FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25012
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 |
|---|---|
| Protocol for Determining Bull Trout Presence | Response Attachment |
| Letter from K. Berg (USFWS) to J. Uehara (WDFW) RE: Response to the ISRP about Bull Trout Presence Protocol | Response Attachment |
| 25012 Narrative | Narrative |
| 25012 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| 25012 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Yakima Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Letter from J. Koenings (WDFW) to F. Cassidy (NPCC) RE: Letter of support for projects 25020, 25064, 25042 and 25012 | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Assessment of bull trout populations in the Yakima River watershed. |
| Proposal ID | 25012 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Eric Anderson |
| Mailing address | 1701 S. 24th Ave. Yakima, WA 98902 |
| Phone / email | 5094579301 / anderea@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | John Easterbrooks |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Assess the status of bull trout populations and collect baseline information necessary for the development, implementation and recovery of bull trout inhabiting the Mid Columbia Recovery Unit (i.e., Yakmia subbasin). |
| Target species | Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 47.3232 | -121.3325 | Origin of Yakima River @ Keechelus Lake (elev. 2488 ft MSL). |
| 46.2518 | -119.22 | Mouth of the Yakima River @ Richland (elev. 347 ft MSL). |
| The Yakima River drains a 6,155 square-mile basin in south-central Washington, flowing 217 miles from Keechelus Lake in the Cascade Mountains to the Columbia River near Richland. The subbasin occupies Yakima, Kittitas & Benton Counties. | ||
| 47.17 | -120.84 | Yakima River |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Surveyed the upper Yakima River mainstem (i.e., Easton to Keechelus reach) and documented bull trout spawning activity. |
| Surveyed mid Yakima River tributaries and documented bull trout spawning activity (e.g., Ahtanum drainage). | |
| 1999 | Documented adult bull trout migration past Roza Dam on Yakima River (Yakima Nation). |
| Surveyed Little Naches River tributaries (Yakima drainage) and documented bull trout spawning activity. | |
| 1996 | Surveyed upper Yakima River River tributaries and documented bull trout spawning activity (e.g., Teanaway drainage). |
| Surveyed American River tributaries (Yakima drainage) and documented bull trout spawning activity. | |
| 1994 | Surveyed Rattlesnake Creek tributaries (Yakima drainage) and documented bull trout spawning activity. |
| 1989 | Surveyed Bumping Lake tributaries (Yakima draineage) and documented bull trout spawning activity. |
| 1984 | Surveyed Rimrock Lake, Kachess Lake & Keechelus Lake tributaries and documented bull trout spawning activity. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9405400 | Bull Trout Assessment - Columbia R. Gorge, WA | This project compliments their efforts in bull trout assessment and recovery. |
| 8910500 | Yakima River Species Interaction Studies | They have provided information on bull trout observations. |
| 9506400 | Yakima Fisheries Project Spring Chinook Supplementation Monitoring | They have provided information on bull trout migration past Roza Dam. |
| 8810808 | Stream Net | We will provide information and maps for database and website. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NOTE: The primary goal is to recover bull trout in the Columbia basin. The following objectives were tailored to provide information in the Yakima subbasin necessary for meeting that goal! | We anticipate the following tasks will be completed by the end of the fiscal periods shown. | $0 | ||
| 1. Investigate unsurveyed tributaries for bull trout presence/absence by using AFS Protocol procedures. | a. Determine presence/absence of bull trout in unsurveyed tributaries of the Yakima subbasin. | 2 | $40,947 | |
| 2. Determine population abundance of Yakima subbasin bull trout stocks. | a. Establish and/or refine bull trout spawning index areas for long term population monitoring. | 3 | $15,000 | |
| b. Conduct redd counts and estimate adult population abundance for each stock. | 3 | $10,000 | ||
| 3. Determine migration and seasonal movement patterns of adult bull trout. | a. Radiotag (and anchor tag as necessary) adult bull trout to determine summer / wintering areas, pre-spawn staging areas and fidelity to spawning tributaries. | 3 | $30,000 | |
| b. Install adult traps below spawning areas to intercept post spawned bull trout for tagging / migration studies. | 3 | $15,000 | ||
| 4. Determine juvenile bull trout distribution by using standardized procedures. Correlate habitat attributes to presence /absence of bull trout. | a. Conduct surveys below spawning areas to determine the downstream distribution of early rearing juvenile bull trout. | 3 | $30,000 | |
| b. Install downstream migrant (smolt) screw traps on selected tributaries to monitor migration. | 3 | $40,000 | ||
| 5. Determine genetic characteristics of bull trout populations. | a. Collect tissue samples from unsampled tributaries for microsatelite DNA genetic analysis. | 3 | $13,000 | |
| 6. Correlate habitat attributes to bull trout spawning and rearing areas. | a. Collect data to quantify existing and to determine potential bull trout spawning and rearing areas. | 3 | $25,000 | |
| b. Install and retrieve temperature probes and record data in bull trout streams. | 3 | $5,000 | ||
| 7. Determine factors limiting bull trout production in the Yakima subbasin. | a. Continue to collect biotic and abiotic factors limiting bull trout production. | 3 | $10,000 | |
| 8. Develop and implement management actions to recover bull trout. | a. Provide summary information and data to the Mid Columbia Recovery Unit Team (MCRUT). | 3 | $5,000 | |
| b. Assist the MCRUT with development and implementation of Yakima subbasin bull trout recovery plans. | 3 | $5,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Investigate unsurveyed tributaries for bull trout presence/absence by using AFS Protocol procedures. | 2003 | 2004 | $20,000 |
| 2. Determine population abundance of Yakima subbasin bull trout stocks. | 2003 | 2005 | $50,000 |
| 3. Determine migration and seasonal movement patterns of adult bull trout. | 2003 | 2005 | $62,000 |
