FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34026

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The physical parameters (e.g., acceleration) have been measured in actual dam passage by an electronically instrumented package called the Sensor Fish (conducted in separately funded studies). The proponents want to determine what effect these measured physical forces would have on a smolt's vestibular system (inner ear) — likely the most damaging physiological effect of passage. The method is to fix a fish on a shaker table, expose it to motions as strong as those in the spillways and turbines, and look for damage to vestibular structures. The proposed work could provide the physiological link between the physical conditions during dam passage and the long-term mortalities seen in the field (probably mediated by predation on fish that are behaving unnaturally because of loss of equilibrium due to vestibular damage). However, the shaker table may not be an adequate simulation of turbine or spill passage.

The work is clearly innovative, in that relating field exposures to such mechanical stresses to effects on the inner ear has not been done before for fish. The research is a radical departure from orthodox fisheries experimentation, in which researchers release a test group of fish into the spillway or turbine under certain conditions and see how many survive, and repeat the trial under a range of conditions until you know the mortality response to operating conditions such as spill rate or turbine loading. The proposed study is a way toward much more efficient experimentation. It holds promise of establishing a mechanistic dose-response relationship that can be used to evaluate the importance for fish of different hydraulic regimes. Thus, the work may well have benefit for fish and wildlife.

The premise of the work is that there are (or could be) feasible alternative spillway and turbine designs or operational procedures that would produce plausibly tolerable physical forces. There would be little sense in doing this work if no alternative spillway or turbine could be tolerable to fish. Work on alternative turbine designs is being undertaken with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Corps of Engineers. Biological criteria to evaluate the alternative designs are needed.

The proposal establishes the relevance to the Fish and Wildlife Program and the BiOp. The work is scientifically sound (in fact, the proposal goes overboard in giving scientific background). There are clear objectives, tasks, and expected outcomes. Monitoring and evaluation for this type of study are not clearly relevant, except for evaluation of the results in publications. The main negative point is the highly basic physiological nature of the work. It might be argued, for example, that understanding the physiological mechanisms for loss of equilibrium is not needed for estimation of effects on predation. But one could also argue that the basics are useful and needed, particularly in this case where the physical data are being obtained with such thoroughness and precision. We need a biological framework to relate to the extensive physical measurements being made.

Comment:

The reviewers are concerned that funding this project will not provide any information on the negative affects of fish passage on actual fish. This proposal builds a sampling device (i.e. shaker table), but would not fund the studies needed to answer pertinent biological questions. This project may be better suited for the Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program through the USACoE.

Comment:

Comments
The use of new techniques to make quantitative measures is certainly innovative and should be supported. There are some concerns with the use of Sensor fish to model what real fish experience. The Sensor fish does not swim, but flows as a passive particle. One might hypothesize that fish are able to sense and perhaps even capitalize on high order turbulence within the races and turbines in ways that plastic fish are not, and as a consequence not experience quite as challenging a mechanical loading. Are there data validating that the passive fish has the same time history of mechanical loading as the living fish? Also, when the body of a fish is subjected to loading - particularly if the loading has high frequency components - the vestibular system will see loads that are filtered by the impedance properties of the biomaterials lying between the skin and the inner ear. Is there any documentation that the accelerometers within the elasomeric fish experience the same loading spectrum as the vestibular system embedded with the skeleton of real fish?

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

Comment:

Comments
The use of new techniques to make quantitative measures is certainly innovative and should be supported. There are some concerns with the use of Sensor fish to model what real fish experience. The Sensor fish does not swim, but flows as a passive particle. One might hypothesize that fish are able to sense and perhaps even capitalize on high order turbulence within the races and turbines in ways that plastic fish are not, and as a consequence not experience quite as challenging a mechanical loading. Are there data validating that the passive fish has the same time history of mechanical loading as the living fish? Also, when the body of a fish is subjected to loading – particularly if the loading has high frequency components – the vestibular system will see loads that are filtered by the impedance properties of the biomaterials lying between the skin and the inner ear. Is there any documentation that the accelerometers within the elastomeric fish experience the same loading spectrum as the vestibular system embedded within the skeleton of real fish?

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes