Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 199200900

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 [Fish] Screens - Phase 2 - O&M
BPA Project Proposal Number 199200900
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Yakima Screen Shop
Business acronym (if appropriate) WDFW/YSS

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name John A. Easterbrooks
Mailing Address 3705 W. Washington Ave.
City, State, Zip Yakima, WA 98903-1137
Phone 5095752734
Fax 5094544139
Manager of program authorizing this project
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Yakima
Short Description YSS performs preventative maintenance and operational adjustments on completed Yakima Phase 2 fish screen facilities to assure optimal fish protection performance and to extend facility life, thereby protecting BPA's capital investment.
Target Species spring and fall chinook, steelhead, coho, bull trout, rainbow trout, whitefish

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: 7.11B.1
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: NA
Other Planning Document References NA

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 new O&M sites: Younger, Old Union
1997 new O&M sites: Bull, Ellensburg Mill, Clark, Lindsey, Union Gap
1996 new O&M sites: Fruitvale, Naches-Selah, Emerick, Stevens, Anderson
1994 new O&M sites: Congdon, Kelly-Lowry
1993 new O&M sites: Gleed, New Cascade, Holmes, Snipes-Allen, Taylor
1992 new O&M sites: Naches-Cowiche, Kiona (now abandoned)

Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9107500 Yakima Phase II Screens - Construction (USBR) Determines number of Phase 2 screen facilities requiring O&M services No
9105700 Yakima Phase 2 [Fish] Screen Fabrication (WDFW, YSS) " " " " No
8506200 Evaluate the Effectiveness of Fish Screens (Battelle, PNNL) Adaptive management feedback from independent research group re: screen O&M procedures and fish protection effectiveness No
9503300 O&M of Yakima Fish Protection, Mitigation & Enhancement Facilities (USBR) Cooperative assistance between YSS and USBR to provide optimal O&M on Yakima Phase 1 and Phase 2 fish screen facilities No

Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Perform Phase 2 screen O&M necessary to optimize fish protection & extend facility life a. Perform operational adjustments to minimize screen approach velocity & maximize fish bypass efficiency
1. b. perform preventative maintenance and repairs to facility components

Objective Schedules and Costs

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

Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel field and shop O&M labor costs $ 61,571
Fringe @ 31% of labor costs $ 19,087
Supplies includes: metered/non-metered equipment charges; WA sales tax @7.8% $ 8,537
Travel service vehicle mileage charges $ 7,800
Indirect YSS indirect costs @ $300/man-month $ 6,831
Other Admin. overhead @ 20% of above subtotal $ 22,265
Subcontractor diversion owner reimbursements for approved O&M services $ 7,500
Total Itemized Budget $133,591

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $133,591
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $133,591
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

Organization Item or service provided Amount Cash or In-Kind
Individual diversion owners Routine (daily) O&M services; variable $ amounts negotiated w/ each owner based on pre-existing annual O&M obligation under state law $ 0 unknown


Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $140,000 $150,000 $150,000 $155,000
Total Outyear Budgets $140,000 $150,000 $150,000 $155,000

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Delays in screen construction caused by water rights uncertainty or property acquisition (easements, fee title, etc.) affects the number of new Phase 2 projects completed each year, and thus the total number of projects requiring O&M services.

Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Bates, K. and R. Fuller. 1992. Salmon fry screen mesh study. Wa. Dept. of Fisheries Rept., Olympia, Washington. No
Beecher, H. and G. Engman. 1995. Screen mesh size effectiveness for excluding trout fry from water diversions. Wa. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Rept., Olympia, Washington. No
Blanton, S. L., D. A. Neitzel, and C. S. Abernethy. 1998. Washington Phase II Fish Diversion Screen Evaluations in the Yakima River Basin, 1997. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. No
Eddy, B. R. 1988. Wapatox Canal fish screen facility passage effectiveness evaluation: 1986-87. Pacific Power & Light Co. Rept., Portland, Oregon . No
Mueller, R. P., C. S. Abernethy, and D. A. Neitzel. 1995. A fisheries evaluation of the Dryden fish screening facility. 1994 Annual Report. 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: The proposal is the third in a series of proposals for screening. This proposal, which addresses maintenance needs, 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 are clearly defined. Although the description of the project history and success were brief, the proposal provided enough documentation that a reviewer could track down more detailed evaluations if necessary. Rather than listing all of the progress reports (p. 4322), a table would help to summarize generally the work to date by location. This might provide a better idea of how much maintenance has been needed and may be required in the future. The proposal does not evaluate the adequacy of past maintenance efforts or provide evidence for the frequency of maintenance expected in the future.

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? No
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 (WDFW - Olympia) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page