Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 198811525

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Design and Construction
BPA Project Proposal Number 198811525
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Yakama Indian Nation
Business acronym (if appropriate) YN
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Melvin Sampson
Mailing Address 151 Fort Rd.
City, State, Zip Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone 5098656262
Fax 5098656293
E-mail mel@yakama.com
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin 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

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 7.4K, 7.4K.1, 7.3B, 7.4A
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: NMFS Biologcial Opinion for the 1995 to 1998 Hatchery Operations in the Columbia River Basin (NMFS 1995a), BPA's Biological Assessment of 1997-2001 Hatchery Operations of the Proposed Cle Elum Hatchery, December 1995 (BPA 1995). NMFS letter dated 4/1/96
Other Planning Document References 1. Yakima Fisheries Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (1/96) 2. Yakima Fisheries Project Spring Chinook Supplementation Monitoring Plan (Busack et al, 1997). 3. Wy Kan Ush Me Wa Kush Wit, Vol 1: pp 5A-2; 5B-13 through 5B-12; Vol 2: pp57 &59. 4. NPPC Yakima and Klickitat Subbasin Plans 5. The ISRG's Return to the River (Williams et al. 1996) -- Restoration of Salmonid Fishes in the Columbia River Ecosystem: Chapter 2.


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


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 Umbrella
9200220 Physiological assessment of wild and hatchery juvenile salmonids Physiological/developmental monitoring of hatchery and wild spring chinook juveniles (parr/smolt) No
5510200 Yakima River side channel survey and rehabilitation Complementary habitat enhancement in upper Yakima No
5510800 Upper Yakima tributary irrigation improvement Restores passage to tributaries blocked by irrigation diversions. No
5510900 Teanaway River instream flow restoration Complementary adult passage project (NF Teanaway is an acclimation/release site). No
9705100 Yakima Subbasin side channel Juvenile salmonid rearing habitat. No
9100 Re-establish safe access into tributaries of Yakima Subbasin Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing. No
9101 Restore upper Toppenish Creek watershed Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing. No
9102 Ahtanum Creek watershed assessment Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing. No
9603501 Satus Cr. watershed restoration Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing. No
9506404 WDFW Policy/Technical Involvement/Planning YKFP Co-Managers, YKFP No
9105500 Supplementation Fish Quality (Yakima Subbasin) NMFS contract to develop rearing treatment alternativcs to increase hatchery fish survival. No
9200900 Yakima screens phase II O & M Basin juvenile salmonid passage No
9705600 Lower Klickitat ripairian & in-channel habitat enhancement project. Critical habitat enhancement and information sharing. No
20510 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Yes
9506404 YKFP Project Management (WDFW) Yes
9701725 YKFP Operations and Management Yes
8812025 YKFP Project Management, Data and Habitat (YIN) Yes
9506325 YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation Yes


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. To provide permanent facilities within the Yakima Subbasin to support and meet the overall production and monitoring and evaluation goals of the Project. a. Design and construct a Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Facility for data synthesis and analysis and to accommodate field crew and equipment space needs.
1. b. Design an interpretive center at Cle Elum Supplementation Research Facility to provide information to the public about the Project.
1. c. Design and construct employee housing at the Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility and Prosser Hatchery.
1. d. Design and construct rearing and acclimation ponds for fall chinook and coho.
1. e. Design and construct settling pond at Prosser Hatchery.
1. f. Design and construct alternate river water source system at Prosser Hatchery.
2. To provide adult broodstock collection, monitoring, and improved passage to accomplish Project goals within the Klickitat Subbasin. a. Final engineering and design of adult collection facility and passage modifications at Lyle Falls.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 01/01/00 12/01/00 96.0%
2 01/01/00 12/01/00 4.0%


Section 5. 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
Total Itemized Budget $1,565,000


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project 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%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $1,600,000 $4,570,000 $2,000,000 $400,000
Total Outyear Budgets $1,600,000 $4,570,000 $2,000,000 $400,000
 

Other Budget Explanation

Schedule Constraints: Potential constraints include NEPA compliance and weather delays


Section 6. References

n/a or no information


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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?


CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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 -


CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
How many houses are going to be provided and how many housed are necessary for project success? Costs seem high.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$1,565,000
Comment:

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
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.

NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund existing activities
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$1,565,000
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Address ISRP comments in BPA contract

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
capital
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$20,508,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$ 25,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$ 25,000
Sponsor (Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakama Indian Nation) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Sponsor (Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakama Indian Nation) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Sponsor (Confederated Tribes And Bands Of The Yakama Indian Nation) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page