FY07-09 proposal 200306500

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: Future operations are proposed to continue in concert with the YKFP Project 199506325.

Termination date:
Comments: Future operations are proposed to continue in concert with the YKFP Project 199506325.

Final deliverables: Population baselines for all salmonids, fish ladder efficiencies, temporal variations of size and timing, quantitative evaluations of productivity for associated projects (BPA Project 199506325, YKFP, Klickitat Only). Statistically valid data set in support quantitative evaluations of the myriad YKFP projects within the basin.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This proposal appears to redirect the program, and what is proposed differs substantially from previous work. If so, then the project as proposed should be reviewed as a new submission, rather than an ongoing one. The problem of monitoring anadromous salmonid and bull trout movements between Bonneville Reservoir and Klickitat River is well explained. The idea that baseline data are needed to assess future activities is sound. It is worth noting that there has been a minimum of 13 "capture events" of bull trout in Klickitat since 1980s. The objectives are defined but not necessarily measurable. It is not clear how the objectives are tied to the subbasin plan. The proposal states 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 need to be more adequately described. The monitoring and evaluation provisions have not been developed. Development of M&E is one of the objectives. The proposed work will use a stratified Peterson or Jolly-Seber mark-recapture methodology to estimate annual baseline populations for all salmonids in the basin. This is an item often cited in ISRP comments as being absent from project proposals/designs and more specifically, not having been adequately addressed in the Klickitat Subbasin Anadromous Fishery Master Plan, of the Klickitat River Subbasin Plan, Appendix F. All bull trout and salmonids will be biologically sampled and marked. Such work will almost exclusively be with species other than bull trout. The project history is described with limited success noted in several aspects (e.g. trapping bull trout at Drano). It is not clear that methods have been devised to increase the chances of success so it appears unlikely to yield substantial new information. Project staff have been attempting to collect bull trout in Drano for several years and apparently have caught none (a few have been caught by others). One fish was briefly radio-tagged but the "subject" shed its tag. This is a difficult task, no doubt, but several years more would seem to have little chance of success. Information transfer plans are minimal. If the project can provide baseline data that do not exist to support the development of baseline data for anadromous salmonids and bull trout within the Klickitat River subbasin this would be useful to other projects.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: 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.