FY 2000 proposal 20039
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Comparative Population Study: Naneum, Coleman, Cooke Creeks |
| Proposal ID | 20039 |
| Organization | Washington Trout (WT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Nick Gayeski |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 402 Duvall, WA 98019 |
| Phone / email | 4257881167 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Measure/analyze resident trout population dynamics and measure/evaluate the effects of landscape/channel habitat dynamics on the dynamics of these populations in three subbasin tributaries of the upper Yakima R. subbasin. |
| Target species | Westslope cutthroat trout, brook trout, and redside trout. |
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 |
|---|
|
YSIS study of juvenile chinook gut-contents, % stomach fullness |
Complementary; provides additional relevant data. |
|
YSIS salmon carcass "planting", nutrient-enrichment study |
Complementary; provides additional relevant data on resident fish populations/habitat/food web relations. |
|
Yakima Basin Reaches Studies: Dr. Jack Stanford, USBR |
Complementary; provides additional relevant data. Will engage in similar work on food web, habitat, and salmonid population dynamics in tributaries instead of mainstem. |
|
Yakima Basin Habitat-Fish Population Studies |
|
| 20039 |
Comparative Population Study: Naneum, Coleman, and Cooke Creeks. |
|
| 20006 |
Yakima Basin B-IBI |
|
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 |
Field surveys, data analysis, GIS, report writing, project planning and coordination |
$11,400 |
| Fringe |
Calculated at 25% on above total less sub-contracts (=15400) |
$2,850 |
| Supplies |
|
$2,000 |
| Operating |
Vechicle maintenance. |
$1,000 |
| Capital |
Temperature loggers, piezometers, snorkelling equip. |
$9,150 |
| Travel |
Mileage, food, lodging |
$3,375 |
| Indirect |
20% of total costs incl. sub-contracts |
$8,703 |
| Other |
GIS data aquisition |
$4,000 |
| Subcontractor |
Alan Johnson, Dr. John Orsborn, David Plume |
$9,740 |
| $52,218 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $52,218 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $52,218 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Alan Johnson |
Donation Water Quality meter (temp, DO, cond., pH). |
$1,500 |
unknown |
| Dr. Morris Ubelaker |
GIS mapping, data aquisition |
$0 |
unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: Run-off will affect timing of spawning surveys in Naneum and Cooke Creeks.
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. Reviewers encourage resubmittal next year with better problem statement and experimental design.
Comments:
This proposal attempts to address several potentially important issues. Unfortunately, the investigators seem unable to define very precisely what they are trying to do. The intent of this project seems to be to collect a lot of interesting population and geomorphological data from three different system and compare them. This is data collection in search of research; and research in search of a hypothesis.
The technical background to the problem raises a number of ecological and sampling issues, but it is not clear which, if any, of these the investigators are attempting to address. The general objectives of the study are vague. The investigators do not describe how the specific tasks, although measurable, will accomplish these vague objectives. The investigators indicate that at the end of five years of study they will be able to develop hypotheses. Most research starts with hypotheses. At the same time, they promise that they will be able to "delineate risk assessment factors" for displacement of native trout by brook trout. It is not clear how they will be able to identify valid risk assessment factors when the scientific investigation is still at the stage of proposing hypotheses. The selection of study sites seems to be by happenstance and is not well justified, especially if the results are to be generalized to other watersheds. The methods section contains descriptions of how data will be collected (although the methodology is poorly cited) but no descriptions of how data will be analyzed.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Screening Criteria: no- There is no link to the RFM program measures. Technical Criteria: no-It should be absorbed into ongoing work in the Yakama River basin. It is too small of a sample size. In Criteria 2, the brook trout risk to native species is well documented, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
Programmatic Criteria: no-It does not meet Criteria 11 because there is no hydro related loss assessment.
Milestone Criteria: no- It is a short lived assessment project.
General comments: There is no planning document and no indication of collaboration with management agencies.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];