FY 2000 proposal 199503300
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | O&M of Yakima Phase II Fish Facilities |
| Proposal ID | 199503300 |
| Organization | U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Jim Faith |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 1749 Yakima, WA 98907-1749 |
| Phone / email | 5095755848 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Operate and maintain BPA owned Yakima River basin Phase II anadromous fish passage, protection and trapping facilities. |
| Target species | Spring & fall chinook, steelhead, bull trout. |
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 |
|---|
|
Sucessful O&M of facilities from 1992 through present. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9107500 |
Yakima Phase II Screen Construction |
Funding source for design and construction of Phase II facilities by USBR. |
| 9200900 |
Yakima Screens - Phase II O&M |
Funding source for O&M of Phase II facilities by Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife. Phase II facilities O&M is done through a cooperative effort between USBR and WDFW. |
| 9105700 |
Yakima Phase II Screen Fabrication |
Funding source for fabrication of Phase II facility drumscreens by Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife. |
| 8506200 |
Passage Improvement Evaluation |
Funding source for monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of Phase II facilities by Battelle Pacific NW Laboratories. |
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 |
1 FTE |
$41,600 |
| Fringe |
20% of personnel costs |
$8,320 |
| Supplies |
|
$5,000 |
| Indirect |
25% of personnel costs |
$10,400 |
| Other |
Utilities |
$2,500 |
| Subcontractor |
Wapato Irrigation District |
$25,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Roza Irrigation District |
$2,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Athanam Irrigation District |
$4,700 |
| $99,520 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $99,520 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $99,520 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Phase II facility construction will continue until the year 2003. USBR's actual O&M work schedule and associated costs will depend on how quickly new facilities are added.
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:
This project proposal is the weakest of the set of screen proposals. It was often short and to the point and lacked important detail and documentation. Technical background needed to be better developed and documented. Objectives were very general and could have been broken down into specific tasks or schedules. It was difficult to determine how the performance of the project might be measured. Although monitoring and evaluation were addressed, the project history provided little information on the success of this program or the results of past monitoring. Much of the work is subcontracted to local irrigation districts, but the proposal provided little detail on the quality control for this work.
The information provided is not adequate to evaluate the budget. Won't the personnel costs continue to increase as more projects are completed? How were personnel costs estimated? How do past/future budgets relate to the number of sites requiring O&M? It is not clear how O&M costs for Phase II projects will be estimated as more projects come on line. The proposal does not list measurable biological objectives but indicates biological results will be monitored and reported by other agencies. But if these results will measure the success of O&M, then the objectives and evaluation criteria should at least be defined here. It is appropriate to include this project with the other screening proposals and place the whole set on a four year funding track. The difficulties noted must be corrected for the next review.
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: |
| $110,551 |
$100,551 |
$100,551 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website