The proponents provide a reasonably detailed proposal for monitoring and evaluation in the Klickitat Basin. The proposal is further supported by two technical reports that were completed in 2021. M&E shows that the overall program is not meeting the goals for spring Chinook salmon and steelhead.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents provide information on the following five issues. Several of these recommendations were previously made by ISRP (2018-10), but responses to the recommendations were not clearly presented in the proposal. In future annual reports and work plans, the proponents need to provide information to address the following Conditions:

1. Limiting factors. The proponents should synthesize and further evaluate existing data in an attempt to identify the life stage(s) that are limiting survival and abundance of steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. For example, to the extent possible, estimate smolts per spawner as a means to evaluate changes in productivity associated with habitat restoration activities in the watershed and environmental variables. Also, continue to monitor survival at sea as a means to separate ocean effects on survival from freshwater effects. Adult returns per spawner should be evaluated as a means to track productivity over the entire life cycle. Importantly, all metrics should be evaluated within a density dependence framework (e.g., smolts per spawner and adults per spawner in relation to spawner density) because high density often leads to reduced growth and survival. These relationships should be used to further evaluate status and trends in relation to habitat actions. For example, to what extent are the low returns in recent years of naturally-produced spring Chinook salmon due to factors in freshwater, the mainstem river, versus the ocean? 
   
   
2. Investigation of in-river mortality. As noted by ISRP (2018-10), a key unknown is the cause(s) of high mortality of PIT tagged smolts between the Klickitat River and Bonneville Dam. This high mortality is a significant factor constraining population growth, and it should be further investigated as a means to identify and potentially repair factors adversely affecting survival. 
   
   
3. Population estimates. The 95% confidence intervals for the summer steelhead population estimates are sometimes exceptionally large, reaching about 100% of the reported population estimate in some years. The methodology relies upon recaptures by sport fishermen, which could lead to less accurate or biased results. Please discuss this issue, methods used for the steelhead population estimates, and potential to improve these methods in the next annual report. 
   
   
4. Effects of hatchery releases. The proponents should evaluate the potential effects of hatchery coho and fall Chinook salmon releases on natural production of steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. These releases are substantial and could affect the rebuilding of the targeted steelhead and spring Chinook salmon. If this evaluation has been previously conducted, please provide a reference. This potential interaction may or may not be responsible for the poor survival of smolts between the mouth of the Klickitat River and Bonneville Dam noted in #2 above, but it could be if the emigrant smolts and presmolts are not of sufficient condition or size, or if seasonal timing of emigration is altered because of the interaction. 
   
   
5. Monitoring. Habitat conditions were inventoried using a Rapid Aquatic Habitat Assessment Protocol developed by YKFP staff. How often is this habitat survey conducted? It seems repeated surveys every five years or so would be beneficial to track habitat conditions, especially in reaches undergoing restoration.

Some monitoring of salmon production in tributaries was described, such as from electrofishing and PIT tags. Please describe the strategy, approach, and extent to which this M&E project is monitoring salmonid trends and their response to habitat actions in the tributaries in addition to mainstem habitats.

The ISRP anticipated that this M&E project would provide some monitoring of within- hatchery production and survival, and would further address issues raised in previous ISRP reviews (2018-4, 2018-10). We now understand that within-hatchery monitoring is covered by Mitchell Act funding, and so this BPA project proposal did not address within-hatchery performance issues. These responsibilities should be clarified in future proposals as a means to inform reviewers that hatchery M&E is being conducted by another project. The ISRP emphasizes that it is critical to evaluate whole programs rather than subsets of programs.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The primary goal of the YKFP Klickitat Monitoring and Evaluation Project is to provide status and trends monitoring information for native anadromous salmonid populations and their habitat, while also collecting data to evaluate effectiveness of hatchery and habitat actions and answer key questions or uncertainties in the Klickitat subbasin. Specific objectives include providing annual abundance estimates of returning adults and outmigrating juveniles (via adult and smolt trapping in the lower Klickitat River); monitoring spatial distribution and relative abundance of spawning adults (via redd surveys) and juvenile rearing (via stream electrofishing and PIT tagging); evaluating genetic diversity and relationships between stocks of different origins, life histories, and run timing; and monitoring physical habitat parameters and ecosystem response to habitat actions.

While the goal statement is clear, the objectives would be much clearer if recast in the requested SMART Objective format: (1) Specific and clearly defined, (2) Measurable (quantifiable), 3) Achievable and testable, (4) Relevant and applicable to the Program with benefits to fish and wildlife, and (5) Time-bound with clear milestones and end dates. As is, the objectives lack measurable expected outcomes (e.g., target confidence interval levels of estimates) and timelines (e.g., annual periodicity of assessments). These are important aspects to declare so that adequacy of methods and sample size can be assessed and then possibly modified as needed to meet targets. Furthermore, metrics should include smolts per spawner in relation to spawner density.

Objectives 2 and 4 are vague as to what species of outmigrating and rearing “juveniles” are to be monitored. In addition to spring Chinook salmon and steelhead, it would be good to see that natural production of coho salmon and fall Chinook salmon are being monitored.

Non-salmonids, whitefish, and lamprey do not appear to be targets for monitoring other than when they are considered to be predators of juvenile salmon and steelhead. The proponents should consider adding an objective to include some or all of these other fish species to better understand the changes in productive capacity of the Klickitat River system, not simply changes in a few species.

Q2: Methods

The proponents adequately summarize some methods used to monitor fish populations and referenced two recent technical reports that provided more detail. Additionally, the methods to examine habitat are referenced. The proposal does not address monitoring within hatchery facilities, which is covered by Mitchell Act funding and not BPA funding. Thus, the ISRP does not evaluate hatchery M&E during this review, including the proponents' response to ISRP comments during the 2018 Master Plan step review.

Methods associated with several objectives are not provided, that is, monitoring methods for spatial distribution and habitat use of rearing juveniles (via stream electrofishing, tagging, and PIT tags), survival and smolt-to-adult return rates of spring Chinook salmon and steelhead (via PIT tagging), and predation patterns in the lower Klickitat subbasin (via predator population surveys and juvenile salmonid survival). Furthermore, the 95% confidence intervals for the summer steelhead population estimates sometimes are exceptionally large. The methodology relies upon recaptures by sport fishermen. Could this approach lead to less accurate or biased results?

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The YKFP Klickitat M&E project reportedly provides monitoring and evaluation data for related projects that are implementing hatchery and habitat actions, and it is involved in the development of actions and strategies as well as evaluating effectiveness and reporting information. Information on run size, preliminary productivity and survival data, and genetic characteristics and stock identification facilitate the Klickitat Master Planning process for anadromous fish production. Data on spatial distribution, relative abundance of spawning adults and rearing juveniles, and habitat conditions have reportedly informed local habitat projects and prioritization of habitat actions.

As noted in previous ISRP reviews (e.g., 2018-4, 2018-10), more information is needed on (1) mini-jack production by the hatchery and methods to reduce mini-jacks, and (2) high mortality of PIT-tagged fish from the Klickitat River to Bonneville Dam. Identification of factors causing this high mortality could lead to solutions to improve survival and abundance.

The ISRP expected that the high confidence intervals for the steelhead population estimates would be directly addressed during the adjustment process for the M&E program, but this issue is not discussed. Also, little is offered by the proponents to understand what level of self-evaluation of quality and quantity is done other than stating that: “The Klickitat M&E project receives routine evaluation via review with YKFP and BPA staff at quarterly meetings and at the annual Columbia Gorge Fisheries and Watershed Science Conference.” No examples of project changes and maturation are given so that the project adjustment process could be understood.

The proponents provide an excellent evaluation as to how climate change could affect their monitoring activities (e.g., effect of increased turbidity on redd surveys; increased variability may necessitate increased frequency and intensity of monitoring).

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proponents provide an excellent summary of wild and hatchery salmon and steelhead population dynamics in the Klickitat Basin. This summary is supported by two reports completed in 2021. This information is critical for documenting the status and response of the populations to restoration actions. As noted in previous reviews, the survival of smolts from the Klickitat River to Bonneville Dam continues to be low, indicating an opportunity to improve survival if the short-term mortality sources (such as predation) can be identified.

The proponents note that habitat conditions were inventoried using a Rapid Aquatic Habitat Assessment Protocol developed by YKFP staff, and they provide a reference to past reports. In addition, temperature was continuously monitored via thermographs at 36 sites in the subbasin, and links to the findings are provided.

The proposal identifies the exceptionally low returns of naturally-produced spring Chinook during 2017 to 2020. The M&E program should strive to identify contribution of each life stage to the low returns, e.g., spawner to smolts, smolt migration in the mainstem Columbia River, or ocean residence. Unfortunately, the low returns of spring Chinook salmon in recent years has constrained mark/recapture population estimates because most sampled Chinook salmon were taken for the hatchery broodstock.

No hatchery fish marking occurs under this project.  Hatchery fish marking in this project's area occurs under WDFW Mitchell Act projects at Klickitat Hatchery, Skamania Hatchery, and Washougal Hatchery.

Fundable in Part to complete the Step One review including revision of the Master Plan to reflect due consideration of other alternatives.

Funding is qualified, in that the completed Master Plan needs to include a "no artificial production" alternative modeled to achieve the plan's objectives for steelhead and spring Chinook in the upper Klickitat subbasin. Modeling should provide some type of evidence (model, habitat data, EDT modeling, etc.) that shows the likelihood of achieving upper Klickitat basin objectives with and without supplementation. Also, modeling should evaluate the potential of a passive natural rebuilding approach over an appropriate response period, perhaps 10-12 years (~ 3 generations), that if not successful could retrigger consideration of the hatchery supplementation program proposed. A habitat-based model might predict the numbers of wild recruits necessary to fully seed the upper part of the watershed - even EDT could do that and would therefore indicate whether supplementation is needed to achieve the upper basin objectives.

The ISRP is supportive of the Master Plan's vision of separating lower river fall Chinook and coho hatchery and harvest operations from the upper river rebuilding objectives for steelhead and spring Chinook.

This project is designed to monitor and evaluate fisheries enhancement projects; however, it is not clear that data being collected directly relate to this objective. The response states that the utility of the habitat monitoring data is its use for various planning and management purposes such as "ongoing land use throughout the subbasin (e.g., timber harvest, road construction and use, agriculture)." It is not clear that all data being collected relate to fisheries enhancement projects. Nevertheless, our subbasin visits and the sponsor's annual plans show that data, including fish population data, are being gathered. It is also clear from previous presentations how they are incorporated into EDT and how EDT is utilized. The Master Plan does not currently reflect this information and needs to describe how it is being used to direct management actions.

The sponsors identify that the data is used in EDT and AHA modeling of habitat and fish populations, and has been used to develop target large woody debris levels for streams and riparian management and that temperature data were used in Total Maximum Daily Load analysis. The ISRP also commented that employing standard protocols such as the Timber, Fish, and Wildlife protocol to gather field data might not be worthwhile because the data would be unsuitable when not collected for a specific purpose. The sponsors indicate that this is baseline data that can assist in formulation of management alternatives. In the Master Plan Three-Step Review, the sponsors should provide additional depth of discussion of the M&E for fish and habitat monitoring, especially since in comments on 198811535 sponsors note that "current data and methods do not allow accurate assessment of steelhead escapement and stock composition for the Klickitat subbasin."