FY 2003 Middle Snake proposal 32014

Additional documents

TitleType
32014 Narrative Narrative
32014 Powerpoint Presentation Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleFeasibility Study of Transporting Salmonids Through a Translucent Fish Passage System
Proposal ID32014
OrganizationShoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation (SPT - DVIR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameGuy Dodson Sr.
Mailing addressP.O. Box 219 Owyhee, NV 89832
Phone / email2087593246 / dvirfg98@aol.com
Manager authorizing this projectGuy Dodson Sr
Review cycleMiddle Snake
Province / SubbasinMiddle Snake / Owyhee
Short descriptionTest the biological response of fingerlings/smolt to transportation in a translucent fish passage system
Target speciesChinook and sockeye salmon and steelhead trout. Testing will be performed using anadromous smolts provided by the Idaho Fish & Game Department.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
45.235 -116.7 Hells Canyon Complex
43.6352 -117.2348 Owyhee Dam
42.7572 -114.8562 Hagerman Fish Hatchery
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
N/A

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
N/A

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
N/A

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Bio Assessment a. Physiological Concerns 3 mos $15,000 Yes
b. Bio Engineering 3 mos $15,000 Yes
2. Bio Acoustic Studies a. Avoidance System Study 1 mo $7,350 Yes
b. Collection System Study 1 mo $7,350 Yes
c. Separation Study 1 mo $7,350 Yes
3. Project Design of 2-mile Loop a. Mechanical Design Tasks a-h 3 mos $50,000 Yes
b. Hydraulic Design $0 Yes
c. Structural Design $0 Yes
d. Anchoring System Design $0 Yes
e. Facility Plan Design $0 Yes
f. Measure Instruments and Controls $0 Yes
g. Power and Lighting Design $0 Yes
h. Permits, Agency Review $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Gather current research information on fish passage system 2003 2003 $30,000
2. Gather research and practical information on collection systems for concentrating and gathering fish 2003 2003 $22,050
3. Design a prototype section of pipeline in a 2-mile loop to be placed under the surface of an operating reservoir. 2003 2003 $50,000
2003 2003 $50,000
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Prototype Assembly a. Station and Support Facilities 2004 $0 Yes
b. Acoustic Collection System 2004 $0 Yes
c. Flume System 2004 $0 Yes
d. Pipeline and Anchor Systems 2004 $0 Yes
e. Mechanical and Electrical System 2004 $0 Yes
f. Collection and Screening System 2004 $0 Yes
g. System Test and Startup 2004 $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Build and install prototype loop under surface of an operating reservoir. 2004 2004 $225,000
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2004
$225,000

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Maintain Equipment a. All equipment will be maintained in good working condition. 2005-2006 $0 Yes
2. Demobilize Test Loop a. Disassemble and salvage. 2006 $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. It will be necessary to continually check that all equipment is in good working order. 2005 2006 $100,000
2. The test loop will be demobilized after feasibility is determined. It is likely that the major portion of the test loop and its amenities will be recovered with little impact to the environment. 2006 2006 $50,000
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2005FY 2006
$50,000$100,000

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Monitor and Reporting a. Data Collection 2005-2006 $0 Yes
b. Report Preparation and Presentation 2006 $0 Yes
2. Provide information to all fisheries management entities in the Columbia River Basin, the public, education entities, and the internet. a. Distribution of All Results from Testing 2006-2007 $0 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
1. Perform tests to demonstrate feasibility of loop. Data collected will be on the effects of nutrient level, possible waste product buildup, pH, dissolved oxygen level, residence time, stress vs. time and/or distance traveled. Prepare reports. 2005 2007 $500,000
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2005FY 2006FY 2007
$125,000$125,000$250,000

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Subcontractor Biologist $52,050
Subcontractor Engineer $50,000
$102,050
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$102,050
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$102,050
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Reason for change in estimated budget

N/A

Reason for change in scope

N/A

Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
SMOLT Incorporated Matching funds for FY2003 $102,050 cash
Other budget explanation

SMOLT Incorporated is planning to provide matching funds each year. A portion of private contributions to SMOLT will be used to reimburse management for all expenses incurred.


Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Do not fund - no response required
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

Not fundable. ISRP FY00 comments described the idea presented as not scientifically well justified, and that position is unchanged in the current review. The proposal does not provide a reasonable plan to test this concept. Convincing evidence was not presented that this approach provides a feasible alternative to in-river fish passage.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Not fundable. ISRP FY00 comments described the idea presented as not scientifically well justified, and that position is unchanged in the current review. The proposal does not provide a reasonable plan to test this concept. Convincing evidence was not presented that this approach provides a feasible alternative to in-river fish passage.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: