199506325 - Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project - Monitoring And Evaluation
Sponsor: Yakama Nation and WDFW
Budgets: FY07: $4,529,256 | FY08: $4,548,515 | FY09: $4,703,475
Short description: Umbrella proposal for monitoring and evaluation of natural production, harvest, ecological and genetic impacts for spring chinook, fall chinook, and coho fisheries enhancement projects in the Yakima Basin. M&E results guide adaptive management decisions.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $4,500,000 | FY08: $4,500,000 | FY09: $4,500,000
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 the overall comments for the five related Yakima/Klickitat Fishery Projects under proposal 19881205. Comments specific to this M&E proposal. Technical and scientific background: The M&E project is the omnibus scientific component (a large share) of the broader YKFP and is the most amenable to scientific review. This project essentially provides the rigor and measurement to test the basic assumptions of supplementation within the Yakima subbasin. The background treatment is actually a bit light, instead, referring to previous efforts, e.g., "The YKFP monitoring program is built on a foundation laid in a number of earlier projects. The general elements of a monitoring plan were first outlined in the YKFP’s 1993 Project Status Report (BPA 1993)." Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This project is the key tool for comprehensively measuring assumptions and strategies long in place within the Yakima subbasin regarding supplementation and other programs. These are expressly detailed in the Yakima Subbasin Plan and need to be better articulated within the proposal. Relationships to other projects: This project is the umbrella or omnibus M&E activity for the others in the Yakima subbasin by both the Yakima Nation and the WDFW. It is designed to address the basic assumptions underlying the YKFP with intensive and explicit examination of the subcomponents of supplementation (and presumably habitat restoration and other H's). Project history: The project history is extensive. The table is quite data heavy. This proposal represents a major leap forward in the monitoring and evaluation of supplementation as a restoration and mitigation strategy within not only the Yakima subbasin, but basinwide. It addresses many of the key risks long assumed to be negligible with artificial production, as well as other critical variables (uncertainties). As such, the information generated will be highly relevant to future decisions as to ongoing efforts in the basin and subbasin. Objectives: The list of measurable biological objectives is quite lengthy. There needs to some thought to prioritizing these such that “measure everything” philosophy yields to “measure critical variables”. These critical variables must address the key decision points in a logic path or decision tree. Non-biological objectives overlap somewhat with other proposals (e.g., unclear as to how NEPA for this project differs from NEPA for O&M project, etc.). Ultimately, while some individual hypotheses may be addressed rapidly, the timeline to gather information on the broader question of whether supplementation is “contributing to” versus “detracting from” natural reproduction may require a few generations (i.e., 10-15 years). Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods are extensively and adequately described. The sponsors appear to have responded well to earlier comments/critiques/suggestions by ISRP (specifically) and ISAB (more generally re: supplementation). The M&E component of YKFP should address the appropriateness and soundness of assumptions. The techniques are largely appropriate for each of the tasks and include some references/controls, as well as involvement of statistical and design expertise. Monitoring and evaluation: This is a monitoring and evaluation component to the broader program. We look forward to a site and program review with summarized data and results of various activities ongoing in the Subbasin. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: There will be a large staff associated with these efforts (50+ fulltime and numerous part time/seasonal). The large staff is commensurate with scale and scope of the undertaking. Information transfer: The described intent is to make data (raw) available through various institutional means throughout the basin as well as to provide annual reporting and periodic evaluation. There is intent to produce high quality and credible summary in peer-reviewed outlets. There is also a web site with up-to-date fish counts, links to reports, cartoons (not skewering the ISRP) and swimming fish.
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)