< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

199506335 - YKFP - Klickitat Subbasin Monitoring and Evaluation

Sponsor: Yakama Confederated Tribes

Budgets: FY07: $2,594,240 | FY08: $1,350,659 | FY09: $1,367,010

Short description: Monitoring and evaluation of spring chinook, steelhead, fall chinook, and coho fisheries enhancement projects in the Klickitat Subbasin. M&E results guide adaptive management decisions.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $520,000 | FY08: $520,000 | FY09: $520,000

Comment: Dependent upon step review. See project 198811535.

ISRP final recommendation: Fundable in part (Qualified)

Comment:

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."

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