| 4. Determine juvenile bull trout distribution by using standardized procedures. | 2003 | 2005 | $60,000 |
| 5. Determine genetic characteristics of bull trout populations. | 2003 | 2005 | $31,000 |
| 6. Correlate habitat attributes to bull trout spawning and rearing areas. | 2003 | 2005 | $60,000 |
| 7. Determine factors limiting bull trout production in the Yakima subbasin. | 2003 | 2005 | $12,000 |
| 8. Develop and implement management actions to recover bull trout. | 2003 | 2005 | $20,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|
| $165,000 | $150,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: Bio 3 3.0 months @ $4066 Bio 2 12.0 months @ $3594 Tech 2 12.0 months @ $2676 | $87,438 |
| Fringe | @27% | $23,608 |
| Supplies | Drysuits, GPS Unit, Dig. Camera, 2 Smolt Traps, Radiotags/Receiver, Bpack Shocker 4x4 Truck | $66,000 |
| Travel | 2 WDFW 4x4 vehicles V-1 1K miles/month x 12 months V-2 1.5K miles/month x 5 months @ .40/mile | $7,800 |
| Indirect | Overhead 25.2% | $49,101 |
| Other | Office space with computer, phone, fax & internet; 12 months @ $450/month Genetic lab work, miscel. | $10,000 |
| $243,947 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $243,947 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $243,947 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $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.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. Reasonable proposal. Work appears guided by several subbasin and regional planning documents. Work is also coordinated (at least to some degree) with the larger regional efforts on bull trout headed by the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station in Boise.
Presentation was well organized and the PI seemed familiar with local issues, as well as bull trout literature and protocols.
One question with this proposal has to do with the linkages to other bull trout assessment proposals in the Columbia Plateau province (Deschutes, John Day and Umatilla) and the standardization of methods and approaches. All proposals rely on the AFS bull trout survey protocol; however, the Yakima proposal simply indicates that they will use the protocol methods and supply the results to the Boise USFS effort. No discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the AFS survey method and its application to Yakima BT is provided; whereas a major component of the Deschutes basin is an evaluation of the efficacy of night or day snorkeling or electroshocking.
Why is this an issue of concern in one subbasin in the province, but not in others? If the concern expressed in the Deschutes proposal is valid, then the concern should be addressed in all bull trout proposals in the province and a coordinated research effort should be developed among the proposers and that is overseen and coordinated by the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station in Boise. If the concern is not valid, then it should be deleted from the Deschutes proposal. Finally, on the chance that it is valid only for the Deschutes proposal, then it should be retained there only.
Several proposals and presentations indicated that the AFS protocol was a preliminary one, and that data collected from these projects would be provided to the Boise USFS effort as part of a regional effort to evaluate and fine-tune the survey protocol. If that is so, one wonders if the differing approaches suggested in the Columbia Plateau province bull trout assessment proposals can supply the level and kind of information needed to evaluate and revise the survey protocol as opposed to a more organized regional data collection approach.
Objective 3. Determine adult migration and seasonal movement patterns through radio tagging and monitoring, and adult trapping below spawning areas.
The proposal lacks meaningful detail on the numbers, sites, locations, extent of effort, etc, on the planned radio-tagging objective. How will the radio tag portion of the study get directly (rather than indirectly) at the question about movement among bull trout populations in the Yakima? Radio tag studies are relatively expensive with respect to equipment and manpower, as well as generally limited in the number of populations and individuals that can be investigated. Given these limitations, selection of populations and locations becomes critically important in order to address population levels questions (questions and observations that have inferences beyond the movement data of the individual tagged fish).
How extensive will the anchor-tagging program be? Every fish? Every other fish? What numbers of bull trout are collected in the Roza collection facility? Are there other adult collection sites that will be used to identify adults for the radio-tagging studies?
Objective 5. Genetic attributes.
What are the number of populations and numbers of samples from each population that are your annual goals for the genetic inventory portion of the proposed work?
Comment:
The RFC agrees that the proposed work would address existing data gaps (e.g., distribution, critical habitat, migration, etc.). The BPA COTR for WDFW's bull trout project in the Columbia River Gorge Province suggested there needs to be coordination between the existing project and this proposed work. As a result, the RFC suggested the projects should be combined under the same project number as has been recommended for ODFW's Project 199405400. The RFC suggested that the funding of the presence/absence objective should be funded by the USFWS.Comment:
Fundable. The response demonstrates good linkage with related bull trout projects in the region and attached correspondence from the USFWS also confirms both good collaboration and the awareness that Idaho assessment protocol will not automatically fit Washington streams. The response dealt satisfactorily with the three basic ISRP concerns: use of best sampling protocol, radio-tracking detail, and genetic inventory fish numbers. Presentation was well organized and the PI seemed familiar with local issues, as well as bull trout literature and protocols.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUN/A
Comments
Already ESA Req? N/A
Biop? no
Comment:
No cost-share. This proposal should be combined with WDFW’s project no. 1999-024-00, Bull Trout Population Assessment in the Columbia River Gorge.Comment:
Comment:
Comment: