FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200308800

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
35034 Narrative	Narrative
35034 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
35034 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Letter from Natural Solutions RE: Budget revisions for project proposal 35034	Correspondence

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Fish Behavioral Guidance Through Water Velocity Modification PHASE ONE
Proposal ID	200308800
Organization	Natural Solutions in Cooperative Agreement with BioSonics Inc. (NS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Jean Johnson
Mailing address	890 Sierra Rd. East P.O. Box 1236 Helena, Montana 59624
Phone / email	4064586363 / online@initco.net
Manager authorizing this project	Gordon Burns
Review cycle	Mainstem/Systemwide
Province / Subbasin	Mainstem/Systemwide /
Short description	Field evaluation of a prototype mechanism for guiding juvenile and adult fish through a hydro facility. Test insitu the ability of induced turbulent flow and water velocity to simulate natural migratory ques for guiding fish to safe passage routes.
Target species	All migrating speces

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
82 & 83
NMFS RA1193
NMFS RA 994

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2002	Preliminary physical testing of three sizes in eductors in quiesnt waters.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
198200800	SMOLT PASSAGE BEHAVIOR AND FLOW RELATIONSHIPS	Data generated by 8200800 Provides compartive information of flow-net and fish response
198353600	WATER BUDGET MANAGEMENT	Successful implemetion of the proposed project could have long term implecations on water budget management
198201700	RADIO TRACKING OF CHINOOK - BONNEVILLE TO MCNAR	Radio tracking information will assist in placement of eductor arrays described in this proposal for biological testing
198740100	TRAVEL TIME AND SURVIVAL SMOLT PHYSIOLOGY	Data generated by 8740100 provides insight to assist in designing and interpreting the bio response components of the proposed project
198813400	MCNARY DAM JUVENILE FISH COLLECTION EFFICIENCY	Data generated in 8813400 provides baseline information on fish guidance and collection
198332300	MONITOR SMOLTS - LOWER GRANITE DAM & RESERVOI	Data generated by 8332300 provides insight to assist in designing and interpreting the bio response components of the proposed project
199602000	PIT TAGGING HATCHERY SPRING/SUMMER CHINOOK - WDFW	Data generated by 9602000 provides insight to assist in designing and interpreting the bio response components of the proposed project

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Project Organization	a. Locate and acquire equipment labor only	.02	$3,500
2. Preliminary Engineering and Biological consulting	a. Preliminary Consultations and Recommendations	.02	$4,000	Yes
3. Summarize existing data	a. Literature search on fish velocity and turbulent preferences.	.01	$3,500
4. Permitting and EA prep.	a. Acquire local permits and NEPA	.02	$6,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost
1. Acquire equipment	a. equipment purchases	.01	$95,890
	b. equipment rentals	.02	$6,500
2. Acquire data	a. Field work (TASK A in narrative)	0.2	$49,896
3. Data analysis, review, and sharing	a. data management (TASK B in narrative)	0.3	$34,484
4. System modification for secondary tests	a. redesign, purchase additional equip, and retest (TASK B in narrative)	0.2	$81,250

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Collect baseline bio-test site data (TASK C in narrative)	2004	2004	$7,515
2. Deploy hydro-acoutics and monitor bio reponse (Task D in Narrative)	2004	2004	$100,002
3. System operationa and Map flow fields during bio testing (Task D in Narrative)	2004	2004	$123,702
4. Summarize Bio logical response field data (Task E in Narrative)	2004	2004	$12,500
	2004	2004	$0
5 . Repeat and expand Bio testing(Task F & G in Narrative)	2005	2005	$494,296

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2004	FY 2005
$254,280	$565,296

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel		$76,250
Fringe		$16,380
Travel		$2,000
Indirect		$10,250
Capital		$154,140
NEPA		$6,000
Subcontractor		$20,000
		$285,020

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$285,020
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$285,020
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
NS	Eductors, mis. materials, truck use, labor, etc. 5% overhead	$48,300	in-kind
Bio Sonics	Labor	$34,500	cash

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-13)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Aug 2, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. This proposal has been improved from the innovative submission with additional input from biologists. It is still true that the proposal gives a tantalizing view of what might be accomplished, but it does not go far enough to allow evaluation of the chances for success. The proposal is too preliminary to be competitive. There are still issues that need to be addressed from the innovative review.

The potential value of this concept might be in the creation or enhancement of attraction flows at surface collectors or other bypass systems currently under development at dams in the Columbia Basin. Biological information already available ought to make it possible to develop criteria for deciding whether development and application of a large bore eductor would have the desired effects on guiding juvenile salmon. For example, tests of surface collectors at Rocky Reach Dam as well as Lower Granite and Bonneville dams probably have developed information on volume and velocity of water required (or that are inadequate) to attract juvenile salmon away from the turbine intakes and direct their movements elsewhere. A contact person would be Chuck Peven at Chelan County P.U. D. in Wenatchee, WA.

In this context, the lack of information on how eductor-based passage devices would fit into the forebay of a Columbia River low head dam may be indicative of a shortage of hydraulic physics and engineering content in the proposal. Figures are sorely needed to show the layout and positioning of project components (eductors, etc) for both a theoretical (or actual) fullscale forebay and for the prototype testing. The issue of scale needs to be addressed: what might be the size and cost of pumps and eductors needed to produce enough hydraulic change to be meaningful to fish.

Specific questions and comments needing attention are given below.

Is fish behavior going to be positive or negative to this attraction? In this connection, it must be said that the proposed use of cutthroat trout for tests of efficacy of the device or concept is not appropriate for a test of potential application to problems with juvenile fish passage in the mainstem Columbia and Snake rivers, which is where we perceive that its utility might lie. What is needed is a test with juvenile salmon that are ready to migrate downstream. Perhaps a test site could be found at a so-called acclimation pond somewhere in the Columbia Basin.

There should be discussion of the plan for the intake end of the water line for the Venturi supply. There would be a need to locate it outside of the area where fish might be affected by it.

Engineering questions raised during the Innovative Review process need to be addressed.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Recommended Action

Date:
Oct 24, 2002

Comment:

This project would more appropriately be reviewed and funded through the Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program at the Corps of Engineers.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-14)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

Fundable. Agree with CBFWA's "Recommended Action," but this project could have application beyond the dams that would be relevant to the Fish and Wildlife Program such as at acclimation ponds to stimulate migration. The response is thorough and shows a serious effort on the part of the sponsor to take advantage of comments received. The effort should be encouraged. This proposal has been improved from the innovative submission with additional input from biologists. The proposal gives a tantalizing view of what might be accomplished.

What is needed is a test with juvenile salmon that are ready to migrate downstream. Perhaps a test site could be found at Cowlitz Falls or at an acclimation pond somewhere in the Columbia Basin. As for demonstrating a full-scale application, reviewers agree with the proponent that this would be premature until the data the sponsor proposes to get are obtained and evaluated.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jan 21, 2003

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
If effective, this measure would increase inriver passage survival of juvenile fish by increasing the bypass entry rate upstream of large mainstem dams and, in turn, avoiding more harmful routes.

Comments
This proposal is redundant. While this is an idea in need of further assessment in the context of salmon passage, the USGS-BRD is already engaged in their fourth year of studying induced turbulent flow potential relative to fish guidance (with funding through annual Columbia River Fisheries Mitigation appropriations). At first glance, this proposal would implement RPA action 86. But that RPA Action is to be specifically implemented by the Corps, not through the Direct Program.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund (Tier 3)

Date:
Jun 11, 2003

Comment:

Category:
3. Other projects not recommended by staff

Comments: