Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

Review

of

Fiscal Year 2001

Innovative Proposals

for the

Columbia River Basin

Fish and Wildlife Program

ISRP 2000-10

December 15, 2000

ISRP and PRG Reviewers

Charles C. Coutant

Jack Griffith

Susan S. Hanna

Dennis Lettenmaier

Lyman McDonald

Brian Riddell

William Smoker

Bruce Ward

Richard R. Whitney

Richard N. Williams
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

i

ISRP Review of Fiscal Year 2001 Innovative Proposals

Contents

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

Review Process and Results................................................................................................ 1

Table 1. Top 20 Ranked Proposals................................................................................ 3

General Comments.............................................................................................................. 5

Proposal Scale, Budgets, Duration, and Targeted RFPs............................................... 5

Nutrient Supplementation Proposals............................................................................. 6

Table 2. Nutrient Supplementation Proposals............................................................... 8

Comments on Proposals Ranked in the Top 20 and “Yes - A”........................................... 9

ProjectID: 22001........................................................................................................... 9

ProjectID: 22013......................................................................................................... 10

ProjectID: 22063......................................................................................................... 11

ProjectID: 22002......................................................................................................... 11

ProjectID: 22022......................................................................................................... 12

ProjectID: 22050......................................................................................................... 13

ProjectID: 22033......................................................................................................... 13

ProjectID: 22047......................................................................................................... 14

ProjectID: 22042......................................................................................................... 15

ProjectID: 22057......................................................................................................... 16

ProjectID: 22055......................................................................................................... 16

ProjectID: 22064......................................................................................................... 17

Comments on Proposals Ranked in the Top 20 and “Yes-B”........................................... 18

ProjectID: 22019......................................................................................................... 18

ProjectID: 22060......................................................................................................... 18

ProjectID: 22056......................................................................................................... 19

ProjectID: 22043......................................................................................................... 20

ProjectID: 22037......................................................................................................... 21

ProjectID: 22010......................................................................................................... 21

ProjectID: 22005......................................................................................................... 22

ProjectID: 22038......................................................................................................... 23

Comments on Proposal Rated “Yes-B” but not in the Top 20.......................................... 23

ProjectID: 22008......................................................................................................... 23

ProjectID: 22014......................................................................................................... 24

ProjectID: 22015......................................................................................................... 24

ProjectID: 22018......................................................................................................... 25

ProjectID: 22029......................................................................................................... 26

ProjectID: 22030......................................................................................................... 26

ProjectID: 22034......................................................................................................... 27

ProjectID: 22049......................................................................................................... 27

ProjectID: 22059......................................................................................................... 28

ProjectID: 22017......................................................................................................... 28
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

ii

Comments on Proposals Rated “Yes - C”......................................................................... 29

ProjectID: 22003......................................................................................................... 29

ProjectID: 22004......................................................................................................... 30

ProjectID: 22009......................................................................................................... 31

ProjectID: 22011......................................................................................................... 31

ProjectID: 22021......................................................................................................... 32

ProjectID: 22023......................................................................................................... 32

ProjectID: 22024......................................................................................................... 33

ProjectID: 22027......................................................................................................... 33

ProjectID: 22036......................................................................................................... 34

ProjectID: 22040......................................................................................................... 34

ProjectID: 22041......................................................................................................... 35

ProjectID: 22044......................................................................................................... 35

ProjectID: 22048......................................................................................................... 36

ProjectID: 22051......................................................................................................... 36

ProjectID: 22052......................................................................................................... 37

ProjectID: 22053......................................................................................................... 38

ProjectID: 22061......................................................................................................... 38

ProjectID: 22065......................................................................................................... 39

Comments on Proposals Rated “Not Innovative”............................................................. 39

ProjectID: 22006......................................................................................................... 39

ProjectID: 22007......................................................................................................... 40

ProjectID: 22012......................................................................................................... 40

ProjectID: 22016......................................................................................................... 41

ProjectID: 22020......................................................................................................... 41

ProjectID: 22025......................................................................................................... 42

ProjectID: 22026......................................................................................................... 42

ProjectID: 22028......................................................................................................... 43

ProjectID: 22031......................................................................................................... 43

ProjectID: 22032......................................................................................................... 44

ProjectID: 22035......................................................................................................... 44

ProjectID: 22039......................................................................................................... 45

ProjectID: 22045......................................................................................................... 45

ProjectID: 22046......................................................................................................... 46

ProjectID: 22054......................................................................................................... 46

ProjectID: 22058......................................................................................................... 47

ProjectID: 22062......................................................................................................... 47

ProjectID: 22066......................................................................................................... 48

Attachment 1. ISRP Review Criteria ............................................................................... 49

Attachment 2. Table of Proposals Sorted by Rank, Evaluation Category, and Project

Number.............................................................................................................................. 51

Index by Project Number .................................................................................................. 57
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

1

ISRP Review of Fiscal Year 2001 Innovative Proposals

Background

In past reviews, the Independent Scientific Review Panel and Peer Review Groups

(ISRP) recommended that the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) establish a

special funding category to encourage innovative projects. For the first time, for Fiscal

Year 2001, the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) and the Council created a

specific solicitation for innovative fish and wildlife project proposals and offered to

allocate up to $2 million to fund these innovative projects.

The solicitation specified that the proposed project be consistent with the Council’s

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and not exceed a total request for

Bonneville funding of $400,000 (5 projects minimum). Without excluding other types of

innovative projects, the solicitation expressed an interest in projects demonstrating the

effect of nutrient supplementation and those testing experimental selective fishing gear.1

In response to the solicitation, Bonneville received 66 proposals that in total request

about $20 million. 2

For the solicitation, innovative projects were defined as those which rely primarily on a

method or technology that (1) has not previously been used in a fish or wildlife project in

the Pacific Northwest, or (2) although used in other projects, has not previously been

used in an application of this kind. The purpose of “innovative” projects is to explore

new methods and technologies and new applications for existing methods and

technologies designed to directly benefit fish and wildlife. The solicitation reflects the

Council’s interest in establishing a mechanism to improve knowledge and encourage

creative thinking.

Review Process and Results

In early November 2000, each ISRP reviewer was sent a packet of the 66 proposals. Due

to the large number of proposals (2,000 pages) and short review time, proposals were

divided among ISRP reviewers by topic areas that best suited the reviewer’s expertise

and interest. The proposals fell into several broad topic areas: 1) nutrient

supplementation; 2) fish health; 3) fish population monitoring; 4) information

transfer/planning; 5) artificial production; 6) habitat restoration and enhancement; and 7)

fisheries technology. At least three ISRP reviewers evaluated each proposal using the

ISRP innovative review criteria (Attachment 1). After completing individual evaluations,

 

1

 The solicitation on the World Wide Web only referred to nutrient supplementation and not to

experimental selective fisheries gear.

2

The proposals are on CBFWA’s website at: www.cbfwa.org/2001/innovative/id.htm
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

2

the ISRP met for two days to discuss evaluations and reach a consensus recommendation

and rank for each proposal.

The first review task was to determine whether the proposal met the solicitation’s

definition of “innovative.” In addition, each proposal was evaluated on its scientific

merit and potential benefit to fish and wildlife. The ISRP divided the proposals into four

categories:

Yes - A. Proposals that are innovative, offer a high likelihood of benefit to fish and

wildlife, are scientifically sound, and provide a high likelihood of success. Many of these

proposals offer more or less new ideas or concepts and test those concepts on an

appropriate scale (proof of principle). (12 proposals)

Yes - B. Proposals that meet the solicitation criteria, offer some likelihood of benefits to

fish and wildlife, and are scientifically sound. Generally, these proposals offer a lesser

degree of innovation and the likely benefits seem to be smaller than those in category

Yes-A. (18 proposals)

Yes - C. Proposals that show little likelihood of benefiting fish and wildlife and were

judged to be marginally innovative. (18 proposals)

Not Innovative. Proposals that did not meet the innovative definition. These proposals

were not considered for ranking. Nevertheless, some of these proposals were technically

sound and several addressed ongoing critical uncertainties in the basin. Support for these

proposals in another venue may be warranted. (18 proposals)

The ISRP ranked the top twenty proposals (Table 1). This includes the twelve proposals

in the Yes-A category and eight proposals in the Yes-B category. These twenty

proposals offer innovative and scientifically sound approaches that will likely benefit fish

and wildlife. All are worthy of funding; however, the Yes-A proposals are generally

ranked higher and thus, should receive higher priority for funding. Considerable thought

Figure 1. Breakdown of ISRP Rankings

Yes - A

12

Not

Innovative

18

Yes - C

18

Yes - B

18

66
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

3

and discussion went into the rank order in Table 1. The rank order illustrates the ISRP’s

prioritized recommendations for funding support, particularly for the first twelve (Yes-A)

proposals, and reflects a combined judgement for each proposal of its degree of

innovation, technical soundness, likelihood of success, and ramifications of its results, if

it successfully achieves its objectives.

The ISRP did not specifically rank proposals below the top twenty, because at that point

the proposals were judged to provide marginal benefit to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife

Program, to only marginally meet the innovative criteria, or were judged to not satisfy the

innovative criteria. Moreover, the top eight proposals request funds that exceed the $2

million allocated to innovative proposals.

Table 1. Top 20 Ranked Proposals

Project Title Sponsor Total Request ISRP Rank

22001 A Feasibility Study for Pacific Ocean

Salmon Tracking (POST)

Kintama Research

Corporation

$228,600 1; Yes - A

22013 Genetic sex of chinook salmon in the

Columbia River Basin

University of Idaho $99,736 2; Yes - A

22063 Determination of difficult passage

areas, migration patterns and

energetic use of upriver migrating

salmon and steelhead

Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory

$319,542 3; Yes – A

(Prefer to fund

through Gorge

Province)

22002 Influences of stocking salmon

carcass analogs on salmonids in

Columbia River tributaries

WDFW, Bio-Oregon,

Shoshone-Bannock

Tribe, NMFS, Yakama

Nation, Weyerhaeuser

Co.

$399,829 4; Yes - A

22022 Using Induced Turbulence to Assist

Downstream-Migrating Juvenile

Salmonids

Washington State

University

$219,923 5; Yes - A

22050 Habitat Diversity in Alluvial Rivers Confederated Tribes

of the Umatilla Indian

Reservation

$319,860 6; Yes - A

22033 Evaluate new methodologies for

monitoring Pacific salmon and

steelhead: methods for evaluating

the effectiveness of restoration and

recovery programs

U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service

$353,376 7; Yes – A

(Fund only at a

pilot-scale level to

evaluate new tags)

TOTAL -

Up to ~$2 Million

$1,940,866 See note at

bottom of

table

22047 Salmonid response to fertilization:

an experimental evaluation of

alternative methods of fertilization

NMFS/ Northwest

Fisheries Science

Center

$400,000 8; Yes – A

(Project could be

reduced in scale

and budget)

22042 Evaluate the effects of nutrient

supplementation on benthic

periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and

juvenile sturgeon in the Kootenai

River

Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho

$170,635 9; Yes - A
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

4

Project Title Sponsor Total Request ISRP Rank

22057 Waterbody and Aquatic Habitat

Characterization Utilizing High

Resolution Satellite Imagery and

Aerial Imagery

Teasdale

Environmental

Associates

$126,371 10; Yes - A

22055 Develop a Nutrient/Food-Web

Management Tool for WatershedRiver Systems

Battelle Memorial

Institute

$329,000 11; Yes - A

22064 Reintroduction success of steelhead

from captive propagation and

release strategies

NMFS, Resource

Enhancement and

Utilization

Technologies Division

$262,350 12; Yes - A

22019 Use a Multi-Watershed Approach to

Increase the Rate of Learning from

Columbia Basin Watershed

Restoration Projects

ESSA Technologies

Ltd.

$295,036 13; Yes - B

22060 Assess Feasibility Of Enhancing

White Sturgeon Spawning Substrate

Habitat, Kootenai R., Idaho

USGS/ Kootenai Tribe

of Idaho

$300,000 14; Yes - B

22056 Development of Salmon DNA Finger

Printing Microarrays

Battelle, Pacific

Northwest Division

$400,000 15; Yes - B

22043 Enhancing instream flow by adopting

best agricultural land management

practices

Washington State

University

$135,305 16; Yes - B

22037 Locate chum and fall chinook

salmon and redds in deep and turbid

water using an acoustic camera

USGS/BRD $164,334 17; Yes - B

22010 Echo Meadow Project - Winter

Artificial Recharge to Cool Rivers

IRZ Consulting $660,714 18; Yes - B

22005 An experimental evaluation of

nutrient supplementation on juvenile

salmonid fish abundance in nutrientlimited streams

Department of

Biological Sciences,

Idaho State University

$398,246 19; Yes - B

22038 Design and assessment of artificial

spawning habitat for kokanee in

Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho

University of Idaho $286,809 20; Yes - B

TOP 20 TOTAL $5,869,666

Note: If only the pilot-scale portions of the proposals are funded, more proposals can be

funded under the $2 million budget specified in the solicitation; e.g. the ISRP

recommends funding only the innovative portion of proposals 22033 and 22047.

In the sections below, the ISRP provides general comments on the innovative solicitation

and nutrient supplementation, and specific comments on each proposal. Because a

response loop is not included in this process, the ISRP generally did not comment on how

to improve a proposal. Instead, the comments are directed toward helping the Council

select proposals that offer the most promising new methods and technologies and are

most likely to directly benefit fish and wildlife.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

5

General Comments

The ISRP views the Innovative Proposal Category as a “venture capital” program for the

Fish and Wildlife Program. As such, proposals that test or develop new ideas,

approaches, or applications should receive priority. In general, the ISRP recommends

that innovative projects should be pilot-scale, operate on modest to moderate budgets,

and be of relatively short duration. Those that generate promising results would be

expected to develop implementation-scale proposals for consideration under the

Provincial Review Process of the Fish and Wildlife Program.

While it is tempting to fund proposals with the highest probability of success, riskier

proposals may also be worth supporting where the potential benefits of the proposed

work are profound or have widespread application. Implicit in this approach is the

recognition that some portion of the supported innovative projects may fail to reach their

stated objectives.

In considering the “venture capital” nature of innovative projects, the Council may want

to articulate a policy regarding the public funding of private developmental research.

Some projects are based on tests of developmental technologies that would, if successful,

become patented products held by private companies. Technology development was a

component of some proposals reviewed by the ISRP, but the appropriateness of using

public funds to develop private technologies is a matter of policy rather than science and

was not considered by the ISRP. Joint ventures between private companies and the Fish

and Wildlife Program may be a possible funding mechanism.

The Council may also want to develop a policy regarding funding projects located out of

the Columbia River Basin. Some proposals describe work that would take place outside

the Basin that is nevertheless relevant to Basin needs and problems. In some cases,

outside-Basin settings provide a better or more cost-effective field site for testing new

techniques and ideas than within-basin locations. Under these conditions, and where

research results are directly translatable to Basin problems, it may be fully appropriate to

fund research projects in outside-Basin locations.

Proposal Scale, Budgets, Duration, and Targeted RFPs

In our FY2000 review, the ISRP commented on project scale and the confusion of

implementation and evaluation (p. 19; ISRP 99-2, Volume 1). These comments are also

pertinent to the FY2001 Innovative Proposal Review. We noted that new ideas and

experimental methods are often best tested as pilot projects before stepping up to fullscale implementation. Indeed, we believe that a major purpose of the innovative funding

category is the “proof of concept.”

Testing at a small-scale can help determine feasibility and identify real or potential

problems, thereby facilitating an adaptive learning process prior to full-scale

implementation. Implementation of full-scale projects without a test phase limits the

likelihood that projects will be implemented cost-effectively. Pursuing untested full-scale

projects risks the financial resources of the program, and also risks harming the fish and
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

6

wildlife resources the program is mandated to protect and enhance. Pilot-scale field

testing should be preceded by a quantitative research design that identifies the factors

needing measurement and testing.

We believe that this year’s solicitation for innovative proposals, which set a budget cap at

$400,000, inadvertently encouraged the submission of larger-scale proposals. These

proposals, roughly 10% of the submissions, typically had two or more phases, often a

Phase-1 pilot-scale test, followed by one or more additional larger-scale implementation

phases. We believe the venture capital nature of the innovative funding category and the

Fish and Wildlife Program as a whole will be better served by funding a larger number of

pilot-scale projects of moderate budget than by supporting fewer large budget projects.

We suggest that future solicitations cap budgets of innovative projects at $250,000 and

recommend a range of $50,000 - $150,000. We also believe that in general, the Fish and

Wildlife Program will be best served if innovative projects are able to test concepts and

methods in 12-18 months time (where possible3), leaving the longer-term implementation

phase for funding under the Provincial Review Process.

Finally, the ISRP recommends that the annual budget for the innovative proposal

solicitation be increased, and that a separate budget be set aside for targeted Requests For

Proposals (RFPs). The Innovative Funding Category is now allocated 1.4% of the Fish

and Wildlife Program’s annual $127 million budget.

Targeted RFPs are a proven vehicle to examine specific critical uncertainties but should

be separated from the innovative proposal solicitation. The inclusion of “nutrient

supplementation” as a targeted research area in the FY2001 innovative proposal

solicitation confused the review process because strong nutrient supplementation

proposals did not necessarily have to be innovative. Special topic solicitations should be

developed as targeted RFPs rather than addressed through the innovative process.

Emerging topics that could be addressed through the targeted RFP approach might

include (1) non-point pollution and its effects on population viability and fitness, and (2)

research-oriented studies on the effects of various artificial production strategies on

reproductive fitness, particularly with relation to ongoing supplementation programs.

Nutrient Supplementation Proposals

As noted above, the call for innovative proposals included a request for proposals

addressing the application of nutrients within the Columbia Basin. The recent fisheries

literature includes a number of publications highlighting the potential benefits of nutrient

supplementation. Nevertheless, questions remain about the applicability of nutrient

supplementation over the range of habitats in the Columbia Basin. The effect of nutrient

enrichment on several microbial, algal, invertebrate, and fish species complexes in a

variety of stream habitats remains untested. Despite these uncertainties, pilot studies

within the Columbia Basin could prove beneficial, and in fact may have already started

(e.g., Naches River).

 

3

 We recognize that some innovative proposals, such as those for example that are tied to salmonid life

history studies, may require longer time periods to come to fruition.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

7

Few of the proposals took full advantage of the literature or the increasing number of

projects placing salmon carcasses in streams. A manual on stream rehabilitation

techniques in British Columbia lists research needs for future advances in fertilizer

addition, but few proposals referenced this list. In addition, the proposals failed to clearly

define the need for this rehabilitation tool, other than the statement that salmon used to

exist in a particular location. To establish a need for nutrient supplementation,

measurement of background nutrient levels and identification of limiting factors are

required. Furthermore, the interaction of nutrients and other watershed activities must be

considered. Nutrient addition work should be a component of an ecosystem-based

watershed restoration and should be derived from a thorough watershed assessment. For

example, forest and stream fertilization might be integrated, but there are limits to the

nutrient capacity of streams in agricultural areas. Nutrients are but yet another component

to consider in subbasin plans.

Several investigators proposed comparisons of nutrient briquettes, salmon carcasses, and

yet-to-be-developed carcass analogs as application alternatives. These comparisons are

tests of organic versus inorganic nutrient application procedures. However, experimental

controls are difficult to establish. The timing of applying inorganic nutrients placed in

spring and summer differs from that of organic nutrients placed in the fall. In addition,

much of the justification for using salmon carcasses as a nutrient source was based on the

assumption of direct feeding by juvenile salmonids. However, the most likely benefit

provided by salmon carcasses is the release of nutrients to the stream ecosystem and

uptake in the spring and summer, particularly in areas where these nutrients are retained

over winter and not lost in fall, winter, or spring freshets. Additional benefit is derived

from feeding on eggs and subsequent fry, as well as some feeding on products from

carcass decomposition.

An addition to the nutrient supplementation research that would add value to the Basin is

a series of workshops each focused on a single objective; e.g., test inorganic nutrient

application in areas of the Columbia, or compare briquettes and carcasses applications in

fall and spring. The workshops should include discussions of key areas requiring further

research, research methods, and identification of procedures for mesocosm and pilot

studies, field-testing, demonstration sites, full implementation and evaluation. The

workshops could lead to agreement on standardized experimental approaches. Indeed a

workshop on some of these issues is scheduled for the near future in the Pacific

Northwest.

In this review the ISRP identifies several proposals that could provide valuable

information on the application of nutrient supplementation. We suggest a logical

sequence of funding. Specifically, development and testing of carcass analogs should

precede projects that test these analogs against salmon carcasses and nutrient briquettes.

Much more work remains, including a comparison of inorganic and organic

micronutrients in streams and the identification of macro and micro nutrient limiting

factors. Yet enough is known to justify experimental field tests. This work may be best

addressed through a targeted RFP or included in the Provincial Review Process.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

8

Table 2. Nutrient Supplementation Proposals

Project Title Sponsor Total

Request

ISRP Rank

22002 Influences of stocking salmon

carcass analogs on salmonids in

Columbia River tributaries

WDFW, Bio-Oregon,

Shoshone-bannock

Tribe, NMFS, Yakama

Nation, Weyerhaeuser

$399,829 Ranked 1 for Nutrient

Proposals; Ranked 4

Overall; Yes - A

22047 Salmonid response to fertilization:

an experimental evaluation of

alternative methods of fertilization

National Marine

Fisheries Service

$400,000 Ranked 2 for Nutrient

Proposals, Ranked 8

Overall; Yes - A

22042 Evaluate the effects of nutrient

supplementation on benthic

periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and

juvenile sturgeon in the Kootenai

River

Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho

$170,635 Ranked 3 for Nutrient

Proposals, Ranked 9

Overall; Yes - A

22055 Develop a Nutrient/Food-Web

Management Tool for WatershedRiver Systems

Battelle Memorial

Institute

$329,000 Ranked 4 for Nutrient

Proposals; Ranked 11

Overall; Yes - A

22005 An experimental evaluation of

nutrient supplementation on juvenile

salmonid fish abundance in nutrientlimited streams

Idaho State University $398,246 Ranked 5 for Nutrient

Proposals; Ranked 19

Overall; Yes - B

22008 Evaluate and compare the effects of

nutrient supplementation from

carcasses and fertilizer on fish

growth and survival and lower

trophic levels.

Utah State University,

Utah Cooperative Fish

and Wildlife Unit,

Logan, Utah.

$377,700 Ranked 6 for Nutrient

Proposal; Not Ranked

Overall; Yes - B

22029 Evaluate the ecological role of

marine derived nutrients in areas

artificially blocked to anadromous

fish migrations.

Confederated Tribes

of the Colville

Reservation

$391,212 Not Ranked; Yes - B

22034 Influence of marine-derived nutrients

on juvenile salmonid production: a

comparison of two nutrient

enhancement techniques

U. S. Geological

Survey, Biological

Resources Division

$236,270 Not Ranked; Yes - B

22017 Monitor and Evaluate Nutrient

Supplementation as a Tool for

Increasing Production and Survival

of Juvenile Chinook Salmon from

Infertile Streams

Paulson

Environmental

Research, Ltd.

$208,628 Not Ranked; Not a

stand-alone project

22040 Ecosystem effects of anadromous

salmon

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game

$396,500 Not Ranked; Yes - C

22028 Design and Coordinate Nutrient

Supplementation Evaluations in the

Salmon and Clearwater Subbasins,

Idaho

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game

$77,582 Not Ranked; Not

Innovative
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

9

Comments on Proposals Ranked in the Top 20 and “Yes - A”

ProjectID: 22001

A Feasibility Study for Pacific Ocean Salmon Tracking (POST)

Sponsor: Kintama Research Corporation

Total Request: $228,600

Target Species: Chinook, steelhead, and coho

Short Description: (1) Evaluate new acoustic tracking technology to verify its

capabilities for use on the West Coast and (2) Design an acoustic monitoring network to

track movement of salmon smolts into the ocean and along the continental shelf to areas

of ocean residency

Rank: 1; Yes - A

Comments:

This excellent innovative proposal ranked the highest because it promises the greatest

potential benefit among the proposals to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. The

proposal calls for testing the feasibility of using sonic tags for tracking juvenile salmon.

The tags are particularly attractive because they also work in saltwater, unlike traditional

radio tags currently in use in the region. Likelihood of success seems excellent, because

similar work has been tested with success in the Bay of Fundy on the North Atlantic

Coast. Success of this project should allow design of studies for better estimation of

survival rates of emigrating juveniles through the estuary and into the ocean. Ability to

track fish in saltwater would also provide needed information on the use of estuary

habitat. The sonic tags also work in freshwater allowing fish to be tracked from some

point upstream through the estuary and into the ocean plume. The proposal is clearly

presented.

The sponsor proposes to also consider the design of a series of detection sites to track the

migration of fish along the Coasts of Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska.

For some species, this would potentially provide valuable information on mortality in the

ocean, migration to the open ocean, residence in areas along the coast for an extended

period, and exposure to ocean fisheries. The proponent recognizes potential limitations

of the methodology and plans to work through technical and scientific issues in

workshops.

During the Council review and BPA contracting process, the availability of the principal

investigator needs to be assured.

This is an excellent proposal that the ISRP read with great interest. In the process of

review, the ISRP made some suggestions that would potentially improve the project:

1. The feasibility of the project might be tested with large smolts, for example, steelhead

or spring/summer chinook. Growth enhancement of smolts of other species so that

they can carry the sonic tag might be left for future applications.

2. The major objectives and steps of the feasibility study are well thought out and

justified. The ISRP suggests that the sponsor consider use of a three-factor (site,
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

10

distance, and tag/receiver orientation) experiment with at least two levels of each

factor with blocking on time.

3. Sequence of implementation might begin in the river, move to the estuary, the plume,

and then the ocean. This approach could get at some critical information while

testing the application of the technology at increasingly more challenging scales.

4. Sonic tags may also enhance the recovery of archival tags that store information on

time and the migration path of a tagged fish in the open ocean.

ProjectID: 22013

Genetic sex of chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin

Sponsor: University of Idaho

Total Request: $99,736

Target Species: chinook salmon

Short Description: Determine with molecular tests whether wild chinook salmon are

correctly expressing their genetic sex, and assess the incidence of males with abnormal

numbers of Y-chromosomes. Over the 4-year sampling period assess these effects on

breeding populations.

Rank: 2; Yes - A

Comments:

This is an innovative proposal because it addresses a newly recognized critical

uncertainty in the Hanford Reach fall chinook stock and proposes to use a new genetic

assay technique to do so. It is also a high priority project as it addresses a critical question

about population genetic structure in the Hanford Reach and other chinook stocks.

The authors’ preliminary data show surprising evidence of sex-reversal (some genetic

males are functional females) in Hanford-Reach-spawning wild chinook, apparently the

result of some environmental insult (e.g., EDC’s, exposure to pesticides). The data are

intriguing and worrisome. Half the offspring of the sex-reversed fish will be normal

males, but half will be YY males, capable of producing only sons, disproportionately

increasing the ratio of males to females in the next generation, an accelerating increase if

the sex-reversal continues in each generation. The effect would be a decreasing

proportion of normal females and decreasing reproductive fitness, a serious barrier to

recovery. It’s clearly important to find out if other stocks of wild spawning chinook are

affected, and it’s important to find out if YY males are indeed present. The region needs

to know the extent of the genetic sex reversal phenomenon.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

11

ProjectID: 22063

Determination of difficult passage areas, migration patterns and energetic use of upriver

migrating salmon and steelhead

Sponsor: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Total Request: $319542

Target Species: Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead

Short Description: The goal of this project is to pin-point areas of difficult fish passage

under different flow regimes using EMG telemetry and to examine movements, habitat

use, and energetic consumption of fish during the upstream migration.

Rank: 3; Yes - A

Comments:

This proposal was reviewed favorably in the Columbia Gorge province and fits in the

provincial review as well as in this innovative solicitation. It is innovative and provides

an opportunity to critically examine fish passage problems identified in the Klickitat

River and elsewhere. It is an excellent proposal with local and regional application. If

there is concern about the degree of fish passage problems in the Klickitat, then this work

should be undertaken before KFP proceeds with major expenditures on fish passage. The

ISRP identified it as a high priority fundable project in the Columbia Gorge Rolling

Review (for further comments, see that report). It should not fall through the cracks, and

is recommended for funding either here or through the Gorge province. The proposal is

well targeted and meritorious. We had some question as to whether the proposal is over

budgeted. The proposal shows a duration of two fiscal years, with over $300k for the

first year. If funded with the innovative proposals, then it should be assured that this

work can be done for under $400,000 during the Council review and BPA contracting

period.

ProjectID: 22002

Influences of stocking salmon carcass analogs on salmonids in Columbia River

tributaries

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bio-Oregon, Shoshone-bannock

Tribe, National Marine Fisheries Service, Yakama Nation, Weyerhaeuser Co.

Total Request: $399,829

Target Species: Rainbow/steelhead trout, cutthroat trout, chinook salmon, sculpins

Short Description: Restore salmonid populations by increasing food available to

salmonids. The efficacy of using salmon carcass analogs to benefit salmonid populations

will be tested in three sub-basins of the Columbia River.

Rank: 4; Yes - A

Comments:

This proposal ranked the highest out of the set of nutrient supplementation proposals. The

proposal is well prepared and on target with the current thought on the best use of

nutrient supplementation. It aggressively takes existing knowledge one step further. The

gist of this project is to develop and test a carcass analog in cooperation with the

production company, Bio Oregon. This proposal is the most thorough of the set of

proposals for nutrient enhancement on examining risks of using the analogs. Use of an

analog would avoid using salmon carcasses, which pose the risk of disease transmission.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

12

It appears this proposal would need to be implemented before #22047, because it

develops and tests the carcass analogs that #22047 proposes to use.

However, there was little or no mention of the need to examine background nutrient

levels before proceeding with enrichment, nor was there an indication of the difficulties

in achieving target nutrient levels in the spring and summer given carcass analog

introductions in the fall. This is a fault common to several proposals, but see the review

of #22055 below.

Inclusion of testing of a trout stream that does not have nutrient input from anadromous

fish is a strong component of the study design. Beforehand, however, mesocosm

experiments should be incorporated, where artificial stream channels are utilized to

examine chlorophyll and invertebrate response to different levels of addition, with

controls.

The research group is broad-based and well qualified to undertake and complete the

work.

ProjectID: 22022

Using Induced Turbulence to Assist Downstream-Migrating Juvenile Salmonids

Sponsor: Washington State University, Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Albrook Hydraulics Laboratory

Total Request: $219,923

Target Species: Juvenile Salmonids

Short Description: Turbulence in salmonid-bearing streams will be reproduced in

experimental facilities and used to test whether juvenile salmonids follow turbulent

"trails" that could lead to dam surface bypass collection systems.

Rank: 5; Yes - A

Comments:

This proposal is to characterize turbulence in the vicinity of entrances to reservoir

forebays in order to increase the effectiveness of surface flow bypass systems. Success of

this project would contribute significantly to the overall passage of juveniles through the

Snake and Columbia River projects.

The initial careful collection of field data (velocity contours) upon which to build the lab

and applied test was very appealing to the reviewers. The Principal Investigator has a

good lab and has designed a good applied test of the turbulence hypothesis. This is a

reasonable proposal laid out as a pilot experiment with a solid study design. The

compelling argument supporting this proposal is that the information it generates could

lead to better design of surface flow bypass systems and thus, it has the potential for large

regional significance.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

13

ProjectID: 22050

Habitat Diversity in Alluvial Rivers

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Total Request: $319,860

Target Species: All aquatic organisms, including resident and anadromous fish.

Short Description: Developing innovative remote sensing and modeling tools for

quantitative functional assessment of aquatic habitats by integrating spatial-temporal

interactions between channels, floodplain and groundwater.

Rank: 6; Yes - A

Comments:

This is judged as the best of the three innovative proposals that proposed to make use of

LIDAR (airborne laser altimetry) data to obtain detailed habitat and physical information

about streamside vegetation, channel cross-sections, and channel slopes. The vertical

resolution has accuracy to tens of centimeters and can measure the height of vegetation

with accuracy of horizontal resolutions in meters. See proposals 22049 and 22059. This

proposal has a good interface of various fields of endeavor. It is well written, and clearly

articulates how this detailed source of topographic and vegetation data would be used to

assess connections between catchment hydrology, channel geomorphology, and

ecological function. The proposal draws on past work in the Umatilla basin, and would

be a collaboration of tribal, university, and state agency personnel. In addition to use of

LIDAR data, stream temperature assessment and modeling would be facilitated through

use of airborne infrared surveys, and the project would draw on other sources of remote

sensing data (e.g., SRTM – Shuttle Radar Topography Mapping mission) available

through one of the Co-Principal Investigator’s NASA projects.

The proposal is innovative in seeking to apply evolving remote sensing tools to habitat

restoration projects within the basin. The panel was particularly impressed by the

collaborative nature of the work, which should help assure that the work aids in

transferring knowledge about data sources that should be of value in future projects.

ProjectID: 22033

Evaluate new methodologies for monitoring Pacific salmon and steelhead: methods for

evaluating the effectiveness of restoration and recovery programs

Sponsor: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Total Request: $353,376

Target Species: Coho salmon, steelhead trout, chinook salmon, bull trout, cutthroat trout

Short Description: Assess new methodologies for monitoring survival and migration of

naturally spawned juvenile salmonids. These methods will be demonstrated by assessing

the status and life history characteristics of coho salmon and steelhead trout in Abernathy

Creek .

Rank: 7; Yes - A

Comments:

This project has an excellent component that is innovative because PIT-tags with this

signal range have not been used in the Pacific Northwest in fisheries studies. The chance

for success is very high because, the larger PIT-tag (23 mm) has been tested on the East
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

14

Coast for monitoring Atlantic salmon in stream environments. This tag should be

valuable in several ways, because it would potentially allow a series of receivers to be

installed over a stream to detect the passage of tagged smolt or a portable receiver to

detect presence of tagged individuals during stream surveys. It would then be possible to

estimate, for example, over-winter survival in tributary habitat, winter tracking to

determine salmonid habitat use, return of adults to the stream, etc.

Use of this larger PIT-tag would add a new dimension to monitoring efforts in many

subbasins, because the tag could potentially provide information that is currently

available only through the use of larger and more intrusive radio-tags. It is obvious that if

the portable monitoring system works, a stream can be surveyed periodically during the

rearing period to estimate in stream survival rates using the same mark-recapture

methodology currently in use to estimate survival of migrating juveniles between dams

on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.

The ISRP was impressed with the component of the proposal associated with testing the

feasibility and utility of using the larger PIT-tags. However, if funded, we recommend

that the project be funded only at the level to test the ability of the gear to assess juvenile

survival and distribution in streams. Also, it seems that testing of this innovative

technique could be done in a shorter period of time than proposed for the entire project.

The five-year period covered in the proposal adversely affected its relative ranking. Also,

it was unclear if equipment (a screwtrap) listed for purchase under another innovative

proposal (#22031) was needed here.

In discussion of the proposal, the ISRP was curious if this larger PIT-tag can be read by

the standard detectors in use on, for example, the bypass systems of mainstem dams or if

the detection device proposed can read the smaller tags that are currently being used in

the basin? The ISRP would encourage the use of compatible systems if possible, but this

should not be a requirement for funding the project.

ProjectID: 22047

Salmonid response to fertilization: an experimental evaluation of alternative methods of

fertilization

Sponsor: National Marine Fisheries Service

Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Total Request: $400,000

Target Species: spring/summer chinook

Short Description: Experimentally evaluate the effects of marine derived nutrients on

populations of Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon using three enhancement

strategies: carcasses, carcass analogs, and inorganic nutrients

Rank: 8; Yes - A

Comments:

The proposal is innovative because it compared three sources of enrichment and the

application to a chinook salmon population is new. This proposal is statistically rigorous.

It correctly considers mesocosms in the field and uses field sites already studied by

NMFS (PIT tag survival studies). The rationale and tie to the BiOp was good.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

15

A good experimental design with experimental channels and appropriate facilities for a

technique likely applicable to the Snake River was incorporated in the proposal, but

perhaps the design is superfluous in some aspects. To compare three enhancement

strategies, the level of detail proposed could be decreased. The leaf litter experiments

seemed to add little, and the detailed evaluation of condition factor, to the point of

examining fish livers, may be unnecessary. Many such details might be reduced

considerably by focusing on alternate response variables. Because of these concerns, the

ISRP suggest that the work might be funded at a reduced level from the proposed budget.

During discussion of the proposal, some additional minor concerns and questions were

noted:

1. The target (and background) N and P levels should be specified.

2. The sponsors recognized the limitations of detecting a response through PIT-tagging,

where approximately 2000 parr must be tagged. The ISRP suggested that the yield of

smolts might be a more reasonable response variable.

3. Could adult and life stage modeling as well as the cost-benefit work come later?

ProjectID: 22042

Evaluate the effects of nutrient supplementation on benthic periphyton,

macroinvertebrates, and juvenile sturgeon in the Kootenai River

Sponsor: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Total Request: $170,635

Target Species:

Periphyton and macroinvertebrate communities, and Kootenai River juvenile white

sturgeon

Short Description: Analyze the effects of nitrogen and phosphorous additions on

primary, secondary and tertiary productivity in a mesocosm to collect baseline data that

will aid in determining if a large-scale fertilization effort would benefit the Kootenai

River ecosystem.

Rank: 9; Yes - A

Comments:

This very good proposal is innovative in that it ties nutrient supplementation to sturgeon

and resident rainbow trout. It ranks higher than some of the other nutrient proposals

because it proposes mesocosm experiments first, a step that is encouraged by the ISRP.

The proposal ties well with the sturgeon stocking program. Graduate student support is

(mainly) for required research on nutrient limitations to sturgeon production. The

approach has not been applied in this area for this species, and has not previously been

used in an application of this kind, but is not truly innovative – tools and methods used

elsewhere are applied. Nevertheless, this research is required before proceeding with a

full-scale nutrient addition experiment in the mainstem. The mesocosm work should

have application elsewhere in the basin.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

16

ProjectID: 22057

Waterbody and Aquatic Habitat Characterization Utilizing High Resolution Satellite

Imagery and Aerial Imagery

Sponsor: Teasdale Environmental Associates

Total Request: $126,371

Target Species: Fall Chinook

Short Description: Demonstrate the practical use of new commercial high resolution

satellite and aerial imagery in the assessment of waterbody physical habitat,

geomorphology and water quality impairment potential. Develop a guidance manual for

field and office use.

Rank: 10; Yes - A

Comments:

This clearly written proposal would assess the utility of innovative aerial and satellite

imagery in characterizing aquatic habitat. It represents a novel application of a new

technology that may be very useful in EDT assessments and may represent an important

advance in data acquisition in the estuary and ocean. The guidance manual for agency

staff and other practitioners sounds useful. The proposal has excellent information

transfer built in as well as thorough evaluation of the utility of its products. The cost is

relatively low.

During discussion of the proposal the ISRP noted that the sponsors could have better

discussed possible limitations of the technology and potential benefits to the Clearwater

restoration efforts.

ProjectID: 22055

Develop a Nutrient/Food-Web Management Tool for Watershed-River Systems

Sponsor: Battelle Memorial Institute

Total Request: $329,000

Target Species: Anadromous Fish

Short Description: Develop a integrated analysis system by linking state-of-the-art

watershed and river models together with nutrient and food-chain component models.

The system can be used to perform assessments of nutrient supplementation schemes.

Rank: 11; Yes - A

Comments:

The ISRP was favorably impressed by this well written innovative nutrient proposal. It is

different than the other nutrient proposals in that it does not propose to actually

supplement with nutrients. Instead, it proposes to help determine whether a system is

nutrient deficient and assess what is required, a step the ISRP supports and judges

necessary before informed decisions can be made. If the region is going to supplement

with nutrients, then this type of model will be beneficial and should be universally

available.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

17

ProjectID: 22064

Reintroduction success of steelhead from captive propagation and release strategies

Sponsor: National Marine Fisheries Service, Resource Enhancement and Utilization

Technologies Division

Total Request: $262,350

Target Species: Steelhead

Short Description: Utilize fish behavior and DNA analyses to evaluate reproductive

success and offspring fitness of steelhead from different captive propagation strategies.

Rank: 12; Yes - A

Comments:

This proposal is innovative because it evaluates free-living sequestration (isolation of

steelhead in a lake for generations) as an innovative method of captive rearing. The

design of the ongoing breeding experiment allows a comparison of breeding success of

fish representing: 1) a ‘traditional’ strategy of captive rearing in which anadromous

steelhead were taken into artificial, one-full-life-cycle culture, 2)

a sequestration strategy in which steelhead were isolated in a lake for many generations,

and 3) intercrosses between sequestered and free-ranging anadromous steelhead from the

same population.

The design also allows evaluation of captive reared descendents of sequestered fish and

intercrosses of them with fish from the other strategies. This proposed project would

extend the ongoing research to test hypotheses pertinent to potential applications in the

Columbia River—whether these strategies of captive breeding can have effects on fitness

of individuals who are products of the strategies. Breeding success will be measureable in

mesocosms, arenas, both by behavioral analysis and by genotypically identified

pedigrees.

The ISRP notes that part of this work is out of the Columbia basin. However, the

proposed project provides an opportunity to take advantage of work underway in Alaska

to answer basic questions about captive brood stock approaches that would have

application in the basin. This proposal is attractive and germane because it examines the

effects of hatchery rearing on fitness - a continuing, plaguing uncertainty in the basin’s

artificial production programs.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

18

Comments on Proposals Ranked in the Top 20 and “Yes-B”

ProjectID: 22019

Use a Multi-Watershed Approach to Increase the Rate of Learning from Columbia Basin

Watershed Restoration Projects

Sponsor: ESSA Technologies Ltd.

Total Request: $295,036

Target Species: Anadromous fish, resident fish

Short Description: Compile and compare data from restoration projects in multiple

watersheds to enhance the rate of learning about effects of watershed restoration

programs on aquatic populations and optimize design of future restoration projects and

associated monitoring.

Rank: 13; Yes - B

Comments:

This proposal is somewhat innovative in that it applies existing techniques to a new

situation: the comparison of watershed restoration performance. It treats the many

different watershed projects as a multi-watershed experiment from which lessons can be

learned even though controls are missing. This project would serve a valuable role in the

basin in providing a unique and potentially valuable analysis of restoration projects and

would provide useful information for subsequent project management. A significant

contribution would seem to be the continuation of the PATH Experimental Management

philosophy in evaluation of watershed restoration procedures. The PIs are well qualified,

and clearly have a grasp of FWP issues and the contents of ISRP reports. The sponsor

demonstrates understanding of the role of experimental design, randomization, sampling

units, etc. that is required in order to compare alternatives in watershed restoration

projects, but does not provide detail on the statistical analysis to be performed. The

proposal is presented as a multiyear project.

ProjectID: 22060

Assess Feasibility Of Enhancing White Sturgeon Spawning Substrate Habitat, Kootenai

R., Idaho

Sponsor: U. S. Geological Survey/Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Total Request: $300,000

Target Species: Kootenai River white sturgeon (ESA) population and other native fish

Short Description: State-of-the art methods used to design scenarios and assess

feasibility to enhance white sturgeon spawning substrate habitat, Kootenai R., ID. Study

temporal/transient changes in sediment type, bed form, and erosion/deposition of

spawning substrate.

Rank: 14; Yes - B

Comments:

The proposal would use the USGS bathymetry survey system to evaluate bedform

movement in sturgeon spawning areas, with the idea being to develop better physical

characterizations of habitat that would be used to foster improved egg incubation. The

technology allows computer animation of bedform movement. Sediment transport
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

19

modeling would then be used to allow prediction of conditions suitable for control of

characteristics to produce optimal spawning and incubation habitat. From a physical

sciences standpoint this is a solid proposal with fairly innovative sediment science, but

reviewers are not convinced this is the best way to assess and address white sturgeon

spawning limitations.

This is an innovative proposal for the basin even though the same type of sediment

dynamics study has been conducted elsewhere. However, the case is not made

persuasively that sediment dynamics controls white sturgeon spawning and egg survival.

It would seem important to make the biology-sediment linkage more strongly before

undertaking a very detailed sediment profile and transport study. Alternative hypotheses

for sturgeon spawning should be explored before this work is initiated. The ISRP has

seen this proposal or slight modifications twice before in previous proposals for work on

white sturgeon spawning in the Kootenai River. Because this work was once part of the

Kootenai River white sturgeon studies, but has not been continued in that project suggests

that support from the biologists may be lacking or at least lukewarm.

The Panel considers the proposal fundable at medium priority.

ProjectID: 22056

Development of Salmon DNA Finger Printing Microarrays

Sponsor: Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division

Total Request: $400,000

Target Species: Chinook, Coho, and Steelhead

Short Description:

Rank: 15; Yes - B

Comments:

Innovative, apparently with a high probability of success. If successful, the technique

may offer widespread applicability. This is a technically robust proposal with very

competent personnel. The study proposes to bring an innovative new genetic assay

technique into Columbia River salmon management and provide "real - time" analysis.

Most genetic analyses require weeks or months for turn around time, rather than hours or

a few days as this technique promises. The technique also provides high genetic

resolution, down to the family line or pedigree level usually associated with DNA

fingerprinting.

While technically, the proposal was one of the two or three best proposals in the review,

it suffered from weak ties to the Fish and Wildlife Program and little discussion of

specific management applications. The PI's overstate both the level of inference that will

be provided by the genetic results (i.e., fitness, stock ID, etc.) and the way the technique

will be used by managers to inform and guide fisheries decisions. One would hope that

this will be the case someday, but presently it is not the case. Despite the proposal's

claim, most fisheries managers we know will not "make near-real time decisions on

hydropower operations based on genetic (chip-based) stock identification data."
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

20

The proposal would probably have fared better in the review process had it proposed to

develop the DNA microarray for specific populations or taxa, such as chinook and

steelhead, and to have tested its efficacy on specific steelhead stocks associated with

hatchery broodstock development or with an ongoing supplementation program. The

assay probably has great potential in supplementation studies to track hatchery and wild

stocks and to assay genetic interactions between them.

ProjectID: 22043

Enhancing instream flow by adopting best agricultural land management practices

Sponsor: Washington State University

Total Request: $135,305

Target Species: Steelhead, Sockeye, Spring/Summer-run Chinook, Fall-run Chinook and

Bull Trout

Short Description: Increase groundwater infiltration during high precipitation periods by

adopting proper agriculture practices. Use soil profile and aquifers to temporarily store

water for subsequent release into the streams for flow enhancement and temperature

control

Rank: 16; Yes - B

Comments:

This proposal is similar to 22010 to the extent that it would investigate use of winter

recharge of groundwater on agricultural lands to sustain summer and fall low flows, and

to reduce summer stream temperatures. Unlike 22010, this is essentially a proposal for a

(field and modeling) feasibility assessment; thus, the panel felt this was more appropriate

to this innovative solicitation. However, the proposal has two critical deficiencies. First,

like 22010, it says little about water rights issues. If such a project were successful, what

reason is there to expect that the water would stay in the stream? Second, the proposal

seems to emphasize more the role of tillage practices (no till) in increasing recharge. The

panel was somewhat skeptical that changes in tillage practices alone would be enough to

make much difference to summer flows. If this could be shown to be a major factor, it

seems curious that there is no involvement by USDA. The heavy emphasis on

agricultural practices, relative to stream temperature effects, seemed curious. This aspect

of the proposal might have been more convincing had it been substantiated with pilot

modeling or field results.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

21

ProjectID: 22037

Locate chum and fall chinook salmon and redds in deep and turbid water using an

acoustic camera

Sponsor: U.S. Geological Survey / Biological Resources Division

Total Request: $164,334

Target Species: Chum salmon, fall chinook salmon

Short Description: Collect habitat information from fish spawning at Ives Island below

Bonneville Dam to relate habitat availability to river discharge to allow for prediction of

available habitat at a larger spatial scale.

Rank: 17; Yes - B

Comments:

This proposal to test an innovative piece of equipment is sound. The new acoustic

camera, just recently available commercially, could be used to locate and monitor redds

in deep and turbid water throughout the Columbia and Snake Rivers. However, the

critical need for use of the camera to identify salmonid spawning below the Columbia

River dams is not convincingly presented. What are the benefits compared to what is

currently being used?

Questions and concerns:

• Why cannot this project be conducted under the current contract 99-003 “Evaluate

spawning of fall chinook and chum salmon just below the four lowermost Columbia

River mainstem dams” being conducted by the USGS?

• Will the camera be of use in location and monitoring of redds during high water

conditions in smaller streams?

ProjectID: 22010

Echo Meadow Project - Winter Artificial Recharge to Cool Rivers

Sponsor: IRZ Consulting

505 East Main

Hermiston, OR 97838

Total Request: $660,714

Target Species: Coho, Spring & Fall Chinook and Steelhead

Short Description: Document the linkages between winter artificial recharge of

groundwater to the return flows and river temperature cooling in a 13000 acre study area.

Collect & analyze data that shows this method may be the sure-set way to reduce river

water temperature

Rank: 18; Yes - B

Comments:

This is an interesting proposal to use cyclic storage to supplement summer streamflows

with cooler water stored in aquifers. It is innovative in the sense that the approach, while

not new or novel for water management purposes, has apparently not previously been

used in the basin for habitat improvement. The proposal has three major shortcomings.

First, the cost exceeds the limits specified in the RFP, which makes the proposal nonresponsive. Second, no attention is given to water rights considerations. What reason is
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

22

there that, if the project were implemented and the claimed benefits (in terms of water

temperature and increased low flows) were realized, that the water would not simply be

diverted for agricultural use? Unless this hurdle was overcome first, there would be no

point in proceeding. Third, the proposal would proceed directly to implementation,

without prior feasibility studies (which might have been more appropriate to this

solicitation). For these reasons, this project should be given low priority for funding.

ProjectID: 22005

An experimental evaluation of nutrient supplementation on juvenile salmonid fish

abundance in nutrient-limited streams

Sponsor: Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University

Total Request: $398,246

Target Species: steelhead trout, chinook salmon, bull trout, aquatic invertebrates,

periphyton

Short Description: Evaluate the effect of low-level fertilization on the abundance of

organisms in nutrient deficient streams and quantify changes in space requirements and

habitat quality for salmonid fishes.

Rank: 19; Yes - B

Comments:

Although this is a sound proposal with a good experimental design, it is not truly

innovative because the work has, for the most part, been done in the Keogh River and

published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. It is marginally

innovative in that it meets the solicitation criteria that it has not been done in the

Columbia. Nitrogen and phosphate is limiting and the addition of fry to the experimental

sites will aid the evaluation if they distribute evenly. There is more detail on mechanism

(e.g., territory size, feeding) than is necessary in a management experiment but there are

also scientific benefits in utilizing graduate students, so there is a trade-off. This is an

appropriate proposal for academic research on the mechanisms of fish response to

increased food availability, the role of nutrients in the stream ecosystem, and the

functional relationships through lower trophic levels. It is presented by well-qualified

investigators. The level of detail proposed may not be required in a test of the application

of nutrient addition to Columbia River systems as a recovery tool.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

23

ProjectID: 22038

Design and assessment of artificial spawning habitat for kokanee in Lake Pend Oreille,

Idaho

Sponsor: University of Idaho-Dept. of Fish & Wildlife and Dept. of Civil Engineering

Total Request: $286,809

Target Species: kokanee

Short Description: Design and assessment of artifical spawning habitat modules for

kokanee in Lake Pend Oreille.

Rank: 20; Yes - B

Comments:

This is an innovative proposal for enhancing kokanee spawning in some shore areas in

Lake Pend Oreille, in the face of winter drawdowns. Although constructed spawning

platforms have been used elsewhere, this proposal is innovative in that the platforms are

cleanable to remove accumulated silt. However, the effectiveness of the artificial

substrate for solving the overall problem of lack of target adult kokanee abundance is not

fully persuasive, for other limiting factors besides spawning are likely limiting kokanee

production in Lake Pend Oreille - e.g., hatchery fish are released with unsuccessful

results.

The portable characteristics are especially innovative. The technique, if proven

successful, would be applicable to Lake Roosevelt, which has similar problems. All

aspects appear technically sound and do-able. The cost is reasonable for the work to be

accomplished. However, it would have been nice to have seen this approach already

field-tested with a small prototype before plunging in at this scale.

Despite some reservations, the Panel ranked this proposal at 20.

Comments on Proposal Rated “Yes-B” but not in the Top 20

ProjectID: 22008

Evaluate and compare the effects of nutrient supplementation from carcasses and

fertilizer on fish growth and survival and lower trophic levels.

Sponsor: Utah State University, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, Logan, Utah.

Total Request: $377,700

Target Species: chinook, steelhead, bulltrout, and cutthroat

Short Description: Evaluate the relative effectiveness of inroganic fertilizer and carcass

introductions in increasing fish growth and survival (anadromous and resident fish) and

track and understand the relative importance of different pathways of energy transfer.

Rank: Yes - B

Comments:

This is marginally innovative in that it has not been done in the Columbia River Basin.

This proposal intends to analyze carcasses versus inorganic nutrients. Utah’s

contribution to the nutrient addition experiments call includes a comparison of carcass
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

24

and inorganic nutrient additions in a controlled and treated field trial over two years.

However, the comparison may be confounded by the difference in time of placement of

carcasses (fall) and inorganic N and P (spring and summer, assumed). Little evidence of

a nutrient limitation was provided (i.e, evidence that N and/or P was at low or

undetectable ppm). The detailed invertebrate work is probably unnecessary if the target

is smolt yield or resident fish growth and abundance. Recent literature on nutrient

briquettes and British Columbia studies, including work published ten years ago, was not

referenced.

ProjectID: 22014

Improving and Extending the Snake River Germplasm Repository

Sponsor: University of Idaho

Total Request: $378,841

Target Species: chinook salmon; steelhead

Short Description: The fertility of sperm cryopreserved in large (5 ml) straws will be

improved and the female germplasm of shinook salmon will be cryopreserved and stored.

Rank: Yes - B

Comments:

This is a collection of three projects, one of which (fine-tuning sperm cryopreservation

protocols) is not innovative. The others (cryopreservation and transplantation of female

germplasm) are extensions of techniques from other organisms and are innovative in the

context of Pacific salmon. However, the panel was concerned that much of the work on

female germplasm has a fairly small chance of meaningful success at this point in time,

although recognizing that PI Cloud demonstrates preliminary progress in developing the

innovative techniques and is acknowledged as the most competent expert on the

preservation of salmon germ cells both regionally and nationally. The project is not

explicitly tied to Subbasin or Regional Plans, but one can surmise that the techniques

would be valuable for ESU’s in extremis. Whether that potential need warrants the

expenditure is debatable and the reviewers questioned that the need was of highest

priority.

ProjectID: 22015

Develop a Spatially-based Internet Portal that Integrates Distributed Northwest Fish,

Wildlife, and Plant Data for On-line Mapping, Query, & Analysis

Sponsor: Northwest Habitat Institute

Total Request: $389,121

Target Species: This proposal has the potential to address all fish and wildlife species

found within the Columbia River Basin

Short Description: Develop an Internet portal as an information delievery system where

distributed Northwest animal and plant data are seamlessly integrated at one public site

with the well-known spatially based Microsoft's Terra Server in a user oriented fashion.

Rank: Yes - B

Comments:

This proposal may be premature to the regional effort to establish a data management

system. Such a site should provide valuable information sharing to the various parties in

the Columbia River Basin. The method does not necessarily satisfy the criteria for an
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

25

innovative project in that the sponsor would investigate the design of a distributed

database based on Microsoft’s Terra Server. However, it is apparently a new application

of the server to develop an integrated information system for biological data in the Pacific

Northwest. It is not clear that this proposal is what is needed at this time. The ISRP

recommends that the Council consider the issues in data archiving and distribution needs,

and then issue a targeted request for proposals in this area.

Specific Questions and Concerns:

• Who would maintain the site upon completion of the project? Where would it be

housed in the future?

• What would it cost to maintain the site?

• The author implies that there is no limit to the amount of data that the Northwest

Habitat Institute is willing to host. Is this true?

• There is no assurance that agencies will be cooperative in working out data retrieval

standards and query mechanisms to get the various web servers to communicate.

• There is good evidence of cooperation by Microsoft Corporation and the sponsor can

probably do the proposed work. They do have good models to follow based on work

done by the Conservation Management Institute’s Fish and Wildlife Information

Exchange.

• Availability of meta-data will continue to be a problem for many data sources.

ProjectID: 22018

Development of an Automatic System to Prevent Salmonid Diseases

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Total Request: $400,000

Target Species: Hatchery chinook, coho, sockeye and steelhead

Short Description: Develop prototype machine that will automatically vaccinate

juvenile salmon, without human handling or anesthetic

Rank: Yes - B

Comments:

The proposal suggests that this development of an automatic vaccination robot is justified

by the impending availability of BKD vaccine but there are no references to any authority

that such a vaccine is or will be available. There’s no analysis in the proposal of the

extent of BKD and its effects on supplementation and restoration, so the argument that it

is ‘critical’ to develop an automated delivery system is not supported. It is not clear that

the product of the proposed development will be freely or reasonably available; it will

apparently be patented by a private company, NWMT and sold or rented to the public

agencies who need it. This robot may be needed but the proposal does not adequately

convey the need to raise this above other innovative proposals.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

26

ProjectID: 22029

Evaluate the ecological role of marine derived nutrients in areas artificially blocked to

anadromous fish migrations.

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Total Request: $391,212

Target Species: Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) Rainbow trout (O. mykiss)

Short Description: This study proposes to simulate anadromous fish carcasses with

artificial fertilizer and assess the affects to resident/adfluvial salmonids. Results will be

applicable throughout the west in anadromous, non-anadromous, and blocked areas.

Rank: Yes - B

Comments:

This is marginally innovative in that it has not been done in the Columbia and that it

would be applied to a resident/adfluvial population. This would be a useful

implementation in the subbasin, if so identified in subbasin plans. As a test for resident

trout and some kokanee, this is an adequate study. However, detailed study of response

in all of the lower trophic levels is likely unnecessary. Trough experiments are more

appropriate for the latter studies, at a much smaller and less costly scale.

ProjectID: 22030

Delayed mortality: Assess cumulative effects of multiple, sublethal stressors on the

physiological health of downmigrating juvenile salmonids

Sponsor: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Total Request: $342,000

Target Species: Chinook salmon, steelhead/rainbow trout and other migratory salmonids

Short Description: Conduct laboratory experiments to determine cumulative effects of

stressors such as gas supersaturation, physical trauma, and elevated temperatures on the

physiological health and condition of downmigrating juvenile salmonids leading to

delayed mortality

Rank: Yes - B

Comments:

This proposal is an innovative approach to an important problem. The project is fundable

if some salmon can be added to some of the treatment levels to calibrate the study (e.g.,

some salmon might be added to the control and high stress treatments). Presently the

study plan relies on hatchery-reared rainbow trout. The biggest issue is recognized by the

sponsors, namely that trout not salmon would be used as the test units and the study

would not be conducted in the Pacific Northwest. They have an excellent facility for

conduct of the study. The proposal lacks details in the design in that it never comments

on what the physical stressor is and how the recovery environment is managed.

Specific Comments and Questions:

• The proposed study provides a logical laboratory approach to help reduce the nagging

uncertainty of the existence of delayed mortality for emigrating juvenile salmon in the

Columbia River.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

27

• The sponsors should recognize the study as a 2 X 3 cubed factorial experiment: 2

levels for constant and intermittent exposure and 3 levels (control, low and high) for

each of gas, temperature and trauma. This results in 2 x 3 cubed = 54 treatment

combinations, perhaps using blocks of 8 units (tanks) over time.

• The sponsor may be trying to do too much in a pilot “innovative” project. For

example, it may be better to show some effects then study the intermittent exposure

level?

ProjectID: 22034

Influence of marine-derived nutrients on juvenile salmonid production: a comparison of

two nutrient enhancement techniques

Sponsor: U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

Total Request: $236,270

Target Species: Various species of Salmonids, including but not limited to, spring

chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. Also Pacific lamprey.

Short Description: Evaluate the influence and efficacy of marine-derived nutrient influx

via either adult salmonid carcass decomposition or fertilizer media on the productivity of

selected Columbia River basin tributaries and stream-rearing salmonids.

Rank: Yes - B

Comments:

This proposal is adequate, but ranks lower than the other nutrient supplementation

proposals because it is not fully developed to include a complete study design with

selection of study sites. Some aspects of the proposed work repeat efforts of elsewhere

and thus may not be required, or may require less effort. The proposal could be improved

towards development of a useful project that should commence with pilot experiments

and a staircase approach.

ProjectID: 22049

Determine The Feasibility of Combining LIDAR, Computer Modeling, and GIS

Techniques To Develop Effective Habitat Actions at the Watershed Scale

Sponsor: Mobrand Biometrics, Inc.

and the Yakama Indian Nation

Total Request: $388,000

Target Species: All salmonids

Short Description: Investigate the feasibility of combining a remote sensing system

(LIDAR), landscape computer modeling, and GIS techniques to conduct rapid watershed

analysis, and place effective habitat actions on the landscape.

Rank: Yes - B

Comments:

LIDAR data would be collected in the North Fork Teanaway River to identify channel

and streamside vegetation characteristics. This is one of three proposals that would make

use of LIDAR (airborne laser altimetry) data to obtain detailed information (vertical

resolution tens of cm, horizontal resolutions in meters) about streamside vegetation,

channel cross-sections, and channel slopes. This is not the best proposal in the group of

three – it isn’t clear in the proposal how the data would be used, or what the “pilot”

nature of the project would be. Various models (wood delivery potential, landslide
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

28

modeling, stream temperature) would be used, but there would be no attempt to

demonstrate transferability to other sites. The $130k allocated for LIDAR data

acquisition is expensive relative to other proposals. The proposed schedule that includes

five years for modeling could be more consistent with a proof of the principle approach,

which is oriented towards shorter projects.

ProjectID: 22059

Using LIDAR technology for improved riparian vegetation monitoring and stream system

water temperature modeling and TMDL development.

Sponsor: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Total Request: $399,969

Target Species: all salmonids

Short Description: Project is oriented to high quality, geographically extensive, riparian

tree data acquisition allowing efficient water temperature modeling and analysis of

riparian tree height and cover, key fish habitat quality parameters.

Rank: Yes - B

Comments:

This is one of three proposals (22049 and 22050 are the others) that would make use of

LIDAR (airborne laser altimetry) data to obtain detailed information (vertical resolution

tens of cm, horizontal resolutions in meters) about streamside vegetation, channel crosssections, and channel slopes. This is not the best proposal in the group of three. The

proposal is not well written, and in particular lacks a clear plan of work. The proposers

note that LIDAR data are expensive, but they do not suggest how it might be possible to

extend the work beyond a relatively small site without more (expensive) flights. How

important is the high resolution topographic data, as compared with streamside vegetation

characterization? Would they be better off using high-resolution visible-band remote

sensing data? What are the “economically feasible efficient sampling protocols” that are

promised? Finally, the budget is confusing.

ProjectID: 22017

Monitor and Evaluate Nutrient Supplementation as a Tool for Increasing Production and

Survival of Juvenile Chinook Salmon from Infertile Streams

Sponsor: Paulson Environmental Research, Ltd.

Total Request: $208,628

Target Species: Chinook salmon

Short Description: Develop and implement a study to monitor the effects of nutrient

supplementation using statistical methods and adult/parr enumeration and estimates of

survival through tagging and recapture.

Rank: Not a stand-alone project

Comments:

This proposal is innovative in that it would analyze nutrient supplementation on chinook

salmon. This is not a stand-alone project, since it requires another innovative proposal

(we assume 22002) to be funded, and thus raises questions about funding under the

$400K cap. An experimental design is explained well, which can be tested for power

analysis as more information is obtained. The project proponents to which this connects
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

29

would be wise to consider this modeling approach and methods of evaluation with six

treatment and control streams with well conceived plans for conducting the study. To do

this the “parent” project would need to reduce costs and add the PI of this proposal in the

budget. Information on accelerated growth, improved condition factor, parr to smolt

survival, etc. will require a time frame likely beyond an adequate evaluation of feasibility

of this project for the innovative proposals process.

Comments on Proposals Rated “Yes - C”

ProjectID: 22003

Evaluate Reproductive Status of Salmon & Sturgeon Using Noninvasive Techniques

Sponsor: Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University

Total Request: $413,320

Target Species: (Acipenser transmontaus) and (Oncorhynchus sp.)

Short Description: Develop ultra sound & endoscopy techniques to measure

reproductive status in salmon & sturgeon.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

Although ultrasound is currently used in the Columbia basin (e.g., for steelhead smolts by

the Yakama Nation), aspects of the techniques proposed are innovative. However, the

proposal is not convincing that the work will be sufficiently valuable to restoration of

salmon or sturgeon. The proposed budget is excessively devoted to equipment purchases.

The investigators’ roles are not clearly defined and they do not present evidence

(publications) of their qualifying experience.

There are concerns about the proposers' justification for the research. They suggest that

the high proportion of salmon males in hatchery populations is a barrier to restoration,

referring to the danger and burden of ‘extra males’. However, the objective of a

supplementation hatchery is to maintain effective breeding number as high as possible, to

maximise variance/inbreeding effective population size, which means never excluding a

member of the population, male or female, from breeding. Artificial manipulation of sex

ratios might have profound deleterious effects on fitness of wild populations in

communication with hatchery populations. The proposers assume away these issues

without considering them; they cite a paper by Fleming dated 1993, but do not give the

full citation so it’s hard to know what justification they may be guided by. They also

suggest that reducing the number of males in supplemental hatchery releases would

ameliorate density dependent ecological effects on wild salmon. There would be no need

to screen sexes to ameliorate that effect as amelioration can be accomplished simply by

reducing the number of smolts released. Preferring females in smolts at release would

exacerbate one form of density dependent interaction, that of competition in space and

time among females for redd sites—the most well known form of density dependent

interactions in Pacific salmon.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

30

There are also concerns about the likely success of the proposed technique. The

proposers' suggestion that ultrasound imaging could distinguish testes from ovaries in

immature smolts is not convincingly argued. Perhaps the maturing testes of jacks of some

species would be distinguishable. The proposers do not describe their own dissections of

smolts and do not give us a basis for comparison of sizes of testes and ovaries for judging

their proposal that ultrasound techniques would be able to distinguish the two structures.

They suggest that the technique can ‘image’ the heart valve of a mouse but don’t tell us

whether that valve is smaller than the diameter of a smolt’s gonad.

ProjectID: 22004

Impact of wastewater effluent on Chinook salmon reproduction

Sponsor: Komex-H2O Science, INC.

Total Request: $392,527

Target Species: Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Short Description: The project objective is to discover the types and concentration of

pollutants in wastewater discharged in the Lower Columbia River Basin and Columbia

Gorge and the toxicity of selected groups of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals on Chinook

salmon.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

A proposal to study endocrine disrupters in the basin as a potential cause of salmon

population disruptions is timely. The panel noted that Nagler, (University of Idaho and

colleagues, in press) has demonstrated a high proportion of phenotypic females among

genotypic males in Columbia River chinook salmon. It seems there is unnatural sex

reversal occurring; and the culprit may well be EDC’s in wastewater, the subject of this

proposal.

However, this proposal lacks many features that would make it high priority for funding.

It is a very large project without preliminary work, and without demonstrated preliminary

knowledge from published databases about the likely amount of contamination in the

River. The proposed methods will not address the objective indicated in the title, i.e.

whether or not contaminants are affecting reproduction of salmon; in fact the methods

only intend to measure contaminants in blood sera of mature salmon. No research on sex

reversal (the pertinent problem) is planned. There is an indication of pertinence of this

research to other Fish and Wildlife Program projects but it is a mere listing of titles, not

an indication of understanding of the projects or of communication with their staffs. The

objectives are not given in the context of a larger goal or vision. The proposers are

apparently not aware of research in the Basin on reproduction of salmon, or even aware

of the biological effects of EDC’s on salmon.). The first objective amounts to a literature

search; it should already have been done, at least in an exploratory way.

The methods are either poorly described or misguided. For instance the water sampling

protocol indicates that samples would be taken below the Gorge, but the important,

vulnerable, at-risk populations of salmon spawn upstream of the Gorge and their embryos

are vulnerable upstream of the Gorge.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

31

The proposers have apparently not communicated with the responsible agencies about

their ability to collect fish samples, indicating that they assume they would be able to

collect animals. This is not necessarily the case. There is no real indication of laboratory

methods, of quality control methods, etc. There is no real justification given for not

analyzing samples within the region, merely a statement that labs in Europe are more

experienced. This may be so, but it was not persuasively demonstrated.

The panel was concerned that the proposers do not plan to openly share their results,

which is contrary to the use of public funds. The Panel does not believe this proposal

should be funded in its present form.

ProjectID: 22009

Ultrasonic Induced Sonochemical Destruction of Pathogens, Viruses, Nitrates and Other

Nutrients and Contaminants From Waste Discharge Streams

Sponsor: Water Services, L.L.C.

Total Request: $775,000

Target Species: Juvenile and Adult Salmonids

Short Description: Develop process for the economical and efficient removal of organic

and chemical contaminants from wastewater streams, thereby improving water quality.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

The proposal is not strongly presented in several aspects. The first objective of this

proposed project is to prepare background materials that would appropriately be part of

the proposal itself. Devotion in the project of five people full time for a year seems

unwarranted for a machine that is already developed. The proposal refers to the NMFS

BIOP which explicitly concerns the detrimental effect of poor-condition hatchery salmon

on wild-spawning salmon, with the idea being that treatment of afferent and efferent

water from hatcheries would reduce incidence of disease, but there is no quantification of

the problem and no suggestion of the value of this technology. The proposal is vague

about experimental design, even about the chemical contaminants that would be tested in

the machine.

ProjectID: 22011

Demonstrate Proprietary Husbandry System for Musca domestica as Reliable

Aquaculture Insect Nutrient Resource

Sponsor: Oregon Feeder Insects Corporation

Total Request: $400,000

Target Species: All salmon, steelhead and trout

Short Description: Demonstrate the scalability of our proprietary system for Musca

domestica production, previously used in pet food industry applications, to provided

insect material in sufficient quantity and at a reasonable cost as ingredient in juvenile fish

diets.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

This marginally innovative (but intriguing) proposal would demonstrate the ability to

grow huge amounts of housefly larvae on a commercial scale. The larvae would be used
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

32

as a salmonid hatchery diet component. This is not a critical problem facing resources in

the basin and the proposal does not demonstrate a need in the Fish and Wildlife Program.

The information to be gained is proprietary, and thus may not be useful publicly. This is

one of several proposals that identify diet deficiency as etiology/precondition for fin

erosion, but provide no experimental design for assessing how the insect product could be

used to ameliorate the problem.

ProjectID: 22021

Develop Innovative Approaches for Monitoring Bats in the Clearwater Region of Idaho

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Total Request: $140,430

Target Species: Little brown bat, Yuma myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed myotis, longlegged myotis, California myotis, western small-footed myotis, silver-haired bat, western

pipistrelle, big brown bat, hoary bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, and pallid bat.

Short Description: The intent of this project is to develop innovative approaches and

techniques for monitoring bats in the Clearwater Region of Idaho as well as to obtain the

requisite life history information necessary for constructing predictive models.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

The PIT tag portion of this proposal, representing 1/6 of its budget, was innovative in that

the writers propose the use of an existing technology in what seems to be a new

application to the region on bats. There was no apparent mention of how a similar

portion of the budget might indeed be used for "infrared or other new technology". The

proposal did not convince reviewers of its potential benefit to wildlife relative to

perceived needs.

ProjectID: 22023

Socioeconomic Analysis Tool for Sub-Basin Planning

Sponsor: CH2M HILL

Total Request: $400,000

Target Species: The Council can use the model generated by this project to analyze

human effects of strategies directed at any one or all species of concern.

Short Description: The proposed project will develop the Human Effects Sub-Basin

Analysis Model (HESAM), a socioeconomic analysis tool that planners can use to help

evaluate economic and other human effects when considering fish and wildlife projects in

the Pacific Northwest.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

This proposal describes an extension of modeling work already done by CH2M HILL

under contract to the Council’s Human Effects Working Group under the Council’s

framework process. It was viewed as only marginally innovative, proposing to extend the

human effects model to the subbasin level so that it can be used as a decision tool. The

modeling approach will draw heavily on techniques used by the U.S. Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management to develop the Fire Effects Tradeoff Model (FETM). The

sponsors are currently involved in development for the FETM and state that it is very

similar in concept to the HESAM model proposed for this project.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

33

A model analyzing costs associated with various subbasin restoration strategies would be

a useful planning tool for assessing alternative approaches on the basis of costeffectiveness. The scope of the project is large and includes good evaluative review and

feedback during model development. A major question concerns the availability of cost

data at the subbasin level and the usefulness of the model under various missing data

scenarios. The proposal does not describe what work would have to be done - upon

completion of the first modeling stage - to develop subbasin models that could be used by

FWP decision-makers.

ProjectID: 22024

Alternative Futures and Salmonids in the Lower Columbia River

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Total Request: $200,000

Target Species: Project will focus on overall aquatic habitat conditions, with a focus on

chinook, steelhead, coho, and chum.

Short Description: Characterize human build-out scenarios and commensurate impacts

on land use/aquatic systems with a focus on examining impacts to salmonids, nutrients,

and the "4-Hs" in the lower Columbia River region of WA over the timeframe of 2000-

2050, inclusive.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

The EDT model constitutes the marginally innovative portion of this proposal. This

project would be the model’s first application to aquatic systems. The model would

project types of human population growth and their impacts on land use and aquatic

systems in the lower Columbia River. The proposal presents an interesting idea but fails

to present detail on methods, the application of results, and information transfer. Given

the type of information that the project is intended to produce there should be much more

emphasis placed on the use to which the information will be put, the means by which it

will be provided to those who will make planning decisions, and how the data would be

made available and preserved. The project is not new to the Columbia Basin. In the

sponsor’s words “A robust alternative futures project is currently underway in the

Willamette Valley of Oregon....”

ProjectID: 22027

Real Time Data Loggers for Monitoring Climate Conditions within a Riparian System

Sponsor: EcoTec

Total Request: $261,220

Target Species: Anadromous and resident fish

Short Description: Stream temperature, air temperature and light sensoring ability

within one rugged yet disposable data logger will allow for riparian habitats to be

monitored in real time

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

This is marginally innovative. The proposal would develop a multi-channel data logger

including capability for light measurements of riparian cover. In fact much of the project
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

34

would be to develop remote measurement for light penetration of riparian vegetation.

While such data might be of some use in a few situations, and their real-time aspect

would be valuable, they represent a single site. The panel felt streamside surveys or

remote imagery would allow better spatial information and therefore be of greater utility

to fish and wildlife researchers and managers. Further, no evidence was provided that the

product could only be developed if the proposal were funded.

ProjectID: 22036

The Application of Geophysics to Better Define Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat

Use in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River.

Sponsor: Golder Associates Incorporated, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Total Request: $240,572

Target Species: Fall Chinook

Short Description: Assess the use of efficient state of the art geophysical technology to

better define fall chinook spawning habitat use based upon geomorphological and

hyporehic factors.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

The proposal would use geophysical techniques (side scan sonar, ground penetrating

radar) to determine stratigraphy and lithography of the Hanford Reach. Although the

proposed methods are innovative to the extent that they haven’t been used elsewhere in

the Columbia River basin, some of the work has already been funded by FWP (for

several years). For this reason, the project does not appear to fit the requirements of this

RFP. The specialized geophysical equipment is already on hand, further arguing against

its innovativeness. The panel might have been more favorable if an element of the

proposal had sought to transfer what’s been learned in the Hanford Reach to other

locations, but as it is, no argument is made for broader significance to FWP of the work.

Furthermore, the proposal says little about how the results would be used, or what the

benefits to FWP would be.

ProjectID: 22040

Ecosystem effects of anadromous salmon

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Total Request: $396,500

Target Species: salmon, steelhead, bull trout, elk, conifers

Short Description: Compare historic and baseline levels of marine nutrients through

analysis of vegetation and deer and elk antlers.

By experimental application of anadromous fish carcasses, describe nutrient transfer

vectors in the aquatic and terrestrial food web.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

This is interesting as an academic study, but the proposed model is of questionable

benefit in rebuilding salmon and steelhead, other than an improved understanding of

ecosystem changes, and is really just improving the documentation of the decline. Two

hundred carcasses may not provide the results expected (i.e., perhaps not a measurable
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

35

response as N and P). Perhaps there are opportunities to link to other carcass or nutrient

supplementation projects where several tons are currently placed (e.g., Naches River).

ProjectID: 22041

Using Microbial Fingerprinting to Rapidly Assess Ecosystem Responses to Watershed

Restoration Efforts and Assist in Prioritizing Future Activities

Sponsor: Washington State University

Total Request: $403,150

Target Species: Aquatic Ecosystem

Short Description: This project will use microbial fingerprinting to develop a

scientifically defensible classification scheme to indicate the biological integrity of

potential salmonid habitat throughout the Columbia River Basin.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

This proposal is innovative because it proposes to develop a new procedure, microbial

fingerprinting, as an indicator of biological integrity of streams. If fully developed the

procedure might be a viable competitor to the use of invertebrates or amphibians as

indicators of biological integrity and a potential cost-effective means of classifying

ecosystem type, health and response to restoration activities. However, the link to the

Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program is not clearly argued. A microbial index to

biological integrity does not seem particularly high priority when viewed against the

needs of the Columbia system.

ProjectID: 22044

Develop commercial selective live release fisheries for spring chinook on the Columbia

River

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife

Total Request: $356,794

Target Species: Spring Chinook

Short Description: Develop and evaluate commercial selective live capture fisheries on

the Columbia River to provide a fishery where tooth nets are used to catch marked

hatchery chinook and unmarked fish are released.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

Although marginally meeting the innovative criteria in that the approach has not been

implemented in the Columbia Basin, this proposal offers little potential benefit over what

is already known. While there is a need for more selective fishing gear to enable the

harvest of hatchery stocks while protecting wild stocks, this proposal is innovative only

in that it will extend testing of tooth net gear to a context in which it hasn’t been tested. It

wasn’t clear from the proposal why the results of tests elsewhere are not applicable

without further testing. Other questions from the panel included why not use live tanks

for tagging and release, and why not use a large box trap in the estuary.

The proposal states that there is a particular need to test delayed mortality (and we agree),

but the approach described to assess long-term survival only tracks fish between
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

36

Bonneville and The Dalles dams with the assumption that survival over this time span

represents long-term survival. The proposed work would experiment with 3 different

soak times, 2 tooth net mesh sizes, and 1 gill net mesh size. There needs to be better

description of the sampling procedure and statistical analysis that would accommodate

these various experiments and be able to detect statistically significant differences in

treatment effects.

ProjectID: 22048

Integrate Physical and Biological Assessment Models

Sponsor: Mobrand Biometrics, Inc.

Total Request: $96,900

Target Species: Steelhead and chinook

Short Description: Develop and demonstrate the feasibility of one or more advanced

tools for bridging physical and biological models that incorporate revolutionary

computing approaches, including fuzzy logic, neural networks, and genetic algorithms.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

This procedure meets the criteria for innovative research, because the mathematical

procedures have not been used for modeling interrelationships of physical and biological

parameters in the Columbia Basin. However, the proposal is not particularly well

written, relying heavily on jargon without contextual explanation, and being short on

methodological detail. The application to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program is not

adequately explained. The methodology is not new and has been under development for

over 20 years in the mathematical journals.

Questions and concerns:

• Should this project be funded through the Framework process? It is essentially an

enhancement to the EDT method.

• How would the effectiveness of this project be monitored and evaluated?

• A clear description in simple English is needed of how the model will be tested to see

whether it matches reality.

• The research team seems rather short on demonstrated research achievements through

published research in established peer reviewed journals.

ProjectID: 22051

Characterize Genetic Differences and Distribution of Freshwater Mussels

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Total Request: $203,386

Target Species: Freshwater mussels

Short Description: Conduct freshwater mussel surveys to assess their status and test for

geographical genetic differences among the western pearlshell mussel, Margaritifera

falcata.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

The proposal is marginally innovative because microsatellite DNA analysis would be

used, and it would be the first systematic survey of freshwater mussels at the subbasin
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

37

level. Conducting the distribution survey is especially important, when it is believed that

mussels may no longer be present. The survey for distribution and abundance portion of

the proposal is not innovative and could be done for significantly less money than that

requested by the proposal. Genetic analysis is not warranted at this time, but tissues

should be collected and archived in the National Biological Service Tissue Repository.

Genetic analysis could be done later, if warranted. Why not propose genetic analyses

after surveys and sample collections have been accomplished, when some idea of

geographic distribution is in hand? The genetic research collaborators/subcontractors

were viewed as very competent.

ProjectID: 22052

Sources, Fate and Biological Impacts of Sediments as Part of a Comprehensive Sediment

Management Plan

Sponsor: Washington State University, Washington Water Research Center

Total Request: $398,674

Target Species: Steelhead trout, resident rainbow trout

Short Description: Development of an innovative Source Fate Impact Methodology for

rapidly identifying sources of sediments, quantifying sediment fate, and statistically

analyzing impacts on fish habitat and aquatic biota.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

This proposal would use isotope “fingerprinting” methods to identify the source of

sediment in Cottonwood Creek, a tributary of the Clearwater. Although the method

could potentially be useful in helping to direct sediment control measures, it appears to

have shortcomings. First, the proposed study catchment is low elevation, and the source

of sediment might logically be readily identifiable as being of agricultural origin.

Therefore, the use of such a sophisticated method in this case appears to be overkill – a

better study site might be one within which the source of sediment is less apparent.

Second, there is no indication in the proposal of how the information generated would be

used to help in the design or assessment of ongoing habitat restoration efforts – this is

critical, as it is the potential pathway that could benefit FWP should the method prove

useful. Finally, the proposal appears to have been hastily prepared, or the authors are not

familiar with the study site. There are several Cottonwood Creeks in northern Idaho --

Figure 1 shows the Cottonwood Creek that the text seems to suggest would be studied,

but Figure 5 another Cottonwood Creek! Which one is the proposed study site?
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

38

ProjectID: 22053

Analyze the historic productivity of Wallowa Lake and its implications for sockeye

reintroduction and water quality management

Sponsor: Oregon State University

Total Request: $185,514

Target Species: Sockeye salmon

Short Description: Analyze the recent (100 year) history of primary productivity at

Wallowa Lake to inform potential sockeye restoration and kokanee management

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

This marginally innovative proposal is not likely to be of significant value for sockeye

management in the basin. The proposal does not make a convincing case for the concept

that ancient historical information on lake productivity, or lack thereof, can be useful in

future management of sockeye salmon in the basin. The proposal is extremely sitespecific. That lake stratigraphic analysis has not yet been used in the BPA system seems

a weak claim for innovation.

Questions and comments on the proposal: Is the introduction of mysid shrimp into the

test lake, Wallowa Lake, a major problem in evaluating primary productivity or potential

for recovery of sockeye salmon? Could a different lake, say Redfish Lake, be selected?

Are two core samples sufficient to establish the spatial variation in the data? Are the

results directly applicable to other lakes? If not, what would be required to evaluate

carrying capacity, need for fertilization, etc. in another lake?

ProjectID: 22061

Fluid Dynamics and Mechanics of In-Stream Wood Debris

Sponsor: Philip Williams and Associate, Ltd.

Total Request: $221,400

Target Species: All Fish

Short Description: 1:1 scale experimental placement if a large tree into the Henry's Fork

of the Snake River. Monitoring and documenting changes in bed formation and flow

characteristics. the geomorphic chages will be be used to calibrate 2-D and 3-D models

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

This is a marginally innovative proposal that would investigate hydraulic characteristics

of wood debris in channels to determine longevity, and help in future design of habitat

reconstruction efforts. Controlled experiments in Henry’s Fork of the Snake River would

endeavor to assess viability of alternative strategies. There is an abundance of

information on this subject. No critical purpose would be served by inspecting the details

of one structure as proposed here.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

39

ProjectID: 22065

Design & Implement a System-wide Fish, Wildlife & Habitat Conservation Enforcement

Web-Based Data Center

Sponsor: Steven Vigg & Company

Total Request: $41,112

Target Species: anadromous salmonids, sturgeon, resident fish, wildlife -- and their

essential habitats in the Columbia Basin

Short Description: Develop a Columbia Basin web-based data center to facilitate

conservation law enforcement data compilation & analysis and information sharing for

enforcement programs, resource managers, and public information & education.

Rank: Yes - C

Comments:

Although a database for law enforcement information is perhaps useful, it is not

particularly innovative. The need for such a database is a policy question, rather than a

technical one.

Comments on Proposals Rated “Not Innovative”

ProjectID: 22006

Evaluate Use of Small (Nano) Radio Tags to Determine Subadult Bull Trout Population

Status In Dworshak Reservoir, N.F. Clearwater River Drainage, ID

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Total Request: $121,102

Target Species: Bull Trout

Short Description: Evaluate distribution, habitat use, and movement patterns of bull

trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Dworshak Reservoir.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This proposal does not meet the basic innovation criteria because these nano tags have

been used in the basin and their use has become standard practice. There is no clear

rationale for the work to benefit fish and wildlife and the study design is inadequate.

Methods and procedures to accomplish Objectives 1 and 2 do not appear to be new for

the study of bull trout in reservoirs. Also, based on the author’s abstract, use of nano

radio tags on bull trout in reservoirs would apparently not be unique to this project.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

40

ProjectID: 22007

Develop Population Dynamic Model for White Sturgeon

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Total Request: $98,761

Target Species: White Sturgeon

Short Description: This project will develop a population simulation model that can be

utilized by manager to determine white sturgeon population status for planning purposes

that could include responses to varying management alternations.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This proposal is not innovative. The project apparently builds on existing methodology to

modify the inland fishery simulation model to accommodate white sturgeon life history.

This proposal is to modify a population simulation model previously developed by the

sponsor. It would employ data collected by Idaho Power Company biologists. The

proposal does not meet the intent of the council’s solicitation for innovative proposals.

While the project itself has not been undertaken, similar efforts have been made and these

are cited in the proposal. Therefore, while the proposal is for “new” work, it is not

innovative because no new concepts or methods are proposed.

ProjectID: 22012

Restoration Of Riparian Zones With Enabling Technology and Grazing Practice

Enhancement

Sponsor: Clouston Energy Research

Total Request: $234,000

Target Species: Anadromous

Short Description: Moving solar powered water pumps permits the reduction of riparian

impacts by the delivery of water for grazing away from the stream. Benefits to spawning

habitat to be proven with innovative remote monitoring.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

It is difficult to determine what is proposed and how it will be evaluated, but it appears to

focus on the use of portable solar-powered pumps to provide off-channel water for

livestock. This is not innovative. Solar pumps, coupled with fencing, have been in use

for a decade and are commonplace in the Columbia Basin. The only hint of innovation

might be that the pumps would be portable.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

41

ProjectID: 22016

Anadromous Salmonid Engineered Habitat For Production and Transit

Sponsor: Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID

Total Request: $396,740

Target Species: chinook and steelhead

Short Description: Develop (1) prototype engineered rearing habitat for application in

areas where habitat has been lost or reduced from river development, (2) test prototype

engineered fish passage channel/conduit system for downstream migrant transit around

dams.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This project is actually two proposals that are linked by an unfocused background

statement. The proposed engineered rearing habitat is not innovative. It is a slightly

modified version of spawning and rearing channels that have been used in the basin for

many years, sometimes successfully, and sometimes not, depending on the location,

design and operation. For instance, an effective spawning channel is currently used for

chum salmon below Bonneville Dam.

The proposed passage channel/conduit for downstream migration around dams is not an

innovative idea, although it has not been tested. It has been proposed in different forms

for many years but uniformly rejected as not feasible for the uses proposed. A more

modest and focused proposal for a test of the passage channel might be appropriate if a

suitable site were selected. The present proposal is not fundable.

ProjectID: 22020

Assess Washougal River and its tributaries

Sponsor: Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board

Total Request: $70,250

Target Species: Chinook, chum, steelhead, sea run cutthroat, and coho

Short Description: Complete Phases 2 and 3 assessment to identify, inventory and map

both existing high quality habitat and those at-risk from urbanization in order to develop

a list of priority restoration projects.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

We particularly recognize the multi-agency participation in development of this project to

be one of its positive elements. While it offers to develop new information for the

Washougal River, we feel that it does not meet the council’s standard for innovative

proposals. The methods and tasks that are described have been employed elsewhere in the

basin. It is part of an ongoing project, focuses on augmenting existing data, and does not

propose to use innovative techniques.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

42

ProjectID: 22025

Identification and assessment of technologies and methods to census spawning adult

population size of spring and summer chinook salmon

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Total Request: $396,000

Target Species: Chinook Salmon

Short Description: Identification of new and innovative methods to accurately and

precisely enumerate chinook salmon spawner abundance.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

The proposal does not meet the requirements of an innovative proposal. It does not

propose to develop new procedures and methods for estimation of spawner abundance

with a design for monitoring and evaluation of results. The sponsors ask for funds to

“Identify all available methods and technologies that would allow for accurate total

abundance of spring and summer chinook salmon during the entire run.” To be funded,

this proposal should identify, discuss, and propose to evaluate an innovative procedure

(or procedures) to accurately estimate total abundance of spawners.

The proposal addresses a problem of critical importance in the basin, i.e. enumeration of

spawning populations of salmon and steelhead. Innovative approaches are needed to

address the problem. While the idea is commendable and ought to be pursued, it does not

meet the Council’s standards for innovative projects.

ProjectID: 22026

Columbia Basin Interactive Watershed Atlas

Sponsor: Smart Map Imaging

Total Request: $390,425

Target Species: All Fish & Wildlife

Short Description: An Interactive Atlas of the Columbia Basin Watershed System on

DVD that incorporates 1-Meter Color Imagery, subbasin data, activities to stimulate

local preservation/enhancement projects, and public GIS data. 250 teachers in region

would Beta test.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

The panel felt that this proposal, which would provide educators and other public with an

electronic atlas of the Columbia Basin watershed system, is not innovative in the sense

required by the RFP. Although the proposal outlines a plan, via a series of workshops, to

define a product, and subsequently to test it in classrooms, it does not indicate how the

final product would be distributed. More importantly, it simply isn’t clear that the project

would have enough benefits to FWP to justify funding. Furthermore, there are some

technical questions as to the source of the data (why is 1 m resolution satellite data

necessary, and what would the source be?? – the only imagery of which the panel is

aware at this resolution comes from classified sources. Perhaps the proposer means 1

km, at which resolution many land cover products are available?). Finally, the duration

of the project isn’t specified, nor is the source of funding that would be needed to
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

43

maintain the product beyond the project period. The panel noted double counting in the

cost-share calculation where a value is placed on the use of the final product in

classrooms.

ProjectID: 22028

Design and Coordinate Nutrient Supplementation Evaluations in the Salmon and

Clearwater Subbasins, Idaho

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Total Request: $77,582

Target Species: chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, cutthroat trout, resident

rainbow/steelhead trout

Short Description: Produce an experimental design for nutrient supplementation

investigations that coordinates projects over a number of project sponsors and broad

geographic area, and identifies specific information needs so multiple projects are

complementary.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This is not innovative research and is weaker than the other fertilization proposals. It

does offer a good suggestion towards development of an experimental design. The adhoc committee might be better served by considering a workshop approach (see general

comments in the proposal review process) where the question is clearly defined (e.g.

inorganic nutrients increase smolt yield), response variables are chosen (e.g., smolt

yield), and a method of addressing the question is developed, based on the best available

evidence (much of the pertinent literature was missed in this proposal, e.g., Johnston et al

1990) and model approaches to identify key uncertainties

ProjectID: 22031

Evaluation of Two Captive Rearing Methods for Assisting with Recovery of Naturally

Spawning Populations of Steelhead and Coho Salmon.

Sponsor: U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

Total Request: $264,064

Target Species: Steelhead and coho salmon

Short Description: (1) Develop a native broodstock of steelhead via captive rearing to

sexual maturity of natural-origin, age 0+ juveniles and (2) short-term rearing of presmolt, natural-origin coho salmon to increase survival and provide fish for reintroduction

programs.

Rank: Not innovative, but a good proposal.

Comments:

This proposal is not recommended for support through the innovative review process

because it does not meet the innovative criteria. It relies on standard practices even

though it addresses a long-standing critical uncertainty. It is a well written and well

designed proposal that would be of value to the region. Consequently, the project

deserves "high priority" support through other venues, particularly for its application to

upriver (ID) listed steelhead stocks. The proposal is technically sound, and the PI

competent and meticulous. The proposal is particularly attractive because it proposes to
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

44

rigorously examine the effects of hatchery rearing on fitness - a continuing, plaguing

uncertainty in the basin’s artificial production programs.

ProjectID: 22032

Develop a practical method through diet modification to improve quality of hatchery

reared steelhead trout and coho salmon.

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho State University

Total Request: $241,000

Target Species: steelhead trout and coho salmon

Short Description: Prevent fin erosion in steelhead and sunburn (steatitis) in coho

salmon by providing cost-effective, nutritionally complete, feeds. Current feeds are

deficient in essential trace elements.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

While the panel recognizes that fin erosion and sunburn are fish production problems,

this proposal was not viewed as being sufficiently innovative because diet modification is

standard hatchery practice. The Panel would have been more supportive if the proposal

had established priority need for the work relative to Fish and Wildlife Program

priorities. Idaho State University was incorrectly identified as a project co-sponsor.

ProjectID: 22035

Renaturalize Functional Floodplain Habitat within the Portland Reach of the Lower

Willamette River

Sponsor: ZRZ Realty Company (a Zidell Company)

Total Request: $1,420,500

Target Species: salmonid juveniles, riparian wildlife, aquatic invertebrates

Short Description: Restore river/floodplain habitat diversity in an urbanized,

channelized reach of the Willamette R. by adding river alluvium, plant materials and

large wood in an existing shallow depositional area. This is one component of a larger

project.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

Although the proposal may be worthwhile, the panel was not convinced that

implementing urban habitat restoration on a large scale fits the innovative criteria. The

habitat restoration technique is not particularly innovative (other than in its magnitude).

Even if cost sharing is subtracted from the project it apparently exceeds the funding limit

specified in the solicitation package. It may be more appropriate to submit this with the

subbasin proposals for this Province.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

45

ProjectID: 22039

Assess the Feasibility of Mainstem Habitat Improvements to Enhance survival of ESA

Listed Species

Sponsor: Department of Fish & Wildlife

University of Idaho

Total Request: $216,511

Target Species: steelhead, chinook salmon, sockeye salmon

Short Description: Develop recommendations from mainstem authorities (Universities,

Federal and State agencies and tribal) to identify the practicality of making potential

habitat improvements to enhance survival of short-term rearing and migrating salmonids.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This proposal is not innovative. A facilitated workshop to provide recommendations for

mainstem habitat work may be a worthy task, but may also be possible through sessions

at professional meetings, at least in the developmental stage, which a small task group

could then utilize as a basis for more formal proposal development. The proposal

presents a good concept, with innovative thought, but remarkably high cost. This

proposal does not fit well into the evaluation criteria or process, i.e., it is not an

innovative experiment. Nevertheless, an avenue for support for workshops of this type is

required (as noted in the Columbia Gorge project review process).

ProjectID: 22045

Habitat/Subbasin Planning Electronic Newsletter

Copyright October 30, 2000, Bill Crampton, 60968 Onyx Street, Bend, OR 97702

Sponsor: Intermountain Communications

Total Request: $119,280

Target Species: Columbia Basin fish and wildlife

Short Description: Deliver by e-mail to policymakers, planners, watershed councils,

researchers, stakeholders, and public a twice-monthly electronic newsletter offering

information related to regional habitat restoration and subbasin planning coordination

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This proposal to extend the approach used in the well-respected Columbia Basin Bulletin

to subbasin watershed planning. While it describes a useful coordination approach, and

would probably be of high quality, it is not innovative. It probably should be submitted

for regular Fish and Wildlife Program funding.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

46

ProjectID: 22046

Deschutes Subbasin Stakeholder Facilitation - A Pilot Project

Copyright October 30, 2000. TIGERS Success Series, PO Box 267, Bend, OR 97709.

Sponsor: TIGERS Success Series

Total Request: $69,000

Target Species: Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Locally-driven facilitation of Deschutes Subbasin stakeholders that

will create a process and template for local participation in the NWPPC's and Federal

Agencies' Subbasin planning and habitat restoration efforts.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This proposal to apply facilitation to stakeholder processes is not innovative. The project

would develop a template for using stakeholder input in subbasin planning based on this

pilot effort. This type of proposal probably should be submitted for general funding under

the Fish and Wildlife Program.

ProjectID: 22054

Effects of Chronic Disease on Delayed Mortality of Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout

in the Columbia River Estuary

Sponsor: Oregon State University

Total Request: $393,731

Target Species: chinook salmon, steelhead trout

Short Description: Evaluate the outcome of chronic infections in salmon as they enter

sea water and develop methods for predicting pathogen-related delayed mortality in the

ocean.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

A well-prepared proposal with a high probability of contributing to recovery, however

this proposal is not particularly innovative. The study is relevant to concerns about

estuary transition and delayed mortality and consequently funding might be pursued

through avenues other than the innovative solicitation process. The personnel are

qualified.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

47

ProjectID: 22058

Experimental Selective Fishery Techniques Development, Evaluation, and Coordination

Sponsor: National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, Sustainable

Fisheries Division

Total Request: $400,000

Target Species: Salmon and steelhead species, primarily chinook (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha), steelhead (O. mykiss), and coho (O. kisutch)

Short Description: Design and/or solicit proposals, and coordinate development and

testing of selective fishery techniques in the Columbia River Basin, evaluating short- and

long- term mortalities of non-target fish encountered during effort directed at harvestable

species.

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This proposal focuses on the solicitation and coordination of projects evaluating selective

fishing techniques. It describes a useful coordination function, but does not meet the

innovative criteria. Coordination per se is not innovative. A single budget figure is

provided without any justification for its derivation.

ProjectID: 22062

Evaluate the use of anaerobic digestion to produce nutrient supplements for trout and

salmon

Sponsor: Duke Engineering and Services

Total Request: $134,800

Target Species: Salmon and trout

Short Description: Develop environmentally beneficial uses and model for dairy farm

manure including salmon and trout nutrient supplement, organic fertilizer, and renewable

energy

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This proposal boils down to manufacturing anaerobic composting units using livestock

manure, and then "demonstrating the use" of those nutrients produced for at least one fish

species. The proposal does not communicate how composting manure would produce

nutrient supplements. Reviewers were unconvinced of the feasibility and priority of this

effort.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

48

ProjectID: 22066

Live Capture Harvest

Sponsor: Steven Vigg & Company

Total Request: $32,542

Target Species: anadromous salmonids

Short Description: Test feasibility of live capture harvest techniques for anadromous

salmonids in the Columbia Basin

Rank: Not Innovative

Comments:

This is not innovative, but is potentially useful in the Columbia River. A decision to

implement live capture harvest is a policy decision. The absence of live capture harvest in

the Columbia Basin is a socio-political issue, since the gear is prohibited by state law,

and, as far as we know, is not permitted by the treaty tribes. Clearly, live capture harvest

offers the opportunity to continue to fish in areas with mixed stocks of fish, where the

target stock is abundant, but endangered or threatened stocks are taken as incidental

catch. As for the technical issue, much information is available on live capture

technology, and the subsequent survival of released fish. A summary of such information

might be useful in addressing the policy issue.
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

49

Attachment 1. ISRP Review Criteria

PART I: Innovative Criteria Screen

Is the proposed project innovative?

Does the proposed project offer a method or technology designed to directly benefit fish and wildlife, that

(1) has not previously been used in a fish or wildlife project in the Pacific Northwest, or (2) although used

in other projects, has not previously been used in an application of this kind. (YES/NO) ______

If yes, provide scores on Part II below

PART II: Ranking Criteria

1. Technical and Scientific Background

Is there an identified problem related to fish and wildlife in the Basin? Does the proposal adequately

explain (with references) the technical background and logical need to address the problem to benefit fish

or wildlife? (0=no explanation; 1=poorly defined problem; 5= adequately defined problem; 10=highly

persuasive, clearly defined problem) SCORE (0-10) 

2. Rationale and Significance to Regional Programs

Does the proposal demonstrate a clear relationship to specific objectives of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife

Program, NMFS Biological Opinions or other plans? (0=no explanation; 1=poorly defined problem, not

associated with Programs, 5= significance to subbasin summary and regional plan; 10=well associated with

a high priority in a subbasin summary and regional plan.) SCORE (0-10) 

3. Relationships to Other Projects

Does the proposal put the work into the context of other work funded in the wish and wildlife program?

Do the innovative techniques and methods offered by this proposal have application to other Fish and

Wildlife Program projects? Does this proposal include collaborative efforts with similar projects, even if

not part of an overall joint plan? (0=no effort to document or collaborate, 3=minimal linkage or rationale,

5=clear application of innovative technique to ongoing efforts and projects, strong collaborative effort with

logical allocation of effort and linkages described, or full rationale why linkages are not appropriate).

SCORE (0-5) 

4. Proposal Objectives, Tasks, and Methods

A. Objectives

Does the proposal have clearly defined and measurable objectives (whenever possible in terms of

measurable benefits to fish and wildlife) with specific timelines? Are the objectives tied to those in the fish

and wildlife program? Do the objectives and associated timelines and budgets ensure that the proposed

innovation will be sufficiently tested to determine its potential benefit to fish and wildlife without further

funding? (0=no explanation; 1=poorly explained with poor match to subbasin objectives, explained as tasks

where could be in biologically measurable terms; 5=adequately explained in terms of measurable benefits

to fish and wildlife management, with timelines, and assurances that the innovation will be adequately

tested with proposed budget; 10=clearly explained with close match to management objectives and when

possible stated in biologically measurable terms with specific timelines, with adequate testing with

proposed budget.) SCORE (0-10) 
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

50

B. Methods

Are the methods adequately described, innovative and appropriate? Are they based on sound scientific

principles? Does the project offer innovative techniques and methods that will further the understanding of

fish and wildlife ecology, correct a specific problem in the basin, or broaden and better define the spectrum

of management options? Is the project or experimental design reasonable and defensible in techniques and

resources? (0=no Is the project or experimental design reasonable and defensible in techniques and

resources? (0=no explanation or scientifically unsound; 1=poorly explained or poor techniques;

10=adequately explained, sound and innovative techniques; 15=clearly explained with promising

innovative techniques and the best available scientific information)

SCORE (0-15) 

C. Monitoring and Evaluation

Does the proposal include provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results (in the context of the

objectives) that apply at the project level? (0=no explanation; 1=poorly explained, will not allow for

determination if the project met its objectives; 5=adequately explained and will allow for determination if

project met its objectives; 10=clearly explained, will allow for determination of success or failure of the

project, inform adaptive management decisions, and be applicable to other efforts)

SCORE (0-10) 

5. Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel

Are the facilities and personnel appropriate to achieve the objectives and timeframe milestones? (0=no

explanation; 1=poorly described or inadequate; 3=reasonable; 5=exceptionally unique personnel and

facilities for the work) SCORE (0-5) 

