Determining the effects of load following on reservoir hydraulics and migration behavior of juvenile salmonids. proposal 200736400

FY07-09 proposal 200736400

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Determining the effects of load following on reservoir hydraulics and migration behavior of juvenile salmonids.
Proposal ID	200736400
Organization	Columbia River Research Laboratory
Short description	The goal of this project is to measure the behavioral response of juvenile salmonids to load following operations in the reservoir upstream of Little Goose Dam. To fully understand this response, both hydraulic conditions in the reservo
Information transfer	Information will be transferred through reports available on the BPA website, presentations at regional forums and conferences, and publication of results in peer-reviewed journals.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Contacts

Contact	Organization	Email
Form submitter
Russell Perry	U.S. Geological Survey	rperry@usgs.gov
All assigned contacts
Noah Adams	U.S. Geological Survey	noah_adams@usgs.gov
Christopher Cook	Pacific Northwest National Laboratory	chris.cook@pnl.gov
Russell Perry	U.S. Geological Survey	rperry@usgs.gov

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide

Latitude	Longitude	Waterbody	Description
46-39-07	118-01-37	Snake River	Little Goose Reservoir between Lower Granite Dam and Little Goose Dam

Section 3. Focal species

primary: All Anadromous Salmonids

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding source	Related ID	Related title	Relationship
BPA	199102900	Post-Release Survival of Fall	The Load following proposal would contribute information to the Post-Release Survival of Fall Chinook salmon project by examining how load following operations effect the passage and survival of outmigrating Fall Chinook salmon in the Lower Snake River
BPA	200203200	Fall Chin Passage Lower Granit	The Load Following proposal would contribute information to the Fall Chinook salmon passing Lower Granite Dam project by examining how load following operations contribute to the reservior and ocean life histories of fall Chinook salmon in the Snake River.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectives	Full description	Associated subbasin plan	Strategy
Objective 1. Measure migration behavior	To quantify the response of juvenile salmonids to load following operations, it will be necessary to measure variation in migration behavior on smaller temporal and spatial scales than typically implemented in a radio-telemetry study. Typically, telemetry arrays within the reservoir are separated by 10-25 km and median travel times through these reaches can range from 18 h to 36 h (unpublished data for radio-tagged subyearling Chinook salmon in Little Goose Reservoir, 2005). Because discharge changes on an hourly time scale throughout the day, travel times through reaches of this length are averaged over the diel cycle, masking possible effects of load following operations on migration behavior of juvenile salmonids. Thus, for this objective we will test the following null hypothesis: H01: Migration behavior of juvenile salmonids is homogeneous over the diel period. To quantify diel variation in migration behavior, we propose to use a series of closely-spaced radio telemetry arrays (about 1.5 – 3 km apart) that will result in travel times of 1-3 h between arrays (Figure 5). This approach will allow us to examine migration behavior as a function of the time of day as discharge varies due to load following operations. Specifically, we will estimate migration rates, travel times, and upriver travel (proportion of population exhibiting upriver travel and frequency of upriver trips per fish). Spatial aspects of fish migration are also important to consider with respect to the effects of load following. The distance that fish travel upriver and the frequency of upriver trips is likely driven by the spatial scale of observation. For example, fish probably make numerous short forays upstream and fewer long-distance forays. Therefore, we expect our study design will be able to capture substantial upriver travel at the scale of 1.5-3 km since upriver travel has been observed at much larger spatial scales (Plumb et al. 2003, In Press). Location in the reservoir will be a likely factor affecting migration behavior and fish response to load following. The study will divide the reservoir into upper, middle, and lower sections to understand how load following, wind setup, and stratification affects migration behavior in different areas of the reservoir. We propose to use 5 telemetry arrays each in the upper and lower reservoir and 3 arrays in middle (Figure 5). Potential spatial variation in migration behavior leads to a second null hypothesis we will test: H02: Migration behavior is similar among upper, middle, and lower reaches of the reservoir.	None	Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2003. “Review of flow augmentation: Update and clarification.” Report by the ISAB to the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.
Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics	The effect on reservoir hydraulics of fluctuating hourly discharge due to load following operations is poorly understood. Under this objective we propose to quantify the effect of load following on reservoir hydraulics through both direct measurements and hydraulic modeling. PNNL has previously developed 2D and 3D models of the reservoir, and these models will be used to better understand hydraulic transients induced by reservoir operations (e.g., load following) and meteorological conditions. To obtain time-series velocity fluctuations, water velocity measurements will be collected using self-contained bottom-mounted acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs). In addition to the bottom-mounted ADCPs, boat-mounted ADCPs will be used to understand velocity gradients between bottom-mounted ADCP locations. Direct measurements of water velocity will be used to 1) quantify temporal and spatial fluctuations in reservoir hydraulics due to load following, and 2) to validate results from numerical hydraulic models. Appropriate null hypotheses that will be tested for this objective include: H03: Load following operations do not affect reservoir hydraulics. Rejection of H03 leads to: H04: Effects of load following on reservoir hydraulics are similar among upper, middle, and lower reaches of the reservoir. Because water temperature, thermal stratification, and wind setup may be also affect reservoir hydraulics, water temperature data will also be collected throughout the reservoir. Time-series profiles of water temperature will be collected by suspending self-contained temperature loggers on wire rope (i.e., a thermistor string) at six locations throughout the reservoir. Meteorological conditions are automatically recorded by the Agri-Met Meteorological Station at Rice Bar in Little Goose Reservoir. This site will information on incoming solar radiation, air temperature, and relative humidity, wind speed and wind direction, which are necessary for computing surface heat exchange in the numerical models.	None	Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2003. “Review of flow augmentation: Update and clarification.” Report by the ISAB to the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.
Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics	To understand how dam operations affect migration behavior of juvenile salmonids in the reservoir, we will relate migration behavior to reservoir hydraulics. This objective will require simulating temporally and spatially explicit reservoir hydraulics from the dam operations that occurred during the radio-telemetry study period. Given this hydraulic information, the response of fish to hydraulics will be estimated in two ways. First, empirical data of migration behavior will be spatially and temporally linked with hydraulic data. Migration behavior (travel time, travel rate, and upriver travel) will then be related to hydraulic data using multiple regression techniques. This approach will yield empirical relationships that describe the strength and contribution of various hydraulic measures (e.g., velocity magnitude, velocity direction) on variation in migration behavior. The second approach will compare different models of fish movement to hydraulic data. A number of models with different functional relationships will be developed. These functional relationships each represent an alternative hypothesis that describes just how movement is related to hydraulics and other important factors. For example, one model might specify a threshold discharge or water velocity, below which travel times are unrelated to water velocity. A second model might describe migration behavior solely as a linear function of mean water velocity. A suite of models will be developed, fit to the empirical migration data, and compared to determine the best-fit model (i.e., most likely hypothesis) given the data set of migration behavior. This approach will help identify mechanistic relationships that will aid in understanding how load following or alternative dam operations are likely to affect migration behavior. PNNL has developed a Lagrangian particle tracking model (FINS; Scheibe and Richmond 2002) which will also be used to develop integrated metrics (e.g., integrated travel times and temperature exposures for a generic streamline versus particle with 5 m depth preference) that can be compared over the passage season.	None	Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2003. “Review of flow augmentation: Update and clarification.” Report by the ISAB to the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.
Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations	Our overall approach is to measure migration behavior and hydraulics in the absence of treatments during the first year and implement treatments consisting of stable hourly flows and fluctuating hourly flows in following years. The first year will gather data to understand fish behavior and reservoir hydraulics against the backdrop of load following operations that normally occur at Lower Granite and Little Goose dams. Data from the first year will be used to develop models and design an experiment for following years. The experiment would consist of measuring migration behavior and survival during treatment periods of stable diel discharge and fluctuating diel discharge (i.e., load following). The following hypotheses will be tested: H05: There is no difference in migration behavior between treatments consisting of stable hourly flows and fluctuating hourly flows. H06: Survival probabilities of juvenile salmonids migrating through the reservoir do not differ between treatments consisting of stable hourly flows and fluctuating hourly flows. Data from the first year will aid in design by establishing relationships between hydraulics and migration behavior and estimating magnitudes of the load following effects on both hydraulics and migration behavior. For example, data from the first year will help establish the temporal duration of each treatment period and block. This is an important consideration since fish should be allowed to migrate through entire reservoir under a single treatment of dam operations. Once treatments are established, they will be implemented in a randomized block experimental design. Since implementing treatments of stable hourly flows will require substantial coordination with the region, we feel this progressive approach will yield an experimental design with the highest probability of detecting possible differences between treatments.	None	Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 2003. “Review of flow augmentation: Update and clarification.” Report by the ISAB to the Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element name	Work element title	Description	Start date	End date	Est budget
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation	5 – Secure permits	Secure necessary federal and state permits to collect, transport, and radio-tag endangered juvenile salmonids.	1/1/2007	12/31/2009	$10,502
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Coordination	7– Project coordination	This project will require coordination with a number of agencies and organizations. This includes attendance at up to 4 coordination meetings where we will present data collection plans, work schedules, and findings. Principal investigators will be responsible for coordination among themselves, and also with US Army Corps of Engineers (Walla Walla District), state and federal fisheries management agencies (NOAA, USFWS, WDFW, ODFW), tribes, and other researchers.	1/1/2007	9/30/2010	$45,540
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Manage and Administer Projects	6– Manage project	Each of the principal investigators will be responsible for management of the overall project, as well as their organizational responsibilities. Management activities will include administrative responsibilities required for compliance with BPA program requirements such as metric reporting, financial reporting (accruals), and development of annual statements of work.	1/1/2007	9/30/2010	$88,966
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report	10 – Prepare project completion report	In the final year of the project (year 4) the principal investigators will prepare a project completion report that summarizes all three years of the project and includes the final year’s annual data. The report will follow standard scientific format and include an executive summary, introduction, methods, results, discussion, recommendations, and literature cited sections, as well as tables, figures and data appendices.	7/1/2010	9/30/2010	$51,535
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report	11– Write article(s) for submission to peer-reviewed journals	At the completion of this project, and possibly sooner, if warranted by preliminary results, the principal investigators will collaborate to submit paper(s) to peer reviewed scientific journals such as Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, and/or other journals as appropriate.	7/1/2010	9/30/2010	$35,118
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report	8– Prepare quarterly reports	Quarterly reports to BPA’s contracting offices technical representative (COTR) will be prepared by PNNL and USGS. These reports will describe any particularly interesting results obtained during the quarter, any deviations from the scheduled work, a plan for correcting those problems, and a budget analysis.	4/30/2007	1/30/2010	$50,441
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report	9– Prepare annual reports	Annual reports to BPA’s COTR will be prepared by the PNNL, and USGS. Reports will summarize the results obtained that year. Reports will follow standard scientific format and include an executive summary, introduction, methods, results, discussion, recommendation, and literature cited section, as well as tables, figures, and data appendices.	3/1/2008	3/1/2010	$161,720
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Analyze/Interpret Data	1.4: Monitor and download fish detection from data radio-telemetry receivers.	Radio-telemetry data will be synthesized to estimate travel times, travel rates, and upriver travel (proportion of population exhibiting upriver travel and frequency of upriver trips). Data will then be examined to determine whether fish behavior varies over the diel cycle (H01)and whether behavior differs among upper, middle, and lower sections of the reservoir (H02).	9/1/2007	12/1/2009	$85,769
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior			Metrics
Analyze/Interpret Data	2.3: Validate hydraulic model using fixed and mobile hydroacoustic data and water temperature data.	Previously calibrated and validated hydraulic models will be used to simulate hydraulic conditions during the field study period. Models will be validated against the observed dataset of ADCP data to ensure simulated hydraulics approximate measured water velocities observed in the field.	9/1/2007	12/1/2009	$57,214
Biological objectives Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics			Metrics
Analyze/Interpret Data	2.4: Model effects of load following operations on reservoir hydraulics.	Method(s): Once hydraulic models are validated with field data, use the hydraulic model to understand the effects load following on reservoir hydraulics.	9/1/2007	12/1/2009	$52,987
Biological objectives Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics			Metrics
Analyze/Interpret Data	3.1: Use hydraulic model to simulate time-specific reservoir hydraulics that occurred during migration of radio-tagged juvenile salmonids.	Reservoir hydraulics during the fish migration period will be simulated using operations data from the dams and environmental data from thermographs and the meteorological station at Rice Bar in Little Goose Reservoir.	9/1/2007	12/1/2009	$47,565
Biological objectives Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics			Metrics
Analyze/Interpret Data	3.2: Relate observed migration behavior of juvenile salmonids to simulated reservoir hydraulics.	First, observed migration behavior (travel time, travel rate, and upriver travel) will be related to hydraulic data using multiple regression techniques. Second, a suite of models will be developed, fit to the empirical migration data, and compared to determine the best-fit model (i.e., most likely hypothesis) given the data set of migration behavior.	9/1/2007	12/1/2009	$107,881
Biological objectives Objective 3. Relate behavior to hydraulics			Metrics
Analyze/Interpret Data	4.4: Analyze data to compare survival and migration behavior between treatments.	Migration behavior will be compared among treatments to understand how stable versus fluctuating hourly flows affect juvenile salmonids. Survival probabilities will be estimated using standard Cormack-Jolly-Seber mark-recapture models. Survival probabilities will then be compared among treatments using appropriate statistical tests.	9/1/2008	12/1/2009	$360,482
Biological objectives Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	1.3: Monitor and download fish detection data from radio-telemetry receivers	Radio-telemetry data will be downloaded on a daily basis during the spring and summer migration periods. Data will be downloaded, backed-up, stored, and transferred according to standardized protocols.	4/15/2007	8/15/2009	$37,521
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior			Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	2.1: Deploy and maintain fixed hydraulic equipment (acoustic Doppler current profilers) and temperature loggers.	The project will deploy two bottom-mounted ADCPs. One will be located just upstream of the forebay BRZ and the second will be located near mid-pool (near Central Ferry). Data will be collected at a frequency of (at least) every 15 minutes throughout the migration season. In addition to the bottom-mounted ADCPs, boat-mounted ADCPs will be used to understand velocity gradients between bottom-mounted ADCP locations. Time-series profiles of water temperature will be collected by suspending self-contained temperature loggers on wire rope (i.e., a thermistor string) at six locations throughout the reservoir. These locations correspond to the start and end of the three telemetry arrays shown in Figure 5. Data will be collected at intervals of approximately every 10 minutes. Each thermistor string will contain at least one temperature logger with an integrated pressure sensor to record variations in water surface elevation throughout the reservoir. These loggers, made by SeaBird (SBE39), will collect data at the much higher rate of one sample per minute. During summer periods when the reservoir is stratified, additional temperature profiles will be collected using a conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) probe. These measurements will be made in conjunction with the mobile ADCP data collection.	3/15/2007	8/15/2009	$38,084
Biological objectives Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics			Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	2.2: Collect mobile ADCP and water temperature profile data.	ADCP data will be collected with either a 1200 kHz or 600 kHz RDI ADCP. Real-time differentially corrected GPS data will be collected concurrently with the ADCP measurements. Mobile ADCP data and temperature data will be collected using systematic sampling design to provide adequate temporal and spatial coverage to validate hydraulic models.	4/15/2007	8/15/2009	$32,190
Biological objectives Objective 2. Quantify reservoir hydraulics			Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	4.2: Collaborate with regional agencies to determine appropriate and feasible treatments of dam operations.	Collaboration among multiple agencies will be crucial in order implement a experimental design consisting of stable hourly flows.	9/1/2007	2/28/2008	$16,526
Biological objectives Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data	4.3: Implement randomized-block experiment to compare fish behavior and survival between treatments.	Radio-telemetry and hydraulic data of juvenile salmonids will be collected as described under Objectives 1,2, and 3, with the exception that dam operations will be dictated by the experimental treatment design.	4/15/2008	8/15/2009	$833,592
Biological objectives Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Develop RM&E Methods and Designs	4.1. Use findings from first year to aid design of an experiment comparing migration behavior and survival between load following operations and stable hourly flows.	Data from the first year will be used to develop an experimental design capable of detecting differences in migration behavior and survival.	9/1/2007	2/28/2008	$31,705
Biological objectives Objective 4. Compare treatments of dam operations			Metrics
Install Fish Monitoring Equipment	1.1. Install fixed radio-telemetry monitoring sites in Little Goose Reservoir	A series of closely-spaced radio telemetry arrays (about 1.5 – 3 km apart) will be installed that will result in travel times of 1-3 h between arrays (See Figure 5).	2/1/2007	4/15/2009	$115,044
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior			Metrics
Mark/Tag Animals	1.2: Implant transmitters and release radio-tagged juvenile salmonids.	Juvenile fish will be collected by juvenile bypass facilities and implanted with radio-transmitters using methods described by Adams et al. (1998a, 1998b).	4/15/2007	8/15/2009	$25,751
Biological objectives Objective 1. Measure migration behavior			Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Item	Note	FY07	FY08	FY09
Personnel	[blank]	$296,098	$316,825	$339,003
Fringe Benefits	[blank]	$104,212	$111,507	$119,312
Supplies	[blank]	$16,000	$17,120	$18,318
Travel	[blank]	$26,133	$27,962	$29,920
Overhead	[blank]	$253,155	$270,876	$289,837
Other	[blank]	$15,507	$16,593	$17,755
Totals		$711,105	$760,883	$814,145

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Total itemized budget:	$2,286,133
Total work element budget:	$2,286,133

Cost sharing

Funding source/org	Item or service provided	FY 07 est value ($)	FY 08 est value ($)	FY 09 est value ($)	Cash or in-kind?	Status
PNNL	2 bottom Mounted ADCP	$40,000	$40,000	$40,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
PNNL	1 Boat mounted ADCP	$16,000	$16,000	$16,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
USGS	1 Boat Mounted ADCP	$16,000	$16,000	$16,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
USGS	Radio tags. Under assumption that COE will deploy tags for other studies	$400,000	$400,000	$400,000	In-Kind	Under Development
USGS	Radio Receivers	$280,000	$280,000	$280,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
USGS	Radio fixed site equipment not inculding receiver (ie antennas, batterie, chargers, etc	$52,500	$52,500	$52,500	In-Kind	Confirmed
USGS	Boat	$50,000	$50,000	$50,000	In-Kind	Confirmed
Totals		$854,500	$854,500	$854,500

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $86,653
FY 2011 estimated budget: $86,653

Comments: Field data will be collected through the end of 2009. We will initiate the Project Competion Report and Journal Artical(s) in 2009 and complete them in 2010.

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: 9/30/2011
Comments:

Final deliverables: Project completion report Journal article(s)

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget	FY08 budget	FY09 budget	Total budget	Type	Category	Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0	$0	$0	$0	Expense	Basinwide	Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0	$0	$0	$0		Basinwide

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The need to better describe flow instability in Snake River reservoirs from daily load following at the dams (or other causes) in the summer low-flow season and possible relationships to disorientation by juvenile salmon outmigrants (fall Chinook) is well described, and the proposed work is well justified. The basis for the proposed work is primarily a response to a hypothesis by the ISAB (Report ISAB 2001-3) rather than subbasin plans or the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, although the proposal identifies links to the NOAA Biological Opinion. Relationships to several other projects are described in good detail, especially USGS studies of fish movements for the Corps and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s hydraulics studies for BPA at Lower Granite and Little Goose reservoirs. The proposal could have been improved by mention of NMFS survival studies or the Comparative Survival Study that use PIT tags. The proposal identifies ongoing work that has the potential of data sharing. Sponsors were apparently unaware of Proposal 200733600, with which it is complementary. Objectives are clearly developed and sensible. The phased approach in Objective 4 is good, in case the study is unable to discern clear relationships in the first year. Whether it is realistic to operate one of the dam/reservoirs in an experimental fashion will depend on the strength of relationships seen in the initial research conducted with normal operating regimes. There is a high likelihood that this project will produce information of great significance in resolving primary uncertainties associated with the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program, NOAA Fisheries ESA processes, and state and tribal fisheries management programs, especially summer flow augmentation, summer spill, and survival of listed Snake River fall Chinook salmon. Although the proposal is fundable in its own right, the ISRP offers some comments that may aid the research. No response is required, but we believe the region would benefit by the proponents consideration of our comments While the proposal points out that NOAA Fisheries investigators (Smith et al. 2002) found a break point at 100 kcfs in the relationship between flow and survival of juvenile salmonids, it does not note that this flow coincides (approximately) with the hydraulic capacity of the lower Snake River hydropower projects, as pointed out by the ISAB. The frequency, magnitude and duration of fluctuations of flow were found by the ISAB to increase when base flows in the Snake River declined to below 100 kcfs and continued to increase the further the flow declined. The study will be most useful if both the “breakpoint” and the trend at lower flows are recognized. Because the base flow normally declines with time during the period of a summer study, the descriptions of fish behavior might possibly be interpreted as natural trends in behavior similarly associated with time (season). The study design might overcome this problem to some extent by simultaneous observations of fish behavior and hydraulic features in the reservoir. There is no mention of comparison of nighttime with daytime observations of fish behavior associated with load following operations. As base flows in the Snake River continue to decline through the summer, a point is reached where load following leads to virtual shut-down of the hydropower plants at night when electricity demand is lowest. A day-night comparison might provide contrasting flow scenarios, even though there would not be a true controlled experiment as suggested for subsequent years. The locations and number (2) of ADCP arrays may not be sufficient to relate to salmonid movements. If the ADCP will be used to validate an existing hydraulic model of the reservoir, the data may be enough for that purpose. But can the model predict velocities with sufficient accuracy and sufficiently small scale to be useful in the context of fish behavior (Objective 3)? Also in Objective 3, what are the models of fish movement that will be compared to hydraulic data? Is the study at risk of incorporating only conventional understanding in its hydraulic and fish models rather than seeking truly new insights? While the proposal states that reports of results will be available on BPA's website, there is no mention of what disposition will be made of the data and metadata. Will data and metadata be made available on StreamNet or some other regional data source? The ISRP reviewed two somewhat similar proposals, and these comments will be shared with each. It is apparent that neither group was aware of the proposal being developed by the other. While this proposal (200733600) and proposal 200736400 might appear to duplicate one another, the duplication is slight to negligible. Proposal 200733600 proposes work only in Little Goose Reservoir and puts primary emphasis upon radio tracking of juvenile fish to record their behavior in response to load following episodes, with secondary emphasis upon monitoring of hydraulic conditions associated with those episodes. The other proposal, 200733600, encompasses the reservoirs of all four lower Snake River projects, puts primary emphasis upon hydraulic conditions as affected by load following, and would depend upon information on fish behavior that would be available from ongoing projects. Both proposals are well prepared and submitted by well-qualified groups. Both studies have merit because information on hydraulic conditions in all four reservoirs is certain to be useful in extrapolating the implications for fish behavior observations beyond Little Goose Dam. We recommend that the BPA contracting officer arrange for the two proponents to agree among themselves as to whether there is any duplication of effort that could or should be avoided. Both groups would benefit from further thought given to the designation of the parameters that would serve as the basis for analysis. Proposal 200733600 is perhaps overly concerned about refining time intervals of turbine adjustment below hourly to include what are likely minor, fine-tuning adjustments not likely to have measurable effects on fish behavior. It is our feeling that since there are hourly coordination agreements in place among the hydropower operators, the hourly changes are likely to be those of most significance. Otherwise, particularly in the lower Snake River due to lack of storage capacity, operations of powerhouses in either upstream or downstream directions could lead to violation of reservoir levels established in the BiOp and elsewhere. Similarly the proponents of proposal 200736400, are advised to give further thought to the boundaries to be set in the analysis of load following episodes. Some sort of grouping would seem to be necessary in order to conduct a meaningful analysis of effects of magnitude, duration, and/or frequency of episodes on fish behavior, which in turn will probably differ according to those features of load following. Both studies should use the same groupings.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable