FY 2000 proposal 199604000
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 |
|---|---|
| 199604000 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Evaluate the Feasibility and Risks of Coho Reintroduction in Mid-Columbia |
| Proposal ID | 199604000 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YN) |
| 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 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Wenatchee |
| Short description | Determine the feasibility of re-establishing a naturally spawning coho population within the mid-Columbia tributaries, while keeping adverse ecological impacts on other salmonid species of concern within acceptable limits. |
| Target species | Coho |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1992 | Yakima Basin - Evaluation of coho predation on fall chinook. |
| 1997 | Yakima Basin - Evaluation of coho predation on fall chinook. |
| 1997 | Yakima Basin - Evaluation of coho predation on fall chinook (CONTINUED). |
| 1998 | Yakima Basin - Evaluation of coho predation on fall chinook. |
| 1998 | Yakima Basin - Evaluation of coho predation on spring chinook. |
| 1998 | Yakima Basin - Evaluation of coho competition with rainbow/steelhead and cutthroat trout in Little Naches River and tributaries. |
| 1998 | Yakima Basin - Determination of Little Naches River mainstem coho distribution. |
| 1996 | Methow Basin - Evaluation of vulnerability associated with hatchery coho smolts upon emergent summer chinook fry. |
| 1997 | Methow Basin - Define the “window”of summer chinook fry vulnerability. |
| 1997 | Methow Basin - Observe the macrohabitat utilization between hatchery coho smolts and other juvenile salmonids (primarily summer chinook fry). |
| 1997 | Methow Basin - Macrohabitat habitat utilization (CONTINUED). |
| 1998 | Methow Basin - Monitor hatchery coho residualism. |
| 1998 | Methow Basin - Monitor hatchery coho residualism (CONTINUED). |
| 1998 | Methow Basin - Evaluation of spring chinook fry presence/absence. |
| 1998 | Methow Basin - Evaluation of spring chinook fry presence/absence (CONTINUED). |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9603302 | Yakima River Coho Restoration | 9604000 and 9603302 have similar goals. Certain study objectives are non-basin specific. Therefore, in the experimental design and monitoring/evaluation plan several of the generic questions will be developed and implemented in the Yakima River Basin. |
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 | $212,000 | |
| Fringe | 26% | $55,000 |
| Supplies | $25,000 | |
| Operating | $190,000 | |
| Capital | $75,000 | |
| NEPA | EIS | $50,000 |
| Construction | $30,000 | |
| PIT tags | 20,000 | $58,000 |
| Travel | $25,000 | |
| Indirect | 24% | $178,000 |
| Other | Vehicle, Insurance | $20,000 |
| Subcontractor | Egg banking USFWS | $65,000 |
| Subcontractor | WDFW, USFS, Colville Tribe | $200,000 |
| Subcontractor | Genetic monitoring | $25,000 |
| Subcontractor | Acclimation construction | $175,000 |
| Subcontractor | Fish health USFWS | $20,000 |
| Subcontractor | Acclimation design | $15,000 |
| $1,418,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $1,418,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $1,418,000 |
| 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: Resolving the objectives of the project depends on efficient collection of mostly field data. Unforeseen logistical problems caused by watershed environmental conditions, like hydrology and it effects on trapping, may cause schedule changes.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Fund in part. Recommend full funding for objectives 6-10; partial funding for objectives 11-15 based on costs related to implementation of objectives 6-10 in the Methow. Do not fund objectives 1-5 until coho reintroduction in the Methow has shown success in terms of naturally reproducing fish.Comments: This was a very complex and detailed proposal involving a large number of tasks. They did a good job of recognizing the problems and risks associated with their proposed activities. They did an excellent job of justifying the efforts and it would take too much space to review them in detail. The 0.001% return rate of adult coho to Wells Dam is definitely a cause for concern and is worthy of further investigation, especially in light of the relative success at Yakima. It is not likely that they will be able to develop a naturally producing run without first addressing the reasons for coho extirpation from the area. Feasibility would be better, and more cost effectively, determined by first seeing if coho reintroduction would work in one of the tributaries rather than in multiple subbasins. The Methow, as proposed, would be a good tributary to test the feasibility.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? NA -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes -
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -
Comment:
This is a very worthwhile project but the costs seem excessive at this point. We recommend funding for FY00 at the same level as FY99. Based on the outcome of joint discussions between the mid Columbia managers, the work plan should be revised. There appears to be staff members listed for funding on additional projects (i.e. research manager in this proposal also identified in project #9506325 listed for 12 mo of support as a fisheries biologist, project manager in this proposal is identified as the enhancement manager position in project #9701325 for 12 mo of support). Project sponsor has reviewed the proposal and agreed to a reduced funding level of $100,000.Comment:
Fund in part to continue monitoring in the Methow River Basin. Apparently they are abandoning efforts in the Methow River Basin and pursuing reintroduction in the Wenatchee River Basin. They need to develop a proposal with better justification for that effort.Even though returns to the Methow River Basin have been low, the study of coho reintroduction feasibility should be continued there until a complete, comprehensive justification for switching the focus to the Wenatchee River Basin has been completed. This is too important a decision to change sub-basins without development of a detailed study plan and testable hypotheses beforehand.
Comment:
Comment:
(7). Evaluate the Feasibility and Risks of Coho Reintroduction in Mid-Columbia; YIN; Project ID # 9604000; CBFWA 00 Rec. $100,000Description/Background: Determine the feasibility of re-establishing a naturally spawning coho population within the mid-Columbia tributaries, while keeping adverse ecological impacts on other salmonid species of concern within acceptable limits.
Final ISRP Evaluation: Fund in part to continue monitoring in the Methow River Basin. The study of coho reintroduction feasibility should be continued in the Methow until a complete, comprehensive justification for switching the focus to the Wenatchee River Basin has been completed. Changing subbasins is too important a decision without the development of a detailed study plan and testable hypotheses.
Sponsor's Policy Response: No written response submitted.
Council Recommendation: Fund in part. Withhold full funding for the project until: 1) a detailed written report on the Methow coho reintroduction project is submitted. This report will describe the background, methods, data collected, discussion and analysis of results, and problems encountered. Also included will be a policy and scientific rationale for the decision to switch the emphasis of the reintroduction project to the Wenatchee subbasin. 2) Complete the 3- step review process for the proposed coho reintroduction project in the Wenatchee subbasin. With the review, the project sponsors will submit a detailed study plan describing the proposed work. A combined step process may be appropriate to help expedite the process. Provide interim funding to carry out the three-step review (i.e. staff analysis of monitoring results, short and long-term production plans, etc.). Also provide sufficient funding through April 30, 2000 to cover all fish rearing costs and associated project costs, including needed acclimation site development, to keep the coho reintroduction project on schedule for Fiscal Year 2000. Appropriate interim funding levels will be determined at a later time working with BPA and the project sponsors. Full funding for the balance of Fiscal Year 2000 (including the Fiscal Year 2000 proposed funding of $100,000) will be contingent on three-step review process and final Council recommendation.
Comment:
[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Fund in n part: Methow and Step-3NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $2,288,859 | $2,288,859 | $2,288,859 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website