FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199107500
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 199107500 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199107500 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima Phase II Screens - Construction* |
| Proposal ID | 199107500 |
| Organization | U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | R. Dennis Hudson |
| Mailing address | 1150 N Curtis Rd - Suite 100 Boise ID 83706-1234 |
| Phone / email | 2083785250 / rhudson@pn.usbr.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | David Byrnes |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Install new fish screens at previously scheduled diversions in the Yakima River Basin to prevent mortality or injury to anadromous and resident fish. |
| Target species | Anadromous salmonids including coho, spring and fall chinook, and steelhead (NMFS listed species). Incidental benefits to resident fish species including bull trout (USFWS listed species), rainbow trout, brook trout, and whitefish. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Four diversions from the Yakima River in Yakima and Kittitas Counties | ||
| 46.988 | -120.538 | City of Ellensburg, WA |
| 46.6013 | -120.5028 | City of Yakima, WA |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1990 | Planning Report completed including site inventory, preliminary schedule and site priorities, and estimated funding needs |
| 1992 | First construction contracts awarded and screen construction completed at Kiona and Naches-Cowiche diversions |
| 1993 | Screen construction completed at Gleed, New Cascade, WIP Lower, Snipes/Allen, and Bruton Ditch diversions |
| 1994 | Screen construction completed at Taylor, Congdon, Kelley/Lowery, and Bachelor Creek diversions, plus New Cascade headgate mods and Bachelor/Hatton consolidation pipeline and Bachelor Creek adult barrier |
| 1995 | Screen construction completed at WIP Toppenish Pump diversion, Boise Cascade diversion converted to groundwater |
| 1996 | Screen construction completed at Naches-Selah and Fruitvale diversions |
| 1997 | Screen construction completed at WIP Upper, Yakima-Tieton, Union Gap, Bull, Ellensburg Mill, Clark, and Lindsey diversions, plus access bridge at WIP Upper and Vertrees No. 2 diversion converted to ground water pumping |
| 1998 | Screen construction completed at Younger and Old Union diversions, Foster-Natchez diversion converted to pump from Scott Ditch |
| 1999 | Screen construction completed at Johncox diversion |
| 2000 | Moxee/Hubbard diversion converted to pump from Roza wasteway, City of Yakima screen bypass modified, Knudson diversion-Taneum Creek channel mods completed |
| 2001 | Screen construction completed at LaFortune/Powell and Wilson Creek/Bull Ditch diversions |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199105700 | Yakima Phase 2 (Fish) Screen Fabrication (WDFW) | The WDFW Yakima Screen Shop provides fabrication and installation of screens and mechanical and metalwork items at Phase II screen sites. |
| 199503300 | O&M of Yakima Phase II Fish Facilities (USBOR) | The USBOR screen shop provides on-going operation and maintenance activities at completed Phase II screens and YKFP collection and monitoring facilities. |
| 199200900 | Yakima (Fish) Screens - Phase 2 - O&M (WDFW) | The WDFW Yakima Screen Shop provides on-going operation and maintenance activities at completed Phase II screens. |
| 198506200 | Passage Improvement Evaluation (PNNL) | Independent biological and hydraulic evaluation of selected Phase II screens by PNNL fishery scientists provides valuable "adaptive management" feedback. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Provide screens that will meet current agency criteria for effective fish protection and passage at all remaining Phase II diversion sites. | a. Develop schedules and budgets and coordinate project implementation | 2 | $15,800 | |
| 1. | b. Develop conceptual plans and obtain concensus of all interested parties at each site | $0 | ||
| 1. | c. Prepare designs and specifications | 2 | $22,900 | |
| 1. | d. Obtain permits, O&M agreements, NEPA updates, & ESA consultation | 1 | $1,700 | |
| 1. | e. Award construction contracts and supervise and administer construction | 2 | $325,500 | |
| 1. | f. Construct screens by contract | 2 | $234,100 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Provide screens that will meet current agency criteria for effective fish protection and passage at all remaining Phase II diversion sites. | 2003 | 2004 | $600,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $500,000 | $100,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 3.5 | $173,300 |
| Fringe | $60,700 | |
| Travel | $13,400 | |
| Indirect | $118,500 | |
| Subcontractor | Construction contracts | $234,100 |
| $600,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $600,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $600,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $500,000 |
| % change from forecast | 20.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
We have experienced increased non-contract costs for design, contract administration, and construction supervision in the last couple of years. The reasons are varied, but include (1) added tasks such as preparing surveys and legal descriptions which were not included in our original budget, (2) only one on-going contract in a geographical area which precludes sharing inspectors between jobs, and (3) start and stop on solicitations due to right-of-way problems. We also have experienced bids that exceed the budgeted estimate for the contract as well as significant contract cost increases due to changes after contract award. Changes can result from unforeseen site conditions as well as design changes requested by others after the start of construction. As a result, we expect to have less FY2001 carryover money than forecast previously.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
The FY2003 budget is to complete Tjossem screen construction and to start the Scott screen construction. The FY2004 budget is for construction supervision to complete the Scott screen.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable - no response required
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable. This is part of a long-standing program that would appear to have contributed significantly to survival improvements in downriver salmonid migrants. This funding would complete Phase II replacement or upgrade of all screen facilities in the Yakima basin by the end of FY 2003. The proposal notes that project prioritization is determined by the Passage TWG, including input from the BPA project manager, BOR, state and federal agencies, and YIN.
It is not possible to assess this or its companion proposal on science-based standards. As noted in the FY 2000 review, this project is tightly linked to project #199107500 and closely related to project #19920900. Some of the project descriptions shared the same introductory material. This suggests that these proposals could have been introduced under one proposal, which would have reduced the repetitive material and provided an opportunity to specifically describe the functional relationship among these projects. Reviewers were confused by an apparent redundancy of effort, with efforts from both projects #199107500 and #199105700 being expended on the same screen sites.
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable. This is part of a long-standing program that would appear to have contributed significantly to survival improvements in downriver salmonid migrants. This funding would complete Phase II replacement or upgrade of all screen facilities in the Yakima basin by the end of FY 2003. The proposal notes that project prioritization is determined by the Passage TWG, including input from the BPA project manager, BOR, state and federal agencies, and YIN.It is not possible to assess this or its companion proposal on science-based standards. As noted in the FY 2000 review, this project is tightly linked to project #199107500 and closely related to project #199200900. Some of the project descriptions shared the same introductory material. This suggests that these proposals could have been introduced under one proposal, which would have reduced the repetitive material and provided an opportunity to specifically describe the functional relationship among these projects. Reviewers were confused by an apparent redundancy of effort, with efforts from both projects #199107500 and #199105700 being expended on the same screen sites.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUOld screens in the Yakima Basin may provide poor protection for fry and fingerlings.
Comments
not a priority subbasin
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
No cost share. RPA #149 (see comments above). The rationale for $1 million cost is unclear; this cost needs to justified. PNNL, BOR, WDFW and any others relating to Phase II screens need to be considered as whole project to identify redundancies.Comment:
Comment:
Comment:
Capital project. Only a few screen sites left in program. Have had delays in Fogerty. Was not included in latest accrual requests. Low accruals because of delays. Could try to realign tasks from 02 or 03 to 04.Comment:
There are two screens remaining to be built in the Phase II program. Both of these screens were scheduled for construction in 2002 and 2003. However, delays caused by right-of-way problems and plan changes have required rescheduling of actual construction to FY 2004 and FY 2005. We will open bids on the Packwood screen in mid-August 2003 and award a contract in September 2003. However, most of the contractor earnings will be early in FY 2004. The Fogarty screen plans are being revised and this screen construction contract will be awarded in September 2004 with actual construction early in FY 2005. The revised dollar amounts for FY 2004 and FY 2005 will provide the funding needed to meet accrued expenses during the construction period for these screens. This year we didn't have a signed funding amendment until 8 months into the fiscal year. Fortunately we had some remaining FY 2002 funds to carry us through and our expenses were light. In the past, we were able to obligate current year funding to pay for construction in the following year. Since this is no longer acceptable, it will be critical that we have a signed funding amendment before the beginning of the fiscal year so that we are assured prior to contract award that funding will be available to pay construction related expenses.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
capital
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $400,000 | $400,000 | $400,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website