Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 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

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

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
Catfish
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, River
Other Anadromous
Other Resident
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Walleye
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Description: Page: 9 Figure 3: Site 4 pre-treatment (June 13, 2005)

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 623 x 260

Description: Page: 10 Figure 4: Site 4 post-enhancement (July 23, 2010).

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 624 x 242

Description: Page: 10 Figure 5a: Site 2 at springtime flows pre-enhancement.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 234

Description: Page: 10 Figure 5b: Site 2 at springtime flows post-enhancement.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 235

Description: Page: 12 Figure 7a: Deceased O. mykiss in dry streambed.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 234

Description: Page: 12 Figure 7b: Typical late-summer conditions.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 234

Description: Page: 13 Figure 8: Distribution of monitoring wells and the portions of Tepee Creek with perennial water as observed on September 21, 2009.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 604 x 780

Description: Page: 14 Figure 10a: The reach has been used as a livestock salting area.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 216 x 288

Description: Page: 14 Figure 10b: A slash pile indicates local historic forest practices activity.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 384 x 288

Description: Page: 15 Figure 11a: In-stream cattle trampling near the bottom of the reach.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 234

Description: Page: 15 Figure 11b: In-stream cattle trampling near the top of the reach.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 235

Description: Page: 19 Figure 13: Sampling locations for the Klickitat River delta.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 648 x 534

Description: Page: 20 Figure 14: Spatial extent of 2009 LiDAR and high-resolution aerial photography.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 602 x 792

Description: Page: 24 Figure 15: Proposed harvest areas and their proximity to treatment reaches.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 545 x 727

Description: Page: 26 Figure 16a: Tail-out of scour pool created by trestle (left) and embankment erosion (right).

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 235

Description: Page: 26 Figure 16b: Tail-out of scour pool created by trestle (left) and embankment erosion (right).

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 234

Description: Page: 27 Figure 17a: Upstream view of railroad crossing before treatment.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 235

Description: Page: 27 Figure 17b: Upstream view of railroad crossing after treatment.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 312 x 234

Description: Page: 32 Figure 19: Element 4 during construction (inset) and post-flood.

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 611 x 410

Description: Page: 32 Figure 20: Element 5 as-built (top, left), during flood (bottom), and post-flood (top, right).

Project: 1997-056-00

Document: P126141

Dimensions: 611 x 388


Summary of Budgets

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

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $661,448 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $55,986 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YKFP 8/28/19 09/09/2019
FY2020 Expense $55,986 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN 8/9/19 09/09/2019
FY2020 Expense $64,197 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Tranfers - YN - 2/3/20 02/03/2020
FY2020 Expense $215,931 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Tranfers - YN - 2/3/20 02/03/2020
FY2020 Expense $187,335 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Tranfers - YN - 2/3/20 02/03/2020
FY2020 Expense $187,335 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 2/4/20 02/04/2020
FY2020 Expense $10,497 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YKFP - 2/11/20 02/11/2020
FY2020 Expense $1 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers (YN) 2/10/20 02/11/2020
FY2020 Expense $342,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Transfers - YKFP 05/04/20 05/04/2020
FY2020 Expense $6,568 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Transfers - YKFP 05/04/20 05/04/2020
FY2020 Expense $671 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020
FY2020 Expense $671 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020
FY2020 Expense $9,268 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020
FY2021 Expense $669,716 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2021 Expense $187,335 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Tranfers - YN - 2/3/20 02/03/2020
FY2021 Expense $24,713 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020
FY2021 Expense $671 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020
FY2021 Expense $348,585 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020
FY2021 Expense $9,268 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020
FY2021 Expense $198,409 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Transfers (Umatilla, YN) 2/23/2021 02/23/2021
FY2022 Expense $678,088 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Extensions (Yakama Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2022 Expense $187,335 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Tranfers - YN - 2/3/20 02/03/2020
FY2022 Expense $187,335 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers (YN) - 2/4/20 02/04/2020
FY2022 Expense $187,335 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Accord Budget Transfers (YN) - 2/4/20 02/04/2020
FY2022 Expense $19,525 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020
FY2022 Expense $3 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020
FY2022 Expense $352,942 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Yakama Fish Accord Budget Transfers - YN - 09/10/20 09/16/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2020 $14,890 1%
2019 $138,500 19%
2018 $385,688 37%
2017 $349,538 19%
2016 $204,832 32%
2015 $615,904 55%
2014 $605,654 51%
2013 $647,856 50%
2012 $443,246 43%
2011 $491,855 45%
2010 $587,693 53%
2009 $869,451 63%
2008 $380,991 41%
2007 $914,488 78%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total 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
35988 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT ENHANCEMENT WATERSHED PROJ Closed $556,706 10/1/2007 - 5/31/2009
43183 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCE Closed $1,041,755 4/1/2009 - 3/31/2011
52388 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCE Closed $1,192,357 4/1/2011 - 3/31/2013
56662 REL 23 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCE Closed $636,706 4/1/2013 - 3/31/2014
56662 REL 44 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCE Closed $571,009 4/1/2014 - 3/31/2015
56662 REL 79 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCE Closed $495,453 4/1/2015 - 3/31/2016
56662 REL 102 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT Closed $434,271 4/1/2016 - 3/31/2017
56662 REL 126 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT Closed $1,444,099 4/1/2017 - 3/31/2018
56662 REL 154 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT Closed $645,125 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
56662 REL 179 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT Closed $576,028 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020
BPA-011852 Bonneville Power Administration FY20 Internal Services/PIT Tags Active $0 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
83613 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP SUAS WORK KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT Closed $3,102 11/1/2019 - 3/31/2020
56662 REL 208 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT Issued $1,285,857 4/1/2020 - 3/31/2021
BPA-012075 Bonneville Power Administration FY21 PIT Tags Active $1,904 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
56662 REL 235 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1997-056-00 EXP KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT/ROCK CREEK Issued $1,436,791 4/1/2021 - 3/31/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):32
Completed:16
On time:16
Status Reports
Completed:66
On time:26
Avg Days Late:37

