FY 2004 Within-year Modification proposal 199803400

Additional documents

TitleType

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleReeestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries of the Yakima Subbasin - "Safe Access"
Proposal ID199803400
OrganizationYakama Nation Fisheries - YKFP (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMel Sampson
Mailing addressP.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email509-865-6262 / yinfish@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this projectHenry Fraser
Review cycleWithin-year Modification
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short description
Target speciesAnadromous species: Steelhead, Spring Chinook, Coho
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Ludwick Diversion - Lower Wilson Creek - convert to screened pump diversion
Little Naneum Creek Siphon - will separate Bull Canal from Little Naneum Creek
Tucker Creek Grade Controls - will make Tucker Creek passable at the KRD siphon
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
149
150

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
0 YKFP - umbrella The Safe Access goals of restoring fish passage and screening diversions in tributaries are integral to the YKFP goals of restoring anadromous fish runs in the Upper Yakima. Phase II screening did not address spawning/rearing off the mainstem.
25026 Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program (YTAHP) Safe Access and YTAHP are working cooperatively on the same issues, passage and screening, in the Yakima Basin. Proximity of projects requires the sharing of information and a degree of coordination that precludes duplicative effort / funding.

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2004 costSubcontractor
Ludwick Diversion -- Design and engineering are complete $0
Little Naneum Creek Siphon -- Design and engineering are complete $0
Tucker Creek Grade Controls-- Final engineering a. Contract for final engineering with Potter Engineering '04, prior to August 15 $20,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
NA $0
NA $0
NA $0
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2004 costSubcontractor
Construct the Ludwick diversion pump and fish screen MWH Task Order is in place 1 $64,515 Yes
Construct the Little Naneum Creek Siphon MWH Task Order is in place 1 $19,937 Yes
Construct eight rock v-weirs to facilitate fish passage over the KRD siphon at Tucker Creek Yakama Nation Contract with Potter Engineering 1 $20,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
NA $0
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2004 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
NA $0
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2004 costSubcontractor
NA $0
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
NA $0
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2004 cost
Personnel $0
NEPA Construction and engineering $124,452
$124,452
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2004 cost$124,452
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2004 budget request$124,452
FY 2004 forecast from 2003$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Tucker Creek -- Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) Cost-share for construction of eight rock V-weirs $53,200 cash
Lower Wilson Creek -- MWH Task Order #33 Design/Engineering $10,000 cash

Reviews and recommendations

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