Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Feasibility Study of Transporting Salmonids Through a Translucent Fish Passage System |
| Proposal ID | 32014 |
| Organization | Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (SPT - DVIR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Guy Dodson Sr. |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 219 Owyhee, NV 89832 |
| Phone / email | 2087593246 / dvirfg98@aol.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Guy Dodson Sr |
| Review cycle | Middle Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Middle Snake / Owyhee |
| Short description | Test the biological response of fingerlings/smolt to transportation in a translucent fish passage system |
| Target species | Chinook and sockeye salmon and steelhead trout. Testing will be performed using anadromous smolts provided by the Idaho Fish & Game Department. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.235 |
-116.7 |
Hells Canyon Complex |
| 43.6352 |
-117.2348 |
Owyhee Dam |
| 42.7572 |
-114.8562 |
Hagerman Fish Hatchery |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
N/A |
|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Bio Assessment |
a. Physiological Concerns |
3 mos |
$15,000 |
Yes |
|
b. Bio Engineering |
3 mos |
$15,000 |
Yes |
| 2. Bio Acoustic Studies |
a. Avoidance System Study |
1 mo |
$7,350 |
Yes |
|
b. Collection System Study |
1 mo |
$7,350 |
Yes |
|
c. Separation Study |
1 mo |
$7,350 |
Yes |
| 3. Project Design of 2-mile Loop |
a. Mechanical Design |
Tasks a-h 3 mos |
$50,000 |
Yes |
|
b. Hydraulic Design |
|
$0 |
Yes |
|
c. Structural Design |
|
$0 |
Yes |
|
d. Anchoring System Design |
|
$0 |
Yes |
|
e. Facility Plan Design |
|
$0 |
Yes |
|
f. Measure Instruments and Controls |
|
$0 |
Yes |
|
g. Power and Lighting Design |
|
$0 |
Yes |
|
h. Permits, Agency Review |
|
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Gather current research information on fish passage system |
2003 |
2003 |
$30,000 |
| 2. Gather research and practical information on collection systems for concentrating and gathering fish |
2003 |
2003 |
$22,050 |
| 3. Design a prototype section of pipeline in a 2-mile loop to be placed under the surface of an operating reservoir. |
2003 |
2003 |
$50,000 |
|
2003 |
2003 |
$50,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Prototype Assembly |
a. Station and Support Facilities |
2004 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
b. Acoustic Collection System |
2004 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
c. Flume System |
2004 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
d. Pipeline and Anchor Systems |
2004 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
e. Mechanical and Electrical System |
2004 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
f. Collection and Screening System |
2004 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
g. System Test and Startup |
2004 |
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Build and install prototype loop under surface of an operating reservoir. |
2004 |
2004 |
$225,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Maintain Equipment |
a. All equipment will be maintained in good working condition. |
2005-2006 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 2. Demobilize Test Loop |
a. Disassemble and salvage. |
2006 |
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. It will be necessary to continually check that all equipment is in good working order. |
2005 |
2006 |
$100,000 |
| 2. The test loop will be demobilized after feasibility is determined. It is likely that the major portion of the test loop and its amenities will be recovered with little impact to the environment. |
2006 |
2006 |
$50,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|
| $50,000 | $100,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Monitor and Reporting |
a. Data Collection |
2005-2006 |
$0 |
Yes |
|
b. Report Preparation and Presentation |
2006 |
$0 |
Yes |
| 2. Provide information to all fisheries management entities in the Columbia River Basin, the public, education entities, and the internet. |
a. Distribution of All Results from Testing |
2006-2007 |
$0 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| 1. Perform tests to demonstrate feasibility of loop. Data collected will be on the effects of nutrient level, possible waste product buildup, pH, dissolved oxygen level, residence time, stress vs. time and/or distance traveled. Prepare reports. |
2005 |
2007 |
$500,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
|---|
| $125,000 | $125,000 | $250,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Subcontractor |
Biologist |
$52,050 |
| Subcontractor |
Engineer |
$50,000 |
| $102,050 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $102,050 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $102,050 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
N/A
Reason for change in scope
N/A
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| SMOLT Incorporated |
Matching funds for FY2003 |
$102,050 |
cash |
Other budget explanation
SMOLT Incorporated is planning to provide matching funds each year. A portion of private contributions to SMOLT will be used to reimburse management for all expenses incurred.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable. ISRP FY00 comments described the idea presented as not scientifically well justified, and that position is unchanged in the current review. The proposal does not provide a reasonable plan to test this concept. Convincing evidence was not presented that this approach provides a feasible alternative to in-river fish passage.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable. ISRP FY00 comments described the idea presented as not scientifically well justified, and that position is unchanged in the current review. The proposal does not provide a reasonable plan to test this concept. Convincing evidence was not presented that this approach provides a feasible alternative to in-river fish passage.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: