|
<br />:;~{;~;;~;'~~~i~~I;~~~!;~~)l~~~;t~~~,l~~;;:~;;;~:~!l1,~~~;~;;E~~g'ij_~~~',}SI1.~IJI~g]::,;:;~~~~' :'::;,\::: ,: ~~ ;,:~;, ~~~ ~:'~ ',,',,:: ,,:'.::: :,'~~''''~'::''.''
<br />
<br />The Value Study Team met on February 14, 2000, for a 4-day study of the Grand Valley Irrigation
<br />Company Fish Screen Project. The estimated field cost of the baseline concept is $1,645,000.
<br />The Team developed eight proposals which are summarized in random order below. If the
<br />highest value savings proposals are accepted, the maximum savings potential is $1,125,000. In
<br />calculating the maximum savings, the cost of the study ($20,000) was deducted only once.
<br />
<br />This study was one of a series of meetings on the project and was performed to develop a
<br />consensus and partnership approach between the Grand Valley Irrigation Company, the U. S.
<br />Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Within Reclamation, the value
<br />engineering process has proven to be a successful technique to solve problems, improve project
<br />value and achieve consensus solutions. The value engineering process is consistent with
<br />Reclamation's Customer Service Plan, specifically as a technique to resolve customer needs in a
<br />central forum, to ask for and consider customer ideas about agency plans, programs, and
<br />services, and to respond to customer suggestions and concerns. Accordingly, the team was
<br />formed of representatives from the three public and private stakeholders of the project. The team
<br />was not able to fully assess the contribution of the existing facilities to the project's effectiveness,
<br />safety or environmental value. More importantly, however, there was a recognition of the study's
<br />value to promote goodwill, develop a cooperative solution, and establish an environment of mutual
<br />aid.
<br />
<br />Dependent Proposals: The following proposal is interdependent and only one can implemented.
<br />
<br />Proposal No. 1A. Monitoring Endangered Fish Movement (Weir). The estimated added cost of
<br />this proposal is $150,000 to $250,000 before adding any study and/or implementation costs.
<br />
<br />Proposal NO.1 B. Monitoring Endangered Fish Movement (Seines). The estimated added cost of
<br />this proposal is $100,000 to $200,000 before adding any study and/or implementation costs.
<br />
<br />Proposal No. 1 C. Hydraulic and Biological Modeling. The estimated added cost of this proposal
<br />is $500,000 before adding any study and/or implementation costs.
<br />
<br />Independent Proposals: The following proposals are independent of all other proposals and
<br />could be accepted or rejected individually without affecting other proposals.
<br />
<br />Proposal NO.2. Install a Trashrack in Front of the Headgates. The estimated added cost of this
<br />proposal is $82,000 before adding any study and/or implementation costs.
<br />
<br />Proposal NO.3. Build a Sedimentation Basin in the River. The estimated added cost of this
<br />proposal is $16,600 before adding any study and/or implementation costs.
<br />
<br />Proposal NO.4. Install a Sluice Pipe at the Silt Ledge. The estimated added cost of this proposal
<br />is $96,300 before adding any study and/or implementation costs.
<br />
<br />1
<br />
|