FY 2000 proposal 20050
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Remove Excess Heat from Streams and Store it for Future Application |
| Proposal ID | 20050 |
| Organization | Parker’s Inc (a close held general corp) dba BETTERFISH |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Robert L. Parker |
| Mailing address | 825 NW Fenton St. McMinnville, OR 97128 |
| Phone / email | 5034346600 / rparker@onlinemac.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Build and field test a portable heat pump that could remove excess heat from streams. Determine through field tests if it is economically feasible to store and utilize that recycled heat for aquaculture and other purposes. |
| Target species | salmon, steehead, trout |
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$0 |
| Fringe |
|
$0 |
| Supplies |
accessories & thermometer |
$6,660 |
| Capital |
heat pump,generator, trailer |
$19,600 |
| Other |
printing final reports |
$600 |
| Subcontractor |
local cat & backhoe driver or BPA provided in lieu of expenditure |
$2,300 |
| $29,160 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $29,160 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $29,160 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: No schedule constraints foreseen
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund, technically and programmatically inadequate.
Comments:
Proposal is to develop and demonstrate utility of using a portable heat pump to cool stream rearing habitat during peak (July-October) periods of fish stress. It is hypothesized that heat removed during summer months can be stored in ponds or underground and then, with the same system, removed for later use or applied to rural aquaculture or other heat-demanding enterprises. The proposal is (1) inadequately presented, (2) of questionable feasibility and sustainability, and (3) is representative of solutions that address symptoms, not root mechanisms, and thus cannot contribute to long-term recovery of salmon populations in the Basin.
Any problem for the FWP addressed by proposal is poorly defined. There's no attempt to put the proposed work into the context of other parts of the FWP. There is no indication of the spatial distribution of problem streams - how much thermal energy would have to be removed to achieve a desirable effect. While high summer stream temperatures are a readily identifiable problem, there is no attempt in the proposal to identify the scale and magnitude of the problem, or whether it is feasible to address mechanically. Other shortcomings of the proposal are that no collaboration is identified, Objectives are described as steps in evaluating feasibility, i.e. no real objective is identified. No expected or alternatives outcomes are described. Methods aren't given in detail, No explicit monitoring or evaluation plan is presented .
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
A technical fix to an ecological problem does not seem appropriate. See Watershed TWG comments.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Scientific techniques are questionable.This does not appear to be a long-term solution. It proposes an engineering solution rather than addressing the underlying causes of the problem.
Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];