FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 33013
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 33013 Narrative | Narrative |
| Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Passage Technologies | Narrative Attachment |
| Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities | Narrative Attachment |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluation of Pisces Fish Protective Water Intake System |
| Proposal ID | 33013 |
| Organization | Balaton Power, Inc. (BPI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Rodney E. Smith, President/Ceo |
| Mailing address | 1197 Main Street Boise, ID 83702-5630 |
| Phone / email | 2083880720 / rsmith@balatonpower.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Rodney E. Smith, BPI |
| Review cycle | Upper Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Upper Snake |
| Short description | Complete development and testing of the Pisces Unit in a controlled location to evaluate fish reaction and fish passage efficiency. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 42.88 | -114.82 | Located at the Ravenscroft Hydropower Site, Malad (Big Wood) River, in Sections 28 & 29, T 6 S, R 14 E, 1 mile downriver from USGS Gauging Station # 13152500, near the towns of Tuttle and Bliss, Idaho |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Hydro RPA Action 118 |
| Habitat RPA Action 149 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Model testing of the Pisces system to confirm hydraulic design of the system. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Conceptual Review of Pisces Unit | a. Identify key agency and private representatives for review | one | $4,000 | Yes |
| b. Complete literature review of supporting information of Pisces Unit | one | $4,000 | Yes | |
| c. Review initial hydraulic testing | one | $2,000 | ||
| d. Review proposed study plan and identify acceptable third party consultants to execute study plan | one | $6,000 | ||
| 2. Develop prototype Pisces unit for testing | a. Identify design criteria and necessary monitoring equipment appropriate to study site and study plan goals | one | $35,000 | Yes |
| b. Fabrication and construction of prototype unit | one | $151,000 | ||
| c. Expert Panel inspection of prototype Pisces Unit | one | $4,000 | ||
| d. Complete NEPA analysis | one | $4,000 | Yes | |
| 3. Complete prototype field testing | a. Finalize Study Plan | one | $8,000 | |
| b. Run controlled field experiments | one | $30,000 | ||
| c. Invite Expert Panel members and other agency staff to observe experiments | one | $5,000 | ||
| d. Complete and submit Draft Report for review and comment | one | $6,500 | ||
| 4. Expert Panel review of testing results | a. Convene Expert Panel to discuss findings and need for modifications or future testing | one | $11,000 | |
| b. Compile and respond to comments on findings | one | $1,500 | ||
| c. Develop recommendations for future tests or implementation of the Unit | one | $1,500 |
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 | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
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 |
|---|
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 | $57,000 | |
| Supplies | $4,500 | |
| Travel | $10,000 | |
| Indirect | $5,000 | |
| Capital | $151,000 | |
| NEPA | $4,000 | |
| Subcontractor | Karen Kuzis and others yet to be identified as Expert Panel | $42,000 |
| $273,500 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $273,500 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $273,500 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. Project proponents need to identify guidance problems that can be overcome by using this equipment. A convincing argument needs to be made that this equipment has benefits to fish that are not available with other technology. Both this proposal and a prior presentation (in the Mountain Snake Province) focused nearly exclusively on the technology rather than the application. What sort of use is visualized?Comment:
There appears to be a lack of coordination with IDFG and the reviewers question the lack of cost share. In addition, the reviewers question whether it is appropriate for BPA funds to be used in the development of a product that the reviewers perceive will then be sold for profit. The proposal should be submitted for consideration in the Mainstem/Systemwide Province the "Innovative" process.Comment:
Not Fundable. A response was requested but not provided.Comment: