Within-Year Modification Request Form for FY 2008

 
Access CBFWA's Status of the Resource (SOTR) website or BPA's Report Center for more information on
Project 199503300 (Province: Columbia Plateau Subbasin: Yakima )
SOTR Province View
Status & Trends Projects Interactive Map Report
SOTR Subbasin View
Status & Trends Projects Interactive Map Report
SOTR Project & Correspondence
Project
Pisces Report
Project Status Work Funded

View Modification

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Section 2: Description
Section 3: Related Projects
Section 4: Planning and Design
Section 5: Construction/Implementation
Section 6: Operations and Maintenance
Section 7: Monitoring and Evaluation
Section 8: Total Budget
Section 9: Project Documents
Part 2. Current Status of Modification Request
Part 3. Comments on this Modification Request


Part 1 of 3. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status BOG Meeting Date
December 16, 2008 Finalized January 7, 2009

Modification Type: FY 2008 Within-Year Ongoing
BPA Project Number: 199503300
BPA Project Name: O&M Yakima Basin Fish Screens
COTR/BPA Project Manager: Jay Marcotte
Agency, Institution or Organization Requesting Rescheduling: Bureau of Reclamation
Funding Type: expense
Project Leader: Scott Kline
Province: Columbia Plateau
Subbasin: Yakima
 
Contact Person
First Name: Scott
Last Name Kline
Address: 1917 Marsh Rd
City, State Zip: Yakima, WA 98901
Phone: 509 575 5848 ext 277
Fax: 509-454-5612
Email: skline@pn.usbr.gov

Administrative Contacts
Primary Administrative Contact Secondary Administrative Contact:
Name Tom Leonard Name Becky Neuman
Address: 1917 Marsh Rd Address: 1917 Marsh Rd
City, State Zip: Yakima, WA 98901 City, State Zip: Yakima, WA 98901
Phone: 509 575 5848 ext 256 Phone: 509 575 5848 ext 221
Fax: 509 454 5612 Fax: 509 454 5611
Email: tleonard@pn.usbr.gov Email: bneuman@pn.usbr.gov
Note: maintenance supervisor Note: contract specialist

Section 2a: Description (Species Information)
Target Species Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout)
Oncorhynchus mykiss (steelhead)
Oncorhynchus spp. (salmonids)
Salvelinus confluentus (bull trout)

Provide explanations as to why the following alternative funding solutions are not feasible and will jeopardize the project:
Reduction in existing scope of project: Maintaining the Phase II screens typically requires the entire funding allocated to it. Though the contract year 2009 budget is anticipated to be $96,000, yearly expenses have been as high as $130,000 and are difficult to predict from year to year. Regular operation and maintenance is essential, which is a large portion of the funding. When extraordinary situations occur like this fish bypass failure, there are not enough funds to complete both the regular work and this extraordinary work. If we did omit existing work it would result in screens operating out of criteria, noncompliance with state and federal law, irrigation districts not getting their water, and would increase the risk of complete screen failure.
Deferral of existing work elements to later date: Regular operation and maintenance throughout the irrigation season is critical to keep these fish screens working properly. We are already underfunded to keep these screens functioning on a long-term basis and only have funding to deal with operation and maintenance to keep the existing screens functioning. To defer tasks planned for contract year 2009 to contract year 2010 to accommodate predesign work for the fish bypass replacement could jeopardize the proper function of the fish screens in contract year 2009.

Section 2b: Description (Location Information)
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Location Description
46 37 52 N 120 35 11 W Naches Cowiche fish screen bypass outfall

Is this/Are these the same study location(s) that was/were identified in the original proposal? Yes

Condition/situation creating the need for the modification:
Is the situation the result of a catastrophic event that occurred within the existing location? No
Has a habitat/population/mechanical/structural dilemma developed in the proposed study location since the contract was signed with BPA? Yes

Section 2c: Description (Work Element Information)
What work elements in the existing proposal does the proposed modification address?
Work Element Work Element Title
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage routine operation and maintenance of fish screens (predesign and design)

