FY 2002 Innovative proposal 34018
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
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 34018 Narrative | Narrative |
| Letter from R. Austin (BPA) to D. Marker (NPCC) RE: BPA Decision on two Innovative project proposals | BPA Decision Letter |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate Engineering Conceptual Design and Field Application of Pisces Fish Passage Unit |
| Proposal ID | 34018 |
| Organization | Watershed Professionals Network, llc (WPN) (WPN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Karen Kuzis |
| Mailing address | 1821 W. Jefferson St. Boise, ID 83702 |
| Phone / email | 2083897802 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Steve Bauer, WPN managing partner, 208-376-3263 |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Complete testing of the PISCES fish passage device in a lab and controlled field location to evaluate fish reaction and fish passage efficiency. |
| Target species | Juvenile Salmonids |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pullman, WA: Albrook Hydraulics Lab, Washington State University | ||
| To be determined | ||
| Idaho - to be determined |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | 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. |
| 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. |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluate PISCES fish passage Technology | a. Establish Expert Review Panel Complete background review | 4 | $17,900 | |
| b. Complete Lab Testing to characterize flows around PISCES. Modify flows to desired paramters. | 6 | $92,795 | Yes | |
| c. Convene Expert Panel review interim results, plan field study | 2 | $20,900 | Yes | |
| d. Complete Field Testing | 3 | $53,785 | Yes | |
| e. Convene Expert Panel Review results and make recommendations | 2 | $9,484 |
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: Project manager, Technical coordination, support staff | $35,824 |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | UW video, Nets, Field Equipment | $3,800 |
| Travel | Review Panel Meetings, Field Logistics | $10,500 |
| Indirect | 10% subcontractor overhead | $11,795 |
| Capital | Fabricate/ modify PISCES Units | $10,000 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 0 | $0 |
| Subcontractor | WSU, Albrook Engineering Lab | $103,470 |
| Other | Tracy Hilman, Bioanalysts | $11,875 |
| Subcontractor | Inez Hopkins, Research Librarian | $2,600 |
| Other | Review Panel Member Stipend (10 @ $500) | $5,000 |
| $194,864 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $194,864 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $194,864 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrix | Preliminary Field Testing - Yakima BasinBiological Evaluations at 2 PISCES test sites in coordination Yakama Nation | $75,000 | cash |
| Albrook Hydraulics Lab, WSU | Hydraulic Evaluations at Yakima Basin Sites | $40,000 | cash |
| ARI | PISCES Protype fabrication and modifications | $15,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Meets the innovative criteria but the proposal, though improved from earlier iterations submitted in BPA solicitations, still has some shortcomings. The device is still too sketchily described to facilitate review at this point. The sponsors need to be put this technology in context with other technologies, specifically laying out potential benefits to fish.There has been a lot of work on surface collectors for juvenile salmon beyond the tests at Cowlitz Dam that is discussed. Others should have been referenced and discussed in more detail in this proposal. The proposal is unique in putting an emphasis on turbulence as the primary factor affecting response of juvenile salmon, a factor the Independent Scientific Group, in Return to the River 2000 (www.nwcouncil.org/library/return/2000-12.htm), advised as deserving of attention. While the proposal puts emphasis on potential application at hydroelectric projects, the potential application seems to be more in line with the scale of circumstances at irrigation intakes and the like. Whether there is an urgent need for this technology for that application is a question that should have been better demonstrated in the proposal.
The tests already scheduled by consultants will provide valuable information.
"Pisces" is an idea and conceptual design for an apparatus that is being "sold" as a low cost, low maintenance, and effective alternative for protecting fish from entering water intakes. The comparison of costs and potential effectiveness with existing technology was not included in the presentation.
In addition, there is the issue of the proprietary nature of the device. Although not central to the scientific review, policy makers should be aware of the issue. The proposal requests public funding to facilitate further development and testing of the apparatus. If results of the assessment are positive, the developers (Balaton)"...will expand into a privately funded controlled series of applications at representative of the sites, species, and environmental conditions indicated as feasible by the lab and field tests." The proposal seems to be a request for the public to complete development and initial testing of this apparatus, which ultimately will remain in private ownership.
Comment:
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological BenefitUncertain benefit. Creates fish passage improvement through innovative screening improvement. PISCES is a float-mounted water intake designed to prevent induction of fish into water withdrawal systems, including irrigation canals, penstocks for hydroelectric facilities, run of the river supply systems, and industrial water withdrawal systems.
Comments
The device does not meet NMFS design criteria. The issues include facilitating debris removal, fry impingement and injury, and that the bypass venturi accelerator does not provide reliable safe fish passage. The ISRP finds that the device is too sketchily described, question the need for the device, and that its development is for private ownership.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
Yes
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUUncertain benefit. Creates fish passage improvement through innovative screening improvement. PISCES is a float-mounted water intake designed to prevent induction of fish into water withdrawal systems, including irrigation canals, penstocks for hydroelectric facilities, run of the river supply systems and industrial water withdrawal systems.
Comments
The device does not meet NMFS design criteria. The issues include facilitating debris removal, fry impingement and injury, and that the bypass venturi accelerator does not provide reliable safe fish passage. The ISRP finds that the device is too sketchily described, question the need for the device, and that its development is for private ownership.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes