Research about Cougar Reservoir

USGS2016

Evaluation of the hydraulic and biological performance of the portable floating fish collector at Cougar Reservoir and Dam, Oregon, 2014

The biological and hydraulic performance of a new portable floating fish collector (PFFC) located in a cul-de-sac within the forebay of Cougar Dam, Oregon, was evaluated during 2014. The purpose of the PFFC was to explore surface collection as a means to capture juvenile salmonids at one or more sites using a small, cost-effective, pilot-scale device. The PFFC used internal pumps to draw attraction flow over an inclined plane about 3 meters (m) deep, through a flume at a design velocity of as much as 6 feet per second (ft/s), and to empty a small amount of water and any entrained fish into a collection box. Performance of the PFFC was evaluated at 64 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s) (Low) and 109 ft 3 /s (High) inflow rates alternated using a randomized-block schedule from May 27 to December 16, 2014. The evaluation of the biological performance was based on trap catch; behaviors, locations, and collection of juvenile Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) tagged with acoustic transmitters plus passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags; collection of juvenile Chinook salmon implanted with only PIT tags; and untagged fish monitored near and within the PFFC using acoustic cameras. The evaluation of hydraulic performance was based on measurements of water velocity and direction of flow in the PFFC. The PFFC collected 156 juvenile Chinook salmon and 280 individuals of other species, primarily dace (Cyprinidae) and largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ). The collection included one of the 212 acoustic+PIT-tagged fish detected near the PFFC and two of the 1,505 PIT-tagged fish released near the head of the reservoir. No juvenile salmonids were collected between early July and early September when water temperatures near the water surface were greater than about 16 degrees Celsius (°C). Depths of acoustic+PIT-tagged fish indicated a preferential selection of water temperature of 13–15 °C, which was often deeper than the entrance to the PFFC, and those fish rarely were at depths with water temperatures greater than 16 °C. Dam passage of acoustic+PIT-tagged fish was similar to previous years, but much of the passage occurred prior to the date the PFFC began operation. Discovery Efficiency, the proportion of acoustic+PIT-tagged fish detected in the cul-de-sac that were within 10 m of the PFFC entrance and 0–6 m deep (the Discovery Zone), was 0.736 during the Low treatment and 0.639 during the High treatment. Entrance Efficiency, the proportion of fish in the Discovery Zone that were collected by the PFFC, was 0.007 during the Low treatment and 0.000 during the High treatment. Fish Collection Efficiency, the proportion of acoustic+PIT-tagged fish collected of those detected in the cul-de-sac, was 0.005 and 0.000 during the Low and High treatments, respectively. The areas of highest use by acoustic+PIT-tagged fish were between the stern of the PFFC and the outlet of the reservoir (a water temperature control tower), with the greatest use being near the tower. Results from untagged fish detected with acoustic cameras indicated that most fish near and within the PFFC were in the 90–250-millimeter length bin and few were less than 60 millimeters long; most fish were present during crepuscular periods; trajectories of fish outside the PFFC were rarely directed toward the entrance; and many fish entering the PFFC swam back out before they could be collected. The hydraulic performance of the PFFC did not achieve the design goals of smooth acceleration of inflow culminating in a peak water velocity of 6 ft/s and, as a result, the hydraulic performance likely contributed to the low biological performance. The greatest water velocity measured in the PFFC (1.87 ft/s) was lower than designed due at least in part to the PFFC being lower in the water column than expected. Additionally, difficulties during anchor deployment prevented placement of the PFFC as near to the reservoir outlet as planned, resulting in a PFFC position outside the prevailing flow field and known areas of high fish densities. Overall, the results indicate that location, hydraulic conditions, water temperature, and shallow depth of the entrance were among the factors contributing to the low biological performance of the PFFC in 2014.

Oregon↗

USGS2013

Behavior and dam passage of juvenile Chinook salmon at Cougar Reservoir and Dam, Oregon, March 2011 - February 2012

The movements and dam passage of juvenile Chinook salmon implanted with acoustic transmitters and passive integrated transponder tags were studied at Cougar Reservoir and Dam, near Springfield, Oregon. The purpose of the study was to provide information to aid with decisions about potential alternatives for improving downstream passage conditions for juvenile salmonids in this flood-control reservoir. In 2011, a total of 411 hatchery fish and 26 wild fish were tagged and released during a 3-month period in the spring, and another 356 hatchery fish and 117 wild fish were released during a 3-month period in the fall. A series of 16 autonomous hydrophones throughout the reservoir and 12 hydrophones in a collective system near the dam outlet were used to determine general movements and dam passage of the fish over the life of the acoustic transmitter, which was expected to be about 3 months. Movements within the reservoir were directional, and it was common for fish to migrate repeatedly from the head of the reservoir downstream to the dam outlet and back to the head of the reservoir. Most fish were detected near the temperature control tower at least once. The median time from release near the head of the reservoir to detection within about 100 meters of the dam outlet at the temperature control tower was between 5.7 and 10.8 days, depending on season and fish origin. Dam passage events occurred over a wider range of dates in the spring and summer than in the fall and winter, but dam passage numbers were greatest during the fall and winter. A total of 10.5 percent (43 of 411) of the hatchery fish and 15.4 percent (4 of 26) of the wild fish released in the spring are assumed to have passed the dam, whereas a total of 25.3 percent (90 of 356) of the hatchery fish and 16.9 percent (30 of 117) of the wild fish released in the fall are assumed to have passed the dam. A small number of fish passed the dam after their transmitters had stopped working and were detected at passive integrated transponder detectors at various locations downstream of the dam, indicating some tagged fish passed the dam undetected. The rate of dam passage was affected by diel period, discharge, and reservoir elevation. Diel period was the most influential factor of those examined, with nighttime dam passage rates about 9 times greater than daytime rates, depending on the distance of fish from the dam outlet. Dam passage rates also were positively related to dam discharge, and negatively related to reservoir elevation. In the operational condition used as an example, fish approached the dam outlet at the temperature control tower from the south and east and, when most fish got near the tower, they were directly in front of it. In many cases, the results for wild and hatchery fish were similar, or the results suggested hatchery fish could be reasonable surrogates for wild fish. Hatchery-origin and wild-origin fish behaved similarly in the following ways: their general movements in the reservoir; the timing of their dam passage; and the effects of diel period, discharge, and elevation on their passage rates. Parasitic copepods were present on most wild fish examined, and the mortality of wild fish during capture, handling and tagging was much greater than that of hatchery fish. This suggests that the ability of wild fish to cope with stressors may be less than that of fish directly from the hatchery.

Oregon↗