This management and data project supports staffing to conduct appropriate and necessary planning and administration of the habitat restoration, supplementation, reintroduction of extirpated species, and harvest augmentation actions in the Yakima subbasin that are needed to fulfill regional conservation goals and to meet regional mitigation and treaty trust obligations. The effort appears to be an important component of the YKFP, but specific details about the planning and data support activities of this project were not provided in the proposal. This planning project is not amenable to scientific review.

As noted in reviews of other Yakima subbasin projects, an important data gap may be present in the Yakima subbasin. Members of this project should be aware of this possible data gap. Most habitat restoration projects refer to the M&E project (199506325) for evaluating fish responses to their restoration actions, but the M&E project is focused on supplementation effects and does not include fish responses to restoration as a specific objective. The ISRP strongly encourages the Yakama Nation projects to consider this issue and adjust their collective efforts to evaluate fish responses to restoration actions.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The goal of the Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) is to restore sustainable and harvestable populations of salmon, steelhead, and other at-risk species that were historically present in the Yakima subbasin; quantitative objectives have been established. The Yakima River Management, Research, and Data project is an important component of the YKFP. This proposal reportedly provides for 1) comprehensive management oversight of all YKFP activities; 2) policy development; 2) preparation of project planning documents (e.g., Master Plans); 3) administrative support for YKFP operations; 4) coordination, development, and maintenance of databases and applications to store and share YKFP data as appropriate; 5) coordination and conduct of internal and external scientific project reviews; 6) preparation of technical reports and manuscripts to communicate results broadly throughout the region; and 7) participation in watershed planning, protection, and restoration initiatives. SMART objectives or specific tasks were not provided. A good start would be to create a SMART objective for each of the seven components stated above.

Q2: Methods

This is a management and data support component for the YKFP. Some methodology is provided in the latest annual report (Fiander et al. 2020). Planning for the YKFP began in the 1980s and culminated with the issuance of a final EIS for the project in 1996 (BPA 1996). The final EIS described the planning process, project management, design, implementation, and administration practices to be employed in the project. The process as described in 1996 continues to this day, according to the proponents.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Other projects (e.g., Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation Project 199506325) provide for monitoring and evaluation. The adaptive management and iterative project review process for the YKFP was described in Section 2.2 of the final EIS for the project (BPA 1996). It involves identifying objectives, strategies, operating assumptions, uncertainties, and risks that are then reviewed annually by project scientists. The purpose of these annual reviews is to (re)assess project objectives, to show progress towards those objectives, and to evaluate whether any strategies or assumptions need to be altered in the face of new information gained over the past year. The proposal did not provide specific examples of the adaptive management process, or how this effort supported specific examples of adaptive management.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Major achievements to date include partnering to fund and implement the Yakima subbasin Integrated Plan; land acquisition and implementation of a large number of projects designed to address factors limiting productivity and to restore key habitat functionality; realization of the “all stocks initiative” as extirpated coho salmon, summer-run Chinook salmon, and sockeye salmon are all now being reintroduced to the Yakima subbasin; construction and implementation of the Melvin R. Sampson (coho salmon) integrated production facility, and the Levi George (spring Chinook salmon) production facility that has provided major contributions to the published literature on supplementation; completion and NPCC adoption of a Master Plan for summer and fall-run Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and reconditioned steelhead; development and delivery of a high-quality annual Yakima Subbasin Science and Aquatic Management Conference; and continued progress to develop and enhance automated data capture, storage, retrieval, and sharing systems.

This project is a coordination and data sharing project, which is not a major topic of this review. This proposal does not contain sufficient scientific information for ISRP review. The ISRP does not have any serious concerns with the proposal, as augmented with the response. See the ISRP's review of data management and coordination projects for programmatic issues to consider (ISRP 2012-6: www.nwcouncil.org/media/33387/isrp2012_6.pdf).

This project has a data management and administrative focus. The ISRP noted that data sharing between groups (YN, WDFW) is not working well and request an action plan to address data sharing. The action plan should identify personnel and/or positions involved, data that will be shared, and the mechanisms used for the sharing and/or transfer.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This is a data management and coordination project that encompasses a number of other separately funded projects. The significance of the project to regional programs is described. Technical background is limited to stating that data are maintained in a variety of established regional databases, but no examples of the types of data maintained are discussed. Nearly all data storage is related to separate monitoring and evaluation efforts. The ISRP did not see examples of annual M&E reports that contained time series in data tables related to M&E efforts, though the overall program has a good record of publishing findings. Typically, long-term M&E programs will update the key metrics so that trends can be followed, but it was not apparent in the proposal that this was done when storing data in regional and local databases. The sponsors noted that they are seeking an enforceable data sharing agreement with WDFW because shared data have been inappropriately used in the past. Details of misuse were not described. The ISRP and ISAB believe that data sharing and access to data and associated meta-data is important, and we encourage the sponsors and WDFW to finalize the data sharing agreement.

TheISRP cannot comment on the scientific merits of the types of M&E data that are being collected and how they are stored because no information was provided here. M&E is covered by a different funded project. This approach hinders a comprehensive technical review of the proposal. The objectives of this proposal were clearly stated, but these objectives only cover operation and management of projects that were funded separately.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The ISRP found that accomplishments and results of the habitat projects were listed in tables; this is a good condensation of many individual projects funded by associated contracts. No quantitative information was provided on efforts to supplement natural stocks and improve habitat quality in the basin. Associated technical reports were not directly referenced in this proposal, rather a link was provided to the 2010 M&E proposal that provided links to technical reports. Sponsors should place the actual links in their proposal, rather than linking to a proposal with links as currently done. The YN and partners have done excellent work but this approach complicates a comprehensive review of the proposal.

Adaptive management was briefly described and one specific example was provided. The proposal mentioned a log of decision documents; a compilation of these documents would be worthwhile.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The proposal refers to the monitoring project for emerging limiting factors such as avian and piscivorous predation, and fish interactions. Potential actions to address these emerging issues should be briefly described.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The sponsors listed the deliverables and identified that these revolve around data management, coordination, and reporting.

The entire budget is for personnel and overhead/indirect costs. Key personnel are shown, including approximately 4.8 FTE; effort by less key personnel was not described. A better description of duties of all personnel is needed in the proposal.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:41:08 PM.

Overall Comments for the five related Yakima/Klickitat Fishery Projects:
199506425 (YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical for ~$724K);
199701325 (YKFP Operations and Maintenance for ~$8,688K);
199506325 (YKFP Monitoring and Evaluation for ~$13,781K);
198812025 (YKFP Management, Data, Habitat for ~$4,790K);
198811525 (YKFP Design and Construction - Nelson Springs replacement facility for ~$629K).

The ISRP rates the set as "Fundable (Qualified)" because we recommend that the broader YKFP program be the subject of an organized 2-3 day site and program review within the next 2 years.

The general YKFP is a broad subbasin-wide supplementation project coupled with habitat improvements. The supplementation program (199506425 -YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical; 199701325 -YKFP O&M; 199506325 -YKFP M&E; 198812025 -YKFP Management, Data, Habitat) will be aimed at a brief list of primary focal species (e.g., spring/summer Chinook, spring steelhead, etc.) and is intended to be temporary while habitats are improved. Benefits to focal species will be answerable only in the context of whether supplementation, habitat, and harvest programs are beneficial to the salmon. Little information (insufficient) is provided as to the impacts or risks to non-target organisms. This will be answerable only in the context of whether supplementation impacts non-focal species.

As largely a supplementation and harvest augmentation project, we urge the various cooperating co-managers to work together to provide a compelling logic path or set of evidence that it is justified in terms of benefit to the targeted populations and subbasins. It would be appropriate in a single place to describe the role(s) and activities of the various participants to provide a universal view of YKFP. The primary benefit of the current M&E program will be the examination of ongoing projects. A single robust stock assessment (with trend) would seem a critical element that is missing (or at least not obvious).

We direct sponsors to the ISRP and ISAB report on the need and role for supplementation research, monitoring and evaluation, which concludes with the following statements.

"Monitoring and evaluation of supplementation projects is critically important. For the monitoring to be effective, a very rigorous design is needed, and the scale and logistics of implementation will carry costs that are significant. The scientific issues underlying the definitions of performance metrics and the necessary controls in the design are genuinely complicated. Some of the scientific tools for measuring performance are new, and involve a level of knowledge of population and molecular genetics which until recently has not been part of the standard fisheries curriculum.

The consequences of not conducting these studies and continuing to assume no deleterious impacts from supplementation, and being wrong, are much greater than short-term changes in salmon abundance. The natural populations that may be lost if supplementation actually decreases their fitness are irreplaceable. On the other hand, if supplementation proves an aid to natural population during distress, further application may be warranted. Both outcomes remain uncertain without adequate monitoring and evaluation, which will likewise guide best management practice and cost effectiveness." (ISRP & ISAB 2005-15, Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplementation Projects)

We also direct sponsors to the ISAB's Supplementation Report (ISAB 2003-3) for further presentation on the general absence of supporting data for the approach.

Comments specific to this proposal:

This ongoing project provides primary funds for fishery management of the YKFP including management oversight, policy development, coordination and planning, administration and support, data management, review, and reporting of all aspects of the broader YKFP, especially the habitat improvement or restoration.

While larger than the YKFP Policy/Plan/Technical proposal, many of the work elements are identical or similar. Sponsors need to provide further explanation as to how these proposals and work elements differ or plug in together. The short description of this proposal indicates that it would focus on elements for the YKFP programs and projects.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: As part of the broader YKFP the Management, Data, Habitat project (MDH), provides for major project management of the other project elements with other activities of the Yakima Nation and external parties. This project also provides primary funding for 8 full time and 10 part time professionals to execute the YKFP.

A key objective of the YKFP is to examine the efficacy of supplementation as an effective management tool in the subbasin (and basin-wide) while habitats are repaired or improved to provide for adequate natural production. This project more specifically focuses on habitat restoration and projects associated with the YKFP. See above general comments.

Relationships to other projects: The project is the MDH component of the broader YKFP. As such YKFP is a large agency size program. Linkages to other YKFP related projects was demonstrated, but there needs to be universal document that ties in all of the current and proposed contracts among the co-managers. There appears on the surface duplication of effort; this could be addressed by such a document and through site and program review.

Project history: The project's history was adequately described. As the specific project's objectives are not directly biological, much of the results or performance metrics are whether or not the YKFP is managed, coordinated, and administered. Biological objectives of the YKFP are more closely examined in context of the M&E project.

Objectives: A series of ten management, coordination, and administration related primary objectives are presented. These objectives are non-biological and aimed at broader program execution. The expected outcomes are clear.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods are more related to business and program management as opposed to biological. As such there is no real science to review here, although review is possible for the broader program. There is opportunity to explicitly set up hypotheses regarding habitat improvement. Some additional focus on how much actual on the ground habitat work will be completed would be welcomed.

Monitoring and evaluation: As the stated objectives are non-biological for this specific project, M&E are not amenable unless there is some actual habitat work being conducted (which is not obvious). As such, there is no real science to review here, although review is possible for the broader program.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: This is an ongoing project (with indefinite anticipated time horizon). There are numerous production, rearing, and monitoring facilities associated with the broader YKFP. There are also a goodly number of staff (full-time = 8 or partial time = 10) to be dedicated to the project management including business and administrative staff. It is a little unclear as to who will be doing data work and habitat work. Also, no specific habitat projects are actually described. Again here, a document describing the whole YKFP and a program review would be of great help in determining the appropriateness.

Information transfer: Information transfer needs to occur for biological data (as well as coordination and planning) within the broader YKFP context.