FY 2000 proposal 20053
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Anadromous Salmonid Transit System |
| Proposal ID | 20053 |
| Organization | Morrison-Knudsen Corp |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Gary West |
| Mailing address | One Morrison-Knudsen Plaza, P.O. Box 73 Boise, ID 83729 |
| Phone / email | 2083865695 / gary_west@mk.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Snake Lower |
| Short description | MK and co-investigators are proposing a conceptual plan to bypass emigrating salmonids around Snake River dams which includes EPC of the bypass system of conduits and channels, tests on fingerlings/smolt response, and suggested routes for the system. |
| Target species | Chinook and sockeye salmon, and steelhead trout. Testing will be performed using anadromous smolts provided by the Idaho Fish & Game Department |
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 |
5946 man-hours @ $36. per hour |
$213,400 |
| Fringe |
35% of Personnel Cost |
$74,690 |
| Supplies |
Working Model @ Hagerman |
$134,633 |
| Operating |
included above |
$0 |
| Construction |
included above |
$0 |
| PIT tags |
1000 |
$1,000 |
| Travel |
5% of Personnel Cost |
$10,000 |
| Indirect |
65% of Personnel Cost |
$138,710 |
| Other |
CADD & ODC |
$38,177 |
| Subcontractor |
Biological Consultants |
$87,913 |
| $698,523 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $698,523 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $698,523 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Idaho Fish & Game |
Hagerman Facility & Service |
$27,500 |
unknown |
| Fish Passage, Inc |
Consulting Service |
$20,000 |
unknown |
| Dr. Brannon |
Consulting Service |
$30,000 |
unknown |
| Jon Mason |
Consulting Service |
$15,000 |
unknown |
| MK Company |
Engr & Mgmt Service |
$50,000 |
unknown |
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:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund.
Comments:
The proposed project to develop the "conceptual design" for a smolt bypass system for the Lower Snake River, which would consist of an artificial, parallel channel system to bypass the four Lower Snake River dams. This would be an alternative to breaching of the Lower Snake Dams, or drawdown to river level. The proposal would include development of a "model conduit and engineered stream model", at the Hagerman hatchery site, to test physical and biological performance of an artificial stream system. This proposal was met with a diversity of views from the panel. The majority opinion was that the proposal was hastily developed, and lacked sufficient motivation other than that dam breaching is not a viable option to solving fish passage problems. The biological testing, in particular, is minimally specified. The majority of the panel was particularly critical of the absence of a testable hypothesis. Several of the principals appear to have no expertise relevant to the project. Inclusion of a task is to "review the existing literature" did not give the panel confidence in the capabilities of the project team; reviewers expect familiarity with the literature at the proposal stage. A minority view on the panel was that the project represents an alternative approach, which, notwithstanding that it may not come to fruition, deserves careful consideration. Even among the minority, however, there was concern as to why it is proposed to conduct all of the work in FY 2000. No doubt, the conceptual design, and accompanying background work, can and probably should be done in short order, however it is not at all clear whether one year will be enough time to construct and test the artificial stream system.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Considered and dropped 2 years ago. The concept is filled with complex detail challenges, all remedies would have to be perfectly aligned (weakest link probably applies). The only way to test for sure is to expend billions of dollars.
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Criteria all: Met? No - Not recommended. This is a poor idea which was dropped by NMFS two years ago. The concept is filled with complex detail challenges, all remedies would have to be perfectly aligned (weakest line probably applies). The only way to test for sure is to expend billions of dollars to construct.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];