Review of Projects Employing Conventional Fish Screens - DOC

Document Sample
Review of Projects Employing Conventional Fish Screens - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					                                FY 2007 Innovative Project Solicitation

10. Narrative

A. Abstract and statement of innovation

The need to safely guide fish around obstructions or toward fish collection facilities has been
demonstrated in many locations. Historic stream flows have been altered as free-flowing rivers have been
replaced by reservoirs, which have significantly altered natural hydrographs. Our fundamental premise is
that adult and juvenile fish orient their movements in response to flowing water and that migrating
salmonids lose their ―migrational cues‖ in quiescent reservoir waters. We propose to create water
velocities and turbulent conditions that stimulate desired fish guidance. Our system, called a Flow
Velocity Enhancement System or FVES, was designed to create river-like conditions in lentic waters.

This project will field test the response of migrating smolts to mechanically induced currents or flow
fields in a reservoir environment. Our objective is to determine if mechanically induced flows can safely
and cost effectively guide migrating juvenile salmon smolts. Turbulent flow fields will be created by
venturi eductors of various sizes, oriented in an array. A randomized block testing approach will be used
to examine the behavioral response of migrating smolts to FVES induced currents. Field tests will be
conducted in the Riffe Lake (reservoir) on the Cowlitz River. The movements of smolts will be compared
with and without induced flows using acoustic techniques and a fish trap, as a surrogate for a fish
collection facility. Field work will be accomplished by Natural Solutions staff and key collaborators.

Computational fluid dynamics models will characterize the magnitude and shape of the FVES turbulent
flow field. Flow fields will be measured and mapped using current meters, Doppler acoustic current
profilers, GPS equipment, current drogues and thermometers.

Results can be applied in a variety of settings to improve fish guidance around obstructions. Successful
implementation of this technology would reduce environmental impacts and costs associated with spill
and flow augmentation, contributing to the recovery of ESA-listed fish stocks and other sensitive species.

B. Technical and/or scientific background

The speed of migrating juvenile salmon is affected by water velocity in the river/reservoir system and
passage delays at obstructions. Excessive delay in smolt migration to the Columbia River estuary is
believed to reduce survival. Transit delays occur when smolts become confused in low flow areas in a
reservoir. Transit or swimming delays occur in the ―far field‖ defined as the reservoir more than 30
meters upstream from the dam (Giorgi, et al. 2000). Passage delays result when fish have difficulty
locating and entering bypass facilities at dams. Our research applies to both mechanisms for delayed fish
migrations associated with Columbia River hydropower facilities, specifically the Cowlitz River in

The Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (NPCC 1994) summarized the problem:
“Downstream passage is especially dangerous for juveniles because of the effects of dams and slow
moving reservoirs, such as turbine, bypass and spill related mortalities, predation, migration delays and
high water temperatures. The fish are on a biological time clock. To reach the ocean safely, the spring
migrants must complete their downstream journey quickly‖ (Section 5, pg. 5-1).

FY 2007 Innovative Project                          1
Vendetti et al. (1997) found that migration delays in quiescent forebay waters appear to be a significant
factor in prolonging migration time. More recent telemetry tracking confirm that smolts are delayed a
week or more in the forebay and Vendetti, et al. (2000) believe that increased forebay crossings and
upstream excursions of fish were associated with low water velocities. Budy, et al. (2002) linked delayed
mortality to delays in migration through the hydro system.

Almost a decade of tracking smolt migration paths on the Snake and Columbia Rivers has shown that
steelhead and Chinook smolts use ―bulk flow‖ and follow the ―thalweg‖ as a migrational cue (Rondorf
1994, p.99, 105, 128; Adams, et al., 1996, p. 28; Adams, et al. 1997). Although water velocity is a factor
in juvenile migration, the exact function has not been definitively isolated. Radio tracking indicates that
bulk flow and possibly along with its inherent turbulence is the primary migrational cue. Most attempts
at accelerating velocity have focused on local velocity increases (Bates and VanDer Walker 1964) and
have not had the desired high guidance efficiencies sought. Also, most of these efforts have focused on
the ―near field‖ of the forebay after the fish have lost their migrational cue of bulk flow.

Surface flow bypass systems (SFB) have been designed to reduce migration delays. For example,
Williams (1998, p. 188-189) hypothesized that surface oriented migrants will be attracted toward water
flows and velocities in SFB rather than to the flow and velocity passing through deeply submerged
turbine intakes. Existing fish passage facilities are often less efficient than planned. Juvenile migrants
actively avoided the water velocities at some new surface-collector prototypes or change their preferences
over time, depending on life stage, fish size, water temperature, turbidity and intraspecies interactions.
Regardless, water velocity appears to dominate fish behavior because attempts to use light, sound and
bubbles have been mostly unsuccessful.

Flow augmentation has also been used to reduce migration delays. The Northwest Power and
Conservation Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program and the NOAA-Fisheries’ BiOp contain elements
associated with flow augmentation to decrease fish passage time and increase survival, demonstrating the
widely held belief that fish respond to water velocities.

The Role of Turbulence in Fish Movement:
There has been little effort to duplicate bulk flow and turbulence as a continuum into the slowly moving
waters of the forebay. In Return to the River (ISAB 1996) adults salmon were observed moving upstream
through the center of ―rips‖ created by protrusions of the river bank into the river and notes that spring
chinook smolts moved faster than the bulk flows on the Willamette River, suggesting that they take
advantage of turbulence to accelerate outward migration (Appendix D, p. 156). Coutant (2001)
suggestede using induced turbulence to guide smolt to SFBs. The combination of duplicated bulk flow
and engineered induced turbulence could provide such a ―multi-cued‖ migrational behavioral guidance
system. pg. 55-77. However, additional testing is needed, ―Neither the basic biology of salmonid
migration in turbulent waters nor the potential value of inducing suitable turbulence and flow at bypass
entrances or elsewhere in reservoirs is well enough known for attraction flow facilities to be designed
and installed everywhere without additional study.‖ pg. 55-77

Natural Solutions offers an alterative approach using bulk flow and the ―migrational cue‖ of turbulence to
further enhance fish guidance. We propose to use our Flow Velocity Enhancement System (FVES) to
create turbulent flow to guide migrating fish to safe passage routes or collection areas, and thus, prevent
fish from becoming confused and dispersed in lentic waters. Coutant (1998 and 2001, pg. 105-113)
suggests using ―trails of turbulence‖ to guide fish and recommends a multi-cued approach to behavioral
guidance. Coutant and Whitney (2000) cited qualitative evidence that migrating adult salmon use
vortices to accelerate upstream migration. Our preliminary field tests created visible boils, rips and
whirlpools. Unlike traditional attempts, our system has unique dynamic capabilities. If, as Williams
notes above, fish preferences vary over time and life stage, our system can to adjust the flow field by

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           2
controlling the motive water pressure and flow rate and orientation of the FVES array. This feature
differs from traditional designs that are static or vary only with changes in the overall flow of the river.
This allows our system to be tuned to match the ambient conditions or the predominant species of

About Venturi Eductors

Natural Solutions has patented the FVES, which uses venturi eductors to create flow fields. Venturi
eductors have been used in the placer mining industry for at least 50 years. Their primary function has
been as a means of vacuuming gravel from river bottoms for mineral extraction. The proposed
application uses the discharge side to induce river-like turbulent flow. Water (motive water) under
pressure is introduced into the eductor tube through a venturi nozzle. This creates a vacuum at the suction
side (up to 15‖ HG have been verified) and a positive pressure discharge at the opposite end.
Calculations by Godwin Pumps indicate that for an 8‖ eductor supplied with 700 GPM of motive water at
50 psi (pounds per second) will discharge 1880 gallons per minute (GPM). Water velocities on the
suction side will be 7.5 fps (feet per second) and on the discharge side 12 fps. Internally this unit may
have water velocities as high as 63.5 fps in the nozzles of the motive water supply pipe.

Although high water velocities could cause injury to fish, two experiments performed at the Clatsop
Economic Development Council’s (CEDC) fisheries project at Young’s Bay, Oregon, demonstrated a low
risk to fish that were inadvertently entrained through the FVES system. Fish were experimentally forced
into the intake of the eductor and results showed that mortality did not exceed that of the control group
(Jones 2003). Under normal operation, the likelihood of fish entrainment through an eductor would be
minimized by screening or by strategic positioning the intake end to avoid areas of high fish densities.
The eductor can also be positioned to intake cooler water from lower in the water column to provide an
additional migrational cue.

We tested an 8 inch eductor in open water. The eductor was mounted on a testing platform and
suspended from a dock to 7 feet with the bottom depth of 14 feet. Motive water was supplied over a range
of pressures and flow rates. The eductor was mounted on a slide tray with a thrust scale, which measured
thrusts as high as 150 pounds during the testing. To measure the water velocity in the zone of influence,
the velocity meter was operated from a stationary boat. A laser range finder was used to position the boat
from the nozzle and a global positioning system (GPS) coordinate was taken to establish the actual point
of velocity measurement. Also, an echo sounder was used to determine the overall water depth at each
point of measurement. The boat position was stabilized with ropes and anchors. The measurement head
of the velocity meter was attached to a 20 foot pole with graduated markings, which was used to guide
measurement depth. Velocity was measured at 1 foot, 5 feet, 10 feet and 15 feet, if depth allowed.
Velocity at distance is summarized in Figures 1 (below) and 2 (following page). Static velocities of zero
were measured at the nozzle and at 210 feet prior to inducing flows with the eductor system.

FY 2007 Innovative Project                            3
                                                                                                                            Point D6
                                                                                                                               Depth    Vel. F/S
                                                                                                                               1'       0.54
                                                                                               Point D7                        5'       1.20                                           10M

                                                                                                 Depth      Vel. F/S
                                                                                                 1'         0.70               10'      0.07
                                                                      Point D8                   5'         0.46
                                                                                                                                                                                                         Nozzle (Adjusted)
                                                                              Vel. F/S
                                                                              0.40               10'        0.15
                                                                                                                               15'      0.03
                                                                                                                               Bottom 15'
                                                                              0.13                                                                                              D6
                                                 Point D9              5'                        15'        0.00                                            A6
                                                  Depth    Vel. F/S                                                                                                        15
                                                                      10'     0.04               Bottom 16'
                                                  1'        0.41                                                                                                                              10 M

                                                  5'        0.29       15'                                                     D7           A7
                                                            .04       Bottom 12.3'                                                             16
                                                  10'                                                                                                                           25 M
                                                  15'                                                                                                                 33 M
                                                 Bottom 12.8'
                                                                                                                               D8                             42 M

                                                                                          D9             12.8

                                                                                                                                       70 M


                                                                                                                                              8" Eductor Test
                                                                                                                                              Pump PSI = 50
                                                                                                                                              Velocity @ Nozzle = 11.9 F/S
                                Direction                                                                                                     Scale Thrust = 110#
                                                                                                                                              Motive Water = 700 gpm
                                                                                                                                              Output Water = 1880 gpm

Figure 1 - Velocity data in Feet / Second at various depths and distance from the eductor.

                                                                                      Point E7                                                                            10M

                                                                                         Depth        Vel. F/S
                                                                                         1'           0.89
                                                                                         5'           0.31                                                                                           Nozzle (Adjusted)
                                                                                         10'          0.33                                                                              X
                                                                                                                                                    A6             D6
                                                                                         15'          0.00
                                                                                         Bottom 16'                                                                                    10 M
                                                                                                                       D7              A7
                                                                                                                                                                   25 M
             Point E11                                                                                                                                      33 M
             Depth   Vel. F/S                                                                                           12.6
             1'      0.20                                                                     A9
                                                                                                                                                     42 M
             5'      0.30

             10'     .22                                                                                           12.6

             15'                                                                 D9
                                                                                                                                70 M
            Bottom 15.4'                                Static

                                                                                                                                       8" Eductor Test
                                                                                                                                       Pump PSI = 60
                                                                                                                                       Velocity @ Nozzle = 13 F/S
                                Direction                                                                                              Scale Thrust = 150 #
                                                                                                                                       Motive Water = 780 gpm
                                                                                                                                        Output Water = 2080 gpm

Figure 2 - Velocity data in Feet / Second at various depths and distance from the eductor.

A more complete write-up of this preliminary test is available. Each rectangle in the figures shows the
measured water velocity at depth in feet per second. The complete zone of influence took nearly 20
minutes to fully develop. High velocity regions existed near the nozzle, but velocities were moderated
within a short distance downstream (30 feet). These initial tests indicate the zone of influence extended

FY 2007 Innovative Project                                                                                                                      4
over 200 feet with this small eductor. At the far distance flows were still in the range of 0.25 feet per

This project would test larger eductors (8 inch, 16 inch and 24 inch) in stand alone and arrayed
configurations. Testing would expand on previous tests with more robust testing equipment and with
measurements covering the entire length, width and depth of the zone of influence or flow field. In
addition to physical testing, this project would expand on previous evaluations of fish response to these
generated flow fields. Past tests by Natural Solutions included use of acoustic cameras in net pens with
small eductors.

A review of the Didson camera films from those tests was performed to examine fish presence vs. fish
absence in the camera field of view during eductor testing. While the formal write-up of this study is still
pending, preliminary results show that during test period when the current field was off (control group),
early stage smolted chinook were present in the cameras field of view 45% of the time. However, when
the unit was on, these same fish were present in the field of view 76 % of the time. The camera looked
obliquely through the tail of a flow plume in a 90’ pen. The field of view captured approximately 15 feet
of the flow plume.

The proposed test would incorporate fish traps in experiments to determine if fish capture is increased
when the eductors are operational compared to ambient flow conditions.

The intent of these experiments is to demonstrate and document that:
(1) Bulk flow-like conditions can be simulated in a forebay or reservoir.
(2) The conditions produced in the ―zone of influence‖ will stimulate a smolt response.
(3) The smolts and adults will travel in or with the flow field and thus be directed or guided to fish bypass
or capture areas.
(4) The engineered flow field will provide velocity, turbulence, and at some sites thermal cues.
(5) Conditions produced in the ―zone of influence‖ are generally safe for fish entering the zone.

C. Rationale and significance to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program

Rationale. The importance of flow velocity for juvenile salmonid migrations is recognized in research
results and in planning documents such as subbasin plans. It is logical to suggest that where this velocity
does not exist, or is inadequate, that inducing flow would aid migration. The proposed study would test
this approach.

Water flow velocities increase near the face of the dam as water is pulled into turbine intakes or
spillways. Migrating fish lose directional cues when they enter quiescent waters in the reservoir pool, and
often cannot locate these relatively small areas of flow and velocity.

Recent efforts to address fish guidance using flow fields have shown some promise at the Wells Dam on
the Mid Columbia River. A unique configuration — with the spill gates located directly above the
turbine intakes — provides hydraulic conditions conducive to attraction into a surface collector. All flow
in the river is directed toward the intakes, and water-flow velocity in the forebay is generally higher than
at other hydropower projects. As a result, Wells Dam is the only hydro project to meet established
juvenile-passage goals of 90 percent survival. Other hydro projects cannot be fully reconfigured to
provide the conditions at Wells Dam. Other dams are configured with separated turbine intakes and spill
bays. Each create their own flow field and split river flow into two subparts.

Natural Solutions believes its Flow Velocity Enhancement System will be the next generation of fish
guidance. We believe that fish guidance can be accomplished by generating a flow field sufficient to

FY 2007 Innovative Project                            5
guide migrating juveniles to desired locations and improve guidance efficiency at a variety of project
types and configurations.

The following summaries illustrate the scientific perspective on fish response to flow fields:

        Almost a decade of tracking smolt migration paths on the Snake and Columbia
        Rivers has shown that these fish use ―bulk flow‖ which tends to follow the
        ―thalweg‖ of the old river channel as a migrational cue. Rondorf et al. (1994)
        found the highest fish densities associated with detectable water velocities that
        ―…shifted from one side of the reservoir to the other as the thalweg of the
        original river channel changed sides of the reservoir.‖ He also noted that “Fish in
        the forebay were found in slightly higher velocities during all dates sampled.”
        and ―Fish observed in the forebay were more widely dispersed than fish
        detected in many transects conducted in the reservoir reaches where river
        morphology seems to play an important role in fish distribution.”

Based on radio tracking during 1995 and 1996, Adams et al. (1996) concluded that “actively migrating
steelhead and chinook salmon follow the primary currents flowing through Lower Granite Reservoir.
The fish either seek out or are entrained in the main current as it crosses back and forth across the
reservoir” and “The travel paths of chinook salmon and steelhead as they approach the dam appear to be
influenced by water current patterns in the reservoir.”


Inspection of Subbasin Plans also acknowledges the affects of water velocity on smolt migration time and
survival. The following quotes illustrate this point;

Lower Columbia Subbasin Plan: Limiting Factors and Threats:
“Dam construction and operation have altered Columbia River flow patterns substantially throughout its
basin” (p. 3-28).

“Changes in flow patterns can affect salmon migration and survival through both direct and indirect
effects. Juvenile and adult migration behavior and travel rates are closely related to river flow. Greater
flows increase velocity, which increases juvenile and decreases adult travel rates. Extensive study has
detailed the relationship between juvenile migration travel times and flow volume. The relationship is
particularly strong at low to moderate flow volumes. Flow regulation and reservoir construction has
increased smolt travel times through the Columbia and Snake mainstems many-fold, although the
significance of this relationship to juvenile survival remains a subject of considerable controversy. The
potential delay of emigrants reaching the estuary during a critical physiological window for
smoltification or for ocean dispersion is a significant concern, especially for upriver salmon stocks,
where delays are compounded across long migration distances. Moreover, increased travel times also
increase exposure to Columbia River predation. For lower basin stocks, however, the mainstem journey
is relatively short and only fish originating in the Wind, Big White Salmon, Little White Salmon, and
Columbia Gorge tributaries are directly affected by passage through one mainstem dam (Bonneville).”

“Interactions of flow and dam passage can be particularly problematic for migrating
salmon” (p. 3-29).

“The increased spill typically associated with high flows also reduces travel time by avoiding fish delays
in dam forebays. For this reason, many fish and hydrosystem managers implement a water budget of
prescribed flows to facilitate fish migration rates and dam passage. In contrast, increased flow and spill

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           6
can increase mortality and delay upstream passage of adults at dams as fish have a more difficult time
locating the entrances to fishways and also are more likely to fall back after exiting the fish ladder”
(Reischel and Bjornn 2003).

“In summary, river flow changes in the estuary and lower mainstem impair salmon
• Changes in timing and magnitude of natural seasonal flow patterns,
• Loss of migration-stimulating flows,”

Lower Mid Columbia Subbasin Plan, Section 5.7. Hydrosystem Conditions:
 “Most Columbia River Basin juvenile anadromous salmon and steelhead tend to stay in the upper 10 to
20 feet of the water column as they migrate downstream to the ocean. However, dam configurations at the
Corps‚ lower Columbia River and Snake River dams cause juvenile fish to dive to depths of 50 to 60 feet
to find the passage routes. Engineers and biologists are pursuing new technologies that would provide
more surface-oriented, less stressful, passage routes for juvenile fish. Two of these are the removable
spillway weir and the Bonneville Dam Second Powerhouse Corner Collector (NOAA/Fisheries 2004).
A prototype removable spillway weir, was installed at Lower Granite Dam on the lower Snake River in
2001. The weir passes juvenile salmon and steelhead over a raised spillway crest (similar to a
waterslide), near the water surface, under lower velocities and lower pressures than conventional spill.
Juvenile fish are safely and efficiently passed over the weir with less stress and reduced migration delays
at the dam. The weir is also designed to be "removable" by controlled descent to the bottom of the dam
forebay. This capability permits returning the spillway to original flow capacity during major flood
events. The weir has the potential to provide not only fish benefits but also power savings to the region,
since less water is used to pass similar numbers of fish, Additional removable spillway weirs are being
considered for McNary and John Day dams among others” (NOAA/Fisheries 2004, pg. 215).

Management Plan. Target Objective and Strategy:
Improve adult passage conditions by   restoring features of the normative hydrographs to improve
migration conditions.

Associated Key Finding:
Altered hydrologic conditions affect adult migrating salmon survival. Enhanced migration survival
should contribute to increased adult returns. Adult steelhead actively migrate through the subbasin from
March to October; adult coho migrate in September August to October (p. 339).

Natural Solutions believes that a functional Flow Velocity Enhancement System will create migrational
cues that will assist migrating fish in finding safe passage routes, such as the removable spill weir (RSW)
or a spill bay. With mechanically generated flow cues, fish delay will be decreased, less spill will be
required for fish to find the spill passage route, and as a result of lower spill levels, water quality will
improve. In addition, with less spill adult migration will improve as less adult fallback will occur and
delays at ladder entrances will be reduced.

Upper Cowlitz Subbasin Plan

“3.3.2 Passage Obstructions (p. E-155)
The hydropower system is the primary factor for decline in the upper Cowlitz basin.
Historically, spawning grounds in the upper basin produced 20% of the fall Chinook and 38% of the
steelhead in the Cowlitz basin (Mobrand Biometrics 1999). The hydropower facilities impede volitional
access to upstream habitats. Furthermore, over 48 miles of stream habitat was flooded by the Mayfield,
Mossyrock, and Cowlitz Falls Dams.
The Barrier Dam and Mayfield Dam prevent all volitional passage of anadromous fish

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           7
above RM 52. A facility at the Barrier Dam (RM 49) collects coho, winter steelhead, and
coastal cutthroat, which are hauled upstream of the Cowlitz Falls Dam. Outmigrating smolts are
collected at the Cowlitz Falls Fish Collection Facility (CFFCF) above Cowlitz Falls Dam and are hauled
below the Barrier Dam. Some fish may avoid collection at the CFFCF and pass through the Cowlitz
Falls Dam turbines or through the dam spill. Passage of juvenile migrants through Riffe Lake is a major
problem for maintaining sustainable anadromous fish runs in the upper basin. A 1999 study revealed
that only 63% of radio tagged steelhead smolts traveled successfully from the Cowlitz Falls Dam tailrace
to a collection facility at Mossyrock Dam. None of the tagged coho and chinook were detected at
Mossyrock. This study revealed potential problems with migration through the reservoir as well as
problems with smolt collection at Mossyrock Dam (Harza 2000). Currently, there is no regular juvenile
collection at Mossyrock Dam. Regular collection of downstream migrants was discontinued in 1974. The
606 foot tall
Mossyrock Dam prevents access to several Riffe Lake tributaries, including Rainey Creek, which is
believed to have a substantial amount of potentially productive habitat (Wade 2000). Radio-telemetry
studies of coho and steelhead revealed a low (<50%) survival rate of juvenile migrants negotiating
Mayfield Lake. Results could be due to predation, water quality, flow, or monitoring error (Harza 1999
as cited in Wade 2000).”

Natural Solutions believes that the Cowlitz is a logical location to test the FVES ability to guide fish into
traps. Juvenile migrant traps have historically been used to capture and transport smolts. Trapping
success and timing for various species has a documented history. The reservoir size and depth allows for
trapping and installation of the FVES. It is feasible to deploy the FVES and apply a randomized block
test to determine if fish capture increases in various traps with the system on versus off. Equipment
expertise exists at the site to remove the fish from the traps and relocate them down stream below passage

Significance to regional programs. The proposed project supports several goals of the Fish and Wildlife
Program. It would supply baseline data for a better understanding of the role of flow fields as a
migrational cue as well as a practical, cost effective method of duplicating this cue. The practical
application, with positive results, would lead to improved transit times in the far and intermediate forebay
as well as a behavioral guidance to surface bypass systems, which would significantly improve passage
times. The cumulative effects of several dams would have a significant impact on migrational times and
smolt survival.

In the long term, successful implementation of the concepts in this proposal could reduce reliance on flow
augmentation and spill as the primary means of fish migration enhancement. This would assist in
meeting the system wide goal of "assuring an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply."
[Northwest Power Act] Furthermore, it would reduce the environmental consequences of these measures.
For example, if fish could be directed to a single spill bay, gas super saturation could be reduced.

The economic benefits to reducing spill and reserving that water for power production could be in the
millions of dollars at each hydro facility. The actual figure would be dependent upon the size of the
facility and the price of power at the time the saving was calculated. However, Bonneville Power
Administration estimated a savings of $1.0-1.5 million per day if spill could be only partially reduced in
late July and August of 2004. Savings would be even greater if spring spill could be further reduced
(Salmon Recovery web site). Recent court ordered increases of spill for fish passage resulted in a loss of
$ 67 million of hydro generation over the summer of 2005 (BPA web site). Thus, even modest reductions
in spill have significant potential to save funds. Past spill reduction negotiations have indicated that some
of the saved funds could be reallocated to other fish mitigation projects.

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           8
This project would also contribute to the goal of supporting species in their native habitat while
implementing research, thus meeting certain principles of the Northwest Power and Conservation
Council’s program: Principle 4. Habitats develop, and are maintained, by physical and biological
processes; and Principle 7. Ecological management is adaptive and experimental.

This project also addresses the Section 4 goals of the Council’s Program for rebuilding salmonid runs and
populations by focusing on Section 5, downstream juvenile migration. Decreased transit times in the
quiescent forebay and increased SFB passage efficiencies will increase smolt survival rates and improve
runs and populations.

Finally, the baseline data generated through current profiling in the natural channel and comparison to
current profiling of generated bulk flows will provide a better understanding of the role flow fields or
bulk flow plays in juvenile migration. It would supply a platform for future research and knowledge
including addressing the following provisions of the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological

9.1.2 Hydro Actions
2. Improved flow management
3. Physical improvements to both juvenile and adult fish passage facilities

The following actions are prescribed for improving juvenile passage survival through the FCRPS to the
ocean: Conduct research on spillway passage to identify additional potential survival and passage

-- Increase screen/bypass system effectiveness with extended screens, new outfalls, and improved
hydraulic conditions. (Emphasis added)
-- Develop and test surface bypass technology, with implementation as appropriate.
-- Improve passage system operations and reliability.

“ Juvenile Fish Passage Strategy. A primary objective of the biological opinion is to increase
survival of juvenile out-migrants through the Federal hydro system. This objective should be
accomplished consistent with two biological principles: 1) protecting biodiversity, and 2) favoring fish
passage solutions that best fit the natural behavior patterns and river processes (emphasis added)
(ISAB, 1999). This applies to fish passage through the eight (8) FCRPS hydroelectric projects and their
associated reservoirs. The purpose of this fish passage strategy statement is to provide general guidance
on dam passage priorities for future annual implementation planning.‖

―Surface Bypass Passage. Surface bypass is defined as a surface-oriented route that provides an
appreciable attraction flow-field and discharges (emphasis added) juvenile fish directly to the project
tailrace. Continued development and testing of surface bypass prototypes at mainstem FCRPS projects
should be a high priority. A surface bypass at one or more spill bays, or through a surface bypass next to
the spillway or powerhouse, may provide complimentary survival benefits for fish that do not pass
through a conventional spillway tainter gate. Surface bypass passage is a promising concept that may,
with further testing and development, satisfy the intent of increasing safe passage through a high-flow
conveyance similar to the spillway. It also has a potential benefit of providing fish passage with
incrementally lower spill discharges and lower production of total dissolved gas.‖

―Surface Collection Passage. In contrast to surface bypass, surface collection is defined as a surface-
oriented route that entails collection at one or more entrances, followed by lateral routing in a channel that

FY 2007 Innovative Project                            9
guides fish away from turbine intakes. In this biological opinion, surface collectors are considered to be
installed across a portion of, or over the entire upstream face of, the powerhouse at a given site. For fish
that do not pass through either spillway or surface bypass routes, this option is expected to provide more
natural passage conditions for those that approach the powerhouse. Similar to the surface bypass concept,
surface collection is also a promising concept that may, with further testing and development, satisfy the
intent of increasing safe passage through a high-flow conveyance.‖ System or General Studies (including Research, Monitoring, and Evaluations)
Action 82: The Action Agencies, in coordination with NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)
through the annual planning process, shall investigate the spillway passage survival of juvenile salmonids
at appropriate FCRPS dams. These investigations shall assess the effect of spill patterns and per-bay spill
volumes on fish survival, across a range of flow conditions.

Action 83: The Action Agencies, in coordination with NMFS through the annual planning process, shall
evaluate the effect of spill duration and volume on spillway effectiveness (percent of total project passage
via spill), spill efficiency (fish per unit flow), forebay residence time, and total project and system
survival of juvenile steelhead and salmon passing FCRPS dams.

While the 2000 Biop has been replaced by the 2004 Biop, which has subsequently been remanded by the
court for another rewrite, the issues addressed above still remain pertinent and in need of resolution. In
fact, the recent increases in spill levels have only heightened the need to find cost effective and
biologically effective methods of fish passage. Mechanically induced turbulent flow fields may have the
potential to provide directional migration cues and allow the same or more fish to be bypassed via spill
routes with less actual river spill, and therefore less cost and less gas supersaturation. We propose here
that one of the logical areas for investigation to resolve the issues noted in these action items is a small
scale field test of mechanically induced flow fields and the monitoring of the zone of influence created,
and the response of migrating fish under field conditions.

Many in the region have recognized the potential savings if fish can be guided to spill routes with lower
spill flows. This is evidenced in recent efforts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who have built
removable surface weirs1 or RSWs—large steel structures which create a curtain to direct fish away from
the turbine intakes and toward spill gates or bypass facilities. Though effective, RSWs offer no
operational flexibility and are extremely expensive to construct and maintain, thereby shifting funding
from other important fish-mitigation projects.

Significant effort and reliance is being placed on these structures. We contend that a FVES or
mechanically induced flow fields may have a role to play in further improving the performance of these
devices by adding strategically located flow fields to assist in fish guidance.

 Natural Solutions contends that successful implementation of a FVES could alleviate much of the
controversy that surrounds currently practiced fish passage solutions. Strategic placement of the FVES
within a reservoir pool would augment remaining native water velocities with in the pool. This would
assist migrating fish in following existing bulk flow or thalweg flow. Strategic placement of FVES near
existing RSW or spill bays would provide the cue and migrational assistance to help fish quickly find the
safest available passage route. With such locational aids, it may be possible to reduce flow augmentation
and spill levels while still increasing fish passage efficiency and reducing fish travel time.


FY 2007 Innovative Project                           10
D. Relationships to other projects
Telemetry tracking on the Snake and Cowlitz Rivers (Rondorf, et al. 1994; Adams, et al. 1996; Adams, et
al. 1997; Rondorf, et al. 1998) provide us with knowledge of smolt migrational paths necessary for base
line current profiling of the bulk flows in the Snake and Cowlitz Rivers. Other sources of current
profiling may be available and would be reviewed under this project; however, additional detailed
profiling is needed and would be acquired through the use of a SonTec "RiverSurveyor" Acoustic
Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) coupled to GPS or from a stationary ADCP mount. Precise thalweg,
velocity and flow discharge profiles can be attained for comparison to velocity and flow discharge
profiles of mechanically generated bulk flows.
In addition, current research into the effects of induced turbulence would provide the necessary
knowledge for integrating engineered induced turbulence to an eductor-generated bulk flow.
Collaboration with and review of work by researchers in this field, such as Dr. Hotchkiss of Washington
State University, Pullman, and Charles Morrill, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Fish Program, and
Dennis Rondorf, U.S.G.S. Research Laboratory in Cook, Washington, could lead to an integrated, "multi-
cued", positive approach to smolt guidance.

Other related projects include projects numbered: 8200800, 8353600, 8201700, 8740100, 8813400,
8332300, and 9602000. These projects deal with fish and flow net response, water budget management,
radio tracking, and fish guidance.

E. Proposal objectives, work elements, methods, and monitoring and evaluation
    Physical Testing

    (1) Flow field mapping will extend the existing database of flow-field velocities to allow for
    computational fluid dynamics (CFD) profiling. This profiling will allow us to extrapolate flow-field
    dimensions and characteristics, determine the parameters of Flow Velocity Enhancement System
    sizing, and establish performance curves for various sized FVES.

    (2) Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) profiling. This will provide a basis for refining the design
    FVES units with the capacity to provide juvenile guidance for hydro facilities in larger systems such
    as the Mainstem Columbia or Snake River systems. This profiling will determine whether a single
    FVES unit can be designed large enough to accomplish this guidance, or if an array of FVES units
    will better provide the necessary flow field. A CFD modeler will be recruited.
    Biological Testing

    (1) Document the effectiveness of FVES in guiding migrating juvenile salmon by comparing fish
    behavior with and without induced turbulent flow (migrational cue).

    (2) Correlating fish positions with flow field data will provide an insight as to which areas of
    artificially generated ―flow field‖ fish prefer. This insight will allow future systems to be designed
    around those preferences or use patterns.

    (3) Refined positioning of the FVES array to increase the range of the zone of influence and to test
    more complex flow arrangements made possible from arrayed and/or larger systems to provide
    accurate design data and serve as a system sizing tool for future applications.

Research will be conducted at the upstream end of Riffe Lake, the reservoir created by Mossyrock Dam
located on the Cowlitz River in southwest Washington. This site was selected to allow Natural Solutions
to test the efficiency of the FVES using radio-tagged fish from an existing research project at the Cowlitz

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           11
Falls Fish Collection Facility (CFFCF). Radio telemetry and acoustic cameras will be used to measure
fish guidance in smolts that escape the collection facility and pass through the test site selected by Natural
Solutions. Telemetry will describe migration routes before, during and after FVES deployment at no cost
to Natural Solutions. Fish guidance to a fixed fish trap will compare fish collection efficiency during
sequential ―on and off‖ treatments. Experiment timing will depend on river flows, weather, and the
timing of fish migration. Field testing is expected to be performed between May 1 and August 15, 2008.

