Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

Preliminary Review

of

Fiscal Year 2002 Project Proposals

for the Mountain Columbia Province

ISRP 2001-2

February 9 
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

Mountain Columbia Review Team

Charles C. Coutant

Jack Griffith

Susan S. Hanna

Nancy Huntly

Dennis Lettenmaier

John D. McIntyre

Richard N. Williams
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

i

ISRP Preliminary Review of Fiscal Year 2002

Proposals for the Mountain Columbia Province

Introduction..............................................................................................1

ISRP Review Process for Preliminary Report.............................................1

Background on Preliminary Recommendations ..........................................2

The Next Step: ISRP Response Review and CBFWA Prioritization ............3

The Final Step: Council Recommendations to Bonneville ...........................4

Preliminary Recommendation and Comments on Each Proposal.................4

Fundable: A Response is not Requested...................................................................... 4

A Response is Requested............................................................................................. 13

Do Not Fund: A Response is not Warranted............................................................. 39

Table of Proposals Sorted by Project Number with Page Number

Project

Number

Title Sponsor Response to

ISRP

comments

requested

Report

Page #

24001 Lake Pend Oreille Predation Research Idaho Fish and

Game

No, fundable. 4

24002 Using DNA from bear hair samples to confirm

grizzly bear presence in the Lower Pend Oreille

Sub-basin.

Washington

Department of

Fish and Wildlife

No, do not

fund.

39

24003 Acquire and conserve high priority bull and

westslope cutthroat trout habitat in Trestle Creek.

Idaho

Department of

Fish and Game

Yes 13

24004 Pend Oreille/Priest Exotic Fish Species

Suppression and Native Fish Protection

Idaho

Department of

Fish and Game

Yes 13

24005 Smith Creek Restoration Idaho

Department of

Fish and Game

No, fundable. 5

24006 Pend Oreille Erosion Abatement and Landform

Restoration

Idaho

Department of

Fish and Game

Yes 14

24007 Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types

and Structural Conditions for Sub-Basins within

the Mountain Columbia Ecoprovince

Northwest

Habitat Institute

No, fundable. 6

24008 Genetic Inventory of Bull Trout and Westslope

Cutthroat Trout in the Pend Oreille Subbasin

Kalispel Tribe of

Indians

No, fundable. 6

24009 Assess Feasibility of Enhancing White Sturgeon

Spawning Substrate Habitat, Kootenai R., Idaho

Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho

Yes 15
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

ii

Project

Number

Title Sponsor Response to

ISRP

comments

requested

Report

Page #

24010 Reconnection of floodplain slough habitat to the

Kootenai River

Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho

Yes 16

24012 Riparian Habitat Preservation - Weaver Slough

and McWinegar Slough

Flathead Land

Trust

Yes 17

24013 Assessment of Operational Impacts of Hungry

Horse Dam on Riparian Wildlife habitats and their

associated aquatic components

Montana

Department of

Fish, Wildlife

and Parks

No, do not

fund.

40

24014 Assessment of Operational Impacts of Libby Dam

on Riparian Wildlife habitats and their associated

aquatic components

Montana

Department of

Fish, Wildlife

and Parks

No, do not

fund.

40

24015 Wetland/Riparian Protection, Restoration,

Enhancement and Maintenance in the Coeur

d'Alene Subbasin

Coeur d'Alene

Tribe

Yes 18

24016 Kootenai River Subbasin Stakeholders

Symposium

Kootenai River

Network

Yes 19

24017 Restoring Bull Trout Habitat in The Blackfoot

River's North Fork

Trout Unlimited's

Western Water

Project

Yes 20

24018 Secure and Restore Critical Fish and Wildlife

Habitats

Confederated

Salish and

Kootenai Tribes

Yes 20

24019 Research, Monitor, and Restore Native Species Confederated

Salish &

Kootenai Tribes

Yes 22

24020 Center for GIS Analysis and Information in the

Coeur d'Alene Subbasin

Coeur d'Alene

Tribe

No, fundable. 7

24021 Implement Floodplain Operational Loss

Assessment, Protection, Mitigation and

Rehabilitation on the Lower Kootenai River

Watershed Ecosystem

Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho

Yes 23

24023 Purchase Conservation Easement from Plum

Creek Timber Company (PCT) along Fisher River

Montana Fish,

Wildlife & Parks

No, fundable. 8

24025 Pend Oreille Subbasin Native Westslope Cutthroat

Population Study

Washington

Trout

Yes 24

198806400 Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and

Conservation Aquaculture

Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho

Yes 25

198806500 Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations Idaho

Department of

Fish and Game

No, fundable. 9

199004400 Implement Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities

on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation

Coeur d'Alene

Tribe

Yes 26
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

iii

Project

Number

Title Sponsor Response to

ISRP

comments

requested

Report

Page #

199004401 Lake Creek Land Acquisition and Enhancement Coeur d'Alene

Tribe

Yes 28

199004402 Coeur D' Alene Tribe Trout Production Facility Coeur d' Alene

Tribe

Yes 28

199101903 Hungry Horse Mitigation Montana Fish,

Wildlife & Parks

Yes 31

199101904 Stocking of offsite waters for Hungry Horse

Mitigation - Creston National Fish Hatchery

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

No, fundable. 10

199106000 Pend Oreille Wetlands Wildlife Mitigation Project

- Kalispel

Kalispel Tribe of

Indians

Yes 32

199206100 Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project Albeni Falls

Interagency

Work Group

Yes 33

199404700 Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project Idaho

Department of

Fish and Game

No, fundable. 11

199404900 Improving the Kootenai River Ecosystem Kootenai Tribe of

Idaho

No, fundable. 11

199500100 Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish Kalispel Tribe of

Indians

Yes 34

199500400 Mitigation For The Construction And Operation

Of Libby Dam

Montana

Department of

Fish, Wildlife

and Parks

Yes 35

199608720 Focus Watershed Coordination in the Kootenai

River Watershed

Montana

Department of

Fish, Wildlife

and Parks

Yes 37

199700400 Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph

and Grand Coulee Dams

Kalispel Tribe of

Indians

Yes 38

200000400 Monitor and protect bull trout for Koocanusa

Reservoir.

BC Environment Yes 38
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

1

ISRP Preliminary Review of Fiscal Year 2002

Proposals for the Mountain Columbia Province

Introduction

This report provides preliminary comments and recommendations of the Independent

Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and Peer Review Groups on projects submitted for Fiscal

Year 2002 funding in the Mountain Columbia Province. It provides project sponsors and

the public an opportunity to respond to ISRP concerns before the ISRP makes its final

recommendation to the Council on April 6, 2001. This report also provides information

to the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority for its use in project prioritization.

The Mountain Columbia review is the third conducted under the new province review

process. The ISRP continues to support this new approach

ISRP Review Process for Preliminary Report

Project evaluation and selection occur in several steps. This report marks the end of the

first step, which included peer review of proposals and subbasin summaries, site visits to

the provinces, and project sponsor presentations. This first step and subsequent steps in

the process are described below.

Site Visits

Unlike the Columbia River Gorge and Inter-Mountain province site visits, the Mountain

Columbia site visit occurred before the reviewers had proposals in hand. This schedule

was dictated by the inaccessibility of sites in the winter. The Mountain Columbia review

team comprised two groups that visited the province on August 31 and September 1,

2000. One group visited the Pend Oreille and Coeur d’Alene subbasins. The other group

visited the Kootenai and Flathead subbasins. The team profited from informal

discussions with project leaders during the visits. These discussions combined with oral

presentations at Kalispell were invaluable in identifying potential issues and clarifying

the nature of the projects.

However, a process in which proposals are reviewed before a site visit is preferable. The

detail contained in proposals provides context and specificity to a site review. The

sequence of subbasin summaries, proposals, tours, oral presentations and ISRP

deliberations, as occurred for the Inter-Mountain and Columbia Gorge provinces, is the

most effective.

Proposal Review

By December 20th, proposals for the Mountain Columbia were distributed to the ISRP

and CBFWA review teams. At least three ISRP/Peer Review Group members reviewed

and commented on each proposal prior to the proposal review workshop. These

comments were used by the ISRP to scope questions for the workshop presentations but
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

2

were not made available to the project sponsors at the workshop. At least one ISRP

reviewer was assigned to be familiar with any technical background material submitted

with the proposal.

Project Presentations

The Mountain Columbia project presentation workshop was held on January 17-18 in

Kalispell, Montana. Each set of subbasin presentations began with a subbasin summary.

Project sponsors then presented a summary of their project. Following each presentation,

there was an opportunity for a question and answer session between reviewers and the

project proponents. Projects were limited to about 15 minutes for the presentation and

follow-up questions.

Overall, the presentations were an improvement over those in the Gorge and InterMountain province workshops. Sponsors made good use of maps (which often should

have been included in the proposal) to describe the limiting factors they proposed to

address. However, many presentations were simply reiterations of material in the

proposals and failed to present the project as a component of a sound subbasin mitigation

and recovery strategy. Most subbasin summaries and presentations of ongoing projects

failed to present data demonstrating the biological results of past efforts. Demonstrated

benefits to fish and wildlife is a basic review criterion and its absence is a glaring

omission in this and previous reviews.

Review Team Evaluation Meeting

On January 19, the ISRP review team met alone to discuss the review, evaluate project

proposals, and reach consensus on proposal evaluations. Findings from the review are

included in this preliminary report.

Background on Preliminary Recommendations

Preliminary recommendations and comments are provided for each proposal. These

recommendations are split into three basic categories: 1) fundable, further ISRP response

review is not needed (10 projects); 2) a response review is needed (25 projects); and 3) do

not fund, a response is not warranted (3 projects).

Proposals receiving “a response review is needed” will not be recommended for funding

until information addressing reviewer concerns is provided. A project will be

recommended as fundable only if the response adequately addresses reviewer comments.

Many of the ISRP comments on proposals in the “response needed” category contain

language such as “fundable, but a response is needed” or “fundable in part ...” This is to

inform the sponsors and CBFWA about the level of the ISRP’s concerns.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

3

The Next Step: ISRP Response Review and CBFWA Prioritization

With the release of this report, project proponents and the public have the opportunity to

respond to the ISRP’s preliminary report. Responses should focus on the technical

comments, answer all review questions, and clarify uncertain information. Responses

should be formatted to address concerns point by point, clearly identifying each concern

and providing a response. The title and project number of the proposal should be

displayed prominently on the front page of the response.

Responses and comments must be received at the Northwest Power Planning Council no

later than 5 p.m., February 23, 2001. Please email responses and comments to

kphillips@nwppc.org. Attachments should be in Microsoft Word or Excel (for tables).

If email is not available, please mail the response and diskette/CD to:

Northwest Power Planning Council

Attention: Kendra Phillips

Response to ISRP

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, OR 97204

The Council staff will verify that responses were received and successfully downloaded

via email. If you have any questions regarding the response process please contact Erik

Merrill at the Northwest Power Planning Council at (503) 222-5161 or 1-800-452-5161,

or by email: emerrill@nwppc.org. If you need assistance incorporating graphs or maps in

your response, please contact Eric Schrepel at the Council or by email:

eschrepel@nwppc.org.

Concurrently, CBFWA, with the ISRP’s technical review in hand, will generate a list of

projects recommended for funding and finalize the subbasin summaries as part of its draft

annual implementation work plan. The work plan is scheduled for release in mid-March.

For more details on the CBFWA process and province reviews in general see

www.cbfwa.org.

The ISRP will then review the responses and CBFWA's recommended list of projects and

provide a second and final report to the Northwest Power Planning Council by April 6,

2001.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

4

The Final Step: Northwest Power Planning Council

Recommendations to the Bonneville Power Administration

Based on the advice provided by CBFWA and the ISRP, the Council makes the final

selection of annual projects and transmits funding recommendations to Bonneville. If

Council decisions differ notably from recommendations of the ISRP, the basis of their

decisions is documented and included in the Council's final recommendations.

Preliminary Recommendation and Comments on Each Proposal

ISRP recommendations and comments are presented in order of ISRP category

(Fundable, A Response is Requested, Do Not Fund) then project number.

Fundable: A Response is not Requested

ProjectID: 24001

Lake Pend Oreille Predation Research

Sponsor: Idaho Fish and Game

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Upper

FY02 Request: $141,000

3 YR Estimate: $444,000

Short Description: Project seeks to balance predators with the kokanee prey base in

Lake Pend Oreille, reduce competition between bull trout and other predators, and to

enhance or decrease the rainbow trout population as the kokanee population changes.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable. This project proposes to use hydroacoustic surveys coupled with cluster

analysis and tagging studies to define fish species abundances in order to achieve a

balance between kokanee populations and their rainbow and lake trout predators. The

brief proposal adequately describes methods. The investigators are qualified and the

project has a high likelihood of reaching its analysis objectives. Whether it can reach its

management objectives remains to be seen over time.

The sponsors should carefully segregate the costs between their base project and this one.

This could be contracted as a new task within the old project. Is Bonneville the

appropriate source of funding for the derby? Sponsors should consider educating the

public on keeping the rainbows and the value of catch and release in various scenarios.

They should also consider a prize for the most fish caught or pounds caught. The

proposal would have been stronger if the derby and prize money incentive strategy were

supported by references that demonstrated the veracity of this approach. It was not clear

that adding $5K to fishing derby prizes would significantly increase the number of lake

and rainbow trout killed. Some better justification is needed. Also, proposal 24004

would provide $10K for identical prize money (duplication?). Further, why is prize
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

5

money not matched by IDFG funds? These comments do not require a response to the

ISRP but are for consideration by the investigators, the Council, and CBFWA.

ProjectID: 24005

Smith Creek Restoration

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $52,680

3 YR Estimate: $358,040

Short Description: Restore lower Smith Creek stream channel to improve native fish

habitat and complement wetland restoration.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable. This is a proposal to restore about one-half mile of lower Smith Creek between

its mouth at the Kootenai River and an impassable falls approximately two miles

upstream of the mouth. The intent is to improve habitat currently used by a remnant

kokanee run from Kootenay Lake, through return of the stream to its natural channel.

Restoration of this reach of Smith Creek would bypass the current ditch linking the creek

at the floodplain edge directly to the river. This ditch has little useful fish habitat,

whereas the restored original creek channel should have much more, both in quantity and

quality. The restoration would be a component of overall wetland restoration in the

adjacent lands under the NRCS’s Wetland Reserve Program. Proposers have acted in

cooperation with permitting agencies (COE, IDWR), and the project would complement

a conservation management project of the NRCS Wetland Reserve Program. The project

constitutes a practical alternative to a channel-cleaning project being proposed to protect

private property from erosion. The panel applauded inclusion of explicit monitoring and

evaluation tasks; which would monitor the effect of restored natural riparian habitat on

several species of fish.

The proposal is somewhat meager. The absence of a map was mitigated somewhat by the

presentation, but location information should have been included in the proposal.

Further, background on negative impacts of stream channelization, and specifics

regarding salmonid habitat or lack thereof in the Kootenai River basin, is thin. Other

BPA-funded or other projects are not mentioned. On the positive side, anticipated results

from restoration are given, and the work is related to the Subbasin Summary and Idaho’s

1996 fish management plan. Overall, although aspects of the proposal are lacking, the

project would have a large benefit to fish and wildlife, and merits funding.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

6

ProjectID: 24007

Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for SubBasins within the Mountain Columbia Ecoprovince

Sponsor: Northwest Habitat Institute

Subbasin: Mountain Columbia

FY02 Request: $327,600

3 YR Estimate: $490,140

Short Description: Fine-scale wildlife habitat assessment for the Inter-Mountain

Ecoprovince will produce critical baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is

consistent within the NWPPC Framework wildlife-habitat relationships process.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable. The proposal makes a convincing case for the value of presenting complex

habitat information in map form. The investigators have demonstrated the ability to

produce high-quality maps at the Columbia Basin level. The project would develop

Landsat maps of wildlife-habitat types for the Mountain Columbia subbasin at a finer

level of resolution than is currently available. The maps would be made available to

wildlife managers for the development of “coarse filter” conservation strategies.

Subbasin summaries, while not directly calling for these maps, do demonstrate a need for

mapping products.

The sponsor responded adequately to the ISRP's previous comments on the need for

validation. Ample field-testing and verification are included in the project. Good detail on

validation methods is provided. If this proposal and proposal #24020 are funded, they

should be coordinated to avoid duplication.

ProjectID: 24008

Genetic Inventory of Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout in the Pend Oreille

Subbasin

Sponsor: Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Lower

FY02 Request: $243,490

3 YR Estimate: $450,490

Short Description: Establish a genetic sampling program for bull trout and westslope

cutthroat in the Pend Oreille Subbasin. This information will be used in the recovery of

bull trout in the Lower Pend Oreille Recovery Unit and to document hybridization among

westslope.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable. Bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout will be collected (by electrofishing)

from 60 locations in the Pend Oreille subbasin in Washington, Idaho, and British

Columbia by the Kalispel Tribe, WDFW, IDFG, and a consultant. Genetic analysis from

fin portions, done by WDFW and representing the most costly component of the project,

would assess the extent of hybridization with non-native salmonids.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

7

This project seems to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the subbasin

summary. The proposal is concise and has clear goals. The information should help to

clarify population structures and dynamics (gene flow). The microsatellite DNA analysis

proposed is an important component of the management of threatened populations.

ProjectID: 24020

Center for GIS Analysis and Information in the Coeur d'Alene Subbasin

Sponsor: Coeur d'Alene Tribe

Subbasin: Coeur d'Alene

FY02 Request: $180,700

3 YR Estimate: $563,100

Short Description: Provide GIS analysis and act as central data repository for all

organizations within the Coeur d'Alene Subbasin

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable, but the priority given to this activity is a policy issue that depends on the extent

to which this project duplicates other efforts, including the Council’s subbasin planning.

This is a proposal to develop a Coeur d’Alene Tribe GIS central data repository and to

provide GIS training and analysis services in the Coeur d'Alene Subbasin. It builds on

work already done in water and soils for the subbasin with plans to update the server and

integrate biological data to the existing GIS system. There are good plans for

coordinating with other agencies and GIS users and for monitoring the effectiveness of

each stage of the project. Plans for information transfer are reasonable. The education

component looks good. Personnel are well qualified to perform the tasks described.

Given that there is a need for GIS capability within the subbasin, the project proponents

still need to think about how this can best be provided. Duplicating services available

elsewhere makes little sense. For example, aren’t well-developed GIS services available

through the federal land management agencies (USFS, BLM)? Couldn’t funding be

requested for a high-speed network connection to state and/or federal agencies to help

local GIS expertise support FWP activities in the basin?

The history of GIS centers is that they take on a life of their own with escalating costs

over time. The GIS center should work toward being self-supporting, an idea to which the

Tribe is receptive.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

8

ProjectID: 24023

Purchase Conservation Easement from Plum Creek Timber Company (PCT) along Fisher

River

Sponsor: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $500,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,500,000

Short Description: Purchase perpetual conservation easement on 56,400 acres (163

stream miles) of PCT lands along the Fisher River to preclude subdivision/development;

protect fish habitat, maintain public recreational opportunities, and insure responsible

management.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable, but benefits to fish and wildlife might be better assured with a more restrictive

conservation easement. This is a proposal for partial funding (about 5 percent of the total

cost) of purchase of a conservation easement for Plum Creek Timber Lands in the Fisher

River watershed (a tributary of the Kootenai River below Libby Dam), primarily the

bottomlands. Limiting development of the area will help establish refuges for wild stocks

and prevent further habitat degradation. It will also provide a touchstone or reference

point for habitat restoration efforts within the basin. Although this is a new proposal, it

has been proposed and favorably reviewed for the past two years but not funded. The

acquisition of a conservation easement for this huge block of land, in addition to the

planned acquisition of the Thompson River project, “will result in completion of most,

and possibly all, of the wildlife mitigation goals for both Libby and Hungry Horse dams.”

The current proposal has a reduced BPA commitment and greater commitment by other

funding sources than the original proposal two years ago (now heavily supported by the

state of Montana). The negotiated easement includes establishment of baseline forestry

practices (not restoration projects), restriction of residential development, and

preservation of recreation. The project would offer benefit to both fish and wildlife. Plum

Creek would apply an existing Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to these lands and is

stated to have monitoring in place. The proposal is straightforward and succinct. The

significance is illustrated by an array of relevant regional plans and other BPA-funded

projects. The acquisition is related to other non-BPA projects. Conventional tasks and

methods do not apply, although the narrative outlines the acquisition process.

The ISRP offers the comments below for consideration by the sponsors:

• Success of this proposal seems to depend on things that have not proven dependable

in the past. It needs the continuing support of the landowner (present and future),

protection from politicians, adherence to water allocation guides during low flow

periods and years, and adherence to what is referred to here as “reasonable” forest

management practices. Can the required agreements be written so that they are

enforceable, will exist in perpetuity, and even though the language says that the

agreement can be changed by mutual consent, permit only trivial changes?
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

9

• Many of headwater areas are outside the area to be “protected.” Is there any

assurance that they will be protected from disruption?

ProjectID: 198806500

Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $825,391

3 YR Estimate: $2,834,892

Short Description: Recover the Kootenai River white sturgeon, develop a recovery plan

for burbot and bull trout, improve fishing for rainbow and cutthroat trout and mountain

whitefish, rehabilitate ecosystem health.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable. This is a well-prepared proposal that addresses the deficiencies noted in the FY

2000 ISRP review. The technical and scientific background is complete, well organized

by topic, and includes numerous pertinent references to the literature. The proposal links

its work to all relevant plans, specifically including the FWP, Subbasin Summary,

Idaho’s regional plan, and the FWS’s BiOp and Recovery Plan. There are specific

linkages discussed with other projects, with the strong statement that this work is

collaborative with others. The proposal showed strong indication of active cooperation

between KTOI and BCME. There is a good listing and narrative showing the project

history in terms of funding, studies, and principal results. The objectives and tasks are

well organized and expressed. The methods are well described. Monitoring and

evaluation constitute a large part of the program and the relevant objectives, tasks and

methods are well presented. Facilities, equipment, and personnel are described and are

appropriate for the work. Information transfer has been a strong feature of this project

and its professional staff, and the proposal indicates that this information transfer will

continue. There is less direct evidence in the proposal of basinwide coordination for

sturgeon studies than is shown for Project 198806400. The benefit to fish and wildlife

from this project should be high, with no negative side effects. However, the hypotheses

for reduced recruitment are still evolving, and further consideration of alternative

hypotheses seems desirable. For example, the actual physical processes involved with

the relationship of spawning location to lake elevation were not discussed and could form

the basis for additional hypotheses.

