Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1988-120-25 - Yakima River Management & Data -Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1988-120-25 - Yakima River Management & Data -Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Project Number:
Yakima River Management & Data -Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
The Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) is split into several sub-projects (Monitoring and Evaluation, Operations and Maintenance, and Construction) under the overall umbrella for the program. The Management, Data and Habitat (MDH) project includes the overall management and administration, as well as the data management, and habitat protection and restoration components of the YKFP program.
Proponent Orgs:
Yakama Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Yakima 100.00%
Local Coordination
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Pikeminnow, Northern
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Brown
Trout, Bull
Trout, Lake
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $1,539,128 $1,881,649 $1,002,779 $1,002,779 $1,361,971

Post 2018 – Yakama $1,220,037 $650,189 $650,189 $883,085
Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $661,612 $352,590 $352,590 $478,887
FY2019 (Current) $1,200,122 $1,200,122 $1,200,122 $43,794

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $1,200,122 $1,200,122 $1,200,122 $43,794
FY2020 (Next) $1,200,122 $1,200,122 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $1,200,122 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 28-Feb-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $1,237,456 From: Post 2018 – Yakama FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $301,672 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR, KT, YN) 3/8/17 03/08/2017
FY2018 Expense $17,419 To: Post 2018 – Yakama YN Accord Budget Adjustments 5/22/2018 05/23/2018
FY2018 Expense $17,419 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama YN Accord Budget Adjustments 5/22/2018 05/23/2018
FY2018 Expense $342,521 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama YN Accord Budget Adjustments 5/22/2018 05/23/2018
FY2019 Expense $1,200,122 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $1,200,122 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2014 (Draft)
2013 $25,000 1 %
2012 $630,193 18 %
2010 $100,000 6 %


The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
4822 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1988-120-25 YKFP - MANAGEMENT, DATA & HABITAT History $2,104,258 4/1/2001 - 4/30/2003
14038 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1988-120-25 YKFP YAKIMA MANAGEMENT, DATA, AND HABITAT History $643,904 5/1/2003 - 4/30/2004
22554 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1988-120-25 YKFP - YAKIMA MANAGEMENT, DATA & HABITAT History $1,048,508 5/1/2005 - 4/30/2006
27813 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1988-120-25 EXP YKFP MANAGEMENT, DATA & HABITAT History $1,110,425 5/1/2006 - 4/30/2007
BPA-006686 Bonneville Power Administration Scott Ditch Habitat Conservation Easement Active $0 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
56662 REL 115 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1988-120-25 EXP YKFP MANAGEMENT & DATA Issued $1,254,259 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
56662 REL 140 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1988-120-25 EXP YKFP MANAGEMENT & DATA Issued $1,521,751 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
56662 REL 168 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1988-120-25 EXP YKFP MANAGEMENT & DATA Issued $1,200,122 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):19
On time:18
Status Reports
On time:18
Avg Days Late:55

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4822 14038, 17274, 22554, 27813, 34452, 35637, 41037, 46101, 55125, 56662 REL 11, 56662 REL 29, 56662 REL 38, 56662 REL 61, 56662 REL 66, 56662 REL 96, 56662 REL 98, 56662 REL 115, 56662 REL 140, 56662 REL 151, 56662 REL 168, 56662 REL 176 1988-120-25 YKFP - MANAGEMENT, DATA & HABITAT Yakama Confederated Tribes 04/2001 04/2001 Issued 85 279 37 0 57 373 84.72% 18
BPA-006686 Scott Ditch Habitat Conservation Easement Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
58573 1988-120-25 EXP WDFW--SCOTT DITCH HABITAT PROJECT (YKFP MD&H) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 09/2012 09/2012 Closed 4 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
Project Totals 89 283 37 0 57 377 84.88% 18

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1988-120-25-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1988-120-25 - Yakima River Management & Data -Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1988-120-25
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Not Applicable
Comments: Implement through FY 2018.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1988-120-25-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1988-120-25 - Yakima River Management & Data -Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1988-120-25
Completed Date: 9/26/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 8/15/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Not Applicable
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This project is a coordination and data sharing project, which is not a major topic of this review. This proposal does not contain sufficient scientific information for ISRP review. The ISRP does not have any serious concerns with the proposal, as augmented with the response. See the ISRP's review of data management and coordination projects for programmatic issues to consider (ISRP 2012-6:

First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:

This project has a data management and administrative focus. The ISRP noted that data sharing between groups (YN, WDFW) is not working well and request an action plan to address data sharing. The action plan should identify personnel and/or positions involved, data that will be shared, and the mechanisms used for the sharing and/or transfer.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This is a data management and coordination project that encompasses a number of other separately funded projects. The significance of the project to regional programs is described. Technical background is limited to stating that data are maintained in a variety of established regional databases, but no examples of the types of data maintained are discussed. Nearly all data storage is related to separate monitoring and evaluation efforts. The ISRP did not see examples of annual M&E reports that contained time series in data tables related to M&E efforts, though the overall program has a good record of publishing findings. Typically, long-term M&E programs will update the key metrics so that trends can be followed, but it was not apparent in the proposal that this was done when storing data in regional and local databases. The sponsors noted that they are seeking an enforceable data sharing agreement with WDFW because shared data have been inappropriately used in the past. Details of misuse were not described. The ISRP and ISAB believe that data sharing and access to data and associated meta-data is important, and we encourage the sponsors and WDFW to finalize the data sharing agreement.

TheISRP cannot comment on the scientific merits of the types of M&E data that are being collected and how they are stored because no information was provided here. M&E is covered by a different funded project. This approach hinders a comprehensive technical review of the proposal. The objectives of this proposal were clearly stated, but these objectives only cover operation and management of projects that were funded separately.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The ISRP found that accomplishments and results of the habitat projects were listed in tables; this is a good condensation of many individual projects funded by associated contracts. No quantitative information was provided on efforts to supplement natural stocks and improve habitat quality in the basin. Associated technical reports were not directly referenced in this proposal, rather a link was provided to the 2010 M&E proposal that provided links to technical reports. Sponsors should place the actual links in their proposal, rather than linking to a proposal with links as currently done. The YN and partners have done excellent work but this approach complicates a comprehensive review of the proposal.

Adaptive management was briefly described and one specific example was provided. The proposal mentioned a log of decision documents; a compilation of these documents would be worthwhile.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The proposal refers to the monitoring project for emerging limiting factors such as avian and piscivorous predation, and fish interactions. Potential actions to address these emerging issues should be briefly described.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The sponsors listed the deliverables and identified that these revolve around data management, coordination, and reporting.

The entire budget is for personnel and overhead/indirect costs. Key personnel are shown, including approximately 4.8 FTE; effort by less key personnel was not described. A better description of duties of all personnel is needed in the proposal.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:41:08 PM.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (7/3/2013)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1988-120-25-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1988-120-25 - Yakima River Management & Data -Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fundable qualified: ISRP recommends that the broader YKFP program be the subject of an organized program review. Project sponsor should consider focusing the next annual review for this purpose, otherwise review will need to occur as part of the next project review cycle. As Council has asked for in the past, a Master Plan is needed for fall chinook and coho elements of the project. Budget reductions not specific. Project to be implemented with reduced scope.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1988-120-25-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1988-120-25 - Yakima River Management & Data -Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Overall Comments for the five related Yakima/Klickitat Fishery Projects:
199506425 (YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical for ~$724K);
199701325 (YKFP Operations and Maintenance for ~$8,688K);
199506325 (YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation for ~$13,781K);
198812025 (YKFP Management, Data, Habitat for ~$4,790K);
198811525 (YKFP Design and Construction - Nelson Springs replacement facility for ~$629K).

The ISRP rates the set as "Fundable (Qualified)" because we recommend that the broader YKFP program be the subject of an organized 2-3 day site and program review within the next 2 years.

The general YKFP is a broad subbasin-wide supplementation project coupled with habitat improvements. The supplementation program (199506425 -YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical; 199701325 -YKFP O&M; 199506325 -YKFP M&E; 198812025 -YKFP Management, Data, Habitat) will be aimed at a brief list of primary focal species (e.g., spring/summer Chinook, spring steelhead, etc.) and is intended to be temporary while habitats are improved. Benefits to focal species will be answerable only in the context of whether supplementation, habitat, and harvest programs are beneficial to the salmon. Little information (insufficient) is provided as to the impacts or risks to non-target organisms. This will be answerable only in the context of whether supplementation impacts non-focal species.

As largely a supplementation and harvest augmentation project, we urge the various cooperating co-managers to work together to provide a compelling logic path or set of evidence that it is justified in terms of benefit to the targeted populations and subbasins. It would be appropriate in a single place to describe the role(s) and activities of the various participants to provide a universal view of YKFP. The primary benefit of the current M&E program will be the examination of ongoing projects. A single robust stock assessment (with trend) would seem a critical element that is missing (or at least not obvious).

We direct sponsors to the ISRP and ISAB report on the need and role for supplementation research, monitoring and evaluation, which concludes with the following statements.

"Monitoring and evaluation of supplementation projects is critically important. For the monitoring to be effective, a very rigorous design is needed, and the scale and logistics of implementation will carry costs that are significant. The scientific issues underlying the definitions of performance metrics and the necessary controls in the design are genuinely complicated. Some of the scientific tools for measuring performance are new, and involve a level of knowledge of population and molecular genetics which until recently has not been part of the standard fisheries curriculum.

The consequences of not conducting these studies and continuing to assume no deleterious impacts from supplementation, and being wrong, are much greater than short-term changes in salmon abundance. The natural populations that may be lost if supplementation actually decreases their fitness are irreplaceable. On the other hand, if supplementation proves an aid to natural population during distress, further application may be warranted. Both outcomes remain uncertain without adequate monitoring and evaluation, which will likewise guide best management practice and cost effectiveness." (ISRP & ISAB 2005-15, Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplementation Projects)

We also direct sponsors to the ISAB's Supplementation Report (ISAB 2003-3) for further presentation on the general absence of supporting data for the approach.

Comments specific to this proposal:

This ongoing project provides primary funds for fishery management of the YKFP including management oversight, policy development, coordination and planning, administration and support, data management, review, and reporting of all aspects of the broader YKFP, especially the habitat improvement or restoration.

While larger than the YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical proposal, many of the work elements are identical or similar. Sponsors need to provide further explanation as to how these proposals and work elements differ or plug in together. The short description of this proposal indicates that it would focus on elements for the YKFP programs and projects.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: As part of the broader YKFP the Management, Data, Habitat project (MDH), provides for major project management of the other project elements with other activities of the Yakima Nation and external parties. This project also provides primary funding for 8 full time and 10 part time professionals to execute the YKFP.

A key objective of the YKFP is to examine the efficacy of supplementation as an effective management tool in the subbasin (and basin-wide) while habitats are repaired or improved to provide for adequate natural production. This project more specifically focuses on habitat restoration and projects associated with the YKFP. See above general comments.

Relationships to other projects: The project is the MDH component of the broader YKFP. As such YKFP is a large agency size program. Linkages to other YKFP related projects was demonstrated, but there needs to be universal document that ties in all of the current and proposed contracts among the co-managers. There appears on the surface duplication of effort; this could be addressed by such a document and through site and program review.

Project history: The project's history was adequately described. As the specific project's objectives are not directly biological, much of the results or performance metrics are whether or not the YKFP is managed, coordinated, and administered. Biological objectives of the YKFP are more closely examined in context of the M&E project.

Objectives: A series of ten management, coordination, and administration related primary objectives are presented. These objectives are non-biological and aimed at broader program execution. The expected outcomes are clear.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods are more related to business and program management as opposed to biological. As such there is no real science to review here, although review is possible for the broader program. There is opportunity to explicitly set up hypotheses regarding habitat improvement. Some additional focus on how much actual on the ground habitat work will be completed would be welcomed.

Monitoring and evaluation: As the stated objectives are non-biological for this specific project, M&E are not amenable unless there is some actual habitat work being conducted (which is not obvious). As such, there is no real science to review here, although review is possible for the broader program.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: This is an ongoing project (with indefinite anticipated time horizon). There are numerous production, rearing, and monitoring facilities associated with the broader YKFP. There are also a goodly number of staff (full-time = 8 or partial time = 10) to be dedicated to the project management including business and administrative staff. It is a little unclear as to who will be doing data work and habitat work. Also, no specific habitat projects are actually described. Again here, a document describing the whole YKFP and a program review would be of great help in determining the appropriateness.

Information transfer: Information transfer needs to occur for biological data (as well as coordination and planning) within the broader YKFP context.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1988-120-25-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1988-120-25
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 1 - Appears reasonable
Comment: Multiple restoration, RM&E, coordination activities; need confirmation that screening or other criteria to ensure BPA is not funding activities others already required to perform; otherwise, need cost share or other remedy. Upon review, project identified as fundamentally a coordination contract (see companion at 199506425) and as such rating changed to conform to all other coordination contracts. Rating changed from "3.0" to "2.1."

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1988-120-25-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1988-120-25
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Mel Sampson Project Lead Yakama Confederated Tribes
Adrienne Wilson Administrative Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Rosemary Mazaika Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Sandra Fife Technical Contact Bonneville Power Administration
Jennifer Lord Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Kelly Clayton Project Lead Yakama Confederated Tribes
Michelle O'Malley Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Elisabeth Bowers Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration