FY 2000 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
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Begin Implementation of Year 1 of the K Pool Master Plan Program |
| Proposal ID | 199603201 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Paul Ward |
| Mailing address | Yakama Indian Nation Fisheries Resource Management Program P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / ward@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Develop a long-term program of artificial propagation of white sturgeon for supplementation purposes using the Hanford K Pools |
| Target species | White Sturgeon |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1993 | to 1998 several hundred white sturgeon were cultured by the YIN using the Hanford K Pools |
| 1993 | WDFW feasibility/demonstration acclimation of 150,000 up-river bright fall chinook salmon at Hanford K Pools |
| 1994 | YIN conducted acclimation and release of 500,000 URB FCS into the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River |
| 1995 | YIN conducted acclimation and release of 700,000 URB FCS into the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River |
| 1996 | YIN conducted acclimation and release of 700,000 URB FCS into the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River |
| 1997 | AquaGen Engineers designed a continuously flowing water system for improved K Pool system |
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 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 | $29,496 | |
| Fringe | $7,462 | |
| Supplies | $66,798 | |
| Operating | The sum of all items not capital | $0 |
| Capital | $48,276 | |
| NEPA | Distributed among travel, subcontracts and indirect | $0 |
| Construction | Application of generic facility design to selected site of new facility | $28,350 |
| PIT tags | 500 | $1,450 |
| Travel | $8,200 | |
| Indirect | $80,273 | |
| Subcontractor | GTS Duratek, Owsley | $71,000 |
| Subcontractor | Anderson | $15,000 |
| Subcontractor | Herborn | $10,000 |
| Subcontractor | Macy | $15,000 |
| Subcontractor | Forster | $7,000 |
| Subcontractor | Yakama Industries | $39,768 |
| $428,073 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $428,073 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $428,073 |
| 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: Hanford water use permit, NEPA and NPDES permit compliance must be addressed. U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) concurrence is required: USDOE and YIN must enter into a property lease agreement. U.S. EPA concurrence is required
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund as an interim measure to maintain sturgeon alive while policy issues involved (as noted in the comments) are dealt with.Comments: What is the long-term plan for sturgeon in the mid-Columbia Reach? Populations do not appear to be self-sustaining. Is it the intent to continue this program indefinitely as a put and take fishery, or catch and release? While the proposal refers to the Council's interest in finding a use for these ponds, the particular application with sturgeon should be examined by the Council. If this is a supplementation program, it should be so labeled. However, considering the long life cycle of sturgeon and high fishing rates usually experienced, such a program is not likely to be successful. Are the reasons for declines in sturgeon numbers being investigated? If isolation by dams leads to poor recruitment, what measures can be taken to improve the situation? How does this project fit into the picture?
Comment:
Comment:
Screening Criteria: no-It's an Anadromous fish project in Resident fish clothing. It doesn't meet the intent of Resident fish measures.Technical Criteria: no- It doesn't meet criteria 3,2,8,5,9. There are no clearly defined objectives or benefits to wild fish. It didn't clearly explain the potential impacts to existing wild fish populations. There is no M and E. I am concerned about number of subcontractors, and it doesn't explain how subcontractors are coordinated.
Programmatic Criteria: no- It doesn't meet criteria 12,16,14. There is no indication that these fish are weak. There is no demonstrated link to other sturgeon projects. It doesn't promote community diversity.
Milestone Criteria: no-There are no milestones identified.
General Comments: The proposal does not adequately describe ongoing activities.
Comment:
Well written objectives. Premature to fund for implementation. Master plan not approved by NPPC.Comment:
[Decision made in 10-13-99 Council Meeting];Comment:
Comment: