FY07-09 proposal 199503300
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | O&M Yakima Basin Fish Screens |
| Proposal ID | 199503300 |
| Organization | Bureau of Reclamation |
| Short description | This proposal provides for continuation of funding for the existing comprehensive operation & maintenance program by the USBR of BPA owned Yakima Phase II fish screening and trapping facilities. |
| Information transfer | No information occurs as a result of the operation and maintenance. New technologies, new methods of operation and maintenance, discussions of costs versus benefits, are discussed at annual meetings between Reclamation, BPA, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Battelle Laboratory personnel. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Scott Kline | U. S. Bureau of Reclamation | skline@pn.usbr.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Scott Kline | U. S. Bureau of Reclamation | skline@pn.usbr.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Yakima
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yakima & Naches Rivers, Ahtanum & Toppenish Creeks | Twenty-six fish screens sites throughout the Yakima River subbasin including the Yakima River, Naches River, Ahtanum Creek, and Toppenish Creek |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous Fishsecondary: All Resident Fish
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Add new site: Fogarty fishscreens. Remove Roza Dam Adult Trap to separate contract #23071 under project #1997-013-25, for a total of 26. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 2004 | Add new site: Packwood fishscreens for a total of 26. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 2003 | O&M performed on all sites. |
| 2002 | Add new site: Selah Moxee for a total of 25. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 2001 | Add new sites: Wilson/Bull & LaFortune/Powell fishscreens for a total of 24. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 2000 | O&M performed on all sites. |
| 1999 | Add new sites: Johncox fishscreens for a total of 22. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 1998 | Add new sites: Younger & Old Union fishscreens for a total of 21. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 1997 | Add new sites: Bull, Ellensburg Mill, Clark, Lindsey , Union Gap, WIP Upper & WIP Lower fishscreens for a total of 19. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 1996 | Add new sites: Toppenish Pump, Fruitvale & Naches-Selah fishscreens, abandon Kiona Screens, for a total of 12. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 1995 | Add new sites: Roza Adult Fish Trap & Bachelor-Hatton fishscreens for a total of 10. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 1994 | Add new sites: New Cascade, Congdon & Kelly-Lowery fishscreens for a total of 8. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 1993 | Add new sites: Gleed, Snipes Allen & Taylor fishscreens for a total of 5. O&M performed on all sites. |
| 1992 | Construction of the first Phase II fishscreens (Naches-Cowiche & Kiona) is completed and USBR begins Operation & Maintenance (O&M) duties. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199200900 | Yakima Ph Ii/Huntsvill Scr O&M | O&M of Phase II facilities by Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife. Facility custody is passed to USBR by BPA, however O&M duties are accomplished through a cooperative effort between USBR and WDFW |
| BPA | 199107500 | Yakima Fish Screens Cons Bor | Design and construction of Phase II facilities by USBR |
| BPA | 198506200 | Yakima/Huntsville Screen Eval | Periodic independent monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of Phase II facilities by Battelle Pacific NW Laboratories scientists. |
| BPA | 199105700 | Yakima Bas Screen Fab Ph 2 | Fabrication of Phase II facility drumscreens by Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevent injury or mortality of fish | Prevent injury or mortality to fish moving past irrigation diversions screened by Phase II fishscreens. It also assures the maximum useful life of these facilities and protects BPA's capital investment through good long-term maintenance. | Yakima | Install fish screens on all water diversions. This implies operation and maintenance of those screens as well, as the screens will not operate in criteria unless operated properly and maintained. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Annual Maintenance of Fish Screens | Removal of seasonal silt, sand, and debris accumulations that can not be removed “in the wet.” Perform scheduled maintenance, major and minor repairs, and/or replacements of fish screen components. Set and seal fish screens in preparation for water diversion, ensuring that they meet current state and federal fish screening criteria, and that all systems, (i.e. electrical, mechanical, etc.) are operational, and coordinate with irrigators on start up procedures. | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $75,420 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Routine Operation and Maintenance of Fish Screens | Provide weekly site visits for operation and maintenance (and sometimes more frequently depending on the site). Provide minor maintenance (for example, screen cleaning), contractor (irrigator) monitoring, emergency repairs, and record keeping. At sites where the primary O&M duties are assigned to WDFW, Reclamation O&M tasks will be limited to: incorporating WDFW facilities into Reclamation's preventive maintenance record system, providing WDFW with preventive maintenance schedules, checksheets, daily activity logs and other forms and records as appropriate, preparing facility operation and maintenance manuals jointly with WDFW, inspecting and maintaining overhead gantry cranes, providing and maintaining lock systems, and providing electrical work as needed. WDFW will provide Reclamation with completed forms and logs which Reclamation shall enter into their historical maintenance records. | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $154,120 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Contractor Reimbursements | O&M staff will verify and process invoices submitted for payment by contractors with affected irrigation districts and canal companies (water users) for costs over and above their historic operation and maintenance costs incurred during the irrigation season. At sites where the primary O&M duties are assigned to WDFW (see Table 1), WDFW shall be given responsibility for monitoring work quality and activity of those water users and making payments to those water users for work performed where required under those contracts. In case of disputes, Reclamation shall serve as the final authority regarding water user work performance and cost reimbursements. | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $13,120 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage and Administer Project | Provide oversight of the project throughout the performance period. Respond to BPA as requested, providing financial, contractual, and administrative documents. Prepare FY06 Statement of Work and submit no less than 90 days before end of current contract. | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $3,280 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | Participation in Annual Work Plan Meetings | O&M staff will participate in the annual workplan meeting, providing updates of seasonal activities, review evaluation of monitored sites, discuss future needs at specific sites, and consult on assignment of new or reassigned sites | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $3,280 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | Review of Operation and Maintenance Examinations | A thorough review of O&M activities at one-fourth of all sites each year. This includes a complete inspection by the O&M supervisor to address any tasks that need to be completed to keep the screens operating within criteria. For example, facilities structural and mechanical components are inspected for wear and serviceability. This provides a comprehensive evaluation of all sites once every four years. | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $32,790 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Annual Report on the O&M of Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Screens | Write annual report summarizing accomplishments for the performance period and submit to Bonneville COTR (McCloud) | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $3,280 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Status Report | Produce Pisces Status Report | Produce Pisces status report | 5/1/2007 | 4/30/2010 | $9,840 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Travel | mileage on vehicles plus travel for Review of Operations and Maintenance Examinations | $5,830 | $6,010 | $6,190 |
| Personnel | [blank] | $41,940 | $43,190 | $44,490 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $19,620 | $20,210 | $20,810 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $14,300 | $14,730 | $15,180 |
| Supplies | [blank] | $9,550 | $9,840 | $10,130 |
| Other | contractor reimbursements | $4,240 | $4,370 | $4,500 |
| Totals | $95,480 | $98,350 | $101,300 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $295,130 |
| Total work element budget: | $295,130 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $105,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $105,000 |
Comments: [Outyear comment field left blank] |
Future O&M costs: Increased costs associated with cost of living increases to personnel salaries and travel costs.
Termination date: never
Comments: As long as fish screens are used to protect fish from entering irrigation diversions, these fish screens will need to be operated and maintained.
Final deliverables: Annual reports itemize tasks completed and costs. This will continue as long as the fish screens exist.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $96,000 | $96,000 | $96,000 | $288,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $96,000 | $96,000 | $96,000 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal would continue O & M on Yakima basin screens, clearly an essential, routine component of the process. The proponents seem to have shown consistent improvement over the history of the project and have a track record of success and monitoring. Proposal 198506200 provides monitoring data using up-to-date technology for the performance of the screens. "A thorough review of O&M activities at one-fourth of all sites each year" is the target for the program. More rationale is needed to support the 25% sample rate as well as information on how the sites are chosen. It is possible that some problem sites are going unattended until it is their turn in the cycle?
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal would continue O & M on Yakima basin screens, clearly an essential, routine component of the process. The proponents seem to have shown consistent improvement over the history of the project and have a track record of success and monitoring. Proposal 198506200 provides monitoring data using up-to-date technology for the performance of the screens. "A thorough review of O&M activities at one-fourth of all sites each year" is the target for the program. More rationale is needed to support the 25% sample rate as well as information on how the sites are chosen. It is possible that some problem sites are going unattended until it is their turn in the cycle?