FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34023
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
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Laboratory, Prototype, and Field Evaluation of Undershot Horizontal Fish Screen in the Hood River Basin |
Proposal ID | 34023 |
Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and Farmers Irrigation District (CTWSRO/FID) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Mick Jennings, Confederated Tribes Of Warm Springs |
Mailing address | 3430 West 10th Street The Dalles, OR 97058 |
Phone / email | 5412966866 / mickjennings@netcnct.net |
Manager authorizing this project | Mick Jennings (CTWSRO) and Jerry Bryan (FID) |
Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Hood |
Short description | Test hydraulics and biological safety (injury and mortality) of undershot horizontal flat plate screen for application at Eliot Creek, a tributary to Middle Fork Hood River. |
Target species | Bull trout and summer and winter steelhead are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act as part of the Lower Columbia ESU and are present in the project area. These species will benefit from this project. |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
45.6847 | -122.4597 | Model Studies |
45.6797 | -122.453 | Prototype Studies |
45.45 | -122.35 | Proof of Concept |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
BPA | Action 149 | NMFS | BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|
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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Model Studies | a. Micro-Scale Model | <1 | $4,434 | |
1 | b. Computational Fluid Dynamics | <1 | $20,850 | Yes |
1 | c. Technical Memo/Report | 1 | $14,400 | Yes |
2. Prototype Studies | a. Computational Fluid Dynamics | <1 | $3,800 | Yes |
2 | b. Project Engineering and Design | <1 | $2,320 | |
2 | c. Site Retrofit | 1.5 | $8,420 | |
2 | d. Calibrate | 1 | $1,320 | |
2 | e. Monitoring & Evaluation | 2 | $25,440 | Yes |
2 | f. Technical Memo/Report | 1 | $14,400 | Yes |
3. Agency Review and Recommendation | a. Periodic Review | <1 | $8,160 | Yes |
3 | b. Workshop | <1 | $5,920 | Yes |
3 | c. Recommendations for Pilot Program or other Alternatives | <1 | $5,920 | Yes |
4. Proof of Concept - Eliot Creek Diversion | a. Site Description (in-kind) | <1 | $0 | |
b. Site Topographic Survey | 1 | $8,960 | Yes | |
c. Site Hydrology/Hydraulics | 1 | $9,600 | Yes | |
d. Geofluvial Morphology | 1 | $28,160 | Yes | |
e. Preliminary Engineering Design and Recommendations | 1 | $19,600 | Yes | |
f. Computational Fluid Dynamics | <1 | $5,300 | Yes | |
g. Post-Construction Monitoring and Evaluation | to be arranged | $0 |
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 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | FTE: 508 hours | $16,204 |
Supplies | $8,210 | |
NEPA | $0 | |
Subcontractor | Craven Consulting Group | $46,800 |
Other | Anderson-Perry & Associates, Inc. | $56,320 |
Subcontractor | Inter-Fluve | $32,960 |
Subcontractor | WyEast Surveys | $8,960 |
Other | Software $17,050 and Equipment Rental $500 | $17,550 |
$187,004 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2002 cost | $187,004 |
Total FY 2002 budget request | $187,004 |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
MFID | Proof of Concept | $50,000 | cash |
FID | CFD Workstation, parallel processor | $4,000 | in-kind |
FID | Lab with existing structure, pumps, tools, video camera, and die test equipment | $7,000 | in-kind |
FID | Prototype facility, tools, and equipment to retrofit the undershot screen to an existing horizontal screen site | $16,900 | in-kind |
ODFW | Biological performance tests for monitoring and evaluation | $4,480 | in-kind |
CTWSRO | Biological performance tests for monitoring and evaluation | $1,920 | in-kind |
FID | Biological performance tests for monitoring and evaluation | $5,630 | in-kind |
FID | Hydraulic tests for monitoring and evaluation | $4,065 | in-kind |
ODFW | Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations | $960 | in-kind |
CTWSRO | Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations | $960 | in-kind |
USFWS | Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations | $960 | in-kind |
NMFS | Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations | $960 | in-kind |
BPA | Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations | $960 | in-kind |
USFS | Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations | $960 | in-kind |
FID | Agency periodic review, workshop, and recommendations | $960 | in-kind |
MFID | Site Review (Agency Review) | $1,600 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This thirteenth ranked proposal is well prepared, collaborative, and marginally innovative. It is designed to test the efficacy of an undershot screen design to pass fish, sediment, and debris as compared to an overshot screen. The study design includes model, bench-scale and pilot scale testing of a new screening approach on the Hood River. Project structure and background presented in the proposal inspire confidence that the project will be able to reach its objectives.Information gathered will be used to complete a "Proof of Concept" document. Apparently this document is needed to get approval to install a pilot application of a modified (undershot versus overshot) diversion screen in the Eliot Creek diversion. An overshot screen is currently under construction on Hood River, Oregon, but project sponsors state that overshot applications are not likely to perform as desired in waters with a heavy sediment-load. The proposition here is that a screen modified to be "undershot" has potential for overcoming this deficiency. Good cost share is described: "Construction funds are not sought in this application because they are already secured by MFID, and monitoring and evaluation of the Eliot Creek undershot screen is planned by MFID ..."
Although new to the Columbia River, similar technology has been used elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest, on the Salmon River diversion on Vancouver Island, Canada (contact Craig Wightman, Sr. Biologist, Provincial BC, Nanaimo). A site visit with design engineers is recommended for the project sponsors. The proposal should have included a concept diagram.
Comment:
This project needs to coordinate closely with NMFS in developing this technology.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitPotentially reduces fish passage mortality by testing the concept of using an undershot screen, which would be used in areas with heavy sediment, to pas fish, sediment, and debris. The study design includes model, bench-scale and pilot scale testing of an undershot screen at a specific location of the Hood River.
Comments
As noted in the ISRP's comments, this proposal is well-prepared, collaborative, and marginally innovative. If the undershot screen proves successful, it would be another tool to use in high bed load environments.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUPotentially reduces fish passage mortality by testing the concept of using an undershot screen, which would be used in areas with heavy sediment, to pass fish, sediment, and debris. The study design includes model, bench-scale and pilot scale testing of an undershot screen at a specific location of the Hood River.
Comments
As noted in the ISRP's comments, this proposal is well prepared, collaborative, and marginally innovative. If the undershot screen proves successful, it would be another tool to use in high bed load environments.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend. Good proposal that appears to have a high likelihood of success.