FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34026
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
34026 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Studying the Impacts of Dam Passage on the Vestibular System in Fish |
Proposal ID | 34026 |
Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Thomas J. Carlson |
Mailing address | 620 SW 5th Ave. Suite 810 Portland, OR 97204 |
Phone / email | 5034177567 / thomas.carlson@pnl.gov |
Manager authorizing this project | Dennis Dauble |
Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
Short description | Assess feasibility of measuring reponse of juvenile salmonid's vestibular system to mechanical stimulation that mimics conditions observed during passage through spills, turbines, and juvenile bypass systems. |
Target species | all juvenile salmonid species |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 88 | NMFS | The Corps and BPA, in coordination with the Fish Facility Design Review Work Group and the Fish Passage Improvement Through Turbines Technical Work Group, shall continue the program to improve turbine survival of juvenile and adult salmonids. |
NMFS | Action 89 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall investigate hydraulic and behavioral aspects of turbine passage by juvenile steelhead and salmon through turbines to develop biologically based turbine design and operating criteria. The Corps shall submit a report to NMFS stating the findings of the first phase of the Turbine Passage Survival Program by October 2001. Annual progress reports will be provided after this date. |
NMFS | Action 90 | NMFS | The Action Agencies shall examine the effects of draft tubes and powerhouse tailraces on the survival of fish passing through turbines. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Conduct literature search | a. Identify relevant reports b. Extract applicable data c. Summarize findings | 5 | $17,349 | |
2. Identify Sensor Fish data sets | a. Identify Sensor Fish data that meet criteria b. Assemble data sets in SAS database c. Produce graphical summaries | 5 | $8,377 | |
3. Design, construct, evaluate shaker table | a. Design & construct single-axis shaker table b. Evaluate performance w/ Sensor and Live fish c. Document design & operation | 5 | $118,290 | |
4. Develop methods for experiments | a. Identify candidate methods b. Prioritize methods, evaluate top two w/ live fish c. Document methods selected and data acquired | 5 | $15,797 | |
5. Design followon experiments | a. Meet to design evaluation of vestibular disruption b. Document experimental design | 5 | $24,919 | |
6. Prepare project review reports | a. Prepare review draft report b. Prepare final report | 5 | $11,118 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: .50 | $41,359 |
Fringe | $10,753 | |
Supplies | $60,690 | |
Travel | $0 | |
Indirect | $63,706 | |
Capital | $0 | |
PIT tags | $0 | |
NEPA | $0 | |
Subcontractor | $18,142 | |
Other | $1,200 | |
$195,850 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $195,850 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $195,850 |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This 12th ranked proposal is fundable and innovative. It is a technically excellent proposal for studies to relate physical/hydraulic parameters experienced by fish in dam passage to effects on fish to be observed in the laboratory. However, uncertainties associated with physiological mechanisms are not the key uncertainties in finding solutions to the problems of dam passage.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:
Development of experimental designs will require completion of objectives 1 through 4, which constitute a feasibility assessment of the methods to perform controlled laboratory scale experiments where treatments are mechanical stimulation of fish which mimics aspects of the exposure of fish to severe hydraulic conditions during passage past mainstem Columbia and Snake river dams. The major experimental risk at this point in the project is that the approach has been determined to be infeasible.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:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitIndirect benefit. Evaluate the response of the fish vestibular system to mechanical stimulation based on dam passage conditions. Results of this research could influence the design and operation of fish dam passage routes such as spill ways, turbines, in-turbine screens, and juvenile fish bypass facilities.
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:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect benefit. Evaluate the response of the fish vestibular system to mechanical stimulation based on dam passage conditions. Results of this research could influence the design and operation of fish dam passage routes such as spill ways, turbines, in-turbine screens, and juvenile fish bypass facilities.
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