FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34023

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLaboratory, Prototype, and Field Evaluation of Undershot Horizontal Fish Screen in the Hood River Basin
Proposal ID34023
OrganizationConfederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and Farmers Irrigation District (CTWSRO/FID)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMick Jennings, Confederated Tribes Of Warm Springs
Mailing address3430 West 10th Street The Dalles, OR 97058
Phone / email5412966866 / mickjennings@netcnct.net
Manager authorizing this projectMick Jennings (CTWSRO) and Jerry Bryan (FID)
Review cycleFY 2002 Innovative
Province / SubbasinColumbia Gorge / Hood
Short descriptionTest hydraulics and biological safety (injury and mortality) of undershot horizontal flat plate screen for application at Eliot Creek, a tributary to Middle Fork Hood River.
Target speciesBull trout and summer and winter steelhead are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act as part of the Lower Columbia ESU and are present in the project area. These species will benefit from this project.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.6847 -122.4597 Model Studies
45.6797 -122.453 Prototype Studies
45.45 -122.35 Proof of Concept
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS Action 153 NMFS BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.
BPA Action 149 NMFS BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Model Studies a. Micro-Scale Model <1 $4,434
1 b. Computational Fluid Dynamics <1 $20,850 Yes
1 c. Technical Memo/Report 1 $14,400 Yes
2. Prototype Studies a. Computational Fluid Dynamics <1 $3,800 Yes
2 b. Project Engineering and Design <1 $2,320
2 c. Site Retrofit 1.5 $8,420
2 d. Calibrate 1 $1,320
2 e. Monitoring & Evaluation 2 $25,440 Yes
2 f. Technical Memo/Report 1 $14,400 Yes
3. Agency Review and Recommendation a. Periodic Review <1 $8,160 Yes
3 b. Workshop <1 $5,920 Yes
3 c. Recommendations for Pilot Program or other Alternatives <1 $5,920 Yes
4. Proof of Concept - Eliot Creek Diversion a. Site Description (in-kind) <1 $0
b. Site Topographic Survey 1 $8,960 Yes
c. Site Hydrology/Hydraulics 1 $9,600 Yes
d. Geofluvial Morphology 1 $28,160 Yes
e. Preliminary Engineering Design and Recommendations 1 $19,600 Yes
f. Computational Fluid Dynamics <1 $5,300 Yes
g. Post-Construction Monitoring and Evaluation to be arranged $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2002 cost
Personnel FTE: 508 hours $16,204
Supplies $8,210
NEPA $0
Subcontractor Craven Consulting Group $46,800
Other Anderson-Perry & Associates, Inc. $56,320
Subcontractor Inter-Fluve $32,960
Subcontractor WyEast Surveys $8,960
Other Software $17,050 and Equipment Rental $500 $17,550
$187,004
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$187,004
Total FY 2002 budget request$187,004
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
MFID Proof of Concept $50,000 cash
FID CFD Workstation, parallel processor $4,000 in-kind
FID Lab with existing structure, pumps, tools, video camera, and die test equipment $7,000 in-kind
FID Prototype facility, tools, and equipment to retrofit the undershot screen to an existing horizontal screen site $16,900 in-kind
ODFW Biological performance tests for monitoring and evaluation $4,480 in-kind
CTWSRO Biological performance tests for monitoring and evaluation $1,920 in-kind
FID Biological performance tests for monitoring and evaluation $5,630 in-kind
FID Hydraulic tests for monitoring and evaluation $4,065 in-kind
ODFW Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations $960 in-kind
CTWSRO Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations $960 in-kind
USFWS Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations $960 in-kind
NMFS Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations $960 in-kind
BPA Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations $960 in-kind
USFS Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations $960 in-kind
FID Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations $960 in-kind
MFID Site Review (Agency Review) $1,600 in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund - Rank 13
Date:
May 24, 2002

Comment:

This thirteenth ranked proposal is well prepared, collaborative, and marginally innovative. It is designed to test the efficacy of an undershot screen design to pass fish, sediment, and debris as compared to an overshot screen. The study design includes model, bench-scale and pilot scale testing of a new screening approach on the Hood River. Project structure and background presented in the proposal inspire confidence that the project will be able to reach its objectives.

Information gathered will be used to complete a "Proof of Concept" document. Apparently this document is needed to get approval to install a pilot application of a modified (undershot versus overshot) diversion screen in the Eliot Creek diversion. An overshot screen is currently under construction on Hood River, Oregon, but project sponsors state that overshot applications are not likely to perform as desired in waters with a heavy sediment-load. The proposition here is that a screen modified to be "undershot" has potential for overcoming this deficiency. Good cost share is described: "Construction funds are not sought in this application because they are already secured by MFID, and monitoring and evaluation of the Eliot Creek undershot screen is planned by MFID ..."

Although new to the Columbia River, similar technology has been used elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest, on the Salmon River diversion on Vancouver Island, Canada (contact Craig Wightman, Sr. Biologist, Provincial BC, Nanaimo). A site visit with design engineers is recommended for the project sponsors. The proposal should have included a concept diagram.


Recommendation:
High Priority
Date:
Jun 28, 2002

Comment:

This project needs to coordinate closely with NMFS in developing this technology.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Potentially reduces fish passage mortality by testing the concept of using an undershot screen, which would be used in areas with heavy sediment, to pas fish, sediment, and debris. The study design includes model, bench-scale and pilot scale testing of an undershot screen at a specific location of the Hood River.

Comments
As noted in the ISRP's comments, this proposal is well-prepared, collaborative, and marginally innovative. If the undershot screen proves successful, it would be another tool to use in high bed load environments.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
Yes


Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Potentially reduces fish passage mortality by testing the concept of using an undershot screen, which would be used in areas with heavy sediment, to pass fish, sediment, and debris. The study design includes model, bench-scale and pilot scale testing of an undershot screen at a specific location of the Hood River.

Comments
As noted in the ISRP's comments, this proposal is well prepared, collaborative, and marginally innovative. If the undershot screen proves successful, it would be another tool to use in high bed load environments.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
A
Date:
Aug 2, 2002

Comment:

Recommend. Good proposal that appears to have a high likelihood of success.