Assessment of Fish Stranding Associated with Flow Reductions from Arrow Lakes Reservoir (ALR): Reduction Event , 1 August Memo report prepared for BC Hydro. Castlegar, BC. Golder Report No Golder Associates Ltd Canadian Lower Columbia River: Fish Stranding Risk Assessment and Response Strategy, Report prepared for BC Hydro, Columbia Power Corporation, Fortis BC, Columbia operations Fish Advisory Committee (COFAC) and Canal Plant Agreement Operating Committee, Golder Report No F: 31 p. + 4 appendices. Golder Associates Ltd. and Poisson Consulting Ltd Columbia and Kootenay River Fish Stranding Protocol Review: Literature Review and Fish Stranding Database Analysis. 34 pp + appendices. McPhail JD The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. University of Alberta Press. Poisson (2009) Columbia and Kootenay Rivers Stranding Analysis Final April 29. Vonk, P. (2003) Strategy for Managing Fish Stranding Impacts Associated with Flow Reductions at Keenleyside Dam: Lower Columbia River. Prepared for COFAC and the Columbia WUP FTC. July, 2011 Report No /

30 7.0 CLOSURE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) We trust that this report meets your current requirements. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. Demitria Burgoon, BSc Aquatics Biologist Dana Schmidt, Ph. D., R.P. Bio. Associate, Senior Fisheries Biologist/Limnologist DB/DS/cma Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation. n:\active\_2010\1492 biology\ bc hydro columbia river fish stranding\reports\final report\text\ _001_r-rev0_clbmon#42andkootenayrive annual summary_20july2011.docx July, 2011 Report No /

31

32 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) APPENDIX A Site Maps July, 2011 Report No /

33

34 Lion's Head kj Norn's Creek Fan kj -8 CPR Island kj KOOTENAY RIVER COLUMBIA RIVER INSET MAP PEND d'oreille RIVER LEGEND River Kilometre Downstream of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam kj Stranding Site ³ SCALE Metres PROJECT TITLE Lower Columbia River and Kootenay River Fish Stranding Site Locations- Upper Section 1:6,000 REFERENCE PROJECT No SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 DESIGN SS 26 Apr Orthophotos from BC Government Web Maps, flows represented vary with date GIS SS 26 Apr of orthophotos. Site locations are approximations. CHECK DB 26 Apr A1 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 Castlegar, British Columbia REVIEW DS 26 Apr. 2011

35 kj Millenium Park -10 Tin Cup kj Millenium Bridge kj Zuckerberg Island kj Kootenay River (LUB) kj -11 Kootenay River (RUB) kj KOOTENAY RIVER COLUMBIA RIVER INSET MAP PEND d'oreille RIVER Kinnaird Rapids kj LEGEND River Kilometre Downstream of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam kj Stranding Site ³ PROJECT TITLE Metres SCALE Lower Columbia River and Kootenay River Fish Stranding Site Locations- Upper and Kootenay Sections 1:9,500 REFERENCE PROJECT No SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 DESIGN SS 26 Apr Orthophotos from BC Government Web Maps, flows represented vary with date GIS SS 26 Apr of orthophotos. Site locations are approximations. CHECK DB 26 Apr A2 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 Castlegar, British Columbia REVIEW DS 26 Apr. 2011

36 -20 Blueberry Creek kj KOOTENAY RIVER COLUMBIA RIVER INSET MAP PEND d'oreille RIVER LEGEND River Kilometre Downstream of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam kj Stranding Site ³ PROJECT TITLE Metres SCALE Lower Columbia River and Kootenay River Fish Stranding Site Locations- Middle Section 1:3,500 REFERENCE PROJECT No SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 DESIGN SS 26 Apr Orthophotos from BC Government Web Maps, flows represented vary with date GIS SS 26 Apr of orthophotos. Site locations are approximations. CHECK DB 26 Apr A3 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 Castlegar, British Columbia REVIEW DS 26 Apr. 2011

37 Genelle (Mainland) kj -25 Genelle Upper Cobble Island kj -26 KOOTENAY RIVER Genelle Lower Cobble Island kj COLUMBIA RIVER INSET MAP PEND d'oreille RIVER LEGEND River Kilometre Downstream of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam kj Stranding Site ³ PROJECT TITLE Metres Lower Columbia River and Kootenay River Fish Stranding SCALE Site Locations- Middle Section 1:10,000 REFERENCE PROJECT No SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 DESIGN SS 26 Apr Orthophotos from BC Government Web Maps, flows represented vary with date GIS SS 26 Apr of orthophotos. Site locations are approximations. CHECK DB 26 Apr A4 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 Castlegar, British Columbia REVIEW DS 26 Apr. 2011

38 kj Gyro Boat Launch -39 Trail Bridge (Downstream) kj KOOTENAY RIVER COLUMBIA RIVER Casino Road Bridge, Trail (Downstream) Casino Road Bridge, Trail (Upstream) kj kj -40 INSET MAP PEND d'oreille RIVER LEGEND River Kilometre Downstream of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam kj Stranding Site ³ SCALE Metres PROJECT TITLE Lower Columbia River and Kootenay River Fish Stranding Site Locations- Middle Section 1:6,500 REFERENCE PROJECT No SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 DESIGN SS 26 Apr Orthophotos from BC Government Web Maps, flows represented vary with date GIS SS 26 Apr of orthophotos. Site locations are approximations. CHECK DB 26 Apr A5 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 Castlegar, British Columbia REVIEW DS 26 Apr. 2011

39 Bear Creek kj KOOTENAY RIVER -45 COLUMBIA RIVER INSET MAP PEND d'oreille RIVER LEGEND River Kilometre Downstream of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam kj Stranding Site ³ PROJECT TITLE Metres Lower Columbia River and Kootenay River Fish Stranding SCALE Site Locations- Lower Section 1:4,500 REFERENCE PROJECT No SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 DESIGN SS 26 Apr Orthophotos from BC Government Web Maps, flows represented vary with date GIS SS 26 Apr of orthophotos. Site locations are approximations. CHECK DB 26 Apr A6 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 Castlegar, British Columbia REVIEW DS 26 Apr. 2011

40 Beaver Creek (LUB) kj Beaver Creek kj KOOTENAY RIVER -48 COLUMBIA RIVER INSET MAP PEND d'oreille RIVER LEGEND River Kilometre Downstream of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam kj Stranding Site ³ PROJECT TITLE Metres Lower Columbia River and Kootenay River Fish Stranding SCALE Site Locations- Lower Section 1:4,500 REFERENCE PROJECT No SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 DESIGN SS 26 Apr Orthophotos from BC Government Web Maps, flows represented vary with date GIS SS 26 Apr of orthophotos. Site locations are approximations. CHECK DB 26 Apr A7 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 Castlegar, British Columbia REVIEW DS 26 Apr. 2011

41 Fort Shepherd Eddy kj -53 KOOTENAY RIVER COLUMBIA RIVER Fort Shepherd Launch kj INSET MAP PEND d'oreille RIVER LEGEND River Kilometre Downstream of Hugh L. Keenleyside Dam kj Stranding Site ³ PROJECT TITLE Metres Lower Columbia River and Kootenay River Fish Stranding SCALE Site Locations- Lower Section 1:6,500 REFERENCE PROJECT No SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0 DESIGN SS 26 Apr Orthophotos from BC Government Web Maps, flows represented vary with date GIS SS 26 Apr of orthophotos. Site locations are approximations. CHECK DB 26 Apr A8 Projection: UTM Zone 11 Datum: NAD 83 Castlegar, British Columbia REVIEW DS 26 Apr. 2011

42 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) APPENDIX B Major Reduction Event Memo July, 2011 Report No /

43

44 MEMORANDUM TO Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa DATE 4 August 2010 CC Bob Chapman FROM Demitria Burgoon PROJECT No RE: ASSESSMENT OF FISH STRANDING ASSOCIATED WITH FLOW REDUCTIONS FROM ARROW LAKES RESERVOIR (ALR); REDUCTION EVENT , 1 AUGUST The following is a summary of the fish stranding assessments conducted by Golder Associates Ltd. on 1 August Discharge from Arrow Lakes Reservoir was reduced a total of 3.0 kcfs, from 49.0 to 46.0 kcfs at 08:00. During this period discharge at BRD/X remained at approximately 19.5 kcfs. At the request of BC Hydro personnel, a fish stranding assessment was conducted by a crew of two from Golder Associates Ltd HLK Discharge Birchbank Discharge BRD/X Discharge Columbia River Stage at Norns Fan Columbia River Stage at Birchbank RE Discharge (kcfs) River Stage (m) Jul Jul 20-Jul 23-Jul 26-Jul 29-Jul 01-Aug 04-Aug 07-Aug 10-Aug 13-Aug 16-Aug Date Figure 1 Summary of operations and river stage for the Columbia River below Hugh Keenleyside Dam (HLK) and Kootenay River below Brilliant Dam/Expansion (BRD/X) 15 July to 15 August A discharge reduction from Arrow Lakes Reservoir of 3.0 kcfs occurred at 08:00 on 1 August 2010 and reduced discharge from 49.0 to 46.0 kcfs. The vertical dashed line represents the start of the discharge reduction for RE A total of 13 sites were assessed, commencing at the most upstream site designated by the database query to have an effect (isolated pools may be present with the potential for fish to be stranded). Crews conducted stranding assessments at the Lions Head, Norns Creek Fan, Tincup Rapids, Kootenay River (LUB), Kootenay River (RUB), Millennium Park (LUB), Zuckerberg Island, Blueberry Creek, Genelle Mainland, Casino Road Bridge (upstream), Casino Road Bridge (downstream), Bear Creek and Ft. Shepherd Launch sites. Estimated Date: 4 August 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa 1/3

45 MEMORANDUM vertical drawdown at all of the sites assessed was approximately 0.2m. Of the 13 sites visited, 6 had new pools and fish were observed or stranded at these sites (Table 1). Table 1: Sites Assessed During Reduction Event Site Name Time Water Number Temperature ( C) of Pools Fish Species and Number of Fish a Lions Head 09: N/A Norns Creek Fan 09: RB (1 live, 1 dead) Tincup Rapids (RUB) 10: N/A Kootenay LUB 10: LNC 2 live Kootenay RUB 11: Unidentified larval fish b (3 live) Millennium Park 12: N/A Zuckerberg Island 12: N/A Blueberry Creek 13: N/A Genelle Mainland 13: Unidentified larval fish (6 live) Casino Road Bridge (upstream) 15: N/A Casino Road Bridge (downstream) 15: N/A Bear Creek 15: SU (~500 live) c Ft. Shepherd Launch 15: SU (~100 live); LNC (~ 50 live); unidentified larval fish (~50 live); SMB (~6800 live) a RB=Rainbow Trout; LNC=Longnose Dace; SU=sucker species; SMB=Smallmouth Bass b Fish were not identified to species in the field because of their early life stage and small size. Voucher specimens were collected for laboratory identification. c Fish numbers were estimates based on the size of pools present. A subsample of fish was collected and species numbers based on a proportion. N/A=Not applicable. The six sites with pools and fish present were; Norns Creek Fan, Kootenay LUB, Kootenay RUB, Genelle Mainland, Bear Creek and Ft. Shepherd Launch. The Norns Creek Fan site had a total of 4 new pools. These pools were small and shallow which allowed for a visual inspection of each. The one live juvenile Rainbow Trout was salvaged from one of these pools by dipnet. Presence of fish was not observed in a small channel, which was disconnected at the upstream end in the vicinity of Norns Creek right upstream bank. However, there were numerous juvenile Rainbow Trout observed in the shallows along Norns Creek and the Columbia River. The dead juvenile Rainbow Trout was found in a wetted depression in the interstitial area. At Kootenay LUB site there were 5 new pools present. Three of the pools were shallow with sand substrate and two were shallow with cobble substrate. All pools were visually inspected for the presence of fish. Two young-ofthe-year Longnose Dace were observed in one pool. There were large numbers of larval and juvenile fish (approximately ) present in the shallows. There was evidence of these fish moving into the deeper water as the water receded. A subsample of 7 fish was collected and from initial identification was young-of-the-year Longnose Dace. Date: 4 August 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa 2/3

46 MEMORANDUM There were two new pools present at the Kootenay RUB site. The one pool adjacent to the Kootenay River mainstem was approximately 15 X 60m and had a primarily silt substrate bottom. Three unidentified larval/juvenile fish were observed in this pool but were not captured due to the large pool size. The second pool was between the Kootenay mainstem and the disconnected top end of the oxbow. This was a very large pool with a silt substrate bottom and the presence of aquatic vegetation. No fish were observed in this pool. The Genelle Mainland site had 3 new pools in the areas with sandy substrate which were shallow and small. Six unidentified larval fish (5 were salvaged with a dipnet) were observed in one pool. There were two large connected pools present. Each pool was connected by a narrow, shallow outlet of water. Fish were observed leaving the pool through these outlets. There were approximately 500 fish in the larger of the two pools. There was one large pool at the Bear Creek site. Approximately 500 fish were observed in this pool and from initial field identification they appeared to be juvenile sucker species. At the Ft. Shepherd Launch site, 14 new pools were present. All of the pools were large with silt and boulder substrate bottoms. In approximately half of the pools, fish were observed. One pool was sampled with a backpack electro-shocker and subsamples of fish in the other 6 pools were collected. An approximate 7000 stranded fish were estimated at this site. From a subsample of these fish and preliminary identification the majority (~97%) were juvenile Smallmouth Bass. From an estimated proportion of the subsample the remainder of the fish were juvenile sucker species, juvenile Longnose Dace and unidentified larval fish. If you have any questions or concerns please call, Demitria Burgoon at (250) GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. Demitria Burgoon Fisheries Biologist Dana Schmidt Associate and Senior Fisheries Biologist C:\Documents and Settings\CMcAllister\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\IPQAP9HK\RE_ _Stranding_Assessment_1_August_2010.docx Date: 4 August 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa 3/3

47

48 LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER [CLBMON#42(A)] AND KOOTENAY RIVER FISH STRANDING ASSESSMENTS: ANNUAL SUMMARY (APRIL 2010 TO APRIL 2011) APPENDIX C Load Factoring Memo July, 2011 Report No /

49

50 MEMORANDUM TO Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger DATE 19 October 2010 CC Bob Chapman; Bob Westcott; Dana Schmidt FROM Demitria Burgoon PROJECT No RE: ASSESSMENT OF FISH STRANDING ASSOCIATED WITH BRILLIANT DAM LOAD FACTORING OPERATIONS, REDUCTION EVENT , ON 20, 21, 22 AND 26 JULY SUMMER 2010 LOAD FACTORING OPERATIONS The ability to load factor from the Kootenay River system occurs when the daily inflows are between 38 kcfs and the target minimum discharge of: (1) 18 kcfs in December September; and, (2) the target minimum of 16 kcfs in October November. The 38 kcfs maximum represents the full capacity of Brilliant Dam and Brilliant Expansion (BRD/X) combined. The hours of peak electricity demand are generally between 0700 h and 2300 h daily. On 17, 18 and 19 July 2010, BC Hydro began setting base flows. Base flows are set when operations transfer from full (or relatively constant) generation discharge to daily load factoring where the base flow represents the daily allowable minimum flow under current regulatory requirements. The first day of full load factoring (38 to 18 kcfs) occurred on 20 July and discharge was ramped down at approximately 2 kcfs each hour. For the subsequent days of load factoring operations discharge was reduced from between 38 and 18 kcfs as units were brought offline after the period of peak demand. Discharge from BRD/X was increased from 18 kcfs each day to a higher load factor- the actual timing and magnitude of the increase changed over the load factoring period due to power demands and water availability (Figure 1). Over this same time period, the combined Columbia River discharge from Hugh Keenleyside Dam and Arrow Lakes Hydro (HLK/ALH) combined remained relatively constant, in the range of 46 to 48 kcfs (Figure 1). Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 1/15

51 MEMORANDUM 50 Discharge (kcfs) HLK/ALH BRD/X 06-Jul 09-Jul 12-Jul 15-Jul 18-Jul 21-Jul 24-Jul 27-Jul 30-Jul 02-Aug 05-Aug Date Figure 1: Mean hourly discharge (in kcfs) for the Columbia (from HLK/ALH) and Kootenay (BRD/X) rivers, 7July to 7 August Black arrow indicates the stranding assessment period for RE (20, 21, 22 and 26 July 2010) during maximum load variation. STRANDING ASSESSMENTS (RE ) Stranding assessments were conducted by a 2-person crew on Days 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the maximum load factoring period (total of 16 days), hereafter referred to as RE The days established for fish stranding assessment were selected to determine if there was a change in the number of fish stranded over successive days of load factoring. The assumption was that the number of fish would decrease over the period of load factoring which would trigger a behavioural response to remain outside of fluctuating water levels. In 2010, inflows decreased very quickly and limited the number of possible load factoring days, within the maximum range between 38 and 18 kcf. Based on a query of the Columbia River Fish Stranding Database, a total of 10 sites on the Kootenay and Columbia rivers were determined to be likely fish stranding sites. These sites were identified based on historic fish stranding data within the discharge range of HLK/ALH and BRD/X operations that began on 20 July. Six sites were identified with effects designations (pools are likely to form at the site and an average of greater than 10 fish per survey have been previously observed stranded at this site under similar conditions (minimum 5 visits Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 2/15

52 MEMORANDUM under these conditions)) and 4 sites were identified with reconnaissance designations (either insufficient data or where pools are formed under these conditions and less than 5 surveys have been conducted under these conditions). On Days 1, 2 and 3 of RE , 9 sites were visited. The Genelle Upper Cobble Island (MID) site was not visited during RE Effects sites: Kootenay River right upstream bank (RUB); Tin Cup Rapids (RUB); Norn's Creek Fan; Genelle Mainland; Genelle Upper Cobble Island (MID); and, Ft. Shepherd Launch. Reconnaissance sites: Kootenay River left upstream bank (LUB); Casino Road Bridge (LUB) upstream; Casino Road Bridge (LUB) downstream; and, Beaver Creek right upstream bank (RUB). On Day 7 (26 July), the crew conducted stranding surveys at the Kootenay River (RUB); Kootenay River (LUB) and Genelle Mainland sites. A summary of fish stranding during the field assessments undertaken during RE is presented in Table 1. Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 3/15

53 MEMORANDUM Table 1: Summary of stranding assessments RE during Day 1, 2, 3 and 7 of Kootenay River load factoring on 20, 21, 22 and 26 July Site 20-Jul Jul Jul Jul-10 Number of pools Number of fish stranded a Number of live fish b Number of Pools Number of fish stranded a Number of live fish b Number of Pools Number of fish stranded a Number of live fish b Number of Pools Number of fish stranded a Kootenay RUB c 100 c d c 155 c 0 0 N/A Tincup Rapids RUB 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A Site not visited. e Kootenay LUB c 252 c c 2050 c 3 0 N/A Norns Creek Fan Site not visited. e Genelle Mainland c 260 c 0 0 N/A Casino Road Bridge LUB 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A Site not visited. e (upstream) Casino Road Bridge LUB 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A Site not visited. e (downstream) Beaver Creek RUB Site not visited. e Ft. Shepherd Boat Launch c 200 c c 201 c Site not visited. e TOTAL a Includes fish that were stranded interstitially, fish that were observed or salvaged live and any dead fish. b Live fish were either observed or salvaged depending on the circumstances. During RE , the majority of live fish were not salvaged due to the timing and duration of the flow reductions (i.e since the water levels were increasing at 08:00 h and if the pools were substantial fish were not salvaged). c Fish numbers were estimates due to the large size of pools or the large number of fish present. d Fish numbers were estimates because of large numbers of fish present. All fish were found in the dewatered interstitial areas. e The limited number of sites visited on 26 July 2010 was because of the minimal number of days of full load factoring and the rapid decrease of inflows by day seven. This assessment was therefore considered a reconnaissance survey. N/A=not applicable Number of live fish b Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 4/15

54 MEMORANDUM July (Day 1) Summary of Stranding Assessment (Reduction 38 18kcfs) During the initial flow reduction at the onset of 2010 load factoring the discharge was ramped down over a period of 6 hours starting at midnight on 20 July Discharge was increased over a 3 hour period starting at 08:00. Table 2: Reduction Ramping Schedule for Day 1. Date and Time Reduction (kcfs) 20 July 2010; 00: July 2010; 01: July 2010; 02: July 2010; 03: July 2010; 04: July 2010; 05: July 2010; 06: Approximately 100 unidentified larval fish were observed in the 9 isolated pools at Kootenay River (RUB). The pools were small depressions in the sand/silt substrate or small pools within the cobble substrate. One pool approximately 30 x 30 cm contained roughly 40 larval fish. Two dead unidentified larval fish were found in the exposed substrate. One unidentified larval fish was collected and preserved for identification in the laboratory. Additional voucher specimens were not collected from the unidentified fish during Day 1. Voucher specimens were collected on subsequent days. Pools were not present at Tin Cup Rapids (RUB); however, one juvenile Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was observed in the shallow water along the Columbia River. At Kootenay River (LUB), approximately 25 unidentified larval fish were observed in 4 isolated pools. The 4 pools were all small and shallow with sand/silt bottoms. Approximately 25 unidentified larval fish were also observed leaving a connected pool through small channels of water in the cobble substrate. One dead unidentified larval fish was found stranded in the interstitial area. At Norn s Creek Fan, approximately 20 juvenile Rainbow Trout were observed in 3 isolated pools. The field crew did not attempt to salvage these fish because the pools were large and would be reconnected to the Columbia River when flows were increased that morning. An additional 2 dead Rainbow Trout were observed in the exposed substrate adjacent to the pools. Approximately 500 juvenile Rainbow Trout were observed in the flooded terrestrial vegetation in the shallow edges of Norns Creek and the Columbia River. Five pools were present at the Genelle Mainland site. Approximately 45 unidentified larval fish were observed stranded in the isolated pools and one adult Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) was salvaged from the dewatered substrate. There were thousands of larval fish observed along the shallow outskirts of the large connected pools. Pools had not formed at the Casino Road Bridge LUB (upstream or downstream) sites. One juvenile sucker species (Catostomus spp.) was salvaged from an isolated pool at the Beaver Creek RUB site. This pool had been isolated by previous flow changes. Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 5/15

55 MEMORANDUM There were 7 new pools at the Ft. Shepherd Boat Launch site. Approximately 30 unidentified larval fish were observed in the isolated pools July (Day 2) Summary of Stranding Assessment (Reduction 37 18kcfs) Discharge was ramped down over a period of 2 hours starting at 21:00 on 20 July Discharge was increased over a period of 5 hours starting at 07:00 on 21 July Table 3: Reduction Ramping Schedule for Day 2. Date and Time Reduction (kcfs) 20 July 2010; 21: July 2010; 22: Approximately 250 dead unidentified larval fish, one dead juvenile Rainbow Trout and one dead juvenile sculpin species (Cottus spp.) were observed in the exposed sand and gravel substrate at the Kootenay River (RUB) site. There were no new pools isolated beyond those observed on Day 1. A representative subsample (n=12) of the unidentified larval fish was collected and preserved for laboratory identification. An unidentified juvenile sculpin species was also preserved for laboratory identification. Pools did not form at Tin Cup Rapids (RUB). At Kootenay River (LUB), approximately 250 unidentified larval fish and 2 juvenile Rainbow Trout were observed in 3 isolated pools. These pools were large and shallow. Four dead unidentified larval fish were found stranded interstitially. A representative subsample (n=12) of the unidentified larval fish was collected and preserved for laboratory identification. Schools of larval fish were present in the shallow water along the Kootenay River. At Norn s Creek Fan, 13 juvenile Rainbow Trout were observed in the 4 pools present. Three of the Rainbow Trout were salvaged from a shallow pool using a dipnet. Two pools were isolated at the Genelle Mainland site. There were fewer pools than on Day 1 because the water was coming back up when the field crew got to site. One live unidentified larval fish was observed stranded in one of the isolated pools and one dead adult Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper) was found in the dewatered substrate. There were thousands of larval fish observed along the shallow outskirts of the large connected pools. Pools had not formed at the Casino Road Bridge LUB (upstream or downstream) sites. There were no pools isolated at the Beaver Creek RUB site. Four dead juvenile suckers were found in the dewatered depression of the previously isolated pool. There were 5 isolated pools at the Ft. Shepherd Boat Launch site. Approximately 250 unidentified larval fish were observed in the isolated pools. Thousands of larval fish were present in the shallow water along the main channel. Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 6/15

56 MEMORANDUM July (Day 3) Summary of Stranding Assessment (Reduction 34 18kcfs) Discharge was ramped down over a period of 6 hours starting at 19:00 on 21 July Discharge was increased over a period of 8 hours starting at 08:00 on 22 July Table 4: Reduction Ramping Schedule for Day 3. Date and Time Reduction (kcfs) 21 July 2010; 19: July 2010; 20: July 2010; 23: July 2010: 00: July 2010; 01: Approximately 155 unidentified larval fish were distributed among 13 isolated pools at the Kootenay River (RUB) site. There were one large pool and 12 small (30 x30 cm) pools present. Pools had not formed at Tin Cup Rapids (RUB). At Kootenay River (LUB), approximately 2050 live unidentified larval fish were observed in the 3 pools present and approximately 840 dead unidentified larval fish were found stranded in the drained out sandy depressions (Plate 1). The majority of the dead larval fish were present in the drained outlet channels from the pools (Plate 2). A sample of 20 voucher specimens were collected from unidentified fish and preserved for laboratory identification in 99% Ethyl alcohol for possible species identification using DNA. At Norn s Creek Fan, 2 juvenile Rainbow Trout (one live and one dead) were observed in the 4 isolated pools present. The dead Rainbow Trout was possibly associated with the previous days flow changes due to the perceived rate of decomposition (translucent in color and evidence of predation present). At the Genelle Mainland site, there were 15 isolated pools present. Approximately 260 unidentified larval fish (140 live and 120 dead), approximately 440 (100 live and 340 dead) juvenile Longnose Dace and approximately 20 live juvenile sculpin species were observed stranded. The majority (71%) of stranded fish observed were in the outlet of a large connected pool that was draining. These fish were observed being stranded as the current carried them out of the pool (Plate 3). The above numbers of each species are proportions of an estimated total, based on collection of a subsample. Approximately 20 unidentified larval fish, unidentified juvenile sculpin species and juvenile Longnose Dace were preserved for identification in the laboratory. Approximately 15 unidentified larval fish and unidentified juvenile sculpin were preserved in 99% Ethyl alcohol for future DNA identification. Pools had not formed at the Casino Road Bridge LUB (upstream or downstream) sites. There were 2 new pools at the Beaver Creek RUB site. One dead juvenile Peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus) was found in the dewatered sandy edge of one of the pools. There were 9 isolated pools at the Ft. Shepherd Boat Launch site. Approximately 380 (200 live and180 dead) unidentified larval fish and one adult Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieui) were observed in the isolated Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 7/15

57 MEMORANDUM pools (Plate 4). One dead adult Torrent Sculpin (Cottus rhotheus) was found in the dewatered substrate along the Columbia River main channel. Approximately 20 unidentified larval fish were preserved in 99% Ethyl alcohol for future DNA identification July (Day 7) Summary of Stranding Assessment (Reduction 22 19kcfs) Discharge was decreased at 22:00 from 22.0 to 19.0 kcfs on 25 July As previously mentioned, the minimal number of days of full load factoring and the rapid decrease of inflows resulted in Day 7 being a reconnaissance assessment. The sites visited were based on the previous assessments on 20 to 23 July (the first 3 days) when there were large numbers of pools and stranded fish present. On Day 7 of load factoring, stranding assessments were conducted at 3 sites: Kootenay River (RUB); Kootenay River (LUB) and Genelle Mainland. There were no new pools isolated and no evidence of stranded fish at Kootenay River (RUB) and Genelle Mainland. There were 3 pools at the Kootenay River (LUB) site, but fish were not observed stranded in these pools or in the interstices. 2.0 SUMMARY OF FISH STRANDED DURING RE During the initial 3 days of stranding surveys for RE , consistency was maintained by using the same stranding assessment procedures at the same sites. In theory, since discharge changes occurred at approximately the same time each day, the duration of time that each site was dewatered before the crew arrived on site would be similar. However, with a different amount of effort expended at each site each day, the field crew was not consistently at each site at the same time as the previous day. The amount of effort was dependant on the number of pools and fish present. This was especially evident on the Day 2 when there was an increase in dewatered habitat compared to the day before. During the flow reduction on Day 2, the field crew was at sites upstream of the Genelle Mainland site for the majority of the morning and the river stage was increasing when they arrived. There were no efforts to salvage fish that were observed in pools which were assumed large enough to have a constant water temperature (early morning hours before sunrise was imperative), and deep enough to provide fish with coverage from predation. These assumptions were based on the water level being returned to reinundate the isolated pools within several hours. Salvage efforts were attempted if the above qualifiers were not met or the fish were stranded (live) in the interstitial areas. The majority (62%) of the 5104 fish observed stranded over the 4 days of assessments for RE were at the Kootenay River (LUB) site. The remaining 38% of the fish observed stranded were from the following sites: Genelle Mainland (15%), Ft. Shepherd Boat Launch (12%) and Kootenay River (RUB) (10%). The Norn s Creek Fan and Beaver Creek RUB sites had less than 1% of the stranded fish recorded over the 4 day assessment period. Species of fish observed stranded during RE , in descending order of abundance were; unidentified larval fish (n=4593), Longnose Dace (n=441), juvenile Rainbow Trout (n=40), sculpin species (n=21), sucker species (n=5). One of each of the following species was observed; Prickly Sculpin, Torrent Sculpin, Peamouth and Smallmouth Bass. The majority (90%) of the fish stranded were unidentified larval fish. Due to their small Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 8/15

58 MEMORANDUM size and early development stage it was not possible to identify the species of these fish in the field. Subsamples of these fish were collected for identification in the laboratory. Once positive identification of the voucher has been established an amendment to this memo will be added. The fish species will also be updated in the stranding database. Table 5: Summary of fish species stranded at all sites during RE Species a Number of Fish Percentage of Total Fish Unidentified 4593 b 90 Longnose Dace Rainbow Trout 40 <1 Sculpin species 21 <1 Sucker species 5 <1 Prickly Sculpin 1 <1 Torrent Sculpin 1 <1 Peamouth 1 <1 Smallmouth Bass 1 <1 b Identification of the subsamples of the unidentified fish collected during RE is being undertaken. 3.0 INTER-YEAR LOAD FACTORING ASSESSMENT COMPARISONS 3.1 Operation Comparison (Summer Load Factoring) Regular Kootenay River operations resulting from the newly constructed BRX facility started in Fish stranding assessments along the lower Columbia River associated with load factoring were initiated by BC Hydro environment staff starting in The purpose of the assessments is to determine if fish stranding risk associated with load factoring decreases over time (fish behaviour assumption). The assessment schedule has been typically on the first, second and third day of the onset of load factoring. A fourth day of assessment was conducted within the second week of load factoring. Four days were chosen to maximize the amount of data within available budgets. During the 2009 (RE ) reduction event, a reconnaissance assessment was conducted prior to the onset of load factoring to establish the likelihood of pools forming at certain high risk sites and to record observations of fish numbers and behaviour as well as habitat characteristics. This reconnaissance assessment was not conducted during the 2008 (RE ) and 2010 (RE ) load factoring assessments. Kootenay River inflows dictate when load factoring can occur. In 2008 Kootenay system summer load factoring occurred between 29 July and 15 August 2008; in 2009 summer load factoring occurred between 17 July and 2 August 2009 and; in 2010 summer load factoring occurred between 17 and 31 July 2010 (Table 3). HLK/ALH discharge during the 3 years varied which influences the river stage and pool stranding risk over the 3 years. Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 9/15

59 MEMORANDUM Table 6: Comparison of Operations at Brilliant Dam/Brilliant Expansion (BRD/X) and Hugh L. Keenleyside/Arrow Lakes Hydro (HLK/ALH) During Summer Load Factoring in 2008, 2009 and Year Period of Summer Load Factoring Total Number of Days Jul to 14 Aug Jul to 1 Aug Jul to 31 Jul 16 HLK/ALH (kcfs) BRD/X LF a Range (kcfs) Days at BRD/X LF Range a LF= Load Factoring 3.2 Fish Stranding Comparisons During the period of load factoring each year (2008, 2009 and 2010) crews assessed sites to enumerate the number of pools that had isolated and the number of fish that were stranded due to the decrease in water levels. For each reduction event, sites were visited based on the potential fish stranding risk and risk of mortality based on current water temperatures, season and the anticipated operations. Over the 4 assessment days for each load factoring period, attempts were made to conduct assessments at the same sites where appropriate. Although the total number of sites differed each year due to variations in river stage (7 sites in 2008, 5 sites in 2009 and 9 sites in 2010), the 4 sites (Kootenay River sites, the Norn s Creek Fan site and the Genelle Mainland site) that were indicated by the database to have historic effects were similar and therefore assessed during each reduction event. Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 10/15

60 MEMORANDUM Table 7: Number of Fish Stranded During Day 1, 2, 3 and Day 7 or 8 Assessments During Load Factoring in 2008, 2009 and Year Reduction Event Number Number of Fish Stranded a Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 7 or 8 Species b 2008 RE c LNC; MW; RB; RSC; SU; TC; UNID 2009 RE LNC; MW; RB; SU; UNID 2010 RE CAS; CC; CRH; LNC; PCC; RB; SMB; SU; UNID a In some cases fish numbers were estimates due to the large size of pools or the large number of fish present. b CAS=Prickly Sculpin; CC= Sculpin species; CRH=Torrent Sculpin; LNC=Longnose Dace; MW=Mountain Whitefish; PCC=Peamouth; RB=Rainbow Trout; RSC=Redside Shiner; SMB=Smallmouth Bass; SU=Sucker species; TC=Tench; UNID= unidentified c Approximately half of the fish observed on Day one of RE were from a previously isolated pool. During RE approximately half of the fish observed stranded (10 000) were estimated to be from one large pool that had formed between the access road to the Genelle Mainland fan and 17 th Avenue. This pool had formed at a previous flow reduction, but had not been assessed until Day 1 of RE The combined Arrow Lake Reservoir (ALR) and Kootenay River flows during all 3 load factoring reduction events isolate pools at lower levels and there was no pool observed in this location during the 2009 and 2010 reduction event surveys. Larval catostomid and cyprinid species (unidentified at the time of writing this memo) made up the majority of the fish observed stranded. This was consistent within years as well as within the daily assessments. Water temperatures recorded at Birchbank Gauge Station were similar over the 3 year period (Figure 2). The period of load factoring in 2008 occurred approximately 2 weeks later than the 2009 and 2010 load factoring periods. The water temperatures during this period were slightly warmer and combined with the later seasonal date meant the young-of-the-year fish were at a later stage of development which allowed for roughly half of the stranded fish to be identified to species in the field. Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 11/15

61 MEMORANDUM 22 Year 2008 Year 2009 Year 2010 Water Temperature at Birchbank Gauge Station ( C) Jul 16-Jul 18-Jul 20-Jul 22-Jul 24-Jul 26-Jul 28-Jul 30-Jul 01-Aug 03-Aug 05-Aug 07-Aug 09-Aug 11-Aug 13-Aug 15-Aug 17-Aug Date Figure 2: Mean daily water temperature for the Columbia River at Birchbank, 14 July to 15 August 2008, 2009 and The horizontal lines identify the stranding assessment periods for RE , RE and RE Many of these larval catostomids and cyprinids observed were using the low current and shallow water habitat (sometimes flooded terrestrial vegetation) during the assessments. The preference for these habitat conditions combined with the small body size and early life stage made them very susceptible to becoming stranded in the isolated pools and within the wetted interstitial areas when flows decreased. There did not appear to be any obvious conditioning behaviour (i.e., decrease in the probability of stranding following successive days of dewatering) of the fish associated with the reduction of flows over the consecutive days of load factoring during the three years of studies. The assumption that fish would become conditioned by repeated daily flow fluctuations experienced during load factoring operations is not supported by data collected during the present study. Data collected during the load factoring investigations suggest that large fish stranding events are random in nature or influenced more strongly by factors other than conditioning. Observations recorded during the reduction events identified fish leaving the area with the current as the water dropped but also returning to these areas over the course of the surveys. Large numbers of larval fish were observed but not stranded in the same locations stranded fish were recorded. This would suggest that the proportion of fish stranded is actually a small proportion of the fish present. Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 12/15

62 MEMORANDUM 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 1) The data don t support the assumption that incidents of fish stranding decreases with successive days of load factoring. The effect observed at this time of year is primarily on larval fish suggesting other factors such as ramping rates and habitat conditions are more likely factors that contribute to fish stranding. Consequently, at least at this time of year, the assumption should be made that sequential days of load factoring operations have similar levels of risks. Because of the large variability in daily stranding rates observed at this time of year, further investigations of sequential stranding rates are not likely to change this conclusion. Focus of future studies at this time of the year should address specific high risk areas and possibly benefits from reduced ramping rates. 2) The current approach of monitoring will provide data on high risk areas and relative numbers of fish killed during different stranding events. These data are not expandable to estimate impacts on the populations, but because stranding is observed at very limited habitat areas, and the potential numbers of the life stages stranded is likely very large compared to observed mortalities, the risk to populations is likely low. 3) Risk reduction mitigation (recontouring) should be considered at locations where high incidence of stranding have been identified during the three years that load factoring assessments were conducted (Kootenay River RUB, Kootenay River LUB, Genelle Mainland and Ft. Shepherd Launch), in an attempt to reduce the risk of stranding. Since the majority of fish stranding from load factoring and other reduction events occur at these sites, recontouring should greatly reduce the impacts of all operational changes from BRD/X. Please contact us at should you have questions or concerns. GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. Demitria Burgoon Fisheries Biologist Dana Schmidt Associate and Senior Fisheries Biologist DB/DS/cm Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 13/15

63 MEMORANDUM Plate 1: Approximately 150 unidentified larval fish stranded in the exposed sand shown in an estimated 30 x 30 cm area at the Kootenay LUB site, RE , (Day 3, 22 Jul 2010). Plate 2: Majority of the dead stranded larval fish were found within the area outlined in red, Kootenay LUB site, RE (Day 3, 22 Jul 2010). Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 14/15

64 MEMORANDUM Plate 3: Longnose Dace stranded in the cobble substrate at the Genelle Mainland site, RE (Day 3, 22 July 2010). Plate 4: Adult Smallmouth Bass stranded in a shallow pool at Ft. Shepherd Boat Launch site, RE (Day 3, 22 July 2010). Date: 19 October 2010 Project No To: Trevor Oussoren; David DeRosa; Maureen Grainger 15/15

65

66 Golder Associates Ltd. 201 Columbia Avenue Castlegar, British Columbia, V1N 1A8 Canada T: +1 (250)