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, 56662 REL 154, 56662 REL 179, 56662 REL 208, 56662 REL 235 1997-056-00 LOWER KLICKITAT RIVER RIPARIAN & IN-CHANNEL HABITAT Yakama Confederated Tribes 04/2001 04/2001 Issued 63 338 0 0 50 388 87.11% 6
BPA-011852 FY20 Internal Services/PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/2019 10/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83613 1997-056-00 EXP SUAS WORK KLICKITAT WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT Yakama Confederated Tribes 11/2019 11/2019 Closed 2 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
BPA-012075 FY21 PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/2020 10/2020 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 116 529 0 0 88 617 85.74% 7


Historical from: 2007-156-00
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
BPA-003696 PIT Tags - Rock Creek Fish Habitat Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36535 43057, 54748, 56662 REL 5, 56662 REL 32, 56662 REL 57, 56662 REL 86, 56662 REL 112, 56662 REL 136, 56662 REL 163, 56662 REL 190 200715600 EXP ROCK CREEK FISH AND HABITAT ASSESSMENT Yakama Confederated Tribes 12/2007 12/2007 Issued 51 188 0 0 38 226 83.19% 1
BPA-004336 PIT Tags - Rock Creek Fish & Habitat Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004566 PIT Tags - Rock Creek Fish & Habitat Assessment Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005724 PIT Tags - Rock Creek Fish & Habitat Assessment Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006392 PIT Tags - Rock Creek Fish & Habitat Assessment Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009733 PIT Tags - Rock Creek Fish & Habitat Assessment Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010207 PIT Tags - Rock Creek Fish & Habitat Assessment Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010787 PIT Tags/Readers - Rock Creek Fish & Habitat Assessment Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-011602 FY20 Internal Services/PIT tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/2019 10/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 116 529 0 0 88 617 85.74% 7


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

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.
Assessment Number: 2007-156-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2007-156-00 - Rock Creek Fish and Habitat Assessment
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2007-156-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement with conditions through June 2014. Sponsor to submit geomorphology and salmonid assessment report to the ISRP when completed by March 1, 2014. Funding recommendation beyond June 2014 dependent on favorable ISRP review and Council recommendation.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to submit geomorphology and salmonid assessment report to the ISRP when completed by March 1, 2014.
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—Sponsor to submit geomorphology and salmonid assessment report to the ISRP when completed by March 1, 2014.

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:
Assessment Number: 2007-156-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2007-156-00 - Rock Creek Fish and Habitat Assessment
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2007-156-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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

This project proposes to continue an ongoing effort to collect and analyze salmonid population and habitat data on Rock Creek for the ultimate purpose of identifying habitat restoration projects that would be most beneficial to the fish. The Rock Creek watershed appears to be an appropriate location for such an effort. The proposal indicates that this population is a focus of recovery efforts for the Mid-Columbia ESU.

The four objectives for this project are:

(OBJ-1) Understand the current habitat conditions

(OBJ-2) Protect and conserve existing good quality habitat and expand upon these focal areas

(OBJ-3) Identify protection/restoration sites and actions

(OBJ-4) Restore and enhance habitat

The general approach being taken is consistent with the guidance provided by the ISRP for years: identify restoration actions based on a thorough understanding of how the focal species are using the watershed. The technical background on the project activity to date was sufficient to illustrate what has been accomplished. However, key elements of the watershed assessment have yet to be completed (geomorphic assessment and juvenile fish assessment reports due in 2014). It appears that these reports will form the basis of a new EDT analysis that will be used to identify project locations and limiting factors. An evaluation of the technical adequacy of the process that will be used for project identification would require that these reports be included in the proposal. Therefore, Objectives 1 and 2 are justified in the proposal. However, the adequacy of the process that will be used to identify priority restoration sites (Objective 3) cannot be assessed with the information provided in the proposal. As a result, Objective 4 is not appropriate at this time.

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

The history and past accomplishments of this project are described briefly in the proposal. However, it appears that relatively little rigorous analysis of the fish or habitat data that have been collected to date has been completed. The discussion of results is similar in scope to that examined in the previous ISRP review (spring 2012) and is only slightly improved in terms of providing a comprehensive understanding of the situation. The proposal mostly contains a description of the types of data being collected and provides examples of some of these data including number of spawners and index of juvenile density. Additionally, the location of stream reaches that experience significant dewatering should be displayed. Also, it would be useful to know if the presence of non-native fishes in lower Rock Creek has had any effect on the survival of juvenile steelhead as they emigrate from the watershed. It seems that the reports due in 2014 on channel geomorphology and salmonid fishes will include detailed analyses of the data. The ISRP would require these reports and a description of the process to be used to identify priority projects in order to fully evaluate this proposal.

There is no explicit description of an adaptive management process associated with this project. However, there is a clear indication of an intention to use adaptive management principles as a foundation of the restoration process. Data being collected is intended to be used to identify high-priority projects. It appears that EDT will be the tool used to achieve this goal. Development of a more formal adaptive management process for this project could help ensure that the data being collected are used to fullest advantage.

Evaluation of data collected by this project to date was not provided in this proposal. The reports planned for release in 2014 should contain a thorough data analysis and a discussion of the implications for habitat restoration.

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

The proposal provides only a very high-level description of the relationships between this project and other habitat RME and habitat restoration projects in the Columbia Basin. They apparently are using some sampling protocols developed through the CHaMP and PNAMP processes. But the actual relationship between this project and the large habitat RME efforts in the basin, like CHaMP and ISEMP, is not described. It would seem that considerable leverage could be gained by aligning the sampling protocols being used in this study with efforts attempting to achieve similar objectives. The data management system described for this project in the proposal also might benefit by closer association with the large RME programs, which have developed very sophisticated data management systems.

The proposal generically identifies limiting factors for the Rock Creek watershed, but it also indicates that site-specific limiting factors can only be reliably identified once data collection and analysis is complete. This approach is technically sound. Water temperature is identified as a limiting factor in the proposal, and the work has also included pathogen sampling, although results of that sampling are not presented here. Is there any possibility that high temperatures have exacerbated disease or parasite problems in Rock Creek? The proposal does not address any of the key emerging limiting factors such as climate change, invasive species, or future development of the watershed. A careful assessment of how these things may affect restoration actions should be incorporated into the process being developed to identify priority restoration actions.

This project uses PIT tags and two instream PIT tag readers to assess juvenile steelhead movement, smolt production, and adult returns. The proposal clearly explains why PIT tags are the best choice for application in this project. However, it is not clear if an adequate number of fish have been PIT-tagged to get sufficient recoveries to make generalizations about fish movements.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables, work elements, and metrics associated with the collection of fish and habitat data for Rock Creek appear to be appropriate for project objectives. However, there was little description of how these data are being analyzed (other than that EDT is being used); some additional information on this point would have helped assess the technical merit of the analysis methods being used. Presumably, these items will be addressed through the reports planned for completion in 2014. It was stated that genetic analysis of steelhead is being discontinued. No information was provided in the proposal on how the information from this part of the study will be used to help inform habitat restoration priorities.

There is insufficient information provided to determine if the methods that will be used to identify the most effective restoration projects are scientifically sound. The use of EDT to examine these data is a reasonable approach. However, until the reports on system geomorphology and fish populations are completed in 2014, it is not possible to assess whether or not these data will be sufficient to accurately parameterize the EDT process. In addition, it would be wise to use EDT in conjunction with a second analytical approach. Consistent outcomes from the two approaches would add considerable assurance that the most significant projects are being correctly identified.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The proposal was adequately cross-referenced with respect to the MonitoringMethods.org protocols.


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

The elements of this project related to data collection generally meet scientific criteria. However, proposal elements related to the identification and execution of habitat restoration actions are not adequately justified from a scientific standpoint. It is not possible to assess the technical merit of the project identification process until the geomorphology and salmonid population assessments are completed in 2014. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing these reports and the process to be used to identify priority projects. The ISRP should review the reports and the prioritization process as a package rather than individually.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
Geomorphology and fish population reports should be reviewed by the ISRP when they become available.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
The strategy for incorporating these data into the restoration prioritization process needs to be clearly described.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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

This project proposes to continue an ongoing effort to collect and analyze salmonid population and habitat data on Rock Creek for the ultimate purpose of identifying habitat restoration projects that would be most beneficial to the fish. The Rock Creek watershed appears to be an appropriate location for such an effort. The proposal indicates that this population is a focus of recovery efforts for the Mid-Columbia ESU.

The four objectives for this project are:

(OBJ-1) Understand the current habitat conditions

(OBJ-2) Protect and conserve existing good quality habitat and expand upon these focal areas

(OBJ-3) Identify protection/restoration sites and actions

(OBJ-4) Restore and enhance habitat

The general approach being taken is consistent with the guidance provided by the ISRP for years: identify restoration actions based on a thorough understanding of how the focal species are using the watershed. The technical background on the project activity to date was sufficient to illustrate what has been accomplished. However, key elements of the watershed assessment have yet to be completed (geomorphic assessment and juvenile fish assessment reports due in 2014). It appears that these reports will form the basis of a new EDT analysis that will be used to identify project locations and limiting factors. An evaluation of the technical adequacy of the process that will be used for project identification would require that these reports be included in the proposal. Therefore, Objectives 1 and 2 are justified in the proposal. However, the adequacy of the process that will be used to identify priority restoration sites (Objective 3) cannot be assessed with the information provided in the proposal. As a result, Objective 4 is not appropriate at this time.

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

The history and past accomplishments of this project are described briefly in the proposal. However, it appears that relatively little rigorous analysis of the fish or habitat data that have been collected to date has been completed. The discussion of results is similar in scope to that examined in the previous ISRP review (spring 2012) and is only slightly improved in terms of providing a comprehensive understanding of the situation. The proposal mostly contains a description of the types of data being collected and provides examples of some of these data including number of spawners and index of juvenile density. Additionally, the location of stream reaches that experience significant dewatering should be displayed. Also, it would be useful to know if the presence of non-native fishes in lower Rock Creek has had any effect on the survival of juvenile steelhead as they emigrate from the watershed. It seems that the reports due in 2014 on channel geomorphology and salmonid fishes will include detailed analyses of the data. The ISRP would require these reports and a description of the process to be used to identify priority projects in order to fully evaluate this proposal.

There is no explicit description of an adaptive management process associated with this project. However, there is a clear indication of an intention to use adaptive management principles as a foundation of the restoration process. Data being collected is intended to be used to identify high-priority projects. It appears that EDT will be the tool used to achieve this goal. Development of a more formal adaptive management process for this project could help ensure that the data being collected are used to fullest advantage.

Evaluation of data collected by this project to date was not provided in this proposal. The reports planned for release in 2014 should contain a thorough data analysis and a discussion of the implications for habitat restoration.

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

The proposal provides only a very high-level description of the relationships between this project and other habitat RME and habitat restoration projects in the Columbia Basin. They apparently are using some sampling protocols developed through the CHaMP and PNAMP processes. But the actual relationship between this project and the large habitat RME efforts in the basin, like CHaMP and ISEMP, is not described. It would seem that considerable leverage could be gained by aligning the sampling protocols being used in this study with efforts attempting to achieve similar objectives. The data management system described for this project in the proposal also might benefit by closer association with the large RME programs, which have developed very sophisticated data management systems.

