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
Applications of Sound to Modify the Behavior of Fish

BPA project number   9207101

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding
Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratories

Sponsor type   WA-Federal Agency

Proposal contact person or principal investigator
 NameThomas J. Carlson
 Mailing addressPacific Northwest National Laboratory,
Box 999, MSIN: K6-85
Richland, WA 99352
 Phone509/376-7875

BPA technical contact   ,

Biological opinion ID   NMFS BO RPA 11,12,12F, 13, 14, 15, 22

NWPPC Program number   5.6A.13

Short description
Development and Application of Fish Behavioral Modification Methods to Improve Fish Passage

Project start year   1992    End year   

Start of operation and/or maintenance   2000

Project development phase   Planning

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects
感roject is related to projects implemented by the CE Walla Walla and Portland Districts that are grouped within the CE Surface Collection Program which was implemented in response to BO RPA measure 11. Behavioral modification (primarily the use of infrasound) is being investigated as a means to guide migrants vertically up in the water column above the zone of separation of flow between surface bypass and turbine flows thereby enhancing migrant ability to detect surface bypass flows and to enter surface bypass facilities rather than pass through turbines. Behavioral methods (primarily infrasound) are also being investigated to guide migrants laterally as they approach surface bypass entrances as a strategy to reduce delay, especially during the day, and to generally improve guidance of migrants to surface bypass openings. Infrasound is also being investigated as a means to aid the safe passage of migrants through the large scale dewatering structures that may be required under some strategies for implementation of surface bypass.
感roject also is related to efforts to improve FGE at the Bonneville 1st powerhouse. Subyearling and yearling chinook salmon guidance is low because of the vertical distribution of these migrants as they approach guidance screens. The behavioral response of migrants upon encounter with the hydrodynamic and related energy fields generated by the screens result in passage under the screens. Infrasound is being investigatedinvestigaed as a means of moving these migrants up in the water column thereby improving fish guidance efficiencyeffeciency of bypass screens.
感roject is planned to assist implementation of BO RPAmeasure 15. The history of bypass facilities has clearly shown that mechanical and/or behavioral guidance is almost always required to meet ambitious bypass efficiencyeffeciency and survival goals. Mechanical guidance means have been extensively researched, developed and implemented. In general, mechanical means have improved bypass efficiencyeffeciency but additional improvement, in some cases significant additional improvement, is still needed to meet goals. Behavioral modification based on recent research findings using infrasound indicate that infrasound may be a viable means to improve guidance into bypass facilities.
感roject is planned to assist improvement in irrigation diversion screening within the Columbia River Basin by diverting migrants away from the headworks of irrigation diversions thereby avoiding entrainment of migrants in irrigation flows and subsequent migratory delay or the impacts of handling and other effects related to passage through irrigation screening bypass facilities.
感roject is planned to expedite development and implementation of behavior based methods for predator/competitor control in response to various F&W Program measures and BO RPAsmeasures 13h and 14 . Effective fish passage guidance/deterrencedeterence systems have been implemented for shad and related species at hrdropower facilities on east coast rivers.

Project history
This project was initiated in 1992 to address Salmon Strategy Action Numbers 3.7B.7 (explore promising new approaches to fish bypass technologies, such as the use of sound to guide fish) and 7.2 . The project was planned in two phases with a cutout at the end of the first phase.
The objective of the first phase was to investigate the science base for the use of sound to modify the behavior of fish. Special emphasis was placed on salmonids. The scope of work for the first phase was an extensive literature review accompanied by interviews of those in industry and government most active in research, development, and implementation of the use of sound for fish behavioral modification. Additional phase 1 activities were an assessment of the technology base for implementation of sound for fish behavioral modification, including demonstration of existing technologies, and transfer of the learning obtained in phase 1 to interested parties within the Columbia River Basin. Phase 1 was closed with delivery of a report, DOE/BP-62611-4, a two day workshop held in Portland on December 12-13, 1995, and assistance to the CE with a full scale demonstration of a low frequency sound system at the Bonneville 1 powerhouse. A set of video cassettes, a transcript, and a proceedings volume are deliverables from the workshop. The products of the workshop will be used to define research, development, and implementation strategies for the use of behavior modification to improve juvenile salmonid survival. The deliverable from the full scale demonstration is a report to be completed the end of the first calendar quarter, 1996.
The objectives of the second phase of the project are to (1) continue to develop the science base supporting development and implementation of fish behavioral modification tools and methods, (2) in cooperation with other fish passage projects and programs, develop specific means to modify the behavior of fish that will result in increased survival for migrants, and (3) expedite implementation of developed means found to be effective in increasing the survival of migrants.

Biological results achieved
The project is just entering the implementation stage and has not resulted in deployments that have resulted in direct benefits to migrating fish. However, the knowledge base for application of sound to modify fish behavior has been reviewed within the context of Columbia River basin potential applications, relevant technologies have been identified and laboratory and field level experiments conducted to test proof of principle (? if needed). These activities have resulted in a well founded plan for development and implementation of sound as a means for modifying fish behavior. The Phase I products of the project were incorporated into a national assessment of fish passage technologies Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities prepared for the US Congress by the Office of Technology Assessment and published in September, 1995. This report to Congress will influence assessment of fish protection at hydropower projects licensed by the FERC, particularly the development and use of behavioral methods to improve the safe passage of fish past hydropower and other water control projects. The process of fact finding for that report also resulted in a position statement by NMFS regarding experimental guidance devices including those using behavioral response. This project, despite being designed prior to guidance such as the NMFS position statement, is consistent with, and in some areas more rigirous than, the experimental process defined in the NMFS statement. Tom: do we want to say anything or make reference to how phase I work may have or did contribute to recent OTA publication and implications to future hydro licensing etc. ??? do not know if this is appropriate or applicable etc. but does also tie into both the fish and power side again.

Annual reports and technical papers
Carlson, T.J. 1995. Use of sound for fish protection at power facilities: a historical perspective of the state of the art. Bonneville Power Administration report no: DOE/BP-62611-4. Portland, OR.

Nestler, J., T. Carlson, J. George, and F. Ahmad. 1995. Developing acoustic technologies for improving fish passage and protection in the Columbia River Basin: program rationale. USACE-Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report El-95-8. Vicksburg, MS.

Ploskey, G, P. Johnson, and T. Carlson. 1996 (in preparation). Evaluation of low frequency, low particle motion sound for guiding fish at Bonneville dam. . USACE-Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report El-96-X. Vicksburg, MS.

Carlson, T.J. (ed). 1996 (in preparation). Proceedings of the workshop Using sound to modify fish behavior at power-production and water-control facilities. Bonneville Power Administration report no: DOE/BP-xxxxx-x. Portland, OR.

Contribution to: Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities, OTA-ENV-641 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September, 1995).

Management implications
Development and implementation of means that will improve the safe and expeditious passage of salmonid migrants through the Columbia River system is the key objective of many F&W Program and BO measures. The immediate benefit of successful implementation of nonmechanical methods to enhance safe passage of migrants would potentially be increased survival of migrants to the estuary. Means to improve the effectiveness and efficiencyeffeciency of fish bypass facilities would permit exploration of a wider range of alternatives than would otherwise be available for operation of the hydropower system to optimize power production and protectection and recovery of salmon populations.

Specific measureable objectives
Measurable objectives are: (1) increased FGE of salmonids for surface collection and existing intake screens, (2) reduction in diversion of salmonid migrants into irrigation diversions, (3) reduction in adult shad migration past Bonneville Dam, (Tom: I do not remember the reference to shad in fish ways or reduction of shad spawning population above Bonneville Dam; is this a BO or Council measure ; has it been referenced somewhere ;just curious and (4) dispersion of predators from the vicinity of bypass facility intakes and other areas of congregation of migrants, . ?possible (5) applications related to improved measurement or counting or tag detection capabilities via guiding fish by sound.?? i.e. moving fish in fishways/tributaries for better visual/video/acoustic/electronic counting opportunities ???? old Alaska hangup I guess.

Testable hypothesis
An example of a testable hypothesis is: H0: FGE is higher under conditions of sound device on than under conditions of sound device off. HA: FGE is not higher under conditions of sound device on than under conditions of sound device off.The number of juvenile migrants diverted by an inturbine screen is no larger under conditions of a sound device on than under conditions of the sound device off. Probably need to present in null hypothesis format like being done in other forums?

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
Testing with infrasound?? Testing conducted to date with salmonids indicates a strong avoidance response to infrasound particle motion (the hydrodynamic component of the near field of a volume displacement sound source) ?? for individuals larger than 80 mm in length. However, tests have not been conducted with fish less than approximately 80 mm in length. In addition, testing has been limited to lateral avoidance response, tests of vertical avoidance have not been conducted. Tests of the response of fish from swim up to 80 mm length will be conducted in 1996. With this background critical assumptions are: (1) migrants smaller than 80 mm will show avoidance to infrasound, (2) migrants will show a vertical avoidance response similar to that they show laterally, and (3) one experiment has show differences in behavioral response to infrasound between wild and hatchery Atlantic salmon juveniles, this experiment has not be replicated with Pacific salmonids and the occurrence of differential in behavioral response between hatchery and wild Pacific salmonid juveniles is unknownunknow. It is also assumed that this project will continue to be coordinated and integrated with the ongoing CE Acoustic Technologies Program and other CE programs for surface collection and other related fish bypass facility research, development, and implementation such that BPA investments in generic fish behavioral response to infrasound can be applied as soon as possible.

Methods
(1) Salmonids, : Infrasound: Experimental design elements: response of groups of 10-12 fish under conditions of sound on and sound off, equipment required for static tests under laboratory conditions are a tank approximately 2 m deep by 5 m in diameter, an infrasound source, hydrodynamic sound field measurement instruments (accelerometers), and a undervideo camera for observing and recording fish behavior; equipment required for tests with flowing water are a raceway or flume approximately 1 m deep by 1 m wide with average water velocities up to 0.5 m/sec. plus the infrasound source and other equipment listed above; experiments under field conditions require one or more infrasound sources, infrasound measurement instrumentation, nonintrusive means of observing fish behavior (hydroacoustic instrumentation), and means of identifying the species and size of fish observed (physical capture), (2) statistical analysis varies with the nature of each experiment but usually consists of tests of the significance of differences between the mean number of fish moving past a predetermined location under conditions of infrasound on and infrasound off treatments, and (3) to date tests have been conducted under laboratory conditions with hatchery steelhead, chinook, and rainbow, number of fish per test is typically 10 to 12, field tests are conducted on run of the river fish where the number of fish exposed to treatments is a function of the number of fish present in the river at the location of the test, numbers are in the thousands. Do we need to say something about tests with salmonids first with infrasound and other applications of sound will be next or synchronous with shad and squawfish etc.?? looks like you may have answered below under schedule of activities.
Maybe have a:
(2) Non-salmonids, Infrasound, Low-Frequency Sound, Ultrasound: Initially the project has focused on salmonids to meet immediate needs for improvements in juveinle bypass. Beginning in FY97 the project will begin experimentation with squawfish, a major juvenile salmonid predator. In addition, in FY97 initial studies to investigate the use of ultrasound to selectively repell shad from adult bypass facilities will be initiated. Shad have been shown in numerous experiments under a very wide range of conditions to be readily repelled by ultrasound, which is very high frequency sound salmonids do not hear and which does not elicit any response from salmonids. Experiments with squawfish ..........etc. The experimental designs, materials, and methods for investigation of the use of sound to modify the behavior of squawfish and shad are very similar to those required for experimentation with salmon except that a broader range of sound sources are already known to be effective for hearing specialists such as squawfish and shad. Therefore, sound in addition to infrasound will be used for these studies.

