1. Status of Columbia River salmon and links to flow: What we do and do not know Presentation to Northwest Power Planning Council December 11, 2002 John.g.williams@noaa.gov Bill.muir@noaa.gov Steven.g.smith@noaa.gov Rich.zabel@noaa.gov

2. Historic flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns Outline

3. Historic flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns Present flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns Outline

4. Historic flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns Present flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns Present stock status and link to flow

5. Outline Historic flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns Present flow, juvenile travel time and survival, and adult returns Present stock status and link to flow Uncertainties

6. Historic conditions

7. Salmonids evolved to migrate under flow conditions with a natural hydrograph. Due to the small size of smolts, the limited ability to store energy reserves, and the long distance they must travel, fish rely tremendously on flow (water velocity) to move them to the ocean.

11. A strong and consistent relationship exists between flow (water velocity) and travel time

12. Travel time impacts arrival to and through the hydropower system and thus, timing to the estuary and ocean.

14. After Sims and Ossiander

16. Present conditions

22. In 2001, little to no spill at all dams. In other years, spill to 2000 BiOp levels or to the gas cap.

23. In 2001, little to no spill at all dams. In other years, spill to 2000 BiOp levels or to the gas cap.

24. Above some threshold average survival appears to vary little, is relatively high, and does not correlate with flow.

25. Above some threshold average survival appears to vary little, is relatively high, and does not correlate with flow. Below the threshold, survival is lower.

26. Above some threshold average survival appears to vary little, is relatively high, and does not correlate with flow. Below the threshold, survival is lower. The relationship between flow and survival at the lower range is not strong.

38. We presently can not predict the window of good estuary/ocean conditions

39. Spring-summer chinook salmon Transported/non-transported (marked above LGR) _________________________________________ YearHatcheryWild _________________________________________ 19951.73 (26)0.89 (9) 19961.28 (6)0.48 (2) 19971.32 (232)1.16 (4) 19981.25 (896)0.77 (17) 19991.53 (1211)1.10 (73) 20001.79 (1002)0.55 (48) Geo. Mean = 1.51= 0.86 (Bolded data) Geo. Mean = 1.47= 1.07 (All data)

40. Steelhead Transported/non-transported (marked above LGR) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ YearHatchery Wild _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 19950.83 (22) no data 19961.05 (7) 3.50 (2) 19973.00 (10) 2.24 (2) 19980.49 (8) 0.30 (2) 19990.74 (14) 1.13 (10) 20002.57 (17) 1.73 (18) 20010.31 (1) 0.29 (3) Geo. Mean = 1.48 = 1.40 (Bolded data) Geo. Mean = 1.05 = 0.96 (All data)

41. Conclusions Construction of dams has decreased water velocities and increased juvenile travel time.

42. Conclusions Construction of dams has decreased water velocities and increased juvenile travel time. Under low-flow conditions, juvenile survival decreases.

43. Conclusions Lack of a strong flow survival relationship from LGR-MCN under generally good flow conditions is not surprising given the high estimated juvenile survival in this reach.

44. Conclusions Lack of a strong flow survival relationship from LGR-MCN under generally good flow conditions is not surprising given the high estimated juvenile survival in this reach. Most losses from LGR-MCN occur from dam passage, leaving little mortality in the reservoirs where flow would affect survival the most.

45. Conclusions Lack of a strong flow survival relationship from LGR-MCN under generally good flow conditions is not surprising given the high estimated juvenile survival in this reach. Most losses from LGR-MCN occur from dam passage, leaving little mortality in the reservoirs where flow would affect survival the most. Lack of a strong flow/survival relationship in this short reach does not support an end to flow augmentation.

46. Conclusions Adult returns vary widely depending on timing of the juvenile migration through the estuary and into the ocean.

47. We can not presently predict when favorable estuary/ocean conditions will exist. Adult returns vary widely depending on timing of the juvenile migration through the estuary and into the ocean. Conclusions

48. In recent years and over a broad range of flows, SARs have increased and brood year to brood year ratios (calculated as escapement to Lower Granite Dam plus catch) are above 1; however, SARs are below levels estimated for the 1960s

49. NMFS is presently conducting research to relate juvenile migration history and experience (including flow) within the hydropower system to adult returns. Conclusions

50. NMFS is presently conducting research to relate juvenile migration history and experience (including flow) within the hydropower system to adult returns. This includes research to understand the relationship among time of ocean entry, physical, and biological characteristics of the estuary and plume environment, and adult return rates.