Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoleng

Research Paper

Physical and ecological evaluation of a fish-friendly surface spillway MARK

⁎
J.P. Duncan, Z.D. Deng , J.L. Arnold, T. Fu, B.A. Trumbo, T.J. Carlson, D. Zhou
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Energy & Environment Directorate, Richland, WA, 99352, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Spillway passage is one of the commonly accepted dam passage alternatives for downstream-migrating salmo-
Spillway nids and other species. Fish passing in spill near the water surface may have improved chances of survival over
Surface spillway fish that pass deeper in the water column near spillway structures. In this study, an autonomous sensor device
Fish passage (Sensor Fish) was deployed in 2005 to evaluate fish passage conditions through the Removable Spillway Weir
Sensor fish
(RSW) at Ice Harbor Dam on the Snake River in south-central Washington State. The Sensor Fish deployment was
Removable spillway weir
undertaken concurrently with a separate live fish injury and survival study. Conditions at the RSW–Spillway
Remediation
Hydroelectric dam Chute Transition and Deflector region were found to be potentially detrimental to fish. As a result, the spillway
slope and deflector radius were modified, and the efficacy of the modifications was evaluated in 2015 using
Sensor Fish and a concurrent live fish study. The frequency of severe acceleration events (acceleration ≥ 95 G)
during passage decreased significantly (from 51% to 35%; p-value = 0.049), and collisions with structures
decreased from 47% to 27% (p-value = 0.015). Pressures observed in the Spillway–Deflector region and pres-
sure rates of change decreased as well. Overall, the modifications resulted in hydraulic conditions that con-
tributed to improved fish passage conditions and increased fish survival.

1. Introduction
Spillway passage has been identified as a preferred dam passage
route for downstream-migrating salmonids and other species
(Katopodis and Williams, 2012; Calles et al., 2012) because other routes
such as turbines can lead to increased injuries. While regarded as the
most benign migration route, large spill discharges have been observed
to generate supersaturated levels of dissolved gases downstream of
dams (Schilt 2007; Huang et al., 2016). In fish, high levels of dissolved
gas may cause gas bubble disease (Lutz 1995; Backman and Evans,
2002), reduce swimming performance (Sciewe 1974), affect spawning
behaviors (Geist et al., 2013), and increase susceptibility to pathogens
(Weiland et al., 1999). Strategies to enhance passage times, reduce
injury and/or mortality, manage dissolved gas levels, and optimize
water use for fish passage have resulted in spillway modifications that
have included the addition of deflectors, baffle blocks, walls, and weirs
that discharge spill from the upper part of the water column rather than
through a submerged gate opening.
In 2001, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in support of
their Environmental Operating Principles installed the first Removable
Spillway Weir (RSW) at Lower Granite Dam (Fig. 1). The RSW (Fig. 2)
was designed to improve fish passage conditions by passing fish near
the water surface. The RSW is hinged so it can be lowered when not
required or raised by computer-controlled ballast tanks when needed.
In 2002 and 2003, Plumb et al. (2003, 2004) evaluated survival and
behavior of radio-tagged juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead re-
lative to the performance of the RSW. The proportion of fish that passed
Lower Granite Dam via spill ranged from 56 to 69% in 2002 (Plumb
et al., 2003) and 58–69% in 2003 (Plumb et al., 2004), and residence
and passage times decreased when the RSW was in operation. Passage
effectiveness ratios (fish passage probability to proportion of total water
volume passed through the RSW) were 6.47–7.19 to 1 per percent of
RSW discharge in 2002 (Plumb et al., 2003) and 8.3–9.9 to1 per percent
of RSW discharge in 2003 (Plumb et al., 2004). Considered effective for
fish passage and with the potential to reduce spill discharge and dis-
solved gas levels (USACE, 2009), RSWs were installed at Ice Harbor
Dam and Lower Monumental Dam, in 2005 and 2008, respectively
(Fig. 1).
The original spillways at Ice Harbor Dam are configured with a
more vertical slope than other dams on the Snake River. On these
spillways, spill flow intercepts the flow deflector at a 55° angle, which is
10 ° steeper than that at Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower
Granite Dams. This spillway design may contribute to directing deep-
passing fish onto or closer to the spillway flow deflector (Fig. 2;
Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006). Vertical distribu-
tions, as determined from hydroacoustic evaluations conducted in 2005
(Moursund et al., 2007) and 2006 (Ham et al., 2007), indicated that at
least 11% of spring migrants and 25% of summer migrants entered the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: zhiqun.deng@pnnl.gov (Z.D. Deng).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.10.012
Received 4 June 2017; Received in revised form 13 October 2017; Accepted 18 October 2017
0925-8574/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J.P. Duncan et al.
RSW near the ogee surface (Fig. 3) and may have passed through a
potential high injury zone close to the spillway surface at the transition
of the spillway chute to the spill deflector (Ham et al., 2007; Moursund
et al., 2007). Other studies of passage and survival have included the
use of radio-telemetry. Paired-release radio-telemetry survival esti-
mates for juvenile steelhead and subyearling Chinook salmon passing
through the RSW have been above the Biological Opinion (BiOp; NOAA
Fisheries, 2008) performance standards for dam passage; however, the
majority of these estimates (four out of five) for overall dam survival of
yearling Chinook salmon have been below BiOp performance
108
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
Fig. 1. Ice Harbor Dam, Washington.
standards, including in 2005 (Axel et al., 2007a), 2006 (Axel et al.,
2007b), 2007 (Axel et al., 2008), and 2009 (Axel et al., 2010).
In 2005, we deployed an autonomous sensor device (Sensor Fish) to
evaluate the forces fish encountered during passage at Ice Harbor Dam.
At the same time, a live fish study was conducted where yearling
Chinook salmon were directly released into the RSW passage route to
evaluate direct injuries resulting from passage through the RSW
(Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006). Results revealed
high injury rates and low estimates of survival for study specimens.
Comparisons between direct injury studies at other dams and hydraulic
J.P. Duncan et al.
Fig. 2. Relative Positions of RSW Regions of Interest: 1. RSW Chute; 2. RSW-Spillway
Chute transition; 3. Spillway Chute; 4. Spillway-Deflector; 5. Deflector Wake.
analysis using computational fluid dynamics models, physical hydraulic
models, and Sensor Fish data collected during the evaluation led to the
conclusion that the slope of the spillway chute and the angle of the
transition between the chute and deflector were the likely causes. As a
result, the USACE determined that structural modifications to decrease
the slope of the ogee and increase the radius of the transition from the
spillway chute to deflector would be necessary. These modifications
were completed in late March 2015.
In 2015, another assessment was conducted to evaluate the hy-
draulic conditions that fish may encounter during passage over the RSW
(located in Spillbay 2) after the ogee chute and deflector were modified.
Results of the 2015 assessment were compared with the results from the
2005 assessment, focusing on the effectiveness of the spillway mod-
ifications for improving fish passage.
109
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
2. Methods
2.1. Study site
Ice Harbor Dam is the first dam on the Snake River upstream from
its confluence with the Columbia River in south-central Washington
State (Fig. 1). The dam is 860.3 m long and 30.5 m tall, and comprises
six turbine units, a 10-bay spillway, a navigation lock, two fish ladders,
and an earth-fill section. The spillway stilling basin is 180.0 m wide and
51.2 m long (parallel to the spill discharge flow). It is bound down-
stream by a continuous 3.66 m-tall endsill approximately 51.8 m
downstream of the spillbays. Concrete baffle blocks measuring ap-
proximately 2.44 m tall and 3.05 m wide are installed approximately
12.8 m toward the spillbays from the endsill. The spillway has a crest
elevation of 119.2 m msl, and each spillbay is equipped with a 16.2 m-
high, 15.2 m-wide tainter gate that seals the spillbay shut at 118.4 m
msl (Fig. 2). The maximum normal forebay water elevation is 134 m
msl. Spillbay 2 was modified in 2015 to decrease the slope of the ogee
and increase the radius of the deflector. The angle of the spillway chute
was decreased to 42 ° from 55 ° and the deflector was extended and its
turning radius was increased from 4.57 to 9.14 m (Fig. 3).
2.2. Sensor fish device
A Sensor Fish is powered by a rechargeable battery, and is 24.5 mm
in diameter and 89.9 mm in length (Fig. 4; Deng et al., 2014). It con-
tains three-transducers including a three-axis gyroscope, three-axis ac-
celerometers, a pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, a three-axis
magnetometer, a radio-frequency transmitter, a recovery module, and a
communication module. The components are configured so the center
of gravity is very close to the geometric center of the Sensor Fish. Its
mass is approximately 42.1 g, and it is neutrally buoyant in fresh water
at deployment, with its size and density similar to those of a yearling
salmon smolt. A low-power microcontroller collects data from the
sensors and stores up to 5 min of data on internal non-volatile flash
memory at a sampling frequency of 2048 Hz. The recovery module
allows the Sensor Fish to become positively buoyant, bringing the unit
to the water surface for recovery after a pre-programmed time. The
Sensor Fish also contains onboard light emitting diodes that flash after
the completion of data acquisition, allowing for visual detection in low-
light conditions. All sensors–the pressure sensor, accelerometers, three-
axis gyroscope, magnetometer, and temperature sensor–were calibrated
and evaluated individually prior to field use.
Fig. 3. Cross-Section of Ice Harbor Dam Spillbay 2 Ogee and Deflector
Modifications. The red line and the green line represent the spillway
profiles in 2005 and 2015, respectively. (For interpretation of the re-
ferences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)
J.P. Duncan et al. Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116

Fig. 4. Sensor Fish Device: (a) CAD drawing and (b) Photograph.

Table 1
Dam Operations and Sensor Fish Releases for the RSW Evaluations in 2015 and 2005.

Year Treatment SF Releases Spillbay 3 Spillbay 4 RSW spill (m3/ Average total spill (m3/ Average total project discharge Average elevation (m) Head (m)
s) s) (m3/s)
Forebay Tailwater

2005 1 26 Open Closed 240.7 611.6 1735.8 133.7 104.3 29.4

2 23 Closed Open 240.7 586.2 1834.9 133.7 104.5 29.2
2015 3 41 Closed Open 240.7 1178.0 1466.8 133.4 104.1 29.3
4 45 Closed Closed 240.7 413.4 1364.9 133.3 104.1 29.2

Fig. 5. Two Typical Sensor Fish Pressure and Acceleration

Measurements for Passage over the RSW, with Passage Regions of
Interest Identified: 1. RSW Chute; 2. RSW-Spillway Chute transition;
3. Spillway Chute; 4. Spillway-Deflector; 5. Deflector Wake. (a) a
passage without severe event. (b) a passage with a severe event.

110
J.P. Duncan et al. Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116

2.3. Sensor fish releases

Shear (%)
All Regions Combined
Sensor Fish releases were made from an induction system located on

20
10
4
9
6
0
the spillway deck. A 10.2-cm flex hose connected the induction system
Collision (%)

into a 15.2-cm diameter steel pipe mounted to the RSW structure. The
pipe was configured to deploy the sensors into the spill flow im-
mediately upstream of the crest of the RSW, exiting at approximately
62
30
47
27
27
27
130 m msl, which is 0.46 m above the RSW crest. To facilitate recovery,
Shear (%)

Sensor Fish were equipped with a micro-radio transmitter (ATS, Isanti,

Minnesota) and two HI-Z balloon tags (Normandeau Associates, Inc.,
Bedford, New Hampshire) identical to those used during live fish testing
4
4
4
0
4
2
Deflector Wake

(Heisey et al., 1992). Balloon tags contain non-toxic chemicals that

Collision (%)

produce a gas when water is added. The gas inflates the balloon and
buoys the unit to the surface. A directional radio receiver antenna was
used to locate the radio transmitters. Following deployment, Sensor
0
0
0
0
0
0

Fish were recovered by boat crews in the tailrace and transported to

Shear (%)

staff on the deck for data downloading to a computer, memory reset-

ting, and attaching new balloons. The refitted Sensor Fish then were re-
Spillway–Deflector

18

deployed.
0
4
2
0

In April 2005, a total of 49 Sensor Fish releases were made for

Collision (%)

baseline characterization with either Spillway 3 (Treatment 1) or

Spillway 4 open (Treatment 2). The total spill averaged 598.9 m3/s. In
April 2015, a total of 96 Sensor Fish releases were made under two
31
13
22
5
9
7

treatment conditions [(Table 1): 1178.0 m3/s (Treatment 3) and

Shear (%)

413.4 m3/s total spill (Treatment 4)]. The latter was initiated in an
effort to minimize fish being trapped in an eddy that was created be-
tween spill and powerhouse flow at the greater discharge. While the
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillway Chute

average total project discharge was greater during the 2005 evaluation,
Collision (%)

the flow through the RSW was 240.7 m3/s during both study years, and
the forebay and tailwater elevations and the resultant head were
42
22
33
24
20
22

comparable. Therefore, the results from the combined treatments in

2005 was comparable to those in 2015.
RSW–Spillway Chute Transition

Shear (%)

2.4. Data analysis and passage examples

Discernable features in pressure time histories permitted the ac-

0
0
0
0
0
0

quired Sensor Fish data to be divided into segments corresponding to

specific regions of RSW passage from the induction system to the exit
Collision (%)

into the stilling basin. For each Sensor Fish data set, events of interest
such as rapid pressure changes, collisions, shear, and severe turbulence,
were identified and the time of occurrence, location by region, and
0
0
0
5
0
2

severity of events were recorded. Regions of interest for passage over

Shear (%)
Percentage of Sensor Fish that experienced severe events by region for each treatment.

the RSW included the RSW Chute (the steel chute portion of the RSW);
the RSW–Spillway Chute Transition (the transition from the RSW Chute
to the existing concrete spillway); the Spillway Chute (the existing
0
0
0
0
0
0

concrete spillway structure); the Spillway–Deflector region (the tran-

Collision (%)
RSW Chute

sition from the spillway chute to the face of the deflector and the de-
flector face), and the Deflector Wake (the region from the end of the
deflector approximately 200 milliseconds downstream, incorporating
0
0
0
0
2
1

the region where risk of exposure to shear is higher) (Fig. 2). Typical
At least 1 Severe Event (%)

pressure and acceleration magnitude time histories obtained from

Sensor Fish following passage over the RSW with the designated regions
of interest are illustrated in Fig. 5.
To qualify as a severe event, a high-amplitude acceleration impulse
must have a peak value equal to or greater than 95 g. The threshold of
95 g was selected based on laboratory tests where both juvenile
Chinook salmon and Sensor Fish were exposed to shear flows and at this
62
39
51
27
42
35

value there was a nearly 100% probability of minor injury (Richmond

1 and 2 Combined

3 and 4 Combined

et al., 2009; Deng et al., 2007). The classification of shear and collision
events was also based on laboratory tests when Sensor Fish were sub-
jected to collisions with various structures and shear flows (Deng et al.,
Treatment

2007). When 70% of the absolute value of the maximum amplitude

(0.7|a|) of a severe event lasts less than 0.0075 s, it is classified as a
1
2

3
4

collision; when 70% of the absolute value of the maximum amplitude of

Table 2

2005

2015
Year

the event is longer than 0.0075 s, it is classified as shear. Pressure and

rotational velocity measurements are then used for validation of the

111
J.P. Duncan et al. Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116

Table 3
P-Values for Sensor Fish Experiencing Severe Events by Region.

RSW Chute RSW–Spillway Chute Spillway Chute Spillway–Deflector Deflector Wake All Regions Combined
Transition

Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision or
Shear

Treatments 1 and 2 Combined vs. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.127 1.000 0.011 0.985 1.000 0.461 0.015 0.881 0.049
Treatments 3 and 4
Combined
Treatment 3 vs. Treatment 2 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.703 1.000 0.242 0.359 1.000 0.359 0.488 0.125 0.229
Treatment 3 vs. Treatment 4 0.523 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.773 1.000 0.384 0.004 1.000 0.271 0.603 0.002 0.102

Bold indicates P-value < 0.05.

classification because pressure and rotational velocity increase more
dramatically during a collision event than during a shear event. More
detailed information on the data analysis was reported by Deng et al.
(2007).
3. Results and discussion
To establish the effectiveness of the structural modifications to the
spillway, data collected during the 2015 post-modification evaluation
were compared with the results obtained during the 2005 baseline
evaluation.
3.1. Severe events
Severe events experienced during passage over the RSW resulted
from collisions with dam structures or exposure to shear in the water
flow. In 2005, 62% and 39% of the Sensor Fish experienced severe
events for Treatment 1 and Treatment 2, respectively. The percentage
of Sensor Fish experiencing severe events decreased after the spillway
modifications, declining to 27% for Treatment 3 and 42% for Treatment
4 (Table 2). Combining treatment data by year, 35% and 51% of Sensor
Fish experienced severe events in 2015 and 2005, respectively, re-
presenting a significant decrease after modifications were completed (p-
value = 0.049) (Table 3).
Table 4 shows the percentage of most severe events in each passage
region and for the total passage. The most severe events indicate which
type of severe events (collisions or shear) had the maximum accelera-
tion in each passage region. For example, for Treatments 1 and 2
combined in 2005, collision events were the most severe events in 92%
of the releases and shear events were the most severe events in 8% of
the releases. The 92% releases with collisions as the most severe events
included 56% and 36% in Spillway Chute and Spillway–Deflector re-
gions, respectively. The 8% releases with shear as most severe events
included 4% in both Spillway–Deflector and Deflector Wake regions.
Regardless of study year, the majority of the most severe events oc-
curred after passage through the RSW when the Sensor Fish collided
with the concrete surface of the spillway chute. However, a substantial
number of shear events were observed in the Spillway–Deflector region
during Treatment 4 in 2015 (32%).
When combining treatments by study year, no significant difference
was observed in the numbers of shear events before and after the
spillway modifications were completed (10% in 2015 and 6% in 2005).
However, there was a significant difference in the number of shear
events when the two treatments in 2015 were compared (p-
value = 0.002). No Sensor Fish experienced severe shear events during
Treatment 3; however, 20% of the Sensor Fish experienced severe shear
events during Treatment 4. Although the flow discharge through the
RSW was the same for both Treatments 3 and 4 (240.7 m3/s) and the
total project discharge was similar, the average total spill for Treatment
3 (1178.0 m3/s) was more than twice that of Treatment 4 (413.4 m3/s).
Because severe shear events were only observed in the
Spillway–Deflector and the Deflector–Wake regions where Sensor Fish
enter the stilling basin, the difference between the observed numbers of
shear events may be the result of different flow patterns of these two
treatments in the vicinity of the Spillbay 2 deflector.
The total and average numbers of severe events per Sensor Fish
release observed in each passage region are shown in Table 5. Severe
collisions were observed most frequently in the Spillway Chute region,
with an average of 0.27 severe collisions per releasefor both spill
treatments in 2015, which is fewer than the average number of colli-
sions in 2005 (1.08 for Treatment 1 and 0.43 for Treatment 2). In the
Spillway–Deflector region, the average number of severe collisions per
release in 2015 was also fewer than those observed in 2005; however,
the average number of severe shear events observed during Treatment 4
in 2015 (0.20) was more than that observed in 2005 (0 and 0.04 for
Treatments 1 and 2, respectively). Combining all treatments by study
year, both the number of severe collisions per release and the number
severe events (collisions or shear events) per release were fewer in 2015
than those observed in 2005. The average number of severe event
collisions per release declined from 1.10 in 2005–0.40 in 2015; and the
average number of severe events (collisions or shear events) decreased
from 1.16 in 2005–0.52 in 2015. However, the average number of se-
vere shear events increased from 0.06 in 2005–0.13 in 2015.
3.2. Pressure
Areas of rapid pressure change are of interest to hydropower op-
erators due to the effects of rapid decompression on fish, especially
threatened and endangered species (Brown et al., 2012; Brown et al.,
2014). Pressure changes observed during turbine passage are of specific
concern, fish, including physostomous fish such as salmon, could be
potentially injured or killed because they may not quickly release gas as
the swim bladder expands during the rapid decompression (Brown
et al., 2012). Pressure time histories for typical Sensor Fish releases
over the RSW did not reveal pressure differentials that would contribute
to injury. The spillway modifications that were implemented resulted in
significantly lower pressures at the RSW–Spillway Chute Transition and
Spillway–Deflector regions (Fig. 6), as well as reduced pressure rates of
change during passage.

112
J.P. Duncan et al. Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116

3.3. Comparison to live fish results

Shear (%)
All Regions Combined
In 2005, a total of 716 live fish (averaging 143 mm in length) were

22

42
27
0

8
0
released through the same injection systems as the Sensor Fish and
Collision (%)

under the same treatment conditions (Normandeau Associates Inc. and

JR Skalski, 2006). Live fish results from the 2005 evaluation identified
higher injury rates for fish exiting the RSW at deeper depths near the
100

100
78
92

58
73
ogee of the spillway (Normandeau Associates Inc. and Skalski, 2006). A
clear trend was observed between Sensor Fish data and live fish injury
Shear (%)

results, reported as the inverse of “clean fish,” with the probability that
a fish would be injured during passage increasing proportionately with
11

11
0

4
0

7
Deflector Wake

the number of severe collision and shear events observed during Sensor
Collision (%)

Fish releases (Fig. 7).

In April 2015, 337 fish (average length 137 mm) were released
through the same injection systems for the post-modification evaluation
0
0
0
0
0
0

(Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015). That study provided survival and

Shear (%)

malady-free estimates for passage of yearling Chinook salmon through

the modified spillway. The reciprocal of these estimates were used for
Spillway–Deflector

11

32
20

comparison with Sensor Fish severe events and were reported as ma-
0

4
0

lady and mortality estimates.

