FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29034
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 |
|---|---|
| 29034 Narrative | Narrative |
| 29034 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
| 29034 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Life History Study of Salmonid Rearing In The Upper Methow River |
| Proposal ID | 29034 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Joel Hubble |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 151 Toppenish, WA |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / hubble@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Lynn Hatcher |
| Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
| Short description | This research proposal is design to address the need to understand salmonid temporal and spatital life history patterns and productivity in the upper Methow River, with the focus in the intermittent portion of this reach. |
| Target species | spring chinook, steelhead and bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 48.65 | -120.506 | upstream end of study reach; Lost River confluence; river mile 73. |
| 48.5317 | -120.325 | downstream end of study reach; Hancock Springs area; river mile 59. |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| 149 |
| 150 |
| 152 |
| 154 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 154 | NMFS | BPA shall work with the NWPPC to ensure development and updating of subbasin assessments and plans; match state and local funding for coordinated development of watershed assessments and plans; and help fund technical support for subbasin and watershed plan implementation from 2001 to 2006. Planning for priority subbasins should be completed by the 2003 check-in. The action agencies will work with other Federal agencies to ensure that subbasin and watershed assessments and plans are coordinated across non-Federal and Federal land ownerships and programs. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 23012 | Arrowleaf/Methow River Conservation Project | The Arrowleaf property exists within the study reach (Lost River-Hancock Springs). |
| 23024 | Hancock Springs Passage and Habitat Restoration Improvements | The spring enters the Methow River 3-4 river miles below the lower most portion of the intermittent reach. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Refine experimental design | a. Finalize trap locations and sampling schedule and protocol. b. Finalize snorkeling sample design and protocol. c. Finalize sampling protocol for estimating fish stranding. d. Finalize radio telemetry study design and protocols. | 1 | $5,000 | |
| . | $0 |
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 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Determine the temporal outmigration for salmonids in the upper Methow River. | a. Installation of 3 rotary traps for the study reach and the two "control" reaches. | 3 | $72,050 | |
| Objective 2. Determine that proportion of the spring chinook juvenile population which out migrates from the time of emergence to when the reach finally becomes intermittent. | a. Operation of study reach rotary trap and the 2 "control" reach traps. b. Mark fish at all 3 traps to determine trap efficiency. c. Enumerate daily fish emigration and collect bio-sample data. | 3 | $72,050 | |
| Objective 3. Determine the spatial and temporal distribution of spring chinook, steelhead and bull trout within the Lost River-Hancock Springs reach. | a. Conduct snorkel surveys. | 3 | $72,050 | |
| Objective 4. Determine the spatial and temporal distribution and quantify the loss of juvenile spring chinook, steelhead and bull trout stranding within the Lost River-Hancock Springs reach. | a. Conduct surveys to quantify fish stranding | 3 | $72,050 | |
| Objective 5. Determine the feasibility of using a nano-radio tag on juvenile spring chinook, steelhead and bull trout outmigrants to track fish through the intermittent reach. | a. Insert the tag on up to 15 fish in the late summer/early fall and track them through the intermittent reach | 1 | $72,050 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Determine the temporal outmigration for salmonids in the upper Methow River. | 3 | 5 | $173,522 |
| Objective 2. Determine that proportion of the spring chinook juvenile population which out migrates from the time of emergence to when the reach finally becomes intermittent. | 3 | 5 | $173,522 |
| Objective 3. Determine the spatial and temporal distribution of spring chinook, steelhead and bull trout within the Lost River-Hancock Springs reach. | 3 | 5 | $173,522 |
| Objective 5. Complete data analysis and annual report. | 5 | 6 | $89,704 |
| Objective 4. Determine the spatial and temporal distribution and quantify the loss of juvenile spring chinook, steelhead and bull trout stranding within the Lost River-Hancock Springs reach. | 3 | 5 | $173,522 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| $280,250 | $280,250 | $150,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 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 2003 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 2003 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: (fish bio III, fish tech III, 3/4 fish tech II; 1/4 bookkeeper | $162,500 |
| Fringe | 21.5% | $35,000 |
| Supplies | snorkel gear, marking equip, seine nets, electrofisher, balance, GPS unit, PC, etc. | $16,000 |
| Travel | vehicle (12 mo) + vehicle (9 mo); per diem | $21,000 |
| Indirect | 19.5 | $40,000 |
| Capital | rotary traps (2); hand PIT dector (1), nano-radio tag receiver (1) | $55,300 |
| NEPA | subcontractor | $15,000 |
| PIT tags | # of tags: 1000 | $2,250 |
| Subcontractor | Statistician (data analysis + exp. design work) | $6,000 |
| Other | office rental ($600/mo) | $7,200 |
| $360,250 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $360,250 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $360,250 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $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
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. This should be a compare and contrast study with the other areas that stay watered above and below the losing reach. This needs to be described in better detail. What are the potential management applications, the benefits to fish? Will the tagging (marking) have an effect on recapture rates in the same or lower trap? It seems that the marking methods should have been researched and described in the proposal. Have the sponsors thought about the possibility that some migration might occur subsurface in this extremely permeable substrate, where fish would not be susceptible to the rotary traps?Methods in Objective 3 and 4 should include a description of sampling procedures for selection of the"20% of each reach" or "pools" during the dry period. Will the sampling be probabilistic to allow statistical inferences to the entire study area? Will the same sites be snorkeled each time, or will new 'random' sites be selected? Also, objectives 3 and 4 should include a comparison of habitat availability vs. habitat used using appropriate sampling methods and analysis techniques described in, for example, Manly (1993, 1998) and Alldredge (1998).
Comment:
NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Not Fundable. The response to ISRP's preliminary concerns was not adequate. The changes in the budget section did not provide enough detail to satisfy the ISRP's concerns:Will the tagging (marking) have an effect on recapture rates in the same or lower trap? It seems that the marking methods should have been researched and described in the proposal. Have the sponsors thought about the possibility that some migration might occur subsurface in this extremely permeable substrate, where fish would not be susceptible to the rotary traps?Methods in Objective 3 and 4 should include a description of sampling procedures for selection of the"20% of each reach" or "pools" during the dry period. Will the sampling be probabilistic to allow statistical inferences to the entire study area? Will the same sites be snorkeled each time, or will new 'random' sites be selected? Also, objectives 3 and 4 should include a comparison of habitat availability vs. habitat used using appropriate sampling methods and analysis techniques described in, for example, Manly (1993, 1998) and Alldredge (1998).
However, the half page narrative response attempted to address the ISRP concern about management application of the proposal.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUIndirect benefit. Increase understanding of salmonid life histories and productivities in the upper Methow in order to propose projects that will best address the biological needs of listed salmonids in this basin, thereby supporting development of subbasin plans.
Comments
Project is consistent with subbasin research needs. Will provide important information needed to develop the subbasin plan.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin PlanningComment: