Background
Per the Council’s September 2005 request, the ISRP reviewed the Yakama Nation’s response to the ISRP’s Step 1 review of the updated Klickitat Subbasin Anadromous Fishery Master Plan (project 198811535, see ISRP 2005-7; February 19, 2005). In the initial review, the ISRP found that Master Plan outlined significant changes in terms of policy, biology, and cost from previous Klickitat fisheries program proposals. 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 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 its August 25, 2005 letter to the Council, the Yakama Nation responded to each of the seven ISRP concerns. In the attached report, the ISRP addresses the adequacy of the responses on each of the seven concerns as they apply to the Master Plan in general.
Summary
The ISRP recommends 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. The August 25, 2005 response from the Yakama Nation to the ISRP’s Step-1 review (ISRP 2005-7; February 19, 2005) provided some additional information, as noted in the attached report, but needs to further address many of the previously identified technical shortcomings of the Master Plan. The foundation assessments for the changes to artificial production in the Klickitat subbasin are not yet completed; thus, there is no basis for the ISRP to recommend support to the Council for the changes to artificial production proposed by the Yakama Nation. The ISRP recommends a revised and complete (i.e., stand-alone) Master Plan be developed prior to moving to a Step-2 review. This revised Master Plan should capture the responses, and subsequent responses-to-responses on science and technical details.
