FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 28054

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
28054 Narrative	Narrative
28054 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
28054 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Evaluation of Pisces Fish Protective Guidance and Monitoring System
Proposal ID	28054
Organization	Balaton Power, Inc. (BPI)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Rodney E. Smith, President/Ceo
Mailing address	1197 Main Street Boise, ID 83702-5630
Phone / email	2083880720 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Rodney E. Smith, BPI
Review cycle	Mountain Snake
Province / Subbasin	Mountain Snake / Salmon
Short description	Guide fish and monitor water conditions and fish passage
Target species

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
45.56	-115.36	Mountain Snake Province

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Hydro RPA Action 107
Hydro RPA Action 118
Hydro RPA Action 141
Habitat RPA Action 149
Habitat RPA Action 151
Habitat RPA Action 155
RM&E RPA Action 182
RM&E RPA Action 184

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.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
2000	Model testing of the Pisces system to confirm hydraulic design of system

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
1. Planning and Design of the Pisces	a. Plan and Design of the specifications on the Pisces units with monitoring equipment and anchoring devices, taking into consideration river flows, turbulence and fish species.	one	$265,000
2. Establish baseline level	a. An initial assessment of passage rate of introduced (released) fish.	one	$15,000	Yes
2.	b. Assess passage rates and mortality of riverine species (non-released species).	one	$15,000	Yes

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. Construct Pisces Units and locate to project location.	a. Construct Pisces units with monitoring equipment and anchoring devices, taking into consideration river flows, turbulence and fish species.	one	$650,000
1.	b. Locate Pisces units to the test site	one	$40,000
2. Determine effectiveness of the Pisces float mounted intake technology in reducing fish passage through the turbine and generally improving fish survival.	a. An assessment of passage rate and mortality of “introduced” salmonids (released fish).	one	$15,000	Yes
2.	b. An assessment of passage rates and mortality for riverine species (non-released fish).	one	$15,000	Yes

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
1. Data Analysis	a. Comparisons of Fish Passage and Mortality Assessments	one	$15,000	Yes
1.	b. A detailed report of this study will be completed and available for peer review.	one	$30,000	Yes

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		$290,000
Fringe		$45,000
Supplies		$110,000
Travel		$30,000
Indirect		$95,000
Capital		$385,000
Subcontractor		$105,000
		$1,060,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$1,060,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$1,060,000
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-9)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Sep 28, 2001

Comment:

A response is needed. Reviewers were unclear as to why the proposal was part of the Salmon ecological province. Proposed testing of the device would occur in a tributary of the middle Snake River. It appears that it would be better served in a systemwide or innovative review. If NMFS is positive on this technology, as mentioned in the presentation, why is the project not a collaborative effort with NMFS?

Both proposal and presentation focused nearly exclusively on the technology rather than the application. It is apparently intended for small hydro projects? If there is potential utility or connection to Columbia basin hydro operations that should be clarified.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Defer to Upper Snake Province

Date:
Nov 30, 2001

Comment:

Not part of this province - referred to Upper Snake Province. Project sponsor should resubmit proposal in the Upper Snake Province solicitation.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-12A)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Dec 21, 2001

Comment:

Not fundable. Although proposed testing of the device would occur in a tributary of the middle Snake River (thus the basis for the CBFWA suggestion to defer to Upper Snake Province), it appears that it would be better served in a systemwide or innovative review. This proposal needs to identify guidance problems that can be overcome by using this equipment. A convincing argument needs to be made that this equipment has benefits that are not available with other technology. Both proposal and presentation focused nearly exclusively on the technology rather than the application.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Feb 1, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Investigate specific problem (passage) directly related to fish survival. May possibly improve survival of outmigrating smolts. Intent is to improve fish passage at hydropower systems using "Pisces," a float mounted water intake system.

Comments
Unclear of appropriateness of funding for R&D of project. Hydro group believes it is unlikely that this structure will do anything for fish passage.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Feb 11, 2002

Comment:

Do not recommend. The project could be reconsidered when a regional RM&E plan is completed and the need for the project can be properly assessed.

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
149

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Apr 19, 2002

Comment: