FY 2003 Upper Snake proposal 33013

Additional documents

TitleType
33013 Narrative Narrative
Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Passage Technologies Narrative Attachment
Fish Passage Technologies: Protection at Hydropower Facilities Narrative Attachment

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleEvaluation of Pisces Fish Protective Water Intake System
Proposal ID33013
OrganizationBalaton Power, Inc. (BPI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRodney E. Smith, President/Ceo
Mailing address1197 Main Street Boise, ID 83702-5630
Phone / email2083880720 / rsmith@balatonpower.com
Manager authorizing this projectRodney E. Smith, BPI
Review cycleUpper Snake
Province / SubbasinUpper Snake / Upper Snake
Short descriptionComplete development and testing of the Pisces Unit in a controlled location to evaluate fish reaction and fish passage efficiency.
Target species
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
42.88 -114.82 Located at the Ravenscroft Hydropower Site, Malad (Big Wood) River, in Sections 28 & 29, T 6 S, R 14 E, 1 mile downriver from USGS Gauging Station # 13152500, near the towns of Tuttle and Bliss, Idaho
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Hydro RPA Action 118
Habitat RPA Action 149

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
2000 Model testing of the Pisces system to confirm hydraulic design of the system.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Conceptual Review of Pisces Unit a. Identify key agency and private representatives for review one $4,000 Yes
b. Complete literature review of supporting information of Pisces Unit one $4,000 Yes
c. Review initial hydraulic testing one $2,000
d. Review proposed study plan and identify acceptable third party consultants to execute study plan one $6,000
2. Develop prototype Pisces unit for testing a. Identify design criteria and necessary monitoring equipment appropriate to study site and study plan goals one $35,000 Yes
b. Fabrication and construction of prototype unit one $151,000
c. Expert Panel inspection of prototype Pisces Unit one $4,000
d. Complete NEPA analysis one $4,000 Yes
3. Complete prototype field testing a. Finalize Study Plan one $8,000
b. Run controlled field experiments one $30,000
c. Invite Expert Panel members and other agency staff to observe experiments one $5,000
d. Complete and submit Draft Report for review and comment one $6,500
4. Expert Panel review of testing results a. Convene Expert Panel to discuss findings and need for modifications or future testing one $11,000
b. Compile and respond to comments on findings one $1,500
c. Develop recommendations for future tests or implementation of the Unit one $1,500
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2003 cost
Personnel $57,000
Supplies $4,500
Travel $10,000
Indirect $5,000
Capital $151,000
NEPA $4,000
Subcontractor Karen Kuzis and others yet to be identified as Expert Panel $42,000
$273,500
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost$273,500
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2003 budget request$273,500
FY 2003 forecast from 2002$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

A response is needed. Project proponents need to identify guidance problems that can be overcome by using this equipment. A convincing argument needs to be made that this equipment has benefits to fish that are not available with other technology. Both this proposal and a prior presentation (in the Mountain Snake Province) focused nearly exclusively on the technology rather than the application. What sort of use is visualized?
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

There appears to be a lack of coordination with IDFG and the reviewers question the lack of cost share. In addition, the reviewers question whether it is appropriate for BPA funds to be used in the development of a product that the reviewers perceive will then be sold for profit. The proposal should be submitted for consideration in the Mainstem/Systemwide Province the "Innovative" process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Not Fundable. A response was requested but not provided.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment: