200306500 - Klickitat River Cooperative Evaluation Program (Formerly Bull Trout Presence, Origin, and Movements In Bonneville Reservoir)
Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Budgets: FY07: $305,000 | FY08: $320,249 | FY09: $336,261
Short description: Joint operations with Yakama Nation to determine and evaluate anadromous salmon and bull trout population baselines within Klickitat River.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0
ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)
The information that this project would collect is important to evaluations of hatchery, habitat, and harvest management in the Klickitat subbasin (see ISRP's comments on M&E and the Master Plan review). However, the ISRP recommends that this work be incorporated within the M&E project (199506335) because there is so much overlap. The recommendation is also to monitor bull trout by coincidental capture, building the information base over time. If there is some small amount of work that is essential and should not be included in project 199506335, the sponsors should clearly identify and justify those objectives and work elements and explain why these cannot be included in the M&E project (199506335). In the original proposal the problem of monitoring anadromous salmonid and bull trout movements between Bonneville Reservoir and Klickitat River was well explained. The idea that baseline data are needed to assess future activities is sound. The objectives were defined but not necessarily measurable. Furthermore, it was not clear how the objectives were tied to the subbasin plan. The proposal stated that biological objectives specific to species were not adopted due to insufficient data and the lack of confidence within the planning committee to identify adequate quantitative measures. The work elements needed to be more adequately described. The monitoring and evaluation provisions had not been developed. The original proposal also described limited success over several years in trapping bull trout at Drano Lake. It is not clear that methods have been devised to increase the chances of success, so it appears unlikely to yield substantial new information. This is a difficult task, no doubt, but several years more would seem to have little chance of success. In response to the ISRP review the sponsors reduced the number of objectives from five to two. Objective 1 is designed to support a baseline database to fill data gaps for both anadromous salmonid and bull trout populations. Objective 2 focuses on communication and handling protocols for future bull trout captures. The revised narrative indicates the importance of this work to several projects within the Klickitat subbasin. An awareness of the need for population abundance and run timing information was made clear. In time, a much clearer picture of the recruitment of salmonids within the subbasin will emerge, and this should guide management decisions. The first results from mark-recapture studies, which provided valid and useable information, indicated that modifications to Lyle Falls may not be necessary for adequate fish passage, but that more efficient adult sampling, enumeration and broodstock collection may still be required. The abundance information is critical to the YKFP program and 198811535 (Planning), as well as to 199506335 (M&E). Nonetheless, little information was presented to convince reviewers that success in bull trout capture and sampling would increase substantially and effectively. Only a few captures might be expected. However, statistically valid population estimates of other species and run timing information indicates advantages in continuation; bull trout capture and sampling would be coincidental to this work, but at low capture and recapture rates. A review of tagging methodologies may also be necessary.
Response loop edit
See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.
State/province recommendation: Washington
Review group: Washington list
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)
Comment: See Washington guidance