This project enables WDFW to provide policy and technical support to the overall YKFP and other fish and wildlife efforts in the Yakima subbasin. As such, the proposal is not amenable to scientific review. Ideally, the proposal could have identified specific objectives that are descriptors for what is being addressed. The project appears to provide an important co-manager role.

The ISRP encourages WDFW to consider comments provided by ISRP (2020-3, 2020-9) as WDFW and YN plan steps forward. Key ISRP comments involve recent evidence showing that coho salmon supplementation is greatly exceeding the capacity of the subbasin to support progeny from the coho salmon spawners. pHOS is very high and likely inhibits local adaptation of the natural spawning population even though the hatchery broodstock attempts to use 100% natural origin coho salmon. Recent reports by WDFW and HSRG scientists indicate that local adaptation increases more from minimizing pHOS than by maximizing pNOB. Natural production of spring Chinook salmon is less certain because the program only recently began to mark 100% of hatchery summer/fall Chinook salmon as a means to evaluate production of natural versus hatchery salmon. Trends in natural salmon productivity over time, while controlling for climatic effects, is an important tool for evaluating the response of salmon to ongoing habitat restoration efforts.

As noted in ISRP 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. This issue needs to be addressed.

The proposal mentions "institutional efficiency" as one of three limiting factors, as it did in previous proposals. However, there was little discussion in the proposal about progress to increase institutional efficiency. This same conclusion was reached by ISRP (2012-6 RF/Coord).

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

This proposal provides for all WDFW management and coordination functions associated with the Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) and other non-YKFP programs within the Yakima Subbasin, including technical review, environmental compliance documentation, and report and publication writing. Most of the technical aspects of the YKFP are addressed in Yakima River Monitoring and Evaluation 199506325. The quantitative salmon and steelhead production objectives for the overall YKFP were presented in Pearsons et al. (2006) and the Phase 2 Report, but not in the proposal. WDFW proposes to continue involvement with policy and technical oversight of the YKFP. The co-managers of the resource (WDFW and Yakama Nation) will reportedly meet regularly and make collaborative decisions using adaptive management and risk management. As such, this proposal did not have specific objectives describing these activities but instead provided the overall production objectives of the YKFP.

Q2: Methods

Implementation of the YKFP objectives occur through hatchery O&M projects funded by Project 199701325 that are striving to meet implementation objectives set by this project in concordance with Project 198812025. The proponents state "when appropriate, decision analysis tools will be used or developed to facilitate transparent, systematic, and optimal decisions. Tools that may be used or developed include Bayesian belief networks, loop analyses, spreadsheet models (e.g., EDT, AHA), statistical power analyses, and individual-based models." Specific application of these tools is not described in the proposal, although the proposal references some reports and publications.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Monitoring and evaluation of these objectives are accomplished by Project 199506325 while following guidance from the WDFW project and Project 198812025. WDFW appears to be coordinating activities with WDFW, although details were not described in the proposal.

According to the proposal, 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 which 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. If alteration is appropriate, the YKFP science teams bring proposals to the YKFP Policy Group for consideration and action. Adaptive management actions stemming from the annual review process were not described in the proposal.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Specific benefits to fish and wildlife were not described in the proposal, although it is implied that policy and technical oversight contributed to progress described in other projects such as the Monitoring and Evaluation project that produced a detailed, comprehensive report on salmon population dynamics.

Specific comments and suggestions for improving this contextual proposal are listed below.

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

The description of significance of the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP; # 199506325) to regional programs was adequate, but the need for a separate project to fund WDFW for routine management and coordination activities at the watershed level was not clearly justified, as these activities may not meet the Council's needs for regional management and coordination projects. The proposal would be improved by further discussion of these issues.

The ISRP views the project as part of an ongoing experiment in co-management for the purpose of implementing objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program and principles and actions in Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit. The YKFP major focus is a number of supplementation experiments. The YKFP works on three key limiting factors in the Yakima Subbasin Plan – habitat, population performance and response, and institutional efficiency. Institutional inefficiency is a clear topic for program coordination science and so is the effectiveness of co-management. The proposal would be improved if the project was designed to address these scientific components.

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

A complete statement and explanation of financial history and performance is provided. Project expenditures have been under-budget. The proposal describes a good record of report delivery and a publication record that has exceeded expectations. A long list of milestones and publications is presented. Perhaps the best global statement of accomplishment is "The Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) is on schedule to ascertain whether new artificial production techniques can be used to increase harvest and natural production of spring Chinook salmon while maintaining the long-term genetic fitness of the fish population being supplemented and keeping adverse genetic and ecological interactions with non-target species or stocks within acceptable limits."

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

This project funds Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) technical management and administration of the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) #199506325, specifically participation in meetings of the Policy Group, Scientific Technical Advisory Committee, and Monitoring Implementation and Planning Team, technical review, environmental compliance documentation, and report and publication writing. The project has a single stated objective: "Achieve the quantitative objectives identified by the YKFP." Because the results of this WDFW project, as presented in reports and an impressive list of publications, are entirely derivative of the larger YKFP project, a detailed retrospective evaluation of scientific results is deferred to that project.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The proposal provides a long list of specific projects which together comprise the total YKFP effort and to which this data management and coordination project is related. It is not clear why these activities are not part of the YKFP M&E project.

The proposal provides a long list of specific projects which together comprise the total YKFP effort and to which this data management and coordination project is related. It is not clear why these activities are not part of the YKFP M&E project.

Emerging limiting factors identified in the proposal include predation, habitat, water availability, flow, and water temperature as limiting factors. Representatives of the YKFP are engaged in processes addressing these existing or potential limiting factors. The project is 50% RM&E-Data Management and 50% Coordination. Answers to the tailored data management questions are complete, but tailored coordination questions were not addressed. Answers to the RM&E questions are limited to providing links to ongoing RME projects that relate to YKFP. The proposal would be improve by revision to address these questions.

The geographic focus for YKFP is the upland areas of the Yakima Subbasin. The project has both hatchery and institutional implications for the whole Columbia Basin, but the specific geographic focus is just the YKFP area. The proposal would be improved by greater attention to regional aspects of the project.

More specific attention to identifying a scientific component to the proposal associated with program coordination issues would help to plan for future success. Can a research design be developed to study these or other outcomes from the coordination activities discussed in the proposal?

The co-management aspect of this project is a very important piece of program coordination. Neither the annual reports nor the proposal say much about co-management. Co-management could be used in many other projects throughout the Basin, thus some insights on its operation in the YKFP would be desirable. How do the co-managed Policy Group, Scientific Technical Advisory Committee, and Monitoring Implementation and Planning Team make decisions?

What is the leadership structure? What is the composition? How well does each group work? What about coordination in the YKFP has been “replicated throughout the Columbia Basin”? Some comments raise questions about the effectiveness of co-management. For example, how are different values within and between cultures managed? The proposal provides funds for WDFW co-managers to participate on joint YN and WDFW committees. The language used raises the question of whether this is in fact co-management or whether there are co-managers from YN and WDFW.

The proposal also makes the point that institutional inefficiency is one of the limiting factors, yet this concept is not discussed, monitored, or measured in the proposal. Resolving institutional inefficiencies would seem to be one of the primary goals of program coordination.
YKFP is a very important program, but assessment of lessons learned in the co-management and institutional inefficiency areas are not developed in any systematic way. The experiments taking place in the project are very important to goals of the Fish and Wildlife Program. YKFP is a very uniquely structured program in order to deal with many program coordination issues in the subbasin. More on the outcomes of program coordination in this context would be very useful.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

A good description of activities conducted to produce the deliverables is provided. Information on work elements is not provided in standard format. Methods are described under "deliverables" and in the problem statement. No metrics to evaluate success of the project are identified, nor are plans to assess effectiveness. Adaptive management is described in terms of the larger YKFP project but there are no RME protocols identified for the coordination project.

Five work elements are identified. None of these work elements have metrics associated with them. Can metrics be identified to go with these work elements? Can output metrics and methods be identified to go with these work elements? Ideally, the hypothesis(es) developed in the proposal would be measured during the course of the data management and coordination activities and results presented in the report on this project. There are many ideas discussed in the proposal that are amenable to this approach. Selecting a few of the most important questions, concerns, or hypotheses and monitoring them is recommended.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

RM&E for this project involves project implementation/compliance monitoring. There were no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal. The project is 50% Coordination and 50% RM&E and Data Management with five work elements. None of the work elements is associated with metrics in MonitoringMethods.org; however, it would be useful for retrospective evaluation of project results to develop quantifiable metrics for these work elements that could be used to track trends in data management project results.

The ISRP reviewed the three YKFP projects as a set. As a result, see the ISRP’s review of 199506325 for details on the request for a response. That project should be able to address the request in a coordinated response representing all three YKFP proposals.