FY 2001 High Priority proposal 23043

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
23043 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Columbia Basin Fish Passage and Screening Inventory; WDFW Lands and Kittitas County
Proposal ID	23043
Organization	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Paul Dahmer
Mailing address	600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Phone / email	3609028135 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project	Dave Brittell, Assistant Director
Review cycle	FY 2001 High Priority
Province / Subbasin	Systemwide /
Short description	This proposal is to conduct an inventory of fish passage structures and intake screens and to identify required corrective actions in Kittitas County and on WDFW lands in all of the Columbia Basin down to Bonneville Dam.
Target species	Steelhead, chinook, bull trout, coho, cutthroat, chum, bald eagle, etc.

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
47.17	-120.79	Kittitas County

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
$4,246,770	$4,246,770	$4,246,770	$4,246,770

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

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2001 cost
Personnel	FTE: 1 Fish and Wildlife Bio2, 1 Scientific Tech3	$80,330
Fringe		$21,120
Supplies		$6,550
Travel		$22,000
Indirect	20.8% of total	$27,040
Capital	Project Vehicle	$25,000
		$182,040

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2001 cost	$182,040
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2001 budget request	$182,040
FY 2001 forecast from 2000	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
WDFW	Inventory on half of WDFW lands	$780,000	cash

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Review

Recommendation:
N/A

Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

This proposal to conduct an inventory of fish passage structures and intake screens does not address imminent risks to ESA stocks by offering direct on-the-ground benefits with one-time funding. The inventory should be completed.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
HP "B" S

Date:
Feb 1, 2001

Comment:

A necessary first step, but the proposal will not provide direct benefits. The wildlife committee determined that this project failed to meet one or more of the gatekeeper criteria.