FY 2000 proposal 199107500
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 | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Install new fish screens at all significant diversions in the Yakima River Basin to keep juvenile salmon and steelhead from being diverted and lost in canals during outmigration. Improve adult upstream passage at selected sites. |
| Target species | salmon, steelhead |
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 |
|---|
| 1990 |
Planning Report completed |
| 1992 |
First construction contracts awarded |
| 1995 |
14 screen sites completed (1992-1995) |
| 1998 |
11 screen sites completed (1996-1998) |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
| 9105700 |
Yakima Phase II Screen Fabrication |
Provides fabrication and installation of screens and other mechanical and metalwork items at Phase II screen sites. |
| 9200900 |
Yakima Screens - Phase II - O&M |
Provides on-going operation and maintenance activities at completed screens. |
| 9503300 |
O&M of Yakima Fish Protection, Mitigation & Enhancement Facilities |
Provides on-going operation and maintenance activities at completed screens. |
| 8506200 |
Passage Improvement Evaluation (PNNL) |
Provides biological and hydraulic evaluation of selected Phase II screens. |
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 |
Direct labor for construction supervision, contract administration, design, and project coordination |
$150,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$50,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$5,000 |
| Construction |
Construction contracts and related contingencies |
$650,000 |
| Travel |
|
$35,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$95,000 |
| Other |
|
$15,000 |
| $1,000,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $1,000,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $1,000,000 |
| 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: Canal system consolidation proposals have not been implemented and have delayed construction at some sites while the irrigation districts proceed through the study process. If these proposals are not implemented by January 1999 we must proceed to screen existing diversions or risk loss of funding and incomplete project objectives. Water rights uncertainties also have delayed construction at some sites. If the water rights issues are not resolved by Jan 1999, we intend to proceed with screeen sizing based on historical diversions. Difficulties in securing rights-of-way continue to delay construction at some sites.
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 too brief and needed better development. Although specific projects were identified, it was difficult to judge the relative effort and expense these would incur without breaking the objectives down into more descriptive tasks. The proposal should have given more detail on measurable tasks where the objective was predesign and design work. The proposal is requesting $1,000,000, but the budget section did not provide much explanation or justification for that amount. The proposal does a good job of explaining the critical link to project #9105700 and the need to coordinate the two projects to avoid delays and cost over runs. What specific activities are associated with each construction project? What projects will be completed first? Personnel requirements cannot be evaluated without more information about the work to be completed within the period of this proposal. Some context on the selection of project sites and their priorities relative to alternative sites would be helpful.
This project in large part sets the schedule for the screen fabrication project, but there is no timetable given, and the possibility of delays is noted. How will unforeseen changes in construction plans affect the screen fabrication project or the personnel needs for this proposal? How will cost overruns be avoided? The next time this project comes up for review the deficiencies noted above should be corrected.
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: |
| $400,000 |
$400,000 |
$400,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website