FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23033

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
23033 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Big Creek Passage and Screening
Proposal ID	23033
Organization	Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Brent Renfrow
Mailing address	201 N. Pearl Ellensburg, WA 98926
Phone / email	5099251013 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Ted Clausing
Review cycle	FY 2001 High Priority
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Yakima
Short description	A concrete dam in Big Creek blocks all upstream fish passage. Project will provide fish passage over the dam with a series of weirs and a short fishway.
Target species	spring chinook, steelhead trout, coho salmon

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
47.2175	-121.0966	Big Creek

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2002
$500	$500	$500	$500

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2001 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

FY 2002	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
$500	$500	$500	$500

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2001 cost
Subcontractor	WDFW Screen Shop & Rocks & Screens	$170,000
Other	Grant Administration 10%	$17,000
		$187,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$187,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2001 budget request	$187,000
FY 2001 forecast from 2000	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
WDFW	Engineering & Design	$2,000	in-kind
Yakama Nation	M & E	$2,000	in-kind
Big Creek Water Users	O & M	$2,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review

Recommendation:
C

Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

The proposal would provide a fish ladder at an impassable irrigation diversion dam on Big Creek, a tributary of the Yakama River and install screens at the intakes for the ditches. The proposal is so brief, that it is difficult to evaluate. The proposal notes that Big Creek is on Washington's "Waldo" list, but does not describe how high the ranking (i.e., the priority need for the project). While the proposal did not provide adequate detail or justification to support a funding recommendation, there is reason to believe the project would yield positive results. There is high use of the creek below the dam by steelhead (listed) and chinook. They should consider potential impacts on native resident stocks if any are present above the culverts.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
HP "A" -BiOp

Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:
Rank 6

Date:
Feb 26, 2001

Comment:

23024 - Hancock springs passage and habitat restoration, 23033 - Big Creek passage and screening, and 23045 - Gourlay Creek fish passage and habitat. All three projects involve removal of a barrier to passage plus upstream improvements (habitat restoration in two cases and the screening of irrigation ditches in the second.) All projects could provide useful information about the benefits of access to additional habitat (i.e.., whether survival rates improve as a result of this access), and about colonization patterns. 23040 (below) could also contribute to this effort.