The sturgeon program objectives seemed reasonable and would take advantage of "new"

information to propose a test of the hypothesis that fish will spawn in the cobble at RM

242 if Kootenay Lake elevation is held high enough. However, this may be very

expensive emergency room surgery without being sure of the exact causes of the patients'

maladies. The stress assessment objective for burbot still shows no indication that it

would be done by qualified personnel. These comments do not require a response, but

are for the benefit of the investigators.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

10

ProjectID: 199101904

Stocking of offsite waters for Hungry Horse Mitigation - Creston National Fish Hatchery

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Subbasin: Flathead

FY02 Request: $106,672

3 YR Estimate: $329,712

Short Description: Produce hatchery fish for offsite stocking to mitigate losses to

Flathead Lake caused by construction and operation of Hungry Horse Dam.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable, this is a continuation proposal for use of Creston National Fish Hatchery for

the production of westslope cutthroat trout and rainbow trout for stocking in waters

chosen by the MDFWP and CSKT. This is a clear, concise, well-written proposal and is

much simplified from earlier proposals, and simply reflects the hatching and rearing

components of the state and tribal management agencies’ stocking programs. Gone is the

plan for Lake McDonald rehabilitation, as proposed last year. Gone is specific

responsibility for species and lakes to be stocked.

The proposal is straightforward and clear. The background section is mostly history of

the hatchery’s involvement rather than scientific/technical background for stocking. The

significance is given in the context of both the Subbasin Summary and the Fish and

Wildlife Program (with sections cited). The proposal cites relevant projects in the basin

and the constrained role of the hatchery in those programs. The project history is given

well, including stocking data. Objectives and tasks are clear and limited. The essence of

methods is provided with details referred to the HGMP. Monitoring and evaluation are

discussed as the responsibility of the management agencies, and the essence of the

approach is given. Facilities and equipment are appropriate, and the hatchery manager is

experienced. Information transfer is to a limited audience—the management agencies.

The benefit to fish and wildlife is largely to the fisheries in closed lakes and to wild

stocks on which fishing mortality does not occur as a result of alternative fishing

opportunities.

The management agency (MFWP) has studied the potential for doing damage to

organisms such as amphibians in the stocked waters and concluded that it is not a

problem.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

11

ProjectID: 199404700

Lake Pend Oreille Fishery Recovery Project

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Upper

FY02 Request: $362,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,100,000

Short Description: Project researches ways to recover the impacted fisheries of Lake

Pend Oreille and the upper Pend Oreille River.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable. This excellent proposal rates high on all counts. Favorable ISRP comments

and recommendation from last year still apply. The researcher has consistently addressed

concerns raised by the ISRP and other scientific peer reviews. Although not very

different from last year, as much of the effort is a continuing monitoring and evaluation

operation, the proposal is updated with the Subbasin Summary and FWS BiOp as further

rationale for the project.

ProjectID: 199404900

Improving the Kootenai River Ecosystem

Sponsor: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $710,891

3 YR Estimate: $3,535,891

Short Description: Identify the most appropriate and effective management strategies to

enhance aquatic biota in the Kootenai River Ecosystem and recover native species

assemblages across multiple trophic levels.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, fundable.

Comments:

Fundable, but with comments for consideration by investigators (no ISRP response

needed). This proposal and project remain the broadest of the several Kootenai River

projects. The attention is to the whole ecosystem rather than to the more limited fish

species components of other studies. Various components of the ecosystem either are or

have been studied by this project or others. Integration has been accomplished by

cooperative development of an ecosystem model and an adaptive management process.

The project is strongly cast as leading up to potential whole-ecosystem fertilization of the

Kootenai River, in parallel with Canadian whole ecosystem fertilization projects for

Kootenay Lake and Arrow Lake. The study has also become the vehicle for BPA to pay

for fertilizer for the Canadian fertilization projects.

The lack of focus and unclear direction perceived last year by the ISRP has largely been

corrected. There is now an excellent scientific background section, with plenty of

scientific references, some from this study. The information is well organized by topic,

and the evidence for environmental problems is well summarized. The proposal ties this

work to all relevant plans, including the FWP, the Subbasin Summary, the federal

Biological Opinion and Recovery Plan for sturgeon and other species, CBFWA’s multi-
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

12

year implementation Plan, and the local River Network. Specific sections of these plans

are cited. The proposal emphasizes the role of this project in overall, long-term,

cooperative planning for improving the Kootenai River ecosystem from the Montana

border to (and into) Kootenay Lake. With fertilization as a long-range objective (based

on results of prior work), the project logically proposes use of mesocosms to first test

fertilization on a small scale. Responsiveness of the lower trophic levels at the

mesocosm level will foster confidence that whole-ecosystem fertilization could work to

improve the system productivity.

The relationships to other projects funded by BPA are clearly presented. However, more

detail about relevant non-BPA projects would have been informative. The project history

is good, with good references, a good progression of logic, and a good sense of

progressively integrating the accumulated knowledge of the river basin. There are wellwritten objectives keyed to major aspects of the work, coupled with good tasks for each

objective. Methods are well described at an appropriate level of detail. There is a great

deal of monitoring, with good rationale. There are no problems with facilities or

personnel. Information transfer is especially good, with annual meetings.

From the evidence presented, there should be a good benefit to fish and wildlife from this

project’s gradual testing of the value of fertilization, and eventual implementation. The

value of fertilization in Canada seems to have been proven, and the expense for

fertilization justified scientifically. Whether this is the best administrative route for the

purchases, is not the ISRP’s responsibility.

However, the work and the ecosystem still present a confused and confusing situation.

The proposal presumably seeks to assess limiting factors below Libby Dam but appears

to discount all options other than nutrient limitation (isn't flow regime driven by power

peaking?). Objectives are to evaluate primary and secondary productivity, etc. before

and "potentially after" large-scale nutrient supplementation, without giving criteria for

deciding whether to proceed with that supplementation. Yet >1/2 of budget is for

fertilizer, suggesting that the decision regarding nutrient limitation as the key factor in the

basin has already been made and data gathering may be window-dressing. Much of the

fertilization would be done in Arrow Reservoir although that water body is only

mentioned in 1-2 paragraphs and is actually outside the lower Kootenai River. The

proposal states that the 1995 and draft 2000 NMFWS BiOp "mandates" the fertilization.

Yet, for the reach at issue, the fertilization is not yet a proven key factor. It is just a

management option for which two more years of in-depth work should provide the data

to make the decision whether to implement.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

13

A Response is Requested

ProjectID: 24003

Acquire and conserve high priority bull and westslope cutthroat trout habitat in Trestle

Creek.

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Upper

FY02 Request: $290,400

3 YR Estimate: $290,400

Short Description: Purchase conservation easements of fee title interests on 500 acres of

private land in the Trestle Creek watershed.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable, but a response is needed to describe the monitoring plan for which funding is

requested. A map showing the watershed and those easements acquired and under

consideration is also needed.

This is a high priority project for bull trout in this subbasin. It is a well-written proposal

to obtain conservation easements and fee titles to riparian land along Trestle Creek,

important bull trout habitat. Avista Corporation is also a significant contributor to this

effort. The proposal makes a convincing case for the importance of the land acquisition

benefits it will bring to protection of bull trout habitat. It identifies key factors that are

likely to contribute to success. More detail could have been provided on how

conservation objectives will be defined for each parcel and how parcels will be

prioritized. It would also be useful to have the proposed acquisitions put into a context of

total habitat needs.

ProjectID: 24004

Pend Oreille/Priest Exotic Fish Species Suppression and Native Fish Protection

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Upper

FY02 Request: $448,500

3 YR Estimate: $958,000

Short Description: Protect threatened stocks of native bull and westslope cutthroat trout

in the Priest and Pend Oreille lakes watersheds by removing lake and brook trout, and

implementing measures to prevent recolonization.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed, including a map of the system. Much of the discussion in the

proposal was relatively site specific and a map with key water bodies and landmarks

referred to in the text would have facilitated review of the proposed work.

A better-defined plan is needed that focuses on the upper lake first and lays out a

sequential strategy, rather than the proposed shotgun approach throughout the watershed.

The overall objectives of the proposal are worthwhile, as it is clear that lake trout and
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

14

brook trout are having detrimental effects on bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout

populations. Nevertheless, both proposal and presentation indicated the efforts would be

spread somewhat equally among Upper Priest, Priest, and Pend Oreille. A more

biologically defensible approach would be to focus in priority order on suppression and

removal of exotics from the Upper Priest Lake system before moving downstream to

Priest and Pend Oreille lakes.

The sponsors should consider focusing efforts on cleaning the Upper Priest Lake and its

tributaries of lake and brook trout entirely, and installation of a complete passage barrier

in the Thorofare area. If the barrier has downstream and upstream trapping capabilities,

the barrier could be used to remove any downstream migrating lake trout, while passing

migrating westslope cutthroat trout or bull trout up or down as needed. The proposal

focuses on lake trout control, but only minimally on brook trout removal, which may

prove the more difficult to control or eradicate. The proposed work needs to be much

more detailed and aggressive on brook trout removal. This is the weakest part of the

proposal. Consideration should be made after these efforts are successful to designate the

upper Priest watershed as a native fish refuge. Restoration efforts would then more

appropriately move downstream into Priest Lake, then into Pend Oreille.

ProjectID: 24006

Pend Oreille Erosion Abatement and Landform Restoration

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Upper

FY02 Request: $73,000

3 YR Estimate: $115,000

Short Description: A detailed study of feasibility, design, and cost for erosion control

measures and landform restoration techniques within Pend Oreille Lake and the Pend

Oreille River upstream of Albeni Falls Dam. Study results would be implemented in a

future project.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. The proposed (new)

project would review alternative methods for abatement of shoreline erosion in Lake

Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River upstream of Albeni Falls Dam, which has

occurred as a result of changes in natural lake level fluctuations associated with the

operation of the dam. The project would extend work previously performed by Findlay

Engineering (2000) to develop site-specific remedies. The panel was struck that the

project would primarily deal with after-the-fact “fixes”, and would not consider the real

cause of the problem, management of lake levels due to hydropower operation.

Apparently this would be taken as a constraint, an approach the panel does not feel is

necessary. The project would be more valuable if it also considered changes in reservoir

operating policy necessary to get at the heart of the problem. Nonetheless, although the

proposal is quite short, it does identify the need for the project, and the nature of the work

to be undertaken. Details of the methods that would be used to accomplish the outlined

tasks are largely lacking though. Furthermore, the panel feels strongly that the project

must include a qualified biologist on the contractor’s staff. Funding for this project
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

15

should be provisional on this qualification being met, and a more detailed methods

section being provided.

