Local or MSRT Comments: See Washington guidance

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. 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.

The ISRP struggled a bit with the related suite of Klickitat proposals. Funding for this particular proposal needs to be tied to an updated revised Master Plan. The suite of projects is too fragmented in their current presentation to allow linkages among work projects and goals to be readily seen. Consequently, the ISRP recommends that the proposed project be considered potentially fundable provided certain questions are addressed, with an emphasis on continuing and finishing the Master Plan, continuing with the passage improvements at Lyle and Castile Falls where we suggest that additional monitoring of passage of spring Chinook and steelhead at Castile Falls into the upper meadow sections be carried out. With these exceptions, the ISRP recommends deferring funding of other objectives until completion of the Master Plan. The ISRP requests that project sponsors respond to the following general issues that apply to the set of Klickitat Fisheries proposals as well as comments identified on individual proposals.

Opportunities for Management:

The ISRP notes that the Klickitat Subbasin presents YKFP Tribal fisheries managers with a distinct, and possibly unique, opportunity to manage a system that could "have it all" with respect to fisheries management opportunities. This could be a marketing and public relations opportunity for the YKFP to present the Klickitat subbasin as THE poster child for enlightened fisheries management in the Columbia River Basin. That ought to be worth something!

Because of the geography of the subbasin and the mix of species and stocks involved, it could be possible to have everything from a robust terminal harvest fall Chinook fishery in the lower river to a wild spring Chinook sanctuary in the upper river. The lower river (as it does now) could function as a harvest/hatchery system for fall Chinook and coho, while the middle river section could be managed for a natural steelhead fishery. The upper basin system above Castile Falls could be largely set aside as a wild spring Chinook and steelhead reserve for spawning and rearing habitat. These goals and opportunities differ only slightly from the existing management of the subbasin; however, they would rely on a much more cautious examination of the need for and proposed use of artificial production for spring Chinook and steelhead in the upper basin than is currently proposed.

In the current set of proposals it was not possible to determine whether artificial production was needed (or not) to increase steelhead or spring Chinook production. Data were absent from the proposal on run sizes for steelhead and spring Chinook over time that would give some indication of the need (or not) for artificial production intervention.

A review of the Klickitat Subbasin Plan (5/28/04) Tables 20 and 21 show that for spring Chinook, wild adult returns ranged from 153 - 1997, averaging 522 fish (Table 20). Data for steelhead returns are less detailed and lump hatchery, wild, summer, and winter fish into a single count. Table 21 shows that escapement estimates for grouped steelhead ranged from 60 - 1100 from 1986 - 2003 and averaged 277 steelhead. This seems somewhat in conflict with a statement in the Subbasin Plan immediately before the table that notes, "the average escapement of naturally spawning (summer and winter, hatchery and wild combined) steelhead in the Klickitat River from 1987 to present [2004] has been fewer than 300 fish."

The results from these tables suggest that more information is needed on steelhead abundance and composition (summer/winter, wild/hatchery) and habitat use in order to form longer-range management plans including the need for hatchery intervention on summer steelhead.

In contrast, spring Chinook numbers are much greater and are partitioned into hatchery and wild components. The wild component averaged over 500 individuals per year, calling into question the need for a supplementation program for spring Chinook, given the improved passage conditions at Castile Falls and the habitat improvement work in the upper basin. If the two primary bottlenecks for spring Chinook production in the Klickitat have been passage limitations at Castile and habitat degradation on the primary spawning and rearing grounds in the upper basin, these recent steps should release that bottleneck and the population should respond favorably.

An interesting experiment for spring Chinook in the upper Klickitat - rather than invoking a supplementation program - would be to closely monitor how the population responds to the removal of these two major production constraints.

Comments specific to this proposal:

Technical and scientific background: A summary of the status of fish culture activities for spring Chinook, summer steelhead, coho, and fall Chinook salmon is presented, along with identifying four proposals to develop facilities to modify the existing arrangements for culture in the subbasin.

