Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1997-056-00 - Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1997-056-00 - Klickitat Watershed Enhancement
Project Number:
1997-056-00
Title:
Klickitat Watershed Enhancement
Summary:
KWEP works to restore, enhance, and protect watershed function within the Klickitat subbasin. Project work emphasizes restoration and protection in watersheds and reaches that support native salmonid stocks, particularly steelhead (Oncorhyncus mykiss; listed as "Threatened" within the Mid-Columbia ESU), spring Chinook (O. tshawytscha) salmon, and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus; ESA "Threatened"). Restoration activities are aimed at restoring stream processes by removing or mitigating watershed perturbances and improving habitat conditions and water quality. Watershed and habitat improvements also benefit fall Chinook (O. tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon, resident rainbow trout, and cutthroat trout (O. clarki) and enhance habitat for many terrestrial and amphibian wildlife species. Protection activities compliment restoration efforts within the subbasin by securing refugia and preventing degradation. Since 90% of the off-reservation project area is in private ownership, maximum effectiveness is accomplished via cooperation with state, federal, tribal, and private entities. The Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project (KWEP) addresses goals and objectives presented in the Klickitat Subbasin Plan, Klickitat Lead Entity Strategic Plan, and the 1994 NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program.


PROJECT GOALS
The overall goal of KWEP is to restore watershed health to aid recovery of salmonid stocks in the Klickitat subbasin. There are three sub-goals:
• Assess watershed and habitat conditions to prioritize sites for restoration activities. This involves data collection, compilation, and review of existing as well as historic habitat and watershed conditions. Identification and filling of data gaps is also a component of KWEP.
• Protect, restore, and enhance priority watersheds and reaches to increase riparian, wetland, and stream habitat quality. In-situ and watershed-scale restoration activities mitigate or resolve conflicting historic, present, and/or future land-uses. Protect areas of existing high-quality habitat condition and prevent further deterioration of degraded habitats. Restore areas of degraded stream channel and/or habitat condition.
• Monitor watershed conditions to assess trends and effectiveness of restoration activities. Monitoring is a critical component to evaluating project success and guiding adaptive practices. Site-specific and basin-wide spatial scales are addressed. KWEP augments the Klickitat M&E project by assisting data collection and providing QA/QC and analysis of channel morphology, streamflow, temperature, habitat, and channel substrate.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Yakama Confederated Tribes (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1998
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Gorge Klickitat 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, River
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
OBSOLETE-Walleye
Other Anadromous
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Site 2 at springtime flows pre-enhancement.

Figure Name: Figure 5a

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 10

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Site 2 at springtime flows post-enhancement.

Figure Name: Figure 5b

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 10

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Deceased O. mykiss in dry streambed.

Figure Name: Figure 7a

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 12

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Site 4 pre-treatment (June 13, 2005)

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 9

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Site 4 post-enhancement (July 23, 2010).

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 10

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Typical late-summer conditions.

Figure Name: Figure 7b

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 12

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Distribution of monitoring wells and the portions of Tepee Creek with perennial water as observed on September 21, 2009.

Figure Name: Figure 8

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 13

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

The reach has been used as a livestock salting area.

Figure Name: Figure 10a

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 14

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

A slash pile indicates local historic forest practices activity.

Figure Name: Figure 10b

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 14

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

In-stream cattle trampling near the bottom of the reach.

Figure Name: Figure 11a

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 15

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

In-stream cattle trampling near the top of the reach.

Figure Name: Figure 11b

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 15

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Sampling locations for the Klickitat River delta.

Figure Name: Figure 13

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 19

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Spatial extent of 2009 LiDAR and high-resolution aerial photography.

Figure Name: Figure 14

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 20

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Proposed harvest areas and their proximity to treatment reaches.

Figure Name: Figure 15

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 24

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Tail-out of scour pool created by trestle (left) and embankment erosion (right).

Figure Name: Figure 16a

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 26

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Tail-out of scour pool created by trestle (left) and embankment erosion (right).

Figure Name: Figure 16b

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 26

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Upstream view of railroad crossing before treatment.

Figure Name: Figure 17a

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 27

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Upstream view of railroad crossing after treatment.

Figure Name: Figure 17b

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 27

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Element 4 during construction (inset) and post-flood.

Figure Name: Figure 19

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 32

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388

Element 5 as-built (top, left), during flood (bottom), and post-flood (top, right).

Figure Name: Figure 20

Document ID: P126141

Document: Klickitat Watershed Enhancement Project; 1/09 - 12/09

Page Number: 32

Project: 1997-056-00

Contract: 52388


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $744,498 $744,498 $434,271 $434,271 $530,298

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $744,498 $434,271 $434,271 $530,298
FY2017 (Current) $1,125,796 $1,575,796 $1,575,796 $1,575,796 $427,916

Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama $1,575,796 $1,575,796 $1,575,796 $427,916
FY2018 (Next) $681,905 $681,905 $681,905 $681,905 $0

Post 2018 – Yakama $681,905 $681,905 $681,905 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Aug-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $559,671 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2016 Expense $105,602 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2016 Expense $79,225 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama YN Accord Budget Adjustments 6/30/15 07/01/2015
FY2017 Expense $559,671 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2017 Expense $122,234 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2017 Expense $116,364 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Various Budget Transfers 2/16/2011 02/16/2011
FY2017 Expense $98,159 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, WS, YN, CRITFC) 05/08/2013
FY2017 Expense $311,603 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Yakama Accord Budget Changes (from 6/20/13 meeting) 07/11/2013
FY2017 Expense $311,604 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Yakama Accord Budget Changes (from 6/20/13 meeting) 07/11/2013
FY2017 Expense $90,000 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Various Accord/Estuary transfers 1/7/2015 01/07/2015
FY2017 Expense $125,207 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers (Yakama) 11/30/2015 12/18/2015
FY2017 Expense $450,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers (**Various**) 11/30/2016 12/01/2016
FY2018 Expense $681,905 From: Post 2018 – Yakama FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC) 7/18/2017 07/18/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 45 %
FY2014 51 %
FY2013 50 %
FY2012 43 %
FY2011 45 %
FY2010 53 %
FY2009 63 %
FY2008 41 %
FY2007 78 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office $615,904

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
5716 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 LOWER KLICKITAT RIVER RIPARIAN & IN-CHANNEL HABITAT History $773,508 4/1/2001 - 10/31/2003
15817 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes PI 1997-056-00 LO KLICKITAT R REPARIAN/INSTREAM ENHAN.-YN History $397,414 11/1/2003 - 10/31/2004
20219 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 KLICKITAT RIVER WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT- YKFP History $258,267 11/1/2004 - 10/31/2005
25132 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT RIVER WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT- YKFP History $506,810 11/1/2005 - 1/31/2007
31268 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT RIVER WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT- YKFP History $261,000 2/1/2007 - 9/30/2007
56662 REL 102 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT Issued $744,498 4/1/2016 - 3/31/2017
56662 REL 126 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT Issued $1,575,796 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):20
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:48
On time:19
Avg Days Late:52

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
5716 15817, 20219, 25132, 31268, 35988, 43183, 52388, 56662 REL 23, 56662 REL 44, 56662 REL 79, 56662 REL 102, 56662 REL 126 1997-056-00 LOWER KLICKITAT RIVER RIPARIAN & IN-CHANNEL HABITAT Yakama Confederated Tribes 04/2001 04/2001 Pending 48 235 24 0 40 299 86.62% 6
Project Totals 48 235 24 0 40 299 86.62% 6


Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-056-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1997-056-00 - Klickitat Watershed Enhancement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1997-056-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The comments and questions in the sections below are intended to assist the sponsors in improving their project and the ISRP does not request a response to these.

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

The purpose of this project is to continue actions that improve watershed processes and fish habitat in the Klickitat River Subbasin, and as the proposal indicates, this project responds to goals and recommendations in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (2000), the Klickitat Subbasin Plan (2004), the USFWS 2005 Bull trout BiOp, and several other tribal and state plans.

Restoration efforts primarily include floodplain reconnection, road decommissioning, large wood placement, and riparian re-vegetation. The technical background of the project was adequately explained, although a little more information about the status and trends of focal species (spring Chinook, steelhead, and resident rainbow trout) would have been helpful in order to provide context for the project.

The four objectives are really stated as broad goals and need to be better defined. For example, Objective 1 "Protect ecological and geomorphic functions that are at present productive for fish and wildlife populations to provide a base for expansion." Which populations and how much expansion? Where? There are metrics following each objective, but they also are too general to be of much value unless they are refined. Examples of the metrics used are "Fish/habitat usage and Flow duration." These are incomplete metrics. In the following section of the proposal, Project Goals are listed for each restoration project. These could/should be put in the Objectives section they are really measurable/quantifiable objectives.

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

The proposal gave a detailed description of restoration efforts to date and the before-and-after photos were helpful. The project sponsors did not mention if continued maintenance of some of the enhancements have been needed, but perhaps the projects have not required maintenance (suggesting that they were well designed in the first place). A helpful addition would have been a discussion of the alternative activities considered for each project, and a description of why those other options were rejected.

Results in the proposal are nicely detailed for the habitat work, but here and in annual reports the results are just of implementation monitoring - no biological monitoring results. Information is needed on fish and other biological responses to restoration actions. For example, what is the evidence that salmon and steelhead have made use of the added length of streams resulting from barrier removal? Are juvenile fishes using floodplain habitats that have been opened up by road re-location? What are the sources of mortality of trees planted in riparian zones? In terms of adults returning to the Klickitat River and its tributaries, what is the evidence that restoration projects have contributed to focal species productivity?

The only specific example of adaptive management was mention of adjustments in plant sources and pruning treatments to improve survival. One or two other examples of how lessons from past projects have been incorporated into current plans would be useful.

Evaluation of Results

This is a fairly long running project with an extensive list of habitat restoration projects. Since earlier ISRP reviews, which requested more details regarding the selection and prioritization process, the KWEP has improved the proposals with more details on project selection and functions they are seeking to rehabilitate. The annual reports have also significantly improved.

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

Relationships with most other projects are very generally stated and the sponsors did not describe how the information generated by those interacting projects was used. The sponsors did mention that they had close interactions with their M&E project #199506325 but gave no basic summary results from that project.

Limiting factor analysis has been conducted using both EDT (for summer steelhead and spring Chinook) and expert opinion. This is commendable, but a specific presentation of just how this analysis has been applied to specific life stages of a species is missing. Much more detail is needed.

Emerging Limiting Factors - The sponsors only provide a simple list of limiting factors with no discussion of how they will specifically respond to these.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables and work elements were, in general, adequately described. It was not clear whether heavy equipment will be used to change stream morphology from a plane bed to forced pool-riffle morphology (DELV-1). A couple of the actions included "maintain/remove vegetation," which suggests that invasive species control will be used. A little more detail is needed on this aspect of the work. Some of the large wood additions involved placing the logs by helicopters. Does this mean that the logs will simply be placed in the channel or along the stream-bank, or will they be anchored by cabling or burial? Some information was provided during the site visit, but a few more restoration details are needed.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

These two issues can be dealt with in contracting, statement of works, and preparation of papers.

 

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
In order to continue to justify the investment in restoration actions, there needs to be a more explicit tie between these projects and fish responses. It is ok if another project does the biological monitoring to determine if the habitat restoration work is having a positive impact on fish, macroinvertebrate, and wildlife populations. It appears that companion project #199506325 is doing such monitoring. A brief summary of their pertinent findings should be included in the proposal or an explanation of how the results from the fish monitoring work is being incorporated into this watershed enhancement project.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
The ISRP is impressed with the accomplishments of this extensive restoration project and recommends that the sponsors pursue publication of the long-term results of their efforts.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

The comments and questions in the sections below are intended to assist the sponsors in improving their project and the ISRP does not request a response to these.

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

The purpose of this project is to continue actions that improve watershed processes and fish habitat in the Klickitat River Subbasin, and as the proposal indicates, this project responds to goals and recommendations in the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program (2000), the Klickitat Subbasin Plan (2004), the USFWS 2005 Bull trout BiOp, and several other tribal and state plans.

Restoration efforts primarily include floodplain reconnection, road decommissioning, large wood placement, and riparian re-vegetation. The technical background of the project was adequately explained, although a little more information about the status and trends of focal species (spring Chinook, steelhead, and resident rainbow trout) would have been helpful in order to provide context for the project.

The four objectives are really stated as broad goals and need to be better defined. For example, Objective 1 "Protect ecological and geomorphic functions that are at present productive for fish and wildlife populations to provide a base for expansion." Which populations and how much expansion? Where? There are metrics following each objective, but they also are too general to be of much value unless they are refined. Examples of the metrics used are "Fish/habitat usage and Flow duration." These are incomplete metrics. In the following section of the proposal, Project Goals are listed for each restoration project. These could/should be put in the Objectives section they are really measurable/quantifiable objectives.

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

The proposal gave a detailed description of restoration efforts to date and the before-and-after photos were helpful. The project sponsors did not mention if continued maintenance of some of the enhancements have been needed, but perhaps the projects have not required maintenance (suggesting that they were well designed in the first place). A helpful addition would have been a discussion of the alternative activities considered for each project, and a description of why those other options were rejected.

Results in the proposal are nicely detailed for the habitat work, but here and in annual reports the results are just of implementation monitoring - no biological monitoring results. Information is needed on fish and other biological responses to restoration actions. For example, what is the evidence that salmon and steelhead have made use of the added length of streams resulting from barrier removal? Are juvenile fishes using floodplain habitats that have been opened up by road re-location? What are the sources of mortality of trees planted in riparian zones? In terms of adults returning to the Klickitat River and its tributaries, what is the evidence that restoration projects have contributed to focal species productivity?

The only specific example of adaptive management was mention of adjustments in plant sources and pruning treatments to improve survival. One or two other examples of how lessons from past projects have been incorporated into current plans would be useful.

Evaluation of Results

This is a fairly long running project with an extensive list of habitat restoration projects. Since earlier ISRP reviews, which requested more details regarding the selection and prioritization process, the KWEP has improved the proposals with more details on project selection and functions they are seeking to rehabilitate. The annual reports have also significantly improved.

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

Relationships with most other projects are very generally stated and the sponsors did not describe how the information generated by those interacting projects was used. The sponsors did mention that they had close interactions with their M&E project #199506325 but gave no basic summary results from that project.

Limiting factor analysis has been conducted using both EDT (for summer steelhead and spring Chinook) and expert opinion. This is commendable, but a specific presentation of just how this analysis has been applied to specific life stages of a species is missing. Much more detail is needed.

Emerging Limiting Factors - The sponsors only provide a simple list of limiting factors with no discussion of how they will specifically respond to these.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables and work elements were, in general, adequately described. It was not clear whether heavy equipment will be used to change stream morphology from a plane bed to forced pool-riffle morphology (DELV-1). A couple of the actions included "maintain/remove vegetation," which suggests that invasive species control will be used. A little more detail is needed on this aspect of the work. Some of the large wood additions involved placing the logs by helicopters. Does this mean that the logs will simply be placed in the channel or along the stream-bank, or will they be anchored by cabling or burial? Some information was provided during the site visit, but a few more restoration details are needed.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

These two issues can be dealt with in contracting, statement of works, and preparation of papers.

 

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:14:39 PM.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1997-056-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1997-056-00 - Klickitat Watershed Enhancement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1997-056-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018: See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1997-056-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1997-056-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 2 - May be reasonable
Comment: Multiple restoration activities; other entities may be authorized/required to conduct; assume screening to ensure BPA funding not going to lands/waters where other entities already required to conduct the activity.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-056-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1997-056-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1997-056-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1997-056-00 - Klickitat Watershed Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The response was comprehensive and helpful, answering ISRP concerns. At issue was the listing of results, for which there was apparently insufficient space allowed on the application, according to the proponent. Overall, the response provided adequate example and detail regarding the manner in which survey data is being used to prioritize and design habitat actions based upon knowledge of fish limiting factors. In the response, the project sponsors also noted that they stand ready to provide additional necessary information and to discuss its justification and pertinence with the ISRP. This project, important to the Klickitat subbasin plan, should provide these results in subsequent proposals and annual reports.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1997-056-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1997-056-00 - Klickitat Watershed Enhancement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Do Not Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Mel Sampson Technical Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Adrienne Wilson Administrative Contact Yakama Confederated Tribes
Bill Sharp Supervisor Yakama Confederated Tribes
Will Conley (Inactive) Supervisor Yakama Confederated Tribes
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
David Lindley Project Lead Yakama Confederated Tribes
Jennifer Lord Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Gregory Smith Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jamie Cleveland Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration