Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Demonstrate that a Translucent Pipeline Feels Normal to Fish |
| Proposal ID | 9052 |
| Organization | Fish Passage, Inc. (FPI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | John Richard Woodworth |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 242 Bruneau, ID 83604 |
| Phone / email | 2083421623 / |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Upper Snake / Mid Snake |
| Short description | Test the biological response of fish to transportation in a translucent pipeline system, and collect design data for pipeline sizing, pump sizing, pipeline positioning below the water surface, and nutrient introduction. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$1,025,860 |
| Fringe |
|
$359,050 |
| Supplies |
|
$340,000 |
| Operating |
|
$250,000 |
| Capital |
|
$4,880,000 |
| Travel |
|
$153,880 |
| Indirect |
|
$615,510 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$320,000 |
| $7,944,300 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $7,944,300 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $7,944,300 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Funding is primary constraint.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Not fundable
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Presentation: The sponsor did not give a presentation.Questions/Comments:
Why is this a resident fish project? It appears to be more appropriate for anadromous fish.
Project does not address a Council Measure.
$8 million is a lot to test “what feels normal.” Normal hasn't been characterized.
Is this a company? Could they "sell" it if it worked?
Even if successful, what is application to resident fish?
Screening Criteria: No. Project does not meet the screening criteria.
Technical Criteria: No. Project fails to meet nearly all of the technical criteria.
Programmatic Criteria: No.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
See CBFWA Committee Comments
Recommendation:
Inadequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is poorly written. The idea presented is not scientifically well justified. The work has no clear programmatic value.