The following participants will assist Natural Solutions in this effort:

    (1) Tacoma Power Public Utility District. Tacoma Power will provide the site for the experiment and
    historic data on fish migratory paths under varying flow conditions. They will supply equipment,
    including a lead net for the fish trap, telemetry receiver and antennas, and technical advice. Our
    contact is Mark LaRiviere. Tacoma Power’s participation is a contribution to Natural Solutions.

    (2) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). WDFW operates the CFFCF and will
    provide data on the timing of fish migrations, coordination between research projects, fish collection
    and enumeration, and transportation and consulting. They will also provide a secure work and storage
    area for Natural Solutions’ equipment. Contact is John Serl. WDFW’s participation is a contribution
    to Natural Solutions.

    (3) U.S. Geological Survey Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS). USGS will provide an
    Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV), dual frequency identification sonar (Didson) camera, ancillary
    equipment, and consultation. Contact is Russell Perry. Costs associated with USGS are associated
    with equipment use as noted in the budget.

    (4) Dr. Charles Coutant will provide assistance in study design, consultation, and test monitoring.
    Contact is Dr. Charles Coutant. Costs for consultation are included in the budget.

Experiments will document the efficiency of using the FVES to guide migrating juvenile salmon to
desired passage routes. Tasks will be accomplished in the following manner:

Task 1 – Site selection and mapping. (Biological Outcome: Choose a suitable site for deployment and

Beginning in January 2008, Natural Solutions will review detailed fish migration path data provided by
USGS and Tacoma Power from past telemetry studies. Natural Solutions will visit the site and map the
bathymetry of the study area using sonar integrated with a global positioning system (GPS) to generate a
high resolution contour map of the lake bottom. Fish telemetry data will then be overlaid on the contour
map to determine the most effective locations for deploying the FVES and monitoring equipment. This
will allow designers to examine water depth and current altering features. Divers will inspect bottom
conditions for substrate type and for debris. Natural Solutions staff will lead this team in collecting data
and will also produce the map.

Task 2 – Coordination and scheduling. (Biological Outcome: Assure Environmental compliance and safe
fish handling)
In April 2008, Gordon Burns, Natural Solutions’ project manager, will coordinate efforts with the
cooperating agencies, outline equipment needs, make travel arrangements, and collate information on
river flows, weather, and migration timing to establish a start date for the project. Permits have already
been secured; see Section 7 – Work Plan.

FY 2007 Innovative Project                            12
Task 3 – Mobilization and storage of project equipment. (Biological Outcome: Assure testing matches
outbound migration)
Immediately prior to starting the project in the field, Executive Director Jean Johnson will arrange for
living quarters near the test site and notify Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife that we will be
transporting equipment to their secure work and storage area. Burns and Johnson will load and transport
the following Natural Solutions equipment to the storage site:

  (A) 28 ft. pontoon work barge with crane and hoist;
  (B) 20ft. pontoon service barge;
  (C) 8 in, 12 in., and 16 in. FVES eductors;
  (D) 2 - mounting platforms with ballast;
  (E) 3 – motive water pumps (5x4) mounted on Volkswagen engines;
  (F) 2 – 30-gallon fuel cells to provide fuel for motive water pumps; (SAFETY NOTE: Fuel cells are
  self sealing bladder type used to racing for spill containment.
  (G) 3 – pump suction screens;
  (H) 2 – fuel tanks and pumps for supplying fuel to fuel cells;
  (I) 4 in. hoses that supply water from the pumps to the eductors;
  (J) sonar equipment for bathymetry (contour) mapping of the test site;
  (K) GPS units for precise placement of FVES equipment;
  (L) Aluminum fin and PCV float current drogues
  (M) computers and related office equipment; and
  (N) hand tools – drills, saws, pipe wrenches, etc. necessary for assembly and maintenance.
USGS (Russell Perry) will transport the ADV, Didson camera, and necessary electronics to project site.

Task 4 – Installation of trap net and lead. (Biological Outcome: Capture fish for enumeration and
subsequent downstream transport)
Upon arrival at the test site, Natural Solutions will install the Merwin trap and lead nets, provided by
Tacoma Power, in the following manner:

    (A) The trap flotation ring will be assembled at the site and anchored at all four corners to concrete
    anchors deployed from the work barge. These anchors will be placed using the gantry crane and hoist
    on the work barge.
    (B) The net trap will be installed on the flotation ring to fasteners provided by the manufacturer with
    the entrance to the trap closed until commencement of the project.
    (C) The guiding leads to the trap will be fastened to the Merwin trap at one end with the other end
    deployed at an angle from the trap and anchored to the bottom. The top edge of the lead nets will be
    buoyed using Styrofoam floats designed for this purpose.

Task 5 – Deployment of the Flow Velocity Enhancement System. (Biological Outcome: Enable task 6)

The FVES system consists of a mounting platform, ballast for the platform, an eductor, pump or pumps,
hose from the pumps to the eductor, a pitch & roll indicator, and a remote read compass.

The deployment system consists of:

    (A) A 28 ft. work barge that has a 3x7 ft. work well, a gantry crane and hoist, and is powered by an
    outboard motor; and
    (B) A 20 ft. pontoon boat used as a service craft to deliver fuel, perform routine maintenance, and
    repair work to pumps and the FVES. Both are owned by Natural Solutions.

Deployment of a Flow Velocity Enhancement System will be accomplished in the following manner:

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           13
    (A) The service barge with the fuel tank, pump, and service tools on board will be launched at the
    public boat launch located at Taidnapam Park at the head of Riffe Lake.
    (B) The work barge and gantry crane will be fitted with the fuel cells and the motive water pumps and
    launched at the same facility.
    (C) The mounting platform will be suspended over the work well on 4x4 in. supports and fastened to
    the hoist cable.
    (D) Concrete curb ballast will be placed on the platform and fastened in place.
    (E) The eductor will be placed in position on the platform and fitted with a pitch & roll device and a
    remote read compass.
    (F) The work barge and service barge will motor to the test site and the work barge will be anchored
    over the site selected in Task 1 using global positioning system (GPS) for precise positioning. The
    work barge will be anchored at all four corners to provide stability throughout the project.
    (G) The eductor previously mounted to the platform will be fitted with 4 in. spiralock hoses, with the
    hoses laid out behind the platform.
    (H) The platform, eductor, and hoses will be lifted using the crane-mounted hoist, the 4x4 supports
    removed, the work well covers removed, and the now-complete FVES will be lowered through the
    work well to the bottom. As the FVES is lowered, the hoses will be ―hand fed‖ through the work
    (I) Once on the bottom, the FVES will be checked for the proper angle to the bottom using the pitch
    & roll device, and for direction towards the trap using the compass. If adjustments are necessary, the
    FVES will be lifted slightly to facilitate moving by a scuba diver and lowered again, once the proper
    position is achieved.
    (J) Once the FVES is positioned, the motive water pumps are moved into position and the hoses from
    the FVES are attached. The fuel lines from the fuel cells are connected and batteries are attached.
    (K) A 3/32nd ―screening‖ basket is next lowered into the work well and fastened to the deck so that
    approximately 2 in. of the basket is above the water line. The basket prevents debris and more
    importantly small fish from being entrained in the pump suction.
    (L) The suction hoses for the pumps are attached to the pumps with one end placed in the screen
    (M) The motive water pumps are started and the current ―plume‖ visually checked for the proper
    alignment with the lead nets and the trap.
    (N) If any adjustment is necessary, the motive water pumps are shut off and Step I is repeated until
    the proper alignment is achieved.

Task 6 – Final site sizing of (eductor) FVES. (Biological Outcome: Provide suitable mechanically
generated flow for site conditions at time of deployment to alter ambient currents sufficient to guide fish
to traps.)

Select a 12 in. or 16 in. eductor for a turbulent flow to alter a river flow of 2,000 – 3,000 cfs under site
specific conditions. Local current patterns and bottom conditions will affect the natural flow conditions so
on-site calibrations and sizing will be required.

Following deployment and prior to commencing the fish collection efficiency study, Natural Solutions
will determine the optimum size FVES necessary to alter the existing river current at the test site. The 12
in. FVES mounted to the platform and deployed in Task 5 will be operated to generate a plume toward the
Merwin trap. Velocity measurement will be taken along the current ―plume‖ using a SonTek Acoustic
Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) to determine the ―strength‖ or flow of the current to the lead nets and trap.
Upon completion of velocity measuring, if it is determined that a stronger current is necessary, the unit
will be raised from the bottom and a 16 in. FVES will be mounted to the platform. Again, Task 5 will be

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           14
performed and velocity measured along the length of the current ―plume.‖ It should be noted that field
conditions at project time can vary greatly, thus necessitating Task 6.

Staff from USGS (Russell Perry), Tacoma Power (Mark LaRiviere), Washington Dept. of Fish and
Wildlife (John Serl), and Natural Solutions (Burns and staff) will compare flow data and select a Flow
Velocity Enhancement System size for the project.

Task 7 – Determine if the FVES (selected in Task 6) can guide migrating smolts to a Merwin trap and
increase collection efficiencies by 20 percent compared to collection efficiency without the induced flow.
(Biological Objective: Demonstrate fish migration path can be altered and fish guided to collection
Task 7 will utilize a random-block study design. Each block will be two days long, consisting of (1) one
day ―off‖ and one day ―on.‖ There will be 14 blocks of two days per block. Fish captured in the traps will
be collected at the same time each day and enumerated by WDFW (John Serl) and transported below
Mayfield Dam according to normal transport procedures.

It is expected that significant numbers of radio tagged fish from trapping experiments at the Cowlitz Falls
dam will be present in the system during this experiment. To the extent possible the movement of these
fish will be monitored during the study period.

The Flow Velocity Enhancement System selected in Task 6 will be positioned upstream of, and across the
existing river flow from, the Merwin trap. It will be aimed at the entrance of the trap and positioned so the
flow field generated by the FVES flows completely through the Merwin trap. This will be determined by
velocity measurements using an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter supplied by USGS. River flows and
ambient current will be charted daily. Fish captured will be collected, enumerated by WDFW, and
statistical analysis used to determine fish collection efficiencies. For all treatments, statistical analysis will
be performed by Natural Solutions and reviewed by USGS personnel.

Task 8. Determine if migrating smolts approaching a trap entrance during existing river flows exhibit an
avoidance response or milling behavior, thus causing transit delays.
(Biological Outcome: Investigate fish behavior under ambient conditions)
To accomplish Task 8, USGS will mount a Didson camera at the entrance to the Merwin trap. The camera
will be aimed upstream and in line with the trap entrance. The camera will be operated during the ―off‖
treatment of the random-block study design. As fish approach the trap, their behavior will be filmed and
evaluated for (a) avoidance or milling behavior, and (b) the length of time it takes a smolt to enter the
trap. The Didson camera allows for this evaluation through its timing feature and the ability to follow an
individual fish on film. It is an efficient tool for monitoring and recording fish behavioral responses to
varied stimuli.

Task 9. Establish the ability of an FVES-generated turbulent flow to encourage migrating smolt to enter a
trap and thereby reduce transit delays. (Biologic Outcome: Investigate fish behavior under mechanically
induced currents).

The Didson camera mounted to the Merwin trap entrance for Task 9 will be utilized to perform Task 10.
It will be operated during both ―on‖ days of the random block study design to record smolt behavioral
response to the FVES-generated turbulent flow. Evaluation of these recordings will provide an insight
into smolt behavior at two levels of turbulence intensity as fish enter the trap. Individual fish will be
timed, using that feature of the Didson camera, from when they approach the trap entrance until they enter
the trap and compared to individual fish times recorded in Task 8. The difference in travel times will be
expressed as a percent reduction in transit time. Didson camera footage can also be reviewed frame by

FY 2007 Innovative Project                              15
frame, and fish absence or presence documented and reviewed for patterns that may develop during the

Task 10. Statistical analysis, evaluation, and report. (Biological Objective: Summarize results of tests and
make recommendations for improved fish guidance.)
The statistical analysis of enumerated collection results will be performed by Natural Solutions (Brian
Marotz) with review by USGS (Russell Perry) and Dr. Charles Coutant. The evaluation of Didson
camera images will be performed by Natural Solutions (Burns, Johnson) with review and comment by the
entire team of cooperatives: USGS, Tacoma Power, Oak Ridge, and WDFW. The final report will be
issued by USGS Columbia River Research Lab, and disseminated to the project’s participants and
sponsors, who will be asked to review the report and supply comments on system feasibility and
recommendations to enhance feasibility.

F. Facilities and equipment
Natural Solutions maintains a 1,000 ft. shop facility fully equipped to build, maintain, and store eductors,
pumps, motors, and other components of Flow Velocity Enhancement Systems. Key pieces of equipment
include two barge-type water crafts with motors; fuel cells, tanks, and pumps; Volkswagen motor-driven
hydraulic pumps and hoses; crane, hoist and winch; GPS units and sonar equipment for bathometry
mapping; laptop computers; and three trucks for towing barges. No new major pieces of equipment will
be needed for this project

G. Literature cited
Adams, N. S., D.W. Rondorf, E.E. Kofoot, M.J. Banach, and M.A. Tuell (1996). Migrational
       characteristics of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead in Lower Granite Reservoir and
       tributaries, Snake River Annual Report. pg. 28.

Adams, N.S., D.W. Rondorf, and M.Tuell (1997). Migrational characteristics of juvenile Chinook salmon
       and steelhead in Lower Granite Dam relative to the 1997 surface bypass collector tests. Annual
       report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla, WA.

Bates, E.C. and J.G. VanDer Walker (1964). Exploratory experiments on the deflection of juvenile
        salmon by means of air jets. U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Fish Passage Research
        Program: Review of Progress. 3 (14).

Bonneville Power Administration web site. No=646

Budy, P., G.P. Thiede, N. Bouwes, C.E. Petrosky, and H. Schaller (2002). Evidence linking delayed
       mortality of Snake River salmon to their earlier hydrosystem experience. North American Journal
       of Fisheries Management.

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (1994). Section 5. pg. 5-1. Retrieved Jan. 7, 2006, from
      the Northwest Power and Conservation Council web site.

Coutant, C.C. (1998). Turbulent attraction flows for juvenile salmonids passage at dams. ORNL/TM-
       13608, Environmental Sciences Division. Publication No. 4798.

Coutant, C.C. and R.R. Whitney (2000). Fish behavior in relation to fish passage through hydropower
       turbines: a review. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. pg. 129.

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           16
Coutant, C.C. and R.R. Whitney (2000). pg. v.

Coutant, C. (2001). Integrated, multi-sensory behavioral guidance systems for fish deterrence. American
       Fisheries society Symposium 26:105-113.

Coutant, C. (2001). Turbulent attraction flows for guiding juvenile salmonids at dams. American
       Fisheries Society Symposium 26:57-77.

Giorge. A., Miller, M., Stevenson, J. (2000). Mainstem Passage Strategies in the Columbia River
       System: Transportation, Spill, and Flow Augmentation. Prepared for the Northwest Power
       Planning Council, Portland, OR. pg. 1-2.

Independent Scientific Group. Return to the river. Juvenile salmon migration behavior and the efficy of
       the flow-survival hypothesis. Chp. 6.

Independent Scientific Group. Return to the river: restoration of salmonids fishes in the Columbia River
       ecosystem. Appendix D: Fluid dynamics of river flows in relation to salmon downstream
       migration. Northwest Power Planning Council. Portland, OR.

Jones, T. (2003). Evaluation of mortality of juvenile salmonids passed through eductor. Prepared for
        Natural Solutions.

Northwest Planning and Conservation Council document. (----). Washington State Dept. of Ecology.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (undated). Addressing issues for water and fish resources
        management. Retrieved Aug. 18, 2004 from

Return to the River (1996). Appendix D. pg. 156. ).

Rondorf, D.W. and N.S. Adams (1994). Migrational characteristics of juvenile chinook salmoon and
       steelhead in Lower Granite Reservoir and tributaries, Snake River. Annual report.

Rondorf, D.W., and N.S. Adams (2004). Migrational characteristics of juvenile Chinook salmon and
       steelhead in Lower Granite Reservoir and tributaries. Snake River Annual Report. pg. 105.

Salmon Recovery web site.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District. (1996) Evaluation of the Prototype Surface Bypass
       and Collector at Lower Granite Dam in 1996: Integration of preliminary research findings.
       Retrieved from

Vendetti, D.A., J.M. Kraut, and D.W. Rondorf (1997). Behavior of juvenile fall chinook salmon in the
       forebay of a Lower Snake River reservoir. Found in Rondorf, D.W. and K.F. Tiffan (1995).
       Identification of the spawning, rearing, and migratory requirements of fall chinook salmon in the
       Columbia River Basin. Annual Report. DOE/BP-21708-5. U.S. Administration, Portland, OR.

