FY 2000 proposal 199200900
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima [Fish] Screens - Phase 2 - O&M |
| Proposal ID | 199200900 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Yakima Screen Shop (WDFW/YSS) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | John A. Easterbrooks |
| Mailing address | 3705 W. Washington Ave. Yakima, WA 98903-1137 |
| Phone / email | 5095752734 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / 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
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|
| 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
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. 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 |
| $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 forecast | 0.0% |
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 |
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