Proposed action to achieve the objective(s) The BPA-owned fish screen bypass outfall for the Naches-Cowiche fish screens is completely buried with streambed material. There is no route for fish that pass by the fish screens to safely return to the river. The fish that are entrained into the headgate for the Naches Cowiche diversion must turn around and try to pass back upstream through the headgate to the river to survive, which they are not likely to do. The fish will swim in front of the fish screens until exhausted, at which time they will become impinged on the fish screens and die or become entrained into the canal system, or become impinged on the gravel that is blocking the bypass outfall and die. This request is for funding to design a new bypass outfall that can withstand the gravel inundation we are experiencing at this diversion in recent years.

In 2003, Reclamation hired a designer to complete a design appraisal for a permanent solution to the gravel inundation problem. The solutions involved either a rock grade-control structure (several configurations) to keep the outfall scoured out or extend the bypass pipe out to the deeper portion of the river downstream of the existing outfall. Because of the impending construction of a Powerhouse Rd bridge and the unknown effect of a bridge pier just upstream of the outfall, the decision was made in 2003 to wait and see how the pier impacted the outfalls. Unfortunately, the bridge construction was delayed and it was not installed until 2007. Meanwhile in 2003, Reclamation installed ecology blocks on top of and just upstream of the existing outfall, and added more ecology blocks over subsequent years, which help keep the outfalls clear during typical high flow events, though it is not completely successful at protecting the outfall during major high flow (flood) events.

Annual attempts to clean out the gravel from the bypass outfall are successful until the next major high flow event which reburies the outfall, but these cleaning attempts are only possible at the lowest flows, which occur AFTER the peak of the juvenile fish outmigration. Most of the ecology blocks were removed in January 2008 after the pier was constructed to see how the pier impacted the outfall. The pier did not have any beneficial effect on the outfall during the spring runoff of 2008 and the lack of ecology blocks allowed the 2008 spring runoff to rebury the outfalls. The bypass outfall is presently out of compliance relative to state and federal screening laws and subject ESA-listed steelhead to entrainment as they rear in the river and outmigrate downstream.

In a meeting on October 7, 2008 of fish agency representatives and stakeholders, it was decided that a permanent fix needed to be pursued now that it was determined that the pier had no beneficial impact and annual cleaning was limited to low flow periods. Predesign and design needs to be done now so that we can construct a permanent fix by the time Reclamation has cost share funding, the earliest time for that is FY2011. This request is for predesign and design funding only, starting in contract year 2009, which includes fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Once we have cost estimates for construction, Reclamation will ask for cost share funding to cover half of the total project costs. Because the Reclamation-owned and operated City of Yakima bypass outfall is located 5 feet away from the BPA-owned Naches-Cowiche bypass outfall and is also affected by the gravel inundation, the design will incorporate a fix to both outfalls and the Bureau of Reclamation will pay for half of the project costs. However, Reclamation's budget cycle does not allow for funds for this project until 2011 at the earliest, so we are asking for up-front cost share funds in contract years 2009 and 2010 now to get the predesign and design completed in time for potential 2011 construction.

Ecology block placement is scheduled for January 2009 to help maintain the fish bypass outfall opening. Spring runoff will likely rebury the outfalls, cause them to be out of compliance again, and need to be cleared out in the summer of 2009, and so on.


Does not implementing this modification jeopardize the ability to achieve existing biological objectives of this project, as well as other projects? Yes

Explain: The buried bypass outfall stops fish from safely and quickly returning to the Naches river. The objectives of this project are to protect fish from entrainment into the canal and provide quick and safe fish passage by the fish screens. While the bypass outfall is buried, fish are highly likely to be entrained into the canal or die as a result of not being able to swim past the fish screens.

