FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 199200900: Yakima Phase II/Huntsville Screen Operation & Maintenance

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 9, 2006 Finalized Patrick Schille

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199200900
Proposal Name: Yakima Phase II/Huntsville Screen Operation & Maintenance
BPA Project Manager: Jonathan McCloud
Agency, Institution or Organization: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Short Description: Continue to provide operation and maintenance to BPA's Phase II Fish Screen Facilities to ensure they provide maximum protection to all species and life stages of fish. This O&M function will include the addition of the Manastash basin facilities
Information Transfer: Maintenance history will be shared with the Bureau of Reclamations to provide long term facility functionality.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Patrick Schille Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 3705 W Washington Ave
Yakima WA 98903-1137
Ph: 509.575.2735
Fax: 509.454.4139
Email: schilpcs@dfw.wa.gov
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Patrick Schille Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife 3705 W Washington Ave
Yakima WA 98903-1137
Ph: 509.575.2735
Fax: 509.454.4139
Email: schilpcs@dfw.wa.gov
Form Submitter

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Columbia Plateau ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Yakima ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
46.22845 118.09190 Touchet River This facility is located about 175 feet south of SR 12 mile post 361 approximately .05 east of the town of Huntsville, WA Columbia, Washington Walla Walla No
Yakima, Naches, Tieton, Rivers Various site throughout the Yakima and Kittitas Counties. Currently there are 27 sites with 3 to 4 more to be added Yakima, Kittitas, Washington Yakima No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU
All Anadromous Fish
All Resident Fish

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 2005 One facility was added, the Huntsville Mill, for a total of 28 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
2004 2004 One new facility was added, the Packwood, for a total of 27 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
2003 2003 No new facilities were added this year. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
2002 2002 One new facility was added, the Selah Moxee, for a total of 26 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
2001 2001 Four new facilities were added, the Chapman Nelson, Lewis, Powell LaFortune, and Bull/Wilson, for a total of 25 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
2000 2000 No new facilities were added this year because of right of way issues. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
1999 1999 The new facilities completed this year were assigned to the Bureau of Reclamations (BOR). Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
1998 1998 Two new facilities were added, the Old Union and Younger, for a total of 21sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and record keeping were performed on all sites.
1997 1997 Four new facilities were added, the Bull, Ellensburg Mill, Lindsey, and Clark, for a total of 19 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
1996 1996 Five new facilities were added this year, the Anderson, Brewer, Naches Selah, Stevens, and Union Gap, for a total of 15 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
1995 1995 Two new facilities were added this year, the Emerick and Fruitvale, for a total of 10 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and recordkeeping were performed on all sites.
1994 1994 Three new facilities were added this year, the Kelly-Lowry, Taylor, Congdon) for a total of 8 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and record keeping were performed on all sites.
1993 1993 Four new facilities were add this year, the Gleed, New Cascade, Holmes, and Snipes & Allen, for a total of 6 sites. Spring startup, routine and emergency maintenance, and record keeping were performed on all site
1992 1992 The two orginal BPA Phase II Operation and Maintenance facilities were the Kiona and Naches Cowiche. Spring startuup, routine and emergency maintenance, and record keeping were performed on both sites.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 198506200 Yakima/Huntsville Screen Evaluation This project is the monitoring component of the Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Screening and Passage Program.
BPA 199105700 Yakima Basin Screen Phase II Fabrication This WDFW project provided the screen fabrication for the Phase II Fish Screening and Passage Program
BPA 199107500 Yakima Fish Screens Construction BOR The Bureau of Reclamations provided the design and construction oversight for the Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Screening Program
BPA 200202200 Big Creek Passage & Screening This screening and passage project was complementary to the Phase II screening and passage efforts already completed in the Yakima Basin
BPA 200202501 Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program The YTAHP is a continuation of the Phase II Screening and Passage efforts but with a shift to local administration and implementation

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Fish Protection Protection of fisheries resource at water withdrawals Yakima 1.1.1 Strategies to Protect and Restore Fish and Wildlife Resources Chapter 1-4
Fish Protection Protection of fisheries resourse at water diversions/withdrawals Walla Walla The Management plan strategies are proposed in Chapter 7. In addition, addressing obstructions is a priority throughout the subbasin, along with addressing other imminent threats (man-caused dewatered streams and inadequate fish screens). Pg. 123

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage Maintain Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Protection Facilities Maintenance of fish screening facilities in the Yakima and Walla Walla basins 5/1/2007 4/30/2010 $445,611
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Manage and Administer Projects Manage and Administer Project Manage and administer project, recording keeping, tracking, reporting. 5/1/2007 4/30/2010 $95,781
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Plan Produce Long Term Phase II Screen Maintenance Plan Update the Long Term Phase II Screen Maintenance Plan each year. 11/30/2007 4/30/2010 $1,911
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Annual Report Produce Annual Report Produce annual at the end of each contract period, for a total of three reports 5/1/2008 4/30/2010 $1,911
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Produce Status Report Quarterly Report via Pisces Submit quarterly reports on project status via Pisces during entire contract period 9/30/2007 4/30/2010 $1,911
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel current rates $59,405 $61,187 $63,023
Supplies Major repairs, contractor reimbursement $41,250 $42,488 $43,762
Travel Mileage costs $7,000 $7,210 $7,426
Overhead WDFW O/H @ 28.79% $50,961 $52,490 $54,066
Fringe Benefits @ approximately 31% if wages $18,395 $18,947 $19,515
Totals $177,011 $182,322 $187,792

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$547,125
Total Work Element budget$547,125

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$203,572 $209,679 Funding estimates reflects a 3% per/year increase .
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
These cost include a $15,000 increase during FFY 2009 for the anticipated Manastash screen O&M.
 
Termination Date Comments
This is an "on-going" project that will be necessary for the future. No termination is expected
 
Final Deliverables

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$150,000
FY 2008 Budget
$150,000
FY 2009 Budget
$150,000
Total NPCC Rec
$450,000
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
Comments:


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$150,000
FY 2008 Budget
$150,000
FY 2009 Budget
$150,000
Total NPCC Rec
$450,000
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: This ongoing project is necessary to protect the investment already made in screens to benefit fish. There is clearly an identified need to operate fish screens to avoid mortality from diversions. The review of the problem and references gives adequate technical background but could be improved by giving reviewers some details on many fish and what species are being saved from entrainment by the screening program. The information collected by the program, as it is currently set up, is not biological. This information is clearly essential to monitor the success/failure of the program.

It is not clear that the level of activity proposed in this project is optimal or if more or less activity would provide enhanced protection to all species and life stages of fish. The proposal would be strengthened if justification were provided for the level of effort identified.

In a previous review the ISRP requested a table of work to date by location. This is not included in this year's proposal or narrative. The proposal lists new screens by year but the proponents should provide such a table in the future, as it would be a valuable check on effort expended and required.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: This ongoing project is necessary to protect the investment already made in screens to benefit fish. There is clearly an identified need to operate fish screens to avoid mortality from diversions. The review of the problem and references gives adequate technical background but could be improved by giving reviewers some details on many fish and what species are being saved from entrainment by the screening program. The information collected by the program, as it is currently set up, is not biological. This information is clearly essential to monitor the success/failure of the program.

It is not clear that the level of activity proposed in this project is optimal or if more or less activity would provide enhanced protection to all species and life stages of fish. The proposal would be strengthened if justification were provided for the level of effort identified.

In a previous review the ISRP requested a table of work to date by location. This is not included in this year's proposal or narrative. The proposal lists new screens by year but the proponents should provide such a table in the future, as it would be a valuable check on effort expended and required.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.