Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power & Conservation Council 

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

isrp@nwcouncil.org

Review of the March 2008 Yakama 

Nation’s Klickitat Anadromous 

Fisheries Master Plan 

Step One of the Three-Step Review 

 (YKFP-Klickitat Design and Construction, Project #1988-115-35) 

Richard Alldredge 

Robert Bilby 

Peter Bisson 

John Epifanio 

Linda Hardesty 

Charles Henny 

Colin Levings 

Eric Loudenslager 

Katherine Myers 

Thomas Poe 

Bruce Ward 

Rick Williams, PRG 

June 17, 2008 

ISRP 2008-6
ISRP Review of the Yakama Nation’s March 2008 

Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan 

Contents 

Background..................................................................................................... 1 

2008 Review Summary and Recommendation .............................................. 2 

Treatment of Major Previous ISRP Review Recommendations.................... 3 

1. Need for a Watershed Assessment.............................................................................. 3 

2. Need for Scientific Justification.................................................................................. 4 

3. Linkage Needed to Council’s FWP Scientific Principles........................................... 4 

4. Justification Needed for Proposed Artificial Production Activities ........................... 4 

5. Linkage Needed Between Production Activities and Habitat Improvements ............ 8 

6. Monitoring and Evaluation ......................................................................................... 9 

7. Steelhead Supplementation....................................................................................... 10 

Other Specific Issues to be Addressed in Step-2 Submittal: ........................ 10 

Three Step Review Questions....................................................................... 12 
ISRP Review of the Yakama Nation’s March 2008 

Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan 

Background 

Per the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s April 2008 request, the 

Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) reviewed the Yakama Nation’s Klickitat 

Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan, March 2008 revision. The Yakama’s revised Master 

Plan is intended to address the Council’s Three-Step Review Process (Council document 

2001-291) and past ISRP review concerns. 

This is the latest in an iterative review process for this project that began in the 2000 

Provincial review, when the ISRP reviewed the Klickitat Fisheries program in depth 

along with the Yakima subbasin fisheries program (ISRP 2000-9; December 1, 20002). In 

that review, the ISRP raised numerous issues with the Klickitat program that were 

partially addressed in an initial Step 1 Review (ISRP 2005-7; February 19, 20053). 

Specifically, some proposed actions seemed positive and in line with previous ISRP 

concerns and suggestions, such as the marking of hatchery-origin fish, reductions in coho 

releases, and use of wild natal broodstock for steelhead components of the Master Plan. 

However, the ISRP also found that the initial Master Plan outlined significant changes in 

terms of policy, biology, and cost from previous Klickitat fisheries program proposals. 

Specifically, the ISRP found that many components of the Master Plan needed further 

consideration and development to meet the ISRP standards of scientific soundness and 

consistency with the Fish and Wildlife Program’s Scientific Principles. The ISRP 

described seven primary concerns with the Master Plan. 

In an August 25, 2005 letter to the Council, the Yakama Nation responded to each of the 

seven ISRP concerns. The ISRP reviewed these responses and recommended that the 

Klickitat Subbasin Anadromous Fishery Master Plan remain in the Step 1 stage of the 

Three Step process until adequate scientific detail and biological justification for the 

proposed activities are given, including responses to many of the previously identified 

technical shortcomings of the Master Plan (see ISRP 2005-164

). In sum, the ISRP 

concluded that foundation assessments for the changes to artificial production in the 

Klickitat subbasin were not yet completed. Consequently, the ISRP recommended that a 

revised and complete (i.e., stand-alone) Master Plan be developed prior to moving to a 

Step-2 review. 

Based on that ISRP 2005 final review and follow-up discussions with the Yakama 

Nation, Bonneville Power Administration and Council staffs determined that the Master 

 

1 www.nwcouncil.org/library/2001/2001-29.htm; see also www.nwcouncil.org/library/2006/2006-21.htm 2

 Final Review of Fiscal Year 2001 Project Proposals for the Columbia River Gorge and Inter-Mountain 

Provinces: www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2000-9.htm 3 www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2005-7.htm 4 www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2005-16.htm 

1 
Plan would need to be revised to address the Step 1 review elements. In a March 15, 

2006 memo, the Council confirmed that this understanding recognized that the revised 

Master Plan should adequately address the ISRP concerns. Therefore, our review focuses 

on the Yakama Nation’s March 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan and its 

response to the Step 1 review elements (Section V. Review Elements, A and B; also see 

pages v, and Chapter 3 pages 17 - 28 of the Master Plan for cross-references to the step 

questions). 

2008 Review Summary and Recommendation 

Recommendation: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified). 

The Yakama Nation’s March 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan is a wellbalanced, relatively thorough plan. It includes a large appendix that covers the steps in 

the Three-Step Review process and explains the Plan’s relationship to the Council’s 

Scientific Principles, as required. 

The Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan meets ISRP scientific review criteria 

and Three-step review criteria with a qualification that elements of the steelhead and 

spring Chinook natural and artificial production plans need a more detailed explanation. 

These should include formal decision analysis and consequence tables (i.e., decision 

trees) to evaluate the program and identify the performance thresholds that would trigger 

termination. These are needed for both the spring Chinook and steelhead components. 

These details need to be addressed in the Step review process and can likely be developed 

for Step 2 rather than in another Step 1 iteration. 

Careful thought and planning was evident in the Klickitat Master Plan, which included 

avenues for adaptive management. The 2008 Master Plan reflects some important 

advances (compared to the previous drafts reviewed by the ISRP) in thinking from 

traditional enhancement projects. Goals and targets were presented but require further 

elaboration and justification in Step 2; for example, it is not clear how the escapement 

goals, harvest rates, and numbers were derived. Decision management tools would aid 

that process, along with Consequence Tables to guide management actions and deal with 

variability and uncertainties in measured and monitored results and actions, including 

regime shifts and climate change. 

One progressive attribute in the Plan is the inclusion of a general suite of habitat 

improvement strategies for each target species of interest at a variety of scales and levels 

of complexity (i.e., from headwaters to main channels, from in-channel to floodplain and 

riparian areas, and from flows, temperatures, and other physical parameters, and so on). 

Moreover, the Plan includes some thought and apparent analysis (which is not 

specifically presented, but should be) about the specific habitat improvement activities 

planned in the Subbasin and within specific stream reaches. 

2 
Another progressive attribute is the concession that hatchery supplementation carries 

some risks that warrant attention as well as the tacit concession that supplementation may 

fail to achieve its objectives to increase natural productivity. Other conceptual 

improvements in the Plan include the decisions to delay potential releases of steelhead 

above Castile Falls for nine years, thus allowing natural colonization a chance to succeed. 

Another positive attribute of the Plan is the decision to move away from out-of-basin 

stocks and toward more local stocks as hatchery broodstock. This is crucial for 

aboriginal species or stocks (such as native steelhead and spring Chinook) and may also 

benefit non-native, but desirable introduced species (such as coho and fall Chinook) that 

are capable of straying to nearby systems. The sponsors have also indicated an interest in 

creative “incentives” to reduce the take of native steelhead in tribal catch via a 2-for-1 

trade of hatchery fish for each native steelhead released unharmed. 

Treatment of Major Previous ISRP Review Recommendations 

1. Need for a Watershed Assessment 

Past reviews: In a 2000 review of the Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan, the 

ISRP identified the need for a watershed assessment to inform development of the Master 

Plan. In 2005, the ISRP recommended that the Master Plan be revised to describe goals 

for total fish production from all sources and to partition that production into hatchery 

and natural components that are consistent with the goals in the subbasin plan, and 

consistent with habitat condition and capacity developed in the Subbasin Plan. 

Current review: The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan includes a very 

general watershed assessment that incorporates improvements to the focal species status 

from opening habitat isolated by Castile Falls and from habitat improvement actions. 

There is a brief consideration of abundance, productivity, and capacity for the naturally 

reproducing, native focal species (steelhead and spring Chinook). The information, 

which is from an Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) analysis, is provided in 

appendix C; however, there is no partitioning of the production into sub-units within the 

Klickitat River subbasin. 

Abundance and productivity goals identified in the body of the plan are generally 

consistent with Appendix C. Appendix C references a (NOAA-Fisheries 2007) Klickitat 

Salmon Recovery Plan that is not provided or cited, and we are unable to locate this plan 

via the web. The Master Plan (Chapter 6) would be improved by incorporating the EDT 

analysis into the respective sections on steelhead and spring Chinook. 

Estimates of increased productivity and capacity were based on an EDT analysis yet 

appear overly optimistic (i.e., up to an 85% increase for steelhead, 124% for spring 

Chinook). There is generally lack of support for such increases here and in the scientific 

literature, given the actions proposed, which would require several years for 

implementation and response. Therefore, some further justification and evidence from 

3 
data collection in this watershed (i.e., increased adult return to improved reaches, smolt 

yield or at least juvenile abundance) should be indicated. Table 6-2 summarizes habitat 

actions taken over the last ten years. An important question that would be critical to 

answer is “how many additional wild spawning fish can be attributed to these efforts?” 

with some description of methods to estimate this increased production. 

2. Need for Scientific Justification 

Past reviews: Previously, the ISRP noted that there was a lack of sound scientific 

evidence for the actions proposed, which needed to include sufficient detail in the 

monitoring assessment to provide adequate review. An EDT or similar analysis was 

needed to provide information on capacity production for salmonids. 

Current review: In general, the 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan 

provides adequate justification for their proposed actions. We provide detailed comments 

below under Point 4, Justification for Proposed Artificial Production Activities. 

3. Linkage Needed to Council’s FWP Scientific Principles 

Past reviews: In previous reviews, the ISRP recommended that the Master Plan needed 

to be explicitly linked to the Council’s Scientific Principles in the Fish and Wildlife 

Program (FWP). 

Current review: The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan adequately 

addresses the Council’s Scientific Principles. 

4. Justification Needed for Proposed Artificial Production Activities 

Past reviews: In previous reviews (2000 and 2005), the ISRP expressed concern that the 

restoration of endemic natural populations within the Klickitat subbasin was put at risk 

by the supplementation activities proposed in the Master Plan. The distribution, 

diversity, abundance, status, and productivity of the wild populations were not well 

described; thus, judgment on the role, scale, impact, and need for supplementation 

remained deficient. The ISRP recommended that the Master Plan be revised to include a 

comprehensive evaluation of all the artificial and natural production in the subbasin that 

is transparent and reproducible and provides scientifically defensible alternatives for 

consideration by decision-makers. 

The limited information on escapement and capacity levels presented in the 2000 and 

2005 Master Plans suggested that the number of spring Chinook and summer steelhead 

adults might already fully seed available habitat to capacity. Hatchery production to 

supplement this production appeared unwarranted, and directed primarily at harvest. The 

ISRP recommended that if harvest was the key objective, as stated by the planners, then a 

4 
different strategy of hatchery production should be analyzed and presented in the Master 

Plan – one where releases are targeted at harvest, and interference with wild production is 

reduced, consistent with artificial production and subbasin assessment protocols, and 

scientific principles agreed within the FWP’s basinwide provisions. The ISRP further 

recommended that the Master Plan should be revised to provide an assessment of the 

coho and fall-run Chinook programs. The assessment should include a summary of the 

Artificial Production Review and Evaluation (APRE) findings on the programs and 

perform an assessment of whether isolating this production in the lower river could lead 

to improvement in steelhead and spring-run Chinook populations. 

Current review: The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan adequately 

addresses most of the ISRP’s concerns described above. Comments are provided 

individually on each of the four artificial production initiatives in the Master Plan – 

steelhead, spring Chinook, coho, and fall Chinook. 

Steelhead – Elimination of the scatter planting of Skamania stock summer steelhead from 

the Washougal River hatchery is a positive element of the Master Plan. Stocking an outof-subbasin, multi-generation hatchery steelhead stock is inconsistent with the Fish and 

Wildlife Program and the Artificial Production Review (APR) principles, as well as an 

emerging scientific consensus from the region (Hatchery Scientific Review Group, 

Independent Scientific Review Board, etc). The 2008 Master Plan proposes to replace 

out-of-basin production with an integrated hatchery program using local broodstock to 

provide harvest and possibly begin a supplementation program above Castile Fall, if after 

nine years, natural colonization of steelhead above Castile Falls has not reached a 

benchmark of 150 adults. 

The Plan is not clear as to why nine years and 150 steelhead adults were chosen as the 

threshold numbers for initiation of steelhead supplementation activities and outplanting 

above Castile Falls, but this should be justified. There is not sufficient consideration of 

variable smolt-to-adult return rates (SARs) and regime shifts in any component of the 

Plan, nor is there detailed recruitment analyses of the available data, which is admittedly 

weak and based on redd counts. A recruitment analysis that incorporates variability in 

freshwater (including potential improvements) and ocean productivity and capacity is 

required to estimate potential allowable harvest on the wild stock. This should be 

developed in Step 2. 

The proposed use of both resident rainbow trout and anadromous steelhead broodstock if 

required above Castile Falls is new and somewhat unorthodox. After more thorough 

development and review of this option, further research and pilot testing is recommended 

prior to full implementation. Specifically, if wild fish cannot re-colonize or establish a 

viable population above Castile Falls, given access, why should we expect hatchery fish 

to perform any better or in some way different from a “put and take” mode? Are 

summer-run steelhead currently passing Castile Falls? Is so, the population should 

increase naturally as a consequence, unless there is some other limitation. None was 

identified. 

5 
A distinction in the biology, recruitment relationships, and management plans for 

summer-run and winter-run steelhead is necessary. Radio-tagging of returning spawners 

may assist in delineating spawning and rearing areas for both. Currently, the Plan 

assumes overlap and no distinction between summer-run and winter-run steelhead. These 

should be treated as two distinct populations, with sub-population structure within each. 

The Master Plan considers three alternatives and makes a general statement regarding 

whether each individual alternative meets the plan objectives of improving the status of 

the native focal species and providing harvest. More detail is provided in Appendix C – 

EDT and All-“H” Analyzer (AHA) modeling of the system. Appendix C does not appear 

to have actually modeled harvest potential, and natural abundance, productivity, and such 

under a scenario without artificial production. This should be provided as a basic 

reference or comparative standard. We also recommend that the modeling comparison of 

the three alternatives be put in a side-by-side tabular form in Chapter 6. 

The overall philosophy of the integrated harvest program for steelhead is consistent with 

contemporary scientific understanding of best practices for artificial production. 

However, the “cost” of these programs to the natural population remains unknown, and 

this should be acknowledged in the plan. Monitoring data should be developed to help 

reduce this uncertainty. Specific detail of the steelhead harvest program needs to be 

included in Step 2, particularly information on how fast they intend to develop the 

program. On page 57, the Plan identifies that “A 6 to 7 year feasibility study will be 

conducted as part of the Master Plan to investigate broodstock collection and juvenile 

rearing strategies, expected smolt to adult survival rates, and risks with current steelhead 

hatchery practices.” The potential harvest benefits from the program are contingent upon 

the steelhead SAR, which is highly variable and changes dramatically with ocean 

regimes. This feasibility study needs to be presented in detail in Step 2, and final sizing 

of the program needs to be based on the outcome from the feasibility study. Then a clear 

outline of the program needs to be established. As it now stands, there is ambiguity in 

the outline. For example, while there is a goal of having a Proportion of Natural 

Influence (PNI) of 0.9, with a minimum of 0.67, this can be achieved using a variety of 

combinations of proportions of hatchery-origin fish that spawn naturally (pHOS) and 

hatchery broodstock derived from natural-origin fish (pNOB). The choices of these 

operational guidelines should be provided. There are also some basic scale issues that 

surround any PNI guidelines. Specifically, if the return estimates were to grow to a large 

run, even a 0.9 PNI would beg the question as to why the program should continue (i.e., it 

succeeded at “supplementing” the wild run). While our next point gets at a low end of 

the scale, there are some high end of the scale considerations as well. 

Also, on page 61, there is a statement “Adults returns from the juvenile releases will be 

used as broodstock only if wild run size back to the Subbasin is less than 320 fish. This 

action ensures that hatchery broodstock collection does not exceed 25% of the total wild 

run.” The specific program – breeding make-up and smolt production level – for 

different natural run sizes should be established as part of the plan. Finally, the cost of 

broodstock mining to the natural population needs to be modeled as part of the Master 

Plan assessment. The Master Plan indicates that the abundance and productivity of the 

6 
natural population is uncertain. Collecting vital parameters for the natural population 

should be part of the feasibility studies and incorporated in the monitoring program. The 

primary concern is that the steelhead population in the Klickitat River is a member of an 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Mid-Columbia ESU. The harvest component is 

going to subtract breeding adults from this population for the single purpose of creating a 

return of adults for harvest. This possibly raises issues under ESA management, but most 

certainly principles in the Fish and Wildlife Program and Artificial Production Review 

require that this mining not increase the extinction risk for this independent population. 

Spring Chinook. Conversion of the current segregated spring Chinook hatchery 

production to an integrated program with a PNI of 0.67 is consistent with current best 

practices. On this basis this conversion meets scientific review criteria. This conclusion 

is qualified because more detail on the conversion is needed. The timeframe for the 

transition period is not provided but needs to be. 

The spring Chinook stock assessment is difficult to reconcile with the data provided, and 

the linkage between the stock assessment and design of the artificial production program 

and harvest is not transparent. Table 6-9 on page 66 provides the number of natural 

spawners each year from 1984 through 2000, and reports the subsequent number of adult 

recruits from this spawning. An average of 332 adults returned in each brood year, 

produced an average of 801 adult progeny for a recruits/spawner of 3.5. A graphical 

(confounded) spawner-recruitment analysis based on the data of Table 6-9 indicates high 

variability, with possible indication of regimes of production (e.g., data from 1984 to 

1989 versus later), and possible “outliers” from La Niña events or other. Some 

discussion and treatment of this variability is required and should form part of the 

decision analysis and consequence for management actions. 

The table and text do not identify the fate of the difference between these averages. Were 

these fish harvested? Further, it is not clear how unmarked hatchery fish were dealt with 

in the assessment. The beginning paragraph on page 67 states that most hatchery fish 

were not marked, yet only a small proportion of the natural fish were believed to be of 

hatchery origin. What is the basis of this conclusion? The basis for the estimate of 

harvest in the mainstem Columbia River is provided in a footnote, but the counts and 

methods for the terminal tribal and sport fishery are not given. In the Plan and Appendix 

C productivity for spring Chinook is estimated as 6. How this was calculated from what 

data is not clear, particularly because abundance and recruits per spawner are confounded 

with hatchery production. 

In the AHA analysis, the spring Chinook program is supposed to have two release 

components –a release of 200,000 juveniles, and another of 600,000. However, there is 

no explanation of two releases. Page 74 mentions only an 800,000 fish release. At this 

point in the assessment/plan, it would be beneficial to incorporate the AHA analysis to 

identify the broodstock needs, the hatchery production, expected harvest, and such. On 

page 74, not enough information is provided to understand why 800,000 fish need be 

released to yield an anticipated 4,000 fish harvest. As an example, on page 76, the plan 

identifies that the hatchery program must have a recruits/spawner of 9.5 to be successful. 

7 
Information is needed on how the release sizes, recruits-per-spawner, and harvest was 

determined. In addition, more information is required on plans to balance broodstock 

collection, hatchery smolt yield, and anticipated SAR with the harvest and stock 

conservation. This should be completed in Step 2. 

Coho – The Plan anticipates reduction in coho salmon releases in the Klickitat River from 

3.7 to 1.0 million smolts, and conversion from annual importation of eggs to production 

of eggs using coho that return to the subbasin. This alteration improves on the current 

artificial production practices and meets scientific review criteria. Three phases of 

development for the reformed production program are identified, with goals and 

decisions associated with each. This text could be developed into a formal decision 

diagram that would be helpful to show the three phases and to better anticipate outcomes 

and management actions. This type of consideration of alternatives should serve as an 

example for the steelhead and spring Chinook programs. 

Reducing the number of coho smolts released and moving the release location to a point 

lower in the subbasin is hoped to have a beneficial effect on spring Chinook and 

steelhead production. The sponsors note that they will explore opportunities to move the 

coho program out of the Klickitat subbasin to a new location that would provide and meet 

Tribal harvest goals. If this is the case or if the anticipated rebuilding in the steelhead or 

spring Chinook programs does not occur, the coho program in the Klickitat subbasin 

proper might be terminated. 

Fall Chinook – The Master Plan anticipates transitioning to egg take within the Klickitat 

River subbasin, rather than importing eggs from Priest Rapids hatchery. The production 

level of 4 million underyearling smolts will remain, but 2 million individuals will be 

reared and released at Wahkiacus hatchery. This is intended to reduce deleterious 

interactions between non-native fall Chinook and native spring Chinook and steelhead. 

The conversion from egg importation to development of a local broodstock and program 

modification in the hope of reducing predation and competition meet scientific review 

criteria and are consistent with best practices. 

Even with the reductions in coho releases and relocation of fall Chinook releases, the 

ISRP believes that spring Chinook and steelhead can still be affected negatively from the 

large-scale fall Chinook and coho programs that provide harvest but do not provide 

conservation benefit to the native species. Consequently, the Master Plan does not 

provide scientific justification for the fall Chinook and coho hatchery programs, rather 

the Master Plan justifies these programs based on US v. Oregon obligations. 

5. Linkage Needed Between Production Activities and Habitat Improvements 

Past reviews: In previous reviews (ISRP Report 2000-9; ISRP Report 2004-13), the 

ISRP has commented on the need to link habitat restoration projects in the Klickitat 

subbasin to proposed artificial production activities. The subbasin Assessment (pp. 130-

8 
131) described pervasive long-term negative effects on habitat and riparian condition in 

the upper river section from over 60 years of intensive grazing, as well as legacy effects 

of logging and floodplain road building. The ISRP recommended that the revised Master 

Plan should provide details on the location, sequencing, and timeframe for habitat 

improvements throughout the basin, and particularly in the upper basin above Castile 

Falls. This would integrate the production program and habitat program. 

Current review: The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan contains 

substantial information on habitat actions taken and proposed. There is a general table 

(Table 6-2) that lists 28 habitat projects that have occurred over the last ten years that 

should benefit steelhead and spring Chinook production, as well as Table 6-13 

(Relationship between spring Chinook habitat strategies and key geographic areas) and 

Table 6-14 (Habitat limiting factors for Klickitat spring Chinook by geographic area). 

Appendix A also contains a comprehensive table of proposed habitat actions that include 

timeframe, costs, and anticipated benefits (in general terms, rather than in measurable 

metrics). 

What is clear from the 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan is that 

substantial investment in habitat restoration is planned or is underway. However, the 

Master Plan lacks any meaningful summary and synthesis of what ecological benefits 

have occurred from these actions thus far as well as descriptions of what metrics and 

monitoring and evaluation protocols will be used to assess the efficacy of these multiple 

projects. This information should be included in the Master Plan. It needs to be included 

in the Step-2 submittal. 

6. Monitoring and Evaluation 

Past reviews: The ISRP was quite critical of the monitoring and evaluation plan in early 

versions of the Klickitat Step-1 plan. The monitoring and evaluation component of the 

plan was weak and severely lacking in detail. Details on risk assessments, marking 

strategies, stock assessment methods, and related issues were lacking. Much of the detail 

requested by the ISRP was provided in Appendix G of the 2005 Klickitat Subbasin 

Anadromous Fishery Master Plan; however, the specific details of the protocols remained 

missing. 

Current review: The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan generally 

addresses the ISRP’s previous concerns adequately. The Plan includes a monitoring 

chapter that identifies that survival of hatchery fish, contribution to fisheries, 

demographic analysis, and pedigree analysis will be conducted. As general guidance, the 

monitoring section identifies the major data types that need to be collected. It is not 

possible to confirm that tagging rates and tag recovery rates will be sufficient for 

statistical validation of important vital parameters. This should be elaborated in Step 2. 

