FY 2000 proposal 199200900

Additional documents

TitleType
199200900 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleYakima [Fish] Screens - Phase 2 - O&M
Proposal ID199200900
OrganizationWashington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Yakima Screen Shop (WDFW/YSS)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameJohn A. Easterbrooks
Mailing address3705 W. Washington Ave. Yakima, WA 98903-1137
Phone / email5095752734 / eastejae@dfw.wa.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionYSS 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 speciesspring and fall chinook, steelhead, coho, bull trout, rainbow trout, whitefish
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
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 IDTitleDescription
9107500 Yakima Phase II Screens - Construction (USBR) Determines number of Phase 2 screen facilities requiring O&M services
9105700 Yakima Phase 2 [Fish] Screen Fabrication (WDFW, YSS) " " " "
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
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

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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
$133,591
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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
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.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

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.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

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.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Consider integrating these projects to save money. Why do we need two O and M contracts?
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]
REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$139,590 $139,590 $139,590

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website