Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Inventory and Assess Amphibian Populations in the Klickitat Subbasin |
| Proposal ID | 21027 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | William P. Bradley, Wildlife Program Manager |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / bradley@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | William P. Bradley |
| Review cycle | Columbia Gorge |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Gorge / Klickitat |
| Short description | Conduct an initial assessment of amphibian populations primarily within the previously unsurveyed Yakama Reservation. Use data to identify critical habitat areas and establish baseline for effectiveness monitoring of restoration efforts. |
| Target species | Amphibian species, particularly tailed frogs and spotted frogs. Other riparian and aquatic species will benefit, as amphibians are indicators for the health of these communities. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.1262 |
-121.2883 |
Big Muddy Creek |
| 45.8548 |
-121.0387 |
Bowman Creek |
| 46.0645 |
-121.1022 |
Brush Creek |
| 45.9164 |
-120.7058 |
Butler Creek |
| 46.3746 |
-121.1932 |
Diamond Fork |
| 45.7414 |
-121.2214 |
Dillacort Creek |
| 45.9114 |
-120.7057 |
East Prong Little Klickitat |
| 46.2751 |
-121.3118 |
Fish Lake Stream |
| 45.8451 |
-121.0619 |
Little Klickitat River |
| 45.7826 |
-121.2072 |
Logging Camp Creek |
| 46.3234 |
-121.2516 |
McCreedy Creek |
| 45.8196 |
-121.1476 |
Snyder Creek |
| 45.9864 |
-121.1246 |
Summit Creek |
| 46.185 |
-121.2703 |
Surveyors Creek |
| 45.8254 |
-121.0956 |
Swale Creek |
| 46.0373 |
-121.1968 |
Trout Creek |
| 46.2416 |
-121.2458 |
West Fork |
| 45.9124 |
-120.7057 |
West Prong Little Klickitat |
| 45.7947 |
-121.1925 |
Wheeler Creek |
| 46.013 |
-121.1496 |
White Creek |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Klickitat Watershed and Habitat Enhancement Project |
Amphibian project aids in identifying key habitats and monitoring effectiveness of these restoration efforts. |
|
Inventory and Restore Beaver and Beaver Habitats |
The beaver and amphibian projects can aid each other in identifying habitats for inventory. The amphibian project would enable us to monitor the beaver project's effectiveness at creating and restoring amphibian habitat. |
| 199812025 |
YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation |
Amphibian project provides another method for evaluating restoration benefits and effectiveness. |
| 9705600 |
Lower Klickitat Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project |
Amphibian project provides another method for evaluating restoration benefits and effectiveness. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Develop complete sampling plan |
a. Define and map habitats to be sampled |
5 |
$6,013 |
|
|
b. Define sampling protocol |
1 |
$3,764 |
|
| 2. Train personnel and refine protocol |
a. Conduct trial/training runs |
1 |
$18,455 |
Yes |
|
b. Refine protocol |
2 |
$2,382 |
Yes |
|
|
|
$0 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $9,395 | $6,013 | $6,013 | $6,013 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| 1. Implement sampling plan |
a. Conduct surveys |
5 |
$94,057 |
|
| 2. Analyze data and report findings |
a. Enter, analyze, and summarize data |
5 |
$6,980 |
|
|
b. Prepare reports and solicit review |
5 |
$4,146 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|
| $126,402 | $123,784 | $123,784 | $123,784 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 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 2001 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 2001 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 0.7 FTE biologist (8 months)
2 FTE technicians (4 for 6 months) |
$75,897 |
| Fringe |
@ 25.3% |
$19,202 |
| Supplies |
GSA vehicle rental, sampling equipment, etc. |
$9,000 |
| Travel |
As needed for training in FY01/FY02, to present results in subsequent years |
$1,000 |
| Indirect |
@23.5 % |
$24,698 |
| Capital |
|
$0 |
| NEPA |
|
$0 |
| PIT tags |
|
$0 |
| Subcontractor |
To train personnel in protocol and sp. identification |
$6,000 |
| $135,797 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $135,797 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $135,797 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Oct 6, 2000
Comment:
Fundable for 3 years, instead of the five years proposed, but only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns. They need to define the sampling procedure in more detail and use established protocols.
This is an innovative proposal that outlines a logical sequence of tasks to achieve the population assessments and develop ecological (riparian) indicator species. Objectives are presented in a logical sequence and involve the establishment of sampling protocols to establish repeatable surveys. Some reviewers felt these protocols were established but during the stated consultations with "experts" these sampling processes will be resolved. There is a laudable amount of scientific consultation and review throughout. The plan to send annual reports out for scientific review is excellent but we also suggest a definite plan to present results at meetings and through journal articles, rather than "may be."
To develop amphibians as ecological indicators, consideration must also be given as to what "ecosystem" they are indicative of? If the interest is in indicators of quality riparian wetlands, then what are the amphibians being measured against and how will standards for the indicators be developed? If amphibians are to be used as indicators of some higher order ecosystem, for example, spring chinook in the upper Klickitat, then the investigator must establish that the amphibian species are truly indicators of the environment important to spring chinook. We can not simply presume that a species is an indicator for the habitat needs or status of another species, demonstrating these linkages are essential in establishing the use of indicator species.
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
Nov 15, 2000
Comment:
This project provides the opportunity to monitor an independent species as an indicator for habitat quality. With the reduced population levels in most of these subbasins, we need a measure to determine the quality and effectiveness of our habitat work.
FY 01 Budget Review Comments: If more than one of the three new Yakama Nation wildlife projects are funded (21026, 21027 and 21028), the projects should be combined to maximize efficiencies in implementation and insure cost effectiveness.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Dec 1, 2000
Comment:
Fundable, the response was adequate. The proponents were agreeable to reducing the plan to three years from five. The detail on probable collection methodology was generally satisfactory, but reviewers would like to see a little more confidence about appropriate sampling methods.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 16, 2001
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Sep 11, 2001
Comment: