FY 1999 proposal 199603201
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 199603201 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Begin Implementation of Year 1 of the K Pool Master Plan Program |
| Proposal ID | 199603201 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Lynn Hatcher |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / lynn@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem |
| Short description | Initiate white sturgeon rearing activities and Pacific lamprey pilot studies specified in the K Pool Master Plan that will lead to supplementation programs that will reestablish naturally reproducing populations of these species. |
| Target species | |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 1999 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 1999 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 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 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 1999 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $68,200 | |
| Fringe | @ 25.3% | $17,300 |
| Supplies | $150,600 | |
| Operating | Sum of all items but capital and M&E = $583,000 | $0 |
| Capital | $187,300 | |
| Tag | 500 PIT + 10,000 CWTs | $2,500 |
| Travel | $6,800 | |
| Indirect | @ 26.8% | $123,000 |
| Subcontractor | B.N. Anderson; D.I. Herborn; Quality Aquatics; PNNL; Yakama Industries; AquaGen Engineers; Forster Consulting, Inc.; Stan Owsley | $213,700 |
| Other | $76,000 | |
| Other | $76,000 | |
| Other | $76,000 | |
| Other | $76,000 | |
| Other | $76,000 | |
| Other | $76,000 | |
| Other | $76,000 | |
| Other | $76,000 | |
| $1,377,400 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $1,377,400 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $1,377,400 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable if funds available
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Presentation: This is a sturgeon supplementation project which evaluates options for using Hanford K-pools and addresses an approved Council measure. The Master plan is to be reviewed by Yakama Leadership next week and Council approval is expected later this year. The project has 3 parts: 1) spawning of gravid females; 2) juvenile rearing; and 3) captive brood stock development from wild sturgeon. To complete the project we will use the existing K Pools, a trout hatchery and the Abernathy Technology Center. Ultimately the YIN would like to build a new sturgeon hatchery if they can do it cost effectively. They are looking at 46 potential sites. This project compliments 8605000 and we already use their data. That project has done an done impact assessment on developing this program. The YIN is raising sturgeon in net pens at the Hanford K pool and in 1995 gave 150 fish to the NPT for their Asotin project. The project will use research and protocols to support restoration activities. The Hanford pools are water treatment pools and need a pumping system. The Yakima Trout Hatchery is not being used and needs emergency funds for repairs. This why the YIN wants to build a new facility. There are no radio nuclei in the fish going to sea. The $214,000 in subcontracts is for the design of needed modifications.Questions/Answers:
Are you coordinating with WDFW and the other co-managers? Are they in agreement with this project? Answer: John Devore from WDFW was on the team to develop the program. We are in conformance with WDFW's Wild Salmonid Policy.
There is some concern about the broodstock and the magnitude of releases. Where would the brood stock would come from? If funded, how soon and where would your release fish? Answer: It would take a few years. The first year of implementation would involve getting the facility ready and getting a few gravid females to test things out.
Is this new artificial production? Does it have to go through the 3-step process? How does this project relate to the K basin anadromous fish fall chinook production? Answer: This project won't interfere with that.
Why is resident fish paying for the lamprey component? Answer: I don't know. It is mostly a pilot scale test - a small part of budget. It would be OK if the funding came from other sources. YIN has funded this on its own since 1985.
Is there any funding in the anadromous fish side for sturgeon now? Answer: No.
Is the Master Plan complete? Answer: It was written by consultants for YIN and is in the approval process now.
How does this relate to CRITFC subcontract in project 8605000? Answer: It dovetails. The work for 8605000 provides research and recommendations.
Screening Criteria: Yes. The project does not meet Criteria 1B. This sponsor has not coordinated with ODFW.
Technical Criteria: No. The impacts of stocking hatchery sturgeon on top of wild sturgeon were not addressed.
Programmatic Criteria: No. There is not demonstrated consensus among managers. Lack of coordination with states.
General Comment: Pacific lamprey should be removed from the proposal as discussed with the sponsor. No statement regarding how to address Council's 3-step process. ODFW and WDFW would like full coordination but don't want to stop the project.
Comment:
RFM recommends sturgeon tasks be assigned to Tier 2; AFM recommends funding lamprey objectivesComment:
The proposal repeatedly references an unpublished master plan and does not provide enough technical justification, methods or monitoring. The objectives and tasks are stated well. The description of the sturgeon broodstock program and juvenile rearing are not in sufficient detail to complete a review. The lamprey work is interesting and potentially fruitful.