FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34020

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
34020 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Fish Behavioral Guidance Through Water Velocity Modification PHASE ONE
Proposal ID	34020
Organization	Natural Solutions (NS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Jean Johnson
Mailing address	1890 Sierra Rd. East P.O. Box 1236 Helena, Montana 59624
Phone / email	4064586363 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Gordon Burns
Review cycle	FY 2002 Innovative
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide / Systemwide
Short description	Develop a means & method of duplicating or simulating “bulk flows” in a quiescent environment, such as a hydro facility, and integrating induced turbulence to the mechanism to provide multiple natural migratory cues for guiding fish to safe passage routes
Target species	All migratory fish species and stocks

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 86	NMFS	The Corps shall continue to investigate a way to increase entry rates of fish approaching surface bypass/collector entrances.

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) Improve fish passage efficiencies and decrease migratory time	(A) Characterize the 3D profile for the velocity “field” or “zone of influence” of venturi eductors from 2 inch through 16 inch sizes with and without engineered turbulence. 2002	1	$87,665
	(B) Determine the parameters of eductor sizing, efficiency, spacing and ability to replicate bulk flow. 2002	0.5	$8,564
	(C ) Design and Build a Prototype Environmental Eductor for Deployment and Testing.	1.5	$39,340	Yes
	(D) Physical Testing Prototype Environmental Eductor - With and Without Engineered Induced Turbulence 2002	0.75	$24,034
	(E) Evaluation of test data and 3D modeling	1.5	$41,604	Yes
	(F) In Situ Testing of Prototype Environmental Eductor ( 2003 - funding to be requested under mainstem process --estimate. $287,000)		$0
	(G) ( 2003 - funding to be requested under mainstem process --estimate $500,000)		$0
	TRAVEL		$3,000
	OVERHEAD		$18,379
	GRAND TOTAL		$0

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		$57,680
Fringe		$14,997
Supplies		$7,985
Travel		$3,000
Indirect		$2,725
Capital		$73,320
Subcontractor		$34,200
Other		$28,679
		$222,586

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$222,586
Total FY 2002 budget request	$222,586

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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2002-8)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
May 24, 2002

Comment:

Not fundable. Although the approach is innovative, the proposal is not technically adequate. The sponsors should be encouraged to keep working on this and to enlist further input from fish biologists.

This is an innovative proposal to provide a "hydraulic welcome station" for migrating juvenile salmon at the upstream end of the forebay pool. By adapting a technique used in the mining industry, a jet of water would be created from a barge, or possibly a fixed structure, located at the upstream edge of the forebay pool. The artificial water jet would be designed to approximate the thalweg velocity and turbulent flows characteristic of the river upstream from the forebay pool. The water jet would be created by a device known as a "Venturi eductor" which would direct juvenile salmon toward collectors for surface bypass systems (SFB) located at the downstream end of the forebay pool, on the face of the dam. The Venturi eductor is intended to enhance the effectiveness of surface bypass collectors by getting the juvenile salmon directly through the forebay pool and into the collectors of the SFB without delay. The proposal shows a reasonably good understanding of current information about what the Fish and Wildlife Program specifies for juvenile salmon migrations.

Although it starts with a great concept, the approach to implementation gives the overall proposal a slow finish. Several fundamental questions were not answered; "Would the implementation ultimately prove safe for juvenile salmon and other fish?", "How many of these eductors would be needed at the entrance to the typical forebay?" and "How far downstream would the velocity enhancing effect of the eductor jet last?" The lack of information on the safety of this method of increasing water velocities for juvenile salmon is indicative of the general lack of biological criteria for development and operation of the appliance. The proposal needs to demonstrate further interaction with fish biologists familiar with the issue. The lack of information on how eductor-based passage devices would fit into the forebay of a Columbia River low head dam may be indicative of a shortage of hydraulic physics and engineering content in the proposal. Figures are sorely needed to show the layout and positioning of project components (eductors, etc) for both a theoretical (or actual) fullscale forebay and for the prototype testing. The issue of scale needs to be addressed: what might be the size and cost of pumps and eductors needed to produce enough hydraulic change to be meaningful fish. The proposal gives a tantalizing view of what might be accomplished, but it does not go far enough to allow evaluation of the chances for success. The proposal is too preliminary to be competitive. Specific questions and comments needing attention are given below.

General, non-task specific comments:

An important technical point is the ratio of motive water to effluent water, said to be 1:5 - 1:6 for a four inch eductor tube used in dredge mining. The actual ratio of motive:effluent in the example of the proposal for application to juvenile salmon is 1:7, i.e. 6400 gpm motive flow to produce 44,800 gpm effluent flow. 44.8/6.4 = 7.0
The proposal's use of the term "thalweg" is confusing, substituting "thalweg" in place of term, "thalweg flows." For example, the statement in the proposal incorrectly equates bulk flows with thalweg, "the hypothesis that bulk flow or thalweg can be generated in the far & intermediate fields of forebays ..." (Section e. Proposal objectives, tasks and methods, Objectives, first para.) A thalweg is the line defining the lowest points along the length of a river bed. Water particle velocities and turbulence are typically maximized in this part of a river, hence the interest in, "thalweg flows," and "thalweg velocity" in relation to juvenile salmon migrations. Thalweg is not a synonym for "bulk flows."

Comments: Task (A) 2002 - 3D Profile the Zone of Influence of Venturi Eductors.

What sizes of eductors are being tested? The proposal states, "These tests will be performed with each eductor size, ..." but this paragraph contains no information on what size eductors are being tested.
Why are the eductor tubes initially being tested from locations on the bottom [of the test reservoir] up? The region of interest for juvenile chinook is from the top down, with the likelihood function of finding fish with depth being something like a Poisson shaped curve with its mean (depth) depending on the race (stream or ocean) and state of maturity.
What will be the size of the hydroacoustic "dead zone" adjacent to the air-water interface and the water-bottom interface? The "dead zone" is where the noise generated by reflection of the hydroacoustic signals from the ADCP renders interpretation of observations from this instrument problematic at these depths.
What is the range of the vertical scale of the data describing the zone of influence (i.e. does it start at zero depth, or at some point below the surface dictated by the limitations of the ADCP?).
Will the values used to describe current vectors in the "zone of influence" at the surface (air-water interface) be actual measurements, or extrapolations?
Why are current meters not being employed to augment the ADCP for surface current measurements?

Task (B) 2002 - Determine the parameters of eductor sizing, efficiency, spacing and ability to replicate bulk flow.

What is known about the physics and engineering of large venturi eductors? What are the likely problems of scale? Is there a theoretical concept (equation) or rule of thumb describing how power/pumping capacity requirements increase as a function of eductor diameter to guide the engineering work?
Could juvenile salmon be attracted by the flow net created by pumping motive water from the river?
Would the motive water intakes need to be screened?
Would current velocities created by pumping near the motive water intake ever exceed the maximum burst swimming speed of a juvenile salmon?

Task (C ) 2002 - Design and Build a Prototype Environmental Eductor for Deployment and Testing. What are the engineering and biological criteria that would be used to judge whether it is reasonable and prudent to proceed with the large bore prototype? For example, if x describes the distance along a horizontal line perpendicular to the direction of thrust in a cross section of the "zone of influence", and v is current velocity, what values of dv/dx are biologically unacceptable? Practically speaking, at what rates of change in velocity with distance are shear forces sufficient to cut the smolt into pieces? Could this project create a "water knife' that would kill smolts that came within range? If it could have been shown that the domain of dv/dx does not include values considered lethal, this would have been a big selling point for this proposal. Questions regarding potential deleterious effects of the technology on survival of juvenile salmon are raised in the proposal but not answered. Some examples follow. Quote from the paper, "Since there are no moving parts in the eductor tube, gravels (or fish) can pass through the eductor without damaging it - or in the case of fish, damage to themselves." (About Venturi Eductors, second para.) Comment: Moving mechanical parts are not the only things capable of creating physical forces that can injure or kill juvenile salmon. Hydraulic forces such as cavitation and shear can also kill or injure. Quote from the paper,"(2) The extreme velocities produced at the center of the "zone of influence" will cause smolt to shear way, not be entrained, and thus serve as a velocity "curtain"." (Venturi Eductors, third para.) Quote from the paper, "Since the mining industry has largely been concerned with the amount of suction produced, no one has prepared graphs or flow charts for the discharge side of the eductor: hence, the purpose of this project. About Venturi Eductors, third para.) Comment: The data from the discharge side of the eductor should be used in conjunction with biological information already available to develop criteria for deciding if development and application of a big bore eductor would have the desired positive effects on the survival of the juvenile salmon. See http://www.cbfwa.org/files/awp00/projects/20054.htm#reviews. Question: How much effluent flow would be needed at a typical far field forebay location? What fraction of the average flow of the river in question is 100 cfs? Comments: This raises the question of how many of these Venturi eductors would need to be placed in the far field forebay to have the biological effects intended. Conversions to cfs are as follows: 44,800 gpm is 99.83 cfs is about 100cfs. 1000gpm = 2.233 cfs, so 44,800 gpm = about 100 cfs. Approx = 1:7 ratio of motive to effluent flow. Would flows of 100 cfs be sufficient? Would more than one eductor of this size be required? What is the practical limit on the size of venturi eductors, i.e. how much bigger than 48 inches in diameter can Venturi eductors be constructed? Are there Venturi eductors as large as 48 inches in diameter in operation today, or have there ever been historically? Task (D) 2002 - Physical Testing Prototype Environmental Eductor - With and Without Engineered Induced Turbulence What biological criteria are to be evaluated during testing of the prototype? Task (G) (2003) - Evaluation of Natural Like Bypass Inlet and Demonstration of the Behavioral Guidance System's Ability to Entrain Smolt. Comment: This needs to happen long before step G. Conversions 32 inch pipe uses 856 cfm motive to provide 5990 cfm effluent 32 inch pipe takes 14.27 cfs to provide 99.83 cfs approx = 1:7 ratio 5990 cu ft per min = 44,800 gallons per min 856 cu ft min = 6400 gallons per min Flow = 1 = 2.832 x 10-2m3s-1/ 1 ft3s-1 1 gal per minute = 0.000 0631 cubic meters per sec = 0.134 cubic feet minute = 0.134/60 cfs = 0.002233 cfs Sources used in this review Clayton, B. R. and R.E.D. Bishop (1989) Mechanics of Marine Vehicles. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston (Section 1.4). http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccflowv.htm Independent Scientific Group, Return to the River 2000 (www.nwcouncil.org/library/return/2000-12.htm), Chapter 6. Hydroelectric System Development: Effects On Juvenile And Adult Migration. "The role of hydrodynamic features other than thalweg velocity in fish emigration needs to be further explored, for a proven link to such features as stage waves and turbulent bursts. A greater understanding of hydrodynamic features may offer opportunities for water management that could be more effective in moving fish with less water than would current applications, such as the water budget." Return to the River 2000 - Chapter 6 page 217. The project has some other drawbacks as well. The work will take place in Montana where there will not be access to migrating salmon or the dams where problems in passage are proposed to be addressed. It is proposed for two years, whereas the request for proposals specifies a limit of 18 months unless sufficient justification is given for a longer study period. The budget exceeds the $200,000 limit (although it appears they would be able to reduce it to meet the cap).

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jun 28, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 12, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Demonstrate that bulk flows can be effectively, safely, and cost effectively generated to assist in guiding migrating juvenile salmonids. A further objective is to integrate this bulk flow with induced turbulence to provide multiple migrational cues to guide migrating juveniles to surface flow bypass systems.

Comments
There is potential utility for this work. Hydrosystem project passage is thought to be a major limiting factor to salmonid populations spawning above mainstem dams. The loss of migrational cues due to impoundment is further compounded by extreme physiological conditions generated by hydro project operations. Thus, there is considerable interest in directing the downstream migration of salmonid smolts, particularly into by-pass systems. This proposal addresses a novel method for directing migrating smolts into surface collectors in the slackwater directly adjacent to hydrosystem projects. While there is certainly the need for further research and development in this area, it is unclear if the proposed system will function as intended. However, since dam passage during downstream migration is a substantial source of mortality, innovative approaches are worth exploring. The proposal is poorly constructed, and it is difficult to determine exactly what is to be done; nonetheless some support for this project is warranted especially for the pilot phase with proper assessment and testing.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 12, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Demonstrate that bulk flows can be effectively, safely, and cost effectively generated to assist in guiding migrating juvenile salmonids. A further objective is to integrate this bulk flow with induced turbulence to provide multiple migrational cues to guide migrating juveniles to surface flow bypass systems.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes