200715600 - Rock Creek Fish and Habitat Assessment for the Prioritization of Restoration and Protection
Sponsor: Yakama Confederated Tribes
Budgets: FY07: $291,307 | FY08: $254,940 | FY09: $287,504
Short description: Information will be collected on the abundance, growth, genetics, diseases, habitat condition, and movement of salmonids in Rock Creek, a unique watershed of the middle Columbia River.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $100,000 | FY08: $100,000 | FY09: $100,000
Comment: ISRP fund in part: recommend the work elements identified as fundable by the ISRP. Address ISRP concerns in statement of workplan during contracting.
ISRP final recommendation: Fundable in part
The proposal has many objectives and it is expected that this ambitious project should generate much information that would be useful to others in the region. However, there is a need to prioritize among the objectives and work in a logical sequence that allows planning and funding to proceed in stages. The ISRP recommends that objectives that relate to obtaining access, assessing fish population abundance and productivity, and assessing habitat be supported. Specifically work elements presented below should be conducted if the sponsors can justify how this information will be used. The ISRP suggests using flow charts or similar methods to identify how contingencies will be addressed based on the baseline data. Fundable work elements: 1.1.1 Collect field data and develop RM&E methods and designs. Derive estimates of salmonid population abundance in select reaches of Rock Creek. (USGS, YN) 1.1.2 Collect field data. Determine fish species composition and distribution within the watershed. (USGS, YN) 1.1.7 Determine adult counts (YN) 1.1.8 Monitor juvenile and resident fish. Conduct redd counts and spawner surveys. (YN) 2.1.1 Conduct stream habitat monitoring. (YN) 2.1.2 Sample spawning gravel/sediment. 2.1.3 Monitor stream temperature and water quality. 2.1.3 (second) Monitor stream flow. Justification for sample sizes, whether they are sites, reaches, or fish, should be specified. Monitoring and evaluation should be described in more detail to ensure that success of the project can be effectively evaluated. Strategies for sharing information were clearly identified in the response. Not-fundable elements: The PIT tagging work is not justified in the response. There seem to be no special circumstances or hypotheses identified here that could only be answered or addressed by PIT tag results.
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