BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal
Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget
see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Title of project
Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Distribution in Relation to Dissolved Gas Supersaturation
BPA project number 5515500
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 B.2.1
NWPPC Program number
Using Radio-tagging, hydroacoustics, in situ live wells and deep tanks with variable DGS levels, this project will assess the distribution of juvenile salmonids in relation to the distribution of DGS to test the “ability” of juvenile steelhead and salmon to detect and avoid varying levels of total dissolved gas.
Project start year 1997 End year
Start of operation and/or maintenance 0
Project development phase PLANNING
Section 2. Narrative
Biological results achieved
Annual reports and technical papers
No empirical data demonstrate that juveniles in the migration corridor can detect and shift vertical or horizontal distributions in response to high DGS. This project will address this information gap and provide managers with the necessary information to both manage DGS during the migration season and make other decisions relative to migration pathways for juveniles, based on increased knowledge of the risks associated with varying levels of DGS.
Specific measureable objectives
Hypothesis B.2.1: Juvenile salmon and steelhead do not detect and avoid river areas and depths that contain varying levels of total dissolved gases
Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
Containers that permit volitional compensation must be carefully designed to eliminate nuisance variables like velocity refugia that can override response of juveniles to DGS. Also, the radio-tracking is dependent on success of depth-sensitive tag, and hydroacoustics is dependent on developing methods that allow discrete depth resolution of migrants, particularly in shallow waters and near the surface.
Brief schedule of activities
No empirical data demonstrate that juveniles in the migration corridor can detect and shift vertical or horizontal distributions in response to high TDG. To understand the risks of GBD, an understanding of the distribution of juveniles during outmigration and relationship of the fish distribution to DGS conditions is needed. This information can then be related to the development/progression of signs of GBD, and the relationship of signs to
1. Distribution of juvenile migrants in relation to DGS.
2. Relation of DGS exposure histories to GBD signs.
3. Relation of GBD signs to mortality.
Summary of expected outcome
1. Radio tracking of juveniles with depth-sensitive tags, particularly through the upstream portions of hydropower project pools, could address response of juveniles to DGS. Initial work could concentrate on steelhead. Spatial distribution of DGS should be assessed in conjunction with this radio-tracking effort.
2. Fish behavior and survival in deep live pens that permit volitional depth choice can test in situ conditions. Net pen studies of response to high DGS at IHR in 1995 were equivocal. Containers that permit volitional compensation must be carefully designed to eliminate nuisance variables like velocity refugia that can override response of juveniles to TDG.
3. A third, and possibly the most direct approach to answering this question would be to setup a multiple tank test system at a dam and use river-run fish as test organism. TDG could be varied randomly in the tanks and fish behavior documented.
Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
Multi-faceted approach dependent on development of methods and testing of feasibility of depth-sensitive radio tags, hydroacoustics, and in-situ net pen approach.
Section 3. BudgetData shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.
|Historic costs||FY 1996 budget data*||Current and future funding needs|
|(none)||New project - no FY96 data available||1997: 1,000,000|
* 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 $1,000,000