FY 2000 proposal 199506325

Additional documents

199506325 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleYakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation
Proposal ID199506325
OrganizationYakama Indian Nation (YN)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameMelvin Sampson
Mailing address151 Fort Rd. Toppenish, WA 98948
Phone / email5098656262 / mel@yakama.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Yakima
Short descriptionMonitors YKFP in terms of natural production, harvest , ecological and genetic impacts, guides adaptive management within the project and provides detailed information on supplementation to the region.
Target speciesYakima and Klickitat Subbasin spring chinook, fall chinook, coho and summer steelhead.
Project location
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)



Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

1998 Monitoring prescriptions for 16 non-target taxa of concern have been developed and are being implemented to meet conservation objectives
1998 A practical approach for assessing ecological risks associated with stocking anadromous salmonids was developed to facilitate decision making and direct monitoring efforts.
1998 Preliminary results of indirect predation experiments suggest that hatchery fish may decrease survival of commingled smolts during certain portions of the spring and increase survival at other times.
1998 Fish predation indices were developed for smallmouth bass and northern pikeminnow; a channel catfish index is under development. Preliminary estimates indicate that smallmouth bass consumed 524,000 chinook salmon juveniles in the spring of 1998.
1998 Produced manuscript titled "A Production Function Based Model of Supplementation Dynamics" submitted to Trans. Am. Fish Soc.
1998 Produced multi-year power analysis of OCT/SNT survival comparison
1998 Modelled genetic effects of broodstock collection and usage rules
1998 Recorded detailed behavioral observations on wild spawning spring chinook (first ethological description of these behaviors on Columbia River spring chinook)
1998 Characterised detailed reproductive traits of Yakima wild spring chinook
1998 Developed DNA microsatellite profiles of Yakima spring chinook populations
1998 Developed 4 supplementation dynamics computer models
1997 Produced Yakima Fisheries Project Spring Chinook Supplementation Monitoring Plan (DOE/BP-64878-1)
1996 Developed "Pedigree" computer model for investigation of monitoring power using DNA markers.
1994 Produced report "Experimental designs for testing differences in survival among salmonid populations" (DOE/BP-00029-3)
1998 Refined species-specific outmigration estimators for Chandler smolt trap.
1997 Began broodstock collection of upper Yakima spring chinook at Roza Dam in 1997 and continued in 1998 using outlined genetic selection guidelines (Busack et al. 1997).
1998 The adult broodstock collection and monitoring facility at Roza Dam was shown to have no adverse effects on passage timing or spawning distribution of wild Yakima spring chinook.
1998 Strobe lights and infrasound were shown to be ineffective fish guidance methods at the juvenile trap at Roza Dam.
1997 Studies indicated that smolts marked with VI-jet tags were not reliably identifiable as adults; therefore, CWTs implanted at multiple body locations were used in 1998 to mark YKFP hatchery spring chinook parr for smolt-to-adult monitoring.
1997 A preliminary ecosystem diagnosis and treatment modeling analysis of Yakima fall chinook indicated that the major factor limiting natural production was a combination of excessive temperature in the lower river and late emergence timing.
1997 Began development of locally-adapted coho and fall chinook broodstocks by collecting returning adults in the Yakima subbasin.
1998 Preliminary results indicate low competitive impacts of outplanted hatchery coho parr on trout.
1997 Survival studies showed benefits from the following rearing treatments: raceway color pattern, overhead cover and mid-water structure. 1997 SNT treatment includes these elements plus mid-water feed delivery.
1998 Plans were developed to retrofit Lyle Falls fishway in the Klickitat subbasin to function as an effective broodstock collection and adult monitoring facility.
1998 Refined and augmented in-basin Yakima harvest monitoring methods.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
9200220 Physiological assessment of wild and hatchery juvenile salmonids Physiological/developmental monitoring of hatchery and wild spring chinook juveniles (parr/smolt)
5510200 Yakima River side channel survey and rehabilitation Complementary habitat enhancement in upper Yakima
5510800 Upper Yakima tributary irrigation improvement Restores passage to tributaries blocked by irrigation diversions.
5510900 Teanaway River instream flow restoration Complementary adult passage project (NF Teanaway is an acclimation/release site).
9705100 Yakima Subbasin Side Channels Restores juvenile salmonid rearing habitat
9100 Re-establish safe access into tributaries of Yakima Subbasin Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing.
9101 Restore upper Toppenish Creek watershed Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing.
9102 Ahtanum Creek watershed assessment Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing.
9603501 Satus Cr. Watershed Restoration Improve juvenile salmonid passage and rearing.
9506404 WDFW Policy/Technical Involvement/Planning YKFP Co-Managers, YKFP
9105500 Supplementation Fish Quality (Yakima Subbasin) NMFS contract to develop rearing treatment alternatives to increase hatchery fish survival.
9200900 Yakima screens phase II O & M Basin juvenile salmonid passage
9105700 Yakima phase II screen fabrication Basin juvenile salmonid passage
9705600 Lower Klickitat ripairian & in-channel habitat enhancement project. Critical habitat enhancement and information sharing.
8812025 YKFP Project Management (YIN)
9506404 YKFP Project Management (WDFW)
8811525 YKFP Construction
9701725 YKFP Operations and Management
20510 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $1,473,287
Fringe $284,508
Supplies $396,158
Operating $7,472
Capital $5,585
PIT tags 105,144 $304,918
Travel $27,428
Indirect $514,380
Subcontractor Various, including WDFW $1,626,198
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$4,639,934
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$4,639,934
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: The possibility that Yakima summer steelhead may be listed under the ESA could result in the imposition of constraints that would delay or preclude certain monitoring or production activities.

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Delay Funding
Jun 15, 1999


Recommendation: Delay funding until the proposals are separated into smaller subproposals: 1) monitoring directly related to evaluating the objectives, 2) research projects such as the species interactions study, and 3) projects designed to develop new methods. The entire set of proposals under the umbrella needs to be reorganized to explicitly address the two stated objectives to test supplementation and to provide a harvestable surplus.

Comments: Among the projects within the umbrella (20510) this proposal provided the best description of the project need and technical background. Table 1 was useful and could be improved by adding a symbol to indicate whether the results are expected to apply to only the Yakima or can be generalized for supplementation throughout the Columbia River basin. Task and objective descriptions were good, but it was not clear whether the assumptions were assumptions that were being tested by the project or assumptions that will not be tested but are necessary to infer from the project's results. The proposal encompasses a large number of objectives, which were described in very fine print and were laborious to read. It is not always clear how they fit together, or were chosen. The Busck et al. (1997) monitoring plan, which probably provides some of this explanation, was not cited in the references. The timeline (one year) for some objectives seems unrealistic, because the project will not be able to address interannual variation.

The proposal lists a very large number of research and monitoring activities, but does not develop an overarching strategy to explain why these particular activities were chosen or how all of these results are to be integrated to make an assessment of overall success/failure. While this rationale may well exist, it is not described. How do these various elements collectively lead to the evaluation of the supplementation objectives?

This subproposal lists monitoring activities but does not define the criteria by which supplementation results will be judged effective or ineffective. Clearly, a lot of useful ecological information is being collected. But for a multi-million dollar monitoring effort, a better explanation of the problem and the strategy should be provided. The proposal appears to combine research, M & E and methods development into one proposal. Those three categories should be in separate proposals. The proposal provides an overview of the scope of activities, but inadequate description of methods. Last year, the separate proposals that have been combined here were generally better.

Aug 20, 1999


Aug 20, 1999


Technical Criteria 1: Met? no - Are specific individual's time counted many times? E.g.. - Three full year FTEs assigned to one person across three projects (8812025, 9506325, and 9701325)?

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes -

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -

Aug 20, 1999


There appears to be a duplication of effort assigned to specific participants among the 4 FYKP proposals. Could the administrative manpower be removed from this budget proposal? This project appears to be very heavy on personnel. There is no definition of specific tasks for the subcontractors. There appears to be redundancy between tribal and state biologists among the monitoring and evaluation tasks listed in the proposal. There appears to be staff members listed for funding on this proposal that are also listed on additional projects (i.e. fishery biologist listed for 12 mo of support also identified in project #9604000 as a research manager).
Oct 29, 1999


Fund at appropriate interim level to maintain the basic program until province level review. See programmatic recommendation and comments in project 8811525
Fund existing activities
Nov 8, 1999


Mar 1, 2000


[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Address ISRP comments in BPA contract
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
Funding category:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year:FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$4,100,251 $4,100,251 $4,100,251

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website