Development and Investigation of Downstream Passage Alternatives for Cougar Dam, South Fork McKenzie River, OR

Transcription

1 Development and Investigation of Downstream Passage Alternatives for Cougar Dam, South Fork McKenzie River, OR Mike Langeslay Supervisory Fish Biologist Portland District March 18 th, 2014 US Army Corps of Engineers

2 !2 Vanport, PORTLAND Oregon DISTRICT 1948

3 !3

4 !4

5 Cougar Dam!5

6 !6

7 1999 ODFW study shows juveniles passing 2010 New adult trap complete 2008 WVP BiOps issued by NMFS and USFWS 1993 ODFW begins outplanting adults 2005 Construction on WTC complete 1995 Corps proposes WTC 1966 Original adult trap abandoned, emergency trap in operation ,121 adults transported during construction 1969 State recommends abandoning fish passage 1964 Construction Complete 1959 Oregon Fish Commission estimates population of 3,960 adult!7 Chinook

8 High Head Passage at a Flood Control Project! No big deal, eh?!8

9 !9

10 COUGAR Vs. ROUND BUTTE !10

11 COUGAR Vs. ROUND BUTTE COUGAR ROUND BUTTE Length (ft) 1,600 1,450 Height (ft) Max pool Min pool 183 ft 20ft (~5ft) Spill bays 2* 1 RO s 2 0 Total Capacity (cfs) 65,000 - Turbines 2 3 Unit Capacity (MW) Flow Capacity (cfs) 1,350 14,000 Storage 219 kaf 535 kaf!11

12 Concurrent RM&E Effort Baseline Passage Conditions Direct Mortality Telemetry Studies Screwtrap and in Reservoir Monitoring Testing of Operational Alternatives RO Spill Deep Drawdown!12

13 (Beeman, 2012) ELE MAX: 1640 Total tags: 155 All fish types available!13

14 (Beeman, 2012) ELE MAX: 1640 Total tags: 155 All fish types available!14

15 Key Findings to Date Production of fish above dam is high Juveniles enter project as fry (35mm) Large diversity in age and size for fish passing dam Dam effects on passage rates a strong influence Direct mortality under current configuration and operations is high (50-80%) Large mortality differences seen between RO (15-40%) and Turbines (>>50%) Though many fish make it to the dam (>90%) very few pass until we lower the pool (<30%)!15

16 Implications Current efforts to provide operational passage does not appear successful Dam Passage Efficiency Most Limiting Factor Further investigation of structural solutions warranted Decision made to implement experimental collection device!16

17 Portable Floating Fish Collector Goals Must be quickly implemented Simplified design, construction, and aquisition Must be able to deploy at other projects Must be of relatively low cost Desired High Flow Capacity (>100 cfs) Needs to provide surface passage route with optimal entrance conditions Fish will need to be safely trapped and handled for RM&E!17

18 !18

19 !19

20 Planned RM&E Acoustic Telemetry (JSATS) Passage Metrics, Individual Behavior, Fish Density Plots Drawback is all fish will be >100mm Acoustic Camera Monitoring (DIDSON, ARIS, & BluView) Near field behavior of untagged fish (including fish mm FL) Draw back is limited range and difficulty in empirical analysis methods Trap Catch and PIT tag releases CPUE, Seasonal run timing, other species info Does not provide any data on collection efficiency or behavior Additional monitoring at head of reservoir, in reservoir, and tailrace!20

21 Other Important Lessons Feedback from PFFC study results to future facilities Maintenance (especially debris management) Fish handling Management of mooring system!21

22 Other Aspects of High-head Passage Head of Reservoir Collection Investigated many times but never implemented Corps completed alternatives report (2011) High-head bypass Helps reduce fish handling Helps pass debris (not a dead end) Provides volitional passage Team kicked off and looking to collaborate!22

23 Green Peter Dam Fish Bypass (1967) 2012 Study: 280 vertical feet FPS 96-99% Survival!23

24 !24

25 Questions?!25