{"Bibliographic":{"Title":"Radio-tracking studies of adult chinook salmon and steelhead to determine the effect of \"zero\" river flow during water storage at Little Goose Dam on the Lower Snake River","Authors":"","Publication date":"1985","Publisher":""},"Administrative":{"Date created":"08-16-2023","Language":"English","Rights":"CC 0","Size":"0000083634"},"Pages":["SH153\nradio-Tracking\nStudies\nChinook\nAdult\nSalmon\nand\nof\nU.S. Department of Administration Energy\n\"Zero\"\nthe\nof\nto\nBonneville\nPower\nDivision\nWildlife\nof\nFish\nDuring\nStorage\n&\nWater\nLittle\nNational\nOceanic\nand\nSnake\nGoose\nLower\nRiver\nDam\nAtmospheric\nAdministration\nthe\non\nNational\nMarine\nFisheries\nStudies\nCoastal\nEstuarine\nStudies\nZone\nand\nOctober 1985\nO32\nCenter\nFinal\nReport\n1985","This report was funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), U.S.\nDepartment of Energy, as part of BPA's program to protect, mitigate, and\nenhance fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of\nhydroelectric facilities on the Columbia River and its tributaries. The views\nin this report are the author's and do not necessarily represent the views of\nBPA.\nFor copies of this report, write:\nBonneville Power Administration\nDivision of Fish and Wildlife\nPublic Information Officer - PJ\nP.O. Box 3621\nPortland, OR 97208","SHIS3\nNWFSC032\nun5332\nRADIO-TRACKING STUDIES OF ADULT CHINOOK SALMON AND STEELHEAD\nSH\nTO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF \"ZERO\" RIVER FLOW DURING WATER\n153\nSTORAGE AT LITTLE GOOSE DAM ON THE LOWER SNAKE RIVER\n.Un 5332\nLibrary\nSeattle, 2725 NOAA, Northwest Montlake National & Alaska\nWA Soulevard, Fishancenter E Service\nby\nKenneth Liscom\nLowell Stuehrenberg\nand\nFrank Ossiander\nFinal Report of Research\nfinanced by\nBonneville Power Administration\n(Contract DE-A179-81BP27780)\nand\nCoastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division\nNorthwest and Alaska Fisheries Center\nNational Marine Fisheries Service\nNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration\n2725 Montlake Boulevard East\nSeattle, Washington 98112\nSeptember 1985","ABSTRACT\nAllowable instantaneous minimum river flows are established in the\nColumbia and Snake Rivers to ensure safe passage of anadromous fish during\ntheir migration to the spawning grounds. However, water storage during\nperiods of low power demands (at night and on weekends) would be beneficial to\nthe power producers. This storage procedure is called \"zero\" river flow and\nis now permitted on a limited basis when there are few if any actively\nmigrating anadromous fish present in the river system. Requests were made to\nextend \"zero\" river flow into periods when anadromous fish were actively\nmigrating and a study was initiated.\nRadio-tracking studies were conducted on the Snake River between Lower\nMonumental and Little Goose Dams to determine the effect of \"zero\" river flow\non the migration of adult chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and\nsteelhead, Salmo gairdneri. From July through September, 1981, a total of 258\nsteelhead and 32 chinook salmon were radio-tagged. The rate of migration was\nused to determine differences between test and control fish and a gamma\ndistribution model was used to describe the migration rate for radio-tagged\nfish. Estimates of the parameters of the model were used to statistically\ncompare \"zero\" flow and normal river flow conditions for the radio-tagged\nfish.\nThe results show that the \"zero\" flow condition delays the migration of\nadult chinook salmon and steelhead; therefore, extended periods of \"zero\" flow\nto store water are not recommended when fish are actively migrating in the\nriver system.\n80","CONTENTS\nPage\n1\nINTRODUCTION\n4\nSTUDY SITE AND EQUIPMENT\n6\nRadio Tag\n7\nSurveillance Equipment\n9\nEXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES\n10\nTrapping and Tagging\n10\nSurveillance Procedures\n11\nExperimental Design\n12\nRESULTS AND DISCUSSION\n13\nGeneral Behavior\n24\nTravel Times Between Dams\n27\nMovement at Little Goose Dam\n31\nPowerhouse Collection System Behavior\n35\nSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS\n38\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n39\nLITERATURE CITED\n41\nAPPENDIX A--Statistical Analysis\nAPPENDIX B-- Individual Travel Times, Daily Fish Counts, and Water\n53\nTemperatures Recorded During the Study\n63\nAPPENDIX C--Budget Information","INTRODUCTION\nIncreased power demands in the Pacific Northwest necessitate more power\nproduction. Water is the principal resource for producing power in the area,\nand as most major dam sites on the Columbia and Snake Rivers already are being\nutilized (Fig. 1), more efficient methods of water use must be employed.\nMultipurpose needs of the resource--power, agriculture, recreation,\nnavigation, industry, fisheries, etc.--complicate its management. Fishery\nagencies, for example, require that river flows not be reduced below set\ninstantaneous minimums to ensure safe passage of anadromous fish during their\nmigrations to and from the spawning grounds, with flow requirements differing\ndepending on location and amount of total river flow.\nPower demands are not constant; less power is needed at night and on\nweekends. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CofE) (1977) determined that\nsubstantial economic and power benefits could be realized if there were\nreduced or no instantaneous minimum flow requirements for fish. This would\nenable storage of water in reservoirs during periods of low power demand for\nsubsequent power production during periods of greater demand. Flows would be\nreduced to where only fishways, auxillary power turbines, and navigation locks\nwould be in operation an operational procedure termed \"zero\" flow.\n\"Zero\" flow is now allowed on a limited basis--7 h at night between\nDecember and March when there are only minimal numbers of salmon and steelhead\nmigrating upriver. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) would like to\nextend the \"zero\" flow period to summer and fall as well. A preliminary study\nby McMasters et al. (1977) examined the effects of nighttime \"zero\" flow on\nadult summer chinook salmon and steelhead in 1975 and 1976. In 1975, a small\nradio-tracking study was carried out along with an analysis of daily fish\ncounts. In 1976, only the daily fish counts were used. Even though neither\n1","Dworshak Dam &\nHatchery\nSalmon\nRapid River\nFigure 1. .--Location of major hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.\nHatchery\nRiver\nLower Granite Dam\nClearwater\nHelis Canyon Dam\nOxbow Dam\nBrownlee Dam\nLittle Goose\nDam\nLower Monumental Snake River\nIce Harbor Dam\nGrand Coulee\nDam\nDam\nMc Nary Dam\nChief Joesph\nWanapum Dam\nRock Island Dam\nRocky Reach Dam\nDam\nRiver\nWells Dam\nPriest Rapids Dam\nJohn Day Dam\nThe Dalles Dam\nBonneville Dam\nRiver\nRiver\nRiver\nRiver\nColumbia\nKalama\nToutle\nCowlitz","year showed a difference in travel rates related to the reduced nighttime\nflows, the fishery agencies felt that the data were insufficient to permit\nextension of \"zero\" flow to the summer and fall. Because of the promising\nresults, however, BPA made a request to extend the \"zero\" flow storage\nconditions. The new conditions would be as follows:\n1. Extend the present nighttime period 2 h (for a total of 9 h--2200 to\n0700 h).\n2. Have a continuous 35-h period from 2000 h Saturday to 0700 h Monday\nwithin which \"zero\" flow could be maintained for up to a continuous 24-h\nperiod.\n3. Begin \"zero\" flow storage schedules in August and continue through\nApril.\nBPA stated that the additional three fall months are crucial as total\nriver flow is lowest just before the winter moisture begins, and April is\ncrucial as the total river flow is low just before the spring runnoff\nbegins. The extended period would, however, include times when adult salmon\nand steelhead would be actively migrating upstream to spawn, and there was\nconcern that \"zero\" flow storage conditions may adversely affect these\nmigrations.\nRealizing the benefits to be derived by power producers from storing\nwater during periods of low power demands and low river flow, but at the same\ntime feeling a deep concern over the effect on fish runs, the fishery agencies\nfelt an in-depth study under the extended storage conditions was warranted.\nThe study would add to the data base and allow decisions to be made as to\nwhether or not to grant the extended periods of storage and if so what\nlimitations would have to be imposed.\n3","In response to the BPA request for extension of \"zero\" flow, the National\nMarine Fisheries Service (NMFS) together with the state fishery agencies\ndeveloped a study plan employing radio telemetry to study the effects of\n\"zero\" flow storage on adult summer and fall chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus\ntshawytscha, and steelhead, Salmo gairdneri. The objectives were: (1)\nto\nmonitor adult fish behavior at Little Goose Dam in relation to passage and\ndelay, (2) define rates of passage over Little Goose Dam, and (3) determine\nmigration rates between Lower Monumental and Little Goose Dams in relation to\ntest (\"zero\" flow) and control (normal flow) conditions. Fish counts at the\nfishways were also analyzed in relation to the flow data.\nSTUDY SITE AND EQUIPMENT\nThe study was conducted in the late summer and early fall of 1981. The\nstudy area included 28.8 miles of reservoir between Lower Monumental Dam and\nLittle Goose Dam and the immediate vicinity of Little Goose Dam itself on the\nlower Snake River in southeastern Washington (Fig. 2). During McMaster's\n1975-76 study, each dam was operating with three turbines. In 1981, the dams\nwere operating with their full complement of six turbines each.\nLower Monumental Dam, the second dam on the Snake River, is approximately\n41.5 miles from its confluence with the Columbia River near Pasco,\nWashington. Lower Monumental Dam has two fish ladders, one on each shore,\nwhereas Little Goose Dam has but one, on the south shore, however, there is a\nfish attraction system on the north shore with a tunnel under the spillway\nsection of the dam which leads fish to the fish ladder entrance. All of the\nfish ladders have a facility for counting adult salmonids as they pass over\nthe dam.\nThe Snake River between the two dams runs through a steep-walled canyon\nbordered mainly by open grass-sagebrush land and wheat fields. It is not\n4","Lower Granite Dam\nLittle\nGoose\nDam\nRIVER\nLower\nSNAKE\nMonumental\nDam\nPasco\nIce Harbor Dam\nR.