The proposal generically identifies limiting factors for the Rock Creek watershed, but it also indicates that site-specific limiting factors can only be reliably identified once data collection and analysis is complete. This approach is technically sound. Water temperature is identified as a limiting factor in the proposal, and the work has also included pathogen sampling, although results of that sampling are not presented here. Is there any possibility that high temperatures have exacerbated disease or parasite problems in Rock Creek? The proposal does not address any of the key emerging limiting factors such as climate change, invasive species, or future development of the watershed. A careful assessment of how these things may affect restoration actions should be incorporated into the process being developed to identify priority restoration actions.

This project uses PIT tags and two instream PIT tag readers to assess juvenile steelhead movement, smolt production, and adult returns. The proposal clearly explains why PIT tags are the best choice for application in this project. However, it is not clear if an adequate number of fish have been PIT-tagged to get sufficient recoveries to make generalizations about fish movements.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables, work elements, and metrics associated with the collection of fish and habitat data for Rock Creek appear to be appropriate for project objectives. However, there was little description of how these data are being analyzed (other than that EDT is being used); some additional information on this point would have helped assess the technical merit of the analysis methods being used. Presumably, these items will be addressed through the reports planned for completion in 2014. It was stated that genetic analysis of steelhead is being discontinued. No information was provided in the proposal on how the information from this part of the study will be used to help inform habitat restoration priorities.

There is insufficient information provided to determine if the methods that will be used to identify the most effective restoration projects are scientifically sound. The use of EDT to examine these data is a reasonable approach. However, until the reports on system geomorphology and fish populations are completed in 2014, it is not possible to assess whether or not these data will be sufficient to accurately parameterize the EDT process. In addition, it would be wise to use EDT in conjunction with a second analytical approach. Consistent outcomes from the two approaches would add considerable assurance that the most significant projects are being correctly identified.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The proposal was adequately cross-referenced with respect to the MonitoringMethods.org protocols.


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

The elements of this project related to data collection generally meet scientific criteria. However, proposal elements related to the identification and execution of habitat restoration actions are not adequately justified from a scientific standpoint. It is not possible to assess the technical merit of the project identification process until the geomorphology and salmonid population assessments are completed in 2014. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing these reports and the process to be used to identify priority projects. The ISRP should review the reports and the prioritization process as a package rather than individually.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:29:46 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: 2011 Individual ISRP reviews
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-156-00-NPCC-20101022
Project: 2007-156-00 - Rock Creek Fish and Habitat Assessment
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2007-156-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Under Review
Comments: Sponsor needs to submit new proposal for review.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-156-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2007-156-00 - Rock Creek Fish and Habitat Assessment
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2007-156-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
There are not enough details in the project to conduct a scientific evaluation. This project likely needs more time than is available in the response loop to adequately develop this project for a meaningful ISRP review. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing a proposal when it is fully developed. As mentioned below, a few parts of this might be supportable if better justified.

A labeled map and a description of land ownership in project areas are both badly needed.

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

The issue/problem statement is not well developed, and as a result, there is no clear overall goal. How the entire project relates to the region as a whole is unclear.

A few Chinook have been noted to spawn in the lower end. Steelhead are the only species of interest (The presentation reported 143 Steelhead redds). Again, the background and goals are described as though the completed work was never done.

The merits of the seven specific objectives are in question as well their status and the need for the work to be done. One objective (#4 to assess juvenile abundance and distribution) appears warranted if clearly defined. The other six are either already completed, at least to an adequate extent, or inappropriate.

Obj. 1 steelhead genetics - see completed report in Annual Report. Several more years of 50 fish samples are “needed.”

Obj. 2 assess habitat conditions and limiting factors - Proponents need to justify and clarify the need for additional data based on what has already analyzed. The discussion in the Annual Report was insufficient.

Obj. 3 assess lamprey use - never justified or explained to reviewers.

Obj. 5 survey fish pathogens - completed, see page 15 in Annual Report. “The Rock Creek fish health report indicates the mainstem Rock Creek fish samples were in good health and no pathogens were detected.”

Obj. 6 kelt movement - not explained or justified.

Obj. 7 identify project sites (probably okay if adequately justified) and also plant trees (also okay if not just feeding beavers).

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

For some reason this is identified as a new project as it indicates there are no past accomplishments. Yet the financial summary indicates $330K has already been spent, much of that Accord funds. Some of the funding went to “install two PIT-tag multiplex units in Rock Creek and subcontracted to USGS. Not all of the funding was spent to the end of the contract because there was limited time. The remainder of the FY2008 budget was carried over to the FY2011 budget. Then in FY2009 the Rock Creek Project started a two-year contract which is planned to end on May 31, 2011. We have a large subcontract with USGS to assist with the population surveys in Rock Creek as well as analyze the PIT-tag data.” This tangled web was confusing to reviewers.

