FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28054

Additional documents

TitleType
28054 Narrative Narrative
28054 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response
28054 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEvaluation of Pisces Fish Protective Guidance and Monitoring System
Proposal ID28054
OrganizationBalaton Power, Inc. (BPI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRodney E. Smith, President/Ceo
Mailing address1197 Main Street Boise, ID 83702-5630
Phone / email2083880720 / rsmith@balatonpower.com
Manager authorizing this projectRodney E. Smith, BPI
Review cycleMountain Snake
Province / SubbasinMountain Snake / Salmon
Short descriptionGuide fish and monitor water conditions and fish passage
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.56 -115.36 Mountain Snake Province
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Hydro RPA Action 107
Hydro RPA Action 118
Hydro RPA Action 141
Habitat RPA Action 149
Habitat RPA Action 151
Habitat RPA Action 155
RM&E RPA Action 182
RM&E RPA Action 184

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
NMFS 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
2000 Model testing of the Pisces system to confirm hydraulic design of system

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2002 costSubcontractor
1. Planning and Design of the Pisces a. Plan and Design of the specifications on the Pisces units with monitoring equipment and anchoring devices, taking into consideration river flows, turbulence and fish species. one $265,000
2. Establish baseline level a. An initial assessment of passage rate of introduced (released) fish. one $15,000 Yes
2. b. Assess passage rates and mortality of riverine species (non-released species). one $15,000 Yes
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. Construct Pisces Units and locate to project location. a. Construct Pisces units with monitoring equipment and anchoring devices, taking into consideration river flows, turbulence and fish species. one $650,000
1. b. Locate Pisces units to the test site one $40,000
2. Determine effectiveness of the Pisces float mounted intake technology in reducing fish passage through the turbine and generally improving fish survival. a. An assessment of passage rate and mortality of “introduced” salmonids (released fish). one $15,000 Yes
2. b. An assessment of passage rates and mortality for riverine species (non-released fish). one $15,000 Yes
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
1. Data Analysis a. Comparisons of Fish Passage and Mortality Assessments one $15,000 Yes
1. b. A detailed report of this study will be completed and available for peer review. one $30,000 Yes
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 $290,000
Fringe $45,000
Supplies $110,000
Travel $30,000
Indirect $95,000
Capital $385,000
Subcontractor $105,000
$1,060,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost$1,060,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2002 budget request$1,060,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. Reviewers were unclear as to why the proposal was part of the Salmon ecological province. Proposed testing of the device would occur in a tributary of the middle Snake River. It appears that it would be better served in a systemwide or innovative review. If NMFS is positive on this technology, as mentioned in the presentation, why is the project not a collaborative effort with NMFS?

Both proposal and presentation focused nearly exclusively on the technology rather than the application. It is apparently intended for small hydro projects? If there is potential utility or connection to Columbia basin hydro operations that should be clarified.


Recommendation:
Defer to Upper Snake Province
Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Not part of this province - referred to Upper Snake Province. Project sponsor should resubmit proposal in the Upper Snake Province solicitation.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. Although proposed testing of the device would occur in a tributary of the middle Snake River (thus the basis for the CBFWA suggestion to defer to Upper Snake Province), it appears that it would be better served in a systemwide or innovative review. This proposal needs to identify guidance problems that can be overcome by using this equipment. A convincing argument needs to be made that this equipment has benefits that are not available with other technology. Both proposal and presentation focused nearly exclusively on the technology rather than the application.
Recommendation:
Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Investigate specific problem (passage) directly related to fish survival. May possibly improve survival of outmigrating smolts. Intent is to improve fish passage at hydropower systems using "Pisces," a float mounted water intake system.

Comments
Unclear of appropriateness of funding for R&D of project. Hydro group believes it is unlikely that this structure will do anything for fish passage.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes


Recommendation:
C
Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. The project could be reconsidered when a regional RM&E plan is completed and the need for the project can be properly assessed.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
149


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: