FY07-09 proposal 199506335

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Gorge / Klickitat

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: Continuing project to meet YKFP objectives and/or the Klickitat Subbasin Management and Recovery Plans

Termination date: indefinite
Comments: Monitoring and Evaluation needs will be continuing

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The project sponsor should develop a coordinated response addressing the general comments provided under proposal 198811535 - Klickitat Fishery YKFP Design and specific comments provided with each proposal. Comments specific to this proposal: Technical and scientific background: The background section for this proposal is very nicely written and summarizes the status of fishery management (production, harvest, and habitat measures) in the subbasin and identifies the need for monitoring data to serve management. This a thorough and thoughtful proposal that reflects much of the past dialogue between Klickitat sponsors and the ISRP about the need to carefully monitor supplementation projects in order to understand the effects and to adaptively manage unanticipated effects. The proposal contains substantial detail on a large number of biological objective and associated tasks that will be critical to understanding the success and effects of the proposed work. Like many of the M&E proposals, this one relates to many tasks. The suite of Klickitat proposals is dependent upon the overview and direction of the yet-to-be completed Master Plan. In the Master Plan it would be helpful to have separate treatments for major fisheries management issues such as: 1. monitoring for inventory and assessment (basic fisheries management information), 2. evaluation of a) habitat actions, b) hatchery actions, 3. research on uncertainties or others, such as rearing studies. Without the overview and direction provided by a comprehensive and thoroughly integrated Master Plan, it has been difficult to be certain that all the many fisheries management issues in the Klickitat have received appropriate attention in a manner that increases the likelihood of the proposed actions reaching their objectives. Relationships to other projects: There is clear identification for the need for the data and the other projects within the Klickitat subbasin that are served by the data produced by this proposal. Project history: The summary of project history is brief but adequate. It would be improved by a more thorough discussion of how management has been modified as a consequence of data collected and analyzed in this project. Objectives: The newly proposed tasks seem to have clear and reasonable objectives and timelines, especially the comparison of rearing strategies (1 yr vs 2 yr) study that is nicely laid out with testable hypotheses. On the other hand, much habitat-related monitoring seems to be done in automatic mode: conduct habitat surveys in 5-10 reaches per year, continue to take gravel samples, and on. No data (or results thus far) are presented in synthesized form to show reviewers how such data are used. These programs should be justified by the presentation of results that bear on biological objectives, or discontinued. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods are summarized briefly and appear adequate for new tasks, but inadequate for many ongoing tasks, especially habitat monitoring. For example, to say that a Timber, Fish and Wildlife protocol is followed might be okay, but unless that information can be used for a predetermined purpose, its chance of being worthwhile is slim. Monitoring and evaluation: This is a monitoring and evaluation, and data management proposal; consequently, the M&E section is very thorough. Not surprising as this is the main thrust of the proposal, which informs all the other Klickitat proposals in this suite of projects. Information transfer: At least one paper was submitted to open literature. Adequate explanation of the dissemination of information occurs largely by BPA reports. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: If robust interpretation follows the collection of the data, and management responds to the information it receives, there should be persisting benefits to the focal species. Benefits or adverse effects to non-focal species are not considered.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)

NPCC comments: Fundable in Part to complete the Step One review including revision of the Master Plan to reflect due consideration of other alternatives. Funding is qualified, in that the completed Master Plan needs to include a “no artificial production” alternative modeled to achieve the plan’s objectives for steelhead and spring Chinook in the upper Klickitat subbasin. Modeling should provide some type of evidence (model, habitat data, EDT modeling, etc.) that shows the likelihood of achieving upper Klickitat basin objectives with and without supplementation. Also, modeling should evaluate the potential of a passive natural rebuilding approach over an appropriate response period, perhaps 10-12 years (~ 3 generations), that if not successful could retrigger consideration of the hatchery supplementation program proposed. A habitat-based model might predict the numbers of wild recruits necessary to fully seed the upper part of the watershed - even EDT could do that and would therefore indicate whether supplementation is needed to achieve the upper basin objectives. The ISRP is supportive of the Master Plan’s vision of separating lower river fall Chinook and coho hatchery and harvest operations from the upper river rebuilding objectives for steelhead and spring Chinook. This project is designed to monitor and evaluate fisheries enhancement projects; however, it is not clear that data being collected directly relate to this objective. The response states that the utility of the habitat monitoring data is its use for various planning and management purposes such as "ongoing land use throughout the subbasin (e.g., timber harvest, road construction and use, agriculture)." It is not clear that all data being collected relate to fisheries enhancement projects. Nevertheless, our subbasin visits and the sponsor’s annual plans show that data, including fish population data, are being gathered. It is also clear from previous presentations how they are incorporated into EDT and how EDT is utilized. The Master Plan does not currently reflect this information and needs to describe how it is being used to direct management actions. The sponsors identify that the data is used in EDT and AHA modeling of habitat and fish populations, and has been used to develop target large woody debris levels for streams and riparian management and that temperature data were used in Total Maximum Daily Load analysis. The ISRP also commented that employing standard protocols such as the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife protocol to gather field data might not be worthwhile because the data would be unsuitable when not collected for a specific purpose. The sponsors indicate that this is baseline data that can assist in formulation of management alternatives. In the Master Plan Three-Step Review, the sponsors should provide additional depth of discussion of the M&E for fish and habitat monitoring, especially since in comments on 198811535 sponsors note that "current data and methods do not allow accurate assessment of steelhead escapement and stock composition for the Klickitat subbasin."