BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal
Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget
see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations
Title of project
Smolt Survival and Migration Rate
BPA project number 5516000
Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Sponsor type Placeholder
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
BPA technical contact ,
Biological opinion ID RM&EP; Hypothesis B3.1.
NWPPC Program number
Project would attempt to prove/disprove hypothesis that sSmolt survival and migration rate do not increase in response to increases in discharge or velocity.
Project start year Ongoing, Expand in 1997 End year
Start of operation and/or maintenance 0
Project development phase PLANNING
Biological results achieved
Annual reports and technical papers
Results of study could affect volumes and timing of flows needed during the spring/summer migration; this in turn could affect amount and timing of availability of power from the hydrosystem.
Specific measureable objectives
Serially estimate juvenile survival each week over as long a section of the river as possible (depending on locations of PIT-tag detection facilities) over the course of a natural hydrograph. Separate project survival into reservoir v. dam. Evaluate survival of in-river migrants each year under a suite of flows, spills, and smolt cohort sizes, and compare with survival of transported fish. Through radio tracking, assess where migration delay may occur and the behavior of individual fish.
SMOLT SURVIVAL AND MIGRATION RATE DO NOT INCREASE IN RESPONSE TO INCREASES IN DISCHARGE OR
Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
Brief schedule of activities
This approach does not address the possibility that increased velocity may not improve reach survival, but rather may influence survival to adulthood by changing timing of arrival of smolts to the estuary or change estuarine/nearshore ocean physical or biological conditions.
Summary of expected outcome
Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
|Historic costs||FY 1996 budget data*||Current and future funding needs|
|(none)||New project - no FY96 data available||1997: 900,000|
* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.
CBFWA funding review group System Policy
Recommendation Tier 2 - fund when funds available
Recommended funding level $900,000