Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199107500

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 Yakima Phase II Screens - Construction
BPA Project Proposal Number 199107500
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Business acronym (if appropriate) BOR

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name R. Dennis Hudson
Mailing Address 1150 N. Curtis Rd. - Suite 100
City, State, Zip Boise ID 83706-1234
Phone 2083785250
Fax 2083785171
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Yakima
Short Description Install new fish screens at all significant diversions in the Yakima River Basin to keep juvenile salmon and steelhead from being diverted and lost in canals during outmigration. Improve adult upstream passage at selected sites.
Target Species salmon, steelhead

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: Measure 7.11B.1 of the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program as amended in 1995.
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses:
Other Planning Document References

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
1990 Planning Report completed
1992 First construction contracts awarded
1995 14 screen sites completed (1992-1995)
1998 11 screen sites completed (1996-1998)

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9105700 Yakima Phase II Screen Fabrication Provides fabrication and installation of screens and other mechanical and metalwork items at Phase II screen sites. No
9200900 Yakima Screens - Phase II - O&M Provides on-going operation and maintenance activities at completed screens. No
9503300 O&M of Yakima Fish Protection, Mitigation & Enhancement Facilities Provides on-going operation and maintenance activities at completed screens. No
8506200 Passage Improvement Evaluation (PNNL) Provides biological and hydraulic evaluation of selected Phase II screens. No

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Provide screens at all Phase II diversion sites that will meet current agency criteria for effective fish protection and passage. a. Develop schedules and budgets and coordinate project implementation
1. b. Develop conceptual plans and obtain consensus of all interested parties at each site
1. c. Prepare designs and specifications
1. d. Award construction contracts and supervise and administer construction.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/92 05/01/01 100.0%

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel Direct labor for construction supervision, contract administration, design, and project coordination $150,000
Fringe $ 50,000
Supplies $ 5,000
Construction Construction contracts and related contingencies $650,000
Travel $ 35,000
Indirect $ 95,000
Other $ 15,000
Total Itemized Budget $1,000,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $1,000,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $1,000,000
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
All Phases $1,000,000 $500,000
Total Outyear Budgets $1,000,000 $500,000

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Canal system consolidation proposals have not been implemented and have delayed construction at some sites while the irrigation districts proceed through the study process. If these proposals are not implemented by January 1999 we must proceed to screen existing diversions or risk loss of funding and incomplete project objectives. Water rights uncertainties also have delayed construction at some sites. If the water rights issues are not resolved by Jan 1999, we intend to proceed with screeen sizing based on historical diversions. Difficulties in securing rights-of-way continue to delay construction at some sites.

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Bates, K. and R. Fuller. 1992. Salmon Fry Screen Mesh Study. WA Dept. Of Fisheries Report, Olympia, Washington. No
Beecher, H. and G. Engman. 1995. Screen Mesh Size Effectiveness for Excluding Trout Fry from Water Diversions. WA Dept. Of Fish and Wildlife Report, Olympia, Washington. No
Eddy, B.R. 1988. Wapatox Canal Fish Screen Facility Passage Effectiveness Evaluation: 1986-87. Pacific Power and Light Company Report, Portland, Oregon. No
Mueller, R.P., C.S. Abernethy and D.A. Neitzel. 1995. A Fisheries Evaluation of the Dryden Fish Screening Facility. Annual Report 1994. DOE/BP-00029-2, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Smith, L.S. and L.T. Carpenter. 1987. Salmonid Fry Swimming Stamina Data for Diversion Screen Criteria. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. No

Section 7. 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:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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 proposal did a convincing job of describing the need and benefits of the project. The relationship to other projects and project history was brief but adequate. The proposal objectives were too brief and needed better development. Although specific projects were identified, it was difficult to judge the relative effort and expense these would incur without breaking the objectives down into more descriptive tasks. The proposal should have given more detail on measurable tasks where the objective was predesign and design work. The proposal is requesting $1,000,000, but the budget section did not provide much explanation or justification for that amount. The proposal does a good job of explaining the critical link to project #9105700 and the need to coordinate the two projects to avoid delays and cost over runs. What specific activities are associated with each construction project? What projects will be completed first? Personnel requirements cannot be evaluated without more information about the work to be completed within the period of this proposal. Some context on the selection of project sites and their priorities relative to alternative sites would be helpful.

This project in large part sets the schedule for the screen fabrication project, but there is no timetable given, and the possibility of delays is noted. How will unforeseen changes in construction plans affect the screen fabrication project or the personnel needs for this proposal? How will cost overruns be avoided? The next time this project comes up for review the deficiencies noted above should be corrected.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999

CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Consider integrating these projects to save money. Why do we need two O and M contracts?

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Mar 1, 2000
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
Sponsor (US Bureau of Reclamation) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page