ProjectID: 24009

Assess Feasibility of Enhancing White Sturgeon Spawning Substrate Habitat, Kootenai

R., Idaho

Sponsor: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $350,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,510,000

Short Description: Construct sediment transport models to assess the feasibility to

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

temporal/transient changes in sediment type, bedform, and erosion/deposition on

spawning substrate.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed to justify the large effort focused on sediment dynamics when it is

not clear biologically that this is the critical element. This is a resubmitted, new proposal

by the U.S. Geological Survey to characterize sediment in the mainstem Kootenai River

white sturgeon spawning areas, downstream of Libby Dam in the vicinity of Bonners

Ferry, Idaho. The proposition is that sediment delivery and movement in the channel

system has been significantly modified by Libby Dam, the specifics of the effects on

sturgeon bottom habitat are hypothesized but not well documented and quantified, and

that research is needed to plan for habitat remediation (in a Phase II to be done

separately). This is a component of the overall sturgeon work in the lower Kootenai

River, especially Project 198806400.

This year’s proposal addresses the main concern of last year’s ISRP review, that the FY

2001 proposal was not well linked to an overall umbrella for the Kootenai River work.

Although the work proposed this time appears to be essentially the same as the previous

proposal, with some refinements, this proposal explicitly links the work to items called

for in the USFWS Biological Opinion and Recovery Plan for white sturgeon and the

Subbasin Summary. The objectives are matched directly to statements and requirement

given in these documents. The regional context is thus much clearer and the apparent

need well established.

However, the technical and scientific background to justify such a strong focus on

sediment dynamics is weak. Despite well-recognized problems with incubation success

of sturgeon eggs, the proposal does not make a compelling argument nor present

sufficient evidence that this problem is caused by sedimentation (as ISRP noted last year,

also). No evidence is presented that hard substrate is actually used for egg attachment

here or elsewhere. A previous study of velocities in the vicinity of the proposed work has

not been published except as an abstract, and no summary data from it are presented in

the proposal. Other studies were noted in the rationale section, but they were not used

directly as supporting evidence for the importance of sedimentary substrate in this case.

The proposal assumes that the sediment hypothesis for lack of incubation success is
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

16

correct without suggesting any alternative hypotheses that might be addressed by the

research. What if sediment dynamics has nothing to do with reproductive success? If it

does not, then the benefit to fish and wildlife from the detailed sediment study could be

nil, regardless of the opinions in the BiOp, Recovery Plan, and Subbasin Summary. The

tribe should perhaps pursue other aspects of the effort before implementing this large

task. The sediment model can be used to measure turbulence, sediment transport, etc.,

which need to be better tied to the biological needs of the sturgeon.

Other criteria are met. Agency cooperation and coordination now seem excellent.

Objectives and tasks are clear and well organized. Methods are ok, but brief. Monitoring

and evaluation are addressed briefly. Personnel resumes are excellent. Information

transfer got first attention in the objectives (web site).

ProjectID: 24010

Reconnection of floodplain slough habitat to the Kootenai River

Sponsor: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $139,974

3 YR Estimate: $719,974

Short Description: Assess the feasibility and options for reconnecting slough habitat that

has been isolated from the Kootenai River by dikes.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable in part for first stage of proposal if response is received that addresses the

ISRP’s concerns. This is a proposal to restore some of the natural function of the

Kootenai River upstream of Kootenay Lake via reconnection of off-stream sloughs.

Diking and channelization of this portion of the river have removed much of the

historical habitat, and operation of Libby Dam upstream has further modified function of

the stream system through regulation of the natural hydrograph. The proposal would

conduct a feasibility study in the first year. The proposal (in common with many others)

desperately needs a site map. The technical/scientific background gives a good scientific

basis for the proposed effort as it relates to sturgeon. The section could have given more

background information on the broad flood-pulse concept that generically relates the

importance of river ecology to the floodplain, especially during high-water episodes.

Other Kootenai River white sturgeon proposals do a better job describing this

fundamental concept, which is the real reason for doing the project. On the other hand,

the rationale and significance to regional programs are well described, although the

Council’s FWP is inexplicably not referenced. The project history section, while not

required for new projects like this, discusses the relevant historical underpinnings of this

proposal. The objectives section lists objectives from the Subbasin Summary but does

not specifically relate them to the project’s objectives (thus leaving it to the reviewer to

make the connections). This is a deficiency that should be corrected. Otherwise, the

objectives and tasks are clearly spelled out (and match in parts 1 & 2).

One shortcoming of the proposal is that similar work outside the region (notably within

the Mississippi River basin) is not mentioned, and may well be unknown to the
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

17

proposers. There is no need to “reinvent” relevant experience elsewhere, which is

documented in the literature. An even more glaring shortcoming is that the proposal

makes no attempt whatever to address the problem of possible remobilization of chemical

pollutants. This is mentioned as a potential problem, but never addressed. Why not?

What are the water quality implications of chemical contamination of the sloughs that

would be reconnected to the main channel? This problem must be addressed in the

feasibility study, or some indication must be provided of how it will be addressed

elsewhere. Furthermore, this is clearly a two-phase project. The ISRP can only support

funding of the feasibility phase (year 1), provided that the above-mentioned deficiencies

in the proposal are addressed. Subsequent funding should be made provisional on review

following completion of the feasibility study, i.e., approve only first year funding at this

point.

ProjectID: 24012

Riparian Habitat Preservation - Weaver Slough and McWinegar Slough

Sponsor: Flathead Land Trust

Subbasin: Flathead

FY02 Request: $1,080,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,080,000

Short Description: Protect a range of natural resources compromised by rapid

subdivision and development of this area. Acquisition of purchased easements on five

properties will extend private protection of Flathead River riparian corridor.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable but a response is needed. This proposal is for acquisition of riparian easements

along the mainstem Flathead River above Flathead Lake. The proposal is extremely

brief, and provides no information justifying the purchase relative to other similar

proposals. Information provided in the presentation helped alleviate this concern in part,

although a more detailed proposal would have been desirable. The substantial cost share

is a plus – FWP funds would account for just over $1M of a total of about $3.5M. In

general, the ISRP is supportive of purchase of conservation easements like this one if the

acquisition can be demonstrated to provide critical habitat to the benefit of fish and

wildlife. Additional information providing assurances that a) these lands are, as stated in

the proposal, “vital habitat for migratory waterfowl?” and b) assurances are built into the

easements and/or other agreements to ensure protection of benefits and to protect them in

perpetuity is needed. Conditional on the project sponsors providing adequate justification

on these points, the ISRP supports funding.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

18

ProjectID: 24015

Wetland/Riparian Protection, Restoration, Enhancement and Maintenance in the Coeur

d'Alene Subbasin

Sponsor: Coeur d'Alene Tribe

Subbasin: Coeur d'Alene

FY02 Request: $1,996,131

3 YR Estimate: $6,535,188

Short Description: This project intends to protect wetland/riparian habitats within the

Coeur d'Alene Subbasin through management rights acquisition and restore, enhance and

maintain those habitats for the benefit of native fish and wildlife in perpetuity.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed. This project proposes to restore wetland and riparian habitats by

acquiring conservation easements on 1,000 acres per year and conducting restoration

activities. The project complements ongoing efforts to restore cutthroat trout on

reservation lands. Specific properties have not yet been defined. Acquisition criteria are

being developed and will be included in a Conservation Easement Plan. Both purchases

and voluntary easements will be included. The landowner’s incentive to provide

voluntary easements is that the Tribe will perform the restoration work.

The proposal does a good job describing the limitations to ongoing fish mitigation

activities and the reasons it is difficult to obtain sufficient riparian conservation

agreements from landowners. It makes a good case for the need to protect important

habitat areas to achieve long-term mitigation benefits. The two-tiered monitoring plan is

one of the proposal’s strengths.

The project proponents should specify goals for restoration and enhancement, define the

criteria and process used to prioritize acquisitions, and describe how proposed

acquisitions will fit into the larger set of existing easements. The Conservation Easement

Plan should be scientifically reviewed prior to project funding. Project proponents should

develop a timeline specifying delivery of products and subsequent review.

Because a large number of objectives are listed under different types of activities

(planning and design, construction and implementation, monitoring and evaluation) it

would be helpful to put activities in a flow chart to clarify their sequence and

interrelationships.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

19

ProjectID: 24016

Kootenai River Subbasin Stakeholders Symposium

Sponsor: Kootenai River Network

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $51,450

3 YR Estimate: $162,197

Short Description: Provide a forum to encourage resource information exchange among

stakeholders in the Kootenai River subbasin (BC Canada, Montana and Idaho).

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed that better defines project focus and justifies the budget. The

sponsors should consider coordinating with the Lake Roosevelt Forum for the continuing

education activities.

The Kootenai River Network proposes to enhance coordination and collaboration among

various stakeholders in the Kootenai River Subbasin through an annual symposium and

training workshop, and through the enhancement of a website. The symposium would

provide a forum for information exchange among researchers, fish and wildlife managers,

industry, environmental groups and landowners. The overall goal is to include those

stakeholders in the process for their understanding of, and support for, fish and wildlife

reclamation. A less pressing role is technical coordination, which also has other avenues.

The proposal is well prepared and reflects a thorough understanding of the technical

issues by the authors, who are part of technical teams. The technical background gives

an appropriate overview of the basin. It reflects the diversity of uses of basin lands and

waters and resulting stakeholders. Significance to regional programs is clearly identified.

Major players in the basin are listed, with their principal activities. The proposal reflects

and cites the Subbasin Summary and white sturgeon Recovery Plan. It clearly states the

importance of stakeholder participation. However, it does not cite the Columbia Basin

Fish and Wildlife Program.

The proposal relates the planned symposium to other projects. It cites the analogous

symposium in the Lake Roosevelt subbasin, and cites linkages to other projects in the

basin, many by project number. The proposal is careful to say it is not intended to replace

the information transfer functions of other projects. The objectives are clearly stated,

along with appropriate tasks and activities (=methods, in this case). Evaluation of the

symposium and workshops is a specified task. Facilities and equipment appear up to the

work, and the staff is experienced in basin research activities as past or current

participants. Information transfer is the main focus of the proposal. The website function

looks like an effective way to maintain coordination and to educate the Province on

subbasin planning.

The proposal makes a good case for the benefits of information exchange and

coordination of recovery efforts given the size, diversity and remoteness of the subbasin.

The project is modeled on the Lake Roosevelt Forum, which focuses on specific resident
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

20

fish issues in the Inter-Mountain Province. However, the focus of this symposium is less

clear. What would be the focus of the stakeholders meetings? Could the KRN evolve into

a watershed council?

The project is likely to provide benefits to fish and wildlife through additional

research/management, coordination and stakeholder participation and support.

ProjectID: 24017

Restoring Bull Trout Habitat in The Blackfoot River's North Fork

Sponsor: Trout Unlimited's Western Water Project

Subbasin: Blackfoot

FY02 Request: $329,128

3 YR Estimate: $349,128

Short Description: Comprehensive bull trout recovery project aimed at instream

restoration and streamflow enhancement, using irrigation efficiencies projects and habitat

restoration in combination with voluntary water leasing.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable, but a response is needed. It was unfortunate that the sponsors did not present.

Without a subbasin summary it is hard to determine the priority of this effort in the

province; however, the proposal appears to offer greater flow in these tributaries. Upon

the reviewers’ independent inquiry, it appears the water would remain instream for the

benefit of fish; however, the response should describe the legal assurances that the water

will remain instream for the benefit of fish. Although the proposal seems like a good

approach to protect a strong existing population, the response should make a stronger

case that bull trout in the North Fork are in jeopardy. What evidence exists to show that

spawning and rearing area in tributaries limits the size of this population?

Reviewers need assurances that MDFWP is doing appropriate monitoring; e.g. Page 13,

Objective 2. The number of juvenile bull trout also will be influenced by population size.

It will be difficult (require extended data series) to separate effects of habitat

improvements from effects of population density. What is the monitoring plan?

ProjectID: 24018

Secure and Restore Critical Fish and Wildlife Habitats

Sponsor: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Subbasin: Flathead

FY02 Request: $4,918,444

3 YR Estimate: $13,996,096

Short Description: Utilize land acquisition and habitat restoration to protect and enhance

habitats critical to fish and wildlife. Reduce human-wildlife conflicts on acquired and

restored lands to increase their value for wildlife.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable in part but a response is needed. A better description of the programmatic tie of

all the individual efforts is needed. Much of the proposal is devoted to a discussion of the
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

21

need to mitigate grizzly bear and elk habitat lost as a result of construction of Hungry

Horse reservoir, although there is some discussion of riparian habitat as well. The

proposal includes no specifics on what purchases would be made, just vague statements

like “the proposal to mitigate for riparian habitat lost or degraded ... will allow the Tribes

to regain lost or degraded riparian habitat values.”

The proposal claims to be responsive to the goal “... to rebuild to sustainable levels of

weak, but recoverable, native populations injured by the hydropower system.” To meet

that goal, it proposes to secure “... habitats through land acquisition and conservation

easements,” and enhance “... existing and newly acquired habitats to maximize their

value to fish and wildlife.” Gaining control of land-use practices is a logical strategy for

protecting habitats. It also is logical that available resources be applied where they will

most likely facilitate restoration of viability in the target populations. Before any

resources are committed to these agreements, population segments that are key to the

long-term viability and productivity of the regional population, or populations, need to be

identified. Pursuit of habitat protection for these segments can then proceed with some

expectation of benefit to the population(s). Pursuit of agreements for “what is available”

is not a systematic approach to the problem. One of the proposal objectives is “Develop

prioritized property list.” This task alone is fundable for one year, after which an

evaluation of the need for the larger project could be considered.

A similar approach is needed for bear and elk, as implied by language on page 8 of the

proposal, although criteria for setting priority are not discussed. We know that humans

will be in the area and likely to be expanding their control of the landscape. If the area is

also to have large mammals, what is truly “critical” to their persistence must be identified

and limited resources directed to purchase, lease, and regulation of those areas.

Part of the proposal is a new position to develop and implement methods and strategies

for limiting human-bear conflicts. Such a position seems like a logical step to help

prevent bear-human conflicts. The FTE required depends on the magnitude of the

problem.

Is there a database of agreements similar to those they propose here to show that in the

majority of cases, the results have been successful? Stating that land technicians are

needed to “work with landowners to assure compliance” seems to suggest only marginal

confidence that an agreement will work as desired.

The proposal to model shoreline erosion should include the need to be addressed by

development of a predictive model, the objectives of the modeling effort, and how the

results will contribute to a solution. Presumably, the modeling proposal itself has been

subjected to critical review.

Habitat actions are fundable after the funding agency has received convincing evidence

that a rigorous monitoring program is in place with indicators that will provide a basis for

program evaluation and for adaptive management needs.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

22

Objective #8 is to “Develop an electronic-based subbasin plan for the Flathead

Subbasin.” The relation of this plan to existing plans is not described. The problem

causing need for the proposal was not described. The proposal states, “Once the plan is

completed, locally based watershed restoration projects will be initiated and recovery

strategies formulated and implemented.” This leaves an impression that ongoing projects

do not have an equivalent basis.

Some specific questions:

Page 12, first paragraph: Please clarify what is meant by “adaptive management” here.

Page 12, Monitoring, Item 1. Why did if fail?

Page 12, Monitoring, Item 2. What does “baseline” mean here?

Page 12, Monitoring, Item 3. What are the trends?

Page 12, Monitoring, Item 4. What is a baseline trend, and what is the reason for doing

it?

Page 12, Monitoring, Item 5. Why is it important to monitor these parameters?

Page 112, Implementation, Item 1. If they successfully emigrated, why was it necessary

to create a “tributary?” What impact did the new tributary have on the marsh?

Page 12, Implementation, Item 3. Have these improvements resulted in benefits to fish?

Page 12, Implementation, Items 5-9. Have significant fishery benefits resulted from

these projects?

Page 12, Research, Item 1. How will this knowledge be used?

Page 16, Fish Habitat. Does monitoring of past habitat work show significant fishery

benefits?

Page 17, second paragraph. Have any of these monitoring programs identified gains as a

result of watershed projects?

ProjectID: 24019

Research, Monitor, and Restore Native Species

Sponsor: Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes

Subbasin: Flathead

FY02 Request: $131,400

3 YR Estimate: $415,400

Short Description: Implement and monitor fisheries improvement activities for native

species and conduct a feasibility study on the reintroduction of sharp-tailed grouse.

Research factors limiting the successful application of mitigation and restoration

measures.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Responses are needed for both the fisheries and the wildlife components. This is a new

proposal to continue activities formerly under BPA fisheries project number 9101901,

and to initiate a feasibility study of strategies for re-introducing sharp-tailed grouse.

Fisheries component – Objective #1 of the fisheries component of the proposal is to

provide the monitoring of success or failure of habitat alterations in the Flathead Basin.

It provides data to describe trends in adult bull trout and cutthroat trout in the lake. These

adfluvial species leave the lake to spawn in tributaries where the presumption is that
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

23

degraded habitat strongly influences their growth and survival. In all likelihood, the

number of spawners is now more a reflection of lake trout predation than of habitat

quality, thus confounding efforts to assess progress in stream improvement. A response

is needed including documentation that a monitoring program is in place that can and will

show clear, and timely distinction between benefits to adult populations of bull trout and

cutthroat trout produced by reduction of lake trout predation and those caused by habitat

improvements in spawning and rearing areas. These data are required for effective

adaptive management.

The proposal needs to include explanation of the reasons for doing the things described

under Objectives 3, 4, and 5 (Fisheries Component). To what ends are these data being

accumulated?

Wildlife component – Objective 7, “Expand an existing interagency working group to

develop a detailed examination of potential Columbia sharp-tailed grouse habitat” is

fundable, but the proposal needs to be written as a research project and resubmitted. A

systematic research project is needed before any stocking program is proposed.

Alternative hypotheses should be carefully and rigorously developed for restoring the

species, followed by innovative tests for eliminating incorrect alternatives. Objective 7 is

to identify from existing data what appear to be suitable areas of habitat. These data can

be used to help develop hypotheses for explaining why birds are not presently using these

areas, and as a basis for testing the conclusions.

ProjectID: 24021

Implement Floodplain Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation and

Rehabilitation on the Lower Kootenai River Watershed Ecosystem

Sponsor: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $192,864

3 YR Estimate: $968,864

Short Description: Pilot project to assess operational losses with long-term mitigation,

protection, enhancement, and rehabilitation in floodplain ecosystems on the Lower

Kootenai River Watershed.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable but a response is needed. This is a proposal to assess the losses of ecological

function in the Lower Kootenai River watershed due to historic diking, land management,

and operation of Libby Dam. The proposal notes various ways in which control of

flooding has affected the ecological function of the system. The proposal would develop

various data sets, models, etc to help to better understand the effects of those changes.

The intent is to use this information to develop a scientifically grounded plan for

restoration of the most critical off-channel habitats and functions for fish and wildlife.

The proposal does a good job of integrating both fish and wildlife values, although the

main focus here is for wildlife. The background is thorough, with many references to

scientific literature in fish, wildlife, geography and hydrology. The significance to

regional programs is made quite clear, with adequate references to what might be called
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

24

habitat listing by various organizations, ties to tribal history, the old and new Fish and

Wildlife Program (with section cites), and the Subbasin Summary (with quotes). There is

an excellent listing and short paragraphs on related projects and proposals including more

than just BPA (probably the most thorough listing of any proposal in the set). The

objectives are appropriate and well presented, with detailed tasks and nicely identified

methods for each. Monitoring and evaluation is prominent. Facilities, equipment and

personnel are adequately given.

The proposal does have three significant deficiencies. First, the flood-pulse concept from

the river-ecology literature is not mentioned. Even more important, a though the

proposal recognizes that “the watershed has little likelihood of functioning the same way

it did 200 years ago”, there is no mention of what alternative land and water management

practices will be considered. For instance, are there alternate operating policies for Libby

Dam that might help to restore functioning of the flood plain? If there is no chance of

restoring ecological function, what is the purpose of a five-year, $5M project?

Furthermore, the proposal includes information about only one of the “key personnel” –

for this kind of money, there must be more people working on the project? In any case,

there is no evidence that a qualified hydrologist will be involved in the project. Given the

magnitude of the funding requested, ISRP requests a revised proposal that addresses the

above three deficiencies, and in addition provides a concise list of deliverables, an

internal review process, and funding milestones. Vitae for key project personnel are

essential.

ProjectID: 24025

Pend Oreille Subbasin Native Westslope Cutthroat Population Study

Sponsor: Washington Trout

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Lower

FY02 Request: $73,275

3 YR Estimate: $227,875

Short Description: Establish baseline information on instream habitat-trout population

structure to assess risks to population persistence and effectiveness of land management

actions on Colville National Forest intended to benefit native cutthroat trout.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable but a response is needed. The response needs to include a list of hypotheses

that better acknowledge existing literature and more robustly test the relationships

between trout population and sedimentation from forest management practices. This

could be important baseline information as roads are considered for decommissioning or

as new roads are proposed for construction.

Quantitative relations between fish population health/abundance and watershed

quality/health are not well defined currently for any salmonid species. Does a watershed

that is 50% degraded by some set of measures lose 50% of its fish production potential,

or is the relation some non-linear function? This proposal is to begin definition of such a

relation for cutthroat trout. The ISRP is aware that continuing and focused study urgently

needs to be done to bolster the status of westslope cutthroat trout. This proposal would be
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

25

strengthened by demonstration of better awareness of the results of existing studies,

including an assessment and review of existing methods for predicting incremental

change of population health with habitat change.

The ISRP questions whether the cost (killing cutthroat in streams where the population is

jeopardized by non-native trouts) offsets the benefit to sacrificing fish from other streams

to obtain age-at-length and fecundity data. Proposers are urged to utilize existing data.

Similarly, sacrificing fish for whole-body lipid analysis was not justified by the proposal.

Identifying inter-annual fluctuations in trout population size (Platts and Nelson, N.

Amer. J. Fish. Mgt. 1988) would be a valuable additional objective for the project. The

ability of the study to successfully identify the effects of fine sediments from forest roads

will likely hinge on the choice of study streams that are identical except that they straddle

a range of sediment coincident with some biological threshold. A maximum road density

of 3.7 mi/sq. mi. may be too low to show an effect. USDA-Forest Service personnel,

Region 1, have described stream sediments vs. road density. Reviewers recommend that

such relations be examined and used to show that a range of habitat conditions related to

road density is likely to exist across the proposed study streams. They also suggest the

proposers consider directly assessing the pathway(s) of sediment impact, specifically (a)

pool volume possibly legislating summer carrying capacity of adult fish and (b) possible

reduction of critical living space by sediment in winter (Cunjak, Can. J. Fish. and Aquat.

Sci. 1996).

ProjectID: 198806400

Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies and Conservation Aquaculture

Sponsor: Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $1,230,000

3 YR Estimate: $5,833,000

Short Description: Prevent extinction, preserve existing gene pool, and begin rebuilding

healthy age class structure of the endangered white sturgeon in the Kootenai River using

conservation aquaculture techniques with wild broodstock.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable in part, but a response is needed for the trout pond component, which does not

fit well with the remainder of the work and is not justified under this proposal. This is an

exceptionally well-done proposal. Questions raised by the ISRP in previous reviews

have been thoroughly answered. There is an excellent scientific background with plenty

of references cited. The work is clearly and explicitly tied to relevant plans, including the

white sturgeon Biological Opinion and Recovery Plan, the Council’s FWP, and the

Artificial Production Review items. The project plans and efforts are clearly given in the

context of other projects, both in the up-front listing and in the narrative section. The

narrative specifically relates the sturgeon work to other sturgeon work funded by BPA.

Evidence of such linkage to regional plans and project coordination was specifically

requested in previous ISRP reviews. The rationale for both new construction and work

with kokanee (both questioned in previous ISRP reviews) is now clearly presented. The
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

26

history of accomplishments is well presented both in the up-front listing and in the

narrative, where results are well grouped by topic. Again, relevant literature citations are

given, as are web sites for additional information. The objectives and tasks are clearly

laid out and keyed to specific elements of the Recovery Plan and Subbasin Summary.

Methods are clearly presented (with references) for each task. Monitoring and evaluation

comprise a large part of the project, and these objectives and tasks are clearly presented.

Facilities and equipment were not discussed as a separate heading, but were woven into

the narrative sections on tasks, which was a logical approach given the wide diversity of

topics covered. Information transfer appears to be excellent with the thorough

coordination among cooperators and users that is shown. Benefit to fish and wildlife is

well demonstrated, assuming that the mutual planning reflected in BiOp, Recovery Plan,

and other synthesis efforts are on the right track.

Reviewers were somewhat uneasy, however, because of no indication of success in

dealing with the real problem (sturgeon survival in the Kootenai) and little apparent

program accountability. It would be helpful to provide more information on milestones

for operation of the hatchery. The trout pond work needs further justification.

ProjectID: 199004400

Implement Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation

Sponsor: Coeur d'Alene Tribe

Subbasin: Coeur d'Alene

FY02 Request: $1,174,365

3 YR Estimate: $3,540,071

Short Description: Enhance critical watershed habitat to mitigate limiting factors for

westslope cutthroat in the Coeur 'd Alene subbasin. Compile physical, chemical and

biological trend data and implement an environmental education and outreach program.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Do not fund in present form. A response is needed that addresses the ISRP’s concerns.

The proposal and the project(s) it entails were difficult to review. The proposal and the

presentation were filled with loosely linked information and observations, and were very

difficult to find major themes and projects within. The proposal needs to be tightened

significantly. Background material in the first section of proposal needs to be referenced

and discussed without its present excessive detail. For example, the proposed objectives

and methods begin on page 24 of the proposal.

Parts of the proposed program of fisheries enhancement appear to be well justified from

subbasin analyses; others appear to be a potpourri of fisheries activities that may or may

not address critical factors limiting salmonid abundance. Taken together, the activities do

not add up to a coherent approach to subbasin level fisheries enhancement activities.

The program appears to lack a clear focused approach that is based strongly in the

fisheries literature and on regional analyses of factors limiting salmonid distributions and

abundance. The program appears disjointed. The proposed fisheries enhancement

program would benefit from involvement and input from a senior fisheries ecologist.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

27

Development of a suite of focused fisheries activities strongly linked to the subbasin

analyses needs to occur.

Specific comments and questions:

This project has been implementing watershed restoration - sediment retention ponds,

riparian plantings, etc. - since 1990 on 4 small tributaries, with the primary goal of

increasing numbers of westslope cutthroat trout. The original problem was identified as a

decline in abundance of native salmonids caused by reduced streamflow, elevated water

temperature, and increased fine sediment in stream substrates.

1. Please provide a concise description of the extent to which restoration activities have

increased summer base flows, reduced water temperature, and reduced fine sediments.

Such a description was lacking from the proposal and presentation.

2. Please provide average (and range) for trout density in the four streams that represent

abundance prior to the restoration efforts.

3. Is there evidence that fish abundance has significantly increased as a result of this

program?

4. What are the endpoints of this program? How will program/project managers know

when they have met their goals and objectives?

5. Revegetation is used extensively in this program. Is there evidence that revegetation is

necessary or effective? A good experimental design and monitoring program could and

should address these.

6. Benthic samples are notoriously variable. Do the results to date show promise as a

monitoring tool or are the results so variable that detection of a trend in any reasonable

time seems unlikely?

7. Non-native brook trout are abundant in at least one stream (Alder Creek) and cutthroat

trout restoration efforts elsewhere in the West generally have not been effective without

eliminating or suppressing them. What is the basis for, and expectation of, the ongoing

program, which is apparently based solely on habitat modification?
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

28

ProjectID: 199004401

Lake Creek Land Acquisition and Enhancement

Sponsor: Coeur d'Alene Tribe

Subbasin: Coeur d'Alene

FY02 Request: $1,463,070

3 YR Estimate: $5,030,784

Short Description: Protect, enhance, and maintain wetland and riparian habitat in the

Lake Creek drainage as partial mitigation for the impacts attributed to the construction

and operation of the Albeni Falls hydroelectric facility.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed. This is a proposal to purchase and manage about 2500 acres in the

lower Lake Creek watershed. The cost amounts to about $3000 per acre spread over five

years. It is difficult to understand from the proposal how much of the budget is for

outright purchase, versus management. It would have helped if the proposal had outlined

the objectives to be achieved by the purchase, and what other alternatives exist (for

instance, wildlife easements, covenants, etc).

This is an ongoing project of some duration; however, the proposal did not describe

progress to date, or present adequate data demonstrating results. The response should

describe results.

ProjectID: 199004402

Coeur D' Alene Tribe Trout Production Facility

Sponsor: Coeur d' Alene Tribe

Subbasin: Coeur d'Alene

FY02 Request: $775,469

3 YR Estimate: $2,516,120

Short Description: Enhancement of native stocks of CTT into natal tributaries by

utilizing native CTT broodstocks and providing RBT for an interim fishery.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed. The proposal was not clearly constructed and showed very little

evidence of substantive results from work completed to date. The technical background

section was identical to that of proposal 199004400, an indication of the redundancy and

lack of clarity here.

The proposal does not adequately reflect input provided by the ISRP during Step One of

the Three Step Review Process (ISRP 2000-1). The Step One review process included

conversations with the project sponsors responsible for this project. The sponsors

provided responses to a number of questions the ISRP posed. This process resulted in the

ISRP’s final recommendations, which specified a set of four conditions we thought

needed to be met before the project moved to Step Two (or as part of the Step Two

process). We also proposed two amendments to the Production Facility Master Plan that

were to be considered by the tribe. The proposal should have discussed these, explaining
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

29

how the conditions had been met and the proposed amendments dealt with. The ISRP

notes that the proposal does state that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe proposes that the BPA

fund a monitoring and evaluation program consistent with the recommendations of the

NWPPC and the ISRP reviews of the project during the 3-step process. However, the

response should specifically state how the proposed plan addresses the ISRP’s Step One

review regarding M&E.

About 10% of the proposed annual M&E budget is to monitor cutthroat trout abundance

and rainbow trout catch from the put-and-take pond fisheries. The remainder ($303K) is

for vaguely described data gathering on Coeur d'Alene Lake and tributaries that appears

hugely redundant with work proposed by proposal 199004400. The proposal states that

some of that work apparently would be done on Hangman Creek in the Intermountain

Province (p 31 & 33); is that intended?

Despite previous reviews (FY 1999, 2000, 3-Step), the contents of this proposal and

discussion during the presentation have led the ISRP to be increasingly convinced that

the proposed hatchery program for adfluvial cutthroat trout does not appear to be

scientifically justified. As Rieman and Apperson point out in their 1989 review of the

status of westslope cutthroat trout in Idaho, no hatchery program has ever been successful

for a stream-dwelling population of the subspecies. To be effective this program will

need to be particularly well designed and executed. At this point in time, we are seeing

more, rather than less cause to be skeptical of the possibility of success of this portion of

the hatchery program.

The larger program is based on a premise that westslope cutthroat populations are

depressed because of degraded habitat and, if the habitat is renovated, the populations

will respond favorably. If that is the case, why is it logical to stock hatchery fish? Great

effort in the proposal is put into overcoming what seems to be an assumption that stream

conditions are limiting the target populations. What evidence is there to support that

assumption? What consideration is given to possibility that space, food, predation,

competition, or water quality in downstream waters is actually limiting population size?

We identify three alternative approaches to bolstering cutthroat populations as a basis for

soliciting a response from the Tribe:

1. Enhance adfluvial cutthroat trout but without a hatchery. Three of the four study

streams (Benewah, Alder and Evans creeks) seem especially poorly suited for adfluvial

cutthroat trout restoration, because the migrating trout must transit through low gradient,

warmer rivers or lakes such as Cave and Chatcolet lakes that hold abundant warmwater

and coolwater predators before they enter Coeur d'Alene Lake. As the proposal notes,

smallmouth bass are quickly expanding in the system following their illegal introduction

a decade ago, and other predators seem abundant. A better approach to restoring

adfluvial fish might be the continued focus of activities on Lake Creek and those few

similar higher-quality (albeit off-reservation) tributaries that have existing adfluvial runs

but no brook trout. These activities include a combination of habitat restoration, fish

translocation, and selective lakeshore predator removal at critical periods to increase trout

survival.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

30

2. Concentrate on resident cutthroat (with habitat restoration, as is currently being done

under proposal 199004400) instead of the adfluvial form. The probability of increasing

their population size appears good, much better than the high risks involved with

adfluvial fish and, as we pointed out in our review of 22 February 2000, doing this may

also enhance adfluvial runs.

3. Acquire adfluvial fish for stocking, but from an outside source such as IDFG. This

would alleviate fiscal concerns, which are not central to the ISRP but should be

considered. Under the current hatchery proposal, each of the cutthroat fingerlings that

would be stocked into the four target streams would cost approximately $10. An

alternative approach might be to purchase cutthroat fingerlings elsewhere for stocking by

Tribal staff.

Other specific questions to be addressed the response:

Page 3, line 4: “Usable spawning habitat comprises 4.1% of the total stream area in 2nd

order tributaries.” Is this conclusion based on a biologist’s view of what is “usable” or is

it based on the areas used by fish when the spawning population is large? Spawning site

selection is influenced by factors that cannot be seen even by experienced observers. A

value of 4.1% of stream area may be excessive of actual fish needs.

What is the goal of the rainbow trout stocking (angler hours? return percentage?).

What does a limiting factor analysis in Coeur d'Alene Lake entail? What results expected

from Objectives 3a, 3b, 3c will help to conclude what is limiting?

We anticipate potential further interaction with the personnel involved in this project after

they respond to our comments.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

31

ProjectID: 199101903

Hungry Horse Mitigation

Sponsor: Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

Subbasin: Flathead

FY02 Request: $982,850

3 YR Estimate: $3,037,850

Short Description: Mitigation for the construction and operation of Hungry Horse Dam.

Implements habitat restoration, improves fish passage, protects and recovers native fish

populations and reestablishes fish harvest opportunities.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable, but a response is needed that better ties the work to the current subbasin

summary with objectives of the summary and the project explicitly linked in the proposal.

This project is to mitigate effects of Hungry Horse dam on native fisheries within the

Flathead Lake basin. It is a successful, continuing project that includes many specific

and quite diverse small projects. As the ISRP noted the last two years, it is very difficult

to determine from the proposal the relative priorities, and their rationale, of the many

projects, and how effective they have been on the broad scale of dam/reservoir

mitigation. Rather than fitting under an umbrella proposal, as last year, the project is

presented in the framework of the Subbasin Summary. However, the format of quoting

objectives from the Subbasin Summary followed by the project’s objectives and tasks

does not make the necessary linkage that demonstrates that the Subbasin objectives are

being met by the project’s activities. The proposal reviewer should not have to decipher

the connections; the proposal should make the connections explicitly.

The quality of the proposal is borderline, especially in contrast to the high quality of other

proposals reviewed. However, the good presentation provided a great boost for the

written proposal. The scientific background is more administrative than scientific. Much

of the content is actually material that relates to item 2 (rationale and significance to the

region). That rationale section does a good job of relating the work to the FWP, but does

not mention the Subbasin Summary. The emphasis of the proposal is on carrying out the

long-range plan of the early 1990s. That plan should have been clearly identified as

consistent (or not) with the current planning embodied in the Subbasin Summary. The

proposal gives good linkage and description with other projects, demonstrating a broad

range of cooperation. The project history is good, especially if the material presented in

the background and rationale are tacitly included. The work objectives and tasks seem

good, although the place for methods was often used for more statements of rationale,

with methods often not mentioned. In general, the methods were not well explained. A

large part of the project is comprised of monitoring and evaluation (as listed in Part 1),

but these efforts are not clearly called out in the narrative section.

There is a good complement of facilities and staff. Information transfer seemed

particularly deficient, for little was said about it in the proposal. If this aspect is being

handled by another project (as it is in the Montana part of the Kootenai basin; project

199608720) then this should have been clearly stated.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

32

ProjectID: 199106000

Pend Oreille Wetlands Wildlife Mitigation Project - Kalispel

Sponsor: Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Lower

FY02 Request: $167,300

3 YR Estimate: $440,450

Short Description: Protect, restore, enhance and maintain important wetland/riparian

wildlife habitat along the Pend Oreille River as partial mitigation for the construction and

operation impacts associated with Albeni Falls Dam consistent with regional planning

documents.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response review is needed to address ISRP concerns.

This is a proposal for maintenance and enhancement of lands previously purchased by

BPA, apparently near the north end of Lake Pend Oreille. (The proposal would benefit

from a map or maps showing location of lands and of on-going restoration, enhancement,

and monitoring efforts.) The ISRP previously recommended that this proposal be funded

for one year and that subsequent funding be contingent on a better description of the

maintenance and monitoring methods. The project appears to include extensive active

enhancement activities, and it is critical that the effectiveness of these be tested by a

monitoring and evaluation program. However, descriptions of monitoring and

maintenance on this project proposal continue to be sparse. The proposal states that a

detailed M&E plan will be developed in conjunction with regional efforts, but why has

one not been developed in the year since getting the last review comments that indicated

M&E detail was required? The data presented at the oral presentation led the reviewers

to believe that the current M&E was inadequate. The proposal lists 8 types of monitoring

that will be included, but includes little specific detail on methods; it does not adequately

describe how the monitoring will be done, nor does it give a description of the sampling

design for monitoring. Monitoring of interactions between wildlife enhancement efforts

and fishery enhancement also is not discussed. The critical missing elements that should

be provided for the response review are:

1) Description (with data presented) of past successes and failures of enhancement

activities. These evaluations should be shown in terms of ultimate biological

objectives (benefit to fish and wildlife) as possible. The proposal should note

adaptive management decisions that have been made using M&E.

2) Measurable biological objectives, associated with tasks by which they will be

addressed.

3) Description of monitoring and evaluation plans, including their sampling design,

how data will be analyzed and evaluated, and the rationale for choosing particular

species, processes, or components for monitoring. A list of sample techniques is

not adequate to establish a scientifically sound, useful monitoring system.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

33

ProjectID: 199206100

Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project

Sponsor: Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Upper

FY02 Request: $6,178,795

3 YR Estimate: $19,331,635

Short Description: Protect, restore, enhance, and maintain wetland wildlife habitat in all

Mountain Columbia subbasins (except the Bitterroot, Flathead, and Blackfoot) as

ongoing mitigation for construction impacts associated with the Albeni Falls

hydroelectric project.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed to address the ISRP’s concerns. This proposal presents the

objectives, scope, and progress of the Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project. It

describes the Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group as an agency-Tribal coalition that

coordinates wildlife mitigation work. The proposal gives a complete description of the

scientific background, rationale, and relationship to other projects and establishes a need

to protect land and an expectation that restoration will be prudent for at least some

purchases. The proposal requests funding for a very large amount of active restoration

and ongoing O&M, yet neither restoration nor O&M techniques nor their evaluation are

described in adequate detail. The project is ongoing and should be able to present data to

evaluate the success or failure of past restoration and O&M efforts. Reviewers

questioned the priority of purchasing land that requires continuing, expensive restoration

actions. The project presentation indicated that M&E are accomplished by subcontracts,

but their design and results to date should be presented in the proposal as these are key

areas for evaluation of scientifically sound approach. .

A response should include specific description of the procedures by which active

restoration and other O&M are decided, including description of the monitoring programs

by which these efforts are evaluated. The sample design for restoration, O&M, and M&E

activities should be specified. Examples of past successes or failures in meeting

biological objectives (i.e. those linked as closely as possible to benefit to fish and

wildlife) and of modification of O&M as dictated by M&E could contribute to justifying

the project.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

34

ProjectID: 199500100

Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish

Sponsor: Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Lower

FY02 Request: $410,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,319,600

Short Description: Assess native trout habitat in tributaries to the Pend Oreille River and

implement recommendations for enhancement. Provide largemouth bass habitat in

mainstem Pend Oreille River and supplement population. Monitor and evaluate all

enhancement measures.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed. Prior ISRP concerns regarding the effectiveness of a largemouth

bass hatchery were reinforced by the presentation. It remains unclear from the proposal

and the presentation that the productivity of the reservoir is, or will be, amenable to a

largemouth bass hatchery. This should be considered an experiment. The response

should lay out the bass hatchery as an experiment with milestones and performance

standards to determine success or failure.

The task of assessing performance of two types of artificial winter cover for bass (obj 6,

task a) seemed appropriate.

Salmonid tributary assessment and habitat structure placement has been conducted since

1996 at a cost of over $1 million. No description of the type of structures placed was

provided. It was evident from the results presented that the structures did not in most

cases result in an increase in native trout, but did in some cases benefit non-native

salmonids. It appears from the proposal (obj. 2, task a) that further structure placement is

proposed. The reviewers were not supportive of endorsing additional construction of

structures based on results to date. Perhaps it is time to consider alternative hypotheses

for addressing the problem. What evidence will indicate that habitat is limiting the

population and needs to be enhanced?

Brook trout removal in selected streams (obj 5, task a) has merit in enhancing westslope

cutthroat trout populations, and funding for that and its monitoring and evaluation

continues to be supported. From the site visit, the LeClerc looks like an appropriate site

for restoration and enhancement of westslope cutthroat populations. However, the

proposal was not as convincing.

Section 5 Objective 1. What is the purpose of determining species distribution and

abundance? How are the results interpreted?

Page 5, Goal 1: How will project personnel know when the goal is met?
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

35

Page 5. Goal 1, Objective 1: How will project personnel know when adult escapement is

well distributed? What are the criteria for defining a “healthy spawning population” and

how far are these populations from that level at present?

ProjectID: 199500400

Mitigation For The Construction And Operation Of Libby Dam

Sponsor: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $805,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,505,000

Short Description: Implementation of watershed-based habitat enhancement and fish

recovery actions to mitigate the losses caused by hydropower in the Kootenai subbasin.

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks collaborates with the Tribes of Montana and Idaho,

IDFG and B. C., Canada.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Do not fund in present form; a response review is needed. A new proposal is needed for

this work. Except for an excellent and well-organized scientific background section, this

proposal is fragmented. The theme seemed to be to do a bit of everything imaginable in

the Montana section of the basin. However, this impression may have been given

because of the style of quoting from the Subbasin Summary followed by an outline of

objectives that mixed results with plans. The proposal is much poorer quality than the one

reviewed for this project last year.

The scientific background was excellent. It was clearly organized by species and topic.

There were good references to the scientific literature. The section integrated the upper

basin issues with the entire watershed. The narrative did not, however, relate the

proposed work to the Subbasin Summary. Quotation of the Summary in the objectives

section did not accomplish the desired integrative explanation. There were few other

projects mentioned in the narrative. Related projects listed in Part 1 were not discussed

in the narrative. The section on project history gave little information on results of prior

work. The objectives sections in both parts gave the impression of too many small topics.

Their presentation was confusing. Few methods were given, and not well matched to the

objectives and tasks. Monitoring and evaluation were not clearly identified. Facilities,

etc. were reasonable. Information transfer seemed largely lacking. The benefit to

wildlife is unclear because of the plethora of small projects.

This is a weak proposal for over $4M for five years. This is a collection of ongoing

research, “fix-it,” exploration, social action, and construction projects each of which

deserves careful scrutiny to assess whether or not it is increasing fish abundance. The

abstract claims that the objective is to mitigate for Libby Dam via habitat enhancement,

fish passage improvements, etc., and through investigation of alternate upstream reservoir

operating procedures. Just how any of that would be done is missing from the proposal.

There is no work plan, no indication of what’s been accomplished to date and how

proposed actions (which aren’t specified) would relate to past work. What would be

done with almost $1M per year is not clear. Most of the proposal is a statement of
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

36

problems resulting from dam construction, with nothing on what will be done, and why it

might be effective. Furthermore, the project team appears to have no hydrologic or water

management expertise, which will be essential if anything realistic is to be accomplished

relative to investigation of reservoir operations.

The review team had many specific questions about the work. Listed below are some of

them, which may be helpful in recasting the proposal.

1. Page 13, Objective 3. Have the disruptive conditions that led to poor riffle, run, and

pool frequencies been stopped so that project efforts will be long-term?

2. Page 13, Objective 4, Bullet 1. Shouldn’t this be an experiment to determine what

structure and dynamics would favor native species assemblages?

4. Page 13, Objective 4, Bullet 2. This statement says that natural densities will be

increased implying that a population already exists, but its density will be increased.

Why wouldn’t natural spawn take advantage of the available food and space?

5. Page 13, Objective 4, Bullet 3. What are methods for selective removal of nonnatives?

6. Page 14, Objective 1, Bullet 4. What is revegetation here? Is planting necessary?

7. Page 15, Objective 6. Don’t these deltas form during each flood event making need

for a continuing project? If so, what rotation timing is needed to keep all streams open?

8. Page 15, Objective 15. What is the hypothesis to be tested here?

9. Page 15, Objective 1. Have land uses and flow restrictions been changed to ensure

maintenance of any restoration?

10. Page 15, Objective 2. When actions such as those proposed are taken, what are the

assessment criteria? Are the same criteria applied to any location along the channel’s

course? Are the criteria designed to protect the diversity of substrate composition that

might be found in a comparable wilderness stream?

11. Page 16, Objective 3. Same as previous question. What is the natural diversity in

stream temperatures?

12. Page 16, Objective 1. Does removal method include use of poison? If so, what

precautions are taken to protect non-target organisms such as amphibians?

13. Page 16, Work Objectives and Tasks. How do the elements that follow here fit with

the former?

14. Page 17, items b, c and f. These elements suggest that a system for assigning

priorities to streams. Do these choices reflect what is needed to protect and enhance the

structure of resident fish populations needed to maximize their viability in the long-term?

15. Page 18, first paragraph. Isn’t habitat limiting for adult fish in any stream? What can

be done if food is the limiting factor?

16. Page 20, item 9. Implication here is that the structure of the population(s) is known.

Is that true?

17. Page 20, Item 11a. Reason?

18. Page 21, Item 12c. How will this experiment be designed and the results evaluated?

19. Page 21, statement after 12c. What is success?

20. Page 22, Item 15. Is this possible given the variation seen in comparable studies

elsewhere?
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

37

ProjectID: 199608720

Focus Watershed Coordination in the Kootenai River Watershed

Sponsor: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $101,500

3 YR Estimate: $305,250

Short Description: Fosters “grass-roots” public involvement and interagency

cooperation for habitat restoration to offset deleterious impacts to the Kootenai River

watershed fisheries. Establishes cost-share arrangements with government agencies and

private groups.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed. This project functions as MDFWP’s information transfer for their

projects in the Kootenai subbasin and as such, it performs an important role of public

interfacing. However, the proposal provides an inadequate basis for multi-year funding.

The proposal is incomplete, despite quotes from the Subbasin Summary and attachment

of the 1998 mitigation and implementation plan. The “technical and scientific

background” section contains the relevant information but provides few references. A

long reference list is included at the end of the proposal but few of these references are

cited in the narrative. The “rationale and significance to regional programs” section is

deficient in not citing the Subbasin summary, FWP, BiOp, or even the appended

mitigation and implementation plan. The “relationships to other projects” section does

not mention any Idaho state or tribal projects on the lower Kootenai River. The narrative

does, however, describe a good approach to coordination and cooperation with the public.

The project history provides an interesting summary of accomplishments. Examples are

given of improvements in mitigation actions resulting from information produced under

the project. Proposal objectives contain a short explanation of FWC’s coordination with

other entities. Objectives are reasonable but fail to link to the quoted sections of the

Subbasin Summary or the appended mitigation and implementation plan. How is a

“limiting factor” defined? Are conditions (predation, fishing, competition, water quality,

etc.) in downstream rearing areas considered in the analysis? Methods are not included as

such, although the narratives include an indication of how things might be done.

Monitoring and evaluation is included explicitly as an objective but without detail on

methods for evaluating effectiveness. Is a monitoring program already in place? How

does the monitoring in this project interface with other monitoring in the basin? Facilities

and equipment are reasonable.

Despite the proposal’s deficiencies, the project, if staffed by a director, is likely to have a

positive effect on fish and wildlife.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

38

ProjectID: 199700400

Resident Fish Stock Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams

Sponsor: Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Lower

FY02 Request: $518,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,588,000

Short Description: Assess the fish assemblages and habitat conditions for all resident

fish species in the blocked area by compiling existing data and performing research

where data gaps are identified.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

A response is needed. The proposal describes baseline assessment work in progress to

support the Blocked Area Plan and the Kalispel Natural Resources Department

Management Plan. Although the proposal has received favorable reviews in the past and

the ISRP is supportive of the value of collecting baseline data, two items need additional

clarification. The first regards the sequencing of the data collection effort. As indicated

during the oral presentation, the current plan is to move systematically from east to west

across the project area. Although that might be most appropriate, an alternative

approach, that of first focusing on sites given priority in subbasin summaries, might

provide a more efficient allocation of limited resources (and would more easily enable

the identification of critical milestones along the way).

Secondly, the sampling of fish populations needs to be clarified. The ISRP understands

the inherent difficulties in conducting actual population estimates in lakes and agrees that

the JSAP protocol of gathering catch per unit effort (CPUE) data is generally appropriate

in lakes. In streams, however, population estimates are more easily obtained but the

proposal (p. 12) does not clearly state whether CPUE data or actual population estimates

are the standard. Please clarify. Further, describe the basic stream electrofishing

protocol (number of passes, possible use of block nets, site length). How will population

data be obtained in larger rivers using the drift boat electrofishing unit identified for

purchase in the proposed budget?

ProjectID: 200000400

Monitor and protect bull trout for Koocanusa Reservoir.

Sponsor: BC Environment

Subbasin: Kootenai

FY02 Request: $62,000

3 YR Estimate: $186,000

Short Description: Access and monitor the status of wild, native stocks of bull trout in

tributaries to Lake Koocanusa and the upper Kootenay River and protect these fish from

inappropriate reservoir operating regimes and land use practices.

Response to ISRP comments requested: Yes

Comments:

Fundable but a response is needed that considers expanding the project to include

collection of data that could be used to examine population dynamics and habitat quality.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

39

The project has potential value because it is beginning to develop a relatively long-term

database of the dynamics of a strong population of bull trout. It has additional benefit

given that measures of habitat quality are expected to change through time as logging

proceeds, thus providing an opportunity to test the validity of assumed relations between

measures of habitat condition and population health. The project proposal should be

recast to include consideration, and test, of hypotheses concerning the impact of land use

(forest practices) on the productivity of bull trout populations. An outcome should be

development of quantitative, and thus predictive, relations for use by land managers

between population health and habitat conditions. There may also be possibility for study

of the movements of individuals between sub-populations; this could provide data needed

by conservation managers to assess the viability of bull trout in this and other locations.

Do Not Fund: A Response is not Warranted

A response is not warranted for these proposals because of their deficiencies, especially

lack of necessary detail. To consider these proposals in the response review would

essentially define the initial solicitation as a placeholder to later develop a sound

proposal.

ProjectID: 24002

Using DNA from bear hair samples to confirm grizzly bear presence in the Lower Pend

Oreille Sub-basin.

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Pend Oreille Lower

FY02 Request: $74,516

3 YR Estimate: $74,516

Short Description: We propose a project to confirm the presence of grizzly bears within

the Washington State portion of the Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone through the use

of hair snag collection techniques and subsequent DNA analysis.

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, do not fund.

Comments:

Do not fund; a response is not warranted. This is a proposal to collect and analyze hair

samples to confirm the presence of grizzly bears in the Washington portion of the Selkirk

Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. The proposal lacks detail on a number of key

considerations. The work is stated to monitor the presence of grizzlies, but the genetic

analyses described would address considerably more than presence of bears. The

“objectives” are tasks and both lack adequate detail on sample design and sampling

methods. This is a superficial proposal for research that lacks specific well-formed

questions or hypotheses and does not present any experimental design. The genetic tools

seem more sophisticated than are necessary for the stated goal of establishing presence of

bears; no explanation is given of why additional genetic analyses will be done on samples

that prove to be grizzlies or on what sort of sampling program might allow reasonable

inferences to be drawn from the data. Coordination should be demonstrated with

adjacent areas harboring grizzly populations.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

40

ProjectID: 24013

Assessment of Operational Impacts of Hungry Horse Dam on Riparian Wildlife habitats

and their associated aquatic components

Sponsor: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Subbasin: Flathead

FY02 Request: $188,949

3 YR Estimate: $498,839

Short Description: Enhance and protect native wildlife communities in the Flathead

Basin through multi-species assessments, design of habitat improvements, develop

approaches to habitat protection, mitigate variable river flows, and identify off-site

mitigation potential

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, do not fund.

Comments:

Do not fund; a response review is not warranted. This is a proposal to begin assessing

operational impacts of Hungry Horse Dam by conducting an inventory of songbirds and

amphibians along the Flathead River from Hungry Horse Dam to Flathead Lake. The

proposal does a good job of describing the riparian effects of dam operations,

demonstrating the need for mitigation and the potential benefits of extending

understanding of operational impacts of hydropower to riparian habitats and terrestrial

wildlife. However, this proposal is superficial in presentation and lacks detail that is

needed to establish a sound scientific approach.

The proposal lacks a coherent list of tasks and provides no methods section and no

description of data management or analysis. Methods for choosing species to assess,

conducting population inventories, and assessing dam impacts on successional patterns

are not described. No experimental design (e.g. location of samples, plot sizes, replicates)

is given. Furthermore, the proposal does not explain how the proposed inventory would

contribute to Fish and Wildlife program goals, and, although it is for research, it cites no

open peer-reviewed literature and does not provide evidence of qualification of personnel

(e.g., resumes or curricula vitae that establish competency to conduct the work in a

scientifically sound fashion).

ProjectID: 24014

Assessment of Operational Impacts of Libby Dam on Riparian Wildlife habitats and their

associated aquatic components

Sponsor: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Subbasin: Flathead

FY02 Request: $188,949

3 YR Estimate: $498,839

Short Description: Enhance and protect native wildlife communities in the Flathead

Basin through multi-species assessments, design of habitat improvements, develop

approaches to habitat protection, mitigate variable river flows, and identify off-site

mitigation potential

Response to ISRP comments requested: No, do not fund.

Comments:

Do not fund, a response is not warranted. See 24013.
ISRP 2001-2 Preliminary Mountain Columbia Proposal Review

41

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2001-2 prelim mtn col.doc