FY 2000 proposal 199506325
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 |
|---|---|
| 199506325 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation |
| Proposal ID | 199506325 |
| Organization | Yakama Indian Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Melvin Sampson |
| Mailing address | 151 Fort Rd. Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / mel@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Monitors 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 species | Yakima and Klickitat Subbasin spring chinook, fall chinook, coho and summer steelhead. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|---|
| 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 ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| 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 | $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 |
| $4,639,934 | ||
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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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.
Comment:
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.
Comment:
Comment:
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 -
Comment:
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).Comment:
Fund at appropriate interim level to maintain the basic program until province level review. See programmatic recommendation and comments in project 8811525Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Address ISRP comments in BPA contractNW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
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