FY 2000 proposal 20132
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima River Basin Water Temperature Monitoring and Modeling Project |
| Proposal ID | 20132 |
| Organization | Yakima Basin Joint Board |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Patrick Monk |
| Mailing address | 1042 Riverbottom Road Ellensburg, WA 98926 |
| Phone / email | 5099254696 / patrickm@ellensburg.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Implement a water temperature monitoring program in the Yakima River Basin that will provide data for the SNTEMP water temperature model. Model water temp as a function of other environmental variables, including land and water management activities. |
| Target species | Salmon, steelhead, resident fish, benthic macroinvertebrates |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|
| 20510 |
Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project |
|
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 |
Principal associate, computer programmer, field technicians |
$74,700 |
| Fringe |
|
$0 |
| Supplies |
|
$2,000 |
| Capital |
Computer for programmer, technicians. |
$5,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$3,000 |
| $84,700 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $84,700 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $84,700 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Yakima Basin Joint Board |
Equipement and Labor |
$22,000 |
unknown |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund, inadequate programmatic justification, no assurances of use by management authorities. The proposal should have explicitly stated what is known about temperatures in the Yakima River, what modeling capabilities exist now, what information is needed, whether the needed information can be obtained from the existing models, and how this project will meet the needs.
Comments:
It is not clear from the proposal whether there is a specific use or need that this project would fulfill. There could be many potential uses for temperature data or the model. But the proposal does not appear to be driven by a particular question or problem. Much of the justification for the work seems to be that temperature has never been fully monitored or modeled rather than why it is now important to do so. What specific management alternatives will the model be used to evaluate? We question whether the projected results will yield direct benefits to fish and wildlife.
The proposal provides minimal information about the performance, strengths, and weaknesses of the model itself. The sampling design needed to calibrate the model is vague. What assumptions drive the model, how does it perform under varying environmental and stream conditions, and what are its limitations? What evidence is there that the model can, in fact, be applied to any river system once it is calibrated with local data? It is not clear whether output from the model will continue to be validated following its initial calibration. The lack of information about the model makes it difficult to evaluate whether this approach will be useful or if other alternatives exist that should be considered.
Little information is given about the relationship and significance of this to other projects in the basin. Given the importance of water temperatures to the success of many programs in the Yakima Basin, it is difficult to accept that there has been no attempt to monitor or model these factors. The proposal should state what is known about temperatures in the Yakima River, what modeling capabilities exist now, what information is needed and why it can't be obtained from existing models, and how will this project fill that need. The objectives of the proposal are described as three study phases, which are logical and well described. The multi-agency technical advisory group is a strength of phase I and helps assure that project has a high likelihood of agency support and scientific credibility.
The proposal does a less than adequate job of linking this project to the Fish and Wildlife Program. Although the importance of temperatures seems self-evident to biologists, the proposal could better describe the rationale and significance to other projects. This would also help justify why BPA should fund the program, another area that was not explicitly addressed.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
WA SRT views this project as supportable, meeting a defined need and use that should seek other more appropriate funding sources. This project would provide critical information pertinent to the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP), Systems Operations Advisory Committee and could possibly be funded in that arena.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Temperature is a critical water quality problem and has not been adequately addressed. Basin-wide application.
Good advisory board.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];