FY 2000 proposal 199105700

Additional documents

TitleType
199105700 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleYakima Phase 2 [Fish] Screen Fabrication
Proposal ID199105700
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 fabricates and installs fish screens and all miscellaneous metalwork for Yakima Basin Phase II screen projects. New fish screens prevent mortality and/or injury of juvenile anadromous and resident fish in gravity irrigation diversions.
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 Screen fabrication/installation completed for: Old Union Canal and Younger Ditch irrigation diversions; shop fabrication of Johncox, Fogarty screens for 1999 install
1997 Screen facilities fabricated/installed: Bull, Ellensburg Mill, Clark, Lindsey, Union Gap, Upper WIP (install)
1996 Facilities fabricated/installed: Fruitvale, Naches-Selah, Emerick, Stevens, Anderson, Tennant, Sinclair-Cobb, Gnavaugh, Peterson
1995 Facilities fabricated/installed: Toppenish Pump, Upper WIP fabrication
1994 Facilities fabricated/installed: Bachelor-Hatton, Congdon, Kelly-Lowry
1993 Facilities fabricated/installed: Gleed, Holmes, Lower WIP, New Cascade, Snipes-Allen, Taylor,
1992 Facilities fabricated/installed: Naches-Cowiche, Kiona

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9107500 Yakima Phase II Screens - Construction (USBR) mandatory linkage with screen facility civil works construction
9200900 Yakima Screens - Phase II - O&M (WDFW, YSS) operation & preventive maintenance of completed screens
9503300 O&M of Yakima Fish Protection, Mitigation & Enhancement Facilities (USBR) screen & fish passage O&M and preventative maintenance
8506200 Evaluate the Effectiveness of Fish Screens (Battelle, PNNL) post-construction and periodic biological/hydraulic evaluation of completed Phase II screens

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 fabrication/installation labor costs $89,370
Fringe @ 31% of labor costs $27,705
Supplies includes: metered/non-metered equipment charges; WA sales tax @ 7.8% $110,731
Capital None in FY2000 $0
NEPA Not Applicable $0
Travel vehicle mileage costs for installation/field testing $6,700
Indirect YSS indirect costs @ $300/man-month $9,755
Other Admin. overhead @ 20% of above subtotal $48,852
$293,113
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$293,113
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$293,113
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Not Applicable $0 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Delays in screen civil works construction caused by diversion water rights uncertainty (on-going court adjudication) or property acquisition delays (easements, rights-of-way, fee title) may affect the Yakima Screen Shop fabrication schedule.


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 proposal 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 were specific and measurable. The methods section, however, was vague and could have used better development. In particular, the writers included little information on provisions for delays, cost overruns, or expected long-term maintenance needs. This project is tightly linked to project #9105700 and closely related to project #920900. All the project descriptions shared the same introductory material. This suggests that these proposals could have been introduced under an umbrella proposal, which would have reduced the repetitive material and provided an opportunity to specifically describe the functional relationship among these projects.

The next time this project comes up for review the following areas should be improved:

1. The difference in activities between this and the screen construction project should be made clearer. Given the amount of overlap in the projects and the repeat of information in each proposal, it might be reasonable to combine these proposals.

2. More detail is needed in the budget and schedule. What are the estimated costs of the individual projects? Since delays last year had an affect on this year's proposal, how might delays in the civil works construction schedule affect the proposed fabrication plans and budget?

3. Additional detail is needed regarding the budgeted activities, sequence of work, and contingencies. The linkage to project 9107500 creates some problems due to the lack of specificity in that budget and schedule (see comments).


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? Yes
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:
capital
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$0 $28,195 $28,195

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website