FY 2000 proposal 20021
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Estimate natural steelhead production in two tributaries of the Walla Walla |
| Proposal ID | 20021 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Mark Schuck |
| Mailing address | 401 S. Cottonwood Dayton, WA 99328 |
| Phone / email | 5093821004 / schucmls@dfw.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Walla Walla |
| Short description | Estimate adult escapement and natural production of wild steelhead in Mill Creek and Touchet River (tributaries of the Walla Walla River) to determine whether steelhead populations above four Columbia River dams can be sustained without hatchery supplemen |
| Target species | Summer Steelhead |
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 |
|---|
| 9000501 |
Umatilla and Walla Walla river Basins Natural Production Monitoring and Eva |
Fulfills stated objectives sooner than planned. |
| 9010 |
Assess Fish Habitat & Salmonids in Walla Walla Watershed in Washington |
Proposal actions would build directly from data collected under 9010 and fully describe steelhead production from the major Washington steelhead areas. |
| 8805302 |
Plan, site, design & Construct NEOH Hatchery - Umatilla/Walla Walla compone |
Supplementation of steelhead populations in the Walla Walla basin are part of the NEOH goal as define in the Master Plan. This proposal will provide escapement and stock data (in partnership with 9010) to guide the development of new supplementation broo |
| 9604601 |
Walla Walla Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement |
Data collected under this proposal and 9010 can help direct habitat improvement efforts to areas identified as having severe problems, thus maximizing benefits to the resource. |
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 |
Biologist (1.2 FTEs)
Technicians
(1- Tech 2 :12 months)
(5- Tech 1's: 3 mo. each, total 15mm) |
$103,500 |
| Fringe |
Approximately 28.5% of salaries |
$29,500 |
| Supplies |
Includes some durable support structures associated with adult and smolt traps (walkways, lighting, |
$8,000 |
| Operating |
includes CWTs and rental of two CWT tagging machines for 3 months.
($2,200/mo/machine) |
$18,200 |
| Capital |
5' rotary fish traps (2 @ $15,000)
Portable generators (2 @ $500)
PIT tagging station ($15,000)
Comp |
$70,400 |
| Construction |
estimated |
$30,000 |
| PIT tags |
4,500 |
$13,050 |
| Travel |
includes leasing two vehicles |
$12,000 |
| Indirect |
22.5% of $214,250 (capital acquisitions exempt) |
$48,200 |
| $332,850 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $332,850 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $332,850 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| LSRCP |
PIT tagging station |
$12,000 |
unknown |
| LSRCP |
Office space |
$6,000 |
unknown |
| LSRCP |
Misc. equipment (flow meter, GPS unit, office equipment, communication radios) |
$6,000 |
unknown |
| LSRCP |
Adult and smolt trapping assistance |
$7,100 |
unknown |
| LSRCP |
Juvenile population estimates and PIT tagging assistance |
$11,500 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Adult trap modifications must be complete before fall steelhead migration starts.
ESA permits to allow for takes of listed bull trout (and steelhead if listed) could delay start of trapping.
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. Incorporate into project 9901100.
Comments:
Results of this work should be available prior to the design and construction of the NEOH hatchery. The sequencing of projects is important. If the region intends to proceed with construction of the hatchery and supplementation to lessen the risk of extinction, then this study is not needed. This project should be closely related to the other regional studies, with an expanded description of its relationship to the Lower Snake River Compensation Program and assurance of PIT tagging coordination with regional efforts. Given the numbers of fish available, PIT tagging may not lead to the desired results. Further analysis should help the decision. Objectives related to estimates of escapement, egg-to-smolt survival and smolt-to-adult survival are worthwhile but ambitious, particularly the smolt-to-adult survival. Details of stock-recruitment analysis, brood tables and the connection to management are not clear. Reviewers judge that this project does not clearly establish benefits to fish and wildlife.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? yes - Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes -
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? no - Yes for objectives proposed. The problem is that too few objectives are proposed. A real opportunity exists to learn about these systems by connecting the data gathered to current habitat conditions and constraints. What is proposed is fish counting.
Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Fund out of ESA placeholder.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];