Collision (%)

Table 6 summarizes live fish 48-h survival/mortality estimates and

malady/malady-free estimates (without control corrections) for the
studies conducted in 2005 and 2015 (Normandeau Associates Inc. and
38
33
36
18
16
17

JR Skalski, 2006; Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015); Sensor Fish data

Shear (%)

for the combined treatments are also shown. The live fish malady-free
estimate after the modifications was significantly higher (p-value <
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.01) than estimates from 2005 (98.2%, SE 0.7% in 2015 vs. 85.7%, SE
Spillway Chute

Collision (%)

1.3% in 2005) (Normandeau Associates Inc., 2015). Sensor Fish colli-

sions declined 20%, and all severe events (shear and collision) declined
16% following the Spillway 2 modifications. The average number of
63
44
56
73
37
50

collisions observed per Sensor Fish release decreased approximately

64% from 1.10 to 0.40, while the average number of total shear and
collision events decreased approximately 55% (from 1.16 to 0.52).
RSW–Spillway Chute Transition

Shear (%)

Analysis of the most severe collision event per Sensor Fish release re-
vealed a 19% decrease following the spillway modifications; shear
0
0
0
0
0
0

events were observed to increase by the same percentage. A strong

correlation exists between the percentage of the most severe collisions
measured by Sensor Fish in the Spillway–Deflector region and live fish
Collision (%)

malady estimates (p-value = 0.0007, r = 0.9787), as well as with live

Percentage of Sensor Fish Releases and the Location of the Most Severe Event for Each Treatment.

fish mortality estimates (p-value = 0.0084, r = 0.9242 (Fig. 8))

0
0
0
9
0
3

4. Conclusions
Shear (%)

The structural modifications made to the spillway slope and de-

0
0
0
0
0
0

flector radius resulted in improved passage conditions over the RSW, as

Collision (%)

evidenced by significantly fewer Sensor Fish severe collisions (27% in

RSW Chute

2015 compared to 47% in 2005, p-value = 0.015). There also were

fewer collisions per Sensor Fish release, averaging 0.52 in 2015 and
1.16 in 2005, a 64% decrease. The reduction in the average number of
0
0
0
0
5
3

severe collisions clearly suggests that fish may have a lower likelihood
At Least 1 Severe Event (Ns)

of injury from collision with the spillway structure after the modifica-
tions than before the modifications. However, an increase in shear
events was observed during low total spill, suggesting the effects of dam
operations may need to be considered to optimize passage conditions
for fish. In addition, the modifications resulted in reduced pressures
during changes in directional flow at transition sites, which led to lower
rates of pressure change in those regions.
16

25
11
19
30
9

A strong correlation exists between Sensor Fish severe collisions and

1 and 2 Combined

3 and 4 Combined

live fish malady and mortality estimates. Data indicate that the prob-
ability that a fish would be injured or killed during passage increases in
proportion to the percentage of most severe collisions in the
Treatment

Spillway–Deflector region. Structural modifications made to the

spillway slope and deflector radius resulted in significantly better
1
2

3
4
Table 4

2005

2015
Year

113
J.P. Duncan et al. Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116

Table 5
Average Severe Events per Sensor Fish Release in Each Passage Region.

Year Treatment RSW Chute RSW–Spillway Chute Spillway Chute Spillway–Deflector Deflector Wake All Regions Combined
Transition

Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision Shear Collision or
Shear

2005 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.38 0.04 1.42
2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.35 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.78 0.09 0.87
1 and 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.33 0.02 0.00 0.04 1.10 0.06 1.16
Combined
2015 3 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39
4 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.11 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.40 0.24 0.64
3 and 4 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.40 0.13 0.52
Combined

hydraulic and fish passage conditions, which will reduce the risk of
injury and mortality of downstream-migrating salmonids. Sensor Fish
was proved to be an effective tool for better understanding of the
physical conditions and identification of potential design improvements
for the hydraulics structure. Overall, the findings of this study provide
critical information for designs and evaluation of spillways or other
passage alternatives that improve passage conditions for fish.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE), Walla District. The Sensor Fish and related evaluation tools
were funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power
Technologies Office. The study was conducted by the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL), operated by Battelle for the U.S.
Department of Energy. We greatly appreciate the assistance provided by
Fig. 6. Sensor Fish Pressure Time Histories from Deep Releases at Ice Harbor Dam for the
numerous people from PNNL, Normandeau Associates Inc, and USACE.
2015 45 kcfs Total Spill Treatment and 2005 Spillbay 4 Open Treatment and Their 95%
Confidence Intervals.

