Return to Proposal Finder FY 2001 Ongoing 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. 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
No documents associated with this request


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 Geoffrey A. Mcmichael
Mailing Address
City, State, Zip Richland, Washington 99352
Phone 5093720804
Fax 5093723515
E-mail geoffrey.mcmichael@pnl.gov
 
Manager of program authorizing this project Ken Barnhart
 
Review Cycle FY 2001 Ongoing
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Yakima
 
Short Description Evaluate the biological 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


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


Biological Outcomes of this project: The examination of fish protection facilities identifies problems with design flaws, operation and maintenance deficiencies, and other unforeseen factors that could reduce the effectiveness of fish protection devices such as screens. By identifying areas where safe fish passage is jeopardized and communicating those findings in a timely manner to the party responsible for maintaining those facilities, we are able to ensure that safe fish passage is maximized in the project area.
Biological Data: We measure and record approach and sweep velocities at each facility and compare measurements to the established standard NMFS criteria for those facilities. In addition, we conduct thorough examinations of screen and seal conditions as well as inspections of the cleaning systems and bypasses, to ensure that all characteristics are within the criteria established by NMFS for safe fish passage.


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
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: Balnton 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 (submitted 4/20/2000)


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

n/a or no information


Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
$ 0  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Planning and Design Phase

n/a or no information


Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation Phase

Task-based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Construction and Implementation Phase

n/a or no information


Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance Phase

Task-based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Operations and Maintenance Phase

n/a or no information


Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

Task-based Budget

Objective Task Duration in FYs Estimated 2001 cost Subcontractor
1.a. On-Site Evaluations Phase II Screens in the Yakima basin 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. 3 $ 0  
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. 3 $ 0  
2. 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. 3 $ 0  
tasks 1 and 2 3 $100,000  
3. Screen evaluation services have been requested by others (e.g., WDFW). We are requesting these additional funds to evaluate newly-constructed screens in the Wenatchee and Methow basins to determine whether these new sites are in compliance with NMFS crit 3 $ 40,000  


Outyear Objective-Based Budget

n/a or no information


Outyear Budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation Phase

FY 2004 FY 2002 FY 2003
$140,000 $140,000 $140,000


Section 8. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2001 Cost
Personnel FTE: based on FY2000 estimate 29% $ 40,600
Fringe based on FY2000 estimate 19% $ 26,600
Supplies based on FY2000 estimate 20.5% $ 28,700
Travel based on FY2000 estimate 6.5% $ 9,100
Indirect based on FY2000 estimate 25% $ 35,000
Total Itemized Budget $140,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 project cost $140,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2001 budget request $140,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000 $100,000
% change from forecast 40.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

The additional $40,000 would be used to evaluate newly constructed screens in the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins to determine whether they are operating as designed and in compliance with fish protection criteria adopted by the NMFS. These services were requested by WDFW.


Reason for change in scope

See above. The only scope change is the inclusion of 4 additional sites in the Wenatchee River subbasin (Tandy, Peshastin, Pioneer, and Chiwawa) and 7 sites in the Methow River subbasin (Chiwac, Barkley, Twisp Power, Early Winters, Folton, Skyline, and Wolf Creek). Each of these sites would be examined 2 times each during the irrigation season to determine whether they are meeting fish protection criteria. The Wenatchee and Methow subbasins contain imperiled ESA listed stocks of steelhead and chinook salmon. Ensuring that these fishes are protected from entrainment or injury/death at irrigation structures should be an important part of their conservation.


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2002 2003 2004
Monitoring and evaluation $140,000 $140,000 $140,000
Total Outyear Budgets $140,000 $140,000 $140,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Not applicable


Reviews and Recommendations

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

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Ongoing Funding: yes; New Funding: yes
Date:
Jul 14, 2000
2001
$100,000
Comment:
This project has been focused in the Yakima Basin in previous years. Although the work is consistent with the intent of the project, moving into the other basins would be considered new work within those subbasins. The additional $40,000 would be used to evaluate newly constructed screens in the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins to determine whether they are operating as designed and in compliance with fish protection criteria adopted by the NMFS (Section 6, Objective 3).

The scope change is the inclusion of four additional sites in the Wenatchee River subbasin (Tandy, Peshastin, Pioneer, and Chiwawa) and seven sites in the Methow River subbasin (Chiwac, Barkley, Twisp Power, Early Winters, Folton, Skyline, and Wolf Creek). Each of these sites would be examined two times each during the irrigation season to determine whether they are meeting fish protection criteria. The Wenatchee and Methow subbasins contain imperiled ESA listed stocks of steelhead and chinook salmon. Ensuring that these fish are protected from entrainment or injury/death at irrigation structures should be an important part of their conservation.

This project is supported by the WA SRT and should be earmarked as a potential ESA high priority project since ESA measures are being enforced in this area.


NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Sep 13, 2000
2001
$100,000
Comment:

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