Section 2d: Description (BiOp Information)
NMFS and/or FWS Biological Opinion that this funding request addresses Strategy
NMFS &/or USFWS
How proposed actions will address the BiOp
(i.e., substrategy / limiting factor / metric to be achieved)
NMFS 2004 habitat reduce fish entrainment/mortality at irrigation diversions (in this case, naches cowiche screens)

Section 2e: Description (Objectives)
Objectives of this proposed project
Objective
(abbreviation)
Full Description
Protect fish from entrainment Redesign or modify the Naches-Cowiche fish screen bypass outfall to reduce the potential for entrainment into the Naches-Cowiche Canal, or reduce the potential for injury or death as they pass by the screens.

Section 3: Is This Funding Request Related to Other Projects in the Basin?

Other projects that are related to this request
Project # Project Title/Description Nature of Relationship
199200900 EXP YAKIMA PH II/HUNTSVILL SCR O&M This related project is operated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. They are responsible for the majority of the operation and maintenance duties at the Naches Cowiche Fish Screen

Section 4: Estimated Budget for Planning & Design phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Planning & Design
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Planning & Design
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage predesign and design 2009 2011 $100,000
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage environmental compliance and contract award 2010 2011 $30,000

Outyear totals
Planning & Design

Section 5: Estimated Budget for Contruction/Implementation phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Contruction/Implementation
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Contruction/Implementation
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage construction, this does not include Reclamation's cost share 2011 2012 $500,000

Outyear totals
Contruction/Implementation

Section 6: Estimated Budget for Operations & Maintenance phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Operations & Maintenance
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Operations & Maintenance
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Operations & Maintenance

Section 7: Estimated Budget for Monitoring & Evaluation phase for this request (request amount only)

Work element-based estimated budget
Monitoring & Evaluation
Objective Work Element Work Element Title Work Element Description Description of Metrics Task Duration
in FYs
Estimated Budget Subcontractor?

Outyear work element-based estimated 2009 - 2012 budget for this proposal
Monitoring & Evaluation
Work Element Work Element Outyear Description Starting FY
numbers only
Ending FY
numbers only
Estimated cost

Outyear totals
Monitoring & Evaluation

Section 8: Total Budget Modification Request

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2008 Cost
Personnel FY2009 and 2010 costs, not 2008 $100,000

Total Estimated Budget Modification
Total FY 2008 budget modification $100,000
Total FY 2008 budget for this project, including modification request $196,000

Outyear Budget Totals
Not applicable

Cost sharing associated with this modification
Organization Item or Service Provided Amount ($) Cash or in-kind?
Reclamation in contract years 2009-10, coordinate with stakeholders to approve and develop design $5,000 In-Kind
Reclamation construction contract in 2011, will contribute half of total project cost, amount TBD $565,000 Cash

Section 9: Narrative, Maps and Project Documents
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 3. Current Status of Modification Request
Meeting Date Status Record Entry Date Decision Group Adjustment Category Urgency Status Budget Impact Reconsider Date
1/7/2009  12/1/2008  NA      Submitted  $30,000   
Decision Comments Next Steps
   
1/7/2009  12/2/2008  NA      Submitted  $30,000   
Decision Comments Next Steps
   
1/7/2009  12/16/2008  NA      Submitted  $30,000   
Decision Comments Next Steps
   
1/7/2009  1/7/2009  BOG  Budget  CAT-3b1: Adverse Biological Consequences to Project  Under BOG Review  $30,000  5/21/2009 
Decision Comments Next Steps
Note: there are potential construction costs for this request.  This request will be pooled up for 2nd Quarter and a May recommendation. 
1/7/2009  1/28/2009  BOG  Budget    Under BOG Review  $100,000   
Decision Comments Next Steps
Amendment has been added for this request.   
1/7/2009  2/4/2009  BOG      Under BOG Review  $100,000  5/28/2009 
Decision Comments Next Steps
Amendments for January's request has been reviewed at today's BOG Meeting.  Fish Four review in April and decision in May. 
1/7/2009  5/15/2009  BPA  Budget    BPA Approved  $100,000   
Decision Comments Next Steps
BPA approves with council concurrence to approve this request. $100,000 will be added to the FY09 project budget.   

Part 3 of 3. Comments on this Modification Request
There are no comments on this proposed modification.