FY07-09 proposal 199200900
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima Phase II/Huntsville Screen Operation & Maintenance |
| Proposal ID | 199200900 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Short description | Continue to provide operation and maintenance to BPA's Phase II Fish Screen Facilities to ensure they provide maximum protection to all species and life stages of fish. This O&M function will include the addition of the Manastash basin facilities |
| Information transfer | Maintenance history will be shared with the Bureau of Reclamations to provide long term facility functionality. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Patrick Schille | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife | schilpcs@dfw.wa.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Patrick Schille | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife | schilpcs@dfw.wa.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Yakima
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46.22845 | 118.09190 | Touchet River | This facility is located about 175 feet south of SR 12 mile post 361 approximately .05 east of the town of Huntsville, WA |
| Yakima, Naches, Tieton, Rivers | Various site throughout the Yakima and Kittitas Counties. Currently there are 27 sites with 3 to 4 more to be added |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESUsecondary: All Anadromous Fish
secondary: All Resident Fish
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 2005 One facility was added, the Huntsville Mill, for a total of 28 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 2004 | 2004 One new facility was added, the Packwood, for a total of 27 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 2003 | 2003 No new facilities were added this year. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 2002 | 2002 One new facility was added, the Selah Moxee, for a total of 26 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 2001 | 2001 Four new facilities were added, the Chapman Nelson, Lewis, Powell LaFortune, and Bull/Wilson, for a total of 25 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 2000 | 2000 No new facilities were added this year because of right of way issues. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 1999 | 1999 The new facilities completed this year were assigned to the Bureau of Reclamations (BOR). Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 1998 | 1998 Two new facilities were added, the Old Union and Younger, for a total of 21sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and record keeping were performed on all sites. |
| 1997 | 1997 Four new facilities were added, the Bull, Ellensburg Mill, Lindsey, and Clark, for a total of 19 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 1996 | 1996 Five new facilities were added this year, the Anderson, Brewer, Naches Selah, Stevens, and Union Gap, for a total of 15 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 1995 | 1995 Two new facilities were added this year, the Emerick and Fruitvale, for a total of 10 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites. |
| 1994 | 1994 Three new facilities were added this year, the Kelly-Lowry, Taylor, Congdon) for a total of 8 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and record keeping were performed on all sites. |
| 1993 | 1993 Four new facilities were add this year, the Gleed, New Cascade, Holmes, and Snipes & Allen, for a total of 6 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and record keeping were performed on all site |
| 1992 | 1992 The two orginal BPA Phase II Operation and Maintenance facilities were the Kiona and Naches Cowiche. Spring startuup, routine and emergency maintenance, and record keeping were performed on both sites. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 198506200 | Yakima/Huntsville Screen Evaluation | This project is the monitoring component of the Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Screening and Passage Program. |
| BPA | 199105700 | Yakima Basin Screen Phase II Fabrication | This WDFW project provided the screen fabrication for the Phase II Fish Screening and Passage Program |
| BPA | 199107500 | Yakima Fish Screens Construction BOR | The Bureau of Reclamations provided the design and construction oversight for the Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Screening Program |
| BPA | 200202200 | Big Creek Passage & Screening | This screening and passage project was complementary to the Phase II screening and passage efforts already completed in the Yakima Basin |
| BPA | 200202501 | Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program | The YTAHP is a continuation of the Phase II Screening and Passage efforts but with a shift to local administration and implementation |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fish Protection | Protection of fisheries resource at water withdrawals | Yakima | 1.1.1 Strategies to Protect and Restore Fish and Wildlife Resources |
| Fish Protection | Protection of fisheries resourse at water diversions/withdrawals | Walla Walla | The Management plan strategies are proposed in Chapter 7. In addition, addressing obstructions is a priority throughout the subbasin, along with addressing other imminent threats (man-caused dewatered streams and inadequate fish screens). |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Maintain Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Protection Facilities | Maintenance of fish screening facilities in the Yakima and Walla Walla basins | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $445,611 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage and Administer Project | Manage and administer project, recording keeping, tracking, reporting. | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $95,781 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Plan | Produce Long Term Phase II Screen Maintenance Plan | Update the Long Term Phase II Screen Maintenance Plan each year. | 11/30/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $1,911 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Produce Annual Report | Produce annual at the end of each contract period, for a total of three reports | 5/1/2008 | 4/30/2010 | $1,911 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Status Report | Quarterly Report via Pisces | Submit quarterly reports on project status via Pisces during entire contract period | 9/30/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $1,911 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | current rates | $59,405 | $61,187 | $63,023 |
| Supplies | Major repairs, contractor reimbursement | $41,250 | $42,488 | $43,762 |
| Travel | Mileage costs | $7,000 | $7,210 | $7,426 |
| Overhead | WDFW O/H @ 28.79% | $50,961 | $52,490 | $54,066 |
| Fringe Benefits | @ approximately 31% if wages | $18,395 | $18,947 | $19,515 |
| Totals | $177,011 | $182,322 | $187,792 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $547,125 |
| Total work element budget: | $547,125 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $203,572 FY 2011 estimated budget: $203,572 |
Comments: Funding estimates reflects a 3% per/year increase . |
Future O&M costs: These cost include a $15,000 increase during FFY 2009 for the anticipated Manastash screen O&M.
Termination date:
Comments: This is an "on-going" project that will be necessary for the future. No termination is expected
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | $450,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This ongoing project is necessary to protect the investment already made in screens to benefit fish. There is clearly an identified need to operate fish screens to avoid mortality from diversions. The review of the problem and references gives adequate technical background but could be improved by giving reviewers some details on many fish and what species are being saved from entrainment by the screening program. The information collected by the program, as it is currently set up, is not biological. This information is clearly essential to monitor the success/failure of the program. It is not clear that the level of activity proposed in this project is optimal or if more or less activity would provide enhanced protection to all species and life stages of fish. The proposal would be strengthened if justification were provided for the level of effort identified. In a previous review the ISRP requested a table of work to date by location. This is not included in this year's proposal or narrative. The proposal lists new screens by year but the proponents should provide such a table in the future, as it would be a valuable check on effort expended and required.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This ongoing project is necessary to protect the investment already made in screens to benefit fish. There is clearly an identified need to operate fish screens to avoid mortality from diversions. The review of the problem and references gives adequate technical background but could be improved by giving reviewers some details on many fish and what species are being saved from entrainment by the screening program. The information collected by the program, as it is currently set up, is not biological. This information is clearly essential to monitor the success/failure of the program. It is not clear that the level of activity proposed in this project is optimal or if more or less activity would provide enhanced protection to all species and life stages of fish. The proposal would be strengthened if justification were provided for the level of effort identified. In a previous review the ISRP requested a table of work to date by location. This is not included in this year's proposal or narrative. The proposal lists new screens by year but the proponents should provide such a table in the future, as it would be a valuable check on effort expended and required.