Brief schedule of activities
FY 97:
Major laboratory scale activities: (1) test for differences in behavioral response between juvenile hatchery and wild chinook salmon under stimulation by infrasound, (2) test for upward oriented vertical avoidance by juvenile chinook salmon of infrasound originating from a source located beneath the fish and (3) perform comparative morphology and audiograms of the hearing system of squawfish.
Major field scale activities: (1) field test deployment of a commerciallycomercially available infrasound source in front of a turbine intake at Bonneville 1 and map the hydrodynamic component of the infrasound field generated by the device.
Changes in project activities FY 1998-2001:
Pproject activities would transition to implementation of full scale deployment of infrasound devices to generate fields to guide juvenile salmonids to increase bypass FGE at Bonneville 1 and other mainstem Columbia and Snake River dams. Prototype deterence devices would be deployed to test repulsion of squawfish from the entrances of surface collectors and shad from adult fish bypass facilities. Short sentence on work addressing non-salmonid species for consistencing in fulfilling other above objectives etc.

Biological need
The biological need is to increase the probability of survivorship of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River as they migrate through the hydropower system. A related need is to improve measurement capabilities for improved monitoring and evaluation. Behavioral guidance using infrasound may increase the FGE of juvenile salmon and steelhead atfor fish bypass facilities in addition to helping increase the safety of passage by reducing entrainment in irrigation withdrawals. The biological need is to increase the probability of survivorship and to expedite the migration of downstream migrants through the hydropower system. Other applications of sound may be applied to effectively disperse concentrations of predators from the vicinity of bypass facility intakes and other areas of congregation of salmon and steelhead migrants and reduce spawning migration of shad upstream of Bonneville Dam. Still other applications of sound to move and/or modify fish behavior could potentially improve measurement/counting/tag detection capabilities for assessing salmon and steelhead in tributaries and fish ways.

Critical uncertainties
Critical uncertaintiesundertainties are: (1) will juvenile salmonids exhibit a vertically oriented avoidance response to infrasound similar to the lateral avoidance response they show to infrasound, (2) are there significant differences in response between hatchery and wild fish, (3) the response to infrasound by juvenile salmonids less than 80 mm in length is not known, (4) the response to sound, including infrasound, by squawfish and other predators is unknown, and (5) can ultrasound be used to keep shad from using adult fish bypass facilities without disrupting the passage of adult salmonids due to secondary effects resulting from replusion of shad.

Summary of expected outcome
Expect to: (1) implement behavioral guidance measures that will increase the FGE of bypass facilities such as surface collectors and in-turbine screens, (2) implement behavioral guidance measures that will decrease entrainment of juvenile salmonids in irrigation diversions, (3) implement behavioral based measures to disperse predators from the vicinity of migrant collection areas, and (4) implement behavioral based measures to reduce spawning migration of shad upstream of Bonneville Dam.

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation
Implementation will require consultation for ESA and scientifically sound documentation of efficacy to regulatory and oversight agencies.

Risks
Juvenile salmonids greater than 80 mm in length have been shown under laboratory and field conditions to show a strong avoidance response to infrasound. The risk would be that if improperly applied juvenile salmonids could be guided to regions of higher rather than lower risk. However, this risk is well known and experiments and tests are designed to detect unfavorable outcomes of fish response to infrasound.

Monitoring activity
Project outcome will be measured by determining: (1) the increase in FGE through fish bypass facilities, (2) reduction in entrainment in irrigation diversion flows, (3) decrease in predator concentrations in specific areas, and (4) reduction in migration of adult shad past Bonneville Dam.

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 costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
1992: 75,697
1993: 63,500
1994: 154,600
1995: 278,300
New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 225,000
1998: 190,000
1999: 190,000
2000: 150,000
2001: 150,000

* 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   $225,000