1 / 19

Georgiana Slough Site Location Sacramento River Flow 10,000-30,000 CFS Open DCC+G. Slough

Biological Evaluations of the Georgiana Slough Experimental Acoustical Fish Barrier, Phases I-IV 1993-1996. Georgiana Slough Site Location Sacramento River Flow 10,000-30,000 CFS Open DCC+G. Slough 35-50% diversion Closed DCC+G. Slough 16-22% diversion.

enid
Download Presentation

Georgiana Slough Site Location Sacramento River Flow 10,000-30,000 CFS Open DCC+G. Slough

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Biological Evaluations of the Georgiana Slough Experimental Acoustical Fish Barrier, Phases I-IV1993-1996

  2. Georgiana Slough • Site Location • Sacramento River • Flow 10,000-30,000 CFS • Open DCC+G. Slough • 35-50% diversion • Closed DCC+G. Slough • 16-22% diversion

  3. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Problem • Juvenile Chinook salmon emigrating from upper Sacramento River are susceptible to diversion into central Delta at DCC and Georgiana Slough: • This is significant because of increases in— • Susceptibility to Predation • Delays in Migration • Exposure to Increased Water Temperatures • Susceptibility to Entrainment and Loss at State and Federal Water Projects (SWP and CVP)

  4. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Project Partners • Primary Project Coordination • Interagency Ecological Program’s (IEP) New Fish Facilities Development committee: • Participation by DFG, USFWS, USBR, and DWR • Phase I and II Labor and Funding Provided by: • San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, State Water Contactors, and other agencies including DWR and USBR • Phase III and IV Labor and Funding were Responsibility of DWR with Support from: • Hanson Environmental, DFG, and IEP

  5. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Technology Proposals • Physically Block Passage of Juvenile Salmon into Slough: • Rock Barrier or Other Structure • May Adversely Affect: • Water quality within slough and S. Delta • Natural flow patterns • Levee stability and flood control • Upstream migration of adult fish • Recreational boating • Behavioral Barrier to Utilize Avoidance Response • Research at that time indicated: • Variable success in reducing losses of fish at water diversions

  6. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Methodology Test Behavioral Barrier Utilizing Proprietary Acoustic Sound Barrier System to Elicit Fish Behavioral Response and Guidance

  7. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Technology Tested

  8. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Technology Tested

  9. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Technology Tested • Acoustic Barrier • 1993 Phase I • 10-12 Transducers Operated 135-165 dBs at 300 and 400 Hz • 1994 Phase II • 21 Transducers Operated 130-150 dBs at 300 or 400 Hz • 1995 Phase III • 21 Transducers Operated 140-153 dBs at 300 Hz and 130-154 dBs at 400 Hz • 1996 Phase IV • Started with 21 Reduced to 18 Functional Transducers • Sound Characteristics Not Reported

  10. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Simplified Basis of Experimental Design • Evaluations (Guidance Efficiency) Based on Results from Kodiak Trawls within Sacramento River and Georgiana Slough • When Sound Barrier is On versus Off • Results of the Kodiak Trawl collections were normalized to account for variation in sampling effort (catch-per-unit-effort)

  11. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Results Study Results Summary

  12. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Study Results • 1993 Phase I (May 6-June 10) • Sacramento River Flows at Freeport (Upstream of slough) 20,400-48,700 CFS—Represents normal/average flow year • Guidance efficiency index ranged from negative to positive* • Data was used to develop more robust analysis techniques and to refine barrier installation techniques *Calculated guidance efficiency not reported due to change in analysis procedures for future studies-Phase III planning documentation suggests a Phase I efficiency of at least 50%

  13. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Study Results • 1994 Phase II (April 1-June 30?) • Sacramento River Flows at Freeport (Upstream of slough) 4,000-6,500 CFS—Represents low/below average flow year • Average guidance efficiency 57% (range from negative to positive) • Possible environmental factors: • Tide (efficiency increase on ebb) • Diel (efficiency increase during daytime) • Fish predator attractant (possibly related to increased milling behavior)

  14. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Study Results…Continued • 1994 Phase II • No evidence was found to suggest increased: • Acute or delayed mortality to fish after acute exposure to the sound (130-150 dbs at 300 & 400 Hz) for 60 minutes • Embryonic abnormalities or hatching failure after 24-312 hours of sound exposure • Susceptibility to predation

  15. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Study Results • 1995 Phase III (February?-June 30) • Sacramento River Flows at Freeport (Upstream of slough) >60,000 CFS—Represents flood flow • Average guidance efficiency not reported based on study objectives • Further evaluate the potential for increased mortality of various fish species after barrier exposure, and possibility of increased milling behavior: • No evidence suggesting increased delayed or acute mortality after exposure • No evidence of upstream delay • On average 9 minute downstream delay (less than 1 hr not considered meaningful)

  16. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Study Results • 1996 Phase IV (April 1-June 30?) • Sacramento River Flows at Freeport (Upstream of slough) 10,000-40,000 CFS—Represents slightly above normal flow year • Average guidance efficiency 15% (not statistically different than zero) • No evidence of fish passage delays

  17. Georgiana Slough Project—1993 to 96Study Results-Summary • Results suggest guidance efficiency is greater under low flow Sacramento River conditions than high flow • Negative fish population effects are considered most significant during low River flow conditions • Guidance efficiencies appear to have some relationship to daily environmental conditions (tidal and diel) • Results from 1993 to 1996 are not adequate to quantify the population biological benefits from long term permanent barrier operation

  18. Georgiana Slough Project—planned 1998 Study (not conducted) • Key points to consider for future study planning: • Studies will only be conducted if Sacramento River flows are projected to be less than 17,000 cfs (River/Slough Hydraulics) • Studies will be conducted during a 21 day period to coincide with the period of peak juvenile fall-run Chinook salmon smolt passage (Study Timing; Need Fish) • Kodiak trawls will be conducted 8 hrs per day and the barrier will be operated on a 2 day on/off cycle (Sampling, Operation and Analysis Methods) • Environmental conditions (acoustic, hydraulic) will be documented in the River and Slough (Study Documentation; Many Potential Environmental Variables)

More Related