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 Spill Efficiency
BPA project number 5515900
Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
TBD
Sponsor type Placeholder
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
| Name | TBD | |
| Mailing address | ||
| Phone |
BPA technical contact ,
Biological opinion ID Research M&E Program; Hypothesis B.2.
NWPPC Program number
Short description
This project would assess spill efficiency through hydroacoustics, radio-tracking, and other methods across a range of hydraulic and operational conditions and fish species. Information on spill efficiency (i.e., the proportion of juvenile migrants passing through spill relative to the proportion of total river discharge passing through spill) is needed to better understand how spill contributes to avoiding turbine-related mortality. An improved understanding of spill efficiency would also enhance planned operations relative to the target of 80% fish passage efficiency (FPE) and dissolved gas supersaturation constraints.
Project start year 1996 End year
Start of operation and/or maintenance 0
Project development phase PLANNING
Section 2. Narrative
Related projects
Project history
Biological results achieved
Annual reports and technical papers
Management implications
Provides validated information on spill efficiency for establishing appropriate spill levels to achieve the Biological Opinion�s 80% FPE target. May result in determination that at some dams, under certain conditions, the 80% FPE target is achieved without exceeding state dissolved gas supersaturation standards. When coupled with information on passage survival through various routes of passage, will enhance understanding of project passage survival, and therefore, provide improved information for dam operational strategies for fish passage.
Water management decisions are based on assumed movements of smolts; improved empirical information is needed to support these assumptions to ensure a sound basis for water management decisions.
Specific measureable objectives
Testable hypothesis
B.2.7. Smolts do not pass dams in spill flows in proportion to spill fraction of river discharge.
Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
Requires a range of conditions, and operational flexibility to assess the range of conditions, to determine spill efficiency over time for different salmonid stocks and species.
Methods
Brief schedule of activities
Biological need
Generally, smolts are presumed to move across the dam through turbine or spill flows in proprotion to the fractions of water passing those routes; however some work indicates that fish do not move in proportion to routed flows. Also, radio tracking at Lower Granite suggests that spring/summer chinook may not respond rapidly to spill flows, but remain in the forebay for extended periods. Descriptive information is needed to better balance the use of spill to enhance juvenile fish survival, particularly given concerns relative to dissolved gas supersaturation and gas bubble disease as well as adult passage concerns. Spill efficiency should be evaluated at all dams where spill is a major mitigation tool, and over a range of river discharges. Priorities would include Lower Granite, Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day, and McNary.
Critical uncertainties
Summary of expected outcome
Spill efficiency passage curves across a range of spill conditions and river discharge levels.
Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
May require reassessment following installation of gas abatement or surface collection structures.
Risks
Monitoring activity
Determination of spill efficiency would be based on several methodologies, including radio-tracking and hydroacoustics.
Section 3. Budget
Data 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: 500,000 |
* 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.
Funding recommendations
CBFWA funding review group System Policy
Recommendation Tier 2 - fund when funds available
Recommended funding level $500,000