It is not clear that pedigree analysis to determine the relative reproductive success of 

hatchery and natural-origin salmon and/or steelhead is required from this study. 

Additional justification would be needed to make that determination. These data would 

9 
be interesting but perhaps not essential to evaluating the Klickitat program as envisioned 

in the Master Plan. 

A predation index (page 105, Section 7.1.3) is planned to evaluate the extent of predation 

by hatchery releases from the Klickitat on native spring Chinook and steelhead. This 

information could be useful, but direct predation is not the only source of interspecific 

interaction that could influence the abundance and productivity of steelhead and spring 

Chinook. A more robust consideration of the impacts is needed. 

7. Steelhead Supplementation 

Past reviews: Previous ISRP reviews focused on the positive step of discontinuing the 

use of non-native Skamania stock in steelhead artificial production activities and the need 

to use natural-origin Klickitat steelhead as hatchery broodstock. ISRP concerns in the 

2005 review sequence focused on the proposed 50% broodstock mining rate for natural 

origin steelhead. The ISRP thought this rate too high and recommended that it not 

exceed 25%. Finally, the ISRP recommended that the steelhead supplementation program 

undergo a stock assessment similar to that completed for the spring Chinook assessment 

(2005 Master Plan, Attachment A). 

Current review: The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan anticipates 

monitoring natural colonization and production of steelhead above Castile Falls for a 

period of nine years before beginning any supplementation program. We compliment the 

sponsors on this positive development. The ISRP recommends that proceeding to 

supplementation should be reviewed by the ISRP before implementation, and that the 

period of supplementation, if implemented, should be specified in this plan. Conditions 

for terminating supplementation should also be outlined in a decision tree as part of the 

Master Plan. This should be developed in Step 2. 

Other Specific Issues to be Addressed in the Step-2 Submittal 

1. Rationale and justification for the harvest targets/objectives 

What are the specific criteria or policies on which the harvest objectives are based? Also, 

if recruitment and productivity for the native groups increases sufficiently to the point 

that permits sustainable harvest, then will the program reduce focus on the non-native 

component (coho and fall Chinook)? 

2. Incentive for release of wild steelhead 

Rewarding Tribal fishers who release native steelhead is a potentially creative solution to 

fishing mortality. Ultimately, however, there is no guarantee that it will provide the 

appropriate incentive to release the fish unharmed and not in fact, lead to some set of 

unintended consequences. As such, this is an experimental approach that begs for 

monitoring of compliance rates, and intended and unintended consequences. 

10 
3. Postponing steelhead supplementation for nine years 

The decision to postpone releases of hatchery-produced steelhead above Castile Falls for 

nine years is to allow a period during which natural colonization could occur, and if adult 

escapement reaches 150 wild adults, obviate the need for the steelhead supplementation 

program. Alternatives beyond what the Master Plan proposes should also be considered. 

For example, should the decision be made to release produced fish there may be 

alternatives to simply releasing juveniles. Specifically, there may be opportunities to 

transport mature adults above Castile Falls that could nest and spawn. Similarly, the 

transfer of eggs could occur to permit developing young the full set of imprinting cues. 

Ultimately, there are few criteria (specifics) that will guide decisions. How many parent 

sets need to colonize to warrant not using a production strategy? These questions tie 

back to the need for a decision tree with specific decision criteria. 

4. Crossing anadromous steelhead and resident rainbow trout

The strategy of crossing and intercrossing anadromous steelhead and resident rainbow 

trout needs to be treated as a limited-scope experiment with sufficient controls and 

monitored results that feed into a criteria-based decision tree. 

5. Monitoring metrics

The sponsors should be encouraged to report “averages” for recruitment, PNI’s, R/Ss, etc. 

as running 3- or 5-year averages to demonstrate trends. This will account for variable 

ages to maturity, iteroparity, and other life-history variations that the various species 

exhibit. 

6. Acclimation sites and methods

The Master Plan includes installation of moveable acclimation raceways. In other master 

plans, we have supported volitional released acclimation ponds for final rearing. This is 

the first plan to propose acclimation raceways. Much of the world is moving away from 

the industrially efficient raceway designs to more “natural-like” settings of acclimation 

ponds and Natural Rearing Enhancement System (NATUREs) designs. 

7. Fish Disease

Although there is a Hatchery Genetic Management Plan for steelhead, there is little 

mention of the need for disease biosecurity. The steelhead are part of the threatened MidColumbia steelhead ESU, and acute or chronic disease issues could devastate the 

hatchery populations and threaten exposure to recipient wild fish. 

8. Klickitat Basin Recovery Plan

There is occasional reference to the Klickitat Basin Recovery Plan, but no specifics or 

references are provided. Sponsors should provide a summary of the major points of this 

Plan (if it is sufficiently developed) along with a link or way to access. There needs to be 

a way to ensure the plans are technically rigorous and complementary. 

11 
Three Step Review Questions 

The Council has emphasized that an important part of the Three Step Review Process 

includes an ISRP review of the project sponsors responses to the technical elements listed 

below. The Council specified that the ISRP apply these elements or similar standards as 

a reflection of the current state of the science. The ISRP addresses the sponsor’s 

responses to these elements in detail in the review summary above, because the ISRP felt 

many of issues applied to several technical elements and would be best presented with a 

summary approach. 

A. All Projects 

Does the Klickitat Subbasin Anadromous Fishery Master Plan: 

1) address the relationship and consistencies of the proposed project to the eight 

scientific principles (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, 

Basinwide Provisions, Section B.2) (Step 1)? 

The eight Scientific Principles: 

1. The abundance, productivity, and diversity of organisms are integrally linked to the 

characteristics of their ecosystem. 

2. Ecosystems are dynamic, resilient and develop over time. 

3. Biological systems operate on various spatial and time scales that can be organized 

hierarchically. 

4. Habitats develop, and are maintained, by physical and biological processes. 

5. Species play key roles in developing and maintaining ecological conditions. 

6. Biological diversity allows ecosystems to persist in the face of environmental variation. 

7. Ecological management is adaptive and experimental. 

8. Ecosystem function, habitat structure and biological performance are affected by human 

actions. 

General linkage between the goals and strategies of the 2008 Klickitat Anadromous 

Fisheries Master Plan to the Council’s eight scientific principles is established in Section 

3, pages 17 – 24. The descriptions are generally clear and adequate. 

2) describe the link of the proposal to other projects and activities in the subbasin and 

the desired end-state condition for the target subbasin (Step 1)? 

There is a statement on page 25 that the 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master 

Plan is consistent with the Klickitat Subbasin Plan and the draft Klickitat Subbasin 

Recovery Plan for the Middle Columbia River. The information provided is not 

sufficient to establish consistency of specific biological and habitat objectives among the 

various plans. 

12 
3) define the biological objectives (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program, Basinwide Provisions, Section C.2 (1) and (2), and Technical Appendix) 

with measurable attributes that define progress, provide accountability and track 

changes through time associated with this project (Step 1)? 

Biological objectives in terms of harvest and natural and hatchery production are 

provided in the 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan. The Master Plan is 

clearly designed with harvest in mind, but significant hatchery program modifications are 

intended to improve the status of natural spring Chinook and steelhead. 

4) define expected project benefits (e.g., preservation of biological diversity, fishery 

enhancement, water optimization, and habitat protection) (Step 1)? 

The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan is intended to maintain harvest 

with reduced impact to natural populations. Expected harvest is provided, but 

quantifiable benefits to native spring Chinook and steelhead from habitat improvement 

and reduced interspecific interaction is less clear. There is an EDT analysis that provides 

estimates of each of the Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) parameters following habitat 

enhancement and improving passage at Castile Falls. The basis for that projection is not 

well established. 

5) describe the implementation strategies (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Program, Basinwide Provisions, Section D.2) as they relate to the current 

conditions and restoration potential of the habitat for the target species and the life 

stage of interest (Step 1)? 

The implementation strategies summarized in Chapter 6 of the 2008 Klickitat 

Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan are general in nature. The Step-2 submittal needs to 

provide more detail on (1) the specific elements needed to appreciate the transition from 

the current to modified production programs and (2) the feasibility investigations. 

6) address the relationship to the habitat strategies (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Program, Basinwide Provisions, Section D.3) (Step 1)? 

The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan adequately addresses the Fish and 

Wildlife Program’s habitat strategies. 

 

7) ensure that cost-effective alternate measures are not overlooked and include 

descriptions of alternatives for resolving the resource problem, including a 

description of other management activities in the subbasin, province and basin (Step 

1)? 

13 
In the 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan, alternatives are considered and 

the presentation is adequate. 

8) provide the historical and current status of anadromous and resident fish and wildlife 

in the subbasin most relevant to the proposed project (Step 1)? 

The current status of spring Chinook, steelhead, coho, and fall Chinook are summarized 

in the 2008 Master Plan along with existing production and harvest activities. The 

methods used to estimate derived data are not always clear. If the estimates accurately 

reflect the state-of-nature, then the presentation is sufficient. 

Historical discussions about the status of various species in the Master Plan refer only to 

recent history (the past 20+ years) and only to the history as it relates to artificial 

production activities, though counts of natural spawners are included. No discussion 

occurs of estimates of the Klickitat subbasin’s natural production capacity for salmonids 

before human development. Such a discussion would, in a general way, provide insight 

into how much capacity has been lost due to activities within (and without) the subbasin, 

as well as provide some sense of what capacity might be regained from the proposed 

habitat and passage improvements in the Master Plan. 

9) describe current and planned management of anadromous and resident fish and 

wildlife in the subbasin (Step 1)? 

The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan does good job of describing 

current and planned management of anadromous and resident fish in the subbasin 

10) demonstrate consistency of the proposed project with NOAA Fisheries recovery plans 

and other fishery management and watershed plans (Step 1)? 

Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) and AHA analysis and the assumptions 

of harvest and production for the modeling are provided in the appendices of the 2008 

Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan. A NOAA-Fisheries Klickitat recovery plan 

is often cited, but does not seem to be available. This is a deficiency that can be 

addressed in Step-2. 

11) describe the status of the comprehensive environmental assessment (Step 1 and 2)? 

Review of this element is usually associated with the Step-2 submittal component of the 

Three Step Review Process. This is noted in the Step 1 Master Plan on page 27. 

14 
12) describe the monitoring and evaluation plan (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Program, Basinwide Provisions, Section D.9) (Step 1, 2 and 3)? 

The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan has a generally adequate 

conceptual monitoring plan. It needs to be more fully developed in the Step-2 submittal 

to address the uncertainties in the production plan identified in the discussion above. 

13) describe and provide specific items and cost estimates for ten fiscal years for planning 

and design (i.e. conceptual, preliminary and final), construction, operation and 

maintenance and monitoring and evaluation (Step 1, 2 and 3)?

This element is adequately addressed in the 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master 

Plan. 

B. Artificial Production Initiatives 

Does the Klickitat Subbasin Anadromous Fishery Master Plan: 

1) address the relation and link to the artificial production policies and strategies (see 

2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Basinwide Provisions, 

Section D.4 and Technical Appendix) (Step 1)? 

Primary strategy: Artificial production can be used, under the proper conditions, to 1) 

complement habitat improvements by supplementing native fish populations up to the 

sustainable carrying capacity of the habitat with fish that are as similar as possible, in 

genetics and behavior, to wild native fish, and 2) replace lost salmon and steelhead in blocked 

areas. 

The APR standards: 

• The purpose and use of artificial production must be considered in the context of the 

ecological environment in which it will be used. (See A.1 and A.6) 

• Artificial production must be implemented within an experimental, adaptive management 

design that includes an aggressive program to evaluate the risks and benefits and address 

scientific uncertainties. (See A.12) 

• Hatcheries must be operated in a manner that recognizes that they exist within ecological 

systems whose behavior is constrained by larger-scale basin, regional and global factors. 

(See A.1) 

• A diversity of life history types and species needs to be maintained in order to sustain a 

system of populations in the face of environmental variation. (See A.1) 

• Naturally selected populations should provide the model for successful artificially reared 

populations, in regard to population structure, mating protocol, behavior, growth, 

morphology, nutrient cycling, and other biological characteristics. 

• The entities authorizing or managing an artificial production facility or program should 

explicitly identify whether the artificial propagation product is intended for the purpose 

15 
16 

of augmentation, mitigation, restoration, preservation, research, or some combination of 

those purposes for each population of fish addressed. (See A.3) 

• Decisions on the use of the artificial production tool need to be made in the context of 

deciding on fish and wildlife goals, objectives and strategies at the subbasin and province 

levels. (See A.2) 

• Appropriate risk management needs to be maintained in using the tool of artificial 

propagation. 

• Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial production, but 

to minimize adverse impacts on natural populations associated with harvest management 

of artificially produced populations, harvest rates and practices must be dictated by the 

requirements to sustain naturally spawning populations. (see B.3) 

• Federal and other legal mandates and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and 

enhancement must be fully addressed. (See A.10)

See the 2000 FWP for details on Wild Salmon Refuges, Harvest and Restoration Hatcheries, 

and Experimental Approach. 

The 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan, including the HGMP (Appendix 

B), did not appear to directly address the FWP’s APR standards, or the more recent 

APRE; however, the 2008 Master Plan relied heavily on the hatchery reform principles 

and recommendations from the HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group 2004). 

2) provide a completed Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) for the target 

population (s) (Step 1)? 

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) are provided in Appendix B of the 

2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan. 

3) describe the harvest plan (see 2000 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, 

Basinwide Provisions, Section D.5) (Step 1)? 

A harvest plan is presented for each species in the 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries 

Master Plan. However, the impact of the harvest on the status of the natural populations, 

from direct harvest, by-catch/incidental catch, and from interactions with artificially 

produced fish is not considered in detail. 

4) provide a conceptual design of the proposed facilities, including an assessment of the 

availability and utility of existing facilities (Step 1)? 

This is provided adequately in the 2008 Klickitat Anadromous Fisheries Master Plan. 

________________________________________ 

h:\isrpdocs\klickitat 2008\isrp_klickitat_2008_review_template_april30 ejl with bw and je comments.doc