199506425 - YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical
Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Budgets: FY07: $234,101 | FY08: $241,404 | FY09: $248,877
Short description: This project provides the policy and technical support for WDFW participation in the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $183,333 | FY08: $183,333 | FY09: $183,333
Comment: 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.
ISRP final recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
See overall comments for the five related Yakima/Klickitat Fishery Projects under proposal 19881205. Comments specific to this Policy/Plan/Technical (PPT) proposal: A key question is why this is a separate project from the 198812025 (YKFP Management, Data, Habitat). The work elements appear to be very similar if not identical (even including "Manage and Administer YKFP Activities). Because this is the WDFW portion of the administration component, it is likely relying on another counterpart proposal for some explanation. This points to the general need to have a broader program description regardless of sponsor. This project identifies its primary biological objective as "Achieve the quantitative objectives of the YKFP." The strategies identified as part of the Yakima Subbasin Plan are duplicative of other projects submitted for the YKFP. Although unclear for this specific project element, the project history was provided for the broader YKFP, which is extensive, particularly when viewing the long list of publications and reports. The objectives are listed but unclear how they differ from other broader project elements. 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 doable 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. 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).
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)