FY 2000 proposal 199701325
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 |
|---|---|
| 199701325 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Operations and Maintenance |
| Proposal ID | 199701325 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Melvin R. Sampson |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / mel@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | This proposal provides for the operation and maintenance of the YKFP's fish production facilities. These facilities are: 1. Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility; 2, Prosser Fish Facility; and , 3. Marion Drain Fish Facility. |
| Target species | Yakima and Klickitat Subbasin spring chinook, fall chinook, and coho. Steelhead are not being produced at this time, but are being reconditioned at the Prosser Fish Facility. |
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 | Collected 261 spring chinook broodstock at the Roza adult collection facility |
| 1997 | Broodstock held at CESRF. |
| 1997 | 239 broodstock spawned in Sept/Oct |
| 1997 | Eggs incubated and hatched |
| 1998 | Juveniles ponded and OCT/SNT experimental treatments applied. |
| 1998 | Collected 408 spring chinook broodstock at the Roza adult collection facility. |
| 1998 | Broodstock held at CESRF. |
| 1998 | 350 broodstock spawned in Sept/Oct |
| 1998 | Eggs incubated. |
| 1994 | 1994-1998 Acclimated 1.7 million Up-River Brights (URB) at PFF. |
| 1996 | 1996-1998 Initiated fall chinook broodstock capture feasibility . |
| 1996 | 1996-present Spawned, incubated and hatched fall chinook at PFF and MDFF. |
| 1994 | 1994-1998 Acclimated from 700,000 (1994-1996) to 1.4 million coho smolts from lower Columbia River hatcheries. |
| 1997 | 1997-1998 Initiated coho broodstock collection feasibilitly work. |
| 1997 | 1997-1998 Spawned, incubated and hatched coho at PFF. |
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) | Supplementation Fish Quality (Yakima Subbasin) |
| 9200900 | Yakima screens phase II O & M | Basin juvenile salmonid passage |
| 9105700 | Yakima phase II screen fabrication | Basin juvenile salmonid passage |
| 9705600 | Lower Klickitat ripairian & in-channel habitat enhancement project. | Critical habitat enhancement and information sharing. |
| 20510 | Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project | |
| 9506325 | YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation | |
| 8811525 | YKFP Design and Construction | |
| 8812025 | YKFP Management, Data & Habitat |
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 | $812,650 | |
| Fringe | $143,237 | |
| Supplies | $301,741 | |
| Operating | $354,333 | |
| Capital | $30,000 | |
| Travel | $25,000 | |
| Indirect | $381,480 | |
| Subcontractor | Kittitas County | $7,200 |
| Subcontractor | Yet to be determined | $20,000 |
| Subcontractor | Personal Comm. Industry Assoc. | $630 |
| Subcontractor | Yet to be determined | $8,320 |
| Subcontractor | City of Cle Elum | $2,500 |
| Subcontractor | Burlington Northern Railroad | $1,000 |
| Subcontractor | Ros Elum Services | $9,730 |
| Subcontractor | Simplex: CESRF Alarm System | $2,752 |
| Subcontractor | USFWS: Fish Health Monitoring | $130,177 |
| Subcontractor | Perry Boone: Housing Rental | $29,410 |
| $2,260,160 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $2,260,160 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $2,260,160 |
| 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 environmental uncertainties.
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: Like most of the other proposals in this group, this proposal provided only minimal background or technical detail on the fishery problems the project was to address. These had to be inferred by reading other proposals within this group or relying on the reviewer's familiarity with the Yakima Basin. The proposal notes that broodstock collection is not to exceed 50% of spawner escapement. It does not give a rationale for this number. It is not clear whether this proportion will minimize genetic risks. What are the risks that catastrophic loss of the hatchery population will result in the loss of half of the wild spawners?
Thermal acceleration of 40,000 fall chinook is not described. What is the experiment and when are the fish released? This proposal lists production levels but does not give a rationale for the numbers used, the tests planned, or the results to date (other than meeting hatchery production goals). The proposal states it is consistent with chapter 2 of Return to the River. It should explain how it is consistent.
The need for O & M funds is clearly an essential part of the overall program to restore fisheries and test supplementation. The methods of operation, however, were only generally described without documentation or reference. For example, the description of general operating methods is "currently accepted hatchery practices." Depending on the reviewer's previous experience currently accepted hatchery practices might be considered entirely inappropriate for this program. A detailed manual for hatchery operations, which was developed for the YKFP, was not cited. Likewise, both internal YKFP planning documents and published literature could have been cited for brood stock collection methods, spawning and rearing protocols, and acclimation and release. The success of the fish culture funded by this proposal is clearly linked to the monitoring and evaluation study. Although this link was acknowledged, it could have been developed more.
D. Fast is budgeted for 12 months on each of 3 different proposals (this one, 8812025 and 9506325). M. Sampson is budgeted 12 months on each of 2 different proposals (this one and 8812025).
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? yes -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? NA - o&m
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? NA -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? NA -
Comment:
There appears to be a duplication of effort assigned to specific participants among the 4 FYKP proposals. Could the administrative manpower be removed from this budget proposal? There appears to be staff members listed for funding on additional projects (i.e. enhancement manager position identified for 12 mo of support is also listed under project #9604000 as project manager). We question funding $8,320 for janitorial service for an interpretive center that may not have been completed by the end of FY01.Comment:
Fund at appropriate interim level to maintain the basic program until province level review. See programmatic recommendation and comments in project 8811525.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
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $2,597,942 | $2,597,942 | $2,597,942 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website