The proposal makes a logical argument for the suite of related design and construction needs, if one accepts the goals for the four species/stocks (steelhead, spring Chinook, fall Chinook and coho) at face value. The various facilities are planned to provide: 1) a reduction of coho outplantings in the lower river, which theoretically will reduce competition and density-dependent mortalities among stocks; 2) capture and enumeration of adults of all stocks at Lyle Falls; 3) development of supplementation facilities and protocols for spring Chinook and steelhead that are more consistent with the protocols in YFP and RASP; 4) increased segregation of coho and fall Chinook in the lower 25 miles of the system and steelhead and spring Chinook in the upper river system; and 5) increased access (and monitoring) into the upper basin above Castile Falls for spring Chinook and steelhead.

Sponsors make a case that spring Chinook that currently access the upper basin above Castile Falls are a small, but viable remnant wild stock. Sponsors also describe how hatchery spring Chinook are smaller and not able to negotiate Castile Falls. Sponsors suggest that the solution is to increase hatchery production of spring Chinook and to make access through Castile Falls easier. This will of course lead to introgression between the hatchery-origin spring Chinook and the wild-origin spring Chinook that are able to negotiate the falls. An alternative approach would be to manage the wild Chinook population as a wild reserve stock above Castile Falls, as noted above.

Segregation of coho and fall Chinook to lower river. The proposal suggests that development of the Wahkiacus facility and acclimation pond will reduce interactions between steelhead and spring Chinook with fall Chinook and coho. One hopes this will be the result, but significant monitoring (and a contingency plan for contrary results) should be identified to verify this expected result. The proposal also needs to spell out more clearly and explicitly (spatially and temporally) how moving the coho and fall Chinook programs to the Wahkiacus facility will keep those species in the lower river and how it will reduce interactions with steelhead and fall Chinook.

Project history: A very brief summary of the work is provided on development of fish culture facilities in the Klickitat subbasin under YKFP 198812035 Klickitat Management, Data and Habitat Project; YKFP 199506800 Klickitat Preliminary Design for Passage and Habitat Improvements. The proposal has four parts which include the construction of a Lyle Falls Adult Monitoring and Collection Facility, an acclimation facility at McCreedy Creek, the Wahkiacus Hatchery and Acclimation facility, and Klickitat Fish Hatchery improvements. The history of stocks and this project was also discussed briefly earlier in the narrative.

Missing from the project history section is a recounting of the ongoing exchange between the Yakama Nation and the Council (and ISRP) regarding the completion of a final Klickitat Anadromous Fish Management Plan. There have been several iterations; the last was completed in the fall of 2005. The Yakama Nation still has outstanding assessments and evaluations that need to be completed before a scientifically justifiable plan can move to Step-2 in the Three-Step Review process. How and in what time frame the YKFP plans on proceeding with those assessments and evaluations are not discussed in this proposal.

Objectives: The broad objective of producing fish for restoration and harvest, and the subbasin's overarching vision is present, but not concise. The objectives in section f. are task specific work elements.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: There are four work elements (construction projects): 1) Complete the Lyle Falls fishway and adult collection facility; 2) McCreedy Creek acclimation facility; 3) Wahkiacus Hatchery and Acclimation facility; and 4) Renovation work at the Klickitat Hatchery. Until the Anadromous Fishery Management Plan is complete, the later three facilities are insufficiently justified. Their need should be justified by the plan.

Monitoring and evaluation: Some monitoring will occur under this proposal, but most will be directed under 199506335 (Klickitat subbasin monitoring and evaluation). That proposal is not part of this evaluation.

Benefits to focal and non-focal species: Benefits to spring Chinook and summer steelhead for alteration of current propagation is likely. These benefits may be offset by deleterious effects from proposed supplementation. Sponsors hypothesize that the project will lead to benefits to focal species. M&E will be needed to verify this hypothesis.