FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 198506200

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
198506200 Narrative	Narrative
198506200 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
198506200 Powerpoint Presentation	Powerpoint Presentation
Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Passage Improvement Evaluation
Proposal ID	198506200
Organization	Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Geoffrey A McMichael
Mailing address	PO Box 999, K6-85 Richland, WA 99352
Phone / email	5093720804 / geoffrey.mcmichael@pnl.gov
Manager authorizing this project	Geoffrey A McMichael
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Yakima
Short description	Evaluate the biological and hydrologic effectiveness of juvenile fish passage facilities constructed at irrigation diversion dams, canals and ditches to allow the passage of migrating fishes. Evaluate sites with respect to NMFS passage criteria.
Target species	spring chinook, fall chinook, and coho salmon steelhead, rainbow, cutthroat, and bull trout and other native resident fishes (e.g., cyprininds, catostomids, cottids)

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
		throughout the Yakima River Subbasin, including the Naches and Tieton river basins.
46.73	-120.67	Yakima subbasin
46.6304	-120.5138	Naches River
46.7464	-120.7857	Tieton River

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 183	NMFS	Initiate at least three tier 3 studies (each necessarily comprising several sites) within each ESU (a single action may affect more than one ESU). In addition, at least two studies focusing on each major management action must take place within the Columbia River basin. The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS and the Technical Recovery Teams to identify key studies in the 1-year plan. Those studies will be implemented no later than 2003.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
var.	1985-1996: Phase I screen eval, lab studies of modular screens/criteria development, tests of infrasound and strobes on fish behavior (see web page(s) for list of reports).
1997	Phase II screens (a total of 19 sites) were evaluated: Blanton et al. 1998 (on BPA web page)
1998	Phase II screens (a total of 19 sites) were evaluated: Blanton et al. 1999 (on BPA web page)
1999	Phase II screens (a total of 20 sites) were evaluated: Blanton et al. 2000 (on BPA web page)
2000	Phase II screens (a total of 21 sites) were evaluated: Chamness et al. 2001 (on BPA web page)

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199105700	Yakima Phase 2 Screen Fabrication - WDFW	the PNNL project evaluates the sites built by 05700
199107500	Yakima Phase II Screens - Construction - USBR	the PNNL project evaluates the sites built by 07500
199200900	Yakima Screens - Phase 2 O&M-WDFW	the PNNL project evaluates the sites maintained by 00900
199503300	O&M of Yakima Phase II Fish Facilities- USBR	the PNNL project evaluates the sites maintained by 03300

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

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
1. On-Site Evaluations Phase II Screens in the Yakima basin	a. Provide fisheries and hydrological evaluations of new screens as they are installed. The criteria used to measure this goal are the screen criteria developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service.	ongoing	$37,870
	b. Provide on site monitoring of operating screens. Monitoring criteria are: operating as designed, seals installed and maintained to prevent fish from passing through screens, and approach and sweep flows to NMFS criteria.	ongoing	$37,869
	c. Support cooperating agencies to evaluate new or revised screen designs as they are developed and address site-specific concerns at Phase I or Phase II sites. Provide a laboratory facility for testing proposed changes to facility components.	ongoing	$18,924
	d. Data analyses/report writing	ongoing	$18,924

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. On-Site Evaluations Phase II Screens in the Yakima basin	2003	2006	$480,348

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$115,971	$117,501	$121,614	$125,262

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 0.57	$27,703
Fringe		$9,784
Supplies		$10,179
Travel		$5,664
Indirect		$55,366
Capital		$0
NEPA		$0
PIT tags		$0
Subcontractor		$4,891
Other		$0
		$113,587

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$113,587
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$113,587
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$140,000
% change from forecast	-18.9%

Reason for change in estimated budget

Request for 2001 included evlaution of sites in the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins. This portion of the project was not funded in 2001 and the total award for this project in 2001 was $100,000. The additional $13,587 over the previous base amount of $100,000/yr is necessary to cover the increasing number of sites coming on line each year, increases in wages, and increases in operations (e.g., fuel). Subcontractor would be for a student intern to assist with the field work and data entry.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind

Other budget explanation

The additional $13,587 over the previous base amount of $100,000/yr is necessary to cover the increasing number of sites coming on line each year, increases in wages, and increases in operations (e.g., fuel). Subcontractor would be for a student intern to assist with the field work and data entry.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable, but a response is needed.

Reviewers agreed that this long-standing project is valuable in providing quality control for those who construct and maintain the screens, but it seems illogical to simply monitor physical conditions at screens without monitoring their biological efficacy. The project's short description mentions evaluating biological effectiveness. Is that done? Has it been done over the life of the project? If not, why? Would doing so be feasible and valuable?

What was the frequency of screen problems during (for example) the last 5 years? Is there a protocol in place to document the number of screen design questions and the response time. Also, is there a follow-up protocol in place to monitor corrections to failures or deficiencies identified in this project? If these protocols do not currently exist a response should address the feasibility of implementing them.

In the 2000 review ISRP recommended this project be grouped into a set with design and construction and operations and maintenance. Not done.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

This project includes evaluation of BOR fish screens and should be funded through that agency. This raises an in-lieu question.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. This was a strong and effective response that provided useful information and dissipated reviewer concern. Justification for keeping this project separate from design, construction, operation and maintenance projects is adequate. The tightened protocol for problem reporting and correction, at least for WDFW screens, that was proposed in the response seems to strengthen that process (assuming it is positively viewed by WDFW, BOR, and NMFS). The proposed protocol does not specify the feedback details for USBR built and operated screens. This should be established in as much detail as the WDFW protocol.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Project helps ensure fish screens are built to operate within criteria

Comments

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank B

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

No cost-share from BOR whose screens they are. Although this is an important project, it would appear that BOR should be funding it and not BPA. There are several projects that relate to Yakima Phase 2 screens. Effort should be directed at streamlining Yakima Basin irrigation diversion screen fabrication, installation, O&M and M&E and at ensuring that the agencies that are responsible for the mitigation work are the ones actually funding it; or, depending on agreed-to crediting mechanisms among BPA, the Council and NMFS, there is some level of appropriate cost-share.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

Check later for future plans.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
expense

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$110,551	$110,551	$110,551

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website