6. Information Transfer

Does the proposal include explicit plans for how the information, technology, etc. from this project will be

disseminated and used? Are methods and procedures for collection of monitoring data (i.e., metadata)

adequately described? Are plans for release and long-term storage of data and metadata adequate? (0=no

explanation; 1=poorly explained and inadequate dissemination given the importance of the information

generated; 3=adequate plan for the information generated; 5=excellent plan for the information generated,

e.g. included in usable format on regional website, peer review journal. SCORE (0-5) 

7.A. Benefit to Fish and Wildlife (Proposal as a whole)

Will the proposed project benefit target species/indicator populations, as an individual project or as a

critical link in a set of projects? Will the benefits persist over the long-term and not be compromised by

other activities in the basin? (0=no benefit; 5=likely benefits but short-term; 10=some benefits that will

persist; 15=demonstrated significant benefits that will persist over the long-term)

SCORE (0-15) ________

7.B. Will the project effect other non-target species? Does the project demonstrate that all “reasonable”

precautions have been taken, based on the best available science, to not adversely affect habitat/populations

of native biota? (-10= adverse effect and precautions not taken; 0= no adverse effect; or potential adverse

effects and adequate precautions proposed; 5=demonstrated benefits to non-target species, habitat,

populations.) SCORE (-10 to 5) ___________

TOTAL SCORE: ____ of 90

Consistency with Power Act Amendment Criteria:

1) SOUND SCIENCE PRINCIPLES (all proposal) 

2) CONSISTENT WITH PROGRAM (criterion 2)

3) BENEFIT TO FISH AND WILDLIFE (all proposal)

4) CLEARLY DEFINED OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOME (criterion 4a) 

5) PROVISION FOR M&E OF RESULTS (criterion 4c)
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

51

Attachment 2. Table of Proposals Sorted by Rank, Evaluation

Category, and Project Number

Project Title Sponsor Total

Request

ISRP Rank Page

22001 A Feasibility Study for Pacific

Ocean Salmon Tracking

(POST)

Kintama Research

Corporation

$228,600 1; Yes - A 9

22013 Genetic sex of chinook salmon

in the Columbia River Basin

University of Idaho $99,736 2; Yes - A 10

22063 Determination of difficult

passage areas, migration

patterns and energetic use of

upriver migrating salmon and

steelhead

Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory

$319,542 3; Yes - A (prefer

to fund through

Gorge Province)

11

22002 Influences of stocking salmon

carcass analogs on salmonids

in Columbia River tributaries

WDFW, BioOregon, Shoshonebannock Tribe,

NMFS, Yakama

Nation,

Weyerhaeuser Co.

$399,829 4; Yes - A 11

22022 Using Induced Turbulence to

Assist Downstream-Migrating

Juvenile Salmonids

Washington State

University

$219,923 5; Yes - A 12

22050 Habitat Diversity in Alluvial

Rivers

Confederated Tribes

of the Umatilla

Indian Reservation

$319,860 6; Yes - A 13

22033 Evaluate new methodologies

for monitoring Pacific salmon

and steelhead: methods for

evaluating the effectiveness of

restoration and recovery

programs

U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service

$353,376 7; Yes - A (Fund

only at a pilotscale level to

evaluate new

tags)

13

22047 Salmonid response to

fertilization: an experimental

evaluation of alternative

methods of fertilization

NMFS/ Northwest

Fisheries Science

Center

$400,000 8; Yes - A

(Project could be

reduced in scale

and budget)

14

22042 Evaluate the effects of nutrient

supplementation on benthic

periphyton, macroinvertebrates,

and juvenile sturgeon in the

Kootenai River

Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho

$170,635 9; Yes - A 15

22057 Waterbody and Aquatic Habitat

Characterization Utilizing High

Resolution Satellite Imagery

and Aerial Imagery

Teasdale

Environmental

Associates

$126,371 10; Yes - A 16

22055 Develop a Nutrient/Food-Web

Management Tool for

Watershed-River Systems

Battelle Memorial

Institute

$329,000 11; Yes - A 16
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

52

Project Title Sponsor Total

Request

ISRP Rank Page

22064 Reintroduction success of

steelhead from captive

propagation and release

strategies

NMFS, Resource

Enhancement and

Utilization

Technologies

Division

$262,350 12; Yes - A 17

22019 Use a Multi-Watershed

Approach to Increase the Rate

of Learning from Columbia

Basin Watershed Restoration

Projects

ESSA Technologies

Ltd.

$295,036 13; Yes - B 18

22060 Assess Feasibility Of

Enhancing White Sturgeon

Spawning Substrate Habitat,

Kootenai R., Idaho

USGS/ Kootenai

Tribe of Idaho

$300,000 14; Yes - B 18

22056 Development of Salmon DNA

Finger Printing Microarrays

Battelle, Pacific

Northwest Division

$400,000 15; Yes - B 19

22043 Enhancing instream flow by

adopting best agricultural land

management practices

Washington State

University

$135,305 16; Yes - B 20

22037 Locate chum and fall chinook

salmon and redds in deep and

turbid water using an acoustic

camera

USGS/BRD $164,334 17; Yes - B 21

22010 Echo Meadow Project - Winter

Artificial Recharge to Cool

Rivers

IRZ Consulting $660,714 18; Yes - B 21

22005 An experimental evaluation of

nutrient supplementation on

juvenile salmonid fish

abundance in nutrient-limited

streams

Department of

Biological Sciences,

Idaho State

University

$398,246 19; Yes - B 22

22038 Design and assessment of

artificial spawning habitat for

kokanee in Lake Pend Oreille,

Idaho

University of Idaho $286,809 20; Yes - B 23

22008 Evaluate and compare the

effects of nutrient

supplementation from

carcasses and fertilizer on fish

growth and survival and lower

trophic levels.

Utah State

University, Utah

Cooperative Fish

and Wildlife Unit,

Logan, Utah.

$377,700 Yes - B 23

22014 Improving and Extending the

Snake River Germplasm

Repository

University of Idaho $378,841 Yes - B 24

22015 Develop a Spatially-based

Internet Portal that Integrates

Distributed Northwest Fish,

Wildlife, and Plant Data for Online Mapping, Query, &

Analysis

Northwest Habitat

Institute

$389,121 Yes - B 24
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

53

Project Title Sponsor Total

Request

ISRP Rank Page

22018 Development of an Automatic

System to Prevent Salmonid

Diseases

Washington

Department of Fish

and Wildlife

$400,000 Yes - B 25

22029 Evaluate the ecological role of

marine derived nutrients in

areas artificially blocked to

anadromous fish migrations.

Confederated Tribes

of the Colville

Reservation

$391,212 Yes - B 26

22030 Delayed mortality: Assess

cumulative effects of multiple,

sublethal stressors on the

physiological health of

downmigrating juvenile

salmonids

Oak Ridge National

Laboratory

$342,000 Yes - B 26

22034 Influence of marine-derived

nutrients on juvenile salmonid

production: a comparison of

two nutrient enhancement

techniques

U. S. Geological

Survey, Biological

Resources Division

$236,270 Yes - B 27

22049 Determine The Feasibility of

Combining LIDAR, Computer

Modeling, and GIS Techniques

To Develop Effective Habitat

Actions at the Watershed Scale

Mobrand

Biometrics, Inc.

and the Yakama

Indian Nation

$388,000 Yes - B 27

22059 Using LIDAR technology for

improved riparian vegetation

monitoring and stream system

water temperature modeling

and TMDL development.

Columbia River

Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission

$399,969 Yes - B 28

22017 Monitor and Evaluate Nutrient

Supplementation as a Tool for

Increasing Production and

Survival of Juvenile Chinook

Salmon from Infertile Streams

Paulson

Environmental

Research, Ltd.

$208,628 Not a standalone project28

22003 Evaluate Reproductive Status

of Salmon & Sturgeon Using

Noninvasive Techniques

Department of

Animal Sciences,

Washington State

University

$413,320 Yes - C 29

22004 Impact of wastewater effluent

on Chinook salmon

reproduction

Komex-H2O

Science, INC.

$392,527 Yes - C 30

22009 Ultrasonic Induced

Sonochemical Destruction of

Pathogens, Viruses, Nitrates

and Other Nutrients and

Contaminants From Waste

Discharge Streams

Water Services,

L.L.C.

$775,000 Yes - C 31

22011 Demonstrate Proprietary

Husbandry System for Musca

domestica as Reliable

Aquaculture Insect Nutrient

Resource

Oregon Feeder

Insects Corporation

$400,000 Yes - C 31
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

54

Project Title Sponsor Total

Request

ISRP Rank Page

22021 Develop Innovative

Approaches for Monitoring Bats

in the Clearwater Region of

Idaho

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game

$140,430 Yes - C 32

22023 Socioeconomic Analysis Tool

for Sub-Basin Planning

CH2M HILL $400,000 Yes - C 32

22024 Alternative Futures and

Salmonids in the Lower

Columbia River

Washington

Department of Fish

and Wildlife

$200,000 Yes - C 33

22027 Real Time Data Loggers for

Monitoring Climate Conditions

within a Riparian System

EcoTec $261,220 Yes - C 33

22036 The Application of Geophysics

to Better Define Fall Chinook

Salmon Spawning Habitat Use

in the Hanford Reach,

Columbia River.

Golder Associates

Incorporated, Pacific

Northwest National

Laboratory

$240,572 Yes - C 34

22040 Ecosystem effects of

anadromous salmon

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game

$396,500 Yes - C 34

22041 Using Microbial Fingerprinting

to Rapidly Assess Ecosystem

Responses to Watershed

Restoration Efforts and Assist

in Prioritizing Future Activities

Washington State

University

$403,150 Yes - C 35

22044 Develop commercial selective

live release fisheries for spring

chinook on the Columbia River

Washington

Department of Fish

and Wildlife, Oregon

Department of Fish

and Wildlife

$356,794 Yes - C 35

22048 Integrate Physical and

Biological Assessment Models

Mobrand

Biometrics, Inc.

$96,900 Yes - C 36

22051 Characterize Genetic

Differences and Distribution of

Freshwater Mussels

Confederated Tribes

of the Umatilla

Indian Reservation

$203,386 Yes - C 36

22052 Sources, Fate and Biological

Impacts of Sediments as Part

of a Comprehensive Sediment

Management Plan

Washington State

University,

Washington Water

Research Center

$398,674 Yes - C 37

22053 Analyze the historic productivity

of Wallowa Lake and its

implications for sockeye

reintroduction and water quality

management

Oregon State

University

$185,514 Yes - C 38
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

55

Project Title Sponsor Total

Request

ISRP Rank Page

22061 Fluid Dynamics and Mechanics

of In-Stream Wood Debris

Philip Williams and

Associate, Ltd.

$221,400 Yes - C 38

22065 Design & Implement a Systemwide Fish, Wildlife & Habitat

Conservation Enforcement

Web-Based Data Center

Steven Vigg &

Company

$41,112 Yes - C 39

22006 Evaluate Use of Small (Nano)

Radio Tags to Determine

Subadult Bull Trout Population

Status In Dworshak Reservoir,

N.F. Clearwater River

Drainage, ID

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game

$121,102 Not Innovative 39

22007 Develop Population Dynamic

Model for White Sturgeon

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game

$98,761 Not Innovative 40

22012 Restoration Of Riparian Zones

With Enabling Technology and

Grazing Practice Enhancement

Clouston Energy

Research

$234,000 Not Innovative 40

22016 Anadromous Salmonid

Engineered Habitat For

Production and Transit

Aquaculture

Research Institute,

University of Idaho,

Moscow, ID

$396,740 Not Innovative 41

22020 Assess Washougal River and

its tributaries

Lower Columbia

Fish Recovery

Board

$70,250 Not Innovative 41

22025 Identification and assessment

of technologies and methods to

census spawning adult

population size of spring and

summer chinook salmon

Nez Perce Tribe $396,000 Not Innovative 42

22026 Columbia Basin Interactive

Watershed Atlas

Smart Map Imaging $390,425 Not Innovative 42

22028 Design and Coordinate Nutrient

Supplementation Evaluations in

the Salmon and Clearwater

Subbasins, Idaho

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game

$77,582 Not Innovative 43

22031 Evaluation of Two Captive

Rearing Methods for Assisting

with Recovery of Naturally

Spawning Populations of

Steelhead and Coho Salmon.

U. S. Fish & Wildlife

Service, U.S.

Department of the

Interior

$264,064 Not innovative,

but a good

proposal

43

22032 Develop a practical method

through diet modification to

improve quality of hatchery

reared steelhead trout and

coho salmon.

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service,

Idaho State

University

$241,000 Not Innovative 44

22035 Renaturalize Functional

Floodplain Habitat within the

Portland Reach of the Lower

Willamette River

ZRZ Realty

Company (a Zidell

Company)

$1,420,500 Not Innovative 44
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

56

Project Title Sponsor Total

Request

ISRP Rank Page

22039 Assess the Feasibility of

Mainstem Habitat

Improvements to Enhance

survival of ESA Listed Species

Department of Fish

& Wildlife

University of Idaho

$216,511 Not Innovative 45

22045 Habitat/Subbasin Planning

Electronic Newsletter

Copyright October 30, 2000,

Bill Crampton, 60968 Onyx

Street, Bend, OR 97702

Intermountain

Communications

$119,280 Not Innovative 45

22046 Deschutes Subbasin

Stakeholder Facilitation - A

Pilot Project

Copyright October 30, 2000.

TIGERS Success Series, PO

Box 267, Bend, OR 97709.

TIGERS Success

Series

$69,000 Not Innovative 46

22054 Effects of Chronic Disease on

Delayed Mortality of Chinook

Salmon and Steelhead Trout in

the Columbia River Estuary

Oregon State

University

$393,731 Not Innovative 46

22058 Experimental Selective Fishery

Techniques Development,

Evaluation, and Coordination

National Marine

Fisheries Service

$400,000 Not Innovative 47

22062 Evaluate the use of anaerobic

digestion to produce nutrient

supplements for trout and

salmon

Duke Engineering

and Services

$134,800 Not Innovative 47

22066 Live Capture Harvest Steven Vigg &

Company

$32,542 Not Innovative 48
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

57

Index by Project Number

ProjectID Page ProjectID Page

22001 9 22034 27

22002 11 22035 44

22003 29 22036 34

22004 30 22037 21

22005 22 22038 23

22006 39 22039 45

22007 40 22040 34

22008 23 22041 35

22009 31 22042 15

22010 21 22043 20

22011 31 22044 35

22012 40 22045 45

22013 10 22046 46

22014 24 22047 14

22015 24 22048 36

22016 41 22049 27

22017 28 22050 13

22018 25 22051 36

22019 18 22052 37

22020 41 22053 38

22021 32 22054 46

22022 12 22055 16

22023 32 22056 19

22024 33 22057 16

22025 42 22058 47

22026 42 22059 28

22027 33 22060 18

22028 43 22061 38

22029 26 22062 47

22030 26 22063 11

22031 43 22064 17

22032 44 22065 39

22033 13 22066 48
ISRP 2000-10: Innovative Proposal Review

58

________________________________________

________________________________________

:\fish\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2000-10 innovative review.doc