Fig. 7. Live Fish Survival and Clean Fish Estimates (data from
Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR Skalski, 2006) versus Sensor Fish
Severe Event Frequencies of Occurrence of the 2005 baseline assess-
ment.

114
J.P. Duncan et al. Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116

Table 6
Yearling Chinook Salmon Survival and Malady-Free Estimates by Treatment and Sensor Fish Data Parameters Combining All Passage Regions. Live fish data is from Normandeau
Associates Inc. and JR Skalski (2006) and Normandeau Associates Inc. (2015).

Year Treatment Live Fish Sensor Fish − All Passage Regions Combined

All Severe Events Average Number of Severe Most Severe Events

Events per Sensor Fish Release

48-h 48-h Malady–Free (%) Malady (%) Collision (%) Shear (%) Collision Collision Shear Collision Collision (%) Shear (%)
Survival Mortality or Shear and Shear
(%) (%) (%)

2005 1 96.1 3.9 84.2 15.8 62 4 62 1.38 0.04 1.42 100 0

2 96.9 3.1 87.2 12.8 30 9 39 0.78 0.09 0.87 78 22
1 and 2 96.5 3.5 85.7 14.3 47 6 51 1.10 0.06 1.16 92 8
Combined
2015 3 97.3 2.7 100 0 27 0 27 0.39 0.00 0.39 100 0
4 98.4 1.6 96.8 3.2 27 20 42 0.40 0.24 0.64 58 42
3 and 4 97.9 2.1 98.2 1.8 27 10 35 0.40 0.13 0.52 73 27
Combined

Fig. 8. (a) Yearling Chinook Malady Estimate (data from Normandeau

Associates Inc., 2015), and (b) Mortality Estimate, Compared with
Sensor Fish Most Severe Collisions Observed in the Spillway–Deflector
Region.

References
Axel, G.A., Hockersmith, E.E., Ogden, D.A., Burke, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., 2007a.
Passage Behavior and Survival for Radio-tagged Yearling Chinook Salmon and
Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2005. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.
Axel, G.A., Hockersmith, E.E., Ogden, D.A., Burke, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., Muir,
W.D., 2007b. Passage Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Yearling Chinook
Salmon and Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.
Axel, E.E., Hockersmith, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., Muir, W.D., 2008. Passage
Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Yearling and Subyearling Chinook Salmon
and Juvenile Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2007. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington.
Axel, G.A., Hockersmith, E.E., Burke, B.J., Frick, K.E., Sandford, B.P., Muir, W.D.,
Absolon, R.F., 2010. Passage Behavior and Survival of Radio-tagged Yearling and
Subyearling Chinook Salmon and Juvenile Steelhead at Ice Harbor Dam 2009.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Seattle, Washington.
Backman, T.W.H., Evans, A.F., 2002. Gas bubble trauma incidence in adult salmonids in
the columbia river basin. North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 22, 579–584.
Brown, R.S., Pflugrath, B.D., Colotelo, A.H., Brauner, C.J., Carlson, T.J., Deng, Z.D.,
Seaburg, A.G., 2012. Pathways of barotrauma in juvenile salmonids exposed to si-
mulated hydroturbine passage: boyle's law vs. Henry's law. Fish. Res. 121, 43–50.
Brown, R.S., Colotelo, A.H.A., Pflugrath, B.D., Boys, C.A., Baumgartner, L.J., Deng, Z.D.,
et al., 2014. Understanding barotrauma in fish passing hydro structures: a global
strategy for sustainable development of water resources. Fisheries 39, 108–122.
Calles, O., Karlsson, S., Hebrand, M., Comoglio, C., 2012. Evaluating technical im-
provements for downstream migrating diadromous fish at a hydroelectric plant. Ecol.
Eng. 48, 30–37.
Deng, Z., Carlson, T.J., Duncan, J.P., Richmond, M.C., 2007. Six-Degree-of-Freedom
sensor fish design and instrumentation. Sensors 7 (12), 3399–3415.
Deng, Z.D., Lu, J., Myjak, M.J., Martinez, J.J., Tian, C., Morris, S.J., Carlson, T.J., Zhou,
D., Hou, H., 2014. Design and implementation of a new autonomous sensor fish to
support advanced hydropower development. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85 (11), 115001.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4900543.
Geist, D.R., Linley, T.J., Cullinan, V.I., Deng, Z., 2013. The effects of total dissolved gas on
chum salmon fry survival, growth, gas bubble disease, and seawater tolerance. North
Am. J. Fish. Manage. 33 (1), 200–215.
Ham, K.D., Titzler, P.S., Reese, S.P., Moursund, R.A., 2007. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of
Fish Distributions at the Ice Harbor Removable Spillway Weir 2006. PNWD-3862,
Battelle Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington.
Heisey, P.G., Mathur, D., Rineer, T., 1992. A reliable tag-recapture technique for esti-
mating turbine passage survival: application to young-of-the-Year american shad
(Alosa sapidissima). Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 49, 1826–1834.
Huang, J., Li, R., Feng, J., Xu, W., Wang, L., 2016. Relationship investigation between the
dissipation process of supersaturated total dissolved gas and wind effect. Ecol. Eng.
95, 430–437.
Katopodis, C., Williams, J.G., 2012. The development of fish passage research in a his-
torical context. Ecol. Eng. 48, 8–18.
Lutz, D.S., 1995. Gas supersaturation and gas bubble trauma in fish downstream from a
midwestern reservoir. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124, 423–436.
Moursund, R.A., Ham, K.D., Titzler, P.S., 2007. Hydroacoustic Evaluation of Fish Passage
at Ice Harbor Dam with a Removal Spillway Weir in 2005. PNWD-3711, Battelle
Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington.
National Oceanic, Atmospheric Administration, 2008. (NOAA) Fisheries. Biological
Opinion–Consultation on Remand for Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power
System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin and ESA Section
10(a)(1)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation Program. National Marine
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) -Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington.
Normandeau Associates Inc, Skalski, J.R., 2006. Normandeau Associates Inc. and JR
Skalski, 2006. Comparative Direct Survival and Injury Rates of Juvenile Salmon
Passing the New Removable Spillway Weir (RSW) and a Spillbay at Ice Harbor Dam,
Snake River, Washington.Drumore, Pennsylvania, and Seattle, Washington.
Normandeau Associates Inc, 2015. Direct Injury and Survival of Yearling Chinook Salmon
Passing the Removable Spillway Weir Following Ogee and Deflector Modifications to
Spillbay 2 at Ice Harbor Dam, Snake River. Normandeau Associates Inc.,

115
J.P. Duncan et al.
Washington.Drumore, Pennsylvania.
Plumb, J.M., Braatz, A.C., Lucchesi, J.N., Fielding, S.D., Sprando, J.M., George, G.T.,
Adams, N.S., Rondorf, D.W., 2003. Behavior of Radio-tagged Juvenile Chinook
Salmon and Steelhead and Performance of a Removable Spillway Weir at Lower
Granite Dam. U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, Washington, Washington, 2002.
Plumb, J.M., Braatz, A.C., Lucchesi, J.N., Fielding, S.D., Cochran, A.D., Nation, T.K.,
Sprando, J.M., Schei, J.L., Perry, R.W., Adams, N.S., Rondorf, D.W., 2004. Behavior
and Survival of Radio-tagged Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Relative to the
Performance of a Removable Spillway Weir at Lower Granite Dam. U.S. Geological
Survey, Cook, Washington, Washington, 2003.
Richmond, M.C., Deng, Z., McKinstry, C.A., Mueller, R.P., Carlson, T.J., Dauble, D.D.,
2009. Response relationship between juvenile salmon and an autonomous sensor in
116
Ecological Engineering 110 (2018) 107–116
turbulent flows. Fish. Res. 97 (1-2), 134–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.
2009.01.011.
Schilt, C.R., 2007. Developing fish passage and protection at hydropower dams. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 104 (3), 295–325.
Sciewe, M.H., 1974. Influence of dissolved atmospheric gas on swimming performance of
juvenile Chinook salmon. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 103, 717–721.
USACE, 2009. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Water Quality Plan for Total Dissolved Gas
and Water Temperature in the Mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers. Northwestern
Division, Portland, Oregon.
Weiland, L.K., Mesa, M.G., Maule, A.G., 1999. Influence of infection with Renibacterium
salmoninarum on susceptibility of juvenile spring Chinook salmon to gas bubble
trauma. J. Aquat. Anim. Health 11, 123–129.