An annual report has been filed for the period Dec 2007 through May 2009. However, for some reason that is quite disconcerting, those results are totally ignored in the current proposal.
So, regardless, there have been lots of data gathered. And there are PIT tag units and a USGS population survey subcontract apparently in place.

The project development, history, and most importantly its current status is in question.

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

There is little information regarding how this project relates to other projects in the region.

The fact that there are substantial numbers of channel catfish, smallmouth bass, walleyes, perch and other non-natives is a clear problem, and to the reviewers, puts the value of the entire project in question.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

All of these are inadequately detailed.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:
There are not enough details in the project to conduct a scientific evaluation. This project likely needs more time than is available in the response loop to adequately develop this project for a meaningful ISRP review. The ISRP looks forward to reviewing a proposal when it is fully developed. As mentioned below, a few parts of this might be supportable if better justified.

A labeled map and a description of land ownership in project areas are both badly needed.

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

The issue/problem statement is not well developed, and as a result, there is no clear overall goal. How the entire project relates to the region as a whole is unclear.

A few Chinook have been noted to spawn in the lower end. Steelhead are the only species of interest (The presentation reported 143 Steelhead redds). Again, the background and goals are described as though the completed work was never done.

The merits of the seven specific objectives are in question as well their status and the need for the work to be done. One objective (#4 to assess juvenile abundance and distribution) appears warranted if clearly defined. The other six are either already completed, at least to an adequate extent, or inappropriate.

Obj. 1 steelhead genetics - see completed report in Annual Report. Several more years of 50 fish samples are “needed.”

Obj. 2 assess habitat conditions and limiting factors - Proponents need to justify and clarify the need for additional data based on what has already analyzed. The discussion in the Annual Report was insufficient.

Obj. 3 assess lamprey use - never justified or explained to reviewers.

Obj. 5 survey fish pathogens - completed, see page 15 in Annual Report. “The Rock Creek fish health report indicates the mainstem Rock Creek fish samples were in good health and no pathogens were detected.”

Obj. 6 kelt movement - not explained or justified.

Obj. 7 identify project sites (probably okay if adequately justified) and also plant trees (also okay if not just feeding beavers).

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

For some reason this is identified as a new project as it indicates there are no past accomplishments. Yet the financial summary indicates $330K has already been spent, much of that Accord funds. Some of the funding went to “install two PIT-tag multiplex units in Rock Creek and subcontracted to USGS. Not all of the funding was spent to the end of the contract because there was limited time. The remainder of the FY2008 budget was carried over to the FY2011 budget. Then in FY2009 the Rock Creek Project started a two-year contract which is planned to end on May 31, 2011. We have a large subcontract with USGS to assist with the population surveys in Rock Creek as well as analyze the PIT-tag data.” This tangled web was confusing to reviewers.

An annual report has been filed for the period Dec 2007 through May 2009. However, for some reason that is quite disconcerting, those results are totally ignored in the current proposal.
So, regardless, there have been lots of data gathered. And there are PIT tag units and a USGS population survey subcontract apparently in place.

The project development, history, and most importantly its current status is in question.

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

There is little information regarding how this project relates to other projects in the region.

The fact that there are substantial numbers of channel catfish, smallmouth bass, walleyes, perch and other non-natives is a clear problem, and to the reviewers, puts the value of the entire project in question.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

All of these are inadequately detailed.
Documentation Links:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-156-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2007-156-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2007-156-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup Comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ( )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (56.1)
Proponent Response:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

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:
Assessment Number: 2007-156-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-156-00 - Rock Creek Fish and Habitat Assessment
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fund in part: recommend the work elements identified as fundable by the ISRP. Address ISRP concerns in statement of workplan during contracting.

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:
Assessment Number: 2007-156-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-156-00 - Rock Creek Fish and Habitat Assessment
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:

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.
Assessment Number: 2007-156-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-156-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Population monitoring primarily; fishery managers authorized/required.

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
Assessment Number: 2007-156-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-156-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2007-156-00 effective on 5/4/2020
Relationship Description: Beginning with the FY20 contracts, all work/$ associated with 2007-156-00 Rock Creek Fish & Habitat Assessment is combined into project 1997-056-00 Klickitat Watershed Enhancement.


Name Role Organization
Mel Sampson (Inactive) 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
Claire McClory Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Martin Allen Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Jamie Cleveland Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration