Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byWilla Jenkins Modified over 9 years ago
1
D. Stich 1*, M. Bailey 2, J. Zydlewski 3,1 1 Department of Wildlife Ecology, 5755 Nutting Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME; 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Central New England Fishery Resource Office, Nashua, NH; 3 U.S. Geological Survey, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 5755 Nutting Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME. * Email: daniel.stich@maine.edudaniel.stich@maine.edu Survival of Atlantic salmon smolts through a hydropower complex in the lower Penobscot River, ME USA
2
INTRODUCTION Atlantic salmon smolts in the Penobscot River 18-month smolts Most are hatchery-origin 500,000+ stocked each year
3
PRRP Balancing hydropower with sea-run fishes Dam removal in main-stem Power-generation increases INTRODUCTION Penobscot River
4
Great Works Dam PRRP Balancing hydropower with sea-run fishes Dam removal in main-stem Power-generation increases INTRODUCTION Marsh Island hydropower complex Gilman Falls Stillwater Dam Orono Dam Veazie Dam Milford Dam
5
INTRODUCTION Objectives Passage path and survival through Marsh Island complex Relations between discharge, path choice, and survival
6
METHODS Acoustic array ~ 200 receivers > 250 km coverage > 2000 smolts tagged since 2005 Cooperative effort between: USGS UMO NOAA
7
METHODS Survival (Φ) Detection probability (p) State-transition probabilities (ψ) Multi-state acoustic survival models
8
Methods Path choice at Stillwater: individual-based model StillwaterPenobscot “1” “0”
9
RESULTS Path choice at Stillwater from MS models Hatchery Wild ~ 12 %
10
RESULTS Use of Stillwater Branch vs. discharge
11
RESULTS Acoustic Survival Survival lowest at Milford Survival through Stillwater Branch higher than main- stem Survival at Veazie & Great Works high prior to dam removal Free flowing Regulatory std. 0.91 ± 0.02 0.98 ± 0.02 0.99 ± 0.00 0.97 ± 0.02 1.00 ± 0.00
12
RESULTS Survival at Milford Dam vs. discharge
13
Free flowing Regulatory std. ψ Stillwater : low Φ Milford : low Φ Veazie,Φ Great Works : high Φ Stillwater,Φ Orono : high ψ Stillwater,Φ Milford : with flow DISCUSSION Main findings
14
1.00.97 DISCUSSION Relative risks prior to changes.91.96 25-(0.97 * 1.00 * 25) = 0.75 6-(0.97 * 1.00 * 6 )= 0.18 <1% contributed by Stillwater dams 94-(0.91 * 0.98 * 94) = 10.17 75-(0.91 * 0.98 * 75) = 8.11 N = 100 75 - 94% 6 - 25% 25-(0.97 * 1.00 * 25) = 0.75 6-(0.97 * 1.00 * 6 )= 0.18 94-(0.91 * 0.99 * 94) = 9.3 75-(0.91 * 0.99 * 75) = 7.4.98.99 94-(0.91 * 0.99 * 94) = 9.3 75-(0.91 * 0.99 * 75) = 7.4 25-(0.96 * 0.96 * 25) = 1.96 6-(0.96 * 0.96* 6 )= 0.47 8 –10% contributed by main-stem dams 7 – 9% contributed by main-stem dams 9-11% Loss through complex 8-10% Loss through complex ~2% contributed by Stillwater dams 9-11% Loss through complex.96 94-(0.91 * 0.99 * 94) = 10.17 75-(0.91 * 0.99 * 75) = 7.4.92.93.94.95.96 94-(0.92 * 0.99 * 94) = 8.38 75-(0.92 * 0.99 * 75) = 6.69 94-(0.93 * 0.99 * 94) = 7.45 75-(0.93 * 0.99 * 75) = 5.9 94-(0.94 * 0.99* 94) = 6.52 75-(0.94 * 0.99 * 75) = 5.2 94-(0.95 * 0.99 * 94) = 5.59 75-(0.95* 0.99 * 75) = 4.46 94-(0.96 * 0.99 * 94) = 4.66 75-(0.96* 0.99 * 75) = 3.72 7 – 8% contributed by main-stem dams 5 – 7% contributed by main-stem dams 9-10% Loss through complex 7-9% Loss through complex 5 – 7% contributed by main-stem dams 4 – 6% contributed by main-stem dams 6-8% Loss through complex 4 – 5% contributed by main-stem dams 6-7% Loss through complex
15
DISCUSSION Summary Restoration is species-specific and life-stage specific. Dam removal will have little effect on smolt survival, other species benefit greatly Opportunity for improving passage at Milford Dam Potential sub-lethal effects of Veazie & Great Works in estuary Future uncertainty in passage through Stillwater Branch
16
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Logistic & technical support: Alia Al-Humaidhi, Matthew Altenritter, Megan Altenritter, Dan Anderson, Wesley Ashe, Charlie Baeder, John Beeman, Kevin Bernier, Brandon Capron, Matthew Dzaugis, Kevin Gallant, Graham Goullete, Graham Griffin, Ann Grote, Jim Hawkes, Ed Hughes, Chris Introne, Betsy Irish, Mike Kinnison, Ian Kiraly, John Kocik, Kevin Lachapelle, Phillip Lung, George Maynard, Andrew O’Malley, Ana Rapp, Silas Ratten, Chip Reier, Margo Relford, Peter Ruksznis, Doug Sigourney, Chandler Smith, Randy Spencer, Erin Snook, Steve Stich, Haley Vieman, Trevor Violette, Matthew Wegener, Gayle Zydlewski, Orion Zydlewski Financial support: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Brookfield Renewable Power (Great Lakes Hydro America) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Penobscot Indian Nation Penobscot River Restoration Trust University of Maine United States Geological Survey
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.