Geology topics

Alejandro Molina-Moctezuma

Publications and source records attributed to Alejandro Molina-Moctezuma.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Effects of dam-induced delays on system-wide survival of Atlantic salmon smolts during high-flow, high-survival years in the Penobscot River, Maine, USA

System-wide survival of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) smolts was evaluated (2017–2019) in the Penobscot River and compared to survival estimates from previous years that spanned major changes (2005–2016). This system was transformed through two dam removals in 2012 and construction of a nature-like passage structure at a third. The main stem had three dams (five prior to 2012), while the main tributary had four dams (one with the new nature-like passage). We estimated survival using acoustic telemetry mark–recapture ( n = 1482) from 2017 to 2019. Six release sites and two release dates were included to assess system-wide survival. Survival from 2017 to 2019 was higher than previous years, with total cumulative survival > 0.75, independently of year and release sites, compared to survival < 0.5 in previous years. These years coincided with exceptional high flows not seen previously. We found an effect of delays on survival, longer delays associated with lower survival. Overall, survival in these years increased in all reaches relative to previous years except for one dam, Weldon Dam, which was a site of sustained high mortality.

Maine↗

USGS2021

Movement, survival, and delays of Atlantic Salmon smolts in the Piscataquis River, Maine, USA

Movement, delays, and survival of hatchery Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar smolts were evaluated through the Piscataquis River, a tributary of the Penobscot River in Maine, USA. We explored the effects of the river’s four dams (Guilford, Dover, Browns Mill, and Howland dams) from 2005 to 2019. During this period, the downstream-most dam (Howland Dam) transitioned from full hydropower generation to seasonal turbine shutdowns and later was decommissioned with the construction of a nature-like fish bypass in 2016. We estimated survival through open-river reaches and at each dam using acoustic telemetry ( n = 1,611). Dams decreased survival, with per-river-kilometer (rkm) apparent survival averages of 0.972, 0.951, and 0.990 for Guilford, Dover, and Browns Mill dams compared to a per-rkm survival of 0.999 for open-river reaches. Turbine shutdowns increased survival at Howland Dam (to around 0.95), which was further increased by the nature-like fish bypass (0.99). We used radiotelemetry in 2019 ( n = 75) and demonstrated that approximately one-third of the fish used the bypass, while the remaining fish used alternative routes. Smolts successfully passing the three upstream dams had lower apparent survival through Howland Dam than smolts that were released upstream of Howland Dam. Although smolts passing Browns Mill Dam had high survival, the dam caused extended delays, with median delay times surpassing 48 h in most years. Most of the delays caused by Browns Mill Dam occurred after fish had passed the dam and may indicate a sublethal effect of passage. Overall, while survival through Howland Dam has improved, passage and delays at the three upstream dams in aggregate represent a critical impediment to the effective use of the high-quality spawning habitat found upstream.

Maine↗

USGS2020

An interactive decision-making tool for evaluating biological and statistical standards of migrating fish survival past hydroelectric dams

Quantifying the downstream survival of migrating fish past dams is critical for conservation efforts. Regulators require assessments of survival as a condition of operation. Failure to meet an established survival standard may result in required operational or costly structural changes at a facility. Establishing the survival standard, as well as the rules of assessment, is a point of contention between regulators and operators. Management goals are based on biological criteria, but there are inherent statistical and probabilistic trade-offs when choosing a standard value and the method for assessment. We make a distinction between a “biological” goal (the conservation goal) and a “statistical” standard (a function of the biological goal, sample size, assessment method, and years of consecutive evaluation). An effective statistical standard maximizes true positives (passing the standard when the biological goal is being met) and true negatives (failing the standard when the goal is not being met), while minimizing false negatives and false positives. We explored the effects of sample size, true survival, and assessment methods on the probability of passing different statistical standards by simulating survival studies (simulating mark-recapture experiments). We observed a strong influence of assessment methods on the probability of making the right decision (true positive or true negative), especially when sample size, and recapture probability was low. As a support tool, we developed an interactive user interface to explore specific scenarios, and to aid communication among decision-makers.

River Research and Applications↗