FY 2007 Innovative Project                          17
Vendetti, D.A., D.W. Rondorf, and J.M Kraut (2000). Migratory behavior and forebay delay of radio-
       tagged juvenile fall Chinook salmon in a lower Snake River impoundment. North American
       Journal of Fisheries Management. 20:2000.

Williams, John. Quoted in Jungwirth, M., S. Schmutz, and S. Weiss (1998). Fish Migration and Fish
       Bypass. Dept. of Hydrobiology, Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of Agricultural Sciences.
       Vienna, Austria. pg. 188-189.

H. Key personnel

Charles C. Coutant, Ph. D. Co-Investigator

Education: BA 1960 (Lehigh); MS 1962 (Lehigh); PhD 1965 (Lehigh).

Employment: (1) Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA (1965-70): Research Scientist,
Columbia River Thermal Effects Studies; (2) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1970-present): Manager
Thermal Effects Program (1970-79), Leader EPA Multimedia Modeling Project (1979-82); Manager
DOE Global Carbon Cycle Program (1985-86); Manager ORNL Exploratory Studies Program (1989-
1991); Senior Research Staff (1982-85, 1986-88, 1992-present).

Professional Affiliations: American Association for the Advancement of Science (Fellow); American
Institute of Fishery Research Biologists (Fellow); American Fisheries Society (AFS; Presidents of Water
Quality Section, Tennessee Chapter, Southern Division, and full Society; Co-Editor of journal
Transactions); American Society of Limnology and Oceanography; American Society for Testing and
Materials (Chair Environmental Fate Models Task Group); Ecological Society of America (Vice Chair
Applied Ecology Section); Sigma Xi (Southeast Regional Lecturer, President Oak Ridge Chapter); Water
Pollution Control Federation (Literature Review Committee-Thermal Effects).

Honors: Darbaker Prize in Microbiology, Pennsylvania Academy of Science; Director's Award, Battelle-
Northwest; Excellence in Fisheries, TN Chapter AFS; Outstanding Publication, Martin Marietta Energy
Systems (operator of ORNL); Distinguished Publication, American Society for Information Science;
Distinguished Service Award, AFS; Outstanding Achievement Award, Southern Division, AFS; 2002
ORNL Distinguished Scientist.

Publications: Refereed articles in journals-48; non-refereed articles in journals-21; book chapters-29,
symposium articles-31; laboratory or agency reports-87; book reviews, news articles, editorials-20;
contributions to Environ. Impact Statements-9; total 246 (as of 1999; about 50 untallied since).

Synopsis of Significant Technical Contributions: Advisor on project evaluation to Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) Fish and Wildlife Program and member of Scientific Review Group; member of
Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s (NPCC) Independent Scientific Group; member National
Marine Fisheries Service and NPCC’s Independent Scientific Advisory Board for Pacific salmon
restoration; member NPCC’s Independent Scientific Review Panel for review of projects for BPA’s Fish
and Wildlife Program; evaluation of impacts of hydropower on aquatic systems; review and evaluation of
§316(a) study plans, studies, and documents for power companies; new concepts for behavioral guidance
of salmon smolts.

Synopsis of Management Experience: Leader of several research teams up to about 15 people; manager of
Dept. of Energy intra- and extramural carbon dioxide research program ($4 million/yr); manager of
ORNL internal funding program ($6-10 million/yr).

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           18
References to Related Research and Technical Writings:
Coutant, C. C., editor. 2001. Behavioral technologies for fish guidance. American Fisheries Society
       Symposium 26, Bethesda, MD.

Coutant, C. C. 2001. Turbulent attraction flows for guiding juvenile salmonids at dams. Pages 57-78. In
       Coutant, C. C., editor. 2001. Behavioral technologies for fish guidance. American Fisheries
       Society Symposium 26, Bethesda, MD.

Coutant, C. C. 2001. Integrated, multisensory, behavioral guidance systems for fish diversions. Pages
       105-114. In Coutant, C. C., editor. 2001. Behavioral technologies for fish guidance. American
       Fisheries Society Symposium 26, Bethesda, MD.

Coutant, C. C., and M. S. Bevelhimer. in review. Fish guidance studies at Buchanan Hydropower Plant,
       2002-2003. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report, Oak Ridge, TN.

Gordon C. Burns, Co-Investigator

Gordon C. Burns has over 30 years experience as a gunite/swimming pool contractor. He has extensive
experience in project planning, coordination, materials procurement, and management. He has served as a
project liaison between federal, state, and local agencies, and has managed projects employing or
coordinating 60 personnel and five trades, involving fees in excess of $450,000. Burns has proven ability
to find innovative solutions to project problems and completes projects on time and within budget. He is
an experienced project manager and fully capable of managing the project defined in this Phase I

Gordon Burns holds two patents in the fish passage field, one of which is the focus of this project. The
patents are: Patent No. US 6,729,800 B2 – Flow Velocity Enhancement System; and Patent No. US
6,652,189 B 2 - A Method for a Migratory Fish Bypass Channel With Natural Features.

Since the formation of Natural Solutions in December 2000, Burns has been the principal investigator in
the following projects related to the Flow Velocity Enhancement System: three mortality tests; two
behavioral guidance projects; and five velocity test projects.

Burns demonstrated successful completion of the following tasks pertinent to this proposed project:
(1) Assembled research team(s) uniquely qualified to perform environmental research;
(2) Conducted literature searches and surveys to provide a firm basis for subsequent action;
(3) Led a multi-disciplined research team in project study design;
(4) Invented innovative solutions to on-site project problems and challenges; and
(5) Demonstrated a willingness to address an environmental problem despite the risk of failure.

Brian Marotz, fisheries scientist.

Education: BS 1980 Freshwater Biology (Aquatic Sciences) (Univ. of Wisconsin); MS 1984 Fisheries
Management (Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA); Studies: 1983 Marine Science (Gulf Coast
Research Institute, Ocean Springs MS); 1980 Marine Biology (S.E.A. Semester at Sea, Boston Univ.,
Woods Hole, MA)

Marotz has served as the fisheries mitigation manager for the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks in the
Kalispell, Montana office since 1991, and supervises the fisheries mitigation office, hydropower

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           19
mitigation and habitat protection and restoration programs. He has conducted extensive research and
biological modeling on Hungry Horse and Libby Dams, and Flathead and Kootenai Instream Flow
projects. He developed the Hungry Horse and Libby mitigation programs; computer modeling for
Flathead and Kootenai drainages; and integrated rule curves (IRCs) for Montana Reservoirs (1985-1999).
Marotz chaired the Resident Fish Committee of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority in 2000-
2001 and is now vice chair of the Members Advisory Group. He represents the state of Montana in the
Technical Management Team, Kootenai White Sturgeon Recovery Team and Kootenai Habitat Policy
Team. Honors include the Governor’s Award for Excellence in Performance as an Employee of the State
of Montana (1994); Director’s Award for Excellence as an Employee of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
(1994); Certified Fisheries Scientist American Fisheries Society (1989).

Jean Johnson, Natural Solutions Authorized Representative

Jean Johnson’s experiences over the last 30 years in small business and project management make her
qualified to organize and manage the practical aspects of the Natural Solutions test at Riffe Lake. She has
extensive experience in organization, writing, marketing, project management, and lobbying. Her
experience in small business began in agriculture in the late 1960s. From 1978 – 1982, she owned and
operated a busy retail business in Helena, Montana. In 1988, she formed her own company, On Line
Communications, to provide organization, publishing and lobbying services to Montana associations. She
and partner Gordon Burns formed Natural Solutions in 2000; Johnson is the majority owner of the
company. She will manage all contracts, sub-contracts, and administrative duties for the proposed project.

        Outside Services –

Dennis Rondorf

Education: M.S. Oceanography and Limnology 1981 (Univ. of Wisconsin/Madison); B.S. Wildlife
Management 1972 (Univ. of Minnesota/St. Paul).

Professional Experience: (1) Supervisory Research Fishery Biologist, Project Leader for Anadromous
Fish Ecology, Columbia River Research Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, WA (1996 –
present); (2) Research Fishery Biologist, National Biological Survey (1993-1996); (3) Research Fishery
Biologist, Fishery Biologist, Research and Development, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1979-1993).

Current employment and responsibilities: Supervisory Research Fishery Biologist and Section Leader for
the Anadromous Fish Ecology section at the Columbia River Research Laboratory, U.S. Geological
Survey, Cook, WA. Current research emphasizes juvenile fish passage at hydropower dams on the Snake
and Columbia rivers. Research includes the recent evaluations of innovative fish passage structures such
as surface bypass systems and a large behavioral guidance structure for juvenile salmonids. Other
research activities include the migratory behavior, ecology, and habitat use of juvenile salmon during
their seaward migration. Has lead research teams studying juvenile salmon behavior using radio
telemetry, 3-dimensional acoustic telemetry, geographic information systems (GIS), global positioning
systems (GPS), remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROV), hydroacoustic fish stock assessment
systems, and acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCP) as research tools.

Recent publications:
   Adams, N.S., G.E. Johnson, D.W. Rondorf, S.M. Anglea, and T. Wik. 2001. Biological evaluation of
           the behavioral guidance structure at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River, Washington in
           1998. American Fisheries Society Symposium 26:145-160.

FY 2007 Innovative Project                          20
    Garland, R.D., K.F.Tiffan, D.W. Rondorf, and L.O. Clark. 2002. Comparison of subyearling fall
           Chinook salmon’s use of riprap revetments and unaltered habitats in Lake Wallula of the
           Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1283-1289.
    Johnson, G.E. and five coauthors. 2000. Evaluation of the prototype surface bypass for salmonid
       smolts in spring 1996 and 1997 at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River, Washington.
       Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 129:381-397.

    Tiffan, K.F., D.W. Rondorf, and J.J. Skalicky. 2004. Imaging fall Chinook salmon redds in the
            Columbia River with a dual–frequency identification sonar. North American Journal of
            Fisheries Management.
    Tiffan, K.F., C.A. Haskell, and D.W. Rondorf. 2003. Thermal exposure of juvenile fall Chinook
            salmon migrating through a lower Snake reservoir. Northwest Science 77:100-109.
    Tiffan, K.F., R.D. Garland, and D.W. Rondorf. 2002 Quantifying flow-dependent changes in
            subyearling fall Chinook salmon rearing habitat using two-dimensional spatially explicit
            modeling. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Nominated for Best Paper 2002

Russell W. Perry, M.R.M.

Education: M.R.M. Master’s of Resources and Environmental Management 2001 (Simon Fraser Univ./
Burnaby, B.C., Canada); B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Management 1995 (Utah State Univ./Logan, Utah)

Professional experience: (2001- Present) (1) Fishery Biologist, Principal Investigator for Anadromous
Fish Ecology, Columbia River Research Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey, Cook, WA; (2) Master’s
Candidate, Simon Fraser Univ. (1999-2001); (3) Fishery biologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Cook WA

Current employment and responsibilities: Fishery biologist and a Principal Investigator for the
Anadromous Fish Ecology section at the Columbia River Research Laboratory, USGS, Cook, WA.
Current areas of research include the behavior, ecology, and habitat use by chinook salmon in the Snake
and Columbia rivers. Other research activities include investigating turbulent attraction flows to increase
fish collection at Cowlitz Falls Dam, and using 3D acoustic telemetry at Grand Coulee to evaluate fish
entrainment into the turbines. Past research has involved laboratory studies on the effects of radio tags on
fish physiology, and radio telemetry in the Columbia and Snake rivers.

Recent publications:
Perry, R.W., M.J. Bradford, and J.A. Grout. 2003. Effects of disturbance on contribution of energy
        sources to growth of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in boreal streams.
        Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 60: 390-400.

Hockersmith, E.E., ,W.D. Muir, S.G. Smith, B.P. Sandford, R.W. Perry, N.S. Adams, and D.W. Rondorf.
       2003. Comparison of migration rate and survival between radio-tagged and PIT-tagged migrant
       yearling chinook salmon in the Snake and Columbia Rivers. North American Journal of Fisheries
       Management. 23: 404-413.

Perry, R.W., N.S. Adams, and D.W. Rondorf. 2001. Buoyancy compensation of juvenile Chinook
        salmon implanted with two different size dummy transmitters. Transactions of the American
        Fisheries Society. 130: 46-52.

FY 2007 Innovative Project                           21
Adams, N.S., D.W. Rondorf, S.D. Evans, J.E. Kelly, R.W. Perry, J.M. Plumb, and D.R. Kenney. 1999.
       Migrational characteristics of radio-tagged juvenile salmonids during operation of a surface
       collection and bypass system in M. Odeh, editor. Innovations in Fish Passage Technology.
       American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Adams, N.S., D.W. Rondorf, S.D. Evans, J.E. Kelley, and R.W. Perry. 1998. Effects of surgically and
       gastrically implanted radio transmitters on swimming performance and predator avoidance of
       juvenile chinook salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:781-787.

Mark G. LaRiviere

Education: M.S. Fisheries Biologist 1981 (Univ. of Washington/Seattle); B.S. Fisheries major 1976
(Univ. of Washington/Seattle).

Professional experience: Involved with Pacific Northwest fisheries since 1973 with 12 years of
experience conducting fisheries research and planning, participating in hydropower environmental
assessments, securing project permitting and implementing license requirements. Currently the lead
fisheries biologist for the largest hydropower project in Tacoma Power’s portfolio. Technical experience
in freshwater and marine fisheries; with particular emphasis in the areas of salmonid culture, upstream
and downstream fish passage, fish habitat evaluation and natural resource management planning.

Experience: Hydropower – Fisheries biologist, responsible for technical and biological analysis of
fisheries and aquatic science aspects of hydroelectric utility operations and impacts. Planned, designed,
evaluated and supervised fisheries research studies. Prepared, edited, and reviewed documents relating to
Project effects on fisheries and aquatic resources to support the Federal Energy Relicensing Commission
Relicensing and license implementation processes. Studies have included upstream and downstream fish
passage, salmonid hatchery operations and impacts, fish habitat quality and quantity, historical fisheries
research and flow fluctuation impacts. Prepared and managed consultant and sub consultant contracts for
fisheries research in support of mitigation and enhancement requirements of hydropower licenses.
Selected Publications:
LaRiviere, M. and C. Garrick. (1996) History of Anadromous Fish Passage at the Cowlitz Hydroelectric
         Project, Cowlitz River, WA. City of Tacoma, Dept. of Public Utilities.

Beauchamp, D.A., M.G. LaRiviere and G.L. Thomas. (1995) Evaluation of Competition and Predation as
       Limits to Juvenile Kokanee and Sockeye Salmon Production in Lake Ozette, WA. North
       American Journal of Fisheries Management. Vol. 15:193-207.

LaRiviere, M. (1986). Southeast Alaska Regional Enhancement Plan. Northern Southeast Regional
       Planning Team, NSRAA and ADFG.

John D. Serl

Education: BS in Fisheries, cum laude 1991 (Univ. of Washington/Seattle); MS in Fisheries 1999 (Univ.
of Washington/Seattle).

Professional experience: (1996 – present). Cowlitz Falls Anadromous Fish Reintroduction project,
Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Randle, WA. Serves as the onsite lead with the responsibility to
supervise, coordinate and conduct fish sampling and research activities at Cowlitz Falls Dam and the

FY 2007 Innovative Project                          22
upper Cowlitz Watershed. Participates in study and program design. Collects and summarizes project
data. Drafts reports and budgets. Research Assistant, Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research
Unit, Univ. of Washington/Seattle. Designed and implemented a study of the effects of urbanization on
stream fish communities within a watershed.

Recent publications:
Serl, J.D. and C. Morrill. 2003. Draft 2003 annual report for the Cowlitz Falls Project. WDFW, BPA
         Contract Number 96B192557.

Serl. J.D. and C. Morrill. 2002. Draft 2002 annual report for the Cowlitz Falls Project. WDFW, BPA
         Contract Number 96B192557.

Serl. J.D. and C. Morrill. 2001. Draft 2001 annual report for the Cowlitz Falls Project. WDFW, BPA
         Contract Number 96B192557.

Serl. J.D. and C. Morrill. 2000. Draft 2000 annual report for the Cowlitz Falls Project. WDFW, BPA
         Contract Number 96B192557.

Serl. J.D. and C. Morrill. 2000. Draft 1999 annual report for the Cowlitz Falls Project. WDFW, BPA
         Contract Number 96B192557.

Serl. J.D. and C. Morrill. 1999. Draft 1997/98 annual report for the Cowlitz Falls Project. WDFW, BPA
         Contract Number 96B192557.

FY 2007 Innovative Project                        23

Shared By:
Description: Review of Projects Employing Conventional Fish Screens document sample