FY 2000 proposal 198811525
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 |
|---|---|
| 198811525 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Design and Construction |
| Proposal ID | 198811525 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Melvin Sampson |
| Mailing address | 151 Fort Rd. Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / mel@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Design/construction re: 1. Cle Elum: a) M&E Facility, b) Interpretative Center c) Employee Housing 2. Prosser: a) Rearing/Settling Ponds, b) Employee Housing c) Alternative Water Supply 3. Klickitat: Design of Lyle Trap |
| Target species | Yakima and Klickitat Subbasin spring chinook, fall chinook, coho and steelhead. |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1997 | Final design and construction of Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility (CESRF). |
| 1998 | Scheduled final design and construction of CESRF acclimation sites at Easton, Clark Flats, and Jack Creek. |
| 1997 | Final design and construction of Prosser Fish Facility's used for coho and fall chinook spawning, incubation, and rearing. |
| 1994 | Final design and construction of Roza Adult Fish Monitoring and Broodstock Collection Facility. |
| 1987 | Final design, construction and modification of the Chandler Juvenile Fish Monitoring Facility. |
| 1987 | Final design, and construction of the adult video monitoring facilities at Prosser and Roza dams (1987-1992). |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9200220 | Physiological assessment of wild and hatchery juvenile salmonids | Physiological/developmental monitoring of hatchery and wild spring chinook juveniles (parr/smolt) |
| 5510200 | Yakima River side channel survey and rehabilitation | Complementary habitat enhancement in upper Yakima |
| 5510800 | Upper Yakima tributary irrigation improvement | Restores passage to tributaries blocked by irrigation diversions. |
| 5510900 | Teanaway River instream flow restoration | Complementary adult passage project (NF Teanaway is an acclimation/release site). |
| 9705100 | Yakima Subbasin side channel | Juvenile salmonid rearing habitat. |
| 9100 | Re-establish safe access into tributaries of Yakima Subbasin | Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing. |
| 9101 | Restore upper Toppenish Creek watershed | Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing. |
| 9102 | Ahtanum Creek watershed assessment | Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing. |
| 9603501 | Satus Cr. watershed restoration | Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing. |
| 9506404 | WDFW Policy/Technical Involvement/Planning YKFP | Co-Managers, YKFP |
| 9105500 | Supplementation Fish Quality (Yakima Subbasin) | NMFS contract to develop rearing treatment alternativcs to increase hatchery fish survival. |
| 9200900 | Yakima screens phase II O & M | Basin juvenile salmonid passage |
| 9705600 | Lower Klickitat ripairian & in-channel habitat enhancement project. | Critical habitat enhancement and information sharing. |
| 20510 | Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project | |
| 9506404 | YKFP Project Management (WDFW) | |
| 9701725 | YKFP Operations and Management | |
| 8812025 | YKFP Project Management, Data and Habitat (YIN) | |
| 9506325 | YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | $0 | |
| Fringe | $0 | |
| Supplies | $0 | |
| Capital | Design and construction of Research/M&E facility & employee housing at Cle Elum & Prosser hatcheries | $950,000 |
| NEPA | $100,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $100,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $350,000 | |
| Subcontractor | Summit Technology | $65,000 |
| $1,565,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $1,565,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $1,565,000 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Potential constraints include NEPA compliance and weather delays
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until the entire set of proposals under umbrella 20510 have been reorganized to provide the scientific rationale for the two stated objectives to test supplementation and to provide a harvestable surplus.Comments: This proposal focuses on the use of supplementation to restore natural production because habitat improvement will take a long time. But the umbrella (and this sub-proposal) does not describe the relationship between the supplementation and habitat work. If it will take decades to improve habitat and to develop normative conditions, how will supplementation succeed as a "stopgap?" If there is not sufficient habitat to sustain natural reproduction of salmon, then presumably supplementation will not work in the short term either.
Construction of facilities per se does not address a fish and wildlife problem but is simply a means to some other end. According to the objectives, this subproposal will be judged successful if the facilities are constructed, but the merits of construction must be judged in relation to the ecological risks and benefits of supplementation. That information is not provided.
The proposal describes the history of decisions leading to facility construction. It states that all major research results to date are available in the final EIS. But the proposal does not summarize information needed to judge whether this project should be completed. The proposal relies on the history of prior decisions to justify the work rather than detailing the rationale that presumably supported these decisions. A full description of how each facility will function (e.g., interpretive center, Monitoring and Evaluation building, etc.) and how collectively these facilities will meet the supplementation goal is not provided.
The proposal emphasizes the role of adaptive management and considers the rearing and release of each batch of smolts as tests of the latest supplementation theory. Yet the specific tests and experimental designs to be conducted are not described. Therefore it is not possible to evaluate them. The construction of permanent facilities takes for granted that the success of supplementation is a forgone conclusion. What will happen to these facilities if supplementation does not work? What criteria will be used to judge success or failure of supplementation, and over what time period are results required to make this determination?
The umbrella proposal states: "Its ultimate goal is to sustain naturally spawning populations with a high enough survival range to be able to phase out artificial propagation when critical habitat improvements have reached a point that artificial enhancement is no longer necessary." This proposal should explain how permanent facilities are consistent with that goal. Why are the authors not following the NRC's recommendation in Upstream to employ temporary facilities? Somewhere in the suite of supplementation or habitat proposals those critical habitat improvements should be identified along with a description of how they will be addressed.
This proposal is closely tied with the monitoring & evaluation proposal. It was necessary to read the M & E proposal before judging this one, because neither proposal nor the umbrella proposal provided enough detail and justification. The proposal contained few details about the qualifications of the builders, costs, or construction schedules. The completion date of 2048 is not explained. Is this interpretive center different from the one that they already have?
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? NA -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? NA - Construction project - doesn't fit in this review.
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? NA -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? NA -
Comment:
How many houses are going to be provided and how many housed are necessary for project success? Costs seem high.Comment:
Fund at an appropriate base level until a programmatic review can be completed. In the ISRP's June 15, 1999 report, the Panel recommended that the entire set of proposals included in the umbrella program (20510) should be reorganized so that the scientific approach to achieving the stated objectives could be evaluated. This recommendation applied to all proposals in the Umbrella (including projects 8811525, 8812025, 9506325, and 9701325, which are in this response review). In addition, the ISRP listed specific questions or concerns for each project. The Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) submitted a very detailed response that appears to address the concerns raised in the ISRP review. However, the document is 210 pages and is too long for the ISRP to review in the depth it deserves in the time allotted to the "fix it loop." The document submitted by the YKFP will serve as a starting point for a full scale programmatic review which should be initiated as soon as possible. Because this is a production program that must maintain adequate conditions for rearing fish, the ISRP recommends continued funding at an appropriate base level until the programmatic review can be completed. Project 9506425 should be included in this recommendation even though it was not part of the response submitted by the YKFP.Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Address ISRP comments in BPA contractNW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
capital
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $20,508,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website