Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 198506200

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Passage Improvement Evaluation
BPA Project Proposal Number 198506200
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Business acronym (if appropriate) PNNL
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Duane A. Neitzel
Mailing Address MS K6-85, P.O. Box 999
City, State, Zip Richland, WA 99352
Phone 5093760602
Fax 5093723515
E-mail duane.neitzel@PNL.gov
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Yakima
 
Short Description Evaluate the biologic and hydrologic effectiveness of juvenile fish passage facilities constructed to correct structural problems at irrigation diversion dams, canals and ditches that interfere with the passage of anadromous fish
Target Species Juvenenile salmonids


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: Council Measure 7.11 (NPPC 1994) which follows from previous Council Measures [Section 800 (NPPC 1987) and Section 900 (NPPC 1984)
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: None
Other Planning Document References The following people are the technical representatives at the Federal and State Agencies with whom our project planning takes place. They can be reached at the following offices and extensions: Walt Larrick, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 509/575-5848 ex209; Steve Rainey, National Marine Fisheries Service 503/230-5418; Bryon Nordlund, National Marine Fisheries Service 503/230-5418; John Easterbrook, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 509/575-2733 Chuck Keller. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 208/756-6850


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1998 Completed on-site evaluations of Phase II screens in the Yakima Basin (report in progress)
1998 Completed laboratory studies testing salmonid response to infrasound and strobe lights (report in progress)
1997 Completed on-site evaluations of Phase II screens in the Yakima Basin (Blanton, Neitzel, and Abernethy, in press).
1997 Completed laboratory studies testing salmonid response to infrasound (Mueller RP, DA Neitzel, WV Mavros and TJ Carlson. 1998. Evaluation of low and high frequency sound for enhancing fish screening facilities to protect outmigrating salmonids


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. On-Site Evaluations Phase II Screens 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.
1. 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.
2. a. 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.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/99 12/01/00 Project completion report 100.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel based on FY1999 estimate $ 29,300
Fringe based on FY1999 estimate $ 18,700
Supplies based on FY1999 estimate $ 21,600
Operating $ 0
Travel based on FY1999 estimate $ 5,500
Indirect based on FY1999 estimate $ 24,900
Total Itemized Budget $100,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $100,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $100,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003
All Phases $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Total Outyear Budgets $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: The evaluation schedule is constrained by the irrigation season and spring outmigration.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Abernethy, C.S., D.A. Neitzel, and W.V. Mavros. 1996. Movement and Injury Rates for Three Life Stages of Spring Chinook Salmon Oncorhychus tshawytscha: A Comparison of Submerged Orifices and an Overflow Weir for Fish Bypass in a Modular Rotary Drum Fis No
Abernethy, C. S., D. A. Neitzel, and E. W. Lusty. 1990. Velocity Measurements at Three Fish Screening Facilities in the Yakima River Basin. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. No
Abernethy, C. S., D. A. Neitzel, and E. W. Lusty. 1989. Velocity Measurements at Six Fish Screening Facilities in the Yakima River Basin. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. No
Blanton, SL, D.A. Neitzel, and C.S. Abernethy. 1998. Washington Phase II Fish Diversion Screen Evaluations in the Yakima River Basin, 1997. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, for the Division of Fish and Wildli No
Mueller, R.P.,D.A. Neitzel, T.J. Carlson, and W.V. Mavros. 1998. Evaluation of Infrasound for Enhancing the Capacity of Fish Screening Facilities to Protect Outmigrating Salmonids. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Nor No
Mueller, R.P., C.S. Abernethy, and D.A. Neitzel. 1995. A Fisheries Evaluation of the Dryden Fish Screening Facility. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. No
Neitzel, D.A., S.L. Blanton, C.S. Abernethy, and D.S. Daly. 1996. Movement of Fall Chinook Salmon Fry Oncorhynchus tshawytscha: A Comparison of Approach Angles for Fish Bypass in a Modular Rotary Drum Fish Screen. Prepared by the Pacific Northwest Nat No
Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, and E. W. Lusty. 1990a. A Fisheries Evaluation of the Wapato, Sunnyside, and Toppenish Creek Canal Fish Screening Facilities, Spring 1988. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Northwest Labora No
Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, and E. W. Lusty. 1990b. A Fisheries Evaluation of the Westside Ditch and Wapato Canal Fish Screening Facilities, Spring 1989. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richlan No
Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, and G. A. Martenson. 1990c. A Fisheries Evaluation of the Westside Ditch and Town Canal Fish Screening Facilities, Spring 1990. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richl No
Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, E. W. Lusty, and S. J. Wampler. 1988. A Fisheries Evaluation of the Richland and Wapato Canal Fish Screening Facility, Spring 1987. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Northwest Laborato No
Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, and E. W. Lusty. 1986. A Fisheries Evaluation of the Richland and Toppenish/Satus Canal Fish Screening Facility, Spring 1986. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richlan No
Neitzel, D. A., C. S. Abernethy, E. W. Lusty, and L. A. Prohammer. 1985. A Fisheries Evaluation of the Sunnyside Canal Fish Screening Facility, Spring 1985. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, No
Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). 1984. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. No
Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). 1987. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. No
Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. No


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund. Group the fish screening projects into a set (8506200, 9105710, 9107500, 9200900, 9503300) and fund for four years. The ISRP should review again in 2003.

Comments: This is a good proposal. It clearly describes the work to be accomplished, the underlying assumptions, and methods. This proposal had a good general description of the programmatic need for this work and the relationship to other projects. The difference between Phase I and Phase II sites/activities should be explained early in the document. The specific purpose of the strobe and ultrasound experiments could be better defined. The proposal should indicate the specific amount of time each individual is budgeted. Are there a known number of designs to be tested or is technical support under Task I-B simply for work to be provided on an as-needed basis?

The proposal should describe the context of the passage improvement project within the overall program. The writers refer vaguely to "many problems" that need to be evaluated without providing much detail. The methods section did not offer much more detail. The stated objectives were measurable, however. The proposal writers did a convincing job of describing the usefulness of their facilities to address this research and communicate the results. In the future, all the fish screening projects in the Yakima Basin should be placed in an umbrella proposal.


CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
How does this project break up between the different states? Is this only for the WA segment? Although a long history of BPA funding exists for these projects, they should be funded under another source. For subsequent construction and O&M, we recommend transferring the responsibility to the Bureau of Reclamation starting in FY01.

CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Consider integrating these projects to save money. Why do we need two O and M contracts?

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$100,000
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$100,000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$110,551
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$110,551
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$110,551
Sponsor (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page