\nWallula\nFigure 2. -- -Location of study area relative to the lower Snake River\nand established hydroelectric dams.\n5","uncommon for air temperatures to reach the 90° to 100°F range during the\nmonths in which the study was conducted. Water temperatures also can become\ncorrespondingly high during this time.\nThe study area was divided into two general areas: (1) the reservoir\nbetween the two dams and (2) the vicinity of Little Goose Dam which was\nfurther subdivided into north-south shore, powerhouse collection system, and\nfish ladder.\nBase operations for the study were established at Little Goose Dam.\nTrapping fish and tagging were conducted at Lower Monumental Dam with\nfacilities furnished by the CofE, Fish and Wildlife Section, Portland\nDistrict. Tagged fish were released just upstream from Lower Monumental Dam.\nRadio Tag\nThe radio tag used is powered by a battery and transmits on a carrier\nfrequency of approximately 30 megahertz (MHz). Transmitter and batteries are\nsealed in a plastic capsule about 3.5 inches long and 0.75 inch in diameter.\nEach tag weighs about 1 ounce in water and is carried in the stomach of the\nfish except for a small wire antenna that extends from the tag into the fish's\nmouth. The pulse rate and duration are adjusted to determine tag life. The\nconventional radio tag used by the NMFS Fish Tracking Program in previous\nyears was coded with nine frequencies (30.17 through 30.25 MHz) and had a tag\nlife of up to 60 days. This limited the number of tags that could be released\nat any one time. The nature of the \"zero\" flow study required the use of many\nmore codes. The electronic technicians involved in the program developed a\nnew tag with multiple codes on each frequency. The pulse portion of the radio\ntag was changed by introducing a complementary metal oxide semi-conductor\n(CMOS) chip to the circuitry to further control pulse rate and duration. The\nchip also allowed the pulse to be split into two parts. By setting the period\n6","between the two parts differently for each tag, a total of 400 individual\ncodes were available for the study. The pulse rate was set at 600\nmilliseconds (ms), and the total pulse duration was set at 20 ms. This duty\ncycle reduces the battery life from 60 to 30 days, but this was more than\nadequate for the study.\nSurveillance Equipment\nTwo different types of receivers were used for locating tagged fish\nduring the study. One was a tuneable receiver that allowed operators to\nlisten to one fish on any of nine frequencies, and a maximum of nine\nradio-tagged fish could be tracked in any area at one time, if each fish tag\nwas of a different frequency. The first receiver used was a Smith-Root, Model\nRF-40.1/\nThese units were used in vehicles and boats in conjunction with a\ndirectional loop antenna when behavior of individual fish was of interest.\nThe second receiver was called a decoder receiver. Conventional tracking\nreceivers (RF-40) pick up the assigned tag frequencies but cannot separate the\ncodes; therefore, a decoding module was built to complement the new\nmulti-coded tag. The module in conjunction with our 9-channel search\nreceiver, a digital printer, and an antenna system made up a single decoder\nreceiver. Both the decoding module and search receiver were developed and\nbuilt by program technicians. The search receiver was built several years ago\nto continually monitor all nine frequencies simultaneously and signal the\npresence of a radio-tag by visually indicating the proper frequency and\nemitting an audible intermittent tone to alert the equipment operator.\nThe decoding module scans the output of the search receiver sampling each\nfrequency twice for 650 ms or 1.3 seconds per channel. When a pulse is\n1/\nReference to trade names does not imply endorsement by the National Marine\nFisheries Service, NOAA.\n7","received, the pulse width and the period between the ends of the first and\nsecond pulse sections are measured to determine the proper code. This\ninformation is stored until all nine frequencies have been scanned (11.7\nseconds), then all data stored are printed by a digital printer. An internal\nclock incorporated into the printer allows month, day, hour, and minute\ninformation to be printed along with the tag data. The unit operates on 12\nvolts (DC).\nSelf-contained automatic monitors were installed to record the presence\nand activities of radio-tagged fish in specific areas. A monitor consisted of\na complete decoding receiver with all but the antenna housed in a metal,\nwatertight container. Monitors were used to record information in three\nareas: (1) the general area near Little Goose Dam (within 1 mile downstream),\n(2) the powerhouse fish collection system, and (3) the fish ladder exits\n(Little Goose Dam and Lower Monumental Dam).\nMonitors were located on both sides of the Snake River below Little Goose\nDam to record tagged fish entering or leaving the area. The antenna system\nfor each of these monitors consisted of two 3-element beam directional\nantennas, one positioned to \"look\" upstream and the other to \"look\"\ndownstream. The sequence of signal inputs to the monitor provided directional\ndata for fish movement, e.g., lower antenna then upper antenna meant that the\nfish was moving upstream. The collection system monitor recorded the\nactivities of tagged fish that were within 30 feet of the system or inside the\ncollection channel. It was also used to determine when fish entered the fish\nladder. There were 14 underwater omni-directional antennas--one inside and\none outside of each collection system entrance. Outside antennas were\nconnected in one series, and the inside antennas were connected in another\nseries. Each antenna had its own amplifier so that signals received by the\n8","farthest antenna would reach the monitor at the same signal strength as those\nnearest the monitor.\nFish ladder exit monitors were like those below the dams but utilized the\nshort range, omni-directional underwater antenna.\nMonitoring from aircraft was done from a high-wing Cessna 172. Minimum\nheight flown was 800 feet at 80 miles per hour. Experimentation with\navailable equipment showed that one standard 18-inch diameter directional loop\ntracking antenna attached to a wheel strut worked best.\nOccasional monitoring was done by boat as a follow-up to aircraft\nsurveillance, but this was too slow for principal data collection. Tracking\nequipment for the boat was the same as for aircraft with the loop antenna\nbeing held by a tracker.\nEXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES\nThe general plan was to tag and track 600 salmonids from 15 July to\nmid-September. Proposed releases were as follows: 200 summer chinook salmon\n(15 July-11 August), 100 fall chinook salmon (12 August-17 September), and 300\nsteelhead (12 August-17 September). Fish would be tagged at Lower Monumental\nDam and released into the forebay near the dam. Electronic surveillance of\nradio-tagged fish would be the principal method of monitoring their progress\nthrough the reservoir and in the vicinity of Little Goose Dam. Fish counts\ntaken at Little Goose Dam would also be analyzed. Behavior and passage would\nbe observed during flows from normal operating procedures at the dams\n(control) and during the \"zero\" flow storage conditions (test). Movement\nbetween dams was to be observed from aircraft flights using radio receiving\nequipment with an occasional survey by boat. Surveillance at the dams was to\nbe by automatic recording monitors and mobile units.\n9","Trapping and Tagging\nChinook salmon and steelhead used for tagging were taken from the north\nshore fish ladder at Lower Monumental Dam by blocking the fish ladder orifices\nand diverting the fish up a 28-foot Denil fish ladder with a 20% slope. At\nthe top on the Denil, the fish swam over a false weir descending into a tank\nof tricaine methane sulfonate (MS-222) anesthetic.\nRadio-tags were placed in the fish's stomach using the procedures\ndescribed by Liscom et al. (1977). No fish under 26 inches in length were\ntagged to ensure adequate sized fish to accommodate the tag capsule.\nOnce tagged, fish were placed in a tank truck for recovery and\ntransported above the dam. They were released directly into the Snake River\non the north shore about 1,300 feet upriver from Lower Monumental Dam.\nSurveillance Procedures\nAircraft flights were scheduled to observe tagged fish disposition before\nand after daytime \"zero\" flows. Flights took place Saturday evenings and\nMonday mornings, lasted approximately 1 h, and covered the study area twice.\nOne flight per week included a pass over the reservoir between Lower\nMonumental and Ice Harbor Dams. During the study, one flight was made between\nMcNary Dam and the Ringold Springs area on the Columbia River.\nMonitors operated continuously throughout the study period and provided\npassage time data for individual fish, as well as fish activity information,\nparticularly upstream and downstream movement in the vicinity of Little Goose\nDam.\nMobile units were dispatched to check on fallback, fish remaining in one\narea for extended periods of time, fish ladder monitors at Lower Monumental\nDam, and fish activity between Lyons Ferry and Little Goose Dam.\n10","Personnel maintained surveillance activities on a 24-h basis with three\n8-h shifts, 7 days a week. Monitors were checked at least every 2 h per\nshift. Between monitor checks, recovered data were recorded and prepared for\ncomputer input.\nExperimental Design\nProcedures were designed to study effects of \"zero\" flow on adult\nsalmonids as close to the most extreme proposed conditions as possible:\n(1) weekly nighttime \"zero\" flow from 2200 until 0700 h each night and (2) a\n35-h period during weekends in which a \"zero\" flow condition may exist for up\nto 24 consecutive hours. It was assumed that if no significant delay (> 8\nhours) in passage at dams or through reservoirs could be detected under\nextreme conditions, then there was no problem. If there were adverse effects,\nadditional, more specific conditions could be addressed in subsequent studies.\nThe schedule called for 1 week of \"zero\" flow test conditions, alternated\nwith 1 week of normal operations from 15 July through 23 September. Tests\nwould begin on Wednesday and terminate the following Tuesday. On weekdays,\nthe schedule called for \"zero\" flow below Little Goose and Lower Monumental\nDams each night from 2200 until 0700 h the following morning. During the\nweekend an extended period of up to 24 h of \"zero\" flow would be initiated\nbeginning any time after 2200 h Saturday and terminating no later than 0700 h\nMonday.\nAs scheduled, there would be 5 weeks of \"zero\" flow dam operation and 5\nweeks of regular operations. The last \"zero\" flow would terminate at 0700 h\n16 September, and the last regular flow week would end at 0700 h, 23\nSeptember.\n11","A total of 50 fish from each species to be studied was to be released at\nthe beginning of each test regime--25 fish from each species on Wednesday and\n25 on Thursday. The sample size in each release was based on the data\nobtained during radio tracking work in the lower Columbia River (Liscom et al.\n1978). From that study, it was determined that an 8-h difference in passage\ntime between test and control groups could be detected at a 95% confidence\nlevel with 27 steelhead and 37 chinook salmon. Release days would be adjusted\nto ensure that tagged fish would be present in all areas under all conditions.\nRESULTS AND DISCUSSION\nWhen the experimental design was formulated and agreed upon in 1978, it\nwas recognized that the analysis of the data would use travel and passage\ntimes to perceive differences between test and control conditions. This\nwould, in effect, measure behavior during the period of the study. Based on\nvariation of travel times seen in the 1977 unaccountable loss study between\nBonneville and John Day Dam (Liscom et al. 1978), it was determined that we\ncould detect an 8-h difference between test and control groups at a 95%\nconfidence level with the planned release numbers. However, travel and\npassage times occurring in the \"zero\" flow study had significantly greater\nvariability than found in the 1977 study in the lower Columbia River. The\ndifference in variability resulted in the analysis of the data being more\ncomplex.\nThe major cause of variability was an extended period of warm water\nthroughout most of the chinook salmon migration. The warm water caused a\ndrastic reduction in upstream fish movement and consequently the numbers of\nfish available for tagging. During 16 July through 17 September, 6,662\n12","steelhead passed Lower Monumental Dam. Of these fish, 4,837 passed through\nnorth fish ladder. There were 1,166 passages counted on designated\nthe\ntagging days. A total of 1,631 summer adult chinook salmon passages occurred\nbetween 16 July and 13 August; 206 were counted over the north fish ladder\nwith 90 passing on tagging days. North fish ladder passages of adult fall\nchinook salmon between 14 August through 17 September totaled 117, with 53\ncounted over on tagging days. The total fall chinook salmon run was 486\nfish. This was the lowest count at Lower Monumental Dam in the previous 4\nyears. A total of 290 adult salmonids were ultimately radio-tagged (258\nsteelhead and 32 chinook salmon). There were 10 release groups--5 test and 5\ncontrol. Table 1 is a summary of the release groups, duration of each release\ngroup, date of tagging, and number of each species tagged.\nIn the subsequent statistical analysis, comparisons were made that would\nbalance the warm water influences between test and control groups, and it was\nfound that the statistical differences held up for comparisons under both warm\nand normal water conditions.\nAnother factor that made analyses difficult was that nighttime control\nflows were maintained closer to the 11.3 thousand cubic feet per second (kcfs)\nof instantaneous minimum flows than to the greater general daytime flows\n(Table 2). This meant that comparisons between control and test periods\n(actual \"zero\" flow was approximately 200 cfs excluding any lockages) were\nnarrowed more than desired. Whether this narrow range of flows had any effect\non the analysis of behavioral differences could not be demonstrated.\nGeneral Behavior\nOf the 258 steelhead tagged and released, 52 fell back over Lower\nMonumental Dam. As there was no spill, the fallback routes had to be through\n13","Table 1. --Summary of release groups of radio-tagged chinook salmon and\nsteelhead, dates of each release group, date of tagging, and number\nof each species tagged--Lower Monumental Dam, 1981\nRelease\nTime\nTagging\nNumber\nperiod\ndates\nSpecies\nreleased\ngroup\n1\n16-22 Jul\n16, 17 Jul\nChinook\n4\nSteelhead\n8\n2\n23-29 Jul\n22, 23, 24 Jul\nChinook\n9\nSteelhead\n20\n3\n30 Jul-\n29, 30 Jul\nChinook\n8\n5 Aug\nSteelhead\n42\n4\n6 Jun-\n5, 6, 7 Aug\nChinook\n2\n12 Aug\nSteelhed\n28\n5\n13-19 Aug\n12, 13, 14 Aug\nChinook\n0\nSteelhead\n22\n6\n20-26 Aug\n19 Aug\nChinook\n1\nSteelhead\n4\n7\n27 Aug-\n29, 30 Aug\nChinook\n1\n2 Sep\nSteelhead\n7\n8\n3-9 Sep\n2, 3, 4 Sep\nChinook\n3\nSteelhead\n32\n9\n10-16 Sep\n9, 10, 11 Sep\nChinook\n2\nSteelhead\n46\n10\n17-23 Sep\n16, 17 Sep\nChinook\n2\nSteelhead\n49\nTotal Chinook\n32\nTotal Steelhead\n258\n14","28-29\n11-12\n28.5\n13.2\n11.7\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n11.6\n27-28\n10-11\n35.7\n14.1\n11.5\n11.5\n1.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.5\n11.8\n11.6\n11.5\n11.5\n11.6\n11.5\n11.6\n11.6\n11.7\n11.7\nControl conditions (minium flow)\nTable 2. --Hourly flows provided for test a and control conditions by date and (release group)\n26-27\n09-10\n11.3\n11.4\n11.3\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.6\n11.7\n11.8\n11.7\n11.8\n11.8\n11.8\n11.8\n11.8\n11.8\nAugust (Group 4)\nJuly (Group 2)\n25-26\n08-09\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.7\n11.7\n11.7\n11.7\n11.7\n11.8\n11.7\n11.8\n11.7\n22.1\n24-25\n07-08\n11.4\n11.6\n11.2\n11.6\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.4\n11.7\n11.8\n11.7\n11.7\n11.8\n11.7\n11.8\n11.7\n11.7\n23-24\n06-07\n49.2\n49.2\n17.6\n12.0\n12.8\n19.3\n12.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.5\n12.1\n12.1\n12.1\n22-23\n05-06\n11.3\n11.3\n11.7\n11.7\n11.6\n11.7\n11.6\n11.7\n12.8\n27.8\n27.2\n11.4\n11.4\n11.3\n11.3\n11.4\n11.3\n12.3\n21-22\n04-05\n0.2\n0.8\n1.2\n0.8\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n46.4*\n23.4*\n03-04\n20-21\n1.2\n0.3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTest conditions (zero flow)\n19-20\n55.3*\n68.3*\n02-03\n(Group 3)\n1.3\n0.6\n0.5\nJuly (Group 1)\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n18-19\n01-02\n21.8\n3.2\n2.1\n[flow (cfs) X 1,000].\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nJuly-August\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n17-18\n31-01\n1.3\n18.6\n4.0\n0.7\n0\n0\n0\no\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n16-17\n30-31\n0.5\n1.4\n1.0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n15-16\n29-30\n1.5\n21.0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTime\nTime\n2300\n2400\n0100\n0200\n0300\n0400\n0500\n0600\n0700\n2300\n2400\n0100\n0200\n0300\n0400\n0500\n0600\n0700\n15","25-26\n08-09\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n34.6\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.4\n11.3\n11.3\n11.9\n37.6\n24-25\n07-08\n17.8\n11.5\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.3\n11.4\n11.3\n11.4\n11.3\n11.4\n11.4\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n37.7\n3.6\n23-24\n06-07\n23.6\n11.2\n11.3\n11.4\n11.3\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.7\n11.4\n11.2\n11.3\n11.2\n11.3\n11.2\n11.2\n11.3\n11.2\n(Group 6)\n(Group 8)\n22-23\n05-06\n11.4\n11.2\n11.2\n11.2\n11.2\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.3\n11.4\n11.3\n11.3\n12.2\nAugust\nSeptember\n21-22\n04-05\n15.3\n15.3\n12.7\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.3\n11.3\n11.6\n11.8\n11.7\n11.8\n11.7\n11.7\n11.8\n11.8\n13.1\n03-04\n20-21\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.4\n11.5\n11.5\n13.3\n11.8\n12.0\n11.9\n11.9\n11.9\n11.2\n12.6\n38.6\n19-20\n02-03\n11.9\n22.3\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.4\n11.5\n11.5\n11.4\n38.0\n11.9\n11.8\n11.8\n11.8\n11.8\n11.8\n11.8\n12.4\n18-19\n01-02\n1.8\n1.6\n2.1\n1.3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n17-18\n31-01\n0.3\n0.3\n5.7\n2.2\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n16-17\nAugust-September (Group 7)\n30-31\n42.0\n42.0\n21.5\n2.0\n0.8\n1.5\n(Group 5)\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n15-16\n29-30\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nAugust\n14-15\n28-29\n1.9\n1.4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n13-14\n27-28\n1.8\n0.1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTable 2. -- cont.\n12-13\n26-27\n1.3\n0.1\n8.5\n2.1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTime\n2300\n2400\n0100\n0200\n0300\n0400\n0500\n0600\n0700\nTime\n2300\n2400\n0100\n0200\n0300\n0400\n0500\n0600\n0700","Lockages\n22-23\n24.8\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n43.8\n43.8\n21-22\n12.3\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n11.5\n40.8\nNot absolute \"zero\" flow, ladder and an auxillary power turbine remained in operation.\n20-21\n11.4\n11.5\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n32.4\n(Group 10)\n19-20\n26.4\n25.0\n11.3\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\nSeptember\n18-19\n11.4\n11.5\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n17-18\n11.4\n11.4\n12.5\n12.5\n12.5\n12.5\n12.5\n12.5\n12.9\n* high night time flow resulted from weekend daytime zero flows.\n16-17\n11.5\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n11.4\n30.4\n11.4\n11.4\n12.7\n15-16\n0.3\n3.0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n14-15\n1.0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n13-14\n(Group 9)\n60.2\n18.0\n1.6\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\ncontributed to some additional flow.\n12-13\n0.8\nSeptember\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n11-12\n1.3\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n10-11\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTable 2. --cont. --\n09 -10\n1.5\n2.7\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTime\n2300\n2400\n0100\n0200\n0300\n0400\n0500\n0600\n0700\na","the navigation locks, turbines, or down the fish ladders. Twenty-three of the\nfallbacks reascended the dam and reached Little Goose Dam, with 20 of these\ncrossing the dam to continue upstream. Most steelhead dropped downstream no\nfarther than Windust, approximately 3 miles below Lower Monumental Dam. The\nfurthermost downstream movers located were: two near Ice Harbor Dam and two\nheard in the mainstream Columbia River. One of the Columbia River fish was\nheard near Wallula, Washington, and the tag was subsequently found on the\nbeach between Wallula and Pasco, Washington, by a fisherman. The second tag\nwas heard at Ringold and was later recovered at the adult trap at Lower\nGranite Dam on 31 September. One steelhead tag was returned from the Salmon\nRiver in Idaho on 2 April 1982 from a fish last heard below Lower Monumental\nDam 1 September 1981. Another tag from a steelhead last heard below Lower\nMonumental Dam was returned 20 May 1982 from the Pahsimeroi Hatchery on the\nSalmon River in Idaho.\nThere were six steelhead fallbacks at Little Goose Dam. Two of these\nfish fell back twice. Three of the six fish were known to have reascended\nLittle Goose Dam, including one that had fallen back twice.\nThree fallbacks of chinook salmon occurred at Lower Monumental Dam. None\nof the three were known to have reascended the dam. One of the fish, however,\nwas recovered at the Priest Rapids artificial spawning channel later in the\nfall. Of the chinook salmon reaching Little Goose Dam, one fell back but\nreascended to continue upstream.\nInitial numbers of fallbacks at Lower Monumental Dam caused concern that\nthe release site was too close to the dam, but warm water reduced the numbers\nof fish to be tagged (Fig. 3) which postponed the use of an alternate release\nsite. When the water temperature dropped to where fish began to move again,\nfallbacks dropped off so there were only two during the release of Groups 7,\n18","Lower Monumental Dam 1981\n30\n900\nTemperature\nSteelhead\n800\nChinook Salmon\n25\n700\n600\n41.\n20\n500\n400\n15\n300\n10\n200\n100\n5\n15\n15\n15\n20\n25\n30\n20\n25\n30\n5\n10\n20\n25\n30\n5\n10\nSeptember\nJuly\nAugust\nFigure 3. -Daily fish counts and temperatures recorded at 1981. Lower\nMonumental Dam during the \"zero\" flow study,\n19","8, 9, and 10. Table 3 shows the disposition of all tagged steelhead at the\nend of the study. It was assumed that a high percentage of those tags still\nheard at Lower Monumental Dam near and at the end of the study were\nmortalities due to fallback through the turbines and perhaps from warm water\nhandling stress. Daily tagging was terminated when water temperatures in the\nfish ladder reached 72°F.\nWarm water influenced swimming behavior through the reservoir. Release\nGroups 4, 5, 6, and 7 occurred during the period of warmest water, reaching\n74°F. However, fish in Group 7 did not clear the study area before lower\ntemperatures prevailed (below 72°F) (temperature recorded by the CofE at Lower\nMonumental Dam) and were not influenced by the warmer water as much. The\nhighest water temperature recorded in the area was 78°F at Lower Granite Dam.\nRaphael (1961) concluded that during periods of low water and\nexceptionally warm weather, water temperatures will rise markedly in impounded\nareas of the Columbia River. The effect of slowing down the river and\nspreading it out over wider areas by dams increased the temperature of the\nwater over its natural increase in an unconfined river gorge.\nTravel rates between the two dams varied considerably in the number of\nhours it took the tagged fish to reach Little Goose Dam (Table 4). Chinook\nsalmon took somewhat less time to swim the 28.8 miles while also showing a\nwide range in the hours taken to cover that distance. The most extreme travel\ntimes for both species are attributed to warm water. Table 5 shows the\ndifferences in travel time between cooler water releases (70°F and below) and\nthose releases made when water temperature stayed above 70°F, regardless of\nwhether the release was a test or a control.\nProportionately, steelhead moved through the reservoir better than\nchinook salmon and also passed Little Goose Dam better during the study\n20","Table 3. -- --Disposition of radio tags at the end of study for fish not reaching\nLittle Goose Dam (steelhead).\nRelease groups\nTotal\n6\n8\n4\n7\n9\n10\n3\n5\n1\n2\nLocation\n1\n0\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nBattery quit\nBelow Lower\n24\n1\n0\n6\n7\n2\n2\n0\n0\n1\n5\nMonumental Dam\n4\n32\n4\n8\n4\n2\n0\n2\n5\n0\n3\nBetween dams\n6\n4\n57\n4\n0\n2\n8\n10\n15\n7\n1\nTotal\n21.7\nPercent of total tagged\n21","Table 4. -- Median travel time (hours) of all fish reaching Little Goose Dam by\ntest and control releases.\nControl\nTest\nRange\nMedian\nRange\nMedian\n19.9-610.8\n50.4\n19.5-735.6\n48.8\nSteelhead\n15.1-160.0\n30.2\n13.1-366.8\n33.2\nChinook\n22","Table 5. -- Median travel time (hours) of all radio-tagged fish reaching Little\nGoose Dam during cooler and warmer water periods.\nWarmer water\nCooler water\n(above 70°F)\n(70°F and below)\nRange\nMedian\nRange\nMedian\n35.0-735.6\n166.3\n19.5-455.3\n52.2\nSteelhead\n26.7-29.30\n16.1-366.8\nN/A\n31.7\nChinook\na/\nOnly two fish released.\n23","period. Table 6 summarizes the numbers of tagged fish that traversed the\nreservoir between the two dams and indicates the numbers of those fish that\ncrossed Little Goose Dam.\nAir flights taken during periods of warm water began showing\ninconsistencies in the ability to locate the same fish's signal during the\nsecond flight each day. Many factors can cause this to happen, but flight\nobserver reports warranted a closer look. Surveillances\nconducted\nwere\nseveral times by boat with experienced trackers, and it was found that fish\nwere apparently descending into deeper water for periods long enough to be\nundetected from either airplane or boat. When a fish was behaving this way,\neven individual tracking was almost impossible. Although previous studies\nshowed very little temperature stratification in lower Snake River reservoirs\n(Falter 1973), fish seemed to be going into deeper water (perhaps seeking\nlower temperatures). Falter did indicate there could be as much as a 3°F\ndifference between top and bottom. This could be attractive to fish when the\nsurface temperatures are in the mid-70°F range.\nFish were holding up in two areas. One was at the mouth of the Tucannon\nRiver, but it could not be determined if cooler water from the Tucannon River\nwas responsible or if the location is a natural holding area for fish to\ncongregate. The other area was at the downstream end of the south wingwall of\nthe Little Goose Dam navigational lock. This was explained by the cooler\ninflow from a spring below the surface of the river. Not only were tagged fish\nlocated in the area, but it was a popular place for fishermen.\nTravel Times Between Dams\nThe steelhead data on travel time between dams for each test and control\ngroup are given in Table 7. As noted in Appendix A, the scale parameter of\n24","Table 6. -- -Summary of radio-tagged chinook salmon and steelhead that reached Little Goose\nDam and those tagged fish that crossed the dam during the study.\nChinook Salmon\nRelease\nTotal fish\nReached\nPercent\nPassed Little\nPercent passage of\ntagged\nLittle Goose\nreaching dam\nGoose Dam\ngroup\ntotal fish tagged\nTest:\n1\n4\n4\n100.0\n3\n75.0\n3\n8\n8\n100.0\n2\n25.0\n5\n0\n0\nN/A\nN/A\nN/A\n7\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n9\n2\n2\n100.0\n2\n100.0\nTotal\n15\n14\n7\nControl:\n2\n9\n9\n100.0\n4\n44.4\n4\n2\n2\n100.0\n0\n0\n6\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n8\n3\n3\n100.0\n0\n0\n10\n2\n0\n0\n2\n100.0\nTotal\n17\n14\n6\nSteelhead\nTest:\n8\n1\n7\n87.5\n3\n37.5\n3\n42\n32\n76.2\n22\n52.4\n5\n22\n15\n68.2\n8\n36.4\n7\n7\n7\n100.0\n5\n71.4\n9\n46\n40\n87.0\n35\n76.1\nTotal\n125\n101\n73\nControl:\n2\n20\n12\n60.0\n11\n55.0\n4\n28\n46.4\n13\n6\n21.4\n6\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n8\n32\n30\n93.8\n29\n90.6\n10\n49\n45\n91.8\n38\n77.6\nTotal\n133\n100\n84\n25","Table 7. - Travel time in hours for the steelhead test and control groups\nfrom release to first arrival at Little Goose Dam.\nExperimental group a/\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n40.8\n23.9\n23.2\n35.0\n35.8\n22.1\n25.2\n19.5\n23.5\n43.9\n26.3\n25.4\n39.9\n49.9\n26.9\n26.7\n27.4\n19.9\n97.5\n29.9\n27.1\n49.8\n54.4\n40.8\n28.5\n28.0\n30.8\n139.8\n35.2\n30.7\n50.9\n96.7\n54.8\n29.4\n29.2\n30.1\n206.6\n45.4\n30.9\n52.4\n135.3\n216.1\n30.1\n29.6\n31.0\n270.4\n74.3\n33.1\n99.4\n157.9\n283.4\n30.2\n31.7\n33.3\n455.3\n99.8\n35.1\n121.6\n164.9\n173.4\n30.6\n32.2\n35.0\n114.6\n35.4\n167.7\n180.0\n32.3\n32.3\n35.6\n135.7\n37.3\n172.0\n244.0\n32.3\n32.9\n36.2\n136.9\n38.8\n188.6\n248.4\n32.6\n32.9\n37.2\n137.4\n43.7\n198.7\n394.9\n33.4\n33.0\n37.4\n173.9\n45.0\n270.8\n495.4\n34.6\n34.7\n37.7\n46.3\n576.4\n616.6\n34.9\n35.1\n38.0\n47.5\n644.0\n35.0\n36.7\n38.0\n50.1\n735.6\n35.0\n42.9\n38.1\n52.2\n38.0\n43.4\n59.0\n52.9\n38.4\n43.6\n41.6\n53.4\n43.7\n44.1\n50.0\n58.8\n49.5\n45.3\n50.3\n60.6\n52.3\n46.8\n52.1\n65.5\n54.3\n48.8\n53.9\n67.2\n54.9\n55.1\n54.0\n85.0\n64.3\n56.5\n50.4\n104.8\n64.6\n56.8\n56.0\n110.5\n70.7\n60.6\n56.2\n122.2\n95.9\n58.9\n56.6\n151.4\n117.0\n71.5\n57.7\n159.0\n121.0\n74.1\n59.5\n358.0\n123.8\n75.4\n52.2\n454.0\n126.7\n82.2\n60.0\n461.8\n94.9\n60.6\n714.4\n96.4\n64.6\n103.4\n64.9\n113.6\n67.4\n166.5\n68.0\n169.2\n74.2\n182.0\n67.5\n190.0\n77.5\n218.6\n80.8\n244.7\n90.1\n94.5\n96.6\n115.6\n123.7\n136.8\n/\na\nTest groups are odd numbers (zero flow) control groups are even numbers\n(normal flow) @\n26","the gamma distribution can be used in statistical inference to compare\nmigration times for the test and control groups. The results given in\nAppendix Table A2 show a significant difference between Groups 4 and 5 at\nan a = 0.062 level and Groups 8 and 9 at an a = 0.010 level. The comparison\nbetween Groups 2 and 3 was not significantly different ( a = 0.92). Appendix\nTable A2 also lists the estimated value for the shape parameter for each\ngroup. A shape parameter greater than one would indicate that the fish are\ncompleting the migration at a progressively faster rate. In Groups 4 and 5, 8\nand 9, and 10 and 9, the shape parameters are greater for the controls than\nthe test groups (4 and 5 : 1.32 > 1.22; 8 and 9 : 3.86 > 2.30; 10 and 9 : 6.28\n> 2.30). For Groups 2 and 3, the shape parameter is less for Group 2 (2 and\n: 1.02 < 1.23). However, Group 2 contains a single fish which has a\n3\nrecorded 610.8-h migration time. This fish was a fallback; if it is removed,\nthe estimated Group 2 shape parameter is 1.58 which is greater than the Group\n3 shape parameter. This would indicate that the control groups of fish are\nmigrating in less time than the test groups. The arithmetic means of travel\ntimes for test and control groups are 120 and 79 h, respectively. This\nrepresents a substantial difference.\nThe graphs in Appendix Figure A1 show the cumulative proportion\ncompleting the migration VS time. For steelhead, at a migration time of\n150 h, which agrees closely with each experimental run period, the proportion\ncompleting the migration is 0.91 for control fish and 0.76 for test fish.\nThis means that at this time, 9% of the control fish had not completed the\nmigration, whereas 24% of the test fish had not. For migratory fish, about\n15% of the population would be significantly delayed due to low flow\nconditions such as those used in these experiments.\n27","If we construct a 2 X 2 contingency table composed of the test and\ncontrol fish that complete the migration before and after 150 h we obtain:\nBefore\nAfter\n150 hours\n150 hours\nTotal\n76\n24\nTest fish\n100\nControl fish\n92\n9\n101\n168\n33\n201\nThese data can be used to test the null hypothesis that test and control fish\nhave the same probability of completing the migration before 150 h by\ncalculating a G2-statistic (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) . For these data,\nwe\nobtain G2 = 8.60, df = 1, P = 0.0034. The null hypothesis is rejected, and\nwe would conclude that the test and control steelhead are significantly\ndifferent in their probability of completing the migration in 150 h.\nAppendix Figure A1 also reveals the importance of analyzing the tails of\nthe distribution for these data. For instance, the 50% completion occurs at\n54 h for control fish and at 58 h for test fish--an insignificant difference\nat this point. Data collected soley from passage at the dams would not reveal\nthe differences shown here.\nThe sample sizes for chinook salmon were too small to use in group\ncomparisons (Table 8) . The control releases and the test releases were each\ncombined and statistically compared (Appendix Table A4). The cumulative\nproportion completion curves were also calculated (Appendix Figure A1) . The\nchinook salmon show significant differences between test and control fish at\nan a = 0.075 level. The shape parameter for the control fish is greater than\nthat for the test fish (1.670 > 0.716) indicating that the control fish\nmigrate faster. The point at which 50% of the fish migrate is practically\nidentical at 25 h for both groups. At 50 h, 33% of the test fish had not\ncompleted the migration, whereas 13% of the control fish had not. The\n28","Table 8. - - Travel time in hours for the chinook salmon test and control\ngroups from release to first arrival at Little Goose Dam.\nExperimental groupa/\n4\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n1\n2\n3\n5\n26.7\n18.5\n13.1\n13.4\n15.1\n15.0\n30.2\n16.1\n15.9\n17.9\n29.3\n29.0\n40.7\n24.7\n16.1\n33.2\n26.3\n16.6\n33.2\n17.8\n54.8\n42.9\n59.8\n43.3\n281.8\n77.4\n366.8\n160.0\na Test groups are odd numbers (zero flow) ; control groups are even\nnumbers (normal flow).\n29","arithmetic mean of travel times for test and control groups are 70 and 40 h,\nrespectively. As in the case for steelhead, these figures represent a\nsubstantial difference.\nMovement at Little Goose Dam\nStatistically, there was no difference in the time it took test and\ncontrol chinook salmon and steelhead to ascend Little Goose Dam once they\narrived at the dam. Median passage times were 17.3 and 22.8 h for test and\ncontrol groups of steelhead, respectively (Appendix Table B2). The gamma\ndistribution scale and shape paramenters were 0.017 and 0.83 for test fish,\nand 0.018 and 0.85 for controls.\nThere were no differences between steelhead test and control groups for\nthe time spent at Little Goose Dam after first arrival. The data in Appendix\nTable B4 show that the median time spent at the dam after arrival was 18.4 h\nfor test steelhead and 19.2 h for controls. The gamma distribution scale and\nshape parameters were 0.027 and 0.86 for test steelhead and 0.022 and 0.78 for\ncontrols. The scale parameters were not significantly different by the Bain\nanalysis.\nThe period of time steelhead spent back downstream after their first\narrival at Little Goose Dam showed medians of 18.9 and 18.7 h for test and\ncontrol fish, respectively (Appendix Table B7). The gamma scale and shape\nparameters were 0.036 and 1.14 for test fish and 0.021 and 0.86 for\ncontrols. The scale parameters were not significantly different.\nThere was a difference shown in behavior occurring between the nighttime\ntest and control flow periods (2200 to 0700 h) The probability of\na\nsteelhead leaving the dam and returning downstream during the nighttime 9-h\nperiod of \"zero\" flow was significantly greater than when fish were at the dam\nduring a controlled minimum flow nighttime 9-h period. For instance, in 125\n30","occasions where tagged steelhead were at Little Goose Dam when \"zero\" flows\nwent into effect, 68 (54%) returned downstream. Minimum flows went into\neffect on 114 occasions when tagged steelhead were at the dam, and 29 (25%)\nreturned downstream (G2 = 21.18, df = 1, P < 0.001). However, the overall\neffect on travel time was not significant.\nObservations also showed that both chinook salmon and steelhead reacted\nmore to flow changes that went from \"zero\" flow to normal daytime flows than\nto the change from minimums to normal daytime flows. The reaction was to\nleave the flow and return downstream.\nTable 9 summarizes tagged steelhead passage at Little Goose Dam during\nspecific conditions. In most cases, passages were best under controlled\nminimum flow conditions, but the differences were not enough to prove\nsignificantly better. This did not hold true in the case where steelhead\ndelayed and were influenced by a different flow condition.\nPowerhouse Collection System Behavior\nSteelhead and chinook salmon behavior at the powerhouse fish collection\nsystem can best be seen by comparing diel movements; their activity began to\nincrease between 0500 and 0600 h during both test and control flows. However,\nno distinct hourly peak of activity was shown within test weeks, whereas\ncontrol weeks showed collection system activity peaking at 0700 to 0800 h\n(Fig. 4). There was no relationship between fish activity (steelhead and\nchinook salmon combinea) and the number of fish entering the fish ladder\nduring test periods (Fig. 5). Under control conditions it can be seen that\nfish activity was related to the number of entrances by fish into the fish\nladder entrance. The data indicate differences in behavior between two\nconditions.\n31","Table 9. -Summary of radio-tagged steelhead passages during specific\nconditions, Little Goose Dam, 1981 a\nPassages (no.)\nCondition\n\"Zero\" flow\nControl flows\nTotal\n86\nBy release groups\n75\n161\nPassed within\noriginal release\n57\n78\n135\nperiod\nDelayed into\n18\n8\n26\nanother period\nNight and weekend\n18\n40\nstudy periods\n22\nWeekend daylight\n6\nperiods\n9\n15\na/ Actual monitored passages only; does not include late passages and known\npassages by tag recoveries but not monitored over dam.\n32","STEELHEAD and CHINOOK\n16\n0 Flow Weeks\n14\nNormal Flow Weeks\n12\n10\n8\n6\n4\n2\n0300\n0600\n0900\n1200\n1500\n1800\n2100\n2400\nTime of day\nFigure 4. -- Fish activity peaks at the Little Goose Dam powerhouse\ncollection systems- -- test and control groups.\n33","TEST PERIODS\nAll fish\n20\nActivity\nLadder Entrances\n15\n10\n5\nCONTROL PERIODS\nAll fish\n20\nActivity\nLadder Entrances\n15\n10\n5\n0400\n0800\n1200\n1600\n2000\n2400\nTime of day\nFigure 5. . -- -Correlation between chinook salmon and steelhead and the\nnumber of passages over Little Goose Dam--test and control\ngroups.\n34","Another observation noted in relation to tagged chinook salmon and\nsteelhead near the dam was that during the early morning activity period, 75%\nof the fish that left the dam and swam downstream between 0600 and 0700 h did\nso when \"zero\" flow conditions were in effect.\nAttempts at analyzing fish ladder counts of chinook salmon and steelhead\nshowed too great a variability in the counts within individual study weeks to\ngive reliable or meaningful results. The natural tendency of fish runs to be\nable to peak and drop off within a week was the principal contributor to the\ncount variations (Fig. 3). The results were the same when counts were\nconsidered on a daily basis; no distinguishable differences could be seen.\nSunday extended \"zero\" flow counts were compared to Sunday minimum flows with\nthe same results.\nSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS\nTests were conducted to study the effects of \"zero\" flow water storage\nconditions on the migration of adult chinook salmon and steelhead in the Snake\nRiver between Lower Monumental and Little Goose Dams. From July through\nSeptember, 1982, 258 steelhead and 32 chinook salmon were radio-tagged for the\nstudy. Automatic radio tag monitors at fixed locations and surveillance\nequipment in aircraft, automobiles, and a boat were used to record the\nmovement of tagged fish as they migrated from the release location above Lower\nMonumental Dam upstream to and over Little Goose Dam. Surveillance was\nmaintained on a 24-h basis for the fixed monitors, on a routine basis for the\naircraft surveillance, and on a back-up basis for the boat.\nFallback occurred at both Lower Monumental and Little Goose Dams. The\nsample size from the steelhead tests were adequate to make statistical\n35","comparisons between weekly test and control groups. The weekly data were also\ncombined for an empirical comparison. The weekly sample sizes from the\nchinook salmon data were inadequate for statistical comparisons but were\ncombined for the empirical comparison. The results of this limited analysis\nwith the chinook salmon data agreed with that of the steelhead data.\nThere was no difference in the time for test and control fish in\nascending Little Goose Dam once they arrived.\nThe probability that a steelhead would leave the vicinity of Little Goose\nDam and return downstream during nighttime periods of zero flow was greater\nthan during nighttime controlled minimum flows.\nTagged fish reacted more to flow change going from \"zero\" flow to normal\ndaytime flows than from minimums to normal daytime flows.\nEarly morning powerhouse collection system activity showed no distinct\npeaking within test weeks, whereas distinct activity peaks were shown during\ncontrol weeks between 0700 and 0800 h.\nSeventy-five percent of the fish that left Little Goose Dam and swam\ndownstream between 0600 and 0700 h did SO when \"zero\" flow conditions existed.\nThe data on travel times between dams was unimodal with a definite\nright-hand skew (a large number of fish taking much longer to migrate). These\ndata were best represented by the gamma probability distribution. There was a\nstatistically significant difference in the parameters of the gamma\ndistribution between test and control for some groups of fish. The empirical\nanalysis uses the data directly and shows that the estimated influence of\n\"zero\" flow on migrating fish would result in approximately 15 to 20% of the\npopulation being delayed independently from the warm water experienced during\nthe study.\n36","In contrast to the differences shown from data provided by fish carrying\nradio tags, analysis of fish counts showed no distinguishable difference in\ntravel times or other behavior between study weeks.\nConclusions from the aforementioned results are:\n1. \"Zero\" flow water storage procedures as proposed are not recommended\nto include times when salmonids are actively migrating upstream in the Snake\nRiver.\nSome restriction is recommended for present \"zero\" flow operations\n2.\nduring periods of extended warm water conditions to avoid contributing to the\npossibility of increasing ambient water temperatures to lethal limits as well\nas prolonging any existing temperature blocks.\n3. While the chinook salmon data were too small for statistical\ncomparisons among release groups, the comparison of combined test and control\nfish show that \"zero\" flow significantly delayed their rate of migration to\nthe same extent as that for steelhead.\n4. Although there were no statistical differences in delay and passage\ntimes over Little Goose Dam between test and control releases of steelhead\nonce they reached the dam, the behavioral differences that were observed did\nshow that \"zero\" flow was adversely affecting the fish.\nFish count data alone will not provide reliable or meaningful\n5.\ninformation on the impacts of \"zero\" flow conditions.\n37","ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\nSupport for this research came from the region's electrical ratepayers\nthrough the Bonneville Power Administration.\nThe following staff members of the National Marine Fisheries Service,\nNorthwest and Alaska Fisheries Center, Seattle, Washington, participated\ndirectly in the study: Electronic Technicians Charles J. Bartlett and Gordon\nF. Esterberg, and shift supervisors Robert E. Manis (Pasco), , Gene M. Matthews\n(Seattle), and Jim R. Smith (Retired).\nThe help and cooperation of all personnel of the U.S. Army Corps of\nEngineers involved with the study and instrumental in its success were much\nappreciated.\n38","LITERATURE CITED\nBratley, P., B. L. Fox, and L. E. Schrage.\n1983. A Guide to Simulation. Springer-Verlag, New York.\nFalter, C. M. and W. H. Funk.\n1973. Joint water quality study by Washington State University and the\nUniversity of Idaho on the Lower Granite Dam site area. U.S. Army\nCorps of Engineers, Walla Walla.\nGrice, J. V. and L. J. Bain.\n1980. Inferences concerning the mean of the gamma distribution. J.\nAmer. Statist. Assoc. 75:929-933.\nKappenman, R. F.\n1982. On a method for selecting a distributional model. Comm.\nStatist.-Theor. - Meth. 11:663-672.\nKappenman, R. F.\n1983. Parameter estimation via sample reuse. J. Statist. Comput. Simul.\n16:213-222.\nLee, E. T.\n1980. Statistical methods for survival data analysis. Belmont, CA:\nLifetime Learning Publ.\nLiscom, Kenneth L., Gerald E. Monan, and Lowell C. Stuehrenberg.\n1977. Radio-tracking studies of spring chinook salmon in relation to\nevaluating potential solutions to the fallback problem and increasing\nthe effectiveness of the powerhouse collection system at Bonneville\nDam, 1976. U.S. Dep. of Commer., Natl. Oceanic Atmos. Admin., Natl.\nMar. Fish. Serv., Northwest and Alaska Fish. Cent., Seattle, WA. 37 p.\n(Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract DACW57-76-F-0720).\nLiscom, Kenneth L., Lowell C. Stuehrenberg, and Gerald E. Monan.\n1978. Radio-tracking studies of spring chinook salmon and steelhead\ntrout to determine specific areas of loss between Bonneville and John\nDay Dams, 1977. U.S. Dep. of Commer., , Natl. Oceanic Atmos. Admin.,\nNatl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Northwest and Alaska Fish. Cent., Seattle,\nWA. 32 p. (Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contract\nDACW57-77-F-0238).\nMcMasters, K. M., R. G. White, R. R. Ringe, and T. C. Bjornn.\n1977. Effects of reduced nighttime flows on upstream migration of adult\nchinook salmon and steelhead in the lower Snake River. Univ. Idaho,\nForest Wildlife Range. Exp. St., Moscow. Contrib. 93, 64 p.\nMadison, D. M., R. M. Horrall, A. B. Stasko, and A. D. Hasler.\n1972. Migratory movements of adult sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)\nin Coastal British Columbia as revealed by ultrasonic tracking. J.\nFish. Res. Bd. Canada 29:1025-1033.\n39","Raphael, Jerome M.\n1961. The effect of Wanapum and Priest Rapids Dams on the temperature of\nthe Columbia River, September, 1961. Final Report to Public Utility\nDistrict No. 2 of Grant County. 22 p.\nShiue, W. and L. J. Bain.\n1983. A two-sample test of equal gamma distribution scale parameters\nwith unknown common shape parameter. Technometrics 25:377-381.\nSokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf.\n1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA.\nTrump, C. L. and W. C. Leggett.\n1980. Optimum swimming speeds in fish: the problem of currents. Can.\nJ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:1086-1092.\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers.\n1976. Irrigation depletions/instream flow study, CTR 29.\nWetherall, J. A.\n1971. Estimation of survival rates for chinook salmon during their\ndownstream migration in the Green River, Washington. PhD Thesis,\nUniversity of Washington, College of Fisheries, Seattle, WA.\n40","APPENDIX A\nStatistical Analysis\n41","The data on travel time between dams for each test and control group for\nchinook salmon and steelhead are given in Tables 7 and 8. These data were\nfirst examined to determine whether a parametric statistical model would\nappropriately represent the data. The alternative to a parametric model would\nbe to use the more robust but less efficient nonparametric statistical\nprocedures. The nonparametric procedures are free of any requirements\nconcerning the type of probability distribution, but they are much less\nefficient in the use of data than a parametric model. If considerations of\npast history, theoretical developments, or other information justifies a\nparametric model, it is generally the case that the trade-off between the\nrobustness of a nonparametric procedure compared to the efficiency of a\nparametric procedure favors the parametric procedure (Grice and Bain 1980).\nThe data are characterized by being unimodal and skewed to the right\n(having a heavy right hand tail) as shown in the stem and leaf display in\nAppendix Table A1. An appropriate model for this type of data would be the\nlognormal, gamma, or Weibul distribution. Applying the procedures given in a\npaper by Kappenman (1982), the gamma distribution was selected as the most\nappropriate distribution for these data. The Kappenman procedure consists of\ncomputing the logarithm of the maximized likelihood function under each model\nand selects the model corresponding to the largest of these. As\na\nconsequence, it is not required to specify a significance level, and a\nselection can be made without passing the data through a gamut of\ngoodness-of-fit tests. Wetherall (1971) in his investigations on chinook\nsalmon found that the choice of the gamma distribution arises naturally from\nconsiderations of the swimming behavior of fish. Swimming activity can be\nrepresented by a series of stages in which the time spent in each stage is\nexponentially distributed. The overall migration time is the convolution of\n42","Appendix Table A1 . -- Stem and leaf display of travel times for steelhead test\nand control groups, release to first arrival at Little\n/\na\nGoose Dam\nRelease group\n9\n10\n4\n5\n7\n8\n1\n2\n3\nXXX\nXX\nXXX\nXX\nXXXX\nXX\nXXXX\nXXXXXXXXXXX\nXX\nXXXXXXX\nXXXXXXXXXXX\nXXX\nXXX\nXX\nXX\nXXXXXXXX\nXXXXXXX\nXXXX\nXX\nXX\nXXXXXX\nXX\nXXXXX\nXXX\nXXXXXXXXX\nXXX\nXXX\nX\nXXXX\nX\nX\nX\nXX\nX\nX\nXX\nXXX\nXXX\nX\nX\nX\nXX\nXXXXXXX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nXXXXX\nXX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nXXX\nXXXXX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nXX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nXX\nX\nX\nX\nXX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nThe vertical scale is increasing in time down the column. For purposes of\n/\na\ndisplay, the groups are not plotted to the same vertical scale (see Table 7).\n43","these stages and this yields a gamma distribution (Lee 1980). Other studies\non the migratory swimming behavior of fish (Madison et al. 1972; Trump and\nLeggett 1980) have found that fish change their swimming speed in response to\nflow and diurnal variation. Trump and Leggett developed a mathmatical model\nof migratory behavior and energetics in fish. They were hampered in a\ndetailed evaluation of their model by the limited number of field studies of\nmigratory behavior in fish. Their model would lend support to the application\nof gamma distribution to fish migration data. From a consideration of these\nstudies the gamma distribution has reliable qualitative support on a priori\ngrounds. Therefore, further use of the data in goodness-of-fit tests would\nnot be statistically prudent [Bratley et al. (1983) p. 123]. A reason for\ncaution is that pre-analysis of the data with tandem goodness-of-fit tests may\naffect the distribution of subsequent statistics in ways impossible to analyse\nmathematically.\nFor these data, we used the two parameter gamma distribution with\nprobability density function\ng(t;0,1) =\nt>0; 1,1>0.\nThe parameters 0 and l are referred to as the scale and shape parameters,\nrespectively. The scale parameter influences the dispersion of the response\nvariable, and for gamma models, the scale parameter would refer to the\nrelative peakedness or flatness of the domes of the distributions. A flat\ndome would indicate a more disperse heavy-tailed distribution. The scale\nparameter of the gamma distribution can be used in statistical inference to\ndetermine whether the groups differ by being more disperse and heavy-tailed\nand hence containing more members which take a longer time to migrate. For\nthis purpose, estimates of the scale and shape parameters were calculated by\nthe method given by Kappenman (1983) and tabulated in Appendix Table A2.\n44","Appendix Table A2.--Two sample F-tests of the equality of scale parameters for\nmatched steelhead release groups.\nRelease group\n2\n3\n4\n8\n5\n9\n10\nSample size; n1, n2\n14\n31\n13\n15\n29\n40\n45\nArith. mean; X, Y\n139.44\n93.99\n155.92\n273.59\n50.35\n72.15\n55.54\n89.11\n62.82\n110.96\n182.04\n44.52\n58.05\n51.38\nGeom. mean; X, y\n136.58\n8.85\nScale para; 0 1' 0 2\n76.32\n118.24\n224.52\n13.03\n31.39\nShape para; 11.1 2\n1.021\n1.232\n1.319\n3.863\n1.219\n2.299\n6.278\nCombined\nshape para; A\n1.206\n1.215\n2.636\nX/Y\n1.485\n0.570\n0.698\ndf\n34\n33\n153\ndf2 i v2 a/\n75\n38\n211\nCritical\na - levelb\nc/\n0.06\n0.92\n0.009\ndf1- = 2n, 1; df2 = 2n21\nb/\nProbability level at which the null hypothesis would be rejected.\nc/\nThis value was adjusted according to Table 2 in Shiue and Bain (1983). The unadjusted\na level was 0.051.\n45","Comparisons were made between test and control groups which most closely\nmatched in time, sample size, and water temperature. The groups matched were;\n2 vs 3, 4 vs 5, 8 VS 9, and 9 vs 10. Groups 1 and 7 were of small sample size\nand were not used. The 8 vs 9 and 9 vs 10 comparisons are not independent,\nand the level of significance of the statistical test has to be adjusted (by\ndivision by two in this case). If one comparison is chosen a priori, then\neither Group 8 or Group 10 data would have to be dropped from the analysis\n(see results below).\nIt can be seen in Table 7 that some fish required longer than the\nallotted weekly period to complete the migration. These fish would then\nexperience both conditions. This induces two possibilities in the data\nanalysis. One method would be to truncate the data at the end of the weekly\nrelease period and not use data from fish which took longer to complete the\nmigration. This truncation procedure may jeopardize the analysis by causing\nan unknown influence on the results. Alternatively, we could use all the\ndata, acknowledging that a few fish would be subjected to both flow\nconditions. This would be a more conservative approach. For instance, for\nthose fish whose migration extends beyond 1 week, test fish would experience\nsome control conditions and control fish would experience some test\nconditions. Actual differences between test and control groups would be\nreduced, this would result in statistical comparisons being more\nconservative. For the study here, we will pursue the conservative approach\nand base analysis and results on the use of all data.\nFor the above matched groups, the methods given by Shiue and Bain (1983)\nwere used in two-sample tests of the equality of scale parameters for\nindependent gamma populations with unknown common shape parameters.\n46","Suppose that X represents the mean from a control sample with gamma\ndistribution (X;01,2) and Y the mean from a test sample with gamma\ndistribution G(y;02). A test of the null hypothesis\nagainst the alternative hypothesis\n01\nis to reject H if\nX/Y < F(a;2n,1,2n21),\nwhere F(a,v1,v2) denotes the lower a percentile of Snedecor's\nF\ndistribution. If 1 is known this is a size a test of H0. Shiue and Bain show\nthat one can expect good results if l is replaced by i , 9 where l denotes the\nmaximum likelihood estimate based on the combined sample data X1\nXn1'\n...\n..., Shiue and Bain compute Monte Carlo simulations for a range of\nvalues of l , a 9 n1 , and n2 which verify that with l replaced by 1 , the\nabove formula provides an approximate test with the true level being slightly\nabove the prescribed level for moderate sample sizes (see their Table 1).\nThey also provide (see their Table 2) modifications for a for small sample\nsizes so that the actual level is close to the prescribed nominal level.\nAn F-test of the assumption of common shape parameter (Ho: 11 = 12) = can\nbe obtained by using the approximation,\n2n\ngiven by Shiue and Bain (1983). Where S = 1n(X/X); X and X are the sample\narithmetic and geometric means respectively. The results of the test of\nHo: At = 1c = for the matched test and control groups are given in Appendix\nTable A3. Common shape parameters can be assumed for all comparisons except\n10 vs 9. On the basis of these results it was decided not to use the 10 vs 9\ncomparison and hence not use sample 10 in the group comparison.\n47","Appendix Table A3. -- \"tests of common shape parameter for matched steelhead\nrelease group combinations.\nRange of\nSample\nConclusion a/\ntabular F-values\nF'-value\n2 VS 3\n0.42 - 2.09\n1.16\nns\n4 vs 5\n0.38 - 2.54\n0.84\nns\n8 VS 9\n0.55 - 1.77\n0.57\nns\n10 vs 9\n0.60 - 1.69\n0.36\n*\n/\na\nThe critical regions of the test are values outside the range of the\nTabular F-values.\nns - Nonsignificant result, the sample F'-value is within the range of tabular\nF-values; there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis of common shape\nparameter.\n* - Significant result at the P = 0.05 level, the null hypothesis of common\nshape parameter would be rejected.\n48","The computations and results of applying the test for equal scale\nparameters are given in Appendix Table A2. The results show no significant\ndifference between Groups 2 VS 3, but there are significant differences\nbetween Groups 4 VS 5 and 8 vs 9. These results do not unequivocally\nestablish significant differences between all the control and test groups.\nFor chinook salmon, the groups were combined and the test for equal scale\nparameters is given in Appendix Table A4.\nAdditional analysis in which all the data are used would be helpful.\nThis can be accomplished by lumping all test groups together (Groups 1, 3, 5,\n7, and 9) and lumping all control groups together (Groups 2, 4, 8, and 10) and\ncomparing the overall test and control travel times. A useful procedure for\ncomparing the lumped groups would be a graph of the cumulative proportion of\nfish completing the migration over time. This would help to compare movement\nin relation to river flow condition. This type of curve would be analagous to\na force of mortality curve as typically used in survival analysis. These\ncurves are shown for chinook salmon and steelhead in Appendix Figure A1 and\nthe calculations are given in Appendix Table A5.\n49","Appendix Table A4.--Two-sample F-test of the equality of scale parameters for\nthe chinook salmon combined test and combined control\nfish.\nControl\nTest\nfish\nfish\n15\n15\nSample size; n1, n2\nArith. mean; X, Y\n39.6\n69.74\n37.08\nGeom. mean; X, Y\n30.71\n97.45\n23.72\nScale para.; 01202\n0.716\n1.670\nShape para.; 11.12\nCombined\nshape para; i\n1.016\n0.568\nX / Y\n30\ndf1 ; V1\n30\ndf2 ; \"2\nCritical\n0.075 b/\na - level\na/ Probability level at which the null hypothesis would be rejected.\nb/ This value was adjusted according to Table 2 in Shiue and Bain (1983).\nThe unadjusted a - level was 0.064.\n50","CHINOOK SALMON\n1.00\n0.75\n0.50\nControl groups\nTest groups\n0.25\n0\n20\n40\n60\n80\n100\nSTEELHEAD\n1.00\n0.91\n0,90\n0.80\n0.76\n0.70\n0.60\n0.50\n0.40\n100 150 200\n300\n400\nTime (hours)\nAppendix Figure Al. -- -Cumulative proportion completing migration\nfor chinook salmon and steelhead--test and\ncontrol groups.\n51","Appendix Table A5 Cumulative proportion of fish completing the migration for\ncombined control and combined test groups.\nSteelhead\nChinook\nControl\nTest\nControl\nTest\nT\nNC\nCPC\nNC\nCPC\nNC\nCPC\nNC\nCPC\n10\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n20\n1\n0.01\n0\n0\n6\n0.40\n5\n0.33\n30\n8\n0.09\n9\n0.09\n2\n0.53\n3\n0.53\n40\n29\n0.38\n19\n0.28\n1\n0.60\n2\n0.67\n50\n6\n0.44\n14\n0.42\n4\n0.87\n0\n0.67\n60\n19\n0.62\n12\n0.54\n0\n0.87\n3\n0.87\n70\n8\n0.70\n3\n0.57\n0\n0.87\n0\n0.87\n80\n4\n0.74\n3\n0.60\n1\n0.93\n0\n0.87\n90\n1\n0.75\n2\n0.62\n0\n0.93\n0\n0.87\n100\n6\n0.81\n5\n0.67\n0\n0.93\n0\n0.87\n110\n0\n0.81\n2\n0.69\n0\n0.93\n0\n0.87\n120\n3\n0.84\n3\n0.72\n0\n0.93\n0\n0.87\n130\n4\n0.88\n1\n0.73\n0\n0.93\n0\n0.87\n140\n3\n0.91\n3\n0.76\n0\n0.93\n0\n0.87\n150\n0\n0.91\n0\n0.76\n0\n0.93\n0\n0.87\n160\n0\n0.91\n2\n0.78\n1\n1.00\n0\n0.87\n170\n1\n0.92\n3\n0.81\n0\n0.87\n180\n2\n0.94\n2\n0.83\n0\n0.87\n190\n1\n0.95\n0.84\n1\n0\n0.87\n200\n1\n0.96\n0.84\n0\n0\n0.87\n250\n0\n0.96\n4\n0.88\n0\n0.87\n300\n1\n0.97\n3\n0.91\n1\n0.93\n400\n1\n0.98\n2\n0.93\n1\n1.00\n500\n0\n0.98\n4\n0.97\n750\n2\n1.00\n3\n1.00\nT: hours to end of time interval.\nNC: number of fish completing the migration in the interval.\nCPC:\ncumulative proportion completing the migration.\n52","APPENDIX B\nIndividual Travel Times, Daily Fish Counts,\nand Water Temperatures Recorded During the Study\n53","Appendix Table B1.--Travel -- time (hour) of steelhead from their release to their\nfirst arrival at Little Goose Dam (includes only those fish\nthat passed dam).\nRelease period\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n97.5\n137.4\n30.7\n49.8\n35.8\n26.9\n70.7\n27.4\n136.8a\n40.8\n23.9\n104.8\n52.4\n248.4\n216.1\n52.3\n56.5\n60.6\n43.9\n45.4\n50.1\n50.9\n394.9\n22.1\n64.3\n218.6\n52.1\n35.2\n35.4\n188.6\n616.6\n40.8\n64.6\n28.0\n38.1\n135.7\n122.2\n99.4\n495.4\n54.8\n117.8\n96.4\n54.0\n99.8\n30.9\n121.6\n96.7\n25.2\n32.9\n115.6a\n136.9\n25.4\n164.9\n30.2\n45.3\n36.2\n74.3\n45.0\n644.0\n26.7\n19.5\n37.4\n29.9\n35.1\n30.1\n103.4\n59.0\n114.6\n60.6\n32.6\n29.6\n38.0\n26.3\n151.4\n32.3\n48.8\n37.7\n23.2\n95.9\n113.6\n67.5\n38.8\n34.9\n32.9\n50.0\n27.1\n35.0\n35.1\n53.9\n52.9\n54.9\n33.0\n50.4\n37.3\n123.8\n36.7\n56.2\n47.5\n33.4\n82.2\n77.5\n52.2\n49.5\n56.8\n19.9\n159.0\n35.0\n169.2\n50.3\n67.2\n32.3\n60.6\n52.2\n43.7\n34.6\n32.2\n23.5\n33.1\n38.0\n94.9\n37.2\n30.6\n44.1\n67.4\n38.4\n34.7\n56.6\n29.4\n71.5\n30.1\n54.3\n29.2\n57.7\n28.5\n42.9\n64.9\n121.0\n43.6\n94.5a\n43.7\n43.4\n31.0\n55.1\n38.0\n58.9\n56.0\n46.8\n74.2\n75.4\n35.6\n166.5\n123.7\n182.0\n33.3\n59.5\n41.6\n35.0\n60.0\n30.8\n66.0a\n80.8a\n90.1ª\n64.6\n96.6a\na\nPassed Little Goose Dam after study was terminated; passage verified by\ncapture at Lower Granite Dam and monitors in fish ladder at Little Goose Dam after\nlast test.\n54","Appendix Table B2.--Hours steelhead spent from arrival at Little Goose Dam\nthrough passage including downstream time.\nRelease period\n10\n8\n9\n5\n6\n7\n3\n4\n1\n2\n9.0\n16.4\n39.1\n11.6\n88.4\n215.8\n6.1\n50.4\n19.2\n88.4\n13.3\n6.8\n12.6\n13.1\n6.2\n22.6\n91.1\n14.7\n4.2\n252.6\n24.5\n35.7\n14.9\n31.3\n404.9\n40.7\n26.1\n27.3\n176.7\n4.1\n51.2\n39.9\n237.9\n40.5\n67.1\n44.8\n24.3\n18.6\n303.7\n60.5\n17.3\n12.1\n5.5\n21.1\n13.5\n13.3\n5.6\n18.0\n18.4\n26.9\n6.0\n8.4\n35.7\n120.3\n22.4\n35.1\n20.4\n5.3\n47.5\n4.7\n8.4\n9.1\n9.5\n28.0\n14.3\n9.6\n5.1\n32.7\n268.4\n78.5\n12.2\n93.9\n18.4\n11.2\n38.1\n75.1\n14.6\n12.6\n23.5\n30.5\n22.6\n11.8\n9.2\n15.2\n98.3\n15.2\n23.5\n5.8\n152.7\n26.7\n22.7\n9.5\n50.4\n73.7\n12.7\n7.1\n42.8\n38.4\n16.8\n30.3\n29.1\n14.0\n12.3\n21.7\n8.0\n102.1\n20.2\n20.4\n6.0\n36.3\n19.0\n92.1\n2.7\n50.3\n5.4\n39.7\n36.3\n20.2\n24.4\n12.2\n20.4\n41.7\n9.2\n28.7\n23.1\n3.7\n154.3\n4.4\n50.5\n98.6\n134.1\n39.4\n23.4\n45.6\n152.1\n26.7\n142.7\n65.1\n16.1\n13.4\n142.2\n9.8\n12.4\n16.3\n94.0\n7.7\n78.6\n30.6\n16.5\n71.0\n17.1\n45.4\n25.8\n134.5\n31.7\n19.8\n9.6\n36.8\n55","Appendix Table B3. --Total hours steelhead spent in reservoir between release\narea and Little Goose Dam before passage, 1981.\nRelease period\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n113.1\n137.4\n35.4\n235.3\n210.2\n26.9\n65.6\n33.5\n53.9\n62.9\n45.4\n149.7\n67.1\n286.2\n22.1\n158.3\n56.6\n84.2\n43.8\n35.2\n134.5\n303.7\n186.0\n40.8\n64.6\n223.9\n39.8\n136.9\n30.9\n188.5\n408.0\n227.8\n25.2\n28.1\n37.4\n74.3\n25.4\n48.8\n494.8\n60.7\n30.2\n96.3\n59.0\n138.1\n52.1\n99.5\n35.4\n26.7\n32.8\n37.7\n26.3\n44.5\n644.0\n78.7\n45.2\n107.0\n103.4\n60.6\n616.6\n98.7\n19.5\n56.7\n141.8\n151.4\n32.3\n29.6\n56.1\n215.5\n38.8\n95.8\n48.8\n77.4\n45.7\n91.9\n133.8\n113.6\n37.7\n67.1\n43.7\n40.5\n55.2\n73.9\n54.3\n42.0\n52.1\n43.7\n29.4\n42.9\n23.6\n128.7\n38.4\n82.2\n40.6\n135.3\n30.6\n60.6\n67.4\n88.2\n44.2\n51.7\n61.0\n65.3\n34.6\n55.7\n57.7\n73.9\n35.0\n52.8\n30.2\n31.6\n49.5\n132.8\n84.3\n23.1\n33.3\n125.7\n31.0\n38.3\n42.5\n75.3\n67.5\n34.8\n119.5\n56.0\n154.1\n65.3\n89.5\n28.4\n100.9\n35.6\n191.1\n169.1\n123.7\n117.7\n43.0\n33.3\n192.0\n85.2\n59.5\n37.6\n55.5\n62.5\n128.5\n59.9\n32.9\n30.8\n75.4\n119.0\n166.4\n34.9\n209.8\n75.5\n182.0\n64.6\n57.9\n37.9\n57.3\n56","Appendix Table B4. -- Hours spent by all steelhead at Little Goose Dam during the\n\"zero\" flow study, 1981.\nRelease period\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n1\n2\n3\n12.7\n85.4\n30.3\n102.1\n291.4\n10.5\n6.2\n51.6\n21.1\n22.4\n35.7\n13.7\n6.8\n31.6\n18.6\n78.1\n32.6\n14.6\n11.1\n6.1\n4.2\n6.0\n11.5\n33.9\n5.1\n101.8\n31.4\n15.1\n36.5\n15.2\n59.3\n36.1\n26.8\n15.6\n9.0\n8.4\n4.1\n16.1\n22.7\n14.1\n26.5\n18.1\n195.3\n2.5\n18.8\n13.4\n13.6\n7.1\n18.4\n150.3\n10.6\n12.3\n14.6\n6.5\n17.3\n11.8\n17.1\n21.6\n23.2\n19.2\n12.3\n59.6\n99.2\n23.6\n5.3\n12.3\n377.5\n2.1\n23.8\n9.6\n26.7\n22.2\n9.3\n4.6\n26.1\n9.1\n22.7\n14.0\n24.4\n16.8\n69.3\n46.3\n25.7\n207.1\n43.5\n9.2\n9.6\n150.4\n5.5\n19.8\n38.5\n20.2\n22.7\n15.5\n179.1\n95.9\n12.1\n338.2\n28.7\n5.8\n7.7\n101.7\n28.2\n11.6\n1.2\n6.1\n27.0\n14.9\n17.4\n60.9\n24.5\n40.2\n4.7\n5.9\n38.5\n21.3\n7.9\n12.4\n4.4\n46.7\n25.1\n45.2\n3.8\n10.1\n22.4\n5.5\n9.5\n15.0\n42.6\n5.9\n44.9\n2.4\n18.7\n11.9\n115.5\n36.7\n21.0\n12.1\n9.9\n21.1\n12.3\n172.3\n59.3\n20.2\n5.1\n22.4\n11.2\n17.9\n35.7\n1.3\n109.4\n38.8\n14.3\n19.3\n5.4\n63.3\n26.9\n3.6\n36.0\n90.8\n9.1\n74.2\n32.3\n9.3\n18.4\n21.9\n12.6\n38.9\n18.6\n8.1\n40.1\n21.9\n45.5\n6.0\n5.8\n13.3\n2.7\n23.5\n14.1\n15.2\n22.0\n15.1\n8.5\n49.0\n60.4\n76.1\n39.4\n13.4\n39.7\n16.3\n19.2\n9.3\n2.9\n20.5\n113.7\n32.2\n19.8\n32.5\n0.5\n74.4\n15.9\n57","Appendix Table B5. @ -- Total hours spent by steelhead in study area from release\nto passage over Little Goose Dam, 1981.\nRelease period\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n147.9\n142.9\n119.1\n337.4\n308.9\n44.2\n213.4\n68.1\n195.1\n81.5\n261.8\n141.1\n356.1\n434.8\n243.4\n97.9\n342.5\n97.5\n50.0\n71.5\n50.3\n55.4\n285.2\n26.3\n198.4\n243.1\n74.9\n48.9\n53.5\n118.0\n53.8\n47.6\n69.0\n213.7\n125.0\n54.4\n188.1\n114.1\n662.7\n71.2\n121.5\n32.2\n292.2a\n154.1\n162.7\n219.9\n648.7\n53.9\n120.7\n66.8\n122.2\n43.0\n508.5\n50.4\n46.4\n45.1\n145.3\n31.4\n501.6\n32.1\n53.7\n75.3\n189.7\n71.9\n122.2\n24.8\n47.8\n79.4\n46.4\n134.7\n92.5\n53.8\n123.8\n70.2\n46.3\n192.2\n94.2\n69.7\n134.3\n141.5\n73.4\n161.0\n47.5\n481.1\n152.5\n35.4\n74.1\n53.1\n74.2\n53.4\n307.5\n58.0\n73.5\n49.7\n300.5\n119.4\n65.4\n151.2\n78.2\n55.6\n89.7\n75.2\n70.6\n47.8\n70.2\n141.2\n41.0\n55.4\n69.3\n190.0\n52.7\n49.8\n72.6\n97.9\n44.1\n49.0\n45.2\n95.0\n70.7\n102.4\n50.6\n41.8\n93.1\n67.5\n51.0\n193.6\n74.5\n42.8\n100.3\n66.1\n66.1\n73.9\n45.3\n52.0\n249.2\n72.9\n70.4\n94.6\n95.4\n194.7\n74.1\n331.7a\n223.6\n49.4\n94.3\n116.5\n189.0\n70.3\n55.3\n121.7\n137.6\n71.3\n122.0\n142.3\n75.4\n46.6\n143.5\n95.2\n92.8\n44.0\n73.3\n281.7a\n/\na\nPassed after study ended; monitors still in fish ladder.\n58","Appendix Table B6.--Daily chinook salmon and steelhead fish counts and temperatures ( F ) recorded during \"zero\" flow study,\nSthd\nLower Granite\nFall\n2\n12\n4\n7\n4\n3\n9\n8\n4\n7\n3\n1\n1\n5\n6\n1\n6\nChinook\n18\n31\n53\n19\n14\n8\n16\n22\n11\n27\n29\n19\n23\n11\n29\n30\nSum\n136\n49\n42\n18\n21\n27\n26\n38\n18\n19\n9\n11\n5\n13\n9\n8\n286\n259\n216\n177\n104\n46\n76\n176\n84\n76\n90\n48\n51\nTemp.\n70\n70\n75\n73\n70\n67\n67\n69\n69\n70\n70\n70\n71\n71\n71\n72\n75\n62\n63\n63\n66\n67\n67\n66\n67\n67\n67\n68\n66\n65\n66\nSthd\n126\n190\n135\n132\n12\n33\n50\n34\n64\n90\n56\n53\n85\n95\n81\n57\n71\n52\n11\n10\n18\n6\n17\n17\n43\n30\n24\n38\n32\n43\n35\nLittle Goose\nFall\nChinook\n0\n0\n0\nX\n0\n0\n20\n28\n63\n28\n47\n23\n29\n5\n15\n3\n11\n20\n9\n4\nSum\n70\n41\n26\n11\n226\n204\n195\n122\n96\n108\n60\n58\n30\n157\n115\n77\n51\nTemp.\n68\n69\n70\n69\n69\n70\n70\n70\n70\n66\n67\n67\n67\n67\n67\n68\n69\n62\n62\n62\n62\n64\n65\n65\n66\n66\n66\n61\n61\n61\n61\nSthd\n34\n10\n8\n13\n42\n30\n118\n84\n83\n143\n89\n171\n218\n7\n31\n79\n26\n68\n39\n57\n46\n47\n74\n49\n78\n81\n9\n6\n7\n5\n31\nLower Monumental\nJULY\nFall\nX\n0\n0\n0\n0\nChinook\n0\n25\n10\n19\n42\n31\n28\n17\n24\n4\n15\n9\n5\n8\n5\n12\n9\nSum\n70\n109\n42\n184\n63\n88\n67\n196\n165\n102\n65\n73\n66\n30\n7\nTemp.\n68\n68\n66\n68\n68\n68\n68\n68\n68\n66\n66\n66\n66\n66\n67\n68\n58\n58\n58\n60\n62\n61\n63\n63\n63\n63\n63\n63\n65\n65\n65\nSthd\n38\n249\n23\n45\n57\n63\n86\n77\n63\n96\n67\n84\n97\n80\n118\n106\n81\n119\n118\n94\n151\n128\n19\n14\n12\n23\n26\n37\n16\n67\n51\nFall\nIce Harbor\n0\n0\n0\n0\nChinook\n0\n1981.\n22\n8\n7\n16\n18\n7\n6\n19\n22\n29\n22\n22\n18\n11\n11\n8\nSum\n89\n99\n42\n35\n38\n102\n150\n96\n97\n79\n86\n81\n81\n69\n21\nTemp.\n68\n68\n62\n65\n68\n68\n68\n69\n68\n68\n62\n63\n64\n64\n64\n65\n65\n65\n65\n65\n65\n65\n65\n65\n60\n60\n62\n62\n62\n62\n61\nrelease no.\nDate and\n20\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n31\n8\n16\n9\n10\n12\n13\n14\n15\n17\n18\n19\n21\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n11\n1\nC2\nT3\nT1","Sthd\n108\n112\n138\n110\n125\n80\n116\n50\n28\n66\n12\n23\n14\n33\n28\n13\n8\n14\n22\n10\n43\n20\n12\n35\n76\n74\n91\n57\n56\n97\n46\nLower Granite\nFall\nChinook\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n1\n1\n5\n2\n1\n2\n4\nSum\n10\n5\n10\n8\n3\n12\n4\n2\n2\n0\n0\n0\n1\n1\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTemp.\n73\n73\n72\n72\n72\n72\n73\n73\n73\n74\n74\n77\n78\n77\n76\n78\n78\n77\n77\n76\n76\n74\n74\n74\n74\n74\n74\n73\n73\n72\n72\nSthd\n106\n105\n165\n112\n159\n109\n103\n44\n25\n64\n46\n46\n46\n68\n43\n15\n44\n60\n16\n58\n52\n39\n45\n60\n103\n59\n71\n28\n31\n48\n54\nLittle Goose\nFall\nChinook\n0\n0\n0\n2\n1\n1\n0\n3\n7\n6\n4\n0\n1\n0\n2\n2\n1\nSum\n4\n8\n8\n8\n12\n5\n6\n2\n0\n3\n0\n1\n3\n6\n1\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTemp\n70\n--\n71\n71\n72\n72\n72\n71\n71\n71\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n73\n73\n73\n73\n73\n73\n73\n73\n73\n73\n73\n73\n73\nAUGUST\nSthd\n131\n102\n64\n34\n161\n158\n70\n40\n26\n53\n71\n104\n14\n19\n67\n24\n30\n5\n16\n34\n59\n49\n27\n32\n41\n22\n44\n28\n76\n35\n29\nLower Monumental\nFall\nChinook\n0\n0\n2\n11\n1\n1\n0\n1\n2\n5\n3\n1\n3\n1\n4\n1\n2\n4\n3\n0\nSum\n7\n3\n8\n5\n7\n2\n1\n2\n0\n5\n0\n1\n0\n1\n0\n0\n0\nTemp\n69\n69\n69\n69\n69\n69\n69\n70\n--\n70\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n74\n71\n71\n71\n74\n74\n74\n73\n73\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\nSthd\n131\n60\n53\n136\n89\n56\n54\n113\n61\n58\n55\n69\n27\n39\n44\n6\n11\n34\n20\n32\n12\n24\n16\n14\n16\n43\n21\n55\n45\n34\n30\nFall\nIce Harbor\nChinook\n0\n0\n0\n2\n1\n7\n4\n4\n1\n4\n2\n3\n1\n0\n0\n2\n0\n2\n2\n0\n5\n10\n5\nAppendix Table B6.--Cont.\nSum\n7\n1\n7\n4\n2\n7\n1\n10\n3\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTemp\n68\n68\n68\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n71\n71\n72\n71\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n70\n73\nrelease no.\nDate and\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n>19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n31\nC4\nT5\n--\n--\nC6\nT7","Sthd\n136\n178\n259\n298\n264\n663\n756\n444\n670\n677\n510\n435\n298\n1,396\n560\n29\n69\n35\n63\n47\n52\n76\n99\n147\n81\n135\n171\n83\n861\n598\nLower Granite\nFall\nChinook\n3\n16\n4\n14\n8\n23\n2\n6\n2\n16\n5\n6\n6\n6\n10\n1\n6\n1\n8\n2\n4\n9\n4\n1\n6\n3\n1\n4\n4\n5\nSum\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTemp.\n70\n70\n66\n64\n63\n72\n72\n72\n70\n70\n70\n69\n70\n71\n69\n68\n68\n66\n66\n66\n66\n65\n62\n61\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n446\n680\nSthd\n79\n386\n690\n634\n475\n580\n845\n1,025\n69\n37\n55\n69\n86\n106\n62\n426\n135\n426\n164\n199\n331\n461\n379\n509\n1,326\n1,075\n571\n633\nLittle Goose\nFall\nChinook\n9\n8\n11\n6\n4\n10\n5\n10\n7\n6\n4\n2\n2\n9\n10\n17\n5\n10\n2\n6\n4\n3\n4\n20\n2\n5\n7\n6\n6\n10\nSum\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTemp.\n70\n69\n68\n68\n73\n72\n72\n72\n72\n72\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n67\n66\n66\n66\n64\n65\n65\nSEPTEMBER\n659\nSthd\n243\n22\n321\n279\n794\n597\n440\n619\n504\n526\n929\n1,059\n52\n56\n70\n95\n411\n658\n769\n688\n741\n101\n139\n63\n73\n225\n336\n341\n481\nLower Monumental\nFall\n5\n12\n29\n18\n8\n8\n16\n8\n7\n7\n8\n4\n8\n10\n7\n11\nChinook\n7\n12\n4\n5\n15\n8\n11\n2\n11\n14\n19\n23\n10\n15\nSum\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTemp.\n70\n70\n70\n70\n69\n68\n66\n70\n70\n70\n69\n69\n69\n69\n68\n66\n65\n65\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n71\n70\n768\nSthd\n46\n562\n829\n1,073\n1,160\n706\n756\n884\n805\n847\n719\n985\n658\n761\n119\n109\n98\n108\n161\n82\n53\n405\n585\n512\n587\n505\n284\n491\n905\nFall\nIce Harbor\n13\n42\n32\n42\n24\n34\n20\n28\n23\n20\n9\n21\n17\n16\n10\n15\n3\nChinook\n8\n1\n14\n10\n9\n8\n6\n36\n28\n21\n24\n51\n37\nAppendix Table B6.--Cont.\nSum\n0\n0\n0\n0\n0\nTemp.\n--\n70\n70\n72\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n68\n68\n68\n68\n70\n70\n73\n70\n70\n70\n70\n70\n73\n72\n72\n72\n71\n70\n71\nrelease no.\nDate and\n7\n8\n9\n10\n15\n11\n12\n13\n14\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n29\n30\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\nC10\n--\n--\nT9\nC8\n--","Appendix Table B7. @ -- Hours spent back downstream by all steelhead after their\nfirst arrival at Little Goose Dam, 1981.\nRelease period\n9\n10\n6\n7\n8\n3\n4\n5\n1\n2\n11.7\n66.1\n6.2\n29.5\n133.7\n113.5\n15.6\n15.8\n7.1\n48.6\n61.3\n8.0\n5.9\n9.4\n31.0\n37.8\n22.1\n191.6\n7.5\n6.4\n53.2\n108.4\n21.1\n6.1\n39.0\n5.3\n5.3\n6.3\n13.1\n3.6\n8.2\n6.2\n19.5\n17.8\n23.5\n43.2\n12.8\n11.6\n4.9\n23.9\n137.1\n18.1\n5.1\n85.2\n83.4\n26.3\n15.8\n50.9\n94.0\n6.9\n28.4\n17.8\n13.3\n7.5\n3.6\n21.7\n67.3\n6.9\n15.3\n4.5\n16.1\n3.4\n12.3\n7.7\n4.4\n5.2\n31.9\n19.4\n57.3\n20.9\n28.4\n58.4\n73.4\n7.9\n78.9\n114.9\n62","APPENDIX C\nBudget Information\n63","BUDGET\nA. Summary of Expenditures\nItem\nTotal spent\nSalary and overhead\n$190.7\nTravel\n10.8\nVehicles\n5.1\nRent (aircraft)\n7.7\nPrinting\n0.1\n15.8\nSupplies\nSupport\n78.8\nTotal\n$309.0\nB. Major Property Items\n1. Six Anadesc Printers at $1,015 each = $6,090.\n64"]}