FY 2000 proposal 20050

Additional documents

TitleType
20050 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleRemove Excess Heat from Streams and Store it for Future Application
Proposal ID20050
OrganizationParker’s Inc (a close held general corp) dba BETTERFISH
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRobert L. Parker
Mailing address825 NW Fenton St. McMinnville, OR 97128
Phone / email5034346600 / rparker@onlinemac.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinMainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionBuild 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 speciessalmon, steehead, trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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];