Response for project 199107500: Yakima Fish Screens Cons Bor
Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget
We believe the identified budget of $400,000 is not consistent with the budget previously approved by the Council. We also believe that it will not be sufficient to implement the approved scope and nature of the activities for this project. As a result of the FY 2004/2005 province review budget update process, the Council recommended a budget of $300,000 for FY 2004 and made a preliminary recommendation of $400,000 for FY 2005. Council staff comment was to “Reschedule two screens, total for three year recommendation not to exceed $1.2 million.” Based on this comment, we believe that the FY 2006 budget should have been identified as $500,000. Our current estimate of construction cost for the Fogarty fish screen is $375,000 to $450,000. In addition to the construction contract, we will need about $150,000 to cover labor, benefits, and overhead for coordination, report writing, contract administration, and construction management activities. So, our current estimate of FY 2006 total budget needed is $525,000 to $600,000. It is possible that the low bidder on the construction contract might come in at a lower cost, but it is also possible that all bids could exceed the estimate. Once bids are opened and confirmed, we will have a solid fix on the cost, but we cannot award a contract unless we know that sufficient funds are available in FY 2006 to cover the costs. Our current schedule is to issue the solicitation for bids in July, open bids in mid-August, and award the contract in mid-September. In summary, we believe a budget figure of $400,000 will not be adequate to cover the expected contract and labor costs for this project in FY 2006. Even increasing the budget to $500,000 may not be adequate unless we get good bids for the construction contract. We would be more comfortable with a budget of $550,000 with opportunity to increase a bit if bids come in on the high side. Of course, excellent bids would save money. If there are definitely no opportunities to increase the budget above $400,000, then this project is in jeopardy.
Accomplishments since the last review
| Produce Plan | The site for construction of the Fogarty Ditch Fish Screen has been relocated about one mile downstream from the original site to provide a more comprehensive approach to fish passage and fish production in the Fogarty Ditch/Sorenson Creek system. | |
| Produce Design and/or Specifications | Field surveys and data gathering for the Fogarty Ditch Fish Screen were started in the fall of 2004. Designs and specifications will be completed in June 2005, and a solicitation for bids will be issued in July 2005. BPA is obtaining required easements. | |
| Quantity of water protected by screening, as determined by what is stated in the water right or calculated based on flow rate (0.1 acre-feet/year) | Selah-Moxee -- 31,240 acre-feet/year (based on average 75 cfs diversion) | |
| Quantity of water protected by screening, as determined by what is stated in the water right or calculated based on flow rate (0.1 acre-feet/year) | Packwood -- 12,500 acre-feet/year (based on 30 cfs diversion) | |
| Is the screen New or a Replacement? (N/R) | R | |
| Is the screen New or a Replacement? (N/R) | R | |
| Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs? (Y/N) | Y | |
| Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs? (Y/N) | Y | |
| Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right. (0.1 cfs) | Selah-Moxee -- 86.6 cfs (max) | |
| Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right. (0.1 cfs) | Packwood -- 30.0 cfs |
Selah-Moxee Fish Screen -- Construction at this site was started in October 2001 and was completed in March 2002. Civil works were constructed under contract and the screens and other metalwork were fabricated and installed by WDFW. Contractor claims were settled and the construction contract was closed out in 2002. The O&M Agreement with the irrigation district was also completed in 2002. Packwood Fish Screen -- Designs and specifications for the civil works were completed for this screen in 2002. The screen, screen cleaner, and other metal work were fabricated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Screen Shop in 2002. Award of a construction contract was scheduled for September 2002. However, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) lands staff experienced significant delays in obtaining a required easement from the state of Washington. As a result, award of the construction contract was delayed until the fall of 2003. Construction of the civil works was completed in early March 2004. WDFW installed the screen and other metalwork and the Packwood screen was complete and functional for the start of the 2004 irrigation season. The O&M Agreement with the irrigation district was finalized in March 2005. Work continued in 2002, 2003, and 2004 to complete O&M Agreements, Designer's Operating Criteria, and contract claim settlements on several earlier sites. Some of this type of work remains to be completed in 2005 and 2006.
FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments
| Quantity of water protected by screening, as determined by what is stated in the water right or calculated based on flow rate (0.1 acre-feet/year) | 12,900 acre-feet/year (based on 31 cfs diversion) | |
| Is the screen New or a Replacement? (N/R) | R | |
| Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs? (Y/N) | Y | |
| Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right. (0.1 cfs) | 31.0 cfs | |
| If installing a ladder, does the ladder meet NOAA specifications for attraction flow, pool dimensions, jump height, etc? (Y/N) | Y | |
| Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier? (Y/N) | Y | |
| # of miles of habitat accessed (0.1 mi.) | 3.5 mi | |
| Was barrier Full or Partial? (F/P) | P |
The Fogarty Ditch Fish Screen and other Fogarty Ditch improvements will be completed in FY 2006. The main fish screen will be built under contract by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Kittitas County Conservation District is working with individual water users to install individual pump screens, pipe small ditches, replace culverts, remove barriers, and complete other habitat improvements under the YTAHP program. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is working with the water users to develop appropriate permits to allow necessary channel maintenance that will be compatible with the fish protection goals of the plan. All Phase II O&M Agreements, Designer's Operating Criteria, and summary reports will be completed in FY 2006.
Subbasin planning
How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?
The project is consistent with and implements the aquatic habitat objectives and strategies described in the Management Plan and the Management Plan Supplement to the Yakima Subbasin Plan. Table 3.5.4 of the Management Plan lists key findings, objectives and strategies. A key finding is that "Loss of side channels and springs has reduced habitat diversity and temperature spatial diversity." The cause is "Conversion to Drain/Irrigation ditch has eliminated side channel." The biological objective is to "Restore physical and access characteristics of all ditches which were side channels." Another key finding is that "Inadequate screening diverts and kills fish." The cause is that "Numerous smaller diversions remain unscreened and impinge and kill fish. Some larger diversion screens do not meet current standards...." The biological objective is to "Screen all diversions over the next 10 years, especially those in Lower tribs with good rearing access." Table 10 on page 27 of the Supplement states the following objectives (in part)-"Replace/redesign diversion dams in tributaries to allow passage and prevent entrainment. Screen all unscreened diversions and upgrade inadequate screening. Reconnect side channel and springbrook habitats in the mainstem and tributary floodplains......" The implementable strategies noted in Table 10 include "Continue long term restoration and removal of obstructions to spawning habitat, side channels and lower ends of tributaries. Replace/rebuild existing diversion dams based on prioritization from WDFW/YN/YTAHP." One of the objectives noted in Table 11 on page 28 of the supplement is to "Protect and restore off channel habitats wherever possible." The stated implementable strategy in Table 11 is to "Restore and protect side channels and springbrooks." Construction of the Fogarty Ditch Fish Screen, combined with the barrier removals and other channel improvements, will prevent fish entrainment in the irrigation ditch and will open about 3.5 miles of Fogarty Ditch and Sorenson Creek for off-channel rearing habitat.
How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?
The project accomplishes priority work under the Subbasin Plan because screening and restoration of side channels are high priority activities. Pages 8 and 9 of the Supplement to the Management Plan discuss Tier 1 Limiting Factors which are described as having "the most impact on aquatic species production potential within the subbasin and should be addressed first." The supplement goes on to state "For aquatic species, the limiting factors that should be addressed first are low flows; obstruction to fish migration and entrainment; diminished habitat quantity, quality, and diversity; high temperatures; altered sediment transport; and degraded channel stability." In the discussion of Obstructions on page 9, the Supplement states that "Screening and passage projects are considered high priority actions to increase salmonid abundance and intrinsic population productivity."